Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout04-07-2010 Minutes HDC Regular Meeting MINUTES HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION Wednesday, April 7, 2010 7:00 pm, Town Barn MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Mark Bell, Vice Chair Holly Snyder, Candice Cobb, David McCullough, Zach Read, Kenneth Trivette, and Zachary Vernon. STAFF: Planner Stephanie Trueblood. GUESTS: Pat Revels, Matthew J. Cockman, Cynthia Pacchiana, David Swanson, David Taylor, and Nicole Ard. ITEM #1: Call to order, roll call, and confirmation of quorum. Mr. Bell called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m., and Ms. Trueblood called the roll and confirmed the quorum. ITEM #2: Reading of the Commission’s Mission Statement. Mr. Bell read the Commission’s Mission Statement and provided information on the Commission’s processes. ITEM #3: Additions to the agenda and agenda adjustment. There were no additions or adjustments to the agenda. ITEM # 4: Approval of minutes from the March 3, 2010 meeting. MOTION: Mr. Vernon moved to approve the minutes of March 3, 2010 as submitted. SECOND: Mr. McCullough. VOTE: Unanimously approved. ITEM # 5: Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for Pat Revels to install 50 feet of 6-foot tall picket style wood fencing along the east property line, and 104 feet of 6-foot tall wire fencing with wood posts along the south and west sides of the property at 329 West King Street (TMBL 4.35.C.3). Mr. Bell swore in Pat Revels and Stephanie Trueblood. Ms. Trueblood stated that this was a 1921 contributing structure that was a 1½ story, 3-bay, side gable frame house with Craftsman porch, shed dormer, and 1/1 sash windows. She said the applicant was proposing to install 50 feet of 6-foot tall picket-style wood fencing along the east property line, and 104 feet of 6-foot tall wire fencing with wood posts along the south and west sides of the property. Ms. Trueblood said the Standards that applied were A for height, B for setback, C for materials, D for texture, F for architectural details, I for exterior color, K for 04-07-10 Historic District Commission 2 general form and proportions, and Q for Walls. She said the Design Guideline that applied was Fences and Walls. Ms. Trueblood said the packet of materials included a site plan, and pointed out on the plan where the proposed fencing would be installed. She said the packet also included a picture of the two styles of fencing proposed. Ms. Revels stated that over 3 years ago the HDC had approved an arbor which included 4-foot white picket fencing, and she wanted to extend that picket up to 6 feet where the elevation dropped off. She said she would then pick up as the fence went across the property with the post and wire behind the line of trees, and then bring the fence down by the shrubbery and the opening to Turnip Patch Park. Ms. Revels said the primary reason for the fence was to protect her garden from deer, but it would also serve to provide some privacy while being unobtrusive. Ms. Cobb asked about the location of the gate. Ms. Revels pointed out on the plan where the gate would be located, which would be towards the rear of the property. She said the fence would go between the trees and the existing shrubbery. Mr. Vernon asked where the step-down fence was in Turnip Patch Park in relation to the proposed fence. Ms. Trueblood pointed that out on the map. Mr. Vernon asked were there trees and shrubs west of the back line where the wire fence would be placed. Ms. Trueblood said for the most part it was wooded, but there was a small opening that the fence would be closing to keep the deer out. Mr. Vernon said then the west and south line would be a wire fence and not the picket fence. Ms. Trueblood said it was the wire fence, and the picket fence would only continue the line already existing. Ms. Revels stated that there were a number of trees in that area, and she would be the only one who could see the fence and then only from her kitchen window. She said the fence would be as unobtrusive as possible, and she would be adding some plantings to help screen it. Mr. Vernon asked if the deer fence was the same as the wire fence that the HDC had found acceptable. Ms. Trueblood said it had been installed in other areas of the historic district. Mr. Vernon asked was it on the HDC’s list of appropriate materials. Ms. Trueblood said yes, it would be similar to that design. She said there were a few other places where wood posts and wire fen cing had been viewed by the HDC as appropriate and had been approved. Mr. Read said his mother was a neighbor of Ms. Revels, but did not believe that constituted a conflict of interest in considering the proposed project. 04-07-10 Historic District Commission 3 Mr. Bell determined that no HDC members had a conflict of interest with the application. He also determined that there were no members of the public present to speak on the application. Mr. Bell asked if the proposed fence was similar to the fence at the stone house on the corner of Margaret Lane. Ms. Trueblood said it was similar, noting that the posts and the wire were the same but Ms. Revels’ fence would not have a rail between the posts at the top and the bottom as did the other fence. Mr. Read asked would the picket fence step up to 6 feet. Ms. Revels responded because the elevation dropped off, it would not appear to be a 6-foot fence but would appear to be 4 feet because the ground fell away. Mr. Read asked about painting the fence. Ms. Revels said that the picket fence would be painted white, but the posts of the wire fence would not be painted so that it would not stand out in the woods. She said the posts would be treated wood and would be the same size as the posts used for the picket fence. Ms. Cobb said she appreciated the fact that the picket was being extended on the east side, and that all of the materials proposed were completely compatible. She said she believed the wire fencing was a good solution to the deer problem. Mr. Bell said he believed the application was in keeping with the character of the district. Mr. McCullough agreed, and asked if Ms. Revels planned to fill in the open space. Ms. Revels replied she would have what was left that the deer had not yet eaten, and would transplant some existing greenery to screen the fence. She said the side where it was exposed would help define her garden just as the picket fence did, and would become a backdrop for her garden. Mr. McCullough said he found the application to be totally in keeping with the character of the district. MOTION: Ms. Snyder moved to find as fact that the Pat Revels application is in keeping with the overall character of the district and complies with all relevant standards of evaluation based on the discussions of the application and the standards of evaluation in Section 21.6.3 of the zoning ordinance, and adherence to Standards A, B, C, D, F, I, K, and Q, and the Design Guideline for Fences and Walls. SECOND: Mr. Vernon. VOTE: Unanimously approved. MOTION: Ms. Snyder moved to approve the application as submitted with no conditions. SECOND: Mr. Vernon. VOTE: Unanimously approved. 04-07-10 Historic District Commission 4 Ms. Revels said for the record, she wanted to extend her thanks to the HDC. She said this was the fourth time she had come before the Commission, first with the arbor and the fence, then the back porch, then the deck, and now with the fence again. She said the HDC had always been gracious, and she appreciated Ms. Trueblood’s help and helping her to be prepared each time, as well as her attention to the Guidelines that helped to make everyone’s job easier. ITEM # 6: Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for Attorney Matthew Cockman, PLLC to install one wooden hanging sign on the existing wood post and one wooden wall sign on the building at 121 West Margaret Lane (TMBL 4.36.E.9). Mr. Bell swore in Matthew Cockman. Ms. Trueblood stated that this was a front gable, 1½ story, 3-bay frame cottage with plain siding, a full width porch, Craftsman posts and railing, 6/6 sash windows, and 2 half-glazed entrance doors. She said this structure was dated to 1931 by Ballinger, noting the work proposed included installing one wooden hanging sign on the existing wood post and one wooden wall sign on the building. Ms. Trueblood said the Standards that applied were C for materials, F for architectural details, I for exterior color, M for