B-07 (NPA-2020-0021.02 - 1100 Manlove Street; District 9).pdf — original pdf

Backup

Planning Commission: November 24, 2020 NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN AMENDMENT REVIEW SHEET DATE FILED: July 21, 2020 (In-cycle) NEIGHORHOOD PLAN: East Riverside/Oltorf Combined CASE#: NPA-2020-0021.02 PROJECT NAME: 1100 Manlove St. PC DATE: November 24, 2020 ADDRESS: 1100 Manlove St. DISTRICT AREA: 9 SITE AREA: 0.3567 acres OWNER/APPLICANT: Schuler Family Trust of 1998 AGENT: Husch Blackwell, LLP (Nikelle Meade) – Agent as of September 24, 2020 (Agent at time application was filed on July 21, 2020 – Thrower Design (Ron Thrower & Victoria Haase) CASE MANAGER: Maureen Meredith, Housing and Planning Dept. PHONE: (512) 974-2695 STAFF EMAIL: Maureen.meredith@austintexas.gov TYPE OF AMENDMENT: Change in Future Land Use Designation From: Single Family Base District Zoning Change To: Neighborhood Mixed Use Related Zoning Case: C14-2020-0081 From: SF-3-NP To: NO-MU-NP NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN ADOPTION DATE: November 16, 2006 PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: November 24, 2020 – Pending. 1 of 44B-7Planning Commission: November 24, 2020 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: To deny applicant’s request for Neighborhood Mixed use land use. BASIS FOR STAFF’S RECOMMENDATION: The request to change the land use on the future land use map from Single Family to Neighborhood Mixed Use is not compatible with the Goals, Objectives, and Recommendations of the neighborhood plan because the request is commercial encroachment into an established residential area, which the plan does not support. The property is located at the end of a cul-de-sac in an established residential area. Converting the single family home to an office use would be encroachment into a residential neighborhood. For more information on the proposed zoning of NO-MU-NP, please see the associated zoning case report C14-2020-0081. 2 NPA-2020-0021.02 2 of 44B-7Planning Commission: November 24, 2020 LAND USE DESCRIPTIONS EXISTING LAND USE ON THE PROPERTY Single family - Detached or two family residential uses at typical urban and/or suburban densities. Purpose 1. Preserve the land use pattern and future viability of existing neighborhoods; 2. Encourage new infill development that continues existing neighborhood patterns of development; and 3. Protect residential neighborhoods from incompatible business or industry and the loss of existing housing. Application 1. Existing single‐family areas should generally be designated as single family to preserve established neighborhoods; and 2. May include small lot options (Cottage, Urban Home, Small Lot Single Family) and two‐family residential options (Duplex, Secondary Apartment, Single Family Attached, Two‐Family Residential) in areas considered appropriate for this type of infill development. PROPOSED LAND USE ON THE PROPERTY Neighborhood Mixed Use - An area that is appropriate for a mix of neighborhood commercial (small‐scale retail or offices, professional services, convenience retail, and 3 NPA-2020-0021.02 3 of 44B-7Planning Commission: November 24, 2020 shopfront retail that serve a market at a neighborhood scale) and small to medium‐density residential uses. Purpose 1. Accommodate mixed use development in areas appropriate for a mix of residential uses and neighborhood commercial uses that serve surrounding neighborhoods; and 2. Provide transition from residential use to high intensity commercial or mixed use. Application 1. Appropriate for areas such as minor arterials and collectors, small parcels along major arterials that abut single‐ family residential development, and areas in environmentally sensitive zones where high intensity commercial uses are discouraged; and 2. May be used as a transition from high intensity commercial and residential uses to single‐family residential uses. IMAGINE AUSTIN PLANNING PRINCIPLES 1. Create complete neighborhoods across Austin that provide a mix of housing types to suit a variety of household needs and incomes, offer a variety of transportation options, and have easy access to daily needs such as schools, retail, employment, community services, and parks and other recreation options. • The property is an existing single family home that the applicant proposes to rezone the property to NO-MU-NP. The proposed zoning would allow for additional residential units, although the applicant says no additional residential uses are proposed. The property is near East Riverside Drive activity corridor and within the Riverside Station activity center. East Riverside Drive has numerous businesses and has public transportation options. 2. Support the development of compact and connected activity centers and corridors that are well-served by public transit and designed to promote walking and bicycling as a way of reducing household expenditures for housing and transportation. • The property is near East Riverside Drive activity corridor and within the Riverside Station activity center. East Riverside Drive has numerous businesses and has public transportation options. 3. Protect neighborhood character by ensuring context-sensitive development and directing more intensive development to activity centers and corridors, redevelopment, and infill sites. • The property is not located on an activity corridor, although it is located within the Riverside Station Activity Center. 4 NPA-2020-0021.02 4 of 44B-7Planning Commission: November 24, 2020 4. Expand the number and variety of housing choices throughout Austin to meet the financial and lifestyle needs of our diverse population. • The applicant’s request for NO-MU-NP zoning could expand the number and variety of housing choices because the MU overlay allows residential ues, although the applicant states there are no plans to build additional residential uses as part of the rezoning. 5. Ensure harmonious transitions between adjacent land uses and development intensities. • The property is located at the end of a cul-de-sac in a residential area, but on the edge of a commercial corridor. Singling out this one lot that is part of a cohesive residential area is not supported by staff. 6. Protect Austin’s natural resources and environmental systems by limiting land use and transportation development over environmentally sensitive areas and preserve open space and protect the function of the resource. • The property is not located in an environmentally sensitive area such as the Drinking Water Protection Zone. 7. Integrate and expand green infrastructure—preserves and parks, community gardens, trails, stream corridors, green streets, greenways, and the trails system—into the urban environment and transportation network. • Not applicable. 