Approve the proposed Dougherty Arts Center redevelopment site at Butler Shores Park. District(s) Affected: District 5. The amendments are as follows: The motion to approve the proposed redevelopment site with amendments was made by Council Member Kitchen, seconded by Council Member Pool. City Council approves location of the Dougherty Arts Center (DAC) on Butler Shores. The City Council also authorizes the City Manager to proceed with design, subject to the directions included in this amendment and to return to Council for approval prior to construction. Design for redevelopment of the DAC at the Toomey Rd./Riverside Drive location shall include analysis of the following options: 1) Planning Commission recommendations: • A parking and transportation demand management strategy be developed for the entire arts complex that considers area on-and off-street parking, and under-shoots parking supply in anticipation of public transit investments. • Any structured parking should be innovative, employ LEED strategies, charge for parking, and be available for future conversion. • The arts complex should be developed as an active transportation hub and generally minimize space dedicated to automobile use. 2) Design Commission recommendations: • Providing access from both Toomey Road and West Riverside Drive • • Streetscape improvements along Toomey Road REGULAR COUNCIL MINUTES Integration of district public parking structure THURSDAY, MAY 9, 2019 8 • Enhancing the cultural arts district around Zach Scott Theater • Connection to the Hike & Bike Trail and public restroom • Outdoor education and performance spaces 3) Moving the existing PARD main office building to another location, to allow for adjustments to the location of the DAC building and parking structure to reduce impact of traffic on Toomey Road. 4) If appropriate and feasible, opportunities to incorporate the PARD office building into the DAC structure, to allow for adjustments of the DAC building and parking structure to reduce impact of traffic on Toomey Rd. 5) Options for locating the DAC parking structure away from Toomey Rd and combining with existing Zachary Scott Theatre surface parking and/or other parking structures in the area. 6) Creation of an Advisory Group consisting of neighbors living along Toomey Rd, DAC users, and other community members, to provide feedback during the design process. A motion to approve the following amendment to the amendment was made by Council Member Tovo, seconded by Council Member Pool. The amendment was approved on an 8- 2 vote. Council Members Flannigan and Renteria voted nay. …
March 9, 2021 Kimberly McNeeley Director, Austin Parks and Recreation Department City of Austin Dear Ms. McNeeley, Recognizing the Trail Foundation as a steward of the trail, PARD has asked for comment on the in-progress Dougherty Arts Center Redevelopment Project with specific emphasis on Option 1B and its relationship to, and potential effect on the trail. TTF has attended several public meetings and a presentation from PARD, and understand that Option 1B is PARD’s preferred scenario for reasons that include preservation of existing trees, parking garage access, minimizing utility conflicts and preservation of the historic PARD headquarters building. The Trail Foundation has reviewed this option and provides the following comments: • TTF is excited to have the redevelopment of the Dougherty adjacent to the Trail and sees it as a benefit to patrons of the Arts Center and Trail users. • TTF appreciates that the proposed parking garage is buried under a green roof that should be a water quality enhancement over a more-conventional above- ground solution. • TTF sees public benefit to the trail in the design’s public restrooms, gathering spaces and enhanced park spaces. • TTF’s primary area of interest regarding this option is the placement of the studio spaces adjacent to the Trail and possible resulting congestion. With the recent release of the Butler Trail Safety & Mobility Study, recommendations were made for enhancements on this portion of the Trail. We will work with PARD to implement those into the plan. • In a related comment, TTF notes that the current upper Trail (shown just above the north facades of the proposed building) is also a maintenance corridor. TTF suggests that an alternative maintenance access path with sufficient width and turning radii should be considered. The Trail Foundation was created in 2003 to protect, enhance and connect the Butler Trail for all Austinites and visitors. The Ann and Roy Butler Hike-and-Bike Trail has served as a natural community sanctuary and pathway in the heart of Austin since the 1970s. Since its formation as a 501 (c)(3), it has fulfilled its mission through careful improvements to the Trail’s infrastructure and environment, while honoring the original vision of the Trail’s founders. Sincerely, Heidi Anderson, CEO
