LIBRARY COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION 20210426-5b: Support for Austin Public Library Proposed Budget for FY22 Seconded By: Date: April 26, 2021 Subject: Support for Austin Public Library Proposed Budget for FY22 Motioned By: Recommendation Support for Austin Public Library Proposed Budget for FY22 Description of Recommendation to Council Requesting that the Austin City Council approve the proposed Austin Public Library budget of $60,190,266 for FY2022, an increase of 2.25% or $1,321,890 from FY21, including an increase to the materials budget by 3.5% or $206,368. Rationale: “Libraries are a cornerstone of democracy—where information is free and equally available to everyone. People tend to take that for granted, and they don’t realize what is at stake when that is put at risk.” ― Carla Hayden, 14th Librarian of Congress During an unprecedented year, including COVID-19 pandemic related shutdowns and a city-wide weeklong freeze, APL continued to serve the citizens of Austin by providing online access to digital materials and by providing access to conventional format books and materials by providing curbside service at 11 of its 20 branches. APL also continues to provide innovative programming. In the past year, April 2020 – March 2021, APL hosted 1325 virtual programs with 37,430 attendees. 2020’s APL Virtual Summer Reading Program saw a 39% increase in APL Summer Reading site views with nearly 10,000 individual views between June – August. Recently, in an effort to address the ongoing digital divide, the APL coordinated a widespread device loan program in partnership with community organizations and area school districts. Through individual donations, funding from commissions and boards, the CARES Act and operational funds, APL loaned laptops and hotspots to the Housing Authority of the City of Austin (HACA), Foundation Communities, South Asian’s International Volunteer Association of Austin (SAIVA), and City Departments to support families, individuals, and especially older adults who are isolated and lack access to online information and resources. This effort was driven by a clear need observed in the community, further amplified by COVID-19. In addition, APL staff recently made 209 calls to customers over the age of 65 who haven’t visited the library since the beginning of the pandemic in March 2020. APL wanted to let customers 1 of 2 know that the library is open for curbside and answer questions about connecting to the virtual collection. APL also continues to provide staff development training to support the ability of all employees to provide a welcoming, …
DESIGN COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Recommendation Number: (201804‐02a): CodeNEXT Draft 3 Working Group Memo Motion by: Aan Coleman Second By: Evan Taniguchi Per LDC §25‐2‐586, the Design Commission evaluates and makes recommendations to the Planning and Zoning Director regarding whether density bonus projects substantially comply with the Urban Design guidelines, one of the three Gatekeeper Requirements for the Density Bonus Program. The Design Commission proposes the following recommendations to the third draft of the CodeNEXT: 23‐3E‐1: The Design Commission suggests that the proposed Density Bonus of Max Dwelling Units per Acre be more equitable. This has been concentrated in east Austin and not been allowed in west Austin. This could be interpreted as racially and/or economically bias. Density must be distributed evenly to be effective at achieving affordability throughout Austin. 23‐3B‐1060: The Design Commission wants to understand how the Director determines if off site affordable units propose a better community benefit than on‐site affordable units. The Director shall provide metrics for the evaluation of the production of off‐site units in areas of high opportunity. 23‐3E‐1060: The Design Commission supports this proposed Downtown Density Bonus fee for non‐ residential projects. 23‐3E‐1060B: The draft does not include a fee‐in‐lieu schedule. This regulation cannot be properly evaluated without knowing what the cost to developers will be for the added entitlements. 23‐3E‐1070: It is unclear who the designated review group will be in determining the fee‐in‐lieu schedule. 23‐3E‐2: The Design Commission proposes that all downtown have a two‐tiered Density Bonus Program, like the current program in the Rainey Street District. The first FAR tier should have a properly calibrated affordable housing requirement without a fee‐in‐lieu option. The second tier could have a fee‐in‐lieu option. 23‐3E‐2040: If a design of a proposed project changes significantly after the Density Bonus is approved then it should be required to return to the Design Commission to be re‐evaluated for compliance. 23‐3E‐2050: The Design Commission recommends that the Community Benefit requirements be expanded to include all projects opting into the Density Bonus Program. 23‐3E‐2050: The Design Commission recommends that the Community Benefit options include mobility alternatives that support biking, and pedestrian transit, and manages off street parking and ride‐share loading availability to reduce street traffic and support Vision Zero’s mission to reduce pedestrian fatalities. If they are not providing on site affordable housing, the applicant should also be required to file a …
