Approved Minutes of last Meeting
Minutes

Historic Minutes
City Hall Council Chambers
June 26, 2008
The Statesville Historic Preservation Commission met on Thursday, June 26, 2008 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers on the 2nd floor of Statesville City Hall.

Members Present:    Jon Dunham, Janice Burns, Becky Hill, Robin Downs, Michele Vacca, Richard Boyd, Sally Parker

Members Absent:    Jonathan Dearman, Nathan McElwee

Staff Present:    Sherry Ashley, Mary Craddock

Visitors Present:    5
Chairman Dunham welcomed everyone to the meeting and swore in all speakers.
Consideration of an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA08-11) from Freddie Sturghill/Holsey Memorial Church to replace existing sign with a new sign at 222 S. Mulberry Street. Tax Map No. 4734-84-8701.

Background
Holsey Memorial CME Church applied for a new sign back in September of 2000. However, the sign request was tabled to allow the church to make sure of their plans. No new sign was approved or installed.
Request

Mr. Freddie Sturghill on behalf of the church is requesting a new sign be installed in the same location as the current sign. The existing sign is made of metal (tin), with metal pipes as poles. The size of the sign is approximately 3’9” wide and 2’4” tall for a total sign area of 8.74 sq ft. The current location of the sign is approximately 11’ 4 ½  ” from the outer edge of the brick wall from Mulberry Street and 7’ 2 ½” from the outer edge of the brick wall from Front Street.  There is no lighting used for the current sign. The new sign is made of aluminum and is approximately 3’ wide and 3’ .33” tall for a total sign area of 9.99 sq. ft.  The sign will be black with white painted lettering. The changeable copy will be slide in plastic letters and numbers (black and white) 3 inches tall. No lighting is proposed at this time. 

M.Vacca asked how far the sign is off ground. Ashley replied the sign is 24” off the ground.
Richard Boyd asked if the sign has a glass front. Ashley replied yes.
R. Downs questioned the location of the sign. She asked if the sign will be in the exact location or would it be moved closer to the church, Ashley stated the proposal is to put the sign back exactly where it is. R. Downs had some concerns about visibility and suggested the sign be located closer to the building. Ashley advised she has inspected the site and didn’t identify any visibility problems.
R. Boyd confirmed the proposal doesn’t show anything on the back of the sign. Boyd recommended putting black paint on back of the sign.
Chairman Dunham declared the public hearing open. F. Sturghill reviewed the proposal from the church.
R. Boyd questioned if there was any landscaping proposed around back of the sign; he recommended vegetation. Mr. Sturghill agreed to the vegetation.
Chairman Dunham closed the public hearing.
R. Boyd made a motion to approve as submitted and to allow the option of landscaping around back of the sign in accordance with guidelines 1,4,6. M. Vacca seconded the motion and it was unanimously approved.
R. Boyd questioned plans for replacing the slate and the steeple on the church. Mr. Sturghill advised this is currently on the back burner.

Consideration of an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA08-12) from Anna Maestas to install a fence in the front and portion of side yards at 502 Davie Avenue. Tax Map No. 4744-17-8572.

Background
Ms. Anna Maestas is in the process of renovating the house located at 502 Davie Avenue both on the exterior and interior. In addition, a privacy fence (wood) was approved for the front and rear yard with the requirements that the fence be setback a minimum of 24” from the sidewalk on Bost Street and the gate match the fence.
Request
Ms. Maestas is requesting to remove the existing portion of split rail fence and install a black metal aluminum fence in the front yard adjacent to Davie Avenue and along both sides of the property to the existing privacy fence in the rear yard.  The new fence is proposed to be 4 ft. in height and will have a matching gate at each walkway. The site plan indicates that the fence will be installed along the property lines, running approximately 49.5 feet across the front, 91 feet down the Bost Street side and 89 feet along the opposite side. Currently there is existing vegetation along the Bost Street side of the property. Ms. Maestas is proposing that the fence be installed between the shrubs and the sidewalk on the Bost Street side. The fence will be 4’ in height with two matching gates.
R. Downs questioned the material of the fence. Ashley replied the fence is aluminum and it comes in 3’ sections.
Chairman Dunham declared the public hearing open.
Anna Maestas stated the only change she is proposing is a 2’ setback for the fence so as not to disturb the vegetation on the Bost Street side.
Chairman Dunham closed the public hearing.
B Hill made a motion to approve as submitted in accordance with guidelines 7 & 8 with a 2’ setback on Bost Street. S. Parker seconded the motion.
R. Downs asked if the aluminum materials were compatible with the house. M Vacca replied the aluminum was more compatible for the fence than the split rail.
R Downs added that the applicant should be sure the top rail is a single level; when doing fencing in sections sometimes it is not installed evenly. Downs asked that this be added to the motion. 


