B-05 (C14-2022-0008.SH - 2011 & 2015 E. M. Franklin; District 1).pdf — original pdf

Backup

ZONING CHANGE REVIEW SHEET DISTRICT: 1 TO: MF-4-NP and LR-MU-NP (2.82 acres) (1.21 acres) CASE: C14-2022-0008.SH 2011 & 2015 E M Franklin ZONING FROM: SF-3-NP ADDRESS: 2011 & 2015 E M Franklin Avenue SITE AREA: 4.03 acres PROPERTY OWNER: 2011 & 2015 E M Franklin, LLC (Anmol Mehra) CASE MANAGER: Heather Chaffin (512-974-2122, heather.chaffin@austintexas.gov) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff supports the Applicant’s request of MF-4-NP and LR-MU-NP. For a summary of the basis of staff’s recommendation, see case manager comments on page 2. AGENT: Capital A Housing (Conor Kenny) PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION / RECOMMENDATION: March 22, 2022: March 8, 2022: Postponed to March 22, 2022, on the consent agenda at the request of the applicant. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: TBD ORDINANCE NUMBER: 1 of 49B-5C14-2022-0008.SH 2 ISSUES: No issues at this time. CASE MANAGER COMMENTS: The subject property is located on the east side of E M Franklin Avenue between East Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard and Manor Road. E. MLK Jr. Boulevard and Manor Road are both Imagine Austin Activity Corridors. The property is zoned SF-3-NP and is comprised of a vacant lot and a lot developed with a drive-in theater. North of the rezoning property are lots zoned LO-MU-NP, CS-MU-CO-NP, GR-NP and GR-V-NP that are developed with a mix of land uses. Land uses include a vacant club or lodge, a mix of residential and undeveloped, religious assembly and medical office. A site plan (E M Franklin 2, City File # SP-2019- 0284C) has been approved to redevelop the mixed residential/undeveloped lots with 116 attached and detached residential units. Immediately to the east of the property is Morris Williams Golf Course, zoned P-NP. A small tributary with floodplain is located at the rear of the property between the site and the golf course. Immediately south of the property are single family residences zoned SF-3-NP. Directly across E M Franklin to the west are single family residences zoned SF-3-NP. Also across E M Franklin are properties zoned MF-2-CO- NP and LO-MU-NP that are developed with multifamily, day care and administrative offices. Please see Exhibits A and B- Zoning Map and Aerial Exhibit. As a SMART Housing project, the applicant is proposing 160 multifamily and single family residential units on the property. 30% of the units (49 units) will be available at 80% MFI. The applicant has also stated their intent to include a coffee shop on the site. Please see Exhibit C- SMART Housing Letter. Staff has received correspondence in support and in opposition to the rezoning request. Please see Exhibit D- Correspondence. Staff supports the rezoning request. The addition of affordable multifamily and single family residences will increase housing opportunities in the area, meeting the goals of the Strategic Housing Blueprint. Locating affordable housing close to transit options on the Imagine Austin Activity Corridors of East MLK Jr. Boulevard and Manor Road is also encouraged by the Blueprint and other planning documents. The mix of multifamily and single family increases the diversity of housing types available in the area, and the proposed coffee shop would provide local services. E M Franklin currently includes a mix of single family and other land uses, including religious assembly, administrative/business office, and medical office. This range of uses demonstrates the mixed nature of the area. BASIS FOR RECOMMENDATION 1. The proposed zoning should be consistent with the goals and objectives of the City Council. The rezoning should be consistent with the policies and principles adopted by the City Council or Planning Commission. Zoning should promote clearly-identified community goals, such as creating employment opportunities or providing for affordable housing. 2. 3. 2 of 49B-5C14-2022-0008.SH 3 EXISTING ZONING AND LAND USES: Site North ZONING LAND USES SF-3-NP LO-MU-NP, CS-MU-CO- NP, GR-NP, GR-V-NP SF-3-NP P-NP SF-3-NP, MF-2-NP, LO- MU-NP Undeveloped, Outdoor entertainment Single family residential and related structures, Undeveloped, Religious assembly, Medical office Single family residential Morris Williams Golf Course Single family residential, Multifamily residential, Daycare, Administrative/business office South East West NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING AREA: East MLK Combined (MLK) CAPITOL VIEW CORRIDOR: No TIA/NTA: Deferred to time of site plan, if triggered WATERSHED: Tannehill Branch NEIGHBORHOOD ORGANIZATIONS: Austin Independent School District Austin Neighborhoods Council East Austin Conservancy Friends of Austin Neighborhoods Homeless Neighborhood Association JJ Seabrook Neighborhood Association Neighborhood Empowerment Foundation Pecan Springs/Springdale Hills NA Senate Hills Homeowners' Association AREA CASE HISTORIES: NUMBER / NAME C14-2012-0140 Street & Bridge District Office GR-V-NP and GR-NP to P-NP Austin Lost and Found Pets Del Valle Community Coalition East MLK Combined NPCT Friends of Northeast Austin Sierra Club Preservation Austin Neighbors United for Progress SELTexas Withdrawn by applicant COMMISSION REQUEST N/A EXISTING STREET CHARACTERISTICS: CITY COUNCIL ADDITIONAL STAFF COMMENTS: Environmental 1. The site is not located over the Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone. The site is located in the Tannehill Branch Creek Watershed of the Colorado River Basin, which is classified as an Urban Watershed by Chapter 25-8 of the City's Land Development Code. 3 of 49B-5C14-2022-0008.SH 4 2. Zoning district impervious cover limits apply in the Urban Watershed classification. 3. According to floodplain maps there is a floodplain within or adjacent to the project location. Based upon the location of the floodplain, offsite drainage should be calculated to determine whether a Critical Water Quality Zone exists within 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 s.f. cumulative is exceeded, and on site control for the two-year storm. Site Plan S1. Site plans will be required for any new development other than single-family or duplex residential. S2. Any development which occurs in an SF-6 or less restrictive zoning district which is located 540-feet or less from property in an SF-5 or more restrictive zoning district will be subject to compatibility development regulations. S3. Any new development is subject to Subchapter E. Design Standards and Mixed Use. The principal roadway is classified as an Urban Roadway. Additional comments will be made when the site plan is submitted. Compatibility Standards S4. The site is subject to compatibility standards due to being adjacent to SF-3-NP lots on the north and south property lines, and on the lot frontage across the street (west). S5. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the proposed use, a site plan must be approved by the Planning Commission. Airport Overlay S6. FYI – This site is located within the Austin-Bergstrom Airport Controlled Compatible Land Use Area Overlay. No use will be allowed that can create electrical interference with navigational signals or radio communications between airport and aircraft, make it difficult for pilots to distinguish between the airport lights and others, result in glare in the eyes of pilots using the airport, impair visibility in the vicinity of the airport, create bird strike hazards or otherwise in any way endanger or interfere with the landing, taking off, or maneuvering of aircraft intending to use the Austin-Bergstrom Airport. Height limitations and incompatible uses with each Airport Overlay zone are established in the Airport Overlay Ordinance. Airport Hazard Zoning Committee review may be required prior to Planning Commission Hearing. Additional comments may be generated during the site plan review process. Demolition and Historic Resources S7. The applicant is responsible for requesting relocation and demolition permits once the site plan is approved. The City Historic Preservation Officer will review all proposed building demolitions and relocations prior to site plan approval. If a building meets city historic criteria, the Historic Landmark Commission may initiate a historic zoning case on the property. 4 of 49B-5C14-2022-0008.SH 5 Parks & Recreation PR1: 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). Parkland dedication will be required for any new market-rate residential units that may be proposed by this development, multifamily with MF-4 and LR-MU zoning, at the time of subdivision or site plan, per City Code § 25-1-601. For the remaining parkland dedication requirements applicable to the market-rate dwelling units: The Parks and Recreation Department (PARD) would consider a connection along Givens Park/Tannehill Branch Creek, and thereby expand the existing adjacent parkland, toward satisfying the requirement at time of permitting (whether subdivision or site plan). Such a greenbelt connection would improve neighborhood connectivity, and satisfy an acquisition need for this creek, criteria for dedication per City Code § 25-1-605 (B) 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. Transportation ASMP Assessment The Austin Strategic Mobility Plan (ASMP) calls for 70 feet of right-of-way for E M Franklin Avenue. It is recommended that 35 feet of right-of-way from the existing centerline should be dedicated for E M Franklin Avenue according to the Transportation Plan with the first subdivision or site plan application. [LDC 25-6-51 and 25-6-55]. 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. The adjacent street characteristics table is provided below: 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 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. 5 of 49B-5C14-2022-0008.SH 6 INDEX OF EXHIBITS TO FOLLOW A: Zoning Map B. Aerial Exhibit C. SMART Housing Letter D. Correspondence 6 of 49B-5PUD TOM M IL L ER ST PUD TOM MILLER ST PUD C814-04-0055 T I L L E Y S T PUD MANOR RD M C C U R D Y S T PUD PUD C814-04-0055.04.SH PUD PUD T H R E A D G I L L S T H E R M A L N D A I S T PUD PUD C814-04-0055.02 C814-04-0055.03 PUD PUD V A U G H A N S T E F I C F O B E R K M A N D R R A C E R L A T N A G E 6 7 - N C Y 1 4 GR-V-NP C14-2007-0258 8 O F F I C E 3 3 - 5 8 PUD GR-V-NP C14-2007-0258 00-2198 MORRIS WILLIAMS GOLFCOURSE TRACT 2 P-NP LO-V-NP E F I C O F 7 8 1 - 1 8 2 3 - 0 8 GR-NP GR-V-CO-NP C14-2007-0258 SF-3-NP ( ( T O D R ( ( ( ( ( = ( = ( ( N - E T G R E L E B E F I C O F ( GR-V-CO-NP P A L O P I N ( ( ( ( C14-2018-0155 ( SF-3-NP ( D E N V E R A V E P-NP ( ( ( GRANDE CT ( ( ( ( 1 6 1 - 2 8 ( ( ( ( ( ( G R E E N ( ( ( ( ( W O ( O D A V E ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( SF-3-NP ( ( ( ( ( CAMBRIDGE CT ( ( SF-3-NP P-NP ( ( P E R S H I N G D R ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( E M A R T I N L U T H E R K I N G J R B L V D ( F I C E O F O F F I C E GR-NP P A R K I N G J E T S O N W A Y O F F I C E A M E R I C A N R E D C R O S S O F F I C E 0 7 - 3 7 LO-MU-NP 5 2 0 - 4 S P 9 CS-MU-CO-NP 7 C S C O N T R A C T O R S T O R A G E M C F L Y S T 76-007RC CP76-008 LO-MU-NP C U R I O U S P A T H C O N T R A C T O R E M F ! ! ! R ! ! A ! N K ! ! ! ! L I N ! ! ! ( ! ! ! A V E ! ! ( ( ( ( ( ( ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! F R A T E R N I T Y ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! E Q U I P T M E N T S T O R A G E SF-3-NP 87-154 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ( ( C L A R Y W A Y T U R T L E S P R I N G C T ( ( ( ( C14-02-0142.003 ( SF-3-NP ( TRACT 1 00-2198 R A D I O T O W E R MF-2-CO-NP C14-2008-0243.SH NPA-2008-0015.04.SH 6 9 - 1 11 ( ( ( ( ( GR-NP C H U R C H 5 2 - 3 1 9 6 4 - 2 0 G A S GR-NP A P T 4 5 S . 