Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Minutes  10N. Public Square June 18, 2024 5:30. P.M.  Open Meeting  Called to order by Chairman Frisbee at 5:29 PM. Present: Greg Frisbee, Becky Carr, David Elder, and Lisa Ellis Absent: Brad Galland, Vandi White, and Larry Gregory  Staff Present: David Hardegree, Zack Arnold, Ashley Peters, and Keith Lovell  1. Approval of Minutes  Chairman Greg Frisbee called for ai motion to approve the minutes ofthe last meeting. Board Member Elder made ai motion to approve the meeting minutes from May 21, 2024. Board Member Carr seconded the motion to approve the minutes. The motion carried unanimously.  Vote:3-0  Certificate ofPreservation: 2. COP24-17.74 Oakland St.  Applicant: Alan Clark, AIA  David Hardegree, Planning and Development Assistant Director, stated per the original application COP24-17, the applicant proposes to construct a detached garage as well as multiple modifications to existing house. The following items are being proposed. Front Porch, Front of house (Brick/Shutters), Side Porch work, Existing Garage (New Doors/Windows), Newly Constructed Detached Garage, Rear Patio, Side of House BickShutersCanopy, There will be three additional site improvements that will be brought to a future HPC meeting for review due to additional details being needed. Retaining walls, additional fence, and guest parking. Per states records the original structure was builti in 1953. GHRS states 1950-1959. Major Renovations occurred in 2021 that completely modified the interior and exterior. The ranch home is historic, non- contributing. The current proposals seem compatible with the renovations that have occurred and variations oft the proposals that have occurred with the previous owners. The Board may choose to ask for clarification on the materials to be used for the board and batten siding, railings, and roofing. Thej proposed sitei improvements will: require reviewata ai future HPC Meeting once more details are provided. The covered walkway will not be included in the  scope ofwork.  Chairman Frisbee opened the floor for discussion.    Chairman Frisbee asked the applicant ifthere was ai typo on the: side porch pitch as well as the material ofthe rooff for side porch and the detached garage asi it isl listed as unknown. The applicant stated there was and that it will be 6/12 pitch and the roofwill be architectural shingles.  Board member Carr asked regarding the metal roofi for the property. The applicant stated that Board Member Ellis asked if the shutters were used for esthetics? The applicant stated that Board Member Elder asked if the porch will be the same size as the porch is now. The applicant stated that it might be al bit bigger. Board Member Elder also asked about thei new brick base and ifit will be painted. Thc applicant statcd that thc brick basc will match the brick that is  due to the pitch the metal roofwas needed and overall looks better.  they were.  on the home today and it will be painted to match the house.  Board Member Ellis asked if the driveway will be where the existing driveway is now. The Chairman Frisbee asked a question regarding the material of the columns that are with the proposed plans. The Applicant stated that they will be wood/square Tuscan style columns. Chairman Frisbee stated that he appreciated the thorough work on the plans. Chairman Frisbee closed the discussion and asked for a motion to be made.  applicant stated the new proposed driveway is in the same spot and will be nicer.  Board Member Elder made a motion to approve the application with the clarification on the columns and the architectural shingles. Board Member Ellis seconded the motion. Motion carried  unanimously. Vote: 3-0.  3. COP24-18. 10 Hillside  Applicant: Kevin and Michele Gunter  David Hardegree stated per the original application COP24-13, the applicant proposes to add ai front porch and demolish brick steps. First Meeting on. May 21, 2024, ended with a denial to allow for resubmission with further information for the committee. Mr. Hardegree met with the applicant to go over alternatives and with this new application they are submitting plans with The house was constructed C. 1954 according to Bartow County Tax assessor's records. There is no GHRS Survey. The house is Historic, Contributing. Applicant proposes to demolish the existing brick steps and landing at the front door. The front porch is to be constructed from wood or wood composite materials for the support columns, railings, and decking.  elevations and materials.    