HomeMy WebLinkAboutHPC22-010 Applicationcityof ort , "'
Townsend
DEVELOPMENT
SERVICES
Memo
TO:
FROM
DATE:
RE:
Mav 3, 2022
250 Madison Street, Suite 3 Port Townsend, WA 98368 360.379.5095 www.cityofpt.us
HPC
Judy Surber, Planning Manager
June 3, 2022
HPC22-010
First Touch at HPC
MEETING DATE: June 7, 2022
Summary Statement
On February 7, 2022, the City received application from Ms. Jenny Cole to demolish her
residence and garage at 734 Foster Street (DEM22-001). On April 4, 2022, Ms. Cole submitted
application for Historic Demolition (Exhibit 1 Application HPC22-010). The structures are
outside the historic overlay district but may be eligible for designation. If designated,
demolition or exterior alteration of the structures would be subject to Chapter 17.30 Historic
Preservation Code.
Subcommittee
At the May 3, 2022, meeting, HPC moved to appoint a subcommittee to review the scoring and
report back to the full committee on both the scoring and proposed demolition.
On May 20, 2022, subcommittee members Craig Britton and Walt Galitzki and city staff, Judy
Surber (Planning Manager) and Matt Logue (Building Inspector) met Ms. Cole (owner) and her
brother (contractor) on-site. The subcommittee reviewed the interior and exterior of the
building. Staff took photos (Exhibits 2 Interior; see Exhibits for nomination for exterior photos).
On June 3, subcommittee members met virtually with Judy Surber (Planning Manager) to
discuss their views on demolition. Mr. Britton asked that the HPC receive photos of one recent
approved shed demolition and one restored historic residence (Exhibits 7 and 8). Both Mr.
Britton and Mr. Galitzki agreed that the application was insufficient to make a recommendation
re: demolition.
Process and Review Criteria'
If determined to be historic, review the application for Demolition of historic structure (PTMC
17.30 Article III). This is a Type II permit requiring notice. HPC issues a recommendation, a
decision is issued by the Director. The decision is appealable to the Hearings Examiner. A
request to demolish must be supported by special reports:
rt
Towl ��Se it MEMO—SUBJECT(Date)
A. Where demolition of the building is sought due to unsafe conditions, the applicant
shall supply a report from a Washington -licensed structural engineer that substantiates
that the building thereof is imminently dangerous to the public.
B. Where demolition of the building is sought for reasons other than unsafe
conditions, the applicant shall supply a report from a Washington- licensed structural
engineer and a financial analyst or economist.
Ms. Cole has submitted the attached report from ksir Engineering (see Exhibit 3).
17.30.370 Criteria for approval.
A. Except as provided in this section, an application for demolition of a building or structure
regulated under this chapter shall be denied unless the application is based on the building
being an imminent threat (as defined in subsection C of this section), and/or the structure is so
deteriorated, and there is so little historical fabric, that it would be unreasonably costly to
retain the historic, cultural, and architectural significance of the structure through rehabilitation
or renovation.
B. An application for demolition of a building or structure in a commercial district (other than a
building built for residential purposes) shall be allowed if:
1. The denial or partial denial will deprive the owner of reasonable economic use of the
property;
2. The building, structure, or portion thereof to be removed cannot be adapted for any
other use, whether by the owner or by a purchaser, which would result in a reasonable
economic return;
3. There is no viable or reasonable alternative which would have less impact.
C. "Imminent threat" means the building, structure, or portion thereof to be removed
constitutes a documented major and imminent threat or immediate danger to the public's
health and safety, or is likely to partially or totally collapse and thereby injure persons or
damage property, and said demolition or removal is the only reasonable way to alleviate said
threat.
D. The owner has the burden of proof to establish by clear and convincing evidence the
necessary findings.
I1`
tlS Irl, MEMO—SUBJECT(Date)
E. If application of the criteria results in a denial, but the proposed action is necessary to correct
an unsafe or dangerous condition on the property, then the director may issue a permit strictly
limited to correcting emergency conditions.
