B-02 (C14-2021-0008.SH - Parker Apartments; District 3).pdf — original pdf

Backup

C14-2021-0008.SH 1 ZONING CHANGE REVIEW SHEET CASE: C14-2021-0008.SH – Parker Apartments DISTRICT: 3 ZONING FROM: SF-3-NP TO: MF-4-NP ADDRESS: 2105 Parker Lane SITE AREA: 7.82 Acres PROPERTY OWNER: Ward Memorial Methodist Church AGENTS: Foundation Communities (Sabrina Butler) CASE MANAGER: Kate Clark (512-974-1237, kate.clark@austintexas.gov) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends multifamily residence medium density-neighborhood plan (MF-3-NP) combining district zoning. For a summary of the basis of staff’s recommendation, see page 2 and 3. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION / RECOMMENDATION: April 13, 2021 Scheduled for Planning Commission March 23, 2021 Approved postponement request by the neighborhood to April 13, 2021 on the consent agenda. Vote: 11-0. [Commissioner Azhar – 1st, Commissioner Shieh – 2nd; 2 vacancies on the Commission]. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: May 6, 2021 To be Scheduled for City Council ORDINANCE NUMBER: ISSUES This rezoning case has been approved to participate in the City’s S.M.A.R.T. (Safe, Mixed- Income, Accessible, Reasonably-priced, Transit-Oriented) Housing expedited review program, please see Exhibit C: SMART Housing Letter. Staff has received comments in response to this rezoning request. For all written or emailed comments, please see Exhibit D: Correspondence Received. 1 of 34B-2C14-2021-0008.SH 2 On March 1, 2021 staff received a petition in opposition to this rezoning case. The current percentage for this petition is 33.01%, making this a valid petition. The petition, a map and list of property owners within the petition area and signatures received to date are included in Exhibit E: Formal Petition. CASE MANAGER COMMENTS: This property is approximately 7.82 acres and is located on the eastside of Parker Lane. It is currently zoned SF-3-NP and is occupied by the Ward Memorial United Methodist Church. Adjacent to the north of this property is a tract zoned MF-2 and to the east are tracts zoned MF-3 and GR. Adjacent to the south is a tract zoned SF-3-NP. Across Parker Lane to the west are tracts zoned MF-3-NP, SF-6-NP and SF-3-NP, please see Exhibit A: Zoning Map and Exhibit B: Aerial Map. The Ward Memorial United Methodist Church has a designated Texas Historical Marker. Should redevelopment occur on this site, the demolition review process for this building would depend on the property ownership. A change to the State law made during the last legislative session precludes landmark designation of property owned by a religious organization without the owner’s consent. If a demolition permit is requested from a religious organization, staff would brief the Historic Landmark Commission (HLC) and administratively release the permit without a public hearing. If the property is not owned by a religious organization or it is sold before receiving a demolition permit, this process would not apply. The applicant is requesting MF-4-NP to construct a multifamily development. The future land use map (FLUM) designates this property as “civic” and therefore requires a neighborhood plan amendment (NPA) to be considered with the rezoning request. Please refer to case no. NPA- 2021-0021.01. From the applicant’s application, they are proposing a new multifamily development with a total number of 18 units per acre. Their proposal is to build a “140-unit apartment complex (Residential Multifamily) with on-site surface level parking. This project has been certified as an S.M.A.R.T. Housing project, with 100% of units proposed to serve families at or below 60% MFI.” BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends MF-3-NP combining district zoning for this property. 1. Zoning changes should promote compatibility with adjacent and nearby uses. This property is located adjacent to existing MF-2 and MF-3 zoned tracts and developments. These zoning districts are capped at 40 feet in height with similar site development standards. It also abuts and is near properties zoned SF-3-NP and SF-6-NP which have a maximum building height limit of 35 feet. Rezoning this property to MF-4-NP would allow for 2 of 34B-2C14-2021-0008.SH 3 buildings to be built up to 60 feet in height with smaller front setbacks that would be inconsistent with the existing zoning pattern along this stretch of Parker Lane. EXISTING ZONING AND LAND USES: Zoning Land Uses Site North South East West SF-3-NP MF-2 SF-3-NP MF-3 Religious assembly Condominium residential Religious assembly Multifamily residential MF-3-NP, SF-6-NP and SF-3-NP Vacant, parkland and single-family NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING AREA: East Riverside/Oltorf Combined (Riverside) TIA: the TIA is being deferred to the site planning process WATERSHED: Harper’s Branch Creek and Lady Bird Lake Watersheds OVERLAYS: Residential Design Standards and Selected Sign Ordinances SCHOOLS: Travis Heights Elementary, Lively Middle and Travis High Schools. NEIGHBORHOOD ORGANIZATIONS Austin Independent School District Austin Lost and Found Pets Austin Neighborhoods Council Bike Austin Neighborhood Empowerment Foundation Pleasant Valley Preservation Austin SELTexas Crossing Gardenhome Owners Assn. (The) Sierra Club, Austin Regional Group Del Valle Community Coalition South Central Coalition East Riverside/Oltorf Neighborhood Plan Contact Team Friends of Austin Neighborhoods Friends of Riverside ATX Neighborhood Homeless Neighborhood Association South River City Citizens Assn. Southeast Austin Neighborhood