4 - 5312 Shoal Creek Blvd - Applicant presentation — original pdf
Backup
All documents
5 - 1301 Shoal Creek Blvd - Applicant presentation — original pdf
House Park Stadium – Long-Term Master Plan 1301 Shoal Creek Blvd, Austin 78701 Architectural Review Committee Monday, April 12th at 3:00 PM o Facility Goals o Historic Elements o Site Considerations o Scope Options o Next Steps Facility Goals Develop + Implement a long-term master plan for the campus that : o Maintains the overall character of this iconic, flagship AISD facility o Updates the facilities for contemporary athletics o Improves the site and buildings to align with current building, accessibility, and life safety codes 1. Understood to need review by Austin Historical Preservation: o Grandstands – 1938/1939 construction o Scoreboard – 1945 construction, electronic scoreboard ~ 1990s 2. Assumed to be not required for historical review: o Ticketing Booth – suspect 1988 construction o Memorial Inscription at base of scoreboard + Lions Club plaque – owner request to be maintained, but might be relocated on site 3. Historic Landmark Commission: o House Park improvements are likely going to have a lot of public interest; would like to engage with HLC as early as possible Historic Elements • Physical Constraints – ▪ West + North sides by roadways ▪ East side by fire lane + existing structures • Flood Plain – Atlas 14 and City of Austin 2019 adoption suggests need for safe access improvements for first responders – flood plain level is 6’-7’ above field level • Parking – agreement with ACC for shared use of their parking garage on game nights. Still waiting for City of Austin to confirm how much additional parking may be needed, which might require a new parking garage. • Stormwater Management – if additional impervious cover added to site, new pond(s) would be required outside of the floodplain 500 yr 100 yr Site Constraints + Considerations ACC Parking Garage Athletics Support: Locker Rooms, Training, Office Option A: Build within Flood Plain ▪ Keeps existing grandstands, but will renovate to: ▪ Provide elevator access to expanded press boxes ▪ Provide accessible routes to and seating for Bus Parking spectators, as per ADA requirements ▪ Repair + maintenance to address structural deficiencies and extend the useful life ▪ Potential removal or relocation of the scoreboard Spectator Support: Ticketing, Restrooms Concessions Garage Option A Bus Parking Athletics Support: Locker Rooms, Training, Office Option B: Build above Flood Plain ▪ Replaces existing grandstands ▪ Removal or relocation of the scoreboard Spectator Restrooms + Concessions Ticketing Surface Parking …
6 - 6414 N Lamar - Applicant presentation — original pdf
6414 N Lamar, Austin TX SITE Original building footprint 2006 and 2007 Renovations Section through the original open front element Amended to receive additions in 2006 and 2007 2006 and 2007 Renovations involved removing the yellow portions of the exterior walls Interior photos of existing condition showing ceilings, floors, stage, booths, walls, and all significant items related to the former use having been removed by the former owner Interior photos of existing condition showing ceilings, floors, stage, booths, walls, and all significant items related to the former use having been removed by the former owner Interior photos of existing condition showing ceilings, floors, stage, booths, walls, and all significant items related to the former use having been removed by the former owner Exterior photo of rear of building in its current state. The additions shown mostly replaced the existing building in previous renovations Exterior photo of front of building in its current state. The additions shown to each side of the original open element were added in 2007 having done significant damage to the original structure beyond. The front wall of the open porch was filled in at some unknown date. Exterior photo of south side of building in its current state. Various relatively recent additions have obscured or in large parts removed the original structure.