A sample has been provided (Exhibit 6).
HPC Discussion and Recommendation
1) Is the information provided adequate to conduct review for demolition? IF not, what
additional information is needed?
2) Based upon the criteria for demolition (PTMC 17.30.370), what is the HPCs recommendation
on the demolition?
HPC will need to make a motion and forward findings, conclusions, and
recommendation to the director.
Sample Motion: Move to recommend the Director approve/deny application HPC22-010 to the
residence and garage at 734 Foster Street. Furthermore, the HPC appoints a subcommittee of
and * tasked with documenting today's discussion in the form of HPC's findings, conclusions,
and recommendations for the Chair's signature.
Exhibits
1) Application
2) Photos of interior 734 Foster
3) AEsirEngineering report
4) Jefferson County Assessed Value Information
5) Sample Findings HPC13-016 Demolition of 847 Taylor
6) Photo of shed previously approved for demolition at 1614 Lincoln Street (HPC 21-023)
7) Photos of 1228 Jefferson Street — Restored single family residence (HPC19-034 Seder)
Citypfpor
Townsen
DEVELOPMENT
SERVICES
250 Madison Street„ Suite 3 1 Port Townsend, WA 98368 1360.379.5095 1 www.cityofpt.us
HISTORIC DESIGN REVIEW
Of Proposal(s)
Within the National Historic Landmark District
All applicants and property owners must sign the application below to signify agreement with the
proposed application.
The Applicants) hereby certifies that all of the above statements and information contained in any
exhibits, plotplans, or other transmittals made herewith are true and provide an accurate presentation of
the proposed project. The applicants) acknowledges that any action taken by the City of Port Townsend
based in whole or in part on this application may be reversed if it develops that any such statement or
other information contained herein is false.
The undersigned hereby saves and holds the City of Port Townsend harmless from any and all causes of
action, judgments, claims, or demands, orfrom any liability of any nature arisingfrom anv
noncompliance with any restrictive covenants, plat restrictions, deed restrictions, or other restrictions
which may have been established by parties other than the City of Port Townsend.
Applicant
Property Owner (if different from applicant)
12.21
Date
RECOVEDDate
'ITY 01F POR
DSO Page 1 of 2
am
N
OV �
� fr
77
_ .._ td� J"uoJ ral'N✓I'",fPf7 dd�d
.,....0 ._....
c �r
f , f
.. ;•n, "R � Com. ,. � Pa �. � t �, �f . �
�.
ty
s, ✓ Y a ,� A vv d e. �
d
u
P IY
% _. _ a .,... _.� �. ._ .w ,,.:.�• ,... �� , l
m... -o
,�:�._.F 6 frl
s
0�
p 7 "
IS
Eaw'"r, "a i �✓r r�i��". •��r e"`�..J` .. .. ,.w ,. — - .. � A"'�s �`'�a,. �. ��. ..
A-Esir Engineering, 'L .0
4476 Aventm Port r'oiNnspnd, VVA 9836B
(�rjo) 531,4336 X
www aesir-engineering,corn
Jenny Cole
301 Fir Acres Dr, NW
Bainbridge Island, WA 98110
Date: April 4, 2022
Re: Inspecting structural integrity of 734 Foster St., Port Townsend, WA, 'T PN 974100802
On March 4, 2022 1 did a visual inspection of the single-family residence located at the above mentioned
address
'T'he building consists of a Sirigle sk)ry single-farnily residence which was tlUilt in 1929 I'lle 5dze .f this PZ10
of the strurture is apprOxinlately 894 square fagot with a 216 squace feet altic. Hie altic diaiensions are such
that it is not consider habitable space. At an unknow date a fivin(9 [,00jjj of approximately '140 square feel
was added on to the front west part of the building,
Fhe building has many structural deficiencies Some of them includes, but are not limited to, the following
1, The roof rafters and ceiling ties are at different spacing. Thus, the building lacks a proper roof
structure, 't he exterior west and a rat waRs are being pUSh(,.d oul by the roof.
