Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout09-05-2018 Minutes HDC Regular MeetingPage 1 of 7 Minutes Historic District Commission Meeting 7 p.m. Sept. 5, 2018 Whitted Human Services Center, 300 W. Tryon St. Present: Chair Reid Highley, Candice Cobb, Max Dowdle, Joe Griffin, Jill Heilman, Laura Simmons and Virginia Smith Staff: Planner Justin Snyder and Public Space Manager Stephanie Trueblood Guests: Sally and William Brodeur, Maureen Quilligan, Tom Rankin, Charles Woods, Jill McCorkle, JP Reuer and Brian Shepard Item 1: Call to order, roll call, and confirmation of quorum Chair Reid Highley called the meeting to order at 7 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 Snyder added a discussion item regarding cantilevered awnings. Snyder also noted that the overhead speakers were not working for this meeting and invited audience members to move closer to better hear the commission’s discussion. Item 4: Minutes review and approval A. Minutes from the regular meeting Aug. 1, 2018. Motion: Commission Member Candice Cobb moved to approve the minutes as presented. Commission Member Jill Heilman seconded. Vote: 7-0 Changes: None B. Minutes from the special meeting Aug. 22, 2018. Motion: Commission Member Laura Simmons moved to approve the minutes as presented. Commission Member Virginia Smith seconded. Vote: 7-0 Changes: None Item 5: Old business None Item 6: New business A. Certificate of Appropriateness Application: 307 W. King St. — Applicant Maureen Quilligan requests approval to remove an existing rear 36-square-foot, second-story bathroom and replace it with a new 184-square-foot, shed-roofed bathroom addition with wood siding, aluminum-clad wood windows and asphalt shingles (PIN 9864-86-5112). Page 2 of 7 Motion: Heilman moved to open the public hearing. Simmons seconded. Vote: 7-0 Highley asked whether there were any conflicts of interest on the commission regarding this application. There were none. Maureen Quilligan, the applicant, was sworn in. Snyder read the staff report into the record. Quilligan said this is the first of a three-part plan to enlarge the house. Snyder asked if there was anyone in the audience to speak for or against the application. No one wished to speak. Cobb expressed appreciation that Quilligan planned to reuse a window. Motion: Simmons moved to close the public hearing. Heilman seconded. Vote: 7-0 Motion: Heilman moved to find as fact that the Maureen Quilligan 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: Paint and Exterior Color; Roofs; Windows and Doors; Additions to Existing Buildings; Exterior Walls. Simmons seconded. Vote: 7-0 Motion: Heilman moved to approve the application as submitted. Cobb seconded. Vote: 7-0 Conditions: None B. Certificate of Appropriateness Application: 501 N. Wake St. — Applicant Brian Shepard on behalf of William and Sally Brodeur requests approval to construct a new full-length front porch, to add north and south additions totaling 368 square feet, to add a trash enclosure, and to convert the existing side-entry single-car garage into a side-entry, 500-square-foot, two-car garage with a wood garage door (PIN 9864-98-4530). Motion: Simmons moved to open the public hearing. Commission Member Max Dowdle seconded. Vote: 7-0 Highley asked whether there were any conflicts of interest on the commission regarding this application. There was none. Brian Shepherd, representing the owners, was sworn in. Snyder read the staff report into the record. Shepherd said that the owners are present this evening. He then answered questions from the commission. The applicant wants to replace all of the windows to match the style proposed for the new addition. The beadboard on the porch would be made of cement board. The water table would be made of wood. The garage doors would be wood. The commission informed Shepherd that the commission does not approve faux lift handles and faux Page 3 of 7 hinges such as the ones proposed on the garage doors. The commission reminded Shepherd that all cement board must be installed with the smooth side out. It was noted that the window proposed for the bathroom would not be a transom window. The commission discussed the projection of the garage façade in front of the front of the house. A commission member noted that a similar request for a newer side-entry garage was approved to project in front of the front line of the house recently. Cobb cited No. 2 on Page 39 of the design guidelines, noting that this house has no character-defining elevations. Others agreed that the proposed configuration is appropriate. Heilman asked why the brick appears interrupted underneath the front porch and what material is proposed for the spaces in between the brick. Shepherd answered 1 by 8 wood boards with gaps in between. Also, the space under the front steps would be left open. When the homeowner checked whether the patio has to be brick or stone, the commission agreed it could be either as long as staff is informed of which the homeowner intends to use. Highley said the garage door would likely come with a handle for the bottom, but it would also likely come with decorative handles that the commission does not approve. Smith reminded the owners that if the garage door is not wood, they would need to talk with Snyder to make sure that the garage door they choose is appropriate and has no faux wood grain. When asked about the placement of windows in the mudroom, Shepherd said that he and the homeowners are still working on the spacing of those windows. Highley suggested that if the board was comfortable, Shepherd could present the finalized plan for the elevation with the mudroom to Snyder. Heilman suggested a stipulation that the columns on that side be appropriately spaced around the windows and beneath the gable ends. Regarding screening the HVAC unit, it was suggested that the homeowners screen it with vegetation or a fence. Motion: Simmons moved to close the public hearing. Smith seconded. Vote: 7-0 Motion: Highley moved to find as fact that the Brian Shepherd application on behalf of William and Sally Brodeur 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 Roofs; Porches, Entrances, and Balconies; Additions to Existing Buildings; Walkways, Driveways, and Off-Street Parking; Outbuildings and Garages; Windows and Doors; Site Features and Plantings; Paint and Exterior Color; Fences and Walls; Exterior Walls; Exterior Lighting. Heilman seconded. Vote: 7-0 Motion: Highley moved to approve the application with conditions. Cobb seconded. Vote: 7-0 Conditions: A revised rear elevation will be submitted to and approved by staff as a Minor Works prior to construction; decorative strap hinges and door handles shall not be used on the garage door; columns on the rear elevation shall be evenly spaced below the gable and equidistance from the gable ends and shall not obscure the windows; all windows and doors shall have trim as shown; the patio shall be either brick or natural stone; and the Hardie clapboard shall be hung smooth side out. Page 4 of 7 C. Certificate of Appropriateness Application: 230 W. King St. — Applicant Fred Stewart on behalf of Tom Rankin and Jill McCorkle requests approval to construct a new 3,048-square-foot, two-story single-family dwelling with fiber cement siding, a standing seam metal roof, aluminum-clad windows, and a brick chimney adjacent to an existing historic porch foundation along with a new gravel parking pad and new plantings (PIN 9864-86- 9433). Motion: Simmons moved to open the public hearing. Heilman seconded. Vote: 7-0 Highley asked whether there were any conflicts of interest regarding this application. There was none. JP Reuer, an architect, and Tom Rankin, one of the homeowners, were sworn in. Snyder read the staff report into the record. Rankin said the effort is to preserve and honor the sense of what is there. The porch is in good shape. There are wonderful horticultural features on the site. The new house is intended to be in conversation with what is there. Highley asked whether there was anyone to speak for or against the application. No one wished to speak. Reuer then answered questions from the commission. There is a dead tree to the left of the boxwoods that the homeowners plan to keep until it becomes dangerous to do so. The exposed rafter tails would be painted. The cantilevered roofs over some of the windows would be covered with silver metal roofing. The house would be 63 feet long. The porch is 10 feet deep. The pipe railings would be welded. The western elevation would be 42 feet long. The chimney would be unpainted brick. Commission members praised the appropriate mass and scale of the design. Motion: Simmons moved to close the public hearing. Cobb seconded. Vote: Unanimous Motion: Heilman moved to find as fact that the Fred Stewart 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: New Construction of Primary Buildings; Walkways, Driveways, and Off-Street Parking; Site Features and Plantings; Masonry; Archaeological Features; Exterior Lighting. Simmons seconded. Vote: 7-0 Motion: Heilman moved to approve the application as submitted. Cobb seconded. Vote: 7-0 Conditions: None D. Certificate of Appropriateness Application: Public right of way in front of 106 S. Churton St. — Applicant Town of Hillsborough requests approval to remove a small section of existing black wrought iron railing and broken historic stone wall and to replace the wall at sidewalk grade with concrete for accessibility (PIN 9874-06- 4156). Motion: Cobb moved to open the public hearing. Simmons seconded. Vote: 7-0 Page 5 of 7 Highley asked whether there were any conflicts of interest regarding this application. There was none. Snyder read the staff report into the record. Public Space Manager Stephanie Trueblood was sworn in. Trueblood noted this application has been a collaborative effort with the downtown businesses. She said the rock wall is fairly even with the sidewalk for the first 10 feet, so it would be fairly simple to remove the first 10 feet of wrought iron railing and fill in the area with concrete. Trueblood said the intent is to make it clear that both sides of the sidewalk are for pedestrian use. Trueblood said removing another 5-foot section would take the railing back almost to the entrance of Saratoga Grill. She explained that in addition to gaining the approval of the Historic District Commission, the removal of the railing would also require approval by the Hillsborough Board of Commissioners and the North Carolina Department of Transportation. This last 5 feet of rock wall and railing is in a different category than the first 10 feet because the rock wall is above the sidewalk by a few inches. There would be a slight incline about 12 inches wide to cover that span where the rock wall is now. Trueblood said she is not sure NCDOT would approve changes to that 5-foot section. When asked, Trueblood said the commission and the preservation branch of NCDOT that reviews changes in historic districts required the historic rock wall to be preserved as much as possible when first reviewing the Churton Street sidewalk expansion. Citizens and business owners at the end stages of design were in favor of preserving the wall as much as possible. The railing was then required by NCDOT because the rock wall is a tripping hazard in the right of way. The height and spacing of the railing is required by building code and was approved by the commission. Commission Member Max Dowdle and Heilman spoke in favor of removing the additional 5-foot section of historic rock wall to improve access to businesses. Snyder asked what removing the additional 5 feet would accomplish that removing the first 10 feet wouldn’t accomplish. Heilman answered that it allows the doorway to be approached almost dead-on from the street. It makes the building relate better to the streetscape. Snyder asked whether that access improvement was worth the loss of the rock wall, which is probably older than the building. Cobb cited No. 9 on Page 49 of the design guidelines regarding protecting significant architectural features and archaeological resources. She said her thought is that the commission would be upholding the intention of the guideline if it keeps the larger section of the rock wall but that removing 5 to 20 feet would be OK if the removal works better for the streetscape. Highley said that although you can see the top of the wall, the last portion of the wall is lost already because the top of the wall is nearly flush with the sidewalk. Smith said she likes the historic stone walls in the district, but she wonders whether the entire historic rock wall shouldn’t just be removed and how much it would cost to do it. Trueblood said it would be expensive. Also, it would be an NCDOT project, and it took four years to get the permitting in place for the first project. Also, she would not want to dig up sidewalks downtown again. Snyder cautioned the commission that the approval of several minor changes removing historic features eventually adds up to major changes to the streetscape and loss of artifacts over time. Page 6 of 7 Trueblood said she is not confident that NCDOT would approve the removal of the 5-foot section of wall and railing in addition to the 10 feet. When asked, Trueblood said she could save the rock that would be removed. Many of the stones are damaged and have been mortared with concrete, she cautioned. Highley agreed with Cobb that the bulk of the rock wall is intact. Snyder said that there would be future requests to remove other sections of railing and rock wall and that eventually the entire rock wall would be lost if the commission continued to approve the removal of sections of it. Motion: Dowdle moved to close the public hearing. Simmons seconded. Vote: 7-0 Motion: Cobb moved to find as 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 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: Accessibility and Life Safety Considerations; Public Rights-of-Way; Walkways, Driveways, and Off-Street Parking. Heilman seconded. Vote: 7-0 Motion: Cobb moved to approve the application with conditions. Simmons seconded. Vote: 7-0 Conditions: The town may remove up to 15 feet of wall and railing pending approval of the NCDOT and Board of Commissioners. E. Added item — Discussion of cantilevered awnings Snyder shared photographs of awnings and noted that the owners of The Wooden Nickel Public House are interested in installing an awning that would cover the outdoor dining area of that establishment. Heilman said the impact on the streetscape can be significant and she does not think awnings should be approved under Minor Works. Snyder agreed. Cobb noted that there are many awnings in the district. She said the preservation documents provided by the U.S. Department of the Interior includes recommendations for guidelines for awnings, including that the awnings should be compatible with the character of the buildings and should be approved on a case-by-case basis. Highley agreed that awnings need to be approved on a case-by-case basis. Heilman said an awning that covers the entire area of sidewalk dining would be an awning of significant depth which would hide architectural features of the building. Smith agreed that awnings should not be that deep. Snyder said retractable awnings would be more appropriate over sidewalk dining than affixed awnings. Cobb agreed. Snyder said it is not clear whether large awnings are even possible from a zoning perspective since they encroach into the public right of way over a property line, yet would be permanently affixed as part of a structure. Some commission members suggested that quality table umbrellas were a better option for outdoor dining areas. Item 7: Updates Snyder noted that: • The Certificate of Appropriateness application for 153 W. King St. would likely come before the board in October. • The Preservation NC Conference would take place Oct. 17-19 in Wrightsville Beach. Page 7 of 7 • The commission would elect new officers in October or November, depending on the length of the October agenda. • The first terms of Griffin, Smith and Simmons are almost complete, and those members need to decide whether they want to serve a second term. Item 8: Adjournment Motion: Simmons moved to adjourn at 9:05 p.m. Dowdle seconded. Vote: 7-0