Alliance Zoning Committee of South River City Citizens 3 of 34B-2C14-2021-0008.SH 4 Number Request Commission City Council AREA CASE HISTORIES: C14-2016-0116 1616 E. Oltorf From GR-CO to CS C14-2015-0091 1900 Burton Drive From MF-2 and MF-3 to MF-4- CO From GR-NP to GR-MU-NP C14-2010- 0191.SH Suburban Lodge SRO Conversion 2501 S IH 35 Service Road NB C14-05-0201 2100 Parker Lane Approved CS-MU-CO w/ additional COs to make drive-in services a conditional use and to prohibit pawn shops. Approved MF-4-CO; CO included a 2000 trip limit, 35-foot vegetative buffer, restricted vehicular access, lighting compliance with Commercial Design Standards and sidewalk connections. Approved GR-MU-CO- NP; CO was to limit height and impervious cover to current development of Suburban Lodge Hotel. From SF-3 to SF-6 Forwarded to City Council with no recommendation. Approved CS-MU-CO as Commission recommended (1/26/17). Approved MF-4-CO; CO included a 2000 trip limit and 35-foot vegetative buffer. Approved GR-MU-CO- NP; CO included max height of 40 feet, 60% impervious cover, max. 123 units, max. 39.92 units per acre, fence along eastern boundary and a set of prohibited land uses (2/17/11). Approved SF-6-CO; CO was for max. of 20 dwelling units, max. 10 dwelling units per acre, maximum of 12 buildings allowed to be constructed on property, restricted vehicle access, and required a vegetative buffer (4/27/06). RELATED CASES: C14-05-0112: This rezoning case for the Riverside Neighborhood Plan Area (Ordinance No. 20061116-057). The base zoning district of this property was not changed during this process. 4 of 34B-2C14-2021-0008.SH 5 NPA-2021-0021.01: This is the associated NPA case being considered with this rezoning request. EXISTING STREET CHARACTERISTICS: Street ROW Pavement Classification Sidewalks Bike Route Capital Metro (within ¼ mile) Parker Lane 68’ 38’ Level 2 Yes Bike Lane Yes OTHER STAFF COMMENTS: Environmental 1. The site is not located over the Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone. The site is located in the Harper’s Branch Creek and Lady Bird Lake Watersheds of the Colorado River Basin, which is classified as an Urban Watershed by Chapter 25-8 of the City's Land Development Code. 2. Zoning district impervious cover limits apply in the Urban Watershed classification. 3. According to floodplain maps there is no floodplain within or adjacent to the project location. 4. Standard landscaping and tree protection will be required in accordance with LDC 25-2 and 25-8 for all development and/or redevelopment. 5. At this time, site specific information is unavailable regarding vegetation, areas of steep slope, or other environmental features such as bluffs, springs, canyon rimrock, caves, sinkholes, and wetlands. 6. This site is required to provide on-site water quality controls (or payment in lieu of) for all development and/or redevelopment when 8,000 square feet cumulative is exceeded, and on-site control for the two-year storm. 7. At this time, no information has been provided as to whether this property has any preexisting approvals that preempt current water quality or Code requirements. PARD Review PR1: Parkland dedication will be required for any new market-rate residential units that may be proposed by this development, multifamily with MF-4-NP zoning, at the time of subdivision or site plan, per City Code § 25-1-601. Residential units that are certified affordable under the SMART Housing Policy are exempt from the parkland dedication requirements per City Code § 25-1-601(C)(3). 5 of 34B-2C14-2021-0008.SH 6 If the applicant wishes to discuss parkland dedication requirements in advance of site plan or subdivision applications, please contact this reviewer: thomas.rowlinson@austintexas.gov. At the applicant’s request, PARD can provide an early determination of parkland dedication requirements. Site Plan SP1. Any new development is subject to Subchapter E. Design Standards and Mixed Use. Additional comments will be made when the site plan is submitted. Because the proposed project is multifamily required compliance with Subchapter E will be limited but does include an open space requirement of 5% of the total site area. SP2. The site is subject to compatibility standards. Along the west property line, the following standards apply: • No structure may be built within 25 feet of the property line. • No structure in excess of two stories or 30 feet in height may be constructed within 50 feet of the property line. 100 feet of the property line. • No structure in excess of three stories or 40 feet in height may be constructed within • No parking or driveways are allowed within 25 feet of the property line. • A landscape area at least 25 feet wide is required along the property line. In addition, a fence, berm, or dense vegetation must be provided to screen adjoining properties from views of parking, mechanical equipment, storage, and refuse collection. SP3. Additional design regulations will be enforced at the time a site plan is submitted. Transportation Transportation Assessment Assessment of required transportation mitigation, including the potential dedication of right of way and easements and participation in roadway and other multi-modal improvements, will occur at the time of site plan application. A Traffic Impact Analysis shall be required at the time of site plan if triggered per LDC 25-6-113. Austin Water Utility AW1. The landowner intends to serve the site with City of Austin water and wastewater utilities. The landowner, at own expense, will be responsible for providing any water and wastewater