Historic Zoning Commission

Regular Meeting Minutes of the Historic Zoning Commission March 19, 2019 MEMBERS PRESENT: ABSENT: Jim Thompson, Chairman Jennifer Garland David Becker, Vice-Chair Marimae White Gib Backlund Bill Jakes Linda Anderson Rick Cantrell Debra Belcher STAFF PRESENT: Dianna Tomlin, Principal Planner Brenda Davis, Recording Assistant David Ives, Assistant Attorney Chairman Thompson called the meeting to order at 3:30 p.m. Vice-Chair Becker made a motion to approve the February 19, 2019 minutes. The motion was seconded by Ms. Anderson and carried unanimously in favor. New Business: H-19-003 – 451 East College Street – Ann Chaffin and Stephen Todd request to demolish the house. Ms. Tomlin reviewed the application and the Staff comments contained in the HZC agenda package. The applicants were present to answer any questions. Mr. Stephen Todd at 1723 Waterford Road came to the podium and said he and his sister, Ms. Ann Todd Chaffin inherited this property. Their grandfather bought the property in 1945. The property has been used as rental property until their mother passed away. After their mother passed away, Mr. Todd did not rent the house anymore because it was in poor shape. The house is located on a portion of College that is mostly rental property. Mr. Todd said the house was built in 1920. He had a Structural Engineer look at the house, that issued a 2-page summary of the findings. He shared the report with the Commission. HZC Minutes March 19, 2019 Mr. Todd said when the front porch fell in, the back-side of the porch on the house was starting to cave-in and it became a hazard. At that time, Mr. Todd filed a demolition permit with the City to take the front porch roof off. He said they have been contacted by several people wanting to purchase the property. Mr. Todd said everyone that made offers wanted to replace the house. Ms. Ann Chaffin, Mr. Todd’s sister came to the podium. She lives at 1521 Glendale Drive located in Pulaski, Tennessee. Mr. Todd held off on rebuilding the porch because they were hoping to sell it. He said the siding on the house needed to be replaced instead of repaired as the wood behind the siding was bad. The Engineer’s report indicated the house foundation is bad and was not properly built. The roof structure is not good, so neither the roof or foundation currently meet code. According to the report, the foundation would need to be totally redone, tearing out the flooring and the walls. Mr. Todd said the house is dilapidated and there is not anything with the house that could be saved. He said their desire is to tear the house down and sell the property. Ms. Anderson asked how long the house has been vacant. Ms. Chaffin said about 15 years. Ms. Anderson asked if potential buyers know this house is located in the Historic District. Mr. Todd said yes. Ms. Chaffin said one of the people interested in purchasing this property owns the property next door. The previous owner, Ms. Baughman at 449 East College was granted permission, by this Commission, to demolish that house about a year ago. The new owner, Mr. Jennings, thought about purchasing both properties and combining the lots. Ms. Chaffin said their property has a driveway and the property next door does not. Mr. Todd said there is a 6-foot easement on their driveway to allow the property at 449 East College to use. Ms. Anderson asked who bought the property from Ms. Baughman. Ms. Chaffin said Thomas Holding Jennings, III. Mr. Cantrell referred to the Garner Engineering Report and asked if anyone from the City Building and Codes Department has reviewed the Garner Report. Mr. Todd said no, not to his knowledge. He said the Codes Department knows some of what is going on at the property, but not everything. 2 HZC Minutes March 19, 2019 Ms. Tomlin said there is not an official statement from the Building and Codes Department as they have not reviewed this for the Historic Zoning Commission. Chairman Thompson asked Ms. Tomlin to show photos of the house. Ms. Chaffin said before they applied for a permit to destroy the porch, they received a letter from the Building and Codes Department requesting they tear the porch down. Mr. Todd said the Building and Codes Department sent the letter before he knew the porch had fallen-in. He said if he had noticed the porch fallen-in, he would have proceeded and touched base with the City. Chairman Thompson said it was a life / safety issue and that is why the City sent the letter, to protect the public. Mr. Cantrell said the City Building and Codes determined the porch was not salvageable via the letter. Ms. Chaffin agreed. Mr. Cantrell wanted to know the timeframe a person has to demolish a property that has been approved by the Historic Zoning Commission before they need to come back for reapproval. Chairman Thompson said there is a six-month timeframe. Mr. Cantrell said Ms. Baughman’s timeframe of six-months has passed. Mr. Backlund said since the six-month timeframe has passed, and the property has since been sold, the new owner will need to come before the Commission before demolition can take place. Mr. Cantrell suggested the new owner of the property needs to be notified. Mr. Backlund asked Mr. Todd if he has researched how much it would cost to get the house rehabbed or repaired. Mr. Todd said the estimate for the porch is $15,000 and the estimate for the siding is $10,000. He has not obtained estimates for the roof or flooring. Mr. Todd said given that every component of the house needs to be repaired, he has not gotten a full estimate to rebuild the house. Mr. Backlund said this is a contributing structure in the National Register District in our Historic District. He said that means it contributes to the historic significance of the District and there are 3 HZC Minutes March 19, 2019 a limited number of structures that are contributing. He said every time they lose one, it shrinks the value of having a Historic District. Mr. Backlund said almost anything can be repaired so the questions are what is the value of the property? versus what are the costs of