HUNTSVILLE HISTORICAL PRESERVATION COMMISSION



HUNTSVILLE HISTORICAL PRESERVATION COMMISSIONMINUTESJuly 10, 2017The Huntsville Historic Preservation Commission met in the Conference Room on the 1st Floor of the Public Service Building located at 320 Fountain Circle on July 10, 2017. The members present were:Mr. David ElyMs. Katie StampsMr. Peter LoweMs. Drenda KingMr. Jan WilliamsMr. Randy CunninghamMr. Mike HolbrookAlso present at the meeting was Sharon Mize, Recording Secretary. The meeting was called to order at 4:30 p.m. by Mr. David Ely, Chairman. Mr. Ely read the preamble and introduced the Commission members. 1320 Wellman Avenue – Candice & Sam TrupianoThe Trupiano’s came before the Commission requesting to stain a fence. The fence was erected without permission from the Commission. Mr. Trupiano said they discussed erecting the fence with their contractor and had planned to come before the Commission but when they returned from vacation the contractor had already installed the fence, much to their surprise. Mr. Ely said they erected the fence with the pretty side in and typically the Commission requires the fence be erected pretty side out. A photo submitted shows the neighbor’s fence was erected correctly. Mrs. Trupiano said part of the neighbor’s fence was also erected pretty side in. The fence was erected with four feet next to the neighbors and six feet in the back. Mr. Lowe said it helps that the columns have caps on them. Mrs. Trupiano said it was supposed to be that way all the way around the fence. They submitted four colors as options for the stain on the fence. Mr. Lowe said he liked the Tugboat color and the Boot Hill Grey color for the stain on the fence. Ms. Stamps made the motion to approve all four colors submitted with preference to the Tugboat and the Boot Hill Grey colors. Mr. Lowe seconded the motion and the Commission voted unanimously to approve the paint colors.407 Holmes Avenue – Kristin StittMs. Stitt requested installing a pool and a fence in her rear yard. The pool will measure 40’ x 16’ and will go as deep as 8’, with a cantilevered concrete edge at the edge of the pool for the deck. Ms. Stitt said they were approved for a fence around the rear yard at the last meeting. Ms. Stamps made the motion to approve installing the pool and fence as presented and Ms. King seconded the motion. The Commission voted unanimously to approve the motion.225 Williams Avenue – Edward Jones for George & Shannon KingMr. Jones said the Kings would like to request installing a pool and an outbuilding which will be used as a pool house, garage and workshop in the rear yard. All the materials will match the house. A setback variance will not be required. There will be no steps from the house to the outbuilding. Copper will be used on the low slopes on the roof as well as round copper gutters and downspouts. Mr. Ely asked about the brick fence going up and said the grade looks like the fence will be 8 feet in height. Mr. Jones said that portion of the fence backs up to the Van Valkenburgh’s property and they have discussed the fence with them and they are fine with it. Mr. King said the fence will be 7’6” tall and the neighbor’s fence is 8’ in height. Mr. Ely said that is taller than they normally approve. Mr. Jones said they spoke to all of the neighbors and everyone is happy with the fence. Mr. Lowe made the motion to approve the pool and out building as presented. Mr. Williams seconded the motion and the Commission voted unanimously to approve the motion.430 McClung Avenue – Marc Goldmon for Zack & Chris PenneyThe Pennys would like to make modifications to a previously approved plan for an addition. The proposed changes will not affect the front of the house. The proposed changes include removing the canopies, change out a shuttered window with a three panel set of windows, change the height of two windows on the west elevation, and add a set of French doors with sidelights on the rear addition. Mr. Lowe made the motion to approve the proposed changes and Ms. Stamps seconded the motion. The Commission voted unanimously to approve the motion.716 Holmes Avenue – Steve LockridgeMr. Lockridge presented his application requesting replacing an existing privacy fence with a new fence. The new fence will match the neighbor’s fence and will be no taller than six feet in height. He would like to extend the fence up to the edge of the porch. He would like to put in two gates. A gate with an arch will be on the west side and a gate with the diagonal boards will be located in the rear. The fence will be painted to match the house, which is dark grey. He will let the fence age for about six months before painting or staining. It was suggested Mr. Lockridge bring a sample of the paint color by the Inspection office for Mr. Cunningham to see to make sure it will be a good color. The fence will be the same on both sides. Ms. Stamps made the motion to approve the new fence but that he brings his stain color selection to Mr. Cunningham’s office for approval. Mr. Williams seconded the motion and the Commission voted unanimously to approve.118 Smith Street – Larry Bricker for Charles (Trey) PropstMr. Propst requested making some changes to this house which has been vacant for some time. He would like to remove the ramp on the front of the house, remove the shutters, make an addition to the front porch, paint the house, replace the windows, add a porte cochere, and modify the shed. The shed will become a screened porch and they will replace all but one wall. Mr. Bricker said the front porch will be extended to make it more appealing and it will match the other