Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout06-07-2017 Minutes HDC Regular MeetingPage 1 of 15 Minutes Historic District commission 7 p.m. June 7, 2017 Town Barn, 101 E. Orange St. Present: Chairman Reid Highley, Vice Chairwoman Brad Farlow, Joe Griffin, Jill Heilman, Laura Simmons, Virginia Smith, and Cheri Szcodronski Staff: Planner Justin Snyder Guests: Susan Ballard, Drew Blum, Meighan Carmichael, David Cates, Tony Dowling, Jane Montgomery, and Paul Sylvestre Item 1: Call to order, roll call, and confirmation of quorum Chairman Highley called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. Mr. Snyder called the roll and confirmed the presence of a quorum with all members present. Item 2: Reading of the commission’s mission statement Chairman Highley read the commission’s mission statement. Item 3: Adjustments to the agenda Ms. Simmons requested to add a discussion of abandoned houses. Item 4: Approval of minutes from the April 5, 2017, and May 3, 2017, meetings Regarding the April minutes, Ms. Smith noted that on Page 4 in the second paragraph, the minutes do not reflect what she intended to say. She did not intend to say that the house is not historic. Motion: Vice Chairman Farlow moved to approve the April 5 minutes. Second: Ms. Heilman seconded. Vote: Unanimous Changes: Change Ms. Smith’s statement as noted above. Regarding the May minutes, Ms. Szcodronski requested additional words on Page 5 in the sixth paragraph. She requested that the words “not original” be added to the last sentence to clarify. Regarding the May minutes, Ms. Smith asked whether there was a better term to specify the type of window proposed on Page 2 in the last paragraph. The commission members suggested “double hung” rather than “sliding.” Motion: Ms. Simmons moved to approve the minutes with the changes above. Second: Ms. Heilman seconded. Vote: Unanimous Item 5: Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for Tony Dowling to extend an existing 4-foot-tall, white-painted wood picket fence along North Churton Street; to add a 7- foot-by-7-foot entry vestibule with shiplap wood siding on the east elevation with wood two-over-two windows and a single-panel glass, wood-framed door; and to add a 3- Page 2 of 15 foot-by-8-foot clapboard siding addition to the existing west elevation passageway at 103 E. Queen St. (9874-07-6697). Motion: Ms. Simmons moved to open the public hearing. Second: Ms. Smith seconded. Vote: Unanimous Chairman Highley asked whether there were any conflicts of interest regarding this application. There were none. Tony Dowling and Jane Montgomery were sworn in. Mr. Snyder stated that this application is regarding 103 E. Queen St. There are a mixture of structures that contribute and do not contribute to the historic character of the district in the vicinity, as well as vacant lots. Architecture: This rambling late 18th-century house faces East Queen Street with an ornate circa 1840 Italianate-style addition facing North Churton Street. The earlier two-story structure is two bays wide and single-pile with a massive stone chimney with brick stack in the east gable end. The building has plain weatherboards with flush sheathing under the hip-roofed porch, which is supported by octagonal porch posts with a geometric railing between the posts. It has two-over-two wood-sash windows on the first floor and six-over-six windows at the second-floor level. The four-panel door retains original hardware and six-light-over-one-panel sidelights. In the late 19th century, a two-story, side-gabled, triple-A-roofed wing was added to the left (west) elevation of the original house, perpendicular to the original house and facing North Churton Street. This section of the house is five bays wide and single-pile with weatherboards, two interior corbelled brick chimneys, and four-over-four wood-sash windows with wide segmental-arched Italianate surrounds. The decorative center-bay entrance has double-leaf arched, one- light-over-one-panel doors within a round-headed decorative surround similar to those found at the Parks-Richmond House on West King Street. The entrance is sheltered by a single-bay, hip-roofed porch supported by square columns with a wood railing at the roofline and a double-leafed arched door at the second-floor level that opens to the porch roof. There are paired brackets along the roofline and two one- over-one windows with pointed-arch upper sashes in each gable. There is a two-story, hip-roofed porch at the northeast within the ell created by the two wings. The metal-roofed porch has been enclosed at the second-floor level with weatherboards and nine-over-nine windows. The first-floor porch is supported by square columns. The applicant proposed to extend an existing 4-foot tall, white-painted wood picket fence along North Churton Street; to add a 7-foot-by-7-foot entry vestibule with shiplap wood siding on the east elevation with wood two-over-two windows and a single-panel glass, wood-framed door; and to add a 3-foot-by-8- foot clapboard siding addition to the existing west elevation passageway at 103 E. Queen St. The existing fence has several jogs in it, and the applicant wishes to even it out by extending it laterally from the second jog, which is set back 25 feet, with the termination point near an existing maple tree in the front yard to add privacy in the yard from traffic along North Churton. The proposed entry vestibule on the east elevation would be contained under the existing roof. The applicant is proposing wood two-over-two windows on the north- and south-facing walls, similar to those on the side of the house near the existing door. The vestibule’s base would be stacked stone similar to the existing base on the patio side of the house, and the siding would be wood shiplap siding to match the side of the home that faces the