B-02 (NPA-2019-0022.01 - 200 Academy, District 9).pdf — original pdf

Backup

Planning Commission: October 12, 2021 146 ½, 200, 200 ½, 204 ½ Academy Drive & 1006, 1020 Melissa Lane NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN AMENDMENT REVIEW SHEET NEIGHORHOOD PLAN: Greater South River City Combined (South River City) CASE#: NPA-2019-0022.01 PROJECT NAME: 200 Academy PC DATE: October 12, 2021 DATE FILED: February 27, 2019 (In-cycle) September 14, 2021 August 10, 2021 June 23, 2020 January 14, 2020 August 13, 2019 ADDRESS/ES: DISTRICT AREA: 9 SITE AREA: 4.6076 acres OWNER/APPLICANT: Spearhead Academy, LTD (Chris Wallin) AGENT: Weiss Architecture, Inc. (Richard Weiss) CASE MANAGER: Maureen Meredith, Housing and Planning Dept. (512) 974-2695 PHONE: STAFF EMAIL: Maureen.Meredith@austintexas.gov TYPE OF AMENDMENT: Change in Future Land Use Designation From: Mixed Use/Office Base District Zoning Change To: Mixed Use Related Zoning Case: C14-2020-0147 From: CS-1-NCCD-NP, CS-NCCD-NP, and MF-4-NCCD-NP To: CS-1-MU-NP, CS-MU-NP and MF-4-NP NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN ADOPTION DATE: September 29, 2005 PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: 1 1 of 78B-2Planning Commission: October 12, 2021 October 12, 2021 – [pending]. September 14, 2021 – After discussion, a motion was approved to postpone the case to October 12, 2021 to allow the applicant additional time to work with the neighborhood. [G. Cox- 1st; R. Schneider – 2nd] Vote: 7-2 [C. Hempel and J. Thompson voted nay. C. Llanes Pulido and J. P. Conolly abstained. J. Shieh and S. R. Praxis absent]. August 10, 2021 – Postponed to September 14, 2021 at the request of the neighborhood, with applicant in agreement, on the consent agenda. [J. Thompson – 1st; P. Howard – 2nd] Vote: 7-0 [J. P. Connolly, G. Cox, C. Hempel, J. Mushtaler, R. Schneider and J. Shieh absent]. June 23, 2020 – Approved for applicant’s request for an indefinite postponement on the consent agenda. [J. Thompson – 1st; R. Schneider – 2nd] Vote: 12-0 [P. Seeger absent]. January 14, 2020 – Approved for applicant’s request for an indefinite postponement on the consent agenda. [J. Thompson- 1st; C. Kenny – 2nd] Vote: 9-0 [A. Azhar, C. Hempel and P. Seeger absent. C. Llanes Pulido off the dais]. August 13, 2019 – Approved for staff’s request for an indefinite postponement on the consent agenda. [C. Kenny – 1st; G. Anderson – 2nd] Vote: 9-0 [A. Azhar, P. Howard, R. Schneider and P. Seeger absent]. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff supports the applicant’s request for Mixed Use land on Tract 1 where the existing zoning is CS-1-NCCD-NP and the proposed zoning is CS-1-MU-NP. Staff recommends Mixed Use/Office remain on the portion of Tract 3 with the existing zoning of MF-4-NCCD-NP and the proposed zoning is MF-4-NP. This will provide a buffer between the single-family residential zoning and land uses on the east side of Melissa Lane and the commercial uses proposed on the western part of the property. 2 2 of 78B-2Planning Commission: October 12, 2021 Staff supports applicant’s request for Mixed Use land use on Tract 1 Staff recommends this part of Tract 3 remain Mixed Use/Office BASIS FOR STAFF’S RECOMMENDATION: Staff supports the applicant’s request for Mixed Use land on Tract 1 because of the property’s proximity to South Congress Avenue, which is an Activity Corridor. Staff does not support the applicant’s request for Mixed Use land on the portion of Tract 3 with Mixed Use/Office land use to provide a buffer between the Mixed Use land use and the Single Family land use across Melissa Lane. Below are sections of the Greater South River City Combined Neighborhood Plan that staff believes supports the applicant’s request. 3 3 of 78B-2Planning Commission: October 12, 2021 4 4 of 78B-2Planning Commission: October 12, 2021 5 5 of 78B-2Planning Commission: October 12, 2021 LAND USE DESCRIPTIONS EXISTING LAND USE ON THE PROPERTY Mixed Use/Office - An area that is appropriate for a mix of residential and office uses. Purpose 1. Accommodate mixed use development in areas that are not appropriate for general commercial development; and 2. Provide a transition from residential use to non Application ‐ residential or mixed use. 1. Appropriate for areas such as minor corridors or local streets adjacent to commercial areas; 2. May be used to encourage commercial uses to transition to residential use; and 3. Provide limited opportunities for live/work residential in urban areas. PROPOSED LAND USE ON THE PROPERTY Mixed Use - An area that is appropriate for a mix of residential and non‐residential uses. Purpose 1. Encourage more retail and commercial services within walking distance of residents; 2. Allow live‐work/flex space on existing commercially zoned land in the neighborhood; 6 6 of 78B-2Planning Commission: October 12, 2021 3. Allow a mixture of complementary land use types, which may include housing, retail, offices, commercial services, and civic uses (with the exception of government offices) to encourage linking of trips; 4. Create viable development opportunities for underused center city sites; 5. Encourage the transition from non‐residential to residential uses; 6. Provide flexibility in land use standards to anticipate changes in the marketplace; 7. Create additional opportunities for the development of residential uses and affordable housing; and 8. Provide on‐street activity in commercial areas after 5 p.m. and built‐in customers for local businesses. Application 1. Allow mixed use development along major corridors and intersections; 2. Establish