scale, and O for appurtenant fixtures. She said the Design Guideline that applied was Signage. Ms. Trueblood stated that the packet of materials included a narrative, a materials list, sign specifications, examples of a similar type sign, and pictures of where the signs would be located. She said the HDC had seen a similar application from another tenant about a year ago, and these wooden signs would be replacing the signs that were approved at that time. Ms. Trueblood said there were 2 existing wood posts in the yard, and one of the signs would be hung from an existing post and the other would be by the entrance door. Mr. Bell asked Ms. Trueblood if in her opinion the signs conformed to all signage regulations. Ms. Trueblood responded yes. She said to be clear, this situation was a little different because of the existing posts. Ms. Trueblood said if the structure was being built today, it would be allowed only one free-standing sign in the yard. But, she said, the existing posts had been present for quite some time so in her opinion changing out the sign allowed the sign to continue to conform to the Zoning Ordinance sign regulations. Ms. Cobb said in other words, it was grandfathered in because the posts were not being removed. Ms. Trueblood said that was correct, because they were changing out the panel on the posts and not the posts themselves. She said for clarification, there were 2 posts in 2 different locations in the yard, and there would be one sign on the post that did not now have a sign. Ms. Trueblood said in the past applicants had been allowed to change out signs on existing posts, and she had believed it was appropriate to continue that practice for the time being. 04-07-10 Historic District Commission 5 Ms. Cobb commented that if the vacant space were to be occupied then the HDC may see an application from another tenant to place a sign on the other post. Ms. Trueblood said that was certainly possible. Mr. Cockman said he would not be opposed to having multiple tenants hang their signs all on the same post, noting that to him it did not look aesthetically pleasing to have a post with a sign and then an empty post. He said that was why he had opted to place his sign on the empty post for now, but if it became an issue and only one post was preferred, he had no problem sharing the other post with other tenants. Mr. Cockman said his only concern was having a sign so that he could be located. Ms. Cobb said she believed the application was compatible, and appreciated the fact that the sign proposed was proportional to the property. Mr. Vernon said he had a small issue with the sign being on that post just because those posts were used throughout the district to point out significant historic properties, such as house names and dates. He said it seemed bizarre to start allowing business signs on those posts. Ms. Trueblood stated those posts were never used for historic signs but only for commercial businesses. She said they did look similar, but it was only a 4 x 4 post and was not the same height as the historic sign posts. She added that historically that building had always been used commercially and the posts had always been used for commercial signage. Mr. Cockman said the posts appeared to him to be very similar to mailbox posts, as far as construction and detail. Ms. Trueblood said as well, the fact that there was two of them and the structure had been a commercial duplex for so long seemed to point to the fact that the posts were installed to give both sides of the duplex its own signage in the yard. Mr. Bell determined that no HDC members had a conflict of interest with the application. He also determined that there were no members of the public present to speak on the application. Mr. Vernon said he believed there were some inconsistencies in the application, noting the application said the sign would be 24 x 18 and the narrative said 28 x 16. Mr. Cockman said the specification sheet in the application would be the correct measurement, noting he believed the other was a typo. He said the dimensions he had used were the same dimensions of the existing sign on the property. Mr. Vernon said he did not believe either dimension was problematic, but he agreed making it match the sign that was existing was the best course. MOTION: Mr. Read moved to find as fact that the Attorney Matthew Cockman, PLLC application is in keeping with the overall character of the district and complies with all relevant standards of evaluation based on the discussions of the application and 04-07-10 Historic District Commission 6 the standards of evaluation in Section 21.6.3 of the zoning ordinance, and adherence to Standards C, F, I, M, and O, and the Design Guideline for Signage. SECOND: Ms. Snyder. VOTE: Unanimously approved. MOTION: Mr. Read moved to approve the application as submitted with no conditions. SECOND: Ms. Snyder. VOTE: Unanimously approved. ITEM # 7: Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for Gregg Pacchiana to construct a 4’ tall stone wall along 400 feet of the west and south property lines, two sets of stone steps, to relocate the existing wood picket-style fence behind the new wall, add matching fencing to extend the length of the new wall, and remove two trees at 103 East Queen Street (TMBL 4.19.F.10). Mr. Bell swore in Cynthia Pacchiana and David Swanson. Ms. Trueblood stated that the structure represented an early house that faced Queen Street and an ornate Italianate addition that faced Churton Street. She said the original late 18th century section was a 2 story, 2-bay wide, side gable frame house with gable end, and stone chimney facing Queen Street. Ms. Trueblood said in the late 19th century a large 2 story, 5-bay walk was added to the west end of the original house facing North Churton Street, and the addition became the main walk with the older house now functioning as their rear L. She said the Italianate style addition featured a decorative center bay entrance with double doors with a round headed decorative surround that were similar to those found at the Parks Richmond house on West King Street. Ms. Trueblood said a 1 bay, flat roof porch with square posts and balcony balustrade showed at the entrance, and an identical entrance opened onto the balcony. She said a front cross gable with Italianate brackets crowned the center bay. Ms. Trueblood said the addition also retained such Italianate detail as 4/4 sash windows and plain siding. Ms. Trueblood said the applicant was proposing to construct a 4’ tall stone wall along 400 feet of the west and south property lines, two sets of stone steps, to relocate the existing, wood, picket style fence behind the new wall, add matching fencing to extend the length of the new wall, and remove two trees. Ms. Trueblood said the Standards that applied were A for height, B for setback, C for material, D for texture, E for landscaping, F for architectural details, I for exterior color, K for general form and proportions, and Q for walls. She said the Design Guidelines that applied were Fences and Walls, and Site Features and Plantings. Ms. Trueblood said the packet of materials included a site plan, and asked Mr. Swanson to point out on the plan the two trees that were proposed for removal. Mr. Swanson did so, noting that there was one tree that would be impacted by grading, and another was a Maple tree that would also be impacted by some 04-07-10 Historic District Commission 7 grading. He said there was a line of Leland Cypress trees that were hedge-like that were proposed to be removed as well. Ms. Trueblood stated that the Leland Cypress trees were not 4” in diameter, so they did not rise to the level of requiring a COA. She said the dotted line on the plan was the site of the relocation of the existing wooden picket fence. Ms. Trueblood said the site plan included a rendering of the site elevation of what you would see if you were standing across the street and looking at the property, with the stone wall and the picket fence behind it. She said there were still a significant amount of trees along that property line, which were also shown in the rendering. Ms. Trueblood said the packet also included an example of the type of stone work that would be used for the wall, and a narrative from the applicant explaining the project. Ms. Cobb asked if the applicant intended to remove the Hemlock tree that was in the same area as the Leland Cypress trees. Mr. Swanson said there was