June 5, 2024 Historic Landmark Commission Meeting Total video recording 3:53:33 Video index https://austintx.new.swagit.com/play/307178/3267 Item 8. HR-2024-047998 – 1107 E 10th St. 54:17-1:13:22 Timestamps are approximate. 54:17 Introduction by staff Commissioner Heimsath: And I’m looking at our backup. Did we not get a copy of the plans? Unknown: I didn’t see them on there either. Commissioner Heimsath: At this point, unless those are available, we certainly can open the public hearing. I know we have someone signed up about this. Is that correct? Unknown: It’s on the website, they’re on the ARC meeting I believe from May 15 Commissioner Heimsath: Staff, if that’s something you could find, that would be beneficial. What’s …? Alright, please come to the microphone. Commissioner Heimsath: First off, is there anybody here to speak in favor of the case? Is the applicant here? Yes, we have you come to the microphone first. Yes, I’m sorry, the applicant and speak in favors is first. Welcome and please identify yourself. 56:24 Applicant: Hi everyone. Can you hear me? My name’s Matt Jordan. I’m the owner of this property. I previously got approval on this ADU back in November. And after the HOME ordinance, I decided to increase the square footage a little bit. So that’s what prompted me coming back through HLC again, to get reapproval of this. So this is…. So I think some of the things that’s important to know here is I spent a lot of time understanding the design criteria of the Historic Land Commission. Walking the neighborhood quite a bit to understand what the different houses looked like from a design standpoint. I’ve been to ARC probably five times to constantly get their feedback. And so I really tried to design something that fit within the standards but also maximized the usability of this. It’s important to know that I think what you’re probably hear shortly from somebody who is opposed is maybe the size of the building. I previously told ARC that I had neighbors that were on board with this. And I tried to design a building that was, limited the windows on that side of the property where her house sits, to be able to make her still feel comfortable. I think we’ve worked pretty closely on this together. She’s been aware of this for quite a while. And I recently a couple of days ago got, got, … she had a few questions, so I’m not really sure what she’s going to say but…. I tried to design this in a way that protects her and protects her side of the fence. And you know, it’s been a happy neighborly relationship I think since I bought the property. I’ll also say that I bought this property, the front of the house, back in, which is the historic structure, back in 2022 and spent quite a bit of money renovating it and kept all the historical integrity of the property and really improved the neighborhood. I’ll also say that this house, that garage is gonna be a studio, so it is a duplex to some extent, which I think just adds what HOME ordinance’s goal is, which is creating affordability and more housing stock in these neighborhoods. So I hope that you take that into account. Other than that, I think that’s it. 59:08 Commissioner Heimsath: Thank you. Any questions? Alright. Appreciate it. Commissioner Heimsath: Is there anybody else here to speak in favor? Commissioner Heimsath: Hearing none, we’ll hear who…, the opposing speaker 59:23 Sue Gall: Hello, I am the opposing speaker. My name is Sue Gall, and I am the homeowner of 1109 East 10th Street, which is next door to Matt’s property. And I do strongly object to this case. Matt did make me aware that he was building an ADU but I had no sense of the size and scale of this. So I’ve submitted my objections in writing. Now I’m just planning to go over them here. Firstly, this is a 3-story, 35-foot-tall structure. That is significant departure in size and scale from the contributing homes in the historic district. And contributing is I think the really key concept here. The design standards state that roof heights should be the same or similar to those on contributing buildings throughout the district. I’m aware that in the packet that you’ve gotten, Matt’s included a lot of pictures of existing ADUs and other homes. None of these homes pictured are contributing structures. And so I feel like this packet is misleading in what it’s saying the build is going to mimic. All of these structures that are noncontributing were built before our local historic district designation in 2019. And it’s these types of large, inappropriate structures that are exactly what the historic district designation was meant to prevent. So, I do object to the size of it. I think it is out of character by the design standards. Secondly, the second unit of the 4-bedroom, 2128 square foot unit C does not further affordability goals. Again, the design standards in the purpose recognize the importance of ADUs in increasing affordable housing options in areas of the city that are seeing a rapid rise in property values. This 2128 square foot unit is significantly bigger than even any of the nonconforming ADUs in the packet. I’ve got some property sizes here from the TCAD site. And lastly, I just, I would encourage the applicant to work with GAIN to design a more compatible structure. That recommendation again is right in the design standards 1.4 for new construction. To