70-1 SF-6-NP 96-25 C H U R C H LO-MU-NP RR-NP 96-25 S P 9 4 - 0 1 0 7 C S P 9 3 - 0 1 5 9 C ( ( ( ( S P 8 9 - 0 1 1 0 C ( ( ( ( ( ( C H U R C H SF-3-NP SF-6-CO-NP C14-2016-0025 C14-02-0142.003 SF-3-NP SP-03-0412C MF-3-NP 7 7 - 7 1 = ( 7 3 - 2 2 5 = ( ( ( R E S T \ H O M E ( SF-3-NP E 1 7 T H S T ( ( ZONING SUBJECT TRACT ! ! ! ! ! ! PENDING CASE ZONING BOUNDARY ZONING CASE#: C14-2022-0008.SH P A L O P I N ( ( ( T O D R ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( L O R E T O D R ( SF-3-NP ( ( ( ( ( SF-3-NP ( ( ± MORRI S W ILLI AMS \GOLF COUR SE 00-2198 D A Y C A R E ( S P C 9 2 - 2 0 1 A ( ( ( ( P E R E Z S T ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( SF-3-NP ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( D E L O N E Y S T ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( C A R M E L D R ( ( ( ( SF-3-NP ( SF-3-NP ( ( A D R I A N E D R C H A S E C I R ( ( ( J J S E A B R O O K D R ( ( = ( ( ( ( ( ( SF-3-NP ( ( ( E 1 6 T H S T ( SF-3-NP ( SF-3-NP 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 " = 400 ' 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 Created: 1/20/2022 7 of 49B-5Legend Street Labels Zoning Review Cases- IN REVIEW Zoning Review Cases (All) Fully Developed Floodplain COA Fully Developed 25-Year COA Fully Developed 100-Year COA Master Plan 25-Year COA Master Plan 100-Year 100-Year (Detailed-AE) 100-Year (Shallow-AO,AH) 100-Year (Approx-A) Creek Buffers/Waterway Setbacks Critical Water Quality Zone Water Quality Transition Zone Creek Centerlines Lakes Zoning Text 0.2 0 0.08 0.2 Miles NAD_1983_StatePlane_Texas_Central_FIPS_4203_Feet Date Printed: 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. This product has been produced by the City of Austin for the sole purpose of geographic reference. No warranty is made by the City of Austin regarding specific accuracy or completeness. 1: 4,800 Notes 8 of 49B-5City of Austin P.O. Box 1088, Austin, TX 78767 www.cityofaustin.org/housing Neighborhood Housing and Community Development Department July 22, 2020 S.M.A.R.T. Housing Certification Anmol Mehra – 2011 & 2015 E M Franklin (Project ID 733) To Whom It May Concern: Anmol Mehra - (development contact: Glen Coleman: 512.407.9357 (c); glen@southllano.com) is planning to develop a 160-unit, multi-family and single-family ownership development at 2011 & 2015 E M Franklin Avenue, Austin TX 78723. The project will be subject to a minimum 1-year affordability period after issuance of a certificate of occupancy, unless funding requirements are longer. Neighborhood Housing and Community Development (NHCD) certifies the proposed project meets the S.M.A.R.T. Housing standards at the pre-submittal stage. Since 30% of the units (49 units ) will serve households at or below 80% Median Family Income (MFI), the development will be eligible for 75% waiver of all fees listed in Land Development Code, Chapter 25-1-704, as amended or other fees waived under a separate ordinance except for Austin Water Utility (AWU) Capital Recovery Fees. This development is not fully in accordance with the requirements under the Texas Local Government Code, Chapter 395.16(g) and 42 U.S.C. Section 12745 (A)(1) as it relates to how housing qualifies as affordable housing and therefore the project will not be eligible to receive Austin Water Utility Capital Recovery Fee (CRF) waiver. The expected fee waivers include, but are not limited to, the following fees: AWU Capital Recovery Fees Building Permit Concrete Permit Electrical Permit Mechanical Permit Plumbing Permit Site Plan Review Misc. Site Plan Fee Construction Inspection Subdivision Plan Review Misc. Subdivision Fee Zoning Verification Land Status Determination Building Plan Review Parkland Dedication (by separate ordinance) Prior to issuance of building permits and starting construction, the developer must: ♦ Obtain a signed Conditional Approval from the Austin Energy Green Building Program stating that the plans and specifications for the proposed development meet the criteria for a Green Building Rating. (Contact Austin Energy Green Building: 512-482-5300 or greenbuilding@austinenergy.com). ♦ Submit plans demonstrating compliance with the required accessibility standards. Before a Certificate of Occupancy will be granted, the development must: ♦ Pass a final inspection and obtain a signed Final Approval from the Green Building Program. (Separate from any other inspections required by the City of Austin or Austin Energy). ♦ Pass a final inspection to certify that the required accessibility standards have been met. ♦ An administrative hold will be placed on the building permit, until the following items have been completed: 1) the number of affordable units have been finalized and evidenced through a sealed letter from project architect and/or 9 of 49B-5engineer, 2) a Restrictive Covenant stating the affordability requirements and terms has been filed for record at the Travis County Clerk Office. The applicant must demonstrate compliance with S.M.A.R.T. Housing standards after the after the certificate of occupancy has been issued or repay the City of Austin, in full, the fees waived for this S.M.A.R.T. Housing certification. Please contact me by phone 512.974.2108 or by email at alex.radtke@austintexas.gov if you need additional information. Sincerely, Alex Radtke, Senior Planner Neighborhood Housing and Community Development Cc: Kristin Martinez, AE Ellis Morgan, NHCD Jonathan Orenstein, AWU Mashell Smith, ORES 10 of 49B-5Proposed EMLKNPCT FLUM amendment NPA-2020-0015.02.SH_2011 & 2015 EM Franklin March 12, 2022 To Austin Planning Commission, City Council, and City of Austin Staff, Our EMLK Contact team met with Mr Anmol Mehra and his development team throughout 2020 and 2021; we understand that the conversations between the developer and the neighborhood were very complex and that there is a history of potential development for these properties in the past decade. We would like to highlight a few points regarding the project: ● JJSeabrook NA ● Developer team ○ The leadership of this neighborhood association has been among the most dedicated and inclusive of any neighborhood in our boundaries. We commend their leadership’s time, effort, and professionalism on this case over multiple years, as well as their proactive, ongoing efforts to work with City of Austin departments to improve the quality of life for their residents. ○ The neighborhood conducted a survey in late 2021, in an equally comprehensive and inclusive manner (paper and online, HOA included, multiple weeks to submit input) in order to get a “final” decision regarding the project from the neighborhood, and we commend their success in getting input from 79 residents. As you know, the majority of residents voted against the project. ○ This project, from early conversations, has been an exciting example of a developer working to maximize the City of Austin programs and provide a high percentage of residential units at deeply affordable levels. We have found JJSNA to prioritize affordable housing in this and other projects in their area. ○ Unfortunately, in an effort to create a “consensus” on the project, we observed that the project changed in confusing and key ways over time for many nearby residents, which created misunderstandings and mistrust between the developer’s team and the neighborhood association. Even when we took our Contact Team vote on this case in November 2021, we understood the FLUM change to multi-family, but the zoning details, the total unit count, the number of affordable units, and other key details about the size and scope of the project were not clear. We think this contributed to the neighborhood’s concerns with the project. At the November 15, 2021 meeting, the EMLK Contact Team voted against the FLUM change from Single Family to Multifamily (2011 EM Franklin), and Multifamily/Mixed Used/Office/Restaurant (2015 EM Franklin). Specifically, the votes were 0 in support, 9 against, and 2 abstained. Our concerns as stated from the members were: ● We support the vote of the neighborhood association, as we believe the neighborhoods are the best decision making body about potential changes to their area. 11 of 49B-5● The location of the property being midblock on EM Franklin, with multiple single family residences located on the street, made us concerned about the safety and wellbeing of existing residents with a project of this size. ● The number of new, already approved projects in this specific neighborhood is very high- over 1,000 residential units are in progress to be built- and an additional multi-family project seems to add a modest amount, against the desires of the immediate neighborhood. We hope that more districts would take on the issue in Austin of lack of housing and the affordability crisis. Our understanding now in March 2022, is that the neighborhood is willing to negotiate with the developer on a level of multifamily housing that is compatible with the existing neighborhood. At this point, we respectfully will yield to the JJ Seabrook Neighborhood Association for any additional steps and actions that may be in progress between the developer and the neighbors. Thank you, EMLK Contact Team 12 of 49B-5 November 13, 2021 EMLK Contact Team Leaders, Mayor Pro Tem Harper-Madison, City Council, Planning Commission and Mr. Mehra: I write to relay the results of a survey conducted in the JJ Seabrook neighborhood in anticipation of the upcoming EMLK contact team vote on the proposed rezoning of 2011 and 2015 EM Franklin Avenue. We distributed this linked survey: https://forms.gle/28SmYPE5MCFJK11o6 digitally, paper reminders to approximately 250 doors/mail areas across the neighborhood boundaries, and paper copies to neighbors who requested them. We received 70 digital responses and 9 paper responses for a total of 79 responses to the following two questions (results charts included): Below, indicate your support, opposition or abstention regarding the proposed rezoning and development of 2011 EM Franklin Ave. from SF-3 (Single Family-3) to MF-4 (Multi Family-4) with a conditional overlay requiring proposed parking, traffic, building heights, impervious cover, green space, creek protection and affordability. Below, indicate your support for, opposition to or abstention regarding proposed rezoning and development of 2015 EM Franklin Ave. from SF-3 to LO (limited office) with conditional overlay requiring proposed parking, traffic, building heights, impervious cover, green space, creek protection and affordability. Based on this survey’s results, the majority of surveyed neighbors are opposed to the proposed rezoning of 2011 and 2015 EM Franklin Avenue. 