B-06 NPA-2022-0019.01.SH - Cady Lofts; District 9.pdf

Planning Commission – May 24, 2022

B-06 NPA-2022-0019.01.SH - Cady Lofts; District 9.pdf — original pdf

Backup

Thumbnail of the first page of the PDF — Page 1 of 134 pages

Planning Commission: May 24, 2022 NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN AMENDMENT REVIEW SHEET NEIGHORHOOD PLAN: Central Austin Combined (CANPAC) CASE#: NPA-2022-0019.01.SH PROJECT NAME: Cady Lofts PC DATE: May 25, 2022 May 10, 2022 DATE FILED: February 28, 2022 1004, 1006, and 1008 E. 39th Street ADDRESS/ES: DISTRICT AREA: 9 SITE AREA: 0.736 acres OWNER/APPLICANT: Cady Lofts, LLC AGENT: SGI Ventures, Inc. (Sally Gaskin) CASE MANAGER: Maureen Meredith STAFF EMAIL: Maureen.Meredith@austintexas.gov TYPE OF AMENDMENT: Change in Future Land Use Designation Base District Zoning Change Related Zoning Case: C14-2022-0019.SH From: SF-3-CO-NP & LO-MU-NP NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN ADOPTION DATE: CITY COUNCIL DATE: June 9, 2022 PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: May 24, 2022 - 1 PHONE: (512) 974-2695 To: MF-6-NP August 26, 2004 ACTION: From: Single Family and Mixed Use/Office To: Multifamily Residential 1 of 134B-6Planning Commission: May 24, 2022 May 10, 2022 – After postponement discussion the cases were postponed to May 25, 2022 at the request of the neighborhood. [J. Shieh – 1st; G. Cox – 2nd] Vote: 11-0-2 [C. Llanes Pulido and S. R. Praxis abstained]. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: To support the applicant’s request for Multifamily Residential land use. BASIS FOR STAFF’S RECOMMENDATION: The property is 0.736-acre tract comprised three lots with single family homes on 1004 and 1006 E. 39th Street and a vacant lot on 1008 E. 39th Street. To the north and east of the property is Mixed Use/Office land use with Mixed Use along the frontage road. To the south is Single Family and Mixed Use land use. To the west is Single Family land use. The applicant proposes to change the land use on the property from Single Family and Mixed Use/Office to Multifamily Residential land use to build a 100-unit multifamily supportive affordable housing project. The project is S.M.A.R.T. Housing Certified. Staff supports the applicant’s request of Multifamily Residential land use because it steps down the land use intensity from the Mixed Use and Mixed Use/Office to the east that is closest to the IH-35 frontage road and the single family uses to the west of the property. The request will provide much-needed affordable housing to the planning area and the city to help meet the goals of the Austin Strategic Housing Blueprint. The property is near the proposed Project Connect Gold Line and approximately ½-mile south of Airport Blvd, an Imagine Austin Activity Corridor, and approximately ½-mile south of Hancock Shopping Center with an HEB grocery store and other services. The property has access to multiple Capital Metro bus routes that provides public transportation options for the future residents. There is a notation on the FLUM for this area that says: The proposed FLUM change to Multifamily Residential for an affordable housing project is a residential use, not a commercial use. 2 2 of 134B-6Planning Commission: May 24, 2022 Proposed Project Connect Gold Line The Central Austin Combined Neighborhood plan supports the preservation of single family neighborhoods. Of the three lots included in this request, one lot has Single Family land use and two lots have Mixed Use/Office land use. The proposed project will provide much-needed affordable housing options in an area rich with public transit options and within walking distance to services. Goal One Preserve the integrity and character of the single-family neighborhoods Objective 1.1: Rezone property as needed to ensure that new development is compatible with the desired residential character of each neighborhood. Objective 1.3: Promote quality multi-family redevelopment that is compatible with single- family neighborhoods and preserves neighborhood ambiance. 3 3 of 134B-6Planning Commission: May 24, 2022 Recommendation 5: New multi-family development outside of West Campus should be compatible with surrounding historic single-family houses by using similar setbacks, roof forms, ridge heights, materials, and colors. Objective 1.4: Limit new commercial and multi-family spread into the single-family core of the neighborhoods by establishing a perimeter of apartments, offices, and commercial uses Hancock Neighborhood Objective 1.11: Preserve the traditional single-family land use in the Hancock Neighborhood. Recommendation 25: Do not allow non-residential uses along IH-35 north of Concordia Avenue to spread farther into the neighborhood than Harmon Avenue and do not allow new non- residential development on the west side of Harmon Avenue. LAND USE DESCRIPTIONS EXISTING LAND USE ON THE PROPERTY Single family - Detached or two family residential uses at typical urban and/or suburban densities. Purpose 1. Preserve the land use pattern and future viability of existing neighborhoods; 2. Encourage new infill development that continues existing neighborhood patterns of development; and 3. Protect residential neighborhoods from incompatible business or industry and the loss of existing housing. Application 1. Existing single‐family areas should generally be designated as single family to preserve established neighborhoods; and 2. May include small lot options (Cottage, Urban Home, Small Lot Single Family) and two‐family residential options (Duplex, Secondary Apartment, Single Family Attached, Two‐Family Residential) in areas considered appropriate for this type of infill development. Mixed Use/Office - An area that is appropriate for a mix of residential and office uses. 4 4 of 134B-6Planning Commission: May 24, 2022 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 Multifamily Residential - Higher-density housing with 3 or more units on one lot. Purpose 1. Preserve existing multifamily and affordable housing; 2. Maintain and create affordable, safe, and well-managed rental housing; and 3. Make it possible for existing residents, both homeowners and renters, to continue to live in their neighborhoods. 4. Applied to existing or proposed mobile home parks. Application 1. Existing apartments should be designated as multifamily unless designated as mixed use; 2. Existing multifamily-zoned land should not be recommended for a less intense land use category, unless based on sound planning principles; and 3. Changing other land uses to multifamily should be encouraged on a case-by-case basis. Yes Yes Imagine Austin Decision Guidelines Compact and Connected Measures Imagine Austin Growth Concept Map: Located close to, within or adjacent to an Imagine Austin Activity Center, Imagine Austin Activity Corridor, or Imagine Austin Job Center as identified on the Growth Concept Map. Name(s) of Activity Center/Activity Corridor/Job Center: • ½-mile south of Airport Blvd an activity corridor • 1.25 miles east of the Guadalupe Ave activity corridor 5 5 of 134B-6 • Approx. .25 miles north of the Downtown Regional Center • Approx. one mile West of the Mueller Station Town Center Yes Mobility and Public Transit: Located within 0.25 miles of public transit stop and/or light rail station. Yes Mobility and Bike/Ped Access: Adjoins a public sidewalk, shared path, and/or bike lane. • There are no sidewalks or bike lanes on this section of E. 39th Street but the property is directly north of E. 38 ½ Street where there is a priority bike lane. Yes Connectivity, Good and Services, Employment: Provides or is located within 0.50 miles to goods and services, and/or employment center. Yes Connectivity and Food Access: Provides or is located within 0.50 miles of a grocery store/farmers market. Yes Connectivity and Education: Is located within 0.50 miles from a public school or university. • Across the street from the property to the south is Stepping Stone School at Mueller/UT to the north is Stepping Stone School – Hyde Park Less than ½- mile south of the property on Red River is Upbring School of Arts and Science • Yes Connectivity and Healthy Living: Provides or is located within 0.50 miles from a recreational area, park and/or walking trail. Yes Connectivity and Health: Provides or is located within 0.50 miles of health facility (ex: hospital, urgent