04 and 05 NPA-2024-0015.03 and C14-2024-0122 - Cherrylawn Rezoning; District 1 Applicant Request for Postponement and Public Comments — original pdf

Backup

Outlook Opposition to Further Postponements of the Cherrylawn Zoning Case From Shirley Lee-Terry < > Date Tue 12/3/2024 10:24 AM To John Leigh < < < < >; EMLKCT Chair < >; Lawler, John < >; Mays, Sharon < >; Meredith, Maureen < >; Alexandria Anderson < >; Tomko, Jonathan >; Byrd, Eric >; Howard, Patrick - BC < >; PSS NA VP > External Email - Exercise Caution Dear Mr. Tomko, I am writing to express my concerns regarding the Cherrylawn Zoning and NPA cases (C14-2024-0122 and NPA- 2024-0015.03), initially filed on August 26, 2024. As a homeowner in the affected neighborhood, I am deeply frustrated by the repeated request for postponements requested by the applicant, Mr. Emerson Smith( which one request on November 12, 2024has already been granted), and the lack of equitable treatment afforded to homeowners in opposition. Notification and Homeowner Rights The notification process for this case was insufficient. Neighbors within 500 feet were given limited information and inadequate guidance on how to advocate for our rights. Meanwhile, the applicant’s rights and interests seem to have been prioritized at the expense of the community. It feels as though homeowners are stripped of their voices when a developer requests rezoning. This undermines trust in the process and fosters a perception of bias. Pattern of Bad Faith by the Applicant Since the first postponement, Mr. Smith has acted in bad faith, including: 1. Contacting neighbors to purchase their homes immediately after a postponement was granted on November 12, 2024. Mr. Smith contacted the homeowner at 6100 Cherrylawn Circle and 6107 Cherrylawn Circle on November 13, 2024, one day after being granted a postponement. 2. Showing duplex plans to a neighbor as a veiled threat to pressure rezoning approval. Stating he is underwater on all 4 of the homes he has purchased on Cherrylawn Circle ...then privately continues to contact other Cherrylawn Circle homeowners to purchase their homes. 3. Falsely claiming to be in active negotiations with neighbors to address their concerns. 4. Filing the request to rezone as a business owner of 3 Tech companies needing office space for his employees. His attorney stated (in the virtual community meeting) on September 19, 2024, that the 3 tech companies are now actually only one, and they verified Mr. Smith is a developer. These actions clearly demonstrate that the applicant is not engaging in good-faith discussions with the neighborhood. Instead, he is using delay tactics and false assertions to manipulate the process. It is obvious what Mr. Smith( as a developer) is doing. He owns 6101, 6102, 6106, and 6108 Cherrylawn Circle. Procedural Concerns and Requested Rules To ensure fairness in this and future cases, I urge the Planning Commission to implement or clarify the following procedures: 1. Limits on Postponements: Developers should be allowed no more than one postponement unless they provide verifiable evidence of substantial progress in negotiations with stakeholders. 2. Transparency of Revisions: Applicants requesting postponements to revise their applications must submit the specific revisions they propose and evidence of neighborhood engagement prior to the postponement being requested or granted. 3. Timeframe for Revisions: Revisions must be submitted within a defined time frame (e.g., 30 days) after the initial filing to prevent indefinite delays. 4. Equitable Access to Staff: Neighborhood groups should be notified that they too are allowed to schedule meetings with staff to formally document and present their opposition to postponements or applications. Next Steps This case has been active for over three months with no meaningful progress or resolution. The applicant has had ample time to work with the neighborhood and revise the application. It is unreasonable to allow indefinite delays based on vague statements of intent. We, the neighbors, are prepared to present our case before the Planning Commission as scheduled. Any further postponements without clear justification and adherence to the above principles will erode trust in this process. Resolution Request: The applicant must either: • Proceed with the current request at the next scheduled Planning Commission meeting, or • Withdraw the rezoning application entirely. The rights of homeowners must be protected with the same diligence afforded to developers. We respectfully request your attention to this matter and a response outlining how the Planning Commission and Staff will address these concerns. Sincerely, Shirley Terry 6105 Cherrylawn Circle Austin, Texas 78723 512-423-4354 CAUTION: This is an EXTERNAL email. Please use caution when clicking links or opening attachments. If you believe this to be a malicious or phishing email, please report it using the "Report Message" button in Outlook. For any additional questions or concerns, contact CSIRT at " ". Comments Received on Cherrylawn C14-2024-0122 Email from Allison Fischer 8/28 4:38pm I am writing in regard to Case Number C14-2024-0122. I would like to be kept informed of progress of this rezoning matter as I live in the adjacent area and am against the rezoning proposal for this case. Presumably unauthorized AirBnBs are already operating at at least 2 of the addresses listed in the project location. One frequently hosts loud, late-night parties. As they are already non-compliant, I see no reason to allow their activities. Converting residential homes to short-term-rentals is a blight on this city and others, worldwide. It contributes to the housing crisis. A search of the property owners and AirBnB operators shows they are not Austin residents, so enriching them at the expense of neighbors, both housed and unhoused is ghastly. Rejecting this rezoning application is a step to actually achieving Austin’s affordability goals and respecting Austinites. Thank you, Allison Fischer Email from Jennifer Kirby 8/29 10:48am Good morning! I live in the neighborhood near Zoning Case C14-2024-0122 and received the letter for