PARKS AND RECREATION BOARD DIRECTOR’S REPORT DATE: March 2021 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT EVENTS: MLK Station Neighborhood Park Nature Play Virtual Community Meeting #2: The next community meeting will be held on March 27 at 10am. The Parks and Recreation Department’s (PARD) Cities Connecting Children to Nature (CCCN) program will share the final nature play design and show how community input helped shape it. The meeting will be conducted on Zoom, meeting registration. Project Webpage: https://www.austintexas.gov/department/mlk-station-neighborhood-park-nature- play. District 1 Highland Neighborhood Park Virtual Community Meeting: Implementation of the park plan continues at Highland Neighborhood Park. Phase 2 Implementation will kick off with a virtual community meeting on March 31 at 5:30pm. During this meeting, the project team will share information on park designs outlined in the adopted concept plan and seek feedback from the community to prioritize elements to include in the current construction phase. The meeting will be conducted on Zoom, meeting registration. Project Webpage: https://www.austintexas.gov/HighlandParkProject. District 4 Beverly S. Sheffield Northwest District Park Vision Plan: RVi, the consultant for the plan, hosted a kickoff meeting and initial TAG (technical advisory group) meeting with City staff in late February. The vision planning process began this month with a community survey (launched on March 23). The first of three, public small-group meetings is scheduled for April 6, with the proposed focus being recreation and park activities. A small-group meeting on April 20 will focus on neighborhoods, community, and school feedback, and on April 28, PARD will hold a small-group meeting looking at nature and environmental issues for the park. The first community-wide meeting is scheduled for May 4, meeting registration. Project Webpage: https://www.austintexas.gov/department/beverly-s-sheffield- northwest-district-park-vision-plan. District 7 Givens Aquatic Facility Renovation: On April 26 at 5:30pm, PARD will host a virtual community meeting to reveal draft concepts. The ideas presented will be created from the community input received so far through input at Givens Swims in 2019, the first community meeting in January, and the community survey that followed. Community members will be asked to identify how well the draft design ideas connect with key values and align with feedback collected. The meeting will be conducted on Zoom, meeting registration. Project Webpage: http://austintexas.gov/givenspool. District 1 Colony Park Aquatic Facility: On April 28 at 5:30pm, PARD will host a virtual community meeting that will be shared over YouTube Live and Facebook Live to reveal draft concepts of the new aquatic facility. The ideas presented …
sANA June 27,2020 Dear Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem, and Council Members The Springdale-Airport Neighborhood Association (SANA) supports the request for Planned Unit Development (PUD) zoning at 10ll and 1017 Springdale Rd. The developer has presented SANA with a proposal that includes, among other things, increased height, while also providing environmental and community benefits. These include restoring much of the vegetation and creek areas, providing a public trail easement, staying significantly below allowable impervious cover, and helping fund affordable housing. For years, this property was a tank farm, until the community successfully pushed to have it closed. By restoring many of the natural areas here, we believe this development is helping address the tank farm's legacy of environmental damage. In addition, we also support the proposal's consideration of the community's current and future needs. While the fact that this property was a tank farm prevents a residential development here, the developer has proposed to help fund affordable housing for the community and to provide a 50 ft. trail easement to connect the neighborhood to a future City trail south of the property. SANA supports this request for PUD zoning, which would secure these environmental and community benefits, and in retum would grant the applicant's request for the ability to build up to I5 ft. of height at 85 ft. from nearby single-family lots and up to 90 ft. of height at 140 ft. On a personal note, as someone who saw firsthand what the tank farm did to friends and family, I look forward to seeing this site turned into a project focused on sustainability and the environment. We appreciate your consideration. Sincerely, Pt R (..r-.^o. Pete Rivera, President
Emma S. Barrientos Mexican American Cultural Center Phase 2 Improvements - 2018 Facility Expansion Plan + + Prime Consultant City Team Construction Manager at Risk Miro Rivera Architects (Austin) + Tatiana Bilbao Estudio (Mexico City) Joint Venture Heidi Tse, Public Works Project Manager Chad Lewallen, Public Works Project Assistant Christina Bies, PARD Project Coordinator Alan Codina, Pre-Construction Mgr Christine Sheng, Client Director Miguel Rivera, Project Manager (Partner) Juan Miro, Project Architect (Partner) Elsa Ponce, Project Coordinator (Partner)
From: Anne Lewis < Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2021 3:05 PM To: Rivera, Andrew <Andrew.Rivera@austintexas.gov>; Subject: Lessin Lane Villas *** External Email - Exercise Caution *** To the Planning Commissioners, I am writing in opposition to the waiver of setbacks for retention ponds proposed by the developer at Lessin Lane Villas. I live within 500 feet. The developer has already won an automatic upzoning from the City in opposition to neighbors who felt this was inappropriate and would damage their quality of life. There's simply got to be some stopping point for the developer's actions in violation of the rules that should protect us. The developer will never have to live in what's left of our community. This is sheer profit gouging with disregard and disrespect for our community. Surely the City can stop collaborating and give some priority to people who have lived and paid taxes here for 20 plus years. Anne Lewis From: Carmen Hernandez < Sent: Friday, March 19, 2021 12:29 PM To: Rivera, Andrew <Andrew.Rivera@austintexas.gov> Subject: Re: Lessin Lane Villas Thank you, Andrew. I would like to state my concern with the 25-2-1063 waiver. As I understand it the builder is asking for this waiver in regards to the retention ponds. As the homeowner directly next door to the property with my front door and upstairs balcony facing the property, one concern is that the builder will take liberties with this waiver and build house #10 much closer to my fence line. I have read code 25-2-1063 online and as I understand it limits the structure height to "two stories and 30 feet, if the structure is 50 feet or less from property". Granting a waiver of this code would give the builder an opportunity to build a very large house directly in front of my front door; thereby blocking all views. My third concern is the potential and inevitable flooding to houses near the creek. Thank you. Carmen Hernandez From: To: Subject: Date: Rivera, Andrew Julie Woods RE: Lessin Lane project SP-2020-0364C Tuesday, March 23, 2021 9:14:00 AM Received. Thank you, Ms. Woods. Andrew From: Julie Woods Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2021 9:13 AM To: Rivera, Andrew <Andrew.Rivera@austintexas.gov> Subject: Lessin Lane project SP-2020-0364C *** External Email - Exercise Caution *** Hello, I'd like to comment on the Lessin Lane project; the builder has requested a waiver regarding placement of water retention ponds near East Bouldin …
From: Lawrence Sunderland < Sent: Saturday, March 20, 2021 8:58 AM To: Rivera, Andrew <Andrew.Rivera@austintexas.gov> Subject: Parker Lane *** External Email - Exercise Caution *** Andrew, As a member of the EROC contact team I would first like to express my support for The Methodist Church and Foundation Communities proposal. When the Methodist Church was active it housed a number of community organizations that served a real need in our neighborhood. Unfortunately they were not able to maintain that effort. Now teaming with Foundation Communities they will once again bring real value for an underserved segment of our community. Foundation Communities is already established in our neighborhood and has demonstrated a very high level of commitment and expertise to providing affordable housing and services for its residents. Secondly I oppose any efforts to delay moving this proposal forward. Those in the neighborhood who would suggest that other alternatives are possible have not shown us anything that is remotely achievable. The contact team should only respond to viable proposals. I have asked for a rational, from leadership, for promoting irrelevant proposals. I have not received a response. Larry Sunderland
Questions and Answers Planning Commission Meeting March 23, 2021 Questions Shaw / Response (blue) Staff/ Applicant Response (green) Item B3- C814-2020-0104 - Springdale Green PUD • For the Tier 1 Requirements 2.3.2.A and 2.3.2.B, Applicant proposes Alternative Equivalent Compliance. Please explain where this is allowed within the land code and provide examples. Alternative Equivalent Compliance is an allowance within Subchapter E (section 1.5) that allows for unique design considerations when strict compliance is not attainable. Specifically, “To encourage creative and original design, and to accommodate projects where the particular site conditions or the proposed use prevent strict compliance with this Subchapter, alternative