Jun 07, 2023 Historic Landmark

[00:00:06]

IT

[CALL TO ORDER ]

I'M BEN HEIM STAFF, THE INTERIM CHAIR OF THE HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION.

I WILL CALL THIS MEETING TO ORDER.

LET ME START WITH, UH, ROLL CALL, UH, COMMISSION.

AND WE HAVE, UM, WE HAVE ALMOST A FULL COMPLIMENT OF MEMBERS.

WE HAVE ONE VACANCY, BUT, UH, WE HAVE A NUMBER OF FOLKS WHO HAVE, UH, TAKEN THEIR SEAT.

AND, UH, WE WELCOME EVERYONE.

UH, LET ME START WITH, UH, JAIME ALVAREZ.

PRESENT HERE.

ROXANNE EVANS.

HERE.

WHIT FEATHERSTON.

PRESENT.

KEVIN COOK.

HERE.

CARL LAROCHE.

HERE.

HARMONY GROGAN.

I BELIEVE HARMONY IS NOT ABLE TO MAKE IT THIS EVENING.

OKAY.

TREY MC WATER HERE.

RAYMOND CASTILLO HERE.

AND JUAN RAMON RUBIO HERE? YEP.

ALL RIGHT.

SO, AND THEN AGAIN, ONE VACANCY.

SO, UH, WE WILL AT THIS POINT, UH, CHECK AND SEE IF

[PUBLIC COMMUNICATION: GENERAL]

IS, IS THAT ON THE AGENDA? IS ANYBODY OH, FOR PUBLIC COMMUNICATION? YES.

ANY PUBLIC COMMUNICATION? WE DO NOT.

OH, ACTUALLY WE DO.

UH, EDWIN BATISTA.

OKAY.

AND THIS IS FOR AN ITEM THAT IS NOT POSTED ON THE AGENDA.

THANK YOU.

YEP, GO AHEAD.

HELLO, COMMISSION.

HELLO.

OKAY.

HELLO, COMMISSIONERS.

UH, THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE TODAY.

I WANTED TO JUST BRIEFLY, UM, SHARE SOME NEWS WITH YOU.

IF YOU ARE NOT AWARE, UM, THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS IS PROPOSING TO DEMOLISH THE, A BUILDING ON ITS CAMPUS REFERRED TO AS A UNIVERSITY JUNIOR HIGH.

UM, AND THIS BUILDING HAS, UM, HIS IS DESIGNATED AS A HISTORIC NATIONAL, UM, A NATIONAL HISTORIC PLACE.

AND I KNOW THAT THAT IS NOT, UM, NECESSARILY RELEVANT TO THE COMMISSION, THIS COMMISSION, BUT MY HOPE IS THAT, UM, WE COULD POSSIBLY COME TOGETHER AS A COMMUNITY TO POSSIBLY, UM, UH, LET THE UNIVERSITY KNOW THAT WE AS A COMMUNITY WOULD NOT LIKE TO SEE THE, UH, BUILDING DEMOLISHED.

UM, I WROTE AN OPINION PIECE FOR THE AUSTIN CHRONICLE, IN WHICH I ARGUE, UM, MY OPINION FOR PRESERVATION.

AND I WOULD HOPE THAT THIS COMMISSION ALSO SHARES THAT SAME SENTIMENT.

AND WITH THAT BEING SAID, UM, THERE'S ALSO NUMEROUS, UH, THERE HAS RECENTLY BEEN A COLUMN BY BRIDGET, UH, FROM THE AUSTIN AMERICAN STATEMENTS, WHICH SHE ALSO GIVES SOME BACKGROUND INFORMATION, UM, PARTICULARLY AROUND A MURAL THAT IS IN THE BUILDING, UM, AND, AND GIVES EVEN MORE REASON TO PRESERVE THE BUILDING.

AND SO, UM, WITH THAT BEING SAID, I, UH, WOULD LIKE, UM, AND HOPE THAT THE COMMISSION, UM, CAN DO WHATEVER, UM, IN ITS POWER TO, UH, UH, POT POTENTIALLY OPPOSE THE PROJECT IF THAT IS SOMETHING THAT IS POSSIBLE.

UM, AND IF POSSIBLE, ALSO TO ENCOURAGE THE UNIVERSITY TO LOOK INTO, UM, PRESERVING THE BUILDING AND FOLLOWING THE STEPS OF ACC, UM, AND THEIR RESTORATION OF THEIR RIO GRANDE, HIS, UH, CAMPUS ON, UH, ABOUT, ABOUT A MILE AWAY FROM HERE.

UM, THAT'S A GREAT, UH, EXAMPLE OF WHAT COULD BE DONE TO RE UH, TO PRESERVE HISTORIC BUILDINGS SUCH AS UNIVERSITY OF JUNIOR HIGH, UM, THAT REALLY MEAN A LOT TO THE COMMUNITY.

AND, UM, UH, YEAH, MY HOPE IS THAT EITHER A NON-PROFIT, SUCH AS PER PERSEVE PRESERVATION AUSTIN CAN COME FORWARD AND, UH, PUT FORTH THE STATEMENT OR, UM, IDEALLY SUPPORTED BY THE COMMISSION, IF POSSIBLE, THAT THE UNIVERSITY LOOK INTO RECONSIDERING, UM, THEIR PLAN FOR THIS DEMO DEMOLITION.

AND, UM, YEAH, IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO, IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO HELP IN THIS EFFORT, I, I WOULD APPRECIATE THAT AND WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU TO REACH OUT TO ME.

I'M HOPING TO, UH, GATHER SOME SUPPORT ON THIS TOPIC AND COME TO THE UNIVERSITY, UM, FORMALLY AND EXPRESS, UM, THIS, UH, OPINION IN THE SENSE AND HOPING AND HOPE TO, UH, UH, CONVINCE THEM TO, UH, RECONSIDER THIS PROPOSAL.

THANK YOU.

THANK YOU, MR. BATISTA.

THANK YOU FOR BRINGING MR TO OUR ATTENTION.

UH, I WILL SAY WE HAVE NO JURISDICTION WHEN IT COMES TO STATE, UH, PROPERTIES.

UH, HOWEVER, UH, YOUR SUGGESTION THAT WE OFFER, UH, SUPPORT AND ENCOURAGEMENT, UH, THAT CAN HAPPEN ANYWHERE.

SO, UH, UH, DO I HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OF THE SPEAKER COMMISSIONER? I DO.

SO IN, IN ESSENCE, UH, WHAT YOU'RE ASKING FROM THIS DIOCESE, A LETTER OF SUPPORT.

YES, CORRECT.

IF THAT IS POSSIBLE.

UM, YES.

AND JUST AS A SHOW FROM THE COMMUNITY AND FROM THE COMMISSION, THAT THIS IS SOMETHING THAT, UH, THE COMMUNITY IS, IS BEHIND IN THE SENSE OF PRESERVATION AND, AND KEEPING WITH, UM, THE, THE, UH, LEGACY OF AUSTIN, AND PARTICULARLY THIS SPECIFIC BUILDING HAS A LOT OF, UH, SENTIMENTAL VALUE TO THE COM LOCAL COMMUNITY, AS IT WAS A PARTNERSHIP BETWEEN THE UNIVERSITY

[00:05:01]

AND SO I, I BELIEVE WITH THAT, IT WAS WHAT QUALIFIED IT FOR HISTORIC, UM, LANDMARK COMMISSION ON TOP OF THE ARCHITECTURAL, UM, UM, THE ARCHITECTURAL, THE ARCHITECTURE OF THE BUILDING AS WELL IS, IS ALSO, UM, HISTORIC IN THE SENSE THAT IT IS, UM, UH, TO A DEGREE, UM, UM, BASED AROUND THE, THE MASTER, THE UT'S MASTER PLAN, AND THOSE ARCHITECTURAL GUIDELINES AS WELL.

THANK YOU.

IS THERE A PRECEDENT FOR SUCH, UH, LETTERS OF SUPPORT CHAIR HEIM? NOT FOR SOMETHING SPECIFIC TO THE STATE OF TEXAS'S ACTIONS THAT I CAN REMEMBER.