patio. Finally, the passageway between the main house and kitchen house on the west elevation would be extended with a 3-foot-by-8-foot addition to allow enough space for the applicant to construct a new half bathroom. The siding of the addition would be wood clapboard to match the existing west elevation exterior; and the roof pitch, height, and trim would match the existing. The roofing would be rubber Page 3 of 15 membrane to match the existing roof due to the shallow pitch. The roof would not be visible. The applicant is also proposing installation of evergreen shrubs in place of a small holly tree that would be removed. Agenda packets included notification information, vicinity map, narrative and materials list, elevations, and photos. The applicable design guidelines included Wood; Exterior Walls; Windows and Doors; Porches, Entrances, and Balconies; Additions to Existing Buildings; Site Features and Plantings; Fences and Walls. Mr. Dowling said the proposed work would be on the east side and would include a little passageway tucked in the corner on the west side that would connect the main house to the kitchen house. Also, the current fence jogs three times. He would like to extend off the jog that is 25 feet from Churton Street and terminate it with a large post at the end. He would be careful about the roots of a large maple where he wants to terminate the fence. The fence would run between the row of Leland pines and the holly bushes. Mr. Dowling answered questions from the commission. Regarding the fence, Ms. Smith said she understands about keeping dogs in the yard but thinks it is a lot of fence, almost as much fence as house. She expressed concern about that. Regarding the vestibule, it would be on the east side and under the existing roof. Mr. Dowling answered questions about the siding. Currently, to the left of the door is shiplap and to the right of the door is clapboard. In the application, he is asking for shiplap on all three sides of the vestibule. Ms. Smith asked if the north and south walls of the vestibule would be mostly windows. Mr. Dowling answered no, there would be a window on each side. He would like it to serve as a mudroom and wants wall space for hooks and a bench. The glass in the door would look like the double door next to it, Ms. Montgomery said. The transom has divided lights, but the door does not. In the vestibule, there would be a north window but not a window on the south. It was clarified that there is not a window on the south wall (the application shows a window on both the north and south walls). Ms. Smith wondered how the vestibule would be distinguished from the original. She thinks if there was a window on the south wall, it would be obvious that it is not original. Ms. Dowling said the overhang area was added in 2002 and 2003. Chairman Highley said the desire to differentiate has been the emphasis of this commission. On Page 38 of the guidelines regarding additions to existing buildings, it states in the second paragraph that additions that echo the architectural style of the existing structure and additions of a contemporary style are both appropriate approaches. Ms. Szcodronski said as a practicing architectural historian, this addition would be differentiated from the original structure by its form. The single door with the side lights is a clue that something has changed. Chairman Highley invited discussion about the powder room addition on the front of the house. Ms. Szcodronski asked Mr. Dowling to show the change on the site plan. Mr. Dowling pointed it out on the site. He wants to extend the exterior wall 3 feet for a portion on the west side to fit a powder room inside the house. It would be in the jog between the main house and the kitchen house. It would follow the same roofline and have the same soffits and fascia. He would keep the pergola. Motion: Ms. Simmons moved to close the public hearing. Second: Ms. Heilman seconded. Vote: 7-0 Motion: Vice Chairman Farlow moved to find as fact that the Tony Dowling application is in keeping with the overall character of the Historic District and complies with all relevant standards of evaluation based on the commission’s discussion of the application and the Page 4 of 15 standards of evaluation in Section 3.12.3 of the Unified Development Ordinance because the plans are consistent with the Historic District Design Guidelines Wood; Exterior Walls; Windows and Doors; Porches, Entrances, and Balconies; Additions to Existing Buildings; Site Features and Plantings; Fences and Walls. Second: Ms. Simmons seconded. Vote: 7-0 Motion: Vice Chairman Farlow moved to approve with conditions. Second: Ms. Simmons seconded. Vote: 7-0 Conditions: Approved as submitted with no south elevation rear vestibule window. Item 6: Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for Marion and Susan Ballard (402 W. King St.) and Paul and Monica Sylvestre (404 W. King St.) to replace a failing brick and terra cotta retaining wall along the driveways between 402 and 404 W. King St. with VERSA-LOK block and capstones, to expand the gravel driveway, relocate a picket fence, redress the new retaining wall with plantings, and add a 36-inch-tall wrought iron railing along the retaining wall at 402 and 404 W. King St. (9864-76-7363, 9864-76-6393). Motion: Vice Chairman Farlow moved to open the public hearing. Second: Ms. Simmons seconded. Vote: 7-0 Chairman Highley asked if there were any conflicts of interest on the commission. There were none. Susan Ballard and Paul Sylvestre were sworn in. Mr. Snyder stated that this application is regarding 402 and 404 W. King St. There are a mixture of contributing and non-contributing structures and vacant lots in the vicinity. Architecture: 402 W. King St. — Recently renovated, this one-story, front-gabled, Craftsman-style bungalow is three bays wide