1. Design Review Chairman’s Report
2. Consulting Director’s Report
3. Preservation Planner’s Report
A. Review of the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation 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 property shall be preserved.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.
B. Discussion of how the DRC should judge applications for rehabilitation projects.“Rehabilitation” is defined as “the process of returning a property to a state of utility, through repair or alteration, which makes possible an efficient contemporary use while preserving those portions and features of the property which are significant to its historic, architectural, and cultural values.”
4. COA application for the Hennigan Place, 3603 Tilley Morris Rd, Matthews
The applicant proposes to add an addition to the rear of the Hennigan Place. Changes to the interior of the house would be limited to converting the existing kitchen into a dining room, and the conversion of the keeping room into a bathroom and a laundry.
At the August meeting of the Design Review Committee there was a consensus among the members that it would be helpful to have additional details on the proposed foundation, steps, and millwork, and that the applicant should consider changing the proposed roof eaves, siding design, and window designs.
Click here to view revised plans.
Click here to view the plans presented at the August Design Review Committee meeting.
Below are notes on the plan revisions.
Roof Material. The plan presented to the Committee in August showed a shake roof. The applicant has revised to plan to show a standing-seam metal roof. They propose that standing seam is a period appropriate material, and that it also creates a clear delineation of the addition from the original.
Eave Line. The applicant reviewed options for the additions eaves, and is proposing the same eave design presented in August. The applicant proposes that the differentiation in the roof materials may address the issue.
Windows. The window schedule was revised based on the Committee’s comments.Foundation. Applicant is proposing a revised plan with brick curtain wall set back from the faces of brick piers.
Side Entry. The applicant revised the side stairs and proposes that they are compatable in material, but differentiated in design.
Staff recommends that the plan be approved as amended. Staff believes that the amended plan meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation numbers 2, 9 and 10.
5.Rural Hill Plantation, 4431 Neck Road, Huntersville
Applicant is proposing to build a dog-trot log house on the property. A house was proposed at the same location in a master plan for the historic property in 2001, and the master plan was approved by the HLC. A log house was proposed for a nearby location in a 2011 master plan.
The overall dimensions of the proposed house is 51′ wide by 18′ deep.
The proposed dimensions of the pens are as follows:
Pen 1: 18’ wide by 18′ deep
Dog-trot: 12’ wide by 18’ deep
Pen 2: 21’ wide by 18’ deep
Pier construction will be rubble-coursed stone, possibly with brick or block cores.
No ceilings, with galvanized steel roofing over rough sawn dimensional lumber.
Flooring inside will be t&g pine, dogtrot flooring will be PT pine
Each pen will have 4 windows and 2 doors (2 windows front and rear, 1 door front, 1 to dog-trot).
Windows will be closed with shutters.
All doors will be plank doors.
The proposed usage is to furnish in a mid-19th century fashion for demonstration and educational needs. With Rural Retreat furnished in a mid-18th century fashion, this will give us the ability to interpret 2 distinct time periods in American back-country history.
Staff recommends that the plan be approved with the condition that an interpretive sign or plaque identifying the house as a reconstruction of a typical 19th-century log house be placed on or near the proposed house. Staff believes that the plan meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation numbers 2, and 10. Staff believes that the project could meet number 9 if the building is properly interpreted. Staff also believes that the project meets the spirit of the “Rehabilitation” as defined by the NPS.