HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION APPLICATION FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS B.2 - 1 JANUARY 27, 2020 C14H-1986-0039 REUTER HOUSE 806 ROSEDALE TERRACE PROPOSAL Construct three new houses, two of which will have auxiliary dwelling units, on the north end of the property, with addresses of 807, 809, and 811 Mariposa Drive. These are vacant lots that have been subdivided off the original Reuter House property and are under separate ownership. PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS The applicant proposes the construction of three new houses and two new auxiliary dwelling units that will have addresses of 807, 809, and 811 Mariposa Drive. While technically still part of the historically-zoned parcel, these are undeveloped lots that have been subdivided off from the Reuter House property and are under separate ownership. At 807 Mariposa Drive, the applicant proposes the construction of a new house and ADU. The proposed new house takes its cues from Tudor Revival houses in the neighborhood with a steeply-pitched roof with a catslide over the front door and a large round-arched projecting bay that contains the principal fenestration on the front of the house. The house will have a combination of stucco and brick siding. The garage will be behind the house. The proposed ADU will be at the back of the lot and will be a two-story building with a more traditional take on Tudor Revival styling. It will also have a steeply-pitched roof with a catslide and a round-arched arcade porch across the front and side. The ADU will have white stucco as a principal exterior material; the porch and arcade will be constructed of black brick. At 809 Mariposa Drive, the applicant proposes the construction of a two-story house that takes its cues from Colonial Revival architecture in the neighborhood. The house will have a gabled roof, an exterior chimney, and a gabled dormer. The exterior material will be stucco with board-and batten accents, stone chimneys, and a stone garage. The building will have a standing seam metal roof. The ADU at 809 Mariposa will have a combination of Tudor Revival and post-modern design elements. The ADU will have the catslide roof common to Tudor Revival design, on an otherwise blocky building with stucco and stone as the principal materials. The ADU will have a metal roof. At 811 Mariposa Drive, the applicant proposes the construction of a house, but no ADU. The proposed house will have a post-modern-influenced Tudor …
Plans and Specifications PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS OF PROPOSED WORK: Plans and specifications for project describing the work proposed in detail. Waterloo Greenway Conservancy’s general contractor, Kris Ward of Division Group LLC, has provided the following specifications for the proposed work. ROOFING Replace Existing Damaged Shingle Roof: Replace existing asphalt shingles with fiberglass shingles that more accurately represent the original roofing material, which was likely cedar shakes. Fiberglass shingles are made of a woven fiberglass base mat, covered with a waterproof asphalt coating, and topped with ceramic granules that shield the shingles from harmful UV rays. Because of the composition of the fiberglass mat, less asphalt is needed to give the shingles their durability and strength, making them a lighter and more environmentally friendly option than traditional organic-mat asphalt shingles. Fiberglass roofing provides many benefits, as it is a tough and very resilient material that is non-porous, does not change shape, and won’t dry out. Fiberglass shingles also contain less asphalt than organic mat-based shingles and are easier to transport, providing a lower overall environmental impact. The proposed replacement shingles are from GAF Camelot II Lifetime Designer Series. See attached for material selection. Replace Existing Damaged Flat Roof: Replace all Thermoplastic Polyolefin (TPO) and Modified Bitumen roofing materials with a new 60-millimeter TPO roofing system. TPO is a single-ply reflective roofing membrane made which is typically installed in a fully adhered or mechanically attached system, allowing the white membrane to remain exposed throughout the life of the roof. TPO is environmentally friendly, is resistant to ultraviolet, ozone and chemical exposure, and delivers benefits like lower roof surface temperatures, greater energy efficiency, superior puncture resistance against hail and enhanced indoor comfort. WINDOWS Reglaze Two Exterior Windows: Demo (2) Plexiglass inserts and replace with ¼” single-paned, tempered glass. Previous tenants replaced windows with thin sheets of plexiglass, which is energy inefficient and provides no real safety barrier. The original windows will remain intact, with only the glass being reglazed and restored to historical specifications. Heritage Grant Proposed Work Hardeman House at Symphony Square Shingle roof and flat roof identified above. Windows to be replaced marked in red.
HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION APPLICATION FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS B.3 - 1 JANUARY 27, 2020 C14H-1986-0043 WEDIG-HARDEMAN HOUSE 1111 RED RIVER STREET This is a heritage grant proposal to replace roofing and to replace plexiglass inserts with tempered glass. PROPOSAL PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS The applicant proposes to replace the thermoplastic polyolefin and modified bitumen roofing with a new 60 mm. thermoplastic polyolefin roofing system, replace all asphalt shingles with new fiberglass shingles, and to remove 2 plexiglass window inserts on the east and south walls and replace them with ¼” single-paned tempered glass. 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) A property will be used as it was historically or be given a new use that requires minimal change to its distinctive materials, features, spaces, and spatial relationships. Evaluation: N/A 2) 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 proposal contemplates only the removal of non-historic materials, and replacement with materials that more accurately represent historic conditions at the site. 3) Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or elements from other historic properties, will not be undertaken. Evaluation: The proposal does not create a false sense of historical development, but instead better portrays the historic appearance of the house. 4) Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right will be retained and preserved. Evaluation: Neither the existing roofing materials nor the plexiglass window inserts have acquired historic significance. 5) Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved. Evaluation: Neither the roofing materials nor the plexiglass window inserts represent features that characterize the historical development of this house. 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. B.3 - 2 Replacement of missing features will be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence. Evaluation: The roofing materials and the plexiglass are not …
HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION APPLICATION FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS B.4 - 1 JANUARY 27, 2020 C14H-1989-0020 and -0021 PLATT AND DITTLINGER BUILDINGS 302-04 E. 6TH STREET Construct a new balcony across the front of the buildings; convert two second-story windows to doors. PROPOSAL PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS The applicant proposes the construction of a wood balcony across the front of both buildings, in accordance with historic photographs. The current awning will be removed for the construction of the balcony. The applicant has based the design and positioning of the balcony on the historic photographs and will recreate the balcony exactly as shown. The applicant further proposes the conversion of two of the second-story windows to doors to allow for access to the new balcony. The applicant proposes to keep the existing original window in place, secure the sashes with a wooden member and interior steel bracing, and then install hinges on the windows so that it will swing in to the building. The applicant asserts that the window will operate securely and will cause no change to the exterior appearance of the building. 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) A property will be used as it was historically or be given a new use that requires minimal change to its distinctive materials, features, spaces, and spatial relationships. Evaluation: Historic photographs indicate the existence of the balcony across both buildings, which is typical for 19th century commercial buildings along 6th Street. The balconies principally provided shade to the sidewalk below; use of the balconies as outdoor space for the businesses is less apparent in historic photographs. However, it is not uncommon for the balconies to have some use, especially on buildings where the windows could be opened to the extent to allow the ingress or egress from the second story to the balcony. 2) 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 applicant maintains that the proposal to convert two windows to doors will not affect the exterior appearance of the building and will not require the removal or alteration of historic features other than changing the way two windows on the second story operate. 3) …
HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION APPLICATION FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS B.6 - 1 JANUARY 27, 2020 C14H-1996-0002 ROCKY CLIFF HOUSE 802 BARTON BOULEVARD Construct a detached pool pavilion behind the house; replace the pool deck. PROPOSAL PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS The applicant proposes the construction of a new detached pool pavilion adjacent to the back- yard pool on the property. The proposed pavilion will be one-story with a slanted asphalt shingle roof with a band of clerestory windows; the walls will be combination of stucco and limestone; the building will have aluminum-framed windows and sliding glass doors. It will be located adjacent to the existing pool, mostly behind the existing garage and not visible from the street. The applicant also proposes improvements to the pool deck, consisting of concrete flatwork. 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) A property will be used as it was historically or be given a new use that requires minimal change to its distinctive materials, features, spaces, and spatial relationships. Evaluation: N/A 2) 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 proposed pool pavilion will not affect the historic character of the house. 3) Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or elements from other historic properties, will not be undertaken. Evaluation: N/A 4) Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right will be retained and preserved. Evaluation: N/A 5) Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved. Evaluation: N/A 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: N/A B.6 - 2 7) Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, will be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials will not be used. Evaluation: N/A 8) Archeological resources will …
Brand Pool Pavilion 802 Barton Blvd Austin, Texas City of Austin Historic Preservation Submission Cover 802 Barton BlvdAustin, TX 78704Brand Pool Pavilion14 December 2019ImageDateLocationProjectContactActivate Architecturebeau@activatearch.com561.707.0418 NOTE: View of front of house from Barton Blvd. New Pool Pavilion building is not visible. View from Barton Blvd 802 Barton BlvdAustin, TX 78704Brand Pool Pavilion14 December 2019ImageDateLocationProjectContactActivate Architecturebeau@activatearch.com561.707.0418 NOTE: View of side of existing Garage and Accessory Dwelling Unit from Barton Blvd. New Pool Pavilion building is obscured by existing buildings and vegetation. View from Barton Blvd 802 Barton BlvdAustin, TX 78704Brand Pool Pavilion14 December 2019ImageDateLocationProjectContactActivate Architecturebeau@activatearch.com561.707.0418 Pool Pavilion Building outlined in pink (obscured by existing buildings and vegetation) NOTE: View of side of existing Garage and Accessory Dwelling Unit from Barton Blvd. New Pool Pavilion building is obscured by existing buildings and vegetation. View from Barton Blvd 802 Barton BlvdAustin, TX 78704Brand Pool Pavilion14 December 2019ImageDateLocationProjectContactActivate Architecturebeau@activatearch.com561.707.0418
Project Information Address: 802 Barton Blvd Austin, TX 78704 Zoning: SF-3-H, Zilker, South Lamar Combined NPA Legal Description: A portion of Lot 2A, Resubdivision of Lots 1 & 2 South Lund Park, Section 2, a Subdivision in Travis County, Texas. Legend Existing Building New Addition Demolition Property Line Site Calculations Site Area: 56,480.64 SF Allowable Building Cover Existing Building Cover New Addition to Building Cover Total Proposed Building Cover 22,592.26 SF (40%) 4,115.00 SF (7.29%) 1,552.26 SF 5,667.26 SF (10.03%) Allowable Impervious Cover Existing Impervious Cover New Addition to Impervious Cover Total Proposed Impervious Cover 25,416.28 SF (45%) 14,103.21 SF (24.97%) 2,640.25 SF 16,563.46 SF (29.33%) Existing Detached Garage 992.0 SF Building Cover Breakdown Existing House 1st Floor 2nd Floor 3rd Floor Covered Porch Existing Accessory Dwelling 1st Floor 2nd Floor Covered Porch New Pool Pavilion 1st Floor Covered Patio Other Roofed Areas Total Building Area Total Building Coverage Pool Spa Site Breakdown Existing Driveways Existing Sidewalks Existing Uncovered Patio Existing Other Flatwork Addition to Driveway Addition to Sidewalks Addition to Uncovered Patio Addition to Flatwork 2,831.00 SF 1,900.00 SF 790.00 SF 708.00 SF 480.00 SF 480.00 SF 96.00 SF 718.64 SF 725.62 SF 108.00 SF 8,933.26 SF 5,667.26 SF 838.38 SF 55.78 SF 4,085.30 SF 2,465.20 SF 1,396.51 SF 2,041.20 SF 506.85 SF 0.00 SF 357.57 SF 43.57 SF Total Existing Site Coverage Total Proposed Site Coverage 9,988.21 SF 10,896.20 SF P R O P E R T Y L I N E P R O P E R T Y L I N E 1 0 ' R E A R S E T B A C K 16" CEDAR ELM O P R P E R T Y LIN E 1 0' R E A R S E T B A C K 5' SID E Y A R D S P R O P E R T E T B A C K Y LIN E 16" CEDAR ELM " 3 8 6'-1 2 NEW POOL DECK 9'-0" 1'-7" 1 NEW POOL DECK " 1 4 7'-5 2 1 " VIF 7 8 7'-5 1 POOL BATH NEW 1-STORY POOL PAVILION (NOT A DWELLING UNIT) P O O L E Q UIP. 56'-7" 68'-103 4" 4'-6" EXISTING POOL EXISTING SPA 1'-7" 1 2'-0" PLANTER 2 2'-0" 6'-0" PLANTER 6'-6" R E T N A L P DIVING BOARD 2 ' - 0 " 6'-0" R E …
HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION APPLICATION FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS B.7 - 1 JANUARY 27, 2020 C14H-2006-0029 POPE HOUSE 1612 GASTON AVENUE PROPOSAL Construct a two-story addition at the rear of the house with a two-story glass connector between the original house and the proposed addition, demolish the existing garage and construct a new garage; replace the non-historic front door with a six-panel solid wood door. PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS The applicant came before the Certificate of Appropriateness Review Committee last year for review and input on the proposed addition to the house; the Committee made some recommendations regarding the scale of the proposed addition, its roofline, and its connection to the existing house, which the applicant has incorporated into the latest set of plans. The proposed addition will be located on the site of the existing one-story addition, breezeway, and garage, on the west side of the house; these sections of the house will be demolished. The proposed addition will have smooth hardi-plank siding, an asphalt shingle roof, and a standing seam metal roof at the framed glass connector between the house and the addition. Windows in the addition will be aluminum-framed. Existing French doors on the back of the house will be replaced with new door units. The previous proposal for a street-facing gable over the garage has been replaced with a design that has the gable at the back of the addition, lowering the roofline along the west elevation of the house. The roof ridgeline will be lower than the ridgeline of the existing house to reduce its visibility from the front; the connector will have a standing seam metal roof that is lower than the roof on the house and the proposed addition. 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) A property will be used as it was historically or be given a new use that requires minimal change to its distinctive materials, features, spaces, and spatial relationships. Evaluation: N/A. The use of the property will remain residential. 2) 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: While the addition is large, it is at the back of the house along the west elevation …
December 17, 2019 Mr. Selassie, Upon a thorough examination of the exterior brick veneer, it has become obvious that the overall performance of the system is compromised and failing. The brick was installed atop a concrete step footing which runs the perimeter of the home on the North, South and West sides. The footing alone poses a structural problem in that it is performing differently than the juniper piers beneath the home. As the ground expands and contracts the wood frame and piers are responding in a different fashion than the footing, thus causing the veneer, which is anchored to the original longleaf pine siding beneath the brick, to move and crack in several places. It is in my professional opinion, as a builder that almost exclusively works in historic structures, that the brick veneer and concrete step footing should both be removed from the home. Repairs would be a Pyrrhic victory, at best, and the overall nature of the home would be better served by reviving the existing siding. Upon close examination, I have surmised that the original siding appears to be in good shape and once exposed and painted would add a great deal of value to both the home and the overall fabric of the other homes in the block. Please let me know your thoughts regarding this potential change to the project. Sincerely, James Nolan James Nolan Construction Bertron, Cara From: Sent: To: Subject: Kefetew Selassie Tuesday, January 21, 2020 7:20 PM Bertron, Cara; James Nolan; Desta Selassie Re: 607 Oakland Avenue- Pictures Hello Cara, thank you for your feedback and it is always very helpful to get your perspective. Also please note that we are making significant effort and investment to restore this house, regardless of the guidelines. We are being deliberate with our approach both inside and outside to represent architecture and finish from the 1920s. We are restoring the ship lap inside, restoring original siding and etc... because we believe that is the right way to do it if we are going to restore the house. We are also truly rallying behind the intent of the historic preservation board requirements and not just following the guideline. Therefore we request for your’s and board’s consideration of our request based on what is the best way to accomplish the intent of the guidelines. Refer to clarification to some of your questions below... 1. Foundation: we …
HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION JANUARY 27, 2020 APPLICATION FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS LHD-2019-0031 607 OAKLAND AVENUE SMOOT/TERRACE PARK HISTORIC DISTRICT B.8 - 1 PROPOSAL Remove brick cladding, restore and repair original wood cladding, add a window opening on the front wall, raise the house 2 feet, extend a covered porch across the right side of the building, construct a small 2-level rear addition, construct an attached carport, and shift a window opening forward on the south (secondary) wall. ARCHITECTURE One-story, rectangular-plan house with hipped roof, brick cladding, and 1:1 wood-sash windows covered by decorative shutters; gable-roofed entry porch with brick railing. PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS The proposed project has eight parts: 1) Remove brick cladding due to cracking and buckling (see backup); 2) Restore and repair original wood cladding; 3) Add a window opening on the front wall to create symmetrical paired openings on both sides of the door; 4) Raise the house 2’ to install new concrete piers and raise the basement height; 5) Extend the covered porch across the entire front wall of the house, rebuilding the porch gable roof and adding boxed columns and metal railings; 6) Construct a two-level rear addition that will extend the side walls by 8’ and have a footprint of 231 square feet. The addition will match existing siding and feature 1:1 wood-sash windows and a fully glazed door at the ground (basement) level. An open deck at the street level (second story of the addition) will have a footprint of 279 square feet, wood decking, metal railings, and metal and wood stairs; 7) Construct an attached carport on the south wall 15’ back from the primary façade. The carport will have a flat roof supported by simple metal posts; and 8) Shift a window opening forward on the south (secondary) wall. STANDARDS FOR REVIEW The property is contributing to the Smoot/Terrace Park Historic District. The following requirements from the historic district design standards apply to the proposed project: General standard Do not add a new feature that was not there historically. The proposed project extends the covered front porch to be full-width, creating a false sense of history. Previously, the applicant proposed to construct an uncovered patio with low brick walls on the right side of the primary façade, a change that would be discernible as new. The proposed full-width porch does not meet this standard, but the patio would. Currently proposed; staff …
HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION PERMITS IN NATIONAL REGISTER HISTORIC DISTRICTS DECEMBER 16, 2019 NRD-2019-0048 1104 MAUFRAIS STREET C.1 - 1 PROPOSAL Construct a new house and detached auxiliary structure. PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS The proposed primary building is a two-story gable-roofed house clad in stucco and horizontal siding with masonry and tongue-and-groove accents. It features a standing-seam metal roof with shed dormers at each side elevation, and a cross-gabled wing at the southwest corner. Fenestration is varied throughout, with fixed-pane aluminum windows and a projecting siding-framed window at the main elevation. A flat-roofed, partial-width porch shelters the entryway, supported by steel posts. The proposed secondary building is two stories, with a covered carport on the first floor and living space above. It is clad in stucco and horizontal siding with a standing seam metal roof and shed dormers at the front and rear. A wraparound metal staircase provides access to the second floor. STANDARDS FOR REVIEW The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation are used to evaluate new construction projects in National Register historic districts. Applicable standards include: 9) New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. The proposed new construction is differentiated from historic properties in the district by its modern stucco and masonry cladding, its fixed-pane aluminum windows, and its two-story forms on both proposed structures. The proposed roof form, massing, and site orientation of both structures are more compatible with the historic building forms of the neighborhood; the applicant has amended the design to extend the eaves to 30” at the dormers. Massing has been adjusted in revised plans by raising the porch height to 11’6”. The proposed materials are partially compatible, as the majority of historic-age homes on the street are clad in horizontal wood siding. The irregular fenestration pattern on the main house is less compatible; however, the applicant has framed the previous bay window, added second-story windows to the main façade, and enlarged the window at the façade’s first floor per Committee suggestions. 10) New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be undertaken in such a manner that if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and …
CITY of AUSTIN FAR CALCULATIONS MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE FLOOR TO AREA RATIO (FAR) @ 40% = 2,703.61 SF CoA FAR AREAS EXISTING NEW EXEMPTION a) 1st FLOOR b) 2nd FLOOR c) 3rd FLOOR d) AREA W/ CEILINGS > 15' e) GROUND FLOOR PORCH f) BASEMENT g) ATTIC h) ATTACHED GARAGE i) DETACHED GARAGE j) ATTACHED CARPORT k) DETACHED CARPORT l) ACCESSORY BUILDING(S) TOTAL GROSS FLOOR AREA 0.00 SF 0.00 SF 0.00 SF 0.00 SF 0.00 SF 0.00 SF 0.00 SF 0.00 SF 0.00 SF 0.00 SF 0.00 SF 0.00 SF 0.00 SF 1,255.71 SF 1,225.88 SF 95.15 SF 12.36 SF 604.00 SF 0.00 SF 454.03 SF 0.00 SF 0.00 SF 0.00 SF 400.00 SF 291.65 SF 4,338.78 SF 0.00 SF 0.00 SF 0.00 SF 0.00 SF -604.00 SF 0.00 SF -454.03 SF 0.00 SF 0.00 SF 0.00 SF -400.00 SF -291.65 SF -1,749.68 SF TOTAL 1,255.71 SF 1,225.88 SF 95.15 SF 12.36 SF 0.00 SF 0.00 SF 0.00 SF 0.00 SF 0.00 SF 0.00 SF 0.00 SF 0.00 SF 2,589.10 SF TOTAL PROJECT FLOOR TO AREA RATIO (FAR) @ 2,589.10 SF = 38.31% TOTAL LOT AREA: 6,759.02 SF ZONING: SF-? LOT INFORMATION MAXIMUM ALLOWED BUILDING COVERAGE @ 40% = 2,703.61 SF MAXIMUM ALLOWED IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE @ 45% = 3,041.56 SF CITY of AUSTIN AREA CALCULATIONS CoA AREA NAME EXISTING a) 1ST FLOOR CONDITIONED AREA b) 2ND FLOOR CONDITIONED AREA c) 3RD FLOOR CONDITIONED AREA d) BASEMENT e) ATTACHED COVERED PARKING f) DETACHED COVERED PARKING g) COVERED WOOD DECKS h) COVERED PATIO i) COVERED PORCH j) BALCONY k) OTHER: TOTAL BUILDING AREA TOTAL BUILDING COVERAGE l) DRIVEWAY m) SIDEWALKS n) UNCOVERED PATIO o) UNCOVERED WOOD DECKS (COUNTED AT 50%) p) AC PADS AND OTHER CONCRETE FLATWORK q) OTHER (POOL COPING, RETAINING WALLS) r) POOL s) SPA NEW 1,255.71 SF 1,225.88 SF 95.15 SF 0.00 SF 0.00 SF 400.00 SF 0.00 SF 0.00 SF 604.00 SF 0.00 SF 0.00 SF 3,580.74 SF 2,259.71 SF 187.50 SF 75.70 SF 0.00 SF 0.00 SF 62.22 SF 173.00 SF 0.00 SF 0.00 SF TOTAL 1,255.71 SF 1,225.88 SF 95.15 SF 0.00 SF 0.00 SF 400.00 SF 0.00 SF 0.00 SF 604.00 SF 0.00 SF 0.00 SF 3,580.74 SF 2,259.71 SF 187.50 SF 75.70 SF 0.00 SF 0.00 SF 62.22 SF 173.00 SF 0.00 SF 0.00 SF 0.00 SF 0.00 SF 0.00 SF 0.00 SF 0.00 SF 0.00 SF 0.00 SF 0.00 SF 0.00 SF 0.00 SF …
Bertron, Cara From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Kevin Sims Wednesday, January 22, 2020 12:31 PM Bertron, Cara Gaudette, Angela Re: 1215 W 9th St - West Line - Contributing 1215W9thSt_200127.pdf It helps to include the attachment. Please note that the height of the proposed roof line is 1'9" higher than it is now. The porch height stays the same but the slope of the porch roof is increased to maintain the overall proportions of the building. This is something I discussed with the neighborhood. I am meeting with them again this Thursday as a final courtesy. The proposed rear replacement addition is not detailed but the dimensions of it are accurate. The building floors are out of level by 1" to 6". The exterior walls are out of plumb from 2" to 7", giving new meaning to entasis (sorry, that's meant to be a joke...). The ridge of the roof sags toward the middle 8" to 10", giving it a kind of pagoda look, which I like, but it isn't a viable structural condition. After extensive investigation and analysis, it is obvious that the existing building is an extreme state of deterioration and disrepair. As it is, the building is both physically dangerous and an environmental hazard. To rehabilitate it, I will have to carefully rebuild it board by board in order to bring it up to minimum safety and accessibility standards. In other words, I will have to take it down to the stud(s) and replace most of the structural components. Can we have the hearing at the location? I'll show you what I mean. Let me know if I'm missing anything or if you would like to discuss. I did not include the survey or engineering analysis because I believe you already have those documents. Apologies for grammatical errors. Thanks. On January 21, 2020 at 3:47 PM, "Bertron, Cara" <Cara.Bertron@austintexas.gov> wrote: Hi Kevin, this is to follow up with a phone message I just left you. I’ll need the revised plans by noon tomorrow (Tuesday). Thanks, and hope all’s well— Cara Cara Bertron Senior Planner / Deputy Historic Preservation Officer City of Austin Planning and Zoning Department 1