13 of 49B-5I am attaching appendices that include neighbor responses to questions about: a) the rationale behind responses, b) revisions that might shift opposition to support, and c) community benefits priorities. I am also attaching the August, 2021 letter from the JJ Seabrook neighborhood, to keep the proposal and engagement in historical context. I hope this data can inform the EMLK Contact Team, planning commission, the developer’s team and city council’s consideration of this proposed rezoning case. Sincerely, Elisabeth Johnson President, JJ Seabrook Neighborhood Association jjseabrookpresident@gmail.com 203-415-3951 14 of 49B-5 January 26, 2022 Dear Planning Commission, Contact Team, and City Council: There were some points raised in the November 18, 2021 virtual community meeting for NPA- 2020-0015.02.SH_2011 & 2015 EM Franklin that I would like to formally respond to and have entered into the file. Some of the points made during the meeting cast neighbors' requests in an unfair, sometimes inaccurate light given the duration of developer engagement and the developers' lack of willingness to be forthcoming about substantive, proposed guarantees in exchange for neighborhood support. Parking # - During the meeting, developers highlighted the neighborhood’s request for 2 parking units per residence as unreasonable given that it exceeds current COA building requirements. Historically, developers were unwilling to guarantee any parking on 2015 EM Franklin until September 2021. We have been engaging in good faith since prior to September 2020. The developer’s response was that they would “do what the city requires” (zero with Affordability Unlocked status), was a non-response warranting a guarantee given neighbors earnest requests for guarantees with the number of units requested. We asked for 2 spots hoping to get 1. We are grateful to hear there will be ~1.25. Do we have to support the project and sign a restrictive covenant to have any guaranteed parking on 2015 EM Franklin? Affordability & Density – Our neighborhood is currently working to preserve the low- income status of the Kensington apartments as it transfers hands from one owner to another (Elizabeth Property Group). 148 residences there range from $780 to $850. Our neighborhood is current conducting outreach on behalf of AHFC as they move to develop up to 360 affordable and permanent supporting housing units at 3515 Manor Road. We are gathering data about resident needs, so AHFC partners with non-profits that will build on and beyond the resources our low-income community members need. The JJ Seabrook neighborhood supports ~508 deeply affordable residences currently and in the future and works to ensure all residents (renters and owners) who want to stay in JJ Seabrook can stay in JJ Seabrook. Parking Type – The developer originally promised underground parking. Terms like below grade entered into proposals in summer 2021. Requests that the developer clarify the parking type come from the back and forth of proposed parking types across the process without developer explanation until neighbors requested that the developer define and settle on terms in communicated plans. This was not an organized neighborhood effort to “jump the process before site planning and engineering.” Greenspace – Neighbors have been requesting Greenspace since September 2020. The location of greenspace and type of greenspace has been in question given its proximity to the creek. While it sounds like a wonderful offer, we have asked the 15 of 49B-5developer to be clear about how much of the greenspace is in fact useable by residents of the proposed 143 units and what sorts of uses will be supported while preserving the creek and the current wildlife that sustain our green Austin ecosystem. This was an issue crucial to neighbors in the HOA within the JJ Seabrook neighborhood. As you can see, there will be a barrier prohibiting traffic into the portion of the creek behind their properties. Does this plan for easements and dedication to city parkland preserve the creek and wildlife? How much of what is offered is buildable and in fact an added benefit or donation to the community? How much of what is offered is required setback and needed for watershed/creek preservation? How much have to potentially change at the site planning phase when Watershed actually comes out to explore the existing creek area currently changing as a different 116 unit development is erected on an adjacent property? Casting requirements and responses to an HOA as offers to the entire neighborhood that has been historically negotiating with the developer separate and apart from the broader neighborhood association engagement process seems disingenuous. Impervious Cover – From the start of our engagement with the developer, he has offered 1 acre at the back of the lot. We surveyed neighbors in an effort to work toward consensus and asked neighbors to respond to the developer’s proposal with more than a yes/no. We aimed to capture neighbor interests, so we could have earnest developer engagement toward consensus. Neighbors responded to the current proposal of 1 acre at the back of the lot and overwhelmingly favored more green space. Our neighborhood’s impervious cover request1 is zoning language most relevant to neighbor survey responses requesting increased greenspace. Heights – If the developer’s building height proposals are work to promote compatibility with the existing neighborhood given the zoning category jump, it would seem they should be part of any multifamily upzoning in a primarily SF-3 neighborhood rather than leverage to restrictive covenants or conditional overlays a neighborhood is not financially equipped to enforce. Failing to protect compatibility and leave neighborhoods to both demand and enforce compatibility seem an effort to overwhelm rather than support current Austin residents. We are currently working with a different developer whose site plan completely ignored restrictive covenants the city entered into and traffic impact analyses the planning commission recommended. This experience and others have taught us this lesson. Mid-block Precedents – During the meeting, we asked the developer to provide mid-block precedents for this sort of development in the area and the developer offered “The George.” This precedent is distinct in its location, density, and # of ingresses/egresses. At the start of the 2011/2015 engagement process, the developer purported to be negotiating a connection to have an additional ingress/egress that ran along the eastside of the property through the George, so the 143 residences had more than one ingress/egress. The developer was unable to secure that connection, but the proposed zoning and unit count has not changed. Now the developer purports that one 1 “IMPERVIOUS COVER: Caps impervious cover closer to the 55% offered with SF-6 zoning than the 70% allowed for MF-4 zoning.” 16 of 49B-5of the main cost drivers for the project is a turnaround and firelane (given the single ingress/egress). It would seem both of these moves warrant consideration when reviewing this case and the proposed zoning. We are concerned about what it means to have this many trips in and out of one location in the middle of the block. These properties are certainly deep which makes them large, but they are not wide which makes them more difficult to enter and exit. This is what neighbors are referring to when they say “great project, wrong location.” REQUEST FOR CITY COMMITMENTS: • Will the city commit to data-based grey infrastructure improvements in the JJ • Will the city commit to green infrastructure preservation in the JJ Seabrook • Will the city send necessary resources to current and future low income residents Seabrook neighborhood? neighborhood? residing in JJ Seabrook? • Will the city require the developer to contextualize financial claims made within the agent’s proposal? The developer’s agent claims the project falls apart at MF- 2. We respectfully request that planning commission, city council, and the contact team expect the financial information necessary to assess these claims. Without that information, efforts to attain consensus that honors earnest neighborhood requests are inhibited. The JJ Seabrook neighborhood has engaged in earnest for over a year, including collecting and sharing all neighborhood data with identifiers stripped at the developer’s request. We look forward to similar information sharing or the support of city officials in such requests. I look forward to city recommendations that honor the neighborhood’s on-going efforts to engage transparently and earnestly toward a mutually beneficial response to NPA- 2020-0015.02.SH_2011 & 2015 EM Franklin. Sincerely, Elisabeth Johnson JJ Seabrook Neighborhood Association President 17 of 49B-5● The location of the property being midblock on EM Franklin, with multiple single family residences located on the street, made us concerned about the safety and wellbeing of existing residents with a project of this size. ● The number of new, already approved projects in this specific neighborhood is very high- over 1,000 residential units are in progress to be built- and an additional multi-family project seems to add a modest amount, against the desires of the immediate neighborhood. We hope that more districts would take on the issue in Austin of lack of housing and the affordability crisis. Our understanding now in March 2022, is that the neighborhood is willing to negotiate with the developer on a level of multifamily housing that is compatible with the existing neighborhood. At this point, we respectfully will yield to the JJ Seabrook Neighborhood Association for any additional steps and actions that may be in progress between the developer and the neighbors. Thank you, EMLK Contact Team 18 of 49B-5August 20, 2021 Mr. Mehra, City of Austin Planning Commission, EMLK Contact Team and Austin City Council: After a series of neighborhood engagement sessions with Mr. Anmol Mehra and his team about plans for the development of 2011 and 2015 EM Franklin, the JJ Seabrook Neighborhood Association surveyed neighborhood residents about their thoughts on key components of the project (greenspace, traffic, parking, building heights, creek access, overall zoning, affordability). Based on responses from 37 neighbors living on the project block (EM Franklin and the streets in the HOA abutting the property line, i.e., Turtle Springs and Clary Way) and 23 neighbors living west of the project block (Denver, Palo Pinto, Tillery, Grande Court, Towerview, Greenwood, Encino Circle, Cambridge Court) the JJ Seabrook Neighborhood Association cannot support the project proposal as is. We look forward to working toward a solution