HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION DEMOLITION AND RELOCATION PERMITS JUNE 28, 2021 GF-2021-086008 THREADGILL’S 6416 NORTH LAMAR BOULEVARD D.8 – 1 PROPOSAL ARCHITECTURE Demolition of non-historic additions to Kenneth Threadgill’s service station on North Lamar Boulevard and restoration/reincorporation of much of the original building into a new development. The original part of this building is a ca. 1933 Gulf Oil service station, which was large for its time and followed a predilection for Southwestern-influenced service stations in Texas and the southwest. Threadgill’s service station has a Mission Revival form with stuccoed corner posts and a segmental-arched open service canopy across the front. W. Dwayne Jones, in his “A Field Guide to Gas Stations in Texas” (2003) notes that many national service stations began to adopt an identifiable appearance in the late 1920s and early 1930sw; Gulf, founded in Texas, built many service stations in Texas following a Southwestern motif, as reflected in the original section of Threadgills. In the late 1970s, owner Eddie Wilson, purchased the property and transformed it into a café, adding additions flanking the original service canopy, giving it more of a “diner” flair. Wilson also added on to the rear of the building for his restaurant and kitchen. However, despite the additions, the original footprint of the building is still very evident, even if the original walls have been lost. Undated business card for Threadgill’s shows the configuration of the building and the Southwestern style of the old service station. Note the open front service canopy and the footprint of the office and supply rooms which later became the location of Threadgill’s Tavern and home of his Hootenany open mic sessions, drawing local musicians in the 1950s and 1960. D.8 – 2 RESEARCH Kenneth Threadgill, who had operated the Gulf station at 6416 N. Lamar for a short time, obtained the first beer license issued in Travis County after the end of Prohibition in 1933. He opened a tavern and beer hall at his service station, and the place became renowned in Austin for hosting musicians, who would plan for beer money and food, as well as some of the biggest acts in country music. Threadgill, a renowned blues yodeler and musician in his own right, began hosting open- mic nights at his service station, which after World War II, began attracting UT students, including the young Janis Joplin, who began her career of performing in public here. …
5 Story new construction on adjacent site to the South aligns with front facade of Threadgills building Proposed new construction roughly aligns with adjacent 2 story building to the North New Multifamily Units New Outdoor Lawn and Park Space “Glass” Transition to New Building Existing Building and Canopy New Sculputural Element rd a v le u o r B a m a . L N New Parking Area With Multi-Family Above
HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION DEMOLITION AND RELOCATION PERMITS JUNE 28, 2021 PR-2021-084227 916 BOULDIN AVENUE D.9 – 1 PROPOSAL Demolish a ca. 1936 house. ARCHITECTURE One-story Craftsman-style side-gabled frame cottage with a prominent battered brick chimney to the right of the principal entry; the chimney has random stones to give a rustic effect. Beside the random stone placement in the brick chimney, the house also has some Tudor Revival elements, including a steeply-pitched gablet above the front door with false half- timbering in the tympanum, and a small front-facing gablet in the roof to the left of the front entry. Fenestration consists of single and paired 1:1 windows with wooden screens. RESEARCH STAFF COMMENTS The house appears to have been built around 1936. The first occupants were John T McCutcheon, Jr. and his wife Victoria, who rented this house until around 1948. John T. McCutcheon, Jr. was a clerk at the city abbatoir, the city’s meat processing plant open to area ranchers to sell meat. The house was vacant for a short period of time before being rented then owned by James S. and Mary J. Ramsey, who lived here at least through the end of the 1950s. James S. and Mary Jane Ramsey were distributors of Watkins Products, a local flavoring extract company that is still in business as a work-from-home company with a wide range of products, including flavoring extracts, balms, salves, and ointments. The house was determined contributing to the potential Bouldin Creek Neighborhood Historic District. 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 while the house may qualify for its architecture, it lacks the significant historical associations necessary for designation as a historic landmark. a. Architecture. The house is a typical 1930s style Craftsman cottage with Tudor Revival ornamentation; its prominent exterior chimney on the front of the of the house makes it notable in this neighborhood and may qualify the house for landmark designation based upon its architecture. b. Historical association. The house lacks significant historical associations. The occupants were a book-keeper at the city abbatoir and a distributor of flavoring extracts, neither of whom would fulfill the requirements for significant historical associations under the landmark designation criteria. c. Archaeology. The property was not evaluated …
Local Historic Part I -Application City of Austin District for Certificate Tax Abatement of Eligibility ESTIMATE OF EXPENDITURES Property Address: Proposed Scope of Work Estimated Cost Power-wash House to remove mold/Caulk brick where missing 3,300.00 Repair front fence and replace gate that could not be repaired-Paint 3,300.00 Replace siding on rear addition with Hardi Board 3,800.00 Paint Siding, doors, garage door, all trim. Stain wood vertical panels 1,800.00 Replace rotted boards of roof eaves 1,700.00 Replace Electrical electrical outlet, replace Panel-new wiring from Aluminum, replace burned bathroom fixture due to burned out ballasts that could not be replaced, Replace burned out AC/Heating unit in rear addition- added 30+ years ago, 6695.00 Replace Gutters-Givens side, Caulk Gutters-Maple side 2,300.00 7 New Windows-2 Entry Doors 10,450.00 Re-seal exterior and interior planter (removal of soil and plants, then re-fill with soil and plants). Repair water damaged wall and Paint 2,910.00 Pre-rehabilitation/restoration value of property: 363,923 % of value being spent on rehabilitation/restoration: Approx. 7.710 % Total: 36,255.00 % of total estimated .. Attach addIt1onal pages ,f needed. costs being spent on exterior work: Approx. 95% City of Austin Application for Historic Area District Tax Abatement Adopted December 2012 Nathaniel Bennett -�. General Contractor 11 00 Blackjack TX 78664 Lockhart, Bill To: Pat Calhoun 2401 Givens Ave Austin Tx DATE: INVOICE# FOR: May 20, 2021 1553 DESCRIPTION AMOUNT power wash house , caulk where brick is missing repair front fence and replace gate that couldn't be repaired -paint replace siding on rear addition with hardi-board paint siding, doors, garage.all trim. Stain wood vertical panels replace rotting boards of roof eaves -� out AC/Heating unit in rear addition- added 30+ years ago replace gutters-Givens side, caulk gutters Maple side 7 new windows - 2 entry doors 3,300.00 3,300.00 3,800.00 1,800.00 1,700.00 2,300.00 10,450.00 replace electrical panel -new wiring from aluminum, replace outlet burned electrical 6,695.00 replace bathroom fixture due to burned ballast that couldn't be replaced, replace burned reseal exterior and interior planter( removal of soil and plants, refill with soil and plants 2,910.00 1 TOT AL $ 36,255.00 Make all checks payable concerning If you have any questions to: Nathaniel contact: this invoice, Bennett Nathaniel Bennett, THANK YOU FOR YOUR BUSINESS!
