HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda_HARC_10.25.2018Notice of Meeting for the
Historic and Architectural Rev iew Commission
of the City of Georgetown
October 25, 2018 at 6:00 PM
at Council and Courts Bldg, 101 E 7th Street Georgetown, TX 78626
The City o f G eo rgeto wn is committed to comp lianc e with the Americans with Dis abilities Ac t (ADA). If yo u
req uire as s is tanc e in participating at a p ublic meeting d ue to a disability, as d efined und er the ADA, reas onab le
as s is tance, ad ap tatio ns , or acc o mmo d ations will b e provid ed up o n req uest. P leas e c o ntact the City Sec retary's
Office, at leas t three (3) days prior to the sc hed uled meeting d ate, at (512) 930-3652 o r City Hall at 113 Eas t 8th
Street fo r add itional info rmation; TTY us ers ro ute through Relay Texas at 711.
The Historic and Architectural Review Commission, appointed by the Mayor and the City
Council, is responsible for hearing and taking final action on applications, by issuing Certificates
of Appropriateness based upon the City Council adopted Downtown Design Guidelines and
Unified Development Code.
Welcome and Meeting Procedures:
Staff Presentation
Applicant Presentation (Limited to ten minutes unless stated otherwise by the
Commission.)
Questions from Commission to Staff and Applicant
Comments from Citizens *
Applicant Response
Commission Deliberative Process
Commission Action
* Those who speak must turn in a speaker form, located at the back of the room, to the
recording secretary before the item they wish to address begins. Each speaker will be permitted
to address the Commission one time only for a maximum of three minutes.
Legislativ e Regular Agenda
A Co nsideration of the Minutes from the Septemb er 27, 2018 HARC meeting. Karen Frost, Rec o rd ing
Secretary
B Public Hearing and p o s s ib le ac tion on a reques t fo r a Certificate of Appropriateness fo r the Demolition of
four struc tures at the property lo cated at 2800 N IH 35, b earing the legal des c rip tion of 44.29ac . Berry, J.
Sur. Sub divis io n, (COA-2018-042). Madis on Tho mas , Downto wn His to ric Planner
C Up d ates, Commis s ioner ques tions and c omments . Sofia Nelson, Planning Directo r
Adjournment
Page 1 of 48
CERTIFICATE OF POSTING
I, Shelley No wling, C ity S ecretary fo r the C ity of Geo rgeto wn, Texas , d o hereby c ertify that this Notice of
Meeting was p o s ted at City Hall, 113 E. 8th Street, a p lace read ily acc es s ible to the general p ublic at all times ,
on the ______ d ay o f __________________, 2018, at __________, and remained so p o s ted fo r at leas t 72
c o ntinuo us ho urs p receding the sc heduled time o f s aid meeting.
____________________________________
S helley No wling, City Sec retary
Page 2 of 48
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
October 25, 2018
SUBJECT:
Cons id eration o f the Minutes fro m the September 27, 2018 HARC meeting. Karen F ro s t, Recording
Sec retary
ITEM SUMMARY:
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
NA
SUBMITTED BY:
Karen Fro s t
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
Minutes _HARC_09.27.2018 Backup Material
Page 3 of 48
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 1 of 3
Meeting: September 27, 2018
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review Commission
Minutes
Thursday, September 27, 2018 at 6:00 p.m.
Council and Courts Building
101 E. 7th Street Georgetown, TX 78626
Members present: Lee Bain; Art Browner; Catherine Morales; Amanda Parr; and Lawrence
Romero.
Absent: Shawn Hood, and Terri Assendorf-Hyde
Staff present: Sofia Nelson, Planning Director; and Madison Thomas, Historic and Downtown
Planner;
Welcome and Meeting Procedures
Call to order by the Chair at 6:00 pm. Commissioner Romero read the meeting procedures.
A. Consideration of the Minutes from the August 23, 2018 HARC meeting. Karen Frost, Recording
Secretary
Motion by Commissioner Lee Bain, second by Commissioner Romero, to approve the
minutes with the condition that the minutes are updated to remove Kevin Roberts and Karl
Meixsel from being present and labeling Amanda Parr as a regular member rather than an
alternate. Approved 5 – 0.
B. Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for a
residential renovation of a property located at 804 E. 4th Street, bearing the legal description of
0.1443 ac. Shell Addition Resub, Block 14, Lot 3. – Madison Thomas, AICP, Historic &
Downtown Planner
Madison Thomas, Downtown Planner, presented the case to the commission and presented the
staff recommendation of approval as presented in the staff report.
