Zoning

NPA-2019-0019.01_Zng map.pdf

NPA-2019-0019.01_FLUM_BW.PDF

Zoning Committee Meeting Tuesday, April 9, 2019

The HNA-Zoning committee will meet, next Tuesday the 9th of April 2019 at 3805 Red River (38th 1⁄2 and Red River) at 6:00pm. The Mtg has been requested, by a potential buyer of the property, so the HNA Zoning Committee can consider the request and present findings at the next regular HNA meeting. It is open to those wishing to attend.

HNA Zoning Committee Meeting Call to Order: 6:00pm

New Business:

1. Consider New Zoning Committee Member 2. Proposal to rezone the property at 3805 Red River

From SF-3-H-CO-NP To: GO-MU-H-CO-NP

See attached Note from Developer

Members of the Hancock Neighborhood Association-
I am reaching out to you in regards to the historic house located at 3805 Red River. The property is currently under contract and I along with a handful of historic preservation colleagues are working with the potential buyer to explore opportunities for preservation and restoration of the property. As the neighborhood has developed Red River has become a major thoroughfare, which has had a significant impact on this property. We feel the likelihood of a residential use inhabitant may be difficult to find and are exploring rezoning the property to GO-MU-H-CO-NP. This mixed use would lend itself to this particular property being utilized for both residential and professional office uses and would provide the finances necessary to support continued preservation of the property. This use also suits the layout of the historic house and would allow it to be restored to its former glory. We will work closely with the Historic Landmark Commission to ensure that the work done to the property is in keeping with their guidelines.

We understand how important neighborhood involvement is when seeking rezoning as well as when working with a historic property. We reached out to Bart Whatley and he recommended we meet with you all as a stakeholder and leaders in the neighborhood prior to presenting at the next Hancock Neighborhood Association meeting

As you may know, in order to rezone a property the Future Land Use Map must be updated from Single Family to Mixed Use - Office. To meet City deadlines we submitted our FLUM application February 28th, understanding that support from the Hancock Neighborhood Assoc. will be key to obtaining any change to the existing FLUM.

We would appreciate the opportunity to meet with you at the property to walk through our proposal and make ourselves available to answer questions you may have concerning our request.

Please feel free to contact us at the following numbers:

Norma Yancey, Sidetracked Studio
norma@sidetracked-studio.com | 512-220-6865

Richard Kooris, Pegalo Properties
rkooris@501studios.com | 512-485-3000

https://www.hancockna.org/www/content/hna-april-9thpdf

The HNA April 9th.pdf

4007 Duval St. Email Thread - April 2, 2019

From: "Roig, Jose G" <Jose.Roig@austintexas.gov>
Date: April 2, 2019 at 5:13:58 PM CDT
To: Meredith Brown <meredithkbrown@icloud.com>
Cc: "Tovo, Kathie" <Kathie.Tovo@austintexas.gov>, "Dial, Michael" <Michael.Dial@austintexas.gov>, "Wilcox, Todd" <Todd.Wilcox@austintexas.gov>, "Johnson, Ralph" <Ralph.Johnson@austintexas.gov>, "Libby, Jeff" <Jeff.Libby@austintexas.gov>, "Barr, Susan" <Susan.Barr@austintexas.gov>, mark harkrider <harkrider@westcapitol.com>, mary sanger <marysanger70@gmail.com>, Barbara Epstein <bepstein@grandecom.net>, Hugh Bender <hbender@bendertx.com>, "madelyn.kidd@sbcglobal.net" <madelyn.kidd@sbcglobal.net>, "Culver, Beth" <Beth.Culver@austintexas.gov>, "Lucas, Denise" <Denise.Lucas@austintexas.gov>, "Fabian, Jasmine" <Jasmine.Fabian@austintexas.gov>, "Starke, Dawn" <Dawn.Starke@austintexas.gov>, "Garrett, Elaine" <Elaine.Garrett2@austintexas.gov>
Subject: RE: 4007 Duval St.

Good afternoon Ms. Brown,

I just want to take this opportunity to acknowledge receipt of your communication, and thanks for bringing this to our attention. Please allow me to review the case and the communication on this matter. I will provide you with a response as soon as possible, which will include the steps taken to this date and future steps to obtain compliance with the code and approved plans.

Sincerely,

José G. Roig, CBO Assistant Director
Austin Code Department
p: 512.974.1605
w: www.austintexas.gov/code
e: jose.roig@austintexas.gov
Follow us:

