Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda_HARC_05.10.2018Notice of Meeting for the Historic and Architectural Rev iew Commission Demolition Subcommittee of the City of Georgetown May 10, 2018 at 4:00 PM at Planning Department, 406 W 8th 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. Regular Session (This Regular S es s io n may, at any time, b e rec es s ed to convene an Exec utive S es s io n fo r any p urpose authorized b y the Op en Meetings Act, Texas Go vernment Co d e 551.) A Members of the subcommittee will meet on site a t 5 0 1 S. Elm Street, then 5 11 S . Ma in S treet. Th e prop erties will be reviewed a n d th en the committee may or may n ot retu rn to th e Pla n n ing Dep a rtment for fu rth er discussion. In formation on the tw o p roperties is listed b elow. Legislativ e Regular Agenda B Dis cus s ion and pos s ible recommend ation o f a req uest that results in the red uc tion or lo s s in the total square foo tage of an existing struc ture lo c ated at 501 S . Elm Street – Mad is o n T homas, AICP, His toric and Do wnto wn P lanner C Dis cus s ion and pos s ible recommend ation o f a req uest that results in the red uc tion or lo s s in the total square foo tage of an existing struc ture lo c ated at 511 S. Main Street – Madis on Tho mas , AICP, Historic and Do wnto wn P lanner Adjournment 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 1 of 24 City of Georgetown, Texas Historic and Architectural Review May 10, 2018 SUBJECT: Disc ussion and p o s s ib le rec o mmendatio n of a reques t that res ults in the reduc tio n o r loss in the to tal s q uare fo o tage o f an exis ting s tructure lo cated at 501 S. Elm S treet – Madis on Tho mas , AICP, Histo ric and Downto wn Planner ITEM SUMMARY: The ap p licant is req ues ting demolitio n o f the medium priority s tructure citing Los s o f S ignificance as the criteria for the req ues t. T he ap p licant has p lans to demolish this rear addition on the existing struc ture to ad d a new add ition. FINANCIAL IMPACT: N/A SUBMITTED BY: Mad is o n Tho mas , AICP, Histo ric and Downtown Planner ATTACHMENTS: Description Type 501 S. Elm His toric Res ources Survey Exhibit Letter of Intent and Supporting Materials : Demolition Reques t Exhibit Des ign Guidelines Exhibit 1 Exhibit Des ign Guidelines Exhibit 2 Exhibit HARC Demolition Approval Criteria Exhibit Page 2 of 24 TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Properties Documented with the THC Form in 2007 and/or 1984 That Have Not Changed Preservation Priority County Williamson Local District:Old Town District Address:501 Elm St 2016 Survey ID:124302 City Georgetown 2016 Preservation Priority:Medium SECTION 1 Basic Inventory Information WCAD ID:R042564Property Type:Building Structure Object Site District Date Recorded 3/1/2016Recorded by:CMEC EstimatedActual Source:WCADConstruction Date:1940 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: (Notes from 2007 Survey: porch replaced, new door) High Medium Priority: Low High Medium Low ID:926 ID:609 *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:124302 2016 Survey High Medium Low Explain:Property retains a relatively high degree of integrity; property is significant and contributes to neighborhood character Latitude:30.639019 Longitude -97.673912 None Selected None Selected Photo direction: Northwest Page 3 of 24 TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Properties Documented with the THC Form in 2007 and/or 1984 That Have Not Changed Preservation Priority County Williamson Local District:Old Town District Address:501 Elm St 2016 Survey ID:124302 City Georgetown 2016 Preservation Priority:Medium Additional Photos WestPhoto Direction SouthwestPhoto Direction Page 4 of 24 1 City of Georgetown Planning and Development Services/HARC Georgetown, TX 78626 HARC Submission for CoA The Turpin Residence Addition and Remodel 501 South Elm Street Georgetown, TX 78626 February 23th, 2018 The Project Scope Summary: This applica on is for a CoA rela ng to the remodeling and addi on to the exis ng structure at 501 South Elm Street. The home was originally built in 1940. The style of the original home is a minimal tradi onal with a cra&sman porch element. In other words, the home is a mix of styles. The home is currently classified as Medium Priority and had previously been classified as Low Priority in the 1984 survey. The home was erected near the center of the lot which prevents building any usable addi ons to the structure. To create more usable space the home will be moved to the intersec on of the North and West building setback lines, approximately 5 feet to- wards Elm Street and 7 feet towards 5th Street. In addi on to being relocated, the structure will be raised approximately 8 inches to provide a more adequate crawl space. When the house is moved, the front porch will be removed and then rebuilt with the same configura on as the original. The exis ng (not original) porch columns will be replaced with style appropriate square col- umns. Originally, the area at the back (East) of the house was a covered porch as evidenced by the sloping floors and change in floor fin- ish. This area