HOZ ARB reconsiders 306 S. Center

During its regular Mar. 06, 2019 meeting, the Forney HOZ Architecture Review Board met and in summary: after a lengthy and often emotional debate, approved latest plans conditionally upon State Historic board approving widened porches. Watch Video

• Held Public Hearing -
  • a request for a certificate of appropriateness, in accordance with the Historic Overlay Zone district regulations, for exterior changes to the main structure at 306 S. Center Street.
        Mr. Morgan welcomed Mr. Hatley, Mr. Parker & Ms. Blair to the board. Home renovations began years ago under different owner. This is first time considering these plans, newest ones presented today, newer than packet. P&Z sent it back to ARB due to changes to plans. Changes are smaller porch extensions, front porch base, architectural changes to porch and balconies. Staff received two calls in favor, two emails and one written response opposed. FHPL opposed original plans, Mr. Beason has provided recommendations for plans.
        Stacey Sellers Stephens, daughter of applicant, spoke, stating Mr. Sellers has been in construction business 30 years. At first meeting Mr. Grooms stated porches were in good condition, they actually need to be rebuilt, they are unsafe. Also stated was the home should be restored to 1886, there are many pictures, one with a window unit which did not exist in 1886. No guidelines were provided. On purchase, the home was largely taken apart. Hand railings were outside on the porch, deteriorating. When took plans to P&Z, they agreed porches needed to be redone, but lacked expertise to review. They (applicants) were thrilled Mr. Beason provided a list of changes - the plans they brought show the shutters added, the handrails with X's are shown, the brackets on the pillars are there, will gather as many of original bricks as possible. It's pricey to keep having architect redo plans. Mr. Sellers said the only thing he wanted was to have a bigger back porch; it will not change the look of the home, been fighting this issue for 5 months just to changes porches. First meeting he was irritated to be asked why need a bigger porch. Back porch has been rebuilt twice.
        Ms. Davis spoke about original design components that made it a showplace, including roof feature that would make it look round - the plans look square. It looks more like a simple farm house. It should be restored to make it authentic. Parts that weren't left with the property, they can be remade. It's been in restoration a very long time. District is to maintain historic accuracy.
        Darrell Grooms suggested people watch the video (located here) from December meeting, where the applicant left before the board voted. He never said the porches didn't need to be rebuilt. In December, applicant stated they threw away railings. The current plans look more historically accurate, he would favor keeping porches the same size. Crosshatches were probably rotted, but should have been kept as a pattern. Documents submitted to receive the state plaque listed the crosshatch and shutters. Forney has 4 residential markers. He sent the December plans to the state, who said that would probably lose the medallion. The new plans might not. He suggests the board be very specific in their decision, not leave anything up to ownership judgement, and should leave the front porches the same size.
        Charles Beason spoke - he believes the owners have the original brackets that would provide the rounded look. The FHPL voted to be in favor of the newest plans. Other detail may need to be discussed - in photos, there appears to be wood siding below the balconies, possibly with some roofing material. In later photos does appear to be composition shingles. FHPL would like to have this home on the 2020 tour.
        Ronnie Rexrode came before this board 3 yrs ago for his house. He was on P&Z, he's in full support of what applicants want to do. Previous owner did a lot of work, these folks will likely spend another $300k on it. It's a shame what an ordeal the owners have gone through.
        Mr. Hatley asked if they spoke w/ state about maintaining designation. Mr. Sellers said ARB has to approve plans first, state has had 7 complaints on this property, and if they have to drive here, will remove the plaque and condemn it - it isn't livable. He doesn't think previous owner got a permit to take the house apart - he could have piggy-backed off that, but doesn't believe there was one. Mr. Hatley said he understands, what will they require to maintain the plaque - is it true they can decide what State of Texas can approve? Don't think it works that way. Mr. Hatley would hate for them to approve something the state will kick back. Mr. Sellers said the board should have guidelines. Ms. Stephens said the reason board exists is to approve this. Mr. Hatley asked what are the rules from the state that they need to consider. She said they should know as members of the board, she doesn't understand how that has anything to do with them as applicants. Mr. Hatley said that is not what they do, perhaps the ARB could contact the state. There was discontent at more delays.