compatible mixed‐use corridors along the neighborhood’s edge 3. The neighborhood plan may further specify either the desired intensity of commercial uses (i.e. LR, GR, CS) or specific types of mixed use (i.e. Neighborhood Mixed Use Building, Neighborhood Urban Center, Mixed Use Combining District); 4. Mixed Use is generally not compatible with industrial development, however it may be combined with these uses to encourage an area to transition to a more complementary mix of development types; 5. The Mixed Use (MU) Combining District should be applied to existing residential uses to avoid creating or maintaining a non‐conforming use; and 6. Apply to areas where vertical mixed use development is encouraged such as Core Transit Corridors (CTC) and Future Core Transit Corridors. IMAGINE AUSTIN PLANNING PRINCIPLES 1. Create complete neighborhoods across Austin that provide a mix of housing types to suit a variety of household needs and incomes, offer a variety of transportation options, and have easy access to daily needs such as schools, retail, employment, community services, and parks and other recreation options. • A portion of the property is zoned MF-4 which would allow for residential uses that could provide a mix of housing types. The property is near public 7 7 of 78B-2 transportation that runs along South Congress Avenue that is a busy commercial corridor with a range of commercial uses. Planning Commission: October 12, 2021 2. Support the development of compact and connected activity centers and corridors that are well-served by public transit and designed to promote walking and bicycling as a way of reducing household expenditures for housing and transportation. • The property is located less than 400 feet from South Congress Avenue which is identified as an Activity Corridor that is well-served by public transit. It is a walkable and bikeable area where people who live there can access nearby businesses without the need for an automobile. 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 less than 400 feet from South Congress Avenue, which is a vibrant commercial corridor and identified as an Activity Corridor in the Imagine Austin Comprehensive Plan Growth Concept Map. 4. Expand the number and variety of housing choices throughout Austin to meet the financial and lifestyle needs of our diverse population. • The proposed zoning would allow for residential uses which could expand the number and variety of housing choices in Austin and the planning area. 5. Ensure harmonious transitions between adjacent land uses and development intensities. • Given the property’s proximity to South Congress Avenue, Mixed Use land use on Tract 1 is appropriate. Retaining the Mixed Use/Office land use on the southern portion of Tract 3 to provide a buffer between the commercial portion of the property and the single family uses along east side of Melissa Lane is also appropriate. 6. Protect Austin’s natural resources and environmental systems by limiting land use and transportation development over environmentally sensitive areas and preserve open space and protect the function of the resource. • The property is located in the Desired Development Zone and not the Drinking Water Protection Zone. 7. Integrate and expand green infrastructure—preserves and parks, community gardens, trails, stream corridors, green streets, greenways, and the trails system—into the urban environment and transportation network. • The property is north of the Circle Green Belt and within walking distance to the Norwood Tract at Town Lake Metro Park. 8. Protect, preserve and promote historically and culturally significant areas. • The property does not have a historic marker for the concert venue that had previously operated on the property but has been a location where well-known musicians have played. 8 8 of 78B-2Planning Commission: October 12, 2021 9. Encourage active and healthy lifestyles by promoting walking and biking, healthy food choices, access to affordable healthcare, and to recreational opportunities. • The property is within a walkable and bikeable environment close to many businesses. 10. Expand the economic base, create job opportunities, and promote education to support a strong and adaptable workforce. • The applicant’s proposal to open a music venue could expand the economic base and create job opportunities for the area and the city. 11. Sustain and grow Austin’s live music, festivals, theater, film, digital media, and new creative art forms. • The applicant proposes a zoning and plan amendment change to rebuild a music venue that had previously been operating on the property. See the applicant’s presentation in this report for the historic and cultural context. The applicant’s request supports this Imagine Austin Comprehensive Plan goal. 12. Provide public facilities and services that reduce greenhouse gas emissions, decrease water and energy usage, increase waste diversion, ensure the health and safety of the public, and support compact, connected, and complete communities. • Not applicable. 9 9 of 78B-2Planning Commission: October 12, 2021 Proximity to Imagine Austin Comprehensive Plan Activity Corridors and Centers 10 10 of 78B-2 Proximity to Park Facilities Planning Commission: October 12, 2021 11 11 of 78B-2Planning Commission: October 12, 2021 Proximity to Public Transit 12 12 of 78B-2Planning Commission: October 12, 2021 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. 