that addresses: ● IMPERVIOUS COVER: Caps impervious cover closer to the 55% offered with SF-6 zoning than the 70% allowed for MF-4 zoning. ● BUILDING HEIGHTS: ○ Caps building heights at 35ft. ○ Caps building heights at 20 feet alongside pre-existing properties and at street frontage parking. ● PARKING: Guarantees 2 parking spots/dwelling unit with an addition of 20% guest ● CREEK: Increases rear setbacks for proposed zoning to protect the creek & native plantings onsite including vegetative buffers and a design for public access that restricts direct access to creek and habitat with fencing that allows for movement of wildlife. ● TRAFFIC: Work with the city to obtain a comprehensive (inclusive of current, on-going and proposed projects) traffic impact analysis, reduce speeds and cut throughs, add a stop sign or hybrid beacon. The recommended restrictions draw on the following requests from the majority of surveyed neighborhood residents: ● an increase in proposed green space ● a building height cap at 35 feet (a height the majority are happy to support on the property) ● Comprehensive Traffic Impact Analysis (takes into account the current, on-going and proposed development on the block and in the neighborhood) and/or a City/Developer/Neighborhood documented plan for traffic mitigation across the neighborhood and on the block DocuSign Envelope ID: F86A1035-0306-45B5-8094-D37C267EB30E19 of 49B-5● Plans to protect and preserve the creek and its ecosystem (collaboration with water quality and watershed are crucial here). Given current on-going development on that side of the street, we would appreciate a current or recent hydrology report from another project. ● Complete and comprehensive information regarding parking structures and types for site plan (integrated and proposed above, underground and below grade parking that includes building heights across lots as well as proposed above ground parking for ADA compliance). ○ A stake or screen in the ground with proposed locations, proximities, heights and falls that also illustrates the final building heights and parking structures on both lots would help all neighbors visualize proposed changes and conceptualize the parking type and plan. For example, Story Poles are used extensively in California to depict the bulk and mass of a proposed structure or project. ● A specific unit parking count that guarantees resident parking for all proposed units and some guest parking. And from the majority of respondents residing on streets lining the proposed development (EM Franklin, Clary Way, Turtle Springs): ● A reduction in proposed zoning for 2011 EM Franklin more aligned with a mid-block residential development It is important to note that the neighborhood: ● is currently working to support the development of truly affordable housing at 3511-3515 Manor Road that includes permanent supportive housing and a mix of deeply affordable residences closer to the 50% MFI needed to support Austinites transitioning from homelessness to permanent housing ● has been working to maintain current temporary low income housing at the Kensington Apartments and to ensure there is no additional displacement of or increase in neighbors’ rents without subsidies promised by Elizabeth Property Group owners. ● has been working with Austin Public Health to bring a health fair and vaccine clinic to ● The George 2211 EM Franklin Avenue - 116 single family units broke ground in July 2021 Kensington residents. Current block development includes: Current neighborhood development includes: ● The Emma at 3219 Manor - 146 units ● eVolv East at 2108 Tillery - 16 units DocuSign Envelope ID: F86A1035-0306-45B5-8094-D37C267EB30E20 of 49B-5● 3115 Manor Rd. - 450-500 apartments + live work and commercial ● 3303 Manor Road - 200 apartments with food truck court ● MLK/Tillery - 4 units Future block development is slated to include 200+ units of deeply affordable housing at 3511 and 3515 Manor Road. Given the range and scope of current on-going and proposed development and taking into account neighborhood engagement efforts up to this point as well as neighbor input from conversations and surveys, we look forward to discussing zoning of this mid block, creekline SF-3 property that takes these factors and requests into account. Sincerely, Elisabeth Johnson, President, JJ Seabrook Neighborhood Association Michael Brennan, Vice President, JJ Seabrook Neighborhood Association Elizabeth Greenwood, Secretary, JJ Seabrook Neighborhood Association Dianna Dean, Treasurer, JJ Seabrook Neighborhood Association - [abstaining due to conflict of interest] DocuSign Envelope ID: F86A1035-0306-45B5-8094-D37C267EB30E21 of 49B-522 of 49B-5● The location of the property being midblock on EM Franklin, with multiple single family residences located on the street, made us concerned about the safety and wellbeing of existing residents with a project of this size. ● The number of new, already approved projects in this specific neighborhood is very high- over 1,000 residential units are in progress to be built- and an additional multi-family project seems to add a modest amount, against the desires of the immediate neighborhood. We hope that more districts would take on the issue in Austin of lack of housing and the affordability crisis. Our understanding now in March 2022, is that the neighborhood is willing to negotiate with the developer on a level of multifamily housing that is compatible with the existing neighborhood. At this point, we respectfully will yield to the JJ Seabrook Neighborhood Association for any additional steps and actions that may be in progress between the developer and the neighbors. Thank you, EMLK Contact Team 23 of 49B-5October 8, 2021 Dear Mr. Mehra, City of Austin Planning Commission, EMLK Contact Team, & Austin City Council, We are a group of individual residents of the J.J. Seabrook Neighborhood Association, writing in response to the letter you received from the J.J. Seabrook Neighborhood Association’s executive board on August 20, 2021. The letter you received expressed the neighborhood’s nonsupport of Mr. Mehra’s proposed development at 2011 and 2015 E.M. Franklin, claiming that the responses to a survey completed by 60 residents indicated that the neighborhood could not support the development as currently planned. We are grateful for the executive board’s immense effort in gathering information and attempting to cultivate consensus on this development and so many other neighborhood issues. However, we feel the letter does not adequately capture the neighborhood’s position on Mr. Mehra’s project. The primary reason is that the survey did not explicitly ask whether the neighborhood could support the project proposal — or any aspect of it — “as is.” Instead, the survey was presented as a data-gathering effort, implying that its goal was to provide some information on residents’ preferences as to the use of the property, which would then be used to begin discussions with Mr. Mehra regarding potential revisions to the plan and/or restrictive covenants that would accompany any zoning change supported by the neighborhood. When taking this survey, residents were not aware that Association leadership intended to use the survey results to determine whether residents supported the development in its current form and, further, to send a letter to city officials with that determination. Instead, the survey appeared designed to assess residents’ ideal vision for the project. We believe that the only conclusion that can be confidently drawn from the survey results, which the Association leadership sent you in full along with the August letter and are available as presented to residents at this link,1 is that there are mixed feelings in the neighborhood about what an ideal development looks like. We believe that, if neighbors had been asked in the survey to vote “yes” or “no” as to whether they could support Mr. Mehra’s project (and informed that lack of support from the neighborhood could greatly weaken the project’s chances of approval), the “yes” votes would likely have outweighed the “no” votes. (As an illustration, in June the Franklin Grove HOA, a homeowners association within the JJ Seabrook neighborhood whose homes are adjacent to the proposed project, surveyed its 28 homes as to whether residents could support the development in its current form. Out of the 17 homeowners who voted, 16 voted “yes,” and the HOA submitted its letter of support on June 18, 2021.2 While Franklin Grove residents, like the residents of JJ Seabrook, may have had more varied results if asked about their ideal vision for the development, when asked directly about their support for it, the response was overwhelmingly positive.) 1 https://www.scribd.com/document/521203386/JJSNA-Meeting-Slides-August-2021#fullscreen&from_embed 2 https://www.scribd.com/document/515296443/Franklin-Grove-LOS#fullscreen&from_embed DocuSign Envelope ID: 63926D0D-6ECC-4D01-BC58-CBF36C187C8524 of 49B-5 In terms of the specifics — like height, affordability, impervious cover, and density — that the Association leadership referred to in its August 20 letter, there may never be consensus in the neighborhood on the ideal project for these EM Franklin properties. After all, in some cases prioritizing one of these values must come at the expense of another, and neighbors inevitably prioritize these values differently. Nevertheless, the neighborhood did establish a clear vision and series of broader values that we shared with Mr. Mehra early in the process in a letter dated September 14, 2020 (appended here for reference). The Association’s intent with the letter was to give Mr. Mehra a broad framework of the values and goals we hoped he would prioritize in designing his project rather than attempting to prescribe a multitude of specific and often mutually exclusive parameters. The letter asked him to pursue a design that fosters community in the neighborhood and provides affordable housing for a diverse population of residents while respecting the need for environmental sustainability and enhanced pedestrian experience on EM Franklin while mitigating the traffic associated with his proposed development. Thanks in large part to his extensive and sincere engagement with residents, we feel Mr. Mehra has been thoughtful in creating a project design that highlights the neighborhood’s values of community, affordability, and sustainability as described in the letter. We also recognize that, should he not be able to build his proposed development, a project built under base zoning will be less affordable, less sustainable, and embody fewer of the neighborhood’s values. For these reasons, the signatories of this letter are in full support of Mr. Mehra’s project in its current state. Given our strong belief in Mr. Mehra’s development, we will continue to advocate for it within our neighborhood. To that end, we have made, and will continue to make, a good faith effort to engage with the J.J. Seabrook Neighborhood Association regarding the project. We have had positive conversations with