Versión en español a continuación. Historic Landmark Commission Meeting Monday, May 24th, 2021, 6:00 PM Historic Landmark Meeting to be held May 24th, 2021 with Social Distancing Modifications Public comment will be allowed via telephone; no in-person input will be allowed. All speakers must register in advance (Sunday, May 23rd by noon). All public comment will occur at the beginning of the meeting. To speak remotely at the May 24th Historic Landmark Commission Meeting, members of the public must: Call or email the board liaison at (512) 974-3393 or preservation@austintexas.gov no later than noon, Sunday, May 23 (the day before the meeting). The following information is required: speaker name, item number(s) they wish to speak on, whether they are for/against/neutral, email address and telephone number (must be the same number that will be used to call into the meeting). Once a request to speak has been made to the board liaison, the information to call on the day of the scheduled meeting will be provided either by email or phone call. Speakers must call in at least 15 minutes prior to meeting start time in order to speak, late callers will not be accepted and will not be able to speak. Speakers will be placed in a queue until their time to speak. Handouts or other information may be emailed to preservation@austintexas.gov by noon the day before the scheduled meeting. This information will be provided to Board and Commission members in advance of the meeting. If the meeting is broadcast live, it may be viewed here: http://www.austintexas.gov/page/watch-atxn-live Reunión del Historic Landmark Commission FECHA de la reunion (24 de mayo, 2021) La junta se llevará con modificaciones de distanciamiento social Se permitirán comentarios públicos por teléfono; no se permitirá ninguna entrada en persona. Todos los oradores deben registrarse con anticipación (23 de mayo, 2021 antes del mediodía). Todos los comentarios públicos se producirán al comienzo de la reunión. Para hablar de forma remota en la reunión, los miembros del público deben: Llame o envíe un correo electrónico al enlace de la junta en (512) 974-3393 or preservation@austintexas.gov a más tardar al mediodía (el día antes de la reunión). Se requiere la siguiente información: nombre del orador, número (s) de artículo sobre el que desean hablar, si están a favor / en contra / neutral, dirección de correo electrónico (opcional) y un número de teléfono …
M E M O R A N D U M TO: FROM: DATE: Historic Landmark Commission Historic Preservation Office staff January 8, 2021; updated June 25, 2021 SUBJECT: Demolition or relocation permit applications for property owned by religious organizations Texas Local Government Code § 211.0165 provides municipal authority for historic landmark designation. In 2019, the Texas Legislature amended that authority through House Bill 2496, 86 (R). In addition to introducing a supermajority requirement for landmark designation over owner objection, the bill provided that property owned by a religious organization may not be designated without owner consent. Subsection (b) states: If the property is owned by an organization that qualifies as a religious organization under Section 11.20, Tax Code, the municipality may designate the property as a local historic landmark only if the organization consents to the designation [emphasis added]. A religious organization under Section 11.20 of the Tax Code is defined as one that is organized and operated primarily for the purpose of engaging in religious worship or promoting the spiritual development or well-being of individuals; is operated in a way that does not result in accrual of distributable profits, realization of private gain resulting from payment of compensation in excess of a reasonable allowance for salary or other compensation for services rendered, or realization of any other form of private gain; and must use its assets in performing the organization’s religious functions or the religious functions of another religious organization; and by charter, bylaw, or other regulation adopted by the organization to govern its affairs direct that on discontinuance of the organization by dissolution or otherwise the assets are to be transferred to this state, the United States, or a charitable, educational, religious, or other similar organization that is qualified as a charitable organization under the IRS Code of 1954. Most active churches qualify as religious organizations under the Texas Tax Code and are therefore subject to the provisions of § 211.0165 of the Local Government Code. Demolition and relocation permits for properties without historic designation Under Land Development Code § 25-11-213, Historic Preservation Office staff reviews all applications for demolition or relocation permits for properties that are at least fifty years of age. The purpose of this review is to determine if a property may meet the criteria for designation as a historic landmark and thus should be referred to the Historic Landmark Commission for a public hearing. …
HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION APPLICATION FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS JUNE 28, 2021 C14H-1974-0015; HR-2021-082637 ELISABET NEY MUSEUM 304 E. 44TH STREET B.10 – 1 PROPOSAL PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS Install new heating, ventilating, and air-conditioning (HVAC) equipment. 1) Remove existing rooftop HVAC equipment from the roof over the studio. Repair roof and masonry, as needed. 2) Install new rooftop HVAC equipment on the upper roof over the retreat, including a packaged rooftop unit and four condensing units. Install new ground-level equipment on existing pad at the rear of the building. 3) Limited removal of historic masonry at two locations at the parapet for routing of ductwork from the rooftop units to the various rooms of the building, and for two louvers at the basement level. ARCHITECTURE STANDARDS FOR REVIEW Repair and alterations Sites and streetscapes The Elisabet Ney Museum, historically the home and studio of this renowned sculptor, is a flat-roofed building constructed of rusticated limestone. From the front, the porticoed main entrance leads to a lofty studio space, with a lower one-story reception room to the left, and to the right, a three-story stair tower and stepped back two-story volume that contains an exhibit room and retreat. Castellations punctuate the parapets of the tower, reception room, and two-story portion. 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 landmarks. The following standards apply to the proposed project: 1.1 Do not remove intact historic material from the exterior of a building. Limited masonry removal is necessary to accommodate the HVAC requirements. This will occur in unobtrusive areas and will not diminish the integrity of the building. 3.1 Locate mechanical and energy conservation equipment and rainwater collection systems where they will not obscure or intrude upon the primary view of the building. Existing rooftop mechanical equipment is large, highly visible, and detracts from the architecture and interpretation of this significant site. The present location is on a portion of the roof Ney used as a sun deck. Renderings illustrate that the new equipment will be minimally visible in primary views of the building from E. 44th St. The project meets the applicable standards. The HVAC system is thoughtfully designed and will be relatively inconspicuous from the exterior and interior of the museum. COMMITTEE FEEDBACK Not reviewed. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve the application. LOCATION MAP B.10 …
