1

STAFF REPORT HISTORIC AND CULTURAL LANDMARKS COMMISSION

CITY OF FORT WORTH, TEXAS DATE: August 14, 2017 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 8 GENERAL INFORMATION LOCATION 1204 E. Leuda Street ZONING/ USE (S) A-5/HC OWNER Will Woodard, Jr. APPLICANT/AGENT City of Fort Worth – Code Compliance NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION Terrell Heights Historic District REQUEST City of Fort Worth Planning and Development and Code Compliance Departments requests a determination from the Historic and Cultural Landmarks Commission (HCLC), in accordance with Chapter 7: Buildings, Article 4: Minimum Building Standards Code; Section 7-109 Preservation of Historic Properties of the City Code, as to whether the accessory structure located at 1204 E. Leuda Street in the Terrell Heights Historic District can be reasonably rehabilitated to remain as a property contributing to the City of Fort Worth's historic heritage. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Certificate of Appropriateness, Demolition or Relocation: Loss of Significance:

The Historic and Cultural Landmarks Commission (HCLC) may approve a Certificate of Appropriateness for demolition or relocation when it has determined that the structure is no longer significant. In making this determination, the HCLC must find that the owner has established by a preponderance of evidence that the structure has undergone significant and irreversible changes which have caused it to lose the significance, and/or features which qualified the structure for designation.

FINDINGS/RECOMMENDATIONS The applicant is requesting a determination for the accessory structure. The structure is considered a CAT I (Substandard and Hazardous). The following criteria are used to in determining reasonable rehabilitation and/or demolition of a structure. The historic and/or architectural significance of the building or structure: The accessory structure is a vernacular Craftsman style structure built c.1927. Both the main structure and the accessory structure are listed as contributing structures to the Terrell Heights Historic District. The accessory garage still retains several of its character defining features,

2

including exposed rafter tails, 117 wood siding, hinged barn garage doors, and site setting on the rear property line. It is one of two remaining original accessory structures left on this block of Leuda Street. The condition of the building(s) or structure(s): The accessory structure is in poor structural condition. The building’s foundation is in poor condition. The building sits directly on the ground in most places. Very little remains of the original concrete slab. Because of this, the building has settled unevenly due to wood rot at the base walls, causing the building to lean dangerously into the alley that runs along the rear of the property. The roof is only partially covered in asphalt roof material, leaving the decking exposed to the elements, which in turn has caused the decking to deteriorate significantly. Several ceiling rafters are showing signs of structural stress and beginning to fail due to lack of physical support. One rafter has already cleaved in two. Many of the rafters are supported by temporary posts that in no way should be carrying the structural load of the roof. Both garage doors are significantly deteriorated and falling off their hinges, leaving the building open to the elements. The building is extremely poor condition and is in danger of collapsing into the alley. Given the state of deterioration and the significant structural instability, a significant structural intervention must be applied to the accessory structure immediately in order to arrest the building’s slow collapse into the alley. While staff does believe that this structure can be reasonably rehabilitated, time is of the essence and the rehabilitation must begin as soon as possible. Otherwise the building will continue to rapidly deteriorate, given its current condition. The special character and aesthetic interest that the building or structure adds to the local Historic District or Landmark site: The accessory structure at 1204 E. Leuda Street is a vernacular Craftsman style structure that is one of two remaining original accessory structures on the 1200 block of Leuda Street. It still retains its character defining features, most original building materials, form and setting. This building retains a high degree of integrity and notably contributes to the character and aesthetic interest of this block of Leuda Street and the Terrell Heights Historic District as a whole. Therefore, based on the information provided by the applicant, Staff does believe that the accessory structure at 1204 E. Leuda St. can be reasonably rehabilitated to remain as a property contributing to the City of Fort Worth’s historic heritage.

3

Supplemental Information

Fig. 1 - Aerial

Fig. 2 - 1951 Sanborn Map

4

Fig. 3 – Main structure

Fig. 4 – Garage front façade

5

Fig. 5 – Looking east

Fig. 6 – Looking west, showing uneven foundation settling, deteriorated asphalt roof and

decking.

6

Fig. 7 – Interior of garage addition showing temporary support beams, roof opening, snapped

rafter.