8. Protect, preserve and promote historically and culturally significant areas. • There are not historic or cultural significance to this property. 9. Encourage active and healthy lifestyles by promoting walking and biking, healthy food choices, access to affordable healthcare, and to recreational opportunities. 10. Expand the economic base, create job opportunities, and promote education to support a • Not directly applicable. strong and adaptable workforce. • Not directly applicable. creative art forms. • Not applicable. 11. Sustain and grow Austin’s live music, festivals, theater, film, digital media, and new 12. Provide public facilities and services that reduce greenhouse gas emissions, decrease water and energy usage, increase waste diversion, ensure the health and safety of the public, and support compact, connected, and complete communities. • Not applicable. 5 NPA-2020-0021.02 5 of 44B-7Planning Commission: November 24, 2020 Proximity to Imagine Austin Riverside Station Activity Center and E. Riverside Drive Activity Corridor 6 NPA-2020-0021.02 6 of 44B-7Planning Commission: November 24, 2020 Proximity to Public Parks 7 NPA-2020-0021.02 7 of 44B-7Proximity to Capital Metro Public Transportation Options and Urban Trail Planning Commission: November 24, 2020 IMAGINE AUSTIN GROWTH CONCEPT MAP Definitions Neighborhood Centers - The smallest and least intense of the three mixed-use centers are neighborhood centers. As with the regional and town centers, neighborhood centers are walkable, bikable, and supported by transit. The greatest density of people and activities in neighborhood centers will likely be concentrated on several blocks or around one or two intersections. However, depending on localized conditions, different neighborhood centers can be very different places. If a neighborhood center is designated on an existing commercial area, such as a shopping center or mall, it could represent redevelopment or the addition of housing. A new neighborhood center may be focused on a dense, mixed-use core surrounded by a mix of housing. In other instances, new or redevelopment may occur incrementally and concentrate people and activities along several blocks or around one or two intersections. Neighborhood centers will be more locally focused than either a regional or a town center. Businesses and services—grocery and department stores, doctors and dentists, shops, branch libraries, dry cleaners, hair salons, schools, restaurants, and other small and local businesses—will generally serve the center and surrounding neighborhoods. 8 NPA-2020-0021.02 8 of 44B-7Planning Commission: November 24, 2020 Town Centers - Although less intense than regional centers, town centers are also where many people will live and work. Town centers will have large and small employers, although fewer than in regional centers. These employers will have regional customer and employee bases, and provide goods and services for the center as well as the surrounding areas. The buildings found in a town center will range in size from one-to three-story houses, duplexes, townhouses, and rowhouses, to low-to midrise apartments, mixed use buildings, and office buildings. These centers will also be important hubs in the transit system. Job Centers - Job centers accommodate those businesses not well-suited for residential or environmentally- sensitive areas. These centers take advantage of existing transportation infrastructure such as arterial roadways, freeways, or the Austin-Bergstrom International airport. Job centers will mostly contain office parks, manufacturing, warehouses, logistics, and other businesses with similar demands and operating characteristics. They should nevertheless become more pedestrian and bicycle friendly, in part by better accommodating services for the people who work in those centers. While many of these centers are currently best served by car, the growth Concept map offers transportation choices such as light rail and bus rapid transit to increase commuter options. Corridors - Activity corridors have a dual nature. They are the connections that link activity centers and other key destinations to one another and allow people to travel throughout the city and region by bicycle, transit, or automobile. Corridors are also characterized by a variety of activities and types of buildings located along the roadway — shopping, restaurants and cafés, parks, schools, single-family houses, apartments, public buildings, houses of worship, mixed-use buildings, and offices. Along many corridors, there will be both large and small redevelopment sites. These redevelopment opportunities may be continuous along stretches of the corridor. There may also be a series of small neighborhood centers, connected by the roadway. Other corridors may have fewer redevelopment opportunities, but already have a mixture of uses, and could provide critical transportation connections. As a corridor evolves, sites that do not redevelop may transition from one use to another, such as a service station becoming a restaurant or a large retail space being divided into several storefronts. To improve mobility along an activity corridor, new and redevelopment should reduce per capita car use and increase walking, bicycling, and transit use. Intensity of land use should correspond to the availability of quality transit, public space, and walkable destinations. Site design should use building arrangement and open space to reduce walking distance to transit and destinations, achieve safety and comfort, and draw people outdoors. BACKGROUND: The plan amendment application was filed on July 21, 2020 which is in- cycle for neighborhood planning areas located on the east side of I.H.-35. The request is to change the future land use map from Single Family to Neighborhood Mixed Use. The proposed zoning change request to change the zoning on the property from SF-3-NP to NO-MU-NP to convert the existing single-family home to an administrative office to be used 9 NPA-2020-0021.02 9 of 44B-7Planning Commission: November 24, 2020 in conjunction with the business at 1317 E. Riverside Drive, Time Insurance Agency. For more information on the associated zoning case, please see case report C14-2020-0081. This is the second attempt to change the land use on the future land use on 1100 Manlove Street. On July 31, 2012, a plan amendment application was filed on the property requesting a change in the future land use map from Single Family to Neighborhood Mixed Use. No zoning change application was filed at that time. There was opposition to that proposed change. The applicant withdrew the plan amendment application on April 23, 2013 before either Planning Commissioner or City Council could act upon it. PUBLIC MEETINGS: The ordinance-required virtual community meeting was held on October 15, 2020. Approximately 292 community meeting notices