Mitchell had two young daughters, both of whom had been born in Texas: Vida Lucille, 11; and Juanita, L., 9. His 1942 World War II draft registration card shows that Leonard East as living at this address. aff ordable housing, training for empowerment and life skills, and a supportive community to achieve life goals. Intracorp has developed the images and programming association with the relocation in concert with the Jeremiah Program. History The Leonard and Vida East house is currently located at 307 E. 2nd Street in the Central Business District of downtown Austin. Research by the City of Austin Historic Preservation Offi ce House states that the house was likely relocated to this lot ca. 1928 from an unknown location. The 1935 Sanborn Map depicts structure as a wood frame house with no synthetic siding, while the 1961 Sanborn Map indicates that the house has asbestos siding. The addi- tion at the rear of the house is not original (hence the asbestos siding) and was added at an undetermined time sometime prior to 1961. The architecture of the house exhibits many of the characteristics of the craftsman-style bungalows built and popularized in the early 1900s, however with a notably steeper roof pitch. Also of note is the front corner porch topped with a low-slope shed roof. The most prominent feature of this house, however, is the decorative bargeboard on the front and side facing gables. Each with a slightly diff erent design suggesting they have been modifi ed at some point. Additionally, most of the windows are adorned with crown molding caps. Over- all, the exterior is in fair condition for a structure of this age, but it is in need of repair. The asbestos siding has chipped off in many locations and portions of the wood trim are rotten. The interior of the house is in signifi cant disrepair as well and is in need of rehabilitation. Leonard East was born in 1883 and moved to Austin in 1913, when he founded East Poultry company. Leonard and Vida East appear in the 1910 U.S. Census of Burnet County, Texas, where they rented a farm. Leonard East was 25, had been born in Texas, and was a general farmer. Vida East was 24, had been born in Texas, and had no occupation listed. They had a son, Alvin G., 3; and a daughter, Altha, almost 2. The household also …
PARKS AND ENVIRONMENT WORKING GROUP RECOMMENDATIONS May 10, 2021 PARKS AND ENVIRONMENT WORKING GROUP RECOMMENDATIONS 1 | Page Table of Contents Introduction A. Directive from Tourism Commission B. Overview of Working Group Process and Recommendations C. Overview Description of Proposed Projects, Activities and Programs to Benefit Parks and Environment Under Chapter 351 Environment Under Chapter 334 D. Overview Description of Proposed Projects, Activities and Programs to Benefit Parks and Exhibit A - Hotel Occupancy Tax (HOT) Eligible Projects, Activities And Programs That Can Benefit Parks And Environment I. PARKS AND ENVIRONMENT WORKING GROUP RECOMMENDATIONS 2 | Page I. Introduction This document provides recommendations from the Parks and Environment Working Group to identify Hotel Occupancy Tax (HOT) eligible projects, activities, and programs that can benefit parks and environment in our community. A. Directive from Tourism Commission On February 20, 2020, the Tourism Commission appointed the Parks and Environment Working Group look into (1) Chapter 351 funding options for using hotel occupancy tax funds to benefit parks and/or environment, (2) Chapter 334 funding options for using hotel occupancy tax funds to benefit parks/environment, (3) park amenities to leverage tourism funding for park- specific projects, and (4) Palm Park HOT funding options. The appointed members of the Parks and Environment Working Group include Commissioners Bunch, Cannatti, Fuentes, and Joslove, and also include community/stakeholder representatives Ladye Anne Wofford (Austin Parks Foundation), Clark Hancock (Save Barton Creek Association), Dan Eck (Hill Country Conservancy) Angela Richter (Save Barton Creek Association), Heath Riddles-Sanchez (Pease Park Conservancy), Adrienne Longenecker (Colorado River Alliance), Molly Alexander (Downtown Austin), Ted Siff, (Shoal Creek Conservancy), Heidi Anderson (The Trail Foundation), Chuck Smith (Pease Park Conservancy), Sarah Story (Umlauf Sculpture). B. Overview of Working Group Process and Recommendations Working virtually, the Working Group identified a list of funding categories under the state’s hotel occupancy tax statute that could benefit our parks and environment. For each funding category, we identified the “statutory basis” for the expenditure, any geographic limitations under state law, whether “maintenance and operations” can be funded, the existence of any “statutory cap” under state law, any “real world examples” of such expenditures, and a summary of the position of the Texas Municipal League regarding HOT expenditures in each category. In addition, we included a description of proposed projects to illustrate how the expenditures might be implemented with HOT funds. The details of this analysis are attached at Exhibit A, and an …
