HomeMy Public PortalAbout08-07-2019 Minutes HDC Regular MeetingPage 1 of 16
Minutes
Historic District Commission
7 p.m. Aug. 7, 2019
Town Hall Annex Board Meeting Room, 105 E. Corbin St.
Present: Chair Reid Highley, Max Dowdle, Vice Chair Jill Heilman, Laura Simmons, Virginia Smith and Will Spoon
Absent: Candice Cobb
Staff: Planning Director Margaret Hauth, Town Attorney Kevin Hornik, Public Information Specialist Cheryl
Sadgrove and Planner Justin Snyder
Guests: Frankie Byrd, Randy Hall, Sam Huntley, Megan Kimball and Jim Parker
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
There were none.
4. Minutes review and approval
A. Minutes from the special meeting July 18, 2019.
Motion: Member Jill Heilman moved to approve the minutes as submitted. Member Will Spoon seconded.
Vote: 6-0
5. Old business
There was none.
6. New business
A. Certificate of Appropriateness Application: 316 W. Tryon St. — Applicants Samuel and Emily Huntley request
approval to construct a new 2,152-square-foot, Hardie-sided home with a front porch and rear screened porch
and a stacked stone retaining wall. (PIN: 9864-87-2072).
Motion: Member Laura Simmons moved to open the public hearing. Heilman seconded.
Vote: 6-0
Highley asked commission members whether they had any conflicts of interest regarding this application. There
was none.
Sam Huntley was sworn in.
Page 2 of 16
Snyder reviewed the staff report for this application. He noted that the proposed pimento color for the front door
and the proposed alignment of the windows and eave brackets were the only unusual items in the proposal.
Huntley answered questions from the commission.
Site
It was established that the house is proposed to be sited similar to the house to the east. A change in grade and
three trees at the front of the lot affect where the house is proposed to be located.
Huntley said a retaining wall proposed for the back of the property is intended to protect a tree in the corner of
the lot. He said the location of the proposed house has shifted forward slightly to protect the tree, and he is not
certain the retaining wall will be needed.
Materials
Huntley said the Hardie Plank siding would be painted light teal blue. Color swatches were passed around.
The commission members did not express concerns about the color choices, including the pimento front door.
Huntley informed the commission that the side door would be painted white.
The commission did not express concerns with the diamond-patterned concrete pavers proposed for the driveway
apron. It was decided to add a condition that the concrete pavers be planted with grass.
The commission decided to add a condition that the reveal on the Hardie Plank siding cannot be more than 6
inches.
Huntley said the screen door would be wood.
Front/south elevation
Regarding the transom over the front door, Member Virginia Smith cited nos. 7-8 of the design guidelines
regarding doors and said the transom seemed disproportionate. She noted the elevation drawings do not include
a transom over the side door. Huntley said a transom is proposed for this location and is not shown in the
elevation because it would not be visible due to the roof overhang. Heilman agreed that the proportion in the
drawing looks odd. Highley said he suspects the spacing on the drawing is not entirely accurate.
Left/west elevation
Commission members said they did not think the asymmetric alignment of the eave brackets on the sides of the
house was appropriate, but they also did not want to redesign the project for Mr. Huntley. When asked, Huntley
said the brackets are decorative. Highley noted that sometimes brackets were decorative historically as well. The
commission talked about possible alternative locations for the brackets and decided it would be appropriate to
ask the architect, David Cates, to propose alternative locations to Snyder under the minor works process.
Huntley said they wished to remove the proposed light over the back porch door.
Spoon asked if there are other security or floodlights planned. Huntley said no. Snyder said the Huntleys should
consult with him if they decide they need a light.
Rear/north elevation
The railing would be white.
Right/east elevation
Page 3 of 16
The side porch would be cantilevered.
Motion: Simmons moved to close the public hearing. Smith seconded.
Vote: 6-0
Motion: Smith moved to find as fact that the Samuel and Emily Huntley 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; New Construction of Primary Buildings; Site Features and
Plantings; Walkways, Driveways, and Off-Street Parking; Utilities and Energy Retrofit; and Exterior
Lighting. Simmons seconded.
Vote: 6-0
Motion: Smith moved to approve the application as submitted with conditions. Simmons seconded.
Vote: 6-0
Conditions:
• Concrete driveway pavers shall be planted with grass.
• The maximum reveal for the Hardie siding shall be 6 inches.
• The project designer shall review the asymmetrical brackets on the east and west elevations and
submit a plan to align them for staff review and approval as minor works.
• The light fixture shown above the screened porch door shall be removed from the elevations.
• All railings shall be painted white to match the house trim.
• The side door shall be white to match the paint sample submitted.
