11.0 - 210 W 6th St — original pdf

Backup

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 approvable. If work is proposed at historic areas, staff has consulted to prioritize reversibility and minimal long-term impact to material. If any historic material is proposed to be altered, it will be noted in the appropriate sections below. 3. Roofs Installation of rooftop equipment is proposed at the roof of the westernmost bay to reduce ventilation lines and minimize alteration of historic material. Kitchen services must be located in this location, and the least visible location of equipment is at the roof. To allow the equipment to blend in visually, a screening system is proposed. Though the screen does not rise to the full height of the equipment, sightline studies have been performed to determine that this will reduce the overall visibility of this equipment from the street level, with the result being as 11 – 2 minimally visible as possible for such an intervention. 4. Exterior walls and trim No new punched openings are proposed. The two sets of doors for accessibility and egress are in locations that were altered during the 2020 intervention. 5. Windows, doors, and screens Glazing is proposed to be changed to textured glass at two windows at the north end of the west façade. The current windows were installed in 2020, and the work is proposed to visually obscure a fire-rated partition for kitchen equipment as required by code. The window locations were selected to be as out of the way in the kitchen in order to avoid further alterations to historic material. Although the building is prominent and three sides are easily visible, these two windows are the least likely to be seen up close by the public. Proposed awnings are at locations that featured awning historically (see historic image on page 14 of included backup document). While these are different in shape and size, they create a similar visual effect and project out from the building at about the same distance. Seven awnings are proposed at the west façade and five are proposed at the south. 6. Porches Removal of non-historic handrails at the Sixth Street façade would be in keeping with historic images of the building. 9. Light fixtures Uplighting and downlighting s proposed for the two most prominent elevations, but fixtures are not proposed to be attached to the historic masonry. 11. Commercial storefronts Signage will be permitted as part of a separate sign application. However, the concept is to limit the total square footage of signage to the 40 square foot maximum as allowed by City of Ustin Historic Signage Guidelines, with the exception of the south elevation, which will request 50 square feet of signage be approved. Signage will be attached to the building at both the north and south facades. At the north, it will be attached to the historic masonry at mortar joints with as few penetrations as possible. At the south elevation, a sign spanning between two columns is proposed. After consultation with city staff, a design is proposed that does not embed into any column or masonry, rather relying on tension to hold signage in place. Summary The project mostly meets the applicable standards. Property Evaluation The property contributes the Sixth Street National Register district, and is a designated Recorded Texas Historic Landmark. Committee Feedback Verify if windows where proposed glazing changes are original; if they are found to not be original, there is more freedom to alter glazing. Explore awnings at windows that replicate the original design as closely as possible. Awnings as currently proposed are not inappropriate but would be more in keeping with the building if they matched the original. Signage at front is above the maximum 40 square feet allowed by standards and should be reduced. Additionally, it must be installed so as not to damage any historic material. Reduce overall height of the proposed mechanical screening, just enough to block view of equipment from street but no taller. Staff Recommendation Comment on plans in concurrence with Architectural Review Committee feedback and release the application. Location Map 11 – 3 Property Information Photos 11 – 4 South facade (above) and west façade (below), Google Streetview, 2024