13 13 of 78B-2Planning Commission: October 12, 2021 Town Centers - Although less intense than regional centers, town centers are also where many people will live and work. Town centers will have large and small employers, although fewer than in regional centers. These employers will have regional customer and employee bases, and provide goods and services for the center as well as the surrounding areas. The buildings found in a town center will range in size from one-to three-story houses, duplexes, townhouses, and rowhouses, to low-to midrise apartments, mixed use buildings, and office buildings. These centers will also be important hubs in the transit system. Job Centers - Job centers accommodate those businesses not well-suited for residential or environmentally- sensitive areas. These centers take advantage of existing transportation infrastructure such as arterial roadways, freeways, or the Austin-Bergstrom International airport. Job centers will mostly contain office parks, manufacturing, warehouses, logistics, and other businesses with similar demands and operating characteristics. They should nevertheless become more pedestrian and bicycle friendly, in part by better accommodating services for the people who work in those centers. While many of these centers are currently best served by car, the growth Concept map offers transportation choices such as light rail and bus rapid transit to increase commuter options. Corridors - Activity corridors have a dual nature. They are the connections that link activity centers and other key destinations to one another and allow people to travel throughout the city and region by bicycle, transit, or automobile. Corridors are also characterized by a variety of activities and types of buildings located along the roadway — shopping, restaurants and cafés, parks, schools, single-family houses, apartments, public buildings, houses of worship, mixed-use buildings, and offices. Along many corridors, there will be both large and small redevelopment sites. These redevelopment opportunities may be continuous along stretches of the corridor. There may also be a series of small neighborhood centers, connected by the roadway. Other corridors may have fewer redevelopment opportunities, but already have a mixture of uses, and could provide critical transportation connections. As a corridor evolves, sites that do not redevelop may transition from one use to another, such as a service station becoming a restaurant or a large retail space being divided into several storefronts. To improve mobility along an activity corridor, new and redevelopment should reduce per capita car use and increase walking, bicycling, and transit use. Intensity of land use should correspond to the availability of quality transit, public space, and walkable destinations. Site design should use building arrangement and open space to reduce walking distance to transit and destinations, achieve safety and comfort, and draw people outdoors. BACKGROUND: The plan amendment application was filed on February 27, 2019, which is in-cycle for neighborhood planning areas located on the west side of I.H.-35. The applicant requests a change in the future land use map from Mixed Use/Office to Mixed Use land use. The zoning change application was filed on November 23, 2020. The rezoning request is to be removed from the Fairview Park NCCD Ordinance. The existing zoning is CS-1-NCCD- 14 14 of 78B-2Planning Commission: October 12, 2021 NP, CS-NCCD-NP and MF-4-NCCT. The proposed zoning is CS-1-MU-NP, CS-MU-NP and MF-4-NP. Please see case report C14-2020-0147 for more information on the zoning request. PUBLIC MEETINGS: The ordinance-required community meeting was virtually held on January 13, 2021. The recorded meeting can be found at https://www.speakupaustin.org/npa. Approximately 875 community meeting notices were mailed to people with a utility account (renters) or who own property within 500 feet of the subject tract, in addition to neighborhood and environmental groups who requested notification for the area on the City’s Community Registry. Two staff members attended the meeting, including Richard Weiss, the applicant’s agent and Chris Wallin, the owner/applicant. Twenty people from the neighborhood attended the meeting. After staff gave a brief presentation, the applicant’s agent, Richard Weiss, made a presentation, which can be found at the back of this report. Below is a summary of his remarks: • The request is to remove the property from the NCCD. • The existing zoning is CS-1-NCCD-NP, CS-NCCD-NP and MF-4-NCCD-NP. • The proposed zoning is CS-1-MU-NP, CS-MU-NP and MF-4-NP. • There is residential zoning of MF-4-NCCD-NP along the residential side of the property and commercial zoning along the western edge. • In 1965 most of the property was a parking lot to serve the Terrace Motor Court. • Richard Weiss gave a detailed history of the property. See slide presentation at the back of this report. • The NCCD was put in place in 1986. • The FAR went from 2:1 to 0.35, which is possibly the lowest assigned FAR for commercial property in the city. • The building height went from 60 feet to 35 feet. • Building coverage went from 95% to 65%. • The uses are limited to light office and restricted residential use. Light office excludes Medical Offices. • The unit cap on the commercial portion of the site is 15 units per acre whereas the CS-MU would have 34 to 54 units per acre. • The NCCD also restricts live music which is the historical use of the site and has been the most relevant to Austin’s history and culture. It also prohibits retail, museum, restaurant, office, gallery uses are prohibited. • On the MF-4 part, it caps the number of units going from 34 to 54 units per acre on a typical