NEW VIEW FROM 44TH ST. EXISTING VIEW FROM 44TH ST. Heimsath A R C H I T E C T S 7 5 0 9 M a n c h a c a R d . B l d g 4 A u s t i n , T e x a s 7 8 7 4 5 Tel. (512) 478-1621 www.heimsath.com VIEW FROM 44TH STREET ELISABET NEY MUSEUM BUILDING RESTORATION & SITE IMPROVEMENTS - HVAC AND LIGHTING 304 E 44th St. Austin, TX 78751 NEW VIEW FROM SW EXISTING VIEW FROM SW Heimsath A R C H I T E C T S 7 5 0 9 M a n c h a c a R d . B l d g 4 A u s t i n , T e x a s 7 8 7 4 5 Tel. (512) 478-1621 www.heimsath.com VIEW FROM SW ON 44TH ST ELISABET NEY MUSEUM BUILDING RESTORATION & SITE IMPROVEMENTS - HVAC AND LIGHTING 304 E 44th St. Austin, TX 78751
B.4 – 1 HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION APPLICATION FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS MAY 24, 2021 C14H-1986-0015 GRANDBERRY BUILDING 907 CONGRESS AVENUE PROPOSAL PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS Review of a plan to deconstruct, store, and re-erect historic building façade. Catalog and store, then re-erect the historic building façades of the Grandberry Building, Mitchell-Robertson Building, and the building at 911 Congress Ave. as part of a redevelopment project at a later date. In conjunction with proposed additions, deconstruction and reconstruction of these façades has received approval from the Historic Landmark Commission on three separate occasions: September 25, 2006 (for 907 and 909 Congress Ave. only), January 26, 2015 (pending development of more detailed plans for treatment of the three façades), and June 25, 2018. See Prior Commission Action below. On March 24, 2021, the Building Standards Commission (BSC) issued an order requiring that conditions be remedied within 90 days or imposing fines on the property owner. The BSC orders are uploaded as backup to this meeting for reference. In discussion at the April 24, 2021 meeting, Commissioners suggested that the applicant determine if scaffolding erected for purposes of documenting and dismantling the façades would suffice for compliance with the BSC orders. The orders do not mention stabilization or bracing as options, and Code Department staff have confirmed that scaffolding would be insufficient to meet the requirements. Instead, the orders require repairs to fully remedy the violations, which include cracks and openings in exterior walls, roof and drainage issues, and missing windows, among other concerns. Per the applicant, stabilization and repair of the buildings in place is not technically feasible due to the extent of deterioration, including mortar loss, shear failures and racking, and the inability to adequately shore the façades following demolition of masonry party walls that provide lateral support. In particular, the wall abutting the Mutual Building, an adjacent historic landmark, requires demolition to allow that property owner to perform needed repairs. The proposed scope of work entails developing a detailed plan for deconstruction and reconstruction of the historic façades, including as an initial phase: review of existing documentation, visual and non-destructive analysis of building materials and assemblies, structural evaluation, and development of a finalized scope of work and sequence of implementation. Laser scanning has been performed, and analysis of the resulting point cloud is underway. Deconstruction will be done by hand and treated much like an archeological investigation, with specific conditions and …
June 4, 2021 Elizabeth Brummett Development Services Manager City of Austin - Historic Preservation Office Via Electronic Delivery Re: 907, 909, and 911 Congress Avenue – Historic Review Applications for three 0.845 acre pieces of property located at 907, 909, and 911 Austin, TX 78724 (the “Properties”) Dear Ms. Brummett: As representatives of the owner of the Properties and the buildings thereon (the “Buildings”), we respectfully submit the enclosed historic review application packages (the “Applications”). The Applications reflect our months-long effort to comply with directives from both the City of Austin Building and Standards (“BSC) Commission and Historic Landmark Commission (“HLC”). In the Fall of 2020, complaints were made to BSC regarding the condition of the Buildings, which led BSC to issue a secure façade order in February 2021. On February 12 and March 8, 2021, we made presentations to HLC’s Architectural Review Committee requesting that HLC provide direction as to how we could forward with the safe deconstruction of the Buildings, as any demolition permit requires HLC approval. After the façades were secured, BSC issued follow-up orders on March 24, 2021 requiring that all cited violations be corrected at the Buildings by June 22, 2021 (the “Orders”). The Orders include a requirement that we receive all necessary approvals from HLC. For your convenience, we have attached the Orders hereto as Exhibit A. At the March, April, and May HLC monthly meetings (the February meeting was cancelled due to weather), we presented our findings that we could not safely hold the Building façades in place while complying with the Orders. We have attached two letters from structural engineers stating as much hereto as Exhibits C and D. It is our restated position that compliance with the Orders while leaving any portion of the façades in place is impracticable. We bring these applications reflecting this position and plan to deconstruct and reconstruct the Buildings in a manner that respects and protects their historic nature as much as is reasonably possible. The applications packet includes a scope of work provided by Architect Donna Carter, which explains the extent of work contemplated to retain as much historic material as possible for all three buildings. 200 Lee Barton Drive, Suite 100 | Austin, Texas 78704 | 512-807-2900 | www.drennergroup.com Please let me know if you or your team members require additional information or have any questions. Thank you for your time and attention to …
907 – 909 – 911 CONGRESS AVENUE AUSTIN, TEXAS FAÇADE DECONSTRUCTION / RECONSTRUCTION SCOPE OF WORK / OUTLINE TO COMPLETE A. OVERALL PROJECT ORGANIZATION (OVERVIEW – SEE BELOW FOR DETAIL) a. Research and documentation search on existing construction b. Visual and non‐destructive evaluation (NDE) and testing c. Confirmation of structural integrity and ability to withstand documentation and deconstruction as planned. d. Deliverable 1 – Abstract and Bibliography of information used to inform reconstruction (photographs), summary of mortar, brick composition and condition testing e. Review of deconstruction Scope of Work based on Information gathered in a, b & C above f. Finalized Scope of Work and sequence of implementation. g. Deliverable 2 – Safety plan for documentation and deconstruction including pedestrian protection, neighboring building and selective access for design and deconstruction team. h. Preparation of specifications, drawings and other elements required for contract/bid documents for deconstruction work i. Deliverable 3 – Final drawings and documentation of existing conditions. j. Deliverable 4 – Deconstruction Phase: Confirm document accuracy based on profiles, details and other site collected information. k. Document, number and record materials pallets as part of deconstruction. l. On‐site observation of work in progress m. Final Documentation of deconstruction, material inventory and proper storage n. Deliverable 5 – Reconstruction documents and coordination with redevelopment design team o. On‐site observation of work in progress p. Final documentation of historic materials in place B. DOCUMENTATION preparation. Work. a. Review of existing photographic documentation to inform deconstruction and reconstruction plan b. Review all building inspection reports. c. Review all environmental documents and incorporate any outstanding items into final Scope of d. Photograph current conditions prior to any additional demolition. e. Document stone construction to same extent as brick construction for archives f. Recommendation: Laser scanning of the existing construction. Provide point cloud to be used in documentation and to assist in the deconstruction and reconstruction activities. g. Coordinate with Austin History Center and City Preservation Officer on document preparation and retention requirements for archival purposes CARTER ● DESIGN ASSOCIATES ‐‐ 31‐Mar‐21 1 | P a g e C, D & E ARE DONE SIMULTANEOUSLY C. THE NON – DESTRUCTIVE EVALUATION (NDE) PROGRAM a. Determine logistics, fieldwork and site requirements. Work with contractor to determine scaffolding plan, safety procedures and building exposure strategies b. Confirm areas that are stable and can support further investigation c. Prior to deconstruction, expose representative areas of the structures for …