Billy Wearing, Applicant, presented the current state of the structure and provided a history of
the structure. He specifically requested the use of hardi-board on the exterior of the home in
lieu of wood.
Chair Browner asked the applicant if he was trying to duplicate 406 Holly. Billy Wearing
confirmed Chair Browner’s question. Commissioner Bain asked if any work had been taking
place. Billy Wearing stated as soon as he was aware that the work needed a COA work stopped.
Public Hearing was opened and closed with no speakers coming forth.
Commissioner Parr asked for clarification on staff’s recommendation on the use of hardi-board
on the exterior of the home given that hardi-board is not original of the home. Madison
Thomas clarified the use of hardi-board was not original to the structure but that it was broadly
supported as a way to protect the structure from further damage .
Page 4 of 48
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 2 of 3
Meeting: September 27, 2018
Chair Browner stated he saw extenuating circumstances on this request given the original
materials, priority of the structure, and context of the structure,
Motion by Commissioner Parr, second by Commissioner Romero, to approve the request as
presented by the applicant based on the staff recommendation and findings stated in the
staff report. The approval included alteration of the porch, removal of one window, use of
fibrex windows, use of hardi-board as the exterior material and construction of a carport.
Approved 5-0
C. Public Hearing and possible action on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for a
proposed infill development for the property located at 109 2nd Street bearing the legal
description of 0.704 ac. Georgetown, City of, Block 2, Lot 5-7 (Pt)8 & Abandoned Rd., and 0.582
ac. Georgetown, City of, Block 2, Lot 2-4 & Pt Abandoned Rd., (COA-2018-041). Madison
Thomas, Historic and Downtown Planner
Madison Thomas, Downtown Planner, presented the case to the commission and presented the
staff recommendation of approval as presented in the staff report. The applicant stated they are
present to answer any questions but did not have a presentation
Commissioner Parr asked if a mural would be incorporated into the design
Madison Thomas did state that the applicant was not pursuing a mural at this time.
Chair Browner opened the Public Hearing.
Larry Olson, 300 E. 9th Street, spoke about the height of the building and identified that he felt
the building would be a good gateway into the downtown area.
Chair Browner closed the Public Hearing with no other speakers coming forth.
Motion by Commissioner Lee Bain, second by Commissioner Romero, to approve the
application for COA-2018-041 as submitted based on compliance with the design guidelines.
Approved 5 – 0.
D. Conceptual Review for the commercial addition and renovation at the property located at 101 E.
7th Street, bearing the legal description of 0.14ac. Georgetown, City of, Block 39, Lot 2-39
(W/PTS), (COA-2018-046). Madison Thomas, Downtown and Historic Planner
Madison Thomas, Downtown Planner, presented the case to the commission. Madison
specifically asked the commission for feedback on guideline 7.3 and 7.5.
The Architect on the project gave a brief overview of the request.
Josh Baran, JAB Engineering – Civil Engineer, gave a brief history on the site.
The Architect on the project gave a brief overview of the proposed improvements. Design
elements discussed include: 2nd floor addition, incorporate features seen in the district, preserve
features of the existing structure, and gabled portions of the roof of the 2nd floor.
Commissioner Bain asked if the new second story was too close to the tower. The Architect
explained the context of the 2nd floor, placement of mechanical equipment, and spacing between
the tower and the proposed second story.
Page 5 of 48
Historic and Architectural Review Commission Page 3 of 3
Meeting: September 27, 2018
Josh Baran, JAB Engineering – Civil Engineer, spoke to guideline 7.5
Commissioner Romero expressed concern regarding mass and windows on the south elevation.
He felt that the divided windows were too busy on the south elevation.
Josh Baran, JAB Engineering – Civil Engineer, stated he was open to adjustment of windows
and can come back with different perspectives of the south elevation.
Commissioner Romero withdrew his concern regarding the south elevation of windows
Commissioner Parr stated a concern that the tower would remain the key feature of the
building. She explained she would like to minimize the size and scale of the building.
Chair Browner stated the applicant should be able to work with staff on reaching a partial
compliance on guidelines 7.3 and 7.5.
No action is required.
E. Presentation and discussion of the process and procedures related to the review of a Certificate
of Appropriateness (CoA), including Unified Development Code and the Downtown Design
Guideline implementation. Madison Thomas, AICP, Historic and Downtown Planner.
Madison Thomas, Downtown Planner, presented the development process for COAs.
No action is required.
