B-01 (NPA-2021-0021.01.SH - Parker Apartments; District 3).pdf — original pdf

Backup

Planning Commission: April 13, 2021 DATE FILED: January 14, 2021 (out-of-cycle) NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN AMENDMENT REVIEW SHEET NEIGHORHOOD PLAN: East Riverside/Oltorf Combined (Riverside) CASE#: NPA-2021-0021.01.SH PROJECT NAME: Parker Apartments PC DATE: April 13, 2021 March 23, 2021 ADDRESS: 2105 Parker Lane DISTRICT AREA: 3 SITE AREA: 7.82 acres OWNER/APPLICANT: Ward Memorial Methodist Church (Kevin Reed) AGENT: Foundation Communities (Sabrina Butler) CASE MANAGER: Maureen Meredith STAFF EMAIL: Maureen.meredith@austintexas.gov TYPE OF AMENDMENT: Change in Future Land Use Designation PHONE: (512) 921-6223 From: Civic Base District Zoning Change To: Multifamily Related Zoning Case: C14-2021-0008.SH From: SF-3-NP To: MF-4-NP NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN ADOPTION DATE: November 16, 2006 PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: April 13, 2021 - March 23, 2021- Postponed to April 13, 2021 at the request of the East Riverside/Oltorf Neighborhood Plan Contact Tem [A. Azar – 1st; J. Shieh – 2nd] Vote: 11-0 [Two vacancies]. 1 of 51B-1 ACTION: CITY COUNCIL DATE: May 6, 2021 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: To grant the applicant’s request for Multifamily land use. BASIS FOR STAFF’S RECOMMENDATION: The applicant is proposing an affordable housing multifamily development and is requesting a change in the future land use map from Civic to Multifamily. Staff recommends the applicant’s request for Multifamily land use because the property in located in an area with multifamily zoning directly to the north and east of the property. The East Riverside/Oltorf Combined Neighborhood Plan future land use map does not have a land use designation on the properties surrounding the site with multifamily zoning. These properties were removed from the future land use map during the neighborhood planning process with the intent to revisit them in the future. The properties without a land use designation are primarily zoned multifamily and commercial. The neighborhood plan document supports affordable housing, although it specifies for only specific properties in the planning area. Staff believes the City’s need for affordable housing should be broadened to meet the affordable housing needs of the City. Future Lane Use Map 2 2 of 51B-1 Zoning Map 3 3 of 51B-1 4 4 of 51B-1 LAND USE DESCRIPTIONS EXISTING LAND USE ON THE PROPERTY Civic - Any site for public or semi 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 the greater community; 2. Manage the expansion of major institutional uses to prevent unnecessary impacts on established neighborhood areas; functional institutional uses that serve ‐ ‐ 5 public facilities, including governmental offices, police, 5 of 51B-1 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. Application 1. Any school, whether public or private; 2. Any campus major government administration facilities; 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 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 Multifamily Residential - Higher-density housing with 3 or more units on one lot. oriented civic facility, including all hospitals, colleges and universities, and civic uses; ‐ ‐ Purpose 1. Preserve existing multifamily and affordable housing; 2. Maintain and create affordable, safe, and well-managed rental housing; and 3. Make it possible for existing residents, both homeowners and renters, to continue to live in their neighborhoods. 4. Applied to existing or proposed mobile home parks. Application 1. Existing apartments should be designated as multifamily unless designated as mixed use; 6 6 of 51B-1 2. Existing multifamily-zoned land should not be recommended for a less intense land use category, unless based on sound planning principles; and 3. Changing other land uses to multifamily should be encouraged on a case-by-case basis. 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 is proposing an affordable, multifamily development. The property is located on Parker Lane approximately 500 feet north of E. Oltorf Street, which is an active commercial corridor with 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 not located on an activity corridor or within or near an activity center, although the property is near public transportation. 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 an infill site that is proposed for an affordable housing development. 4. Expand the number and variety of housing choices throughout Austin to meet the financial and lifestyle needs of our diverse population. • The proposed affordable housing development will expand the number and variety of housing in Austin. 5. Ensure harmonious transitions between adjacent land uses and development intensities. • Multifamily land use is appropriate in this location where multifamily zoning and uses exist to the east and there is a mix of commercial and residential zoning around the property. 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 located in the Desire Development Zone and not located in an environmentally sensitive area such as the Drinking Water Protection Zone. 7 7 of 51B-1 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. • The applicant proposes to preserve green space on the property. 8. Protect, preserve and promote historically and culturally significant areas. • The Ward Memorial Methodist Church at 2105 Parker Lane has a Texas State Historical Marker, Marker Number 14816. 