PEASE RESIDENCE 1 6 0 8 P E A S E R O A D , A U S T I N , T X 7 8 7 0 3 The use of these plans and specifications is restricted to the original site for which they were prepared. Re-use, reproduction or publication by any method in whole or in part is prohibited, unless authorized by John West Stoddard, Inc. Ownership of the design, plans and specifications is solely with John West Stoddard, Inc. ISSUED: 1 11-05-2025 m o c . d r a d d o t s w j : w w w 1 7 2 4 . 7 8 9 . 2 1 5 : p I T E S W E V E R C L H 5 2 0 2 - 5 0 - 1 1 JOHN WEST STODDARD, INC. THESE DOCUMENTS ARE PRELIMINARY AND SHOULD NOT BE USED FOR REGULATORY APPROVAL, PERMITTING, OR CONSTRUCTION 7 0 . 5 2 0 2 : r e b m u N j t c e o r P 3 0 7 8 7 X T , n i t s u A , d R e s a e P 8 0 6 1 I I : s u t a t S j t c e o r P D B T : e t a D e u s s I e c n e d i s e R e s a e P DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: DATE: PERMIT: JWS JWS 11-05-25 COVER SHEET A-0.0 VIEW FROM REAR POOL AREA VIEW FROM PEASE ROAD - RIGHT VIEW FROM PEASE ROAD - LEFT S S N N W W E E D T S CW PW SP The use of these plans and specifications is restricted to the original site for which they were prepared. Re-use, reproduction or publication by any method in whole or in part is prohibited, unless authorized by John West Stoddard, Inc. Ownership of the design, plans and specifications is solely with John West Stoddard, Inc. ISSUED: 1 11-05-2025 SITE LEGEND CONSTRUCTION DUMPSTER CHEMICAL TOILET MATERIALS STAGING AREA CONCRETE WASHOUT PAINT WASHOUT SPOILS PLACEMENT SILT FENCE CONSTRUCTION FENCE GAS SEWER WATER TELEPHONE ELECTRICAL WASTE WATER SF F G SS W T E WW HVAC EQUIPMENT H POOL EQUIPMENT P EXISTING HOUSE TO BE DEMO'D OVERHEAD POWER LINES CONSTRUCTION ACCESS ROUTE DEMO …
HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION Permits in National Register Historic Districts December 3, 2025 HR-2025-144243 Sixth Street Historic District 210 West 6th Street 11 – 1 Proposal Rehabilitate a contributing building for use as a food service and event space. Project Specifications 1) Install awnings above windows at south and west facades, in the same locations as historic awnings. 2) Replace glass at non-original windows at the west façade with textured glass to obscure kitchen services and allow for ventilation to be installed. 3) Paint non-original entry doors at north façade, which date from 2020. 4) Replace non-historic handrail at Sixth Street entry. 5) Install two pairs of doors at the north façade for egress and accessibility routes. 6) Install rooftop screening at west bay roof to visually obscure kitchen equipment. 7) Install signage at south and north elevations, with additional logos on awnings at south and west facades. Architecture The following is from the site’s historical marker: Claudia Taylor Johnson Hall The University of Texas System Constructed during the period 1912-1914. This building was the seventh United States post office location in Austin, Texas. The supervising architect for the neo-classical revival style structure was James Knox Taylor of the U.S. Treasury Department. It was built by Dieter and Wenzel Construction Company of Wichita, Kansas, at a cost of $172,987. The land cost $40,000. Following construction of a new post office and federal building in 1965, the building was given to the University of Texas system by the federal government; it was remodeled into administrative offices by the university in 1970. The building was named in honor of Claudia Taylor Johnson, wife of the 36th president of the United States of America. The building was previously owned by the University of Texas system, and underwent some rehabilitation at the building envelope in 2020. Since that time, it has sat vacant. 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: Repair and alterations 1. General standards Several areas of proposed work are to occur in locations where original material has already been removed. In consultation with Historic Preservation Office staff, the scope of work has been adjusted to direct work to these areas where alteration or removal of non-historic material is easily …
LOCATION OF PROPOSED WORK South Façade PROPOSED MATERIAL(S) Sunbrella Awning Fabric, Color: Dubonnet Tweed; see Appendix B in attached exhibits 1 PROPOSED WORK Five (5) new awnings above entry door/windows, plus two (2) new awnings at SW/SE windows located on second floor. Awnings consistent with original historic images, but modernized. Each awning will feature a small logo identity. Total signage area for entire elevation not to exceed 50 SF. 2 Replace (in reversible fashion) South Façade non-historic glass at two (2) SW windows (last updated ~ 2017) with textured architectural glass to obscure kitchen equipment and mitigate moisture/dust issues behind kitchen cleanable surfaces and window. 3 Paint three (3) entry doors and door frames to match north window system (current color is non-historic, last updated ~ 2020) 4 Replace non-historic handrails (added ~ 2020). Final design TBD, to be respectful and mindful of historic nature of building. 5 Seven (7) new awnings above entry door/windows. Awnings consistent with original historic images, but modernized. Each awning will feature a small logo identity. Total signage area for entire elevation not to exceed 40 SF. 6 Replace (in reversible fashion) non-historic glass at six (6) windows (last updated ~ 2017) with textured architectural glass to obscure kitchen equipment and mitigate moisture/dust issues behind kitchen cleanable surfaces and window. Basis of design is Bendheim Houdini micro-fluted textured architectural privacy glass, 1/4" thick; see attached exhibits Paint Color: Iron Ore South Façade South Façade Metal handrails West Façade Sunbrella Awning Fabric, Color: Dubonnet Tweed; see Appendix B in attached exhibits West Façade Basis of design is Bendheim Houdini micro-fluted textured architectural privacy glass, 1/4" thick; see attached exhibits North Façade Metal sign; see Appendix B in attached exhibits 7 One (1) new sign to be mounted above glazing. Sign to be mounted in such a manner that will not affect the integrity of the exterior facade (attaching into mortar joints). Total signage area for entire elevation not to exceed 40 SF. 8 Add two (2) new pairs of doors North Façade required for accessibility and egress, designed to fit within mullion system and architectural details. Steel and glass doors; see attached exhibits Page 2 of 2 LOCATION OF PROPOSED WORK South Façade PROPOSED MATERIAL(S) Metal sign; see Appendix B in attached exhibits South Façade Metal sign; see Appendix B in attached exhibits West Façade Basis of design is Architectural Louvers VK2S; see attached exhibits PROPOSED …
HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION Demolition and Relocation Permits December 3, 2025 PR-2025-112941; GF-2025-121036 2821 Salado Street 12 – 1 Proposal Demolish a ca. 1925 house and garage and a ca. 1982 pool. Architecture The house is a one-story Spanish Eclectic bungalow with stucco cladding, an arched entryway, and a Mission-style tapered chimney. A front addition appears to have been constructed during the mid-twentieth century, as the building was converted into a duplex sometime after 1959. The garage is a simple board-and-batten structure with a pyramidal hipped roof. Research 2821 Salado Street was constructed between 1924 and 1925. Its first residents were Everette E. and Hattie C. Pittman. The Pittman family occupied the home for 55 years. Everette Pittman was a World War I veteran and University of Texas-educated civil engineer who served as the Chief Draftsman for the Texas Highway Department. He worked at the Department for 37 years before moving to the City of Austin’s engineering division. He died in 1962. Hattie Pittman continued to live in the home until her death in 1980. She was an avid entertainer and hosted the Book Trailers club for much of its 50-plus-year run. Property Evaluation The 2020 University-Windsor-Hyde Park historic resources survey lists both the primary building and the garage as contributing to a potential local historic district. Designation Criteria—Historic Landmark 1) The building is more than 50 years old. 2) The primary building appears to retain moderate integrity, while the garage appears to retain low integrity. 3) Properties must meet two criteria for landmark designation (LDC §25-2-352). Staff has evaluated the property and determined that it does not meet two criteria for landmark designation: a. Architecture. The building is a good example of Spanish Eclectic-style architecture, though the front addition introduces some incompatible elements. b. Historical association. The property does not appear to have significant historical associations. c. Archaeology. The property was not evaluated for its potential to yield significant data concerning the human history or prehistory of the region. d. Community value. The property was not evaluated for its ability to possess a unique location, physical characteristic, or significant feature that contributes to the character, image, or cultural identity of the city, the neighborhood, or a particular demographic group. e. Landscape feature. The property is not a significant natural or designed landscape with artistic, aesthetic, cultural, or historical value to the city. Staff Recommendation Strongly encourage rehabilitation and adaptive reuse, …
HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION Applications for Demolition and Relocation Permits December 3, 2025 DA-2025-142965; GF-2025-146214 Rosedale School 2117 W. 49th Street 13 – 1 Proposal Partially demolish a circa 1939 school building, deconstructing and reconstructing an original portion of the façade nearer to the street and constructing a 5-story apartment building atop the reclaimed façade. Architecture The Rosedale School is a one-story brick school building with Modern stylistic influences. The original portion of the building is a simple flat-roofed brick structure with decorative string courses and expansive multi-light casement windows. Additions, constructed between 1946 and 1949 by two firms (Kuehne, Giesecke, and Brooks and Page, Southerland, and Page), replaced the original entrance with glass block windows and shifted the new entrance eastwards. The new shed- and flat-roofed wings with multi-light casements, glass block ribbon windows, and brick veneer comprised 10 additional classrooms plus a gym and cafeteria/auditorium.1 A 1949 Austin Statesman article advertising the opening of the new addition notes that the “highly modern Rosedale school” is “considered a model of functional design” following Dr. Darrell B. Harmon’s principles for classroom design.2 The extensive use of glass block and retention of maximum natural lighting in four “experimental” classrooms was dictated by the design hypothesis developed by Harmon, Director of Educational Services in the State Health Department: The south side of Rosedale School will have special windows. …The blocks will promote even distribution of light, and the vision strip will allow the children to see out. The remaining four rooms will be equipped with auxiliary diffusers based on an original design by Dr. Harmon which are placed inside the windows. These diffusers obtain maximum benefit from direct sunlight without permitting excessive brightness and threw light upward and across the ceiling from which it is reflected downward on the child’s work. This will be the only school coordinating natural and artificial light…3 Harmon’s work on the “Rosedale model” of classroom illumination was influential to educational design on a national scale during the mid-20th century. In a 2008 article for the Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, Amy Ogata describes the impact of the Rosedale model on American school design: The planning, forms, and materials of postwar schools reflected ongoing research into airflow, lighting, and reflectivity…Darell Boyd Harmon, an educator and director of school services at the Texas State Department of Health, also explored how natural light varied in the classroom. …Believing that …
HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION Demolition and Relocation Permits December 3, 2025 DA-2025-141132 906 West 22nd Street 14 – 1 Proposal Demolish a ca. 1927 building. Architecture The property at 906 West 22nd Street in the West Campus neighborhood is a two-story intact Folk Victorian house with an L-shaped plan. It features a front porch at the right half of the front façade which is recessed under the second floor and supported by three wood posts. The house is built on piers and sits a few feet above grade. At the left, one leg of the L projects toward the street and is covered with a steep pitched gable, which creates enough height to house living space within. There appears to have been alterations made to the original roof above the porch to create more living space, which was permitted in 1948. It is unknown how much alteration of the original roof took place at that time. Research This house was originally owned by Jesse and Emily Hornsby, who were farmers either at this address or further out from Austin, making this possibly a second property closer to the city. Jesse Hornsby passed away in 1933, with the funeral services taking place at the property. For a short time after, the house was vacant, but was purchased around 1941 by David and Irene Crenshaw. At time of purchase, David Crenshaw was employed as a clerk, but in the next few years, through the 1950s and possibly further, made their living renting out rooms to University of Texas students. The address is connected with numerous names in periodicals form the time, typically students and other short-term renters It was during this time that the conversion of the second floor into additional living quarters occurred. Property Evaluation The 2020 North Central Austin historic resource survey lists the property as individually eligible for the National Register of Historic Places as well as eligible for a Austin City landmark. Designation Criteria—Historic Landmark 1) The building is more than 50 years old. 2) The building appears to retain moderate-to-high integrity. 3) Properties must meet two criteria for landmark designation (LDC §25-2-352). Staff has evaluated the property and determined that it may meet two criteria for landmark designation: a. Architecture. The building is a good example of Folk Victorian architecture, even with 1948 alterations. b. Historical association. The property does not appear to have significant historical associations. c. …