ZONING CHANGE REVIEW SHEET HLC DATE: April 26, 2021 PC DATE: N/A CASE NUMBER: C14H-2020-0033 APPLICANT: Aaron Franklin, owner HISTORIC NAME: Kohn House WATERSHED: Shoal Creek ADDRESS OF PROPOSED ZONING CHANGE: 5312 Shoal Creek Boulevard ZONING CHANGE: SF-2 to SF-2-H COUNCIL DISTRICT: 7 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the proposed zoning change from single family residence – standard lot (SF-2) to single family residence – standard lot – Historic Landmark (SF-2-H) combining district zoning. QUALIFICATIONS FOR LANDMARK DESIGNATION: Architecture and historical associations HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION ACTION: N/A PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: N/A DEPARTMENT COMMENTS: The house is beyond the bounds of any historic resources survey to date. CITY COUNCIL DATE: N/A ORDINANCE READINGS: N/A CASE MANAGER: Elizabeth Brummett NEIGHBORHOOD ORGANIZATIONS: Allandale Neighborhood Association; Austin Independent School District; Austin Lost and Found Pets; Austin Neighborhoods Council; AustinRAMP; Bike Austin; Central Austin Community Development Corporation; Central Austin Urbanists; Friends of Austin Neighborhoods; Homeless Neighborhood Assocation; Lower District 7 Green; NW Austin Neighbors; Neighborhood Empowerment Foundation; North Austin Neighborhood Alliance; Preservation Austin; SELTexas; Shoal Creek Conservancy; Sierra Club, Austin Regional Group BASIS FOR RECOMMENDATION: Architecture: The Kohn House, built around 1938 for Adolph and Mollie Kohn, occupies a premier site in the Shoalmont Addition. Two lots wide, the expansive parcel extends from Shoal Creek Boulevard on the east to Shoal Creek on the west and is studded with mature oaks. The architect of the house is unknown, but the design is possibly attributed to Kohn himself. Eclectic in its design, the one-story house is T-shaped, with a long side-gabled volume facing the street and a rear hipped-roof wing. A two-story square tower with a pyramidal roof is asymmetrically placed near the north end of the house. The house is predominantly clad in random ashlar limestone with quoins at the corners and a stone chimney; a portion of the rear elevation is clad in horizontal wood siding. Wrapping the southeast end of the house is a porch with square wood posts and curved brackets; its gable end has waney-edge siding. Varied fenestration includes multi-light casements, a bay window with a metal roof, round portholes, and 1:1 double-hung wood windows. To the rear of the house, the site also includes two side-gabled accessory buildings, one clad in board-and-batten and the other in horizontal wood siding. Historical Associations: The Kohn House is significant for its association with entrepreneur Adolf Kohn. A German immigrant, Kohn worked in multiple positions …
B.2 - 1 HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION APPLICATION FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS APRIL 26, 2021 C14H-1986-0015, C14H-2004-0008 GRANDBERRY BUILDING AND MITCHELL-ROBERTSON BUILDING CONGRESS AVENUE HISTORIC DISTRICT 907, 909, AND 911 CONGRESS AVENUE PROPOSAL PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS Review of a plan to deconstruct, store, and re-erect historic building façades. Catalog and store, then re-erect the historic building façades as part of a redevelopment project at a later date. In conjunction with proposed additions, the project received preliminary approval from the Historic Landmark Commission on January 26, 2015 and June 25, 2018, pending development of more detailed plans for treatment of the façades. On March 24, 2021, the Building Standards Commission issued an order requiring that conditions be remedied within 90 days or imposing fines on the property owner. Per the applicant, stabilization of the buildings in place is not technically feasible due to the extent of deterioration, including mortar loss, shear failures and racking, and the inability to adequately shore the façades following demolition of masonry party walls that provide lateral support. The wall abutting the adjacent historic landmark building, in particular, requires demolition to allow that property owner to perform needed repairs. The proposed scope of work entails developing a detailed plan for deconstruction and reconstruction of the historic façades, including as an initial phase: review of existing documentation, visual and non-destructive analysis