7 - 1906 W 33rd St - Citizen comments — original pdf
From: To: Subject: Date: Marsha Topham Contreras, Kalan FW: 1906 W 33rd_ email from Bryker wood neighborhood Friday, April 9, 2021 8:22:18 AM *** External Email - Exercise Caution *** Kalan, Is this email from Brykerwood Neighborhood of interest to the ARC in their preliminary review? The homeowners, Julie and Chad Costello, reached out to the neighborhood. Thanks, Marsha From: Chad Costello Sent: Thursday, April 8, 2021 6:34 PM To: Marsha Topham Cc: Julie Costello Subject: Fwd: 1906 W 33rd Hi Marsha - see below for our prior communications with the neighborhood regarding our project. Let me know if you have any questions! ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Bill W Date: Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 3:23 PM Subject: 1906 W 33rd To: Chad Costello Cc: Hi, Chad and Julie: Thank you very much for sharing your plans to stay in Bryker Woods and build a new home. We are happy that you are able to continue living in Bryker Woods as our neighbors! We also appreciate the overall style of the picture you enclosed, although we understand that is just a preliminary rendition (?) Your efforts to match the style and context of Bryker Woods is very much appreciated. When you begin to develop plans, we’d appreciate it if you’d share those with the BWNA Historic Review Committee. Here is a statement from our Committee: The mission of the Neighborhood Historic Review Committee is to work with neighbors to help Bryker Woods retain its historic significance. We understand building projects are a reality and vital to keeping the neighborhood a vibrant place to live. We are here to consult, not enforce arbitrary guidelines. We do not tell you what you may or may not build. Our goal is to retain the unique look and feel of Bryker Woods through review and dialogue. The usual first step is for the Bryker Woods HRC to review plans for the project. If you would, please email plans to the emails above; that would be most appreciated. After a review of the plans the HRC briefs the neighborhood Board at our monthly meeting. Depending upon the scope of work, we may ask you to join us via Zoom at one of our meetings. If you have questions about the HRC and how we work together please let me know. Otherwise we look forward to a successful, mutually beneficial engagement. Thank you very much. …
7 - 1906 W 33rd St - Impervious cover — original pdf
City of Austin Calculation Aid (Page 2) for Residential Building Review Enter into the table below all existing, new/added square footages, and lot size. If subtracting square footage, use a negative in front of the number (e.g. ‐12). Existing Sq Ft 0.00 New/Added Sq Ft 1801.00 1019.00 02.08.2021 1906 W 33rd Street Area Description 1st floor 2nd floor TBD 3rd floor Basement Covered parking Covered deck SCREEN PORCH Covered porch FRONT PORCH Covered patio Balcony Other roofed areas BBQ Total Building Area Total Building Coverage Driveway Sidewalks FRONT STEPS Uncovered patio/RAMP Uncovered deck 574/2 Other flatwork (pool coping, retaining walls, etc.) & EQ PADS Total Impervious Coverage Pool (surface area) Spa (surface area) Existing Building Coverage % Total Building Coverage % Existing Impervious Coverage % Total Impervious Coverage % 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00% 27.86% 0.00% 44.73% Lot size 9640.00 Total Sq Ft 1801.00 1019.00 0.00 0.00 538.00 296.00 51.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3705.00 2686.00 1136.00 30.00 52.00 287.00 121.00 4312.00 0.00 0.00 538.00 296.00 51.00 3705.00 2686.00 1136.00 30.00 52.00 287.00 121.00 4312.00
7 - 1906 W 33rd St - Photos.pdf — original pdf
Backup
7 - 1906 W 33rd St - Plans — original pdf
