ITEM04 C15-2024-0040 LATE BACKUP DEC9-OPPOSITION — original pdf

Backup

ITEM04/1-OPPOSITIONSITEM04/2-OPPOSITIONSITEM04/3-OPPOSITIONSITEM04/4-OPPOSITIONSapplicant does not adequately address how their 118 unit, 87 foot tall multifamily design may actually impact the neighborhood. If the Board grants the variances, the extended height, added volume of units, lack of parking per unit, and proximity to single-family homes will have a very clear negative impact on the single-family neighbors. The applicant makes two main claims regarding this criterion: a) that there are other multifamily developments along S 1st, and b) there are other commercial buildings with less than 25 foot rear setbacks in the area. In addressing a), the applicant is correct that there are multifamily developments along S 1st, but it is important to note that those developments are all 5 levels or fewer. They appear to maintain the 60 foot code-required setback height from the single-family homes in the area. As for b), there are several commercial businesses in the area which impinge on the 25 foot rear setback, however, all of those businesses are one level or less. Their impact on the adjacent single-family homes is minimal due to their low height. The proposed development will be so tall it will tower over the single-family homes on S 2nd and S 3rd Streets and “diminish privacy”. The added units provided by the added height will “increase traffic on adjacent streets,” and the lack of parking per unit will certainly make S 2nd St, S 3rd St, and Stacy Ln the de facto 24h/7days/week permanent parking for the residents. Also if granted the variances, the development will be the tallest structure along S. 1st between Barton Springs and Ben White. It clearly “exceeds the size and scale typical of properties in the vicinity” and therefore it WILL “alter area character.” (from BOA Community Guidebook) Furthermore, I’d like to note the lack of communication from the applicant and owner. · Neither party has reached out to me or my neighbors directly to discuss their proposed commercial building or how the variances may affect my single-family home. · The Galindo Elementary Neighborhood Association (GENA) president, Patty Sprinkle, had not heard from the developers until she personally reached out to Leah Boho Monday, Nov 11th. This case was originally scheduled to be heard on November 14th, but thankfully the Board postponed that meeting due to a lack of quorum. GENA asked the developer to present their project at our next neighborhood meeting. Please consider these matters very carefully for the sake of setting a precedent along the S 1st corridor. I fully understand and support commercial development along S 1st. I simply request owners develop within the code requirements because the codes are designed to safeguard harmony/compatibility with the surrounding properties so that developments build out at a “neighborhood scale” and don’t unintentionally alter Austin’s endearing character. Thank you, Anna & Brandon Barger Homeowners of 2705 S. 2nd St., Unit B, Austin TX 78704 ITEM04/5-OPPOSITIONSITEM04/6-OPPOSITIONSITEM04/7-OPPOSITIONSFrom: Kristi Shuey Date: Monday 2 December 2024 To: <Elaine.Ramirez@austintexas.gov> Public Hearing: Board of Adjustment Hearing Date: November 14th, 2024 Case Number: C15-2024-0040 Contact person: Kristi Shuey Contact person’s affected address: 2613 S 2nd St Contact person’s phone number: 512-228-8343 Date of email: 13 November 2024 To: Austin Board of Adjustment I’m writing to express my objection to BOTH compatibility requirement variances (from Section 25-2-654) that are being requested in Case #C15- 2024-00. Below I address the 3 criteria the Board must consider to grant the variances, and how the applicant does not meet each criterion. 1. Hardship: In their response to hardship, the applicant claims that one of the properties they acquired for this project is UNIQUE for the area. This is not a unique property. Upon simple analysis of Travis County records, the property being claimed as a unique hardship is the property with the Cumberland address, and it matches the dimensions and square-footage (within 2%) of its next-door, western- adjacent neighbor and the 11 properties going west on Cumberland Rd. It’s actually the standard size and shape of the properties along the north side of Cumberland Rd. The owner bought this property with full knowledge of this property’s dimensions and how it is common to Cumberland Rd and thus “general to the area.” The choice of buying this Cumberland Rd property alongside the other two S 1st properties for their development cannot be claimed as a hardship because they are self-imposed “conditions [the owner] is responsible for creating” (bold quotes from BOA Community Guidebook). 2. Reasonable Use: The applicant then builds on top of their unfounded hardship claim to say that the “unique” property has an “irregular shape” and is “exceptionally narrow,” and thus deprives the owner of “reasonable use”. Please reference the above reasoning on how the property is neither an irregular shape nor is it exceptionally narrow. Again, the owner knowledgably purchased this standard- size Cumberland property alongside the two S 1st properties for his development. This, yet again, is a self-imposed limitation the owner was aware of when purchasing and designing his commercial development. 3. Area Character: In responding to the area character criterion, the applicant does not adequately address how their 118 unit, 87 foot tall multifamily design may actually impact the neighborhood. If the Board grants the variances, the extended height, added volume of units, lack of parking per unit, and proximity to single-family homes will have a very clear negative impact on the single-family neighbors. The applicant makes two main claims regarding this criterion: a) that there are other multifamily developments along S 1st, and b) there are other commercial buildings with less than 25 foot rear setbacks in the area. In addressing a), the applicant is correct that there are multifamily developments along S 1st, but it is important to note that those developments are all 5 levels or fewer. They appear to maintain the 60 foot code-required setback height from the single-family homes in the area. As for b), there are several commercial businesses in the area which impinge on the 25 foot rear setback, however, all of those businesses are one level or less. Their impact on the adjacent single- family homes is minimal due to their low height. The setback proposed is far too close to 2613 S 2nd St and other adjacent houses and without the proper setback, drainage and potential flooding is a concern. The proposed development will be so tall it will tower over the single-family homes on S 2nd and S 3rd Streets and diminish privacy. The added units provided by the added