Dear Members of the Historic Landmark Commission I thank you for your service and making time to listen to public input regarding the application for the Historic District Application for the Rogers Washington Holy Cross neighborhood. My wife and I own and lease a contributing property associated with the application. We collectively spent 15 years in Austin. We moved away from Austin to support extended family in 2014. However, we loved living in Austin and kept our home so that we can retire there. We look forward to spending more time with our Austin friends and the broader community. We treat our lessees like we would want to be treated and invest in the home as if we lived there. In the last decade, we have invested in over $30,000 in maintenance and improvements, including approximately $6,000 in above-code energy efficiency improvements. I cannot think of a time when we denied a tenant a request, from paying for smart thermostats to indoor air quality tests. As recently as July of this year, we upgraded the HVAC equipment at our property in Rogers Washington to meet current Energy Star standards. In March of this year, we offered rent forgiveness to our tenants - no strings attached - to alleviate the stress of COVID19. I’d be happy to share with you other anecdotes that demonstrate how we care for our tenants and property. We know it is stressful to live in an ever changing and growing Austin. While we support the Rogers Washington community in their stated objectives, we ultimately voted against the design standards because: (1) the processes used to develop the design standards excluded us; (2) some original features are required to be preserved where replacements may perform better; (3) there appear to be conflicts within the standards, particularly when combined with existing and future development requirements; and (4) we see no institutional mechanisms in place at the City to deal with these conflicts and democratize voices when preservation requires trade-offs. We found the processes used to develop the standards to be exclusive and opaque. We asked to join the design committee and neighborhood association and/or connect with the design committee by phone. We paid for a Basecamp account to share information online, as there is no online presence for the neighborhood association, the design committee, or draft documents submitted to the City. None of these efforts were successful. Twice …
ROGERS WASHINGTON HOLY CROSS HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGN STANDARDS 1 CONTEXT Historic Rogers Washington Holy Cross was one of the first neighborhoods developed by black professionals for black professionals, and therefore the development pattern of the neighborhood is strongly tied to the cultural significance of the neighborhood as a professional, middle-class, suburban neighborhood. Historic Rogers Washington Holy Cross is an auto-oriented development. Therefore, the patterns of development are based on a street pattern favoring the auto, not the pedestrian. Much of the neighborhood is characterized by curvilinear streets without sidewalks. Construction in the neighborhood began around 1950. The oldest structure documented in the neighborhood is from 1947, but the era of significance of the District is between 1950 and 1965, when the majority of the houses were built. The District features classic mid-century American architecture, which falls into three primary styles: Minimal Traditional, Ranch and Contemporary. 2 INTRODUCTION The primary goal of this historic district is to preserve the overall character, identity, and presence of the Rogers Washington Holy Cross neighborhood. Buildings, sites, and landscapes help create the identity and character of the neighborhood. Design standards serve to preserve and protect areas of historical and architectural importance, as well as the overall visual characteristics of the district. The design standards recognize that change is inevitable. They are written to enable and empower property owners to acknowledge and maintain the integrity of historic buildings and comply with the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. Consequently, the Rogers Washington Holy Cross Design Standards provide guidance and support for the repair, rehabilitation, preservation and restoration of historic buildings within the historic district, and to ensure that additions and new construction are compatible with the architectural character of the district. Historic district designation does not require property owners to make changes to their properties, such as returning buildings to their historic appearance. Additionally, the historic review process that results from district designation is limited to projects that affect the exterior of the building and its site. Interior remodeling projects do not require Historic Preservation Office or Historic Landmark Commission review and approval. This document is a tool for property owners, tenants, contractors, design professionals, realtors, and anyone else planning a change to the exterior or site of a building or new construction within the district; as well as the Historic Landmark Commission in its evaluation of whether to grant a Certificate of Appropriateness for any …