UM, IN THIS SITUATION, WE'RE NOT POSTED TO TAKE AN ACTION LIKE THAT, BUT IT'S CERTAINLY SOMETHING WE CAN LOOK INTO.

SO CAN WE, UH, ASK STAFF TO AT LEAST TAKE A LOOK AND SEE WHAT HAS BEEN THE CASE IN SITUATIONS WHERE WE HAVE A SENTIMENT THAT'S VERY STRONG, PERHAPS, BUT NOT NECESSARILY IN OUR JURISDICTION? YEAH.

AND WE CAN REACH OUT TO THE TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION WHO MANAGES, UH, NATIONAL REGISTERED BUILDINGS, UM, TO SEE WHAT THEIR PROCESSES LOOK LIKE AS WELL.

TERRIFIC.

AND CERTAINLY AS INDIVIDUALS, EVERY ONE OF US HAS THE ABILITY TO EXPRESS THAT.

BUT I THINK ALSO TOGETHER, IF IT IS APPROPRIATE, UH, TO BE ABLE TO HAVE SOME EXPRESSION, UH, BUT WE'LL CERTAINLY LOOK INTO IT.

SO THANK YOU AGAIN.

YOU REALLY APPRECIATE.

ONE QUICK QUESTION.

UM, SURE.

IF IT'S, IF IT'S ALREADY, IS IT ALREADY SLATED FOR DEMOLITION? AND IF THAT, IF THAT'S THE CASE, IS IT KIND OF BEYOND CONTROL AT THIS POINT? LIKE IS THERE A DEVELOPER THAT'S ALREADY, THAT'S A VERY GOOD QUESTION, AND I THINK THE ANSWER FOR I, AS FAR AS I'VE LOOKED INTO THE BOARD OF REGENTS MEETINGS AND HAVE NOT SEEN ANY OFFICIAL, UM, AUTHOR AUTHORIZATION FROM THEM THAT THE BUILDING TO BE DEMOLISHED.

AND THERE, THERE HAVE BEEN PROPOSED RENDERINGS OF, OF THE BUILDING THAT THEY, THE UNIVERSITY WANTS TO BUILD IN THAT SPOT, BUT THERE HAS BEEN NO OFFICIAL, UM, COM CONFIRMATION THERE.

THERE'RE ACTUALLY JUST NOW STARTING TO VACATE THE BUILDING AND ARE PREPARING IT, BUT THERE HASN'T BEEN AN OFFICIAL, UM, DEMOLITION.

SO MY HOPE IS THAT HOPEFULLY THIS IS SOMETHING THAT COULD STILL BE STOPPED BEFORE IT'S OFFICIALLY GIVEN THE, UH, CONFIRMATION BY THE BORDER REGENTS.

I WOULD LIKE TO ADD THAT IN OUR SYSTEM OR PERMITTING SYSTEM, THERE IS NO ACTIVE OR OPEN PERMIT FOR DEMOLITION FOR THIS SITE YET, SO, BUT NO, BUT IT, OH, NEVERMIND, IT'S ON THE UT CAMPUS, SO IT WOULDN'T BE, UM, THOUGH, THOUGH, UH, IT IS THC, UH, TEXAS HISTORIC COMMISSION'S JURISDICTION, SO MOST LIKELY THERE ARE SOME STEPS ALONG THE WAY AS THAT GROUP, UH, HAS, UM, SOME JURISDICTION AND EVEN OUR SENTIMENTS EXPRESSED IN THOSE FORUMS MAY VERY WELL BE APPROPRIATE.

UH, AND I APPRECIATE YOU MAKING THE CONNECTION WITH A I S D AND THE JOINT VENTURE THAT WAS THE SOURCE, BECAUSE THAT MAY GIVE US SOME STANDING.

OKAY.

OF COURSE.

AND I'M ALWAYS HAPPY TO PROVIDE OR HELP IN ANY KIND OF WAY I CAN.

THANK YOU AGAIN.

THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THAT TO OUR OF COURSE.

THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT.

IS THERE ANYONE ELSE? ALL RIGHT.

WELL, LET ME JUST PROCEED WITH THE AGENDA.

I'LL READ THROUGH

[Consent Agenda]

UH, WE'LL START WITH THE FIRST POSTED ITEM, THE APPROVAL OF MINUTES.

THAT'S FROM THE MAY 20, UH, THE MAY 3RD MEETING, 2023.

UH, WE ARE SLATED HERE TO HAVE, UH, BRIEFING, UM, ON THE 29 40 EAST 12TH STREET DEMOLITION PERMIT THAT WAS ADMINISTRATIVELY APPROVED.

THAT'S ITEM TWO ON PUBLIC HEARINGS AND DISCUSSIONS, UH, FOR, UM, COUNCIL INITIATED CODE AMENDMENT.

UH, THIS IS ITEM THREE, UH, THE SIXTH STREET CODE REVISION.

UM, THAT IS POSTED AS A CONSENT, BUT I'M GOING TO SUGGEST THAT THAT IS A, UH, DISCUSSION ITEM AND ONE THAT WE MAY VERY WELL WANT TO, UM, SINCE YOU MAY TAKE SOME TIME, UH, TAKE UP A LITTLE LATER IN OUR MEETING.

UH, WE CAN TAKE ACTION ON THAT IN JUST A MOMENT.

ON ITEM FOUR, UH, THAT WAS THE 6 0 6 EAST THIRD STREET, AND 10 0 5 LYDIA STREET.

THAT APPLICATION WAS WITHDRAWN, SO THERE'S NO ACTION REQUIRED ON ITEM FIVE, WHICH IS 115 EAST FIFTH STREET, UH, THERE IS A POSTPONEMENT THAT'S BEEN REQUESTED BY THE APPLICANT ON ITEM SIX POSTED, UH, WHICH IS 2300 WINDSOR ROAD, UH, THAT IS POSTED FOR CONSENT ON ITEM SEVEN, UH, 1906 MAPLE AVENUE.

THAT ONE IS POSTED FOR CONSENT.

OH, AND BY THE WAY, IF, UH, ANY OF THESE THAT ARE POSTED FOR CONSENT, IF ANY OF THE COMMISSIONERS, OR IF ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WOULD LIKE THAT TO BE PULLED FOR DISCUSSION, PLEASE GET MY ATTENTION AND WE WILL BE ABLE TO GO AHEAD AND HAVE THAT, UH, AS PART OF THE PRESENTATION.

OTHERWISE, UH, WHEN THEY'RE ON THE CONSENT AGENDA, UH, IF THEY'RE VOTED IN FAVOR, THEN THEY WILL BE PASSED.

ITEM NUMBER EIGHT IS NEXT.

THAT'S 6 0 4 BRAK STREET, UH, THAT IS OFFERED FOR CONSENT.

UM, AM I MISSING AN

[00:10:01]

IS THERE AN I ITEM BEFORE THE FIVE 12 EAST MONROE STREET? WE'RE, WE'RE MISSING SOMETHING BETWEEN EIGHT AND NINE ON OUR, OH, YEAH, THERE IS NO NUMBER NINE.

THERE IS NO NUMBER NINE.

SO THAT IS MY NUMBERING ERROR.

I'M SO SORRY.

I TAKE THE ORDER AS THEY COME AND THEY SKIP NUMBER NINE.

GOOD.

I JUST NOTICED THAT.

THANK YOU.

UH, NUMBER 10, THEN.

TH THESE ARE REQUESTS, UH, FOR PERMITTING IN THE NATIONAL REGISTERED DISTRICT APPLICATIONS, UH, FIVE 12 EASTMAN MONROE STREET.

UH, AN APPLICATION, UH, APPLICANT HAS REQUESTED A POSTPONEMENT ITEM 11 13 15 AND 1317 NOON AVENUE.

UH, THAT ALSO IS A POSTPONEMENT REQUEST BY THE APPLICANT, ITEM NUMBER 12 15 13 MURRAY LANE.

UH, THAT ALSO HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN BY THE APPLICANT.

AND SO NO ACTION IS REQUIRED ON NUMBER 12.