care, doctor’s office, drugstore clinic, specialized outpatient care.) • St. David’s Medical center is approximately ½-mile south Yes Housing Affordability: Provides a minimum of 10% of units for workforce housing (80% MFI or less) and/or fee in lieu for affordable house. Yes Housing Choice: Expands the number of units and housing choice that suits a variety of household sizes, incomes, and lifestyle needs of a diverse population (ex: apartments, triplex, granny flat, live/work units, cottage homes, and townhomes) in support of Imagine Austin and the Strategic Housing Blueprint. • Proposed is 100 studio affordable multifamily housing units. Mixed Use: Provides mixed use development (minimum 10% residential and 10% non-residential floor area). Yes Culture and Creative Economy: Provides or is located within 0.50 miles of a cultural resource (ex: library, theater, museum, cultural center). Total Number of “Yes’s” 11 Imagine Austin Priority Program Bonus Features (Extra Points) Small Area Plan Policies: Supports applicable Small Area Plans, including the Future Land Use Map, goals, objectives, actions and text. List three small area plan policies that relate to this project. Name of Small Area Plan: Central Austin Combined • The plan supports preserving single family, however, the City need affordable housing options. This project in this location meets 11 of the 12 Compact and Connected Imagine Austin Goals Culture and Historic Preservation: Preserves or enhances a historically and/or culturally significant site. Culture and Creative Economy: Expands Austin’s creative economy (ex: live music venue, art studio, film, digital, theater.) Workforce Development, the Economy and Education: Expands the economic base by creating permanent jobs, especially an industry that is currently not represented in particular area or that promotes a new technology. Workforce Development, the Economy and Education: Promotes educational opportunities or workforce development training. Imagine Austin Priority Program PUD Specific Bonus Features (Extra Points) Public Space Features and Public Art: Incorporates public space features and/or public art into project (Ex: plazas, streetscapes, gardens, and other people-friendly spaces where different ages can socially interact). Integrates and/or Expands Green Infrastructure: Preserves or expands Austin’s green infrastructure (ex: parkland, community gardens, green streets, creeks, stormwater features that mimic natural hydrology) into the urban environment and transportation network. Protects the Environment: Reduces greenhouse gas emissions, water, energy usage, and/or increases waste diversion. Protects Environmentally Sensitive Lands: Protects Austin’s natural resources and environmental systems by limiting land use and transportation development over or near environmentally sensitive areas, preserves open space, and protects natural resources in excess of ordinance requirements. Water/Waste Water Infrastructure: Sustainably manages Austin’s water resources and stream corridors through on-site use of storm water, effective landscaping, flood mitigation, and other low-impact development techniques in excess of ordinance requirements. Total Number of “Yes’s” Under Bonus Features 6 6 of 134B-6 Proximity to Imagine Austin Activity Centers and Corridors 7 7 of 134B-6 Proximity to Park Facilities 8 8 of 134B-6 Proximity to Public Transportation 9 9 of 134B-6 Proposed Capital Metro Gold Line 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 10 10 of 134B-6 or a town center. Businesses and services—grocery and department stores, doctors and dentists, shops, branch libraries, dry cleaners, hair salons, schools, restaurants, and other small and local businesses—will generally serve the center and surrounding neighborhoods. Town Centers - Although less intense than regional centers, town centers are also where many people will live and work. Town centers will have large and small employers, although fewer than in regional centers. These employers will have regional customer and employee bases, and provide goods and services for the center as well as the surrounding areas. The buildings found in a town center will range in size from one-to three-story houses, duplexes, townhouses, and rowhouses, to low-to midrise apartments, mixed use buildings, and office buildings. These centers will also be important hubs in the transit system. Regional Centers - Regional centers are the most urban places in the region. These centers are and will become the retail, cultural, recreational, and entertainment destinations for Central Texas. These are the places where the greatest density of people and jobs and the tallest buildings in the region will be located. Housing in regional centers will mostly consist of low to high-rise apartments, mixed use buildings, row houses, and townhouses. However, other housing types, such as single-family units, may be included depending on the location and character of the center. The densities, buildings heights, and overall character of a center will depend on its location. Activity Centers for Redevelopment in Sensitive Environmental Areas - Five centers are located over the recharge or contributing zones of the Barton Springs Zone of the Edwards Aquifer or within water-supply watersheds. These centers are located on already developed areas and, in some instances, provide opportunities to address long-standing water quality issues and provide walkable areas in and near existing neighborhoods. State-of-the-art development practices will be required of any redevelopment to improve stormwater retention and the water quality flowing into the aquifer or other drinking water sources. These centers should also be carefully evaluated to fit within their infrastructural and environmental context. 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, 11 11 of 134B-6 houses of worship, mixed-use buildings, and offices. Along many corridors, there will be both large and small redevelopment sites. These redevelopment opportunities may be continuous along stretches of the corridor. There may also be a series of small neighborhood centers, connected by the roadway. Other corridors may have fewer redevelopment opportunities, but already have a mixture of uses, and could provide critical transportation connections. As a corridor evolves, sites that do not redevelop may transition from one use to another, such as a service station becoming a restaurant or a large retail space being divided into several storefronts. To improve mobility along an activity corridor, new and redevelopment should reduce per capita car use and increase walking, bicycling, and transit use. Intensity of land use should correspond to the availability of quality transit, public space, and walkable destinations. Site design should use building arrangement and open space to reduce walking distance to transit and destinations, achieve safety and comfort, and draw people outdoors. BACKGROUND: The application was filed on February 28, 2022 which is in-cycle for neighborhood planning areas located on the west side of I.H.-35, however, the project is S.M.A.R.T. Housing certified which would have allowed the applications to be filed outside of the February open filing period. The applicant proposes to amend the future land use map (FLUM) from Single Family and Mixed Use/Office to Multifamily Residential land use. The applicant proposes to change the zoning on the property from SF-3-CO-NP (Family Residence district – Conditional Overlay combining district - Neighborhood Plan combining district to MF-6-NP (Multifamily Highest Density district – Neighborhood Plan combining district) for a 100-unit multifamily supportive affordable housing development. For more information on the proposed zoning, see case report C14-2022-0019.SH. PUBLIC MEETINGS: The ordinance-required community meeting was virtually held on April 7, 2022. The recorded meeting can be found at https://www.speakupaustin.org/npa. Approximately 284 meeting notices were mailed to people who rent or own property within 500 feet of the subject tracts, in addition to neighborhood and environmental groups who requested notification for the area. Two city staff members attended the meeting, Maureen Meredith and Mark Walters. Three people representing the case were in attendance, Megan Lasch, O-SDA Industries, LLC; Abby Penner, Saigebrook Development | O-SDA Industries; and Sally Gaskin, SGI Ventures, Inc. Also in attendance were 22 people from the neighborhood. After staff gave a brief presentation, Megan Lasch made the following comments then the meeting was opened to Q & A: Note: The full presentation is in the report. 