X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X GARAGE 2 SF NEW FENCE POSTS DRIVEWAY 27'-6" CATALPA 27'-6" FULL CRZ ± 6 SF EX PIERS 12 SF NEW PIERS 101 SF POOL 5 SF PATH 25 SF PORCH POOL 434 SF NEW GARAGE + DRIVE PROTECTED 27.5" TREE #138 AREA OF FULL CRZ 2374 SF 50% MAX COVERAGE OF CRZ = 2376 / 2 = 1188 SF EX IMPACT TO #138 394 + 182+6= 582 SF 394 SF EX GARAGE 182 SF EX FLATWORK MAXIMUM NEW IMPACT 1188- 582 = 606 SF NEW IMPACT TO #138 434 +101+ 5 + 25 + 12 + 2 = 579 SF DECK SCREEN PORCH RIBBON DRIVE HOUSE X IMPACT TO PROTECTED TREE 4 T N E T " 2 / 1 5 - 8 2 ' " 0 - 0 4 ' 3 T N E T " 0 - 0 4 ' 2 T N E T " 0 - 0 4 ' 1 T N E T 625.0 HIGH PT TENT 2 625.0 HIGH PT TENT 2 X X X X X X X X X X X X X VISITABLE ROUTE 624.0 X HIGH PT TENT 2 CONC RAMP 623.5 623.0 P O W E R 1 0 ' B . L . 1 0 ' - 1 " 1 1 ' - 0 " 2 2 ' - 0 " STORAGE GARAGE 624'-6" 2 1 ' - 0 " DRIVEWAY PERVIOUS CONC 27'-6" CATALPA 27'-6" FULL CRZ 624'-0" 624'-0" 622.5 1 0 ' B . L . POOL BY OTHERS 2'-9 1/2" 12'-6" 12'-7" PERGOLA SCREEN PORCH 625'-3" DECK 625'-3" NO STEP ENTRY " 4 - 5 6 ' HOUSE 625'-3" 40'-6" 622.0 5'-2" . . L B ' 5 622.0 PORCH 25' B.L. 622.5 " 1 1 - 2 ' " 2 - 5 2 ' " 3 - 2 2 ' GRAVEL WALK CONC STEPS 12'-0" NEW APPROACH X 623.5 HIGH PT TENT 1 14'-5 1/2" X RIBBON DRIVE STANDARD CONC . . L B ' 5 TREE REMOVAL BY OWNER IMPACT TO PROTECTED TREE 2 SITE PLAN 1 PLAN NORTH PLAN NORTH LEGEND BUILDING OUTLINE CONTOUR LINE SETBACK, BUILDING OR EASEMENT LINE WATER FEATURE PROPOSED AREA OF WORK PROPERTY LINE 1 2 CRITICAL ROOT ZONE | PROTECTED TREE GENERAL NOTES 1. SITE INFO BASED ON PROPERTY SURVEY COMPLETED BY …
7 - 1906 W 33rd St - Renderings — original pdf
Backup
9 - 508 W Mary St - Comparison photos — original pdf
Backup
9 - 508 W Mary St - Landscape materials — original pdf
1 0 ' - 1 " 4 0 5 505.6 5 0 5 8 0 5 7 0 5 10' REARYARD SETBACK 6 0 5 7 0 5 6 0 5 18" LO 23" LO K C A B T E S D R A Y E D I S ' 5 6" DIA. SCHEDULE 40 PVC UNDERGROUND FRENCH DRAIN (TO DAYLIGHT) NOTE: CONTRACTOR TO REVIEW / CONFIRM DRAINING AND SITE DRAINAGE WITH GEOTECH PER GEOTECH REPORT 18.5" PEC 8 0 5 K C A B T E S D R A Y E D I S ' 5 505.5 6 0 5 EXISTING HOUSE FF EL=508.7' EXISTING CONCRETE PORCH 25' FRONT YARD SETBACK 8 0 5 510.13 EXISTING CONCRETE STEPS 507 5 0 6 505.3 5 0 5 504 503 14" LO 16.5" LO 5 0 7 7 0 5 6 0 5 5 0 5 4 0 5 3 0 5 2 0 5 1 0 5 SITE NOTES 1.) SITE PLAN BASED ON SURVEY OF 508 E. MARY STREET LOT 14, BLOCK 9, BLUE BONNET HILLS ADDITION, VOLUME 3, PAGE 139 ACCORDING TO THE MAP OR PLAT THEREOF, DATED FEBRUARY 6, 2018, BY "SURVEY WORKS AUSTIN. JOB NO. 18-0004 2.) P6.) LIMIT AREAS OF STOCKPILED MATERIAL TO AREAS APPROVED BY ARCHITECT.DETERMINE EXACT LOCATION OF NEW STRUCTURES IN FIELD WITH ARCHITECT 3.) PROVIDE UNDERGROUND ELECTRICAL SERVICE FROM NEW ELECTRICAL UTILITY POLE. COORDINATE DESIGN & DETAILS WITH UTILITY COMPANY. COORDINATE LOCATION OF UTILITY LINES & PANEL LOCATIONS WITH ARCHITECT 4..) PROTECT TREES, ROCK OUT CROPPINGS, AND NATURAL SITE FEATURES DURING CONSTRUCTION. MINIMIZE SITE DISTURBANCE TO PROJECT LIMIT LINE. 5.) LIMIT AREAS OF STOCKPILED MATERIAL TO AREAS APPROVED BY ARCHITECT. 7.) CONTRACTOR TO COMPLY WITH THE TREE PROTECTION REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN. FOLLOW TREE PROTECTION PLAN PROVIDED BY VINCENT DEBROCK OF HERITAGE TREES;CONSULTING ARBORIST. SITE KEY PROPOSED NEW CONSTRUCTION ITEM ON SITE TO BE DEMOLISHED PROTECTED (OR) HERITAGE TREE CRZ TREE TO BE REMOVED TREE AND CANOPY WOOD FENCE METAL FENCE OVERHEAD LINE UTILITY POLE WATER METER GAS METER GRADE POINT ELECTRIC PANEL & METER WM EM G 647.25 SITE PLAN (22X34 SHEET) SCALE = 1:10 (11X17 SHEET) SCALE = 1:20 TRUE REVISIONS NICK DEAVER Architect 606 Highland Avenue Austin, Texas 78703 www.nickdeaver.com 02/08/21 PHASE: DESIGN DEVELOPMENT PROJECT: FISHER/CASTELLANO Residence 508 E. MARY STREET AUSTIN, TX 78704 PROJECT MANAGER: DRAWING NAME: EXISTING SITE PLAN DRAWN BY: JD CHECKED …