F. Updates, questions and comments. Sofia Nelson, Planning Director
Adjournment
Motion to adjourn by Romero, second by Morales. Meeting adjourned at 7:58 pm.
________________________________ ______________________________
Approved, Art Browner, Chair Attest, Lawrence Romero, Secretary
Page 6 of 48
City of Georgetown, Texas
Historic and Architectural Review
October 25, 2018
SUBJECT:
Pub lic Hearing and pos s ible actio n o n a reques t for a Certific ate o f Approp riatenes s for the Demo lition of
fo ur s tructures at the p ro p erty loc ated at 2800 N IH 35, bearing the legal d es c riptio n o f 44.29ac. Berry, J.
Sur. Subdivis ion, (COA-2018-042). Madison T homas , Do wntown Histo ric P lanner
ITEM SUMMARY:
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
N/A
SUBMITTED BY:
Mad is o n Tho mas , AICP, Histo ric & Downtown Planner
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
Exhibit 1- Location Map Exhibit
Exhibit 2- Letter of Intent Exhibit
Exhibit 3- His toric Res ource Survey Exhibit
Exhibit 4- HPO Demolition Report Exhibit
Exhibit 5- Demolition Subcommittee Report & Recommendation Exhibit
Exhibit 6- Res troom Building Pictures Exhibit
Exhibit 7- Woodworking Shed Pictures Exhibit
Exhibit 8- Shed Pictures Exhibit
Exhibit 9- Barn Pictures Exhibit
Page 7 of 48
N IH 35 SB
S
H 130 N
B
N IH 35 FWY SB
N IH 35 FWY NB
S
H 130 S
B
N IH 35 NB
S
H 130 T
O
L
L S
B
S
H 130 T
O
L
L N
B
ENTR 266 SB
EXIT 265 SB
M
A
R
K
ET S
T
CR 152
ENTR 265 NB
E
XIT 4
1
1
N
B
EXIT 264 SB E
N
T
R 411 S
B
T
OMMCDANIELPKW Y
WILLIAM SCOTSMAN
N IH 35 NB
NIH35SB
COA-2018-042Exhibit #1
Coordi nate System : Texas State Plane/Centr al Zone/N AD 83/U S FeetCartographic Data For G eneral Plann ing Pu rpo ses Only
¯
Location Map LegendSiteParcelsCity LimitsGeorgetown ETJ
0 0.25 0.5Mi
Page 8 of 48
The Crossing at Berry Creek
The Crossing at Berry Creek is a proposed mixed-use development at the intersection of IH-35 and SH-130
on the northern side of Georgetown, TX. The property currently consists of vacant land with multiple
abandoned sheds in poor condition. At completion, the project will incorporate retail, office, and
multifamily uses throughout the property, as determined by market need and constructability in
accordance with City of Georgetown land use of Regional Commercial.
Below is an aerial of the property as it is today as well as a conceptual site plan that can serve as a starting
point for the project’s overall plan.
Page 9 of 48
Page 10 of 48
Historic Structures
On the site today, there are five structures that the City of Georgetown has given low to medium historic
priority: a multi-stall restroom (600044A; low priority), two barns (600044B & 600045B; both low priority),
a garage (600045A; low priority), and a residential building (600045C; medium priority). As part of the sale
of the property, the prior owner will remove/relocate the residential building (600045C) off of the
property, and has already started the process under a separate application. This leaves the four remaining
low priority structures. Below is a map the City of Georgetown’s website displaying the locations of the
structures, and pictures of the structures from July of 2018.
Page 11 of 48
Page 12 of 48
Page 13 of 48
As seen in the photos of the low priority structures, these buildings are in poor condition and lacking
unique character of any sort. Due to the historical use of the property as an RV/camper park, there is little
chance that the buildings have any historical significance that contributes towards the character,
attractiveness, story, or quality of life that Georgetown is known for.
In addition to the lack of historical significance, the structures’ building materials consist mostly of heavily
rusted scrap metal and deteriorated wood. This does not allow for use, reuse, or restoration of the
materials in any efficient or economically feasible manner. The buildings would need significant structural
support and exterior changes that would increase the costs of any potential use beyond the point which
a financially feasible project would allow for.
In summary, it is our opinion that aforementioned buildings carry no historical significance that would be
worthy of preservation or reuse, and that any potential adaptation or reuse of materials would carry
significant costs that would not create adequate returns on investment. These buildings do not fit the
image of Georgetown’s vision for this gateway corridor and intersection. We respectfully ask permission
to remove these buildings form the property.