9. Encourage active and healthy lifestyles by promoting walking and biking, healthy food choices, access to affordable healthcare, and to recreational opportunities. • Not directly applicable. Parker Lane, E. Oltorf Street (south) and Woodland Avenue (north) have Medium Comfort bicycling lanes. 10. Expand the economic base, create job opportunities, and promote education to support a strong and adaptable workforce. • Not directly applicable, although the proposed affordable housing development will include a Learning Center with after-school programs. 11. Sustain and grow Austin’s live music, festivals, theater, film, digital media, and new creative art forms. • Not applicable. • Not applicable. 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. 8 8 of 51B-1 Proximity to Imagine Austin Growth Concept Map Activity Corridors and Centers 9 9 of 51B-1 Proximity to Park Facilities 10 10 of 51B-1 Proximity to Public Transportation Proximity to Bike Lanes 11 11 of 51B-1 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 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 12 12 of 51B-1 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 January 18, 2021 which is out-of-cycle for neighborhood planning areas located on the east side of I.H.-35. The project received S.M.A.R.T. Housing certification which allowed for the out-of-cycle application submission. The applicant proposes to change the future land use map from Civic to Multifamily. The property is owned by Ward Memorial Methodist Church. The applicant is proposing 135 multifamily dwelling units with one-, two- and three-bedroom units. The rent will average approximately $900 a month. See the applicant’s presentation in this report for more information. The applicant proposes to change the zoning on the property from SF-3-NP to MF-4-NP. For more information on the proposed zoning, please Kate Clark’s zoning case report C14-2021- 0008.SH. There is a Texas Historical Marker (No. 14816) at 2105 Parker Lane for the Ward Memorial Methodist Church. Marker Text: In 1885, the Rev. Josiah Whipple was appointed to organize a Methodist mission in east Austin's tenth ward. The congregation built a sanctuary on First Street in 1888 and became known as the First Street Methodist Church. In 1909, the name Ward Memorial was adopted in honor of Methodist bishop Seth Ward (d.1909), a native Texan. As Austin expanded southward, many members of Ward Memorial moved to this area. The Church, with its emphasis on neighborhood ministry, purchased land at this site in 1959 and completed a new building the following year. (1985) PUBLIC MEETING: The first ordinance-required community meeting was scheduled for Wednesday, February 17, 2021 but was cancelled due to the winter storm. The meeting was rescheduled for Monday, March 8, 2021. Approximately 1,492 community meeting notices were mailed to people who rent or own property within 500 feet of 2105 Parker Lane. After staff gave a brief presentation, Walter Moreau, Director of Foundation Communities, gave the following presentation. His slides from the meeting are provided in this report. 13 13 of 51B-1 Walter Moreau said he has been at Foundation Communities for 25 years. He gave an overview of the programs and facilities of Foundation Communities such as Learning Centers and after school program for about 1000 children. They also have computer and English classes and social events like weekly supper clubs. He said for the Parker Lane development they are proposing about 135 dwelling units on the eight acres, which is about 17 units per acre, which is a much lower density than one would see from a conventional apartment builder. They want to preserve as much greenspace as they can. The apartments are focused on larger families with mostly two- and three-bedroom apartments. The typical incomes range from $20,000 to $50,000 a year. The average rent is about $900 a month. Foundation Communities does not sale their properties. For the site plan presented in the slide presentation shows a very early design stage. The buildings are in the center of the site with the parking on the outside. He said they want to leave open space on the site and preserve the beautiful trees on the site. They are looking for ways to reduce the impervious cover which is already very low than what could be allowed. There will be plenty of parking on the site to prevent any spillover into the neighborhood. The blue area front and back of site is where the water quality will be located with a rain garden and a pond in the back. There will be on site service and a place for the Methodist Church’s immigration services. For the remainder of the presentation Walter Moreau showed slides from other Foundation Community developments in the Austin area. After the presentation, the following questions were asked: Q: Our neighborhood lacks greenspace and you are taking away what little green space we have to place more apartments in an area with a large number of existing multifamily apartments. What is the financing because multifamily properties are investment properties to generate cash flow? What is the financial agreement with the Methodist Church? How intense will the services be on this property and will they be sufficient to facilitate thousands of children that already live in this vast, dense area of multifamily complexes? A: All of our developments have a combination of tax credits, housing bonds, and philanthropy. There is typically a small mortgage of $5 to $10 million which allows us to keep the rents low. We are fiscally conservative so we can keep the properties maintained. The church did not want to sell the property outright but wanted a 99-year ground lease. We are prepaying upfront. We are still applying for funding. We hope to break-ground a year from now. We have 11 Learning Centers that serve about 60 children. The Parking Lane facility would serve about 80 children. It would serve our residents and maybe a couple dozen from the neighborhood. It’s not designed to serve all the children in the neighborhood but maybe just the closest neighbors. 