[00:00:04]
[CALL TO ORDER]
COMMISSIONER HIIM, SETH.WILL AND CAROLINE WRIGHT ARE HERE WITH US REMOTELY.
[PUBLIC COMMUNICATION: GENERAL]
DO WE HAVE, DO WE HAVE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE TONIGHT WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM THAT IS NOT ON OUR AGENDA? UH, YOU CAN, YOU CAN SPEAK TO US ON ANYTHING THAT IS NOT ON THE AGENDA.IF YOU HAVE ANOTHER, UM, UH, AN ISSUE WITH, UH, PRESERVATION IN AUSTIN OR ANYTHING, UM, YOU MAY SPEAK.
OH, WE HAVE MEGAN KING, PRESERVATION AUSTIN.
MEGAN KING, UM, POLICY AND OUTREACH PLANNER FOR PRESERVATION.
AUSTIN, I WANNA SHARE A QUICK UPDATE.
LAST MONTH I INFORMED YOU ALL THAT WE WERE DOING COMMISSIONER TRAINING FOR, UM, OUR PRESERVATION.
AUSTIN WAS HOSTING COMMISSIONER TRAINING FOR BIPO AUSTINITES.
WE HAD 15 ATTENDEES, SO THAT'S 15 POTENTIAL FUTURE COMMISSIONERS AND ADVOCATES FOR PRESERVATION, WHICH IS GREAT NEWS.
UM, AND WE WANTED TO THANK COMMISSIONER MYERS FOR ATTENDING AND, AND LENDING HER KNOWLEDGE AND EXPERTISE.
SHE REALLY ADDED A LOT OF VALUE TO THE EXPERIENCE, SO THANK YOU FOR THAT.
UM, ALSO, I WANTED TO SHARE THAT OUR 2022 PRESERVATION MERIT AWARD WINNERS HAVE BEEN ANNOUNCED.
UM, AND THAT INCLUDES, UM, THE COMMISSION'S VERY OWN CAROLINE R AS ONE OF OUR WINNERS THIS YEAR.
SO YOU CAN TAKE A LOOK AT THE FULL LIST OF WINNERS, UM, AND YOU CAN JOIN US TO CELEBRATE COMMISSIONER RIGHT'S WIN, ALONG WITH ALL THE OTHER AMAZING PROJECTS THAT WON THIS YEAR, UM, ON DECEMBER 1ST AT SYMPHONY SQUARE.
AND YOU CAN GET TICKETS AND LEARN ABOUT THE WINNERS@PRESERVATIONAUSTIN.ORG.
AND THAT'S IT FOR MY UPDATE THIS MONTH.
I THOUGHT THAT WAS A REALLY WORTHWHILE TRAINING SESSION AND, UM, UH, I WAS GLAD TO BE THERE.
WE ALSO HAVE, UM, JOHN, UH, PEON.
UH, THIS IS FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA.
[Consent Agenda]
I WILL GO THROUGH THE AGENDA AND I WILL, UM, GIVE A RECOMMENDATION OF WHETHER A CASE CAN BE PASSED ON CONSENT, IF IT'S TO BE POSTPONED OR IF IT'S GOING TO BE A DISCUSSION ITEM.ANY, ANY CASE THAT IS ON OUR CONSENT AGENDA.
IF IT HOUSES ON CONSENT, THAT MEANS YOUR PROJECT HAS PASSED.
UM, AND YOU MAY LEAVE THE, THE AUDIENCE, IF THERE'S AN ITEM THAT WE SAY IS ON THE CONSENT AGENDA, ANYONE CAN PULL THAT ITEM.
ANY COMMISSION MEMBER CAN PULL THAT ITEM AS WELL.
AND IT WILL NO LONGER BE PASSED ON CONSENT, IT WILL, IT WILL BE A DISCUSSION ITEM.
SO IF YOU HAVE AN ITEM THAT, THAT IS ON THE CONSENT AGENDA AND YOU WANNA SPEAK TO IT, WHETHER YAY OR NAY, UH, OR NEUTRAL, PLEASE GET MY ATTENTION.
RAISE YOUR HAND OR CALL CHAIRMAN MEYERS.
AND, UM, AND WE'LL PULL IT FOR DISCUSSION.
THE FIRST ITEM ON OUR AGENDA THAT IS UP FOR CONSENT APPROVAL ARE THE MINUTES OF THE OCTOBER 5TH, 2022 MEETING.
WE WILL THEN HAVE A BRIEFING ON THE PALM DISTRICT PLAN AND THEN GO ON TO PUBLIC HEARINGS AND ZONING CASES.
ITEM 3 23 11 WOODLAWN BOULEVARD.
THIS IS UP FOR HISTORIC ZONING.
THAT WILL BE A DISCUSSION ITEM NUMBER FOUR, 900 BLANCO, INCLUDING 1202 WEST NINTH STREET AND 9 0 1 SHELLY IS UP FOR CONSENT APPROVAL.
THIS ONE WENT TO THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION, UH, COMMITTEE LAST, UM, WHAT WAS IT LAST MONTH, AND, UM, AND WE WORKED OUT SOME DETAILS OF THE COMMITTEE.
[00:05:01]
EAST FIFTH STREET THAT IS PULLED FOR, UM, THE APPLICANT HAS REQUESTED POSTPONEMENT, SO THAT WILL NOT BE A DISCUSSION.ITEM NUMBER SIX, 800 EDGECLIFF TERRACE IS A CONSENT ITEM NUMBER 7 6 0 6 EAST THIRD, INCLUDING 1005 LYDIA STREET.
APPLICANT REQUESTED POSTPONEMENT SIX NUMBER 8 16 0 6.
NILES ROAD IS ANOTHER APPLICANT REQUESTED POSTPONEMENT 9 43 0 8 DUVAL STREET WILL BE A DISCUSSION ITEM NUMBER TEN SEVEN OH SIX OAKLAND AVENUE IS A A THAT IS, THAT'S GOING TO BE A POSTPONEMENT, IS IT NOT? YES, THE APPLICANT REQUESTED POSTPONEMENT EARLIER THIS WEEK.
OKAY, NUMBER 11, 14 0 9 NEWING AVENUE.
A LANDMARK WILL BE A DISCUSSION ITEM NUMBER 12 8 11 WEST LIVE OAKS STREET GREEN PASTORS, THAT'S OFFERED FOR CONSENT AT.
AGAIN, IF ANYONE WANTS TO PULL AN ITEM FOR DISCUSSION, JUST GET MY ATTENTION AND WE'LL PULL IT AND HAVE THAT DISCUSSION.
NUMBER 13 3 16 CONGRESS AVENUE WILL BE A DISCUSSION ITEM ALONG WITH NUMBERS 26 AND 27 TO WHICH THEY ARE RELATED.
3 0 8 CONGRESS AVENUE AND THREE 14 CONGRESS AVENUE, NUMBER 14.
THESE ARE, UM, NATIONAL REGISTER DISTRICT PERMIT APPLICATIONS.
NUMBER 14 5 12 EAST MONROE IS AN APPLICANT REQUESTED POSTPONE MONTH 15, 13 15 AND 1317.
NEWING AVENUE IS AN APPLICANT REQUESTED POSTPONE MONTH.
I THINK WE'RE GONNA HAVE A FULL AGENDA NEXT MONTH.
NUMBER 16 15 0 6 WEST 32ND STREET IS OFFERED FOR CONSENT.
NUMBER 17 25 12 WOODRIDGE DRIVE IS OFFERED FOR CONSENT.
10 0 6 EASTON STREET IS OFFERED FOR CONSENT.
PARK LANE IS ALSO OFFERED FOR CONSENT NUMBER 20 10 20 SPENCER STREET WILL BE A DISCUSSION ITEM NUMBER 21 19 0 7 KENWOOD AVENUE WILL BE A DISCUSSION ITEM NUMBER 22 14 0 7.
ALTA VISTA AVENUE IS OFFERED FOR CONSENT NUMBER 23 14 14.
WESTOVER ROAD IS OFFERED FOR CONSENT.
NUMBER 21 2 10 WEST SIXTH STREET IS OFFERED FOR CONSENT NUMBER 25 22 12 EAST WINDSOR ROAD IS OFFERED FOR CONSENT.
NUMBER 26 3 0 8 CONGRESS AVENUE WILL BE A DISCUSSION ITEM.
WE WILL TAKE THAT WITH THE, UH, EARLIER THREE 16 CONGRESS AVENUE.
LIKEWISE WITH 27 3 14 CONGRESS AVENUE.
WE WILL TAKE IT WITH THREE 16.
CONGRESS NUMBER 28 900 CONGRESS AVENUE IS OFFERED FOR CONSENT
[00:10:02]
AND NUMBER 29 1001 CONGRESS AVENUE IS ALSO OFFERED FOR CONSENT UNDER DEMOLITION AND RELOCATION PERMIT APPLICATIONS NUMBER 30 1800 GUADALUPE STREET.THAT IS AN APPLICANT REQUESTED POSTPONEMENT.
IT SAYS DISCUSSION ITEM ON OUR AGENDA, BUT THAT IS AN APPLICANT REQUESTED POSTPONEMENT, EXCUSE ME, MY PAGES ARE STUCK TOGETHER.
NUMBER 31 6 OH EIGHTS THIRD STREET IS AN APPLICANT REQUESTED POSTPONEMENT NUMBER 32 11 0 6 WEST MONROE IS OFFERED FOR CONSENT NUMBER 33 21 0 2.
BOWMAN AVENUE IS OFFERED FOR CONSENT NUMBER 34 13 13 NEWTON STREET IS OFFERED FOR CONSENT NUMBER 35 7 0 7.
WEST MONROE STREET IS OFFERED FOR CONSENT NUMBER 36 8 0 1 BOLDEN AVENUE IS OFFERED FOR CONSENT NUMBER 37 5700.
GROVER AVENUE IS OFFERED FOR CONSENT.
AND NUMBER 38 44 0 2 RAMSEY AVENUE IS OFFERED FOR CONSENT.
THOSE ARE THE END OF OUR UH, CASES.
MADAME CHAIR, I MOVED TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF APPROVING THE CONSENT AGENDA, PLEASE SIGNIFY BY RAISING YOUR HAND OR SAYING AYE.
THE CONSENT AGENDA PASSES FOR ALL OF YOU WHO HAD AN ITEM AND IT JUST PASSED ON CONSENT.
YOU MAY LEAVE, UM, LEAVE THE ROOM AND GO WATCH BONNIE RATE.
I WAS GONNA TELL YOU TO, YOU CAN SPEAK QUIETLY AMONG YOURSELVES, BUT I
WE WILL THEN HAVE COMMITTEE UPDATES, FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS, AND, AND ADJOURN.
NOW DO I HAVE A MOTION ON THE CONSENT POSTPONEMENT? THOSE ARE THE APPLICANT REQUESTED POSTPONEMENTS.
UM, I WILL BE ABSTAINING FROM ITEM NUMBER 30 ON THIS VOTE ON GUADALUPE.
SO DID YOU GET THAT COMMISSIONER VALS WILLOW WILL BE ABSTAINING.
SO WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF APPROVING THE POSTPONEMENT AGENDA.
THE CONSENT POSTPONEMENT SAY I RAISE YOUR HAND AND IT'S UNANIMOUS WITH THAT ONE EXCEPTION.
[2. Palm District plan]
NOW WE HAVE A, UM, A BRIEFING ON THE PALM DISTRICT PLAN BY MARK WAL WATERS WALTERS.HAVE YOU CALLED HORSE JOHN WATERS? GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONERS.
I'M MARK WALTERS FROM THE HOUSING AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
I'M HERE THIS EVENING TO GIVE YOU A BRIEFING ON THE PALM DISTRICT PLAN.
UH, THIS PROCESS BEGAN IN EARNEST AT THE BEGINNING OF 2021.
WE RECENTLY RELEASED THE ADOPTION DRAFT, UH, YESTERDAY, AND IT WILL BE GOING TO COUNSEL IN DECEMBER.
DURING THE PRESENTATION, I'M GOING TO PROVIDE A BRIEF OVERVIEW OF THE PLANNING PROCESS, SHARE WITH YOU WHAT WE HEARD FROM THE COMMUNITY DURING THE VISIONING PHASE OF THE PROJECT, AND PRESENT A VERY HIGH LEVEL OVERVIEW OF THE DRAFT PLAN.
AT THE CONCLUSION OF TONIGHT'S PRESENTATION, I'LL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE.
THE GOAL OF THE PALM DISTRICT PLANNING INITIATIVE IS TO ENGAGE STAKEHOLDERS AND THE PUBLIC TO DEVELOP A SHARED VISION FOR AN AREA OF DOWNTOWN THAT HAS A RICH HISTORY AND THAT IS BEGINNING TO CHANGE VERY QUICKLY.
THE STUDY AREA FOR THIS PLANNING PROCESS EXTENDS ROUGHLY FROM 15TH STREET ON THE NORTH LADY BIRD LAKE ON THE SOUTH, TRINITY STREET ON THE WEST AND I 35 ON THE EAST.
[00:15:01]
FOR THIS PLANNING PROCESS CAME OUT OF A DESIRE TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF ALL THE TRANSFORMATIVE ENERGY THAT'S OCCURRING IN THE DISTRICT AND ENSURE THAT THE CULTURAL AND HISTORIC IDENTITY OF IT IS AMPLIFIED RATHER THAN ERASE BY ALL THESE CHANGES.THIS AREA OF DOWNTOWN IS GROUND ZERO FOR A NUMBER OF SIGNIFICANT PROJECTS AND INVESTMENTS ANTICIPATED OVER THE YEARS AHEAD.
SOME OF THESE INCLUDE THE RECONSTRUCTION OF I 35, IMPLEMENTATION OF PROJECT CONNECT COMPLETION OF THE WATERLOO GREENWAY IMPROVEMENTS TO PALM PARK AND TO BRUSH SQUARE RECONSTRUCTION OF THE AUSTIN CONVENTION CENTER AND EXPANSION OF THE MEXICAN AMERICAN CULTURAL CENTER.
THIS AREA IS HOMED ALSO TO THE RED RIVER CULTURAL DISTRICT, THE RAINY STREET DISTRICT, AND A PORTION OF THE EAST SIXTH STREET ENTERTAINMENT DISTRICT.
THE NORTHERN PART OF IT IS, UH, INCLUDES THE INNOVATION DISTRICT.
THE PALM DISTRICT ALSO INCLUDES SIGNIFICANT HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES, INCLUDING THE PALM SCHOOL SITE, WHICH IS CURRENTLY OWNED BY TRAVIS COUNTY.
IN ADDITION TO INITIATING THE PLANNING PROCESS, THIS RESOLUTION FROM 2019 PROVIDED DIRECTION ON SEVERAL ADDITIONAL ITEMS THAT ARE MOVING FORWARD INDEPENDENTLY.
WHILE THAT ALSO, WHILE WE WERE DOING THE PLANNING PROCESS, UH, WE WORKED WITH THOSE AND THEY INFORMED US AND WE INFORMED THEM AS, AS THOSE PROJECTS MOVE FORWARD.
SINCE EARLY 2021, WE HAVE WORKED TO ENGAGE STAKEHOLDERS, UNDERSTAND THE EXISTING CONDITIONS IN THE DISTRICT, SUPPORT COORDINATION OF RELATED INITIATIVES, AND TO DEVELOP A SHARED VISION FOR THE DISTRICT THAT BUILDS ON THE WORK CURRENTLY UNDERWAY.
WE HAVE PREVIOUSLY RELEASED AN EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT, A LISTENING REPORT, A DRAFT VISION FRAMEWORK, AND A SURVEY ON SCENARIOS.
WE RELEASED THE ADOPTION DRAFT, UH, LIKE I MENTIONED EARLIER YESTERDAY, AND IT'S AVAILABLE ON THE SPEAKUP AUSTIN.ORG/PALM DISTRICT WEBSITE.
WE WILL PRESENT THE PLAN TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON NOVEMBER 8TH, AND COUNCIL ON THE 1ST OF DECEMBER.
THROUGHOUT THIS PROCESS, WE APPROACHED THIS WORK THROUGH AN EQUITY LENS AND WILL CONTINUE TO BE GUIDED BY KEY EQUITY GOALS AS WE MOVE TH THROUGH TO THE IMPLEMENTATION PHASE OF THE PROJECT.
THROUGHOUT 2021 AND 2022, WE HAVE CONDUCTED SEVERAL SIGNIFICANT PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT ACTIVITIES.
WE ALSO PARTNERED WITH THE NATIONAL AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS TO CONDUCT A VIRTUAL DESIGN WORKSHOP IN JULY, 2021, IN FEBRUARY OF 2020, UH, THE AIA VISITED AUSTIN IN PREPARATION FOR RU DA FOR THE DISTRICT, BUT THE NEXT MONTH, UH, KIND OF SHUT EVERYTHING DOWN, AND WE HAD TO WAIT UNTIL 2021 IN ORDER TO HAVE A, A SCALE DOWN VERSION OF A, OF A RUDE AD FOR, FOR THE DISTRICT.
WE ALSO HIRED A LOCAL CONSULTANT, MARTHA CORA, TO CONDUCT TARGETED OUTREACH TO EAST AUSTIN THOUGHT LEADERS.
AND WE PARTNERED WITH THE DOWNTOWN AUSTIN ALLIANCE, WHO HIRED AS AURA ROBINSON TO SUPPORT A SERIES OF SCENARIO PLANNING WORKSHOPS WITH KEY STAKEHOLDERS AND SUPPORTED THE DEVELOPMENT OF A DISTRICT DOWNTOWN DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT SCENARIO.
AS A RESULT OF THESE ACTIVITIES, WE HAVE RECEIVED RICH INPUT AND A WHITE FROM A WIDE RANGE OF STAKEHOLDERS THROUGHOUT THE PROCESS.
IN LARGE PART, TO THE EFFORTS OF MRS. CORA, WE'VE HAD A VERY DIVERSE, UH, GROUP OF PEOPLE PARTICIPATING IN THE PROCESS WITH 55% OF THE PARTICIPANTS IDENTIFYING EITHER AS, UH, HISPANIC OR LATINX.
IN JUNE 21, WE HOSTED TWO WELL, ATTER ATTENDED VISIONING FORUMS AND RECEIVED OVER 372 COMMENTS ABOUT HOW PEOPLE WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE PALM DISTRICT MOVE INTO THE FUTURE.
AND THIS WORD CLOUD KIND OF SHOWS MANY OF THE DIFFERENT IDEAS AND WORDS THAT WERE RELEVANT.
THEY CAME, CAME, COME TO THE TOP DURING THAT, UH, PART OF THE PROCESS.
THROUGH INDIVIDUAL INTERVIEWS AND FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSIONS, OUR CONSULTANT, MISS GORA AND HER TEAM, REACHED OUT TO A VARIETY OF KEY ORGANIZATIONS AND INDIVIDUALS REPRESENTING EAST AUSTIN'S MEXICAN AMERICAN COMMUNITY.
AND THOSE WITH CONTROL TIES TO THE DISTRICT, THE RO EXCUSE ME, THE RESULTS OF THIS WORK WERE INCORPORATED INTO THE LISTENING REPORT WILL ALSO BE DOCUMENTED IN A FINAL REPORT PREPARED BY THE CONSULTANT THAT WILL BE SHARED ON THE PROJECTS SPEAK UP AUSTIN PAGE NEXT LINE.
BASED ON THEIR TARGETED WORK, THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE FOR ARCHITECTS TEAM PROVIDED RECOMMENDATIONS THAT SUMMARIZE, THAT ARE SUMMARIZED IN THE LISTENING REPORT, PRESENTED IN DETAILED A I AIA RECOMMENDATIONS, UH, AND THAT THOSE ARE ALSO ON THE SPEAK UP PAGE.
THREE KEY IDEAS INCLUDED BEING VERY INTENTIONAL WITH CULTURAL AND PLACE MAKING THROUGH PUBLIC ART, LEVERAGING PUBLICLY CONTROLLED SITES TO ACHIEVE THE VISION OF THE PLAN AND ACTING WITH URGENCY DUE TO ALL THE SIGNIFICANT CHANGE OCCURRING IN THE DISTRICT.
THE PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT AND THE PALM DISTRICT PLAN INCLUDES A VISION DESIRED OUTCOMES FOR THE DISTRICT, AND IDENTIFIES A PREFERRED DEVELOPMENT SCENARIO AND MAKES RECOMMENDATIONS FOR
[00:20:01]
ACTIONS THAT SHOULD BE TAKEN TO MOVE TOWARD THE VISION AND PREFERRED SCENARIO.THE OVERARCHING VISION IS THAT THE DISTRICT BECOMES A VIBRANT, HISTORIC HUB OF DOWNTOWN, WHERE THE PAST IS HONORED, CULTURE IS CELEBRATED AND THE FUTURE IS SHAPED.
THE REVISION RELIES ON BALANCING INHERENT CONFLICTS WITHIN DISTRICT IN A WAY THAT ALLOWS THE TENSION TO SUPPORT THE ONGOING DYNAMICISM OF THE PLACE.
UH, IT WOULD BE THE DISTRICT SHOULD BECOME A DENSE TRANSIT-ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT BALANCE WITH HISTORY AND NATURAL SPACES, A DYNAMIC PLACE GROWING AND EVOLVING WHILE ACTIVELY SERVING FAMILIES AND INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE HISTORIC TIES TO THE DISTRICT.
IN A PLACE CULTIVATING CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION.
AND IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN, THIS PRESENTATION IS IN THEIR BACKUP.
THE VISION'S FIRST ELEMENT LOOKS AT ENSURING THAT GROWTH IN THE DISTRICT WILL PROVIDE A PROSPEROUS FUTURE FOR LONG TIME AND RECENT RESIDENTS AND ESTABLISHED IN NEW BUSINESSES.
KEY OPPORTUNITIES TO SUPPORT THIS ELEMENT OF THE VISION INCLUDE THE INNOVATION DISTRICT, THE CONVENTION CENTER, AND THE FUTURE OF THE APD HEADQUARTERS SITE.
THE SECOND ELEMENT INCLUDES ENSURING THAT THE DISTRICT BECOMES A CULTURAL DESTINATION THAT CELEBRATES IT'S MULTICULTURAL HISTORY AND HERITAGE.
KEY OPPORTUNITIES FOR THIS ELEMENT INCLUDE THE RED RIVER CULTURAL DISTRICT, THE MOODY AMPHITHEATER AT WATERLOO PARK, SYMPHONY SQUARE, PALM SCHOOL, PALM PARK, RAINY STREET, AND THE, AND THE MEXICAN AMERICAN CULTURAL CENTER, AS WELL AS, UH, SIXTH STREET AND THE CONVENTION CENTER.
THE THIRD ILL OF THE VISION CALLS FOR STRENGTHENING THE PHYSICAL, CULTURAL, AND SOCIAL CONNECTIONS WITHIN DOWNTOWN AND BETWEEN EAST AUSTIN AND DOWNTOWN.
KEY OPPORTUNITIES INCLUDE RECONSTRUCTION OF THE INTERSTATE IA, IMPLEMENTATION OF PROJECT CONNECT, IMPLEMENTATION OF THE TRAILS ALONG THE WATERLOO GREENWAY, AND IMPROVEMENTS TO THE PUBLIC REALM THROUGHOUT THE DISTRICT.
THE FOURTH AND LAST ELEMENT CALLS FOR PRESERVING AND ENHANCING THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT BY RESTORING NATURAL OPEN SPACES AND PURSUING HIGH STANDARDS OF SUSTAINABLE DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT WITH A FOCUS ON GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE FOR NEW PROJECTS.
KEY OPPORTUNITIES INCLUDE THE WATERLOO GREENWAY PALM PARK BRUSH SQUARE, AND THE LADY BIRD LAKE SHORE, BUT ALSO INCLUDES PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT AND PUBLIC REALM IMPROVEMENTS THROUGHOUT THE DISTRICT.
NEXT LINE, THE DRAFT VISION FRAMEWORK ALSO IDENTIFIES MORE THAN 50 DESIRED OUTCOMES ACROSS THESE FOUR THEMES, THE DESIRED OUTCOMES, VARYING LEVEL OF DETAIL, AND IN SOME CASES, WORK IS ALREADY UNDERWAY THAT WILL MOVE TOWARD A PARTICULAR OUTCOME.
THIS SUMMER, UH, WE PARTNERED WITH THE DOWNTOWN AUSTIN ALLIANCE, WHO RETAINED ASURA ROBINSON TO SUPPORT A SCENARIO PLANNING ACTIVITY THAT LED TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF THREE WHAT IF SCENARIOS FOR THE FOR, FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT IN THE DISTRICT.
DURING SIX WORKSHOPS WITH KEY STAKEHOLDERS, THE ASURA ROBINSON TEAM AND DAA WORKED TO IDENTIFY FEASIBLE WAYS THAT THE DISTRICT COULD DEVELOP OVER TIME TO MOVE TOWARD THE ASPIRATIONS EXPRESSED IN THE VISION FRAMEWORK.
AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE WORKSHOPS, THE TEAM DEVELOPED THREE USER EXPERIENCE FOCUSED THEMES AROUND THE CONCEPT OF LIVE, WORK AND PLAY.
THE LIVE THEME FOCUSED ON MORE, UH, MULTIFAMILY, MORE APARTMENTS, MORE PEOPLE LIVE RESIDING IN THE DISTRICT.
THE WORK THEME WAS MORE FOCUSED ON OFFICE SPACE AND PROVIDING JOB OPPORTUNITIES AND THE PLAY FOCUSED MORE ON THE CULTURAL AND OUTDOOR ACTIVITIES IN THE DISTRICT.
BASED ON A SURVEY, WE DEVELOPED A, WE DEVELOPED A PREFERRED SCENARIO, WHICH BUILDS UPON THOSE THREE, SCENE THREE, UH, THEMES, LIVE, WORK, PLAY, AND IS GUIDED BY THE RESULTS OF THE SURVEY WHERE RESPONDENTS WERE ASKED TO RANK THE SCENARIOS AND TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL FEEDBACK.
MOST RESPONDENTS FAVORED THE LIVE SCENARIO AND EMPHASIZE A DESIRE FOR MORE HOUSING IN THE FUTURE OF THE DISTRICT.
THE PREFERRED SCENARIO HERE IS A GRAPHIC ILLUSTRATION WITH NORTH TO MY RIGHT, YOUR LEFT, OR YOUR RIGHT AS WELL, I GUESS.
UH, ENVISIONS THE PALM DISTRICT AS A THRIVING 24 HOUR A DAY, UH, PLACE PROVIDES PRIORITIZES STRATEGIC PLACEMENT OF GOODS AND SERVICE SUCH AS PHARMACIES, MIXED SKILL, GROCERIES, AND EATERIES WITHIN A 10 MINUTE WALK OF RESIDENCES, PRIORITIZES MIXED USE BUILDINGS WITH GROUND FLOOR SPACES FOR RETAIL, ENTERTAINMENT, RECREATION, CULTURAL ACTIVITIES AND SERVICES.
CREATES A NEW WORK, NEW WORK OR PRACTICE SPACES FOR THE PALM DISTRICT'S CREATIVE AND INNOVATION INDUSTRIES BY PROPOSING STRATEGIC REPURPOSING OF EXISTING GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS BETWEEN 10TH AND 11TH STREET, AND SUPPORTS NEW TOURIST ENTERTAINMENT INVESTMENTS AND BOLSTERS EXISTING LIVE MUSIC AND CULTURAL SPACES BY INTRODUCING TWO NO TWO NEW HOTELS WITH ENTERTAINMENT VENUES.
[00:25:02]
NEXT SLIDE.THE IMPLEMENTATION SECTION OF THE PLAN PRESENTS SPECIFIC ACTIONS THAT CAN BE TAKEN TO MOVE TOWARD THE PREFERRED SCENARIO AND THE VISION AND THE DESIRED OUTCOMES OF THE PLAN.
AND THEY'RE RANKED AS SHORT, MEDIUM, AND LONG TERM, ACTUALLY ONE OF THE THREE YEARS, THREE TO SIX YEARS, SO FORTH AND SO ON.
NEXT LINE, AT A MINIMUM, THE HOUSING AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT WILL MONITOR, PLAN, IMPLEMENT, PLAN IMPLEMENTATION AS WE DO WITH ALL SMALL AREA PLANS.
WE ALSO MIGHT REACH OUT TO PARTNER ORGANIZATIONS AND IDENTIFY OPPORTUNITIES FOR THOSE GROUPS TO TAKE OWNERSHIP OVER IMPLEMENTING KEY ASPECTS OF THE PLAN.
FOR EXAMPLE, THE WATERLOO GREENWAY COULD COORDINATE ALL ACTION ITEMS PERTAINING TO THE GREENWAY.
HOWEVER MANY OF THE PROCESS OF PARTICIPANTS EXPRESSED A STRONG INTEREST IN IDENTIFYING A GOVERNANCE BODY THAT WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR BROADER COORDINATION.
WERE SPECIFICALLY IN PLANNING THE CULTURAL RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE PLAN.
IF WE WANT TO PURSUE THIS OPTION, ADDITIONAL INTER-AGENCY COMMUNICATION AND COORDINATION WILL BE REQUIRED TO IDENTIFY AN APPROPRIATE EXISTING ENTITY OR TO FORM A NEW ONE.
UH, THERE ARE ALREADY MULTIPLE KEY GOVERNANCE PARTNERS IN THE DISTRICT, SO WE ALSO NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT THE GOVERNANCE APPROACH FITS WITH THE CONTEXT OF THESE EXISTING ORGANIZATIONS.
UH, LIKE I SAID, WE'RE GOING FORWARD TO PLANNING COMMISSION, UH, THE EIGHTH OF THIS MONTH AND DECEMBER 1ST AT CITY COUNCIL, HOPEFULLY FOR FIRST TRAINING.
UH, AGAIN MONDAY WE RELEASE THE DRAFT PLAN AND, UH, THERE ARE SEVERAL KEY, I MEAN, THE ADOPTION DRAFT OF THE PLAN, AND THERE ARE SEVERAL KEY IMPLEMENTATION ACTIVITIES RECOMMENDED IN 2023.
UH, THESE INCLUDE, UH, CHANGES, TARGETED CHANGES TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TO IMPLEMENT SPECIFIC ELEMENTS, PARTICULARLY RELATING TO BUILDING STEP BACKS AND SETBACKS AND BUILDING WALLS ADJACENT TO WALLER CREEK.
UH, ALSO AMENDMENTS TO THE DOWNTOWN AUSTIN PLAN TO ENSURE THAT THIS PLAN AND THE DOWNTOWN AUSTIN PLAN DON'T HAVE OVERLAPPING BOUNDARIES, THAT THERE IS A DISCRETE.
SO YOU HAVE, YOU KNOW, WHICH PLAN IS THE PLAN FOR WHATEVER, FOR SPECIFIC AREA OF DOWNTOWN, AS WELL AS FINALIZE THAT GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE, UH, THAT I JUST MENTIONED.
NEXT SLIDE, AND THEN THE NEXT SLIDE.
YOU CAN REVIEW THE, UH, ADOPTION DRAFT.
IT'S UP AT THE SPEAK UP AUSTIN, UH, DOT ORG SLASH PALM DISTRICT.
YOU CAN REVIEW THE DRAFT PLAN, UH, THE, I THINK THE SURVEY IS CLOSED AT THIS TIME, AND YOU CAN REVIEW OTHER MATERIALS FROM THE PROCESS AND YOU CAN ASK QUESTIONS.
AND, UH, AS TIME AND PERMITS, WE CAN ALSO BRIEF OTHER ORGANIZATIONS AS WE AS WITH TIME AND STAFFING IS AVAILABLE.