utility improvements, offsite main extensions, utility relocations and or abandonments required by the land use. The water and wastewater utility plan must be 6 of 34B-2C14-2021-0008.SH 7 reviewed and approved by Austin Water for compliance with City criteria and suitability for operation and maintenance. Depending on the development plans submitted, water and or wastewater service extension requests may be required. All water and wastewater construction must be inspected by the City of Austin The landowner must pay the City inspection fee with the utility construction. The landowner must pay the tap and impact fee once the landowner makes an application for a City of Austin water and wastewater utility tap permit. INDEX OF EXHIBITS TO FOLLOW Exhibit A: Zoning Map Exhibit B: Aerial Map Exhibit C: SMART Housing Letter Exhibit D: Correspondence Received Exhibit E: Formal Petition 7 of 34B-21 1 LO-NP SF-3-NP 2 1 1 GO-NP 2 3 9 8 10 9 20 21 SF-3-NP 10 SF-3-NP 8 5 A N TLE 7 R D R 6 8 3 4 1 7 2 6 11 S Y L V A N D 2 R 1 3 5 6 4 N R L E K R PA 7 8 22 23 24 7 6 5 4 6 7 5 3 SF-3-NP 3 26 F A W 2 1 N D 8 R 9 LO 2 SF-3 T A S D R O G ATA M 2 3 9 10 5 4 SF-3-NP 11 12 SF-3-NP 13 4 2 1 M A RIP 14 O S A D R 15 16 1 CS-CO-NP 1 MF-4-NP 1 1 2 CLE N E CIR AV H 6 9 5 8 10 11 15 14 7 E Z E E R B W L O H 12 SF-6-CO-NP WIN 13 D O A K D R A CS-MU-CO MF-3-NP 3 2 LR C14-2021-0008.SH J19 SF-3-NP 9 1 7 8 9 10 2 6 SF-3-NP 5 6 1 1 2 3 4 CEDAR RID GE DR 22 21 1 25 24 2 3 4 5 23 16-A 15-A 14 13 SF-3-NP 17 18 19 CROOKED LN 12 20 11 6 7 5 4 3 5 4 16 9 15 10 11 10 8 9 15 L C I R 14 13 L E Y H I L 12 V A L 6 7 12 2 1-A 3 2 SF-3 1 2 MF-2 13-A 14 8 7 6 MF-4-CO 1 16 17 18 2 11 12 MF-2 A N R L E K R A P 4-A GR A MF-3 1 B U RT O N D R 1-B MF-2 3-B CS-1 2 MF-3 A CS-1 1 GR 1-A 27 E OLTORF ST 2-A 15 10 1 GR 2 26 GR 3-A 2-B B U R L E S O N R D 29 8 7 6 9 5 SF-3-NP 15 11 12 17 16 14 TRACT B 13 MF-2-NP 2 B GR 5-C E OLTORF ST GR D L FIE Y N W E K E P R G A 6-A 5-A 1 2 1 SF-3-NP OCKBRID R 5 3 SF-3-NP 4 3 GE TER 1 2 4 23 SF-3-NP 24 27 MF-2 26 25 B R A X T NC O V 19 18 ± 1'' = 300' SUBJECT TRACT ZONING BOUNDARY ! ! ! ! ! ! PENDING CASE CREEK BUFFER Parker Apartments ZONING CASE#: LOCATION: SUBJECT AREA: GRID: MANAGER: C14-2021-0008.SH 2105 Parker Ln 7.82 ACRES J19 KATE CLARK This map has been produced by the Communications Technology Management Dept. on behalf of the Planning Development Review Dept. for the sole purpose of geographic reference. No warranty is made by the City of Austin regarding specific accuracy or completeness. 8 of 34B-21 1 LO-NP SF-3-NP 2 1 1 GO-NP 2 3 9 8 10 9 20 21 SF-3-NP 10 SF-3-NP 8 5 A N TLE 7 R D R 6 8 3 4 1 7 2 6 11 S Y L V A N D 2 R 1 3 5 6 4 N R L E K R PA 7 8 22 23 24 7 6 5 4 6 7 5 3 SF-3-NP 3 26 F A W 2 1 N D 8 R 9 LO 2 SF-3 T A S D R O G ATA M 2 3 9 10 5 4 SF-3-NP 11 12 SF-3-NP 13 4 2 1 M A RIP 14 O S A D R 15 16 1 CS-CO-NP 1 MF-4-NP 1 1 2 CLE N E CIR AV H 6 9 5 8 10 11 15 14 7 E Z E E R B W L O H 12 SF-6-CO-NP WIN 13 D O A K D R A CS-MU-CO MF-3-NP 3 2 LR C14-2021-0008.SH J19 SF-3-NP 9 1 7 8 9 10 2 6 SF-3-NP 5 6 1 1 2 3 4 CEDAR RID GE DR 22 21 1 25 24 2 3 4 5 23 16-A 15-A 14 13 SF-3-NP 17 18 19 CROOKED LN 12 20 11 6 7 5 4 3 5 4 16 9 15 10 11 10 8 9 15 L C I R 14 13 L E Y H I L 12 V A L 6 7 12 2 1-A 3 2 SF-3 1 2 MF-2 13-A 14 8 7 6 MF-4-CO 1 16 17 18 2 11 12 MF-2 A N R L E K R A P 4-A GR A MF-3 1 B U RT O N D R 1-B MF-2 3-B CS-1 2 MF-3 A CS-1 1 GR 1-A 27 E OLTORF ST 2-A 15 10 1 GR 2 26 GR 3-A 2-B B U R L E S O N R D 29 8 7 6 9 5 SF-3-NP 15 11 12 17 16 14 TRACT B 13 MF-2-NP 2 Copyright nearmap 2015 B GR 5-C E OLTORF ST GR D L FIE Y N W E K E P R G A 6-A 5-A 1 2 1 SF-3-NP OCKBRID R 5 3 SF-3-NP 4 3 GE TER 1 2 4 23 SF-3-NP 24 27 MF-2 26 25 B R A X T NC O V 19 18 ± 1'' = 300' SUBJECT TRACT ZONING BOUNDARY ! ! ! ! ! ! PENDING CASE CREEK BUFFER Parker Apartments ZONING CASE#: LOCATION: SUBJECT AREA: GRID: MANAGER: C14-2021-0008.SH 2105 Parker Ln 7.82 ACRES J19 KATE CLARK This map has been produced by the Communications Technology Management Dept. on behalf of the Planning Development Review Dept. for the sole purpose of geographic reference. No warranty is made by the City of Austin regarding specific accuracy or completeness. 9 of 34B-210 of 34B-211 of 34B-2Clark, Kate From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Hello Kate, Frederick DeWorken Thursday, January 28, 2021 11:37 AM Clark, Kate Richard Whymark; Mark Gibson; Frank Briganti; Rod Rice; Angela McKenzie; ; Andy; j ; Al Amado Regarding Case Number: C14-2021-0008.SH ; Nick Malkewicz; ; Eddie M; *** External Email - Exercise Caution *** My name is Fred DeWorken and I live in 2004 Parker Ln. We've been here 3 years and love our neighborhood. I've actually been to a couple of SRCC meetings and may still be a dues-paying member. This week we received a notice for rezoning of the methodist church across the road from us and am extremely concerned about it. At this moment, I am inclined to vigorously oppose this development for the following reasons:   1. This side of I-35 is extremely dense with apartment complexes already and needs more services (neighborhood parks, libraries, schools) rather than more density to attend to the existing population. 2. This particular lot is part of a corridor that is solidly single-family and this would put 36 - 54 units per acre on this lot (250 - 378). To achieve that density there would likely need to be a 3 - 4 story structure. 