* This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting. [00:00:02] OKAY, I THINK WE CAN GO AHEAD [CALL TO ORDER ] AND GET STARTED, AND COMMISSIONER LA ROCHE WILL BE ABLE TO MAKE IT BACK IN, IN PLENTY OF TIME. UH, GOOD EVENING. UH, THIS IS THE MAY, UH, MEETING OF THE HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION WHERE AT CITY HALL AND THE MEETING WILL CONVENE FEBRUARY 5TH, 2025. UH, IT'S APPROXIMATELY 6:02 PM UH, AT THIS POINT WE'LL GO AHEAD AND CALL THE ROLE. OKAY. WELCOME EVERYBODY. START WITH A ROLL CALL. START WITH COMMISSIONER HEIM SAF. PRESENT. COMMISSIONER ROXANNE EVANS. PRESENT. COMMISSIONER KEVIN COOK, PRESENT COMMISSIONER CARL LAROCHE IS HERE, BUT AWAY FROM THE DESK. HE'LL BE HERE SHORTLY. COMMISSIONER TREY HORTER. PRESENT. COMMISSIONER HARMONY GROGAN PRESENT. COMMISSIONER JAIME ALVAREZ. PRESENT. COMMISSIONER RAYMOND CASTILLO IS NOT HERE TONIGHT. ALRIGHT, WELL, THANK YOU. UM, WHAT WE'LL DO IS, [PUBLIC COMMUNICATION: GENERAL] UH, BEGIN WITH ANY, UH, DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC, UH, PRESENTATION OR DISCUSSION? WE DO. WE HAVE ONE PERSON SIGNED UP AND THAT IS MR. CHARLES PTO. OKAY. UH, TITO, WOULD YOU PLEASE COME TO THE MICROPHONE? YOU'RE WELCOME. WELCOME. TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION. OH, UH, SO OUR NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. OKAY. NOW THIS IS FOR ANYTHING THAT'S NOT ON THE AGENDA SPECIFICALLY. OH, I, I THINK I, I ASSIGNED TWO DIFFERENT THINGS. I APOLOGIZE. OKAY. SO YOU, IF, IF YOU HAVE SOMETHING THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO SAY THAT'S NOT SPECIFIC TO AN AGENDA ITEM, BUT MORE GENERALLY OF INTEREST THROUGH THE COMMISSION, YOU'RE WELCOME TO AT THIS POINT. WELL, JUST A QUICK THANK YOU ALL FOR SERVING ON THIS COMMISSION. IT'S AN IMPORTANT ROLE AND, UH, THE COMMUNITY. THANKS YOU SO. OH, OKAY. APPRECIATE IT. GREAT. . I, I KNOW ANOTHER THING THAT WE HAD TALKED ABOUT, UH, COMMISSIONERS, SEVERAL OF YOU. A NUMBER OF YOU ARE AWARE, UM, THE CITY COUNCIL DID, UH, CONVEY A DISTINGUISHED SERVICE AWARD TO THE LATE, UH, JUAN RAYMOND RUBIO, AND WE'RE VERY GRATEFUL FOR THE COUNCIL, UH, ALL OF THE STAFF AND, UH, COMMISSIONERS YOUR ASSISTANCE PRESERVATION AUSTIN IN BRINGING THAT, UH, TO FRUITION. UH, SO IT WAS, IT WAS A VERY HEARTFELT MOMENT TO BE THERE WITH HIS FAMILY AND SO MANY OF HIS FRIENDS AND SUPPORTERS. SO, UM, I THINK AT THIS POINT WE'LL GO [Consent Agenda] AHEAD AND REVIEW THE AGENDA. THANK YOU, CHAIR, SETH. OUR AGENDA TONIGHT BEGINS WITH THE JANUARY 8TH, 20, 25 MINUTES. THIS ITEM IS OFFERED FOR CONSENT. UH, ITEM NUMBER TWO IS A PRESENTATION ON THE RECOMMENDED HERITAGE PRESERVATION GRANTS. UH, THIS IS A BRIEFING SO NO ACTION IS REQUIRED FROM THE COMMISSION THIS EVENING UNDER CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS. ITEM THREE IS CASE NUMBER HR 2 2 4 0 9 5 1 4 2 AT 2 5 0 4 BRIDAL PATH. THIS IS AN APPLICANT REQUESTED POSTPONEMENT FOR AN ADDITION AND EXTERIOR MODIFICATIONS UNDER NATIONAL REGISTER HISTORIC DISTRICT APPLICATIONS TONIGHT. ITEM FOUR, HR 20 24 1 2 3 0 6 0 AT 1003 MOUNT PHRASE STREET. THIS IS ANOTHER APPLICANT REQUESTED POSTPONEMENT. ITEM NUMBER FIVE DA 20 24 0 8 9 5 2 2 AT EIGHT 10 WEST 11TH STREET IS A TOTAL DEMO APPLICATION AND THIS ITEM IS OFFERED FOR DISCUSSION ITEM NUMBER SIX, HR 20 24 1 6 5 7 5 3 AT 1908 KEN WIN AVENUE. THIS IS A DEMO AND A REBUILD OF A CARPORT. THIS ITEM IS OFFERED FOR CONSENT. ITEM NUMBER SEVEN, PR 20 24 1 5 9 6 32 AT 7 0 5 WESTLAND STREET. THIS IS A DEMOLITION. THIS ITEM IS A DISCUSSION TONIGHT. ITEM NUMBER EIGHT, HR 20 25 0 0 3 9 6 4 18 0 4 BRACKENRIDGE STREET BUILDING NUMBER TWO, UM, APPLICATION TO CONSTRUCT A NEW REAR UNIT. THIS ITEM IS OFFERED FOR CONSENT. ITEM NINE, HR 20 25 0 0 3 3 6 0 AT 1807 WEST 30TH STREET. A NEW CONSTRUCTION APPLICATION. THIS ITEM IS OFFERED FOR CONSENT AS WELL IN OUR DEMOLITION AND RELOCATION APPLICATIONS. TONIGHT WE HAVE ITEM 10 DA 20 24 1 6 5 5 2 6 AT 2,600 EAST MARTIN LUTHER KING JUNIOR BOULEVARD. THIS IS A TOTAL DEMOLITION AND THIS WILL BE A DISCUSSION POSTPONEMENT ITEM TONIGHT WE HAVE A NEIGHBORHOOD POSTPONEMENT REQUEST. ITEM NUMBER 11 DA 20 24 0 8 8 9 5 2 AT 8 4 0 1 HATHAWAY DRIVE IS A TOTAL DEMO AND THIS ITEM IS OFFERED FOR DISCUSSION. UNDER COMMISSION ITEMS WE HAVE ITEM NUMBER 12. [00:05:02] UH, LAST BUT NOT LEAST, DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION TO APPOINT COMMISSIONER ALVAREZ TO THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE. UH, THAT CONCLUDES THIS EVENING'S AGENDA. THANK YOU, CHAIR. THANK YOU. AND THAT ITEM NUMBER 12 CAN BE A CONSENT ITEM AS I UNDERSTAND. ABSOLUTELY . OKAY, GOOD. SO, SO LONG AS EVERYONE'S WILLING, UH, YOU MAY NOTICE, UH, THAT THERE ARE FEWER MEMBERS, UH, THAN WE NORMALLY HAVE. WE ACTUALLY HAVE THREE, UH, VACANCIES CURRENTLY. UH, WE UNDERSTAND THAT ONE APPOINTMENT HAS BEEN MADE, BUT, UH, THE INDIVIDUAL CAN'T TAKE THEIR SEAT WITHOUT BEING PROPERLY TRAINED AND VETTED. UH, BUT THERE ARE TWO VACANCIES, UH, PLUS SEVERAL REAPPOINTMENTS. SO, UH, WE URGE THE COUNCIL TO CONTINUE TO SUPPORT, UH, PRESERVATION AS THEY HAVE BEEN, AND CONTINUE TO GET REALLY GOOD MEMBERS ON THIS COMMISSION AND, UH, DO IT QUICKLY. . SO, UH, PART OF THE REASON TO BRING IT UP IS THAT THAT MEANS THAT FOR A, UH, VOTE TONIGHT, UH, THE MAJORITY WILL ACTUALLY REQUIRE FIVE VOTES, WHICH IS UNUSUAL FOR US, BUT THAT WILL BE A HALF PLUS ONE. AND WE STILL HAVEN'T QUITE FIGURED OUT IF THERE'S A, A THREE QUARTERS OR A TWO THIRDS NEEDED. DID I STATE THAT CORRECTLY? IT MIGHT NEED TO BE, UH, CHAIR ALMOST. WE STILL NEED SIX FOR A QUORUM VOTE. OH, WE STILL DO NEED SIX FOR QUORUM VOTE YES, PER OUR BYLAWS. SO IT GETS, IT'S MORE THAN 50% PLUS ONE, IT'S STILL 50% OF THE OLD. RIGHT. AND, UH, HOW IT WAS EXPLAINED TO ME BY LEGAL. UM, OUR SUPER MAJORITY IS ALSO GOING TO BE SIX AS A SUPER MAJORITY OF THE EIGHT PRESENT, UM, INCLUDING VACANCIES. OKAY, WELL, HOPEFULLY WE WON'T HAVE THAT SITUATION FOR TOO MUCH LONGER. BUT, UH, IT IS, IT'S GONNA TAKE SOME, SOME PATIENCE, I'M SURE ON EVERYONE'S PART. UH, STAFF READ OUT THE, UH, CONSENT AGENDA AND IF THERE IS ANY ITEM THAT WAS ON OR MENTIONED FOR CONSENT THAT SOMEONE WOULD ACTUALLY PREFER TO HAVE A DISCUSSION AND WE TAKE THE CASE UP INSTEAD OF JUST PASSING IT ON CONSENT, THIS IS THE TIME. SO COMMISSIONERS OR MEMBERS FROM THE PUBLIC CAN CERTAINLY MAKE THEIR WISHES KNOWN. OTHERWISE, I WILL REVIEW THE ITEMS AGAIN AND THEN ENTERTAIN A MOTION ITEM NUMBER ONE, UH, WHICH IS THE MINUTES FROM OUR JANUARY 8TH MEETING ARE OFFERED FOR CONSENT. UH, ITEM NUMBER SIX, WHICH IS THE 1908 KENWOOD AVENUE. UH, THIS IS IN THE TRAVIS HEIGHTS FAIRVIEW PARK NATIONAL REGISTER HISTORIC DISTRICT. UH, AND THAT IS OFFERED FOR CONSENT ITEM NUMBER EIGHT, WHICH IS 1804 BRACKENRIDGE STREET BUILDING TWO, ALSO IN THE TRAVIS HEIGHTS FAIRVIEW PARK NATIONAL REGISTER DISTRICT OFFERED FOR CONSENT. ITEM NUMBER 9 18 0 7 WEST 30TH STREET IN THE OLD WEST AUSTIN NATIONAL REGISTER. HISTORIC DISTRICT, UH, THAT IS NEW CONSTRUCTION OFFERED FOR CONSENT. AND THE REMAINING ITEM IS ITEM NUMBER 12. AND THAT IS THE, UH, ACTION TO APPOINT COMMISSIONER JAIME ALVAREZ TO THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE IS OFFERED FOR CONSENT, UH, COMMISSIONERS. I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION. MOVE TO PASS THE CONSENT AGENDA AS NOTED. SECOND. OKAY. IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED, UH, BY COMMISSIONER COOK AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER LAROCHE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR PLEASE INDICATE BY RAISING YOUR HAND AND ALL PRESENT HAVE VOTED IN FAVOR IS UNANIMOUS. ALRIGHT, SO, UH, IF YOU HAD AN ITEM THAT WAS ON THE CONSENT AGENDA, IT HAS BEEN PASSED WITH STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS. UH, AND SO, UM, YOU MAY STAY AND LISTEN WHAT YOU'D LIKE, BUT YOU'RE WELCOME TO LEAVE AT THIS TIME. UH, WE HAVE SEVERAL ITEMS THAT WERE POSTED FOR, UH, POSTPONEMENT, AND I'LL REVIEW THOSE NEXT ITEM NUMBER THREE, WHICH IS AT 25 0 4 BRIDAL PATH, UH, THAT IS OFFERED TO, UH, AN APPLICANT POSTPONEMENT TILL THE NEXT MEETING IN FEBRUARY. UH, THE NEXT ITEM, ITEM NUMBER FOUR AT 10 0 3, MAL PHRASE STREET. UH, THAT IS, UH, APPLICANT POSTPONEMENT AS WELL. AND THAT WOULD BE, UH, RECOMMENDED FOR A POSTPONEMENT AT OUR FEBRUARY MEETING. AND THEN I BELIEVE THE OTHER POSTPONEMENT NEEDED TO BE DISCUSSED. IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY. AND ALSO IT WILL BE OUR MARCH MEETING AS OPPOSED TO OUR FEBRUARY MEETING. I, OKAY, I'M SORRY. OFF, OFF A MONTH, OUR MARCH MEETING FOR BOTH OF THOSE POSTPONEMENTS. THANK YOU. UH, I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION FOR THE POSTPONEMENT, UH, RECOMMENDATIONS. SO MOVED. SECOND COMMISSIONER COOK, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER LAROCHE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR INDICATED BY RAISING YOUR HAND AND IT PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. ALRIGHT, THE NEXT [10. DA 2024-165526 – 2600 E Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd. Council District 1] ITEM, UH, IS ITEM NUMBER 10. UH, THIS IS AT 2,600 EAST MARTIN LUTHER KING JUNIOR BOULEVARD. UH, THERE IS A REQUEST FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD, UH, FOR POSTPONEMENT, UH, BUT THAT IS NOT NECESSARILY AGREED TO BY THE APPLICANT. AND SO WHAT WE CAN DO IS [00:10:02] HAVE A DISCUSSION SIMPLY ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THIS CASE SHOULD BE HEARD TONIGHT. WE'LL NOT BE HEARING ABOUT THE MERITS OF THE CASE, BUT SIMPLY WHETHER OR NOT THIS IS SOMETHING WE SHOULD TAKE UP TONIGHT. SO, UH, AT THIS POINT, I GUESS THE, UH, APPROPRIATE THING WOULD BE TO ASK THE APPLICANT, UH, IF THEY ARE HERE, IF THEY HAVE A REASON WHY WE SHOULD TAKE THE CASE TONIGHT AND NOT POSTPONE. HELLO COMMISSIONERS. I'M LEAH BOJO, UH, HERE ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT. UM, AS FAR AS THE POSTPONEMENT REQUEST, UM, I WOULD LIKE TO REMIND YOU OF SOME THINGS THAT WE TALKED ABOUT AT THE LAST MEETING A MONTH AGO. UM, WE DID HAVE SOME DELAYS GETTING IN FRONT OF YOU IN THE FIRST PLACE IN JANUARY. WE THOUGHT IT WAS IMPORTANT TO TAKE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION TO GO TO THE ARC. WE, SO THERE WAS A QUORUM ISSUE WITH ARC IN NOVEMBER. WE DID GET TO ARC IN DECEMBER. WE GOT TO Y'ALL IN JANUARY. UM, WE DID GET THE SUPPORT OF THE ARC, WHICH MADE IT OBVIOUSLY A GREAT, A GREAT STOP ALONG THE WAY, BUT IT PUSHED US BACK A LITTLE BIT ALREADY. UM, WE, UM, DID GET THAT POSTPONEMENT IN JANUARY, WHICH IS WHY WE'RE, OR THE NEIGHBORS GOT THAT POSTPONEMENT IN JANUARY, WHICH IS WHY WE'RE HERE TONIGHT. UM, SINCE THAT MEETING IN JANUARY, WE HAVE MET WITH THE NEIGHBORS TWICE AND HAD SEVERAL CORRESPONDENCES ABOUT SOME THINGS THAT WE CAN MAKE COMMITMENTS ON. UM, AND WE ARE HAPPY TO CONTINUE THOSE COMMITMENTS. UM, WE ALSO HAVE A REZONING CASE THAT'S, THAT'S, UM, HAS BEEN SUBMITTED THAT WE'RE TRYING TO MOVE FORWARD. WE CANNOT MOVE FORWARD WITH THAT ZONING CASE UNTIL THIS, UM, COMMITTEE, I'M SORRY, THIS COMMISSION HAS ACTED ON THIS PERMIT, UM, OR ON THIS, THIS PERMISSION. UM, WE HAVE HAD A LOT OF CONSTRUCTIVE, UM, CONVERSATIONS WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND WE CERTAINLY PLAN TO CONTINUE THOSE. AND THOSE ITEMS WILL BE ABLE TO BE WRITTEN INTO THE ZONING ORDINANCE. SOME OF THE HISTORIC THINGS, I WON'T GET INTO THE SUBSTANCE RIGHT NOW, BUT THOSE ARE THINGS THAT COULD BE WRITTEN INTO THE ZONING ORDINANCE OR INTO A RESTRICTIVE COVENANT. UM, BUT WE CAN'T GET TO THAT POINT UNTIL WE ARE, UH, THROUGH THIS COMMISSION. SO WE WOULD RESPECTFULLY ASK THAT YOU HEAR THE CASE TONIGHT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. UM, COMMISSIONERS, ANY QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT? ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. UH, HEARING NONE THEN. UM, THOSE WHO WOULD LIKE TO REQUEST THE POSTPONEMENT, AGAIN, PLEASE COME TO THE MICROPHONE, INTRODUCE YOURSELF, BUT, UH, STRICTLY STAY TO THE QUESTION OF WHY THIS SHOULD NOT BE HEARD TONIGHT. GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS. AND I THANK YOU FOR GIVING ME THIS OPPORTUNITY AGAIN TO SPEAK WITH YOU. I SPOKE WITH YOU AT OUR LAST MEETING THAT WE HAD SEVERAL WEEKS AGO. OKAY. AND FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE. YEAH. AND MY NAME AGAIN IS BARRY MCBRIDE. MCBRIDE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. I'M A MEMBER OF THE ROGERS WASHINGTON HOLY CROSS, UH, NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION THAT, UH, IS ADJACENT TO THIS SITE WHERE THE PROPERTY IS. AND, UH, WE JUST HAVE A FEW QUESTIONS ABOUT THE WAY THE DEVELOPERS ARE APPROACHING THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY. MOST IMPORTANTLY, WHEN IT COMES TO THE QUICKNESS AND NEED FOR THE REZONING REQUEST AND FOR THE DEMOLITION REQUEST TO MOVE SO QUICKLY WITHOUT ANSWERING ALL OF THE QUESTIONS THAT WE NEED TO HAVE ANSWERED. ONE OF THE THINGS I WANTED TO PREFACE MY DISCUSSION HERE WITH IS, UH, I AND ALL OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD MEMBERS REALLY WANT TO SEE THE PROPERTY DEVELOPED. WE ARE PRO DEVELOPMENT. WE WOULD LOVE TO SEE THE PROPERTY DEVELOPED. IT IS A MAJOR HISTORIC SITE. HOWEVER, YEAH. NOW WE, WE DO NEED TO LIMIT YOUR CU OKAY. YOUR COMMENTS JUST ABOUT SHOULD WE HEAR THIS CASE TONIGHT OR SHOULD WE POSTPONE IT? IT IT SHOULD, IT SHOULD BE POSTPONED. THE MAJOR REASON IS WE CANNOT DETERMINE, AND WE CANNOT GET FROM THE DEVELOPERS OR FROM THE REPRESENTATIVES IF THE DEVELOPERS ARE ACTUALLY PURCHASING THE PROPERTY AND WILL GIVE US THE GENUINENESS THAT THEY WILL TRULY DEVELOP THE PROPERTY AND WILL MOVE FORWARD WITH IT. THERE'S NO AGREEMENT THAT WE HAVE SEEN OR GOTTEN OR ANY EVIDENCE THAT THE PROPERTY HAS EVEN BEEN PURCHASED. WE HAVE ASKED, OR AT LEAST I HAVE ASKED SEVERAL TIMES EACH TIME THAT MAJOR REQUEST, WHICH IS A HIGHLY SIGNIFICANT REQUEST, HAS BEEN DENIED FOR VARIOUS REASONS. WE HAVE NO EVIDENCE THAT THEY ARE EVEN PURCHASING THE PROPERTY. ANY AGREEMENT THAT I DID FIND ON MY OWN WAS WITH THE OWNERS OF THE PROPERTY AND THE ADRENAL GROUP. THAT'S NOT WHAT WE NEED AND THAT IS NOT SOMETHING THAT I EXPECTED TO FIND, TO FIND. WHY WOULD THERE BE AGREEMENTS WITH THE CURRENT OWNERS OF THE PROPERTY WHEN IT'S THE DEVELOPERS WHO ARE, WHO SHOULD BE PURCHASING THE PROPERTY, WHO IS GOING TO DEVELOP THE PROPERTY? NONE OF THAT MAKES LOGICAL SENSE. I BELIEVE IN THE END WE WILL GET THE ANSWERS THAT WE NEED AS TO WHY THINGS HAVE WORKED OUT THIS WAY. BUT WE DON'T, WE HAVEN'T HAD THE TIME TO GET THE INFORMATION THAT WE NEED FROM THE DRE GROUP AND THEY HAVE NOT BEEN FORTHCOMING TO GIVE IT TO US. SO WE'RE ASKING THAT WE HAVE A POSTPONEMENT ON THIS WHOLE REQUEST, BOTH TO REZONE AND TO DEMOLISH THE PROPERTY UNTIL SUCH TIME AS WE CAN GET THE EVIDENCE THAT WE NEED, THAT THERE IS A GENUINE [00:15:01] INTEREST IN THE DEVELOPERS, UH, DEVELOPING THE PROPERTY. AND EVEN MORE SO THAT A CONTRACT OR SOMETHING EXISTS TO SHOW THAT THEY HAVE ACTUALLY PURCHASED THE PROPERTY AND INTEND TO MOVE FORWARD. OKAY. WE WOULD FULLY WANT TO SEE THAT HAPPEN. ANYTHING YOU CAN DO TO HELP US UNDERSTAND HOW WE CAN GET THAT, WE WOULD BE APPRECIATED. AND IF IT MEANS POSTPONING IT, THAT'S WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE. OKAY. AND WE APPRECIATE YOUR CONCERN. I, I DO WANT TO CLARIFY, THE REZONING IS NOT SPECIFIC TO THIS COMMISSION. HOWEVER, THE DEMOLITION REQUEST, WHICH IS IN FRONT OF US YES. IS SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS. UH, COMMISSIONERS, ANY QUESTION OF THE SPEAKER? I'M SORRY. OKAY, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. IS THERE SOMEONE ELSE HERE TO SPEAK? YES, PLEASE COME FORWARD AND READ YOUR NAME INTO THE RECORD. HEY Y'ALL, MY NAME IS MESSIAH RAMOS. I AM THE PRESIDENT OF THE ROGERS, WASHINGTON HOLY CROSS NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. UH, THIS DEVELOPMENT IS VER ADJACENT TO OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. UM, WE ARE REQUESTING A POSTPONEMENT FOR ALL OF THE REASONS THAT BARRY HAD MENTIONED. AND I WANT TO ADD ADDITIONAL REASONS. UM, WE'RE, WE HAVE A LOT OF CONCERNS, UH, PRIMARILY WITH THE DEMO, BUT ALSO WITH, UH, THE POTENTIAL, UH, HISTORIC DESIGNATION AND THE PLACARDS, UM, FOR THE ACTUAL SITE ITSELF. THIS ACTUAL SITE ITSELF HAS A TON OF HISTORIC, UH, HISTORY THAT WE DO WANT TO ENSURE THAT'S PRESERVED. AND AT THE SAME TIME, WE'RE ALSO LOOKING OUT FOR OUR HISTORIC, UH, DISTRICT. UM, WE HAVE BEEN IN TALKS WITH RENER GROUP OF WHAT THOSE REASSURANCES LOOK LIKE AND WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A POSTPONEMENT SO THAT WE CAN CONTINUE THOSE CONVERSATIONS WITH THEM, UH, TO ENSURE THAT OUR HISTORIC DISTRICT IS PROTECTED DURING, UH, THE DEMOLITION PROCESS AND THAT WE DON'T INCUR ANY, UH, ISSUES FROM IT. AND THAT'S, UH, YEAH, THE MAIN REASON WHY I CAME UP HERE TO SPEAK TODAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU AGAIN. ANY QUESTIONS OF THE SPEAKER? ALRIGHT, NEXT SPEAKER PLEASE. GOOD EVENING. MEGAN KING, POLICY AND OUTREACH PLANNER FOR PRESERVATION. AUSTIN. UM, I'M JUST HERE TO EXPRESS OUR ORGANIZATION'S SUPPORT FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD'S REQUEST FOR POSTPONEMENT. AND WE'VE HEARD OBVIOUSLY A LOT FROM MISSILE AND BARRY ABOUT THE LEGITIMATE CONCERNS THAT THE HISTORIC DISTRICT HAS, UM, PARTICULARLY RELATED TO, UM, ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS OF DEMOLITION AND THE IMPACTS IT'LL HAVE ON THEIR HISTORIC NEIGHBORHOOD. WE'RE PROUD TO HAVE COLLABORATED WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION FOR YEARS ON MANY INITIATIVES AND WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE THEIR, UM, THEIR DISTRICT PROTECTED, THEIR PEOPLE, PEOPLE PROTECTED. UM, SO WE ASK THAT YOU POSTPONE UNTIL NEXT MONTH'S MEETING. THANK YOU. THANK YOU AGAIN. ANY QUESTIONS? ALRIGHT, ARE THERE ANY OTHER SPEAKERS? ALRIGHT. UM, THIS WAS NOT A PUBLIC HEARING, THIS WAS JUST A MATTER OF DO WE TAKE THIS CASE NOW OR DO WE POSTPONE? UH, COMMISSIONERS? I WILL ENTERTAIN. UH, THERE'S BEEN A REQUEST FROM THE NEIGHBORS FOR POSTPONEMENT, SO I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION. I'LL MOVE TO HEAR THE CASE TONIGHT. OKAY. IS THERE, WELL, YEAH, THAT WOULD, WOULD, WOULD, WOULD ACTUALLY, IF WE, IF WE HEAR THE CASE, WE DON'T REALLY NEED A MOTION. WE ONLY IF THERE'S A MOTION TO POSTPONE AND IT'S SECONDED, THEN WE CAN CONTINUE. OTHERWISE WE'LL JUST PROCEED WITH THE AGENDA. SO DO I, I SHOULD, I SHOULD HAVE BEEN CLEAR ABOUT THAT. COMMISSIONERS, DO I HAVE A MOTION TO POSTPONE? I MOVE POSTPONEMENT. OKAY. AND IS THERE A SECOND? I THINK FOR PURPOSES OF DISCUSSION, I WILL SECOND AND SO, COMMISSIONER, UH, EVANS, UH, GO AHEAD AND LET US KNOW YOUR IDEAS. UH, I'M, I'M PLEASED THAT THIS DISCUSSIONS HAVE BEEN GOING FORWARD, BUT THERE SEEM TO BE SOME UNANSWERED QUESTIONS AND SO, UH, I WOULD LIKE THE DISCUSSION TO CONTINUE, UM, PARTICULARLY RELATED TO THE HISTORIC ELEMENTS. AND, UH, ALSO AN ADDITIONAL QUESTION I HAVE THAT'S MAY OR MAY NOT BE APPROPRIATE, BUT IT, UH, IF DEMOLITION MOVES FORWARD, I'D LIKE TO KNOW WHAT KIND OF CONVERSATION HAS BEEN HAD WITH THE SCHOOL DISTRICT WHO IS GOING TO BE NEAR THE DEMOLITION. SO THOSE ARE MY THOUGHTS. OKAY. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? YES, COMMISSIONER ROCHE. SO COMMISSIONER, IS IT YOUR UNDERSTANDING THAT CONVERSATIONS BETWEEN THE APPLICANT AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD ARE ONGOING? THAT WAS THE IMPRESSION I GOT. YES. I SEE. AND MY FEELING IS THAT OBVIOUSLY WE COULD TAKE THIS CASE, WE COULD [00:20:01] HEAR THE PRESENTATION AND, AND THEN STILL HAVE THE OPTION OF POSTPONING IF WE WISHED. UM, BUT I DON'T THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE TO WASTE NOT THE APPLICANT'S TIME NOR THE NEIGHBOR'S TIME. IF IN FACT, THE OUTCOME, AS I SUSPECT MIGHT BE THE CASE, IS THAT WE HAVE ENOUGH CONCERNS, PARTICULARLY ABOUT THE QUESTION OF THE SAFETY OF THE DEMOLITION. UH, THIS IS THE PLACE WHERE THEY WILL HAVE TO GET FINAL PERMISSION TO DEMOLISH. UH, ONCE THEY'RE FINISHED HERE, THEY'LL HAVE THAT ABILITY. SO I THINK THEY'RE, IF IF THE NEIGHBORS ARE TELLING US THEY'RE UNANSWERED QUESTIONS, THAT DOES CONCERN ME. WELL, I GUESS IF THERE'S CONVERSATIONS ONGOING, THEN I SUSPECT THE PRESENTATION THAT WE WOULD SEE TONIGHT WILL NOT BE THE SAME PRESENTATION THAT WE'LL SEE IN THE FUTURE. SO MAYBE IT'S BEST TO GIVE THEM TIME TO CONTINUE TO VET SOME OF THESE THINGS AND, AND WE HEAR THE CASE AT OUR NEXT MEETING. OKAY. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? I WILL REMIND THE COMMISSIONERS WE NEED SIX FOR A MAJORITY. UH, A, A MOTION IS ON THE, UH, TABLE AND IS BEEN SECONDED TO POSTPONE TO OUR MARCH MEETING. NO FURTHER DISCUSSION ABOUT THE POSTPONEMENT. THEN I WILL CALL THE QUESTION, THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE POSTPONEMENT, PLEASE PRESENT TO YOUR HAND AND IT'S UNANIMOUS. OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH AND WE WILL SEE YOU IN MARCH. THANK YOU. ALRIGHT, UH, LET US NOW GO PROCEED WITH OUR FIRST DISCUSSION ITEM, AND THAT WILL BE ITEM NUMBER. UH, JUST WANNA POP IN. WE DO HAVE A BRIEFING TO GO THROUGH. WE HAVE A BRIEFING ITEM NUMBER TWO. THANK [2. Briefing on the FY25 Recommended Heritage Preservation Grants] YOU VERY MUCH. UH, THIS IS A BRIEFING ON THE, UH, RECOMMENDED HERITAGE PRESERVATION GRANTS. AND PLEASE COME AND SHARE, SHARE WITH US. THANK YOU. GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS. MELISSA ALVARADO. I AM THE HERITAGE TOURISM DIVISION MANAGER WITH THE PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT. TODAY, I WILL BE, UH, PROVIDING A BRIEFING ON THE FISCAL YEAR 2025 HERITAGE PRESERVATION GRANT RECOMMENDATIONS. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. TO BEGIN AFTER AN INITIAL APPLICATION DEADLINE, ALL PROPOSALS ARE REVIEWED TO ENSURE THAT THEY MEET STATE STATUTE REQUIREMENTS AND GRAD GUIDE GRANT GUIDELINE REQUIREMENTS AS ESTABLISHED BY THE CITY'S LAW DEPARTMENT. UM, PROJECT INPUT FROM THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE IS ESSENTIAL TO THE PROGRAM. UM, NEXT, A FORMAL REVIEW BY AN EXTERNAL PANEL IS ASSEMBLED TO REVIEW APPLICATIONS FOR FUNDING. EXTERNAL PANEL COMPOSITIONS MAY INCLUDE PROFESSIONALS WITH EXPERTISE IN TOURISM, ADVERTISING AND MARKETING, HISTORIC PRESERVATION, CONSERVATION, ARCHITECTURE, PUBLIC HISTORY, OR MUSEUM AND EDUCATION. THE FISCAL YEAR 2025, PANEL REVIEWERS INCLUDED MAGEE NADA, HERITAGE PROGRAM MANAGER FROM FOUR FOUR CULTURE BASED IN SEATTLE, WASHINGTON, CAROLINA, ZARAY, EDUCATION CURATOR FROM A CALIENTE MUSEUM BASED IN PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA. MALLORY LEINBERGER, FORMER EDUCATOR FROM THE LBJ PRESIDENTIAL LIBRARY. JESUS NEHA, ARCHITECTURAL PROGRAMS MANAGER FROM PRESERVATION TEXAS. INEZ WALLINS, ASSISTANT DEPUTY EXIST EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF HISTORIC SITES FROM THE TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION. RITA COFIELD, PUBLIC HISTORIAN AND CONSERVATION ARCHITECT FROM THE J PAUL GETTY TRUST IN LOS ANGELES. AND DR. TARA DUDLEY, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR FROM UT AUSTIN SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE AND FORMER HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION GRANTS COMMITTEE MEMBER. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. THE PURPOSE OF THE HERITAGE PRESERVATION GRANT IS TO PRESERVE AND RESTORE HISTORIC SITES AND PRESERVATION ACTIVITIES THAT ARE ACTIVELY MARKETED TO TOURISTS. THE STATE LAW REQUIRES THE FUNDING TO BE USED TO PROMOTE THE CONVENTION AND HOTEL INDUSTRIES, AND IT ALSO REQUIRES PROJECTS TO BE LOCATED IN THE VICINITY OF THE CONVENTION CENTER OR IN AREAS LIKELY TO BE VISITED BY TOURISTS. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. UM, THE GRANT SUPPORTS HISTORIC PRESERVATION PROJECTS AND HISTORY FOCUSED ACTIVITIES THAT PROMOTES THE SITE'S HISTORY TO TOURISTS. IT IS, OFFERS A TWO YEAR GRANT TERM. IT IS OPEN TO BOTH NONPROFIT AND FOR-PROFIT ENTITIES THAT LEASE OR OWN THE SITE GRANT FUNDS SUPPORT PRESERVATION PROJECT COST WITH NO FINANCIAL MATCH. WE OFFER AN ONLINE APPLICATION IN BOTH ENGLISH AND SPANISH. AND IF AWARDED, GRANT AWARDEES HAVE FULL ACCESS TO TOURISM MARKETING TRAINING DEVELOPED IN PARTNERSHIP WITH MILES PARTNERSHIP, A VISIT AUSTIN PARTNER. AND THIS TRAINING IS ALSO OFFERED IN ENGLISH AND SPANISH AS OUTREACH AND EDUCATION PRIORITIES. THE HERITAGE TOURISM [00:25:01] DIVISION OFFERS BOTH VIRTUAL AND IN-PERSON AWARENESS WORKSHOPS AND OPEN OFFICE HOURS. WE PRIORITIZE OUTREACH TO NEW APPLICANTS AND ENCOURAGE CREATIVE COLLABORATIONS, WHICH IS A PARTNERSHIP BETWEEN HISTORIC PROPERTIES AND COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS. ALL PROJECTS ARE REQUIRED TO HAVE A HISTORIC DESIGNATION OR BE ELIGIBLE FOR A DESIGNATION, PROMOTE HERITAGE TOURISM AND OCCUR WITHIN AN AUSTIN CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. THERE ARE FOUR PRESERVATION PROJECT TYPES THAT WE SUPPORT, AND THAT IS CAPITAL PLANNING, EDUCATIONAL AND MARKETING. UM, AS PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED, PROJECTS MUST OCCUR OR PROMOTE A HISTORICALLY DESIGNATED SITE. ALL PROPOSALS ARE REQUIRED TO SUBMIT A DETAILED PROJECT BUDGET AND PROJECT BIDS FROM OUTSIDE CONSULTANTS. AND THE SELECTION PROCESS INCLUDES AN INTERDEPARTMENTAL AND EXTERNAL PANEL REVIEW FOR PROJECTS. CAPITAL AND EDUCATION CONTRACT AWARDS CAN VARY FROM 15,000 TO 250,000. AND PLANNING AND MARKETING CONTRACTS ARE ELIGIBLE FOR AWARDS NOT TO EXCEED $30,000. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. APPLICATIONS THAT MEET STATE STATUTE AND GUIDELINE CRITERIA WERE EVALUATED AND SCORED BY A HERITAGE PRESERVATION GRANT EXTERNAL PANEL USING A SCORING RUBRIC. THE SCORING CRITERIA INCLUDED PRESERVATION AND TOURISM IMPACT IN ADDITION TO ACCESSIBILITY AND LOCAL IMPACT PLUS PROJECT MANAGEMENT BUDGET AND BIDS. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. AS AN OVERVIEW IN TERMS OF OUR STATISTICS. UM, IN TERMS OF PERFORMANCE THIS YEAR, 20 PRES PRESERVATION PROPOSALS ARE BEING RECOMMENDED FOR FISCAL YEAR 25 HERITAGE PRESERVATION GRANTS. 55% OF THESE APPLICATION REPRESENT NEW APPLICANTS TO THE HERITAGE PRESERVATION GRANT PROGRAM. 60% REPRESENT NONPROFIT ENTITIES. 75% HAD AN EXISTING LOCAL HISTORIC DESIGNATION. 10% ARE BEING RECOMMENDED TO PURSUE A LOCAL HISTORIC DESIGNATION, AND THIS DESIGNATION WILL BE FUNDED THROUGH THE GRANT. 20% OF THE PROPOSALS WERE LISTED IN THE EAST AUSTIN HISTORIC SURVEY CONDUCTED BY THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE. AND OVERALL, APPLICANTS WILL LEVERAGE OVER $1.6 MILLION IN OTHER SOURCES OF FUNDING TO SUPPORT THEIR PROJECTS. THE HERITAGE PRESERVATION GRANT SERVES TO PROTECT, RESTORE, AND PROMOTE A COLLECTION OF HISTORIC PLACES THAT ARE SIGNIFICANT FOR THEIR ARCHITECTURAL AND ASSOCIATIONS WITH PEOPLE, STORIES AND HERITAGE. THE RECOMMENDED FISCAL YEAR 25 HERITAGE PRESERVATION GRANT PROJECTS REPRESENT 30% OF SMALL OR LEGACY BUSINESSES, 25% OF CREATIVE AND CULTURAL SPACES, 25% OF HISTORIC AND HERITAGE SITES, AND 20% REPRESENT PARKLAND GREEN SPACE, CEMETERIES, OR TRAILS. NEXT SLIDE. AS PART OF YOUR PRESENTATION AND IN YOUR BACKUP ARE THE 20 RECOMMENDED PROJECT PROPOSALS THAT REPRESENT 12 CAPITAL PROJECTS AND EIGHT PLANNING EDUCATIONAL OR MARKETING PROJECTS. AND, UH, YOU CAN KIND OF FLIP THROUGH THE REST OF THESE SLIDES AS A, AS, AS YOU KNOW, TO REPRESENT THE 20 RECOMMENDED UM, PROJECTS. IN ADDITION, WE'D ALSO LIKE TO TAKE THE OPPORTUNITY TO HIGHLIGHT A FEW COMPLETED PROJECTS AND BRING THESE PROJECTS TO YOUR ATTENTION, INCLUDING THE JP SCHNEIDER STORE LOCATED AT 4 0 1 WEST SECOND STREET, WHICH WAS CONSTRUCTED SHORTLY AFTER THE END OF THE CIVIL WAR IN 1873. THE CURRENT OCCUPANT IS LAMBERT'S DOWNTOWN BARBECUE, AND THEY COMPLETED A RESTORATION PROJECT TO ADDRESS WOOD ROTT PAINTING, DRAINAGE, AND HVAC ISSUES. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. UH, A CITY OWNED REHABILITATION PROJECT AT THE JOAN MEANS CABBEL BATHHOUSE IS IN PROGRESS AND IT WILL RESULT IN THE, THE THE 1947, SORRY. BARTON SPRINGS BATHHOUSE WAS CONSTRUCTED IN ART MODERN STYLE AND IS A STATE ANTIQUITIES LANDMARK ENLISTED IN THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES. MAJOR ELEMENTS OF WORK WILL INCLUDE ADDRESSING ACCESS, IMPROVEMENTS, REPLACEMENT OF THE PLUMBING SYSTEMS AND STRUCTURAL REPAIRS. THIS PROJECT IS ANTICIPATED TO BE COMPLETED IN THE SPRING OF 2025. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. THE MILLET OPERA HOUSE, UM, THE LUMBER DEALER, CHARLES F MILLET'S, 1878 OPERA HOUSE BECAME A [00:30:01] CULTURAL CENTER FOR AUSTIN. AS DEPICTED IN THE TOP LEFT PHOTO CIRCA 1880, THE THEATER HAD 800 MOVABLE SEATS, PLUS BOXES, OPERAS, AND DRAMATIC PERFORMANCES. FEATURED SUCH NOTED ACTOR ACTORS AS EDWIN BOOTH, JOSEPH JEFFERSON, SIR HENRY IRVING, AND OTIS SKINNER. THE MILLET OPERA HOUSE NOW SERVES AS AN EVENT RENTAL SPACE OFFERS ONSITE TOURS BY APPOINTMENT AND IS A FEATURED STOP ON EXTERNAL HISTORIC TOURS. THE HISTORIC SITE IS LISTED ON THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES. IN ADDITION, IT'S A RECORDED TEXAS HISTORIC LANDMARK AND LOCAL HISTORIC LANDMARK. THE MILLET OPERA HOUSE, UH, COMPLETED A RESTORATION PROJECT CONSISTING OF REPOINTING, THE WEST EXTERIOR WALL. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. THIS CONCLUDES THE BRIEFING. UM, PLEASE VISIT OUR WEBSITE FOR MORE INFORMATION OR TO LEARN MORE ABOUT THE HERITAGE PRESERVATION GRANT. IN ADDITION, WE HOST, UH, REGULAR VIRTUAL OPEN OFFICE HOURS TO DISCUSS ANY POTENTIAL PROJECT PROPOSALS. WE CAN BE EMAILED DIRECTLY AT HERITAGE TOURISM@AUSTINTEXAS.GOV. WE WELCOME ANY OPPORTUNITY TO DO SITE VISITS, TO HAVE COMMUNITY CONVERSATION AROUND RESTORATION PROJECTS AND PROPOSALS. UM, AND AT THIS TIME, THIS CONCLUDES MY BRIEFING. THANK YOU COMMISSIONERS. ANY COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER ROCHE? I DO THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THE PRESENTATION. UH, I LIKE THE WAY THE FORMAT IS LAID OUT, THE SCORING RUB RUBRIC. APPRECIATE THAT. ONCE THE GRANT IS FUNDED, WHAT, UM, WHAT OVERSIGHT IS THERE IN TERMS OF THE IMPLEMENTATION? SURE. GREAT QUESTION. SO IT'S A TWO YEAR CONTRACT THAT IS PROVIDED TO EACH AWARDEE, AND WE HAVE A SERIES OF MILESTONES THAT ARE BUILT INTO THE CONTRACTING PROCESS. UM, FIRST THERE ARE A SERIES OF PRE-CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS THAT MUST BE MET. UM, AND THAT, UH, INCLUDES EVERYTHING FROM RISK ASSESSMENT, WHICH EQUATES TO INSURANCE AS REQUIRED BY THE CITY OF AUSTIN TO, UM, UH, INFORMATION RELATED TO, UM, STATE REQUIREMENTS IN TERMS OF, UH, THE, I'M BLANKING ON THE NAME OF THE FORM . UM, BUT WE HAVE A SERIES OF REQUIREMENTS THAT, THAT EACH APPLICANT MUST SUBMIT AS PART OF THE PRE-CONTRACT PROCESS. ONCE THAT, ONCE THAT PROCESS IS COMPLETED, THE NEXT STEP IN ORDER TO OBTAIN FUNDING IS TO COMPLETE AN INTERIM REPORT. THE INTERIM REPORT REQUIRES A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT ELEMENTS BE COMPLETED. ONE IS THE COMPLETION OF A, AT LEAST ONE TOURISM MARKETING CLASS, EVIDENCE THAT TOURISM MARKETING IS IN FACT HAPPENING. UM, EVIDENCE OF MARKETING PLACEMENTS IS, IS ANOTHER REQUIREMENT AND INVOICES ASSOCIATED WITH THE, UH, REQUESTED, UH, EXPENSE. UM, FOLLOWING THE INTERIM REPORT STAFF EVALUATES THOSE REPORTS. AND AT THAT TIME WE CAN CHOOSE TO EITHER DO A VIRTUAL CONVERSATION IF WE HAVE FOLLOW UP QUESTIONS OR WE CAN GO ONSITE TO REQUEST AN INSPECTION OF THE SITE AND WORK IN ITS PROGRESS. UM, FOLLOWING THAT, WE ALSO HAVE A FINAL REPORT WHERE A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT ELEMENTS MUST BE ADDRESSED, INCLUDING THE OVERALL TOURISM EFFORTS THAT WERE MADE BY THE APPLICANT, UM, SUBMISSION OF FULL, UM, INVOICES RELATED TO THE PROJECT. UM, A SUMMARY OF WHAT EXACTLY WAS COMPLETED. UM, IN ADDITION TO THE COMPLETION OF THE TOURISM MARKETING TRAINING AND NEW THIS YEAR, WE ARE REQUIRING A, UM, MARKETING PLAN PLACEMENT. SO WE WANT TO SEE ALL THE AREAS IN WHICH YOU SPECIFICALLY ADVERTISED AND MARKETED YOUR SITE, AND WE WANNA SEE SPENDS ASSOCIATED WITH THAT, THAT DIRECTLY CONTRIBUTE TO TUR TO THE TOURISM MARKETING. UM, SO THERE ARE A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT, UM, ELEMENTS THAT GO INTO THE CONTRACTUAL COMPLIANCE ELEMENT OF THE, UM, AGREEMENT. AND I'M HAPPY TO SHARE MORE IF YOU'D LIKE MORE DETAIL. WELL, NO, THAT'S PLENTY OF DETAIL ON THE MARKETING AND TOURISM SIDE. I SHOULD HAVE WARMED MY POCKET PROTECTOR BECAUSE THE ENGINEER AND I DIDN'T BRING MY P CHURCH AND I, BUT THE GENESIS OF MY QUESTION IS REALLY IN THE, IN THE PLAN REVIEW PROCESS IN TERMS OF THE RESTORATION PRESERVATION, DOES THAT GET REVIEWED PRIOR TO THE IMPLEMENTATION [00:35:01] OF THE RESTORATION? WE DO. UM, SO AS PART OF THE, SO AS A REMINDER, WE ARE A TWO PERSON DIVISION, UM, AND AS PART OF OUR, UM, CONTRACTUAL COMPLIANCE, WE DO 15% RANDOM SPOT AUDITS ON ALL CONTRACTS. AND THAT COULD INCLUDE A, UM, A, UH, SITE VISIT, AN UNEXPECTED, UM, BUT EXPECTED SITE VISIT, UM, TO ENSURE THAT THERE'S FULL COMPLIANCE IN TERMS OF WHAT WAS PROPOSED AND WHAT THE ACTUAL PROJECT OUTCOME WAS. THANK YOU. SURE. I I, I WANNA FOLLOW UP ON THAT. YEAH. UM, IT OCCURS TO ME THAT THIS PROCESS YOU HAVEN'T MENTIONED, IF YOU HAVE SOME SPECIFIC WAY TO CERTIFY, UH, THE COMPLETION, UH, KIND OF LIKE A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY, YOU KNOW, THE GRANT'S FINISHED, THE PROJECT'S DONE. IS THERE SOME, UH, DESIGNATION THAT THAT IS CONFERRED TO THE OWNER AT THAT POINT? WE DO NOT HOLD A SPECIFIC DESIGNATION THAT WE CONFER TO ANY OWNERS OF PROPERTIES. UM, NO, BUT YOU WOULD HAVE, YOU, YOU'VE DONE A, YOU'VE, YOU'VE BASICALLY WOULD CERTIFY A CONTRACT IS COMPLETE. THIS, THIS GRANT WE CERTIFY THE CONTRACT IS COMPLETE THROUGH THE, UH, FINALIZATION OF THE FINAL REPORT AND ALL OF THE REQUIREMENTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROJECT. SO THAT INCLUDES THE OUTCOMES AND, AND THAT ALSO INCLUDES PRESERVATION OUTCOMES, HISTORIC PRESERVATION OUTCOMES, UM, THAT INCLUDES, UM, BUDGET OUTCOMES, THAT INCLUDES MARKETING OUTCOMES. UM, THAT MIGHT INCLUDE PHOTOGRAPHIC RECORD OF SOME OF THE COMPUTER MATERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS IS SOMETHING THAT WE ARE NOW ABLE TO COLLECT THROUGH THE SUBMITTABLE ONLINE PLATFORM THAT WE ARE CURRENTLY USING. UM, AND THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WE HAVE BEEN ADVOCATING FOR, FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS, NOT ONLY FOR OUR REVIEWERS WHO WERE INTERESTED IN BEING ABLE TO SEE THE PHOTO, THE BEFORE AND THE BEFORE PHOTOS, UH, OF THE PROPOSED PROJECTS, BUT, UM, BUT WE ALSO ASK FOR PHOTOS ALONG THE WAY AT THE INTERIM PROCESS AND ALSO AT THE FINAL PROCESS. WELL, YOU KNOW, WE'VE, WE'VE BEEN ENCOURAGING, AND BY THE WAY, THANK YOU FOR SHOWING US SOME OF THESE COMPLETED PROJECTS. UH, IN THE PAST IT WAS SORT OF A BLACK HOLE, YOU KNOW, WE KNEW GOOD THINGS WERE HAPPENING, BUT IT WASN'T COMING BACK AND WE WEREN'T GETTING A CHANCE TO ALL CELEBRATE TOGETHER. UH, I THINK FOR THE REVAMPING OF THE GRANTS COMMITTEE, AND THIS WILL NOT BE APPROPRIATE UNTIL WE HAVE SOME OF OUR NEW MEMBERS, BUT I, I THINK THERE'S POTENTIALLY A WAY THAT THAT END PROGRAM THAT YOU HAVE MIGHT INCLUDE, UH, A REPORT BACK TO THE COMMISSION WITH SOME OF THAT MATERIAL AND POSSIBLY A, UH, A WAY OF HAVING THOSE INDIVIDUALS RECOGNIZED HERE AS WELL. UM, SOME OF THESE ARE CERTAINLY PROJECTS WORTH CELEBRATING, SO WE'LL KEEP THAT, KEEP THAT CONVERSATION, UH, ALIVE. THANK YOU COMMISSIONER WES, FOR BRINGING THAT UP. YEAH, NO, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR ALL OF YOUR HARD WORK AND COMMITMENT TO THIS EFFORT. I DON'T WANT YOU TO THINK OUR QUESTIONING, IT'S NOT OH NO. IT TAKES AWAY FROM EVERYTHING THAT YOU'RE DOING. 'CAUSE IT'S FANTASTIC AND I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME THIS EVENING. THANK YOU. ALRIGHT, COMMISSIONERS, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ALRIGHT, THANK YOU AGAIN FOR THE BRIEFING. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONERS. WE DON'T NEED TO TAKE ANY ACTION. SO THAT MEANS NOW WE CAN GO ON TO OUR FIRST DISCUSSION CASE. [5. DA-2024-089522 – 810 W 11th St. West Downtown National Register Historic District Council District 9 (Part 1 of 2)] UH, THIS IS ITEM NUMBER FIVE AT, UH, AT NATIONAL REGISTER DISTRICT PERMIT APPLICATION AT EIGHT 10 WEST 11TH STREET. UH, THE PROPERTY IS IN THE WEST DOWNTOWN, UH, NATIONAL REGISTER, HISTORIC DISTRICT. THANK YOU CHAIR. UM, THIS IS A PROPOSAL TO DEMOLISH A CONTRIBUTING PROPERTY IN, AS YOU MENTIONED, THE WEST DOWNTOWN AUSTIN HISTORIC DISTRICT. UM, THE HOUSE IS ENTIRELY CLAD AND BUFF BRICK AND IN GOOD CONDITION EXCEPT FOR THE SIDE DORMERS, WHICH ARE CLAD AND WOOD SLAPP SIDING, UH, WITH VINCE ALSO PRESENT THE HOUSE AS A REMINDER AT EIGHT 10 WEST 11TH STREET WAS BUILT IN THE EARLY TO MID 1930S, AND THE LONG-TERM OWNERS FOR OVER 20 YEARS WERE JOSEPH AND IDA CASPER. THEY LIVED TOGETHER AT THE HOUSE ALONG WITH THEIR CHILDREN, UH, BEFORE MOVING OUT SOMETIME AFTER 1949. IN 1987, THE RESIDENCE WAS CONVERTED TO OFFICE USE AND HAS CON CONTINUED IN THIS FUNCTION TO PRESENT DAY. THE PROPERTY, UH, CONTRIBUTES TO THE WEST DOWNTOWN AUSTIN NATIONAL REGISTER. DISTRICT PROPERTIES ARE MEET, UH, PROPERTIES MUST MEET TWO CRITERIA FOR LANDMARK DESIGNATION. STAFF HAS EVALUAT EVALUATED THE PROPERTY AND DETERMINED THAT IT DOES NOT MEET TWO CRITERIA. UH, UPON ATTENDING THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE, THE COMMITTEE FEEDBACK WAS TO PROVIDE INFORMATION ABOUT WHAT, IF ANY NEW CONSTRUCTION IS PLANNED TO PROPOSE. IF A DEMOLITION PERMIT WERE TO BE APPROVED STRONG, THEY URGE TO STRONGLY CONSIDER A DESIGN THAT RETAINS THE FRONT FACADE, POSSIBLY INCLUDING STEPPED BACK UPPER FLOORS. CONSIDER THE CITY OF AUSTIN HOME INITIATIVE PRESERVATION INCENTIVE. UH, PUT TOGETHER A DOCUMENTATION PLAN GOING FORWARD TO UNDERSTAND THE BREADTH OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AND RECOMMEND THE OWNERSHIP. ENGAGE WITH INTERESTED NEIGHBORHOOD GROUPS, UH, THE ONE N THE 180 DAY REVIEW PERIOD, UH, TIMES OUT ON FEBRUARY, FEBRUARY 10TH. IN LIGHT OF THAT STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO ENCOURAGE REHABILITATION AND ADAPTIVE [00:40:01] REUSE, THEN RELOCATION OVER DEMOLITION, BUT RELEASE THE PERMIT UPON COMPLETION OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN DOCUMENTATION PACKAGE. THIS CONCLUDES THE STAFF REPORT. OKAY. COMMISSIONERS, ANY QUESTIONS? OKAY, IS THE APPLICANT HERE? GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS. MY NAME IS DREW RAEL. I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT. UM, AS MR. LUKES SAID, WE CAME BEFORE YOU IN SEPTEMBER, AT WHICH POINT WE WERE, UM, POSTPONED AND RECOMMENDED TO GO TO THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE. UM, WE