were mailed to people who own property or have a utility account within 500 feet of the property, in addition to neighborhood organizations and environmental groups who requested notification for the area through the Community Registry. Two staff members and Micah King from Husch Blackwell, the applicant’s agent attended the meeting in addition to 27 people from the neighborhood. To watch the recorded community meeting, please go to: https://www.speakupaustin.org/npa. After staff made a brief presentation, Micah King gave a presentation and answered questions from attendees. Micah King said he wanted to listen to your concerns and go back to the client to see what they can do to address them. The property owner has been there for 15 years. He wants to be a good neighbor and really wants to work with everyone. The plans for the property are to have an administrative office in the building to serve the existing building on 1317 E. Riverside Drive. He said he knows there are concerns about parking and traffic on the property. There will be no driveway from the property to the office on E. Riverside Drive and they will agree to prohibit that and will not have parking on the street. The structure will serve the office workers and not the clients. Micah presented the difference in site development standards between the SF-3 zoning and the proposed NO-MU zoning noting that there was not much difference. See site development standards chart in his presentation in this report. He said NO – Neighborhood Office zoning is appropriate for placement within a neighborhood. In terms of height, under SF-3 the maximum height is 35 feet. For NO the proposed is 35 feet or two stories. Setbacks 25 feet front and 15 from street side yard, so there is no change. Rear yard set-back is 5 feet. He said NO is a very appropriate request because it is the least intensive commercial zoning. Compatibility standard would be triggered by the adjacent SF-3 zoning so it will limit what can be built on the property. Compatibility standards would limit what could be built if the structure would to be demolished. Off-street parking and lighting would be screened and there would be noise restrictions such as mechanical noise. 10 NPA-2020-0021.02 10 of 44B-7Planning Commission: November 24, 2020 The way around compatibility standards, but it is not something the applicant is proposing to use is the Affordability Unlocked. The property could be redeveloped with the density bonus without a zoning change if they satisfied the affordability requirements. They could build six to eight units depending on level of affordability. There would be no compatibility standards, no maximum FAR and they could go taller under SF-3 than under the proposed NO zoning. After his presentation, the following questions were asked: Q: I believe the owner has overall plans to combine the properties and sell it. But why doesn’t he just expand his existing commercial property because the lot is big enough to expand on instead of rezoning this home at 1100 Manlove Street? A: It would be a big financial decision to expand on the existing property especially in these economic times. Why not take advance of what is existing. You said you believe there is an overall plan for the owner to sell the property, but I can’t predict the future on what will happen with the property, I can only talk about what the plans are now and they are not to do that. This is an expense process. He would not be going through this process for no reason only to do it again six months later. Q: The neighborhood has a clause that prohibits building more multifamily housing. Developers have built condos to get around this prohibition. This feels like the beginning of this. There are 17 employees listed on Linked In. I don’t know why they need this property. A. I don’t know how many employees he has. Duplexes are allowed under the existing SF-3 zoning, but that is not his plans. Any property along the highway already has the zoning. NO- Neighborhood Office provides a little more certainty. We will do what we can to address your concerns. We want to provide safeguards for surrounding property owners. Q: Did Mr. Schuler tell you about his previous plans in 2012 to develop this tract with property along IH-35? A: Yes, we did discuss it briefly and I looked at the plans on the website. The zoning case was withdrawn because of neighborhood opposition. He is not planning on doing what he was proposing in 2012. He doesn’t plan on demolishing the building. He plans to add some desks. People access the site from the parking area below. Q. Can you put dumpsters on this property with this type of zoning? Can you have tattoo parlor at this property? A. There are very strict conditions on where to place dumpsters on property. The size of a future structure would probably not necessitate a dumpster, but I don’t know. I’ll have to get back to you on this. There can be no tattoo parlor in NO –Neighborhood Office zoning. There is always a possibility of a Restrictive Covenant for ways to enshrine agreements that aren’t controlled by the Land Development Code. Perhaps we can do this with the neighborhood, such as entrance to parking garage, dumpster placement, parking and access. I don’t know if Mr. Schuler would be willing to do this, but I can talk to him. 11 NPA-2020-0021.02 11 of 44B-7Planning Commission: November 24, 2020 Q. Why doesn’t he want to rent out the property as a single family home? A. This hasn’t been a home because it doesn’t make sense for him to use it as a home. If he can’t use it for an administrative office then what purpose would he keep it. He could sell it to a developer for affordable housing for six to eight units. Q: What does he want to do with this property? A: He wants to have an office. Q: What are the planned changes to the property? A: Anyone can demolish their home, but we don’t want to see that. The zoning has nothing to do with demolition. Comment: The 6-8 units component worries me. Response: Six to eight units is what would be allowed already if he chose to do Affordability Unlocked under the current zoning, but that’s not his plan which is why he is seeking to rezone. Q. What are the environmental considerations for the Heritage Tree that exists on the property? A. The Heritage tree ordinance would apply which prohibits removing tree unless the tree is dying or it could potentially hurt someone if it falls over. There are protections to the tree during construction. Comment: Mr. Schuler has already turned numerous single family properties to commercial that are adjacent to our homes. Response: I’ll have to talk to him about that so I can get more information to understand your concerns. Q. What guarantees do we have that he won’t tear down after zoning change? A: All I can say is that is not part of the plan right now. Anyone can get a demolish permit, so I can’t provide guarantee it will survive for “X” number of years. Q: Why do his employees need to work from the office? Is there a need for them all to be there? How much walk-in business do they get...isn’t most of the business conducted by phone? What is the cost difference between renovating the property or providing his employees with a call service at their home number? Wouldn’t this be more cost effective? A: How someone wants to operate their business is something we should not be dictating. Comment: The city will no longer enforce Public Restrictive Covenants. The neighborhood would need to pay a lawyer to enforce a Private Restrictive Covenant. Response: The City will enforce Public Restrictive Covenants if they are a party to them, but Private Restrictive Covenants are not enforced by the City. However, conditional overlays could be use and those are enforced by the City. Comment: It sounds like you are using Affordability Unlocked as a threat. 