MF-4 site to 22 units per acre, which is less than half. • The impervious cover goes from 70% to 55%. • A TIA was done and is being reviewed by staff. After Mr. Weiss’ presentation, the following questions were asked: Q: When was the TIA submitted to the City and why didn’t the NPCT get a copy? 15 15 of 78B-2Planning Commission: October 12, 2021 A: I submitted the TIA in October 2020 and the final in November 2020. These are rough dates. Staff’s response: People can ask for a copy of the TIA from the zoning case manager. TIA’s are related to the zoning application, so the plan amendment case manager would not have a TIA to send. Q: We have had significant problems with parking in the neighborhood during the construction and development from South Congress Avenue and some destruction of trees. Your presentation doesn’t address this. These streets were not designed for this kind of density. My property has a grinder pump because the sewer system was never completed. I feel like the capacity in this area is insufficient and I would like to know if something is going to be done about that with the development of this property. A: We did a complete TIA to determine how the adjacent streets would be impacted. There are not any dramatic increases other than that one section of Academy that would change with a traffic circle. Right now, you can park on both sides of the street. I imagine we would have to do significant water, wastewater, electrical, all utility improvements for development on 200 Academy because we already know that the storm sewer easement is going to need to be addressed. The rest of the utilities will need to be upgraded as well. Q: The TIA was done during the pandemic so it's not relevant. A: The TIA was submitted during the pandemic, but the work was done pre-pandemic or during the construction from other some of the other projects. Q: The Notice of Filing for Rezoning that we received in the mail describes the CS zoning as not compatible with residential environments, so why are you asking for this zoning? A: The CS zoning is the base zoning that has always been on the site which allowed for the use which I believe contributes historically and culturally to the city. I would welcome any suggestions as to how we can accomplish our goals and at the same time honor your concerns. The existing overlay was overly restrictive and doesn’t allow the city to realize what Austin has become in 2021 and not 1986. Q: What is the proposed size of the entertainment venue? A: What we are currently proposing would be less than 10,000 square feet, but it would differ depending on whether it is seated or standing. The original Austin Opera House was 16,000 square feet. There was also an 8,000 square foot secondary venue. We want to honor the Opera Housing and bring back music to Music Lane. We welcome any working group to discuss these issues in greater detail to see if we can come to a greater consensus. Q: The NCCD says you cannot get a permit for something that doesn’t meet the requirements of the NCCD. Do you have plans to build housing in the density prescribed by the NCCD? A: Yes, that is what it says. We are asking to be removed from the NCCD so we can develop the property to MF-4 standards along Melissa Lane. If we can’t come to terms with that, we will look at alternates. 16 16 of 78B-2Planning Commission: October 12, 2021 Q: Do you think the overlay is going to make sense in the light that Academy is no longer being a through street, it dead ends at Riverside? A: Academy still connects to Congress and Riverside. Again, I think this discussion is going to be around the TIA. Hopefully, we can get a group so we can review it together and talk about concerns and mitigation. Q: Do you know the drainage area for the site? A: Approximately 4.6 acres. Comments: • A traffic counter was put up during the pandemic, when school was out, and Academy Drive was closed. I don’t see how you could get an accurate traffic count. Also, my biggest concern is cut-through traffic. CITY COUNCIL DATE: Not scheduled at this time ACTION: 17 17 of 78B-2Applicant Summary Letter from Application Planning Commission: October 12, 2021 18 18 of 78B-2Letter of Recommendation from the Neighborhood Plan Contact Team (NPCT) Planning Commission: October 12, 2021 19 19 of 78B-2 Planning Commission: October 12, 2021 20 20 of 78B-2Planning Commission: October 12, 2021 Previous Recommendation Letter from the GSRC NPCT 21 21 of 78B-2Indefinite Postponement Requests Planning Commission: October 12, 2021 22 22 of 78B-2Planning Commission: October 12, 2021 23 23 of 78B-2Planning Commission: October 12, 2021 24 24 of 78B-2Planning Commission: October 12, 2021 25 25 of 78B-2Planning Commission: October 12, 2021 26 26 of 78B-2Planning Commission: October 12, 2021 Site 27 27 of 78B-2Planning Commission: October 12, 2021 28 28 of 78B-2Planning Commission: October 12, 2021 29 29 of 78B-2Planning Commission: October 12, 2021 Future Land Use map 30 30 of 78B-2Planning Commission: October 12, 2021 Zoning Map 31 31 of 78B-2Planning Commission: October 12, 2021 Applicant’s January 13, 2021 community meeting presentation 32 32 of 78B-2Planning Commission: October 12, 2021 33 33 of 78B-2Planning Commission: October 12, 2021 34 34 of 78B-2Planning Commission: October 12, 2021 35 35 of 78B-2Presentation Made by Neighborhood at the January 13, 2021 Community Meeting Planning Commission: October 12, 2021 36 36 of 78B-2Planning Commission: October 12, 2021 37 37 of 78B-2Planning Commission: October 12, 2021 38 38 of 78B-2Planning Commission: October 12, 2021 39 39 of 78B-2Planning