14 14 of 51B-1 Q: How can you build new buildings and still provide low rents? A: We used to buy old apartment buildings and renovate them, but now existing apartments are overpriced. We have waiting list for year or more for all our apartments. If we can find one that’s affordable, we will consider it, but we will also take advantage of opportunities to build new. Q: There’s an existing trail that cuts through the apartments that are lower income apartments. Are there plans to keep that trail? A: We haven’t finalized the site plan, but we would welcome feedback on this. Q: In our neighborhood plan, for proposed developments it says do no harm and should show benefits to the community and to preserve single family homes and provide a buffer. Our neighborhood already has a lot of multifamily units and the average is $1000 a month. How would you describe the benefit to the community? A: We are building new, high-design, permanently affordable apartments with services. Riverside Drive is changing fast. A lot of the older affordable apartments are disappearing. Q: What is a Learning Center? Is it an after-school program? A: It’s a community center for residents and neighborhood that focus is mainly education and health, but the biggest activity is after-school program. We will have a full-time director. Q: Why isn’t the church asking for this rezoning instead of Foundation Communities who doesn’t seem to have the financing in place? A: Technically the request is from the church. The applicant signature is from the church because they are the land owner. This is very normal for a non-profit building affordable housing to submit an application this way. Q: What is the construction budget? A: It is very preliminary but right now our rough development budget estimate is approximately $37 million. Q: Why do you need eight acres multifamily, why not keep a portion civic? A: One of the big reasons is three acres of the eight acres is not buildable because of the typography, the Heritage Trees and a wet-weather creek. We are not maximizing the land that is there and we’re preserving the green space. The civic uses that will be there is the Learning Center, the playscape and the greenspace that will be preserved. Q: How will this development increase our property values? A: We have a great track record in Austin. We have not seen where any of our developments have decreased the value of property around them. The crime rate around our properties are very low. Q: What percentage of units will be rental and what percentage will be owned? A: It will all be rental units. Q: Are the rents tied to family income and what are the ranges? 15 15 of 51B-1 A: A typical income range is $20,000 - $50,000. Q: What will happen if we lose eight acres that is currently zoned Civic in a high-density area? A: A number of churches have closed in the area and have sold their property to the highest bidder and may have regretted that. When the Methodist Church approached us a year ago they wanted to do something that had community benefit. We were able to work with them with what we propose, instead of selling to a conventional builder who just crams in 300 plus apartments with no Learning Center or community space. Q: What happens if the zoning is changed and for some reason Foundation Communities does not go forward with this project? A: The zoning and financing timeline runs close together in the summer and should be approved by June so there won’t be a situation where we won’t be moving forward by that point. Q: A critical issue for me to losing the low-density zoning to a high-density area that already is high density. A: I don't believe that we're really proposing a zoning use that's incompatible and it is a urban central location that where the need for more housing is really acute. Q: What would it take for you to lose this battle? A: I think that ultimately the zoning goes through the process and ends up at City Council. Q: Why are you proposing MF-4 instead of MF-2 zoning? A: We could go with a lower zoning but then we have to use the Affordability Unlocked. We're juggling some three-story buildings and four-story buildings. The benefit is having the height because then we use less land. Taller buildings gives us more flexibility. The site has challenging typography and with the MF-4 zoning we can a higher cluster of buildings and a smaller footprint so we can preserve more trees and have a compact development near the street. And were are at 55% impervious cover, which is a lot less than what is allowed. Q: What happens if for some reason Foundation Communities gets the zoning but can't get the financing? Can someone come in a build something else? A: The zoning goes with the land, so if the church wanted to sell the property to someone else they could build what the zoning would allow. Q: Will you do a Traffic Impact Analysis: A: From a technical standpoint this proposed density does not trigger a Traffic Impact Analysis; however, the city might decide to do a Neighborhood Traffic Analysis but that's not something that is required from a technical threshold standpoint. 