Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout11-03-2021 Minutes HDC Regular Meeting 101 E. Orange St., PO Box 429, Hillsborough, NC 27278 919-732-1270 | www.hillsboroughnc.gov | @HillsboroughGov HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES | 1 of 11 Minutes HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION Remote regular meeting 6:30 p.m. Nov. 3, 2021 Virtual meeting via YouTube Live Town of Hillsborough YouTube channel Present: Chair William Spoon, Vice Chair Max Dowdle, Elizabeth Dicker and Will Senner Absent: Eric Altman, Megan Kimball and Virginia Smith Staff: Public Space and Sustainability Manager Stephanie Trueblood and Town Planner Tyler Sliger 1. Call to order, roll call, and confirmation of quorum Chair William Spoon called the meeting to order at 6:33 p.m. Spoon called the roll and confirmed the presence of a quorum. 2. Commission’s mission statement Spoon read the statement. 3. Agenda changes There were no changes. The agenda stood as presented. 4. Minutes review and approval Minutes from regular meeting on Oct. 6, 2021. Motion: Member Will Senner moved approval of the Oct. 6, 2021, minutes as submitted. Member Elizabeth Dicker seconded. Spoon called the roll for voting. Vote: 4-0. Ayes: Dicker, Vice Chair Max Dowdle, Senner and Spoon. Nays: None. 5. New business A. Certificate of Appropriateness Application: 158 W. King St. – Applicant Laura Juel is requesting to install a 6- foot welded wire fence with wood posts along 300 feet of the north property line. (PIN 9864-96-9445) 
 Spoon introduced Item 5A. Motion: Senner moved to open the public hearing. Dicker seconded. Spoon called the roll for voting. Vote: 4-0. Ayes: Dicker, Dowdle, Senner and Spoon. Nays: None. Spoon asked if any commission members had conflicts of interest to declare regarding this item. None was raised. HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES | 2 of 11 Public Space and Sustainability Manager Stephanie Trueblood was sworn in. Applicants Laura and Vern Juel were sworn in. Trueblood summarized the staff report. She said the Juels’ house was built in 1908 and is a two-story, hip- roofed Queen-Anne-style house that is three bays wide and triple-pile with projecting, gabled bays on the left (west) end of the façade and on the left elevation. She said the house has weatherboards, one-over-one wood-sash windows and two interior corbelled brick chimneys. Trueblood called attention to additional information available in the agenda packet. Trueblood said the applicants are proposing to build a 6-foot welded wire fence with wood posts along 300 feet of the north property line. She showed an aerial view of property and called attention to the application narrative describing the project, renderings showing the approximate location of the proposed fence and a photo of a similar fence that was installed within the Historic District along the Calvin Street entrance to the Riverwalk. She said the applicable design standards are Fences and Walls. Trueblood said all neighbors within 100 feet of the property were notified about the application. Spoon asked the applicants if they had any additional information to share. Vern Juel said their goal is to reduce the amount of deer traffic in their back yard. He explained that Laura Juel is an avid gardener and said deer are eating their plants voraciously despite a number of unsuccessful attempts to deter them. He added they also are concerned about the health risks from ticks. Juel acknowledged that a running deer could jump an 8-foot fence but said they want to discourage the deer from entering their yard. He noted that welded wire fences were first used in the 1890s. Juel said he and his wife do not want an obtrusive fence, saying he does not think the fence would be visible from the street or from the neighbors’ yards. Juel said one neighbor requested there be no top rail to make the fence less visible. Juel said a top rail also would make the fence more visible to deer, which could then jump over the fence more easily. Trueblood noted that the Historic District Compatibility Matrix includes a line requiring welded wire fences to have a top rail. Trueblood said she is not sure how or when that language was introduced, but she noted there are several welded wire fences with no top rail in the Historic District in areas that are less visible. Trueblood said she consulted with former Historic District Commission Chair Jill Heilman about why the top rail requirement was included in the new Historic District Design Standards. She said Heilman believed the commission members were unaware of those preexisting fences when drafting the Design Standards, noting it has been a number of years since those fences were approved. Trueblood emphasized that there are welded wire fences in the Historic District without top rails. When asked, she confirmed that staff could not approve this application because of the top rail requirement, which is why the commission is hearing the application tonight. Senner asked if there had been any comments from the Juel’s neighbors. Trueblood confirmed there was none except for that mentioned by Vern Juel, which is already part of the application. Dicker said it