Three years ago, the City Council ceremoniously approved the Dawson Neighborhood Plan — the first of its kind in Austin — and held it up as a model for other neighborhoods preparing to embark on a similar process. Dawson was, after all, one of three neighborhoods chosen in 1997 to participate in the city’s pilot planning project — sort of a trial-and-error probe into how a neighborhood plots its Smart Growth destiny.
Since then, the council has gone on to approve eight other conceptual neighborhood plans, but the Dawson document remains at the starting gate, hung up on critical rezoning issues that could make or break four years’ worth of work. The plan’s future apparently rests on the shoulders of one of two council members — Beverly Griffith or Danny Thomas — whose vote on Dec. 6 could either kill the plan or put it on the road to implementation. Six votes are required to seal the deal in the face of neighborhood petitioners who stand in opposition.
At the Nov. 1 council meeting, Daryl Slusher, who has taken the lead on seeing the plan through to fruition, made a motion to postpone the Dawson vote after picking up on a strong “no” vibe from Griffith. As it turns out, Slusher’s extra-sensory perception was correct. Griffith said this week she still has concerns about the plan — even with Raul Alvarez‘s proposed amendment to eliminate a provision allowing for new homes to be built on subdivided, or “cottage” lots (garage apartments would still be permissible, however). By doing this, Alvarez had hoped to alleviate some residents’ fears of developers carving up lots for multiple home-building activity. Slusher previously had removed the conditional overlay portion of the plan after several businesses complained that the overlay would restrict their expansion capabilities.
Thomas has made it clear that as long as there is neighborhood opposition to the plan, he remains opposed. He might change his stance if Griffith, who says she’s talking to various stakeholders to determine if a consensus can be achieved before the next council vote, is able to succeed in that. Griffith is also trying to pin down the number and types of businesses that would be affected by the plan — or exempted altogether. Moreover, she says, “There are residential property owners who are wondering what kind of flexibility they’re going to have. I’m hoping we can work out a way to protect the property rights of business owners and residents, and provide a forward-thinking plan for the entire area.”
Griffith gave no indication of how she will vote Dec. 6, but offered, “A plan can be amended. It’s not etched in granite when we pass it.” She added: “If we pass it.” And if the plan fails for lack of a sixth vote? “That’s what I’m talking to staff about — how can we move forward and what are the options for council?”
Donald Dodson, one of the original members of the Dawson Planning Team, expressed disappointment that what began as an ambitious Smart Growth experiment turned into a protracted planning process. Two other neighborhood pilots — Chestnut and East Cesar Chavez — both secured rezoning approval for their plans last December, with the entire process taking 18 and 20 months, respectively. Dawson, on the other hand, is coming up on its 40th month. “There’s just so much misinformation out there,” Dodson groaned — such as a proposed apartment project in the neighborhood that opponents suggest is associated with the plan. “The apartments and the plan have absolutely nothing to do with each other. What people aren’t being told about the plan is that we’re trying to keep affordable housing in the neighborhood while allowing for modest infill.”
In retrospect, city neighborhood planners have learned a valuable lesson from the Dawson pilot, and that is to quickly settle all rezoning issues, thereby closing the gap between the time the conceptual plan and the zoning changes receive final adoption.
This article appears in November 16 • 2001.
