C-2 - Draft Interim Bridge Status Memorandum – Feb 2022 Barton Springs Rd. Bridge over Barton Creek Interim Bridge Status REVISIONS Project: City of Austin – Barton Springs Road Bridge over Barton Creek Document: Interim Bridge Status Memorandum Revision Date of Issue Description D0 D1 D2 01/17/19 01/25/19 02/24/22 Draft Issue for Internal Comment Draft Issue for City Management Team Review/Comment Draft Issue for City Management Team Review/Comment Statement of Limitations This report is intended for the City of Austin and is not to be distributed to third parties outside the City’s organization. This interim memo provides an update regarding the status of the conceptual design work performed by URS for the proposed facility. This work is ongoing and not complete. Information included in this memo is subject to change prior to release of the Final Bridge Conceptual Engineering Report. Page ii Barton Springs Rd. Bridge over Barton Creek Interim Bridge Status CONTENTS PAGE 1. 2. INTRODUCTION............................................................................................ 1 Background ........................................................................................... 1 1.1 Project Objectives .................................................................................. 1 1.2 Bridge Engineering Process ...................................................................... 2 1.3 1.3.1 Preliminary Selection and Concept Engineering – Process Phase 1 ...... 2 1.3.2 Preliminary Selection and Concept Engineering – Process Phase 2 ...... 3 1.3.3 Preliminary Selection and Concept Engineering – Process Phase 3 ...... 3 2.4 2.5 SUMMARY OF RESULTS ................................................................................. 4 Bridge Cultural/Historical Background ....................................................... 4 2.1 Barton Springs/Azie Morton Road Intersection Assessment .......................... 4 2.2 Roadway Alignment Concepts (Rehabilitation vs Replacement) .................... 4 2.3 2.3.1 Rehabilitation Option .................................................................... 4 2.3.2 Replacement Option ..................................................................... 5 Maintenance of Traffic / Construction Phasing ............................................ 5 2.4.1 Phase 1 (Figure 2-3) ..................................................................... 5 2.4.2 Phase 2 (Figure 2-4) ..................................................................... 6 2.4.3 Phase 3 (Figure 2-5) ..................................................................... 6 2.4.4 Final Tasks – Complete Construction............................................... 7 Bridge Rehabilitation Summary ................................................................ 7 2.5.1 Introduction ................................................................................ 7 2.5.2 Bridge Rehabilitation Feasibility ...................................................... 7 2.5.3 Description of Existing Condition .................................................... 7 2.5.4 Service Life Estimates ................................................................... 8 2.5.5 Existing Structure - Load Capacity Estimates ................................... 9 2.5.6 Rehabilitation Concept and Components ........................................ 10 2.5.7 Rehabilitation Renderings ............................................................ 11 2.5.8 Estimated Costs ......................................................................... 11 Bridge Replacement Summary ............................................................... 12 2.6.1 Introduction .............................................................................. 12 2.6.2 Bridge Replacement Feasibility ..................................................... 12 2.6.3 Replacement Concept and Components ......................................... 12 2.6.4 Estimated Costs ......................................................................... 13 Conceptual Zilker Park/Pedestrian Opportunities ...................................... 13 2.7.1 Structure/Tree Protection and Mitigation ....................................... 14 2.7.2 Zilker Park – Zilker Zephyr .......................................................... 14 2.7.3 Zilker Park Hike/Bike Trail ........................................................... 14 2.7.4 Barton Springs Road ................................................................... …
C-4 - Rehabilitation vs Replacement Memo – September 2022 City of Austin Barton Springs Road Bridge over Barton Creek Rehabilitation vs. Replacement Memorandum CIP ID 5873.031 URS Corporation 9400 Amberglen Blvd. Austin, TX 78729 (512) 419-5897 TX Firm F-3162 7650 W. Courtney Campbell Cswy. Tampa, FL 33607-1462 (813) 286-1711 September 28, 2022 Final (F1) This document is released under the authority of Robert B. Anderson Texas PE No. 111066 Barton Springs Road Bridge over Barton Creek Rehab vs. Replacement Memo REVISIONS Project: City of Austin – Barton Springs Road Bridge over Barton Creek Document: Rehab vs. Replacement Memo Revision Date of Issue Description D0 D1 D2 F1 08/22/2022 Draft Issue for Internal Comment 09/12/2022 Revised Draft Issue post PWD comments 09/19/2022 Revised Draft Issue cost table and replacement comparison 09/28/2022 Final Issue Contents 1. 2. 3. INTRODUCTION............................................................................................ 3 Purpose and Need .................................................................................. 3 1.1 Bridge Cultural / Historical Background / Existing Condition ......................... 3 1.2 DESIGN CONCEPTS ....................................................................................... 5 Design Elements Common to Both Rehabilitation and Replacement .............. 5 2.1 Rehabilitation Option .............................................................................. 5 2.2 Replacement Option ............................................................................... 7 2.3 COMPARISON OF PRELIMINARY REPLACEMENT / REHABILITATION CONCEPTS .................................................................................................. 10 4. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................... 12 Statement of Limitations This report is intended for the City of Austin and is distributed to third parties outside the City’s organization, with their consent. This interim memo provides a direct comparison between the rehabilitation and replacement options for the Barton Springs Road Bridge over Barton Creek and provides a recommendation from the design team. This report is intended to outline the current design approach and highlight the pros and cons associated with the rehabilitation and replacement concepts. To limit the size and focus of this memo, the detailed work associated with existing bridge inspection and preliminary concept development and analysis are incorporated by reference. Page 2 of 13 Barton Springs Road Bridge over Barton Creek Rehab vs. Replacement Memo 1. INTRODUCTION This section of the report summarizes the purpose and need for the project and provides some Cultural and Historical Background. 1.1 Purpose and Need The purpose and need for this project is centered on safety-related bridge improvements that address the following items: Insufficient bike / pedestrian paths (functionally obsolete); Age of structure / structural degradation; Bridge roadway lanes not aligned with lanes east of Azie Morton; Hillside instability (rock fall) and obsolete retaining wall on Azie Morton east side …
Project No. 0121-014 15 ft 2 ft 8 ft 18.5 ft 33.5 ft 40 ft SAMPLE PHOTOGRAPHS – W-1 Barton Springs Road Bridge Improvements Austin, Texas Sheet 1 of 2 40 ft – Del Rio Clayshale Project No. 0121-014 44 ft – Georgetown Limestone 45 ft 50 ft 55 ft 50 ft 60 ft SAMPLE PHOTOGRAPHS – W-1 Barton Springs Road Bridge Improvements Austin, Texas Sheet 2 of 2 Project No. 0121-014 15 ft 2 ft 7 ft 18.5 ft 33.5 ft 39 ft SAMPLE PHOTOGRAPHS – W-2 Barton Springs Road Bridge Improvements Austin, Texas Sheet 1 of 2 40 ft – Del Rio Clayshale 41.5 ft – Georgetown LS Project No. 0121-014 45 ft 55 ft 50 ft SAMPLE PHOTOGRAPHS – W-2 Barton Springs Road Bridge Improvements Austin, Texas 50 ft 60 ft Sheet 2 of 2 1 ft 7 ft 18.5 ft 28.5 ft Project No. 0121-014 15 ft 34.3 ft SAMPLE PHOTOGRAPHS – W-3 Barton Springs Road Bridge Improvements Austin, Texas Sheet 1 of 2 35 ft – Del Rio Clayshale Project No. 0121-014 39 ft – Georgetown Limestone 40 ft 45 ft 45 ft 50 ft SAMPLE PHOTOGRAPHS – W-3 Barton Springs Road Bridge Improvements Austin, Texas Sheet 2 of 2 0 ft 6 ft – Buda Limestone Project No. 0121-014 5.5 ft 10 ft SAMPLE PHOTOGRAPHS – W-4 Barton Springs Road Bridge Improvements Austin, Texas Sheet 1 of 6 10 ft 20 ft Project No. 0121-014 15 ft 20 ft 23 ft – Del Rio Clayshale 25 ft SAMPLE PHOTOGRAPHS – W-4 Barton Springs Road Bridge Improvements Austin, Texas 30 ft Sheet 2 of 6 30 ft 40 ft 35 ft 45 ft Project No. 0121-014 40 ft 50 ft SAMPLE PHOTOGRAPHS – W-4 Barton Springs Road Bridge Improvements Austin, Texas Sheet 3 of 6 Project No. 0121-014 55 ft 60 ft 50 ft 60 ft Core loss due to core barrel jam - 65 to 70 ft 65 ft 70 ft SAMPLE PHOTOGRAPHS – W-4 Barton Springs Road Bridge Improvements Austin, Texas Sheet 4 of 6 Core loss due to core barrel jam - 70 to 72 ft 70 ft Project No. 0121-014 75 ft 80 ft 80 ft – Georgetown Limestone 85 ft SAMPLE PHOTOGRAPHS – W-4 Barton Springs Road Bridge Improvements Austin, Texas 90 ft Sheet 5 of 6 Project No. 0121-014 95 ft 100 ft 90 ft 100 ft 105 ft …