Commission: October 12, 2021 Correspondence Received -----Original Message----- From: Seth Hurwitz Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2019 10:51 AM To: Meredith, Maureen <Maureen.Meredith@austintexas.gov> Subject: Case NPA-2019-0022.01 Good Morning Ms. Meredith, I am writing to oppose the proposed change from “Mixed Use Office” to “Mixed Use” for the project referenced above (NPA-2019-0022.01). I feel that this use is not appropriate for a residential setting, and would not be beneficial for our neighborhood. Thank you very much. Sincerely, Seth Hurwitz 220 Bonnieview St. Austin TX 78704 From: Lee Schneider Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2019 1:49 PM To: Meredith, Maureen <Maureen.Meredith@austintexas.gov> Subject: 200 Academy: Case Number NPA-2019-0022.01 Maureen: Thank you for returning my call recently and sharing your insight on the project. Subsequent to speaking with you, I met with the architect, Richard Weiss, and other interested parties in our neighborhood and would like to express the following concerns. As a point of reference, we live directly across the street from the proposed plan amendment and are the only front facing home and active address on Melissa Lane. With that being said, my concerns related to the vision Richard outlined for us on March 19: • I do not believe the proposal is suitable for our neighborhood. Retail and liquor sales would be taking place well into Fairview Park and the only such retail services not facing S. Congress or Riverside. • Richard suggests 60 (sixty) townhomes, 24 of which would be crammed into the small lot across from me vacated by previously flooded residences. Proposed underground parking that would be no less than 48 cars (plus 40 40 of 78B-2 guests) impacting a very short Melissa Lane approach creates a significant noisy and safety hazard. Planning Commission: October 12, 2021 • I do not believe the parcels should be combined. Under no circumstance should higher density housing beyond that which is already zoned for the larger parcel/property be allowed. • The architect suggests 60 units of average 1100 sq. ft. which indicates apartment type building in a single family residence neighborhood. • The plan is completely inconsistent with existing NCCD. • The architects repeated comments centered on the fact the tax base for the property does not support the current land use and that the owner wants to maximize the number of units allowed through rezoning to make the property a viable investment. The existing zoning was in affect prior to his purchase and neighborhood residents should not be negatively impacted to enable maximizing profits for a developer. • As this is a flood zone, what impact will this have on the creek and Lady Bird Lake? To be clear, I am not opposed to development. We fully expected some type of housing would be developed across from us but purchased our home and made our upgrade/investment decisions based on current zoning requirements. The combining of the parcels and the changes proposed would not only negatively affect property values but would have a negative effect on our safety and quality of life. Please list us as OPPOSED to the plan amendment and include this correspondence in any materials provided to responsible parties at the city and elsewhere who are responsible for this review. Also, please keep us posted, to the extent you can, of any developments related to this change. Thank you again for your time and consideration. Lee & Laurie Schneider 1013 Melissa Lane Austin, TX 78704 41 41 of 78B-2Planning Commission: October 12, 2021 -----Original Message----- From: Johannasullivan Sent: Saturday, April 06, 2019 1:49 PM To: Meredith, Maureen <Maureen.Meredith@austintexas.gov> Subject: NPA-2019-0022.01 Good Day Maureen, I live in the Fairview Park neighborhood and I have a few issues pertaining to the change in use of the property at 200 Academy. I understand that the current owners are asking for change in land use from Mixed Use/Office to Mixed Use. As a long time resident and property owner I do not welcome the entertainment business into our neighborhood. This is most inappropriate for a family residential area. I strongly oppose this change. I lived here in the days of Willie’s Opera House and rest assured I was so glad when it closed. The entertainment district is close enough on Congress. Please do not allow this to go forward and invade the community further. Thank you for your consideration, Johanna Sullivan 1205 Hillside Ave. 42 42 of 78B-2Planning Commission: October 12, 2021 From: Colin Corgan Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2019 12:43 PM To: Meredith, Maureen <Maureen.Meredith@austintexas.gov> Subject: Case Number NPA-2019-0022.01 Hello Maureen, I’ve received notice in my mailbox at 210 Academy Dr about the desire for my next door neighbor at 200 Academy Dr to change the South River City FLUM designation for his property to Mixed Use from Mixed Use/Office. I couldn’t more strenuously oppose this request. The request seems to imply that the designation was an oversight but that’s clearly not true. Properties in the area that are general mixed use almost exclusively have frontage on Congress, Oltorf, I-35 or Riverside - this clearly doesn’t. Academy isn’t even a through street - it ends at Riverside. This would be a highly inappropriate use case this deep in the neighborhood and while - like all residents of Austin - I support a vibrant music scene; music venues, liquor sales and nighttime commerce correlate to increases in crime, noise and neighborhood disruption and