Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout04-03-2019 Minutes HDC Regular MeetingPage 1 of 8 Minutes Historic District Commission 7 p.m. April 3, 2019 Town Hall Annex Board Meeting Room, 105 E. Corbin St. Present: Chair Reid Highley, Candice Cobb, Max Dowdle, Jill Heilman, Laura Simmons and Virginia Smith Absent: Will Spoon Staff: Town Attorney Bob Hornik and Planner Justin Snyder Guests: David Cates, Bartow Culp, Randy Hall, Jim Parker, Stephen Peck, Brian Shepard, Allen Knight, and Patrick Spencer 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. 2. Reading of the commission’s mission statement Highley read the statement. 3. Adjustments to the agenda Snyder noted there would not be staff comments this evening in the interest of brevity. Also, an emergency works was added to the agenda due to a demolition. 4. Minutes review and approval A. Minutes from the regular meeting March 6, 2019 Commission Member Candice Cobb noted that her correction last month was that Diane Eckland is the contractor and not the architect. Motion: Commission Member Laura Simmons moved to approve the minutes as amended. Commission Member Jill Heilman seconded. Vote: 6-0 Changes: As noted. 5. Old business There was none. 6. New business A. Certificate of Appropriateness Application: 229 Thomas Ruffin St. — Applicants David and Joanna Swanson request approval for a 999-square-foot addition to the rear of their existing house and for removal of an existing carport, basement stairway, and tree at 229 Thomas Ruffin St. (PIN: 9874-27-0992). Motion: Member Candice Cobb moved to open the public hearing. Heilman seconded. Vote: 6-0 Page 2 of 8 Highley asked commission members whether they had any conflicts of interest regarding this application. No one did. David Cates was sworn in. Snyder reviewed the staff report for this application. Cates said he and the homeowners decided it was more appropriate to create an addition that reflects the original house rather than stands out from the original house. The addition would have a lower ridgeline than the primary structure. The brick would match that of the existing house as closely as possible. The style of windows would match the grid layout of the existing house’s windows with the exception of the window in the bathroom. The owners decided to repurpose three of the four existing carport columns. Cates said none of the exterior lights on Thomas Ruffin Street are full cut-off lights, so the proposed fixtures are in keeping with the neighborhood. Highley asked whether there was anyone in the audience who would like to speak for or against the application. No one wished to come forward, but a member of the audience called out that he was for the application. The board reviewed the site plan and the proposal to remove a damaged maple tree, which photos indicated was dead or dying. There was brief discussion that a letter from an arborist is not required when staff can determine the tree is dead or dying. Also, a commission member noted the tree would be too close to the proposed addition to remain in place. Regarding the fence, there would be a small section of new picket fencing. There was discussion that the commission cannot specify the floodlight be a motion-sensor light but can state the light needs to be downward facing. The commission agreed to create a condition that the floodlight be focused downward. The railings between the cedar columns would be made of Miratec or painted wood. The fiberglass-clad windows are the first to be submitted on an application since the commission added to the materials list that this material is appropriate for additions. The fiberglass is paintable. The base of the screened porch would be brick. The commission decided to make a condition that the bathroom window be changed to a full-lite window with or without a horizontal muntin to be more in keeping with the other windows of the house. Motion: Simmons moved to close the public hearing. Commission Member Virginia Smith seconded. Vote: 6-0 Motion: Heilman moved to find as fact that the David and Joanna Swanson 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 Lighting, Additions to Existing Buildings, Site Features and Plantings, Utilities and Energy Retrofit, Demolition of Existing Buildings, Fences and Walls, Masonry, Windows and Doors, Walkways, Driveways, and Off-Street Parking. Simmons seconded. Vote: 6-0 Motion: Heilman moved to approve the application with conditions. Simmons seconded. Vote: 6-0 Conditions: Floodlight shall be directed downward, the bathroom window shall be changed to a full-lite window with or without a horizontal muntin, and the base of the screened porch shall be brick. Page 3 of 8 B. Certificate of Appropriateness Application: 409 W. Corbin St. — Applicant Patrick Spencer requests approval to demolish a late 1960s wooden outbuilding with concrete block additions in the rear of 409 W. Corbin St. (PIN: 9864-78-4863). Motion: Cobb moved to open the public hearing. Simmons seconded. Vote: 6-0 Highley asked whether anyone on the commission had a conflict of interest. No one did. Patrick Spencer was sworn in. Snyder reviewed the staff report. Highley asked whether anyone in the audience wished to speak for or against the application. No one did. Spencer said that he did not intend to remove any trees as part of this demolition. Highley encouraged Spencer to notify staff if he came across anything of historical or archaeological significance during the demolition. The commission encouraged Spencer to reuse any materials he could. Spencer said he intended to reuse the foundation as a patio. Motion: Simmons moved to close the public hearing. Dowdle seconded. Vote: 6-0 Motion: Simmons moved to find as fact that the Patrick Spencer 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. Heilman seconded. Vote: 6-0 Motion: Simmons moved to approve the application with conditions. Cobb seconded. Vote: 6-0 Conditions: The applicant shall attempt to repurpose as many of the materials as feasible. C. Certificate of Appropriateness Application: 319 N. Churton St. — Applicants Historic Hillsborough Commission request approval to grade within the Union Street right of way and to install a large gravel parking area along Union Street within the public right of way for parking in front of the Burwell School (PIN: 9874-07-2965). Motion: Simmons moved to open the public hearing. Heilman seconded. Vote: 6-0 Highley asked whether there were any conflicts of interest among the commission members. There was none; however, Smith disclosed that she serves on the board of the Alliance for Historic Hillsborough, which frequently partners with the Burwell School Historic Site. Smith stated she felt she could make an impartial decision. Town Attorney Bob Hornik said that as long as Smith and the commission was comfortable that Smith could make an impartial decision, it was OK for her to make a decision regarding this item. Page 4 of 8 Stephen Peck was sworn in. Snyder reviewed the staff report, noting that staff did not favor parking pads installed in the right of way, and that stormwater staff had preferences for materials such as Geotech fabric to prevent gravel infiltration into the substrate should the commission choose to approve the gravel parking pad. Peck said there are deep ruts that are causing mud to be tracked into the house almost continuously causing damage to the floors of Burwell School. There are also issues of people stepping out of their vehicles into muddy ruts. Peck said after speaking with the town’s public works director and stormwater and environmental services manager he felt confident that using #57 stone gravel with a geotextile fabric under it to mitigate movement would work. Highley asked whether anyone in the audience wished to speak for or against the application. Two in the audience said they wished to be acknowledged for speaking for it. Smith said she lives in an old house and has found that gravel damages old wood floors more than mud. Also, gravel tends to wash from driveways into roadways during heavy rains. Snyder said the gravel would be more likely to wash into the road with geotextile fabric under it. The fabric only helps to keep the gravel from sinking into the ground. The commission expressed interest in using brick instead of gravel, as it would be more in keeping with the material for the foundation of the house. Highley said heavy rainstorms have become frequent and if the commission approves this, the commission would likely see more applications for this type of parking. The Commission recognized that while several parking pads similar to this one already existed in the district, this is a sensitive historical site and a tourist attraction, so any changes had to be sensitive to those factors. Peck said he does not know what the cost would be to use brick. It could be an option, but they have to do something. Cobb suggested Peck speak with contractors about brick options. There was a discussion about tabling this item. Snyder explained that tabling would not be wise because Peck would not be able to determine this evening when he could next join the commission to continue the discussion. If the item was to be tabled for too long, it would be automatically approved. Hornik noted that if the applicant agreed to waive the 180-day maximum consideration period, then it could be extended. Highley noted there did not appear to be consensus for approving gravel. After brief discussion between the commission and Peck on appropriate next steps, the commission was leaning toward approving brick so Peck could explore that option. The recording laptop did not record from 8 to 8:08 p.m. Page 5 of 8 Randy Hall was sworn in. Hall said he does not have a connection to this property, but he works for an engineering firm. He said one option could be to dig down 4 to 6 inches, install a black waffle material, and then plant grass seed on top of it to act as a type of stable pervious surface. This waffle material would support as much weight as a firetruck. Snyder noted that approval of such a request would not be advisable at this meeting, as further research on the materials and design would be