22- Appeal HR-2024-047998; PR-2024-043549 - 1107 E. 10th St., Bldg. 2; District 1 Appeal to Planning Commission Appeal Letter — original pdf

Backup

HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION APPROVAL OF A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS APPEAL TO PLANNING COMMISSION: CASE NUMBER: HR-2024-047998 HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION: June 5, 2024 PLANNING COMMISSION: July 9, 2024 DISTRICT: 1 ADDRESS: 1107 East 10th Street, Robertson/Stuart & Mair Historic District ZONING: SF-3-HD-NP APPELLANTS: Sue Gall; Mark and Tristana Rogers PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANT: Matthew Jordan PROJECT BACKGROUND: The subject property is within the Robertson/Stuart & Mair Historic District. The primary building is a contributing one- story house. The applicant proposes to update a design for an accessory dwelling unit behind the main house to allow the maximum number of units permitted by the HOME amendment, which was codified after the ADU project's first iteration received approval from the Historic Landmark Commission in 2023. The amended design includes more interior space than the previously approved design, as well as fenestration and roofline changes. No changes were made to the proposed accessory dwelling unit’s previously approved roof height or location. The proposed new building is three stories in height and is oriented with the entrance and garage toward the rear alleyway. It is clad in horizontal fiber cement siding and has a compound gabled and shed roofline. Fenestration includes fixed undivided windows, divided casement windows, and divided sash windows arranged in an irregular pattern. APPEAL REQUEST: The appellants, Sue Gall and Mark and Tristana Rogers, have filed an appeal of the HLC’s June 5, 2024 approval of a certificate of appropriateness to construct the accessory dwelling unit and request denial of this project. Ms. Gall submitted a written objection prior to the hearing, and also spoke at the hearing; the Rogers family submitted a written objection prior to the hearing. Thus, both appellants appear to have standing to appeal under the Code. The appeals process for certificates of appropriateness is described in Land Development Code §25-11-247: the HLC’s decision may be appealed to the Land Use Commission, and the Land Use Commission’s decision may in turn be appealed to the City Council. The appellants state that the HLC did not properly apply the design standards of the Robertson/Stuart & Mair Historic District, in violation of Land Development Code §25-11-243: § 25-11-243 - ACTION ON A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS. A) This section applies to an application under Section 25-11-212 (Certificate Required). B) If the commission determines that the proposed work will not adversely affect a significant architectural or historical feature of the designated historic landmark or historic area combining district: 1) the commission shall issue a certificate of appropriateness; and 2) the commission shall provide the certificate to the building official not later than the 30th day after the date of the public hearing. 3) The building official shall provide the certificate to the applicant not later than the fifth day after the day the building official receives the certificate from the commission. C) If the commission determines that the proposed work will adversely affect or destroy a significant architectural or historical feature of the designated historic landmark or historic area combining district: 1) the commission shall notify the building official that the application has been disapproved; and 2) the commission shall, not later than the 30th day after the date of the public hearing notify the applicant of: a) the disapproval; and b) the changes in the application that are necessary for the commission's approval. D) For properties subject to Section 25-11-212 (Certificate Required), the historic preservation officer and the commission shall consider the United States Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, 36 Code of Federal Regulations Section 67.7(b), and: 1) except as provided in Subsection (D)(2), the historic design standards and the supplemental standards, if any; or 2) for a property located within an area designated as a historic area (HD) combining district prior to the effective date of this ordinance, the design standards applicable to that district.1 E) Owners of properties located within a National Register Historic District are not required to comply with the historic design standards for new construction or alteration to existing contributing buildings; however, projects within such districts subject to the requirements of Section 25-11-213 (Building, Demolition, and Relocation Permits and Certificates of Appropriateness Relating to Certain Buildings, Structures or Sites) are subject to advisory review by the historic preservation officer and the commission, which shall consider the historic design standards in making their recommendations. HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION ACTION: November 1, 2023: Prior to the full Commission meeting, the Architectural Review Committee of the HLC provided feedback to the applicant on September 13. Committee members requested that the applicant use horizontality to reduce the addition’s perceived height, consider changing the fixed front-facing window to multiple rhythmic windows, and