04 and 05 C14-2024-0122 and NPA-2024-0015.03 Public Comments — original pdf

Backup

To Whom It May Concern: My wife & I, along with our two children, own and occupy a single-family home at 6103 Cherrylawn Circle. I have reviewed zoning application C14-2024-0122 and Neighborhood Plan Amendment #NPA-2024-0015.03 to rezone the properties at addresses 6102, 6106, and 6108 on Cherrylawn Circle. I am writing this letter to express extreme concern from not only my family, but from many families that live on the street and in the surrounding area. Please consider this letter a formal protest of the changes being proposed by Emerson Smith (the “Applicant”). The Applicant states in the application letter that this plan would “support the vision of the [neighborhood] plan.” The Applicant goes on to state a number of proposed benefits to the community while ignoring the obvious detriments and disadvantages to the long-standing residents of the area. For example, 1) the proposed rezoning is a quiet, residential street with kids and families that have lived there for many years; 2) the streets into and out of the area of the proposed rezoning are not built to handle commercial traffic; 3) there is no available parking for the proposed offices other than street parking that would disrupt the residents; 4) there are no support amenities within walking distance such as restaurants, coffee shops, etc. that are necessary to support an office; and 5) the implications of this rezoning allow the Applicants or future owners to tear down single-family homes at great cost to the residents and neighborhood in order to build office & commercial buildings on a residential street. The proposed zoning also goes against the zoning principles in Section II of the Austin Zoning Guide (https://www.austintexas.gov/sites/default/files/files/Planning/zoning_guide.pdf). This creates a multitude of violations against the zoning principles including, but not limited to, 1) “Zoning should satisfy a public need and not constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual owner; the request should not result in spot zoning.”; 2) “Granting a request for zoning should result in an equal treatment of similarly situated properties.”; and 3) “Zoning should allow for a reasonable use of the property.” The proposed changes do not meet any of these guidelines. In addition to the above, office vacancy rates are at an all-time high in Austin (>25%), so it is unclear why the Applicant’s companies now need office space in a residential area that has no amenities to support those offices. This will add traffic and additional nuisance to the neighborhood at no discernible benefit to the residents. It is unclear how this proposed change benefits the community (other than the applicant). As a final note, the applicant does not live in the area, and the Applicant’s primary residence is in the Pemberton Heights neighborhood in West Austin. The Applicant has no immediate interest in the future of this neighborhood other than the financial benefits that may be realized for the Applicant through this proposal. Unlike the Applicant, the residents of this neighborhood will be forced to bear the burden of the consequences of these changes. Please feel free to contact me at any time to discuss. Best Regards, John Leigh 6103 Cherrylawn Circle, Austin, TX johnwleigh@gmail.com 281.961.0887