HUNTSVILLE HISTORICAL PRESERVATION COMMISSION



HUNTSVILLE HISTORICAL PRESERVATION COMMISSIONMINUTESNovember 14, 2016The Huntsville Historic Preservation Commission met in the Conference Room on the 1st Floor of the Public Service Building located at 320 Fountain Circle on November 14, 2016. The members present were:Mr. David ElyMs. Katie StampsMr. Mike HolbrookMs. Drenda KingMr. Randy CunninghamMr. Jan WilliamsAlso present at the meeting was Ms. Jessica White, Historic Preservation Consultant and Sharon Mize, Recording Secretary. The meeting was called to order at 4:30 p.m. by Mr. David Ely, Chairman. He read the preamble and introduced the Commission members. Mr. Ely invited everyone to attend the window repair workshop on Saturday at the Yellowhammer Brewery. 800 Wells Avenue – Mr. Craig BrowerNo one came to represent this application so it was denied.706 Ward Avenue – Mr. Charles McCubbinsMr. McCubbins came before the Commission requesting to add three canned lights, two speakers, and a ceiling fan on the front porch, two flood lights on the rear of the house a driveway on the side of the house, and a deck on the rear of the house. Mr. Ely said the lights, speakers and the fan are all going on the porch and are reversible so he did not have a problem with these items. Mr. McCubbins asked if he has any concrete left over from the driveway if he could make a 12 x 12 concrete slab on the front by the street with a steel i-bolt in it so it will look like a place where horses would have been tied years ago. Mr. Ely said he has seen some carriage steps in the district. This item was not included in the original application and public notice must be given. Mr. McCubbins withdrew this item.The proposed driveway will be a concrete driveway. Mr. Ely encouraged Mr. McCubbins to stain the concrete driveway so it won’t be such a bright white. Mr. Holbrook said he might consider paving strips. The driveway will be 50 feet in length and it will be between 9 – 10 feet wide. Ms. White said the motion could be made which would give him the option of using the stained concrete drive or to use the concrete ribbons. Mr. Ely said the handrail appears to have 2 x 2 balusters and which are 4 inches apart. The balusters need to be no more than 4 inches apart and typically historic homes have 2 to 3 inches between the balusters. Ms. Stamps made the motion to approve as presented with the option of using paving strips instead of a concrete driveway; if a concrete driveway is installed Mr. McCubbins will need staff approval of a stain color for the concrete; and the railing will meet City code of no more than 4” apart but the Commission recommends 2 ? - 3 inches apart. Ms. King seconded the motion. The Commission voted unanimously to approve the motion. 1214 Ward Avenue – Mr. Blake MullinsThis application requested painting the trim on the house, add front porch columns, replace steps and railings, add shutters, erect a privacy fence, and install two driveways. The fence will be a six foot wood fence and will be stained in Behr Coffee color. The driveways will be concrete parking ribbons. Ms. Stamps made the motion to approve the application as presented including painting the house trim, adding shutters, replacing the front porch columns, steps and railings, erecting a six foot wood fence stained with Behr Coffee stain unless he chooses another stain color then he will need to come back before the Commission for approval. Mr. Williams seconded the motion and the Commission voted unanimously to approve the application.801 Pratt Avenue – Tim & Ashlee FrankenfieldThe Frankenfields came before the Commission asking to concrete the remainder of their driveway. There is an existing concrete pad they want to connect to the driveway. Mr. Ely said they should be careful of drainage onto their neighbor’s lot. Mr. Frankenfield said the problem is their neighbor is above them and the drainage from that lot is washing away their pea gravel driveway. Mr. Ely said the driveway needs to be shaped so it drains into the street. The concrete will need to be stained with a color approved by the staff. The driveway will be 8 to 10 feet in width, whatever matches the concrete pad in the rear yard. Mr. Williams made the motion to approve and recommended they stain the concrete. Ms. King seconded the motion and the Commission voted unanimously to approve.809 Pratt Avenue – Mr. Richard PerszykMr. Perszyk requested demolishing the existing garage and erecting a new garage with the same footprint. Mr. Perszyk said they are scheduled to go before the Board of Zoning Adjustment on Tuesday for a variance. Mr. Holbrook asked if the garage on the 1928 Sanborn map is the existing garage. Mr. Perszyk said they did not know for sure. The exterior siding is Masonite, the doors are plywood and brick molding around the windows, and four cedar posts. This is the way it was when they purchased the property. There are no longer any materials from 1928 on this