3. If rumors are true, this is contemplated to be low‐ income housing which I am not in any way opposed to, yet if you look at the map of the racial and demographic make‐ up of Austin as a whole, there is a lower instance of low‐income housing on the west side of I‐35. The developers and the City of Austin should find 7 acres on the West side of Austin to begin to better address the geographic distribution of affordability. Do you have any information about this development? I am also copying several other neighbors who will likely also benefit from any additional information you might have. I do not; however, speak for them with the considerations above.   Respectfully, Fred DeWorken  CAUTION: This email was received at the City of Austin, from an EXTERNAL source. Please use caution when clicking links  or opening attachments. If you believe this to be a malicious and/or phishing email, please forward this email to  cybersecurity@austintexas.gov.   1 12 of 34B-2Nick Malkiewicz Monday, February 1, 2021 7:19 PM Clark, Kate Frederick DeWorken; Meredith, Maureen; Richard Whymark; Mark Gibson; Frank Briganti; Rod Rice; ; Angela McKenzie; ; Eddie M; ; Andy; ; Al Amado Subject: Re: Regarding Case Number: C14-2021-0008.SH *** External Email - Exercise Caution *** 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!   Clark, Kate From: Sent: To: Cc: Hi Kate,  ...  Nick Malkiewicz  CAUTION: This email was received at the City of Austin, from an EXTERNAL source. Please use caution when clicking  links or opening attachments. If you believe this to be a malicious and/or phishing email, please forward this email to  cybersecurity@austintexas.gov.   1 13 of 34B-2Clark, Kate From: Sent: To: Subject: Kate,   Mark Gibson Monday, February 8, 2021 9:54 AM Clark, Kate C14-2021-0008.SH *** External Email - Exercise Caution *** 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‐Family The preservation of single‐family neighborhoods is an important priority in this neighborhood plan.   The  combined FLUM demonstrates the neighborhoods’ desires that established single‐family neighborhoods within the  three 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.  Regards,   Mark Gibson  (512) 981‐8262 CAUTION: This email was received at the City of Austin, from an EXTERNAL source. Please use caution when clicking links or opening attachments. If you believe this to be a malicious and/or phishing email, please forward this email to cybersecurity@austintexas.gov. 1 14 of 34B-2Clark, Kate From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Meredith, Maureen Monday, February 8, 2021 11:09 AM Frederick DeWorken Clark, Kate RE: Case: NPA-2021-0021.01.SH - Parker.Methodist.Zoning.Change.Proposal Feb 17Virt Mtg NoticeNPA-2021-0021.01.SH.pdf; NPA-2021-0021.01.SH_FLUM_BW.pdf; C14-2021-0008.SH.pdf Frederick:  Thank you for your comments. We will add them to staff case reports when the cases are scheduled for Planning  Commission and City Council.  I’ve attached the virtual meeting notice for our February 17, 2021 meeting when you get the meet the applicant to ask  questions about the project.  Please let me know if you have any questions.  Maureen  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.  1 15 of 34B-2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 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 CAUTION: This email was received at the City of Austin, from an EXTERNAL source. Please use caution when clicking links or opening attachments. If you believe this to be a malicious and/or phishing email, please forward this email to cybersecurity@austintexas.gov. 2 16 of 34B-2Clark, Kate From: Sent: To: Subject: Hi Kate,   Erin Mitchell Saturday, February 13, 2021 4:29 PM Clark, Kate Opposition to Case number C14-2021-0008.SH *** External Email - Exercise Caution *** I hope that you're doing well. I am contacting you today about Case number C14‐2021‐0008.SH. This concerns the  rezoning of 2105 Parker Ln from a family residence district to a multifamily residence district.   I am strongly opposed to the rezoning of this property. The Riverside community is already deensely populated and has  very little support for the area. We already have a large homelessness issue and I fail to see how rezoning the space and  creating more high prices housing would help address the suffering that is already taking place less than a mile away.   I urge you to deny this application and allow this land to remain a family residence district until the density problems in  our community are addressed.   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      CAUTION: This email was received at the City of Austin, from an EXTERNAL source. Please use caution when clicking links  or opening attachments. If you believe this to be a malicious and/or phishing email, please forward this email to  cybersecurity@austintexas.gov.   1 17 of 34B-2Clark, Kate From: Sent: To: Subject: 1909 Cedar Thursday, March 4, 2021 12:18 AM Clark, Kate; Meredith, Maureen 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.  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  CAUTION: This email was received at the City of Austin, from an EXTERNAL source. Please use caution when clicking links  or opening attachments. If you believe this to be a malicious and/or phishing email, please forward this email to  cybersecurity@austintexas.gov.  1 18 of 34B-2Clark, Kate From: Sent: To: Subject: Kelly Puckett Friday, March 12, 2021 2:43 PM Meredith, Maureen; Clark, Kate 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, 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  CAUTION: This email was received at the City of Austin, from an EXTERNAL source. Please use caution when clicking links  or opening attachments. If you believe this to be a malicious and/or phishing email, please forward this email to  cybersecurity@austintexas.gov.  1 19 of 34B-2Clark, Kate From: Sent: To: Subject: Hi Kate!  