are better policed and managed on the major thoroughfares - not in the middle of quiet residential neighborhoods. My home is an Austin historic home and I am following all of the guidelines given by the city of Austin for its current restoration. I might not like all of the rules but of course I’m following them. I purchased the property a couple of years ago because of the zoning of the neighborhood. It is unreasonable for the applicant to try to change the rules in a way that is to the disadvantage of all of the neighbors. I am more than happy to elaborate or discuss anything if you’d like and look forward to the opportunity to meet in person. If any clarification etc is desired I’m more than happy to help. Thanks so much for your time and I look forward to meeting! Colin Corgan 210 Academy Drive From: Claudette Sent: Monday, April 01, 2019 10:10 AM To: Meredith, Maureen <Maureen.Meredith@austintexas.gov> Subject: 200 Academy development I am the SRCC representative for this area and would like to be added to the interested party list. Needless to say I am against any zoning change in that area. We worked very hard through the NCCD to keep retail out of the interior of the neighborhood. Since the NCCD can only be changed once a year, it is my opinion that the FLUM should not come up for consideration of change before the NCCD does. What would happen if the flum is changed and the NCCD was not allowed to be changed? Thanks for all your hard work. I don’t envy your job of trying to make everyone happy. Claudette Lowe Area ! SRCC coordinator 43 43 of 78B-2Planning Commission: October 12, 2021 -----Original Message----- From: Caroline Hurwitz Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2019 10:44 AM To: Meredith, Maureen <Maureen.Meredith@austintexas.gov> Subject: Case NPA-2019-0022.01 Good Morning Ms. Meredith, I am writing to oppose the proposed change from “Mixed Use Office” to “Mixed Use” for the project referenced above (NPA-2019-0022.01). I feel that this use is not appropriate for a residential setting, and would not be beneficial for our neighborhood. Thank you very much. Sincerely, Caroline Hurwitz 220 Bonnieview St. Austin TX 78704 44 44 of 78B-2Planning Commission: October 12, 2021 From: Rhoades, Wendy Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2019 5:48 PM To: bschuwerk@ Cc: Meredith, Maureen <Maureen.Meredith@austintexas.gov> Subject: RE: NPA-2019-0022.01 - 200 Academy Dr. Mr. Schuwerk, Please see my responses below. Sincerely, Wendy Rhoades From: bschuwerk@ Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2019 5:06 PM To: Meredith, Maureen <Maureen.Meredith@austintexas.gov>; Harden, Joi <Joi.Harden@austintexas.gov>; Sirwaitis, Sherri <Sherri.Sirwaitis@austintexas.gov>; Rhoades, Wendy <Wendy.Rhoades@austintexas.gov>; Chaffin, Heather <Heather.Chaffin@austintexas.gov>; Grantham, Scott <Scott.Grantham@austintexas.gov> Cc: 'sarah Campbell' < >; 'Claudette' >; 'David Swann' < 'Colin Corgan' < 'Russell Fraser' < 'Laura Toups' < bob schuwerk Suzanne Schuwerk < Subject: RE: NPA-2019-0022.01 - 200 Academy Dr. Hi, Maureen—I am a resident within 500 feet of the 200 Academy property that is currently the subject of an anticipated request for rezoning, and have three questions now concerning that matter. I may have others as time passes. I would appreciate it if you sent this email on to others more directly involved in zoning issues on behalf of the city if need be. Is any portion of this property currently zoned as CS-1, as far as the City of Austin is concerned? Yes, the rear of 120-146 Academy Drive and the rear of 1101-1119 The Circle was rezoned from “B” Residence (present day MF zoning) to C-1, Commercial (present day CS-1) district on August 20, 1964 (C14-64-117 - Ordinance No. 640820-D). The CS-1 zoned area covers the former Austin Opry House and a portion of its parking lot. • If the parcel is eventually divided into residential and nonresidential uses, must the pervious and impervious cover limits for one or the other of those categories be satisfied just from property within that portion zoned for that particular use? For example, if one portion of the property were zoned CS, which I understand under the applicable NCCD is limited to 35% building- related and 45% overall impervious covers, if the residential portion of the parcel has “pervious cover to spare,” could it be used to satisfy the pervious cover limits on the nonresidential portion of the parcel? No, development in each zoning area must abide by the impervious cover limits of that district; 45 45 of 78B-2Planning Commission: October 12, 2021 that is, impervious cover cannot be “blended” across a site that includes more than one zoning district. • If any portion of this parcel is in the 100-year flood plain, will it be able to be built on? No, not in the absence of obtaining Council approval of a variance permitting construction within the 100-year floodplain. Please note that a floodplain variance cannot be granted through a rezoning case and is a separate matter. Thank your for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, Robert P. Schuwerk 207 Bonnieview Street Austin, TX 78704 From: brett.rebal@ Sent: Sunday, April 07, 2019 4:11 PM To: Meredith, Maureen <Maureen.Meredith@austintexas.gov> Subject: NPA-2019-0022.01 Hi Maureen, I'm a home-owner at 310 Le Grande Ave, just a block away from the proposed changes at 200 Academy. Simply put, my wife and I do not feel that a music venue is an appropriate land use modification for this site. We are extremely pro-density and love all the development on South Congress, however