Historic Zoning Commission

CITY OF MURFREESBORO HISTORIC ZONING COMMISSION Regular Meeting May 15, 2018 3:30 PM, Council Chambers, City Hall I. Call to Order and determination of a quorum II. Approve Minutes of the Regular Meeting on August 15, 2017 and December 19, 2017 III. New Business • H-18-001 – 1000 East Main Street, Dianne and Chris McVetty – Requesting to replace and center the rear door, replace front door, remove two existing windows and replace with a single window on the rear, repair sidewalk, and remodel front porch IV. Staff Reports and Other Business V. Adjourn City of Murfreesboro Historic Zoning Commission Staff Comments Regular Meeting May 15, 2018 III. New Business: H-17-001 – 1000 East Main Street, Dianne and Chris McVetty – Requesting to replace and center the rear door, replace front door, remove two existing windows and replace with a single window on the rear, repair sidewalk, and remodel front porch This property is located on the southeast corner of East Main Street and First Avenue. The house was constructed circa 1930 in the Bungalow style architecture with a central dormer on the front and is made of brick with a gabled style shingled roof. This house is a contributing structure in the East Main Street Historic District of the National Register of Historic Places. The property in question is located at 1000 East Main Street. The applicants are requesting the following modifications: • Replace front door with a Craftsman Mahogany wood door without sidelights • Replace rear door with a Craftsman Mahogany wood door with prairie grid windows • Remove two windows on the rear and replace it with a single window made of wood or wood composite with prairie grid to match existing windows • Repair the front sidewalk leading to the home • Replace existing wood porch with pressure treated wood decking • Add two ceiling fans to the front porch and replace the ceiling porch light Pictures of the home as it exists today and sketched renderings of the home with the proposed modifications have been provided. Cutsheets of the front and rear door, ceiling fans, and light fixture are included as well. Photographs of the neighboring houses on both sides of the subject property have also been submitted for the Commission’s review. The applicants will be in attendance at the meeting in order to answer any questions the Commission may have regarding the request.  HISTORIC ZONING COMMISSION Regular Meeting August 15, 2017 MEMBERS PRESENT: ABSENT: Jim Thompson, Chairman Paul Cross David Becker, Vice-Chair Rick Cantrell Linda Anderson Debra Belcher Marimae White Jennifer Garland Gib Backlund STAFF PRESENT: Joe Ornelas, AICP Planner David Ives, Assistant City Attorney Brenda Davis, Recording Assistant Chairman Thompson called the meeting to order at 3:30 p.m. Ms. Anderson made a motion to approve the minutes from the July 18, 2017 meeting as submitted. The motion was seconded by Vice-Chair Becker and carried unanimously in favor. New Business: H-17-011 – 701 East Main Street, Central Magnet School, Rutherford County Board of Education (Jeff Hooper representative) – Requesting to add 74 parking spaces. Mr. Ornelas reviewed the application and the Staff comments contained in the HZC agenda package. He said the applicant, Jeff Hooper, was present and available to answer questions. Mr. Jeff Hooper with Barge Cauthen and Associates representing Rutherford County Board of Education came to the podium. Mr. Hooper said Rutherford County Board of Education is requesting an additional 72 parking spaces for Central Magnet School. Mr. Hooper said this is a 3-step process for approval including the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA), Historic Zoning Commission (HZC) and the Planning Commission. He said approval has already been received from the BZA for a Special Use Permit. HZC Minutes August 15, 2017 Mr. Hooper also said Mr. Barkley, a neighbor, contacted him regarding some concerns the neighbors have regarding this request. Some changes to the plans were made such as no “head- on parking” facing University Street so lights wouldn’t shine into the neighboring houses. He said they originally had another access point along University Street but meeting with the neighbors decided to eliminate that access and widen the existing access instead. Mr. Hooper said there has been communication with the neighbors regarding this project. Ms. Anderson asked if the proposed parking plan will meet the City regulations for parking. Mr. Hooper said yes adding they will go through the Planning Commission for approval. He said the Planning Commission process will determine the landscaping and size of parking spaces. Mr. Backlund asked if accessible parking spaces were shown on the drawing. Mr. Hooper said yes, the accessible parking spaces are not in this proposed addition stating they are located adjacent to the building. Mr. Backlund asked what plants are proposed for the landscaping. Mr. Hooper said some red sunset maples and eastern redbuds. He said the landscaping will meet the City’s Landscaping Ordinance for parking lots which will be reviewed by the Planning Commission. Mr. Backlund asked what is required in the City’s Landscaping Ordinance. Mr. Hooper said he would have to review the ordinance but believes shrubs would be required for perimeter landscape screening. Mr. Backlund asked what type of material will be used for the surface of the parking spaces. Mr. Hooper said the parking spaces are proposed to be asphalt. Mr. Backlund asked if pervious pavement was considered. Mr. Hooper said yes. He said once the construction documents were obtained, they would price the pervious pavement. Mr. Backlund asked if pervious pavement was priced higher than asphalt. Mr. Hooper said yes. Mr. Backlund asked if the higher price would prevent them from using the pervious pavement. 