12 12 of 134B-6 • Austin Affordable Housing Corp. (AAHC) is the non-profit affiliate of HACA. They are the general partner and co-developer. • SGI is the co-developer and guarantor. • Saigebrook and O-SDA are development team consultants. • New Hope Housing is a non-profit with more than 25 years’ serving permanent supportive housing residents. • The property will have on-site management. • Proposed is 100 studio units, approximately 451 sq. ft. in size. • 100% will be continuing care units, which is big goal for the City of Austin. • Proposed maximum height is 45.5 feet. • Entry would be off E. 39th Street and the property is fully enclosed. It will be gated • We own the property. The affordability will run for 45 years. We are committed to and have a secured perimeter. making sure it’s a well-run property. Q: Is the empty lot part of the proposed change? A: Yes, the vacant lot next to the parking lot on the eastern most boundary that does not have a house on it is part of the application. Q: What does long-term affordability actually mean for the property? How many years? A: There are several layers. For Affordability Unlocked, I believe it’s 40 years. On top of that through Tax Credit Programs that we’re using for financing, there is a 45-year affordability. S.M.A.R.T. Housing also has a length of time associated with the affordability, but it’s much shorter than either of those. Q: If this project does not get its tax credit, is there any guarantee from the city that the normal MF-6 would not be conveyed to a future owner? A: Zoning runs with the property in perpetuity until it's changed. If the zoning were to be granted and for whatever reason they didn't get their funding this would be an MF-6-zoned property with whatever conditions and restrictions that were granted, and the new owner could develop the property based on what was approved by City Council. We are willing to put a conditional overlay for maximum 45.5 feet in height, rounded up to 46 feet in height. But with Affordability Unlocked, compatibility standards are waived, but the compatibility standards would apply to the property if it were developed as a straight MF-6 zoning. Q: Do you know the maximum height on the property without Affordability Unlocked? A: With compatibility you are able to go 30 feet or two stories with a 25-foot set back from the single family. Q: I didn't see anywhere in the Affordability Unlocked ordinance that allows a bypass of normal zoning change procedure? A: By adhering to the requirements of Affordability Unlocked you’re given development bonuses above and beyond what your base zoning will allow. Q: Does the design plans include a community kitchen laundry etc.? 13 13 of 134B-6 A: It does have a community warming kitchen. There will be community laundry on every floor, so every floor will have laundry facilities. Each of the units will have a refrigerator, stove, and a microwave. There will be a full kitchen where people can cook for themselves. It’s independent living. Q: Why was this combination of lots chosen? A: We chose this location because it’s close-in. It is in a Census Tract that is prioritized in the 9% program because it lacks affordable housing. It is close to public transportation and it’s within walking distance to amenities. Q: Looking at your chart, the differences between what could be done through Affordability Unlocked and the proposed design seemed fairly minor. Why couldn't you just adjust your design? A: It has to do with the number of units that we're trying to accomplish in the project budget If Aria Grande had been built under Affordability Unlocked, we could have built 100 units, instead we built 70 units under the zoning constraints that we had. Affordability Unlocked was not in place at that time. It takes as much effort to build a 70-unit development than it does a 100-unit development from an effort and time perspective. Q: How might this property be affected by the expansion of the Interstate? A: There are several design options out from TXDOT. I'm currently not aware of this particular property being affected by those designs. Q: What negative impacts might the community see if we fail to build affordable housing? Most of these questions are focused on the impact of the lofts, but I would like to know more about the impact of not building? A: The more affordable housing that we build, we are able to help offset some of the increase housing prices that we're seeing, whether it's supportive housing or workforce housing. You end up with people on the street because they can't find affordable housing. Q: There are numerous other places within Hancock that would provide better impact to both the community and the affordable housing costs. I assume you purchased this land because it was for sale. A: First you need to have a willing seller, then you have to find somebody that will work with us from a timing perspective and who’s willing to meet with us from a pricing perspective and that meets the State guidelines. We need to find a property that can qualify for the financing. There are layers upon layers of guidelines. Without the ability to leverage these funding sources that makes the property affordable, it is not possible to build. Q: What are your thoughts on the note in the FLUM that specifically instructs preserving single-family zoning west of Harmon Avenue and west of 1006 E 39th St? 14 14 of 134B-6 A: That is the last lot of the three lots. We can build the number of units that we're proposing on the other two lots by going higher but that's just not the route that we wanted to go for multiple reasons. We wouldn't want to go to higher than 45.5 feet. Also, from a construction perspective that's more expensive so we're trying to balance both of those factors out. Q: Is it true that our State Representative could nix the project if contacted by enough people? A: There is a process for State Representatives to oppose the project they would have had to have done that by March 1st. I know there is a lot of legislators who see there is a big need for affordable housing. Q: The property is going to be very close to the frontage road, it will not be compatible. A: There are requirements for noise, and we build to those specifications. It will also serve as a buffer. Q: How much is the City of Austin paying into the project? A: We have an application for gap financing with the City and we would be putting in vouchers through the Housing Authority that help serve the property as well. Q: I would like to work with you to discuss ACC as a potential site that would yield more than 100 units. A: We can’t unwind the clock because our application is on this property. The rules change every year, so maybe the Highland will be competitive in the future. Q: Affordability unlocked is allowed in SF-3 zoning development. Your development goals being so close to what is allowed in LO-MU, why are you seeking a base zoning change as opposed variances? A: I’m not aware of any variances that I could get under SF-3 zoning. We were really close to meeting the impervious coverage, but it was really the building coverage that was the trigger in all this. That’s why we are willing to limit the height with a CO. Q: I still have questions about the affordability timeline. Can the development be sold after 15 years? A: The guidelines required for investor equity to stay in for 15 years, but the land use restriction agreement is for 45 years and the Affordability Unlocked is for 40 years. After 15 15 15 of 134B-6 years these developments could use some infusion of money for modifications. Ownership could change, but our partners the Austin Housing Authority and Austin Affordable Housing Corporation are tried and true longer-term owners and will likely remain in their portfolio for a long time. Q: How do you expect to service the property with trash pick up and deliveries with one ingress/egress? A: I think a single point of entry is really common for multifamily developments of this size and type. We have the trash pickup in an area accessible for waste management. Depending on the development, we have done valet trash services. Q: Have you been in contact with the CANPAC NPCT? A: Yes, we have been in contact with the Hancock Neighborhood Association and the CANPACT NPCT. I’m happy to pass that information along. We contacted the immediate neighborhood in January and we’ve had three meetings already, not including this one. I’m happy to have more meetings. Comments from the meeting: • There are numerous other places within Hancock that would provide better impact to both the community and the Affordable Housing cause. For example, the City could acquire land at Hancock Center, just two blocks away. • For the record, the neighborhood first heard about this development in January and we posted the information the Hancock email listserv on January 30th (67 days ago). 