2. Mnlirple roof rafters arc plot spanrlijlig the whole distance from the eave to the ridge -
'i 'nie, subfloor, rim and nd sole Plates have* s0lificant rot darn -age ca
e at tiv,iftiple lotions. This, rot
,,, extends up into some wail studs. Rot n,,-.-pajrs have been done to the floor r,,ystern at unknow dates,
4 Theie are no header$ adove any windows
5. Tfie foundatioriconsisting Of unreinforced hollow Concrete Masonry Units (CMU), has sunk
significantly, The majority of the crawl space is not accessible due 1(,r low to rio space between the,
floor forst ahcj gr,@de I he ara below lhe kitchen is in the area that is ncpt accessible iri flie craw�
spaco, and the extenw grade directs w,'3trf, fir,)rjj t1q) r,jrive,,),ay towards tW a:rpa, Thus, there cuukl
be significant water damage of the floW syste'"R
6. rhe covered porch, is not properly itta:died to the building, and is showing significant signs of
distress.
7 The living room addition is not properly connected to the original building.
Cue to the issues listed above, I consider this building to be unsafe
Per PTIVIC 17 30,340 8, 1 believe that the repair if this building inipases an econornic hardship upon the
owner, This building: needs as new foundation Wj'ji&) Will Cr,)Slappf'OXiMMely $60,000 00, Dfl$ is about 50
Percent of the building's assessed Value ($125,28f.) 00), Also, tile floor systerri and the roof need to be
repaired or replaced which will add to the cost to reStOre this boilfjnig, there ps a significant.
0,R)nce that this b0iding will not hold tiogethei when lifted Lip for the foundation installation.
The opinions and recommendations contain in this are based on visual field Observations performed
as part of this investigation and on information provide,(i by other parties. No physical tesi"19, other than
-"I-
L_X. '�_3
measurement of some elements of the residence, has been made Bas6d on the field observations made to
date, we believe that the investigation that we conducted was sufficient to make those determinations.
Our conclusions are professional opinions derived in a manner consistent with the level of care and skill
ordinarily exercised by other members of the profession currently practicing in this area. The accuracy of the
conclusions is limited by the extent of investigation that was possible and the accuracy and completeness of
the information provided by others. Conclusions are subject to modification if additional information is
presented. This report does not constitute a design, nor does it address any portions of the structures other
than those noted in this report or our field notes This report does not provide any warranty, expressed or
implied, for any portion of the existing structures. This report does not address any non-structural systems
such as electrical, plumbing, heating, ventilating, or mechanical systems, nor does it address site conditions.
Thank you for utilizing the services of /Esir Engineering, plic to assist you in this investigation. If you have
any questions or need further information, please feel free to contact us.
Sincerely,
/Esir Engineering, PLLC
I Brostr6m, RE,
)aI
Page 2 of 2
6/3/22,12:41 PM
MEM
Account
Property ID:
Jefferson County Assessor & Treasurer - Property Details - 69 JENNY L COLE for Year 2022 - 2023
35169
Parcel # / Geo ID:
974100802
Type:
Real
Tax Area:
0110 - C-50F1E1112
Open Space:
N
Historic Property:
N
Multi -Family Redevelopment:
N
Township:
30N
Range:
1W
Location
a tax statement.
Abbreviated Legal Description: MOUNTAIN VIEW
BLK 8 LOTS 3 & 4
Agent Code:
Land Use Code
DFL
Remodel Property:
Section:
Address: 734 FOSTER ST Mapsco:
PORT TOWNSEND, WA 98368
Neighborhood: MOUNTAIN VIEW 1ST & 2ND PICKETT SP & TX #'S Map ID:
Neighborhood CD: 6305
Owner
Name: JENNY L COLE Owner ID:
Mailing Address: 301 FIR ACRES DR NW % Ownership:
BAINBRIDGE ISLAND, WA 98110-1724
Exemptions:
There is currently No Amount Due on this property.