was enclosed and converted to u lity and bath rooms during a previous remodel. The exact ming of this remodel is uncertain as there is no evidence of it in the public records found on the Williamson County website, however it does seem to pre- date the one record of improvements apparently done in 1995. This area has been modified and added on to mul ple mes re- sul ng in construc on that is substandard and in need of replacement. There is visual evidence that this part of the house is sepa- ra ng from the main structure. According to County records, the back stoop was replaced or added in 2007. It is also of substand- ard construc on: the decking slopes towards the house rather than away and the supports posts are shimmed and ro9ng. Both enclosed porch and stoop will be removed to allow for construc on of new East addi on. This addi on will include a morning room, screened porch and double garage (with studio above), while the addi on to the South side of the structure will include ex- tended space for a guest bed room and master bath. The exis ng windows are of various styles making it difficult to confirm if they are original to the structure and truly historic in na- ture. They are single pane wood windows in serious disrepair, making it cost prohibi ve to bring them up to current Energy Code compliance. There is evidence of rot, sagging sashes and general misuse where screens have been stapled to the frame. There are currently two “bay” or “box” style windows on the North side of the structure that were added during a previous remodel some- me during the 60s or 70s. They are inconsistent in window size and detailing and detract from the original style of the structure. They will be removed to bring more con nuity to the style of the home. New windows will be Andersen composite fiberglass (100 Series). The lite pa@erns and configura on (three over one) will reflect the original architectural style of the home. The roof of the exis ng structure is currently comprised of composite shingles. New roofing material for the main structure will be composi on shingles while roofing material over the front (West) porch will be Snaplock galvalume metal. The wood siding of the exis ng structure will be patched and repaired with new wood material to match as necessary. This includes the areas where the bay windows are being removed. Siding where the addi ons abute to the original structure will be Hardi-Siding ver cal board and ba@en to create a point of dis nc on. Siding at the garage will be horizontal lap Hardi-Siding with a profile similar to that of the original structure. The main exterior color will be Needlepoint Navy (SW 0032) and the trim will be Classic Light Buff (SW 0050). The front door will be stained to match the brackets at the gable end. These colors are reflected in the renderings in this package. Page 5 of 24 2 The Project Scope Summary (cont.): The height of the garage addi on exceeds the allowable building height of 15 feet at the prescribed setback. Judging from the slope of the site towards the back of the lot, the actual height of the addi on along the side setback (as measured at the midpoint between height of eave and ridgeline) will be 18’-9” and along the rear setback will be 20’-3”. Therefore we are reques ng a vari- ance to this ordinance. While the garage addi on is taller than the original structure, the design is of it retains the character of the original structure as well as the surrounding area. The allowable height is exceeded on the setbacks away from street faces for minimal impact from the street. There is precedence for structures of this height in the immediate area as the structure to the property directly to the east across East 5th Street to the north and across the intersec on to the northwest are all a two story structures. The overall intent of this project is to posi on the house in a more appropriate loca on on the lot while extending the living areas within the home. The overall style will remain the same and will be rounded out with the addi on of architectural details appropri- ate with the overall style. We appreciate the opportunity to present this project to HARC. Sincerely, J. Bryant Boyd, AIA Page 6 of 24 3 AERIAL VIEW HARC submittal for CoA February 23th, 2018 The Turpin Residence Addition and Remodel 501 South Elm Street Georgetown, TX 78626 Page 7 of 24 4 VIEW OF FRONT FROM SOUTH ELM STREET VIEW OF NORTHEAST CORNER OF HOUSE VIEW OF SOUTHWEST CORNER OF HOUSE VIEW OF NORTH SIDE OF HOUSE VIEW OF BACK OF HOUSE HARC submittal for CoA February 23th, 2018 The Turpin Residence Addition and Remodel 501 South Elm Street Georgetown, TX 78626 Page 8 of 24 5 ROTTING WINDOW FRAME SAGGING SASH MISMATCHED WINDOW SIZES SCREEN STAPLED TO WINDOW FRAME HARC submittal for CoA February 23th, 2018 The Turpin Residence Addition and Remodel 501 South Elm Street Georgetown, TX 78626 ENCLOSED PORCH SEPARATING FROM MAIN STRUCTURE BACK STOOP SUBSTANDARD CONSTRUCTION Page 9 of 24 6 EXISTING SITE SURVEY HARC submittal for CoA February 23th, 2018 The Turpin Residence Addition and Remodel 501 South Elm Street Georgetown, TX 78626 Page 10 of 24 City of Georgetown page 80 7.12 When use changes demand that struc-tures be altered such that little or no use can be made of the original structure, consider mov-ing the structure to a compatible location. • This move can be made to another location on the same site or to a vacant site in another neighborhood. 