        Mr. Sellers asked about plaques vs HOZ. Mr. Hatley said they must have different rules. He mentioned the house across the street from him; Mr. Cunningham said the plaque is for the house, not the surroundings or basketball court.
        Mr. Hatley said he's not here to fight with them. Tracey asked what procedure was on the other 4 homes with medallions. Mr. Cunningham said the board did not exist when the other homes were awarded. Raymond Smith stated that was true, he was an original ARB member. Mr. Beason related information from Texas website - the exterior appearance should retain integrity. Changes must not be done without notifying the (state) 60 days in advance. No review over interior, unless affect exterior.
        Mr. Sellers said he was told if board approves it, just send plans to state who will review it. Mr. Hatley said he's been here for life, the purpose of the overlay was to hold on to the past. He wants the historic visualization on the street to remain, he's not prepared to say it's ok. Mr Sellers said he wants to bring the house back to its glory. They spent their life savings to come here, He felt ambushed in the first meeting because of one gentleman. Came here build home just like it was, the home was in shambles - work done on inside was remarkable, but the outside was just dumpy crap.
        Ms. Blair asked if could simplify the porch, have columns up & down - Ms. Stephens said that was their original plan and this board denied it. Mr. Sellers said it's not really a Queen Anne, it's a Folk Home on the outside. Inside it's a Queen Anne. He asked his architect, the railing on the porch should resemble the inside stair railings. Mr. Cunningham asked if it was Eastlake, mentioned on the medallion, it may have been done away with. Ms. Stephens said they want to do what in the picture. He will take the porches down carefully so can reuse the rafters. Re: using the bricks to hold the porch up - they are not structurally sound. He wants the house to look like it used to. In the first meeting, he did say didn't want it that way, but now willing to do it, he just wants to have bigger porch in the back. He wants to build a garage, may never see the porch.
        Mr. Cunningham asked about new and revised plans, he talked about the Eastlake style on the roofs - Mr Sellers said he won't change that. They discussed rafter tails vs boxed.
        Mr. Grooms hoped everyone in the room wants to retain the plaque; drawings then and now were night and day different. What was said before was based on what was presented in December - what was presented to P&Z is different, and tonight is also different.
        Mr. Hatley said need to discuss what want to do, not what happened previously. Mr. Sellers agreed, then asked Mr. Grooms what he would say about wider porches - Grooms said that's not the way it was. Mr. Sellers said Grooms has been deciding since day one.
        Ms. Blair asked if he was only extending the back porch - Mr Sellers said wants to extend the porches 3 ft. He could be happy w/ 2 ft. and on the back extend it 10 ft.
        Mr. Parker welcomed his desire to take on a money pit. He wants to cut through the clutter, seems Mr. Sellers is willing to agree w/ board except for porches. It's important the medallion be preserved. Narrowing changes to porches would be easy to get signed off. Could approve conditional on not changing the medallion. Not practical to take back to 1886, but should go to visual condition when medallion was presented. Mr. Hatley asked if means running porch widening through state; Mr. Parker said seems to have narrowed down to the porches.
        Mr. Sellers said he will put the house put up for sale tomorrow. He will have to spend thousands on new drawings, can't do anything except what Mr. Grooms wants, wish he (Grooms) had kept the house.
        Mr. Parker said he's not following, Mr. Sellers wants to keep the medallion. Mr. Sellers said guy at state would approve what the board approves. Mrs. Sellers said she made a big mistake buying the house. Mr. Sellers said he's begging one person to approve it, and if he said OK the board would approve it. Mr. Parker denied that. Mr. Sellers left the chambers.
        Ms. Sellers said the state won't approve it unless they approve it. Mr. Parker restated they could conditionally approve it based on state's approval of porches. He sees it as a baby step on this long journey, no additional plans should be needed. Mr. Rexrode asked if clarification was for the front porches - yes.
        That motion was approved.
        Ms. Sellers verified some details; Mr. Cunningham said the Eastlake style is important, Ms. Stephens asked for a copy of the blue folder the board has.
        Mr. Morgan clarified the motion was to approve the plan based on state confirming non-removal of the medallion.

• Adjourned at about 1918.