Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout10-02-2019 Minutes HDC Regular MeetingPage 1 of 8 Minutes Historic District Commission 7 p.m. Oct. 2, 2019 Town Hall Annex Board Meeting Room, 105 E. Corbin St. Present: Chair Reid Highley, Candice Cobb, Jill Heilman, Virginia Smith and Will Spoon Absent: Max Dowdle and Laura Simmons Staff: Town Attorney Bob Hornik, Public Information Specialist Cheryl Sadgrove and Planner Justin Snyder Guests: Georgia Bizios, Frank Casadonte, David Cates, Sam Coleman, Mike Irwin and Katie Wakeford 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 Member Virginia Smith requested brief discussion about changing where utility boxes can be placed in the district. This was added to updates. 4. Minutes review and approval A. Minutes from the special meeting Sept. 4, 2019. Member Jill Heilman requested that the minutes include a statement of how many applications the commission has reviewed for energy retrofits and how many have been approved. She also wanted it noted that the commission has approved Tesla solar tiles. Motion: Member Candice Cobb moved to approve the minutes with the additional statement to be crafted by Snyder. Member Will Spoon seconded. Vote: 5-0 Changes: Snyder will add a statement about the number of Certificate of Appropriateness applications approved for solar technology. 5. Old business There was none. 6. New business A. Certificate of Appropriateness Application: 211 Caine St. — Applicant Frank Casadonte requests approval to erect a 14-foot-by 20-foot shed in the rear yard. (PIN: 9874-18-6462). Motion: Heilman moved to open the public hearing. Cobb seconded. Vote: 5-0 Page 2 of 8 Highley asked commission members whether they had any conflicts of interest regarding this application. There were none. Frank Casadonte was sworn in. Snyder reviewed the staff report for this application. Highley invited anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application to do so. Mike Irwin was sworn in. Irwin said his property is adjacent to Casadonte’s and he supports the application. He thinks it is appropriate that the proposed shed’s transom windows and shed dormer roof will reflect the architecture of the house. Casadonte clarified the smooth, Hardie siding would be one color and the windows would be single divided lite. The shingles on the gables would be cedar. Highley said if Casadonte wished to make the reveal smaller on the shed siding than it is on the house, that would be appropriate. Casadonte said he would prefer to match the reveal on the house. It was noted that the application was thorough. There was brief discussion that the door jambs should not be made of PVC but rather fiberglass or wood. Motion: Smith moved to close the public hearing. Heilman seconded. Vote: 5-0 Motion: Spoon moved to find as fact that the Frank Casadonte 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 and New Construction of Outbuildings and Garages. Vote: 5-0 Motion: Spoon moved to approve the application with conditions. Heilman seconded. Vote: 5-0 Conditions: All windows shall be simulated divided lite with no grilles between glass or flat applied muntins. Jambs on all doors shall either be smooth painted fiberglass or painted wood. B. Certificate of Appropriateness Application: 114 N. Occoneechee St. — Applicants David Nesmith and Aparna Jonnal request approval to convert an existing side and rear porch to a screened porch; to remove an existing window, door, and rear chimney; and to add new windows and doors (PIN: 9864-86-0649). Motion: Smith moved to open the public hearing. Spoon seconded. Vote: 5-0 Highley asked for any conflicts of interest for this application. There were none. David Cates was sworn in as the representative of the applicants. Snyder reviewed the staff report. Page 3 of 8 Cates said it is a noncontributing structure because it was greatly renovated at some point . He feels the previous renovation gives some justification for making more significant changes. He added that the chimney proposed for removal is in the middle of the interior renovation. Highley invited anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against the application to do so. No one wished to speak. Cates answered questions from the board. Windows on the porch would be 2 over 2. Some windows on the house are this configuration, and some are 1 over 1. Cates said the old and new 2-over-2 windows would be located in the same room and are more appropriate than 1 over 1 for this house. There are existing 2-over-2 windows on the south side. Cates thinks that these are original to the house and that the 1-over-1 configuration was introduced later. The commission noted that the proposed screened porch doors are off center. The French doors are centered on the wall. Cates was asked if he could align the proposed screened doors with the French doors. As part of this conversation, the commission also discussed the posts for the screened porch. Cates said 6 by 6 inches is the original post size. The reason