Consideration of an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA08-13) from William and Abbi Troutman for renovations to the exterior of 610 Walnut Street. Tax Map No. 4734-74-6770. 

Background
This tract is located in the Mitchell College Historic District at 610 Walnut Street. The property contains approximately .31 acres and has a 2 story brick veneer house that was built in 1940. Primary contributing features are the general form, classical front entrance, east side porch, and windows.
Request
Mr. and Mrs. Troutman are requesting to renovate the residence located at 610 Walnut Street. The site plans indicate both interior and exterior renovations. The exterior renovations for consideration include the following:
Basement/Sheet 1:
Remove section of concrete driveway approximately 26’ x 27’ 4”, build new brick wall 4 1/2 feet in height. A brick patio (herringbone pattern) is proposed under the footprint of the new deck and the remainder of the area within the new brick wall would be grassed. New brick steps with wrought iron railings are proposed to address the grade change and a sump pump will need to be installed under the step landing. There will be planting strips between the existing retaining walls and the new brick wall that would either be grassed or planted with boxwoods. These renovations are proposed to address water runoff and prevent water damage. In addition, the Troutman’s would like to remove the garage door and replace it with a fireplace and install 2 wood, 6 over 6 true divided windows to match the existing windows on either side of the new fireplace. The existing basement door is also proposed to be replaced with the side door that is proposed to be removed and replaced with French doors.
First Floor/Sheet 2:
Construct a wood deck approximately 12’ x 30’ 4”. Access to the deck will be from the existing steps that lead up to the kitchen at the rear. An opening would be cut in the railing at the landing located at the top of the stairs to access the deck. Railings would be wrought iron or wood pickets to match the house. Columns under the deck will resemble the columns existing on the house. In addition, the small window in the bathroom would be removed. The window in the den would also be removed and replaced with wood; true divided French doors. The window in the breakfast room is proposed to be removed and replaced with a bay window that would match the existing windows (wood, 6 over 6 true divided). The window and door between the gathering room and the side porch are proposed to be replaced with French doors.
In regards, to the front porch, the applicants would like to remove the A frame and the fan design and replace it like the examples provided in South Carolina. According to the photo taken in the 80’s, the design does not appear to be original.
The side porch floor is broken up and sagging. The floor is proposed to be removed and replaced with brick laid in a herringbone pattern to match the proposed brick patio in the rear. 
R. Boyd questioned the back deck. The proposal calls for wood or wrought iron. He asked which it will be. Ms. Troutman replied whichever material is approved by the commission.
R Downs asked if there are details on the interior and/or exterior fireplace. Ms. Ashley explained the fireplace is only enclosed on the inside with a mantle while the outside looks like a brick fire place. R Downs asked if there is sufficient matching brick left for the chimney area. Ms. Ashley stated the fireplace is ventless. R Downs asked for more information such as the elevation of the back wall. Ms. Ashley reviewed the information in the packet concerning the fireplace.
Chairman Dunham declared the public hearing open and invited the Troutman’s to review their proposal and answer questions from the commission.
William and Abbi Troutman addressed the commission. Ms. Troutman stated that in relation to the railing on the deck they would prefer wood. The railing will be 36” high and spaced 3 ½” apart. She explained the curve in the middle portion of the deck and how it is proposed to be handled.
Ms. Troutman reviewed the details for the proposed French doors. 
R Boyd asked if the French doors are being proposed now. Ms. Troutman explained that since it takes six weeks to order the doors that she is seeking approval for all three sets now.
R Boyd confirmed that under the deck all the way to the house it will be brick and you can walk in that area. Ms. Troutman stated the sump pump will be located under the stairs to help with the water problem.  The runoff will slope away from the house into the sump pump.
S Parker asked for clarification on the parking. Ms. Troutman explained parking in detail.
