D.14.3 - 3400 Hillview Road - supporting documents — original pdf

Backup

Alton E. Greeven, P.E. Consulting Engineer, TBPE Firm F-18 2 6 1 1 W o o d m o n t A v e . Austin, Texas 78703 P h o n e 5 1 2 - 4 7 7 - 8 8 11 - F a x 5 1 2 ^ 7 4 - 2 2 6 6 a m June 21, 2010 Mr. Lloyd Lochridge 3 4 0 0 H i l l v i e w Austin, Texas 78703 a m Rio Clay: Pursuant to your request, the undersigned visited your residence on June, 19, 2010. The purpose for this visit was to address the following concerns: 1) excessive differential foundation movement has occurred since our structural surveys of September 1988, June 1996, and March 1999, requiring additional foundation underpinning, and 2) the residence is unsafe. Based on exterior and interior observations the following is concluded: ●Vertical foundation movement has occurred since 1999; ●The cause for this movement, see the enclosed previous reports, is the underlying Del ●Although vertical and horizontal foundation movement is causing problems with respect to the appearance of the exterior masonry work, interior partitions, and terrazzo floors, this movement has not progressed to the point where the structural performance of the residence or the safety of the inhabitants is impaired; ●No additional underpinning is recommended at this time; ●Considering the antiquated structural framing system of this residence, see previous reports, any required structural remediation of any component framing member may or may not be possible. And, if possible, would be extremely expensive; ●Expect continued foundation movement to occur as it has in the past requiring remedial cosmetic repair of walls, flooring, and ceilings. Also, repair or replacement of component structural members and additional foundation underpinning may be required; and ●Continue to monitor these movements, and should they appear excessive, contact a structural or ageotechnical engineer to issue instructions. Should you require additional service, please contact me. The professional services that form the basis for this opinion have been performed using that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised under similar circumstances, by reputable engineers practicing in the same locality. No other representation expressed or implied, and no warranty or guarantee is included or intended with regard to the professional advice set forth herein. The results, conclusions and recommendations contained in this report are directed at, and intended to be utilized within the scope of work contained in the oral proposal executed by Alton E. Greeven, Jr, P. E., and client This report is not Intended to be used for any other purposes. Alton E. Greeven makes no claim or representation concerning any activity or condition falling outside the specified purposes to which this report is directed, said purposes being specifically defined in said oral agreement Inquiries as to said scope of work or concerning any activity or condition not specifically contained therein should be directed to Alton E. Greeven, Jr, P. E., for determination and, if necessary, further Investigation. / m / m m u , / a m " . . 3 3 Q D ( O ( J 7 1 > E 7 a D ■ Q ) Q D ( 5 N ( I l M ) I ) J I I I 1 i s m Structural Condition Study 3 4 0 0 H i l l v i e w Austin, Texas 78703 Report to: Lloyd Lochridge Submitted by: Alton E. Greeven, Jr., P. E. Consulting Engineer A u s t i n , Te x a s M a r c h 1 9 9 9 March 22, 1999 Mr. Lloyd Lochrldge 3 4 0 0 H i l l v i e w Austin, Texas 78703 Following your instructions, alimited structural condition study of your residence was initiated by the undersigned on March 18,1999. The purpose for the study was to assess the importance of cracked and crushed masonry at the lower corner of the dining room/kitchen door and diagonal cracking in this wall. Pursuant to this task, two trips to the site, March 19 and 22, were necessary to observe, photograph, and measure existing framing conditions. This report is based on exterior and interior observations. No testing of materials, inspection for insect infestation, elevation measurements, or destructive investigations were performed. For the purposes of this study, the house faces east on Hillview. Observations indicated that the foundation has moved considerably since my studies of September 1988 and June 1996. This movement is evidenced by the cracking and crushing at the above mentioned masonry wall. To investigate whether or not this recent movement is the result of amajor foundation failure, it was necessary to observe foundation conditions from the crawl space. Accordingly, observations were made and photographs taken, see appendix, from beneath the dinning room and the kitchen. Findings from these o b s e r v a t i o n s a r e r e c o r d e d b e l o w. From under the dinning room. ●Certain intermediate concrete block (emu) piers have cracked, see photographs; Lochridge Study Page 2 ●Certain intermediate 4x6 wood floor