HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION MARCH 22, 2021 DEMOLITION AND RELOCATION PERMITS GF-2021-015104 6800 WOODROW AVENUE D.9 - 1 PROPOSAL Demolish a 1956 church. ARCHITECTURE The First Cumberland Presbyterian Church comprises multiple interconnected gable-roofed buildings. The church sanctuary projects toward Woodrow Avenue, with a single lancet window in the end wall. The main entrance, set into a substantial Gothic arch surround, is under a dramatic, modern steeple set back and to the side of the sanctuary. Other wings have simpler architecture but are unified by their variegated orange brick cladding. RESEARCH First Cumberland Presbyterian Church was one of Austin’s oldest congregations, founded in 1846. The church was located at W. 7th and Lavaca streets from 1892 until 1955, when that building was demolished and a new church constructed at 6800 Woodrow Avenue. The new building included a sanctuary, fellowship hall, kitchen, and 15 classrooms. In 1968, the sanctuary was expanded and additional buildings constructed, including a gymnasium, chapel, and educational facilities. Architect Doyle M. Baldridge designed the 1956 building and six other Austin-area churches, including the Memorial Methodist Church (6100 Berkman Drive, 1958) and Ward Memorial Church (2105 Parker Lane, 1960), both extant. Baldrige practiced architecture in Austin from 1945 until his death in 1962, working as a designer at Giesecke, Kuehne and Brooks before establishing his own practice. From 1953–1957 he advised on all new construction and major repair projects of the University of Texas system. He served as treasurer of the Texas Society of Architects in 1956. STAFF COMMENTS 1) The building is more than 50 years old. 2) The building appears to retain high integrity. 3) Properties must meet two historic designation criteria for landmark designation (LDC §25-2-352). Staff has evaluated this church for designation as a historic landmark and has determined that it may not meet the criteria for landmark designation as set forth in City Code: a) Architecture. The church has a distinctive, midcentury modern design by local architect Doyle Baldridge and may qualify for historic landmark designation under this criterion. b) Historical association. Although associated with one of the oldest congregations in Austin, this building was constructed nearly 90 years after the church’s founding, and no significant events are known to have occurred at this site. c) Archaeology. The church was not evaluated for its potential to yield significant data concerning the human history or prehistory of the region. d) Community value. The church is not …
Brentwood Neighborhood Association Serving Our Neighborhood from 45th St. to Justin Lane and North Lamar to Burnet Road Metcalfe Wolff Stuart & Williams, LLP March 5, 2021 To: Michele Rogerson Lynch Re: 6800 Woodrow Ave. Thank you for attending our March 3rd Steering Committee meeting to apprise us of the redevelopment plans for 6800 Woodrow Ave. As presented at that meeting, the prospective buyer of this property has submitted a Demolition Permit for the church property. Further, they intend to re-develop the existing platted lots (zoned SF-3) as single family residential (as allowed under the Land Development Code). No variances or waivers will be sought, per the Applicant. In addition, good faith efforts will be made to retain and protect the existing trees. This church (along with several others on Woodrow Ave.) has been in place for many decades, but we understand that its current use is no longer viable. And given that the church architecture is not historically significant, we further acknowledge that this transition to a new use is inevitable. Therefore, the Brentwood Steering Committee has voted to not oppose this redevelopment. It is our hope that the new houses will provide greater opportunity for other residents of Austin to make Brentwood their home. Sincerely, Kristine Poland, BNA President
From: To: Subject: Date: Jennifer Awbrey PAZ Preservation Case Number GF 21-015104 - 6800 Woodrow Ave. Hearing Date Feb. 22, 2021 at 6 pm. Monday, February 22, 2021 4:44:13 PM *** External Email - Exercise Caution *** Dear Mr Rice, I am writing to express our objection to the demolition of the Historic Landmark located at 6800 Woodrow Ave. My husband, Joseph Munden, and I are property owners within 500 feet of the subject property. We live at 1402 Ruth Ave. As I am sure you know, First Cumberland Presbyterian Church is one of the oldest congregations in Austin. When they moved the congregation from downtown to Woodrow in the 1950’s, they built a beautiful and architecturally interesting church as their new home, about the same time our home was built. It is sad that the church closed, however the building continues to add beauty and historical value to our area. Today, in particular, the steeple and spire stand out as a picturesque landmark in our neighborhood, with a stunning green patina on the spire. I am lucky to be able to gaze out my back windows and enjoy a view of the steeple and spire, which is often topped by one of our area's birds of prey perched on the cross surveilling its surroundings. It would be a shame to lose such a beautiful sight and popular bird perch to the pressures of development. Surely, at least the steeple and spire portion of the building can be preserved. What’s the point of a Historic Landmark designation if all it takes is money to destroy it? I won't go into more pressure on our infrastructure, more traffic on our narrow neighborhood streets, etc. I am certain you are well aware of those issues. I hope you find in favor of preserving this beautiful neighborhood landmark. Best regards, Jennifer Awbrey CAUTION: This email was received at the City of Austin, from an EXTERNAL source. Please use caution when clicking links or opening attachments. If you believe this to be a malicious and/or phishing email, please forward this email to cybersecurity@austintexas.gov.