makes sense to her to not have a top rail in this instance. Dowdle said he has no issues with the application. When asked, Trueblood confirmed the fence meets all other standards except for the lack of a top rail. Spoon noted that the fence is at the back of the Juels’ property and that the Juels’ already have modified the design to address their neighbor’s concerns. Senner noted the fence is not clearly visible from the street or public view, which is why he thinks it appropriate in this case. Spoon agreed. HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES | 3 of 11 There were no further questions or comments. Motion: Senner moved to close the public hearing. Dowdle seconded. Spoon called the roll for voting. Vote: 4-0. Ayes: Dicker, Dowdle, Senner and Spoon. Nays: None. Motion: Senner moved to find as fact that the Juel 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: Fences and Walls. Spoon seconded. Spoon called the roll for voting. Vote: 4-0. Ayes: Dicker, Dowdle, Senner and Spoon. Nays: None. Motion: Spoon moved to approve the application as submitted. Senner seconded. Spoon called the roll for voting. Vote: 4-0. Ayes: Dicker, Dowdle, Senner and Spoon. Nays: None. B. Certificate of Appropriateness Application: 210 W. King St. – Applicant Maureen Quilligan is requesting to renovate the front façade of the house by replacing the middle second-story window with a door and installing a wrought iron balcony, repositioning the front porch columns, installing wrought iron railing on the front steps and adding hinges and shutter dogs to the current shutters. (PIN 9864-96-3464) 
 This item was discussed after Item 5C and Item 5D to allow the applicant time to arrive. When applicant Maureen Quilligan did not arrive, Trueblood explained she did not feel comfortable presenting Quilligan’s application without the applicant present. Motion: Spoon moved to table Item 5B until the Historic District Commission’s Dec. 1, 2021, meeting. Senner seconded. Spoon called the roll for voting. Vote: 4-0. Ayes: Dicker, Dowdle, Senner and Spoon. Nays: None. C. Certificate of Appropriateness Application: 303 W. Margaret Lane – Applicant Jan Gittelman is requesting to add a 15-by-15-foot screened porch to the rear of the house. (PIN 9864-85-5778) 
 This item was discussed before Item 5B. Spoon introduced Item 5C. Motion: Senner moved to open the public hearing. Dowdle seconded. HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES | 4 of 11 Spoon called the roll for voting. Vote: 4-0. Ayes: Dicker, Dowdle, Senner and Spoon. Nays: None. Spoon asked if any commission members had conflicts of interest to declare regarding this item. None was raised. Trueblood and builder David Cates were sworn in. Applicant Jan Gittelman said she was not planning to speak. Trueblood summarized the staff report. Trueblood said the house is a one-story, side-gabled, brick ranch house that is four bays wide and double-pile. It has six-over-six wood-sash windows, vinyl siding in the gables and a four-lite-over-four-panel door sheltered by a shed-roofed porch supported by decorative metal posts that extends past a carport bay on the right (west) end of the house. She said county tax records date the structure to 1973. Trueblood said the applicant is proposing to add a 15-by-15-foot screened porch on the rear of the house. She called attention to additional information in the agenda packet, including the project narrative, photos of the existing structure, proposed materials, the site plan and elevations showing existing and proposed conditions. She confirmed the application complies with the zoning ordinance. Trueblood said the applicable design standards are Additions to Residential Buildings and Windows. When asked, Cates said he had no additional information to add. When asked, Trueblood confirmed staff had not received any comments from the neighbors. She clarified that anyone who opposes or supports an application to the Historic District Commission must be available at a meeting for cross-examination, as the commission hearings are quasi-judicial processes. Spoon asked the commission members for their questions or comments about the application. When asked, Cates confirmed the Galvalume roof would not have striations. Senner asked if the new door that would be cut into the exterior wall leading onto the screened porch would match the existing exterior door. Cates said the new door would be a simple glass door with a fiberglass frame. Trueblood clarified that the new door would be an interior door and as such would not fall under the commission’s purview. Dicker and Dowdle said they had no comments or questions. When asked, Trueblood said that removing a door and window on a character-defining elevation of a house would not be compatible with the Historic District Design Standards. She said such changes are acceptable in this case, as they on the rear of the house. When asked, Cates confirmed the Galvalume roof would be silver in color. He confirmed the applicant does not propose to relocate, add or remove any security lights. There were no further comments or questions. Motion: Senner moved to close the public hearing. Spoon seconded. Spoon called the roll for