24.c - 2505 Indian Trl - public comment — original pdf
Backup
All documents
26.2 - 1810 Dexter St - applicant additional information — original pdf
Historic Landmark Commission Supplemental Owner Provided Information 1810 Dexter Street, Austin, Texas 78704 PR-2022-116243; GF-2022-120476 September 7, 2022 Owner Statement Although we recognize the significant mid-century architectural contributions made by Architect A.D. Stenger, the integrity of the original design of 1810 Dexter has been irrevocably compromised by demolition of original elements and multiple structural additions to the front and rear of the home. These modifications not only compromised the design integrity and historical significance, but more than likely have contributed to the structural failures present in the home's current condition. The property owner does not wish to pursue historical designation. The property owner respectfully requests that the Commission decline to initiate historic zoning on the property and release the demolition permit for approval. Because the property presents a potential hazard to health or safety, the owner intends to demolish the structure upon issuance and release of the demolition permit. Property Overview 1810 Dexter was originally built in 1953. The property was purchased by the current owner on March 28, 2022. The buyer performed a general condition assessment of the structure, interior finish, and lot at the time of purchase. Available City of Austin building permits and associated records pertaining to the property were also reviewed. The assessment concluded that the property is distressed, with obvious indications that the foundation and structural components are significantly compromised. The purchase price did not reflect fair market value based on the known and obviously identified structural integrity and related issues, including the following: ● Significant site drainage issues surrounding the addition at the front of the house; ● Identified sub-slab water infiltration preferential pathways; ● Structural load path defects and resulting major cracking and shifting of framing components; ● Sloping and sagging foundation, despite a previously permitted and completed foundation repair in 2012 that included the installation of 37 piers below the slab on grade foundation; ● Significant interior water damage, including subfloor damage and bowing and sloping floors; and ● The presence of mold. 1810 Dexter Street is not located in a historical district. Since original construction the residential structure has been modified and expanded. The following permits were approved and received final building inspections by the City of Austin: ● 1996-015197 BP "Addn to Exist Living Room For Sf Residence"; 9/25/1996 ● 1999-008101 BP "Demo Existing Front Patios/Wd Decks/ Carport"; 8/5/1999 ● 1999-010916 BP "Addn To Mstrbdrm / Bth / Dining / …
3.0 - Historic Design Standards — original pdf
Historic Design Standards City of Austin September 2022 Welcome In Austin, historic preservation encourages the preservation of historic buildings, structures, sites, and districts; promotes awareness of cultural and architectural heritage; and helps shape a more sustainable, equitable, and livable place. As the city grows, these Historic Design Standards will help property owners, designers, builders, and historic preservation professionals make consistent decisions about how to meet present-day needs while stewarding local built heritage and achieving larger goals. Clear standards and graphics show good practices, as well as changes to avoid. The Historic Design Standards were created by a working group representing property owners, designers, developers, advocates, and the Historic Landmark Commission. The working group sought to develop locally relevant standards grounded in national preservation principles. Many members are laypeople, and readability was a key concern: the standards needed to be understandable by property owners and neighbors considering whether to apply for historic district designation, as well as by architects. A Maintenance and Preservation chapter and illustrated glossary support those who want to learn more about architectural elements and materials. The Historic Design Standards promote long-term sustainability by supporting the retention and repair of existing buildings, which keep tons of old-growth wood and other material in use and out of the landfill. They also support sustainable solutions for making buildings more energy efficient now, from high-impact improvements like attic insulation and duct sealing to DIY changes such as weather-stripping around windows and doors. Historic Preservation Office staff are available to answer questions and provide feedback