D-2 - Initial US Army Corps of Engineers Meeting – Nov. 2022 D-3 - Section 106 Evaluation – January 2023 SECTION 106 EFFECTS ASSESSMENT OF THE BARTON SPRINGS ROAD BRIDGE CITY OF AUSTIN TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS January 2023 Section 106 Effects Assessment of the Barton Springs Road Bridge, Austin, Travis County, Texas Prepared by: Kurt Korfmacher Architectural Historian and Principal Investigator And Erica Koteras Historian Consulting Firm: AmaTerra Environmental, Inc. Contact Information: 11842 Rim Rock Trail Austin, TX 78737 Telephone: (512) 329-0031 January 2023 Barton Springs Road Bridge Section 106 Evaluation ABSTRACT At the request of URS Corporation and on behalf of the City of Austin (City), AmaTerra Environmental, Inc. (AmaTerra) conducted an assessment of effect to the Barton Springs Road Bridge in Austin, Travis County, Texas. Barton Springs Road Bridge is a contributing resource to the Zilker Park Historic District, a property listed in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The City proposes improvements to Barton Springs Road that would necessitate changes to the bridge, potentially including replacement of the existing bridge with a new structure. As the proposed undertaking would require permitting from the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), it is subject to the requirements of Section 106 (36 CFR Part 800) of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). As the City is a political entity of the State of Texas, the Antiquities Code of Texas (Texas Natural Resources Code, Title 9, Chapter 191) and its associated regulations (13 TAC 26) also apply. In October 2022, professional historians meeting the Secretary of Interior Standards conducted an evaluation of the proposed project and its potential for effect on the NRHP-listed bridge and related contributing resources to the Zilker Park Historic District per Section 106 guidelines. Zilker Park Historic District is listed in the NRHP under Criteria A and C at the local level in the areas of Architecture, Conservation, Entertainment/Recreation, and Landscape Architecture, with a period of significance of 1917-1947. Both Barton Springs Road Bridge and the Main Entrance Piers (contributing) are within the project area. The proposed bridge improvements are associated with a larger overall plan for Zilker Park known as the Zilker Park Vision Plan. This ambitious multi-year proposal would make major changes to large sections of Zilker Park to improve pedestrian flow and access, improve safety, restore and protect the natural environment, and make general improvements to how the park is accessed and …
E-1 - Open House Boards E-2 - Public Comments – April 2023 Barton Springs Road Bridge Over Barton Creek Project Public Meeting Summary (April 2023) Contents Public Engagement Process ................................................................................................................................................ 2 Public Comment Results ..................................................................................................................................................... 2 Overall Sentiment Analysis ............................................................................................................................................ 2 Public Comments ............................................................................................................................................................. 3 No Changes to Bridge ‐ roughly 20% ........................................................................................................................ 3 Against Replacement ‐ roughly 5% ........................................................................................................................... 3 In Favor of Rehabilitation ‐ roughly 30% .................................................................................................................. 3 In Favor of Replacement – 30% .................................................................................................................................. 3 Undetermined/Miscellaneous – 10% ......................................................................................................................... 3 Results for Optional Demographic Questions ................................................................................................................. 3 Appendix: All Comments ................................................................................................................................................... 8 1 Public Engagement Process On April 4, 2023, the Austin Transportation & Public Works Department (TPW) conducted its first in‐person public meeting on the Barton Springs Road Bridge Project. Although this meeting was postponed from March 2, 2023, due to local weather conditions, the virtual public meeting went online on March 2 as planned and remained live through April 18 when all public comments were due. The purpose of this in‐person and virtual meeting was to present the project and to gather community feedback on various alternatives for improving safety and mobility for the Barton Springs Road Bridge. Many of the existing bridge’s features are functionally obsolete and require rehabilitation or replacement to ensure safety and longevity. Promotion of the public meeting (both in‐person and virtual) included a flyer mailout to the project stakeholder list of individuals and organizations; placement of meeting signs in the neighborhoods in and around the project area; postings on social media sites (NextDoor, Facebook, and Twitter); and a media advisory. Public Comment Results Public comments were gathered in two ways: on paper during the in‐person public meeting on April 4, 2023 and online as part of the virtual public meeting that started on March 2. All comments were due on April 18. Both in‐person and online, meeting participants were asked to share their feedback in one open‐ended question: Do you have any comments or questions for the project team? The online version also included optional demographic questions. The online survey was open from March 2 – April 18 whereas the in‐person public meeting took place on one evening (April 4). A total of 187 comments were received during the comment period; 11 of those comments were gathered during the in‐person meeting while the remainder were submitted online. Overall there were 1,677 views of the virtual public meeting, 189 participated in …
Barton Springs Road Bridge Preliminary Design - Bridge Architecture Design Report 12 August 2025 Contents This PDF is an interactive document. Click on each number to navigate to the corresponding section. The menu icon on the bottom left returns you to this Table of Contents Introduction Design Concept Cut Sheets About the Bridge Site Context About Austin Project Needs & Goals Overall Bridge Concept Details Lighting Concept Lighting Equipment Surface Material Wall Finish INTRODUCTION 01 Prepared for Ramsey CountyBarton Springs RoadBarton SpringsRoad BridgeZilker ParkColorado RiverBarton CreekBartonSpringsPoolDowntownAustin 01 / Introduction Barton Springs Bridge Background Built in 1925, the Barton Springs Road Bridge provides access over Barton Creek along Barton Creek Road at the entrance to Zilker Park. The bridge was widened to its current form in 1946, which includes two traffic lanes in each direction. The bridge also features narrow sidewalks along each side, guard rails and a sidewalk underneath. While the existing bridge is structurally in fair condition, many of its features are functionally obsolete and it requires replacement to ensure safety and longevity. Given that the existing bridge present mobility challenges for vehicles, bikes and pedestrians, this project will provide needed mobility enhancements for all users. Intersection improvements to nearby Barton Springs Road and Azie Morton Drive are necessary as part of this project. In November 2020, Austin voters approved $102 million for major infrastructure projects, with the possibility of allocating a portion of that funding to address the Barton Springs Road Bridge. In December 2023, Austin City Council officially recommended replacing the bridge and advanced the project to the design phase. The City of Austin received a $32 million grant from the U.S. Department of Transportation in November 2024 to help fund construction of the new bridge. 4 AECOMPrepared for The City of Austin Longitudinal Beam - Exposed Rebar Spandrel Column - Spalling 01 / Introduction Condition Assessment • Deck (with integral longitudinal joint), floor beams, and spandrel columns exhibited the most degradation. • All structural components exhibited some degradation. • Rehabilitation for increased service life would need to remove deck, floor beams, and spandrel columns, stripping structure to arch ribs as a starting point. • These results remove Rehabilitation Option 1 as feasible alternative since that option was the “low-impact”, “preserve-structure” option. • Based on the above, we are now focused on Rehabilitation Option 2 and on potential bridge replacement options. 5 Longitudinal Beam - Exposed Rebar …
