ATHENS-CLARKE COUNTY HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES January 16, 2013 The Athens-Clarke County Historic Preservation Commission met and considered the following items at a public meeting on Wednesday, January 16, 2013, at 5:30 p.m. at 120 W. Dougherty Street, Athens, Georgia: MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: Sharon Bradley, Drew Dekle, Helen Kuykendall, Benjamin Rossetti, Alexander Sams, and Paul Trudeau Smith Wilson Bruce Lonnee, Jim Davis, Amber Eskew, Sandy Beasley CALL TO ORDER: 1. Determination of Quorum 2. Introduction of staff reports and all other documents submitted to the Historic Preservation Commission at this meeting into the official record. Mr. Dekle made the motion to approve, Ms. Bradley seconded, and the motion passed unanimously. 3. Adoption of the minutes of the December 19, 2012 meeting. Ms. Kuykendall made the motion to approve, Mr. Dekle seconded, and the motion passed unanimously. OLD BUSINESS: 1. 101 North Lumpkin Street COA-2012-10-2328 Petitioner: Bob Smith/Smith Planning Group, LLC as agent for CSA Partners, LLC Request: Partial Demolition and New Construction Information: 171A5 D009, Downtown, C-D (DHD) Ms. Eskew presented the Staff Report with the recommendation for approval. This application was tabled at the November 28, 2012 meeting. In Favor: Jerry Shank spoke as owner; Jack Warman spoke as architect for the project. Commission Discussion: Commission noted feelings that the concerns from the November meeting have been addressed and appreciated the creative solution. They also complemented the applicant on the complete, detailed application. Motion: Mr. Dekle made a motion for approval as submitted. Mr. Trudeau seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.
2. 250 North Milledge Avenue COA-2012-10-2330 Petitioner: Charlie Upchurch / Coldwell Banker Upchurch Realty as agent for Steven Nudelman Request: Partial Demolition and New Addition Information: 171A3 C005, Cobbham, C-O Ms. Eskew presented the Staff Report with the recommendation for denial of the application. A different design was approved at the September, 2012 meeting. The applicant found this design was not sufficient in size and returned in November, 2012 seeking approval for a larger space. This application was tabled at the November, 2012 meeting. In Favor: Charlie Upchurch spoke as agent for owner; David Matheny spoke as architect, Brett Thurmond spoke as civil site engineer Commission Discussion: Ms. Kuykendall thought the design was improved but did not see any change in footprint. There was no reduction in the depth of the building and no compelling reason to go against the guidelines. She feels the addition is out of synch with the rest of the house and that it is compromising the design standards for the district. Mr. Dekle believes it meets more of the guidelines than it does not, even though he does not like the scale. Mr. Trudeau is concerned about the precedent of approving something of this scale based on the guidelines. Ms. Bradley believes allowing a building to take up so much of a lot does set a precedent which starts to change the character of the neighborhood. Upon inquiry from the Commission, Mr. Thurmond indicated that the zoning allows for 50% lot coverage and they are under the maximum allowed by zoning. Motion: Mr. Rossetti made a motion for approval as submitted. Mr. Dekle seconded the motion, which passed 3-2 (Dekle, Rossetti & Trudeau supported / Bradley & Kuykendall opposed.) NEW BUSINESS 1. 549 Cobb Street COA-2012-11-2551 Petitioner: J. J. Bankston Request: Painted Brick Finish Information: 122B2 D005, Cobbham, RS-8 Ms. Eskew presented the Staff Report with the recommendation for approval. In Favor: Jeff Bankston spoke as owner In Opposition: David Levitt spoke as a neighborhood representative Commission Discussion: Mr. Bankston, when asked by Commission, stated he is painting the house to give it a softer, more traditional look. The period of significance for the
district is 1800 to 1937 and was set aside to highlight and preserve those buildings of significance. This is a non-contributing structure and anything to make it softer and fit in more would be an improvement. Ms. Bradley noted that the guidelines are clear paint should only be used if those elements were historically coated. Mr. Dekle said there is a difference if the property is contributing or non-contributing. This is a brick ranch built in the 1960 s and he does not think the guidelines speak to this property. Motion: Ms. Kuykendall made a motion for approval as submitted. Mr. Dekle seconded the motion, which passed 3 2 (Dekle, Trudeau, Kuykendall supported / Rossetti and Bradley opposed.) 2. 