Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout08-03-2016 Minutes HDC Regular MeetingPage 1 of 7 MINUTES HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION Wednesday, Aug. 3, 2016, 7:00 PM, Town Barn Present: Vice Chairman Reid Highley, Laura Simmons, Brad Farlow, Joe Griffin, Jill Heilman, Virginia Smith Absent: Chairman Anna Currie Staff: Stephanie Trueblood Guests: Chris Meazell, John Shoneman, Reid Highley, Vickie McDaniel ITEM # 1: Call to order, roll call, and confirmation of quorum Vice Chairman Highley called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m. Ms. Trueblood called the roll and confirmed the presence of a quorum. ITEM # 2: Reading of the Commission’s Mission Statement Vice Chairman Highley read the Commission’s Mission Statement and explained the processes. ITEM # 3: Additions to the agenda and agenda adjustment A report on Historic Properties Book Committee was added under Item 9. ITEM # 4: Approval of minutes from the July 6, 2016 meeting Motion: Ms. Smith moved to approve the minutes as submitted. Second: Mr. Griffin seconded. Vote: Unanimous ITEM # 5: Continuation of application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for Caitlin Kelly and Chris Meazell to remove a mature holly and replace it with a Japanese maple at 202 W. King Street (PIN 9864-96-5347) Motion: Ms. Heilman moved to open the public hearing. Second: Mr. Griffin seconded. Vote: Unanimous Vice Chairman Highley asked whether anyone on the board had a conflict of interest regarding this application. No one did. Mr. Meazell was sworn in. Ms. Trueblood stated that this application is regarding 202 W. King Street. There are mostly Contributing structures in the vicinity. Architecture: Contributing. c. 1938: Dr. Efland Forrest House. One of the few Neoclassical Revival-style houses in Hillsborough, this two-story, side-gable, frame house is three bays wide and double-pile with a monumental portico centered on the façade. The building has plain weatherboards with flush sheathing under the portico and a painted brick veneer and exterior chimneys on the gable ends. It has eight-over- eight wood-sash windows and a denticulated cornice with cornice returns. The replacement front door Page 2 of 7 has a classical surround with pilasters and a broken swans-neck pediment and is flanked by small oval windows. It is sheltered by a two-story, pedimented portico supported by full-height Corinthian columns with a denticulated cornice and dentils in the pediment. There is a two-story, hip-roofed wing at the rear with wide weatherboards. A one-story, shed-roofed porch on the right (east) elevation is supported by tapered square columns with a dentil cornice at the roofline. There is a painted brick retaining wall along the driveway, just west of the house, and stone steps access the property from the intersection of West King and North Wake streets. According to a sign in the yard, the house is the Dr. Efland Forrest Ho use from c. 1938. Proposed Work: Remove a mature holly and replace it with a Japanese maple. Agenda packets included: Notification information and vicinity map, narrative submitted by property owners, letter from Certified Arborist, photo of the tree, photos of the tree roots at foundation wall. Applicable Design Guidelines: Site Features and Plantings. Mr. Meazell noted that the photo submitted with the application is reversed (the tree is on the other side of the house). Vice Chairman Highley asked whether there was anyone in the audience to speak for or against this application. There was no one. Mr. Meazell said the Japanese Maple will be planted in the same proximity and will be of substantial size to blend with the rest of the landscaping. Motion: Mr. Griffin moved to close the public hearing. Second: Ms. Smith seconded. Vote: Unanimous Motion: Mr. Farlow moved to find as a fact that the Caitlin Kelly and Chris Meazell 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: Ms. Smith seconded. Vote: Unanimous Motion: Mr. Farlow moved to approve the application as submitted. Second: Ms. Smith seconded. Vote: Unanimous Conditions: none ITEM # 6: Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for John Shoneman on behalf of Stuart and Linda Paynter to construct a 5’-6’ tall, wood, picket-style fence around the rear and side yard at 115 E. Tryon Street (PIN 9874-07-9171) Motion: Ms. Smith moved to open the public hearing. Second: Mr. Griffin seconded. Vote: Unanimous Page 3 of 7 Vice Chairman Highley stated that he has a conflict of interest regarding this application and needs to recuse himself. Motion: Ms. Heilman moved to excuse Vice Chairman Highley from this application. Second: Ms. Simmons seconded. Vote: Unanimous Motion: Ms. Simmons moved to appoint Brad Farlow as Acting Chair for this application. Second: Ms. Heilman seconded. Vote: Unanimous Mr. Shoneman was sworn in. Ms. Trueblood stated that this application is regarding 115 