houses in the neighborhood. He said there is a good mixture of styles in the neighborhood. This house was constructed in 1962 and is a contributing structure.Mr. Ely said he does not have a problem with the ramp being removed because it was not part of the original structure. The shutters have always been there and are a part of the contributing status of the house and needs to be repaired and put back. Mr. Bricker said he did not think they were the right size for the house. Mr. Ely said on ranch style houses this was very common. This house has been in disrepair for many years and some of the shutters have fallen off. Mr. Lowe said according to Harvie Jones, if there were no shutters then the trim around the windows should be 3 ? - 4 inches wide. These shutters are not wide enough to cover these windows. Mr. Holbrook said that rule does not apply to a ranch style house. Mr. Ely asked if they are removing a wall to make an outside deck. Mr. Bricker said they were and it will become a screened porch or have a gable roof. The wall was added later and bricked and they will make it a screened porch. Mr. Lowe said he thought it would look better if they took the wall down. They propose the storage shed be expanded. Mr. Ely said it looks like they will demolish the shed and expand it. Mr. Bricker said he spoke with Planning and if they leave one wall they will not have to have a variance. Mr. Ely said on a contributing house they do not allow new front porches. Mr. Propst said currently the house is a duplex and he is trying to convert it to a single family dwelling and the porch needs to be dressed up. Mr. Holbrook said adding an architectural element to a front elevation violates the guidelines no matter what style the house is. Mr. Bricker said every house on the street has some sort of porch on it. Mr. Ely said currently the front door is recessed and asked if they plan on pulling it forward or leaving it recessed. Mr. Bricker said it will remain recessed.They will be removing some trees which are in bad shape and their roots are causing problems with the sidewalk. They may need to make repairs to the sidewalk. Mr. Ely asked where the new wood windows will be located and Mr. Bricker replied they are all in the back of the house. Mr. Ely said part of this application is to paint the brick, but the guidelines say that unpainted brick should not be painted. The brick can be stained but not painted. Mr. Lowe said the brick is different colors and should be painted. He said he thought the front porch roof is too steep and should be made a lower pitch and he thought it really needed the extended porch. Ms. Stamps said the porch they designed is simple, which is good for a ranch style house; however the issue is if you put a porch on then you are fabricating something that wasn’t there to begin with on a contributing structure. Mr. Lowe said they want to make the house more attractive. Ms. Stamps said she understands but there job is to maintain the historic character, particularly on the front elevation. Mr. Propst said they really need to do something to the house to justify converting it to a single family home, if not he will turn it back into a duplex. Ms. Stamps said she has seen many ranch style houses which do not have front porches. Mr. Ely said the neighborhood is zoned single family. Mr. Propst said there are two electrical services to the house so it was a duplex. Mr. Ely said it was a business that was grandfathered in, it was not a residence. Mr. Propst said the original plans show two one bedroom units with two bathrooms and two kitchens. Ms. Stamps said from the outside it does not look like a duplex. Mr. Ely asked if the proposed windows would have divided lights. Mr. Bricker said they would match the windows on the front of the house and will have divided lights. Mr. Ely commented there seemed to be a lot of concrete in the front yard and asked if the concrete would be stained. Mr. Bricker said there is concrete there now and they will widen it by the porte cochere. Mr. Ely said they really should stain the concrete. The air conditioning unit will be located on the north end of the house.Mr. Holbrook asked if it would be possible to salvage any of the brick to use on the foundations. Mr. Bricker said it would be fine. Mr. Lowe asked if they are allowed to renovate the front porch if they would use a standing seam metal roof and lower the pitch of the roof. Mr. Propst said that he could do that. The proposed material for the shed and porta cochere will be hardiboard. Mr. Lowe made the motion to approve the application if he will consider lowering the pitch of the porch roof and use standing seam metal roof, remove the shutters, stain the concrete, and paint or stain the brick, also with the option to put a gable roof on the rear. There was no second to the motion. Mr. Holbrook recommended the items be broke down and voted on individually. Mr. Ely asked if there were any public comments and Ms. Ruairidh Campbell of 1312 Wellman Avenue said she grew up in a ranch style home and if there were shutters already on the house then they would be appropriate. However, many of the shutters look like they were stuck on the house. She said she was not in favor of keeping the shutters. Mr. Lowe said if the shutters were not put on the right way, then they should be allowed to remove them or replace them with some that fit. In this case it doesn’t make sense to put them on because they would cover the entire front of the house.Ms. Stamps said ranch houses were designed to have the shutters, even though some people don’t find them attractive. They were never intended to cover the windows. It’s not a wrong decision; it’s just the way they are designed. Mr. Holbrook asked if the existing shutters are vinyl or wood. Mr. Bricker said he wasn’t sure. Mr. Holbrook said if they are vinyl then they were probably replaced at some time. He said the guidelines help provide fair and consistent decisions across the board. In the past some brick has been painted and elevations have been propped up and sometimes this has occurred without permission from this Commission. The guidelines state clearly that unpainted brick should remain unpainted regardless of the design of the structure. Mr. Lowe asked where the Commission came up with the idea that brick cannot be painted in the guidelines. Mr. Ely said by the Secretary of the Interior Standards. Mr. Lowe said the Commission should address it and change the standards. Mr. Ely replied that the Commission is a certified local government and follow with their auspices. Mr. Holbrook commented that if they make all of the proposed changes to this structure it would be considered a non-contributing structure at the next survey. That would make one less contributing structure in the district; and if that continues to happen and another one is lost then pretty soon the historic district designation would be lost. Mr. Ely made the motion to remove the ramp, make changes to the rear of the house including converting a portion into a screened porch, an option to change the roof to a gable roof in the rear, modify the rear storage building and make it into a garage, add a new porte cochere, and add new wood windows with divided lights. This motion does NOT include painting the brick or altering the front porch. Mr. Propst said he would try to stain the brick and then come back if it is not satisfactory. Mr. Holbrook seconded the motion. The Commission voted unanimously to approve the motion. Mr. Ely said they would address the front porch and the shutters. The proposed columns are simple columns. Mr. Ely asked if they would be fairly reversible. Mr. Bricker said yes they could. Mr. Lowe said this house is just within the time fame of being considered historic and it was a duplex to start with. Ms. Stamps said it does not look like a duplex from the exterior. Mr. Bricker said this is the worst house on the street and they want to make it look more attractive and fit better in the neighborhood. Ms. Stamps said mid-century houses are not everyone’s cup of tea, and there was a time when everyone thought Victorian houses were hideous. Now people have a great love for Victorian houses. Just because it is a newer home in the district does not make it less historic or significant. Ranch houses need to be preserved with the same sensitivity that we do a house that might be an early twentieth century house or an antebellum house. The mid-century houses need to be preserved with the same level of care and not written off as some ugly rancher. Mr. Lowe made the motion to allow changes to the front porch, change the pitch on it and use a metal standing seam roof, and do the columns in such a manner they could be returned to the way it was originally. There was no second to this motion. Mr. Lowe made the motion to remove the shutters because most of them have come off and have not been there the full fifty years. They are the wrong size and just need to come down. Mr. Holbrook seconded the motion. The Commission voted with Mr. Lowe, Mr. Holbrook, and Ms. King voting in favor of the motion; Mr. Ely, Ms. Stamps, and Mr. Williams voted against the motion and Mr. Cunningham abstained. Tie vote goes to the Commission so this motion was denied. Mr. Propst said he needs to be able to justify spending the money to make improvements to make the structure a single family home instead of a duplex with $400 a month rent. Ms. Stamps said the exterior looks like a single family house; the Commission is not concerned with the inside of the structure. Mr. Propst said he needs to make this house attractive and the porch needs to be made more attractive. Mr. Ely asked about the proposed privacy fence. Mr. Bricker said it would be a wood dog-eared fence that would be six feet in height and painted white. Ms. King made the motion to approve the fence and Mr. Ely seconded the motion. The Commission voted unanimously to approve the motion.427 McClung Avenue – Frank Nola for Daniel & Jennifer SchreederThis application came before the Commission requesting to replace the front porch, center the front door and replace windows located above the French doors, and change the pitch over the flat-roofed west wing of the house. By changing the pitch on the roof, the windows will need to be made smaller. Mr. Cunningham asked if they would meet egress and Mr. Nola said there were other windows on the front and rear of the house which will meet egress. The existing doors will need to be centered. Mr. Nola said Mr. Harvie Jones summed it up well by saying “No. 427 was built in the mid-20th century, apparently without any architectural guidance.” Mr. Lowe said the Commission already approved removing the front porch and replacing with a new design. Mr. Lowe made the motion to approve removing and replacing the front porch, centering the front door, replace windows located above the French doors, and change the pitch over the flat roofed west wing as presented. Ms. King seconded the motion. Mr. Bricker said you are approving changing the front porch of a contributing structure. Ms. Susanna Gwyn said she lives across the street from this house and she applauds this change. In 1994 this house burned and some of the people who lived