Animal Services Report March 2021 — original pdf
March 2021 March 2021 Animal Services Report ANIMAL SERVICES REPORT • The live outcome percentage for March was 97 percent. • A total of 318 animals were adopted (219 dogs, 95 cats) • A total of 106 dogs and cats were returned to their owners (RTOs and RTO-Adopt). • A total of 957 animals were brought to the shelter (588 stray, 234 owner surrender, 16 abandoned, 38 public assist, 81 wildlife). • Austin Animal Center moved to adoptions by appointment at the end of February and continued through March, after the City of Austin lifted COVID-19 Stage 5 restrictions. Animal Services News Animal Protection month of March. • Animal Protection Officers (APOs) returned 96 animals to their owners in the field during the • Officers handed out 27 fencing assistance applications, implanted nine microchips and impounded 178 injured animals. • Officers entered 283 rabies exposure reports and submitted 73 specimens for rabies testing. Two bats tested positive for rabies and two bats were decomposed, so a definitive result could not be achieved. • 37 total coyote related activities o 25 sightings o 7 wild sick reports of mange o 3 incidents o 2 encounters • Out of 37 coyote related activities, 30 fell within the reported behavior types (sighting, encounter, and incident). • Encounters: Pets was a factor in this activity o 2 encounters involved residents being followed by a coyote while walking their dog • Incidents: Pets were a factor in one of the activities o 1 incident involved a coyote with mange charging two APD Officers. The Officers shot at the coyote, but the coyote managed to get away unharmed March 2021 Animal Services Report Volunteer, Foster and Rescue Programs o 1 incident involved a coyote charging a resident and his dog o 1 incident involved a coyote taking an off-leash, unattended cat in a neighborhood • A total of 56 volunteers donated 1263 hours during March. • Volunteers assisted with our most successful adoption event (“Kiss Me, I’m Adoptable”) during COVID restrictions which resulted in 24 adoptions in only two hours. • More than 210 families provided foster care, and a total of 88 animals were adopted directly from foster care. • There are 997 approved fosters in GivePulse, and 106 new foster applications were processed. • There are currently 257 animals in foster homes. • 180 animals were transferred to 29 AAC rescue partners: 8 …
APA! Quarterly Report — original pdf
Animal Advisory Commission Report Q1 2021 This report is intended to give a high level overview of Austin Pets Alive!’s lifesaving operations each quarter, with a focus on APA!’s impact on Travis county through our partnership with Austin Animal Center. Summary: APA! Continues to take a higher percentage of AAC animals than in the previous year, same months. While AAC intake is down, APA! has also stepped up to help community members with more lost pets, pets in need of rehoming and pets in need of assistance to stay in their homes. During Winter Storm Uri, APA! took on a critical role in helping our community members while AAC was closed to the public by giving supplies to those in need to keep animals warm, setting up a mutual aid site to help people find physical help locally. We also helped our state move 1,000 animals who needed transportation to safer areas of the US by arranging transport, serving as a pitstop and communicating across many shelters. See graphics at end of the report for our community and Texas work. Intakes : Detailed Breakdown of APA Intakes transferred from AAC January 2021 February 2021 March 2021 Q1 2021 AAC - Cat Behavior AAC - Cat Bottle Baby (Includes BIC) AAC - Cat Maternity AAC - Cat Medical AAC - Cat Space AAC - Dog BIC AAC - Dog