7.13 Only as a last resort should an historic structure be considered for demolition.• Demolition of any original feature or part of an historic building should be avoided.• Demolition of a building that contributes to the historic or architectural significance of a locally or nationally designated district should not occur, unless:+ Public safety and welfare requires the removal of the building or structure;+ The building has lost its architectural and historical value/significance and its removal will improve the viability of the neighborhood;+ A building does not contribute to the historical or architectural character and importance of the district and its removal will improve the appearance of the neigh-borhood; or+ The denial of the demolition will result in a substantial hardship on the applicant as determined by the process outlined in the City’s Unified Development Code. When adapting a residence to a commercial use, respect the residential character of the building by preserving the overall form of the building, the front porch and front yard character. • Where a structure must be razed, then a record shall be made of it prior to any de-construction or demolition. The owner shall be responsible for providing the record, which shall include, but is not limited to, photographs, architectural drawings, and deed records, if available. This record shall be deposited with the Planning and Develop-ment Department.• A structure should never be demolished as a matter of convenience.• If a demolition is approved, work with HARC to identify salvageable materials and poten-tial buyers or recipients of salvaged materi-als. The removal of all salvageable building materials before demolition is encouraged, through a proper demolition by deconstruc-tion method as determined by HARC at the public hearing, and may be required depend-ing on the significance of the building.• Preserve historic garages and other second-ary buildings where feasible.• Demolition of secondary buildings (garages, etc.) 50 years or older may be appropriate if substantially deteriorated (requiring 50% or more replacement of exterior siding, roof rafters, surface materials, and structure members).• Relocating buildings within the Overlay Dis-tricts may be appropriate if compatible with the district’s architectural character through style, period, height, scale, materials, setting, and placement on the lot.• Relocation of a building out of the Overlay Districts should be avoided unless demolition is the only alternative.• See also Unified Development Code Sec-tion 3.13 for demolition or relocation criteria, standards, and procedures. Page 11 of 24 City of Georgetown page 70 Demolition/RelocationDemolition is forever, and once a building is gone it takes away another piece of the city’s charac-ter. Demolition of an historic building or resource should only be an action of last resort. HARC can delay or deny requests for demolition while it seeks solutions for preservation and rehabilitation. HARC should not allow the demolition or reloca-tion of any resource that has historical and/or architectural significance unless one or more of the following conditions exist and if, by a finding of HARC, the proposed demolition or relocation will materially improve or correct these conditions: 1. The resource constitutes a hazard to the safety of the public or the occupants, as determined by the Building Official.2. The resource is a deterrent to a major im-provement program that will be of substantial benefit to the community and the applicant proposing the work has obtained all neces-sary planning and zoning approvals, financ-ing, and environmental clearances.3. Retention of the resource will cause undue financial hardship to the owner when a gov-ernmental action, an act of God, or other events beyond the owner’s control created the hardship; and all feasible alternatives to eliminate the financial hardship, which may include offering the resource for sale at its fair market value or moving the resource to a vacant site within the historic district, have been attempted and exhausted by the owner.4. Retention of the resource is not in the interest of the majority of the community. HARC should consider the following when evalu-ating proposals to demolish or relocate historic resources: 1. Does the resource proposed for demolition or relocation have architectural and/or historical significance?2. What would be the effect on surrounding buildings of demolition or relocation of the resource?3. What would be the effect on the Overlay District as a whole of demolition or relocation of the resource?4. What would be the effect on safeguarding the heritage of the city of the demolition or relocation?5. What has been the impact of any previous inappropriate alterations?6. Has the owner offered the property for sale?7. Has the owner asked a fair price?8. Has the property been marketed for a rea-sonable time?9. Has the property been advertised broadly in a reasonable manner?10. Has the owner sought the advice of a profes-sional experienced in historic preservation work?11. What would be the effect of open space in that location if the lot is to be left open?12. What will be done with the empty lot?13. What would the effect of any proposed re-placement structure be to the community?14. What is the appropriateness of design of any proposed replacement structure to the Overlay District? Page 12 of 24 Sec. 3.13.030. - Certificate of Appropriateness—HARC Approval. F. Criteria for Approval for Relocation, Removal or Demolition of a Historic Landmark or Contributing Historic Structure. 