Item #5 - COADC-Project Review Application_PROJECT INFO — original pdf

Backup

A. PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT NAME PROJECT T YP E Infrastructure Private project PROJECT LOCATIO N/ ADDR ESS PROJECT LOCATIO N/ ADDR ESS City building & site Other Density Bonus A PPLICANT PROPE RT Y O WN ER A PPLICANT MAILI NG A DDRESS PROPE RT Y O WN ER MAI LING AD DR ESS A PPLICANT TELEP HONE N UM BE R PROPE RT Y O WN ER TEL EPHONE NUMBER PROJECT START DATE PROJECT CO MPL E TION DATE A PPLICANT’S ARCHI TE CT A PPL IC ANT’S ENGI NEER Page 8 Design Commission - Project Review Application1. Indi cate if propo se d Pro jec t is re q u ir e d by City Ordinance to be reviewed by the Design Commiss ion . 2. D escribe the r ec omm end atio n t h at yo u a re requesting from the Desig n Com mission. 3. Current De sig n P hase o f Pro jec t ( D e s ign C o mmission prefers to see pro jec ts right aft er ap proved conceptual, sc he m atic, d esign d ev e lo pm e nt ) . 4. Is thi s Proje ct su bjec t to Site Pl an an d /o r Zonin g application ap provals? Will it b e p rese nt e d to Plann ing Commission and/o r City Co uncil? I f s o , wh en? 5. D o es t his P roj ect c om ply with L an d D ev e l opment Code Subchapter E? List specific ally an y Alternative E quiva lent Comp lianc e r equ est if any. Ple ase refer to website for Alternate Equivalent Com plia nce ( AEC) requirements. Page 9 Design Commission - Project Review ApplicationB. PROJECT BACKGROUND 6. Prov ide proj ec t b ackgro u nd inc lu d ing go als , scope, building/planning type, and sc hedule. Broadly addre ss e ach of the “Shar ed Value s fo r Ur ban A re as ” t hat are listed on Page 6 o f the Ur ban Design Guidelines . 7. Has this proje ct c ondu cted co m mu n it y/ s t ak eholder out reach? If so, please provide do c ume ntation to d emonstrate c ommunity/ stakeho ld e r su ppor t of this project. 8. Is thi s proj ect sub mitting fo r t h e D o wntown Density Bonus Prog ram? If so , pleas e p rovide a completed Down town Dens it y Bonu s App lica t io n . 9. Has the p roje c t bee n rev iewed by C OA D e par tment (i. e. DAC) S taff? If so, please desc ribe and cite any relevant comme nts o r feed back th at t h e C o mmission should be aw ar e o f. 10. Are ther e any lim itations to c o m plia n ce or planning principles due to the spec if ic require men ts of t his proj- e ct that the C om mission sh o uld b e awa re o f? Page 10 Design Commission - Project Review ApplicationC. EXISTING CONDITIONS AND CONTEXT 11. Iden tify conne ctiv ity to pu blic t rans po r t at i on including, bicycle and pedestr ian routes and/or multi- mod al transpor tation . Do es the p ro j e ct c om ply with AD A requirements? Provide a site co ntext map an d attach ad ditional page s as need ed . 12. Iden tify and de sc ribe any e xist in g fe at u re s that are required to be prese r ved an d/or protected such as h eritage tree s, c r eek s o r str eam s, e n da nge r ed species (flora and/o r fauna)? Attach additional site diagrams as needed. 13. Is t his projec t with in any City o f Au st in planning district, master plan, ne ighbo rhood plan, regulatory dis- t rict, overlay, e tc .? If so, ple ase il lu st ra t e h o w this project confor ms to the r espec tive plan. Attach addition al pages as ne ede d. ( See below fo r re q u ire m e nt s.) 14. L ist any proj ec t p ro gram and / o r s it e c on st raints that should be co nsidered. Page 11 Design Commission - Project Review ApplicationD. RELATIONSHIP TO PUBLIC REALM Publi c realm is def ined as any pu bli ca lly o wne d st reets, pathways, r ig ht of ways, par ks, pub lic ly acces sible open space s and an y pu blic and c iv ic bu ild in g and facilities. The quality o f o ur public realm is vital if we are to be s uccessful in cr eating e nv iron me nt s t h at p eople want to live and wo rk in. 16. The shar e d value s o u tline d in t h e Ur ban D esign G uidelines inc lude Human Charac ter, Dens ity, S us tainability, Diversity, Ec onomic V itality, C iv ic A r t , A S e ns e of Time, Unique Charac ter, Aut henticity, Safety and Conn ection to the Outdoor s. How is th e pro je ct ad dr e s si n g these unique community c harac ter istic s? Is the projec t develop- ing any public ame nities f or u rba n c on t in u i t y and vital place making ? 16. Does this projec t enco u rage st re e t lev e l activity to engage and r esp ond to f unc tional needs s uc h as shade, res t areas, multi -modal transpo r t at io n sto rage and paths? 17. H ow will the p roje ct be a g oo d ne igh bo r to adjacent proper ties? Fo r exam ple, desc ribe the t reatmen t of the t ransiti on ar ea be twe en pro per tie s, i. e . fe n c e , landscape improvem ents, etc . Page 12 Design Commission - Project Review ApplicationE. ENVIRONMENTAL / SUSTAINABLE ISSUES The Austin Ur ban Design Guid elin e s s e t a goa l that, “All development s ho uld t ake into c onside ration the nee d to conser ve ene r gy and r eso u rces. I t sh o u ld a lso strive for a small c arbo n f oo tpr int.” 18. Pl ease lis t any signif ic ant co m pone nt s of the project th at contr ibute to meeting this go al. If the projec t has been designe d to acc om mo date f u t u re in c l u sion of such components (fo r example, by b ein g b uilt “s olar ready”) please list them. 19. If the proj ect is b eing d esigne d to m e e t any sust ainability/enviro nmental standards o r cer tifications (for example, LEE D Silve r), p lease li st t h e m h ere and attach relevant c hec klist s or sim ilar do c umen ts that d emonstrate how th e standard o r ce r t ifi ca t io n will be achieved. 