on the street had hoped the house would burn down because the front of the house was so inappropriate. This house has an I-house design should have a two story porch like the one that is proposed. Mr. Bricker said this porch has been there for a long time and making it look better is inconsistent. Mr. Holbrook said this house is a contributing structure and was constructed in 1972. Mr. Lowe said the Commission has already approved replacing the porch for the previous owners. The Commission voted to approve the motion with the exception of Mr. Ely who voted nay.558 Franklin Street – Marc Goldmon for Chris & John WigintonMr. Goldmon came before the Commission and requested the replacement of windows, remove awnings, add copper roof and copper gutters, remove a door and make a small addition for a closet. Mr. Lowe said the windows are beyond repair. Mr. Ely said all the replacement windows will be clad and the existing windows are wood. A window will be added on a sloped wall which will be a quad bank of casement windows in the kitchen. Where the HVAC duct work is at present will also be a new window added at the butler pantry. The door located on the rear side of the house will be removed and will be bricked in to match the details on the side of the house. This is an enclosed carport where they added a set of stairs in the house. A little further up that same side they will remove two windows and replace them with a new door and sidelights. They also requested replacing two windows on the rear of the house with new windows. All the windows on the rear and sides will be either repaired or replaced. Some of the windows will also have shutters. The addition of the closet will be off of the master bedroom and will replace an existing door. There will be a copper roof added on a portion of the roof and copper gutters will be added. The existing shutters will be repaired and hung back. Mr. Lowe made the motion to approve as presented. He said these repairs are well needed and will save this beautiful old home. Mr. Holbrook seconded the motion. Mr. Bricker said over the last year and a half the Commission has not approved anything besides wood windows, even on secondary elevations. This is inconsistent. Mr. Holbrook said all of these windows are located adjacent to a brick wall or a court yard so it is not visible at all from the street. The Commission voted to approve the motion with the exception of Mr. Ely who voted nay. 1302 Wellman Avenue - Ruairidh CampbellMs. Campbell has owned this house since 1977. When she purchased the house it had lap wood siding and it went into disrepair. The siding and windows have been replaced throughout the years. She has recently been written up by Community Development and had to make some improvements. She replaced the siding with hardiboard. She is under court order to replace the siding before October. She requested painting the siding in the color of Rococo Beige, Swiss Cream for the trim, and Frontier Brown for the door. This house is a non-contributing structure because of the work done on the house before it became part of the district. The double casement window on the west side of the house needs to have the frame repaired.Ms. Campbell added a metal door on the side of the house and would like to add a small porch for a landing. The porch will not project out very far. She said she will also have to add a railing for the steps. It will be a very simple railing out of wood. Mr. Ely said the Commission will need to see a design of the rail and porch before they can make a motion on it. She requested to repair the window frame under a window. She also wants to replace another door because it is rotted at the bottom. It will probably be a metal door because she can’t afford a wood door. Mr. Ely suggested she go by Re-store and see if they have a wood door she could use. The shed in the rear yard is falling in. Her ex-husband would like to erect a garage and remove the shed. The roof has rusted through and she would like to make a new roof for it and paint the shed. Mr. Holbrook said you will probably spend more on the roof than it would cost to replace the shed. She will also replace the doors on the shed with two wood doors. Ms. Stamps said she needs to come back with plans for the side porch. She also suggested she come back with a better plan on how to repair the shed. Ms. Campbell said she needs some guidance on that matter. She would love to build a garage there but does not think it is feasible at this time. Ms. Stamps made the motion to approve the steel door that has already been installed, the paint colors, repair the siding and repair the window frame. Ms. King seconded the motion and the Commission voted to approve the motion with the exception of Mr. Ely who abstained. It was suggested she go by the Inspection Department to get guidance on the shed. Old Business:Mr. Williams made the motion to approve the minutes from the June 12th meeting and Ms. Stamps seconded the motion. The Commission voted unanimously to approve the minutes.New Business:Mr. Ely asked if there were any updates on finding staff. Mr. Cunningham said they are working on finding a replacement and right now it is a contracted position. The appointment will be up to the Mayor. Ms. Stamps said Michelle Jordan and Dennis Madsen are working on the new appointment.The Commission will need to help continue some of the work started by Ms. White. Mr. Holbrook said the guidelines really need to be clarified. Ms. Stamps said they were written very general. The meeting was adjourned at 7:15 p.m.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