HomeMy Public PortalAbout09-07-2016 Minutes HDC Regular MeetingPage 1 of 8
MINUTES
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
Wednesday, Sept. 7, 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: Robert Striegler, Erica McAdoo, Charles Couch
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 and explained the processes.
ITEM # 3: Additions to the agenda and agenda adjustment
Ms. Trueblood informed the board that the application for Item #8 had been withdrawn.
ITEM # 4: Approval of minutes from the August 3, 2016, meeting
Motion: Ms. Heilman moved to approve the minutes from the August 3, 2016, meeting with changes.
Second: Ms. Simmons seconded.
Vote: Unanimous
Changes:
Page 5: Item #7: Both Motions were made by Ms. Heilman (replace Ms. Smith with Ms. Heilman bottom of page
5, second motion),
Pg. 6: 5th paragraph: change ‘start’ to ‘starts’,
Pg. 6: 6th paragraph: add ‘materials’ after ‘existing’
Pg. 6: 7th paragraph: Change to ‘Ms. Simmons said because dormers take beatings it should be possible to
replace with Hardieplank.’
Pg. 6: 8th paragraph: Add as a last sentence, ‘Stucco is present on some structures and therefore may be
considered appropriate.’
ITEM # 5: Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the Town of Hillsborough Utilities Department to
remove three trees that are damaging a sanitary sewer line in the right-of-way on West Tryon Street
adjacent to 213 W. Tryon Street (ROW)
Motion: Ms. Simmons moved to open the public hearing.
Second: Vice Chairman Highley seconded.
Vote: Unanimous
Chairman Currie asked whether anyone had a conflict of interest regarding this application. No one did.
Ms. Trueblood was sworn in to represent the applicant.
Page 2 of 8
Ms. Trueblood stated that this application is regarding the right-of-way on West Tryon Street adjacent to 213 W.
Tryon Street. There are a mixture of Contributing and Non-Contributing structures and vacant lots in the vicinity.
Architecture: Public Right-of-Way. No inventory information available.
Proposed Work: Remove three trees that are damaging a sanitary sewer line in the right-of way on West Tryon Street.
The Town Utilities Department is tasked with keeping sanitary sewer right of way clear of trees that could harm the
lines. This right of way has not been maintained and as soon as it was discovered that these three trees could cause
damage the Utilities Dept. staff approached Planning about having them removed. They are mature trees but are
volunteers. If the large tree that sits on top of the line were to fall in a storm it could rupture the sewer line and cause
major damage to the stream below. The other two trees sit adjacent to the line and need to be removed so that roots
do not impact the line and so that Utilities can access the easement for future maintenance. After the trees are removed
the soil will be stabilized with matting and an appropriate seed mix.
Agenda packets included: notification information and vicinity map, narrative from staff with photos
The Applicable Design Guidelines include: Site Features and Plantings, Public Right-of-Way.
Chairman Currie asked whether there was anyone in the audience to speak for or against the application. There
was no one.
Board members asked whether some trees could be planted elsewhere because the Guidelines say the trees
should be replaced. Ms. Trueblood answered that the Utilities Department does not plant trees but the Tree
Board plants several trees every year.
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 Town of Hillsborough 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,
Public Right-of-Way.
Second: Ms. Smith seconded.
Vote: Unanimous
Motion: Ms. Heilman moved to approve the application as submitted.
Second: Ms. Smith seconded.
Vote: Unanimous
Conditions: None
ITEM # 6: Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for Robert Striegler to construct a 12’ x 9.5’ shed-
roofed outbuilding in the rear yard at 113 N. Cameron Street (PIN 9874-16-3711)
This is an after-the-fact application
Motion: Ms. Simmons moved to open the public hearing.
Second: Vice Chairman Highley seconded.
Vote: Unanimous
Page 3 of 8
Chairman Currie asked whether anyone had a conflict of interest regarding this application. No one did.
Mr. Striegler was sworn in.
Ms. Trueblood stated that this application is regarding 113 N. Cameron Street. There are mostly Contributing
structures in the vicinity.
Architecture: Contributing, c. 1952, c. 2007: House, c. 1952: The one-story, side-gabled, brick Minimal
Traditional-style house is three bays wide and double-pile with an interior brick chimney. It has two-over-two,
horizontal-pane, wood-sash windows and a picture window flanked by two-over-two windows near the center
of the façade. The six-panel door is sheltered by an engaged, shed-roofed porch that extends around the left
(south) elevation as a side-gabled carport. The porch is supported by square posts and has German-profile
weatherboards in the gable. There is a low-pitched, hip-roofed frame section at the left rear (southwest) that
has German-profile weatherboards and stacked awning windows. The site slopes down to the rear to reveal a
basement level. County tax records date the building to 1952. Shed, c. 2007: Front-gabled, frame garage with
weatherboards and a wide, overhead door [HDC].
Proposed Work: Construct a 12’ x 9.5’ shed-roofed outbuilding in the rear yard. This is an after the fact application so
the shed is partially constructed
Agenda packets included: notification information, vicinity map, narrative, site plan, letter from neighbor,
photos of shed, and specification sheets for shed.