16 16 of 51B-1S.M.A.R.T. Housing Certification Letter 17 17 of 51B-1 18 18 of 51B-1Updated Agent Contact Information From: Kevin Reed Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2021 10:05 AM To: Meredith, Maureen <Maureen.Meredith@austintexas.gov>; Clark, Kate <Kate.Clark@austintexas.gov> Cc: Sabrina Butler Subject: 2105 Parker Lane *** External Email - Exercise Caution *** RE: 2105 Parker Lane Dear Ms. Meredith and Ms. Clark: I am the representative of the Rio Texas Conference of the United Methodist Church on the 2105 Parker Lane Zoning matter. The purpose of this email is to formally request that Aisling O’Reilly with Civilitude be replaced with Sabrina Butler from Foundation Communities as the applicant for 2105 Parker Lane. Thank you for your attention to this request. Kevin Reed Member Board Certified, Health Law & Administrative Law Texas Board of Legal Specialization 512-660-5962 direct kreed@rcmhlaw.com Bio Reed, Claymon, Meeker & Hargett, PLLC 5608 Parkcrest Drive Suite 200 Austin, TX 78731-4999 512-660-5960 main 512-660-5979 fax rcmhlaw.com 19 19 of 51B-1Applicant Summary Letter from Application 20 20 of 51B-1Letter of Recommendation from the EROC Neighborhood Plan Contact Team (NPCT) (April 6, 2021 - Recommendation will be submitted as late back-up) From: Malcolm Yeatts Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2021 10:19 AM To: Meredith, Maureen <Maureen.Meredith@austintexas.gov> Cc: Clark, Kate <Kate.Clark@austintexas.gov> Subject: RE: EROC NPCT Rec?: NPA-2021-0021.01_2105 Parker Ln *** External Email - Exercise Caution *** The EROC Contact Team requests that the Planning Commission agenda item be postponed to the April 13 meeting. The Parker Lane neighbors want to discuss this case within the group, and the EROC Bylaws state that we need to leave the vote open for two weeks. There is not enough time for the EROC Contact Team to send the results of a vote to the Planning Commission. Malcolm Yeatts Chair, EROC Contact Team From: Conor Kenny [mailto:conor@civilitudegroup.com] Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2021 1:57 PM To: Clark, Kate <Kate.Clark@austintexas.gov> Cc: Meredith, Maureen <Maureen.Meredith@austintexas.gov>; Walter Moreau <Walter.Moreau@foundcom.org>; Anna Lake-Smith <Anna.Lake-Smith@foundcom.org>; Sabrina Butler <sabrina.butler@foundcom.org>; Megan Matthews <megan.matthews@foundcom.org>; Nhat Ho <nhat@civilitude.com>; Aisling O'Reilly <aisling@civilitude.com> Subject: Re: EROC NPCT Rec?: NPA-2021-0021.01_2105 Parker Ln Hi Kate, As designated agent, we will likely not object to the postponement as a matter of courtesy but wish for it to be posted as a discussion postponement. Thank you, Conor 21 21 of 51B-1Site 22 22 of 51B-1 23 23 of 51B-1 24 24 of 51B-1 25 25 of 51B-1 Site Site 26 26 of 51B-1 West side of Parker Lane across property West side of Parker Lane across property 27 27 of 51B-1 View South on Parker Lane View north on Parker Lane 28 28 of 51B-1 Foundation Communities Virtual Community Meeting Presentation 29 29 of 51B-1 30 30 of 51B-1 31 31 of 51B-1 32 32 of 51B-1 33 33 of 51B-1Civilitude’s Answers to Questions from Emails Received and from the Virtual Community meeting (Rec’d 3/16/21) 34 34 of 51B-1 35 35 of 51B-1 36 36 of 51B-1 37 37 of 51B-1 Communication Received From: Charlotte Bell Sent: Monday, March 08, 2021 2:28 PM To: Tim Thomas <tim.thomas.austin@gmail.com> Cc: Frederick DeWorken Malcolm Yeatts Meredith, Maureen <Maureen.Meredith@austintexas.gov>; Tovo, Kathie <Kathie.Tovo@austintexas.gov>; SRCC Executive Committee <executivecommittee@ SRCC Advisory Group <advisory@ parker-lane- methodist-rezoning-initiative@ Subject: Re: Information for tonight's meeting *** External Email - Exercise Caution *** I agree Tim. I do not understand the objection to Foundations Community's request. I have worked as a volunteer with the organization and are familiar with all the extras they bring with them to their projects. They would be the best neighbors anyone could want. We need more of their projects not less. Charlotte Bell From: Curtis Buchanan Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2021 3:37 PM To: Meredith, Maureen <Maureen.Meredith@austintexas.gov> Cc: Walter Moreau <Walter.Moreau@foundcom.org>; Conor Kenny <conor@civilitudegroup.com>; Nhat Ho <nhat@civilitude.com>; Anna Lake-Smith <Anna.Lake-Smith@foundcom.org>; megan.matthews@foundcom.org; Aisling O'Reilly <aisling@civilitude.com>; Sabrina Butler <sabrina.butler@foundcom.org>; Curtis Buchanan Subject: Re: March 8-Rescheduled NPA Mtg: NPA-2021-0021.01.SH_2105 Parker Lane As of today, I have not received written answers to my questions that were submitted prior to last week's meeting. In addition, many of my neighbors submitted questions and have not received a response. When can I expect a written response since the Planning Commission meeting is scheduled for 23MAR21? Thank you, CB From: Curtis Buchanan Sent: Friday, February 12, 2021 9:23 AM To: Meredith, Maureen <Maureen.Meredith@austintexas.gov> Cc: Curtis Buchanan Subject: Zoning Case C14-2021-008.SH (2105 Parker Lane) 38 38 of 51B-1 *** External Email - Exercise Caution *** Hi Maureen - I live at 2001 Parker Lane, Unit 107, directly next to the church property. I received a Neighborhood Plan Amendment Meeting Notice and I plan to attend via teleconference. I would like the following items addressed: 1) The property currently has few structures and is a beautiful wildflower meadow in the spring. What percent of the property will be impervious cover, has the applicant quantified the environmental impact and have they proposed a solution to mitigate any additional storm runoff? If a holding pond is required, where will it specifically be located on property? 