C-1 C15-2021-0009 LATE BACKUP — original pdf

Backup

C-1/1 LATE BACKUPFrom: To: Subject: Date: Tanner Blair Ramirez, Elaine Appeal for 314 and 316 W. 34th Street #C15-2021-0009 Tuesday, February 02, 2021 1:52:25 PM *** External Email - Exercise Caution *** Hello Elaine, As the chair of Central Austin Urbanists, I am writing to inform you that our organization would encourage Board of Adjustment to interpret the NUNA NCCD in the narrowest way possible. Climate change is real. This housing would be in walking distance to transit, the university, and more amenities than we can list here. This is one of the few locations in the city that can truly support a car-free lifestyle and insisting that new housing continue to reinforce and promote automotive- centric living is a threat to the long-term health of our community. Additionally, we take exception to the tone and content of Mr. Levinski’s application, especially the continued use of the term “stealth dorms”. At a time when housing costs are at an all-time high, it is very telling the character and substance of their argument that so much emphasis is placed on making sure that families and groups people that don’t meet their platonic ideal are denigrated and relegated to the status of nuisance. This segregationist attitude is anathema to the spirit of radical inclusion that we believe is the actual foundation of a community, and we ask that the city reject the argument that there is a right way and a wrong way for families to look. Given the dubious merits of requiring parking, the very real climate crisis, and the very real housing crisis, we ask that the Board of Adjustment stand by staff’s judgement and not require more parking spaces than absolutely necessary. Regards, Tanner Blair Central Austin Urbanists CAUTION: This email was received at the City of Austin, from an EXTERNAL source. Please use caution when clicking links or opening attachments. If you believe this to be a malicious and/or phishing email, please forward this email to cybersecurity@austintexas.gov. C-1/2 LATE BACKUPTo: Board of Adjustment - Interpretation Appeal Unfortunately, I will not be in town to speak for the appeal of 314 & 316 W. 34th St. on February 8th so I’m writing you now. I live on 34th Street within 200 ft of this development. As a neighborhood, we worked very hard to come up with a NCCD to protect ourselves from stealth dorm developments that violate occupancy limits and the unrealistic parking requirements associated with them. Developments like this one is precisely why we took the effort to create occupancy, parking, and bathroom limits with new developments. Our NCCD has Occupancy Limits that restricts occupancy to 4 unrelated adults in main structures with 2 unrelated adults in any back structure for a particular property. This development, which is considered 2 properties has 18 bathrooms, 9 for each property with parking for only a small fraction of the occupants (8). The city has designated 34th Street a thoroughfare for a future bike lane. West 34th Street is currently restricted to parking on only the north side of the street for safety and emergency vehicle access. Parking is already tight with current residents since parking is only allowed on one side of the street. What will a development with 18 bathrooms and 8 parking spaces do to the neighborhood? Let me tell you, It will overwhelm it by creating safety and access issues for any other property near it… not to mention safety issues for the future bike lane. Looking at the plans, we all know that this is a stealth dorm. We all know that at least 2 people will be using each of the 18 bathrooms despite what names are on the leases. We all know that the majority of college kids have cars. We all know that only a small fraction of the cars associated with the property will be able to park on property. We all know that because of inadequate parking requirements on property that 20 vehicles at a minimum will be forced to park on an already crowded and restricted street and surrounding streets. My question is why are current ordinances for occupancy & parking limits not being taken into consideration before approving building permits? Is the city willing to sacrifice safety, quality of life, & current neighborhood ordinances for density and property tax revenues at all cost? Is this what the COA is calling “smart growth” for our city? I’m calling for developers to be limited to the laws and ordinances that are currently in place… and that the COA do their job and take into account these laws and ordinances when granting building permits to developers. I truly hope that the COA will follow the laws and ordinances that have been a part of our NCCD for the last 17 years. Thank you for your time and consideration. Mark W. Feist 407 W. 34th Street C-1/3 LATE BACKUP314 & 316 Public Hearing To: Board of Adjustment - Interpretation Appeal - Yes, In favor of the interpretation RE: Case Number C15-2021-0009 I am the owner of 310 & 312 W. 34th next door to 314 & 316 W. 34th Street of this proposed development. From looking at the proposed plans for 314 & 316, it is evident that this is a stealth dorm development that violates occupancy limits and the unrealistic parking requirements associated with them. NCCD has Occupancy Limits that restricts occupancy to 4 unrelated adults in main structures with 2 unrelated adults in any back structure for a particular property. This development, which is considered 2 properties has 18 bathrooms, 9 for each property with parking for only a small fraction of the occupants (8). The city has designated 34th Street a thoroughfare for a future bike lane. West 34th Street is currently restricted to parking on only the north side of the street for safety and emergency vehicle access. Parking is already tight with current residents since parking is only allowed on one side of the street. What will a development with 18 bathrooms and 8 parking spaces do to the neighborhood? Let me tell you, It will overwhelm it by creating safety and access issues for any other property near it… not to mention safety issues for the future bike lane. Looking at the plans, we all know that at least 2 people will be using each of the 18 bathrooms despite and the majority of college kids have cars. Only a small fraction of the cars associated with the property will be able to park on property. We all know that because of inadequate parking requirements on property that 20 vehicles at a minimum will be forced to park on an already crowded and restricted street and surrounding streets. My question is why are current ordinances for occupancy & parking limits not being taken into consideration before approving building permits? Is the city willing to sacrifice safety, quality of life, & current neighborhood ordinances for density and property tax revenues at all cost? Is this what the COA is calling “smart growth” for our city? I’m calling for developers to be limited to the laws and ordinances that are currently in place… and that the COA do their job and take into account these laws and ordinances when granting building permits to developers. Thank You, Ginger Hurst (The Ginger Rhodes Hurst Living Trust) 3512 Greenway Street Owner of 310 & 312 W. 34th C-1/4 LATE BACKUPC-1/5 LATE BACKUPC-1/6 LATE BACKUPC-1/7 LATE BACKUPSent from my iPhone CAUTION: This email was received at the City of Austin, from an EXTERNAL source. Please use caution when clicking links or opening attachments. If you believe this to be a malicious and/or phishing email, please forward this email to cybersecurity@austintexas.gov. C-1/8 LATE BACKUP