11
N
N
2
085/017
105918
100.0000000000%
Property Tax Information as of 06/03/2022
Amount Due if Paid on:
NOTE: If you plan to submit payment
on a future date, make sure
you enter the date and click RECALCULATE to obtain the correct
total amount due.
Click on "Statement Details" to expand or collapse
a tax statement.
Year Statement ID
First Half
Second Half
penalty
Interest
Base Paid
Amount Due
Base Amt.
Base Amt.
► Statement Details
2022 24620
$1609.66
$1609.56
$0.00
$0.00
$3219.22
$0.00
► Statement Details
2021 24660
$1479.28
$1479.11
$0.00
$0.00
$2958.39
$0.00
► Statement Details
2020 24694
$1387.83
$1387.73
$0.00
$0.00
$2775.56
$0.00
► Statement Details
2019 24735
$1195.88
$1195.76
$0.00
$0.00
$2391.64
$0.00
"�UYMghMYp"IUYRY"UN .::.,DWYWDIW,AA1MJ5mD};9ryn'A,YNVIunsWw1M15Hrv�)rYM}'¢�1,e,'+%iry1NJ���n'AnnNnYN'Duun'rwwNiDUUIJtP197N'?N/b5fl6M,w"�"A1JriJA%p,'H;D%'r�YY15'iJJnIMrYrirw1L1I
M:vxILYIY1IJlum,,,....JD9Y11,YY!'Y9tDrviwiiywPV WwMu&1r1➢J�"WY'i",PNmIDR:
(+) Improvement Homesite Value: +
$0
fix. 4
https://trueweb.jeffcowa.uslpropertyaccessIProperty.aspx?cid=0&year=2022&prop_id=35169 1/4
6/3/22,12:41 PM Jefferson County Assessor & Treasurer - Property Details - 69 JENNY L COLE for Year 2022 - 2023
(+) Improvement Non-Homesite Value: + $258,092
(+) Land Homesite Value: + $0
(+) Land Non-Homesite Value: + $267,500
(+) Curr Use (HS): + $0 $0
(+) Curr Use (NHS): + $0 $0
--------------------------
(_) Market Value: _ $525,592
(—) Productivity Loss: — $0
-----------------------------
(_) Subtotal: _ $525,592
(+) Senior Appraised Value: + $0
(+) Non -Senior Appraised Value: + $525,592
(_) Total Appraised Value: $525,592
(—) Senior Exemption Loss: — $0
(—) Exemption Loss: - $0
(_) Taxable Value: $525,592
Taxing J u risdiction
Im pre�ver ent / �IIdin
Fkeg�«c6 F
This property contains TIFF images. Click on the button(s) to download the full image (which may contain multiple pages),
https://trueweb.jeffcowa.uslpropertyaccessIProperty.aspx?cid=0&year=2022&prop_id=35169 2/4
6/3/22,12:41 PM Jefferson County Assessor & Treasurer - Property Details - 69 JENNY L COLE for Year 2022 - 2023
S�
x
••,""• w«n www
no, a '^"""' wm.nwxuxxmmwer �x me
Year Improvements Land Market Current Use Total Appraised Taxable Value
2022
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
2021
$125,289
$206,250
$0
$331,539
$331,539
2020
$112,328
$181,500
$0
$293,828
$293,828
2019
$103,687
$165,000
$0
$268,687
$268,687
2018
$86,556
$165,000
$0
$251,556
$251,556
"aaJiAA9'Hr'1Wp!�VYYYYYYIDSH'NP'9'D'ri�Y�.>'rY>�Jri timfY9T9F:�'"9r9➢Nl+d'J➢1Pk1'f"I^tllrR!1'pN)
.., ^'m'.^..i�f"A1YNi1NfY➢&OffMMH%fN:^Hi"'�9�N1VIlW�1�'IVYA;Y%1D»?YNPYID7fYU$79"1V'fury�YAAIYlt➢1➢1JDYCD'Ps"Sl'WP9tlWl�w'<'9NiMwn¢'u'�1?'NIJJYJ�YII�NYYlNY:wJ1➢,N1JW'PPA".11NW"W/J1N^1MJ��N^JN4'DJ➢71�'l1WUI4'�
https://trueweb.jeffcowa.us/propertyaccess/Property.aspx?cid=0&year=2022&prop_id=35169 3/4
CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL
Containing
RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE
And the
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION OF
THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR
Design Review Application 11PC13-016 Jennifer and Barclay Calvert
The Port Townsend Historic Preservation Committee (HPC) has completed its design review of.
Demolition of a Secondary historic residence.
Representative: Jennifer and Barclay Calvert
Michelle Sandoval, Windermere Realty
For the building located at: 847 Taylor Street
The review was conducted pursuant to Chapter 17.30 of the Port Townsend Municipal Code, and
was based on the application submitted on April 2, 2013 which was reviewed by the Historic
Preservation Committee (HPC) at a Special Meeting held May 14, 2013.
Applicable Guidelines- Demolition provisions of PTMC 17.30
F indin of Fact
Introduction and Bacik gLid-
1. On April 2, 2013, Jennifer and Barclay Calvert submitted a Historic Design Review
application for demolition of a single-family home at 847 Taylor Street (Exhibit A — Historic
Preservation Design Review application). Designated a Secondary historic structure, the P/2—
story home has 1,573 square feet of floor area (Exhibit B — PT Historic Residential Survey
scoringform, 847 Taylor St). The subject property containing the house is 6,050 square feet
in size and located at the southwest corner of Taylor Street and Garfield Streets.
2. The home's original construction dates from around 1890; however, numerous modifications
have been made to the home over the ensuing years including at least one ground floor
addition (Exhibit C — JCHS property report and Sanborn Fire map). It is also very likely
that the present gambrel roof shape is not original to the house. The chief character defining
feature of the homes exterior is a first floor bay window that faces Taylor Street. While not
specifically referenced in the application, a 14'x 22' accessory structure is assumed to be
included in the demolition request. The current owner of the subject property and both
structures (the Newell Casavant Estate) are sibling descendants of the previous owner. The
Calvert's reside immediately south of the subject structure at 843 Taylor Street. Neither the
applicants nor the owners have disputed the City's Secondary residential scoring of the
house.
Demolition Procedure Waivers and A . roval Criteria PTMC 17.30):
3. Ari aup plug mi. su,uu,ldr gp. to u:lerno lisp as al.esippnaated hktorie structure within, the Cit of Port:
"demo " " "historic �e �� 1. N. Q."
p'urw�?7i�,�a,raa�i iva�aa,iu~�aul"�:er, �aawu� uwu° lb.�storuc uaernuuhtnoaf') ma:auW first obtain a C'eu°tafiead:e
of Approval through the t it s [Estawrk Design Review process. 1.1w procedures, uuuaubuAuuritt:aal
requ.uireua_ue is aund aappu°ovaul crituriau (br obtaining such a approvaul are, outlined iin Port
if'ownnserid Muuudcipaal Code (1: I'M(.;).p7a30i
1 C��
w +_
Per i�I"i"MC. i 730. 30, an applicvit J'or an historic nRarriohI:ion Il[neg ins ffie review process b
rattan°rnclin., as Pre-Aplflic ation iyacednn , with Cily staal'I', and a rnernber aui`flua, City's, s, I in.rcm tork,.
Pra.,serv,,a io n Conn rruifl uc )1111(")W '11purpose anb`t:he Pre -Application nua.oin is to maa;ajuuainnt
flue, applic ara witti ffie n.,,qu irerrnc rats (,)H?` M(,' 17.30 and review rnnna. n° ala flee applic:nuut 6eu;is
are relevant Io Ific praapn. ,, al.
