HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION Applications for Demolition and Relocation Permits April 1, 2026 PR-2026-022411; GF-2026-025343 1406 Garden Street 13 – 1 Proposal Demolish a ca. 1903 house and later carport and garage. Architecture The house at 1406 Garden Street appears to originally have been a wing-and-gable Folk Victorian building, constructed around the turn of the century. It features horizontal wood siding and traditional cornice returns at gable ends, though a wraparound porch shown in Sanborn maps appears to have been removed around 1971, and a small gabled hood with triangular brackets constructed over the door in the 1930s or 1940s. Outbuildings on the site were constructed during the 1970s. Research The house at 1406 Garden Street was constructed around the turn of the 20th century. Its earliest recorded owner in city directories was Mrs. Maggie Piper, a widow who shared her home with two of her children. She sold it to another widow, Rachel Jones, around 1906. By 1912, Jones had sold it to J. C. and Mary Elizabeth Fox; J. C. Fox is listed as “retired” in directory listings but appears to have lived in Austin for some time per obituaries. After his wife’s death in 1914, Fox took in boarders, remarried, and tried to sell the home, but failed; he and his current wife both died in 1920. The home was then rented briefly to the Jones family, and then to Mrs. Elizabeth Frame, who eventually purchased it. Frame lived in the home for a little under ten years. Throughout the 1940s, various short-term renters occupied the home before it was purchased by Augustina and Hubert Halsell, who remained there until the late 1970s. Most of the home’s modifications appear to have taken place while Augustina Halsell owned the home. Department Comments April 1, 2026 is the first meeting at which the demolition application will be discussed. Property Evaluation The 2016 East Austin Historic Resources Survey lists the property as contributing to potential local and National Register historic districts. Designation Criteria—Historic Landmark 1) The building is more than 50 years old. 2) The building appears to retain moderate integrity. The character-defining porch was removed late in the period of significance, but no major modifications occurred after the 50-year cutoff. 3) Properties must meet two criteria for landmark designation (LDC §25-2-352). Staff have evaluated the property and determined that it does not meet two criteria for landmark designation: a. Architecture. …
Briefing on FY 2026 Heritage Preservation Grant Recommendations Austin Arts, Culture, Music and Entertainment | April 1, 2026 Award Announcements! ▪ 731 Awards announced on March 16th (1,606 applications submitted) ▪ $24+ million in grant awards ($67+ million in requests) Austin Live Music Fund Creative Space Assistance Program • 399 awards • $7.14 million • 22 awards • $1.32 million Elevate • 288 awards • $12.8 million Heritage Preservation Grant • 22 awards • $3 million 2 Heritage Preservation Grant Program The purpose of the Heritage Preservation Grant is to preserve and restore historic sites and preservation activities that are actively marketed to tourists. Based on State Statute Ch. 351, the project must: ▪ Be used for historical restoration and preservation projects or activities to encourage tourism to visit preserved historic sites. ▪ At, or in the immediate vicinity of, Convention Center facilities or visitor information centers; ▪ Located in the areas that would be frequented by tourists and convention delegates 3 FY26 Program Highlights ▪ Historic preservation projects and history-focused activities that promote the site’s history to tourists ▪ Project Types: ▪ Heritage Event up to $50,000 or up to $150,000 ▪ Capital Improvement Project up to $250,000 ▪ Term: 24 months for Capital Projects; 12 months for Heritage Events ▪ Eligible: 501(c)(3) Non-Profit and For Profit ▪ Funds preservation project costs (no match) ▪ Online Application in Eng/Spn ▪ Outreach and Education: Virtual and In-Person Awareness Workshops ▪ Outreach and Education: New Applicants ▪ Outreach and Education: Creative Collaborations ▪ (Once awarded) Tourism Marketing Training in Eng/Spn REQUIREMENTS ▪ Marketed to attract and expand audiences and tourism ▪ Open and Accessible grounds ▪ Occurs in Austin City Council District or ETJ 4 Review Process • Interdepartmental staff review PRE-PANEL • Heritage Events (with or without a historic designation) • Capital Improvement Projects Panel Types • Preservation architects, museum educators, Preservation expertise historians, tourism professionals 5 Heritage Preservation Grant Scoring Criteria Preservation Impact – Up to 36 Points Tourism Impact – Up to 36 Points New Voices, Historic Places – Up to 18 Points New Local Historic Designation – Up to 10 Points 6 FY26 Grant Overview FY26 Heritage Preservation Grants Application: Stats 473% Increase in Eligibility Forms (126 submitted) 109% Increase in Applications Received (45 submitted) FY26 Recommended Heritage Preservation Grants: Stats 22 Preservation Project Awards (over $3M) 72.73% Awarded Proposals from New Applicants 72.73% Local Historic Designation …
Historic Landmark Commission – Barton Springs Rd. Bridge Update April 1, 2026 Eric Bailey, P.E. – Deputy Director Capital Delivery Services Barton Springs Road Bridge 100years old built in 1926 1946 Bridge Expansion 20,000 Vehicles per day Key Entrance to Zilker Park and for Major City Events FUNDING SOURCE: • Preliminary Design: 2012, 2018 and 2020 Bonds • Design: 2020 Bond • Construction: FHWA/City 2 Project Development Process - PRELIMINARY PHASE 2015 - 2023 - DESIGN PHASE 2024 - 2027 - CONSTRUCTION PHASE 2027 - 2029 PUBLIC MEETING April 2023 RESPOND TO COMMENTS Summer 2023 REFINE REPORT Fall 2023 COUNCIL ACTION December 2023 60% DESIGN + NEPA PUBLIC MEETINGS + BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS FINAL DESIGN AND PERMITTING BID AND AWARD + COUNCIL ACTION CONSTRUCTION WE ARE HERE Current Condition Spalling Concrete in Bridge Structure Concrete Cores Delamination of Beams Curb And Railing Do Not Meet Current ADA Standards Load Restricted As Of November 2023 – Heavy Vehicles Moving Eastbound Must Use Outer Lanes 4 Analysis Structural and Mobility Analysis: • • • • External Structure - Spalling Concrete • ADA compliance – Pedestrian Circulation Internal Structure – Deteriorating Steel Geotechnical Data –Replacement Design • Pedestrian and Bicycle Mobility – no improvement to existing condition Cost/Benefit Analysis – extended life vs. cost Historic Analysis: • Coordinated with US Army Corps (USACE) and Texas Historic Commission (THC) • The bridge is a contributing feature to the Zilker Park Historic Landmark designation • The Texas Historic Commission has approved potentially fully replacing the bridge. As the process continues, the final design will be reviewed and approved by USACE and THC. 5 Project Options 6 Bridge Rehabilitation Bridge Structure Rehabilitation 1 Remove Existing Bridge Deck and Spandrel Columns 2 Remaining Portion of Existing Structure 3 New Components: Exterior Pairs of Arch Ribs, Spandrel Columns, Deck, and Abutment Extensions Less than half of the original structure will remain Remaining structure will require refacing with new material surfaces View of old arches will be mostly blocked by new structure 7 City Council Actions 1 Direction from Council in 2020 Bond Resolution (20200812-011): 2 Previous Council Action/Hearings: 11/30/23 – Council conducts a public hearing to recommend the bridge replacement alternative 12/12/23 – Council work session on the recommended option 12/14/23 – Council conducts a public hearing and directs Staff to pursue replacement option 03/07/24 – Council Directs TPW Director to apply for a federal bridge …