of building materials and assemblies, structural evaluation, and development of a finalized scope of work and sequence of implementation. Laser scanning will be performed. Deconstruction will be done by hand and treated much like an archeological investigation, with specific conditions and hidden elements documented as work progresses. This information will inform preparation of reconstruction drawings and specifications. The applicant proposes to place a restrictive covenant on the property requiring reconstruction within three years. ARCHITECTURE STANDARDS FOR REVIEW Three two-part commercial blocks sharing party walls; buildings are boarded at the street level. At the second floor, the Grandberry Building at 907 Congress has two-over-two light windows with decorative hood moulds, and the Mitchell- Robertson Building at 909 Congress has one-over-one windows and corbelled brickwork at the cornice. The City of Austin’s Historic Design Standards (March 2021) are based on the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and are used to evaluate projects at historic landmarks. The Historic Design Standards indicate that if any aspect of a proposed project is not covered by the design standards, the Secretary of …
907 – 909 – 911 CONGRESS AVENUE AUSTIN, TEXAS FAÇADE DECONSTRUCTION / RECONSTRUCTION SCOPE OF WORK / OUTLINE TO COMPLETE A. OVERALL PROJECT ORGANIZATION (OVERVIEW – SEE BELOW FOR DETAIL) a. Research and documentation search on existing construction b. Visual and non‐destructive evaluation (NDE) and testing c. Confirmation of structural integrity and ability to withstand documentation and deconstruction as planned. d. Deliverable 1 – Abstract and Bibliography of information used to inform reconstruction (photographs), summary of mortar, brick composition and condition testing e. Review of deconstruction Scope of Work based on Information gathered in a, b & C above f. Finalized Scope of Work and sequence of implementation. g. Deliverable 2 – Safety plan for documentation and deconstruction including pedestrian protection, neighboring building and selective access for design and deconstruction team. h. Preparation of specifications, drawings and other elements required for contract/bid documents for deconstruction work i. Deliverable 3 – Final drawings and documentation of existing conditions. j. Deliverable 4 – Deconstruction Phase: Confirm document accuracy based on profiles, details and other site collected information. k. Document, number and record materials pallets as part of deconstruction. l. On‐site observation of work in progress m. Final Documentation of deconstruction, material inventory and proper storage n. Deliverable 5 – Reconstruction documents and coordination with redevelopment design team o. On‐site observation of work in progress p. Final documentation of historic materials in place B. DOCUMENTATION preparation. Work. a. Review of existing photographic documentation to inform deconstruction and reconstruction plan b. Review all building inspection reports. c. Review all environmental documents and incorporate any outstanding items into final Scope of d. Photograph current conditions prior to any additional demolition. e. Document stone construction to same extent as brick construction for archives f. Recommendation: Laser scanning of the existing construction. Provide point cloud to be used in documentation and to assist in the deconstruction and reconstruction activities. g. Coordinate with Austin History Center and City Preservation Officer on document preparation and retention requirements for archival purposes CARTER ● DESIGN ASSOCIATES ‐‐ 31‐Mar‐21 1 | P a g e C, D & E ARE DONE SIMULTANEOUSLY C. THE NON – DESTRUCTIVE EVALUATION (NDE) PROGRAM a. Determine logistics, fieldwork and site requirements. Work with contractor to determine scaffolding plan, safety procedures and building exposure strategies b. Confirm areas that are stable and can support further investigation c. Prior to deconstruction, expose representative areas of the structures for …
HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION APPLICATION FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS APRIL 26, 2021 C14H-2010-0009; HR-2021-041008 VOSS HOUSE 1501 NORTHWOOD ROAD B.3 – 1 PROPOSAL Construct a rear and second-level addition. PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS 1) Demolish detached garage. 2) Construct a rear addition. The addition extends the back corner of the house by 5’-1” to the south and 8’-5 ½” to the west. Another building, 16’-5” by 25’-2”, is connected by an open porch in a dog-trot configuration. The additions have a cross-gabled, standing-seam metal roof and are clad in horizontal wood siding. Windows are 1:1 light and are of similar size and proportions to the windows on the house. 3) Construct a second-story addition to the house. The addition extends the ridgeline of the gabled roof to form a higher gable at the same roof pitch. On the east side facing Harris Blvd. is a shed-roofed dormer extending from the upper ridgeline. The overall length of the addition is pulled in from both gable ends, and the dormer is further inset. This addition also has standing-seam metal roofing and horizontal wood siding. Windows on the west are 1:1 light, arranged singly or in groupings of three, and are of similar size to the windows on the house. Windows in the east-facing dormer are also 1:1 light, arranged singly or in pairs, and though smaller are of similar proportions. 4) Remove four mulled windows on the south wall of the house and install a large, multi-light fixed window. ARCHITECTURE The Voss House faces Northwood Road; however, the following description from the landmark nomination considers the Harris Blvd. side as the primary elevation. The house is a one-story, rectangular-plan, side-gabled frame bungalow with a partial-width front-gabled independent porch on battered posts and stone piers with a brick cap and a vertical baluster railing. Fenestration consists of 1:1 wood-frame, wood-sash units in single and multiple configurations; the entry is flanked with sidelights. A battered stone chimney pierces the north side gable of the house. The garage is not mentioned in the landmark nomination. It has a low-pitched pyramidal roof and is clad in board-and- batten siding. The garage is located to the southwest of the house at the rear corner of the property, with a modern overhead garage door facing Harris Blvd. While the 1961 Sanborn Fire Insurance map shows a garage at the same location, it has a different footprint. Building permits show the …
N o r t h w o o d R e m o d e l A u s t i n , T e x a s T r a v i s C o u n t y VICINITY MAP ABBREVIATIONS AD ADJ AFF APPROX BLDG BOB CB CJ CL CAB CLG CLKG CLO CNTR COL CONC CONSTR CONT CRPT CTR CTSK D DF DO DS DEPT DET DIA DIM DN DR DTL DW DWG DWR EG EXG EJ ELEV EQ EQUIP EXP EXT FA FD FF FFE FOC FOF FOS FDN FIN FLR FRZ FT FTG FURR GB GC GA GALV GL GND GR GWB HB HC HM HDW HDWD HDWR HNDCP HORIZ HR HT ID IN INSUL INT JST JT KIT LIN LB LAB LAM LAV LKR LT LTWT MC MO MECH N MANUFACTURER MINIMUM MIRROR MISCELLANEOUS MOUNTED METAL MULLION NORTH NOT IN CONTRACT NOT TO SCALE NOMINAL OVEN ON CENTER OUTSIDE DIAMETER/DIMENSION OVEN & MICROWAVE OBSCURE OPENING PORCELAIN TILE PLATE PLASTIC LAMINATE PLYWOOD PLASTER PLYWOOD PRE-CAST QUARRY BLOCK RISER OR RADIUS ROOF DRAIN ROUGH OPENING REFRIGERATOR - FREEZER ROOF RAFTER RADIUS RECOMMENDATION REFERENCE OR REFRIGERATOR REINFORCED REQUIRED REVISION REGISTER ROOM SOUTH STONE TILE SOLID CORE SOAP DISPENSER STAINLESS STEEL SERVICE SINK SCHEDULE SECTION SHELF SHOWER SIMILAR SPECIFICATION STANDARD STEEL STORAGE STRUCTURAL SYMMETRICAL TONGUE AND GROOVE TREAD TOWEL BAR TOP OF CURB TOP OF TOP OF BEAM TOP OF CONCETE TOP OF DOOR TOP OF WALL TOP OF PAVEMENT TOILET PAPER DISPENSER TRUSS TELEVISION TOP OF WALL TELEPHONE TEMPERED TERRAZO THICK OR THICKNESS TYPICAL UNLESS NOTES OTHERWISE UNFINISHED URNINAL VERTICAL VESTIBULE VERIFY IN FIELD VERIFY WITH BUILDER VERIFY WITH BUILDING DESIGNER VERIFY WITH STRUCTURAL ENGINEER VERIFY WITH INTERIOR DESIGNER VERIFY WITH LANDSCAPE DESIGNER VERIFY WITH LIGHTING DESIGNER VERIFY WITH MECHANICAL ENGINEER VERIFY WITH OWNER WEST OR WIDTH WATER CLOSET WROUGHT IRON WATERPROOF WITH WITHOUT WD WAINSCOT WEIGHT AREA DRAIN ADJUSTABLE ABOVE FINISH FLOOR APPROXIMATE BUILDING BOTTOM OF BEAM CATCH BASIN CEILING JOIST CENTERLINE CABINET CEILING CAULKING CLOSET COUNTER COLUMN CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION CONTINUOUS CARPET CENTER OR COUNTER COUNTERSUNK DIAMETER DOUGLASS FIR DOOR OPENING DOWNSPOUT DEPARTMENT DETAIL DIAMETER DIMENSION DOWN DOOR DETAIL DISHWASHER DRAWING DRAWER EXISTING GRADE EXISTING EXPANSION ELEVATION EQUAL EQUIPMENT EXPOSED EXTERIOR FIRE ALARM FLOOR DRAIN FINISH FACE FINISH FLOOR ELEVATION FACE OF CONCRETE FACE OF FINISH FACE OF STUCCO FOUNDATION FINISH FLOOR FREEZER FOOT OR FEET FOOTING FURRING GRAB BAR GENERAL CONTRACTOR GAUGE GALVANIZED GLASS …
HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION APPLICATION FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS APRIL 26, 2021 C14H-1982-0011; HR-2021-050599 DUMBLE-BOATRIGHT HOUSE 1419 NEWNING AVE. B.4 – 1 PROPOSAL PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS space vents. Screen existing porches and install skylights on the historic house; construct a carport addition to an existing shed; and construct a guest house. 1) Screen in rear porch and balcony added in 1986. Replace existing spindle railings with lattice railings matching crawl 2) Install skylights on the side (east) and rear (south) roof slopes. The proposed skylights are deck-mounted, low-profile units, prefinished in a neutral gray to blend with the composition shingle roof. Product information is available at https://www.veluxusa.com/professional/products/fs. 3) Convert an existing shed into a yoga studio and construct a carport addition. The design retains the existing board-and- batten siding of the shed, windows on the south elevation, and a door on the north elevation. Modifications include sliding glass doors on the north elevation and infill of a garage door on the west elevation. The attached carport will have a gabled roof with a lower ridge height than the shed, standing seam metal roofing with exposed rafter tails to match the shed, and round concrete columns. 4) Construct a guest house to the north of the house, adjacent to an existing retaining wall. The guest house will have two parallel gables with standing-seam metal roofing, exposed rafter tails, board-and-batten siding, two brick chimneys, and a covered porch with round concrete columns. ARCHITECTURE Described in the landmark nomination as turn-of-the-century eclectic, this Queen Anne-style house features a wraparound front porch with Ionic columns, asymmetrical tower, and widow’s walk. The ground floor is clad in horizontal wood siding, with shingles on the second floor and tower. Windows are predominantly 1:1 wood, with decorative light patterns at the tower windows. Architectural drawings by Bell & Hoffman Architecture indicate the rear porch and balcony were built in 1986 as part of restoration and additions to the house. The shed is not mentioned in the landmark nomination. STANDARDS FOR REVIEW The City of Austin’s Historic Design Standards (March 2021) are based on the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and are used to evaluate projects at historic landmarks. The following standards apply to the proposed project: Repair and alterations 3.3 Retain and repair historic decorative roof elements such as exposed rafter ends, bargeboards, brackets, and cornices. If elements are damaged beyond repair, replace them in-kind. The …
S 47°33'00" E 271.15' PROPOSED GUEST HOUSE STONE WALL POOL CONC WALK T M S E E G A AIN R D 7' 0 . 1 0 1 W " 0 5'0 4 ° 5 5 S BLUNN CREEK ) . R . D T M . C S . E T . R 4 E 3 W 4 E . G S P Y R . 0 A 8 NIT 8 2 A . L S O 0' V 2 ( WOOD RAMP CONC WALK BRICK WALL BRICK WALL CONC STEPS CONC WALK ' 3 . 8 42.3' 16.5' ' 5 6 . '4 . 4 ' 8 . 8 4.4' CONC WALK TWO STORY WOOD & FRAME #1419 ' . 8 0 3 ' 3 4 . 16.5' ' 1 . 9 . 0 '1 9.0' 25.3' WOOD STAIRS COV'D WOOD DECK CONC PATIO WOOD STAIRS CONC & STONE WALK BRICK WALL WOOD AC PAD CONCRETE & BRICK DRIVE PROPOSED CARPORT EXIST. STRUCTURE HIGH BANK ' 0 3 . 2 6 W ' " 0 0 5 4 ° 4 4 S PP ' 1 1 . 9 5 1 ' E " 0 0 7 2 ° 2 4 N P P P P P P P P P PP N 47°12'00" W 245.40' 1 SITE PLAN SCALE: 3/32" = 1'-0" e c n e d i s e R w o r r a B E U N E V A G N N W E N 9 1 4 1 I 4 0 7 8 7 S A X E T , N I T S U A NOT PUBLISHED. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED BY MICHAEL T. LANDRUM, INC. DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE INSTRUMENTS OF SERVICE AND SHALL REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF MIICHAEL T. LANDRUM, INC, ISSUED TO DESCRIBED DESIGN INTENT. THEY ARE NOT TO BE USED ON OTHER PROJECTS OR EXTENTIONS TO THIS PROJECT EXCEPT BY AGREEMENT IN WRITING AND WITH APPROPRIATE COMPENSATION TO TO MICHAEL T. LANDRUM, INC. CONTRACTOR, SUB-CONTRACTORS & SUPPLIERS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR CONFIRMING AND CORRELATING DIMENSIONS AND CONDITIONS AT JOB SITE, AND SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL LABOR & MATERIALS REQUIRED IN ACCORDANCE WITH DESIGN INTENT. MICHAEL T. LANDRUM, INC. WILL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CONSTRUCTION MEANS, METHODS, TECHNIQUES, SEQUENCES OR PROCEDURES, OR FOR SAFETY PRECAUTIONS AND PROGRAMS ALL WORK SHALL BE PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ALL APPLICABLE CODES AND ORDINANCES. …
HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION APPLICATION FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS APRIL 26, 2021 HR-2021-048226 ROGERS WASHINGTON HOLY CROSS HISTORIC DISTRICT 1910 MAPLE AVENUE B.7 – 1 PROPOSAL PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS Replace vinyl windows with more appropriate windows, reconfigure and replace non-original vinyl windows and replacement doors, enlarge rear window, repair structural damage, reroof and add two skylights, remove non-original rear shed addition, add screens at rear. 1) Replace incompatible vinyl windows and doors with composite doors and wood-aluminum composite windows. 2) Enlarge window opening at rear elevation and replace glazing. 3) Replace non-original secondary door and sliding glass door at north elevation with windows. 4) Remove non-original exterior shed addition at rear of house, patching exterior wall where required. 5) Repair structural damage at main façade, including deconstruction, salvage, and reconstruction of original stacked limestone veneer. 6) Repair roof and replace shingles. Add skylights at rear and main elevation. 7) Replace sconces with dark sky-compliant sconces. 8) Add screens to rear porch. ARCHITECTURE One-story L-plan Mid-century Modern house clad in stacked limestone and vertical wood siding, with low-pitched roof, deep eaves, and horizontal and clerestory windows. STANDARDS FOR REVIEW The Rogers Washington Holy Cross Design Standards are used to evaluate projects within the historic district. The following standards apply to the proposed project: 1.0 PROTECTED FAÇADES. Protected facades are defined as the front façade, front 50% of the side facades, and front 75% of the corner side yard façade. 1.1 Retain and preserve protected facades. 1.2 Do not change the character, appearance, configuration, or materials of protected façades, except to restore buildings to their original appearance. 1.3 Do not add conjectural architectural features. 1.4 Work to non-protected facades must be appropriate. For the most part, the proposed project retains and repairs the protected façade, with the exception of the front-facing skylight and replacement of the sliding glass door at the front half of the north elevation with a window. However, the full- height two-light fixed window closely approximates the configuration, visual weight, and transparency of a sliding glass door. Work on non-protected façades appears appropriate. 3.6 OUTDOOR LIGHTING 3.6.1 Outdoor lighting must be compatible with the historic character of the building and neighborhood in design, material, and scale. The proposed replacement sconces appear compatible. 4.1 EXTERIOR WALLS 4.1.1 Retain original exterior materials, including siding and trim. 4.1.2 Repair rather than replacing original exterior materials. 4.1.3 When replacement of historic original exterior material …
Historic Review Application For Office Use Only Date of Submission:__________________________ Plan Review #: ______________________________ Property Address: _____________________________________________________________________ Historic Landmark Local Historic District National Register Historic District Historic Landmark Name or Historic District Name:______________________________________________________________________________________________ Applicant Name: _______________________________ Phone #: _ _____ Email: _ Applicant Address: _______________________________ City: _______________________ __ State: ________________ Zip: __________ Please describe all proposed exterior changes with location and materials. If you need more space, attach an additional sheet. PROPOSED CHANGE(S) LOCATION OF PROPOSED CHANGE(S) PROPOSED MATERIAL(S) 1) 2) 3) Submittal Requirements 1. One set of dimensioned building plans. Plans must: a) specify materials and finishes to be used, and b) show existing and proposed conditions for alterations and additions. Site Plan Elevations Floor Plan Roof Plan 2. Color photographs of building and site: Elevation(s) proposed to be modified Detailed view of each area proposed to be modified Applicant Signature: ___________________________________________ Date: ____________________________ 44444441910 Maple AveRogers-Washington-Holy CrossMegan Marvin, AIA58102 Hickory Creek DrAustinTX78735Replace vinyl windows and doors04/01/2021Throughoutwood/aluminumcomposite windows;fiberglass door;Remove non-original exterior shed; patchexterior wall where requiredRear of housepainted wood siding tomatch existing; woodscreen wallSalvage and reconstruct front stacked stonewall due to significant structural damagereused limestoneFront elevation Design Standards and Guidelines for Historic Properties Adopted December 2012 Design Standards and Guidelines for Historic Properties Landmarks and National Register historic district properties If you are making changes to a historic landmark, the project must comply with these standards to receive a Certificate of Appropriateness. If you are making changes to a contributing property or constructing a new building within a National Register historic district, consider the standards below as advisory guidelines: 1. Use a property for its historic purpose or place it in a new use that requires minimal change to the defining characteristics of the building and its site and environment. 2. Retain and preserve the historic character or a property shall be retained and preserved. Avoid the removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property. 3. Recognize each property as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or architectural elements from other buildings, shall not be undertaken. 4. Most properties change over time; those changes that have acquired historic significance in their own right shall be retained and preserved. 5. Distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a historic property shall be …