2 HZC Minutes August 15, 2017 Mr. Hooper said not necessarily as the School Board would have to evaluate all pricing before making a decision. Ms. White asked if the big maple tree would be staying. Chairman Thompson said he was afraid the tree would be removed but after driving by realized the tree was splitting and on the verge of dying. He expressed no interest in keeping that particular tree now. Mr. Hooper verified the 40-inch maple tree would be removed as it is not in good health. Chairman Thompson expressed using something besides redbuds as they mature at a relatively low height and require a lot of work to cut the dead out. He recommended using another type, native tree besides the redbud. Mr. Hooper said they are happy to accommodate other species as part of the Planning Commission process. He said they will hire a Landscape Architect to provide a landscape plan for submittal to the City. Chairman Thompson asked if they were talking more about generalities today instead of specifics. Mr. Hooper said he was instructed to present this application to the BZA, HZC, and the Planning Commission for approval. He said they will present a full planting schedule to the Planning Commission for landscaping approval. Mr. Hooper added the landscape plan has not been developed yet. Chairman Thompson verified the HZC only looks at the hardscape and not the landscape. Mr. Hooper said that was also his understanding. Mr. Ives agreed the HZC is only looking at the hardscape today. Vice-Chair Becker suggested Mr. Hooper check with Ms. Holloway in the City Urban Environmental Department for references on landscaping. Mr. Ives said the formal site plan submittal to the Planning Commission will contain a page for the landscaping plan. He said the landscaping plan will be reviewed by both the Planning and Urban Environmental Departments with suggestions. Ms. Anderson asked if there were any other trees being removed. 3 HZC Minutes August 15, 2017 Mr. Hooper said they are planning to take out a total of 4 trees which include one 40-inch maple, two hackberries and one 10-inch oak. He said the 10-inch oak tree is being removed so the access road can be widened. Mr. Backlund asked if the rest of the parking lot would be restriped or landscaped in addition to this request. Mr. Hooper said there are already existing trees in the landscape islands and is not aware of any additional landscaping to be added. Mr. Backlund suggested the existing parking spaced be restriped as the parking lot is not well organized. A representative from Central Magnet School came to the podium and said part of the problem is not enough parking so they park wherever. He said this will help organize the parking and get the cars where they need to be. Chairman Thompson asked if there was a Masterplan for parking. The school representative said this should take care of all the parking for the school needs. Mr. Backlund verified the school became a high school just a few years ago. The school representative said yes, about 3-4 years ago, stating parking wasn’t a problem then but they added classes that went from sophomore to juniors to seniors. Mr. Backlund agreed that high school students have cars. Mr. Hooper pointed out, per Code, parking requirements are based on seats in the auditorium or the number of classrooms. He said the requirements are one space for every five seats in the auditorium. He said there are 750 seats so that requires 150 parking spaces or five spaces per classroom. Mr. Hooper said there are 75 classrooms so it needs 375 parking spaces. He said there are currently 302 parking spaces, so adding these 72 will get them up to Code’s minimum requirements. Mr. Robert Barkley at 215 North University Street came to the podium. He said at first he was against the project and so were the neighbors. Mr. Barkley said after meeting with Mr. Hooper, the plans were modified and now accepts the parking as designed. He said to get up to Codes in terms of the number of parking spaces is a good resolution. Mr. Barkley said another concern was curb appeal stating there are good examples of landscaping and very examples of landscaping in the neighborhood. He said the Wal-Mart parking area is a bad example and they 4 HZC Minutes August 15, 2017 do not want that type of parking lot. Mr. Barkley said the additional parking would probably take up to one-half and two-thirds of the greenspace between the street and existing parking. Mr. Barkley was concerned when they come up with landscaping, they will only meet the minimum requirements per Codes. He said barely in Codes does not handle the curb appeal. He said now they can accept the plan, contingent on the landscaping. Mr. Backlund made a motion to approve a request for Central Magnet School located at 701 East Main Street to add 74 parking spaces. The motion was seconded by Ms. Belcher and carried unanimously in favor. Staff Reports and Other Business None Mr. Backlund made a motion to adjourn. The motion was seconded by Ms. Anderson and carried unanimously in favor. The meeting adjourned at 3:58 P.M. _____________________________________ ____________________________________ CHAIRMAN SECRETARY 5  HISTORIC ZONING COMMISSION Regular Meeting December 19, 2017 MEMBERS PRESENT: ABSENT: David Becker, Vice-Chair Marima White Linda Anderson Jim Thompson Gib Backlund Debra Belcher Marimae White Jennifer Garland Bill Jakes STAFF PRESENT: Robert Lewis, Planner David Ives, Assistant City Attorney Brenda Davis, Recording Assistant Vice-Chair Becker called the meeting to order at 3:30 p.m. Vice-Chair Becker thanked Mr. Paul Cross for his years of service on the Historic Zoning Commission. He introduced Mr. Bill Jakes as his replacement effective at today’s meeting. Mr. Jakes thanked Vice-Chair Becker and the Commission for the opportunity to service on the Historic Zoning Commission. He told a little about himself stating he lives close to the Historic Zoning District and owns property within the District. Mr. Jakes said he is a big fan of the local architecture and history adding that is what drew