a Hemlock that would have to be removed as well since it would be affected by the grading. Ms. Trueblood said the application noted that screening plantings would be added once the project was completed and were to be determined, so there was a planting plan. But, she said, that type of landscaping generally did not require a COA, although it was helpful to know that landscaping would be added and that was indicated on the site plan. Mr. Bell determined that no HDC members had a conflict of interest with the application. He also determined that there were no members of the public present to speak on the application. Mr. Vernon said he did not completely understand the relationship between the fence and the stone wall, asking was it a hill that would be cut into and then a stone wall added with the fence on top of that. Mr. Swanson stated that he was the landscape architect for the project, and said if you were standing on Churton Street the back portion of the property gently sloped down to the street. He said they were proposing to essentially construct a terrace wall to flatten the property which would require some fill, so that wall acted as a retaining wall for a considerable portion of the property. Mr. Vernon said then it was more of a retaining wall than a wall with a fence inside of it. Mr. Swanson said the fence would be above the stone wall. Ms. Pacchiana said she had 4 children who often played outside and her property was very exposed, and it was uncomfortable to her as a parent that anyone passing by knew what they were doing due to the lack of privacy. She said privacy was a part of the inspiration for the project, noting that there were homes along Churton Street that had done the same sort of thing for the same reasons. 04-07-10 Historic District Commission 8 Ms. Cobb said she understood the need to remove several trees and believed it was totally appropriate to remove the Leland Cypresses, adding she had no problem with removing the Crepe Myrtles as well. She said the Maple tree did concern her because of its size and that it appeared to be healthy. Ms. Cobb said removing the Hemlock tree also concerned her, although she acknowledged that tree was not within the HDC’s purview because it was less than 12” in diameter. She said her only observation was they had gone to great lengths to save the Beech tree by going around it, and asked would they consider doing that with the Maple tree as well. Mr. Swanson responded they had looked at many different options for that part of the property because of the symmetry and the front of the house as it faced Churton Street. He said they wanted to achieve some balance, and the wall was to help create a grade that would essentially balance the front of the house. Mr. Swanson said they had looked at tree wells and other ways to protect the Maple, but Maple trees had surface roots and did not do well with fill around them. He said if they were going to do any level of grading he had little confidence that the tree would not be damaged. Mr. Swanson added as information that the steps in the front of the house were there to welcome guests and to indicate where the front of the house was located. Ms. Cobb agreed Mr. Swanson was probably right that the Maple would be damaged. Mr. Swanson reiterated they were proposing replacement with Maples. Ms. Snyder asked Mr. Swanson to describe the section of wall that would act as a retaining wall. Mr. Swanson provided a study drawing he had prepared and used that drawing to point out the existing grade and where the stone wall would be placed, as well as what it would look like once the fill was added to create the terrace. He then pointed out where the fence would be as well as the plantings that would be added. Ms. Snyder said then there would be about 3 to 3½ feet of fill behind that wall. Mr. Swanson said it would vary but there would be as much as 3½ feet. Ms. Snyder asked how far back the fence was. Mr. Swanson said it was 5 to 6 feet back, noting they were leaving some room for landscaping in front of the fence as well as some larger plants behind the fence. Ms. Snyder asked what would be placed in that 5 to 6 foot area. Mr. Swanson said there would be low level plants in front of the fence and perhaps some evergreens that would create a dense hedge. Mr. Bell said it was an interesting design and understood the challenge they had with the property. He agreed the backyard was on display as you traveled on Churton Street, and believed the solution proposed was a good one and was in keeping with the guidelines. Mr. Bell asked about the efforts to save the Beech tree by going around it. Mr. Swanson said the Beech tree even more than the Maple tree did not like any disturbance, so they were giving it a wide swath. He said it was a beautiful tree and could be seen from the street, and the owners were adamant they wanted it saved. 04-07-10 Historic District Commission 9 Mr. Bell asked if the steps would be made of the same stone. Mr. Swanson replied yes. Mr. Bell asked was the composition of the walkway defined. Mr. Swanson said it would be either brick or stone, but they had not yet made that decision. Ms. Trueblood said that could come back as a Minor Work and was not a part of the application, as long as it was brick or stone and not concrete or asphalt or some other material. Mr. Bell said he believed the proposal was in keeping with the district, including the proposed materials. Mr. McCullough said that this was a remarkable house, primarily because it had two fronts. He said the guidelines seemed to make a difference between the front, sides, and backs of houses, and asked what the applicant thought of as the actual front of the house. Ms Pacchiana said the front of the house was on Queen Street and that was the original entrance when the home was built. She said she did not know if the Italianate façade was ever functional but it was very beautiful, and they wanted to preserve some view of that from Churton Street and that was the intent of placing the steps there. Mr. McCullough asked about the height of the fence. Ms. Pacchiana responded 4 feet, which was the height of the existing fence as well. Mr. McCullough commended Ms. Pacchiana for putting a wall around the Beech tree, because that tree would beautifully break up the view from Churton Street rather than seeing a whole line of fences. He said that was admirable planning and it was very fitting with the historical feel of the house. Mr. Trivette said the drawing did not depict the grading between the fence and the wall, nor at the base of the Beech tree. Mr. Swanson said they had not shown any plantings between the fence and the wall, and that may have to come back or be conveyed to Ms. Trueblood. He said they would have low shrub level plantings atop the wall between the wall and the fence. Mr. Swanson said below the Beech tree was currently mulch and believed it would remain that way, noting planting anything there would be competition to the tree roots. Mr. Trivette said he agreed with Mr. McCullough that the break in the wall was commendable, but it may also create a niche for ne’er-do-wells especially late a night. He noted there was a lot of foot traffic on Churton Street. Ms. Pacchiana agreed, noting that it would be important to have plantings to prevent that. Mr. Trivette agreed there needed to be something to make it unappealing. Mr. Vernon said his question regarding the trees had already been addressed, and understood that the Maple would be removed and there would be new trees planted. Mr. Swanson said the Maple would be replaced and 4 new trees planted, as well as shrubbery to provide additional screening. 