CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS Regular Meeting April 15, 1965 10:00 Α.Μ. Council Chamber, City Hall The meeting was called to order with Mayor Palmer presiding. Roll call: Present: Councilmen LaRue, Long, White, Mayor Palmer Absent: Councilman Shanks Present also: W. T. Williams, Jr., City Manager; Doren R. Eskew, City Attorney; Reuben Rountree, Jr., Director of Public Works; Robert A. Miles, Chief of Police Councilman Shanks absent due to illness. Invocation was delivered by MAJOR FRED SHERB, Salvation Army. Councilman LaRue moved that MR. TED WHITE, Chamber of Commerce Tourism and Recreation Department, and MR. PEAL be heard. The motion was seconded by Councilman Long. Roll call showed a unanimous vote. MR. PEAL extended an invitation to each of the Council Members and City Manager to join in the Annual Chamber of Commerce Tourism Dinner to be held Tuesday, April 27, 6:30 P.M., Driskill Hotel. The Mayor stated each on the Council was vitally interested in Tourism and appreciated the invitation. Councilman LaRue moved that MR. CHARLES VILLASENOR be heard. The motion was seconded by Councilman Long. Roll call showed a unanimous vote. MR. VILLASENOR recalled he had come to the Council asking it to consider a program that had been presented to the State legislature which concerns the senior non-citizens, and he wanted to know what the Council had decided. Mayor Palmer was absent at the time this was presented. Councilman LaRue explained this bill would give the senior non-citizens who had resided in Texas not less than 25 years an opportunity to participate in Old Age Assistance. In answer to Mayor Palmer's inquiry, Mr. Villasenor stated this would affect about 826 people in Travis County, and would help alleviate the Welfare Agencies, bring : _ CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS April 15, 1965 more economy into the area, and was of course a diminishing program. After discussion, Councilman Long moved that the Council endorse the principles and ideals of House Bill 66, and to go on record supporting the principles and ideals of this bill. vote: Ayes: Моев: The motion, seconded by Councilman LaRue, carried by the following Councilmen LaRue, Long, White, Mayor Palmer None Absent: Nouncilman Shanks Councilman White moved that the Minutes of the Meeting of April 1, 1965, be approved. The motion, seconded by Councilman LaRue, carried by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen LaRue, Long, White, Mayor Palmer Noes: None Absent: Councilman Shanks Mayor Palmer brought up the following ordinance for its third reading: AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE EXTENSION OF CERTAIN BOUNDARY LIMITS OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN AND THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN ADDITIONAL TERRITORY CONSISTING OF 378 ACRES OF LAND, MORE OR LESS, PARTLY OUT OF THE J. C. TANNEHILL LEAGUE AND PARTLY OUT OF THE JAMES BURLESON SURVEY NO. 19, IN TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS; WHICH SAID ADDITIONAL TERRITORY LIES ADJACENT TO AND ADJOINS THE PRESENT BOUNDARY LIMITS OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN, IN PARTICULARS STATED IN THE ORDINANCE. (City Property) The ordinance was read the third time and Councilman LaRue moved that the ordinance be finally passed. The motion, seconded by Councilman White, carried by the following vote: Ayes: Noes: Councilmen LaRue, Long, White, Mayor Palmer None Absent: Councilman Shanks The Mayor announced that the ordinance had been finally passed. Mayor Palmer introduced the following ordinance: AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO A CERTAIN CONTRACT WITH NORTHCAPE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY FOR THE APPROPRIATION OF MONEY PAID TO THE CITY OF AUSTIN UNDER SUCH CONTRACT; AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. The ordinance was read the first time and Councilman Kong moved that the rule be suspended and the ordinance passed to its second reading. The motion, seconded by Councilman White, carried by the following vote: Ayes: Noes: Councilmen LaRue, Long, White, Mayor Palmer None Absent: Councilman Shanks ☑ CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS- April 15, 1965 The ordinance was read the second time and Councilman Long moved that the rule be suspended and the ordinance passed to its third reading. The motion, seconded by Councilman White, carried by the following vote: Ayes: Моев: Councilmen LaRue, Long, White, Mayor Palmer None Absent: Councilman Shanks The ordinance was read the third time and Councilman long moved that the ordinance be finally passed. The motion, seconded by Councilman White, carried by the following vote: Ауев: Noes: Councilmen LaRue, Long, White, Mayor Palmer None Absent: Councilman Shanks The Mayor announced that the ordinance had been finally passed. Councilman Long offered the following pesolution and moved its adoption: (RESOLUTION) WHEREAS, an easement, for public utility purposes, was reserved in, upon and across Lots 13 and 14, Block 3, Bryker-Woods Addition "B" according to a map or plat of said Bryker-Woods Addition "B" of record in Book 4 at Page 12 of the Plat Records of Travis County, Texas; and WHEREAS, the owner of said premises has requested the City Council of the City of Austin to release the hereinafter described public utility easement; and, WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the hereinafter described easement is not now needed and will not be required in the future; Now, Therefore, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN: That W. T. Williams, Jr., City Manager, be and he is hereby authorized and directed to execute a release of the following described public utility easement, to-wit: Two (2) strips of land, each of the said two (2) strips of land being three (3) feet in width; the strip of land hereinafter described as Number 1 being out of and a part of Lot 13, Block 3, Bryker-Woods Addition "B"; the