height will “increase traffic on adjacent streets,” and the lack of parking per unit will certainly make S 2nd St, S 3rd St, and Stacy Ln the de facto 24h/7days/week permanent parking for the residents. If granted the variances, the development will be the tallest structure along S. 1st between Barton Springs and Ben White. It clearly “exceeds the size and scale typical of properties in the vicinity” and therefore it WILL “alter area character.” (bold quotes from BOA Community Guidebook) ITEM04/8-OPPOSITIONSDrainage, noise from the quantity of units and traffic added, and lights towering over neighboring homes causes a negative impact as well as the additional obstruction of the entrance and exit so close to an existing intersection on S 1st St. Added traffic affects the entire commuting city. Furthermore, the lack of communication from the applicant and owner should be addressed. • Neither party has reached out to me or my neighbors directly to discuss their proposed commercial building until recently, so we need to postpone any vote so the neighborhood can respond to the variance request. • The Galindo Elementary Neighborhood Association (GENA) president, Patty Sprinkle, the neighborhhod—an extension to present to the board as neither party reached out to GENA in a timely fashion and only recently presented to GENA neighbors. FYI, this is in direct contrast to the claim the applicant made in the application stating they had reached out to GENA, but then confessed that they presented to the wrong neighborhood, Bouldin. is requesting—on behalf of Please consider these matters very carefully for the sake of setting a precedent along the S 1st corridor. This is a major artery into the city and is necessary for overflow traffic from MOPAC and I35. I fully understand and support commercial development along S 1st. I simply request owners develop within the code requirements because the codes are designed to safeguard compatibility with the surrounding properties. Thank you. Your Neighbor, Kristi Shuey 2613 S 2nd St Austin, TX 78704 ITEM04/9-OPPOSITIONSITEM04/10-OPPOSITIONSITEM04/11-OPPOSITIONScomments must be submitted to the contact person listed on the notice Written before 9 a.m. the day of the public hearing to be added to the Late Back-up and viewed by the Board thc night of the meeting. Your comments should include the nane of the board or commission, or Council; the scheduled date of the the Case Number; and the contactperson listed on the n(cid:26)tice. will become part of the public record of this case. public hearing; Alcomments received Case Number: C15-2024-0040 Contact: Elainc Ramirez; elaine.ramirez@austintexas.gov Public Hearing: Board of Adjustment; November 14h, 2024 Hans Pavl bicke Your Name (pleaseprint) Olam in favor Aiobject Your address(es) affected by this application Signature Date Daytime Telephone:_ Comments: PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION Although applicants and/or their agent(s) arc cxpccted to attcnd a public hearing, yOu are not required to attend. However, if you do attend, you have the opportunity to development or change. speak FOR or AGAINST You may also contact the proposed a neighborhood or environmental organization that has cxpressed an interest in an application affecting your neighborhood. During a public hcaring, continuc an application's or denial of the application. the board or commission may postpone or approval If the board or commission announces a hearing to a later date or recommend specific date and tinme for a postponement or continuation than 60 days from the announcement, no further notice is requircd. that is not later A board or commission's decisionmay be appealed by a person with standingto appeal,or an interested as a person who that is identified The body holding a public hearing on an appeal can appeal the decision. party willdetermine whether a person has standing to appeal the decision. party is defined as a person who is the applicant An interested owner of the subject property,or who communicates an interest board or commission by: or record to a delivering a written statement tothe board or commission before or during the public hearing that generally concern (it may be deliveredto the contact person listed on a the issues identifies of notice); or and: appearing and speaking for the record at the public heáring; •occupies a primary residence that is within 500 feet of the subjcct property or proposed development; • is the record owner of property within 500 feet of the subject property or proposed development; or is an officer of an environmentalor neighborhood organization has an interest in or whose declared boundaries are within 500 feet of that the subject property or proposed development. A notice of appeal must be filed with the director department no later than 10 days after the decision. be available from the responsible department. of the responsible An appeal form may For additional information on the City ofAustin's land development process, visit our web site: www.austintexas.gov/devservices. Elaine Ramirez; 512-974-2202 Scan & Emailto: Elaine.Ramirez@austintexas,gov Ifyou will be using this form to comment, please return it via e-mail to: ITEM04/12-OPPOSITIONS Public Hearing: Board of Adjustment Hearing Date: December 9, 2024 Case Number: C15-2024-0040 Contact person: C Kenneth Parker Contact person’s affected address: 602 Cumberland Rd Contact person’s phone number: Date of email: 7 December 2024 Subject: Letter of Objection to granting the request listed in Case Number C15- 2024-0040 To: Austin Board of Adjustment: I am against any change to the already generous guidelines for building on the land adjacent to my property at 602 Cumberland Rd. I and my family have owned 602 Cumberland since 1973. At that time both lots were zone single family. Over the years the City of Austin has changed the Zoning several times all detrimental to the value of my property and an improvement of the value of 600 Cumberland. Now, not only do they want to build a tremendous building next to my 1,191 square foot single story house, they want to put it very close to the property line. When I first started hearing that the new owners wanted to build a large building next to my house, I reached out to the owners through their real estate company and offered to sell my property to them, they were not interested!! (So, I updated my property by installing new heating and air conditioning, repainting, etc. and their new building will make it very difficult to rent the property in the future.) Now they complain that their lot is too small and should be allowed to build next to the property line. I say No, No, No. Sincerely, C. Kenneth Parker Owner of 602 Cumberland Rd. PS: I am in full support of my neighbor Kristi Shuey’s letter of November 13, 2024 on this same case #. ITEM04/13-OPPOSITIONS