04-07-10 Historic District Commission 10 MOTION: Mr. Bell moved to find as fact that the Gregg Pacchiana application is in keeping with the overall character of the district and complies with all relevant standards of evaluation based on the discussions of the application and the standards of evaluation in Section 21.6.3 of the zoning ordinance, and adherence to Standards A, B, C, D, E, F, I, K, and Q, and the Design Guidelines for Fences and Walls, and Site Features and Plantings. SECOND: Ms. Snyder. VOTE: Unanimously approved. MOTION: Mr. Bell moved to approve the application as submitted with no conditions. SECOND: Ms. Snyder. VOTE: Unanimously approved. ITEM # 8: Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for David Taylor of Corley Redfoot Zack on behalf of Orange County to make amendments to the previously approved COA for the Justice Facility expansion project based on changes that were made during construction at 106 East Margaret Lane (TMBL 4.36.D.1). Mr. Bell swore in David Taylor. Ms. Trueblood described the Justice Facility property, including its original architecture and detailing. She stated that the building was constructed between 1953 and 1954 just south of the 1845 courthouse, and currently a 39,000 square foot addition was underway to the east of the existing building. Ms. Trueblood said the work proposed was to make amendments to the previously approved COA for the Justice Facility expansion project based on changes that were made during construction, noting the COA had been approved in 2006. She said it was an enormous project and they had an enormous process that included 5 meetings with the HDC to consider landscaping, the Farmers Market, the Pavilion, parking lot changes, and some addition to the former Sheriff’s Office which was now the District Attorney’s Office. Ms. Trueblood said what was being proposed tonight were changes that had been made over the course of construction, most of which was either items that were overlooked because attention had been paid to the bigger issues with other relatively small items, but it was also items that did not fall with Minor Works approval. She said what the Commission would be looking at were some fairly minor amendments to the overall plan for the Justice Facility. Ms. Trueblood said the changes being proposed included: • the addition of louvered openings on the east wall of the sallyport, • the low sloped roof rather than a hipped roof on the exterior stair in the courtyard, 04-07-10 Historic District Commission 11 • the screen wall of the mechanical units behind the building which did not include the return originally approved due to issues with the configuration of the parking and the lot layout, • the roof dormers on the eastern side had been approved with Hardieplank siding but had been installed with metal siding which was a material change, • the only details provided regarding the fence was that it would look like wrought iron, but what had been installed was a pre-finished aluminum security gate and fence, and • the handrails had been proposed as picket st yle but instead were installed as tube-style handrails. Ms. Trueblood said the County would be looking for a CO in the next month, so all of the changes had been included under this COA amendment in order to make sure the HDC was aware of and had the chance to review all the changes. Ms. Trueblood said the Standards that applied were C for materials, D for texture, F for architectural details, G for roof shape, I for exterior color, and Q for walls. She said the Design Guidelines that applied were Additions to Existing Buildings, and Fences and Walls. Ms. Trueblood said all of the proposed work she had just outlined had already been completed. She said the packet included a narrative as well as a site plan that indicated the location of each of the chan ges, the original application to the HDC including the 3 renderings of what the building would look like for mass and scale comparison, and a rendering of what was actually on the site today. Mr. Bell asked if any of the changes that had been made were ones that had been denied in the previous review. Ms. Trueblood replied they had never been put forward, noting that the HDC had reviewed the original plans over the course of 5 meetings, and had approved those original plans. She said the items before the HDC tonight had either not been included in the original plans or had not been clarified in those plans. Ms. Trueblood said the only issue might be the Hardieplank that had been approved for the dormers but had been installed with metal siding. David Taylor said that some of the changes had been unforeseen items that had not been identified when the original application became before the HDC. He said at that time they had been at the design development level, so certain things happened during the construction document phase and during the bidding and negotiation process, and then some things happened during the actual construction process. Mr. Taylor explained that the two louvers at the sallyport were unforeseen at the design development level, noting they were mechanical louvers that the engineer indicated were necessary for venting. He said in regards to the hipped roof, they had not ignored the advice about a hipped roof, but when they got the construction documents it had been changed to the flat roof to match the 04-07-10 Historic District Commission 12 existing flat roof on the back side of the Battle courtroom addition done in the early 1990’s, so there was precedent for the flat roof portico. Mr. Taylor said it was their thinking to keep the precedent of the flat roof rather than the hipped roof on the existing building. Mr. Taylor said the screen wall was intended to be L-shaped, and they had not been able to do that due to the utilities that came into the building. He displayed a photo and pointed out the sprinkler riser “hot” box and the domestic “hot” box, noting that the way they had to be oriented negated the idea of the L-shaped mechanical screen. Mr. Taylor said it was within the secured parking area so it was not in public view. Mr. Taylor said the pre-finished metal siding had happened during the negotiation with the contractor. He said the bids had come in at approximately $200,000 over budget so they had to identify certain items that could be removed from the project or that could be reduced. Mr. Taylor said they had changed out the Hardieplank to metal siding because they already had a contractor on site that could perform that work, and that contractor was already doing cornice work that had metal details that had been approved. He said that the County had also seen it as a maintenance issue, in that it was 40 to 45 feet above the ground and Hardieplank would typically need painting every 4 to 5 years. Mr. Taylor stated that the metal siding was basically maintenance-free. Ms. Trueblood said it was worth noting that there was extensive conversation between the HDC and Corley Redfoot Zack about the windows that would be used in the addition, and they were approved as aluminum clad, wooden frame windows. She said the original building had wood windows, but were a real maintenance issue for the County. Ms. Trueblood said the HDC had determined that the aluminum clad was appropriate on the addition, and reiterated that the cornices were of pre-finished aluminum. Mr. Taylor said he believed Ms. Trueblood had explained the issue regarding the security fencing, noting it significantly contributed to the security of that parking area for judges, the Clerk of Court, and jurors if a high-profile case was being heard, and that fence acted as an important barrier. Mr. Taylor s aid the aluminum security gate was something that they had not known at the design development level, noting that after working with the Sheriff’s Department they had decided on that particular gate because of the security functions that the Sheriff’s Department had specifically required. He said one of the issues was if an inmate were to get out of the sallyport and into the secured parking area, that gate would serve as another security barrier. Mr. Taylor said as for the last item, they had indicated that the railings would be similar to other railings on the campus, but that was a detail that unfortunately had not reached their civil engineering department. He said as a result, they had ended up with tubular rails leading down into the park. Mr. Taylor said there was 04-07-10 Historic District Commission 13 precedent for that type of railing, specifically at the backside of the Board of Elections as well as others. Mr. Taylor said from their perspective the building had turned out exceedingly well, and hoped it would be considered a good addition to the downtown. Mr. Bell determined that no HDC members had a conflict of interest with the application. He also determined that there were no members of the public present to speak on the application. Mr. Read said he had visited the site and the mechanical hot box and the screen wall were visible enough that if you were walking down into the park you would see it, but acknowledged there was likely no way around that. Mr. Taylor said that was correct, noting that as the Town had brought the water