> From: Lucas, Denise
> Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2019 4:30 PM
> To: Meredith Brown <meredithkbrown@icloud.com>; Culver, Beth <Beth.Culver@austintexas.gov>; Roig, Jose G <Jose.Roig@austintexas.gov>
> Cc: Tovo, Kathie <Kathie.Tovo@austintexas.gov>; Dial, Michael <Michael.Dial@austintexas.gov>; Wilcox, Todd <Todd.Wilcox@austintexas.gov>; Johnson, Ralph <Ralph.Johnson@austintexas.gov>; Libby, Jeff <Jeff.Libby@austintexas.gov>; Barr, Susan <Susan.Barr@austintexas.gov>; Roig, Jose G <Jose.Roig@austintexas.gov>; mark harkrider <harkrider@westcapitol.com>; mary sanger <marysanger70@gmail.com>; Barbara Epstein <bepstein@grandecom.net>; Hugh Bender <hbender@bendertx.com>; madelyn.kidd@sbcglobal.net
> Subject: Re: 4007 Duval St.
>
> Ms. Brown,
>
> Thank you for bringing this concern to my attention. I am requesting that Jose Roig, Assistant Director at Code and Beth Culver, Acing Assistant Director and Building Official at DSD to look into this matter and to reply to this email with the next steps.
>
> Regards,
> Denise Lucas
> Interim Director, DSD
>
> > From: Meredith Brown <meredithkbrown@icloud.com>
> > Sent: Tuesday, April 2, 2019 2:27:03 PM
> > To: Lucas, Denise
> > Cc: Tovo, Kathie; Dial, Michael; Wilcox, Todd; Johnson, Ralph; Libby, Jeff; Barr, Susan; Roig, Jose G; mark harkrider; mary sanger; Barbara Epstein; Hugh Bender; madelyn.kidd@sbcglobal.net
> > Subject: 4007 Duval St.
> >
> > Ms. Lucas,
> >
> > In Sept. of 2018 I noticed construction at 4007 Duval on a shed at the end of a short driveway. The main house at 4007 is a 2 bedroom/1 bath yearly rental, and currently there are 4 tenants living there.
> >
> > My concern was that the shed was being converted into an ADU for future rental, so I began to inquire if this was legal by contacting city officials and the Hancock neighborhood association, of which I am a member.
> >
> > I learned that the original plans called for a kitchen sink but that was amended by the city because the lot is too small for an ADU. Doc.#1 attached.
> >
> > Document #2, page 8 dated 4/16/18 specifically says no plumbing permitted in the kitchen wall as well as no kitchen sink allowed.
> >
> > We received a letter from Todd Wilcox (see attached) that this unit is classified as an accessory building and not a dwelling unit.
> >
> > The Hancock Neighborhood Association sent a letter to the homeowner clarifying the STR issue (see attached).
> >
> > In late February I notified code enforcement (case 71663) that a sink had been installed in the kitchen in the unit shortly after the homeowner was issued a temporary certificate of occupancy. Ralph Johnson from code enforcement came out and was informed by one of the tenants in the main house that they were told by the landlord that the owner planned to rent out the structure in question. Mr. Johnson cited 3 violations: the kitchen sink, and the side and rear setback (CV 19-013520). The homeowner was sent a violation letter on 3/4/19 and to date this is still an open case.
> >
> > I placed a call to Michael Dial, code supervisor, to educate myself on what happens next. I was told that this matter is now in the hands of the Development Services Department. He also said the city cannot make the homeowner remove the sink. What is the purpose of having a code/ regulation if there is no way to enforce it? My hope is that the owner will be required to remove the sink and kitchen plumbing, as he was never given a permit to add these to the dwelling.
> >
> > I wanted to bring this matter to your attention in the hope that if need be, my neighbors and I will have your support to ensure that our building codes are taken seriously by homeowners and not flagrantly ignored, as is the case here. At the very least I would hope the temporary certificate of occupancy would be revoked until the violations are resolved.
> >
> > I look forward to hearing from you.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Meredith Brown
> > (860) 307-3404

https://www.hancockna.org/www/content/4007-duval-st-email-thread-190402doc
https://www.hancockna.org/www/content/4007-duval-st-email-thread-190402pdf

4007-duval-st-email-thread-190402.pdf

4007-duval-st-email-thread-190402.doc

4007 Duval letter ms2.pdf

4007 Duval letter ms2.docx

607 Texas Ave. Landmark Commission Hearing Summary March 25

Summary of March 25, 2019 Historic Landmark Commission Meeting regarding the request by owners for partial demolition of 607 Texas Avenue.

Due to interest in the above, here’s a summary.

607 Texas Avenue
The home at 607 Texas Avenue was built in 1930. The current owner bought the house 2009. and has lived in it since purchase. Per City staff the house does not qualify for an individual landmark, though it would be considered a contributing structure to any future local historic district in the neighborhood. (A contributing structure “adds to the historical integrity or architectural qualities that make a historic district.”)

Summary of Historic Landmark Commission Hearing on Application for partial Demolition of 607 Texas Avenue.

Hancock Neighborhood attendees: Natalie Axe, Coan Dillahunty, Merianne Gaston, Mary Sanger

Steve Sadowsky, the City’s Landmark Historic Preservation Officer, presented the case and staff recommendation

As posted by the Landmark Commission:

“PROPOSAL FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION
The applicant proposes an addition to the first floor and the addition of a second floor to the house. The proposed addition will add 296 square feet to the first floor, 1,175 square feet to the second story, and 240 square feet of habitable attic space to the 1,218 square foot existing house. The proposed second story addition will be offset to the left of the house, and will contain a front-facing gable with paired 6:6 fenestration and a shed-dormer to the east (left). The area of the second story addition with the habitable space in the attic will be set further back and will be front-have a front-facing gable.