strip of land hereinafter described as Number 2 being out of and a part of Lot 14, Block 3, Bryker-Woods Addition "B", said Bryker-Woods Addition "B" being a subdivision of a portion of the George W. Spear League in the City of Austin, Travis County, Texas, according to a map or plat of said Bryker-Woods Addition "B" of record in Book 4 at Page 12 of the Plat Records of Travis County, Texas; said two (2) strips of land three (3.00) feet in width being more particularly described as follows: NUMBER 1: BEING all the east three (3.00) feet of the north 153.98 feet of said Lot 13, Block 3, Bryker-Woods Addition "B"; CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS- April 15, 1965 NUMBER 2: BEING all the west three (3.00) feet of the north 153.98 feet of Lot 14, Block 3, Bryker-Woods Addition "B". The motion, seconded by Councilman LaRue, carried by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen LaRue, Long, White, Mayor Palmer Noes: None Absent: Councilman Shanks The City Manager submitted the following: "PROJECT: MABSON FIELD RESTROOMS & CONCESSION BUILDING BID OPENING: BIDDERS 10 A.M., Tuesday, April 13, 1965 in Office of Recreation Department BASE BID TIME BID BOND W. D. Anderson Company $6,645.00 May 30 5% yea C & Construction Company, Inc. 6,235.00 May 30 5% уев Floyd Gibson Maufrais Brothers, Inc 7,721.00 May 30 5% уев April 13, 1965 Date "To: W. T. Williams, Jr., City Manager Subject: Bid Opening, Mabson Field Restroom "Attached is results of the opening of bids for the restroom at Mabson Field. I recommend that we accept the low bid of $6,235.00 from C & H Construction Company, Inc. Money is in the budget for this project. "PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT B/ Beverly S. Sheffield Beverly S. Sheffield, Director" Councilman White offered the following resolution and moved its adoption: (RESOLUTION) WHEREAS, bids were received by the City of Austin on April 13, 1965, for the construction of Mabson Field restrooms and Concession Building; and, WHEREAS, the bid of C & H Construction Company, Inc., in the sum of $6,235.00, vas the lowest and best bid therefor, and the acceptance of such bid has been recommended by the Director of Parks and Recreation Department, of the City of Austin, and by the City Manager; Now, Therefore, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN: That the bid of C & H Construction Company, Inc., in the sum of $6,235.00, be and the same is hereby accepted, and that W. T. Williams, Jr., City Manager of the City of Austin, be and he is hereby authorized to execute a contract, on behalf of the City, with C & H Construction Company, Inc. _ CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS- April 15, 1965 The motion, seconded by Councilman LaRue, carried by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen LaRue, Long, White, Mayor Palmer Noes: None Absent: Councilman Shanks Councilman Long offered the following resolution and moved its adoption: (RESOLUTION) WHEREAS, Southern Union Gas Company has presented to the City Council tentative maps or plans showing the proposed construction of its gas mains in the streets in the City of Austin hereafter named, and said maps or plans have been considered by the City Council; therefore, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN: THAT Southern Union Gas Company be and the same is hereby permitted to lay and construct its gas mains in and upon the following streets: (1) A gas main in PROCK LANE, from a point 46 feet west of Richardine Avenue westerly 98 feet; the centerline of which gas main shall be 5.5 feet south of and parallel to the north property line of said PROCK LANE. Said gas main described above shall have a cover of not less than 2 feet. (2) A gas main in PROCK LANE, from a point 117 feet west of Estes Avenue westerly 56 feet; the centerline of which gas main shall be 6.5 feet south of and parallel to the north property line of said PROCK LANE. Said gas main described above shall have a cover of not less than 2½ feet. (3) A gas main in CESSAL AVENUE, from a point 57 feet north of Ortega Street, northerly 112 feet; the centerline of which gas main shall be 6.5 feet west of and parallel to the east property line of said CESSAL AVENUE. Said gas main described above shall have a cover of not less than 2½ feet. (4) A gas main in LUNA STREET, from East 16th Street southerly 52 feet; the centerline of which gas main shall be 6.5 feet west of and parallel to the east property line of said LUNA STREET. Said gas main described above shall have a cover of not less than 22 feet. CITY OF AUSTIN. TEXAS- April 15, 1965 (5) A gas main in GRAYLEDGE DRIVE, from Potamac Path southerly to a point 120 feet south of Valley Forge Drive; the centerline of which gas main shall be 5.5 feet west of and parallel to the east property line of said GRAYLEDGE DRIVE. Said gas main described above shall have a cover of not less than 2½ feet. (6) A gas main in VALLEY FORGE DRIVE, from a point 107 feet west of Grayledge Drive easterly to a point 110 feet east of Grayledge Drive; the centerline of which gas main shall be 5.5 feet south of and parallel to the north property line of said VALLEY FORGE DRIVE. Said gas main described above shall have a cover of not less than 2½ feet. (7) A gas main in DALEVIEW DRIVE, from Steck Avenue northerly to a point 76 feet north of Stanwood Drive; the centerline of which gas main shall be 5.5 feet west of and parallel to the east property line of said DALEVIEW DRIVE. Said gas main described above shall have a cover of not less than 2½ feet. (8) A gas main in MILLWAY DRIVE, from Daleview Drive westerly and northerly 934 feet; the centerline of which gas main shall be 5.5 feet south of and west of and parallel to the north and east property line of said MILLWAY DRIVE. Said gas main described above shall have a cover of not less than 2½ feet. (9) A gas main in CHARLWOOD DRIVE, from Daleview Drive easterly 233 feet; the centerline of which gas main shall be 5.5 feet south of