B.5 – 1 HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION APPLICATION FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS JUNE 28, 2021 C14H-2004-0008 MITCHELL-ROBERTSON BUILDING 909 CONGRESS AVENUE PROPOSAL PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS Review of a plan to deconstruct, store, and re-erect ca. 1882 historic building façade. Catalog and store, then re-erect the historic building façades of the Grandberry Building, Mitchell-Robertson Building, and the building at 911 Congress Ave. as part of a redevelopment project at a later date. In conjunction with proposed additions, deconstruction and reconstruction of these façades has received approval from the Historic Landmark Commission on three separate occasions: September 25, 2006 (for 907 and 909 Congress Ave. only), January 26, 2015 (pending development of more detailed plans for treatment of the three façades), and June 25, 2018. See Prior Commission Action below. On March 24, 2021, the Building Standards Commission (BSC) issued an order requiring that conditions be remedied within 90 days or imposing fines on the property owner. The BSC orders are uploaded as backup to this meeting for reference. In discussion at the April 24, 2021 meeting, Commissioners suggested that the applicant determine if scaffolding erected for purposes of documenting and dismantling the façades would suffice for compliance with the BSC orders. The orders do not mention stabilization or bracing as options, and Code Department staff have confirmed that scaffolding would be insufficient to meet the requirements. Instead, the orders require repairs to fully remedy the violations, which include cracks and openings in exterior walls, roof and drainage issues, and missing windows, among other concerns. Per the applicant, stabilization and repair of the buildings in place is not technically feasible due to the extent of deterioration, including mortar loss, shear failures and racking, and the inability to adequately shore the façades following demolition of masonry party walls that provide lateral support. While the Mitchell-Robertson Building is in relatively better condition than the other two buildings, two independent structural engineering letters have determined that the façade cannot be braced during construction. A 2014 letter, not included in previous packets, cites the tie backs as indication of shear failure that would prevent safely bracing the masonry. The proposed scope of work entails developing a detailed plan for deconstruction and reconstruction of the historic façades, including as an initial phase: review of existing documentation, visual and non-destructive analysis of building materials and assemblies, structural evaluation, and development of a finalized scope of work and sequence of …
01 1415 W 10th Street Residence HLC PRESENTATION | CLARK RICHARDSON ARCHITECTS | 6.28.2021 02 1415 W 10th | Site Survey (1415 W 10th Street) (1417 W 10th Street) 03 1415 W 10th | Street View Looking South 04 Existing Structure: Photo from Front of Property Existing Structure: Photo from Middle of Property 05 Existing Structure: Photo Looking South at Structure Existing Structure: Photo Looking East at Structure 06 96 FT Proposed Project: Site Plan 07 Proposed Project: Site Axonometric 09 10 11 12 OWANA Zoning Committee & Neighborhood Outreach Summary: 13 9.24.2020: OWANA Zoning Committee Meeting: Ed Richardson | CRA presents existing site conditions and proposed design to OWANA Zoning Committee. 10.13.2020: Meeting with Adjacent Neighbors: Ed Richardson | CRA meets all directly adjacent neighbors at 1415 W 10th to review proposed design. Topics included: - Reviewed Existing and Proposed Drainage on site with east neighbor. - Reviewed Height and Location of proposed structures. Reviewed what each neighbor with views into the lot could expect to see from their homes. - Discussed Fence Heights and Location. We will have lowered the fence along W 10th St. - Reviewed Second Floor Window Alignments: Between the proposed structure and the existing home to the east. - Clark Richardson field surveyed the window locations - and mapped them on the survey and reviewed with property owner. There are no direct window alignments. 10.22.2020: OWANA Zoning Committee Meeting II: Ed Richardson | CRA presented our responses to the comments / concerns from the previous meeting Shoring: The noise and disruption from potential shoring for the construction of the basement was a primary concern for neighbors. CRA recommends no driven piles be used for shoring and instead drilled piers be used in any temporary shoring required. The structural work for the shoring will be part of the means and methods for construction of the basement by the contractor and therefore while it will be engineered. The precise drawings will not be included in the architectural drawings. Street Façade: We’re proposing a specimen tree be added in front of the street façade complimenting the window located towards the west side of the façade (see 9). Site Drainage: We’ve sketched in the proposed French drain system for the lot and plan to use the front yard to filter run off from the southside of the lot. Not mentioned in the previous meeting, the second-floor roofed areas …
C.6 – 1 HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION PERMITS IN NATIONAL REGISTER DISTRICTS JUNE 28, 2021 HR-2021-085748 CONGRESS AVENUE HISTORIC DISTRICT 911 CONGRESS AVENUE PROPOSAL PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS Review of a plan to deconstruct, store, and re-erect historic building façade. Catalog and store, then re-erect the historic building façades of the Grandberry Building, Mitchell-Robertson Building, and the building at 911 Congress Ave. as part of a redevelopment project at a later date. In conjunction with proposed additions, deconstruction and reconstruction of these façades has received approval from the Historic Landmark Commission on three separate occasions: September 25, 2006 (for 907 and 909 Congress Ave. only), January 26, 2015 (pending development of more detailed plans for treatment of the three façades), and June 25, 2018. See Prior Commission Action below. On March 24, 2021, the Building Standards Commission (BSC) issued an order requiring that conditions be remedied within 90 days or imposing fines on the property owner. The BSC orders are uploaded as backup to this meeting for reference. In discussion at the April 24, 2021 meeting, Commissioners suggested that the applicant determine if scaffolding erected for purposes of documenting and dismantling the façades would suffice for compliance with the BSC orders. The orders do not mention stabilization or bracing as options, and Code Department staff have confirmed that scaffolding would be insufficient to meet the requirements. Instead, the orders require repairs to fully remedy the violations, which include cracks and openings in exterior walls, roof and drainage issues, and missing windows, among other concerns. Per the applicant, stabilization and repair of the buildings in place is not technically feasible due to the extent of deterioration, including mortar loss, shear failures and racking, and the inability to adequately shore the façades following demolition of masonry party walls that provide lateral support. The proposed scope of work entails developing a detailed plan for deconstruction and reconstruction of the historic façades, including as an initial phase: review of existing documentation, visual and non-destructive analysis of building materials and assemblies, structural evaluation, and development of a finalized scope of work and sequence of implementation. Laser scanning has been performed, and analysis of the resulting point cloud is underway. Deconstruction will be done by hand and treated much like an archeological investigation, with specific conditions and hidden elements documented as work progresses. This information will inform preparation of reconstruction drawings and specifications. ARCHITECTURE RESEARCH Two-story, two-part commercial block …
