PARKS AND RECREATION BOARD Tuesday, February 23, 2021 – 6:00pm MINUTES The Parks and Recreation Board convened in a regular meeting on Tuesday, February 23, 2021 via videoconference in Austin, Texas. Chair Lewis called the meeting to order at 6:07pm. Board Members in Attendance: Chair Dawn Lewis, Laura Cottam Sajbel, Sarah Faust, Francoise Luca, Kate Mason-Murphy, Fred Morgan and Kimberly Taylor. Board Members Absent: Vice Chair Romteen Farasat, Richard DePalma, Anna Di Carlo and Nina Rinaldi. Board Member Taylor joined the meeting at approximately 6:12pm. Staff in Attendance: Kimberly McNeeley; Liana Kallivoka; Lucas Massie; Suzanne Piper; Anthony Segura; Kevin Johnson; Amanda Ross; Christine Chute Canul and Sammi Curless. CITIZEN COMMUNICATION: GENERAL Gene Smith – large sized boat permit to use Walsh Boat Landing. A. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes from the regular meeting of January 26, 2021 were approved on Board Member Morgan motion, Board Member Faust second on a 7-0 with Vice Chair Farasat and Board Members DePalma, Di Carlo and Rinaldi absent. B. NEW BUSINESS: PRESENTATION, DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ITEMS 1. Discussion and possible action regarding Commission on Seniors Recommendation Number: 20210113-O3B regarding seating in parks, greenbelts, trails and other open spaces. Board Member Faust made a motion to support Commission on Seniors Recommendation Number: 20210113-O3B regarding seating in parks, greenbelts, trails and other open spaces; Board Member Cottam Sajbel seconded the motion. The motion passed on a 7-0 with Vice Chair Farasat and Board Members DePalma, Di Carlo and Rinaldi absent. Page 1 of 2 2. Presentation and discussion regarding update on Zilker Train. Presentation by Colin Wallis and Ladye Anne Wofford of the Austin Parks Foundations. Discussion followed but no action was taken by the Board. 3. Discussion and possible action regarding a recommendation to the City Council of the preferred design scenario for the Dougherty Arts Center Replacement Project. Board Member Morgan made a motion to recommend to the City Council the preferred design scenario (Option 1B) for the Dougherty Arts Center Replacement Program; Board Member Luca seconded the motion. The motion passed on a 6-1 vote with Board Member Faust voting nay and Vice Chair Farasat and Board Members DePalma, Di Carlo and Rinaldi absent. 4. Discussion and possible action regarding Barton Creek Greenbelt reservation pilot program recommendations. Presentation made by Amanda Ross of the Parks and Recreation Department. Discussion followed but no action was taken by the Board. 5. Discussion of partnership …
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 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% FY21 Expenditure Budget by Category 85% 74% 70% 64% Residents satisfied Residents with access 2020 Actual 2021 Goal 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 734.75 744.75 693.75 695.75 719.25 694.75 FTE 3 Contractuals 30.2% Commodities 4.5% 750 740 730 720 710 700 690 680 670 660 Personnel 65.3% Department Budget Overview FY 2022 Proposed Total PARD Budget Forecast FY 2022 Proposed Budget FY 2022 Proposed Positions $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. FY 2022 Sources Tax Supported: 75% Fees/Other: 22.3% Grants/Other: 2.7% 4 Department Budget Overview FY 2022 Budget Proposal BASE COST DRIVER DEFINITION: General Fund and Support Services departments must develop a forecast with only baseline requirements. In other words, the only increases allowable are those necessary to accommodate items previously authorized by Council. Examples of acceptable forecast items that increase the Department’s budget are: • Costs of a new facility that will be opened part-way through FY 2022 • Costs related to annexations or new facilities • Lease increases, legislative directives, contractual commitments Unmet Needs: Due to …
Dougherty Arts Center Replacement Project Preliminary Design Phase Update Boards and Commissions March 2021 Site Map & Context 2 Previous City Council Direction • Butler Shores location approved on 5/9/19 • Council direction to consider site alternatives: on site 1. New DAC & existing PARD Main Office remain 2. New DAC & New PARD Main Office rebuilt on site (unfunded) 3. New DAC on site, existing PARD is removed/relocated elsewhere (unfunded) • Consolidated Arts District Parking (underground, partially unfunded) • Seek alternative financing mechanisms & interest in philanthropy Conceptual development scenario from 2018/2019 planning process 3 Existing PARD Main Office • Constructed 1959, 2-story addition in 1976 • First permanent home for COA Parks Department • High degree of historic integrity • Architect: R. Earl Dillard • Defining features: wide eaves, flat roof, curtain • Eligible for listing on National