lines it the existing orientation was the result and there was no way to complete the wall. Ms. Trueblood said this was an example of why the HDC needed to specify that in the historic district that a double check-valve assembly be used for new construction, noting those could go underground. She said this was the second time they had run into this kind of situation, where the engineering specifications changed something that had been approved by the HDC. Mr. Taylor agreed, noting the HDC could also allow indoor assemblies, but the Town did not allow that. Ms. Trueblood said that was because they were not as accessible for inspection and maintenance. Mr. Read asked was there any opportunity to screen that area so that it was not visible as you went into the park. Mr. Taylor said it had not been possible because of the placement of the hot boxes. Ms. Trueblood noted that even if the original plan had been possible, it still would have been visible. Mr. Bell suggested that they take one issue at a time in order to better address each of the issues. There was not objection from the Commission. Mr. Bell said the first issue was the louvered openings. He asked if those louvers were fixed in the open position. Mr. Taylor replied yes, with a damper behi nd them and the dampers opened when necessary. The Commission agreed that since they were a required feature that there was no issue with them. Mr. Bell indicated the next issue was the flat roof. Ms. Trueblood said when the HDC had discussed that in 2006 there had been no issue with it. She said it just happened that the final version that got approved was a hipped roof. Ms. Trueblood said the plans had gone back between the two several times and the HDC at that time had never expressed any concern about either one. The Commission generally agreed that the flat roof was actually more in keeping than a hipped roof would have been. 04-07-10 Historic District Commission 14 Mr. Bell stated the next issue was the screen wall. Mr. Read said he would like to see some kind of screening added outside the fence. Mr. Taylor said there was already a great deal of screening, noting there were two rows of hollies. He said one was between the stone wall and the fence and one in front of the stone wall. Mr. Vernon commented that he would think they would want as much screening between inmates and the public as possible, so the more screening along the fence the better. The Commission agreed they had no issue with the screen wall. Mr. Bell said the next issue was dormers. Mr. Taylor said the initial reason for changing the siding was to cut costs, and after they had talked about it there were maintenance and safety issues identified by the County. He said that had led to the decision to use metal siding. Mr. Trivette said it was likely contrary to the guidelines, but he believed that metal siding was actually a better choice as far as maintenance. Mr. McCullough said the metal siding was probably not technically appropriate, but that height was likely not historically appropriate, either. He said he believed the metal siding was a practical solution. Mr. Bell said what had been originally approved was the appropriate decision from his reading of the guidelines, but the fact that the cornice and the windows were aluminum clad gave the metal siding more plausibility for allowing it. Ms. Snyder said she agreed with Mr. McCullough that technically the metal was not appropriate but after walking around the building, not once did she see the dormers. She said the dormers were quite high, and believed the metal siding could be considered an exception in this case. Mr. Vernon asked if the metal siding were to be approved now, would that set a precedent for future applicants. Mr. Bell said he believed the HDC could say that in this particular case that material was acceptable for the reasons stated on the record. Mr. Taylor said for him, one reason for the exception would be the height above grade, which was 40 to 45 feet. Ms. Trueblood said this building had been forced to go through a special process with the Board of Adjustment in order to be built at that height, and that height would not be available to any other building in the district. She said a text amendment had to be adopted into the Zoning Ordinance in order to allow this specific project, and they would not run into any instance of dormers at 04-07-10 Historic District Commission 15 40 to 45 feet in the historic district. Ms. Trueblood said what had been determined was that you could go over the approved height in the district as long as it was not over the height of the tallest roof element already existing in the district. She said this building had a pre-existing roof element of a cupola, so that was why the height had been approved. The Commission agreed by consensus that because of the reasons already stated that the metal siding was conditionally approvable. Mr. Bell said the next issue was the pre-finished aluminum gate that was originally described as looking like wrought iron. Ms. Trueblood said in 2006 the fence had never been detailed, but it had been said at that time that it would be pre-finished metal, it would be black, and would look like wrought iron, and then they had moved on. So, she said, not a lot of discussion took place. Mr. Trivette stated the HDC had recently approved a black aluminum fence on a residence. Ms. Trueblood added that the Gateway office complex had aluminum fencing along a 10-foot wall behind the fire station. The Commission agreed by consensus that the fencing did achieve the goal of a wrought iron look and its appearance was compatible to the district and was conditionally approvable in this case. Mr. Bell said the next issue was the aluminum security gate. Mr. Read said even if the County required a gate of that configuration, he knew that such clear anodized aluminum was available in other finishes and colors. He said he saw noting that was appropriate about that gate, and believed that an iron gate would have served the same purpose. Mr. Bell asked what was supposed to be there. Ms. Trueblood said the gate was supposed to match the fence, noting there had been no gate specification at all. She said in 2006 they had not gotten into any level of detail about the gate, so no questions had been asked about it. Mr. Bell asked if the gate had to be bullet-proof, noting there was just a clear metal fence beside the gate. Mr. Taylor said that gate actually had a card reader on the brick pier, so the deputies that parked outside the area used that gate to enter into the Sheriff’s Department from the back side. He said if that gate were an open picket like the rest of the fence, the concern by the Sheriff’s Department was that if an inmate was able to get out of the sallyport and rip a card off one of the deputies, they could actually put their hand through the gate, swipe the card, and gain access out of the secured area. Mr. Taylor said that was why the gate was solid. 04-07-10 Historic District Commission 16 Mr. Taylor said he could not argue with the anodized aluminum, noting it was foreign to the remainder of the building. But, he said, they needed the gate to be solid rather than looking like the fence and they had not known that at the time of the original submittal to the HDC. Ms. Trueblood asked could the gate be painted. Mr. Taylor replied he believed so, but he would have to work with the contractor on that if that was required because it would require a fairly specialized paint. Ms. Snyder said the gate looked like an afterthought, and believed having it a different color would be a great improvement. She suggested that the Standards as noted by Ms. Trueblood should include “I” for exterior color. Ms. Snyder said from a distance the gate looked like a very cheap storm door that you bought at Home Depot, and if it could not look like the fence and have pickets then at the least it should be painted to match the fence. She said at present that gate really detracted from everything else that had been done there. Ms. Cobb said she believed the gate was incompatible, and if it were black it would at least match the fence. Mr. Vernon agreed that painting it black would be an improvement. Mr. Trivette said he would go so far as to say they should investigate attaching pickets to the outside of the gate. Mr. Taylor said the bottom of the gate was a solid aluminum panel, and believed it was made with 2” x 4” aluminum tu bes