him to the downtown area. He is a local realtor that sells and works in this area. He has remodeled several homes and feels he brings a nice cross-section of experience to this Commission. Mr. Jakes expressed appreciation for welcoming him. New Business: H-17-012 – 443 East Main Street, Dena Young – Requesting to add an addition to the rear of the home, replace fence Mr. Lewis reviewed the application and the Staff comments contained in the HZC agenda package. The applicant was present to answer any questions. HZC Minutes December 19, 2017 Ms. Dena Young, the applicant, came to the podium and said it is a pleasure to live in this house. She described some of the inside of the house but referred to the outside of the house for this Commission. She said she needs a fence to keep the dogs in but wants the fence to be appropriate to the 1910 era. Ms. Young was excited about the garage proposal as it is an original fixture. She said plans are to remove the lean-to that is currently on the garage, resurface the outside of the garage, add a cupola on the top, and add a wooden garage door. She said after all the changes are made, the garage should look appropriate to the period. Ms. Young said they will replace the carport in the back of the house but that will not be seen from the road. Her goal is to keep it as close to the way it was built, in spirit, as possible. She started refinishing the windows and the front doors in the summer. She said the wood on the door and windows were different but she matched the paint on the window to the doors. Eventually, she will have all the windows on the main floor done but someone else will have to do the second floor. She said when she removed the paint from the windows, there was dark paint on the woodwork originally. She feels like she is headed in the right direction for the restoration. Ms. Anderson expressed confusion regarding the addition on the back asking if it is all glass. Ms. Young said it was originally stucco siding. She said there is a back porch currently on the house that is in a very bad state of repair and needs to come off regardless because it is not safe. She said there was no laundry or utility room downstairs so they wanted to add a room on the back for storage and a breakfast room. Ms. Young said there is a little stairway going down to the ground which will enter the carport. She said plans are to install windows with the diamond pains in it to replicate what is on the rest of the house. Ms. Anderson verified that all the open things she sees under the arches are going to remain open. Ms. Young said yes. Ms. Anderson asked if Ms. Young would be able to match the block brick of the house. Ms. Young said stucco is on the breezeway and will match to similar color and texture to the original. Mr. Cantrell asked if the shed on the back of the house was added to the house. Ms. Young said yes, the shed is not part of the original garage. Mr. Cantrell asked if the whole addition is visible from the street or just the detached garage. Ms. Young said there will be a very small part of the carport visible from the street but the addition will be behind the house. 2 HZC Minutes December 19, 2017 Mr. Lewis said it looks like most of the sides of the carport will be visible from the street but only a small portion of the addition will be visible. Ms. Young plans to plant shrubbery to soften it. She said there is already a gigantic dogwood tree in the area. Mr. Cantrell said the reason he was inquiring to see if it would be required to come before the HZC since Staff determines whether it is visible from the street or not. There was discussion between Mr. Lewis, Mr. Cantrell, and Ms. Young about the landscaping currently in place and how much, if any of the back can be seen from the street. It was determined from reviewing the photos the back would be difficult to see from the street. Ms. Young said she has no objection to planting more trees or landscaping. Mr. Backlund said to think of something being visible from the street, you don’t think about landscaping as it is temporary. He said just because there is landscaping there now does not mean it would not be visible from the street at some point in the future. He said you should think about what could be visible from the street without landscaping and without the fence you are requesting to add. Mr. Backlund referred to the cupola on the new garage and asked if that is something Ms. Young wanted to add or is it already there. Ms. Young said the cupola is not there currently. Mr. Backlund referred to the Guidelines referring to roof shapes which states: roofs should be visually compatible by not contrasting greatly with roof-shape materials orientation of surrounding buildings. He questioned whether a cupola is a feature that is necessary. Ms. Young said a cupola is not on her priority list. Ms. Anderson agreed with Mr. Backlund that the cupola is not with the style of the house. Mr. Cantrell said the garage was added sometime later. Ms. Young agreed stating the garage is framed in with 2 X 4’s so it does have some age. Mr. Cantrell asked Vice-Chair Becker if other motions were needed for the (1) garage and (2) addition and carport. Ms. Anderson asked if the Commission needed to discuss what Ms. Young plans to do at the front of the house with the new curving and concrete slab for the HVAC (air conditioning unit). 