equivalent compliance allows development to occur in a manner that meets the intent of this Subchapter, yet through an alternative design that does not strictly adhere to the Subchapter's standards. The procedure is not a general waiver of regulations. Alternative equivalent compliance shall not be used when the desired departure from the standards of this Subchapter could be achieved using the minor modification process in Section 1.4.” AEC is site and design specific – a specific AEC request is done by an applicant during the site plan review explaining exactly which section of Subchapter E (design standards) cannot be met, why it cannot be met (based on the site, use, or combination), and exactly what alternatives the applicant is proposing for the site instead. Examples may include less building pulled up to the sidewalk than strictly required, with the alternative being a more robust supplemental zone offering pedestrian amenities beyond which the code requires. Another example could be about open space: the code limits only 50% of the open space above the ground floor. An alternative might be 80% is above the ground floor, but they are providing twice as much open space square footage as is minimally required. • Every AEC request is evaluated on an individual basis. It is not guaranteed that AEC is granted, but in most cases, the design professionals are able to work with staff and eventually come up with an AEC plan that works for the site, where strict compliance cannot be met. The current site plan includes Alternative Equivalent Compliance with Subchapter E, including the following: Project proposes street tree plantings along Springdale Road (an Urban Roadway) that are not required under Subchapter E; Project proposes silva cell root systems for the street trees that provide at least 800 cubic feet …
Planning Commission Registered Speakers List B1 / B2 Applicant Walter Moreau Opposed Mark C Gibson Frederick DeWorken Malcom Yeatts B3 Applicant Michael Whellan Janette D’Elia Michael Gaudini - Available for questions Daniel Woodroffe Harrison Hudson Opposed Ben Ramirez B4 Applicant David Hartman Simon Shewmaker Jill Tarleton B5 B6 Applicant -Mark Zupan Opposed Rebecca Sheller Carmen Hernandez Rick Reyna B7 Applicant B8 Applicant Michael Rivera Darrell Gest Opposed Marla Torrado Keema Miller Paul Mullen Mario Cantu Nicole Joslin Shavone Otero
PARKS AND RECREATION BOARD Tuesday, March 23, 2021 – 5:30pm MINUTES The Parks and Recreation Board convened in a regular meeting on Tuesday, March 23, 2021 via videoconference in Austin, Texas. Chair Lewis called the meeting to order at 5:31pm. Board Members in Attendance: Chair Dawn Lewis, Vice Chair Romteen Farasat, Laura Cottam Sajbel, Richard DePalma, Anna Di Carlo, Sarah Faust, Kate Mason-Murphy and Nina Rinaldi. Board Members Absent: Francoise Luca, Fred Morgan and Kimberly Taylor. Board Member Di Carlo joined the meeting at approximately 5:36pm and Vice Chair Farasat joined at approximately 5:48pm. Staff in Attendance: Kimberly McNeeley; Liana Kallivoka; Lucas Massie; Suzanne Piper; Anthony Segura; Kevin Johnson; Vanorda Richardson; Michael Benbow; Nicholas Johnson; Ed Morris and Sammi Curless. CITIZEN COMMUNICATION: GENERAL Jim Schwobel – enforcement of park curfew and no camping rules in Eastwoods Park. A. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes from the regular meeting of February 23, 2021 were approved on Board Member Faust motion, Board Member Cottam Sajbel second on an 8-0 with Board Members Luca, Morgan and Taylor absent. B. NEW BUSINESS: PRESENTATION, DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ITEMS 1. Presentation, discussion and possible action regarding the Parks and Recreation Department Fiscal Year 2021-2022 budget. Presentation by Vanorda Richardson of the Parks and Recreation Department. Discussion with request to bring back to April meeting of the Board. 2. Discussion and possible action to rescind the recommendation made February 23, 2021 regarding the preferred design scenario for the Dougherty Arts Center Replacement Project. Public comment by Bill Bunch encouraging alternate sites for the Dougherty Arts Center such as AISD schools to be closed and maintaining central parkland as parkland; Megan Page 1 of 3 Meisenbach encouraging the City to re-look at other locations and that schools are a wonderful location for the Center and Linda Guerrero explaining the recommendation approved by the Environmental Commission. Chair Lewis made a motion to rescind the recommendation made February 23, 2021 regarding the preferred design scenario for the Dougherty Arts Center Replacement Project; Board Member Mason-Murphy seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 7-0 with Vice Chair Farasat abstaining and Board Members Luca, Morgan and Taylor absent. 3. Presentation, discussion, and possible action regarding a recommendation to the City Council of the preferred design scenario for the Dougherty Arts Center Replacement Project. Board Member DePalma made a motion to recommend to the City Council Option 1A for the …
Historic Landmark Commission Preliminary List of Applications under Review for March 22, 2021 Meeting These cases were originally scheduled for hearing on February 22, 2021. This list does not constitute a formal agenda and is subject to change. The following cases include those originally scheduled to be heard by the Historic Landmark Commission on February 22, 2021; that meeting was cancelled due to the weather emergency. An updated preview list of all cases scheduled to be heard by the Historic Landmark Commission on March 22, 2021 will be posted after the application deadline has passed and the March agenda is closed. A final agenda will be posted at least 72 hours prior to the meeting. The Historic Landmark Commission meeting will be held with Social Distancing Modifications. Public comment will be allowed via telephone; no in-person input will be allowed. All speakers (applicants included) must register in advance no later than Sunday, March 21, 2021 by 12:00 noon. All public comment will occur at the beginning of the meeting. To speak remotely at the March 22nd Historic Landmark Commission Meeting, members of the public must: • Call or email the board liaison at (512) 974-1264 or preservation@austintexas.gov no later than 12:00 noon, Sunday, March 21st (the day before the meeting). The following information is required: speaker name, item number(s) they wish to speak on, whether they are for/against/neutral, email address and telephone number (must be the same number that will be used to call into the meeting). • Once a request to speak has been made to the board liaison, the information to call on the day of the scheduled meeting will be provided either by email or phone call. • Speakers must call in at least 15 minutes prior to meeting start time in order to speak, late callers will not be accepted and will not be able to speak. • Speakers will be placed in a queue until their time to speak. • Handouts or other information may be emailed to preservation@austintexas.gov by noon the day before the scheduled meeting. This information will be provided to Board and Commission members in advance of the meeting. • If the meeting is broadcast live, it may be viewed here: http://www.austintexas.gov/page/watch-atxn-live 1 Briefings Austin Parks and Recreation Department, Dougherty Arts Center Replacement Project 2.C. Historic landmark and historic district applications 2406 Harris Boulevard, Jackson-Novy-Kelly-Hoey House – Construct a swimming pool in …
B.2 - 1 PROPOSAL HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION APPLICATION FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FEBRUARY 22, 2021 GF-2021-014461 ROBERTSON-STUART & MAIR LOCAL HISTORIC DISTRICT 1008 EAST 9TH STREET Construct a rear addition, add basement, perform repairs, and construct an accessory dwelling unit at the rear of the property. PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS 1) Demolish non-original rear addition. 2) Construct a rear addition, pool, and basement. The proposed rear addition includes one- and two-story portions, with hyphen between original building and two-story section. It is clad in stucco and features a compound roofline with standing-seam metal roof. Fenestration includes fixed full-height windows, 4:4 paired and single sash windows, 2:2 paired and single casement windows, sliding glass doors, and partially glazed rear entry door to match main entrance at historic portion of house. 3) Restore windows, remove vinyl siding, and repair historic siding or replace in-kind where deteriorated beyond repair. 4) Restore front porch. Replace concrete porch floor with wood decking on piers. 5) Replace shingle roof with standing-seam metal roof. 6) Construct an accessory dwelling unit/garage apartment. The proposed ADU is one and one-half stories in height. It is clad in stucco and horizontal fiber cement siding. Its roof, clad in standing-seam metal, is side-gabled with shed-roof dormers at north, west, and south elevations. Fenestration includes partially glazed garage doors, partially glazed transom entry doors, 2:2 casement windows, and 4:4 sash windows. ARCHITECTURE One-story, wing-and-gable plan National Folk residence with 4:4 double-hung wood windows, inset porch with chamfered posts, transom front door, and horizontal vinyl siding. STANDARDS FOR REVIEW The Robertson-Stuart & Mair district design standards are used to evaluate projects on contributing buildings in the district. The following standards apply to the proposed project: 1.2.1.1. Do not alter or remove historic features unless they are deteriorated beyond repair. 1.2.1.2. If replacing deteriorated historic features, match the original as close as possible. Historic windows and siding will be repaired, with in-kind replacement reserved for only those elements that are deteriorated beyond repair. 1.2.2.1. Front exterior walls: Retain and repair the historic exterior materials on front walls, as well as side walls and roofs within 15 feet of the front of the building. If replacement of historic exterior wall materials is necessary, choose a material identical in dimensions, profile, reveal, and texture to the historic material, and install the new materials so that they maintain the spatial relationships (including depth and dimension) and joint patterns …
Residential New Construction and Addition Permit Application Property Information Project Address: Legal Description: Zoning District: DevelopmentATX.com | Phone: 311 (or 512-974-2000 outside Austin) For submittal and fee information, see austintexas.gov/digitaldevelopment Download application before entering information. Tax Parcel ID: Lot Area (sq ft): Historic District (if applicable): Neighborhood Plan Area (if applicable): Required Reviews Is project participating in S.M.A.R.T. Housing? (If yes, attach signed certification letter from NHCD, and signed conditional approval letter from Austin Energy Green Building) Is this site within an Airport Overlay Zone? (If yes, approval through Aviation is required) Y Y N N Does project have a Green Building requirement? (If yes, attach signed conditional approval letter from Austin Energy Green Building) Y N Does this site have a septic system? Y N (If yes, submit a copy of approved septic permit. OSSF review required) Does the structure exceed 3,600 square feet total under roof? Is this property within 200 feet of a hazardous pipeline? Y Y N N (If yes, Fire review is required) (If yes, Fire review is required) Is this site located within an Erosion Hazard Zone? Is this property within 100 feet of the 100-year floodplain? Y N (If yes, EHZ review is required) Y N (Proximity to floodplain may require additional review time.) Are there trees 19” or greater in diameter on/adjacent to the property? If yes, how many?_____ ( Provide plans with a tree survey, tree review required.) Y N Was there a pre-development consultation for the Tree Review? Y N Proposed impacts to trees: (Check all that apply) Root zone Canopy Removal None/Uncertain Is this site in the Capital View Corridor? (If yes, a preliminary review through land use is needed to determine if full view corridor review is required.) Does this site currently have: water availability? wastewater availability? Y Y Y N N N Is this site within the Residential Design and Compatibility Standards Ordinance Boundary Area? (LDC 25-2 Subchapter F) Y N (If no, contact Austin Water Utility to apply for water/wastewater taps and/or service extension request.) (If yes, submit approved auxiliary and potable plumbing plans.) Does this site have or will it have an auxiliary water source? (Auxiliary water supplies are wells, rainwater harvesting, river water, lake water, reclaimed water, etc.) Does this site require a cut or fill in excess of four (4) feet? Y N Y N (If yes, contact the Development Assistance Center for …
Brummett, Elizabeth From: Sent: To: Subject: Scott Boone Saturday, February 20, 2021 2:30 PM PAZ Preservation Case Number GF 21-014461 Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: Follow up Completed *** External Email - Exercise Caution *** Hi, As a resident at 1014 E 9th st in receipt of a public notice w/r/t the certificate of appropriateness, I would like to comment that I am IN FAVOR of the addition of an ADU, if only in the hopes that it might present an opportunity for a little more density. And sure, throw in a basement. But more broadly, I would prefer the upzoning of the entire neighborhood to allow by‐right installation of up to six units per lot, rather than another conversion of a barely‐historically‐significant unit into a $2m unit. The historicity of this neighborhood lies in its occupants, not the facades of its bungalows. If someone wants to pay that much to be within walking distance of Quickie Pickie, more power to them, but let's not pretend like they're doing anything historic. Let 'em turn it into a boarding house or a triplex, that would be historically‐ accurate. Good luck at the meeting! Scott ‐‐ scott boone 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.3 - 1 HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION PERMITS IN NATIONAL REGISTER HISTORIC DISTRICTS MARCH 22, 2021 GF-2021-007465 1007 MAUFRAIS STREET WEST LINE NATIONAL REGISTER HISTORIC DISTRICT PROPOSAL Demolish a ca. 1941 contributing building. Construct a new residence. PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS 1) Demolish existing one-story house. 