Chairman Frisbee opened the floor for discussion from the committee. Chairman Frisbee stated that there are design standards that HPC follows for contributing structures. In the standards there are several sections that he wanted toj point out. 1. Part 1 (B) paragraph 1 Masonry- retain and preserve masonry features that contribute to 2. Part 1 (J) paragraph 8 one shall not remove an original porch or entry or add ai new Mr. Lovell asked Chairman Frisbee if there is aj porch there? Ift the committee considers ita porch, they are not adding a new porch, they are expanding. Ift they do not consider it aj porch the applicant cannot build a newj porch per the ordinance. The board is there to decide ifthere is a porch the board can vote on howi it is to be expanded. Chairman Frisbee came back to Part 1 (B) stating the steps cannot be modified or changed. Mr. Lovell stated that in regard to Part1 (J) the board needs to make a decision ift the steps contribute to the historic features ofthe house. Chairman Frisbee stated that in his opinion that the stairs contribute to the historic features ofthe home and that the porch is not aj porch and would be considered an eve. Board Member Ellis asked in regard to the stairs condition and if they be salvaged. Board Member Carr stated the application stated that the stairs were disintegrating. Chairman Frisbee stated that in Section B- Paragraph 3 repair ofhistoric masonry surfaces and features using recognized preservation methods for patching, damaged, or deteriorated masonry. That is stating to repair what is there and the applicant would need to go back with like kind Mr. Lovell states that the repair is not a shall not scenario. The board is here to review what the applicant is wanting to come back with materials and provide solutions on the repair. All masonry requirements are guidelines not set in stone and board can make their own decision Chairman Frisbee stated that in J (8) the guidelines state there shall not have a porch built. Mr. Lovell stated that it is up to the board to decide ifit is considered a porch or not. Discussion commenced regarding whether the property has a porch.  the overall historic character oft the site. entrance or porch on a primary façade.  materials.  based on1 the guideline and each property is unique.  Mr. Lovell stated that there is not a defined term for porch ini the ordinances or guidelines. Board Member Carr asked ifthere was any attempt to save the porch that is present? The applicant stated that the contractor stated that it must be replaced due to settling and the bricks Mr. Lovell found an example from Huntington Woods. Their historic guidelines state a definition of what they consider to be a porch. A porch includes structures attached to or  that are present disintegrating.    immediately adjacent to aj permanent structure, with or without a1 roof, without permanent weatherproof walls or windows used as or connected to an entrance to the main structure. Discussion commenced further regarding the porch. Mr. Lovell also passed around the phone Board Member Ellis stated that she would consider it a porch. Ifthe stairs are not salvageable, they need tol be replaced, and she believes it would not ruin the historic value of the Chairman Frisbee stated that he does see this as an entrance and that it should not be changed according to our ordinances and that it will ruin al historic contributing home in the district. Board Member Ellis asked about the materials being used and asked ifthe applicant would  for all to read the definition.  home.  be willing to go back with like materials.  Chairman Frisbee closed the discussion and asked for ai motion to be made.  Board Member Ellis made a motion to approve the application to salvage the original brick and have lapse siding to match the rest oft the siding at the house as well as the steps to: remain brick. Board Member Elder seconded the motion. Motion was denied. Vote: 2-1. Mr. Lovell stepped in and stated that since there is a quorum of four there must be three affirmative votes to pass and ifthere are not three affirmative votes it is not approved. The chairman does not get to vote unless there is a tie. The request is still on the table, and nothing has been approved and denied. Ifthere is no other motion from the board the request is approved Board Member Carr asked for a definition of salvage. Board Member Ellis stated that it was using the bricks that are currently at the steps. The Applicant stated that he would use the bricks Mr. Lovell stated that there would be new bricks. The applicant stated that he cannot use the  after 45 days.  that could be used but that most oft them are not salvageable.  bricks that are present due to them crumbling.  Chairman Frisbee asked for a motion to be made. No other motion was given. Due to there not being a motion, the application is approved after 45 days.  4. € COP24-19. 178 W. Main St.  Applicant: Matt Womack  David Hardegree stated per the original application COP24-19, the applicant proposes to demolish the existing structure to construct (18) new townhomes. Also, variance, V24-17,to increase the area and duration of (2) temporary signs. The fourth building will come back before  HPC: for approval once plans are ready.    