garage, however there was a structure existing on this site, possibly a carport. Mr. Ely said he looked at the garage and nothing is from 1928 except possibly the cedar posts. The alley is draining water heavily into the garage and causing considerable damage.Ms. Stamps made the motion to approve demolishing the existing garage and erecting a new garage in its place and Mr. Williams seconded the motion. Mr. Trey Propst asked if they knew if this was the original structure. Mr. Perszyk said the family who once lived at this property has all passed away so there is no one left to ask to verify the structure. Ms. White said the materials are all modern materials. Mr. Ely said there is not much of the garage that is usable and is not original materials. Mr. Perszyk said they intend to maintain the same character as the existing garage. Mr. Ely said there is a tipping point for reconstruction and they need to be examined on a case by case basis. Mr. Perszyk said they do intend to add knee brackets over the door that is not shown on the drawing. The Commission voted unanimously to approve the motion.500 Clinton Avenue – Mr. Bob Gammons for Mr. Thomas ClaytonMr. Clayton installed a pea gravel driveway without a COA. Mr. Gammons said when Mr. Clayton purchased this property his neighbors had a wood fence which stretched across the joint driveway and half way from the curb to the back. The former owners elected to not use the rear part of the joint driveway for some reason. By the time Mr. Clayton purchased the property the neighbors had expanded their back yard onto the joint driveway in the rear. Mr. Clayton wanted to have access to the back part of the driveway and could not and filed suit against his neighbor. The matter was resolved in favor of Mr. Clayton. Since that time he added more pea gravel over the existing gravel in the front and extended it to the rear. The driveway is nine feet in width and one hundred feet in length. He tried to match the pea gravel that existed in the driveway. Mr. Clayton received a letter from the Commission advising him of his violation. The fence was removed after the lawsuit and he was able to extend his driveway. Mr. Gammons said they were before the Commission for forgiveness rather than permission. Ms. Stamps made the motion to approve the driveway as installed and advised Mr. Clayton to come before the Commission before he does any more work on the outside of his home. Ms. King seconded the motion and the Commission voted unanimously to approve the motion.114 Steele Street – Don & Deb ThomasMr. Ely recused himself from this application because he helped with the drawings for this project. Mr. Thomas said they would like to erect a garden shed in their rear yard. The shed will be located five feet from the property line and may be slightly visible from the street. Ms. Stamps made the motion to approve construction of a garden shed as presented and Ms. King seconded the motion. The Commission voted unanimously to approve the motion.712 Adams Street – John DankanichThis request is to remove the chain link gate, replace rear windows, repair and repaint the siding, fascia and front porch, and erect a flag pole. He is planning on replacing the gate with a hedge. The windows he requested to replace are in a kitchen so he can put in a stove and a window over the kitchen sink. Mr. Williams asked about the pipe coming out of the driveway. Mr. Dankanich said this house has been nothing but bad news. There is no functioning plumbing in the home including the street tie to the sewer. Mr. Ely asked what type of window he is planning on putting back in the kitchen. Mr. Dankanich said he would like to install a composite window. The house is not functional right now because it does not have a kitchen, bathroom or a laundry room. Mr. Ely asked if there are any plans yet on what all he is planning on doing with this house. Mr. Dankanich said he will be submitting the plans at the next meeting. He is trying desperately to make the house functional so he can move his family in. The house has knob and tube wiring and he would like to install a new breaker panel. Mr. Ely encouraged Mr. Dankanich to attend the window workshop on Saturday. Mr. Dankanich requested scrapping the paint off of the house and re-paint it white. The flag pole will be located 35 feet from Lowe Avenue. Ms. Stamps asked if the repair of the siding would be with wood siding. Mr. Dankanich said it would be wood siding. Ms. White said there are a few split boards and will require very little repair. Ms. Stamps made the motion to approve removing the chain link gate, erect a flag pole, and repair and repaint the siding. Mr. Cunningham seconded the motion. The Commission voted unanimously to approve. Mr. Ely asked if they need to see the future plans before they can approve the windows. They can give preliminary approval for the windows. Mr. Dankanich said he would withdraw the windows and come back later with a plan. 