and triple-pile. It has a brick veneer with brick soldier-course watertable, rough stucco in the gables, exposed purlins, and replacement three-over-one Craftsman-style wood-sash windows throughout, generally paired. A 15-light French door is centered on the façade and sheltered by a two- bay-wide, front-gabled porch on the right (east) end of the façade. Supported by tapered wood posts on brick piers, the porch has stucco and a pair of three-light windows in the gable. A side-gabled porte- cochere projects from the right side of the porch and is supported by matching post-on-pier supports with a low brick knee wall. There is an exterior brick chimney and a projecting gabled bay on the right elevation facing North Occoneechee Street. There is a circa 2012 gabled ell at the right rear (northeast), and an entrance near the rear of the right elevation is sheltered by a side-gabled porch that matches the front porch. A modern unpainted wood deck is at the rear. The architecture is consistent with that of the 1920s and 1930s, and the building appears on the 1943 Sanborn map. 404 W. King St. — Largely obscured by foliage, this one-story, hip-roofed Queen Anne-style cottage is one of the earliest homes on this block. It is three bays wide and double-pile with projecting gabled bays on the left (west) end of the façade, the left elevation, and the right (east) elevation. It has plain weatherboards, two-over-two wood-sash windows, round gable vents, and a replacement metal roof with an interior brick chimney. The one-light-over-three-panel door is centered on the façade and sheltered by a hip-roofed porch supported by turned posts with sawn brackets and a sawn railing. The porch extends the full width of the façade and wraps around the left elevation. There is a gabled ell at the left rear and Page 5 of 15 a shed-roofed section to its left. County tax records date the building to 1896. The building appears on the 1924 Sanborn map, the earliest map to cover this part of the town. The applicants proposed to replace a failing brick and terra cotta retaining wall along the driveways between 402 and 404 W. King St. with VERSA-LOK block and capstones that would match the existing terra cotta block as closely as possible. The wall would be 7.4 feet tall as measured from the ground to the top of the wall. Typically, fences and decorative walls built to act like fences are subject to a 6-foot height limitation in the Historic District. Since this retaining wall would be for functionality, the code would treat the maximum height limitation differently. Because the proposed retaining wall would replace an existing wall and would not exceed 8 feet in height, the proposed wall meets the town’s zoning requirements. Additionally, the wall would be shortened on the southern end to remove an existing encroachment into the King Street right-of-way. As such, it would be extended 8 feet further to the north. The plan also called for expansion of the existing gravel driveway at 404 W. King St. The northern end of the driveway would be lengthened and widened to accommodate two vehicles parked side by side. Because of this widening and extension, a portion of the existing 4-foot tall wood picket fence would be relocated 18 to 20 feet north and a new connecting section of fence would tie into the relocated portion. The western portion of the fence visible from the road would remain or be rebuilt in kind. Because grading would occur, an existing 11.5-inch-caliper mulberry tree would be removed, as well as three Rose of Sharon bushes, three deciduous bushes, and a weedy privet bush. Once completed, the new retaining wall would be redressed with new plantings to include possibly a boxwood with grassy understory and several evergreen shrubs to help minimize organic runoff into the catch basin along West King Street. Finally, a 36-inch-tall wrought iron railing would be constructed along the top of the retaining wall to meet code. The agenda packet included notification information, vicinity map, narrative and materials list, elevations, site plan, photos, and legal agreement. The applicable design guidelines included Site Features and Plantings; Fences and Walls; Walkways, Driveways, and Off-Street Parking. Ms. Ballard clarified that the total height of the brick wall and code-required railing combined amounts to 7 feet. Chairman Highley asked whether there was anyone to speak for or against the application. There was no one. Commission members thanked the applicants for their thorough application. Ms. Heilman asked what grading would need to occur to park two cars. Mr. Sylvestre answered that he and his wife would like to extend the driveway 15 to 18 feet so they are not parking two cars where they currently are, which puts strain on the retaining wall. Ms. Smith asked about the height of the wall and capstone. She wondered whether the wall would be tall enough to retain the gravel on the Sylvestre driveway. Ms. Ballard answered affirmatively. Vice Chairman Farlow asked for clarification that the retaining wall would be segmental block. Ms. Ballard answered that Summit Design and Engineering, which planned the proposed wall to last 100 years, explained to her that the segmental block would last longer than brick and would move with the earth, whereas brick would crack. Ms. Heilman said she had the same question about the materials because there is language in the design guidelines in the introduction to the Fences and Walls section that states manufactured stones and block walls are not appropriate in the Historic District. She said she is Page 6 of 15 sympathetic to what the applicants are trying to achieve and, therefore, the materials they chose; and she is weighing that against the design guidelines. Ms. Heilman asked who requested the 100-year wall. Ms. Ballard said the Ballards and the Sylvestres both did because they do not want to have to pay for it twice. Ms. Ballard said there would be jasmine growing over the wall to conceal it. Mr. Snyder said there is a precedent of allowing these materials in the district for foundations, so perhaps it would be an appropriate material for this type of wall since it would be structural rather than decorative. Ms. Smith said that in this situation, they have a lot of dirt to hold back for a long period of time. Ms. Ballard said it is more than dirt; it is a hill. Ms. Simmons asked how old the mulberry tree is because she is curious whether it could be one of the original ones planted in town. There was brief recognition that mulberry trees were brought here for silkworms, but the trees were the wrong type. There was further discussion about mulberry trees being invasive. Ms. Simmons asked a question about the contract and another about maintenance of the catch basin. Mr. Snyder said those are not the concerns of this board. Environmental Services and Stormwater Manager Terry Hackett would address the functionality of the stormwater features, Mr. Snyder added. Motion: Vice Chairman Farlow moved to close the public hearing. Second: Ms. Simmons seconded. Vote: 7-0 Motion: Ms. Smith moved to find as fact that the Marion and Susan Ballard and Paul and Monica Sylvestre application is in keeping with the overall character of the Historic District and complies with all relevant standards of evaluation based on the commission’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 the Historic District Design Guidelines Site Features and Plantings; Fences and Walls; Walkways, Driveways, and Off- Street Parking. Second: Ms. Simmons seconded. Vote: 7-0 Ms. Heilman said she would make clear that the material, VERSA-LOK block and capstones, is appropriate in this situation because of the foundation-quality of the project. Chairman Highley noted the explanation for the record. Motion: Ms. Smith moved to approve as submitted. Second: Vice Chairman Farlow seconded. Vote: 7-0 Conditions: None Item 7: Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for Steven Roberts of Mercy Land Group LLC to replace an existing wood front porch with an 8-foot deep wood front porch, to enclose half of the existing rear porch with wood siding and trim, to remove an existing block chimney, and to construct a new 8-foot-by-14-foot pressure-treated wood deck with railing and stairs in the rear of 118 N. Occoneechee St. (9864-76-9700). Motion: Ms. Heilman moved to open the public hearing. Second: Ms. Simmons seconded. Vote: 7-0 Page 7 of 15 Chairman Highley asked whether anyone on the commission had a conflict of interest regarding this application. No one did. David Cates, here to speak on behalf of the applicant, was sworn in. Mr. Snyder stated that this application is regarding 118 N Occoneechee St. There are a mixture of contributing and non-contributing structures and vacant lots in the vicinity. Architecture: This one-story, front-gabled, Depression-era cottage is three bays wide and triple-pile with wide, German-profile weatherboards and paired six-over-six wood-sash windows. The house has been significantly altered with the replacement of windows on the left (north) end of the façade and left elevation with shorter three-over-three windows. The six-light-over-three-panel door, centered on the façade, is sheltered by a small, front-gabled porch supported by square posts with a replacement wood railing. The house has a louvered vent in the front gable, exposed rafter tails, and an inset porch at the left rear (northeast) that is supported by square posts. County tax records date the building to 1936. The applicant proposed to replace an existing wood front porch with an 8-foot deep wood front porch that would utilize the same wood columns as the existing porch. Additionally, he would like to enclose half of the existing rear porch with wood siding and trim to be used for a laundry room. A three-light aluminum clad window is also proposed in lieu of an existing vent to provide additional light to a family room, which would have a cathedral ceiling. An existing chimney in the house also would be removed to open the interior for more practical use. Finally, the applicant wished to construct a new 8-foot-by-14- foot pressure-treated wood deck with railing and stairs in the rear to provide a more functional back yard. The agenda packet included notification information, vicinity map, narrative and materials list, elevations, site plan, and photos. The applicable design guidelines included Exterior Walls; Windows and Doors; Porches, Entrances, and Balconies; and Decks. Mr. Cates said the Roberts apologized for not being able to attend this evening due to a family obligation. Chairman Highley asked whether anyone was in the audience to speak for or against this project. No one was. Mr. Cates answered questions from the commission. Ms. Heilman said the front porch proposal calls for a hipped roof, and that struck her as a bit unique. In looking at other front-gabled homes in the district and the mill village, almost all those porches have a shed roof. Mr. Cates said on West Queen Street, the next-to-the-last house on the first block on the left has a hipped roof. That was one of the inspirations for this proposal. Ms. Heilman said it’s helpful to see examples. The shallow pitch and small scale of house and distance from the street were similar, Mr. Cates said. Also, most of the houses on this block of Occoneechee have porches. There are a variety of styles, but a majority have porches that cover the front windows, Mr. Cates said. Ms. Smith asked if those porches were original. Mr. Cates said some of them have been renovated. There are two across the street that he is pretty sure are original to the structures, but they are not the same