and was very heavy. He said they could look into the idea of applying at least some vertical pickets in the bottom portion of the gate so that there was at least some reference to the adjacent fence as well as painting it black. Mr. Trivette asked why that couldn’t be done to the entire gate. Mr. Taylor said he would have to check with the Sheriff before he could agree to that. Ms. Trueblood stated that the Sheriff had required that it be left open for visibility. Mr. Taylor agreed, noting it had been specifically designed with that large opening. Mr. Bell indicated there appeared to be consensus that the gate be painted black. He said the last issue to discuss was the handrails. Mr. Read said it seemed that there were examples of similar handrails in other locations in Town. Mr. Trivette agreed, noting he did not believe it was unreasonable to accept those handrails. Mr. McCullough agreed. Ms. Snyder said in walking the area, the other handrails she had seen had vertical pickets, and it was her understanding that was what was supposed to have been installed or was at least supposed to have been similar to those by Stillhouse 04-07-10 Historic District Commission 17 Creek. She said the handrails that had been installed were very different from those in the vicinity, which made them stand out as something very different. Ms. Snyder said to her that was the most concern of the items they were discussing. She said she did not believe they were in keeping at all and did not conform to what had been approved. Ms. Snyder said in order to stay in keeping with the whole area the handrails should have been provided as approved, noting the ones installed just did not fit with the surrounding area and she would like to see them replaced with what had been originally approved. Ms. Cobb agreed, noting she had walked the site as well, noting all of the railings in the surrounding area beautifully reflected the Colonial Revival style. But, she said, the handrails installed took a very different design direction and looked very close to institutional, and she did not believe it was in keeping with the district. Mr. Vernon agreed, noting the railings had a “cheap, national park feel” and not an historic district feel. He said it would be a great improvement to go back to the original plan and use picket-style handrails. Mr. Taylor said the arguments appeared to be well-thought out and he would be happy to discuss it further, but he had to consider the cost of what it would take to change the handrails. Mr. Bell remarked that consideration of cost could not enter into the HDC’s discussion or decision. He commended Mr. Taylor for the efforts made to remember the previous discussions and remain with the plans, although there had been some variances. Ms. Trueblood stated that the design for the handrails was not included in the original submittal, but what had been verbally offered was that the handrails would be like the ones at Stillhouse Creek. She said there was very little discussion about that and other items because the focus had been on the 39,000 square foot addition. Ms. Trueblood said it was briefly mentioned and they had moved on, and it had not been a condition of approval and it was not specified. Mr. McCullough said based on what had just been said, he believed his original reaction was incorrect. He said of all the items this was the best example that at the time the design was decided on, if at that point the County had some conflict with the HDC then they could have addressed it then and the cost issue would have been avoided. Mr. McCullough said what had happened instead was the County had continued on with the project without approval for the changes being made, and the cost issue was one that they could not take into account. Mr. Trivette indicated he had changed his mind as well, and agreed that the current handrails were not in keeping. Ms. Snyder said of all the items they had discussed, the handrails was the one that people would interact with the most. She said this was something that people would have an experience with as they visited the park and the Farmers Market, and was an integral pat of what was going on in that area. Ms. Snyder said when 04-07-10 Historic District Commission 18 walking the area and experiencing the other handrails, these handrails were very different and stood out as being not in keeping and out of place. MOTION: Mr. Vernon moved to find as fact that the David Taylor of Corley Redfoot Zack application on behalf of Orange County is in keeping with the overall character of the district and complies with all relevant standards of evaluation based on the discussions of the application and the standards of evaluation in Section 21.6.3 of the zoning ordinance, and adherence to Standards C, D, F, G, I, and Q, and the Design Guidelines for Additions to Existing Buildings, and Fences and Walls. SECOND: Ms. Cobb. VOTE: Unanimously approved. MOTION: Mr. Vernon moved to approve the application as submitted with the following conditions: that the security door will be painted black and full length pickets matching the fencing will be investigated for feasibility; and that the handrails into River Park will be replaced with picket-style handrails like those by Stillhouse Creek. SECOND: Ms. Cobb. VOTE: Unanimously approved. ITEM # 9: Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the Town of Hillsborough to construct a concrete curb and gutter sidewalk and make drainage improvements along the south side of Calvin Street from Nash Street to Hillsborough Avenue (right-of-way beside 4.35.F.1). Mr. Bell swore in Hillsborough Assistant Town Manager Nicole Ard. Ms. Trueblood stated that this was a proposal to construct in the right-of-way a concrete curb and gutter sidewalk and make drainage improvements along the south side of Calvin Street from Nash Street to Hillsborough Avenue. She said this was a part of a much greater sidewalk project being undertaken by the Town that included a north/south connector along Nash Street all the way from Faucette Mill, across US 70, down Revere, all the way down Nash, and connecting to the two elementary schools and linking up with the existing sidewalk at Nash Street and the section of sidewalk to be constructed on Alison Street. Ms. Trueblood said this proposed section was the only section that was within the historic district. Ms. Trueblood said that the Standards that applied were C for material, R for ground cover and paving, and S for maintenance of pedestrian scale and orientation. She said the Design Guidelines that applied were Public Right-of- Way, and Walkways, Driveways, and Off-Street Parking. Ms. Trueblood said the packet of materials included a picture of the existing conditions, a site plan that showed the 5-foot concrete sidewalk to be installed, as well as the 3-foot utility strip that would be grass between the sidewalk and the 04-07-10 Historic District Commission 19 curb and gutter. She said the existing driveways and the gravel parking lot owned by the railroad would be formalized by curb cuts as indicated on the site plan. Ms. Trueblood added that at present there were no plans to place plantings in the 3-foot grass strip. Ms. Trueblood noted for information that part of the reason for including this sidewalk in the Nash Street Sidewalk Project was to link up with the existing sidewalk along Hillsborough Street up to the cemetery. She said this sidewalk would link the Nash Street sidewalk to the smaller portion of existing sidewalk in the neighborhood. Ms. Trueblood said also of note was that the Riverwalk greenway that would follow the south side of the river and then cross at Gold Park would include a portion of that trail that came up to Calvin Street, and a part of Riverwalk Phase 2, if all went as planned, would include connecting that trail to that existing sidewalk. So, she said, this was all a part of a greater connectivity plan in terms of trails and sidewalks. Mr. Trivette disclosed that he was an adjacent property owner, but did not believe he had a conflict of interest in this instance. Mr. Bell determined that no HDC members had a conflict of interest with the application. He also determined that there were no members of the public present to speak on the application. Nicole Ard added that the project would also include improvements to a portion of the existing sidewalk in from of Hillsborough Elementary School as well as extending the sidewalk. MOTION: Ms. Cobb moved to find as fact that the Town of Hillsborough application is in keeping with the overall character of the district and complies with all relevant standards of evaluation based on the discussions of the application and the standards of evaluation in Section 21.6.3 of the zoning ordinance, and adherence to Standards C, R, and S, and the Design Guidelines for Public Right-of-Way, and Walkways, Driveways, and Off- Street Parking. SECOND: Mr. McCullough. VOTE: Unanimously approved. MOTION: Ms. Cobb moved to approve the application as submitted with no conditions. SECOND: Mr. Bell. VOTE: Unanimously approved. ITEM #10: Discussion about crafting Public Art Guidelines. Ms. Trueblood stated that the inspiration for the proposed guidelines had been drawn from those used by Salisbury, with a few additions based on the HDC’s discussion. She said what the Commission needed to think about would be how 04-07-10 Historic District Commission 20 the guidelines applied and when they would apply them, for instance did public art only refer to ones that came before them, or any if it made a difference if the art was publicly funded, on private land, on public land, or in residential areas or commercial areas or both. Ms. Trueblood said she had looked at it as only one type of public art. Mr. Vernon said he believed they needed to have something separate for residential. Ms. Trueblood asked did the guidelines need to be different or have the title be all art. Mr. Vernon said he believed there needed to be restrictions on residential public art, because there were some pieces of art in residential yards in Chapel Hill and Carrboro that would be really inappropriate in Hillsborough, adding he believed they were inappropriate in Chapel Hill and Carrboro as well. Ms. Trueblood said they had to be careful not to get into First Amendment issues by trying to regulate freedom of expression. She said she understood the rationale that a large piece of permanent art on a residential property did in fact impact the character of the district and needed to meet certain historic district guidelines, but she also understood that if someone wanted to put a concrete sculpture and a mirror ball in their garden that they would not want to have to get the HDC’s permission. Ms. Trueblood stressed that there was a difference between a permanent installation and a decorative addition. Ms. Trueblood said she believed Mr. Vernon was correct that there was art that could impact the character of the district. She said the question was how did you determine what “permanent” was. Ms. Trueblood said for example, if someone owned a home and installed something but then sold the home, there was a good possibility that the new owner would remove that piece of art. She said but for public art, in all likelihood it would remain for a very long time, and the HDC was really only suppose to be looking at permanent features in the district. Ms. Trueblood said public furniture like benches and trash cans came before the HDC, but not furniture in private residential yards because they were considered temporary. She said she was unsure exactly where they would draw the line, but believed the safest and most legal place would be with permanent public art. Ms. Cobb said the draft Ms. Trueblood had prepared was well done and her only suggestion, based partly on the fact that the HDC had been somewhat against the originally proposed public art in front of the library, was the safety issue of children perhaps trying to climb on it. She asked could they introduce a safety issue in the guidelines for public art. Ms. Trueblood said that Standard M, maintenance of pedestrian scale, might be one way, noting the previous discussion about the art in front of the library was that it was not considered compatible because of its impact on pedestrian scale. She said she would look more into the safety aspect, noting that could include the structural stability of the art. Mr. McCullough said that safety was the kind of issue that could be used against something just because you did not like it, so it was somewhat of a judgmental 04-07-10 Historic District Commission 21 idea and could become tricky. Ms. Cobb agreed it could become a little too tricky. Ms. Trueblood said they perhaps could expand “location” so that it was not just locations that did not obstruct the view of historic structures. She said she may be able to make location a little more inclusive so that if, for instance, there was an obvious problem with a location that was being proposed that included impacts to pedestrians in the area, that perhaps that could be tied in. She said she would do a little more research on that aspect. Mr. Bell asked what the Commission thought of the title “Art for Public Spaces” or did they want to consider included guidelines for residential. Mr. Trivette said he believed they should start with public art, and liked the “Art for Public Spaces” distinction. Ms. Trueblood said she had wanted to craft something so that if someone that owned a commercial building decided that they wanted to put a mural on the side of their building or attach something to a commercial building, then it was considered to be in a public space as opposed to being publicly funded or on public land. So, she said, perhaps they needed to have something that addressed non-residential art or art for public spaces. Mr. Bell said he wanted to strive for language that still referred to art not obscuring or being attached to any historic structure. He said for instance, he could put a giant flashing pink flamingo between the sidewalk and his house. Ms. Trueblood said that was a First Amendment issue, and that was what she was cautioning the HDC to not get involved in because a giant flashing pink flamingo was not a permanent feature. She added that there were pink flamingos in the district now, and as property owners they had every right to put them in their yards. Ms. Trueblood said any guideline they put forth had to be tied to a permanent feature. Mr. Bell asked what if a piece of art was affixed to the side of an historic structure. He said that murals were paint and that was not permanent. Ms. Trueblood said that if brick was painted it was very hard to remove without destroying the integrity of the brick with sandblasting. She said she would like to see the public art guidelines apply to commercial buildings, because she had already received requests for murals. Ms. Trueblood said if they received a request for a piece of art in the downtown area they needed to be able to apply the same guidelines to that application. She said she could talk with the Town Attorney. Mr. Bell said he believed what Ms. Trueblood had provided was a great beginning. Ms. Trueblood said she would refer the Commission’s comments to the Town Attorney and get his feedback and then report back. 04-07-10 Historic District Commission 22 Mr. Vernon said he wondered if #5 could be improved in regards to mass and scale without being narrowed too much, noting he did not have a suggestion right now as to how to do that. Ms. Cobb asked if he thought it was a little too vague. Mr. ____ said perhaps. Ms. Trueblood said she had intentionally left it vague because she had been trying to think of all the different types of applications that could be received. She said she had not wanted to get into size because something that went along River Park versus something in front of the Town Hall was different because the spaces were so different. Ms. Cobb said about all they could use to address that would be appropriateness of mass and scale. Ms. Trueblood said that was a standard, and the standards would disappear from the ordinance during the rewrite and would be replaced with guidelines. Ms. Trueblood summarized the comments, saying that the Commission wanted more about location that might be able to encompass if the location was such that people could get hurt that it should not be allowed, perhaps including something with that in regards to structural stability, discussion with the Town Attorney about a title and how it got applied, and a little more about appropriate mass and scale in #5. Mr. Bell said he liked the idea of separating residential from non-residential because it made it easier to modify in the future. Ms. Trueblood said she would check with the Town Attorney about even trying to regulate residential, noting she believed they needed to follow his lead on that. She said if something came up later that was believed to be garish or inappropriate, then they could approach the Town Board. Mr. Bell said his main concern was if someone attached something to a structure, then that could be reviewed under existing guidelines. Ms. Cobb agreed. Ms. Trueblood said people attached things now, such as suns, flags, old signs and deer antlers, and those things did not come to the HDC. She said there was already a lot of stuff out there that was not considered to be permanent enough though it was attached, adding there was a lighted star attached to someone’s roof on Margaret Lane, and they turned it on occasionally. ITEM #11: Committee updates/Staff updates. Webb Grove: Ms. Trueblood said that Webb Grove was being appealed, noting the court had ruled that the Board of Adjustment could not impose conditions on the approval. She said that meant the BOA would have to grant the density bonus without applying any conditions, and the Town Board had decided to appeal that decision so they were going back to court. 