HomeMy Public PortalAbout03-07-2018 Minutes HDC Regular meetingPage 1 of 7
Minutes
Historic District Commission Meeting
7 p.m. March 7, 2018
Town Barn, 101 E. Orange St.
Present: Chair Reid Highley, Max Dowdle, Vice Chair Brad Farlow, Laura Simmons and Virginia
Smith
Absent: Joe Griffin and Jill Heilman
Staff: Planner Justin Snyder
Guests: David Cates, Alicia Linstead, Carter Linstead and Nathan Robinson
Item 1: Call to order, roll call, and confirmation of quorum
Chair Reid Highley called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. Planner Justin Snyder called the roll and
confirmed the presence of a quorum.
Item 2: Reading of the commission’s mission statement
Highley read the commission’s mission statement.
Item 3: Adjustments to the agenda
There were no adjustments to the agenda.
Item 4: Approval of the minutes from the Feb. 7, 2018, meeting
Motion: Committee Member Laura Simmons moved to approve the minutes as amended.
Committee Member Max Dowdle seconded.
Vote: 5-0
Changes: Page 7, add “previously” to the statement that the commission had approved steel
cables in the front. Page 3, fourth paragraph, clarify that Stuart Paynter’s office was
referenced. Page 12, add “stucco-like” in front of “large white building like.”
Item 5: Application to modify a previously approved Certificate of Appropriateness to add a
cantilevered porch roof on the side elevation and to change a rear deck to a screened porch at 320 W.
Tryon St. (9864-87-2121).
Motion: Vice Chair Brad Farlow moved to open the public hearing. Simmons seconded.
Vote: 5-0
Highley asked whether anyone on the board had a conflict of interest regarding this application. No one
did.
David Cates, representing the applicant, was sworn in.
Snyder reviewed the modifications, which were to add a cantilevered porch roof on the side elevation
and to change a previously approved rear deck to a screened porch. The proposed 3-foot-deep-by-4-
foot-8-inches-wide porch roof would be located on the western side of the house on the basement level
to provide protection from the elements since this is proposed to be the primary entrance into the
Page 2 of 7
home from the driveway. The applicant proposed the roof be cantilevered because he was concerned
about the potential for a vehicle to strike a traditional porch support post, thus compromising the
structural integrity of the roof. This roof will be visible from the street; but because of the downward
slope and existing vegetation, perceived changes to the streetscape should be minimized. The materials
would be all wood for the roof to match the existing home, with asphalt shingles to match the existing
roof as well.
The second part of the application involves changing a previously approved pressure-treated wood deck
into a screened porch. The porch would have the same base dimensions as the deck with pressure-
treated wood flooring, stairs and handrails; columns; siding; trim; columns; fascia; and a wooden screen
door. The new roof proposed over the screened porch would have a 12:3 pitch and wood siding, painted
to match the rest of the siding on the home. All paint colors would match those previously approved by
the Historic District Commission in October 2017.
The agenda packet included: notification information, vicinity map, narrative and materials list, site plan,
elevations, materials descriptions and photos.
The applicable design guidelines included: Additions to Existing Buildings; Windows and Doors; Porches,
Entrances, and Balconies; and Roofs.
Cates added the homeowner has realized the basement could be a nice space to use, so he decided to
add the roof to cover it. It did not seem like a good idea to have a traditional porch support post on the
driveway where a car could hit it. He decided to create a screened porch instead of an open deck
because there is a creek nearby.
Highley asked whether anyone was in the audience to speak for or against this application. There was no
one.
Cates answered questions. There would be an extra flight of stairs to the back yard from the screened
porch because it would require fewer steps than other access points and the lot is deep, so providing
access to the back yard was appealing. The railing profile in the screened porch would match that on the
stairs. The brackets that would hold the small roof would be compatible with the railing in that they will
be of a simple design.
Highley said the materials meet the guidelines and the screened porch is like those the commission has
approved before. The side roof seems in keeping with the house.
Motion: Farlow moved to close the public hearing. Dowdle seconded.
Vote: 5-0
Motion: Committee Member Virginia Smith moved to find as fact that the 320 W. Tryon St.
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: Additions to Existing Buildings; Windows and Doors; Porches,
Entrances, and Balconies; and Roofs. Farlow seconded.
Vote: 5-0
Page 3 of 7
Motion: Smith moved to approve the application as submitted. Dowdle seconded.
Vote: 5-0
Conditions: None
Item 6: Preliminary plan review for a special use permit rezoning request for Nathan Robinson on
behalf of Landmark Management Partners LLC to convert an existing building into four apartments at
401 N. Churton St. (9874-08-3136).
Snyder reviewed the preliminary plan review process. He noted this is the first time this process has
been used. The Historic District Commission has the opportunity to review a preliminary plan of what is
proposed for rezoning (or, in other cases, a special use or conditional use permit). The review with
comments from this commission will be given as testimony at the proposal’s public hearing. A member
of this commission will also be present at that hearing in case there are questions or a need for
additional clarification about the commission’s deliberation. The commission will see the basic proposal
and note red flags or anything the commission would like to have included in the plans, based on the
Historic District Design Guidelines, so the applicant has a chance to address those concerns before
getting too far into the process.