• The HVAC system shall have evergreens of sufficient height and width planted around it to create
an opaque screening at the time of planting.
B. Certificate of Appropriateness Application: 153 W. King St. — Applicant Allied DevCorp LLC requests approval to
make changes to the previously approved Certificate of Appropriateness application to both buildings and the site
(PIN: 9864-96-8196).
Motion: Member Max Dowdle moved to open the public hearing. Spoon seconded.
Vote: 6-0
Highley asked for any conflicts of interest for this application. There were none.
Frankie Byrd, one of the project partners, was sworn in.
Snyder reviewed the summary of changes for this application.
Byrd and the board then discussed the proposed changes:
Change 1
Regarding adding dog houses over the new ballroom to conceal HVAC units, Byrd said the units are recessed 13 to
14 feet back from the edge of the roof.
Change 2
The roofing material over the new ballroom and dog houses would be changed from a standing seam to a white
TPO membrane roof.
Page 4 of 16
It was suggested that the roofing color be gray to match the rest of the roof as closely as possible. It was pointed
out that guests would be able to see this membrane roof from some locations and that mildew is less likely to
show on a gray roof than on a white roof.
Snyder asked how the roof-mounted doghouses would be accessed. Byrd did not know how the units on the roof
would be accessed. Highley suggested that an internal hatch would be appropriate as opposed to a ladder
mounted to the exterior wall. The commission requested that Byrd come back if an external access, such as a
ladder, was required or proposed.
Change 3
Regarding preserving an existing chimney on the front elevation, the commission thanked the developers for not
demolishing this chimney.
Change 4
The commission was pleased with the elimination of previously approved new railing around the front porch.
Change 5
The commission agreed to the elimination of one existing door on the south elevation.
Change 6
Two new windows previously approved on the east elevation of the original building would be eliminated. Byrd
said the proposed windows did not work with the layout of the kitchen. The commission noted that a light
proposed to be located with these windows should be removed as well. Highley said this façade is recessed and
not well seen, which puts less pressure on having windows there. Snyder said windows in the kitchen also would
have been another source of light at night, potentially disturbing adjacent neighbors.
Change 7
Several windows would be added to the north elevation of the new guest wing. Byrd said the intention was to
keep this elevation less busy, but the developers learned that building code requires a window and a door for
each room. Snyder asked why the proposal was not for a window on the back of each room. Byrd said the
commission had previously stipulated no windows on the south elevation of this building.
There was discussion about the proposal to include glass panes in the doors of the guest wing. Byrd said glass
originally was proposed in the doors because no windows were proposed. He and his partner would be willing to
change the proposal to paneled doors. Byrd amended the application to propose solid paneled doors. The
commission encouraged the developers to take inspiration from the doors on the original building when deciding
on a panel configuration for the guest wing doors.
Commission members asked about the room numbers, and Byrd said that the location and specifics about the
room numbers had not been decided.
It was decided that the commission could be consulted via e-mail about the guest wing doors.
Byrd said the windows are all the same size except in the gable. Snyder reminded Byrd that muntins are required
to be permanently-affixed to the inside and outside the glass window panes, and that flat applied muntins and
grilles-between-glass (GBGs) were not appropriate for use. Byrd confirmed they would be simulated divided light
windows with permanently-affixed muntins.
Page 5 of 16
Change 8
One window on the west elevation would be eliminated. Highley said the proposed change creates a more
pleasing elevation because the windows were proposed to be off center in the earlier proposal. Other commission
members agreed that the proposed change was fine.
Change 9
It was noted that the tree which would remain undisturbed under the proposed front sidewalk modification on
West King Street is located on adjacent property. The commission expressed support for this change.
Change 10
Byrd explained the pathway to bring rollout carts to King Street would be eliminated because of inadequate
space. Instead, the rollout carts would be taken to a gate at the back of the lot, which a waste disposal company
would access from West Margaret Lane.
When it was noted that neighbors on West Margaret Lane had previously raised concerns about trash being
picked up there, Byrd said the contracted service would not require the rollout carts to be brought to the street.
There was discussion that a solid surface would be needed for the trash pickup area. It was agreed that the
developers would provide a landscape and revised hardscape plan to staff reflecting the proposed changes.
Change 11
There was no discussion about a slight revision to the mechanical area at the rear of the existing building.
Motion: Smith moved to close the public hearing. Heilman seconded.
Vote: 6-0
Heilman asked if the developers had found any use for repurposing the removed windows. Byrd answered that he
had not, and he could report to Snyder if they find a way to repurpose them. Byrd said there is a mockup of one
restored window on the left front corner of the existing building, and he invited the commission to go look at it.