20. If the proj ect co ntains o th er s ign i fic a n t s ust ainability components no t inc luded ab ove that the Commiss ion sh ou ld note, please list th em h er e . Page 13 Design Commission - Project Review ApplicationAppendix I Exhibits Exhibit 1 – Land Use Commission variance requests Exhibit 2 – Vicinity Plan Exhibit 3 – LEED scorecard Exhibit 4 – Current reservation program Exhibit 5 – SubChapter E Exhibit 6 – Funding Exhibit 7 – Secured Area Exhibit 1 – Land Use Commission variance requests Portions of the project cannot fully comply with water quality development standards due to existing buildings and site features located within the 100' Critical Water Quality Zone. These constraints limit where improvements can occur. The affected items are being addressed through Land Use Commission variance requests. Including: • Grandstand: Accessible platform outside original building footprint within 100’ CWQZ setback • Landscape: Selective replacement paving & planters within 100’ CWQZ setback • Landscape: Added paving within 100’ CWQZ • Bandstand: Accessible paving & platform outside original building footprint within 100’ CWQZ setback Exhibit 2 – Vicinity Plan The site is within a 1/2 mile radius of multiple bus routes and directly connects to the Ann & Roy Butler Hike-and-Bike Trail, providing strong bicycle and pedestrian access. The project includes new sidewalks at Jesse E. Segovia Street, improved internal circulation, and the installation of new bike racks providing 12 spaces near the entrance. The two existing ADA parking spaces will be brought up to full ADA compliance. All proposed work will meet ADA/TAS requirements, including accessibility upgrades to restrooms, site work within the plaza and new sidewalks at the street. Exhibit 3 – LEED scorecard Exhibit 4 - Current reservation program The Fiesta Gardens Rehabilitation focuses on restoring existing facilities, improving accessibility, and addressing site infrastructure, but it does not change the site's current operational model or rental functions. The project is funded through Hotel Occupancy Tax (HOT) dollars, which requires that the facility continue to serve and be promoted to tourists as part of its special event function. Austin Parks and Recreation (APR) currently manages reservations through two established systems: • A lottery system for reservations 10 months in advance, which is necessary to accommodate contracted recurring events that must be scheduled before dates are released to the public. This system is also used at other facilities, such as Zilker Clubhouse. • Online reservations for dates within 6 months. To support access, when an applicant does not receive any of their three lottery selections, APR staff follow up directly to help identify alternative available dates. Additionally, special event use at Festival Beach, including the Fiesta Gardens area, is capped by City Code § 8‑1‑15, which limits the total number of special event days permitted each year. This ensures that public access to parkland remains accessible to the public. While the reservation system is not part of this rehabilitation project, APR is committed to ensuring that Fiesta Gardens remains accessible to both neighborhood users and the wider community and tourists (the latter being a target of promotion required by project funding from the Hotel Occupancy Tax). Exhibit 5 – SubChapter E Project Overview Fiesta Gardens is a historically significant public park and event complex owned and operated by the City of Austin Parks and Recreation Department (PARD), situated on the north shore of Lady Bird Lake Lagoon at 2101 Jesse E. Segovia Street. The 13.17-acre site contains four historic structures—the Dining Hall, Mercado, Bandstand, and Grandstand—that have served the Austin community for decades as publicly accessible civic and cultural amenities. The proposed scope of work is a preservation-focused rehabilitation of these existing historic structures, together with an addition to the Dining Hall to support code-compliant service functions. No buildings are being demolished. No new structures are being introduced on previously undeveloped land. The project is funded through the City’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP ID 5217.035) and is subject to historic preservation review in addition to standard permitting. The scope by structure is as follows: • Dining Hall (5,011 SF): Full interior renovation and rehabilitation of the existing historic masonry structure, including updated MEP systems, accessibility improvements, and new window assemblies within existing openings. A 2,516 SF single-story addition is proposed to provide code-required service, restroom, and support spaces. • Mercado (4,165 SF + 1,130 SF existing shed): Rehabilitation of the existing historic structure, including restoration of exterior