B Hill asked the Troutman’s if they have made application for state tax credits. Ms. Troutman replied they are planning to send the application back as soon as they get the decision of the commission. She wants the blueprints to be as accurate as possible.
R Boyd asked if they want to start the work soon. Ms. Troutman answered the first of August.
S Parker asked about the width of the door openings for the French doors. Ms. Troutman replied 6’. She added that the openings will have to be enlarged in both cases.
R. Boyd confirmed they are replacing all the windows. Boyd asked if the true divided light windows are Argon gas – single or double pane. He stated it is ok to use the double pane glass. Mr. Troutman stated they are going for energy efficiency.
Ms. Troutman advised that Statesville Brick still makes the exact brick on their house so there is no problem getting the needed brick.
R. Boyd confirmed there is nothing being done to the side porch at this time. Ms. Troutman answered the only thing being done to the side porch at this time is the double French doors and repairing the sagging floor. Boyd stated that he took a look at the property. The porch has supports underneath and it might be scarier than you think to repair that. Ms. Troutman stated her builder stated it may be too dangerous to go under there and risk using supports again. They are going to proceed cautiously and hope to put a stop to the problem.
B Hill stated in regards to the tax credits that after hearing their presentations at the local seminar about a month ago is that it might be better for the plans to be submitted to Raleigh before the commission makes a ruling. Hill advised that the local guidelines are charged with not changing the exterior of the property. The current proposal does alter the original appearance. Ms. Troutman stated she was aware they were taking a chance with that. She acknowledged that if the fan detail on the front of the house is original they don’t wish to change it either. She would like to take it back to what it was which appears to have been a smooth surface. Some members of the commission agreed that it might be better to have Raleigh approve the application first. They are planning to live in this house forever and want to utilize all living space possible.  Accesses to the side porches make the interior flow well. She stated they may consider withdrawing their application from Raleigh.
There was a lot of concern among members of the commission as to whether or not they have the authority to approve the French doors and alter the outside of the house. S Parker stated it would be stronger if Raleigh had already approved the proposal. Commission members seemed to reach a consensus that they would need more detail before approving the French doors.  S Parker confirmed that if Raleigh gives approval then the local commission can’t deny what Raleigh has approved.
Ms. Troutman repeated the doors are important to them. If Raleigh from the interior wouldn’t approve the French doors but it was approved from the exterior locally then they would not consider using the tax credit. B Hill confirmed that the Troutman’s would forfeit the use of the tax credits. Ms. Troutman stated that was possible.
M Vacca countered that staff can contact Raleigh to ask if they would approve the French doors without applying for the tax credits.
M Vacca questioned the double French doors; it seemed that this would require a lot of space. Ms. Troutman replied it would require 6’ for the French doors.
R Downs asked the Troutman’s if they wanted the Commission to approve the portions of the proposal that they could agree on now. Ms. Troutman replied they would like to proceed now if possible.
Chairman Dunham closed the public hearing.
R Downs made a motion, seconded by R Boyd, to break the project into sections based on the major work and approve each separately. The motion was unanimously approved.
R Downs made a motion to approve the driveway removal as submitted based on it meeting guidelines 3, 4, 5, and 7. R Boyd seconded the motion and it was unanimously approved.
R Boyd made a motion to approve the brick wall as submitted. J Burns seconded the motion.

R Downs questioned the height of the wall. Ashley stated the wall is 4-1/2’ high.
On the masonry for the side porch – R Downs made a motion to approve the masonry as proposed for the side porch, front walkway and rear area of the house excluding the enclosure for the garage door of the basement level. R Boyd seconded the motion. R Boyd added that the porch can be jacked back up and nothing done to it or they can tear it out and put in a herringbone design for the patio.

