22.0 - 1607 Kenwood Ave — original pdf

Backup

22.0 – 1 HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION PERMITS IN NATIONAL REGISTER HISTORIC DISTRICTS OCTOBER 2, 2024 HR-2024-055618 TRAVIS HEIGHTS-FAIRVIEW PARK NATIONAL REGISTER HISTORIC DISTRICT 1607 KENWOOD AVENUE PROPOSAL Construct a side addition to a ca. 1940 house, enclosing a detached studio building. PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS 1) Combine 1-story, single-family house and detached studio building. The extended front wall will be flush with the original house, extending to the footprint of the patio at the side and the studio at the rear. The proposed design changes the house from a 2-bedroom, 1-bathroom to a 3-bedroom, 2-bathroom. 2) Partially demolish roofs of both structures and build new roof connecting them and over new construction. The side gable at the front of the house will be extended with matching dimensions, with two gables projecting to the rear at the existing house and remainder of the studio roof system. 3) Remove front window and door & install new fixtures. 4) Move driveway & install a new path to front entry. ARCHITECTURE RESEARCH Travis Heights-Fairview Park National Register nomination describes the house as an intact, contributing example of the Minimal Traditional style built in a rectangular plan. The front elevation features a door at center, with a 1/1 window on either side. A side gable roof is present, with a front gable projecting outwards, covering the front entryway. To the southeast of the main house is a small, detached studio space with a front gable roof extending towards the front of the property. The southwest corner of the property is enclosed by a wood fence that forms a patio space behind it. The house at 1607 Kenwood Avenue was constructed around 1938, and was advertised as a 5-room bungalow rental for $32.50 a month. No records are present indicating who occupied the property until 1941, when it housed Roy & Ruth Krezdorn. Mr. Krezdorn worked as an electrical engineer at the Lower Colorado River Authority at this time, and Mrs. Krezdorn was active in Austin social groups, including Junior Helping Hand and St. Martin’s Lutheran Church. Later Roy worked in a managerial role, as well as an adjunct professor for engineering, and Ruth gave birth to three children. By this time they were no longer listed as residing at the modest bungalow on Kenwood Avenue, and listings had the Curtis family occupying the space, who would later appear on a notice for delinquent taxes. At some point after this, it is assumed that the unattached studio was built or otherwise enclosed. Several windows have been replaced in 2010 and 2011. 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 The proposal removes all historic material from the front of the building, and it does not propose to replace in-kind. Materials that have been installed have a drastically different appearance, and the addition cannot be easily read as a separate construction from the historic. 3. Roofs The proposed alteration removed exposed rafter ends from the front of the building, which did not appear to be in failing condition. 4. Exterior walls and trim Historic cladding material has been completely removed and did not appear to be in a failing condition. A compatible material was not selected, and the appearance of the historic house and new construction are identical, obfuscating the 22.0 – 2 original section of the property. 5. Windows, doors, and screens While not original, windows have been removed without approval and their sizes changed. The replacement fixtures, while likely not identical in measurements to the original front windows, were single-hung and retained a similar language of operability and scale. The replacement windows do not match the character of the original design. Additionally, the front door has been replaced with an incompatible design. 6. Porches The size and scale of the front porch remains appropriate and matching in size. However, the issues outlined in the “Exterior walls and trim” section above are present at this location as well. 10. Accessory buildings The detached studio has been completely lost in this design, with the exception of the roof location, though this is completely blended into a uniform design with the remainder of the house. Residential additions 1. Location The proposed addition is located to the side and rear of the property. However, it is brought up to the front elevation of the house and blends itself with the front façade of the historic building. Standard 1.2 calls for side additions to be stepped back from the front wall where possible. In this location, that would be possible. Standard 1.5 also calls for minimizing the loss of historic material through the least invasive location and means, which this design fails to do. 2. Scale, massing, and height Standard 2.1 calls for any additions to be subordinate in design to the historic. In this instance, by locating the addition flush with the front wall, the design pairs the new addition with the historic, creating confusion in how the building may be read. 4. Roofs The roof as designed ties into both historic roofs in their as-built orientation, using the perpendicular gable located at the rear of the historic property as inspiration for how to incorporate the similar orientation at the detached studio. However, by matching the size and slope of both roofs exactly, it creates an appearance that is difficult to understand what is original and what is an addition. Standard 4.1 calls for a complimentary design for roof additions, but this proposal instead dilutes the original. 5. Exterior walls The proposed cladding is not compatible with the historic in material as it is currently installed, but a finish may be applied to create a more appropriate appearance. However, there is difficulty to determine what may be an appropriate match because the historic material has been removed from the original house. 6. Windows, screens, and doors New windows may be compatible is material, size, proportion, or profile. Like the exterior wall cladding described above, there is difficulty in finding an exact match due to the existing windows being removed. Summary The project may minimally meet the applicable standards listed above. After attending the July 10, 2024 Architectural Review Committee, the applicant has provided some detail about changing some elements of the front façade to make the appearance more compatible with surrounding properties, with some measures, including the exposed rafter tails, reappearing. PROPERTY EVALUATION The property contributes to the Travis Heights-Fairview Park National Register district. Designation Criteria—Historic Landmark 1) The building is more than 50 years old. 2) The building appears to retain moderate 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 displays some architectural significance of the minimal traditional bungalow style. 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, 22.0 – 3 cultural, or historical value to the city. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve the application with the understanding that any changes or further work will require review by the Historic Preservation Office and may require appearance before the Historic Landmark Commission. LOCATION MAP 22.0 – 4 PROPERTY INFORMATION Photos 22.0 – 5 Google Streetview, 2019 Site visit, June 2024 22.0 – 6 Occupancy History City Directory Research, June 2024 Mr. and Mrs. James Curtis Kirksey Curtis 1959 1952 1944 1938 House listed for rent Historical Information Roy R. & Ruth K. Krezdorn, occupants - Electrical Engineer, US Lower Colorado River Authority; later assistant director of the Bureau of Engineering Research at the University of Texas & Fellow, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers The Austin American (1914-1973); May 1, 1938: 19 (ProQuest) The Austin Statesman (1921-1973); May 24, 1963 (ProQuest) Permits 22.0 – 7 Plumbing hookup permit, 1938 Permit for 3 window replacements, 2010