Behavior Large/Medium AAC - Dog Behavior Small AAC - Dog Bottle Baby AAC - Dog Maternity AAC - Dog Medical AAC - Dog Parvo Transfer AAC - Dog Space Large/Medium AAC - Dog Space Small Total AAC Travis - PASS Travis - Parvo OS/PASS Total Travis 1 of 8 Reserved 1 5 0 16 0 28 6 0 1 1 7 9 13 1 88 35 7 130 2 9 3 8 0 0 3 0 0 0 6 9 12 2 54 19 1 74 2 68 7 11 0 24 8 0 3 2 9 9 18 4 165 32 7 204 5 82 10 35 0 52 17 0 4 3 22 27 43 7 307 86 15 408 © 2021 Austin Pets Alive! All Rights 2 of 8 © 2021 Austin Pets Alive! All Rights Reserved The first chart shows AAC to APA transfers as a percentage of total AAC Intakes for Q1 2021 compared to Q1 2020 as a way of gauging how APA is responding to …
PARD Budget Presentation — original pdf
Austin Parks and Recreation Department FY 2022 BUDGET FORECAST Department Budget Overview FY 2021 Totals at a Glance FY 2021 Approved Budget FY 2021 Positions FY 2021 Sources $109.7 Million 744.75 FTEs Tax Supported: 75% Fees/Other: 22.3% Grants/Other: 2.7% FY 2021 Budget by Program FY 2021 Budget Highlights • • • $638K for Forestry Services for Parkland Acquisitions $150K for Contractual Increases $1.2M Operations & Maintenance Support Support Services 5% Transfers, Debt Service, and Other Requirements 11% Park Planning, Development, Operations and Maintenance 27% Community Services 57% 2 Department Overview Data and Highlights FY21 Expenditure Budget by Category 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 734.75 744.75 Personnel 65.3% 693.75 695.75 719.25 750 740 730 720 710 700 690 680 670 660 Contractuals 30.2% Commodities 4.5% 694.75 FTE PARD SD23 Goals and Measures • Activate and enhance urban park spaces to provide flexible and diverse programming • • • Align accessible and diverse programs and services with community needs and interests Ensure the parks system preserves recreational and natural spaces to serve as a respite from urban life Expand and improve access to parks and facilities for all 85% 75% 65% 55% 85% 74% 70% 64% Residents satisfied Residents with access 2020 Actual 2021 Goal 3 Department Budget Overview FY 2022 Proposed Total PARD Budget Forecast FY 2022 Proposed Budget FY 2022 Proposed Positions FY 2022 Sources Tax Supported: 75% Fees/Other: 22.3% Grants/Other: 2.7% $113.5 Million* 766.75 FTEs FY 2022 General Fund Highlights General Fund Budget Increase - $3.8M** Standard City-Wide Cost Drivers - $1.3M • • • Employee Wage Adjustment Increases Fleet Maintenance and Fuel City Support Services Requested Department-Wide Cost Drivers - $2.5M Increases to accommodate items previously authorized by Council Park Ranger Program Increase Cemetery Interment Unit Increase Operations & Maintenance Support *Includes Enterprise Golf Fund **Estimate only. FY22 Budget is still under development, pending City Council approval. Proposed Zero Budget Impact New FTEs • • • • • • • Landscape Architect II Forester, Forestry Specialist, Forestry Technician Senior (2) Forestry Technician (3) Plumber I Coordinator , Program Development IT Application Developer Sr 4 General Fund Department Revenue Forecast FY21 Budget Revenue of $14.5 million FY21 Projected Revenue of $4.2 million The COVID-19 pandemic continues to have a significant impact on PARD’s FY21 revenue budget. FY22 Proposed Revenue : $8.5 million The growth estimate factors in elements, such as (but not limited to): concession …
2 - 200 Arnulfo Alonso Way - Applicant presentation — original pdf