Hi Elizabeth, I am responding to a notice for “Certificate of Appropriateness” on April 26, 2020. Please advise me on how I might participate in the meeting. I am not opposing the request, but would appreciate more information. Thanks, Brenda Malik, President Rogers-Washington-Holy Cross Historic Neighborhood
HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION PERMITS IN NATIONAL REGISTER HISTORIC DISTRICTS APRIL 26, 2021 GF-2021-007465 WEST LINE NATIONAL REGISTER HISTORIC DISTRICT 1007 MAUFRAIS STREET C.1 – 1 PROPOSAL PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS Partially demolish and construct additions to a ca. 1941 house. Demolish detached garage. Construct pool. 1) Demolish back and side walls of house and existing additions. 2) Construct a two-story addition to the rear of the house. The two-story portion features a flat roof, covered side porch, horizontal siding, and vertically oriented fixed windows. 3) Construct a front addition. The proposed addition, attached to the existing building via glass hyphen, has a gabled roof with shallow eaves, horizontal siding, and fixed undivided windows. ARCHITECTURE RESEARCH Cross-gabled, single-story house with metal roof, horizontal wood siding, paired front doors, partial-width front porch, and 1:1 single and mulled windows with 2:2 screens. The house at 1007 Maufrais Street was built in 1941 by Houston C. Piland and his wife, Nettie. Piland worked as a railway clerk and claim adjustor. The Pilands lived in the home for the rest of the 1940s, then sold it to mechanical and electrical contractor Ernest Jernigan, along with spouse Mildred Jernigan. The Jernigans did not stay long; by 1955, the Lawson family was renting the home. Opal Lawson worked for the Travis County tax assessor, and her husband Marvin was a mechanic with the Constant Service Company. After a brief vacancy, Robert Finlay purchased the house in 1959, then constructed an addition in 1961. STANDARDS FOR REVIEW The City of Austin’s Historic Design Standards (March 2021) are based on the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and are used to evaluate projects in National Register Historic Districts. The following standards apply to the proposed project: 1.1 Locate additions to the rear and sides of historic buildings to minimize visual impact. 1.2 Step back side additions from the front wall a distance that preserves the shape of the historic building from the street. 1.3 If an addition adds a story to the historic building, set it back from the front wall to minimize visual impact. 1.5 Minimize the loss of historic fabric by connecting additions to the existing building through the least possible invasive location and means. The proposed two-story addition is located to the rear and side of the historic building. The one-story addition is located to the side of the historic building. The two-story portion is located beyond …
HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION PERMITS IN NATIONAL REGISTER HISTORIC DISTRICTS APRIL 26, 2021 HR-2021-029755 CLARKSVILLE NATIONAL REGISTER HISTORIC DISTRICT 1104 TOYATH STREET C.2 – 1 PROPOSAL ARCHITECTURE Demolish a ca. 1922 contributing house. One-story gable-roofed house with full-width porch, clad in horizontal wood siding with board-and-batten at gable end. Fenestration includes 1:1 wood windows and an offset front door that may have once been paired. The roof is clad in seamed metal and features exposed rafter tails. RESEARCH The building at 1104 Toyath Street was built around 1922. In its earliest years, the lot hosted a rental property owned by laundress Luisa Roberts, who hosted up to four tenant families at a time. Most tenants worked as laborers or in the service industry. Renter Walter Carrington purchased the property between 1918 and 1920; newspaper records indicate that the current house was built in 1922. Carrington worked at Butler Bricks before becoming a carpenter; his wife, Josephine Johnson Carrington, worked as a cook. Their son, Ralph Carrington, was a painter and contractor. Despite legal trouble, including a 1941 murder charge reported in the Statesman, Ralph Carrington took possession of the home after 1958 and remained there for at least ten years. He constructed two additions to the house: one in 1948 for his mother, and another in 1968. STAFF COMMENTS The house is listed as a contributing building in a 2018 inventory of the Clarksville National Register Historic District. Designation Criteria—Historic Landmark 1) The building is more than 50 years old. 2) The building appears to retain moderate integrity. 3) Properties must meet two criteria for landmark designation (LDC §25-2-352). Staff has evaluated the property and determined that it may meet two criteria: a. Architecture. The building displays some Craftsman and vernacular influences b. Historical association. The Commission may wish to consider Walter and Josephine Carrington’s status as long-term Clarksville residents who rented, then owned, their property—one of the limited paths to homeownership for Black residents in segregated twentieth-century Austin. c. Archaeology. The property was not evaluated for its potential to yield significant data concerning the human history or prehistory of the region. d. Community value. The property does not possess a unique location, physical characteristic, or significant feature that contributes to the character, image, or cultural identity of the city, the neighborhood, or a particular demographic group. e. Landscape feature. The property is not a significant natural or designed landscape with …
