B-01 (NPA-2019-0003.01 - David Chapel Missionary Baptist Church; District 1).pdf — original pdf

Backup

Planning Commission: December 8, 2020 NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN AMENDMENT REVIEW SHEET DATE FILED: July 31, 2019 (In-cycle) NEIGHORHOOD PLAN: Chestnut CASE#: NPA-2019-0003.01 PROJECT NAME: David Chapel Missionary Baptist Church PC DATE: December 8, 2020 October 27, 2020 October 13, 2020 September 8, 2020 August 25, 2020 August 11, 2020 June 23, 2020 April 28, 2020 March 10, 2020 January 14, 2020 ADDRESSES: 2201, 2203, 2205, 2207, 2209, 2211 & 2301 E. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd., 1807 Ferdinand Street and 1803, 1805 & 1807 Chestnut Avenue Note: On December 3, 2020, lot 1805 Ferdinand Street was removed from the plan amendment application to match the properties filed under the zoning cases. DISTRICT AREA: 1 SITE AREA: 2.55 acres OWNER/APPLICANT: David Chapel Missionary Baptist Church AGENT: Husch Blackwell, LLP (Nikelle Meade) CASE MANAGER: Maureen Meredith, Housing & Planning Dept. PHONE: (512) 974-2695 STAFF EMAIL: Maureen.meredith@austintexas.gov TYPE OF AMENDMENT: Change in Future Land Use Designation From: Civic & Single Family To: Mixed Use 1 NPA-2019-0003.01 1 of 46B-1Planning Commission: December 8, 2020 Base District Zoning Change Related Zoning Cases: C14-2020-0105, C14-2020-0106, C14-2020-0107 From: P-NP & SF-3-NP To: CS-MU-V-NP NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN ADOPTION DATE: July 15, 1999 PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: December 8, 2020 - Pending November 24, 2020 – Postponed to December 8, 2020 on the consent agenda at the request of staff. [P. Seeger – 1st; P. Howard – 2nd] Vote: 9-0 [T. Shaw, J. Shieh, and Y. Flores absent. One vacancy]. October 27, 2020 – Postponed to November 24, 2020 on the consent agenda at the request of staff. [A. Azhar – 1st; C. Hempel – 2nd] Vote: 11-0 [J. Shieh absent. One vacancy]. October 13, 2020 – Postponed to October 27, 2020 on the consent agenda at the request of staff. [J. Thompson- 1st; A. Azhar – 2nd] Vote: 12-0 [One vacancy]. September 8, 2020 – Postponed to October 13, 2020 on the consent agenda at the request of staff. [P. Howard – 1st; J. Shieh 2nd] Vote: 9—0 [A. Azhar absent. J. Thompson off the dais. Two vacancies]. August 25, 2020 – Postponed to September 8, 2020 on the consent agenda at the request of the neighborhood and the applicant. [A. Azhar – 1st; R. Schneider – 2nd] Vote: 13-0. August 11, 2020 – Postponed to August 25, 2020 on the consent agenda at the request of staff. [G. Anderson – 1st; P. Howard – 2nd] Vote: 10 – 0. [Y. Flores, J. Shieh absent. C. Llanes Pulido absent at time of vote. C. Hempel recused on Item B-11]. June 23, 2020 – Postponed to August 11, 2020 on the consent agenda at the request of staff. [J. Thompson – 1st; R. Schneider – 2nd] Vote: 11-0 [P. Seeger absent]. April 28, 2020 – Postponed to June 23, 2020 on the consent agenda at the request of staff. [C. Kenny – 1st; J. Shieh – 2nd] Vote: 13-0. March 10, 2020 –Postponed to April 28, 2020 on the consent agenda at the request of staff. [J. Shieh – 1st; R. Schneider – 2nd] Vote: 11-0 [A. Azhar and P. Howard absent]. January 14, 2020 – Postponed to March 10, 2020 on the consent agenda at the request of the applicant. [J. Thompson -1st; C. Kenny – 2nd] Vote: 9-0. [C. Hempel, A. Azhar and P. Seeger absent. C. Llanes Pulido off the dais]. 2 2 of 46B-1Planning Commission: December 8, 2020 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: To grant the applicant’s request for Mixed Use land use, except on 1805 Ferdinand Street which was removed from the application on December 3, 2020. BASIS FOR STAFF’S RECOMMENDATION: The property is located on or near an activity corridor where mixed use land use is appropriate. Mixed Use land use is appropriate adjacent to residential uses. The Chestnut Neighborhood Plan supports mixed use along commercial corridors, supports infill development in the planning area and supports opportunities for housing and neighborhood-serving businesses to be created in the planning area. 3 3 of 46B-1Planning Commission: December 8, 2020 4 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 4 of 46B-1Planning Commission: December 8, 2020 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. Civic - Any site for public or semi‐public facilities, including governmental offices, police, fire facilities, hospitals, and public and private schools. Includes major religious facilities and other religious activities that are of a different type and scale than surrounding uses. Purpose 1. Allow flexibility in development for major, multi‐functional institutional uses that serve the greater community; established neighborhood areas; 2. Manage the expansion of major institutional uses to prevent unnecessary impacts on 3. Preserve the availability of sites for civic facilities to ensure that facilities are adequate for population growth; 4. Promote Civic uses that are accessible and useable for the neighborhood resident and maintain stability of types of public uses in the neighborhood; 5. May include housing facilities that are accessory to a civic use, such as student dormitories; and 6. Recognize suitable areas for public uses, such as hospitals and schools that will minimize the impacts to residential areas. 