Best Regards,  Jessica Martinez Friday, March 12, 2021 7:57 PM Clark, Kate Ward Memorial Methodist Church Rezoning *** External Email ‐ Exercise Caution ***  My name is Jessica Martinez and I am reaching out regarding the rezoning of the Ward Methodist Church (Case Number:  C14‐2021‐0008.SH). I’ve recently learned that Civiltude is applying to change the land use from Family Residence to  Multifamily Residence and am contacting you to relay my concerns.  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.  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 its current uses to maintain the buffer  between the highly dense developments on Oltorf from the Parker/Woodland neighborhood.  Jessica Martinez, PE, LEED Green Associate  CAUTION: This email was received at the City of Austin, from an EXTERNAL source. Please use caution when clicking links  or opening attachments. If you believe this to be a malicious and/or phishing email, please forward this email to  cybersecurity@austintexas.gov.  1 20 of 34B-2Clark, Kate From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Ed Miller Friday, March 19, 2021 2:05 PM Meredith, Maureen; Clark, Kate Malcolm Yeatts; Steve Larson Community Center needed on Parker Lane Letter to Planning Commission about PLMC.docx *** External Email - Exercise Caution *** Dear Mss Meredith and Clark, I am writing to furnish information to the Planning Commission prior to the meeting on March 23rd at which the proposal will be heard to rezone the property on which historic Parker Lane Methodist Church now sits to allow for the proposed construction of multi-story apartments to replace it. We are a 501 (c)(3) non-profit, working with the EROC Neighborhood Association and a large number of residents in the area to maintain the current zoning so that community services can be provided, rather than allowing rezoning so that the current civic use of the former church buildings may be terminated and all the structures demolished to allow construction of additional low-rent apartments. Thank you for your assistance in disseminating this information to the members of the Austin Planning Commission prior to the meeting. ~Ed Miller CAUTION: This email was received at the City of Austin, from an EXTERNAL source. Please use caution when clicking links  or opening attachments. If you believe this to be a malicious and/or phishing email, please forward this email to  cybersecurity@austintexas.gov.   1 21 of 34B-2 I am writing as Executive Director of Our House, a 501 (c)(3) that has been working with the EROC and SRCC community organizations and units of APD in the socioeconomically disadvantaged East Riverside/ East Oltorf neighborhood since 2015. We operated from offices at Prince of Peace Lutheran Church on East Oltorf until it was torn down a few years ago, then moved to and began providing services at Parker Lane Methodist Church (PLMC) until it also closed last summer. At PLMC, we joined other non-profits in providing aid to many of the thousands of needy people in this badly underserved community. In the absence of an official community center for this hard-pressed neighborhood, the church buildings served as a highly effective replacement. Also working with us were immigration attorneys Justice for Our Neighbors, several other non-profits on a part-time basis, and a Wesleyan nurse with regular hours. Our House offered mental health counseling, sponsored the first in an intended series of free meals for the whole community, and was setting up a youth sports league in cooperation with APD just before the church suddenly closed. After the church shut down, we moved these and all our other services for area youth over to Travis High School until Covid forced it also to close. At PLMC, there were also AA meetings, and associated Narcotics Anonymous and Alanon sessions on a regular basis. More frequently, Our House routinely hosted public gatherings in our conference room and offices for a truly diverse group of concerned community organizations. We were deeply committed to the Riverside Togetherness Project, as well as community based crime reduction, and worked extensively with APD to improve the neighborhood and increase public safety by establishing Community Policing. It was a remarkably busy place, and Our House was utilizing the space provided us to offer the many services of a community center. There was really nowhere else for the public and neighborhood groups to meet other than in a room at the Ruiz Branch of Austin Public Library miles away on Grove Blvd, or the big auditorium further up Grove on the ACC Riverside campus when it was occasionally available. The neighborhood now seriously suffers for lack of a real community center where the marginalized and badly underserved residents can come together to seek assistance and the services they badly need from non-profits like Our House and the other affiliated organizations named above, and connect with important neighborhood associations like EROC, SRCC, and FOR. If the historic PLMC buildings where these services were once offered are to be bulldozed and replaced with new multi-story apartments, the neighborhood will fall further into irrelevance and inequality, still beset by rampant crime, poverty, and unemployment. We had the highest hopes after the church was shut down that it might be reopened as a desperately needed community center. Instead, it is now reported that it may be leased out to a group more concerned with accruing rental income and generating valuable tax credits for themselves by building and operating yet another low rent apartment project. There are already numerous inexpensive empty apartments available adjacent to this Parker Lane location. 