Dougherty Arts Center Replacement Project Preliminary Design Phase Update Boards and Commissions February 2021 Site Map & Context 2 Previous City Council Direction • Butler Shores location approved on 5/9/19 • Council direction to consider site alternatives: on site 1. New DAC & existing PARD Main Office remain 2. New DAC & New PARD Main Office rebuilt on site (unfunded) 3. New DAC on site, existing PARD is removed/relocated elsewhere (unfunded) • Consolidated Arts District Parking (underground, partially unfunded) • Seek alternative financing mechanisms & interest in philanthropy Conceptual development scenario from 2018/2019 planning process 3 Existing PARD Main Office • Constructed 1959, 2-story addition in 1976 • First permanent home for COA Parks Department • High degree of historic integrity • Architect: R. Earl Dillard • Defining features: wide eaves, flat roof, curtain • Eligible for listing on National Register of Historic windows Places Image credits: Austin History Center 4 Recent Stakeholder Engagement • Two Open House Community Meetings • Meeting #1: Oct. 28, 2020 • Meeting #2: Jan. 26, 2021 • (10) Small Group Meetings • Dougherty Arts Center Staff: 11/10/2020 • Painting, Photography, and Drawing Artists and Instructors: 11/19/2020 • Youth Program Instructors and Parents: 12/1/2020 • Gallery Artists: 12/2/2020 • Artist Professional Development Programs: 12/3/2020 • Theater Organizations and Technical Staff: 12/7/2020 • Friends of the Dougherty Arts Center: 12/9/2020 • Ceramics Studio Artists and Instructors: 12/10/2020 • Neighbors to the Dougherty Arts Center: 12/15/2020 • Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in the Arts: 1/7/2021 • Electronic Survey • 221 Participants & 894 Responses • Ongoing Partner Coordination • ZACH Scott Theater • The Trail Foundation • Austin Transportation Dept. 5 Project Mission Statement 6 Site Constraints Map 7 Four Options Key operational criteria and site considerations • Preservation of heritage trees • Relationship to adjacent ZACH • Underground parking solution • Pick-up & drop-off for youth programs • Load-in areas for theater programs • Balancing traffic impact between Toomey Rd. & Riverside Dr. • Preservation of PARD Main Office (1959) • Allowance for possible expansion • Activates parkland & enhance trail access • Civic presence/identity • Back of house areas for kiln yard, etc. 8 • Compact building footprint tucked closely behind PARD Main & ZACH School • One heritage oak impacted • Proposed parking garage sits between ZACH and new DAC, within ZACH lease boundary • PARD Main is retained and renovated/expanded (future scope, unfunded) …
Library Commission Meeting Minutes 17 December, 2020 SPECIAL CALLED MEETING 17 December, 2020 THE LIBRARY COMMISSION MINUTES The Library Commission convened in a Special Called Meeting on Thursday, December 17, 2020 via videoconferencing. Chair Hanna called the Board Meeting to order at 3:08 p.m. Board Members in Attendance: Chair, Catherine Hanna; Vice Chair, Steven Self; Commission Members Julia Aguilar, Patricia Dabbert, JC Dwyer; and Lily Trieu Board Members Absent: Commission Members Deborah Pardo-Kaplan and Daniella Ramos Citizen Communication: None 1. Approval of Minutes from the October 28, Special Called Meeting The minutes of the regular meeting were approved on Commission Member Dabbert’s motion and Vice Chair Self’s second on a 6-0 vote. Commission Members Pardo-Kaplan and Ramos absent. 2. Staff Briefing: Update on Student Library Card Initiative, Emi Johnson, Business Process Consultant, Sr. Emi Johnson, Business Process Consultant, Sr., presented the Student Library Card Initiative update. 3. Old Business a. Discussion and possible action on eliminating non-resident fees. Recommendation 20201217-3a: Support for Equitable Access to Austin Public Library Resources for Students was approved a 6-0 vote. Commission Members Pardo-Kaplan and Ramos absent. 4. New Business: None 5. Discussion of Director’s Monthly Report for September 2020 covering programming highlights, facilities, and APL priorities Questions were asked about increasing holds for youth and adding more curbside locations and/or hours. Library Commission Meeting Minutes 17 December, 2020 6. Future Agenda Items None Adjournment: Chair Hanna adjourned the meeting at 3:59 p.m. without objection.