Motion: Heilman moved to find as fact that the Allied DevCorp LLC 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; New Construction of Primary Buildings; Site Features and
Plantings; Fences and Walls; Additions to Existing Buildings; Demolition of Existing Buildings; Exterior
Lighting; Accessibility and Life Safety Considerations; Public Rights-of-Way; Walkways, Driveways, and
Off-Street Parking; Windows and Doors; Wood; Masonry; Signage; Roofs; Exterior Walls; Porches,
Entrances, and Balconies; and Utilities and Energy Retrofit. Spoon seconded.
Vote: 6-0
Motion: Heilman moved to approve the application as submitted with conditions. Dowdle seconded.
Vote: 6-0
Conditions:
• Windows to no longer be used on the east side shall be repurposed elsewhere in the building if
possible. A plan for where those windows would be repurposed shall be submitted to planning
staff as a minor works if this change is desired.
• The TPO membrane roof over the dog houses and ballroom shall match the “musket grey” color
of the approved standing seam metal roof as closely as possible. If external access to the roof is
Page 6 of 16
deemed absolutely necessary in lieu of a roof hatch, then a revised elevation showing the
proposed access and materials shall be submitted for review to the Historic District Commission.
• The light shown to remain on the eastern kitchen wall is no longer needed and shall be removed
from the elevations and submitted to staff as part of the minor works approval.
• The wood doors on the new guest wing shall be solid wood paneled doors without windows, and
a revised elevation and materials list, as well as a color, scaled isometric rendering reflecting the
proposed changes to the guest wing shall be submitted to staff for review and approval as a minor
works.
• The site plan shall be revised and submitted to staff showing the new hardscape pathway planned
for routing trash and recycling from the building to the Margaret Lane access drive. The material
and dimensions of the pathway shall be included, and the site impervious area shall be updated
accordingly to reflect these revised conditions. The materials list shall be revised accordingly, and
all documentation should be submitted to staff as part of the minor works review.
C. Certificate of Appropriateness Application: 515 N. Churton St. — Applicant Summit Design and Engineering on
behalf of 515 North Churton Street LLC requests after-the-fact approval of numerous items, including but not
limited to: 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 instead
retaining 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; grading outside the limits of disturbance 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; and changing
the orientation of the front steps and sidewalk (PIN: 9874-08-3880).
Motion: Heilman moved to open the public hearing. Spoon seconded.
Vote: 6-0
Highley asked for any conflicts of interest regarding this application. There were none.
Randy Hall was sworn in. He is employed by Summit Design and Engineering and represents the applicant.
Snyder submitted the written staff report for this application into the record.
The commission used Section B of the staff report as an outline for its discussion of this agenda item.
Staff Report Section B, No. 1 (Section A, No. 9)
The board discussed the possibility of not requiring screening between utility boxes and North Churton Street, per
the applicant’s request.
Highley did not advocate for fencing around the hot boxes and said landscaping instead would be appropriate.
Heilman said these boxes were not approved in their current locations — centrally in front of the buildings — and
are not consistent with the guidelines.
Snyder said some of the utility locations were approved by staff but not the Duke Energy box. Highley asked if the
commission should discuss only the electrical box. Snyder said the electrical box is the main issue because of its
large mass. There could be landscaping installed for the smaller utilities.
It was also noted that the fire hydrant cannot be obscured.
Page 7 of 16
Heilman said nothing presented to the Historic District Commission indicated that utility boxes would be located
centrally in front of the building. Heilman said evergreen screens may be appropriate for the smaller utility boxes.
She is concerned about the size of the Duke Energy box.
Hall said the preliminary drawings for the commission were early drawings without construction details. At that
time, the Duke Energy box was proposed to be on the righthand side of the building. He said at the time of
construction drawings, the box was shifted 25 feet. Then Duke Energy said the transformer pad could not be
installed where the applicant requested, and it was installed at its current location.
Simmons asked who the Duke Energy engineer was. Hall said Anthony Perry is Summit’s Duke Energy contact.
Heilman said that the location of the Duke Energy hot box is not compatible with the design guidelines and that
landscaping is not an acceptable solution. Hall asked what would be appropriate. Heilman said moving the box so
it does not impact the front façade of the building would be appropriate.
Hall suggested painting the box camouflage to look like a bush. Simmons said the landscaping already leaves a lot
to be desired. There is a dead pecan tree and five dead oak hydrangeas, and every tree has mulch volcano
mounds that damage the trunks, she said. Hall said there is a one-year warranty to replace anything that dies.
Heilman said, according to the guidelines, it is not appropriate to install utilities visible to the street. Her
accountability is to the architectural integrity of the district as a whole. She does not see a way to say that the
Duke Energy box in its current location is in accordance with the guidelines. Dowdle and Spoon agreed. Smith
agreed with reservations because she does not know what it would cost the applicant to get the box moved and
whether Duke Energy would agree to move it. Heilman said the commission has some information from Duke
Energy that says it is possible to move the box. Heilman said she is sympathetic to cost considerations, but the
commission cannot consider cost implications of its decisions, and it has advised other property owners to make
necessary changes regardless of cost.