E E E E E HISTORIC LANDMARK INSPECTION RESULTS 2020-2021 Zoning Case Number Landmark Name Street Address Parcel # Result Fail Fail Fail Fail Fail Fail Fail Fail Fail Fail Fail Fail Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Driskill, Day & Ford Building Depot Hotel Horton - Duval House Sneed (Sebron) Home Nalle (Joseph) Building Risher - Roach Building (Part 2 Of 2) Mansbendel - Williams House Larmour (Jacob) Block (F) Grandberry Building Berner-Clark-Mercado House Mitchell-Robertson Building Majors-Butler-Thomas House Howson House Tips (Walter) House Caswell (Daniel) House Millican House Paggi, Michael, House Oliphant House Red - Purcell House St. Charles House Ney (Elizabet) Museum Porter, William Sidney, House (O Henry Museum) St. David'S Episcopal Church Castleman-Bull House Hirshfeld House And Cottage Smoot Family Home Taylor Lime Kiln Goodman Building French Legation St. Edwards Main Building & Holly Cross Hall Trask House St. Mary'S Cathedral Smith (B. J.) House 6th Street 5th Street Bluff Springs Road Nelms Drive 6th Street 6th Street Avenue F Congress Avenue Congress Avenue Cesar Chavez Street Congress Avenue 11th Street San Antonio Street Congress Avenue West Avenue West Avenue Lamar Boulevard Avenue C Academy Drive 6th Street 44th Street 5th Street 7th Street Red River Street 9th Street 6th Street Pecos 13th Street San Marcos Street Congress Avenue Red River Street 10th Street Guadalupe Street C14H-1974-0043 C14H-1977-0008 C14H-1977-0009 C14H-1977-0011 C14H-1978-0010 C14H-1978-0045-B C14H-1978-0048 C14H-1982-0001-F C14H-1986-0015 C14H-2000-0009 C14H-2004-0008 C14H-2014-0010 C14H-1974-0001 C14H-1974-0002 C14H-1974-0003 C14H-1974-0004 C14H-1974-0006 C14H-1974-0008 C14H-1974-0009 C14H-1974-0014 C14H-1974-0015 C14H-1974-0016 C14H-1974-0017 C14H-1974-0017-A C14H-1974-0019 C14H-1974-0020 C14H-1974-0021 C14H-1974-0022 C14H-1974-0023 C14H-1974-0025 C14H-1974-0026 C14H-1974-0027 C14H-1974-0029 0206040103 0206040514 0206040108 0206040502 0206040105 0206040507 0219060509 0206030507 0206031003 0206030712 0206031004 0205070505 0206010505 0210000322 0211010803 0219050815 0206031709 0220061601 0206031808 0204041306 0208011103 0108031175 0210022508 0204041307 0206031501 0206010904 0206011001 0206011006 0206011007 0113000502 0206011002 0206011005 0206010501 403 504 6706 1801 409 511 3824 916 907 1807 909 1119 700 2336 1404 1610 211 3900 210 316 304 409 300 201 303 1316 2614 202 802 3001 211 201 610 E E E E W W S W E E S S 1 W W 705 402 404 E E E San Antonio Street 7th Street 7th Street HISTORIC LANDMARK INSPECTION RESULTS 2020-2021 Zoning Case Number Landmark Name Street Address Parcel # Result Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass …
907-09-11 Congress Avenue Grandberry Building and Mitchell-Robertson Building, Congress Avenue Historic District March 22, 2021 907-911 Congress Avenue 1881 Image 1924 Image Proposal Buildings to be deconstructed and reconstructed with redevelopment of site. • • • Property owner to submit detailed deconstruction and reconstruction plan for these sites for historic approval of partial demolition permit. Property owner to submit and receive site development permit for new structure, to include reconstructed facades per plan. Property owner to reconstruct facades along with redevelopment of site. Timeline of Events Initial HLC Approval for 907, 909 Congress 10/10/2006 307 E. 2nd Street: Leonard East House Timeline of Events Initial HLC Approval for 907, 909 Congress Summer-Fall 2014 10/10/2006 Deconstruction Plans for Three Sites Heard by COA Review Committee Initial HLC Approval for 907, 909 Congress Timeline of Events Deconstruction Application Presented to HLC Summer-Fall 2014 10/10/2006 1/26/2015 Deconstruction Plans for Three Sites Heard by COA Review Committee Initial HLC Approval for 907, 909 Congress Timeline of Events Deconstruction Application Presented to HLC Deconstruction Application for 907-911 Congress to Full HLC Summer-Fall 2014 Spring 2018 10/10/2006 1/26/2015 6/25/2018 Deconstruction Plan for Three Sites Heard by COA Review Committee Presented Further Deconstruction Plans to COA Review Committee Initial HLC Approval for 907, 909 Congress Timeline of Events Deconstruction Application Presented to HLC Deconstruction Application for 907-911 Congress to Full HLC Summer-Fall 2014 Spring 2018 10/10/2006 1/26/2015 6/25/2018 Deconstruction Plan for Three Sites Heard by COA Review Committee Presented Further Deconstruction Plans to COA Review Committee