E. Tryon Street. There are a mix of Contributing and Non-Contributing structures and Vacant lots in the vicinity. Architecture: 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. Proposed Work: Construct a 5’-6’ tall, wood, picket-style fence around the rear and side yard. Agenda packets included: Notification information, vicinity map, narrative and site plan with photo of proposed fence style and color. Applicable Design Guidelines: Fences and Walls, Paint and Exterior Color, Site Features and Plantings. Page 4 of 7 Ms. Trueblood explained this didn’t fall under the Minor Works category because it’s picket style and more than 4 feet tall. Acting Chair Farlow asked whether there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. There was no one. Ms. Smith asked whether there’s already a fence at the rear of the cemetery. Mr. Highley was sworn in. Mr. Highley said it would not extend behind the stone wall. The gates are all the same. The fence will be 5’6” tall. Motion: Ms. Simmons moved to close the public hearing. Second: Mr. Griffin seconded. Vote: Unanimous Motion: Ms. Heilman moved to find as a fact that the John Shoneman application on behalf of Stuart and Linda Paynter 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: Fences and Walls, Paint and Exterior Color, Site Features and Plantings. Second: Ms. Simmons seconded. Vote: Unanimous Motion: Ms. Heilman moved to approve the application as submitted. Second: Ms. Simmons seconded. Vote: Unanimous Conditions: None ITEM # 7: Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for Melissa Designer Jewelry to paint the trim and door ‘Sultana’ (purple) at 116 S. Churton Street (PIN 9874-06-4085) Motion: Ms. Simmons moved to open the public hearing. Second: Mr. Farlow seconded. Vote: Unanimous Vickie McDaniel was sworn in. Ms. Trueblood stated that this application is regarding 116 S. Churton Street. There are a mix of Contributing and Non-Contributing structures in the vicinity. Architecture: Contributing. c. 1930: This one-story, parapet-roofed commercial building has two replacement storefronts and two bands of header-course brick on the parapet, which is topped with terra cotta coping. The right (north) storefront has a centered entrance with narrow transom and flanked by plate-glass display windows. The left (south) storefront has an angled recessed entrance on its right end with three plate-glass display windows on the left. Each storefront has a one-light-over-two- panel door and the display windows are set on a low brick knee wall with paneled blind transoms. According to Bellinger 112 South Churton Street was built in 1928 and incorporated with 114 South Churton Street when it was built in 1944, forming one building. Page 5 of 7 Proposed Work: Paint the trim and door ‘Sultana’ (purple). Agenda packets included: Notification information and vicinity map, a narrative submitted by the applicant, paint color chip, proposed and existing photos of building exterior. Applicable Design Guidelines: Paint and Exterior Color. Ms. Trueblood explained that Ms. McDaniel is representing the applicant this evening. The color was chosen to coordinate with the new signage that has been approved. The color will be slightly darker than represented (it will have black mixed in). Ms. Trueblood said painting is usually somewhat temporary but many historic commissions regulate exterior paint color. Ms. Trueblood decided not to approve it as a Minor Works because purple is not very common and it’s affiliated with the logo, so she felt more comfortable sending it to public hearing. Everything that’s red on the building now will become dark purple. Ms. Simmons said referring to p. 16 in the Guidelines, she questions whether purple is appropriate because it wouldn’t have been used as an exterior paint historically. Ms. Trueblood said there’s been a trend in the last few decades toward brighter colors. In downtown now, there are several brighter colors including turquoise, gold, and red. There isn’t as much precedent toward painting the building to match the business. But the sandwich shop up the street is the same. Ms. Heilman feels like paint is temporary and this paint is consistent with the architecture, the store, and the amethyst geodes in the windows. Ms. Trueblood said the more times she sees the board approve these applications, the more comfortable she will be approving brighter colors as Minor Works. Ms. Smith likes it because it’s speaks to the vibe of creative people with open minds. We are not Williamsburg. We are not stuck in time because we have old buildings. Vice Chairman Highley says tying it in with the branding of the business makes a case for it as well. It was noted that it’s a small percentage of the building that’s changing color. Motion: Mr. Griffin moved to close the public hearing. Second: Ms. Heilman seconded. Vote: Unanimous Motion: Ms. Heilman moved to find as a fact that the Melissa