IN ADDITION TO THE TOOLS ON THE SPEAK UP PAGE, PEOPLE CAN PROVIDE COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT ON THE, ON THE, ON THE PLAN, THE ADOPTION DRAFT OF THE PLAN, UH, VIA EMAIL, PHONE, AND US POSTS.
WE WILL CONTINUE TO POST INFORMATION ABOUT FUTURE ENGAGEMENT OPPORTUNITIES AND HEARINGS AND DATES ON THE SPEAK UP AUSTIN PAGE AS THEY BECOME KNOWN.
THAT'S THE END OF MY PRESENTATION, AND I'LL DO MY BEST TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME.
ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS? GO AHEAD.
I'M SURE COMMISSIONER COOK, I HAVE SOME COMMENTS.
UH, THANK YOU FOR YOUR PRESENTATION.
UM, WHAT STRUCK ME, UH, ABOUT THIS PRESENTATION IS HISTORY IS ONE OF THE BIGGEST WORDS IN THAT WORD CLOUD HISTORY.
AND PEOPLE, OTHER THAN THE WORDS PALM AND DISTRICT, I THINK WERE THE BIGGEST WORDS, BUT IT SEEMS TO REALLY BE MISSING FROM THIS PRESENTATION.
UH, I WOULD SUGGEST THAT YOU MAKE A SEPARATE MAP FOR HISTORIC SITES, UH, SHOW LANDMARKS, SHOW DISTRICTS, UH, SHOW KIND OF THAT BACKBONE BECAUSE IT REALLY, THIS IS REALLY KIND OF AN INTERSECTION OF A GREAT WALKING TOUR OF DOWNTOWN AUSTIN ALONG WITH THE WATERLOO GREENWAY, AND THEY ALL MEET RIGHT AT THE PARK.
AND THAT DIDN'T REALLY SHOW, I DON'T THINK IN ANY OF THE MAPS.
NO, I'LL, I'M GONNA BRING THAT FORWARD.
BUT IF YOU GO AND LOOK AT THE PLAN, THE HISTORY SECTION IS QUITE SIGNIFICANT.
AND ON THE FLOOR PLAN AND THE POOL PLAN, YEAH, IT, YOU GO INTO GREAT DETAIL AS, I CAN'T THINK OF ANY OTHER PART OF AUSTIN WHERE YOU HAVE THE MIXING OF THE, OF, OF SO MANY DIFFERENT HISTORIES IN ONE VERY RELATIVE SMALL SPACE, AT LEAST IN DOWNTOWN.
I DON'T THINK THE HISTORY WAS FASCINATING.
THAT'S, THAT'S, I'M GLAD TO HEAR THAT.
UH, ON, ON THIS OVERVIEW THOUGH, I, YOU MIGHT CONSIDER, YOU HAVE THE CULTURE MAP, YOU HAVE THE, YOU KNOW, THE GREEN, THE NATURE MAP.
I WOULD ADD A HISTORY MAP AND, UM, KNOWING THAT THERE'S MORE, I'LL KIND OF CUT MY COMMENT SHORT, BUT I THINK WE HAVE TO CONSIDER WHAT'S LEFT OF RAINY.
UH, I THINK WE WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE WATERLOO COMPOUND FACING THE PARK.
UH, YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT'S A MAJOR HISTORIC RESOURCE THAT NEEDS TO BE CONSIDERED.
UH, THE RED RIVER CULTURAL DISTRICT HAS NO LANDMARKS IN IT, AND I THINK WE NEED TO CONSIDER WHAT WE CAN DO TO PROACTIVELY USE HISTORIC, UM, TOOLS TO PROTECT THE, THE CULTURAL DISTRICT AS PART OF THIS PLAN.
[00:30:01]
UM, I'M ASSUMING THE PROPERTIES ON SIXTH THAT ARE UNDER CONSIDERATION BY, FOR REDEVELOPMENT BY STREAM, I NOTICED THOSE WEREN'T INCLUDED.THEY WERE KIND OF CUT OUT OF THE, THE DISTRICT.
UH, WHICH PROPERTIES? I DIDN'T HEAR YOU.
THAT THERE'S SOME PROPERTIES ON SIXTH STREET THAT ARE AT THE SIXTH AND RED RIVER.
I BELIEVE THERE WAS KIND OF A CUT IN 500, 600 BLOCKS, I THINK OF OKAY.
THOSE ARE CURRENTLY UNDER DISCUSSION FOR MAJOR REDEVELOPMENT.
SO IT SEEMS LIKE A GOOD OPPORTUNITY TO INCLUDE THOSE IN THIS DISCUSSION BECAUSE THEY ARE PART OF THAT, PART OF THAT SWATH.
UM, BUT YEAH, I, I JUST, IN, IN, FROM WHAT I SAW, I DIDN'T READ THE WHOLE PLAN, BUT IN, IN THIS, IT JUST SEEMED LIKE A FOCUS ON HISTORY WAS REALLY MISSING WHEN IT REALLY SHOULD HAVE BEEN A PRIORITY.
WELL, THIS IS OUR TRAVELING ROADS SHOW.
WE'RE TAKING THIS TO ALL BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS, SO, WELL, I THANK YOU.
I'M AMAZED YOU PICKED UP EXACTLY WHAT I DID ON THE, THE WORD CLOUD HISTORY JUST STOOD OUT AND I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT, UM, THAT THAT REALLY WAS A CONSIDERATION.
WHAT'S A BIG CONCERN THAT I HAVE IS WHAT HAPPENED TO RAINEY STREET DOESN'T HAPPEN TO THE REST OF THIS AREA.
AND, UM, I KNOW THAT YOU, YOU'RE LOOKING AT, UH, MUSIC VENUES AND THAT SORT OF THING, BUT I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, THIS, THIS PARTICULAR DISTRICT WITH THE WATERLOO COMPOUND AND, UH, AND PALM SCHOOL AND, AND THE PARK, UM, IS REALLY AN OPPORTUNITY TO PRESERVE HISTORY.
AND I, UM, WOULD URGE YOU TO, UH, LIKE KE COMMISSIONER COOK SAID, UH, TO INCLUDE THAT IN, IN YOUR PRESENTATION.
AND I SEE COMMISSIONER, UM, WRIGHT HAS HER HAND UP.
UM, I HAD A, SOME SIMILAR CONCERNS THINKING ABOUT THE PROPOSED SIXTH STREET DEVELOPMENT, UM, WHICH WE HAVE SEEN INFORMALLY NOT AS A FORMAL PRESENTATION OR REVIEW, AND THE, THE COMMENTARY THAT YOU HAVE FROM THE PUBLIC THAT THEY WANT TO SEE LESS OFFICES IN THIS PART, UH, IN THIS REGION.
UM, HOW ARE YOU CONSIDERING, UM, COMMENTARY OF THAT SORT, UH, AS YOU, AS YOU GO THROUGH THE PLANNING PROCESS? I REALLY COULDN'T HEAR.
YOUR VOICE WAS A LITTLE DISTORTED.
UM, COMMISSIONER, I, CAN I PARAPHRASE? CAN I PARAPHRASE? PERHAPS YES.
THAT, UM, ONE OF THE BIG, UH, PRIORITIES THAT PEOPLE HAD WAS MORE HOUSING IN THIS AREA, BUT THAT, UM, SIXTH STREET REDEVELOPMENT PLAN IS ONLY, UM, OFFICE BUILDINGS WITH SOME, UH, PERHAPS RESTAURANTS WHERE A, A MUSICIAN IS IN THE CORNER.
UM, UH, BUT NO, YOU KNOW, IT'S ALL OFFICE, UH, USES.
UM, HOW ARE YOU AWARE OF THAT? AND CAN I, CAN I BE MORE SPECIFIC? CAN YOU HEAR ME? ME, SIR? SURE.
ONE OF THE, IT WAS NOT JUST LIKE THE INTEREST WAS MORE HOUSING, BUT THERE SEEMED TO ALSO BE AN EXPRESSED INTEREST FOR LESS OFFICES, LESS OFFICES.
HOW, HOW ARE THOSE BEING CONSIDERED IN THE PLAN OF THOSE COMMENTARIES? WELL, I THINK MOST OF THE HOUSING, UH, IS FIGURED TO BE IN THE NORTHERN PART OF THE, OF THE, UH, THE DISTRICT AS WELL AS THOSE, SOME OF THOSE PROPERTIES ENCUMBERED BY THE CAPITAL OF VIEW CORRIDORS.
UH, THERE'S A GOOD SWATH THAT CAN'T, THE CAPITAL OF VIEW CORRIDORS WOULD LIMIT THE BUILDING HEIGHTS THERE.
SO POSSIBLY LIKE MUCH LIKE THE PROPERTY JUST TO THE NORTH OF STUBS AMPHITHEATER THERE, RED BRICK IS SHORTER BECAUSE IT'S BEEN RESTRICTED BY THE CAPITAL VIEW COURT.
SO I THINK MOST OF THE HOUSING IS DIRECTED TOWARDS, OTHER THAN WHAT'S OCCURRING IN RAINY, OF COURSE, UH, GOOD, BAD OR OTHERWISE, IT'S HAPPENING.
AND THE PLAN ENVISIONS MORE HOUSING TOWARDS THE NORTHERN PART OF THE DISTRICT.
I'M NOT REALLY CONCERNED ABOUT THE HOUSING.
I, I'M REALLY THINKING MORE ABOUT THE COMMENTARY FOR LESS OFFICES, UM, COMMENTARY.
WHAT, IN, IN YOUR, IN YOUR SLIDESHOW, THERE WAS SLIDE ABOUT PUBLIC COMMENTS AND ONE OF THEM WOULD, OKAY.
I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY HOW TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION, BUT I'LL DEFINITELY BRING THAT BACK TO MY TEAM TO CONSIDER THAT.
SO AS WE MOVE FORWARD TO THE ADOPTION PHASE, I THINK, UM, I WOULD ALSO BE INTERESTED AS, AS WE GO DOWN THE LINE IN, UH, WITH SIGNAGE AND INTERPRETATION OF SOME OF THE HISTORIC RESOURCES IN THAT AREA, UM, ESPECIALLY, YOU KNOW, HISTORIC BUILDINGS AND THE PARK, AND THE PARK STRUCTURES AND THAT SORT OF THING.
I THINK IT WOULD BE OF INTEREST CERTAINLY
[00:35:01]
HELPED TIE IN WITH THE POTENTIAL WALKING TOUR IN THE AREA.UM, I FIRST COMMISSIONER HEIM STAFF AND THEN COMMISSIONER LAROCHE.
UH, I WOULD LIKE TO FOLLOW UP ON COMMISSIONER COOK AND CHAIR MEYER'S COMMENTS AND BE MORE SPECIFIC.
WE'VE HAD A VERY SERIOUS CHALLENGE THROUGHOUT DOWNTOWN, WHEREAS MORE BUILDING IS PERMITTED AND THE MARKET IS DEMANDING MORE.
THERE BECOMES IMPOSSIBLE PRESSURES ON THE SMALLER SCALE HISTORIC STRUCTURES.
I DIDN'T NOT ONLY HEAR ABOUT PRESERVATION, UH, HIS, THE HISTORY AS MUCH, BUT SPECIFICALLY ADDITIONAL TOOLS TO ENHANCE OR TO STRENGTHEN THE PRESERVATION OF THE EXISTING RESOURCES SO THAT THEY'LL, THEY WON'T BE SUCCUMBING TO THE SAME PRESSURES AS OTHER PARTS IF, AS LONG AS YOU HAVE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT ARE LOOSENING SOME OF THE PARAMETERS IN ORDER TO MAKE THIS VISION POSSIBLE.
I THINK IT'S ENTIRELY APPROPRIATE.
IN FACT, MAY VERY WELL BE A GOOD EXAMPLE THAT WE CAN SET FOR OTHER PARTS OF DOWNTOWN WHERE WE IMPLEMENT NEW TYPES OF STRUCTURES THAT ARE JUST AS IMPORTANT AND JUST AS SOLIDIFIED TO MAKE SURE THAT OUR HISTORIC RESOURCES IN FACT ARE NOT OVERCOME BY THE ECONOMIC TSUNAMI.
BUT DO YOU DON'T HAVE THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS SPECIFICALLY IN THE PLAN AT THIS POINT? I DO.
WE HAVE, WE DON'T HAVE THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE RECOMMENDATIONS OTHER THAN THE SETBACKS AND THE STUFF RELATING TO BUILDINGS ALONG THE CREEK IS WHAT THE, I I THINK CERTAIN THINGS THAT WOULD GIVE MORE TEETH TO EITHER, UH, SPECIFIC PRESERVATION OF SPECIFIC PROPERTIES WOULD BE IN ORDER, UH, OR CERTAIN TYPES OF DENSITIES THAT WOULD ALLOW OR MAINTAIN THE LOWER SCALE THAT'S IN SUPPORT OF THOSE PROPERTIES.
UH, AND THAT WE'VE HAD VARIOUS DISCUSSIONS ABOUT THESE TOOLS.
SOME OF THEM EXIST AND SOME OF THEM DON'T YET.
BUT I REALLY THINK IT'S AN IMPORTANT PART IF YOU'RE BASICALLY LOOSENING SOME OF THESE ECONOMIC ENGINES TO JUST AS, AS, AS IMPORTANT TO ADD THOSE PROTECTIONS.
BECAUSE WHAT WE HAVE CURRENTLY ON THE BOOKS IS WE'VE, WE'VE CLEARLY DEMONSTRATED ARE NOT ENOUGH.
WELL, WELL, THE ONLY RECOMMENDATIONS WE HAVE IS TO CODE AMENDMENTS, RESTRICT WOULD BE RESTRICTING, UH, BUILDING PLACEMENT AND BUILDING DESIGN.
SO THEY'RE NOT EXACT, WE'RE NOT INCREASING THE ENTITLEMENTS THROUGH THIS PROCESS.
I THINK, YOU KNOW, JUST GOING BACK TO RAINY STREET, WE HAD A PLACE THAT WAS, THAT WAS TOO COOL FOR ITS OWN GOOD, APPARENTLY, UH, IT BECAME POPULAR AND THEN, UM, IT BECAME, UH, ATTRACTIVE TO DEVELOPMENT.
AND NOW, UM, WE, I'M A HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANT.
THAT'S WHAT I DO FOR A LIVING.
AND I DON'T THINK WE HAVE A HISTORIC DISTRICT THERE ANYMORE.
IF, IF THAT WERE TO COME UP, UH, NOW FOR HISTORIC DISTRICT, I DON'T THINK WE HAVE, UH, SUFFICIENT NUMBERS OF CONTRIBUTING BUILDINGS, UM, THAT, THAT WOULD, UH, QUALIFY, UM, IN THIS DAY AND AGE.
SO I, I, I WOULD HATE TO SEE A, A A TIME WHEN THIS PARK AREA, THIS WHOLE PLAN BECAME SO POPULAR THAT IT PUSHES OUT THE THINGS THAT MADE IT MAKE IT POPULAR IN THE FIRST PLACE.
THANK YOU FOR THAT PRESENTATION.
AND I DID TAKE THE TIME TO GO BACK AND, AND LOOK AT THE FULL PLAN.
AND I DO NOTE THAT YOU HAVE, YOU KNOW, SUBSTANTIAL HISTORY, UH, DOCUMENTED IN THAT PLAN.
AND I APPRECIATE THAT THOSE EFFORTS ON YOUR PART.
I THINK WHAT MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS ARE, IF I CAN SYNTHESIZE THAT DOWN TO HOW CAN THE PRESERVATION COMMUNITY BECOME ENGAGED IN THIS PLAN AT THIS TIME, SINCE WE ARE ENTERING THE ADOPTION PHASE IN A WEEK FROM TODAY AS WE PLANNING COMMISSION, I WOULD ENCOURAGE THE PRESERVATION COMMUNITY TO REACH OUT TO THE APPOINTED OFFICIALS AND, AND THE ELECTED OFFICIALS TO LET YOUR SENTIMENTS BE KNOWN.
UH, AS, I DON'T KNOW, AS A BODY, YOU MAY BE ABLE TO TAKE, YOU KNOW, TO EXPRESS A POINT OF VIEW.
UH, I DON'T, YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT'S, THOSE ARE THE TWO, THE THREE WAYS OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD THAT I COULD, HOW THEY COULD GET INVOLVED AT THIS STAGE OF THE PROCESS.
WELL, THANK YOU FOR THAT, AND THANK YOU FOR THE PRESENTATION.
AND I THINK THAT, UM, THE, YOUR PROCESS, UH, WAS REALLY IMPRESSIVE, UM, IN, UH, WHO YOU REACHED OUT, WHO YOU DID REACH OUT TO, AND ALL OF THE THINGS THAT YOU CONSIDERED HERE JUST, UH, MAKE A LITTLE BIT MORE ROOM
[00:40:01]
FOR PRESERVATION.IF I COULD TOP IT OFF AND PUT A LITTLE FINER POINT ON IT.
YOU KNOW, WE CAN TALK ABOUT FORM BASED ZONING CHANGES, FORM-BASED ZONING AND INCENTIVES TO KIND OF GUIDE WHAT HAPPENS HERE.
BUT THE HISTORIC ZONING IS A TOOL READILY AT OUR, YOU KNOW, AT OUR AVAILABILITY.
WE CAN, WE CAN LANDMARK PROPERTIES, AND THIS IS SOMETHING WE CAN DO RIGHT NOW AND CAN BE RECOMMENDED TO DO RIGHT NOW TO, TO PRESERVE THESE BUILDINGS.
AND I THINK IT A LITTLE MORE ATTENTION SHOULD BE PUT TOWARD SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS AS COMMISSIONER H SETH SAID, USING TOOLS THAT WE HAVE AT OUR DISPOSAL RIGHT NOW TO PROTECT THOSE PROPERTIES.
[3. C14H-2022-0139 – 2311 Woodlawn Blvd. – Discussion The Felts-Moss House Council District 10 ]
OUR BRIEFING, OUR FIRST ITEM, UH, UNDER PUBLIC HEARINGS AND DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION HISTORIC ZONING APPLICATIONS.ITEM 3 23 11 WOODLAWN B BOULEVARD.
THIS IS THE FELTS THAT PROPOSED FELTS MOSS HOUSE.
CALLEN CONTRERAS HOUSING AND PLANNING.
UM, THIS CASE NUMBER C 14 H 20 22 1 39 IS AN OWNER INITIATED HISTORIC ZONING APPLICATION, UM, ON FOR 2311 WOODLAWN ON THE BASIS OF ARCHITECTURE, HISTORICAL ASSOCIATIONS, AND ALSO HISTORICAL ASSOCIATIONS UNDER CRITERIA CONSIDERATION G OF THE NATIONAL REGISTER AS DEFINED IN LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 25 2 3 52 A ONE.
THIS 1938 HOUSE IS A GOOD EXAMPLE OF GEORGIAN REVIVAL ARCHITECTURE CONSTRUCTED BY CENTRAL TEXAS ARCHITECT LIAM SMITH.
IT APPEARS TO BE ONE OF THE FEW SURVIVING EXAMPLES OF HIS RESIDENTIAL WORK IN AUSTIN AND CENTRAL TEXAS.
THE HOUSE IS ALSO ASSOCIATED WITH THE PHELPS AND MOSS FAMILIES.
IT WAS BUILT IN 1938 FOR FORMER ELGAN MA AND CITY ATTORNEY AM PHELPS.
IT WAS THE CHILDHOOD HOME OF BROTHERS JAMES AND AMOS DANIEL PHELPS.
DANIEL PHELPS PRACTICED TRANSPORTATION LAW LIKE HIS FATHER, AND BECAME THE PRESIDENT AND GENERAL COUNSEL OF ONE OF THE SOUTHWEST, UH, MOST WIDESPREAD CARRIER FIRMS AND TRANSPORTATION LAW FIRMS. HIS BROTHER, DR.
JAMES FELTZ, WAS A BIOCHEMIST AND PHYSIOLOGY INSTRUCTOR AT TUFTS AND U C S F.
FELTS LED THE LIPID RESEARCH LABORATORY AT UCFS U C S F'S VA MEDICAL CENTER, AND GAINED INTERNATIONAL RECOGNITION, UM, AS ONE OF THE LEADING WORLD LEADING BIOMEDICAL SCIENTISTS AND AN EXPERT IN THE FIELD OF LIPID METABOLISM.
THIS PROPERTY IS ALSO ASSOCIATED WITH JOHN MOSS, WHO IS A PIONEER IN BOTH HOUSING DEVELOPMENT AND SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT, AND WHOSE ASSOCIATION EXTENDS FROM HIS PURCHASE OF THE HOUSE IN 1956.
BEYOND THE 50 50 YEAR PERIOD OF SIGNIFICANCE TO THE EARLY 1980S, AMONG MANY OTHER ENDEAVORS, MOSS DESIGNED BLUEPRINTS FOR HOMES THAT COULD BE CONSTRUCTIVE FOR $3,000 CALLED THE ST.
ANGELO PLAN THAT WERE BUILT NATIONALLY AND AROUND THE WORLD DURING THE COAST WAR HOUSING BOOM.
MOST NOTABLY, HE FOUNDED BPI INCORPORATION DURING HIS TENURE AT 2311 WOODLAWN, WHICH WAS THE FIRST COMPUTER SOFTWARE MANUFACTURER TO GO PUBLIC IN THE UNITED STATES.
BPI GREW EXPONENTIALLY FROM THE LATE 1970S TO THE EARLY EIGHTIES AS ONE OF THE NATION'S LARGEST SUPPLIERS OF ACCOUNTING SOFTWARE, AS WELL AS ONE OF THE YOUNGEST PUBLICLY HELD COMPANIES IN AUSTIN'S ENTIRE BUSINESS HISTORY.
THEREFORE, STAFF RECOMMENDATION, UM, IS TO RECOMMEND THE PROPOSED ZONING CHANGE FROM SF THREE TO SF THREE H.
ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS BEFORE WE GO INTO DISCUSSION ON THIS? I JUST WANTED TO MAKE, UH, MAKE SURE THAT IT'S NOTED FOR THE PUBLIC RECORD THAT COMMISSIONER HE, SETH AND COMMISSIONER CASTILLO ARE HERE, AND DID WE GET ANYONE ELSE IN? OKAY.
WE BOTH MADE THE MAD DASH TOGETHER.
UM, IS THERE ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THIS APPLICATION, LIKE THE APPLICANT? COME ON DOWN.
YOU CAN STAND THERE IN THE CENTER.
PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD AND PRESENT YOUR CASE.
UM, PLEASURE TO BE HERE TONIGHT.
UH, PLEASURE TO BE HERE TONIGHT.
UM, AND YOUR NAME? MY NAME IS JAY PERRA.
UH, I AM THE GRANDSON OF JOHN MOSS, WHO, UM, WAS REFERENCING THE APPLICATION MATERIALS.
I AM THE SON OF ANN AND JOHN PERRA, THE CURRENT OCCUPANTS OF THE HOME AND, UM, WAS INVOLVED WITH PUTTING TOGETHER THE APPLICATION.
UM, AND, YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT, UH, OR HOPEFULLY THE APPLICATION, UH, SPEAKS FOR ITSELF AND, AND AS FAR AS THE HISTORICAL INTEGRITY AND
[00:45:01]
THE VALUE OF THE HOUSE TO THIS COMMUNITY, TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD IN WHICH IT RESIDES, UM, BUT ALSO TO THE, UM, PROFESSIONAL ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF THE INDIVIDUALS THAT, UM, THAT OCCUPIED THOSE, THAT HOUSE.AND, UM, WE ARE, UH, YOU KNOW, LONG TOM AUSTINITES, UH, VALUE OUR HISTORY GREATLY.
UM, AND, UH, IT'S A, UH, IT WOULD BE A, UM, SIGNIFICANT, UH, POINT OF PRIDE TO HAVE, UH, THOSE ASSOCIATIONS RECOGNIZED BY THIS COMMISSION.
ANY QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT? OKAY.
UM, IF SOMETHING COMES UP IN OUR DISCUSSION, UH, UH, WE MIGHT CALL YOU BACK TO, TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
IS THERE ANYONE ELSE TO SPEAK IN FAVOR? IS THERE ANYONE, UH, OPPOSED WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK? HEARING NONE.
DO I HEAR A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING? SO MOVED.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER LAROCHE.
ALL IN FAVOR OF CLOSING THE PUBLIC HEARING.
DO I HEAR A MOTION ON THE CASE? WE NEED A MOTION TO DISCUSS IT.
I'LL ENTER
WOULD ANYBODY ELSE LIKE TO SECOND IT? SECOND? OKAY.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO ADDRESS YOUR MOTION? COMMISSIONER GROGAN? YEAH.
UM, I THINK THIS, YOU KNOW, IS A SOLID APPLICATION ARCHITECTURE AND HISTORY.
UM, AND, UM, I, I CERTAINLY DON'T SEE WHY THIS COULDN'T, UH, QUALIFY FOR RESORTS IN MS. CASTILLO.
DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD? UH, I READ THE HISTORY IS EXCELLENT AND, UH, I'M ON BOARD WITH COMMISS.
ANYONE ELSE? UM, YEAH, LET, LET ME GO AHEAD AND ADDRESS WHAT I THINK IS, UH, PART OF THE REASON FOR HESITATION HERE, AND THEN ALSO ONE OF MY OWN PERSONAL RE HESITATIONS.
BUT, UH, I THINK I WILL SUPPORT THE MOTION.
UH, I THINK THAT THERE ARE SO MANY CASES THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT WHERE THE STRUCTURES THAT COME TO US AND WE WANT TO CONSIDER FOR PRESERVATION.
THERE REALLY IS NO OTHER CHOICE.
UH, IF WE DON'T PRESERVE THEM OR MAKE A BIG EFFORT, THEY AREN'T GOING TO BE WELL CARED FOR.
THEY WON'T BE LOVED, THEY WON'T BE TAKEN CARE OF, AND THEY PROBABLY WON'T EXIST ANYMORE.
UH, I THINK IT IS TO YOUR FAMILY'S CREDIT THAT WE HAVE A PROPERTY THAT IS LARGELY FROM WHAT WE CAN TELL INTACT, UH, AND HAS BEEN WELL TAKEN CARE OF AND WELL PRESERVED FOR A LONG PERIOD OF TIME.
AND THIS BASICALLY SHOULD BE A, A CHANCE TO CELEBRATE WITH YOU, TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT AND TO PASS THAT ON AS A RESOURCE FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS.
THE FACT THAT YOUR FAMILY'S WILLING NOW TO COME FORWARD HAVING DONE THIS ALONE AND WITHOUT ANY ENCOURAGEMENT, BUT ALSO WITHOUT ANY REGULATIONS, UH, AND ACCEPT THEY BASICALLY A RELATIONSHIP WITH THE CITY OF AUSTIN TO CONTINUE WHAT YOU ALL HAVE STARTED.
I THINK THAT'S, THAT'S A VERY IMPORTANT MOMENT.
UM, THERE ARE A LOT OF, YOU KNOW, SHALL WE SAY HIGHER DOLLAR VALUE PROPERTIES IN AND AROUND YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
UH, NOT ALL OF THEM HAVE FARED NEARLY AS WELL AS YOURS, UH, BUT EVERY NOW AND THEN THEY'LL COME UP AND SOMEBODY WILL WANT TO GET A TAX BREAK AND COME AND RUN IN FRONT OF US.
AND WE HAVE TO GIVE IT A PRETTY HEAVY SCRUTINY TO MAKE SURE THAT IT REALLY MEETS THE CRITERIA.
BUT I THINK WITH STAFF'S, UH, REPORT, UH, WITH WHAT I'VE SEEN, UH, AGAIN, I THINK THAT IT'S, IT'S WONDERFUL THAT YOU ARE DOING WHAT YOU'RE DOING, AND I THINK WE SHOULD ENCOURAGE THAT.
UH, I HAVE ONE HESITATION, AND THAT'S JUST THE TRUCK WITH YOUR ARCHITECT.
UH, BEING CLASSICALLY TRAINED MYSELF, UH, IT'S A QUIRKY EXAMPLE OF CLASSICAL COLONIAL ARCHITECTURE.
THOSE COLUMNS ARE JUST WEIRD AND THE PROPORTIONS ARE VERY ODD.
HOWEVER, THAT'S A DECISION THAT WAS MADE BACK IN THE THIRTIES,
AND WHO AM I AN QUAL
[00:50:01]
GONNA BE ABLE TO PASS THIS ON AS A ANOTHER LEGACY, UH, FROM THAT PERIOD.ANYONE ELSE WANNA WEIGH IN? I KNOW THAT YOU DO
I APPRECIATE COMMISSIONER HIIM, SETH CHIMING IN AND, UH, GIVING WORDS TO FEELINGS THAT I HAVE, BUT WASN'T SURE HOW TO ARTICULATE.
UM, AND I JUST SORT OF THINK OUT LOUD ABOUT THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE, THE BAR THAT WE SET FOR OURSELVES WHEN IT'S, IT'S OWNER OPPOSED OR OWNER INITIATED.
AND I'M, AND I, AND I, YEAH, I HAVE JUST THOUGHTS AND FEELINGS.
HOW, HOW DO I PARSE THAT HERE? AND WOULD WE TREAT THIS DIFFERENTLY IF IT WAS THE OTHER WAY AROUND? AND, AND THEN I REALIZE I DON'T HAVE TO THINK ABOUT IT.
ANYONE ELSE? I I DID WANNA MAKE THE COMMENT.
I, I APPRECIATE THE SENTIMENTS EXPRESSED HERE.
CAUSE I I KIND OF AGREED WITH THEM.
I WANTED TO MAKE SURE I, I WASN'T GONNA VOTE IN FAVOR OF THIS, UH, SOLELY BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, WE TEND TO MAKE DISTRICTS BY A CONCENTRATION OF LANDMARKS, WHICH IS WHAT WE, WE HAVE IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD.
I KNOW THERE IS, THERE'S A HISTORY OF ISSUES, UM, WITH HIGHER PRICE PROPERTIES AND, YOU KNOW, COMING BEFORE AND, AND THERE'S BEEN A LAWSUIT THAT'S KIND OF LIMITED.
THE NUMBER THAT THAT COME BEFORE IS HERE.
BUT I, I DID WANNA MAKE SURE MOVING FORWARD, I'VE SEEN SOME TESTIMONY ON OTHER CASES ABOUT THE TAX EXEMPTION, UH, THAT SUGGESTS THAT THERE IS A 20% TAX EXEMPTION.
AND I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT IN FUTURE CASES IT'S NOT, THERE WAS A CASE WHERE A, THERE WAS TESTIMONY GIVEN THAT IT'S 20% TAX, YOU KNOW, TAX BREAK, IT'S NOT, IT'S CAPPED FOR RESIDENCES AT 8,500.
IN THIS CASE, I THINK IT'S A LITTLE OVER 10,000.
AND RELATIVE TO THE, THE TAXES ON PROPERTIES OF THIS CA OF THIS VALUE, UH, IT'S AN INCREASINGLY SMALL PERCENTAGE OF, OF THE RATE.
SO I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT DOESN'T GET BLOWN OUT OF PROPORTION AS THIS GOES, GOES UP THE LADDER.
I THINK SOMETHING THAT, UM, THAT WE WRESTLE WITH, WE SOMETIMES HAVE, UM, WE, WE HAVE, UH, I, I DON'T KNOW, I WE'RE SIDE HEAVY AS OPPOSED TO TOP HEAVY WITH LANDMARKS IN THE WEST SIDE OF, OF AUSTIN.