Never Finalized Deconstruction Plans to Commission’s Satisfaction Timeline of Recent Events BSC Complaints Fall 2020 Timeline of Recent Events BSC Complaints Filed First Presentation to ARC Second Presentation to BSC Installed Repairs 1/28/2021 2/22/2021 3/8/2021 Fall 2020 2/12/2021 2/24/2021 3/11/2021 First Presentation to BSC Cancelled HLC Meeting Second Presentation to ARC Façade Protection Timeline of Future Events Present Partial Demolition Permit for approval Site Plan Submitted and Reviewed by HLC Site Plan Approved and Site Redeveloped with Reconstructed Facade April 2021 3/22/2021 Presentation and Directions from full HLC Demo Permit Within 90 Days Summary • Buildings are in significant risk of further decay, and BSC would like to see action ASAP. • Property owner working to satisfy both HLC and BSC, ensuring that the façades are protected for future use. • Property owner committed to develop site and reinstall façades in a reasonable timeframe. Request We respectfully request : • Specific …
907 – 909 – 911 CONGRESS AVENUE AUSTIN, TEXAS FAÇADE DECONSTRUCTION / RECONSTRUCTION SCOPE OF WORK / OUTLINE TO COMPLETE A. BRIEF SYNOPSIS OF CURRENT CONDITIONS B. ASSUMPTIONS / PREMISES C. OVERALL PROJECT ORGANIZATION (OVERVIEW – SEE BELOW FOR DETAIL) a. Research and Documentation Search b. Visual and Non Destructive Testing c. Confirmation of structural integrity and ability to withstand deconstruction d. Deliverable 1 – Abstract and Bibliography of information used to inform reconstruction, summary of mortar, brick composition and condition testing e. Review of deconstruction Scope of Work based on Information gathered in a, b & C above f. Finalized Scope of Work and Sequence of Implementation g. Preparation of Specifications, drawings and other elements required for contract/bid documents for h. Deliverable 2 – Final drawings and documentation of existing conditions i. Deconstruction Phase: Confirm document accuracy based on profiles, details and other site deconstruction work collected information. j. Document, number and record palletting of materials as part of deconstruction. k. On‐site observation of work in progress l. Deliverable 3– Final Documentation of deconstruction, material inventory and proper storage m. Deliverable 4 – Reconstruction documents and coordination with redevelopment design team n. On‐site observation of work in progress o. Final documentation of historic materials in place D. DOCUMENTATION preparation. Work. a. Review of existing photographic documentation to inform deconstruction and reconstruction plan b. Review all building inspection reports. c. Review all environmental documents and incorporate any outstanding items into final Scope of d. Photograph current conditions prior to any additional demolition. e. Document stone construction to same extent as brick construction f. Recommendation: Laser scanning of the existing construction. Provide point cloud to be used in documentation and to assist in the deconstruction and reconstruction activities. g. Work with Austin History Center and City Preservation Officer on document preparation and retention requirements for archival purposes CARTER ● DESIGN ASSOCIATES ‐‐ 21‐Mar‐21 1 | P a g e E. THE NON – DESTRUCTIVE EVALUATION PROGRAM a. Determine logistics, fieldwork and site requirements. Work with contractor to determine scaffolding plan, safety procedures and building exposure strategies b. Confirm areas that are stable and can support further investigation c. Prior to deconstruction, expose representative areas of the structures for documentation. Ensure all representative masonry patterns and types will be exposed in this controlled fashion. Look for ghosting patterns that may indicate construction sequence or technique, additional materials that may not be present, …
X * see below comm Robert Kinney 2406 Harris Blvd, Austin, TX 78703 3/21/2021 1. Site plan for new build does not accurately show position of garage in back, which is 2.7 feet from the property line per the survey attached to demo plan. 2. Currently, the garage is 2.3 feet into the PUE, and 7.3 feet into the setback.3. The 1997 permit (application) to convert carport to a garage is likely the origin of the garage. That permit was never issued and is listed as VOID in the records. 4. Generally, we are strongly in favor of the house plan. Drainage across our property toward Harris can be managed. But the site plan should show the actual position of the garage, and doesn't.
