A.1.c - 3004 Belmont Cir - citizen comment — original pdf
Backup
Historic Landmark Commission Homepage
A.1.d - 3004 Belmont Cir - citizen comment — original pdf
Backup
B.2.b - 1616 Northwood Rd - citizen comment — original pdf
Allen, Amber From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Bill W Friday, September 24, 2021 4:48 PM PAZ Preservation C14H-2017-0082 HR 21-084469 1616 Northwood Road *** External Email - Exercise Caution *** Commissioners: The Historic Review Committee of the Bryker Woods Neighborhood Association has reviewed and discussed the plans for fencing and construction of a pool. We rely on the COA Arborist to determine if the pool construction is feasible. This is the Mcdonald-Doughtie House, a Historic Landmark house. We do NOT oppose this if the COA Arborist agrees that the project is feasible. (By way of information, our Neighborhood Association only votes to “oppose” or “not oppose;” we do not “support.”) Bill Woods Bryker Woods Neighborhood Association Historic Review Committee ‐‐Bill W Living on Earth is expensive but it does include a free trip around the Sun. This message is confidential, intended only for the named recipient and may contain information that is privileged or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you receive this message in error, or are not the named recipient, please notify the sender. All comments are the sender’s personal opinion unless otherwise noted. CAUTION: This email was received at the City of Austin, from an EXTERNAL source. Please use caution when clicking links or opening attachments. If you believe this to be a malicious and/or phishing email, please forward this email to cybersecurity@austintexas.gov. 1
C.1.d - 1805 Waterston Ave - citizen comment — original pdf
Clarksville. C.1. PR-2021-055578, 1805 Waterston Avenue My name is Mary Reed and I am speaking on behalf of the Clarksville Community Development Corporation (CCDC) as its board president. We are the neighborhood organization for historic We oppose release of a demo permit for 1805 Waterston Avenue for several reasons in addition to the fact that the home contributes to the Clarksville National Register Historic District. • First, the home at this address is not in a state of disrepair – it’s a fully remodeled home that Nalle Custom Homes purchased for over a million dollars! • Second, it makes no sense from an environmental standpoint to send a perfectly good house to the landfill. • Third, the new house Nalle wants to build will make Clarksville even less affordable than it is now and may very well force some current residents who are already struggling with the cost of housing in the neighborhood to move. • And finally, Nalle’s proposed new home is totally inappropriate for Clarksville. For starters, it’s too busy, too big, too tall, it’s architecture is incompatible with the simple traditional architecture of the neighborhood, it features brick accents and a brick chimney – brick is not a building material used in Clarksville -- and it has double front-facing garages. The house design may be appropriate for Tarrytown, Westlake, or suburbia, but not for Clarksville. Since June 3, when representatives of the CCDC first met with Jesse Nalle of Nalle Custom Homes, we have tried to get the company to revise its plans to make them more Clarksville. We provided him with specific suggestions and also recommended that he drive around Clarksville to get a sense of the neighborhood. Initially, Mr. Nalle appeared very open to our thoughts and ideas and said that he would send us new plans based on our comments. Over the ensuing months in email exchanges with him, he repeatedly promised that new plans would be coming, but we have seen nothing. In fact, the drawings in the backup materials for this case are exactly what we saw when we met with Mr. Nalle nearly four months ago. The CCDC asks that therefore that you deny the requested demo permit and ask Nalle Custom Homes to meet with members of the Architectural Review Committee for specific guidance on designing a home that is in keeping with historic Clarksville. Thank you.
C.12.a - 1908 W 33rd St - citizen comment — original pdf
Allen, Amber From: Sent: Subject: Bill W Friday, September 24, 2021 4:34 HistRevComm@BWNA.groups.io 2021-134003 PR HR 21-136955 1908 W. 33rd Street *** External Email - Exercise Caution *** Commissioners: The Historic Review Committee of the Bryker Woods Neighborhood Association has been in contact with the owner of 1908 W 33rd, and reviewed and discussed the conceptual drawings they sent to us . We do not feel that the conceptual drawings (they are stamped “NOT FOR REGULATORY APPROVAL, PERMITTING OR CONSTRUCTION” ) are sufficient to make a decision and respectfully request a POSTPONEMENT of this hearing until next month, giving the owner/architect time to finalize their building plans and giving us time to review them. We would like to point out that this property is a Contributing Property to the Old West Austin Historic District, built in 1949 and has outstanding stonework on the front. Thank you for your consideration. Bill Woods Historic Review Committee Bryker Woods NA ‐‐ Bill W Living on Earth is expensive but it does include a free trip around the Sun. This message is confidential, intended only for the named recipient and may contain information that is privileged or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you receive this message in error, or are not the named recipient, please notify the sender. All comments are the sender’s personal opinion unless otherwise noted. CAUTION: This email was received at the City of Austin, from an EXTERNAL source. Please use caution when clicking links or opening attachments. If you believe this to be a malicious and/or phishing email, please forward this email to cybersecurity@austintexas.gov. 1
C.3.e - 1104 Toyath St - citizen comment — original pdf
C.3. HR-2021-115725, 1104 Toyath My name is Mary Reed and I am speaking on behalf of the Clarksville Community Development Corporation (CCDC) as its board president. We object to the plans for the new home Paradisa Homes wants to build at 1104 Toyath because it’s incompatible with other homes on the street and with the mass and scale of traditional Clarksville architecture. Aside from the board and batten siding, Paradisa seems to have assumed that the kind of home it builds in other neighborhoods, mostly non-historic neighborhoods from what we can tell by visiting the company’s website, would be appropriate for Clarksville. Paradisa Homes also appears to have overlooked the impact of their home’s height on its neighbors and especially on the Lawson House, the landmarked home next door. It will loom over that house. Furthermore, the roof deck ensures that the next door neighbors on Toyath as well as several neighbors in the 1800 block of West 11th whose backyards abut the back yard of 1104, will lose their privacy. We would like Paradisa go back to the drawing board and design a home more fitting for Clarksville and for the 1100 block of Toyath in particular. Thank you.