2) Which one of the large trees on property will be protected, which ones will be removed? 3) Since the church will still retain ownership of the property, will the City of Austin be able to access and collect new property taxes because of the proposed zoning changes? If so, what is the projected annual amount? 4) What is the impact of the additional traffic on the Oltorf/Parker Lane intersection? Will the applicant pay for any required changes or will this be paid for by Austin taxpayers? Thank you and please confirm receipt via return e-mail. Curtis Buchanan 2001 Parker Lane, Unit 107 512-215-2217 From: Erin Mitchell Sent: Saturday, February 13, 2021 4:36 PM To: Meredith, Maureen <Maureen.Meredith@austintexas.gov> Subject: Opposition to Case Number NPA-2021-0021.01.SH *** External Email - Exercise Caution *** Hi Maureen, I hope that you're doing well. I am contacting you today about Case number NPA- 2021-0021.01.SH. This concerns the designation of 2105 Parker Ln from civic use to multifamily use. I am strongly opposed to the change in the land designation of this property. The Riverside community is already deensely populated and has very little support for 39 39 of 51B-1 the area. We have a large homelessness issue and I fail to see how using this space for creating more high priced housing would help address the suffering that is already taking place less than a mile away. In addition, there are no nearby community centers, playgrounds, or parks for our neighborhood. I urge you to deny this application and allow this land to keep its designation as civic. Myself and my neighbors do not want to amend the neighborhood plan to allow this change. Thank you for taking the time to read this note and feel free to reach out to me if you would like to discuss further. Have a great day, Erin Mitchell 614.218.8878 From: Frederick DeWorken Sent: Saturday, February 06, 2021 6:45 PM To: Meredith, Maureen <Maureen.Meredith@austintexas.gov> Subject: Case: NPA-2021-0021.01.SH - Parker.Methodist.Zoning.Change.Proposal *** External Email - Exercise Caution *** Dear Meredith, Hopefully, this finds you well in the New Year. I am contacting you with respect to the amendment application case listed in the title of this email and to register my displeasure and opposition to the same application. I live directly across the street from the Methodist Church and remember when the church was still functioning. It provided essential services to the neighboring immigrant community as a food pantry and a voting center. The requested zoning change also goes against the EROC neighborhood plan would eliminate the mandated buffer zone between high intensity multi-family and single-family residential. More importantly, it would not do anything to provide much-needed services to our already dense community, instead, it would exacerbate the density issue and certainly cause increased traffic congestion. A few neighbors have made attempts to contact the Superintendent of the church since it went vacant 18 months ago – the church administration never returned contact. This comes after the church’s pastor was forced to vacate her residence in the midst of her battle with late-stage cancer. There are currently no parks or playgrounds for the likely hundreds of children who live between Oltorf and Riverside and between I-35 and Pleasant Valley. The closest opportunities for free and open recreation lie far South (Mabel David Park), to the North (Butler Hike & Bike or Guerrero) or across the freeway (Little Stacey). Meanwhile, the meridian running along Riverside near the intersection with Pleasant Valley is overrun with homelessness and drug addiction. It is not fair that this community be continually marginalized and left to fend for ourselves in a healthcare desert, a food desert, and in a densely packed urban jungle environment. This project will 40 40 of 51B-1 do nothing to resolve the deeper issues plaguing the neighborhood and goes directly against the neighborhood plan. I ride my bicycle several times a week past these children as they load onto the busses to take them to schools it is not fair that they have nowhere to play. Their parents are our landscapers, our handymen, our nurses, our bartenders, and our construction workers. They deserve a neighborhood polling place and a community center to gather. They do not deserve to have another densely packed development with services barely adequate to service itself, much less the multitude of apartments around it. I urge the Land Use committee to deny this amendment request as it does not consider the spirit of the neighborhood plan. Please feel free to reach out with any questions. Kind Regards, Fred DeWorken From: Image Receptor Sent: Monday, March 01, 2021 4:52 PM To: Meredith, Maureen <Maureen.Meredith@austintexas.gov> Subject: Questions & Concerns *** External Email - Exercise Caution *** I hope this is the correct email to post questions & concerns to be addressed by the panel in regards to zoning change request. I moved into this neighborhood in 1978, at the age of four. The last 5-7 years the growth of Austin is finally being felt here in this small neighborhood between Oltorf, Riverside, I35 and Burton. My two concerns are traffic on Parker Ln and drainage/flooding. Parker ln is the only north/south street in or out of this neighborhood.Traffic on Parker ln at rush hour is getting worse daily. Parker will be the only way to enter or exit the property. In a valley with limited sight distance. How are you going to safely introduce 500-700 more vehicles, without severely degrading the neighborhood’s quality of life? Drainage/flooding: the