support beams are cantilevered, see photographs; a n d ●Intermediate emu piers supporting the 4x6beams are spaced too far apart; ●The duct opening through the existing masonry bearing wall below the crushed door frame has been widened, see photographs. This widening has undermined the end support for the header joist framing the opening. F r o m u n d e r t h e k i t c h e n . Conditions at the duct opening are similar to those observed at the dining r o o m ; South of the duct opening and adjacent to the transverse wall, an opening approximately 5’ -6” long xT-0” deep has been cut through the continuous masonry footing. This cut was more likely than not made to facilitate the construction of the intermediate support beams under the dinning room and living room floors. This cut has resulted in excess deflection of the floor above; When entering the crawl space from the garage, it was noted that the masonry bearing wall separating the kitchen from the garage has deflected horizontally approximately 1-1/2-inches at mid-height; and In general, the soil in the crawl space is damp. As stated in reports of 1988 and 1996, the cause for the foundation movements and resulting distress to the floors, walls, and trim is the underlying Del Rio Clay. From our discussion on March 18, it is understood that you intend to live in this residence for ten years. / M y / M y Based on the foregoing the following corrective measures are recommended: Replace all cracked intermediate emu piers. This may require temporary shoring each side of the pier; Support the cantilevered ends of all support beams with emu piers; Add emu piers to support the 4x6beams so that the spacing between piers is not more than 4’ -0”; At the duct opening below the kitchen/dinning room door, reinforce the header joist each side of the opening. See attached detail; At the opening cut through the continuous masonry footing, reinforce as shown on the attached detail; Lochridge Study Page 3 Stiffen the garage wall as shown on the attached detail. These details may require revision pending adetailed study of their effect to the interior wall surfaces; Provide foundation vents based on the following; 1square foot of vent area to every 150 square feet of under floor area. The vents should be located as near corners as possible and provide for cross ventilation; The bearing wails, especially the wall at the kitchen/dining room, should be monitored for major displacements. Should major displacements occur, the continuous masonry footing should be stiffened. See attached detail; and The cracked and crushed masonry at the kitchen/dining room door is the result of diffrential foundation movements and not amajor collapse of the masonry footing. / a m , The above recommendations cover only those structural deficiencies observed during this study. it should be recognized, considering the type of construction of the foundation and the high shrink/swell potential of the underlying soil, that the foundation will move much as it has in the past; there is not apractical method to stabilize this foundation. Therefore, abudget should be established, based on past history, for remedial repairs (e.g., taping, floating, painting, plastering and pointing masonry, aligning doors, etc.). Should you require additional service, please contact me. The professional services that form the basis for this opinion have been performed using that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised under similar circumstances, by reputable engineers practicing in the same locality. No other representation expressed or implied, and no warranty or guarantee is included or intended with regard to the professional advice set forth herein. The results, conclusions and recommendations contained in this report are directed at, and intended to be utilized within the scope of work contained in the oral proposal executed by Alton E. Greeven, Jr., P. E., and client. This report is not intended to be used for any other purposes. Alton E. Greeven makes no claim or representation concerning any activity or condition falling outside the specified purposes to which this report is directed, said purposes being specifically defined in said oral agreement. Inquiries as to said scope of work or concerning any activity or condition not specifically contained therein should be directed to Alton E. Greeven, Jr., P. E., for determination and, if necessary, further investigation. / a m , / a a t , / a m , . Lochridge Study Page 4 Sincerely, Alton E. Greeven, Jr, P. E. Ic \ A / r " n n r r n r r f c ( ( r r : ( : f ' n 1 ; c i ; ( J 1 . U L L . L . L . L . L . L . Appeal of Lloyd P. Lochridge, Jr. to the Travis Appraisal Review Board from the 2010 Alleged Market Value for the .71 acres of land and improvements at 3400 Hillview Road You may be surprised that the appraiser’s figure of $779,909.00 is more than 40 times the assessed value of $19,110.00 some 50 years earlier in 1960. However, Irealize that the controlling questions for your decision are the fair market value, of the improvements and land on January 1, 2010. Exhibit 1, an historical record of assessed values for 3400 Hillview Road from 1960 to 2010 demonstrates that in the 40 years from 1960 to 2000 the Travis County Appraiser increased the total market value by 19 times the 1960 market value. Then, in the next 10 years from 2000 to 2010 the Appraiser proposes amarket value of $779,909.00 and an assessed value of $768,653.00 an additional 21 times the 1960 figure for atotal increase to 40 times the 1960 figure. During these 50 years the land has not changed. Neither have the improvements except as to age. The Appraiser probably will agree that this states the facts but say that the question is whether the proposed market value of $779,909.00 and assessed value of $768,653.00 now reflects the actual market value of the improvements and land at 3400 Hillview Road. Isubmit they do not. Exhibit 2consists of 5reports on inspection and work done by Alton E. Greeven, P.E., aconsulting engineer. These reports are dated as follows: September 30, 1988 June 3, 1996 March 22, 1999 August 10, 1999 June 21, 2010 r n n r n r r r r r f ' ; r ^ ( ^ ( r ( ( f ( c ; ( J O o t ; L U U L . L . L . L . L . L . L . L . 1 Mr. Greeven in his September 30, 1988 report describes the improvements at 3400 Hillview Road as follows: U The residence is atwo-story masonry structure built approximately fifty years ago. The first, second and attic floors are suspended reinforced concrete ribbed slabs with aterrazzo finish on the first and second levels. The structural components of the ribbed slabs were formed by using hollow clay tile masonry umts. The joists or ribs are clay tile units filled with concrete and reinforced with steel reinforcing bars. Joists are spaced approximately twenty-four (24) inches on center. The floor joists span to interior and exterior load bearing masonry walls. The load bearing walls are supported on continuous footings on grade. Depth of joists, slabs thickness, and size of reinforcing steel could not be determined for lack of as-built drawings. You will want to read these reports in full but engineer Greeven continues in his most recent report of June 21, 2010 to state: “Expect continued foundation movement to occur as it has in the past requiring remedial cosmetic repair of walls, flooring and ceilings. Also, repair or replacement of component structural members and additional foundation underpinning may be required,... 9 9 In 1980, before Mr. Greeven was consulted, we in our family observed that the center of the living room 18 by 24 foot concrete terazo floor had dropped and become 8 or 10 inches lower than the levels of the floor at the four sides of the room. Iobtained the assistance of an experienced house moving contractor who came in with his crew in the crawl space beneath the first floor slab. He installed two or three I-beams about the size of railroad tracks. These ran beneath the living room longitudinally and perpendicular below the failing clay joists supporting the living room. Then using jacks he was able to - 9 . n n r n ' r n r r n r r f r r r n ( f i ( ; : : c : U U l ; L . L . L . L . L - L . bring the living room floor back to level. The I-beams were supported by masonry columns on grade. This experience coupled with observations of our own in the area of the kitchen and dining room brought about the consultation with Mr. Greeven in 1988 and again in 1996 and 1999 when supporting work was done on the kitchen/garage wall and the failing area beneath the kitchen and dining room and the masonry wall between them. Mr. Greeven’s drawings of reinforcements for the kitchen/garage wall and in the area of the kitchen and dining room floors are part of his reports. That wall was also deteriorating. Before Mr. Greeven did his work in 1996 or 1999 Ihad conferred with abuilding contractor who has done work on the houses of other members of our family here in Austin. He went under the house in the crawl space to see what was going on in the kitchen/dining room area and then called me at the office saying that he thought that no member of our family should spend another night in the house. It was not safe. Ihave been comforted by engineer Greeven’s different conclusion that there is not an issue of risk but his conclusion that continued foundation movement will occur, thanks to underlying Del Rio clay and his saying that any required structural remediation may not be possible or if possible would be extremely expensive is very troubling. Ithink all this affects the value of this 75 year old improvement at 3400 Hillview Road. At the informal hearing that Ihad with Residential Appraiser Stacey J. Poole in June 4, 2010 Idescribed the foundation and Del Rrio clay problems and told him that I had brought these to the attention of the appraiser’s office at times in the past. He said that it would be important that pictures be provided showing manifestations of all this. - j - r n r n n n r r r r r r r f " ' ' f r n c o o o u C ) CJ L . L . L . L - L . L . L . L . L . Accordingly, pictures were taken on June 20, 2010. Exhibit 3are those pictures showing cracks in walls, filled cracks in floors, reinforcements in the kitchen/dining room area and other visual effects of this problem. It was not possible for the photographer to get as far in the crawl space to that below the living room so Iask you to take my word for that. These supporting iron or steel beams are there supported by masonry columns on grade. Exhibit 3contains recent photographs of the visual effects of the structural problem and so do pictures and drawings in Mr. Greeven’s work. Effect of the Structure on the Value of the Improvements We have never offered 3400 Hillview Road for sale but that time may come at which time any prospective purchaser will be informed. It is my opinion that any such prospect wanting such alarge house would wish to have one free from these structural problems and such apurchaser is likely to want far more modem fixtures and decor than the accommodations in our 75 year old house provide. It is therefore likely that any ready, willing and able purchaser would be unwilling to attach any value to these brick, clay and concrete improvements and would only want the land at 3400. In that event, there would be nothing but large expense in tearing down the improvements and nothing of substantial value would be realized from the brick, tile and antiquated fixtures. Value of the Land and Comparable Information Provided bv the Appraiser The Appraiser’s office has provided information about 12 properties said to be comparable. (See Exhibit 4) Some of these are located in the same sort of residential area as 3400. Some are located miles away. Most of them are shown to have about - 4 - " ' r n r n r r r r r n n r r r f n r a ( O O U ( _ U U L . L . 3500-3800 square feet of living area. That alone is not enough to make them comparable to 3400 which is said to have 3800 square feet of living area.. The improvements at 3400 Hillview Road were constructed in 1935. According to the data sheets provided by the appraiser for the 12 “comparable” properties their dates o f c o n s t r u c t i o n w e r e : 1959, 1950, 1954, 1968, 1947, 1950, 1940, 1971, 1956, 1946, 1950, and 1960. These houses are from 12 to 29 years “younger” than 3400’s. On June 27, 2010, we took pictures of seven of these so-called comparable properties. (See Exhibit 5) Not one of them has any resemblance to the kind of improvements that are located on 3400 Hillview Road. Most of them are single story houses. Their construction is totally different. It is extremely unlikely that any of them have such serious structural problems as exist at 3400. Comparison of Appraiser’s Continuing Increase in Valuations With Data Indicating Declining Values in Recent Years Exhibit 6is data based on residential sales in Austin, Texas available from the Texas Real Estate Service at Texas A&M. This shows that in the period from about 2008 to 2010 that residential sales in Austin were bringing 8% less than they had in 2008. At the same time, in 2008, 2009 and 2010, the Travis County Appraiser increased his estimate of the market value of 3400 Hillview Road by at least 12%. The net difference reflects an excess of 20% in the Travis County Appraiser’s figures which are contrary to decreasing property values in t h i s m a r k e t . This is borne out by the three comparable sales in 2009 provided by the Appraiser (Exhibit 7). These three sales show a23% decline in one property and 20% decline in - 5 - n r n r r r n r n r r r r r ( f n n o o o ' ( ) L ) U L . L L . U L . U L . L . L . i . each of the other two properties from the appraisal figures of the Travis County Appraiser for these properties. C o n c l u s i o n The Travis County Appraiser’s proposed market value of $779,909.00 should be reduced by at least 20% and perhaps more if you agree there is no fair market value of $219,080 attributed by the Travis county Appraiser to the 75 year old improvements at 3400 Hillview Road. Lloyd P. Lochridge, Jr. * July 14, 2010 - 6 - I t a e - f " - ' - ● * . > - f 4 i ^ ; ● - i f -<■ t t . ■*.■ ■; - f . m m f n n Another picture of crawl space below kitchen and dining room showing masonry supports of floor joists i r ' V * " r & J Picture of substructure below kitchen and dining room area showing jack remaining in place . t s * « > i ^ r . - r ● Area beneath dining room showing masonry block installation supporting floor joists Area below room on west side of garage showing concrete masonry supports of floor joists, the installation of which was made prior to 1959 Another photograph of supporting masonry column believed to have been installed prior to 1959 under floor of room on west side of garage