DID GO TO THE COMMITTEE, WE HEARD THE COMMISSIONS, UH, FEEDBACK THERE AND HAVE TAKEN THAT INTO ACCOUNT. UM, ALSO AT THE DIRECTION OF THIS BODY, UH, WE WERE, UH, RECOMMENDED TO REACH OUT TO NEIGHBORS AND MEET WITH THE OLD AUSTIN NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION AND SURROUNDING NEIGHBORS. WE MET WITH THE, UM, OLD AUSTIN NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION TWICE. UM, WE HAVE LET THEM KNOW THAT, UM, AT THE TIME WE DID NOT HAVE, UM, ANY PLANS FOR DEVELOPMENT AND WE STILL DO NOT TODAY. UH, WHERE WE ARE IS THE FIRST STEP IN THE REDEVELOPMENT PROCESS. AND SO THAT IS WHY WE ARE REQUESTING THE RELEASE FOR THIS PERMIT TO THEN MOVE THROUGH TO THE DESIGN, WHICH WILL THEN HAVE TO COME BACK BEFORE THIS BODY. AND WE HAVE MADE COMMITMENTS TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD GROUP THAT WE WOULD COME TO THEIR, UM, MONTHLY MEETING AND PRESENT THOSE PLANS TO THEM AND SEEK THEIR INPUT. UM, AS WE BEGIN THAT PROCESS COMING BACK BEFORE THIS BODY, UM, WE ALSO HAVE MADE IT CLEAR THAT IT IS NOT THE INTENTION TO DEMOLISH THIS BUILDING IMMEDIATELY AND LEAVE IT A VACANT LOT. UM, THE CURRENT OWNER, UM, SINCE WE'VE STARTED THIS HAS BEEN IN DISCUSSIONS WITH THE DEVELOPER OF THE LOT AT EIGHT 12 WEST 11TH, AND HAS LOOKED AT PULLING THAT TOGETHER AS A, AS A DEVELOPMENT, UM, BETWEEN THE TWO LOTS. AND SO, UM, THE, THE OWNER WILL REMAIN AS THE TENANT IS THE INTENT UNTIL TIME FOR DEMOLITION, UM, COMES. SO THAT IS KIND OF WHAT THE INTERIM LOOKS LIKE. UM, BEFORE MEETING WITH THE, THE NEIGHBORHOOD, AGAIN, THE PROPERTY WAS REZONED RECENTLY TO INCLUDE THE ETOD AND DB ETOD OVERLAYS, AND THAT IS LIKELY, UM, THE PROGRAM THAT THE PROPERTY WILL REDEVELOP UNDER. AND REALLY WHERE WE ARE IS JUST GETTING THIS STEP TO MOVE FORWARD TO THE NEXT STEP WHERE WE CAN WORK THROUGH DESIGN AND THEN ASSESS ALL OF THOSE OPTIONS UNDER IT TO SEE WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE, UM, TO INCORPORATE SOME OF THE FEEDBACK THAT WE'VE COLLECTED FROM THE NEIGHBORS AND, AND THEN BRING THAT TO THEM AND HAVE THAT DISCUSSION BEFORE COMING BACK TO THIS BODY. AND SO WITH THAT, UM, WE AGREE WITH STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION THAT IT IS A CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE, HOWEVER, IT DOES NOT MEET THE CODES REQUIREMENT FOR DESIGNATION AND WE RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THE RELEASE OF THE PERMIT FOR DEMOLITION. OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THE PRESENTATION. THANK YOU. UH, COMMISSIONERS, ANY QUESTION OF THE APPLICANT? I, I HAVE A QUESTION. IS IT FAIR TO ASSUME THAT SINCE YOU'RE WAITING FOR A DEMOLITION PERMIT BEFORE YOU BEGIN DESIGN THAT THE INTENT IS NOT TO INCLUDE THE HISTORIC HOUSE IN ANY DESIGN? NO, THAT'S NOT FAIR TO ASSUME BECAUSE REALLY WHERE WE ARE IS WE HAVE TO ASSESS, UM, YOU KNOW, THE MASSING THE STRUCTURE, THE, THE PROPERTY EIGHT 12 HAS A RESTRICTIVE COVENANT ON IT WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD GROUP. UM, THEY HAVE MADE MENTION TO US THAT AS WE WORK THROUGH THAT PROCESS, THAT THEY WOULD BE WILLING TO POTENTIALLY, UH, AMEND THAT. BUT, UM, ONE OF THE BIG DRIVING FACTORS IS THAT THE PARKING MUST BE BELOW GRADE. AND SO WE DO KNOW THAT, UM, IF THE PROPERTY, THE THE STRUCTURE WOULD LIKELY HAVE TO COME OFF THE PROPERTY AND THEN COME BACK IF IT WERE TO RETURN. SO THERE'S JUST A LOT OF THINGS THAT WE NEED TO GO THROUGH WITH DESIGN AND ASSESS THOSE COSTS AND WHAT, UM, AVENUES THAT WE CAN COMMIT TO. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ALRIGHT, IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE HERE TO SPEAK, UH, IN FAVOR OF THE DEMOLITION REQUEST? SEEING NONE, IS THERE ANYBODY HERE IN OPPOSITION? ALRIGHT, UH, HEARING NONE, I WILL MOVE THAT WE CLOSE THE BACK HERE. SORRY. WE DO HAVE A COUPLE OF PEOPLE IN OPPOSITION. SORRY, DO WE COULDN'T, COULDN'T PRESS THE BUTTON FAST ENOUGH. OKAY. PLEASE. UH, WE HAVE MR. CHARLES PTO AND MS. ANGELA HOBOS. AH, PLEASE COME TO THE MICROPHONE AND READ YOUR NAME. AND FOR THE RECORD, I, EXCUSE ME. I'M ANGELA HOVAS AND I'M THE PRESIDENT OF THE OLD AUSTIN NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. AND WE HAVE BEEN MEETING WITH DREW AND THE POTENTIAL DEVELOPER. AND WE DO REALIZE THAT WE'RE AT THE END OF OUR 100 DAYS OF, UH, 80 DAYS OF TALKING WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD. LAST NIGHT WE HAD A MEETING, AND AT THAT MEETING, UM, UH, WE'RE ENCOURAGED THAT THIS, THAT THIS SITE MIGHT JOIN WITH EIGHT 12 AND BECOME RESIDENTIAL. WE'D BE GREATLY UPSET IF WE LOST A HISTORIC STRUCTURE AND THEN IT TURNED OUT TO BE SOMETHING ELSE. SO A LOT OF OUR, A LOT OF OUR [00:45:01] DECISION MAKING WAS CENTERED AROUND THE FACT THAT WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO INCREASE THE RESIDENTIAL CAPACITY OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. SO I DIDN'T KNOW WHETHER OR NOT TO PUT MY NAME AS FOR OR AGAINST BECAUSE OUR RECOMMENDATION IS SORT OF A CONDITIONAL REQUEST AND I'D LIKE TO JUST READ IT TO YOU. UM, REGARDING THE REQUEST FOR DEMOLITION PERMIT, WE ENCOURAGE REHABILITATION AND ADAPTIVE REUSE, THEN RELOCATION OVER, DEMOLITION OVER DEMOLITION IF RELOCATION OR DEMOLITION IS THE PATH FORWARD. WE HAVE TWO REQUESTS. THE OLD DAWSON NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION SUPPORTS RELOCATION OR A DEMOLITION PERMIT CONDITIONED ON THERE BEING A CITY APPROVED SITE PLAN FOR A PROJECT IN PLACE PRIOR TO ANY ACTUAL REMOVAL OR DEMOLITION OCCURRING. WE FURTHER REQUEST THAT FULL HISTORIC AMERICAN BUILDING SURVEY, HABS DOCUMENTATION BE PROVIDED. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS OF THE SPEAKER? OKAY, THE NEXT SPEAKER PLEASE. CHARLES TON. I'M VICE PRESIDENT OF THE OLD AUSTIN NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION AND JUST TO BASICALLY REITERATE WHAT ANGELA HAS JUST SAID, BUT IN ADDITION, WE, UM, ARE CONCERNED THAT, YOU KNOW, WE, WE'VE HAD DISCUSSION WITH THE, UM, REPRESENTATIVE OF THE DEVELOPER AND WE WOULD LIKE, UM, FOR ALL OPTIONS TO BE CONSIDERED OF SAVING THE STRUCTURE, INCLUDING, AS WAS MENTIONED, MOVING IT OFF THE SITE TO DO THE SUB, UH, UM, TERRAIN, UM, PARKING AND THEN, UH, REPLACING IT, BRINGING IT BACK. BUT, YOU KNOW, WE ARE, UM, COMMITTED TO THE HISTORIC CHARACTER OF THIS NEIGHBORHOOD. IT'S A NATIONAL REGISTERED DISTRICT AND WE JUST, YOU KNOW, THAT'S OUR, OUR STAND ON THIS. AND WE WANT THE BEST OUTCOME FOR BOTH THE DEVELOPER AND FOR THE OUR NEIGHBORS. AND, YOU KNOW, WE ARE CONCERNED THAT, YOU KNOW, THE, THE INTENT IS, UH, RESIDENTIAL. UH, WE WANT TO BE, UH, UH, WE WANT TO HAVE ASSURANCE THAT IT'S RESIDENTIAL. WE SUPPORT, UH, RESIDENTIAL DENSITY IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. UH, WE JUST DON'T WANT, UH, TO END UP WITH, UM, POSSIBLY COMMERCIAL ONLY. UM, BUT IN ADDITION, UH, IN THE PAST FIVE YEARS, WE'VE HAD A NUMBER OF THESE PROPOSED OF DEVELOPMENTS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, ALL IN, UM, INVOLVED, UH, HISTORIC RESOURCES. AND, UH, FOR WHATEVER REASON THE DEVELOPMENTS WERE STALLED. UM, THEY'VE BEEN CANCELED AND WE HAVE BEEN LEFT WITH A MINIMUM OF FOUR VACANT LOTS. UH, WHERE PREVIOUSLY, UM, HISTORICALLY SIGNIFICANT PROPERTIES, UH, EXISTED INCLUDING ONE, UH, ACROSS THE STREET. IT WAS A, A ANOTHER CONTRIBUTING MEMBER TO THIS, UH, WHAT IS NOW A NATIONAL REGISTER HISTORIC DISTRICT AT 12TH AND SAN ANTONIO. WE HAD A MAJOR INDIVIDUALLY SIGNIFICANT PROPERTY THAT, UH, KAPPA GAMMA 1960. IT, IT'S BEEN A VACANT LOT FOR OVER FIVE YEARS. SO I THINK THAT THE BOTTOM LINE IS WE'RE VERY CONCERNED, UM, OF A PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT THAT MAY NOT HAPPEN AND ESPECIALLY IF THE DEMOLITION OF THIS CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE HAPPENS, UM, US BEING LEFT, UH, AS NEIGHBORS AND STAKEHOLDERS WITH ANOTHER VACANT LOT IN THIS HISTORIC NEIGHBORHOOD. SO THAT, THAT'S OUR, I THINK OUR MAIN CONCERN HERE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANY ANY QUESTIONS? QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONER? THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY OTHER SPEAKERS? ALRIGHT, HEARING NONE THEN, UH, I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. SO MOVED. SECOND. SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER LAROCHE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE INDICATE BY RAISING YOUR HAND. THAT IS UNANIMOUS. ALRIGHT, I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION. UH, MAY I ASK A QUESTION TO STAFF PLEASE? BEFORE A MOTION? UH, CAN YOU SPEAK TO ANY OF THE, THE LEGAL OR LEGAL ABILITY TO REQUIRE A HA DOCUMENTATION PACKAGE RATHER THAN THE CITY OF AUSTIN DOCUMENTATION PACKAGE? 'CAUSE I DON'T REALLY SEE THAT. CITY OF AUSTIN DOCUMENTATION PACKAGE IS WITHIN OUR RIGHTS TO REQUIRE IN UNDER CODE. AND THAT WAS CURIOUS WHETHER IT'S ALWAYS BEEN OUR HABIT PRACTICE TO DO THAT. COULD WE RE REQUIRE THAT TO BE A HABS DOCUMENTATION PACKAGE AND ALSO SPEAK TO OUR LEGAL ABILITY TO PUT ANY SORT OF REQUIREMENT FOR A SITE PLAN? I, I KNOW IN NATIONAL REGISTRY DISTRICT WE HAVE TO SEE THE NEW PLANS BEFORE THE DEMOLITION IS RELEASED, BUT I DON'T KNOW IF THAT INCLUDES SITE PLAN AND IF IT [00:50:01] DOESN'T, I'M ASSUMING WE WOULDN'T HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO, TO PREDICATE ANY DEMOLITION PERMIT ON ANYTHING OTHER THAN WHAT'S IN CODE. CAN, CAN WE PUT QUALIFICATIONS ON THE RELEASE OF A DEMOLITION PERMIT IS WHAT I'M ASKING. LEGAL. OKAY. WE'RE GONNA, WE'RE GONNA BE ASKING LEGAL WHILE YOU'RE AT IT. WE HAVE A RELATED QUESTION. IS THERE, AND THIS, YOU MAY BE ABLE TO ANSWER THIS WITHOUT LEGAL, I DON'T BELIEVE, BUT IS THERE A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE REQUIREMENTS ON THE APPLICANT IF IT TIMES OUT VERSUS ONE WHERE WE HAVE ACTUALLY TAKEN THE ACTION AND ASKED FOR SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS? OKAY, I THINK WE CAN ANSWER THAT ONE. THAT ONE WE CAN'T ANSWER RIGHT AWAY. UM, YES. SO THIS IS THE LAST OPPORTUNITY THAT THE COMMISSION HAS TO ASK FOR A DOCUMENTATION PACKAGE OF, OF SOME SORT OR ANOTHER. UM, IF NO ACTION IS TAKEN, THEN THE COMMISSION IS NOT ABLE TO, UH, TO ADD THAT CONDITION. SO BY DEFAULT, IF IT TIMES OUT, THEN THE CONDITION IS NOT REQUIRED BECAUSE THAT'S CORRECT. IT WAS NOT PART OF OUR ACTION. RIGHT. OKAY. SO THE QUESTION THEN BECOMES THE EXTENT TO WHAT THESE REQUESTS, THESE CONDITIONS WOULD BE INCLUDING, UH, SOME OF THE REQUESTS THAT WE HEARD IN THE PRESENTATIONS, INCLUDING THE HABS DOCUMENTATION. SO AT THIS POINT, UM, IF WE ARE GOING TO BE CONFERRING STAFF, POSSIBLY WITH LEGAL, WOULD THAT BE SOMETHING YOU THINK THAT WILL BE, UH, WITHIN THE NEXT SEVERAL UH, MINUTES, SHOULD WE TAKE ANOTHER CASE UP AND THEN THIS WILL STILL BE SOMETHING WE CAN RESOLVE AT THIS, THIS MEETING? I WOULD SAY SO POSSIBLY. ALRIGHT. UH, COMMISSIONERS, WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE TABLE, BUT I DO BELIEVE IT IS APPROPRIATE AND WOULD BE SUPERSEDED BY A MOTION TO TABLE ITEM NUMBER FIVE. SO MOVED UNTIL LATER IN THE MO MEETING, SO, SO MOVED. COMMISSIONER ROCHE, UH, MOTION TO TABLE. UH, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER. UH, COMMISSIONER GROGAN, YOU'VE GOT YOUR HAND UP FIRST. SO ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF TABLING TILL LATER IN THE MEETING. ITEM NUMBER FIVE, UH, PLEASE INDICATE BY RAISING YOUR HAND. OKAY. IT HAS BEEN MOVED AND IT WILL THEN EITHER BE TAKEN UP BY MOTION WHEN WE HEAR FROM LEGAL OR IT BY DEFAULT WOULD THEN GO TO THE END OF THE CASES IF WE DON'T HAVE ANY FURTHER ACTION. SO WE APPRECIATE EVERYONE'S PATIENCE AND AS WE GET THIS DETERMINATION, WE WILL NOW TAKE THE NEXT CASE COMMISSIONERS. THE NEXT CASE FOR DISCUSSION [7. PR-2024-159632 – 705 West Lynn St. West Line National Register Historic District Council District 9] IS ITEM NUMBER SEVEN AND NO, IS THAT RIGHT? I'M NOT MISSING ONE. YEP, THAT'S RIGHT. ITEM NUMBER SEVEN AT 7 0 5 WEST LINN. UH, THIS IS A DEMOLITION REQUEST IN THE WEST LINE NATIONAL HISTORIC REGISTER DISTRICT. THANK YOU CHAIR. UM, THIS PROPOSAL IS TO DEMOLISH, UH, CIRCA 9 18 95 HOUSE. UH, THE HOUSE IS LOCATED AT 7 0 5 WEST LYNN STREET IS A SINGLE STORY CENTER PASSAGE HOUSE WITH A SIDE GABLED ROOF SET AT A MODERATE TO HIGH PITCH. THE SINGLE FRONT DOOR IS CENTERED ON THE HOUSE WITH 2 1 2 OVER TWO WINDOW ON EITHER SIDE. THERE'S A FRONT PORCH THAT EXTENDS ACROSS THE ENTIRETY OF THE FRONT FACADE, SUPPORTED BY FOUR COLUMNS DUE TO THE ELEVATION OF THE SITE. THE PORCH SITS NEARLY AT, AT GRADE TOWARDS THE FRONT OF THE LOT, BUT AT THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY IS A FULL HEIGHT UN UH, UNCONDITIONED, UH, CRAWL SPACE OR BASEMENT. WHILE THE FOOTPRINT OF THE BUILDING MAY READ AS A SIMPLE RECTANGULAR CENTER HALL DESIGN, THE REAR EXTENDS FURTHER BACK INTO THE LOT, INCLUDING AN ENCLOSED PORCH. THERE IS ALSO A SMALL FRAME SHED ON THE SITE, WHICH IS ALSO PROPOSED TO BE DEMOLISHED. THE SHED IS NOT MENTIONED IN THE WEST LINE NATIONAL