Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout12-05-2018 Minutes HDC Regular MeetingPage 1 of 8 Minutes Historic District Commission 7 p.m. Dec. 5, 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: Public Information Specialist Cheryl Sadgrove and Planner Justin Snyder Guests: David Eckert, Erin Eckert, Frances Harris, William Harris, Michael Irwin and Charles Woods 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. He noted Commission Member Jill Heilman was expected to be late. 2. Reading of the commission’s mission statement Highley read the statement. 3. Adjustments to the agenda There were no changes. The agenda stood as presented. 4. Minutes review and approval A. Minutes from the special meeting Oct. 29, 2018. B. Minutes from the regular meeting Nov. 7, 2018. Motion: Commission Member Laura Simmons moved to approve both sets of minutes as presented. Commission Member Candice Cobb seconded. Vote: 6-0 Changes: None 5. Old Business There was none. 6. New business A. Certificate of Appropriateness Application: 425 W. King St. — Applicant Jacob “Max” Dowdle requests approval to demolish an existing concrete block building and to construct a new rear addition onto the existing home within the same footprint as the previous addition on a concrete block foundation with cedar siding and trim, aluminum-clad wood windows, wood doors, a tin roof, and an attached wood screened porch (PIN: 9864-76- 2104). Motion: Cobb moved to open the public hearing. Simmons seconded. Vote: 6-0 It was acknowledged that Dowdle needed to be excused. Motion: Simmons moved to excuse Dowdle. Commission Member Virginia Smith seconded. Vote: 6-0 Page 2 of 8 Dowdle was sworn in. Snyder submitted the staff report into the record. He explained the new portion of the screened porch outside the existing nonconforming rear structure is fully within the setback area and compliant for zoning. The new addition proposed to replace the nonconforming structure would be 29.5 feet by 28 feet. The materials would match those on the front building. The screened porch would be 7 feet by 17 feet and would be interior to the lot. The addition would be 6 inches narrower than the existing building and slightly taller than the existing building, but entirely within its existing nonconforming building envelope. South Nash Street slopes downward away from the existing house in this area. Highley asked whether anyone was in the audience to speak for or against this project. Erin and David Eckert were sworn in. Erin Eckert noted she had prepared a packet to submit to the commission regarding the Eckerts’ concerns about this application. She read the statement on the front page of the packet. She stated that she and David Eckert were opposed to the size, scale and location of this addition as it abuts their property on South Nash Street. Dowdle’s newly renovated home is oriented to the size and scale of West King Street instead of the smaller scale of homes on South Nash Street like their small mill house next door, she said. The Eckerts asked that the South Nash Street elevation be considered in addition to the West King Street elevation. She shared a photograph showing the proximity of the Eckert mill house to the Dowdle concrete block building that would be replaced. The structures are 9 feet apart. Erin Eckert pointed out that the Eckert property is also downhill from the Dowdle property, making a change in height appear more drastic. Erin Eckert said the proposed addition would be 25 feet tall whereas the Eckert mill house is 18 feet tall and downhill. She said the Eckerts also have concerns about downspouts running along their foundation and to the back of their property. She has spoken with Stormwater and Environmental Services Manager Terry Hackett. Highley reminded the Eckerts that the Historic District Commission does not have jurisdiction regarding downspouts and stormwater. Snyder interjected that Hackett had reviewed the Dowdle proposal and had no concerns about from a stormwater perspective, noting that the new building’s impervious surface area would be very similar to that of the existing building being removed, and that the downspouts as proposed were attempting to direct stormwater away from adjoining properties as much as feasible short of burying the downspouts, which could also be a solution to run the water the Nash Street. Dowdle said he had spoken with David Eckert. Dowdle said he had originally planned to move the building in from South Nash Street and away from the Eckerts’ property, but after speaking with Snyder about the nonconforming setback requirements in the Unified Development Ordinance, retaining the original footprint was the only plan of action to allow them the space they needed and to be able to rebuild after removing the existing structure to meet the zoning requirements for nonconforming structures. Dowdle shared a photograph of the property before he bought it when there was siding on the back of the main structure and a contrasting photograph of the deteriorated condition it was in when he bought it. He explained that the sunlight glinting off the roof of the secondary structure had damaged the siding on the back of the main structure, which led his architect to conclude that removing the secondary structure and replacing it with a new addition was what he needed to do to protect the main structure from recurring damage. Dowdle said the new addition would be 20.8-feet tall. Highley said it looks like that’s the height from the average grade, and the Eckerts’ point is that they are downhill, so of course it will be taller from their perspective. Highley checked that the triangle symbols on the elevation drawings indicate the location of exterior lights. Dowdle confirmed that and said the lights would be metal and would match existing light fixtures. Page 3 of 