A.1 - Citizen comments — original pdf

Backup

Dear Members of the Historic Landmark Commission I thank you for your service and making time to listen to public input regarding the application for the Historic District Application for the Rogers Washington Holy Cross neighborhood. My wife and I own and lease a contributing property associated with the application. We collectively spent 15 years in Austin. We moved away from Austin to support extended family in 2014. However, we loved living in Austin and kept our home so that we can retire there. We look forward to spending more time with our Austin friends and the broader community. We treat our lessees like we would want to be treated and invest in the home as if we lived there. In the last decade, we have invested in over $30,000 in maintenance and improvements, including approximately $6,000 in above-code energy efficiency improvements. I cannot think of a time when we denied a tenant a request, from paying for smart thermostats to indoor air quality tests. As recently as July of this year, we upgraded the HVAC equipment at our property in Rogers Washington to meet current Energy Star standards. In March of this year, we offered rent forgiveness to our tenants - no strings attached - to alleviate the stress of COVID19. I’d be happy to share with you other anecdotes that demonstrate how we care for our tenants and property. We know it is stressful to live in an ever changing and growing Austin. While we support the Rogers Washington community in their stated objectives, we ultimately voted against the design standards because: (1) the processes used to develop the design standards excluded us; (2) some original features are required to be preserved where replacements may perform better; (3) there appear to be conflicts within the standards, particularly when combined with existing and future development requirements; and (4) we see no institutional mechanisms in place at the City to deal with these conflicts and democratize voices when preservation requires trade-offs. We found the processes used to develop the standards to be exclusive and opaque. We asked to join the design committee and neighborhood association and/or connect with the design committee by phone. We paid for a Basecamp account to share information online, as there is no online presence for the neighborhood association, the design committee, or draft documents submitted to the City. None of these efforts were successful. Twice the design committee scheduled a time to call us but did not call at the scheduled time. In contrast, Preservation Austin, a had an elevated influence in the development of the standards, providing monetary and technical support. We have no negative feeling towards Preservation Austin but struggle to contrast their leading role in developing standards against our being excluded. I would hope our experience would concern public decision makers that value transparency and equity. Writing was the only means were we able to communicate with the design committee. We provided 41 written comments on an early draft of the standards to the design committee and group that has no physical presence in the neighborhood, ​ the City. These comments took extensive time to generate and reflect our experience owning, improving, and maintaining residential property. These comments sought clarification, highlighted inaccuracies, and identified design conflicts, particularly when combined with other development requirements. Both City staff and design committee members responded to many of these comments. We appreciate their time and feel that subsequent revisions strengthen the current standards. Some questions, however, remain unaddressed. While we understand that not all questions could be addressed and don’t expect them to be, I’ll highlight three particular remaining concerns. First, we had asked the association to consider using language from standards approved for other Austin historic districts for windows and doors that allows these features to be replaced if the replacements “match the scale, profile, appearance, and configuration of existing.” This is partly due to our interest in a more energy efficient home but also out of concern for safety. We don’t understand how aesthetically conforming replacement windows and doors are not better - or at least equal - alternatives than preserving original amenities. (Also, we suspect none of the exterior doors are original to the property. How will this be handled?) Second, we are also still concerned about conflicts between codes and standards that may inadvertently restrict rear additions. Many, perhaps most, contributing properties have roof lines that drain to the rear. Thus, a single-story rear addition could not meet both minimum ceiling height (per residential construction code) and roof slope requirements (per the design standards) absent a very awkward roof drainage system. Third, we had asked the design committee to increase the 21-foot height restriction for accessory dwelling units to provide more flexibility and efficiency in site layout and structure design. We would welcome the opportunity to verbally discuss these issues with the design committee. Finally, we are concerned about how ad hoc decisions will be made when difficult siting, design, and construction issues arise from the application of the historic district standards. Here, we’re looking to the City to bring balance. While staff at the Historic Preservation Office have been very professional, polite, and are skilled in their own discipline, they place undo weight on preservation over and above other property related attributes. For example, their website lists as a benefit of historic districts “retaining an existing house… saves energy.” This statement is untrue. If it were true, there would be no need to have or update building energy codes, as older buildings would outperform new ones. (There is also extensive evidence that the energy and emissions production footprints of materials used to meet new code are significantly outweighed by their operating benefits.) This is only one of many observations signaling how the Office makes judgement. I am not looking to find fault with the Historic Preservation Office in any way. However, their Office serves as gatekeepers of what will be acceptable property changes and has very powerful tools that serve preservation. Recognizing that real estate decisions involve trading off many performance attributes beyond preservation, we would be more comfortable supporting the proposed standards if there were institutional mechanisms at the City that bring balance when conflicts arise. Examples might include asking staff from Austin Energy, permit review, inspections, etc. to review design standards for balance and to avoid conflicts. These functions are needed at the City given the City allows historic district applicants to exclude contributing property owners from developing design standards. Absent a more inclusive process, we fear being further maginized from future decisions related to our property. ​  I want to emphasize that we are not trying to disparage any stakeholder or individual. We loved our neighbors when we lived in Rogers Washington. We have a lot of personal and professional respect for City of Austin staff. I’d also be remiss if I did not recognize that one member of the design committee has been very sympathetic to our concerns. However, this has been an emotionally challenging process for us. We thrive on fostering positive relationships with others but have not been given the means to connect with individuals in ways that build trust and seek common goals. I think we all share an interest in being good public stewards of property maintenance and development. That requires balance and collaboration and could serve as a great foundation to seek healthy compromise and build trusting relationships. We are not asking that you oppose the application. Instead, we are hoping you can use our experience to strengthen the historic district process. We ask that you delay this decision and, in the interim, request that the design committee and the City give us and any other dissenting views equal voice so that we can resolve outstanding issues in collaboration with and respect for each other. If all stakeholders engage with an open mind and mutual respect, I trust that a few brief but meaningful conversations between us, the design committee, and City staff would benefit all of us. This would be consistent with the Austin that we have grown to know, love, and respect. Please let me know if you have any questions. Sincerely, Michael Blackhurst Elizabeth Hurley Blackhurst Thursday, July 23, 2020 at 12:03:47 PM Central Daylight Time Subject: Support for C14H-2020-0069 – Rogers Washington Holy Cross Historic District Date: From: To: Thursday, July 23, 2020 at 12:02:32 PM Central Daylight Time Jen Margulies Bertron, Cara, PAZ PreservaMon *** External Email - Exercise Caution *** Hello, I am wriMng in advance of the July 27 Historic Landmark Commission meeMng to register my support for Case Number C14H-2020-0069, the proposed historic district in Rogers Washington Holy Cross. I would like to speak at the meeMng on Monday. I am a resident of the Rogers Washington Holy Cross neighborhood. I live at 1906 Cedar Avenue, ZIP code 78722. I moved here in 2013 and have been honored to learn from my neighbors about the history of this community and its significance to AusMn, especially East AusMn and the vibrant Black community that grew up here in the face of segregaMon and discriminaMon. At the same Mme, I have been disturbed to see the rapid erasure of this history, both in the built environment, as old homes in good repair have been bulldozed all around me to make way for expensive new builds -- and in the increasing unaffordability of our once middle-class neighborhood, which is losing Black residents as families are unable to pass on their homes to the next generaMons due to the rising property values caused, in part, by the demoliMon of modest housing replaced by exceedingly expensive homes. Thank you for the opportunity to share my perspecMve as a neighborhood resident. Best wishes, Jen Margulies -- If you need an immediate response, please call me at 512.417.0893 CAUTION: This email was received at the City of AusMn, from an EXTERNAL source. Please use cauMon when clicking links or opening a^achments. If you believe this to be a malicious and/or phishing email, please forward this email to CSIRT@ausMntexas.gov. Page 1 of 1 Thursday, July 23, 2020 at 12:50:14 PM Central Daylight Time Subject: Case # C14H-2020-0069-Rogers-Washington-Holy Cross Historic District Date: From: To: Thursday, July 23, 2020 at 12:49:28 PM Central Daylight Time brenda malik Bertron, Cara *** External Email - Exercise Caution *** Case Number: C14H-2020-0069- Rogers Washington Holy Cross Historic District Contact: Cara Bertron, (512) 974-1446 Public Hearing: Historic Landmark Commission, July 27, 2020 Brenda Malik 2502 Weber Ave., Austin, TX. 78722 I am IN FAVOR of the application Comments: We have a wonderful neighborhood, rich with compelling history and brimming with the prospect of future growth! Please help us preserve it for future generations! CAUTION: This email was received at the City of AusNn, from an EXTERNAL source. Please use cauNon when clicking links or opening aUachments. If you believe this to be a malicious and/or phishing email, please forward this email to CSIRT@ausNntexas.gov. Page 1 of 1 Thursday, July 16, 2020 at 8:53:44 AM Central Daylight Time Subject: Support for Rogers Washington Holy Cross Historic District (Case No C14H-2020-0069) Date: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 at 9:20:47 PM Central Daylight Time From: To: Bridget Gayle Ground Bertron, Cara *** External Email - Exercise Caution *** Hi Cara, I received a noPce of the proposed Rogers Washington Holy Cross Historic District (Case No C14H-2020-0069), as I am a homeowner living within 500 feet of the proposed development (1806 Cedar Avenue, 78702). I want to express that I am in favor of the proposed district in advance of the Historic Landmark Commission's July 27 public hearing. Preserving the architectural character of this historic suburb--both as a cohesive neighborhood and also at the level of individual homes like the highly significant and iconic Phillips House designed by John S. Chase-- is so essenPal to maintaining the unique and authenPc character of AusPn, not to menPon preserving part of the heritage of a long underserved community. I only wish the proposed historic district were larger to include more properPes in the area! If any addiPonal informaPon is needed to share my support for this rezoning please let me know. Thank you! Bridget Gayle Ground 1806 Cedar Avenue CAUTION: This email was received at the City of AusPn, from an EXTERNAL source. Please use cauPon when clicking links or opening a‘achments. If you believe this to be a malicious and/or phishing email, please forward this email to CSIRT@ausPntexas.gov. Page 1 of 1