on proposed projects. Reach out to preservation@austintexas.gov or call (512) 974-3393. Left cover image: People looking out over Austin, ca. 1940s Acknowledgments Design Standards Working Group The Historic Landmark Commission created the Design Standards Working Group on September 24, 2018 to create a new set of historic design standards, with the goals of providing clear, user-friendly standards and guidelines for all historic property owners and of simplifying the historic district application process. This document is the product of the working group’s efforts and is modeled on the Preservation Austin design standards template produced through a community initiative in April 2011. David Carroll, AIA Urban Design Commission, preservation architect Janet Beinke Historic district property owner Cara Bertron Historic Preservation Office staff Madeline Clites Preservation consultant Angela Gaudette Historic Preservation Office staff Laura Keating Urban Design staff Marie Oehlerking-Read Texas Historical Commission staff (prev.) Misael Ramos Representative from potential …
3.1 - Historic Design Standards FAQs — original pdf
Frequently Asked Questions This FAQ sheet is intended to provide a brief orientation to the Historic Design Standards. Please contact preservation@austintexas.gov if you have further questions. 1 Why were the Historic Design Standards I own a property in a locally designated historic developed? Don’t we already have standards for district. How will the Historic Design Standards 3 historic properties? affect me? The Historic Design Standards were developed to clarify existing standards for historic landmarks and National Register districts. They will also make the historic district application process easier and more equitable for new districts. The Historic Design Standards will not affect previously agreed-upon design standards for existing historic districts. They do align with existing district design standards and may be adopted by property owners within each district if desired. The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation form the foundation of preservation practice in the United States and are used in Austin to evaluate proposed changes to historic landmarks and in National Register districts. However, these very general standards can be hard to interpret when planning and evaluating specific projects. The Historic Design Standards clarify them with more specific good practices and illustrations. Right now, community members compiling a historic district application must hire a consultant or learn how to develop their own design standards. Then multiple rounds of review are required with other property owners and City staff. This adds time and cost to the application process—and results in design standards that are nearly identical to those for other districts. The Historic Design Standards will provide a consistent, predictable set of standards for all areas considering historic district designation. I own a historic landmark. How will the Historic 2 Design Standards affect me? If adopted by City Council, the Historic Design Standards will clarify existing standards for exterior changes to historic landmarks, as well as new construction on landmarked properties. The Historic Design Standards are based on the standards that City staff and the Historic Landmark Commission already use to evaluate projects. However, they are clearer, more specific, and easier to use. No process changes are proposed. 4 I own a property in a National Register district. How will the Historic Design Standards affect me? If adopted by City Council, the Historic Design Standards will clarify existing guidelines for National Register district properties. The Historic Design Standards are based on the standards that City staff and the Historic Landmark …
3.2 - Preservation Austin letter of support (2022) — original pdf
September 2, 2022 Terri Myers, Chair City of Austin Historic Landmark Commission Re: Proposed Historic Design Standards Dear Ms. Myers, Preservation Austin exists to empower Austinites to shape a more inclusive, resilient, and meaningful community culture through preservation. We write today to reiterate our support of the Historic Preservation Office's proposed Historic Design Standards. Our organization wrote a letter in support of the design standards in 2020. Since then, the landscape of preservation in Austin has shifted dramatically, making the adoption of the standards an even greater priority. Having a set of clear, citywide design standards is integral to the success of the forthcoming Equity-Based Historic Preservation Plan, which seeks to outline strategies to protect our diverse built and cultural heritage. In the spirit of the plan, these standards will increase equity and accessibility in Austin’s local historic district application process. Our organization has adopted Underrepresented Heritage as an Advocacy Priority for the past three years and has committed to identifying, protecting, and celebrating sites associated with under-told histories. We see the citywide design standards as an encouragement to many groups who would not have the time or resources to develop unique standards for their proposed district. With recent changes in state law making the creation of local historic districts even more challenging, lessening the barriers to designation and the protections it provides is critical. The design standards will also streamline the Historic Landmark Commission process for city staff, developers, and advocates alike by providing clear and consistent standards. We believe this will create a more efficient and effective process for the benefit of all. We also believe the standards support the preservation of our city's diverse heritage, for the people of Austin, in a way that's compatible with increasing density. From commercial districts to neighborhoods, the standards provide guidance for balancing much-needed density with much-needed preservation and lay out a clear roadmap to achieving both of these goals. The standards also eliminate inconsistencies in the process, enabling builders and developers to work within a clear framework while providing the flexibility needed to be site-specific and creative. Preservation Austin encourages the Historic Landmark Commission to support the proposed Historic Design Standards. We know they will be an asset to our city for years to come. Thank you for your service to the community, Linda Y. Jackson, President
3.3 - Preservation Austin letter of support (2020) — original pdf
November 13, 2020 Terri Myers, Chair City of Austin Historic Landmark Commission Re: Proposed Historic Design Standards Dear Ms. Myers, Preservation Austin exists to empower Austinites to shape a more inclusive, resilient, and meaningful community culture through preservation. We write today to respectfully support Austin's Historic Preservation Office's proposed Historic Design Standards. We commend the time-intensive and community-focused efforts of the working group and the Historic Preservation Office staff. We believe that the design standards will increase equity and accessibility in Austin’s local historic district application process. Preservation Austin has adopted Underrepresented Heritage as an FY21 Advocacy Priority. We see the citywide design standards as an encouragement to many groups who would not have the time or money to develop unique standards for their proposed district. We are optimistic the design standards will encourage new local district applications. At the same time, these design standards will streamline the Historic Landmark Commission process for city staff and advocates alike by providing clear and consistent standards. We believe this will create a more efficient and effective process for the benefit of all. We also believe the standards support the preservation of our city's diverse heritage, for the people of Austin, in a way that's compatible with increasing density. Preservation Austin knows how crucial density is for Austin's future and appreciate that the standards do not discourage density but rather recognizes that it can occur alongside preserving our historic neighborhoods. Preservation Austin encourages the Historic Landmark Commission to support the proposed Historic Design Standards. We know they will be an asset to our city for years to come. We again recognize the dedication that went into creating these standards and hope to see them adopted. Thank you for your service to the community, Clayton Bullock, President
3.4 - AIA Austin letter of support — original pdf
December 11, 2020 Honorable Mayor Adler Honorable City Council Members City Manager Spencer Cronk Re: Historic Design Standards Recommendation Dear Mayor and City Council Members, Given that Architects will be some of the primary users of the proposed Historic Design Standards, AIA Austin has been closely following their development and adoption process. With several of our members serving on the Historic Landmark Commission’s Design Standards Working Group, we are pleased to have been a major stakeholder and contributor in this endeavor. As no city adopted design standards exist today, there is little guidance in the current historic preservation process. Therefore, we believe this document is an important tool as it will finally provide a consistent and predictable set of design standards for Historic Landmarks, National Register District properties, and future