URTH CAFFÈ HLC -COMMISSION MTG April 1st, 2026 22222404040404023232323234040404040 MaMaMaMaMarcrcrcrcrch h h h h 23232323232323232323 20202020202626262626 , , , , 20 2222240404040402323232323 4040404040 MaMaMaMaMarcrcrcrcrch h h h h 23232323232323232323 20202020202626262626 , , , , 20 UUUUURRRRRTTTTTHHH CCCCCAAAAAFFFFFFFFFEEEEE:::: DDDDEEEETTTTTEEEEERRRIIIOOOORRRRRAAAAATTTTTIIIIIOOOOONNNN RRRRREEEEEPPPPPOOOOORRRRRTTTTT Dear Members of the Historic Landmark Commission: This letter is intended to clarify the site conditions and field decisions that led to a greater degree of demolition than originally proposed during our 2024 presentation. First, we wish to acknowledge that the extent of the demolition exceeded initial expectations. However, the report below outlines the harsh structural realities discovered on-site that necessitated the difficult decision to retain a smaller percentage of the original envelope than planned. This report details the specific damage found on every demolished wall and the technical rationale behind those actions. We want to clarify that the sections currently remaining on-site should not be viewed as exempt from the systemic damage documented in this report. Rather, these sections were retained as part of a strategic, surgical effort to preserve specific components, with the ultimate goal of restoring the building to its full architectural glory. While a total preservation of the entire structure was our preferred approach, the extent of the systemic decay made such a path both structurally unsound and economically unfeasible. The team elected to focus preservation efforts on the primary, most significant facade. The other walls required reconstruction to properly integrate modern systems and ensure long-term viability. Our approach focuses on three key pillars: · Modern System Integration: Incorporating necessary waterproofing, structural reinforcement, and code-compliant utilities that the original compromised structure could no longer support. · Structural Longevity: Preventing the imminent failure that would have occurred had we attempted to patch the existing, deteriorated sections. · Historic Fidelity: Replicating all original detailing, profiles, and facade treatments with exacting precision to ensure the building’s visual contribution to the district remains unchanged. It is important to note that the intended use of the building and property has not changed; the property and building will function as a restaurant. The high- intensity operational needs of such a program placed cumulative stresses on the historic structure that it was never designed to handle. Over the years, these commercial requirements resulted in a level of internal deterioration that made total preservation a physical impossibility. Our primary objective is to reconstruct the building in a way that accommodates modern restaurant standards while maintaining …
Sturgill, Hunter From: Sent: To: Subject: Sturgill, Hunter Tuesday, March 24, 2026 9:42 AM Historic Preservation Office FW: Support for Rezoning Case for Marilyn Webb Hunter Sturgill (she/her) Planner II Historic Preservation Office Austin Planning 512-974-3393 hunter.sturgill@austintexas.gov Please Note: Correspondence and information submitted to the City of Austin are subject to the Texas Public Information Act (Chapter 552) and may be published online. Por Favor Tome En Cuenta: La correspondencia y la información enviada a la Ciudad de Austin está sujeta a la Ley de Información Pública de Texas (Capítulo 552) y puede ser publicada en línea. From: brenda malik Sent: Monday, March 23, 2026 5:31 PM To: Sturgill, Hunter <hunter.sturgill@austintexas.gov> Cc: Marilyn Poole Subject: Support for Rezoning Case for Marilyn Webb You don't often get email from Learn why this is important External Email - Exercise Caution Greetings, My name is Brenda Malik, longtime resident and past president of the Rogers-Washington-Holy Cross Historic Neighborhood. Mrs. Webb and family have been valued community members for decades and have a treasured place in our neighborhood's history and culture. I fully support her efforts in this rezoning request. Please forward my sentiments to the Commission. Sincerely, Brenda Malik CAUTION: This is an EXTERNAL email. Please use caution when clicking links or opening attachments. If you believe this to be a malicious or phishing email, please report it using the "Report 1
March 30, 2026 RE: Hill-Thompson House Historic Designation Dear Chair Heimsath, Vice Chair Evans, and Members of the Austin Historic Landmark Commission, Preservation Austin exists to empower Austinites to shape a more inclusive, resilient, and meaningful community culture through preservation. We write today in support of historic designation for 1906 Maple Avenue, also known as the Hill-Thompson House, for its historic associations and community value. We are proud to partner with the home’s owner, our friend Marilynn Poole Webb, in preparing this well-deserved nomination. The house at 1906 Maple Avenue is associated with several significant figures, including architect John S. Chase, FAIA, zoologist and geneticist Oscar Thompson, and civic leader Irene Hill-Thompson. John S. Chase was the first African American student to enroll at The University of Texas at Austin following desegregation, the first to graduate from UT’s School of Architecture, and the first licensed African American architect in Texas. When he was unable to find work at white architecture firms after graduation, Chase forged a practice for himself with residential and institutional commissions in Black East Austin that speak to his distinctive modernist vision, including the Teachers State Association of Texas Building (1952), David Chapel Missionary Baptist Church (1959), and the Della Phillips House (mid-1960s). Throughout his long and successful career as an architect and entrepreneur, Chase paved the way for future African American architects in Texas. Like Chase, Oscar Thompson was among the first African American students to enroll at The University of Texas at Austin, and was the school’s first Black graduate in 1952. After Thompson’s passing in 1962, his wife, Irene Hill-Thompson commissioned Chase to build her home in the Rogers-Washington-Holy Cross neighborhood. Hill-Thompson was a longstanding civic leader in East Austin, and the house served as a meeting place for political and community organizing. During Lyndon B. Johnson’s 1964 presidential campaign, Irene and her daughter, Ida Dawn, were selected as “Blue Birds,” a group of trusted community liaisons tasked with outreach and voter engagement efforts within Austin’s African American community. Irene hosted numerous political events at her Maple Avenue home, for President Johnson, U.S. Congressmen Lloyd Doggett, East Texas Black Republican operative Ernest Sterling, J.J. “Jake” Pickle, and Texas State Senator Gonzalo Barrientos. This legacy of civic engagement extends to the home’s current owner, Irene Hill-Thompson’s niece Marilynn Poole Webb, a leader in the Rogers-Washington-Holy Cross Historic District effort and longtime friend and collaborator of …
TARA A. DUDLEY, PhD 130 Palmetto Cove Kyle, Texas 78640 (512) 317-5536 March 27, 2026 City of Austin Historic Landmark Commission Historic Preservation Office P.O. Box 1088 Austin, TX 78767 Dear Commissioners, I write to you expressing the strongest support of landmark designation for the Hill-Thompson House at 1906 Maple Avenue—an extraordinary site where architecture, community leadership, and Black history in Austin intersect in profound and enduring ways. Designed in 1963 by pioneering architect John Saunders Chase, the Hill-Thompson House represents a defining early moment in his career as his first residential commission in Austin. Chase, the first African American graduate of the University of Texas School of Architecture and the first licensed Black architect in Texas, brought a refined mid-century modern vocabulary to East Austin and Black Austinites—adapting modern design influenced by the Usonian principles of Frank Lloyd Wright to the cultural, climatic, and social realities of a segregated city. This home, with its careful siting, climate- responsive overhangs, and balance of privacy and openness, reflects both accessibility, innovation, and intention. Yet the significance of this house extends far beyond architecture. It is deeply rooted in the lives and legacies of its original owner, Irene