ZONING CHANGE REVIEW SHEET CASE NUMBER: TBD HLC DATE: October 25, 2021 PC DATE: APPLICANT: Historic Landmark Commission (owner-opposed) HISTORIC NAME: Casa McMath WATERSHED: Johnson Creek NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN: Central West Austin Combined A.3 – 1 ADDRESS OF PROPOSED ZONING CHANGE: 2501 Inwood Place ZONING CHANGE: SF-3-NP to SF-3-NP-H COUNCIL DISTRICT: 10 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff finds that the house meets the criteria for landmark designation and thus recommends the proposed zoning change from SF-3-NP (single family residence – neighborhood plan combining district zoning) to SF- 3-NP-H (single family residence – neighborhood plan – historic landmark combining district zoning). Should the Commission choose to release the permit, the staff recommendation is to require completion of a City of Austin Documentation Package, including documentation of the site and exterior and interior architectural features. QUALIFICATIONS FOR LANDMARK DESIGNATION: Architecture, historical associations, and landscape feature HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION ACTION: PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: DEPARTMENT COMMENTS: The house is beyond the bounds of the Comprehensive Cultural Resources Survey (1984) and has never been included in a city survey. CITY COUNCIL DATE: ORDINANCE READINGS: ACTION: ORDINANCE NUMBER: CASE MANAGER: Elizabeth Brummett PHONE: 512-974-1264 NEIGHBORHOOD ORGANIZATIONS: Austin Independent School District, Austin Lost and Found Pets, Austin Neighborhoods Council, Central West Austin Neighborhood Plan Contact Team, Friends of Austin Neighborhoods, Neighborhood Empowerment Foundation, Preservation Austin, SELTexas, Save Barton Creek Assn., Save Historic Muny District, Sierra Club, Austin Regional Group, TNR BCP - Travis County Natural Resources, Tarrytown Alliance , Tarrytown Neighborhood Association, West Austin Neighborhood Group BASIS FOR RECOMMENDATION: Historical Associations: The house was owned and occupied by Hugh and Frances McMath from the time of its construction until their deaths, and it remained in the McMath family until this year. Hugh McMath was a professor of architecture at the University of Texas who specialized in the study of Mexican architecture and was prominent in integrating Mexican schools of architecture into a larger sphere of American architectural studies. Hugh McMath (1904–1992) taught at the University of Texas School of Architecture for 44 years. He was a renowned professor with a specialization in Mexican architecture, and he was instrumental in introducing his students to its principles. He primarily wrote and developed courses in pre-Hispanic and Colonial architecture. During the 1950s, he arranged annual summer trips of U.S. students to the Instituto Tecnologico of Monterrey, Mexico. His sponsorship helped the institute gain A.3 – 2 admission to the Association of Collegiate Schools …
Allen, Amber From: Sent: To: Subject: Peter Komassa Thursday, October 21, 2021 10:48 AM PAZ Preservation Re: Historic Landmark Commission Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: Follow up Flagged Hi Amber, please find my statement below: Greetings HLC, as an owner of a house adjacent to 2501 Inwood Pl, I'm strongly in favor of the proposed Historic Zoning designation. The 'McMath House' has a rich history, a celebrated mid‐century aesthetic, and, in many ways, it serves as the cornerstone of the Deep Eddy neighborhood given its prominent positioning on the Possum Trot throughway. This is, unequivocally, a historic landmark that I hope our community can preserve. Thank you for your time. Best, Peter Komassa On Wed, Oct 13, 2021 at 8:37 AM PAZ Preservation wrote: 2501 Inwood Place was referred to the Historic Landmark Commission by our office. The demolition item was discussed at the September 27th meeting. The Commission saw that the property had potential of historic designation and has initiated Historic Zoning on the property. This zoning initiation will be open for public hearing and discussion again at the October 25th meeting. If you’d like to participate, the meeting will be held in‐person at Austin City Hall on Monday, October 25th at 6:00 PM. If you cannot attend and wish to make a statement, you may email me a written statement of whether you are in favor or in opposition of the Commission‐proposed Historic Zoning of the property. Let me know if you have any further questions. Hi Peter, Thanks, Amber Allen Planner II, Historic Preservation Office City of Austin – Housing & Planning Department 1 T: 512.974.3393 E: Amber.Allen@austintexas.gov From: Peter Komassa Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2021 3:24 PM To: PAZ Preservation <Preservation@austintexas.gov> Subject: Historic Landmark Commission Best, Peter *** External Email - Exercise Caution *** Hi there, I'm emailing about the historic home at 2504 Inwood Pl, as an immediate neighbor. Would you be able to share the HLC assessment/determination of the house as discussed at the 27‐Sep‐21 HLC meeting? I am a neighbor of the house and was traveling during the proceedings, unfortunately. If the house has been approved to be demo'd, would I be able to submit a belated objection? Thanks for your help. CAUTION: This email was received at the City of Austin, from an EXTERNAL source. Please use caution when clicking links or opening attachments. If you believe this to be a malicious …