the Association’s leadership about constructive ways of continuing to engage with Mr. Mehra, and we’re hopeful that the continued discussion ultimately leads to neighborhood support of the development. Thank you. DocuSign Envelope ID: 63926D0D-6ECC-4D01-BC58-CBF36C187C8525 of 49B-5September 14, 2020 Anmol Mehra 2809 East 22nd Street Austin, TX 78722 Dear Mr. Mehra- Re: Development at 2011-2015 E.M. Franklin Ave., Austin, TX 78723 Neighborhood Vision & Values Thank you for your commitment to ongoing dialogue with the J.J. Seabrook Neighborhood Association (JJSNA) regarding your plans for development at 2011-2015 E.M. Franklin. As you’ve certainly gathered, we take great pride in our neighborhood and are dedicated to playing an active role in its growth and evolution. We are glad to have a developer like you — a developer with integrity who is focused on affordability, sustainability, and community — interested in being a part of that evolution. When it comes to our initial aspirations for the new development, we could share opinions about specifics — zoning classifications, height restrictions, unit numbers, impervious cover, private/public roads, etc. — and among residents, we have plenty of opinions to share and plenty of real estate and development professionals to drive that part of the conversation when the time comes. But ultimately, we feel it’s more important to start this conversation not with the what but with the why. When you approach an interior designer to remodel your home, you don’t start with materials, measurements, or specific pieces of furniture; you start with a discussion of how you want to use the space, how you want to live in your home, how you want to feel, and what characteristics you value most. We’d like to approach this conversation the same way, at least in this beginning stage. The residents of JJSNA have spent several hours together on Zoom discussing what we love about the J.J. Seabrook neighborhood, characteristics we’d like to preserve and embrace in our community, concerns about density at the expense of livability and character, and the values we hope future developments in the neighborhood — including yours — will promote and uphold. Questions? Feedback? Please contact President Roger Taylor, Jr. at jjseabrookpresident@gmail.com jjseabrookneighborhood.org J.J. Seabrook Neighborhood Association | 1801 East 51st Suite 365 Box 454, Austin, TX 78723 Page 1 of 6 DocuSign Envelope ID: 63926D0D-6ECC-4D01-BC58-CBF36C187C8526 of 49B-5Our hope is that the values we outline here will inform your initial designs for the project on E.M. Franklin — that you’ll be able to find a balance between the density you’re seeking and the neighborhood features and character we aim to preserve. We can almost guarantee we’ll have input on the specifics after we’ve seen your designs, but our goal is to set everyone up for success by getting on the same page about neighborhood values and priorities upfront so they can be integral to your plans rather than afterthoughts we try to squeeze into revisions. To the extent that zoning changes may or may not be needed to bring to life the ideal vision we ultimately create together, we will want to ensure any changes allow for only the agreed-upon vision. As you can understand, we want to ensure the neighborhood is protected should things change — for example if the property falls out of your hands and into the hands of a less caring developer. Again, the real estate attorneys and design/development professionals in the neighborhood can guide that on our end, but we welcome your proactive ideas for legal protections alongside your designs. But before that, let’s take a look at what we want to see as our neighborhood evolves, beginning with this development. Affordability and Diversity Like you, we relish the opportunity to welcome more diversity into our neighborhood at a time when it’s becoming more and more difficult to own property anywhere near the center of Austin. We value a development that is accessible to folks of all walks of life — different races, different socioeconomic backgrounds, different employment experiences, and different stages of life. We are eager to welcome laborers, professionals, stay-at-home parents, individuals, couples young and old, large and small families, and more into our neighborhood. (Imagine the potential for block parties in a post-COVID world: swarming with kids and adults alike who may not have much in common at first glance, but who have become friends over the shared experience of living in the greater neighborhood and on E.M. Franklin.) We also recognize that the goals of affordability and diversity, however, often go hand-in-hand with the practice of simply slapping as many units as possible onto any given property. And as you’ve heard from many residents, it is important to us that any density be created thoughtfully and within the context of the existing neighborhood. Some of the numbers you and Glen have shared for this lot — 150 to 170 units — are alarming to many residents. When it comes to appropriate unit numbers for the lot, we encourage you to find a balance that blends product Questions? Feedback? Please contact President Roger Taylor, Jr. at jjseabrookpresident@gmail.com jjseabrookneighborhood.org J.J. Seabrook Neighborhood Association | 1801 East 51st Suite 365 Box 454, Austin, TX 78723 Page 2 of 6 DocuSign Envelope ID: 63926D0D-6ECC-4D01-BC58-CBF36C187C8527 of 49B-5volume with neighborhood character in order to achieve diversity and affordability goals without simply maximizing unit count for the sake of maximizing unit count. Environmental Regeneration One of the hallmarks of the J.J. Seabrook Neighborhood is our unique landscape that includes two creeks and substantial tree cover in an urban setting. People who choose to move here tend to exhibit a commitment to environmental practices that are not only sustainable but regenerative. We cherish the restoration of the J.J. Seabrook Greenbelt along Pershing Drive and the E.M. Franklin Green Street project, both city-funded efforts spearheaded by neighborhood residents. The latter has turned much of E.M. Franklin into rain gardens and other green spaces that are maintained by residents and designed to improve water quality for the section of Tannehill Branch Creek that runs parallel to E.M. Franklin, to the east. We hope your development and any future projects will not only honor but expand those efforts by incorporating plenty of green space, native landscaping, thoughtful stormwater control, and other features. We envision an evolution that adds to, rather than undermines, the neighborhood’s efforts to preserve and highlight our creek and create sustainable spaces that minimize the negative environmental impacts — on temperature, water quality, plant and animal life, etc. — of excessive concrete and impervious cover. (The consensus among neighbors is that the Mueller development is an example of excellent green-centric, regenerative design, with dense housing allowing broad swaths of green. As one neighbor put it, we’d love to see E.M. Franklin evolve into something resembling “Mueller Lite!”) Additionally, we feel it is critical that new development in the city do as much as it can to be part of the solution as we face the increasing effects of climate change and public health crises. This includes embracing the concepts of nature in cities and ecosystem services in land use and design to mitigate the urban heat island effect, minimize flooding risk, create cooler microclimates, and build in shade and biodiversity. In short, these practices generally increase resilience and quality of life in any given area. Green infrastructure and contiguous natural spaces are critical to counter the adverse effects of hard surfaces and impervious cover. Along with the environmental concerns, we are eager to maximize the physical and mental health benefits nature has to offer, even and especially in urban areas. Inspired by the intentional incorporation of green space into the Mueller development (again) and other dense urban areas — including park systems like Boston’s Emerald Necklace — we encourage any developer building in the J.J. Seabrook Neighborhood to prioritize pocket parks, connected Questions? Feedback? Please contact President Roger Taylor, Jr. at jjseabrookpresident@gmail.com jjseabrookneighborhood.org J.J. Seabrook Neighborhood Association | 1801 East 51st Suite 365 Box 454, Austin, TX 78723 Page 3 of 6 DocuSign Envelope ID: 63926D0D-6ECC-4D01-BC58-CBF36C187C8528 of 49B-5green spaces, and other outdoor living areas. After all, if there’s one thing this quarantine year has taught us, it’s that access to plenty of fresh air is not a luxury, but a necessity. Pedestrian Safety & Experience Hang out on E.M. Franklin on any given weekday morning, and you’ll see dozens of residents out jogging or walking their dogs — some alone, some in pairs, and others with kids and babies. You’ll see residents walking to Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard or Manor Road to catch the bus to work, and others who commute by bicycle. We want to ensure that any developments along this street and/or in the broader neighborhood add to both the safety and enjoyability of these residents’ experiences — and even encourage others to spend time outside or ditch their cars in favor of other ways to get around. This includes protected bike lanes and adequate sidewalks along E.M. Franklin, but it also includes walking trails within and among individual developments — ideally in a connected network to provide residents with alternative routes between MLK and Manor. It also includes plenty of shade and, again, green spaces and native landscaping that make the experience of being outside not only safe but enjoyable. Traffic Mitigation A key piece of pedestrian safety — and overall neighborhood experience — is traffic mitigation. Our first concern in that regard is that, as it is, E.M. Franklin has become a primary corridor for drivers heading north and south between Manor and MLK, and it’s becoming increasingly difficult for residents to get into and out of our own homes at rush hour. A second concern related to traffic is parking. Currently, work teams, delivery trucks, and visitors to the area park up and down E.M. Franklin, often blocking bike lanes, driveways, etc., and we want to ensure that additional development won’t exacerbate the roadblocks on E.M. Franklin or turn Franklin Grove into an overflow parking lot. We are adamant that any developer wanting to build in our neighborhood make traffic mitigation a serious priority, and we hope that your development plans will include strategies to address both of these issues: traffic backing up on E.M. Franklin and the spread of overflow parking. It is worth emphasizing that the sheer number of units is a factor in traffic determinations, and these issues are especially important given the number of sites that are or soon will be undergoing redevelopment in the neighborhood. Questions? Feedback? Please contact President Roger