ON ITEM 13 14 0 9 ALTA VISTA AVENUE, UH, THERE IS A POSTPONEMENT REQUEST AGAIN BY THE APPLICANT.

ITEM 14 18 12 WEST 11TH STREET THAT IS OFFERED FOR CONSENT.

UH, I WILL NOTE, UH, THERE'S BEEN EXTENSIVE WORK ON THIS PROJECT BY THE OWNER, THE ARCHITECT, AND THE NEIGHBORS.

AND, UH, IF IT STAYS ON CONSENT, THAT'S FINE, BUT WE CERTAINLY SHOULD GIVE THEM A, UH, COMPLIMENTS FOR SOME EXCELLENT WORK.

USE THAT AS A MODEL IF SOMEBODY WANTS TO KNOW HOW TO DO IT.

RIGHT.

ITEM 15, UH, 10 0 4 EASTON STREET, UH, OFFERED FOR CONSENT.

AND ITEM 16 25 12 WOOLDRIDGE DRIVE.

UH, THIS IS FOR PROPOSAL FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION THAT IS OFFERED FOR CONSENT.

ITEM 17 3 0 1 PARK LANE.

UH, THAT IS A GARAGE REMODEL, AND THAT IS OFFERED FOR CONSENT.

WE THEN HAVE, UH, ITEMS THAT ARE INVOLVED AS DEMOLITION OR RELOCATION PERMITS THAT HAVE BEEN FILED THAT ARE NOT PART OF, UH, AN, UH, A, UH, HISTORIC DISTRICT.

AND ITEM 18, UH, WAS, UH, 6 0 8 EAST THIRD STREET, AND, UH, EVIDENTLY HAD AN INCOMPLETE APPLICATION.

AND SO THAT WITHDRAWAL IS PENDING.

IS THAT STILL CURRENT? I HAVE CONFIRMATION FROM THIS MORNING THAT IT IS BEEN, UH, WITHDRAWN.

WITHDRAWN.

OKAY.

SO IF IT DOES COME BACK, IT WOULD BE A NEW APPLICATION, IS THAT CORRECT? YEAH, IT'LL BE, UH, A NEW RELOCATION PERMIT APPLICATIONS FOR BOTH 6 0 6 AND 6 0 8.

UH, BUT THAT IS TO COME LATER ON.

OKAY.

ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU.

ITEM NUMBER 19 4 0 1 RIDGEWOOD ROAD.

UH, THAT ONE IS POSTED FOR DISCUSSION.

UH, THAT IS A DEMOLITION REQUEST THAT WAS POSTPONED FROM OUR PREVIOUS MEETING.

UM, ITEM 20 22 0 4 CURTIS AVENUE.

UH, THIS IS A DEMOLITION REQUEST THAT IS OFFERED FOR CONSENT.

ITEM 21 CHAIR.

EXCUSE ME.

UH, YES, COMMISSIONER, MAY WE POLL ITEM 20, ITEM 20 FOR DISCUSSION.

CERTAINLY.

THANK YOU.

ITEM 21, UH, 27 0 4 CANTERBURY STREET.

UH, THAT IS ALSO, UH, REQUEST FOR DEMOLITION, PERMIT OFFERED FOR CONSENT.

AND THOSE ARE THE LAST OF THE CASES AS THEY'RE POSTED.

WE ALSO HAVE POSTED COMMITTEE UPDATES, UH, FOR THE, UH, FOR STANDING COMMITTEES, THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE, OPERATIONS COMMITTEE, GRANTS COMMITTEE AND PRESERVATION PLAN COMMITTEE.

AND THEN WE'RE ALSO POSTED FOR THE 2023 COMMISSION, UH, ELECTIONS, AND ALSO, UH, POSTED FOR THE DOWNTOWN COMMISSION NOMINATION.

UH, AND THEN STAFF WILL ALSO BE ABLE TO GIVE US AN UPDATE ON THE COMMISSIONER TRAINING AND RETREAT SCHEDULED FOR LATER IN THE SUMMER.

SO THAT'S THE REVIEW OF THE AGENDA.

UH, I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION FOR THE, UH, CONSENT ITEMS CHAIR.

I MOVE TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA.

OKAY.

AND THAT WILL BE, UH, ITEM, IS THERE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND.

OKAY.

UH, THAT WAS MOVED BY, UM, COMMISSIONER LAROCHE, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FEATHERSTON.

AND, UH, THE ITEMS FOR CONSENT ARE THE MINUTES, UH, FROM MAY 3RD.

UH, AND I WILL ABSTAIN SINCE I WASN'T AT THAT MEETING.

AND, UM, 2300 WINDSOR ROAD NUMBER 6 7 19 0 6 MAPLE AVENUE, 86 0 4 BRAS 14 18 12 WEST 11TH STREET, UH, 15 10 0 4 EASTON STREET, AND 16 25 12 WALBRIDGE DRIVE, 17 3 0 1 PARK LANE.

UH, NUMBER 20 HAS BEEN PULLED FOR DISCUSSION.

UH, 21 27 0 4 CANTERBURY STREET.

SO THOSE ARE THE ITEMS PERTAINING

[00:15:01]

WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR.

AND ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

AYE.

AYE.

ANY OPPOSED? OKAY.

IT'S UNANIMOUS.

UH, THOSE ITEMS HAVE PASSED ON.

CONSENT.

UH, THOSE ITEMS FOR POSTPONEMENT, UH, ALL OF THEM APPLICANT REQUESTED WERE ITEM FIVE 115 EAST FIFTH STREET, ITEM TEN FIVE TWELVE EASTMAN MONROE STREET, ITEM 11 13 15 AND 1317 NOON AVENUE, ITEM 13, 14 0 9 ALTA VISTA AVENUE.

UH, ALL OF THOSE, UH, ARE OFFERED FOR, UH, CONSENT POSTPONEMENT.

I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

SO MOVED.

COMMISSIONER LAROCHE.

WILL I HAVE A SECOND? SECOND.

UM, I'M GONNA GET OUR NEW, NEW MEMBER OVER HERE.

SO, UH, GO AHEAD.

UH, COMMISSIONER CASTILLO, UM, IS SECONDING, AND, UH, I'LL HAVE A VOTE ON THE MOTION.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? OKAY.

BY SAYING AYE.

AYE.

AYE.

ALL THOSE OPPOSED? OKAY.

THOSE ITEMS ARE POSTPONED, UH, AT THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST.

WE DON'T REQUIRE ACTION ON THE WITHDRAWN CASES, BUT JUST FOR REVIEW, ITEM NUMBER 4, 6 0 6 EAST THIRD STREET, AND 10 0 5 LYDIA, ITEM 12 15 13 MURRAY LANE, AND ITEM 18, 6 0 8 EAST THIRD STREET.

UH, THOSE ARE NO LONGER, UH, NO LONGER POSTED ITEMS AS THEY HAVE BEEN WITHDRAWN.

SO, UH, THE VERY FIRST

[2. 2940 E. 12th Street – Demolition Permit Application Administratively Approved Presenter: Kalan Contreras (staff) ]

UH, MS. CONTRERAS, I GUESS YOU HAVE, YOU HAVE SOME, UH, OVERVIEW TO GIVE US AS WELL AS JUST INDICATING SOME SPECIFICS ABOUT THE CASE? I DO.

UM, AND WELCOME TO OUR NEW MEMBER, ONE MUR RAMON RUBIO.

UM, WE'RE GLAD TO HAVE YOU HERE.

UM, ITEM TWO IS A BRIEFING ON A DEMOLITION PERMIT APPLICATION FOR PROPERTY OWNED BY A RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATION.

UM, TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE TWO 11.0 1 65 PROVIDES MUNICIPAL AUTHORITY FOR HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATION.

IN 2019, THE LEGISLATURE AMENDED THAT AUTHORITY THROUGH HOUSE BILL 24 96 DASH 86, IN ADDITION TO INTRODUCING A SUPER MAJORITY REQUIREMENT FOR LANDMARK DESIGNATION OVER OWNER OBJECTION, THE BILL BILL PROVIDED THAT PROPERTY OWNED BY A RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATION MAY NOT BE DESIGNATED WITHOUT OWNER CONSENT PER THE 2021 MEMO.

