Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout04-07-2021 Minutes HDC Regular Meeting 101 E. Orange St., PO Box 429, Hillsborough, NC 27278 www.hillsboroughnc.gov | @HillsboroughGov Historic District Commission Minutes | 1 of 13 Minutes Historic District Commission Remote regular meeting 6:30 p.m. April 7, 2021 Virtual meeting via YouTube Live Town of Hillsborough YouTube channel Present: Chair Jill Heilman, Vice Chair Virginia Smith, Eric Altman, Max Dowdle, Megan Kimball and William Spoon Absent: Candice Cobb Staff: Town Attorney Brady Herman and Planning Director Margaret Hauth 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, noting that Member Max Dowdle had not yet arrived. 2. Commission’s mission statement Heilman read the statement. 3. Agenda changes Heilman said she would like to discuss guidance for the consultants helping the commission draft the new Historic District Design Standards. There were no further changes. 4. Minutes review and approval Minutes from regular meeting on March 3, 2021. Motion: Member Virginia Smith moved approval of the March 3, 2021, minutes as submitted. Heilman seconded. Heilman called the roll for voting. Vote: 5-0. Ayes: Members Eric Altman, Heilman, Megan Kimball, Smith and Will Spoon. Nays: None. 5. Old business A. Certificate of Appropriateness Application: 224 N. Occoneechee St. — Applicant is Housewright Building Company to construct a new 2,555-square-foot, one-and-a-half-story single family dwelling with a front porch, rear porch and two-car, side-entry garage (PIN 9864-77-9464). This item was tabled at the March 3, 2021, remote regular meeting to allow the applicant time to make changes requested by the commission. Applicant Allen Knight of Housewright Building Company, buyer Christopher Moore and real estate agent Meighan Carmichael arrived at 7:04 p.m. Historic District Commission Minutes | 2 of 13 Hauth, Moore and Carmichael were sworn in. Knight remained under oath from the March 3, 2021, meeting. Heilman introduced Item 5A. Hauth confirmed the public hearing on this item remained open from the March 3, 2021, meeting. Kimball noted that her husband works with Carmichael. She said she has not met Carmichael, and during the previous meeting she was not aware that Carmichael is involved in this application. Kimball said she does not think she has a conflict, but she does not want the appearance of a conflict. She asked for guidance. Town Attorney Brady Herman confirmed Kimball’s disclosure is appropriate and said Kimball’s statement that she can be free of bias regarding the application is sufficient. Kimball clarified that her husband used to work as a real estate agent at the same firm as Carmichael, who was a mentor to him. Kimball said her husband has since taken a new job and the two no longer work together. Heilman asked if any other members have conflicts of interest with respect to this application. Smith noted that she and Carmichael are friends, but she said she did think it would cause a conflict for her. Heilman asked if all members were familiar with the application as submitted for review this evening. Commission members confirmed they were. Hauth summarized the staff report and entered it into the record, noting that most of the commission’s previous concerns centered on the proposed house’s front elevation, particularly the two board-and-batten gables and the large number of plane changes and recesses. She noted the commission also had provided the applicant with a list of seven requested changes. Hauth said no neighbors had submitted comments regarding the updated application, nor had any neighbors requested access to tonight’s meeting. Heilman asked Knight if he had any updates or changes to add to Hauth’s summary or the submitted application materials. Knight said he believes all of the changes the commission requested have been addressed in the revised application materials. He noted the new design eliminates both secondary doors on the house’s front elevation, addressing the commission’s concern about the house resembling a multi-family dwelling. Knight added that the buyers requested the two 8-foot garage doors be changed to one 16-foot garage door; he said that change is included in the new design. Heilman asked whether commission members had any questions or comments. Hauth displayed the revised design side-by-side with the original design, briefly noting the changes made to each elevation. Hauth and Knight briefly discussed the need for screening around the HVAC unit, and Knight said he has committed to abiding by the standard. Regarding the west (front) elevation, Heilman noted that the gables had been simplified and the two secondary doors had been changed to windows. Smith approved of the windows replacing the secondary doors. Kimball said that the commission had been concerned about the large number of planes in the front elevation, which had not been addressed in the revised design. Heilman agreed, noting that the protrusion of the gabled fronts is visible in the south (right) elevation. Knight said the floor plan shows that there are not many different planes, as most of the planes line up with at least one other plane. He said he and the buyer, Moore, had looked at several different scenarios and had done the best they could to satisfy the commission’s concerns, particularly regarding the gables. Knight said he is not sure what the