From: To: Subject: Date: Brummett, Elizabeth Contreras, Kalan FW: Regarding, 1104 Toyath Street, Case # HR 21-029755 Friday, April 16, 2021 8:55:58 AM FYI—I thought you’d want to see this update. Subject: Regarding, 1104 Toyath Street, Case # HR 21-029755 *** External Email - Exercise Caution *** In March, I asked that you postpone your decision regarding the release of a demo permit for 1104 Toyath so that the Clarksville Community Development Corporation (CCDC), the neighborhood organization for historic Clarksville where the property is located, could have time to try to work out a way to avoid a demo and the loss of a home that contributes to our NRHD. After the postponement was granted, members of the CCDC board of directors met with staff at Paradisa Homes, the home building company that purchased 1104 Toyath, to discuss alternatives to a demolition and design features appropriate for Clarksville. In the end, we were not able to convince Paradisa Homes to save the house. However, the company was willing to scrap its original new home design and design a better alternative. Also, Paradisa eliminated the front facing garage we had objected to. For these reasons, the CCDC will not oppose release of the demo permit for 1104 Toyath. Although we certainly don't want to lose the home, we have no viable options for saving it because Clarksville is not a LHD and 1104 is not a candidate for historic status. Therefore, achieving a better design for the new home is our best option. My Best, Mary Reed President, Clarksville Community Development Corporation MR•PR Austin, TX 78703 512 657 5289 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.
HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION PERMITS IN NATIONAL REGISTER DISTRICTS APRIL 26, 2021 HR-2021-043586 WILSHIRE NATIONAL REGISTER DISTRICT 4113 LULLWOOD ROAD C.3 – 1 PROPOSAL PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS Partially demolish ca. 1950 contributing house; remodel and construct additions. Demolish ca. 2000 detached garage and construct new detached garage, carport, and accessory dwelling unit. The proposed project entails partial demolition and new construction affecting all sides of the house. While some walls remain and the new construction uses matching random ashlar limestone cladding, the project fully alters the view of the property from the street through removal of the low stone entry courtyard, addition of new elements, and reconfiguration and replacement of all windows. The project also includes construction of a garage, carport, and accessory dwelling unit connected to the main house with a breezeway. These elements replace a non-historic detached garage. Reconfiguration of an existing backyard pool and changes to other landscape elements are also proposed. ARCHITECTURE RESEARCH This cross-gabled Ranch-style house is situated diagonally on the lot in an expansive front yard with mature oak trees. The front entrance is at the inside corner of the ell, beyond metal porch supports and a partial height stepped limestone wall that forms a courtyard. The house is clad in random ashlar limestone and horizontal siding in the gable ends. It has a variety of window types: mulled and single 6:6 and 4:4 wood windows and a grouping of awning or hopper windows at the entry. During the 1950s, the home was owned by Joe K. and Nancy J. Alexander. Joe Alexander served in the Army Air Corps during World War II and subsequently operated the Joe K. Alexander Printing Company. The couple was active with the PTA at nearby Maplewood Elementary School. In 1959, the couple sold the house. By 1961, Mr. and Mrs. R. B. Mosley resided in the home. Mr. Mosley was a restauranteur. He opened the officers’ and non- commissioned officers’ clubs at Randolph Field, and in Austin, opened the Milam Cafeteria, Delwood Cafeteria, Allandale Cafeteria, and Twin Oaks Cafeteria between 1939 and 1954. STANDARDS FOR REVIEW Repair and alterations The City of Austin’s Historic Design Standards (March 2021) are based on the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and are used to evaluate projects in National Register Historic Districts. The following standards apply to the proposed project: 4.1 Repair, rather than replace, historic material, unless it is deteriorated beyond …
