Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Demolition Reconstruction topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
DRC presses for engineer reports as applicant seeks demolition and reconstruction at 1309 Adams Street
Summary
Applicant says termite and structural damage require full demolition and rebuilding at the same footprint; commissioners requested a structural engineer report, justification for moving the house two feet, and clearer plans showing how reconstruction will preserve streetscape rhythm.
Get email alerts on the Demolition Reconstruction topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
At a March DRC meeting, Ben McCrary of Chisel Workshop presented a proposal to demolish and reconstruct the principal building at 1309 Adams Street after engineers and field work revealed significant structural deterioration, including termite‑damaged foundations and framing. McCrary said the team intends to rebuild on the same footprint and to reuse salvaged foundation stone as veneer where feasible.
Staff told the committee that because the building is contributing to the Adams Street National Register Historic District, demolition applications must meet one of the commission’s strict criteria (loss of integrity, structural instability substantiated by a qualified engineer, or unreasonable economic hardship). Staff requested a detailed structural engineer’s report showing the property’s physical condition, why rehabilitation is infeasible, and a cost comparison of repair versus demolition and reconstruction.
Commissioners pressed the applicant for specifics: why shift the rebuilt house two feet to improve driveway and setback relationships, how the proposed dormer and added second‑floor massing will affect visibility and the streetscape, and whether rehabilitation options have been exhausted. Several commissioners said they were open to reconstruction that accurately replicates documented historic forms but asked for fully detailed drawings that show how modern code requirements will be reconciled with historic preservation goals.
The committee did not vote. It directed the applicant to provide an engineer’s report by a professional experienced with historic structures, cost estimates comparing rehabilitation and demolition, and fully annotated reconstruction drawings for the voting packet.