205 England Street – Mr. Larry Bricker and Mr. Trey PropstMr. Propst came before the Commission with his architect Mr. Bricker requesting to remove the south side and west rear additions, remove the steps and concrete landings on the northeast side, remove the metal awning off of the south side, re-roof house, add new wood siding and sheathing at walls where additions are removed; replace windows with wood windows, repair siding, and repaint house. The house appears to be a duplex but Mr. Propst said it never has been a duplex though it has two front porches. They are requesting to leave both porches but removed the steps and sidewalk to the porch on the northeast side. They want to box the wrought iron columns.Ms. Stamps asked if they are going to replace all of the windows and Mr. Propst said he would like to replace them all. Mr. Bricker said the windows all have storm windows but the window size does not meet current code. The bedroom windows need to be replaced to meet code. They would like to replace them with either wood windows or composite windows. Mr. Propst said this house will be a rental house so it will need to meet egress code in the bedrooms and be more efficient. Mr. Holbrook said an old window with a storm window is just as efficient as a new window. The requested new windows in the bedrooms need to be taller to meet the egress code. Mr. Cunningham said if the windows met code when the house was constructed, then the windows are grandfathered in. Mr. Propst said he plans to use the property as rental property and without proper egress it would be a liability. Mr. Propst said he would prefer to replace all of the windows because the house has been vacant and unheated for over fifteen years. Mr. Ely asked if they could replace just the bedroom windows. Ms. White said they haven’t submitted the final floor plan and are not sure where the bedrooms will be located. Mr. Propst said the floor plan has not been finalized. Mr. Holbrook asked if the windows are beyond repair. Ms. White said the windows she saw were all in good condition and the wood is sound. The ropes need repair and the putty needs to be replaced. The storm windows have protected the windows from the weather and they are repairable though they do not open. Mr. Propst said with a lot of work they could be made operable but they would have to be removed and stripped. If there is an emergency then it would be a challenge to get out of the windows. Mr. Bricker said he thought the liability issue would take precedence. Ms. White suggested they break down the motion and Mr. Ely agreed. Ms. Stamps said the next on the list was to remove the south and west porches, which were later additions. Mr. Ely said he did not have a problem with them removing the porches. Also, Mr. Propst requested removing the steps and sidewalk at the northeast porch. Ms. Stamps said she found the steps and sidewalk charming. They requested adding a railing around that porch. Mr. Propst said it is a challenge having the door there and creates a safety issue. Mr. Holbrook said they are in a conundrum because they are changing the appearance of the entire contributing structure. He said he understood the concept of adaptive reuse, but he had a hard time if elements are being removed and elements are being added to this house. He asked why is it any different of any other thing that has come before the Commission in the past? He said he has a hard time drawing a line to say one thing is okay and then something else is not. Ms. White said in the National Register survey that the decorative metal posts and alterations to the front of the house were circa 1950’s so it would be within the period of significance. Mr. Propst said all the comments were valid, but in the introduction of the meeting Mr. Ely said the intent was not to prevent change but to minimize and allow it where necessary. He said he is trying to work with the Commission and the City to keep the house intact as is. He said he will rent it because no one wants to buy a house that looks like a duplex. He is trying to soften the right side slightly and improve the safety of the house. Mr. Ely said he thought this house had a wood porch floor at one time. Mr. Propst said he would change the concrete porch into a wood floor if that is what the Commission wanted. Mr. Holbrook said he just wanted them to know what the Commission wrestles with when they make decisions on these structures. Ms. White said the Secretary of Interiors Standards say that any additions or alterations which have aged into significance should be respected. Mr. Propst proposed to remove the wrought iron columns and replace them with square 6” x 6” wood columns. Mr. Bricker said the existing wrought iron columns are larger. Mr. Ely said they would be too large if you were to wrap the wrought iron columns. Mr. Ely said it would be best if Mr. Propst came back with the window request. They need to provide a floor plan to let them know where they plan to replace windows. Mr. Cunningham said the size of windows for emergency egress has not changed over the last sixty years; however there are many windows around which are not code compliant. If the windows were code compliant when the house was built then they can be grandfathered in. Mr. Bricker said when you do renovations to a house you have to bring it up to code. Mr. Propst said he thought if a house is renovated over 50% then it needs to be brought up to code and this house will definitely be over 50%. Ms. Stamps said she understood because of safety reasons they want to put the railing around the porch but she would like to see the steps and sidewalk stay. Mr. Williams said he did not think the steps and sidewalk were there to start with. The colors of paint submitted to paint the house were: Devonshire Green for the foundation, Herbal Escape for the siding, White River for the trim, and Benjamin Moore Stratton Blue for the doors.Ms. King made the motion to approve all items except the windows. Mr. Williams seconded the motion. Mr. Propst said they were trying to prevent slowing down the construction and come back at a later date. The Commission voted to approve the motion with the exception of Ms. Stamps. Mr. Ely said he felt the existing windows in this house are good windows and are repairable and they make operable storm sashes to be put on the outside. However, he understood the egress side of things as well. He said he would like to see a finalized version of the house plans submitted showing which windows they want to replace. Mr. Bricker asked what difference that would make. Ms. White said they legally have to provide public notice with the application request. Mr. Ely said this application was not clear on which windows and how many windows you want to replace. Mr. Propst said when they get the final floor plan they will come back before the Commission. 213 England Street – Mr. Larry Bricker & Mr. Trey PropstMr. Propst requested replacing the windows, repair and replace siding where needed, replace front porch eaves and ceiling, paint the porch ceiling, demolish the additions on the storage shed, remove sidewalk and steps, remove and repair damaged front porch and finish with brick or bluestone pavers, and add a portico above the rear patio. The windows have been removed but they were modern windows. Mr. Propst said there are two remaining in the shed but the rest were thrown away. He said most of the windows in the neighborhood were a different style than these windows. Mr. Ely said he thought these windows were original to the house. Mr. Propst wants to replace the siding on the sides of the house with modern material and reuse the wood siding on the front of the house. Mr. Bricker said they have already received approval to do some work to this house. Mr. Propst said the garage is a shared structure with the house next door. At one time this was one piece of property and now the property line splits down the middle of the garage. The front walkway was damaged when a dumpster was moved in and knocked the sidewalk out of kilter and damaged the foundation of the porch. There is no sheathing on this house. The addition where the porch was has been sheathed. This house had to be gutted inside because it has not been lived in over fifteen years and it has been open since that time. Mr. Ely asked what is wrong with the siding on the sides of the house. Mr. Propst said there is not enough siding to do the whole house and they need to use some of the wood siding to patch the front siding. There are three different styles of siding on the house and none of it lines up. When they relocated windows it left only some short pieces of siding to work with. They want to maintain original material on the front and put new siding on the sides and the back. There is some damaged siding on the front and they will need to repair the siding. Mr. Bricker said they would like to have the option of exposing the rafter tails instead of leaving the pork chops. Ms. White said the pork chops have aged in and she felt they should remain. The original was open and Mr. Propst said they kept it just like it was. Mr. Bricker said they would like to expose the rafter tails to match the rest of the house. Ms. White said so much has already gone on at this house that it might no longer be considered contributing: the roof has been replaced, the carport has been altered, the windows have been removed, and the front columns have been replaced. The damaged sidewalk does not need to be replaced, just removed. The sidewalk to the street is in good shape. Mr. Propst also requested repairing the concrete front porch. He said the front porch is too high and causes water to go under the front door. He would like to repair the concrete and add brick or bluestone pavers. The Commission felt he should just repair the concrete front porch and not add the bluestone or brick. All the windows have been removed and