5.2 - 1205 Cotton St - presentation — original pdf

Backup

1205 COTTON STREET APPLICATION FOR DEMOLITION H I S T O R I C L A N D M A R K C O M M I S S I O N 1 2 0 5 C O T T O N S T R E E T . A U S T I N , T X 7 8 7 0 2 P R E L I M I N A R Y - N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N | O C T O B E R 2 0 2 4 | 1 of 13 1205 Cotton - The property owners’ intention is to build a 2-story single family home with a detached garage. They bought the property for the size of the lot and its location. FRONT YARD SIDE YARD CONTEXT PLAN NOT TO SCALE EXISTING BUILDING BUILT IN 1932, WITH LATER ADDITIONS. GARAGE (NOT ORIGINAL) SIDE YARD PROJECT OVERVIEW H I S T O R I C L A N D M A R K C O M M I S S I O N 1 2 0 5 C O T T O N S T R E E T . A U S T I N , T X 7 8 7 0 2 P R E L I M I N A R Y - N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N | O C T O B E R 2 0 2 4 | 2 of 13 The East Austin Historic Resource Survey (2016) lists the property as not eligible for individual local or national designation as a historic landmark. The survey found that the home lacks noteworthy architectural attributes. 2016 EAST AUSTIN HISTORIC RESOURCE SURVEY H I S T O R I C L A N D M A R K C O M M I S S I O N 1 2 0 5 C O T T O N S T R E E T . A U S T I N , T X 7 8 7 0 2 P R E L I M I N A R Y - N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N | O C T O B E R 2 0 2 4 | 3 of 13 According to Standard 9 of the The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties exterior alterations must not destroy historic materials, features that characterize the property. The new should be compatible with the historic materials. The introduction of modern materials disrupts the original design, craftsmanship, and appearance, leading to a signifi cant alteration of the building’s historical aesthetics. PLYWOOD WAS NOT A TYPICAL MATERIAL USED IN THE 1930s. IN THE EARLY 20TH CENTURY THE AVAILABILITY OF STONE IN TEXAS MIGHT HAVE FURTHER REDUCED THE NEED FOR CONCRETE IN CRAFTSMAN HOUSES, AS LOCAL STONE WAS OFTEN PREFERRED FOR FOUNDATIONS AND CHIMNEYS. CONCRETE, WHICH WAS SEEN AS A MODERN AND INDUSTRIAL MATERIAL, WOULD NOT TYPICALLY HAVE BEEN USED IN THESE HOMES THAT WERE CHARACTERIZED BY A PREFERENCE FOR NATURAL MATERIALS BASED ON THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR’S STANDARDS FOR THE TREATMENT OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES THE INTRODUCTION OF NON-HISTORIC MATERIALS OR INCOMPATIBLE NEW CONSTRUCTION CAN ERODE THE INTEGRITY. MODERN MATERIALS LIKE ALUMINUM WINDOWS ARE INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE HISTORICAL CHARACTER THAT ORIGINALLY USED WOOD WINDOWS. THIS “BOAT PATCH” INDICATES THE MATERIAL IS PLYWOOD LAYERS OF PLYWOOD EVIDENT. THE TRIM AT THE COLUMNS IS MODERN, AS EVIDENT BY THE PRE-PRIMED SURFACE. LACK OF ARCHITECTURAL INTEGRITY H I S T O R I C L A N D M A R K C O M M I S S I O N 1 2 0 5 C O T T O N S T R E E T . A U S T I N , T X 7 8 7 0 2 P R E L I M I N A R Y - N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N | O C T O B E R 2 0 2 4 | 4 of 13 According to Standard 9 of the The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties exterior alterations must not destroy historic materials, features that characterize the property. The new should be compatible with the historic materials. The introduction of modern materials disrupts the original design, craftsmanship, and appearance, leading to a signifi cant alteration of the building’s historical aesthetics. THIS PLYWOOD SOFFIT IS NOT ORIGINAL. TRADITIONALLY BEAD BOARD WAS USED. TRADITIONALLY THE MATERIAL INSIDE THE PORCH FURR DOWN MATCHES THE SIDING. THIS MATCHES THE WALL SHOWN TO THE RIGHT THAT WAS THE REAR OF THE HOME. YOU CAN SEE EXAMPLES OF TRADITIONAL METHODS IN THE PHOTOS BELOW FROM OTHER BUNGALOWS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THIS IMAGE SHOWS EXTERIOR SIDING THAT IS DIFFERENT FROM THE WATERFALL SIDING AT THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE AND LEADS US TO QUESTION WHAT THE ORIGINAL SIDING OF THE HOUSE WAS. PHOTOS ABOVE SHOW EXAMPLES OF TRADITIONAL CRAFTSMAN BUNGALOW PORCH FURR DOWN MATERIAL. H I S T O R I C L A N D M A R K C O M M I S S I O N 1 2 0 5 C O T T O N S T R E E T . A U S T I N , T X 7 8 7 0 2 P R E L I M I N A R Y - N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N | O C T O B E R 2 0 2 4 | 5 of 14 The Sandborn maps confi rm the home has been modifi ed from its original construction in 1932 (see Sandborn maps and commentary on slide 15). The fl oorplan on the previous page shows the modifi cations to the original structure. NOT PART OF ORIGINAL STRUCTURE ORIGINALLY THE BACK PORCH (NOW ENCLOSED) ORIGINAL 1932 HOME PORCH AREA NOT SHOWN ON SANDBORN MAP EXISTING FLOOR PLAN (N.T.S.) H I S T O R I C L A N D M A R K C O M M I S S I O N 1 2 0 5 C O T T O N S T R E E T . A U S T I N , T X 7 8 7 0 2 P R E L I M I N A R Y - N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N | O C T O B E R 2 0 2 4 | 6 of 13 The Structural Engineer has concluded that the structure is unsound, and any repair defi cient/unsafe. SNIPPETS FROM THE ENGINEER’S REPORT BELOW. THE FULL ENGINEER’S REPORT IS ENCLOSED AS EXHIBIT A. IN FURTHER SUPPORT WE HAVE INCLUDED THE INSPECTION AS EXHIBITB. STRUCTURAL ENGINEER REPORT H I S T O R I C L A N D M A R K C O M M I S S I O N 1 2 0 5 C O T T O N S T R E E T . A U S T I N , T X 7 8 7 0 2 P R E L I M I N A R Y - N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N | O C T O B E R 2 0 2 4 | 7 of 13 The front of the bungalow has extensive damage and rot and is structurally unsound. Little, if any, fabric could be saved during a renovation of this home. MOST OF THIS FRONT FACADE IS DETERIORATING THE CHIMNEY HAS INSUFFICIENT SUPPORT CREATING INSTABILITY AND WOULD NEED TO BE REMOVED. ROOF AND ROOF FRAMING WOULD NEED TO BE ENTIRELY RE-BUILT DUE TO IMPROPER CONNECTIONS, WATER INFILTRATION AND SAGGING ALL WINDOWS NEED TO BE REPLACED WALLS NEED TO BE RE-BUILT AND ALL SIDING NEEDS TO BE REPLACED WOOD COLUMNS NEED TO BE RE-BUILT THE CONCRETE ON THE COLUMNS, MOST LIKELY, IS NOT ORIGINAL DUE TO LARGE CRACKS IN THE PORCH FLOOR IT WOULD NEED TO BE DEMO’D AND RE-POURED THE FLOOR JOISTS SHOW CONSIDERABLE SIGNS OF DETERIORATION AND WOULD NEED TO BE REPAIRED OR REPLACED THE HOUSE WILL REQUIRE ALL NEW FOUNDATION. THE EXISTING PIERS ARE SITTING DIRECTLY ON THE GROUND. THIS REQUIRES OPENING UP THE FLOORS AND ROOF AND POURING THE FOOTERS FROM ABOVE. THIS HAS A BIG COST IMPLICATION. EXAMPLES OF REPAIR WORK H I S T O R I C L A N D M A R K C O M M I S S I O N 1 2 0 5 C O T T O N S T R E E T . A U S T I N , T X 7 8 7 0 2 P R E L I M I N A R Y - N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N | O C T O B E R 2 0 2 4 | 8 of 13 ROTTEN WOOD AT FRONT COLUMNS NEEDS TO BE REPLACED ROTTEN WOOD SIDING AT ROOF CONNECTION NEEDS TO BE REPLACED SAGGING BEAM AT FRONT PORCH WOOD SIDING IS WARPED AND NEEDS TO BE REPLACED ROTTEN WOOD AT FRONT COLUMNS NEEDS TO BE REPLACED ROTTEN WOOD UNDER EAVE LARGE CRACK IN THE MIDDLE OF THE FRONT PORCH COLUMN DAMAGE EXTERIOR DAMAGE H I S T O R I C L A N D M A R K C O M M I S S I O N 1 2 0 5 C O T T O N S T R E E T . A U S T I N , T X 7 8 7 0 2 P R E L I M I N A R Y - N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N | O C T O B E R 2 0 2 4 | 9 of 13 THIS WINDOW HAS NAILS IN JAMBS TO HOLD IT UP IN PLACE. ROTTEN SASH NEEDS TO BE REPLACED AND NEEDS NEW SEALS BROKEN GLASS AND PAINTED SHUT NEEDS NEW SEALS AND PAINTED SHUT WINDOW IS NOT ORGINAL ROOF LINE IS SAGGING AT REAR AND THE CHIMNEY IS PULLING DOWN ON THE STRUCTURE. FRONT PORCH HAS SEPARATED FROM HOUSE DUE TO EXTENSIVE DAMAGE TO THE ROOF FRAMING, IT WOULD NEED TO BE RE-BUILT EXTERIOR DAMAGE H I S T O R I C L A N D M A R K C O M M I S S I O N 1 2 0 5 C O T T O N S T R E E T . A U S T I N , T X 7 8 7 0 2 P R E L I M I N A R Y - N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N | O C T O B E R 2 0 2 4 | 1 0 of 13 Demolition and reconstruction is not inconsistenet with the fabric of the neighborhood. 1200 COTTON ST BUILT 2014 1202 COTTON ST BUILT 2013 1203 COTTON ST BUILT 1950 1204 COTTON ST BUILT 2014 1206 COTTON ST BUILT 2022 1207 COTTON ST BUILT 1928 1209 COTTON ST / BUILT 1926/2010 (ADDED 2ND FLOOR / REDID) 1214 COTTON ST BUILT 2014 1190 SAN BERNARD ST (VIEW FROM COTTON ST) 1178 SAN BERNARD ST HAS A SECOND STORY ADDITION AND THE DIAMOND WINDOW IS NOT ORIGINAL THE LARGER MAJORITY OF THE ORIGINAL HOME HAS NOT BEEN KEPT, IF ANY NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES H I S T O R I C L A N D M A R K C O M M I S S I O N 1 2 0 5 C O T T O N S T R E E T . A U S T I N , T X 7 8 7 0 2 P R E L I M I N A R Y - N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N | O C T O B E R 2 0 2 4 | 1 1 of 13 Demolition has neighbor support. NEIGHBORS’ SUPPORTING LETTERS H I S T O R I C L A N D M A R K C O M M I S S I O N 1 2 0 5 C O T T O N S T R E E T . A U S T I N , T X 7 8 7 0 2 P R E L I M I N A R Y - N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N | O C T O B E R 2 0 2 4 | 1 2 of 13 The Sandborn maps confi rm the home has been modifi ed from its original construction in 1932. The fl oorplan on the previous page shows the modifi cations to the original structure. OUR RESEARCH INDICATES THE HOME CURRENTLY LOCATED AT 1205 COTTON WAS BUILT IN 1932. THIS IS INCONSISTENT WITH HLC’s RESEARCH. THE SANBORN MAPS BELOW SHOWCASE THIS. -MAP BELOW SHOWS HOME AT 1205 COTTON, INCLUDING THE BACK PORCH THAT WOULD LATER BE ENCLOSED AFTER MRS. YERWOOD’S DEATH IN 1977 -SHOWS HOME THAT WAS MOVED FROM 1203 COTTON IN THE REAR YARD. -WE BELIEVE THE ORIGINAL STRUCTURE WAS INTACT AT THIS TIME Year 1900 Year 1921 Year 1972 SANBORN MAPS H I S T O R I C L A N D M A R K C O M M I S S I O N 1 2 0 5 C O T T O N S T R E E T . A U S T I N , T X 7 8 7 0 2 P R E L I M I N A R Y - N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N | O C T O B E R 2 0 2 4 | 1 3 of 13