Director’s Report March 2021 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS HIghlights ____________________________________________________________________ 3 Facilities Services _____________________________________________________________ 7 FY2018 Bond Program Summary ____________________________________________________________ 7 FY2012 Bond Program Summary ____________________________________________________________ 9 Cepeda Branch / Hampton Branch (Site/Civil) Report ___________________________________________ 15 Faulk Building / Austin History Center Monthly Report ___________________________________________ 17 Interior Renovations Monthly Report _________________________________________________________ 20 Roof Replacements & Systems Upgrades Monthly Report________________________________________ 23 Austin History Center _________________________________________________________ 26 Library Priorities _____________________________________________________________ 27 Literacy Advancement ____________________________________________________________________ 27 Digital Inclusion & STEM __________________________________________________________________ 27 Equity, Diversity & Inclusion ________________________________________________________________ 27 Civic and Community Engagement __________________________________________________________ 27 Staff Development _______________________________________________________________________ 28 Workforce and Economic Development _______________________________________________________ 28 APL By the Numbers __________________________________________________________ 29 Virtual Collections Usage February __________________________________________________________ 29 HIGHLIGHTS 3 Bridging the Digital Divide: Austin Public Library Donates Devices to Community Partners In an effort to address the ongoing digital divide, the Austin Public Library (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 Art, 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. Emi Johnson, Director of Innovation and Improvement at APL, described the digital access needs of Austin’s vulnerable populations, which became more critical under the pandemic. The Library found ways to leverage existing funding to provide the access to those in need through technology devices and services. To Catherine Crago, Head of Strategic Initiatives and Resource Development at HACA, this loan represents an innovative means of helping HACA residents gradually develop digital literacy skills. As the loans are long-term, recipients of devices will have the opportunity to take digital literacy courses and eventually adopt those digital tools at their own pace. Beyond the devices themselves, APL also offers support to assist and introduce recipients to virtual materials and resources, The Library’s effort is to remove barriers in as many ways possible. Through community outreach, individuals may Book a Librarian and receive 1:1 assistance and instruction, or receive assistance by phone or live chat. Crago said, “This program liberates library resources so that they can be accessed by residents …
Versión en español a continuación. Human Rights Commission Meeting March 22, 2021 Human Rights Commission to be held March 22, 2021 with Social Distancing Modifications Public comment will be allowed via telephone; no in-person input will be allowed. All speakers must register in advance (March 21, 2021 by noon). All public comment will occur at the beginning of the meeting. To speak remotely at the March 22, 2021 Human Rights Commission Meeting, members of the public must: •Call or email the board liaison Jonathan Babiak at (512) 974-3276 or jonathan.babiak@austintexas.gov no later than noon, March 21, 2021 (the day before the meeting). The following information is required: speaker name, item number(s) they wish to speak on, whether they are for/against/neutral, email address and telephone number (must be the same number that will be used to call into the meeting). •Once a request to speak has been made to the board liaison, the information to call on the day of the scheduled meeting will be provided either by email or phone call. •Speakers must call in at least 15 minutes prior to meeting start time in order to speak, late callers will not be accepted and will not be able to speak. •Speakers will be placed in a queue until their time to speak. •Handouts or other information may be emailed to jonathan.babiak@austintexas.gov by noon the day before the scheduled meeting. This information will be provided to Board and Commission members in advance of the meeting. •If the meeting is broadcast live, it may be viewed here: http://www.austintexas.gov/page/watch-atxn-live Reunión del HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION FECHA de la reunion March 22, 2021 La junta se llevará con modificaciones de distanciamiento social Se permitirán comentarios públicos por teléfono; no se permitirá ninguna entrada en persona. Todos los oradores deben registrarse con anticipación (March 21, 2021 antes del mediodía). Todos los comentarios públicos se producirán al comienzo de la reunión. Para hablar de forma remota en la reunión, los miembros del público deben: • Llame o envíe un correo electrónico al enlace de la junta en Jonathan Babiak at (512) 974-3276 or jonathan.babiak@austintexas.gov a más tardar al mediodía (el día antes de la reunión). Se requiere la siguiente información: nombre del orador, número (s) de artículo sobre el que desean hablar, si están a favor / en contra / neutral, dirección de correo electrónico (opcional) y un número de teléfono (debe ser el número que …