Snyder noted Nathan Robinson, the applicant proposing the rezoning, is present to answer questions.
Robinson said a friend bought this property a few years ago with plans to convert it into a memory care
unit and then had to move to California. The property had not sold. He met with Planning Director
Margaret Hauth, Snyder and an architect to figure out what to do with this problem property.
Robinson told the commission he is hoping to convert the building, a former nursing home, into a three-
or four-unit condominium building since he has no familiarity with operating or owning a memory care
facility. He said that Hauth advised that a rezoning is required to allow condominiums and that the
property is currently approved for nine parking spaces. Robinson said an architect suggested that the
building could be converted into three or four apartments. Robinson is willing to do what fits and what
does not feel crowded.
Robinson said he would comply with the Unified Development Ordinance, so there would be required
landscaping in front of the parking spaces. The magnolia tree on the property would serve as the shade
tree required for every seven parking spaces. Robinson would plant a landscape buffer between this
property and the neighbor to the north.
Robinson said he would like to remove the vinyl siding that his friend had added to the dormers. The
Commission was in favor of this change. He also explained that the building is shaped like a T. The entry
to one apartment would be the existing front door. The entrances to the other two or three apartments
would be on the south elevation, facing West Union Street. He expects the architect’s proposal for the
entrances later in the week.
Robinson said two weathered porches are on the south elevation. He would like to create covered
porches on the south elevation. The building is roughly 4,000 square feet, so he expects each apartment
would be about 1,000-1,100 square feet. He envisions older residents who do not have small children
and do not want to maintain a yard but would enjoy being able to walk around downtown. Robinson
said he did not plan to place an age restriction on the condominiums but would market to that
demographic. When asked for more specific measurements, Robinson said he did not have them yet.
Page 4 of 7
Smith said she has two concerns. The guidelines say parking needs to be screened from view, so that
needs to be figured out, she said. Also, across West Union Street is the Burwell School Historic Site, one
of the town’s treasures. She said it would be good for Robinson to consider how this would look to
Burwell School’s visitors standing on the lawn. She does not want them to see a row of car bumpers
parked on this property. Robinson responded that he notices people are parking at this property. He
said he likes historic properties.
Snyder suggested if the commission were going to have him plant screening, knowing that the parking
lot already exists, the commission could have Robinson landscape the sides of the parking area. Snyder
noted that Robinson cannot plant anything in the right of way to screen the bumpers without the town’s
permission.
Simmons said she thought the town has given this property the right to park in the right of way. Snyder
said the town has issued an easement to park there. It’s a recorded document with parking rights to use
that parking pad.
Smith said a yard is on the west end and Robinson might consider creating parking there. She suggested
that when Robinson speaks with the Hillsborough Board of Commissioners about the rezoning, he also
talk about the malleability of the parking requirements and the possibility of creating two parking places
on the west end to help with the screening question.
Robinson said it is a nonconforming lot in every way. There is no way for someone to park in the west
side yard and then back out.
Snyder said the existing building is in the middle of the lot. He thinks keeping the parking where it is
already located would minimize changes to the streetscape.
Highley thinks it might be worth considering some landscaping at either end of the parking. Also, there
are nine spaces and potentially four apartments, so maybe Robinson could eliminate one parking space.
Snyder said Robinson will likely need one or two waivers, which would go before the Board of
Commissioners. At that time, it would be appropriate to ask for the waiver from the parking
requirements. There is already adequate on-street parking on West Union Street.
Farlow said he is OK where the parking is because it is an existing building and one wouldn’t want the
parking any closer to North Churton Street. Regarding screening the ends of the parking lot, he noted it’s
important not to block the line of sight for cars backing out of those spaces. Also, it might be a good idea
to make one or two of those spaces handicapped-accessible parking spaces. If there were two
handicapped-accessible spaces, those two spaces would take up the space of three regular parking
spaces. Farlow said the building is not a house, so what Robinson is trying to do makes sense.
Highley advised Robinson that when he is working with an architect, he should keep in mind that each of
the two or three proposed entrances on the south elevation should have its own identity. The front has
its own presence, which is what one would expect of a single-family home.
Page 5 of 7
There was discussion about the material for the parking area. Robinson would like asphalt so that he can
define parking spaces with painted lines. The Commission agreed that this would likely be an
appropriate material choice.
Robinson said he would like to replace the vinyl siding on the dormers and peak with Hardieplank. The
roof is only a couple of years old, but he would probably replace it with a slate-colored metal roof. Smith
reminded Robinson that the Hardieplank has to be installed with the smooth side out.
Robinson asked if shutters are required. The building currently has plastic shutters. Highley said if
shutters are not installed in a way that they at least appear to operate, then shutters should not be
used. The commission was inclined toward not having shutters on this building.
Robinson said for installing porch roofs on the side entrances, the architect will provide elevations.
Snyder said the guidelines do not recommend introducing a new feature to the front, so it would not be
appropriate to create a new covered porch for the front along Churton since that is where the building is
addressed from and is the primary entrance into the existing building.
There was brief discussion of where the trash and recycling receptacles would be located and where the
HVAC units would be. Robinson said he intends to have a concrete pad that would hold two recycling
and two trash receptacles. Condominium owners would hopefully share the receptacles based on their
age and the likelihood that they will generate less household waste. Highley said a 5-foot-high wood
fence would be appropriate and would meet the intent of guidelines for screening the rollout carts.
The commission reviewed the discussion and noted that the eight-over-eight wood windows, which
Robinson had said he would keep, also could be replaced with aluminum-clad wood windows.
There was brief discussion about porches on the south elevation. Snyder suggested they should be
evenly spaced based on the architectural symmetry of the existing exterior features of the building.
Highley said symmetry may not necessarily be best; the entrances should correspond to how the units
are created. Highley said each unit needs to be individually identifiable rather than appearing as one
single-family home. Farlow said the porch roofs would be the way to do that. Snyder said he would
summarize the Commission’s comments for inclusion in the department’s staff report to the Board of
Commissioners.
Item 7: Review of landscaping plan and stone sample for Alicia and Carter Linstead per previous
condition at 220 W. King St. (9864-96-1495).
Snyder reviewed that the Linsteads were required to come back before the commission to share a
landscaping plan and a sample of the stone they planned to use on their house as a condition of
approval. Snyder noted the commission has a copy of the landscape plan and the stone sample is in the
meeting room.
Carter Linstead, the property owner, said the sample stone is close to what he and his wife were
envisioning. The color can vary slightly from the sample because the stone is a natural product. The
stones would be stacked.
Linstead said there are trees in the front southwest corner that they intend to nurture, only removing
vines. They want minimal plantings to delicately complement the structure. They plan to plant a river
birch and a sugar maple tree along the stream bed. At the southeast corner, they would plant a tea olive
Page 6 of 7
tree. They selected plantings from the recommended planting list. Along the porch would be Japanese
spirea. They would plant some mountain laurels to screen the garage.
Snyder said Stormwater and Environmental Services Manager Terry Hackett specifically requested two
trees be planted along the creek to shore up the stream buffer.
Smith asked if the bigger driveway to the left would also be grass planted over gravel. Linstead said they
are hoping to abandon the driveway in the front so that it can be grassed over, but they want to be sure
there is a workable alternative first.
Smith said there are covenants on the property from Preservation NC and they may include limitations
on grading. Linstead said he was aware of that.
Item 8: Work on Materials List
The commission discussed materials and situations where certain ones could be appropriate. Snyder
noted suggestions and edits to the materials list.
Item 9: Adoption of a resolution restricting meeting agendas to a maximum of four Certificates of
Appropriateness.
Snyder said he would like to amend the proposed resolution to limit agendas to four major Certificate of
Appropriateness application items with room for minor Certificate of Appropriateness application items
as space permits.
Motion: Highley moved to approve with changes. Dowdle seconded.
Vote: 5-0
Changes: Changes to wording as suggested by staff
Item 10: Staff updates
Snyder reported that:
• The May meeting will start at 6 p.m. to include an hour of training by SHPO.
• The Preservation Award will be presented in May at the Last Fridays event. The commission
expressed support for recognizing David Cates’s work on moving and restoring a small house.
• Certified Local Government training for commissioners will be May 18 at Chapel of the Cross in
Chapel Hill.
• Jim Irish at 216 Thomas Ruffin St. would like to have town permission to install a temporary gravel
parking pad in front of his house to accommodate construction vehicles during a renovation. The
commission was OK with it as temporary permission with signed, enforceable documents issued
by the town.
• Snyder will be issuing a minor work approval for two teardrop bridge lights on the Exchange Park
Lane bridge for the town, matching other lights approved downtown at Weaver Street Market.
• Several first terms on this commission are expiring. There are applicants interested in joining this
board. Snyder will send an email roughly four to six months before a member’s term expires
asking if that person would like to serve a second term. Farlow’s term expires July 2018. Jill
Heilman’s term expires September 2018. Joe Griffin and Smith’s terms expire in January 2019.
Simmons’s term expires March 2019.
Page 7 of 7
Item 11: Adjourn
Motion: Dowdle moved to adjourn at 9:50 p.m. Farlow seconded.
Vote: 5-0