City of Austin 301 W. Second Street Austin, TX Recommendation for Action File #: 23-3600, Agenda Item #: 79. 12/14/2023(cid:4) Posting Language Conduct a public hearing and approve the recommended alternative in the Preliminary Engineering Report to replace the Barton Springs Road Bridge over Barton Creek. Lead Department Capital Delivery Services. Fiscal Note This item has no fiscal impact. For More Information: James Snow, Director, Capital Delivery Services, 512-974-9795; Eric Bailey, Interim Deputy Director, Capital Delivery Services, 512-974-7713; Paulinda Lanham, Capital Delivery Project Manager, Capital Delivery Services, 512-974-7974. Council Committee, Boards and Commission Action: November 10, 2022 - Update on the Barton Springs Road Bridge over Barton Creek project to the Mobility Committee. Update only, no action taken. May 11, 2023 - Briefing on the Barton Springs Road Bridge project and mobility elements of the Zilker Park Vision Plan to the Mobility Committee. Briefing only, no action taken. October 27, 2023 - Briefing on the Barton Springs Road Bridge project to the Mobility Committee. Additional Backup Information: The Barton Springs Road Bridge over Barton Creek is located near the intersection of Azie Morton Road and Barton Springs Road. The location of the bridge, at the entrance to Zilker Park, is a focal point of key community events such as Austin City Limits Musical Festival, South-By-Southwest (SXSW) Conference and Music Festival, Barton Springs, Trail of Lights, and Blues on the Green. Barton Springs Road and the associated bridge is also a key connection for vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian access linking Mopac to downtown and the South Lamar/Congress Avenue corridors, as well as providing the primary northern entrance to the Zilker and Barton Hills neighborhoods via Azie Morton Road, located immediately east of the bridge. The full bridge replacement option provides the most cost-effective and the longest useful life The Barton Springs Road Bridge over Barton Creek requires rehabilitation or replacement. It was originally built in 1925 and was expanded on one side in 1946. Structurally it is in fair condition, however, the existing bridge dimensions, sidewalks, and bike lanes do not meet with current design standards. The roadway west of Azie Morton Road is not aligned with the roadway east of Azie Morton Road. The project will reduce congestion and provide benefits to the local neighborhoods, commuters (all travel modes), and local businesses, as well as Zilker Park users and event attendees. City of Austin Page 1 of 2 Printed on …
URTH CAFFÈ HLC -COMMISSION MTG April 8th, 2026 It is important to note that the intended use of the building and property has not changed; the property and building will function as a restaurant. The high- intensity operational needs of such a program placed cumulative stresses on the historic structure that it was never designed to handle. Over the years, these commercial requirements resulted in a level of internal deterioration that made total preservation a physical impossibility. Our primary objective is to reconstruct the building in a way that accommodates modern restaurant standards while maintaining the original historic detailing exactly as it was—without the threat of further damage. The evidence in this report supports the conclusion that the cumulative impact of previous "add-ons" and makeshift utility solutions compromised the structure to the point of being unsalvageable. We respectfully ask the Commission to evaluate this evidence in its entirety. It is our hope that, with a clear understanding of these unforeseen conditions, we can continue construction aligned in our shared goal of a resilient, historically faithful restoration. Thank you, Sarah Jonhson, AIA, (Architect) Ingrid Gonzalez Featherston, AIA, NOMA (Architect) Dear Members of the Historic Landmark Commission: This letter is intended to clarify the site conditions and field decisions that led to a greater degree of demolition than originally proposed during our 2024 presentation. First, we wish to acknowledge that the extent of the demolition exceeded initial expectations. However, the report below outlines the harsh structural realities discovered on-site that necessitated the difficult decision to retain a smaller percentage of the original envelope than planned. This report details the specific damage found on every demolished wall and the technical rationale behind those actions. We want to clarify that the sections currently remaining on-site should not be viewed as exempt from the systemic damage documented in this report. Rather, these sections were retained as part of a strategic, surgical effort to preserve specific components, with the ultimate goal of restoring the building to its full architectural glory. While a total preservation of the entire structure was our preferred approach, the extent of the systemic decay made such a path both structurally unsound and economically unfeasible. The team elected to focus preservation efforts on the primary, most significant facade. The other walls required reconstruction to properly integrate modern systems and ensure long-term viability. Our approach focuses on three key pillars: • Modern System Integration: …
GENERAL NOTES: 1. DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS. EXPLICIT DIMENSION SHALL HAVE PRECEDENCE OVER SCALE. THESE DOCUMENTS HAVE BEEN FORMATTED TO BE PRINTED ON 24” X 36” SHEET SIZES, DRAWINGS PRINTED AT OTHER SIZES ARE NOT NECESSARILY TO SCALE. 2. GENERAL CONTRACTOR SHALL FIELD VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS AND ALL OTHER EXISTING CONDITIONS PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE WORK AND NOTIFY THE ARCHITECT OF ANY DISCREPANCIES. 3. CONTRACTOR TO NOTIFY THE ARCHITECT IN WRITING IN THE EVENT OF A DISCREPANCY BETWEEN THE DRAWINGS AND THE FIELD CONDITIONS. IF IN THE COURSE OF CONSTRUCTION, A STRUCTURAL ISSUE EXISTS WHICH DISAGREES WITH THAT AS INDICATED ON THE DRAWINGS, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL STOP WORK AND NOTIFY THE ARCHITECT. SHOULD THE CONTRACTOR FAIL TO FOLLOW THIS PROCEDURE, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL ASSUME ALL RESPONSIBILITY AND LIABILITY ARISING THERE FROM. 4. ANY DAMAGE TO EXISTING AND OR NEW WORK IN PLACE BY THE CONTRACTOR’S OR SUBCONTRACTOR’S NEGLIGENCE SHALL BE REPAIRED AT NO ADDITIONAL COST TO THE OWNER. 5. ALL NOTES ARE APPLICABLE TO ALL TRADES AND RESPECTIVE CONTRACTORS. ALL NOTES TO BE REVIEWED AND APPLIED TO RELATED BUILDING COMPONENTS. ALL SHEETS ARE TO BE REVIEWED AND ALL APPLICABLE NOTES TO BE APPLIED. BUILDING ELEVATION AND SECTION NOTES: 1. HATCH PATTERNS ARE REPRESENTATIONAL ONLY LOCATING MATERIALS AND MATERIAL SYSTEMS. THEY DO NOT INDICATE EXACT PANEL SIZES OR CONFIGURATIONS. 2. COORDINATE LOCATION OF WINDOW ANCHORS, SEALANT POSITION AND CONTINUITY AND COMPATIBILITY OF SEALANTS WITH ADJACENT WORK INCLUDING MATERIALS AND OTHER CONTIGUOUS SEALANTS. C L L I , E R U T C E T H C R A S U K J A F T T A M mf 900 EAST 6TH STREET SUITE 100 AUSTIN, TX 78702 TEL: 512.432.5137 www.mfarchitecture.com BUILDING INFORMATION CHAPTER 7 FIRE AND SMOKE PROTECTION FEATURES FIRE RESISTANCE RATING REQ'S FOR EXTEROR WALLS BASED ON FIRE SEPARATION DISTANCE (TABLE 705.5) WALL LOCATION EAST SOUTH WEST NORTH DIST TO PROP LINE 5<X<10 10<X<30' X<5' X>30' OCCUPANCY GROUP A-2 1 0 1 0 FIRE WINDOW ASSEMBLY FIRE PROTECTION RATINGS REF TABLE 716.1(3) TYPE OF WALL ASSEMBLY EXTERIOR WALLS REQ'D WALL ASSEMBLY RATING (HRS) 1 MIN FIRE WINDOW ASSEMBLY RATING (HRS) 3/4 FIRE RATED GLAZING MARKING OH-45 OR W-60 WALL PROPOSED TO BE REBUILT TO MATCH ORIGINAL SIDING NEW SIGNAGE BY OTHER WALL SCONCE PROPOSED AREA FOR SIGNAGE CP-3 7" / 1'-0" 7" / 1'-0" CP-3 " 2 / 1 0 1 - ' 1 / " 2 …
24023 March 23, 2026 URTH CAFFE: DETERIORATION REPORT Dear Members of the Historic Landmark Commission: This letter is intended to clarify the site conditions and field decisions that led to a greater degree of demolition than originally proposed during our 2024 presentation. First, we wish to acknowledge that the extent of the demolition exceeded initial expectations. However, the report below outlines the harsh structural realities discovered on-site that necessitated the difficult decision to retain a smaller percentage of the original envelope than planned. This report details the specific damage found on every demolished wall and the technical rationale behind those actions. We want to clarify that the sections currently remaining on-site should not be viewed as exempt from the systemic damage documented in this report. Rather, these sections were retained as part of a strategic, surgical effort to preserve specific components, with the ultimate goal of restoring the building to its full architectural glory. While a total preservation of the entire structure was our preferred approach, the extent of the systemic decay made such a path both structurally unsound and economically unfeasible. The team elected to focus preservation efforts on the primary, most significant facade. The other walls required reconstruction to properly integrate modern systems and ensure long-term viability. Our approach focuses on three key pillars: • Modern System Integration: Incorporating necessary waterproofing, structural reinforcement, and code-compliant utilities that the original compromised structure could no longer support. • Structural Longevity: Preventing the imminent failure that would have occurred had we attempted to patch the existing, deteriorated sections. • Historic Fidelity: Replicating all original detailing, profiles, and facade treatments with exacting precision to ensure the building’s visual contribution to the district remains unchanged. 24023 March 23, 2026 It is important to note that the intended use of the building and property has not changed; the property and building will function as a restaurant. The high- intensity operational needs of such a program placed cumulative stresses on the historic structure that it was never designed to handle. Over the years, these commercial requirements resulted in a level of internal deterioration that made total preservation a physical impossibility. Our primary objective is to reconstruct the building in a way that accommodates modern restaurant standards while maintaining the original historic detailing exactly as it was—without the threat of further damage. The evidence in this report supports the conclusion that the cumulative impact of previous …
