D.12.a - 502 E 42nd St - Citizen Comment — original pdf
Backup
All documents
A.2.3 - 1304 Bob Harrison St - Updated massing and materials — original pdf
1304 Bob Harrison - HLC Design Revisions Fox Fox Studio ---- May 24th, 2021 East Facade Street Facade Fox Fox Studio ---- May 24th, 2021 New Addition: Vertical Metal Siding Historic House: Existing Vertical Board and Batten West Facade Street/ West Facade Fox Fox Studio ---- May 24th, 2021 East Facade (new addition) North Facade (new addition) Fox Fox Studio ---- May 24th, 2021 Precedent Roof and Window Examples in Neighborhood 1211 E 13th Street 1405 Bob Harrison Street 1208 Bob Harrison Street (2 over 2 window 1707 Newton Street (roof type preference) 1172 1/2 San Bernard Street 1208 Bob Harrison Street Fox Fox Studio ---- May 24th, 2021 Remove Skylight on front roof Rebuild porch to existing specs Existing Vertical Board and Batten Color: Farrow & Ball, School House White No. 291 View 1: Street Facade Windows replaced with period Removed glass door and sidelight 2 over 2 window Fox Fox Studio ---- May 24th, 2021 View 2: Windows replaced with period 2 over 2 window Fox Fox Studio ---- May 24th, 2021 Existing underside of roof - no original cedar shingle View 3: Fox Fox Studio ---- May 24th, 2021
B.1.5 - 907-11 Congress Ave - presentation — original pdf
911-09-07 Congress Avenue Grandberry Building and Mitchell-Robertson Building, 911 Congress Avenue Historic District Congress Avenue Historic District May 24, 2021 Intro • Fall 2020: Complaints made to Building and Standards Commission (BSC) • March 24, 2021: BSC ordered Landowner to finalize all necessary permits with HLC by June 22, 2021 • March-April 2021 Meetings: Applicant team provided evidence that keeping building facades in place is not feasible • May 2021 Meeting: Applicant team brings • corroboration based on extensive and ongoing investigation June 2021 Meeting: Applicant team to bring Demolition Permit with finalized deconstruction and reconstruction plan 2 BSC Order Requires All Permits, including HLC, by June 22, 2021 3 Updates • • • • • Initial onsite investigation and conditional assessment of the buildings Safety Plan for Work, Neighbors and Public Contacted Austin History Center to locate any additional photos or documentation of the properties Initial scans of the building interior and exterior (Missing final scans of front facades and roof) Preliminary digital 3D model within Revit is underway 4 Updates • Received a 1985 memo of 907 written by Bell, Klein and Hoffman from Austin History Center which states, “[the brick] appears to be fire damaged in areas. After that was stuccoed and scored.” 1978 IMAGE 5 Updates • • • At some point in the late 70s 911 was covered in stucco. Facades have been hidden for a long time. • Modifications have done damage to the original fabric. All ornamentation is missing and would need to be replaced with new based on historic photographs. 1982 DWG 1978 IMAGE 6 911 - Visual Assessment • • Brick has been scored and stucco adhered directly. All ornamentation of the window headers, cornice, and brick sills were removed in the late 70s to early 80s for the addition of stucco. • Most of the original façade • has been lost. Stucco has severe deterioration. 7 909 - Visual Assessment • • Storefront is missing. Steel header is not adequate due to rust and deflection. • Noticeable cracks in the front • • façade. Structural columns are modern and not original. Existing (potentially original) brick below steel header has deteriorated and collapsed. • Upper portion of the building is in the best condition of the three structures. 8 907 - Visual Assessment • Most original features are • • missing. Stone, brick, and mortar are in poor condition with evidence …
B.7.2 - 4006.5 Avenue B - Supplemental materials — original pdf
Supplemental Materials 4006 ½ Avenue B Built: 1923 Small addition to rear of house was added around 1991 Proposed addition Non-original aluminum frame windows to be replaced with new windows more closely resembling originals. Addition will match original lap siding. 4413 Avenue C Built: 1927 Second floor added in 2011 4113 Avenue D Built: 1932 Second floor added in 2019 4303 Speedway Built: 1920 Added second floor in 2010 4103 Avenue A Built: 1924 Second floor added in 2003 3913 Avenue F Built: 1906 Second floor added in 2008 4207 Avenue H Built: 1925 Second floor added in 2017