consult with GAIN (the Guadalupe Association for an Improved Neighborhood) design review committee at the outset of the design of new construction, so.... Those are my objections. Thank you for your time. Is there anything you’d like to know from me? 1:02:10 Commissioner Koch: I had a question. In the standards where you refer to roof heights, can you say, know where that was mentioned? Was that for additions or was that for new? Sue Gall: No, that’s in the section 1.4 new construction Commissioner Koch: Where it says roof heights should not be higher than existing … Sue Gall: Yes, that’s an exact quote from the design standards Commissioner Koch: Ok, thank you. 1:02:34 Sue Gall: Anything else I can answer? Commissioner Heimsath: You don’t have any objection though … a lot of the cases that we see in these historic districts are compromising the existing house, the contributing structure. And you have no objections to the proposals as it pertains to that structure? Sue Gall: That structure is fine, yeah. There’s no significant change to the exterior. It looks better. It’s just the scale of this ADU is so far out of range. Commissioner Heimsath: And that’s only accessible from the alleyway in the back? Sue Gall: It is, yeah. Commissioner Heimsath: Okay. So, again, it’s going to be something that I know there’ll be some discussions because it’s a dilemma for us. Way more often, we’re looking at a total demolition, losing of a resource. What the tradeoff is to maintain the resource I think is gonna be an open question. Sue Gall: I’m unclear, you’re maintaining the original structure, just building … this is a plan to build a new structure that we did not grant standards for in the local historic district. Commissioner Heimsath: I understand. You know, many of our cases we have, in this case it’s a proposed 3800 square feet total. And the case actually comes as a total demolition and a new house, 3800 square feet. By right, that could be what this owner is submitting, and it’s not. What they’re doing is maintaining the front, which we encourage. And then in doing so, is maximizing what obviously they feel is appropriate in the back, and that’s just is a judgment call 1:04:21 Sue Gall: Well what they feel is appropriate goes against the stated standards. And that’s my objection. Commissioner Heimsath: Appreciate you calling this to our attention. Thank you. Sue Gall: Thank you. 1:04:31 Commissioner Heimsath: Okay. Anybody else here to speak against? Commissioner Heimsath: Alright. Commissioners, I will entertain a motion to close the public hearing. [inaudible] Commissioner Heimsath: What’s that? Rebuttal. Oh, I’m sorry. Proposer has the opportunity to rebut if you choose. 1:04:54 Applicant: I’ll just say, you know, a big part of why this was approved as the same height before was that it’s next to a church that is also I believe is a contributing structure, that is also quite large. And I think that’s the one thing I would say in terms of the height. The same mass was already generally approved. We’re really just now filling in kind of the porch area. But I kind of feel like everything is within reason, and actually, and is actually, I’m not even … I could build technically more according to the new HOME ordinance. And I’m trying to keep it something that is generally reasonable. That’s what I would say. Thank you. Commissioner Alvarez: I have a question. So after HOME 2 I think you went from maybe adding one unit, just a single ADU, to having, being able to build an additional unit, is that correct? 1:05:54 Applicant: Say that again? Commissioner Alvarez: You went from adding one unit to adding two units? Applicant: So the garage is technically more of a flex space, with the opportunity to rent it out as a studio. But it really is kind of part of the house, just tried to make it flexible. Commissioner Alvarez: But it could qualify as separate though. Applicant: I’m not sure if it could qualify, but I guess according to the plans that we submitted, yes. Commissioner Alvarez: Yes. That’s what I read. It said I think unit B, unit C. OK, trying to understand that. 1:06:25 Commissioner Koch: Question: How many of the larger buildings that you submitted as examples were contributing structures? Besides the church? Applicant: Besides the church? That I do not know the answer to. But I will say there are a few buildings that are primary structures that are in the neighborhood that are 3 stories. 1:06:43 Commissioner Heimsath: Thank you. Okay, now, I’ll entertain a motion to close the public hearing. By Commissioner Koch. And second by Commissioner Larosche. All those in favor, please say Aye [All raise hands]. Any opposed? [None] Commissioner Heimsath: Commissioners, I will entertain a motion … 1:07:04 Commissioner Koch: I want to move if possible to postpone this case to our July meeting. [.. inaudible] I may be there virtually Commissioner Heimsath: OK, is there a second? [Larosche raised his hand] Commissioner Heimsath: OK. Go ahead and indicate the reason behind the postponement. 