Following some discussion R Downs amended her motion to clarify the rear of the house is for the rear patio only. R Boyd amended his second and the motion was unanimously approved.
R Boyd stated that for windows and doors he made a motion to approve replacement of the windows and table the double French doors on the side of the house for a later time. All windows are to be replaced with wooden true divided light energy efficient windows. J Burns seconded the motion.
S Parker countered that the applicant wants to know if the commission will approve the French doors or not. R Boyd stressed there isn’t enough information available to make a decision. R Boyd pointed that there is no detail about framing or trim work around the doors. Downs suggested approving the concept of French doors pending design approval. B Hill stressed that according to the local guidelines the commission can’t approve the French doors. R Boyd recommended appointing a subcommittee to work with the applicant and make a decision on site. S Parker objected to this and suggested approving the concept of French doors. R Boyd took a strong stand that he didn’t have enough information; there is no info on the bay windows. He stated that he needs a clearer picture.
 
R Downs agreed this is a good point; they don’t really have enough information on the windows either. Are they going to be replacement windows, are they replacing the entire sashes and the window or the new windows where you replace the entire window except the sash? They will be loosing light if it is a standard replacement window. Boyd stated the application states all windows will be replaced with the exact same type of window that currently exists. R Boyd stated it would be easier to rip the entire window out, framing and everything and replace it. R Downs countered that the commission doesn’t know the exact intent of the applicant. She asked if the detailed information was provided.
S Ashley stated the windows are 6 over 6 true divided wood windows like what is currently in place.

S Parker asked if the commission would be comfortable with the concept of the French doors if more detail is provided.

R Boyd agreed with the concept and stated there also needs to be further information on the bay windows.

A picture was provided but it wasn’t clear enough to understand it.
R Downs advised that the commission needs a line drawing that is going to show the exact dimensions – height of the windows, full width of the opening, the projection out from the wall , the height and pitch of the roof.

R Boyd made a motion to table and let the applicant reapply for bay window and double French doors with more detail drawings. S Parker asked about approving the concept of the French doors. R Boyd stated that he didn’t want to slow the process down but he just didn’t see how the commission could make any kind of approval on the French doors.
 
R Downs stated that since they are holding up the French doors for more detail that she feels the commission needs more detail on windows. She suggested approving the windows pending a subcommittee approving the specific materials. Downs agreed that the commission should state whether or not the French door opening will be approved.
R Boyd made a motion to make an amendment to approve the concept of double French doors - we need more information.

R Boyd summarized that his motion is to replace windows, but that more detail is needed for the double French doors and bay window.

Boyd again clarified his motion is to replace windows with like true divided wooden windows, approve building of double glass French doors with the subcommittee approving specifications on the double glass doors and also on the bay window. There was no second to the motion so the motion died.
R Downs made a motion to approve the concept of replacing the windows with true divided light wooden windows pending approval from subcommittee that the actual glazed area remains the same as what currently exists, not eliminating light with the replacement windows.

R Downs explained she doesn’t want the applicant to replace the windows with replacement windows because they will gain wooden frame and loose light. There was lengthy discussion of exactly what is meant by replacing windows in the application.

R Boyd asked the applicant what they are planning to replace on the windows. Ms. Troutman stated that she didn’t plan on replacing the sashes unless the commission requires it.  R Boyd stated that from what he saw in the house the best thing would be to remove the entire frame, sashes, etc. and replace the entire window.

Chairman Dunham assigned the Subcommittee to work with the applicant on these details.

R Downs continued her motion to approve window replacement with acceptable wooden true divided light windows that are approved by the subcommittee. R Downs also added approval of the addition of the two windows on either side of the fireplace in the basement. S Parker seconded the motion and it was unanimously approved.

S Ashley asked for clarification on one window on the back side that the applicant is asking to remove in the bathroom; is that included? Chairman Dunham stated that is not in the motion.
Chairman Dunham identified R Downs, R Boyd and Jon Dunham as the subcommittee.
In regards to the French doors B Hill read from page 37 of the guidelines; particularly  #7: It is not appropriate to significantly alter street façade of a historic building by either introducing or covering over window or door openings.
 
B Hill summarized that the guidelines say the street façade can’t be altered which says that the commission can’t approve the French doors. Following more conversation about the French doors, M Vacca suggested getting guidance from Raleigh since this is a contributing property in the Historic District. S Ashley added that the proposed French doors are on the side. B Hill reasoned that the commission doesn’t have jurisdiction to do this without approval from Raleigh.