this property has no frontage on South Congress or any major arterial street. The inebriated concert- goers would be dropped in the middle of a residential area, causing all kinds of drunken chaos in a peaceful environment. In addition, the residential streets with their limited access to S Congress and Riverside would be overwhelmed by vehicular traffic. I believe the current designation of mixed use office would allow appropriate transition from the density of South Congress into a residential neighborhood without inserting nightlife in an inappropriate spot. Thank you very much for listening to the community's concerns. Best, Brett Rebal From: brian beattie Sent: Monday, April 08, 2019 12:27 PM To: Meredith, Maureen <Maureen.Meredith@austintexas.gov> Subject: 200 academy- case # NPA-2019-0022.01 46 46 of 78B-2Planning Commission: October 12, 2021 Hi Maureen I'm Brian Beattie. I called you a few weeks ago asking about this proposed zoning change at 200 Academy. Now that I am more thoroughly versed in what they intend to do, I am writing to express my opinion. This neighborhood suffered for years when the Austin Opry House was in operation. I searched the Austin American Statesman's database with "Austin Opry House" as the keyword, and the attached article was the first thing to come up. (Almost every article about the Opry House in the paper is about problems they were causing within the neighborhood...) The attached article from 1977 is about the owner of the property's attempt to open a restaurant and change the zoning of the Opry house, and the neighborhood's resistance. The resentment about the noise and parking and the party atmosphere was palpable, and the memory is still alive. (The Austin Opry House closed soon after I moved here in the 90's...) The zoning WAS inappropriate, and it is even more inappropriate now. This neighborhood historically fought against the Opry House's noise and chaos for YEARS, and any attempt to liberally change the zoning, ESPECIALLY if it involves creating a new PUD exclusively for this project, will be an expensive and unnecessary replay of the old days. (A long, potentially expensive fight that they will lose, if the neighborhood has any say.) Everyone who I have spoken to in this area (the people who LIVE here) is against the zoning change at 200 Academy. Not only is it inappropriate for the neighborhood, but this entire scenario played out already in the same exact spot years ago. The Opry House's existence in this neighborhood ONLY caused misery for the neighbors, and it's been historically proven. Something even MORE disruptive to the neighborhood would change this area into a mini 6th street, and that is not an appropriate use for a historic suburban neighborhood. These folks have NOT been good neighbors, even after the Opry House closed. (Arlyn Studios, a recording studio in the 200 academy complex for YEARS hosted a loud SXSW event in the parking lot that was vigorously opposed by the neighborhood, repeatedly promising that "This is the last year we'll do it", and then doing it again the following year.) In great contrast, the Saint Cecelia hotel on Academy worked extensively with the neighborhood association to get approval for their site, which included serious restrictions about the restaurant/ bar, and a prohibition on amplified music. They are swell neighbors, and they seem to be doing well, even with their voluntary restrictions. Anyway, I just wanted to get my personal objections to the zoning change onto the record. I will participate in every public meeting that I can. Thanks for your attention- Brian 47 47 of 78B-2Planning Commission: October 12, 2021 48 48 of 78B-2Planning Commission: October 12, 2021 From: Laura Toups Sent: Tuesday, September 7, 2021 3:34 PM To: Clark, Kate <Kate.Clark@austintexas.gov>; Meredith, Maureen <Maureen.Meredith@austintexas.gov> Subject: NPA-2019-0022.01and C14-2020-0147 *** External Email - Exercise Caution *** Dear Kate and Maureen, I am a resident of 305 Le Grande Ave and have lived at this location since 1990. I wish to express my strong opposition to the two referenced cases for 200 Academy Drive. I have issues with some of the information included in the TIA and I also believe that the requested uses are inappropriate. I am in opposition to the applicant's request as well as the staff recommendation. Highlights of my opposition are the follow: The tract is adjacent to SF houses and the existing allowed uses of Office and Multifamily are appropriate Transition uses/zoning. The requested Cocktail Lounge, Restaurant/Retail uses are Not appropriate. The only access for the site is Academy Drive, a neighborhood street. The TIA has several problems including counts taken during a time when Academy was closed at S. Congress due to construction and uses smaller square footages for future traffic projections. I was the chair for a subcommittee of residents on the NPCT. We met with the applicant and looked at all the applicable information on this case and produced the attached report. It contains more details regarding issues with the application and the staff recommendation. Thank you, Laura Toups 49 49 of 78B-2Planning Commission: October 12, 2021 Attachment to Laura Toup’s email 50 50 of 78B-2Planning Commission: October 12, 2021 Attachment to Laura Toup’s email 51 51 of 78B-2Planning Commission: October 12, 2021 Attachment to Laura Toup’s email 52 52 of 78B-2Planning Commission: October 12, 2021 Attachment to Laura Toup’s email 53 53 of 78B-2Planning Commission: October 12, 2021 Attachment to Laura Toup’s email 54 54 of 78B-2Planning