1. The Historic and Architectural Review Commission shall use circumstances or items that are unique to the building or structure proposed to be relocated, removed or demolished when reviewing the application. 2. The Historic and Architectural Review Commission shall make the following findings when considering a request for demolition or relocation of a structure: a. Loss of Significance. i. The applicant has provided information that the building or structure is no longer historically, culturally or architecturally significant, or is no longer contributing to the historic overlay district; and ii. The applicant has established that the building or structure has undergone significant and irreversible changes, which have caused the building or structure to lose the historic, cultural or architectural significance, qualities or features which qualified the building or structure for such designation; and iii. The applicant has demonstrated that any changes to the building or structure were not caused either directly or indirectly by the owner, and were not due to intentional or negligent destruction, or lack of maintenance rising to the level of a demolition by neglect; and iv. Demolition or relocation of the building or structure will not cause significant adverse effect on the historic overlay district or the City's historic resources; or b. Unreasonable Economic Hardship. i. The applicant has demonstrated that the property owner cannot take reasonable, practical or viable measures to adaptively use, rehabilitate or restore the building or structure, or make reasonable beneficial use of, or realize a reasonable rate of return on a building or structure unless the building or structure may be demolished or relocated; and ii. The applicant must prove that the structure cannot be reasonably adapted for any other feasible use, which would result in a reasonable rate of return; or c. There is a compelling public interest that justifies relocation, removal or demolition of the structure. Page 13 of 24 City of Georgetown, Texas Historic and Architectural Review May 10, 2018 SUBJECT: Disc ussion and p o s s ib le rec o mmendatio n of a reques t that res ults in the reduc tio n o r loss in the to tal s q uare fo o tage o f an exis ting s tructure lo cated at 511 S . Main Street – Mad is o n T homas, AICP, His toric and Downto wn Planner ITEM SUMMARY: The ap p licant is req ues ting demolitio n o f a rear ad d ition of a high priority s truc ture c iting Loss o f Signific anc e as the criteria for the reques t. The ap p licant has p lans to d emolis h this rear portio n o f the existing struc ture to ad d a new additio n. FINANCIAL IMPACT: N/A SUBMITTED BY: Mad is o n Tho mas , AICP, Histo ric & Downtown Planner ATTACHMENTS: Description Type Letter of Intent and Supporting Materials : Demolition Reques t Exhibit 511 Main Street His toric Res ources Survey Exhibit Des ign Guidelines Exhibit 1 Exhibit Des ign Guidelines Exhibit 2 Exhibit HARC Demolition Approval Criteria Exhibit Page 14 of 24 WANG ARCHITECTS LLC Architecture + Urban Design 608 East University Ave. Georgetown, TX 78626 Ph: 512.819.6012 www.wangarchitects.com April 24, 2018 Demolition and Historical and Architectural Review Commission City of Georgetown Re: 511 S Main St, Georgetown HARC Review Dear Members of the Historical and Architectural Review Commission, and Demolition Subcommittee: On behalf of my client, Justin and Katy Bohls, I am pleased to submit here a drawing package for an addition proposed for 511 S Main St. in Georgetown. The proposal is a new event space that will be called The Wish Well House. We propose to make an addition to the primary existing historic 2-story structure while demolishing an existing portion of the structure that was an addition to the original. Demolition will include a porch that was enclosed to the East, and a single-story addition. The new addition will acknowledge the importance of the primary structure by creating a visual ‘bridge’ element between the addition and existing. The new two-story volume is designed to be compatible yet differentiated from the historical structure; it is a simple gable in form. The main body of the addition is a diagonal wood shingle painted white, so the material remains consistent with the existing house. Attached are drawings for your review and consideration: 1) Conceptual Rendering 2) Site Map 3-4) Existing Plans 5) Site Plan 6) Ground Floor Plan 7) Second