AND WE HAVE TRIED TO BE, UM, UH, VERY COGNIZANT OF SIGNIFICANT PROPERTIES THAT MAY BE ENDANGERED ON THE EAST SIDE.
BUT I THINK THAT, UH, A PROPERTY THAT CLEARLY MEETS THE CRITERIA FOR ARCHITECTURE, AND I THINK, UM, I, I THINK IT COMES DOWN STRONGER FOR ITS HISTORIC ASSOCIATIONS WITH THE MOSS FAMILY.
UM, BECAUSE WE ALL USE SOFTWARE NOW.
WE CAN'T GET AWAY FROM 'EM NO MATTER WHAT.
SO, UH, UM, I, I JUST, I THINK THAT'S IN A, IN A CITY LIKE AUSTIN WHOSE, WHOSE EXPONENTIAL GROWTH IS, YOU KNOW, IS SORT OF BASED IN, UH, THIS TECHNOLOGY, I THINK THAT, UM, IT BEHOOVES US TO RECOGNIZE THAT, THAT, AND SO I WILL, UM, I WILL SUPPORT THE, UM, THE MOTION.
UH, COMMISSIONER WRIGHT, I SEE YOU THERE.
UM, I JUST, I JUST WANNA ARGUE A LITTLE BIT WITH, WITH BEN AND DAVID, WITH COMMISSIONER HI SETH, AND SAY THAT I REALLY LIKE THOSE COLUMNS, UM,
UM, AND THEY REMIND ME IN FACT OF A LOT OF, UH, SIMILAR HOUSES FROM THE EAST COAST OF THIS TIME PERIOD.
I WOULD ALSO JUST ADD, UM, I, I WANTED TO TELL THIS TO THE COMMISSION.
THE PROPERTY THAT WE ALL SUPPORTED UNANIMOUSLY FOR LANDMARK STATUS, 2002 SCENIC DRIVE, WENT DOWN IN FLAMES LAST WEEK AT CITY COUNCIL.
UM, AND, UH, IT WAS A SAD DAY.
UM, SO, UH, UH, YOU KNOW, I'M, I'M GLAD THAT, THAT YOU'VE COME FORWARD ON YOUR OWN NOT KICKING AND SCREAMING.
THIS IS, UH, YOU'RE DOING SO THANK YOU.
AND, UH, WITH THAT, SHALL WE TAKE A VOTE? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF, UH, HISTORIC ZONING FOR THIS PROPERTY, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND.
AND HE OPPOSED, IT PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.
YOU'RE A LANDMARK NOW WHEN HE GETS TO COUNSELING.
THEY, THE REASON THEY DIDN'T SUPPORT 2002 SCENIC DRIVE IS BECAUSE IT WAS OVER THE OBJECTION OF THE OWNER.
[9. HR-2022-152852 – 4308 Duval St. – Discussion Hyde Park Local Historic District Council District 9]
MOVING ON TO OUR NEXT CASE.THESE ARE HISTORIC LANDMARK AND LOCAL DISTRICT APPLICATIONS.
[00:55:01]
FIRST DISCUSSION ITEM? WOULD THAT BE 43 0 8 DUVAL STREET.THIS IS AN ADDITION, A REMODEL.
UM, IS CALLEN PRESENTING THIS FROM AFAR? OH, THERE SHE IS.
UM, APPLICATION FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS OF 43 0 8 DUVAL STREET.
THIS IS AN APPLICATION TO CONSTRUCT A TWO-STORY REAR ADDITION TO A CONTRIBUTING HOUSE WITH CITING TO MATCH THE EXISTING STRUCTURE AND A STANDING SEA METAL ROOF.
THE PROPOSED EDITION IS SITE GD WITH UN UNDIVIDED CASEMENT WINDOWS AND A THIRD FLOOR COUPLA.
THE HOUSE IS A ONE-STORY CRAFTSMAN BUNGALOW WITH ONE OVER ONE WOOD WINDOWS ACROSS GD ROOF WITH CENTRAL PARTIAL WIDTH PORCH SUPPORTED BY BOXED COLUMNS, A TOP BRICK PIERS, AND A SHINGLE ROOF WITH EXPOSED RAFTER TAILS.
THE PROJECT MEETS SOME OF THE APPLICABLE STANDARDS IN THE HYDE PARK HISTORIC DESIGN STANDARDS.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO EITHER REFER THE APPLICATION TO THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE OR APPROVE THE APPLICATION WITH THE EXCLUSION OF THE THIRD FLOOR COUPLA.
ANY QUESTIONS OF MS. CONTRERAS? THERE WE GO.
QUICK QUESTION, AND, UH, OBVIOUSLY THEY'VE MADE SOME MODIFICATIONS TO THE PLAN.
UH, DID THEY SPECIFICALLY DECIDE NOT TO CHANGE THE COUPLA? HAS THAT BECOME A, AN ISSUE OF CONTENTION OR HAVE YOU HAD ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ABOUT THAT? UM, THE, OH, I'M SORRY.
THE, UM, THE REAR PORTION OF THE ADDITION, UH, EXCEPT FOR THE COUPLA, UH, WE FOUND LARGELY NEEDS THE DESIGN STANDARDS.
UH, THE COUPLA ITSELF IS THE PART THAT DOES NOT FIT IN SO WELL STILL.
UM, BUT THERE WAS AN EARLIER SET OF PLANS SUBMITTED AND THEY REVISED THEM.
BUT DID, DID THEY GO TO THE, UH, ARCHITECTURE REVIEW COMMITTEE? NO, NO, NO, NO.
DID I? NO, IT WAS TWO SUBMITTED RELATIVELY CLOSE TOGETHER.
UM, BUT SOME CHANGES WERE MADE TO MAKE THE REST OF IT MORE SYMPATHETIC.
SO THAT WAS BASED, BASED ON YOUR COMMENTS.
I, YOU KNOW, I DON'T REMEMBER COMMISSIONER, LET ME LOOK AT THE DATES ON IT.
UH, ANYWAY, I JUST, IT SEEMS LIKE THEY WENT TO AN EFFORT TO PUT THE PITCH IN SUCH A WAY AND THE SCALE OF THE ADDITION SO THAT, UH, BASED ON WHAT THEY HAD PROPOSED EARLIER, IT REALLY DID RELATE WELL TO THE HOUSE.
IT'S JUST, IT SEEMS VERY OBVIOUS, UH, OMISSION THAT THEY WOULD NOT HAVE ADDED THAT TO THE KUALA, EVEN THOUGH I, I, AS I ASSUME WE'RE GONNA GET IN A PRESENTATION, UH, THERE IS SOME INFORMATION ABOUT COS AND TRADITIONS OF COS AND WE CAN DISCUSS THAT IN A BIT.
ANYWAY, AFTER WE HAVE, THAT'S AFTER WE'VE, I'M JUMPING AHEAD, THEN WE CAN, AFTER WE FROM THE APPLICANT THAT'S FINE.
WE, WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE CASE.
IS THE APPLICANT HERE? IS THERE SOMEONE, UH, THE OWNER.
AM I UP FOR THE PRESENTATION? YEAH, THAT'S IT.
JUST WANTED TO GIVE A COUPLE COMMENTS ON THE CONTEXT FOR THIS EDITION.
SO SHOWN IN RED IS THE ADDITION HERE.
UH, WE'RE FACING DUVAL STREET ON THE EAST, UM, AND WE'RE ON THE BOUNDARY OF THE HISTORIC DISTRICT, AS YOU CAN SEE WITH THE DASH LINE.
UH, WE'RE SURROUNDED BY SINGLE-PAYER RESIDENCES AS WELL AS A MIX OF COMMERCIAL AND MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENCES.
UM, THIS MAY BE RELEVANT TO CONTEXT AND SUBSEQUENT DISCUSSION.
UH, THE ADDITION IS COMPLETELY BEHIND THE EXISTING RESIDENCE.
UH, WE'RE MAINTAINING THE EXISTING GARAGE.
THESE COLORS AREN'T COMING THROUGH TOO WELL, BUT THE INTENT WAS TO SHOW ADDITION AND RENOVATIONS IN THE FLOOR PLAN IN BLUE TO DISTINGUISH FROM THE GRAY EXISTING.
UM, JUST TO NOTE THAT WE ARE MAINTAINING THE FABRIC OF THE FRONT OF THE RESIDENCE AS WELL AS THE, UM, SIDE PORTIONS OF THE HOME TOWARDS THE FRONT.
ADDING A LIVING ROOM, UH, SITTING ROOM TO THE GROUND FLOOR.
NEXT PLEASE, A PRIMARY SUITE TO THE SECOND FLOOR, SORRY, NEXT PRIMARY SUITE TO THE SECOND FLOOR.
AND THEN NEXT, A, UM, SIDE GABLE ROOF WITH A COUPLA AS NOTED, WHICH WE CAN DISCUSS MORE AND SUBSEQUENT SLIDES.
THIS IS THE RENDERING FROM THE STREET.
UM, SO THE ADDITION IS MOSTLY MASKED BY THE EXISTING HOME.
WE'RE PRESERVING THE EXISTING HOME.
[01:00:01]
A BIRD'S EYE VIEW SHOWS THAT IT'S A FAIRLY SIMPLE ADDITION, A STACKED RECTANGLE, UH, PRESERVING THE, UH, INTEGRITY AND SHAPE OF THE EXISTING ROOF.UM, THIS IS A VIEW YOU'LL NEVER REALLY HAVE OF THE PROJECT.
BUT JUST TO NOTE THAT WE HAVE A, A SIDE GABLE THAT MIMICS THE SHAPE OF THE EXISTING ROOF STRUCTURE.
UM, RELATIVE TO EARLIER COMMENTS, WE, WE DID, UM, REVISE WINDOW OPENINGS AND ADD A BLACK TRIM AROUND THEM TO MAKE THEM FIT IN BETTER WITH THE EXISTING STRUCTURE.
SO THAT WAS THE MAIN DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION AND THE REVISED DRAWINGS.
THERE WAS NO CHANGES TO THE ROOF OF THE COUPLA BETWEEN APPLICATIONS.
UM, WE CAN SKIP THESE NEXT TWO SLIDES AND COME BACK TO THE ELEVATIONS IF NECESSARY.
I THINK THAT PERSPECTIVE DID A BETTER JOB.
UM, SO AS YOU ALL PROBABLY KNOW, COUPLA S HAVE, UM, HISTORICAL ORIGINS, UM, TO HELP WITH NATURAL VENTILATION AND NATURAL LIGHT, WHICH IS THE INTENT OF OUR COUPLA.
THERE ARE SOME EXAMPLES WITHIN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OF CUPULA, LIKE FEATURES ON EXISTING ROOFS, UM, ALONG WITH CHIMNEYS AND DORMERS.
THEY ALSO HELP TO BREAK UP THE, UM, ROOF FORMS. AND SO THAT WAS ADDITIONAL, UH, REASONING BEHIND ADDING OUR CUPULA.
UM, AND SO IN SUMMARY, WE'RE ADDING A FAIRLY MODEST RESPECTFUL ADDITION TO THE BACK OF THIS EXISTING HOME.
UM, WE WOULD LIKE TO MAINTAIN THE CUPOLA POSSIBLE AND ARE WILLING TO, UH, REVISE THROUGH THE ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE PROCESS.
UM, BUT AFTER SPEAKING WITH OUR CLIENT, WE'D LIKE TO TRY TO GO THROUGH THAT PROCESS AND MAINTAIN THE KU.
UM, CAN YOU GO BACK TO THE SLIDE WHERE YOU HAVE THESE PRECEDENTS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD? OKAY.
I WANTED TO SAY THE ONE AT SPEEDWAY IN 41ST IS A RELATIVELY, UH, NEW BUILDING.
IT'S WAS BUILT ABOUT, UM, 20 YEARS AGO MAYBE.
AND, UH, THE ONE AT, UH, 38TH AND DUVAL, UM, THAT DORMER THING IS, UM, UH, IS A D THIS HOUSE HAS BEEN COMPLETELY, UM, ALTERED FROM ITS ORIGINAL CHARACTER.
THESE ARE NOT, UH, HISTORIC PRECEDENTS.
I JUST WANTED TO, TO HAVE THAT ON THE SCREEN, WHEN TO TALK ABOUT IT.
ANY QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT? UH, YES.
SO WOULD YOU HAVE CONSIDERED, SINCE IN YOUR PRECEDENT YOU SHOWED HISTORIC COS WITH PITCHED ROOFS, WOULD YOU HAVE CONSIDERED A PITCH ROOF OR WAS THERE A SPECIFIC REASON NOT TO? UM, NO.
I THINK WE, WE WILL MOVING FORWARD, CONSIDER PITCH ROOF.
I DIDN'T KNOW IF IT WAS IN, WITHIN OUR ABILITY TO MAKE THAT CHANGE IN THIS FEW DAY PROCESS BETWEEN RECEIVING STACK STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS AND PRESENTING TODAY.
UM, BUT WE DEFINITELY YEAH, WILL CONSIDER THAT.
AS, AS FAR AS JUST SO FOR FUTURE REFERENCE, UM, YOU KNOW, IF THE, THE DAY YOU PRESENT TO US, YOU CAN, AS MUCH ADVANCED NOTICE AS POSSIBLE IS ALWAYS, IS ALWAYS APPRECIATED.
BUT WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO MAKE OUR RECOMMENDATIONS AND THEN, UH, CONTINGENT UPON OR ADDED TO, UH, ADDITIONAL ELEMENTS.
SO IF THOSE ELEMENTS ARE AVAILABLE, WE CAN REFERENCE THEM AND PUT THEM IN A MOTION.
UM, IN THIS SITUATION, I THINK IF YOU'RE OPEN TO THAT, UM, I, I UNDERSTAND FROM YOUR, THE WAY IT'S SITUATED OVER THE MASTER BEDROOM, THE INTENT OF THE COUPLA, AND I THINK IT, IT'S ALREADY A FAIRLY ELEGANT ADDITION AND I REALLY APPLAUD YOU FOR YOUR RESTRAINT IN PUTTING TOGETHER SOMETHING THAT REALLY IS APPROPRIATE.
UH, I WISH ALL OF THE CASES THAT WE REVIEWED CAME DOWN TO QUIBBLING OVER LITTLE DETAILS LIKE THE COUPLA.
UH, CUZ YOU GOT EVERYTHING ELSE VERY, IN MY OPINION, AT LEAST, UH, DONE VERY, VERY WELL, AND I COMPLIMENT YOU FOR IT.
BUT IF YOU'RE WILLING TO TAKE THE EXTRA TIME, THEN PROBABLY A REVIEW COMMITTEE, UH, SESSION MIGHT BE VERY BENEFICIAL.
ARE OPTIONS TO REMOVE IT TODAY OR TO PROCEED IN THAT NEXT STEP? I KNOW THERE'S LIKELY SUBSEQUENT DISCUSSION.
I, I COULD PROPOSE THAT WE WOULD APPROVE IT WITH A PITCHED, UH, ROOF ON THE COUPLA CONTINGENT UPON YOUR PRESENTING IT TO THE ARCHITECTURE REVIEW COMMITTEE, AND THAT MIGHT SPEED THINGS UP.
BUT, UH, OTHERWISE, YES, YOU WOULD HAVE TO WAIT UNTIL ANOTHER, ANOTHER MEETING.
UM, IS THERE ANYONE ELSE TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THIS APPLICATION? OKAY.
IS THERE ANYONE TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION? OKAY.
UM, DO I, UH, PUBLIC HEARING MOVE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING SECOND.
ALL IN FAVOR OF CLOSING THE PUBLIC HEARING.
UH, WOULD YOU LIKE TO MAKE YOUR MOTION? I'LL, I'LL MOVE THAT.
[01:05:01]
THE ARCHITECTURE REVIEW COMMITTEE WITH THE ENCOURAGEMENT THAT THEY LOOK AT A PITCHED ROOF ON THE COUPLA AND THAT WE, UH, EXPECT TO SEE THEM BACK HERE FOR OUR DECEMBER, UH, LANDMARKS MEETING.IS THERE A SECOND TO THAT MOTION? I'LL SECOND.
UM, WOULD YOU LIKE TO DISCUSS YOUR MOTION? UM, I THINK BASED ON WHAT I SAW, UM, THIS IS VERY CLOSE.
THEY'RE WILLING TO WORK WITH US TO MAKE IT TIGHT.
AND, UH, THE COUPLA IN ITS CURRENT CONFIGURATION REALLY IS AN ANOMALY.
SO I THINK IT'S WORTH THE EFFORT.
UM, THE, THE PURPOSE, UM, THE, THESE HISTORIC BUILDINGS ARE SUPPOSED TO, UH, BE THE FOCUS OF ATTENTION.
AND I THINK THE COUPLA AS IT IS RIGHT NOW, FIRST OF ALL, COUP IS AREN'T A HISTORIC, UH, PATTERN, UH, IN HYDE PARK.
BUT, UM, I MEAN, MOSTLY YOU WOULD SEE THEM ON BARNS, BUT, UM, BUT THEY, THEY DON'T EXIST IN HYDE PARK.
UM, BUT THIS ONE IN PARTICULAR, UH, WOULD REALLY MAKE THE ADDITION STAND OUT.
IT WOULD BE HIGHLY VISIBLE AND I THINK, UH, IT WOULD DETRACT FROM THE HISTORIC CHARACTER OF THE, OF THE FRONT HOUSE.
AND I AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER H SETH, THAT, UM, THAT WHAT YOU'VE PROPOSED IN, IN THE ADDITION, UH, IS, IS VERY, UM, VERY WELL RECEIVED.
WE HAVE, UM, I THINK, I THINK IT IS RESPECTFUL OF THE HISTORIC PATTERNS, THE ROOF FORMS IN PARTICULAR IN HYDE PARK.
AND SO IF IN LIGHT OF THAT, IF I COULD MAKE A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO, UH, ALLOW ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL UPON AGREEMENT OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE FOR ALTERATIONS TO THAT COUP TO EXPEDITE THE PROCESS, ABSOLUTELY.
SO THE MOTION IS, UM, TO REFER IT TO THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE, UH, FOR AND, UH, WITH THEIR APPROVAL, THEN RELEASE, UH, DIRECT STAFF TO RELEASE THE, UH, PERMIT.
IT'S REFERRED TO THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE AND THAT, BY THE WAY, WE'VE HAD MANY CHANGES TO OUR, TO OUR SCHEDULE AND, AND WE'RE GETTING INTO THE SEASON WHERE WE HAVE UNEXPECTED SOMETIMES.
BUT THE NEXT ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE IS WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 16TH AT 4:00 PM AT ACC UH, THE PERMITTING AND DEVELOPMENT CENTER.
THAT'S AT, AT THE FORMER HIGHLAND MALL, FORMER ST.
UH, NOW A C C, UH, IT'S ON THERE SOMEWHERE.
UH, STAFF WILL REACH OUT TO ALL OF THOSE WHO ARE, UH, REFERRED TO THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE.
THAT'S WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 16TH, 4:00 PM THANK YOU.
[11. HR-2022-155542 – 1409 Newning Ave. – Discussion Brass-Milam House Council District 9]
ITEM IS, UH, NUMBER 11 14 0 9 NEWING AVENUE.THIS IS A LANDMARK IN, UM, THE FAIRVIEW, UH, TRAVIS HEIGHTS FAIRVIEW PARK.
HISTORIC DISTRICT EVENING COMMISSIONERS, KIMBERLY COLLINS AT THE HOUSING AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
UH, ITEM 11 IS FOR A APPLICATION FOR CERT CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS, UH, AT 1409 NEWING, THE BRASS MYAM HOUSE.
THE PROPOSAL IS FOR DEMOLITION AND NEW CONSTRUCTION OF AN ENTRYWAY DOOR AND SURROUND ASSEMBLY.
PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS INCLUDE ENTRYWAY FABRICATION TO INCLUDE NON-ORIGINAL DOOR REPLACEMENT, TRANSOM REPAIR, AND SIDELIGHT ALTERATION.
14 0 9 90 NEWING WAS DESIGNATED A LOCAL HISTORIC LANDMARK IN FEBRUARY OF 1992.
THE CITY OF AUSTIN'S HISTORIC DESIGN STANDARDS ARE BASED ON THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR STANDARDS FOR REHABILITATION, AND ARE USED TO INVOL EVALUATE PROJECTS AT HISTORIC LANDMARKS.
THE PROJECT PROPOSES TO DEMOLISH AND REBUILD THE HISTORIC MAIN FACADE ENTRY ASSEMBLY.
THIS APPROACH WOULD NOT ONLY DESTROY THE ORIGINAL HISTORIC DESIGN AND FABRIC, BUT THE NEW DESIGN CREATES A SENSE OF FALSE HISTORICISM.
IF THE, IF THE DOOR IS NOT ORIGINAL, IT SHOULD BE REPLACED WITH A NEW UNIT BASED ON DOCUMENTATION OF THE HISTORIC DOOR OR A NEW DESIGN COMPATIBLE WITH THE HISTORIC OPENING.
THE SAME APPROACH SHOULD BE TAKEN WITH THE WINDOWS IN THE DOOR ASSEMBLY REPAIRING RATHER THAN REPLACING THE TRANSOM IS APPROPRIATE.
IN SUMMARY, THE PROJECT DOES NOT MEET THE APPLICABLE STANDARDS AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO POSTPONE TO DECEMBER 14TH, 2022 AND EXTENDED AN INVITATION TO THE NEXT ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE TO ALLOW THE APPLICANT TIME TO PROPOSE AN ALTERNATE DESIGN THAT MORE CLOSELY COMPLIES WITH THE CITYWIDE DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR LOCAL HISTORIC LANDMARKS.
ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS OF STAFF?
[01:10:04]
OKAY.WE DIDN'T, WE CAN'T SEE THE DOOR ASSEMBLY.
THE CURRENT, THE HISTORIC AND CURRENT DOOR ASSEMBLY THAT'S ON THERE NOW, IS THERE A PHOTOGRAPH OF IT THAT YOU CAN SHARE? OKAY.
AND THEY WANT TO DO THE SIDELIGHTS ON, THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE PROPOSING IS TO CHANGE THE, OKAY.
UM, IS, IS THE APPLICANT HERE? COME ON DOWN.
HI, HOW IS EVERYBODY? I'M AMANDA COCHRAN MCCALL.
I'M A RESIDENT IN THIS HOME AND ALSO THE APPLICANT.
UM, I DO WANNA COVER A FEW POINTS AND, AND PLEASE FORGIVE MY LACK OF FAMILIARITY WITH SOME OF THE TERMINOLOGY.
UM, BUT I DON'T KNOW THAT I NECESSARILY A AGREED WITH SOME OF THE CHARACTERIZATIONS OF WHAT WAS PROPOSED.
AND I ALSO THINK THERE'S SOME RELEVANCE IN SOME OF THE UNDERLYING DETAILS AND FACTS PUT FORWARD IN THE PROPOSAL THAT MAY IMPACT WHETHER OR NOT, UM, THE PROPOSAL, UH, AS IT EXISTS COMPORTS WITH THE APPLICABLE DESIGN STANDARDS.
SO IF YOU'LL BEAR WITH ME, I'D LIKE TO JUST KIND OF WALK THROUGH THOSE POINTS AS I SEE THEM.
AND THEN I'M VERY INTERESTED IN HEARING THE COMMISSION'S FEEDBACK.
UM, AND I DO WANNA STRESS, MY HUSBAND AND I BOTH VERY MUCH CARE ABOUT BEING GOOD STEWARDS OF THIS HOME AS A LANDMARK.
AND SO I AM INTERESTED IN THE FEEDBACK.
UM, AND I, WE DO WANNA PARTICIPATE IN THE PROCESS TO GET TO WHATEVER THE RIGHT ANSWER IS.
UM, FOR THE HOUSE, UM, UH, I DO THINK THAT THE COMMISSION SHOULD APPROVE THE PROPOSED PLAN FOR THE ENTRYWAY BECAUSE THE PLAN MEETS THE APPLICABLE STANDARDS.
UM, I WOULD LIKE TO TAKE EACH OF THE COMPONENTS OF THE ENTRYWAY AND KIND OF TALK THROUGH.
SO THE PROPOSAL DOES NOT INTEND TO ALTER THE, UM, WHAT I WOULD CALL THE OUTSIDE STRUCTURE, OR YOU'RE NOT ENLARGING OR SHRINKING IT.
AND NOT IMPACTING THAT TRIM WORK THAT'S ON THE OUTSIDE OF THE HOME.
UM, THE FAC FROM THE FACADE, IF WE LOOK AT THE TRANSOM, THE HISTORIC DESIGN STANDARD SAYS REPAIR, DON'T REPLACE.
THE PROPOSAL I'VE PUT FORWARD SAYS THERE'S QUOTE MINOR WOOD ROT THAT WE WANT TO REPAIR, AND THAT WE DON'T WANNA IMPACT THE APPEARANCE OF IT IN ANY WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM OTHER THAN JUST TO REPAIR THE WOOD ROT THAT'S ON THE INSIDE.
UM, AND SO WHAT HAPPENS IS WHEN YOU OPEN THE TRANSOM, YOU CAN SEE ON THAT IMAGE HOW IT'S A SKEW, THE TOP RIGHT HINGE, THERE'S ROT THERE, SO IT'S NOT PROPERLY ATTACHED TO THE WOOD.
SO IF YOU OPEN IT AND THEN I WANNA CLOSE THE TRANSOM, I HAVE TO GET A LADDER AND CLIMB UP THERE, PUSH IT UP, AND THEN CLOSE IT.
SO WE WANT THAT WOOD RO REPAIRED.
WE DON'T WANNA DEMO IT, WE DON'T WANNA REPLACE IT.
JUST REPAIR THE ROTTEN WOOD AND LEAVE IT AS IS.
UM, AND I, I DO BELIEVE THAT COMPORTS WITH THE DESIGN STANDARDS SET OUT BY STAFF IN THEIR REPORT, IF WE MOVE ON TO THE DOOR, I'VE HAD TWO DIFFERENT CARPENTERS THAT WORK ON HISTORIC, UH, BUILDINGS, UM, WHO BOTH HAVE TOLD ME THAT IS NOT THE ORIGINAL DOOR.
THEIR RATIONALE IS THAT IT'S NOT THE APPROPRIATE THICKNESS FOR AN EXTERIOR DOOR OF THE TIME PERIOD.
IT'S THE SAME THICKNESS AS DOORS INSIDE MY HOUSE.
UH, ONE OF THEM SPECIFICALLY DOES NOT BELIEVE THAT THAT GLASS IS ORIGINAL TO THAT DOOR, UM, BASED ON HIS PHYSICAL INSPECTION OF IT.
AND SO BECAUSE IT'S NOT AN ORIGINAL DOOR, I THINK THE APPLICABLE DESIGN STANDARDS AT SECTION OR STANDARD 5.7 SAY THAT WE CAN EITHER TRY TO FIND AN IMAGE TO SHOW US WHAT THE ORIGINAL DOOR WAS, OR WE CAN LOOK TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO PICK SOMETHING THAT'S APPROPRIATE BASED ON THE, THE HISTORIC TIME PERIOD.
AND SO WE BOTH HAVE ATTEMPTED TO LOOK, I CAN'T FIND AN IMAGE OF THE HOME THAT PREDATES 1984.
UM, AND IN 1984, THIS WAS IN FACT THE DOOR ON THE HOME.
UM, AND SO BECAUSE I'VE HAD TWO FOLKS THAT HAVE THIS EXPERTISE, TELL ME THEY DON'T THINK THAT'S AN EXTERIOR DOOR.
UM, WE'VE RESORTED TO LOOKING AT A MILLIONAIRE'S CATALOG THAT WAS APPROPRIATE AND AROUND AT THE TIME THE HOME WAS CONSTRUCTED TO DRAW, UM, A PROPOSED DOOR DESIGN THAT'S THERE IN THAT IMAGE, UM, INSPIRED BY THAT MILNER'S BOOK.
THAT'S FROM LIKE 1890 SOMETHING, AND THE HOME WAS BUILT IN 1903.
[01:15:02]
I DO THINK ALSO THAT STYLE OF A WINDOW IN THE TOP PORTION OF THE DOOR, AND THEN WOOD ON THE BOTTOM IS PRETTY FREQUENT IN OUR, OUR NEIGHBORHOOD FOR OLDER HOMES.SO IT IT, FROM MY NOVICE, UH, ASSESSMENT, THIS DOES, IT'S INTENDED TO COMPORT WITH WHAT THE STANDARDS ARE, AND FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, APPEARS TO DO SO.
UM, I THINK THE MOST CONTROVERSIAL PART OF THE PROPOSAL IS THE ASPECT RELATED TO THE SIDELIGHTS, THE GOING FROM A SINGLE TO A DOUBLE FLANKING THE DOOR.
UM, AND THE, THE CARPENTER WHO ASSISTED WITH PREPARING THE PACKET BELIEVES THAT SIDE LIGHT IS NOT ORIGINAL BASED ON THE PROFILE OF THE WOOD TRIM AROUND THAT ASPECT OF THE WINDOW.
UM, BECAUSE IT DOESN'T MATCH THE PROFILE OF THE WOOD TRIM AROUND THE TRANSOM, AND NOR DOES IT MATCH THAT OF THE WINDOWS IN THE HOME, WHICH ARE ALSO ORIGINAL, THE OTHER WINDOWS, UM, BASED ON THE ASSERTION THAT IT'S NOT ORIGINAL, UM, I THINK THAT ALLOWS THE SAME DESIGN STANDARD 5.7 TO APPLY TO THE, UM, SIDELIGHTS SUCH THAT WE CAN REPLACE IT IN A MANNER THAT IS APPROPRIATE.
AND THEN THE, THE OTHER THING I WOULD WOULD POINT OUT IS, UH, BECAUSE I DO THINK THERE IF, IF YOU, IF YOU AGREE THAT THE SIDE LIGHT'S NOT ORIGINAL, UM, THE OTHER ISSUE TO ME IS STANDARD 5.5 THAT SAYS DON'T ENLARGE MOVE OR ENCLOSE HISTORIC WINDOW OR DOOR OPENINGS THAT ARE QUOTE UNQUOTE HIGHLY VISIBLE.
SO BASED ON THE PHYSICAL INSPECTION, I'M TOLD THAT'S NOT ORIGINAL.
SO IN THAT WAY, I WOULD SURMISE NOT HISTORIC, BUT I WOULD SAY, UM, IT ALSO REALLY ISN'T HIGHLY VISIBLE FROM THE STREET.
I DON'T KNOW IF YOU NOTICED ON THE IMAGE OF THE HOUSE FROM THE STREET, THE MOST PROMINENT FEATURE ARE THOSE ARCHES ALONG THE PORCH.
YOU DON'T REALLY SEE THE DOOR FROM THE STREET BECAUSE IT'S A VERY DEEP PORCH AND IT'S VERY SHADED.
IT'S NOT REALLY SOMETHING THAT I WOULD CALL HIGHLY VISIBLE.
IF THE LIGHT'S HITTING RIGHT, IT'S THE RIGHT TIME OF THE DAY, IT'S PROBABLY VISIBLE.
UM, BUT IT'S NOT VISIBLE ALL THE TIME.
AND I CERTAINLY DON'T THINK IT'S HIGHLY VISIBLE.
AND THAT THAT'S, THAT'S REALLY SORT OF THE, THE ESSENCE OF
UM, AND I DO HAVE A CONCERN ABOUT TIMING AS WELL.
THE, THE STATE OF THE DOOR IS NOT, I WOULD SAY, NOT SAFE RIGHT NOW.
UM, IN TERMS OF, I THINK ANYONE COULD PUSH IT OPEN.