B.8.0 - 1113 E. 9th St - Revised — original pdf
HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS – REVISED STAFF REPORT MAY 24, 2021 HR-2021-063830 1113 E. 9TH STREET ROBERTSON/STUART & MAIR HISTORIC DISTRICT B.8 – 1 PROPOSAL Construct a 1-story side addition to a contributing building. PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS The addition is set back approximately 27’ from the front wall and has a footprint of 331 square feet. It is clad in 12” horizontal hardiplank siding, with 1-over-1 vinyl-sash windows. The addition is capped by a combination side-gabled and hipped roof, with a shallow flat roof over the entry; the hipped roof’s slope matches that of the historic house. Metal stairs on the primary (north) wall access a paneled, partially-glazed door. ARCHITECTURE STANDARDS FOR REVIEW One-story, modified L-plan building capped by a combination pyramidal and flat roof, with horizontal wood siding, wood- sash windows, gabled dormers, a corner porch, and interior chimneys. The building is designed in the Queen Anne style. The Robertson/Stuart & Mair Design Standards are used to evaluate proposed changes to contributing buildings. The following standards apply to the project: New additions should be compatible with the historic building by reflecting the scale, massing, and/or materials of the historic building, but differentiated enough so that they are not confused as historic or original to the building. If designing an addition in a contemporary style, reflect the scale, massing, and/or materials of the historic building; if designing an addition in a style that reflects the style of the historic building, differentiate the scale, massing, and/or materials, at least slightly. The proposed addition’s scale, massing, and materials are compatible with and differentiated from the historic building. Its simple style reflects the style of the historic building but will not be mistaken for original construction. The project meets this standard. Design new additions that are subordinate to and do not overpower the historic building. The proposed addition is subordinate to the historic building in terms of scale, massing, and location. Construct additions that avoid the removal or obstruction of any historic exterior features on the front of the building or the sides within 15 feet of the front. Set back a new ground-level addition a minimum of 15 feet measured from the front wall of the building (excluding the porch). The new addition is attached to the side wall and set back 27’ from the front wall. The project meets this standard. Modern materials such as fiber-cement siding are appropriate for …
C.1.2 - 902 Willow St - permit drawings — original pdf
Backup
C.2.3 - 3204 Beverly Rd - updated drawings — original pdf
Rymer Residence 3204 Beverly Rd Austin, TX 78703 ARCHITECT: Norma Yancey, AIA SIDETRACKED STUDIO, PLLC 1806 Holly St Austin, Texas 78702 phone: 512.220.6865 norma@sidetracked-studio.com Dane & Lauren Rymer 3204 Beverly Rd Austin, TX 78703 LEGAL DESCRIPTION LOT 12 * & N3FT OF LOT 11 BLK 1 BRYKERWOODS E ZONING INFORMATION SF-3-NP NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING AREA: - WINDSOR ROAD - Central West Austin Combined NPA RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS OWNER INFORMATION INDEX OF DRAWINGS G1.0 G1.1 G3.0 G3.1 D1.0 A0.0 A1.0 A1.1 A1.2 A2.0 A2.1 COVER SHEET PROJECT INFORMATION AND GENERAL NOTES SCHEDULES SCHEDULES DEMOLITION PLAN SITE PLAN FIRST FLOOR PLAN SECOND FLOOR PLAN ROOF PLAN EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS SQUARE FOOTAGE LOT SIZE 8183 SF FLOOR TO AREA RATIO: EXIST. NEW EXEMPT TOTAL 2,715 SF/ 8,183 SF = 33.18% < 40% FAR ALLOWED BY CODE IMPERVIOUS COVER: EXIST. NEW TOTAL FIRST FLOOR CONDITIONED SPACE: SECOND FLOOR CONDITIONED SPACE: THIRD FLOOR CONDITIONED SPACE: AREA W/ CEILINGS >15FT: GROUND FLOOR PORCH: BASEMENT: ATTIC: GARAGE: CARPORT: ACCESSORY BUILDINGS: TOTAL: FIRST FLOOR CONDITIONED SPACE: SECOND FLOOR CONDITIONED SPACE: THIRD FLOOR CONDITIONED SPACE: BASEMENT: ATTACHED COVERED PARKING: DETACHED COVERED PARKING: COVERED WOOD DECKS (100%): COVERED PATIO: COVERED PORCH: BALCONY: OTHER: TOTAL BUILDING AREA: TOTAL BUILDING COVERAGE: DRIVEWAY: SIDEWALKS & STEPS: UNCOVERED PATIO: UNCOVERED WOOD DECKS (50%): AC PADS & CONC FLATWORK: OTHER: TOTAL: 1624 0 - - 0 - - 238 - - 1862 1624 0 - - 238 - - 0 - - - 1862 1862 462 170 49 205.5 9 178 2935.5 309 744 - - 265 - - 0 - - 1318 309 744 - - 0 - - 265 - - - 1318 574 0 0 112 0 0 0 686 0 0 - - 265 - - 200 - - 465 1933 744 - - 0 - - 38 - - 2715 1933 744 - - 238 - - 265 - - - 3180 2436 462 170 161 205.5 9 178 3411 3,411 SF/ 8,183 SF = 41.7% < 45% IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE ALLOWED BY CODE Sidetracked Studio 1806 Holly St. Austin, Texas 512 220 6865 FIELD INSPECTION REQUIRED Prior to performing any bidding, new construction, and/or repairs, general contractor shall visit the site, inspect all existing conditions, and report any discrepancies to the architect. 05.24.21 i e c n e d s e R r e m y R d R y l r e v e B 4 0 2 3 …
C.6.2 - 71 Rainey St - interior photo — original pdf
Backup
D.4.6 - 201 W 30th St - overall presentation — original pdf
City of Austin Fire Station No. 3 Introductions and Context Alex Jenota, Project Manager Flintco – General Contractor Historic Landmark Commission – Design Overview Presentations 24 May 2021 Outline Introductions and Context Alex Janota, Project Manager Flintco – General Contractor Structural Damage Barry Krieger, Principal JQ Infrastructure – Structural Engineer Cost Implications and Alternatives Michelle Noriega, Project Manager City of Austin – Client Design Proposal Rob Robbins, Studio Director WestEast Design Group – Architect The Plan Forward Tony Haden, Division Chief Austin Fire Department – End User Context Location: 201 West 30th St Currently, all fire trucks are being parked outside the apparatus bay. Recent changes to the floodplain maps cause a significant portion of the building to be in the floodplain. Overview Construction completed on February 21, 1957 Architect: Roy Thomas Does not have any Landmark designations at present Adjacent to the Aldridge Place Historic District Historic An historic survey of the area was conducted. This building was identified in the survey. Recommendations for landmark were included. Reasoning: Possesses integrity and significance in Postwar Infrastructure Expansion. Neighborhood Engagement We presented the design proposal to the North University Neighborhood Association (NUNA) and the Aldridge Place Historic District. Meeting conducted through Zoom on May 3, 2021. Follow up questions were answered through email. Repairable Not Repairable Damage The building has suffered two types of structural damage: 1) General wear and tear based on age. (entire structure) 2) Overstressing of the foundation due to parking trucks that are heavier than the original design load. (apparatus bay only) Shore up and preserve Demolish and replace Intent For the areas that have just suffered age- related wear and tear, the intent is to shore up that portion of the structure and preserve it. For the apparatus bay, the intent is to demolish the portion of the building that is beyond repair and replace it with a new structure that is sensitive but of its time. Goals and Objectives 1) Save the historic fabric that can be saved and put it in good structural standing for the future. 2) Preserve the original historic use/function of the building. 3) Provide the Fire Department and EMS with the modern facility they need to operate effectively and efficiently for decades to come thus providing vital life-safety services to the area. 4) Get the fire trucks parked indoors for protection of the equipment, speed of response times, and aesthetic …
D.5.0 - 307 E 2nd St - rendering — original pdf
Backup
20210524 001a Meeting Minutes April 26 2021 DRAFT — original pdf
SPECIAL CALLED MEETING MONDAY, April 26, 2021 HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION MINUTES The Human Rights Commission convened in a Special Called meeting on Monday, April 26, 2021 via teleconference in Austin, Texas. Chair Sareta Davis called the Board Meeting to order at 5:44 p.m. Board Members in Attendance: Chair Davis, Vice Chair Jamarr Brown, Commissioner Breckenridge, Commissioner Garry Brown, Commissioner Caballero, Commissioner Casas, Commissioner Griffith, Commissioner Museitif, and Commissioner Santana. Staff in Attendance: Jonathan Babiak, Human Resources Coordinator, Office of Civil Rights CITIZEN COMMUNICATION: GENERAL None 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a. The minutes from the regular meeting of March 22, 2021 were approved on a vote of 9-0: Chair Davis motion, Commissioner Garry Brown second. Voting in favor were Chair Davis, Vice Chair Jamarr Brown, Commissioner Breckenridge, Commissioner Garry Brown, Commissioner Caballero, Commissioner Casas, Commissioner Griffith, Commissioner Museitif, and Commissioner Santana. Commissioner Areche and Commissioner Weigel were absent. b. The minutes from the special called meeting of April 19, 2021 were approved on a vote of 8-0-1: Chair Davis motion, Commissioner Griffith second. Voting in favor were Chair Davis, Vice Chair Jamarr Brown, Commissioner Breckenridge, Commissioner Garry Brown, Commissioner Caballero, Commissioner Casas, Commissioner Griffith, and Commissioner Santana. Commissioner Museitif abstained. Commissioner Areche and Commissioner Weigel were absent. 2. NEW BUSINESS a. Discussion and possible action on Human Rights Commission Officer Elections for Chair and Vice Chair. (Davis/Brown, J.) The Commission voted to override the term limits provisions in the bylaws for the election of the office of Chair by a vote of 9-0: Commissioner Garry Brown motion, Commissioner Museitif second. Voting in favor were Chair Davis, Vice Chair Jamarr Brown, Commissioner Breckenridge, Commissioner Garry Brown, Commissioner Caballero, Commissioner Casas, Commissioner Griffith, Commissioner Museitif, and Commissioner Santana. Commissioner Areche and Commissioner Weigel were absent. The Commission elected Sareta Davis to the office of Chair on a vote of 9-0: Commissioner Santana motion, Commissioner Griffith second. Voting in favor were 1 Chair Davis, Vice Chair Jamarr Brown, Commissioner Breckenridge, Commissioner Garry Brown, Commissioner Caballero, Commissioner Casas, Commissioner Griffith, Commissioner Museitif, and Commissioner Santana. Commissioner Areche and Commissioner Weigel were absent. The Commission elected Isabel Casas to the office of Vice Chair on a vote of 9-0: Chair Davis motion, Commissioner Garry Brown second. Voting in favor were Chair Davis, Vice Chair Jamarr Brown, Commissioner Breckenridge, Commissioner Garry Brown, Commissioner Caballero, Commissioner Casas, Commissioner Griffith, Commissioner Museitif, and Commissioner Santana. Commissioner Areche and Commissioner …
Urban Design Guidelines Update Draft Framework — original pdf
URBAN DESIGN GUIDELINES UPDATE W I T H E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Y City of Austin Design Commission TABLE OF CONTENTS. Executive Summary 3 Background 5 Barriers 11 How the Update Will Be Accomplished 12 UDG EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Urban Design Guidelines are a set of recommendations that promote architectural and urban design standards reflective of Austin’s shared values. When first created as the Downtown Austin Design Guidelines in 2000, these recommendations focused exclusively on projects located in Austin’s downtown. Then in 2008, in response to Austin’s growing urban core, there was an effort to make the guidelines broader to help shape the urban environment throughout the city as it grows. While this effort did rename the guidelines to reflect this intent, it did little else to promote their use beyond the Central Business District. Since this time, Austin’s urban core has expanded tremendously and the city has adopted many policies, initiatives, and plans to which the current UDG do not align with. Therefore, the Design Commission believes it is time to update the Urban Design Guidelines once again. The proposed update includes three main priorities. The first will focus on updating the UDG to have a broader applicability throughout Austin’s urban core, and therefore, the ability to serve a wider range of project types. Secondly, the update will better align the UDG with current community goals; including, but not limited to, adopted city polices related to affordability, connectivity, equity, environment, and mobility. Lastly, the update will seek to bring more clarity to the guidelines by creating a more inviting and user-friendly document that all Austinites can seek insight from, and resulting in a more predictable review process.” It is proposed that the update be accomplished in three phases. Phase I is the preparation phase, it will consist of crafting a guiding narrative, defining the core values, creating a community engagement plan, forming Working Groups, selecting Community Ambassadors, and establishing the overall work timeline. Austin’s urban core has expanded tremendously and the city has adopted many policies, initiatives, and plans to which the current UDG do not align with 3 Prepared by COA Design CommissionUrban Design Guidelines Updatȅ EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Phase II will be the creation phase, where the Community Ambassadors will begin outreach and reporting back and the Working Groups will begin drafting the guidelines. At the end …
D.10.1 - 1601 Canterbury - (citizen comments) — original pdf
2901 Bee Caves Road, Box L Austin, Texas 78746 Telephone: (512) 297-5516 Facsimile: (512) 320-9974 Bret C. Doyal Attorney and Counselor at Law Veronica Esquivel Legal Assistant Via email to Amber.allen@austintexas.gov May 24, 2021 Ms. Amber Allen Historic Preservation Society City of Austin Re: 1601 Canterbury Street, Austin, Texas – Request for Rescheduling of May 24, 2021 Hearing Dear Ms. Allen: I am writing on behalf of Ms. Amanda Estrada who is the occupant of 1601 Canterbury Street, Austin, Texas. It is my understanding that this property is scheduled to come before you this evening for consideration on whether or not the house may be demolished. I represent Ms. Estrada who resides at 1601 Canterbury Street, Austin, Texas. The property was in Ms. Estrada’s family for over 50 years, and she believes the house carries significant historical value to the City of Austin. Ms. Estrada was notified of today’s hearing and she reports that she received this notice of Thursday of last week. I just became aware of the hearing this past Friday. I am respectfully asking that today’s hearing be rescheduled to allow Ms. Estrada ample opportunity to gather her documents proving the property’s historical significance and provide these documents to you at your next hearing. Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. Respectfully, Bret C. Doyal
C.3.c - 1805 Waterston - Citizen Comments — original pdf
From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: Olivia B. Ruiz Allen, Amber; PAZ Preservation Olivia B. Ruiz 1805 Waterston - Case No. GF-21060230 Monday, May 24, 2021 11:24:58 AM *** External Email - Exercise Caution *** Dear Ms. Allen: I am sending you one copy of the below email, which I sent to all members of the Historic Commission. I didn’t want to fill your in-box with 11 emails. Thank you. Olivia Dear Historical Land Commission Member: Once again, a buyer buys into our Historical District and wants to building a monstrosity modern duplex. I am requesting that you respect the NRHD designation by denying the request to build new homes on the lot. I do not see any compelling reason to tear it down — it is stylishly remodeled both inside and out. Although, I do not appreciate the modern front windows. I bought a house in Clarksville because I want to maintain its historical character. By granting the developer’s request, you contribute to the minimization of the original Black landowners by worked so hard to build these historical houses. I hope and request that you vote against this change and show the original Black owners that their contribution to Austin continues to be appreciated. Thank you. Olivia Ruiz Olivia B. Ruiz Board Certified - Civil Trial Law Texas Board of Legal Certification Law Office of Olivia B. Ruiz -- This message and any attached documents or files contain information that is confidential and may be protected by attorney privilege. Unless you are a listed recipient of this message, you may not read, use, copy or disclose the contents of the message or any attachment to anyone. If you have received this message in error, please "reply to" the sender indicating your receipt of the message, and securely delete the message and any attachments. CAUTION: This email was received at the City of Austin, from an EXTERNAL source. Please use caution when clicking links or opening attachments. If you believe this to be a malicious and/or phishing email, please forward this email to cybersecurity@austintexas.gov.