8 Highley asked if there was anything worth salvaging in the building. Dowdle answered no, although he had not yet had a chance to get into the entire building and would salvage anything if he possibly could. Cobb said there are two distinctive projects here. One is the demolition, and one is the addition. She asked if the Eckerts had a problem with the demolition. They answered no. Cobb said Guideline 3 is about salvaging and Guideline 2 is about documenting with photographs and drawings before demolition. Dowdle confirmed he had documented the existing structure with photographs. Cobb said from a historic preservation standpoint, the building has an interesting history that she would like to see preserved. She noted it was a grocery store and bar. Snyder asked Dowdle to notify staff if he found anything of historical interest while demolishing the building. Cobb said she does not think there is anything in the guidelines that prevents the demolition of this structure. Dowdle said he had spoken with an engineer about trying to salvage the structure, and it was not worth what it would have cost to renovate and preserve it, although he recognized that cost was not a consideration of the commission. Highley reiterated that Dowdle should share any documentation he finds with Snyder. Virginia Smith asked if the Eckerts live in the building next door. They said no, they rent out the mill house. They also own 107 S. Nash St., for which they received tax credits. They said they did not receive tax credits for this property that is adjacent to Dowdle, but they tried to change as little as possible. Highley asked about the material for the crawlspace door on the new addition. Dowdle said it would be wood and would match the one for the main structure. Dowdle said the new windows would be the size of the original openings except the center window to the right of the door would be smaller because of the location of a washer and dryer, and that there would not be windows on the south elevation next to the triple windows because of closets. Smith said on Page 15 of the Eckerts’ packet, the Eckerts quote a guideline on Page 34 of the Hillsborough Historic District Design Guidelines that applies to new construction of a primary building. She asked whether other commission members would consider Dowdle’s proposed construction to be new construction of a primary building or an addition to an existing building. Highley said he would consider it as an addition. Smith said she would, too. David Eckert said they chose to cite that guideline because there is demolition and a new structure. Erin Eckert said it was the only place where she found massing and scale specifically addressed in the guidelines. Snyder said the guidelines for additions state that the addition should not overwhelm the primary building. David Eckert asked whether the standards for overwhelming do not apply for neighboring buildings. Snyder said the goal of the addition is to not overwhelm the primary building on site. He said perhaps the thought behind the guideline is if the addition doesn’t overwhelm the primary building, it shouldn’t overwhelm the neighboring building, but overall, it should not detract from the special character of the district. Highley said the Eckerts have a valid point regarding massing and scale and he thinks the commission needs to address it. Page 4 of 8 Highley asked Dowdle whether he had considered an addition that would require stepping down some stairs from the main house into the addition. Dowdle said he had considered it, but he wanted to change the roof so as not to have the sun glinting on the siding of the primary building. Dowdle said it became difficult for the architect to cut into the foundation, step down and have rafters go all the way across. The architect preferred making the addition the same height as the original structure, and Dowdle had agreed. Highley asked if there were ways to retain the form and be slightly shorter, such as with stairs into the addition or the eaves being slightly lower than those on the primary structure. Dowdle said he didn’t want to impact the interior ceiling height and wanted to maintain 10-foot ceilings throughout. Highley said a third way to lower the structure would be to lower the roof pitch. Dowdle said he had lowered it quite a bit compared with an earlier design. Highley said looking at it from Snyder’s standpoint and imagining it on a flat lot, the addition is appropriate and fully concealed behind the main house. The decision is less easy because of the neighbor’s house being 9 feet away and the topography of South Nash Street. He said from the Eckerts’ standpoint, he can see why they think this addition is looming compared with their house. Highley asked for commission comments on massing and scale. Smith said the massing of the addition compared with the main building is smaller. Highley agreed it is shorter. Smith said there is context in the neighborhood to justify the addition as designed, and she does not see how Dowdle can get what he wants without building that tall. Dowdle said the building is 8 inches to a foot farther away from the Eckerts’ house than the current building, so he is trying to improve the spacing between buildings. Erin Eckert said no windows are proposed on the back side of the structure, so there would be a 20-foot addition wall facing the side of her house. David Eckert said the addition would create an alley that would be 30 feet long and 20 feet tall. Erin Eckert said the slope of the roof would be different from before, noting this would be a shed roof sloping toward her house. Erin Eckert said she had concerns about this addition blocking light into her house. Highley said he appreciates the concern, but light is not something the commission can consider. Highley asked if a fence would help because