City of Austin - Design Commission Project Review Application The Design Commission provides advisory recommendations to the City Council to assist in developing public policy and to promote excellence in the design and development of the urban environment. The Design Commission reviews three types of projects: 1. City projects (see page ii for process) The Commission reviews all municipal buildings and associated site plans to ensure they demonstrate compliance with city design and sustainability standards (Council Resolution No. 20071129-046), including those seeking Subchapter E Design Standards Alternative Equivalent Compliance (AEC) (Council Resolution No. 20100923-086). 2. Destiny Bonus projects (see page iv for process) The Commission reviews density bonus projects for substantial compliance with the Urban Design Guidelines for Austin in accordance with the Gatekeeper requirements of LDC 25-2-586 for the Downtown Density Bonus Program. 3. Advisory Recommendations for Private projects (see page ii for process) The Commission will consider Project Review Applications from private projects during its regularly scheduled monthly public meetings and may issue an advisory recommendation in the form of a Project Review Letter to the Applicant. This Project Review Application must be submitted before your project can be presented to the Design Commission for their review. Design Commission requests project be presented in their Conceptual/Schematic Design phase. This application primarily addresses inhabited buildings and structures and their effect on the public realm; please refer to Appendix A for infrastructure type projects. The Commission's review of projects is based on the planning/design principles in the Urban Design Guidelines for Austin. Ensure that all applicable principles are addressed in the application questions and in your presentation. https://www.austintexas.gov/sites/default/files/files/Boards_and_Commissions/ Design_Commission_urban_design_guidelin es_for_austin.pdf The Design Commission supports the vision and principles of Imagine Austin Comprehensive Plan, especially those that affect the urban environment and fabric. All projects should consider this vision and principles, many of which are similar to the Urban Design Guidelines. Refer to Appendix C for the most pertinent sections of Imagine Austin. The Design Commission expects the applicant’s design team to present their project with those most knowledgeable and encourages the inclusion of sub-consultants at the presentation, when deemed necessary. EXHIBITS TO PRESENT 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) 9) Completed Project Review Application (p.1-6) Existing zoning classification, adjacent zoning & uses, future land use map classification, topography Vicinity plan, including public transportation and connectivity on-site and within quarter mile Site plan and landscape plan Ground level, basement …
DESIGN COMMISSION MONDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 2021 5:30 PM VIA REMOTE WebEx Meeting Minutes Call to order by: Chair D. Carroll at 5:41 p.m. Member List David Carroll – Chair (District 1) Melissa Hanao-Robledo – Vice-Chair (District 5) X X Martha Gonzalez – (District 2) Samuel Franco (District 3) Josue Meiners (District 4) Evan Taniguchi (Mayor) X “X” Denote Commission Members who were in attendance X Jorge E. Rousselin, Executive Liaison X Aaron D. Jenkins, Staff Liaison X Art Zamorano, Staff Liaison CITIZEN COMMUNICATION: None. 1. NEW BUSINESS (Discussion and Possible Action): CITY OF AUSTIN HOUSING AND PLANNING STAFF Beau Frail (District 6) Jessica Rollason (District 7) Aan Coleman (District 8) Bart Whatley (District 9) Ben Luckens (District 10) X X X X X a. Discussion and possible action to evaluate and make recommendations regarding whether the Fiesta Gardens Complex Rehabilitation, addressed at 2101 Jesse E. Segovia Street, complies with the Urban Design Guidelines, for the City of Austin. Marc Toppel Clayton Korte; Glen Frey Jose I Guerra, Inc.; • Marc Toppel, Clayton Korte and Ellen Colfax COA/PARD presented and answered questions from the Commissioners. No Action was taken, however a written list of recommendations was provided to the applicant. Page 1 of 3 b. Discussion and possible action to evaluate and make recommendations regarding whether the Dougherty Arts Center Project, addressed at Butler Shores Park, 200 S. Lamar, complies with the Urban Design Guidelines, for the City of Austin. Laura Gass Square One Consultants; Robert Byrnes Studio 8 Architects; Barbara Austin RVi Landscape Architects; Kevin Johnson City of Austin Parks and Recreation Department. • Commissioner E. Taniguchi recused himself from Item 1b. • Robert Byrnes, Studio 8 Architects and Kevin Johnson COA/PARD presented and answered questions from the Commissioners. • Commissioner A. Coleman made a motion for more consideration and emphasis is made toward option 1a, to create a denser building footprint, better relationship to the street scape, and keeping the beach front more accessible to all Austinites. Commissioner J. Rollason seconded. • Commissioner B. Frail provided a friendly amendment that option 1a or 1b be recommended by the Design Commission with preference to Option 1a. Commissioner J. Rollason does not accept the friendly amendment. • The motion failed [4 ayes, 2 nays, 2 abstain] • Commissioner J. Rollason made a motion to support the project, with the recommendation that it applies tactics to mitigate that it is a space …
Location Map & Zoning North EMS-10/AFD-25 Proposed New Building view North Proposed Project Site Plan Proposed Landscaping Plan Proposed 1st Floor Plan North Proposed 2nd Floor Plan North Proposed New Elevations
Location Map & Zoning North EMS-7/AFD-8 Proposed New Building view North Proposed New Building view North Proposed Project Site Plan Proposed Floor Plan North Proposed New Elevations
B.1 - 1 PROPOSAL HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION APPLICATION FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS MARCH 22, 2021 C14H-2009-0021 JACKSON-NOVY-KELLY-HOVY HOUSE 2406 HARRIS BLVD. Construct a swimming pool and terrace, landscape modifications; remove an attic vent opening on the front of the house. PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS 1) Remove 1992 circular drive in front yard. 2) Replace 1992 landscape wall adjacent to the sidewalk with a new 36” high wall. 3) Construct raised terrace faced with brick matching the house; and pool with wrought-iron fence 4) Remove attic fan in front-facing gable and replace with half-timbering and stucco to match existing. surround. ARCHITECTURE Two-story, cross-gabled Tudor Revival house with brick cladding and half-timbering and stucco in the front-facing gable end. STANDARDS FOR REVIEW The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation are used to evaluate projects on historic landmarks. The following standards apply to the proposed project: 3) Each property will be recognized 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 elements from other historic properties, will not be undertaken. Evaluation: While Tudor Revival houses may have terraces, that feature was not historically present at this property. 6) Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature will match the old in design, color, texture and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features will be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence. Evaluation: The attic fan was a later intervention, and restoration of the decorative half-timbering treatment at the gable end is appropriate. 9) New additions, exterior alterations or related new construction will not destroy historic materials, features and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new work will be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment. Evaluation: The proposed wall at the sidewalk is compatible with the historic character of the property. Though low-lying, the pool, terrace, and fence will be visible and may not be an appropriate new intervention at a historic landmark property. 10) New additions and adjacent or related new construction will be undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be …
B.1 - 1 PROPOSAL HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION APPLICATION FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS MARCH 22, 2021 C14H-2009-0021 JACKSON-NOVY-KELLY-HOVY HOUSE 2406 HARRIS BLVD. Construct a swimming pool and terrace, landscape modifications; remove an attic vent opening on the front of the house. PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS 1) Remove 1992 circular drive in front yard. 2) Replace 1992 landscape wall adjacent to the sidewalk with a new 36” high wall. 3) Construct pool in front yard, integrated into the slope of the site, with wrought-iron fence surround. Note: earlier staff report indicated a raised terrace faced with brick. This was proposed in the initial design but removed in response to Committee feedback. See renderings in the file B.1.3 - 2406 Harris Blvd. – Plans in the backup materials. 4) Remove attic fan in front-facing gable and replace with half-timbering and stucco to match existing. Two-story, cross-gabled Tudor Revival house with brick cladding and half-timbering and stucco in the front-facing gable end. ARCHITECTURE STANDARDS FOR REVIEW The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation are used to evaluate projects on historic landmarks. The following standards apply to the proposed project: 6) Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature will match the old in design, color, texture and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features will be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence. Evaluation: The attic fan was a later intervention, and restoration of the decorative half-timbering treatment at the gable end is appropriate. 9) New additions, exterior alterations or related new construction will not destroy historic materials, features and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new work will be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment. Evaluation: The proposed wall at the sidewalk is compatible with the historic character of the property, and the proposed wrought-iron fence surrounding the pool area is a compatible fence type. Though low-lying and largely integrated into the landscape, the pool edge will be visible from the street and may not be an appropriate new intervention at a historic landmark property. 10) New additions and adjacent or related new construction will be undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic …
B.3 - 1 HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION APPLICATION FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS MARCH 22, 2021 C14H-2009-0021 YERWOOD-SIMOND HOUSE 2005 HAMILTON STREET PROPOSAL Installation of skylights on side and rear-facing roof slopes. PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS 1) Remove existing light tubes on side-facing roof slopes. 2) Install six low-profile skylights on side- and rear-facing roof slopes, finished to match the existing roofing, to create usable interior space in the attic. ARCHITECTURE One-story, roughly rectangular-plan hipped-and-gabled brick veneered frame house with single and paired 1:1 windows; round-arched entry and arcade along the west elevation of the house; exterior stepped brick chimney on the front façade with randomly-placed stones and caps. The house has Tudor Revival influences in its prominent front gable, but is also reminiscent of colonial French architecture in southern Louisiana with its round-arched brick arcade, gable-on-hip roof style, and massing. STANDARDS FOR REVIEW The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation are used to evaluate projects on historic landmarks. The following standard applies to the proposed project: 9) New additions, exterior alterations or related new construction will not destroy historic materials, features and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new work will be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment. Evaluation: The proposed skylights add usable square footage to the house with minimal exterior intervention. The low profile, color selection, and placement to avoid the street-facing roof slope are compatible with and do not detract from character-defining features of the historic house. The project meets the applicable standards. COMMITTEE FEEDBACK The skylights’ placement, low profile, and matching color are compatible with the house’s roof. Committee members supported conditional administrative approval, pending review by the full Commission out of concern that the case could be precedent-setting. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Concur with Committee feedback and approve the application, while acknowledging this solution may not be appropriate for other landmarks. Staff wishes to note multiple factors specific to this recommendation. The house has a composition shingle roof, a material which is not original, is cyclically replaced, and does not have a distinctive decorative pattern. Further, light tubes installed in the roof prior to the landmark designation in 2009 provide a precedent for this type of intervention. Although larger, the skylights’ lower placement and matching color may be less disruptive to the house’s appearance. …
HAM / Hamilton Avenue Residence Remodel 2005 Hamilton Avenue - Architectural Review Committee Presentation m(ødm) HAM / Hamilton Avenue Residence Remodel markodomstudio.com 21.02.09 2005 Hamilton Avenue The Yerwood-Simoud House, locally known as 2005 Hamilton Avenue, is an existing single family residence that was built in 1939 by Dr. Charles Yerwood, and his wife Ada Marie DeBlanc Simond. The home’s interiors were remodeled in 2014, but left the unfinished attic untouched. The Hamilton Avenue Residence Remodel converts the existing attic volume into a warm, useable space for the current residences. The project completely redefines the interior experience, all while being intentionally respectful to the exterior appearance of this historic home. No additions or alterations were made to the front elevation of the home. The primary focus of the remodel is the redesign of the existing attic space, within the existing roof volume. The experience of the new volume is enhanced by the additional of 6 new “Fakro” skylights. This slim model (less than 6” from shingle to top of glass) allow sunlight to wash into the new living space, enhancing the environment, and save energy by providing natural daylight. Intentional details transport the occupant to the light filled space for reading, gathering and entertaining that complement the space main house below. In this new celebrated space, located within an existing gable, an additional seating area off of the main program that is enhanced by skylights and provide comfortable space for living. intent m(ødm) markodomstudio.comHAM / Hamilton Avenue Residence Remodel21.02.09 Exterior Photos_ 2005 Hamilton Avenue -front elevation would remain as is -showing all sides of roof to receive new skylights -existing circular vents would be removed and roofing would be replaced in kind m(ødm) markodomstudio.comHAM / Hamilton Avenue Residence Remodel21.02.09 Existing Conditions_ Pre-existing Attic Conditions -space currently only receives natural light from singular window -existing solar tubes to be removed/repaired in kind m(ødm) markodomstudio.comHAM / Hamilton Avenue Residence Remodel21.02.09 drawings - floor plans m(ødm) markodomstudio.comHAM / Hamilton Avenue Residence Remodel21.02.09 CAR 1 CAR 2 EXISTING GRAVEL K C A B T E S D R A Y K C A B ' 5 EXISTING WOOD DECK BACK YARD EXISTING LANDSCAPE TO REMAIN 5' SIDE YARD SETBACK EXISTING DRIVE EXISTING 2-STORY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE 5' SIDE YARD SETBACK PROPERTY LINE 25'-0" EXISTING FRONT YARD SETBACK EXISTING GRAVEL WALK P E T S E U N E V A N O T L I …
From: To: Subject: Date: Donna Morrow PAZ Preservation 508 E Mary, 78704 Thursday, March 11, 2021 5:04:58 PM *** External Email - Exercise Caution *** I approve of the plans to repair & landscape the existing house building & to add onto the rear of the house at 508 East Mary. This block of E. Mary is in a Historic District & the plans will be in accordance with that. Donna Morrow 504 Terrace Dr. Austin 78704 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.