style. Ms. Szcodronski said she had some concerns about the front porch. She said Ruth Little, who created the Historic District inventory, used the term “Depression-era cottage” to denote a subtype of vernacular architecture that is a gabled-front cottage with a stooped porch versus a gabled-front cottage with a full porch. The term is not meant to indicate the time the house was built, so much as the style of building. That type of stooped front porch is one of the top two character-defining features of that style, she said. Page 8 of 15 Thus, she is struggling with approving this. There are a handful of houses of this style, she noted, saying it is important to her to preserve them as a regional vernacular style. Also, she is concerned with a cumulative loss of integrity on this building with the replacement railing and changes to windows that have already happened. Mr. Cates said this structure has gone through extensive changes already in some ways to render it non-original. The pickets and windows on the northwestern side are not original. He said he appreciates her perspective, though. Ms. Szcodronski said the commission has to apply the guidelines evenly to all buildings, and the cumulative loss of integrity seems to be increasing with this building. She said this is hard for her to support. Chairman Highley agreed and said there is strong language in the guidelines that discourages changing character-defining porches. He thinks the porch enlargement this commission recently approved was different in that the porch was so miniscule as to render it not functional. In this case, that is not the concern. What is proposed is appropriate, he said, but he struggles with whether the commission should allow the existing stoop to be taken away. Ms. Smith said the front stoop is character-defining and would be gone. When asked if he thought the stoop was original to the home, Mr. Cates said it appears the stoop was original. He said he appreciates the sentiment, but that this house has been modified already. Chairman Highley asked if the existing posts are replacement posts. Mr. Cates said he cannot tell the age of the posts. Mr. Cates said he drove around the Historic District with the clients and looked at options, and the other option is a full porch. He said he and the applicants tried to do something that is in keeping with Hillsborough. Chairman Highley said what Mr. Cates has drawn is appropriate, but the commission needs to decide whether to allow the replacement. Meighan Carmichael asked to speak and was sworn in. Ms. Carmichael said she is a neighbor on Occoneechee Street. She said as far as the neighbors are concerned, it does not have to do with the historical nature of the house as much as the way the community lives. On Occoneechee Street, almost all of the houses have front porches, and they all sit together on those porches, she said. She said she thinks allowing this house to have a front porch enables it to contribute to the character of the neighborhood in 2017 and the way the community lives in their homes right now. A stoop like what the applicants have right now does not invite space for community in the same way, she said. Vice Chairman Farlow asked Ms. Szcodronski to clarify if the Depression-era stoop form is a defining feature because it is a stoop or because there are two gables on the front of the house. Ms. Szcodronski said she thinks it is both. Vice Chairman Farlow said he can see a way to give some nod to the history of what was there before by bringing the porch out a bit farther and having a front gable instead of a hipped roof. Ms. Smith asked if the rafter tails along the front are appropriate. She noted that they are just on the side of the original stoop. Mr. Cates sketched for the commission what he thought Vice Chairman Farlow was envisioning. There would be a porch with hips and a gable in the front that extends beyond the hipped portion. Chairman Highley asked Mr. Cates if he wished to modify the application to reflect the drawing he completed during the meeting. Mr. Cates answered affirmatively. Chairman Highley asked the commission for thoughts on the proposal as modified. Ms. Szcodronski said the neighbor’s comments also factor into the decision because the neighbors also contribute to the character of a district. Ms. Smith said that the community talking on the front porch is a very “Hillsborough” trait and is very important. Chairman Highley said it is important to “zoom out” sometimes. Page 9 of 15 Our ultimate charge is to protect the character of a district, and one of the things that defines character is that aspect of community, he said. He said he thinks that is a compelling argument. Regarding the window, Mr. Cates said the proportions could stay the same. Ms. Heilman wondered if for harmony, just a plain window could be used. She suggested elimination of muntins or at least using a style that is already on the house. Chairman Highley said to some extent the proposed window matches the sash of the windows to the left. Mr. Cates said that no muntins would scream that this is contemporary. Chairman Highley said he thinks the window is appropriate as proposed. Ms. Szcodronski said she does not have a problem with the windows. There was clarification that half of the current rear screened porch would be enclosed and the other half would remain as is. When the rear porch is enclosed, a door will be inside. Mr. Cates indicated which window would be removed. The current chimney is brick on the outside and block on the inside. Mr. Cates explained there is no interior mantle or fireplace. It is a column in a strange location inside the house. Mr. Cates said the chimney has a flue that probably connected to a furnace but looks like it has never been used. Regarding the brick foundation, Mr. Cates said it had already been painted red. The applicant is proposing to paint it a different color. Motion: Ms. Simmons moved to close the public hearing. Second: Ms. Smith seconded. Vote: 7-0 Motion: Vice Chairman Farlow moved to find as fact that the Steven Roberts application is in keeping with the overall character of the Historic District and complies with all relevant standards of evaluation based on the commission’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 the Historic District Design Guidelines Exterior Walls; Windows and Doors; Porches, Entrances, and Balconies; and Decks. Second: Ms. Simmons seconded. Vote: 7-0 Motion: Vice Chairman Farlow moved approval with conditions. Second: Ms. Heilman seconded. Vote: 7-0 Conditions: Approved as modified with the condition that the Depression-Era front stoop be reconstructed farther out from the house with the hip roof behind it as sketched at the meeting. Item 8: Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for Drew Blum to construct a 494- square-foot addition with Hardie siding, to change from asphalt shingles to a 5V metal roof on the existing and proposed structures, to add a 144-square-foot screened porch on the south elevation, to enclose the crawl space with brick, to remove existing wood stairs from the rear deck, to remove two existing mature trees in the rear for construction, to relocate existing one-over-one vinyl windows to the rear addition and to put new six-over-six aluminum-clad wood windows on the front of the existing building at 310 N. Hassell St. (9864-87-8701). Page 10 of 15 Motion: Ms. Simmons moved to open the public hearing. Second: Vice Chairman Farlow seconded. Vote: 7-0 Chairman Highley asked whether anyone on the commission had a conflict of interest regarding this application. No one did. Mr. Blum was sworn in. Mr. Snyder stated that this application is regarding 310 N. Hassell St. There is a mixture of contributing and non-contributing structures and vacant lots in the vicinity. Architecture: This one-story, side-gabled house is three bays wide and single-pile with a full-width shed- roofed rear wing. The house has a brick pier foundation, interior brick chimney, plain weatherboards, and replacement one-over-one wood-sash windows with wide plain surrounds. The 15-light French door is centered on the façade and is sheltered by a three-bay-wide, shed-roofed porch supported by turned posts. The style of the house is consistent with earlier 20th-century mill housing in Hillsborough. The house was moved to its current site in the 1980s from a site facing Churton Street just south of the Orange County Courthouse parking lot. The applicant proposes to construct a 494-square-foot side and rear addition with Hardie siding and trim to be installed smooth side out. The applicant is proposing a location for this addition behind the front façade to minimize visual impacts of the addition from the road. The windows proposed for the side and rear of the new addition would be removed from the existing home and reused. They are vinyl one-over- one windows, so a decision would need to be made regarding whether to allow them to be moved to the addition or whether the applicant would need to make the addition windows a compatible material, such as aluminum-clad wood or wood. The front windows on the addition would be aluminum-clad one-over- one windows. The windows proposed to replace the former vinyl one-over-one windows on the existing home would be six-over-six aluminum-clad wood windows. The house and addition are to be painted a light gray with white trim. The applicant would also like to change from existing asphalt shingles to a charcoal grey corrugated 5V metal roof on both the existing and proposed structures. A 144-square-foot screened porch would be added on the south elevation with a door, stoop, and stairs to the front of the porch for access. The roofline of the porch would be as integrated as possible with the existing roof line. To limit the access by vermin to the crawl space area, the applicant wishes to remove the existing lattice under the home and enclose the crawl space with brick. The existing wood stairs would be removed from the rear deck as well. The applicant also proposes to add two metal light fixtures mounted to metal lamp posts in the front yard. Finally, the applicant would need to remove two existing mature trees in the rear for construction of the addition. These trees have grown in a clump, and their proximity to one another places the structure in jeopardy due to concerns about the trees’ stability and their ability to survive as they are. Agenda packets included notification information, vicinity map, narrative and materials list, elevations, site plan, and photos. The applicable design guidelines included Site Features and Plantings; Exterior Walls; Windows and Doors; Additions to Existing Buildings; Roofs; Masonry; Porches, Entrances, and Balconies; Paint and Exterior Color, and Exterior Lighting. Page 11 of 15 Mr. Cates added he had heard stories about the houses near the old courthouse that had to be chained to trees to hold them during flooding, saying he had heard that this is one of the houses tied during flooding when in its former location. Mr. Cates also added that Mr. Blum asked the N.C. Forest Service to look at the trees and had just received an analysis that day, which he shared with the commission. He suggested the trees be discussed last to give the commission time to consider the report. Mr. Cates also added that the elevations present the addition as taller than the existing structure. He said that is true, but because the addition would sit behind the existing structure, it would present itself as lower. He said he thinks the pitch on the addition could be flattened some, but then the pitch on the addition may look uncomfortably distant. He thinks the street