04.0 - 1712 Rio Grande St — original pdf

Backup

HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION Applications for Certificate of Appropriateness September 2, 2026 HR-2026-101469 Malcolm and Margaret Badger Reed House 1712 Rio Grande Street 4 – 1 Proposal Rehabilitate a landmarked structure and construct a rear addition. Project Specifications 1) Repair and reconstruct original design elements at the main structure, including front stairs, windows, and replace roof with material more in matching with original appearance. 2) Remove non-historic porch enclosure and rear fire escape stair. 3) Construct a rear two-story addition with a modern design, connected to the original building by an enclosed hyphen corridor, reducing the impact to historic material. Architecture This City of Austin landmark is a two-story brick structure built around or shortly after 1912. It features Prairie School style elements, including a large hipped roof, a broad front porch, and an emphasis on horizontal elements. There are some highly intricate window sashes that remain, and the condition of the exterior is in good, if altered, condition. The front entry is approached by a wide front stair leading to an arched brick portal to the porch. Changes over time include an enclosed side porch, a replaced roof, as well as a rear addition with substantial wood fire escape. 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 at historic properties. The following standards apply to the proposed project: Repair and alterations 1. General standards Removal of material from the building is limited to nonhistoric or otherwise nonoriginal fabric. Reconstruction and rehabilitation is guided by historic images included in case backup. 3. Roofs Existing, nonhistoric metal roof is proposed to be removed and replaced with clay tile or another product that visually matches clay tile while being lighter in weight. The applicant has proposed reinforcement of the roof structure in either case, and the use of either roofing material is based on historic photos to ensure an appropriate match. 4. Exterior walls and trim Minor damage and deterioration at exterior walls will be repaired, and some electrical conduit and nonhistoric interventions will be removed where no longer needed. Existing side porch, which was previously enclosed, will be reopened and porch rails will be reconstructed based on historic imagery. 5. Windows, doors, and screens Several windows and doors are proposed to be replaced, all of which are not original to the building. The front entry doors will be replaced with a design based on historic imagery. Windows that are to be replaced are either at the enclosed porch described above or at the rear of the building, servicing a non-historic addition. 6. Porches As described above, the wraparound section of the front porch will be opened up to its original configuration. Historic images, as well as the remaining material in place, will guide the design of the porch rail and any other 4 – 2 materials that may have been lost during the previous enclosure. Residential additions 1. Location The proposed addition is at the rear of the property, and will be minimally connected to the historic house through use of a hyphen, which will limit any removal or covering up of historic material. Though the site is very prominent and the addition will be highly visible, the location is as out of way as possible, and other design decisions described below will make this addition read a s separate but compatible with the whole of the property. 2. Scale, massing, and height The scale of the addition is generally subordinate to the main house. By separating it with a hyphen connection to the historic, it does defer to the main structure. The overall height is a bit high and it is recommended that the top of the building be reduced below the height of the eave of the original building, but given the grade of the site, the scale does not overwhelm the site and this proposal meets the design standards. 3. Design and style As an addition, the design is very modern and will not be confused in any way as contemporary to the original structure. However, careful selection of material such as brick, as well as thoughtful use of design elements including window locations, complement the design of the original while remaining distinct. As far as modern additions to early-20th century buildings can be considered, this is an excellent case of best practices. 4. Roofs A flat roof is proposed to limit overall height of the addition. This is appropriate given the slope of the property and no concerns are present. 5. Exterior walls Proposed brick is a good match that remains distinct when taken in concert with other design elements at the addition. 6. Windows, screens, and doors Proposed windows are very modern in design, but the massing and size are appropriate to the remainder of the property. Due to the rest of the addition’s design, windows that seek to emulate the historic would likely look more out of place and be less appropriate than what is proposed. 9. Attached garages and carports A carport is proposed under the rear side of the addition. This will allow for off-street parking while being minimally visible and will not affect views of the historic building. Summary The project meets the applicable standards. Department Comments This application will time out on November 16, 2026. Architectural Review Committee Feedback Consider lowering slightly the overall height of the addition to be in line with the cornice/eave of the historic building. Create and submit a birds-eye rendering of the property as proposed to better understand the scale and setback of the addition. Staff Recommendation Approve the Certificate of Appropriateness in concurrence with Architectural Review Committee feedback. Location Map 4 – 3 Property Information Photos 4 – 4 Historic zoning application, 2025 4 – 5 Historic zoning application, 2025