HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION PERMITS IN NATIONAL REGISTER HISTORIC DISTRICTS SEPTEMBER 28, 2020 NRD-2020-0030 2525 HARTFORD RD. OLD WEST AUSTIN NATIONAL REGISTER HISTORIC DISTRICT C.6 - 1 PROPOSAL Demolish a ca. 1950 house. PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS There are currently no plans for redevelopment. RESEARCH The house at 2525 Hartford Rd. was built in 1950 for George and Mary Williams. George Williams, an engineer, was killed in a car accident in 1958; Mary continued to live in the house until at least a year later, when she sold it to the Pfennig family. Robert W. Pfennig worked for the IRS; his wife, a nurses’ aide, served at the Red Cross. STAFF COMMENTS The house is contributing to the Old West Austin National Register Historic District. Designation Criteria—Historic Landmark 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). The property may demonstrate significance according to City Code: a. Architecture. The building is constructed with Ranch-style influences. b. Historical association. There do not appear to be significant historical associations. c. Archaeology. The building was not evaluated for its potential to yield significant data concerning the human history or prehistory of the region. d. Community value. The building does not possess a unique location, physical characteristic, or significant feature that contributes to the character, image, or cultural identity of the city, the neighborhood, or a demographic group. e. Landscape feature. The property is not a significant natural or designed landscape with artistic, aesthetic, cultural, or historical value to the city. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Encourage rehabilitation and adaptive reuse, then relocation over demolition, but release the permit upon completion of a City of Austin Documentation Package. LOCATION MAP C.6 - 2 PROPERTY INFORMATION Photos C.6 - 3 Source: Realtor.com, 2020 C.6 - 4 Occupancy History City Directory Research, 2020 Note: Due to facility closure, post-1959 research is unavailable. 1959 1955 1952 Mrs. Mary D. Williams, owner (wid. G. Davis) George D. and Mary Williams, owners Consultant engineer George D. and Mary Williams, owners Consultant engineer Biographical Information The Austin Statesman: Oct 15, 1958 C.6 - 5 The Austin Statesman: Jul 23, 1954 and Dec 19, 1957 The Austin Statesman: Sep 25, 1958 C.6- 6 The Austin Statesman: Oct 17, 1962 Permits Building permit, 6-15-50 C.6 - 7 Accessory building permit, 7-29-70 Remodel permit, 9-8-70 Water tap …
CERTIFIED PROFFESIONAL BUILDING DESIGNER N A T I O N A L C O U N C I L O F B U I L D I N G D E S I G N E R TIOIN A TIFIC R E C GLENN K. EASON 44-505 CERTIFIED PROFFESIONAL BUILDING DESIGNER N A T I O N A L C O U N C I L O F B U I L D I N G D E S I G N E R TIOIN A TIFIC R E C GLENN K. EASON 44-505 CERTIFIED PROFFESIONAL BUILDING DESIGNER N A T I O N A L C O U N C I L O F B U I L D I N G D E S I G N E R TIOIN A TIFIC R E C GLENN K. EASON 44-505
HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 28, 2020 DEMOLITION AND RELOCATION PERMITS HDP-2020-000352 1807 W. 36TH STREET D.4 - 1 Demolish a ca. 1939 house and detached garage. PROPOSAL ARCHITECTURE RESEARCH One-story L-plan house with shallow eaves, steeply pitched front gable, shed-roofed covered porch supported by turned posts, and 6:6 wood windows. The house is clad in asbestos shingles and the garage in board-and-batten siding. The house and garage at 1807 W. 36th Street was built as a rental property in 1939 by Gus Borner. Its first occupants were Kermit and Mildred Dillard. Dillard was an electrician who also worked in real estate; the Dillards married in 1937. Though they divorced in 1940, both are listed as living in the house until 1941. Dillard was later arrested and imprisoned for shooting a neighbor at 1901 W. 39th Street, though he later appealed his five-year sentence. After Dillard’s departure, the home was briefly occupied by automotive shop owners Harold T. and Clara Armstrong. The home’s longest-term resident was Minerva Davis, a 30-year veteran employee of the Selective Services System. A longtime Austin resident, Davis retired to Fort Worth in the late 1960s, leaving her home of nearly twenty years. STAFF COMMENTS Designation Criteria—Historic Landmark 1) The building is more than 50 years old. 2) The building appears to retain moderate integrity. 3) Properties must meet two historic designation criteria for landmark designation (LDC §25-2- 352). The property may demonstrate significance according to City Code: a) Architecture. The building has Tudor Revival and Minimal Traditional influences. b) Historical association. The building does not appear to have historical associations. c) Archaeology. The house was not evaluated for its potential to yield significant data concerning the human history or prehistory of the region. d) Community value. The house does not possess a unique location, physical characteristic, or significant feature that contributes to the character, image, or cultural identity of the city, the neighborhood, or a demographic group. e) Landscape feature. The property is not a significant natural or designed landscape with artistic, aesthetic, cultural, or historical value to the city. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Encourage rehabilitation and adaptive reuse, then relocation over demolition, then release the permit upon completion of a City of Austin Documentation Package. LOCATION MAP D. 4- 2 PROPERTY INFORMATION Photos D. 4- 3 Source: Zillow.com, 2020 Occupancy History City Directory Research, 2020 Note: Due to facility closure, post-1959 directory research is unavailable. D. 4- …
M E M O R A N D U M TO: Historic Landmark Commission FROM: Historic Preservation Office staff DATE: September 24, 2020 Comparison of base zoning and current land use SUBJECT: At the July 24, 2020 meeting of the Historic Landmark Commission, the Commission requested that staff look analytically at historic landmarks in the central core of Austin to determine disconnects between their land use and zoning. At the June 22 meeting, Commissioner Heimsath expressed concern that, due to extreme financial pressure, properties not thought to be at risk have been threatened by untenable proposals that do not prioritize their preservation. This analysis would identify the level of risk such that the Commission can prioritize potential solutions. Commissioner Valenzuela also requested analysis for the potential historic landmarks and districts recommended in the 2016 East Austin Historic Resource Survey. The attached maps and reference guide compile base zoning, maximum allowable height, and maximum allowable F. A. R. (floor area ratio) data for properties with historic landmark overlay zoning in central Austin and the 2016 East Austin survey area, as well as properties identified in the 2016 East Austin Historic Resource Survey as potentially eligible for designation as a City of Austin landmark or listing as an individual resource on the National Register of Historic Places. The map packet includes the following illustrations: - Maximum height by zoning category for central-city landmarks at 1:33,000 and 1:20,000 scales. These maps exclude buildings with single-family base zoning. - Maximum F. A. R. by zoning category for central-city landmarks at 1:33,000 and 1:20,000 scales. These - maps exclude buildings with single-family base zoning. Base zoning imagery for existing and recommended landmarks and existing and recommended National Register of Historic Places properties within 2016 East Austin Historic Resource Survey boundaries at 1:33,000. - Maximum height by zoning category for East Austin landmarks, survey-identified eligible landmarks, and survey-identified eligible NRHP properties at 1:33,000. The map excludes buildings with single- family base zoning. - Maximum F. A. R. by zoning category for East Austin landmarks, survey-identified eligible landmarks, and survey-identified eligible NRHP properties at 1:33,000. The map excludes buildings with single- family base zoning.
This product is for informational purposes and may not have been prepared for or be suitable for legal, engineering, and/or surveying purposes. It represents only the approximate relative location of property boundaries based on external datasets. This map has been produced for the sole purpose of geographic reference; no warranty is made by the City of Austin regarding specific accuracy or completeness. 00.510.25MileMaximum Height by Zoning Category for Non-SF Central City LandmarksNo max height defined (113; CBD, P, TOD)120 ft. (27; DMU)60 ft. (87; MF 4-5, GO, GR, CS)40 ft. (40; LO, LR)35 ft. (4; NO) This product is for informational purposes and may not have been prepared for or be suitable for legal, engineering, and/or surveying purposes. It represents only the approximate relative location of property boundaries based on external datasets. This map has been produced for the sole purpose of geographic reference; no warranty is made by the City of Austin regarding specific accuracy or completeness. 00.250.50.13MileMaximum Height by Zoning Category for Central-City Landmarks(1:20,000)Undefined (CBD, P, TOD)120 (27; DMU)60 (71; CS, GO, GR, MF 4-5)40 (35; LO, LR)35 (3; NO) This product is for informational purposes and may not have been prepared for or be suitable for legal, engineering, and/or surveying purposes. It represents only the approximate relative location of property boundaries based on external datasets. This map has been produced for the sole purpose of geographic reference; no warranty is made by the City of Austin regarding specific accuracy or completeness. 00.510.25MileMaximum FAR by Zoning Category for Central-City LandmarksUndefined (27; P, TOD, n/a)<1:1 (58; LO, LR, MF-2, MF-3, MF-4, NO)1:1 (36; GO, GR)2:1 (32; CS)5:1 (27; DMU)8:1 (91; CBD) This product is for informational purposes and may not have been prepared for or be suitable for legal, engineering, and/or surveying purposes. It represents only the approximate relative location of property boundaries based on external datasets. This map has been produced for the sole purpose of geographic reference; no warranty is made by the City of Austin regarding specific accuracy or completeness. 00.250.50.13MileMaximum FAR by Zoning Category for Central-City Landmarks(1:20,000)Undefined (18; P, TOD, n/a)<1:1 (48; LO, LR, MF-2, MF-3, MF-4, NO)1:1 (30; GO, GR)2:1 (23; CS)5:1 (27; DMU)8:1 (91; CBD) This product is for informational purposes and may not have been prepared for or be suitable for legal, engineering, and/or surveying purposes. It represents only the approximate relative location of property boundaries based on external datasets. This map …
Site Development Standards Reference Guide 1. Commercial and Residential Development Standards 2. Measuring Zoning Compatibility Standards 3. Measuring F.A.R. (Floor Area Ratio) F.A.R. is the maximum usable floor area in percentage of the lot area, expressed as the gross floor area of all buildings on a lot divided by the total lot area. 4. Base Zoning Districts Source: City of Austin Zoning Guide, 2016 ZONING USE SUMMARY TABLE (LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE) P = Permitted Use C = Conditional Use Permit -- = Not Permitted RESIDENTIAL USES Bed & Breakfast (Group 1) Bed & Breakfast (Group 2) Condominium Residential Duplex Residential Group Residential Mobile Home Residential Multifamily Residential Conservation Single Family Residential Retirement Housing (Small Site) Retirement Housing (Large Site) Single-Family Attached Residential Single-Family Residential Small Lot Single-Family Residential Townhouse Residential Two-Family Residential Short -Term Rental 13 COMMERCIAL USES Administrative and Business Offices Agricultural Sales and Services Alternative Financial Servics 12 Art Gallery Art Workshop Automotive Rentals Automotive Repair Services Automotive Sales Automotive Washing (of any type) Bail Bond Services 10 Building Maintenance Services Business or Trade School Business Support Services Campground Carriage Stable Cocktail Lounge Commercial Blood Plasma Center Commercial Off-Street Parking Communications Services Construction Sales and Services Consumer Convenience Services Consumer Repair Services Convenience Storage Drop-Off Recycling Collection Facility Electronic Prototype Assembly15 Electronic Testing16 Equipment Repair Services Equipment Sales Exterminating Services Financial Services Food Preparation Food Sales Funeral Services General Retail Sales (Convenience) General Retail Sales (General) Hotel-Motel Indoor Entertainment A L R R 1 - F S 2 - F S 3 - F S A 4 - F S B 4 - F S 5 - F S 6 - F S 1 - F M 2 - F M 3 - F M 4 - F M 5 - F M 6 - F M H M O N O L O G R C R L R G D B L C U M D O L W / 1 - S C H C S C I P M I I L D & R R D V A G A D U P P -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- P P P P P P P P -- P P P P P P P P P …
Versión en español a continuación. Historic Landmark Commisison September 28, 2020 Historic Landmark Commission to be held September 28, 2020 with Social Distancing Modifications Public comment will be allowed via telephone; no in-person input will be allowed. All speakers must register in advance (September 27th by noon). All public comment will occur at the beginning of the meeting. To speak remotely at the September 28, 2020 meeting, residents must: •Call or email the board liaison at (512) 974-1264 or preservation@austintexas.gov no later than noon, (the day before the meeting). The information required is the speaker name, item number(s) they wish to speak on, whether they are for/against/neutral, and a telephone number or email address. •Once a request to speak has been called in or emailed to the board liaison, residents will receive either an email or phone call providing the telephone number to call on the day of the scheduled meeting. •Speakers must call in at least 15 minutes prior to meeting start in order to speak, late callers will not be accepted and will not be able to speak. •Speakers will be placed in a queue until their time to speak. •Handouts or other information may be emailed to preservation@austintexas.gov by Noon the day before the scheduled meeting. This information will be provided to Board and Commission members in advance of the meeting. •If this meeting is broadcast live, residents may watch the meeting here: http://www.austintexas.gov/page/watch-atxn-live 1 Reunión del Historic Landmark Commisison FECHA de la reunion September 28, 2020 La junta se llevará con modificaciones de distanciamiento social Se permitirán comentarios públicos por teléfono; no se permitirá ninguna entrada en persona. Todos los oradores deben registrarse con anticipación (27 Septiembre antes del mediodía). Todos los comentarios públicos se producirán al comienzo de la reunión. Para hablar de forma remota en la reunión, los residentes deben: • Llame o envíe un correo electrónico al enlace de la junta en (512) 974-1264 or preservation@austintexas.gov a más tardar al mediodía (el día antes de la reunión). La información requerida es el nombre del orador, los números de artículo sobre los que desean hablar, si están a favor / en contra / neutrales, y un número de teléfono o dirección de correo electrónico. • Una vez que se haya llamado o enviado por correo electrónico una solicitud para hablar al enlace de la junta, los residentes recibirán un correo electrónico o una llamada …
HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION Monday, August 24, 2020 - 6:00 p.m. Regular Meeting NOTE: This meeting will be conducted remotely via teleconference. Please see the attached notes for how to participate. COMMISSION MEMBERS: ___x__ Emily Reed, Chair ___x___ Beth Valenzuela, Vice Chair ___x___ Witt Featherston ___x___ Ben Heimsath ___x___ Mathew Jacob ___x___ Kevin Koch ______ Kelly Little __x___ Trey McWhorter __x___ Terri Myers __x___ Alex Papavasiliou ______ Blake Tollett AGENDA CALL TO ORDER 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. July 27, 2020 MOTION: Approve item 1 on the consent agenda by Myers, Valenzuela seconds. Vote: 9-0. 2. PRESENTATIONS, DISCUSSION, AND POSSIBLE ACTION A. Update on Heritage Grant Process Speaker: Melissa Alvarado, Economic Development Department Speakers in favor: Keith Zimmerman Speakers opposed: None MOTION: Support grant recommendations by Koch, Valenzuela seconds. Vote: 9-0. 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON APPLICATIONS FOR HISTORIC ZONING, DISCUSSION AND ACTION ON APPLICATIONS FOR HISTORIC DISTRICT ZONING, AND REQUESTS TO CONSIDER THE INITIATION OF A HISTORIC ZONING CASE 1. C14H-2019-0161 – Mary Baylor House, 1607 W. 10th Street – Discussion Council District 9 Applicant: Thomas Schiefer, owner City Staff: Steve Sadowsky, Historic Preservation Office, 974-6454 Staff Recommendation: Recommend historic zoning. Speakers in favor: Thomas Schiefer No speakers opposed. MOTION: Recommend historic zoning for architecture, historic associations, and community value by Myers, Reed seconds. Vote: 9-0. 2. C14H-02-0010 – The Schieffer House/Agricultural Extension Office, 1154 Lydia Street – Discussion Council District 1 Applicant: Austin Revitalization Authority, owner City Staff: Steve Sadowsky, Historic Preservation Office, 974-6454 Staff Recommendation: Recommend historic zoning. Speakers in favor: Greg Smith No speakers opposed. MOTION: Recommend historic zoning for architecture, historic associations, and community value by Heimsath, Valenzuela seconds. Vote: 9-0. 3. HDP-2020-0214 – 2502 Park View Drive – Postponement request by property owner Applicant: Historic Landmark Commission City Staff: Steve Sadowsky, Historic Preservation Office, 974-6454 Staff Recommendation: Grant the postponement request. MOTION: Postpone item A.3 to the September 28, 2020 meeting by Koch, Reed seconds. Vote: 9-0. B. DISCUSSION AND ACTION ON APPLICATIONS FOR CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS 1. C14H-1981-0018 – Offered for consent approval Kenney House, 611 W. 22nd Street Council District 9 Proposal: Construct a new exterior staircase and modifications to the south elevation of the house. Applicant: George Wilcox, Clayton and Little, architects City Staff: Steve Sadowsky, Historic Preservation Office, 974-6454 Committee Recommendation: Keep proposed exterior stair as visually light as possible, adjust the connection point of the new …
A.1 - 1 ZONING CHANGE REVIEW SHEET HLC DATE: PC DATE: July 27, 2020 August 24, 2020 September 28, 2020 CASE NUMBER: HDP-2020-0214 APPLICANT: Historic Landmark Commission HISTORIC NAME: Chrysler Air-Temp House, Air-Conditioned Village WATERSHED: Shoal Creek ADDRESS OF PROPOSED ZONING CHANGE: 2502 Park View Drive ZONING FROM: SF-2 to SF-2-H Council District: 7 SUMMARY STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Commission not recommend historic zoning on this house as the owners of the property have proposed a plan for the rehabilitation of the house that will preserve the look and character of the house from the street. The owners have complied with the recommendations of the Architectural Review Committee, and have presented a plan (attached) that maintains the existing proportions and horizontal lines of the existing house, including decorative features such as the perforated brick walls and the clerestory windows, and plan to replace asbestos panels in the house with a less-toxic synthetic spandrel material that will present the same look as existing. Windows will be replaced in the existing frames with double-insulated glass. The owner’s proposal is very sensitive to the historic character of the house and the importance and context of the neighborhood. With this plan, staff is very comfortable in recommending against historic zoning because the house will be preserved; the appearance and character of the house from the public view will remain intact. QUALIFICATIONS FOR LANDMARK DESIGNATION: Architecture, historical associations, community value. HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION ACTION: July 27, 2020: Initiated historic zoning. Vote: 7-2-1 (Jacob and Papavasiliou opposed; McWhorter off-dais. August 24, 2020: Postponed at the owner’s request. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: DEPARTMENT COMMENTS: The house is beyond the bounds of any City survey to date. CITY COUNCIL DATE: ORDINANCE READINGS: 1ST 2ND 3RD CASE MANAGER: Steve Sadowsky NEIGHBORHOOD ORGANIZATION: Allandale Neighborhood Association PHONE: 974-6454 ACTION: ORDINANCE NUMBER: A.1 - 2 BASIS FOR RECOMMENDATION: Architecture: One-story, rectangular -plan, shallow front-gabled mid-century Modern-styled wood frame house with rectangular asbestos panels set into a metal framing system on the front and back, and wood siding on secondary elevations. The house has fixed-sash and horizontal- sliding fenestration with a row of clerestory windows bridging the space between the asbestos panel section and the slightly-pitched roof, which is notable for its deep eaves. There is a pop-up, shed roofed section in the middle of the roof, that opens onto a side elevation. The house has a shed-roofed double carport with …
NEW METAL ROOF STANDING SEAM OVER MEMBRANE W/ SPRAY FOAM INSULATION AT UNDERSIDE OF ROOF DECK REPAIR & AIR SEAL WINDOW FRAMES. REPLACE ALL GLASS WITH NEW INSULATED AND TEMPERED GLASS PER LIFE SAFETY REQUIREMENTS. GLASS OPENINGS TO REMAIN SAME SIZE. EXPOSED RAKE BEAMS REPAIR & PAINT WALL PLATE TO REMAIN AS IS, +/-7'-7" REPAIR & AIR SEAL WINDOW FRAMES. REPLACE ALL GLASS WITH NEW INSULATED AND TEMPERED GLASS PER LIFE SAFETY REQUIREMENTS. GLASS OPENINGS TO REMAIN SAME SIZE. REPLACE EXISTING ASBESTOS PANELS WITH NEW SMOOTH WALL PANELS (HPL OR FIBER CEMENT SMOOTH FINISH) NEW PANELS TO MATCH EXISTING SIZE REPLACE EXISTING 2-CAR CARPORT WOOD COLUMNS WITH NEW STEEL COLUMNS PAINTED PERFORATED BRICK WALL AT REAR OF CARPORT TO REMAIN LOW BRICK WALL REMAINS, REPOINT & REPAIR AS NEEDED. GROUT COLOR TO MATCH EXISTING Cedar & Oak 2502 Park View Drive Austin, TX .exist 4 Sept. 23, 2020 1 OF 1 .Historic Front at Side 2 .exist 4 . L A V O R P P A Y R O T A L U G E R R O G N T T M R E P I I , I N O T C U R T S N O C R O F T O N I A A , I T T W L T T O C S I E R U T C E T H C R A T T W I , 9 1 0 2 T H G R Y P O C I c
HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 28, 2020 DEMOLITION AND RELOCATION PERMITS HDP-2020-0231 2609 SAN PEDRO STREET A.2 - 1 PROPOSAL ARCHITECTURE RESEARCH Demolish a ca. 1935 house, originally constructed as a duplex. Two-story frame hipped-roof duplex with horizontal wood siding, 6:6 wood windows, composition shingles, and a second-floor balcony. The building at 2609 San Pedro Street was originally a duplex, built in 1935 as a rental property for medical journalist Josephine Draper Daniel. Daniel resided down the block at another rental property on Salado Street until she moved to San Pedro after 1944. After the 1914 death of her husband, physician F. E. Daniel, Josephine Daniel took over his position as editor of the Texas Medical Journal for the next thirty years. F. E. Daniel, a former Confederate army surgeon and Texas Medical College professor, founded the journal in 1885. It later became the most influential medical publication of its time in Texas. Prior to her tenure as editor, Josephine Daniel contributed as founder of the Texas Medical Journal’s “Women’s Department” section since 1912, appealing to a wider demographic than the predominantly male medical field. As editor, Daniel introduced her audience to early tenets of feminism in healthcare and openly contradicted the eugenicist positions championed by her late husband. In a fall 2001 article for The Historian, entitled “The Woman's Department: Maternalism and Feminism in the Texas Medical Journal,” historian Courtney Shah describes Daniel’s evolution as a journalist: Josephine Daniel, although not openly recommending a radical feminist political platform, quietly introduced feminist ideas to her maternalist audience as well as many male physicians. The Women’s Department walked a narrow path between deference to medical and societal experts, and a demand to liberate women from the very institutions the experts represented: the sexual hierarchy of the family, the medical profession, and the state […] [As editor] she [promoted] her own two-pronged campaign of reform: maternalist issues such as reducing infant mortality and pure food laws, and the more radical feminist edge of birth control and women’s emancipation. (Shah 2001, 96-97) Daniel wrote frankly about the importance of reproductive education, stating that "The health and happiness of every girl demands that she receive when approaching adolescence an intelligent presentation of the vital life process” (95). In 1929, Daniel sold the journal and devoted her time to women’s health and literacy advocacy in Austin. She led an active civic life as a state board …
BPG Inspection, LLC 2609 San Pedro Street Austin TX 78705 Client(s): Joseph Inspection Date: 9/15/2020 Inspector: Randal Pitts , 9911 Page 1 of 35 PROPERTY INSPECTION REPORT Prepared For: Cater Joseph Concerning: 2609 San Pedro Street, Austin, TX 78705 By: Randal Pitts 9911 / BPG Inspection, LLC 9/15/2020 (Address or Other Identification of Inspected Property) (Name of Client) (Name and License Number of Inspector) (Date) (Name, License Number of Sponsoring Inspector) 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 standard 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 inspected, not inspected, not present or deficient and explain the findings in the corresponding section in the body of the report form. The inspector must check the Deficient (D) box if a condition exists that adversely and materially affects the performance of a system or component or constitutes a hazard to life, limb or property as specified by the TREC Standards of …
Structural Evaluation Report 2609 San Pedro St. Austin, Texas 78705 Report Issued: September 17th, 2020 Prepared For: Cater Joseph Joseph Companies cater@josephcompanies.com Prepared By: FORT Structures TBPE#: 18034 2235 East 6th St. #105, Austin, Texas 78702 512-817-9264 www.fortstructures.com Page 1 of 7 Subject: Structural Evaluation Report – 2609 San Pedro St, Austin TX, 78705 Fort Structures PC is pleased to submit the results of the structural evaluation for the above-referenced project. This report briefly presents the findings of the visual study along with our conclusions and repair recommendations. If you have any questions regarding the information in this report, please feel free to contact me at 512-565-7026, or ben@fortstructures.com, sam@fortstructures.com September 17, 2020 I warrant that I visually inspected the components of this property as addressed in this report in a diligent manner and have honestly reported the findings existing conditions and have made recommendations based on my experience and opinion. Fort Structures does not express or imply any guarantee of specific future structural performance with the limited scope of this inspection; rather, this is my best effort to interpret my observations and develop an opinion as to structural significance. There may be other issues affecting the structure that are not visible without destructive investigation. The conditions of the various components of this property described in this report are true as of the date of inspection. Changes may occur in this property after the inspection date, which could make null and void the contents of this report. No other warranty, either expressed or implied, is hereby made. 2609 San Pedro St., Austin, TX Structural Evaluation Report Page 2 of 7 September 17th, 2020 Client: Cater Joseph Joseph Companies cater@josephcompanies.com Sincerely, Benjamin Higgins, EIT Project Manager Samuel Covey, P.E. Principal, TX Reg# 123,796 FORT Structures PC TBPE Firm# 18034 Note: On September 10th, 2020, Fort Structures performed an on-site visual, noninvasive evaluation of the subject property. The structure is a two-story, approximately 2400 SF duplex constructed circa 1928. The foundation of the house is a pier and beam construction with piers and dimensional 2x wood floor framing. The walls and roof are framed with dimensional lumber. For the age of construction, our limited investigation revealed that the building structure is in fair to poor condition. The following deficiencies were observed: • Moderate levels of floor foundation movement were recorded throughout the structure. Approximately 1.5” of differential floor movement was observed throughout …
The Woman's Department: Maternalism and Feminism in the Texas Medical Journal Author(s): Courtney Shah Source: The Historian, FALL 2001, Vol. 64, No. 1 (FALL 2001), pp. 81-98 Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.com/stable/24450673 JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org. Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at https://about.jstor.org/terms Taylor & Francis, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Historian This content downloaded from (cid:0)162.89.0.57 on Fri, 10 Jul 2020 16:19:21 UTC(cid:0) (cid:0) All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms (cid:0) (cid:0) (cid:0) (cid:0) (cid:0) (cid:0) (cid:0) (cid:0) (cid:0) (cid:0) (cid:0) (cid:0) (cid:0) (cid:0) (cid:0) (cid:0) (cid:0) (cid:0) (cid:0) (cid:0) (cid:0) (cid:0) (cid:0) (cid:0) (cid:0) The Woman's Department: Maternalism and Feminism in the Texas Medical Journal Courtney Shah In 1912, a physician praised the Texas Medical Journals newly established Woman's Department in a letter to the editor. "The department you are establishing... along this line, giving women good, wholesome knowledge without the taint of quackery is a most worthy undertaking and deserves hearty support,"1 he wrote. The Texas Medical Journal, the most popular and long-standing independent medical journal in the state, was the creation of Dr. Ferdinand Eugene Daniel. His wife, Josephine Draper Daniel, founded the Woman's Department as an insert within the pages of the TMJ. Like so many journalists and activists in the Progressive Era, Josephine used maternalism as a justification to expand women's roles in the public sphere, as well as to justify her own ambitions. But while she usually stressed conservative reforms that did not challenge the dominant model of family life or women's place within it, Josephine Daniel simultaneously presented two curious lines of dissent. First, she challenged the TM/s (and thus her husband's) pro-eugenics stance; and second, she introduced a veneer of radical feminism into the publication, expressed mainly in a more open attitude toward women's sexuality. As Americans coped with the harsh realities of industrialization, urbanization, and immigration in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, a reform-minded cadre of well educated, middle-class men and women saw the possibility for change to eradicate the …
HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION AUGUST 24, 2020 DEMOLITION AND RELOCATION PERMITS HDP-2020-0293 2816 SAN PEDRO STREET A.3 - 1 PROPOSAL Demolish a ca. 1924 house. ARCHITECTURE 2816 San Pedro is a 1.5-story stucco residence with rectangular Cape Cod plan. It is side-gabled with a composite-shingle roof, three gabled dormers with 1:1 wood windows and lap siding, and a gabled portico supported by Classical columns. At the main elevation’s southernmost bay is a bank of 4:4 and 6:6 mulled windows framed with decorative shutters. The northernmost bay contains a single 12:12 window with similar shutters. The inset door is surrounded by a fanlight and sidelights. A hipped-roof addition to the south features 2:2 windows and a secondary double- door entry. A detached two-story garage apartment is northwest of the main house. RESEARCH The building at 2816 San Pedro Street was constructed for the Wyse family around 1924. William Riley Wyse, an independent oilman with ties to Austin’s power and water company, passed away shortly after its construction. Ellen Borroughs Wyse, his spouse, remained there with her son and daughter-in-law. Ellen Wyse was a prominent writer, editor, and business owner in Austin. Early in her career, Wyse served as the society editor for the Austin Statesman, then expanded her literary horizons to include her life’s passion: advertising. She established Gossip Advertising in 1911 at the age of thirty-eight, beginning with a single-page newspaper insert. By the 1920s, Gossip had grown into a multi-page publication and household name among Austinites, particularly women. The paper’s offices were located first at the Austin National Bank Building and later at the Scarbrough Building, as noted on its state historical marker. After more than thirty years of continuous publication, Wyse’s declining health shuttered Gossip’s pressroom in 1945. In addition to owning and operating a successful business—an extraordinary accomplishment for a woman in the early twentieth century—Wyse used her talent and charisma to reach out to other women writers. She presented to the Texas Presswomen’s Association across the state, sharing strategies for entering the male-dominated advertising field and establishing successful marketing tactics with a targeted and loyal readership. She was a founding member of the Quill Club (later, the Kwill Klub), a women’s organization that blossomed from a small collection of writers to a thriving consortium whose meetings included educators, librarians, professional authors (including Josephine Daniels, editor of the Texas Medical Journal, who also lived on San Pedro), prominent …
HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION APPLICATION FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS B.4 - 1 SEPTEMBER 28, 2020 C14H-2010-0024 WILDER HOUSE 1412 WATHEN AVENUE PROPOSAL Replace the metal roof with a similar metal roof. PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS The applicant proposes to replace the existing metal roof with a new metal roof, as it is beginning to fail and the existing roof is no longer manufactured. The existing roof is original to the house. The house was designed in the French Provincial style by Houston architect Armon E. Mabry; the roof, with its distinctive lines, is integral to the design of the house. The applicant proposes to replace the front one-third of the roof with a custom product to match the existing failing sections of the roof. The proposed product for the front of the house is Kynar 1.5 Snap-Lock system with a classic batten; this is a custom product that comes as close to the existing standing seam metal roof as possible in terms of material thickness and dimensions. The existing standing seam and batten is 2 inches wide; the proposed replacement will be just under 2 inches wide. The existing standing seam and batten is 1.75 inches high; the replacement will be 1.5 inches tall. The differences between the dimensions of the existing and proposed roof are between 1/8 and ¼ of an inch. The proposed roof will be 24-gauge metal. For the middle section of the roof, the applicant proposes a Kynar 1.5” tall Snap-Lock 24g metal roof system with a seam of three-quarters of an inch. This section of the roof is not visible from the street. STANDARDS FOR REVIEW The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation are used to evaluate projects on historic landmarks. The following standards apply to the proposed project: 1) The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces, and spatial relationships that characterize a property will be avoided. Evaluation: The existing metal roof is failing and must be replaced to ensure the preservation of the house. 5) Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved. Evaluation: The existing ca. 1950 metal roof is no longer manufactured; the applicant is proposing a modern replacement that will be visually indistinguishable from the existing. 6) Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the …
HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION APPLICATION FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS B.5 - 1 SEPTEMBER 28, 2020 C14H-1982-0004 MILLER-SEARIGHT HOUSE 5400 FREIDRICH LANE PROPOSAL Replace all windows in the house. PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS The applicant proposes to replace all the windows in the historic house with a solid vinyl window as shown in the accompanying literature. The applicant has conducted a survey of the condition of all the windows in the house and has chosen to replace them all at the same time to maintain uniformity of appearance. Some of the windows are beyond repair. STANDARDS FOR REVIEW The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation are used to evaluate projects on historic landmarks. The following standards apply to the proposed project: 1) The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces, and spatial relationships that characterize a property will be avoided. Evaluation: Replacing all of the windows in the house will affect the historic character of the property. The original wood windows are a big part of the historic appearance and character of the house. 5) Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved. Evaluation” The existing wood windows are a distinctive material on this property. The proposed solid vinyl windows will not present the same appearance. 6) Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature will match the old in design, color, texture, and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features will be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence. Evaluation: The applicant has conducted a window survey to determine the condition of each window on the house and its prospect for repair or rehabilitation. Any windows that are beyond repair due to their deterioration should be replaced in kind, or another wood window that maintains the profile and configuration of the existing historic windows. Design standards in place for local historic districts in Austin prohibit the use of vinyl windows on any street-facing elevation. 9) New additions and adjacent or related construction will be undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. Evaluation: If the Commission approves the proposed windows, they could be replaced at a …