Brummett, Elizabeth From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Mary Reed Friday, March 19, 2021 12:22 PM Terri Myers; Myers, Terri - BC; Wright, Caroline - BC; Little, Kelly - BC; Koch, Kevin - BC; Jacob, Mathew - BC; McWhorter, Trey - BC; Featherston, Witt; Papavasiliou, Alexander - BC; Tollett, Blake - BC; Valenzuela, Sarah - BC; Heimsath, Ben - BC Brummett, Elizabeth; PAZ Preservation Objecting to demolition of 1104 Toyath and requesting a postponement of decision Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: Follow up Flagged *** External Email - Exercise Caution *** I am writing to you on behalf of the Clarksville Community Development Corporation (CCDC), the neighborhood organization for historic Clarksville, www.clarksvillecdc.org. I am president of its board of directors. We oppose the request of Paradisa Homes to demolish 1104 Toyath Street (Case # HR 21‐029755) because the house contributes to the Clarksville NRHD. Also, the house that Paradisa intends to build in its place is architecturally inappropriate for Clarksville. This case is Three members of the CCDC board of directors met with Luis Zaragoza with Paradisa Homes this past Tuesday to discuss a possible way to retain the house as a contributing structure. Our conversation was positive and as a next step, one of those board members ‐‐ an architect ‐‐ will meet with several Pardisa staffers next Wednesday at the company's office. I also put Luis in touch with Elizabeth Brummett so he could find out how much of 1104 Toyath can be removed without affecting its historically contributing status. Therefore, the CCDC would like you to delay any decision on Paradisa Homes' request to demolish 1104 Toyath until after the meeting next takes place next Wednesday and we have a clearer sense of what Paradisa wants to do. Thanks for your consideration of this request. Mary Reed MR•PR Austin, TX 78703 512 657 5289 Be Kind "I have decided to stick with love. Hate is too great a burden to bear." MLK CAUTION: This email was received at the City of Austin, from an EXTERNAL source. Please use caution when clicking links or opening attachments. If you believe this to be a malicious and/or phishing email, please forward this email to cybersecurity@austintexas.gov. 1
ITEM D.1.0 – 5613 Patton Ranch Road Historic Landmark Commission March 22, 2021 I. Revised Proposal from St. Andrew’s School. After numerous discussions with City historic preservation staff, community historic preservationists, and neighborhood groups, St. Andrew’s has revised its original proposal regarding the log structures at this site. Originally, St. Andrew’s had proposed (with staff support and assistance) to deconstruct the log structures and deliver them to Pioneer Farms for reconstruction and public interpretation. After discussions with Oak Hill community members and preservationists, and after thoughtful consideration by St. Andrew’s, the school has revised its proposal as follow: A. Requested HLC Action. Grant a permit that will allow: (i) partial demolition of the more recent additions to both the main structure and structures that are comprised of log construction, and (ii) the relocation of the log structure portion of the main building, the log pole barn (or smokehouse) behind the main building and the log corn crib to one of the following potential site locations, at St. Andrew’s election, both of which are near the current site and are on the original Patton Ranch: 1. School Site Option. A site on the currently undeveloped portions of the St. Andrew’s school site within a secured perimeter which will be located somewhere chosen by St. Andrew’s on Lot 2, Block A Harper’s Park Section 1; Lot 3, Block A St. Andrew’s Subdivision; or Lot 4, Block A St. Andrew’s Subdivision. 2. School Rd./ Patton Ranch Rd. Site. If St. Andrew’s determines that Option 1 above is not feasible because of the application of City of Austin regulations (e.g. CEF or creek buffers), a second option would be a site on the currently undeveloped portions of the southern portion of tract on which the structures are currently located, within a secured perimeter, and which will be located somewhere chosen by St. Andrew’s near the intersection of School Road and Patton Ranch Road. NOTE: St. Andrew’s would not be required to relocate the log structures and could choose to demolish the non-log structural portions of the main building and other non-log structures on the site and keep the remaining log structures in place. B. Additional Commitments of St. Andrew’s. If the St. Andrew’s exercises the right to relocate the log structures under the permit, it is fully committed to the following additional measures: 1. Secure and maintain the structures in an enclosed are to …
BENCHMARK ELEV = 547.74' STOP SIGN B R U C T E L N I ) ' 0 6 ( T E E R T S E G D R N E K C A R B I EAST MONROE STREET (RIGHT-OF-WAY VARIES) CONCRETE WALK 548' CURB WATER METER STOP SIGN 549' 25" LYGUSTRUM 550' 1/2 CRZ E T E R C N O C K L A W S77°59'26"E (137.06') CONCRETE WALK (77sf) EXISTING PRIMARY DWELLING 1576sf FRONT PORCH 322sf ' 8 . 3 5 5 = . . E F F . GAS METER AC 9sf K C A B T E S ' 5 2 O.E. ) ' 0 0 . 6 4 ( E " 9 1 4 0 ° 2 1 N ' N77°59'26"W (137.05') 551' LOT 6304sf 15' SETBACK 552' PROPOSED ADU 945sf LANDING 9sf 1/2 CRZ 24" PECAN 553' K C A B T E S ' 5 Y A W E V R D I ) f s 0 3 ( ADDITION TO BE REMOVED AC 9sf 5' SETBACK 12'-6" ) ' 0 6 ( E U N E V A E K A R D " 0 - ' 5 1 " 0 - ' 6 2 " 0 - ' 5 U.P. NEW TYPE 1 " 0 DRIVEWAY - ' 0 (433S-1A) 1 B R U C O . E . 25'-8 1/2" 10'-2" 38'-5" 17'-9" 16'-0" 24'-0" 5'-0" 15'-0" . E . O U.P. O . E . ) ' 0 0 . 6 4 ( ' W " 0 0 5 0 ° 2 1 S 1 SITE PLAN SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0" N A L P E T S I - I E G D R N E K C A R B 1 0 6 1 4 0 7 8 7 X T , I N T S U A N DATE: 3/16/21 1601 Brackenridge - North Elevation (View from E. Monroe Street) New dormer at rear of roof New 2nd floor window within existing trim Restore front porch Siding to match original: stucco up top, 3" reveal tear drop in middle and 8" reveal flat wood siding at bottom 1601 Brackenridge - Proposed Floorplan Front Porch Dining Room Stairs to 2nd floor Living Room Owners Closet Owners Bed Owners Bath Kitchen Tub 1st Floor Storage Closet Guest Bed Lounge Stairs Tub Bath Storage HVAC Guest …
1601 Brackenridge: Historic Review Application Proposed Scope of Work Structure 1. Foundation: Due to the age and condition of the existing foundations, replacement of the existing pier and beam foundation is required to meet existing structural requirements and codes. The new foundations will match the current footprint of the original house on all sides of the structure. The finished floor height of the 1st floor will be roughly 18” lower than the current height to allow for the proper height within the interior space and allow for us to keep the roofline at the exact same height while allowing for a habitable 2nd floor. 2. Walls: Much of the wall framing will be replaced to allow for the property replacement of the foundations and to allow for the creation of the 2nd floor habitable space within the existing roofline. The original wood will be reused wherever possible. 3. Roof: The roofline will remain at the exact same height and massing. The roof will be reframed with new joists to replace the degraded joists that are currently in use. Description of Work on the Exterior Facade 1. Front Porch: The front porch will be restored to its original condition, with openings on three sides. The windows and front door that are currently at the front of the porch will be moved back to their original location. We will build new concrete steps up to the front porch. 2. Rear Addition: We will remove the 12.5’ long addition which was added at the rear of the home and is not original. 3. Framing, Siding & Trim: The existing framing, siding, trim will be removed and examined for possible reuse. Any elements that are damaged will either be repaired or replaced with similar profile components. The walls will be reframed after the new foundation is installed to meet current structural and energy guidelines. The window trim will be repainted in a similar white color but the siding will likely be repainted using a different color than the current light blue. 4. Windows, Door and Trim: Existing windows and front door will be repaired and reused. All windows appear in good working order. If any windows are found to be non-repairable upon closer inspection, they will be replaced with matching windows. Original window trim will be reused unless damaged beyond repair. Any replacement materials will match the profile and size of the existing trim. …
PROPOSAL Restore the existing home at 1601 Brackenridge Street and add a new construction ADU at the rear of the property (17’ to the rear of the original home). PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS 1) Restore front porch. The original porch was closed in and the original front windows were moved to the front of the current porch. Will return the front porch to its original design with openings on three sides. The original brick posts on either end of the front porch are in good condition and do not appear to require restoration. 2) Demolish non-original rear addition, including the rear chimney which seems to have been added when this rear addition was added. This rear addition is 12.5’ long along the entire width of the rear of the building. 3) Build new pier and beam foundation for the entire home. The existing foundation has severe movement and is not able to properly support a home. The outside dimensions of the foundation will remain exactly as they currently are built (with the exception of the removal of the rear addition discussed in Item 1). 4) Restore windows and front door and repair original siding or replace in-kind where deteriorated beyond repair. The windows along the sides facing the street (Brackenridge Street and E. Monroe Street) will remain in the exact same location as they are currently located. Due to the severe movement of the foundation all of the windows will need to be removed and restored. Some new windows will be installed along the two other sides of the house so that they can be property sized to allow for egress as required by code from bedrooms. 5) Replace shingle roof with standing-seam metal roof. The roof height and pitch will remain the same. 6) Add a dormer at the rear roof section to roughly match the existing (believed to be original) dormer at the front roof section. This dormer will have a window in it as well. 7) Add a 2nd story space within the existing pitch of the roof. GUIDING GOALS FOR THE PROJECT The following goals apply to the proposed project: 1) Do not alter or remove historic features unless they are deteriorated beyond repair. 2) If replacing deteriorated historic features, match the original as close as possible. Historic windows and siding will be repaired, with in-kind replacement reserved for only those elements that are deteriorated beyond repair. 3) …
1904 Mountain View Rd. Austin, TX 78703 Prepared for: Zach Savage Inspector: Jeffrey K. Prokaski TREC# 9866 Phone 512-731-0513 Prokaski Home Inspections Prokaski Home Inspections, PLLC 1406 Piney Creek Lane Cedar Park, TX 78613 By: Jeffrey K. Prokaski PHI: Managing Member TREC License #9866 Phone: 512-731-0513 Inspection Date 03/10/2021 Inspection Customer Invoice CUSTOMER NAME: Zach Savage PROPERTY INSPECTED: 1904 Mountain View Rd. Austin, TX 78703 Description Amount Paid with credit card 365.00 365.00 TOTAL T h a n k y o u f o r y o u r t r u s t By: PROPERTY INSPECTION REPORT Prepared For: Zach Savage (Name of Client) Concerning: 1904 Mountain View Rd. Austin, TX 78703 (Address or Other Identification of Inspected Property) Jeffrey Kent Prokaski TREC #9866 (Name and License Number of Inspector) 03/10/2021 (Date) PURPOSE, LIMITATIONS AND INSPECTOR / CLIENT RESPONSIBILITIES This property inspection report may include an inspection agreement (contract), addenda, and other information related to property conditions. If any item or comment is unclear, you should ask the inspector to clarify the findings. It is important that you carefully read ALL of this information. This inspection is subject to the rules (“Rules”) of the Texas Real Estate Commission (“TREC”), which can be found at www.trec.texas.gov. The TREC Standards of Practice (Sections 535.227-535.233 of the Rules) are the minimum standards for inspections by TREC- licensed inspectors. An inspection addresses only those components and conditions that are present, visible, and accessible at the time of the inspection. While there may be other parts, components or systems present, only those items specifically noted as being inspected were inspected. The inspector is NOT required to turn on decommissioned equipment, systems, utility services or apply an open flame or light a pilot to operate any appliance. The inspector is NOT required to climb over obstacles, move furnishings or stored items. The inspection report may address issues that are code-based or may refer to a particular code; however, this is NOT a code compliance inspection and does NOT verify compliance with manufacturer’s installation instructions. The inspection does NOT imply insurability or warrantability of the structure or its components. Although some safety issues may be addressed in this report, this inspection is NOT a safety/code inspection, and the inspector is NOT required to identify all potential hazards. In this report, the inspector shall indicate, by checking the appropriate boxes on the form, whether each item was …
ammond, Consulting & Engineering, LLC Residential & Commercial Structural Solutions Texas Firm# 17051 email: rhammond@RDHCE.com phone: 956.367.5561 03/16/2021 On 02 March 2021, R. Derek Hammond of RDH C&E performed a site observation to view the existing single story residence located at 1904 Mountain View Drive in Austin, Texas. This report details what was encountered during the site visit, conclusions, and recommendations. Thank you for the opportunity to provide these services to you. If we have erred in our understanding of the work or if you have a questions, feel free to contact me and we will be happy to adjust and resend, C/O Zach Savage Savage Homes 512.801.2488 Austin, Texas Dear Mr. Savage, Respectfully, R. Derek Hammond, PE Owner RDH C&E LLC ammond, Consulting & Engineering, LLC Residential & Commercial Structural Solutions Texas Firm# 17051 email: rhammond@RDHCE.com phone: 956.367.5561 Existing Site Conditions The existing residence was located in west Austin, east of the Colorado River. The home, according to The Travis County records indicate it was constructed in 1949. The existing structure was composed of a structural clay tile stem walls with shallow foundations below. The floor was an elevated floor composed of structural clay tile, grout and steel mesh reinforcing. The exterior walls were composed of structural clay tile on the inner wythe and brick veneer on the outer face within, and a multi wythe brick veneer façade at the courses above grade. The roof was composed of cast in place concrete and structural clay tile. Multiple penetrations had been made through the stem walls and damage was noted on more than 25% of the walls. Some molding was noted on the stem walls adjacent to the garden beds on the east end of the home. Rusting in the ladder joints was observed throughout the stem walls, and were blooming in more than 25% of the stem walls observed. Two sump pumps were located on the east and west sides, each appeared to be inoperable as water was present in each of the pits. The interior wall adjacent to the living room was heaving, and the floor adjacent to the wall was also buckling/ faulting. The crack was approximately over 1” and over 36” in length Figure 1: Stem walls (taken in crawl space) supporting clay tile floor Figure 3: Hand railing on roof, approximately 24" tall, 42" required Figure 2: Cracked stair Figure 5: Rusted/blooming ladder joints within …
Brummett, Elizabeth From: Sent: To: Subject: Gretchen Otto Monday, March 22, 2021 10:37 AM PAZ Preservation; Brummett, Elizabeth; Sadowsky, Steve; Contreras, Kalan 503 E. Annie St. Demo Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: Follow up Completed *** External Email - Exercise Caution *** Hello, I live near this property and received a notice about the demolition. As of now, I'm in opposition to this demo and I'm writing to request an extension on this case. As far as I know, none of the neighbors have been able to get in touch with the owners and none of us understand what is planned or why this demo is necessary. We request an opportunity to talk with the owners, especially given that this property is located in a National Register District and backs up to a Local Historic District. Thank you, Gretchen Otto Austin, TX 78704 CAUTION: This email was received at the City of Austin, from an EXTERNAL source. Please use caution when clicking links or opening attachments. If you believe this to be a malicious and/or phishing email, please forward this email to cybersecurity@austintexas.gov. 1 Brummett, Elizabeth From: Sent: To: Subject: pascal regimbeau Monday, March 22, 2021 1:02 PM PAZ Preservation; Brummett, Elizabeth; Sadowsky, Steve; Contreras, Kalan 503 East Mary Street Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: Follow up Flagged *** External Email - Exercise Caution *** Hello all, We are the owners of oppose the demolition of 503 E. Annie St as we have no idea what the owners plan to build instead. Thank you for your help Sincerely Pascal Regimbeau & Sybil Reinhart CAUTION: This email was received at the City of Austin, from an EXTERNAL source. Please use caution when clicking links or opening attachments. If you believe this to be a malicious and/or phishing email, please forward this email to cybersecurity@austintexas.gov. and wanted to write you to tell you that we do 1
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, …