Register of Historic windows Places Image credits: Austin History Center 4 Recent Stakeholder Engagement • Two Open House Community Meetings • Meeting #1: Oct. 28, 2020 • Meeting #2: Jan. 26, 2021 • (10) Small Group Meetings • Dougherty Arts Center Staff: 11/10/2020 • Painting, Photography, and Drawing Artists and Instructors: 11/19/2020 • Youth Program Instructors and Parents: 12/1/2020 • Gallery Artists: 12/2/2020 • Artist Professional Development Programs: 12/3/2020 • Theater Organizations and Technical Staff: 12/7/2020 • Friends of the Dougherty Arts Center: 12/9/2020 • Ceramics Studio Artists and Instructors: 12/10/2020 • Neighbors to the Dougherty Arts Center: 12/15/2020 • Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in the Arts: 1/7/2021 • Electronic Survey • 221 Participants & 894 Responses • Ongoing Partner Coordination • ZACH Scott Theater • The Trail Foundation • Austin Transportation Dept. 5 Project Mission Statement 6 Site Constraints Map 7 Four Options Key operational criteria and site considerations • Preservation of heritage trees • Relationship to adjacent ZACH • Underground parking solution • Pick-up & drop-off for youth programs • Load-in areas for theater programs • Balancing traffic impact between Toomey Rd. & Riverside Dr. • Preservation of PARD Main Office (1959) • Allowance for possible expansion • Activates parkland & enhance trail access • Civic presence/identity • Back of house areas for kiln yard, etc. 8 • Compact building footprint tucked closely behind PARD Main & ZACH School • One heritage oak impacted • Proposed parking garage sits between ZACH and new DAC, within ZACH lease boundary • PARD Main is retained and renovated/expanded (future scope, unfunded) …
DESIGN OPTION NARRATIVES: Dougherty Arts Center at Butler Shores Park In May 2019, City Council directed PARD to proceed with preliminary design for the new Dougherty Arts Center on Butler Shores Park, but also asked that this analysis include the following criteria: 2019 Planning Commission recommendations, including incorporation of a parking and transportation demand management strategy for the entire arts complex 2019 Design Commission recommendations, including the provision of access to the site from both Toomey Rd. and Riverside Dr. and integration of a district parking structure The possible relocation or reconstruction of the existing PARD Main Office building to allow for adjustments to the location of the DAC and to reduce traffic impact on Toomey Rd. The location of a parking structure away from Toomey Rd., or consolidation of parking with others in the area Exploring revenue-financed, underground parking and Mechanisms by which the City could engage philanthropic interest in the DAC project In response, and through a robust series of community engagement meetings in Fall 2020 through Spring 2021, the project team developed four (4) different scenarios which address all the topics above differently. Additionally, the team coordinated with the developer for the adjacent 218 S. Lamar PUD to secure 30 spaces for PARD/DAC use as well as 50 discounted visitor spaces on a daily basis. It should be noted that, in addition to above, the following criteria and constraints emerged as primary drivers of the design options: Eligibility of the existing PARD Main Office for listing on National Register of Historic Places Preservation of existing heritage trees The DAC’s relationship to the existing ZACH building & the existing ZACH ground lease boundary Feasibility of underground parking locations Car pick-up and drop-off to support youth programs Vehicle load-in areas for theater programs Activation of parkland and enhancement of existing trail access Opportunities for incorporation of public art with the AIPP Program Allowance for possible expansion, should additional funding become available The civic presence and identity of the DAC, a vital arts institution for Austin’s creative culture The need for back-of-house space, including a covered kiln yard for ceramics functions OPTION 1A – NEW DAC BUILDING TO THE SOUTH; PARD MAIN OFFICE REMAINS AT ITS CURRENT LOCATION Brief Description: Option 1A locates the DAC building to the south of PARD Main Office. …