Hill Thompson. Mrs. Thompson’s husband Oscar Thompson was a groundbreaking figure in his own right—the first African American graduate of the University of Texas, earning his master’s degree in zoology in 1952 and contributing to early research in genetics. After his untimely death in 1962, the construction of this home became both a personal and symbolic act. Designed by his close friend John S. Chase, the house reflects resilience, friendship, and Mrs. Thompson’s determination to build a life and legacy for her family in the face of loss. Irene Hill Thompson herself stands as one of the most significant civic figures associated with Austin’s history. During a 34-plus-year career with Austin Independent School District (AISD)—much of it at L. C. Anderson High School—she mentored generations of students and young professionals while also serving as a leader in civic, political, and cultural life. Her home was not merely a private residence; it was a vital gathering place for community organizing, political engagement, and social life in East Austin. From hosting campaign events during the 1964 presidential campaign of Lyndon B. Johnson to welcoming local and state leaders such as Lloyd Doggett and Gonzalo Barrientos, the Hill-Thompson House functioned as a hub of grassroots democracy and …
PARAMOUNT THEATRE RENOVATION HLC Presentation 01 April 2026 WEST ELEVATION - 1976 WEST ELEVATION - 1945 WEST ELEVATION - 1979 PARAMOUNT THEATRE RENOVATION HLC Presentation, 01 April 2026 1915 LOBBY DASHED LINE SHOWS EXTENT OF CURRENT LOBBY THIS PORTION OF 1915 FIRST FLOOR PLAN IS LOST FIRST FLOOR PLAN - 1915 PARAMOUNT THEATRE RENOVATION HLC Presentation, 01 April 2026 WEST ELEVATION - 2025 CENTER STOREFRONT SOUTH STAIR DOOR PARAMOUNT THEATRE RENOVATION HLC Presentation, 01 April 2026 EXISTING CENTER STOREFRONT Storefront frame proposed to be replaced in-kind to: • Address sagging transom framing • Provide a required accessible route from the front entrance • Move entry doors closer to their historic location – aligned with inner lobby doors EXISTING SOUTH STAIR DOOR Frame and transom proposed to be replaced in-kind to: • Lower the door and remove the dangerous 4” step at the door sill. PARAMOUNT THEATRE RENOVATION HLC Presentation, 01 April 2026 PARAMOUNT THEATRE RENOVATION HLC Presentation, 01 April 2026 PARAMOUNT THEATRE RENOVATION HLC Presentation, 01 April 2026 PARAMOUNT THEATRE RENOVATION HLC Presentation, 01 April 2026
Sturgill, Hunter From: Sent: To: Subject: Sarah Arvey Sunday, March 29, 2026 6:17 PM Historic Preservation Office Oppose PR-2026-022411 You don't often get email from Learn why this is important External Email - Exercise Caution Mr. Sturgill, I'm writing to oppose the demolition of 1406 Garden St, Austin TX 78702 (Case number PR-2026-022411). As a neighbor in the East Cesar Chavez (ECC) neighborhood since 2011, I have witnessed countless historically significant homes be demolished and replaced by large-scale multiple residential units that are quickly turned into Short Term Rentals or that sit unoccupied for reasons unknown. Neighborhoods should be made up of people who live there and who care about the community in which they live. ECC has gone through tumult over decades and is currently being torn up by the I36 freeway and the glut of STRs. Please do not let yet another house of historical significance be torn down. And please do not let it be given to developers who only keep one wall and demolish the rest (i.e.Cenote). Please confirm receipt and keep me apprised of this case. Thank you, Sarah -- ********************************* Sarah R. Arvey, PhD CAUTION: This is an EXTERNAL email. Please use caution when clicking links or opening attachments. If you believe this to be a malicious or phishing email, please report it using the "Report Message" button in Outlook. For any additional questions or concerns, contact CSIRT at "cybersecurity@austintexas.gov". 1
REGULAR MEETING OF THE HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION OPERATIONS COMMITTEE Wednesday, March 18, 2026, at 11 a.m. Permitting and Development Center, Room 1203 6310 Wilhelmina Delco Drive AUSTIN, TEXAS Some members of the committee may be participating by videoconference. Public comment will be allowed in person or remotely via telephone. Speakers may only register to speak on an item once either in person or remotely and will be allowed up to three minutes to provide their comments. Registration no later than noon the day before the meeting is required for remote participation by telephone. To register to speak remotely, contact Cara Bertron at (512) 974-1446 or cara.bertron@austintexas.gov. CURRENT COMMISSIONERS Judah Rice, Chair Jeffrey Acton Trey McWhorter AGENDA CALL TO ORDER PUBLIC COMMUNICATION: GENERAL The first 10 speakers signed up prior to the meeting being called to order or, for remote participation, no later than noon the day before the meeting, will each be allowed a three-minute allotment to address their concerns regarding items not posted on the agenda. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Approve the minutes of the Operations Committee regular meeting on February 18, 2026. STAFF BRIEFINGS 2. Staff briefing regarding ways to approach concerns about structural issues in older buildings. Presentation by Cara Bertron, Program Manager II, Austin Planning, and Kalan Contreras, Principal Planner, Austin Planning. DISCUSSION ITEMS 3. Discussion of potential changes to the Land Development Code regarding historic preservation. PUBLIC HEARINGS/DISCUSSION ITEMS 4. Discussion and possible action on eligible expenses for the historic district tax abatement. 5. Discussion and possible action on Historic Sign Standards. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS ADJOURNMENT The City of Austin is committed to compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. Reasonable modifications and equal access to communications will be provided upon request. For assistance, please contact the Liaison or TTY users’ route through 711. A person may request language access accommodations no later than 48 hours before the scheduled meeting. Please call or email Cara Bertron at Austin Planning at (512) 974-1446 or cara.bertron@austintexas.gov to request service or for additional information. For more information on the Operations Committee, please contact Cara Bertron at (512) 974-1446 or cara.bertron@austintexas.gov.
REGULAR MEETING OF THE HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION OPERATIONS COMMITTEE Wednesday, February 18, 2026, at 11 a.m. Permitting and Development Center, Room 1203 6310 Wilhelmina Delco Drive AUSTIN, TEXAS CURRENT COMMISSIONERS _X_ Judah Rice, Chair _X_ Jeffrey Acton ___ Trey McWhorter DRAFT MINUTES CALL TO ORDER PUBLIC COMMUNICATION: GENERAL No public communication. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. 2. Approve the minutes of the Operations Committee regular meeting on September 15, 2025. MOTION: Approve the minutes from September 15, 2025 on a motion by Commissioner Rice, Commissioner Acton seconding. Vote: 2-0. Approve the minutes of the Operations Committee regular meeting on December 18, 2025. MOTION: Approve the minutes from December 18, 2025 on a motion by Commissioner Rice, Commissioner Acton seconding. Vote: 2-0. DISCUSSION ITEMS 3. Discussion of ways to approach concerns about structural issues in older buildings. • The Historic Landmark Commission needs more background to make decisions. • Explore how to strongly encourage structural documentation during application process. • Commissioners can request additional documentation at meetings. PUBLIC HEARINGS/DISCUSSION ITEMS 4. Discussion and possible action on Historic Sign Standards. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS • Changes to Commission bylaws • Eligible expenses for the historic district tax abatement • Changes to historic preservation portions of Land Development Code • Historic designation process for objects ADJOURNMENT: 12:38 p.m. For more information on the Operations Committee, please contact Cara Bertron at (512) 974-1446 or cara.bertron@austintexas.gov.
