D.9.c - 6800 Woodrow Ave - Citizen Comments — original pdf

Backup

March 18, 2021 Matt Sloan Owner, Wild Susan LLC RE: Case Number GF 21-015014 Comments for Consideration These comments are in relation to the demolition permit applied for on 6800 Woodrow Avenue 78757 (“First Cumberland” or “FCPC” hereafter) by Michael Tevis and/or a business interest of his (including but not limited to Intrinsic Ventures, Intrinsic Companies, and Woodrow Studios). I am the owner of a local candle business called Wild Susan and have a prior business relationship with the owner. This is a description of mine and my business’ experience with the aforementioned owner. On November 11, 2020, I responded to a posted ad for art studios for lease because my business was at the point of outgrowing my home studio and I needed a separate work space. I spoke with Mr. Tevis the same day, describing my business and what my use of a studio looks like. He responded favorably and I scheduled a walkthrough with Patrick Hill, the NAI Partners real estate broker, the following day. I described my business again to Mr. Hill, and we agreed that the space would be a good fit for my business needs. I signed the commercial lease on November 16, 2020 and began moving my production within the next few days. Within a couple weeks, I realized I needed more space for storage as 50lb boxes of wax take up a good bit of room, so I contacted Mr. Hill to lease another space in the building which was signed on December 14, 2020. On December 10, 2020, a substantial water leak occurred in a closet adjacent to my space, which damaged the protective floorboards I placed to avoid damaging the carped and forced me to dispose of them as well as some other business assets. I reported the leak and made no issue over the business property. The first (and only) time I met Mr. Tevis was on December 15, 2020 at a building-wide meeting. Prior to the meeting, Mr. Tevis commented to me that “I’m used to artists just piddling around in their studios, and you’re running a business.” Obviously, I was a bit taken aback for two reasons – one, I described in full detail in our initial discussions what I would be using the studio for, and yes, I run a business to support my family; two, if his view of artists is that they “piddle” around, does he really understand what they do or even care? He also removed a closet from my previously leased space claiming that it was needed for the building, and said I was using too much power. I made a handshake agreement to keep the rent the same with the reduced space if he felt I was using too much power. He then said “I value open communication, so keep this up.” About two weeks later, after not having heard a word from Mr. Tevis or any related parties, he called and said, “You have to move out. Your use is too industrial and other tenants are complaining about the smell.” Naturally, I wondered who was complaining, so I reached out to the other tenants of the building, only to find out it was one former tenant, and every other tenant I spoke with responded favorably. The “too industrial” aspect is just flatly not true, as my utility bill at home averages $7 more when my studio is here than when it’s not. I’m quite confident that Austin Energy would confirm that even their smallest industrial users far exceed that cost for their electricity alone. Over the course of a couple weeks in January, I vacated the space and sent invoice notification on February 4, 2021 for the return of the security deposit. This went wholly ignored until March 5, 2021, when Mr. Tevis responded to an e-mail I sent on March 3, 2021 to Lynn McAllister (the business manager for Woodrow Studios) inquiring where the deposit was. Mr. Tevis accused me of damaging the carpet, but quickly reversed course when I pointed out that I had photographic evidence of both before move-in and after move-out, as well as the water leak. Mr. Tevis then demanded that I sign an indemnity and release before he would refund my deposit, upon which I promptly refused (Why would I sign something saying I don’t hold you liable when you are trying to withhold money you owe me?). Finally, on March 8, 2021, both Mr. Tevis and Ms. McAllister insisted in multiple e-mails that the check was mailed. It wasn’t received until March 13, 2021 (no, mail across Austin doesn’t take that long) and was postmarked March 10, 2021. While this specific instance isn’t all that big of a deal, it directly speaks to the rampant dishonesty that Mr. Tevis and related parties have exhibited and continue to show. All of this forced me to do more research on FCPC and what is really going on here, and here’s what I’ve found: 1. The property is zoned SF-3 with a Civic designation a. The building is NOT being used for civic purposes b. Commercial art studios are a disallowed use under residential zoning – they are trying to get around this by calling it a “club,” but there are no bylaws or organization of a club c. The leases being written on the space are commercial leases, which would imply the building is being used for commercial purposes 2. The property has no working fire suppression system a. Since this is a commercial property, a working fire suppression system is required. b. There is at least one tenant living on the premises, making this an extremely dangerous There is not one present. omission. What do I believe needs to happen here? 1. The zoning commission should disallow use of the building as it is currently being used 2. The fire marshal should investigate the absence of a fire suppression system 3. The city attorney should investigate the illegal operation of a commercial building and pursue 4. The state’s attorney should have Mr. Tevis barred from participating in the real estate market in appropriate charges Texas Unfortunately, it is abundantly clear that Mr. Tevis is simply trying to take advantage of a “hot” Austin housing market by flipping a beautiful historical landmark into 16 residential lots for redevelopment. We need to ask the real question – is preserving the historical and cultural significance of this property more important than lining an out-of-towner’s pockets? I believe the answer is an obvious yes. The only thing “intrinstic” to Michael Tevis and the companies he owns or works with is unabated selfishness, and that doesn’t belong in the City of Austin or the State of Texas. Sincerely, Matt Sloan