2) Construct a new building. The proposed residence is two stories in height, capped with a standing-seam metal roof with compound roofline. Cladding materials include stucco, horizontal fiber cement siding, vertical fiber cement siding, vertical cedar screen, and standing-seam metal. The main elevation features a partial-width porch. Fenestration includes fixed, undivided windows of varying sizes, dimensions, and orientations; they are arranged in mostly regular patterns that vary among floors and bays. ARCHITECTURE Cross-gabled, single-story house with metal roof, horizontal wood siding, paired front doors, partial-width front porch, and 1:1 single and mulled windows with 2:2 screens. RESEARCH The house at 1007 Maufrais Street was built in 1941 by Houston C. Piland and his wife, Nettie. Piland worked as a railway clerk and claim adjustor. The Pilands lived in the home for the rest of the 1940s, then sold it to mechanical and electrical contractor Ernest Jernigan, along with spouse Mildred Jernigan. The Jernigans did not stay long; by 1955, the Lawson family was renting the home. Opal Lawson worked for the Travis County tax assessor, and her husband Marvin was a mechanic with the Constant Service Company. After a brief vacancy, Robert Finlay purchased the house in 1959, then constructed an addition in 1961. STANDARDS FOR REVIEW The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation are used to evaluate new construction projects in National Register historic districts. Applicable standards include: 2. The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided. The existing contributing building will be demolished, and a noncontributing building erected in its place. 9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. The proposed new building is differentiated from historic buildings in the district by its modern fenestration patterns and cladding, its second-story massing, and its undivided fixed and casement windows. Its form mimics …
Historic Review Application For Office Use Only Date of Submission:__________________________ Plan Review #: ______________________________ Property Address: _____________________________________________________________________ Historic Landmark Historic District (Local) National Register Historic District Historic Landmark or Historic District Name:______________________________________________________________________________________________ Applicant Name: _______________________________ Phone #: ______________________ Email: ______________________________ Applicant Address: _______________________________ City: _______________________ __ State: ________________ Zip: __________ Please describe all proposed exterior work with location and materials. If you need more space, attach an additional sheet. PROPOSED WORK LOCATION OF PROPOSED WORK PROPOSED MATERIAL(S) 1) 2) 3) Submittal Requirements 1. One set of dimensioned building plans. Plans must: a) specify materials and finishes to be used, and b) show existing and proposed conditions for alterations and additions. Site Plan Elevations Floor Plan Roof Plan 2. Color photographs of building and site: Elevation(s) proposed to be modified Detailed view of each area proposed to be modified Any changes to these plans must be reviewed and approved by the Historic Preservation Office and/or Historic Landmark Commission. Applicant Signature: ___________________________________________ Date: ____________________________ Design Standards and Guidelines for Historic Properties Adopted December 2012 Design Standards and Guidelines for Historic Properties Landmarks and National Register historic district properties If you are making changes to a historic landmark, the project must comply with these standards to receive a Certificate of Appropriateness. If you are making changes to a contributing property or constructing a new building within a National Register historic district, consider the standards below as advisory guidelines: 1. Use a property for its historic purpose or place it in a new use that requires minimal change to the defining characteristics of the building and its site and environment. 2. Retain and preserve the historic character or a property shall be retained and preserved. Avoid the removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property. 3. Recognize each property 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 architectural elements from other buildings, shall not be undertaken. 4. Most properties change over time; those changes that have acquired historic significance in their own right shall be retained and preserved. 5. Distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a historic property shall be preserved. 6. Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires visual qualities and, where possible, materials. Replacement of …