16 16 of 134B-6 S.M.A.R.T. Housing Certification Letter 17 17 of 134B-6 18 18 of 134B-6Applicant Summary Letter from Application 19 19 of 134B-6Letter of Recommendation from the CANPAC Neighborhood Plan Contact Team (NPCT) (No letter as of May 18, 2022) From: Adam Stephens Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2022 11:07 AM To: Meredith, Maureen <Maureen.Meredith@austintexas.gov>; Bart Whatley < >; Mary Ingle < >; Betsy Greenberg < > Cc: Sirwaitis, Sherri <Sherri.Sirwaitis@austintexas.gov>; Harden, Joi <Joi.Harden@austintexas.gov>; Coan Dillahunty < >; Rivera, Andrew <Andrew.Rivera@austintexas.gov> Subject: RE: CANPAC NPCT Rec? - NPA- 2022-0019.01.SH_Cady Lofts *** External Email - Exercise Caution *** We do not have a letter of recommendation yet. We are having a meeting Sunday evening and will prepare a statement. From: Meredith, Maureen Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2022 4:12 PM To: Adam Stephens < >; Bart Whatley < >; Mary Ingle <casamia22@att.net>; Betsy Greenberg < > Cc: Sirwaitis, Sherri <Sherri.Sirwaitis@austintexas.gov>; Harden, Joi <Joi.Harden@austintexas.gov>; Coan Dillahunty < >; Rivera, Andrew <Andrew.Rivera@austintexas.gov> Subject: CANPAC NPCT Rec? - NPA- 2022-0019.01.SH_Cady Lofts Importance: High Adam: Does CANPAC NPCT have a letter of recommendation you want staff to add to our staff reports for the May 24 PC hearing? Our reports are due today at 4:30 pm. We might be able to add it early tomorrow morning if you are unable to submit by today’s deadline. Maureen From: Meredith, Maureen Sent: Monday, April 11, 2022 3:59 PM To: adam.stephens@capstarlending.com; bart.whatley@gmail.com; mclvinx@mac.com; betsy.greenberg@gmail.com; casamia22@att.net; davidkanne@gmail.com; lindabethteam@gmail.com; fincap2@texas.net; marysanger70@gmail.com; mademanifest@gmail.com; lynnmarshall@usefulwildplants.org; rs01@utexas.edu; krichichi@me.com; a.jarry@sbcglobal.net; jfoxworth@mac.com; wwukasch@flash.net; 20 20 of 134B-6 rylan@rylanm.com Cc: Megan Lasch < >; Sally Gaskin < >; Abby Penner < >; Sirwaitis, Sherri <Sherri.Sirwaitis@austintexas.gov> Subject: CANPAC Rec Ltr: NPA-2022-0019.01.SH_Cady Lofts Importance: High Dear CANPAC NPCT: The NPA-2022-0019.01.SH and C14-2022-0019.SH are scheduled for the May 10, 2022 Planning Commission hearing date. If your team would like your letter of recommendation added to the staff case reports, please email it to me and Sherri Sirwaitis no later than Tuesday, May 3, 2022 by 4:30 pm. If we get the letter after that date and time, we will submit it as late back-up. Thanks. Maureen 21 21 of 134B-6 CANPCT NPCT and Hancock Neigh. Association Postponement Request to June 14, 2022 From: Adam Stephens Sent: Tuesday, May 3, 2022 4:17 PM To: Meredith, Maureen <Maureen.Meredith@austintexas.gov>; Bart Whatley; Mary Ingle; Betsy Greenberg Cc: Sirwaitis, Sherri <Sherri.Sirwaitis@austintexas.gov>; Harden, Joi <Joi.Harden@austintexas.gov>; Coan Dillahunty Rivera, Andrew <Andrew.Rivera@austintexas.gov> Subject: RE: NPA - 2022-0019.01 *** External Email - Exercise Caution *** HNA (Coin Dillahunty) and CANPAC agree on a request for a postponement to 6/14. This is the final postponement request from the neighborhood association and CANPAC, our earlier requests can be disregarded. Sorry for any confusion, Adam 22 22 of 134B-6Letters from the Hancock Neighborhood Assoc. From: Coan Dillahunty Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2022 4:10 PM To: Truelove, Rosie <Rosie.Truelove@austintexas.gov> Cc: Rusthoven, Jerry <Jerry.Rusthoven@austintexas.gov>; Meredith, Maureen <Maureen.Meredith@austintexas.gov>; Sirwaitis, Sherri <Sherri.Sirwaitis@austintexas.gov>; Bart Whatley < Bruce H. Fairchild < >; Laura T. <lautul1995@ >; Jen Dillahunty < >; Victoria Carpenter Holmes < > Subject: Re: Hancock Neighborhood Association’s objecting to Recommendations Made by City Staff and Citing the Immediate Need for Further Expert Review of Effect of Homeless Housing Project on the Immediate Neighborhood from 100 units of 451 s.f. each proposed ... *** External Email - Exercise Caution *** My apologies, one small correction, please use the updated version below. HNA is not planning to retain a law firm--a group of concerned neighbors is retaining the law firm and made that clear below. Coan On Tue, May 17, 2022 at 4:29 PM Coan Dillahunty < > wrote: Date: May 17, 2022 To: Rosie Truelove – Director of Housing & Planning – via email at: Rosie.Truelove@austintexas.gov cc: Jerry Rusthoven – Housing and Planning Department – via email at: Jerry.Rusthoven@austintexas.gov cc: Maureen Meredith – Senior Planner Inclusive Planning Division – via email at: Maureen.Meredith@austintexas.gov cc: Sherri Sirwaitis – Austin Zoning – via email at: sherri.sirwaitis@austintexas.gov From: Hancock Neighborhood Association RE: Hancock Neighborhood Association’s objecting to Recommendations Made by City Staff and Citing the Immediate Need for Further Expert Review of Effect of Homeless Housing Project on the Immediate Neighborhood from 100 units of 451 s.f. each proposed for 1004, 1006, 1008 E. 39th St., Austin, TX 78751 with case numbers as follows: NP-04-0021 HANCOCK NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION’S (“HNA’”) OPPOSITION 23 23 of 134B-6 TO CITY STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONING CHANGE FOR THE PURPOSE OF PERMITTING A HOMELESS HOUSING PROJECT IN HANCOCK NEIGHBORHOOD Below is HNA’s Review Sheet Objecting to Recommendations Made by City Staff and Citing the Immediate Need for Further Expert Review of Effect of Homeless Housing Project on the Immediate Neighborhood Below is HNA’s Request for Postponement of Planning Commission Hearing of this Matter for the Reasons Stated Herein ___________________________________________________________________________ ___ NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: Central Austin Combined (CANPAC) CASE#: NPA-2022-0019.01.SH PROJECT NAME: Cady Lofts ADDRESS/ES: 1004, 1006, and 1008 E. 39th Street DISTRICT AREA: 9 SITE AREA: 0.736A OWNER/APPLICANT: Cady Lofts, LLC CASE MANAGER: Maureen Meredith TYPE OF AMENDMENT: Change in Future Land Use Designation From: Single Family and Mixed Use/Office To: Multifamily Residential Base District Zoning Change Related Zoning Case: C14-2022-0019.SH From: SF-3-CO-NP & LO-MU-NP To: MF-6-NP NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN ADOPTION DATE: August 26, 2004 CITY COUNCIL DATE: TBD HNA OPPOSITION, RECOMMENDATION, REQUEST FOR POSTPONEMENT: 24 24 of 134B-6 HNA opposes the zoning and Neighborhood Plan change because it singles out an individual parcel(s) in a district and neighborhood plan – which are now planned and zoned for residential and limited office and mixed use – for the express purpose of allowing the City of Austin, together with the Applicant, to rezone and then to jointly arrange for the construction of a large 100-unit homeless housing project in the residential Hancock Neighborhood. As may be seen from the below comments, the Staff recommendation is incorrect and inaccurate in many respects. HNA SUPPORT FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING The HNA strongly supports projects such as the 65-unit affordable housing project composed of one, two, and three-bedroom units, which the developers proposed for the same site in 2020. Further, the HNA encourages coordination between the City and neighborhoods to identify properties that would allow the highest and best use of affordable and supportive housing. BASIS FOR HNA’S OPPOSITION, ITS RECOMMENDATION, AND ITS REQUEST FOR POSTPONEMENT The Staff recommendation is incorrect and inaccurate in many material respects: 1. The Applicant proposes to build a 100-room housing project for people who are homeless, persons with drug and alcohol addiction, and with intellectual disabilities or mental health issues. This aspect of the project was not revealed in Staff’s report – instead, the Staff characterized this Project as “affordable housing” in most references and, in a few cases, called it “supportive housing .”However, as is evidenced in the Applicant’s filings made to TDHCA for tax credits, the Applicant itself stated the residents of the housing project will include, among others, the following: Persons with Special Housing Needs (alcohol or drug addictions…..) Homeless, Chronically Homeless, and Persons at-risk of homelessness Persons eligible to receive primarily non-medical home or community-based services Persons unable to secure permanent housing elsewhere due to high barriers Please see Exhibit A attached hereto, which is the developer’s own description of the project’s residents submitted under oath to the TDHCA. Therefore, the Staff recommendation appears materially incomplete. 