THE LOCATION OF EXISTING UNDERGROUND UTILITIES ARE SHOWN IN AN APPROXIMATE WAY ONLY. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL DETERMINE THE EXACT LOCATION OF ALL EXISTING UTILITIES BEFORE COMMENCING WORK. HE AGREES TO BE FULLY RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY AND ALL DAMAGES WHICH MAY OCCUR BY HIS FAILURE TO EXACTLY LOCATE AND PRESERVE ANY AND ALL UNDERGROUND UTILITIES. . p p A I S N O S V E R I 20 0 10 20 SCALE: 1" = 20' EXISTING LEGEND W W WW WW FIRE HYDRANT W/ GATE VALVE WATERLINE W/ GATE VALVE WASTEWATER W/ MANHOLE WASTEWATER W/ CLEANOUT STORM SEWER W/ MANHOLE CURB INLET 4-SIDED AREA INLET t e a D . o N OHE Z OVERHEAD ELECTRIC W/POWER POLE 3504 700 PROPERTY STREET ADDRESS GROUND CONTOUR TREE LEGEND TREE TO REMAIN (8"-18") TREE TO BE REMOVED (8"-18") PROTECTED TREE TO REMAIN (19"-23") PROTECTED TREE TO BE REMOVED (19"-23") HERITAGE TREE TO REMAIN (24"+) HERITAGE TREE TO BE REMOVED (24"+) DEMOLITION LEGEND LIMITS OF DEMOLITION DEMOLITION AREA DEMOLITION LINE TREE PROTECTION EROSION LEGEND LIMITS OF CONSTRUCTION SILT FENCE INLET PROTECTION ROCK BERM TREE PROTECTION MULCH LOG STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE CONSTRUCTION STAGING AREA TEMPORARY SPOILS AREA FLOW DIRECTION NOTES: 1. AE CUSTOMER SERVICE TO BE CONTACTED FOR DISCONNECTION OF ELECTRICAL SERVICES AT 512-494-9400 2. CAPPING AND PLUGGING OF WATER AND WASTEWATER SERVICES AS PER THE PLUMBING CODE ON PRIVATE PROPERTY WITHIN FIVE FEET (5') OF PROPERTY LINE. 3. EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROLS ARE TO BE PLACED OUTSIDE OF THE TREE PROTECTION FENCING. 4. SEE DETAIL 520S-2 ON SHEET 2 FOR ABANDONMENT OF W/WW SERVICES 5. TREE PROTECTION FENCING IS REQUIRED FOR ALL TREES WITHIN THE LIMITS OF DESTRUCTION ON SITE BEFORE DEMOLITION OCCURS. WHERE FENCING CANNOT BE PLACED TO PROTECT THE EXTENT OF THE CRZ WITH NATURAL GROUND COVER, PROVIDE AN 8” LAYER OF ORGANIC HARDWOOD MULCH OUTSIDE OF THE FENCING. 7. 6. STRAPPING 2X4 OR THICKER LUMBER (TO MATCH HEIGHT OF BUILDING) SECURELY AROUND TREE TRUNK, BUTTRESS ROOTS, AND ROOT FLARE, IS REQUIRED IF FENCING CANNOT GO AROUND THE ENTIRE HALF CRZ. IF PRUNING IS NECESSARY DURING DEMOLITION, IT SHOULD TAKE PLACE PRIOR TO THE START OF THE DEMOLITION PROCESS. IT MUST BE PERFORMED BY A QUALIFIED ARBORIST AND NO MORE THAN 25% IS PERMITTED. PROVIDE TREE PROTECTION FOR ALL TREES 8 INCHES OR GREATER IN DIAMETER. INSTALL TREE PROTECTION FENCING PRIOR TO ANY DEMOLITION ACTIVITIES. 8. 9. 10. CRITICAL ROOT ZONE …
HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION Applications for Demolition and Relocation Permits December 3, 2025 PR-2025-138065; GF-2025-144692 907 East 13th Street 15 – 1 Proposal Demolish a house constructed between circa 1873 and 1884. Architecture One-story center passage National Folk Style building with horizontal wood siding, a partial width front porch supported by turned posts, a side-gabled roof clad with standing seam metal, and double hung wood windows. While the front door has been replaced, the trim and transom above the window remain. Research The house at 907 E 13th St, originally addressed as 907 E Peach St, was built between 1873 in 1885 by Julius H. Nitschke. Nitschke and his family immigrated from Saxony, Germany in 1855. He and his four brothers owned and operated Nitschke Brothers Cabinetmakers on Congress Ave. Nitschke married Louisa Phillips in 1871. He worked as a carpenter, cabinet maker, and carpet layer until his death in 1910. His son, J.H. Nitschke Jr., also worked as a carpenter and dabbled in car repair and railroad work before becoming a career fireman. He sold 907 E 13th St. to the Goins family between 1912 and 1920. Anna Liza Goins, formerly of Manor, lived in the home until her death in 1956. She worked as a cook and as a laundress while also renting out rooms. Her children and their spouses lived with her intermittently throughout the early 20th century. After her death, her daughter Roxy Tucker lived there until at least the 1960s. The home’s occupancy is emblematic of how the demographics of this East Austin neighborhood changed. European immigrant families, numerous at the turn of the century, gradually migrated elsewhere while African American families were forced to migrate eastwards during the era of segregation. However, all of the building’s occupants were working class people who innovated to support their families and to build communities in the face of inequality and segregation. Property Evaluation The 2016 East Austin survey lists the property as eligible for local landmark listing, individual listing on the National Register of Historic Places, contributing to a potential local historic district, and contributing to a potential National Register district. Designation Criteria—Historic Landmark 1) The building is more than 50 years old. 2) The building appears to retain moderate integrity. The original porch was modified during the period of significance; the provenance of the existing turned posts is unclear. The porch was rehabilitated and incompatible asbestos siding …
HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION Applications for Demolition and Relocation Permits December 3, 2025 PR-2025-131605; GF-2025-144708 601 North Bluff Dr 16 – 1 Proposal Demolish a circa 1946 house. Architecture One-story house clad in rustic stone veneer capped with a cross gabled roof with exposed rafter tails, a partial width porch, and a large stone chimney. Research The House at 601 N Bluff Dr was constructed around 1946. Its first occupants were the Haffelder family. Thomas B. Haffelder was a butcher who worked at the Bonugli grocery store in Austin for 30 years before opening his own barbecue restaurant, called The Shanty, on Red River Street. Haffelder and his wife, Elizabeth, lived at 601 N Bluff until his retirement in 1978. Property Evaluation Designation Criteria—Historic Landmark 1) The building is more than 50 years old. 2) The building appears to retain high integrity. 3) Properties must meet two criteria for landmark designation (LDC §25-2-352). Staff has evaluated the property and determined that it does not meet two criteria for landmark designation: a. Architecture. The building is a good example of Texas Vernacular architecture with ranch style influences. b. Historical association. The property does not appear to have significant historical associations. c. Archaeology. The property was not evaluated for its potential to yield significant data concerning the human history or prehistory of the region. d. Community value. The property does not possess a unique location, physical characteristic, or significant feature that contributes to the character, image, or cultural identity of the city, the neighborhood, or a particular demographic group. e. Landscape feature. The property is not a significant natural or designed landscape with artistic, aesthetic, cultural, or historical value to the city. Staff Recommendation Encourage rehabilitation and adaptive reuse, relocation, or deconstruction and salvage over demolition, but approve the demolition permit application upon completion of a City of Austin Documentation Package. Location Map 16 – 2 Property Information Photos 16 – 3 16 – 4 Occupancy History 1955 Thomas Benton and Elizabeth Haffelder, owners – butcher Demolition Permit Application, 2025 1952 Tommie and Elizabeth Haffelder, owners — Meat cutter, Bonugli’s Red and White Grocery Historical Information 16 – 5 Birth certificate of Tomas Haffelder, 1908 The Austin Statesman (1921-1973); Austin, Tex.. 18 Feb 1944: 5. The Austin American (1914-1973); Austin, Tex.. 24 Aug 1947: A8. 16 – 6 Banister, Claire. The Austin American (1914-1973); Austin, Tex.. 08 May 1955: C4. The Austin American …
HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION Demolition and Relocation Permits December 3, 2025 PR-2025-137436 2611 Woodmont Avenue 17 – 1 Proposal Demolish a ca. 1940 building. Architecture Constructed with Tudor Revival elements and set back far from the street, the house at 2611 Woodmont Avenue evokes the appearance of an estate in West Austin. Design elements include a double chimney next to the main entry, several sequential gables facing the street underneath a steep cross gable running parallel to Woodmont Avenue, and several large metal windows on the front elevation. From the side facing Exposition Boulevard, a side driveway terminates at a non-historic carport. Given the site’s elevation, a lower level is visible from this side. The building appears to be in good condition and embodies the original form and style well. Research When the Tudor Revival house was completed in or slightly before 1940, the first owners were Leslie and Juanita Engelking, who lived there along with their daughter Doris, who was studying at the University of Texas. By 1944, the house had been sold to Howard and Eva Degler, the former of whom worked as a professor. By the late 1940s through at least 1959, the property passed to Richard & Violetta Weber, who raised their daughter Nancy at the address. Richard worked as a dentist after moving to Austin in the 1930s, and was employed at the Capital National Bank Building (now called the Norwood Tower) in downtown Austin. Property Evaluation Designation Criteria—Historic Landmark 1) The building is more than 50 years old. 2) The building appears to retain high integrity. 3) Properties must meet two criteria for landmark designation (LDC §25-2-352). Staff has evaluated the property and determined that it does not meet two criteria for landmark designation: a. Architecture. The building is a good example of Tudor Revival architecture in west Austin. b. Historical association. The property does not appear to have significant historical associations. c. Archaeology. The property was not evaluated for its potential to yield significant data concerning the human history or prehistory of the region. d. Community value. The property does not possess a unique location, physical characteristic, or significant feature that contributes to the character, image, or cultural identity of the city, the neighborhood, or a particular demographic group. e. Landscape feature. The property is not a significant natural or designed landscape with artistic, aesthetic, cultural, or historical value to the city. Staff Recommendation …
Page 5 of 5 Page 4 of 5 Page 2 of 5 Page 3 of 5 Page 1 of 5 i4, a L;ci( isl r.rY I -,, I9;.1 L dlt r -l- l BA@' L 5a/ "36 € r!-.ra €=- lr.,a. LOT ll s B LOCK t5 ! : .i .l -:.r I I ,. I-o -t- ll. ti- I ..1 l I I (r. ,i r] 6 ,[} tfl lff l,{ ] i o I ,.) i. I i w il t ,l),a 2-,569 ,64{!,." qrA u,5o7 6t5 *,ozz9f dd&^t ,l ,.] t I '; r,I "J I c 5..6- qd sEr J -1" pi &R r. 1;. . F a- __I tr 59 '!' t, Lol Ar^ = l\c * 27160 20+.86+ 5"?A 2 !-3r o 7--t t/. 0 5 lat hcrro is a rruc, correcr, and accurate reprcsentation of Eha prop.rt.,. is rjoEer.ir.d rvc!, Lhe lines and diDenstons of said propcrrv bcinS .ns in<ti.ared bi, rh€ pI".: tir. srz.J i,,o, .nd ryDc ol building and inproven.nts are shown, all inprovciicats b.:ira (.iti.ir: t,r. 1ri..-s oi thc properrv, except as €hoern, set back from tt,.i prop.rr, !incs t5,: disr.o.!s :rce.l. ..-';).:,.,.
HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION Demolition and Relocation Permits December 3, 2025 PR-2025-141795 3006 Fruth Street 18 – 1 Proposal Demolish a ca. 1936 building. Architecture This single-story Craftsman bungalow features a large front porch that stretches across the right two-thirds of the front elevation. This wall also features two sets of paired hung wood windows that appear to be original or well-made replacements. A broad front gable covers the porch, with a side gable behind covering the main house at a moderate pitch. The original, narrow teardrop siding is present and is in good condition. Research Upon construction in the mid-1930s, the property was owned by Jeanie Prewitt, who was employed by the Texas State Highway Department. Throughout her ownership of 3006 Fruth Street, one or more renters are listed as living at the address. This continued after the house was sold to Kellie Parsons, who lived at the address with her husband as well as family members and a cycle of short term renters, the most common being students at the University of Texas. Shortly after their purchase of the property, Kellie Parsons and her husband, Jack Lovell Wilkerson, welcomed their first child, who was raised at the address. Property Evaluation The 2020 North Central Austin historic resource survey lists the property as a contributing resource to either a potential Fruth Street local or national historic district. Designation Criteria—Historic Landmark 1) The building is more than 50 years old. 2) The building appears to retain high integrity. 3) Properties must meet two criteria for landmark designation (LDC §25-2-352). Staff has evaluated the property and determined that it does not meet two criteria for landmark designation: a. Architecture. The building is a good example of Craftsman bungalow architecture. b. Historical association. The property does not appear to have significant historical associations. c. Archaeology. The property was not evaluated for its potential to yield significant data concerning the human history or prehistory of the region. d. Community value. The property does not possess a unique location, physical characteristic, or significant feature that contributes to the character, image, or cultural identity of the city, the neighborhood, or a particular demographic group. e. Landscape feature. The property is not a significant natural or designed landscape with artistic, aesthetic, cultural, or historical value to the city. Staff Recommendation Encourage rehabilitation and adaptive reuse, relocation, or deconstruction and salvage over demolition, but approve the demolition permit …
HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION Demolition and Relocation Permits December 3, 2025 PR-2025-139336 812 Park Boulevard 19 – 1 Proposal Demolish a ca. 1937 building. Architecture This single-story, stone-clad house was constructed around 1937 but contains some design features that would become common to the ranch style commonly seen in many other parts of Austin. The low, horizontal form, with two separate front facing gables that bookend a long, low side gabled roof form, as well as the picture window alongside otherwise horizontally oriented fenestration, and the L-shaped plan would all become features of later developments, but here are combined with a white stone cladding and covered entryway that are more common to the older houses found on the rest of Park Boulevard. Decorative attic vents and two small, vertical windows on the front elevation appear to have embedded a slight Tudor Revival influence as well. Research The house was originally built for Ralph & Elizabeth Button of Button Ice Cream Company, which was developing into a larger organization after being founded some years before. However, this changed with the passing of Ralph Button in 1943, after which sole ownership passed to Elizabeth and after to Ralph Jr., who worked as a driver. Elton & Millo Marcum purchased the property after, and lived there for several years, adding on to the footprint in 1962. Property Evaluation The 2021 North Loop-Hancock-Boggy Creek historic resource survey lists the property as a medium priority and eligible as a contributing resource to a potential Park Boulevard historic district. Designation Criteria—Historic Landmark 1) The building is more than 50 years old. 2) The building appears to retain high integrity. 3) Properties must meet two criteria for landmark designation (LDC §25-2-352). Staff has evaluated the property and determined that it does not meet two criteria for landmark designation: a. Architecture. The building is a good example of an early ranch-inspired residence in this area of the city. b. Historical association. The property does not appear to have significant historical associations. c. Archaeology. The property was not evaluated for its potential to yield significant data concerning the human history or prehistory of the region. d. Community value. The property does not possess a unique location, physical characteristic, or significant feature that contributes to the character, image, or cultural identity of the city, the neighborhood, or a particular demographic group. e. Landscape feature. The property is not a significant natural …