Fig. 8 – Interior of garage

7

Fig. 9 – Interior of garage

COA17-90

1

STAFF REPORT HISTORIC AND CULTURAL LANDMARKS COMMISSION

CITY OF FORT WORTH, TEXAS DATE: August 14, 2017 COUNCIL DISTRICT: 8 GENERAL INFORMATION REQUEST Certificate of Appropriateness APPLICANT/AGENT Alejandro Lopez Alvarado LOCATION 1634 E. Leuda Street ZONING/ USE (S) A-5/HC NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION Terrell Heights ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED WORK CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS

The applicant requests a Certificate of Appropriateness for alterations undertaken to the front porch columns and front façade. APPLICABLE TERRELL HEIGHTS DESIGN GUIDELINES Rehabilitation/Repair of Existing Structures Appropriate

- Retain existing features, materials and design elements wherever possible. Replace only those portions that are beyond repair.

- Replace missing or deteriorated features and design elements with like materials or materials that convey the same visual appearance of color, reflectivity, texture and finish.

- Maintain original porches and entryways to prevent deterioration of historic wood floors, railings, and trim details which may hard to replace.

- Replace wood porch floors, soffits, porch ceilings, and trim with like dimensioned materials of similar visual appearance.

- Maintain the scale and transparency of original porches and entries. Not Appropriate

- Using architectural decoration not original or typical to the architecture and era of a building.

COA17-90

2

- Using materials of a different dimension or consistency than the original.

- Allowing original wood features to deteriorate.

- Replacing original wood porches with concrete or stone.

- Using architectural details of a different style than what is original to the building.

SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR’S STANDARDS FOR THE TREATMENT OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES

2. The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided.

5. Distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property shall be preserved.

6. Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature shall match the old in design, color, texture, and other visual qualities and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features shall be substantiated by documentary, physical, or pictorial evidence. Wood Recommended

- Identifying, retaining, and preserving wood features that are important in defining the overall historic character of the building such as siding, cornices, brackets, window architraves, and doorway pediments; and their paints, finishes, and colors.

- Evaluating the overall condition of the wood to determine whether more than protection and maintenance are required, that is, if repairs to wood features will be necessary.

- Repairing wood features by patching, piecing-in, consolidating, or otherwise reinforcing the wood using recognized preservation methods.

- Replacing in kind an entire wood feature that is too deteriorated to repair--if the overall form and detailing are still evident--using the physical evidence as a model to reproduce the feature. Examples of wood features include a cornice, entablature or balustrade. If using the same kind of material is not technically or economically feasible, then a compatible substitute material may be considered.

Not Recommended

- Removing or radically changing wood features which are important in defining the overall historic character of the building so that, as a result, the character is diminished.

- Removing a major portion of the historic wood from a facade instead of repairing or replacing only the deteriorated wood, then reconstructing the facade with new material in

COA17-90

3

order to achieve a uniform or "improved" appearance.

- Radically changing the type of finish or its color or accent scheme so that the historic character of the exterior is diminished.

- Failing to identify, evaluate, and treat the causes of wood deterioration, including faulty flashing, moss on wood shingles indicative of damaging moisture retention, leaking gutters, cracks and holes in siding, deteriorated caulking in joints and seams, plant material growing too close to wood surfaces, or insect or fungus infestation.

Masonry Recommended

- Identifying, retaining, and preserving masonry features that are important in defining the overall historic character of the building such as walls, brackets, railings, cornices, window architraves, door pediments, steps, and columns; and details such as tooling and bonding patterns, coatings, and color.

- Evaluating the overall condition of the masonry to determine whether more than protection and maintenance are required, that is, if repairs to the masonry features will be necessary.

- Repairing masonry walls and other masonry features by repointing the mortar joints where there is evidence of deterioration such as disintegrating mortar, cracks in mortar joints, loose bricks, damp walls, or damaged plasterwork.

- Removing deteriorated mortar by carefully hand-raking the joints to avoid damaging the masonry.

- Duplicating old mortar in strength, composition, color, and texture.

- Duplicating old mortar joints in width and in joint profile.

- Repairing masonry features by patching, piecing-in, or consolidating the masonry using recognized preservation methods.

- Replacing in kind an entire masonry feature that is too deteriorated to repair--if the overall form and detailing are still evident--using the physical evidence as a model to reproduce the feature. Examples can include large sections of a wall, a cornice, balustrade, column, or stairway. If using the same kind of material is not technically or economically feasible, then a compatible substitute material may be considered.

- Designing and installing a new masonry feature such as steps or a door pediment when the historic feature is completely missing. It may be an accurate restoration using historical, pictorial, and physical documentation; or be a new design that is compatible with the size, scale, material, and color of the historic building.

Not Recommended

COA17-90

4

- Removing or radically changing masonry features which are important in defining the overall historic character of the building so that, as a result, the character is diminished.

- Replacing or rebuilding a major portion of exterior masonry walls that could be repaired so that, as a result, the building is no longer historic and is essentially new construction.