C.4.b - 1104 Charlotte St - citizen comment — original pdf
Backup
C.5.d - 82 San Marcos Street - citizen comment — original pdf
Allen, Amber From: Sent: To: Subject: sylvia marroquin Monday, September 27, 2021 9:52 AM PAZ Preservation Historic Case # PR-21-113815 review case # GF-21-118300 *** External Email - Exercise Caution *** Please enter these 3 protests to Historic case # PR-21-113815. The hearing is scheduled for today beginning at 6pm. ‐‐ Sylvia Marroquin Armadillo Realty No e-mails sent or received shall constitute a legally binding contract unless and until a written contract is signed by the "parties". CAUTION: This email was received at the City of Austin, from an EXTERNAL source. Please use caution when clicking links or opening attachments. If you believe this to be a malicious and/or phishing email, please forward this email to cybersecurity@austintexas.gov. 1
C.6.c - 1505 Travis Heights Blvd - citizen comment — original pdf
Allen, Amber From: Sent: To: Subject: Lois Kim Friday, September 24, 2021 3:00 PM Allen, Amber Support for 1505 Travis Heights Boulevard renovation Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: Follow up Completed *** External Email - Exercise Caution *** Dear Ms. Allen, We wanted to contact you about our support for the renovation project at 1505 Travis Heights Boulevard. We have lived in Travis Heights since 1998 and love the character, trees, and community of our neighborhood. There are many historic structures throughout the neighborhood, and we certainly support preserving the character and scale while also supporting updates and improvements that enhance the overall quality of the neighborhood in an appropriate way. We are around the corner from our neighbors Paige and Andy Hart who have shared the renovation plans by Merzbau Design Collective. We find the changes to be appropriate and attractive. With updates to siding, roof, and windows that preserves the cottage structure and maintains the street scale, we support their proposal that will enhance the overall quality of the Boulevard. Regards, Lois Kim and Phillip Reed CAUTION: This email was received at the City of Austin, from an EXTERNAL source. Please use caution when clicking links or opening attachments. If you believe this to be a malicious and/or phishing email, please forward this email to cybersecurity@austintexas.gov. 1
D.11.b - 4512 Avenue C - citizen comment — original pdf
Allen, Amber From: Sent: To: Subject: Katherine Dowdy Sunday, September 26, 2021 3:49 PM PAZ Preservation; Allen, Amber Re: Historic case number# PR-2021-134031; review case # GF 21-139069; address 4512 Ave C *** External Email - Exercise Caution *** Case Number: GF 21‐139069 ‐4512 Avenue C Contact: Amber Allen, (512) 974‐3393 Public Hearing: Historic Landmark Commission, Sep. 27, 2021 Hi Amber and Historic Landmark Commission, I re‐read the letter sent to our house and wanted to make sure I submitted my comments correctly, So I am resending. Also, wanted to make sure my comments were clearer. My concern is that the siding of this house is asbestos. I am fine with the demolition but want assurance that the demolition will follow the guidelines of demolition with asbestos siding. I worry about the long term safety of the surrounding area and neighborhood and how demolition of a house with asbestos siding may cause asbestos dust. From my understanding, a hose on the demolition during the demolition would not be enough. I believe the siding needs to be removed prior to demolition. Thank you, Kathy Dowdy On Fri, Sep 24, 2021 at 12:16 PM Katherine Dowdy My concern is the siding of this house is abestos. I want assurance that appropriate and legal measures and steps will be taken in the demolition of this house to assure the safety of the surrounding area and neighborhood from abestos and abestos dust. A hose on the demolition during the demolition would not be enough. I believe it needs to be removed prior to demolition from what I understand. Thank you, Kathy Dowdy CAUTION: This email was received at the City of Austin, from an EXTERNAL source. Please use caution when clicking links or opening attachments. If you believe this to be a malicious and/or phishing email, please forward this email to cybersecurity@austintexas.gov. wrote: 1
D.2.2 - 2501 Inwood Pl - Presentation - Updated — original pdf
Historic Landmark Commission September 27, 2021 Proposed Demolition Permit 2501 Inwood Austin Texas Prepared for By Vincent Gerard & Associates, Inc. Land Planning, Development & Zoning Consultants 1715 South Capital Of Texas Highway, Suite 207 Austin, Texas 78746 Vincentgerard.com | (512) 328-2693 Architectural Summary *Structure – “Midcentury Modern” by Definition MidCentury Modern Preservation Society- Glass and large windows (some), straight flat lines (no), open and split level Spaces (no), minimal Ornamentation & furniture with many build-ins (shelves), immersed in nature (Yes). Residential Structure does not meet Typical Midcentury Modern Further – numerous additions and extensions occurred post 1948 Antenna Configuration Historic Landmark Commission• Austin Texas - 2501 Inwood Examples of Midcentury Modern Multiple Lines/Windows/Open Space/Levels Antenna Configuration Historic Landmark Commission• Austin Texas - 2501 Inwood Antenna Configuration Historic Landmark Commission• Austin Texas - 2501 Inwood Hugh McMath UT School of Architecture Deans, Past & Present Antenna Configuration Historic Landmark Commission• Austin Texas - 2501 Inwood Hugh McMath Chairman 1946-50, Acting Chair 1955-56. Would make may trips to Monterrey Mexico Developed courses in the Pre-Hispanic and colonial architecture of Mexico, Is listed as a consultant/Architect for the Instituto Tecnologico of Monterrey Mexico Antenna Configuration Historic Landmark Commission• Austin Texas - 2501 Inwood Ned Cole Builder & Developer, President of Fabricon in 1950’s. He was an officer (Treasurer) along 4 others in Plancon (builders) Sold Hugh McMath two Lots on Inwood Place. Started a Prefabrication Company (Fabricon) in East Austin – cabinets and shelves, Key player in developing the “Air Conditioned Village” in Austin Moved to Baton Rouge LA in the 1961. Is 2501 Inwood His best example of architecture? What other Ned Cole Homesites been restored/preserved? Plancon had 3 other partners, did Ned Cole actually build this? Historic Landmark Commission• Austin Texas - 2501 Inwood Antenna Configuration Fabricon Shelves The current owner Would like to donate the existing shelves & closet in the McMath House To the Austin Historical Society Or the University Of Texas. Antenna Configuration Historic Landmark Commission• Austin Texas - 2501 Inwood John McIntyre PE Report Antenna Configuration Historic Landmark Commission• Austin Texas - 2501 Inwood Summary *2501 Inwood Does not meet all the criteria for a Historic Structure, *Interesting homesite - 1 Bedroom House, but does not fit into Midcentury Modern, Numerous add-ons and additions, Hugh McMath was certainly a mainstay in the UT School of Architecture however he was not a TITAN as some of the …
D.5.a - 2103 E 8th St - citizen comment — original pdf
Allen, Amber From: Sent: To: Subject: Nathan Wilkes Sunday, September 26, 2021 3:56 PM Allen, Amber GF 21-135466 Object to Demolition in Historic District *** External Email - Exercise Caution *** In looking at the house I feel that the quality is such that it should be preserved and any renovations be required to preserve its character. The house appears to be traditional wood framed with horizontal wood siding with protruding front porch indicative of traditional houses in the neighborhood and better quality than board and batton construction that is sometimes seen. With the ADU ordinance (I'm generally supportive of density and AUDs) there is now tremendous economic pressure to remove these type of old structures for new double units that sell $1.5‐2 million. This economic pressure puts extreme pricing pressure on this neighborhood and undermines assets like these in this historic district. Thanks for the consideration, Nathan Wilkes 2021‐09‐26 CAUTION: This email was received at the City of Austin, from an EXTERNAL source. Please use caution when clicking links or opening attachments. If you believe this to be a malicious and/or phishing email, please forward this email to cybersecurity@austintexas.gov. 1
D.5.b - 2103 E 8th St - citizen comment — original pdf
Allen, Amber From: Sent: To: Subject: Agnes Sekowski Monday, September 27, 2021 8:28 AM Sadowsky, Steve; Allen, Amber GF 21-135466 Objection to Demolition of home in Historic District Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: Follow up Flagged *** External Email - Exercise Caution *** Dear friend at the COA, As a resident of Blackshear Prospect Hill neighborhood, I feel strongly that this structure and any other capable of being preserved, be denied demolition. Furthermore, any renovations to such units should be required to preserve its character. With the ridiculous cost of housing in this neighborhood, there is tremendous pressure to remove these type of old structures for big new units that sell $1.5‐2 million. As a result, or neighborhood has largely lost many remnants of its historic character (not to mention that many of the residents for whom the Historic Black District designation was given can no longer afford to live here.. But I digress). Tearing down well made historic homes in the area only adds to the economic pressure on the neighborhood and also sends housing materials that are far superior to those being used today to the landfill. If you can't save the house on site, please at least mandate that it be relocated.. But ideally, keep it in tact on site. Thanks for the consideration, Agnes Sekowski received at the City of Austin, from an EXTERNAL source. Please use caution when clicking links or opening attachments. If you believe this to be a malicious and/or phishing email, please forward this email to cybersecurity@austintexas.gov. 1
