16.h - 2307 Windsor Rd #2 - public commment — original pdf
Backup
All documents
16.i - 2307 Windsor Rd #2 - public comment — original pdf
Brian Haley2224 Parkway, Austin, TX 7870304/03/04My house is across the street from the subject property. I object to this case and believemore involvement from the neighbors should be sought.
16.j - 2307 Windsor Rd #2 - public comment — original pdf
Backup
16.k - 2307 Windsor Rd #2 - public comment — original pdf
Backup
16.l - 2307 Windsor Rd #2 - public comment — original pdf
From: To: Subject: Date: Attachments: Rochlen, Aaron B HPD Preservation Re: Regarding 2307 Windsor Road Unit 2 Tuesday, April 23, 2024 11:11:59 AM 2342BD21-7162-46FA-BAA4-042861814ECD[47].png You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important External Email - Exercise Caution Thank you, a quick follow up on this since you were so kind to summarize and offer to answer any questions: 1) Sub-divide: I am a bit confused if the demo is not (or even if it is) approved — is this a property that would allow to be split up with condos or is it limited to a single family home? And if so, there are some serious challenges to that property including: A) Expansive clay soils on a slope. B) Springs water that seeps out of slope and destabilizes the soil (and will require extensive civil engineering to create stability and properly manage drainage C) A ton of Landmark tress (larger the Heritage trees) are very, very close to house. As the immediate next door neighbor this is a huge issue for us. If water is diverted to our property, it can destabilize the foundation, cause erosion of the bearing soil on which our home sits. If “renovation” happens the trees and drainage status quo should be maintained. 2) LGBTQ community importance: Is the city aware of the historical importance of this home to the LGBTQA history of the city? O’Quinn’s son held many parties for the LGBTQ+ community at that house. It was THE party home for this community when there was far more discrimination and barriers for this community than the current moment.. It was a landmark for them as a safe, private place to gather away from scrutiny.. I just don’t know if that’s been documented and is definitely a truth about the home and its history. --------------------------------------------------------- Aaron Rochlen, Ph.D. Area Chair Counseling Psychology/Counselor Education Department of Educational Psychology 512.471.0361 --------------------------------------------------------- On Apr 23, 2024, at 9:41 AM, HPD Preservation <Preservation@austintexas.gov> wrote: Good morning Aaron, Thank you for writing in! I have saved your comments for backup, which the Commission will be able to view ahead of the hearing. The staff report may be helpful for you. This contains all the research we have done on the property, including architectural significance and the significance of the people that lived there. It is available online here: https://www.austintexas.gov/cityclerk/boards_commissions/meetings/31_1.htm The case was postponed from last month, …
16.m - 2307 Windsor Rd #2 - public comment — original pdf
Backup
16.n - 2307 Windsor Rd #2 - public comment — original pdf
Backup
16.o - 2307 Windsor Rd #2 - public comment — original pdf
Backup
16.p - 2307 Windsor Rd #2 - public comment — original pdf
From: To: Subject: Date: Rae Hill HPD Preservation 2307 Windsor #2 Thursday, April 25, 2024 2:58:01 AM [You don't often get email from https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] Learn why this is important at External Email - Exercise Caution We are in objection to the demolition of this property. Thank you, Rae & Richard Hill, 2210 Windsor Road Sent from my iPad CAUTION: This is an EXTERNAL email. Please use caution when clicking links or opening attachments. If you believe this to be a malicious or phishing email, please report it using the "Report Message" button in Outlook. For any additional questions or concerns, contact CSIRT "cybersecurity@austintexas.gov."