B.1 - 1 ZONING CHANGE REVIEW SHEET HLC DATE: PC DATE: November 16, 2009 December 14, 2009 CASE NUMBER: C14H-2009-0059 APPLICANT: 911 Congress, L.L.C., owner HISTORIC NAME: 911 Congress Avenue WATERSHED: Town Lake ADDRESS OF PROPOSED ZONING CHANGE: 911 Congress Avenue ZONING FROM: CBD to CBD-H SUMMARY STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the proposed zoning change from central business district (CBD) district to central business district – Historic Landmark (CBD-H) combining district zoning. HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION ACTION: PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: DEPARTMENT COMMENTS: The building is listed in the Comprehensive Cultural Resources Survey (1984) as a priority 2 for research. ACTION: ORDINANCE NUMBER: CITY COUNCIL DATE: ORDINANCE READINGS: 1ST 2ND 3RD CASE MANAGER: Steve Sadowsky NEIGHBORHOOD ORGANIZATION: Downtown Austin Neighborhood Association BASIS FOR RECOMMENDATION: The ca. 1881 commercial building was the home to several prominent early Austin attorneys, Gammel’s Book Store (one of the first west of the Mississippi River), a Jewish tailor, the Knights of Pythias Hall, a prominent local photography studio, a hardware store, and several restaurants. The applicants intend to restore the historic façade of the building in the future. PHONE: 974-6454 Architecture: Two-story rectangular-plan flat-roofed brick commercial building with a concrete slipcover over the second story of the building; the storefront has been modified and boarded over. The building has been vacant for many years. Historical Associations: The building appears to have been built around 1881; it appears in a ca. 1881 photograph of Congress Avenue with cattle grazing in the middle of the street. The B.1 - 2 first known occupants were Carl W. Berryman, who had a dry goods store, and the offices of the White Star Steamship Line. The owner of the property was Duncan Ogden, who passed away in 1859; at some point before 1916, Sol Silverman, a Jewish tailor, who had his shop in this building, purchased the building, which is shown as vacant on the 1894 Sanborn Fire Insurance Company map. Silverman leased space in the building to several prominent early attorneys in Austin, including Charles Stephenson and Henry Faulk (Faulk was the father of John Henry Faulk, who became internationally known as a CBS personality and who was blacklisted during the McCarthy era of the 1950s). Silverman sold the building in 1916, but apparently maintained his tailor shop here until around 1919. Faulk had his offices in the building until around 1915. By 1916, Gammel’s Book Store opened in the building …
HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION DEMOLITION AND RELOCATION PERMITS JUNE 28, 2021 GF-2021-085651; DA-2021-094730 AUSTIN CENTRAL FIRE STATION #1 401 E. 5TH ST. D.1 – 1 PROPOSAL PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS Construct an addition to a 1938 fire station, which is listed in the National Register of Historic Places; and perform additional repairs and modifications to accommodate ongoing use. 1) Remove existing exterior stairs and service entrances on the rear of the fire station. Construct a 515-square foot addition with a new accessible entrance facing the parking lot. The addition consists of a two-story volume, clad in white stucco and punctuated by a vertical opening with a partial-height window system, and a slightly recessed one-story entrance, with glazing beneath a band of gray stucco. At the side of the second-story portion, above the entrance, is a flat-roofed, suspended awning over a rooftop terrace. 2) Increase the height of both shorter vehicle bay doors on the street-facing elevations to accommodate modern vehicle sizes. This will require removal of the distinctive brick banding at the top of the door openings. 3) Install new steel casement windows consistent with the originals in general design and configuration. 4) Clean and repair brick; repair rusted steel lintels; and replace deteriorated plaster at soffits in-kind. Cleaning will be accomplished with low-pressure water and a gentle cleaning agent, tested first in an inconspicuous area. Deteriorated mortar will be repointed match existing. 5) Update building signage to reflect current use as a fire and EMS station. 6) Include a location at the addition for an outdoor sculpture to be commissioned through the Art in Public Places program. ARCHITECTURE Per the National Register nomination, the Austin Central Fire Station is a 2-story brick building with ‘streamline moderne’ characteristics. The most prominent feature of the building is its symmetrical massing, with identical 2-story wings that extend north and west from each side of the curved entrance at the corner of E. 5th and Trinity streets. The majority of the building is finished with light buff/sand rough face brick. Ornamentation consists of manipulated brick coursings, with darker tan bricks recessed in horizontal rows to suggest streamlining at various points throughout the facade. All roofs on the building are flat and several are used as terraces, establishing the station's affinity to International Modernism. The north wing of the building includes a 1-story addition, originally housing the administration offices for the department. Constructed in 1962 (outside of …
City of Austin Central Fire and EMS Station Introductions and Context Alex Janota, Project Manager Flintco General Contractor Historic Landmark Commission – Design Overview Presentations 28 June 2021 Outline Introductions and Context Alex Janota, Project Manager Flintco – General Contractor Historic Significance Donna Carter, President Carter Design Associates – Historic Preservation Changes to Historic Fabric Tim Baisdon, Vice President WestEast Design Group – Architect New Addition Rob Robbins, Studio Director WestEast Design Group – Architect Context Location: 401 E. 5th St Part of a block owned by the city Block includes the O. Henry Museum Project is being coordinated with the development of Brush Square Park, which is a separate project led by the Parks and Recreation Department Introduction Overview Constructed in 1938 Architect: Kreisle and Brooks Constructed under the Public Works Administration (WPA) National Register of Historic Places in 2000 Building History Overview Annex added in 1962 by architect Eugene Wukash Building History Overview Non-historic windows added in 1980s Building History City of Austin Central Fire and EMS Station Historic Significance Donna Carter, President Carter Design Associates Historic Preservation Historic Landmark Commission – Design Overview Presentations 28 June 2021 Historic Moderne style (Streamline Moderne) Simplicity of ornamentation Key Features and Stylistic Elements Historic Use of building materials as decoration Subtle patterning Brick coursing Symbolic towers Nickel-finished lights Key Features and Stylistic Elements Historic Curved portico Corner approach Key Features and Stylistic Elements