The commission briefly discussed where the Duke Energy box could be located. Snyder suggested a recessed area
where there is a patio. Hall said there is a stormwater drain in that location. Heilman said the box was supposed
to be located near the driveway. Hall said a slope is there, and the transformer cannot be placed on a slope.
Heilman suggested building a retaining wall around it. Hall said the grade from the sidewalk slopes back. Dowdle
said it is not the commission’s role to designate the alternative location but rather to evaluate proposals brought
before the commission. Snyder asked if it is possible to vault the transformer. Hall said he is not aware of that
possibility. He added that Duke Energy requires 10 feet outside the doors to maintain the transformer. Hall said
Duke Energy chose the location based on where stormwater would not be draining toward the transformer.
Snyder pointed out that the box currently blocks windows on a condo unit. Simmons noted that such boxes are
routinely vaulted in cities.
The board then discussed the other utilities located in front of the building. Hall said nothing can be planted in
front of the fire hydrant and there is no room between the hydrant and the hotbox to its left. Hall said the
Hillsborough Utilities Department will not allow the water meter to be screened with landscaping or a fence. He
said he had spoken with Utilities Inspector Nathan Cates about it. Heilman said it could be screened with
shrubbery. Hall said if a shrub would have fit in that space, one would have been planted. Highley said it would be
better to squeeze a plant in there than have nothing in front of it. He reminded Hall that the commission was
trying to come to a consensus that the utilities other than the large Duke Energy box could remain in their current
locations. Hall said Cates does not want any plantings in front of the water meter. Snyder said Cates is likely to
have said that the Utilities Department would tear out any landscaping if it needed to work on the utilities and
would not replace what had to be removed. Heilman said it is unfortunate that the applicant made a field decision
Page 8 of 16
to put these things where they do not meet the guidelines. Hall said it is unfortunate that there is a disconnect
between the Planning Department and the Historic District Commission. Heilman said that she cannot address the
process and added that many applicants come back to the commission for approval of modifications when they
need to change their plans. Heilman said she feels that she must honor the guidelines. Hall said that the Historic
District Commission reviewed these plans and that the water meter location was included in the construction
drawings. He pointed out red boxes in the construction drawings, indicating utilities.
Highley said the commission’s decisions are tied to the drawings submitted to the commission and not to the
construction drawings.
Simmons asked how the drawings were changed between submittal to the commission and submittal of
constructions drawings to the Technical Review Committee. Hall said drawings submitted to the Historic District
Commission are so preliminary that they are like cartoon drawings.
Dowdle said the partners who are renovating the Colonial Inn and adding on to that site have submitted drawings
with changes several times to the commission so they do not create this need for after-the-fact approvals.
Heilman said the commission can only review what it sees, what was submitted to the commission.
Highley said the construction plan is a different plan than what the commission saw. Hall agreed. Highley said the
commission only sees what is brought before the commission and acknowledged that this was a large project.
Jim Parker with Summit was sworn in.
Parker said Hall has been wrestling with the fact that construction drawings were approved. There was a directive
from the commission that the applicant should seek further approval for massing and building height, and that
was it. Parker said the commission approved only the building height and massing. He also said that the applicant
takes direction from staff and that they did not know they needed any additional approvals.
Highley said the commission understands that, and there is still a disconnect.
Parker said none of these changes were made with ill intent, and now the applicant is in a conundrum because of
field changes that were made without approval. He would be happy to plant suggested screenings; however, Duke
Energy and the Hillsborough Utilities Department have the ultimate say on landscaping. Parker said he would like
assistance in getting the landscaping approved.
Heilman asked Parker whether he was asking the commission to ignore the guidelines. Parker said no, but he is
asking for a joint effort in getting screens approved.
Simmons said she would want to see in writing from Duke Energy that the box could not be moved before
approving it in its current location. Heilman said there is information in the agenda packet that it is possible to
move the box and to screen it. Snyder said that a head engineer at Duke Energy answered in the affirmative on
both accounts.
Spoon said he supports moving and screening the box.
There was brief discussion about the previous drawings that the commission reviewed. Hall and Snyder thought
the utilities were shown together in a corner of the property.
Page 9 of 16
Simmons wondered if the two doors to the sprinkler building were always on the plans. Heilman could not say
immediately.
Heilman supported requiring movement and screening for both utility areas to meet the guidelines.
Highley summarized that the commission would like the applicant to explore alternate locations for the utilities.