AND ALSO IF MY DOGS JUMP ON IT TOMORROW I'M AT WORK, THERE'S PROBABLY A GOOD CHANCE I'M GONNA COME HOME AND THE GLASS IS GONNA BE BROKEN.
UM, THE, ALL OF THE TRIM AND WHATEVER HOLDS GLASS IN THAT DOOR HAS BEEN SCRATCHED AWAY.
DOES ANYONE HAVE QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? OKAY.
IS THERE ANYONE ELSE TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THE APPLICATION? ANYONE OPPOSED? DO I HEAR A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING? SO MOVED.
ALL IN FAVOR OF CLOSING THE PUBLIC HEARING.
DO I HEAR A MOTION ON THE CASE? MOVED TO GONNA, TO POSTPONE THE CASE TO OUR DECEMBER MEETING AND INVITE THE APPLICANT TO ATTEND THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING IN NOVEMBER 16TH.
FOR, I'LL SECOND FOR DISCUSSION.
I KNOW THIS PROPERTY, UM, VERY WELL.
IT WAS, IT WAS A, UM, IT'S A BUILDING IN THE TRAVIS HEIGHTS FAIRVIEW PARK DISTRICT THAT I, UM, NOMINATED TO THE NATIONAL REGISTER.
UM, BUT I, I DON'T, I DON'T RECALL SEEING THE DOOR IN CLOSEUP LIKE THAT AND SEEING THE DOOR IN CLOSEUP AND SEEING WHAT YOU PROPOSE.
WELL, MY FIRST, MY FIRST THOUGHT WHEN I HEARD THAT YOU WANTED TO TAKE OUT THE DOOR AND, AND RECONFIGURE IT WAS NO.
UM, BUT NOW THAT I SEE THE DOOR CLOSELY, I THINK YOU COULD BE RIGHT.
THAT, THAT THAT SIDE LIGHT IS AN ORIGINAL.
AND I DON'T KNOW ABOUT THE HISTORY OF THE DOOR, BUT, UM, BUT I HAVE A STRONG FEELING THAT THE, THAT THAT THE DOOR WOULD'VE BEEN CENTERED, UM, A DOOR OF THAT PERIOD, UH, IN THAT, IN THAT STYLE OF HOUSE WOULD'VE BEEN CENTERED AND WOULD'VE HAD, UM, IT WOULD'VE HAD A SYMMETRICAL SIDELIGHTS ON IT.
UM, THAT THEY'RE ARCHITECTURAL HISTORIANS ON THIS, UH, PANEL, I'D LIKE TO HEAR 'EM WEIGH IN.
[01:20:01]
LAROCHE, I'M NO ARCHITECTURAL HISTORIAN, BUT AS A FORMER CARPENTER OKAY, CRAFTSMAN, I TEND TO AGREE WITH YOU AND THE APPLICANT.I DON'T, I DON'T BELIEVE THEY WOULD'VE HUNG THE DOOR IN THAT, OR ORIGINALLY THEY WOULD NOT HAVE PLACED THE DOOR THERE, AND I DON'T BELIEVE THE SIDE LIGHT IS ORIGINAL.
NOW, THAT'S FROM A PHOTOGRAPH, AND I WANT TO QUALIFY THAT BY SAYING I HAVEN'T BEEN TO THE PROPERTY AND LOOK AT IT, BUT I, I TEND TO BELIEVE THE APPLICANT.
I THINK SHE MAKES A COMPELLING PACE.
I'M PLEASED THAT SHE, UH, HAS TAKEN SUCH GOOD CARE OF THE HOME, AND I'M ALSO IMPRESSED THAT SHE WANTS TO FULLY RESTORE THE TRANSOM.
SO, UH, I WOULD NOT BE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION AS PRESENTED.
I, I MEAN, I, I'D LIKE TO HEAR FROM, I, I'D LIKE TO HEAR FROM THE ARCHITECTS AND PRESERVATION ARCHITECTS AND OTHER ARCHITECTURAL HISTORIANS JUST WEIGH IN ON IT.
WHAT'S THE DATE OF THE HOUSE AGAIN? 1903.
YEAH, SO I, I THINK YES, YOU HAVE THE SIM SYMMETRY, UH, AS A VERY STRONG, UH, TRADITION, I SHOULD SAY, FROM THAT PERIOD.
HOWEVER, YOU ALREADY ARE WORKING WITH THE BUNGALOW AND YOU'RE FREEING UP SOME OF THE FORMS. AND SO THAT TYPE OF EXPERIMENTATION WITH A DIFFERENT ARRANGEMENT, THINGS THAT AREN'T QUITE ON CENTER, UH, THAT YOU, YOU SEE MORE OF THAT IN THE BUNGALOW STYLES.
AND IT, IT'S, IT'S IN THAT PLACE BETWEEN, YOU KNOW, THE, THE SORT OF CLASSICAL REVIVAL BUNGALOW.
AND THE CRAFTSMAN BUNGALOW IS NOT A CRAFTSMAN.
THEY WERE BREAKING THE RULES AT THAT TIME.
BUT I, UM, THAT HAVING BEEN SAID, I THINK THE REASON FOR MY SUPPORTING THE MOTION IS AS MUCH AS I APPRECIATE THE PROCESS AS IT'S BEEN DESCRIBED TO US, THE DIAGRAMS THAT WE SAW INDICATING WHAT WOULD BE THE CONFIGURATION OF THE DOOR, I'D LIKE TO SEE SOME MORE DETAIL.
UH, I THINK HOW THAT DOOR IS PUT TOGETHER, YOU COULD FOLLOW THAT DIAGRAM AND HAVE SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE COMPLETELY INAPPROPRIATE.
SO, UH, I THINK JUST GETTING MORE DETAIL ABOUT WHAT THAT DOOR WILL LOOK LIKE IS REALLY AS MUCH MY CONCERN IN, UH, HAVING THAT ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION WITH THE ARCHITECTURE REVIEW COMMITTEE.
I'M NOT, I'M NOT AGAINST A CENTER DOOR.
I WILL SAY I, UM, I LIVED IN A HOUSE ON AVENUE C OF WHEN I FIRST MOVED HERE, AND IT WAS VERY SIMILAR TO THIS.
THE DOOR WAS OFF CENTER, BUT NOT THE TRANSOM IN THE SIDELIGHTS.
AND I, I'VE LIVED IN A BUNGALOW FOR 21 YEARS, UH, THAT HAD A VERY CENTERED TRANSOM INTO SYMMETRICAL SIDE LIGHTS.
SO
IT IT VERY, IT, IT LOOKS VERY AWKWARD TO ME, UM, NOW, SO YES.
WERE YOU, WAS IT, GO AHEAD, KEVIN.
I AGREE WITH, WITH ALL THE COMMENTS BEING MADE ON BOTH SIDES, BUT I, I WOULD LIKE TO OFFER TO COME VISIT THE PROPERTY IF YOU WANT TO CONTACT STAFF AND GET MY INFORMATION.
I, I JUST NEED TO SEE IT AND TOUCH IT TO REALLY TELL, WHEN I LOOK AT THE DETAILS OF THE TRIM AND THE PHOTO, IT'S A FAIRLY DETAILED PHOTO.
THE TRIM LOOKS LIKE IT'S A GOOD MATCH.
IT ODDLY, IT LOOKS LIKE ALMOST LIKE IT'S A SIDE TRANSOM, LIKE IT'S AN ADDITIONAL PANEL THAT WAS INTENDED TO BE POSSIBLY OPERABLE.
BUT YOU SEE THE THRESHOLD AT THE BOTTOM MATCHES THE SLOPE OF THE THRESHOLD AT THE DOOR ALL THE WAY ACROSS.
YOU SEE THE STOPS THAT MATCH THE TRANSOM OR THE SAME KIND OF DETAIL.
THE STOPS APPARENTLY BY THE PHOTO AT THE SIDE, THE, THE GLAZING ON THE, THE WINDOW ITSELF, THE PANELING ON THE WINDOW ITSELF, ON THE, THE SIDE LIGHT LOOKS TO BE HISTORIC.
THE DOOR IS PROBABLY NOT ORIGINAL AND DIDN'T HAVE THAT OVAL LIGHT IN IT BECAUSE OF THE WAY THE PANELS ARE MADE UP.
NO ONE WOULD'VE BUILT THAT LITTLE REMAINING LITTLE BIT OF PANEL ON THE TOP.
SO I THINK IT WAS PROBABLY AN INTERIOR DOOR THAT MAY HAVE BEEN ALTERED, AND THAT MAY HAVE BEEN INSERTED, AND THAT'S WHY IT'S BEVELED BECAUSE IT IS TOO THIN TO REALLY BE, BE HELD IN.
BUT ON TERMS OF THE SIDE, I AGREE IT COULD HAVE BEEN CENTERED OR COULD HAVE BEEN ALL CENTERED.
BOTH OF THEM ARE JUSTIFIABLE FROM HISTORIC POINT OF VIEW.
IF SOMEONE INSERTED THAT SIDE LIGHT AS, AND, YOU KNOW, JUST KIND OF MAKING UP SPACE, THEY DID AN EXTREMELY GOOD JOB OF MATCHING THE DETAIL TO THE TRANSOM.
AND I'VE NEVER SEEN SUCH A THING AS A SMALL SIDE LIGHT FOR VENTILATION TO GET MORE OPENING, BUT JUST ON THE INSIDE AND THE OUTSIDE, YOUR THRESHOLD SLOPE MATCHES THE THRESHOLD SLOPE OF THE DOOR.
POSSIBLY IT WAS CONTINUOUS AND HAD A DOUBLE DOOR IN IT.
BUT IT'S ONE OF THOSE THINGS THAT I WOULD REALLY LIKE TO SEE AND TOUCH.
[01:25:04]
SURE.IT, IT, AND SEE, THERE'S NO HINGES ON IT AND IT'S NOT DONE THAT WAY, BUT IT, YOU KNOW, IT COULD HAVE BEEN FIXED OR MAYBE IT WAS DESIGNED TO LOOK LIKE THE TRANS, TO ME, IT LOOKS LIKE THEY WERE BUILT BY THE SAME PERSON WITH THE SAME DETAILS AS THE TRANSOM, BUT THAT'S JUST FROM A PHOTO AND A PDF.
AND SO, UH, I'M LIKELY TO HAVE A DIFFERENT OPINION.
I, I JUST COULDN'T SAY ONE WAY OR ANOTHER FROM A PERSONAL POINT OF VIEW WITHOUT GETTING MORE DETAIL.
ANY FURTHER? COMMISSIONER LAROCHE? WELL, I'M, I, I'M CURIOUS AS TO WHAT LEVEL OF DETAIL THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD WOULD BE EXPECTING FROM THE APPLICANT.
SO THAT WE WOULD NEED, THIS ISN'T, THIS IS A DESIGNATED LANDMARK AND INDIVIDUAL LANDMARK.
I, I UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT WHEN WE, WHEN SHE PRESENTS A, A DOORFRAME AND, WELL, IT SORT OF A, A CARTOON OF A DOORFRAME, NOT SURE, NOT A HAHA CARTOON, BUT A CARTOON, SURE.
BUT IN FAIRNESS TO THE APPLICANT, IF I WERE TO WANT TO COME BEFORE THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD, I WOULD WANT TO UNDERSTAND THE LEVEL OF DETAIL THAT WOULD BE REQUESTED OF ME.
I WOULD SAY DETAILED PHOTOS OF THE TRIM THAT LED THE CARPENTERS TO MAKE THEIR ASSUMPTION OF THAT.
IT DOESN'T, IT WAS NOT BUILT AT THE SAME TIME, YOU KNOW, IF, IF THEY SAW SOMETHING THAT LED THEM TO MAKE THAT DECISION, THEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO SHOW A DETAILED PHOTO, CLOSEUP PHOTO OF THAT TRIM AND HOW IT DOESN'T MATCH THAT.
THAT'S NOT MY, MY QUESTION IS DIRECTED TO BEN BECAUSE HE'S THE ONE SUGGESTING HE DOESN'T HAVE ENOUGH DETAIL IN THE, IN THE RECONSTRUCT OF THE OPENING.
SO I'M CURIOUS AS TO WHAT LEVEL OF DETAIL, LITTLE BLOGS AROUND, ARE THEY GONNA BE STAIN GLASS, THEY GONNA BE LEADED GLASS, OR THEY, OR, YOU KNOW, WHAT'S, WHAT'S THE WOOD, WHAT'S THE FINISH? AND THEN IDEALLY, SINCE YOU HAVE DONE SOME RESEARCH, IF THERE ARE SPECIFIC DOORS THAT ARE EITHER THE INSPIRATION OR ARE VERY SIMILAR, UH, EITHER IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR FROM, UH, HISTORIC BUILDINGS OF THE TIME, THOSE REFERENCES BECOME VERY VALUABLE.
DO WE HAVE THAT? YEAH, I SEE THAT.
I SEE THE PHOTOGRAPH, UH, BUT I'M NOT CLEAR OF SOURCE AND IT'S A, UH, WHAT WE CAN SEE IS THE BLACK AND WHITE AND NOT PARTICULARLY WELL GOOD RESOLUTION.
AND THERE'S ADD AND THERE'S ADDITIONAL ORNAMENTATION ON IT, WHICH I DON'T NECESSARILY THINK WOULD BE APPROPRIATE.
WELL, AGAIN, THIS IS, THIS IS WHAT THE COMMITTEE IS GOOD AT.
WELL, THE, UM, THE MOTION ON THE TABLE IS TO REFER IT TO THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE.
UM, IF THERE ARE NO FURTHER QUESTIONS, UH, SHALL WE TAKE A VOTE? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF RECOMMENDING IT TO THE, UH, UH, REFERRING IT TO THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE, PLEASE SAY, AYE.
I JUST WANNA CONFIRM THIS INCLUDES POSTPONEMENT TO THE NEXT MEETING AS WELL.
UH, WELL, UNLESS, LET ME JUST SAY, UH, BASED ON WHAT THE CONVERSATION IS, I'LL PROPOSE, UH, A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT, UH, THAT WE, UH, ALSO ALLOW A STAFF RELEASE, UH, UPON AN, UH, APPROVAL FROM THE COMMITTEE.
SO THAT'S THE, THAT'S THE MOTION, UM, THAT IF IT MEETS WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE, THAT STAFF CAN, UH, APPROVE IT.
OTHERWISE, IT WOULD BE RE REFERRED TO OUR DECEMBER MEETING.
AND I'LL, I'LL KNOW IT, I'M ON THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE, SO IF, IF YOU COULD, IF YOU WANTED TO, UH, I'M MORE THAN HAPPY TO VISIT AND TAKE A LOOK AND POKE AND TAKE MY OWN PICTURES TO BRING TO THE COMMITTEE AS WELL.
SO, TO UNDERSTAND THAT IF YOU MAKE A DETERMINATION THAT YOU THINK THE SKYLIGHT WAS IN FACT, ORIGINAL THEN THAT THE SKYLIGHT NO, THE, I'M SORRY.
THE SIDELIGHT SIDE SIDE IS WHAT I MEANT.
SHE NEEDS TO BE PREPARED FOR THAT CONVERSATION AS WELL.
AND SO JUST A HEADS UP FOR YOU THAT, BUT YOU'LL KNOW THAT AT THE TIME OF HIS VISIT, SO, YEAH, AND I MEAN, AND I'LL JUST SAY GOING INTO IT FROM THE INFORMATION I HAVE, I'M INCLINED TO THINK IT, IT IS ORIGINAL.
SO, UH, WITHOUT MORE INFORMATION TO THE CONTRARY, THAT WOULD BE MY INCLINATION, JUST LOOKING AT THE DETAIL, THE B OKAY.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF REFERRING IT TO ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND.
[Items 13, 26, & 27]
OUR AGENDA,[01:30:01]
ITEM 13 IS THREE 16 CONGRESS AVENUE.AND WE'RE ALSO TAKING UP ITEMS 26 AND 27, 3 0 8, AND THREE 14 CONGRESS AVENUE.
I BELIEVE WE NEED A MOTION TO TAKE ALL THREE ITEMS TOGETHER.
UM, THESE ITEMS ARE ALL RELATED TO ONE ANOTHER TO THE SAME, UH, REDEVELOPMENT, UM, THAT'S PROPOSED.
DO I HEAR A MOTION TO TAKE THEM ALL TOGETHER? A QUICK QUESTION.
UM, I DO SEE THAT STAFF CAME AT LEAST ON ITEM 13 WITH A RECOMMENDATION FOR A POSTPONEMENT, UH, BASED ON REFERRAL TO THE ARCHITECTURE REVIEW COMMITTEE.
IS THAT SOMETHING THAT YOU ALREADY CONSIDERED IN YOUR, UH, CUZ I CAME A LITTLE BIT LATE, UH, IN, IN NOT HAVING THIS POSTPONE NO, WE, WE, IT'S ON THE AGENDA AS A DISCUSSION ITEM, BUT YEAH, YOU'RE RIGHT.
THEY, THE, THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND OUR, UM, ON THE AGENDA SAYS POSTPONE TO DECEMBER 14TH.
SO MAYBE THAT'S THEIR RECOMMENDATION IS THAT WE POSTPONE IT.
STAFF WILL EXPLAIN IN THEIR OKAY.
SO WE WILL HAVE A FULL PRESENTATION AWAY.
DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO TAKE THE THREE ITEMS TOGETHER? SO MOVE ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND.
OH, COMMISSIONER LAROCHE, I'M SORRY, I HAVE TO ABSTAIN ON THIS ITEM.
OUR FIRM'S WORKING ON THIS PROJECT, SO I'M JUST GONNA KIND OF RECUSE MYSELF ALL TOGETHER, SO, SO, OKAY.
UM, COMMISSIONER LAROCHE IS RECUSED HIMSELF.
WELL, WE NEED TO KNOW THAT, I KNOW IT'S NOW SORT OF THE COMING OUT OF COVID PROTOCOLS, BUT COMMISSIONER ROO, RO ROCHE IN PAST COMMISSIONS, THERE WAS A TRADITION OF LEAVING THE DAAS IF YOU HAD AN ACTIVE INTEREST IN THE PROJECT.
NOT THAT WE WANNA GET RID OF YOU, BUT JUST TO KIND OF CONTINUE THE PROTOCOL.
AND I, I HAD ASKED THAT PRIOR TO THE MEETING, I WOULD'VE IMMEDIATELY DONE THAT.
WE, WE JUST, UH, I THINK IT'S PROBABLY GONNA BE SLOW FOR US TO GET BACK TO THESE, BUT I THINK THERE IS A GOOD REASON TO NOT HAVE THE APPEARANCE EVEN AS WE'RE DISCUSSING A PROJECT, UH, CUZ ALL OF US POTENTIALLY HAVE SOME OF THOSE, UH, CONFLICTS AT TIMES.
UH, THIS IS FOR ITEM 13 IN APPLICATION FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS AT THE WB SMITH BUILDING AT THREE 16 CONGRESS AVENUE.
UM, THE CON THE PROPOSAL IS TO CONSTRUCT A NEW TOWER ADDITION TO THE WB SMITH BUILDING IN ADJACENT HISTORIC AGE BUILDINGS.
PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS INCLUDE, STABILIZE AND PRESERVE THE NORTH AND EAST, OR A STREET FACING WALL TO DECONSTRUCT AND RECONSTRUCT PORTIONS OF THE SOUTH WALL TO DEMOLISH THE WEST OR ALLEY WALL, AND TO BUILD A NEW TOWER CONSTRUCTION SET 20 FEET FROM THE HISTORIC FACADE, THE WB SMITH BUILDING, WHICH IS LOCATED BETWEEN THREE 16 AND THREE 18.
CONGRESS AVENUE WAS ZONED A LOCAL HISTORIC LANDMARK IN 1982.
JOSEPH HUME MAY HAVE BUILT THE BUILDING, MAY HAVE BUILT IT IN 1883.
WB SMITH, A DRY GOODS MERCHANT BOUGHT THE PROPERTY IN 1884, AND THE FAMILY RETAINED OWNERSHIP UNTIL 1917 IN AUSTIN.
ARTICLE DESCRIBES WB SMITH DRY GOODS AS A WELL KNOWN, OLD AND IMPORTANT ESTABLISHED BUSINESS HOUSE OF THE CITY DESIGN STANDARDS.
THE CITY OF AUSTIN'S HISTORIC DESIGN STANDARDS ARE BASED ON THE SECRETARY OF INTERIOR STANDARDS FOR REHABILITATION, AND ARE USED TO EVALUATE PROJECTS AT HISTORIC LANDMARKS.
THE FOLLOWING STANDARDS APPLY TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT.
IN ADDITION, SHOULD PRESERVE THE CHARACTER OF THE HISTORIC BUILDING IN SITE VISUAL SUBORDINATES TO, IN COMPATIBILITY WITH THE HISTORIC BUILDING, CAN BE ACHIEVED THROUGH LOCATION, SCALE, MASSING DESIGN AND MATERIALS LOCATE ADDITIONS AT THE RARE REAR INSIDES OF HISTORIC BUILDINGS TO MINIMIZE VISUAL IMPACT SETBACK ADDITIONS FROM THE FRONT WALL AT A DISTANCE THAT PRESERVES THE PERCEIVED MASSING OF THE HISTORIC BUILDING.
CONSIDERING THE PEDESTRIAN VIEW FROM THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE PRIMARY STREET.
ADDITIONS MUST BE SIT BACK AT LEAST 20 FEET FROM THE FRONT WALL OF THE HISTORIC BUILDING TO MINIMIZE THE LOSS OF HISTORIC FABRIC BY CONNECTING ADDITIONS TO THE EXISTING BUILDING THROUGH THE MOST NON-INVASIVE LOCATION IN METHODS AND ADDITIONS ARE NOT APPROPRIATE FOR ALL HISTORICALLY MARS AND WILL BE EVALUATED ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS.
THE ADDITION IS LOCATED AT THE PROPER'S REAR AND INITIALLY SET BACK 20 FEET FROM THE HISTORIC FACADE.
HOWEVER, THERE IS A SIGNIFICANT OR TOTAL LOSS OF FABRIC IN ALL OTHER LOCATIONS, INCLUDING THE REAR AND SIDE WALLS FOR SCALE AND MASSING.
THE ADDITION IS NOT SUBORDINATE AND DOESN'T COMPLEMENT THE HISTORIC BUILDING.
THE ADDITION ALTERS THE SHAPE OF THE ENTIRE BLOCK AND CONGRESS AVENUE COMBINING DISTRICT PROHIBITS BUILDINGS OVER 90 FEET WITHIN 60 FEET OF THE WEST SIDE OF CONGRESS AVENUE.
THE HEIGHT IS FURTHER SUBJECT TO OTHER CODE PROVISIONS, INCLUDING A CAPITAL VIEW CORRIDOR ANALYSIS FOR DESIGN STYLE ROOFS AND MATERIALS.
THE ELEVATIONS AND MATERIALS HAVE NOT BEEN PROVIDED ON THIS PROJECT.
[01:35:01]
RENDERINGS INDICATE AN INITIAL SETBACK FROM THE HISTORIC FACADE OF 20 FEET.THE PROJECT CALLS FOR SUBTERRANEAN PARKING BENEATH THE WB SMITH BUILDING AND THE PROPOSED PARKING PLAN MAY ADVERSELY AFFECT THE HISTORIC LANDMARK.
IN SUMMARY, THE PROJECT DOES NOT MEET THE APPLICABLE STANDARDS COMMITTEE.
FEEDBACK INCLUDED IMPLEMENTING A DEEPER SETBACK TO NOT DEMOLISH THE REAR OR SIDE PORTIONS OF LANDMARK STRUCTURES TO RESTORE OR INCORPORATE ADJACENT BUILDINGS.
AND NEW CONSTRUCTION MUST BE SUBORDINATE TO THE LANDMARK BUILDINGS ON THE BLOCK, INCLUDING THE ADJACENT CAPEL BUILDING TO RETAIN STREETS, SCAPE, SETBACK, AND HEIGHT AND MASSING AND RATION PATTERNS.
THE ORIGINAL STAFF RECOMMENDATION INCLUDED POSTPONING TO THE DECEMBER 14TH, 2022 HLC MEETING, BUT STAFF HAS HAD SUBSEQUENT DISCUSSIONS WITH THE AGENT'S APPLICANT AND THE AGENT IS REQUESTING A PHASED APPROVAL OF WHAT HAS BEEN PRESENTED THUS FAR.
THE OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION DOES NOT CURRENTLY OFFER A MECHANISM FOR PARTIAL APPROVALS.
THE COMMISSION MAY CHOOSE TO PROVIDE GUIDANCE TO ENABLE THE AGENT'S APPLICANT TO PROCEED WITH FURTHER DESIGN.
HOWEVER, STAFF RECOMMENDS AN INDEFINITE POST POSTPONEMENT UNTIL ALL APPLICATION MATERIALS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED, INCLUDING THE RECEIPT OF A COMPLETE APPLICATION.
AND ARE YOU GONNA GO ON TO THE PRESENTATION, UH, FOR THE OTHER TWO BUILDINGS? SURE.
I'LL GO AHEAD AND START WITH ITEM 26, WHICH IS 3 0 8 CONGRESS AVENUE.
UH, THE PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS INCLUDE RECONSTRUCT THE STREET FACING EAST FACADE AND DEMOLISH THE REMAINDER OF THE BUILDING TO ACCOMMODATE THE NEW TOWER CONSTRUCT.
A NEW MIXED USE TOWER SET 15 FEET.
THE ARCHITECTURE'S A TWO PART COMMERCIAL BLOCK WITH DENTAL ORNAMENTATION, CORED ACCENTS, AND DECORATIVE PISTERS ON THE FIRST FLOOR.
IT HAS A BALANCED STOREFRONT WITH CENTRAL DOOR FLANKED BY TRANSOM WINDOWS ON THE FIRST FLOOR WITH TWO OVER TWO ARCHED HOODED WINDOWS ABOVE A SMALL GROUND FLOOR ENTRANCE DOOR PROVIDES ACCESS TO THE, TO THE UPPER FLOORS LOCATED ON THE FAR, FAR RIGHT AS VIEWED FROM THE STREET OF THE COMPOSITION OF THE STREET FACING FACADE.
THE ADDITION IS LOCATED AGAIN AT THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY AND IS SET BACK INITIALLY 15 FEET FROM THE HISTORIC FACADE, WHICH THE PROPOSED PROJECT DECONSTRUCTS AND RECONSTRUCTS.
HOWEVER, THERE IS A TOTAL LOSS OF FABRIC IN ALL OTHER LOCATIONS, INCLUDING THE REAR AND SIDE WALLS.
AGAIN, THE ADDITION IS NOT SUBORDINATE AND DOESN'T COMPLIMENT THE HISTORIC BUILDING.
IT IS NOT SET BACK 20 FEET BEYOND THE FRONT WALL OF THE BUILDING.
THE ADDITION ALTERS THE SHAPE OF THE ENTIRE BLOCK AND CONGRESS AVENUE COMBINING DISTRICT PROHIBITS BUILDINGS OVER 90 FEET IN HEIGHT WITHIN 60 FEET OF THE WEST SIDE OF CONGRESS AVENUE.
THE HEIGHT IS FURTHER SUBJECT TO OTHER CODE PROVISIONS, INCLUDING A CAPITAL VIEW CORRIDOR ANALYSIS.
ELEVATIONS AND MATERIALS HAVE NOT BEEN PROVIDED, HOWEVER, PRELIMINARY RENDERINGS INDICATE A METHOD OF SETBACKS FROM THE HISTORIC FACADE STARTING AT 15 FEET.
REGARDING THE ROOFTOP PATIO PROVIDED MATERIALS DO NOT INDICATE THE EXTENT OF VISIBILITY FROM THE PEDESTRIAN VIEW.
AND IN SUMMARY, THE PROJECT DOES NOT MEET THE APPLICABLE STANDARDS.
THE PROPERTY CONTRIBUTES TO THE CONGRESS AVENUE NATIONAL REGISTER DISTRICT.
DISTRICT COMMITTEE FEEDBACK WAS THE SAME AS THE PRIOR PROPERTY, WHICH WAS TO IMPLEMENT A DEEPER SETBACK, RESTORE OR INCORPORATE ADJACENT BUILDINGS DO NOT DECONSTRUCT OR DEMOLISH NEW CONSTRUCTIONS TO BE SUBORDINATE TO THE HISTORIC BUILDINGS IN THE BLOCK, INCLUDING THE ADJACENT CAPEL BUILDING TO RETAIN STREET SCAPE SETBACK AND HEIGHT MASSING AND ADMINISTRATION PATTERNS.
AGAIN, IT WOULD BE THE SAME STAFF RECOMMENDATION, WHICH IS TO POSTPONE INDEFINITELY UNTIL RECEIPT OF A FULL APPLICATION IS RECEIVED.
AND THEN FOR THREE 10 THROUGH THREE 14 CONGRESS AVENUE, WHICH IS ITEM NUMBER 27, IT'S GOING TO BE VERY SIMILAR TO THE, UH, TO 3 0 8 CONGRESS AVENUE.
AND THAT'S RECONSTRUCT THE STREET FACING EAST FACADE AND DEMOLISH THE REMAINDER OF THE BUILDING TO ACCOMMODATE THE NEW TOWER AND CONSTRUCT A NEW MIXED USED TOWER SET BACK AT 15 FEET.
THE ARCHITECTURE IS A TWO PART COMMERCIAL BLOCK WITH THREE SEPARATE STOREFRONTS.
DETAILS INCLUDE DENTAL ORNAMENTATION AT THE CORNS, RECESSED ENTRYWAYS AND ARCHED.
FOUR OVER FOUR WINDOWS ON THE UPPER FLOOR OF THREE 10 THROUGH THREE 12 HISTORIC AWNINGS APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN REMOVED, AND A NEW AWNING WAS INSTALLED AT THREE 10.
THE CITY OF AUSTIN'S HISTORIC DESIGN STANDARDS ARE BASED ON SECONDARY INTERIOR STANDARDS FOR REHABILITATION AND ARE USED TO EVALUATE PROJECTS IN NATIONAL REGISTER DISTRICTS.
THE FOLLOWING STANDARDS APPLIED TO PROPOSED, UH, PROJECT.
THE ADDITION IS LOCATED AT THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY AND IS SET INITIALLY 15 FEET FROM THE HISTORIC FACADE, WHICH THE PROPOSED PROJECT DECONSTRUCTS AND RECONSTRUCTS.
THERE IS TOTAL FABRIC LOSS IN ALL THE OTHER LOCATIONS, INCLUDING THE REAR INSIDE WALLS.
THE SETBACK DOES NOT MEET THE MINIMUM STANDARD OF 20 FEET FROM THE FRONT WALL OF THE HISTORIC BUILDING BUILDINGS IN THE CONGRESS AVENUE.
COMBINING DISTRICT MUST BE AT LEAST 30 FOOT HIGH AND NO TALLER THAN 90 FOOT HIGH THAT SUPPLIES TO NEW BUILDINGS WITHIN 60 FEET OF THE WEST SIDE OF CONGRESS AVENUE AND WITHIN, WITHIN 40 FEET OF THE EAST SIDE OF CONGRESS AVENUE.
THE ADDITION IS NOT SUBORDINATE AND DOESN'T COMPLIMENT THE HISTORIC BUILDINGS.
IT IS NOT SET BACK 20 FEET BEYOND THE FRONT WALL OF THE BUILDINGS, AND THE ADDITION ALTERS THE SHAPE OF THE ENTIRE BLOCK.
CONGRESS AVENUE COMBINING DISTRICT PROHIBITS BUILDINGS OVER 90 FEET AND HEIGHT WITHIN 60 FEET OF THE WEST SIDE OF CONGRESS AVENUE.