Floor Plan 8-9) Elevations – For Information Only 10) Rendered Main St Elevation 11) Rendered 6th St Perspective 12) Rendered Courtyard Aerial 13) Rendered Section – For Information Only 14-17) Model View – For Information Only 18) Materials + Finish 19-20) Existing Conditions We look forward to presenting this project to you at our upcoming meeting on June 28. We will have additional information at this meeting for your review. If you have any questions or need any supplemental information in advance, please feel free to contact me at 512.819.6012. Thank you in advance for your time. Page 15 of 24 WANG ARCHITECTS LLC / 608 East University Ave. Georgetown, TX 78626 / Ph: 512.819.6012 Yours truly, Gary Wang, AIA Principal Wang Architects LLC Page 16 of 24 1Conceptual Rendering Design Concepts for Review by HARC The Wish Well House APRIL 24, 2018 Wang Architects ARCHITECTURE | URBAN DESIGN | MASTERPLANNING Page 17 of 24 2Site MapAPRIL 24, 2018 N Page 18 of 24 3Site Photos/ObservationsAPRIL 24, 2018 Page 19 of 24 TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Properties Documented with the THC Form in 2007 and/or 1984 That Have Not Changed Preservation Priority County Williamson Local District:Downtown District Address:511 Main St 2016 Survey ID:125187 City Georgetown 2016 Preservation Priority:High SECTION 1 Basic Inventory Information WCAD ID:R041349Property Type:Building Structure Object Site District Date Recorded 3/1/2016Recorded by:CMEC EstimatedActual Source:2007 surveyConstruction Date:1922 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: (Notes from 2007 Survey: awnings) High Medium Priority: Low High Medium Low ID:684 ID:454 *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 William D. Bryce Law Office/None ID:125187 2016 Survey High Medium Low Explain:Excellent and/or rare example of its type or style, and/or has significant associations; retains sufficient integrity Latitude:30.638501 Longitude -97.67678 None Selected None Selected Photo direction: Northeast Page 20 of 24 TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Properties Documented with the THC Form in 2007 and/or 1984 That Have Not Changed Preservation Priority County Williamson Local District:Downtown District Address:511 Main St 2016 Survey ID:125187 City Georgetown 2016 Preservation Priority:High Additional Photos SoutheastPhoto Direction EastPhoto Direction Page 21 of 24 City of Georgetown page 80 7.12 When use changes demand that struc-tures be altered such that little or no use can be made of the original structure, consider mov-ing the structure to a compatible location. • This move can be made to another location on the same site or to a vacant site in another neighborhood. 7.13 Only as a last resort should an historic structure be considered for demolition.• Demolition of any original feature or part of an historic building should be avoided.• Demolition of a building that contributes to the historic or architectural significance of a locally or nationally designated district should not occur, unless:+ Public safety and welfare requires the removal of the building or structure;+ The building has lost its architectural and historical value/significance and its removal will improve the viability of the neighborhood;+ A building does not contribute to the historical or architectural character and importance of the district and its removal will improve the appearance of the neigh-borhood; or+ The denial of the demolition will result in a substantial hardship on the applicant as determined by the process outlined in the City’s Unified Development Code. When adapting a residence to a commercial use, respect the residential character of the building by preserving the overall form of the building, the front porch and front yard character. • Where a structure must be razed, then a record shall be made of it prior to any de-construction or demolition. The owner shall be responsible for providing the record, which shall include, but is not limited to, photographs, architectural drawings, and deed records, if available. This record shall be deposited with the Planning and Develop-ment Department.• A structure should never be demolished as a matter of convenience.• If a demolition is approved, work with HARC to identify salvageable materials and poten-tial buyers or recipients of salvaged materi-als. The removal of all salvageable building materials before demolition is encouraged, through a proper demolition by deconstruc-tion method as determined by HARC at the public hearing, and may be required depend-ing on the significance of the building.• Preserve historic garages and other second-ary buildings where feasible.• Demolition of secondary buildings (garages, etc.) 50 years or older may be appropriate if substantially deteriorated (requiring 50% or more replacement of exterior siding, roof rafters, surface materials, and structure members).• Relocating buildings within the Overlay Dis-tricts may be appropriate if compatible with the district’s architectural character through style, period, height, scale, materials, setting, and placement on the lot.• Relocation of a building out of the Overlay Districts should be avoided unless demolition is the only alternative.• See also Unified Development Code Sec-tion 3.13 for demolition or relocation criteria, standards, and procedures. Page 22 of 24 City of Georgetown page 70 Demolition/RelocationDemolition is forever, and once a building is gone it takes away another piece of the city’s charac-ter. Demolition of an historic building or resource should only be an action of last resort. HARC can delay or deny requests for demolition while it seeks solutions for preservation and rehabilitation. HARC should not allow the demolition or reloca-tion of any resource that has historical and/or architectural significance unless one or more of the following conditions exist and if, by a finding of HARC, the proposed demolition or relocation will materially improve or correct these conditions: 1. The resource constitutes a hazard to the safety of the public or the occupants, as determined by the Building Official.2. The resource is a deterrent to a major im-provement program that will be of substantial benefit to the community and the applicant proposing the work has obtained all neces-sary planning and zoning approvals, financ-ing, and environmental clearances.3. Retention of the resource will cause undue financial hardship to the owner when a gov-ernmental action, an act of God, or other events beyond the owner’s control created the hardship; and all feasible alternatives to eliminate the financial hardship, which may include offering the resource for sale at its fair market value or moving the resource to a vacant site within the historic district, have been attempted and exhausted by the owner.4. Retention of the resource is not in the interest of the majority of the community. HARC should consider the following when evalu-ating proposals to demolish or relocate historic resources: 1. Does the resource proposed for demolition or relocation have architectural and/or historical significance?2. What would be the effect on surrounding buildings of demolition or relocation of the resource?3. What would be the effect on the Overlay District as a whole of demolition or relocation of the resource?4. What would be the effect on safeguarding the heritage of the city of the demolition or relocation?5. What has been the impact of any previous inappropriate alterations?6. Has the owner offered the property for sale?7. Has the owner asked a fair price?8. Has the property been marketed for a rea-sonable time?9. Has the property been advertised broadly in a reasonable manner?10. Has the owner sought the advice of a profes-sional experienced in historic preservation work?11. What would be the effect of open space in that location if the lot is to be left open?12. What will be done with the empty lot?13. What would the effect of any proposed re-placement structure be to the community?14. What is the appropriateness of design of any proposed replacement structure to the Overlay District? Page 23 of 24 Sec. 3.13.030. - Certificate of Appropriateness—HARC Approval. F. Criteria for Approval for Relocation, Removal or Demolition of a Historic Landmark or Contributing Historic Structure. 1. The Historic and Architectural Review Commission shall use circumstances or items that are unique to the building or structure proposed to be relocated, removed or demolished when reviewing the application. 2. The Historic and Architectural Review Commission shall make the following findings when considering a request for demolition or relocation of a structure: a. Loss of Significance. i. The applicant has provided information that the building or structure is no longer historically, culturally or architecturally significant, or is no longer contributing to the historic overlay district; and ii. The applicant has established that the building or structure has undergone significant and irreversible changes, which have caused the building or structure to lose the historic, cultural or architectural significance, qualities or features which qualified the building or structure for such designation; and iii. The applicant has demonstrated that any changes to the building or structure were not caused either directly or indirectly by the owner, and were not due to intentional or negligent destruction, or lack of maintenance rising to the level of a demolition by neglect; and iv. Demolition or relocation of the building or structure will not cause significant adverse effect on the historic overlay district or the City's historic resources; or b. Unreasonable Economic Hardship. i. The applicant has demonstrated that the property owner cannot take reasonable, practical or viable measures to adaptively use, rehabilitate or restore the building or structure, or make reasonable beneficial use of, or realize a reasonable rate of return on a building or structure unless the building or structure may be demolished or relocated; and ii. The applicant must prove that the structure cannot be reasonably adapted for any other feasible use, which would result in a reasonable rate of return; or c. There is a compelling public interest that justifies relocation, removal or demolition of the structure. Page 24 of 24