Rogers Washington Holy Cross Historic District Preservation Plan & Narrative History 1 Rogers Washington Holy Cross Preservation Plan Overview About the historic district The Rogers Washington Holy Cross Historic District is one of the most intact concentrations of post-World War II housing for African Americans in Austin. As an early neighborhood developed by black professionals for black professionals, its development pattern is strongly tied to its cultural significance as a professional, middle-class, suburban neighborhood. Neighborhood residents positively impacted science, architecture, local and national government, education, the U.S. Army and U.S. Air Force, and more. Architecturally, the houses represent post- war stylistic trends, including ranch, minimal traditional, contemporary and split-level styles. John Chase, the first African American to graduate from the University of Texas School of Architecture, designed houses in the district. Nash Phillips, a well-known builder, is also associated with the district. Historic district (HD) designation is intended to protect and enhance existing historic resources. By establishing Rogers Washington Holy Cross Historic District zoning, the City of Austin provides a mechanism to ensure that architectural changes within the district are compatible with its historic character. Some of the homes within the district may not have sufficient historical or architectural significance to be designated as individual historic landmarks, but they have significance as part of the neighborhood fabric and context. Rogers Washington Holy Cross has retained its original appearance and landscape patterns and conveys a distinct and accurate sense of its own history. As noted in the East Austin Historic Resource Survey, the district is significant for its relevance to important historic development and architectural trends in Austin, including post- World War II development patterns and its associations with Nash Phillips and John Chase, both known for their impact on Austin’s growth and development. In sum, Rogers Washington Holy Cross meets several of the criteria for local designation, including architecture, historical associations, and community value. The neighborhood is overwhelmingly comprised of historic-age resources that retain architectural integrity (47 of 57 resources), and it has an exceptional ratio of contributing to noncontributing properties with 82% contributing and 18% non-contributing. The Rogers Washington Holy Cross Historic District represents the history and significance of an underrepresented population and under-told story of the history of Austin. Purpose of the preservation plan The City of Austin benefits from having neighborhoods and buildings that represent its diverse history and with unique architectural styles. The Rogers Washington Holy …
Rogers Washington Holy Cross HD Case Number: PETITION Total Square Footage of Buffer: Percentage of Square Footage Owned by Petitioners Within Buffer: Date: 3/11/2020 551692.1328 53.04% Calculation: The total square footage is calculated by taking the sum of the area of all TCAD Parcels with valid signatures including one‐half of the adjacent right‐of‐way that fall within 200 feet of the subject tract. Parcels that do not fall within the 200 foot buffer are not used for calculation. When a parcel intersects the edge of the buffer, only the portion of the parcel that falls within the buffer is used. The area of the buffer does not include the subject tract. TCAD ID Address Owner Petition Petition Area Percent 0212101306 0212101505 0212101314 0212101313 0212101414 0212101416 0212101409 0212101523 0212101522 0212101230 0212101226 0212101310 0212101417 0212101231 0212101407 0212101406 0212101524 0212101404 0212101303 0212101405 0212101525 0212101504 0212101514 0212101232 0212101518 0212101228 0212101304 0212101408 0212101410 0212101225 0212101316 0212101515 0212101402 0212101503 0212101229 0212101308 0212101233 0212101519 0212101312 0212101506 0212101507 0212101302 0212101415 0212101227 0212101521 0212101305 0212101307 0212101309 0212101311 0212101301 0212101516 0212101517 0212101401 0212101317 0212102001 0212101801 0212102101 Total 2006 CEDAR AVE 2004 MAPLE AVE 78722 2005 MAPLE AVE 78722 2003 MAPLE AVE AUSTIN 78722 2406 E M L KING JR BLVD 78702 1903 MAPLE AVE 78722 2504 E M L KING JR BLVD 78702 1907 CHESTNUT AVE 78702 1905 CHESTNUT AVE 78702 2500 WEBER AVE 78722 2508 WEBER AVE 78722 2504 GIVENS AVE 78722 2401 GIVENS AVE 78722 2011 MAPLE AVE 78722 1906 CEDAR AVE 78722 2511 