Heilman noted that the applicable guidelines are nos. 8-10 in the Utilities and Energy Retrofit section.
Staff Report Section B, No. 2 (Section A, Nos. 10 and 12)
The board then discussed the proposal to replace a dead 24-inch pecan tree with 12, 2-inch Green Giant
Arborvitae, which are not a similar species and would not serve as street trees as the pecan had.
Heilman said the guidelines specify that a replacement tree must be a similar species. Hall said the Planning Board
wanted the Green Giants for opaqueness. Heilman wondered whether a hardwood tree would be more
appropriate. Snyder indicated on the site plan where an oak was proposed to be planted. Simmons said that
particular species of oak tree is known to have trunk problems. Snyder said the commission should probably leave
the species to the applicant’s landscape architect. Hall said the oak tree that will be planted was on the approved
landscaping plan, which was created by a registered landscaping architect. Snyder said removal of the pecan tree
is a benefit because it improves site distance issues from the driveway. Highley said that in the past when there is
not an appropriate location for a replacement tree, the commission has approved a landscaping plan that
eventually would return the tree canopy to its former state. He added that the back corner is an appropriate
location for an oak tree. Heilman noted that the Green Giants would not provide a tree canopy. Spoon said the
commission could require trees of a larger diameter to provide privacy sooner. Hall said the Planning Board
approved these trees.
Staff Report Section B, No. 3 (Section A, No. 3)
This section regarded the applicant’s request to keep four parking spaces (located in the northwest corner of the
existing western parking lot) that were to be removed. The Board of Commissioners approved keeping three of
the four existing spaces but required that the applicant eliminate the northernmost space and replace it with a
tree and planted area.
Snyder noted the Board of Commissioners also approved 6-foot tall wood shadowbox fencing along the
residential boundary adjacent to this northernmost parking space that would be converted to a landscaped area
and buffer.
Heilman said she remains concerned that the barrier would not meet the guidelines for walkways, driveways and
off-street parking. Snyder said Summit had earlier thought it would not need the parking spaces, so the applicant
had offered to remove four spaces and plant an area in its place for residents; but now Summit has determined
the parking spaces are needed. Snyder said the only item missing from what was approved is the interior
plantings. The exterior plantings are the same. Heilman said to be consistent with the guidelines, a parking lot of
this magnitude should have a greater area of planting that is consistent with what was originally approved. She
thinks more landscaping is needed with the proposed fencing.
Highley said he is comfortable that the fence is adequate because of the change in grade from nearby residences
to the site.
Heilman said she is concerned about lighting.
Snyder said the lighting was addressed by removal of a light bulb under the porte cochere, which helped a
neighboring property owner who was experiencing light trespass. Snyder said an adequate buffer that likely
Page 10 of 16
meets or exceeds the Unified Development Ordinance requirement is created by the 6-foot fence. Heilman said it
is still a narrow buffer.
Simmons suggested the applicant install the shadowbox fencing and then invite the commission members to visit
the site to determine whether the proposed landscaping, along with the fence, is adequate. She noted the
landscaping plan has several mistakes.
Highley said the commission needs to make decisions based on what has been submitted with this application.
Simmons told Parker and Hall that the landscape architect needed to review the landscape plans to catch some
mistakes. Snyder said that could be incorporated a general comment.
Parker said the original four parking spaces that were to be removed were not a requirement for buffering. The
applicant had proposed removing them to reduce impervious surface. Parking in town is critical, so the Board of
Commissioners approved leaving three spaces, Parker said. He also reminded the commission that a 4-foot fence
was originally required, and that he is now offering a 6-foot fence and additional plantings. Snyder said keeping
the three parking spaces would be in compliance with the ordinance. This is what the commission typically would
have seen on any site.
Heilman said she wanted more substantial plantings. Simmons said the plants are labeled incorrectly on the
landscape plan. Highley asked if there were any other concerns before moving on to the next discussion point.
Simmons again said that the commission should evaluate whether the fence is enough of a buffer after it is built.
Highley said the commission needs to decide this evening whether the proposed shadowbox fence is appropriate.
Snyder pointed out that the proposed fence has two “friendly” or finished sides rather than just one, so there is
an aesthetic benefit to both adjacent property owners and residents of 515.
Section B, No. 4 (Section A, No. 8)
Snyder reviewed that the bulb had been removed from the light fixture on the ceiling of the porte cochere
because it was emitting more than 15 foot-candles of light. He said it would be appropriate for the commission to
have the applicant remove the light fixture since it is no longer serving a valid purpose.
Snyder then reviewed that there were several types and finishes of exterior light fixtures used on the property. He
summarized that the porte cochere light fixture, the aluminum wall sconces and the glass canister lights on the
building all seem to be incongruous with the guidelines.
The commission agreed that the silver aluminum wall sconces needed to be dark bronze or black instead of silver
for consistency with the finishes of the other exterior light fixtures on the building. Hall asked whether black or
bronze is stipulated in the design guidelines. The commission said the finishes need to match each other. Hall said
these sconces were added to meet building code regulations, and they match one another.
Highley said neither the fixtures or their locations are a problem, but rather, that a finish consistent with other
lights on the building is needed. Heilman said in the lighting section of the guidelines, nos. 4-7 apply; and nos. 4
and 5 are probably most relevant to this conversation.
Section B, No. 5
The commission again expressed approval of the proposed 6-foot privacy fence on the western property line.
Page 11 of 16
Section B, No. 6
Snyder reviewed that the vinyl window cling signage should be installed on the interior of the glass, and that it
was installed on the exterior instead. When asked when this provision was added to the guidelines, Snyder said it
has been in the guidelines for two years. Hall said the applicant wants to leave them on the outside; and if they
get weathered or damaged, they will be replaced.
Heilman said the commission has insisted that small businesses downtown make their signs be compliant with the
guidelines, including the location, so she advocated for following the guidelines. Snyder affirmed that businesses,
such as the bail bondsman downtown, have had to move vinyl window cling signage to the interior after
installation.
Parker said these signs are not for a business but rather branding for residents of the building. He noted that two
are located behind the building. He said they are not visible from the road or sidewalk.
Highley said this building’s doors are well under cover, so weathering effects are not a concern. He is comfortable
they would not weather quickly.
Heilman said the commission’s requirement is vinyl decals go on the inside, and the commission does not
distinguish between branding and signage.
Smith said she would be OK with leaving them where they are.
Highley asked for a guideline citation for this topic. Snyder said No. 5 in the signage section and also Minor Works
No. VII.G.7.
Highley said there is consensus that the signage should be moved to the interior.
Section B, No. 7
It was noted that the parking lot signage to be discussed had been removed and was no longer applicable to the
discussion.
Section B, No. 8
The staff report noted that this item was regarding the omission of some trim board around the windows which
had been approved, and that the commission’s comments had previously been that the omission did not detract
from the character of the building. The commission agreed.
Section B, No. 9
The commission was OK with the replacement of approved walkways around the building with landscaped areas.
Section B, No. 10
The commission was OK with the extension and installation of the large brick retaining wall along the southern
perimeter.
Section B, No. 11
The commission was OK with reorientation of the front sidewalk and steps.
Section B, No. 12
This is regarding vinyl-coated aluminum fencing installed on top of the entire northern and western perimeter
walls (right and rear elevations), which was not previously approved.
Page 12 of 16
Snyder noted the commission previously commented that orientation was an issue in addition to the material.
Some of the fencing on site is vertical, and some is horizontal. Some of the site’s railings are close together, and
some are spaced apart. The commission is looking for cohesiveness in design and material. The site currently has
painted steel, wrought iron, and vinyl-coated aluminum fencing and railings installed.
Highley suggested that the commission determine which fences or railings are appropriate as installed. The
commission’s most recent conversation on this subject was focused on the aluminum fencing, he noted.
Heilman said some of the fencing is consistent with the railings on the balconies, and some is swapped into a
different configuration. Highley said his recollection is the aluminum is the problem.
Hall said aluminum fence is used at Weaver Street Market. Smith said that was installed before the adopted
materials list prohibited it.
Hall said construction drawings clearly stated aluminum railing.
Heilman said it is a challenge when items are added to drawings that the commission has not reviewed.
Hall said the applicant feels it is up to Snyder to bring those changes to the commission. Snyder advised the
Commission that he was not part of the original construction drawing review team.
Highley said some aluminum fencing has been approved on a case-by-case basis. Heilman said it has been
approved in areas not generally visible from the street, like behind a house for a pool.
Hall said he cannot tell whether fencing is aluminum. Heilman said the commission chooses materials based on
longevity and compatibility of materials in the district.
Snyder asked Hall what material the balcony railings are made of. Hall said he did not know. Snyder looked
through information and determined it is likely steel cable.
Parker pointed to a drawing that he said was the front elevation originally presented to the commission. He said
none of the railings are the same, and this drawing was approved. The commission did not discuss the railings or
that they did not match. He said the building is compatible within itself. It is a contemporary design that was
supported by the commission and the town. The railings were not suggested to look the same. Some may have a
silver color. There is no consistency in the railings in the drawing that was approved. The building does not have
matching features, Parker concluded.
Highley said the commission would address configuration and materials separately.
Spoon said the commission needed to look at design, scale, finish and material.
Heilman said she has the original packet, and the drawing Parker referenced is not the drawing she saw that night.