THE HEIGHT IS FURTHER SUBJECT TO OTHER CODE PROVISIONS
[01:40:01]
INCLUDING A CAPITAL VIEW CORRIDOR ANALYSIS.ELEVATIONS AND MATERIALS HAVE NOT BEEN PROVIDED.
PRELIMINARY RENDERINGS INDICATE A METHOD OF SETBACKS FROM THE HISTORIC FACADE STARTING AT 15 FEET, PROVIDED MATERIALS DO NOT INDICATE THE EXTENT OF VISIBILITY FROM A PEDESTRIAN VIEW OF THE ROOFTOP PATIO.
AND IN SUMMARY, THE PROJECT DOES NOT MEET THE APPLICABLE STANDARDS COMMITTEE.
FEEDBACK AGAIN, WAS TO IMPLEMENT A DE IMPLEMENT A DEEPER SETBACK, RESTORE OR INCORPORATE ADJACENT BUILDINGS DO NOT DECONSTRUCT OR DEMOLISH NEW CONSTRUCTION SHOULD BE SUBORDINATE TO THE HISTORIC BUILDINGS ON THE BLOCK, INCLUDING THE ADJACENT CAPEL BUILDING, RETAIN, STREET SCAPE SETBACK AND HEIGHT MASSING AND ADMINISTRATION PATTERNS.
STAFF, UH, HAS HAD SUBSEQUENT DISCUSSIONS WITH THE AGENT'S APPLICANT.
THE AGENT IS REQUESTING A PHASED APPROVAL OF WHAT HAS BEEN PRESENTED.
AT THIS TIME, THE OFFICE OF HIS SORT PRESERVATION DOES NOT CURRENTLY OFFER A MECHANISM FOR PARTIAL APPROVAL.
THE COMMISSION MAY CHOOSE TO PROVIDE GUIDANCE TO ENABLE THE APPLICANT'S AGENT TO PROCEED WITH FURTHER FURTHER DESIGN, BUT STAFF RECOMMENDS INDEFINITE POSTPONEMENT, SO RECEIPT OF A COMPLETE APPLICATION.
ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS OF STAFF? SO THE GO, GO AHEAD, GET YOUR MICROPHONE.
I THINK IT'S ON, IS IT IT'S NOT ON, UH, YEAH, NO.
YOU SAY THAT THESE PROJECTS ARE, ARE, ARE SUBJECT TO THE CAPITAL VIEW CORRIDOR OR YOU DON'T KNOW IF THEY'RE SUBJECT TO IT.
THEY ARE SUBJECT TO THE CAPITAL VIEW CORRIDOR ANALYSIS.
I'M NOT SURE WHY WE'RE EVEN TALKING ABOUT THIS, BUT I GUESS IT WILL COME CLEAR.
I MEAN, I THOUGHT THE CAP VIEW CORRIDOR NO, THEY, THEY IN, IN THEIR BACKUP AND I THINK THEY'LL BE SHOWING IT IN IN THEIR BACKUP AND I THINK THEY'LL BE SHOWING IT.
THEY DO HAVE AN INDICATION OF THE LIMITS OF THE CAPITAL VIEW CORRIDOR, AND SO I THINK THEY'RE SUBJECT TO IT, BUT FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND, THEY, THEY UNDERSTAND WHERE THOSE LO I SAW IT IN THEIR SECTION.
I DIDN'T SEE IT IN THE PLAN, BUT WE CAN ASSUME THAT THEY HAVE DONE THEIR WORK ON THAT.
BUT WE, WE SHOULD ASK THE APPLICANT FOR INTENT.
AND, AND WE'RE OKAY WITH, AGAIN, FOR STAFF BECAUSE THERE'S NOT A COMPLETE APPLICATION, JUST APPLICATION IS NOT COMPLETE, IS THAT WHAT THEY'RE SAYING? WELL, THE APPLICATION IS NOT COMPLETE.
THIS IS ONE THAT WE HAD PRESENTED TO US JUST AS AN IDEA OR CONCEPT.
OBVIOUSLY THEY'RE FURTHER ALONG, BUT IT'S NOT A COMPLETE APPLICATION.
IF I UNDERSTAND AND COMMISSIONERS, IF I MAY, UM, I BELIEVE THE APPLICANT IS, APPLICANT'S AGENT IS AWARE THAT THE PROJECT IS SUBJECT TO THE CAPITAL VIEW CORD ANALYSIS, BUT THAT HAS NOT BEEN, UH, COMPLETED.
SO WE DON'T HAVE THAT INFORMATION.
I ALSO WANNA CLARIFY THE, UH, THE INCOMPLETE APPLICATIONS THAT WE DO HAVE.
UH, USUALLY OUR APPLICATIONS, UH, REQUIRE, UH, NEW CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS, WHICH WE DO NOT HAVE FOR, UM, EITHER LIKE ANY OF THE THREE APPLICATIONS.
THE APPLICANTS AGENT IS HERE TO REQUEST, UM, PHASED APPROVAL OR APPROVAL AND CONCEPT, UH, TO MY KNOWLEDGE.
UH, BUT THEY ARE AWARE THAT, YOU KNOW, WE, IT IS AN INCOMPLETE APPLICATION, SO WE CANNOT, THE WAY WE HAVE NOTHING TO STAMP ESSENTIALLY.
I WOULD LIKE, I WOULD LIKE TO ADD SOMETHING I GUESS TO THE PRESENTATION AND I CAN PASS THIS DOWN.
UM, COMMISSIONER WRIGHT AT THE LAST, AT THE LAST MEETING SAID THAT THESE PROPERTIES, UM, ARE CONTRIBUTING, NOT NON-CONTRIBUTING AS THE APPLICANT'S AGENT HAD PRESENTED TO US.
I, UH, I DID LOOK AT THE ORIGINAL NATIONAL REGISTER NOMINATION AND, UH, PULLED THE MAP.
THEY ARE CLEARLY CONTRIBUTING.
ALL OF THEM ARE CONTRIBUTING TO THE, UM, TO THE DISTRICT.
AND I'LL PASS THIS DOWN IF YOU, YOU WANNA LOOK.
SO THEY, THEY ARE CONTRIBUTING THIS WOULD, IF WE LOST THESE BUILDINGS, IT WOULD BE LOSS OF CONTRIBUTING BUILDINGS IN THE NATIONAL REGISTER DISTRICT.
UM, IF THERE ARE NO, UH, I BELIEVE THE APPLICANT IS HERE TO DO A PRESENTATION.
MR. WHELAN, THANK YOU, UH, CHAIR, VICE CHAIR COMMISSIONERS MICHAEL WHELAN ON BEHALF OF THE FOLKS THAT ARE DEVELOPING THIS PROJECT.
I'M HERE TODAY TO REQUEST YOUR APPROVAL FOR BUILDING DESIGN ELEMENTS FOR AN ASSEMBLAGE OF PROPERTIES AT THIRD IN CONGRESS CONSISTING OF ONE HISTORIC STRUCTURE, THE WB SMITH BUILDING AND ADJACENT STRUCTURES TO THE SOUTH.
GIVEN THE SOPHISTICATION AND POSSIBILITIES REGARDING A REDEVELOPMENT, WE HAVE BEEN ACTIVELY ENGAGING WITH THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE AND THE COMMISSION PREVIOUSLY SPECIFICALLY TO SEEK APPROVAL ON SETBACKS, REMOVAL, AND RECONSTRUCTION.
GIVEN HOW THESE WILL IMPACT THE OVERALL DESIGN, ONCE WE HAVE CLARITY ON THESE CORE FACETS, WE CAN THEN PROCEED ON REFINING DETAILS SUCH AS BUILDING MATERIALS
[01:45:01]
AND OTHER ELEMENTS, AND WE'LL COME BACK FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION.WE'RE TRYING TO NOT DO THIS THROUGH A DEMOLITION PERMIT.
WE THINK IT'S BETTER TO GO THROUGH THIS PROCESS AND TRY AND REACH SOME CONSENSUS BEFORE WE KICK OFF A MAJOR, MAJOR, UH, DE DESIGN THAT WOULD INCLUDE, UH, PERMITS AS HAVE BEEN DESCRIBED.
THE HISTORIC REVIEW APPLICATION IS WHAT WE APPLIED.
IT IS THE APPROPRIATE MECHANISM TO GET BEFORE YOU WITH REGARD TO AT LEAST 3 0 8, UH, THROUGH THREE 14, UH, CONGRESS.
AS A RESULT OF PRIOR FEEDBACK FROM BOTH THE ARC AND THE FULL COMMISSION, WE HAVE ENGAGED TOP PRESERVATION, STRUCTURAL, ENSURING EXPERTS TO EVALUATE AND CONFIRM THE FEASIBILITY OF THE TREATMENTS WE ARE PROPOSING.
THESE EXPERTS, PHOENIX ONE, W J E, AND KELLER, HAVE VISITED THE SITE AND PROVIDED US WITH REPORTS THAT DOCUMENT THE TECHNICAL WAYS IN WHICH THE PROPOSAL CAN ACTUALLY BE ACHIEVED.
IF WE CAN GO TO THE, UH, NEXT SLIDE PLEASE.
IN ADDITION TO INCORPORATING FEEDBACK CONCERNING THE NEW CONSTRUCTION STEP BACK FROM THE FACADES, WE ALSO INCORPORATED DISCUSSION REGARDING THE POSSIBILITY OF RECONSTRUCTING THE FACADES AT 3 0 8 TO THREE 14.
CONGRESS TO BOTH, ONE, ALLOW FOR THE NEW CONSTRUCTION TO OCCUR AND MAINTAIN THE CHARACTER OF THE STREET WALL ADJACENT TO THE HISTORIC PROPERTIES, WB SMITH BUILDING AND THE CAPEL BUILDING, WHICH YOU CAN SEE THERE ON THE RIGHT.
WE ARE SEEKING TO MEET THESE OBJECTIVES.
WE ARE SEEKING TO MEET THE OBJECTIVES OF CITY COUNCIL FOR DENSITY, AFFORDABILITY, AND WALKABILITY ALONGSIDE THE GOALS OF THE HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION, AGAIN, WITHOUT A ZERO SUM GAME.
SO, ALTHOUGH WE UNDERSTAND WE CANNOT BE ALL THINGS TO ALL PEOPLE, WE DO BELIEVE OUR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT BEST ALIGNS WITH THE INTERESTS OF ALL STAKEHOLDERS INVOLVED AS OUR CITY CONTINUES TO GROW.
OUR SITE CONSISTS OF THESE THREE PROPERTIES IN THE MIDDLE OF THE BLOCK, WHICH YOU CAN SEE LABELED HERE AS THE COMBINED SITE.
YOU CAN SEE THE COLORADO, YOU CAN SEE THE COLORADO TOWER BEHIND THEM IN THE BACKGROUND OF THIS PICTURE.
AND THE ONE SITE WITH THE HISTORIC STATUS, THE WV SMITH BUILDING, THE SITE IS FLANK ON EITHER SIDE BY A SURFACE PARKING LOT ON THE LEFT HAND SIDE THERE.
THAT'S WHERE THE PSEUDO HOTEL EXISTED AND EXTENDED FROM CONGRESS BACK BEYOND TO WHAT IS NOW AN EXTERIOR WALL OF 3 0 8 CONGRESS AND BY THE CAPEL BUILDING ON THE RIGHT.
THIS IMAGE IS AT THE EYE LEVEL FROM THE STREET CROSSING AND SHOWS HOW THE SITE EXISTS IN RELATION TO SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT.
THE TOWERS THAT YOU SEE IN THIS PICTURE ARE THE COLORADO TOWER WITHIN OUR DEVELOPMENT BLOCK AND THE HOUSTONIAN ON THE CONGRESS BLOCK TO THE SOUTH, UH, AND THEN 4 0 5 COLORADO ON THE BLOCK TO THE NORTH.
THIS SLIDE SUMMARIZES THE EXISTING CONDITIONS AND ENTITLEMENTS FOR THE THREE PROPERTIES ON OUR SITE, WHICH IS, AND OUR SITE IS THE ONE THAT IS SHADED IN GRAY, UH, IN THE GRAY DIAGONAL LINES, THE DOTTED RED LINE ILLUSTRATES THE CAPITAL VIEW, CORRIDOR LIMITS, AND THE BLACK LINE SHOWS THE SETBACK LINE FOR THE CONGRESS AVENUE COMBINING DISTRICT.
OBVIOUSLY, WE HAVE TO COMPLY WITH BOTH THE CONGRESS AVENUE COMBINING DISTRICT, AS HAS BEEN MENTIONED, LIMITS HEIGHT TO 90 FEET BETWEEN THE TWO LINES, AND WE ARE SPECIFICALLY ADHERING TO THAT AS PART OF THE DESIGN.
IN ORDER TO CONSTRUCT THIS BUILDING, WE NEED TO DECONSTRUCT AND RECONSTRUCT THE FACADES BETWEEN 3 0 8 AND THREE 14 CONGRESS AVENUE, WHICH IS SHOWN IN BLUE ON THIS SLIDE.
PREVIOUSLY, WE HAD PROPOSED TO REPLACE THOSE FACADES WITH A NEW STRUCTURE, SO WE WOULD HIGHLIGHT THE WB SMITH AND, UH, CAPELLA BUILDING FACADES.
THIS PROPOSAL IS AN ALTERNATIVE FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION.
ALTHOUGH OUR READING OF THE DRAFT HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES INDICATED THAT COMPLIMENTARY DESIGN SHOULD AVOID REPLICAS OR RECREATIONS THAT WOULD RE THAT WOULD CREATE A FALSE SENSE OF HISTORY.
WE BELIEVE THAT TORONTO AND OTHERS HAVE FOUND THAT THIS IS AN ALTERNATIVE THAT COULD BE UTILIZED.
AND AS NOTED PREVIOUSLY, PHOENIX ONE ARE OUR EXPERTS.
THEY HAVE VISITED THE SITE AND REPORTED ALONG WITH W J E THAT RECONSTRUCTION IS POSSIBLE HERE, AS SEEN ON THE RIGHT HAND IMAGE, THE NEW COMMERCIAL CONSTRUCTION WOULD BE, WOULD HAVE A 15 FOOT SETBACK FROM 3 0 8 AND THREE 14 CONGRESS FACADES BEFORE RISING, UH, 90 FEET AND A FULL 60 FEET BACK FROM THE FRONTAGE BEFORE RISING TO THE FULL TOWER HEIGHT.
UH, AND IS SEEN ON THE RIGHT HAND EXHIBIT HERE.
WB SMITH WOULD FEATURE A 20 FOOT SETBACK BEFORE CONNECTING, UH, TO THE NEW CONSTRUCTION THAT RISES A 90 FEET, AND AGAIN, WOULD FEATURE A 60 FOOT SETBACK UNTIL REACHING THE TOWER HEIGHT.
I WOULD ALSO NOTE THAT WE WOULD BE RETAINING A 20 FOOT PORTION OF THE INTERIOR SOUTH WALL, WHICH YOU CAN SEE HERE, UH, IN THIS, ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE TO FURTHER STABILIZE THE FACADE.
THERE ARE MAJOR CONSTRAINTS FACED IN DETERMINING THIS DESIGN AND THE NEED TO HAVE STREET ACCESS IN AT LEAST ONE PLACE DURING CONSTRUCTION.
AND THE NEED TO PROVIDE SUB GREAT PARKING TO SERVE THE NEEDS OF RESIDENTS AND TO MAKE THE REST OF THE PROJECT FEASIBLE, HAVE ALL PLAYED A SIGNIFICANT ROLE, UH, WITH WHERE WE ARE POSITIONED IN OUR PROPOSAL.
IF I CAN JUST FLIP THROUGH QUICKLY, THE NEXT SLIDE IS THE EXISTING CONDITION, AGAIN, FROM THE PEDESTRIAN PERSPECTIVE.
THE NEXT SLIDE IS, UH, WHERE YOU CAN SEE THIS IS WHAT YOU WOULD, HERE'S WHERE YOU CAN SEE THE BUILDING
[01:50:01]
ENVELOPES.AND IN THIS DIAGRAM, UH, YOU'LL SEE WE HAVE A 20 FOOT SETBACK ON THE WB SMITH, AS I'VE MENTIONED, IN 15 FEET FROM 3 0 8 AND THREE 14.
UH, AND THEN OBVIOUSLY BOTH THE 90 FOOT HEIGHT STRUCTURE AND THE EVENTUAL TOWER ITSELF WOULD LEAD THE CAPEL BUILDING COMPLETELY UNTOUCHED.
WE DON'T OWN THAT, NOT PART OF THIS PROJECT, AND IT CREATES A 48 FOOT SETBACK FROM THERE.
UH, DUE TO THE TIMING OF THE RECEIPT OF PHOENIX ONE'S EXPERT OPINION, WHICH SAID RECONSTRUCTION IS POSSIBLE AND THEY'VE DONE IT, WE WERE UNABLE TO HAVE THIS RENDERED AGAIN, BUT WE WOULD RECONSTRUCT THE FACADES THERE AT 3 0 8 AND THREE 14 CONGRESS BEFORE THE, UH, 15 FOOT SETBACK.
NEXT SLIDE, ANOTHER VIEW LOOKING WEST OF THE BUILDING SETBACKS.
THIS SHOWS A CROSS SECTION OF HOW THE INITIAL SETBACKS WOULD WORK WITH THE WB SMITH BUILDING TO THE RIGHT AND THEN THE, UH, UH, RESTORE THE RECONSTRUCTED FACADES.
UH, THERE ON THE, UH, LEFT NEXT SLIDE, THIS SHOWS A SITE SECTION LOOKING NORTH WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF THE RECONSTRUCTED FACADE, WHICH YOU CAN SEE THERE IN BLUE, THE INITIAL SETBACK, THE TOWER SETBACK, AND THE SUBRATE SUBGRADE PARKING THAT WE NEED FOR OUR PROJECT FEASIBILITY.
WE WOULD ALSO USE APPROPRIATE MATERIALS FOR THE ABOVE GRADE PARKING, AND AGAIN, THAT WOULD COME BACK WITH A FULL PACKAGE, UH, IN A SEPARATE APPLICATION TO THE COMMISSION.
AGAIN, THE GROUND FLOOR, YOU'VE SEEN THIS BEFORE WITH MODEST LEASING SPACE.
TO ENHANCE THE, UH, PEDESTRIAN EXPERIENCE IN GREEN, WE HAVE THE WALLS THAT WOULD BE PRESERVED, UH, IN THE WB SMITH BUILDING.
AND BLUE ARE THE FACADES THAT WOULD BE DECONSTRUCTED AND RECONSTRUCTED AT 3 0 8 AND THREE 14 CONGRESS.
CAN YOU WRAP IT UP? YOUR TIME IS LONG PAST SURE.
THIS, SO WHICH SLIDE ARE WE ON HERE? OKAY.
THIS IS, UH, AGAIN, THE ABOVE GREAT PARKING LAYOUT WITH THE SETBACKS FROM THE GROUND LEVEL, UH, FRONTAGE, ALL OF WHICH WOULD BE APPROPRIATELY SCREENED TO AVOID VISUAL IMPACT.
AGAIN, WE WOULD BE BACK TO YOU WITH THE MATERIALS AND THE SCREENING FOR YOUR, UH, YOUR VOTE.
FINALLY, WE HAVE A TYPICAL SUBGRADE PARKING FLOOR.
PLA OOPS, THAT, I'M SORRY, GO BACK ONE MY BAD.
THAT HERE'S THE SUBGRADE PARKING FLOOR PLATE, WHICH AS I MENTIONED, IS CRITICAL TO THE FEASIBILITY OF THE OVERALL PROJECT.
AND YOU CAN SEE UP IN THE RIGHT CORNER, THAT'S THE 20 FOOT CUTOUT THAT THE SUBGRADE WOULD NOT, UH, IMPACT THAT, UH, WALL THAT WOULD BE RETAINED THERE.
SO IF WE GO TO THE LAST SLIDE, WHICH DOES HAVE THE SPECIFIC REQUEST, UM, UH, I WOULD, UH, YOU KNOW, FINISH SIMPLY BY SAYING THAT WE ARE WORKING TO TRY AND BALANCE THE VARIOUS NEEDS OF THE SITE, GIVEN THESE MAJOR CONSTRAINTS, UM, AND ALSO ALLOW US TO PROVIDE PEDESTRIAN CENTRIC EXPERIENCE WITH THE APPROPRIATE SETBACKS FOR THE NEW CONSTRUCTION.
WE ARE AT THE POINT WHERE WE DO NEED YOUR APPROVAL FOR A DESIGN THAT INCLUDES THE ITEMS SHOWN ON THIS SLIDE SO THAT WE CAN THEN ASK OUR DESIGN TEAM TO PREPARE A FULL APPLICATION THAT COST IS ALL OF, YOU KNOW, AN EXTRAORDINARY SUM OF, UH, MONEY AND TIME, UH, FOR THE NEXT PHASE.
AND, AND I DON'T WANNA DO IT IN A WAY WHERE I HAVE TO COME FORWARD WITH A DEMO PERMIT.
OBVIOUSLY, SPECIFICALLY, WE ARE REQUESTING YOUR APPROVAL OF, AND YOU CAN READ THE ITEMS, UH, RETAINING THE FRONT 20 FEET OF THE SOUTH WALL, THE WB SMITH BUILDING, RETAINING THE NORTH WALL, AND THE FACADE OF THE WB SMITH BUILDING, SETTING BACK ANY TOWER 20 FEET, UH, FROM THE WB SMITH BUILDING FACADE, RECONSTRUCTING THE FACADES OF 3 0 8 AND THREE 14 CONGRESS, AND SETTING BACK ANY NEW CONSTRUCTION 15 FEET FROM THE 3 0 8 3 14 CONGRESS FACADES, THE PROPOSAL WOULD REMOVE AS, AS INDICATED, THE OTHER INTERIOR WALLS OTHER THAN THESE THAT ARE SHOWN HERE.
UH, WE WILL BE BACK WITH BROADER DESIGN AND MATERIALS FOR YOUR REVIEW AND APPROVAL.
WE ARE HERE TO GET APPROVAL FOR THESE SPECIFIC ELEMENTS SO THAT WE CAN INVEST IN THE BROADER DESIGN AND RETURN TO YOU FOR THE NEXT REVIEW.
UM, AND WITH THAT, UH, OBVIOUSLY I'M AVAILABLE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT CAPITAL VIEW CORRIDOR OR OTHER, UH, OTHER ELEMENTS.
YOU UNDERSTAND THAT DECONSTRUCTION AND RECONSTRUCTION IS NOT PRESERVATION? I I DO.
THEY'RE NO LONGER HISTORY BUILDINGS.
IT'S TANTAMOUNT TO DEMOLITION.
I, I, I DO, AND I TOOK THE SUGGESTION AND INVESTIGATED ALL POSSIBILITIES AND INCLUDED IT AS AN ALTERNATIVE, WHICH IS WHY I'M HERE AGAIN.
UH, THE, WE DIDN'T HAVE CHI TIME TO CHANGE THE RENDERING.
THE RENDERING ACTUALLY STILL IS, AS WE HAD PRESENTED AT THE LAST HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION, WHICH WOULD BE, UH, A NEW FACADE THERE RATHER THAN RECONSTRUCTING THE OLD, WE WERE, UH, SIMPLY, UH, TRYING TO, AND, AND SPENT TIME AND EFFORT TO GET EXPERTS OUT THERE AND GET TWO EXPERT REPORTS TO SAY WHAT WOULD BE POSSIBLE.
UH, COMMISSIONER WRIGHT HAS A QUESTION OR A COMMENT.
[01:55:01]
AHEAD.DID YOU, HAVE YOU ACTUALLY MET WITH THE ARCHITECTURAL OVERVIEW COMMITTEE OF THE HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION? YES, WE HAVE.
YOU HAVE, UM, CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHY YOUR DESIGN PROCESS REFERS TO THE DESIGN STANDARDS BUT DOES NOT ACTUALLY FOLLOW THEM? UM, I BELIEVE WE DO, WE PULL THAT BACK UP, UH, THE RECOMMENDED DESIGN STANDARDS.
WE CAN PULL BACK THE, THE TWO RENDERINGS.
WE'VE HAVE THE, GO BACK A COUPLE OF PAGES, YOU'LL SEE THE, SO THERE WE CAN GO BACK ONE MORE THAT'S, THERE WE GO.
SO THERE'S THE COMMERCIAL, THAT'S THE, THE COMMERCIAL EDITION.
THIS REQUIRE THAT, UM, NEW ADDITIONS BE 20 FEET BACK FROM THE FACADES OF ALL BUILDINGS AND RECOMMEND THAT THERE BE NO LARGE ROOFTOP EDITION ON LANDMARKS.
THI THIS, UH, SO THE, THE LANDMARK, THE WB SMITH, THIS IS 20 FEET BACK FROM THE WB SMITH, WHICH IS THE, THE DESIGN STANDARDS SUGGESTS THAT THERE BE NO LARGE ROOFTOP EDITIONS ON LANDMARKS AND THAT FOR OTHER HISTORIC BUILDINGS, THE ADDITIONS BE PUSHED BACK AT LEAST AT LEAST 20 FEET, WHICH YOU'VE NOT ACCOMPLISHED ON THE OTHER.
IT'S NO, THE OTHER ONES ARE, IF WE GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE, UH, THE, THE NEW CONSTRUCTION, THIS WOULD, THIS WOULD BE WHERE WE HAD OFFERED THAT OPTION OF RECONSTRUCTING THE FACADE INSTEAD OF WHAT'S SHOWN HERE, WHICH WOULD BE, WHICH WOULD BE A NEW, UH, BUILDING, WHICH WOULD OBVIOUSLY THEN REQUIRE DEMOLITION PERMIT, WHICH IS WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO, AT LEAST TODAY, AVOID AT LEAST.
SO, SO I MEAN, YOU'RE ESSENTIALLY ADMITTING THAT NO, THIS DOES NOT FOLLOW THE DESIGN STANDARDS BECAUSE WE'RE NO, NO, I, I WOULD SAY WE DO COMPLY.
WELL, I KNOW YOU'RE ON THE COMMITTEE.
WE BELIEVE WE, WE ARE, UH, IN COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER GUIDELINES.
I KNOW THEY'RE JUST RECOMMENDED.
THEY HAVEN'T BEEN ADOPTED YET.
BUT, UM, UH, I HEAR YOUR PERSPECTIVE AND I THINK WE CAN, YOU KNOW, CLEARLY LOOK AT THE DESIGN GUIDELINES OFFLINE TOGETHER IF YOU'D LIKE, BUT WE THINK WE'RE IN COMPLIANCE.
IS COMMISSIONER WRIGHT, IS IT YOUR, UH, IS IT YOUR INTERPRETATION THAT THE DESIGN STANDARDS DO NOT WANT, DO NOT, UM, DO NOT PREFER OR DON'T WANT A IT'S ALL BUILDING ON TOP OF A LANDMARK? IT, I THINK IT SAYS NO ROOFTOP IN THAT IT'S NOT THAT CLEAR.
UM, YEAH, BECAUSE IN FACT, THE, THE ADDITION, THE, THE DESIGN STANDARDS FOR COMMERCIAL EDITION DO IN FACT ALLOW FOR ROOFTOP EDITION ON BUILDINGS, BUT IT PLACES THE PRETTY SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS ON WHAT THAT SHOULD BE INCLUDING, FOR INSTANCE, THAT I'M READING HERE, THAT ADDITIONS MUST BE SET BACK AT LEAST 20 FEET FROM THE FRONT WALL OF START BUILDING.
AND THAT'S REALLY OFFERED AS, UM, THE BASE, THE BASE LEVEL FOR BUILDINGS.
FOR, FOR HISTORIC LANDMARKS, THE STANDARDS DIRECTLY CALL OUT ADDITIONS ARE NOT APPROPRIATE FOR ALL HISTORIC LANDMARK SYMBOL WOULD BE EVALUATED ON THE CASE BY KICKS CASES.
YEAH, I THINK IT WAS REFERRING TO, I MEAN, THERE IS NO ROOFTOP AMENITY WITH THIS STRUCTURE.
I MEAN, IT'S SIMPLY 20 FEET BACK AND THEN WE'RE COMPLYING WITH THE COG AVENUE.
THAT'S THOSE FOR ADDITIONS TO COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES.
ADDITIONS TO COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES, YES.
YEAH, SO, SO IT'S NOT THAT THE, UM, THE DESIGN GUIDELINES DO NOT PROHIBIT ADDITIONS.
UM, BUT THEY DON'T TO, TO MY READING, TO MY UNDERSTANDING, UM, AND I WORKED ON THE SPECIAL COMMITTEE THAT WROTE THESE, UM, THE, THE SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE DESIGN STANDARDS WORKING GROUP.
UM, THIS IS, THIS IS NOT, THIS DOES NOT MEET OUR INTENTION AS WE WERE PUT FORWARD, UM, WHICH ALLOWS FOR ROOFTOP IONS, BUT NOT, I I THINK IT SAYS NO VISIBLE ROOFTOP AMENITY.
AM I MISREMEMBERING THAT I MIGHT BE MISING THAT YOU ARE ONLY PART OF THE STANDARDS? YOU'RE, WHAT I'M READING IS, IS UNDER NUMBER ONE OF COMMERCIAL ADDITIONS, AND THIS WAS ALSO PART OF THE STAFF REPORT, UM, AS, AS ONE OF THE ISSUES THAT THEY CALL FOR, YOU KNOW, THEY, IT SAYS THAT ADDITIONS ARE NOT APPROPRIATE FOR HISTORIC LANDMARKS, FOR ALL HISTORIC LANDMARKS.
UM, THAT IS, YOU KNOW, THE STANDARDS COULD BE SUBJECTIVE.
UM, BUT I THINK THAT'S PRETTY CLEAR.
I HAVE QUICK QUESTION COM COMMISSIONER.
ARE, ARE WE IN THIS PROCESS ASKED BEING ASKED TO MAINTAIN THE HISTORIC LANDMARK STATUS FOR THE WB SMITH BUILDING DURING THIS ENTIRE PROCESS AND
[02:00:01]
AT THE END? UM, BECAUSE I, I THINK THE QUESTION FOR ME HAS LESS TO DO WITH SOME OF THESE STANDARDS, WHICH WE STILL ARE JUST IN THE EARLY PROCESS OF TRYING TO PUT IN PLACE.AND EVEN THE IDEA OF SAYING IN ADDITION'S NOT ALWAYS APPROPRIATE, DIDN'T MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE.
WHEN THIS COMMISSION VOTED FOR THE CONCEPT FOR THE MASONIC LODGE, I DIDN'T VOTE FOR IT.
I VOTED AGAINST IT, BUT I WAS, YOU KNOW, WE WERE OUTNUMBERED.
UH, BUT I THINK THE, THE ISSUE IS REALLY, UH, DO WE HAVE A PROCESS WHERE IF, IF, IF WE'RE GONNA BE ALL OR NOTHING, I'M VERY WORRIED THAT WHAT WE'RE GOING TO WIND UP WITH IS NOTHING, BECAUSE MANY OF THESE BUILDINGS WILL BE, UM, FOR WHATEVER THEIR INDIVIDUAL MERITS, UH, THEY WILL BE PALE IN COMPARISON TO SOME OF THE BOTH FINANCIAL AS WELL AS AS, UH, COMMUNITY BENEFITS.
IF YOU WANNA LOOK AT HOUSING AS A PARTICULAR NEED, THAT THAT WILL BE ARGUED AGAINST THEIR HISTORIC STATUS.