90% of residents in the area live in rental property, and, with an average six month contract, many of them turnover and become available each year. The Foundation Community proposal will only add to the apartment glut, and rather than helping stabilize and offering hope to this impoverished area with our city's highest rates of crime, might actually increase the severity of the current problems by denying the full spectrum of urgently needed services that would be made available to the whole neighborhood by a genuine community center. 22 of 34B-2 Questions from stakeholders regarding Parker Lane Foundation Communities development and Foundation Communities response: The following questions were submitted to Foundation Communities or city staff via email or via the chat at the online public meeting for the Neighborhood Plan Amendment. 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? Answer : The team is still working on the site design of the property, so a final quantity of impervious cover is not available at this time. However, the site will meet all zoning and watershed limits. This development will of course abide by all city water quality and environmental impact regulations - including stormwater runoff capture and infiltration - unlike single-family developments, which are exempt from many of those regulations. To meet those water quality requirements, the project will likely require a stormwater retention pond, most likely on the lowest portion of the site, which is the northeast corner. 2) Which one of the large trees on property will be protected, which ones will be removed? Answer : This project will follow all City of Austin regulations on Heritage Trees and Protected Trees, which are among the strongest in the nation. In limited circumstances, the city does allow the removal of protected trees, but requires them to be replaced with new plantings. However, that process occurs at the time of site plan review, and is not a zoning regulation or related to any particular zone and compliance with city tree regulations is not impacted by this rezoning / neighborhood plan amendment. 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? Answer: It is too early to say how the tax assessor will handle this unique situation, but our expectation is that the new development will be 50% exempt as a low income housing development by a qualified nonprofit; the annual amount of any taxes will be subject to determination by the tax assessor. 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? Answer : Traffic Impact Analysis is typically performed at the site plan stage, when the exact number of units and expected traffic impact are submitted, for evaluation for any potential required capacity improvement by the Austin Transportation Department. We will comply with all required traffic improvements specified by ATD. 5) many statistically occupy these units? What will be the size of each unit? How many occupants are allowed max per unit? How Answer: There will be one-, two-, and three-bedroom units ranging from approximately 725 sf to 1,250 sf. The state affordable housing subsidy program has limits that keep occupancy below what would be allowed by the City of Austin if this were a market-rate single-family or multi-family project. Foundation Communities further allows an even lower occupancy limit at all its properties - one person per unit plus two people per bedroom. This means this FC development will have occupancy limits far below what is allowed for market-rate projects. 23 of 34B-2 6) that buffer? Currently, trees line the fence between me and the proposed project. Would you leave Answer : The City of Austin has some of the country’s most robust protections for Heritage Trees and Protected Trees, and Foundation Communities will abide by all those regulations, which apply regardless of what zoning the site receives. Further, as a long-term, non-profit, residential development owner and operator, our team’s goal is to keep and nurture as many existing healthy trees as possible. 7) from the dividing fence line? Where would the complex be located on the property? The parking lot? How many feet Answer: The development is currently in site planning stage, and those plans will be publicly posted and able to receive comments at the site plan approval stage. However, at this point we believe the building would be set back from the north property line to allow placement of a walking trail and abundant site parking. 8) my courtyard, violating my current privacy? Will the project be multi-level? What is its height? Would there be windows facing into Answer: The building is currently anticipated to be four stories and approximately 45 feet tall. 9) you derive this number? How will this 2-lane relatively quiet street accommodate this substantial increase? I believe there was a projection of 750+ additional cars daily on Parker Lane. How do Answer : Traffic Impact Analysis is typically performed at the site plan stage, when the exact number of units and expected traffic impact are submitted, for evaluation for any potential required capacity improvement by the Austin Transportation Department. We will comply with all required traffic improvements specified by ATD. Regarding park space in the project. Will you set aside an acre or more on the hill slope 10) 