for proposing some 4-inch-by-4-inch posts is to support the screens while obstructing the view less. Highley said it is not uncommon to have primary posts and secondary posts so that the original posts are more visible. It was suggested that the larger post be moved along with the proposed screened porch doors for a more harmonious look. Cates proposed aligning the screened doors with the French doors and having a 6-inch-by-6-inch post on either side of those doors. Highley suggested allowing smaller intermediate posts if they are needed, perhaps as small as 2 by 2 inches. The commission then discussed the chimney proposed for removal. Highley asked if it is visible. Cates answered that is it not; it is covered. Highley said it is likely a flue chimney. He said in many cases the commission has allowed these to be removed because they are typically not character defining. Smith said flue chimneys are likely not what the guidelines are referring to in the chimney section. Others agreed. Heilman said such chimneys can be a nice feature on the inside of the house. Cates said there is a much bigger chimney that will be exposed in this room. This smaller chimney does not lend itself as a focal point and is awkwardly close to a wall. The commission did not express questions or concerns about the proposed quadruple windows on the south elevation. It was noted that the rectangles on this drawing represented existing HVAC units. Motion: Cobb moved to close the public hearing. Smith seconded. Vote: 5-0 Motion: Heilman moved to find as fact that the David Nesmith and Aparna Jonnal 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; Additions to Existing Buildings; Windows and Doors; Roofs; Porches, Entrances, and Balconies; Exterior Walls. Smith seconded. Vote: 5-0 Motion: Heilman moved to approve the application as submitted with conditions. Cobb seconded. Vote: 5-0 Page 4 of 8 Conditions: Screen doors shall be centered on the east elevation to match the location of the double French doors and shall be flanked by 6-inch-by-6-inch columns. If additional span is needed, an additional 2-inch-by-4-inch or 4-inch-by-4-inch column may be introduced and centered between each pair of windows. C. Certificate of Appropriateness Application: 225 E. Corbin St. — Applicant Cheryl Sampson requests after-the- fact approval to replace an iron guard rail on the second floor of the main house, to replace a previously removed asphalt shingle roof with cedar shake roofing on the single-story addition, and to replace and expand a removed wood with welded wire fence with a new 5-foot-tall wood and welded wire fence in the front and side yards. (PIN: 9874-18-9986). Motion: Heilman moved to open the public hearing. Cobb seconded. Vote: 5-0 Highley asked whether there was any conflict of interest on the commission. There was none. Sam Coleman was sworn in as the representative of the applicant. Snyder said many of the outstanding issues with the work that took place on this property have been resolved through the minor works process. He then reviewed his staff report. Coleman noted he had been working with the town attorney to resolve many issues. Highley asked if anyone wished to speak for or against the application. No one did. The commission then discussed the outstanding application requests that could not be resolved through the minor works process. Iron guard rail One commission member said the proposed rail is wrought iron and necessary for safety, so she thinks it is fine. Another said a wood railing would be more appropriate for the period of the structure. Another said the proposed railing is more appropriate than the existing railing. Highley noted there seemed to be commission consensus that the proposed railing is appropriate. Wood shake shingles A commission member said wood roofing shingles are not appropriate on this structure. Asphalt shingles would be appropriate. If this proposal was to replace all the asphalt shingles with wood shingles, the commission could consider that. Coleman said the property owner has already installed asphalt shingles on the addition that match the rest of the house, but the property owner wonders if cedar shake shingles on the original carriage house might be approved. Commission members were not prepared to answer that question without an application. Fence A commission member said the location and height of the fence does not meet the design guidelines. It loops to the front façade, and the commission has repeatedly denied fences in front of houses. Snyder noted there is a similar fence on Caine and Mitchell streets, but it is shorter and aligned with the side wall of the house. Page 5 of 8 Coleman said the fencing that the property owner took down was 5 feet high and came to where the old gates remain. He indicated the location on a photo. The fence was extended to include a patio. Commission members were in agreement that the fence should not be in front of the house, acknowledging the front of the house is not facing Corbin Street