Historic Layering of elements Massing plays with symmetry and asymmetry Key Features and Stylistic Elements Preservation The proposed changes ensure the facility will continue to operate in its historic location efficiently functioning as its original purpose for years into the future. Maintain Original Intended Use Preservation Window replacements will more closely match the original design Original Current Proposed Return to Original Design Elements Preservation Brick will be cleaned and repaired Lintels will be refurbished Eroded plaster on soffits will be replaced Maintenance, Repair, and Replacement City of Austin Central Fire and EMS Station Changes to Historic Fabric Tim Baisdon, Vice President WestEast Design Group Architect Historic Landmark Commission – Design Overview Presentations 28 June 2021 Program Improved emergency response through bay door height increase to accommodate modern vehicle sizes Interior reconfiguration to accommodate gender equity Existing Proposed End-user’s Long-term Needs Existing Proposed Program Improvement of life safety through sprinklers and additional egress Making the building accessible (ADA and elevator addition) Energy efficiency (Windows, Envelope, and HVAC) Preserve …
SECTION 04 01 00 MAINTENANCE OF MASONRY PART 1 GENERAL 1.01 SECTION INCLUDES A. Water cleaning of masonry and stucco soffits surfaces. B. Repointing mortar joints. C. Repair of damaged masonry and stucco soffits. 1.02 RELATED REQUIREMENTS A. Section 02 41 00 - Demolition. B. Section 04 20 00 - Unit Masonry: Mortar and grout. C. Section 09 24 00 - Cement Plastering. 1.03 PRICE AND PAYMENT PROCEDURES A. See Section 01 22 00 - Unit Prices, for additional unit price requirements. B. Repointing: By the linear foot. Base bid includes [______] lf. C. Patching Stucco Soffit: By the square foot. Includes [______________________] sf. 1.04 REFERENCE STANDARDS 1.05 ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS A. TMS 402/602 - Building Code Requirements and Specification for Masonry Structures 2016. A. Pre-cleaning Meeting: Convene two weeks prior to commencing work of this section. Require attendance of parties directly affecting work of this section. Review conditions of installation, procedures, and coordination with related work. 1. 2. 1. Perform cleaning and washing of masonry between the hours of 7 am to 11 pm only. B. Scheduling: 1.06 SUBMITTALS A. See Section 01 30 00 - Administrative Requirements, for submittal procedures. B. Product Data: Provide data on cleaning compounds. C. Manufacturer's Instructions: For cleaning materials, indicate special procedures, conditions requiring special attention, and protection of adjacent materials. 1.07 QUALITY ASSURANCE Documents. C. Restorers: A. Comply with provisions of TMS 402/602, except where exceeded by requirements of Contract B. Restorer: Company specializing in masonry restoration with minimum ten years of documented experience. Provide a list of ten similar project within the last five years. 1. 2. 3. Winco of South Texas: www.wincotx.com. [________________________________________]. [________________________________________]. 1.08 MOCK-UP A. Restore and repoint an existing masonry wall area sized 6 feet long by 4 feet high; include in mock-up area instances of mortar, accessories, wall openings, and flashings. B. Clean a 10 ft by 10 ft panel of wall determine extent of cleaning. C. Clean a 6 ft by 4 ft panel of stucco soffit to determine extent of cleaning. D. Locate where directed. 19291: WestEast Design Group, LLC Fire and EMS Stations Rebuild and Renovations City of Austin | AFD Station 1 / EMS Station 6 Design Development Maintenance of Masonry 04 01 00 - 1 E. Acceptable panel and procedures employed will become the standard for work of this section. F. Mock-up may remain as part of the Work. 1.09 DELIVERY, STORAGE, …
TO: M E M O R A N D U M Historic Landmark Commission members FROM: Cara Bertron, Senior Planner Housing & Planning Department DATE: June 25, 2021 Preservation Plan Working Group selection SUBJECT: The Preservation Plan Committee recommends that the attached list of people be appointed to the Preservation Plan Working Group. This group will develop the draft equity-based historic preservation plan between July 2021 and June 2022. Nearly 150 people applied to participate in the working group, reflecting widespread interest in celebrating and preserving local heritage. The selection process was conducted by members of the Preservation Plan Committee and City staff. Considerations in the process included: • Ensuring that members represent the key stakeholder groups identified in the working group’s creation; • Valuing a range of lived experiences, particularly from groups that have historically been underrepresented in or excluded from public processes. These groups include BIPOC people (Black, Indigenous, and other people of color), transgender people, residents of the Eastern Crescent, and renters; and • Recognition that strong community affiliations and geographic diversity will bring essential perspectives into the working group and help communicate outward about the planning process. If you have any questions, please contact me at cara.bertron@austintexas.gov or (512) 974-1446. Attachments: List of recommended working group members Charts and map showing representation among the recommended working group and applicant pool 1 P R E S E R V A T I O N P L A N W O R K I N G G R O U P RECOMMENDED MEMBERS Michelle Benavides Noel Bridges Julia Brookins Ursula A. Carter Mary Jo Galindo Jerry Garcia Michael Girard Hanna Huang Linda Y. Jackson Meghan King Jolene Kiolbassa Kevin Koch Kelechi Madubuko Brenda Malik Alyson McGee Leslie Ornelas Emily Payne Rocio Pena-Martinez Misael Ramos Mary Reed Lori Renteria Gilbert Rivera Thomas J. Salas Maria Solis Zett Soucie Cathy Tilton Erin Waelder Brita Wallace Bob Ward Caroline Wright 2 Stakeholders ✓ Affordable housing advocate ✓ Archaeologist ✓ Architect ✓ Attorney ✓ Business owner ✓ City board or commission ✓ Community member ✓ Contractor ✓ Developer R E P R E S E N T A T I O N ✓ Economic development organization ✓ Educational institution ✓ Engineer ✓ Heritage organization ✓ Heritage tourism professional ✓ Historic property owner ✓ Historical commission (City, County, State) ✓ Landscape architect ✓ Neighborhood association ✓ Preservation organization ✓ Preservation consultant ✓ Religious …
Allen, Amber From: Sent: To: Mary Reed Friday, June 25, 2021 11:04 AM Cc: Subject: Allen, Amber Regarding 1805 Waterston Avenue, GF-2021-060230 *** External Email - Exercise Caution *** Last month on behalf of the Clarksville Community Development Corporation (CCDC), I spoke at your May meeting and requested that the release of a permit to demolish 1805 Waterston Avenue, a home that contributes to the Clarksville National Register District, be postponed. My reason for requesting the delay was so that representatives of the CCDC could have time to contact the new owners of the home, Nalle Custom Homes, to try to avoid the loss of the property or at least come up with a new home design that would be compatible with homes in the Clarksville NRHD. After the delay was granted, architect Aubrey Carter, Gregory Tran and I met with Jesse Nalle here in Clarksville on June 3. We discussed whether Mr. Nalle would consider retaining at least the front facade and sides of the original house. (By the way, 1805 Waterston is a fully renovated, expensive, well maintained home, https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/1805‐Waterston‐Ave‐Austin‐TX‐78703/29329920_zpid.) Although Mr. Nalle was not open to that option, he was receptive to modifying his plans for the new home he wants to build after listening to Aubrey Carter's suggestions. For example, he was open to enlarging the front porch to make it more functional, substituting carports for the two front facing garages that were part of his design, and making a few other modifications to the front of the new house. At the end of our meeting, Mr. Nalle promised to send us a revised drawing based on what we had discussed. Also, Aubrey Carter offered to provide on‐going advice and feedback. On June 10th I followed up with Mr. Nalle via email and on that same day, he emailed the following, "We are working on ideas and will get back to you." However, as of today, June 25th, we have yet to see any modified drawings. Therefore, the CCDC requests another postponement of the demo permit release for 1805 Waterston so that Nalle Custom Homes has more time to share new drawings with us and so that we can provide feedback. And the CCDC continues to oppose the demolition of the current structure. Thanks for your consideration of this request. Mary Reed President, CCDC P.S. The CCDC believes that demolition of 1805 Waterston will set a …