2. The Staff failed to include any documentation or expert analysis addressing the concern that the proposed homeless housing project as planned and designed may create significant issues regarding: (a) the quality of the immediate and long-term use, 25 25 of 134B-6 operation, and management of the project AND (b) the risk of the increased likelihood of crime and/or drug use in the neighborhood (exacerbating already difficult safety issues in the neighborhood). These issues were ignored by Staff. The possible increase in crime and unsafe conditions – in a predominantly residential area with families and on a street with no sidewalks and parking on two sides – is a condition regarding the public health, safety, and welfare that must be properly and thoroughly addressed. Because of the failure of the City to take public health and safety into account in its report to the Planning Commission, a group of concerned neighbors is in the process of hiring an expert urban planner and/or expert in neighborhood safety considerations. The expert will need at least 30 days to complete an expert report. This report would assist the Staff, the Planning Commission, and the City Council in better understanding the true planning issues involved before deciding to place a homeless housing project in a residential area that would have an irreversible impact for over 50 years. 3. Staff failed to provide any transit report or pedestrian safety analysis - which issue also impacts the public health, safety, and welfare. The dramatic increase of more than 100 persons walking on 39th street daily was not properly reviewed by Staff. 39th St. to the west of the project is a predominantly residential street with families. It has no sidewalks and parking on two sides is allowed. With such conditions, the increased pedestrian traffic would be unsafe and contrary to public health, safety, and welfare. The location for this type of project should be more carefully selected to provide for modern urban sidewalks and pedestrian mobility. Rather, it seems that this location is being forced onto a predominantly residential area on a street with no sidewalks that dates to the 1940s. Because of the failure of the City to take pedestrian safety into account, a group of concerned neighbors is in the process of hiring an expert civil engineer to examine this issue. The expert will need at least 30 days to complete an expert report. This report would assist the Staff, the Planning Commission, and the City Council in better understanding the true planning issues involved before deciding to place a homeless housing project in a residential area that would have an irreversible impact for over 50 years. 4. The Project does not show present detailed evidence that it meets SMART Housing requirements as per City ordinance, although the City staff claimed that “it is SMART Housing certified” 26 26 of 134B-6 The HNA has sought to determine how a project of the proposed general design can be deemed to be “certified” as a SMART Housing as it appears to be lacking certain pre- conditional elements needed to qualify. The HNA cannot find at present, any evidence of actual compliance with the SMART Housing ordinance (or documentation for it) - although it is seeking such. HNA needs more time to analyze this issue. HNA respectfully requests the opportunity to discuss and review this with Staff. 5. Decrease in surrounding property values was not mentioned by Staff, contrary to requirements There are approximately 100 homes in the key area within 1500 ft of the proposed homeless housing project. Based on research by the National Association of Realtors and the Fiscal Office of the Budget of New York, home values for those living near a homeless housing project may decline by more than 7 %. Therefore, it is possible that over 100 Austin families would suffer some degree of financial loss if this homeless housing project were to be constructed - although the exact amount of diminution will be unknown until an appraiser can give an expert opinion. Also, some families in the neighborhood have already been advised by licensed professionals that they must make a disclosure, per Texas law, on a Sellers Disclosure Notice that a request for a zoning change has already been made. Because the City did not take this factor into account, a group of concerned neighbors in the process of hiring an appraiser to render an expert opinion. The expert will need at least 30 days to complete an expert report. This report would assist the Staff, the Planning Commission, and the City Council in better understanding the true planning issues involved before deciding to place a homeless housing project in a residential area that would have an irreversible impact for over 50 years. 6. Certain Items May Be Contrary to Austin Land Development Code (a) HNA has been advised that the notices required under Austin LDC Section 25-1- 132 were not received by some “interested parties” and residents residing on the south side of Becker St - which is within 500 ft of the project. This includes the notices regarding the filing of the original application for a zoning change and notice of the Planning Commission hearings. HNA respectfully requests that Staff provide it with proof of mailing notices and the names and addresses to which each of the two above referenced 500 ft. notices were sent. Until such time, this matter should be postponed. 27 27 of 134B-6 (b) As mentioned, HNA would respectfully appreciate the opportunity to see if this project has been properly certified as SMART Housing. If evidence shows that this project does not meet the LDC’s SMART Housing requirements, then the ramifications may affect notices and other procedural and substantive issues regarding this application. 7. A large portion of the Staff’s verbiage in its report included “boilerplate” text about Imagine Austin, Austin Housing Blueprint, and Transportation Corridors - however, these concepts are so general that they could be used to support or oppose any particular project depending on the inclination of the reviewer. Imagine Austin is very general. It is a comprehensive plan that is about setting goals and policy; it’s not a zoning tool. Parts of the plan could be used to argue for the development, while other parts could be used to argue against it. Also, the Strategic Housing Blueprint is a general plan that sets goals and strategies; it is not a zoning tool. 8. State laws governing zoning and zoning changes The Texas Local Government Code in Chapter 211 specifies that zoning powers granted to a municipality are for the purpose of promoting public health, safety, morals, or general welfare and that comprehensive plans are to be designed for lessening congestion on the streets, prevent overcrowding of land, and avoid undue concentration of population. Further, the regulations must be uniform in a district and should be adopted with reasonable consideration, among other things, for the character of each district and its peculiar suitability for particular uses, with a view of conserving the value of buildings and encouraging the most appropriate use of land. Austin’s LDC also has Recommendation Criteria regarding recommending and approving a neighborhood plan amendment that is consistent with the above. As mentioned previously, the HNA has already observed data from professional sources that a homeless housing project may decrease nearby property values of a large number of Austin residents – and it plans to hire an appraiser to verify this. HNA is also aware that there are several other locations presently available in close proximity to this property that appear to meet Imagine Austin and Strategic Housing Blueprint concepts that would not create the same problematic and serious issues (mentioned above) as would these individual lot(s) on 39th St. 28 28 of 134B-6 As may be observed by the issues mentioned above in this Opposition, it does not appear that these state law requirements have been taken into account. HNA believes this issue deserves further analysis by all parties and intends to consult with counsel. 