Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Travis Heights Demolitions topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Neighbors secure postponements of demolition decisions for two Travis Heights properties
Summary
After extensive public testimony, the Historic Landmarks Commission unanimously postponed decisions on demolition applications for 1109 and 2009 Travis Heights Boulevard to the August meeting to allow additional research, applicant engagement with the Architectural Review Committee and possible independent consulting.
The Historic Landmarks Commission on July 1 unanimously postponed two demolition applications on Travis Heights Boulevard after broad neighborhood opposition and requests for more time to assemble historical and technical evidence.
Staff had recommended the commission encourage rehabilitation and adaptive reuse for both 1109 Travis Heights (a circa‑1920 American Foursquare contributing structure) and 2009 Travis Heights (a circa‑1939 house with Tudor Revival elements) but concluded neither met the two criteria required for landmark designation and recommended approving demolition permits upon completion of City of Austin documentation packages.
Neighborhood speakers and preservation committees strongly disagreed. Clifton Ladd, co‑chair of the South River City Citizens (SRCC) Historic Preservation Committee, said 1109 is a “diamond in the rough” that contributes to the boulevard’s character and urged referral to the Architectural Review Committee. Multiple neighbors argued 2009 may have rare construction features (some cited early reinforced concrete and rebar) and asked for time to pursue public records and independent historical research.
Eric Gomez, representing adjacent property owners, asked for additional time to hire outside historical consultants and to develop a fuller record; Lindsey Lee and others urged at least a 30‑day delay or postponement so the community could research who built the homes and why they were constructed as they were.
Commissioners said they wanted the applicant to appear before the ARC and to engage with the neighborhood. Commissioner Harris moved to reopen the public hearing and postpone both items to the August Historic Landmarks Commission meeting so parties could have more conversations and gather documentation; the motion passed unanimously.
The postponements preserve the commission’s ability to review the applications at a later meeting; staff noted the review windows (180 days for some national‑register contributing structures) mean the commission has additional time to consider the applications before the review period expires.