it would be lower in the foreground. Erin Eckert asked the commission to consider the massing and scale compared to other houses on South Nash Street. She said the Dowdle house would be about 2,000 square feet with the addition. Her adjacent house is 1,300 square feet, and her other house on that street is 1,100 square feet. Highley said the footprint is a zoning consideration and people can build as much as they can build as long as it makes sense in the context of the lot and the district. Snyder said the Eckerts bought the house next door knowing how close it was to this one and understanding that it could not possibly remain exactly as it was forever, and they have to be open to some form of change. David Eckert said they are open to change. Erin Eckert said she understands the footprint is allowed and there is no requirement to build back. She wants the house to meet the 10-foot minimum setback or drop the roof and be built more sidewise on the property. She said they were asking for consideration given the impact on their property, which is a .11-acre lot with no driveway. Highley asked whether commission members agreed that the addition is appropriate, not taking into consideration the neighbor’s house. Commission members answered that it was. Snyder pointed out that buildings across West King Street are much taller. Highley said they are not as close to the Eckerts as this one, but he agreed that there is definitely variety in houses. Snyder showed a photograph of a house on the other side of Dowdle’s on West King Street that is much smaller to note the differences among housing types and scales in the immediate vicinity. Page 5 of 8 Simmons said the addition is appropriate. She thinks in historic districts one often sees height differences. She added that she would not advise building a fence because she thinks that would further block the Eckerts’ light. Commission Member Joe Griffin said the question on scale and massing has been answered by 515 North Churton St. and 312 Mitchell St. Highley asked Griffin whether he was saying that those projects have a different scale than the buildings around them. Griffin said yes. Cobb said there is a significant grade, so she would prefer for this to be less large. She does not think, according to the guidelines, it is necessarily inappropriate. There is a mixture of heights in that area. Smith said this is a hard one. The nature of the historic district is change. The older the house, the more additions and change. Smith said the Eckerts’ house has changes on the back. Erin Eckert said the porches were enclosed by previous owners. Smith said the hill is inescapable for stormwater problems. Smith is OK with the height but does not mean to be unsympathetic to the Eckerts’ situation. Cobb said she does not think the commission would find that the house had inappropriate massing and scale if it were a proposal for an entirely new structure on an empty lot. Others agreed. Simmons said the hill on South Nash Street is what makes the addition feel tall. Highley agreed and added that part of it is the nature of the site, and the other piece is zoning. Highley said Dowdle has a vested right to build as much as he wants. Dowdle reiterated that he had to build back in the existing footprint for zoning requirements. Erin Eckert said she and David Eckert had hoped that if the addition was going to be this tall that it would be farther from their house. Motion: Cobb moved to close the public hearing. Simmons seconded. Vote: 5-0 Motion: Highley moved to find as fact that the Max Dowdle 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: Demolition of Existing Building, Exterior Lighting, Walkways, Driveways, and Off-Street Parking, Site Features and Plantings, Additions to Existing Buildings. Cobb seconded. Vote: 5-0 Motion: Highley moved to approve the application with conditions. Smith seconded. Vote: 5-0 Conditions: Light fixtures on the addition shall match the fixtures on the existing house. Any materials that can be salvaged on the building should be saved. A planting plan shall be submitted to staff for approval. Dowdle rejoined the commission. B. Certificate of Appropriateness Application: 309 Mitchell St. — Applicant William Harris requests approval to widen an existing uncovered 8-foot-wide front concrete stoop to 14 feet, to resurface the floor with bluestone paver tread coverings and to add a roof extension over the stoop to be supported by asymmetrical wood posts with transparent stain and composed of wood trim painted white and a grey asphalt shingled roof matching the existing roof (PIN: 9874-17-7729). Page 6 of 8 Motion: Simmons moved to open the public hearing. Griffin seconded. Vote: 6-0 Highley asked whether there were any conflicts of interest regarding this application. There were none. William Harris was sworn in. Heilman joined the meeting at 8:10 p.m. Snyder summarized the staff report and entered it into the record. Snyder explained the steps have to be left uncovered because the steps cannot be covered in the setback due to the nonconforming nature of the existing structure. Harris shared some photographs the architect had altered to show the proposed changes to meet the zoning requirements. He also shared photographs indicating that the current cement stoop is slick and deteriorating. He said a guest had fallen because the cement was slick. Harris also showed a photograph and said the front door is being weathered by the rain due to lack of protection by a stoop roof. He noted that packages delivered get soaked in the rain, too. Harris showed photographs of brick and bluestone. He said they would re-shingle the entire roof if they couldn’t match it. He said they like the asymmetry over the front door and want to keep that with the roof covering the front porch. Highley asked whether anyone in the audience wanted to speak for or against this project. Smith said she thinks the porch columns need to be white to be more compatible and cited the design guidelines, Page 8, No. 10. Frances Harris was sworn in. Frances Harris said the porch, which is visible from the front, is very distinctive and has stained posts. She thinks tying the new front porch posts in with that porch makes it more balanced. Cobb cited Page 24, Guideline 3, regarding maintaining the features of porches. She thinks the columns should be white and smaller. Highley asked other commission members whether they have concerns about color. Highley said because there is already significant amount of stain from the street view, he is comfortable with the proposed stained columns. Simmons, Griffin and Dowdle agreed. Heilman said she is more sympathetic to white to match the primary structure rather than using the stain to match the secondary structure of the porch. Regarding size of the columns, Simmons is fine with 6-by-6 columns. Highley said as an architect, he has seen that columns are frequently undersized and when they are undersized they look spindly. He thinks columns should look up to the task of holding up whatever roof they are holding up. William Harris said there are just two columns proposed for the front stoop. Harris explained the proposed columns would be 3-by-3’s held together with a metal plate to make a 6-by-6 column. The metal plate would be on the bottom. When asked about warping, he said that with weatherproofing, they are not expected to warp. Highley said there is historical context for ganged columns on older homes. William Harris said the architect did not give him and his wife the impression that this type of column was out of the ordinary. Page 7 of 8 Harris said the porch ceiling will be painted white and will be made of plywood. Motion: Simmons moved to close the public hearing. Griffin seconded. Vote: 7-0 Motion: Smith moved to find as fact that the William Harris 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; Roofs; Porches, Entrances, and Balconies; Masonry. Simmons seconded. Vote: 7-0 (4-3 in favor of keeping columns stained versus painting white. Heilman, Cobb, and Smith opposed to staining columns) Motion: Smith moved to approve the application with conditions. Simmons seconded. Vote: 7-0 Conditions: The bolt holes on the columns shall be plugged and the porch ceiling shall be smooth plywood sheets painted white. C. Certificate of Appropriateness Application: 233 Thomas Ruffin St. — Applicant Charles Woods requests approval to demolish an existing deteriorating, contributing, front-gabled, two-bay-wide, framed outbuilding with German-profile weatherboards and sliding doors at 233 Thomas Ruffin St. (PIN: 9874-28-0083). Motion: Griffin moved to open the public hearing. Heilman seconded. Vote: 7-0 Highley asked whether anyone on the board had a conflict of interest. No one did. Charles Woods was sworn in. Snyder submitted his staff report into the record and reviewed the architecture of the shed. He noted that the shed is structurally unsound, and that the owner’s intent is to clean up the property and eventually build a new home on it. But, he said, the consideration this evening was only the demolition of the outbuilding. Highley asked whether anyone in audience wished to speak for or against the application. No one wished to speak. Highley said it is unfortunate that the shed is too far gone. Cobb said she thought maybe a light and a door could be salvageable. Heilman said this property has been in this state for a very long time, and she wishes the town or commission would act before structures became unsalvageable. Commission members expressed interest in doing more to prevent demolition by neglect. Michael Irwin was sworn in. He said he lives around the corner from this property and is supportive of Woods’s request. He added that he was also fully in agreement of the Commission’s desire to prevent the demolition of structures through neglect. Page 8 of 8 The commission asked Woods whether he would level and seed the ground after demolishing the shed. He answered that he would. Motion: Simmons moved to close the public hearing. Dowdle seconded. Vote: 7-0 Motion: Heilman moved to find as fact that the Charles Woods 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: Demolition of Existing Buildings. Simmons seconded. Vote: 7-0 Motion: Heilman moved to approve with conditions. Simmons seconded. Vote: 7-0 Conditions: The ground is to be cleared and leveled and seeded once the structure is demolished. Any material on the building that can be salvaged should be saved. 7. Updates A. Adoption of 2019 Meeting Calendar Motion: Simmons moved to approve the 2019 Meeting Calendar. Dowdle seconded. Vote: 7-0 Changes: None B. Staff updates Snyder noted Griffin’s last meeting is Jan. 2 and there is not a replacement for his seat on the commission yet. Snyder said he was seeking candidates of diverse backgrounds, including candidates who live outside the Hillsborough Historic District. Snyder reported that the widened sidewalk and two 15-minute parking spaces near the Colonial Inn had been approved by the Board of Commissioners, but that the loading zone required further debate. Snyder said he had shared some revised minor works language with the commission and asked for comments. Heilman suggested breaking a long sentence into two sentences in the stormwater section. The commission agreed to the slightly revised language and decided to vote to approve it this evening with that minor change. Motion: Cobb moved to approve the additional minor works for signs and stormwater mitigation. Heilman seconded. Vote: 7-0 Changes: Minor adjustment to clarify wording on stormwater minor works text. 8. Adjournment Motion: Smith moved to adjourn at 9:03 p.m. Dowdle seconded. Vote: 7-0