9. Spot zoning and contract zoning are not permitted in Texas HNA has discovered that the City and its agencies have entered into several agreements with this Applicant whereby both have apparently singled out this particular lot on 39th St. for a homeless housing project and that the City has assisted the Applicant so as to facilitate this project on this particular lot. A concerned group neighbors is in the process of retaining counsel for the purpose of examining the factual evidence and the applicable law to determine if the City’s and the developer’s actions constitute impermissible “spot zoning” and impermissible “contract” zoning. HNA believes that the law firm its group of concern neighbors plans to retain can form an opinion within 2 weeks after it receives the PIR documentation requested from the City. However, the City has stated that complete responses to PIR requests will not be available until June 16, 2022. 10. Due process - HNA is entitled to a fair and reasonable time period in which to gather evidence, information and present the same to its experts for review Since certain information will not be available from the City until June 16, 2022, and in light of the need for HNA’s experts to review matters, HNA respectfully requests a 30-day postponement of the Planning Commission hearing of this matter. This request is not made for the purpose of delay but rather that HNA’s due process rights may be preserved. If a postponement for 30 days were not permitted, then HNA would clearly be prevented from the opportunity to have a fair hearing before the Planning Commission. 11. There is no expediency or other rationale that may be suggested to deny basic constitutional rights of due process It is unfortunate the Applicant has certain “funding deadlines” and is requesting “rush” treatment of their application – but HNA strongly disagrees that this is a “rush” or “panic” situation. The issues raised are serious ones. 29 29 of 134B-6 The City is a co-developer with the Applicant for this homeless housing project. The City’s agencies have offered to provide millions of dollars for this project and agreed that it would buy the land for the project. Now, the City’s Staff provided a “recommendation” to change the zone and neighborhood plan – which “recommendation” was incomplete in numerous material respects. HNA is entitled to due process, which includes a fair and unbiased review by independent experts and adequate time to have such experts review data and prepare reports. The due process rights of the hundreds of families that may be adversely affected by this project - if it were approved in the form it now stands - are at stake. There are other properties and other funds available for developers to construct homeless housing projects in other areas. The HNA does not object to a 65-unit affordable housing project which the developers proposed in 2020. The HNA and many residents nearby the project believe that Staff did not make but should have made a complete and thorough review of all relevant issues - including fairly taking into account the numerous issues of public health, safety, and welfare, mentioned herein. At this time, the application to change Neighborhood Plan and present zone should be denied; or alternatively, this matter should be continued for 30 days. Respectfully submitted, Hancock Neighborhood Association By: Coan Dillahunty Its President 30 30 of 134B-6 From: Coan Dillahunty Sent: Tuesday, May 3, 2022 4:44 PM To: Truelove, Rosie <Rosie.Truelove@austintexas.gov>; Rusthoven, Jerry <Jerry.Rusthoven@austintexas.gov>; May, James <James.May@austintexas.gov>; Meredith, Maureen <Maureen.Meredith@austintexas.gov>; Sirwaitis, Sherri <Sherri.Sirwaitis@austintexas.gov>; Jones, Nathan <Nathan.Jones@austintexas.gov>; Radtke, Alex <Alex.Radtke@austintexas.gov> Cc: Bart Whatley < Bruce H. Fairchild < >; Laura T. < > Subject: RE: Hancock Neighborhood Association's request for postponement of at least 60 days of planning commission hearing on the housing project for 100 units of 451 s.f. each proposed for 1004, 1006, 1008 E. 39th St., *** External Email - Exercise Caution *** May 3, 2022 To: Rosie Truelove – Director of Housing & Planning – via email at: Rosie.Truelove@austintexas.gov To: Jerry Rusthoven – Housing and Planning Department – via email at: Jerry.Rusthoven@austintexas.gov To: James May – Housing and Community Development Officer – via email at: James.May@austintexas.gov To: Maureen Meredith – Senior Planner Inclusive Planning Division – via email at: Maureen.Meredith@austintexas.gov To: Sherri Sirwaitis – Austin Zoning – via email at: sherri.sirwaitis@austintexas.gov To: Nathan Jones – Austin Affordability Unlocked – via email at: nathan.jones@austintexas.gov To: Alex Radtke – Senior Planner – via email at: Alex.Radtke@austintexas.gov From: Hancock Neighborhood Association RE: Hancock Neighborhood Association's request for postponement of at least 60 days of Planning Commission hearing on the housing project for 100 units of 451 s.f. each proposed for 1004, 1006, 1008 E. 39th St., Austin, TX 78751 with case numbers as follows: NP-04-0021; NPA-2022-0019.01.SH C14-04-0023 31 31 of 134B-6 (all referred to "Housing Project" also may be referred to as 'Cady Lofts") Dear Addresses: The Hancock Neighborhood Association (“HNA”) respectfully submits this request for a 60- day postponement of all matters concerning the Housing Project before the Planning Commission for the following reasons: BACKGROUND The Hancock Neighborhood Association (“HNA”) has been chartered to preserve the Hancock neighborhood as may be seen by the heading and title of our website at https://www.hancockna.org. The boundaries of the Association are: west of Interstate 35 to the east side of Duval and the north side of 32nd Street to the south side of 45th Street. The HNA voting membership opposed the Housing Project by a vote of 87.5% of its members on April 28, 2022. A copy of the resolution is attached as Exhibit A. It has only recently come to the attention of the HNA that the developers have submitted numerous documents to the City of Austin, TDHCA, HACA, and AAFC, some of which exceed 450 pages. Unbeknownst to the HNA, the developers have submitted documents concerning the Housing Project to the City of Austin concerning certain applications as far back as 2020. This indicates that the Housing Project has been planned for years in advance by developers. Developers and the City have had ample time to assemble documents and prepare presentations and submittals for City of Austin, TDHCA, HACA, and AAFC – but the HNA has had none – which is grossly unfair to our neighborhood association. Developers have had numerous communications with these governmental groups over the last several months, preparing and submitting various documents, letters, and applications – and HNA has had none – because it was not timely notified. The HNA has only, within the last two weeks, become aware of a larger part of the scope of the possible planned Housing Project. The HNA has learned that this project is being jointly developed, supported, and funded by the City of Austin and its agencies and that it has been assembled for many months prior. HNA has not in the past or at this time yet been fully and adequately informed or notified as to the complete scope of the Housing Project. (Please note that