local Historic Districts in Austin. Further, it will provide for a clearer application process, making historic designations easier to attain and in a more equitable way. While we would like to see a little more guidance for building elements related to adaptive reuse, as found in the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards, we recognize that this document is meant to serve all building types and believe it is a great step forward for the city. As outlined in the Imagine Austin Comprehensive Plan, the city should strive to maintain and preserve our historic resources. To this end, AIA Austin supports the work done by the Historic Preservation Office, and the Design Standards Working Group, and strongly encourages City Council to adopt the Historic Design Standards. Sincerely, Eric Rauser, AIA AIA Austin President The American Institute of Architects AIA Austin 801 W. 12th Street Austin, TX 78701-1709 512-452-4332 www.aiaaustin.org
4.6 - 6301 Bluff Springs Rd - Sebron Sneed House - Preservation Plan Letter — original pdf
Backup
8/3/2022 Draft Minutes — original pdf
HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION WEDNESDAY, August 3, 2022 – 6:00 PM CITY HALL - Council Chambers 301 W. 2nd Street Austin, TX 78701 Some members of the Commission may be participating by videoconference. The meeting may be viewed online at: http://www.austintexas.gov/page/watch-atxn-live. COMMISSION MEMBERS: x Terri Myers, Chair x Ben Heimsath, Vice Chair x Anissa Castillo ab Witt Featherston x Kevin Koch x Carl Larosche x Harmony Grogan x Trey McWhorter x Blake Tollett x Beth Valenzuela x Caroline Wright DRAFT MINUTES CALL TO ORDER PUBLIC COMMUNICATION: GENERAL The first (10) speakers who register to speak no later than noon the day before the meeting will be allowed a three-minute allotment to address their concerns regarding items not posted on the agenda. Meghan King gave an update from Preservation Austin about upcoming events and opportunities. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. July 6, 2022 – Offered for consent approval MOTION: Approve the minutes, per passage of the consent agenda, on a motion by Commissioner Heimsath. Commissioner Koch seconded the motion. Vote: 10-0. BRIEFINGS 2. Law Department – Update with Grants Committee 1 Presenter: Neal Falgoust 3. Initial Concepts for Heritage Wayfinding Design Presenter: Melissa Alvarado and John Bosio PUBLIC HEARINGS/DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION Historic Zoning Applications 4. C14H-2022-0098 – 1605 Leona St. – Discussion Donley-Goode-Walton House Council District 1 Proposal: Owner-initiated historic zoning. Owner: Nneka Shoulds City Staff: Kalan Contreras, Historic Preservation Office, 512-974-2727 Staff Recommendation: Recommend historic zoning. Nneka Shoulds spoke in favor of historic zoning. There were no speakers in opposion. MOTION: Close public hearing, on a motion by Commissioner Larosche. Commissioner McWhorter seconded the motion. Vote: 10-0. MOTION: Recommend historic zoning based on architectural significance and historical associations, on a motion by Commissioner Heimsath. Commissioner Castillo seconded the motion. Vote: 10-0. Historic Landmark and Local Historic District Applications 5. HR-2022-084104 – 6301 Bluff Springs Rd. – Discussion Sebron Sneed House Council District 2 Proposal: New construction (Postponed July 6, 2022) Applicant: Christi Mueck City Staff: Kimberly Collins, Historic Preservation Office, 512-974-1801 Committee Feedback: recommend stabilizing the ruins, an engineering stabilization plan, and ongoing archaeological monitoring of any excavation within the historic footprint. In addition, they continued the request that development does not obscure the view of the ruins. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends postponing to the next HLC meeting on September 7, 2022 until the applicant brings the Commission a Preservation Plan containing the following elements: a professional engineering report with stabilization …
2 - Preservation Plan - presentation — original pdf
EQUITY-BASED PRESERVATION PLAN Historic Landmark Commission briefing—September 7, 2022 Cara Bertron, Rocio Peña-Martinez, Julia Brookins, Meghan King PRESERVATION PLAN WORKING GROUP Michelle Benavides Jolene Kiolbassa Mary Reed* Noel Bridges Julia Brookins* Ursula A. Carter Mary Jo Galindo* Jerry Garcia Hanna Huang* Kevin Koch Lori Renteria Kelechi Madubuko Gilbert Rivera Brenda Malik Maria Solis* Alyson McGee Erin Waelder Leslie Ornelas Brita Wallace* Emily Payne Bob Ward Linda Y. Jackson Rocio Peña-Martinez* Caroline Wright Meghan King* Misael Ramos* *Drafting Committee member 2 PRESERVATION PLAN WORKING GROUP 12 months 22 working group and drafting committee meetings 1,100 hours 3 GOAL Replace Austin’s 1981 preservation plan with an inclusive, equity-focused, and community- oriented process and outcome ) t h g i r ( l i i n o s u c n I l a c o S d n a n o i t a v r e s e r P , ) r e t n e c d n a t f e l ( n i t s u A f o y t i C / r i a h C n e p O : s e g a m I 4 COMMUNITY-BASED PROCESS Equity-based preservation plan WHAT Draft plan • Vision • Draft recommendations Engage community • Refine/expand framework • Timeline and metrics • Partners ENGAGEMENT Preservation Plan Working Group, with targeted input Grounded in broad, inclusive community engagement WHEN GOAL 2021-22 Draft framework 2022-23 Plan adoption 5 COMMUNITY-BASED PROCESS Equity-based preservation plan WHAT Draft plan • Vision • Draft recommendations Engage community • Refine/expand framework • Timeline and metrics • Partners ENGAGEMENT Preservation Plan Working Group, with targeted input Grounded in broad, inclusive community engagement WHEN GOAL 2021-22 Draft framework 2022-23 Plan adoption July ‘22 ULI Technical Assistance Panel Fall ‘22 - Summer ‘23 Community outreach & engagement around draft plan 6 COMMUNITY-BASED PROCESS Professional facilitator Icons from the Noun Project: Community by Gan Khoon Lay, focus group by mikicon, committee by Adrien Coquet 7 COMMUNITY-BASED PROCESS 8 COMMUNITY-BASED PROCESS ✔ Affordable housing advocate ✔ Archaeologist ✔ Architect ✔ Attorney ✔ Business owner ✔ City board or commission ✔ Community member ✔ Contractor ✔ Developer Economic development organization (withdrew) ✔ Educational institution ✔ Engineer ✔ Heritage organization Heritage tourism professional (withdrew) ✔ Historic property owner ✔ Historical commission (City, County, State) Landscape architect (withdrew) ✔ Neighborhood association ✔ Preservation organization ✔ Preservation consultant ✔ Religious …
Play video — original link
Play video
Item 2 - Work Group Membership Sept. 2022 — original pdf
Commission for Women Working Group Membership Updated September 2022 Homelessness Rebecca Austen Flannery Bope Pam Rattan Safety Health Desiree Bermea Neva Fernandez Juliana Gonzales Josie Serrata Amanda Lewis* Flannery Bope Juliana Gonzales Diana Melendez Josie Serrata Jocelyn Tau Vanessa Bissereth Priscilla Cortez Diana Melendez Quality of Life Study Rebecca Austen Vanessa Bissereth Diana Melendez Pam Rattan Josie Serrata *Community participants Recognition of Equity for Women and Girls
20220907-002: Shoal Cycle SP-2021-0350C Recommendation — original pdf
1 ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION MOTION 20220907-002 Seconded by: Perry Bedford Date: Sept. 7, 2022 Subject: Shoal Cycle, SP-2021-0350C Motion by: Jennifer L. Bristol WHEREAS, the Environmental Commission recognizes the applicant is seeking the removal of a Heritage tree with a single stem over 30 inches in diameter and; WHEREAS, the Environmental Commission recognizes the request meets City Arborist approval criteria set forth in LDC 25-8-624(A)(2) and that staff recommends this variance; WHEREAS, the Environmental Commission recognizes mitigation for this site shall be addressed by planting two (2) Live Oaks at 5-inch caliper as street trees. These two trees are proposed to have adequate soil to ensure survivability and, when planted, will have a combined crown surface area that will rival the thinning canopy of the existing 32-inch Live Oak. In addition, the remaining inches owed will be paid to the Urban Forest Replenishment Fund for a total of $18,500. THEREFORE, the Environmental Commission recommends the variance request with the following Environmental Commission Conditions: 1. VOTE 10-1 For: Aguirre, Barrett Bixler, Bedford, Bristol, Brimer, Nickells, Schiera, Scott, Ramberg, and Qureshi. Against: Pam Thompson Abstain: None Recuse: None Absent: None Approved By: Include the 5-year tree care plan for the 5-inch trees being planted to replace the Heritage Tree. Kevin Ramberg, Environmental Commission Chair
20220907-003: BKO Parmer SP-2021-0034D Recommendation — original pdf
1 ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION MOTION 20220907-003 Seconded by: Kevin Ramberg Date: Sept 7, 2022 Subject: BKO Parmer (SP-2021-0034D) Motion by: Jennifer Bristol WHEREAS, the Environmental Commission recognizes the applicant is requesting to vary from LDC 25-8-342 to allow fill over 4 feet up to 12 feet and; WHEREAS, the Environmental Commission recognizes the site is located in the Harris Branch Watershed, Suburban, Desired Development Zone and; WHEREAS, the Environmental Commission recognizes that Staff recommends this variance, having determined the findings of fact to have been met. THEREFORE, the Environmental Commission recommends the variance request with the following: Staff Conditions: • • • and the following Environmental Commission Conditions: 1. 2. Work with staff to facilitate walking trails in the critical water quality zones. Work with staff to protect the riparian area/wetlands with signage or additional methods to best protect the wetland critical environmental features (CEFs) on site. Preserve trees/natural areas. Apply City of Austin Landscaping Ordinance on ETJ site. Provide structural containment of fill with a retaining wall. VOTE 11-0 For: Aguirre, Barrett Bixler, Bedford, Bristol, Brimer, Nickells, Schiera, Scott, Ramberg, Thompson, and Qureshi. Against: None Abstain: None Recuse: None Absent: None Approved By: Kevin Ramberg, Environmental Commission Chair 2