Allen, Amber From: Sent: To: Subject: David Schwarzbach Thursday, October 21, 2021 9:33 AM PAZ Preservation Case C14H-2021-0165 8601 Azalea Trl *** External Email - Exercise Caution *** Case Number: C14H‐2021‐0165 8601 Azalea Trl Historic Zoning I am writing in support of the re‐zoning request for the above property. I’ve spoken to the applicant, Alta Alexander, and am in favor of recognizing this property with a historic designation. Thanks, David Schwarzbach 8700 Azalea Trl, Austin, TX 78759 CAUTION: This email was received at the City of Austin, from an EXTERNAL source. Please use caution when clicking links or opening attachments. If you believe this to be a malicious and/or phishing email, please forward this email to cybersecurity@austintexas.gov. 1
Allen, Amber From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: Follow up Flagged Mary Reed Thursday, October 21, 2021 1:45 PM Myers, Terri - BC; Tollett, Blake - BC; McWhorter, Trey - BC; Koch, Kevin - BC; Valenzuela, Sarah - BC; Wright, Caroline - BC; Little, Kelly - BC; Heimsath, Ben - BC; Featherston, Witt; Larosche, Carl - BC; Castillo, Anissa - BC; t PAZ Preservation; Re 1104 Toyath, Case # HR-21-115625 *** External Email - Exercise Caution *** The Clarksville Community Development Corporation strongly opposes Paradisa Home's plans for 1104 Toyath, which is located in historic Clarksville. Although the board is happy with the size of the front porch and with the exterior siding, we are very concerned that the new house will be 3 stories tall in a neighborhood and on a street, where houses tend to be 1‐story, and that it will include a roof deck. The roof deck will affect the privacy of nearby homes next door to 1104 and behind it (homes located in the 1800 block of West 11th with deep backyards. Also, given its height, the house will loom over the landmarked Lawson House, which is to its immediate North. (Note: We believe that Paradisa's computer renderings of the home it wants to build exaggerate the distance between it and the Lawson House. Overall, its mass and complexity of design are at odds with the simple, traditional architecture of Clarksville. We recommend therefore that Paradisa simplify its design and achieve the square footage it wants by getting rid of the swimming pool, which will free up more land on which to build and allow the company to lower the height of the house. There is just one below‐ground swimming pool in historic Clarksville. It's not a feature that buyers in the neighborhood expect because there are two different public pools that Clarksville residents can walk to. Also, there is a large splash pad right around the corner from 1104 Toyath at Mary Baylor Park. Clarksville is not Tarrytown or Westlake, where Paradisa's proposed home belongs. Thank you. The board of directors of the Clarksville Community Development Corporation Austin, TX 78703 Be Kind "I have decided to stick with love. Hate is too great a burden to bear." MLK 1 CAUTION: This email was received at the City of Austin, from an EXTERNAL source. Please use caution when clicking links or opening …
Allen, Amber From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: Follow up Flagged Mary Reed Thursday, October 21, 2021 10:45 AM Myers, Terri - BC; Tollett, Blake - BC; McWhorter, Trey - BC; Koch, Kevin - BC; Valenzuela, Sarah - BC; Wright, Caroline - BC; Little, Kelly - BC; Heimsath, Ben - BC; Featherston, Witt; Larosche, Carl - BC; Castillo, Anissa - BC; PAZ Preservation Re case # HR:24-116459, 1104 Charlotte Street *** External Email - Exercise Caution *** At its October meeting, the board of directors of the Clarksville Community Development Corporation (CCDC) reviewed the two options that the owners of 1104 Charlotte shared with them for the changes they propose making to that historically‐contributing house: Option #1 features a driveway located to the north of the house and Option #2 features a driveway to the south. The board unanimously agreed that it much prefers locating the driveway to the north. We have two major issues with the south side option: 1. That option includes a front‐facing garage, which our neighborhood's design standards strongly discourage. Front facing garages are not a feature of Clarksville's traditional architecture. Even newer homes in the neighborhood are more apt to have a carport rather than a garage and many have neither. 2. The portion of the addition to the house that is visible from the street in the south side option has the effect of over‐ shadowing the original house somewhat. In contrast, with the northside option, the original house stands out. Please get in touch if you have any questions. Thanks for your consideration. The board of directors of the CCDC MR•PR Austin, TX 78703 Be Kind "I have decided to stick with love. Hate is too great a burden to bear." MLK CAUTION: This email was received at the City of Austin, from an EXTERNAL source. Please use caution when clicking links or opening attachments. If you believe this to be a malicious and/or phishing email, please forward this email to cybersecurity@austintexas.gov. 1