ZONING CHANGE REVIEW SHEET CASE NUMBER: C14H-2026-0018 HLC DATE: April 1, 2026 PC DATE: TBD CC Date: TBD APPLICANT: Historic Landmark Commission (commission-initiated) HISTORIC NAME: The Hill-Thompson House WATERSHED: Boggy Creek ADDRESS OF PROPOSED ZONING CHANGE: 1906 Maple Avenue, Austin, Texas 78722 ZONING CHANGE: SF-3-HD-NP to SF-3-H-HD-NP COUNCIL DISTRICT: 1 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the proposed zoning change from family residence- historic district-neighborhood plan (SF-3-HD-NP) to family residence-historic landmark-historic districtneighborhood plan (SF-3-H-HD-NP) combining district zoning. QUALIFICATIONS FOR LANDMARK DESIGNATION: Historical associations and community value. HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION ACTION: PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: CITY COUNCIL ACTION: CASE MANAGER: Austin Lukes, 512-978-0766 NEIGHBORHOOD ORGANIZATIONS: Austin Independent School District, Austin Neighborhoods Council, Del Valle Community Coalition, East Austin Conservancy, Friends of Austin Neighborhoods, Homeless Neighborhood Association, Overton Family Committee, Preservation Austin, Rogers Washington Holy Cross, Upper Boggy Creek Neighborhood Planning Team DEPARTMENT COMMENTS: The 2016 East Austin Historic Resource Survey recommended the property as contributing to a potential local historic district. The property was subsequently listed as a contributing resource in the 2020 ordinance designating the Rogers Washington Holy Cross local historic district. BASIS FOR RECOMMENDATION: § 25-2-352(3)(c)(ii) Historical Associations. The property has long-standing significant associations with persons, groups, institutions, businesses, or events of historical importance that contributed significantly to the history of the city, state, or nation or represents a significant portrayal of the cultural practices or the way of life of a definable group of people in a historic time. The Hill-Thompson house has numerous significant historical associations, including with architect John Saunders Chase, zoologist and geneticist Oscar Leonard Thompson, and several generations of the prominent Hill family. John S. Chase was an Austin-based architect responsible for the designs of numerous houses and other buildings in the city, as well as around Texas, including several buildings and the campus master plan at Texas Southern University. In the early 1950s, Chase became the first African- American graduate of the University of Texas School of Architecture. Though he was unable to find work at any white firms after graduation, he would go on to have success with his own practice beginning in 1952. The types of projects that his firm was involved with were numerous and located throughout Texas. As historian Lori Martin writes, Chase’s documented Austin works—including the 1952 Colored Teachers State Association of Texas (CTSAT) David Chapel Missionary Baptist Church (1959), and the Phillips/Phillips- Banks (Della Phillips) House at 2310 E. Martin …
City of Austin - Historic Preservation Office Historic Zoning Application Packet A. APPLICATION FOR HISTORIC ZONING PROJECT INFORMATION: DEPARTMENTAL USE ONLY APPLICATION DATE:__________________ FILE NUMBER(S) _____________________________________________ TENTATIVE HLC DATE: TENTATIVE PC or ZAP DATE:_________________ TENTATIVE CC DATE:_________________ CASE MANAGER _______________________________ APPLICATION ACCEPTED BY:________________________________________ CITY INITIATED: YES / NO ROLLBACK: YES/NO BASIC PROJECT DATA: 1. OWNER’S NAME:________________________________________________________________________________ 2. PROJECT NAME:________________________________________________________________________________ 3. PROJECT STREET ADDRESS (or Range): __________________________________________________________ ZIP__________________________ COUNTY:______________________________________ IF PROJECT ADDRESS CANNOT BE DEFINED ABOVE: LOCATED ____________ FRONTAGE FEET ALONG THE N. S. E. W. (CIRCLE ONE) SIDE OF ______________________________________ (ROAD NAME PROPERTY FRONTS ONTO), WHICH IS APPROXIMATELY _______________________________________ DISTANCE FROM ITS INTERSECTION WITH _________________________________________ CROSS STREET. AREA TO BE REZONED: 4. ACRES _________________ (OR) SQ.FT._______________ 5. ZONING AND LAND USE INFORMATION: EXISTING ZONING EXISTING USE __________ __________ __________ __________ __________ __________ TRACT# (IF MORE THAN 1) ________ ________ ________ ACRES / SQ. FT. PROPOSED USE PROPOSED ZONING _______________ _______________ _______________ _____________ _____________ _____________ ____________ ____________ ____________ RELATED CURRENT CASES: (YES / NO) 6. ACTIVE ZONING CASE? 7. RESTRICTIVE COVENANT? (YES / NO) (YES / NO) 8. SUBDIVISION? (YES / NO) 9. SITE PLAN? FILE NUMBER: ______________________________________ FILE NUMBER: ______________________________________ FILE NUMBER: ______________________________________ FILE NUMBER: ______________________________________ Adopted December 2012 6 Marilynn Poole BaileyThe Hill-Thompson House1906 Maple, Austin, Texas78722Travis7844.230.1801ResidentialSF-3-HD-NPResidentialSF-3-H-HD-NP7844.23 City of Austin - Historic Preservation Office Historic Zoning Application Packet F. 1: Historical Documentation - Deed Chronology Deed Research for (fill in address) ________________________________ List Deeds chronologically, beginning with earliest transaction first and proceeding through present ownership. The first transaction listed should date at least back to when the original builder of any historic structures on the site first acquired the property (i.e., should pre-date the construction of any buildings/ structures on the site). Please use the format delineated below. For each transaction please include: name of Grantor/Grantee, date of transaction, legal description involved, price, and volume/page number of deed records. If there is a mechanic's lien please copy the entire document. Adopted December 2012 10 1906 Maple, Austin, Texas 78702 City of Austin - Historic Preservation Office Historic Zoning Application Packet F. 2: Historical Documentation - Occupancy History Occupancy Research for (fill in address) ___________________________ Using City Directories available at the Austin History Center or other information available, please provide a chronology of all occupants of the property from its construction to the present. For commercial property, please provide residential information on business owner as well. Adopted December 2012 11 …
Irene Hill Thompson House 1906 Maple Avenue Austin, TX 78722 Irene Hill Thompson House 1906 Maple Avenue Austin, TX 78722 Irene Hill Thompson House 1906 Maple Avenue Austin, TX 78722 Carport is a defining feature of the house Front porch covered in snow Irene Hill Thompson House 1906 Maple Avenue Austin, TX 78722 The Jerome Hill Family 50th Anniversary Standing: (L-R) Waldron Wray Hill Plicque, Don Plicque, Geraldine Holmes Hill, Dr. James L. Hill, Irene Hill Thompson, Doxey Hill (son), Norma Jean Hill Lewis, Ira Jerome Poole (young boy) Seated: (L to R) Marilynn Poole Webb, Laverne Hill Holland (daughter), Jerome and Ida Belle Hill, Lillie Hill, Ida Dawne Thompson (Irene’s daughter) Photo ca. 1965 at home of Irene Hill Thompson Irene Hill Thompson House 1906 Maple Avenue Austin, TX 78722 Irene Hill Thompson House 1906 Maple Avenue Austin, TX 78722 Building permits Irene Hill Thompson House 1906 Maple Avenue Austin, TX 78722 Architectural Drawings John S. Chase, AIA Irene Hill Thompson House 1906 Maple Avenue Austin, TX 78722 Architectural Drawings John S. Chase, AIA Irene Hill Thompson House 1906 Maple Avenue Austin, TX 78722 Architectural Drawings John S. Chase, AIA Irene Hill Thompson House 1906 Maple Avenue Austin, TX 78722 Architectural Drawings John S. Chase, AIA Irene Hill Thompson House 1906 Maple Avenue Austin, TX 78722 Architectural Drawings John S. Chase, AIA Irene Hill Thompson House 1906 Maple Avenue Austin, TX 78722 Architectural Drawings John S. Chase, AIA Irene Hill Thompson House 1906 Maple Avenue Austin, TX 78722 Irene Hill Thompson House 1906 Maple Avenue Austin, TX 78722 Congratulatory letter from U.S. Representative J.J. Pickle Irene Hill Thompson House 1906 Maple Avenue Austin, TX 78722 Irene Hill Thompson House 1906 Maple Avenue Austin, TX 78722 John Chase registers for classes at UT Chase in later years, Houston, TX Irene Hill Thompson House 1906 Maple Avenue Austin, TX 78722 Houston Chronicle April 1, 2012 The Hill family legacy celebrated by Huston-Tillotson College Alumni News, December 1978 Irene Hill Thompson House 1906 Maple Avenue Austin, TX 78722
HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION Applications for Certificate of Appropriateness April 1, 2026 HR-2026-027581 Sayers House 709 Rio Grande Street 7 – 1 Proposal Rehabilitate a City of Austin landmark for use as a school. Project Specifications 1) Repair or rehabilitate exterior character-defining features, including windows, doors, masonry, and balconies. 2) Construct life safety, accessibility, and systems updates as required. Work will take place at both the interior and the exterior of the building. Architecture This landmark is an excellent example of a high-style American Foursquare form, with several Classical Revival elements that make it stand out from other examples of the same building form. It features a prominent front porch and balcony, with several 12-over-1 windows on the front and narrow 1-over-1 fixtures at the sides and rear. There is a decorative cornice element that wraps around the house, and the balcony balustrade features embellishments as well. The structure remains in good condition. Design Standards 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 1. General standards The application describes the priority to retain and repair where possible, and replacement of historic material to occur only when necessary due to material loss or cumulative damage over time. Alterations made for safety or accessibility reasons will read as distinct but will not overwhelm the historic forms or material. 2. Foundations Foundations are to undergo significant reinforcement and shoring to support the continued weight of the building, but none of the work will be visible from the street due to the exterior foundation walls. No plans are included to raise or lower the overall height of the foundation, and no visual changes are anticipated as a result of the work. 3. Roofs No work is proposed at the roof, as it is determined to be in good condition. 4. Exterior walls and trim Existing stucco and brick is currently painted, and the proposed work includes a new color paint to be installed. Due to the existing situation, there are no additional concerns with adding another layer. 5. Windows, doors, and screens First floor windows, currently covered, will be uncovered and the existing material repaired. Otherwise, windows are to be retained and repaired. One window, to be converted to a door for egress, …
6 2 0 2 N A J 3 2 6 5 1 4 2 C A 1 3 r e b m u N j t c e o r P e g a P I I N O T A Z N R E D O M . T S E D N A R G O R 9 0 7 I PROJECT 709 RIO GRANDE ST. MODERNIZATION 0 0 0 - G PROJECT NUMBER 31AC24156 709 RIO GRANDE ST. AUSTIN, TX. 78701 CLIENT HEADWATERS SCHOOL Page Southerland Page, Inc. 200 W. 6th, Suite 1800 Austin, TX 78701 pagethink.com TEL 512 472 6721 FAX 512 477 3211 ARCHITECTURE / ENGINEERING / INTERIORS / PLANNING / CONSULTING Albany / Albuquerque / Atlanta / Austin / Boston / Charleston / Dallas / Denver / Dubai / Houston / Los Angeles / Mexico City / New York City / Orlando / Phoenix / Raleigh / Richmond / San Antonio / San Francisco / Tampa / Washington DC ORIGINAL ISSUE ISSUED FOR CONSTRUCTION 23 JAN 2026 CONSULTANT TEAM PROFESSIONAL SEALS CIVIL ENGINEERING GARZA EMC 9442 N CAPITAL OF TEXAS HIGHWAY PLAZA 1, SUITE 340 AUSTIN, TX 78759 512-325-3945 MEP & STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING INFINITIY MEP+S 53162 US HWY 290 SERVICE RD SUITE 480 AUSITIN, TX 78735 512-692-9224 HISTORICAL CONSULTANT HORIZON ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 1507 S. INTERSTATE 35 Address Line 2 AUSTIN, TX 78741 512-328-2430 - t v r . L A R T N E C - 3 2 R A - 6 5 1 4 2 C A 1 3 / e d n a r G o R 9 0 7 - i s r e t a w d a e H - 6 5 1 4 2 C A 1 3 / / : s c o D k s e d o u A t : E M A N E L F I M A 0 0 : 6 0 : 0 1 6 2 0 2 / 7 2 1 / : P M A T S E T A D : E M A N R E S U T E E R T S E D N A R G O R I WEST 8TH STREET #8103 490 CONCRETE PAVING 491 4 9 3 CONCRETE PAVING #69 #70 PROPERTY LINE CONCRETE RETAINING WALL AND STEPS CONCRETE STEPS AND PAVING #8104 489 #8102 CONCRETE PAVING CONCRETE PAVING …
HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION Applications for Certificate of Appropriateness April 1, 2026 HR-2026-028338 Paramount Theater 713 Congress Avenue 8 – 1 Proposal Remove and replace a non-historic storefront system at the main entry of the theater lobby. Project Specifications 1) Remove the existing, glazed storefront, featuring three sets of double entry doors spread across the assembly. 2) Install a new, glazed storefront, with three sets of double doors located at the center of the assembly. The new storefront will include ADA-compatible features such as a push-paddle switch attached to a freestanding bollard. Design Standards 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 1. General standards All material proposed to be removed is non-historic. Material is deteriorated from general use over time, and lacks certain accessibility requirements. The new assembly will be simple in style and will not be mistaken for original to the building. 4. Exterior walls and trim An existing, though not historic, stone sill may be used as a base for the new storefront. 5. Windows, doors, and screens Window glazing will be tempered glass and framing will be painted wood, and will appear similar to the storefront that is currently installed. 11. Commercial storefronts Clear glass is recommended to meet the design standards. Overall design is simple and has a standard three-part storefront assembly design, which reads as appropriate to the building. Summary The project meets the applicable standards. Department Comments This application will time out on June 15, 2026. Architectural Review Committee Feedback Historic Landmark Commission review authority only extends to the building exterior. However, doorways and glazing may be part of their review authority. Provide architectural drawings showing the doors centered on the building. Staff Recommendation Approve the Certificate of Appropriateness. Location Map 8 – 2
A B C D E F T C A R T N O C N I T O N ROOF LEVEL 55' - 2 25/32" GRIDIRON 54' - 0 1/2" UPPER BALCONY LEVEL 44' - 2 1/2" DEMOLISH EXISTING NON- HISTORIC WOOD STOREFRONT FRAMING, TYP. REMOVE EXISTING WOOD DOORS AND PREP FOR REINSTALLATION 4 WOOD STOREFRONT DEMOLITION A4.1 SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" LOUNGE LEVEL 23' - 7" RE-INSTALLED EXISTING PAINTED WOOD DOORS NEW WOOD STOREFRONT FRAMING, TYP. PAINT FINISH TO MATCH EXISTING MEZZANINE LEVEL 15' - 3" 1" TEMPERED INSULATED GLAZING UNIT, TYP. 6 A4.1 7 A4.1 INNER LOBBY LEVEL 3' - 6" OUTER LOBBY LEVEL 1' - 8 3/4" 2 A4.1 3 A4.1 POWDER-COATED BOLLARD WITH ADA OPERATOR PUSH-BUTTON 8 A4.1 STONE SILL " 0 1 - ' 2 EQ2 EQ1 EQ1 EQ1 EQ1 EQ1 EQ2 30' - 9 1/2" V.I.F. NO CHANGE TO ROUGH OPENING DEMOLISH EXISTING TRANSOM - NO CHANGE TO EXISTING LINTEL DEMOLISH FRAME, TYP. PAINT FINISH REMOVE EXISTING WOOD DOORS TO BE REINSTALLED DEMOLISH STAIR LANDING INSIDE THE BUILDING AND POUR NEW SLAB-ON-GRADE LOWER TO ALIGN WITH SIDEWALK 5 SOUTH EGRESS DOOR DEMOLITION A4.1 SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 1" TEMPERED INSULATED GLAZING UNIT, TYP. 6 A4.1 NEW WOOD STOREFRONT FRAMING, TYP. PAINT FINISH RE-INSTALLED EXISTING WOOD DOORS - SILL TO ALIGN WITH SIDEWALK INNER LOBBY LEVEL 3' - 6" OUTER LOBBY LEVEL 1' - 8 3/4" " 8 / 7 9 - ' 2 " 2 - ' 7 INNER LOBBY LEVEL 3' - 6" OUTER LOBBY LEVEL 1' - 8 3/4" INNER LOBBY LEVEL 3' - 6" OUTER LOBBY LEVEL 1' - 8 3/4" I G N N E P O H G U O R O T E G N A H C O N " 7 - ' 1 " 8 / 5 8 - ' 6 " 2 / 1 0 1 INNER LOBBY LEVEL 3' - 6" OUTER LOBBY LEVEL 1' - 8 3/4" 1 WEST EXTERIOR ELEVATION A4.1 SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" 2 NEW WOOD STOREFRONT ELEVATION A4.1 SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 3 SOUTH EGRESS DOOR ELEVATION A4.1 SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" EXISTING CEILING AND CROWN MOULDING TO REMAIN ADA AUTOMATIC DOOR OPERATOR AS OCCURS - ANODIZED BRONZE CASING NEW CONCRETE SLAB ON GRADE WITH VAPOR BARRIER AND PREPARED SUBGRADE - REFER TO STRUCTURE EXISTING MARQUEE - NO CHANGE PATCH, SKIMCOAT, AND REPAINT EXISTING PLASTER SOFFIT FOLLOWING INSTALLATION OF …
HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION Applications for Certificate of Appropriateness April 1, 2026 PR-2026-008188; GF-2026-025308 Robertson/Stuart & Mair Historic District 1005 East 8th Street 9 – 1 Proposal Demolish a ca. 1906 house listed as contributing to a local historic district. Architecture The house at 1005 East 8th St. was likely originally constructed as a single story building, with the sloping elevation of the site creating a crawlspace or cellar to the east side of the building footprint. Since its construction, this has been enclosed, and a rear addition built, increasing the enclosed area of the building. However, the U-shaped form and Folk Victorian elements still read legibly, and decorative elements, especially at the front porch and gable ends, remain present. The integrity of the architecture is strong and the property remains contributing to the Robertson/Stuart & Mair historic district. Research For the first 30 years after construction, the property went through a series of renters, made up of families and individuals employed by various local industries and services, including carpenters, foundry workers, and porters. The first long term owners were Ernest & Marie Kemp, who operated a local grocery. Marie Kemp continued to live at the address after her husband’s death, but by the 1950s, the property was vacant before becoming subdivided for oil industry and other professional offices. A third housing unit was added in 1970, indicating that this property continued use as residential rentals. An overnight fire occurred at the property on November 12th, 20251. Department Comments This application will time out on June 15, 2026. Property Evaluation The property contributes to the Robertson/Stuart & Mair Historic District. Staff Recommendation Grant the applicant-requested postponement to the May 6, 2026 Historic Landmark Commission meeting. 1 “Firefighter injured in East Austin house fire, investigation underway”. https://cbsaustin.com/news/local/afd-responding-to- house-fire-in-east-austin-no-injuries-reported Location Map 9 – 2 Property Information Photos 9 – 3 Texas Historical Commission, photograph, May 29, 1975. The Portal to Texas History. Google Streetview, 2024 Occupancy History City Directory Research, March 2026 9 – 4 1959 1957 1955 1952 1949 1947 1944 1941 1939 1935 1932 1929 1927 1924 1922 1920 1918 1916 1914 1912 1909 1906 Offices: Norman Texas Company; Roche Oil Company; Pierre Aubuchon, engineer; Hamco Oil & Drilling Vacant Vacant Joseph & Maria Tamayo, owners; painter at South Lamar Automotive Service Same as above Alfredo, Joseph, and Maria Tamayo, renters; mechanic at Bergstrom Airfield Anna Kamp, widow of EG, owner …
HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION Applications for Certificates of Appropriateness April 1, 2026 HR-2026-021800 Castle Hill Historic District 1107 West 9th Street 10 – 1 Proposal Renovate existing house. The non-contributing rear house will also be modified. Project Specifications 1) Replace existing siding with painted wood ship lap. 2) Construct new 8’0” steel fence. 3) Replace existing undivided windows with wood 1:1 windows at first floor, fixed-pane undivided square windows at dormers, and fixed-pane picture window at existing picture window. 4) Construct rear addition with dormer. 5) Remove chimney from east dormer. 6) Replace existing roof with flat terra cotta tiles and metal shingles at rear addition. Architecture A 2010 historic zoning application describes the building as follows: The house is one-and-a-half stories with a hipped roof, hipped dormers, and a wraparound porch…Above the front door there is a transom, an integral part of architecture of the period as well…The house still has 7 working transoms throughout the inside, which helped to circulate the air between rooms…The house has had a number of changes over the years. The house first appears on the 1922 Sanborn Fire Insurance Company map and shows a smaller footprint…[it] had a porch stretching all the way across the front of the house and another one along the east side. …Between 1922 and 1935, design of the house was modified to include a bay window, extend the sides and include a small porch in the middle of the back of the house. In 1962 the house was modified again — the bay window was brought forward a few feet onto the porch to create a larger living room inside — which eliminated the front porch in front of this window, and the back part of the side porch was enclosed to enlarge the bedroom. In 2008 the kitchen…was extended slightly to the rear…In 2010 the front porch was restored to again extend all the way across the front of the house (and free one of the original porch pillars from the wall built in 1962) by moving a modified version of the bay window back (Tim Cuppett was also the architect for this project). All of the finishes and details on the outside of the house are original with the exception of the new bay window.1 However, former Historic Preservation Officer Steve Sadowsky noted that the 2010 addition likely destroyed original fabric at the front of the house: …
ZONING CHANGE REVIEW SHEET CASE NUMBER: C14W2010-0022 HLC DATE: PC DATE: June 28. 2010 July26, 2010 December 13, 2010 February 22, 2011 APPLICANTS: Albert Percival, III and Kevin “Chuck” Hughes, owners HISTORIC NAME: Bones-Stokes House WATERSHED: Shoal Creek ADDRESS OF PROPOSED ZONING CHANGE: 1107 w qth Street ZONING FROM: SF3NP to SF3H-NP SUMMARY STAFF RECOMMENI)ATION: Staff cannot recommend the proposed zoning change from family residence — neighborhood plan (SF-3-NP) combining district to family residence — historic landmark — neighborhood plan (SF3-H-NP) combining district zoning because of recent significant modifications to the front of the house. The house is in the proposed Castle Hill Local Historic District. QUALIFICATIONS FOR LANDMARK DESIGNATION: Staff cannot recommend this house for designation as a historic landmark because the architectural character of the house changed substantially in the last year. The house had a projecting canted bay on the right side of the façade, which staff believes was original to the house in form, despite depictions on historical Sanhorn Fire Insurance Company maps. The canted bay was pushed forward several feet in a 1962 remodeling of the house, but still retained its essential form, if not location. In 2010, the owners replaced the canted bay with a boxed picture window, which, while sensitively designed, has compromised the historic appearance of the house to the extent that staff cannot recommend the house for individual designation as it no longer retains sufficient integrity of materials and design to convey’ its historic appearance. HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION ACTION: June 28, 2010: Postponed the case to July 26, 2010 at staffs request so that the applicants could meet with the Certificate of Appropriateness Committee for discussion of the new window on the July 26, 2010: Recommended denial of the proposed zoning façade of the house. change from SF3NP to SF3HNP due to the recent installation of the front window which has compromised the historic appearance of the house. Vote: 6-0 (Kleon absent). NOTE: The applicants were not present at the July 26, 2010 hearing and request a re-hearing of their application. December 13, 2010: The Commission’s action on July 26, 2010 to recommend denial of the proposed zoning change was not rescinded. The motion to rescind failed on a vote of 2-4 (Limbacher, Hansen. Kleon and Meyers opposed; Rosato absent). PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Recommended denial of the proposed zoning change from SF-3-NP to SF-3-H-NP due to the modifications to the front …
March 24, 2026 Kalan Contreras Principal Planner, Historic Preservation Office Austin Planning Dear Ms. Contreras, Here are responses to your questions: Q1: Will the existing window screens remain on the windows? It’s a little hard to tell in the photos, but it looks like there are currently exterior storm screens installed. Response: No. The windows will be replaced, including the screens. Q2: Will window openings at the main elevation change in size at all? Response: Yes. Two windows will be added to the living room, beside the existing two windows, matching the same size and proportion. Additionally, two windows at the dormer will be replaced with three. Q3: Will the height of the existing dormers change to accommodate the new windows? Response: No. Q4: Are there historic photos of the building showing a precedent for the tile roof? Response: Unknown. We could not find historic photos of the building. Q5: Could you please provide a close-up of the existing door and sidelight/transom? It’s a little hard to see in the photos provided on the plans. Response: Yes. See attached photo. Q6: Do you know when the existing trim was installed? (I’m assuming it was back in 2010ish when the front bay window was modified, but it will help to know if the trim appears older that that.) Response: No. Q7: Is the chimney to be removed entirely? Response: Yes. Q8: Can you include images of the proposed fence and gate to be installed? Response: No. The fence and gate have not yet been designed. Sincerely, Nathan Griffith, AIA Senior Project Manager 807 Brazos Street, Suite 800 Austin, Texas 78701 1001 Bannock Street, Suite 40, Denver, CO 80204 www.anderssonwise.com 512 476 5780 807 Brazos Street, Suite 800 Austin, Texas 78701 1001 Bannock Street, Suite 40, Denver, CO 80204 www.anderssonwise.com 512 476 5780
HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION Applications for Certificate of Appropriateness April 1, 2026 HR-2026-027548 Hyde Park Historic District 4010 Avenue B 11 – 1 Proposal Rehabilitate a contributing property and construct a single-family house in an adjacent vacant lot. Construct two garage structures at rear alley. Project Specifications 1) Repair and rehabilitate the existing house at 4010 Avenue B. 2) Construct a single-story rear addition behind the existing house, approximately 420 square feet in size. 3) Construct a two-story residence to one side of the existing house, currently an empty lot. Proposed design is similar in form to the existing and approximately 1700 square feet in size. 4) Construct two garage structures at the rear of the property behind the two houses, each approximately 528 square feet in footprint. These structures will be oriented to the rear alley, and no curb cuts are proposed at the Avenue B streetfront. Architecture The existing house, which is listed in city directories since at least 1900, is a two-story structure with an asymmetric appearance when viewed from the street. There is a front porch that occupies the left half of the front elevation, supported by wood posts. A front room projects toward the street at the right with a gabled roof above. The house is clad in horizontal wood siding and retains good integrity from the period. Alterations have been minor and appropriate to the original construction. Design Standards The Hyde Park Design Standards are used to evaluate projects within the historic district. The following standards apply to the proposed project: 1. General Standards 1.2. Retention of Historic Style Repair, rather than replacement, is proposed for materials at the property. No apparent alterations are to be made at the original house, with the exception of a rear addition minimally visible from the street and compatible to the overall design and style. 1.3. Avoidance of False Historicism As stated above, repair of the existing material will not attempt to alter the original appearance of the property. At the new construction to the side, the design is largely deferential to the historic and will not create the appearance of having been constructed at the same time. 3. Residential Standards: Single Family and Contributing Multifamily – Preservation and Restoration 3.1. Front of Houses Wood panel siding on the second floor is proposed to be replaced, though this was installed in the 1980s and not original to the building. …
GENERAL NOTES Codes 2021 International Residential Code 2020 National Electric Code 2021 Uniform Plumbing Code 2021 Uniform Mechanical Code Visit link below for more information https://publicinput.com/2021TechnicalCodeChanges 1. It is the intent of these Contract Documents to establish a high quality level of material and workmanship, but not necessarily to note and call for every last item of work to be done. Any item not specifically covered but deemed necessary for satisfactory completion of the work shall be accomplished by the Contractor in a manner consistent with the quality of work without additional cost to the owner. All material and methods of installation shall be in accordance with industry standards and manufacturer's recommendations. 2. The Contractor shall be responsible for a thorough review of all drawings specifications and existing conditions prior to commencement of work. This includes but is not limited to site utilities and the structural scope of work. The failure of the Contractor to report discrepancies and seek modification or change prior to commencement of work shall be construed as full acceptance of the condition in question by the Contractor. The Contractor shall assume responsibility for all work depicted by the Contract Documents regardless of whether the Subcontractors agree as to whose jurisdiction certain areas of the scope of work are under. 3. It shall be assumed that the Contractor and the Subcontractors are sufficiently experienced to be considered qualified in their respective work responsibilities. The Contractor shall insure that the Owner receives acceptable workmanship common to the industry from all Subcontractors and material suppliers and is responsible for hiring qualified staff personnel and/ or Subcontractors as necessary. 4. The Contractor shall verify the location of all existing utilities so that the work may proceed safely and be coordinated among all Subcontractors and personnel involved. The Contractor shall notify the Owner and Designer in advance of any work required by public utility entities that will affect the cost of schedule of the work. 5. The contractor shall meet all safety requirements applicable in the city of Austin and maintain a safe working environment for all personnel and occupants during the entire project. The jobsite is to be kept orderly and as clean as possible during all construction activities. 6. This drawing set is provided to communicate only the basic design of the building. Structural design by others, all plumbing and Electrical shall also be design build and shall be …
HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION Applications for Permits in National Register Historic Districts April 1, 2026 HR-2026-017990 Old West Austin Historic District 2502 Wooldridge Drive 12 – 1 Proposal Construct a new carport and storage space, construct a new front porch structure, revise the roofline, and install new windows. Project Specifications 1) Construct a carport at the existing curb cut, and pour a new driveway in the location of an existing driveway. 2) Construct a storage room behind the proposed carport, along with a gym and pantry to be connected to the side of the main house. 3) Construct a new front porch and roof structure extending across the full front of the original house. Architecture House is a two-story, L-shaped plan that features some early ranch-style elements. These are noticeable at the original ground floor, where the horizontality is emphasized when viewed from the street. The walls at this floor are clad in white cast stone, and the second floor with vinyl siding. The roof is set at a shallow-to-moderate pitch, which is gabled on the ground floor and hipped above. Though it has been heavily added on to, the original contributing structure remains legible. Research After construction in the early 1940s, the house was first owned by Walter & Leona Moore, who were both retired. By 1947, Walter Moore passed away, and Leona lived at the property until her passing in 1958. The property was then purchased by France & Eugene Tips. Design Standards 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 districts. The following standards apply to the proposed project: Residential additions 1. Location Additions are mostly to the side of the house, with the porch alterations occurring directly at the front of the property. However, this work does not add interior square footage, but rather alters the roof at this location into a flat assembly. This is not in keeping with the intention of the design standards, but does not run counter to them either. 2. Scale, massing, and height Additions are a single story, and to the side of the property, creating a massing behind the front line of the house and largely out of the way. 3. Design and style Proposed additions largely match the existing in style and design, but the scale and form …
HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION Applications for Demolition and Relocation Permits April 1, 2026 PR-2026-022411; GF-2026-025343 1406 Garden Street 13 – 1 Proposal Demolish a ca. 1903 house and later carport and garage. Architecture The house at 1406 Garden Street appears to originally have been a wing-and-gable Folk Victorian building, constructed around the turn of the century. It features horizontal wood siding and traditional cornice returns at gable ends, though a wraparound porch shown in Sanborn maps appears to have been removed around 1971, and a small gabled hood with triangular brackets constructed over the door in the 1930s or 1940s. Outbuildings on the site were constructed during the 1970s. Research The house at 1406 Garden Street was constructed around the turn of the 20th century. Its earliest recorded owner in city directories was Mrs. Maggie Piper, a widow who shared her home with two of her children. She sold it to another widow, Rachel Jones, around 1906. By 1912, Jones had sold it to J. C. and Mary Elizabeth Fox; J. C. Fox is listed as “retired” in directory listings but appears to have lived in Austin for some time per obituaries. After his wife’s death in 1914, Fox took in boarders, remarried, and tried to sell the home, but failed; he and his current wife both died in 1920. The home was then rented briefly to the Jones family, and then to Mrs. Elizabeth Frame, who eventually purchased it. Frame lived in the home for a little under ten years. Throughout the 1940s, various short-term renters occupied the home before it was purchased by Augustina and Hubert Halsell, who remained there until the late 1970s. Most of the home’s modifications appear to have taken place while Augustina Halsell owned the home. Department Comments April 1, 2026 is the first meeting at which the demolition application will be discussed. Property Evaluation The 2016 East Austin Historic Resources 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 moderate integrity. The character-defining porch was removed late in the period of significance, but no major modifications occurred after the 50-year cutoff. 3) Properties must meet two criteria for landmark designation (LDC §25-2-352). Staff have evaluated the property and determined that it does not meet two criteria for landmark designation: a. Architecture. …
Briefing on FY 2026 Heritage Preservation Grant Recommendations Austin Arts, Culture, Music and Entertainment | April 1, 2026 Award Announcements! ▪ 731 Awards announced on March 16th (1,606 applications submitted) ▪ $24+ million in grant awards ($67+ million in requests) Austin Live Music Fund Creative Space Assistance Program • 399 awards • $7.14 million • 22 awards • $1.32 million Elevate • 288 awards • $12.8 million Heritage Preservation Grant • 22 awards • $3 million 2 Heritage Preservation Grant Program The purpose of the Heritage Preservation Grant is to preserve and restore historic sites and preservation activities that are actively marketed to tourists. Based on State Statute Ch. 351, the project must: ▪ Be used for historical restoration and preservation projects or activities to encourage tourism to visit preserved historic sites. ▪ At, or in the immediate vicinity of, Convention Center facilities or visitor information centers; ▪ Located in the areas that would be frequented by tourists and convention delegates 3 FY26 Program Highlights ▪ Historic preservation projects and history-focused activities that promote the site’s history to tourists ▪ Project Types: ▪ Heritage Event up to $50,000 or up to $150,000 ▪ Capital Improvement Project up to $250,000 ▪ Term: 24 months for Capital Projects; 12 months for Heritage Events ▪ Eligible: 501(c)(3) Non-Profit and For Profit ▪ Funds preservation project costs (no match) ▪ Online Application in Eng/Spn ▪ Outreach and Education: Virtual and In-Person Awareness Workshops ▪ Outreach and Education: New Applicants ▪ Outreach and Education: Creative Collaborations ▪ (Once awarded) Tourism Marketing Training in Eng/Spn REQUIREMENTS ▪ Marketed to attract and expand audiences and tourism ▪ Open and Accessible grounds ▪ Occurs in Austin City Council District or ETJ 4 Review Process • Interdepartmental staff review PRE-PANEL • Heritage Events (with or without a historic designation) • Capital Improvement Projects Panel Types • Preservation architects, museum educators, Preservation expertise historians, tourism professionals 5 Heritage Preservation Grant Scoring Criteria Preservation Impact – Up to 36 Points Tourism Impact – Up to 36 Points New Voices, Historic Places – Up to 18 Points New Local Historic Designation – Up to 10 Points 6 FY26 Grant Overview FY26 Heritage Preservation Grants Application: Stats 473% Increase in Eligibility Forms (126 submitted) 109% Increase in Applications Received (45 submitted) FY26 Recommended Heritage Preservation Grants: Stats 22 Preservation Project Awards (over $3M) 72.73% Awarded Proposals from New Applicants 72.73% Local Historic Designation …
Historic Landmark Commission – Barton Springs Rd. Bridge Update April 1, 2026 Eric Bailey, P.E. – Deputy Director Capital Delivery Services Barton Springs Road Bridge 100years old built in 1926 1946 Bridge Expansion 20,000 Vehicles per day Key Entrance to Zilker Park and for Major City Events FUNDING SOURCE: • Preliminary Design: 2012, 2018 and 2020 Bonds • Design: 2020 Bond • Construction: FHWA/City 2 Project Development Process - PRELIMINARY PHASE 2015 - 2023 - DESIGN PHASE 2024 - 2027 - CONSTRUCTION PHASE 2027 - 2029 PUBLIC MEETING April 2023 RESPOND TO COMMENTS Summer 2023 REFINE REPORT Fall 2023 COUNCIL ACTION December 2023 60% DESIGN + NEPA PUBLIC MEETINGS + BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS FINAL DESIGN AND PERMITTING BID AND AWARD + COUNCIL ACTION CONSTRUCTION WE ARE HERE Current Condition Spalling Concrete in Bridge Structure Concrete Cores Delamination of Beams Curb And Railing Do Not Meet Current ADA Standards Load Restricted As Of November 2023 – Heavy Vehicles Moving Eastbound Must Use Outer Lanes 4 Analysis Structural and Mobility Analysis: • • • • External Structure - Spalling Concrete • ADA compliance – Pedestrian Circulation Internal Structure – Deteriorating Steel Geotechnical Data –Replacement Design • Pedestrian and Bicycle Mobility – no improvement to existing condition Cost/Benefit Analysis – extended life vs. cost Historic Analysis: • Coordinated with US Army Corps (USACE) and Texas Historic Commission (THC) • The bridge is a contributing feature to the Zilker Park Historic Landmark designation • The Texas Historic Commission has approved potentially fully replacing the bridge. As the process continues, the final design will be reviewed and approved by USACE and THC. 5 Project Options 6 Bridge Rehabilitation Bridge Structure Rehabilitation 1 Remove Existing Bridge Deck and Spandrel Columns 2 Remaining Portion of Existing Structure 3 New Components: Exterior Pairs of Arch Ribs, Spandrel Columns, Deck, and Abutment Extensions Less than half of the original structure will remain Remaining structure will require refacing with new material surfaces View of old arches will be mostly blocked by new structure 7 City Council Actions 1 Direction from Council in 2020 Bond Resolution (20200812-011): 2 Previous Council Action/Hearings: 11/30/23 – Council conducts a public hearing to recommend the bridge replacement alternative 12/12/23 – Council work session on the recommended option 12/14/23 – Council conducts a public hearing and directs Staff to pursue replacement option 03/07/24 – Council Directs TPW Director to apply for a federal bridge …
