Page 2 of 5 Council Member Place 3 (512) 974-2255 (phone) (512) 974-1888 (fax) http://www.ci .austin.tx.us/council/shade.htm From: Coleman, Glen Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2010 11:27 AM To: Shade, Randi; Riley, Chris Subject: RE: Please postpone agenda item #29 Legal has no issues with suggested changes - just read the language in From: Shade, Randi Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2010 11:21 AM To: Riley, Chris; Coleman, Glen Subject: RE: Please postpone agenda item #29 Great. Glen, please proceed ASAP with legal and with the co-sponsors. Thanks! Randi Shade Austin City Council Council Member Place 3 (512) 974-2255 (phone) (512) 974-1888 (fax) http:/!www.ci.austin.tx.us/council/shade.htm From: Riley, Chris Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2010 11:05 AM To: Shade, Randi; Coleman, Glen Subject: RE: Please postpone agenda item #29 The 2 paragraphs basically say -- (1) The HLC can generally initiate as many cases per month as it wants in response to demo requests. (2) BUT within historic districts, the # of HLC-initiated nominations is limited to one per month, if both other slots are filled. I think it’s reasonable to conclude that within historic districts, the # of HLC-initiated nominations is limited to one per month, even in response to demo permits. How about this -- (1) add “or relocation” after demolition (2) after “located in National Register of Local Historic Districts,” insert” , other than those initiated by the Commission in response to a request for a demolition or relocation permit,” Makes (2) pretty wordy, but could avoid arguments/concerns. From: Shade, Randi Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2010 10:53 AM To: Coleman, Glen; Riley, Chris Subject: RE: Please postpone agenda item #29 Chris — if you want to make that as a friendly amendment for clarification sake, I am fine with it. 4/14/2011 Page 3 of 5 Glen — if Chris says yes --- would you please vet with Mike/Andy and with Bill/Heidi and legal? Thanks! Randi Shade Austin City Council Council Member Place 3 (512) 974-2255 (phone) (512) 974-1888 (fax) http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/council/shade .htm From: Coleman, Glen Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2010 10:48 AM To: Riley, Chris; Shade, Randi Subject: RE: Please postpone agenda item #29 Yes, but demolition based applications would not be touched - I think that clause one speaks and two is silent on that issue - but I’m not the lawyer. *hurt* It won’t to spell it out in clause two if you feel we need to - From: Riley, Chris Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2010 10:43 AM To: Shade, Randi Cc: Coleman, Glen Subject: RE: Please postpone agenda item #29 I agree with the intent -- but as I read the current draft, the 1-per-month cap in paragraph 2 would trump paragraph 1 if the HLC wanted to initiate >1 case in historic districts in one month when the other two slots are filled. From: Shade, Randi Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2010 10:36 AM To: Riley, Chris Cc: Coleman, Glen Subject: RE: Please postpone agenda item #29 I saw this email earlier and have asked Glen look into this. But, when a demolition permit is involved then HLC can initiate a HZ case. That’s the point of #1. Perhaps, we should include re-location and demolition in #1. What we are trying to prevent is having the connected folks simply ask HLC to initiate a case if/when the slots are already filled in a given month. Randi Shade Austin City Council Council Member Place 3 (512) 974-2255 (phone) (512) 974-1888 (fax) bttp://Yww.cLausti1.stcQunc1l/shacle.htm From: Riley, Chris Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2010 10:30 AM To: Shade, Randi 4/14/2011 Page 4 of 5 Subject: FW: Please postpone agenda item #29 About this point: More threatening, the language in (2) contains no exception for demolition or any other permits, meaning that the Commission would have no ability to initiate a case in a NRHD or LHD once the slots are taken, regardless of the merit or significance of the property. This creates an incentive for those seeking to scrape a potentially-historic structure to simply wait until the slots are filled, and then file a demolition or relocation permit. Should we delete the words “and Historic Landmark Commission-initiated’ from paragraph (2)? From: Rosemary Merriam [ Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2010 10:12 AM To: Leffingwell, Lee; Martinez, Mike [Council Member]; Cole, Sheryl; Morrison, Laura; Riley, Chris; Shade, Randi; Spelman, William Cc: Wilson, Beverly; Williams, Nancy; Moore, Andrew; Garza, Bobby; Rush, Barbara; Levinski, Robert; Left, Lewis; Ballas, Marisa; Coleman, Glen; Bier, Marti; Gerbracht, Heidi; English, Barksdale; McDonald, Stephanie; Everhart, Amy; Nathan, Mark; Curtis, Matt Subject: Please postpone agenda item #29 Dear