Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout10-03-2018 Minutes HDC Regular MeetingPage 1 of 8 Minutes Historic District Commission 7 p.m. Oct. 3, 2018 Board Meeting Room, 105 E. Corbin St. Present: Chair Reid Highley, Candice Cobb, Max Dowdle, Joe Griffin, Jill Heilman, Laura Simmons and Virginia Smith Staff: Planner Justin Snyder Guests: Sherry Appel, John C. Clark Jr., Ryan Edwards, Tom Magnuson, Zach Read, Nathan Robinson, Brian Shepard and Wayne Van der Poll 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 The agenda stood as presented. Item 4: Minutes review and approval A. Minutes from the regular meeting Sept. 5, 2018. Member Jill Heilman asked for a change on Page 3 from “adequately spaced” to “appropriately spaced.” Member Laura Simmons noted that William Brodeur and Jill McCorkle attended the last meeting and requested that they be added as guests. Simmons noted on Page 3 that the homeowners would make the patio brick or stone. Motion: Commission Member Max Dowdle moved to approve the minutes as modified. Commission Member Jill Heilman seconded. Vote: 7-0 Changes: Page 3 and add guests as noted Item 5: Old business: There was none. Item 6: New business A. Certificate of Appropriateness Application: 121 W. Corbin St. — Applicant Ryan Edwards on behalf of Zachary and Jennifer Read requests approval to remove an existing rear deck and patio and to construct a new rear addition and screened porch with a flat-roofed connector and to add a new front and rear painted wood picket fence (PIN: 9864-98-9916). Motion: Heilman moved to open the public hearing. Member Candace Cobb seconded. Vote: 7-0 Page 2 of 8 Highley asked whether there were any conflicts of interest on the commission regarding this application. There were none. Ryan Edwards, the architect, was sworn in. Snyder read the staff report into the record. Edwards said his clients want the fence in the front yard. He said it would not have much of an impact from the street, especially if the fence could be kept behind the existing hedge. He said the fence would help keep trash out of the front yard. Highley asked if there was anyone to speak for or against the application. Zach Read was sworn in. He said he and his wife have lived there 12 years. There has been a lot of foot and car traffic and problems in front of the house. He said they have two young children and a dog. Without a fence, they are not able to use the front yard. Sherry Appel was sworn in. Appel lives at 114 W. Orange St., a block from the Reads. She stated her support for their proposal. She thinks having a fence would help pedestrians see that it is private property. She stated the Reads have been good neighbors and she is concerned they would move if they could not fence in their front yard for safety. Cobb said there is a guideline that fences should be located in the rear and side yard, but there are examples of front yard fences in the district. She said the decision is considered by the commission on a case-by-case basis. She agrees the applicant has compelling reasons to have a front-yard fence, and she supports that. Heilman said she appreciates the compelling reasons, but the commission has denied other requests for fences in front yards. Cobb said the privet hedge is huge and about three-quarters of the fence would be obscured by the privet. Snyder said this is similar to a request the board denied on West King Street. Highley said that proposal was for a fence immediately in front of the porch. This is significantly forward on the property, so you can see over it. Snyder agreed that the view would be less obscured by the proposed location of the fence closer to the street, but said the bigger problem is precedent and the fact that the applicant could easily achieve safety and a large fenced-in yard by simply locating the fence starting at the front line of the house working backward. Edwards said the intent is to keep the kids and dog from going through the hedge. Heilman said others have asked for welded wire because bushes grow through them, so the fence sort of disappears. Edwards said a picket fence would be more of a traditional approach. Also, there is a picket fence on the rear of the property, so the homeowners are trying to stay within the character of the home. Smith said she has a front fence, and it generally keeps the litter and pedestrians out. Snyder said the use of the fence for safety is not within the HDC’s purview, while he sympathizes with the applicant’s desire for safety. The commission needs to look at whether it is appropriate to the site and the district. Simmons asked for the height of the picket fence on the corner of East Queen and North Churton streets. Snyder Page 3 of 8 answered it is 4 feet. Some of it was in place earlier, and then the commission approved the homeowner completely fencing in that yard in the side and back. Highley said the fence would not obscure the architecture of the building and he believes it would be acceptable in this instance. When fences are located in front yards in the district, it is more typical and appropriate for them to be located near the street rather than right in front of the house, he added. A white painted fence is typical for the style of fence one would see in the front yard. Cobb, Smith and Member Joe Griffin agreed. Griffin added that the speed limit in front of this house is 35 miles per hour, so there is a safety concern as well. He said most of the streets in the district have a speed limit of 20 miles per hour. Highley noted Snyder’s point that safety is not a consideration of the commission. Cobb said it was nice that the neighbor spoke as well. Highley moved the discussion to the addition. Edwards said the intent is to keep the scale of the addition below the front of the house and to use vegetative screening. Heilman said she would like to see evergreens of a decent size and encouraged the applicant to look at the list staff can provide of native plantings. Highley asked whether any significant trees are to be removed. Read said no, but there is a large tree that may need to be removed in the future. Highley suggested the board discuss materials. The PVC caps proposed for the fence posts need to be metal or even better, omitted. Heilman asked what the applicant means by panel because she believes the example cited on Wake Street is shiplap siding. Edwards explained the example on Wake Street is a panel with a reveal painted the same color as the panel so that it looks like shiplap siding. In the new addition, this panel would be under the windows. Heilman said the installation on Wake Street has a reference to a historical siding. She thinks what is proposed here does not have a historical reference. Edwards said panels were used on hyphens and this is in line with that but cleaner architecturally. This would be individual panels and not shiplap siding. Others on the commission said it is the same use as the house on the corner of North Wake and West Tryon Streets (Eric Hallman and Elizabeth Woodman’s house). Heilman checked that what is proposed is a 40-inch wide, full-height panel with reveals. Others confirmed that, and the reveals are proposed to be vertical. The commission discussed other places panels have been approved. Panels recently have been approved on the apartment building renovation on East Tryon Street. Heilman noted there are some brown shingles, metal, and gray shingles on the renderings. Edwards said the cream-colored metal roof is existing. Edwards said the brown shingles would be replaced with the gray shingles that will be used on the addition. He later noted the gray shingles are not actually gray but look that way in the renderings. They are white and are intended to try to match the cream-colored metal roofing. Cobb noted that a different roofing material on the addition would help distinguish the addition from the original. There was brief discussion about TPO roofing and that it cannot be visible from the street. Cobb said the addition is an appropriate design. Others agreed and appreciated the design to keep the addition below the height of the existing house. There was brief discussion of the color of the building hyphen. Edwards said the screened porch should be lighter in color to match the trim and the other side could be green so the vegetation better blends into it. Edwards said historically hyphens are not typically the same color as the rest of the house, so the entire hyphen being the lighter color would also be appropriate. The porch would have steel frames with steel slats that are powder-coated and mounted to the wood porch columns. There would be wood caps on top of the rail. The powder-coated slats would slope with the steps. He explained how the metal frame would work. The stair posts would be steel. Page 4 of 8 Motion: Cobb moved to close the public hearing. Simmons seconded. Vote: 7-0 Motion: Highley moved to find as fact that the Ryan Edwards 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; Decks; Site Features and Plantings; Fences and Walls; Additions to Existing Buildings; Roofs. Griffin seconded. Vote: 7-0 Motion: Highley moved to approve the application with conditions. Griffin seconded. Vote: 7-0 Conditions: The size and species of evergreen plantings to be used for screening the new addition shall be submitted to staff prior to planting for approval as a minor works, PVC fence post caps shall be eliminated from the plans, and brown shingles shall be changed to match the proposed shingles on the new addition. B. Certificate of Appropriateness Application: 103 E. Tryon St. — Applicant John Clark on behalf of Thomas and Merrie Magnuson requests approval to add an 8-foot-by-12-foot side and rear bathroom addition, to repurpose an existing window from the house onto the addition, and to transplant boxwoods from the northern end of the property to the southern side of the property to help screen the addition (PIN: 9874-06- 6984). Motion: Heilman moved to open the public hearing. Cobb seconded. Vote: 7-0 Highley informed the commission he needed to recuse himself due to a conflict of interest. He said he gave the applicants some advice on how they might approach this project before they applied, although he was not ultimately hired for the job. Motion: Dowdle moved to recuse Highley for this item. Heilman seconded. Vote: 6-0 Heilman assumed the role of chair. John Clark, representing the owners, was sworn in. Snyder read the staff report into the record. Heilman asked whether anyone wished to speak for or against the application. No one did. Heilman asked if the transom window would be clear glass. Clark said it would be clear glass and he would like the option to also have the nonfunctioning transom window be an awning window. The proposed additional door has two raised panels. The existing front door has a single lite on top, one panel on the bottom and stained glass around the glass. Tom Magnuson said that someone dropped off the door one night, explaining it had belonged to the house at an earlier time. To follow protocol, Magnuson was sworn in and affirmed that his anecdote was true. Page 5 of 8 Commission members expressed appreciation for the efforts to relocate the boxwoods to screen the addition. Commission members also asked for Magnuson to let them know if he finds anything of archaeological value when the holes are dug for the transplanted boxwoods. Motion: Simmons moved to close the public hearing. Smith seconded. Vote: 6-0 Motion: Smith moved to find as fact that the John Clark 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; Site Features and Plantings; Fences and Walls; Additions to Existing Buildings; Windows and Doors. Simmons seconded. Vote: 6-0 Motion: Smith moved to approve the application with conditions. Simmons seconded. Vote: 6-0 Conditions: The east elevation window may function as either a single-lite fixed transom or awning window. Highley resumed the role of chair. C. Preliminary Design Review: 401 N. Churton St. — Applicant Brian Shepard on behalf of Landmark Management Partners LLC requests Historic District Commission comment on proposed design modifications to the existing exterior of the building, including the addition of a large shed-roofed dormer and overhang to the east elevation, relocation of existing door openings, and addition of a new entry door, two new shed- roofed dormers, two balconies, two covered porches and numerous window and siding changes to the existing south elevation (PIN: 9874-08-3136). Snyder summarized his staff report for this item. He said the building dates from the late 1950s. Shepard said he works for Summit Design and Engineering and was first hired by the man who owned this building before Nathan Robinson. He said the prior owner did his own demolition, removing the flooring and plaster walls. The structure is deteriorating, and the moisture level is high. He noted the windows had been broken out and the building had not been secure for years when Robinson bought it. Snyder agreed the condition of this building is such that demolition by neglect could be a possibility. Shepard said the determination has been made that the building would best accommodate three units and not four. The gabled dormers are failing, collapsing into the roof. They are not proportioned correctly. The neighboring structure, which is a one-and-a-half-story house, has a shed dormer. The applicant is proposing a shed dormer that allows natural sunlight to enter the units. He reviewed the proposals, reflected in Snyder’s staff report. Commission members said the proposed change to the window configurations fits with the changes as proposed. Shepard said the intention to keep the traditional front-door surround is to keep some element of the past. Cobb said she could not approve this because it does not meet the Hillsborough Historic District Design Guidelines. She thinks the architect should try to fix the back to match the front rather than remodeling the back first and then trying to fix the front to match the back. She thinks there should continue to be three dormers Page 6 of 8 across the front and noted the dormers, although perhaps not proportioned correctly, were original to the structure. Heilman said there can be changes that would be architecturally appropriate. Highley said as an architect, he thinks what Shepard has done is nice. However, as a historic district commission member, he agrees with Cobb that the changes need to reflect the original character of the building. Also, while the property has two elevations with street frontage, the North Churton Street elevation is more character- defining than the West Union Street elevation. He agrees that the existing dormers are not architecturally appropriate, and he would be willing to approve correcting the proportions of those dormers and having them let natural light into the units rather than changing to inappropriate shed-roofed dormers. He said he would consider allowing the back portion of the building to be different but would like the front elevation to stay much as it is now. There was brief discussion with Snyder about whether the dormers on the front elevation should be brick or have Hardie siding. Snyder thought brick was more appropriate. Commission members said Hardie siding was fine. Snyder said he also thinks there should be brick siding on the West Union Street façade due to its proximity to Burwell School. Smith noted that if she was buying a condo, she would also want it to be brick so it doesn’t have to be painted. Shepard said the intention is to anchor the building with brick porches and then lighten it with cement board siding. It was suggested to reduce parking spaces to six or seven and install planters between some of the spaces to break them up since the number of units was reduced from four to three. It was stated that Fraser firs, as noted on the plans, would not grow in this climate, and that an alternative evergreen needed to be chosen. Snyder noted that although the Burwell School Historic Site board/staff wished for the trash and recycling receptacles to be located on the southwest corner of this property, they need to be contained in the back of the building per the original site plan approval. Robinson said the relief on the back side informed the front elevation. He said they need to get to a final design because the design costs are growing as time goes by. Shepard said the elevations were altered in a respectful manner. He said his group talked about the possibility of fixing the current dormers but felt like taking the language of the shed-roofed dormer next door made sense. There was a cohesiveness within the composition. Cobb referred Shepard to pages 24 and 18, guidelines 7 and 10. She suggested he improve the quality of the materials but keep the historic intent of the front. She thinks the back is too differentiated. Smith suggested picking up the brick again in the back, perhaps with brick coins on the corners. She said the current elevations seem like two separate buildings that have shed-roofed dormers. She understands that the brick porches are intended to bind them together. Several commission members said they like the general design, but that it does not comply well enough with the guidelines. Page 7 of 8 Shepard said this is architecturally a nondescript building and the intent is to keep the building, which keeps the memory of the doctor whose office was there for years. Highley explained that the guidelines make no distinction between contributing and noncontributing buildings. Heilman wondered if the architect picked up the 1950s architecture and did something with that whether the design would comply better with the guidelines. Highley said the front elevation’s door surround and windows define the architecture of the house as a brick ranch. Snyder noted that he had been keeping a list of comments. They included: • The North Churton Street elevation should remain primarily intact in form and design/materials, although the scale of the gabled dormers could be changed to be more in line with the scale of the building. Shed- roofed dormer is not appropriate on the front elevation. Windows should remain as 8-over-8 on the main building and then perhaps transition going back to the rear part of the building (maybe 8-over-1 or 4- over-4). Could look at a form similar to that of Town Hall. Covered entry may not be an appropriate addition for the North Churton Street façade either, especially since the eastern side is the least weather- impacted façade. • With three units proposed, there should be six or seven parking spaces rather than ten with planting strips between every two to three spaces to break up the design. • Trash enclosure and storage should be located behind the west side of the building, not in the southwest corner of the lot. • Applicants should consider introduction of skylights on the western side of the front building to add additional light and to avoid redesigning dormers. (Staff suggestion not commission suggestion.) • Roof colors on rear part of building should all match, rather than be differentiated. • Cement board would be OK as a material choice for gable and dormer facing, but siding should be primarily brick. • Shutters can be removed. Vinyl may be removed. • No Fraser firs. Find another evergreen that will grow in this region from the recommended plantings list. • Rear portion of the building should have less dormer mass and less of a contemporary look and should tie into the front more (should be less contrasting due to proximity of Burwell School and Town Hall nearby and its visibility from both Union and Churton streets, but there is more leeway with differentiation within reason, especially on the north and west elevations). Item 7: Updates Snyder noted that: • The large southern red oak tree on Calvin Street had fallen. • The Hillsborough Board of Commissioners approved the Colonial Inn renovation project with the understanding that the loading zone, sidewalk and fire hydrant placement would be decided later. • The Historic District Commission would hold a special public hearing at 6 p.m. Oct. 29 for the Colonial Inn renovation project. Bellevue Mill may be on that agenda as well. • The Preservation North Carolina conference was postponed until March due to Hurricane Florence. • He had a Minor Works application to replace some wooden steps with metal steps on a commercial building on North Churton Street. Commission members said that was fine. • Economic Development Planner Shannan Campbell would be attending a future meeting to ask why the commission does not approve metal pre-printed signs. There is a new sign like this in the district. • Commission members have had a hard time with the digital agenda packets. Highley suggested providing commission members only the plans printed in black and white. Others agreed that would help. Heilman Page 8 of 8 suggested that each application be a separate file for Snyder’s digital presentation so he does not have to scroll so much. Item 8: Adjournment Motion: Simmons moved to adjourn at 9:43 p.m. Dowdle seconded. Vote: 7-0