URTH CAFFÈ HLC -COMMISSION MTG April 1st, 2026 22222404040404023232323234040404040 MaMaMaMaMarcrcrcrcrch h h h h 23232323232323232323 20202020202626262626 , , , , 20 2222240404040402323232323 4040404040 MaMaMaMaMarcrcrcrcrch h h h h 23232323232323232323 20202020202626262626 , , , , 20 UUUUURRRRRTTTTTHHH CCCCCAAAAAFFFFFFFFFEEEEE:::: DDDDEEEETTTTTEEEEERRRIIIOOOORRRRRAAAAATTTTTIIIIIOOOOONNNN RRRRREEEEEPPPPPOOOOORRRRRTTTTT Dear Members of the Historic Landmark Commission: This letter is intended to clarify the site conditions and field decisions that led to a greater degree of demolition than originally proposed during our 2024 presentation. First, we wish to acknowledge that the extent of the demolition exceeded initial expectations. However, the report below outlines the harsh structural realities discovered on-site that necessitated the difficult decision to retain a smaller percentage of the original envelope than planned. This report details the specific damage found on every demolished wall and the technical rationale behind those actions. We want to clarify that the sections currently remaining on-site should not be viewed as exempt from the systemic damage documented in this report. Rather, these sections were retained as part of a strategic, surgical effort to preserve specific components, with the ultimate goal of restoring the building to its full architectural glory. While a total preservation of the entire structure was our preferred approach, the extent of the systemic decay made such a path both structurally unsound and economically unfeasible. The team elected to focus preservation efforts on the primary, most significant facade. The other walls required reconstruction to properly integrate modern systems and ensure long-term viability. Our approach focuses on three key pillars: · Modern System Integration: Incorporating necessary waterproofing, structural reinforcement, and code-compliant utilities that the original compromised structure could no longer support. · Structural Longevity: Preventing the imminent failure that would have occurred had we attempted to patch the existing, deteriorated sections. · Historic Fidelity: Replicating all original detailing, profiles, and facade treatments with exacting precision to ensure the building’s visual contribution to the district remains unchanged. It is important to note that the intended use of the building and property has not changed; the property and building will function as a restaurant. The high- intensity operational needs of such a program placed cumulative stresses on the historic structure that it was never designed to handle. Over the years, these commercial requirements resulted in a level of internal deterioration that made total preservation a physical impossibility. Our primary objective is to reconstruct the building in a way that accommodates modern restaurant standards while maintaining …
Sturgill, Hunter From: Sent: To: Subject: Sturgill, Hunter Tuesday, March 24, 2026 9:42 AM Historic Preservation Office FW: Support for Rezoning Case for Marilyn Webb Hunter Sturgill (she/her) Planner II Historic Preservation Office Austin Planning 512-974-3393 hunter.sturgill@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: brenda malik Sent: Monday, March 23, 2026 5:31 PM To: Sturgill, Hunter <hunter.sturgill@austintexas.gov> Cc: Marilyn Poole Subject: Support for Rezoning Case for Marilyn Webb You don't often get email from Learn why this is important External Email - Exercise Caution Greetings, My name is Brenda Malik, longtime resident and past president of the Rogers-Washington-Holy Cross Historic Neighborhood. Mrs. Webb and family have been valued community members for decades and have a treasured place in our neighborhood's history and culture. I fully support her efforts in this rezoning request. Please forward my sentiments to the Commission. Sincerely, Brenda Malik 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 1
March 30, 2026 RE: Hill-Thompson House Historic Designation Dear Chair Heimsath, Vice Chair Evans, and Members of the Austin Historic Landmark Commission, Preservation Austin exists to empower Austinites to shape a more inclusive, resilient, and meaningful community culture through preservation. We write today in support of historic designation for 1906 Maple Avenue, also known as the Hill-Thompson House, for its historic associations and community value. We are proud to partner with the home’s owner, our friend Marilynn Poole Webb, in preparing this well-deserved nomination. The house at 1906 Maple Avenue is associated with several significant figures, including architect John S. Chase, FAIA, zoologist and geneticist Oscar Thompson, and civic leader Irene Hill-Thompson. John S. Chase was the first African American student to enroll at The University of Texas at Austin following desegregation, the first to graduate from UT’s School of Architecture, and the first licensed African American architect in Texas. When he was unable to find work at white architecture firms after graduation, Chase forged a practice for himself with residential and institutional commissions in Black East Austin that speak to his distinctive modernist vision, including the Teachers State Association of Texas Building (1952), David Chapel Missionary Baptist Church (1959), and the Della Phillips House (mid-1960s). Throughout his long and successful career as an architect and entrepreneur, Chase paved the way for future African American architects in Texas. Like Chase, Oscar Thompson was among the first African American students to enroll at The University of Texas at Austin, and was the school’s first Black graduate in 1952. After Thompson’s passing in 1962, his wife, Irene Hill-Thompson commissioned Chase to build her home in the Rogers-Washington-Holy Cross neighborhood. Hill-Thompson was a longstanding civic leader in East Austin, and the house served as a meeting place for political and community organizing. During Lyndon B. Johnson’s 1964 presidential campaign, Irene and her daughter, Ida Dawn, were selected as “Blue Birds,” a group of trusted community liaisons tasked with outreach and voter engagement efforts within Austin’s African American community. Irene hosted numerous political events at her Maple Avenue home, for President Johnson, U.S. Congressmen Lloyd Doggett, East Texas Black Republican operative Ernest Sterling, J.J. “Jake” Pickle, and Texas State Senator Gonzalo Barrientos. This legacy of civic engagement extends to the home’s current owner, Irene Hill-Thompson’s niece Marilynn Poole Webb, a leader in the Rogers-Washington-Holy Cross Historic District effort and longtime friend and collaborator of …
TARA A. DUDLEY, PhD 130 Palmetto Cove Kyle, Texas 78640 (512) 317-5536 March 27, 2026 City of Austin Historic Landmark Commission Historic Preservation Office P.O. Box 1088 Austin, TX 78767 Dear Commissioners, I write to you expressing the strongest support of landmark designation for the Hill-Thompson House at 1906 Maple Avenue—an extraordinary site where architecture, community leadership, and Black history in Austin intersect in profound and enduring ways. Designed in 1963 by pioneering architect John Saunders Chase, the Hill-Thompson House represents a defining early moment in his career as his first residential commission in Austin. Chase, the first African American graduate of the University of Texas School of Architecture and the first licensed Black architect in Texas, brought a refined mid-century modern vocabulary to East Austin and Black Austinites—adapting modern design influenced by the Usonian principles of Frank Lloyd Wright to the cultural, climatic, and social realities of a segregated city. This home, with its careful siting, climate- responsive overhangs, and balance of privacy and openness, reflects both accessibility, innovation, and intention. Yet the significance of this house extends far beyond architecture. It is deeply rooted in the lives and legacies of its original owner, Irene Hill Thompson. Mrs. Thompson’s husband Oscar Thompson was a groundbreaking figure in his own right—the first African American graduate of the University of Texas, earning his master’s degree in zoology in 1952 and contributing to early research in genetics. After his untimely death in 1962, the construction of this home became both a personal and symbolic act. Designed by his close friend John S. Chase, the house reflects resilience, friendship, and Mrs. Thompson’s determination to build a life and legacy for her family in the face of loss. Irene Hill Thompson herself stands as one of the most significant civic figures associated with Austin’s history. During a 34-plus-year career with Austin Independent School District (AISD)—much of it at L. C. Anderson High School—she mentored generations of students and young professionals while also serving as a leader in civic, political, and cultural life. Her home was not merely a private residence; it was a vital gathering place for community organizing, political engagement, and social life in East Austin. From hosting campaign events during the 1964 presidential campaign of Lyndon B. Johnson to welcoming local and state leaders such as Lloyd Doggett and Gonzalo Barrientos, the Hill-Thompson House functioned as a hub of grassroots democracy and …