Designer Jewelry 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. Second: Mr. Farlow seconded. Vote: Unanimous Motion: Ms. Heilman moved to approve the application as submitted. Second: Mr. Farlow seconded. Vote: Unanimous Conditions: none Page 6 of 7 ITEM # 8: Continue discussion about updates to materials list focusing on siding and trim sections The board reviewed the list line by line. Ms. Trueblood noted updates to the list as the discussion progressed. The minute taker noted the following: Brick -- there was brief discussion that the board will continue to ask what kind of brick and request samples. Stone clarified to be natural stone. Fiber cement – Ms. Trueblood said she gets questions from homeowners interested in removing Masonite and replacing with Hardieplank. Ms. Simmons said she doesn’t think it’s appropriate to put Hardieplank on Ms. Smith’s house (around 200 years old) but on the trim of Mr. Griffin’s house (around 50 years old) would be OK. She added it’s not OK to mix Hardieplank and wood on the same house. Ms. Trueblood said this board has approved the addition to be Hardieplank when the house is wood. Ms. Simmons said she can see dormers in Hardieplank but not the siding itself. Ms. Heilman said board agrees on columns two, three, and four and the conversation is regarding the first column only. Ms. Trueblood said when people put on additions, some want it to blend and the only way you can tell where the addition starts is the corner boards and that works in some cases. And in others, there are dramatic changes. Mr. Farlow shared a book entitled How Buildings Learn. We should consider what we are asking people to do, he said. These aren’t house museums. I don’t think we should ask people to take houses back to original drawings. Buildings are changed to meet people’s needs. Vice Chairman Highley said he encourages matching existing materials. This column says if you have wood siding, you replace with wood siding. Ms. Trueblood said the board needs to discuss the disagreement of whether it’s ok or not ok to replace wood with fiber cement. Ms. Heilman said it’s a case-by-case decision that you make as you review the application. Ms. Simmons said because dormers take beatings it should be possible to replace with Hardieplank. Others cautioned that they wouldn’t want that permitted on every building. Ms. Trueblood encouraged hearing from each person on the board on when Hardieplank could be acceptable to replace wood. Stucco – Ms. Trueblood said in North Carolina it often molds, cracks, and fails. Vice Chairman Highley said that’s synthetic stucco. Ms. Smith said it’s not consistent with the district. There was some receptivity to deciding on a case-by-case basis. Stucco is present on some structures and therefore may be considered appropriate. Faux masonry is red clear across the column. There was some agreement that faux masonry in the form of cinderblock was not approved but other types can come before the board. Aluminum -- Created a separate corrugated metal line. Vinyl siding -- Ms. Trueblood explained the two cases where the board has allowed vinyl siding as replacement or to match existing. The board then reviewed trim materials. Ms. Trueblood encouraged thought on the bigger question of how a product on an existing building ages over time and is therefore compatible or incompatible over time. Page 7 of 7 ITEM # 9: Updates  Alliance for Historic Hillsborough: Virginia Smith – A new brochure featuring Riverwalk is being developed by the Visitors Center, Alliance is working on preservation projects including replacing signs in front of the houses and revising the booklet that details the structures with the historic signs. The fourth of July event was very successful.  Historic Properties Book Committee: Virginia Smith – She is looking at the National Register nominations and the inventory of historic buildings to think about which should be included in the book. The book may include architectural drawings of some of the houses, and it will contain a glossary. Ms. Trueblood gave a caveat that the Town Board has only matched the grant to continue taking inventory and has not financially committed to the book project. Ms. Trueblood said it would be great if Ms. Smith could start working on a list.  Staff updates The town was awarded both CLG grants, with more than asked for the cemetery grant because it is expanded. Thinking of holding it in April or early May. The CLG grant for the inventory project will be more staff managed. She’ll report throughout the year. Regarding the Colonial Inn, the town has officially filed action for eminent domain. Ms. Trueblood reviewed the offerings at the historic preservation training that will take place Sept. 28-30 in Greensboro. Ms. Smith, Ms. Simmons and Mr. Farlow agreed to attend. ITEM # 10: Adjourn Motion: Ms. Heilman moved to adjourn at 9:19 p.m. Second: Ms. Simmons seconded. Vote: Unanimous