Historic Zoning Commission

CITY OF MURFREESBORO HISTORIC ZONING COMMISSION Regular Meeting June 18, 2019 3:30 PM, Council Chambers, City Hall I. Call to Order and determination of a quorum II. Approve Minutes of the Regular Meeting on March 19, 2019 III. New Business a. H-19-004 – 449 East College Street, request to demolish existing home b. H-19-005- 446 East Main Street, request to construct fence c. H-19-006 – 515 East College Street, request to add porch rail IV. Discussion of Survey Grant V. Staff Reports and Other Business V. Adjourn  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. Bauman 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. Bauman. 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. Bauman’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 City of Murfreesboro Historic Zoning Commission Staff Comments III. New Business: H-19-004 –449 E College Street, request to demolish existing house This property is located on the north side of East College Street and encompasses approximately 0.18 acres. The lot is within the Historic Overlay Zone and is zoned Residential-8 (RS-8) on the City of Murfreesboro Zoning map. The property owner contends the structural integrity is damaged beyond repair. This property was approved for demolition in December 2017. This home is a contributing structure in the North Maney Avenue National Register District and the East Main Street Local Designation. The home was constructed around 1890 and is a Queen Anne cottage, with a hipped roof with cross gables, gabled front porch, and primarily clapboard exterior. Cost of restoring the home was submitted in the expired 2017 application and estimated to be $202,800 for the entirety of the restoration. A new cost estimate for restoration was not submitted with this application. Estimation for the demolition and building of a new home was estimated to be between $225,000 - $250,000 in the expired 2017 application. A new cost estimate for demolition and new construction was not submitted with this application. Staff did not find in either the 2017 application nor the current application a home inspection stating the home is beyond repair. Photos of the structure are attached to the agenda packet as "Attachment A." The Historic District Guidelines state that demolition is appropriate when: 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. 2. A building does not contribute to the historical or architectural character and importance of the district and its removal will result in a more positive, appropriate visual effect on the District. 3. The denial of the demolition will result in an economic hardship on the applicant as determined by the Commission in accordance with the Historic Zoning Ordinance. The Historic Zoning Commission Rules of Procedure IV. ECONOMIC HARDSHIPS A. Approval of Removal or Demolition:  In the event an application for removal or demolition of a building or other structure within a District is submitted or such demolition is required, the government agency receiving such request or initiating such action shall transmit a copy thereof to the Commission and said Commission shall have a period of thirty (30) days from the date the application was filed to act upon the application. Upon failure of the Commission to take final action within thirty (30) days following the availability of the required data, the case shall be deemed approved, except when mutual agreement has been made for an extension of the time limit. B. Determination of Economic Hardship: Each application for removal or demolition shall be considered, taking into account economic hardship. The Commission may, after reasonable notice, set an application for public hearing and may consider any or all of the following: 1. Estimate of the cost of the proposed redevelopment, alteration, demolition, or removal and an estimate of any additional cost that would be incurred to comply with the recommendations of the Commission for changes necessary for the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness. 2. A report from a licensed engineer or architect with experience in rehabilitation as to the structural soundness of any structures on the property and their suitability for rehabilitation. 3. Estimated market value of the property in its current condition; after completion of the proposed redevelopment, alteration, demolition or removal; after any changes recommended by the Commission; and, in the case of a proposed demolition, after renovation of the existing property. 4. In the case of a proposed demolition, an estimate from an architect, developer, real estate consultant, appraiser, or other real estate professional experienced in rehabilitation as to the economic feasibility of rehabilitation or reuse of the existing structure on the property. 5. Amount paid for the property, the date of purchase, and the party from whom purchased, including a description of the relationship, if any, between the owner of record or applicant and the person from whom the property was purchased, and any terms of financing between the seller and buyer. 6. If the property is income-producing, the annual gross income from the property for the previous two (2) years, itemized operating and maintenance expenses for the previous two (2) years; and depreciation deduction and annual cash flow before and after debt service, if any, during the same period. 7. Any other information considered necessary by the 8. Commission to a determination as to whether the property does yield or may yield a reasonable return to the owners. Request for consideration shall be taken up at a public hearing with reasonable notice and consideration given to any or all the factors listed above. Neighborhood context photographs, as well as photographs of the home, have been submitted by the applicant for the Commission’s review. The applicant will be in attendance at the meeting in order to answer any questions the Commission may have regarding the request. H-19-005 –446 E Main Street, request to construct fence This property is located on the south side of East Main Street and encompasses approximately 0.30 acres. The lot is within the Historic Overlay Zone and is zoned Residential-15 (RS-15) on the City of Murfreesboro Zoning map. The property owner requests permission to construct a 7’ brick wall along the property line of 446 East Main and 450 East Main and requests permission to replace the existing asphalt driveway with concrete. This home is a contributing structure in the East Main Street Historic District of the National Register of Historic Places and the East Main Street Local Designation. The home was constructed around 1875 and is an Italianate renovated to Colonial Revival style with