Mr. Propst presented two windows as options of a replacement. One of the windows is a composite PVC window and the other window is a wood window. Mr. Holbrook said PVC is not a composite material. Mr. Bricker said this particular window has been used all over the district. Ms. White said the very same window was denied at the meeting before last because it is PVC. Technically the guidelines state the windows should be wood but the Commission has made exceptions in the past. Ms. Stamps asked what window pattern they will use and Mr. Bricker said he has shown 1 / 1 windows but they are also considering 3 / 1 windows. Ms. White said for the time period of this house the windows should be 6 / 6. The 5/8” mullions would be the best option. Ms. Stamps made the motion to approve as submitted: replace the windows using wood windows with a 6 / 6 window pattern, sdl with option of 7/8” mullions and go over window with staff if you use a different manufacturer than presented; repair / replace the concrete on the front and side porch, painted or stained; repair and replace siding; replace front porch eaves and ceiling and paint porch ceiling; demolish the additions made to the rear detached storage shed; remove the damaged sidewalk and steps on the side of the house; and add a portico above the rear patio doors. Mr. Williams seconded the motion and the Commission voted unanimously to approve the motion.210 White Street – Mr. David NaumcheffThis house was moved to this site, which was too small of a lot for the house. Mr. Naumcheff requested adding a dormer to the rear of the house, construct a carport addition on the side of the house, replace a side window with a door and add a brick landing with steps, erect an outdoor fireplace and wall, replace the front door, add a brick veneer to the foundation and front steps, and remove the rear deck. The rear deck sits right on the property line. The rear dormer will not be visible from the front of the house. Mr. Naumcheff would like to remove a door and replace it with a window on the rear of the house. He would also like to remove a window on the side of the house and replace it with a door and add some steps which will lead to the proposed carport. The carport will need a variance from the Board of Zoning Adjustment because it is right on the property line. The new side door will match the proposed front door. Mr. Naumcheff would also like to add an outdoor fireplace which will face the back of the property. Mr. Naumcheff said the chimney of the outdoor fireplace will go through the roof of the proposed carport. He said if the carport is not approved he would still like to erect the fireplace. The carport materials will be wood to match the existing house. Mr. Naumcheff also asked to paint the house in a muslin color with a beige trim as presented. Ms. Stamps said she thought the carport helped mask the outdoor fireplace where it does not look so stark. Mr. Ely agreed.Ms. Stamps asked why he was replacing the original front door. Mr. Naumcheff said it is in really bad shape and has cracks you can see through. Mr. Holbrook asked if it could be repaired. Ms. White said she thought it could be repaired. Mr. Holbrook said he would like to see him repair the original door. Mr. Naumcheff asked if it would be okay to install a door on the side and Mr. Ely said he thought that would be okay. Ms. White recommended the glass in the door not have an arch but be squared at the top. Mr. Naumcheff said the existing rear deck is a foot over the property line and he wants to remove it completely. He would like to erect an eight foot fence on the property line because the neighboring apartment building is so close and also erect a fence down the south side of the property. His property line goes within two feet of the apartment buildings. Mr. Holbrook said this house is higher than the apartments. Mr. Ely said he would have a problem with an eight foot fence but would be okay with a six foot fence. Ms. Stamps said an eight foot fence would block the sunlight for the neighbors in the apartment building. Mr. Holbrook recommended they could erect a six foot fence and add two feet of lattice on top to help with this situation. They have approved this type of fence before. Mr. Ely said he thought a six foot fence would be more appropriate for the side yard. Mr. Naumcheff said the existing front foundation is a painted block foundation and he would like to add a 1 inch brick on the front and side foundation. Mr. Naumcheff said he may have to use a rowlock. Mr. Holbrook said that is not very desirable. He suggested using a thin brick which is one inch thick and it is put on like ceramic tile and it needs to look historic. Mr. Ely asked where the air conditioning is located. Mr. Naumcheff said it is under the existing back deck he has asked to remove. Once the deck is removed they can have service access to the unit. He will be adding another unit upstairs as well to service the