Historic Landmarks Commission Packets

HISTORIC LANDMARKS COMMISSION December 11, 2014 THE REGULAR MEETING WILL BE HELD AT 9:00 A.M. IN CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS SUFFOLK CITY HALL NOTE: IF YOU CANNOT ATTEND THIS MEETING, PLEASE CALL THE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING BY 12:00 NOON, WEDNESDAY, December 10, 2014 514-4060 RANDY HICKS CHAIRMAN PREPARED BY THE CITY OF SUFFOLK DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIVISION OF PLANNING  AGENDA Historic Landmarks Commission Meeting Thursday, December 11, 2014 9:00 a.m. I. Call to Order: Chairman II. Roll Call III. Approval of the Minutes of November 13, 2014. IV. New Business A. REQUEST FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS HC-2014-45, submitted by Gerry Jones, Director of Capital Programs and Buildings, agent for, City of Suffolk, Virginia, applicant and property owner, for the demolition of three existing residential structures located at 407 W. Washington Street, 409 W. Washington Street, and 413 W. Washington Street; and further identified as Zoning Map 34G17 Block (A) Parcel 189, 34G17 Block (A) Parcel 190, and 34G17 Block (A) Parcel 191, respectively, Suffolk Voting Borough, and is zoned CBD (Central Business District), and HC (Historic Conservation Overlay District). V. Staff Reports A. Enforcement Update B. Administrative Approvals VI. Adjournment  MINUTES HISTORIC LANDMARKS COMMISSION November 13, 2014 9:00 A.M. The regular meeting of the Historic Landmarks Commission was held on Thursday, November 13, 2014, 9:00 a.m., in the Council Chambers of the Municipal Building, 442 W. Washington Street, Suffolk, Virginia, with the following persons present: MEMBERS PRESENT: STAFF: Susan Coley Robert Goumas, Assistant Director of Planning Walter Boyette Karla Williams, Deputy City Attorney Amy Elliott Shanda Davenport, Principal Planner John Faircloth Thomas Jordan, Planner II Randy Hicks, Chairman Jillian Scott, Office Assistant II Edward King Geraldine Outterbridge Merritt Draper MEMBERS ABSENT: G. Stewart Tyler, Vice Chairman The meeting was called to order by Chairman Hicks. The roll was called by Mr. Goumas and the Chairman was informed that a quorum was present. The minutes of the previous meeting were approved as presented. The Chairman noted the time limits for public hearings are ten (10) minutes for proponents, fifteen (15) minutes for opponents, and five (5) minutes for rebuttal. NEW BUSINESS REQUEST FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS HC-2014-33, submitted by Norbert and Garon Trojanowski, applicant and property owner, for a change in materials for the repair or replacement of an existing metal shingle roof, installation of exterior door and window screens, and associated exterior renovations of an existing structure located at 106 Brewer Avenue. The property is further identified as Zoning Map 34G17 Block (2) B Parcel(s) 6, Suffolk Voting Borough, and is zoned RM (Residential Medium District), and HC (Historic Conservation Overlay District). The first item of business was introduced by the Chairman, followed by a staff report by Thomas Jordan, Planner II. Mr. Jordan stated that the single family home at 106 Brewer Avenue is included in the district as part of the West End District (2004) expansion. The nomination form estimates the two and a half-story frame dwelling to have been constructed between 1895 – 1910 in the Queen Anne architectural style. Mr. Jordan stated the applicant is requesting approval for a change in materials for the replacement of an existing metal Victorian shingle roof on the main dwelling and asphalt shingled roof on the porch. The proposed replacement roof material is an exposed fastened metal panel system. The metal panels overlap and will be attached with washered wood screws installed directly through the panel. The applicant have selected to utilize a roof panel painted in Light Stone color which is available with a 40 year paint finish warranty and is Energy Star certified. Mr. Jordan stated that the applicant has submitted a condition statement from the contractor which states the original roof has reached the end of its useful lifespan and is suffering from continued leaks resulting in structural and interior damage to the home. 2 The guidelines identify that roof designs vary considerably within the Historic Conservation Overlay District and are one of the key character defining elements of the style of the house. Furthermore, roofs are an important in defining the character, formality, stature, and texture of the house and