REGISTER NOMINATION FROM ITS CONSTRUCTION AROUND 1895 UNTIL 1962. THE PROPERTY WAS OWNED BY THE QUICK FAMILY. UH, JOHN QUICK, A CARPENTER ORIGINALLY FROM SWEDEN WAS THE FIRST LISTED OWNER AND LATER MARRIED A WOMAN NAMED HELEN, WHO WAS ALSO A FIRST GENERATION SWEDISH IMMIGRANT NEWSPAPER. RECORDS INDICATE THAT HELEN'S SISTER IMMIGRATED TO TEXAS AROUND 1893, THOUGH IT WAS UNKNOWN WHETHER THE SISTERS ARRIVED TOGETHER OR SEPARATELY. THE QUICKS WERE INVOLVED WITH THE LOCAL METHODIST CHURCH WITH THE ADDRESS ON WEST LYNN HOSTING A CIRCLE OF THE WOMEN'S SOCIETY OF C CHRISTIAN SERVICE. JOHN QUICK DIED OF NATURAL CAUSES IN 1945, AND HELEN OCCUPIED THE HOUSE UNTIL HER PASSING IN 1962. AT THE AGE OF 91, THE HOUSE WAS LEFT UNOCCUPIED, UNOCCUPIED FOR SEVERAL YEARS AFTER, BUT BY THE 1970S IT WAS OCCUPIED BY RENTERS. UH, THE PROPERTY CONTRIBUTES TO THE WESTLAW NATIONAL REGISTER DISTRICT AND THE NOMINATION FURTHER LISTS THE PROPERTY AS ELIGIBLE FOR INDIVIDUAL LISTING IN THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES, UH, PROPERTIES MUST MEET TWO CRITERIA FOR, UH, LANDMARK DESIGNATION AT THE CITY OF AUSTIN. LEVEL STAFF HAS EVALUATED THE PROPERTY AND DETERMINED THAT, THAT IT DOES NOT MEET TWO CRITERIA. UM, THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO COMMENT ON PLANS ALTERNATIVELY, UH, POSTPONE THE PUBLIC HEARING, TO INVITE THE APPLICANT TO THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE TO DISCUSS ALTERNATIVES TO TOTAL, TOTAL DEMOLITION AND TO CONTINUE COMMUNICATION WITH NEIGHBORHOOD GROUPS. I WOULD ALSO ADD THAT, UH, BACKUP ITEM NUMBER 7.2, UH, IS A [00:55:01] SITE PLAN THAT WAS DEVELOPED COMING OUT OF A MEETING WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD GROUP, UM, WHICH WAS SUBMITTED, UH, TOO LATE FOR THE STAFF REPORT TO, UM, INCLUDE IT. UM, OKAY. AND JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, DOES THAT SITE PLAN INDICATE, UH, AS I'M LOOKING AT IT, UM, IT INDICATES, UH, THE SAVING OF THE HOUSE. IT INDICATES A RETENTION, THE FIRST 15 FEET OF THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE AND, UM, DEVELOPMENT AT THE REAR WITH THE SECOND UNIT. SO JUST SO I'M CLEAR WHAT YOU SAID MM-HMM . WHAT WE HAVE IN THE AGENDA IS THE SITE PLAN THAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO. YES. WHAT, WHAT'S SHOWN ON THE SCREEN. OKAY, THANK YOU. YES, CORRECT. AND I DO HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THAT SITE PLAN, UM, THAT DOES NOT SHOW THE, WHAT APPARENTLY IS A HERITAGE TREE THAT'S ON THE SURVEY THAT'S ALSO BEEN SUBMITTED, UH, TO WHAT WOULD BE THE PLAN NORTH OF THE EXISTING HOUSE. UH, IS THAT, UH, IS THAT BEING REMOVED IN THE SITE PLAN OR IS THERE SOMEHOW, MAYBE IT'S NOT A HERITAGE TREE AND IT JUST, UH, APPEARS TO BE IN THE SURVEY? OUR UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THIS IS GOING TO BE A PROPOSAL TO THE, UH, CITY OF AUSTIN, UM, WITH THE, UH, ABOUT, ABOUT REMOVAL OF THE, UH, TREE, UM, AS A, UM, AS A POTENTIAL, UH, UH, COMPROMISE BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE, UH, NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. I SEE. HOWEVER, I CAN'T SPEAK TOO MUCH TO THAT BECAUSE I WAS ONLY JUST AWARE OF THIS. OKAY. SO IT'S, IT'S ALL BEEN NEWLY SUBMITTED, BUT, BUT IT IS MADE IT INTO THE RECORD. ALRIGHT. UH, COMMISSIONERS, ANY OTHER QUESTION OF STAFF? ALRIGHT, WELL, LET'S HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT. I HAVE A QUESTION. OH, YEAH, GO, GO AHEAD. SO DO WE QUALIFY THEN THIS AS A POTENTIALLY A PARTIAL DEMOLITION VERSUS A TOTAL? UM, IT WAS ORIGINALLY SUBMITTED TO US AS A TOTAL DEMOLITION. UM, IN, IN LIGHT OF THIS WE CAN, WE CAN DISCUSS THAT, BUT, UM, YEAH, I DON'T KNOW. I THINK I NEED CLARIFICATION. PLEASE GO AHEAD. IS THE SITE PLAN, IS THIS WHAT'S PROPOSED FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD GROUP OR FROM THE APPLICANT? THIS WAS SUBMITTED BY THE, UH, OWNER APPLICANT. OKAY. BUT IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD? YES. I, I, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THIS CAME OUT OF A MEETING FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD WITH, ALONG WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD GROUP AS OF LAST NIGHT. I HAVE A FEELING WE'RE GONNA HEAR A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THIS SHORTLY. YES. SO LET'S GO AHEAD AND ASK THE APPLICANT TO COME TO THE MICROPHONE AND IDENTIFY YOURSELF PLEASE FOR THE RECORD. I, UH, I'M SCOTT TURNER. I'M REPRESENTING THE OWNERS. I HOPE I CAN ANSWER SOME OF YOUR QUESTIONS AND CLARIFY SOME OF THE CONFUSION. UM, BUT, UH, LET ME START BY, BY POINTING OUT THAT, UH, THIS IS ACTUALLY ON THE JANUARY 8TH AGENDA, UH, BUT DUE TO A TYPO IN THE NOTICE, UH, IT HAD TO BE RENO AND THEN, UH, SO, SO THERE HAS BEEN PLENTY OF NOTICE THAT'S GONE OUT REGARDING THIS PROPERTY AND PLENTY OF TIME FOR ME TO ENGAGE WITH THE NEIGHBORS AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION. I'VE SPOKEN WITH THE NEIGHBORS. I DON'T KNOW OF ANY OPPOSITION. I DON'T KNOW IF ANYONE HAS, HAS SENT ANYTHING IN OR NOT. UM, I'VE ALSO, UH, ENGAGED WITH, UH, THE OLD WEST AUSTIN NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION TO GO OVER TO TRY AND EXPLORE THE POSSIBILITY. SO THAT IS IN FACT WHAT THAT SITE PLAN IS. THAT THAT IS NOT WHAT WE ARE PROPOSING. WE ARE STILL REQUESTING A, A TOTAL DEMOLITION. UH, BUT WE DID GO THROUGH AND TRY AND DETERMINE WHAT, WHAT COULD BE DONE HERE AND WHAT THE CONSTRAINTS ARE. AND I'D LIKE TO GO OVER THOSE HERE WITH YOU TONIGHT. UM, THE SITE CONSTRAINTS START WITH THE HERITAGE TREES. THERE'S A 29 INCH HERITAGE TREE IN THE FRONT YARD. UH, THERE'S A 35 INCH HERITAGE TREE IN THE BACKYARD, AND THEN THERE'S ANOTHER HERITAGE TREE OFF TO THE SIDE. THE ONE YOU REFERENCED AS NOT BEING THERE. IT'S A, UH, POST OAK THAT WAS SEVERELY DAMAGED IN THE PAST AND IT'S CANOPY HAS BEEN SUBSTANTIALLY CLIPPED. AND I'M ACTUALLY MEETING WITH, UH, NAOMI ROMMEL ON FRIDAY TO EVALUATE THAT TREE, UH, FOR REMOVAL. BUT OUR ARBORIST HAD INDICATED THAT IT WAS A CANDIDATE FOR REMOVAL, UM, IN PART BECAUSE IT ALSO BLOCKS VEHICULAR ACCESS TO THE BACK OF THE PROPERTY, UH, WHICH WAS ANOTHER CONSTRAINT. UH, I DO WANT TO POINT OUT THAT THAT REAR TREE, THERE WAS A, A PHOTO IN THE PACKET THERE OF A LARGE BRANCH THAT, THAT'S A VERY LARGE TREE WITH, WITH BASICALLY TWO LARGE TRUNKS OR BRANCHES COMING OFF OF IT. UH, THE MAJORITY OF THE CANOPY OF THE TREE IS ON A BRANCH THAT PRO PROTRUDES TOWARDS THE CENTER OF THE LOT SIGNIFICANTLY. AND IT'S VERY LOW. SO INSTEAD OF JUST SORT OF LOOKING AT THE CIRCLE AND FIGURING OUT WHAT PORTIONS YOU KNOW, YOU CAN IMPACT, UM, IT, IT REALLY DOES COMPRESS THE, THE, THE AVAILABLE AREA FOR CONSTRUCTION. AND THE INTENT HERE IS TO BUILD TWO FULL-SIZE UNITS ON THE PROPERTY. UM, SPEAKING OF VEHICULAR ACCESS, UH, CONCERN WAS EXPRESSED BY BOTH THE NEIGHBORS AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION ABOUT PARKING, PARTICULARLY ON WESTLAND. THERE IS NO PARKING ALLOWED ON WESTLAND AT ALL. UM, SO BEING ABLE TO ACCOMMODATE, UH, YOU KNOW, ENOUGH OFF STREET PARKING WAS, WAS IMPORTANT, UH, BOTH FOR, UH, THE PROJECT AND OBVIOUSLY FOR THE NEIGHBORS. UM, AND THEN LAST BUT NOT LEAST, THE HOME ITSELF, IT, IT'S WITH AN ORIENTATION [01:00:02] ALSO, UH, PROVIDE CHALLENGES IN TERMS OF, OF THE POSSIBILITIES OF, OF ADDING ON, UH, ET CETERA. BUT WE DID EXPLORE ALL OF THAT. UH, I ALSO REACHED OUT, UH, TO COMMISSIONER COOK, UH, TO DISCUSS, UH, THE, THIS SITE PLAN HERE, UH, AND THESE CONSTRAINTS. UM, SO THE CONCLUSION THAT, THAT, THAT I DREW IS THAT IN GOING THROUGH THIS PROCESS IS THAT, UM, WHILE, UM, THEORETICALLY YES, ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE ON A LOT THAT SIZE IN PRACTICE, UH, THOSE CONSTRAINTS COMBINE TO, TO ESSENTIALLY REDUCE THE, THE FLEXIBILITY NECESSARY TO, TO MAKE TWO UNITS FEASIBLE ON THAT PROPERTY. UH, AND, UH, UM, AS, UH, THE, THE STAFF BACKUP INDICATED, UH, UH, YOU KNOW, I, I DON'T DON'T BELIEVE IT MEETS THE, THE TWO CRITERIA NECESSARY. UH, AND I THINK THAT'S WHY IN THE LAST STAFF PACKET IT WAS RECOMMENDED TO RELEASE THE PERMIT. AND THAT'S WHAT WE ARE REQUESTING HERE TODAY AS WELL. I'D BE GLAD TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE. OKAY. COMMISSIONERS, ANY QUESTION OF THE APPLICANT? I HAVE A QUESTION. UM, I REALLY APPRECIATE SEEING THIS OUTCOME OUT OF DISCUSSION AND LOOKING AT THAT TREE AND KNOWING IT'S A POST OAK, IT'S NOT LONG FOR THIS WORLD. I DON'T THINK, UM, THAT COUPLED MAYBE TRYING TO DISCOVER SOME OF OUR POWERS TONIGHT. I DON'T THINK WE EVER RECOMMENDED THE REMOVAL OF A TREE. BUT WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO ENTERTAIN IF THAT TREE WERE REMOVED, REDUCING THIS TO A PARTIAL DEMOLITION PERMIT RATHER THAN FULL DEMOLITION PERMIT REQUEST? I, I ACTUALLY DON'T BELIEVE IT'S POSSIBLE TO, TO REMOVE THAT TREE BY CODE. UH, IT, IT, MY ARBORIST JUDGED IT TO BE IN FAIR CONDITION. OBVIOUSLY THE CITY ARBORIST WOULD BE THE ULTIMATE DETERMINER OF THAT. BUT, BUT BARRING A, A, A, WHAT'S IT CALLED, A DISEASED OR OR OTHERWISE A DANGEROUS DESIGNATION? YEAH. UM, I, I THINK I WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH A, A, A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, VARIOUS VARIANCE PROCESS IN ORDER TO AVOID TAKING IT OUT IN ORDER TO THEN SPEAK TO THAT. SO, SO I CAN'T AGREE TO THAT. YEAH, THAT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT IT WAS, THERE WAS NO DISCRETION. IT, IT'S EITHER, THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING AS WELL, IF IT'S ALIVE, UM, UM, OKAY, WELL, IF IT'S ALIVE, I'M NOT SURE YOU HAVE MUCH ABILITY TO DO ANYTHING ON THE LOT WITH NEW CONSTRUCTION. BUT IF IT'S DISEASED, I GUESS YOU JUST CAN'T GET TO IT. IF IT'S DISEASED AND IT'S DISEASE OBVIOUSLY, THAT, THAT THE DIAGRAM YOU PRESENTED US SEEMS VERY VIABLE. AND I THINK THE OWNERS, UH, HAVE FOLLOWED CERTAINLY WHAT WE WOULD'VE, UH, HOPED THEY WOULD SEE, WHICH IS THE INTERFACE THAT ALREADY EXISTS BETWEEN THE EXISTING FRONT PORCH, THE EXISTING HOUSE, AND THAT SIGNIFICANT TREE IN THE FRONT YARD. UH, YOU KNOW, YOU, YOU TAKE THAT AWAY AND YOU'RE NOT EVER BUILDING ANYTHING CLOSE, UH, TO WHAT'S THERE. NOW, INTERESTINGLY, AS A PART OF GOING THROUGH THIS PROCESS, UM, THE, YOU KNOW, TO PUT TWO FULL SIZE UNITS ON THERE, IF YOU'LL NOTICE ON THE SITE PLAN, THE, THE PORCH IS RIGHT AT THE EDGE OF THE HALF CRITICAL ROOT ZONE OF THAT TREE. SO, SO WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO PUT A, A NEW STRUCTURE IN THE SAME FOOTPRINT AS THAT, UH, WITHOUT, UH, UM, RESTRICTION. UH, AND, AND I ALSO WANT TO POINT OUT THAT, THAT BY PUTTING AS YOU CAN SEE, THE TWO UNITS ON THAT ARE QUITE CLOSE TOGETHER IN THE BACK. UM, SO THE, THE OUTDOOR SPACE FOR THE FRONT HOUSE, SORT OF BY DEFAULT HAS TO BE THE FRONT YARD, WHICH ALSO ECHOES WHAT YOU SEE UP AND DOWN WESTLAND, WHICH ARE LITTLE FRONT COURTYARDS. UM, SO, SO, UM, WE INTEND, ONE OF THE QUESTIONS THAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR NEIGHBORS ASKED WAS, WHAT DO YOU INTEND TO DO THERE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION? WE INTEND TO DO SOMETHING THAT, THAT FITS IN WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND GO THROUGH THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS PROCESS, UH, HERE WITH THE COMMISSION. UH, BUT IT WILL HAVE A FRONT PORCH THERE BECAUSE THAT IS THEIR PRIMARY INDOOR OUTDOOR SPACE. THEIR PRIMARY YARD IS IN THE FRONT, UM, WHICH HOPEFULLY WILL GET SOME, SOME ENGAGEMENT ON THE STREET SIDE THAT FREQUENTLY IS NOT THE CASE. WELL, I, GO AHEAD COMMISSIONER. I, I GUESS I WOULD LIKE A LITTLE CLARITY ON, UM, I GUESS I DON'T SEE HOW MUCH MORE THE SITE CAN BE DEVELOPED WITH THE, UM, FULL DEMOLITION OTHER THAN A TWO STORY THAT'S STRUCTURE THAT'S STARTING RIGHT WHERE THE PORCH IS. IS THAT THE CASE? BECAUSE I'M NOT UNDERSTANDING HOW YOU CAN REALLY MAXIMIZE THE SITE ANYMORE. IT, IT OFFERS A LOT MORE FLEXIBILITY THAN, THAN IT DOES IF YOU KEEP THAT FRONT, THAT FRONT HOUSE IS CLOSE TO 40 FEET WIDE. UH, IT HAS A SIDE TO SIDE GABLE. UM, SO, SO IT, IT BECOMES VERY DIFFICULT TO SORT OF WORK AROUND THAT IN TERMS OF BOTH DESIGN AND IN TERMS OF SITE PLANNING. SO THERE'S FAR MORE FLEXIBILITY TO WORK AROUND THE TREES, ACCESS IT FOR PARKING AND SO ON THAN, THAN IS SHOWN ON THAT. UM, SO I PROVIDED THAT TO ILLUSTRATE THE CONSTRAINTS. I GUESS I'M CONFUSED BECAUSE IN THE UPDATED PLAN YOU ARE SHOWING [01:05:01] AN EXISTING HOME, UH, YOU'RE SHOWING THAT IT REMAINS, AND THEN, UH, MORE TWO STORY IS BUILT BEHIND IT. CORRECT. THAT WAS, THAT WAS THE PROCESS THAT WE WENT THROUGH WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION TO DETERMINE WHAT COULD BE DONE THERE. SO, SO THE RESULT OF THAT, THAT IS, THAT THERE ARE TOO MANY CONSTRAINTS. UM, OH, BUT THAT, THAT AGAIN, NOT, OH, SO YOU'RE SHOWING THIS NOT BECAUSE THIS IS THE WAY YOU, YOU GO. EXACTLY. IT, IT'S THERE TO ILLUSTRATE THE CONSTRAINTS SO THAT YOU CAN SEE WHAT, WHAT WE WENT THROUGH TO, TO ARRIVE AT THE CONCLUSION THAT, THAT, THAT WE HAVE MEANING THE APPLICANT. OH, SO IT, IT'S NOT, I SEE IT THINKING UP. THAT SOUNDS LIKE A WIN-WIN. NO, IT'S NOT. IT'S NOT PROPOSED. THERE'S NOT ENOUGH ROOM TO, TO GET EVERYTHING ON THERE AND STILL PUT TWO FULL-SIZE HOMES. I THINK MY QUESTION WOULD BE, COULD WE SEE A SITE PLAN OF, OF WHAT YOU WOULD RATHER PROPOSE? 