GIVENS AVE 78722 1909 CHESTNUT AVE 78722 2507 GIVENS AVE 78722 2505 WEBER AVE 78722 2509 GIVENS AVE 78722 1911 CHESTNUT AVE 78722 2006 MAPLE AVE 78722 1910 MAPLE AVE 78722 2009 MAPLE AVE 78722 1902 MAPLE AVE 78722 2504 WEBER AVE 78722 2507 WEBER AVE 78722 1900 CEDAR AVE 78722 2502 E M L KING JR BLVD 78702 2100 CEDAR AVE AUSTIN 78722 2400 GIVENS AVE 78722 1908 MAPLE AVE 78722 2503 GIVENS AVE 78722 2305 E 21 ST 78722 2502 WEBER AVE 78722 2508 GIVENS AVE 78722 2007 MAPLE AVE 78722 2310 E M L KING JR BLVD 78702 2001 MAPLE AVE 78722 2002 MAPLE AVE 78722 2000 MAPLE AVE 78722 2503 WEBER AVE 78722 2400 E M L KING JR BLVD 78702 2506 WEBER AVE 78722 1903 CHESTNUT AVE 78722 2509 WEBER AVE 78722 2000 CEDAR AVE 78722 2506 GIVENS AVE 78722 2502 GIVENS AVE 78722 2501 WEBER AVE 78722 1906 MAPLE …
HHM ID 61642 2305 E 21 ST March 2019 Fri, 18 Mar 2016 IDENTIFICATION Street number 2305 Street direction E Street name 21 Street type ST Zip Code 78722 Addition / subdivision SUNRISE ADDN Neighborhood UPPER BOGGY CREEK GENERAL EXTERIOR Type Building - Residential - Single- Family House Stylistic influences Ranch Exterior wall Horizontal wood board, hardiplank, cut stone Roof shape Hipped Roof materials Asphalt shingles Door types Door features Number of chimneys ROOF DOORS AND WINDOWS PORCH LANDSCAPE Landscape features No. of garages Porch type Porch roof type Legal description LOT 4-5 BLK 1 OLT 47 DIV B SUNRISE ADDN Zoning code SF-3-NP Owner name LEVINE PHILIPPA JUDITH Owner city AUSTIN Owner state TX Owner zip code 78722 Parcel ID 204113 Zoning ID 134769 Structural materials Bays Stories 1 Foundation type Description notes Chimney locations Chimney materials Chimney feature Window types Awning, fixed Window materials Vinyl Window features Porch support type Other porch features No. of sheds Other outbuildings Other associated places HHM ID 61642 2305 E 21 ST Current name Current use Residential Year built 1956 Source for year built TCAD HISTORY INTEGRITY Historic name Source for historic name Occupant history Source of occupant history Additions None visible Historic use Source for historic use Architect Source for architect Builder Source for builder History notes NRHP criteria NRHP areas of significance NRHP level of significance Alterations Windows replaced, Doors replaced Integrity notes Alterations compatible Prior local designations Prior NRHP designations PRIOR DESIGNATIONS PREVIOUS AND RECOMMENDED DESIGNATIONS Prior NRHP determinations Other designations Designation notes Previous and recommended local designations No previous local designations; Recommended contributing to a local historic district Previous and recommended NRHP designations Recommended contributing to a local historic district Justification for NRHP designations Recommended NRHP designations Recommended contributing No previous NRHP designations; Recommended contributing to a NRHP district to a NRHP district Recommended local designations Justification for local recommendation Local criteria Local areas of significance HHM ID 61271 1900 CEDAR AVE October 2019 October 2019 Street number 1900 Street direction Street name CEDAR Street type AVE Zip Code 78722 IDENTIFICATION GENERAL EXTERIOR Addition / subdivision HOLY CROSS HEIGHTS Neighborhood UPPER BOGGY CREEK ROOF Type Building - Residential - Single- Family House Stylistic influences Ranch Exterior wall Horizontal wood board, Permastone Roof shape Side Gable Roof materials Asbestos shingle, stone, horizontal wood board Number of chimneys Door types Door features DOORS AND WINDOWS PORCH LANDSCAPE Landscape features No. …
July 17, 2020 Emily Reed, Chair City of Austin Historic Landmark Commission Re: Rogers Washington Holy Cross District LHD Application Dear Ms. Reed, Preservation Austin is so pleased to offer this letter of support for the Rogers Washington Holy Cross Historic District application. Our organization has been Austin’s leading nonprofit voice for historic preservation since 1953, with a mission to promote our city’s diverse cultural heritage through the preservation of historic places. We strongly support the establishment of a local historic district in Rogers Washington Holy Cross (RWHC). The Rogers Washington Holy Cross Historic District is one of the most intact concentrations of post- World War II housing for African Americans in Austin. As an early neighborhood developed by Black professionals for Black professionals, Rogers Washington Holy Cross represents the strength and tenacity of many African American families who dedicated their lives to the education and uplifting of their children and their community. The RWHC neighborhood is small in size but large in significance, including several architecturally distinct buildings designed by African American architect John Chase, FAIA, and many residences of individuals and families who made meaningful contributions to the city of Austin and beyond. Historic