AND I SEE ONE OF THESE AFTER THE OTHER WHERE WE LOSE.
SO IF WE HAVE A PROCESS WHERE AN OWNER IS WANTING TO COME IN AND HELP US FIGURE OUT WHERE'S THAT RIGHT BALANCE, THIS ISN'T A TYPICAL ADDITION, AND IT CERTAINLY IS NOT GOING TO MEET THE CRITERIA FOR, UM, BEING, UM, IN SUPPORT OF THE HISTORIC BUILDING OR NOT OVER MY, MY COMMENT KNOWS IS IT'S OVERS SCALING THE HISTORIC BUILDING.
WELL, ARE WE DISCUSSING THIS OR ARE WE ASKING QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT? I, I GUESS THE REASON I'M ASKING THE APPLICANT IS THAT, UH, I, I UNDERSTAND YOU ARE ASKING US FOR AN INCREMENTAL APPROVAL THAT MAY NOT BE THE BEST PROCESS FOR US, BUT WOULD YOU ARTICULATE WHAT, AGAIN, YOU'RE, YOU'RE TRYING TO AT LEAST GET A SENSE OF WHERE WE MIGHT GO IN ORDER THAT YOU CAN MEET SOME OF OUR CRITERIA EVEN IF YOU CAN'T MEET ALL OF OUR CRITERIA? IS THAT WHAT I UNDERSTAND? THAT IS ABSOLUTELY CORRECT.
I COULDN'T HAVE STATED IT BETTER.
I WOULD SIMPLY ADD, YOU DO NOT HAVE A PROCESS OTHER THAN A HISTORIC REVIEW APPLICATION IF YOU ARE NOT ZONED HISTORIC.
THAT WOULD BE FOR 3 0 8 TO THREE 14, THE ONE THAT IS ZONED HISTORIC.
THE ONLY OPTION WOULD BE A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS, WHICH IN INVOLVES A FULL SET OF BUILDING PERMITS AND BUILDING PLANS, UH, A GREAT INVESTMENT OF TIME AND RESOURCES.
AND THE GOAL HERE IS TO AT LEAST GIVE US SOME PARAMETERS.
WE'RE NOT KNOCKING ANYTHING DOWN.
WE'RE NOT SEEKING TO, UH, INVALIDATE A HISTORIC ZONING.
WE WILL HAVE TO COME BACK WITH THOSE PLANS THAT SET FORTH WHAT, UH, YOU VOTE ON.
I HOPE SO THAT WE HAVE A SENSE FROM THIS COMMUNITY OF COMMISSIONERS WHERE WE CAN PLACE THE BUILDINGS, UH, IN TERMS OF SETBACK AND, UH, UH, UH, RETENTION OF A WALL, RETAINING A WALL, OR WHETHER THERE IS NO LIKE, OR THERE IT'S COMPLETELY DISFAVORED THE RECONSTRUCTION AND YOU WANT TO GO AHEAD AND HAVE US INSTEAD, UM, UH, UH, REPLACE THOSE WALLS WITH NEW CONSTRUCTION.
I MEAN, I THINK WE NEED SOME GUIDANCE.
WE HAVE, WE ABSOLUTELY HAVE TO HAVE A WAY TO ACCESS THE SITE FROM THE STREET, AND THE ONLY WAY TO DO NOT THE ALLEY, AND THE ONLY WAY TO DO THAT IS FROM CONGRESS AVENUE, UM, WHERE THE, WHERE THE 3 0 8 TO THREE 14, UH, FACADES ARE NOW.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT? I HAVE SEVERAL, SEVERAL, UH, COMMISSIONER COOK QUESTIONS.
UM, DISREGARDING THE ISSUE OF CONTRIBUTING TO THE NATIONAL REGISTRY DISTRICT AND OUR ABILITY TO ENACT A SIX MONTH DEMOLITION DELAY, WHICH WOULD BE THE MAXIMUM WE COULD DO TO PROTEST AGAINST THAT.
UM, I HAVE SOME SPECIFIC QUESTIONS FOR YOU.
UH, DO THE SMITH AND CAPELLA BUILDING SHARE A PARTY WALL OR ARE THEY SEPARATE WALLS? THEY SHARE A PARTYING WALL, WHICH IS WHY WE WANTED EXPERTS OUT THERE, UH, TO EVALUATE.
THEY'RE, THEY'RE SHOWN IN DIFFERENT PLANS.
THEY'RE SHOWN BOTH SEPARATELY AND COMBINED.
SO I WOULD MAKE SURE, IN YOUR MY APOLOGIES, THEY ARE, THEY'RE A SHARED WALL AND DID EITHER OF THE TWO EXPERTS, I KNOW THERE'S NO INFORMATION AT ALL FROM THEM.
AND SO I WANT TO MAKE SURE YOU'RE NOT MISREPRESENTING WHAT THEY'VE SAID.
YOU, YOU HAVE SAID THAT PHOENIX HAS SAID, OR RECONSTRUCTION IS POSSIBLE, WHICH I THINK WE WOULD ALL AGREE OR RECONSTRUCTION IS POSSIBLE.
DID EITHER OF THEM SPEAK TO STRUCTURAL STABILITY OF THE PARTY LAW? UH, YES.
THEY, UH, SPOKE SPECIFICALLY TO, UM, THINGS THAT NEEDED TO BE DONE TO SHORT UP DURING CONSTRUCTION AND TESTING THAT NEEDED TO BE DONE OF THE, UH, MONITORING THAT NEEDED TO BE DONE AND TESTING OF THE SOIL PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION THAT NEEDED TO BE DONE.
AND SO DID THEY SPEAK HOW TO, HOW YOU CAN REMOVE RESTRICTIONS OF A SPREAD FOOTING ON A LOAD-BEARING MASONRY WALL TO ONE SIDE OF A LOAD-BEARING MASONRY WALL AND HAVE THAT WALL STAY STANDING, UH, WITH, UM, TENSION? I, I MEAN, I CAN READ HERE, UH, FROM THE REPORT THEY, UH, SPECIFICALLY, UM, TALK ABOUT STABLE STAB.
THEY WOULD REQUIRE STABILIZATION,
[02:05:01]
THE NORTH SHARED WALL BETWEEN THE W B S SMITH BUILDING WB YEAH.WBS BUILDING AND THE COMPEL BUILDING AND STABILIZATION OF THE EAST FACADE OF THE WS BUILDING.
AND THEN THE SPECIFIC, UH, WALL STABILIZATION, UH, WE WOULD HAVE TO, UH, STABILIZE IT AND MONITOR IT DURING THE DURATION OF CONSTRUCTION TO ENSURE THAT NO DAMAGES ARE INCURRED, UH, TO THAT WALL IN THAT A COMBINATION OF SOIL STABILIZATION AND CONSTRUCTION MONITORING AS DESCRIBED BELOW.
AND THAT WOULD INCLUDE, UH, I'M GONNA SAY THIS WRONG, SECOND PILE WALL WITH TENSION TIE BRACKETS, UH, WOULD BE, UH, ONE IS ONE, UH, RECOMMENDATION CONSTRUCTION MONITORING IS THE SECOND, UH, FOR, FOR THAT WALL.
YEAH, I THINK IT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO, TO SEE THAT DETAIL AND ESPECIALLY SINCE THE LEVEL OF DEVELOPMENT.
AGAIN, SOME PLANS YOU SHOW THEIR WALLS ARE SEPARATE, SO IT'S, IT'S A SHARED WALL, SAY WHAT THEY'VE SEEN AND WHAT THEY UNDERSTAND, AND IF THEY KNOW THE, THE LEVEL OF EXCAVATION BELOW AND WHAT THE TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION IS GONNA BE ON THAT PARKING.
SO IT, IT SEEMS A LITTLE EARLY TO BE SAYING YOU CAN COMPLETELY FREE UP ONE SIDE OF A SPREAD FOOTING ON A LOAD BEARING MASONRY WALL AND EXPECT IT TO REMAIN STANDING WITH ANY KIND OF, BUT, SO MY MAIN QUESTION WAS DID YOU HAVE DETAIL? YOU DID, BUT WE HAVEN'T SEEN IT.
IT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO SEE THAT.
UM, AND YOU'RE NOT VOTING ON THE PROJECT YET? WE'RE, WE'RE, WE'RE NOT, OBVIOUSLY, BUT I'M, I'M JUST TRYING TO GET YOU'RE ASSERTING IT'S FEASIBLE WITHOUT ACTUALLY SEEING WHAT THEY'VE SAID IS DIFFICULT FOR ME TO TAKE YOUR WORD FOR IT WITHOUT DETAIL BEHIND WHAT WHAT THEY'RE SAYING IS POSSIBLE.
WHAT'S BEEN PROPOSED TO I'M NOT A CIVIL ENGINEER, A STRUCTURAL ENGINEER, AND, OKAY.
SO THEY'RE, I THINK THE DETAILS REALLY MATTER THERE, AND AGAIN, I'M GONNA PHRASE THIS IN A FORM OF A QUESTION ULTIMATELY, BUT WITH THE LANDMARK, WE'VE TALKED ABOUT ADDITIONS, HOW BIG THEY CAN BE.
I'LL NOTE ON THE MASONIC LODGE, NONE OF THE EXTERIOR WALLS WERE BEING TOUCHED.
ALL THE EXTERIOR WALLS ARE BEING LEFT COMPLETELY INTACT.
UM, AND IN THIS CASE, WE'RE LOSING 80% OF THE EXTERIOR WALLS OF THE BUILDING, WHICH IS THE LOSS OF 80% OF THE HISTORIC FABRIC, WHICH WE CANNOT ALLOW.
WE SIMPLY, AS A BODY, I'D BE SURPRISED IF ANYONE VOTED AGAINST IT.
WE CANNOT ALLOW THE LOSS OF 80% OF THE, YOU'VE LOST MORE THAN HALF OF THE LANDMARK.
SO WE DON'T, IF WE WENT THROUGH THIS AND YOU WENT THROUGH THE WHOLE APPLICATION AND WE DENIED A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS, AS I THINK AS A BODY, WE WOULD BE REMISS NOT TO, I THINK IT'S OUR OBLIGATION TO DENY THAT.
THEN YOU COULD THEN APPEAL IT TO CITY COUNCIL.
AND THEN CITY COUNCIL COULD WEIGH IN.
IS A LANDMARK WORTH A TOWER, WHICH HAS NEVER BEEN DECIDED BEFORE? I DON'T THINK THERE'S BEEN A CERTIFICATE.
APPROPRIATENESS APPEALED TO, YOU KNOW, WE'VE TALKED ABOUT HISTORIC BUILDINGS, WHETHER THEY'RE LANDMARKED OR NOT, IN TERMS OF A TOWER, BUT NOT AN ACTUAL LANDMARK VERSUS A TOWER.
SO HAVE YOU CONSIDERED THE FACT THAT WE'VE BEEN CLEAR REPEATEDLY IN THE ONE TIME I THINK THAT YOU'VE BEEN AT THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE AND OF THREE TIMES, I THINK YOU'VE BEEN BEFORE US, THAT WE CANNOT ALLOW LOSS OF 80% OF THE HISTORIC FABRIC OF A LANDMARK.
I THINK, UM, I MEAN, I DON'T, I THINK IT, UH, QUIBBLING BY WHETHER IT'S LESS THAN 50% OR 80% IRRELEVANT, BUT I THINK, UH, IT WOULD BE, UH, UH, THERE WOULD BE REMOVAL OF, UH, THE REAR WALL AND A PORTION OF THE EXTERIOR SIDE WALL, UH, AND A PORTION OF THE INTERIOR SIDE WALL.
WE'D BE SAVING THAT SHARED WALL, THE WHOLE FACADE IN 20 FEET IN ON THE INTERIOR.
SO I DON'T KNOW THAT IT WOULD EIGHT 80%.
THAT'S, PUT THAT ASIDE FOR A MOMENT.
UM, I THINK WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE PHOTOS OF THE, UH, SUTTER HOTEL THAT WAS THERE, YOU WOULDN'T HAVE EVER SEEN THE, UH, THE SIDE EXTERIOR WALL.
YOU WOULD'VE MAYBE HAVE SEEN THE ALLEY WALL, BUT THE ALLEY WALLS YOU NOW KNOW FROM THE PHOTOS HAS A COLORADO, UH, TOWER, UH, ON THE, ON A PORTION OF THAT ALLEY.
UH, AND, AND HAS BEEN, UH, MEANINGFULLY, UH, MODIFIED IN TERMS OF FIRE EXITS, ET CETERA.
UH, BUT I'M NOT, I'M NOT GONNA DENY THAT WE'RE, WE ARE SEEKING TO REMOVE PORTIONS OF, UH, THOSE WALLS.
I, I JUST WANNA NOTE IN TERMS OF VISIBILITY, VISIBILITY TO THE PUBLIC WAY MATTERS IN DISTRICTS WITH LANDMARKS, THE ENTIRETY OF THE PROPERTY.
WE'VE, WE'VE QUIBBLED OVER THE SIZE OF A KITCHEN WINDOW ON THE BACK OF A LANDMARK RESIDENCE BEFORE MUCH LESS DEMOLITION OF, YOU KNOW, MORE THAN 20 FEET OF THE ENTIRE, AND THE BACK SIDE WALL OF A TWO-STORY LANDMARK.
UM, I, I, UH, IT'S ENOUGH LOSS OF HISTORIC FABRIC THAT IT WOULD BE SIGNIFICANT, AND I THINK IT WOULD, THAT, I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY POSSIBLE WAY THIS BODY COULD APPROVE THAT WITH THE CERTIFICATE APPROPRIATENESS.
AND SO THAT'S, THAT'S KIND OF THE FEEDBACK.
I THINK WE'VE SAID IT BEFORE, BUT I'M TRYING TO PUT A FINER POINT ON IT TO BE CLEAR.
CUZ YOU WANT FEEDBACK, I JUST CANNOT SEE
[02:10:02]
US ALLOWING THAT FOR, FOR A LANDMARK.AND, AND, AND I UNDERSTAND THAT, AND AS YOU NOTED, THAT OBVIOUSLY IS APPEALABLE, ET CETERA.
I THINK WE'RE JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT IN TERMS OF, UH, WEIGHING THE POLICY CONSIDERATIONS, HOUSING, ET CETERA, AS COMMISSIONER H SETH NOTED, UH, IS THERE A WAY FOR US TO MAKE THIS WORK? UM, AND IF THE ANSWER IS AN ABSOLUTE NO, I MEAN, AND WE GO ON TO THE NEXT STEP.
OUR GOAL WAS TO SEE IF WE COULDN'T AVOID A ZERO SUM GAME AND MAKE THIS WORK.
CAUSE I THINK THERE IS A WAY TO MAKE IT WORK, WORK PERSONALLY.
I JUST WANNA BE CLEAR THAT YOU UNDERSTAND OUR OBLIGATION IS TO FOLLOW SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR STANDARDS AND ON LANDMARKS THAT'S PRESERVING HISTORIC FABRIC.
AND, AND YES, THERE WAS A TOWER APPROVED ON THE MASONIC LODGE THAT WAS CONTEXTUAL.
THAT WAS BECAUSE IT'S A VERY TIGHT SITE WHERE YOU CANNOT, YOU KNOW, GET A DISTANT VIEW LIKE YOU CAN LOOKING DOWN CONGRESS AVENUE.
BUT THEY ALSO INTENDED AND SAID THAT THEY WOULD BUILD THAT 70 STORY TOWER WITHOUT TOUCHING A SINGLE EXTERIOR WALL OF THAT LANDMARK.
AND THAT WAS A KEY PART OF THAT APPROVAL.
SO I WANNA MAKE SURE WE'RE NOT CONFLATING THESE CASES BECAUSE KEEPING UP LANDMARK INTACT AND BUILDING A TOWER WITHIN IT VERSUS DESTROYING WHAT LOOKS LIKE MORE THAN, WELL, IT'S PROBABLY LESS THAN HALF, BUT A SIGNIFICANT PART OF THE HISTORIC FABRIC.
IS THERE A PERCENTAGE THAT MAKES SENSE? I MEAN, IF WE WENT BACK AND ANALYZED, I MEAN, THIS MIGHT BE PART OF THE GUIDANCE.
I MEAN, UH, THE, THE MAJORITY NEEDS TO BE RETAINED.
I MEAN, WE MAY ALLOW OPENINGS FOR ADDITIONS.
WE MAY ALLOW, YOU KNOW, SMALL BITS AND PIECES HERE AND THERE, BUT NOT, IT IS, WE'RE AT OVER 60%, I THINK, UH, IS WHAT I'VE TOLD.
WE, WE, WE, I MEAN, IMAGINE ANY LANDMARK DESTROYING 60% OF ANY LANDMARK WOULD RENDER IT, YOU KNOW, WELL, YOU ONLY HAVE 40% OF THE LANDMARK LEFT.
SO THAT'S THE 60% OB I MEAN THE, THE, THE LESS THAN 40% IS IN THE, IS GONE PART PORTION IN THE INTERIOR AND THEN THE REAR.
I MEAN, ANY CASE THAT WITH A LANDMARK THAT CAME BEFORE US, YOU COULD NOT IMAGINE US ALLOWING DEMOLITION OF THAT PERCENTAGE OF THE EXTERIOR OF, OF ANY LANDMARK.
AND SO IT'S, WE'RE SUPPOSED TO PRESERVE HISTORIC FABRIC AND DEMOLISHING.
AND I'M, AND I AGREE, I'M TRYING TO TALK ABOUT THE CONTEXT AND THE FABRIC, WHICH IS PRIMARILY, IF NOT EXCLUSIVELY THAT FACADE, WHICH IS WHAT WE'VE SPENT A GREAT DEAL OF ENERGY TO MAKE SURE THE KIM, IT CAN BE STAY, IT CAN BE KEPT INTACT.
AND I WANT TO BE CLEAR ON THESE TYPES OF BUILDINGS, CUZ WE'VE SEEN IT ON THE 900 BLOCK ON BOTH SIDES OF THE 900 BLOCK OF CONGRESS AVENUE, THAT THESE ROAD TYPE BUILDINGS ARE A UNIQUE CASE, BUT THERE'S STILL LANDMARKS AND THEY STILL HAVE EXTERIOR WALLS, EVEN IF THEY'RE SHARED WALLS, THEY ARE EXTERIOR WALLS OF LANDMARKS.
AND I CONSIDER THEM THE SAME AS AN EXTERIOR WALL OF A RESIDENCE OR ANY OTHER FREESTANDING STRUCTURE.
I I THINK WE, BASED ON THE HISTORY FROM THE MASONIC LODGE, UM, I'M, I CAN BE GENERALLY SUPPORTIVE OF MAINTAINING FACADES.
UH, BUT WOULD IT BE, HOW WOULD I SAY THIS? IT, IT, I THINK WHAT COMMISSIONER COOK IS SAYING IS IT'S GONNA BE EASIER FOR YOU TO ACQUIRE THAT SURFACE PARKING LOT AT THE OTHER END OF YOUR SITE THAN IT'S GOING TO BE TO TOUCH THE WDB SMITH BUILDING.
SO IF YOU'RE TRYING TO PIECE TOGETHER, I WISH I PRINTED MONEY
WELL, I, ONE, I'M JUST SAYING I THINK ONE IS GOING TO BE EASIER THAN THE OTHER.
WELL, WE'RE, I DON'T, I DON'T KNOW ABOUT THAT.
WE PROBABLY NEED DISCUSS THE CASE BEFORE WE GET INTO THIS.
I BELIEVE WE HAVE SOME OTHER SPEAKERS.
IS I HAVE SOME COMMENTS, BUT IT'S ADDRESSING COMMISSIONERS.
WE CAN WAIT UNTIL THE DECISION.
DO WE HAVE ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR THIS APPLICANT? WE HAVE OTHER APPLICANTS, OTHER PEOPLE IN FAVOR? UM, WE HAVE SOMEONE WHO SIGNED UP UNDER APPLICANT, BUT I'M, I'M SURE IT WAS BY MISTAKE.
ARE YOU SPEAKING IN FAVOR OR IN OPPOSITION? OH, I AM REALLY HERE MOSTLY TO LEARN, BUT GENERALLY OPPOSED.
WELL, IS THERE ANYONE ELSE TO SPEAK IN FAVOR? THE FAVOR SIDE GETS, OKAY.
I KNOW, BUT THERE'S NOT, NOW WE HAVE.
PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME IN THE MY NAME IS JIM HOUCHENS AND I, UH, AM AN ATTORNEY HERE IN AUSTIN.
I'VE, I'VE, UH, BEEN INVOLVED IN RESERVING SOME HISTORIC, UH, STRUCTURES IN THE PAST, SO I CARE ABOUT THAT.
I ALSO HAPPEN TO BE ONE OF THE OWNERS OF THE BAR AT 3 0 8 CONGRESS MOR TOBIT.
AND, UH, I, I GUESS MY, I I DON'T BRING ANY REAL EXPERTISE IN, IN, UH, TO THIS, MY COMMENTS.
BUT, UH, AND JUST LOOKING QUICKLY AT THE PLANS, I, I CAN'T SEE HOW THEY CAN REMOTELY DO WHAT THEY'RE PROPOSING TO DO WITHOUT ESSENTIALLY DESTROYING THOSE BUILDINGS.
AND I'VE, UH, WE'VE BEEN ATTENDED THERE FOR SIX YEARS, AND I'M REALLY NOT SPEAKING AS A TENANT.
I'M SPEAKING AS SOMEONE WHO'S FAMILIAR WITH THE BUILDINGS.
I KNOW THE, THE BUILDING THAT WE OCCUPY WAS, I BELIEVE
[02:15:01]
FORMALLY, UH, UH, THE DEPOT HOTEL.IT WAS RIGHT NEXT TO WHERE THE DEPOT WAS AT CONGRESS AND THIRD STREET, AND THEIR BEAUTIFUL OLD BUILDINGS.
AND, UH, UH, IN, IN MY HUMBLE OPINION, THEY SHOULD BE PRESERVED AND, AND THIS LITTLE DAMAGE TO THEM BE PERMITTED.
AND I SAY THAT OBVIOUSLY I'M CONCERNED AS A TENANT, WE STILL HAVE ANOTHER THREE YEARS ON OUR LEASE, YOU KNOW, BUT, UH, I, UM, AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY COULD DO IN THE MEANWHILE THAT COULD MAKE THINGS DIFFICULT FOR US.
BUT, UH, UH, I JUST, UH, JUST OPPOSE THAT KIND OF DEVELOPMENT THAT WOULD, THAT WOULD EFFECTIVELY DESTROY THOSE BUILDINGS.
I DON'T CARE WHAT ANYBODY ELSE SAYS WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE PLANS, THOSE BUILDINGS ARE NOT GONNA, ESPECIALLY, AND I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED ABOUT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN LANDMARK AND HISTORIC DISTRICT AND THE ADJACENT BUILDINGS NOT BEING SPECIFICALLY LANDMARK, UH, HISTORIC MARKED HISTORIC LANDMARK.
BUT I JUST, UM, UH, UH, AM CONCERNED ABOUT, ABOUT, YOU KNOW, THE, THE, WHAT SEEMS TO ME TO BE THE, UM, LIKELIHOOD OF EFFECTIVE DESTRUCTION OF THOSE BUILDINGS, EVEN THOUGH THERE MAY BE SOME ATTEMPT TO PRESERVE SOME GENERAL APPEARANCE.
THAT'S, THAT'S, UH, I THINK, I THINK, UM, MS. MYERS, YOU SAID IN THE BEGINNING, UH, THAT, UH, UH, DEMOLITION OR CONSTRUCTION OR DECONSTRUCTION OR WHATEVER, DECONSTRUCTION DOESN'T AMOUNT TO PRESERVATION.
AND THAT'S, THAT'S PRETTY MUCH WHAT I'M HERE TO, TO AGREE WITH, WITH YOU ON, ESSENTIALLY THEY'RE BUILDING A NEW BUILDING, TAKING OUT THE RIGHT, AUTHENTIC BUILDING.
ANY QUESTIONS OF THIS SPEAKER? ANYONE ELSE TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION? OKAY, MR. WILLIN, WOULD YOU LIKE TO REBUT? NO, I DON'T HAVE ANY REBUTTAL.
UH UH, OBVIOUSLY, UH, UM, I, I'VE SAID WHAT I, I'VE SAID WHAT I NEED TO SAY.
AND I HOPE THAT WE CAN GET SOME FEEDBACK SO THAT WE CAN, UH, UM, PROCEED, UH, WITHOUT HAVING TO, UM, AND COME BACK TO YOU WITH SOMETHING THAT REFLECTS, UH, PARAMETERS OR SOME GUIDANCE.
UM, THE, I DID CONFIRM, UH, COMMISSIONER FEATHERSTON, THAT LOT IS NOT FOR SALE.
IT IS UN COMPLETELY UNAVAILABLE.
UM, AND, UH, I'M SAYING RELATIVE TO YOUR ACCESS TO THE WDB SMITH BUILDING, UH, IT'S A, IT WAS A RELATIVE STATEMENT.
AND THAT'S, AND I ALSO UNDERSTAND THAT'S FROM THIS BODY.
I MEAN, I'M, MY GOAL HAS ALWAYS BEEN ON THIS CASE TO, UH, SEE IF WE CAN'T REACH A COMPROMISE THAT MIGHT SATISFY THIS GROUP, UH, UM, AS, AS A COMMUNITY OF PRESERVATIONISTS AND TAKE INTO ACCOUNT SOME OF THE OTHER STAKEHOLDERS IN ADDITION TO, UH, THE PRESERVATION COMMUNITY.
UH, DO I HEAR A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING
THE, UH, STAFF RECOMMENDATION WAS TO POSTPONE IN DECEMBER 14TH, ORIGINALLY.
UM, AND I THINK THE CURRENT STAFF, UH, RECOMMENDATION IS THAT WE SHOULD NOT TAKE ACTION ON THIS EXCEPT TO POSTPONE IN DEFINITELY, UH, UNTIL A COMPLETED APPLICATION COMES BEFORE US.
I UNDERSTAND WHAT THE, UM, WHAT THE APPLICANT IS ASKING.
UM, I THINK THERE WERE CONCERNS ON THE PART OF STAFF THAT WE DID NOT WANT TO GO ON RECORD AS GIVING TASSET CONSENT TO THE PROJECT.
UM, SO I GONNA LEAVE IT TO YOU TO COME UP WITH A, A MOTION ON THIS CASE.
I'LL AGREE TO A MOTION FOR AN INDEFINITE POSTPONEMENT, BUT NOT PENDING ANY OTHER ACTION.
UH, I THINK THAT AN INDEFINITE POSTPONEMENT BUYS US TIME TO SEE IF, AS THE APPLICANT ASKED, IS THERE POTENTIAL FOR ADDITIONAL, UH, NEGOTIATIONS OR COMING TO SOME MUTUAL AGREEMENT, I THINK IT'S WORTH EXPLORING.
THE, IT'S FOR JUST FOR AN INDEFINITE POSTPONE INDEFINITE POSTPONEMENT.
DO I HEAR A SECOND? I'LL SECOND.
I'LL SECOND MY, UM, COMMISSIONER, UH, FEATHERSTON.
UM, WOULD YOU LIKE TO DISCUSS YOUR MOTION? YES.
AND I DO THINK IT'S INEVITABLE THAT WE HAVE TO COMPARE THIS TO OTHER PROPERTIES THAT ARE EITHER AT RISK OR THAT WE HAVE LOST.
UH, MANY OF THEM IN THE WAREHOUSE DISTRICT WHERE THERE WAS NO GUIDE, THERE WAS NO, BUT THERE WAS NO DISTRICT, EITHER DISTRICT OR LINE MM-HMM.
BUT THEY WERE ELIGIBLE PROPERTIES THAT WE ALL NOW REGRET, AND WE HAD NO TOOLS.
[02:20:01]
THE QUESTION IS, DO WE HAVE A PROCESS FOR FINDING SOME WAY OF ALLOWING DENSIFICATION AND PRESERVATION PRIORITIES TO COEXIST? OKAY.MY WORRY IS THAT, UH, AND I WILL DISAGREE WITH COMMISSIONER COOK BECAUSE, UH, I DON'T THINK WE MADE THE RIGHT DECISION WHEN IT CAME TO THE MASON LODGE.
AND I CAN SAY SINCE I WAS VOTED AGAINST IT, UH, BECAUSE WE HAD, IN THAT CASE, NOT A FACADE COMPLETELY PRESERVED WITH STEP BACKS, BUT WE HAD A FACADE THAT WAS PRESERVED, AND THEN THE, THE, THE FACADES CAME BACK AND FLOATED OVER THAT FACADE.
UH, WHEN IT GOT HIGH ENOUGH, UH, THERE WAS NOT A SCRAP OF INTERIOR, UH, THAT WOULD REMAIN.
SO, UH, WE HAD BASICALLY A BRICK WALL, UH, THAT WAS IRRELEVANT AND HAD NO RELATIONSHIP TO THE BUILDING ABOVE IT.
I THINK IN THIS CASE, THE FACT THAT WE ARE AT LEAST ESTABLISHING A PRECEDENT OF A CERTAIN LEVEL OF SETBACK FROM A FACADE, WHICH IS BY FAR THE STREET FACADE, THE MOST IMPORTANT ELEMENT IS WORTH EXPLORING.
IS IT 20 FEET? IS IT 30 FEET? UH, I DON'T KNOW.
UH, WE ALSO SEE A STEP BACK FACADE THAT BUILDS SCALE PRIOR TO THE LARGE TOWER.
SO I THINK BOTH OF THOSE HAVE POSITIVE ELEMENTS TO THEM.
AND COMPARED TO THE ALTERNATIVE, WHICH IS THAT BUILDING NO LONGER BEING HISTORIC AND NO LONGER BEING IN OUR JURISDICTION AND NO LONGER EXISTING, WHICH WE'VE ALSO SEEN AS A PATTERN WHEN WE ARE UP AGAINST THESE TYPES OF PRESSURES, I THINK THAT IT'S WORTH EXPLORING.
AND I THINK WE CAN COME TO A BETTER SOLUTION.
AND I THINK, UH, COMMISSIONER CAN, CAN MAKE IT RIGHT.
HAS, IT'S A QUICK COMMENT ON THAT.
JUST TO BE CLEAR, WE HAVE NO AUTHORITY OVER INTERIOR WALLS OF LANDMARKS.
YOU CAN COMPLETELY GOT A LANDMARK AND WE CAN'T EVEN DISCUSS IT.
SO THE INTERIORS ARE RELEVANT.
THE EXTERIOR IS THE ONLY THING WE HAVE ANY AUTHORITY OVER ON LANDMARKS.
COMMISSIONER WRIGHT, THANK YOU.
ONE IS, UM, CAN THE MOTION BE AMENDED TO ENCOURAGE, UM, THAT THE DESIGN TEAM MEETS WITH THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE, UM, PERHAPS MULTIPLE TIMES TO POP THROUGH SOME OF THESE ISSUES? UM, THAT'S, THAT'S AMENDMENT.
SO IF WE CAN ADDRESS THAT, AND THEN I'LL MAKE MY OTHER COMMENT.
UM, I THINK IF THE ARCHITECTURE REVIEW COMMITTEE IS INTERESTED, UM, I'M CONCERNED THAT WHAT I WAS HEARING FROM SOME OF THE MEMBERS WAS THAT THERE WAS NO LONGER ANY INTEREST OTHER THAN SAYING, THIS ISN'T APPROPRIATE, DON'T DO IT.
SO IF THAT, IF THAT'S A WAY OF FOSTERING THE DIALOGUE, THAT'S, THAT'S, WE REACH A COMPROMISE.