Allen, Amber From: Sent: To: Subject: megan jane Thursday, October 21, 2021 12:25 PM Allen, Amber Case number PR-2021-139064 Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: Follow up Flagged *** External Email - Exercise Caution *** Dear Ms. Allen, I write to you about a historic arts and crafts bungalow at 1601 Cedar Avenue, identified in the City's 2016 Historic Resource Survey for East Austin (Volume III, Appendix B, Page 968) as having possible historic interest. Mr. Garrett Hill has applied for a permit (2021-139064 PR) to demolish this dwelling and the case is scheduled for review at a public hearing by the Historic Landmark Committee on Monday, October 25. The group of neighbours whose names appear below would like to ask the Commision for the hearing to be postponed by one month. This would allow us time to explore the possibility of relocation as an alternative to demolition. Given recent conversations I have had, I am encouraged to think that this option might be feasible, if the property's new owner could be persuaded to consider it. There is considerable community interest in preserving this structure, by relocating it, if necessary. The neighbors who have signed this letter are the sample of neighbors I reached at home at short notice. Most were already aware and were concerned about the property. Some approached me before I contacted them, and some had already been sharing their concerns with one another. All have lent their names enthusiastically to this request, and I believe that other interested Austin citizens may have sent statements of their own via email. Thank you for your consideration, Megan Crowhurst, 1600 Cedar Avenue, Austin, TX 78702 (512-809-0557) Charles Banks, 1610 Cedar Avenue, Austin, TX 78702 Marian J. Barber, 1813 Cedar Avenue, Austin, TX 78702 David Ciccocioppo, 1608 Cedar Avenue, Austin, TX 78702 Nancy Lazarczyk, 1603 Cedar Avenue, Austin, TX 78702 Tracie Matysik, 1804 Cedar Avenue, Austin, TX 78702 Rosa Morales, 2507 E. 16th Street, 78702 George & Eldona Reynolds, 1403 Walnut Street, Austin, TX 78702 Casey Seeboth, 1604 Cedar Avenue, Austin, TX 78702 Rachel Janell & Dietrich Evan Schmidt, 2509 E. 16th Street, 78702 Emma Sinnott, 1602 Cedar Avenue, Austin, TX 78702 Charlotte Velasco, 1412 Walnut Street, Austin, TX 78702 1 CAUTION: This email was received at the City of Austin, from an EXTERNAL source. Please use caution when clicking links or opening attachments. If you believe this to be a …
Allen, Amber From: Sent: To: Subject: Rebeca Rubio Thursday, October 21, 2021 1:04 PM PAZ Preservation case number is PR-2021-139064 Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: Follow up Flagged *** External Email - Exercise Caution *** Please do not demolish this property and part of history. Some people would want to invest and put their energy into a physical project in the interest of the community instead of buying a modern build and out of financial range property with no character. Sent from Mail for Windows CAUTION: This email was received at the City of Austin, from an EXTERNAL source. Please use caution when clicking links or opening attachments. If you believe this to be a malicious and/or phishing email, please forward this email to cybersecurity@austintexas.gov. 1
PARKS AND RECREATION BOARD FINANCIAL COMMITTEE MONDAY, OCTOBER 25, 2021 – 12:00PM BRITTON, DURST, HOWARD AND SPENCE BUILDING 1183 CHESTNUT AVENUE, AUSTIN, TX 78702 COMMITTEE MEMBERS: Sarah Faust (D-5), Chair Richard DePalma (Mayor) Lisa Hugman (D-6) CALL TO ORDER Kimberly Taylor (D-8) VACANT Dawn Lewis (D-10), Ex-Officio AGENDA CITIZEN COMMUNICATION: GENERAL The first 10 speakers who register to speak no later than noon the day before the meeting will be allowed a three-minute allotment to address their concerns regarding items not posted on the agenda. A. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approve the minutes of the Financial Committee special meeting of August 18, 2021. B. NEW BUSINESS: PRESENTATION, DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ITEMS 1. Discussion and possible action on Park Districts and Park Fees in follow up from August 18, 2021 presentation. 2. Discussion and possible action on a recommendation to the Parks and Recreation Board regarding Hotel Occupancy Tax. 3. Presentation, discussion and possible action on Parks and Recreation Department Strategic Planning Follow Up Audit by City of Austin Office of the City Auditor. Presenter(s): Vanorda Richardson, Financial Manager III and Iliyas Vohra, Accounting Manager, Parks and Recreation Department C. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS ADJOURNMENT The City of Austin is committed to compliance with the American with Disabilities Act. Reasonable Page 1 of 2 modifications and equal access to communications will be provided upon request. Meeting locations are planned with wheelchair access. If requiring Sign Language Interpreters or alternative formats, please give notice at least 2 days (48 hours) before the meeting date. Please call Sammi Curless, with the Austin Parks and Recreation Department, at 512-974- 6716, for additional information; TTY users route through Relay Texas at 711. For more information on the Parks and Recreation Board, please contact Sammi Curless at sammi.curless@austintexas.gov or by phone at 512-974- 6716. Page 2 of 2