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. Answer: We are seeking to build an inviting residential development and currently conceive of a buffer area between the building and Parker Lane and we would be happy to consider planting a wildflower mix here. 11) 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? Answer : Traffic Impact Analysis is typically performed at the site plan stage, when the exact number of units and expected traffic impact are submitted, for evaluation for any potential required capacity improvement by the Austin Transportation Department. We will comply with all required traffic improvements specified by ATD. That said, we are long-term partners on this site, and we are also concerned about the quality of life for our residents, particularly pedestrian safety. We would also welcome an opportunity to partner with the neighborhood in exploring potential traffic calming and/or pedestrian improvements along Parker Lane, such as improve pedestrian crossings to the park across the street. 24 of 34B-2 15) 17) Drainage/flooding: the property of almost 8 acres has minimal impervious ground 12) 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? Answer: City zoning regulations limit the amount of impervious cover on a site. City watershed protection regulations also require any new multi-family development to have no net negative impact on water quality, runoff, or flooding, unlike single-family development, which is exempted from many of these regulations. City regulations require any new multi-family development to provide civil engineering for the site that provides new infrastructure to handle any increase in runoff, and we are engaged in that analysis right now. That analysis is submitted to the city for approval and public comment during the site plan approval process. 13) Would the community have access to some of the green space/park space on the 8 acres? (playscapes, etc) Answer: This is something we are willing to explore with the neighborhood. We would also like to partner with neighborhood efforts focused on securing further improvements for Heritage Oaks Park. 14) Would the tax credits, etc be available if you acquired one of the existing multi-family units? Answer: No. Again, what compromises are you guys willing to make? Answer: This project is bringing below-market-rate housing on a non-profit basis to the site. Foundation Communities seeks to develop all of its sites as welcoming, peaceful sites with on-site learning centers and other community assets. As discussed above, Foundation Communities is very open to discussions regarding wildflowers, public access to recreational spaces, and any other specific neighborhood concerns. 16) neighborhood and transparency? Is that an agreement that you would be willing to share with us in the benefit of Answer: We are not certain what agreement this is in reference to. So you signed a lease for a place that you do not have zoning approval for yet? Answer: We did reach an agreement with the church/landowner, as is fairly typical for this kind of project. 18) How many parking spaces for the 144 units plus guests using the facilities? I believe someone made the comment earlier that it exceeded impervious cover limits. Is this true and this that why you can't have sidewalks? Will you need another variance? Answer: There seem to be a few misunderstandings here. We do not anticipate our design exceeding any impervious cover requirements and do not anticipate seeking any variances from impervious cover limits. There are currently sidewalks along Parker in front of the site. We also are currently planning parking levels commensurate with City of Austin requirements for developments of this size. 19) At 2001 Parker, there is an issue with parking, and sometimes vehicles have to be parked on Mariposa for overflow, but end up getting vandalized by the residents who are fed up with strange cars parking in front of their houses. How are you going to handle overflow parking for an already major problem in our community? 25 of 34B-2 Answer: We also are currently planning parking levels commensurate with City of Austin requirements for developments of this size. 20) Has a decision been made to preserve the gymnasium and commercial kitchen? Answer : Our plan is to replace the existing buildings with new building(s) including a new learning center that will offer a wide variety of amenities to residents and the neighborhood in a brand new facility. 21) Question to the facilitators: Why are we discussing this before the financing is in place and with so many questions pending, especially when once the land is rezoned to multipurpose, it doesn’t go back to civic. I can’t come to the city and speculatively ask to get rezoning on a home I haven’t even financed and don’t own, can I? Answer: It is very typical for development to secure the needed rezoning for a property before all the financing is secure - there are several sites in Austin including current city sites that are going through the same process. Any landowner or their agent can seek the rezoning of a property. Land use planning is not tied to financing procedures. 21) What design features will be incorporated to provide a stepback and buffer space from existing homes? Answer: This development will abide by all applicable city rules on setbacks and compatibility. Current development concepts plan for the building to be set back from the north property line to allow for parking and a walking trail. 