12 NPA-2020-0021.02 12 of 44B-7Planning Commission: November 24, 2020 Response: No, this is not a threat. I brought it up to highlight what could be developed there in the future and Affordability Unlocked could be more intense than what we are proposing with the NO- Neighborhood Office zoning. Affordability Unlocked was approved by City Council to address our lack of affordability housing. This is a policy that the City decided upon, but it’s not what we propose to do. Q: Could he use this property as access to his I.H.-35 property? A: That is not clear because under the Land Development Code because you have restrictions based on curb cuts and it is a feeder road. I’ll have to look this up. Q: You said the purposed NO – Neighborhood Office zoning is to serve the neighborhood. How is Mr. Schuler’s business serving the neighborhood? A: Insurance is something people everywhere would need, even people in the neighborhood. The description of the NO zoning in the Code says, “Neighborhood Office district is the designation for a small office use that serves neighborhood or community needs, is located in or adjacent to a residential neighborhood and on a collector street that has a width of 40 feet or more, and does not unreasonably affect traffic”. I was talking about compatibility with the intent of the zoning district of NO – Neighborhood Office. The property backs up to commercial property. A big structure is not allowed under the NO zoning. Q: Under Code Next the intent was to remove conditional overlays, so if any CO applied to this property would it be gone if Code Next passes? A: If new Code is adopted, there is no provision for more Conditional Overlays (CO), but my understanding is any CO would be given a placeholder zoning of F25 zoning and would be there until a future City Council would take action on that zoning change or through a planning process that would change that zoning. Q: He bought the 1100 Manlove Street as a single-family house. Is he running out of space in his office building on Riverside Drive? Neighborhood concern is how it effects Manlove Street, but how to enforce if people want to drive on Manlove Street to access the property? Also, if there were an agreement that people would park at the office on E. Riverside Drive, what if he sold the Manlove property after it was rezoned and then there is no parking for the business? A: The Manlove property would have to stay as part of the larger tract if we were to enshrine those restrictions to not allow vehicular access. Comments: • We don’t want a commercial property on the end of a dead-end street. • Whoever buys the property, could put all the services deliveries in the back and have garbage trucks in our neighborhood. It doesn’t matter what promises are, but what could be done. • Don't want to live, someday, in the SHADOW of large condo complex...& have • This property sought another zoning change trying to integrate it into it being part of views blocked the larger property. 13 NPA-2020-0021.02 13 of 44B-7Planning Commission: November 24, 2020 • Ultimately, this is a residential neighborhood. The neighbors do not want an office - it sets a dangerous precedent and opens the door for further expansion. We live here. He does not. If he want to live there, great! Otherwise sell it so someone else can. • CITY COUNCIL DATE: ACTION: 14 NPA-2020-0021.02 14 of 44B-7New Agent Authorization Form for Husch Blackwell, LLC Planning Commission: November 24, 2020 (Nikelle Meade) 15 NPA-2020-0021.02 15 of 44B-7Applicant Summary Letter from Application Planning Commission: November 24, 2020 16 NPA-2020-0021.02 16 of 44B-7Planning Commission: November 24, 2020 17 NPA-2020-0021.02 17 of 44B-7Planning Commission: November 24, 2020 Letter of Recommendation from the Neighborhood Plan Contact Team (NPCT) From: Malcolm Yeatts Sent: Sunday, November 15, 2020 5:39 PM To: Meredith, Maureen <Maureen.Meredith@austintexas.gov>; Clark, Kate <Kate.Clark@austintexas.gov> Cc: 'Toni' < Subject: NPA-2020-0021.02 *** External Email - Exercise Caution *** The EROC Contact Team has voted to oppose the Neighborhood Plan Amendment NPA-2020-0021,02. The reasons for this opposition are included in the attached document. Please send this document to the Planning Commission. The EROC Contact Team would like to request a postponement of the Planning Commission hearing to Tuesday, December 22. The neighborhood has collected almost enough signatures for a Valid Petition, but there has been a recent change in ownership of the two houses close to this property, and the neighborhood has not been able to contact the new owners yet. Malcolm Yeatts Chair, EROC Contact Team 18 NPA-2020-0021.02 18 of 44B-7Planning Commission: November 24, 2020 To: Case Managers Maureen Meredith, Kate Clark Re: 1100 Manlove Street - Zoning Case C14-2020-0081 and NPA Case No. NPA-2020- 0021.02 In response to the referenced zoning and NPA cases, the EROC NPCT has voted to oppose the Neighborhood Plan Amendment and to support the neighborhood in its opposition to the zoning change. The Contact Team does not support a permanent change to its Future Land Use Map in order to address a temporary issue for the sole benefit of the property owner. The granting of these Applications will set a bad precedent, not just for the EROC NPA, but for all neighborhood planning areas in Austin. The zoning change would be a grant of special privilege to an individual owner which would result in spot zoning within the neighborhood. During the October 15, 2020 Community Meeting, Applicant failed to adequately explain why such a change is truly necessary. Applicant owns three acres of ERC-zoned property directly below 1100 Manlove. Most of the ERC property is undeveloped except for the structures he is currently using for his business. There is