IF WE'RE, IF THE OWNERS ARE REALLY OPEN TO FINDING AN APPROPRIATE COMPROMISE, THAT'S HOW WE REACH A COMPROMISE.
UH, AS THE MAKER OF THE MOTION, I CAN ACCEPT THAT AMENDMENT.
CAN WE, YOU HAD ANOTHER COMMENT THE SECOND MS. WRIGHT, OH, I SECOND.
UM, THE, THE SECOND THING I WANNA SAY IS IN RELATION TO WHAT I WAS SAYING EARLIER, THE, THE DESIGN STANDARDS FOR COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS, UM, DO ALLOW ROOFTOP AND OTHER LARGE ADDITIONS.
I DON'T NECESSARILY AGREE WITH THAT ON A PERSONAL LEVEL, AND I DON'T KNOW THAT EVERYONE ASSOCIATED WITH WRITING THOSE DESIGN STANDARDS, UM, AGREED WITH IT ON A PERSONAL LEVEL.
BUT WE TOOK THAT APPROACH, UNDERSTANDING WHAT HAS HAPPENED IN AUSTIN, UM, AND WHAT WILL CONTINUE TO HAPPEN IN AUSTIN.
UM, YOU KNOW, IT'S, IT'S A GIVE OF FAITH FOR US TO, TO MOVE FORWARD AND SAY, UM, HERE ARE WAYS THAT WE CAN DISCUSS HOW TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THOSE PROJECT.
AND THAT'S WHY I REALLY BROUGHT THAT QUESTION UP OF, YOU KNOW, HOW ARE THEY LOOKING AT THE DESIGN STANDARDS? UM, BECAUSE IT, IT CURRENTLY READS THAT THEY ARE NOT REALLY LOOKING AT OR UNDERSTANDING THE DESIGN STANDARDS.
UM, YOU KNOW, RESULTING IN ONE, THAT THE 20 FOOT SETBACK ON A LANDMARK BUILDING, UM, WHICH IS INSUFFICIENT IF WE WERE TO ALLOW ANY KIND OF ROOFTOP ADDITION THERE.
AS WELL AS, UM, NOW DEMOLITION AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE OTHER BUILDINGS, UH, WHICH, YOU KNOW, AS WAS MENTIONED, MAKES NEW BUILDINGS THAT LOOK LIKE OLD BUILDINGS.
I DON'T KNOW THAT PLACING IN ADDITION 20 FEET BACK FROM THE FACE OF THOSE BUILDINGS WOULD RETAIN THEIR DESIGNATION AS PART OF THE NATIONAL REGISTER DISTRICT.
UM, MAYBE WE'RE OKAY WITH SAYING, YOU KNOW, MAKING THAT CHOICE TO SAY THAT, YOU KNOW, WE'RE WILLING TO SACRIFICE THOSE TO SOME
[02:25:01]
EXTENT.UM, BUT I DON'T THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE TO DO THAT CURRENTLY PROPOSED.
AND THOSE ARE KIND OF THE LEVEL OF CONVERSATIONS THAT NEED TO BE HELD IS, IS HOW, HOW CAN WE LOOK AT THE DESIGN STANDARDS AND TALK SPECIFICALLY ABOUT HOW TO MAKE THE PROJECT MEET THOSE, OR BETTER MEET THOSE.
MS. WRIGHT, CAN WE ENLIST YOUR, UH, ATTENDANCE AT, UH, ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE? UH, YOU CAN DO SO REMOTELY.
I DON'T, I I ATTEND THESE MEETINGS FROM HOME BECAUSE I'M NOT ALWAYS SURE I CAN STAY AWAKE.
WELL, WE, WE MEET IN THE A EARLIER IN THE AFTERNOON, AND I WANNA SAY THIS TOO FOR, FOR, UM, MR. WAYLAND'S BENEFITS AS WELL.
UM, THIS REVIEWING PROJECTS OF THIS NATURE, NOT QUITE WITH THESE KINDS OF ROOFTOP DESIGNS IS MY JOB.
THIS IS, THIS IS WHAT I DO EVERY DAY.
I'VE WORKED ON A PROJECTS, UM, THAT WAS A $450 MILLION REHAB PROJECTS.
I'VE WORKED ON A NUMBER OF VERY LARGE BUILDINGS.
I'VE WORKED ON, UM, BUILDINGS WITH LARGE ADDITIONS AND LARGE ROOFTOP EDITIONS.
UM, SO I'M NOT SAYING THAT THIS IS NOT POSSIBLE TO DO, IT'S JUST THAT IT'S THAT THE WAY IT'S BEING PRESENTED AT THE MOMENT, UM, DOES NOT MEET ANY OF THE STANDARDS THAT WE HAVE LAID OUT AND ACCEPTED AS BEING APPROPRIATE FOR THE CITY OF AUSTIN.
I, I HAVE A ANOTHER QUESTION, COMMENT, UM, SORT MAYBE TYING THIS TOGETHER, COMMISSIONER FEATHERSTON TO, TO A DEGREE, UH, DOES, DOES THE WB SMITH BUILDING HAVE A PARTY WALL WITH 3 0 8 CONGRESS? SO TO COMMISSIONER COOK'S POINT, I MEAN, THAT'S, THAT IS CONSIDERED THE EXTERIOR OF A HISTORICALLY DESIGNATED STRUCTURE, IS THAT PARTY WALL.
SO I'M LOOKING AT, IN THE, IN MR. WHALE, IN YOUR PRESENTATION, YOU HAVE A RED LINE OF PROPOSED TO BE REMOVED, AND IT, AND IT'S SIMPLY THE EXTERIOR, I THINK THAT, UH, YOU'RE NEGLECTING TO SHOW THAT RED LINE ACTUALLY COME THROUGH AS THE PARTY WALL BETWEEN THE, THE BETWEEN THREE 14 AND 360.
SO THAT'S, IT'S PART OF, PART OF THE ISSUE THAT'S ACTUALLY NOT SHOWING UP IN THE PRESENTATION RIGHT NOW, IS THAT RED LINE, THAT THAT'S NOT THERE.
WELL, IT DOES MAKE IT, IT DOES MAKE IT DIFFICULT TO, UM, TO MAKE AN APPROVAL BECAUSE THE, THE, SOME OF THE DOCUMENTATION THAT WE HAVE DOESN'T REFLECT THE, THE CONTENT OF THE, OF THIS DISCOURSE HERE TONIGHT.
UM, I WOULD, I WOULD BE MUCH MORE AMENABLE TO THIS PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IF WE WERE ACTUALLY SAVING THE, UM, THE FACADES OF THE HISTORIC, UH, NOT JUST OF, OF THE WB SMITH BUILDING HAS TO BE PRESERVED, BUT OF THE, OF THE TWO ADJACENT BUILDINGS THAT ARE CONTRIBUTING.
I WOULD NOT, I, I JUST, WE HAVE HAD SUCH BAD LUCK WITH, AND IT'S NOT BAD LUCK, IT'S PEOPLE HAVE COME AND SAID, WE WILL, YOU KNOW, DECONSTRUCT IT AND THEN WE'LL RECONSTRUCT IT USING THE SAME BRICKS, TURNING THEM AROUND AND, AND WHATNOT.
AND THEN HAD HAD THE WHOLE, UH, KITTEN CABOODLE, UH, JUST FALLING DOWN.
AND I, I MADE THAT COMMENT ABOUT THE, THE RELATIVE EASE OF ACQUIRING THE SURFACE PARKING LOT VERSUS MESSING WITH THE WB SMITH BUILDING IS IN, IF YOU'RE GONNA TELL ME ONE OF THEM'S IMPOSSIBLE.
THE OTHER ONE IS PROBABLY TWO.
UM, BUT TO YOUR POINT, THE, I WOULD ASSUME THAT MAYBE WE CAN'T ACQUIRE THE SURFACE PARKING LOT THAT'S RIDICULOUSLY EXPENSIVE, EVEN THOUGH IT'D BE GREAT TO REDEVELOP A SURFACE PARKING LOT IN DOWNTOWN AUSTIN.
BUT I MEAN, IT HAS TO BE SIGNIFICANTLY LESS EXPENSIVE TO NEGOTIATE AN ACCESS AGREEMENT THROUGH A SURFACE PARKING LOT IN WHICH YOU WOULD BE ABLE TO PRESERVE THE FACADES OF THE OTHER TWO BUILDINGS.
I, I, I JUST, TO ME, UM, THE, THE IDEA OF DECONSTRUCTING AND RECONSTRUCTING, UM, IT, IT, IT REALLY ISN'T PRESERVATION.
I WOULD, I WOULD RATHER SEE SOME PORTION OF, OF THE, THE FRONT FACADES PRESERVED IN, UH, UM, IN A MEANINGFUL WAY.
UM, AND I COULD CONSIDER, UH, SOME OF THE OTHER, UM, TO GO ALONG WITH THIS.
UM, BUT THAT'S, YOU KNOW, THAT'S KIND OF WHERE I DON'T, I DON'T WANNA GIVE APPROVAL OR TACIT APPROVAL TO THE PROJECT IF IT
[02:30:01]
MEANS LOSING THOSE HISTORIC FACADES BECAUSE WE WILL HAVE LOST THEM IN, IN EFFECT.AND I, I REALLY, LET ME RESPOND IF I CAN TO THE QUESTION OF THE RECONSTRUCTION, BECAUSE THAT CAME UP AS A CONVERSATION ITEM IN THE LAST PRESENTATION.
IN THE LAST PRESENTATION WE WERE PRESENTED WITH LOSING THEM ENTIRELY.
AND THEN MAYBE PUTTING SOME ELEMENT THERE THAT MAYBE KIND OF REPRESENTED THEM COMPARED TO THAT A PROGRAM THAT ACTUALLY, UH, AND AGAIN, I, I REFERENCED MY VISIT, UH, UP IN CANADA WHERE THEY DON'T ENCOURAGE THAT EITHER.
IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT THE CITY OF TORONTO SAYS THEY WANT TO DO, BUT WITH NO OTHER ALTERNATIVE COMPARED TO COMPLETE LOSS.
WHAT THEY DID HAVE WAS A FISCAL, UH, NOTE POST BASICALLY FOR THE ENTIRE COST OF IT.
SO IF IT WASN'T DONE WELL AND TO THEIR STANDARDS, WE WOULDN'T BE SITTING HERE WITH A PILE OF BROKEN BRITS.
WHICH IS WHERE WE HAVE FELT SHORT EVERY SINGLE TIME.
SO I, I THINK IT IS, AGAIN, IN THE LIGHT OF WE'VE GOT TO BE ABLE TO EXPLORE AND EXAMINE NEW WAYS TO MAKE OUR TOOLS MORE EFFECTIVE AND NEW TOOLS THAT WE DON'T HAVE TO BECOME MORE EFFECTIVE IN, IN DOING OUR JOB, IN ALLOWING PRESERVATION.
I THINK IT WAS AT LEAST WORTH PUTTING ON THE TABLE.
SO I, I, I'M CERTAINLY NOT LESSENING THE IMPORTANCE OF PRESERVATION OVER, UH, ANY KIND OF REMOVAL PROGRAM, BUT REMOVAL COMPARED TO LOSS, I THINK IS AT LEAST WORTH EXAMINING, AT LEAST IN THIS CONTEXT.
I THINK GOING FOR, I THINK DECONSTRUCTION AND THE HOPE OF RECONSTRUCTION IS VIRTUALLY LOST.
I, I'M NOT DISAGREEING WITH THAT.
I THINK THAT HAS TO HAVE THE TWO HAVE TO BE CONNECTED.
THE RECONSTRUCTION HAS TO BE CONNECTED PRIOR TO THE, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT NOT REBUILDING, NOT BUILDING A REPLICA, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT RECONSTRUCTION WITH THE SAME MATERIALS AND THE SAME DETAILS AND THE SAME, ALL OF THAT.
WE HAD REPORTS ON OTHER PROJECTS TOO.
YES, COMMISSIONER, TELL THAT I HAVE A, FROM MY UNDERSTANDING, IF THEY DON'T LIKE THE OUTCOME FROM THIS, THEY'RE GONNA FILE, THEY'RE GONNA PUT DEMOLITION PERMITS ON THE TWO PROPERTIES THAT ARE NOT ZONED HISTORIC, AND THEY'RE GONNA GO TO COUNCIL AND ASK FOR THE HISTORIC DESIGNATION ON THAT THIRD PROPERTY ON THE CORNER TO HAVE IT REMOVED.
I MEAN, THAT'S THE END GAME HERE.
I MEAN, WE SHOULD BE AWARE OF THAT.
I MEAN, HE'S, HE THE APPLICANTS OF REPRESENTATIVE THAT TONIGHT, THERE HAVE BEEN SEVERAL OF, THEY MENTIONED DEMOLITION PERMIT TWICE, COMMENTS TO THAT EFFECT.
YOU MENTIONED, YOU KNOW, HOPES, HE HOPES HE DOESN'T HAVE TO GO AND, AND TAKE THE HISTORIC ZONING OFF THE PROPERTY.
SO I HEAR IT, I HEAR WHAT I HEAR WHAT THERE, THAT, THAT WE PROBABLY, WHAT'S OUR OPTION HERE? DO WE NEGOTIATE? AND I, I HATE TO BE IN THIS POSITION.
I HATE FOR SOMEBODY TO HOLD A HAMMER OVER YOU AND SAY, OKAY, DO YOU WANT, IS THIS WHAT YOU WANT DO OR ARE WE GONNA COMFORT? ARE YOU GONNA, WE GONNA TALK ABOUT THIS? OR DO I HAVE TO HIT YOU WITH THE HAMMER? BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT'S GONNA HAPPEN.
AND YOU KNOW, WE HAVE, THERE IS NO, THERE'S BIG MONEY HERE.
THEY'RE GONNA OUT, THEY'RE GONNA WAIT US OUT.
IF THEY DON'T LIKE THE END, END RESULT, THAT'S WHAT'S GONNA HAPPEN.
WELL, NONE OF US ARE GONNA LOSE OUR JOB.
NO, I KNOW, YOU KNOW, KNOW, I JUST, I MIGHT BIG POINT MONEY, BUT WE COULD LOSE QUITE A FEW STRUCTURES IN THE MEANTIME.
AND IT'S, YEAH, SO I, I, I HEAR YOU.
UM, AS WE FOUND OUT LAST WEEK, THERE'S NOT MUCH WILL ON THE PART OF THE COUNCIL.
ON THE OTHER HAND, WE'RE LOOKING AT AN ACTUAL DESIGNATED LANDMARK BUILDING AND TO ACTUAL CONTRIBUTING BUILDINGS IN A NATIONAL REGISTER, HISTORIC DISTRICT THAT THE CITY SEEMS TO BE PROUD OF OR, OR PAYS LIP SERVICE TO.
ANYWAY, COMMISSIONER COOK, UH, HAD ONE TECHNICAL COMMENT AND THEN THREE PROCEDURAL COMMENTS.
JUST THE ONE TECHNICAL COMMENT THAT THE, THAT PARTY WALL FOR AT LEAST SOME P PORTION OF THE TIME, WOULD RELY ON THE CAPELLA BUILDING TO KEEP IT STANDING BECAUSE IT RELIES ON THOSE BEAMS AT THE SECOND FLOOR TO HOLD IT AT MID HEIGHT WITHOUT COLLAPSING.
SO YOU'RE, YOU'RE KIND OF RELYING ON A PROPERTY THAT'S NOT YOURS TO KEEP YOUR WALL STANDING WHILE YOU'RE, YOU KNOW, GUTTING YOURS.
UH, NINE 16 CONGRESS COMES TO MIND, WHICH WAS A SEVEN STORY ADDITION TO ONE OF THESE INDIVIDUAL TOWERS THAT WAS APPROVED, I THINK IN 2012, MAYBE.
UM, BUT NOW STANDS AS A PRACTICAL RUIN.
BUT, UM, I JUST DON'T WANT, IN TERMS OF WHAT TO EXPECT, I THINK, YOU KNOW, YOU'VE GOTTEN A LOT OF FEEDBACK, I THINK ON THE THREE CONTRIBUTING PROPERTIES.
[02:35:01]
DEMOLITION DELAY IS PROBABLY THE WORST OF YOUR WORRIES, EVEN IF WE ALL DISAGREED.AND, BUT THE LANDMARK DOES REQUIRE A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS.
AND, UM, I HAD MY SAY ON HOW I FEEL ABOUT THAT.
BUT, AND I DID WANT TO FINALLY NOTE THAT THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE, NOT TO BLOW UP OUR AGENDAS, BUT IS OPEN TO ALL COMERS.
IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE ANYONE WITH ANY CASE BEFORE AS IF ANYONE WANTS TO COME AND TEST THEIR PROPERTY, IF THEY WANT TO GET FEEDBACK, IF, UM, YOU KNOW, I HATE TO BLOW UP OUR AGENDAS CAUSE THEY'RE ALREADY PRETTY LONG.
BUT, BUT IT IS A WAY FOR SOMEONE TO TEST THE WATERS, AT LEAST WITH A SAMPLING OF THE, OF THE COMMISSION.
UM, AND SO IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY HAVE TO BE PART OF THE MOTION FOR, FOR THEM TO BE ABLE TO COME TO US AT ANY TIME.
COMMISSIONER HISELF, WOULD YOU PLEASE, UH, RESTATE YOUR, MY MOTION WAS FOR AN INDEFINITE POSTPONEMENT WITH A REFERRAL TO THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE AND AN ENCOURAGEMENT TO FIND WAYS TO, UM, MAKE SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE ACCEPTABLE AS, UH, A PRESERVATION PLAN THAT WOULD ALSO ALLOW THIS OWNER TO PROCEED WITH SOME OF THEIR DEVELOPMENT PLANS OF SOME OF THEIR DEVELOPMENT PLANS.
QUICK NOTE, UM, SINCE IT'S AN INDEFINITE POSTPONEMENT, WE DO NEED TO ADD THE REOPEN, UM, OF THE PUBLIC HEARING.
OH, AND IN ADDITION THEN MY MOTION WOULD BE TO REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING, OR SHOULD THAT BE A SEPARATE MOTION? NO, IT CAN BE THE SAME MOTION.
AND THEN WITH THE PUBLIC HEARING REMAINING OPEN AND HOPEFULLY, UH, WE HEARING FROM THE APPLICANT, UH, SUCCESSFULLY WITHIN ONLY A COUPLE OF MEETINGS, IS THAT AMENABLE TO YOU? THE SECONDER? YES.
DO I UNDERSTAND THE MOTION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE OR RAISE YOUR HAND.
THE MOTION CARRIES FOR THOSE OF YOU WAITING IN THE WINGS, UH, SORRY.
THIS IS A, THIS IS A REALLY BIG PROJECT, HAS MANY MOVING PARTS, AND WE NEEDED TO GET SOME, UH, SOME WORK DONE ON IT.
SO OUR NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS ITEM 20 10, 20
[20. HR-2022-152879 – 1020 Spence St. – Discussion Willow-Spence National Register District Council District 3 ]
SPENCER STREET.YOU KNOW, COULD HE POSSIBLY BE, I USED TO HIDE BACK HERE IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS AND WATCH IT ON TV.
UH, BUT OKAY'S LIKE, IT'S LIKE QUIZ SHOW.
HE'S LIKE IN AN ISOLATION BOOTH SOMEWHERE.
OR ONE OF THE BARS DOWN THE STREET, THEY SOMETIMES HAVE SODAS AND SNACKS BACK THERE, SO, YOU KNOW, IT'S A GOOD LITTLE BREAK, BUT, UM, YEAH.
BUT, BUT YOU HAVE TO, THE THING IS THAT SOMEBODY HERE HAS TO BE ABLE TO HEAR HIM TAP ON THE DOOR BECAUSE IT'S LOCKED, IT LOCKS BEHIND YOU.
COMMISSIONER RO, IT'S, IT'S UP TO YOU NOW.
WE HAVE ITEM 20 10 20 SPENT STREET.
IT'S A PROPOSAL TO PARTIALLY DEMOLISH AND CONSTRUCT AN ADDITION TO THE REAR SIDE OF A CIRCA 1912 CONTRIBUTING BUILDING IN THE WILLOW FENCE NATIONAL REGISTER HISTORIC DISTRICT, AND TO CONSTRUCT A GARAGE APARTMENT AT THE REAR OF THE LOT.
UH, THIS IS A ONE STORY NATIONAL FOLK HOUSE WITH A BARAL HIP ROOF BOARD AND MOUNTAIN SIDING AND INSET PARTIAL WITH PORCH SUPPORTED BY TURNED POST, UH, ADMINISTRATION INCLUDES DOUBLE ENTRY DOORS AND ONE OVER ONE WOOD WINDOWS.
UH, THE WILLOW SPENCE NATIONAL REGISTER DISTRICT NOMINATION DESCRIBES THE HOUSE AS A ONE STORY BOARD AND BAT AND COTTAGE WITH A HIP ROOF AND CORNER PORCH.
ARCHITECTURAL DETAILS ARE INTACT, INCLUDING A VICTORIAN CORNER PORCH COLUMN.
NEW ELEMENTS INCLUDE A CEMENT FOUNDATION, STEPS, AND A PORCH FLOOR.
UM, THIS PROPERTY IS CONTRIBUTING TO THE WILLOW SPENCE NATIONAL REGISTER DISTRICT AND WAS RECOMMENDED CONTRIBUTING TO A POTENTIAL LOCAL DISTRICT IN THE 2016 EAST AUSTIN RESOURCE SURVEY.
UH, THE 2016 SURVEY NOTES THAT DOORS AND PORSCHE POSTS HAVE BEEN REPLACED.
THOUGH THE 1985 WILLOW SPENCE NATIONAL REGISTER DISTRICT NOMINATION EVALUATES THE PORCH COLUMNS AS ORIGINAL.
UM, IT IS LIKELY THAT PORCH ALTERATIONS TOOK PLACE DURING THE HISTORIC PERIOD, UM, AND ORIGINAL SCREENS APPEAR TO BE MISSING FROM THE WINDOWS.
RECOMMENDATION ON THIS PROJECT IS TO INVITE THE APPLICANT TO THE NEXT MEETING OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE.
UM, WHILE THE PROPOSED ADDITION IS SOMEWHAT COMPATIBLE, PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE MAIN HOUSE WOULD PRECLUDE FUTURE DESIGNATION AND RENDER THE BUILDING NOT CONTRIBUTING TO THE NATIONAL REGISTER DISTRICT AND ANY FUTURE LOCAL DISTRICT.
[02:40:04]
ANY QUESTIONS OF STAFF? OKAY.IS THE APPLICANT HERE, IS THERE SOMEONE TO SPEAK IN FAVOR? ANYBODY TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION? OKAY.
UH, DO I HEAR A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING? SOME OF SECOND.
ALL IN FAVOR OF CLOSING THE PUBLIC HEARING, SAY AYE.
ANY OPPOSED? NA, PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED.
DO I HEAR A MOTION ON THE CASE? MADAM CHAIR? YES, SIR.
I MOVE THAT WE FOLLOW STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION AND THAT WE INVITE, UM, WE POSTPONE THIS TO OUR DECEMBER MEETING, INVITING THE APPLICANT TO THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE THAT AGAIN, THE COMMISSIONER COULD AND COULD I, UH, SUGGEST A FRIENDLY, UH, AMENDMENT TO THAT SIMILAR TO OTHERS WE'VE HAD IN THE PAST, THAT IF THE APPLICANT, UH, IS ABLE TO RETAIN THE INTEGRITY OF THE ORIGINAL BUILDING, AS IT SEEMS HIGHLY POSSIBLE TO DO THAT, WE CAN, THE COMMITTEE COULD ALLOW ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL.
LET ME ADD THAT TO THE, UH, MY MOTION ALSO, UH, REOPEN OF THE PUBLIC HEARING IF IT IS POSTPONED TO THE NEXT MEETING.
AND THEN, YES, IF IT WERE TO BE POSTPONED TO THE NEXT MEETING, WE WOULD HAVE THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN.
HOWEVER, IF THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL TAKES PLACE, UH, I SHOULD SAY, IF THE COMMITTEE APPROVES, THEN STAFF HAS BEEN INSTRUCTED TO ADMINISTRATIVELY APPROVE.
SECOND, I THINK, UM, I THINK FROM THE, UM, FROM THE APPEARANCE FROM THE PLANS THAT, UM, THAT, THAT WE HAVE IN OUR PACKET, I THINK THEY COULD RETAIN A CONTRIBUTING STATUS ON THE, ON THE ORIGINAL HOUSE WITH VERY LITTLE EFFORT.
UH, I E NOT DOING VERY MUCH TO IT AT ALL, AND STILL GET, GET WHAT THEY WANT IN THE ADDITION.
UM, ANYONE ELSE, UH, WANT TO HAVE SOMETHING TO SAY ON THIS? WELL, I DO WANNA JUST SAY THAT I, I'M REALLY DELIGHTED THAT THIS VERY MODEST, UH, LITTLE STRUCTURE, SOMEBODY IS SEEING ITS VALUE.
AND, UH, I THINK, AGAIN, DECIDING TO KEEP IT AND INTEGRATED INTO THEIR HOME, UH, AND THE WAY THAT THEY'RE DOING THAT, UH, I, I THINK WE JUST NEED MORE EXAMPLES OF THIS.
AND SO, UH, EVEN THOUGH WE'RE DOING A LITTLE BIT OF TWEAKING TO GIVE IT A LITTLE BIT, I SHOULD SAY A A BIT OF A NICER PUSH AS IT GOES ON, ITS MERRY WAY THAT, UM, THIS IS A REALLY, REALLY, UH, COMPLIMENTARY PROJECT.
AND I, I WANNA ENCOURAGE MORE OF THAT.
UH, MOST OF THE PEOPLE WHO ENCOUNTER BUILDINGS LIKE THIS, AS WE'VE SEEN, UH, IMMEDIATELY, IT JUST BECOMES A DEMOLITION PROJECT, RIGHT? AND, UH, WE'RE REALLY ENCOURAGED WITH PROJECT LIKE THIS.
I WANNA REALLY FOLLOW UP ON THAT.
UH, COMMISSIONER H SETH, IT'S, IT'S JUST SO REFRESHING TO SEE THIS VERY MODEST STRUCTURE GET TO STAY IN PLACE AND, UM, YOU KNOW, STILL ADD SQUARE FOOTAGE TO THE LOT.
SO, UM, THANK YOU TO THE, THE OWNERS OF THE PROPERTY FOR CONSIDERING THAT IN A, IN ADDITION TO, UM, SAVING THE HOUSE INDIVIDUALLY, IT MAKES A HUGE DIFFERENCE IN THE NATIONAL REGISTER DISTRICT.
AND WE'VE BEEN LOSING, UH, PROPERTIES IN THE WILLOW SPENCE DISTRICT.
AND THIS IS A DISTRICT OF, OF MODEST, UH, MOSTLY TURN OF THE CENTURY, UH, FOLK VICTORIANS NATIONAL FOLK HOUSES AND THE LAWS OF, OF ANYMORE WILL REALLY BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE DISTRICT.
SO I'M GLAD TO, I'M GLAD TO SEE THIS, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THEM RETAIN THE, UM, THE ADMINISTRATION AND, AND, UM, UH, ORIGINAL ELEMENTS ON THE, ON THE FRONT HOUSE.
SO, UM, IF THERE'S NO FURTHER DISCUSSION, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND.
[21. HR-2022-155521 – 1907 Kenwood Ave. – Discussion Travis Heights – Fairview Park National Register District Council District 9 ]
KENWOOD AVENUE.YES, COMMISSIONERS, UH, ITEM 21 IS A DIRECT DISTRICT FOR 1907 KENWOOD AVENUE.
THE PROPOSAL IS DEMOLITION OF AN EXISTING QUADPLEX AND NEW CONSTRUCTION OF A DUPLEX PROJECT.
SPECIFICATIONS INCLUDE TOTAL DEMOLITION OF A CIRCA 1947 DUPLEX THAT HAS BEEN CONVERTED TO A QUADPLEX, WHICH IS A CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE TO THE TRAVIS HEIGHTS NATIONAL REGISTER DISTRICT.
NEW CONSTRUCTION OF AN INTERIOR SPLIT LEVEL TWO STORY DUPLEX USING BRICK STUCCO IN CLEAR SEALED WOOD.
THE STRUCTURE IS A CIRCA 1947 CONTEMPORARY STYLE BRICK AND TILE QUADROPLEX WITH A FLAT ROOF.
THE STRUCTURE'S BUILT INTO THE HILLSIDE INITIALLY WITH GARAGE SPACE DOWN LIKE A WALK WALKOUT BASEMENT PLAN.
THE CONTEMPORARY STYLE HOUSE TYPICALLY COULD BE BUILT OR CONTEMPORARY STYLE HOUSES TYPICALLY COULD BE BUILT ON STEEP HILLSIDES WHERE RANCHES OR EVEN SPLIT LEVELS WOULD BE CHALLENGING TO PLACE.
THE HOUSE APPEARS TO BE A SINGLE STORY FROM THE STREET, BUT DOWNHILL REVEALS
[02:45:01]
A TWO STORY STRUCTURE.THE ADMINISTRATION SEEMS TO BE ORIGINAL WITH FOUR OVER FIVE METAL FRAME CASEMENT WINDOWS WITH A SLIGHTLY RECESSED CENTRAL ENTRY ON THE FRONT FACADE.
THE SECOND STREET LEVEL UNIT IS ACCESS TO BE AS A SIDE ENTRY DOOR.
THE REAR FACADE REVEALS A PARTIAL WIDTH UPPER AND LOWER BALCONY WITH REAR STAIRS FOR ACCESSING THE REAR FACING LIVING UNITS.
THE PROPERTY FIRST APPEARS IN THE 1949 CITYWIDE DIRECTORY IS RENTED BY MARVIS AND BEST BELL WITH MR. BELL'S OCCUPATION LISTED AS SALESMEN.
IT WAS FOLLOWED BY SEVERAL OF OTHER RENTERS, SUCH AS ROBERT E RIPS AND NINA BREWER, WHOSE OCCUPATIONS WERE NOT LISTED.
THE INTERIOR WAS REPAIRED AND REMODELED IN 1960.
THE CITY OF AUSTIN'S HISTORIC DESIGN STANDARDS ARE BASED ON THE SECRETARY OF INTERIOR STANDARDS FOR REHABILITATION, AND ARE USED TO EVALUATE PROJECTS IN NATIONAL REGISTER DISTRICTS.
THE PROJECT SEEKS TO DEMOLISH A HISTORIC BUILDING THAT PER, THAT PROVIDES FOUR LIVING UNITS AND REPLACE IT WITH COMPATIBLE NEW CONSTRUCTION, WHICH WILL ONLY OFFER TWO LIVING UNITS.
REPAIR AND REHABILITATION ARE ALWAYS RECOMMENDED OVER DEMOLITION.
FURTHERMORE, HISTORIC HOUSING STOCK IS TYPICALLY MORE AFFORDABLE THAN NEW CONSTRUCTION.
AND THE PROJECT PROPOSES DEMOLISHING FOR EXISTING HOUSING UNITS.
THE REPLACEMENT WILL BE TWO NEW CONSTRUCTION UNITS, WHICH WILL LIKELY BE LESS AFFORDABLE THAN THOSE THAT REPLACE, THAN THOSE IT REPLACES.
THE NEW CONSTRUCTION PROJECT IS CITED APPROPRIATELY FROM THE STREET, AND IN KEEPING WITH THE RHYTHM OF OTHER CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURES, UH, STRUCTURES.