3 HZC Minutes December 19, 2017 Vice-Chair Becker verified the HVAC units are currently there. Ms. Young said yes. Ms. Anderson said she didn’t see that when she first looked at the pictures. Mr. Lewis said they are just planning to add a new flagstone walk to the driveway. Ms. Anderson verified a new step down was also needed. Ms. Young said yes as there is a large step-up onto the circular potion of the porch. Vice-Chair Becker asked if the out building to the west of the current garage would be removed. Ms. Young said there are two out buildings stating one is a portable shed that came from some place like Home Depot. She said next to it is another kind of a ramshackle shed that probably would be taken down. She would like to move the Home Depot type shed over to the west of the fenced area where it would be behind the trees and not visible. Mr. Cantrell made a motion to approve the request for an addition and carport at 443 East Main Street. The motion was seconded by Ms. Belcher and carried unanimously in favor. Ms. Anderson made a motion to approve the request to remodel of the garage without a cupola and no objections to new wooden doors at 443 East Main Street. The motion was seconded by Ms. Belcher. Mr. Backlund said samples of material was mentioned in the agenda so he asked if Ms. Young had samples to show. He said they weren’t described in the narrative. Ms. Young said no. Mr. Backlund wanted to make sure the materials would be appropriate for the historic district. Ms. Young said the materials they plan to use are shown in the pictures. She said the doors will be typical-kind of the carriage house look. Vice-Chair Becker said the agenda mentions the garage will be a stucco finish. The motion carried unanimously in favor. Ms. Anderson asked if there was a fence currently in place. 4 HZC Minutes December 19, 2017 Ms. Young said there is a privacy fence on the right-hand side which has pretty much fallen. She said there is also a chain-link fence going back to the left-hand corner on the back of the property. Ms. Anderson asked if the chain-link fence would be torn down. Ms. Young said if it is in good shape, she would like to keep the chain-link fence in place. She said the privacy fence will go. Mr. Jakes asked if there were any new areas fenced where fencing is not currently located. Ms. Young said there will be a fence across the driveway. The fence will connect with the neighbor’s fence at the property line. Mr. Jakes asked if a gate would be installed. Ms. Young said yes. Mr. Jakes asked if there would be an opening mechanism. Ms. Young said probably, yes. She said she was hoping to put a section of fence in front of the HVAC units. Mr. Jakes agreed saying a fence could screen some of those items. Mr. Jakes verified the neighbor, Ms. Barbara Deaton’s fence is just north of the front of their home. Ms. Young said yes stating the fence kind of goes back to the rear. A picture was pulled up to show the layout of the neighbor’s fence. Ms. Young didn’t think it would look good to bring their fence any closer to the road than the neighbor’s fence. Mr. Jakes agreed that is a good choice. Mr. Lewis asked if the proposed gate will be taller than the fence or the same height. Ms. Young said she hasn’t talked to the gate people yet but was thinking it would be about the same height. She said there might be a small arch but it won’t be significantly taller. Mr. Lewis confirmed the gate will be of the same style as the fence. Ms. Young said yes. 5 HZC Minutes December 19, 2017 Mr. Jakes asked if the same style of fence would be used in the back part of the property. Ms. Young said yes. Mr. Lewis verified the doors to the garage will be wooden. Ms. Young said she does not know what material they will be but they will look like wood. Mr. Lewis asked if the garage doors will have the arched area as shown in the picture. Ms. Young said yes. Mr. Lewis asked the Commission if they were ok with something other than wood for the garage doors or were you expecting metal doors. Ms. Anderson said she was assuming the garage doors would be wooden doors stating the Commission has had this discussion for other homes, trying to keep with the period. Mr. Backlund said the wood material is appropriate to the time-period is appropriate. He said the Commission has looked at other material but agreed that aluminum would not work. Mr. Jakes added the existing doors are aluminum and not attractive. He was not sure how a wooden door would be as it might have to be composite. He said a solid wooden garage door could be a difficult thing to accomplish, but understand the intent. Vice-Chair Becker said the Commission has approved other material for garage doors. Ms. Young said the garage door will look as if it were wood from the street. She said it will not be brass or shiny aluminum. Vice-Chair Becker suggested Ms. Young check with the neighbors across the street and see what material their garage has as it has a similar look to what Ms. Young currently has. Ms. Young agreed to check. Ms. Belcher made a motion to approve the request to replace the fence at 443 East Main Street as proposed. The motion was seconded by Ms. Garland and carried unanimously in favor. 6 HZC Minutes December 19, 2017 Application H-17-013 – 449 East College Street, Mary Baughman – Requesting to demolish an existing home. Mr. Lewis reviewed the application and the Staff comments contained in the HZC agenda package. The applicant was present to answer any questions. Ms. Mary Baughman came to the podium and said her current home is only four houses away from the subject property. She said this block in Murfreesboro has everything from very modern to very old. Ms. Baughman likes Murfreesboro and the downtown so when she bought this at auction she was planning to rehab the house even though there had been a fire in the attic. She said her current home had a fire in the attic and she took care of that. She said someone needs to start fixing up this block. Ms. Baughman said there are discrepancies in the age of the house stating the auctioneer said the house was built in 1920, when she closed on the house, it said it was built in 1978. She said after reviewing all the old deeds from the beginning of the property when reflected an addition to the house sometime in 1870. She said it has been butchered up, added to, probably had an outhouse septic tank and that sort of thing. Ms. Baughman said the bathroom that was added was originally part of a side porch. She found out all of this information after she bought it at the auction. When she took the tin siding off the foundation, she found an assortment of concrete blocks and rocks stating it really doesn’t have a good foundation. Ms. Baughman said to address the roof, she didn’t want to do it and then go back and do the foundation and pull everything loose again. She said two corners of the house have dropped considerably. Ms. Baughman said she has had half a dozen different people look at the house and give her estimates on possible repairs. She said Mr. Randy Williams has previously built things for her in the downtown area including the house at the corner of Maney Avenue and Burton Street. She said the build fits the area quite nicely and looks like it belongs there. She asked the Commission to demolish the subject house because the different people (contractors, builders, etc.) that have viewed the property and it will cost her more to rehab this house rather than build a brand-new house. Ms. Baughman said if she is not allowed to demolish the house, she will end up with an old house that will cost her a lot more money as the house in its current state has no insulation, needs to be electrically rewired, needs new plumbing, and just about everything needs to be replaced. She said the house is in extremely bad shape and the more she looked at it, the worse it was. Ms. Baughman said since there is such a diversity in that one block, she feels this would be a good investment to tear the house down and build something that will fit the neighborhood. Her contractor, Randy Williams has several plans for a new house and if the Commission allows demolition, she can come back to the Commission for new plan approval. She said the house as it is now is not safe. She passed around a demolition estimate and three other contractors that advised her to tear the house down. Vice-Chair Becker asked if the bids on the back of the business cards Ms. Baughman passed out were bids to refurbish. 7 HZC Minutes December 19, 2017 Ms. Baughman said these contractors did not want to do it but didn’t think it could be done for less than what is on the business cards. She pointed out one fellow said he would do it for $140,000 but considering what everybody else has said she would want to check out anything he has done first. She was familiar with all the other contractor’s work and they are reliable. She commented again that Randy Williams has done work for her in the historic district including the house she currently lives in along with work in the downtown area. She said to rebuild at this location will cost about the same or less than it would to rebuild what is currently existing. Mr. Cantrell referred to the other Commission Members stating Ms. Baughman is making this request based on economic hardship. He referred to the suggested guidelines for economic hardship located in the Rules of Procedure, pages 6 and 7. Mr. Cantrell asked if anyone from Building and Codes has looked at the house. Mr. Lewis said an Inspector from Building and Codes went with him to the house and said the house is not to the point of being uninhabitable but it doesn’t meet Codes. Mr. Randy Williams came to the podium and said the house has the original knob and tube wiring. He said half of those wires are still active and haven’t been replaced. The whole roof system needs to come down and not because the 2 X 4’s are over spanned but it has four layers of roofing on it including the original cedar back shingles. He said the fire ate through the 2 X 4’s to the point where they are no longer holding the roof. Mr. Williams said they have braces underneath trying to brace it in place. If those braces for some reason were to fall a strong wind could pull the roof down as the braces are improper and not for use as load bearing walls. Mr. Williams also referred to the crawl space only a foot under the house so there is not anyway to get under there to shore it up. He broke everything down step-by-step and line item by line item showing what it would take even to the point they would need to cut holes in the floor to get under it to run plumbing and do everything needed. He said the only thing that is salvageable on this house would be the outside wall on the front. The foundation has failed on the right-hand side of the house to the point where you have 3-inches of fall from the entry door to the right- hand corner of the home. He said that section would have to be lifted and the only way to do that would be to dig down, put in a new footer, lift the house up, put in a new foundation, and set it back down. Mr. Williams said they could have James and Associates draw the same façade on the house and put it in there. He said the house is wider than current setbacks as there are 15- foot setbacks on a 55-foot lot so that limits them to a 35-foot wide home. He has come up with several plans that would fit in the neighborhood. Mr. Williams said there is a good salvageable exterior door to the bathroom that is inside the house and could be used on the front of the house. He said there are also a couple of good mantles that could be saved. Other than that, those are the only historic things salvageable on this house. Mr. Cantrell said he was really trying to make some determination of what is in the guidelines with the other Commission Members if there was another party that went into the home and 8 HZC Minutes December 19, 2017 made an evaluation. Mr. Cantrell said Mr. Lewis was answering that question about Building and Codes stating the house is habitable but it is not bad enough to be condemned. Vice-Chair Becker said if it doesn’t meet any codes, it is hard to believe who would want to live in it to begin with. Mr. Ives said the wrong word was being used and should reflect it does not meet the criteria that Building and Codes would try to condemn it but certainly it is not inhabitable in its current condition. Mr. Cantrell phrased it in a different way stating when Building and Codes went out to the house and they were to take out a building permit to do some remodeling then Building and Codes would expect the homeowners to bring it up to today’s codes standards for electrical, plumbing, structural in the items that Mr. Williams went over. Mr. Cantrell asked if that would be the case. Mr. Lewis said yes, that would be correct. Mr. Cantrell said he has dealt with a similar situation stating you might get one room satisfied to codes standards but not the whole structure. He said in this case there doesn’t appear there is any part of it that could be remodeled and get a Certificate of Occupancy (CO). The guidelines refer to obtaining a Certificate of Appropriateness but to get that you must have a Certificate of Occupancy. Mr. Cantrell said there is a qualified person from Building and Codes that is certified and has gone into the house, observed it and determined it does not meet Codes to date. He said to get a building permit, they need a Certificate of Occupancy so the house would have to meet that criteria for wiring, safety, the roof supports would need to be taken down because it is not structurally competent to handle the roofing system. Vice-Chair Becker referred to the picture of the roof stating it looks rather shocking the way it is now. Mr. Cantrell said they “may” consider any or all of these things and doesn’t say “shall” consider. He continued to review the guidelines and said #3 asked about the estimated market value of the property in its current condition. He said they don’t have a report from an appraiser or anyone to that effect but they do have the tax records which reads today’s market appraisal value is $70,000. Mr. Cantrell said sometimes these records are incorrect and doesn’t know the last time it was reviewed by the property assessor’s office nor have they asked what she paid for the property or had an appraisal done. Mr. Cantrell asked Ms. Baughman if she had an appraisal done on the property. Ms. Baughman said no, she just bought it at auction and has $103,000 into it. She said by the time she got the 10% it was $99,000. 9 HZC Minutes December 19, 2017 Mr. Cantrell verified Ms. Baughman paid $99,000 and then paid 10% on top of that. Ms. Baughman said she paid $90,000 plus 10% and then the rest is closing costs. Mr. Cantrell verified that Ms. Baughman paid $99,000 for the house and lot. Ms. Baughman said yes. Mr. Backlund asked Mr. Cantrell if he was referring to the “Guidelines for Alterations, Additions, Demolitions and Removals”. Mr. Lewis said Mr. Cantrell was referring to the “Rules of Procedures”. Mr. Backlund referred to page 13 in the “Guidelines for Alterations, Additions, Demolitions and Removals” stating there is a section for demolitions. Mr. Backlund asked if this house was a contributing structure to the Historic District. Mr. Lewis said when the list was done back in 1985, it was a contributing structure and it still is a contributing structure. Mr. Backlund said it is a contributing structure and adds to the historic nature of the District. He said anytime they remove a historic structure, the Historic District loses a little bit. Mr. Backlund understands and said he bought a house in 2002 and has spent more on fixing it than he spent to buy it. He said that continues because somebody is working in there today. He added that is the nature of a historic building stating they cost money to maintain. Mr. Backlund said if you look around the downtown area now you will see a lot of work going on. He said the return on investment may be improving right now. Mr. Backlund wanted to make a point about demolition stating in the Historic Guidelines, General Principals reads as follows: “The purpose of the historic zoning is to protect historic properties. The demolition of a building which contributes historically or architecturally to the character, and significance of the District is inappropriate and should be avoided.” He went on to say if it is not, then economic demolition is appropriate when it has lost its architectural and historical integrity or when it does not contribute. Mr. Backlund said the subject house does contribute to the historic nature of the district. He said another reason for allowing it to be torn down would be that the denial of the demolition would result in an economic hardship on the applicant. Mr. Backlund said those are the guidelines the Commission should look at regarding demolishing a building as opposed to whether it meets any Codes. He said whether it does or does not meet Codes is not relevant because there are a lot of houses on College Street that don’t meet Code. 10 HZC Minutes December 19, 2017 Mr. Cantrell said he was trying to determine if it were an economic hardship according to the Rules of Procedure. Mr. Backlund said there are three estimates for repairing the house adding the figures are all over the map stating the lowest estimate is $140,000. Mr. Williams came to the podium and said his estimate was $203,000 to rehab the whole house. He went into detail explaining everything that needed to be done to the house. Mr. Backlund said the Commission is only interested in the exterior appearance of the house. He said another option the Commission would allow is an addition onto the rear of the house if room allowed. Mr. Backlund said research showed that property values are usually higher if the houses are in a historic district or may see value added since it is a historic building. Mr. Cantrell asked if the subject house was single-family residential. Mr. Lewis said yes. Mr. Cantrell asked what the current zoning is. Mr. Lewis said it is single-family residential, either RS-8 or RS-10. Mr. Williams said Ms. Baughman will have a little over $300,000 by the time it is completed for 1,052 square feet. He said that would equal $300 per square foot. He asked what the houses are selling for per square foot in this area. Mr. Jakes said they haven’t topped $175 per square foot in the area. Mr. Williams pointed out that Ms. Baughman would have twice the amount per square footage in this home if she had to rehab it instead of tearing it down. Mr. Jakes made the Commission aware that neither driveway on either side of this structure belong to this house. He said the driveway on the right goes with the home on the right and the driveway on the left goes with the home on the left. He said street parking is the only option for this home. Mr. Jakes said from a historic neighborhood perspective, that is fine but from the use and the functionality of this building moving forward you are looking at street parking for the life of this structure. He said that is the only option unless somebody comes in and buys the other lots and somehow ties these together. Mr. Jakes said that is hurting this property, moving forward, because it doesn’t contribute to modern needs. Ms. Baughman said as an end-result she could just leave it as it is with property value going up and eventually get her money back plus more. She emphasized again how much she wants to 11 HZC Minutes December 19, 2017 fix-up that block. Ms. Baughman said the house next door is in worst shape then her house and she may want to come back and do that one too. Mr. Backlund said the house not having a driveway does not change the historical nature of the house. He said the questions before the Commission today are: Is it a historic structure? Is it worth saving? Is it an economic hardship? If it is not an economic hardship, is that an appropriate reason to demolish it? Mr. Backlund suggested the long-term future of downtown is the rise in property values. Ms. Baughman said in a couple of months she will be 90 years old and will need to downsize. She said this house would be a great downsizer for her and she would be in the same neighborhood with her granddaughters behind her, Steve, her son, is just around the corner, her granddaughter’s mother-in-law lives right behind where she currently lives and she would have a nice, big house for sale and it has already been fixed up. Ms. Anderson referred to page 14 of the Guidelines which states: “1. A building has lost its architectural and historical integrity and importance and its removal will not result in a more negative, less appropriate visual effect on the District.” She said this is the item that draws her attention for this property as it has lost its historical appropriateness because it has been let-go so long. She wishes there was some way they could keep that from happening in the historic neighborhood so the landlords don’t get away with no repair and no maintenance. She feels that is what has happened and this is what draws her attention to what the Commission is going to do about this. In response to that, Mr. Backlund said look at The Oakland Mansion in 1950 compared to today. He said an old building can fall into disrepair and can be brought back. He feels the clear argument for demolition is the one regarding economic hardship. Mr. Backlund said the way it looks now after taking the asphalt siding off, he thinks the possibilities are amazing. He thinks it could be repaired, could be brought back, be a beautiful house, and restore its historic integrity. Mr. Backlund said he does not think the statement Ms. Anderson referred to would be a good argument for demolition. Ms. Anderson said ok. Mr. Cantrell asked what was the exterior material. Mr. Lewis said wood clap-board. 12 HZC Minutes December 19, 2017 Vice-Chair Becker said he walked around the house a couple of times and he understands where Mr. Backlund is coming from but he also sees a situation that almost seems hopeless. He asked Mr. Backlund if the design of the new home was very like this current home would that not keep the appropriateness. Mr. Backlund said it would not have any historic integrity. He said a new house would not be contributing to the historic nature of the district. He said it would be a new house in a historic district. Mr. Backlund was not saying he would not tear it down, but feels the possibilities are quite incredible. Vice-Chair Becker said on the southside of the 300 block of East College there was a fire and that structure was much worse than this home. He said there was a house built there to fit the period in the neighborhood. Mr. Cantrell asked when that house was built. Vice-Chair Becker guessed approximately 15 years ago. His point was that the Commission approved of the style of the home, the material and everything that was used and it has fit very well into the neighborhood. Mr. Backlund wasn’t arguing that you can’t not do that and not saying don’t take a vote on it as the Commission will have to vote on it. He said he is fine with whatever the Commission decides. He was just suggesting it is a historic house and when you remove a historic building from a historic district you will gradually diminish the historic nature of the district. Ultimately, it could lead to the loss of the historic district. Ms. Anderson feels that what Mr. Backlund has said is very important because if the Commission starts something like this where does that lead the Commission on letting someone demolish a home. Mr. Williams said they plan to come back to the Commission for recommendations and approval for new house plans. Mr. Lewis informed the Commission to do the demolition, they must go thru the steps of considering the hardship for the District to be safe. He said if somebody comes in and decides we were just demolishing house-by-house by-house with no respect for the District, then they would stand a chance of losing the District. Mr. Lewis said if they go thru the steps, it would influence keeping the District like it is even if they do decide to demolish this house. He said they are going thru pains taking decisions on this so that needs to be considered when the Commission does this, whatever they do. 13 HZC Minutes December 19, 2017 Vice-Chair Becker added that other than three