NPS Form 10-900 OMB Control No. 1024-0018 expiration date 03/31/2022 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Registration Form 1. Name of Property Historic name: The Montopolis Negro School Other names/site number: The Montopolis School for Negro Children, The Colorado Negro School No. 1, Burditt's Prairie School, Montopolis Elementary School Name of related multiple property listing: N/A ____________________________________________________________________________ 2. Location Street & number: 500 Montopolis Drive City or town: Austin State: TX County: Travis Not For Publication: N/A Vicinity: ☐ ____________________________________________________________________________ 3. State/Federal Agency Certification As the designated authority under the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended, I hereby certify that this nomination ___ request for determination of eligibility meets the documentation standards for registering properties in the National Register of Historic Places and meets the procedural and professional requirements set forth in 36 CFR Part 60. In my opinion, the property _X_ meets ___ does not meet the National Register Criteria. I recommend that this property be considered significant at the following level(s) of significance: ___national ___statewide _X__local Applicable National Register Criteria: _X_A ___B ___C ___D Signature of certifying official/Title: Date State Historic Preservation Officer Texas Historical Commission __________________________________________________ State or Federal agency/bureau or Tribal Government In my opinion, the property meets does not meet the National Register criteria. Signature of commenting official: Date State or Federal agency/bureau or Tribal Government _____________________________________________________________________________ 4. National Park Service Certification I hereby certify that this property is: Page 1 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service / National Register of Historic Places Registration Form NPS Form 10-900 OMB Control No. 1024-0018 The Montopolis Negro School Name of Property entered in the National Register determined eligible for the National Register determined not eligible for the National Register removed from the National Register Travis/Texas County and State other (explain:) _____________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________ Signature of the Keeper Date of Action ____________________________________________________________________________ 5. Classification Ownership of Property X X Private Public – Local Public - State Public - Federal Category of Property X Building(s) District Site Structure Object Number of Resources within Property Contributing Noncontributing 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 Buildings Sites Structures Objects Total Number of contributing resources previously listed in the National Register: None _________________________________________________________________________ 6. Function or Use Historic Functions: EDUCATION/School, SOCIAL: Meeting Hall Current Functions: VACANT/Not In Use Page 2 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service …
HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION DEMOLITION AND RELOCATION PERMITS JUNE 28, 2021 PR-2021-066307 1611 CANTERBURY STREET D.3 – 1 PROPOSAL Demolish a ca. 1904 house. ARCHITECTURE RESEARCH One-story, wing-and-gable plan, frame house with a partial-width independent porch on ornamental metal posts; front door with a transom; single 1:1 fenestration; synthetic siding. The house appears to have been built around 1904 for Nathaniel Hessey, a pioneer merchant and jeweler in Austin. Hessey worked for John A. Jackson, a jeweler and silversmith at the time he first appears in city directories at this address. From 1904 until his death in 1908, he is listed as a pawnbroker and jeweler. His wife, Tennie, then continued to reside in this house, but also is listed at 2309 San Antonio Street, a house where she also took in boarders. Tennie Hessey resided here sporadically, more constantly in her later years; she died in 1949. Tennie Hessey’s daughter, Helen Duval, is also listed at this address in her mother’s later years. She was married to Easton Duval, a design engineer for the highway department. In the late 1950s, the family sold the house to Frank and Pauline Casarez, who lived here at least through the early 1990s. Frank Casarez was an optician for Dickinson Optical for many years. STAFF COMMENTS The East Austin Historic Resources Survey (2016) recommends this house as contributing to a potential local or NR historic district. Designation Criteria—Historic Landmark 1) The building is more than 50 years old. 2) The building appears to retain high integrity with the exception of the siding, doors, and windows. 3) Properties must meet two criteria for landmark designation (LDC §25-2-352). Staff has evaluated the property and determined it may meet the criterion for architectural significance but does not meet any other criterion squarely. a. Architecture. The house represents a residential type that once was common in middle-class Austin neighborhoods at the turn of the century, but has become rare with time and development. This house has lost its integrity of materials over the years, but has the potential for restoration, as all of its architectural elements remain intact; the house has architectural significance in that it is an increasingly rare example of its type. b. Historical association. The house does not have the required historical associations necessary for designation as a historic landmark. The house first associated with an early jeweler and pawnbroker; after his death, his widow …
Allen, Amber From: Sent: To: Subject: Matthew Coldwell Thursday, June 24, 2021 6:23 PM Allen, Amber Re: 916 Bouldin Avenue - HLC Meeting *** External Email - Exercise Caution *** Hello Amber, I found and read the report for 916 Bouldin Ave. It is well done, thank you! At this time I do not wish to speak. I am not a good speaker. But please record me as an interested party that is opposed to granting a demolition permit at this time. I ask that the commission postpone any decision about this matter until the Neighborhood Association has had time to digest the loss of this structure. We might even consider applying for a historical conservation district for our neighborhood as your report recommends. The fine report your office just published does not gives enough time to consider the contents of the report and formulate an opinion before Monday, June 28, 2021. With sincere thanks and appreciation to you and your office, George Matthew Coldwell 1