The Applicable Design Guidelines include: New Construction of Outbuildings and Garages, Paint and Exterior
Color.
Ms. Trueblood explained the shed size does not require a building permit, and Mr. Striegler stopped work on it
when he received the HDC violation notice.
Chairman Currie asked whether anyone in the audience was present to speak for or against the application. No
one was.
Mr. Striegler answered questions from the board. Ms. Heilman questioned the validity of the materials Mr.
Striegler had chosen, specifically the OSB exterior-grade pre-primed siding and corrugated tin roof. The siding
has some grain to it. There is no smooth side product, Mr. Striegler said. The board discussed that this is an
engineered wood product and noted that since it was not available with a smooth profile and it was wood, the
grain would be acceptable.
Ms. Smith questioned Mr. Striegler’s color choices. Mr. Striegler said he chose what he did to blend in with the
background greenery.
Motion: Ms. Heilman moved to close the public hearing.
Second: Ms. Simmons seconded.
Vote: Unanimous
Page 4 of 8
Motion: Vice Chairman Highley moved to find as a fact that the Robert Striegler 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: New Construction of
Outbuildings and Garages, Paint and Exterior Color.
Second: Ms. Heilman seconded.
Vote: Unanimous
Motion: Vice Chairman Highley moved to approve as submitted.
Second: Ms. Heilman seconded.
Vote: Unanimous
Conditions: none
ITEM # 7: Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for Stuart Paynter to install an 8.32” x 60” sign at
second floor height on the façade of 106 S. Churton Street (PIN 9874-06-4156)
Motion: Mr. Farlow moved to open the public hearing.
Second: Ms. Simmons seconded.
Vote: Unanimous
Chairman Currie asked whether anyone on the board had a conflict of interest. Vice Chairman Highley informed
the board he needed to recuse himself from this application.
Motion: Ms. Heilman moved to excuse Reid Highley from this application.
Second: Mr. Griffin seconded.
Vote: Unanimous
Erica McAdoo was sworn in.
Ms. Trueblood stated that this application is regarding 106 S. Churton Street, Suite 200. There is a mixture of
Contributing and Non-Contributing structures and vacant lots in the vicinity.
Architecture: Contributing, c.1924: Similar in detail to the neighboring building at 100 South Churton Street, but
constructed with a slightly different colored brick, this two-story brick commercial building is three bays wide
with a corbelled brick parapet and a band of soldier-course brick at the cornice and between the first and
second floors. It has thirty-two-light display windows on the first floor and groups of three six-over-six wood-
sash windows on the second floor, all with arched transoms composed of four three-light Craftsman-style
windows in a segmental-arched brick surround. The parapet extends slightly over the parapet of the neighboring
building at 108 South Churton Street, indicating that it was built after that building as well. Building was
restored in 2015 but that information has not been captured in the inventory.
Proposed Work: Install an 8.32” x 60” metal sign at the second floor height on the façade. The applicant proposes to
mount the new sign on an aluminum mounting plate with 6 galvanized steel anchors into an existing masonry wall. The
sign will be a 4-sided cabinet with flat cut border and graphics on 3 sides as shown in the rendering. The application
includes a 18” x 15”, black, alumicore, directory plaque with raised aluminum borders and graphics, painted silver
returns to be mounted adjacent to the door as well as entry door graphics to be installed on the glass door.
Agenda packets included: Notification information and vicinity map, a narrative submitted by the applicant, sign
specification sheets with photos, email from applicant.
Page 5 of 8
The Applicable Design Guidelines include: Signage, Exterior Walls.
Ms. McAdoo answered questions from the board. Ms. McAdoo explained the second story location was chosen
because there are old brackets located there. Chairman Currie expressed concern about that location because
different levels for signs could contribute to sign clutter. It was pointed out that WHUP’s sign is on the second
story. Ms. McAdoo explained that Paynter’s law firm is on the second story.
A couple of board members said it would seem to not draw people to the doorway and could be mistaken to be
directing people to the art gallery. Ms. McAdoo presented an option B that included moving the proposed
location one bay to the south so that it is more relative to the front door. Several board members expressed
preference for option B.
Motion: Ms. Simmons moved to close the public hearing.
Second: Mr. Farlow seconded.
Vote: Unanimous
Motion: Mr. Farlow moved to find as a fact that the Stuart 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
Development Ordinance because the plans are consistent with Design Guidelines: Signage, Exterior Walls.
Second: Ms. Heilman
Vote: Unanimous
Motion: Mr. Farlow moved to approve the application as modified during the discussion (option B).
Second: Ms. Heilman seconded.
Vote: Unanimous
ITEM # 8: Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for Lizbeth Vickers to replace an existing asphalt
shingle roof with a black MasterRib metal roof at 408 W. King Street (PIN 9864-76-6301)
Application withdrawn
ITEM # 9: Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for Charles Couch to construct a rear addition similar
to a previously approved addition that was never built at 204 S. Hillsborough Street (PIN 9864-75-
3741)
Motion: Ms. Smith moved to open the public hearing.
Second: Ms. Heilman seconded.