IN YOUR BACKUP.

UM, TO COMPLY WITH CITY CODE AND STATE LAW, THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE MUST ADMINISTRATIVELY APPROVE, UM, ALL APPLICATIONS FOR THE DEMOLITION OR RELOCATION OF A BUILDING OWNED BY A RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATION WITHOUT FIRST SCHEDULING A HEARING AT THE HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION.

AT EACH MEETING, UH, WE PROVIDE THE COMMISSION WITH A BRIEFING REGARDING ANY SUCH ACTION TAKEN SINCE THE PRIOR COMMISSION MEETING, UM, THIS MONTH, THE PROPERTY AT 29 40 EAST 12TH STREET, OWNED BY A RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATION, WAS APPROVED FOR DEMOLITION.

UM, IT WAS CONSTRUCTED AROUND 1935 AND ORIGINALLY USED AS A RESIDENCE.

THE PROPERTY DOES NOT APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN EVALUATED IN CITY HISTORIC RESOURCE SURVEYS.

THANK YOU.

THANK YOU.

UM, I, I WILL SAY THIS IS ONE OF THOSE ITEMS WHERE, UM, THE LAW THAT, UH, MS. CONTRERAS IS CITING IS RELATIVELY NEW, UH, REALLY CAME ABOUT FOR NO PARTICULAR REASON OTHER THAN I THINK SOMEBODY JUST WANTED TO, TO TAKE A SWIPE AT HISTORIC PRESERVATION, FRANKLY, BECAUSE, UH, THE, UH, NUMBER OF CHURCHES THAT, UH, HAVE BEEN HELD UP OR HAVE HAD ANY PROBLEM BECAUSE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION, UH, I DON'T KNOW OF, I MEAN, SO THIS IS ONE OF THESE WHERE, UM, WE'RE DEALING WITH FALLOUT OF SOMETHING THAT MAYBE IS FIXING A PROBLEM THAT NEVER EXISTED.

UH, AND THAT'S JUST MY OWN PERSONAL OPINION, BUT I WORK WITH CHURCHES RATHER EXTENSIVELY IN MY WORK.

AND, UM, I THINK WHAT WE'RE SEEING IS, UH, WE'RE VERY FORTUNATE.

IT WAS NOT A PARTICULARLY IMPORTANT BUILDING, BUT BECAUSE IT WAS OWNED BY A CHURCH, WE BASICALLY LOST ANY ABILITY TO HAVE JURISDICTION, OVERSIGHT, OR EVEN COMMENT, UH, OTHER THAN AFTER THE FACT.

SO, AGAIN, MS. CONTRERAS, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THE UPDATE.

AND, UH, COMMISSIONERS, THANK YOU FOR LETTING ME JUST REMIND US THAT WE MAY SEE MORE OF THESE, AND UNFORTUNATELY, SOME OF THE ONES THAT WE MIGHT SEE MAY BE QUITE VALUABLE PROPERTIES, BUT IF A CHURCH OWNS THEM, UH, THEY BASICALLY GET, GET TAKEN OFF THE TABLE.

I MEAN, THIS IS EDUCATIONAL THAT, THAT MORE OF THESE MAY BE COMING TO US.

I RECALL THE CHURCH THAT WAS OFF OF OLTORF, THAT I THINK AT THE TIME IT CAME TO US, IT WAS NOT OWNED BY A RELIGIOUS GROUP, RIGHT? CORRECT.

AND THEN THEY SORT OF DISMANTLED IT RIGHT IN FRONT OF OUR EYES AS MONTH AFTER MONTH.

WE SAID, WHAT THE HECK IS GOING ON HERE? UM, IT, YEAH, I, I

[00:20:01]

I'M PLAYING DEVIL'S ADVOCATE AND ALSO LIKE A DOOMSDAY SCENARIO WHERE A RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATION COULD MAINTAIN OWNERSHIP, UH, BUT DEMOLISH IT WHILE THEY'RE UNDER CONTRACT.

UM, IF THEY SO CHOSE, WELL, LET'S NOT GIVE ANYBODY ANY IDEAS.

OKAY? SORRY ABOUT THAT.

YEAH, NO PROBLEM.

NO, BUT I THINK WE SHOULD MAKE PEOPLE AWARE OF THIS AS A, THIS LOOPHOLE, AGAIN, FOR NO PARTICULAR REASON, IT WOUND UP MAKING SOME PEOPLE FEEL GOOD, BUT REALLY OPENING UP, UH, A LOOPHOLE THAT'S BIG ENOUGH IN SOME CASES TO DRIVE A DEMOLITION TRUCK THROUGH.

YEAH.

SO WE SHOULD BE CONCERNED ABOUT IT.

I'M ALSO CONCERNED THERE, I SHOULD HAVE THOUGHT OUT LOUD JUST THEN.

WELL, THERE'S ALSO SOME, SOME SIGNIFICANT RELIGIOUS BUILDINGS THAT GIVEN THE RIGHT CIRCUMSTANCES AND THE RIGHT TOOLS WOULD BENEFIT FROM.

AND POSSIBLY, UH, YOU KNOW, OUR, OUR ASSISTANCE MAY BE VERY HELPFUL, BUT WE WON'T KNOW AND POSSIBLY ONLY UNTIL AFTER THE FACT.

SO AGAIN, UH, THANK YOU ALL, UH, BUT MS. CONTRERAS, THANK YOU FOR THE UPDATE.

UH, WE JUST HAVE TO BE MINDFUL AS WE CONTINUE TO MONITOR THIS SITUATION.

ALRIGHT.

UM, THE FIRST DISCUSSION CASE THAT WE'RE, UH, POSTED FOR IS, UM, GOING TO BE THE, UM, UPDATE ON THE SIXTH STREET CODE REVISION.

WE HAVE TWO CASES THAT WERE PULLED FOR DISCUSSION, AND I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IF WE CAN GET THOSE FIRST, BECAUSE I THINK THE, UH, CODE DISCUSSION IS GONNA TAKE A BIT OF TIME.

SO IF I CAN HAVE THE OKAY OF THE COMMISSIONERS TO, UM, TAKE THESE ITEMS OUT OF ORDER.

AND, UH, POSTPONE NUMBER THREE UNTIL THE END OF THE AGENDA.

I MOVE TO TAKE AGENDA ITEM NUMBER THREE AFTER WE'VE HEARD AGENDA ITEMS 19 AND 22ND.

OKAY.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? OKAY, THEN WE WILL PROCEED.

SO, UH, LET US GO TOWARDS THE NEXT ITEM

[19. PR-2023-030371 – 401 Ridgewood Rd. – Discussion Council District 8 ]

AND THAT IS ITEM 19.

THAT IS, UH, 4 0 1 RIDGEWOOD ROAD.

IT IS POSTED FOR DISCUSSION, AND THAT IS A PROPOSAL FOR, UH, TOTAL DEMOLITION.

THANK YOU, CHAIR HEIM.

ITEM 19 IS A, UH, AN APPLICATION AT 4 0 1 RIDGEWOOD ROAD FOR A PROPOSAL TO DEMOLISH A CIRCA 1953 HOUSE.

THIS IS A ONE STORY VERNACULAR RANCH HOUSE WITH RUSTIC STONE VENEER, A FULL WIDTH FRONT PORCH, AND A SHALLOW SIDE GABLE ROOF.

THIS HOUSE WAS BUILT AROUND 1953 AND WAS PURCHASED BY LEGENDARY AUSTIN PERFORMER RICHARD S OR CACTUS PRYOR JR.

AND HIS WIFE JEWEL.

IN 1955, THE PRYORS LIVED IN THE HOME UNTIL 1960.

ACCORDING TO DAUGHTER, CARRIE PRYOR, GUTHRIE PRYOR WAS A FIXTURE IN LBJS, TEXAS WHITE HOUSE, AND BELOVED BY TELEVISION AND RADIO FANS, AS WELL AS HIS ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY PEERS.