04-07-10 Historic District Commission 23 Ms. Trueblood said there were things that were under the purview of the BOA that were not under the purview of the HDC that had to do with general welfare and safety issues, such as where mailboxes were located, how the trash was handled, circulation of traffic and traffic impacts, and others. She said if the BOA was not allowed to review any of those things and place conditions on an approval, then the Town basically had no control over the project. Ms. Trueblood said that was why the Town Attorney believed the Town had a case on appeal. Zoning Ordinance Rewrite: Ms. Trueblood said the rewrite would not be on the public hearing schedule for April because the draft was not yet ready to reach that stage. She said things that would be changed in the rewrite that affected the HDC included that Standards of Evaluation A through T would disappear and would be replaced with the Table of Contents page from their Design Guidelines with the addition of materials and massing. Ms. Trueblood said when she received those she would forward them to the Commission for their comments to go back to the consultant, adding that should happen this month. Ms. Trueblood said there would also be Neighborhood Conservation districts added to the ordinance, which would provide for the ability of areas outside of the Town to apply for Neighborhood Conservation which would provide some protection. She said, for example, that designation could apply to West Hillsborough, noting that it likely did not have enough fabric left to be considered National Register or local district worthy for historic preservation but did have a lot of character that they would want to preserve. Ms. Trueblood said depending on threats either from the intrusion of mobile homes or “MacMansions” the character of that area of the Town could be changed dramatically by someone buying up lots that were still relatively inexpensive, clearing them, recombining lots, and constructing apartments or condominiums. She said there was a lot of threat to that because there were no standards or regulations to protect from it as they did in the historic district. Ms. Trueblood said a Neighborhood Conservation district designation would provide a planning tool that acted like a local historic district except that it only applied to areas that were not eligible as a local historic district. She said the rewrite would include a process by which a neighborhood consisting of more than 50% of the property owners could ask to be made a Neighborhood Conservation district. Ms. Trueblood stated there was a lot of information on the Chapel Hill Website about Neighborhood Conservation districts, and suggested the Commission access that if they wanted to know more. Ms. Trueblood said she had the draft of the Zoning Ordinance rewrite in her office if anyone was interested in going through that 319-page document. She said she also had a list of things not yet included in that draft, noting the Planning Board would be going through that list on Saturday at a special meeting and 04-07-10 Historic District Commission 24 coming up with a target list of things they wanted absolutely to be included in the rewrite. Ms. Trueblood said they were probably looking at a schedule that was more like October for the public hearing in order to allow the time for the rewrite of the ordinance to be what the Town wanted it to be. Training: Ms. Trueblood reminded the Commission that all day CAMP training had been scheduled for Saturday, May 1. Preservation Awards: Ms. Trueblood said review and decisions on Preservation Awards was on the agenda for the HDC’s next meeting, noting that May was National Historic Preservation Month. She said the Last Friday event in May was generally when Preservation Awards were presented. Ms. Trueblood said there were no firm categories that had to be considered, noting the Commission could change, remove, or add categories as they saw fit based on what they believed was award worthy. She said sometimes they had awards for new construction, compatible additions on a non-contributing structure, site features, or whatever the Commission felt was worthy. Ms. Trueblood said this was an odd year because even though a lot of cases had come before the Commission many of those had not yet been built. She said as she was looking through the list nothing had jumped out at her as being noteworthy, so she had begun to think about what other categories there might be that the HDC could give awards for that had made a big impact, and several things had come to mind that the HDC might want to consider. Ms. Trueblood said she would detail those at the next meeting so the Commission could review them, and suggested they think about what they might want to have recognized. Ms. Trueblood said in the past she had emailed a list of projects that had been completed and would be happy to do that again to refresh the Commission’s memory if they wanted to consider structural awards. She said they might want to think about any organizations or people that they might want to recognize as well. Ms. Trueblood stated that she believed the Preservation Awards brought to light the positive aspects of what the HDC did routinely, and the Preservation Awards were normally covered by the newspaper and a press release was put out by the Town. She said that developers and architects also tended to use the awards they received in their own marketing efforts. Ms. Trueblood said traditionally the HDC members attended the Last Friday event so that they were available to congratulate the recipients. The Commission briefly discussed an individual they might want to consider for an award, with one member detailing some of the preservation work that person had done over the years. Ms. Trueblood stated she would work to pull together some information about that person for the Commission to review at its next meeting. 04-07-10 Historic District Commission 25 Materials List: Ms. Trueblood stated that the materials list had not yet been finalized and continued to be an open item. She said she had not received any comments back on the last draft that the Commission had discussed, and that was why it had not been included on tonight’s agenda. Ms. Trueblood asked that the members look over the list and email to her their suggestions of what should be included to fill in the blanks. Colonial Inn: Ms. Trueblood said that the Board of Adjustment heard the appeal from the property owner regarding the Planning Director’s Order of Demolition by Neglect. She said the owner had appealed the finding that the items stipulated in the Order had to be repaired by a specified date, because those items went beyond the original citizen complaint. Ms. Trueblood said the BOA had denied the appeal at its last meeting. Ms. Trueblood said because the BOA had denied the appeal, staff would update the Town Board at its April 12 meeting and the Town Board would have to make a decision regarding how to move forward. She said that issue would be discussed in Closed Session because it was potential litigation. Ms. Trueblood said once the Town Board made its decision and it was made public, she would pass the outcome on to the HDC. ITEM #12: Adjourn. Mr. Trivette moved to adjourn the meeting at 9:59 p.m., seconded by Mr. Bell. The vote was unanimous. Respectfully submitted, _____________________________ Stephanie Trueblood, Secretary