HLC D ESIGN R EVIEW ZILKER METRO PAR K ZILKER CLUBHOUSE R E H A B I L I T A T I O N P R O J E C T April 12, 2021 1 HLC DESIGN REVIEW | April 12, 2021Zilker Clubhouse Rehabilitation 2 HLC DESIGN REVIEW | April 12, 2021Zilker Clubhouse Rehabilitation Chronology • 1917 — Barton Springs Park given to City of Austin • 1932 — Remainder of Zilker Park, large tract north and west of original gift, given to City of Austin • 1934 — Boy Scout Lodge (now known as Zilker Clubhouse) built by the CWA, CCC • 1934 — Lookout Point built by the CCC • 1940 — Addition to north wing built by the NYA, for use as a • 1956 — Paved terrace added to the east of the Clubhouse, • 1963 — PARD facilities officially integrated • 1994 — New restrooms added north of main room, accessible • 1997 — Clubhouse and Point listed on National Register under caretaker’s residence built by the Jaycees parking and entry route the Zilker Park NRHD by UT SOA • 2006 — HABS drawings and documentation completed • 2012 — Zilker Park Cultural Landscape Report completed by UT SOA MSHP student Boy Scout Clubhouse construction, ca. 1934, Austin History Center 3 HLC DESIGN REVIEW | April 12, 2021Zilker Clubhouse Rehabilitation LEGEND 1934 1940 1994 OFFICE 2 BREAK RM. OFFICE 1 BATH STOR. STOR. KITCHEN KITCHEN STORAGE OFFICE 3 MAIN ROOM VEST. WOMEN MEN 4 HLC DESIGN REVIEW | April 12, 2021Zilker Clubhouse Rehabilitation Zilker Clubhouse, ca. 1940s, Foster, William Hague. University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; crediting Austin Presbyterian Theological Seminary Photo courtesy gypc.girl.photography 5 HLC DESIGN REVIEW | April 12, 2021Zilker Clubhouse Rehabilitation Lookout Point construction, 1934, Austin History Center Lookout Point, 1934, Austin History Center Lookout Point, 1937, Austin History Center Lookout Point, 2020 6 HLC DESIGN REVIEW | April 12, 2021Zilker Clubhouse Rehabilitation Scope Summary • Preservation and restoration of building • Programmatic priority for event use • Restore infilled original windows and doors • Restore the connection of main hall to cottage Modest formalizing elements to parking Landscape plan, drip irrigation Wayfinding and interpretive signage Study HVAC system, water heater relocation, gas service Replace electrical and data systems, improve lighting Window and door restoration, roof replacement, masonry cleaning, ironwork restoration 7 HLC DESIGN REVIEW | …
3 - 201 W 30th St - Applicant presentation — original pdf
City of Austin Fire Station No. 3 Architectural Review Committee – Historic Landmark Commission – Design Overview Presentation 12 April 2021 Context Location: 201 West 30th St Currently, all fire trucks are being parked outside of the apparatus bay. Recent changes to the floodplain maps cause a significant portion of the building to be in the floodplain. Introduction Overview Construction completed on February 21, 1957 Architect: Roy Thomas Does not have any Landmark designations at present. Adjacent to the Aldridge Place Historic District Building History Repairable Not Repairable Overview The building has suffered two types of structural damage: 1) General wear and tear based on age. (entire structure) 2) Overstressing of the foundation due to parking trucks that are heavier than the original design load. (apparatus bay only) Structural Damage Shore up and preserve Demolish and replace Overview For the areas that have just suffered age- related wear and tear, the intent is to shore up that portion of the structure and preserve it. For the apparatus bay, the intent is to demolish the portion of the building that is beyond repair and replace it with a new structure that is sensitive but of its time. Project Intent Structural The City of Austin has conducted three studies of the building. Two structural studies and one geotechnical report. The second structural study specifically addressed potential remediation of the existing structure. All reports have been independently reviewed by the current structural engineer, who concurs with the studies’ methodologies and conclusions. Studies Historic An historic survey of the area was conducted. This building was identified in the survey. Recommendations for landmark were included. Reasoning: Possesses integrity and significance in Postwar Infrastructure Expansion. Survey Historic There are two simple paths: 1) The project moves forward without landmark designation. 