AFTER HIS DEATH IN 2011, THE AUSTIN AMERICAN STATESMAN'S OBITUARY PAGE EMPHASIZED PRYOR'S IMPORTANCE AS AN AUSTIN ORIGINAL DEEMING HIM THE MOST FAMOUS MAN IN AUSTIN.

UPON RECOUNTING THAT THE FIRST PERSON EVER TO APPEAR ON AUSTIN TELEVISION WAS CACTUS PRYOR, LUCY VAES JOHNSON RECALLS THE IMPACT PRYOR HAD ON HER FAMILY, HIS HOMETOWN, AND ON THE STATE OF TEXAS.

IN THE FOLLOWING QUOTE, FOR NEARLY 90 YEARS, HE MADE US LAUGH, LEARN LOVE, AND SOMETIMES CRY ALL AT THE SAME TIME.

HE COULD HAVE SPENT HIS EXTRAORDINARY TALENT ON THE NATIONAL STAGE.

INSTEAD, HE CHOSE TO GIVE IT TO THE PEOPLE OF CENTRAL TEXAS.

PROPERTIES MUST MEET TWO CRITERIA FOR LANDMARK DESIGNATION.

AND STAFF HAS EVALUATED THIS PROPERTY AND DETERMINED THAT IT MAY MEET TWO CRITERIA.

THE BUILDING IS A VERNACULAR STRUCTURE CONSTRUCTED WITH RANCH STYLE INFLUENCES AND IS ASSOCIATED WITH RICHARD OR CACTUS PRYOR.

THE PRYOR'S LIVED IN THE HOUSE FOR FIVE YEARS.

UM, HOWEVER, PRYOR'S DAUGHTER INDICATED IN A MAY 20, 23 LETTER IN YOUR BACKUP THAT THE PRYOR'S LATER HOME AT 3 0 9 BLUE RIDGE TRAIL LOCATED IN THE WEST LAKE HILLS, ETJ HAS STRONGER ASSOCIATIONS.

THEREFORE, THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO CONSIDER WHETHER THE PRYOR'S FIVE YEAR TENURE IN THE HOME IS SUFFICIENT TO MEET THE CRITERION FOR HISTORICAL ASSOCIATIONS.

IF NOT, THE RECOMMENDATION IS TO RELEASE THE DEMOLITION PERMIT UPON COMPLETION OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN DOCUMENTATION PACKAGE.

THANK YOU.

OKAY, THANK YOU MS. CONTRERAS.

UM, DO WE HAVE A PRESENTATION FROM THE OWNER? THANK YOU.

UH, WELCOME NEW COMMISSIONERS, UH, MICHAEL WHELAN ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT, REQUESTING YOU TO RELEASE THE DEMOLITION PERMIT FOR 4 0 1 RIDGEWOOD.

WE CAN GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.

THIS CASE INVOLVES A 1950S HOUSE ON THE BORDER OF ROLLINGWOOD AND WESTLAKE HILLS, WITH A LIMITED CONNECTION TO AUSTIN HUMOROUS CACTUS PRYOR.

WHILE PRYOR WAS A WELL-KNOWN FIGURE IN AUSTIN, AS YOU HEARD, WE BELIEVE THAT HIS CONNECTION TO THIS HOUSE DOES NOT MEET LOCAL OR NATIONAL STANDARDS FOR DETERMINING HISTORIC ASSOCIATION.

AND PRYOR'S OWN DAUGHTER LETTER IN THE BACKUP

[00:25:01]

GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE.

SO, AS I MENTIONED, 4 0 1 RIDGEWOOD IS LOCATED IN A SMALL CARVED OUT AREA, LARGELY SURROUNDED BY WEST LAKE HILLS IN ROLLINGWOOD.

YOU CAN SEE THERE ON THE SCREEN.

NEXT SLIDE.

IT IS OTHERWISE A RELATIVELY UNREMARKABLE ONE-STORY POST-WAR RANCH HOUSE.

IT WAS BUILT AS YOU HEARD IN 1953, AND THEN CACTUS PRYOR MOVED IN TWO YEARS LATER IN 1955 AND LIVED THERE FOR FIVE YEARS.

NEXT SLIDE.

THAT FIVE YEAR OCCUPANCY IS THE CRUX OF THIS CASE AS STAFF NOTES IN THE CASE REPORT, THIS CASE CENTERS ON WHETHER THE PRYOR'S FIVE YEAR TENURE IN THE HOME IS SUFFICIENT TO MEET THE CRITERION FOR HISTORIC ASSOCIATIONS END.

WE DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THIS STRUCTURE RISES TO THAT HIGH STANDARD.

BOTH FEDERAL AND LOCAL GUIDANCE ON THE HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION CRITERION SPEAK TO THE LENGTH AND STRENGTH OF ASSOCIATION.

THE CITY MAKES CLEAR THAT THIS CRITERION IS FOR LONGSTANDING SIGNIFICANT ASSOCIATIONS.

THE FEDERAL STANDARDS PROVIDE AN EVEN MORE SPECIFIC TEST STATING THAT THE PROPERTIES MUST BE COMPARED TO OTHER ASSOCIATED PROPERTIES TO IDENTIFY THE ONE THAT BEST REPRESENTS THE PERSONS NATIONALLY OR IN THIS CASE, LOCALLY, HISTORIC CONTRIBUTIONS, FEDERAL GUIDANCE ALSO SPECIFICALLY NOTES THE QUOTE, THE LENGTH OF ASSOCIATION IS OFTEN AN IMPORTANT FACTOR.

NEXT SLIDE.

WE, WE BELIEVE THE CASE DOES NOT MEET THESE STANDARDS TO EVALUATE THIS, WE FOLLOWED THE TEST DESCRIBED IN FEDERAL STANDARDS, COMPARING THE RIDGEWOOD HOUSE TO THE OTHER HOMES ASSOCIATION ASSOCIATED WITH THE CACTUS PRYOR, AND DISCUSS THESE CONNECTIONS WITH PRYOR'S OWN CHILDREN.

AS YOU CAN SEE HERE, PRYOR SPENT LESS TIME IN THE RIDGEWOOD HOUSE THAN EITHER OF HIS OTHER HOMES ON BRADY LANE OR AND BLUE RIDGE TRAIL.

AND ONLY TWO OF HIS FOUR CHILDREN WERE BORN BY THE TIME HE MOVED.

IN CONTRAST, HE LIVED A FULL LIFE ON BLUE RIDGE TRAIL WITH HIS ENTIRE FAMILY.

NEXT SLIDE.

THAT IS WHY PRYOR'S DAUGHTER WHO LIVED AT THE HOUSE BRIEFLY WITH HER PARENTS, WROTE TO THE COMMISSIONER TO THE COMMISSION.

AND I BELIEVE IT'S IN THE BACKUP THAT QUOTE, IF THERE IS A CACTUS PRYOR HOUSE, QUOTE UNQUOTE ANYWHERE, IT WOULD BE THE BLUE RIDGE TRAIL HOUSE, NOT THE RIDGEWOOD HOUSE.

IN THAT QUOTE, AT THE VERY LEAST, IT WOULD SEEM LIKE AN ODD CHOICE TO CONNECT MY FATHER'S LEGACY TO THE RIDGEWOOD HOUSE RATHER THAN TO THE PLACE, TO THE PLACES HE LIVED AND WORKED FOR MOST OF HIS LIFE.

SHE SUPPORTS THE DEMOLITION PERMIT REQUEST AND IS NOTED, HAS ABSOLUTELY NO STATE IN THIS CASE WHATSOEVER SINCE HER FAMILY'S ONLY CONNECTION TO THE HOUSE IS HAVING LIVED THERE BRIEFLY SIX DECADES AGO.

NEXT SLIDE.

I'LL JUST CONCLUDE BY SAYING THAT WE BELIEVE PRYOR'S CONNECTION TO THIS STRUCTURE IS GENERALLY WEAK.

PRYOR'S OWN DAUGHTER BELIEVES IT IS WEAK.

AND BASED ON THE FACTS YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU, WE BELIEVE THE MOST APPROPRIATE COURSE IS TO RELEASE THE DEMOLITION PERMIT.

I'D ALSO NOTE THAT THERE IS, UH, AN OWNER OBJECTION THAT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TO STAFF AND IS, UH, I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S IN THE BACKUP, BUT IT IS, UH, HAS BEEN SUBMITTED AS STAFF AND STAFF CAN CONFIRM THAT.

UM, AND, UH, THANK YOU VERY MUCH AND IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, I'M AVAILABLE TO ANSWER THEM.

THANKS.

UH, YES, I DO HAVE ONE QUESTION.

UM, IS THERE ANY INDICATION OF THE CONDITION OF THE HOUSE AND, UH, HOW THAT PERTAINS TO, UH, WHAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN ITS CONDITION IN THE FIFTIES WHEN THEY LIVED THERE? YEAH, SO THE, UM, THERE WAS A RENOVATION IT LOOKS LIKE IN THE NINETIES INSIDE.

I WENT BACK AND FOLLOWED UP ON THAT.

IT IS UNCLEAR FROM AERIALS WHETHER THERE'S BEEN ANY ADDITIONS WHEN YOU LOOK AT HISTORICAL AERIAL.

SO WE COULDN'T TELL WHETHER THERE HAD BEEN ANY EXTERIOR.

UM, BUT IT, IT HAS, THERE HADN'T BEEN ANYTHING DONE SINCE, UH, THE NINETIES INTERIOR WISE AND IT'S BEEN, UM, ABANDONED.

OKAY.

ANY QUESTION OF THE APPLICANT? I I HAVE A QUESTION OF STAFF WITHOUT ANY PREJUDICE TOWARDS THE MERITS OF THE CASE, UH, CONSIDERING THERE'S AN OWNER OBJECTION, WHERE DOES THAT, WHAT, IN WHAT POSITION ARE WE RIGHT NOW? OR DOES IT MATTER FOR INITIATION ONLY FOR RECOMMENDATION? IT, IT WON'T MAKE A DIFFERENCE IN TERMS OF OUR INITIATION OF ACTION IF THAT'S, UH, OUR COURSE.

UH, HOWEVER THE BAR IS HIGHER THAN IF IT'S NOT HAVING AN OWNER'S OBJECTION.

AND I THINK IT'S WORTHY OF INQUIRING, UH, TO THE STAFF.

JUST TO CLARIFY IN PARTICULAR, RELATIVE TO OUR VACANCY.

ALSO THE NUMBERS CHANGE.

SO, UH, UH, EITHER, UH, AMBER OR MS. CONTRERAS, WOULD EITHER OF YOU ALL WANT TO, UH, UH, MS. ALLEN OR MS. CONTRERAS? WOULD EITHER OF YOU WANT TO JUST GIVE BRIEFLY AN OVERVIEW OF THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN, UH, WHAT HAPPENS WHEN AN OWNER OBJECTS IF WE WERE TO TAKE THE INITIATION OF HISTORIC ZONING? ABSOLUTELY.

SO, UM, WHEN YOU BRING THE CASE BACK, UM, IN ORDER FOR THE CASE TO PROCEED TO PLANNING COMMISSION, A SUPER MAJORITY IS REQUIRED ON THE RECOMMENDATION STAGE.

UM, INITIATION IS JUST KIND OF A RESEARCH PHASE WHERE IT'LL COME BACK BEFORE YOU NEXT

[00:30:01]

UM, BUT FOR RECOMMENDATION TO GET FURTHER, UH, WE'LL NEED A SUPER MAJORITY.

AND IF WE HAVE A VACANCY ON THE DIAS, THIS, THAT SUPER MAJORITY NUMBER CHANGES? YES.

SO RIGHT NOW WE HAVE 10 MEMBERS SITTING ON THE SUPER MAJORITY IS THREE-FOURTHS, SO THAT WOULD BE EIGHT.

GOTCHA.

THANK YOU.

OKAY.

AND I BELIEVE IT'S, UH, IN EITHER THE, UH, PLANNING COMMISSION OR COUNCIL WOULD NEED TO HAVE THREE QUARTERS AS WELL.

THAT WOULD BE NOT JUST THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BUT COUNCIL ALSO IS THAT, SO IT, IT'S A HIGHER BAR SIGNIFICANTLY.

UM, SO, AND FOR YOU NEW MEMBERS, THAT, THAT'S AN IMPORTANT CONSIDERATION AS YOU'RE THINKING ABOUT, UM, WHAT ACTIONS TO TAKE ON THIS CASE.

ONE LAST NOTE.

UH, THE 75 DAYS THAT WE HAVE TO REVIEW THIS PERMIT STARTS TODAY SINCE IT WAS, IT WAS APPLICANT REQUESTED POSTPONEMENT LAST MONTH.

UH, SO THAT MEANS WE HAVE THREE MEETINGS TO INITIATE AND RECOMMEND.

SO KEEP THAT IN MIND.

UM, YOU CANNOT INITIATE AT THE LAST MEETING CUZ IT WILL BE RELEASED BEFORE IT CAN COME BACK.

SO IF YOU DO PLAN ON DOING THAT, JUST KEEP THOSE TIMELINES IN MIND.

OKAY.

UM, WE JUST HEARD FROM THE FIRST SPEAKER, IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK IN FAVOR? WE DO HAVE MICHAEL GINI WHO JOINED US BY PHONE.

MR. GUARDINI.

THANKS.

I'M JUST HERE WITH THE APPLICANT'S TEAM, SO I DON'T NEED TO, UM, SPEAK UNLESS THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS FOR YOU.

OKAY.

UM, COMMISSIONERS, ANY QUESTION FOR MR. CARDINI AND WHAT IS, WHAT IS YOUR, UH, POSITION? ARE YOU, UH, INVOLVED AS AN OWNER OR, UH, IF I COULD ASK, OH, I, I ACT I HAVE THE, THE HONOR AND PLEASURE OF WORKING WITH MICHAEL WAYLAND.

OH, I GOT YOU.

YEAH.

OKAY.

BUT WE'LL, WE'LL, WE'LL, WE'LL TAKE THAT INTO ADVISEMENT BEFORE WE DECIDE WHETHER TO ASK YOU A QUESTION OR NOT.

.

ALRIGHT.

THANK YOU MR. CARDINI.

IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE HERE TO SPEAK IN FAVOR? IS THERE ANYONE HERE TO WHO IS OPPOSED TO THE APPLICATION? ALL RIGHT.

HEARING NONE, UH, I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING IF THAT IS THE COMMISSION'S DESIRE.

SO MOVED.

SECOND.

OKAY.

UH, THE MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING BY COMMISSIONER COOK, SECONDED BY, UM, UH, COMMISSIONER LAROCHE.

AND ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

AYE.

AYE.

ALL THOSE OPPOS.

ALRIGHT.

RIGHT.

COMMISSIONERS, WE CAN ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS? I WILL MOVE TO RELEASE THE DEMOLITION PERMIT PENDING A CITY OF AUSTIN DOCUMENTATION PACKAGE.

SECOND.

OKAY.

WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.

UH, COMMISSIONER COOK AND COMMISSIONER LAROCHE.

UH, COMMISSIONER COOK, WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK TO YOUR MOTION? YES.

AS, AS LARGE AS CACTUS PRYOR LOOMS IN THE HISTORY OF THE CITY AND IN MY MIND FROM HEARING HIS VOICE ON THE RADIO AND JUST MY MEMORIES OF THE CITY, THAT THE HOUSE ITSELF, I BELIEVE IS UNREMARKABLE.

THE ASSOCIATION'S UN UNREMARKABLE AND I'M PRETTY CERTAIN WE HAVE NO AUTHORITY OVER THE EJ IN WESTLAKE HILLS TO HAVE ANY AUTHORITY ON LISTING THE HOUSE THAT WOULDN'T BE MORE STRONGLY ASSOCIATED.

I JUST DON'T FEEL IT'S JUSTIFIED TO, UM, TRY TO TRY TO REMEMBER HIS CONTRIBUTIONS TO OUR HISTORY WITH THIS PARTICULAR STRUCTURE.