The materials proposed for the addition are brick, hardi-plank, and stucco. Some of the windows removed from the existing house will be re-used in the addition, particularly in the front-facing sections with brick veneer. Additional fenestration will be Marvin Integrity fiberglass windows divided lite casement and picture windows. The roof will have dimensional asphalt shingle.

STAFF COMMENTS
Staff has evaluated this house for designation as a historic landmark and has determined that the house does not meet the criteria for landmark designation as set forth in City Code:

STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The proposed addition is large and has the potential to overwhelm the original house. Staff recognizes that the house does not qualify as a historic landmark, but is completely intact now, and would definitely be contributing to a potential historic district in the neighborhood. Staff recommends scaling back the addition from the front, so that the existing house retains a much higher degree of articulation in the proposed configuration, but release of the permit upon completion of a City of Austin Documentation Package, consisting of photographs of all elevations, a dimensioned sketch plan, and a narrative history, for archiving at the Austin History Center.“

In Favor, Object
The owners stated that they had done their best to preserve the architectural aspects of the house, including reuse of original materials and maintaining the full facade. They also stated they had met with some neighbors over the weekend about their plan in advance of the hearing and listened to their concerns. The owners said they were supportive of a local historic district and had design standards been in place, they would have followed them, but since no standards existed, they did their best.

The homeowners’ architect pointed out how the original materials were to be re-used in the remodel, the window style were being preserved and the exterior finishes would match the historic style. He added that the addition would be "doing a favor to the neighborhood" by being a tasteful and well considered addition.

The neighbors then spoke in opposition to the request for partial demolition requesting a postponement in order for the owners to voluntarily meet with the Commission’s Committee on Certificate of Appropriateness.

Natalie Axe spoke first, indicating that an LHD was in the process of being considered and that the house was an intact building from 1930 and would be a contributing structure* as it now stands and would be non-contributing after the partial demolition and proposed addition. She also presented the Commission with nine letters

from immediate neighbors, and one letter from a neighbor not within 500 ft, but greatly interested, all requesting the Commission to postpone the partial demolition to give the owners time to meet on April 8th with the Commission’s Review Committee on Appropriateness which could help the owners address staff recommendations as well as provide design changes that would allow the home to remain a contributing structure.

Coan Dillahunty stated he was a member of the Hancock Neighborhood LHD committee, he provided a quick overview on the committee's work to date and made the same points as Natalie, ultimately requesting that the case decision be deferred until it could be reviewed by the Landmark Commission's Appropriateness committee.

At some point during the back & forth between the Commissioners and Sadowsky, the latter pointed out Department of Interior standards are used when local standards have not been adopted.

In the hearing discussion, Sadowsky said he understood the Hancock Neighborhood was currently in the process of researching a Local

Historic District designation and he was very supportive of that effort in that Hancock is one of the most intact historical neighborhoods. At the same time, however, this should not be the basis for the decision about the current case.

Commissioner Heismath pointed out this case is a prime example of why we need historic districts, explaining the Review Committee of Appropriateness had no jurisdiction in that the home is not considered a historic landmark and is not located in a local historic district.

There was a discussion among the Commissioners about whether the renovation would make this home a non-contributing structure . Commissioner Meyer explained that the height of the renovation and the front roof plane would not convey the home’s history. Director Sadowsky, Commissioners Koch and Commissioner Emily Hibbs agreed. Moreover, Commissioner Kevin Koch, who is also the architect of the Capitol Preservation Board, told the owners he thought a few tweaks to their plan would allow the home to remain a contributing structure. It was also explained that as a contributing property in a local historic district one is available for a tax abatement for seven years with certain conditions. (For more information see tax exemption for local historic districts at AustinTexas.Gov)

Since no LHD is in place and the property is not eligible for landmark status, the Commissioners didn't think they had the authority to postpone the partial demolition request and require appearance before the Appropriateness Committee. Commissioner Koch made a motion approving the partial demolition based on the completion of the City's standard information packet. Importantly, the motion also recommended that the owners appear voluntarily before the Appropriateness Committee to get guidance on how the addition could be made in a way that wouldn't make the building necessarily non-contributing, but that was only a non-binding recommendation. The motion passed.
Commissioner Meyer once again encouraged the owners to come voluntarily to the Certificate of Appropriateness Review Committee.

Notification timing
The neighbors within 500 feet of 607 Texas A venue received the mailed notice for a partial demolition on March 14th The staff posted the renovation plan & its recommendation on March 21st, the hearing took place the following Monday, the 25th. The owners requested an expedited hearing which possibly compressed the notification process. There is no requirement that an owner confer with the Neighborhood Association.

At the time of this writing, there is no information on whether the owners of 607 Texas Avenue have changed their renovation plans.

A recording of the hearing can be found by going to the March 25 meeting of the Austin Landmark Commission, You can skip directly to the 607 Texas Avenue case.

Summary prepared by Mary Sanger and a committee of editors. 3.29.2019

https://www.hancockna.org/www/content/607-texas-ave-landmark-commission-...
https://www.hancockna.org/www/content/607-texas-ave-landmark-commission-...

Syndicate content