issue is with different planes, Historic District Commission Minutes | 3 of 13 as in his opinion they do not change the structure’s massing. Knight said he thinks the different planes add interest to the structure. Heilman said her concern with the front elevation’s many planes had been compounded by the multiple doors on the front elevation, which contributed to the impression of a multi- family dwelling. Smith agreed. Heilman said changing the two secondary doors to windows had decreased that effect, and she said her concern with the front façade’s multiple planes had been sufficiently addressed. Kimball agreed. Moore said he agreed with the changes the commission had requested, particularly removing the two secondary front doors and the top gable. He said he thinks the design looks much better now and fits in better with other new construction in the Historic District. Heilman thanked Moore and clarified that the commission’s changes were based on application of the Historic District Design Guidelines rather than a particular aesthetic. Regarding the many planes on the front façade, Moore said he and his wife do not want to build a box with a flat face, which he feels might even detract from other homes on the street. He reiterated that he appreciated and agreed with the commission’s requested changes to the design. Dowdle arrived at 6:51 p.m. Regarding the south (right side) elevation, Heilman asked whether members had any concerns about the change from two garage doors to one wider garage door. Knight confirmed the new single garage door would be of the same make, style and material as the originally planned double garage doors, noting that the door is pre-approved for use in the Historic District. Regarding the west (front) elevation, Smith said she thought the commission had discussed reducing the number of planes with board-and-batten siding to further reduce the impression of a multi-family dwelling. Heilman said she did not recall that discussion. Smith said she could not cite a particular guideline and said she would let the matter rest. Spoon said he thinks the simplification of the roofline and changing the secondary doors to windows has addressed his concerns. He said he thinks the front elevation is appropriate now and thanked Knight and Moore for working with the commission on the changes. Regarding the east (rear) elevation, Heilman noted the commission had not requested any changes. Knight confirmed that the only change on the rear elevation is the simpler roofline, consistent with the change in the front elevation. Regarding the north (left side) elevation, which is visible from Queen Street, Heilman noted the windows have been revised in keeping with the commission’s requested changes. There were no further questions or comments. Motion: Heilman moved to close the public hearing. Kimball seconded. Heilman called the roll for voting. Vote: 6-0. Ayes: Altman, Dowdle, Heilman, Kimball, Smith and Spoon. Nays: None. Motion: Kimball moved to find as fact that the Housewright Building Company application as modified 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 Historic District Commission Minutes | 4 of 13 standards of evaluation in Section 3.12.3 of the Unified Development Ordinance because the plans are consistent with the Historic District Design Guidelines: 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; and Paint and Exterior Color. Smith seconded. Heilman called the roll for voting. Vote: 6-0. Ayes: Altman, Dowdle, Heilman, Kimball, Smith and Spoon. Nays: None. Motion: Kimball moved to approve the application as modified with conditions. Heilman seconded. Heilman called the roll for voting. Vote: 6-0. Ayes: Altman, Dowdle, Heilman, Kimball, Smith and Spoon. Nays: None. Conditions: The applicant will install wood privacy screening around the HVAC unit, working with staff on an approved fence type and materials. The applicant will work with staff on a tree replanting location. The elevations and material list that are approved are those submitted to this month’s meeting. The garage door will have a pebble grain, not a wood grain, and will not have any windows. All windows will have clear glass. No exterior lighting is proposed except recessed metal can lights over the front porch, which will be installed as submitted. 6. New business A. Certificate of Appropriateness After-the-Fact Application: 330 W. King Street – Applicant is Arthur Axelbank requesting after-the-fact approval to remove a double wood door from the front elevation and replace it with smooth Hardie siding; new approval requested to place the original double door on top of the previously- installed replacement windows and siding (PIN: 9864-76-9302). Applicant Arthur Axelbank arrived at 7:06 p.m. Dowdle asked to be recused from Item 6A due to a conflict. Motion: Heilman moved to recuse Dowdle from Item 6A. Altman seconded. Heilman called the roll for voting. Vote: 6-0. Ayes: Altman, Dowdle, Heilman, Kimball, Smith and Spoon. Nays: None. Heilman introduced Item 6A and summarized the application. Axelbank clarified that he is not proposing removing the windows but rather place the original doors on top of the windows and siding in the doors’ original location. Heilman asked if any other commissioners had a conflict of interest with respect to this application. None was expressed. Heilman asked if all members were familiar with the application. Commission members confirmed they were. Axelbank was sworn in. Historic District Commission Minutes | 5 of 13 Hauth summarized the staff report, prepared by Town Planner Justin Snyder, and entered it into the record. She noted that staff recommends denial of this request based on the applicable Historic District Design Guidelines: Exterior Walls and Windows and Doors. Hauth said staff recommends that the only amenable solution is to re-cut the doors’ original opening and replace the existing doors in a relationship traditional to doors in the Historic District, whether the doors be operable or fixed. The applicant could then do any needed weatherproofing or sealing around the doors to prevent leakage. Hauth said the essence of staff’s objection is that placing the doors on top of the siding would create a non-traditional relationship of a door to an exterior wall and would create a “faux” feature. Heilman invited Axelbank to clarify or articulate anything he would like the commission to know about the application. Axelbank asked Hauth to repeat the staff recommendation, as he had not seen the staff report before tonight’s meeting. Hauth repeated the staff recommendation, clarifying that she was reading from a document that Snyder had prepared. Axelbank briefly summarized the history of his application. He reminded the commission that the doors had been removed last year because of a long-term leak and subsequent water damage to the porch roof and to the woodwork and sheetrock inside the house. He said the leak had persisted despite two major repairs and a roof repair. Axelbank said he had retrieved the original doors, and he is proposing to affix them neatly and authentically to the outside wall in their original position. He said he believes this solution would meet the Historic District Design Guidelines and the commission’s concerns. He said he understood from the last meeting he attended that non-functioning doors are allowed by the guidelines. He said the materials would be the same. Axelbank said this solution would preserve the house’s historical appearance as well as the waterproofing and repairs to the structure. He said the doors are 1.25 inches thick and would not protrude in an obvious way but would have essentially the same appearance they had before removal. Axelbank said he hopes the commission will agree this is a reasonable solution. He expressed disappointment at Snyder’s conclusion that the only amenable solution is to re-cut the original opening, re-install the doors and then waterproof them. Hauth said no one from the public had submitted comments regarding Item 6A, nor had anyone requested access to tonight’s meeting. Heilman asked whether commission members had any questions or comments about the application. Heilman said the question before the commission is whether Axelbank’s proposal tonight satisfies the guidelines for Windows and Doors and Exterior Walls. She said she is delighted Axelbank could retrieve the original doors, but she added she remains concerned about whether affixing the doors to the house’s exterior, over the replacement windows and wall, meets the guidelines. She said she does not see how the solution meets the guidelines. Heilman said she is interested in hearing other commissioners’ thoughts. She cited several of the guidelines, including Windows and Doors: Guideline 5, Guideline 7 and Guideline 9. Heilman said the commission is not concerned with whether the doors are operable or not, but rather with how the doors are installed on the façade of the house. Smith noted the doors in question are the original doors, rather than fake antique doors. She said the proposed repair would not constitute a false sense of historical development, as the original doors would be replaced in the original location. She granted that the doors would not be functioning, but she added the doors had not been functioning during the many years the Axelbanks have lived in the house. Historic District Commission Minutes | 6 of 13 Heilman said part of her concern is that a door normally sits within – not on top of – the plane of a wall, with the siding coming to the molding that surrounds the door. She said the proposed reinstallation on top of the siding would be 1.25 inches off. Kimball said she agreed with both Smith and Heilman. She said she does not think the guideline regarding creating a false sense of historical development applies in this case due to the reasons cited by Smith. She agreed the commission is not concerned with whether or not the doors function. Kimball said she could see two issues with the proposal. First, she agreed with Heilman in her concern with how the doors will look on the building. She asked Axelbank whether the door had a handle. She noted that normally a door stands within a doorframe, and the handle, door and doorframe are all within the same plane. She expressed concern that the doors applied on top of the siding would look odd. Axelbank said the two doors only had knobs on the inside. He suggested the commission might start doing more site visits and said he would be happy to show members the porch roof and front entrance. He expressed concern about re-opening the wall, which would leave the house vulnerable to more leaks. He said he and Snyder had discussed the 1.25-inch difference in the plane of the wall versus the door, including how it would look from King Street. When asked, he said he believes the difference would not be very noticeable from the street. Smith agreed that the difference in planes would not be noticeable, especially if the door were trimmed with molding. When asked, Axelbank said he would trim the doors with molding. Heilman noted there currently is molding around the replacement windows, and she asked whether the new door molding would be placed on top of the current window molding; Axelbank said that was correct. Heilman said her concern with the false sense of historical development is that the suggested replacement is not how doors are built on character-defining elevations of historic homes. Heilman said she respects that the Axelbanks had a leak, but she added she is sure the doors could be reinstalled in a manner that also prevents leaks. Kimball said her second concern is whether installing the door on top of the windows and siding would expose that area of the home to further water damage. She said that area of the house appears prone to moisture. She expressed concern that moisture infiltrating between the door, the siding and the windows might cause more damage to the structure. She noted that if the doors were to rot due to moisture, that historic feature of the home would be lost. Spoon said he agreed with staff’s recommendations for the reasons they cited. Heilman noted that this is an after-the-fact application. She said the original changes the Axelbanks made were not consistent with the guidelines and the commission is now trying to evaluate whether the proposed change would bring the house into consistency with the guidelines. Spoon offered to clarify his opinion. He said the Axelbanks’ house is located on a major town street and the doors constitute a distinctive feature on a distinctive house in a distinctive part of town. He characterized the Axelbanks’ house as a showpiece of the town and said the doors’ loss would be a real loss for the town. He said he would like to see the doors look as they did before they were replaced with the windows. Smith said she also lives in an old house, and in her experience the builders over the past 250 years were not always doing quality work. She said just because the Axelbanks’ house is historic does not mean it was built Historic District Commission Minutes | 7 of 13 well. She expressed concern that trying to reinstall the doors in their original position could have unexpected consequences. She allowed that newer builders hopefully would be of better quality. Axelbank noted that, while Heilman and Spoon seem certain the doors could be reinstalled without reintroducing a leak, he did not share that certainty. He wondered how doors installed on the second story of a house have been handled in the past, noting a house on Orange Street with doors on an upper level. He said he regrets that the commission members do not see the risk to the Axelbanks of trying to reinstall the doors as they were and then waterproof them. He said he does not think the framed-in doors placed on top of the current siding would protrude noticeably from the side of the house. He asked whether the commission is more concerned with appearance or functionality. He added he is in favor of preserving the town’s historic look, but he said he is concerned with preserving his house more permanently and keeping it free from water damage going forward. Axelbank said his contractor had proposed framing the door in and making it look as it had originally looked. He said it would not be in the same plane as the wall, but he does not think that would be noticeable unless one were standing very close to the house. He said he feels his proposal is a reasonable solution, allowing the home to remain leak-free while still maintaining the front entrance’s historic appearance. Kimball asked Axelbank what he would do to keep moisture out of the space between the door and the siding so that moisture would not compromise the integrity of the siding or the doors. Axelbank said first he would ensure the doors were installed properly and sealed against moisture, and second, he would maintain the area over time by inspecting, waterproofing, caulking, repainting and resealing the area as needed. Spoon asked Axelbank how the replacement windows and the windows on the original doors would line up. Axelbank said the dimensions of all the windows are the same and would line up exactly, so that from the inside a viewer would look through two layers of glass to the outside. Altman said he thinks Axelbank’s proposal is an elegant solution. He appreciated that the Axelbanks have the original doors. He said he thinks the appearance would look rather seamless when viewed from the street. Smith agreed with Altman. Motion: Heilman moved to close the public hearing. Altman seconded. Heilman called the roll for voting. Vote: 5-0. Ayes: Altman, Heilman, Kimball, Smith and Spoon. Nays: None. The commissioners briefly discussed that they share differing opinions on Item 6A. Heilman noted that it is a difficult decision. Kimball said she appreciates that Axelbank is restoring the doors to their original location and said she thinks Axelbank has made every effort to come up with a solution that meets the guidelines and also is structurally feasible. Kimball said she thinks that Axelbank’s proposal is in keeping with the guidelines as long as the doors are maintained. Altman noted that Axelbank’s proposal could protect other parts of the house from damage, which Altman sees as a point in favor of the application. Heilman said she thinks the doors could be reinstalled in the original plane of the house using today’s better craftsmanship in a way that would both prevent further water damage and meet the guidelines. Kimball, Heilman and Spoon discussed that the Historic District Design Guidelines do not address after-the- fact situations. Spoon said the commission should default to applying the guidelines as if the application were not after-the-fact, because otherwise future applicants might try to get around guidelines by applying for Historic District Commission Minutes | 8 of 13 approval after-the-fact. When asked, Herman said the commission had articulated the tough issue and said it is ultimately the commission’s decision whether to approve or deny the application. Axelbank said he had understood his after-the-fact status was not being taken into account. He said he had apologized more than once for taking action without first coming to the commission, adding that his family felt desperate to address the water damage. He noted that they had not hesitated to come to the commission and be transparent in their actions once the oversight was brought to their attention. Axelbank said he regrets that his application is after-the-fact and said he has come to the commission in good faith to try to rectify the situation. He said he did not create the after-the-fact situation maliciously to try to sneak around the guidelines, acknowledging he worried whether neighbors would believe an after-the-fact application is an easy way to get around the guidelines. Axelbank reiterated that he takes the situation very seriously, as he hopes his presence tonight demonstrates. Heilman and Kimball assured Axelbank that they appreciate how seriously he takes the situation. Kimball clarified she had been asking for clarity around how much discretion she has to interpret the guidelines. Motion: Heilman moved to find as fact that the Axelbank application 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: Exterior Walls and Windows and Doors. Spoon seconded. Heilman called the roll for voting. Vote: 2-3. Ayes: Heilman and Spoon. Nays: Altman, Kimball and Smith. Heilman noted the motion did not carry. Spoon said now that the commission’s direction is clear he would like to add conditions to the application approval. Spoon asked that Axelbank work with staff to try to remove the existing trim around the replacement windows so the doors sit as flush as possible against the siding. Altman, Kimball and Smith agreed. Kimball suggested a second condition: that Axelbank take all reasonable measures to waterproof the area and protect it from future water damage. Axelbank agreed to both conditions. Motion: Kimball moved to find as fact that the Axelbank 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 Walls and Windows and Doors. Smith seconded. Heilman called the roll for voting. Vote: 3-2. Ayes: Altman, Kimball and Smith. Nays: Heilman and Spoon. Motion: Kimball moved to approve the application as modified with conditions. Altman seconded. Heilman called the roll for voting. Vote: 3-2. Ayes: Altman, Kimball and Smith. Nays: Heilman and Spoon. Conditions: Applicant will work with staff to minimize the doors’ protrusion from the side of the house, if possible by removing the trim around the replacement windows. Applicant will take all Historic District Commission Minutes | 9 of 13 reasonable measures to seal and waterproof the area to minimize future damage to the doors, siding and windows. The applicant will continue to maintain the area in the future to limit further damage. B. Certificate of Appropriateness Application: 114 N. Occoneechee St. — Applicant is Jennifer Hoffman on behalf of Candace Savage and Hans Savage to demolish an existing patio, replace a single window on the rear wall of the existing covered porch with a double window and construct a new 132-square-foot screened-in porch at 114 N. Occoneechee St. (PIN 9864-86-0649). Dowdle returned, and applicant Jennifer Hoffman and property owners Candace and Hans Savage arrived at 8 p.m. Heilman introduced Item 6B and summarized the application. Motion: Smith moved to open the public hearing. Spoon seconded. Heilman called the roll for voting. Vote: 6-0. Ayes: Altman, Dowdle, Heilman, Kimball, Smith and Spoon. Nays: None. Heilman asked if all members were familiar with the application. Commission members confirmed they were. Heilman asked if anyone had a conflict of interest with respect to this application. None was expressed. Hoffman and the Savages were sworn in. Hauth summarized the staff report and entered it into the record. Hauth said no one from the public had submitted comments regarding Item 6B, nor had anyone requested access to tonight’s meeting, though she noted some members of the public were observing the meeting via the town’s YouTube livestream. Heilman asked Hoffman and the Savages whether they had any additional comments for the commission regarding the application. They did not. Heilman asked whether commission members had any questions or comments regarding the demolition of the existing patio. There were none. Hans Savage noted that the patio had never been part of the house but had previously supported an above- ground swimming pool. Candace Savage noted the previous owner had installed the patio. Heilman asked whether commission members had any questions or comments regarding the proposed addition. Heilman asked Hoffman to clarify how many lites would be in the proposed new windows, noting discrepancies between the submitted plans and the house’s actual windows. Hoffman clarified the new double window would be one-over-one with no muntins and would match the house’s existing windows. Heilman noted that a window shown on one view of the proposed plan appears to be a door in other views. She asked Hoffman which view is correct. Hoffman confirmed the door is correct. Historic District Commission Minutes | 10 of 13 Heilman expressed surprise that the plans showed multi-lite screen doors and asked whether the plan’s representation of the screen doors is correct. Hoffman said her drafting program uses standard placeholders and apologized for the plan’s inconsistencies. She clarified the doors would be standard screen doors of a classic style in keeping with a historic home. Heilman said a standard screen door should be acceptable. Smith asked whether the two screen doors would be different sizes, noting they appeared to be different sizes in the plan. Hoffman said both doors would be 6 feet, 8 inches tall and the same width. Motion: Kimball moved to close the public hearing. Smith seconded. Heilman called the roll for voting. Vote: 6-0. Ayes: Altman, Dowdle, Heilman, Kimball, Smith and Spoon. Nays: None. Kimball stated several reasons she thinks this application is in keeping with the Historic District Design Guidelines. First, she does not consider the rear elevation where the changes will occur to be a character- defining elevation, noting the changes will not be visible from the street. Second, she does not consider the patio to be part of the home’s historic character. She concluded that she does not think the changes will affect the historic character of any of the home’s features. Motion: Smith moved to find as fact that the Savage Occoneechee Street 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: Porches, Entrances and Balconies; Site Features and Plantings; Windows and Doors; and Additions to Existing Buildings. Kimball seconded. Heilman called the roll for voting. Vote: 6-0. Ayes: Altman, Dowdle, Heilman, Kimball, Smith and Spoon. Nays: None. Hauth noted that the staff report’s point regarding SDL windows needing muntins permanently affixed to the interior and exterior panes of glass is no longer relevant, as the new windows will be one-over-one windows without muntins. Heilman noted that all windows in the home are one-over-one and that the new windows would match the existing windows, despite the architectural drawing which inaccurately portrayed the house’s windows as multi-lite windows. Motion: Smith moved to approve the application as modified with conditions. Altman seconded. Heilman called the roll for voting. Vote: 6-0. Ayes: Altman, Dowdle, Heilman, Kimball, Smith and Spoon. Nays: None. Conditions: The new double window will be a pair of one-over-one windows. The doors leading from the house to the screened-in porch will remain doors and will not be exchanged for windows. The screen doors will be traditional screen doors rather than multi-lite doors. 7. Updates A. Discussion of guidance for consultants helping to draft new design standards Historic District Commission Minutes | 11 of 13 Heilman said she would like to hear the commissioners’ thoughts on the materials she sent out earlier in the week regarding guidance for the consultants helping to draft the new Historic District Design Standards. She noted that because the commission is moving from design guidelines to design standards consistent with the new language passed by the state legislature, the consultants wish to understand exactly what is meant by the word “standards.” Heilman said she had sent the commissioners a mockup outlining ways the current guidelines could move toward being clearer and more consistent, thus allowing the commission to make decisions that are more defensible. She noted that the mockup falls short of including what the consultants consider to be standards, rather than guidelines. Heilman said the consultants had provided an example of what design standards might look like, based on design standards from Fort Collins, Colo. Heilman asked the commissioners for their thoughts on where the new Historic District Commission Design Standards should fall on the spectrum between guidelines and standards. She noted that standards may offer less flexibility in interpretation than guidelines, which could be troublesome in in Hillsborough’s very diverse Historic District. She asked the commissioners whether they are more comfortable moving toward the stricter type of standard used in Fort Collins or revising Hillsborough’s more flexible current guidelines. Spoon said he is comfortable with the language of standards. Kimball said she likes the language of the standards example. She said she thinks it is important for the commission to be able to apply the facts to very clear standards. The commission discussed the fact that the new state law calls for using the word “standards” without defining what a standard is. Smith did not like the graphic layout of the mock-up based on the Fort Collins standards. Heilman said she appreciated the mock-up’s inclusion of a statement of intent, which she thinks makes very clear what the standards intend to do. The commission discussed Hillsborough’s current guidelines’ use of narrative blocks of text and whether that text is as applicable as the guidelines themselves. The commission discussed how permissive versus how strict the new standards should be, given the diversity of the Hillsborough Historic District. Spoon and Kimball wondered how or if the new language might account for exceptions. Smith said she has concerns about tightening up the language. She said it is important for commissioners to be able to use their judgment about particular cases, noting that the situations and requests that come before the commission are highly variable. Spoon noted that the gentler language in the current guidelines has served the commission well during the town’s recent construction boom. He wondered whether the standards need to be stricter. Kimball said she worries about increased gentrification and possible requests for larger additions and changes. Heilman said she thinks the commission is committed to strengthening the current language, because the current language does not always allow the commission to make consistent defensible decisions. She said the question at hand is how much the language should be strengthened. Dowdle said he thinks there is a middle ground between the new standards being too heavy handed and too loose. He said he thinks the commission also can interpret the standards skillfully and phrase their reasoning in reference to the standards to good effect. Altman agreed. Historic District Commission Minutes | 12 of 13 Kimball said it is important that the commission apply the standards fairly across the community. She said stronger standards containing less ambiguity would help the community know exactly what to expect even before coming before the commission. Spoon noted that public comments often accuse the commission members of arbitrariness, and he said tightening the language could help address that concern. Heilman noted that commission decisions and interpretations of standards change with the commission’s membership and changing thoughts about historic preservation. When asked, Hauth said she thinks the commission is considering the appropriate issues regarding the historic district’s diverse nature. She said she thinks the commission is heading in the right direction of strengthening the language in some ways but not overly limiting the commission’s ability to interpret diverse situations. Heilman agreed that the new standards could use more strict language where appropriate, but perhaps sparingly. Kimball requested that Heilman ask the consultants if there is any “escape hatch” language that they have seen used in other standards. When asked, Herman echoed the commissioners’ concerns about using more strict language that leaves little room for flexibility. He said including exceptions can be tricky, because it is hard to include all possible exceptions. The commission discussed possible “escape hatch” language, noting that it would fall to the commission to interpret any such language in cases that are less clear-cut. The commission discussed how the diversity of the Hillsborough Historic District creates difficulties in applying standards. Generally, the commission members agreed they are more comfortable strengthening the current language while still allowing flexibility, rather than using the Fort Collins standards as a template. Heilman agreed to relay that guidance to the consultants. Heilman asked the commission members to think about what phrases they would use to define the Hillsborough Historic District’s special character before the next meeting. Dowdle left the meeting at 8:48 p.m. B. Discussion of white historic signs Kimball briefly updated the commission regarding an idea to collaborate with other town groups on a program dealing with the town’s white historic signs. Kimball said the idea for the collaboration arose from discussions about diversity, equity and inclusion. She said she has spoken with representatives of the Alliance for Historic Hillsborough and their participating groups about their ideas. The program would aim to include community members with properties that have not historically been recognized as historically significant or valuable. Kimball said that the idea is still developing and that the Alliance will convene an independent committee with representatives from the Orange County Historical Museum, the Burwell School, the commission, the Alliance and perhaps members of the community; this group would meet perhaps twice a year and consider applications for signs from community members. The Alliance also would raise money to fund the signs. Kimball noted that the program would promote outreach and historic preservation. She said the commission’s proposed role would be providing information about the properties and helping with research. Kimball said the Alliance would be scheduling a preliminary planning meeting soon. The commission members were supportive of the idea. 8. Adjournment Historic District Commission Minutes | 13 of 13 Motion: Kimball moved to adjourn at 8:53 p.m. Altman seconded. Heilman called the roll for voting. Vote: 5-0. Ayes: Altman, Heilman, Kimball, Smith and Spoon. Nays: None. Respectfully submitted, Justin Snyder Planner Staff support to the Historic District Commission Approved: May 5, 2021