needed. Bartow Culp was sworn in. Culp said he wished to ask whether the commission is against the parking pad whatever the surface might be. The recording laptop stopped recording at 8:11 p.m. The minutes from this point are based on staff notes taken at the meeting. The Commission stated that they were sympathetic to the need for additional parking, but that brick would be more appropriate than gravel for this site. They noted that the applicant would be permitted to construct the brick parking pad, but that any other materials would require coming back for a new COA request. Motion: Heilman moved to close the public hearing. Simmons seconded. Vote: 6-0 Motion: Smith moved to find as fact that the Historic Hillsborough Commission 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: Public Right of Way, Walkways, Driveways, and Off-Street Parking. Commission Member Max Dowdle seconded. Vote: 6-0 Motion: Smith moved to approve the application with conditions. Cobb seconded. Vote: 6-0 Conditions: The proposed parking pad shall be no larger than 8 feet wide by 120 feet deep, and it shall be constructed of brick. The desired use of any materials aside from brick shall require applying for a new Certificate of Appropriateness from the Historic District Commission, along with details and photos of the proposed material and construction. D. Emergency Works — Certificate of Appropriateness Application: 401 North Churton St. — Applicant Brian Shepard on behalf of Landmark Management Partners LLC requests after-the-fact approval for demolition of the rear portion of the building at 401 N. Churton St. to permit construction to recommence toward a previously approved Certificate of Appropriateness (PIN: 9874-08-3136). Motion: Simmons moved to open the public hearing. Dowdle seconded. Vote: 6-0 Highley asked whether there were any conflicts of interest among the commission members. There was none. Brian Shepard was sworn in. Snyder reviewed the staff report. Page 6 of 8 The commission discussed the report and how to move forward. The discussion is reflected in the vote and the in conditions that are attached to the motion to approve the application. Motion: Smith moved to close the public hearing. Simmons seconded. Vote: 6-0 Motion: Heilman moved to find as fact that the Landmark Management Partners 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. Cobb seconded. Vote: 5-1 (Simmons, nay) Motion: Heilman moved to approve the application with conditions. Cobb seconded. Vote: 5-1 (Simmons, nay) Conditions: The applicant shall direct his demolition crew to take more care in the demolition of the brick walls to preserve as much of the foundation brick as possible and to avoid further damage of the brick, which is to be repurposed on site. Tree protection fencing shall be installed around the magnolia tree to the edge of the dripline of the canopy prior to any further site disturbance. The portable toilet shall be moved to the north side of the site out of public view. E. Preliminary Review: 515 N. Churton St. — Summit Design and Engineering on behalf of 515 North Churton Street LLC request review and comment on numerous after-the-fact changes to the approved project at 515 N. Churton St. requiring special use permit modification via the Board of Commissioners, including moving large utility boxes in front of the building instead of in the corner of the building without adequate opaque screening, changing light fixtures and their locations from the original approval, removing a required landscaped area previously shown to buffer against residentially used properties in the rear and replacing with existing parking stalls, adding non-cutoff light fixtures to the building with glass globes, adding three vinyl door signs, changing the design of the porte cochere columns to steel beams, grading outside the limits of disturbance thus necessitating removal of a required mature hardwood tree, adding an aluminum fence not previously shown on any plans to an additional retaining wall also not shown on approved plans, making changes to the window trim, adding an additional parking lot sign, and changing the orientation of the front steps and sidewalk (PIN: 9874-08-3880). Cobb stated she had a conflict of interest regarding this item because she is a neighbor of the project. Motion: Highley moved to excuse Cobb from this item due to a conflict of interest. Heilman seconded. Vote: 5-0 Snyder reviewed the staff report. The commission discussed the report and the summary of comments below reflects that discussion. Summary of comments for Board of Commissioners Lighting: 1. The aluminum wall sconces shall be replaced with black or dark bronze fixtures for consistency in finish of materials. (Guideline: Exterior Lighting, Page 55, Nos. 4-5) 2. Lighting under the porte cochere shall be recessed and shall be of a finish and material matching the ceiling of the porte cochere. The materials shall be made of metal, and lighting shall be designed so as not to infiltrate neighboring properties. (Guideline: Exterior Lighting, Page 55, Nos. 4-6) Page 7 of 8 Fences and Walls: 1. Proposed use of aluminum fencing is not appropriate for this site and is not consistent with the iron fencing material found on site. Aluminum shall be changed to match the front fencing material (iron or steel, whichever was used). (Guideline: Fences and Walls, Page 47, Nos. 7-8) 2. Orientation and design of all fencing shall be made uniform and consistent with the design of the horizontal iron railings in the front of the building. (Guideline: Fences and Walls, Page 47, No. 8). 3. A 6-foot-tall wooden privacy fence shall be constructed adjacent to the residential areas to the rear to screen adjacent residentially used properties from undesirable effects of noise and light infiltration. (Guideline: Fences and Walls, Page 46, “Considerations”) Signage: 1. All private parking signs not originally approved shall be removed from site. (Guideline: Signage, Page 57, Nos. 5-6) 2. All decals on doors and windows shall be relocated to the interior of the structure due to possibility of peeling and damage. (Guideline: Signage, Page 57, No. 5) Site Features and Plantings: 1. The landscaped buffer and planting area adjacent to the residential areas to the west shall be installed per the original Certificate of Appropriateness approval. This includes all proposed shrubs and shade trees. (Guideline: Walkways, Driveways, and Off-Street Parking, Page 49, No. 10; Fences and Walls, Page 47, Nos. 7-8, 10) 2. The 24-inch pecan tree that was to be protected but has been damaged due to construction activity within the designated tree protection area, per the applicant’s arborist report, shall be removed and replaced with mature trees which will grow to similar size at maturity as the pecan. These new plantings shall collectively equal or exceed 24 caliper inches (e.g. two 12-inch caliper trees, four 6-inch caliper trees, etc.). Location, species, and size of trees to be replanted shall be shown on a revised landscaping plan and submitted to staff as a minor works. (Guideline: Site Features and Plantings, Page 45, Nos. 1-2, 7-8) Front (East) Elevation: 1. All above-ground utility boxes shall be moved to a more discreet location on site, either on the north side of the building or to the rear of the building, and they shall be screened from public view with evergreens or wood privacy fencing equal to the height of the items to be screened. (Guideline: Utilities and Energy Retrofit, Page 28, Nos. 8-10) Left (South) Elevation: 1. The porte cochere shall be redesigned to match the original Historic District Commission Certificate of Appropriateness approval dated Nov. 4, 2015. Subsequent applications for, and approvals of, minor works for other changes to building elements did not constitute approval of the changes made to this feature. This included brick piers to match the brick walls used on the building and a roof line designed to correspond to the southernmost roof line of the main building. (Guideline: New Construction of Outbuildings and Garages, Page 37, Nos. 2, 4, 9) Right (North) Elevation: No comments. Rear (West) Elevation: 1. The design and details for the structures in the amenities area shown on the approved plans have never been submitted to, or approved by, the Historic District Commission. All proposed elevations, materials, and features to be included in this area per the applicant’s approved construction drawings and Special Page 8 of 8 Use Permit plans must be submitted in a formal application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to the Historic District Commission, and they must be approved prior to commencing construction. (Guideline: New Construction of Outbuildings and Garages, Page 37, Nos. 1-10; Site Features and Plantings, Page 45, Nos. 7-10) 2. The four parking spaces in the rear shown to be removed by the applicants on their approved Certificate of Appropriateness and construction drawings shall be removed and planted to match the approved plans to protect adjacent residential properties from noise and light infiltration and to break up the long parking rows with vegetation. (Guideline: Walkways, Driveways, and Off-Street Parking, Page 49, Nos. 7-10) General Comments: 1. All changes to the applicant’s approved Certificate of Appropriateness should have been discussed with staff for advisement prior to making them. 2. The dumpster area plantings are of insufficient height to properly screen the dumpster area. The existing plantings should be supplemented with taller shrubs that will grow at least to the height of the dumpster area. 3. Approval of construction drawings does not constitute approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness by the Historic District Commission. All exterior changes to a site or a building require review and/or approval by the Historic District Commission no matter how minor or pressing they might appear to be. 4. Plantings on the north elevation will receive minimal light and should be designed with highly shade tolerant species. 7. Updates No updates were given. 8. Adjournment Motion: Simmons moved to adjourn at 10 p.m. Dowdle seconded. Vote: 6-0