district status would help preserve this unique cultural and built legacy. The RWHC neighborhood organization has been committed to investing in the needs and improvements of the neighborhood for decades, despite the pressures of systemic racism and economic inequities. The neighborhood association has worked collaboratively and creatively with homeowners, renters, and businesses over the last three years to develop design standards that incorporate the spirit of preservation and the dynamic realities of this central East Austin neighborhood. Our nonprofit has supported this community-based, volunteer-driven effort for the past two years, including through two matching grants to help cover application fees. We’ve been honored to work with these advocates, and urge the Historic Landmark Commission to support making this district a reality. Sincerely, Lori Martin, President Dear Commissioners, Re: Rogers-Washington-Holy Cross District Preservation Application On behalf of the City of Austin's Equity Office, please accept this letter of support for the Rogers- Washington-Holy Cross Neighborhood Association [RWHC] Historic District Preservation Application. The City of Austin’s Strategic Direction 2023 calls for the focus on culture and lifelong learning being enriched by Austin’s unique civic, cultural, ethnic, and learning opportunities. Unfortunately, one of the major challenges we face is the loss of that culture and history of …
Preservation Plan KEYNOTES Exterior Elements 1. Location of historic flagpole will have a new flagpole. 2. Historic steps and walkways on Thompson street side will be reconstructed, with new accessible ramps added where required by code regulations. 3. Historic planters and low brick walls on Thompson Street façade will be reconstructed and replanted. 4. Parking lot and front drive on Thompson Street will be reconstructed. If required, modifications will be made for code compliance and fire truck access or fire lanes. 5. Existing Yellow Jacket Stadium will be preserved with additional drainage and other civil improvements, new bleachers, new accessible routes/ramps, and track/field amenities. The existing retaining wall may need additional structural support or repairs. 6. The existing field house will remain at Yellow Jacket Stadium. A new field house will be constructed at the stadium detached from the existing field house. #AISDFuture | AISDFuture.com 7. North and East facades of the 500 and 600 Wings (visible from Thompson Street) will be reconstructed to recreate the look of original building facades, to the limits indicated on attached plan. 8. North, West, and South facades of the 100 Wing will be reconstructed to recreate the look of original building facades, to the limits indicated on attached plan. Preservation Plan KEYNOTES Interior Elements 1.The corridor walls of the 100 wing will be reconstructed with modern, non‐custom materials to match the look of existing construction, to the limits indicated on attached plan. New glazed block will be used if salvage is not available. Interior room partitions, beyond the corridor walls, and doors in the reconstructed areas will be configured for the academic program and may not match the existing locations. 2.The corridor walls of the 500 wing will be reconstructed wit h modern, non‐custom materials to match the look of existing construction, to the limits indicated on attached plan. Doors, openings, and other elements in the reconstructed areas will match the locations of the existing construction (with exception of modifications to meet building code and accessibility requirements). #AISDFuture | AISDFuture.com 3. The original cafeteria and stage area of the 500 Wing will be reconstructed to recreate look of original construction, including walls, window and door locations, and stage area. Salvaged materials, including interior doors and wood from stage will be reused to the extent possible. 4.The original band hall and choral room in the 500 Wing will be reconstructed to recreate the look …
H ISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION APPLICATION FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS JU LY 27, 2020 C14H-1996-0003 BA RTHOLOMEW-ROBINSON BUILDING 1415 LAVACA STREET B.1 - 1 PR OPOSAL Construct a mid-rise addition to the building. PR OJECT SPECIFICATIONS The applicant proposes to construct a mid-rise hotel addition to the building, which has been rendered untenantable by long-standing sewerage and drainage problems. The proposed addition will rise from within the existing walls of the building, and will have 10 stories of hotel rooms above a 24-foot tall glass-clad story that will house hotel meeting rooms and amenities. The total height of the building will be 149 feet. The base of the addition, clad in glass, will be set back 10 feet from the existing parapet wall of the historic structure on the Lavaca Street frontage