17.0 - 3205 Tom Green St — original pdf
HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION DEMOLITION AND RELOCATION PERMITS MAY 1, 2024 PR-2024-025110; GF-2024-028852 3205 TOM GREEN STREET 18 – 1 Demolish a ca. 1937 duplex and detached garage. PROPOSAL ARCHITECTURE RESEARCH Two-story, square-plan duplex with horizontal wood siding, screened 1:1 and 6:6 wood windows, and a hipped roof. The duplex at 3205 Tom Green Street was built as a rental property in 1937. Its proximity to the University of Texas and to State offices made it an attractive home for students, State officials, and bookkeepers. Several insurance industry employees also lived in the house. Most tenants were short-term, and most were either single or lived only with one other person or spouse. This type of building was typical in Austin’s early years, as new and part-time residents moved into the area and sought smaller apartments and duplexes. PROPERTY EVALUATION The North Central Austin survey lists the property as contributing to a potential historic district. Designation Criteria—Historic Landmark 1) The building is more than 50 years old. 2) The building appears to retain high integrity. 3) Properties must meet two criteria for landmark designation (LDC §25-2-352). Staff has evaluated the property and determined that it does not meet two criteria for landmark designation: a. Architecture. The building is a good example of an early-twentieth-century duplex. b. Historical association. The property does not appear to have significant historical associations. 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 artistic, aesthetic, cultural, or historical value to the city. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Encourage rehabilitation and adaptive reuse, then relocation over demolition, but release the demolition permit upon completion of a City of Austin Documentation Package. LOCATION MAP 18 – 2 PROPERTY INFORMATION Photos 18 – 3 18 – 4 18 – 5 18 – 6 Demolition permit application, 2024 Occupancy History City Directory Research, March 2024 A. Vacant B. Ernest E. Hunt, renter A. J. W. Robbins, renter 1959 1955 1952 1949 1944 1941 1939 Historical Information A: B. W. and Mildred Piwonka, renters – bookkeeper B: Robert E. and Sue Crain, owners …
17.a - 3205 Tom Green St - public comment — original pdf
Backup
17.b - 3205 Tom Green St - public comment — original pdf
d < == ctnn,:;;;; td &7?"!:iiZTI i77i7i: C PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION Although applicants and/or their agent(s) are expected to attend a public hearing, you are not required to attend. However, if you do attend, you have the opportunity to speak FOR or AGAINST the proposed development or change. You may also contact a neighborhood or environmental organization that has expressed an interest in an application affecting your neighborhood. During a public hearing, the board or commission may postpone or continue an application's hearing to a later date or recommend approval or denial of the application. 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 withstanding 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 written statement to the board or commission before the public hearing that generally identifies the issues of concern (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/abc ! I I a 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 name, …
17.c - 3205 Tom Green St - public comment — original pdf
From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: Contreras, Kalan carol journeay RE: 3205 Tom Green Monday, April 22, 2024 7:45:41 AM ; Mary Ingle; Fahnestock, Sam Thank you so much for your correspondence, Ms. Journeay. We will add it to the posted backup material for the HLC to review. Best, Kalan Contreras MSHP | she/her | Historic Preservation Officer City of Austin Planning Department 512.974.2727 | kalan.contreras@austintexas.gov Please Note: Correspondence and information submitted to the City of Austin are subject to the Texas Public Information Act (Chapter 552) and may be published online. Por Favor Tome En Cuenta: La correspondencia y la información enviada a la Ciudad de Austin está sujeta a la Ley de Información Pública de Texas (Capítulo 552) y puede ser publicada en línea. > From: carol journeay < Sent: Saturday, April 20, 2024 7:44 AM To: Contreras, Kalan <Kalan.Contreras@austintexas.gov> Cc: Subject: 3205 Tom Green ; Mary Ingle < > You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important External Email - Exercise Caution Hello Kalan, I live in North University and often walk by 3205 Tom Green. This home is a defining part of our neighborhood with distinguishing architectural features, especially the front door frame. It also represents a specific