and parallel to the north property line of said CHARLWOOD DRIVE. Said gas main described above shall have a cover of not less than 2½ feet. (10) A gas main in CANDLELIGHT COURT, from Daleview Drive easterly 221 feet; the centerline of which gas main shall be 5.5 feet south of and parallel to the north property line of said CANDLELIGHT COURT. Said gas main described above shall have a cover of not less than 2 feet. (11) A gas main in STANWOOD DRIVE, from Daleview Drive easterly to a point 123 feet east of Flagstone Drive; the centerline of which gas main shall be 5.5 feet south of and parallel to the north property - CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS: April 15, 1965 line of said STANWOOD DRIVE. Said gas main described above shall have a cover of not less than 2½ feet. (12) A gas main in FLAGSTONE DRIVE, from Stanwood Drive northerly 113 feet; the centerline of which gas main shall be 5.5 feet west of and parallel to the east property line of said FLAGSTONE DRIVE. Said gas main described above shall have a cover of not less than 2½ feet. (13) A gas main in BASSWOOD LANE, from a point 112 feet east of Gladstone Drive easterly and northerly to a point 560 feet north of Beechmoor Drive; the centerline of which gas main shall be 3 feet south and east of and parallel to the north and west property line of said BASSWOOD LANE. Said gas main described above shall have a cover of not less than 2½ feet. (14) A gas main in NORWOOD HILL ROAD, from a point 92 feet east of Gladstone Drive easterly to a point 280 feet east of Beechmoor Drive; the centerline of which gas main shall be 3 feet south of and parallel to the north property line of said NORWOOD HILL ROAD. Said gas main described above shall have a cover of not less than 2 feet. (15) A gas main in BEECHMOOR DRIVE, from Basswood Lane to Norwood Hill Road; the centerline of which gas main shall be 3 feet west of and parallel to the east property line of said BEECHMOOR DRIVE. Said gas main described above shall have a cover of not less than 2½ feet. THE Southern Union Gas Company is hereby put upon notice that the City of Austin does not guarantee that the space assigned above is clear from other underground utilities, but is based upon the best records we have at hand, and that the minimum depth stated does not have any reference to the fact that greater depth may not be required at special points. When the Southern Union Gas Company requires definate information upon the ground as to elevations or working points from which to base the location of their assignments, they shall apply to the Department of Public Works not less than three (3) days before such information is required. The Southern Union Gas Company is further put upon notice that they will be required to bear the expense of repairs or replacement of any underground utility damaged during the construction of lines named in this resolution. AND THAT whenever pavement is cut in the vicinity of a fire plug, water must be used at intervals during the course of backfilling of the ditches. CITY OF AUSTIN. TEXAS April 15, 1965 THAT the work and laying of said gas mains, including the excavation in the streets, and the restoration and maintenance of said streets after said mains have been laid, shall be under the supervision and direction of the City Manager and under all the pertinent terms and conditions of the certain franchises granted to said company by the City of Austin. The motion, seconded by Councilman White, carried by the following vote: Ауев: Councilmen LaRue, Long, White, Mayor Palmer Noes: None Absent: Councilman Shanks Mayor Palmer brought up the following zoning application deferred from last week: MAURICE HALL By Robert O. Smith 1001-1011 Flores Street 1000-1018, 1019-1027 Waterfront Street 21-29 San Marcos 14-18 Interregional Hwy From "A" Residence lst Height & Area , To "C-1" Commercial 3rd Height & Area NOT Recommended by the Planning Commission RECOMMENDED "C" Commercial 5th Height & Area for 100 strip located at 14-18 Interregional Hwy.,1021- 27, 1016-18 Waterfront St & 1007-11 Flores and "с" Commercial 3rd Height & Area for 1000-14 Water- front St., 21-29 San Marcoв and 1001-05 Flores St. with understanding that the Council will consider "C-1" Commercial 3rd Height and Area for the restau- rant proper when located The City Attorney stated it was reported to the Council that the recommendation for "C" Commercial was based upon an erroneous assumption that this was the result of an area study the Council ordered in that vicinity about a year or so ago, but the study revealed "GR" General Retail 3rd Height and Area zoning was the proper designation for this area. The Town Lake Committee had recommended the appropriate zoning to encourage offices, hotels, restaurants, etc., ranging from "0" Office to "GR" General Retail. Discussion was held on a tract of land which the City owned, and it was concluded this tract would not be considered in this zoning. The Mayor asked about the 100' strip on the highway. It was pointed out the applicant had no frontage on the highway. The Planning Director re- commended against having a split height and area zoning on the property, stating all of the property should be zoned 3rd Height and Area. The "GR" General Retail is in keeping with the Town Lake Committee's suggestion. MR. ROBERT O. SMITH, Attorney for the applicant, stated "GR" General Retail 3rd Height and Area would not permit them to do what they wanted. On the "C" Commercial 5th Height and Area, they thought they were in compliance with what the Planning Commission wanted them to do, and they were surprised at the "GR" General Retail recommendation. He asked the Council to sustain the Planning Commission's recommendation. CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS April 15, 1965 Mr. Smith stated they were trying to get a National Hotel Chain and a restaurant. He stated the zoning involved no adjacent property. After discussion, Councilman Long moved that the Council follow the recommendation of the Planning Commission with the understanding that the City's property is excluded. The motion, seconded by Councilman White, carried by the following vote: Ayes: Noes: Councilmen LaRue, Long, White, Mayor Palmer None Absent: Councilman Shanks The Mayor announced that the change had been granted to "C" Commercial 3rd Height and Area except for that portion of the property located within 100' of the west right of way line of the Interregional Highway (Interstate 35) which was granted to "C" Commercial 5th Height and Area and the City property at 14-18 Interregional Highway was excluded; and the City Attorney was instructed to draw the necessary ordinance to cover. The City Manager had a recommendation from the Director of Aviation to transfer the dining room concession at the Airport from the American News Company to Interstate United Corporation. COLONEL MURPHY stated the Restaurant Company was called the "Brass Rail" and it has a fine operation. The contract would be the same as the present contract, with the exception of the addition of an escalation clause, as he was convinced that there is business to be done out there, and the escalation clause would up the percentage from 7% to 8%. The American News Company agreed to cancelling the lease, selling their equipment to the new company, and continuing to operate the gift shop and the vending machines. After discussion, Councilman Long moved that the Council accept the recommendation of the City Manager and Director of Aviation. The motion, seconded by Councilman White, carried by the following vote: Ayes: Noes: Councilmen LaRue, Long, White, Mayor Palmer None Absent: Councilman Shanks Councilman Long moved that a public hearing on Chapters 15-60 of the Building Code be set for 11:00 A.M., April 29th, 1965. The motion, seconded by Councilman LaRue, carried by the following vote: Ayes: Noes: Councilmen LaRue, Long, White, Mayor Palmer None Absent: Councilman Shanks Mayor Palmer inquired about the Fire Code. It was stated it was not quite as far along as the Building Code. The City Manager reported a discussion with the Home and Housing Finance Agency Office in Fort Worth about revising the Community Development Program Application to enlarge its scope. MR. LEONARD CHURCH, Regional Director, Urban Renewal Administration encouraged proceeding with enlarging the scope. Initially the study was intended to include an economic study of the community; appraisals of the community; social studies, and various others. The Social Study has been _ CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS April 15, 1965 accomplished, but some difficulty was met on the economic studies, as to the extent the economic aspects were going to be delved into. Generally, it would deal with future demands or needs for apartment houses and demands for all sorts of development activities, with forecasts being based on present trends and population trends. The Planning Director gave more specifics on the provisions in the amended application to the Community Development Program, listing some items that have a tremendous impact on the Development Program. During the past five years, over $300,000,000 in construction had been added; Austin had been increased by 36,000 people; and 14,481 housing units had been built. By 1980 the population of Austin will approach 350,000 and about 390,000 in the county. The transportation proposals just revieved, include about 55 miles of expressways and several hundred miles of major streets. A possible total cost of this program would be in the range of $140,000,000. The Mayor called attention to the State Complex Plans and the University Complex Plans. The Director of Planning stated when the Community Development Plan was set up in 1962-63 there was no Transportation Plan, or anything close to the University of Texas plans; and now the State is extending its Capitol Area expansion plans. During the next 15 years there will be perhaps 1½ billion dollars of new development in Austin. Within this, it appears approximately million dollars will be involved in redevelopment and rebuilding of the existing facilities within redevelopment or renewal projects. The growth rate has been under- anticipated. Many feel that this growth rate is likely to enchance and keep adding to, not by a straight growth, but by an accelerated growth. One of the areas of particular interest is the Economic and Marketing study. Cities that have used this extensively in their Community Renewal Development Program have found that these studies are not only of inestimable value to the City and the Renewal Agency, in determining what can be done in renewal projects, but for the private developers in determining what they can do. It will point up the number of hotel and motel units that could be added effectively and the amount of commercial, retail and office space, etc. The amount of land ultimately that the city will acquire in the next 15-20 years, for a wide variety of purposes will have an impact in the relationship of the dontown area. Several major classes have been designated in this study: (1) Housing (2) Commercial and Office Space, Hotels and Motels, and types of service businesses (3) Industrial Development and Marketing (4) The Central Business District and Downtown Area (5) General governmental and Educational facilities, particularly the State University, and related non-local governmental activities that require very large amounts of land. Special studies are fairly well complete on City land requirements over the period on utilities, parks, and streets. Another area that was suggested in Fort Worth was to do special design studies for the near future projects. This relates to the use of Architects to improve appearance and design in renewal areas, as this seems to have a very vital relationship to its continuing economic value to the City and to the value to the people. This proposal is to be added into the program, and the American Institute of Architects have volunteered their services to do additional special work in areas they feel are in need of assistance. They have already been requested to do this by private developers, particularly in the downtown area. - CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS April 15, 1965 A priority system of potential renewal and treatment projects is to be worked out, including code enforcement situations and private enterprise situations on voluntary basis. The City's interest would be to encourage adequacy of streets, and other public facilities in the normal course that would result in sound development. In renewal projects themselves it is necessary to submit as nearly accurate cost estimates as possible and establish sound priorities. In the area of cost estimates, the major aspects would deal with: 1. Acquisition of land 2. Sound estimates of the cost of the resale of that land by reuse by private development 3. Cost of engineering and site improvement features, paving, water and sewer, drainage, and other public facilities in the basic area. Studies on that section will have to be expanded. Mayor Palmer reviewed the original application which was $110,000 and two-thirds ($73,000) was paid by the Federal Government. There was an amount estimated for Social Studies, which are almost complete; also there was an amount for architectural studies, which have not been done yet. There was $15,000 for the Economic Study, and now it is found the study will cost $40,000. At the time the Budget was submitted for this work, it was felt this was adequate, but the new announced plans of the Mass Transportation Program, the University's Program, Brackenridge Hospital Complex plus the State's expansion, have altered this study. The Fort Worth Office recognized this and were receptive to amending the budget to include these items. Councilman Long inquired how much the State and University would pay? The Director of Planning stated on the Origin and Destination Survey, the State and City paid 15% each, and the Federal Government 70%. Discussion was held on the Community Hospital Survey, Councilman Long stating no one except the City was paying any attention to it. Mayor Palmer said it was that study that pointed out the hospital shortages, and triggered these other developments. The Planning Director assured that these other hospitals would closely correspond to the plan; and also there has to be taken into account the effect of Medicare. The City Manager cited the amount required to complete the C.D.P. work from now on out is $64,500. One third of that is $21,500 as the City's portion, and there is $15,000 available in the current City Planning Budget. This would reduce the 1965-66 Budget by $7500, which could come up in the range of $22,000. These funds resulted from a reimbursement of $6,000 for the work on the Community Shelter Plan; and the Planning Department was unable to employ several staff people. The City Manager stated if they applied for this expansion of the program they would also request an extension of five or six months for the completion of the program. The Planning Director stated the amount of money is estimated at a top figure of $70,000 and the City's participation would range between $21,500 and $23,300 and part can be met by the funds now available in the budget for this year. Councilman Long asked what the $64,000 was expected to do, and how it would help the people of Austin. The Planning Director wanted to give an outline of the information to see if it were the Council's indication that he should go ahead and prepare the details. Councilman Long referring to the economic, market, planning and related _ CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS April 15, 1965 information in the C.D.P. that can provide basic information and sound guidelines for the more than $1 billion of general development that is anticipated, asked that these guidelines be pointed out where it would help the City of Austin and not the private developers. The Planning Director explained the market study as it specifically applies to how the cleared land in a renewal project could be properly and economically reused. A sound Renewal Program necessarily has to have a sound economic program. Redevelopment in a Renewal Project is not a City activity, except as to parks, playgrounds, library, fire stations, and such; but most of the cleared land must be sold to private developers who must develop in accordance with the market conditions. Councilman Long stated there are certain areas where people are bounded, and they do not want to move out of these areas; but the land is sold to private enterprise and they develop something above the economic reach of these people and they are forced to go where? The City Manager said if a proper planning job is done on the project construction of facilities would be such that these people could afford. One of the purposes of this study is to prevent the planning of an area that is not practical in meeting market conditions and demands of the people. The Mayor pointed out the studies show that people do not want to remain in the area, but want to move out. The Director of Planning stated in the Sociological study, an overwhelming majority of people in these areas want to move out. He reported discussions were held with Mr. Hoffmann, proposed Economists, private developers, federal agencies, urban renewal agencies, and the City staffs over the whole basic program of low costs sales and rental houses. This is the most serious problem to be faced--the provision of low cost housing. The new Housing Act has a great potential along this line. The Fort Worth office wanted in this new study an analyzation of the impact of the new Housing Act on Austin. He listed the number of apartments under contract, in planning stages, and in speculative stages, for rehousing people of low incomes. The maximum rental level of a three bedroom unit is $90.00 a month, and the minimum rental is $70.00. There is a need for providing low cost sales houses. The Social Studies emphasized particularly the potential renewal areas and the minority groups, although the study was city-wide. Councilman White inquired if 75% of the people on the east side could pay $60-$70.00 a month rental. The Planning Director stated they could not; that this was one of the basic problems, and he listed the minute details they were going into to find a key for the low cost housing, particularly the sale houses. He pointed out also the recognition of the relationship of the Poverty Program and Economic Opportunity Program as to what is going to happen to incomes. Part of the problem is to find means, industry, and activities in business to increase incomes so people can afford better housing. The proposed Housing Act requires that a Community Redevelopment Program must be present in any city over 50,000 in order to carry out Urban Renewal Activities. He distributed copies of the Message from the President of the United States Relative to the Problems and Future of the Central City and its Suburbs. This Act will have a tremendous impact on the whole development. The amendment to the Community Redevelopment Program, which the Director of Planning was proposing was to keep the program in line with what is happening in Austin which is undergoing a rapid growth, and to make the program more precise. The final document which will be presented to the Council will be a recom- mendation of priorities of proposed renewal projects, what the cost of each will be and what each will accomplish, including relocation, rehousing, and potential solutions. In the near future they will submit sound projects on which the Council would evaluate the priorities to see if they fit into the way the Council _ CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS April 15, 1965 views the City's developing, and the way that renewal can be of the best benefit. Mayor Palmer asked if his purpose today was to present this to the Council to decide whether or not it should apply for this amended budget up to the amount he had suggested would be necessary to complete the study. The Director of Planning stated the major item in the study was the Economic Study. Additional funds will be needed for Appraisal Studies, for Obsolescence and Design Studies, and Cost Analysis for public facilities--water and sewer; and also Rehabilitation Studies. In answer to Mayor Palmer's question, the Director of Planning stated he believed this amount would be adequate to complete the studies as it is expected to be done in the final analysis. He would bring back to the Council the complete application with a specific figure within this range when the estimates of appraisal studies from the Tax Department are finished. Council. man White moved that the City Manager be authorized to complete a study of the Community Development Program, and present an amended Budget to the City Council. The motion, seconded by Councilman LaRue, carried by the following vote: Ayes: Noes: Councilmen LaRue, Long, White, Mayor Palmer None Absent: Councilman Shanks Councilman Long inquired if the employing of the architects, engineers, etc., came under the discretion of the City Manager in this program. The Director of Planning said in every case, this matter was referred to the Council. The people to whom they were talking for additional consultants are Mr. Hoffmann, an Economics Consultant; and three University Consultants, Mr. Tom Shefelman, Mr. Bob Harris, and Mr. Alan Taniguchi, who will make a study of obsolescence, particularly in commercial areas. The other area will be a case study design in the high priority Urban Renewal Projects--what physical features should be emphasized and augmented by future development, what general types of housing should go into the area in terms of design, etc. They will work on future renewal projects. The American Institute of Architects has voluntered their services to work particularly in the downtown area trying to develop some criteria in rebuilding and redevelopment of the downtown section. The next area is that of appraisal and it is suggested that the Tax Department be used for the appraisals, although there may have to be brought in an outside consultant on that. The City Tax Department has the most comprehensive appraisal system on large areas than anyone in town. This will cover only the designated treatment area, which constitutes about one third of the City for conservation, code enforcement activity, and actual renewal treatment. Councilman White inquired about the new convalescent home in South Austin, and if the Planning Commission turned it down. The Director of Planning stated no action was taken as they had first thought there was a way of implementing the development but it was later decided the applicants would have to go back to the zoning change. The matter now is going to come through recommended. Councilman White stated those people wanted that convalescent home, and there was a petition being circulated out there now. They have been trying to secure that Convalescent Hospital for 20 years. The Director of Planning reported by mutual agreement there was a postponement, and the application would come up shortly. _ CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXASApril 15, 1965 Councilman White moved that MR. GEORGE SHEPHERD be heard regarding his zoning application on Parkcrest. The motion was seconded by Councilman Shanks. Roll call showed a unanimous vote. MR. SHEPHERD reviewed his zoning request on Parkcrest dating back about six years ago (Area 6), stating they were requested to remove their machinery, put up money for water and a storm sewer on Parkcrest, and they did this. It was found they were to grant an easement on the east end of the property and buy a concrete pipe for a drain. The Mayor said the Council gave him about a year to get everything in order, and never heard any more from him. The City Attorney reported on several occasions when they inquired if the drainage work had been completed, the Public Works reported it had not. Plans included the lining of a ditch, and the Director of Public Works had made this requirement to prevent the storm sewer from getting clogged, and the Shepherds did not understand that the ditch was to be lined. Where the water comes down the bluff, at that point there is no easement or lined ditch; along the south side of the property there is a storm sewer, and a drainage easement has been granted. Mr. Shepherd said he had excavated the area down to the storm sewer, and there has been no tendency during the rains last year to clog that sewer. The Mayor pointed out the problem now was the ditch along the bluff that has to be concreted. Mr. Shepherd wants to construct a washateria, beauty shop and barber shop. The Director of Public Works reported the applicants had complied with furnishing the pipe to tie into this ditch. From the end of the pipe running along the rear or the base of the bluff to the north, there is no easement. There is an open ditch, and into it comes the water from Ridge Oak on top of the hill. The ditch is the only way this water has of getting down to the pipe the Shepherds paid for and the City installed. The recommendation of the Director of Public Works was to assure that there would be a channel in there, the ditch should be concrete lined. There was an easement needed to connect the drainage areas. If the ditch did get clogged, whose responsibility would it be for keeping the ditch clean? He reported there was water standing in the ditch just yesterday. The Public Works Director pointed out on the plans there was a notation pertaining to the area where the pipe Mr. Shepherd paid for and the City installed up to where the pipe comes off of Ridge Oak, that "future concrete lining on this ditch". A five or six foot easement about 300' long would be needed. Mr. Shepherd had no objection to giving the easement, but wanted to get his building started. He did not want to line the ditch with concrete until he knew what they were going to do. Finally, the Council decided to go back out to the area and look it over and refresh their memory on the situation. The City Manager discussed the Brackenridge Hospital Center Plans as reviewed with the Architects two weeks ago. The area includes a large area involving more than just a site of a building for the Hospital. It involves other planned uses in an area from llth Street to 19th; and from Trinity east to the Interregional. It being an extensive area, from a planning standpoint it could be projected best and controlled through Urban Renewal. Mayor Palmer had inquired about this possibility while he was in Washington. The City Manager stated they would like to go further into this to see if it would be feasible to use the area as an Urban Renewal Project. It could be referred to the Urban Renewal Agency to get a recommendation from it, although that is not a requirement. It is strictly a matter for the Council to decide. The City Manager stated at Councilman Long's request, the Traffic Engineer had been asked to check the proposed closed streets, and he sent a memorandum stating he could see no reason why the streets could not be closed with the possible exception of 18th Street; and the necessity of keeping it open is not a _ CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS April 15, 1965 certainty. The Director of Planning distributed an outline of what the City is trying to accomplish, key points, and statistical data of the area. He listed orally what the City was trying to accomplish. He stated from 1lth to 19th, and from San Jacinto to the Interregional there is a substantial amount of blighted area, but it appears not to be a sufficient percentage to qualify as a substandard situation. Conditions on Red River Street have severe blight. In order to qualify the area and accomplish a more comprehensive redevelopment activity the boundaries could be extended to 8th Street. He listed the new development--the new Federal Building, the Baptist Church site, new development planned by the University on the Little Campus property, and the Downtowner. Areas where there is good sound development would not be a part of the renewal projects. In general, the recommendation is the consideration of these approximate boundaries, working out in detail the exact boundaries with the Urban Renewal Agency and Board. This would be an expansion of three more tiers of blocks, which would be 15 initial blocks, she area shown in the basic plan. Most of the recommended area is commercial. There are only about 1500 people living in the area, with a high percentage of one and two person families--elderly people; high percentage of Anglo-American; 92% rental property and 8% home owners. All of this will have to be taken into serious consideration in any kind of Renewal Program. One of the greatest helps to the downtown area would be to provide better housing close into downtown. Councilman White asked if any of the owners were voluntarily going into this program. The Planning Director said there had been no reaction on this so far; however, no public contacts have been made for the extended area. Before any thing was done, it was necessary to get the opinion of the Council. It was brought out some of the activities--second hand stores, antique shops, and others probably would fit right back into the area and remain. The City Manager stated it would be explained to the Government through the application that this project is a long term operation, and the ultimate development anticipates uses that might not be necessary until 1980-85. This program invisions the development of part of the area for medical research of a medical school connected with the University. Councilman LaRue inquired in the H. H. F. A. questioned the ability of the City to carry out its program. The Planning Director stated Mr. Slayton had cautioned that downtown renewal could be costly. The Director of Planning stated the Council was being asked to authorize that this general proposal be presented to the Urban Renewal Agency, and that more detailed boundaries and information be worked out and brought back to the Council to determine whether or not this should be a renewal area. He said the Council would need to authorize this extension to 8th Street. Councilman LaRue moved that the Council take action as described by MR. HOYLE OSBORNE, Planning Director. The motion, seconded by Councilman Long, carried by the following vote: Ауев: Noes: Absent: Councilmen LaRue, Long, White, Mayor Palmer None Councilman Shanks The Mayor stated this right now was for study purposes and there will be some properties that will be excluded. The City Manager stated one of the studies would be where the boundaries would be. Councilman White stated this was a long range program, and inquired if it were not going to be called Urban Renewal. The Director of Planning stated not at the present time. The Mayor stated this was being referred to the Agency. _ CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS April 15, 1965 The City Manager reminded the Council of the appointment of the Board of Equalization, and some expired terms on the Parks and Recreation Board. Mayor Palmer stated it would be well to have all the Council Members present when they considered these appointments. The Mayor read a telegram, "The President orders 'Headstart' scope trippled this summer as nation-wide responses swell." All were happy that the Austin Schools were going into this program. Mayor Palmer read a telegram from U.S. SENATOR JOHN TOWER announcing the Senate Public Works Committee had passed favorably on General Services Administration's proposal to provide for major replacements and improvements which should be undertaken to continue to provide adequate housing for Federal Agencies. Major items contemplated a new court room and related court spaces on the second, third and fourth floors; and to provide offices for the Selective Service System on the first floor. (Federal Courts Building) Councilman Long announced the legislature passed a resolution asking Congress and the Defense Department to leave at least one Division and one Brigade in Texas in deactivating the National Guard. This may have effect and another look may be given to this as was given on the Air Forces and Veterans' Hospitals and other things. The City Manager reported that the following zoning applications had been referred to the Planning Commission for recommendation and had been set for public hearing at 10:00 A.M. on May 20, 1965: LEROY BEDNAR By Travis Eckert L. J. RASCO FRED J. RIBAR SAFEWAY STORES, INC. By Bryant-Curington, Inc. GENE NAUMANN H. C. CARTER, JR. 3202-3207 Shoalcreek Boulevard 1215 West Oltorf 2400 Havenside Drive 1005 East 46th Street Additional Area 1003 East 46th Street Tract 1 2314-2404 Wheless Lane Tract 2 2406 Wheless Lane 1911 Anita Drive 7825-7831 Burnet Road Additional Area 7833-7839 Burnet Road From "B" Residence lst Height and Area To "B" Residence 2nd Height and Area From "A" Residence Το "GR" General Retail From "A" Residence To "C" Commercial From Interim "A" Residence To "GR" General Retail From Interim "A" Residence To "B" Residence From "C" Commercial To "C-1" Commercial From "A" Residence To "C" Commercial April 15, 1965 CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS 6513-6517 Burnet Lane C. T. DODSON R. J. WATERMAN By F. A. Мсееве MRS. SELMA H. ALBERS By Jay Sewell TOM GUEDEA MRS. BLANCHE BASTIAN By Glenn Cater HAL STARKEY ESTATE OF W. H. KLUNKERT, By Harold G. Robinson and Joe J. Joseph, By Richard Baker MARIE B. MARTIN, ET AL BROADWAY OIL CO. By A. E. Crause JACK FALCONE and LOLA H. BIERBOWER By L. C. Reese TERRELL TIMMERMAN By Rogan Giles J. U. & MARY P. HURST From "GR" General Retail To "C" Commmercial Rear of 1205 North Lamar From "A" Residence Boulevard 2131 East 1st Street 98-98 Canadian Street 1405 (1417) South 1st Street 506 West Elizabeth Street Tract 1 2206 Swisher Street Tract 2 2208-2210 Swisher Street 805-807 East 23rd Street Additional Area 2204 Swisher Street 1619-1621 West 6th Street 507-511 Campbell Street To "C-2" Commercial From "C" Commercial 2nd Height & Area To "C-1" Commercial 2nd Height & Area From "C-1" Commercial 2nd Height & Area To "C-2" Commercial 2nd Height & Area From "BB" Residence 2nd Height & Area To "B" Residence 2nd Height & Area From "B" Residence 2nd Height & Area To "LR" Local Retail 2nd Height & Area 619-623 West 38th Street From "A" Residence 3708 Ronson Street Additional Area 1613-1617 West 38th Street 3709 Ronson Street 1200-1202 Koenig Lane 5900-5902 Grover Avenue 91-93 Red River Street Additional Area 93 Red River 601-605 Driskill 100 West North Loop Boulevard 710-712 West 14th Street 1401-1405 West Avenue WALTER BOHN By Tom Long 5934-5936 Westminister Drive 5903-5909 Berkman Drive To "C" Commercial From "LR" Local Retail To "C" Commercial From "A" Residence To "C" Commercial From "A" Residence To "GR" General Retail From "A" Residence 1st Height & Area To "0" Office 2nd Height & Area From "GR" General Retail 6th Height & Area To "C-2" Commercial 6th Height & Area STUART HARRIS, ET UX By Dan Priest ELIZABETH PERRY By Joe Gilbreth CHARLES S. CALDWELL By Jack Ritter, Jr. _ CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS 3306-3310 Grandview 901-903 West 34th Street Street 2301-2311 Parker Lane 1801-1809 Burleson Road 2701 Manor Road 2217-2231 Walnut Avenue April 15, 1965 From "BB" Residence To "GR" General Retail From "A" Residence lst Height & Area Το "GR" General Retail 5th Height & Area From "C" Commercial Το "C-1" Commercial There being no further business, Councilman LaRue moved that the Council adjourn. The motion, seconded by Councilman White, carried by the following vote: Ayes: Noes: Councilmen LaRue, Long, White, Mayor Palmer None Absent: Councilman Shanks The Council adjourned subject to the call of the Mayor. ATTEST: lu City Clerk APPROVED Mayor