0 20 40 SCALE: 1" = 20' TREE LEGEND CRITICAL ROOT ZONE = DIAMETER EQUAL IN FEET TO TWICE THE NUMBER OF INCHES OF THE TREE'S TRUNK DIAMETER (P) (H) PROTECTED TREE (DIAMETER > 19") HERITAGE TREE (DIAMETER > 24") Tag No. Type Trunk 3237 3238 PECAN ASH 27 1/2 " (H) 21 " (P) LOT 2 MARCUM ADDITION VOL 83, PG 101C P.R.T.C. LEGEND CALCULATED POINT "X" MARK SET ON TOP OF COLUMN 1/2" IRON PIPE FOUND (UNLESS NOTED) GAS VALVE ELECTRIC MANHOLE WASTE WATER MANHOLE WATER METER CLEAN OUT POWER POLE ELECTRIC METER COMMUNICATIONS JUNCTION BOX SIGN VAULT AIR CONDITIONING UNIT WOOD FENCE EDGE OF PAVEMENT OVERHEAD UTILITY PROPERTY LINE ADJOINER LINE EASEMENT LINE CONCRETE AREA STONE AREA TOPOGRAPHIC, TREE AND SAG SURVEY OF LOT 1 MARCUM ADDITION SUBDIVISION VOLUME 83, PAGE 101C PLAT RECORDS, TRAVIS COUNTY, TX G E WW W CO PP E C CALLED 1.4720 ACRE DOC. NO. 2024121751 O.P.R.T.C. // \\\\ OHU OHU OHU W C A L HIC C U H A M L A T E B E A E T D P R S: S A L F 2 7°3 OIN E N C T F 7'0 E P R O M S 6 2°0 (S 59°38' E) (77.1') 3" E 7 7'5 7.0 9' S T 2' O 7"W 0.6 #271390 T O O H U P P O H U N G: 6 5: 6 O L 6: 6 6 E: 6 6 2 5 3.3' 2.9' 2.7' 2.2' // PP 3.5' 1.0' OFF O H U 3.6' U H O U H O // U H O U H O // U H O U H O U H O U H O 9.8' 1 O O H H U U O H U // O H U O O H H U U O O H H U U 26.2' STONE GARAGE FFE:623.97' 26.2' O H U 3.3' // O O H H U U O H U O O H H U U O H U // O O H H U U 5' E.E. (PLAT) 9.8' 1 O H U OHU O H U S A O H U // OHU O N O H U H U G: 652.7 G: 624.1' 6 2 4 E.E. S.B.L. VOL. PG. P.R.T.C. ON/OFF R.O.W. ( ) OHU NG ELECTRIC EASEMENT SETBACK LINE VOLUME AND PAGE PLAT RECORDS …
Sturgill, Hunter From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: patricia calhoun Monday, December 1, 2025 3:06 PM Historic Preservation Office patricia calhoun; Brenda Malik; Misael Ramos; Marilyn Poole 2406 E MLK, Jr. Blvd Demolition Protest Importance: High You don't often get email from Learn why this is important External Email - Exercise Caution Good afternoon, Hunter, Thank you for returning my call today regarding the Certificate of Appropriateness for 2406 E. Martin Luther King, Jr. Blvd.. I am a resident of the Rogers-Washington-Holy Cross Historic District and I am in favor of a Postponement of this ruling pending plans or some type of document showing the use of this property. This property is adjacent to an original and well-known homeowner of this Historic District; I would strongly object to approval for demolition without site plans or other documentation showing that the structure is not suitable for rehab. Thank you, Patricia Calhoun, ASID, IIDA, RID Patricia Calhoun THE PERFECT ADDITION 972-814-6543 (Cell) CAUTION: This is an EXTERNAL email. Please use caution when clicking links or opening attachments. If you believe this to be a malicious or phishing email, please report it using the "Report Message" button in Outlook. For any additional questions or concerns, contact CSIRT at "cybersecurity@austintexas.gov". 1
Sturgill, Hunter From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: 1(713)6282228 <ctmavayaalerts@austintexas.gov> Tuesday, December 2, 2025 8:19 AM Historic Preservation Office [Transcribed] Voice Message From: 1 (713) 6282228 VoiceMsg[ID=1414728 G=40 F=228 A=588B9018-E3E0-4915-B196-27EE696E9546 C=1 CID= 1(713)6282228].wav Hello, my name is Marilyn Webb. I'm a neighbor of case number 20. G F 202-514-4858. The 2406 East Mar(cid:415)n Luther King junior Boulevard. I object to this applica(cid:415)on. The builder or whoever owns the property has has never discussed the cer(cid:415)ficate of appropriateness of a demoli(cid:415)on at this contribu(cid:415)ng property. I would like to see any alterna(cid:415)ves to pull demoli(cid:415)on. As it is a contribu(cid:415)ng property. Please give me a call, I'm going to make an a(cid:425)empt to file this objec(cid:415)on. Thank you. Yes. 1
Sturgill, Hunter From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Dear Mr. Sturgill, Ora Houston Tuesday, December 2, 2025 9:49 AM Historic Preservation Office 2406 E. Martin Luther King, Jr., Blvd. - Case # - PR-2025-144142; GF 2025-144858 External Email - Exercise Caution I am Ms. Ora Houston and I own property at 1902 Maple Avenue, 78722, Lot 8 Washington Subdivision. Am requesting that the Historic Landmark Commission grant a postponement regarding the Certificate of Appropriateness for the above referenced Case number. The applicant, Dmitriy Dubrovsky has not been in contact with nor has had any conversations with anyone in the Rogers Washington Holy Cross Historic District! Rogers Washington Holy Cross will probably be the only Historic District possible within the six square mile boundaries of the African American Cultural Heritage District. That will be because of the stringent requirements imposed by the State Representative and State Senator who were elected to 'represent not repress' the people of the District. It is unthinkable that this Case would go forward without the Applicant having no conversations with the people in the District in order to have an understand of what can and can not be deconstructed and/or constructed on the site. How disrespectful of the history of citizens of Austin whose structures are continuing examples of how beautiful, creative, engaged and resourceful they were throughout this community, City and State. Please grant a postponement until those conversation(s) can be held! Respectfully, Ms. Ora Houston 2207 E. 22nd Street 512-472-2951 “Service is the rent we pay for the privilege of living on this earth. It is the very purpose of life, not something you do in your spare time.” - The Honorable Shirley Chisholm 1 CAUTION: This is an EXTERNAL email. Please use caution when clicking links or opening attachments. If you believe this to be a malicious or phishing email, please report it using the "Report Message" button in Outlook. For any additional questions or concerns, contact CSIRT at "cybersecurity@austintexas.gov". 2
Congress Avenue Urban Design Initiative Congress Avenue Urban Design Initiative Historic Landmark Commission Briefing | December 3, 2025 CAUDI Vision Plan "Congress Avenue, often called the "Main Street of Texas," is one of the most iconic, historic and lively streets in Austin. The Congress Avenue Urban Design Initiative (CAUDI) envisions a transformative urban design, placemaking, and implementation strategy for Congress Avenue between Riverside Dr. and 11th St.” “The goal of this effort is to create a multifunctional complete street with a dynamic public realm that contributes to Downtown Austin's evolution as a sustainable mixed-use downtown and supports Austin's identity as a unique and iconic cultural city." 2 Full Build Scenario Riverside Dr to South Shore of Lady Bird Lake (future, unfunded) Green Gateways (future, unfunded) Cesar Chavez St – 7th St (Planned First Phase, funded) Bridge Enhancements (Future, unfunded) 7th – 11th St (Future, unfunded) 3 How we got here & what we heard Grow into a plaza concept. Retail Street alternative north of 7th Street. High quality materials. Wider pedestrian zones. Support for trees. Balance parking, tree health, bikeway comfort, and pedestrian experience. 4 Planned First Phase Planned First Phase: Construction Impacts: Construction from Cesar Chavez St to Short-term vehicle detours possible 7th St starting early 2026 Timeline & Cost: Begins early 2026, continues through 2027 Approx. 3 months per block $13M budget for first phase Pedestrian access will remain open City + DAA campaign to support businesses 5 6 Trees Maintain existing trees unless identified as dead, diseased, or an imminent hazard. Provide new landscaped areas around trees with soil and hardwood mulch. Add new trees only as needed to fill significant canopy gaps or replace dead, diseased or hazardous trees – subject to further coordination. 7 Furnishings Above ground planters to be removed. Great Streets Furnishings proposed for trash + recycling receptacles, bike racks, and benches. Great Streets Bench Great Streets Bike Racks Great Streets Recycling Great Streets Trash 8 Pavers Match existing paver style. Use new OR salvaged pavers based on feasibility of removing existing pavers without damaging them. Typical granite paver style and size. Variations in pavers on 300 block. 9 Lighting Strategy: relocate light poles (only as needed) where they severely conflict with the proposed pedestrian path. Coordination ongoing. Example of …
Sturgill, Hunter From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: CLIFTON LADD Wednesday, November 26, 2025 3:47 PM Bat Taniguchi; Heimsath, Ben - BC; Larosche, Carl - BC; Grogan, Harmony - BC; Eppright, Harrison - BC; Alvarez, Jaime - BC; Acton, Jeffrey - BC; Rice, Judah - BC; Koch, Kevin - BC; Pleasant-Wright, Tonya - BC; McWhorter, Trey - BC Historic Preservation Office; Barbara Cilley; Susan Armstrong Fisher; Mary Fealkoff HLC meeting 12-3-25; item 9. PR-2025-142120 – 1806 Drake Ave. External Email - Exercise Cau(cid:415)on Good a(cid:332)ernoon, Commissioners - I am wri(cid:415)ng to urge you to deny the applica(cid:415)on for demoli(cid:415)on of 1806 Drake Avenue, as included on your agenda for your December 3 mee(cid:415)ng. 1806 Drake is a 1940s ranch-style home and a contribu(cid:415)ng structure in the Travis Heights - Fairview Park Na(cid:415)onal Register Historic District. We urge the owners to reconsider their applica(cid:415)on for demoli(cid:415)on and to look for ways to retain and remodel the exis(cid:415)ng home. Most of the homes in this block of Drake are contribu(cid:415)ng structures in the District, and it would be a shame to lose another valuable contribu(cid:415)ng home. We also note that the applicant has not provided any plans for what they would do on the property in place of the exis(cid:415)ng home. The Historic Landmark Commission must review plans for new construc(cid:415)on in Na(cid:415)onal Register districts before demoli(cid:415)on permits may be issued. The SRCC Historic Preserva(cid:415)on Commi(cid:425)ee does not agree to the demoli(cid:415)on of any contribu(cid:415)ng structure for which we do not have an opportunity to review replacement plans. There are many instances of similar homes being rehabilitated much more affordably than demolishing an exis(cid:415)ng home and building an en(cid:415)rely new one. We would hope that the owners would further consider this op(cid:415)on. Thank you for your considera(cid:415)on of these comments. Sincerely, Cli(cid:332)on Ladd SRCC Historic Preserva(cid:415)on Commi(cid:425)ee Co-Chair CAUTION: This is an EXTERNAL email. Please use cau(cid:415)on when clicking links or opening a(cid:425)achments. If you believe this to be a malicious or phishing email, please report it using the "Report Message" bu(cid:425)on in Outlook. For any addi(cid:415)onal ques(cid:415)ons or concerns, contact CSIRT at "cybersecurity@aus(cid:415)ntexas.gov". 1
Richard E. Anderson 2307 Woodlawn Blvd. Austin, Texas 78703 T: 512.538.0051 November 13, 2025 Via email preservation@austintexas.gov City of Austin Historic Preservation Office Permitting and Development Center 6310 Wilhelmina Delco Drive Austin, TX 78752 RE: 1608 PEASE ROAD, AUSTIN, TX To Whom it May Concern: Please accept this letter as my recommendation to demolish the duplex at 1608 Pease Road. The duplex was built in 1976, and the demolition would make way for a new home that honors and will contribute to the character of our neighborhood. For the past 25 years, my wife and I have lived at 2307 Woodlawn and are in favor of this demolition. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Richard E. Anderson /mjo
Claudia Taylor Johnson Hall Certificate of Appropriateness 1. Install awnings in same locations as historic awnings (south/west facades) 2. Replace glass at non-original windows (south/west facades) 3. Paint doors and frames (south facade) 4. Replace non-historic handrail (south facade) 5. 6. 7. Install accessibility doors (north facade) Install rooftop screening (west bay roof) Install signage (south/north facades) Install Sign (Compliant) Two New Accessibility Doors North Façade Install Rooftop Screening Install Awnings & Replace Glass West Façade Install Rooftop Screening Install Awnings, Replace Glass, and Paint Doors/Frames Install Signage (50 sf) Replace Handrail South Façade Lowered rooftop screening from 7 ft. to 5 ft. Confirmed glass replacement and door frame painting does not affect original or unaltered conditions. Revised south façade signage installation to have minimal impact on columns Removed trellis at patio Responsive to Committee Feedback Back-Up Slides
Sturgill, Hunter From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Vickie Schubert Monday, December 1, 2025 4:05 PM Historic Preservation Office GF2025-121036 Demo permit 2821 Salado St (followup) You don't often get email from Learn why this is important External Email - Exercise Caution Good afternoon. Prior to your meeting of December 3 I wanted to provide a follow-up to my previous email of November 14 in further support of demolition of the property at 2821 Salado. As of the time of my last email, the owner had just boarded up the house because an unhinged homeless man had taken up residence in the property and was yelling, breaking windows and who know what else in the house. It was a very uncomfortable and possibly dangerous situation to which the owner responded. In the two weeks since then, it has become a target of taggers (photos attached). They continue to visit the property and add more tags every several days. Finally today, I noticed the boarding over the back door has been torn off so either another homeless person has take up residence or the house is being scavenged for things like copper wire or both. In either case it has become a dangerous property to live next to and the costs of any sort of rehabilitation grow by the week. The developer met with Shoal Creek Neighborhood Association on November 17. The association decided to take no action to either support or oppose the project. I am urging and pleading with the Commission to take up this matter at the meeting of December 3 and approve the demolition so some positive progress can be made at the property. Thank you. Vickie Schubert 2819 Salado 1 2 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 3 Message" button in Outlook. For any additional questions or concerns, contact CSIRT at "cybersecurity@austintexas.gov". 4
Rosedale School – AISD 2117 W 49th Street Rosedale School – DA-2025-142965 City of Austin – Historic Landmark Commission – 12/3/2025 1940 Rosedale School – 2117 West 49th Street City of Austin – Historic Landmark Commission – 12/3/2025 Rosedale School – 2117 West 49th Street City of Austin – Historic Landmark Commission – 12/3/2025 Rosedale School – 2117 West 49th Street City of Austin – Historic Landmark Commission – 12/3/2025 Rosedale School – 2117 West 49th Street City of Austin – Historic Landmark Commission – 12/3/2025 Rosedale School – 2117 West 49th Street City of Austin – Historic Landmark Commission – 12/3/2025 Rosedale School – 2117 West 49th Street City of Austin – Historic Landmark Commission – 12/3/2025 Rosedale School – 2117 West 49th Street City of Austin – Historic Landmark Commission – 12/3/2025 Rosedale School – 2117 West 49th Street City of Austin – Historic Landmark Commission – 12/3/2025 Rosedale School – 2117 West 49th Street City of Austin – Historic Landmark Commission – 12/3/2025 Rosedale School – 2117 West 49th Street City of Austin – Historic Landmark Commission – 12/3/2025
Sturgill, Hunter From: Sent: To: Subject: Leslie Currens Monday, December 1, 2025 9:27 PM Historic Preservation Office Postpone the Demolition Permit Decision for Old Rosedale School You don't often get email from Learn why this is important External Email - Exercise Caution Dear Chairman Heimsath and commission members, As a neighbor near the Rosedale School, I request that you postpone a decision on the demolition of this property, as requested in case number: DA 25-142965. A legal fight over deed restrictions on the property is being waged in court, and it’s premature to consider a permit to demolish the building until the court case is resolved. The building itself may have useful life left on it. Until the future of the property is decided, it would be best not to demolish the building at this time. Sincerely, Leslie Currens 5615 Bull Creek Rd, Austin, TX 78756 CAUTION: This is an EXTERNAL email. Please use caution when clicking links or opening attachments. If you believe this to be a malicious or phishing email, please report it using the "Report Message" button in Outlook. For any additional questions or concerns, contact CSIRT at "cybersecurity@austintexas.gov". 1 Sturgill, Hunter From: Sent: To: Subject: Joshua Villarreal Monday, December 1, 2025 9:27 PM Historic Preservation Office Old Rosedale School You don't often get email from Learn why this is important External Email - Exercise Caution City of Austin Historic Landmark Commission, My name is Joshua Villarreal, I am a resident and owner of 4700 Rosedale Avenue, literally feet from the old Rosedale School. I am writing to express my concern as an Austin and Rosedale resident on the hearing tomorrow to decide the historical value and potential demolition of the school. It seems to be premature to hold this hearing while there is a court ruling in the balance on the site's existing deed restriction limiting a single residence per parcel, and the hearing should be postponed until there is clarity on what could be built on the site. There is also an active lawsuit from Austin Independent School District suing the Rosedale H homeowners, which includes myself and my wife. Pretty shocking to be sued by my own school district and feels like a breach of the social contract between citizens and their own government who is supposed to be for them, not against them. Thanks, -- Joshua Villarreal (210) 328-9679 CAUTION: This is an …
Sturgill, Hunter From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Trevor Howard Tuesday, November 25, 2025 8:20 PM Historic Preservation Office Clair Mattson Review Case Number: DA 25-142965 Objection to Demolition and Proposed Apartment Complex at 2117 W 49th Street You don't often get email from Learn why this is important External Email - Exercise Caution Dear Mr. Sturgill, Review Case Number: DA 25-142965 I am writing to express my strong opposition and objection to the proposed demolition of the property at 2117 W 49th Street, Austin, TX 78756 and the subsequent construction of the proposed apartment complex. The Rosedale neighborhood is a unique and cherished community, defined by its residential character, walkability, and family-friendly environment. The proposed project threatens to fundamentally alter this character. Specifically: • Neighborhood Integrity: The scale and density of the proposed complex are incompatible with the existing fabric of Rosedale. It risks eroding the sense of community that residents have worked hard to preserve. • Traffic and Safety Concerns: Increased traffic from a large apartment complex poses a serious danger in a neighborhood where children regularly play in the streets. The infrastructure here was not designed to handle such volume, and the risks to pedestrian safety are significant. • Quality of Life: Beyond traffic, the project would bring noise, congestion, and strain on local resources, diminishing the livability of the neighborhood for current residents. Said plainly, this project would ruin the character and safety of our neighborhood. I urge the Planning Department to reconsider approval of this demolition and development, and instead prioritize projects that respect the scale, safety, and integrity of Rosedale. To the extent that the demolition and proposed apartment complex are approved for construction, our family will strongly consider moving out of the neighborhood, despite not having the adequate financial resources to easily accommodate such a move. The risks associated with increased traffic and neighborhood density are not worth it given we have a 1 year old daughter and soon to be born child. 1 Thank you for your attention to this matter. I hope the voices of residents will be given full consideration in the decision-making process. I am available whenever to speak with you about our and our neighborhood's concerns with the project. Sincerely, Trevor Howard, Clair Howard 2210 W. 49th Street Austin, TX 78756 (m): 480-747-3339 CAUTION: This is an EXTERNAL email. Please use caution when clicking links or opening attachments. If …
Sturgill, Hunter From: Sent: To: Subject: Karrie Key Monday, December 1, 2025 9:28 PM Historic Preservation Office Rosedale School You don't often get email from Learn why this is important External Email - Exercise Caution AISD wants to sell this historic property to OHT Properties so that OHT can build a tall apt complex with 600 plus apartments. I wager no apt building of that size has been built when said building will be surrounded by old, tiny two lane roads. The presentation made by OHT’s lawyer insisted that Burnet Road ran parallels Rosedale parcel. Wrong. Either the lawyer is lying or he cannot read a map. If the project is built on the Rosedale school parcel, pedestrian and vehicular deaths will occur. Please designate the Rosedale parcel as a historic site. Best regards, Karrie Key 512 507 1456. CAUTION: This is an EXTERNAL email. Please use caution when clicking links or opening attachments. If you believe this to be a malicious or phishing email, please report it using the "Report Message" button in Outlook. For any additional questions or concerns, contact CSIRT at "cybersecurity@austintexas.gov". 1
Sturgill, Hunter From: Sent: To: Subject: Tom Goodrum Tuesday, December 2, 2025 7:44 AM Historic Preservation Office Postpone Decision on the Rosedale School Demo Permit You don't often get email from Learn why this is important External Email - Exercise Caution Dear Chairman Heimsath and commission members: I live at 4808 Shoalwood Avenue, near the former Rosedale School site, which, as you may know, served our most fragile children with special needs in Austin. I support the postponement request by the Play Fair with Rosedale and the Rosedale Neighborhood Association (DA 25-142965). I am utterly gobsmacked that AISD has sued 125 of my neighbors, including my wife and me, to try to nullify a deed restriction that allows only one residence per lot. Having never been sued before, I feel steamrolled, having had no prior notification that this was happening. As neighbors, we are fighting this in court, and believe it’s premature to consider a permit to demolish a building until the court case is resolved. I don’t know whether the school is historic, but there is absolutely no reason to decide on this now. Last time I was there with my dog (who has since passed), there was an area in the back corner where families had made a tribute to their deceased children. Walking through the area with special markers, painted rocks, and light catchers with the children’s names felt sacred - it’s clearly a meaningful place for those families. I’m not sure why AISD and OHT are in such a hurry to get a demo permit when there is a very good chance the courts will uphold the deed restrictions. For what it's worth, the neighbors are not opposed to having the building used, perhaps like Carpenters Hall, or as it has been most recently, for active shooter training. What we don’t want is for the Rosedale School to be bulldozed and replaced with a high-density apartment building when the streets and neighborhood aren't equipped to handle the cars that come with the (proposed) 435+-unit development. Our neighborhood is filled with young children being pushed in strollers, families walking their dogs, and older, white-haired ones hobbling along. There are no sidewalks, and because it’s so walkable and neighborly, cars drive slowly. If you agree to demolish Rosedale School without regard for what it will be replaced with, it is a mistake. Moreover, to make this decision without …
Sturgill, Hunter From: Sent: To: Subject: Raquel Gorny Tuesday, December 2, 2025 1:51 PM Historic Preservation Office Notice of Appeal Rosedale School You don't often get email from Learn why this is important External Email - Exercise Caution To whom it may concern - I live at 4519 Rosedale Ave and am a neighbor of the former Rosedale School site. I support the postponement request by Play Fair with Rosedale and the Rosedale Neighborhood Association on case number: DA 25-142965. AISD has sued125 neighbors of the site to try to nullify a deed restriction that only allows one residence per lot. We are fighting this in court and it’s premature to consider a permit to demolish the building until the court case is resolved. I don't know if the old school is historic or not, but there is absolutely no reason to make any decision on this right now. Why are AISD and OHT in such a hurry to get a demolition permit, when there is very good chance the courts will uphold the deed restrictions and make their project impossible? It’s shocking to be sued by our own school district. We shouldn’t even have to be dealing with the historic value of building at this time. It feels like AISD and OHT are trying to steamroll us. Please take our opinions into consideration. Thank you, Raquel CAUTION: This is an EXTERNAL email. Please use caution when clicking links or opening attachments. If you believe this to be a malicious or phishing email, please report it using the "Report Message" button in Outlook. For any additional questions or concerns, contact CSIRT at "cybersecurity@austintexas.gov". 1 Sturgill, Hunter From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Nitin Agrawal Tuesday, December 2, 2025 1:20 PM Historic Preservation Office Play Fair With Rosedale Please! Historic Landmark Commission Demo Permit Hearing on Rosedale School.pdf You don't often get email from Learn why this is important External Email - Exercise Caution Chairman Heimsath and commission members: My name is Nitin Agrawal, and I live at 4606 Rosedale Ave. I am a neighbor of the former Rosedale School site, and I am writing in support of the postponement request submitted by Play Fair with Rosedale and the Rosedale Neighborhood Association regarding case number DA 25-142965. As you may know, AISD has sued 125 neighbors of the site—including myself, if applicable—in an effort to nullify a long-standing deed restriction that allows …
Sturgill, Hunter From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Contreras, Kalan Tuesday, December 2, 2025 10:32 AM ; Historic Preservation Office FW: Historic Landmark hearing for Former Rosedale School Ramsey-Nitschke_Line.pdf Good morning, Mr. Allen, Thank you so much for sharing this with me! Though it is too late for this additional research to make it into the staff report, I will ask our HLC liaison, Hunter, to upload it as backup so that the Commissioners may review on their own. Kalan Contreras Principal Planner Historic Preservation Office Austin Planning 512-974-2727 kalan.contreras@austintexas.gov From: Chris Allen Sent: Tuesday, December 2, 2025 8:50 AM To: Contreras, Kalan <Kalan.Contreras@austintexas.gov> Subject: Re: Historic Landmark hearing for Former Rosedale School External Email - Exercise Caution Good morning! I thought you'd appreciate some more background history on the impressive line of Ramsey women who shaped Rosedale for generations. Doing all of my research on the deeds for the school parcel, I learned a lot. Winnie Ramsey (one of F.T. Ramsey's 3 developer daughters) and her husband Hilliare created the original Rosedale H subdivision in 1938 and sold several lots to the Austin school district that year for the construction of the original school building. By 1946, Winnie's daughter Alice and husband Harry Wilder later sold additional lots to the school district for the expansion of the school. During my time dealing with land use in Rosedale, I've had the distinct pleasure of working with Diane Wilder Davenport Howard, daughter of Alice, who developed the Rosedale Village project (where Gusto and Citizen Allday are). Diane is 83 today and is being SUED by AISD over the deed restrictions her grandmother wrote and AISD agreed to. Funny world!! Diane's daughter Casey Davenport operated a doggy day care for several years where Citizen's allday sits and still lives in the neighborhood. That's a mighty impressive group of women who had quite an influence on our neighborhood. Their husbands' names are all over the records, but the Ramsey women are the constant thread in the story of Rosedale. 1 A lot of this information came from Karen Collins' "Rosedale Ramble" history walks, which we helped produce in the '90s, but this document I found a few weeks ago filled in some of the blanks: https://www.charlottes-web.com/Ramsey-Nitschke_Line.pdf (copy attached) Have a great day! Chris On Mon, Dec 1, 2025 at 3:18 PM Contreras, Kalan <Kalan.Contreras@austintexas.gov> wrote: Good afternoon, all, We have queried our legal department …
906 W 22nd Street Historic Landmark Commission Item No. 14 2025-141132 DA December 3, 2025 1 Neighborhood Aerial 2 Site Aerial 3 Property Details Size: • 0.1613 acres, or approximately 7,027 square feet • All lots: 0.4993 acres, or approximately 21,753 square feet Protected Bike Lanes Current Use: • Multifamily (Apartments, 8 units) Transit/Access: • CapMetro 22nd and Pearl Stop: • Route 642 – (UT Shuttle Weekdays + Sundays) • All Ages and Abilities Bicycle Priority Network • Pearl Street – Protected two-way bike lanes 4 Zoning and FLUM Map CS-NP Mixed Use /Office MF-4-NP MF-4-NP Mixed Use Multi- family MF-4-NP MF-4-NP High- Density Mixed Use MF-4-CO- ETOD- DBETOD-NP MF-4-NP (Moderate High-Density Multifamily Residential – Neighborhood Plan) Mixed Use Mixed Use 5 Landmark Designation Criteria City Code requires that a property must demonstrate significance in at least two of the below criteria: i. Architecture ii. Historical Associations iii. Archeology iv. Community Value v. Landscape Feature 6 Landmark Designation Criteria City Code requires that a property must demonstrate significance in at least two of the below criteria: i. Architecture ii. Historical Associations iii. Archeology iv. Community Value v. Landscape Feature 7 Landmark Designation Criteria Significance i. Architecture • The property embodies the distinguishing characteristics of a recognized architectural style, type, or method of construction; exemplifies technological innovation in design or construction; displays high artistic value in representing ethnic or folk art, architecture, or construction; represents a rare example of an architectural style in the city; serves as an outstanding example of the work of an architect, builder, or artisan who significantly contributed to the development of the city, state, or nation; possesses cultural, historical, or architectural value as a particularly fine or unique example of a utilitarian or vernacular structure; or represents an architectural curiosity or one-of-a-kind building. ii. Historical Associations • The property has long-standing significant associations with persons, groups, institutions, businesses, or events of historic importance which 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. iii. Archeology • The property has, or is expected to yield, significant data concerning the human history or prehistory of the region; iv. Community Value • The property has a unique location, physical characteristic, or significant feature that contributes to the character, image, or cultural identity of …