the street. Consequently, historic roofing materials should be preserved and maintained. While the guidelines provide clear guidance regarding matching original materials as closely as possible it does not provide guidance regarding the style of roof replacement. The style of the roof can be as important or even more significant in defining the character of the house. The existing Victorian shingle roof on the dwelling results in a simulated fishscale appearance on the roof. The installation of an exposed fastener metal panel system will be a significant departure from the appearance of the existing metal shingle. Additionally, the guidelines do not provide guidance regarding color of the roof. Traditionally, metal roof tiles were unfinished at the time of installation and where painted in subsequent year (typically red or green) in attempt to reduce wear and increase the longevity of the roof. The applicant has selected a light stone color, which will be unique to the district, in an attempt to reduce utility bills, however the lighter color of the roof does appear to fall approved color pallet. Given the age and condition of the existing roof its replacement appears appropriate. The installation of a metal panel system roof is in conformance with the guidelines which call for the original materials to be matched and a new roof will assist in maintaining the integrity of the historic structure. Mr. Jordan stated that the criteria of Chapter 5, Section I, Roofs, of the Design Guidelines have been satisfied. Based on the 3 findings-of-fact, staff recommended approval of the request with the conditions noted in the staff report. The public hearing was opened. Speaking in favor of the request was Norbert Trojanowski, property owner. Mr. Trojanowski stated that there are extensive leaks in the roof and patches with tar that are peeling up. Mr. Trojanowski stated that he has contacted many contractors but no other company, except for Virginia Carolina Roofing has taken on the job. Mr. Trojanowki stated that he is looking forward to correcting the problem as soon as possible to secure the safety of his house. After discussion by the Commission, a motion was made to modify the request to approve a standing seam metal roof in a light stone color with concealed fasteners, approving the noted actions was made by Commissioner Boyette. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Faircloth and approved by a recorded vote of 8-0. REQUEST FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS HC-2014-37, submitted by Derek and Sharon Clay, property owners, to erect a detached accessory building (garage) located at 130 Brewer Avenue. The property is further identified as Zoning Map 34G17 Block (2) B Parcel(s) 18, 19, and 20 and 34G17 Block (A) Parcel(s) 1, Suffolk Voting Borough, and is zoned RM (Residential Medium District), and HC (Historic Conservation Overlay District). The next item of business was introduced by Chairman, followed by a staff report by Thomas Jordan, Planner II. Mr. Jordan stated that the single-family home at 130 Brewer Avenue was included in the district as part of the West End District (2004) expansion. The 2002 contributing structure was built in the Colonial Revival architectural style between 1910 and 1925. The house is 5 bays wide with a central entrance and projecting center bay. 4 The front porch columns are scored and rest on concrete piers. The parcel is considered a double frontage or through-lot given it has frontage on two (2) public right-of-ways (Brewer Avenue and Pender Street). The single-family dwelling fronts on Brewer Avenue. The proposed garage will be visible from and accessed from Pender Street. Brewer Avenue and Pender Street have very distinct and different characters. Brewer Avenue is residential in character and located within the National Register District. The northern portion of Pender Street is a 40-foot public right-of-way which dead-ends and serves to provide primary access to only one home (mid-to-late 20th century building) in addition to Human Resources Building and Wellons Park. The applicant proposed to construct a garage (50’ x 20’) fronting on Pender Street. The garage will be accessed by two concrete driveways. This request is identical to the request which was authorized in December 2012 by the Historic Landmark Commission. Construction did not commerce on the proposed garage and the certificate expired. The applicant is seeking to have the request reauthorized. The applicant has noted a concrete pad remains from a previous garage which was located on the property near the proposed building site. The public hearing was opened. There being no speakers in favor or opposition, the public hearing was closed. 