use siding rather than stucco. The applicant provided documentation of the site conditions, including an example of the site’s topography. The applicant amended the final design to reflect Committee feedback, and the HLC approved the application on the consent agenda on a motion by Commissioner Koch, seconded by Commissioner Featherston. The HLC approved the consent agenda with a vote of 10-0, with one commissioner off the dais. June 5, 2024: Prior to the full Commission meeting, the Architectural Review Committee of the HLC provided feedback to the applicant on his updated design on March 13, April 10, and May 15, 2024. Committee members requested that the applicant rework the fenestration and simplify the compound roofline. The applicant provided documentation of the site conditions, including an example of the site’s topography to demonstrate that the building would be minimally visible from the street over the roof of the main house, as well as a draft design. The Committee stated that the design appeared to meet the standards, but only just. The applicant amended the final design to reflect Committee feedback. The applicant, Matthew Jordan, spoke in favor of the amended application, and the appellant Sue Gall, who lives next door, spoke in opposition. Commissioner Koch motioned to postpone the public hearing on the application, with a second by Commissioner Larosche. After requesting clarification from the applicant, Commissioner Koch withdrew the motion. Commissioner Featherston motioned to approve the application with a second by Commissioner Rubio. The HLC approved the application on a vote of 9-1, with Commissioner Larosche voting in opposition and with one commissioner off the dais. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends support of the HLC’s decision. The Historic Landmark Commission, in their discussion, demonstrated that the appropriate design standards were carefully considered as required by the Code. The Commission remarked that, though the updated proposal for the new ADU did not exceed the bare minimum requirements established by the design standards, it did technically meet the standards. Nine of the 10 present Commissioners felt the applicant adequately demonstrated that the proposal met baseline requirements. Per Chapter 25-11, Article 4, Division 2 (Applications for Certificates), the HLC issues certificates of appropriateness for work to historic landmarks, with consideration of how proposed work will affect significant architectural and historical features of a landmark. Per § 25-11-243 (Action on a Certificate of Appropriateness), the HLC evaluates proposed work in locally designated historic districts in consideration of the Council-approved design standards for that district. Approved in 2019, the Robertson/Stuart & Mair Historic District is roughly bounded by the French Legation’s western boundary on the west, San Marcos Street, the alley between E. 9th and E. 10th Streets, Waller Street, the alley between E. 10th and E. 11th streets, Lydia Street, W. 9th Street, Navasota Street, and the alley between E. 7th and E. 8th Streets. The Robertson/Stuart & Mair Historic District Design Standards2 are used to evaluate alterations to contributing buildings, as well as new construction projects, within the district.3 The standards applicable to new construction are: 1 Ordinance No. 20221115-049, adopted 2022. 2 Robertson/Stuart & Mair Preservation Plan, Appendix D: https://www.austintexas.gov/sites/default/files/files/Planning/Historic_Preservation/RobertsonStuartMairHD_DesignStandards.pdf 3 The document also notes that “these standards also recognize the importance of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) in providing homeowners with supplemental rental income, encouraging urban residential density in near-downtown neighborhoods, and increasing affordable housing options in areas of the city that are seeing a rapid rise in property values. Encouraging a dense, affordable, and diverse neighborhood will result in a greater ability and willingness to preserve the neighborhood’s historic homes.” 1.4. New Construction The design standards recognize that any building should reflect its time; consequently, contemporary design for new residential construction is appropriate, as long as it is compatible with the design patterns of the district and the buildings immediately around it. Requirements • New construction shall have the same street-front orientation and distance from adjacent buildings as the contributing buildings in the same block • Setbacks for new construction shall be consistent with setbacks of the district’s contributing buildings by taking the average of the existing setbacks of contributing buildings on the same block face, or by aligning with the setback of one adjacent contributing building; this may allow setbacks that are shallower than the base zoning • Design new buildings so that they are compatible with and differentiated from historic buildings in the district • If designing an addition in a contemporary style, reflect the scale, massing, and/or materials of the historic building; if designing an addition in a style that reflects a style borrowed from surrounding historic buildings, differentiate the scale, massing, and/or materials • New construction should have floor-to-floor heights and roof heights that are the same or similar to those on • Select materials for new construction that are the same as or similar to those found on contributing buildings contributing buildings throughout the district existing in the district • For new buildings, a garage shall not be located less than 15 feet from the front wall of the building (excluding the porch) or one-third of the depth of the building from the front wall of the building, whichever is greater; both attached and detached garages are permitted if set back accordingly • Front porches shall be present on new principal residential buildings and must be at least 6 feet deep, with an area • Protect large trees and other significant site features from damage during construction and from delayed damage of at least 70 square feet due to construction activities Recommendations • Avoid using a historical style not found among the contributing buildings in the district • Consider using the same or similar front proportions and fenestration patterns as contributing buildings • Consider the spacing, placement, scale, orientation, proportion, and size of window and door openings in proposed new construction to be similar to surrounding contributing buildings • Consider using roof forms that are the same as or similar to the roof form of adjacent contributing buildings • Consult with the Guadalupe Association for an Improved Neighborhood (GAIN) Design Review Committee at the outset of the design of new construction4 The design standards specify that new construction should have floor-to-floor heights and roof heights that are the same or similar to those of contributing buildings throughout the district. As the proposed ADU’s roof height is taller than the main house and contributing buildings on the street, except for the church next door to the subject property, the applicant provided supplemental materials to demonstrate that the site topography and building location at the rear of the site appear to reduce its visibility from the street over the roofline of the main house, mitigating the increased height of the ADU. Though the proposed ADU’s height and scale are larger than any constructed after the district’s designation in 2019, the Commission’s approval appears justified in that the proposed design update technically meets the applicable standards (albeit to a bare minimum degree). During deliberation at the June 5, 2024, HLC meeting, the Commission first moved to postpone the public hearing to the July 3 meeting, mentioning that the proposed design was “on the bubble” regarding the roof height’s compliance with the standards; however, the motion was withdrawn as the applicant, when questioned, indicated that he had been to the Architectural Review Committee several times to discuss the design and bring it into compliance with the standards. The applicant confirmed that the proposed design update would not change the previously approved height of the new building and that the three-story church next door was a contributing structure. The Commission noted the applicant’s willingness to attend optional monthly meetings with the Committee to refine the design proposal. The Commission also remarked that many applications brought before them compromised the integrity of the existing contributing building rather than retaining the contributing structure and building a secondary structure at the rear to maximize allowable coverage. As the contributing building at 1107 E.10th Street will not be physically affected by the construction or potential future removal of the ADU, and as the applicant appears to have sufficiently demonstrated that the building will be minimally visible from the primary streetscape, staff supports the HLC’s decision to approve the certificate 4 Robertson/Stuart & Mair Preservation Plan, Appendix D, D-9-D-10: https://www.austintexas.gov/sites/default/files/files/Planning/Historic_Preservation/RobertsonStuartMairHD_DesignStandards.pdf of appropriateness. Furthermore, the district design standards allow the Commission “the authority to grant exemptions to the standards if it determines that the proposed project will maintain the character-defining features of the property and/or district.”5 While the Commission’s action highlighted a difference of opinion in interpreting the standards, it did not constitute the Commission’s failure to consider the design standards in evaluating the project as required by §25-11-243. NEIGHBORHOOD ORGANIZATIONS: Austin Independent School District, Austin Lost and Found Pets, Austin Neighborhoods Council, Del Valle Community Coalition, East Austin Conservancy, El Concilio Mexican-American Neighborhoods, Friends of Austin Neighborhoods, Guadalupe Association for an Improved Neighborhood, Guadalupe Neighborhood Development Corporation, Homeless Neighborhood Association, Neighborhood Empowerment Foundation, Neighbors United for Progress, Organization of Central East Austin Neighborhoods , Preservation Austin, SELTexas, Sierra Club, Austin Regional Group CASE MANAGER: Kalan Contreras, 512-974-2727/kalan.contreras@austintexas.gov Appeal letter, June 17, 2024 Appeal letter, June 17, 2024 Staff report to Historic Landmark Commission, June 5, 2024 Applicant presentation to Historic Landmark Commission, June 5, 2024: site conditions, original approved design drawings, and revised design proposal Public communication EXHIBITS: 5 Robertson/Stuart & Mair Preservation Plan, Appendix D, D-2: https://www.austintexas.gov/sites/default/files/files/Planning/Historic_Preservation/RobertsonStuartMairHD_DesignStandards.pdf