S e n t f r o m m y * * * E x t e r n a l E m a i l - E x e r c i s e C a u t i o n * * * T o : F r o m : D a t e : S u b j e c t : J a m i C a r u s o R a m i r e z , E a n e l i P u b l i c H e a r i n g F o r m T u e s d a y , M a y 0 4 , 2 0 2 1 4 : 3 2 : 2 6 P M C A U T I O N : T h i s e m a i l w a s r e c e i v e d a t t h e C i t y o f A u s t i n , f r o m a n E X T E R N A L s o u r c e . P l e a s e u s e c a u t i o n w h e n c l i c k i n g l i n k s o r o p e n i n g a t t a c h m e n t s . I f y o u b e l i e v e t h i s t o b e a m a l i c i o u s a n d / o r p h i s h i n g e m a i l , p l e a s e f o r w a r d t h i s e m a i l t o c y b e r s e c u r i t y @ a u s t i n t e x a s . g o v . D-10/1-LATE BACKUP
SRCC EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETING TUESDAY, May 4, 2021 7:00 PM Zoom Teleconference via THE INTERNET AGENDA To be sure you get a vote, be a member. You can join or renew online www.srccatx.org. Not sure if you are current? Email and we'll let you know. CALL TO ORDER/APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. 7:00 Meeting procedures, Zoom tools, etiquette, welcome & introductions of new members Presenter throughout: Cynthia Milne, President, unless otherwise noted. (8 min) 2. 7:08 Membership & voting announcements. Reminder that SRCC current dues status is required to participate in SRCC business and actions such as voting and making motions. (2 min) 3. 7:10 Approve minutes from April 2021 Executive Committee Meeting Reminder: schedule for Executive meetings: 1st Tuesday of most months; 7:00pm - 8:30pm, Location: teleconference during 2020 (eventually will return to Good Shepherd on the Hill). Remaining meeting dates in 2021: GM May 18; EC Jun 1 (tentative); GM Jun 15; EC (tentative) Aug 3; GM Aug 17; EC Sept 7 (tentative); GM Sept 21; EC Oct 5 (tentative); GM Oct 19; GM Nov 16; EC Dec 7. (5 min) 4. 7:15 Treasurer’s Report. All reports available upon request to the Treasurer @ Presenter: Will Andrews, Treasurer (5 min) 5. 7:20 Standing Committee check-ins on events/goals/issues. Presenters: Committee Chairs. 1) Planning and Zoning 2) Historic Preservation; 3) Finance 4) Mobility; 5) Public Safety; 6) Parks and Environment; 7) Schools; 8) Communications (15 min) REPORTS OF AD HOC COMMITTEES and REPRESENTATIVES 6. 7:35 Check-ins on events/goals/issues Presenters: Committee Chairs/Representatives. Norwood; NPCT; ANC*; SCC*; South Central Waterfront; St. Edward’s; S. Central Affordable CDC; Ad-hoc Land Development Code Revision; (10 min) Ad-hoc Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. NEW BUSINESS 7. 7:45 Confirmation of SRCC Standing Committee Chairs: Presenter: Cynthia Milne, SRCC President Vote to confirm all standing committee chairs for upcoming term. VOTE EXPECTED (5 min) D-3/1-LATE BACKUP 8. 7:50 1601 Brackenridge Request for Variance Presenter: Russ Fraser, Chair, Planning & Zoning Committee This is a “through lot.” (The lot spans the area between Brackenridge and Drake). If the variance is granted, the new owners will preserve the existing home and build an ADU - on the Drake side. The owner is requesting a variance from the current 25’ front setback on Drake to a 5’ foot setback. The neighbors are in favor and this is the trend along Drake for this type of lot. SRCC P&Z recommends that …
May 3, 2021 Mark Zupan 221 Lessin Ln Austin TX, 78704 Re: C15-2021-0033 Dear Mark, Property Description: LOT 14 LESS S E 1728SQ FT BLK 2 POST ROAD Austin Energy (AE) has reviewed your revised application for the above referenced property, requesting that the Board of Adjustment consider a variance from the Land Development Code, Section 25-2-492 (Site Development Regulations) from setback requirements to decrease the minimum front yard setback from 25 feet (required) to 12 feet (requested) in order to erect Multi-Family- Condominiums in an “SF-6-NP”, Condominium residence-Neighborhood Plan zoning district. (Dawson Neighborhood Plan); Austin Energy does not oppose the above variance for setback requirements, provided any proposed and existing improvements follow Austin Energy’s clearance criteria requirements, the National Electric Safety Code and OSHA. Please continue to work with our electric distribution designers on the current site plan in review with DSD. Any removal or relocation of existing electric facilities will be at owners /applicants’ expense. Please use this link to be advised of our clearance and safety requirements which are additional conditions of review action: https://austinenergy.com/wcm/connect/8bb4699c-7691-4a74-98e7- 56059e9be364/Design+Criteria+Manual+Oct+2015.pdf?MOD=AJPERES the above If you have any questions about the following comments, please contact my office. Thank you, Eben Kellogg, Property Agent Austin Energy Public Involvement | Real Estate Services 2500 Montopolis Drive Austin, TX 78741 (512) 322-6050 D-4/1-LATE BACKUP From: To: Subject: Date: Rebecca Sheller Ramirez, Elaine C15-2021-0033 221 Lessin Ln Friday, May 07, 2021 10:33:49 AM *** External Email - Exercise Caution *** Dear Elaine Ramirez, Case Manager for BOA, Please forward to Board of Adjustment for Monday's meeting (5-10-21). C15-2021-0033 221 Lessin Ln: I oppose the application for variance at 221 Lessin Ln, a condominium development across the street from my SF-3 property. Why have setback standards in place if they can be easily waived? I have been concerned about the Lessin Ln development during the application to Planning Commission & City Council for re-zoning from SF-3 to SF-6, and then the subsequent application to the Planning Commission to waive setbacks for water retention ponds. These events have happened virtually this past year with cumbersome mechanisms for citizens to participate. I am concerned about this current application to Board of Adjustments to waive setbacks from the city frontage streets, Krebs Ln and Lessin Ln. The applicant's argument for re-zoning and waivers consistently has been that they could be building much worse. I feel that the development would still thrive …
The North Loop Neighborhood Plan Contract Team | h Contact: James T. Howard, j April 17, 2021 VIA EMAIL elaine.ramirez@autintexas.gov City of Austin Board of Adjustment Austin City Hall 301 W. 2nd Street Austin, Texas 78701 Board Members: Re: Letter of Support for Variance Application 5314 Avenue G, Austin, Texas 78751 BOA Case N. C15-2021-0041 I am writing on behalf of the North Loop Neighborhood Plan Contract Team (the “Planning Team”) in support of Mary Schuwerk’s and Nick Paglia’s Variance Application for 5314 Avenue G, Austin, Texas 78751 (the “Application”). As outlined in the Application, Ms. Schuwerk and Mr. Paglia are remodeling a portion of their home to, among other things, bring the home in line with safety and accessibility standards. To meet these standards, the finished floor elevation will need to be increased by 19” from the current finished floor elevation, 7” more than the 12” allowance in §25-2-963. Additionally, 5314 Avenue G is a unique and undersized lot, and the remodel will therefore result in impervious cover of approximately 47.7%, 2.7% more than the 45% permitted for SF-3-NP zoning under §25-2-492 but a 1% decrease from current impervious cover, along with continued encroachment of a setback on the back side of the lot. Ms. Schuwerk and Mr. Paglia have done an incredible job reaching out to and interfacing with the neighborhood regarding this project and have garnered the support of their neighbors along with the support of the North Loop Neighborhood Association and the Planning Team. Ms. Schuwerk and her architect presented to the Planning Team on April 12, 2021, and the Planning Team unanimously voted to support her Application in front of the Board of Adjustment. We strongly believe that current zoning regulations do not allow for reasonable use of the property by Ms. Schuwerk and Mr. Paglia and that the obvious hardship affecting 5314 Avenue G is unique to the property due to its configuration and unusually small lot size. The project will also have no effect on area character, and our understanding is that Ms. Schuwerk’s and Mr. Paglia’s immediate neighbors support the project fully. D-7/1-LATE BACKUP The Planning Team believes that the requested variance is entirely appropriate for this project and that the Application should be granted. We sincerely hope that the Board of Adjustment will approve the variance as requested. We appreciate your time and attention to this letter of support. Sincerely, THE …
From: To: Subject: Date: Attachments: Past Chair Ramirez, Elaine D-8 C15-2021-0048 8300 N IH35 The Hedge Monday, May 10, 2021 8:21:55 AM *** External Email - Exercise Caution *** Hi Elaine - Could you pass this on? Thanks! ============= Chair, Vice Chair, Boardmembers - I apologize for the late communication. The neighborhood team did not receive notification of the hearing, nor did the owner or their agent reach out to us. As the stream of requests for changes and exceptions continues for this redevelopment, I am increasingly concerned that this is not a robust project for this applicant. While the concept of affordable housing sounds wonderful, if it's not realistic to build, much less operate, you're setting up the community and the owner, and most important vulnerable low-income residents, for decades of failure and frustration. Affordability The applicant's presentation characterizes the development as "deeply affordable". This description is more typically used for households at 25-35% of MFI, not the 60% proposed here. History of Deficiencies At the Sept 2019 BOA hearing, your backup included a list of recent code violations at the property, including significant structural issues. You were promised "if we get the variance, we will of course bring the building up to code". In fact, after the variance was granted, there were 29 more notices of violation in 2020 under the current owner, generally related to electrical work without permits. That is not a subtle or hidden violation: Are you an electrician? Is there a permit? Additionally, the development services applications submitted for this property and the off-site parking property charitably could be characterized as error-ridden. Repeatedly, different applications stated different project characteristics for the same site, always somehow with the errors most economically favourable to the applicant. There were also several rounds of applications double-counting the off-site parking, despite reviewers calling attention to the issue. Parking At the Sept 2019 BOA hearing to decrease the site area requirements, the Drenner staff person assured you that they "commit to meet parking requirements". Instead, they are back with the basically the same argument - the project they have invested in won't be profitable for them unless you change the rules - to ask for you to change the parking requirement. Their original D-8/1-LATE BACKUP application seemed to suggest that anyone so strapped that they would live at this property probably wouldn't have a car anyways (and I guess don't …
C h r i s t o p h e r S u l l i v a n T h a n k s , H e l l o , T o : F r o m : D a t e : S u b j e c t : * * * E x t e r n a l E m a i l - E x e r c i s e C a u t i o n * * * C h r i s S u l l i v a n R a m i r e z , E a n e i l M o n d a y , M a y 0 3 , 2 0 2 1 6 : 1 1 : 0 9 P M S u p p o r t o f v a r i a n c e c a s e - # C 1 5 - 2 0 2 1 - 0 0 4 9 P l e a s e s e m y c o m m e n t s a n d s i g n e d f o r m i n f a v o r o f t h i s v a r i a n c e a t t a c h e d . C A U T I O N : T h i s e m a i l w a s r e c e i v e d a t t h e C i t y o f A u s t i n , f r o m a n E X T E R N A L s o u r c e . P l e a s e u s e c a u t i o n w h e n c l i c k i n g l i n k s o r o p e n i n g a t t a c h m e n t s . I f y o u b e l i e v e t h i s t o b e a m a l i c i o u s a n d / o r p h i s h …
n o i t a t c e p x E y r e v o c e R t s o C s v y d i s b u S Tax Use/Subsidy Allocation Philosophy & Model 2017-2019 Goal Subsidy = 0% Goal Subsidy = 0% Actual Avg. = 0% Goal Subsidy : 10-20% Actual Avg. = 30.51% Goal Subsidy = 5-25% Actual Avg. = 39.4% Goal Subsidy = 40-50% Actual Avg. = 51.7% Goal Subsidy = 45-65% Actual Avg. = 61.86% Goal Subsidy = 85-95% Actual Avg. Course = 95.18% Actual Avg. Membership = 77.04% Service Categories Goal Subsidy = 95–100% Actual Avg. = 98.72% Goal Subsidy = 100%` Greatest community benefit Greatest individual benefit Goal CR = >100% Goal CR = 100% Actual Avg. 264.81% Goal CR : 80-90% Actual Avg. = 69.49% Goal CR = 75-95% Actual Avg. = 60.6% Goal CR = 50-60% Actual Avg. = 48.3% d r a f t 1 - 2 3 - 2 0 1 7 n o i t a t c e p x E y r e v o c e R t s o C s v y d i s b u S Cost Recovery (CR) Allocation Philosophy & Model 2017-2019 Goal CR = 35–55% Actual Avg. = 38.14% Goal CR = 5-15% Actual Avg. Course = 4.82% Actual Avg. Membership = 22.96% Goal CR = 0 – 5% Actual Avg. = 1.28% Goal CR = 0% Greatest community benefit Greatest individual benefit Service Categories
Services Categories NON-MONITORED ACCESS Open, unsupervised access to parkland, amenities, sites of historic significance, and facilities. [Examples include: Access to trails; historically significant amenities; splash pads; preserved land and open spaces’ and to public restrooms] EVENTS – OPEN Organized community gatherings to celebrate historic, cultural, or other events appropriate for a broad section of the Austin community. These events are designed for any or all ages, interests, needs, and abilities/skills. [Examples include: Kite Festival; MLK Celebration; and Zilker Hill Side Theater] DROP-IN Drop-in activities that may or may not require registration and include some form of general staff and/or volunteer monitoring and oversight. [Examples include: open gym; neighborhood & municipal pools; access to museums and cultural centers, community recreation centers and the Nature Center; MCC exhibits; and senior social activities and senior meals] LIFE SKILLS/ENRICHMENT Led and/or supervised activities that focus on education, socialization, life skills development and personal enrichment. [Examples include: youth out-of-school time programming; non-skill focused camps (nature camps); senior programs/enrichment; school field trips; Summer Playground Program; Boredom Busters; drop-in afterschool; and Museum and Cultural Centers (MCC) tours] EVENTS – FOCUSED Events focused on a target audience and specialized in design. They are developed with a specific age group, interest, need, and ability/skill, in mind. These events typically serve a market niche. [Examples include: Trick or Treat trails; Breakfast w/Santa; Pun Off; Easter Egg Hunt; Senior Trips; Family Night; and Polkapocolypse] SKILL FOCUSED SERVICES – BEGINNER Classes, clinics, workshops, and other structured recreation activities in which pre-registration is required and the primary intent is to acquire a specific skill set. [Examples include: beginner swim lessons; creative writing classes; technology programs; language classes; nature/outdoor based skills (camping, rock climbing, gardening); skill-based camps; and mountain biking] January 2017 SKILL FOCUSED SERVICES – INTERMEDIATE/ADVANCED Classes, clinics, workshops and other structured recreational activities in which the primary intent is to enhance a special skill set. Pre-registration and some form of prerequisite demonstrating skill proficiency is required. [Examples include: Intermediate swim lessons; swim team; creative writing; tournaments; adult leagues; art classes and dance; Camacho bike team; advanced study in art; independent study (e.g., study ceramics)] RENTALS This service consists of park, shelter, and other facility rentals available for reservation including events held in partnership or by agreement with third party operators. [Examples include: facility and field/park rentals; Zilker Club House, pavilions, picnic areas; ACL; and, SXSW; golf greens fees, memberships and events] RESALE …
April 2021 April 2021 Animal Services Report ANIMAL SERVICES REPORT Animal Services News The live outcome percentage for April was 96.6 percent. A total of 889 animals were brought to the shelter which included 420 dogs, 377 cats and 61 wild animals. A total of 304 animals were adopted (226 dogs, 78 cats) A total of 101 dogs and cats were returned to their owners (RTOs and RTO-Adopt). Animal Protection Officers (APOs) returned 53 animals to their owners in the field during the Officers handed out 31 fencing assistance applications, implanted nine microchips and Officers entered 255 rabies exposure reports and submitted 58 specimens for rabies testing. Animal Protection month of April. impounded 206 injured animals. Four tested positive for rabies. 39 total coyote related activities o 25 sightings o 6 wild sick reports of mange o 3 incidents o 2 observations o 1 wild speak o 1 wild injured o 1 encounter Out of 39 coyote related activities, 29 fell within the reported behavior types (sighting, encounter, and incident). Encounters: Wildlife were a factor in this activity o 1 encounter involved a coyote injuring a raccoon and opossum in front of resident Incidents: Pets and livestock were a factor in these of the activities o 1 incident involved two young coyotes chasing resident and dog o 1 incident involved a coyote taking free-roaming chickens in fenced backyard o 1 incident involved a coyote injuring a dog when being let outside in the unfenced front yard Volunteer, Foster and Rescue Programs April 2021 Animal Services Report A total of 63 volunteers donated 1,372 hours during April. Volunteers assisted with our first onsite microchip clinic this year, directing traffic flow, making pet ID tags, and photographing the pets for identification purposes. More than 200 families provided foster care, and a total of 65 animals were adopted directly from foster care. There are 1,047 approved fosters in GivePulse, and 107 new foster applications were processed. There are currently 367 animals in foster homes. 207 animals were transferred to 26 AAC rescue partners: o 110 cats 2 to Spay-Neuter-Return program with Austin Humane Society (AHS) 105 to Austin Pets Alive! (APA!) 3 to small partners o 93 dogs 9 to APA! 46 to AHS 39 to Small partners o 4 …