the repair and would it still be possible to make a profit if you were to repair it and then sell it? He said there are several other houses in the District that are not getting due attention and are also contributing structures. Mr. Backlund said at a certain point we must start thinking about how we approach these houses that are short on maintenance. Mr. Todd said based on the summary from Mr. Garner’s report, the entire house would need to be rebuilt. He said based on estimates his son obtained it would cost about $160 per square foot. Mr. Backlund asked if that price would be for repair. Mr. Todd said the house was originally a four-room house and it looks like the bathroom was added on to a deck. He said the kitchen may have been added on as well, so it is now a six-room house. Mr. Todd said the house is about 1,100 – 1,200 square feet and would costs about $150,000 to $170,000 to repair. Ms. Chaffin said the repairs would be well over $100,000 before they knew about the issues with the floors. Ms. Tomlin indicated there is a summary statement in the American Structural and Foundation Repair Report that states it is the opinion of that office that bringing this house up to codes, you would basically build a new house and it would be much more difficult and the cost to keep this house standing and performing repairs would exceed the cost of building a new home. Ms. Tomlin said that is the report that was turned in as the Inspecting Report. Chairman Thompson said if the Commission votes for demolition on this house and a new house is built, there are Guidelines for the Historic District that need to be met on new construction. Ms. Anderson asked if the Commission addressed neglect of property. Ms. Tomlin said she doesn’t think the Commission addresses neglect. Mr. Jakes did some research and found on the National Park Service website considering contributing and non-contributing. The non-contributing read: A building not contributing to the historic significance of a district is one that does not add to the district sense of time place and historical development or one where location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association have been so altered or have so deteriorated that the overall integrity of the building has been irretrievably lost. 4 HZC Minutes March 19, 2019 Mr. Jakes said that is how a contributing building can become non-contributing. He said there is no question that this house is a contributing structure simply because of the age. He said this has become non-contributing, in his opinion. Mr. Backlund said the difference in contributing versus non-contributing would be determined by an Historic Architect that would examine the District. He said for now it will remain contributing because that is what our inventory says. Mr. Backlund said the last inventory was updated in the early 1980’s. He said to be eligible for the National Register the structure has to be 50 years old. Since 1984, many structures have become 50 years old so there could possibly be quite a few more buildings that are contributing if they were to do a new inventory and update the National Register Nomination. Mr. Backlund felt the house could be rehabbed and could be done using some of the original materials which is an important factor in rehabilitation of a building. He said the question remains – What is the difference in value? to determine economic hardship as property values in the downtown area continue to go up. He asked – What would it cost to rehab? versus What would it cost to tear it down and then rebuild? Mr. Todd said it would cost around $170,000 to rehab the house since there is not any savable materials. Mr. Backlund said if it cost $200,000 to build a new house, then rehab would be cheaper. Mr. Todd said because of all the foundation issues that need to be fixed, he feels it would cost more to rehab the house than build a new house. Mr. Backlund said that may be the case but there might be an Engineer that is sympathetic to preserving historic structures that would give you a different story. Vice-Chair Becker said he agrees with Mr. Jakes because the deterioration of the house, it has become non-contributing to the Historic Zone. He visited the property and looked inside and outside. He did not think there would be anything that could be reused, if it were rehabbed. Vice-Chair Becker said this block needs a lot of help. In his opinion, he said Mr. Todd and Ms. Chaffin have researched this and appears the best solution is to allow them to demolish the house. Mr. Cantrell made a motion to approve the demolition of the house located at 451 East College Street. The motion was seconded by Mr. Becker. The motion carried with a majority vote – six Commissioners for the demolition and one Commissioner against the demolition. Gib Backlund was against the demolition. 5 HZC Minutes March 19, 2019 Staff Reports and Other Business Ms. Tomlin spoke with Ms. Jane Coleman Cottone who is with the State Historic Preservation. Ms. Tomlin said Ms. Cottone is willing to come here and do a training session for the Historic Zoning Commission in April. She spoke talked with Ms. Cottone and made her aware of the type of training needed such as the basic, where do our powers come from, what kind of guidelines do we need to be adhering to and then maybe get into some examples like how do you go about updating the Guidelines, making decisions on new policies and expanding the district if the Commission wanted to do so. If the Commission is interested in the training, she will make that a solid plan with Ms. Cottone. Chairman Thompson said as a Certified Local Government, the Commission is required to have Preservation training, so this would suffice for that. He feels it would be good for all the Commission to attend. A time and date can be worked out later. Ms. Anderson made a motion to adjourn. The motion was seconded by Mr. Jakes and carried unanimously in favor. The meeting adjourned at 4:10 P.M. _____________________________________ ____________________________________ CHAIRMAN SECRETARY 6