ample room for him to expand his business on the already ERC-zoned property. The requested NPA and zoning change conflict with the EROC NP FLUM and the EROC NP’s No. 1 goal to “[p]reserve and enhance the character of existing residential neighborhoods.” Furthermore, 1100 Manlove is not a collector street. The fact that Applicant’s business is located directly below Manlove clearly shows that the proposed use does not serve a neighborhood need. As to applying a conditional overlay or restrictive covenant to the property, there is no guarantee that any CO or RC with the City would be enforced in the future, much less remain in force should the property be sold. Applicant’s claim that the house hasn’t been used as a residence during the ten years he’s controlled it was his choice. The addition of 17 new dwellings on Manlove and Inglewood since 1999 proves that the best use of the property is residential. The two newest additions to Manlove sold within days of being posted. Please deny both the NPA and zoning applications and include this email in the back-up for the referenced zoning and NPA cases. Thank you. 19 NPA-2020-0021.02 19 of 44B-7Planning Commission: November 24, 2020 Letter of Recommendation from Neighborhood Association(s) 20 NPA-2020-0021.02 20 of 44B-7Planning Commission: November 24, 2020 21 NPA-2020-0021.02 21 of 44B-7Planning Commission: November 24, 2020 22 NPA-2020-0021.02 22 of 44B-7Planning Commission: November 24, 2020 23 NPA-2020-0021.02 23 of 44B-7Planning Commission: November 24, 2020 24 NPA-2020-0021.02 24 of 44B-7Planning Commission: November 24, 2020 25 NPA-2020-0021.02 25 of 44B-7Planning Commission: November 24, 2020 26 NPA-2020-0021.02 26 of 44B-7Planning Commission: November 24, 2020 27 NPA-2020-0021.02 27 of 44B-7Planning Commission: November 24, 2020 28 NPA-2020-0021.02 28 of 44B-7Planning Commission: November 24, 2020 From: Ann Kettner Haraguchi Sent: Sunday, November 08, 2020 10:17 AM To: Ann Haraguchi < Cc: Clark, Kate <Kate.Clark@austintexas.gov>; Meredith, Maureen <Maureen.Meredith@austintexas.gov>; Dean Haraguchi Subject: Neighborhood Opposition: Zoning Case No. C14-2020-0081 and NPA Case No. NPA-2020- 0021.02, 1100 Manlove Street, Austin, TX *** External Email - Exercise Caution *** Dear Planning Commission Member, I live at 1106 Manlove Street and am writing to express my opposition to the proposed rezoning of the property at 1100 Manlove Street, which is three doors down from my home. (Zoning Case No. C14-2020-0081 and NPA Case No. NPA-2020-0021.02) The owner of this property, and applicant for the zoning change, argues that he needs to use the existing residential home at 1100 Manlove Street as an office space. I think he desires to incorporate this residential piece of land into a much larger commercial development plan for the large swath of property he owns along the I-35 access road and Riverside Drive. I believe changing the zoning from residential to "neighborhood office" is the first step in this direction. It makes no sense to me that the applicant's business space is so crowded with employees during the COVID-19 pandemic that he requires overflow into the space of 1100 Manlove Street, a house on a quiet cul-de-sac. If he needs to encourage social distancing among his employees, he can use the other residential building next to Time Insurance, or he can have his employees work remotely from home during the COVID pandemic crisis, as have many other Austin businesses. There is no need to rezone 1100 Manlove Street as an office building for this temporary public health situation. Our neighborhood is a residential neighborhood with single-family homes. Having a "neighborhood office" on a cul-de-sac does not contribute in any way to the quality of the neighborhood and would benefit nobody but the applicant. In short, rezoning would go against one of the stated goals of the EROC NP: Preserve and enhance the character of existing residential neighborhoods. I worry that if the property at 1100 Manlove is rezoned as a "neighborhood office," it will lead to other similar rezoning attempts that will change the fundamental residential nature of the neighborhood. In the two years that I have lived on Manlove Street, I have witnessed healthy growth of the neighborhood, with new homes built and new families moving in. Our neighborhood consists of single-family homes in a larger area of commercial and multi-family residences and should be preserved as such. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Ann Haraguchi, Homeowner 1106 Manlove Street Austin, TX 78741 (415) 939-5745 29 NPA-2020-0021.02 29 of 44B-7Planning Commission: November 24, 2020 From: Clark, Kate Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2020 11:42 AM To: Meredith, Maureen <Maureen.Meredith@austintexas.gov>; Toni Subject: RE: 1100 Manlove Street - Zoning Case C14-2020-0081 and NPA Case No. NPA- 2020-0021.02 Toni, For zoning cases we try and post the sign when residents receive the Notice of Filing. Because this case was submitted earlier this year, the sign was posted on August 14, 2020. Kate Clark, AICP, LEED AP Senior Planner City of Austin | Housing and Planning Department Mailing Address: P.O.Box 1088, Austin, Texas 78767 Physical Address: 505 Barton Springs Rd, 5th floor, Austin, Texas 78704 Tel: 512-974-1237 Email: kate.clark@austintexas.gov From: Meredith, Maureen <Maureen.Meredith@austintexas.gov> Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2020 11:02 AM To: Toni < >; Clark, Kate <Kate.Clark@austintexas.gov> Subject: RE: 1100 Manlove Street - Zoning Case C14-2020-0081 and NPA Case No. NPA- 2020-0021.02 Toni, There are no requirements for plan amendment applications to have a sign posted on the property. There is a requirement for zoning changes, but I’ll let Kate respond with more details. Maureen From: Toni < Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2020 10:43 AM To: Clark, Kate <Kate.Clark@austintexas.gov>; Meredith, Maureen <Maureen.Meredith@austintexas.gov> Subject: 1100 Manlove Street - Zoning Case C14-2020-0081 and NPA Case No. NPA- 2020-0021.02 *** External Email - Exercise Caution *** Have the regulations regarding posted public notice of zoning cases changed? Are notices of neighbor plan amendments required to be publicly posted on the property? There haven't been any notices posted on 1100 Manlove when I've walked by (albeit not every day) and there still aren't this morning. Toni House 1503 Inglewood St. Austin, TX 78741 512.447.8090 30 NPA-2020-0021.02 30 of 44B-7Planning Commission: November 24, 2020 From: snowdavel@ Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2020 10:24 AM To: Thompson, Jeffrey - BC <bc-Jeffrey.Thompson@austintexas.gov>; Anderson, Greg - BC <bc-Greg.Anderson@austintexas.gov>; Schneider, Robert - BC <BC- Robert.Schneider@austintexas.gov>; Seeger, Patricia - BC <bc- Patricia.Seeger@austintexas.gov>; Shaw, Todd - BC <BC- Todd.Shaw@austintexas.gov>; Howard, Patrick - BC <BC- Patrick.Howard@austintexas.gov>; Hempel, Claire - BC <BC- Claire.Hempel@austintexas.gov>; Azhar, Awais - BC <BC- Awais.Azhar@austintexas.gov>; Llanes, Carmen - BC <bc- Carmen.Llanes@austintexas.gov>; Shieh, James - BC <bc- James.Shieh@austintexas.gov>; Flores, Yvette - BC <bc- Yvette.Flores@austintexas.gov>; Teich, Ann - BC <BC- Ann.Teich@austintexas.gov> Cc: snowdavel@; Meredith, Maureen <Maureen.Meredith@austintexas.gov>; Clark, Kate <Kate.Clark@austintexas.gov> Subject: Zoning Case No. C14-2020-0081 and NPA Case No. NPA-2020- 0021.02...1100 Manlove St *** External Email - Exercise Caution *** From: Dave Snow [snowdavel@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2020 To: Austin Planning Commission members Cc: Dave Snow Subject: Zoning Case No. C14-2020-0081 and NPA Case No. NPA-2020-0021.02...1100 Manlove St This letter is in regards to the request to change the zoning for 1100 Manlove St from SF3 to Neighborhood Mixed Use (Zoning Case No. C14-2020-0081 and NPA Case No. NPA-2020-0021.02) that will be heard at the Planning Commission on November 24, 2020. I’d like to state my strongest objections to this proposal. This request should be denied for the reasons noted below. My wife and I own the home at 1506 Lupine Lane, a block and a half south of the proposed change. Our land (two city lots) has been in my family since my mom and dad (Azalee and Ruel Snow) purchased it in 1946. They built a garage apartment there in 1949, added a house in 1953, and added on to the house in the early 1960s. My wife and I remodel the house in 2010 and remodeled and rented the garage apartment in 2011. My wife and I live half the year in this home. During this 70-plus year period, the entire neighborhood has been devoted to single family housing built largely in the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s. 31 NPA-2020-0021.02 31 of 44B-7Planning Commission: November 24, 2020 Today the neighborhood is occupied by a few original homeowners but in recent years we have seen a renaissance of home remodeling and building by families who see value and character in the well-constructed homes in this area of Austin. In the last few years, we have also seen new homes being added on empty lots. For example in the Inglewood and Manlove corridor, we have new homes at 1502 Inglewood St. (two homes built in 2007), at 1491 Inglewood St. (2000), at 1495 Inglewood St. (1999), at 1499 Inglewood St (two homes built in 2019), at 1501 Inglewood St (two homes built in 2019), at 1504 Inglewood St. (two homes built in 2014), at 1507 Inglewood St (2013), at 1509 Inglewood (2019), at 1511 Inglewood (2013), at 1106 Manlove St. (2016), at 1104 Manlove St (2018), and two homes under construction at 1103 Manlove St (across the street from 1100 Manlove). The property under question has a 1900 sq. ft. home on it in 1952 at the end of a residential corridor (Summit to Inglewood to Manlove) on a cul- de-sac. The owner currently also owns the land immediate to the north consisting of two former homes facing onto Riverside which he has turned into an insurance business (Time Insurance Agency) with no direct access to Manlove. His representatives have mentioned in on-line discussion groups and in a meeting with neighbors that the owner wishes to use the home at 1100 Manlove as added workspace for his insurance business rather than expanding the structures that he already has to the north that face onto Riverside. My fear is that the real reason for this request is that in the future the owner of 1100 Manlove St. will want to combine this land with the land immediately to the north that he owns (the Time Insurance Agency land) that is accessed only from Riverside and is zoned as GR-MU-CO to eventually provide either parking and/or commercial access to that land. That land already has access from IH-35 and from Riverside. It does not need access from Manlove and Inglewood generating additional traffic through this residential area. Even if a business is built at 1100 Manlove St. completely separate from the land to the north, it will still generate unwanted traffic along this long residential access path (Summit/Inglewood/Manlove). None of this is consistent with the current SF3 zoning as described below. 32 NPA-2020-0021.02 32 of 44B-7Planning Commission: November 24, 2020 History is many times a predictor of the future. Back in 2012/2013 the owner of 1100 Manlove tried to change the zoning of 1100 Manlove to Neighborhood Mixed Use in order to combine it with the Time Insurance Agency land to the north, land on Riverside to the east of the Time Insurance Land that he controlled, and land in IH-35 to the southwest of the Time Insurance Agency land that he controlled to build a very large, 4-story multi-use structure (see Case Number NPA-2012-0021.01 from that time period). There is still on City websites plans for that very large structure (see http://www.austintexas.gov/edims/document.cfm?id=187611 ). After a meeting with the owner and 30 objecting neighbors, the owner removed his request and it never came to the Planning Commission. I fear that this is another effort to get the zoning changed now or in the future to Neighborhood Mixed Use such that the owner (or possibly a successor if he sales the land) can in the future ask to use 1100 Manlove in a large development effort. The land has a perfectly good residential home on it today and should be left as residential single-family zoning. The owner bought the house in 2010 knowing that this was a residential area. The house on the land should be either re-modeled to be an updated residence or a new house should be built on the land. Commercial use is inconsistent with the neighborhood. If you look at the city SF3 zoning description, it exists to… - Preserve the land use pattern and future viability of existing neighborhoods. - Encourage new infill development that continues existing neighborhood patterns of development. - Protect residential neighborhoods from incompatible business or industry and the loss of existing housing. Its application should be… - Existing single-family areas should generally be designated as single family to preserve established neighborhoods. There is an existing house on this lot. The house is accessed following three residential roads (Summit, Inglewood and Manlove) which have no non-residential usage. And the existing neighborhood is growing by the infill development of new single-family housing as noted above. 