'CAUSE I DON'T SEE CONSTRAINTS HERE, TO BE HONEST. UM, I WOULD BE GLAD TO PROVIDE THAT. UM, I COULD EMAIL IT TO YOU. WE, WE PREPARED IT AND REVIEWED IT AT THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION MEETING. YEAH, NO, I THINK THIS, THAT'S A GOOD SUGGESTION TO, THIS IS MY IDEAL. YEAH. IF, IF THIS ISN'T WHAT WILL WORK, WHICH SEEMS LIKE IT IS WORKABLE, THEN WHAT WORKS BETTER? AND, UH, AND WOULD THAT BE SUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY THE REMOVING OF A CONTRIBUTED STRUCTURE IN A NATIONAL REGISTER STORAGE DISTRICT? PARTICULARLY IF THERE'S A POSSIBILITY THAT IT CAN BE INTEGRATED. UM, BUT THAT'S, THAT'S WHY WE HAVE THE REVIEW PROCESS MM-HMM . AND WE APPRECIATE THE EXCHANGE, RANK EXCHANGE THAT WE HAVE, UH, WITH WHAT YOU'VE SUPPLIED US IN THE, IN THE PAST AS WELL AS, UH, WHAT YOU'VE PROVIDED US IN THIS, UH, PRESENTATION. UH, COMMISSIONERS. ANY MORE QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT? DO WE KNOW IF THE OWNER IS OPEN TO INTEGRATING THE EXISTING STRUCTURE INTO THE NEW NO. THAT, THAT, THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT I'M HERE TO SAY, IS THAT, THAT IT'S NOT FEASIBLE TO INTEGRATE THAT STRUCTURE THERE. IN ADDITION TO THE SITE PLAN CONSTRAINTS, THERE'S ALSO COST CONSTRAINTS AND DESIGN CONSTRAINTS THAT KICK IN. I'M SORRY TO CONTINUE THIS FURTHER, BUT WHEN I SEE THIS PLAN, IT LOOKS LIKE IF THE DISEASE TREE IS ALLOWED TO BE REMOVED, ASSUMING THAT THAT'S POSSIBLE, SINCE I HAVE A BIG PILE OF POST OAK IN MY BACKYARD THAT I'M FAMILIAR WITH POST OAKS, AND HOPEFULLY THE ARBORIST IS TOO, THAT THIS, WHAT MAKES THE PLAN HERE NOT FEASIBLE AND OTHERWISE MAXIMIZING USE OF THE SPACE AS LONG AS YOU HAVE THE ACCESS FOR PARKING WITH THAT TREE GONE, THE, THE FIRST OFF THE SIZE OF THE FRONT UNIT IS LIMITED. UH, WE, WE CAN'T REACH THE, THE FAR, UH, THAT'S ALLOWED ON THE SITE WITH THOSE CONSTRAINTS. AND THAT'S WHY I INCLUDED THE SIZE OF THE UNITS DOWN THERE AT THE BOTTOM. IN ADDITION, IT'S VERY DIFFICULT TO WORK THROUGH THE PARKING AND ACCESS. AS YOU CAN SEE, THOSE STRUCTURES ARE VERY CLOSE TOGETHER, UM, BY, BY REQUIREMENT, AGAIN BECAUSE OF THE TREES. SO IT, IT MAKES IT VERY CHALLENGING TO, TO GET TWO FUNCTIONAL HOUSES OUT OF THAT, UH, THAT, THAT DO AGAIN, BECOME FEASIBLE TO BUILD. DOES IT, DOES THIS INCLUDE HOME PRESERVATION BONUS AREA? IT DOES NOT. OKAY. WELL, I, I THINK THE DATA IS SHOWING US A COMPARISON BETWEEN A REAR UNIT, WHICH POTENTIALLY, I GUESS IS UNENCUMBERED, AND THEREFORE WOULD BE MORE OF YOUR IDEAL ALMOST 2,900 SQUARE FEET, AND THE ONE THAT IS MORE ENCUMBERED, UH, 2,400 SQUARE FEET. SO FOR 400 SQUARE FEET, WE'RE LOSING A HISTORIC RESOURCE. SO I THAT'S A, THAT'S A TOUGH ONE. UM, ANYWAY, I, I THINK, AGAIN, COMMISSIONERS, UM, IF THERE'S ANY QUESTION OF THE APPLICANT, UH, I THINK WE'RE GONNA BE CHEWING ON THIS, BUT, UH, LET'S SEE IF THERE ARE OTHER SPEAKERS. THANK YOU. SO IS THERE ANYBODY HERE TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THE REQUEST FOR DEMOLITION? OKAY. SEEING NONE. IS THERE ANYBODY HERE OPPOSED? YES, PLEASE COME TO THE PODIUM AND, AND READ YOUR NAME AND TO THE RECORD COMMISSIONERS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. MY FIRST EXPERIENCE, MR. LES. SO THANK YOU. UM, MY NAME IS STEVE AMMOS AND I AM THE CHAIR OF THE OLD WEST AUSTIN NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION AND A RESIDENT OF THAT AREA AND OF AUSTIN SINCE 1988. AND HAS ALSO SEEN AS YOU, UH, A LOT OF LOSS OF OUR HISTORICAL RESERVATIONS. I WISH THERE WERE SOME OTHER PHOTOS THAT YOU COULD SEE OF THIS COMMISSIONER HEISMAN. AND THAT IS HOW ALL THE OTHER, ALL THE OTHER HOUSES ON EITHER SIDE HAVE DONE JUST THAT. THEY HAVE MAINTAINED THE FRONT FACADE, WHICH IS WHAT WE REQUEST AND GONE BACK. AND THEN THEY, THEY'VE BUILT IT BEHIND. AND IF YOU FAMILIAR A BIT WITH WESTLAND, THIS IS THE ROW OF HOUSES THAT ALL HAVE THE HISTORICAL, UM, UH, MAIN MAINTAINED. AND RIGHT DOWN THE STREET IS THE SECOND OLDEST CONTINUING [01:10:01] OCCUPIED SCHOOL IN AUSTIN, MATTHEWS ELEMENTARY. SO THIS IS IMPORTANT. IT'S INTERESTING. WE HEARD THE LADY EARLIER SPEAK ABOUT, UH, TOURISM. I NEVER THOUGHT THAT I'D BE SEEING TOURISM IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD, BUT WE ARE, AND THIS IS PART OF THE REASON WHY I'M GONNA REFER FOR A MOMENT TO THE LETTER THAT THE, UH, WE SENT ON FEBRUARY THE THIRD. SO I APOLOGIZE, GETTING THERE EARLIER. WHAT WE ARE REQUESTING AS WE PRESERVE THE FACADE, THE FRONT AND THE FRONT ROOMS, THERE ARE OPTIONS, UM, TO A DIFFERENT SPACE, WHICH WE NOTE IN THE LETTER THAT I BELIEVE IS NOW IS PART OF THE RECORD. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT REALLY STICKS OUT IS THAT THIS IS PART OF THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORICAL FORMS, HISTORICAL SPOTS. WHY, WHY DO WE LOSE THE FACADE OF THAT WHEN THERE ARE OPTIONS WHICH HAVE BEEN POINTED OUT? SO WE STRONGLY RECOMMEND REQUEST THAT THE, UH, DEMOLITION, TOTAL DE DEMOLITION BE DENIED. THERE ARE OPTIONS TO HAVE SUCCESSFUL DEVELOPMENT THERE WHILE WE MAINTAIN THE INTEGRITY OF THE HISTORICAL NEIGHBORHOOD, WHICH THE EXAMPLE OF A SALAMANDER CAME TO MIND. WHO CARES ABOUT A SALAM ONE SALAMANDER, BUT BEFORE LONG THE ECOSYSTEM'S GONE. RIGHT? AND ANOTHER FACADE. AND WE BEGIN TO LOSE THE ECOSYSTEM OF OLD WEST AUSTIN AND WESTLAND, WHICH IS PRETTY CHALLENGING, LIKE IT IS. SO THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION TO LOOK AT OTHER OPTIONS AND DENY TOTAL DEMOLITION. WE ARE FOR DEVELOPMENT AND WE LIKE THE FACT THAT THERE WOULD BE TWO RESIDENCES IN THE AREA, BUT NOT, UH, A DEMOLITION OF THE, THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING. THANK YOU. AND WE HOPE THIS WON'T BE YOUR LAST TIME TO BE COME, COME, COME REGULARLY. NO, I LOOK FORWARD TO IT. . YOU'RE NICE PEOPLE. . THANK YOU. UM, ANY QUESTIONS FOR ME BEFORE I TURN OVER? ANY QUESTIONS, CHARLIE? NEXT SPEAKER, PLEASE. I, HELLO AND THANK YOU FOR SEEING ME. I'M CHARLIE RICE. I'M A RESIDENT OF OLD WEST AUSTIN. I LIVE ON 12TH STREET, AND I HAD THE FORTUNE OF RESTORING AN OLD HOUSE THAT MANY PEOPLE THOUGHT I SHOULD TEAR DOWN. AND THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE, LIKE WE ALSO HAVE A TABLE IN THE FRONT YARD, AND SO MANY PEOPLE COME BY AND STOP AND THANK US, TELL US THAT, LIKE, SAY WHAT A GOOD JOB WE DID. AND SO, LIKE, I KNOW IT'S POSSIBLE TO SAVE THIS HOUSE. I WAS ABLE TO WALK THROUGH IT WHEN THEY WERE HAVING AN ESTATE SALE AND I WAS JUST LIKE BLOWN AWAY. LIKE, YOU WALK IN, THERE'S TRANSOM WINDOWS OVER THE DOORS, 12 FOOT CEILINGS, LIKE ORIGINAL WINDOWS, ORIGINAL HARDWOOD FLOORS. AND I THINK THE WAY THE LOT IS POSITIONED JUST MAKES IT, IT COULD BE SUCH A COOL DEVELOPMENT WHERE THE, THE LOT KIND OF SLOPES DOWN. SO YOU HAVE A SECOND STORE THAT ACTUALLY SINKS DOWN. UM, AND I JUST, I WOULD HATE TO SEE ANOTHER, LIKE, THE REASON PEOPLE WANNA LIVE IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD IS BECAUSE WE HAVE ALL THESE HISTORIC HOMES AND FOR SOMEONE TO COME IN AND NOT RESPECT THAT, UM, JUST MAKES ME REALLY SAD. AND I THINK THAT'S, YEAH, ALL I HAVE TO SAY. OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. ALRIGHT, ANY OTHER SPEAKERS? ALRIGHT, HEARING NONE. UM, NOW BY TRADITION WE DO ALLOW THE, UH, APPLICANT TO REBUT, UH, IF YOU'RE SO INCLINED. UH, YOU HAVE JUST A FEW, FEW COMMENTS TO MAKE IN RESPONSE. SURE. UH, UM, I, UH, THE REFERENCE TO THE OTHER HOMES ON THE STREET HAVE HAD ADDITIONS. YOU KNOW, I DO WANNA SPEAK TO THAT, UM, BECAUSE THAT IS A CASE. THERE ARE SEVERAL HOMES UP AND DOWN THE STREET THAT, THAT HAVE HAD THE FRONT FACADE PRESERVED. BUT, BUT THOSE ARE ALL ORIENTED WITH THE GABLE FRONT TO BACK. THEY HAVE CRAFTSMAN STYLE DETAILS. UM, AND, AND THEY ALSO ARE, ARE GENERALLY VERY LARGE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES. AND BY LARGE, I MEAN 4,000 PLUS SQUARE FEET. UM, SO OUR INTENT HERE IS NOT TO BUILD ONE GIANT HOUSE ON THIS LOT, UM, BUT RATHER TO GET TWO HOMES THERE, WHERE, WHERE CURRENTLY THERE IS JUST ONE. UH, SO I JUST WANTED TO TRY AND ADDRESS THAT. THANK YOU. OKAY, THANK YOU. OKAY. NO MORE SPEAKERS. NO MORE DISCUSSION FROM QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL COMMISSIONS. ALRIGHT, UH, COMMISSIONERS, I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. NO MOTION. MR. ROCHE. IS THERE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND. COMMISSIONER GROGAN. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF CLOSING PUBLIC HEARING INDICATE BY RAISING YOUR HAND. ALRIGHT, IT'S UNANIMOUS. UH, COMMISSIONERS, WHAT ACTION WOULD YOU LIKE TO TAKE ON THIS DEMOLITION REQUEST? I'D LIKE A MOTION TO REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AND POSTPONE THIS TILL THE NEXT HLC. AND I WOULD LIKE TO INVITE THE, UM, THE OWNER TO THE NEXT A RC. OKAY. THE NEXT MEETING WILL BE OUR MARCH MEETING AND THE ARCHITECTURE REVIEW COMMITTEE REFER, [01:15:01] UH, WOULD CERTAINLY BE AVAILABLE IN THE INTERIM. WE'LL NEED A SECOND. IS THAT COMMISSIONER ROCHE? ALRIGHT. IT'S BEEN MOVED BY COMMISSIONER GROGAN. SECONDED. COMMISSIONER GROGAN, SPEAK TO YOUR MOTION. UM, THANK YOU FOR COMING AND, AND SPEAKING. UM, I FEEL LIKE WE HAVE A LOT OF, UM, THE COMMUNITY HERE HAS SPOKEN. I THINK THAT SITE PLAN TO ME, UM, HAS ACTUALLY REALLY CONVINCED ME THAT YOU CAN KEEP THE FRONT PORTION OF THE HOUSE. SO I FEEL LIKE, UM, YOU KNOW, IF, IF YOU COULD POSSIBLY BRING A SITE PLAN THAT SHOWS YOUR INTENTIONS IF, IF THE HOUSE WAS TRULY DEMOED. 'CAUSE I'M, I'M, I'M JUST HONESTLY NOT SEEING CONSTRICT, UM, ANY COMPLEXITY THERE. IT JUST SEEMS IDEAL TO KEEP THE FRONT HALF OF THE PORTION OF THIS HOUSE AND, AND ADD ON AND, YOU KNOW, NO MATTER THE ORIENTATION OF THE ROOF, TO ME AS AN ARCHITECT, I FEEL LIKE THAT THAT'S NOT A PROBLEM. SO, UM, I WOULD JUST LIKE THE OPPORTUNITY TO TALK MORE AND UNDERSTAND, UM, WHAT YOU TRULY GAIN FROM, FROM A FULL, UM, DEMO BECAUSE I'M JUST NOT SEEING IT. COMMISSIONER LA ROCHE? NO, I THINK THAT'S EXACTLY RIGHT. I I, I, I MEAN, RATHER THAN US TRYING TO WORK ALL THIS OUT ON THE TIES, YOU KNOW, THE, THE OBVIOUS PLACE IS THE ACT ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW GROUP. AND SO I THINK THERE'S A BIG UPSIDE THERE AS TO THE POTENTIAL OF WORKING THROUGH THAT. OKAY. ANY OTHER COMMENTS? COMMISSIONERS? I, I THINK IT'S ALSO SIGNIFICANT. UM, AND I APPRECIATE COMMISSIONER COOK MENTIONING THE TREE. UH, OUR JURISDICTION DOES NOT GIVE US, UH, THE ABILITY TO MAKE THAT DETERMINATION. THAT'S NOT OTHER, OTHER ENTITIES IN THE CITY DO, BUT WE CERTAINLY HAVE THE ABILITY TO WEIGH IN AND ON A DIAGRAM THAT MIGHT, UH, ALLOW FOR SOME FLEXIBILITY. AND WITH THE TREE ORDINANCES, YOU HAVE MAJOR TREES THERE THAT STILL WOULD BE PRESERVED. UH, BUT IN THE TRADE OFF FOR THE ABILITY TO CONTINUE TO MAINTAIN A HISTORIC CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE IN A NATIONAL HISTORIC DISTRICT, UH, I THINK THAT'S SIGNIFICANT AND WE CERTAINLY WOULD DO EVERYTHING WE COULD, UH, FOR AN OWNER THAT WOULD BE NEEDING A, A, A, A EXTRA HELP, IF YOU WILL, FROM A DETERMINATION ABOUT THE TREES IN ORDER TO PRESERVE A HOUSE. SO WE CAN'T PROMISE THAT WE COULD MAKE THE OUTCOME, BUT I CERTAINLY KNOW WE COULD WEIGH IN VERY FORCEFULLY. SO I'LL JUST PUT THAT IN, UH, AS WELL WHILE YOU'RE, WHILE THE OWNER IS CONSIDERING THEIR ALTERNATIVES AND POTENTIALLY HAVE THAT AS PART OF THE CONVERSATION WITH THE ARCHITECTURE REVIEW COMMITTEE. ALRIGHT, UH, NO FURTHER DISCUSSION. WE HAVE A MOTION TO, UH, POSTPONE, UH, AND REFER TO THE ARCHITECTURE REVIEW COMMITTEE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE INDICATE BY RAISING YOUR HAND. AND ONCE AGAIN, ALL HANDS ARE RAISED AND IT'S UNANIMOUS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WE WILL SEE YOU NEXT MONTH. AND THAT IS THE BRINGING US UP TO THE NEXT ITEM, WHICH, UH, IS ITEM NUMBER 11, WHICH IS 84 0 1 HATHAWAY DRIVE AND IS ONE THAT I WILL ABSTAIN ON. SO I WILL BE LEAVING THE DAIS AND I WILL TURN THE CHAIR OVER TO OUR ABEL VICE CHAIR. VICE VICE CHAIR ON MR. UH, COMMISSIONER. COMMISSIONER SETH. UM, DO WE HAVE, WE'D LIKE TO, UH, CAN WE, CAN WE HAVE, HAVE ANSWER ON OUR, UH, EIGHT 10 WEST 11TH STREET? OKAY. WELL, UH, COMMISSIONERS, WE WOULD REQUIRE A MOTION TO TAKE THIS OUT OF ORDER AND PICK THIS BACK UP AGAIN. UH, WOULD YOU ALL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO, UH, GO AHEAD WITH AND PROCEED WITH ITEM NUMBER FIVE? SO MOVED. OKAY, SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE INDICATE BY RAISING YOUR HAND. ALRIGHT, SO ITEM NUMBER FIVE [5. DA-2024-089522 – 810 W 11th St. West Downtown National Register Historic District Council District 9 (Part 2 of 2)] IS NOW BACK AND WE CAN PICK UP WHERE WE LEFT OFF. UH, I BELIEVE