Taylor, Jr. at jjseabrookpresident@gmail.com jjseabrookneighborhood.org J.J. Seabrook Neighborhood Association | 1801 East 51st Suite 365 Box 454, Austin, TX 78723 Page 4 of 6 DocuSign Envelope ID: 63926D0D-6ECC-4D01-BC58-CBF36C187C8529 of 49B-5How can we encourage through traffic to reroute to either Airport or Springdale? How can we make car sharing, carpooling, and alternative modes of transportation appealing to residents and visitors? How can we ensure residents of new developments can park their cars in spaces (either above or below ground) that are both convenient to their homes and out of the way of other residents in the area? In short, how can we ensure that any number of new units does not proportionally increase the presence and passage of motor vehicles on the street? Community All of these values lead to one overarching feature of the J.J. Seabrook neighborhood that we value above all, and that is community. One of our neighbors on E.M. Franklin said in a meeting recently that she loves that our neighborhood encourages residents to “linger on the street,” greeting one another on our morning walks, supporting one another with shared resources and ideas, and, in general, behaving more like an extended family than a group of strangers. We know that new development can often have an isolating rather than unifying effect, and while we do want to respect and preserve neighbors’ privacy, we hope that you will fight that isolating tendency in your plans for the E.M. Franklin property. We’d love to see a development that preserves the quirky character of the street, invites residents to gather and linger together, and fosters a sense of connectivity between the northern and southern ends of E.M. Franklin. (And, ideally, that preserves the Blue Starlite Drive-in, too!) In short, in the J.J. Seabrook Neighborhood’s collective mind, the ideal project welcomes a new and diverse group of neighbors who will enjoy the neighborhood for all the things we already love about it: Thoughtful design that promotes community and preserves the area’s unique character • • Dedication to environmental protection, including our beloved Tannehill Branch Creek • • A safe and enjoyable pedestrian experience that features plenty of shaded, protected Plenty of opportunities to interact with nature in an urban neighborhood walking/biking/jogging/dog-wrangling space and minimizes traffic Thank you again, Mr. Mehra, for your commitment to dialogue with the neighborhood — it means a lot to us that you are taking the time and energy to work with us to get this project just right. We look forward to discussing this letter with you and answering any questions you may have about our vision for this little corner of the neighborhood. And, when you’re ready, we look forward to seeing your initial plan for a development that marries your vision with ours. Then, though the neighborhood is not prepared to move forward in an official capacity (with Questions? Feedback? Please contact President Roger Taylor, Jr. at jjseabrookpresident@gmail.com jjseabrookneighborhood.org J.J. Seabrook Neighborhood Association | 1801 East 51st Suite 365 Box 454, Austin, TX 78723 Page 5 of 6 DocuSign Envelope ID: 63926D0D-6ECC-4D01-BC58-CBF36C187C8530 of 49B-5DocuSign Envelope ID: 63926D0D-6ECC-4D01-BC58-CBF36C187C8531 of 49B-532 of 49B-533 of 49B-534 of 49B-535 of 49B-5From: To: Subject: Date: Attachments: go brooks! Anmol Hello, Begin forwarded message: From: Brooks Ballard <> Subject: Statement from Franklin Grove HOA President Date: November 15, 2021 at 5:35:33 PM EST To: , Dianna Holman < Cc: Anmol Mehra <, Matthew Welch My name is Brooks Ballard and I am the president of the Franklin Grove HOA. I'm unable to attend tonight’s meeting and have asked a neighbor, Matt Welch to read the following statement in my absence. I’m providing it here in written format, as well as attaching the referenced letter of support from the Franklin Grove HOA, dated June 18, 2021. Thank you, Brooks Ballard President, Franklin Grove HOA (512) 294-8666 Statement from Brooks Ballard, president of the Franklin Grove HOA: Members of the Contact Team, I apologize that I cannot be present at today’s meeting to voice my support for the rezoning and property development for 2011-2015 EM Franklin Avenue proposed by Mr. Anmol Mehra, and have asked that this statement be read in my absence. 36 of 49B-5The Franklin Grove neighborhood is a 27-home community that sits directly adjacent to the proposed development site. For more than a year, Mr. Mehra and his team have gone above and beyond with their efforts to inform our community about his vision for the property and engage my neighbors in shaping the development. His proposal takes into consideration the needs and values of current residents, including neighborhood aesthetics, environmental sustainability, affordable housing, and traffic mitigation. This Spring we conducted a neighborhood-wide survey of all homeowners within Franklin Grove, where we asked for a definitive YES/NO vote for a letter of support that included concrete restrictions that addressed the most critical issues for our community. We were pleased with the amount of participation in our survey – a majority of homes cast a vote – and we were not surprised that 93% voted in favor of the LOS. I would like to note that the results of this vote have been inaccurately represented in at least one letter of opposition that states “half of the homeowner members abstained or objected to signing [the LOS],” which is simply not true. Sixteen of the 27 homes in Franklin Grove voted to support the LOS, one voted in opposition, and eleven did not vote. One cannot interpret lack of participation in the survey as opposition. Of those who showed up to vote, the support was nearly unanimous. While I appreciate all of the community engagement efforts that have been undertaken by the JJSNA, our survey results represent the vote of residents based on an actual balanced proposal, rather than an extrapolation based on opinions around individual issues. In the end, decisions will have to be made about how to balance all of these neighborhood issues into a viable proposal, and we believe that Mr. Mehra has presented a plan that is in the community’s overall best interest. A copy of our original letter of support has been provided here today and I welcome any questions from the Contact Team via the email address or phone number provided. Thank you. 37 of 49B-5August 14, 2021 City of Aus1n Planning Commission 301 W. 2nd St. Aus1n, Texas 78701 Aus1n City Council 301 W. 2nd St. Aus1n, Texas 78701 Re: Support for Rezoning and Proposed Development at 2011-2015 EM Franklin Avenue Dear Members of the Planning Commission and City Council, As neighbors who own and operate a business in the JJ Seabrook neighborhood, we are wri1ng to express our support for the proposed development at 2011-2015 EM Franklin Avenue. Mr. Mehra and his team met with us personally to explain their vision for the development of the site, including their focus on an expanded offering of affordable homes, their coordina1on with community development groups to overcome resident displacement, and their thoughTul approach to a design which incorporates open areas and creek preserva1on. We understand that the requested change in zoning at would provide for addi1onal density and height on these tracts, and earnestly voice our support for this change. ___________________________________________ Thank you, Bre[ Ziebarth Oddwood Ales, LLC 3108 Manor Road Aus1n, Texas 78723 Cc: East MLK Neighborhood Planning Contact Team 38 of 49B-5October 8, 2021 Dear Mr. Mehra, City of Austin Planning Commission, EMLK Contact Team, & Austin City Council, We are a group of individual residents of the J.J. Seabrook Neighborhood Association, writing in response to the letter you received from the J.J. Seabrook Neighborhood Association’s executive board on August 20, 2021. The letter you received expressed the neighborhood’s nonsupport of Mr. Mehra’s proposed development at 2011 and 2015 E.M. Franklin, claiming that the responses to a survey completed by 60 residents indicated that the neighborhood could not support the development as currently planned. We are grateful for the executive board’s immense effort in gathering information and attempting to cultivate consensus on this development and so many other neighborhood issues. However, we feel the letter does not adequately capture the neighborhood’s position on Mr. Mehra’s project. The primary reason is that the survey did not explicitly ask whether the neighborhood could support the project proposal — or any aspect of it — “as is.” Instead, the survey was presented as a data-gathering effort, implying that its goal was to provide some information on residents’ preferences as to the use of the property, which would then be used to begin discussions with Mr. Mehra regarding potential revisions to the plan and/or restrictive covenants that would accompany any zoning change supported by the neighborhood. When taking this survey, residents were not aware that Association leadership intended to use the survey results to determine whether residents supported the development in its current form and, further, to send a letter to city officials with that determination. Instead, the survey appeared designed to assess residents’ ideal vision for the project. We believe that the only conclusion that can be confidently drawn from the survey results, which the Association leadership sent you in full along with the August letter and are available as presented to residents at this link,1 is that there are mixed feelings in the neighborhood about what an ideal development looks like. We believe that, if neighbors had been asked in the survey to vote “yes” or “no” as to whether they could support Mr. Mehra’s project (and informed that lack of support from the neighborhood could greatly weaken the project’s chances of approval), the “yes” votes would likely have outweighed the “no” votes. (As an illustration, in June the Franklin Grove HOA, a homeowners association within the JJ Seabrook neighborhood whose homes are adjacent to the proposed project, surveyed its 28 homes as to whether residents could support the development in its current form. Out of the 17 homeowners who voted, 16 voted “yes,” and the HOA submitted its letter of support on June 18, 2021.2 While Franklin Grove residents, like the residents of JJ Seabrook, may have had more varied results if asked about their ideal vision for the development, when asked directly about their support for it, the response was overwhelmingly positive.) 1 https://www.scribd.com/document/521203386/JJSNA-Meeting-Slides-August-2021#fullscreen&from_embed 2 https://www.scribd.com/document/515296443/Franklin-Grove-LOS#fullscreen&from_embed DocuSign Envelope ID: 63926D0D-6ECC-4D01-BC58-CBF36C187C8539 of 49B-5In terms of the specifics — like height, affordability, impervious cover, and density — that the Association leadership referred to in its August 20 letter, there may never be consensus in the neighborhood on the ideal project for these EM Franklin properties. After all, in some cases prioritizing one of these values must come at the expense of another, and neighbors inevitably prioritize these values differently. Nevertheless, the neighborhood did establish a clear vision and series of broader values that we shared with Mr. Mehra early in the process in a letter dated September 14, 2020 (appended here for reference). The Association’s intent with the letter was to give Mr. Mehra a broad framework of the values and goals we hoped he would prioritize in designing his project rather than attempting to prescribe a multitude of specific and often mutually exclusive parameters. The letter asked him to pursue a design that fosters community in the neighborhood and provides affordable housing for a diverse population of residents while respecting the need for environmental sustainability and enhanced pedestrian experience on EM Franklin while mitigating the traffic associated with his proposed development. Thanks in large part to his extensive and sincere engagement with residents, we feel Mr. Mehra has been thoughtful in creating a project design that highlights the neighborhood’s values of community, affordability, and sustainability as described in the letter. We also recognize that, should he not be able to build his proposed development, a project built under base zoning will be less affordable, less sustainable, and embody fewer of the neighborhood’s values. For these reasons, the signatories of this letter are in full support of Mr. Mehra’s project in its current state. Given our strong belief in Mr. Mehra’s development, we will continue to advocate for it within our neighborhood. To that end, we have made, and will continue to make, a good faith effort to engage with the J.J. Seabrook Neighborhood Association regarding the project. We have had positive conversations with the Association’s leadership about constructive ways of continuing to engage with Mr. Mehra, and we’re hopeful that the continued discussion ultimately leads to neighborhood support of the development. Thank you. DocuSign Envelope ID: 63926D0D-6ECC-4D01-BC58-CBF36C187C8540 of 49B-541 of 49B-5From: Chaffin, Heather Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2022 7:43 AM To: Ms. Angela Benavides Garza Cc: Alexandria Anderson <>; EMLKCT Chair < >; Liz Johnson < >; Melonie Dixon < >; Meredith, Maureen <Maureen.Meredith@austintexas.gov>; Nadia Barbot < > Subject: RE: Em Franklin case and March 22nd postponement I’m sorry if my email was confusing. I was just trying to relay the message from Conor that he would not oppose a postponement request if your group asked for one. There are no hard and fast rules about who can ask for a postponement—it can be a contact team, neighborhood association, or individual neighbors or property owners. It is up to discretion of PC to decide whether or not to grant a postponement. As you know, it is typical that the applicant side and the neighborhood side are granted their first postponement request, but again, it is PC’s decision. I’m still working on my staff report which will be uploaded on Friday. I will let you all know when it is available. From: Ms. Angela Benavides Garza < > Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2022 5:06 AM To: Chaffin, Heather <Heather.Chaffin@austintexas.gov> Cc: Alexandria Anderson < >; EMLKCT Chair < >; Liz Johnson < >; Melonie Dixon < >; Meredith, Maureen <Maureen.Meredith@austintexas.gov>; Nadia Barbot < > Subject: Re: Em Franklin case and March 22nd postponement Good Morning & Happy St. Patrick’s Day if you celebrate! *** External Email - Exercise Caution *** Whew! Up Early Working Before My Work Day! Hello Maureen & All. If the EMLK Combined Contact Team asks for the postponement can the Neighborhood Association later ask for the postponement as counter negotiations moves forward? Or should the Neighborhood Association ask for the postponement? Will the Contact Team be able to ask for a postponement here later if we need it as counter negotiations moves forward with the neighborhood association? We can also let the planning commission know about everything that left off with this request. Including an email to CW Natasha Harper Madison by the applicants. The Planning Commission might decide to postpone after reviewing everything themselves. I’ll be honest this email left all of us stumped. Never in our experience as a Contact Team have we encountered this type of situation before. Your guidance is greatly appreciated here. For the most part some Developers don’t have a problem answering our questions. Nor the NA’s questions. We have never seen an email about our contact team/NA in the area like the one that was written to the office of CW Natasha Harper Madison by any developer group. We are thrilled the neighborhood association is willing to still counter negotiate even after the email to CW Natasha Harper Madison’s office. Does everyone have this email to understand why the negotiations stopped for this request? 42 of 49B-5I believe this will help give background & context as to why both the Contact Team & NA need a bit of guidance here with how to best handle this request moving forward. We would all gracefully learn from this. We should probably be informed if there were any policy updates, etc about what the NA & Contact Teams can ask. Thanks Connor and Everyone for your patience with us! This did get a bit legally sticky. We just want to be sure we are within legal boundaries with our requests & questions moving forward. Would y’all please respond with the Staff’s Recommendations for this request so everyone understands what the staff’s recommendations are versus what the applicants are requesting? Is this something we can legally ask for to be mindful of everyone’s valuable time? This will also help the NA understand how to best counter negotiate with clearly understanding the staff’s recommendations versus the applicant’s request. Thank You! Respectfully. We want to keep communications respectful, transparent and completely open here. We also want to be kind and mindful of everyone’s time. The EMLK Contact Team On Wed, Mar 16, 2022 at 8:19 AM Chaffin, Heather <Heather.Chaffin@austintexas.gov> wrote: Based on the EMLK contact team letter, the applicant has stated that they will agree to a postponement on the rezoning and NPA cases if the contact team wants to request one (Please see email below). This would allow more time for the neighborhood and applicant to meet and negotiate. The next Planning Commission date is April 12th. Do you want to request a postponement to that date? All— Thanks, Heather From: Conor Kenny < > Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2022 8:11 AM To: Chaffin, Heather <Heather.Chaffin@austintexas.gov>; Meredith, Maureen <Maureen.Meredith@austintexas.gov> Cc: Leah Bojo < > Subject: Em Franklin case and March 22nd postponement We saw the letter from the MLK contact team suggesting more time to meet and negotiate with neighborhood stakeholders. We’d be happy to agree to a postponement if they would like one. Hi Heather and Maureen, Please let us know if they do. 43 of 49B-5Thank you! Conor ______________________________________ Conor Kenny Principal, Capital A Housing Director of Public Affairs, Civilitude Group 512-968-3050 (m) From: Nadia Barbot < > Sent: Saturday, November 20, 2021 2:09 PM To: Anmol Mehra < > Cc: Alexandria Anderson < >; Ms. Angela Benavides Garza <msan >; Conor Kenny < >; Dianna Holman < >; Elizabeth Greenwood < >; Harper-Madison, Natasha <Natasha.Madison@austintexas.gov>; Hartnett, Lauren <Lauren.Hartnett@austintexas.gov>; Chaffin, Heather <Heather.Chaffin@austintexas.gov>; Liz Johnson <>; Melanie Dixon <>; Michael Brennan <>; Meredith, Maureen <Maureen.Meredith@austintexas.gov> Subject: Re: 2011 & 2015 EM Franklin comments *** External Email - Exercise Caution *** Hi Anmol, (There are so many cases happening in our area that we- Angela/ Dianna/ Alex/ Melonie/ I - have been swamped this week with these volunteer responsibilities, with 4 very active EMLK Contact team cases at once, which has led to some delay in forming this response) Jumping in here as I believe that the Contact Team has begun asking similar questions, and not just in this case. For example, we have asked another development agent: "Is anyone from the community being paid as a consultant on this project?" There is so much development happening in East Austin, and the volume has increased at a huge rate in the last two years, that we are not sure exactly how the various processes and teams are operating. The EMLK Contact Team has been introduced to folks that we thought previously were contributing to the zoning process as (volunteer) residents only, and now are paid consultants in the developer's team. We also feel that asking questions is not a problem. So I understand that asking the questions could feel like an attack / accusation, but I believe it really wasn't the intention. I can say for myself that I apologize that I didn't flag these questions as ones that our Contact Team members should add some context around, when we are asking. We heard from Conor on Monday that the answer to those questions was no, and that is great to know. Thank you, let us know if you would like to discuss with some of the EMLK Contact Team Co-Chairs early next week about this further. Nadia On Sat, Nov 20, 2021 at 10:32 AM Ms. Angela Benavides Garza < > wrote: Hello Mayor Pro Tem Natasha Harper Madison! 