13 C14H-2022-0099 - Delisle House; District 10 Part 3.pdf — original pdf

Backup

From: To: Subject: Date: Ila Falvey Collins, Kimberly Scenic Drive (Case # C14H-2022-0099) Monday, August 8, 2022 12:15:30 PM *** External Email - Exercise Caution *** I support historic designation for the property located at 2002 Scenic drive. The property serves as an anchor to the "mini historic historic district" of rock houses representative of Austin's early history. This unique property should be respected, not demolished. For the above reasons I am in favor of changing the designation to SF-3-NP-H. Sincerely, Ila Falvey CAUTION: This email was received at the City of Austin, from an EXTERNAL source. Please use caution when clicking links or opening attachments. If you believe this to be a malicious and/or phishing email, please forward this email to cybersecurity@austintexas.gov. From: To: Subject: Date: Alison Hanks Collins, Kimberly 2002 Scenic Drive. Case #C14H-2022-0099 Monday, August 8, 2022 6:42:17 PM *** External Email - Exercise Caution *** I am writing to you regarding 2002 Scenic Drive (Case # C14H-2022-0099). I urge you to support the unanimous recommendation of the Historic Landmark Commission to change the zoning to SF-3-NP-H. I lived at 2002 Scenic Dr. for eight years, (1996-2002). This home has a unique history in the growth of Austin. 100+- years ago it was being built when Scenic was a dirt track and entry to the home was from the lake. This house is the finest one out of the collection of six or so 'stone houses' up and down the block. I conducted many oral histories with the owners of the stone houses and know tearing down 2002 Scenic would mean the loss of a family legacy as well as the remarkable structure. What a pity. Please support the Historic Landmark Commission’s unanimous recommendation and help preserve the character of my neighborhood. Regards, Alison Hanks CAUTION: This email was received at the City of Austin, from an EXTERNAL source. Please use caution when clicking links or opening attachments. If you believe this to be a malicious and/or phishing email, please forward this email to cybersecurity@austintexas.gov. From: To: Subject: Date: Alison Hanks Collins, Kimberly 2002 Scenic Dr. Case #C14H-2022-0099 Monday, August 8, 2022 7:06:20 PM *** External Email - Exercise Caution *** I am writing to you regarding 2002 Scenic Drive (Case # C14H-2022-0099). I urge you to support the unanimous recommendation of the Historic Landmark Commission to change the zoning to SF-3-NP-H. I enjoyed living there from 1996-2002. This is a unique part of Austin. Please don't let it be lost! Please support the Historic Landmark Commission’s unanimous recommendation and help preserve the character of my neighborhood. Regards, Alison Hanks email was received at the City of Austin, from an EXTERNAL source. Please use caution when clicking links or opening attachments. If you believe this to be a malicious and/or phishing email, please forward this email to cybersecurity@austintexas.gov. From: To: Subject: Date: Attachments: Importance: Debbie Gillan Collins, Kimberly 2002 Scenic Drive Tuesday, August 9, 2022 5:52:28 PM Whellan rebuttal.pdf Certified return receipt Whellan.pdf High *** External Email - Exercise Caution *** Dear Ms. Collins: I was grately distressed to learn that a Mr. Michael Whellan had made multiple disparaging remarks about my father, C H Slator, in public testimony recently given before the Austin Historic Landmark Commission concerning the property at Scenic Drive. This testimony and articles relating to the property have subsequently been published and distributed to the general public in Austin and elsewhere. I am attaching a copy of my letter to Michael Whellan with return receipt attached demanding that Whellan “cease and desist” from any and all erroneous and disparaging racial “hate speech” directed at my father or the Slator Family name. I am disgusted and repulsed that anyone would stoop to such hideous tactics to try to make “a point.” Therefore, I am requesting that the attached letter and receipt confirmation be placed in the public record to rebut Whellan’s false accusations regarding C H Slator and the Slator family name. I would appreciate confirmation that has been done. Thank you, Deborah Slator Gillan CAUTION: This email was received at the City of Austin, from an EXTERNAL source. Please use caution when clicking links or opening attachments. If you believe this to be a malicious and/or phishing email, please forward this email to cybersecurity@austintexas.gov. Page 1 of 2 Engineer’s Report SUBJECT: Assessment of structural conditions 2002 Scenic Drive, Austin, Texas JOB NUMBER: DATE OF REPORT: 21206.01 June 20, 2022 At the request of Ryan Street Architects, I have visited the site twice to review existing conditions of structural elements and to offer an opinion about the suitability for reuse in a renovation. This report is a summary of my observations and refers to photos in the June 21, 2022 report by Ryan Street Architects. Apartment The degradation of the roof and windows has allowed water into the building for an unknown but obviously prolonged period of time. The wood roof framing has obvious rot in areas exposed by holes, and I believe it is likely that further investigation will reveal that none of the roof framing is salvageable. Given the excessive deflection of the roof (photo on page 12) and the concerns about the floor joists mentioned below, I caution against entering this building until the roof and floor can be adequately shored. The existing floor joists are supported in slots gouged into the face of the exposed limestone cut (photo 1, page 16), which was leaching water (photo 3, page 16) during my visits despite no antecedent rainfall. The ends of the joists are spliced onto the original joists as part of a previous repair which was undoubtedly caused by previous similar rot. The splices are not adequate and show clear signs of deflection and distress. The repair ends are now showing signs of rot. These structural connections are inadequate and dangerous. The stone wall on the second floor is supported on an inverted steel railroad rail, which is not properly supported at points of bearing or against rotation. The elevated concrete slab over the garage also appears to use steel railroad rails as reinforcement, and the steel shows severe corrosion. Again, I recommend caution under and on this slab until in can be properly shored. The walls are load-bearing, uncoursed random rubble masonry that do not meet the minimum requirements of modern or recent building codes for thickness and for height-to-thickness ratios. These walls cannot be reused as load-bearing in the renovation. Two Story House The exterior walls are load-bearing, uncoursed random rubble masonry, similar in construction and deficiencies to the apartment. These walls cannot be reused as load-bearing in the renovation. Additionally, the reuse of the existing masonry walls as non-load-bearing is not possible. The south wall has a significant crack (photo on page 19) that was previously patched and continues to move. This wall is noticeably out-of-square and out-of-plumb. Foundation movement is likely occurring. Further investigation will be required, but if the foundation is rubble, which is typical for the era, less invasive stabilization techniques will not be possible. The masonry walls will need to be removed so that the foundation can be rebuilt with reinforced concrete. Similar to the apartment, widespread water leaks in the roof have damaged wood framing to the point that total replacement will likely be necessary for the roof. The damage may include the floor in several locations, and more investigation will be required to make this determination. Duffy Engineering, Inc. | 1402 Cuernavaca Drive N. | Austin, Texas 78733 | phone: (512) 402-0074 | Texas Firm Registration No. F-8637 Page 2 of 2 For the floor over the large room (photo on page 22), significant deflection is apparent from above and below. The beams and joists will likely need to be reinforced to support modern loads. Pool And Landscape The pool geometry violates modern code requirements, particularly where concrete was added along the east edge, apparently to divert rain runoff around the pool (photo on page 29). Cracks in the shell are significant enough that the basin will not hold water. The walls of the changing rooms support the slab of the pool deck. These walls and slab have failed (photos on page 30). Again, the load-bearing, uncoursed random rubble masonry has no definable capacity once it cracks and displaces like these walls have. I recommend not allowing anyone on or around these walls and slab until they are shored or demolished. The pool and deck are not suitable for reuse. Summary The wood framing has been severely damaged by water and immediate shoring or demolition is recommended. The masonry walls are not adequate for load-bearing, and their reuse as a non-load-bearing veneer is not practical. The foundation is questionable and likely not adequate for reuse in an extensive renovation. Other considerations that are not part of this structural assessment but important to the practicality of a renovation are waterproofing, building envelope and site drainage. All have obvious challenges with no reliable solutions without complete demolition. SIGNED: Dennis Duffy, PE DISTRIBUTION: Ryan Perstac r Eran Montoya Duffy Engineering, Inc. | 1402 Cuernavaca Drive N. | Austin, Texas 78733 | phone: (512) 402-0074 | Texas Firm Registration No. F-8637 2 0 0 2 S C E N I C D R I V E R E S I D E N C E , E X I S T I N G C O N D I T I O N S | J U N E 2 8 , 2 0 2 2 2 0 0 2 S C E N I C D R I V E E X I S T I N G C O N D I T I O N S J U N E 2 8 , 2 0 2 2 3 2 0 0 2 S C E N I C D R I V E R E S I D E N C E Site Diagram A p a r t m e n t J U N E 2 8 , 2 0 2 2 5 2 0 0 2 S C E N I C D R I V E R E S I D E N C E Site Diagram 1. 2. APARTMENT EXTERIOR 1. ROOF DAMAGE INDICATED BY DISPLACED, DAMAGAGED AND MISSING SHINGLES. HOLES IN THE ROOF POINT TO BROAD WATER DAMAGE WITHIN AND POTENTIAL DAMAGE TO STRUCTURE. 2. WOOD WINDOWS - JAMBS, SILLS, AND FRAME ARE ROTTED. BROKEN PANES THROUGHOUT. J U N E 2 8 , 2 0 2 2 6 2 0 0 2 S C E N I C D R I V E R E S I D E N C E Apartment - Exterior 1. 2. APARTMENT EXTERIOR 1. METAL IS RUSTED AND VINES ARE ENTERING INTO APARTMENT. 2. WOOD WINDOWS - JAMBS, SILLS, AND FRAME ARE ROTTED. BROKEN PANES THROUGHOUT. VINES ARE OVERGROWN AND ARE ENTERING INTO THE INTERIOR. J U N E 2 8 , 2 0 2 2 7 2 0 0 2 S C E N I C D R I V E R E S I D E N C E Apartment - Exterior 1. 2. APARTMENT EXTERIOR 1. THE ROOF IS FALLING APART AND IS SHOWING SIGNS OF WATER DAMAGE. 2. THE ROOF IS SLANTING, WHICH IS A SIGN OF STRUCTURAL FAILURE AND MATERIAL DETERIORATION. J U N E 2 8 , 2 0 2 2 8 2 0 0 2 S C E N I C D R I V E R E S I D E N C E Apartment - Exterior 1. 2. APARTMENT EXTERIOR 1. THE UNDERSIDE OF THE GARAGE ROCK WALL IS SHOWING SIGNS OF MOLDING. 2. THE ROOF OF THE GARAGE IS MOLDING AND HAS WATER DAMAGE. J U N E 2 8 , 2 0 2 2 9 2 0 0 2 S C E N I C D R I V E R E S I D E N C E Apartment - Exterior 1. 2. APARTMENT INTERIOR 1. HOLES IN CEILING AND ROOF – SKY VISIBLE THROUGH INTERIOR CEILINGS AND ROOF. VINES HAVE INVADED STRUCTURE THROUGH BOTH ROOF AND BROKEN WINDOWS. 2. WATER DAMAGE – EVIDENCE OF LONG-TERM WATER DAMAGE APPARENT ON CEILINGS, WALLS, AND FLOORS. . J U N E 2 8 , 2 0 2 2 1 0 2 0 0 2 S C E N I C D R I V E R E S I D E N C E Apartment - Interior 1. 2. APARTMENT INTERIOR 1. DISCOLORATION AND ROT SHOWS SIGNS OF WATER DAMAGE. 2. WATER DAMAGE – DISCOLORATION AND DEBRIS INDICATE LONG-TERM WATER DAMAGE ON CEILINGS, WALLS, AND FLOORS. J U N E 2 8 , 2 0 2 2 1 1 2 0 0 2 S C E N I C D R I V E R E S I D E N C E Guest House - Interior 1. 2. APARTMENT INTERIOR 1. THE CEILING IS BOWED AND SHOWS SIGNS OF WATER DAMAGE AND DETERIORATION. 2. DUE TO THE CEILING FAILURE, DIRT AND DEBRIS ARE COLLECTING ON THE FLOOR BELOW. J U N E 2 8 , 2 0 2 2 1 2 2 0 0 2 S C E N I C D R I V E R E S I D E N C E Guest House - Interior 3. APARTMENT INTERIOR 1. 2. 4. 1. DEBRIS HAS COLLECTED INSIDE THE BATHTUB, 3. THE CEILING IN THE BATHROOM IS DETERIORATING AND SHOWING WATER DAMAGE AND CEILING FAILURE. MOLDING. 2. THE CEILING HAS MOLD GROWING ON THE SURFACE OF THE WOOD, WHICH IS CAUSING FAILURE AND COMPROMISING THE MATERIAL. 4. THE CEILING OVER THE BATHTUB IS DETERIORATING AND ALLOWING DEBRIS TO COLLECT IN THE TUB. J U N E 2 8 , 2 0 2 2 1 3 2 0 0 2 S C E N I C D R I V E R E S I D E N C E Guest House - Interior 2. 3. 1. APARTMENT INTERIOR 1. WOOD CEILING IS ROTTED, FALLING APART, AND SEPERATING. 2. CEILING FAILURE HAS OPENDED THE INTERIOR UP TO EXTERIOR LIGHT, WATER, AND AIR. WATER DAMAGE CAN BE SEEN ON THE WALL AND CEILING. 3. THE KITCHEN CEILING AND STRUCTURE HAS DETERIORATED AND IS FALLING APART. J U N E 2 8 , 2 0 2 2 1 4 2 0 0 2 S C E N I C D R I V E R E S I D E N C E Guest House - Interior