22) A breakdown of income vs. rental would be helpful. Answer: This development will be all rental housing, 100% of which will be income-restricted affordable housing. The exact income breakdowns are still being developed but are regulated by the state financing program. 23) Question: If the change of zoning is made and they cannot get financing, can’t an apartment builder come in and put a behemoth apartment complex in? It seems we are moving to change zoning way before it is time to even look at that. Answer: Foundation Communities now has control of this site and has had great success in securing financing in part because of our great record in completing proposed projects. State law makes it difficult - and even illegal - to condition rezonings upon affordability requirements, but we are willing to discuss any legal options to demonstrate the strength of our commitment to providing affordable housing on this site, including participation in the city’s Affordability Unlocked program. Additionally, Foundation Communities is a non-profit organization committed to providing affordable housing to meet the holistic needs of lower-income Austin families. It would be inconsistent with our mission and tax status to utilize this site for market-rate housing. 26 of 34B-2Clark, Kate From: Sent: To: Subject: John Eagan Monday, March 22, 2021 2:54 PM Clark, Kate Case C14-2021-0008.SH *** External Email - Exercise Caution *** Hi Ms. Clark,   My name is John Eagan and my family and I live at Tollgate Apartments, adjacent to this site that is proposed to be  rezoned. I live in unit 112, but my family actually occupies 3 separate units in the complex and we've lived here a long  time.  I believe that there should be more housing available in our neighborhood and I know we're in a housing crisis. But I'd  like to formally object to this rezoning for one reason. We currently have a trail through the Methodist Church property  that ties directly to our property and the adjacent Array Apartments with gates for our use that is the quickest way for  us to walk to Heritage Oaks Neighborhood Parks. This low income area of town has so little access to outdoor space and  our rates of childhood obesity are at national highs. It would be a huge loss for us in these low income apartments to  lose this direct park access.   If a public easement could be required in the plan to allow my family and I to continue accessing the park without  watching another quarter mile, we would be completely in support of the rezoning, but if not, we are opposed.  Thanks,  John Eagan  2124 Burton  CAUTION: This email was received at the City of Austin, from an EXTERNAL source. Please use caution when clicking links  or opening attachments. If you believe this to be a malicious and/or phishing email, please forward this email to  cybersecurity@austintexas.gov.   1 27 of 34B-2MARIPOSA DR CROOKED LN F A W N D R N R L E K R PA LW O E H Z E E R B WIN D O A K D R N R L E K R A P N R L E K R A P N R L E K R PA E O L T O R F S T B U RT O N D R ± BUFFER PROPERTY_OWNER SUBJECT_TRACT PETITION Case#: C14-2021-0008.SH This product is for informational purposes and may not have been prepared for or be suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. It does not represent an on-the-ground survey and represents only the approximate relative location of property boundaries. 1 " = 200 ' This product has been produced by the Housing and Planning Department for the sole purpose of geographic reference. No warranty is made by the City of Austin regarding specific accuracy or completeness. 28 of 34B-2Case Number: C14-2021-0008.SH PETITION Total Square Footage of Buffer: Percentage of Square Footage Owned by Petitioners Within Buffer: Date: 3/22/2021 598412.8425 33.01% Calculation: The total square footage is calculated by taking the sum of the area of all TCAD Parcels with valid signatures including one-half of the adjacent right-of-way that fall within 200 feet of the subject tract. Parcels that do not fall within the 200 foot buffer are not used for calculation. When a parcel intersects the edge of the buffer, only the portion of the parcel that falls within the buffer is used. The area of the buffer does not include the subject tract. TCAD ID Address Owner Signature Petition Area Precent 0305031122 1706 E OLTORF ST 78741 0305031012 1706 WINDOAK DR AUSTIN 78741 0307050309 2000 BURTON DR 78741 0305031011 1708 WINDOAK DR 78741 0307050302 2111 PARKER LN 78741 0305031126 WINDOAK DR 78741 0305031009 2004 PARKER LN 78741 0305060365 1901 MARIPOSA DR 78704 0305031014 2001 BREEZE HOLW 78741 0305031107 1730 E OLTORF ST 78741 0305031010 2006 PARKER LN AUSTIN 78741 0305030701 1714 MARIPOSA DR AUSTIN 78741 0305031008 1715 MARIPOSA DR AUSTIN 0305031007 1713 MARIPOSA DR 0305060374 2001 101 PARKER LN 78741 0307051001 2124 BURTON DR 102 TX 78741 Total 1730 HILLSIDE LLC ANDRE RACHEL GRAMMAS & RICHARD WHYMARK ARRAY APARTMENTS LLC BRUGGEMAN LINDSEY & JOHN GRAHAM CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LDS CITY OF AUSTIN DEWORKEN FREDERICK & MARIA DUARTE FLATS ON MARIPOSA LLC GIBSON MARK C & MARGARET M HARPERS CREEK APARTMENTS LADD FRANK O & KWI M PERCE MARIANTHE O RICE CHARLES R & ERIC R STOUT SCHRAEGLE WILLIAM ANDREW IV & DIPTI LA CHENAY CONDOMINIUMS TOLLGATE CONDOMINIUMS no yes no no no no yes no yes no yes no yes yes yes no 12035.68 2933.12 113232.77 18329.06 136869.24 38289.40 15863.29 7021.05 3530.42 8081.76 14739.00 4161.41 19755.03 5238.00 135462.44 47174.56 0.00% 0.49% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2.65% 0.00% 0.59% 0.00% 2.46% 0.00% 3.30% 0.88% 22.64% 0.00% 582716.24 33.01% 29 of 34B-230 of 34B-231 of 34B-232 of 34B-233 of 34B-234 of 34B-2