Mayor, Council Members and Staff, I am writing to request that you postpone agenda item #29 at your June 10, 2010 Council meeting. The posted information for the agenda item is SIGNIFICANTLY different than the language unveiled to you today. No member of the public including the neighborhood has been able to look at these changes. I am having difficulty understanding why this is so specific and why have you not solicited public comment? This Council has publically committed itself to operating in a transparent fashion, and the public should have the ability, at a minimum, to be able to review and comment on what is being proposed. Although this is to initiate a code change, this is very directive. The resolution on-line: - Does not mention allowing changes to the whole structure of the historic program. The new, unpublicized language you are reviewing states that the City Manager will work with the HLC.. .“and make recommendations to Council...on any other aspects of the historic property identification and designation process”. The whole structure of the program is at stake with this new wording. No mention of such authority is in the posted resolution. - States “Limit the number of owner-initiated and Historic Landmark Commission-initiated historic landmark nominations which are located in National Register Historic Districts or Local Historic Districts to one per month”. The new language makes this one per month cumulative, not one per district. - States this is a temporary measure, while the materials you have before you would make this measure PERMANENT. In addition to these unpublicized changes this resolution is being rushed without considering some significant unintended consequences. The Historic Landmark Commission has limited powers with respect to review of demolition, relocation, remodel and general building permits. Generally, the Commission must approve a permit within a period of time or initiate historic zoning. Limiting the ability of the Commission to initiate historic zoning takes away the only enforcement mechanism 4/14/2011 Page 5 of 5 available to protect structures. The wording also oniy addresses demolitions, when they review other permits as well. More threatening, the language in (2) contains no exception for demolition or any other permits, meaning that the Commission would have no ability to initiate a case in a NRHD or LHD once the slots are taken, regardless of the merit or significance of the property. This creates an incentive for those seeking to scrape a potentially-historic structure to simply wait until the slots are filled, and then file a demolition or relocation permit. If the issue is owner-initiated cases, the language regarding the Commission is not necessary, and it would create an obvious hole in the program. If Council takes away this authority, the permits would have to be approved regardless of the merit or significance of the property, with no appeal rights to Planning Commission or Council. If the authority remains with the Commission, Council retains the discretion to approve or disapprove all cases initiated by the HLC. Taking away the authority of the HLC to act in this manner and limiting owner-initiated cases would likely threaten the City’s status as a Certified Local Government under State Law, placing any and all grant opportunities and tax benefits at significant risk. Has the Texas Historical Commission been consulted to determine the risk to the City? For these reasons, we would respectfully request a postponement on this item so a full discussion with all stakeholders can take place. Sincerely, Rosemary Merriam and George Warmingham 4/14/2011 Page 1 of2 Doherty, Deborah From: Shade, Randi Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2010 4:15 PM To: Levinski, Robert Cc: McDonald, Michael [APD]; Morrison, Laura Subject: Re: More details This is the first I am hearing about this. I want more info when it becomes available, and I really appreciate you contacting inc about this now. Randi Shade 512-974-2255 (o) http ://www. ci. austin.tx.us/council/shade.htm On Jun 8, 2010, at 4:07 PM, “Levinski, Robert” <[email protected]> wrote: The details seem to be a little different than originally rumored, but I thought you should see this. It still appears to be sensitive. Bobby Robert J. Levinski Policy Advisor Office of Council Member Laura Morrison Austin City Council. Place 4 http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/council/morrison.htm <imageOO2.jpg> From: Randall Terrell Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2010 4:04 PM To: Chuck Smith; Levinski, Robert Subject: More details I’m still working off of hearsay from Libby, who interviewed own of the victims (Moreau). Happened on memorial weekend. 1:30 a.m. or so. Didn’t say which day. Driver (Cody) was busted for DWI with no sobriety tests upon coming out of Applebees parking lot at 290 and MoPac.