1. Any school, whether public or private; 2. Any campus‐oriented civic facility, including all hospitals, colleges and universities, and major government administration facilities; 5 Application 5 of 46B-1Planning Commission: December 8, 2020 3. Any use that is always public in nature, such as fire and police stations, libraries, and museums; 4. Civic uses in a neighborhood setting that are of a significantly different scale than surrounding non‐civic uses; 5. An existing civic use that is likely or encouraged to redevelop into a different land use should NOT be designated as civic; and 6. Civic uses that are permitted throughout the city, such as day care centers and religious assembly, should not be limited to only the civic land use designation. PROPOSED LAND USE ON THE PROPERTY Mixed Use - An area that is appropriate for a mix of residential and non‐residential uses. Purpose 1. Encourage more retail and commercial services within walking distance of residents; 2. Allow live‐work/flex space on existing commercially zoned land in the neighborhood; 3. Allow a mixture of complementary land use types, which may include housing, retail, offices, commercial services, and civic uses (with the exception of government offices) to encourage linking of trips; 4. Create viable development opportunities for underused center city sites; 5. Encourage the transition from non‐residential to residential uses; 6. Provide flexibility in land use standards to anticipate changes in the marketplace; 7. Create additional opportunities for the development of residential uses and affordable housing; and 8. Provide on‐street activity in commercial areas after 5 p.m. and built‐in customers for local businesses. Application 1. Allow mixed use development along major corridors and intersections; 6 6 of 46B-1Planning Commission: December 8, 2020 2. Establish compatible mixed‐use corridors along the neighborhood’s edge 3. The neighborhood plan may further specify either the desired intensity of commercial uses (i.e. LR, GR, CS) or specific types of mixed use (i.e. Neighborhood Mixed Use Building, Neighborhood Urban Center, Mixed Use Combining District); 4. Mixed Use is generally not compatible with industrial development, however it may be combined with these uses to encourage an area to transition to a more complementary mix of development types; 5. The Mixed Use (MU) Combining District should be applied to existing residential uses to avoid creating or maintaining a non‐conforming use; and 6. Apply to areas where vertical mixed use development is encouraged such as Core Transit Corridors (CTC) and Future Core Transit Corridors. 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 applicant’s request for mixed use land use would allow for a mix of commercial and residential uses. The property is on an activity corridor within walking distance to businesses and public transportation. 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 located on E. MLK Jr. Blvd, which is an activity corridor in close proximity to public transportation and neighborhood-serving commercial uses. 3. Protect neighborhood character by ensuring context-sensitive development and directing more intensive development to activity centers and corridors, redevelopment, and infill sites. • E. MLK Jr. Blvd is an Activity Corridor where mixed use land use is appropriate. The property is an infill site that is proposed for redevelopment. 4. Expand the number and variety of housing choices throughout Austin to meet the financial and lifestyle needs of our diverse population. • The applicant proposes to change the land use to Mixed Use which would allow for a mix of commercial and residential uses. 5. Ensure harmonious transitions between adjacent land uses and development intensities. 7 7 of 46B-1Planning Commission: December 8, 2020 • There are mixed use land use on E. MLK Jr. Blvd which is an Activity Corridor where there is mixed use land use is appropriate. 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. 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 directly applicable. 8. Protect, preserve and promote historically and culturally significant areas. • At the plan amendment community meeting, participants expressed a desire to preserve the church building that was designed by a John S. Chase, the first African American to graduate from the University of Texas at Austin School of Architecture. 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. 8 8 of 46B-1Planning Commission: December 8, 2020 Imagine Austin Activity Corridors and Centers 9 9 of 46B-1Planning Commission: December 8, 2020 Proximity to Parks 10 10 of 46B-1Planning Commission: December 8, 2020 Proximity to Public Transportation 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. 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 11 11 of 46B-1Planning Commission: December 8, 2020 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 application was filed on July 30, 2019 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 and Civic to Mixed Use land use. The zoning change applications do not include lot 1805 Ferdinand Street, which is part of the plan amendment application. On December 3, 2020 the Applicant removed 1805 Ferdinand Street from the plan amendment application. On September 1, 2020, three zoning change applications were filed, C14-2020-0105, C14- 2020-0106 and C14-2020-0107. The request is to change the zoning on the property from 12 12 of 46B-1Planning Commission: December 8, 2020 SF-3-NP and P-NP to CS-MU-V-NP for a mixed use project. These applications do not include 1805 Ferdinand Street. The main church building was designed by John S. Chase, the first African American to graduate from the University of Texas at Austin in Architecture. Preservation of this building was a major topic of discussion in the community meeting. PUBLIC MEETINGS: The ordinance-required community meeting was held on September 16, 2019. Approximately 382 meeting notices were mailed to people who own property or have a utility account within 500 feet of the subject properties, in addition to neighborhood groups and environmental organizations who requested notification for the area. Twenty people signed into the meeting including the applicant’s agent, Micah King and one City staff member. After staff gave a brief presentation on the planning process, Micah King, the application’s agent, made the following presentation. Micah King said he had met with the Chestnut Neighborhood Plan Contact Team a week before this meeting and a David Chapel representative was also at that meeting. He said the proposed development is a mixed use project with housing and ground floor retail, however the mix of uses is not finalized. He said the proposed zoning is CS-MU-V-NP. They want to be respectful of the single family uses surrounding the property and to also respect the history. The Land Development Code Compatibility Standards would apply to the property and would have 25 foot setback line with a reduce height close to the single family homes. He said they have no concept plans or drawings because they want to talk to the neighborhood and take their comments into consideration. Pastor Joseph Parker said the church was built in 1926. He said he led the planning process when the Chestnut Neighborhood Plan was created. The church is the heart of Chestnut. We’d like to stay there. It’s a 60-year-old building. We are out of compliance with parking. We need to move. We’ve outgrown the church. No one has come to me saying they want to buy or preserve the building. If you come to me, we will work with you. We are not developing the property. We are selling and we want the value from the property, just like you would. We are not involved in the prospective plan. Please know that Chestnut was the one of the first plans approved by the city. At that time there were 100 vacant lots. In the early 1990’s gentrification was in process and we wanted to land bank properties to preserve them for the indigenous people who live there. Q. Will there be retail within 25 feet of residential? A. The Great Streets Program requires a setbacks, wide sidewalks and more landscaping. Q. There’s a problem with the process. You want to amend the plan for a broad use and to allow David Chapel to ask for more money to grease the wheels for future development. A. It costs money to come up with a plan when we don’t know how tall we can build and what we can build. It’s not the end of the process. We still need to go to Planning 13 13 of 46B-1Planning Commission: December 8, 2020 Commission and City Council. We will get more comments and have more meetings. We are not rushing through this. Q. Are you asking for the same zoning on all the properties? A. Yes. Q. Could you do single family zoning near the single family area? A. E. MLK Blvd is a transit corridor so Mixed Use would be good there. Q. Affordability Unlocked has no compatibility standards. A. Even under the new Code we would be required to meet compatibility standards. Q. It would be helpful to detail how mixed use impacts the neighborhood. A. I heard people ask if we could have a restrictive covenant on certain lots to prohibit uses. I can also create a diagram to show the compatibility standards to hopefully address some concerns. Q. The historic value and culture of the neighborhood is not talked much. I want to include the church in our historic application. We talked with the church to preserve the façade of the building because an African American architect designed the building. A. I understand your concerns. Q. Will the church façade be preserved? A. Pastor Joseph Parker: People have been trying to get us to preserve the building, but I’ve resisted this because it limits uses. We have been trying to do this and move. Part of the financing is to sell the building. We preserved the building for 60 years. Q. You could put an “H” Historic to preserve the building. A. Pastor Joseph Parker: I’m not willing to do that because it limits us. I represent the church and the church’s interest. We were forced to be there. We moved there in 1926. Now people are trying to force us again. No one helped us during this time. Q. Why can’t we wait? A. My preference is to go forth with the zoning and get offers. We are paying taxes on the Springdale properties and need to sell this property. Q. Can we demand X amount of greenspace and X amount of affordable housing in a zoning change? We think the future buyer could be held to this negotiation. A. We could discuss this, but we are not the builder. The client knows that compatibility standards are important. We would need to work with the client. Q. When will provide those designs? A. It’s a months-long process, we’re not there yet. We need some certainty with the zoning before we can design. Q. Will you protect the church building? 14 14 of 46B-1Planning Commission: December 8, 2020 A. There is some interest in preserving the church. To prevent demolition would need Landmark Commission action. Q. Is the church historic? State law says the church cannot be demolished unless the church agrees to it. A. I have no idea. Q. Is there a way to work together for you to get your value but not to surround the neighbors with mixed use and degrade the neighborhood? Getting value for your property is sacrificing the neighborhood. A. I understand what you’re saying. I don’t know to what extent we can make restrictions. I have to know what the impact is on various parcels. We don’t have the money to do the study to determine the best use. When someone comes forth, we will ask them to do the study. Q. I have traffic concerns like speaking. A. There will be a TIA, it’s an expense and lengthy process, but might only trigger a neighborhood analysis. Q. What about parking? A. There would be normal parking, we won’t ask for a reduction. Q. If you get the rezoning, will you put the property up for sale? A. Yes. CITY COUNCIL DATE: September 17, 2020 ACTION: Postponed to October 29, 2020 at the request of staff. [Mayor Pro Tem Garza – 1st; L. Pool – 2nd] Vote: 10-0 [G. Casar off the dais. ACTION: Postponed to December 3, 2020 at the request of staff. [L. Pool – 1st; P. Ellis – 2nd] Vote: 11-0. ACTION: Proposed for staff postponement to December 10, 2020. ACTION: October 29, 2020 December 3, 2020 December 10, 2020 15 15 of 46B-1Planning Commission: December 8, 2020 Email Revising Application to Remove lot 1805 Ferdinand Street From: King, Micah [mailto:Micah.King@huschblackwell.com] Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2020 10:51 AM To: Meredith, Maureen <Maureen.Meredith@austintexas.gov>; Harden, Joi <Joi.Harden@austintexas.gov> Cc: Meade, Nikelle <Nikelle.Meade@huschblackwell.com> Subject: David Chapel Plan Amendment - Removal of 1805 Ferdinand Tract from Request *** External Email - Exercise Caution *** Hi Maureen and Joi, Good morning. I am writing on behalf of the applicant in the David Chapel NPA case (NPA-2019-0003.01). Please accept this email as our withdrawal of one of the tracts in that case, the one located at 1805 Ferdinand Street, from our requested plan amendment. Thank you for your assistance, and please let me know if you have any questions. Best, Micah Micah J. King Senior Associate HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP 111 Congress Avenue, Suite 1400 Austin, TX 78701-4093 Direct: 512.370.3468 Fax: 512.479.1101 Micah.King@huschblackwell.com huschblackwell.com View Bio | View VCard 16 16 of 46B-1Applicant’s Summary Letter from Application Planning Commission: December 8, 2020 17 17 of 46B-1Planning Commission: December 8, 2020 Letter of Recommendation from the Chestnut Neighborhood Plan Contact Team 18 18 of 46B-1 Planning Commission: December 8, 2020 19 19 of 46B-1Correspondence Received from Rogers-Washington-Holy Cross Neighborhood Assn. Planning Commission: December 8, 2020 20 20 of 46B-1Planning Commission: December 8, 2020 21 21 of 46B-1Planning Commission: December 8, 2020 22 22 of 46B-1Planning Commission: December 8, 2020 23 23 of 46B-1Planning Commission: December 8, 2020 1805 Ferdinand Street was removed from the plan amendment application on Dec. 3, 2020. 