5 After discussion by the Commission, a motion approving the noted actions was made by Commissioner Boyette. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Draper and approved by a recorded vote of 8-0. New Business: Enforcement Update Donald Bennett, (Planning & Community Development) gave an update on the enforcement actions taken by Community Development for the following properties: 223 Bank Street - property foreclosed 526 W. Washington Street - property maintenance violation, case continued until January 8 130 Oakdale Terrace – property fined $100.00 There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:26 a.m. 6  HISTORIC LANDMARKS COMMISSION Motion: Boyette Motion: Boyette 2nd: Faircloth 2nd: Draper TO: Modify TO: Approve Application Application as November 13, 2014 presented ATTENDANCE HC-2014-33 HC-2014-37 VOTE: 8-0 VOTE: 8-0 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT ABSENT YES NO YES NO Boyette, Walter X X X Coley, Susan M. X X X Draper, Merritt X X X Stone, Amy X X X Faircloth, John X X X King, Edward L. X X X Outterbridge, Geraldine X X X Tyler, Stewart G. X Vice-Chairman Hicks, Randy, X X X Chairman THIS PAGE WAS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK  CITY OF SUFFOLK 442 W WASHINGTON ST, P.O. BOX 1858, SUFFOLK, VIRGINIA 23439-1858 PHONE: (757) 514-4060 FAX: (757) 514-4099 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Division of Planning To: Historic Landmarks Commission From: Shanda H. Davenport, Current Planning Manager Date: December 11, 2014 Subject: REQUEST FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS, HC-2014-45, submitted by Gerry Jones on behalf of the City of Suffolk, property owner, for the demolition of three residential structures located at 407, 409, and 413 W. Washington Street. The property is further identified as Zoning Map 34G17(A), Parcels 189, 190, and 191, Suffolk Voting Borough, zoned CBD, Central Business District and HC, Historic Conservation Overlay District. STAFF REPORT Overview of the Subject Property and Surrounding Area This request is for the demolition of three adjacent residential structures in order to allow the construction of a new municipal library and its associated features. All of the structures are deemed contributing to the district. The property is part of the 2004 West End District Expansion and is located along the W. Washington Street Entry Corridor. All three structures are sited close to the street, unlike other residential structures along the corridor. The properties are collectively bounded by Lee Street on the east and a commercial parking lot to the west. 407 W. Washington Street – This dwelling is a two-story, three-bay, frame, side-gable dwelling with some Late Greek Revival style elements and dates from 1900. There is a two-story ell off the rear of the main block as well as a one-story, gabled roof addition off the rear ell. The house retains its original weatherboard siding and six-over-six double-hung sash windows. The side- hall plan of the house is indicated by the location of the entry door, with transom and sidelight, in the left bay. There is an attached one-story, hipped-roof porch which is supported by chamfered posts and simple balustrade. 409 W. Washington Street – This vernacular-style dwelling is a two-story, three-bay, frame, side-gable dwelling was constructed around 1890. There is a two-story shed roof addition off the rear. The house retains its original weatherboard siding, six-over-six, four-over-four and two- over-two double-hung sash windows. There is an attached two-story, shed-roof porch which is supported by Doric columns. HC-2014-45 December 11, 2014 Page 2 413 W. Washington Street – This Italianate-style dwelling is a two-story, three-bay, frame, side- gable dwelling was constructed around 1880 and was last used as a two-unit apartment house. There are multiple additions off the rear of the house including a two-story shed roof addition, a two-story gable roofed ell and a one-story side-gable section. The house retains its original weatherboard siding, six-over-six, four-over-four and two-over-two double-hung sash windows, and decorative brackets. There is an attached two-story, shed roof porch which is supported by Doric columns on the first level and quire replacement posts on the second level. The original porch balustrade remains on the first level; the balustrade on the second level has been replaced. Case History A previous