homes on the far west side of the 300 block of East College, the rest of it has been rental property that have not had any money put back into any of these homes. He said this area is a detriment to the Historic District, in his opinion. Mr. Cantrell referred to the estimate presented by Mr. Williams and asked how much of the wood exterior would be salvageable. Mr. Williams said there are nails in the 2 X 4 oak and the problem is getting them out. He feels a percentage of it would be salvageable. He said the house was finished in clapboard. Vice-Chair Becker added the asphalt or asbestos (whatever was on the outside of the house) was nailed into the clapboard. Ms. Garland agreed with the direction Ms. Anderson was headed, dissecting the Appropriateness of Demolition. Now Ms. Garland is asking herself is it appropriate. She said the intent of the Historic Zoning Commission is to preserve so they continue to go back and look at every effort to preserve, where possible. She asked herself, based on these criteria: • Has the house lost its architectural integrity? She said it probably has lost some integrity because it is so run-down. • Has the house lost its historical integrity? She said probably not so much as it is a historical home that has been there and has a lot of history. Ms. Garland said it still has and holds that integrity so there is a little bit of a battle in and of itself. Ms. Garland said this is challenging as she would like the applicant to be able to build a home that is suitable. She said even though it is expensive and challenging, what is the overall intent and precedent the Historic Zoning Commission needs to set. Ms. Garland expressed she didn’t have a direction adding it is a tough situation. She admired the applicant for wanting to improve the block but the Commission needs to determine what precedent they want to set, moving forward. Mr. Jakes made a motion to approve the request to demolish an existing home located at 449 East College Street subject to the applicant coming back before the Historic Zoning Commission to obtain approval for new structure building materials. The motion was seconded by Mr. Cantrell. Mr. Cantrell feels the application qualifies as an economic hardship but is challenged as it is a historic structure and whether it still has that contribution to the Historic District. Mr. Backlund said he thinks the only reason for demolishing the house is because of the economic hardship. He feels the integrity is still there and visually it could be a tremendous addition. He said whether someone rents the property or owns it makes no difference in terms of 14 HZC Minutes December 19, 2017 its historicity stating that is just how people occupy houses. He said there is an opportunity on that whole block to bring back the block. Mr. Backlund predicted within the next 20 years much of downtown will come back and this street could be a catalyst along with some of the landowners around who are fixing up houses all over the place. He was not opposed to the house being demolished but asked the applicant to set on it for a couple of weeks to see what happens. Ms. Belcher asked for a re-reading of the motion. She understood the motion to demolish was based on approval of what was going to placed there. Mr. Jakes said he did not intend for the motion to be based on any further approval, only that any future plans would be subject to the Commission’s approval. Ms. Belcher asked for a re-reading again. Ms. Davis read the motion as follows: Mr. Jakes made a motion to approve the request to demolish an existing home located at 449 East College Street subject to the applicant coming back before the Historic Zoning Commission to obtain approval for new structure building materials. Ms. Belcher questioned the part of the motion that read “subject to the applicant coming back”. She said the way that is phrased, her understanding is the applicant couldn’t demolish it subject to it coming back with proposal that the Commission would see what would be placed there before the Commission gave permission to demolish. Mr. Jakes said that was not his intent so he rephrased the motion stating the applicant would have to come back before this Commission to approve any future structure. He said that goes without saying and is not necessarily in the motion. Mr. Backlund said that would be a requirement in the District anyway so that would have to happen anyway. Ms. Belcher verified that Mr. Jakes intent was to not be able to approve what was going to be replacing prior to demolition. Mr. Jakes said no. Ms. Belcher said she just needed a correction. Mr. Jakes said this building is typical of 1880’s and 1890’s in downtown Murfreesboro. He said it was built on piers, the tiles in the fireplace are Victorian in style adding this is just a very common home from that era. He said it has been his experience, when you start tearing into 15 HZC Minutes December 19, 2017 these especially the ones that have been neglected, you will continue to find issues. He said they haven’t even found out what the termite damage is yet. Mr. Jakes said all the structural issues, the fact that 50% of this house would have to be torn off and rebuilt, combined with the fact that there is no driveway, doesn’t meet the functional needs of today’s homeowner or renter leads him to want to make the motion to allow the applicant to demolish this structure. The motion carried in favor, 6 for and 1 against the demolition. Ms. Belcher voted against the motion. Ms. Baughman thanked the Commission for their consideration. Staff Reports and Other Business Mr. Lewis asked the Historic Zoning Commission to approve the 2018 HZC calendar. Mr. Cantrell made a motion to approve the 2018 Historic Zoning Commission calendar. The motion was seconded by Ms. Belcher and carried unanimously in favor. The meeting adjourned at 5:00 P.M. _____________________________________ ____________________________________ CHAIRMAN SECRETARY 16