stucco, replacement of wood vigas and trim in- kind, updated MEP systems, and interior upgrades. • Bandstand (480 SF): Reconstruction of deteriorated wood framing, with new accessible ramp and platform construction to accommodate programming and accessibility needs. • Grandstand (3,407 SF + 287 SF addition): Rehabilitation of the existing bleacher structure, including replacement of deteriorated wood seating, metal roofing, siding, and railings. A 287 SF accessible ramp and platform addition is included. Subchapter E Applicability Analysis The project team has carefully reviewed Austin Land Development Code Subchapter E (Design Standards and Mixed Use) to determine the applicable compliance tier and the extent to which specific standards apply. This analysis is organized by compliance tier as defined in Subchapter E, Article 1. Full Compliance Does Not Apply (Section 1.2.2) Section 1.2.2 triggers full compliance with Subchapter E for only two categories of development: (A) new construction on previously undeveloped land, and (B) new construction or site development where the Director determines that all buildings on the site have been or will be demolished. Neither condition is present at Fiesta Gardens. All four historic structures are being retained and rehabilitated in place. The site is not undeveloped, and no wholesale demolition is proposed. Full compliance is therefore not applicable to this project. Partial Compliance Framework Applies (Section 1.2.3) Because the project does not meet the threshold for full compliance and is not otherwise fully exempt under Section 1.2.4, it falls within the partial compliance framework of Section 1.2.3. The Director determines which standards apply based on the nature of work proposed for each structure. The project team’s analysis by building is as follows: 1. Dining Hall Addition: As a new building addition, the addition is subject to Article 2 (Site Development Standards) unless compliance cannot be achieved due to site constraints, and to Article 3 (Building Design Standards). Multiple criteria in Section 1.2.3.A.1 support Article 2 waivers, as detailed in Section III below. The addition is designed to comply with Article 3. 2. Dining Hall Rehabilitation: As a remodeled building, the Dining Hall rehabilitation is subject to Section 2.5 (Exterior Lighting) and to Article 3. The rehabilitation design responds to Article 3 intent through its historic character restoration. 3. Mercado, Bandstand, and Grandstand Rehabilitations: These structures are being rehabilitated with selective repairs consistent with historic preservation standards. The scope of work does not approach the Level 3 Alteration threshold for any of these buildings, and accordingly Article 3 does not apply. Section 2.5 (Exterior Lighting) applies to all structures and is addressed in the project design. Section 1.5.1 states that Alternative Equivalent Compliance is available “to accommodate projects where the particular site conditions or the proposed use prevent strict compliance with this Subchapter,” and that AEC “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.” This description accurately characterizes Fiesta Gardens: a historic civic project on a constrained lakefront site where strict application of commercial development metrics is neither appropriate nor achievable. Article 2 Waivers—Dining Hall Addition Section 1.2.3.A.1 provides that a new building addition must comply with Article 2 “unless compliance cannot be achieved due to” enumerated site-specific conditions, applied “to the minimum extent required.” Multiple criteria directly apply to the Dining Hall Addition at Fiesta Gardens: A. Existing buildings or improvements retained on the site (Section 1.2.3.A.1.a): The four existing historic structures substantially constrain buildable area and building placement on the 13.17-acre site. The addition is sited to minimize disruption to the historic complex, fit within the available area, and avoid conflict with protected trees and existing site improvements. Its placement cannot be evaluated in isolation from the retained historic context. B. Size or nature of the proposed building limits placement on the site (Section 1.2.3.A.1.b): The addition is a modest service wing (2,516 SF) designed to read as subordinate to the historic Dining Hall. Its siting is determined by functional adjacency requirements which limit the range of feasible locations independent of other site constraints. C. Topography, protected trees, or critical environmental features (Section 1.2.3.A.1.c): The site contains significant protected trees documented in the landscape drawings. The lakefront location also introduces topographic constraints, including grade changes between the street level and the water’s edge, that limit buildable footprint and influence building placement. D. Location of water quality or detention facilities (Section 1.2.3.A.1.d): The site is subject to a 100-foot Critical Water Quality Zone (CWQZ) shoreline setback from Lady Bird Lake Lagoon, documented on the civil and landscape drawings. This setback significantly constrains the buildable area of the site and has directly influenced the siting of the addition, which is positioned landward of the setback boundary. The 100-year floodplain also encroaches onto the site from the lake edge, further restricting where new construction can occur. Taken together, these constraints collectively justify the minimum necessary waivers from Article 2 site development standards for the addition. The project team is prepared to document specific waiver requests with supporting graphics at the site plan review stage. Article 3 Waivers—Dining Hall Addition Section 1.2.3.A.2 provides that a new building addition must comply with Article 3 “unless compliance cannot be achieved due to” enumerated site-specific conditions, applied “to the minimum extent required.” Multiple criteria directly apply to the Dining Hall addition at Fiesta Gardens: A. Glazing and Façade Relief on Building Façades (Section 3.2.2.A.1): The ROW facing, north façade consists of 36% glazing, which is just shy of the required 40%. The sill of the clerestory below the room is tied to the datum of the heads of the existing door openings of the adjacent existing historic Dining Hall. We feel that this relationship is aesthetically important for several elements of the design composition, and our glazing area, while technically falling short, is very close to the requirement and meets the intent of this section. The project team is prepared to document specific waiver requests with supporting graphics at the site plan review stage. Intent and Policy Considerations Beyond the technical compliance framework, the project team reviewed the expressed purpose and legislative intent of Subchapter E, which is material to how its standards should be interpreted and applied in this context. The ordinance was enacted following a 2004 City Council directive to develop “citywide design standards for commercial and retail development” (emphasis added), and the Task Force that produced the policy report described its purpose as raising quality standards for “all non-residential and mixed-use development” oriented toward commercial activity along Austin’s roadway network. Section 1.1 articulates the Subchapter’s general intent in terms of commercial and retail development quality, pedestrian-friendly streetscapes, and the relationship of commercial buildings to adjacent streets. Fiesta Gardens is categorically distinct from the commercial development this regulatory framework was designed to address. It is a publicly owned, civic and cultural park—a place of community gathering, historic preservation, and civic celebration. The City of Austin Parks and Recreation Department is the owner, operator, and primary user. The project’s objective is the faithful rehabilitation of four historic structures in service of the public interest, not the introduction of new commercial development along a roadway corridor. The design approach is informed by historic preservation standards and the character of the existing complex, and it already achieves the spirit of what Subchapter E seeks to produce: a high-quality, publicly engaged, pedestrian-friendly civic environment that contributes positively to Austin’s identity and character. Applying commercial façade standards—such as minimum glazing percentages, buildable frontage ratios, or parking lot screening requirements calibrated for retail and commercial uses—to a lakeside historic park rehabilitation would produce outcomes inconsistent with both the letter and the intent of the ordinance. The project team respectfully requests that the Design Commission take this contextual framing into account in its review, and that any specific standards identified as applicable be evaluated with recognition of the civic, historic, and environmental character of the site. Exhibit 6 – Funding The project was put on hold in 2021 due to insufficient construction funding. It resumed the preparation of construction documents in 2025 after receiving funding from the Hotel Occupancy Tax (HOT). Phase 1 construction is now fully funded and includes the rehabilitation of the historic buildings, upgrades to mechanical and site infrastructure, as well as enhancements to landscaping and wayfinding. These enhancements aim to rehabilitate the complex to meet current codes and improve the use of the site. Exhibit 7 – Secured Area Fiesta Gardens Complex Rehabilitation Phase I focuses on restoring the historic special‑event facilities. Because the complex operates as a designated special event venue, the existing perimeter fencing must remain to meet safety and alcohol‑service requirements. Daily gate openings are not feasible without on‑site personnel, which would require Council to approve funding for additional personnel. Phase 2, once funded and after the Austin Parks and Recreation maintenance team relocates to a new office space, is anticipated to convert the Mercado building into publicly accessible meeting rooms, expanding future community access. While the Phase 1 facilities must remain secured, the project provides significant community‑facing benefits through enhanced landscaping outside the fence line. These include pocket landscaping, a butterfly garden, relocation of overhead utility lines to underground, and improved sidewalk connections to the nearby Degollado Pavilion and trail system.