13 C14H-2022-0099 - Delisle House; District 10 Part 4.pdf — original pdf

Backup

1. 2. APARTMENT INTERIOR 1. CEILING FAILURE HAS ALLOWED DEBRIS AND DIRT TO COLLECT INSIDE THE APARTMENT. THE WOODEN FLOOR IS CRACKING AND DETERIORATING FROM WATER DAMAGE. 2. THE WOODEN FLOOR IS FALLING APART AND SEPERATING FROM THE WALL. J U N E 2 8 , 2 0 2 2 1 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 Guest House - Interior 3. 1. 2. APARTMENT INTERIOR 1. WATER IS LEAKING THROUGH THE RETAINING WALL AND INTO THE APARTMENT. WATER CAN ACTIVELY BE SEEN DRIPPING DOWN THE ROCK WALL. 2. IN ORDER TO HOLD UP THE SECOND FLOOR, RAILWAY TIES ARE USED AS STEEL BEAMS. 3. WATER IS DRIPPING DOWN THE ROCK AND FINDS ITS WAY TO THE STRUCTURE’S CONCRETE BASE. J U N E 2 8 , 2 0 2 2 1 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 Guest House - Interior T w o S t o r y H o u s e J U N E 2 8 , 2 0 2 2 1 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 Site Diagram TWO STORY HOUSE EXTERIOR 1. THERE IS A CRACK THAT STARTS AT THE ROOF, GOES THROUGH THE STUCCO SECOND FLOOR, AND CONTINUES THROUGH THE STONE WALL TO THE GROUND. IT HAS BEEN FILLED AND COVERED WITH PLASTER. THE BOTTOM OF THE STONE WALL SHOWS WATER DAMAGE. 1. J U N E 2 8 , 2 0 2 2 1 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 Two Story House - Exterior 1. 2. TWO STORY HOUSE EXTERIOR 1. THERE IS A CRACK THAT STARTS AT THE STUCCO SECOND FLOOR WALL AND RUNS DOWN FROM THERE. 2. THE CRACK CONTINUES THROUGH THE ROCK FIRST FLOOR WALL. THE WATER DAMAGED STONE CAN BE SEEN AT THE BOTTOM OF THE WALL. J U N E 2 8 , 2 0 2 2 2 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 Two Story House - Exterior 1. 2. TWO STORY HOUSE EXTERIOR 1. THE ROOF SOFFIT IS DETERIORATING AND FALLING APART. 2. THE WOOD STRUCTURE WITHIN THE ROOF IS EXPOSED. J U N E 2 8 , 2 0 2 2 2 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 Two Story House - Exterior 1. TWO STORY HOUSE INTERIOR 1. A STRUCTURAL ENGINEER HAS INDICATED THAT THESE BEAMS ARE INADEQUATE OF BEING STRUCTURALLY CAPABLE TO HOLD THE LOAD OF THE SECOND FLOOR. J U N E 2 8 , 2 0 2 2 2 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 Two Story House - Interior 2. 3. 1. TWO STORY HOUSE INTERIOR 1. THE FLOOR IS DAMAGED AND FLAKING. ON THE EXTERIOR, THE HEIGHT OF THE GROUND IS HIGHER THAN THE HEIGHT OF THE WINDOW SILL, ALLOWING WATER TO FLOW INTO THE HOUSE. 2. WATER IS DAMAGING THE CEILING IN LARGE AREAS. BLACK MOLD IS EVIDENT IN MULTIPLE LOCATIONS. 3. IN THIS LOCATION THE WATER DAMAGE IS ESPECIALLY EVIDENT AND DESTRUCTIVE. MOLD IS A POTENTIAL HEALTH HAZARD AND WOULD REQUIRE AN EXTENSIVE MITIGATION EFFORT. J U N E 2 8 , 2 0 2 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 Two Story House - Interior 1. 2. TWO STORY HOUSE INTERIOR 1. THE PLASTER DRYWALL IS FALLING APART AND CRACKING. THE DOOR IS TOO SMALL AND IS UP AGAINST STONE STAIRS. 2. THE PLASTER IS CRACKED AND FALLING APART. J U N E 2 8 , 2 0 2 2 2 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 Two Story House - Interior 1. 2. TWO STORY HOUSE INTERIOR 1. THE PLASTER AND THE TRIM ARE FALLING APART AND EXPOSING THE WALL BENEATH. 2. THE PLASTER IS CRACKING. J U N E 2 8 , 2 0 2 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 Two Story House - Interior 1. 2. TWO STORY HOUSE INTERIOR 1. THE WINDOWSILL IS FALLING APART AND IS DROPPING DEBRIS ONTO THE WINDOW SILL AND FLOOR. 2. THE FLOOR IS BOWING DUE TO THE LACK OF STRUCTURAL SUPPORT BELOW. J U N E 2 8 , 2 0 2 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 Two Story House - Interior P o o l a n d L a n d s c a p e J U N E 2 8 , 2 0 2 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 Site Diagram 1. POOL AND LANDSCAPE EXTERIOR 1. THE POOL’S STONE AND CONCRETE ARE SPLITTING APART AND CRACKING. J U N E 2 8 , 2 0 2 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 Pool and Landscape- Exterior 1. 2. POOL AND LANDSCAPE EXTERIOR 1. CHANGING ROOMS - THE CONCRETE WALLS ARE SHOWING SIGNS OF WATER DAMAGE. THE WOOD DOORS ARE FALLING APART. 2. CHANGING ROOMS – ON THE INSIDE OF THE CHANGING ROOMS, THE WALLS ARE CRACKING AND THE FOUNDATION IS DAMAGED. DEBRIS IS COVERING THE FLOOR. J U N E 2 8 , 2 0 2 2 3 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 Pool and Landscape- Exterior 1. 2. POOL AND LANDSCAPE EXTERIOR 1. FRONT OF BENCH – THE FINISH OVER THE CONCRETE BENEATH IS PEELING OFF. 2. BACKSIDE OF BENCH – THE BENCH IS CRACKED AND IS IN DISREPAIR. J U N E 2 8 , 2 0 2 2 3 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 Pool and Landscape- Exterior 1. POOL AND LANDSCAPE EXTERIOR 1. WALL IS CRACKING AND SPLITTING APART IN THIS LOCATION. J U N E 2 8 , 2 0 2 2 3 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 Pool and Landscape- Exterior 1. 2. POOL AND LANDSCAPE EXTERIOR 1. THE BRIDGE IS CRACKING AND IS UNSAFE TO WALK OVER. 2. THE WALL IS CRUMBLING APART IN SEVERAL AREAS. J U N E 2 8 , 2 0 2 2 3 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 Pool and Landscape- Exterior 1. 2. POOL AND LANDSCAPE EXTERIOR 1. THE CONCRETE STAIRS ARE CONSTRICTING THIS SIGNIFICANT TREE. 2. THE STAIRS ARE CRACKING AND MOVING DUE TO THE TREE’S GROWTH. J U N E 2 8 , 2 0 2 2 3 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 Pool and Landscape- Exterior T H A N K Y O U 2002 Scenic Lake Austin Case Rationale for 2002 Scenic Architecture Historical Association Archaeology Community Value Landscape Feature ? X X ? ? The Commission must find that the property meets at least two of the above criteria. ARCHITECTURE? We believe the case for architectural significance is weak, but at the very least, it – alone – is not sufficient. STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY Much of the structures could not be preserved as they exist today – they would need to be deconstructed and rebuilt. LANDSCAPE FEATURE The “Landscaped Features” in the staff report are common yard amenities laid out in a functional manner. COMMUNITY VALUE It is not physically or visually accessible to the community and does not meet precedent for “Community Value.” Cases WITH “Historic Association” Cases With NO “Historic Association” HISTORIC ASSOCIATION ) 2 2 0 2 - 1 1 0 2 ( s e s a C g n n o Z i c i r o t s i H It is highly unusual to have an historic landmark case in which there is no historic association. HISTORIC ASSOCIATION Cases With NO “Historic Association” Staff Presentation (Outlier Case): “Struggle as I have to come up with a second criterion to recommend historic zoning for this house, I have not been able to do it. Professor Sellstrom – as far as I can tell, in conversations I have had and research that I’ve done – his career has not been as noteworthy and significant as we generally look for when we’re designating a house as a historic landmark. We have to look at both the architecture – where, I think we have architecture here in spades, I mean there’s no doubt about it – but the Historic Associations, in staff’s opinion, are just not there.” It is highly unusual to have an historic landmark case in which there is no historic association. Rationale for 2002 Scenic Architecture Historical Association Archaeology Community Value Landscape Feature ? X X X X This case does not meet at least two of the above criteria. “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.” “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.” For the Apartment Unit: “These walls cannot be reused as load-bearing.” “These [pool] walls and slab have failed… The pool and deck are not suitable for reuse.” Engineer’s Report – Major Structural Issues Impact: Foundation Masonry Walls Wood Framing Extensive Water Damage Pool Deck and Slab 2002 Scenic faces extensive structural issues that will necessitate demolition. Landscape Feature Rationale to have appears property a “The significant and unique designed landscape with aesthetic and historical value. Some landscape features, including the arched bridge and bench, appear to incorporate Delisle’s Urnite material. This material is the landscape rare today. Additionally, designed by Delisle specifically relates to his architectural vision for the house, with meandering walks, an expansive lawn, and an early swimming pool built into the hillside topography to provide a river view.” Staff Report’s Landscaping Rationale Relies on Three Claims: 1. That Delisle designed the landscaping. 2. That the landscaping features Urnite. 3. That the landscaping has significant and unique value. Landscape Feature Rationale to have appears property a “The significant and unique designed landscape with aesthetic and historical value. Some landscape features, including the arched bridge and bench, appear to incorporate Delisle’s Urnite material. This material is the landscape rare today. Additionally, designed by Delisle specifically relates to his architectural vision for the house, with meandering walks, an expansive lawn, and an early swimming pool built into the hillside topography to provide a river view.” Staff Report’s Landscaping Rationale Relies on Three Claims: 1. That Delisle designed the landscaping – UNVERIFIED 2. That the landscaping features Urnite – UNVERIFIED 3. That the landscaping has significant and unique value. “Landscape Feature” Precedent (Casa McMath) Intentional Design Connected to the Site’s History Distinct and Unique Style We reviewed every historic zoning case in the city’s system over the past decade in order to determine precedent for what constituted an historic “Landscape Feature.”