a classical wrap around porch, modillions, and a hip roof. It is a two-story brick structure. The Historic District Guidelines state that accessory structures related to a building (fences, walls, street lamps, stoops, paving, sidewalks, signs, terraces, drives, game courts, pools and decks) should be visually compatible with the environment to which they are related. a. Fences; Low retaining walls in front yards should be kept where they exist. New retaining walls should conform in materials and color with the existing structure on the lot. Fences are generally not present in the district, but they may be added to a lot if they are similar material to other fences and structures in the vicinity, and if they are constructed so as not to disrupt the visual harmony of the front area of the lots. The Commission should discuss the appropriateness and compatibility of the proposed masonry fence along the property line. The applicant will be in attendance to answer any questions the Commission may have. A site layout is attached to the agenda packet as "Attachment B." H-19-006 –415 E College Street, request to add porch rail This property is located on the north side of East College Street and encompasses approximately 0.30 acres. The lot is within the Historic Overlay Zone and is zoned Residential-8 (RS-8) on the City of Murfreesboro Zoning map. The property owner requests permission to add railings with spindles to the porch. Owner proposes to match the railing to the window treatment on the house. This home is a contributing structure in the North Maney Avenue National Register District and the East Main Street Local Designation. The home was constructed around 1900 in the Arts and Crafts style. It is a stucco bungalow with a wrap-around porch, hip roof, narrow vertical windows, and 2.5 stories. The Historic District Guidelines state that an alteration is: a change in building material; the addition of any architectural feature of a structure; a repair that reconstructs any part of an existing building; an addition that extends or increases floor area or height of any building; and/ or the addition of accessory structures. The General Principles adopted for alteration are as follows: • These guidelines shall apply only to the exteriors of buildings and to areas of lots visible from public rights of way • Proposals for exterior work to be done on facades visible from the front and street related elevations shall be more carefully reviewed than are other facades • The distinguishing original qualities or character or a building, structure, or site and its environment shall not be destroyed. The removal or alteration of any historical material, distinctive architectural features, should be avoided. • All buildings, structures and sites shall be recognized as products of their own time. Alterations that have no historical basis and which seek to create an earlier appearance shall be discouraged. • Changes, which may have taken place in the course of time, are evidence of the history and development of a building, structure, or site and its environment. These changes may have acquired significance of their own right, and this significance shall be recognized and respected. • Distinctive stylistic features or examples of skilled craftsmanship, which characterize a building, structure, or site shall be treated with sensitivity. • Deteriorated architectural features shall be repaired rather than replaced, whenever possible. In the event replacement is necessary, the new material should match the material being replaced in composition, design, color, texture, and other visual qualities. Repair or replacement of missing architectural features should be based on accurate duplications of features, substantiated by historical, physical or pictorial evidence rather than on conjectural design or the availability of different architectural elements from other buildings or structures. • The surface cleaning of structures shall be undertaken with the gentlest means possible. Sandblasting and other cleaning methods that damage historic building materials shall not be undertaken. Every reasonable effort shall be made to protect and preserve archeological resources affected by, or adjacent to a project • Contemporary design for alterations to existing properties shall not be discouraged when such alterations do no destroy the significant historical, architectural or cultural material; and when such design is compatible with the size, scale, color, material and character of the property, neighborhood or environment. • Whenever possible, alterations to structures shall be done in such a manner that if such alterations were to be removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the structure would be unimpaired. The guidelines adopted for alterations (additions) are as follows: • Additions are areas that increase the living or working space of a structure. This does not include the addition of architectural detail elements. • Porches:  • Original details and shape, outline, roof height, and roof pitch should be retained • Original porch materials and architectural details should be maintained. If different materials are substituted, they should be a close visual approximation of the original • The enclosing of front and side porches visible from the public right of way is inappropriate • The enclosing of side porches may be considered appropriate if the openness and character of the original porch is maintained. • Architectural Details: • Original Details should not be removed • The replacement of irreparable details should be with close visual approximations of the originals based on historical or physical data where available • The replacement of missing original details should be based on accurate duplication, or should be close visual approximations of the originals, based on historic, physical, or pictorial documentation. • Architectural details of any period or style not original to the building should not be introduced • Changes that have taken place in the course of time, which is evidence of the history and development of a building, and its environment may have acquired significance in their own right; their significance should be recognized and respected. The Commission should discuss the appropriateness and compatibility of the proposed masonry fence along the property line. The applicant will be in attendance to answer any questions the Commission may have. Murfreesboro Historic Zoning Commission June 18, 2019 ATTACHMENT A Photos for Item H-19-004 449 East College Street Request to demolish existing house Murfreesboro Historic Zoning Commission June 18, 2019 ATTACHMENT B Photos for Item H-19-005 446 East Main Street Request to add porch rail