property of almost 8 acres has minimal impervious ground covering, now. When it rains, a river of water runs down the property towards Burton(which is almost completely impervious ground covering). What are you going to do with the exponentially higher amount of run off? Thank you for your time and energy to listen to the most important people at this meeting; the community. Fulton 512.666.4909 41 41 of 51B-1 From: Jamie Luby Sent: Monday, March 08, 2021 2:40 PM To: Meredith, Maureen <Maureen.Meredith@austintexas.gov> Subject: Zoning Case C14-2021-008.SH (2105 Parker Lane) *** External Email - Exercise Caution *** Dear Maureen, I have lived at 2001 Parker Lane for 28 years. I bought in this residential neighborhood specifically for the security, low crime, and quiet. My unit is right across the fence from this proposed re-zone project. I have seen a disturbing increase in crime in this area over the last 2 years. I follow the Citizen App & am notified of crimes near to me. I have seen virtually zero crime reported in my immediate residential neighborhood; the majority is coming from densely populated surrounding areas. I have lived in this area for 41 years and have never been a crime victim. In the last 18 months I have survived 3 attempted assaults on Riverside. A month ago, I cut through the apartments on Anken & Willow Creek & missed being in the crossfire of a person being shot by one hour...in the middle of the afternoon. Some crime notices from just the last 2 weeks, primarily coming from area apartment addresses & businesses: Armed with machete, assault, gunshot, armed, person stabbed, shots fired, armed with knife, shots fired, armed with machete, grand theft auto, gunshot, armed with gun, gun shots, police presence, shots fired at gas station. I would like to offer the following questions: 1. Do you have the annual crime statistics for apartment complexes located within a 1-mile radius? How many complaints for noise? 2. What will be the size of each unit? How many occupants are allowed max per unit? How many statistically occupy these units? 3. Currently, trees line the fence between me and the proposed project. Would you leave that buffer? 4. Where would the complex be located on the property? The parking lot? How many feet from the dividing fence line? 5. Will the project be multi-level? What is its height? Would there be windows facing into my courtyard, violating my current privacy? 42 42 of 51B-1 6. I believe there was a projection of 750+ additional cars daily on Parker Lane. How do you derive this number? How will this 2-lane relatively quiet street accommodate this substantial increase? Thank you very much for your attention to my questions. Jamie Luby From: jimothy_dyson Sent: Friday, February 12, 2021 4:01 PM To: Meredith, Maureen <Maureen.Meredith@austintexas.gov>; kate.clark@austintexas.com Subject: Case NPA 2021 - 0021.01.SH *** External Email - Exercise Caution *** When I received copy of the DeWorken letter about changing the zoning for the Methodist Church And pastors residence to one for as much as 54 units, I was again upset thinking of yet another small pocket of Austin’s peace and beauty that was enjoyed by average citizens each day was going to be lost to the goal for housing greater numbers of people in central Austin. I'm so tired of plans to increase density and turn Austin in to a boom town that will have us turn into a clone of all other large cities and lose the soul and vibe that made this city so enviable a place to reside. So I decided to send one of my pictures of this site to the case managers with a suggestion that they turn area into a park where old folks could sit, children play, wanna be musicians, writers and artists could practice their talents, the fit could have exercise equipment and any citizen could spend time here in meditation on the good things life here provides. Please lodge my concern and disapproval of plans to make these 2 areas into a multifamily designation. Thank you, Jimothy Dyson 1603 Elmhurst Dr Austin TX 78741 43 43 of 51B-1 From: Mark Gibson Sent: Monday, February 08, 2021 9:54 AM To: Meredith, Maureen <Maureen.Meredith@austintexas.gov> Subject: Case: NPA-2021-0021.01.SH *** External Email - Exercise Caution *** ‐ Family The preservation of single family neighborhoods is an important Maureen, I have concerns regarding the redevelopment of the Methodist Church on Parker. In addition to believing that our zip code is already densely populated, I do not believe that our area has the services that it needs to sustain the population. We need schools; we need churches, we need parks, we need grocery stores. The last thing we need, affordable or not, is another apartment complex. On top of all of this, Oltorf and Parker is already one of the most dangerous intersections in the city. It is backed up from 35 to Parker for most of the day. This will only exacerbate the problem and should not be taken lightly. Lastly, this change goes directly against the stated neighborhood plan that was established within the last decade: " Single priority in this neighborhood plan. The combined FLUM demonstrates the neighborhoods’ desires that established single planning areas be protected from encroachment and cushioned from higher intensity uses." "Multifamily The combined planning area is unique in comparison to many parts of the city in that it has a dominance of multifamily development, primarily in the form of apartments. An overabundance of multifamily housing has resulted in problems related to traffic congestion, a high crime rate and inadequate infrastructure, and does not promote home ownership." " It