33 NPA-2020-0021.02 33 of 44B-7Planning Commission: November 24, 2020 Yes, the property does border on mixed use zoning areas which themselves were set up as a transition space with setbacks to the noted single-family housing neighborhood. However, this home/lot has no direct access to the streets (Riverside and IH-35) that provides access to this mixed use area. It would be inconsistent with the usage of this neighborhood to allow mixed use zoning to intrude for the first time into the neighborhood for the purpose of using the house as a commercial building or to negate existing setbacks. Please deny the request and keep 1100 Manlove zoned as single family residential. Thank you for considering my concern and I truly hope you will listen to the concerns of the many residents in the neighborhood and keep this house/lot as single family zoning. David L. Snow 1506 Lupine Lane Austin, Texas 78741 408-550-4435 34 NPA-2020-0021.02 34 of 44B-7Planning Commission: November 24, 2020 *** External Email - Exercise Caution *** Hi, in case of technical difficulties tonight, I’d like to submit my feedback on the proposed rezoning of 1100 Manlove. We (myself and my husband) own the property at 1101 Manlove, directly across the street from 1100 Manlove Street. We are AGAINST the rezoning for the following reasons: 1). The property in question is at the end of a cul-de-sac in a 100% residential neighborhood with NO OUTLET. This is a dead end street. 2) The area is a quiet neighborhood with children, neighbors and pets abound. There are no sidewalks, so additional traffic would be a safety issue for the kids that ride bikes and play ball, neighbors that jog, walk pets, etc. 3). Multi-use property in this location would negatively impact both the quality of life and property values that we and our neighbors have invested our lives in. We bought our home in a residential neighborhood at the end of a cul-de-sac because of the privacy and seclusion that brings from the city. This would impact our quality of life immensely. 4) The owner of 1100 manlove owns the property on 3 sides of our home. He has expressed plans in the past to develop the property and needed access from the I35 frontage road to do so, access he could only get by rezoning 1100. He, in the past, intended to create a parking structure where the home currently stands. 5) The owner uses the home in an illegal fashion now, having workers park in the driveway and using the garage as storage for his adjacent commercial property. Any statements made by his agent that Inglewood and Manlove will not be used to access future mixed use offices is just false. 6) The owner claims he needs more space for his employees due to Covid. This is a weak and transparent excuse to permit a zoning change. This change is simply intended to make his property portfolio more valuable. We should not rezone residential homes because of a temporary need. The existing commercial property on Riverside could easily be developed/remodeled for more space. There are people living full time in the “offices”, those people could be moved into the house to open more office space. The owner and his children could easily work from 1100, as he owns the home, so he would be working from home, thus creating additional space. 7) It is very clear given his past attempts that the owner wishes to develop (or sell) the entire property portfolio that spans Manlove, Riverside, Inglewood and Summit Streets and making 1100 manlove mixed use will open the door to more lucrative deals. As it stands, the home is literally “in his way”. However mixed use in this location would change the dynamic of our community and of our neighborhood in a very negative way. 8) Ultimately this would cause serious negative impacts to the 20+ families in the immediate area, plus all the families on Summit as well. We should be preserving single family neighborhoods in Austin and ensuring that children and families have safe, quiet places to grow, to walk, to play, and to build communities. We should not have to worry about offices and office buildings popping up next door when we buy 35 NPA-2020-0021.02 35 of 44B-7Planning Commission: November 24, 2020 or rent homes in residential areas. This change would only benefit 1 person while it would harm, at minimum, 50+ lives and set a precedent that would allow other residential zoned neighborhoods to be taken over by offices and businesses that do not need to be in residential areas. Please help save our neighborhood by recommending this change be denied. I have attached a Next Door petition, and while I know it can’t be submitted in an official capacity, I thought it would be helpful for you to know that all those who signed are against this change as well. Thank you very much! We hope to see you tonight! Adria Escalante & Ronnie Woodall 36 NPA-2020-0021.02 36 of 44B-7Planning Commission: November 24, 2020 37 NPA-2020-0021.02 37 of 44B-7Planning Commission: November 24, 2020 38 NPA-2020-0021.02 38 of 44B-7Planning Commission: November 24, 2020 From: Sent: Monday, August 17, 2020 2:43 PM To: Maureen.meredith@austintexas.gov Cc: snowdavel@g Subject: Concerns regarding Case Number NPA-2020-0021.02 Hi Maureen, it seems like just yesterday that you sent me a similar request from the Schuler Family Trust to change the zoning of 1100 Manlove Street from Single family-3 to Mixed-Use (Case# NPA-2012-0021.01...1100 Manlove St. [the case numbers are almost the same 😊😊 ]). Of course, that was back in 2012 (now time flies) and after a large negative response from the neighborhood, Mr. Schuler withdrew his request. At the time, his reason for the change was to allow the property to be combined with the land that he controls on IH-35 and Riverside in such a way to allow an exit from his planned 4-story mammoth mixed-use structure to the IH-35 north bound feeder road. Today nothing is said about this mammoth building in this request. Rumor in the neighborhood is that Schuler “wants to allow more social distancing in the other buildings that he uses for insurance offices just north of 1100 Manlove that face on Riverside” by using 1100 Manlove as a third office building. A Covid-19 justification sounds good in today’s environment! 