presence of the addition would not be as massive as it appears on the elevation. Chairman Highley asked if anyone in the audience wanted to speak for or against the application. No one did. Mr. Cates and Mr. Blum then answered questions from the commission. The materials for the screened porch would be pressure-treated lumber and screen. There would be a door from the house to the porch, replacing the window that is there now and using the existing header. Regarding enclosing the crawlspace, the areas that have lattice now would be bricked in. There were no concerns. The proposal is for vinyl windows on the rear of the addition. Mr. Cates pointed out where these windows are coming from and where they are proposed to be installed. Mr. Cates explained the existing house has all vinyl-clad one-over-one windows. Mr. Cates explained Mr. Blum’s thought was to re-use the vinyl windows instead of throwing them away if he could. Commission members said the commission has been very consistent on not approving vinyl windows. Vice Chairman Farlow said that if the HDC was ever going to approve vinyl windows, this would be the time to do it, to use the existing windows in the new location. Several members said they would not approve vinyl. Mr. Cates proposed an alternative: six-over-one aluminum-clad wood windows. Ms. Smith asked the commission what the guidelines say about the transom windows. The commission recalled such windows had been approved in two houses on Mitchell Street. Mr. Blum said the roof would be a 5V in medium to dark gray. Regarding trees, Mr. Blum said there is a cluster of trees clumped too close together. One tree is leaning toward the house. Mr. Blum said the arborist said he was concerned that with the construction, the root systems would be damaged, particularly that of the tree leaning over the house. Several commission members said they were not concerned about the proposal to remove the two mature trees. Regarding the addition, it would be located more than eight feet behind the front line of the house. Mr. Cates explained the house is around 1,100 square feet, and they are conscious of the massing of the addition. Building the addition on the south side where the Blums have more space would have had more of an impact, Mr. Cates said. Commission members raised concerns about the massing on the proposed roof and asked for other proposed roof pitches. The proposed roof looks more modern. Mr. Cates offered to make it steeper. Several commission members expressed a desire to increase the pitch to 7:12 rather than reduce it. This would match the existing house. Page 12 of 15 Ms. Simmons asked whether the additional window to the basement is necessary. She suggested some landscaping. Mr. Blum said he could landscape so the window is not seen. It was acknowledged that the addition would look the largest on the side of the house that faces woods, so the window would not be visible from the street. Mr. Cates pointed out that most houses in the Historic District are not set back as far from the road as this one is. Also, unlike many houses in town, all sides of this one are not visible from streets. A commission member noted that matching the addition roof pitch to the main roof pitch would make the addition taller than proposed by about 6½ inches. Ms. Szcodronski wanted to note that because of the topography, the addition would not look taller than the house. There was agreement on the commission that the pole-mounted light fixture and pole must be no taller than 6 feet from the ground to the top of the fixture. Motion: Vice Chairman Farlow moved to close the public hearing. Second: Ms. Simmons seconded. Vote: 7-0 Motion: Chairman Highley moved to find as fact that the Drew Blum application is in keeping with the overall character of the Historic District and complies with all relevant standards of evaluation based on the commission’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 the Historic District Design Guidelines Site Features and Plantings; Exterior Walls; Windows and Doors; Additions to Existing Buildings; Roofs; Masonry; Porches, Entrances, and Balconies; Paint and Exterior Color; and Exterior Lighting. Second: Vice Chairman Farlow seconded. Vote: Unanimous Motion: Chairman Highley moved to approve the application with conditions. Second: Vice Chairman Farlow seconded. Vote: 7-0 Conditions: Approved as modified with the conditions that all proposed vinyl windows on the rear addition be replaced with six-over-one aluminum-clad wood windows, that the roof pitch on the rear addition be 7 over 12 instead of 6.5 over 12 to match the existing house roof pitch, and that the pole-mounted light fixture and pole be no taller than 6 feet from the ground to the top of the fixture. Item 9: Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for Chris Knotts and Meighan Carmichael to enclose an existing attached garage with brick and two sets of four single- light wood-clad windows at 119 N. Occoneechee St. (9864-76-6768). Motion: Ms. Simmons moved to open the public hearing. Second: Vice Chairman Farlow seconded. Vote: 7-0 Chairman Highley asked if anyone on the commission had a conflict of interest. No one did. Mr. Snyder stated that this application is regarding 119 N. Occoneechee St. There is a mixture of contributing and non-contributing structures and vacant lots in the vicinity. Page 13 of 15 Architecture: This one-story, hip-roofed, brick ranch house is six bays wide and double-pile with a projecting, hip-roofed garage wing on the right (north) end of the façade. The house has nine-over-nine wood-sash windows and an exterior brick chimney on the façade. The six-panel door is inset slightly, has one-light-over-one-panel sidelights, and is sheltered by an inset porch that extends the full depth of the garage wing and is supported by turned posts. The