WE HAD CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING AND WE ARE NOW AT THE POINT OF CLARIFICATION REGARDING THE LEGAL THANK YOU CHAIR. WE HEARD BACK FROM LEGAL AND, UH, THEY, THEY'VE DETERMINED THAT WE CAN REQUIRE A HAPS DOCUMENTATION OKAY. AS PART OF OUR, AS PART OF OUR, UH, DEMOLITION, UH, AS A CONTINGENCY, AS PART OF THE DEMOLITION, UH, UH, RELEASE. CORRECT. OKAY. AND, AND DID WE HEAR IF WE CAN REQUIRE A, IS A SITE PLAN PART OF THE REVIEW OF PLANS THAT WE SEE THAT THE DEMOLITION IS ALREADY CONTINGENT UPON REVIEW OF SITE, OF WHAT'S GONNA GO IN ITS PLACE BEFORE THE DEMOLITION PLAN IS RELEASED? THAT WAS ANOTHER PART OF THE, OF THE SUGGESTION, BUT THAT DOESN'T INCLUDE THE SITE PLAN REVIEW OR APPROVED SITE PLAN. THAT'S JUST THEIR PROPOSED PLANS FOR WHAT'S GONNA GO THERE THAT THEY PROBABLY COULD CHANGE EVEN AFTER WE REVIEW THEM. UM, UH, UH, LET ME CHECK ON THAT AGAIN, YOUR HONOR. OKAY. YEAH, PERHAPS CALLEN HAS THE, UH, I, I THINK THE INTENT IS TO MAKE SURE THAT THE SITE'S NOT WIPE CLEAN WITHOUT ANY FUTURE PLAN FOR ANYTHING TO GO THROUGH WITH IT, BUT I THINK THERE'S A FIRM BREAK BETWEEN [01:20:01] DEMOLITION AND NEW CONSTRUCTION AND I DON'T KNOW IF WE HAD THE POWER TO LINK THOSE TOGETHER. UH, YES. SO COMMISSIONER THIS ITEM IS A, UM, A SITE PLAN EXEMPTION, UM, FOR PURPOSES OF HLC REVIEW ONLY SO THAT THE APPLICANT DOES NOT GO THROUGH THE FULL SITE PLAN PROCESS. UM, BECAUSE IF THEY ARE FILING A SITE PLAN, THEY NEED TO GET, UM, THAT PROCESS COMPLETELY DONE, UM, BEFORE THEY CAN APPLY FOR A DEMOLITION PERMIT. SO THIS IS SO THAT WE CAN GET THESE ITEMS TO Y'ALL EARLY, UM, BECAUSE WE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY PART OF THE SITE PLAN PROCESS. SO LONG STORY SHORT, WE CANNOT REQUIRE A SITE PLAN. UM, BUT HOW THIS PERMIT APPLICATION AND THE HR REVIEW WORKS SHOULD BE MORE OR LESS THE SAME REVIEW CAPACITY BECAUSE WE HAVE TO SEE THE PLANS BEFORE. CORRECT. THE DEMOLITION PERMIT IS RELEASED ANYWAY. OKAY. CORRECT. OKAY. SO COMMISSIONERS, AS YOU RECALL, WE HAVE A PERMIT REQUEST THAT WILL BE TIMING OUT IN LITERALLY DAYS. UH, AND WE ALSO HAVE THE ABILITY TO TAKE AN ACTION. WE HAD CLARIFICATION ABOUT WHAT THAT, THAT ACTION, UH, IF DEMOLITION IS APPROVED WITH CONTINGENCIES COULD INCLUDE. AND AT THIS POINT I'LL ENTERTAIN, UH, A MOTION I'LL MOVE TO RELEASE THE DEMOLITION PERMIT PENDING A FULL HABS DOCUMENTATION PACKAGE AND THE REST OF THE REVIEW PROCESS FOR A NATIONAL REGISTER DEMOLITION IN THE NATIONAL REGISTER DISTRICT. AND FOR AWARE OF CLARIFICATION, HABS HISTORIC ARCHITECTURAL BUILDING SURVEY. CORRECT. UH, THERE'S A STANDARD, UH, SET OF PROCEDURES FOR, UH, NOT ONLY CREATING, BUT ALSO REGISTERING DRAWINGS OF HISTORIC STRUCTURES. OKAY. UH, THAT IS THE MOTION FROM HIS, UH, FROM COMMISSIONER COOK. IS THERE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND. COMMISSIONER LAROCHE. ALRIGHT, UH, COMMISSIONER COOK, WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK TO YOUR MOTION? YEAH, I'M DOING THIS PARTIALLY SO WE CAN GET THE HAVES REQUIREMENT IN THERE. UH, AND PARTIALLY BECAUSE I, I FINALLY GOT TO HEAR, UH, THE APPLICANT HAS BEEN COMING FAITHFULLY, IT CAME TO THE ARCS, COME TO ALL THE MEETINGS, HAS PARTICIPATED. UH, I JUST HAD NEVER HEARD ANY DEVELOPMENT AS OF TODAY, THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT THAT IT'S LIKELY RELATED TO THE ADJACENT PROPERTY. MAYBE THAT WAS MENTIONED, THAT I MISSED IT, AND, UH, THAT THEY ARE OPEN, THAT IT'S LIKELY TO BE RESIDENTIAL, THAT THERE IS A RESTRICTED COVENANT. WE JUST GOT A LOT MORE INFORMATION THIS TIME AND THE, AND THE APPLICANT HAS BEEN IN ATTENDANCE AND PRESENT. UM, SO I WANTED TO AT LEAST GIVE SOME NOD TO THAT AND NOT, UH, LET IT DIE. A HARD DEATH. OKAY. COMMISSIONER LAROCHE? NO, I, I APPRECIATE, UH, COMMISSIONER COOK'S EFFORTS ON THE HABS DOCUMENTATION. SO OUR WHOLE HARD SUPPORT THAT I, I'M STILL JUST A LITTLE BIT CONFUSED ON THE WHOLE SITE PLAN AND WHAT I HEARD WAS YOU HAVE TO HAVE AN APPROVED SITE PLAN BEFORE YOU CAN APPLY FOR THE DEMOLITION PERMIT. AND, AND SO I'M A LITTLE STILL FUZZY ON THE, THE TIMELINE HERE AND IF WELL, OR YOU OR YOU COULD HAVE, UM, A SITE PLAN EXEMPTION, BASICALLY HAVE THAT PROCESS WAIVED IF IT'S NOT RELEVANT TO A LARGER PROGRAM. AND SO THEY HAVE A NUMBER OF CRITERIA THAT APPARENTLY THEY'VE MET. ONE OF THEM, HOWEVER, IS ALSO RELEASED FROM OUR, OUR COMMISSION. AND IF, IF I MAY SAY THIS IS ONE OF THE ITEMS WE DISCUSSED A LOT IN THE PRESERVATION PLAN DEVELOPMENT, THAT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT AN APPLICANT HAS TO HAVE A COMPLETE, HAS GONE THROUGH THE PROCESS AND THE TIME AND THE EXPENSE OF GETTING A COMPLETE SITE PLAN PERMIT FOR A PROJECT WITH THE HOUSE GONE. AND THEN THEY COME TO US AND ASK IF THE HOUSE CAN BE REMOVED, WHICH IS WHY WE HAVE A LOT OF ANGRY PEOPLE BEFORE US A LOT BECAUSE THE PROCESS IS REALLY BACKWARDS. AND THAT'S ONE OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE PRESERVATION PLAN IS NOT ONLY BEING, BEING PROACTIVE AND NOT HAVING TO WAIT TILL WE'RE AT THE 11TH HOUR WITH AN APPLICANT TO MAKE THIS CALL FOR THEM, BUT ALSO TO RETHINK THE PROCESSES. SO THEY'RE NOT REQUIRED TO HAVE INVESTED IN A PLAN THAT REMOVES THE HOUSE BEFORE THEY COME TO US AND ASK IF THE HOUSE CAN BE REMOVED. THAT'S ACTUALLY HOW IT HAPPENS. THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION. AS CONFUSING AS THAT IS, UH, IT, YEAH, IT, IT'S, IT'S, IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE. IT DOES NOT, IT IS NOT, IT IS NEITHER, NEITHER PROCESS, NEITHER THE EXEMPTION NOR THE FULL SITE PLAN, DO WE ACTUALLY INTERFACE IN A VERY CONSTRUCTIVE WAY. BOTH WILL NEED TO BE RETHOUGHT AND, AND LEARNING THAT HAS HELPED ME UNDERSTAND AND DEAL WITH A LOT OF THE INTERACTIONS THAT WE HAVE HERE, KNOWING WHAT PEOPLE HAVE BEEN THROUGH AND WHAT THEY COME TO, YOU KNOW, BEFORE THEY COME TO US AND, AND WHY IT'S FRUSTRATING. SO IN THIS CASE, [01:25:01] THERE'LL BE, ASSUMING EVERYTHING GOES FORWARD, UM, THE SITE PLAN EXEMPTION WOULD, WOULD TAKE OVER AND THAT'S WHY WE WON'T KNOW WHAT'S COMING NEXT OTHER THAN THE NATIONAL REGISTERED REVIEW. RIGHT? RIGHT. SO THE TRYING TO TIE THE TWO TOGETHER IS, WOULD OTHERWISE POSSIBLY BE, BUT NOT IN THIS SITUATION. SO LET, LET ME JUST SUGGEST THAT FOR ME, UM, I THINK THIS IS SORT OF THE BEST WE HAVE. UH, I, AGAIN, I AM VERY RESPECTFUL OF THE APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE. I'M VERY RESPECTFUL OF THE NEIGHBORS WHO HAVE FOLLOWED THIS OVER AN EXTENDED PERIOD OF TIME. I THINK IT DOES ILLUSTRATE SOME OF THE LIMITATIONS THAT WE'RE WORKING UNDER. THIS IS A VERY VALUABLE CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE IN A NATIONAL REGISTERED DISTRICT. THE ONLY TOOL THAT WOULD'VE SAVED THIS OR HAD PRE PREDETERMINED A DIFFERENT OUTCOME WERE THAT IT MET ONE HIGHER LEVEL OF IMPORTANCE AS A NATIONAL REGISTER, AS A, AS A, UH, UH, AND WE COULD ZONE IT AS A LOCAL LANDMARK. UH, IT DOESN'T MEET THOSE CRITERIA. I AGREE, BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT IT'S NOT VALUABLE AND IT'S DOESN'T MEAN THAT IT, ITS LOSS WILL BE FELT. SO I THINK THAT CONSIDERING OUR TOOLS AND CONSIDERING THE OPTIONS, THE FACT THAT AT LEAST A MORE THOROUGH DOCUMENTATION WILL BE AS PART OF THE RECORD, WHAT IS GOING TO BE LEFT, IT WON'T REPLACE A MISSING HISTORIC CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE. THAT LOSS WAS PERMANENT, BUT AT LEAST THERE'LL BE SOME RECORD OF WHAT WAS THERE IN A SYSTEMATIC AND THOROUGH WAY. SO, UH, AGAIN, THIS IS ANOTHER ITEM THAT WE ARE SET TO BE WORKING ON IN THE PRESERVATION PLAN WORK, THE ROLE OF THE REVIEW IN A NATIONAL REGISTER DISTRICT, AND IF THERE ARE WAYS THAT WE CAN DO MORE AND HAVE MORE TOOLS AVAILABLE. UH, BUT I ALSO WANT TO POINT OUT THIS IS WHY THE LOCAL HISTORIC DISTRICT IS SO IMPORTANT AND THE LOCAL HISTORIC DISTRICT GIVES US A MUCH HIGHER LEVEL OF OVERSIGHT ON CONTRIBUTING, NOT NECESSARILY LANDMARK BUILDING, BUT CONTRIBUTING BUILDINGS. AND SO AUSTIN HAS A WHOLE LOT OF THESE NATIONAL HISTORIC DISTRICTS. WE DO NOT HAVE NEARLY ENOUGH LOCAL HISTORIC DISTRICTS. AND THAT'S ANOTHER VERY IMPORTANT EFFORT THAT I HOPE OVER THE NEXT COUPLE OF YEARS WE WILL BE REMEDYING. SO WITH THAT, OF COURSE, I JUST LIKE ALL OF US, IF GOT A LITTLE BIT OF A TANGENT, BUT THIS CASE, I BELIEVE DOES ILLUSTRATE IMPORTANT POINTS. UH, BUT I WILL SUPPORT THE MOTION. ALRIGHT, IS THERE ANY, ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? ALRIGHT, THE MOTION IS TO RELEASE THE, UH, REQUEST FOR DEMOLITION WITH THE ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS, UH, FOR DOCUMENTATION, INCLUDING THE HABS, UH, SURVEY. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE INDICATE BY RAISING YOUR HAND. OKAY. AND THERE ARE NO OPPOSED. SO THAT PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. THANK YOU ALL AND WE HOPE FOR A GOOD OUTCOME. AND THAT WAS, UH, ITEM THAT WE TABLED AND THEN TOOK BACK. AND SO NOW THAT BRINGS US UP TO ITEM [11. DA-2024-088952 – 8401 Hathaway Dr. Burnet Middle School Council District 4] NUMBER 11. AND I AM AT THE POINT WHERE I WILL BE REMOVING MYSELF FROM THE DAIS AND VICE CHAIR EVANS, WOULD YOU PLEASE PRESIDE? ITEM NUMBER 11 AT 84 0 1 HATHAWAY DRIVE IS A PROPOSAL TO DEMOLISH A CIRCA 1952 SCHOOL AND ASSOCIATED OUTBUILDINGS AS PART OF THE COUNCIL APPROVED 2022 A ISD BOND PACKAGE. UH, THIS ITEM CAME BEFORE US IN JANUARY, UM, AND, UH, WAS POSTPONED. SO WE'LL HEAR IT AGAIN TONIGHT. THIS IS A 1960 MODERN SCHOOL BUILDING DESIGNED BY J ROY WHITE. AS AUSTIN'S POSTWAR POPULATION SWELLED IN SUBURBAN NEIGHBORHOODS, CREPT NORTH BOARDS. DURING THE MID 20TH CENTURY, NEW SCHOOLS WERE REQUIRED FOR THE NEXT GENERATION OF NORTHWEST AUSTINITES. THIS DEMOGRAPHIC AND DEVELOPMENT CHANGE USHERED IN A NEW WAVE OF MODERN DESIGNS, OFTEN ON SPRAWLING NEW CAMPUSES. UH, DAVID, GG BURNETT JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL, ORIGINALLY SYDNEY LANIER JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL, BUT IS WAS DESIGNED BY NOTED ARCHITECT J ROY WHITE DURING HIS TENURE AT CUNY BOOKS AND BAR. THE SCHOOL WAS CONTRACTED BY A ISD IN 1960 AND WAS INITIALLY INTENDED TO HOUSE BOTH JUNIOR AND SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS UNTIL A LARGER SCHOOL COULD BE BUILT TO RELIEVE CROWDED MCCALLUM HIGH. WHEN LANIER HIGH SCHOOL, DESIGNED BY FAIR AND GRANGER WAS COMPLETED IN 19 66, 84 0 1 HATHAWAY DRIVE BECAME BURNETT JUNIOR HIGH. THE SCHOOL EMPLOYED NOTED AUSTIN EDUCATORS, INCLUDING COMMANDER HEN KAY HENLEY AND PHOTOGRAPHER AND VICE-PRINCIPAL MORRIS J CRAWFORD. WHILE THE BUILDING IS AN EXAMPLE OF J ROY WHITE'S WORK, IT IS NOT HIS ONLY SCHOOL BUILDING AND THE SCHOOL IS [01:30:01] NOT ASSOCIATED WITH A PARTICULAR EVENT OR PERSON FOR A LONG TIME WITHIN THE PERIOD OF SIGNIFICANCE. THUS, THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO ENCOURAGE MATERIAL SALVAGE WHERE POSSIBLE AND REQUIRE COMPLETION OF A CITY OF AUSTIN DOCUMENTATION PACKAGE PRIOR TO RELEASE OF THE DEMOLITION PERMIT. THAT CONCLUDES THE STAFF PRESENTATION. THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS OF STAFF? IS IS A ISD GOING TO COME FORWARD OR ARE THERE REPRESENTATIVE? GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS. MY NAME IS DAVE ANDERSON AND I'M HERE REPRESENTING THE SCHOOL DISTRICT. SAM, CAN YOU PULL UP THAT PRESENT PRESENTATION, PLEASE? NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. UH, I'M GOING TO, I'M GONNA BREEZE THROUGH THESE SLIDES IF I'M GOING TO, BECAUSE WE, UH, PRESENTED THEM, UH, LAST MONTH. UM, WE JUST HIGHLIGHT THE BOND DEVELOPMENT PROCESS. NEXT SLIDE. I WANNA REMIND YOU THAT THE DISTRICT IS BALANCING A BUNCH OF DIFFERENT PRIORITIES HERE AND TOOK THOSE PRIORITIES, UM, TO THE VOTERS, UH, FOR APPROVAL IN 2022. IT'S OKAY. I WILL, I WILL JUST CONTINUE SPEAKING BECAUSE I'VE COVERED THIS A LITTLE BIT. BUT I WANTED TO REITERATE THE 2022 BOND PRO, UH, PLANNING PROCESS BEGAN WITH, BEGAN WITH FACILITY CONDITION ASSESSMENTS, WHICH IS THE PHYSICAL NATURE OF THE, OF THE SCHOOL. AT THAT TIME, THEY ALSO LOOKED AT EDUCATIONAL SUITABILITY ASSESSMENTS, WHICH, UH, WAS A MEASURE OF HOW WELL THE FACILITY WAS POSITIONED TO PROVIDE THE EDUCATION THAT WE NEED. AND THEN FINALLY, UM, THEY TOOK THAT TO THE LONG RANGE PLANNING COMMITTEE, UH, AND, AND, UH, SENT IT THROUGH, UH, AN EQUITY BY DESIGN LENS TO MAKE SURE THAT FACILITIES ACROSS THE DISTRICT WERE BEING TREATED EQUITABLY. AND THAT'S HOW WE CAME UP WITH THE BOND PROGRAM. UM, THERE ARE A COUPLE OF SLIDES THAT WE'LL GET TO, BUT I'M JUST GONNA TALK ABOUT THEM HERE. I REALIZE YOU ARE VOLUNTEERS, AND THIS IS A LABOR OF LOVE, BUT IT DOES GET LATE. UM, THERE ARE 52 SCHOOLS WITH HISTORICALLY UNDERSERVED STUDENTS, UH, THAT OVERLAP WITH HIGH SOCIAL VULNERABILITY CENSUS TRACTS. BURNETT MIDDLE SCHOOL IS ONE OF THOSE, WITHIN THAT SUBSET OF 52 SCHOOLS, 25 OF THOSE SCHOOLS ALSO HAVE AVERAGE OR WORSE FACILITIES OVER OVERALL. BURNETT MIDDLE SCHOOL IS ONE OF THOSE. SO IT IS A CANDIDATE FOR A FULL MODERNIZATION. THERE'S BEEN, UH, BOND