- Failing to evaluate and treat the various causes of mortar joint deterioration such as leaking roofs or gutters, differential settlement of the building, capillary action, or extreme weather exposure.

- Failing to undertake adequate measures to assure the protection of masonry features.

- Using electric saws and hammers rather than hand tools to remove deteriorated mortar from joints prior to repointing.

- Repointing with mortar of high Portland cement content (unless it is the content of the historic mortar). This can often create a bond that is stronger than the historic material and can cause damage as a result of the differing coefficient of expansion and the differing porosity of the material and the mortar.

- Using a substitute material for the replacement part that does not convey the visual appearance of the surviving parts of the masonry feature or that is physically or chemically incompatible.

- Introducing a new masonry feature that is incompatible in size, scale, material and color. Entrances and Porches Recommended

- Identifying, retaining, and preserving entrances--and their functional and decorative features--that are important in defining the overall historic character of the building.

- Protecting and maintaining the masonry, wood, and architectural metal that comprise entrances and porches through appropriate surface treatments such as cleaning, rust removal, limited paint removal, and re-application of protective coating systems.

- Evaluating the overall condition of materials to determine whether more than protection and maintenance are required, that is, repairs to entrance and porch features will be necessary.

- Repairing entrances and porches by reinforcing the historic materials. Repair will also generally include the limited replacement in kind--of with compatible substitute material--of those extensively deteriorated or missing parts of repeated features where there are surviving prototypes such as balustrades, cornices, entablatures, columns, sidelights, and stairs.

Not Recommended

COA17-90

5

- Removing or radically changing entrances and porches which are important in defining the overall historic character of the building so that, as a result, the character is diminished.

- Failing to provide adequate protection to materials on a cyclical basis so that deterioration of entrances and porches results.

- Failing to undertake adequate measures to assure the protection of historic entrances and porches.

- Using a substitute material for the replacement parts that does not convey the visual appearance of the surviving parts of the entrance and porch or that is physically or chemically incompatible.

FINDINGS/RECOMMENDATIONS The structure at 1634 E. Leuda St. is a two-story hipped-roof Craftsman Bungalow building. TAD records indicate that the structure was built in 1928. The property is considered a contributing structure to the Terrell Heights Historic District The applicant is requesting approval for alterations already undertaken to the character-defining front façade and porch columns. The original 117 wood siding and two center brick porch columns were recently covered over with stone masonry in June of this year. The brick columns were apparently covered to address structural deterioration issues at the base of the columns. It is recommended practice in preservation that a condition assessment be undertaken prior to the commencement of any rehabilitation work. Staff has no evidence of the structural integrity of the original porch columns prior to their being covered. Overlaying both the wood façade, two brick columns, and porch support beam are inconsistent with the Terrell Heights Historic District Guidelines as well as the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (#2, 5, and 6). The stone material is incompatible with the existing 117-wood siding and masonry piers, which are both character-defining features of the house. It is staff’s opinion that the original siding and brick columns could have been rehabilitated in place. The stone masonry was not tied into the wood siding on the front façade and should not cause damage to the original wood siding if removed based on discussions with and evidence submitted by the applicant., It is considered that removing the applied stone masonry from the brick columns will prove difficult and more than likely cause significant and irreversible damage to the original brick beneath it. Portland cement is generally much harder than historic brick and mortar. When removed from such materials, Portland Cement can tend to rip off the face of the brick and cause the original mortar to disintegrate. The standard of maintaining the original siding, porch, and piers has not been fully met and the work undertaken to the porch is inconsistent with the character and appearance of property and

COA17-90

6

other homes within the district. However, given the further the damage that could be caused to the original historic materials, staff therefore recommends the following motion: That the Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for work already undertaken to the character-defining front façade and porch columns be approved subject to the following conditions:

1. That the applicant remove the stone masonry from the front façade of the building and porch support beam; and

2. That the applicant provide a protection plan to staff for the historic wood features beneath the stone masonry prior to undertaking any work.

3. That the work be completed within 45 days.

COA17-90

7

Supplemental Information

Fig. 1 - Aerial

Fig. 2 – 1951 Sanborn Map

COA17-90

8

Fig. 3 – 1634 E. Leuda St., c. 2015

COA17-90

9

Fig. 4 – Showing original 117 wood siding prior to stone masonry overlay

COA17-90

10

Fig. 5 – Overlaying stone masonry on top of original wood siding

COA17-90

11

Fig. 6 – Showing front façade and stone masonry overlaid on brick columns

Fig. 7 – Looking SE

COA17-90

12

Fig. 8 – Finished project