Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout04-06-2016 Minutes HDC Regular MeetingPage 1 of 7 MINUTES HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION Wednesday, April 06, 2016, 7:00 PM, Town Barn Present: Chairman Anna Currie, Vice Chairman Reid Highley, Laura Simmons, Brad Farlow, Joe Griffin, Jill Heilman, Virginia Smith Staff: Stephanie Trueblood Guests: David Cates, Lynn Roberts, Julia Mack ITEM # 1: Call to order, roll call, and confirmation of quorum Chairman Currie called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. Ms. Trueblood called the roll and confirmed the presence of a quorum. ITEM # 2: Reading of the Commission’s Mission Statement Chairman Currie read the Commission’s Mission Statement. ITEM # 3: Additions to the agenda and agenda adjustment Chairman Currie added an item to review a statement to present as testimony at the Joint Public Hearing regarding a proposed amendment to the Unified Development Ordinance regarding changing the review processes. ITEM # 4: Approval of minutes from the March 2, 2016 meeting Motion: Vice Chairman Highley moved approval of the minutes with changes. Second: Ms. Heilman seconded. Vote: Unanimous Changes: p. 4: “use” to “discussion” ITEM # 5: Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for Jill Heilman and Stephen Gardner to remove one mature oak tree and replace it with a large shade tree and build an 8’ x 10’ pergola with fiberglass columns and/or steel posts and canopy in the rear yard at 201 E. Tryon Street (PIN 9874-17-5190) Motion: Mr. Farlow made a motion to open the public hearing. Second: Ms. Simmons seconded. Vote: Unanimous Chairman Currie asked whether anyone had a conflict of interest. Ms. Heilman recused herself. Motion: Ms. Smith moved to excuse Jill Heilman from this COA review. Second: Ms. Simmons seconded. Vote: Unanimous Ms. Heilman was sworn in as the applicant. Ms. Trueblood stated that this application is regarding 201 E. Tryon Street. There are a mixture of Contributing and Non-Contributing structures and vacant lots in the vicinity. Page 2 of 7 The architecture is: Non-Contributing: 2014-2015. No inventory information. The work proposed is to remove one mature oak tree located (just west of the garage) that is in deteriorating health and replace it on the property with a large shade tree and build an 8’x10’ pergola that will be 9’ tall, and will have fiberglass columns to match the house or steel posts and a steel canopy in the rear yard. Agenda packets included: Notification information and vicinity map, a narrative with material list submitted by the applicant with drawing of the proposed pergola, site plan, an email from Certified Arborist stating that the tree is in decline, photos of the oak tree. The Applicable Design Guidelines are: Site Features and Plantings. Ms. Heilman added that they had hoped this tree would thrive despite construction on the property but it is declining. When asked whether they will plant another oak, Ms. Heilman answered they haven’t fully decided whether it will be an oak or a similar tree. Chairman Currie said the Guidelines advise replacing with a tree of similar size and stature and an oak would be wonderful. Ms. Heilman said they are hoping to buy a tree that is already of considerable size and possibly replant it in the same location. Ms. Heilman asked if there were any questions about the pergola. She plans to paint it buff or sand color. Motion: Mr. Farlow moved to close the public hearing. Second: Vice Chairman Highley seconded. Vote: Unanimous Motion: Mr. Farlow moved to find as a fact that the Jill Heilman and Stephen Gardner application is in keeping with the overall character of the Historic District and complies with all relevant standards of evaluation based on the Board’s discussion of the application and the standards of evaluation in section 3.12.3 of the Unified Development Ordinance because the plans are consistent with Design Guidelines: Site Features and Plantings. Second: Vice Chairman Highley seconded. Vote: Unanimous Motion: Mr. Farlow moved to approve the application as submitted. Second: Ms. Simmons seconded. Vote: Unanimous ITEM # 6: Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for Stephen and Lynn Roberts to paint the brick exterior ‘Gray Area’ SW 7052 at 306 W. Margaret Lane (PIN 9864-86-5021) Motion: Ms. Simmons moved to open the public hearing. Second: Mr. Griffin seconded. Vote: Unanimous Chairman Currie asked whether anyone had a conflict of interest regarding this application. No one did. David Cates informed the commission that he would be representing the applicant for this application. Mr. Cates was then sworn in. Ms. Trueblood stated that this application is regarding 306 W. Margaret Lane. There is a mixture of Contributing and Non-Contributing structures in the vicinity. The Architecture is: Non-Contributing: c. 1964. This one-story, side-gabled, brick Ranch house is five bays wide and double-pile with six-over-six wood-sash windows, including a group of three windows on Page 3 of 7 the right (east) end of the façade. Windows on the façade have vinyl aprons and there is vertical vinyl sheathing over the right two bays of the façade. The replacement front door is sheltered by a t hree-bay- wide, shed-roofed porch supported by square posts. There is an interior brick chimney near the left (west) end and an exterior brick chimney in the right gable. A shed-roofed wing at the right rear (northeast) has vertical plywood sheathing. County tax records date the building to 1964. The proposed work is to paint the exterior brick ‘Gray Area’ SW 7052. Agenda packets included: Notification information, vicinity Map, narrative packet with photos throughout, copy of the paint chip. The Applicable Design Guidelines are: Paint and Exterior Color, Masonry. Mr. Cates added that the house’s siding material includes brick, vinyl siding and T1-11 and there’s discolored brick and areas of the brick in disrepair. The plan is to remove the vinyl siding and replace with wood. The proposal is to paint the new wood, the T1-11 and the brick to make the exterior more cohesive. The paint color chosen is intended to be subtle and not obtrusive. The packet includes a list of several painted brick houses in the Historic District. He mentioned one more this evening – across from the Burwell School. He noted that one- story ranch style houses were often painted and that is what this house is. He noted that one of the concerns in the Design Guidelines regarding painting brick is that it can be difficult to maintain, but brick generally needs to be painted less often than wood siding. Ms. Trueblood noted that some of the brick houses in the Historic District may have been painted before the Design Guidelines were put into place in 2000. At least two have been approved for painting since then. She shared that a house on Cameron Street was approved with the rationale that there was a lot of discoloration in the original brick. She shared another example more recent than the Design Guidelines but before she was on staff and she doesn’t know the rationale. A board member shared another example and Ms. Trueblood said the rationale for that one was also discoloration (it had previously been painted and then was damaged). Ms. Smith said one of the treasured houses in town, The Berry Brick House, has a lot of discoloration and yet she wouldn’t want it to be painted. It’s a very different house. Ms. Trueblood said there have been times when applicants have been denied regarding painting a brick house. In those examples, it’s been a contributing house. Chairman Currie said she has no financial interest in this property but Stephen Roberts manages the property that she rents. And Stephen Roberts is in the process of buying this house. Mr. Farlow asked whether you’ve considered painting it the color of the wood rather than the lighter color. Lynn Roberts was sworn in. Ms. Roberts answered the first idea was to paint the brick and siding all one color. But she thought if we painted the siding the trim color, it would be more like houses now. Mr. Farlow asked if you had thought to paint the wood to match the brick. Ms. Roberts said they had not considered that. Chairman Currie said she struggles with this because she loves painted brick but the Design Guidelines states not to paint brick. As a commission, perhaps we need to visit how we define historic masonry surfaces. It depends on whether we consider this historic brick. It was suggested that if the house is non-Contributing, then the brick is not historic. Vice Chairman Highley said he came to a different conclusion upon reading the Guidelines. He read that Guideline 5 in this section states that it’s not appropriate to paint brick that was not painted historically and the application makes a pretty strong case that brick houses from this era were often painted. He thinks there is room in the Guidelines to allow for painting a house of this vintage and style. Chairman Currie asked whether there was anyone in the audience to speak for or against this application. There was no one. Page 4 of 7 Motion: Ms. Heilman moved to close the public hearing. Second: Ms. Simmons seconded. Vote: Unanimous Motion: Ms. Smith moved to find as a fact that the Lynn and Stephen Roberts application is in keeping with the overall character of the Historic District and complies with all relevant standards of evaluation based on the Board’s discussion of the application and the standards of evaluation in section 3.12.3 of the Unified Development Ordinance because the plans are consistent with Design Guidelines: Paint and Exterior Color, Masonry. Second: Mr. Griffin seconded. Vote: Unanimous Motion: Ms. Smith moved to approve the application as submitted. Second: Ms. Heilman seconded. Vote: Unanimous Conditions: None ITEM # 7: Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for Debbie Hill to replace the existing brick steps in the front walkway at the property line with new brick steps at 176 W. King Street (PIN 9864-96-7336) Julia Mack was sworn in. Motion: Mr. Farlow moved to open the public hearing. Second: Ms. Heilman seconded. Vote: Unanimous Chairman Currie asked whether anyone had a conflict of interest. Ms. Smith said she needed to recuse herself because she shares a property line. Motion: Ms. Heilman moved to excuse Ms. Smith for this COA review. Second: Ms. Simmons seconded. Vote: Unanimous Ms. Trueblood stated that this application is regarding 176 W. King Street. There are mostly Contributing structures in the vicinity. The architecture is: Contributing: c. 1907, 2007. B.B. Forrest House: This massive two-and-a-half-story, side-gabled, Colonial Revival-style house is three bays wide and double-pile with a full-width, two-story, shed-roofed rear wing. The house has plain weatherboards with scalloped boards in the west gable, one-over-one wood-sash windows, and two interior corbelled brick chimneys. A fifteen-light French door is centered on the façade and sheltered by a hip-roofed porch that extends around the right (east) elevation. The porch has a standing-seam metal roof, is supported by slender Tuscan columns, and has a low railing with turned rails. A portion of the porch on the right elevation has been enclosed with screens. There are two eight-over-one wood-sash windows on the second-floor level of the façade and a shed-roofed dormer on the façade with a one-light window flanked by twelve-light windows. The two- story rear wing replaced an earlier one-story wing in 2007; it has weatherboards, one-over-one wood- sash windows, and a deeply recessed entrance. County tax records date the building to 1907 and it first appears on the 1911 Sanborn map. It was built for B.B. Forrest, general store operator [Bellinger]. Shed: Hip-roofed frame shed with plain weatherboards, deep eaves, a six-light awning window on the south elevation, and an entrance on the west elevation [HDC]. Page 5 of 7 The Proposed Work: For this application we are looking at an existing site feature. The applicant is proposing to replace the existing brick steps in the front walkway at the property line with new brick steps. The new steps will have a standard/even rise and rectify the current tripping hazard. Agenda packets included: Notification information and vicinity map, survey indicating location of front steps, sketch of current and proposed brick steps, architect drawing of existing steps and gate section, architect drawing of proposed steps and gate section, photos of existing steps and gate (there were photos in the packets of other steps in the vicinity-sorry for the confusion) The Applicable Design Guidelines are: Masonry, Site Features and Plantings, Walkways, Driveways and Off-street Parking. Chairman Currie asked whether anyone in the audience was here to speak for or against the application. There was no one. Ms. Heilman asked if the gate will be set back. Ms. Mack answered no, it will remain there. Chairman Currie asked whether any bricks can be re-used for the steps. Ms. Mack answered they are hoping to re- use some or will match. Chairman Currie asked whether the bricks will be old brick. Ms. Mack answered positively. In answering a question about the presence of a handrail, Ms. Mack said that will require paperwork because it’s in the right of way. Ms. Trueblood said the new steps will come out farther. The town will help coordinate the encroachment agreement with the DOT for the fourth step in the right of way. Ms. Mack said the reason for the change is safety – uneven and crumbling. But it’s also aesthetic, too. Motion: Ms. Heilman moved to close the public hearing. Second: Mr. Farlow seconded. Vote: Unanimous Motion: Ms. Heilman moved to find as a fact that the Debbie Hill application is in keeping with the overall character of the Historic District and complies with all relevant standards of evaluation based on the Board’s discussion of the application and the standards of evaluation in section 3.12.3 of the Unified Development Ordinance because the plans are consistent with Design Guidelines: Masonry, Site Features and Plantings, Walkways, Driveways and Off-street Parking. Second: Mr. Farlow seconded. Vote: Unanimous Motion: Ms. Heilman moved to approve the application as submitted. Second: Mr. Farlow seconded. Vote: Unanimous Conditions: none ITEM # 8: Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for Reid Highley on behalf of Stuart and Linda Paynter to relocate an existing shed in the rear yard at 115 E. Tryon Street (PIN 9874-07-9171) Motion: Ms. Simmons moved to open the public hearing. Second: Mr. Griffin seconded. Vote: Unanimous Motion: Mr. Farlow moved to excuse Reid Highley for this COA review. Second: Ms. Heilman seconded. Vote: Unanimous Reid Highley was sworn in. Page 6 of 7 Ms. Trueblood stated that this application is regarding 115 E. Tryon Street. There are mostly Contributing structures in the vicinity. The Architecture is: Contributing: c. 1890 – c. 1910, 2013. Edward Atkins Rosemond House [Gattis House]: Constructed from c. 1890 to c. 1910, this impressive house features an original two-story, triple- A-roofed, I-house on the left (west), with a c. 1910, two-story, front-gabled, wing on the right (east). The I-house form is three bays wide and single-pile with a decorative gabled centered on the façade and two exterior brick chimneys on the rear elevation. The house has a fieldstone pier foundation, plain weatherboards, and six-over-six wood-sash windows throughout. Wood trim includes rounded cornerboards, deep boxed eaves with wide friezeboards, and quatrefoil vents in the gables. The six-light- over-two-panel door is sheltered by a near-full-width, flat-roofed porch supported by grouped square columns with a decorative railing at the roofline. There is a six-light-over-two-panel door centered on the second-floor façade as well. The front-gabled wing has a canted bay on the façade with four-over- four windows on the cut-away elevations, an interior brick chimney, and a fifteen-light French door on the right elevation that is sheltered by a flat-roofed porch supported by grouped square posts. A one- story, gabled wing projects from the right rear (northeast) with a standing-seam metal roof and grouped four-over-four windows. A modern addition is under construction at the left rear (northwest). Deed indicate that Edward Atkins Rosemond purchased the property in 1885 and Sanborn maps show that the house was constructed between 1888 and 1894. The house appears enlarged on the 1905 Sanborn map with construction to the west of the rear ell, and was further enlarged to the east with a front-gabled form shown on the 1911 edition. Upon his death, Edward Atkins Rosemond left the house to a daughter, Susan Gordon Rosemond Robertson, who then passed to her daughter Mary Susan Roberston Gattis. Wellhouse (c.1894): This side-gabled, dogtrot-plan, outbuilding appears on the 1894 Sanborn map. It has two pens straddling a well. It has plain weatherboards, a metal tile roof, six-over-nine wood-sash windows, and four-panel doors. Shed (c. 1920): Shed-roofed frame shed on a stone-pier foundation with plain weatherboards and a metal roof with exposed rafters. Garage (c. 1980): Front-gabled, frame garage with a concrete-block foundation, plain weatherboards, and a wide overhead door on the south elevation. The proposed work is to: Relocate an existing shed in the rear yard to the rear of the garage. Orientation will remain the same. Agenda packets included: Notification information and vicinity map, site plan with narrative and photos, email describing height of shed. The Applicable Design Guidelines are: Relocation of Existing Buildings, Fences and Walls, Site Features and Plantings. Mr. Highley said the Paynters would like to use the shed as a gardening shed. Mr. Farlow asked whether the shed foundation would be moved. Mr. Highley said no and he doesn’t think it’s there anymore (not swearing that it’s not but he hadn’t noticed it). The new foundation will be pressure treated wood. Chairman Currie asked whether there was anyone present to speak for or against the project. There was no one. Motion: Ms. Smith moved to close the public hearing. Second: Mr. Farlow seconded. Vote: Unanimous Motion: Ms. Smith moved to find as a fact that the Paynter application is in keeping with the overall character of the Historic District and complies with all relevant standards of evaluation based on the Board’s discussion of the application and the standards of evaluation in section 3.12.3 of the Unified Page 7 of 7 Development Ordinance because the plans are consistent with Design Guidelines: Relocation of Existing Buildings, Fences and Walls, Site Features and Plantings. Second: Ms. Heilman seconded. Vote: Unanimous Motion: Ms. Smith moved to approve the application as submitted. Second: Ms. Heilman seconded. Vote: Unanimous Conditions: None ITEM # 9: Discuss 2016 Preservation Awards The board members made suggestions for recipients and will make nominations at the May meeting. ITEM #10: Updates  Alliance for Historic Hillsborough: Anna Currie No update.  Staff updates Board members asked a few questions about specific projects underway.  Chairman Currie add SUP/CUP statement Chairman Currie read her proposed statement. Board members offered edits and reordered the sentences in the statement. Motion: Chairman Currie moved to approved the reordered statement and enter as testimony at the April 21, 2016 public hearing. Second: Mr. Highley seconded. Vote: Unanimous ITEM #11: Adjourn Motion: Mr. Farlow moved to adjourn. Second: Ms. Heilman seconded. Vote: Unanimous