5. Per PTMC 17.30.360, applications for the demolition of a historic structure are processed as
follows:
a. The City's Historic Preservation Committee (HPC) provides a recommendation to the
DSD Director on whether the demolition meets with applicable approval criteria (See
Finding 5, below). The HPC's recommendation is to include design review findings
and conclusions for any replacement structure (when applicable). The HPC may
appoint a subcommittee of their members who are authorized to make
recommendations to the director with respect to the demolition request.
b. The review procedures used for Type II decisions are followed. This provides for a 20 -
day public Notice of Application comment period on the demolition request. The
scheduled date and time of the HPC's meeting where the application will be discussed
is provided with the Notice of Application.
c. After review of the HPC's recommendation, and any comments received during the
Notice of Application period, the DSD Director shall issue a written decision that
grants, grants with conditions, or denies the demolition application together with an
explanation of the same.
6. Per PTMC 17.30.370, applicants seeking to demolish a historic structure must demonstrate:.
a. The building is dangerous and poses an imminent threat (i.e. a life -safety issue to the
public exists with the structure); and/or,
b. The structure is so deteriorated, and there is so little historical fabric, that it would be
unreasonably costly to retain the historic, cultural, and architectural significance of the
structure through rehabilitation or renovation (otherwise referred to as an "economic
hardship" analysis).
Substantive:
7. On February 15, 2013, the mandatory Pre -Application Conference for the proposed
demolition was held. The meeting was attended by the applicant and their agent, together
with DSD staff and the HPC Chair. The Pre -Application materials included a civil
engineer's report on the condition of the home together with a contractor's estimate to
relocate and rehabilitate the same. The applicant also submitted a conceptual building
elevation for a replacement structure as it would appear facing Taylor Street.
8. Following the February meeting, DSD staff consulted the City Attorney about certain
procedural and submittal requirements related to historic demolition requests. The City
Attorney advised that the requirements of PTMC 17.30 that relate to providing a replacement
structure design was not applicable only to historic residential demolitions. DSD staff
informed the applicants about this submittal requirement exemption; however, the applicant's
2
indicated a willingness to voluntarily submit future construction on the site (should
demolition be approved) to a set of agreed upon design guidelines.
9. The Calvert's application does not seek demolition of the building on the basis it is an
imminent threat to public safety. The focus of their request is that preservation and
rehabilitation of the structure, as opposed to demolition, would pose an unreasonable
economic hardship. In addition, the Calvert's application includes a request to Waive two (2)
normal submittal requirements. The ability to seek such Waivers is authorized by PTMC
17.30.340. Specifically, the requested Waivers seek relief from:
a. Preparation and submittal of a structural analysis. This analysis is normally prepared by
a Washington State licensed structural engineer to substantiate that an imminent public
threat is posed by the historic building. Alternatively, a structural analysis is also used
in demolition requests that are sought for reasons of economic hardship.
b. Preparation and submittal of a financial analysis. Preparation of this report is done by a
financial professional who is experienced with historic building rehabilitation. The
completed report combines a structural engineer's analysis with relevant fiscal
information. The report's purpose is to demonstrate that an economic hardship is
created by requiring a structure to be rehabilitated rather allowing it to be demolished.
10. In lieu of a structural engineer's report, the applicants have provided an alternative analysis
prepared by a Washington State licensed civil engineer, Mr. Harold Anderson P.E. (Exhibit
D — H. Anderson engineering report). While his chief area of practice is in civil engineering,
Mr. Anderson has demonstrated considerable experience with structural analysis involving
residential buildings. The Anderson report states the building is not "imminently dangerous
to the public" but that it does, in his opinion, pose a fire hazard. In addition, the Anderson
report outlines a number of building modifications believed necessary to bring the building
into compliance with applicable codes. The report maintains that while rehabilitation of the
house is possible, it is not "a viable option."
11. Rather than provide a formal economic hardship analysis, the applicants ask that substitute
information be considered adequate for their application. The information they provided
includes Jefferson County's assessed valuation of the property ($160,000 for the land alone
but only $54,545 for the building) together with a local contractor's estimate to move and
rehabilitate the structure in accordance with the Anderson report ($316,000) (Exhibits E and
F, respectively). To further support their Wavier requests, the applicants asked that a site
visit be done by members of the HPC prior to their meeting to review and make
recommendation on the application.
Public Notice
12. On May 3, 2013, the public was asked to comment on the demolition request through mailing
a Notice of Application to adjacent property owners within 300 feet of the site (Exhibit G —
Notice of Application). In addition, a Public Notice sign concerning the proposal was placed
near the subject property on the same date. Both the mailed and posted Notice contained
information on the HPC's planned review on May 14, 2013 and that the comment period for
the project would end June 3, 2013. No written comments were received as of the end of the
comment period.
3
HPC Review and Recommendation:
13 . The HPC began their review via an April 15, 2013 site visit involving two members serving
as the. sub -committee assigned to the project. Also attending the April 15 site visit were the
applicant and the applicant's representative along with the HPC chair and a DSD staff
member. Following the site visit, the sub -committee prepared a brief report containing their
observations and recommendations to the full HPC (Exhibit H — HPC sub -committee report).
14. At a Special Meeting held May 14, 2013, the HPC reviewed and voted separately on
the 2 Waiver requests and then on the demolition request itself. Of the seven (7) HPC
members on the current roster, two (2) were unavoidably absent and excused from the
meeting. A third member was absent and excused from the meeting, having asked to
be recused from deliberations on the project. In sum, HPC voted 4-0 to recommend
approval of both requested Waivers and to the demolition itself. Each member
expressed reluctance in recommending their approval and wished to ensure that doing
so would not create a "precedent" for future requests. However, the general consensus
concerning the subject demolition was that there was too little historic fabric within the
home to preserve when weighed against the cost to do so. As a separate but related
action, the HPC voted 4-0 to recommend that the DSD Director consider code
amendments that would revise the economic analysis and information required for
future historic residential demolition requests (Exhibit I — Minutes of May 14, 2013
HPC meeting).
D11111) Director's laaa,vicwv
l 5w '11he p.tlup) Director c.onsidered flic alv at's, application and supporting 4nu3awa iaals aa�lo ng with
all other relevant provisions aul°uanaunulaw,ip.aa�al a;a.ud(.;w The Director l��i4nds the l III➢"�C
recommendations are �auwu:b a.auant" w cvudeiiraa,a, a•a��� �a;uuta�� d i n t' and
t . lanta.a:l pm4 a � � lnaw record,
16w A hA.,pr purpose of'puaa,se ving historic, hanunues is to protect glia, historic a,lnaaua Iter and scale of"
Porl p. a, A 4a"anc nal's neighborhoods, ds, Lik:ewll Au ,a public, purpose e". isl a to encourage
1Pcpl a.(,"clllaa°;nt: "rota'U:actll;ares ffiW aall"a''.aconsistent vv4h. f)r( ...e)<Jsfing hisooric 471aw;ighbarhood scale and
character, Towards that, c n , the Du4.cctor e a:4~nined the concept 4w pwlacc.r Geu"al:t: eleN/a�:�fion
submitted b,Y thaw applicant aant. in their Pre Application requa(A (°wpce Finding Il1'4o, 6, above). In
discussions with theapplication fifflowing p IPC review, the D11311) Director has, v;aaualaa°anawd
t.h6r nwflh ngness to have future a aunstru. Clio n at the sile guided by as a,;et. �6'unnu�ntuuaailh� acceptable
design paviun6pna ls.The DirCawt:a ll. aaa,a,ll:s, and the applicant has agreed t:aa; memorialize this
approach vlaa as recorded property a,ovenaaaat. Such a covenaa4nt will provide, cu.urrent, and p'i:atuurc,
aavvaua',aaS avij.h an. agreed upon fi-a�aun4wvva rla lease° future C4aa4a,at:aau:uctionat tpne site
Conclusions:
1. PTMC 17.30 requires all applications for demolition of a regulated historic structure to
obtain a Certificate of Approval involving review and recommendation by the Historic
Preservation Committee (HPC) to the Director of the Development Services Department
(DSD).
2. Applicants for demolition are entitled to seek approval of a Waiver from the strict demolition
application requirements of PTMC 17.30, such as structural analysis, specific economic
information and scaled architectural renderings for a replacement structure. Such Waivers
may be granted by the DSD Director, following a recommendation by the HPC.
3. Members of the HPC conducted a site visit of the proposed demolition and reviewed the
applicant's substitute materials regarding structural matters and economic viability. They
.19
recommended that the DSD Director approve the application submittal Waivers and the
underlying demolition request.
4. Following HPC's recommendation, the DSD Director reviewed the application and the
record, together with all applicable code provisions and the HPC's recommendation. Based
on this review, the Director concurs with the HPC's recommendations concerning both the
requested Waivers and the demolition Certificate of Approval. Furtfu°iraiorc., as the applicaro,
has volurilleered to cstablish a sel of desigiprirwipals dor fullure
construc.flon at the silc, the Director will rricTriorhilize such rneasures via a, rccord.cd property
coa,eoam to be, esukhslm.,l prior to issuauicc, oha detrilolidoui perilIiL
Decision:
Based on the foregoing Findings and Conclusions, the demolition Waiver requests together with
the demolition request itself, as set forth in HPC 13 -016 is hereby APPROVED subject to the
following CONDITIONS:
The applicant and/or Owners shall allow representatives of the Jefferson County Historical
Society (JCHS) or the City's DSD an opportunity to further photo document the house and
accessory structure before their removal. Any photo documentation must take place before
July 31, 2013. In addition, the applicant and/or owners are strongly encouraged to explore
the potential for removal and reuse of any salvageable building materials, hardware or other
historic features of the home.
2. A demolition permit for removal of the house and accessory structure shall be obtained from
the DSD Department. Any additional required submittal information or studies necessary for
obtaining a demolition permit (such as approval from the Olympic Clean Air Authority) are
the responsibility of the applicant.
3. Pursuant to PTMC 17.30.380.C, this Certificate of Approval expires if the authorized work is
not commenced within 180 days from the date the demolition permit is issued. The DSD
Director may extend the time for commencement of the work upon written request by the
applicant that documents circumstances beyond his or her control. If demolition approval
expires, a new application must be submitted and approval obtained before work can be
commenced.
4. Ars a voluntary rrwasurcagre(X] to by thcapplk;arit, the DS19 1)ircctor shafl prepare as Desigri
1eview Coveiiant for ll -w properl.y, that will lye signed by, 1hc owners, anid recorded With thc
Jeffirsori. Cotjrrty A.uditor r)rior to issuarice of a. (1ci-riolition perrriit- IS'aid Covenailt shall
coritajru rruitually agreed upon dcsign principals to guide subse�jtjerft cori struc, Ili ofn ori 1he
propefly Wrhi(-,h are irite.Med to riiaintain historic res�dential (;.haracteristics in the, ad.jacent wid
1-ue�gby 'j"',lylor Stred rwighborhood.
Issued this IP day of August, 2013
Richard M. Sepler, Director
Development Services Department
5
Date
Exhibits
Exhibit A — Historic Design Review application
Exhibit B — PT Historic Residential Survey scoring form, 847 Taylor Street
Exhibit C — JCHS property report and Sanborn Fire map
Exhibit D — H. Anderson eengineering report
Exhibit E — Jefferson County aassessed value information
Exhibit F — Move and Rehabilitation Estimate from QED Builders
Exhibit G - Notice of Application
Exhibit H - HPC sub -committee report
Exhibit I - Minutes of May 14, 2013 HPC meeting
Appeal to the Hearing Examiner
Pursuant to Table 2 of Subsection 20.01.210 PTMC, an applicant or other party of record who
may be aggrieved by the administrative decision on a Type II permit may appeal the decision to
the hearing examiner; provided, that a written appeal in conformance with Chapter 1.14 PTMC is
filed within 14 calendar days after the notice of the decision. The date on which a decision is
deemed issued is 3 days after a written decision is mailed by the City. Due to weekends and a
National Holiday (Labor Day), the appeal period ends September 3, 2013.
0
I
HPC21-023 1608 Lincoln Street — Demo Shed - Approved
0D V*N
..
D
ru