847 Meigs Street COA-2012-12-2701 Petitioner: Roy and Deborah Bell Request: New Construction Information: 122B4 C009, Cobbham, RM-1 Ms. Eskew presented the Staff Report with the recommendation for approval with conditions. In Favor: Roy Bell spoke as property owner, Chris Sugiuchi spoke as adjoining property owner Commission Discussion: Mr. Bell asked that the Commission reduce the front width only to 38 feet because the lot is actually 1.5 feet smaller, per a new survey, than indicated on the plans submitted. The front wall of the house needs to be reduced by one foot on each side and the back would stay at 36 feet. Mr. Sams is concerned about narrowing the front. He suggested tabling this and having the applicant redesign this project. Mr. Trudeau asked staff if they had any comments about the proposed change in the width of the front in terms of how it would affect the front façade. Ms. Eskew said that everything would be adjusted as needed. Mr. Dekle noted that this does not change the roof pitch and English cottage look. The Commission discussed ways to reduce the front width. Several members expressed their appreciation that applicant staked out the buildings on the lot. Ms. Kuykendall agreed with staff s assessment that the accessory structure is too large. The Commission would like to see the applicant bring a new application for the accessory structure to the HPC. Motion: Mr. Dekle made a motion for approval with conditions, conditions being that corrected plans be submitted that accurately reflect cross gable roof form and trim proposed, that the accessary structure not be included in this approval but return under a separate application with a lessened scale and applicant should be allowed to reduce the exterior side walls of the building by one foot on each side, the eaves of the building shall remain as proposed and appropriate spacing of front windows shall be confirmed by staff. Mr. Rossetti seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.
3. 141 East Broad Street COA-2012-12-2700 Petitioner: Robert Segrest as agent for Athens Lot LLC/Charles Wathen Request: New Construction Information: 171B5 B003, Downtown, C-D (DHD) Ms. Eskew presented the Staff Report, recommending approval with conditions. The application design was approved in February 2010 and expired without progress. In Favor: Bob Segrest, architect for the project Commission Discussion: Prior to Commission discussion, Mr. Segrest stated that the polycarbonate and tinted glass will be replaced with clear glass, the grid on the two brick elements of the façade will be continuous brick and there would be no attempt to subdivide. Several Commission members expressed their approval for the creative design that fits in well in downtown. Mr. Lonnee asked for clarification from Mr. Segrest regarding the brick material. Mr. Segrest stated that this would be standard brick. Motion: Ms. Bradley made a motion for approval with the conditions as outlined in the staff report. Mr. Trudeau seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. 4. 278 Lyndon Avenue COA-2012-12-2712 Petitioner: David Matheny / Armentrout Matheny Thurmond as agent for Jared York Request: New Construction Information: 114D4 A016A, Boulevard, RS-8 Ms. Eskew presented the Staff Report. Staff recommended approval with conditions. In Favor: David Matheny spoke as agent for owner. Jared York spoke as owner and builder. Commission Discussion: Prior to Commission discussion, Mr. Matheny showed the Commission several changes that the client would like to be considered and addressed the conditions outlined in the staff report. He suggested the setback be about 22 feet from the street rather than midpoint between the two adjacent structures; the scale of the dormer on the front would like to keep the gable type; explained the reason for the front gable; explained the reasons for window patterns and noted that they are appropriately placed for the use inside the house; he noted that they would like to keep the vinyl clad windows due to the maintenance factor. Two changes requested include the option of using a standing seam metal roof rather than an asphalt shingle roof and replacing a window with a door on the side of the house to access the driveway/kitchen area. Ms. Bradley would like to see the roofing material stay as submitted since it affects the appearance of scale. Mr. Sams stated that there is a difference from the street between wood and other materials for windows. It gives a flavor of cheapness and is not in keeping
with the neighborhood. Mr. Trudeau and Mr. Rossetti are not convinced that a vinyl clad wood window is inappropriate for a non-contributing, new construction. Mr. Dekle does not think the front gable dormer is a concern. The Commission agrees that adding a door in place of a window would be appropriate. Mr. Rossetti asked Mr. Matheny to show the setback on the site plan. Mr. Matheny indicated that the setback would move from 15 feet to about 22 feet. Ms. Eskew stated that this would meet the range proposed in the staff report. Motion: Ms. Kuykendall made a motion for approval as stated in the staff report with the following conditions: 1) the front yard setback shall be altered to be within the range of the mid-point between the two adjacent dwellings and the more forward setback of the southern neighbor; 2) the scale of the proposed new structure is to be lessened through the use of a full side gable form at the southern elevation with a side shed dormer being a distinct mass similar to the northern elevation and including the adjustment of the paired window to the east; 3) the chimney should be true stucco material; 4) the window shall be wood clad PVC or vinyl clad profiled exterior or simulated divided lights; 5) the applicant shall be allowed an addition of a new door on the south elevation in place of the rear window with standing seam shed roof of awning style; 6) the applicant will have the option of using standing seam roofing material; and 7) revised drawings shall be submitted for staff approval reflecting the condition of the approval and any chosen design options. Mr. Rossetti seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. 5. 191 East Broad Street COA-2012-12-2713 Petitioner: David Matheny / Armentrout Matheny Thurmond as agent for Fred Moorman Request: Window Replacement Information: 171B5 B007E, Downtown, C-D (DHD) Ms. Eskew presented the Staff Report. Staff recommended approval. In Favor: David Matheny spoke as agent for owner. Commission Discussion: Ms. Bradley stated that a new one over one window is already in place. She noted the unattractiveness of the window the stark white, narrow frame stood out. The replacement windows are not appropriate for such a prominent and historic building. When asked by the Commission, Mr. Matheny confirmed that the window in place is the same window to be used. Commission suggested that staff approve a sample window. Dr. Fred Moorman explained his reasoning for using this particular window the cost of special order, life span and safety. Mr. Dekle agreed that there is a greater cost involved but disagreed with the lifespan and safety/building code issue. Mr. Trudeau noted that the original windows are no longer available and this replacement will not be a major
difference from the inappropriate window in place now. He continued that it is not the burden of the applicant to replace with an original window. Guidelines do not specify the appearance of new windows. Mr. Sams stated that this is an opportunity to transition to proper materials rather than continuing with using lesser quality materials. Mr. Davis noted that it is a common principle in zoning, especially for historic districts, that when changes are made in existing, non-conforming materials, the applicant is required to bring to existing code or historic standards. Ms. Kuykendall stated that she feels that there is not enough information provided. She would like the Commission to take some time to evaluate the proposal and give the applicant time to consider the Commission s concerns. Commission agreed that they would like to see the material before making a decision. Motion: Ms. Kuykendall made a motion to table the request. Ms. Bradley seconded the motion. Mr. Matheny stated that his client did not wish to table and requested a vote. Therefore, Ms. Kuykendall withdrew her motion. Ms. Kuykendall motioned to deny the application due to not having enough information regarding the proposed window and what has been presented appears to not meet the guidelines. Ms. Bradley seconded the motion, which passed 3 to 2 (Bradley, Kuykendall & Dekle for denial and Rossetti and Trudeau opposed.) 6. 149 Virginia Avenue COA-2012-12-2709 Petitioner: Paul Trudeau Request: Rear Screened Porch Addition Information: 163C3 C008, Boulevard, RS-8 Ms. Eskew presented the Staff Report. Staff recommended approval with one condition. In Favor: None Commission Discussion: Mr. Trudeau recused himself as he is the applicant and owner of the property. Commission noted that, based on the guidelines, this is an appropriate addition. It appears subordinate to the structure and materials seem consistent. Motion: Mr. Dekle made a motion for approval with the following condition: that the vertical siding and railings have a painted or opaque stained finish. Ms. Bradley seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. CONCEPTUAL PRELIMINARY DESIGN REVIEW: None. OTHER BUSINESS
1. ENDORSEMENT REQUEST: The Friends of the Oconee Hills Cemetery are working with HED to apply for a CLG pre-development grant. One requirement of this grant is that the applicant has the endorsement of the local Historic Preservation Commission. After discussion, the Commission endorsed the project. Ms. Bradley moved to endorse the grant application, Mr. Dekle seconded the motion and the motion passed unanimously. Ms. Eskew provided an endorsement letter for Mr. Sams signature. 2. REVIEW OF 2012 HPC ACTIONS: Ms. Eskew provided a recap of applications in 2012 - the number of COA s, agenda items, new construction, staff reviews, and tax incentives and compared them against the last few years. 3. DESIGNATION Committee Report: Ms. Eskew reported that the Committee met on Monday, January 14, 2013. The Committee reviewed 2 preliminary inquiries regarding landmark designations. She noted that Buena Vista is on the Mayor and Commission agenda for agenda setting on January 17 th and voting meeting on February 5 th. 4. EDUCATION Committee Report: Ms. Eskew reported that the Committee met January 16, 2013. They looked at ideas for HPC training and looked at ideas for training in an outreach sense with citizens, applicants, and government officials. The Education Committee suggests that training for the HPC be held as a separate session rather than adding it at the end of a regular meeting. Ms. Eskew will send out an e-mail to schedule the training session. 5. MISCELLANEOUS ANNOUNCEMENTS: Mr. Dekle will not be able to attend the February meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m.