ELIGIBLE EXPENSES: Per 11-1-63 (6) of City Code, only work for which a certificate of appropriateness or City permit is required is included in determining whether the proposed work exceeds the specified percentage of pre-restoration value. ELIGIBLE EXPENSES: • Labor/materials related to eligible costs • Demolition related to eligible costs or to remove non-historic exterior additions and features • Repair, restoration, or replacement of historic façade and landscape features, including reconstruction of missing features • Exterior masonry and siding repair • Roofing • Foundation • Structural repairs • Gutters • Windows, including permanent weatherization measures • Exterior doors and permanent weatherization measures • Permanent HVAC systems (permanent) • Permanent eElectrical, plumbing, and gas systems (permanent) • Escalators and eElevators • Fire eEscapes • Sprinkler/fFire suppression systems • Security systems requiring installation permits (if permit required for installation) • Interior partitions, ceilings, and/or floors requiring installation permits (if permit required for installation) • Signage • Solar panels and other long-term sustainability “sustainable” improvements • Exterior paint • Exterior and interior ramps • Exterior handrails • Exterior lifts • Changes to make the exterior grade and/or existing sidewalks accessible • Repair of existing sidewalks • Widening secondary exterior doorways • Widening interior doorways • Sales tax for eligible expenses • Interior tub-to-shower conversions, except shower tiling • Other plumbing work to enhance accessibility, including lowering sinks and replacing toilets • Above listed work on outbuildings deemed contributing structures INELIGIBLE EXPENSES: • Light fixtures • Interior finish work, e.g., painting, papering, tiling, carpeting, cabinets, counter tops and similar finish work • Appliances • Furniture • Window treatments other than permanent weatherization measures • Construction of or repair to dDecks/ and patios not original to building • Demolition costs related to removal of contributing buildings or structures • Construction of new buildings or additions • Non-historic landscape features, (e.g., retaining walls, fencing, paving, planters, vegetation, paths, or sidewalks, ) unless the changes are for accessibility purposes (see Eligible Expenses list) • Parking lot construction or expansion • Architectural and engineering fees • Building permit, variance, zoning, or platting application fees • Feasibility studies • Financing fees • Leasing expenses • Storm sewer costs • Legal and /aAccounting fees • Purchase or repair of , or repair to, construction tools and equipment • Taxes, except sales tax for eligible expenses Adopted December 2012
REGULAR MEETING OF THE HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE WEDNESDAY, MARCH 11, 2026, AT 4:00 P.M. PERMITTING AND DEVELOPMENT CENTER, CONFERENCE ROOM 1401 6310 WILHELMINA DELCO DR AUSTIN, TEXAS Some members of the Historic Landmark Commission may be participating by videoconference. The meeting may be viewed online at: http://www.austintexas.gov/page/watch-atxn-live Public comment will be allowed in-person or remotely via telephone. Speakers may only register to speak on an item once either in-person or remotely and will be allowed up to three minutes to provide their comments. Registration no later than noon the day before the meeting is required for remote participation by telephone. To register to speak remotely, please use the QR code or link at the end of this document. For questions, please email preservation@austintexas.gov. KEVIN KOCH JAIME ALVAREZ HARMONY GROGAN CURRENT COMMISSIONERS AGENDA CALL TO ORDER PUBLIC COMMUNICATION: GENERAL The first 10 speakers signed up prior to the meeting being called to order will each be allowed a three- minute allotment to address their concerns regarding items not posted on the agenda. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Approve the minutes of the Architectural Review Committee Regular meeting on February 11, 2026. DISCUSSION ITEMS 2. 3. 4. 208 W. 32nd St. Aldridge Place Local Historic District Council District 9 Proposal: Addition and remodel of a contributing building. Applicant: Caitlin Hough, Andrew Logan 1308 West Lynn St. Old West Austin National Register Historic District Council District 9 Proposal: Rehabilitation and change of use of a church. Applicant: Graham Brown 1621 Nash Hernandez Sr. Rd. Council District 3 Proposal: Rehabilitation for APR administrative spaces and community-serving spaces. Applicant: Ingrid Kong ADJOURNMENT The City of Austin is committed to compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. Reasonable modifications and equal access to communications will be provided upon request. For assistance, please contact the Liaison or TTY users’ route through 711. A person may request language access accommodations no later than 48 hours before the scheduled meeting. Please call or email Hunter Sturgill at Austin Planning, at 512-974-3393, preservation@austintexas.gov , to request service or for additional information. For more information on the Historic Landmark Commission, please contact Hunter Sturgill at 512- 974-3393, preservation@austintexas.gov. REGISTER TO SPEAK https://forms.office.com/g/BmdRDJ3yvu Historic Landmark Commission Architectural Review Committee 2026 Meeting Schedule Wednesday, January 14th, 2026 at 4:00PM Wednesday, February 11th, 2026 at 4:00PM Wednesday, March 11th, 2026 at 4:00PM Wednesday, April 8th, 2026 at 4:00PM Wednesday, May 13th, 2026 …
REGULAR MEETING OF THE HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 11, 2026, AT 4:00 P.M. PERMITTING AND DEVELOPMENT CENTER, CONFERENCE ROOM 1401 6310 WILHELMINA DELCO DR AUSTIN, TEXAS Some members of the Historic Landmark Commission may be participating by videoconference. The meeting may be viewed online at: http://www.austintexas.gov/page/watch-atxn-live X KEVIN KOCH X JAIME ALVAREZ X HARMONY GROGAN CURRENT COMMISSIONERS DRAFT MINUTES CALL TO ORDER: 4:02PM PUBLIC COMMUNICATION: GENERAL The first 10 speakers signed up prior to the meeting being called to order will each be allowed a three- minute allotment to address their concerns regarding items not posted on the agenda. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Approve the minutes of the Architectural Review Committee Regular meeting on January 14, 2026. MOTION: Approve the January 14, 2026 meeting minutes. Motion by Commissioner Alvarez. Commissioner Grogan seconded the motion. Vote 3-0. The motion passed. DISCUSSION ITEMS 2. 3. C14H-1978-0038 – 713 Congress Ave. Paramount Theatre Council District 9 Proposal: Remodel the exterior doors. Applicant: Ashley Knight The applicant presented their proposal. The committee provided feedback. 4010 Avenue B Hyde Park Local Historic District Council District 9 Proposal: Repair and renovate a contributing building. Construct a new separate residence. Applicant: John C. Rosato The applicant presented their proposal. The committee provided feedback. ADJOURNMENT: 4:33PM The City of Austin is committed to compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. Reasonable modifications and equal access to communications will be provided upon request. For assistance, please contact the Liaison or TTY users’ route through 711. A person may request language access accommodations no later than 48 hours before the scheduled meeting. Please call or email Hunter Sturgill at Austin Planning, at 512-974-3393, preservation@austintexas.gov , to request service or for additional information. For more information on the Historic Landmark Commission, please contact Hunter Sturgill at 512- 974-3393, preservation@austintexas.gov.
HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION APPLICATIONS UNDER REVIEW FOR MARCH 4, 2026 MEETING This list does not constitute a formal agenda and is subject to change. A final agenda will be posted at least 3 business days prior to the meeting. Public comment will be allowed in-person or remotely via telephone. Speakers may only register to speak on an item once either in-person or remotely and will be allowed up to three minutes to provide their comments. Registration no later than noon the day before the meeting is required for remote participation by telephone. Speaker Registration will open once the formal agenda is posted. For questions, please email preservation@austintexas.gov. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Approve the minutes of the Historic Landmark Commission regular meeting on February 4, 2026. PUBLIC HEARINGS/DISCUSSION ITEMS Historic Zoning 2. C14H-1987-0016 – 810 W. 10th St. Mayer-Howse House Council District 9 Proposal: Recommend ordinance cleanup via Commission-initiated historic zoning to Planning Commission and City Council. Applicant: Historic Landmark Commission City Staff: Kalan Contreras, Historic Preservation Office, 512-974-2727 National Register Historic District Permit Applications 3. HR-2025-145729 – 2100 Barton Springs Rd. Zilker Park Barton Springs Bridge Council District 8 Proposal: Construct a new bridge, reconstruct trails, and restore the stream bank. (Postponed by HLC on February 4, 2026) Applicant: Paulinda Lanham City Staff: Kalan Contreras, Historic Preservation Office, 512-974-2727 4. 5. 6. 7. LM-2025-155778; HR-2026-014183 – 617 Congress Ave. Congress Avenue National Register Historic District Council District 9 Proposal: Reconfigure the primary facade and construct a balcony. Applicant: Jeff Schindler; Jeb Barmish City Staff: Austin Lukes, Historic Preservation Office, 512-978-0766 HR-2026-014204 – 809 Congress Ave. Congress Avenue National Register Historic District Council District 9 Proposal: Demolish a compatible building, retaining the Congress Avenue facade. Applicant: Carson Nelson City Staff: Austin Lukes, Historic Preservation Office, 512-978-0766 HR-2026-010143 – 1611 Preston Ave. Old West Austin National Register Historic District Council District 10 Proposal: Reconfigure existing front wall and construct an addition. Applicant: Meegan Beddoe City Staff: Austin Lukes, Historic Preservation Office, 512-978-0766 PR-2026-015633 – 1508 Pease Rd. Old West Austin National Register Historic District Council District 10 Proposal: Construct a new residence. Applicant: Paul Zubeldia City Staff: Austin Lukes, Historic Preservation Office, 512-978-0766 Demolition and Relocation Permit Applications 8. PR-2026-012921 – 844 Airport Blvd. Council District 3 Proposal: Demolish a restaurant. Applicant: Katie Congdon; Douglas Frey City Staff: Kalan Contreras, Historic Preservation Office, 512-974-2727 DISCUSSION AND ACTION ITEMS 9. 10. Approve budget …
REGULAR MEETING OF THE HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION WEDNESDAY, MARCH 4, 2026, AT 6:00 P.M. CITY HALL, COUNCIL CHAMBERS 301 W. 2ND STREET AUSTIN, TEXAS Some members of the Historic Landmark Commission may be participating by videoconference. The meeting may be viewed online at: http://www.austintexas.gov/page/watch-atxn-live Public comment will be allowed in-person or remotely via telephone. Speakers may only register to speak on an item once either in-person or remotely and will be allowed up to three minutes to provide their comments. Registration no later than noon the day before the meeting is required for remote participation by telephone. To register to speak remotely, please use the QR code or link at the end of this document. For questions, please email preservation@austintexas.gov. CURRENT COMMISSIONERS BEN HEIMSATH, CHAIR (D-8) CARL LAROSCHE (D-6) ROXANNE EVANS, VICE CHAIR (D-2) TREY MCWHORTER (D-10) JEFFREY ACTON (MAYOR) TONYA PLEASANT-WRIGHT (D-1) JAIME ALVAREZ (D-7) JUDAH RICE (D-4) HARMONY GROGAN (D-5) BAT TANIGUCHI (D-9) KEVIN KOCH (D-3) AGENDA CALL TO ORDER PUBLIC COMMUNICATION: GENERAL The first 10 speakers signed up prior to the meeting being called to order will each be allowed a three- minute allotment to address their concerns regarding items not posted on the agenda. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Approve the minutes of the Historic Landmark Commission regular meeting on February 4, 2026. PUBLIC HEARINGS/DISCUSSION ITEMS Historic Zoning 2. C14H-1987-0016 – 810 W. 10th St. Mayer-Howse House Council District 9 Proposal: Recommend ordinance cleanup via Commission-initiated historic zoning to Planning Commission and City Council. Applicant: Historic Landmark Commission City Staff: Kalan Contreras, Historic Preservation Office, 512-974-2727 Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the proposed zoning change from general office- equitable transit-oriented development-equitable transit-oriented density bonus (GO- ETODDBETOD) district zoning to general office-historic landmark-equitable transit-oriented development-equitable transit-oriented density bonus (GO-H-ETOD-DBETOD) district zoning as a means of correcting the existing administrative record. National Register Historic District Permit Applications 3. 4. HR-2025-145729 – 2100 Barton Springs Rd. Zilker Park Barton Springs Bridge Council District 8 Proposal: Construct a new bridge, reconstruct trails, and restore the stream bank. (Postponed by HLC on February 4, 2026) Applicant: Paulinda Lanham City Staff: Kalan Contreras, Historic Preservation Office, 512-974-2727 Staff Recommendation: Comment on and release the plans, encouraging the applicant to comply with THC feedback when received. Request that the applicant follow the appropriate City process if other contributing structures are to be removed or modified. LM-2025-155778; HR-2026-014183 – 617 Congress Ave. Congress Avenue National Register …
HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION Permits in National Register Historic Districts March 4, 2026 HR-2025-145729 Zilker Park National Register Historic District 2100 Barton Springs Road 3 – 1 Proposal Construct a new bridge in place of the existing contributing bridge. Reconstruct trails. Restore stream bank. Project Specifications The proposed new bridge will replace the existing 1925/1946 Barton Creek bridge at Barton Springs Road and Azie Morton Road. Extreme deterioration and deferred maintenance necessitate bridge removal, with structural elements’ degradation beyond repair and safety concerns, including flood control and pedestrian safety issues, driving Council approval in 2023. The selected design appears to be the most compatible of three options. Proposed materials will match the existing bridge’s concrete and asphalt construction. The proposed bridge utilizes a set of arched piers, reflective of the existing bridge’s design, oriented transverse to the superstructure of the bridge. This orientation provides a maximum amount of visibility through the bridge. The abutment at the park side has been pushed back to create open space accommodating the park train and pedestrian path. The handrail on the park side of the bridge utilizes a robust steel design with heavy concrete pilasters that pay homage to the existing bridge and divert debris during flood events. The bridge has been widened to accommodate two lanes of traffic, planters, and seating with shade devices on either side. Streetscape elements have been selected to blend with the bridge’s surroundings and will be minimally visible above the handrail. Proposed lighting is simple in design. The proposed stream bank and pedestrian pathways are supported by ashlar masonry and stone veneer retaining walls. Design Standards The City of Austin’s Historic Design Standards (March 2021) are based on the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and are used to evaluate projects in National Register districts. The following standards apply to the proposed project: Sites and streetscapes 1. Vegetation, topography, and landscaping 1.1 Do not grade, fill, or excavate unless it is to solve a drainage or flooding problem. 1.2 Retain permanent landscape features that define the character of the property and the district. Protect them when constructing new buildings or additions. The proposed project slightly changes the topography surrounding the bridge to alleviate flooding and allow for pedestrian use of the surrounding bank. No additional character-defining landscape features appear to be affected at this phase of the project. Changes to character-defining landscape features will require additional HLC review. …
