08.0 - 811 E Riverside Dr — original pdf

Backup

8 – 1 HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION Permits in National Register Historic Districts January 7, 2026 PR-2025-143402; HR-2025-157653 Travis Heights-Fairview Park Historic District 811 East Riverside Drive Proposal Remodel a ca. 1918 residence and construct outdoor amenities. Project Specifications 1) Remodel existing residence, including alteration of street facing exterior walls. 2) Construct detached carport at side of building. 3) Construct an in-ground pool at backyard. 4) Relocate existing shed on property. Architecture The propoerty is Craftsman style bungalow that features a broad, wraparound porch supported by four sets of three wood posts. The front gable is clad in decorative wood and features several brackets. The house is set withing the porch and features several large windows, which appear to be original. Research Built sometime around 1918, the house at 811 East Riverside was first owned by Olin & Cordia Jackson, who worked as a bookkeeper and notary in the city. At the time, there were few residences built on this section of East Riverside, but it became more populated by 1922, when Arthur & Mary Yarrington bought the property. Arthur Yarrington worked as a merchant and salesman throughout the Central Texas region, and the two raised their children at the address until Arthur’s passing around 1950, and Mary’s passing in 1954. The house stayed in their name for a few years, before being owned by Josephine Pace, a widow. 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 At all elevations, several windows and exterior material is proposed to be removed, all of which appears to be original to the house. Infill windows and alterations appear to be very modern in appearance. This is not in keeping with Standard 1.1 and 1.2. 2. Foundations Elevated foundation will be repaired as needed, but retained in its current location. 3. Roofs Roof will be replaced with what appears to be a standing seam metal roof, which will be in the existing orientation and pitch (with the exception of the additions described below). 4. Exterior walls and trim Several new openings, especially on the streetfacing north and east facades, will result in the loss of original wall material. Elevation drawings of existing facades have not been provided to verify exactly how much material is to be lost, but all windows are to be removed, described below. Attached drawings call for a wood finish on the infill, but more detail about the profiles of cladding material have not been provided. 8 – 2 5. Windows, doors, and screens Application calls for removal of all existing windows and a completely new fenestration pattern at all facades. Windows are proposed to be aluminum fram units, some very close to the exisitng roof lines, and not in a historic pattern. Several are large, floor-to-ceiling units, or include sliding door features to open up the house to the exterior. No information is provided on the glazing to determine whether it will be clear or colorless. The overall fenestration proposal does not meet historic design standards 5.1, 5.3, 5.5, 5.6, and 5.7. 6. Porches Porch will be retained in size and material, except for the metal roof above. 7. Chimneys Existing front chimey is proposed to be removed in place of a second floor addition. Two narrow draft chimneys are proposed, one at the front pitch of the main, side gabled roof, and one at the rear. Draft chimneys are to project approximately 7 ½ feet above the highest peak of the roof. Chimneys are to be finished with black enamel paint. No design standards address this type of chimney pattern, but there is a risk of it looking out of place and too tall for a residence. 10. Accessory buildings Non-historic shed is proposed to be relocated on-site to allow for the installation of a backyard pool. Residential additions 1. Location The current second floor, which is housed underneath the existing roofline, is proposed to be slightly expanded and the front wall expanded, which will be easily visible from the street. An expanded window and flat roof is proposed in place of an existing front dormer window. A small rear addition is also proposed at the ground floor to house laundry and circulation spaces. 2. Scale, massing, and height The rear addition is in keeping with similar additions in the district in size and purpose. The second floor expansion of the dormer area will not be complimentary to the scale and massing at the rest of the front elevation, which does not meet design standards for additions 2.1 and 2.2. 3. Design and style The flat roof and fenestration of the dormer addition will not complement the historic building, but it will read as a different phase of construction. Design standard 3.3 recommends not adding dormers to the front slope of the roof. Due to the complete removal of historic material and the enlargening of the dormer opening, this may be considered a new dormer in this location and does not meet the Standard. 4. Roofs The flat roof of the dormer addition does not completment the historic building form. 5. Exterior walls Drawings indicate that all walls will be “new wooden wall with white paint,” which does not give detail on the size/scale or orientation of the cladding. 6. Windows, screens, and doors Like the windows descirbed in the Repair and Alterations section, all windows are to be aluminum framed and large in size. They are not in keeping with historic material, fenestration pattern, configuration, or profile. 9. Attached garages and carports Detached carport is proposed at the side elevation, in the location of a current side patio. Summary The project does not meet the applicable standards. Property Evaluation The property contributes to the Travis Heights-Fairview Park National Register district. 8 – 3 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 Comment on plans for alterations and the addition and release the application, encouraging the applicant to reduce alterations to fenestration patterns on the street-facing elevations. Location Map 8 – 4 Property Information Photos 8 – 5 View of side of house from Alta Vista Avenue, Google Streetview, 2025 Occupancy History City Directory Research, December 2025 1959 1957 1955 1952 1949 1947 1944 1941 1939 1935 1932 1929 1927 1924 1922 1920 1918 Josephine Pace, widow of D.P. Pace, owner Same as above Same as above Mary Yarrington, widow of Arthur H. Yarrington, owner Same as above Same as above Same as above Same as above Same as above Arthur & Mary Yarrington, owners; retired Same as above Same as above, now employed as a salesman Same as above Same as above Same as above Olin & Cordia Jackson, owners; bookkeeper & notary Address not listed Historical Information 8 – 6 The Austin Statesman (1921-1973); Sep 1, 1954, 20. The Austin American (1914-1973); Mar 1, 1931, A4.