2) The project moves forward with landmark designation. Two Paths Historic Without designation, the project would need approval for the proposed demolition. With intent for designation, the project would need both approval for the proposed demolition and a Certificate of Appropriateness. Our understanding is that the permitting process would overlap the landmark process if it were pursued by the city. Options Proposal Preservation of original use Carrying of roof line Use of brick Reuse of original signage Maintenance of original setback Compatible massing Use of period-appropriate detailing Preservation of historic fabric that is capable of being saved Design Highlights Proposal Original without emulation. Meets the needs …
Play audio — original link
Play audio
Channel 6 Video — original link
Play video
Play audio — original link
Play audio
Play audio — original link
Play audio
Approved Budget Recommendations — original pdf
LGBTQ QUALITY OF LIFE ADVISORY COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION 20210412-2C: FY 2021-2022 Budget Recommendations Budget Recommendation #1 Cultural Arts Funding Programs Story: What did you hear from the community? Arts nonprofits and artists in Austin are concerned about available programs and potential decreased cultural arts funding in FY 2022 considering that Cultural Arts Funding programs are funded by Hotel Occupancy Tax (HOT) dollars and, therefore, dependent on tourism in Austin. Due to COVID-19 and its ongoing negative effects on Austin’s tourism industry and HOT revenues for an unknown amount of time, funding will likely not be equal or more than historic average. Problem: What is the problem you identify? While there are some aspects of performance arts that attract tourism, basing Cultural Arts funding on HOT revenues alone is inequitable and does not fully address how arts organizations and artists contribute to the City of Austin’s vision of being “a beacon of sustainability, social equity and economic opportunity; where diversity and creativity are celebrated; where community needs and values are recognized; where leadership comes from its citizens and where the necessities of life are affordable and accessible to all.” Citation - Imagine Austin Vision http://www.austintexas.gov/page/imagine-austin-vision How does the problem show up in your community? Who is the most impacted by the problem? One immediate problem is that funding programs, such as the final quarter of the FY 2021 Community Initiatives program, are being cut due to the decreased amount of projected HOT dollars. Many cultural performance groups in our community apply for these since it is one of the few Cultural Arts Funding programs that is open to individual artists and unincorporated groups without the need to have a nonprofit fiscal sponsor. Smaller, community driven events still in their infancy that depend on this funding will not have it available. A long-term problem is that although Economic Opportunity & Affordability, Culture & Lifelong Learning, and a Government that Works for All are three of the six strategic outcomes the City is working to achieve, the arts funding available is highly dependent on just one sector, tourism, that can be easily impacted or disrupted. Hence, funding the City’s Cultural Arts Funding programs with only HOT revenue is not equitable. Page 1 of 4 Considering all the information you have or have not collected above, how do we solve this problem? The LGBTQ Quality of Life Advisory Commission recommends that the City fund a …