Chairman Dunham asked S. Ashley to call Raleigh for specific recommendations.

R Boyd made a motion for S Ashley to call Raleigh to determine if French doors would be appropriate in this particular case and report back to subcommittee. J Burns seconded the motion and it was unanimously approved.
S Parker made a motion to approve the French doors on the side porch thru the subcommittee if they are approved by Raleigh. If not approved by Raleigh the applicant needs to come back before the commission. Downs seconded the motion.

S Parker made a motion to approve one more set of matching double French glass doors  to be added in place of the current window along the back wall of the den on the back of the house if approved by the subcommittee. J Burns seconded the motion.

Mr. Troutman advised the commission they have decided to leave the front porch as it is with the fan design being replaced with a smooth finish.
R Downs made a motion approve the rear deck as proposed with pretreated wood. Wood railing is to match with 36”height and spacing to meet code requirements. The commission would also approve, pending a design approval, for iron railing if the applicant prefers. J Burns seconded the motion and it was unanimously approved.

Under non-original material R Downs made a motion that the fan detail of the front porch may be removed and replaced with flat wood original design. If more than flat wood is proposed, the design must be approved by the commission. R Boyd seconded the motion and it was unanimously approved.
R Boyd made a motion to approve the planting strips between the existing retaining walls and the new brick wall that would be either grassed or planted with boxwoods. In addition, remove garage doors and replace with fireplace as presented. Approve removal of exposed wiring above garage as needed. Approve addition of new French doors if approved by Raleigh and subcommittee. J Burns seconded the motion.
S Parker asked if this includes moving the side door to the back door. Sherry Ashley noted that she will seek approval from Raleigh. The consensus was to approve this item if Raleigh gives approval.

R Downs made a motion to approve moving the side door to the back door pending the decision from Raleigh. B Hill seconded the motion.

S Ashley advised the only other item is that the new steps and sunk pump need to be approved. The consensus of the commission was this approval was included with the driveway.

Committee Reports
There were no committee reports.

Other Business
R Boyd asked for a status report on the Anderson house. Ashley advised she was asked to put together a status report. The three choices are 1) the city may stabilize the house at
$ 250,000 – $ 350,000, 2) demolish the house with an estimated $17,000 salvage value or 3) let the house fall down. Boyd stated that no one wants to see house torn down. He recommended going back to Council to fix roof and fix west wall and send the bill to Dr. Tucker. Ashley noted that he has paid all the fees for penalties. Ashley also noted there is strong consideration among Council to demolish the house. Boyd recalled there was         
$120,000 approved by Council which wasn’t spent. A roof could easily be installed for $120,000. Ashley advised there is structural damage inside that would be required for stabilization.  Ashley identified another concern is that if the property is demolished the owner can dispute salvageable value and go to court which prolongs it; if the city stabilizes the structure we can still go to court. Ashley summarized that the only two ways to get the property out of the hands of the current owner is to demolish and charge fee or fix up and bill owner. If he doesn’t pay then the city can foreclose and sell the property. This item will be on the next Council agenda. Ashley added one last concern is that there is no driveway access to the property. There are supposed to be exotic plants in the yard. things that the property owner could bring up in a court of law to delay the action further.

Boyd made a motion to recommend doing everything in earnest to save the dwelling. He voted to stabilize the home (even if it is done in sections) and bill the home owner. S Parker seconded the motion and it was unanimously approved.
S Parker commented that she asked Bob Johnson about the depot becoming a historic landmark before he left and he advised that it just needed to be approved by Council. Ms.
Ashley advised the designation has been approved through the State. The next step is to hold a joint public hearing between the Historic Commission and City Council to officially approve the designation.

S Ashley provided an update on 438 West Front Street and 332 Kelly Street. The owner is proposing to post bond, penalty and construction schedule to bring 438 West Front Street into compliance.  The owner may also want to pursue the same effort on 332 Kelly Street.
 
Consideration of the approval of the minutes of the meeting held on May 22, 2008.
Upon a motion by R Downs, seconded by B Hill, the May 22, 2008 minutes were unanimously approved.

There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned.



 Home