The structure was constructed C. 1960 according to the Bartow County Tax assessor's The existing primary structure is Historic, Non- Contributing. The proposal to construct (18) 3-1/2 story, townhomes within for building units on the 1.6-acre site. The city sold the property to Womack Custom Homes in February 2024 after an extended period for an RFP process and Demolition of the primary structure is a single story, brick structure that is known to have served as a funeral home, the city police station, and city municipal courthouse. The floor area of the building is stated as 11, 467sft and the accessory structure is 27x37ft. Both structures are required to be demolished for the townhome development. All existing trees on site will be The building units are primarily brick with some lap siding. The primary roofwilll be asphalt shingle. Metal roofs are: introduced over the ground floor and rooftop terraces. Balconies with metal railings are introduced on the rear side ofthe townhomes. The building units are rear- This will be the first townhome project in the DBD and the first significant residential project since the condominium apartments were constructed at 148 W. Main St. C. 2004.  records. There is no date provided in the GHRS survey.  developer due diligence.  removed.  access (2 car garages ini rear).  Chairman Frisbee opened the floor to discussion.  Board Member Elder stated that all the plans are showing all brick and some lap siding. The applicant stated that the gables will be siding due to the weight distribution on the fourth floor. Board Member Elder also asked regarding a gated access that will be on Bartow/Leake Street. Applicant stated they are not planning a gate for car entries. Pedestrian gates will be added. Stated that ift the HOA wants gated access, they can come back to get approval later. The applicant also stated that the fire department added an additional gate that will allow a fire truck Chairman Frisbee asked regarding the roofand windows for the property. He also asked regarding a landscaping ordinance. The applicant stated that the roofs will have architectural shingles and metal for the gables. The windows will be wood double hung windows. As far as the landscaping ordinance there will be grass or bushes between each driveway. Mr. Hardegree stated that this site is a very complicated site with utilities SO large trees will not be planted. Chairman Frisbee stated that he is glad to see residential housing coming to this area. Board Member Carr asked about a timeline of the project. The applicant stated that they should  to come through the property.  bei ready by late spring/early summer 25.  Chairman Frisbee closed the discussion and asked for ai motion to be made.    Board Member Carr made ai motion to approve the demolition and construction oft the 18 new townhomes as submitted. Board Member Elder seconded the motion. Motion carried  unanimously. Vote: 3-0.  5. COP24-20. 341 W Cherokee Avenue. Applicant: Colt Kelley and Stephanie Gargiulo David Hardegree stated per the original application COP24-19, the applicant proposes to add The house was constructed in C. 1958. The property is historic, contributing. The original house type is al Ranch House. The original house style is mid-century modern. The Owner/Applicant has faced multiple drainage challenges, and the solution was to raise the grade elevations in the backyard and diffuse. and divert the stormwater flowing across their property. Retaining walls is needed. There will be (2) architectural walls installed along the rear property line and the left side property line. A residential garden- style block wall along the  ar retaining wall to property.  right-side property line on side and rear yards.  Retaining walls do not have a specific HPC design standard but are reviewable based on the definitions section oft the HPC ordinance, ai new (retaining) wall constitutes a change in material  and is subject to HPC review.  Chairman Frisbee opened the floor to discussion.  The applicants Stephanie Gargiulo and Colt Kelley, 341 W Cherokee, came forward for the property and stated that they are trying to help deter water from the property due to a large  amount of run off from the nearby residences. will be located at the back of the property.  Andria Hertle, 24 Charles St, came forward asking for clarification regarding the fence that Chairman Frisbee opened the discussion among the committee. Stated that retaining walls isi in Board Member Elder asked Mr. Hardegree regarding the material ofthe walls. Stated that the wall along the rear and left side are one material and the wall on the right side is different material. Mr. Hardegree stated that they are two different architectural styles and that they almost Chairman Frisbee asked about the fence in the back oft the property as well as the gates that will be added into the fence. The applicant stated that the wood fence will go around the property  the ordinance and the committee has the authority to approve the walls.  match in color.    line and that it will be cut 2ft to stay within the ordinance. The gates and fence were all approved  administratively.  Chairman Frisbee closed the discussion and asked for ai motion tol be made.  Board Member Carr made ai motion to approve the application as submitted. Board Member  Elder seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. Vote: 3-0.  II. OTHER  Chairman Frisbee asked ifthere were additional items to discuss. Mr. Hardegree stated that there were not any additional items to cover.  Chairman Frisbee adjourned the meeting at 7: 17PM  -  Date Approved: 07/16/2024  /s/  K  Greg Frisbee, Chairman