attic. Ms. Stamps made the motion to approve as submitted with the following changes: repair the existing front door after it is reviewed by staff, if it is beyond repair it can be replaced; the thin brick veneer be flush on the front and side foundations; erect an eight foot fence along the rear of the property and six foot on the north side; the new door on the side be straight; the paint colors for the house; the carport and outdoor fireplace, remove the rear deck, and the proposed lighting. Ms. King seconded the motion and the Commission voted unanimously to approve the motion.5 Cruse Alley – Mr. Edward T. Jones for Max and Susan GurgewMr. Jones requested to replace the front door, add exterior lighting, replace the front porch columns, increase the size of the porch, replace the porch railings with wrought iron railings, and remove and replace the front steps. Ms. White said this application is technically incomplete because the elevations were not submitted in time. Mr. Jones said he forgot to send them to Ms. White but he brought them for consideration. Ms. White said legally the elevations have to be put on the website for review by the public. Mr. Jones said they have an existing pea gravel driveway they would like to replace with a concrete pea gravel driveway. Mr. Ely said they would need to table the items which were not submitted until a future meeting. Mr. Ely said this is a nice house and will age in soon and he did not understand why they would want to make any significant changes. Mr. Jones said they really want to change out the stairs on the front. They also want to replace the columns because they are very thin. Ms. White said this house is a replica of a Colonial Williamsburg house. Ms. Stamps asked if there is anything they could act on at this meeting. Mr. Jones said there is some fencing on the west side which is in bad shape they would like to remove and would like them to consider replacing the driveway. Ms. Stamps made the motion to approve removing the fence on the west side and the east side and replace the driveway with pea gravel concrete. Ms. King seconded the motion and the Commission voted unanimously to approve the motion.231 Walker Avenue – Mr. Caleb ChristopherMr. Christopher asked to remove and replace the side porch and use the existing stones from the porch for a flower bed boarder, paint the house and fence, and repair or replace the front door. An onsite visit was made to review the door and it was determined the only thing which can be approved is repairing the front door. Mr. Christopher said the porch needs to be replaced and they would like to make a patio outside the porch. Mr. Holbrook said the existing door is a modern door and it could probably be replaced. There is an original door on the side and they want to try and match it as much as possible. He presented a door he located at an architectural salvage company they would like to use. Ms. Stamps made the motion to approve replacing the front door if he uses the door he presented, and if it is unavailable he should come back before the Commission with his new choice, and remove and replace the porch. Mr. Cunningham seconded the motion. The Commission voted unanimously to approve the motion.721 Randolph Avenue – Ms. Roni PrenticeMs. Prentice came before the Commission requesting to paint the house, replace the roof, add vents and erect a fence. Ms. Prentice said the shingles have cracked and need to be replaced. Her contractor has already removed the shingles and put a cover on it to keep it in the dry. She would like to use black shingles. Ms. Prentice said this property is located on a corner lot and the house keeps getting hit by vehicles coming off of the hill. She would like to erect a fence to slow the vehicles down and hopefully they won’t hit the house. The fence will be a wood fence and will be stained to match the trim on the house. The fence will be six foot on the side and will wrap around to the rear, and the fence will be lower in the front so traffic can see around it. Mr. Ely said typically in a front yard the fence should be no taller than 34 inches in height. It will need to be a picket fence in the front. The house will be painted green with a burgundy trim and white for the outer window trim. Ms. Prentice said she wants to keep the house in a 1923’s color. Ms. Stamps made the motion to approve the changes as presented with the fence being six foot in the back area and no more than 34” in the front with a picket design, replace the roof using black shingles, and paint the house in the colors presented. Mr. Cunningham suggested that since this house is on a corner lot she check with the Traffic Engineering Department to be sure the site lines are okay with the fence. Ms. King seconded the motion and the Commission voted unanimously to approve the motion.Respectfully submitted,Dennis MadsenManager of Urban and Long Range Planning ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download