Page 14 of 48
TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION
Properties Documented with the THC Form in 2007 and/or 1984 That Have Not Changed Preservation Priority
County Williamson Local District:
Address:2800 N IH 35 2016 Survey ID:600044 A
City Georgetown 2016 Preservation Priority:Low
SECTION 1
Basic Inventory Information
WCAD ID:R038939Property Type:Building Structure Object Site District
Date Recorded 1/13/2017Recorded by:CMEC
EstimatedActual Source:Visual estimateConstruction Date:1955
Bungalow
Other:
Center Passage ShotgunOpen2-roomModified L-plan
Rectangular
T-plan
Four Square
L-plan
Irregular
Plan*
International
Ranch
No Style
Post-war Modern
Commercial Style
Other:
Pueblo Revival
Prairie
Art Deco
Spanish Colonial
Craftsman
Moderne
Gothic Revival
Neo-Classical
Mission
Tudor Revival
Beaux Arts
Monterey
Shingle
Folk Victorian
Renaissance Revival
Romanesque Revival
Colonial Revival
Exotic Revival
Log traditional
Italianate
Eastlake
Greek Revival
Second Empire
Queen Anne
Stylistic Influence(s)*
General Notes:House at this site that was recorded in 1984 (#809) was recorded in 2007 as demolished; 2007 then recorded
the other buildings on this parcel and adjacent parcel R039061
High Medium
Priority:
Low
High Medium Low
ID:968a
ID:Not Recorded
*Photographs and Preservation Priority have been updated in 2016, and the year built date has also been reviewed. However, the plan and style
data are sourced directly from the 2007 survey.
2007 Survey
1984 Survey
Current/Historic Name None/None
ID:600044 A2016 Survey High Medium Low
Explain:Property lacks significance
Latitude:30.685068 Longitude -97.655465
None Selected
None Selected
Photo direction: West
Page 15 of 48
TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION
Properties Documented with the THC Form in 2007 and/or 1984 That Have Not Changed Preservation Priority
County Williamson Local District:
Address:2800 N IH 35 2016 Survey ID:600045 A
City Georgetown 2016 Preservation Priority:Low
SECTION 1
Basic Inventory Information
WCAD ID:R039061Property Type:Building Structure Object Site District
Date Recorded 1/13/2017Recorded by:CMEC
EstimatedActual Source:Visual estimateConstruction Date:1930
Bungalow
Other:
Center Passage ShotgunOpen2-roomModified L-plan
Rectangular
T-plan
Four Square
L-plan
Irregular
Plan*
International
Ranch
No Style
Post-war Modern
Commercial Style
Other:
Pueblo Revival
Prairie
Art Deco
Spanish Colonial
Craftsman
Moderne
Gothic Revival
Neo-Classical
Mission
Tudor Revival
Beaux Arts
Monterey
Shingle
Folk Victorian
Renaissance Revival
Romanesque Revival
Colonial Revival
Exotic Revival
Log traditional
Italianate
Eastlake
Greek Revival
Second Empire
Queen Anne
Stylistic Influence(s)*
Note: See additional photo(s) on following page(s)
General Notes:
High Medium
Priority:
Low
High Medium Low
ID:968b
ID:Not Recorded
*Photographs and Preservation Priority have been updated in 2016, and the year built date has also been reviewed. However, the plan and style
data are sourced directly from the 2007 survey.
2007 Survey
1984 Survey
Current/Historic Name None/None
ID:600045 A2016 Survey High Medium Low
Explain:Property lacks significance and integrity
Latitude:30.685241 Longitude -97.655122
None Selected
None Selected
Photo direction: Southeast
Page 16 of 48
TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION
Properties Documented with the THC Form in 2007 and/or 1984 That Have Not Changed Preservation Priority
County Williamson Local District:
Address:2800 N IH 35 2016 Survey ID:600045 A
City Georgetown 2016 Preservation Priority:Low
Additional Photos
SouthPhoto Direction
Page 17 of 48
TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION
Properties Documented with the THC Form in 2007 and/or 1984 That Have Not Changed Preservation Priority
County Williamson Local District:
Address:2800 N IH 35 2016 Survey ID:600044 B
City Georgetown 2016 Preservation Priority:Low
SECTION 1
Basic Inventory Information
WCAD ID:R038939Property Type:Building Structure Object Site District
Date Recorded 1/13/2017Recorded by:CMEC
EstimatedActual Source:Visual estimateConstruction Date:1930
Bungalow
Other:
Center Passage ShotgunOpen2-roomModified L-plan
Rectangular
T-plan
Four Square
L-plan
Irregular
Plan*
International
Ranch
No Style
Post-war Modern
Commercial Style
Other:
Pueblo Revival
Prairie
Art Deco
Spanish Colonial
Craftsman
Moderne
Gothic Revival
Neo-Classical
Mission
Tudor Revival
Beaux Arts
Monterey
Shingle
Folk Victorian
Renaissance Revival
Romanesque Revival
Colonial Revival
Exotic Revival
Log traditional
Italianate
Eastlake
Greek Revival
Second Empire
Queen Anne
Stylistic Influence(s)*
Note: See additional photo(s) on following page(s)
General Notes:House at this site that was recorded in 1984 (#809) was recorded in 2007 as demolished; other buildings
recorded at the site in 2007
High Medium
Priority:
Low
High Medium Low
ID:968d
ID:Not Recorded
*Photographs and Preservation Priority have been updated in 2016, and the year built date has also been reviewed. However, the plan and style
data are sourced directly from the 2007 survey.