but rather facing east towards the Sans Souci property. The commission reviewed images of the lot with Coleman and Snyder and discussed where the fence is situated and where it is inappropriate to locate the fence. Coleman said the former fence was located in front of the house. He thinks the new fence looks better than what was there before. A commission member said the fence must be moved back so it is behind the front plane of the addition. It was noted that this would require moving three posts. The commission explained to Coleman that the location of a fence is not grandfathered in if more than 50% has been removed; more than half of the original, nonconforming fence was removed on this property. Coleman said the fence is located in the front because a dog door is located in the front. The commission said the fence must be moved back behind the front line of the structure. Regarding the height of the fence, Highley noted that the commission typically approves 4-foot fences. It was also noted that fences in side or rear yards have been approved at taller heights. Heilman said she would be comfortable approving the 5-foot fence if the portion in the front yard was pulled back to the align with the addition’s back wall. Spoon agreed. The commission looked at photographs of the yard on the internet. Coleman pointed out the dog door in the front. There was consensus that the commission would approve the 5-foot fence if the portion in front of the front façade of the house was removed. It was also noted that the front fence can be moved in the back to enclose a larger space behind the house. Coleman pointed out there is no rear door that would lead out to the proposed area for fencing. Commission members said it was reasonable to expect a homeowner to enter and exit the fenced in portion of the yard through a gate rather than through the house. Heilman said she had noticed new welded wire fencing on the other side of the driveway that leads to new buildings. Others said they had not seen this. Snyder said the chicken shed and wood shed were previously approved as minor works, but he was not aware of the additional fencing. Motion: Heilman moved to close the public hearing. Spoon seconded. Vote: 5-0 Motion: Heilman moved to find as fact that the Cheryl Sampson application for a railing 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 Page 6 of 8 Section 3.12.3 of the Unified Development Ordinance because the plans are consistent with the Historic District Design Guidelines: Architectural Metals. Cobb seconded. Vote: 5-0 Motion: Heilman moved to approve the application for railings as submitted. Smith seconded. Vote: 5-0 Conditions: As submitted Motion: Spoon moved to find as fact that the Cheryl Sampson application for wood shake roofing is not in keeping with the overall character of the Historic District and does not comply 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 inconsistent with the Historic District Design Guidelines: Roofs. Heilman seconded. Vote: 5-0 Motion: Spoon moved to deny the application for wood shake roofing. Cobb seconded. Vote: 5-0 Conditions: Asphalt shingles as installed are appropriate and shall remain. Motion: Heilman moved to find as fact that the Cheryl Sampson application for fences is not in keeping with the overall character of the Historic District and does not comply 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 inconsistent with the Historic District Design Guidelines: Fences and Walls. Cobb seconded. Vote: 5-0 Motion: Heilman moved to deny the application for fencing. Spoon seconded. Vote: 5-0 Note: There is a stipulation that the portion of the wood and welded wire fence as installed east of the front line of the structure is not appropriate and shall be removed or relocated. All other fencing installed may remain and may be expanded west or south of the front line of the structure upon application for and approval of additional minor works and zoning permits. D. Certificate of Appropriateness Application: 322 W. Queen St. — Applicant Brian Grant on behalf of Donna and Bruce Spencer requests approval to remove an existing rear deck, change an existing window to a door, reframe and alter rooflines of the rear single-story addition, and build an 18-foot-by-16-foot bedroom addition with an 8-foot-by-24-foot bathroom and closet, attached 576-square-foot garage, an 11.5-foot-by-23-foot gallery, a 12-foot-by-18-foot screened porch, and a 60-square-foot deck (PIN: 9864-87-1780). Motion: Cobb moved to open the public hearing. Spoon seconded. Vote: 5-0 Highley asked for any conflicts of interest for this application. There were none. Georgia Bizios and Katie Wakeford were sworn in and explained they were standing in for Brian Grant. Snyder reviewed the staff report and noted a number of large trees beyond those shown to be removed would be potentially impacted by the proposal. Highley asked if anyone wanted to speak for or against the application. No one wished to speak. Page 7 of 8 Commission members noted this was an exemplary application. Bizios and Wakeford answered questions from the commission. They explained that the original small house has been moved twice on the lot and is incorporated in the current larger house. Bizios said the roofline of the larger house has been changed with past renovations and may need to be changed again to incorporate these plans. The proposed plans were drawn with an effort to only minimally change the view of the house from the street. Cobb said the proposal is appropriate, particularly the proposed delineation of the original house and the gallery and screen porch connector. She said the proposal fits well the design guidelines for Additions to Existing Buildings, particularly No. 11. Tree canopy The commission discussed that multiple trees may be affected by grading needed for the additions. It is a large lot with places to replant trees. Bizios said the new property owners have plans to add landscaping, but it is not part of this application. She said those working on the project are optimistic that they can protect the trees. Heilman said the commission can require tree protection. She encourages the property owners to engage an arborist before construction begins. Smith agreed. Snyder said recently staff has been checking sites to be sure tree fencing is in place. Spoon said this project could cause the loss of 300 years’ worth of trees, so he would prefer a smaller addition and he would like to see a grading plan for this project. When consulted, Town Attorney Bob Hornik said it was appropriate for the commission to advise the property owners to be wary of damaging the trees. He added that the hickory is the only tree under consideration because the proposal states that this tree must be removed to build the addition. There is no competent evidence at this time that other trees will die. The commission advised keeping heavy machinery and piles of building materials off the ground near the trees because the weight can damage a tree’s drip line. Materials Bizios said divided lites are only present on the front façade, and the windows in the addition would be more like those of the side and back of the house. There would be two back doors — one from the garage and one from the back deck. Both would be aluminum-clad, full-lite doors. Lighting Heilman said she would like the floodlights to be motion activated. On the east elevation, she thought a downlit light would be more appropriate than the proposed glass bulb sconces. Snyder said the distance from the sconces to anything else is far enough that the light would not be seen. Highley said the proposed lantern style is seen on residential property and he does not want the commission to stipulate that all lighting has to be downlit. Spoon said the commission specified that neighbors of this property had to use downlit lights and he thinks downlit or shielded would be more appropriate. Highley wondered if this was outside the commission’s purview. Hornik said typically the regulation of the material of a fixture is more appropriate. Spoon thinks a downlit or shielded fixture is more appropriate. Page 8 of 8 Cobb asked whether skylights would be seen. Bizios and Wakeford answered that no skylight could be seen from the front. Front elevation The commission noted that the addition is proposed to be low and far back, minimally visible. The massing and scale are appropriate. East side, west side and back elevations There were no questions or concerns. Motion: Cobb moved to close the public hearing. Spoon seconded. Vote: 5-0 Motion: Highley moved to find as fact that the Brian Grant application is in keeping with the overall character of the Historic District and complies with all relevant standards of evaluation based on the commission’s discussion of the application and the standards of evaluation in Section 3.12.3 of the Unified Development Ordinance because the plans are consistent with the Historic District Design Guidelines: Paint and Exterior Color; Decks; Site Features and Plantings; Additions to Existing Buildings; Roofs; Windows and Doors, Walkways, Driveways, and Off-Street Parking, Utilities and Energy Retrofit, Exterior Walls, New Construction of Outbuildings and Garage, Exterior Lighting, Porches, Entrances, and Balconies. Heilman seconded. Vote: 4-1 (Spoon opposed because of lighting) Motion: Highley moved to approve the application as submitted. Cobb seconded. Vote: 4-1 (Spoon) Conditions: None 7. Updates Smith said she wanted the commission to address the problem of utilities placing utility boxes in front of buildings in the historic district. There was brief discussion. It was decided that Smith would write the concept and that the town attorney would rewrite the concept with ordinance language. Snyder is working on a grant application that would help pay for an update to the guidelines. The commission and staff thanked Highley for his service on the commission. 8. Adjournment Motion: Heilman moved to adjourn at 9:19 p.m. Spoon seconded. Vote: 5-0