STEERING COMMITTEE FROM A COMMUNITY OUTREACH PERSPECTIVE. UH, THE COMMUNITY BOND OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE WAS MORE, UH, COMMUNITY OUTREACH, AND THIS ALL CULMINATED IN THE VOTERS VOTING ON THE BALLOT, UH, IN 2022, UH, GOVERNING RULES AND REGULATIONS AGAIN, UH, THERE'S AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE SCHOOL DISTRICT AND THE CITY THAT HA THAT, UH, PROVIDES SPECIAL GOVERNING RULES THAT ALLOWS THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION TO RELEASE THE DEMOLITION PERMIT ADMINISTRATIVELY. UM, AND THAT REQUIRES THE CITY AND THE SCHOOL DISTRICT TO COLLABORATE, WHICH IS WHY WE'RE HERE TODAY. UH, BURNETT MIDDLE SCHOOL. WE'RE GETTING THERE. OKAY. IT'S OKAY. MADAM CHAIR, HOW WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO PROCEED? WANT ME TO WAIT? WE'RE, WE'RE LINE GOOD? OKAY. I'M ON SLIDE 15, UNLESS ANYBODY WANTS ME TO GO BACK TO ANY OF THOSE OTHER SLIDES. NO, MA'AM. OKAY. UH, THIS IS THE GUIDING PRINCIPLES FOR DESIGN COMMUNITY IDENTITY AND WELLBEING, FLEXIBILITY AND ADAPTABILITY, PASSION AND INNOVATION. EXPLORATION AND MOVEMENT. UH, NEXT SLIDE. THIS IS A SNAPSHOT OF WHAT WAS PROPOSED, [01:35:01] WHAT WAS TAKEN TO THE VOTERS FOR THEIR APPROVAL. UH, $158 MILLION PROJECT. NEXT SLIDE. THIS IS A DESIGN, UH, A SUMMARY OF THE DESIGN COMPONENTS OR I IDEOLOGIES THAT WENT INTO THE DESIGN, UH, NOT WRITTEN DOWN. THERE ARE CURRENTLY THREE WINGS. THE, THE ARCHITECT HAS ENDEAVORED TO MAINTAIN THOSE THREE WINGS. UH, THE SCHOOL HAS TO BE MULTI-STORY BECAUSE THANKFULLY WE HAVE MORE STUDENTS THAT NEED, UH, TO GO TO BURNETT MIDDLE SCHOOL. SO IT'S NOW MULTI-STORY AS OPPOSED TO BEING ORIGINALLY A SINGLE STORY. UM, WE WANTED TO GENERALLY MAINTAIN THE, THE FOOTPRINT, UH, WE'RE SYMPATHETIC TO MATERIAL REUSE. SO IT IS DESIGNED IN BRICK AND SOME OF THE BRICK IS BEING REUSED AS MY UNDERSTANDING. NEXT SLIDE. OH, UH, ONE, ONE MORE BACK. SORRY. IF YOU GO BACK, UM, THERE WAS AN INTERNAL COURTYARD TO THE ORIGINAL DESIGN AND WE'RE MAINTAINING THAT. NEXT SLIDE. THIS IS A LAYOUT, UM, OF THE MIDDLE SCHOOL SITE PLAN. NEXT SLIDE. COMMUNITY MEETINGS. UM, STARTED IN JANUARY OF THIS YEAR. I'LL GET TO SCHEDULE IN A MINUTE. IF YOU RECALL LAST MONTH, I TALKED ABOUT THE IMPORTANCE OF SCHEDULE, BOTH, UH, TO GET, TO GET STUDENTS IN THEIR NEW LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS AS WELL AS TO MEET THE COMMITMENTS THAT THE DISTRICT MADE TO THE VOTERS WHEN THE VOTERS APPROVE THE BOND. UH, YOU'LL SEE THE, UH, CAMPUS ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE MEETINGS BEGINNING IN MAY OF 23 AND GOING THROUGH FEBRUARY OF 24 11 MEETINGS IN TOTAL. IF I'M, UH, IF I'M NO, 19. SORRY. NEXT SLIDE. THIS IS A SUMMARY OF THOSE 19 MEETINGS ON THE DATES. NEXT SLIDE. THIS IS A SUMMARY OF EDUCATIONAL SUITABILITY ASSESSMENTS, SEVERAL UNSATISFACTORY RATINGS, SOME OF THE, THE, UM, GENERAL BUILDING, EXTERIOR ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY CONTROLLABILITY OF SYSTEMS. AND SOME OF THE PICTURES YOU'LL SEE, YOU'LL SEE, UH, UM, AIR CONDITIONING THAT WAS KIND OF RETROFITTED TO GO THROUGH WINDOWS ON THE FIRST FLOOR. IT'S PRETTY DIFFICULT SITUATION. NEXT SLIDE. ACADEMIC AND CO-CURRICULAR SUPPORT, ATHLETICS AND WELLNESS, FOOD SERVICE. SO KIND OF ACROSS THE BOARD, UH, THINGS CAN BE IMPROVED FROM AN EDUCATIONAL SUITABILITY PERSPECTIVE. NEXT SLIDE. 23, YOU'RE HERE. TECHNOLOGY. AND THEN, UM, I SHOULD HAVE PROBABLY LISTED THIS FIRST. SCHOOL SECURITY, UNFORTUNATELY, A VERY MAJOR, UM, UH, IMPORTANT PART OF THE DESIGN PROCESS. UH, NEXT SLIDE. AGAIN, SECURITY CONCERNS. AND THERE'S A QUOTE FROM PRINCIPAL DELAROSA. NEXT SLIDE IS FACILITY CONDITION ASSESSMENTS. AM I GOING TOO FAST FOLKS? OKAY. UM, THERE'S A TON OF ROOFING DEFICIENCIES. EXTERIOR, MECHANICAL, ELECTRICAL DEFICIENCIES, SITE INTERIOR AND MEP DEFICIENCIES. NEXT SLIDE. UH, YOU'LL, THAT'S A LOT OF, UH, AC UM, AND YOU'LL SEE IN SOME PICTURES COMING UP HOW THAT MANIFESTS ITSELF. NEXT SLIDE. CONSTRUCTION HISTORY. 58 WAS THE ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION AS CALLAN SAID 1999 WAS A MAJOR SITE RENOVATION AND ADDITION. NEXT SLIDE. UH, FINE ARTS AND ADMINISTRATIVE EDITION. SO IT WAS ONE FINE ARTS WING, UH, WING, UH, LET'S SAY, UH, STRUCTURE CONNECTED, AND THEN TWO ADMINISTRATIVE STRUCTURES THAT WERE ADDED IN 99. THE FIRST WING OF THE BUILDING WAS DAMAGED BY VEHICULAR IMPACT, UH, TRACTOR TRAILER, I BELIEVE IN 2022. SEE THE PICTURE ON THE BOTTOM RIGHT. THIS MADE FOUR, UH, THIS CONDEMNED FOUR CLASSROOMS THAT ARE STILL NOT IN USED TODAY. NEXT SLIDE. UNSCREENED ROOFTOP MECHANICAL UNITS HAS KIND OF CHANGED THE HISTORIC STRUCTURE. THIS, THIS, THIS, UH, SCHOOL DID NOT ORIGINALLY HAVE AIR CONDITIONING, SO THE ONLY WAY TO MAKE IT WORK IS TO PUT THE UNITS ON TOP. UM, NEXT SLIDE. THE ARCHITECTURAL TEAM WORKED VERY HARD TO INCORPORATE SOME OF THE HISTORIC PORTIONS OF THE SCHOOL INTO THE NEW DESIGN. THAT INCLUDES THE WOOD GYMNASIUM FLOOR, THE ENTRY PAVILION YOU SEE IN THE MIDDLE OF YOUR SCREEN COVERED WALKWAYS, LIKE I SAID BEFORE, THEY MAINTAINED THE COURTYARD, UH, AND THEY ENDEAVORED TO MAINTAIN THE THREE WINGS OF THE ORIGINAL STRUCTURE. BUT NOW, INSTEAD OF A SINGLE STORY, IT IS MULTIPLE STORIES, ALMOST DONE. SCHEDULE IMPLICATIONS. NEXT SLIDE. ONE MORE. UM, WE ARE, UH, SEEKING AN IMMINENT PERMIT, [01:40:01] UH, FOR WORK ON THE SCHOOL. AND, UH, THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE, UM, TONIGHT. THAT'S WHY I WANTED TO BRIEF YOU LAST MONTH ON THE OVERALL PROGRAM. THERE'S GOING TO BE ADDITIONAL SCHOOLS IN THE FUTURE POTENTIALLY COMING TO YOU. UH, BUT WE AGREE WITH THE STAFF'S, UH, STAFF'S, UH, RECOMMENDATION, UM, FOR A CITY OF AUSTIN DOCUMENTATION PROCESS. AND TO RELEASE THE DEMOLITION PERMIT, WE NEED TO GET, WE NEED TO GET KIDS INTO A, A NEW SCHOOL THAT SERVES, SERVES THEM BETTER. SO WITH THAT, I WILL, UM, FINISH MY PRESENTATION AND BE AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS. COMMISSIONER, ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS? THANK YOU VERY MUCH, COMMISSIONERS. IS THERE ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THE PERMIT? IS THERE ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION? OKAY, IF NOT, UH, I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. SO MOVED. IS THERE A SECOND? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF CLOSING THE PUBLIC HEARING, PLEASE INDICATE BY RAISING YOUR HAND. OKAY, THAT'S UNANIMOUS. AND I BELIEVE NOW, UH, I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION. I'LL MOVE TO RELEASE THE DEMOLITION PERMIT PENDING A CITY OF AUSTIN DOCUMENTATION PACKAGE. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? SECOND? OKAY. ANY COMMENT OR DISCUSSION? I, I JUST WANTED TO THANK THE STAFF FOR BEING HERE FOR THIS. I KNOW IT WAS A LITTLE BIT OF A, UM, UNEXPECTED, UH, TURN OF EVENTS. YOU KNOW, WHEN WE DO HAVE PEOPLE THAT COME TO SPEAK TO US FROM THE COMMUNITY, WE TEND TO TRY TO SUPPORT THAT. AND I, I THINK THE PRESENTATION WE HAD LAST MONTH WAS VERY HELPFUL AND JUST VOICING OVERALL SUPPORT, UM, FOR LOOKING AT SCHOOLS AND SAVING WHAT YOU CAN. THIS ONE IN PARTICULAR, OBVIOUSLY IS NOT READILY ADAPTED. UM, AIR CONDITIONING ALONE, UH, ARCHITECTURE WAS, WAS INTERESTING AND, AND ICONIC, BUT, YOU KNOW, OF SCHOOLS OF THAT ERA, BUT NOT PARTICULARLY OUTSTANDING. BUT I THINK IT WAS GOOD TO KIND OF TAKE A LITTLE PAUSE AND A RESET ON, ON THIS BOND PACKAGE. AND I'VE BEEN AROUND FOR NEARLY EIGHT YEARS NOW, AND I DO REMEMBER SEEING THE BOND PACKAGE PROBABLY SIX AND A HALF YEARS AGO, PRESENTED TO US. AND A LOT OF IT WAS DONE ADMINISTRATIVELY. AND I, I THINK IT'S JUST GOOD TO, TO HAVE A GOOD LINE OF COMMUNICATION WITH ALL OF US SO THAT WHENEVER, UH, THE COMMUNITY COMES TO US, WE KIND OF UNDERSTAND THE WHOLE CONTEXT OF WHAT'S GOING ON AND WHAT YOU'RE, WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT. THE PRESENTATION LAST MONTH VERY MUCH HELPED. UH, I KNOW Y'ALL HAVE GOT A LOT ON YOUR PLATE, SO WE DEFINITELY APPRECIATE ALL YOU DO FOR THE PROGRAM. AND, UH, I THINK IT WAS, ALTHOUGH IT, UH, TOOK A COUPLE OF MONTHS FOR Y'ALL, I THINK IT WAS A GOOD, A GOOD THING TO HAPPEN OVERALL TO KIND OF ESTABLISH COMMUNICATION. SO I, I APPRECIATE IT. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER LAROCHE. WELL, THAT'S A TOUGH ACT TO FOLLOW UP. I HAVE NOTHING FURTHER. OKAY. UH, ON THAT NOTE, THEN I WILL, UH, CALL THE QUESTION, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF RELEASING THE DEMOLITION PERMIT, PLEASE INDICATE BY RAISING YOUR HAND. AND THAT IS UNANIMOUS WITH CHAIR HEIM OFF THE DIETS. OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. VICE CHAIR EVANS. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR PRESIDING AND COMMISSIONERS. WE HAVE NOW REACHED PART OF OUR AGENDA WHERE WE HAVE COMMITTEE UPDATES. UH, I DON'T BELIEVE WE HAVE ANYTHING ADDITIONAL, UH, FOR THE GRANTS COMMITTEE BEYOND, UH, THE PRESENTATION WE HAD TONIGHT. UM, THE OPERATIONS COMMITTEE, UM, I BELIEVE WE'RE PROBABLY WAITING UNTIL WE ACTUALLY CAN GET SOME MEMBERS. SO THERE'LL BE SOME HEAVY LIFTING THERE. THE ARCHITECTURE [15. Architectural Review Committee – Comments on the January 15, 2025 meeting. Members: Commissioners Koch, Grogan. ] REVIEW COMMITTEE. YEAH, FIRST OF OFF, THERE WAS NOT MUCH POMP AND CIRCUMSTANCE WITH THE ADOPTION OF OUR, OUR NEW COMMITTEE MEMBER. BUT I, I WANT TO, UH, WELCOME AND, AND THANK COMMISSIONER ALVAREZ FOR JOINING US. [01:45:01] UH, HIS MEASURED APPROACH AND SKILL IS GONNA BE A GREAT ADDITION. SO WE'RE VERY HAPPY TO HAVE YOU. THANK YOU. HAPPY YOU THERE. UH, WE DID SEE SEVERAL CASES IN TRAVIS HEIGHTS THAT WERE TO VARYING DEGREES SENSITIVE, BUT NONE WERE EXTREME. SO I'M THINKING WE'RE STARTING TO SEE PEOPLE, UH, REALIZE WHERE THEY ARE IN TRAVIS HEIGHTS. I THINK WE'RE HAS GOTTEN AROUND, WE HAVE PEOPLE COMING TO US, UH, BEFORE THEY'RE ON OUR, ON OUR CASES AND, UH, ON OUR CASELOAD HERE. UM, AND UH, IT WAS JUST HEARTENING TO SEE THAT THERE WAS, YOU KNOW, A PORCH ENCLOSURE HERE AND, AND, UH, SOME MODERN RAILING THERE. BUT BY AND LARGE, I THINK PEOPLE ARE, WERE SEEING MORE RESPECT, I THINK, UH, FROM THE CASES THAT ARE COMING TO US FROM TRAVIS HEIGHTS. SO THAT WAS HEARTENING TO SEE. ALRIGHT. AND THEN THE PRESERVATION PLAN [16. Preservation Plan Committee – Comments on the January 9, 2025 meeting. Members: Commissioners Heimsath, Evans, Castillo.] COMMITTEE, I THINK, UH, WE HAVE AN EVENT COMING, UH, DO WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT'S, UH, READ FOR THE RECORD. NIGHT DIVISION MANAGER FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION. UH, WE HOPE THAT THE COMMISSIONERS AS WELL AS THE PRESERVATION COMMUNITY, WILL COME TO OUR EQUITY BASED PRESERVATION PLAN CELEBRATION, WHICH IS NEXT WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY THE 12TH. BELIEVE IT'S AT SIX 30 AT FIESTA GARDENS. IF YOU'D LIKE MORE INFORMATION, PLEASE GET IN TOUCH WITH US. UM, THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR US TO CELEBRATE THE PASSAGE OF THE PLAN AS WELL AS A CALL TO ACTION FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION. UM, SO LET ME KNOW IF YOU NEED MORE INFORMATION AND COMMISSIONERS. UH, PLEASE, IF YOU ARE GOING TO BE ABLE TO ATTEND, LET STAFF KNOW BECAUSE IF WE HIT A CRITICAL MASS THEN WE'LL NEED TO MAKE SURE IT'S POSTED. I THINK WE'LL GO AHEAD AND POST IT ANYWAY, BUT THANK YOU. JUST TO MAKE SURE. YEAH. OKAY. WE WOULD LOVE TO KNOW, THERE IS AN RSVP IN THE EMAIL THAT YOU WOULD'VE RECEIVED, SO IF YOU NEED ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, PLEASE LET US KNOW. THANK YOU. ALRIGHT, WELL, COMMISSIONERS, UH, IS THERE ANY STAFF, ANYTHING ELSE THAT WE NEED TO TALK OVER? ONE QUICK THING, WHICH I'M SURE ALL OF YOU ARE VERY AWARE OF, TERMS ARE ENDING FEBRUARY 28TH OF THIS YEAR. UH, SO IF YOU HAVE A TERM THAT IS ENDING, PLEASE MAKE SURE TO GET IN CONTACT WITH YOUR APPOINTING COUNSEL OFFICE, UH, AND LET THEM KNOW YOU'D LIKE TO BE REAPPOINTED. UH, YOU'LL WORK WITH THEM AND WORK WITH THE CLERK IN ORDER TO GET YOUR CHAIR BACK. UH, SO IF YOU'D LIKE TO DO THAT, UH, JUST GO AHEAD AND GET IN CONTACT WITH THEM. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, FEEL FREE TO SHOOT ME AN EMAIL OR GIVE ME A CALL. AND THEN I DO BELIEVE WE HAVE SOME NEW, UH, APPLICANTS THAT WILL BE MEETING FOR THE FIRST TIME FOR THE OPEN SEATS. AND, UH, IF ANYBODY IS SO FORTUNATE, WOULD YOU PLEASE DO YOUR TRAINING QUICKLY? 'CAUSE YOU'RE, JUST BECAUSE COUNSEL SAYS YOU CAN GET ON THIS COMMISSION, WE CAN'T SEAT YOU UNTIL YOU'VE COMPLETED THE CLERK'S TRAINING. SO DON'T, DON'T LOLLY GAG . WE NEED YOU. ALRIGHT, ANY OTHER ITEMS FROM COMMISSIONERS? HEARING NONE, I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO ADJOURN. MOVE. COMMISSIONER LA ROCHE. I SECOND VICE CHAIR EVANS. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE INDICATE BY RAISING YOUR HANDS. UNANIMOUS. WE ARE ADJOURNED. THANK YOU ALL. * This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting.