Agenda
Design Review Committee
April 25, 2007
1. Chairman's
Report -- Matt Benson
2. Director's
Report -- Dan Morrill
3. Applications
for a Certificate of Appropriateness -- Stewart Gray
The Charlotte-Mecklenburg
Historic Landmarks Commission uses the "The Secretary Of
The Interior's Standards For Rehabilitation" to judge
the appropriateness of proposed projects. Below
are listed those guiding standards.
1. A property shall be
used for its historic purpose or be placed in a new use
that requires minimal change to the defining
characteristics of the building and its site and
environment.
2. The historic
character of a property shall be retained and preserved.
The removal of historic materials or alteration of
features and spaces that characterize a property shall
be avoided.
3. Each property shall
be recognized as a physical record of its time, place,
and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical
development, such as adding conjectural features or
architectural elements from other buildings, shall not
be undertaken.
4. Most properties
change over time; those changes that have acquired
historic significance in their own right shall be
retained and preserved.
5. Distinctive
features, finishes, and construction techniques or
examples of craftsmanship that characterize a historic
property shall be reserved.
6. Deteriorated
historic features shall be repaired rather than
replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires
replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature
shall match the old in design, color, texture, and other
visual qualities and, where possible, materials.
Replacement of missing features shall be substantiated
by documentary, physical, or pictorial evidence.
7. Chemical or
physical treatments, such as sandblasting, that cause
damage to historic materials shall not be used. The
surface cleaning of structures, if appropriate, shall be
undertaken using the gentlest means possible.
8. Significant
archeological resources affected by a project shall be
protected and preserved. If such resources must be
disturbed, mitigation measures shall be undertaken.
9. New additions,
exterior alterations, or related new construction shall
not destroy historic materials that characterize the
property. The new work shall be differentiated from the
old and shall be compatible with the massing, size,
scale, and architectural features to protect the
historic integrity of the property and its environment.
10. New additions and
adjacent or related new construction shall be undertaken
in such a manner that if removed in the future, the
essential form and integrity of the historic property
and its environment would be unimpaired.
|
|
A. Certificate of
Appropriateness Application for the
William Grier House, 8416 Steele Creek Road.
The proposed project would involve moving the house approximately 1,000
feet to the north to a new one acre lot.
The above photo shows the approximate location of the new house site,
and demonstrates the relatively short distance that the house will need
to be moved.
The applicant is
proposing to set the house on a new brick foundation at the new site.
The original chimneys, up to the shoulders, will be moved with the
house. The remainder of the chimneys will be rebuilt at the new
site. The applicant is also proposing to replace the
existing wood siding with fiber cement siding.
Staff
Recommendation:
I.
That the move
of the historic house be allowed after the house is fully documented at
its current site with comprehensive photography.
II.
That the original wood siding on the porch be preserved.
III. That any visible piers in the current foundation be replicated in
the new foundation.
B. Certificate of
Appropriateness Application for the
Hayes-Byrum House, 8522 Steele Creek Road.
The proposed project would involve moving the house approximately 2,000
feet to the north to a new one acre lot.
The above photo shows the approximate location of the new house site
and demonstrates the relatively short distance that the house will need
to be moved.
The applicant is
proposing to set the house on a new brick foundation at the new site.
The applicant is also proposing to replace the existing wood siding with
fiber cement siding.
Staff
Recommendation:
I.
That the move
of the historic house be allowed after the house is fully documented at
its current site with comprehensive photography.
II.
That the original wood siding on the porch be preserved.
III. That any visible piers in the current foundation be replicated in
the new foundation.
C. Certificate of
Appropriateness Application for the Oehler House, Huntersville-Concord
Road, Huntersville
Oehler House:
Restore and repair the brick house interior and
exterior to its original state.
Upgrade existing electrical service.
Replace or repair as necessary the doors and windows.
Replace existing metal roof with same.
Provide a new railing and brick piers on the front
porch.
Existing Addition:
Reframe with new windows and doors.
Reuse refurbished siding.
Provide a new bay window.
Provide a new deck, back door landing and railing.
Reframe the shed dormer with 3”-6” elevational
setback.
According to the
applicant:
I.
Their
goal is to create
a more transparent and diminutive addition that will direct attention
back to the original brick house. By breaking the addition into smaller
architectural pieces (gable, shed, bay window and porch), the brick
house will be the focus of the property.
II. The addition must be reframed to meet
current code requirements. Reframing presents an opportunity to add
windows and doors that will create transparency so that the original
exterior wall of the brick house will be visible through the addition.
III. Existing siding will be salvaged,
refurbished and reinstalled to retain the patina of age appropriate to
the property.
IV. A new bay window will provide a focal
point in the unarticulated southeast elevation of the addition. Centered
on the gabled portion of the addition, the bay window will echo the
interest and elevational depth of the original brick wall and chimney
breast.
V. A new deck will wrap around from the
rear of the house to the back door of the addition, mitigating the
severity and size of the rear shed. The gabled portion of the addition
will be visually stronger as the shed recedes behind the deck. On the
rear elevation, the deck unifies the brick house and addition while
providing basement access and a landing for the original rear door.
VI. The shed dormer setback will create a
reveal on the southeast elevation of the addition that will echo the
hidden rear edge of the brick house.
 |
| Existing Front Elevation |
 |
| Proposed Changes to the Front Elevation |
 |
| Existing Rear Elevation |
 |
| Proposed Rear Elevation |
 |
| Proposed South Elevation |
 |
| Proposed Floor Plan |
1. Staff recommends that the
proposed new bay window be rectangular in shape and have a simple shed
roof.
2. Staff recommends
that the exterior paint color of the addition be executed to minimize
the visual impact of the addition and that the applicant submit paint
colors to the HLC staff for its approval.
D. Certificate of Appropriateness Application for the
Home Federal Savings and Loan Building, 139 South Tryon, Charlotte.
I. The owner of the building is proposing
to build a parking garage at the rear of the building. The
one-story steel-framed garage would feature a metal mesh wall covering
adjacent to the sidewalk. The remainder of the building would be
covered with polycarbonate wall panels. The roof of the garage
would support HVAC equipment.
 |
| Fourth Street Elevation |
|
 |
| Garage Floor Plan |
|
 |
| Polycarbonate Wall Panels |
II.
The owner of the building is
proposing that the approved design for the building's new balconies be
changed to comply with recommendations from the State Historic
Preservation Office.
 |
| Floor plan of new proposed
balconies |
 |
| Proposed new wall surrounding balconies |
III. The owner's
building is proposing changes to the entrance into the elevator lobby
and to the elevator lobby area.
 |
| Current entrance |
 |
 |
| Proposed floor plans of entrance |
 |
| Proposed elevator lobby floor plan |
 |
| Proposed elevation of the entrance and
interior of the elevator lobby |
Staff
Recommendation:
1.
Staff recommends that no decision be made regarding the proposed parking
garage until sufficient documentation is presented by the applicant
giving details of the exterior architectural elements so that a judgment
can be made about the issue of compatibility.
2.
Staff recommends that the window treatment of the balconies be modified
from arrangement already approved by the Historic Landmarks Commission
so that the applicant can satisfy the conditions advanced by the State
Historic Preservation Office for tax credits.
3.
Staff believes that the proposed changes to the entryway, entrance
vestibule, and elevator lobby do not meet the Secretary of the
Interior's Standards and therefore should not be approved.
4. Old Business
5. New Business
|