there is a significant 32 32 of 134B-6 difference between being “informed” via an innocuous one-paragraph email and being “fully and adequate” informed so as to enable one to make an informed decision). Further, the proposed plans for the Housing Project have changed substantially in the last two weeks, with the developer presenting two new options for their Housing Project, both with different associated zoning, height, and impervious cover among other elements. We are unsure of which plan is being brought forth for consideration and require additional time to research these options. The Hancock neighborhood is a quiet historic area that has for years maintained its unique character through SF-3 zoning. Much critical material is still unknown to HNA. It is important because of the need for HNA to make an informed decision. BRIEF FACTUAL STATEMENT 1. HNA is in the process of now discovering more information about the Housing Project and its related business every day - although its request for more information from the developer has been rejected. Please see the email from me to the developer sent on May 3, 2022 – attached as Exhibit B. 2. Some materials revealed that the proposed Housing Project (but not yet finally decided): a. would be at least four stories high, have minimal green space, minimal parking, almost all impervious cover, would have a floor plan much like a detention center with 100 efficiency units of 451 square feet each in a rectangular format b. the business aspect of this large out of character building is that it would operate supportive housing for people coming out of homelessness, treatment facilities, with case managers c. There are no two or three-bedroom units of affordable or supportive housing. 3. The developer’s financing deadlines and their impacts on the overall timeline have not been clearly articulated, although the developers are using the financing timeline argument to support their position against postponement by interested parties. Had the developers been more forthcoming and cooperative with the neighborhood, the neighborhood's ideas for two and three-bedroom affordable housing for mixed-income would have been received by the developers. 33 33 of 134B-6 4. The members of the Hancock Neighborhood Association are not experts in development, they all have day jobs, they want to see affordable and supportive housing expand in Austin, but they also want to protect their legal rights, property rights and want the fair opportunity to gather information, assemble it and then have experts in land use planning, civil engineers, attorneys, appraisers, environmental and safety experts examine all the information. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1. There are compelling and complex reasons why a 60-day postponement request is justified and why there are "extraordinary reasons" showing that it should be granted. 2. The housing project and its related business are incompatible with the neighborhood plan and are strongly opposed by the Neighborhood Association. The SF-3 zoning district and Neighborhood Plan established by the ordinance of the city of Austin are something that must be maintained on a consistent basis. 3. Since this Housing Project is being co-developed by the city of Austin and its agencies with a private developer that has sought a change of the established NP and zoning, this greatly impacts the HNA's analysis of the project and creates issues that HNA must explore. EXTRAORDINARY ISSUES RAISED BY THIS COMPLEX AND "OUT OF CHARACTER" BUSINESS AND HOUSING PROJECT WHICH DEMONSTRATE NEED FOR 60-DAY CONTINUANCE 1. The HNA has demonstrated good faith by suggesting alternative designs that would include both affordable and supportive housing for both families and individuals on these lots, but the developers refused to modify their 100 unit and 451 s.f. unit rectangular design. 2. This is not an "ordinary case" of a neighborhood plan change or zoning change where a developer or builder seeks change for a triplex or fourplex or some incentives and can "work it out" with the neighborhood association, rather this is a unique and complex case where an extraordinarily "out of character" Housing Project and related business is seeking. CONCLUSION 34 34 of 134B-6 Based upon the foregoing, the Hancock Neighborhood Association respectfully requests that the hearing of the above-mentioned extraordinary case and housing project and related business be continued for at least 60 days from May 10, 2022. Due to time constraints, HNA reserves the right to supplement this Request prior to May 10, 2022. Respectfully submitted, Hancock Neighborhood Association By its President: Coan Dillahunty Attachment: Resolution Attachment: HNA Cady Lofts Response Email dated 05/04/2022 35 35 of 134B-6 36 36 of 134B-6 37 37 of 134B-6 38 38 of 134B-6 39 39 of 134B-6 Site 40 40 of 134B-6 41 41 of 134B-6 42 42 of 134B-6 43 43 of 134B-6 44 44 of 134B-6 45 45 of 134B-6 46 46 of 134B-6 47 47 of 134B-6 48 48 of 134B-6 49 49 of 134B-6 50 50 of 134B-6 51 51 of 134B-6 52 52 of 134B-6 53 53 of 134B-6 54 54 of 134B-6 55 55 of 134B-6 56 56 of 134B-6 57 57 of 134B-6 58 58 of 134B-6 59 59 of 134B-6 60 60 of 134B-6 61 61 of 134B-6 62 62 of 134B-6 63 63 of 134B-6 64 64 of 134B-6 65 65 of 134B-6 66 66 of 134B-6 67 67 of 134B-6 68 68 of 134B-6 69 69 of 134B-6 70 70 of 134B-6 71 71 of 134B-6 72 72 of 134B-6 73 73 of 134B-6 74 74 of 134B-6 75 75 of 134B-6 76 76 of 134B-6 77 77 of 134B-6 78 78 of 134B-6 79 79 of 134B-6Correspondence Received 80 80 of 134B-6 81 81 of 134B-6 701 Texas Ave Austin TX 78705 1 May 2022 Ms. Maureen Meredith Senior Planner/Case Manager City of Austin Planning and Zoning Dear Ms. Meredith: An online search indicates that the Cady Lofts application has been I write to ask you to answer critical remaining questions about the proposed housing project at 39th St. and IH-35 before the city council takes any vote to approve it. pending since 2020, with three iterations, but our neighborhood only recently learned about it. Why weren’t we included in planning from the very beginning so that any concerns we might have could be discussed, addressed and resolved? Have all the legal requirements for local and state review boards been met? This neighborhood was already forced to give up twenty-two acres for the Concordia PUD. We were told that its substantial acreage required special planning so that uses, amenities and green space could be carefully planned. But then the promoter was convicted of fraud and then the city let tracts be developed one by one with no further neighborhood involvement, so we were simply left with canyons of expensive apartments and street traffic gridlock. Protected trees wee not saved. We did not get the promised useful commercial venues serving essential needs that would eliminate car trips, such as Trader Joe’s (or the Porsche dealership) that were dangled in front of us. We did not get any affordable housing. Why weren’t some of those twenty-two acres that required such intensive zoning used for assisted living near St. David’s Hospital, student housing by the UT campus, or affordable housing period? development without it somehow improving the neighborhood, so why should we acquiesce to this proposal now without adequate planning--- unless for you, our city officials, it doesn’t really matter if development is properly and well-planned? No other neighborhood in this city has given up a bigger tract for 82 82 of 134B-6 I’m not against housing low-income or homeless people here, but you don’t solve someone’s problems simply by sticking them in a room. Other than identifying a site, and chasing funds, I haven’t read what specific needs residents will have, and how, specifically, they will have access to resources. Public transit in this area is woefully inefficient and drivers regularly ignore pedestrians, especially along Red River St., so it is unlikely that even the most basic transit and safety needs of the Cady Lofts residents will be met. In the recent past, homeless people and residents of halfway houses have accosted area neighbors, (sometimes threateningly), especially around Hancock Center and along Red River St. What can (or should) we anticipate if one hundred more needy people move into the area? Planning-wise, if you’re going to locate this multi-story building right next to single-family homes, we need a buffer of some kind to successfully integrate the project into the neighborhood, a green space, even a sustainable green wall on the building itself—would provide that buffer, while promoting mental health, provide additional drainage, and reduce heat. Nothing like that has been suggested, much less agreed to, in writing. Neighbors have now been told that owners of other nearby tracts are considering Affordability Unlocked status (I note, not any tract in the Concordia PUD however), so is this latest application review simply one more step to wipe out the established single-family homes and trees of this area?