20220907-004: Environmental code amendments recommendation — original pdf
1 ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION MOTION 20220907-004 Seconded by: Ana Aguirre Date: September 7, 2022 Subject: Ordinance regarding amendments to Title 25 related to environmental protection, landscape requirements, and site plan requirements Motion by: Kevin Ramberg RATIONALE: WHEREAS, the Environmental Commission recognizes all the hard work that staff has done on the proposed amendments to Title 25 related to environmental protection, landscape requirements, and site plan requirements, and WHEREAS, there are many elements in the proposed amendments that the Environmental Commission supports; however, the Commission needs additional time to review in detail the concerns about other elements of the proposed amendments. THEREFORE, the Environmental Commission recommends postponing consideration of the ordinance regarding amendments to Title 25 related to environmental protection, landscape requirements, and site plan requirements until the next regular Environmental Commission meeting on September 21, 2022. VOTE 8-2 For: Aguirre, Bedford, Brimer, Bristol, Ramberg, Qureshi, Scott, and Thompson Against: Schiera and Barrett Bixler Abstain: None Recuse: None Absent: Nickells Approved By: Kevin Ramberg, Environmental Commission Chair
Recording of 9/7/2022 meeting — original link
Play video
2 - Preservation plan - updated presentation — original pdf
EQUITY-BASED PRESERVATION PLAN Historic Landmark Commission briefing—September 7, 2022 Cara Bertron, Rocio Peña-Martinez, Julia Brookins, Meghan King PRESERVATION PLAN WORKING GROUP Michelle Benavides Jolene Kiolbassa Mary Reed* Noel Bridges Julia Brookins* Ursula A. Carter Mary Jo Galindo* Jerry Garcia Hanna Huang* Kevin Koch Lori Renteria Kelechi Madubuko Gilbert Rivera Brenda Malik Maria Solis* Alyson McGee Erin Waelder Leslie Ornelas Brita Wallace* Emily Payne Bob Ward Linda Y. Jackson Rocio Peña-Martinez* Caroline Wright Meghan King* Misael Ramos* *Drafting Committee member 2 PRESERVATION PLAN WORKING GROUP 12 months 22 working group and drafting committee meetings 1,100 hours 3 GOAL Replace Austin’s 1981 preservation plan with an inclusive, equity-focused, and community- oriented process and outcome ) t h g i r ( i n o s u c n l I l i a c o S d n a n o i t a v r e s e r P , ) r e t n e c d n a t f e l ( n i t s u A f o y t i C / r i a h C n e p O : s e g a m I 4 COMMUNITY-BASED PROCESS Equity-based preservation plan WHAT Draft plan • Vision • Draft recommendations Engage community • Refine/expand framework • Timeline and metrics • Partners ENGAGEMENT Preservation Plan Working Group, with targeted input Grounded in broad, inclusive community engagement WHEN GOAL 2021-22 Draft framework 2022-23 Plan adoption 5 COMMUNITY-BASED PROCESS Equity-based preservation plan WHAT Draft plan • Vision • Draft recommendations Engage community • Refine/expand framework • Timeline and metrics • Partners ENGAGEMENT Preservation Plan Working Group, with targeted input Grounded in broad, inclusive community engagement WHEN GOAL 2021-22 Draft framework 2022-23 Plan adoption July ‘22 ULI Technical Assistance Panel Fall ‘22 - Summer ‘23 Community outreach & engagement around draft plan 6 COMMUNITY-BASED PROCESS Professional facilitator Icons from the Noun Project: Community by Gan Khoon Lay, focus group by mikicon, committee by Adrien Coquet 7 COMMUNITY-BASED PROCESS 8 COMMUNITY-BASED PROCESS ✔ Affordable housing advocate ✔ Archaeologist ✔ Architect ✔ Attorney ✔ Business owner ✔ City board or commission ✔ Community member ✔ Contractor ✔ Developer Economic development organization (withdrew) ✔ Educational institution ✔ Engineer ✔ Heritage organization Heritage tourism professional (withdrew) ✔ Historic property owner ✔ Historical commission (City, County, State) Landscape architect (withdrew) ✔ Neighborhood association ✔ Preservation organization ✔ Preservation consultant ✔ Religious …
3.1 - Historic Design Standards presentation — original pdf