2007 Survey
1984 Survey
Current/Historic Name None/None
ID:600044 B2016 Survey High Medium Low
Explain:Property lacks significance
Latitude:30.686576 Longitude -97.652137
None Selected
None Selected
Photo direction: Northeast
Page 18 of 48
TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION
Properties Documented with the THC Form in 2007 and/or 1984 That Have Not Changed Preservation Priority
County Williamson Local District:
Address:2800 N IH 35 2016 Survey ID:600044 B
City Georgetown 2016 Preservation Priority:Low
Additional Photos
NortheastPhoto Direction
Page 19 of 48
TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION
Properties Documented with the THC Form in 2007 and/or 1984 That Have Not Changed Preservation Priority
County Williamson Local District:
Address:2800 N IH 35 2016 Survey ID:600045 B
City Georgetown 2016 Preservation Priority:Low
SECTION 1
Basic Inventory Information
WCAD ID:R039061Property Type:Building Structure Object Site District
Date Recorded 1/13/2017Recorded by:CMEC
EstimatedActual Source:Visual estimateConstruction Date:1910
Bungalow
Other:
Center Passage ShotgunOpen2-roomModified L-plan
Rectangular
T-plan
Four Square
L-plan
Irregular
Plan*
International
Ranch
No Style
Post-war Modern
Commercial Style
Other:
Pueblo Revival
Prairie
Art Deco
Spanish Colonial
Craftsman
Moderne
Gothic Revival
Neo-Classical
Mission
Tudor Revival
Beaux Arts
Monterey
Shingle
Folk Victorian
Renaissance Revival
Romanesque Revival
Colonial Revival
Exotic Revival
Log traditional
Italianate
Eastlake
Greek Revival
Second Empire
Queen Anne
Stylistic Influence(s)*
Note: See additional photo(s) on following page(s)
General Notes:
High Medium
Priority:
Low
High Medium Low
ID:968c
ID:Not Recorded
*Photographs and Preservation Priority have been updated in 2016, and the year built date has also been reviewed. However, the plan and style
data are sourced directly from the 2007 survey.
2007 Survey
1984 Survey
Current/Historic Name None/None
ID:600045 B2016 Survey High Medium Low
Explain:Property lacks significance
Latitude:30.685736 Longitude -97.654591
None Selected
None Selected
Photo direction: East
Page 20 of 48
TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION
Properties Documented with the THC Form in 2007 and/or 1984 That Have Not Changed Preservation Priority
County Williamson Local District:
Address:2800 N IH 35 2016 Survey ID:600045 B
City Georgetown 2016 Preservation Priority:Low
Additional Photos
NorthPhoto Direction
SouthPhoto Direction
Page 21 of 48
HISTORIC AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
FILE NUMBER: COA-2018-042
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 2800 N. IH 35
APPLICANT: Rajeev Puri
Background
This approx. 45 acre property currently has five structures identified on the 2007 and 2016
Historic Resource Surveys. The applicant is requesting to demolish four of the structures, with
the fifth one proposed for relocation. The one proposed for relocation is the Medium Priority
residential structure, the other four are all accessory structures such as sheds and a barn that
were identified as low on both the 2007 and 2016 Surveys. Structure 1 is the newest structure
with the estimated date of construction in the 1950’s. It is a cinderblock structure with some
wood paneling, per the 2016 HRS, it does not have a specific style and lacks significance. The
woodworking shed was estimated to have been constructed around 1930, it has no specific
style and lacks significance and integrity per the survey. The barn was also estimated to be
constructed in 1930, with no specific style and no significance per the survey. The shed is
estimated at construction around 1910, but it also lacks a specific style and significance.
Public Comments
As required by the Unified Development Code, all property owners within a 200 foot radius of
the subject property that are located within City limits were notified of the rezoning application
(8 notices mailed), and two (2) signs were posted on-site on October 10, 2018. To date, staff has
not received any public comments.
Findings
The concrete block restroom structure lacks significance per the Historic Resource Survey and
is in poor condition. The other three structures, the woodworking shed, the shed and the barn
are all in very poor condition as well. They were built as accessory structures to the main
residential home on the property. These structures were not built to last against weather
elements and have not been maintained. The timber framing and siding is deteriorated past the
point of repair or even reuse. There is tin on the roofing and sides of the structure that has rusted
and has holes and is also beyond repair or reuse. All of the structures are beyond repair and are
unstable. Based on their current condition and lack of significance, stylistic influence and
integrity these structures should be demolished. If HARC approves the demolition, staff does
not recommend that HARC consider a historical archive for these structures.
RECOMMENDATION
Approval
Page 22 of 48
File Number: COA-2017-042
Meeting Date: October 25, 2018
Page 2 of 2
Approval with Conditions:
Disapproval
10/10/2018
FOR: Sofia Nelson, CNU-A
Historic Preservation Officer Date
Page 23 of 48
HISTORIC AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
DEMOLITION SUBCOMMITTEE
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
FILE NUMBER: COA-2018-042
MEETING DATE: SEPTEMBER 17, 2018
MEETING LOCATION: 2800 N. IH 35
APPLICANT: Rajeev Puri
SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Lawrence Romero, Shawn Hood
STAFF PRESENT: Madison Thomas, Nat Waggoner, Karen Frost, Glen
Holcomb, Mark Moore
OTHERS PRESENT: Catherine Morales
COMMENTS
Applicant:
There are currently 4 structures on the property that are identified as low priority structures on the
Historic Resource Survey. All but one of these structures were used as shed/ barn structures with the
one being used as a restroom facility. All are extremely deteriorated.
1.)Restroom facility
2.)Woodworking shed
3.)Shed
4.)Barn
Subcommittee:
What is the existing (structural) condition of the structure? Are there any structural changes that
should be made to the structure for re-occupancy?
Structure 1 is made of concrete block and is stable, but looks like it currently has septic system failure.
Structures 2-4 are all made of wood and tin and are in unstable conditions due to lack of continued
use and maintenance. These were all built to a lower standard due to their purpose as secondary
structures.
Would the original owner be able to recognize the structure today? What changes have been made to
the structure (excluding cosmetic features)? Are structural changes needed to bring back the structure
to its original design?
Page 24 of 48
COA-2018-042
Meeting Date:
Page 2 of 3
Structures 1-4 seem to be the original buildings and all used as storage sheds and barns. Structures 2-
4 were built for the shed/barn purposes and the design/ style was not changed.
May the structure, in whole or in part, be preserved or restored?
Structure 1 if the cinderblock is filled, then no it cannot be preserved. At most some of the wood could
be repurposed, but not reused as siding. Structures 2-4 all are made of a mixture of lumber and tin.
These materials could be repurposed, but not reused as building materials.
May the structure be moved (relocated) without incurring any damages?
No, none of the structures could be reused without incurring damages.
Does the structure, including any additions or alterations, represent a historically significant style,
architecture, craftsmanship, event or theme?
No, all of these structures were built as secondary structures with no significant style.
Are there any materials or unique features that can be salvaged? If so, which ones?
Some of the lumber and tin could be repurposed, but are not in the condition to be salvaged and
reused as building materials.
Other comments
RECOMMENDATION
Approval
Approval with Conditions:
Disapproval
Based on:
10/18/2018
Subcommittee Chair Signature (or representative) Date
Page 25 of 48
COA-2018-042
Meeting Date:
Page 3 of 3
Page 26 of 48
Page 27 of 48
Page 28 of 48
Page 29 of 48
Page 30 of 48
Page 31 of 48
Page 32 of 48
Page 33 of 48
Page 34 of 48
Page 35 of 48
Page 36 of 48
Page 37 of 48
Page 38 of 48
Page 39 of 48
Page 40 of 48
Page 41 of 48
Page 42 of 48
Page 43 of 48
Page 44 of 48
Page 45 of 48
Page 46 of 48
Page 47 of 48
Page 48 of 48