rezoning. Can you explain more about what type of development can be done under the GO-MU-NP zone and what are the specific requirements of "serving community needs"? My concern is that this is a highly residential neighborhood and sticking an office tower in the middle of it would not match the character of our working class community. Thank you, Jennifer Kirby Letter from Pecan Springs Neighborhood Association received from Abby Ruiz via email on 11/5 1:39pm Re: Case Number C14-2024-0122 NPA-2024-0015.03 11/5/2024 Dear Planning Commission and City Council, We are writing this letter in opposition to the proposed zoning change for addresses 6102, 6106, and 6108 Cherrylawn Circle which are located within the boundaries of the Pecan Springs Springdale Hills Neighborhood Association. The current neighborhood plan is zoned for Single Family 3- Neighborhood Plan (SF3-NP) and the proposed change requested is to General Office- Multiple Use-Neighborhood Plan(GO-MU-NP) and a request for a Neighborhood Plan Amendment from Single Family (SF3) to Mixed Use (MU). The applicant stated that this change in zoning would support the vision of the neighborhood plan and presented a case to convert the addresses into office spaces. What was learned is that the current addresses contain added amenities such as pools and a pickleball court. We also learned that the addresses were being used as an AirBNB. The applicant went on to state several proposed benefits to the community while ignoring the disadvantages to the long-standing residents of the area. The disingenuous approach to several individuals that live near the addresses in the request by also sharing an alternative plan to tear down the current homes to build townhomes was another red flag. The residents in the Cherrylawn Circle have brought their concerns to the Pecan Springs- Springdale Hills Neighborhood Association. The applicant’s generalized statements about benefits to our neighborhood shows the applicant truly does not know our neighborhood and what we value. The applicant does not reside in this neighborhood. Based on the discussions from our neighborhood association meeting on October 12, 2024 and feedback that we have received from concerned residents, we have concluded that the residents are not in favor of this project and therefore we cannot support the approval of this project as it has been presented. The neighbors have indicated a preference for single family homes. We would also like to let the Planning Commissioners and City Council know some information about this area in question- this street is a cul-de-sac in a residential neighborhood, not a commercial zone or in an activity corridor. There are two significant family-oriented community amenities in progress which have been long desired in this historically under-resourced neighborhood- first, these homes are within ¼ mile of Pecan Springs Elementary School, and the school is part of the AISD modernization program, starting construction in Dec 2024 and tentatively reopening Aug 2026. Second, the Little Walnut Creek Greenbelt is under construction for Phase 1 of the master plan, with a tentative completion date of Summer 2025. Finally, there are multiple vacant commercial buildings for lease along Manor Road which are not currently occupied and are available for rent if the applicant still has a need for office space. Sincerely, The Pecan Springs-Springdale Hills Neighborhood Association Abby Ruiz, Vice-President Email from Betsy Nitsch 11/6 12:44pm Cherrylawn Circle is a residential cul de sac that does not have the necessary road or Dear City of Austin Planning Commission, My husband and I own and occupy a single-family home at 3002 Maplelawn Circle. We are writing to formally protest zoning application C14-2024-0122 and Neighborhood Plan Amendment #NPA- 2024-0015.03. The applicant, Emerson Smith, proposes to rezone the properties at 6102, 6106, and 6108 Cherrylawn Circle. Our reasons for protesting the re-zoning are as follows. • parking infrastructure to support commercial use. The roads leading to Cherrylawn Circle already see high rates of speeding and near-accidents every day. Traffic control measures are negligible (limited to stop signs) and the number of vehicles parked on the streets is already high. Public transportation options are minimal (the nearby bus stop is nicknamed “Murder Corner” for a reason). The addition of more vehicles will make these roads increasingly dangerous for neighborhood residents and the children who attend Pecan Springs Elementary School. Commercial offices in the middle of a residential neighborhood will bring more crime to the • area. The applicant has proposed typical office hours for these buildings, meaning that they will sit vacant at night and on the weekends. The unoccupied commercial buildings along Manor already see high rates of property crime, drug sales, and trespassing and there is no reason to think the offices on Cherrylawn Circle won’t prove to be a similar attractive nuisance. The applicant has not included any details for how he will secure these properties when they are not in use. Office vacancy rates in Austin are currently high and there are already multiple vacant • commercial spaces within this zip code. Austin is not in want of additional commercial office space. Converting three residential homes to hybrid office space for 10 employees is not a good use of resources. • office space. Amending the zoning and neighborhood plan designation will give the applicant carte blanche to sell these properties to developers seeking to tear down these homes and build more conventional-looking office buildings. Once the zoning has changed this can be done without any neighborhood (or planning commission) input. • Finally, this proposed re-zoning goes against the Austin Zoning Guide. It is the very definition of “grant[ing] special privilege to an individual owner.” It does not “satisfy a public need” nor does it provide for a “reasonable use of the property.” Thank you for your consideration, Elizabeth Nitsch and Hagan Barber It is obvious that the applicant has intentions beyond using these residences as personal