She passed the front elevation to Snyder to place on the screen for all to see.
The commission commented that the original elevation drawing approved by the commission depicted horizontal
railings along the stairs and balconies.
Highley said there is vertical picket fencing in the district.
Page 13 of 16
Heilman said the Fences and Walls section in the guidelines talk about being compatible, which usually refers to
compatible with the district.
Highley said he is comfortable with the mix of configurations.
Spoon said he interprets the guidelines the same as the staff report, which states that the aluminum fencing and
railings should be changed to black or painted black cast iron, wrought iron or steel. Highley said it would be
better to wait on that discussion since that is a material question and the Commission was currently discussing
configuration.
Heilman said if a homeowner wanted to have two types of fencing, the commission would not find it appropriate.
She is not worried about setting precedent. She instead is not sure the fencing as it exists meets the guidelines for
fences and walls.
Snyder said the applicant used horizontal railings every time there was a grade change. A lot of homes have
vertical railings on the porch, horizontal railings on the stairs and a wood fence in back.
Spoon and Dowdle said they want consistency. Smith said she can live with the inconsistency. Simmons agreed
with Heilman, Spoon and Dowdle.
Dowdle said the horizontal is what was shown, so the applicant should be consistent and stick with the horizontal
railings.
Highley asked if all the aluminum fencing is vertical. Snyder was fairly certain that was so.
Highley summarized that the commission was determining the vertical aluminum fencing is neither a compatible
material nor configuration, so the aluminum fencing needed to be replaced with horizontal fencing in an
approved material to match other materials and configurations as discussed.
Snyder asked if painted black steel would be the appropriate replacement. The commission said yes and cited No.
8 under Fences and Walls as the guideline that justifies the changes.
Section B, No. 13
The porte cochere has different support beams and a different roofing profile than what were previously
approved.
Snyder said the commission should look at it as a new application and ask if this is something the commission
would have approved were this the first time they were considering it.
Hall said Snyder approved the changes. Snyder shook his head in disagreement.
Dowdle said the porte cochere on the original plan matches the building nicely. It would have been made of the
same materials and would have had the same roof as the main building. What was built seems like an outlier.
Snyder asked if there is something simple the applicant could do, like wrap the concrete bases in brick to tie it into
the brick features on the building or retaining walls.
Snyder said the built porte cochere has elements that go with the building, such as the vertical steel and the
sloped roof.
Page 14 of 16
Heilman said there is an extra steel beam that was not in the original plan and another unapproved steel support
against the building.
Snyder said the first approved design would likely have created stormwater flowing back toward the building.
Parker said these are the approved drawings, approved by staff. Parker said the comments from the Historic
District Commission’s staff was to come back for approval of massing and building height. Parker said he thinks
the porte cochere is consistent with the building because of the contemporary nature of both.
Planning Director Margaret Hauth was sworn. Hauth said it is her job to make sure these plans are reviewed
properly by staff. She said at the time, staffing of the Historic District Commission was transitioning to Snyder,
who had been newly hired. She said she did not do a good job of making sure the changes shown on the
construction drawings were reviewed by the commission. However, she said the applicant was asked numerous
times to submit a list of changes for staff to determine which would qualify as minor works. Instead, the applicant
chose to proceed with construction that included changes from the approved plans. Hauth said this is an
experienced applicant who knows the Planning Department’s processes. She is not asking the commission to wink
at the guidelines, but instead to find a way through the approval process. The applicant was asked to file an
application for minor works approval, and staff never received information to bring to the commission. Now the
project is occupied, and it feels as though everyone’s hands are tied. She said this is one of the biggest and most
detailed projects that staff and the commission have reviewed.
Hauth said the Planning Department should probably not have issued a Certificate of Occupancy when
outstanding issues had not been brought before the commission. Heilman said the Certificate of Occupancy was
quite accommodating. Hauth said that the applicant had set a bond to guarantee incomplete work would be
finished and that the applicant said it needed the Certificate of Occupancy by a certain date because it impacted
funding and people moving in.
Heilman said the process must be clear enough because applicant after applicant returns when they make
changes. Others agreed.
Hall said anything that was ever asked of him, he provided.
Parker said Hauth refers to asking for all minor works to be submitted, but she did not list the items that needed
to come in for the commission’s review. Parker said the applicant only reacts during a construction project. There
was no list of minor works items generated by staff that would have informed Summit the plans needed to go
before the commission for review because the porte cochere changed.
Highley said the commission understands there was a process breakdown.
Dowdle said he would like to see some visual rendering of what could be done with vertical supports. He would
like to see something that is more consistent with the main building and not just modern for modern’s sake. He
added that the shape of the roof is eccentric; but short of replacing the entire roof, the next best solution is to
find a way forward.
Snyder said the roof could be tied in with other elements. Heilman said the flatness of the drawings obscures
some of the incongruencies. Snyder encouraged the commission to give the applicant more detailed direction.
Heilman suggested that the applicant use materials found on the main building.
Section C, No. 2
Page 15 of 16
The commission agreed that the light fixture on the porte cochere where the bulb was removed should be
removed.
Section C, No. 11
Snyder said the applicant needs to return to the commission with detailed designs for the required amenities
area. The applicant could bring changes to the porte cochere at the same time. He believes the applicant was
thinking of installing a gazebo.
Heilman and Snyder had a brief discussion that the vinyl window clings fall under Minor Works No. VII.G.7.
Highley asked if there was anyone to speak for or against this application. No one wished to speak.
Motion: Smith moved to close the public hearing. Simmons seconded.
Vote: 6-0
Motion: Highley moved to find as fact that the Summit Design 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:
• Windows and Doors, Considerations, p. 41.
• Site Features and Plantings, Guidelines 1- 3 and 7- 9, p. 45.
• Walkways, Driveways, and Off-Street Parking, Guidelines 7, 8, and 10, p. 49.
• Exterior Walls, Guideline 8, p. 18.
• Public Right-of-Way, Guidelines 3 and 5, p. 51.
• New Construction of Primary Buildings, Guidelines 1-10, p. 35.
The project is not in keeping with the following guidelines:
• Exterior Lighting, Guidelines 4-7, p. 55 because the finish and color of the brushed aluminum wall
sconces are not consistent with the other wall fixtures installed on the building and detract from
the character of the district.
• Utilities and Energy Retrofit, Guidelines 8-10, p. 28 because the utility equipment installed along
the streetscape detracts from the character of the district, significantly changes the streetscape,
and conceals significant architectural features of the building.
• Signage, Guideline 5, p. 57 and Minor Works Signage Guideline VII.G.7, p. 84 because the vinyl
decals are installed on the exterior of the door and window glass, which is not consistent with
previous approvals, the traditional locations for such signage to be installed, or with the character
of the district as installed.
• Fences and Walls, Guidelines 7-8, p. 47 because the vertical orientation as installed and material
as vinyl-coated aluminum are not consistent with other residential fencing materials in the district
and are not consistent with the horizontally oriented, black-painted steel railings and fences
installed on the site and building.
• New Construction of Outbuildings and Garages, Guidelines 2, 4, 7, and 9, p. 37 because the steel
beams of the porte cochere detract from the character of the district and are incompatible in
orientation, design, and material from the primary building. Additionally, the porte cochere
visually overwhelms the primary building due to its design, and it does not adequately reflect the
design elements of the primary building to meet these guidelines.
Second: Dowdle seconded.
Vote: 4-2 (Smith and Simmons opposed)
Page 16 of 16
Highley invited those opposed to express their concerns. Smith said she wanted to pick her battles, and she picked
them. Simmons said she agreed with the Commission’s motion except for approval of the landscaping.
Motion: Highley moved to approve the application as modified with conditions. Heilman seconded.
Vote: 4-2 (Smith and Simmons opposed)
Conditions:
• The applicant shall explore relocation of all utility boxes and transformers currently located in
front of the building. A revised plan reflecting the newly proposed location with adequate
screening shall be submitted for review along with other required application materials as part of
a Certificate of Appropriateness submittal.
• The brushed aluminum and glass wall sconces shall be removed and replaced with the same style
of metal fixture in a dark bronze or black finish closely matching the finish of the other lights
installed on the building.
• All vinyl decals installed on the exterior of entry doors and/or adjacent windows on the building
shall be relocated to the interior of the door/window glass.
• All vertically oriented railings and fences around the building shall be changed to horizontal
orientation to match the other fencing and railings around the building.
• All vinyl-coated aluminum fences and railings shall be changed to either black painted steel or
wrought iron to match the other fences and railings installed around the building.
• A revised design for the porte cochere, including scaled renderings and elevations, shall be
submitted to the Historic District Commission along with revised materials and all other required
application materials as part of a Certificate of Appropriateness submittal.
• The non-functional light fixture beneath the porte cochere roof shall be removed entirely from
the site.
• Detailed drawings, materials, colors, finishes, and a revised site plan for the amenities area to be
constructed on site shall be submitted to the Historic District Commission for review as part of a
Certificate of Appropriateness submittal.
1. Staff and commission updates and comments
Snyder introduced Megan Kimball, who would likely fill the vacancy created when Highley cycles off the
commission.
7. Adjournment
Motion: Heilman moved to adjourn at 10:14 p.m. Dowdle seconded.
Vote: 6-0