is very important to note two major concerns regarding mixed use that have been voiced continually throughout the planning process: 1. Because of the overwhelming proportion of multifamily in this NPA, uses such as office and retail and condominiums and townhouses are all preferred to any multifamily uses; and, 2. Mixed use is supported only when it is a true mix of uses. These concerns must be kept in the forefront when reading the following explanations and implementations concerning mixed use." Please pass on my concerns to the appropriate parties and please keep me abreast of the project as there are updates. family neighborhoods within the three ‐ ‐ 44 44 of 51B-1 Regards, Mark Gibson (512) 981-8262 From: Nick Malkiewicz Sent: Monday, February 01, 2021 7:19 PM To: Clark, Kate <Kate.Clark@austintexas.gov> Cc: Frederick DeWorken < Meredith, Maureen <Maureen.Meredith@austintexas.gov>; Richard Whymark < >; Mark Gibson < >; Frank Briganti < >; Rod Rice < >; EricaEGomez@ Angela McKenzie <a.masciarelli@ >; damckenz@; Andy <waschraegle@ >; jackie.hatfield@; Eddie M <Mckennaed@ >; Foladd@ Al Amado < > Subject: Re: Regarding Case Number: C14-2021-0008.SH Hi Kate, Nick Malkiewicz from 1700 Windoak Drive here. My family shares Fred's concerns around the proposed zoning change to the Methodist Church property. This change is directly at odds with the priority issues/goals established in The East Riverside/Oltorf Neighborhood Plan (see page 12 and 28) as well as goals laid out in the East Riverside Corridor Master Plan. Our neighborhood is one of the most densely populated areas in the City of Austin (over 52k in 78741). We do not need more housing here. What we need is more open spaces, parks, community centers and services for the existing population (many of whom don't have easy access to transportation). I would like to be kept in the loop as this progresses. Please pass along my email for this purpose. Thank you for your consideration! ... Nick Malkiewicz From: Paul McGuffey Sent: Monday, February 22, 2021 4:24 PM To: Meredith, Maureen <Maureen.Meredith@austintexas.gov> Cc: Curtis Buchanan Subject: March 8-Rescheduled NPA Mtg: NPA-2021-0021.01.SH_2105 Parker Lane *** External Email - Exercise Caution *** Regarding park space in the project. Will you set aside an acre or more on the hill slope facing Parker Lane for a public access PArkspace. This should be open hillside to continue the annual wildflower prairie which has been a feature of the neighborhood for more than 40 years. This space for public use should be independent of any playscapes or private park for the tenants. 45 45 of 51B-1 Sincerely. Paul McGuffey. On Taylor Gaines St. From: Tim Thomas Sent: Monday, March 08, 2021 2:20 PM To: Frederick DeWorken Cc: Malcolm Yeatts < >; Meredith, Maureen <Maureen.Meredith@austintexas.gov>; Tovo, Kathie <Kathie.Tovo@austintexas.gov>; SRCC Executive Committee <executivecommittee@ SRCC Advisory Group <advisory@ >; parker-lane-methodist-rezoning-initiative@ Subject: Re: Information for tonight's meeting *** External Email - Exercise Caution *** There's a grocery store 1 bus stop from this location (Mi Pueblita Market). It's walkable and bikeable as well. The same bus at Parker and Oltorf will also take you to Riverside HEB. It's amazing to me his concern both about the lack of affordable housing and the excess of it. The lack of cars owned by the potential inhabitants and the traffic congestion they will cause. We call this Scroedingers NIMBY.... 😂😂 This is a great place for affordable housing. It's near good transit, parks, and will help our under-enrolled schools. Thanks, Tim Thomas -----Original Message----- From: 1909 Cedar Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2021 12:18 AM To: Clark, Kate <Kate.Clark@austintexas.gov>; Meredith, Maureen <Maureen.Meredith@austintexas.gov> Subject: 2105 Parker Lane Rezone & Plan Amendment *** External Email - Exercise Caution *** As the owner and primary resident of 1909 Cedar Ridge drive within 500’ of the subject properties, I’m emailing to express my conditioned support for the rezone and plan amendment for multifamily housing on Parker Lane. Case #s:NPA -2021-0021.01.SH & C14-2021-0008.SH. I’m generally in favor of additional housing in the area because I’m optimistic that more rooftops and additional property tax revenue will bring more neighborhood focused retail as well as City infrastructure improvements. 46 46 of 51B-1 Like many of my neighbors, I enjoyed having the church next door; I voted there, we walk our dog by the property everyday, and the wildflowers were a welcome display in the springtime. Unfortunately it’s now vacant and a new development would be a welcome improvement over an unused building that will quickly fall into disrepair and attract unwanted activities. Unlike some of my neighbors though, I don’t share the expectation that this privately owned property should only become a park or a police/fire station. If the city will pay a fair market price for it to do this and the owner chooses that path, great, I welcome the additional City services but, I presume this is an unlikely outcome. I sympathize with this opinion though because I firmly agree that city services, infrastructure, and park improvements are lacking in our area. One only has to try to drive up the poorly maintained rollercoaster hill from Riverside to Woodland, walk through the natural spring/pipe break that’s been shooting out of the middle of the Woodland and Royal Crest intersection for years, or have cars whizz by you walking on the street because the sidewalks aren’t fully connected to understand this