garage wing has two 16-panel overhead doors on the façade. There is a hip-roofed, screened porch at the left rear (southwest). County tax records date the building to 1988. The applicant proposes to enclose an existing two-car garage for use as living space. The applicants recently purchased this home but have downsized significantly, so storage and usable living space in their new home is minimal. They wish to transform the existing garage into usable living space by removing the two garage doors, bricking in the wall and creating two sets of four single-light wood-clad windows on the front façade of the garage. The footprint of the existing home would not change. Agenda packets included notification information, vicinity map, narrative and materials list, elevations, and photos. The applicable design guidelines include Exterior Walls; Outbuildings and Garages; Windows and Doors; and Masonry. Ms. Carmichael said the brick on the bottom would match the rest of the house. She said the brick mason said he could match it. Vice Chairman Farlow said if it is difficult to match the brick, she should consider an accent color. He said it is very difficult to match the brick and mortar. Ms. Carmichael explained that she and her husband are discussing returning to the commission to ask for approval to use an acetone brick wash that would change the orange color. Ms. Carmichael said she plans to someday use some of the driveway to build a front courtyard. She would come back in the future about that. Ms. Heilman said the windows seem to match the style of the rest of the house and she applauds Ms. Carmichael’s intent. Motion: Ms. Simmons moved to close the public hearing. Second: Vice Chairman Farlow seconded. Vote: 7-0 Motion: Ms. Heilman moved to find as fact that the Chris Knotts and Meighan Carmichael application is in keeping with the overall character of the Historic District and complies with all relevant standards of evaluation based on the commission’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 the Historic District Design Guidelines Exterior Walls; Outbuildings and Garages; Windows and Doors; and Masonry. Second: Ms. Simmons seconded. Vote: 7-0 Motion: Ms. Heilman moved to approve the application as submitted. Second: Ms. Smith seconded. Vote: 7-0 Conditions: Approved as submitted. Page 14 of 15 Item 10: Proposed text amendment to the Historic District Guidelines to cover measurement of multi-stemmed and multi-trunk trees in the Historic District and to reconcile those measurements with the existing minor works. There was suggestion to change the minor works text to add (3.14) behind “pi.” Also, Mr. Snyder said breast height is 4½ feet. Motion: Ms. Simmons moved to approve with conditions. Second: Ms. Smith seconded. Vote: 7-0 Conditions: Change the minor works text to add (3.14) behind “pi.” Item: Updates • Alliance for Historic Hillsborough: Virginia Smith — Ms. Smith said Helen Ingersoll, Jeff Strickler and she are the officers. Also, July 2, there will be a Fourth of July celebration that is not funded by the Tourism Board. The alliance is fundraising for this event. Also, the Occoneechi Village replica reconstruction is ongoing. The Garden Club tour, for which the alliance was a partner, was very successful. The tours of Hillsborough for the National Association of Travel Journalists went very well. • Historic Properties Book Committee: Virginia Smith — She reported the project is gaining momentum. The committee has identified individuals and foundations to approach for funds. The committee expects matching grants. The names of the donors will be printed in the book. • Education and outreach: Jill Heilman — Ms. Heilman reported that since they last met The News of Orange published an article regarding the commission. She said errors were in the article, and some were addressed by the newspaper. She is pressing for the rest of the errors to be addressed. The summer town newsletter will include the Preservation Awards and some of the more important information that was not presented correctly in the newspaper. A more extensive article about the work of the commission will be published in the fall newsletter. Ms. Heilman said she has concluded that the only way to control the content in the newspaper is to pay for an ad. Ms. Szcodronski said Michael Verville from the Visitors Center asked if the commission would be interested in doing a display in the Visitors Center like that of the Hillsborough Cemeteries Committee. • HDC Communication Plan: Jill Heilman • Added item — abandoned houses Ms. Simmons expressed concern about the condition of the house on the corner of Mitchell and Corbin streets. She also expressed concern about a house on Thomas Ruffin Street. Another commission member expressed concern about a house with a hole in the roof. Mr. Snyder explained the “demolition by neglect” process requires extensive staff time for notifications and can take years to get results. He explained the process. • Ms. Smith suggested that there be some guidelines for the replacement of signs in front of houses that contain information about the history of the house. Mr. Snyder suggested a photograph of an example would suffice. • Staff updates o Construction of the bus pullout is under way on Churton Street. o The town’s eminent domain action involving the former Colonial Inn was settled. Page 15 of 15 o Mr. Snyder reviewed the new policy regarding choosing volunteers for Town advisory boards. o Mr. Snyder shared details for the next two Certified Local Government training sessions. o Ms. Heilman added that she and Mr. Snyder had chosen particularly good examples of COA applications proposed for posting on the town website for guidance for new applicants. Item 12: Adjourn Motion: Ms. Simmons moved to adjourn at 10:10 p.m. Second: Ms. Smith seconded. Vote: 7-0