—essentially, signaling that our entire neighborhood is expendable? Without the city providing written answers to the planning questions I’ve raised and assurances that our neighborhood will be preserved, I object to the city’s plan for our neighborhood to sacrifice any more acreage just so a developer can put money in its pocket, without regard to the project’s sufficiency for its prospective residents, much less for surrounding neighbors. Sincerely, Barbara Epstein 512-476-5391 83 83 of 134B-6 84 84 of 134B-6 85 85 of 134B-6 86 86 of 134B-6 From: noreply@coadigital.onbehalfof.austintexas.gov <noreply@coadigital.onbehalfof.austintexas.gov> Sent: Monday, May 2, 2022 4:07 PM To: Meredith, Maureen <Maureen.Meredith@austintexas.gov> Subject: Comments due to Planning and Zoning Commission in re: Cady Lofts This message is from David S Guarino. To the members of the Austin Planning and Zoning Commission: I oppose the current application for a zoning variance for the proposed Cady Lofts housing complex on East 39th Street ,and support the proposed Lancaster housing complex in the Windsor Park Neighborhood. I am concerned that pressing forward with the Cady Lofts project at this time could lead to the loss of one or both of these projects. It is my understanding that the State of Texas will not grant needed tax breaks to more than one supportive housing project in the same year if they are within two miles of each other, as is the case with these two proposed projects. Of the two, the proposed Lancaster project enjoys the support of the Windsor Park Neighborhood Association, is being pursued under the auspices of a low cost housing developer and project manager with established track records in Austin, and is further along in its development process. It offers a more compatible fit with a family oriented neighborhood by providing supportive housing for women and children, including those living in family groups. By contrast, the Cady Lofts project will be developed under the auspices of a non-profit new to Austin, and would provide housing only for single adults, despite being within easy walking distance of daycares and elementary schools. The unfortunate timing of this application also puts it in direct contention with the Lancaster project for state tax benefits, that at best will cost Austin one worthy project, and at worst, both of them. Cady Lofts is also requesting a change in zoning, although project developers say the current zoning is sufficient for the proposed project. What happens to the property if the zoning variance is granted, and the project falls through? Will that bring disruptive change to the quiet family neighborhood that exists there now? For these reasons, it would be best if the zoning variance is denied. If the project is indeed worthwhile, and can be modified to welcome families as well as single adults, perhaps it can be pursued at a more auspicious time when the project is more likely to result in success without endangering another, perhaps more worthwhile, project. thank you for your consideration. David Guarino 605 East 38th Street District 9 Austin, TX 78705 87 87 of 134B-6 *** External Email - Exercise Caution *** Maureen Meredith Senior Planner/Case Manager City of Austin Planning and Zoning (512) 974-2695 Maureen.meredith@austintexas.gov RE: Plan Amendment Case #: NPA-2022-0019.01.SH Zoning Case #: C14-2022-0019.SH Property addresses: 1004-1006 E. 39th Street (0.736) acres I am a resident of the Hancock Neighborhood Association. I’m writing to oppose the Cady Lofts proposal for a zoning change. The best option for the Hancock residents will be a vote for no zoning change so there is a buffer for the existing residents that will be the most impacted. My concerns regarding the higher zoning is that the Affordability Unlock on a MF-6 could allow 135’ and more impervious cover. Cady Lofts told the HNA in a presentation a few weeks ago that they could build on the current zoning. The lower zoning advantage for our neighborhood is 60’ and less impervious cover. A better outcome for this potential project will foster a more balanced community. Thank you for your consideration. Respectfully, Linda H. Guerrero 88 88 of 134B-6 89 89 of 134B-6 -----Original Message----- From: Mary Ann Osborne Sent: Tuesday, May 3, 2022 12:17 PM To: Meredith, Maureen <Maureen.Meredith@austintexas.gov> Subject: Cady Loft email Mary Ann Osborne 512 E. 39th St Austin, TX 78751 May 3, 2022 Maureen Meredith Senior Planner/Case Manager City of Austin Planning and Zoning (512) 974-2695 Maureen.meredith@austintexas.gov RE: Plan Amendment Case #: NPA-2022-0019.01.SH Zoning Case #: C14-2022-0019.SH Property addresses: 1004-1006 E. 39th Street (0.736) acres Ms. Meredith, I am writing as a member of the Hancock Neighborhood to express my support for public supportive housing but not the Cady Lofts proposal. There is a better option, Lancaster, which is in a more appropriate development area and has neighborhood support. I hope Austin will move forward in a progressive but responsible way, meeting needs while also maintaining respect for neighborhoods. Thank you for your consideration. Best regards, Mary Ann Osborne 90 90 of 134B-6 91 91 of 134B-6 92 92 of 134B-6 93 93 of 134B-6 94 94 of 134B-6 95 95 of 134B-6 96 96 of 134B-6Applicant’s Outreach to the Neighborhood From: Alice Woods Sent: Friday, April 29, 2022 5:04 PM To: Meredith, Maureen <Maureen.Meredith@austintexas.gov>; Sirwaitis, Sherri <Sherri.Sirwaitis@austintexas.gov> Cc: Megan Lasch; Sally Gaskin ; Abby Penner > Subject: NPA-2022-0019.01.SH Cady Lofts - Supplemental Information *** External Email - Exercise Caution *** Maureen and Sherri, On behalf of Megan Lasch, and regarding Case NPA-2022-0019.01.SH, please find attached a timeline and documentation of our engagement with the Hancock Neighborhood Association starting in January of this year, as well as support letters for this community from local nonprofits. Please confirm receipt of these items and let me know if you have questions or if there is anything further we can provide at the moment. Thanks and have a great weekend. ALICE WOODS Development Associate Saigebrook Development | O-SDA Industries AWoods@saigebrook.com | C: 314.540.5355 5501-A Balcones Dr. #302 Austin, TX 78731 97 97 of 134B-6 98 98 of 134B-6 99 99 of 134B-6 100 100 of 134B-6 101 101 of 134B-6 102 102 of 134B-6 103 103 of 134B-6 104 104 of 134B-6 105 105 of 134B-6 106 106 of 134B-6 107 107 of 134B-6 108 108 of 134B-6 109 109 of 134B-6 110 110 of 134B-6 111 111 of 134B-6 112 112 of 134B-6 113 113 of 134B-6 114 114 of 134B-6 115 115 of 134B-6 116 116 of 134B-6 117 117 of 134B-6 118 118 of 134B-6 119 119 of 134B-6 120 120 of 134B-6 121 121 of 134B-6 122 122 of 134B-6 123 123 of 134B-6 124 124 of 134B-6 125 125 of 134B-6 Joshua Ellinger’s (property owner) Presentation at the April 7, 2022 Community Meeting From: Joshua Ellinger Sent: Monday, May 2, 2022 4:56 PM To: Meredith, Maureen <Maureen.Meredith@austintexas.gov> Subject: Re: Neighborhood Presentation at April 7 Cmty Mtg *** External Email - Exercise Caution *** Maureen, Here's the updated powerpoint. My self-interested angle is that I want the City to stop the cut-through traffic in the neighborhood from the highway and spend all the crazy bond money to build us a wall out of housing and parking garages. I'm okay with PSH and affordable housing next to me. And, morally, I really want to get the parasitic banks out of the funding picture by selling the tax credits to neighbors and local tech companies. It's a plan worth pursuing. Josh 126 126 of 134B-6 127 127 of 134B-6 128 128 of 134B-6 129 129 of 134B-6 130 130 of 134B-6 131 131 of 134B-6 132 132 of 134B-6 133 133 of 134B-6 134 134 of 134B-6