I THINK HIS NAME IS FOUND MANY OTHER PLACES AND, UH, HIS LEGACY WILL LIVE ON COMMISSIONER LAROCHE.

NO FURTHER COMMENT.

ANYBODY HAVE ANY MORE COMMENTS? UH, BEING THAT I ALSO STILL HEAR HIS VOICE IN MY HEAD FROM ALL THOSE YEARS THAT HE WAS ON THE RADIO, UH, STILL HAVEN'T FIGURED OUT WHAT HIS SIGN OFF THERMOS GLUCO MORICA WAS.

NO, NO ONE EVER SEEMED TO KNOW WHAT IT WAS, BUT, UH, THAT WAS HIS TAGLINE.

UH, I THINK AT THIS POINT, UH, LET ME GO AHEAD AND JUST, UH, CALL THE QUESTION AND LET'S, UH, SEE WHAT WHAT HAPPENS.

UH, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION TO RELEASE THE DEMOLITION PERMIT, UH, AFTER A, UH, REQUESTED, UM, DOCUMENTATION PACKAGE, UH, INDICATE BY SAYING AYE, UH, OR I SHOULD SAY, RAISE THE HAND.

LET'S DO ACCOUNT HERE.

OKAY.

UH, LOOKS LIKE IT IS UNANIMOUS.

ANY OPPOSED? IT IS UNANIMOUS.

ALRIGHT, UH, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

AND WE WILL GO ON TO THE NEXT, UH, MS. ROCK AND MORTAR .

THERE YOU GO.

.

WE'LL GO ON TO THE NEXT CASE.

UM, THAT IS ITEM NUMBER

[20. PR-2023-052574 – 2204 Curtis Ave. – Consent Council District 1 ]

THAT WAS POLL FOR DISCUSSION.

SO CHAIR HK, I THINK I CAN BE BRIEF HERE ON WHY I PULLED THIS PARTICULAR ITEM.

IT APPEARS TO ME THIS IS A, A SIMILAR

[00:35:01]

TO MY KNOWLEDGE, I'M SO SORRY, BUT NO, THAT IS A DIFFERENT CONTRACTOR.

WE'RE CERTAIN OF THAT.

OKAY.

I WILL DOUBLE CHECK BECAUSE I WAS TRYING TO RECALL MAYBE COMMISSIONERS, YOU GUYS REMEMBER, UH, I KNOW THIS, THIS, UH, DEMOLITION COMPANY IS VERY ACTIVE IN AUSTIN, UH, AND CERTAINLY KNOWS THEIR WAY AROUND.

UH, I DON'T RECALL THE CASE, UH, MR MAYBE YOU WOULD REMEMBER, BUT THERE WAS A CASE, I THINK THEY WERE INVOLVED IN, WAS IT FRISCO? THEY MAY JUMPED THE GUN.

YEAH.

6 8 0 1 BURNETT? YEAH.

YEAH.

OKAY.

I'LL LOOK.

YEAH, NO, I THINK THERE WAS ANOTHER RESIDENTIAL PROJECT WHERE THEY JUMPED THE GUN AND OH, THEY WERE TRENCHING IN THE FRONT YARD.

THAT WAS IT.

YEP.

YEAH.

BEFORE, BEFORE THE, BUT THERE WAS ALSO, WASN'T THERE THE, OH, SHOOT MEMORY SPADE? THE, THE RESTAURANT, UH, THAT'S THE NIGHTHAWK.

THE NIGHTHAWK.

OKAY.

SO WE'RE, WE'RE THEY WEREN'T INVOLVED IN THE NIGHTHAWK DEMOLITION IS WHAT? SO THEY HAVE NO, BASICALLY THEY HAVE NO PREVIOUS OFFENSES FOR JUMPING THE GUN.

I, I, I'M, OF COURSE NOW I'M ALSO GONNA WORK ON MY MEMORY.

SO I, AGAIN, I THINK NO OFFENSES, I'D SAY IRRITATION.

MM-HMM.

, BUT THAT'S PROBABLY BECAUSE THEY JUST SLIPPED UP ON SOMETHING.

MOST OF THE TIME.

THEY DO A LOT OF GOOD WORK THAT I'M PROFESSING AND I, I PULLED THAT TO HAVE THIS CONVERSATION SO THAT WE'RE, I I DON'T THINK WE'RE AS PUNITIVE AS WE SHOULD BE IN THOSE INSTANCES, SO, SURE.

APPRECIATIVE, APPRECIATE THAT.

I DO JUST WANT TO, UM, JUMP IN TO SAY THAT THAT SPECIFIC PROJECT, UM, IT CAME TO US TO PULL A PERMIT AFTER THE FACT OF DEMOLITION WITHOUT A PERMIT.

UM, THE, UH, WE DID NOT HAVE ANY TOOTH IN THE GAME AS FAR AS, UM, YOU KNOW, WHAT TOOLS WE HAD TO PREVENT THAT FROM HAPPENING, UH, THAT THE COMMISSION DID TAKE NO ACTION AND THEY WAITED THE FULL 75 DAYS BEFORE THE PERMIT WAS RELEASED.

ALAN, THANK YOU.

SO I, I, I GUESS WITH THAT DISCUSSION, AND I DON'T MEAN TO CUT YOU OFF MS. CONTRERAS, BUT I WOULD MOVE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

OKAY.

MS. CONTRERAS, IS THERE ANY ADDITIONAL INSIGHT BASED ON THE CONVERSATION WE'RE HAVING OR WERE YOU PREPARED TO JUST PRESENT THE CASE? UM, WERE YOU ABLE TO VERIFY THE CONTRACTOR? UM, THIS ONE IS D R.

OH, OKAY.

YEAH, WE HAVE A PROJECT FROM D R ALMOST EVERY MONTH.

THEY'RE SOPHISTICATED ENOUGH TO KNOW THAT I DON'T THINK THEY TAKE CASES WHEN THEY'D HAVE TO SHOW UP TO THIS COMMISSION.

AND I DON'T BELIEVE THE FRISCO CONTRACTOR WAS D I R THOUGH.

I COULD BE MISTAKEN.

WE CAN CHECK ON THAT FOR YOU.

THANK YOU.

I'M CHECKING RIGHT NOW.

AND THE CONTRACTOR, OOH, I HAVE THE APPLICANT LISTED AS W G I INC.

OKAY.

OKAY.

UM, I, I KNOW WE PULLED THIS, TYPICALLY THAT WOULD MEAN A PRESENTATION FROM STAFF.

UH, HOWEVER, IF THIS WAS THE CLARIFICATION THAT WAS NEEDED, UH, I DON'T, NOT SURE WE'RE OBLIGATED TO HAVE ONE.

UH, UNLESS COMMISSIONERS, YOU WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A PRESENTATION ON THIS ITEM.

I'M HERE UNTIL 10.

HEARING NONE.

UM, AND IS THERE ANYBODY HERE WHO'D LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? OBVIOUSLY IT'S BEEN PULLED, SO YOU'RE WELCOME TO HAVE CONVERSATION FOR OR AGAINST.

WE DON'T HAVE ANYBODY SIGNED UP.

OKAY.

ALRIGHT.

WELL THEN LET ME ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

I THINK I PUT THAT MOTION FORWARD.

I'LL SECOND IT.

OKAY.

UH, MOVE BY COMMISSIONER LAROCHE, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER COOK, ALTHOUGH IN FAVOR INDICATE BY SAYING AYE.

AYE.

ALL THOSE OPPOSED? OKAY.

UH, COMMISSIONERS, I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON THIS, UH, POSTED ITEM.

I'LL MOVE TO RELEASE AN DEMOLITION PERMIT PENDING OF CITY OF DOCUMENTATION PACKAGE.

OKAY, WE HAVE A MOTION.

I'LL SECOND.

SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER LAROCHE.

UH, COMMISSIONER COOK, WOULD YOU LIKE TO DISCUSS YOUR MOTION? UH, IT'S, UH, IT'S A GREAT LITTLE HOUSE, BUT THERE'S NO HISTORIC ASSOCIATIONS, SO, UH, ANOTHER ONE WE CAN'T SAVE.