Barton Springs Road Bridge Capital Delivery Services | 04 Feb 2026 Project Project Background Background Project History About the Bridge Nearly 100years old built in 1926 20,000 Vehicles per day 1946 Bridge Expansion Key Entrance to Zilker Park and for Major City Events 3 Project Site Protect Park Monuments Bridge Site Challenge and Constraint Categories: Park and Historic Environmental Roadway Intersection Bridge 4 Project Purpose and Need Project Needs Project Goals / Outcomes Age of Structure 100 yrs old, Associated structural degradation Safety Barton Springs roadway not aligned Hillside instability at Umlauf Gardens Provide 75 Year Bridge Service Life Improve Safety Stabilize Umlauf Gardens Insufficient Paths Not enough bike or pedestrian paths on bridge Add Multi-modal and Connect with Park Trails Intersection Congestion At Barton Springs / Azie Morton intersection Reduce Congestion with addition of right turn 5 Project Purpose and Need Roadway Alignment Issues 6 Project Purpose and Need Goal During Construction Maintain two-way traffic during construction Maintain the Azie Morton / Barton Springs intersection during construction 20,000 Vehicles per day on Barton Springs Road (cid:127) Important commuter route (cid:127) Key access to Zilker Park (cid:127) Access to many special events (Trail of Lights, Austin City Limits, Blues on the Green, Zilker Park) 7 Project Options Project Options Rehabilitation or Replacement Options 9 Project Elements Elements Required for Rehabilitation or Replacement Bike Lanes Sidewalk / Path Shared Use Path Proposed Bridge Widened Bike Lane Accommodates Accommodate hiking Trails Wider Ped. Paths off-road biker trail users Accommodates Pedestrians for Special Events Multimodal areas to accommodate off-road hike and bike trail users Longer service life length Wider bridge Better alignment for safety Dedicated bike lanes 10 Bridge Inspection Bridge Inspection Findings Deck (with integral longitudinal joint), floor beams, and spandrel columns exhibited the most degradation. All structural components exhibited some degradation. Degraded Concrete Spandrel Column Spalling Exposed and Corroded Rebar Exposed and Corroded Rebar 11 Rehabilitation Options Spandrel Columns Arch Ribs Bridge Inspection Findings Rehabilitation for increased service life requires removal of deck, floor beams, and spandrel columns Demolish the structure to the arch ribs. Significant work is needed: major rehabilitation or bridge replacement. Do Nothing is not an option 1 Preserve Rehabilitation Option 1 is not feasible 12 Rehabilitation Options Improve Paths Arch ribs …
C-2 - Draft Interim Bridge Status Memorandum – Feb 2022 Barton Springs Rd. Bridge over Barton Creek Interim Bridge Status REVISIONS Project: City of Austin – Barton Springs Road Bridge over Barton Creek Document: Interim Bridge Status Memorandum Revision Date of Issue Description D0 D1 D2 01/17/19 01/25/19 02/24/22 Draft Issue for Internal Comment Draft Issue for City Management Team Review/Comment Draft Issue for City Management Team Review/Comment Statement of Limitations This report is intended for the City of Austin and is not to be distributed to third parties outside the City’s organization. This interim memo provides an update regarding the status of the conceptual design work performed by URS for the proposed facility. This work is ongoing and not complete. Information included in this memo is subject to change prior to release of the Final Bridge Conceptual Engineering Report. Page ii Barton Springs Rd. Bridge over Barton Creek Interim Bridge Status CONTENTS PAGE 1. 2. INTRODUCTION............................................................................................ 1 Background ........................................................................................... 1 1.1 Project Objectives .................................................................................. 1 1.2 Bridge Engineering Process ...................................................................... 2 1.3 1.3.1 Preliminary Selection and Concept Engineering – Process Phase 1 ...... 2 1.3.2 Preliminary Selection and Concept Engineering – Process Phase 2 ...... 3 1.3.3 Preliminary Selection and Concept Engineering – Process Phase 3 ...... 3 2.4 2.5 SUMMARY OF RESULTS ................................................................................. 4 Bridge Cultural/Historical Background ....................................................... 4 2.1 Barton Springs/Azie Morton Road Intersection Assessment .......................... 4 2.2 Roadway Alignment Concepts (Rehabilitation vs Replacement) .................... 4 2.3 2.3.1 Rehabilitation Option .................................................................... 4 2.3.2 Replacement Option ..................................................................... 5 Maintenance of Traffic / Construction Phasing ............................................ 5 2.4.1 Phase 1 (Figure 2-3) ..................................................................... 5 2.4.2 Phase 2 (Figure 2-4) ..................................................................... 6 2.4.3 Phase 3 (Figure 2-5) ..................................................................... 6 2.4.4 Final Tasks – Complete Construction............................................... 7 Bridge Rehabilitation Summary ................................................................ 7 2.5.1 Introduction ................................................................................ 7 2.5.2 Bridge Rehabilitation Feasibility ...................................................... 7 2.5.3 Description of Existing Condition .................................................... 7 2.5.4 Service Life Estimates ................................................................... 8 2.5.5 Existing Structure - Load Capacity Estimates ................................... 9 2.5.6 Rehabilitation Concept and Components ........................................ 10 2.5.7 Rehabilitation Renderings ............................................................ 11 2.5.8 Estimated Costs ......................................................................... 11 Bridge Replacement Summary ............................................................... 12 2.6.1 Introduction .............................................................................. 12 2.6.2 Bridge Replacement Feasibility ..................................................... 12 2.6.3 Replacement Concept and Components ......................................... 12 2.6.4 Estimated Costs ......................................................................... 13 Conceptual Zilker Park/Pedestrian Opportunities ...................................... 13 2.7.1 Structure/Tree Protection and Mitigation ....................................... 14 2.7.2 Zilker Park – Zilker Zephyr .......................................................... 14 2.7.3 Zilker Park Hike/Bike Trail ........................................................... 14 2.7.4 Barton Springs Road ................................................................... …
C-4 - Rehabilitation vs Replacement Memo – September 2022 City of Austin Barton Springs Road Bridge over Barton Creek Rehabilitation vs. Replacement Memorandum CIP ID 5873.031 URS Corporation 9400 Amberglen Blvd. Austin, TX 78729 (512) 419-5897 TX Firm F-3162 7650 W. Courtney Campbell Cswy. Tampa, FL 33607-1462 (813) 286-1711 September 28, 2022 Final (F1) This document is released under the authority of Robert B. Anderson Texas PE No. 111066 Barton Springs Road Bridge over Barton Creek Rehab vs. Replacement Memo REVISIONS Project: City of Austin – Barton Springs Road Bridge over Barton Creek Document: Rehab vs. Replacement Memo Revision Date of Issue Description D0 D1 D2 F1 08/22/2022 Draft Issue for Internal Comment 09/12/2022 Revised Draft Issue post PWD comments 09/19/2022 Revised Draft Issue cost table and replacement comparison 09/28/2022 Final Issue Contents 1. 2. 3. INTRODUCTION............................................................................................ 3 Purpose and Need .................................................................................. 3 1.1 Bridge Cultural / Historical Background / Existing Condition ......................... 3 1.2 DESIGN CONCEPTS ....................................................................................... 5 Design Elements Common to Both Rehabilitation and Replacement .............. 5 2.1 Rehabilitation Option .............................................................................. 5 2.2 Replacement Option ............................................................................... 7 2.3 COMPARISON OF PRELIMINARY REPLACEMENT / REHABILITATION CONCEPTS .................................................................................................. 10 4. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................... 12 Statement of Limitations This report is intended for the City of Austin and is distributed to third parties outside the City’s organization, with their consent. This interim memo provides a direct comparison between the rehabilitation and replacement options for the Barton Springs Road Bridge over Barton Creek and provides a recommendation from the design team. This report is intended to outline the current design approach and highlight the pros and cons associated with the rehabilitation and replacement concepts. To limit the size and focus of this memo, the detailed work associated with existing bridge inspection and preliminary concept development and analysis are incorporated by reference. Page 2 of 13 Barton Springs Road Bridge over Barton Creek Rehab vs. Replacement Memo 1. INTRODUCTION This section of the report summarizes the purpose and need for the project and provides some Cultural and Historical Background. 1.1 Purpose and Need The purpose and need for this project is centered on safety-related bridge improvements that address the following items: Insufficient bike / pedestrian paths (functionally obsolete); Age of structure / structural degradation; Bridge roadway lanes not aligned with lanes east of Azie Morton; Hillside instability (rock fall) and obsolete retaining wall on Azie Morton east side …