PARKS AND RECREATION BOARD FINANCIAL COMMITTEE WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 18, 2021 – 3:00PM VIA VIDEOCONFERENCING MINUTES The Financial Committee convened in a special meeting on Wednesday, August 18, 2021 via videoconference in Austin, Texas. Chair Faust called the meeting to order at 3:03pm. Committee Members in Attendance: Chair Sarah Faust, Richard DePalma, Kimberly Taylor and Laura Cottam Sajbel Committee Members Absent: Dawn Lewis, Ex Officio Staff in Attendance: Kimberly McNeeley, Suzanne Piper, Anthony Segura, Vanorda Richardson, Nicholas Johnson, Ed Morris, Steven Linnett and Sammi Curless. CITIZEN COMMUNICATION: GENERAL No registered speakers. A. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes from the special called meeting of June 17, 2021 were approved on Committee Member Taylor motion, Committee Member DePalma second on a 4-0 vote with one vacancy. B. NEW BUSINESS: PRESENTATION, DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ITEMS 1. Presentation and discussion of park maintenance and park district fees as possible alternative funding mechanisms. Nicholas Johnson, Edward Morris, Vanorda Richardson and Anthony Segura from the Parks and Recreation Department made a presentation and answered questions from the Committee. Discussion ensued but no action was taken on this item. 2. Discussion of Parks and Recreation Department Fiscal Year 2021 revenue activity summary memo. Vanorda Richardson from the Parks and Recreation Department reviewed the summary Page 1 of 2 memo and answered questions from the Committee. No action was taken on this item. 3. Discussion of Fiscal Year 2022 budget process. Suzanne Piper of the Parks and Recreation Department reviewed the draft approved budget. No action was taken on this item. C. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS • Tourism Commission recommendation Chair Faust adjourned the meeting at 4:45pm. Page 2 of 2
Austin Parks and Recreation Department Financial Services Division August 18, 2021 1 PARK MAINTENANCE FEE The purpose of a park maintenance fee would be to provide for the operation and maintenance of the parks and facilities within the City of Austin Parks & Recreation Department. A parks maintenance fee would be paid by the responsible part for each developed property within the corporate limits of the city. Collection of the fee would be made by a monthly charge included on the City Utility Bill. Fees collected would be deposited into a City special revenue park fee account. *Source Central Point Oregon Parks & Rec Ordinance 2 PARK MAINTENANCE FEE OPTIONS MODELS Option One – Fixed Monthly Fee, similar to the Clean Community Fee Possible charge of $8.95/residents and $20.75/commercial per month Option Two – Dwelling Type Allocation, similar to the Transportation User Fee Possible charge of about $12.79/residents and $63.99/commercial per acre per month 3 CITIES WITH PARK MAINTENANCE FEES Population Served* Number of Homes Monthly Fee Estimated Annual Collection Type Canby, Oregon 18,000 6,600$5 per dwelling $396,000 Central Point, Oregon Longmont, Colorado Rocklin, California San Antonio, Texas 18,000 7,000$3 per dwelling $252,000 95,000 36,800$2 per dwelling $883,200 65,000 23,146$10-30 per dwelling $8,332,560 1,530,000 550,000$1.50 per dwelling $9,900,000 Austin, Texas 950,807 415,000$8.95 per dwelling $44,820,000 Austin, Texas 950,807 415,000$11-13 per dwelling $63,700,000 Monthly Fixed Fee Monthly Fixed Fee Monthly Fixed Fee Based on Dwelling type Monthly Fixed Fee Monthly Fixed Fee Based on Dwelling type 4 PARK DISTRICT A Park District is a form of local special- purpose district for providing public parks and recreation in or near its geographic boundaries. Some park districts also own or maintain related cultural facilities such as monuments, zoos, sports venues, music venues, or museums. The Park District would be separate from the General Fund Park Districts allow taxes to be levied separate from the traditional city property taxes Admission and registration fees would supplement the Park District 5 PARK DISTRICT MODELS Model #1: Independent governance Stand-alone government entity separate from COA Dissolve current structure of board and PARD leadership structure Board of Commissions/Chief Operating Officer/Personnel Board Workforce: District hired vs. COA Park District fee could be used to create expanded programming including concession programming, sponsorship, advertising & promotion programming Model #2: Under City umbrella …
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 …