Commission: October 12, 2021 Attachment to Laura Toup’s email 55 55 of 78B-2 Planning Commission: October 12, 2021 Attachment to Laura Toup’s email 56 56 of 78B-2Planning Commission: October 12, 2021 Attachment to Laura Toup’s email 57 57 of 78B-2Planning Commission: October 12, 2021 Attachment to Laura Toup’s email 58 58 of 78B-2Planning Commission: October 12, 2021 Attachment to Laura Toup’s email 59 59 of 78B-2Planning Commission: October 12, 2021 Attachment to Laura Toup’s email 60 60 of 78B-2Planning Commission: October 12, 2021 Attachment to Laura Toup’s email 61 61 of 78B-2Planning Commission: October 12, 2021 Attachment to Laura Toup’s email 62 62 of 78B-2Planning Commission: October 12, 2021 Attachment to Laura Toup’s email 63 63 of 78B-2Planning Commission: October 12, 2021 Attachment to Laura Toup’s email 64 64 of 78B-2Planning Commission: October 12, 2021 65 65 of 78B-2Planning Commission: October 12, 2021 66 66 of 78B-2Planning Commission: October 12, 2021 67 67 of 78B-2Planning Commission: October 12, 2021 From: Jon David Swann Sent: Tuesday, September 7, 2021 2:39 PM To: Clark, Kate <Kate.Clark@austintexas.gov> Subject: NPA-2019-0022.01 *** External Email - Exercise Caution *** Subject: NPA-2019-0022.01 Dear Ms. Clark: (Please include this email message with the subject case materials so the Planning Commission can be informed that the proposed FLUM change is a bad idea.) Dear Commissioners: The proposed use profoundly violates our Neighborhood Plan, and it also violates the intended nature and character of our residential neighborhood. The change must not be approved. During my tenure as President of South River City Citizens we experienced chronic and significant disturbance from live music venues located at the site. We do not want that experience to be repeated. The developer needs to find an appropriate location for the noise, litter, and traffic that will accompany his desired use. Our planning team has met with the developer's representative, and we have listened to his plans. I am very familiar with the site, and I lived at 122B Academy Drive for about a year. The uses indicated in our Neighborhood Plan are still reasonable uses. Our Neighborhood Plan was developed and has been maintained at great cost and effort by neighbors and city staff. The Plan is documented as a City of Austin ordinance. Thank you for your support. It is not necessary to sacrifice 100% of the Austin quality of life to allow developers to increase their wealth. Jon David Swann 505 Lone Oak DR Austin, TX 78704 68 68 of 78B-2Planning Commission: October 12, 2021 From: Elloa Mathews Sent: Tuesday, September 7, 2021 4:41 PM To: Clark, Kate <Kate.Clark@austintexas.gov> Cc: Meredith, Maureen <Maureen.Meredith@austintexas.gov> Subject: Opposing NPA-2019-0022.01 *** External Email - Exercise Caution *** Dear Ms. Clark and Planning Commissioners, I write in opposition to this amendment to the Future Land Use Map at 200 Academy. The property where this music venue/high turnover restaurant is proposed is not on S. Congress Ave. It is many lots interior to a residential neighborhood on a dead end neighborhood street. It is across the street from a house built in the late 1800’s and surrounded by many small 100 year old homes. The GSRCC Neighborhood Plan is an adopted city ordinance that carries the force of law. The Neighborhood Plan and FLUM was required by the City of Austin. The damage caused by a regulatory gap or inappropriate amendments to this robust plan threatens to degrade the quality of our life and the effectiveness of our plan. Like any good founding document, our Neighborhood Plan and Future Land Use Map has accommodated everything you see today in our neighborhood with only 6 variances since its adoption in 2005. Approximately 95% of the new commercial and multi family uses were built under the existing Neighborhood Plan without an amendment to the FLUM or zoning change. In the case of 200 Academy, city staff has used our Neighborhood Plan to say that we condone a high turnover restaurant, a concert venue and museum on a 30 foot ROW street across from SF-3 zoned homes. WE DO NOT. This is not on the South Congress Corridor. Nothing in our Neighborhood Plan could be used to justify the proposed music venue or restaurant uses at this site. Elloa Mathews D9 “City Charter requires zoning changes to ‘...be consistent with the comprehensive plan’ ”. From Imagine Austin Comprehensive Plan Section 1:2, p.15: 69 69 of 78B-2Planning Commission: October 12, 2021 Through the process of comprehensive planning and the preparation, adoption and implementation of a comprehensive plan, the city intends to preserve, promote, protect and improve the public health, safety, comfort, order, appearance, convenience and general welfare; prevent the overcrowding of land and avoid undue concentration or diffusion of population or land uses; facilitate the adequate and efficient provision of transportation, water, wastewater, schools, parks, recreational facilities, housing and other facilities and services; and conserve, develop, utilize and protect natural resources ( Article X. Planning; Charter of the City of Austin, Texas) 70 70 of 78B-2Planning Commission: October 12, 2021 71 71 of 78B-2Planning Commission: October 12, 2021 72 72 of 78B-2Planning Commission: October 12, 2021 73 73 of 78B-2Planning Commission: October 12, 2021 74 74 of 78B-2Planning Commission: October 12, 2021 75 75 of 78B-2Planning Commission: October 12, 2021 76 76 of 78B-2Planning Commission: October 12, 2021 77 77 of 78B-2Planning Commission: October 12, 2021 78 78 of 78B-2