time in Austin’s history. This structure has been affordable housing for years and tearing it down makes no sense. Too many affordable homes have already been lost in our neighborhood. With the high interest rates and high costs of labor it is impossible that any new structure could be more affordable. Destroying structures such as this one also leaves a ragged hole in the fabric of our neighborhood. It’s not just the loss of this particular structure but a continuing loss of my neighborhood that is a concern. Also tearing down this existing structure and building something new would mean more GHG emissions and more waste. All the embodied energy used to build this nice home (and any renovations) would be thrown away. Austin was once an environmentally conscious city. It’s appearing that there is no longer a concern for the environment. There appears to be plenty of space for an additional unit on the property. Leaving the structure that is there and adding another one makes much more sense, but only if impervious cover issues are taken into consideration. Thank you for your time to consider these reason for not demolishing this distinctive home …
18.0 - 400 W Live Oak St — original pdf
HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION DEMOLITION AND RELOCATION PERMITS MAY 1, 2024 DA-2024-025871; GF-2024-043939 400 WEST LIVE OAK STREET, BUILDINGS A-G 19 – 1 PROPOSAL ARCHITECTURE RESEARCH Demolish 7 buildings associated with St. John’s Lutheran Church (1950-1966) and the Mary Lee School. The 1951 church building is cross-gabled and clad in structural clay tile. Deep eaves frame its largest front-facing gable, and Tudor Revival-style woodwork ornaments the smaller gablet above the entryway. Windows have been replaced and some openings altered, though the original windows that remain appear to be multi-light steel casements. Later buildings B, D, and E are constructed of red brick, with gabled rooflines and vertical wood accents. Fenestration has been heavily altered. Buildings C and F are clad in horizontal vinyl siding and have replacement windows. Building G is a non-historic-age portable structure. The main church building on the property was constructed in 1951 for the St. John’s Lutheran Church congregation. It served as the Church’s South Austin campus until 1966, when a new sanctuary was commissioned at 301 West Ben White Boulevard. In 1966, the campus was purchased by Charlene Crump, owner and director of the Mary Lee School. Crump founded the school in 1963 as a “halfway house” and vocational training facility for girls and women with intellectual or developmental disabilities. The program quickly outgrew the one-story house in which it began,1 and 31 students moved into the former church campus in 1966.2 Though other branches of the Mary Lee School were established elsewhere throughout the 1960s and 1970s, 400 West Live Oak remained its headquarters; the original branch focused on rehabilitating women with IDD so that they could live independently, a groundbreaking model for the time.3 By 1973, the school had 81 students, who each lived there an average of 18 months.4 Later that year, the Mary Lee School’s rural ranch outside Manchaca came under fire for allegations of abuse, health hazards, segregation, and other violations of its pupils’ safety by Representative Lane Denton, chairman of a Texas House subcommittee investigating Texas childcare facilities. However, the 400 West Live Oak campus was declared “in good order” by Denton, and no formal investigation of the ranch facility was ever conducted.5 The organization weathered further hiring and abuse lawsuits in 19756; details on their resolutions are limited in the archival record. By 1985, the Mary Lee Foundation had grown to encompass seven residential facilities for children and adults.7 …
19.0 - 7304 Knox Ln — original pdf
HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION DEMOLITION AND RELOCATION PERMITS MAY 1, 2024 PR-2024-021145; GF-2024-043942 7304-06 KNOX LANE 20 – 1 PROPOSAL Relocate an early twentieth century house with 1940s vernacular additions outside the City limits. ARCHITECTURE The building at 7304 Knox Lane is an eclectic house with early Ranch and vernacular stylistic influences applied to what appears to be an early-twentieth-century vernacular farmhouse. It is one and one-half stories in height, with an L-shaped plan and intersecting partial-width porches. Its compound roofline features deep eaves with cedar shakes at gable ends. Fenestration includes 8:8 wood windows of varying dimensions. RESEARCH The house at Knox Lane and Running Rope Lane, known as 7304 or 7306 Knox, was constructed in the early twentieth century and augmented by the Knox family in the 1940s. The land was purchased in the 1930s by Mary Lou and Warren Penn Knox. W. P. Knox, the district commissioner for the Boy Scouts of America, turned the property into a day camp for boys called Running Rope Ranch. Knox was a Vermont native who moved to Austin after World War I. After serving as an Army captain in World War II, he became involved in Central Texas outdoor youth activities, including work as the official operator of the Arrowhead Ranch Camp in Kerrville, before opening Running Rope Ranch in the 1940s. The ranch offered riding lessons, hiking and survival training, swimming in the spring-fed pool—the land boasted seven natural springs, which were later identified by Margaret Thomas Knox as a habitat of the threatened Jollyville Plateau salamander1—and other outdoorsmanship training. From 1959 to 1966, legendary Austin horsewoman Ginger Pool taught at the ranch.2 The Knox family operated the day camp for ten years. Knox, noted as “larger than life” in posthumous publications, had eclectic interests. He entertained his pupils by showcasing rope tricks he learned as a rodeo performer after WWI. He was a life member of the Marshall Ford Game Protective Association, volunteered on the Council of the Texas Confederate Home for Men, and taught Sunday school at University United Methodist Church. In later years, James and Margaret Thomas Knox and their children moved to the property. Margaret Knox, Captain W. P. Knox’s daughter-in-law, was the daughter of famed Austin architect Roy L. Thomas. She married aviator and P.O.W. James Knox in 1944. After he retired from the military, the couple moved back to his family home in 1966. …
20.0 - 801 W 29th St — original pdf
21 – 1 HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION DEMOLITION AND RELOCATION PERMITS MAY 1, 2024 PR-2024-029444; GF-2024-043945 801 WEST 29TH STREET PROPOSAL ARCHITECTURE RESEARCH Partially demolish and construct a second-floor addition to a ca. 1927 house. PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS The proposed project adds a second story to an existing one-story house. The proposed addition extends the existing roof ridge at the main elevation to add height to the side-gabled roof and adds new dormers and additional windows. The 2020 North Central survey lists the building as a cross-gabled bungalow with Craftsman and Tudor Revival stylistic influences. It is one story in height, with double-hung wood windows and horizontal wood siding. The house at 801 West 29th Street, originally called 901 West 29th Street, was constructed around 1927. Its first residents were the Reverend William D. Bills and his wife, Susie. Bills worked as the pastor for the University Church of Christ. They sold the house to James P. and Martha McPherson in the early 1930s. James McPherson, called Jack, owned and operated the Texas Nut Candy Company, later called McPherson’s Candy and the Capitol Candy Company. Several of the McPhersons’ children also worked at the candy company, though one daughter became a teacher at Metz Elementary School. Mrs. Martha McPherson was a pianist and taught lessons until she left Austin in 1946. In the late 1950s, the home was rented by private detective Virginia L. White. PROPERTY EVALUATION The 2020 North Central Austin historic resource survey lists the property as contributing to potential local and National Register historic districts. Designation Criteria—Historic Landmark 1) The building is more than 50 years old. 2) The building appears to retain high integrity. 3) Properties must meet two criteria for landmark designation (LDC §25-2-352). Staff has evaluated the property and determined that it does not meet two criteria for landmark designation: a. Architecture. The building is a good example of a vernacular home with Tudor Revival and Craftsman b. Historical association. The property does not appear to have significant historical associations. c. Archaeology. The property was not evaluated for its potential to yield significant data concerning the human influences, once common in Austin. history or prehistory of the region. d. Community value. The property was not evaluated for its ability to convey 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 …
20.1 - 801 W 29TH _ site plan with utilities_ STAMPED — original pdf
I If 'i I 'i ii I i m lll i J ~ H fl I .~rw :b cwt~t\~~~·1~ ~-1~-1-t i ii [ 8. I I i i ~ !''-- - ---~ ' -:,:::::::------ ---- ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... Ill ~ """- Il l 11111 n / lllt: rl ~ ; I',-. ·1 • ________ , , ,._ r - I ,,- _/ / .-· , I I~' I'·_- I ,: ' 1 1· j i z i I 1' ' ~ - -j i -...._ S711' . jij': '•,. ....... :,-... : ',, I - -- - i / ~ __ ~,", "-. ,.:!'. '·,_ , ..... '"T7 ! I "-l:i: , . , 1 __ "579' I ----~ o· 1 ·---- -~ WW • W , .l , ~l--i ! I I ff .. j r ~Mf 1~-~1/ 'C••·~.Je ------ ~., U-f ,f'].: !U! ====_=_==i i-- r ==· ,, ['--, i::.):- ~ 1f ~' JI! ,_: _U : l j • ···-ll '------ ·-J it 1 lii-2 ~I i f~i !". Ii: [f iii •• ! ... ~Ii !i; l·• •• .. Q.~ lo li rt•· 1.H it t f nH ~Hi ii!; ii n i,rt .,if! ~r I' Hi ~iil l • ~ ~ ~ ~ E E ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ n HE u II ~ ~ q Ha q f • q ' ~ di p § ' ~ C n p n ~n ~ n ~ ~ a a q 9 ~ C ~ ~ 2 ~ ~ Ell O O O "ifl[11 I ,; ~ii•,r t•~ I r n r ,., r, s i = :s J,.1_~'&'! ! I i,,.,.,•~.~i !iJ f 1 ~!ht 111 !lH J~P:f~ ~~- ~ a ( l i:: } O 1111 I ! 1 ! I !I 1 ! 1r Ji ~ , ' // ! I 11111l 'i ! II I > l ~- 1~- 1~- 1 •·:d ! i: i: ~i; i: ~ f f i ~H ii i II 1( West 29th Street Project 801 West 29th Street Austin, Texas HAMMER/ DESIGN Al't'Siden1ial~&ronstrllctiot>por11>errhip Jl08 S.5tbStreet Ausdn, Teus Cont.act: 512""26-2662
20.2 - 801 W 29TH A4.0-TentDiagrams-3.5.24-signed — original pdf
Proposed North Elevation 1/8"=1'-0" (1/16"=1'-0" at 11"x17") " 0 - ' 2 3 " 8 / 1 9 - ' 9 2 48" x 20"H Slider i e n L g n d i l i u B i e n L y t r e p o r P 40'-0" Tent 1 7'-2 7/8" Tent 2 32' Max. Height Extended Portion of Existing Roof New Dormers Existing Roof New Casement Window- 16" x 32"H Area of Gable Penetration into Side Yard Setback Plane- Ref. 2.6-E-4b of Subchapter F 45 Deg. i e n L y t r e p o r P Exist F.F. = 579.2' High Elev. = 579' Median Elev.= 576' Low Elev. = 573' Entry Exist. Masonry Chimney " 0 - ' 5 1 Seal Proposed Flat Ceiling New Roofline " 8 1 / 9 - ' 9 2 " 0 - ' 5 1 i e n L y t r e p o r P " 0 - ' 6 " 3 - ' 9 New Wood Stair 9'-10" 32' Max. Height Area of Gable Penetration into Side Yard Setback Plane- Ref. 2.6-E-4b of Subchapter F Stair Ceiling High Stair Window New Dormer 36" x 60" Sing. HUng EGRESS Exist. Chimney New Dormer Existing Roof 45 Deg. New Entry Door Existing House Entry i e n L y t r e p o r P Exist F.F. = 579.2' Existing Crawlspace Proposed East Elevation 1/8"=1'-0" (1/16"=1'-0" at 11"x17") " 0 - ' 5 1 High Elev. = 579'' Median Elev.= 576' Low Elev. = 573' N G I S E D / R E M M A H p i h s r e n t r a p n o i t c u r t s n o c & e r u t c e t i h c r a l a i t n e d i s e r A s a x e T , n i t s u A t e e r t S h t 5 . S 8 0 2 3 2 6 6 2 - 6 2 6 - 2 1 5 : t c a t n o C t c e j o r P t e e r t S h t 9 2 t s e W s a x e T , n i t s …
20.3 - 801 W 29TH A4.1-TentDiagrams-3.5.24 — original pdf
Max. Height Area of Gable Penetration into Side Yard Setback Plane- Ref. 2.6-E-4b of Subchapter F 9'-10" Attic New Roofline New Dormer Proposed Flat Ceiling High Bedroom Window -Egress i e n L y t r e p o r P Existing Roof New 2nd Floor Level 1'-4" Existing Floor Level 45 Deg. i e n L y t r e p o r P High Elev. = 579' Seal New Wood Stair w/ Railing to Code Median Elev. = 576' 7'-2 7/8" Tent 1 40'-0" Proposed West Elevation 1/8"=1'-0" (1/4"=1'-0" at 11"x17") Low Elev. = 573' Area of Gable Penetration into Side Yard Setback Plane- Ref. 2.6-E-4b of Subchapter F 32' Max. Height New Roof Proposed Flat Ceiling EGRESS EGRESS 1'-0" Existing Roof 'Teardrop' Siding to Match " 0 - ' 5 1 i e n L y t r e p o r P High Elev. = 579' Exist F.F. = 579.2' Remove Door New Covered Porch Median Elev.= 576' Low Elev. = 573' New Stair w/ Railing to Code Crawlspace Beyond New 6x6" Wood Post and Pier- (See Struct.) Springline 2nd Level Roof E " 0 - ' 2 3 Proposed Attic Floor Clg. " 0 - ' 9 i e n L g n d i l i u B Deck Piers- (See Struct.) Proposed South Elevation 1/8"=1'-0" (1/16"=1'-0" at 11"x17") i e n L y t r e p o r P N G I S E D / R E M M A H p i h s r e n t r a p n o i t c u r t s n o c & e r u t c e t i h c r a l a i t n e d i s e r A s a x e T , n i t s u A t e e r t S h t 5 . S 8 0 2 3 2 6 6 2 - 6 2 6 - 2 1 5 : t c a t n o C t c e j o r P t e e r t S h t 9 2 t s e W s a x e T , n i t s u A t e e r t S h t 9 2 t s e W 1 0 8 Date: 10/01/23 Tent Diagrams Revised: …
20.4 - 801 W 29TH HLC packet letter — original pdf
801 West 29th Street This project is a remodel of the exis(cid:415)ng house that includes adap(cid:415)ng and expanding the exis(cid:415)ng a(cid:427)c space into a living area. The expansion of the a(cid:427)c will be on the rear of the property and will not be visible from 29th Street. The footprint of the house will remain the same. The exis(cid:415)ng siding and windows will be retained. Two adjacent homes, 805 West 29th Street and 2900 West Avenue, have been remodeled and expanded in a similar manner. In the City of Aus(cid:415)n’s January 2021 Historic Building Survey for North Central Aus(cid:415)n, both remodeled and expanded homes were designated as contribu(cid:415)ng structures by both the NRHP (Na(cid:415)onal Register of Historic Places) recommenda(cid:415)on and local recommenda(cid:415)on. Adam and Margaret Stephens, owners