Certificate of Appropriateness, HC2005-78 was issued for the demolition of an accessory structure at 409 W. Washington Street. Numerous approvals; HC2002-41, HC2002-55AD, HC2005-07AD, HC2005-58AD, and HC2005-63AD have been issued for the structure located at 413 W. Washington Street for repairs. Proposed Action The applicant is proposing to demolish three contributing residential structures located at 407, 409, and 413 W. Washington Street. Public Notice Public notice of this meeting was published in the newspaper and notices were mailed to adjacent property owners. Applicable Regulations and Analysis A. Unified Development Ordinance 1. HC, Historic Conservation Overlay District 2. Section 31-413(g)(7)A(;), Approval of major action by the HLC 3. Section 31-413(l) Demolition of Structures of Substantial Interest B. Suffolk Historic District Guidelines 1. Chapter 8, B. Authority – The Historic Landmark Commission shall be guided by Section 31-413(l) (Demolition of Structures of Substantial Public Interest) of the Unified Development Ordinance. 2. Chapter 8, Guidelines for the Consideration of Demolishing or Moving Buildings HC-2014-45 December 11, 2014 Page 3 Staff Analysis The demolition of structures within the Suffolk Historic Conservation Overlay District is discussed in Section 31-413(l), Demolition of Structures of Substantial Public Interest of the UDO which speaks to structures designated as having substantial public interest. The specific guidance for determining whether or not to approve the demolition of a structure within the historic district is found in Chapter 8, Section C, Guidelines for the Consideration of Demolishing or Moving Buildings of the Suffolk Historic District Design Guidelines. The applicant has provided a structural analysis of the properties as well as a narrative addressing these guidelines. Staff concurs with the attached analysis provided by the applicant. The applicant has indicated that the demolition of the structures is needed to allow the construction of a new municipal library and its associated site features. This site is supportive of the City’s goal of a vibrant revitalized Downtown. The success of the City’s efforts will have a direct positive impact on the Historic District. Demolition of a structure may be justified when the proposed new development with which it will be replaced is of greater significance to the preservation of the district than retention of the existing structure. The loss of the structures will have an effect on the historic character of the district; however the new development will be compatible, appropriate and beneficial to the district. The applicant has offered the properties for sale to a buyer who could relocate the structures. No offers of purchase have been received. Summary and Recommendations While these structures are within both the local Historic Overlay District and the National Register District, the urban fabric of W. Washington Street as it proceeds west was not deemed cohesive enough to justify its inclusion in the National Register District. The continued expansion of the municipal core, initiated by the construction of the new City Hall, will be a healthy catalyst for renovation and rehabilitation efforts throughout the district. The overriding public interest will best be served by the creation of a strong contextually appropriate municipal core as opposed to the interest that is served by the retention of the structures at 407, 409, and 413 W. Washington Street. While the properties are identified as landmarks, they are not associated with any specific event or person. The retention of the three individual structures would be a deterrent to a major improvement program that will be of substantial benefit to the district and the public. Therefore, staff recommends that the demolition of 407, 409, and 413 W. Washington Street be permitted. Attachments cc: Mr. Gerry Jones, City of Suffolk  Suffolk R D Historic & Cultural VE VIEW W ILLE A E W VI R E R Overlay District & IV D E R IV DE R ER DUMV National Register IV ER ME N DR A E MO NS Historic Districts AKE A FORT ST L N PIT R AVE HC45-14 ER RD AD ST ST VI TAN CE CH DR E W ONS LA E C BU TLE JONES SI D KET £ ¤ KE T RIV N BRO 58 S E W EST AV E TLE ERN AV N D E LA CHUR GH LEGEND FO HI ST R ER N MA Suffolk Historic & Cultural Conservation Overlay HI EST RD N IN CR LL CH S E P ES NATIONAL REGISTER HISTORIC DISTRICTS W CO NSTAN CE IN S Original Suffolk District (1987) RD T North Main Street Extension District (1998) T East Washington Street District (2002) PR EN TIS ST West End District (2004) West End District Expansion (2004) THIRD AV E Suffolk District Expansion (2004) KET TL SEC ON T Cedar Hill Cemetery (2006) D AVE CEN E E E S TRA RD E R AV L AV R ST CHEST NUT ST PIN E FIRST E AV E E AV NORT H ST Disclaimer. THE CITY OF SUFFOLK MAKES NO WARRANTY, REPRESENTATION, PITC H OR GUARANTEE OF ANY KIND REGARDING EITHER ANY MAPS OR OTHER INFORMATION PENDE PROVIDED HEREIN OR THE SOURCES OF SUCH MAPS OR OTHER INFORMATION. THE BREW T CITY OF SUFFOLK SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIMS ALL REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES ST Y S OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. T Y S MOO R The City of Suffolk assumes no liability either for any errors, omissions, or inaccuracies in the information provided regardless of the cause of such DA or for any decision made, action taken, or action not taken by the user in W NER reliance upon any maps or information provided herein. W ASH CL A IN GTO Parcel and Zoning information has been developed to provide a graphic LLA N ST D representation of the Real Estate Property Tax Maps. The boundaries of any parcel may have been adjusted to provide a more visually pleasing presentation. GITTI PIN R User should refer to instrument of transfer (deed or plat) for legal boundary NGS S location and perimeter or area measurements. T BAN HO Aerial Photography captured March 1999. A limited area of the City was reflown K E K S in March of 2001. The most up-to-date photography available was used to capture planimetric information. EN AV T R A RD AV E AD ST LEE ST P E ¹ EY AV ARY LIND JAMES D E W R ST AS E S BRO HI E Y AV BO SL M ILIT H VE NG LL A A SA INT TO EC HA N WILSO N N ST ST LI BE CAUS ST T O R S ST A EN ST ST C 1:12,000 IN LOD AD T R NT Y AM S DA S S 1 inch = 1,000 feet MA RY A CUL T G COU O A T CE TO S FAC R ON AVE A MAS S City of Suffolk Department of S Planning & Community Development Updated : 11/24/2014  EXHIBIT B HC45-14 ZONING / LAND USE MAP 34G17(A)*25 34G17(A)*127 34G17(A)*107 34G17(A)*22 34G17(A)*21 34G17(A)*115 34G17(A)*128 34G17(A)*24 34G17(A)*109 RU 34G17(A)*111 34G17(A)*112 34G17(A)*114 34G17(A)*23 NOR TH ST C8-11 34G17(A)*113 6/15/2011 CHESTNUT ST C16-00 34G17(A)*129 1/17/2001 W WASHIN GT O N S T CBD 34G17(A)* LEE S T 34G17(A)*19 181 BZA1-94 2/8/1994 34G17(A)* C 1 34G17(A)* 190 34G17(A)*192A+ 189 C7-10 7/21/2010 34G17(A)*193 34G17(A)*177 34G17(A)*182 34G17(A)*188 34G17(A)*21 6 C7-03 34G17(A)*187 34G17(A)*183 10/16/2003 34G17(A) 34G17(A) *1 8 6 *1 8 5 34G17(A)*176 34G17(A)*213 34G17(A)*221 34G17(A)*221 34G17(A)*217 JACKSO N ST RM Aerial Imagery Sources: VGIN/VITA VMBP 2013 Orthophotography and/or ESRI http://goto.arcgisonline.com/maps/World_Imagery LEE S T 34G17(A)*1841 inch = 60 feet RM Date: 11/24/2014 s 407 W Washington Street 409 W Washington Street HC45-14  413 W Washington Street HC45-14  Description This application to the Historic Landmarks Commission is for the demolition of three (3) residential structures located at 407, 409, and 413 West Washington St. The demolition of these structures will provide a portion of the site necessary to construct a new Central Library, currently identified in the City’s Capital Improvements Plan. The City has no proposed used for the structures, and has offered them for sale to the general public, with the stipulation that they must be relocated from their current sites, preferably to another site within the Historic Conservation Overlay District. No offers to purchase any of the structures were received. The following is an analysis of these provisions as they apply to the structure at 407 West Washington Street: 1. Is the structure of architectural significance? Does the building contribute to the character of the Historic Conservation Overlay District? Architecturally, the buildings are typical of late nineteenth and early twentieth residential structures in the District. All three of the structures are considered contributing structures to the Historic Overlay Conservation District. . 2. Is the structure of historical significance? No 3. Is the building or structure of such old or uncommon design, texture or scarce material that it could not be reproduced or could be reproduced only with great difficulty and expense? The building is typical of other early twentieth century structures. The design, texture and materials are not uncommon. 4. Does relocating the building have a detrimental effect on its structural soundness? A structural assessment has been conducted and the condition of the structure was determined to be poor and structurally unsound. Relocation would most likely worsen its structural condition. 5. Is the building or structure structurally unsound? If yes, to what extent? A structural assessment has been conducted and the condition of the structure was determined to be poor and structurally unsound. The report prepared by McPherson Design Group, dated October 1, 2014 is a part of this application. 6. Is the relocation of the building or structure, or a portion thereof, preferable alternative to demolition? Given the structural integrity of the building, demolition is preferable to relocation. However, it is difficult to assess the alternative of relocating the structure as no study of this alternative has been conducted. It must be noted that the City advertised the home for sale with the stipulation that relocation was mandatory, and no bids were received. HC45-14 7. Would the proposed moving or demolition potentially adversely affect other historic buildings located within the Historic Conservation Overlay District? The structure itself is not close enough to adjacent structures to adversely affect their structural integrity. Adequate room exists on the site to remove the structure without impacting historic buildings within the District. 8. Would the proposed moving or demolition potentially adversely affect the character of the Historic Conservation Overlay District? No 9. If a building is damaged by a fire or other natural hazard, has the Building Inspector determined if a building is structurally sound or poses an imminent threat to public safety and should be demolished? The building has not been damaged by fire or natural hazard; therefore, the Building Official has taken no action on the property. 10. Has a professional economic and structural feasibility study for rehabilitating or reusing the structure been conducted? If yes, did the study’s findings support the proposed demolition or moving? A structural analysis of the building has been prepared; however, an economic or feasibility study has not been. Consequently, an evaluation of this criterion cannot be provided at this time. 11. Will the building or structure be relocated to another site within the Historic Conservation Overlay District or to another adjacent site which is subject to design review? The building is not proposed to be relocated. Consequently, an evaluation of this criterion cannot be provided at this time. 12. Does the proposed relocation provide new surroundings that are compatible with the architectural aspects of the building or structure? Because the relocation of the building is not being proposed, an evaluation of this criterion cannot be provided at this time. 13. Is the proposed relocation the only practical means of saving the structure from demolition? Because the relocation of the building is not being proposed, an evaluation of this criterion cannot be provided at this time. 14. Is there an inordinate hardship? (To establish “inordinate hardship,” the applicant shall submit evidence that rehabilitation of the structure is impractical, that the structure is inappropriate for the proposed use desired by the owner, and that the applicant cannot make reasonable economic use of the property. Such evidence may include reuse, attempts to sell, rent, or lease the property, and information regarding annual income and expenses. Any hardship created by action of the applicant shall not be considered in reviewing any application.) Inordinate hardship does not pertain to this application. The construction of the planned Downtown Central Library and required parking along West Washington Street are cited as the reason for demolition of the building. No alternatives to demolition have been provided. HC45-14 The following is an analysis of these provisions as they apply to the structure at 409 West Washington Street: 1. Is the structure of architectural significance? Does the building contribute to the character of the Historic Conservation Overlay District? Architecturally, the buildings are typical of late nineteenth and early twentieth residential structures in the District. All three of the structures are considered contributing structures to the Historic Overlay Conservation District. . 2. Is the structure of historical significance? No 3. Is the building or structure of such old or uncommon design, texture or scarce material that it could not be reproduced or could be reproduced only with great difficulty and expense? The building is typical of other early twentieth century structures. The design, texture and materials are not uncommon. 4. Does relocating the building have a detrimental effect on its structural soundness? A structural assessment has been conducted and the condition of the structure was determined to be poor and structurally unsound. Relocation would most likely worsen its structural condition. 5. Is the building or structure structurally unsound? If yes, to what extent? A structural assessment has been conducted and the condition of the structure was determined to be poor and structurally unsound. The report prepared by McPherson Design Group, dated October 1, 2014 is a part of this application. 6. Is the relocation of the building or structure, or a portion thereof, preferable alternative to demolition? Given the structural integrity of the building, demolition is preferable to relocation. However, it is difficult to assess the alternative of relocating the structure as no study of this alternative has been conducted. It must be noted that the City advertised the home for sale with the stipulation that relocation was mandatory, and no bids were received. 7. Would the proposed moving or demolition potentially adversely affect other historic buildings located within the Historic Conservation Overlay District? The structure itself is not close enough to adjacent structures to adversely affect their structural integrity. Adequate room exists on the site to remove the structure without impacting historic buildings within the District. 8. Would the proposed moving or demolition potentially adversely affect the character of the Historic Conservation Overlay District? No HC45-14  9. If a building is damaged by a fire or other natural hazard, has the Building Inspector determined if a building is structurally sound or poses an imminent threat to public safety and should be demolished? The building has not been damaged by fire or natural hazard; therefore, the Building Official has taken no action on the property. 10. Has a professional economic and structural feasibility study for rehabilitating or reusing the structure been conducted? If yes, did the study’s findings support the proposed demolition or moving? A structural analysis of the building has been prepared; however, an economic or feasibility study has not been. Consequently, an evaluation of this criterion cannot be provided at this time. 11. Will the building or structure be relocated to another site within the Historic Conservation Overlay District or to another adjacent site which is subject to design review? The building is not proposed to be relocated. Consequently, an evaluation of this criterion cannot be provided at this time. 12. Does the proposed relocation provide new surroundings that are compatible with the architectural aspects of the building or structure? Because the relocation of the building is not being proposed, an evaluation of this criterion cannot be provided at this time. 13. Is the proposed relocation the only practical means of saving the structure from demolition? Because the relocation of the building is not being proposed, an evaluation of this criterion cannot be provided at this time. 14. Is there an inordinate hardship? (To establish “inordinate hardship,” the applicant shall submit evidence that rehabilitation of the structure is impractical, that the structure is inappropriate for the proposed use desired by the owner, and that the applicant cannot make reasonable economic use of the property. Such evidence may include reuse, attempts to sell, rent, or lease the property, and information regarding annual income and expenses. Any hardship created by action of the applicant shall not be considered in reviewing any application.) Inordinate hardship does not pertain to this application. The construction of the planned Downtown Central Library and required parking along West Washington Street are cited as the reason for demolition of the building. No alternatives to demolition have been provided. The following is an analysis of these provisions as they apply to the structure at 413 West Washington Street: 1. Is the structure of architectural significance? Does the building contribute to the character of the Historic Conservation Overlay District? Architecturally, the buildings are typical of late nineteenth and early twentieth residential structures in the District. HC45-14  All three of the structures are considered contributing structures to the Historic Overlay Conservation District. . 2. Is the structure of historical significance? No 3. Is the building or structure of such old or uncommon design, texture or scarce material that it could not be reproduced or could be reproduced only with great difficulty and expense? The building is typical of other early twentieth century structures. The design, texture and materials are not uncommon. 4. Does relocating the building have a detrimental effect on its structural soundness? A structural assessment has been conducted and the condition of the structure was determined to be poor and structurally unsound. Relocation would most likely worsen its structural condition. 5. Is the building or structure structurally unsound? If yes, to what extent? A structural assessment has been conducted and the condition of the structure was determined to be poor and structurally unsound. The report prepared by McPherson Design Group, dated October 1, 2014 is a part of this application. 6. Is the relocation of the building or structure, or a portion thereof, preferable alternative to demolition? Given the structural integrity of the building, demolition is preferable to relocation. However, it is difficult to assess the alternative of relocating the structure as no study of this alternative has been conducted. It must be noted that the City advertised the home for sale with the stipulation that relocation was mandatory, and no bids were received. 7. Would the proposed moving or demolition potentially adversely affect other historic buildings located within the Historic Conservation Overlay District? The structure itself is not close enough to adjacent structures to adversely affect their structural integrity. Adequate room exists on the site to remove the structure without impacting historic buildings within the District. 8. Would the proposed moving or demolition potentially adversely affect the character of the Historic Conservation Overlay District? No 9. If a building is damaged by a fire or other natural hazard, has the Building Inspector determined if a building is structurally sound or poses an imminent threat to public safety and should be demolished? The building has not been damaged by fire or natural hazard; therefore, the Building Official has taken no action on the property. 10. Has a professional economic and structural feasibility study for rehabilitating or reusing the structure been conducted? If yes, did the study’s findings support the proposed demolition or moving? A structural analysis of the building has been HC45-14  prepared; however, an economic or feasibility study has not been. Consequently, an evaluation of this criterion cannot be provided at this time. 11. Will the building or structure be relocated to another site within the Historic Conservation Overlay District or to another adjacent site which is subject to design review? The building is not proposed to be relocated. Consequently, an evaluation of this criterion cannot be provided at this time. 12. Does the proposed relocation provide new surroundings that are compatible with the architectural aspects of the building or structure? Because the relocation of the building is not being proposed, an evaluation of this criterion cannot be provided at this time. 13. Is the proposed relocation the only practical means of saving the structure from demolition? Because the relocation of the building is not being proposed, an evaluation of this criterion cannot be provided at this time. 14. Is there an inordinate hardship? (To establish “inordinate hardship,” the applicant shall submit evidence that rehabilitation of the structure is impractical, that the structure is inappropriate for the proposed use desired by the owner, and that the applicant cannot make reasonable economic use of the property. Such evidence may include reuse, attempts to sell, rent, or lease the property, and information regarding annual income and expenses. Any hardship created by action of the applicant shall not be considered in reviewing any application.) Inordinate hardship does not pertain to this application. The construction of the planned Downtown Central Library and required parking along West Washington Street are cited as the reason for demolition of the building. No alternatives to demolition have been provided. HC45-14 HC45-14 HC45-14 HC45-14 HC45-14 HC45-14 HC45-14 HC45-14 HC45-14 HC45-14 HC45-14 HC45-14 HC45-14 HC45-14 HC45-14 HC45-14 HC45-14 HC45-14 HC45-14 HC45-14 HC45-14 HC45-14 HC45-14 HC45-14 HC45-14 HC45-14 HC45-14 HC45-14 HC45-14 HC45-14 HC45-14 HC45-14 HC45-14 HC45-14 HC45-14 HC45-14 HC45-14 HC45-14 HC45-14 HC45-14 HC45-14 HC45-14 HC45-14 HC45-14 HC45-14 HC45-14 HC45-14 HC45-14 HC45-14 HC45-14 HC45-14 HC45-14 HC45-14 HC45-14 HC45-14 HC45-14 HC45-14 THIS PAGE WAS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK