Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout01-06-2021 Minutes HDC Regular Meeting Planner Justin Snyder 101 E. Orange St., PO Box 429, Hillsborough, NC 27278 919-296-9473 | justin.snyder@hillsboroughnc.gov www.hillsboroughnc.gov | @HillsboroughGov Historic District Commission Minutes | 1 of 6 Minutes Historic District Commission Remote Regular Meeting 6:30 p.m. Jan. 6, 2020 Town of Hillsborough YouTube channel Present: Chair Jill Heilman, Eric Altman, Candice Cobb, Max Dowdle, Megan Kimball and Will Spoon Absent: Vice-Chair Virginia Smith Staff: Planning Director Margaret Hauth and Town Attorney Bob Hornik Guests: David Cates, Melanie Fairbrother, Scott Fairbrother and Eddie Smith 1. Call to order, roll call, and confirmation of quorum Chair Jill Heilman called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. Planning Director Margaret Hauth called the roll and confirmed the presence of a quorum with six members present. 2. Commission’s mission statement Heilman read the statement. 3. Agenda changes The agenda stood as presented. 4. Minutes review and approval A. Minutes from the Nov. 4, 2020, remote regular meeting Member Megan Kimball suggested changing the name of the subcommittee mentioned in the Updates section to the Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Subcommittee. Motion: Member Max Dowdle moved to approve the minutes with the change in the subcommittee name. Member Candice Cobb seconded. Vote: 6-0. Ayes: Members Eric Altman, Cobb, Dowdle, Heilman, Kimball and Will Spoon. Nays: None. B. Minutes from the Dec. 2, 2020, remote regular meeting Motion: Spoon moved to approve the minutes as submitted. Kimball seconded. Vote: 6-0. Ayes: Altman, Cobb, Dowdle, Heilman, Kimball and Spoon. Nays: None. 5. Old business None. 6. New business A. Certificate of Appropriateness Application: 111 E. Tryon St. – Applicant Eddie Smith requests approval to construct a roof overhang over an existing rear door, to remove an existing deck, to add a new stoop in the rear, and to make various changes to an existing outbuilding Historic District Commission Minutes | 2 of 6 Motion: Cobb moved to open the public hearing. Kimball seconded. Vote: 6-0. Ayes: Altman, Cobb, Dowdle, Heilman, Kimball and Spoon. Nays: None. Heilman asked if anyone felt they had a conflict of interest with respect to this application. None was expressed. Heilman asked if all members were familiar with the property. There was a nod of heads. Applicant Eddie Smith and David Cates, speaking on behalf of the applicant, were sworn in. Hauth entered the staff report from the agenda packet and all materials from the meeting into the record. Hauth noted Kimball had contacted her earlier in the day asking the age of the outbuilding. Hauth said records for this property indicate there was a carport on the property in the 1980s and the structure was enclosed around 1996. Heilman asked if there were any public comments. There were none. Regarding proposed changes to the east elevation, Heilman asked if the wood window trim would be impacted by the canopy shed roof over the doorway. Cates responded there is sufficient space to install the roof without impacting the wood trim. When asked, he added this is true on the north side as well. Regarding the north elevation, there were no further questions. Regarding the outbuilding, there were no questions for the south elevation. Heilman asked where the proposed repurposed wood windows were sourced. Smith said they were in the garage. He suspects the windows were on the north elevation of the house before the addition was added. Regarding the east elevation of the outbuilding, Cates noted it currently has Masonite siding. Smith said the windows for the east elevation were salvaged from two houses away. Regarding the west elevation, there were no questions. Heilman said there is a lot of proposed window variety but because this is an outbuilding and the windows are repurposed, she is fine with that. Kimball added that the outbuilding is not an historic structure and is tucked behind the house. Spoon agreed with Heilman. The board reviewed the proposed concrete brick pavers for the driveway apron and for the walkway. Kimball said the proposed vintage metal gate may create a false sense of history and asked what others think. She also noted that other front paths seem to stop before the street and wondered if it would be incongruous for the pathway to go to the street, noting there is no sidewalk on this side of the street for the pathway to meet. Cates said it is not unusual for there to be concrete sidewalks that connect to the street. Historic District Commission Minutes | 3 of 6 Smith said there is a drop in elevation from the street to the path, so he didn’t envision the concrete pad extending to the street because it may collect water. He would be OK with eliminating two of the concrete blocks to reduce the length of this area or reducing the length and using dry-set bricks. Kimball asked if this brick or concrete area was intended for parking. Smith said the area in front of the pathway is intended for pedestrians, but people park there now and likely will continue to do so. He added that he was not picturing this area in front of the pathway being 11 feet long as it was drawn on the plans. He would like it to be about half that length, which would leave a gap between it and the street. He would like for it to be a little wider than the opening of the gate. Spoon noted other walkways come a bit closer than 6 feet to the street. Board discussed the changes. There was agreement that this area would be more consistent if it was made from dry-set brick rather than pavers. Smith said he could use the same brick as for the driveway apron and patio which won’t be an exact match with the existing pathway. The commission overall wasn’t concerned that the vintage gate would be misinterpreted as original to the house. It was agreed upon that the area in front of the pathway would extend 5 feet from current walkway and would be 6 feet wide, ending approximately 6 feet before the street. Motion: Cobb moved to close the public hearing. Kimball seconded. Vote: 6-0. Ayes: Altman, Cobb, Dowdle, Heilman, Kimball and Spoon. Nays: None. Motion: Heilman moved to find as fact that the Eddie Smith 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 for Additions to Existing Buildings; Roofs; Windows and Doors; Fences and Walls; Exterior Walls; Site Features and Plantings, Outbuildings and Garages; Walkways, Driveways, and Off-Street Parking; and Porches, Entrances, and Balconies. Dowdle seconded. Vote: 6-0. Ayes: Altman, Cobb, Dowdle, Heilman, Kimball and Spoon. Nays: None. Motion: Heilman moved to approve the application with conditions. Cobb seconded. Vote: 6-0. Ayes: Altman, Cobb, Dowdle, Heilman, Kimball and Spoon. Nays: None. Conditions: Front walkway will extend 5 feet from current walkway and be 6 feet wide and end approximately 6 feet shy of Tryon Street. It will be brick to match the other brick on site and will have metal edging. B. Certificate of Appropriateness Application: 311 Mitchell St. – Applicants Scott and Melanie Fairbrother request approval to construct a new dwelling and attached two-car garage Motion: Kimball moved to open the public hearing. Cobb seconded. Vote: 6-0. Ayes: Altman, Cobb, Dowdle, Heilman, Kimball and Spoon. Nays: None. Historic District Commission Minutes | 4 of 6 Heilman asked if anyone felt they had a conflict of interest. None was expressed. Heilman asked if all members were familiar with the property. There was a nod of heads. Applicants Scott and Melanie Fairbrother were sworn in. Cates remained under oath. Hauth entered the staff report from the agenda packet and all materials from the meeting into the record. Cates said the design was inspired by the house on the corner of Wake and West Tryon streets and a house at the southern end of Wake Street north of his house. Cobb called attention to the importance of the tree protection fencing recommended by the arborist. Heilman noted that enhancing the tree before construction was also recommended by the arborist. Scott Fairbrother agreed that protecting the red cedar was important. It was noted the shingles look green on commission members’ monitors. The commission wants to make sure the applicant proposes gray shingles. On the north elevation, Spoon noted that the staff report recommends replacing the proposed floodlights with lighting that would be more in keeping with the character of the district. He cited the introduction to the Lighting section Page 54 of the guidelines, noting that the guidelines recommend low-lighting choices instead of floodlights. Kimball and Heilman agreed. Heilman suggested a canned light in the soffit instead of a floodlight. Cates said they had eliminated one floodlight from the plans before the meeting at staff’s recommendation. He said the floodlights would fall under directional lighting. Heilman suggested this discussion be continued after reviewing the other elevations. There was discussion about the proposed MiraTec wrapped columns. The commission members said the commission has not approved MiraTec on the front of a new construction. Melanie Fairbrother pointed out the columns will be exposed to morning sun she thinks wood columns in that location would require a lot of maintenance. Cates said fiberglass columns have been approved. The commission said fiberglass without a seam would be acceptable. Regarding the west elevation, the commission expressed concern about the floodlights not being in keeping with the guidelines. Scott Fairbrother said the floodlight at the peak would be directional. He wants to aim them at the steps, and he wants a small directional floodlight on the right side for a gas grill. Spoon wants the applicant to work with staff to come up with alternatives to floodlights. He expressed concern that a floodlight under the eave may light the entire back yard. Melanie Fairbrother said it is not unreasonable to have a light that she turns on and off. Historic District Commission Minutes | 5 of 6 Spoon cited the introduction to the Lighting section on Page 54 of the design guidelines. Kimball said guideline number 7 in the Lighting section states it is not appropriate to introduce indiscriminate lighting. Her interpretation is that this refers to indiscriminate lighting on the entire site. Melanie Fairbrother said she interprets the guideline to mean on the front façade. Heilman said there are alternatives such as canned lighting and encouraged the applicants to work with staff. Cates said it is not fair for these applicants to be told floodlights are forbidden when floodlights have been approved on other projects. He said the commission has always allowed an applicant to have a floodlight. Heilman said the commission has to look at each application in its context and there are many floodlights proposed on this house. Cates said he is hearing that the applicant should work with staff to eliminate all floodlights. Spoon added that on each elevation there are other proposed lights in addition to the floodlights. Kimball read Guidelines 5 and 6 as guidance for Cates and the applicants. Cates said the proposal addresses these guidelines by requiring the lights to be directed downwards. He also thought the language sounded like it was directed at historic structures. The commission decided to work on exact language to reduce floodlights on the plan later in the application discussion. When asked how the height of the house relates to the house immediately to the south, Cates did not have an answer. Heilman noted that at one and a half stories, it would clearly be taller than the ranch house to the north. Heilman started to summarize the conditions of approval, which led to more discussion about floodlights. Spoon said considering the property’s adjacency to other houses, he is comfortable with the commission eliminating floodlighting. Kimball supported that. Dowdle agreed. Heilman said she sympathized with that thought. Melanie Fairbrother said she wanted to have one floodlight in the back yard. Heilman said the applicants would have to make an alternative proposal specifying which floodlight would remain. Cates suggested moving the double floodlight in the gable to the northwest corner, which would move it down in elevation and eliminating the one over the door on the north elevation. The commission, applicant and Cates discussed several lighting options. Heilman summarized that they had come to agreement including: Historic District Commission Minutes | 6 of 6 • Elimination of three floodlights on the west elevation and they are replaced with a directional light fixture over the west screen door. • A single floodlight for the northwest corner of the house. • Two floodlights over the garage doors are removed from the application. • The light fixture proposed over the west screen door and the directional fixture on the northwest corner are approved as substitutions for the four floodlights as discussed in the meeting. Heilman returned to her summary of conditions: • Gray shingles (not green) • Columns to be seamless fiberglass, not MiraTec wrapped • Elimination of four floodlights; substitute one floodlight to be placed on the northwest corner and a directional light will be placed over the back western screened door and would not be an automatic, motion-sensing light Motion: Cobb moved to close the public hearing. Heilman seconded. Vote: 6-0. Ayes: Altman, Cobb, Dowdle, Heilman, Kimball and Spoon. Nays: None. Spoon said he appreciated the conversation, but he planned to vote against the project because of the remaining floodlights. Motion: Heilman moved to find as fact that the Melanie and Scott Fairbrother 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 not consistent with the Historic District Design Guidelines for New Construction of Primary Buildings; New Construction of Outbuildings and Garages; Fences and Walls; Site Features and Plantings; Walkways, Driveways, and Off-Street Parking; Exterior Lighting; Paint and Exterior Color. Altman seconded. Vote: 5-1. Ayes: Altman, Cobb, Dowdle, Heilman and Kimball. Nays: Spoon. Motion: Heilman moved to approve the application with conditions. Cobb seconded. Vote: 5-1. Ayes: Altman, Cobb, Dowdle, Heilman and Kimball. Nays: Spoon. Conditions: The roof shingles are gray (not green) in color, the MiraTec wrapped wooden front porch columns will be changed to seamless fiberglass (not wood or MiraTec wrapped), the floodlights proposed over the west peak were not approved. The directional light fixture proposed over the west screen door and the flood light fixture on the northwest corner are approved as substitutions as discussed in the meeting. 7. Updates Hauth and the commission gave brief updates relevant to the commission. 8. Adjournment Motion: Spoon moved to adjourn at 8:10 p.m. Kimball seconded. Vote: 6-0. Ayes: Altman, Cobb, Dowdle, Heilman, Kimball and Spoon. Nays: None.