OKAY.

UM, COMMISSIONER LAROCHE, NO ADDITIONAL COMMENT.

ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS? ALL RIGHT, LET ME CALL THE QUESTION, UH, THOSE IN FAVOR.

THE MOTION TO, UH, RELEASE THE DEMOLITION, UH, PACKAGE, UH, WITH A PACKAGE FOR, UH,

[00:40:01]

THOSE OPPOSED? OKAY.

THE MOTION PASSES AND IT HAS BEEN RELEASED.

THAT BRINGS US BACK

[3. C20-2022-009 – Sixth Street Code Revision – Consent]

UH, THE, LET'S SEE, COUNCIL INITIATED CODE AMENDMENTS, AND THIS HAS TO DO WITH, UH, SIXTH STREET CODE REVISIONS, AND I WILL CALL UPON MS. CONTRERAS TO START THE PRESENTATION.

ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU CHAIRMAN.

MS. ITEM AMENDMENT C 20 DASH 2022 DASH 0 0 9 WAS INITIATED BY CITY COUNCIL IN JUNE, 2022.

UNDER RESOLUTION 2022 DASH 0 6 9 DASH 1 24, THIS PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENT WOULD REPLACE THE 45 FOOT MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT IN CODE SECTION 25 2 6 43 WITH A 140 FOOT MAXIMUM HEIGHT FOR THE 500 AND 600 BLOCKS OF EAST SIXTH STREET.

IT ALSO REQUESTS THE CREATION OF DESIGN STANDARDS TO ENSURE REDEVELOPMENT IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE SIXTH STREET NATIONAL REGISTER DISTRICT.

WHILE ALLOWING THE ADDITIONAL HEIGHT REQUESTED, UH, COUNSEL HAS INDICATED THAT THEY ARE READY TO SEE THIS PROPOSED AMENDMENT AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.

UM, AFTER HLC AND PLANNING COMMISSION, STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENT ONLY WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS.

FIRST, THE AMENDED SECTION MUST APPLY ONLY TO BUILDINGS LOCATED ON THE 500 AND 600 BLOCKS OF SIXTH STREET BETWEEN NECHES AND SABINE.

THE ADDITIONAL HEIGHT REQUESTED IN THIS AMENDMENT IS INAPPROPRIATE FOR AREAS OF THE SIXTH STREET NATIONAL REGISTER DISTRICT.

OUTSIDE OF THE 500 AND 600 BLOCK FACES, WHICH ARE LESS INTACT AND CONTAIN FEWER INDIVIDUAL LANDMARKS THAN ANY OTHER BLOCK IN THE DISTRICT, THEN CONTRIBUTING BUILDINGS SHOULD BE REHABILITATED AND ADAPT AND ADAPTIVELY REUSED, INCLUDING THE RETENTION OF HISTORIC FACADES ON CONTRIBUTING BUILDINGS.

IN ADDITION, BUILDINGS WITHIN THE SUBJECT AREA SHOULD COMPLY WITH THE DESIGN STANDARDS OUTLINED IN THE STAFF ASSESSMENT IN YOUR BACKUP.

THESE STANDARDS ARE BASED ON THE CITYWIDE HISTORIC DESIGN STANDARDS FOR COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS WITH TWO NOTABLE EXCEPTIONS TO REFLECT REQUESTED CHANGES INCLUDING ALLOWABLE HEIGHT, WHICH HAS BEEN INCREASED TO 140 FEET FOR THE RESOLUTION AND ALLOWABLE SETBACK, WHICH HAS BEEN REDUCED TO A MINIMUM OF 15 FEET.

UH, PLEASE KEEP IN MIND THAT THESE REVISIONS ARE STILL SUBJECT TO REVIEW BY THE LAW DEPARTMENT WHO WILL BE DRAFTING THE ORDINANCE, UH, PRIOR TO PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW ON JUNE 27TH.

UH, STAFF WILL COLLECT REVISIONS REQUESTED BY THE COMMISSION TONIGHT TO BE INCLUDED IN THAT LEGAL REVIEW.

THANK YOU.

MS. CONTRERAS, YOU MENTIONED THE 45 FOOT HEIGHT IS IN THE, UH, OVERLAY CURRENTLY, AND THAT WOULD BE ADJUSTED TO 140 IF THIS INITIATION PASSES.

UH, THE SETBACKS REDUCED TO 15 FEET FROM WHAT, UH, THE CITYWIDE DESIGN STANDARDS CURRENTLY SPECIFIED? 20 FEET.

20 FEET.

OKAY.

THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT.

DO WE HAVE A PRESENTATION FROM THE, UH, THE, THE, WELL, THE INITIATOR ? THE APPLICANT ACTUALLY IS THE COUNCIL, BUT I KNOW THIS PERTAINS TO, UH, PROPERTIES, UH, OWNED ON SIXTH STREET.

UH, AND DO WE HAVE A PRESENTATION? CHAIRMAN OF MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION? I'M RICHARD SETTLE.

I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF STREAM, THE ONE THAT HAD THE IDEA TO, TO DO THIS, UH, CODE AMENDMENT.

WE, WE GOT HERE WITHOUT THE FLASH DRIVE .

OKAY.

WITH, WITH THE PRESENTATION, BUT IT'S, UH, SO WE GET YOU INSTEAD.

IS THAT WHAT YOU SAID? YOU GET ME? I INSTEAD, I'M SORRY, BECAUSE CAITLIN, CAITLIN CAN VERBALIZE IT FOR YOU, BUT, BUT BOTTOM LINE, IT'S THE SAME THING.

I THINK WE TALKED ABOUT A LONG WHILE BACK, AND THAT IS SIXTH STREET IS, UH, HAS BECOME A REAL PROBLEM AND IT'S, IT'S IN WHAT I WOULD CALL A, A DEATH SPIRAL BECAUSE YOU'RE NOT GONNA GET ANYBODY TO GO IN THERE, ESPECIALLY IN THE 700 BLOCK AND PUT ANY MONEY IN THOSE BUILDINGS, NOT KNOWING, UM, WELL, KNOWING THAT THEY ARE WALKING INTO A, BASICALLY A SHOOTING GALLERY.

IT HAS BECOME A SHOOTING GALLERY.

STREAM'S IDEA WAS IF YOU GO IN AND REVITALIZE THIS AREA OF SIX AND TURN IT INTO A, UM, IF NOT A 24 7 OPERATION, MAYBE A 20 HOUR A DAY, SEVEN DAYS A WEEK, WHERE YOU MIX UP THE USES.

BUT THE ONLY WAY THAT YOU CAN MIX UP THE USES IS TO PROVIDE, UH, MORE OPPORTUNITIES, MORE DENSITY AND MORE IMPROVEMENT.

AND SO, UM, BEFORE STEVE PASSED STEVE SADOWSKI, WE TALKED ABOUT HOW YOU WOULD DO THAT.

AND WE, WE, WE LIMITED IT TO THIS, THIS, THESE, THIS AREA OF SEA BLOCKS, STREETS TWO BLOCKS, THE TWO BLOCKS, UM, WE AGREED TO, TO MEET THE RULES OF, OF THE LITTLE SETBACKS.

AND WE'RE NOT TRYING TO, WE'RE NOT DOING ANYTHING TO CAPITAL VIEW CORRIDOR OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT, BUT BASICALLY KEEP THE FACADES, KEEP THE BUILDINGS, BE ABLE TO STEP BACK AND

[00:45:01]

AND THE IDEA IS TO GET RESTAURANTS THAT ARE OPEN DURING THE DAY, NOT BARS RIGHT NOW.

SIXTH STREET, OF COURSE, THE, THE, THE BUILDINGS THAT ARE OPEN NOW ARE BASICALLY BARS AND, AND, UM, AND IT'S A TRAIN WRECK OVER THERE.

THE IDEA IS TO BE ABLE TO MIX THE USES, GET SOME OFFICE, MAYBE SOME RESIDENTIAL.

HERE'S AN INTERESTING THOUGHT.