Austin Parks and Recreation Department Financial Services Division October 25, 2021 PARD Strategic Planning Follow-Up: Resource Allocation and Cash Handling Audits Background 2 • The PARD Resource Allocation Audit was conducted in 2016. The objective of the audit was “to determine how resources are allocated for PARD programs and maintenance, and if this process results in equity from a City district perspective.” The audit resulted in three findings and four recommendations. • The PARD Cash Handling Audit was conducted in 2017. The objective of the audit was “to determine if PARD accounted for all the money it received.” The audit resulted in two findings and four recommendations. PARD has implemented 6 recommendations related to strategic planning: 3 Source: Auditor analysis of PARD’s actions to address prior audit recommendations, September 2021 Implementation Status of Recommendations - PARD Resource Allocation 4 Recommendations Recommendation 1: The Director should implement a comprehensive program management system to track complete and reliable program information and ensure these decisions are documented and communicated throughout PARD Implementation Status Underway Recommendation 2: The Director should: A. initiate a policy discussion with City Council and the City Manager to determine how to offer an appropriate balance of PARD services given funding; B. perform a sustainability analysis and make adjustments to programs, services, and facilities that better align to decisions made in that policy discussion; and C. better align fees to recover costs Implemented Implementation Status of Recommendations - PARD Resource Allocation (continued) 5 Recommendations Recommendation 3: The Director should ensure registration for all fee-based programs is done in RecTrac, all participants pay for the services they receive, and that payment is made timely or appropriately addressed per policy Recommendation 4: The Director should ensure facility service requests are completed timely and that staff collect and report all information regarding each facility maintenance service request work order including the reasons for any cancellations Implementation Status Implemented Underway Implementation Status of Recommendations - PARD Cash Handling 6 Recommendations Recommendation 1: The PARD Director should identify ways that technology and/or process changes can be used to independently determine expected revenue at PARD sites and eliminate the need for the “over-ring” practice at municipal pools. Recommendation 2: The PARD Director should identify ways that technology and/or process changes can be used to reduce or eliminate the acceptance of paper money at a department or site level. Implementation Status Implemented Implemented Implementation Status of Recommendations …
City of Austin Office of the City Auditor Report Highlights September 2021 PARD Strategic Planning Follow-Up Objective The objective of this special report was to follow up on the Parks and Recreation Department’s (PARD) actions to implement recommendations from the PARD Resource Allocation and PARD Cash Handling audits. What We Learned We verified the department implemented two of the four recommendations we issued in the PARD Resource Allocation Audit and work on the other two recommendations is underway. We issued four recommendations through the PARD Cash Handling Audit, and all four have been implemented. PARD has made significant improvements to managing its resources, including implementation of new cost-recovery and subsidy pricing models and new cash handling procedures. However, the City’s funding priorities may continue to constrain the department’s ability to effectively offer its current wide range of services, especially in high-cost areas such as aquatics, golf courses, and cemeteries. PARD has implemented 6 recommendations related to strategic planning PARD Resource Allocation Audit PARD Cash Handling Audit 2 recommendations implemented 4 recommendations implemented 2 recommendations underway SOURCE: Auditor analysis of PARD’s actions to address prior audit recommendations, September 2021 Background The PARD Resource Allocation Audit was conducted in 2016 because prior audits had indicated risks relating to PARD resource allocation may not have been fully addressed. The objective of audit was “to determine how resources are allocated for PARD programs and maintenance, and if this process results in equity from a City district perspective.” The audit resulted in three findings and four recommendations. The PARD Cash Handling Audit was conducted in fiscal year 2017 after PARD and City Auditor staff identified risks related to cash management in prior audits and investigations. The objective of the audit was “to determine if the Parks and Department (PARD) accounted for all the money it received.” The audit resulted in two findings and four recommendations. Both audits evaluated how PARD manages its resources and the many programs and functions the department oversees. Making efficient use of those resources is critical in achieving PARD’s mission to “inspire Austin to learn, play, protect and connect by creating diverse programs and experiences in sustainable natural spaces and public places.” 1 Office of the City Auditor DRAFTPARD Strategic Planning Follow-Up Report Highlights September 2021 Implementation Status Underway City of Austin City of Austin Office of the City Auditor Office of the City Auditor Implementation Status of Recommendations Audit Recommendations …