THE PROJECT IS ORIENTED TOWARDS KENWOOD AVENUE AND IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE HISTORIC, UH, DISTRICT GUIDELINES.
THE NEW CONSTRUCTION PROPOSES A SINGLE STORY STREET FACING FACADE, SIMILAR TO THE ORIGINAL HISTORIC BUILDING, MAINTAINING SCALE, MASSING PROPORTIONS AND HEIGHT, COMPATIBLE WITH THE HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGN GUIDELINES.
THE DESIGN AND STYLE OF THE NEW CONSTRUCTION TAKE CUES FROM THE HISTORIC BUILDING, AND IT IS APPROPRIATE FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD IN COMPATIBLE WITH THE DESIGN GUIDELINES.
IN SUMMARY, THE PROPOSED NEW CONSTRUCTION ALONE WOULD MEET THE CITYWIDE DESIGN GUIDELINES, BUT THE PROPO, BUT THE PROJECT DOES NOT MEET THE APPLICABLE STANDARDS DUE TO THE DEMOLITION OF THE ORIGINAL STRUCTURE.
THE ARTICLE REVIEW COMMITTEE ENCOURAGED THE APPLICANT TO LOOK INTO HISTORIC TAX CREDITS TO OFFSET THE COST OF REHABILITATING THE BASEMENT, ALLOWING FOR THE RETENTION OF THE HISTORIC STRUCTURE.
THE ARC APPRECIATES THE NEW DESIGN, BUT DOES NOT LIKE TO SEE THE DEMOLITION OF THE ORIGINAL STRUCTURE.
STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE COMMISSION POSTPONED THE APPLICATION TO THE DECEMBER 14TH, 2022 HLC MEETING TO ALLOW TIME FOR THE APPLICANT TO CONSIDER AN ALTERNATIVE DESIGN THAT DOES NOT INCLUDE DEMOLITION OF THE ORIGINAL STRUCTURE, AND ALLOWS THE APPLICANT TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF HISTORIC TAX CREDITS.
IF THE COMMISSION CHOOSES NOT TO POSTPONE, ENCOURAGE REHABILITATION AND ADAPTIVE REUSE, THEN RELOCATION OVER DEMOLITION, BUT RELEASE THE PERMIT UPON COMPLETION OF A CITY OF AUSTIN DOCUMENTATION PACKAGE.
ANY QUESTIONS OF STAFF? IS THE BAY ZONING CURRENTLY SF THREE? I'M ALMOST POSITIVE IT IS.
IT'S, IT'S ALL SINGLE FAMILY ON THIS.
I, I'M NOT SURE ABOUT THAT, BUT I CAN, UH, LOOK THAT UP QUICKLY.
I MEAN, I ASSUME YES, BUT THAT JUST MEANS IT'S AS A, AS A QUADPLEX, IT'S, UH, NONCONFORMING.
WHO KNOWS HOW LONG IT'S BEEN THERE.
WELL, THAT WAS MY NEXT QUESTION.
DO WE KNOW WHEN IT CHANGED FROM A DUPLEX TO A FOUR FLIGHTS? DO I DO NOT HAVE THAT INFORMATION? THE, THE PEANUT GALLERIES IN 1960.
UH, IF THERE ARE NO MORE QUESTIONS OF STAFF, UM, LET'S HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT.
THE OWNER, CAN YOU HEAR ME OKAY? NOT VERY WELL, THANK YOU.
BUT, UH, YEAH, I PURCHASED THE PROPERTY AND THEN OF COURSE I'VE, I PURCHASED AND BUILT HOMES, UH, A LOT OF THEM IN THE INFIELD NEIGHBORHOODS OF AUSTIN.
AND, UH, UH, WE TOOK A CLOSE LOOK AT, AT THIS PARTICULAR HOME PRIOR TO BUYING IT.
AND, AND WE, YOU KNOW, OF COURSE WE TALKED WITH THE OWNER AND, AND GOT SOME HISTORY ON THE HOUSE AND, AND, AND WHAT SHE THOUGHT MIGHT BE APPROPRIATE FOR THAT PARTICULAR SITUATION.
AND, UH, YOU KNOW, SHE RE SHE INDICATED TO US THAT SHE DIDN'T FEEL LIKE THE STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY OF WHAT IS THERE WAS VERY SAFE.
AND SHE WAS HOPING THAT WE WOULD TEAR THE HOME DOWN.
I DON'T GO AROUND TEARING HOMES DOWN, NOT UNLESS I THINK THEY SHOULD BE TORN DOWN, PERIOD.
LET ME PUT THAT AND I THANK YOU.
I, I, I, WELL, I MEAN, I WAS ONE, ONE OF THE FIRST PERSONS TO BE ABLE TO BUILD NEW CONSTRUCTION, THE HDE PARK HISTORIC DISTRICT AT 41 0 4 DUVAL.
AND, UH, I REALLY DIDN'T KNOW WHAT I WAS GETTING INTO AT THE TRAUMA OF YOUR SOUL.
A 75 FOOT LOT WITH A BEAUTIFUL ALLEY AND, AND JUST LOST SOME LOTS OVER IN 78, 7 0 4.
AND I WAS TRYING TO RECOVER FROM THE GREAT RECESSION.
AND ANYWAY, I BOUGHT THAT LOT.
NEXT THING I KNOW, I'M TALK, I'M TALKING TO
[02:50:01]
THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE WITH STEVE, AND, AND I THINK DEBBIE WAS WORKING THERE AT THE TIME.AND OF COURSE, I ALWAYS GO UP THERE TO MAKE SURE THAT I CAN DO WHAT I WANT TO DO, AND THAT THE CITY OF AUSTIN FEELS COMFORTABLE WITH ME DOING SO.
AND YOU KNOW, THEY SAID IT COULD BE A CHALLENGE, YOU KNOW, AND BOY DID I GOD UNDERSTAND WHAT THEY MEANT BY BEING A CHALLENGE.
I MEAN, I, I'D SPENT EVERY PENNY I HAD LEFT TO BUY THAT LOT.
AND ANYWAY, I GOT IN THOSE, WELL, YOU GOTTA TALK TO THE HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION.
I SAID, WELL, I'M HAPPY TO DO THAT.
AND SO I WENT AND TALKED TO THE HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION, AND THEN THERE WERE SOME PEOPLE THAT WERE, YOU KNOW, WE'D ALREADY TALKED TO, AND THEY SAID, YOU CAN DO WHAT YOU WANT TO DO.
YOU'RE NOT ASKING FOR VARIANCE.
IT REALLY NEEDED TO BE DEMOED, YOU KNOW, BUT THERE WERE SOME PEOPLE THAT WANTED ME TO BUILD IT UP FROM ROTTED PEERS, YOU KNOW, AND I'M JUST, BUT ANYWAY, WE ENDED UP, I'M SORRY TO INTER INTERRUPTED YOU, BUT YOU MIGHT WANNA GET TO THIS.
WELL, ANYWAY, CAUSE THERE'S A, I'M TAKING A LOOK.
I MEAN, I'VE CONSIDERED THE, THE TAX CREDIT AND, UH, AND IT REALLY DIDN'T WORK FOR ME.
AND, UH, YOU KNOW, IT'S A 45% TAX CREDIT.
I, I KNOW I I'M NOT IN A POSITION OKAY.
FINANCIALLY TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS PROPERTY.
AND THEN I LOOKED AT IT CLOSELY AND I, AND I, AND I KNEW THAT IT WAS IN A HISTORIC DISTRICT, AND, AND IT'S CHOPPED UP.
YOU KNOW, WE DON'T KNOW WHAT'S BEHIND THOSE CONCRETE WALLS.
I TALKED TO AN ARCHITECT IN A GRADUATE OF TULANE AND, UH, YOU KNOW, WITH HISTORICAL BACKGROUND, AND, AND, AND SHE AGREED WITH ME.
AND SHE HAD A LOT OF, UH, INTERACTION, YOU KNOW, WITH THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE AND, AND GETTING PLANS APPROVED IN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT OF TRAVIS HEIGHTS.
I TALKED TO THE NEIGHBORS, YOU KNOW, THE IMMEDIATE NEIGHBORS.
ONE OF THEM HERE IS IN SUPPORT OF THE DEMOLITION AND THE PLAN THAT WE'VE SUBMITTED FOR FRANCISCO.
UH, HE'S AN ARCHITECTURAL HISTORIAN.
AND, YOU KNOW, HE LET US KNOW EXACTLY WHAT HE FELT ABOUT THAT HOME.
AND THEN WE ASKED HIM, WELL, WHAT WOULD YOU RECOMMEND THAT WE WOULD DO IN ORDER FOR YOU TO FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH A NEW DESIGN IN YOUR HISTORICAL NEIGHBORHOOD? AND THEN OF COURSE, HE GAVE US THOSE SUGGESTIONS.
WE INCORPORATED THOSE SUGGESTIONS IN THE DESIGN.
WE HAD ALL THE NEIGHBORS THAT WANTED TO COME TO THE ARCHITECT'S OFFICE, SIT DOWN WITH US, GO OVER WHAT WE HAD DONE.
THE ARCHITECT WENT TO THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE.
IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING, THEY LIKED, YOU KNOW, THE DESIGN AND WHAT WE HAD DONE.
AND SO WE FELT REALLY GOOD ABOUT IT.
AND HE SAID HE WAS GONNA COME AND, AND RECOMMEND THAT WE WOULD BE ABLE TO DO IT.
WE WANT TO MAKE A POSITIVE CONTRIBUTION, BUT THE ONLY WAY I CAN DO THAT IS BUILDING THIS HOME.
I MEAN, IT'S WALK OUT HOME, YOU DON'T WANNA MOVE IT.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT MEANT, BUT YOU TRY TO, I CAN'T DO THAT.
AND, AND THEN IF IT'S NOT STRUCTURALLY SOUND, IT'S JUST, I THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE TO DEMO IT AND THEN TO BUILD SOMETHING THAT'S NEW, THAT'S GONNA COMPLEMENT THE HISTORICAL FLAVOR OF THE HISTORIC DISTRICT AND SHOW OTHER PEOPLE HOW THEY CAN CONFORM IN A DESIGN FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD.
AND THAT'S WHAT WE WOULD LIKE TO DO.
AND, AND WE HOPE YOU'LL SUPPORT US IN TRYING TO ACHIEVE THAT GOAL.
ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? ONE.
THANK YOU FOR GIVING ME THE OPPORTUNITY.
IS THERE ANYONE ELSE TO SPEAK IN FAVOR? WE'VE MET BEFORE
UM, MY NAME IS FRANCESCO PA SANTI, AND I LIVE ACROSS THE STREET, DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET FROM 1907 KENWOOD, AND I'M A RETIRED PROFESSOR OF ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY HERE TONIGHT.
I SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THE APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL.
ON THE ONE HAND, I THINK THAT THE PRESENT BUILDING IS A REMARKABLE PIECE OF ARCHITECTURE WITH HISTORIC VALUE, AND I WISH VERY MUCH THAT IT WOULD BE KEPT.
ON THE OTHER HAND, I THINK THAT THE PROPOSED NEW DESIGN IS QUITE COMPATIBLE WITH THE CHARACTER OF TRA SITES.
I'VE ONLY THREE MINUTES, SO I DIDN'T USE SLIDES.
ON THE ONE HAND, AS I SAID, THE PRESENT BUILDING IS A REMARKABLE PIECE OF ARCHITECTURE WITH HISTORIC VALUE RESEARCH BY MYSELF AND JOSH CONRAD.
[02:55:01]
PRESERVATIONIST SHOWS THREE IMPORTANT THINGS.FIRST, IT WAS PROBABLY, IT WAS BUILT IN 1947, AND IT WAS PROBABLY IN EARLY WORK BY JOHN LYNN SCOTT, WHO WENT ON TO BECOME AN IMPORTANT ARCHITECT IN AUSTIN WITH RENOVATIONS AT THE CAPITAL OFFICE BUILDINGS FOR THE STATE OF TEXAS, AND THE RANCH FOR GOVERNOR JOHN CONNOLLY SECOND.
AND FOR ME, THE MOST IMPORTANT, IT IS A SOPHISTICATED WORK.
THE PUSH AND PULL DESIGN OF THE FACADE, WHICH GOES LIKE THAT, AND ITS LIMESTONE CLADDING, ARE INSPIRED BY FRANK LLOYD WRIGHT.
AND I COULD DOCUMENT, I, I COULD SHOW IF I HAD TIME, I WOULD SHOW YOU PICTURES.
AND THE FACADE IS PROPORTION TO USING THE GOLDEN SECTION, A MATHEMATICAL SYSTEM GOING BACK TO ANTIQUITY THIRD, COMING IN THE IMMEDIATE POST-WAR YEARS, THIS MODERNIST DESIGN MARKED A SHIFT OF TONE IN TRAVI SIGHTS FROM HOUSES EVOKING RURAL LIFE TO HOUSES EVOKING URBAN, MODERN LIFE.
AND IT BECAME A MODEL FOR MANY HOUSES BUILT THERE IN THE FOLLOWING FIVE YEARS, INCLUDING MINE.
ON THE OTHER HAND, I UNDERSTAND VERY WELL THE DIFFICULTY OF ADAPTING THIS BUILDING, ESPECIALLY IN THE BACK, WITH ITS MESSY ALTERATIONS AND DISREPAIR, CONSIDERABLE DISREPAIR.
AND I, WITH MY NEIGHBORS, APPRECIATED THE APPLICANT'S EFFORT TO FIT IN WITH THE TRA CHARACTER TRAVERSE SITES.
TWO MONTH AGO, WE NEIGHBORS BEGAN A DIALOGUE WITH THE NEW OWNER, AND WE SENT THEM A LETTER, SORRY.
AND WE SENT THEM A LETTER, UH, LAYING OUT WHAT WAS IMPORTANT TO US.
WHILE OUR FIRST REQUEST TO KEEP THE EXISTING FACADE HAS NOT BEEN MET, SEVERAL OTHERS HAVE, IN PARTICULAR, THE PROPOSED FACADE HAS ONE STORY FLAT ROOF, AND IS CLAD IN BRICK OR STONE LIKE THE PRESENT ONE.
AND THE TREE IN FRONT OF THE FACADE IS KEPT SEEN FROM THE STREET.
THE SCALE IN VEGETATION DO NOT CHANGE.
AND THE VISUAL CHARACTER OF THE KIMBO AVENUE, WHICH IS OUR PRINCIPLE CONCERN, IS PRESERVED.
SO ON THE ONE HAND, ON THE OTHER HAND, SUMMING UP, AFTER WEIGHING ALL THESE FACTORS, I SUPPORT THE APPLICANT'S PRO PROPOSAL.
ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS OF THE SPEAKER? THANK YOU, SIR.
I'M A BORN AND RAISED AUSTIN GUY.
UH, BEFORE LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND, UH, BEFORE THE OLD SEATON WAS TORN DOWN, THAT'S WHERE I WAS BORN.
AND WE WENT STRAIGHT FROM THE OLD SEATON TO 13, 14 KENWOOD.
AND SO I'VE BEEN IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD FOR A LONG TIME.
UM, I WORK WITH MR. BRIDGEWATER, REPRESENT MR. BRIDGEWATER, AND HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN THIS, UH, HOME BEFORE THE PURCHASE OF THE HOME.
AND I WAS GONNA GO THROUGH A LITTLE BIT OF A HISTORY, BUT MR. SANTE STOLE MOST OF MY THUNDER AND DID IT MUCH MORE ELOQUENT ELOQUENTLY THAN I WOULD'VE DONE IT.
BUT WE HAVE BEEN INVOLVED WITH THE, UM, TRAVIS HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, OR THE, OR THE SOUTH AUSTIN RIVER CITY, UM, NEIGHBORS.
WE HAVE TRIED TO INVITE EVERYBODY.
WE HAVE HAD MEETINGS WITH, UH, DIFFERENT STAKEHOLDERS, ESPECIALLY THE ONES IMMEDIATELY AROUND US, UH, GOTTEN BUY IN AND SUPPORT AND FEEL THAT WE'RE CONTRIBUTING TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD, ADDING SOMETHING BACK THAT IS VERY SIMILAR TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
WE ALSO, UH, WANTED TO ADDRESS, UH, AN EARLIER COMMENT ABOUT AFFORDABILITY.
WE ALSO WERE INITIALLY THINKING ABOUT PUTTING A SINGLE FAMILY HOME AND PLACE A FOUR, AND ENDED UP GOING WITH A DUPLEX TO, TO TRY TO ALLOW FOR A LITTLE BIT MORE AFFORDABILITY.
AND SO, AGAIN, UH, MY NAME IS ERIC MEISNER.
I'M SPEAKING IN FAVOR OF THIS.
UM, AND ALSO JUST TO DO Y'ALL A FAVOR, DECEMBER'S FILLING UP.
SO IF Y'ALL APPROVE THIS TODAY, I MEAN THAT WOULD, WOULD HELP Y'ALL OUT.
SO WE'RE TRYING TO HELP Y'ALL OUT A LITTLE BIT.
[03:00:01]
I APPRECIATE Y'ALL HAVING US.I APPRECIATE SOMEONE LOOKING OUT FOR MY TIME.
CAN I TELL YOU ONE MORE TIME? NO
I WOULD LEAVE WELL ENOUGH ALONE.
UM, DO I HEAR WE ALSO HAVE A COUPLE OF, UH, THE, THE APPLICANTS ON THE LINE, UH, BECKY GENES AND BRIANNA NIXON WHO JOINED US FOR THE ARC MEETING.
I'M NOT SURE IF THEY WANNA SPEAK, UM, BUT THEY ARE ON THE LINE.
UH, FOLKS, DO YOU WANNA SPEAK? YEAH.
BECKY, GENE DESIGN TRADE ARCHITECTS.
UM, I THINK EVERYTHING'S BEEN PRETTY MUCH COVERED, BUT WE HAVE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT A GOOD DEGREE OF SITE CONSIDERATIONS IN ADDITION TO, UM, THE CONTEXT AND SURROUNDING ARCHITECTURE AND THE KIND OF ORIGINAL ARCHITECTURE ON THE LOT.
UM, AS WE COME UP WITH OUR DESIGN SOLUTION, UM, WE ARE, UM, WE REALLY LIKE KINDA WHAT WE CAME UP WITH, BUT IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER THEM.
ANY QUESTIONS OF THE SPEAKER? OKAY, THANK YOU.
ANYONE TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION? OKAY.
UH, DO I HEAR A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING? SO MOVED.
I, I THINK I HAVE A QUESTION JUST GENERALLY OF THAT.
DID, DID YOU CONSIDER ANY MORE UNITS THAN TWO? NO.
CAUSE THAT WOULD LIKE NOT BE ALLOWED IN THE ZONING.
IT'S NOT QUITE LIKE A RHETORICAL QUESTION, BUT IT'S LIKE A FOR THE RECORD QUESTION.
UM, NOW, UH, I HEARD A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
DO I HEAR A SECOND? ALLS IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY, AYE.
DO I HEAR A MOTION ON THE CASE? I'LL MOVE TO RELEASE THE DEMOLITION PERMIT PENDING OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN DOCUMENTATION PACKAGE AND SUMMARIZE OUR COMMENTS ON THE NEW CONSTRUCTION AS THOSE THAT ARE MADE TONIGHT.
UM, I THINK STAFF DID A VERY GOOD JOB WITH SUMMING UP.
UH, BUT I THINK IT COMES DOWN TO THIS IS GONNA GO ONE WAY OR ANOTHER, AND I'D RATHER IT BE REPLACED WITH THIS BUILDING THAN SOME OF THE OTHERS THAT WE'VE SEEN THEM COME UP.
I, I RARELY WANT TO GO ALONG WITH, UM, A DEMOLITION OF A HISTORIC BUILDING.
AND THIS IS A CONTRIBUTING BUILDING IN THE FAIRVIEW, UH, TRAVIS HEIGHTS FAIRVIEW PARK NEIGHBORHOOD.
BUT I THINK THAT THIS DESIGN REALLY REFLECTS THE ORIGINAL BUILDING AND EVEN, UM, RESPECTS IT.
SO, UM, I WOULD SUPPORT THE, THE MOTION, UM, IF IT PASSES THE CITY OF DOCUMENTATION PACKET FOR THE CITY OF AUSTIN, YOU COULD TALK, STAFF WILL CONTACT YOU ABOUT WHAT, WHAT'S REQUIRED OF THAT.
UH, COMMISSIONER TELL, I, UH, JUST BECAUSE THIS IS A NATIONAL REGISTER DISTRICT, WE'RE APPROVING THE DEMOLITION PERMIT PLUS THE SPECIFIC PLANS.
SO THEY HAVE TO, THEY HAVE TO DO THE SPECIFIC PLANS AND MAKE A DUPLEX BACK THERE? YES.
WELL, I DON'T KNOW IF THEY, YOU KNOW, IF THEY SNEAK SOME MORE PEOPLE IN.
WELL, I SNEAK AS MANY PEOPLE, BUT I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT, THAT WE'RE JUST NOT RELEASING THE DEMO PERMIT AND WE HAVE TO COME BACK.
SO WE WE'RE, WE DON'T COME BACK AND LOOK AT THESE PLANS.
THE, WE SAW THE PLANS, WE, WE HAVE PLANS.
AND THEY DID COME TO THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE.
ON THE, I JUST WANTED TO, YEAH, I DIDN'T WANNA SEE US, SEE US LOSE FOUR UNITS, WIND UP WITH ONE.
DID YOU AB SUPPORT NOT WITHOUT THEM COMING BACK AND GETTING ANOTHER APPROVAL.
I'M, I'M PRETTY GRUMPY ABOUT LOSING THESE, THE TWO UNITS.
I DON'T THINK WE HEARD A COMPELLING CASE ABOUT WHY THE CURRENT STRUCTURE IS NOT VIABLE.
UM, BUT WE ONLY HAVE SO MANY, SO MANY TOOLS TO WORK WITH HERE AT THE HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION.
UM, I THINK, YOU KNOW, I TRIED TO MAKE THE POINT THAT WE HAVE A BROKEN BUILDING CODE AND THAT'S CONTRIBUTING TO THE LOSS OF THIS FOURPLEX.
THAT THIS FOURPLEX, WHICH I ASSUME HOUSES IT AT LEAST FOUR INDIVIDUALS, MAYBE AS MANY AS FOUR FAMILIES.
IT'S, WELL, IT'S NOT, BUT I, YOU KNOW, I ALSO GREW UP IN AUSTIN IN A HOUSE THAT'S A TINY, TINY, TINY
[03:05:01]
FRACTION OF THIS DUPLEX.UM, AND IT'S JUST, UH, WHAT IS THERE NOW IS WE'RE NOT EVEN ALLOWED TO REBUILD IT CUZ IT, IT'S DOESN'T CONFORM TO CURRENT ZONING.
IT'S BEEN, IT'S BEEN DOWN ZONED.
I I THINK THE ZONING IS SF THREE THERE.
I THINK THAT THEY, PROBABLY, THE FOURPLEX WASN'T A LEGAL FOURPLEX, BUT SF THREE WASN'T A THING BEFORE THE EARLY EIGHTIES.
SO THIS THING WAS TURNED INTO A FOURPLEX IN THE SIXTIES.
IT WAS EFFECTIVELY DOWN, ZONED AND GRANDFATHERED IN.
AND NOW, YOU KNOW, FAST FORWARD 40 YEARS, WERE LOSING TWO HOUSING UNITS AND WE'RE JUST, UH, CHIPPING AWAY AT THE EDGES, MAKING THINGS LESS AND LESS AFFORDABLE EVERY DAY.
UH, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND.
ALL ANY OPPOSED? AND WE HAVE ONE ABSTENTION THE MOTION PASSES, SO WE WON'T SEE YOU IN DECEMBER.
IS THAT IT? I THINK THAT'S IT.
[39. Architectural Review Committee – Updates from previous meeting.]
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE, UH, WE SAW A NUMBER OF THESE PROJECTS, UH, AT ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE, AND I WOULD NOTE WE SAW A SIGNAGE CASE COME BACK TO US FROM THE PREVIOUS MEETING.AND IT RAISED THE ISSUE THAT THE OPERATIONS COMMITTEE MIGHT WANNA CONSIDERED TAKING UP ANOTHER LOOK AT THE SIGN GUIDELINES IN HISTORIC DISTRICTS TO AT LEAST, UH, ACKNOWLEDGE TOWERS GOING UP IN THEM.
AND THE SIGNS UP AT THE TOP OF THE TOWERS THAT AREN'T REALLY RELATED TO ANYTHING YOU CAN SEE AT GROUND LEVEL AND IN GENERAL, JUST A REVAMP OF THE SIGN GUIDELINES MIGHT BE, MIGHT BE IN ORDER, UM,
[40. Operations Committee – Future meeting to be scheduled.]
OPERATIONS COMMITTEE, FUTURE MEETING TO BE SCHEDULED.I SENT OUT A SURVEY TO THE OPERATIONS COMMITTEE MEMBERS.
UM, I KNOW ONE PERSON MAYBE HAS DONE THE SURVEY, SO IF THE OTHER TWO YEAH.
UM, IF YOU HAVE ANY, IF ANY OF THE COMMISSIONERS HAVE RECOMMENDATIONS OF TOPICS, UH, THAT THE OPERATIONS COMMITTEE CAN DISCUSS, YOU CAN EMAIL ME.
UM, OTHER THAN THE OBVIOUS ONES LIKE SIGN THE SIGN GUIDELINES AND, UH, PROCESS PROCESSES AND, UH, STANDARD MOTIONS, ALL OF THAT.
IF YOU HAVE ANY OTHER IDEAS, YOU CAN EMAIL ME.
UM, BUT MY HOPE IS TO MEET BEFORE THE END OF THE YEAR AND TRY TO KEEP, UH, A REGULAR SCHEDULE OF AT LEAST EVERY OTHER MONTH OR AS NEEDED.
BUT AT LEAST, UM, ONCE A ONCE, YEAH, ONCE EVERY THREE MONTHS IS MY HOPE.
[41. Grants Committee – Future meeting to be scheduled.]
GRANTS COMMITTEE.UM, AS FAR AS LIKE STAFF LOOKING AT IT, I DON'T SEE, UH, A PURPOSE TO MEET RIGHT NOW.
UM, UNLESS THERE'S SOME ITEMS THAT THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS OR THE COMMISSION WOULD LIKE THE GRANTS COMMITTEE TO MEET ABOUT.
YOU'RE WELCOME TO EMAIL ME, UM, ABOUT THAT
[42. Preservation Plan Committee – Updates from previous meeting.]
AND THE PRESERVATION PLAN COMMITTEE.I CAN GIVE A, JUST A BRIEF UPDATE.
UH, WE MET, UH, WEEK OR TWO AGO, UH, WE RECEIVED A UPDATE ON THE ULI, UH, TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PANEL, UM, ON THEIR DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS AND NEXT STEPS FOR THAT.
UM, AND THE REST OF OUR MEETING REALLY FOCUSED ON THE PRESERVATION PLAN.
UH, THERE WAS A HANDOFF WORKSHOP FROM PHASE ONE MOVING INTO PHASE TWO OF THE PRESERVATION PLAN.
UH, WE TALKED ABOUT THE PROJECT WEBSITE, UM, AND, AND WENT THROUGH SOME OF THE ELEMENTS OF THAT, UM, AS IT'S BEING DEVELOPED.
AND, UH, REALLY JUST TALKED ABOUT WHAT THE NEXT STEPS ARE FOR THE PRESERVATION PLAN, UM, THAT WAS FULLY FUNDED BY THE CITY COUNCIL, UM, AND THEIR, UH, IN THEIR, UH, BUDGET.
SO WE ARE HAPPILY MOVING FORWARD WITH PHASE TWO OF THE PRESERVATION FIT.
I, YES, I DID WANT TO EXTEND MY APOLOGIES TO STAFF INTO THE COMMITTEE AS A WHOLE.
I, IT'S BEEN AN UNFORTUNATE SERIES OF OVERLAPS WITH MY PROFESSIONAL LIFE THAT I HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO ATTEND.
AND, UH, I DO APOLOGIZE FOR THAT.
AND WILL ENDEAVOR TO INFORM THEM PRIOR TO THE MEETING MOVING FORWARD.
WELL, I DON'T, WAS THIS FOR THE HANDOFF MEETING IN PARTICULAR? I DON'T THINK I'VE MADE ONE YET, BUT, OKAY.
WELL, I APOLOGIZE AND I NEED TO APOLOGIZE TO CARA, UH, BERRAN FOR
[03:10:01]
NOT BEING AT THE, AT THE HANDOFF MEETING.I JUST, ONCE I STEPPED DOWN FROM THE PRESERVATION PLAN COMMITTEE, I JUST KIND OF PUT IT ON THE BACK BURNER.
BUT BEFORE WE LEAVE, BEFORE WE ADJOURN HERE TONIGHT, WHAT ARE Y'ALL DOING HERE?
I'M THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, TEXAS HISTORICAL
I'M TEACHING A COURSE IN SALES WELL ENOUGH FOR NOT
I'M TEACHING A COURSE IN HISTORIC PRESERVATION LOT UT THIS FALL AND THIS IS MY CLASS.
YOU WHAT
SHE SAID, WE'RE BETTER THAN REALITY TELEVIS REALITY TV.
WE'VE HAD, UH, SCOP WE'VE HAD PEOPLE YELL US PHYSICAL FAMILY FEU.
WE'VE, WE'VE, WE'VE HAD PROTESTS, THE SONS OF THE CONFEDERATE VETERANS, UH, PROTESTED.
SO THIS IS REALLY A PRETTY, UM, PRETTY DULL NIGHT FOR US.
BUT, BUT YOU, I HOPE THAT YOU COULD SEE THAT WE, WE DO HAVE SOME CASES THAT COME BEFORE US THAT HAVE, UH, A LOT OF IMPACT ON HOW AUSTIN IS GONNA LOOK, UM, IN THE NOT TOO DIFFERENT DISTANT FUTURE RANGING IN SIZE FROM MULTI-STORY TOWERS TO COUP IS ON TOP OF ROOFS.
WELL, LET'S NOT FORGET THE DOOR.
I'M, I'M, I'M NOT DOWN WITH THE COAH, I HAVE TO TELL YOU, BUT, UH, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE TO TAKE THESE CASES A AS, UM, YOU KNOW, ON THEIR MERITS AND EACH CASE IS IMPORTANT TO, UH, TO SOMEBODY.
SO WE, WE TRY TO, UM, GIVE THE COS AS MUCH OF A HARD TIME AS WE DO, UH, MR. WAYLAN, UM, FOR HIS CONGRESS AVENUE, UH, PROJECT.
BUT, UH, THANK YOU FOR COMING.
IF THERE ARE NO, UH, DO WE HAVE ANY FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS HERE TO TALK ABOUT? CUZ WE'VE GOT A BIG OLD FUTURE AGENDA I THINK IN, WELL WE SAID THAT LAST TIME DECEMBER AND THEN WE POSTPONE HALF A IT REALLY WORKED OUT RIGHT? GAVE THE OTHER HALF TO THE REVIEW COMMITTEE.
THIS TIDE'S GONNA OVERCOME US EVENTUALLY.
DO I HEAR A MOTION TO ADJOURN? SOME MOVE SOME OF, EXACTLY.
ALL IN FAVOR? AND, UH, COMMISSIONER WRIGHT, UH, THAT WAS A REAL, UH, INVITATION TO YEAH.
I NEED TO CHECK MY SCHEDULE, SO MY WORK SCHEDULE, BUT UM, BUT YES, I'LL BE HAPPY TO BE THERE.
MAKING BUB THE WAITING, PULLING YOUR HAND.