and 14 feet behind the 15th Street frontage of the building. The remainder of the addition will be cantilvered out over the walls of the existing building; the bottom of the cantilevered section will be 8 feet above the existing mansard cupolas. The main entrance to the building will be located at the historic entrance location at the corner of 15th and Lavaca Streets. None of the windows or doors on the existing building will be modified. The walls of the addition will present as white and light gray. STA NDARDS FOR REVIEW The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation are used to evaluate projects on historic landmarks. The following standards apply to the proposed project: 1) A property will be used as it was historically or be given a new use that requires minimal change to its distinctive materials, features, spaces, and spatial relationships. Evaluation: The building has historically had a commercial use, most recently offices. The change of use to a hotel necessitates the construction of the proposed addition. The existing historic walls, openings, and distinctive mansard turrets on the corners of the original part of the building will be retained but will be visually impacted by the size and scale of an addition that does not meet Standard 9. Thus, the project also does not meet Standard 1. 2) The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces, and spatial relationships that characterize a property will be avoided. Evaluation: The existing building will be retained. The addition will be built inside the …
SHEET IS FORMATTED TO 22" X 34". SCALES ARE ONE HALF OF NOTED WHEN PRINTED TO 11" X 17". S 62°28'26" E 180.30' (180) " 6 - 5 ' - / + " 0 - 5 ' . E . U . P EXISTING GUEST HOUSE RESTORED PORCH EXISTING GARAGE PROPOSED ONE STORY ADDITION EXISTING RESIDENCE 596.5' D A O E R S A E P ) ' 0 0 1 ( ' 2 1 . 0 2 1 ' E " 1 1 8 4 7 2 N ° EXISTING MASONRY WALL PROPOSED ONE STORY ADDITION 597.5' OPEN PORCH PROPOSED DRIVEWAY PROPOSED CARPORT ADDITION LAWN 6 1 4 . L O V . L . B ' 0 5 S D R O C E R D E E D 5 5 4 . G P LOT LINE 5'-0" P.U.E. 25'-0" FRONT YARD SETBACK 50'-0" B.L. DEED PROPOSED GARDEN EXISTING RESIDENCE 1975 ADDITION P G 6 . 0 ' 4 5 B . 5 L . D V E E O D L . R 4 E 1 C 6 O R D S RESTORE EXISTING POOL 0 " E E D D 0 '- . L 6 B . W I N S 0 1 ° 2 0 ' 5 D S O R 6 " W 1 R O 3 3 . 9 A 7 ' D 1 0 " A A T E R R B 0 '- E R Y S D A K C 0 " E U 5 '- P " 0 - 5 ' . E . U . P N 62°26'55" W 239.98' SITE PLAN 1 SHEET IS FORMATTED TO 22" X 34". SCALES ARE ONE HALF OF NOTED WHEN PRINTED TO 11" X 17". SCALE: 3/32" = 1'-0" TRUE NORTH PLAN NORTH LEGAL DESCRIPTION LOT 8 AND THE NORTH 20 FEET OF LOT 7, ENFIELD "D", A SUBDIVISION IN TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS, ACCORDING TO THE MAP OR PLAT THEREOF, RECORDED IN VOLUME 3, PAGE 158 OF THE PLAT RECORDS OF TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS. LEGEND = WELL = NAIL WITH WASHER = SURVEYOR BENCH MARK = RECORD PER PLAT = CHAIN LINK FENCE = PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT = TEMPORARY BENCHMARK = BUILDING LINE = GAS METER = ELECTRIC METER ( ) PUE TBM BL G/M E/M ZONING SF-3-H LOT SIZE 25,252 SF TREE SCHEDULE TREE # SIZE/TYPE = NEW ROOFED AREA …
Tim Cuppett Architects Austin, TX 2210 Windsor Road Proposed Work to 1930 structure 1) Re-roof entire house; remove clay roof tiles; reuse and supplement with additional reclaimed matching clay tile from Ludowici, over 2” rigid insulation and roof membrane. 2) Repair rotted, existing wood windows. Restore broken hardware and make operable. 3) Where original windows were previously removed and replaced by aluminum and steel units, re-build custom wood windows to match original design. 4) Re-construct exterior West exterior stair and knee wall, due to wood rot and 5) Restore 2nd floor wood windows on West wall which were previously sealed and potential structural failure. shuttered. 6) Remove “added” mechanical tower on North face. Replace with lower enclosure of stucco wall, tile cap, and membrane roof to protect and divert water from basement entry. 7) Add copper gutters and downspouts as shown on Sheet A.208 in order to protect the house for another century. Lack of run-off water control has led to considerable rot. Existing floor structure in North service wing is rotted; portions of original floor were replaced with plywood. New floor framing will be installed within existing envelope. Some new wall framing will be required. 8) Repair stucco as required by window and framing repairs. Paint all stucco to white. 9) Repair wood shutters to operating condition, or fabricate and install new wood shutters. 10) Install new True-divided lite steel and glass entry door unit at end of Southwest Loggia to convert open Loggia to interior conditioned space. Create opening on North side of Loggia to connect to interior. 11) Remove center post at Garage Doors; make new, double wide custom door to fit original opening height. Clad door with painted wood, vertical v-groove. 12) At Guest Quarter, West end of property, remove previously installed French doors and restore patio. 13) Reframe rotting North and West walls inside loggia and adjacent to exterior stair. Tim Cuppett Architects Austin, TX Proposed work to ca 1975 addition. 20) Re-structure roof and cupola due to structural failure. Ridge is sagging; roof framing is undersized. 21) At arched niche in East wall, install new wood window, see Sheet A.301 22) At East wall remove rotted wood French doors and synthetic deck with railing. Install new custom wood window as shown on the drawings. Conceal access well with plantings. 23) At North and South walls of Southeast wing, add new custom wood window to …
21 1975 ADDITION 22 EXISTING (WINDSOR ROAD) 1975 ADDITION PROPOSED (WINDSOR ROAD) 22 VIEW OF EAST WING 23 21 22 1 7 7 VIEW FROM ENTRY YARD 6 REMOVE MECH TOWER PROPOSED ROOF OVER BASEMENT STAIR 6 NORTH SIDE WATER- DAMAGED MECHANICAL TOWER 25 NOT VISIBLE FROM STREET 6 WINDSOR RD VIEW OF NORTH (SIDE) 25 - PROPOSED ONE STORY ADDITION 25 3 VIEW FROM NEIGHBORING YARD 25 PROPOSED ONE STORY ADDITION 25 NORTH SIDE KITCHEN PROPOSED ADDITION 3 25 NORTH ELEVATION AT WINDOWS 3 VIEW FROM NEIGHBORING YARD 8 3 NORTH SIDE AT PEASE ROAD 12 12 PEASE RD - MOTOR COURT PEASE RD - ENTRY 12 3 11 1 11 5 4 GUEST QUARTERS FROM MOTOR COURT (PRIVATE) 1 20 5 4 24 24 - PROPOSED ONE STORY ADDITION VIEW FROM WEST (PRIVATE) 4 10 2 13 VIEW OF EXTERIOR STAIR 13 VIEW FROM LOGGIA 13 13 SILL PLATE AND FLOOR STRUCTURE ROTTED AWAY THIS WALL MUST BE RECOSTRUCTED DAMAGED STAIR WALL DAMAGED LOGGIA WALL 20 2 9 SOUTHWEST YARD (PEASE SIDE) 24 PROPOSED ADDITION FROM NORTHWEST ENTRY PROPOSED ADDITION PROPOSED CARPORT EXISTING CONDITIONS (PEASE ROAD) PROPOSED CARPORT FROM SOUTHWEST ENTRY PROPOSED CARPORT RECESSED TRANSITION ROOF BETWEEN EXISTING AND PROPOSED PROPOSED ROOM ADDITION
H ISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION APPLICATION FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS B.2 - 1 JU LY 27, 2020 C14H-2008-0016 D A VIS-SIBLEY HOUSE 2210 WINDSOR ROAD PR OPOSAL Construct additions and a carport to the rear of the house; restore damaged and deteriorated architectural features, replace non-historic metal windows with wood windows, install new windows, modify the garage door opening. PR OJECT SPECIFICATIONS The applicant proposes a myriad of restoration projects as well as modifications to the existing building, the construction of two additions to the back side of the house, and the construction of a carport on the back of the house. More specifically, the applicant proposes to: A. Additions 1. Construct a one-story addition on the back of the house that will enclose an existing small outdoor loggia; the loggia will remain visible from the exterior through a large multi-lite steel and glass window adjacent to the loggia, and a larger steel and glass entry at the far end of the addition. The addition will be clad in stucco to match the house. 2. Construct a new carport in the back yard of the property. The proposed carport will be 24 square feet and will feature open ogee arches all around. 3. Construct a one-story addition on the north side of the house. The addition will be clad in stucco to match the house. B. Restorations and reconstruction 1. Remove the existing clay roof tiles to install new roof insulation and a membrane; re-roof the house using existing Ludowici tiles and replace broken tiles with new Ludowici tiles to match. 2. Repair rotting wood windows and restore broken hardware to make windows operable. 3. Replace non-historic aluminum and steel windows with custom wood windows to match the original window design. 4. Restore second-story wood windows on the west wall. 5. Repair wood shutters to operating condition. 6. Repair and paint stucco (white). 7. Remove French doors and restore the patio at the guest quarters. C. Modifications 1. Reconstruct west exterior stair and knee wall. 2. Remove a mechanical tower on the north wall and construct a lower enclosure for mechanical equipment. 3. Add copper gutters and downspouts. 4. Install a new wood-clad garage door to provide a single-bay, double-wide garage 5. Install new wood windows in the ca. 1975 addition. opening. STA NDARDS FOR REVIEW B.2 - 2 The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation are used to …
1406 ENFIELD ROADWORD + CARR DESIGN GROUPHLC PRESENTATION SUPPORT IMAGES SITE S URVEY HLC PresentationJuly 27, 2020 FULL CRZ 1/2 CRZ 1/4 CRZ LEGEND: FULL CRZ 1/2 CRZ 1/4 CRZ SPECIES * LIVE OAK LIVE OAK * LIVE OAK * LIVE OAK * LIVE OAK LIVE OAK LIVE OAK LIVE OAK * LIVE OAK SIZE 39.5" 20.5" 30" 30" 37.5" 18" 21.5" 22" 27" SPECIES * LIVE OAK LIVE OAK * LIVE OAK * LIVE OAK * LIVE OAK LIVE OAK LIVE OAK LIVE OAK * LIVE OAK T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9 SIZE 39.5" 20.5" 30" 30" 37.5" 18" 21.5" 22" 27" NOTE: " * " REPRESENTS HERITAGE TREE. TREE NO. T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9 NOTE: " * " REPRESENTS HERITAGE TREE. EXISTING TREE TO BE DEMOLISHED TREE NO. EXISTING TREE TO BE DEMOLISHED PROPOSED DEMOLITION 1 2 3 4 3 6 7 SINGLE STORY GARAGE BRICK DRIVEWAY W/ CONCRETE RUNNERS CONCRETE DRIVEWAY PARTIAL PERIMETER STONE WALL (3) STONE PLANTERS (14) STEPPING STONE AND STEPS TO THE HOUSE (KITCHEN) OVERHEAD ELECTRIC LINE TO THE HOUSE PROPOSED DEMOLITION 1 2 3 4 3 6 7 SINGLE STORY GARAGE BRICK DRIVEWAY W/ CONCRETE RUNNERS CONCRETE DRIVEWAY PARTIAL PERIMETER STONE WALL (3) STONE PLANTERS (14) STEPPING STONE AND STEPS TO THE HOUSE (KITCHEN) OVERHEAD ELECTRIC LINE TO THE HOUSE D A O R D L E I F N E D A O R D L E I F N E ALLEY 10' R.O.W PROPERTY LINE ALLEY 10' R.O.W PROPERTY LINE " 7 - ' 2 " 6 - ' 3 " 0 - ' 2 " 0 - ' 2 " 0 - ' 2 " 0 - ' 2 1 " 7 - ' 2 " 6 - ' 3 " 0 - ' 2 ' . 3 9 2 " 0 - ' 2 " 0 - ' 2 41.3' 41.3' RESIDENCE " 0 - ' 2 1 DN (4R) ' . 3 9 2 T1 DN (4R) T1 E N I L G D L B ' 0 3 E N I L G D L B ' 0 3 ' 0 1 5.3' ' 0 1 BRICK DRIVEWAY W/ CONCRETE RUNNERS EXISTING WALL STONE WALL O E E O E O OVERHEAD ELECTRIC LINE EXISTING WALL E O E O E O E O E O E O …
PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION and/or applicants will be conducted Although their agent(s) online meeting Email or call the staff contact hearings affecting online. your neighborhood. are expected to participate in a public hearing, you are not required and you have the opportunity to speak FOR or AGAINST the proposed no later than noon the day before the meeting for information development to participate. or change. in the public This on how to participate an interest You may also contact a neighborhood or environmental organization that has expressed in an application During a public hearing, approval continuation or denial the board or commission or continu If the board or commission may postpone of the application. that is not later than 60 days from the announcement, no further notice a specific is required. e an application's announces or recommend hearing date and time for a postponement to a later date, or A board or commission's person appeal who can appeal the decision. decision the decision. may be appealed The body holding by a person a public with standing to appeal, or an interested party that is identified as a hearing on an appeal will determine whether a person has standing to An interested interest to a board or commission by: party is defined as a person who is the applicant or record owner of the subject property, or who communicates an • delivering a written statement to the board or commission before or during the public hearing that generally identifies the issues of concern (it may be delivered and speaking primary • appearing • occupies a • is the record owner • is an officer of an environmental for the record to the contact person at the public hearing; and: listed on a notice); or residence of property within 500 feet of the subject that is within 500 feet of the subject property or proposed or or proposed property development; development; or neighborhood organization that has an interest in or whose declared are within boundaries 500 feet of the subject property or proposed development. A notice of appeal form may be available must be filed with the director from the responsible department. of the responsible department no later than 14 days after the decision. An appeal For additional information on the City of Austin's land development process, please visit our website: www.austintexas.gov/abc Written comments hearing. Your comments Number and the contact person listed …
July 14, 2020 Ms. Emily Reed, Chair and Historic Landmark Commissioners City of Austin Landmark Commission Historic Preservation Office Planning and Zoning Dept. P.O. Box 1088, Austin, Texas 78767 Dear Ms. Reed and Commissioners, Re: Rogers-Washington-Holy Cross District Preservation Application Please accept this letter of support for the Roger-Washington-Holy Cross Neighborhood Association (RWHC) Historic District Designation Application. As you may know the Austin History Center, Austin Public Library has long been a supporter of preserving communities and history, particularly in the East Austin sector of the City of Austin. The Rogers-Washington-Holy Cross neighborhood was identified in the East Austin Historic Resources Survey (2016) as a potential local historic district, eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. The history of the neighborhood tells a rich story of the development of East Austin in the Post-War and early years of the civil rights movement. Initially developed for the African American community veterans returning from serving their country in World War II, the addition of land owned by local Black physician, Dr. M. J. Washington, created space for custom designed homes for luminary figures within the community. It became home to Huston-Tillotson President, John Q. Taylor King, Oscar L. Thompson, the first African American graduate of the University of Texas at Austin and HT professor, Austin Public Library branch namesake Willie Mae Kirk; Principal of Kealing Jr. High School and 75th President of the Colored Teachers State Association, T.C. Calhoun; businesswoman Della Phillips, and other noted professionals. The architecture of the homes speaks to the time period; houses vary in style from John Chase’s two mid-century modern designs to handsome split-level and one-story ranch homes. Many of the current residents have lived in the neighborhood all their lives, bringing a pride of continuous ownership and history that is being lost in Austin. Austin is quickly losing much of the fabric that encases the history of the city. East Austin has been especially hard hit, losing historically and culturally significant places. It is important to recognize and preserve spaces like the Rogers-Washington-Holy Cross neighborhood, in order to exhibit a physical manifestation of our full American history, not just read a plaque about it. Again, I hope you will support the Rogers-Washington-Holy Cross neighborhood’s request which clearly meets the designation criteria established by code. I agree that its history is worth saving, and I support their efforts. Sincerely, kYmberly Keeton kYmberly Keeton, M.L.S., C.A. …
Emily Reed, Chair City of Austin Historic Landmark Commission Re: Certificate of Appropriateness for Bartholomew-Robinson building at 1415 Lavaca Street Dear Chair, Preservation Austin respectfully requests that the Historic Landmark Commission deny the Certificate of Appropriateness for the Bartholomew-Robinson building at 1415 Lavaca Street. The owner’s Certificate of Appropriateness application shows the loss of all but the building’s exterior walls and construction of a tower within its historic footprint. We feel strongly that the project as presented does not meet the requirements of the City Code or the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards as they apply to this City of Austin Landmark property. Section 25-11-243 of the City Code states that when taking action on a Certificate of Appropriateness the Historic Landmark Commission, “shall consider the United States Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, 36 Code of Federal Regulations Section 67.7(b).” The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards (SOI Standards) state the following: 2. The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces and spatial relationships that characterize a property will be avoided. 9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. 10. New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be undertaken in such a manner that if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. “The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring & Reconstructing Historic Buildings” provides clarifying recommendations for applying the SOI Standards including constructing new additions that, (1) result in the least possible loss of historic materials; (2) are subordinate to the historic building; (3) are set back from the wall plane of the historic building; (4) are inconspicuous when viewed from surrounding streets; (5) are limited to one additional story in height; (6) appear as a separate building; (7) and do not negatively affect the building. The design presented to the HLC does not meet any of those clarifying guidelines. We appreciate that the needs of property owners change over time and understand that large towers will be constructed …
Gaudette, Angela From: Sent: To: Subject: Ben Bentzin < Monday, July 20, 2020 4:53 PM Gaudette, Angela Supporting plans for 2210 Windsor Rd > Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: Flag for follow up Flagged *** External Email - Exercise Caution *** To: City of Austin, Historic Landmark Commission Commissioners, I am writing in support of the proposed plans at 2210 Windsor. Having visited 2210 Windsor Rd many times over the past 20+ years I can attest to both the need for the proposed renovations and the benefit to our community in restoring this historically important home. Thank you. Ben Bentzin 2305 Windsor Rd 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 CSIRT@austintexas.gov. 1 Gaudette, Angela From: Sent: To: Subject: Elena Goyanes < Tuesday, July 21, 2020 10:59 AM Gaudette, Angela Proposal for 2210 Windsor Road > Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: Flag for follow up Flagged *** External Email ‐ Exercise Caution *** I support the proposal for renovating, expanding, and updating 2210 Windsor Road. It is an historic home that deserves this careful update. Elena Goyanes 2307 Windsor Road, No. 1 Austin, Texas 78703 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 CSIRT@austintexas.gov. 1