City of Austin Office of the City Auditor Special Report PARD Strategic Planning Follow-Up September 2021 This is a special report to follow up on the recommendations related to PARD strategic planning made in the Resource Allocation and Cash Handling audits. The Parks and Recreation Department (PARD) has made significant progress to address the recommendations made in these audits, including actions taken to enhance cost recovery, implement equitable program subsidies, and improve training for staff. However, City leadership will need to address the long-term financial sustainability of PARD programming. DRAFT Contents Objective Background Objective and Background What We Learned and What PARD has Done Appendix A - Findings Issued Appendix B - Implementation Status of Recommendations Scope and Methodology 2 3 8 9 10 Cover: Roy Kizer Golf Course, City of Austin. The objective of this special report was to follow up on the Parks and Recreation Department’s (PARD) actions to implement recommendations from the PARD Resource Allocation and PARD Cash Handling audits. The PARD Resource Allocation Audit was conducted as part of the Office of the City Auditor’s fiscal year 2016 Audit Plan and because prior audits had indicated risks relating to PARD resource allocation may not have been fully addressed. The objective of the audit was “to determine how resources are allocated for PARD programs and maintenance, and if this process results in equity from a City district perspective.” The audit resulted in three findings and four recommendations. The PARD Cash Handling Audit was conducted in fiscal year 2017 after PARD and City Auditor staff identified risks related to cash management in prior audits and investigations. The objective of the audit was “to determine if the Parks and Recreation Department (PARD) accounted for all the money it received.” The audit resulted in two findings and four recommendations. Both audits evaluated how PARD manages its resources and the many programs and functions the department oversees. Making efficient use of those resources is critical in achieving PARD’s mission to “inspire Austin to learn, play, protect and connect by creating diverse programs and experiences in sustainable natural spaces and public places.” 2 Office of the City Auditor DRAFTPARD Strategic Planning Follow-Up What We Learned Summary What has the department done to address the issues we identified? We issued four recommendations through the PARD Resource Allocation Audit in 2016. We verified the department implemented two of these recommendations, and two are underway. …
Downtown Density Bonus Program October 25 Design Commission Content Program History and Requirements Program Outcomes Fee In-Lieu Recalibration Discussion and Next Steps Program History and Requirements 3 Downtown Density Bonus Program History 2013: Downtown Density Bonus Ordinance 20130627-105 passes replacing CURE (Central Urban Redevelopment). 2014: Downtown Density Bonus program is updated with a new ordinance 2014022-054 that provides additional definitions and sets up current Rainey Street subdistrict requirements Affordability Requirements Affordability requirements only apply to projects with a residential component 50% of bonus area must be achieved thru affordable housing benefits which can be done through a fee-in-lieu or on-site affordable units Rainey Street Subdistrict is only subdistrict that requires on-site affordable units calculated as 5% of the square footage of dwelling units developed within the FAR ratio of 8:1 and made affordable at 80% MFI or below On-site Affordability Terms Ownership: 120% MFI or below ($118,700 for a household of 4) for 99 years *Rainey Street Subdistrict is an exception with an 80% MFI limit Rental: 80% MFI or below ($79,100 for a household of 4) for 40 years Program Outcomes To Date 6 Project Status *As of 10/18/2021 Overall DDB Program Rainey Street Subdistrict Certified Projects by year Overall DDB Program Rainey Street Subdistrict Program Outcomes Certified Site Plan Under Review Building Permit Issued Project Completed Project Cancelled 4 1 8 4 3 2 0 3 2 2 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Total 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 5 20 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 4 9 Completed Projects with On-Site Affordable Housing Camden Rainey Street Project includes 16 income- restricted affordable rental units that will be affordable until 2056. The Quincy Project includes 14 rental units that will be income-restricted affordable until 2061. *Both projects are within the Rainey Street Subdistrict. Development Pipeline Overall Downtown Density Bonus Program 3,276 Rainey Street Subdistrict 1,252 1,252 832 41 46 87 45 46 91 Certified/Site Plan Under Review/Building Permit Issued Projects Estimated Total Rental Units Estimated Affordable Rental Units Estimated Total Ownership Units Estimated Affordable Ownership Units Estimated Total Affordable Units Estimated Total Fee-in- lieu Pending $23,043,870 $6,271,102 Total Fee-in-lieu Paid $131,937 Estimated Total Units 4,528 2,084 Alexan Waterloo Apartments at 700 E 11th Street is set to be the next completed Downtown Density Bonus Project. Located in the Waller Creek subdistrict it will be the first project outside …
HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION MONDAY, September 27, 2021 – 6:00 PM MEETING WILL BE HELD IN PERSON AT CITY HALL Council Chambers 301 W. 2nd Street Austin, TX 78701 Some members of the Commission may be participating by videoconference. The meeting may be viewed online at: http://www.austintexas.gov/page/watch-atxn-live. COMMISSION MEMBERS: x x x x x x Terri Myers, Chair Ben Heimsath, Vice Chair Anissa Castillo Witt Featherston Kevin Koch Carl Larosche x x x ab x Kelly Little Trey McWhorter Blake Tollett Beth Valenzuela Caroline Wright AGENDA CALL TO ORDER CITIZEN COMMUNICATION: GENERAL The first (10) speakers who register to speak no later than noon the day before the meeting will be allowed a three-minute allotment to address their concerns regarding items not posted on the agenda. 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. August 23, 2021 – Offered for consent approval MOTION: Approve the minutes, per passage of the consent agenda, on a motion by Commissioner Larosche. Commissioner Koch seconded the motion. Vote: 10-0. 2. PRESENTATIONS, DISCUSSION, AND POSSIBLE ACTION A. No items 1 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Discussion and Possible Action on Applications for Historic Zoning, Discussion and Action on Applications for Historic District Zoning, and Requests to Consider Initiation of Historic Zoning Cases A.1. C14H-2021-0144; ZC-2021-140508 – 3004 Belmont Cir. – Discussion Council District 7 Proposal: Owner-initiated historic zoning. Applicant: Claire Oswalt City Staff: Kalan Contreras, Historic Preservation Office, 512-974-2727 Staff Recommendation: Consider recommendation of historic zoning. Clare Oswalt spoke in favor of Historic Zoning. There were no speakers in opposition. MOTION: Close public hearing, on a motion by Commissioner Koch. Commissioner Tollett seconded the motion. Vote: 10-0. MOTION: Postpone discussion to October 25, 2021 meeting, on a motion by Commissioner Featherston. Commissioner Little seconded the motion. Vote: 0-10. Motion failed. MOTION: Recommend historic zoning based on architecture and historical associations, on a motion by Commissioner Little. Commissioner McWhorter seconded the motion. Vote: 10-0. A.2. PR-2021-092644 – 3703 Meadowbank Dr. – Discussion Council District 10 Proposal: Commission-initiated historic zoning. Applicant: Linda Sullivan City Staff: Kalan Contreras, Historic Preservation Office, 512-974-2727 Staff Recommendation: Consider recommendation of historic zoning. Brian Hardeman spoke in opposition to Historic Zoning. There were no speakers in favor. MOTION: Close public hearing, on a motion by Commissioner Tollett. Commissioner McWhorter seconded the motion. Vote: 10-0. MOTION: Release the permit upon completion of a City of Austin Documentation Package, on a motion by Commissioner Koch. Commissioner Little seconded the …
Allen, Amber From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Importance: High Vincent Huebinger Wednesday, August 18, 2021 3:17 PM Sadowsky, Steve; Allen, Amber Dane Wilkins RE: Item D-6 2501 Inwood Demo Hugh McMath 1.JPG Steve, just left you and Amber a VM. It is indeed a very interesting house but we are not finding the Mid‐century modern aspects on 2501 Inwood based on the industry (architectural) standards. Yes there are some pronounced windows but no lines and angles established in this front elevation or roof. Most mid‐century modern houses built in 1950‐60’s had had lines with open spaces and pronounced split level roofs. The exterior wood is an odd combination and is not repairable. We are preparing some backup material for Landmark commissioners to try to emphasize the lack of element for this agenda. I have another hearing on Monday evening in Grand Prairie, therefore Dane Wilkins out of our office will be on the live line of the meeting. I am assuming that the postponement policy by staff will be granted (since it always is) and this is the last item on the agenda. Knowing the process, I believe you will be requesting postponements at the beginning of the hearing? We did find 2502 Inwood went to your landmark commission in 2018 and was allowed to be demo’d and rebuilt as a combination of mid‐century and eclectic. Others on that block were also demo’d. Regarding Hugh McMath, he was a very impressive tenured professor and acting director for a few years. The most we have found on him are his international trips to Monterrey, his thesis at MIT and some other articles. We can agree to postpone in light of your mention of Ned Cole and Plan con, which we did not discover in our research. The only thing we know about Ned Cole is that he may have been a student of Professor McMath. We also need to finish the structural walk Monday morning for the interior. From the exterior, Mike McIntyre has already found very disturbing damage & conditions, to be documented by the next hearing. We can include his preliminary exterior findings sometime tomorrow morning in the backup. According to his daughter, Hugh did not design the house. Let us know the best way we should proceed and your thoughts on if Laura Burkhart would benefit on having some architectural renderings available next month? She may be …