June 24th, 2021 Armbrust & Brown, PLLC Attn: Richard Suttle 100 Congress Avenue, Suite 1300 Austin, Texas 78701-2744 Dear Richard Suttle at Armbrust & Brown, I was asked to tour the home at 2708 Scenic Drive, designed by Roland Roessner in the early 1950s to form an opinion as to its potential architectural significance and its general physical condition. I did not attempt to evaluate the structural condition of the residence. I briefly worked for Mr. Roessner, a professor, while I was an architecture student at the University of Texas at Austin in the early 1960s therefore, I have firsthand knowledge of his design work. This residence is an example of the early mid-century modern genre characterized by practical, expedient, and general cost-effective materials and detailing, imported from California. The home is significantly smaller than all his notable designs and cannot be considered one of his significant works. I was completely unfamiliar with this residence and previously unaware of its existence. Furthermore, there is a featureless addition to the home certainly not designed by Mr. Roessner. Historic designation notwithstanding, salvaging this home would require extensive upgrades to achieve even moderate energy efficiency as there is an approximately 40 foot long, west-facing wall of single-pane, fixed glass among countless other issues affecting efficiency. If this were in fact an example of his more significant work such as 7 Green Lanes or The Oaks Apartments (previously demolished by UT) I would certainly say it should be preserved. Sincerely, Sinclair Black, FAIA Principal, Black + Vernooy Architecture and Urban Design Director Emeritus, Congress for the New Urbanism, Central Texas Chapter Professor Emeritus, The University of Texas at Austin School of Architecture Congress for the New Urbanism Athena Medal for Lifetime Achievement Texas Society of Architects Lifetime Achievement Award 2 0 8 W E S T 4 TH S TR E E T , S U I T E 3 A A U S TI N , T E X A S U S A 7 8 7 0 1 ( 5 1 2 ) 4 7 4 - 1 63 2
June 25, 2021 Mr. Wayne Hollingsworth Armbrust and Brown. PLLC 100 Congress Avenue Suite 1300 Austin, Texas 78701 RE: 2708 Scenic Drive Mr. Hollingsworth: At your request I reviewed the documents you provided, and I have the following initial comments: Based on the photos and inspections alone the home appears to be in considerable disrepair from neglect and exposure. Tax records indicate that the original house was built in 1955 and the annex in 1967. Both building has ample examples of the structures not meeting current standards. Any attempts to bring these buildings into current standards will certainly impact the original fabric of the architecture. A great deal of the exposed framing will require replacement and proper engineering. Framing joinery is insufficient requiring joist hangers and other visually unappealing solutions. Introducing proper egress, handrail heights and handrail openings will greatly impact the original intent. At what point is the original architecture lost? The soil conditions along Scenic Drive are poor at best. Most homes in the area require pier depths in the order of 20’ deep. I recommend that the slab elevations of the residence is performed to determine if proper performance of the structure is in play. These are but a few comments based on the available documentation thus far. I’m happy to provide more commentary as additional information surfaces. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact this office at 512-499-0919. Sincerely, Jerry Garcia, P.E. License #67435 Firm No: F-3323 6926 N. Lamar Austin, TX 78752 T: 512.499.0919 F: 512.320.8521 www.structurestx.com
Allen, Amber From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: Follow up Flagged Bill W Monday, June 28, 2021 10:46 AM PAZ Preservation HistRevComm@BWNA.groups.io C14H-2010-0009; HR-2021-041008 VOSS HOUSE 1501 NORTHWOOD ROAD *** External Email - Exercise Caution *** The Historic Review Committee of the Bryker Woods Neighborhood Association was not notified of this proposed change, thus we have not had the opportunity to do other than review the online documents. We note that the Voss House has a Landmark designation and that some of the issues regarding this were addressed, but apparently not to the full satisfaction of the Architectural Review Committee. If the proposed addition will remove the Voss House from its Landmark designation, we would object and ask that the addition/remodel be given additional scrutiny. Thank you. Bill Woods Bryker Woods Neighborhood Association Historic Review Committee Bill Woods 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
4006 ½ Avenue B Addition Materials for Historic Landmark Commission 6/28/2021 4006 1/2 AVENUE B ADDITION 1 Plans updated Architectural Review Committee feedback has been implemented Dormers removed Roof pitch reduced to minimize visual impact Decorative features to remain on original structure only 4006 1/2 AVENUE B ADDITION 2 Street view Existing Proposed 4006 1/2 AVENUE B ADDITION 3 Oblique View Existing Proposed *Next house on North side is >50 feet away 4006 1/2 AVENUE B ADDITION 4 Initial design proposal 4006 1/2 AVENUE B ADDITION 5 Design modifications Original submission Current design Changes from initial submission: 1) Dormers removed, 2) Second floor reduced by setback, 3) addition roof pitch reduced resulting in approximately 2.5 feet peak height reduction 4006 1/2 AVENUE B ADDITION 6 Proposed Design 4006 1/2 AVENUE B ADDITION 7 Elevation updates Proposed Dormers removed Second floor reduced (zoning) Roof pitch reduced (2.5’ height reduction) Original submission 4006 1/2 AVENUE B ADDITION 8
Allen, Amber From: Sent: To: Subject: Adrienne Domas Goldsberry Monday, June 28, 2021 11:18 AM PAZ Preservation Re: case no. PR-2021-078188 Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: Follow up Flagged Thank you, Amber. I am unfortunately unabel to participate in this evening's meeting. Is there a way that you or another staff member can pass along my comments to the Commission members and have them read at the hearing? They are below. If there is another way I should submit them, let me know. We live at 1417 W. 10th St; the property immediately to the west of this project. We generally agree with staff's concerns/comments about the proposed design, as listed in response to the City of Austin's standards for review of a project within a historic district. As staff noted, the project is considerably larger and different in style than most if not all other buildings in the Old West Austin neighborhood. The steel fencing is not compatible with the neighborhood and is rather 'harsh' in a family‐friendly, walkable area, although we appreciate the architect moving the fencing along 10th farther back and behind landscaping in response to our feedback. While we understand the owner's desire to build a large modern house on a large lot, we would continue to ask that he find ways to make the design ‐ through landscaping, building materials, etc. more compatible with the feel of the neighborhood. Thank you for your consideration of these comments. Adrienne & Kirk Goldsberry On Mon, Jun 21, 2021 at 9:27 AM PAZ Preservation <Preservation@austintexas.gov> wrote: If you’d like to register to speak at the meeting, please provide me with the names, email addresses, and phone numbers of all who wish to speak. Otherwise, you can tune it to the meeting on ATXN (channel 9). Hi Adrienne, Thanks! Amber Allen Planner II, Historic Preservation Office City of Austin – Housing & Planning Department 1 T: 512.974.3393 E: Amber.Allen@austintexas.gov From: Adrienne Domas Goldsberry Sent: Friday, June 18, 2021 10:28 PM To: PAZ Preservation <Preservation@austintexas.gov> Subject: case no. PR‐2021‐078188 Hello Amber, *** External Email - Exercise Caution *** We would like to participate in the meeting for the permit requested at 1415 W. 10th Street. We live in the neighboring house to the west, at 1417 W. 10th St. We would respectfully request that the applicant construct a house that is compatible in size, scale, and design with the neighborhood. …
