B-10 (C14H-2004-0008; HR-2021-085739 - Mitchell-Robertson Building; District 9).pdf — original pdf

Backup

APPEAL TO PLANNING COMMISSION HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION DENIAL OF A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS REVIEW SHEET PLANNING COMMISSION: HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION: March 22, 2021, postponed April 26, 2021, postponed May 24, 2021, feedback provided July 26, 2021, denied August 24, 2021 CASE NUMBER: HR-2021-085739 HISTORIC NAME: Mitchell-Robertson Building (C14H-2004-0008) DISTRICT: 9 ADDRESS: 909 Congress Avenue ZONING: CBD-H APPELLANT: Drenner Group, P.C. (Leah Bojo) AGENT: Drenner Group, P.C. (Leah Bojo) PROPERTY OWNER: H. Dalton Wallace PROJECT BACKGROUND: The applicant proposes to carefully deconstruct, store, and reconstruct the building façades at 907, 909, and 911 Congress Ave. as part of a redevelopment project at a later date. The Grandberry Building (907 Congress Ave.) and Mitchell- Robertson Building (909 Congress Ave.) are historic landmarks and require a certificate of appropriateness for this work, which the Historic Landmark Commission (HLC) has granted for 907 but not 909 Congress Ave. The building at 911 Congress Ave. is part of the Congress Avenue National Register historic district but has been too altered to be eligible for landmark designation. Per the applicant, stabilization and repair of the building façades in place is not technically feasible due to the extent of their deterioration, including mortar loss, shear failures and racking, and the infeasibility of shoring the façades during construction of a new tower behind them. The project will ultimately result in accurate reconstruction of the three façades to match their historic appearance, reusing historic materials to the greatest extent possible and accurately replicating missing or damaged elements. APPEAL REQUEST: The applicant has filed an appeal of the HLC’s July 26, 2021 denial of a certificate of appropriateness to deconstruct, store, and reconstruct the façade of 909 Congress Ave. and requests approval of this project. The appeals process for certificates of appropriateness is described in Land Development Code §25-11-247. The HLC’s decision may be appealed to the land use commission, and the land use commission’s decision may in turn may be appealed to City Council. BUILDING AND STANDARDS COMMISSION ACTION: March 24, 2021: The Building and Standards Commission issued orders for 907, 909, and 911 Congress Ave. requiring that conditions be remedied within 90 days or imposing fines on the property owner. That timeline expired on June 22, 2021. The orders require repairs to fully remedy violations, which include cracks and openings in exterior walls, roof and drainage issues, and missing windows, among other concerns. HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION ACTION: March 22, 2021: Prior to the Commission meeting, the Architectural Review Committee of the HLC provided feedback to the applicant on March 8, 2021. Committee members requested the applicant consider stabilization of building façades in place rather than removal and reconstruction; provide a detailed condition assessment or other analysis of the buildings’ conditions; and 1 of 60B-10pay particular attention to keeping the corbelled brickwork on 909 Congress Ave. intact. Committee members expressed concern regarding having the buildings down for an indefinite period prior to the redevelopment of the site. The applicant provided a draft scope of work for façade deconstruction and reconstruction at the three buildings. At the March 22, 2021 meeting, the HLC postponed the case and requested the applicant consider and present alternatives to demolition. April 26, 2021: The Architectural Review Committee again provided feedback on April 12, 2021. Committee members indicated a need for more documentation and desire to explore every alternative to demolition before agreeing to that approach. The applicant provided an updated scope of work, a structural assessment, and a draft restrictive covenant to establish a timeframe within which the façades would be reconstructed. At the April 26, 2021 meeting, the HLC again postponed the case and requested the applicant consider and present alternatives to demolition. May 24, 2021: The applicant proceeded with laser scanning of the buildings as part of documentation prior to deconstruction. At this meeting, the applicant requested detailed feedback but not a final decision on the case. While the HLC indicated support for the proposed approach for 907 and 911 Congress Ave., they voted to indicate that 909 Congress Ave. should be preserved as it stands today. June 28, 2021: The HLC granted an applicant-requested postponement to allow additional time to develop project plans. July 26, 2021: The applicant provided updates to the scope of work to reflect progress in documenting the buildings, an additional structural assessment that further explored the feasibility of shoring the façade of 909 Congress Ave. in place, and schematic design drawings for deconstruction and reconstruction. The HLC voted 11-0-0 to retain the façade of 909 Congress Ave. in place and deny the certificate of appropriateness to deconstruct, store, and reconstruct the façade, on a motion by Commissioner Koch, seconded by Commissioner Larosche. In the same vote, the HLC approved the applicant’s request to deconstruct, store, and reconstruct the façades of 907 and 911 Congress Ave. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends overturning the HLC’s denial of the certificate of appropriateness for 909 Congress Ave. and granting approval to deconstruct, store, and reconstruct the façade in accordance with the submitted scope of work. Per Chapter 25-11, Article 4, Division 2, Applications for Certificates, the HLC issues certificates of appropriateness for work to historic landmarks, with consideration of how proposed work will affect significant architectural and historical features of a landmark. Per Code, the HLC evaluates proposed work using the U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, federal standards that guide historic preservation projects. Rehabilitation is one of four treatments, or approaches, within the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. Rehabilitation is the most common—and the most flexible—approach, but other treatments may sometimes be appropriate. This project proposes to apply the Standards for Reconstruction. Reconstruction is a way to re-create a significant historic building that no longer exists but is important for interpretive purposes. A proposal to deconstruct and reconstruct an extant historic landmark is highly unusual and is a path of last resort. For the buildings at 907, 909, and 911 Congress Ave., intensive intervention is needed due to major, longstanding problems with the buildings. If deconstruction and reconstruction is considered necessary, the architect’s proposed scope of work meets the Standards for Reconstruction; it entails sufficient care to document, dismantle, store, and re-erect the buildings using original materials to the greatest extent feasible. The HLC granted the certificate of appropriateness for 907 Congress Ave. based on the extremely deteriorated condition of that façade and the amount of intervention that would be needed to preserve it in place. The building was previously concealed by a stucco slipcover, and many of the bricks and limestone hood moulds at the windows require replacement. 2 of 60B-10Repair in place would not offer a significant advantage in terms of preserving historic materials and craftsmanship. For 909 Congress Ave., the applicant argues that deconstruction is necessary due in part to the structural condition of the brick at the second story, in conjunction with the difficulty of shoring this portion of the façade in place during redevelopment of the overall site. The HLC did not find that the condition warrants deconstruction as opposed to preservation in place. The brickwork is in comparatively good condition and has decorative corbelling at the parapet that would be difficult to reconstruct accurately. Prior to the current case, the HLC reviewed similar proposals in 2006, 2015, and 2018. Please see the staff report for the July 26, 2021 HLC meeting, attached, which includes links the minutes and exhibits for the earlier cases. In each instance, the request to deconstruct and rebuild the historic building fronts at 907 and 909 Congress Ave. was accompanied by an overall plan for site development, entailing construction of a tower recessed behind the reconstructed façades. The HLC granted certificates of appropriateness for both 907 and 909 Congress Ave. at each instance. The motion in 2006 was accompanied by design feedback on the new construction. In 2015, the HLC had specific concerns regarding the specifications for reconstruction and requested further review by the Certificate of Appropriateness Review Committee (since renamed the Architectural Review Committee). In 2018, the HLC approved the request without any specific requirements or conditions noted in the meeting minutes. In none of these motions was 909 Congress Ave. singled out for a different approach based on its condition. During deliberation at the July 26, 2021 HLC meeting, commissioners sought to differentiate the current request from prior Commission action. This time, the applicant has not presented plans for overall site redevelopment and will initially file only for a demolition permit; reconstruction of the façades will follow later with an accompanying request for new construction. Commissioners did not belabor this point with 907 Congress Ave. due to the façade’s condition but could not justify such a decision for 909 Congress Ave. when the building may remain salvageable in place. Should the overall project fall through, the HLC fears two landmarks would be lost. Despite this concern, staff does not find the lack of construction plans for a proposed tower to be sufficient grounds to deny this certificate of appropriateness. The applicant has an urgent need to address the Building and Standards Commission orders, which require that the buildings be repaired or demolished within a timeframe that has already passed. Given the lengthy process required to obtain approval for a site plan and permits for commercial development, the applicant is seeking to take an initial step of carefully documenting, deconstructing, and storing the façades while obtaining the required approvals for redevelopment of the site, to include reconstruction of the façades. The certificate of appropriateness, if issued, would bridge from beginning to end of this construction, and the architect’s scope of work requires regular reports back to the HLC at key milestones. The owner is also willing to commit to a restrictive covenant requiring the façades of 907 and 909 Congress be re-erected within three years of their deconstruction. The design of the tower will require HLC review as work affecting two landmarks, and for 911 Congress Ave., as work within a National Register historic district. Further, and more fundamentally, an owner should reasonably be able to expect similar decisions for similar proposals. NEIGHBORHOOD ORGANIZATIONS: Austin Independent School District; Austin Lost and Found Pets; Austin Neighborhoods Council; City of Austin Downtown Commission; Downtown Austin Alliance; Downtown Austin Neighborhood Assn. (DANA); Friends of Austin Neighborhoods; Homeless Neighborhood Association; Neighborhood Empowerment Foundation; Preservation Austin; SELTexas; Sierra Club, Austin Regional Group CASE MANAGER: Elizabeth Brummett (512-974-1264, elizabeth.brummett@austintexas.gov) EXHIBITS: Staff report to Historic Landmark Commission, July 26, 2021 Appeal letter, July 28, 2021 Applicant’s summary letter to the HLC, June 4, 2021 Building and Standards Commission order for 909 Congress Ave., March 24, 2021 Structural assessment letter, July 20, 2021 Structural assessment letter, April 23, 2021 Structural assessment letter, June 6, 2014 Proposed scope of work, updated July 21, 2021 Schematic design drawings, July 26, 2021 Citizen comments 3 of 60B-10HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION APPLICATION FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS JULY 26, 2021 C14H-2004-0008 MITCHELL-ROBERTSON BUILDING 909 CONGRESS AVENUE PROPOSAL PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS Review of a plan to deconstruct, store, and re-erect ca. 1882 historic building façade. Catalog and store, then re-erect the historic building façades of the Grandberry Building, Mitchell-Robertson Building, and the building at 911 Congress Ave. as part of a redevelopment project at a later date. In conjunction with proposed additions, deconstruction and reconstruction of these façades has received approval from the Historic Landmark Commission on three separate occasions: September 25, 2006 (for 907 and 909 Congress Ave. only), January 26, 2015 (pending development of more detailed plans for treatment of the three façades), and June 25, 2018. See Prior Commission Action below. On March 24, 2021, the Building Standards Commission (BSC) issued an order requiring that conditions be remedied within 90 days or imposing fines on the property owner. The BSC orders are uploaded as backup to this meeting for reference. In discussion at the April 24, 2021 meeting, Commissioners suggested that the applicant determine if scaffolding erected for purposes of documenting and dismantling the façades would suffice for compliance with the BSC orders. The orders do not mention stabilization or bracing as options, and Code Department staff have confirmed that scaffolding would be insufficient to meet the requirements. Instead, the orders require repairs to fully remedy the violations, which include cracks and openings in exterior walls, roof and drainage issues, and missing windows, among other concerns. Per the applicant, stabilization and repair of the buildings in place is not technically feasible due to the extent of deterioration, including mortar loss, shear failures and racking, and the inability to adequately shore the façades following demolition of masonry party walls that provide lateral support. While the Mitchell-Robertson Building is in relatively better condition than the other two buildings, two independent structural engineering letters have determined that the façade cannot be braced during construction. A 2014 letter, not included in previous packets, cites the tie backs as indication of shear failure that would prevent safely bracing the masonry. The proposed scope of work entails developing a detailed plan for deconstruction and reconstruction of the historic façades, including as an initial phase: review of existing documentation, visual and non-destructive analysis of building materials and assemblies, structural evaluation, and development of a finalized scope of work and sequence of implementation. Laser scanning has been performed, and analysis of the resulting point cloud is underway. Deconstruction will be done by hand and treated much like an archeological investigation, with specific conditions and hidden elements documented as work progresses. This information will inform preparation of reconstruction drawings and specifications. The applicant proposes to place a restrictive covenant on the property requiring reconstruction within three years. While the City agrees to this approach, the specific language of the covenant must be reviewed by the Law Department. ARCHITECTURE STANDARDS FOR REVIEW Two-part commercial block between another historic-age building and the Grandberry Building, which is also a historic landmark. The building is boarded at the street level. At the second floor, the Mitchell-Robertson Building has one-over- one windows and corbelled brickwork at the cornice. The City of Austin’s Historic Design Standards (March 2021) are based on the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and are used to evaluate projects at historic landmarks. The Historic Design Standards indicate that if any aspect of a proposed project is not covered by the design standards, the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties shall be used. In certain circumstances, use of the treatments other than rehabilitation may be proposed. This project proposes to apply the Standards for Reconstruction, recognizing that this is a path of last resort: 1) Reconstruction will be used to depict vanished or non-surviving portions of a property when documentary and physical evidence is available to permit accurate reconstruction with minimal conjecture, and such reconstruction is essential to the public understanding of the property. 4 of 60B-10The applicant asserts that it is not possible to preserve and restore the building in place, and therefore reconstruction is required to prevent a gap within the historic streetscape of Congress Avenue. 2) Reconstruction of a landscape, building, structure or object in its historic location will be preceded by a thorough archeological investigation to identify and evaluate those features and artifacts that are essential to an accurate reconstruction. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken. The project benefits from the fact that the building is currently extant, even if in deteriorated condition with some missing elements. Thorough documentation of the existing buildings preceding and as part of the deconstruction process will form the basis of reconstruction. 3) Reconstruction will include measures to preserve any remaining historic materials, features and spatial relationships. Details regarding the extent to which building assemblies can be removed and reinstalled intact will be developed during further project planning. The intent is to reuse as much historic fabric as possible, including materials salvaged from portions of the buildings that will not be reconstructed. 4) Reconstruction will be based on the accurate duplication of historic features and elements substantiated by documentary or physical evidence rather than on conjectural designs or the availability of different features from other historic properties. A reconstructed property will re-create the appearance of the non-surviving historic property in materials, design, color and texture. Through archival research and thorough documentation, sufficient details will be available to ensure accurate reconstruction. 5) A reconstruction will be clearly identified as a contemporary re-creation. Interpretive signage will be developed in consultation with the Historic Landmark Commission. 6) Designs that were never executed historically will not be constructed. Not applicable. While deconstruction and reconstruction of a historic landmark is not a recommended treatment, intensive intervention is necessitated in this case due to major, longstanding conditions. The proposed scope of work entails sufficient care to document, dismantle, store, and re-erect the buildings using original materials to the greatest extent feasible. PRIOR COMMISSION ACTION 2004: The Mitchell-Robertson Building was designated as a historic landmark. According to occupancy history in the landmark file, the upper level of the building was vacant beginning in 1953. Between 1962 and 1968, the entire building sat vacant. Photography labs by three different names occupied the first floor of the building between 1969 and 1994. The building has remained vacant since that time. Restoration of the storefront and construction of an additional two stories as a rooftop addition was contemplated in 2004, as evidenced by an elevation drawing in the landmark file. 2006: Per correspondence from staff, the Historic Landmark Commission on September 25, 2006 approved a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) to dismantle and reconstruct the façades of 907 and 909 Congress Ave., requesting greater setback of upper level additions to further distinguish them from the historic façades. 2010: Wallace Dalton acquired the building. 2013: The Code Compliance Department issued a notice of violation for failure to maintain a vacant structure in clean, safe, secure, and sanitary condition (see staff report link below). 2014: The Commission voted to pursue potential demolition by neglect cases at their February 14, 2014 meeting. The list included 907, 909, and 911 Congress Ave. The staff report shows the façades in much the same condition as they are today. See also draft meeting minutes (approved minutes are not posted). Updates on further progress in remedying site conditions and proposing a rehabilitation plan for the buildings were postponed repeatedly, through January 2015. The COA Review Committee heard an update on restoration efforts at the buildings at their June 9, 2014 meeting. See the agenda and a structural letter provided as backup that indicates none of the three buildings can safely be braced in place during future construction. 2015: On January 26, the Commission heard a request to deconstruct and rebuild the front walls of 907, 909, and 911 Congress Ave. and voted unanimously to approve the COA, with the condition that the applicant follow the specification manual drafted in 2010 for the 911 Congress Ave. and with a referral of the completed plan set to the COA Review Committee. See the staff report, specifications, and minutes. 5 of 60B-10The February 2015 meeting was cancelled. The Commission postponed further consideration of the case at specially called and regular meetings in March, but the case does not appear on the April agenda. 2018: Restoration of the façades does not appear again until the COA Review Committee agendas in February and March of 2018. See the application, plans, and scope of work included as backup for the February meeting; the 2014 structural report was again provided. At the June 25, 2018 meeting, the Commission approved deconstruction and reconstruction of the façades, with a request that the applicant communicate where the façades are stored. See the staff report and minutes, plus extensive backup including 2006 correspondence (above), architectural proposal, renderings of the restored façades, specifications manual, 2014 structural report (above), and a timeline and bid proposals for associated new construction. 2021: With pending action from the Building and Standards Commission (BSC), the proposal to deconstruct and reconstruct the façades resurfaced. On March 8, 2021, Architectural Review Committee (ARC) members requested the applicant consider stabilization of building façades in place rather than removal and reconstruction; provide a detailed condition assessment or other analysis of the buildings’ conditions; and pay particular attention to keeping the corbelled brickwork on the Mitchell-Robertson Building intact. Committee members expressed concern regarding having the buildings down for an indefinite period prior to the redevelopment. On March 24, 2021, BSC issued an order requiring that conditions be remedied within 90 days or imposing fines on the property owner. That timeline expired on June 22, 2021. At the April 12, 2021 meeting of the ARC, the committee members indicated a need for more documentation and desire to explore every alternative to demolition before agreeing to that approach. The timeline imposed by the BSC is of concern in terms of the ability to take the proper care in moving forward. The Commission postponed the case at both the March 22 and April 26 meetings and has requested the applicant consider and present alternatives to demolition. On May 24, 2021, the Commission voted to advise the applicant that 907 Congress Ave. should be reconstructed in its original configuration, 909 Congress Ave. should be preserved as it stands today, and 911 Congress Ave. may be demolished. The Commission also directed that specific remedies for failure to reconstruct the façades should be detailed in the proposed covenant and, further, that tax exemptions received should be matched and placed in a trust. TAX EXEMPTION Per City Code § 11-1-28, a property that is rezoned to remove historic landmark designation is subject to additional tax equal to the amount of the partial ad valorem tax exemption for historic properties received over a maximum of five taxable years. The Mitchell-Robertson Building has failed annual landmark inspections in three of the past five years. The owner did not file a required affidavit in 2018 (the affidavit requirement has since been repealed), and verification with the Travis Central Appraisal District would be necessary to determine if the property owner filed an application and received the exemption in 2019. The property was ineligible to receive the partial ad valorem tax exemption for historic properties in the other years. The Commission approved the following inspection results: 2021: Fail 2020: Fail 2019: Pass 2018: Not listed 2017: Fail STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve the application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for deconstruction; require regular submission of deliverables specified in the scope of work to Historic Preservation Office staff and the Historic Landmark Commission, with ongoing consultation as work progresses; and request finalization and execution of restrictive covenants regarding the reconstruction timeline before physical work commences. 6 of 60B-10LOCATION MAP 7 of 60B-10PROPERTY INFORMATION Photos Historic photograph of 911 Congress Ave. (John B. Vaught Hardware Co.), 909 Congress Ave., and 907 Congress Ave. (Texas State Optical), Historic Preservation Office files, no date. 8 of 60B-10909 Congress Ave. (building to the left of Texas State Optical sign), National Register nomination for Congress Avenue Historic District, February 1978. 9 of 60B-10909 Congress Ave., historic landmark nomination, 2004. 10 of 60B-10909 Congress Avenue, Historic Preservation Office staff, historic landmark inspections, 2020-2021. 11 of 60B-10Current condition of 909 Congress Ave. façade, Historic Preservation Office staff, May 2021. 12 of 60B-10Interior of 909 Congress Ave. storefront, Historic Preservation Office staff, May 2021. 13 of 60B-10Leah M. Bojo  direct dial: (512) 807‐2918  July 28, 2021  Rosie Truelove – Department of Housing and Planning  Housing & Planning Department  City of Austin  1000 E 11th St., Ste 200  Austin, TX 78702  RE:   Appeal of Denial of Certificate of Appropriateness – C14H‐2004‐0008; HR‐2021‐085738  (909 Congress Avenue)  We write with respect to the above matter.  Pursuant to Sections 25‐11‐247 and 25‐1‐183  of the City of Austin Land Development Code (LDC),  we provide our notice of appeal with the  below information:  1. H. Dalton Wallace, 9505 Johnny Morris Rd, Austin, TX 78724, 512‐926‐1780; 2. Leah M. Bojo, 200 Lee Barton Dr, Suite 100, Austin, TX 78704, 512‐807‐2900; 3. Denial  of  Certificate  of  Appropriateness  Application  allowing  façade deconstruction and reconstruction; 4. Date:   July 26, 2021 Historic Landmark Commission Meeting; 5. Appellant is the Owner of the Property affected; 6. Decision rejecting proposal to deconstruct, store, and re‐erect the building façade is in conflict with an Order from the Building and Standards Commission, the City of Austin Land Development Code, and other rules and law. Please let us know if there is anything else you need to schedule the appeal.  Sincerely,  Leah M. Bojo  Director of Land Use & Entitlements  Drenner Group, P.C.  CC:  H. Dalton Wallace  Stephen O. Drenner, Drenner Group  <sdrenner@drennergroup.com>  200 Lee Barton Drive, Suite 100 | Austin, Texas 78704 | 512‐807‐2900 | www.drennergroup.com  14 of 60B-10June 4, 2021 Elizabeth Brummett Development Services Manager City of Austin - Historic Preservation Office Via Electronic Delivery Re: 907, 909, and 911 Congress Avenue – Historic Review Applications for three 0.845 acre pieces of property located at 907, 909, and 911 Austin, TX 78724 (the “Properties”) Dear Ms. Brummett: As representatives of the owner of the Properties and the buildings thereon (the “Buildings”), we respectfully submit the enclosed historic review application packages (the “Applications”). The Applications reflect our months-long effort to comply with directives from both the City of Austin Building and Standards (“BSC) Commission and Historic Landmark Commission (“HLC”). In the Fall of 2020, complaints were made to BSC regarding the condition of the Buildings, which led BSC to issue a secure façade order in February 2021. On February 12 and March 8, 2021, we made presentations to HLC’s Architectural Review Committee requesting that HLC provide direction as to how we could forward with the safe deconstruction of the Buildings, as any demolition permit requires HLC approval. After the façades were secured, BSC issued follow-up orders on March 24, 2021 requiring that all cited violations be corrected at the Buildings by June 22, 2021 (the “Orders”). The Orders include a requirement that we receive all necessary approvals from HLC. For your convenience, we have attached the Orders hereto as Exhibit A. At the March, April, and May HLC monthly meetings (the February meeting was cancelled due to weather), we presented our findings that we could not safely hold the Building façades in place while complying with the Orders. We have attached two letters from structural engineers stating as much hereto as Exhibits C and D. It is our restated position that compliance with the Orders while leaving any portion of the façades in place is impracticable. We bring these applications reflecting this position and plan to deconstruct and reconstruct the Buildings in a manner that respects and protects their historic nature as much as is reasonably possible. The applications packet includes a scope of work provided by Architect Donna Carter, which explains the extent of work contemplated to retain as much historic material as possible for all three buildings. 15 of 60B-10Please let me know if you or your team members require additional information or have any questions. Thank you for your time and attention to this project. Sincerely, Leah M. Bojo cc: Donna Carter, Carter Design Associates cda@carterdesign.net 16 of 60B-10I, Jannette S. Goodall, City Clerk of the City of Austin, Texas, do hereby certify that the foregoing instrument is a true and correct copy of an ORDER of the Building and Standards Commission of the City of Austin, Texas, issued on March 24,2021, relating to Case No. CL-2021-002321, consisting of three pages, as on file in the Office of the City WITNESS my hand and official seal of the City of Austin at Austin, Texas, this 1 St A 1 0 JANNETTE@>. GOODALL CITY CLERK CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS THE STATE OF TEXAS § COUNTY OF TRAVIS § Clerk the 1 St day ofApril 2021. day ofApril, 2021. .e?-F AU- 00· 0.74: ...... k E . . .A . . . . ,E / V. A ·.,6<1 l/1 S OU .. '?£&¢,f'*&..t. . 17 of 60B-10Case No. CL-2021-002321 In the Matter of 909 Congress Avenue Austin, Texas 78701 OCC RECEIVED AT APR 1 '21 PM3:13 Before the Building and Standards Commission of the City of Austin, Texas State of Texas County of Travis ORDER OF THE BUILDING AND STANDARDS COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS On March 24, 2021, under the authority of Chapters 54 and 214 of the Texas Local Government Code, the Building and Standards Commission ("Commission") of the City of Austin, Texas, considered 909 Congress Avenue, ("the Property ) and took action as described below. 5, A. ORDER The Commission orders the following: 1. The Commission ORDERS that the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for this property be adopted. 2. The Commission ORDERS that the owner of record complete the following within ninety (90) days from the date the Order is mailed to the owner of record: a. obtain and finalize all necessary permits in accordance with the requirements for historic structures, including approval from the Historic Landmark Commission, if necessary; b. correct the cited violations by completing all repairs to the structure; c. request inspection(s) from Austin Code to verify compliance; and 3. The Commission ORDERS that on the ninety-first (91st) day, if the repairs as required by this order are not complete, assess a civil penalty of $1,000 per week that will continue to accrue until the Code Official determines that the repairs required by this order are complete. shall accrue at a rate of 10 percent per year from the date of the assessment until paid in full. Interest 1 1 VALIDITY OF ORDER NOT AFFECTED BY TRANSFER: When a Commission order has been filed in the deed records, the Commission order is valid even if the property is sold or otherwise transferred. A person who acquires an interest in the property after a Commission order is recorded is subject to the requirements of the Commission order. B. FINDINGS OF FACT The Commission makes the following findings of fact: I. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION The property which is the subject of this proceeding is located at 909 Congress Avenue Austin, Texas. The structure on this property is also known as the Mitchell-Robertson Building. The property is legally known as S 23 FT OF LOT 3 BLOCK 111 ORIGINAL CITY. Page 1 of 3 18 of 60B-10II. III. owner. OWNER IDENTIFICATION By copy of the Travis Central Appraisal District records, H. Dalton Wallace is the title INSPECTION INFORMATION On November 2,2020, the premises was inspected by Austin Code Officer Willis Adams for the City of Austin and violations were found. On January 19, 2021, Austin Code Officer Willis Adams performed an inspection at this location and found that the conditions remained the same. On March 10, 2021, Austin Code Officer Willis Adams performed an inspection at this location and found the property remains in violation. IV. NOTICES OF VIOLATION The Austin Code Department of the City of Austin provided notice to the following individual/entity: Dalton H. Wallace (Owner) Mail sent certified # 7016 0910 0000 5958 5235 on November 9,2020. Mail sent regular on November 9,2020. Posted on property on December 20,2020. V. APPEAL INFORMATION FOR T HIE NOTICES OF VIOLATION No appeal was received by the Code Official's designee to the Commission related to the Notices of Violation described in Subsection B. IV. (Notices of Violation). VI. NOTICES OF HEARING The Austin Code Department of the City of Austin provided the following notification of hearing by posting on the premises on March 11, 2021 and by publication in the Austin American Statesman on March 12, 2021. Additionally, notice of hearing was sent to: Dalton H. Wallace (Owner) Mail sent certified # 7019 2280 0001 1062 0537 on March 11, 2021. Mail sent regular on March 11, 2021. VII. VIOLATIONS The following condition(s) of the premises violate the identified subsections of the International Property Maintenance Code, adopted by reference in Sections 25-12-211 through 25-12-213 of the Austin City Code. These noted violations create a public nuisance and the premises is considered unsafe with substandard conditions. Description of Violation: Unsafe Conditions (§304.1.1): The following exterior condition(s) are unsafe: (front exterior wall has loose bricks) Remedy: Repair exterior wall. Description of Violation: Protective Treatment (§304.2): Exterior surfaces, including but not limited to, doors, door and window frames, cornices, porches, trim, balconies, decks and fences, have not been maintained in good condition. Remedy: Repair exterior window and door frames. Description of Violation: Roofs and Drainage (§304.7): The roof and flashing is Page 2 of 3 i 1 1 19 of 60B-10unsound and has defects that admit rain. Roof drainage is not adequate to prevent dampness or deterioration in the walls or interior portion of the structure. Roof has trash, debris and is not being maintained in good repair and free from obstructions. Remedy: Repair damaged roof and bring structure up to City Code standards. Description of Violation: Foundation Walls (§304.5): Foundation walls must be free from open cracks and breaks and have holes and cracks in such condition so as to not prevent the entry of rodents and other pests. Remedy: Repair foundation walls. Description of Violation: Exterior Walls (§304.6): All exterior walls shall be free from holes, breaks, and loose or rotting materials; and maintained weatherproof and properly surface coated where required to prevent deterioration. Remedy: Repair exterior walls. VIII. PERMITS SECURED No permit has been secured for this property. C. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Commission makes the following conclusions of law: The Commission concludes that the property described above does not comply with the Austin City Code. The Commission concludes that the Austin Code Department served notice for the Commission' s March 24,2021 hearing as described above and in accordance with applicable laws and ordinances. The Commission concludes that because substandard conditions described above exist at the property, that this property is a public nuisance and dangerous with substandard conditions. The Commission concludes that because substandard conditions described above exist at the property, these noted violations create a public nuisance and the premises is considered unsafe with substandard conditions. SIGNED:/??9 Andrea ??50*6-, Chair Building and Standards Commission Date 3/30 81 Return to: City of Austin Austin Code Department P.O. Box 1088, Austin, Texas 78767 - 1088 ATIN: Melanie Alley, BSC Coordinator SWORN and SUBSCRIBED before me this JO?0' day of March, 2021. /714/ € »-r Notary Public in and for the State ofc.yas 118(1¢8 14 Now,y ID # 8816301 1?-445#W@' Ex?res Janupy30, 2024 ?[ 11 Page 3 of 3 20 of 60B-10 July 20, 2021 Donna Carter Carter Design Associates 817 W. Eleventh Street Austin, Texas 78701 RE: Structural Assessment of Historic Masonry 907, 909 and 911 Congress Avenue Dear Ms. Carter: At your request, representatives of our office performed a structural assessment of the three existing storefront buildings located at 907, 909, and 911 N. Congress Avenue in Austin, Texas on July 7, 2021. The purpose of this report is to assess the existing masonry elements of all three structures and provide a rendered opinion regarding their structural integrity and options for preserving the historic front façades of the existing buildings. We appreciate the opportunity to assist you with this structural assessment. Please contact our office at (512) 499-0919 if you have any questions or further needs. Sincerely, Jerry Garcia, P.E. Founding Principal License #67435 21.153 Firm No: F-3323 6926 N. Lamar Blvd., Austin, TX 78752 | T: 512.499.0919 | F: 512.320.8521 Page 1 of 8 www.structurestx.com 21 of 60B-10Introduction All three buildings were constructed at or around 1881 and have experienced a myriad of uses and modifications throughout their history. The superstructure of each building includes a mixture of wood stick framing and structural masonry elements that bear on a concrete slab- on-grade foundation. Existing wood-framed roof and upper floor systems have been observed to have extensive structural damage that has created potential life-safety concerns. The existing slab-on-grade foundation systems appear to be performing adequately with no major concerns noted at the time of observation. These buildings have been vacant and neglected for an extensive period of time. As such, the buildings have become dilapidated due to the accelerating exposure to the elements and a lack of basic maintenance to both the interiors and exteriors. For the purposes of this report, our office will be limiting our scope and recommendations primarily to the front brick facades and the load-bearing limestone side walls as it is our understanding that all structure behind the front façades will be demolished as part of the forthcoming development of the property. Masonry Preservation and Restoration Efforts It is our understanding that the Austin Historic Land Commission requires the preservation of all three existing façades facing Congress Avenue in order to retain the historic fabric of the area. On May 24th, 2021, the Commission made the recommendations that the front façades of 907 and 911 Congress Avenue shall be carefully deconstructed and then reconstructed in its original configuration while the front upper façade of 909 Congress Avenue shall be preserved as it stands today. The purpose of this section is to discuss the structural implications of each of these recommendations and give a professional opinion that best obtains the goal of preserving these historic elements. Historic Background of Masonry While portland cement, a major component in modern-day masonry mortars, was introduced to the United States in 1872, it was not commonly used in this area of the country until the turn of the century. Instead, the mortar used throughout these buildings is a lime-based mortar which consists of a mixture of lime, sand, and water. Historically, this has been proven to be a relatively porous material which does not render the wall impervious to moisture. Instead, the mortar would soak in moisture which would evaporate toward the exterior, gradually drying out both the wall cavity and the mortar. This characteristic of permeability would lead to repetitive cycles of wetting and drying, eventually causing the mortar to deteriorate, necessitating the periodic replacement of the mortar as part of building maintenance. Prior to the 1870s, bricks this country were largely made by hand, with clay, sand, and water pressed into molds, then dried and fired. Buildings built from this weaker, softer, and more porous handmade brick often required the use of a protective coating for an added layer to combat natural elements. By the time these three buildings were constructed, advances in brickmaking offered stronger, more consistent brick options. These bricks were likely molded with this stronger form of brick which featured harder dress faces that alleviated many of the shortcomings of the earlier bricks and did not require paint or other protective coatings for protection. 21.153 Firm No: F-3323 6926 N. Lamar Blvd., Austin, TX 78752 | T: 512.499.0919 | F: 512.320.8521 Page 2 of 8 www.structurestx.com 22 of 60B-10 The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation states modern water paints should "almost never" be applied to historically unpainted brick from this era. As moisture intrudes into the masonry from the ground, humidity, rain, or other means, this paint coating can intensify the damage as the trapped moisture cannot escape from the wall. Eventually, this moisture will get out by the path of least resistance, which in this situation is likely toward the exterior due to the high moisture levels in the interiors of the structures. This migration of water can lead to damage to the masonry caused by built-up water pressure on the exterior face of the brick façade. Painted-over masonry found on throughout these properties all have visible blistering of the painted surface, which indicates moisture is indeed trapped behind the impermeable paint coatings. The true state of the masonry can only be discovered once all paint and plaster has been removed and proper observations and testing can be made. Preservation of Existing Facades All existing façades visually appear to be clay brick with lime mortar, a common system used by masons in that era of construction. 907 and 911 Congress have exposed brickwork while the 909 Congress façade has been painted over with what appears to be an impermeable paint. All existing façades have experienced varying levels of damages and are all in need of extensive repair to both the brickwork and the mortar joints. Supporting steel lintel beams have aged poorly and show varying levels of corrosion due to the site's general lack of maintenance and moisture issues. These steel members are extensively rusting, potentially beyond repair, and are exhibiting signs of excessive deflection potentially caused by their compromised structural integrity. Excessive lintel deflection appears to be a contributing factor to the damages and cracks seen on some areas of the front facades. One of the recommendations made by the Austin Historic Land Commission was to preserve the existing brick façade of 909 Congress Avenue as it stands today, specifically the upper level. To complete this recommendation, the brick façade of the 2nd floor would have to be suspended in place while the storefront below is demolished and remain suspended until the new building structure can be installed to adequately support the brick in its final designed state. Additionally, the facades of 907 and 911 Congress are intended to be carefully deconstructed on either side of 909 Congress Avenue so the upper front section of brick would be the only remaining piece of the existing buildings suspended for the duration of construction. Inherently, there is a significant amount of specialized labor involved with deconstructing and reconstructing the historic facades at 907 and 911 Congress Avenue along with potentially distressing construction occurring in near proximity and underneath the suspended brick at 909 Congress Avenue. Obviously, numerous opportunities for accidental damages may occur that could compromise the historic façade and render the existing masonry unsalvageable or compromised beyond repair. However high the risk may be, our office has identified three potential ways to suspend this portion of façade, each with their own limitations and concerns: 21.153 Firm No: F-3323 6926 N. Lamar Blvd., Austin, TX 78752 | T: 512.499.0919 | F: 512.320.8521 Page 3 of 8 www.structurestx.com 23 of 60B-10Option 1 - Brace into Lot A steel frame structure with plywood sheathing could be utilized to sandwich the area of brick façade to be saved. This would allow for a structure that is stiff enough to not cause irreparable damages to the brittle façade. This steel structure would then have to be laterally braced towards the lot and away from Congress Avenue using steel diagonal members that would bear on new foundations within the extents of the existing buildings to provide gravity and lateral support of the brick façade as demolition and construction occurs around it. Due to the extent of demolition required in and around this particular building, this option will likely not be feasible as contractors would likely not be able to complete their scope of work around the proposed bracing elements. 21.153 Firm No: F-3323 6926 N. Lamar Blvd., Austin, TX 78752 | T: 512.499.0919 | F: 512.320.8521 Page 4 of 8 www.structurestx.com 24 of 60B-10Option 2 - Brace toward Congress Avenue Similar to Option 1, a steel frame structure with plywood sheathing could be utilized to sandwich the area of brick façade to be saved. This would allow for a structure that is stiff enough to not cause irreparable damages to the brittle façade. This steel structure would then have to be laterally braced towards Congress Avenue using steel diagonal members that would bear on new foundations within the sidewalk or parking areas to provide gravity and lateral support of the brick façade as demolition and construction occurs around it. Bracing elements would have to attached down through the sidewalk and/or the street parking spots for an extended amount of time until demolition and new construction are completed. This solution would cause significant interruptions to Congress Avenue and may incur excessive fines for impeding the right of way making this option improbable. Additionally, having the bracing elements in the public domain could increase the risks of accidents occurring that would cause distress and potential damage to the masonry. 21.153 Firm No: F-3323 6926 N. Lamar Blvd., Austin, TX 78752 | T: 512.499.0919 | F: 512.320.8521 Page 5 of 8 www.structurestx.com 25 of 60B-10Option 3 - Brace with Cantilevered Columns A similar steel frame structure as described in Options 1 and 2, but with far stiffer vertical elements as this option will not require any additional steel diagonal bracing for support. This steel frame will be supported from below with steel columns that are supported by a series of new concrete piers socketed into limestone. All steel elements will have to be designed to resist wind loads and provide adequate stiffness to prevent compromising the suspended masonry. Concerns with vibration during construction of the forthcoming development present a significant concern to the weakened masonry that might not be able to withstand consistent disturbance that is standard for a construction site. It is the opinion of this office that the vibration and general disturbance caused during construction may very likely cause irreparable damages to the masonry while it is being suspended in place. Additionally, drilling the concrete piers directly below this brick façade as part of the bracing installation may also cause vibrations that damage the façade. 21.153 Firm No: F-3323 6926 N. Lamar Blvd., Austin, TX 78752 | T: 512.499.0919 | F: 512.320.8521 Page 6 of 8 www.structurestx.com 26 of 60B-10Preservation of Existing Limestone Sidewalls The load-bearing side walls of each structure appear to be stacked limestone wet-laid into a lime mortar similar to that of the brick facades. Most of the limestone walls appear to be in decent structural condition and area continuing to support the second floors and roofs of each building, as the original design intended. While the wall system as a whole is operating as intended, localized areas have moderate damages that will require future maintenance if they are to remain in place. Our office saw some evidence of excess moisture trapped in both the mortar and limestone likely due to prolonged exposure to humidity and weather with varying levels of temperature and air conditioning on opposite sides of the wall. This moisture does not appear to be causing any notable structural damages when both sides of the wall are saturated, however, if one side is saturated and the other is conditioned/dry then some deterioration was noted. In these conditions, moisture attempts to travel toward the drier side as it is the path of least resistance. This cyclical migration of water can lead to damages to both the limestone and the lime mortar over an extended period of time. Further investigations will be required to generate a solution to these problems once the Client establishes which walls are anticipated to remain as part of the new development. For walls that will remain as part of the new development scope, shoring/bracing will be required to stabilize the wall as demolition and construction occur. These elements will have to remain in place until the new structure is in place and can fully support the walls on their own. Our office anticipates attaching continuous horizontal HSS tubes to the face of the limestone wall at each level of existing diaphragm. HSS or WF kickers will be welded to these tubes at regular spacing and will be supported on new shallow concrete footing foundation elements within the existing building extents. Specific plans can be provided by our office once it is clear which walls are to remain. Rendered Opinions and Recommendations Based on the significance of the proposed development and the extensive effort required to protect already compromised façade elements, it is the opinion of our office to deconstruct, catalogue, and reconstruct all three facades at a more appropriate time in the development’s schedule. Our office believes this will prove to be the safest solution in preserving the existing façade elements of all three buildings facing Congress Avenue. Additionally, compromised bricks and deteriorated mortar can be replaced and properly repaired to eliminate concerns regarding integrity thus providing a longer life-span for the three masonry facades. Attempts at suspending the 2nd story façade of 909 Congress Avenue greatly increases the chances of more extensive damage to the brick façade during construction and presents a considerable probability that much of the façade would need to be repaired after construction is complete. Our office recommends removal of all paint coatings from the front faces of the exterior brick façades by a qualified contractor with experience in paint removal on historic masonry structures using the gentlest means possible. This recommendation is especially pertinent to 909 Congress Avenue which has visible, widespread blistering of the exterior surface that indicates moisture is trapped behind the paint. It is important to visually inspect the physical state of all painted brick and mortar after removal of the paint to confirm the structural integrity of all materials. At the time of this report, it is the understanding of our office that samples of both the weathering 21.153 Firm No: F-3323 6926 N. Lamar Blvd., Austin, TX 78752 | T: 512.499.0919 | F: 512.320.8521 Page 7 of 8 www.structurestx.com 27 of 60B-10brick and mortar have been obtained by WJE testing. Further structural recommendations may come after obtaining additional information related to the current properties of each material. lab for 21.153 Firm No: F-3323 6926 N. Lamar Blvd., Austin, TX 78752 | T: 512.499.0919 | F: 512.320.8521 Page 8 of 8 www.structurestx.com 28 of 60B-10April 23, 2021 Ms. Donna Carter Carter Design Associates 817 W. Eleventh Street Austin, Texas 78701 Dear Ms. Carter: RE: 907, 909 and 911 Congress Avenue - Historic Façades At your request I visited the above-mentioned locations to observe and to provide a rendered opinion regarding an approach toward salvaging the historic fabric of the existing buildings facing Congress Avenue. The three masonry and wood framed structures were constructed in the early 20th century and have experienced a myriad of uses and modifications throughout their history. For the purposes of this report, we will be limiting our attention to the front elevations. It is my understanding that a significant development is planned for these sites, but the historic nature of the façades will need to be maintained. I have been charged to render an opinion for the historic rehabilitation based on the current structural integrity and the options associated with achieving the intended goal. Existing Condition The three structures have been vacant and have not been maintained for many years. As such the buildings have become dilapidated and have been exposed to the elements for quite some time. The existing wooden framed roof and upper floor systems are damaged extensively and have created a life/safety concern. The original masonry walls that divide the buildings are for the most part in acceptable condition. The existing main level slabs appear to be performing adequately. The existing façades are quite damaged and in need of extensive repair. Supporting steel beams are very old and compromised and are exhibiting signs of excessive deflection. Exposure has also contributed to their loss of structural integrity. Options It is my understanding that two options are being weighed for the rehabilitation of the building fronts. 1. Repair the elevations in-place. 2. Remove the existing materials and replace them in a historically appropriate fashion during or after the completion of the development. Based on the significance of the proposed development and the extensive effort required to protect an already compromised elevation, it is the opinion of this office that the existing materials should be removed and replaced at a more appropriate time in the development’s schedule. 29 of 60B-10If option 2 is indeed executed, a very comprehensive cataloguing of the in-place assemblies will be required. Scaffolding will be required at the interior and exterior of the building to properly support scanning equipment, workers and the loads associated with the dismantling of the façades. Scaffolding Exterior scaffolding will be required to support the mentioned loads as well as to offer safe pedestrian traffic below. A scaffolding company familiar with this type of work will need to be commissioned. All scaffolding must be free standing and not depend on the existing structure for bracing. Interior scaffolding will be required to support the described loads. Although the foundation is adequate to support the anticipated loads, the upper levels are not. All scaffolding will need to be free standing and “threaded” through the existing second level and roof. All scaffolding will need to be continuous to the top of the structure. Please be aware that the floor and roof cannot be removed in its entirety as it currently provides bracing for the front elevation. The amount of bracing required for the front facade and the layout of the proposed scaffolding will require coordination to properly maintain structural integrity. Requirements for scanning, weight limits and allowable deflections in the scaffolding must be coordinated with all affected parties. Scaffolding may be removed upon completion of the dismantling of the front elevations. Replacement Prior to the replacement of the materials, appropriate structural steel framing must be provided to provide sufficient strength and stiffness. I am happy to expound on any aspect of this summary. Please let me know if you have any questions. Sincerely, Jerry Garcia, P.E. License #67435 30 of 60B-1031 of 60B-10907 – 909 – 911 CONGRESS AVENUE  AUSTIN, TEXAS  FAÇADE DECONSTRUCTION / RECONSTRUCTION   SCOPE OF WORK / OUTLINE TO COMPLETE    A. OVERALL PROJECT ORGANIZATION (OVERVIEW – SEE BELOW FOR DETAIL)  a. Research and documentation search on existing construction  b. Visual and non‐destructive evaluation (NDE) and testing  c. Confirmation of structural integrity and ability to withstand documentation and deconstruction as  planned.  d. Deliverable 1 – Abstract and Bibliography of information used to inform reconstruction  (photographs), 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. Deliverable 2 – Safety plan for documentation and deconstruction including pedestrian protection,  neighboring building and selective access for design and deconstruction team.  h. Preparation of specifications, drawings and other elements required for contract/bid documents for  deconstruction work  i. Deliverable 3 – Final drawings and documentation of existing conditions.  j. Deliverable 4  –  Deconstruction Phase:  Confirm document accuracy based on profiles, details and  other site collected information.   k. Document, number and record materials pallets as part of deconstruction.    l. On‐site observation of work in progress   m. Final Documentation of  deconstruction, material inventory and  proper storage  n. Deliverable 5 – Reconstruction documents and coordination with redevelopment design team  o. On‐site observation of work in progress  p. Final documentation of historic materials in place    B. 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 for archives.  Due to safety  concerns and current protections, documentation scans cannot be completed until the bracing  required for deconstruction is in place.  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. Coordinate with Austin History Center and City Preservation Officer on existing documents that may  be available to use as resources for the reconstruction or representation of unknown elements.   CARTER ● DESIGN ASSOCIATES  ‐‐ 21 July 2021 ‐ REVISED    1 | P a g e   32 of 60B-10Coordinate with Austin History Center to determine final document  preparation and retention  requirements for archival purposes.    C, D & E ARE DONE SIMULTANEOUSLY    C. THE NON – DESTRUCTIVE EVALUATION (NDE) 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.  Perform preliminary laser scans  and material testing based on access availability. Adjust scanning, geolocating, testing and  evaluation based on new information, access and time.  c. Prior to and during deconstruction, expose representative areas of the structures for additional  documentation. Ensure all representative masonry patterns and types will be exposed in this  controlled fashion.  AE to be present to Llook for ghosting patterns that may indicate construction  sequence or technique, additional materials that may not be present, missing non masonry materials,  paint colors and construction sequences, etc.  d. Develop detailed strategy for salvage of masonry and materials required for reconstruction.  e. Document location for all testing and investigations.  f. Confirm Sequence and schedule of work  g. Field observation of the material evaluation tests  D. DAMAGE ASSESSMENT, PROBES AND SAMPLING  a. Determine types of material deterioration – moisture, mortar failure, compression failure and/or  structural failure  b. Brick and stone mortar samples  c. Stone samples  d. Brick samples for composition and color  e. Other building materials as found and identified  f. Documentation of construction detail ‐ in situ    g. Structural sequencing for the deconstruction  E. STRUCTURAL EVALUATION  a. Review known Information on structural integrity, covers and previous Interventions/damages  b. Visual assessments  c. Non‐Destructive Evaluations (NDE)   d. Analytical program to determine tolerable stresses during deconstruction  e. Evaluation of information from the NDE and Analytical Programs  f. Final determination on viability of in‐situ restoration of 909 Congress.  g. Final structural review and approval of support, scaffolding, protections, separation of buildings and  properties under separate ownership as required for safe deconstruction of facades, bracing of areas  to be deconstructed/demolished, bracing of adjacent properties, storage conditions, and  reconstruction plans  CARTER ● DESIGN ASSOCIATES  ‐‐ 21 July 2021 ‐ REVISED    2 | P a g e         33 of 60B-10F. SPECIFICATIONS FOR DECONSTRUCTION   Division 1 – General Requirements  Historic Treatments  Photographic Documentation  Submittal Procedures  Mock‐ups  Temporary Facilities, Controls and Protections   Traffic Control  Construction Waste Management and Disposal  Project Record Documents    Structure Demolition  Selective Demolition  Historic Removal and Dismantling  Pest Control  Brick Masonry Repair  Historic Masonry Cleaning  Historic Brick Unit Masonry Repair  Historic Stone Masonry Repair  Historic Stone Consolidation Treatment        Division 2 – Existing Conditions            Division 4 ‐ Masonry              Division 5 – Metals          Division 6 – Wood, Plastics and Composites            Division 7 – Thermal and Moisture Protection  Sheet Metal Flashing and Trim      Joint Sealants    Division 8 – Openings      Historic Wood repair  Exterior Rough Carpentry  Sheathing  Wood Treatments  Historic Metal Cleaning  Historic Metal Repair  Steel Framing  Historic Treatment of Wood Windows  CARTER ● DESIGN ASSOCIATES  ‐‐ 21 July 2021 ‐ REVISED    3 | P a g e   34 of 60B-10Division 9 – Finishes          Historic Treatment of Plain Painting  Exterior Painting  Specialty Coatings    G. DECONSTRUCTION AND RECONSTRUCTION PHILOSOPHY AND APPROACH  a. Use the Secretary of Interior (SOI) Standards for Reconstruction and Guidelines for Reconstructing  Historic Buildings (2017).  Although other properties of this era survive, the loss of this much of the  block face would be detrimental to the experience, understanding and knowledge of the Congress  Avenue Historic District.  Although it is understood that Reconstruction is the historic treatment of  last resort, façade reconstruction in this case, is not only warranted, but fundamental to the integrity  and sense of place.    b. All work done by statutorily defined disciplines shall meet SOI stated professional qualifications and  standards.  All professionals shall have the minimum education and experience level providing  services on historical projects of this importance and complexity.  Additionally minimum years of  experience in comparable historic demolition, deconstruction and construction shall be  demonstrated by those providing construction services associated with the project.  These  qualifications will be delineated and quantified in the technical specifications and the contract  documents for all aspects of the project undertakings.    c. At a minimum the following SOI Treatment Standards are to be met.  1. Reconstruction will be used to depict vanished or non‐surviving portions of a property when  documentary and physical evidence is available to permit accurate reconstruction with  minimal conjecture and such reconstruction is essential to the public understanding of the  property.  2. Reconstruction of a building, structure or object in its historic location will be preceded by  thorough investigation to identify and evaluate those features and artifacts which are  essential to an accurate reconstruction. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation  measures will be undertaken.  <This Statement of Work outlines our mitigation measures>  3. Reconstruction will include measures to preserve any remaining historic materials, features,  and spatial relationships.  4. Reconstruction will be based on the accurate duplication of historic features and elements  substantiated by documentary or physical evidence rather than on conjectural designs or the  availability of different features from other historic properties. A reconstructed property will  re‐create the appearance of the non‐surviving historic property in materials, design, color  and texture.  5. RA reconstruction will be clearly identified as a contemporary re‐creation.  6. Designs that were never executed historically will not be constructed.    d. There are historic portions of the buildings that will not be rebuilt, including stone exterior walls.  As  part of the historical archive, accurate drawings and photographs of the current condition should be  created to be archived at the Austin History Center.  4 | P a g e   CARTER ● DESIGN ASSOCIATES  ‐‐ 21 July 2021 ‐ REVISED    35 of 60B-10e. Although the general period of significance is assumed, a reconstruction date would be determined  based on known, authenticated photographic evidence and may be different for each structure.  f. Reconstruction details will be based on photographic and other evidentiary findings, not on  speculation, conjecture or what is present on other buildings of the era.  g. Careful delineation and mapping of the distinct types of reconstruction.  1. Original materials, installed in original location;   2. original materials installed in a different, but like location,  3. original materials installed in a different and unlike location;  4. replication based on documentation; and   5. infill elements for which there is no documentation either to material, color, finish and /or  profile.  h. Develop documentation to assist the public in understanding the reconstruction – appreciating the  i. value of the reconstruction yet recognizing that reconstruction is different from having the resource  itself.  It is understood the reconstruction of the historic façades will be part of a contemporary  redevelopment of the site. Historic reconstruction documents pertaining to the design and  reconstruction of the façades with materials and construction techniques unique to their materials  and construction should be prepared and coordinated both aesthetically and structurally with the  new development.  j. As much historic material, in its original location will be re‐used as possible.  It is understood that  some material is beyond repair and will have to be replicated.  It is also understood that there are  materials in walls to be demolished and not rebuilt, that may be used to rebuild the façades.  The  salvaged material should be used to the fullest extent possible.  k. All salvaged materials shall be retained until construction of the entire redevelopment project is  complete.  No viable nonhazardous historic material should be deposed of without approval of the  Historic Architect of Record.  l. Without compromising building integrity, new materials should match historic materials in species,  chemical and compositional makeup.  New mortar mixes should be based on testing original mortars  and structural requirements based on the capacities, strength and composition of the original brick.   Any code required changes shall be clearly identifiable as modern interventions, and if at all possible  not visible on the historic façade.  m. At this time storefront evidence for the three buildings is lacking.  Photographic evidence of the  original wood arcades has been found and can be used should the Preservation Office agree the  recreation of the arcades is desirable.  Evidence of the storefronts contemporaneous with the  original construction of the buildings has not been found.  l.n. Photographic evidence of circa 1920s‐1930s storefronts does exist.  As does evidence for later more  modern storefronts.  CDA will work with the Preservation office to determine the desired  reconstruction intent at the street level.     H. STABILIZATION AND DECONSTRUCTION WORK PLAN  a. Overall Plan:  Deconstruct facades prior to demolition of 909 and 911.  As safely as is practicable  provide needle support and bracing for facade at 907 and start demolition of 907 to prepare site to  brace the north wall of 905.   5 | P a g e   CARTER ● DESIGN ASSOCIATES  ‐‐ 21 July 2021 ‐ REVISED    36 of 60B-10b. Provide city of Austin approved Traffic control Plan.   c. Construct pedestrian protection, shields and other demolition required facilities. Such protection  should not rely on the historic buildings for structural or other support or stabilization.  d. Provide engineered drawings for needling and bracing of facades required to safely perform the  deconstruction.  a. Provide engineered drawings for the bracing required for the stability of neighboring 905.  b.e. Deconstruct each building individually.  If confirmed by structural analysis of current condition, start  with 907, then 911 and finally determine the stability of 909.  Final deconstruction sequence to be  determined/ confirmed by licensed structural engineer.  f. Prior to deconstruction of the masonry structure, all window frames, sashes and accoutrements shall  be removed.   All window parts shall be examined and with the final determination of any that can be  restored and reinstalled.  Those that cannot salvaged shall be retained to be used as  templates/scribes for reconstruction of replacement windows. If any glazing (broken or whole) is still  in the window, it should remain and be protected until it can be studied in more detail.  c.g. Provide Ttemporary support for the openings as may be required to continue the measured  deconstruction..  If any glazing (broken or whole) is still in the window, it should remain and be  protected until it can be studied in more detail.  d.h. Window parts will be numbered and labeled both for their location in the façade and their place in  the window assembly.  In the case of 907, the wood species should be identified, profiles recorded,  and glazing preserved, as these are some of the few remaining curved top windows and frames.  e.i. Each window opening will require extensive documentation to determine existing condition, any  ghosting or clues about the original installation and finishes.  f.j. Based on the information revealed previously, the cornice sections will be removed to document not  only their profile, but construction.  Ghosts of masonry joints will be recorded to guide sizing of new  materials that may be needed to complete the reconstructed profiles.   g.k. Brick and stone courses may not be level.  Compression and mortar failure may render in‐situ  measurements inaccurate for reconstruction. Masonry courses may have changed size due to  compression, tensile, structural failure, loss of mortar and/or damage by modern construction.    h.l. As deconstruction progresses, record information that may have been hidden and protected to be  used to inform reconstruction and added to the historical record for the structure.  Using  photography, scribes and other tracing tools make full size templates as required for repair,  reconstruction or replication.  i.m. The site, itself will be treated much like an archeological site using hand tools and markers familiar to  the trade. Stable plastic reference targets and 2 meter metal ranging rods will be used to ensure any  salvage, reference materials and /or wooden guide sticks and references are properly calibrated.   j.n. Laser Scanning and digital referencing is recommendedwill be employed.  With the help of a laser  point cloud created by the scan, the existing façade will be mapped with a grid that will allow us to  locate each brick and confirm its location as it is removed, evaluated, cleaned, numbered and  prepared for transportation and storage. The use of laser scanning provides stable benchmarks from  which all measurements can be made.  The same points can be used for the reconstruction of the  facades and be used to account for any structural deformities that may be present now.  k.o. Should laser scanning not be possible for structural or other reasonsInitial laser scanning, and laser  measurements taken during deconstruction will be used to create, a 3 point location grid will be  established for recording the position of each course and eachintermediate bricks and all openings.   6 | P a g e   CARTER ● DESIGN ASSOCIATES  ‐‐ 21 July 2021 ‐ REVISED    37 of 60B-10These will be measured in relationship to each other as well as the structure as a whole, using the  ranging rods and /or targets for accurate measurebenchmarks.  Each structure will be deconstructed  from the north to the south.  Wooden gauging strips will also be prepared, marked and kept as  reference for each course and palletted with the masonry as it deconstructed.  Masonry openings  will also be marked in relation to the marked masonry units.  The goal is to have the masons work to  multiple intermediate data points so that the subtleties and imperfections of the original  construction can be replicated.  l. Remove bricks as directed by Eengineer and observed by the Architect, course by course.  Each  viable masonry unit will be numbered with condition on the top surface and referenced to the grid.   Non‐viable masonry will also be numbered and referenced to the grid, and marked for reversal,  repair, or replacement. This documentation will occur course by course including ties units,  ornamentation and interstitial Interior  wythes.    m.p. All brick and masonry work will be done by hand to the extent possible.  Should strong  mortar be encountered, mallet and chisel will be used by tradesperson skilled in their use for removal  of brick without damage to the brick or structure. Additional testing of masonry and mortar will be  required.  n.q. Bricks will be preliminarily cleaned of mortar at this phase, properly marked and documented, and  placed on a pallet fitted with 5/8” plywood.  Pallets will be stacked by location and not higher than 12  units high.  Pallets will be shrink wrapped, marked and hauled to a storage warehouse.  Location in  the warehouse by location on the building will also be documented.  Stone components will be  similarly treated.  However, depending on their condition and their size, some crating of the units  may be required for protection.  o.r. Window frames shall be removed in the largest pieces possible, including whole sashes.  Do not clean  at this phase.  The opening, the sash and all wood parts and pockets will need to be inspected for  remnants of hardware, original paints and or stains.  The windows should be studied to prepare the  templates for the replica windows.  p.s. At the time of deconstruction, the first estimate on the numbers of bricks that will be reinstalled,  salvaged bricks that will be reused, and bricks that will have to be replaced  will be made.  At this  time all bricks that can be salvaged will be salvaged to be used as field replacements, salvage  poultice and other construction needs.  The goal is to use as much of the historic material in the  reconstruction as possible.  q.t. In situ measurements will be taken, however, due to mortar deterioration and shear failures, these  dimensions may not match the finished reconstruction and should be used to place the feature not  to measure its final location.  r.u. Although there is much deterioration, there are still areas where original construction and materials  have been protected.  These areas should be analyzed for color, material, paint layers and  construction techniques.  This information can then be used to inform the reconstruction of the  facades.    I. RECONSTRUCTION     a. Prepare reconstruction documents and specifications.  At the least the following specifications  should be added to the previously prepared technical specifications.  CARTER ● DESIGN ASSOCIATES  ‐‐ 21 July 2021 ‐ REVISED    7 | P a g e   38 of 60B-10Historic Metal Replication    Exterior Architectural Woodwork  Exterior Stile and Rail Wood Paneling    Division 5 – Metals      Division 6 – Wood, Plastics and Composites        Division 8 – Openings            Historic Treatment of Wood Doors  Stile and Rail Wood Doors  Wood Windows  Door Hardware  Glazing    b. The reconstruction drawings will be reviewed and corrected based on the conditions, dimensions  and information found during the deconstruction.  All documents will be corrected and specifications  will be added based on the as‐found conditions.  b.c. Historic Architect to coordinate the Owners of 905 to determine final IBC compliant fire wall required  and final stabilization of exterior stone wall at 905.  Demolition of 907 will effectively separate the  properties.  Any new construction on 907 will not depend on the existing historic wall for support or  fire resistance required by code.  c.d. Historic Architect to coordinate all work with new development Architect of Records.  It is  understood that the completed project should not appear like a new building with the historic  façade pasted onto its elevation.  d.e. Determine all new elements that will be required for the reconstruction.  Provide construction  detailing for new construction including wood profiles, stile and rail construction, and window sash  and frame.  e.f. Coordinate rebuilt facades with new construction.  Reconfirm with engineer the type of construction  that is needed for the reconstructed facades to work with the new construction.  f.g. Final cleaning and acclimation of all masonry prior to reconstruction.    g.h. Coordinate construction of on‐site mock‐ups using salvaged brick.  Mock‐ up to review mortar, color  matches (if required), brick repair (if required), brick turning, brick coursing and pattern.  Prepare  one mock up for each façade.  h.i. Clearly record the location of original material in original locations, original materials, replications and  areas with modern infill.  i.j. All reconstruction will use materials that will not stress the original brick and stone.  Mortar will be  formulated based on mortar test performed on the historic mortars.  j.k. Coordinate compilation of all final documentation including the archival information for the City.  k.l. Coordinate interpretive signs for the reconstruction and the Historic District.              CARTER ● DESIGN ASSOCIATES  ‐‐ 21 July 2021 ‐ REVISED    8 | P a g e   39 of 60B-10907, 909, AND 911 CONGRESS AVE INDEX OF SHEETS G100 G101 A101 A102 A103 A104 A105 A106 A107 A111 A112 A113 A114 S100 COVER SHEET ABBREVIATIONS & GENERAL NOTES HISTORIC PHOTOS 907 EXISTING PHOTOS 907 EXISTING CONDITIONS & DEMOLITION 909 EXISTING PHOTOS 909 EXISTING CONDITIONS & DEMOLITION 911 EXISTING PHOTOS 911 EXISTING CONDITIONS & DEMOLTION 907 FACADE RECONSTRUCTION 909 FACADE RECONSTRUCTION 911 FACADE RECONSTRUCTION EXISTING AND NEW ELEVATIONS BRACING PLAN PROJECT ADDRESS: 907, 909, 911 CONGRESS AVE AUSTIN, TX 78701 PROJECT NUMBER: 202103 PROJECT ISSUE DATE: 26 JULY 2021 LOCATION MAP CONSTRUCTION LOCATION : 3 0 1 2 0 2 R E B M U N T C E J O R P E V A S S E R G N O C 1 1 9 D N A , 9 0 9 , 7 0 9 i . c n I , s e t a c o s s A n g s e D i r e t r a C t h g i r y p o C PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION THIS DOCUMENT IS RELEASED FOR THE PURPOSE OF INTERIM REVIEW. IT IS INCOMPLETE AND MAY NOT BE USED FOR REGULATORY APPROVAL, PERMIT, OR CONSTRUCTION. DONNA CARTER TEXAS REGISTRATION NUMBER #8207 REVISIONS: NO REFERENCE ISSUED ARCHITECT STRUCTURES STRUCTURAL ENGINEER STRUCTURES, TX 6926 N. LAMAR BLVD AUSTIN, TX 78752 (512)-499-0919 40 of 60B-10RECONSTRUCTION NOTES STABILIZATION AND DEMO NOTES GENERAL NOTES @ @.F.F., @FF ABV. ACOUST. A/C ADA ADMIN. A/P/F/S. A.F.F., AFF ALUM. ARCH(L). ASST. A-V BD. BET. BHL BLDG. BLK. BLKG BM(S). B.O.C. BOT. BSMT. BTWN. CL C. C.J., CJ C.O.A. CAB. CAL. CCTS. CHAN. CLG. CMU, C.M.U. COL. COM. CONC. CONN. CONST. CONT. COORD CORR. CTR(D). CU. CVR. DET. DIAG. DIA. DISP. DIV. DN. DORM. DP. D.S. DW DWG. DWLS. E. EA. EJ., E.J. ELEV. ENGR. EQ. ESM'T. EWC EXH. EXP. EXT. EXTING. FEC ABBREVIATIONS AT AT FINISHED FLOOR ABOVE ACOUSTICAL AIR CONDITIONING AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT ADMINISTRATION AMPS/POLES/FUSE SIZE/STARTER SIZE ABOVE FINISH FLOOR ALUMINUM ARCHITECT, ARCHITECTURAL ASSISTANT AUDIO-VISUAL BOARD BETWEEN BOREHOLE BUILDING BLOCK BLOCKING BEAM(S) BACK OF CURB BOTTOM BASEMENT BETWEEN CENTER LINE CONDUIT CONTROL JOINT CITY OF AUSTIN CABINET CALIPER CIRCUITS CHANNEL CEILING CONCRETE MASONRY UNIT COLUMN COMMUNICATION CONCRETE CONNECTION CONSTRUCTION CONTINUOUS COORDINATION CORRIDOR CENTER(ED) COPPER COVER DETAIL DIAGONAL(LY) DIAMETER DISPENSER DIVISION DOWN DORMITORY DEEP DOWNSPOUT DISHWASHER DRAWING DOWELS EAST EACH EXPANSION JOINT ELEVATION ENGINEER EQUAL EASEMENT ELECTRIC WATER COOLER EXHAUST EXPANSION EXTERIOR EXTINGUISHER FIRE EXTINGUISHER CABINET SYMBOLS DRAWING TITLE 1 View Name 1/8" = 1'-0" PLAN TRUE N NORTH NORTH FINISH FLOOR 100' - 0" FINISH FLOOR 100' - 0" 1 A-101 NORTH ARROWS ELEVATION IDENTIFIER CEILING HEIGHT IDENTIFIER ELEVATION MARKERS 1 A101 SECTION CUT MARKER DETAIL CALL-OUT MARKER COLUMN GRID IDENTIFIER ROOM NAME FLOOR PLAN ROOM IDENTIFIER 1 A-101 0 100 100 8'-0" 101 1i 1i XXX FURNITURE PLAN ROOM IDENTIFIER RCP ROOM IDENTIFIER DOOR IDENTIFIER WINDOW IDENTIFIER WALL CONSTRUCTION IDENTIFIER FURNITURE IDENTIFIER SLOPE ARROW t v r . K F 4 2 Z 1 a d c _ s s e r g n o C 1 1 9 - 7 0 9 \ h t a P t c e o r j P \ : E M P 6 2 : 6 1 : 4 1 2 0 2 3 2 7 / / 1. THE RECONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS WILL BE REVIEWED AND CORRECTED BASED ON THE CONDITIONS, DIMENSIONS AND INFORMATION FOUND DURING THE DECONSTRUCTION. ALL DOCUMENTS WILL BE CORRECTED AND SPECIFICATIONS WILL BE ADDED BASED ON THE AS‐FOUND CONDITIONS. 2. HISTORIC ARCHITECT TO COORDINATE ALL WORK WITH NEW DEVELOPMENT ARCHITECTS. IT IS UNDERSTOOD THAT THE COMPLETED PROJECT SHOULD NOT APPEAR LIKE A NEW BUILDING WITH THE HISTORIC FAÇADE PASTED ONTO ITS ELEVATION. 3. DETERMINE ALL NEW ELEMENTS THAT WILL BE REQUIRED FOR THE RECONSTRUCTION. PROVIDE CONSTRUCTION DETAILING FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION INCLUDING WOOD PROFILES, STILE AND RAIL CONSTRUCTION, AND WINDOW SASH AND FRAME. 4. COORDINATE REBUILT FACADES WITH NEW CONSTRUCTION. RECONFIRM WITH ENGINEER THE TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION THAT IS NEEDED FOR THE RECONSTRUCTED FACADES TO WORK WITH THE NEW CONSTRUCTION. FINAL CLEANING AND ACCLIMATION OF ALL MASONRY PRIOR TO RECONSTRUCTION. 6. COORDINATE CONSTRUCTION OF ON‐SITE MOCK-UPS USING SALVAGED BRICK. MOCK‐ UP TO REVIEW MORTAR, COLOR MATCHES (IF REQUIRED), BRICK REPAIR (IF REQUIRED), BRICK TURNING, BRICK COURSING AND PATTERN. PREPARE ONE MOCK UP FOR EACH FAÇADE. ALL RECONSTRUCTION WILL USE MATERIALS THAT WILL NOT STRESS THE ORIGINAL BRICK AND STONE. MORTAR WILL BE FORMULATED BASED ON MORTAR TEST PERFORMED ON THE HISTORIC MORTARS. 8. COORDINATE COMPILATION OF ALL FINAL DOCUMENTATION INCLUDING THE ARCHIVAL INFORMATION FOR THE CITY. 9. COORDINATE INTERPRETIVE SIGNS FOR THE RECONSTRUCTION AND THE HISTORIC DISTRICT. 5. 7. PREFAB. PRO. PVC. R. R.O.W. RCP., R.C.P. R.D. RECOM. REF. REINF. REQD. RM. R.R. S. S.B.L. SAN. SC. SCHED. SF. SHT. SHWR. SIM. SN. S.O.S. SQ. STD. STGT. STIFF. STL. STOR. STRUCT. SUSP. SW. SWR TEL. TL. T.O.B.(M.) T.O.S. TOT. TS TW. TYP. UL U.N.O., UNO VCT VERT. W/ W W.R. W.W.F. WD. WP. WT. PREFABRICATED PROTECTION POLYVINYL CHLORIDE REFRIGERATOR RIGHT OF WAY REINFORCED CONCRETE PIPE ROOF DRAIN RECOMMENDATION REFER TO REINFORCED; REINFORCEMENT REQUIRED ROOM RESTROOM SOUTH SETBACK LINE SANITARY SCALE SCHEDULED SQUARE FEET SHEET SHOWER SIMILAR SOLID NEUTRAL SIMILAR OPPOSITE SIDE SQUARE STANDARD SEALTIGHT STIFFENER STEEL STORAGE STRUCTURAL SUSPENDED SWITCH SEWER TELEPHONE TWIST LOCK TOP OF BEAM TOP OF STEEL TOTAL TUBE STEEL TOP OF WALL TYPICAL UNDERWRITER'S LABORATORY UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE VINYL COMPOSITE TILE VERTICAL WITH WEST WATER RESISTANT WOVEN WIRE FABRIC WOOD WEATHER PROOF WEIGHT F.F. (E.) FH., F.H. FHC FIN. FIX. FLR. FLUOR. F.O.C. FT. FURR. FXD. G.C. GA. GALV. GFI. GLZ. G.P.M. GR. GRND. GYP. H.C.; H/C HORIZ. HR. HRDWD. HT. IN. INFO INSULA.; INSUL. INT. JAN. JST JT., JNT LAM. LAV. LBS. LF, L.F. LT. MAX. MANUF. MECH. M.E.P. MFR. MGR. MH. MIN. MISC. M.O. MTD. MTL. N. NIC N.T.S. NF. NO. O.C. O.H. OPNG. OPP. P.P., PP P.S.F. P.U.E. PC. PG. PL. PLAS. PLUM. PLYWD. PNT FINISHED FLOOR (ELEVATION) FIRE HYDRANT FIRE HOSE CABINET FINISH FIXTURE FLOOR FLUORESCENT FACE OF CURB FOOT, FEET FURRING FIXED GENERAL CONTRACTOR GAUGE GALVANIZED GROUND FAULT INTERRUPT GLAZING GALLONS PER MINUTE GRADE GROUND GYPSUM HANDICAPPED HORIZONTAL HOUR HARDWOOD HEIGHT INCHES INFORMATION INSULATION INTERIOR JANITOR JOIST JOINT LAMINATE LAVATORY POUNDS LINEAR FEET LIGHT MAXIMUM MANUFACTURER MECHANICAL MECHANICAL, ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING MANUFACTURER MANAGER MANHOLE MINIMUM MISCELLANEOUS MASONRY OPENING MOUNTED METAL NORTH NOT IN CONTRACT NOT TO SCALE NON-FUSED NUMBER ON CENTER OVERHEAD OPENING OPPOSITE POWER POLE POUNDS PER SQ. FT. PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT PHOTO CELL PAGE PLATE PLASTIC PLUMBING PLYWOOD PAINT DESIGN PHILOSOPHY DESIGN PHILOSOPHY ALTHOUGH THE GENERAL PERIOD OF SIGNIFICANCE IS ASSUMED, A RECONSTRUCTION DATE WOULD BE DETERMINED BASED ON KNOWN, AUTHENTICATED PHOTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE AND MAY BE DIFFERENT FOR EACH STRUCTURE. 6. RECONSTRUCTION DETAILS WILL BE BASED ON PHOTOGRAPHIC AND OTHER EVIDENTIARY FINDINGS, NOT ON SPECULATION, CONJECTURE OR WHAT IS PRESENT ON OTHER BUILDINGS OF THE ERA. 7. CAREFUL DELINEATION AND MAPPING OF THE DISTINCT TYPES OF RECONSTRUCTION. 7.1 ORIGINAL MATERIALS, INSTALLED IN ORIGINAL LOCATION; 7.2 ORIGINAL MATERIALS INSTALLED IN A DIFFERENT, BUT LIKE LOCATION, LOCATION; 7.3 ORIGINAL MATERIALS INSTALLED IN A DIFFERENT AND UNLIKE 7.4 REPLICATION BASED ON DOCUMENTATION; AND 7.5 INFILL ELEMENTS FOR WHICH THERE IS NO DOCUMENTATION EITHER TO MATERIAL, COLOR, FINISH AND /OR PROFILE. 8. DEVELOP DOCUMENTATION TO ASSIST THE PUBLIC IN UNDERSTANDING THE RECONSTRUCTION – APPRECIATING THE VALUE OF THE RECONSTRUCTION YET RECOGNIZING THAT RECONSTRUCTION IS DIFFERENT FROM HAVING THE RESOURCE ITSELF. IT IS UNDERSTOOD THE RECONSTRUCTION OF THE HISTORIC FAÇADES WILL BE PART OF A CONTEMPORARY REDEVELOPMENT OF THE SITE. HISTORIC RECONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS PERTAINING TO THE DESIGN AND RECONSTRUCTION OF THE FAÇADES WITH MATERIALS AND CONSTRUCTION TECHNIQUES UNIQUE TO THEIR MATERIALS AND CONSTRUCTION SHOULD BE PREPARED AND COORDINATED BOTH AESTHETICALLY AND STRUCTURALLY WITH THE NEW DEVELOPMENT. 10. AS MUCH HISTORIC MATERIAL, IN ITS ORIGINAL LOCATION WILL BE RE‐USED AS POSSIBLE. IT IS UNDERSTOOD THAT SOME MATERIAL IS BEYOND REPAIR AND WILL HAVE TO BE REPLICATED. IT IS ALSO UNDERSTOOD THAT THERE ARE MATERIALS IN WALLS TO BE DEMOLISHED AND NOT REBUILT, THAT MAY BE USED TO REBUILD THE FAÇADES. THE SALVAGED MATERIAL SHOULD BE USED TO THE FULLEST EXTENT POSSIBLE. 1. USE THE SECRETARY OF INTERIOR (SOI) STANDARDS FOR 5. RECONSTRUCTION AND GUIDELINES FOR RECONSTRUCTING HISTORIC BUILDINGS (2017). ALTHOUGH OTHER PROPERTIES OF THIS ERA SURVIVE, THE LOSS OF THIS MUCH OF THE BLOCK FACE WOULD BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE EXPERIENCE, UNDERSTANDING AND KNOWLEDGE OF THE CONGRESS AVENUE HISTORIC DISTRICT. ALTHOUGH IT IS UNDERSTOOD THAT RECONSTRUCTION IS THE HISTORIC TREATMENT OF LAST RESORT, FAÇADE RECONSTRUCTION IN THIS CASE, IS NOT ONLY WARRANTED, BUT FUNDAMENTAL TO THE INTEGRITY AND SENSE OF PLACE. 2. ALL WORK DONE BY STATUTORILY DEFINED DISCIPLINES SHALL MEET SOI STATED PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS AND STANDARDS. ALL PROFESSIONALS SHALL HAVE THE MINIMUM EDUCATION AND EXPERIENCE LEVEL PROVIDING SERVICES ON HISTORICAL PROJECTS OF THIS IMPORTANCE AND COMPLEXITY. ADDITIONALLY MINIMUM YEARS OF EXPERIENCE IN COMPARABLE HISTORIC DEMOLITION, DECONSTRUCTION AND CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE DEMONSTRATED BY THOSE PROVIDING CONSTRUCTION SERVICES ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROJECT. THESE QUALIFICATIONS WILL BE DELINEATED AND QUANTIFIED IN THE TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS AND THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS FOR ALL ASPECTS OF THE PROJECT UNDERTAKINGS. 3. AT A MINIMUM THE FOLLOWING SOI TREATMENT STANDARDS ARE TO BE MET. 3.1 RECONSTRUCTION WILL BE USED TO DEPICT VANISHED OR 9. NON‐SURVIVING PORTIONS OF A PROPERTY WHEN DOCUMENTARY AND PHYSICAL EVIDENCE IS AVAILABLE TO PERMIT ACCURATE RECONSTRUCTION WITH MINIMAL CONJECTURE AND SUCH RECONSTRUCTION IS ESSENTIAL TO THE PUBLIC UNDERSTANDING OF THE PROPERTY. 3.2 RECONSTRUCTION OF A BUILDING, STRUCTURE OR OBJECT IN ITS HISTORIC LOCATION WILL BE PRECEDED BY THOROUGH INVESTIGATION TO IDENTIFY AND EVALUATE THOSE FEATURES AND ARTIFACTS WHICH ARE ESSENTIAL TO AN ACCURATE RECONSTRUCTION. IF SUCH RESOURCES MUST BE DISTURBED, MITIGATION MEASURES WILL BE UNDERTAKEN. <THIS STATEMENT OF WORK OUTLINES OUR MITIGATION MEASURES> 3.3 RECONSTRUCTION WILL INCLUDE MEASURES TO PRESERVE ANY REMAINING HISTORIC MATERIALS, FEATURES, AND SPATIAL RELATIONSHIPS. 3.4 RECONSTRUCTION WILL BE BASED ON THE ACCURATE DUPLICATION OF HISTORIC FEATURES AND ELEMENTS SUBSTANTIATED BY DOCUMENTARY OR PHYSICAL EVIDENCE RATHER THAN ON CONJECTURAL DESIGNS OR THE AVAILABILITY OF DIFFERENT FEATURES FROM OTHER HISTORIC PROPERTIES. A RECONSTRUCTED PROPERTY WILL RE‐CREATE THE APPEARANCE OF THE NON‐SURVIVING HISTORIC PROPERTY IN MATERIALS, DESIGN, COLOR AND TEXTURE. 3.5 A RECONSTRUCTION WILL BE CLEARLY IDENTIFIED AS A CONTEMPORARY RE‐CREATION. 3.6 DESIGNS THAT WERE NEVER EXECUTED HISTORICALLY WILL NOT BE 4. CONSTRUCTED. THERE ARE HISTORIC PORTIONS OF THE BUILDINGS THAT WILL NOT BE REBUILT, INCLUDING STONE EXTERIOR WALLS. AS PART OF THE HISTORICAL ARCHIVE, ACCURATE DRAWINGS AND PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE CURRENT CONDITION SHOULD BE CREATED TO BE ARCHIVED AT THE AUSTIN HISTORY CENTER. 11. ALL SALVAGED MATERIALS SHALL BE RETAINED UNTIL CONSTRUCTION OF THE ENTIRE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT IS COMPLETE. NO VIABLE NONHAZARDOUS HISTORIC MATERIAL SHOULD BE DEPOSED OF WITHOUT APPROVAL OF THE HISTORIC ARCHITECT OF RECORD. 15. IN SITU MEASUREMENTS WILL BE TAKEN, HOWEVER, DUE TO MORTAR DETERIORATION AND SHEAR FAILURES, THESE DIMENSIONS MAY NOT MATCH THE FINISHED RECONSTRUCTION AND SHOULD BE USED TO PLACE THE FEATURE NOT TO MEASURE ITS FINAL LOCATION. 12. WITHOUT COMPROMISING BUILDING INTEGRITY, NEW MATERIALS 16. ALTHOUGH THERE IS MUCH DETERIORATION, THERE ARE STILL SHOULD MATCH HISTORIC MATERIALS IN SPECIES, CHEMICAL AND COMPOSITIONAL MAKEUP. NEW MORTAR MIXES SHOULD BE BASED ON TESTING ORIGINAL MORTARS AND STRUCTURAL REQUIREMENTS BASED ON THE CAPACITIES, STRENGTH AND COMPOSITION OF THE ORIGINAL BRICK. ANY CODE REQUIRED CHANGES SHALL BE CLEARLY IDENTIFIABLE AS MODERN INTERVENTIONS, AND IF AT ALL POSSIBLE NOT VISIBLE ON THE HISTORIC FAÇADE. AREAS WHERE ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION AND MATERIALS HAVE BEEN PROTECTED. THESE AREAS SHOULD BE ANALYZED FOR COLOR, MATERIAL, PAINT LAYERS AND CONSTRUCTION TECHNIQUES. THIS INFORMATION CAN THEN BE USED TO INFORM THE RECONSTRUCTION OF THE FACADES. 1. CONSTRUCT PEDESTRIAN PROTECTION, SHIELDS AND OTHER DEMOLITION REQUIRED FACILITIES. SUCH PROTECTION SHOULD NOT RELY ON THE HISTORIC BUILDINGS FOR STRUCTURAL OR OTHER SUPPORT OR STABILIZATION. 2. DECONSTRUCT EACH BUILDING INDIVIDUALLY. IF CONFIRMED BY STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS OF CURRENT CONDITION, START WITH 907, THEN 911 AND FINALLY DETERMINE THE STABILITY OF 909. FINAL DECONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE TO BE DETERMINED/ CONFIRMED BY LICENSED STRUCTURAL ENGINEER. PRIOR TO DECONSTRUCTION OF THE MASONRY STRUCTURE, ALL WINDOW FRAMES, SASHES AND ACCOUTREMENTS SHALL BE REMOVED. TEMPORARY SUPPORT FOR THE OPENINGS MAY BE REQUIRED. IF ANY GLAZING (BROKEN OR WHOLE) IS STILL IN THE WINDOW, IT SHOULD REMAIN AND BE PROTECTED UNTIL IT CAN BE STUDIED IN MORE DETAIL. 4. WINDOW PARTS WILL BE NUMBERED AND LABELED BOTH FOR THEIR LOCATION IN THE FAÇADE AND THEIR PLACE IN THE WINDOW ASSEMBLY. IN THE CASE OF 907, THE WOOD SPECIES SHOULD BE IDENTIFIED, PROFILES RECORDED, AND GLAZING PRESERVED, AS THESE ARE SOME OF THE FEW REMAINING CURVED TOP WINDOWS AND FRAMES. EACH WINDOW OPENING WILL REQUIRE EXTENSIVE DOCUMENTATION TO DETERMINE EXISTING CONDITION, ANY GHOSTING OR CLUES ABOUT THE ORIGINAL INSTALLATION AND FINISHES. BASED ON THE INFORMATION REVEALED PREVIOUSLY, THE CORNICE SECTIONS WILL BE REMOVED TO DOCUMENT NOT ONLY THEIR PROFILE, BUT CONSTRUCTION. GHOSTS OF MASONRY JOINTS WILL BE RECORDED TO GUIDE SIZING OF NEW MATERIALS THAT MAY BE NEEDED TO COMPLETE THE RECONSTRUCTED PROFILES. BRICK AND STONE COURSES MAY NOT BE LEVEL. COMPRESSION AND MORTAR FAILURE MAY RENDER IN‐SITU MEASUREMENTS INACCURATE FOR RECONSTRUCTION. MASONRY COURSES MAY HAVE CHANGED SIZE DUE TO COMPRESSION, TENSILE, STRUCTURAL FAILURE, LOSS OF MORTAR AND/OR DAMAGE BY MODERN CONSTRUCTION. AS DECONSTRUCTION PROGRESSES, RECORD INFORMATION THAT MAY HAVE BEEN HIDDEN AND PROTECTED TO BE USED TO INFORM RECONSTRUCTION AND ADDED TO THE HISTORICAL RECORD FOR THE STRUCTURE. USING PHOTOGRAPHY, SCRIBES AND OTHER TRACING TOOLS MAKE FULL SIZE TEMPLATES AS REQUIRED FOR REPAIR, RECONSTRUCTION OR REPLICATION. THE SITE, ITSELF WILL BE TREATED MUCH LIKE AN ARCHEOLOGICAL SITE USING HAND TOOLS AND MARKERS FAMILIAR TO THE TRADE. STABLE PLASTIC REFERENCE TARGETS AND 2 METER METAL RANGING RODS WILL BE USED TO ENSURE ANY SALVAGE, REFERENCE MATERIALS AND /OR WOODEN GUIDE STICKS AND REFERENCES ARE PROPERLY CALIBRATED. 3. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. LASER SCANNING AND DIGITAL REFERENCING IS RECOMMENDED. WITH THE HELP OF A LASER POINT CLOUD CREATED BY THE SCAN, THE EXISTING FAÇADE WILL BE MAPPED WITH A GRID THAT WILL ALLOW US TO LOCATE EACH BRICK AND CONFIRM ITS LOCATION AS IT IS REMOVED, EVALUATED, CLEANED, NUMBERED AND PREPARED FOR TRANSPORTATION AND STORAGE. THE USE OF LASER SCANNING PROVIDES STABLE BENCHMARKS FROM WHICH ALL MEASUREMENTS CAN BE MADE. THE SAME POINTS CAN BE USED FOR THE RECONSTRUCTION OF THE FACADES AND BE USED TO ACCOUNT FOR ANY STRUCTURAL DEFORMITIES THAT MAY BE PRESENT NOW. 10. SHOULD LASER SCANNING NOT BE POSSIBLE FOR STRUCTURAL OR OTHER REASONS, A 3 POINT LOCATION GRID WILL BE ESTABLISHED FOR RECORDING THE POSITION OF EACH COURSE AND EACH BRICK AND ALL OPENINGS. THESE WILL BE MEASURED IN RELATIONSHIP TO EACH OTHER AS WELL AS THE STRUCTURE AS A WHOLE, USING THE RANGING RODS FOR ACCURATE MEASURE. EACH STRUCTURE WILL BE DECONSTRUCTED FROM THE NORTH TO THE SOUTH. WOODEN GAUGING STRIPS WILL ALSO BE PREPARED, MARKED AND KEPT AS REFERENCE FOR EACH COURSE AND PALLETTED WITH THE MASONRY AS IT DECONSTRUCTED. MASONRY OPENINGS WILL ALSO BE MARKED IN RELATION TO THE MARKED MASONRY UNITS. 11. REMOVE BRICKS AS DIRECTED BY ENGINEER, COURSE BY COURSE. EACH VIABLE MASONRY UNIT WILL BE NUMBERED WITH CONDITION ON THE TOP SURFACE AND REFERENCED TO THE GRID. NON‐VIABLE MASONRY WILL ALSO BE NUMBERED AND REFERENCED TO THE GRID, AND MARKED FOR REVERSAL, REPAIR, OR REPLACEMENT. THIS DOCUMENTATION WILL OCCUR COURSE BY COURSE INCLUDING TIES UNITS, ORNAMENTATION AND INTERSTITIAL WYTHES. 12. BRICKS WILL BE PRELIMINARILY CLEANED OF MORTAR AT THIS PHASE, PROPERLY MARKED AND DOCUMENTED, AND PLACED ON A PALLET FITTED WITH 5/8” PLYWOOD. PALLETS WILL BE STACKED BY LOCATION AND NOT HIGHER THAN 12 UNITS HIGH. PALLETS WILL BE SHRINK WRAPPED, MARKED AND HAULED TO A STORAGE WAREHOUSE. LOCATION IN THE WAREHOUSE BY LOCATION ON THE BUILDING WILL ALSO BE DOCUMENTED. STONE COMPONENTS WILL BE SIMILARLY TREATED. HOWEVER, DEPENDING ON THEIR CONDITION AND THEIR SIZE, SOME CRATING OF THE UNITS MAY BE REQUIRED FOR PROTECTION. 13. WINDOW FRAMES SHALL BE REMOVED IN THE LARGEST PIECES POSSIBLE, INCLUDING WHOLE SASHES. DO NOT CLEAN AT THIS PHASE. THE OPENING, THE SASH AND ALL WOOD PARTS AND POCKETS WILL NEED TO BE INSPECTED FOR REMNANTS OF HARDWARE, ORIGINAL PAINTS AND OR STAINS. THE WINDOWS SHOULD BE STUDIED TO PREPARE THE TEMPLATES FOR THE REPLICA WINDOWS. 14. AT THE TIME OF DECONSTRUCTION, THE FIRST ESTIMATE ON THE NUMBERS OF BRICKS THAT WILL BE REINSTALLED, SALVAGED BRICKS THAT WILL BE REUSED, AND BRICKS THAT WILL HAVE TO BE REPLACED WILL BE MADE. AT THIS TIME ALL BRICKS THAT CAN BE SALVAGED WILL BE SALVAGED TO BE USED AS FIELD REPLACEMENTS, SALVAGE POULTICE AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION NEEDS. THE GOAL IS TO USE AS MUCH OF THE HISTORIC MATERIAL IN THE RECONSTRUCTION AS POSSIBLE. 3. 1. WRITTEN DIMENSIONS GOVERN, DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS. THE DETAILS DESIGNATED AS "TYPICAL DETAILS" APPLY 2. GENERALLY TO THE DRAWINGS IN ALL AREAS WHERE CONDITIONS ARE SIMILAR TO THOSE DESCRIBED IN THE DETAILS. ALL DRAWING ELEMENTS AND TEXT SHOWN IN GRAYSCALE ARE ALL KNOWN / AVAILABLE EXISTING ELEMENTS, EITHER PROVIDED BY OWNER, OR OBTAINED THROUGH FIELD OBSERVATIONS WHERE POSSIBLE, AND ARE USED FOR BACKGROUND AND REFERENCE PURPOSES. FOR CLARITY, NOT ALL EQUIPMENT, DUCTWORK, PIPING, PANELS, CONDIUT, ETC. MAY BE SHOWN IN EACH VIEW. 4 5 6. 7. 8. ACTUAL FIELD CONDITIONS MAY VARY. PRIOR TO DEMOLITION OR START OF NEW WORK, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VISIT THE SITE AND PERFORM AN INSPECTION TO BECOME FAMILIAR WITH EXISTING FACILTIES AND AREAS SCHEDULED FOR WORK AND DETERMINE THE CONDITION OF EXISTING ELEMENTS TO BE AFFECTED AND/OR TO REMAIN. OTHER FIELD INVESTIGATIONS, AND/OR MINOR ADJUSTMENTS MAY BE REQUIRED TO COMPLETE WORK. SHOULD THE CONTRACTOR ENCOUNTER ANY QUESTIONS OR CONFLICTS BETWEEN GRAYSCALE OBJECTS, EXISTING ELEMENTS TO REMAIN, NEW RENOVATIONS, THE PLANS AND/OR SPECIFICAITONS EITHER AMONG THEMSELVES OR WITH THE REQUIRMENTS OF ANY AND ALL REVIEWING AND PERMIT-ISSUING AGENCIES, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BRING THESE CONFLICTS TO THE ATTENTION OF THE ARCHITECT. CONTRACTOR SHALL SEEK CLARIFICATION IN WRITING PRIOR TO START OF WORK, AND SHALL NOT PROCEED WITH THE WORK IF THERE ARE DISCREPANCIES OR CONFLICTS UNTIL ALL SUCH HAVE BEEN RESOLVED. ANY QUESTIONS RELATED TO THE PROJECT SCOPE OF DEMOLITION AND NEW WORK, WORKING CONDITIONS SUCH AS STARTING TIME, NOISE AND VIBRATION LIMITATIONS, SHUTDOWN OF ELECTRICAL POWER OR MECHANICAL SERVICES SHOULD BE ADDRESSED TO THE OWNER FOR CLARIFICATION PRIOR TO START OF WORK. ALL WORK TO BE COORDINATED AND SCHEDULED THROUGH OWNER. ALL WORK TO BE COMPLETED AND COORDINATED WITH OWNER'S FACILITIES OPERATION STAFF AS DIRECTED, WITH SPECIAL ATTENTION TO AREAS OR SYSTEMS THAT MUST REMAIN IN OPERATION. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL ACQUIRE A "HOT WORK PERMIT" DAILY OR AS DIRECTED BY CMR AND/OR OWNER PRIOR TO DOING ANY CUTTING/BURNING WORK OR OTHER SIMILAR WORK. CONTRACTOR SHALL ALSO PROVIDE LOCKS TO BE USED WITH THE OWNER'S LOCK-OUT/TAG-OUT SAFETY PROGRAM. 9. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL OBTAIN ALL THE NECESSARY PERMITS AS REQUIRED FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THIS PROJECT. 10. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR DAMAGE TO EXISTING PROPERTY BY HIS STAFF OR SUBCONTACTORS. 11. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROTECT AREAS AND SURFACES ADJACENT TO THE CONSTRUCTION AREA FROM DAMAGE AND DEBRIS. ALL AREAS TO CLEAN AND SEVICEABLE AT THE COMPLETION OF DEMOLITION, PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF NEW CONSTRUCTION. 12. THE CONTRACTOR IS REQUIRED TO TAKE DUE PRECAUTIONARY MEASURES TO PROTECT THE UTILITIES OR STRUCTURES AT THE SITE. INTERRUPTION OF UTILITY SERVICES IS NOT PERMITTED WITHOUT FULL COORDINATION WITH OWNER. SOME AREAS MAY REQUIRE WORK ON WEEKENDS OR SPECIAL SHUTDOWNS AS DIRECTED AND SEQUENCED BY OWNER. 13. IT SHALL BE THE CONTRATOR'S RESONSIBILITY TO NOTIFY THE OWNER OF ALL UTILITIES OR STRUCTURES CONCERNED BEFORE STARTING WORK. WHEN ANY EXISTING UTILITY REQUIRES ADJUSTMENT OR RELOCATION, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE PROPER UTILITY SERVICE AND COORDINATE HIS WORK ACCORDINGLY. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE PROPER UTILITY IMMEDIATELY UPON BREAK OR DAMAGE TO ANY UTILITY LINE OR APPURTENANCE, OR THE INTERRUPTION OF THEIR SERVICE. IF EXISTING UTILITY CONSTRUCTION CONFLICTS WITH PROJECT REQUIREMENTS, CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY OWNER SO THE CONFLICT MAY BE RESOLVED. 14. WORK SHALL COMPLY WITH APPLICABLE LOCAL, STATE, AND FEDERAL CODES AND ORDINANCES AND STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS OF ALL AGENCIES HAVING THE RESPONSIBILITY OF REVIEWING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF ALL ITEMS PER THESE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS IN THIS LOCALITY. COMPLY WITH ALL RECOMMENDED PRACTICES AS SET FORTH BY THE FOLLOWING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO: ASME, SMACNA, ASHRAE, NFPA, ALL LOCAL BUILDING, MECHANICAL, AND PLUMBING CODE, NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE, OSHA, AND REGULATIONS OF ALL GOVERNING BODIES AS THEY APPLY TO THIS PROJECT. 15. THE ARCHITECT, ENGINEER OR OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE SHALL NOT BE REPONSIBLE FOR, OR HAVE CONTROL OF, OR CHARGE OF CONSTRUCTION MEANS, METHODS, TECHNIQUES, SEQUENCES OR PROCEDURES, NOR FOR SAFETY PRECAUTIONS AND PROGRAMS IN CONNNECTION WITH THE WORK, AND WILL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CONTRACTOR'S FAILURE TO CARRY OUT THE WORK IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS. THE ARCHITECT, ENGINEER OR OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE SHALL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE. NOR HAVE CONTROL OF THE CONTRACTOR, SUBCONTRACTORS OR ANY OF THEIR AGENTS OR EMPLOYEES, OR ANY OTHER PERSONS PERFORMING ANY OF THE WORK. 16. ANY REFERENCE TO SPECIFIC MANUFACTURER'S PRODUCTS IS FOR THE PURPOSE OF ESTABLISHING A STANDARD FOR PERFORMANCE, PATTERNS, COLORS AND TEXTURES. IT IS NOT INTENDED TO LIMIT SELECTIONS OF EQUAL PRODUCTS FROM OTHER MANUFACTURERS. 17. THE DESIGN AND PROVISION OF ALL TEMPORARY SUPPORTS SUCH AS BUYING BRACES, FALSEWORK, SUPPORTS AND ANCHORS FOR SAFETY LINES, CURBBING, SHORING, OR ANY OTHER TEMPORARY ELEMENTS REQUIRED FOR THE EXECUTION OF THE CONTRACT ARE NOT INCLUDED IN THESE DRAWINGS AND SHALL BE THE RESPONIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR. TEMPORARY SUPPORTS SHALL NOT RESULT IN THE OVERSTRESS OR DAMAGE OF THE ELEMENTS TO BE BRACED NOR ANY ELEMENTS USED AS BRACE SUPPORTS. ISSUE DATE: PROJECT NUMBER: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: 26 JULY 2021 202103 ZWR DDC REVISIONS: NO REFERENCE ISSUED PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION THIS DOCUMENT IS RELEASED FOR THE PURPOSE OF INTERIM REVIEW. IT IS INCOMPLETE AND MAY NOT BE USED FOR REGULATORY APPROVAL, PERMIT, OR CONSTRUCTION. DONNA CARTER TEXAS REGISTRATION NUMBER #8207 I I N G S E D C T A M E H C S % 0 0 1 1 1 9 D N A , 9 0 9 , 7 0 9 E V A S S E R G N O C E V A S S E R G N O C 1 1 9 , 9 0 9 , 7 0 9 1 0 7 8 7 X T , I N T S U A Copyright Carter Design Associates, Inc. ABBREVIATIONS & GENERAL NOTES G101 *** PHILOSOPHY, DECONSTRUCTION, STABILIZATION, DEMOLITION AND RECONSTRUCTION NOTES HAVE CHANGED *** PLEASE SE REVISED SCOPE OF WORK41 of 60B-10N73°25'17"W 120.14' S73°35'05"E 160.00' 17" LIVE OAK E " 3 0 ' 6 3 6 1 N ° ' 0 0 . 9 6 15.5" LIVE OAK W " 8 4 ' 1 3 6 1 S ° ' 7 9 . 8 6 BIKE LANE N73°35'05"W 160.00' t v r . K F 4 2 Z 1 a d c _ s s e r g n o C 1 1 9 - 7 0 9 \ h t a P t c e o r j P \ : E M P 3 2 : 6 1 : 4 1 2 0 2 3 2 7 / / PLAN N 1" = 10'-0" 1 ARCHITECTURAL LANDSCAPE SITE PLAN 0' 10' 20' 40' 80' ISSUE DATE: PROJECT NUMBER: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: 26 JULY 2021 202103 ZWR DDC REVISIONS: NO REFERENCE ISSUED GENERAL NOTES - SITE PLAN 1. INFORMATION SHOWN ON THIS SITE PLAN IS SUPPLEMENTARY TO SITE PLANS BY OTHERS, REFER TO CIVIL AND MEP SITE PLANS FOR ADDITIONAL SITE WORK AND INFORMATION. 2. VERIFY EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS AND REPORT ANY DISCREPANICES BETWEEN ACTUAL FIELD CONDITIONS AND THESE PLANS PRIOR TO COMMENCING WORK. 3. ALL NEW SIDEWALKS TO HAVE MAX 1:20 GRADE WITH CROSS SLOPE TO DRAIN AT 1/4" PER FOOT. BROOM FINISH UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 4. ALL HANDICAPPED PARKING AND LOADING AREAS TO MAINTAIN MAX 1:50 SLOPE 5. PROVIDE PAINTED CURB FOR FIRE LANE STRIPING IN ACCORDANCE WITH CITY/COUNTY FIRE STANDARDS. 6. ALL CURB RAMPS SHALL HAVE, FOR THE FULL WIDTH AND DEPTH OF THE RAMP, A LIGHT REFLECTIVE COLOR AND TEXTURE THAT SIGNIFICANTLY CONTRASTS WITH ADJOINING PEDESTRAIN ROUTES. 7. ALL LANDSCAPING TO BE IRRIGRATED BY DRIP IRRIGRATION. T W " 3 0 ' 6 3 6 1 S ° ' 0 0 . 9 6 PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION THIS DOCUMENT IS RELEASED FOR THE PURPOSE OF INTERIM REVIEW. IT IS INCOMPLETE AND MAY NOT BE USED FOR REGULATORY APPROVAL, PERMIT, OR CONSTRUCTION. DONNA CARTER TEXAS REGISTRATION NUMBER #8207 I I N G S E D C T A M E H C S % 0 0 1 1 1 9 D N A , 9 0 9 , 7 0 9 E V A S S E R G N O C E V A S S E R G N O C 1 1 9 , 9 0 9 , 7 0 9 1 0 7 8 7 X T , I N T S U A Copyright Carter Design Associates, Inc. ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN AS100 PROPERTY LINEFOUNDATION TESTEXCAVATIONFACADE OVERLAPS PARTY WALL. SOME BRICKSREMAIN TO PROTECT ADJACENT PROPERTY ANDPROVIDE PROPRE TOOTH FOR REINSTALLATION42 of 60B-10ISSUE DATE: PROJECT NUMBER: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: 26 JULY 2021 202103 ZWR DDC REVISIONS: NO REFERENCE ISSUED PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION THIS DOCUMENT IS RELEASED FOR THE PURPOSE OF INTERIM REVIEW. IT IS INCOMPLETE AND MAY NOT BE USED FOR REGULATORY APPROVAL, PERMIT, OR CONSTRUCTION. DONNA CARTER TEXAS REGISTRATION NUMBER #8207 I I N G S E D C T A M E H C S % 0 0 1 1 1 9 D N A , 9 0 9 , 7 0 9 E V A S S E R G N O C E V A S S E R G N O C 1 1 9 , 9 0 9 , 7 0 9 1 0 7 8 7 X T , I N T S U A Copyright Carter Design Associates, Inc. HISTORIC PHOTOS A101 3 HISTORIC PHOTO 3 1" = 100'-0" 1 HISTORIC PHOTO 1 1" = 50'-0" t v r . K F 4 2 Z 1 a d c _ s s e r g n o C 1 1 9 - 7 0 9 \ h t a P t c e o r j P \ : E M P 3 1 : 6 1 : 4 1 2 0 2 3 2 7 / / 5 HISTORIC PHOTO 5 1" = 50'-0" 4 HISTORIC PHOTO 4 1" = 100'-0" circa late 1940scirca mid 1970scirca 1960s43 of 60B-10GENERAL NOTES - EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS 1. CONTROL JOINT @ STONE - TO FOLLOW STONE EDGE STARTING FROM TOP EDGE OF WINDOW/DOOR SYSTEM TO TOP OF PARAPET. 2. CONTROL JOINT @ STUCCO - STARTING FROM TOP EDGE OF WINDOW/DOOR SYSTEM TO TOP OF PARAPET. EXTERIOR ELEVATION LEGEND ISSUE DATE: PROJECT NUMBER: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: 26 JULY 2021 202103 ZWR DDC REVISIONS: NO REFERENCE ISSUED STONE LATH & PLASTER (STUCCO) KEYNOTES 5 A102 2 A102 8 907 UPPER NORTH WINIDOW 907 UPPER CENTRAL NORTH 907 UPPER CENTRAL SOUTH 907 SOUTH SIDE UPPER WALL 7 6 5 8 A102 7 A102 2 A103 6 A102 PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION THIS DOCUMENT IS RELEASED FOR THE PURPOSE OF INTERIM REVIEW. IT IS INCOMPLETE AND MAY NOT BE USED FOR REGULATORY APPROVAL, PERMIT, OR CONSTRUCTION. DONNA CARTER TEXAS REGISTRATION NUMBER #8207 907 NORTH SIDE WALL DETAIL 4 907 NORTH WINDOW SILL 3 907 SOUTH SIDE WALL DETAIL 2 4 A102 9 A102 3 A102 t v r . K F 4 2 Z 1 a d c _ s s e r g n o C 1 1 9 - 7 0 9 \ h t a P t c e o r j P \ : E M P 6 1 : 6 1 : 4 1 2 0 2 3 2 7 / / 907 STOREFRONT 9 907 EXISTING ELEVATION PHOTOS 1 1/4" = 1'-0" I I N G S E D C T A M E H C S % 0 0 1 1 1 9 D N A , 9 0 9 , 7 0 9 E V A S S E R G N O C E V A S S E R G N O C 1 1 9 , 9 0 9 , 7 0 9 1 0 7 8 7 X T , I N T S U A Copyright Carter Design Associates, Inc. 907 EXISTING PHOTOS A102 NOTE: EMBEDDED STONE AND WOOD STRUCTURE ARE PRESUMED TO BE ORIGINAL. AS STUCCO IS REMOVED MAY REVEAL ADDITIONAL INFORMATIONABOUT ORIGINAL STREET LEVEL CONSTRUCTIONS.SIGN BRACKET FOR TSO SIGNSTHAT CHANGED FROM THE 40STHROUGH THE 60SAT LEAST TWO LEVELS OF STUCCO. HISTORICPHOTOS SHOW AN EARLY STONE LIKE VENEERON BUILDING. AS PERIOD OF SIGNIFICANCE ISAGREED TO THIS MAY BE AN APPROPRIATEFINISH FOR THE FACADE.44 of 60B-101' - 2" 2 A103 " 9 - ' 5 1 " 9 - ' 5 " 8 / 3 9 - ' 0 1 " 8 / 3 3 - ' 2 3 " 4 / 1 6 - ' 6 1 " 6 - ' 1 907 WALL SECTION - EXISTING 2 1/4" = 1'-0" 907 WEST ELEVATION EXISTING / DEMOLITION 1 1/4" = 1'-0" S5 TAKEN FROM INTERIOR STONE DEMISING WALL AT REAR OF BUILDING 8 1/2" 6" R 3' - 6" " 4 3 / 0 - ' 1 6 3/4" 1 1/2" " 2 1 / 9 " 8 5 / 1 - ' 3 " 1 1 - ' 1 " 2 / 1 5 8 1/4" S4 R 5 3 / 4 " S3 4' - 11 1/2" MISSING CORNICE SEEN IN HISTORIC PHOTOS SAWTOOTH BRICK TO ENSURE CONNECTION OF ADJACENT PROPERTY (905) TO STONE PARTY WALL. STONE ORNAMENTATION AROUND WINDOWS ARE SEVERLY DAMAGED OR MISSING. SALVAGE STONE FOR REPLICATION. SALVAGE DETERIORATED WINDOWS FOR REPLICATION REMOVE MODERN DAMAGED STUCCO. SALVAGE INTERIOR WYTHE SOLID UNDAMAGED BRICKS TO REPLACE DAMAGED EXTERIOR BRICKS DEMO MODERN STOREFRONT SAMPLES FOR TESTING S1 - BRICK • S2 - BRICK • S3 - BRICK • S4 - STONE • S5 - STONE • S6 - MORTAR • STONE PARTY WALL TO REMAIN. REFER TO STRUCTURAL FOR SHORING DRAWINGS. WATERPROOF EXPOSED STONE WALL WITH _________. (PRODUCT TBD - COORDINATING SOLUTIONS WITH ADJACENT OWNER) ISSUE DATE: PROJECT NUMBER: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: 26 JULY 2021 202103 ZWR DDC REVISIONS: NO REFERENCE ISSUED PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION THIS DOCUMENT IS RELEASED FOR THE PURPOSE OF INTERIM REVIEW. IT IS INCOMPLETE AND MAY NOT BE USED FOR REGULATORY APPROVAL, PERMIT, OR CONSTRUCTION. DONNA CARTER TEXAS REGISTRATION NUMBER #8207 I I N G S E D C T A M E H C S % 0 0 1 1 1 9 D N A , 9 0 9 , 7 0 9 E V A S S E R G N O C E V A S S E R G N O C 1 1 9 , 9 0 9 , 7 0 9 1 0 7 8 7 X T , I N T S U A Copyright Carter Design Associates, Inc. 907 EXISTING CONDITIONS & DEMOLITION A103 2 A103 2 A103 2 A103 22' - 2 3/8" 22' - 2 3/8" 8' - 10 1/8" 3' - 7" 9' - 0" 9 1/4" 907 - ROOF - EXISTING 5 1/4" = 1'-0" 907 - LEVEL 2 - EXISTING 4 1/4" = 1'-0" 1' - 1 3/4" 2' - 0 1/4" 19' - 0 3/8" 22' - 2 3/8" GROUND LEVEL - EXISTING 3 1/4" = 1'-0" t v r . K F 4 2 Z 1 a d c _ s s e r g n o C 1 1 9 - 7 0 9 \ h t a P t c e o r j P \ : E M P 6 1 : 6 1 : 4 1 2 0 2 3 2 7 / / 10' - 9 3/8"5' - 9"15' - 9"32' - 3 3/8"16' - 6 1/4"1/4" = 1'-0"907 WALL SECTION -EXISTING2COORDINATE PATCHING REQUIREDWHEN FLOOR BEAMS AREREMOVED. MAINTAIN EXISTINGFIRE RESISTANCEENSURE WATER DRAINS AWAY FROM WALLCONFIRM EXISTING FOUNDATION ISSUFFICIENT TO MEET LOADING AND FIRERESISTANCE REQUIRED WHEN DEMO ANDSEPARATION IS COMPLETE. COORDINAL FINAL FOUNDATION WITHOWNERS OF 90545 of 60B-10ISSUE DATE: PROJECT NUMBER: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: 26 JULY 2021 202103 ZWR DDC REVISIONS: NO REFERENCE ISSUED 909 UPPER NORTH WINDOW 909 UPPER CENTRAL NORTH 909 UPPER CENTRAL SOUTH 909 UPPER SOUTH WINDOW 8 7 6 5 8 A102 7 A104 5 A105 6 A104 5 A104 PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION THIS DOCUMENT IS RELEASED FOR THE PURPOSE OF INTERIM REVIEW. IT IS INCOMPLETE AND MAY NOT BE USED FOR REGULATORY APPROVAL, PERMIT, OR CONSTRUCTION. DONNA CARTER TEXAS REGISTRATION NUMBER #8207 909 NORTH SIDE WALL 4 909 MIDDLE WALL 3 909 SOUTH SIDE WALL 2 4 A104 3 A104 t v r . K F 4 2 Z 1 a d c _ s s e r g n o C 1 1 9 - 7 0 9 \ h t a P t c e o r j P \ : E M P 8 1 : 6 1 : 4 1 2 0 2 3 2 7 / / 909 STOREFRONT 9 909 EXISTING ELEVATION PHOTOS 1 1/4" = 1'-0" 2 A104 9 A104 I I N G S E D C T A M E H C S % 0 0 1 1 1 9 D N A , 9 0 9 , 7 0 9 E V A S S E R G N O C E V A S S E R G N O C 1 1 9 , 9 0 9 , 7 0 9 1 0 7 8 7 X T , I N T S U A Copyright Carter Design Associates, Inc. 909 EXISTING PHOTOS A104 46 of 60B-10AREAS SHOWING DARKER BLUE INDICATE POTENTIAL MOISTURE IN THE WALL. CYAN COLOR SHOWS ACTIVE WATER INFILTRATION SCAN AT 909 8 4" 2 1/4" 2" 2 1/4" 4" 2 1/4" 1 1/2" 2 1/4" 4" NOTE: DIMENSIONS VARY FROM 1/8" TO 1/4" 2 1/2" 2 1/2" 2 3/4" 909 ENLARGED CORNICE ELEVATION 9 3/4" = 1'-0" S E S R U O C C 1 C 1 C 5 C 2 C 1 C 1 C 4 C 1 C 5 " 3 " 4 3 / 2 / " 8 3 2 - ' 1 " 4 / 3 4 " 3 " 3 " 8 / 7 0 1 " 4 / 1 3 " 8 / 7 3 - ' 1 " 6 C 2 " 5 - ' 6 3/4" 3/4" 4 1/2" 3/4" 1/2" 1" 1 1/4" 1 1/4" 1 3/4" " 8 / 1 0 1 C 3 RED AREA SHOWS ACTIVE WATER INFILTRATION BLUE AREA SHOWS THAT THE BRICKS ARE DAMP " 5 - ' 6 C 6 2 " 2 - ' 8 C 5 3 " 1 1 - ' 1 " 9 - ' 7 1 " 1 - ' 2 1 C 2 5 " 4 - ' 2 3 " 9 - ' 3 C 6 1 " 5 C 2 " 8 / 5 0 1 - ' 1 " 6 - ' 2 1' - 4" LOCATION OF DEMISING WALL BETWEEN 909 AND 911 LOCATION OF DEMISING WALL BETWEEN 909 AND 907 6 A105 9 A105 " 8 " 8 / 1 9 - ' 4 R 1' - 3 1/8" 9' - 6 1/4" 10' - 0 1/2" 1' - 11 1/2" S6 S2 PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION THIS DOCUMENT IS RELEASED FOR THE PURPOSE OF INTERIM REVIEW. IT IS INCOMPLETE AND MAY NOT BE USED FOR REGULATORY APPROVAL, PERMIT, OR CONSTRUCTION. DONNA CARTER TEXAS REGISTRATION NUMBER #8207 BRICK CORNICE REMOVE PAINT LAYER TO EXPOSE BRICK. INVESTIGATE BRICK QUALITY FOR REUSE IN RECONSTRUCTION. SEVERLY DAMAGED BRICKS TO BE USED ON INTERIOR WYTHES. REMOVE AND SALVAGE DAMAGED WOOD WINDOWS FOR REPLACEMENT. BRICK FACADE (4 WYTHES, FV) STRUCTURAL CRACKING INVESTIGATE BRICKS IN AREA HIGHLIGHTED BLUE FOR MOISTURE DAMAGE PRIOR TO REINSTALLATION - DO NOT INSTALL IF DAMAGED ORNANMENTAL TIE-BACK RODS STEEL I-BEAM HEADER BEYOND STUCCO REMOVE EXPOSED FACADE AND STRUCTURAL SUPPORTS FROM A REMOVED AWNING DEMO MODERN STOREFRONT BRICK SUPPORT COLUMN SAMPLES FOR TESTING S1 - BRICK • S2 - BRICK • S3 - BRICK • S4 - STONE • S5 - STONE • S6 - MORTAR • LOCATION OF CRACKING SEEN ON THE EXTERIOR 909 WATER DAMAGE INTERIOR ELEVATION 7 1/4" = 1'-0" 6 1" = 1'-0" 909 ENLARGED WALL DETAIL AT CORNICE 909 WALL SECTION - EXISTING 909 WEST ELEVATION EXISTING / DEMOLITION 5 1/4" = 1'-0" 4 1/4" = 1'-0" t v r . K F 4 2 Z 1 a d c _ s s e r g n o C 1 1 9 - 7 0 9 \ h t a P t c e o r j P \ : E M P 9 1 : 6 1 : 4 1 2 0 2 3 2 7 / / SLOPE SLOPE 5 A105 22' - 9 3/8" 909 - ROOF - EXISTING 3 1/4" = 1'-0" 909 - LEVEL 2 - EXISTING 2 1/4" = 1'-0" LEVEL 1 FLOOR PLAN 1 1/4" = 1'-0" 5 A105 22' - 9 3/8" 5 A105 5 A105 19' - 1 3/4" 22' - 9 3/8" 1' - 8 1/4" 3' - 6" 3' - 5" 3' - 6" 3' - 9" 3' - 6" 3' - 5 1/8" 9 1/2" 2' - 10 1/8" ISSUE DATE: PROJECT NUMBER: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: 26 JULY 2021 202103 ZWR DDC REVISIONS: NO REFERENCE ISSUED I I N G S E D C T A M E H C S % 0 0 1 1 1 9 D N A , 9 0 9 , 7 0 9 E V A S S E R G N O C E V A S S E R G N O C 1 1 9 , 9 0 9 , 7 0 9 1 0 7 8 7 X T , I N T S U A Copyright Carter Design Associates, Inc. 909 EXISTING CONDITIONS & DEMOLITION A105 47 of 60B-10911 UPPER NORTH 9 8 911 UPPER CENTRAL NORTH 911 UPPER CENTRAL SOUTH 7 911 UPPER SOUTH 6 9 A106 8 A106 5 A107 7 A106 6 A106 PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION THIS DOCUMENT IS RELEASED FOR THE PURPOSE OF INTERIM REVIEW. IT IS INCOMPLETE AND MAY NOT BE USED FOR REGULATORY APPROVAL, PERMIT, OR CONSTRUCTION. DONNA CARTER TEXAS REGISTRATION NUMBER #8207 911 HEAD DETAIL 3 911 MIDDLE NORTH WALL 5 911 MIDDLE WALL 4 911 SILL DETAIL 2 5 A106 t v r . K F 4 2 Z 1 a d c _ s s e r g n o C 1 1 9 - 7 0 9 \ h t a P t c e o r j P \ : E M P 1 2 : 6 1 : 4 1 2 0 2 3 2 7 / / 911 STOREFRONT 10 911 EXISTING ELEVATION PHOTOS 1 1/4" = 1'-0" 3 A106 10 A106 2 A106 4 A106 ISSUE DATE: PROJECT NUMBER: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: 26 JULY 2021 202103 ZWR DDC REVISIONS: NO REFERENCE ISSUED I I N G S E D C T A M E H C S % 0 0 1 1 1 9 D N A , 9 0 9 , 7 0 9 E V A S S E R G N O C E V A S S E R G N O C 1 1 9 , 9 0 9 , 7 0 9 1 0 7 8 7 X T , I N T S U A Copyright Carter Design Associates, Inc. 911 EXISTING PHOTOS A106 48 of 60B-10" 8 - ' 7 " 0 - ' 9 " 4 / 1 2 - ' 4 " 8 - ' 6 1 " 4 / 3 5 - ' 2 1 " 4 - ' 3 3 " 3 - ' 1 911 WALL SECTION - EXISTING 5 1/4" = 1'-0" 911 WEST ELEVATION EXIXTING / DEMOLITION 4 1/4" = 1'-0" ISSUE DATE: PROJECT NUMBER: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: 26 JULY 2021 202103 ZWR DDC REVISIONS: NO REFERENCE ISSUED 5 A107 MISSING CORNICE SEEN IN HISTORIC PHOTOS MISSING ORGINAL ORNAMENTATION AT HEAD OF WINDOWS DEMO CMU INFILL REMOVE MODERN DAMAGED STUCCO. FINAL BRICK COURSING TO BE DETERMINED AFTER REMOVAL OF STUCCO. SALVAGE INTERIOR WYTHE SOLID UNDAMAGED BRICKS TO REPLACE DAMAGED EXTERIOR BRICKS SALVAGE BRICK AT ORIGINAL COLUMNS DEMO MODERN BRICK VENEER AND CORNICE AT GROUND LEVEL. SALVAGE ORIGINAL BRICK COLUMNS BEHIND. DEMO MODERN STOREFRONT SAMPLES FOR TESTING S1 - BRICK • S2 - BRICK • S3 - BRICK • S4 - STONE • S5 - STONE • S6 - MORTAR • S1 PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION THIS DOCUMENT IS RELEASED FOR THE PURPOSE OF INTERIM REVIEW. IT IS INCOMPLETE AND MAY NOT BE USED FOR REGULATORY APPROVAL, PERMIT, OR CONSTRUCTION. DONNA CARTER TEXAS REGISTRATION NUMBER #8207 I I N G S E D C T A M E H C S % 0 0 1 1 1 9 D N A , 9 0 9 , 7 0 9 E V A S S E R G N O C E V A S S E R G N O C 1 1 9 , 9 0 9 , 7 0 9 1 0 7 8 7 X T , I N T S U A Copyright Carter Design Associates, Inc. 911 EXISTING CONDITIONS & DEMOLTION A107 t v r . K F 4 2 Z 1 a d c _ s s e r g n o C 1 1 9 - 7 0 9 \ h t a P t c e o r j P \ : E M P 1 2 : 6 1 : 4 1 2 0 2 3 2 7 / / 5 A107 5 A107 5 A107 23' - 10 1/2" 23' - 10 1/2" 23' - 10 1/2" 2' - 4 1/4" 3' - 6" 3' - 10" 3' - 6" 3' - 9" 3' - 6" 3' - 5 1/4" 1' - 9 1/2" 4' - 11 3/4" 1' - 0 1/2" 5' - 0 1/2" 1' - 1" 7' - 2 3/4" 2' - 8 1/2" 911 - ROOF - EXISTING 3 1/4" = 1'-0" 911 - LEVEL 2 - EXISTING 2 1/4" = 1'-0" LEVEL 1 FLOOR PLAN 1 1/4" = 1'-0" GRID FOR DIMENSIONING BRICKLOCATION DURING DECONSTRUCTION. WILL ALSO BE USED FOR MASONS TOGUIDE REINSTALLATION WITH THESAME "HAND OF THE CRAFTER"DEVIATIONS.TYPICAL ON ALL BUILDINGS49 of 60B-101' - 0 1/2" 5 A111 " 7 - ' 7 " 2 - ' 8 " 9 - ' 5 " 8 / 3 9 - ' 0 1 " 8 / 3 3 - ' 2 3 " 8 / 3 6 - ' 6 1 907 WALL SECTION - NEW 5 1/4" = 1'-0" 907 - WEST ELEVATION - NEW 4 1/4" = 1'-0" ALIGN COURSING WITH REMAINING SAWTOOTHED BRICK REPLACEMENT STONE ORNAMENTATION, REFER TO EXISTING DRAWINGS FOR DIMENSIONS REPLICA WOOD WINDOWS REINSTALL SALVAGED BRICK 3 BAY WOODEN REPLACEMENT STOREFRONT TO BE DETERMINED AND COORDINATED THROUGH PRSERVATION STAFF BASED ON EXISTING INFORMATION ISSUE DATE: PROJECT NUMBER: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: 26 JULY 2021 202103 ZWR DDC REVISIONS: NO REFERENCE ISSUED PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION THIS DOCUMENT IS RELEASED FOR THE PURPOSE OF INTERIM REVIEW. IT IS INCOMPLETE AND MAY NOT BE USED FOR REGULATORY APPROVAL, PERMIT, OR CONSTRUCTION. DONNA CARTER TEXAS REGISTRATION NUMBER #8207 I I N G S E D C T A M E H C S % 0 0 1 1 1 9 D N A , 9 0 9 , 7 0 9 E V A S S E R G N O C E V A S S E R G N O C 1 1 9 , 9 0 9 , 7 0 9 1 0 7 8 7 X T , I N T S U A Copyright Carter Design Associates, Inc. 907 FACADE RECONSTRUCTION A111 t v r . K F 4 2 Z 1 a d c _ s s e r g n o C 1 1 9 - 7 0 9 \ h t a P t c e o r j P \ : E M P 2 2 : 6 1 : 4 1 2 0 2 3 2 7 / / 5 A111 5 A111 5 A111 FUTURE STRUCTURE TO BE COORDINATED WITH NEW WORK 22' - 2 3/8" 22' - 2 3/8" 2' - 1 7/8" 3' - 7" 3' - 1 1/4" 3' - 7" 3' - 1 3/4" 3' - 7" 3' - 0 1/2" 11 3/4" 1' - 10 1/4" 19' - 4 3/8" 22' - 2 3/8" 3 907 - ROOF - NEW 1/4" = 1'-0" 2 907 - LEVEL 2 - NEW 1/4" = 1'-0" LEVEL 1 FLOOR PLAN 1 1/4" = 1'-0" 50 of 60B-10" 5 - ' 6 " 2 - ' 8 " 0 - ' 7 " 5 " 9 - ' 3 " 1 1 - ' 1 " 4 - ' 1 5 A112 REINSTALL BRICKS TO RECREATE EXISTING COURSING PATTERN REINSTALL VAULTED WINDOW BRICK HEADERS REPLICA WOOD WINDOWS REINSTALL SALVAGED BRICK REINSTALL EXISTING ORNAMENTAL STEEL TIE BACK RODS 3 BAY WOODEN REPLACEMENT STOREFRONT TO BE DETERMINED AND COORDINATED THROUGH PRSERVATION STAFF BASED ON EXISTING INFORMATION 909 WALL SECTION - NEW 5 1/4" = 1'-0" 909 - WEST ELEVATION - NEW 4 1/4" = 1'-0" ISSUE DATE: PROJECT NUMBER: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: 26 JULY 2021 202103 ZWR DDC REVISIONS: NO REFERENCE ISSUED PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION THIS DOCUMENT IS RELEASED FOR THE PURPOSE OF INTERIM REVIEW. IT IS INCOMPLETE AND MAY NOT BE USED FOR REGULATORY APPROVAL, PERMIT, OR CONSTRUCTION. DONNA CARTER TEXAS REGISTRATION NUMBER #8207 I I N G S E D C T A M E H C S % 0 0 1 1 1 9 D N A , 9 0 9 , 7 0 9 E V A S S E R G N O C E V A S S E R G N O C 1 1 9 , 9 0 9 , 7 0 9 1 0 7 8 7 X T , I N T S U A Copyright Carter Design Associates, Inc. 909 FACADE RECONSTRUCTION A112 5 A112 5 A112 5 A112 FUTURE STRUCTURE TO BE COORDINATED WITH NEW WORK 22' - 9 5/8" 22' - 9 5/8" 22' - 9 3/8" 1' - 8 1/2" 3' - 6" 3' - 5" 3' - 6" 3' - 9" 3' - 6" 3' - 5 1/8" 9 1/2" 19' - 1 3/4" 2' - 10 1/8" 3 909 - ROOF - NEW 1/4" = 1'-0" 2 909 - LEVEL 2 - NEW 1/4" = 1'-0" LEVEL 1 FLOOR PLAN 1 1/4" = 1'-0" t v r . K F 4 2 Z 1 a d c _ s s e r g n o C 1 1 9 - 7 0 9 \ h t a P t c e o r j P \ : E M P 2 2 : 6 1 : 4 1 2 0 2 3 2 7 / / 51 of 60B-10" 8 - ' 7 " 0 - ' 9 " 4 / 1 8 - ' 5 " 4 / 1 0 1 - ' 0 1 " 2 / 1 2 - ' 3 3 " 2 / 1 6 - ' 6 1 911 WALL SECTION - NEW 5 1/4" = 1'-0" 911 - WEST ELEVATION - NEW 4 1/4" = 1'-0" REINSTALL VAULTED WINDOW BRICK HEADERS REPLICA WOOD WINDOWS REINSTALL SALVAGED BRICK 3 BAY WOODEN REPLACEMENT STOREFRONT TO BE DETERMINED AND COORDINATED THROUGH PRSERVATION STAFF BASED ON EXISTING INFORMATION 5 A113 5 A113 FUTURE STRUCTURE TO BE COORDINATED WITH NEW WORK 19' - 8 1/2" 23' - 11" ISSUE DATE: PROJECT NUMBER: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: 26 JULY 2021 202103 ZWR DDC REVISIONS: NO REFERENCE ISSUED PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION THIS DOCUMENT IS RELEASED FOR THE PURPOSE OF INTERIM REVIEW. IT IS INCOMPLETE AND MAY NOT BE USED FOR REGULATORY APPROVAL, PERMIT, OR CONSTRUCTION. DONNA CARTER TEXAS REGISTRATION NUMBER #8207 I I N G S E D C T A M E H C S % 0 0 1 1 1 9 D N A , 9 0 9 , 7 0 9 E V A S S E R G N O C E V A S S E R G N O C 1 1 9 , 9 0 9 , 7 0 9 1 0 7 8 7 X T , I N T S U A Copyright Carter Design Associates, Inc. 911 FACADE RECONSTRUCTION A113 5 A113 5 A113 23' - 10 3/4" 23' - 10 3/4" 2' - 4 3/4" 3' - 6" 3' - 10" 3' - 6" 3' - 9" 3' - 6" 3' - 5" 1' - 8" 2' - 6 1/2" 3 911 - ROOF - NEW 1/4" = 1'-0" 2 911 - LEVEL 2 - NEW 1/4" = 1'-0" LEVEL 1 FLOOR PLAN 1 1/4" = 1'-0" t v r . K F 4 2 Z 1 a d c _ s s e r g n o C 1 1 9 - 7 0 9 \ h t a P t c e o r j P \ : E M P 2 2 : 6 1 : 4 1 2 0 2 3 2 7 / / 52 of 60B-10ISSUE DATE: PROJECT NUMBER: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: 26 JULY 2021 202103 ZWR DDC REVISIONS: NO REFERENCE ISSUED PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION THIS DOCUMENT IS RELEASED FOR THE PURPOSE OF INTERIM REVIEW. IT IS INCOMPLETE AND MAY NOT BE USED FOR REGULATORY APPROVAL, PERMIT, OR CONSTRUCTION. DONNA CARTER TEXAS REGISTRATION NUMBER #8207 WEST ELEVATION - NEW 2 1/4" = 1'-0" I I N G S E D C T A M E H C S % 0 0 1 1 1 9 D N A , 9 0 9 , 7 0 9 E V A S S E R G N O C E V A S S E R G N O C 1 1 9 , 9 0 9 , 7 0 9 1 0 7 8 7 X T , I N T S U A Copyright Carter Design Associates, Inc. EXISTING AND NEW ELEVATIONS A114 WEST ELEVATION - EXISTING 1 1/4" = 1'-0" t v r . K F 4 2 Z 1 a d c _ s s e r g n o C 1 1 9 - 7 0 9 \ h t a P t c e o r j P \ : E M P 3 2 : 6 1 : 4 1 2 0 2 3 2 7 / / 53 of 60B-10M L K J I H G F E D C B A 5' - 10 1/4" 13' - 6" 13' - 6" 12' - 0" 12' - 0" 12' - 0" 12' - 0" 12' - 0" 12' - 0" 12' - 0" 12' - 0" 12' - 0" 12' - 0" 6' - 0" EXISTING RUBBLE WALL TO REMAIN - FIELD VERIFY " 0 - ' 2 1 1 2 S100 -3' -0" F 3 -3' -0" F 3 -3' -0" F 3 -1' -1" F 3 -1' -1" F 3 -1' -1" F 3 -1' -1" F 3 -1' -1" F 3 -1' -1" F 3 -1' -1" F 3 -1' -1" F 3 -1' -1" F 3 -1' -1" F 3 M L K J I H G F E D C B A 5' - 10 1/4" 13' - 6" 13' - 6" 12' - 0" 12' - 0" 12' - 0" 12' - 0" 12' - 0" 12' - 0" 12' - 0" 12' - 0" 12' - 0" 12' - 0" 6' - 0" 6' - 1 3/4" 5' - 10 1/4" 3' - 0" , TYP. 3' - 0" , TYP. EXISTING RUBBLE WALL TO REMAIN - FIELD VERIFY ANGLE TABS TO ATTACH HSS BEAM TO RUBBLE WALL - SEE 3/S100 FOR DETAIL HSS10X8X3/8 (LSV) HSS10X8X3/8 (LSV) TOS =25' - 10" HSS10X8X3/8 (LSV) TOS =26' - 8" HSS10X8X3/8 (LSV) TOS =14' - 9" 3 S100 3 S100 1 ROOF 26' - 8" LEVEL 2 14' - 9" GROUND LEVEL 0" 2 BRACING ELEVATION - SOUTH WALL 1/8" = 1'-0" 1 12' - 0" - FIELD VERIFY 1 FOUNDATION PLAN 1/8" = 1'-0" ROOF 26' - 8" LEVEL 2 14' - 9" GROUND LEVEL 0" ROOF 26' - 8" L6X6X3/8 X 0'-8" TOP & BOTTOM W/ 1 1/2" LONG VERTICAL SLOTTED HOLES W/ 1-1/2" Ø THREADED RODS SET IN EXISTING RUBBLE WALL W/ HILTI HIT-HY 270 EPOXY, TYP. - PROVIDE NON-SHRINK GROUT BEHIND ENTIRE LEG OF ANGLE LEVEL 2 14' - 9" HSS BEAM W/ 3/8" THICK STEEL GUSSET PLATE @ EACH BRACING MEMBER - SEE PLAN HSS4X4X1/4 BRACING MEMBERS - SEE PLAN FOR SPACING EXISTING RUBBLE WALL TO REMAIN - FIELD VERIFY - CONTRACTOR TO MAKE REQ'D WALL REPAIRS PRIOR TO SHORING STRUCTURE GROUND LEVEL 0" EXISTING RUBBLE WALL FOUNDATION ELEMENTS TO REMAIN - CONTRACTOR SHALL NOT UNDERMINE ANY EXISTING FDN ELEMENTS 3 TYPICAL BRACING SECTION 1/4" = 1'-0" EMBED PLATE W/ CUSTOM GUSSET PLATE CONNECTION NEW CONCRETE FOOTING POURED INTO EXISTING SLAB-ON- GRADE FOUNDATION - SEE PLAN T.O. FTG. = SEE PLAN . P L L , E P s e r u t c u r t S i i f o n o s s m r e p n e t t i r w e h t t u o h t i i w d e t i b h o r p y l t c i r t s s i n o i t c u r t s n o c r e h t o y n a g n n r e c n o c s n a p e s e h t f o n o i t c u d o r p e r r o e s u e h T l i . y t r e p o r p h c u s o t y l l a c i f i c e p s d e t i m j l i l s i e s u & e t i s e h t n o t c e o r p e g n s a o t n o i t c u r t s n o c o t e s u e m i i t - e n o a o t d e t i m i l & l a n o i t i d n o c e r a s t h g i r s ' r e s a h c r u P . P L L , E P s e r u t c u r t S f o y t r e p o r p e h t e r a s n o i t a c i f i c e p s & s n a p , s g n w a r d , s n g s e d l l i l i A . d e v r e s e r s t h g i r l l A P L L , E P S E R U T C U R T S C I N O T C U R T S N O C R O F T O N / I N O T C U R T S N O C R O F T O N / I N O T C U R T S N O C R O F T O N 6926 N. LAMAR BLVD AUSTIN, TX 78752 PHONE 512 499 0919 FAX 512 320 8521 WWW.STRUCTURESTX.COM FIRM NO.: F-3323 I S N O T A R O T S E R C R O T S H I I . E V A S S E R G N O C . N 1 1 9 9 0 9 7 0 9 S A X E T , I N T S U A ISSUE DESCRIPTION DATE THIS DOCUMENT IS RELEASED FOR THE PURPOSE OF INTERIM REVIEW ONLY BY RYAN STOLTZ P.E. TEXAS LICENSE NO: 111871 THIS DRAWING SHALL NOT BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION, BIDDING, OR PERMIT PURPOSES. BRACING PLAN DRW: Author Contact: CHK: Checker JOB #: 21.153 S100 COORDINATE FINAL EPOXYTYPE WITH STONE CONDITION54 of 60B-10 July 23, 2021 City of Austin Historic Landmark Commission Re: Agenda Items B2 and B3 Historic Landmark Commissioners, As a long-time property owner in the 1000 block of Congress Avenue, I write to you in support of the applicant’s proposal to deconstruct, and then reconstruct, the historic facades of 907, 909 and 911 Congress Avenue. These facades have long been in disrepair and I am happy to see a proposed solution that will lead us to proper facades along this historic frontage. My understanding is that this permit is the first step toward that vision, and that there is a proposed restrictive covenant that will require that the facades be replaced within 3 years. The proposed redevelopment will also come to this commission for review, and I look forward to seeing the design proposal when it is ready. I support this approach and timeline. Respectfully, Joel Sher Vice President, Ten O’ Five, Inc. General Partner Congress Holdings, Ltd 1005 Congress Avenue, Suite 150 Austin, TX 78701 512.478.1005 512.478.1077 (Fax) 55 of 60B-10 July 26, 2021 City of Austin Historic Landmark Commission Re: Agenda Items B2 and B3 Historic Landmark Commissioners: I represent the owners of Capitol Center, an office building at 919 Congress Avenue. We have owned this property since 2005, and for almost that long, the buildings at 907, 909 and 911 Congress Avenue have been in total disrepair. They are dilapidated, unsafe and unsightly, especially as this path is the gateway to the Capitol. While we support the applicant’s proposal to demolish the buildings, we do so only under the express understanding the demolition be done in accordance with all laws and codes. As a directly adjacent property owner, we also expect to review and approve all proposed plans, construction and demolition work techniques and delivery condition of the vacant lot. Additionally, we would expect decorative fencing be installed as to dissuade loitering and other unlawful uses to maintain a safe environment. We look forward to an improved condition for these buildings and seeing future development plans for the site. Sincerely, Julia Taylor Executive Vice President 56 of 60B-1057 of 60B-10Note: Should additional backup be submitted after the online publishing of this staff report, it may be found at the following link: http://www.austintexas.gov/cityclerk/boards_commissions/meetings/40_1.htm 58 of 60B-1059 of 60B-1060 of 60B-10