C.3.d - 1805 Waterston - Citizen Comment_Redacted — original pdf
Allen, Amber From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: Follow up Flagged > kkronzer < Monday, May 24, 2021 10:19 AM Myers, Terri - BC; Wright, Caroline - BC; Little, Kelly - BC; Koch, Kevin - BC; Jacob, Mathew - BC; McWhorter, Trey - BC; Featherston, Witt; Papavasiliou, Alexander - BC; Tollett, Blake - BC; Valenzuela, Sarah - BC; Heimsath, Ben - BC PAZ Preservation; Allen, Amber; PAZ Preservation; Allen, Amber Case # GF 21-060230 1805 Waterston *** External Email - Exercise Caution *** I am writing to express my strong opposition to the issuance of the demolition permit requested for 1805 Waterston Avenue. I have lived in this neighborhood for 30+ years and am a member of the Clarksville Community Development Corporation Board of Directors. 1805 Waterston Avenue is an up-to-date, fully renovated property that recently sold for over $1 million dollars. There is no reason, save greed, for this house to be demolished. . Allowing this 100% livable property, which is also a Clarksville NRHD contributing property, to be demolished for the sole reason of putting something new, larger, and very likely at odds with the existing character of the neighborhood sets a dangerous precedent. Clarksville is a unique neighborhood, deserving of protection. I urge you not to approve this permit. Respectfully, Kim Kronzer O'Brien CAUTION: This email was received at the City of Austin, from an EXTERNAL source. Please use caution when clicking links or opening attachments. If you believe this to be a malicious and/or phishing email, please forward this email to cybersecurity@austintexas.gov. 1
C.6.b - 71 Rainey St - Citizen Comment — original pdf
Paula Kothmann Preservation Chair, SRCC Historic Landmark Commission May 24, 2021 Preservation is better for the environment than demolition. Why don’t investors preserve rather than demolish? One of the biggest reasons that real estate investor seek to demolish their properties is because the property taxes are much too high for the income they can hope to get in residential rentals of older properties. Much more awareness of tax benefits may help stop some of the demolitions. San Antonio, for example, helps train property owners to apply for tax benefits when they preserve certain historic properties. Austin is supposed to be green! Demolition wastes a lot of energy and materials. Property taxes significantly increase holding costs. Recommendation: the property owner should endeavor to lower his taxes by: 1) Protesting his appraised values for the past two years 2) Requesting an income appraisal like that given to the nearby businesses w/ SF3 zoning. a. Why are residential rentals treated as commercial for tax appraisals? b. Why do residents pay such a higher price/sf than businesses? 3) Seeking tax credits for historic preservation because he is in a historic district and will be using the property commercially a. What is the cost to preserve vs rebuild if the owner no longer has to pay City and/or State taxes for 5-10 years? b. How quickly would he be able to get rental income if he preserved vs demolished? The subject property at 71 Rainey is grossly overvalued compared to nearby sites. Site Address 71 Rainey Austin, TX Price/Sf Land $180 Mailing address Proposed Value 2020 $1,027,814 $425 Proposed Value 2021 $1,027,814 $425 70 Rainey New York, NY 73 Rainey Los Angeles, CA $1,027,814 $1,027,814 Price +/1 Improvement +$115,399 Notes $0.22/sf 1890sf $144/sf 7680sf +$610,166 -$165,017 Why the increase in the improvement? SF3 Parking garage Land valued much higher prior to 2020 Used as restaurant “Income appraisal” 69 Rainey $568,008 $568,008 +4920 Javelinas SF3 PO Box Austin, TX $126/sf 4508 sf
D.11.1 - 2708 Scenic Dr - Late Backup_Applicant Photos-compressed — original pdf
Backup
D.7.b - 1709 Willow St - Citizen Comment — original pdf
Backup
5/24/2021 Design Commission — original link
Play video
Video — original link
Play video