Project No. 0121-014 15 ft 2 ft 8 ft 18.5 ft 33.5 ft 40 ft SAMPLE PHOTOGRAPHS – W-1 Barton Springs Road Bridge Improvements Austin, Texas Sheet 1 of 2 40 ft – Del Rio Clayshale Project No. 0121-014 44 ft – Georgetown Limestone 45 ft 50 ft 55 ft 50 ft 60 ft SAMPLE PHOTOGRAPHS – W-1 Barton Springs Road Bridge Improvements Austin, Texas Sheet 2 of 2 Project No. 0121-014 15 ft 2 ft 7 ft 18.5 ft 33.5 ft 39 ft SAMPLE PHOTOGRAPHS – W-2 Barton Springs Road Bridge Improvements Austin, Texas Sheet 1 of 2 40 ft – Del Rio Clayshale 41.5 ft – Georgetown LS Project No. 0121-014 45 ft 55 ft 50 ft SAMPLE PHOTOGRAPHS – W-2 Barton Springs Road Bridge Improvements Austin, Texas 50 ft 60 ft Sheet 2 of 2 1 ft 7 ft 18.5 ft 28.5 ft Project No. 0121-014 15 ft 34.3 ft SAMPLE PHOTOGRAPHS – W-3 Barton Springs Road Bridge Improvements Austin, Texas Sheet 1 of 2 35 ft – Del Rio Clayshale Project No. 0121-014 39 ft – Georgetown Limestone 40 ft 45 ft 45 ft 50 ft SAMPLE PHOTOGRAPHS – W-3 Barton Springs Road Bridge Improvements Austin, Texas Sheet 2 of 2 0 ft 6 ft – Buda Limestone Project No. 0121-014 5.5 ft 10 ft SAMPLE PHOTOGRAPHS – W-4 Barton Springs Road Bridge Improvements Austin, Texas Sheet 1 of 6 10 ft 20 ft Project No. 0121-014 15 ft 20 ft 23 ft – Del Rio Clayshale 25 ft SAMPLE PHOTOGRAPHS – W-4 Barton Springs Road Bridge Improvements Austin, Texas 30 ft Sheet 2 of 6 30 ft 40 ft 35 ft 45 ft Project No. 0121-014 40 ft 50 ft SAMPLE PHOTOGRAPHS – W-4 Barton Springs Road Bridge Improvements Austin, Texas Sheet 3 of 6 Project No. 0121-014 55 ft 60 ft 50 ft 60 ft Core loss due to core barrel jam - 65 to 70 ft 65 ft 70 ft SAMPLE PHOTOGRAPHS – W-4 Barton Springs Road Bridge Improvements Austin, Texas Sheet 4 of 6 Core loss due to core barrel jam - 70 to 72 ft 70 ft Project No. 0121-014 75 ft 80 ft 80 ft – Georgetown Limestone 85 ft SAMPLE PHOTOGRAPHS – W-4 Barton Springs Road Bridge Improvements Austin, Texas 90 ft Sheet 5 of 6 Project No. 0121-014 95 ft 100 ft 90 ft 100 ft 105 ft …
D-2 - Initial US Army Corps of Engineers Meeting – Nov. 2022 D-3 - Section 106 Evaluation – January 2023 SECTION 106 EFFECTS ASSESSMENT OF THE BARTON SPRINGS ROAD BRIDGE CITY OF AUSTIN TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS January 2023 Section 106 Effects Assessment of the Barton Springs Road Bridge, Austin, Travis County, Texas Prepared by: Kurt Korfmacher Architectural Historian and Principal Investigator And Erica Koteras Historian Consulting Firm: AmaTerra Environmental, Inc. Contact Information: 11842 Rim Rock Trail Austin, TX 78737 Telephone: (512) 329-0031 January 2023 Barton Springs Road Bridge Section 106 Evaluation ABSTRACT At the request of URS Corporation and on behalf of the City of Austin (City), AmaTerra Environmental, Inc. (AmaTerra) conducted an assessment of effect to the Barton Springs Road Bridge in Austin, Travis County, Texas. Barton Springs Road Bridge is a contributing resource to the Zilker Park Historic District, a property listed in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The City proposes improvements to Barton Springs Road that would necessitate changes to the bridge, potentially including replacement of the existing bridge with a new structure. As the proposed undertaking would require permitting from the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), it is subject to the requirements of Section 106 (36 CFR Part 800) of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). As the City is a political entity of the State of Texas, the Antiquities Code of Texas (Texas Natural Resources Code, Title 9, Chapter 191) and its associated regulations (13 TAC 26) also apply. In October 2022, professional historians meeting the Secretary of Interior Standards conducted an evaluation of the proposed project and its potential for effect on the NRHP-listed bridge and related contributing resources to the Zilker Park Historic District per Section 106 guidelines. Zilker Park Historic District is listed in the NRHP under Criteria A and C at the local level in the areas of Architecture, Conservation, Entertainment/Recreation, and Landscape Architecture, with a period of significance of 1917-1947. Both Barton Springs Road Bridge and the Main Entrance Piers (contributing) are within the project area. The proposed bridge improvements are associated with a larger overall plan for Zilker Park known as the Zilker Park Vision Plan. This ambitious multi-year proposal would make major changes to large sections of Zilker Park to improve pedestrian flow and access, improve safety, restore and protect the natural environment, and make general improvements to how the park is accessed and …
E-1 - Open House Boards E-2 - Public Comments – April 2023 Barton Springs Road Bridge Over Barton Creek Project Public Meeting Summary (April 2023) Contents Public Engagement Process ................................................................................................................................................ 2 Public Comment Results ..................................................................................................................................................... 2 Overall Sentiment Analysis ............................................................................................................................................ 2 Public Comments ............................................................................................................................................................. 3 No Changes to Bridge ‐ roughly 20% ........................................................................................................................ 3 Against Replacement ‐ roughly 5% ........................................................................................................................... 3 In Favor of Rehabilitation ‐ roughly 30% .................................................................................................................. 3 In Favor of Replacement – 30% .................................................................................................................................. 3 Undetermined/Miscellaneous – 10% ......................................................................................................................... 3 Results for Optional Demographic Questions ................................................................................................................. 3 Appendix: All Comments ................................................................................................................................................... 8 1 Public Engagement Process On April 4, 2023, the Austin Transportation & Public Works Department (TPW) conducted its first in‐person public meeting on the Barton Springs Road Bridge Project. Although this meeting was postponed from March 2, 2023, due to local weather conditions, the virtual public meeting went online on March 2 as planned and remained live through April 18 when all public comments were due. The purpose of this in‐person and virtual meeting was to present the project and to gather community feedback on various alternatives for improving safety and mobility for the Barton Springs Road Bridge. Many of the existing bridge’s features are functionally obsolete and require rehabilitation or replacement to ensure safety and longevity. Promotion of the public meeting (both in‐person and virtual) included a flyer mailout to the project stakeholder list of individuals and organizations; placement of meeting signs in the neighborhoods in and around the project area; postings on social media sites (NextDoor, Facebook, and Twitter); and a media advisory. Public Comment Results Public comments were gathered in two ways: on paper during the in‐person public meeting on April 4, 2023 and online as part of the virtual public meeting that started on March 2. All comments were due on April 18. Both in‐person and online, meeting participants were asked to share their feedback in one open‐ended question: Do you have any comments or questions for the project team? The online version also included optional demographic questions. The online survey was open from March 2 – April 18 whereas the in‐person public meeting took place on one evening (April 4). A total of 187 comments were received during the comment period; 11 of those comments were gathered during the in‐person meeting while the remainder were submitted online. Overall there were 1,677 views of the virtual public meeting, 189 participated in …