1:07:29 Commissioner Koch: So in the multiple ARC visits, I think I can say that we did not give our wholehearted support to this. We said that it appeared to meet the letter of the standards and we definitely go by the standards. And I gave clear warning that if you don’t talk to your neighbors, you’re likely to have a situation where someone is going to come and speak in opposition because it’s usually the impact on the neighboring property more than it is on the street. Our goal is primarily impact on the street, from the public venue, being a local historic district. And that can make a very good case in terms of existing structures, showing that it would not be visible from the street due to the distance and the topography. There are recommendations to differentiate the massing at the style similar, the scale on massing, and that really was done. But I think we did note this was on the bubble to begin with, and only meeting the letter of the standards. And the one item that escaped my attention was use the roof heights of existing, contributing structures. And structures were presented of similar height in the neighborhood, but it wasn’t clear whether those were contributing. So I think if you could refocus your presentation to show that you do meet that one standard for new construction to match the roof heights for contributing structures throughout the neighborhood, I think that’s the … that’s what we’re gonna need. Commissioner Heimsath: Commissioner Larosche, would you like to speak to your second? Commissioner Larosche: I agree with the roof height issue, and I think that has to be revisited and confirmed. Commissioner Heimsath: My big concern for extra clarification purposes: how many times has this actually been discussed or proposed to the ARC? Commissioner Koch: I believe twice. There was one for a previous version, and then there was one for this version. So this particular version may come twice for this version. Applicant: [inaudlble] Commissioner Koch: And twice for the first version. So, one visit and then tweak for the first version, and then another version and a tweak for the other version. Applicant: [inaudible] Commissioner Koch: Twice Applicant: [inaudible] 1:09:31 Commissioner Koch: I think every time we kind of said “Hmmm?” It’s pushing the boundaries, it’s awfully big, but you can’t see it from the street. And the one standard that escaped my attention was the roof heights. And the buildings that you showed that were taller, and the church, is contributing to that argument. But I think the point that what’s contributing and what’s not contributing is important to clarify in terms of making that case. Applicant: I was approved… [inaudible] Commissioner Koch: Was approved at …. Applicant: was approved at HLC meeting the first time back in November Commissioner Koch: So your first one was fully approved. Your first design was fully approved. Applicant: [inaudible] Commissioner Koch: And does that height, is it broader? Is it, is the height of a little larger scale? Larger area? Applicant: [inaudible] Commissioner Koch: Okay. 1:10:28 Commissioner Rubio: I understand the opposition and immediately my thought was why now? We’ve been working on this in good faith with the owner. I’m always, you know, looking for the community to come out and support. The fact that we got this far and that the owner was willing to work with us on three different iterations, I have the before, middle, and after. And yes, it was hard. Yes, there was compromise. But we’re saving the historic house. We have not that ugly, not an ugly box, a modern box in the back yard. I just don’t, I don’t think we should postpone this case. That’s my opinion. Commissioner Featherston: I agree. Commissioner Heimsath: Any other discussion? Commissioner Featherston: I agree with Commissioner Rubio. 1:11:12 Commissioner Heimsath: I’m very concerned that when somebody’s doing what’s right, and I guess, the question is, is there really an expectation that we’re going to be able to make any massive change as…. I’m very sympathetic to the neighbors. The historic districts do have meaning. Our tools are very limited, and at any point this owner could come back with a three story building and even more square footage, and it would be this big and maybe not even appropriate in its design and we could easily lose the front contributing structure, as we are way too often have, in this case in front of us now. So, I think we’ve, in the interest of making good things work, even if they’re not ideal, I also don’t believe this is the time to postpone. So I vote against the motion. 1:12:11 Commissioner Koch: Could I ask one question to clarify that the neighboring church is a contributing structure? Sue Gall: [inaudible] Commissioner Koch: Okay, but the neighboring structure is of equal height and a contributing structure? I will move to withdraw my motion. Commissioner Heimsath: Can we second? Commissioner Larosche: In the interest of moving this along, sure. Commissioner Heimsath: Okay, otherwise, we have to vote on it. The motion to second is withdrawn. Then I will entertain another motion. Commissioner Featherston: I move to approve the plan as submitted. Commissioner Rubio: Second. Commissioner Heimsath: Commissioner Featherstone moves to approve as submitted. Seconded by Commissioner Rubio. All those in favor, indicate by raising your hand. [All but Larosche raise]. And any opposed? [Larosche]. That’s one opposed. 1:31:13 Commissioner Heimsath: So that is a majority, and so the motion does pass. And we thank you very much. Alright, that is Item 8. Let’s go on to the next discussion item. 1:13:22 End of Item 8