Come Thanksgiving, one’s thoughts inevitably drift to history: to past family gatherings around the bird, to misty (and perhaps imaginary) memories of successful Dallas Cowboys seasons, even to that initial autumnal gathering in the New World at which the American Indians and pilgrims candied apples together. (Thanks to tea party historians, of course, we now know that first feast in fact celebrated the triumph of unfettered capitalism going Galt over prematurely Stalinist socialism – take that, Squanto!)
It’s fitting then that last week’s City Council meeting also dwelt in the past, including suddenly controversial historic district zoning for Hyde Park, recommendations related to the more-controversial-still historic landmark zoning program, and even the odd historic zoning requests. Someone could’ve pushed a Swiffer through council chambers, such was the dusty, musty stench of history!
In contrast to the city’s historic landmark zoning, which rebates large portions of a homeowner’s tax bill, historic districts are far less costly. Unlike landmark zoning, which sets a 100% city tax exemption on the structure and 50% on the land essentially ad infinitum as long as the place is maintained, properties in a historic district are eligible for only a seven-year abatement on the added value of their historic rehab, as long as rehab totals 25% of the property’s pre-improvement value. (Say a $400,000 house in Hyde Park spends $100,000 on historic rehab, and when finished, it’s appraised at $550,000. Once approved by the Historic Landmark Commission, property taxes on that extra $150,000 are abated for the next seven years.)
Of course, there’s more to historic districts than just abatement, including the Historic Landmark Commission paying more attention to building demolition, relocation, and remodels. For instance, the design standards laid out in the Hyde Park application note, “Demolition of all structures, including non-contributing structures, is strongly discouraged under all circumstances.” For remodels, front doors can’t be enlarged, altered, or relocated; front porches can’t be screened in; new construction and “contemporary design” is allowed, “as long as it fits ‘the architectural patterns of the neighborhood and its immediately surrounding structures,’ with concerns including ‘finished floor height, floor-to-floor heights, roof heights and pitches, fenestration pattern, porch size and location, setbacks, and an overall scale that reflects neighborhood patterns.'”
With the stage set for a showdown between preservationists and property-rights advocates, last week’s meeting didn’t disappoint. One skeptical Hyde Parker went so far as to say the submitted plan was in fact a bait-and-switch. Kevin Heyburn asked council to postpone action until January, alleging “the plan now before council is not the same plan that was circulated in the neighborhood when the Hyde Park Neighborhood Association originally gathered signatures in support of the historic district over the summer.”
Called to address Heyburn’s claims was the HPNA’s Karen McGraw, who conceded “in the last few months, many, many other things have happened. The city postponed in May and held another meeting where they notified everyone. The city asked for various changes. The neighborhood had a few changes. All of these were posted to the neighborhood website and voted upon at regular neighborhood meetings.”
Ultimately, the council proceeded with an approval vote on first reading, 6-0, with Hyde Park resident Bill Spelman abstaining. But the next and possibly final vote, set for Dec. 16, may face an additional wrinkle: Just prior to the meeting, Heyburn had submitted a petition in opposition to the district, and at the meeting, staff was sorting through the signatures to see if they reached the 20% benchmark that would force a supermajority vote for approval – meaning with Spelman’s abstention, the remaining six council members would all have to hang together for final approval.
If that wasn’t enough, passing on consent that morning – likely robbed of further scrutiny by the one-two punch of Water Treatment Plant No. 4 and Formula One that took up much of the meeting (see “All Rolled Up in Formula One“) – was an item from Council Members Spelman and Laura Morrison, extending the time for City Manager Marc Ott to make recommendations on the city’s existing historic preservation program and its economic impact; originally, Ott had until year’s end to issue them; the item stretches his deadline to the end of March.
And capping it all was a historic landmark zoning proposal for the Warner Stewart House, a residence in history-choked Pemberton Heights – this one once occupied by the early head of the Austin Housing Authority (and sitting pretty with a $981,000 appraisal). “I believe that we have a lot of Georgian revival or colonial revival houses in Pemberton already on our list,” said Spelman. “It’s in good use, and it’s not threatened in any way, so I’m not sure what public value is going to be accomplished by getting a historic zoning.”
After a little more conversation, Chris Riley issued his “usual note” accompanying most requests “that we are not only working on criteria for historic zoning but the benefits associated with historic zoning, and there may well be changes to those benefits in the future. And I would expect those changes would apply to this case as well as any other cases that we zone historic in the future.” Nevertheless, the proposal failed, historically, on second and third reading, 2-5, Riley and Morrison providing the lonely yeas.
After all, the city can gobble up only so many exemptions.
Stuffing delicious commentary into 140 characters: It’s @CityHallHustle on Twitter.
This article appears in November 26 • 2010.