City of Murfreesboro Historic Zoning Commission Staff Comments Regular Meeting June 18, 2013

CITY OF MURFREESBORO

HISTORIC ZONING COMMISSION

Regular Meeting June 18, 2013 3:30 PM, Council Chambers, City Hall

I. Call to Order, Roll Call and determination of a quorum

II. Approve Minutes of the Regular Meeting on May 21, 2013

III. New Business

602 East Main Street, Nena and Eric Egli – Requesting to (1) repair and replace damaged porch materials; (2) replace vinyl siding with cement fiber board in the style that was found underneath; (3) replace windows on the north, west, and south sides of the house; and (4) paint house when project is completed.

IV. Staff Reports and other Business

V. Adjourn

City of Murfreesboro Historic Zoning Commission Staff Comments Regular Meeting June 18, 2013

New Business

This house is located on the southeast corner of East Main Street and University Street. The house was constructed in 1900 and remodeled in 1980 in a vernacular style of architecture with Classical returns, multiple gables in a Stick Style decoration with 1 ½ stories and clapboard exterior covering. The house is a contributing structure in the East Main Street Historic District of the National Register of Historic Places.

The applicants are continuing the restoration of their house and recently have found earlier porch renovations were not properly done. Severe water damage is occurring as a result of earlier renovations and is causing extensive damage to at least the two front porch roofs and floors. After consulting with a roofing contractor they believe the problems can be traced back to the addition of the gable roofs that were applied many years ago to the original flat roofs of the two porches located on the northeast and northwest sides of the house. The contractor believes if the gable roof of the northeast porch is removed and restored back to the original flat roof then the water damage can be mitigated. The applicants have photographs of what they believe to be remnants of the original flat roof underneath the current gabled porch roof and these are included in the agenda package for your review. Due to the possibility of further water damage, staff approved a building permit for the applicants to proceed in order to protect the open construction site from the weather also in light of the applicants discovering the original flat porch roof beneath the current gable porch roof. The northwest porch is revealing similar water damage as materials are removed from that other porch. The applicants will have additional photographs of the porches for review at the meeting and an explanation of what their proposal for damage remediation will be.

In addition to the porch repairs the applicants would also like to replace the existing exterior covering of the house with one that more closely resembles the original covering of the house, fish scale siding. They would like to replace the vinyl siding with a cement fiber board that has a fish scale appearance. As seen in the attached photos the house at one time was a fraternity house with fish scale siding. The applicants would like to use the stick style elements to match what they have found underneath the existing vinyl siding. A photograph of the fish style cement fiber board is included in the agenda materials and a sample will be at the meeting for review. Trim for the siding will be a Miratec treated exterior composite material. A sample of this will also be at the meeting for your review.

The applicants plan to replace several windows that are located on the south, west and north sides of the house. One window on the south side of the house is in the kitchen and the applicants would like to remove the smaller window and replace it with one that is the same size and appearance as the neighboring windows. A drawing depicting a “Before and After” representation of the kitchen window is also included in the agenda materials.

The large window facing E. Main Street is to be replaced with a large double hung window and the remaining windows on the west side will have interior storm windows added to the existing windows. On the second floor all existing windows will be replaced with wooden double hung windows except for the small window above the kitchen window which will be a custom window with the same dimensions as is currently. All windows will be Marvin wooden windows. A brochure of the windows will be at the meeting for review. For safety reasons they are also planning to add wooden storm windows to the large windows on the western side of the house facing University Street.

The applicants are also proposing to consolidate the electric meters and weather heads that are adjacent to the current kitchen window which faces south. They would like to add three exterior outlets, one on each porch. Once the project is completed they will have the house painted. The applicants will be in attendance at the meeting to provide a damage assessment and an expectation of their proposal in addition to answering any questions the Commission may have.

HISTORIC ZONING COMMISSION Regular Meeting May 21, 2013

MEMBERS PRESENT: ABSENT: Paul Cross, Vice Chair Deborah Belcher Gib Backlund Rick Cantrell Kirt Wade David Becker Jim Thompson Linda Anderson Marimae White

STAFF PRESENT: Robert Lewis, Planner David Ives, Assistant City Attorney Brenda Davis, Recording Assistant

Vice Chair Cross called the meeting to order at 3:30 p.m. and confirmed a quorum was present.

Vice Chair Cross asked if there were any additions or corrections to the April 16, 2013 minutes of the Regular Historic Zoning Commission meeting.

Mr. Backlund asked if the replacement windows for 418 East College Street were approved to be wooden along the front and side of the house that is visible from the street.

Mr. Thompson recalled whatever the applicant replaced would be put back with wood windows and not the fiberglass or vinyl. In reference to the front of the house, Mr. Thompson said the pair of windows to the right and any windows facing the right-of-way were to be replaced with wood windows to match the original windows.

Mr. Becker said only the windows on the back of the house could remain fiberglass or vinyl.

Mr. Thompson agreed.

Vice Chair Cross asked Mr. Lewis if he would inspect the window replacements and verify the appropriate changes were made.

HZC Minutes May 21, 2013

Mr. Lewis said yes.

Mr. Becker made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted. The motion was seconded by Mr. Thompson and carried unanimously in favor.

New Business

13-H-007 – 710 East Main Street, Tommy & Judy Smith – Requesting an addition for a new master bedroom, bath, closet and laundry room.

Mr. Lewis reviewed the application and staff comments contained in the Historic Zoning Commission agenda package.

The applicants, Mr. and Mrs. Tommy & Judy Smith and their Architect, Mr. Steve James were present to answer any questions.

Ms. Anderson asked why the applicants chose hardiplank lap siding instead of brick for the addition.

Mr. James said the brick would be difficult to match, as it is an unusual shape, size and color. Mr. James said the original architect of the house had a sleeping porch designed for the rear of the house with a 4-inch lap siding. The applicant requested to make the addition to the house as the original architect designed.

Ms. Anderson mentioned there have been previous discussions about brick and historic houses in the District. She said the additions need to be made distinctive and not to worry so much about an exact match. She expressed concern about the hardiplank lap siding and how much of the addition would show from Main Street and the west side of the house.

Mr. James said the original architect showed the addition option using wood. If the same type of brick were used, it would have to be special-made which would increase the cost of the project.

Ms. Anderson verified the original addition was never made, but only an option.

Mr. James said yes, the original drawings showed an optional sleeping porch on the rear of the house.

Mr. Thompson asked if the house was originally intended to be clapboard.

Mr. James said no, the original house was always intended to be brick with an option for the sleeping porch at the rear.

Mr. Backlund asked if the proposed addition would have been visible from the street.

2 HZC Minutes May 21, 2013

Mr. James said no, it would have been at the rear of the house.

Mr. Backlund said the requested lap siding would meet the intent of the Guidelines in that it is distinct from the original structure. He is not concerned about the addition not being brick but thinks it is important that it be different. Mr. Backlund said the applicant could use a different brick instead of trying to match the current brick.

Mr. James said the applicant was trying to stay with the original intent of the house.

Mr. Thompson said the original intent for the addition was a very small element to a very large brick structure. He bragged on the house stating it is his favorite in the District.

There was discussion regarding the existing roofline. It was determined the addition would match the same hip roof as the house.

Mr. Thompson said he preferred brick instead of hardi plank. Mr. Thompson suggested landscaping to try and hide the addition.

Mr. Becker said he also preferred brick, stating the right elevation would flow much better with brick. Mr. Becker expressed some concern about only one window on the west side of the addition.

Mr. James said furniture placement inside the addition did not allow for another window on the west side of the addition.

Vice Chair Cross said he prefers not to see the addition. He said this house is one of the purest, colonial revival interpretations of Georgian Architecture. It is a pristine, original house that will be altered. Vice Chair Cross was also concerned about too much green space being used up in the Historic District. He looked to the other Commission Members to make recommendations to minimize the impact on the street.

Mr. James said this was the second concept. The first concept had the addition lined up with the house, going straight back. By doing that, the entire view from the rear of the yard would be destroyed. The rear of the house contains a basement entrance that would be blocked, a patio, steps, sunroom, and pool. Out of necessity, the addition was shifted over. Mr. James said the Smiths have owned the house since 1973-74 and their needs are now changing. There are no bedrooms downstairs and nowhere internally for an elevator. The applicants are trying to make the house more livable.

Ms. White compared the house next door to the Smith’s house, stating their addition is siding, connected to the brick house. Ms. White said she does not notice the back part of the Smith’s house because it is so far off the road. She spoke in favor of siding for the addition.

3 HZC Minutes May 21, 2013

Mr. Thompson added the neighbor’s addition is a detached structure.

There was some talk about using landscaping as a screening.

Mr. Thompson asked if the tree in the back yard would remain or be taken down.

Mr. Smith verified the tree in question would not be removed.

Mr. Thompson was concerned about using hardi plank versus brick for the addition. A light color of hardi plank would be more noticeable. He felt it will make the eye look deeper into the lot and notice the addition. Brick of a similar color would not be as noticeable.

Mr. James said the applicant was willing to use brick instead of hardi plank.

Vice Chair Cross agreed with the use of brick and would eliminate a lot of his concerns.

Ms. Becker made a motion to approve an addition to the rear of the house using a brick match as closely as possible instead of using hardi plank material. The motion was seconded by Mr. Wade.

Ms. White verified the motion was for brick only, not either / or.

Vice Chair Cross agreed the addition would be brick only.

The vote carried in favor with a 7-1 vote. Ms. White voted against the motion, in favor of hardi plank or brick.

Staff Reports and Other Business

Mr. Lewis did not have anything.

Mr. Becker thanked Mr. and Mrs. Smith.

The meeting adjourned at 4:00 P.M.

______CHAIRMAN SECRETARY