August 25th, 2021 Historic Landmark Commission P. O. Box 1088 Austin, TX 78767 Re: 1204 E. 6th Street – Austin, TX 78702 I, Irene Sanchez, am one of the former heirs of the house and property located at 1204 E. 6th Street in Austin, Texas. This home was in my family for 75 years. Over the decades, we witnessed East 6th Street evolve drastically to become the vibrant commercial district that it is today. While our home played a large role in our lives, we recognized that the location was no longer ideal for single-family use as it is now heavily populated with entertainment venues and many other commercial uses. Therefore, we decided to sell the property in 2021. The new owners of this property have stated that they would like to relocate the house, which is over 100 years old, to a more fitting residential location where restoration will be more fitting and viable. I am providing my support for the application for this relocation. Sincerely, Irene Sanchez Irene Sanchez Structural Evaluation Report 1204 East 6th Street. Austin, Texas 78702 Report Issued: September 23th, 2021 Prepared By: FORT Structures TBPE#: 18034 2235 East 6th St. #105, Austin, Texas 78702 512-817-9264 www.fortstructures.com Page 1 of 5 Subject: Structural Evaluation Report – 1204 East 6th Street, Austin TX, 78702 Fort Structures PC is pleased to submit the results of the structural evaluation for the above-referenced project. This report briefly presents the findings of the visual study along with our conclusions. If you have any questions regarding the information in this report, please feel free to contact me at 512-565-7026, or sam@fortstructures.com September 24, 2021 Sept 23rd, 2021 Cater Joseph Joseph Companies cater@josephcompanies.com Sincerely, Samuel Covey, P.E. Principal, TX Reg# 123,796 FORT Structures PC TBPE Firm# 18034 Note: I warrant that I visually inspected the components of this property as addressed in this report in a diligent manner and have honestly reported the findings existing conditions and have made recommendations based on my experience and opinion. Fort Structures does not express or imply any guarantee of specific future structural performance with the limited scope of this inspection; rather, this is my best effort to interpret my observations and develop an opinion as to structural significance. There may be other issues affecting the structure that are not visible without destructive investigation. The conditions of the various components of this property described in this …
From: Sent: To: Subject: Mary Reed Thursday, April 15, 2021 4:19 AM Luis Zaragoza Re: Clarifying something Aubrey told you yesterday Hi Luis: The CCDC board of directors has given me permission to send the members of the HLC and staff an email indicating that although our preference of course is for 1104 Toyath to be rehabilitated so that it can remain a contributing structure in the Clarksville NRHD, we will not oppose Pardisa's demolition application. We will not oppose because Paradisa Homes heard the concerns we expressed about its original plans and as a result, designed a totally new house that is far more appropriate for Clarksville. I will send the email this week. Mary MR•PR Austin, TX 78703 Be Kind "I have decided to stick with love. Hate is too great a burden to bear." MLK On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 7:33 PM Luis Zaragoza Mary, I'd like to submit to you a proposal to keep the existing form of the front facade. All materials would be new. We'll want to use as much of the original flooring as possible as well. The existing home is located inside the 25' front setback, (approx. 15') so we'd need to move the house regardless. I hope this is something you and your team are agreeable to. We would very much like to reach a decision before the HLC meeting this month, which we are on schedule for, so please let me know if you would like to hop on a call this week to discuss. wrote: 1 To help protect y our priv acy , Micro so ft Office prev ented auto matic download of this pictu re from the In ternet. On Fri, Apr 2, 2021 at 4:04 PM Luis Zaragoza Good Afternoon Mary, Thanks for the information. We expect to have an elevation for you to review within the next couple of weeks, and we're interested in re-using some of the original flooring so thanks for the tip. Have a great weekend. wrote: 2 To help protect y our priv acy , Micro so ft Office prev ented auto matic download of this pictu re from the In ternet. wrote: On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 5:33 AM Mary Reed Hi Luis: I spoke with Aubrey yesterday after your meeting. He mentioned that he had told you that he thought that the exterior siding on 1104 Toyath …