24 24 of 46B-1Planning Commission: December 8, 2020 25 25 of 46B-1Planning Commission: December 8, 2020 26 26 of 46B-1Planning Commission: December 8, 2020 27 27 of 46B-1Planning Commission: December 8, 2020 28 1805 Ferdinand Street was removed from plan amendment application on Dec. 3, 2020. 1805 Ferdinand Street was removed from the plan amendment application on Dec. 3, 2020. 28 of 46B-1 1805 Ferdinand Street was removed from the NPA application on Dec. 3, 2020 Planning Commission: December 8, 2020 29 29 of 46B-1Planning Commission: December 8, 2020 2201, 2203, 2205, 2207, 2211 E. MLK Blvd. 2201, 2203, 2205, 2207, 2211 E. MLK Jr. Blvd. 30 30 of 46B-1Planning Commission: December 8, 2020 2301 E. MLK Jr. Blvd 31 1803, 1805, 1807 Chestnut Ave. 31 of 46B-1Planning Commission: December 8, 2020 1805 (removed from applcation) & 1807 Ferdinand St. 32 32 of 46B-1Planning Commission: December 8, 2020 Comments Received 33 33 of 46B-1Planning Commission: December 8, 2020 34 34 of 46B-1Planning Commission: December 8, 2020 35 35 of 46B-1Planning Commission: December 8, 2020 36 36 of 46B-1Planning Commission: December 8, 2020 From: Jordan Smith Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2020 10:09 AM To: Meredith, Maureen <Maureen.Meredith@austintexas.gov> Cc: Chaffin, Heather <Heather.Chaffin@austintexas.gov> Subject: Re: NPA-2019-0003.01 Our Chestnut NPCT has voted to approve the current iteration of David Chapel’s request, after more than a year of negotiating with them on the terms of what would be allowed on that SE tract. I voted in favor of the compromise and so have changed my position from opposed to in favor of the current proposal. I would also like to say that my opposition — as well as that of may of the neighbors — was solely centered on possible uses of the SE tract of land (the south parking lot property, just east of Chestnut), which would directly impact a number of neighbors — all those along east 18th (east of Chestnut as well as those directly across the street on the west side of Chestnut) as well as every neighbor fronting or backing up to the alley that runs behind the church parking lots (the SE and NE tracts), with especially harsh implications for the two neighbors whose homes sit between the SE and NE tracts. We asked, early and repeatedly, for David Chapel to consider keeping the SE tract SF, or some version of SF that would allow for greater density — just as happened with the two homes built between the SE and NE tracts — which would maintain the fabric of the existing neighborhood and neighbors most directly impacted by development on that lot. The church initially said it understood and would consider our requests, but then dragged its feet for months. Ultimately, they said they would not consider any compromise that would limit development of the SE tract to SF housing of any kind. From there negotiations sputtered along. Indeed, this current compromise, the one the NPCT has voted to support, has only recently been offered. Among the biggest sticking points for all the neighbors has been that the SE tract would NOT be developed into a parking garage/structure or lot — among several disfavored uses this is number one for me and many of the neighbors. Our previous asks that this be disallowed on the SE tract were rebuffed. It is only in this latest proposal that, as we all understand it, they have agreed that no parking garage/structure/lot would be allowed on this SE tract (along with agreeing to ex out several other uses we disagree with). So long as this remains a commitment, I will support the existing compromised proposal. Thanks! Best, Jordan Jordan Smith Senior Reporter The Intercept 512-740-7082 37 37 of 46B-1 Planning Commission: December 8, 2020 38 38 of 46B-1Planning Commission: December 8, 2020 39 39 of 46B-1Planning Commission: December 8, 2020 40 40 of 46B-1Planning Commission: December 8, 2020 41 41 of 46B-1Planning Commission: December 8, 2020 42 42 of 46B-1Planning Commission: December 8, 2020 43 43 of 46B-1Planning Commission: December 8, 2020 44 44 of 46B-1Planning Commission: December 8, 2020 45 45 of 46B-1Planning Commission: December 8, 2020 46 46 of 46B-1