at even a basic level. This is something only the City is in position to remedy though and opposing further development to lessen the stress on that system is a shortsighted solution. I recommend the City approves this project but, put mechanisms in place to ensure that 1.) the architecture is cohesive with being in a neighborhood setting including masonry on facades (our area of Cedar Ridge has restrictive covenants in place requiring heavy masonry) , earth tone paint colors, and incorporating streetscape landscaping that shields the view of parking, trash enclosures, and condensers and 2.) any fees related to parkland, traffic rough proportionality(require a TIA regardless of project size), and impact fees quickly be put to use by the city in the area immediately surrounding the project. Some improvements could include adding upgrades to the existing pocket park across the street, connecting all sidewalks on Parker and Woodland, repaving Parker, adding a center turn lane to Parker, or adding more right turn lanes and crosswalk striping at the Parker and Woodland intersection. Thank you for your consideration, Tim Shaughnessy 1909 Cedar Ridge Drive -----Original Message----- From: Jessica Martinez Sent: Friday, March 12, 2021 7:53 PM To: Meredith, Maureen <Maureen.Meredith@austintexas.gov> Subject: Ward Methodist Church Rezoning *** External Email - Exercise Caution *** Hi Maureen! My name is Jessica and I am reaching out regarding the rezoning of the Ward Methodist Church (Case Number: NPA-2021-0021.01.SH). I’ve recently learned that Civiltude is applying to change the land use from Civic to Multifamily and am contacting you to relay my concerns. 47 47 of 51B-1 I rent property a few blocks from this area and fear the expansion of dense housing into the neighborhood will be a detriment to the community. It is not fair that this community be continually marginalized for the profit of greedy developers. We need to create opportunities to foster growth in the community as we come out of this pandemic, not cram more people into this already dense area. Community resources like churches are absolutely essential to the heart and health of our neighborhood. If big developers intrude the Parker neighborhood, the community is bound to suffer and this will only open the floodgates for further development. Please consider retaining this land for civic uses that will benefit the good of the community like this church did years ago. Best Regards, Jessica Martinez, PE, LEED Green Associate -----Original Message----- From: Kelly Puckett Sent: Friday, March 12, 2021 2:43 PM To: Meredith, Maureen <Maureen.Meredith@austintexas.gov>; Clark, Kate <Kate.Clark@austintexas.gov> Subject: Foundation Communities re-zone of Ward Memorial property: Case NPA-2021-0021.01.SH *** External Email - Exercise Caution *** Ms. Meredith and Ms. Clark— I was at the zoom meeting on Monday about rezoning the former Ward Memorial Methodist Church property on Parker Lane. The question asking format didn’t seem to offer an opening for people to support the rezoning and that is what I would like to do. I live at 1802 Cedar Ridge Drive and have been there for about 35 years. This area, nestled as it is among so many high density apartment projects, has always been a transitional zone. It’s character is varied with lots of different sorts of folk within it. On my street live retirees and professionals and blue collar workers. A good mix that I like. I’ve walked over to the Ward Memorial property twice this week to try to envision the Foundation Communities property there and found it quite easy to imagine. In truth, I think it fits right in. Just a half block off Oltorf, with good access to schools and public transportation. With the large condo project on the north edge and the apartments abutting the east boundary, it is hardly a single family home area. On this roughly eight acres, Foundation Communities proposes to build about 130 units. This is only half the density of the Hillside Creek Apartments, across Parker Lane and just a few steps south, which has 267 units on its eight acres. That Austin needs, urgently, more affordable housing cannot be denied. The people that make the city work need to be able to live here—teachers, librarians, city workers, firemen are all being priced out of this area. With its thirty year history, Foundation Communities has shown that it is the best, 48 48 of 51B-1 most efficient, most economical, most professional constructor and operator of affordable housing in this part of Texas. They can be trusted to build and run this complex correctly. I heard some odd questions and have seen some strange musings about the reason the Methodist Church went to Foundation Communities to repurpose their land. I saw that one fellow thought it was to maximize the Methodists’ potential profit. For one steeped in the teachings of the church, it is obvious that this is a question of stewardship and I am certain that the Methodist leaders saw it that way. Good stewardship refers to taking good care of the bounties we have been given and using them for the betterment of our communities, our neighbors. It is clear that the Methodists felt that the best and highest use of their property was to provide more housing for the lower income earners of our city. Would the property make a nice small park? Sure. Maybe a branch library? Again, sure. But those alternatives are not on the table. What is on the table is a chance to increase the supply of affordable, well run, housing in a city that needs it very badly. I support it. Kelly Puckett 49 49 of 51B-1 50 50 of 51B-1 51 51 of 51B-1