D.6.1 - 1204 E 6th St - letter from former owner — original pdf
August 25th, 2021 Historic Landmark Commission P. O. Box 1088 Austin, TX 78767 Re: 1204 E. 6th Street – Austin, TX 78702 I, Irene Sanchez, am one of the former heirs of the house and property located at 1204 E. 6th Street in Austin, Texas. This home was in my family for 75 years. Over the decades, we witnessed East 6th Street evolve drastically to become the vibrant commercial district that it is today. While our home played a large role in our lives, we recognized that the location was no longer ideal for single-family use as it is now heavily populated with entertainment venues and many other commercial uses. Therefore, we decided to sell the property in 2021. The new owners of this property have stated that they would like to relocate the house, which is over 100 years old, to a more fitting residential location where restoration will be more fitting and viable. I am providing my support for the application for this relocation. Sincerely, Irene Sanchez Irene Sanchez
D.6.2 - 1204 E 6th St - applicant letter — original pdf
Backup
D.6.3 - 1204 E 6th St - Structural Engineers Report — original pdf
Backup
D.6.4 - 1204 E 6th St - Exterior Photos — original pdf
Backup
D.6.5 - 1204 E 6th St - Interior Photos — original pdf
Backup
4.A.4 - Equity-Based Historic Preservation Plan update - revised — original pdf
UPDATE: EQUITY-BASED HISTORIC PRESERVATION PLAN Historic Landmark Commission – September 27, 2021 Alonso Estrada, “Equidad” mural at Mexic-Arte Museum bit.ly/ATXpresplan MEETING SCHEDULE Essential Background and Process July 29 Aug. 30 Sept. 23 Introduction and goals Equity workshop Decision-making Topics Oct. 14 Nov. 18 Dec. 9 Jan. 13 Feb. 10 Vision for the plan / Heritage in Austin (part 1) Heritage in Austin (part 2) Preservation tools Processes and fees Community preservation MEETING SCHEDULE Topics (con’t) March 10 April 14 May 12 Review draft plan June 9 Preservation and… Economic development, property rights Outreach, education, and engagement Topic TBD Review compiled recommendations / Discuss next steps MEETING 1: INTRODUCTION + GOALS MEETING 2: EQUITY WORKSHOP MEETING 3: DECISION-MAKING 1. Vision: Does the plan offer a clear vision for historic preservation that can be used by stakeholders to communicate and collaborate? Do all recommendations support that vision? 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 8. 9. Process: Has the process of developing the preservation plan been welcoming and accessible to community members with a range of viewpoints, regardless of previous preservation experience? Education: Does the plan educate readers about the benefits of historic preservation and how preservation relates to key topics such as property rights, displacement, and affordability? Expansion: Does the plan recognize historically underrepresented people, places, and stories? Does it expand what is considered “historic”? Effectiveness: Are the plan’s recommendations for policies, programs, and incentives grounded in good practices from around the U.S. and the world? Practicality: Does the plan balance big-picture thinking with specific, actionable, measurable recommendations that recognize legal constraints? Does the plan include a realistic strategy for regular updates? 7. Accessibility: Does the plan recommend ways to make historic preservation processes more accessible to community members, especially those who aren’t familiar with the processes? Is the plan itself easy to understand? Equity: Are the expected benefits of the plan’s recommendations equitably distributed? Are negative impacts minimized, particularly for communities that have historically been disadvantaged by public policies? Connection: Does the plan advance livability, affordability, and other community values, particularly for historically underrepresented communities? 10. Support: Is the plan supported by working group members, policymakers, City departments, allied organizations, and community members? MEETING 3: DECISION-MAKING Equity evaluation framework Goal: Ensure that the plan’s recommendations benefit—or at least do not harm—communities of color who have been historically underrepresented in preservation efforts and harmed by previous public policies. DRAFT EQUITY EVALUATION FRAMEWORK Does …
9/27 AXTN link to meeting — original link
Play video