PUBLIC IEARING INFORMATION Aldhough applicants and/or their agcnt(s) are expcctod to attend a public hearing., you are not roquired to attend. This meeting wbe conducted online and you have the opportunity to speak FOR or AGAINST the poposed developmcnt or change. Email or call the staff contact for infomation on how to participate in the public hearings online. You may also contact a neighborhood or environmental organization that has expresed an interest in an appliention affecting your neighborhood. During a publie hearing, the board or commission may postpone or continue an application's hearing to a later date, or recommend approval or denial of the applicaticon. If the board or commission announces a specific date and time for a postponement or continuation that is not later than 60 days from the announcement, no further notice is required. A board or commission's decision may be appealed by a person with standing to appeal, or an interested party that is identified as a person who can appeal the decision. The body holding a public hearing on an appeal will determine whether a person has standing to appeal the decision. An interested party is defined as a person who is the applicant or record owner of the subject property, or who communicates an interest to a board or commission by: delivering a writen statement to the board or commission before the public hearing that generally identifies the issues of concem (it may be delivered to the contact person listed on a notice); or appearing and speaking for the record at the public hearing; and: occupies a primary residence that is within 500 feet of the subject property or proposed development; is the record owner of property within 500 feet of the subject property or proposed development; or is an officer of an environmental or neighborhood organization that has an interest in or whose declared boundaries are within 500 feet of the subject property or proposed development. A notice of appeal must be filed with the director of the responsible department no later than 14 days after the decision. An appeal form may be available from the responsible department. For additional information on the City of Austin's land development process, please visit our website: www.austintexas.gov/abe Written comments must be submitted to the board or commission (or the contact person listed on the notice) before a public hearing. Your comments should include the board or commission's …
B.6 - 1 HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION APPLICATION FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS MARCH 22, 2021 C14H-1986-0015, C14H-2004-0008 GRANDBERRY BUILDING AND MITCHELL-ROBERTSON BUILDING CONGRESS AVENUE HISTORIC DISTRICT 907, 909, AND 911 CONGRESS AVENUE Review of a plan to deconstruct, store, and re-erect historic building façades. PROPOSAL PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS Catalog and store, then re-erect the historic building façades as part of a redevelopment project at a later date. Per the applicant, stabilization of the buildings in place is not technically feasible. 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. ARCHITECTURE 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. STANDARDS FOR REVIEW The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation are used to evaluate projects on historic landmarks. The following standards apply to the proposed project: 2) The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces and spatial relationships that characterize a property will be avoided. 5) Distinctive materials, features, finishes and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved. 6) Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature will match the old in design, color, texture and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features will be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence. While deconstruction and reconstruction of a historic landmark is not a recommended treatment, intensive intervention is necessitated in this case due to major, longstanding conditions. Provided the project entails sufficient care to document, dismantle, store, and re-erect the buildings using original materials to the greatest extent feasible, the project will meet the applicable standards. COMMITTEE FEEDBACK Consider stabilization of building façades in place rather than removal and reconstruction; provide a detailed condition assessment or other analysis of the buildings’ conditions; and pay particular attention to keeping the corbelled brickwork on the Mitchell-Robertson Building intact. Committee members expressed concern regarding having the buildings down for an indefinite period prior to the redevelopment. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Support the project in …
B.7 - 1 HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION APPLICATION FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS MARCH 22, 2021 C14H-2009-0065 Judge David J. and Birdie Pickle House 1515 MURRAY LANE PROPOSAL Construct a wood fence with decorative wood gate. PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS Construct a 6’ tall fence between the south wall of the building and the south property line. The fence consists of horizontal tongue-and-groove wood boards set in a narrow wood frame, with 7’ tall wood posts framing a gate opening. The gate consists of paired arched wood doors with decorative carving. The fence and gate will be set back from the front wall and located behind the chimney. ARCHITECTURE STANDARDS FOR REVIEW 1½-story Tudor Revival house with arched entrance, multi-lite wood-sash wood windows, half-timbering, exterior chimney, and cross-gabled roof. The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards are used to evaluate proposed changes to historic landmarks. The following standards apply to the proposed project: 2. The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces, and the spatial relationships that characterize a property will be avoided. The proposed project retains the property’s historic character. No distinctive materials or features are proposed to be removed or altered. 3. Each property will be recognized 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 elements from other historic properties, will not be undertaken. The proposed project does not create a false sense of historical development. 9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not destroy historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new work will be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment. The proposed project will not destroy historic materials, features, or spatial relationships. The fence is a clean modern design with compatible materials, and the gate is distinct from the style of the building. Both are subordinate to the house in location and size and, while visible from the public right of way, will not detract from the property’s historic character. 10. New additions and adjacent or related new construction will be undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic …
