05.a - 3710 Cedar St - public comment — original pdf

Backup

3710 CEDAR STREET February 4, 2026 HLC Meeting Submitted to HLC February 3, 2026 Nick Wallace SUMMARY • Restoring the site to provide affordable housing is to be commended as compatible with the original use of the site in the period of significance. • This historic property deserves careful attention and clarity of what items will be restored vs those that will be replaced, obscured and/or removed. • The submittal is inadequate to describe proposed changes, additions and treatments. • The plans that have been submitted do not appear to accurately show the current building(s) and structures on the property as they exist today or as they existed in the period of significance. This makes it difficult for the HLC to evaluate what change(s) are being proposed. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Postpone vote on request until accurate documentation of the current structures and specific descriptions of the proposed changes are provided. 2. Encourage applicant to produce to HLC reviewers photos and accurate elevations showing each building, structure, and signage as it currently exists from all angles—including but not limited to placement of windows/doors and proposed changes. 3. Encourage applicant to produce historic photos of the site from the period of significance, which are readily available in Austin History Center archives. While a few photos available online are included in this deck, many more historic photos of the building exist in AHC archives. 4. Review new construction proposed on southern half of site. 5. Provide recommendations for signage interpreting history of site. ISSUE 1: INACCURATE AND/OR INCOMPLETE EXISTING BUILDING ELEVATIONS IMPEDE REVIEW OF PROPOSED CHANGES ELEVATIONS OMIT EXISTING CEDAR STREET-FACING DOORS Applicant’s Elevations Is this a request of HLC to remove all street-facing doors from the Cedar Street façade? Actual Current Building Doors Facing Cedar St. ELEVATIONS OMIT 38TH STREET-FACING DOOR STREET-FACING DOORS ALONG CEDAR AND 38TH ARE CHARACTER DEFINING FEATURES Source: Austin History Center online archives. Undated – North Stone Masonry Tower ELEVATIONS OMIT APPARENTLY HISTORIC STONE PILLARS WITH MASONRY MATCHING FAÇADE OF MAIN BUILDING How are these historic resources to be treated? Note: a stone pillar matching those shown above appears on claimed “non- historic” southern end of lot at 35th and Cedar. Source: Austin History Center Online Archives, 1910 ELEVATIONS OMIT EXISTING CONCRETE RAMP WALLS ATTACHED TO BUILDING They do not appear historic but it is not clear whether they are to be removed as part of the restoration. ELEVATIONS OF HOME LANE BRICK BUILDING’S 38 T H STREET FAÇADE APPEAR TO DIVERGE FROM PRESENT BUILDING What is the additional feature shown on the elevation presented as of the ‘existing building’? Is this a proposal to add an additional doorway? Building currently lacks any feature here ISSUE 2: WHAT NEW MATERIALS WILL BE USED FOR PLANNED CHANGES? WHICH WINDOWS ARE TO BE REPLACED AND WITH WHAT? • Staff report indicates that the project involves replacing “windows as required due to failure or deterioration” and that “windows are not original” and will be replaced with fixtures that are “intended to perform better.” • This raises several questions: • Have the windows been inventoried? • Which windows have failed and will be replaced? • If not original, are the current windows from or post-dating the period of significance? • Some windows on the property such as the wood frame windows in the brick buildings along Home appear to be original. • Will these be removed or restored? • It is unclear – of what materials will the replacement windows be constructed? • What patterns of window panes will be used—1 over 1, 4 over 4, 6 over 1 etc.? Will replacement window styles be based on styles shown in historic photos readily available at AHC? EXISTING MASONRY OF BRICK BUILDINGS ON HOME LANE IS PARTIALLY PAINTED Is the paint to be removed? Is unpainted brick to be painted? Or will partially painted façade pattern remain? ISSUE 3: OPPORTUNITY FOR RESTORATION OF CHARACTER DEFINING FEATURES REQUEST APPLIC ANT TO EXPLORE AND REPORT TO HLC WHETHER THE ORIGINAL MASONRY AND STUCCO CRENELLATION REMAINS UNDER TURRETS’ CURRENT SHINGLE “HATS”. Shape of current hats suggests they could be contoured around preserved crenellation. It would be ideal if this character defining feature could be restored as part of the federal tax credit supported rehabilitation project. Source: Austin History Center online archives. Circa 1910s – South Stucco Tower Undated – North Stone Masonry Tower ADDITIONAL RESTORATION QUESTIONS • Are there opportunities for applicant to improve the historic treatment of the property by removing features shown in historic photos to be later additions? Such as: • Removing the second story open porch columns/roofing on Cedar—these do not appear in early photos included in this deck. • Removing the enclosure of the second story porch on 38th Street—same. • Are there opportunities for the applicant to improve the historic treatment by restoring features since removed for? Such as: • Shutters—see early photos. ISSUE 4 – SITE IS ORIENTED ON A FULL CITY BLOCK SURROUNDED BY FOUR CITY STREETS WITH RELEVANT VIEWS OF LANDMARK FROM AT LEAST 3 OF THE STREETS PROPOSED ADDITION TO MAIN BUILDING WILL COVER APPARENTLY HISTORIC COLONNADE THAT IS HIGHLY VISIBLE FROM BOTH 38 T H AND HOME LANE • The original building appears to have been significantly more oriented toward 38th Street than appears in its currently modified states – see prior slides’ images. • Seen from this historic POV, it would appear that the colonnades along both Home and Cedar may have been complimentary architectural features—less a “front and a rear” than claimed now. • Home Lane was named for the Woman’s Home. • Has there been an assessment of whether the Home colonnade (which appears visually to match the Cedar Street colonnade in stonework) is original? • The Home colonnade is also highly visible to east bound passerby on busy 38th Street. • How will covering it with an addition along this corridor affect the historic value of the site? View of Home Lane Collonade from 38th and Home Lane ISSUE 5: LACK OF PLANS SUBMITTED FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION ON SITE HALF THE SITE IS OMITTED FROM THE HLC SUBMITTAL THOUGH THE NEW CONSTRUCTION THERE IS HIGHLY RELEVANT TO THE LANDMARK’S HISTORIC INTEGRITY • A building immediately adjacent to the main landmarked structure is planned to be constructed on the southern half of the site as part of the same redevelopment project. • This project’s new construction will replace the landmarked main building as the largest and most prominent building in the neighborhood. • The neighborhood around the landmark is comprised of some highly intact early 20th Century bungalow streetscapes. • Therefore, the style, materials, massing and fenestration of such new construction will certainly be relevant to the landmark’s integrity and the sense of history that it conveys. CLAIMED NON-HISTORIC ZONING STATUS OF THE SOUTHERN HALF OF LOT RAISES QUESTIONS • The staff report states that “new construction at the southern, non-landmarked, half of the property [] are not included in this application.” • However, it is not clear that the southern half of the site should be carved out as non-landmarked and this is being looked into: • 3710 Cedar lot is treated as historically zoned in the 2004 North University NCCD Ordinance: https://www.northuniversity.org/wp- content/uploads/2024/10/NUNA-NCCD.pdf • Notice mailed to neighbors in April 2025 stated that existing site zoning for the entire block was changing from SF-3-H-NCCD-NP to MF-4-H-NCCD-NP as requested by the applicant. (See notice at right.) • Notice was not provided that that half the site could be stripped of historic zoning. There would be questions about the validity of any such purported change given lack of notice. SCOPE OF HLC REVIEW • Will the applicant agree to HLC review of the development across the site, including new construction on the southern half of the lot? ISSUE 6: HISTORIC INTERPRETATION EXISTING PROMINENT SIGNAGE ON PROPERTY IS NOT SHOWN IN ELEVATIONS. WILL THIS BE CHANGED WITH NEW OWNERSHIP? PRIVATELY PLACED GREEN SIGN WITH CURRENT OWNERS’ LOGO IS RELIED UPON TO CONVEY THE COMPLIC ATED HISTORY OF THE SITE Has the City researched the relevant history of site and the organizations involved? Does HLC have any recommendations for whether there should remain additional signage expanding and nuancing the Texas Historical Commission marker’s narrative? Is this signage planned to be retained, rebranded, or removed? Do changes to signage require HLC review? REMAINING QUESTIONS QUESTIONS • In the event that other review bodies require modification of plans approved by HLC, is applicant required to resubmit such additional information to HLC? • Will there be any follow-up in the field by preservation staff to ensure that a Certificate of Appropriateness will be followed? THANK YOU Thank you for your work helping Austin preserve, restore, and interpret its history.