City of Austin 301 W. Second Street Austin, TX Recommendation for Action File #: 23-3600, Agenda Item #: 79. 12/14/2023(cid:4) Posting Language Conduct a public hearing and approve the recommended alternative in the Preliminary Engineering Report to replace the Barton Springs Road Bridge over Barton Creek. Lead Department Capital Delivery Services. Fiscal Note This item has no fiscal impact. For More Information: James Snow, Director, Capital Delivery Services, 512-974-9795; Eric Bailey, Interim Deputy Director, Capital Delivery Services, 512-974-7713; Paulinda Lanham, Capital Delivery Project Manager, Capital Delivery Services, 512-974-7974. Council Committee, Boards and Commission Action: November 10, 2022 - Update on the Barton Springs Road Bridge over Barton Creek project to the Mobility Committee. Update only, no action taken. May 11, 2023 - Briefing on the Barton Springs Road Bridge project and mobility elements of the Zilker Park Vision Plan to the Mobility Committee. Briefing only, no action taken. October 27, 2023 - Briefing on the Barton Springs Road Bridge project to the Mobility Committee. Additional Backup Information: The Barton Springs Road Bridge over Barton Creek is located near the intersection of Azie Morton Road and Barton Springs Road. The location of the bridge, at the entrance to Zilker Park, is a focal point of key community events such as Austin City Limits Musical Festival, South-By-Southwest (SXSW) Conference and Music Festival, Barton Springs, Trail of Lights, and Blues on the Green. Barton Springs Road and the associated bridge is also a key connection for vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian access linking Mopac to downtown and the South Lamar/Congress Avenue corridors, as well as providing the primary northern entrance to the Zilker and Barton Hills neighborhoods via Azie Morton Road, located immediately east of the bridge. The full bridge replacement option provides the most cost-effective and the longest useful life The Barton Springs Road Bridge over Barton Creek requires rehabilitation or replacement. It was originally built in 1925 and was expanded on one side in 1946. Structurally it is in fair condition, however, the existing bridge dimensions, sidewalks, and bike lanes do not meet with current design standards. The roadway west of Azie Morton Road is not aligned with the roadway east of Azie Morton Road. The project will reduce congestion and provide benefits to the local neighborhoods, commuters (all travel modes), and local businesses, as well as Zilker Park users and event attendees. City of Austin Page 1 of 2 Printed on …
Barton Springs Road Bridge Preliminary Design - Bridge Architecture Design Report 12 August 2025 Contents This PDF is an interactive document. Click on each number to navigate to the corresponding section. The menu icon on the bottom left returns you to this Table of Contents Introduction Design Concept Cut Sheets About the Bridge Site Context About Austin Project Needs & Goals Overall Bridge Concept Details Lighting Concept Lighting Equipment Surface Material Wall Finish INTRODUCTION 01 Prepared for Ramsey CountyBarton Springs RoadBarton SpringsRoad BridgeZilker ParkColorado RiverBarton CreekBartonSpringsPoolDowntownAustin 01 / Introduction Barton Springs Bridge Background Built in 1925, the Barton Springs Road Bridge provides access over Barton Creek along Barton Creek Road at the entrance to Zilker Park. The bridge was widened to its current form in 1946, which includes two traffic lanes in each direction. The bridge also features narrow sidewalks along each side, guard rails and a sidewalk underneath. While the existing bridge is structurally in fair condition, many of its features are functionally obsolete and it requires replacement to ensure safety and longevity. Given that the existing bridge present mobility challenges for vehicles, bikes and pedestrians, this project will provide needed mobility enhancements for all users. Intersection improvements to nearby Barton Springs Road and Azie Morton Drive are necessary as part of this project. In November 2020, Austin voters approved $102 million for major infrastructure projects, with the possibility of allocating a portion of that funding to address the Barton Springs Road Bridge. In December 2023, Austin City Council officially recommended replacing the bridge and advanced the project to the design phase. The City of Austin received a $32 million grant from the U.S. Department of Transportation in November 2024 to help fund construction of the new bridge. 4 AECOMPrepared for The City of Austin Longitudinal Beam - Exposed Rebar Spandrel Column - Spalling 01 / Introduction Condition Assessment • Deck (with integral longitudinal joint), floor beams, and spandrel columns exhibited the most degradation. • All structural components exhibited some degradation. • Rehabilitation for increased service life would need to remove deck, floor beams, and spandrel columns, stripping structure to arch ribs as a starting point. • These results remove Rehabilitation Option 1 as feasible alternative since that option was the “low-impact”, “preserve-structure” option. • Based on the above, we are now focused on Rehabilitation Option 2 and on potential bridge replacement options. 5 Longitudinal Beam - Exposed Rebar …
HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION Applications for Permits in National Register Historic Districts March 4, 2026 HR-2026-014183 Congress Avenue Historic District 617 Congress Avenue 4 – 1 Proposal Rehabilitate a primary elevation on an altered compatible building. Project Specifications 1) Remove existing stucco slipcover at streetfacing façade. Retain general layout of ground floor entry. 2) Install new windows in historic locations at second floor, with the center bay becoming a french door. 3) Construct a balcony over the sidewalk, to be accessed from the proposed second floor doorway. Architecture The existing building at 617 Congress is a three bay, two-story commercial structure that has been heavily altered from its original design. Historic photos show this address as being the middle of three matching properties along this block of Congress Avenue. Its neighbor to the north has been demolished and the property to the south has been altered, but not as much as 617 Congress. The ground floor currently has two windowed bays facing the sidewalk, with the southern bay recessed with a doorway for entry. The second floor is covered by stucco, possibly a structured slipcover, which removed the three windows originally there. There are two signs that are installed directly into the stucco cover. The condition or presence of any historic material underneath the stucco is currently unknown. Research Upon its first listing in city directories in the 1910s, the property was occupied by J.A. Jackson Jewelers through the 1930s, with occasional other tenants. After a brief period of being used by a shoe shop and cleaners, Leutwyler Jewelers took over the building and remained for almost 20 years, before becoming a menswear shop. The current use as a theatre and coffee shop began around 1999. Design Standards The City of Austin’s Historic Design Standards (March 2021) are based on the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and are used to evaluate projects in National Register districts. The following standards apply to the proposed project: Repair and alterations 1. General standards Removal of material from the front façade is proposed to be non-original only, specifically the stucco coating. If, during the process of removing this material, evidence of original materials, openings, or fenestration details are discovered, it is highly recommended that these guide and refine the proposed design of the project. There are general concerns about the proposal incorporating elements that were either never present historically or more decorative than …