1 HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION BRIEFING SEPTEMBER 7, 2022 Historic preservation is a tool to steward change. 2 Design standards provide a clear, objective way to evaluate proposed changes. DESIGN STANDARDS Historic districts 3 Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation 1. A property will be used as it was historically or be given a new use that requires minimal change to its distinctive materials, features, spaces, and spatial relationships. 2. The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces, and spatial relationships that characterize a property will be avoided. 3. Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or elements from other historic properties, will not be undertaken. 4. Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right will be retained and preserved. 5. Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved. 6. Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature will match the old in design, color, texture, and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features will be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence. 7. Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, will be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials will not be used. 8. Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken. 9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not destroy historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new work will be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment. 10. New additions and adjacent or related new construction will be undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. Historic landmarks + National Register districts DESIGN STANDARDS Historic districts 4 Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation 1. A property will be used as it was historically or be given a new …
Play audio — original link
Play audio
Approved Minutes — original pdf
ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES 7, September, 2022 The Environmental Commission convened in a regular meeting on 7, September, 2022 at 6310 Wilhelmina Delco Drive in Austin, Texas. Commissioners in Attendance: Ana Aguirre, Audrey Barrett Bixler, Jennifer Bristol, Rick Brimer, Colin Nickells, Melinda Schiera, Kevin Ramberg, and Haris Qureshi. Commissioners in Attendance Remotely: Perry Bedford, Rachel Scott, and Pam Thompson CALL TO ORDER Chair Ramberg called the Environmental Commission Meeting to order at 6:01 P.M. PUBLIC COMMUNICATION: GENERAL None APPROVAL OF MINUTES AND ACTION 1. Approval the minutes of the Environmental Commission Regular Meeting on August 17, 2022, and the Environmental Commission Special Called Meeting on August 31, 2022 (5 minutes) The minutes of the August 17, 2022 Environmental Commission Regular Meeting and the August 31, 2022 Environmental Commission Special Called Meeting were approved on Commissioner Bristol’s motion, Commissioner Thompson’s second on a 9-0 vote. Commissioner Nickells abstained. Commissioner Scott was off the dais. PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. Name: Shoal Cycle, SP-2021-0350C Applicant: CJI Properties Inc. Location: 812 West 11th Street, Austin, Texas, 78701 Council District: District 9 Staff: Naomi Rotramel, City Arborist Ordinance: Heritage Tree Ordinance (LDC 25-8-641) Request: The applicant is seeking the removal of a Heritage tree with a single stem over 30 inches in diameter Staff Recommendation: The request meets City Arborist approval criteria set forth in LDC 25-8-624(A)(2). Thus, the variance is recommended. (30 minutes) A motion to close the public hearing was approved on Chair Ramberg’s motion, Commissioner Brimer’s second on a 11-0 vote. 1 3. A motion to approve the requested variance with conditions was approved on Commissioner Bristol’s motion, Commissioner Bedford’s second on a 10-1 vote. Commission Thompson voted nay. Name: BKO Parmer, SP-2021-0034D Applicant: Steve Jamison Location: 4801 East Yager, Austin, Texas 78754 Council District: None (Extraterritorial Jurisdiction) Staff: Tunde Daramola, Development Services Department Watershed: Harris Branch Watershed, Suburban, Desired Development Zone Request: Request to vary from LDC 25-8-342 to allow fill over 4 feet up to 12 feet Staff Recommendation: Recommended with conditions (30 minutes) A motion to close the public hearing was approved on Commissioner Ramberg’s motion, Commissioner Qureshi’s second on an 11-0 vote. A motion to approve the proposed variance with conditions was approved on Commissioner Bristol’s motion, Commissioner Ramberg’s second on an 11-0 vote. Chair Ramberg recessed the meeting at 7:48 P.M. Chair Ramberg called the meeting back to order at 8:00 P.M. DISCUSSION AND ACTION ITEMS 4. …