Vote: Unanimous
Chairman Currie asked whether anyone on the board had a conflict of interest regarding this application. No one
did.
Charles Couch was sworn in.
Ms. Trueblood stated that this application is regarding 204 S. Hillsborough Avenue. There are mostly
Contributing structures in the vicinity.
Page 6 of 8
Architecture: Contributing, c. 1946: This one-story, side-gabled Period Cottage is four bays wide and double-pile
with a flush gable on the right (north) end of the façade and a gabled rear wing. The house has a brick veneer,
six-over-six wood-sash windows with soldier-course brick lintels paired on the façade, and a rectangular vent in
the front gable. The fifteen-light French door is sheltered by a side-gabled porch that wraps around the right
elevation and is supported by slender Tuscan columns and has German-profile weatherboards in the gable.
There is an exterior brick chimney on the right elevation and an interior brick chimney behind the main
ridgeline. There is a low concrete wall with a brick cap at the street. County tax records date the building to
1946.
Proposed Work: Construct a rear addition similar to a previously approved addition that was never built. The new rear
addition is 338 SF and includes a master bed/bath. The differences between the proposed addition and the one
previously approved include a change to the roofline and one less window on the south wall and a change to the siding
material. The gable roof will be 5/12 pitch with asphalt shingles to match existing. The windows will be metal clad
exterior SDL 6 over 6. The door will be 8 lite SDL. Hardieplank siding is proposed smooth side out with a 5” to 6”
exposure.
Agenda packets included: notification information and vicinity map, a narrative submitted by the applicant,
photos of front and rear of the home, floor plan, elevation drawings, and site plan.
The Applicable Design Guidelines include: Additions to Existing Buildings, Porches, Entrances and Balconies, Site
Features and Plantings.
Mr. Couch answered questions from the board. The intent is the roofline of the addition would be the same
height as that of the front. No living trees will be disturbed in the building of this addition (he has Minor Works
approval to remove a decaying tree).
Ms. Trueblood added that this proposal has a different roofline from the previously approved addition
(requested by a different home owner), which triggered a new COA application.
Vice Chairman Highley asked whether the applicant is planning to keep the chimney. Mr. Couch answered he
planned to keep it.
Ms. Smith noted a mistake under “Foundations Plan.” Lap siding is being proposed.
There was discussion about waterproofing around the chimney and a couple of board members thought that the
contractor will likely want to take it down because it’s in a difficult place. There was acknowledgement that the
applicant would need to come back before the board for approval of the chimney removal, unless the board
gave him approval tonight. The approval doesn’t compel him to remove the chimney. The applicant requested
the chimney removal be added to the application.
Ms. Trueblood said she believes this is appropriate, but she cautioned the board that there are a lot of houses in
town with nonfunctional chimneys that are still character-defining features. She advised that when the motion is
made, the board member making the motion be very clear why this chimney is not character defining. It doesn’t
have as much to do with how its used as it does with the integrity of the structure of the house.
Mr. Farlow said if this is the method of adding on to this house, this chimney could cause the house to
deteriorate over time because it would be hard to keep it water proofed. Ms. Trueblood noted that this board
Page 7 of 8
has approved the removal of chimneys that went to wood stoves in the rear of houses but rarely character
defining chimneys, original to the house.
Motion: Ms. Heilman moved to close the public hearing.
Second: Ms. Simmons seconded.
Vote: Unanimous
Motion: Mr. Farlow moved to find as a fact that the Charles Couch 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: Additions to Existing
Buildings, Porches, Entrances and Balconies, Site Features and Plantings. Mr. Farlow noted the application was
modified to receive permission to remove the rear chimney if it’s necessary to tie in the new addition in a
waterproof manner.
Second: Ms. Heilman seconded.
Vote: Unanimous
Motion: Mr. Farlow moved to approve the application as modified above.
Second: Vice Chairman Highley seconded.
Vote: Unanimous
Conditions: as modified, (see modification above)
ITEM # 10: Continue discussion about updates to materials list
The board discussed the differences between MasterRib, standing seam and 5V roofs. Ms. Trueblood encouraged the
board to think about the era in which the house is built and architectural style as they decide on what’s appropriate on a
case-by-case basis.
The board discussed stucco and Ms. Trueblood noted changes to the materials matrix.
ITEM # 11: Updates
Alliance for Historic Hillsborough: Anna Currie – The Alliance is changing its mission and
purpose. The four goals are tourism development, preservation involvement and
encouragement, leadership through being more visible and involved in the community, and
organizational growth by developing internal processes and exploring new opportunities.
Their recent events were successful. They are donating a modest amount to jumpstart the
Occoneechee Village project.
Historic Properties Book Committee: Virginia Smith – no report.
Staff updates
Ms. Trueblood reported that both Certified Local Government (CLG) grants were funded.
More than was requested was granted for the Cemetery workshop. Candidates are being
selected for interviews for the new planner position. The Preservation North Carolina
conference is coming up.
ITEM # 12: Adjourn
Motion: Ms. Heilman moved to adjourn at 8:48 p.m.
Page 8 of 8
Second: Ms. Simmons seconded.
Vote: Unanimous