😊😊. Of course, I wonder if the real future reason is his plans for the mammoth structure that was mentioned back in 2012 that are described here… http://www.austintexas.gov/edims/document.cfm?id=187611 As an owner of a home in the neighborhood, I would like to express my strongest concerns at this proposal. This request should be denied for the reasons noted below. Could you pass these concerns on to those in the City Planning Office and perhaps the City Council who will be considering this case? My wife and I own the home at 1506 Lupine Lane, a block and a half south of the proposed change. Our land (two city lots) has been in my family since my mom and dad (Azalee and Ruel Snow) purchased it in 1946. They built a garage apartment there in 1948, added a house in 1953, and added on to the house in the 39 NPA-2020-0021.02 39 of 44B-7Planning Commission: November 24, 2020 early 1960s. My wife and I remodeled the house in 2010 and remodeled and rented the garage apartment in 2011. During this 70-plus year period, the entire neighborhood has been devoted to single family housing originally built in the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s. Today the neighborhood is occupied by a few original homeowners but in recent years we have seen a renaissance of home remodeling by families and young couples who see value and character in the well-constructed homes of this area. In the last few years, we have also seen new homes being added on empty lots. For example in the Inglewood and Manlove corridor, we have new homes at 1502 Inglewood St. (two homes built in 2007), two homes at 1504 Inglewood St. (2018), at 1491 Inglewood St. (2000), at 1495 Inglewood St. (1999), four homes at 1499/1501 Inglewood St. (2019), at 1507 Inglewood (2017), at 1509 Inglewood (2019), at 1511 Inglewood St. (2017), at 1104 Manlove St. (2017) and at 1106 Manlove St. (2018). We also have had a recent sale of an empty lot at 1103 Manlove St. (across the street from the home under discussion) that is having two homes built on it. As noted above, my fear is that the real long term reason for this request is that Mr. Schuler, the owner of 1100 Manlove St. (at the end of the Inglewood/Manlove corridor), will want to combine this land with the land immediately to the north that is accessed only from Riverside and/or the land immediately to the west that is accessed from IH-35 which are zoned commercial/mixed use to provide either parking and/or commercial access to that land. The lands north and west already have access from major roads Riverside and IH-35 and do not need access from Manlove and Inglewood generating additional traffic through this residential area. Even if a business is built at 1100 Manlove St. separate from the land to the north and west, it will still generate unwanted traffic along this long residential access path (Summit/Inglewood/Manlove). And if the current owner assures the neighbors that he has no need to provide access to Manlove, once a Mix-Use zoning is approved, a subsequent owner could have differing ideas on the subject and do whatever Mixed-Use 40 NPA-2020-0021.02 40 of 44B-7Planning Commission: November 24, 2020 zoning allows. The land has a perfectly good residential home on it today and should be left as residential single-family zoning. If you look at the SF3 zoning description on the city websites, it exists to… - Preserve the land use pattern and future viability of existing neighborhoods. - Encourage new infill development that continues existing neighborhood patterns of development. - Protect residential neighborhoods from incompatible business or industry and the loss of existing housing. Its application should be… - Existing single-family areas should generally be designated as single family to preserve established neighborhoods. The request to change the zoning violates all these principles. There is an existing house on this lot. The house is accessed from Riverside following three residential roads (Summit, Inglewood and Manlove) which has no non-residential usage. And the existing neighborhood has been growing by the infill development of new single-family housing. Yes, the property does border on mixed use zoning areas which themselves were set up as a transition space to the noted single- family housing neighborhood. However, this home/lot has no direct access to major streets (Riverside and IH-35) that provides access to this mixed-use area. It would be inconsistent with the usage of this neighborhood to allow mixed-use zoning to intrude for the first time into the neighborhood. And a subsequent owner would probably not abide with any informal agreement that Mr. Schuler makes. Please deny the request and keep 1100 Manlove zoned as single-family residential. Thank you for considering my concerns and I know you will listen to the concerns of the residents in the neighborhood as you did back in 2012/2013 and keep this house/lot as single-family zoning. David L. Snow 1506 Lupine Lane Austin, Texas 78741 408-550-4435 41 NPA-2020-0021.02 41 of 44B-7Planning Commission: November 24, 2020 From: skye olsen Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2020 3:41 PM To: Meredith, Maureen <Maureen.Meredith@austintexas.gov> Subject: Case #: NPA-2020-0021.02 // Zoning Case #: C14-2020-0081 // 1100 Manlove St. *** External Email - Exercise Caution *** Hello, I hope you are well. I am emailing in regards to my concern about the proposed rezoning of 1100 Manlove Street and hope that this email can be presented during tonight's meeting. The residents of our neighborhood are AGAINST the rezoning of 1100 Manlove Street for many reasons. First, allowing this property to be rezoned would disrupt the quiet neighborhood that we have all come to love and call our home. If this property is allowed to be rezoned, there is potential for the entire property owned by the same owner (all along the IH 35 frontage road combined with the property that his current insurance business is on- see attached photos) to be developed. This could lead to major disruption throughout our neighborhood, especially considering the property at risk of being rezoned is located on a dead end street. The owner of the property has used the pandemic as an excuse to get the property rezoned, despite his previous attempt to rezone the same property to multi-use (to build a 4 story building) a few years ago which included putting a club at the corner of Summit and Riverside, the same location as the entrance to our quiet, peaceful neighborhood. (Please see attached proposal from the City of Austin in 2013) The owner of 1100 Manlove is needing the property rezoned to allow for an exit onto 35 north however the current house that is there is empty and in great condition. It would be much better off being resold as a residential property to a family who will love and enjoy our neighborhood like we have all grown to. We do not need non-residential uses ruining our neighborhood. The owner of 1100 Manlove has had past violations of city zoning laws as well and is using our current crisis as an excuse to turn the private residential home into part of a massive development. Allowing this property to be rezoned will only disrupt the neighborhood and prevent the established families living there from residing in a quiet, peaceful neighborhood like we are accustomed. Please consider blocking this rezoning attempt and his efforts to destroy the neighborhood. Thank you for your time. Best, Skye Olsen Resident at 1101 Manlove Street 42 NPA-2020-0021.02 42 of 44B-7Planning Commission: November 24, 2020 43 NPA-2020-0021.02 43 of 44B-7 Planning Commission: November 24, 2020 44 NPA-2020-0021.02 44 of 44B-7