44 of 49B-5With respect and kindness we would like to state for the email record that Anmol has not contacted us or me directly to speak with our Contact Team. We are dealing with other projects as you well know. You witnessed us at City Hall. I am sorry that you are being bothered by all this. Our contact team is still a bit shocked and puzzled because no developer in the past has taken issue with answering any of our questions whether on public record or not. Our Contact Team is working on an appropriate professional response here. We would like to say for this email record that Connor was happy to answer our question. He didn’t seem to take any offense at all. If Liz didn’t ask the question I was. In fact, because of Connor’s answer I switched my personal vote from a No to Neutral. Both sides gave us confidence that everyone was doing their fair ground due diligence on the ground. Grant it I was super sick yesterday and still working. My dad is in the emergency room as I write. I really want to commend Connor’s professionalism and understanding as to why we had so many questions. We were simply trying to rule out everything so we can say we have on record that we covered all these questions on behalf the community. I believe Liz was doing the same. Please allow our Executive Contact Team to come up with an appropriate response. This is new ground and have never seen anything like these emails. In fact, I am personally noticing many odd behaviors since coming out of Covid. Thank You Mayor Pro Tem Natasha Harper Madison for all your hard work. For being there while you were super sick at City Council. Our condolences from our contact team. With respect and kindness. Thank You Liz for questions you asked that cleared my voting decision. The data was more helpful than anything. Thank You Connor for treating all of us with respect and kindness as you answered the questions professionally. Sincerely, Angela On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 12:31 PM Anmol Mehra < > wrote: Liz - can you tell us who specifically “advised” you to get these questions on the public record? Was it someone at the city of Austin, or a lawyer, or someone else? This protocol is not in the JJSNA bylaws and has not been asked of other developments in the neighborhood. I’ve also never heard of any neighborhood associations in Austin asking developers whether they are paying off potential supporters. I am copying City Staff and the Mayor Pro-Tem on this message - so they can comment if this is normal protocol from a neighborhood association. You haven’t yet answered my question about where this is all coming from. If you are going to suspiciously make this type of allegation, please own it and state where your information is coming from to accuse me, my team, and residents of JJSNA of bribery. Did you see something, hear something, or did someone else see or hear something? Please let us know - otherwise you are doing exactly what unscrupulous politicians or 45 of 49B-5journalists do by “Well I’m just asking questions” when their motives are more sinister to defame the character of an individual. You knew exactly what you were doing by posing these open questions, and I find it reprehensible. I am not sure what you are referring to by “being approached by and receiving things” Can you elaborate? My name and email and phone number have been on all communication since the beginning of this process and anyone in the neighborhood knows how to reach me. The team that you and most everyone in the neighborhood have met before includes Anmol Mehra, Jason Thompkins, and Stepahnie Schacht. And then we have hired Conor Kenny from Capital A Housing (part of Civilitude) as our zoning consultant. Those are really the only 4 people who can speak and have spoken about the project from the developer’s standpoint. There are interns and other employees of Capital A Housing who support the 4 of us. After that we have lawyers, accountants, lenders, landscapers, architects, graphics, and other vendors who have been paid during the last 18 months. There is no one who has been selected yet for who would work on the project if the rezoning goes through. I am not sure why a list of employees needs to be distributed to neighbors, contact team, and the city? My name and Conor’s name are on all sorts of publicly available information and if there is a concern or issue, you know how to reach me. Is this customary? I see that you have removed the questions from the slide deck, and I expect that these types of libelous questions won’t come up again during this zoning process. It is absolutely absurd that you would pose these questions - and you still haven’t apologized for making such a defamatory accusation with zero proof. Anmol On Nov 19, 2021, at 10:35 AM, Liz Johnson < > wrote: Anmol, Given your willingness to go on record, I'm going to take down the slide from the stack in the JJSNA blog - there's no need for the question to hang there. I think that's what you're referring to? If it's somewhere else, I did not put it there. Hopefully, this demonstrates the goal of the question which was a simple one given the variety of people working on this project in different roles. References to the team remain vague, so in the interim, I would request that you share a list of the folks who've worked on the project, who are currently working on the project, and who are slated to work on the project should rezoning go through. That list would go to neighbors, the contact team, and the city once you make it available. Liz Johnson JJ Seabrook Neighborhood Association President https://jjseabrookneighborhood.org/ On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 6:05 PM Liz Johnson < > wrote: 46 of 49B-5I was advised that it was important to get responses to those questions on the public record. If the answer is no, you're on record and we're rolling forward. No ill-intent; rather an important piece of information to get into the official public record. Calling you on the phone would not have accomplished that and I hope you are open to seeing the situation from my perspective. It might also be a good idea, for future neighbor inquiries, to name the entire team that works on the project, so people know who they are being approached by and receiving things from and how they relate to the project. Is that something you can share with the neighborhood? I can publish the list of employees so neighbors will know who is affiliated and who is not in lieu of the slide you are asking me to remove? Hope this clarifies things. Happy to talk more. Liz On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 5:58 PM Anmol Mehra < > wrote: Dear Liz I am saddened writing about the false and incredibly offensive accusations made against me and our team in your presentation to the EMLK NPCT meeting on Tuesday night which have now been published to the entire neighborhood. On the very last side of your presentation you wrote: “Have any of this project’s supporters been paid to support the project?” “Have any of this project’s supporters been promised future work if the project attains its proposed zoning?” I can’t believe I am having to dignify these defamatory questions, but of course the answers to both are NO. These were not off-handed or misinterpreted comments in a Q&A but intentionally and strategically submitted as part of a slide deck to cast doubt on my moral character. When I saw them, I was astounded and wasn’t sure how exactly to respond in the meeting and chose not to as perhaps I misread the comments. I am actually being accused of bribing potential supporters and residents of JJSNA are being accused of accepting bribes. No supporters or neighbors have ever been paid anything or promised future work related to this project. I know there has been spirited debate around this project over the last 18 months as people have different opinions, but I’ve appreciated how respectful you and the rest of the leadership team have been. You may not like aspects of this project which I am ok with, but I am not ok with making false claims of bribery against me. I am curious as to what information you have seen or heard that would result in you posing these questions? If you have any proof please share with me - but I know there isn’t any because these malicious claims are totally baseless. I respectfully but assertively ask that you remove that slide from the slide deck on the website and refrain from making unfounded allegations in the future. There is nothing we can do about the EMLK NPCT meeting which has been recorded and I believe is now part of public record. My reputation has been questioned which is incredibly unfair. Next time, please just call me and I can give you the answer rather than posing inflammatory questions in a public forum. Anmol 47 of 49B-5From: McDougal, Mike <Mike.McDougal@austintexas.gov> Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2021 9:17 AM To: Chaffin, Heather <Heather.Chaffin@austintexas.gov>; Rob Schuwerk <> Cc: Meredith, Maureen <Maureen.Meredith@austintexas.gov> Subject: RE: 2011 and 2015 E M Franklin Ave. The watershed impervious cover in the urban watershed classification defaults to the zoning impervious cover. The EV Team prepares a brief report describing information provided graphically in GIS to be included as part of the rezoning decision. EV Review has no further input into the rezoning process because detailed development plans are not provided at this point. Upon the submittal of the site plan permit application, the EV Team reviews the proposed development in great detail for compliance for environmental regulations. The site plan submittal provides detailed information regarding the proposed construction. Thanks, Mike Mike McDougal Environmental Policy Program Manager Land Use Review Division City of Austin Development Services Department 6310 Wilhelmina Delco Dr, Austin, Texas 78752 Office: 512-974-6380 Cell: 512-771-4566 PER CITY ORDINANCE: All individuals scheduling or accepting a meeting invitation with a City Official are requested to provide responses to the questions at the following link: DSD Visitor Log. Please note that all information provided is subject to public disclosure via DSD’s open data portal. For more information please visit: City of Austin Ordinance 2016-0922-005 | City Clerk’s website | City Clerk’s FAQ’s From: Chaffin, Heather Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2021 9:08 AM To: Rob Schuwerk < Cc: Meredith, Maureen <Maureen.Meredith@austintexas.gov>; McDougal, Mike <Mike.McDougal@austintexas.gov> Subject: RE: 2011 and 2015 E M Franklin Ave. 48 of 49B-5 Rob, Please note that a zoning application has not been filed for these properties yet. A neighborhood plan amendment was filed in July of 2020 but I haven’t heard anything from the applicant on whether or not they are going to pursue rezoning. My answers to your questions are below in red. Heather From: Rob Schuwerk < > Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2021 3:13 PM To: Chaffin, Heather <Heather.Chaffin@austintexas.gov> Cc: Meredith, Maureen <Maureen.Meredith@austintexas.gov> Subject: Re: 2011 and 2015 E M Franklin Ave. Hello Heather and Maureen, I'm following up on my questions in the chain from a few weeks ago, which I've put again here: For Heather: 1. When you say “limited regarding watershed” that means that watershed isn’t going to be taking a close look pre-zoning decision, they will be only looking at this at time of the “site plan”, which comes after zoning. Is that wrong? Since this is in an urban watershed there will probably be limited regarding watershed unless there are existing drainage issues in the area or floodplain near the site. The full drainage situation is reviewed at time of subdivision or site plan when there are technical, engineered drawings. 2. Can you tell me who is in charge of the watershed input for this property and if not, who suprvises that department that I can speak with? The Environmental Review team in the Development Services Department looks at zoning cases. Mike McDougal (copied above) is the supervisor. 3. Can you point me to instances where staff has, in the past, recommended an upzoning from sf-3 to mf-4? I can’t think of any examples. For Maureen: 1. Given that you focus on the FLUM, not zoning, have you made changes of this magnitude (from SF-3 to MF-4/LO-MU) to the flum in the recent past and could you point me to that? 2. In terms of process, when does the staff recommendation become public—before the planning commission meeting on the property or after? 3. If before, how much time before? Many thanks, Rob 49 of 49B-5