Approve the proposed Dougherty Arts Center redevelopment site at Butler Shores Park. District(s) Affected: District 5. The amendments are as follows: The motion to approve the proposed redevelopment site with amendments was made by Council Member Kitchen, seconded by Council Member Pool. City Council approves location of the Dougherty Arts Center (DAC) on Butler Shores. The City Council also authorizes the City Manager to proceed with design, subject to the directions included in this amendment and to return to Council for approval prior to construction. Design for redevelopment of the DAC at the Toomey Rd./Riverside Drive location shall include analysis of the following options: 1) Planning Commission recommendations: • A parking and transportation demand management strategy be developed for the entire arts complex that considers area on-and off-street parking, and under-shoots parking supply in anticipation of public transit investments. • Any structured parking should be innovative, employ LEED strategies, charge for parking, and be available for future conversion. • The arts complex should be developed as an active transportation hub and generally minimize space dedicated to automobile use. 2) Design Commission recommendations: • Providing access from both Toomey Road and West Riverside Drive • • Streetscape improvements along Toomey Road REGULAR COUNCIL MINUTES Integration of district public parking structure THURSDAY, MAY 9, 2019 8 • Enhancing the cultural arts district around Zach Scott Theater • Connection to the Hike & Bike Trail and public restroom • Outdoor education and performance spaces 3) Moving the existing PARD main office building to another location, to allow for adjustments to the location of the DAC building and parking structure to reduce impact of traffic on Toomey Road. 4) If appropriate and feasible, opportunities to incorporate the PARD office building into the DAC structure, to allow for adjustments of the DAC building and parking structure to reduce impact of traffic on Toomey Rd. 5) Options for locating the DAC parking structure away from Toomey Rd and combining with existing Zachary Scott Theatre surface parking and/or other parking structures in the area. 6) Creation of an Advisory Group consisting of neighbors living along Toomey Rd, DAC users, and other community members, to provide feedback during the design process. A motion to approve the following amendment to the amendment was made by Council Member Tovo, seconded by Council Member Pool. The amendment was approved on an 8- 2 vote. Council Members Flannigan and Renteria voted nay. …
March 9, 2021 Kimberly McNeeley Director, Austin Parks and Recreation Department City of Austin Dear Ms. McNeeley, Recognizing the Trail Foundation as a steward of the trail, PARD has asked for comment on the in-progress Dougherty Arts Center Redevelopment Project with specific emphasis on Option 1B and its relationship to, and potential effect on the trail. TTF has attended several public meetings and a presentation from PARD, and understand that Option 1B is PARD’s preferred scenario for reasons that include preservation of existing trees, parking garage access, minimizing utility conflicts and preservation of the historic PARD headquarters building. The Trail Foundation has reviewed this option and provides the following comments: • TTF is excited to have the redevelopment of the Dougherty adjacent to the Trail and sees it as a benefit to patrons of the Arts Center and Trail users. • TTF appreciates that the proposed parking garage is buried under a green roof that should be a water quality enhancement over a more-conventional above- ground solution. • TTF sees public benefit to the trail in the design’s public restrooms, gathering spaces and enhanced park spaces. • TTF’s primary area of interest regarding this option is the placement of the studio spaces adjacent to the Trail and possible resulting congestion. With the recent release of the Butler Trail Safety & Mobility Study, recommendations were made for enhancements on this portion of the Trail. We will work with PARD to implement those into the plan. • In a related comment, TTF notes that the current upper Trail (shown just above the north facades of the proposed building) is also a maintenance corridor. TTF suggests that an alternative maintenance access path with sufficient width and turning radii should be considered. The Trail Foundation was created in 2003 to protect, enhance and connect the Butler Trail for all Austinites and visitors. The Ann and Roy Butler Hike-and-Bike Trail has served as a natural community sanctuary and pathway in the heart of Austin since the 1970s. Since its formation as a 501 (c)(3), it has fulfilled its mission through careful improvements to the Trail’s infrastructure and environment, while honoring the original vision of the Trail’s founders. Sincerely, Heidi Anderson, CEO
PARKS AND RECREATION BOARD DIRECTOR’S REPORT DATE: March 2021 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT EVENTS: MLK Station Neighborhood Park Nature Play Virtual Community Meeting #2: The next community meeting will be held on March 27 at 10am. The Parks and Recreation Department’s (PARD) Cities Connecting Children to Nature (CCCN) program will share the final nature play design and show how community input helped shape it. The meeting will be conducted on Zoom, meeting registration. Project Webpage: https://www.austintexas.gov/department/mlk-station-neighborhood-park-nature- play. District 1 Highland Neighborhood Park Virtual Community Meeting: Implementation of the park plan continues at Highland Neighborhood Park. Phase 2 Implementation will kick off with a virtual community meeting on March 31 at 5:30pm. During this meeting, the project team will share information on park designs outlined in the adopted concept plan and seek feedback from the community to prioritize elements to include in the current construction phase. The meeting will be conducted on Zoom, meeting registration. Project Webpage: https://www.austintexas.gov/HighlandParkProject. District 4 Beverly S. Sheffield Northwest District Park Vision Plan: RVi, the consultant for the plan, hosted a kickoff meeting and initial TAG (technical advisory group) meeting with City staff in late February. The vision planning process began this month with a community survey (launched on March 23). The first of three, public small-group meetings is scheduled for April 6, with the proposed focus being recreation and park activities. A small-group meeting on April 20 will focus on neighborhoods, community, and school feedback, and on April 28, PARD will hold a small-group meeting looking at nature and environmental issues for the park. The first community-wide meeting is scheduled for May 4, meeting registration. Project Webpage: https://www.austintexas.gov/department/beverly-s-sheffield- northwest-district-park-vision-plan. District 7 Givens Aquatic Facility Renovation: On April 26 at 5:30pm, PARD will host a virtual community meeting to reveal draft concepts. The ideas presented will be created from the community input received so far through input at Givens Swims in 2019, the first community meeting in January, and the community survey that followed. Community members will be asked to identify how well the draft design ideas connect with key values and align with feedback collected. The meeting will be conducted on Zoom, meeting registration. Project Webpage: http://austintexas.gov/givenspool. District 1 Colony Park Aquatic Facility: On April 28 at 5:30pm, PARD will host a virtual community meeting that will be shared over YouTube Live and Facebook Live to reveal draft concepts of the new aquatic facility. The ideas presented …
sANA June 27,2020 Dear Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem, and Council Members The Springdale-Airport Neighborhood Association (SANA) supports the request for Planned Unit Development (PUD) zoning at 10ll and 1017 Springdale Rd. The developer has presented SANA with a proposal that includes, among other things, increased height, while also providing environmental and community benefits. These include restoring much of the vegetation and creek areas, providing a public trail easement, staying significantly below allowable impervious cover, and helping fund affordable housing. For years, this property was a tank farm, until the community successfully pushed to have it closed. By restoring many of the natural areas here, we believe this development is helping address the tank farm's legacy of environmental damage. In addition, we also support the proposal's consideration of the community's current and future needs. While the fact that this property was a tank farm prevents a residential development here, the developer has proposed to help fund affordable housing for the community and to provide a 50 ft. trail easement to connect the neighborhood to a future City trail south of the property. SANA supports this request for PUD zoning, which would secure these environmental and community benefits, and in retum would grant the applicant's request for the ability to build up to I5 ft. of height at 85 ft. from nearby single-family lots and up to 90 ft. of height at 140 ft. On a personal note, as someone who saw firsthand what the tank farm did to friends and family, I look forward to seeing this site turned into a project focused on sustainability and the environment. We appreciate your consideration. Sincerely, Pt R (..r-.^o. Pete Rivera, President
Emma S. Barrientos Mexican American Cultural Center Phase 2 Improvements - 2018 Facility Expansion Plan + + Prime Consultant City Team Construction Manager at Risk Miro Rivera Architects (Austin) + Tatiana Bilbao Estudio (Mexico City) Joint Venture Heidi Tse, Public Works Project Manager Chad Lewallen, Public Works Project Assistant Christina Bies, PARD Project Coordinator Alan Codina, Pre-Construction Mgr Christine Sheng, Client Director Miguel Rivera, Project Manager (Partner) Juan Miro, Project Architect (Partner) Elsa Ponce, Project Coordinator (Partner)
From: Anne Lewis < Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2021 3:05 PM To: Rivera, Andrew <Andrew.Rivera@austintexas.gov>; Subject: Lessin Lane Villas *** External Email - Exercise Caution *** To the Planning Commissioners, I am writing in opposition to the waiver of setbacks for retention ponds proposed by the developer at Lessin Lane Villas. I live within 500 feet. The developer has already won an automatic upzoning from the City in opposition to neighbors who felt this was inappropriate and would damage their quality of life. There's simply got to be some stopping point for the developer's actions in violation of the rules that should protect us. The developer will never have to live in what's left of our community. This is sheer profit gouging with disregard and disrespect for our community. Surely the City can stop collaborating and give some priority to people who have lived and paid taxes here for 20 plus years. Anne Lewis From: Carmen Hernandez < Sent: Friday, March 19, 2021 12:29 PM To: Rivera, Andrew <Andrew.Rivera@austintexas.gov> Subject: Re: Lessin Lane Villas Thank you, Andrew. I would like to state my concern with the 25-2-1063 waiver. As I understand it the builder is asking for this waiver in regards to the retention ponds. As the homeowner directly next door to the property with my front door and upstairs balcony facing the property, one concern is that the builder will take liberties with this waiver and build house #10 much closer to my fence line. I have read code 25-2-1063 online and as I understand it limits the structure height to "two stories and 30 feet, if the structure is 50 feet or less from property". Granting a waiver of this code would give the builder an opportunity to build a very large house directly in front of my front door; thereby blocking all views. My third concern is the potential and inevitable flooding to houses near the creek. Thank you. Carmen Hernandez From: To: Subject: Date: Rivera, Andrew Julie Woods RE: Lessin Lane project SP-2020-0364C Tuesday, March 23, 2021 9:14:00 AM Received. Thank you, Ms. Woods. Andrew From: Julie Woods Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2021 9:13 AM To: Rivera, Andrew <Andrew.Rivera@austintexas.gov> Subject: Lessin Lane project SP-2020-0364C *** External Email - Exercise Caution *** Hello, I'd like to comment on the Lessin Lane project; the builder has requested a waiver regarding placement of water retention ponds near East Bouldin …
From: Lawrence Sunderland < Sent: Saturday, March 20, 2021 8:58 AM To: Rivera, Andrew <Andrew.Rivera@austintexas.gov> Subject: Parker Lane *** External Email - Exercise Caution *** Andrew, As a member of the EROC contact team I would first like to express my support for The Methodist Church and Foundation Communities proposal. When the Methodist Church was active it housed a number of community organizations that served a real need in our neighborhood. Unfortunately they were not able to maintain that effort. Now teaming with Foundation Communities they will once again bring real value for an underserved segment of our community. Foundation Communities is already established in our neighborhood and has demonstrated a very high level of commitment and expertise to providing affordable housing and services for its residents. Secondly I oppose any efforts to delay moving this proposal forward. Those in the neighborhood who would suggest that other alternatives are possible have not shown us anything that is remotely achievable. The contact team should only respond to viable proposals. I have asked for a rational, from leadership, for promoting irrelevant proposals. I have not received a response. Larry Sunderland
Questions and Answers Planning Commission Meeting March 23, 2021 Questions Shaw / Response (blue) Staff/ Applicant Response (green) Item B3- C814-2020-0104 - Springdale Green PUD • For the Tier 1 Requirements 2.3.2.A and 2.3.2.B, Applicant proposes Alternative Equivalent Compliance. Please explain where this is allowed within the land code and provide examples. Alternative Equivalent Compliance is an allowance within Subchapter E (section 1.5) that allows for unique design considerations when strict compliance is not attainable. Specifically, “To encourage creative and original design, and to accommodate projects where the particular site conditions or the proposed use prevent strict compliance with this Subchapter, alternative equivalent compliance allows development to occur in a manner that meets the intent of this Subchapter, yet through an alternative design that does not strictly adhere to the Subchapter's standards. The procedure is not a general waiver of regulations. Alternative equivalent compliance shall not be used when the desired departure from the standards of this Subchapter could be achieved using the minor modification process in Section 1.4.” AEC is site and design specific – a specific AEC request is done by an applicant during the site plan review explaining exactly which section of Subchapter E (design standards) cannot be met, why it cannot be met (based on the site, use, or combination), and exactly what alternatives the applicant is proposing for the site instead. Examples may include less building pulled up to the sidewalk than strictly required, with the alternative being a more robust supplemental zone offering pedestrian amenities beyond which the code requires. Another example could be about open space: the code limits only 50% of the open space above the ground floor. An alternative might be 80% is above the ground floor, but they are providing twice as much open space square footage as is minimally required. • Every AEC request is evaluated on an individual basis. It is not guaranteed that AEC is granted, but in most cases, the design professionals are able to work with staff and eventually come up with an AEC plan that works for the site, where strict compliance cannot be met. The current site plan includes Alternative Equivalent Compliance with Subchapter E, including the following: Project proposes street tree plantings along Springdale Road (an Urban Roadway) that are not required under Subchapter E; Project proposes silva cell root systems for the street trees that provide at least 800 cubic feet …
Planning Commission Registered Speakers List B1 / B2 Applicant Walter Moreau Opposed Mark C Gibson Frederick DeWorken Malcom Yeatts B3 Applicant Michael Whellan Janette D’Elia Michael Gaudini - Available for questions Daniel Woodroffe Harrison Hudson Opposed Ben Ramirez B4 Applicant David Hartman Simon Shewmaker Jill Tarleton B5 B6 Applicant -Mark Zupan Opposed Rebecca Sheller Carmen Hernandez Rick Reyna B7 Applicant B8 Applicant Michael Rivera Darrell Gest Opposed Marla Torrado Keema Miller Paul Mullen Mario Cantu Nicole Joslin Shavone Otero
PARKS AND RECREATION BOARD Tuesday, March 23, 2021 – 5:30pm MINUTES The Parks and Recreation Board convened in a regular meeting on Tuesday, March 23, 2021 via videoconference in Austin, Texas. Chair Lewis called the meeting to order at 5:31pm. Board Members in Attendance: Chair Dawn Lewis, Vice Chair Romteen Farasat, Laura Cottam Sajbel, Richard DePalma, Anna Di Carlo, Sarah Faust, Kate Mason-Murphy and Nina Rinaldi. Board Members Absent: Francoise Luca, Fred Morgan and Kimberly Taylor. Board Member Di Carlo joined the meeting at approximately 5:36pm and Vice Chair Farasat joined at approximately 5:48pm. Staff in Attendance: Kimberly McNeeley; Liana Kallivoka; Lucas Massie; Suzanne Piper; Anthony Segura; Kevin Johnson; Vanorda Richardson; Michael Benbow; Nicholas Johnson; Ed Morris and Sammi Curless. CITIZEN COMMUNICATION: GENERAL Jim Schwobel – enforcement of park curfew and no camping rules in Eastwoods Park. A. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes from the regular meeting of February 23, 2021 were approved on Board Member Faust motion, Board Member Cottam Sajbel second on an 8-0 with Board Members Luca, Morgan and Taylor absent. B. NEW BUSINESS: PRESENTATION, DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ITEMS 1. Presentation, discussion and possible action regarding the Parks and Recreation Department Fiscal Year 2021-2022 budget. Presentation by Vanorda Richardson of the Parks and Recreation Department. Discussion with request to bring back to April meeting of the Board. 2. Discussion and possible action to rescind the recommendation made February 23, 2021 regarding the preferred design scenario for the Dougherty Arts Center Replacement Project. Public comment by Bill Bunch encouraging alternate sites for the Dougherty Arts Center such as AISD schools to be closed and maintaining central parkland as parkland; Megan Page 1 of 3 Meisenbach encouraging the City to re-look at other locations and that schools are a wonderful location for the Center and Linda Guerrero explaining the recommendation approved by the Environmental Commission. Chair Lewis made a motion to rescind the recommendation made February 23, 2021 regarding the preferred design scenario for the Dougherty Arts Center Replacement Project; Board Member Mason-Murphy seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 7-0 with Vice Chair Farasat abstaining and Board Members Luca, Morgan and Taylor absent. 3. Presentation, discussion, and possible action regarding a recommendation to the City Council of the preferred design scenario for the Dougherty Arts Center Replacement Project. Board Member DePalma made a motion to recommend to the City Council Option 1A for the …
Historic Landmark Commission Preliminary List of Applications under Review for March 22, 2021 Meeting These cases were originally scheduled for hearing on February 22, 2021. This list does not constitute a formal agenda and is subject to change. The following cases include those originally scheduled to be heard by the Historic Landmark Commission on February 22, 2021; that meeting was cancelled due to the weather emergency. An updated preview list of all cases scheduled to be heard by the Historic Landmark Commission on March 22, 2021 will be posted after the application deadline has passed and the March agenda is closed. A final agenda will be posted at least 72 hours prior to the meeting. The Historic Landmark Commission meeting will be held with Social Distancing Modifications. Public comment will be allowed via telephone; no in-person input will be allowed. All speakers (applicants included) must register in advance no later than Sunday, March 21, 2021 by 12:00 noon. All public comment will occur at the beginning of the meeting. To speak remotely at the March 22nd Historic Landmark Commission Meeting, members of the public must: • Call or email the board liaison at (512) 974-1264 or preservation@austintexas.gov no later than 12:00 noon, Sunday, March 21st (the day before the meeting). The following information is required: speaker name, item number(s) they wish to speak on, whether they are for/against/neutral, email address and telephone number (must be the same number that will be used to call into the meeting). • Once a request to speak has been made to the board liaison, the information to call on the day of the scheduled meeting will be provided either by email or phone call. • Speakers must call in at least 15 minutes prior to meeting start time in order to speak, late callers will not be accepted and will not be able to speak. • Speakers will be placed in a queue until their time to speak. • Handouts or other information may be emailed to preservation@austintexas.gov by noon the day before the scheduled meeting. This information will be provided to Board and Commission members in advance of the meeting. • If the meeting is broadcast live, it may be viewed here: http://www.austintexas.gov/page/watch-atxn-live 1 Briefings Austin Parks and Recreation Department, Dougherty Arts Center Replacement Project 2.C. Historic landmark and historic district applications 2406 Harris Boulevard, Jackson-Novy-Kelly-Hoey House – Construct a swimming pool in …
B.2 - 1 PROPOSAL HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION APPLICATION FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FEBRUARY 22, 2021 GF-2021-014461 ROBERTSON-STUART & MAIR LOCAL HISTORIC DISTRICT 1008 EAST 9TH STREET Construct a rear addition, add basement, perform repairs, and construct an accessory dwelling unit at the rear of the property. PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS 1) Demolish non-original rear addition. 2) Construct a rear addition, pool, and basement. The proposed rear addition includes one- and two-story portions, with hyphen between original building and two-story section. It is clad in stucco and features a compound roofline with standing-seam metal roof. Fenestration includes fixed full-height windows, 4:4 paired and single sash windows, 2:2 paired and single casement windows, sliding glass doors, and partially glazed rear entry door to match main entrance at historic portion of house. 3) Restore windows, remove vinyl siding, and repair historic siding or replace in-kind where deteriorated beyond repair. 4) Restore front porch. Replace concrete porch floor with wood decking on piers. 5) Replace shingle roof with standing-seam metal roof. 6) Construct an accessory dwelling unit/garage apartment. The proposed ADU is one and one-half stories in height. It is clad in stucco and horizontal fiber cement siding. Its roof, clad in standing-seam metal, is side-gabled with shed-roof dormers at north, west, and south elevations. Fenestration includes partially glazed garage doors, partially glazed transom entry doors, 2:2 casement windows, and 4:4 sash windows. ARCHITECTURE One-story, wing-and-gable plan National Folk residence with 4:4 double-hung wood windows, inset porch with chamfered posts, transom front door, and horizontal vinyl siding. STANDARDS FOR REVIEW The Robertson-Stuart & Mair district design standards are used to evaluate projects on contributing buildings in the district. The following standards apply to the proposed project: 1.2.1.1. Do not alter or remove historic features unless they are deteriorated beyond repair. 1.2.1.2. If replacing deteriorated historic features, match the original as close as possible. Historic windows and siding will be repaired, with in-kind replacement reserved for only those elements that are deteriorated beyond repair. 1.2.2.1. Front exterior walls: Retain and repair the historic exterior materials on front walls, as well as side walls and roofs within 15 feet of the front of the building. If replacement of historic exterior wall materials is necessary, choose a material identical in dimensions, profile, reveal, and texture to the historic material, and install the new materials so that they maintain the spatial relationships (including depth and dimension) and joint patterns …