voting. HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES | 5 of 11 Vote: 4-0. Ayes: Dicker, Dowdle, Senner and Spoon. Nays: None. Motion: Senner moved to find as fact that the Gittelman 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: Additions to Residential Buildings and Windows. Spoon seconded. Spoon called the roll for voting. Vote: 4-0. Ayes: Dicker, Dowdle, Senner and Spoon. Nays: None. Motion: Dicker moved to approve the application as submitted Will Spoon accidentally asked for another motion to close the public hearing (which had already been closed). Spoon seconded. Spoon called the roll for voting. Vote: 4-0. Ayes: Dicker, Dowdle, Senner and Spoon. Nays: None. D. Certificate of Appropriateness Application: 123 W. Union St. – Applicant Nancy Baker is requesting to remove the rear concrete stoop, remove an existing bedroom window, remove the existing rear brick path, construct a 190-square-foot rear addition, construct a 175-square-foot rear screened porch with 50-square-foot deck and steps and construct a one-story, 425-square-foot accessory dwelling unit along the west property line. (PIN 9864-97-8849) Spoon introduced Item 5D. Motion: Senner moved to open the public hearing. Spoon seconded. Spoon called the roll for voting. Vote: 4-0. Ayes: Dicker, Dowdle, Senner and Spoon. Nays: None. Spoon asked if any commission members had conflicts of interest to declare regarding this item. None was raised. Trueblood was sworn in. Applicant Nancy Baker and architect Doreen Sanfelici were sworn in. Trueblood summarized the staff report. She said the one-story, hip-roofed ranch house is four bays wide and double-pile. It has a brick veneer, interior brick chimney, two-over-two horizontal-pane wood-sash windows and a picture window flanked by double-hung windows on the left (east) end of the façade. She said the main entrance, a single door with three square lites arranged vertically along the full height of the door, is accessed by an uncovered brick stoop. County tax records date the building to 1964. Trueblood said the applicant is requesting to remove the rear concrete stoop, remove an existing bedroom window, remove the existing rear brick path, construct a 190-square-foot rear addition, construct a 175-square-foot rear screened porch with a 50-square-foot deck and steps and construct a one-story, 425-square-foot accessory dwelling unit along the west property line in the rear of the house. Trueblood called attention to the supporting materials in the agenda packet, including a detailed project narrative with photos of the existing house, the proposed HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES | 6 of 11 materials, the site plan and the elevations showing the existing and proposed conditions for the addition and the accessory dwelling unit. Trueblood said the project narrative goes into significant detail about the project’s two components. She pointed out renderings that illustrate the project’s massing and scale; a narrative explaining how the project was crafted to meet the design standards; and a site plan showing the necessary setbacks for determining zoning compliance. She noted zoning compliance is quite difficult for accessory dwelling units but said this project is in compliance with the Unified Development Ordinance. Trueblood said the applicable design standards are Windows; Porches, Entrances, and Balconies; Walkways, Driveways, and Off-Street Parking; New Construction of Accessory Dwelling Units; and Additions to Residential Buildings. Trueblood confirmed that property owners within 100 feet of this property were notified of the public hearing. Spoon asked Baker and Sanfelici if they had any information to add. Sanfelici said she and Baker were very careful in siting the addition and the accessory dwelling unit and want it to have minimal visual impact from the street. Sanfelici said they took cues on materials from the house, the existing outbuildings and neighboring properties. She said she thinks the application demonstrates the accessory dwelling unit is subordinate to the main house and the addition is carefully crafted to minimize views from street. Spoon noted no one was present to speak in opposition or support of the application. He asked for the commissioners’ questions or comments. Senner asked if the site plan and elevations could be discussed one at a time. Regarding the site plan, Spoon asked the applicant to follow up with staff regarding the location of temporary tree protection fencing around mature trees, noting that crews on past projects have inadvertently trenched through tree roots. Sanfelici agreed. When asked, Sanfelici confirmed the project would not modify the existing parking area. She said wooden steps would descend from the entry deck to the house’s screened porch, but otherwise they do not anticipate modifying that area. She noted there would be an area where the trash and recycling bins would be screened as required by the ordinance. When asked, Trueblood said she did not see any compliance issues. She said changing windows or features on a non-character-defining elevation generally is considered appropriate. Dicker asked if there would be any safety concerns regarding the stairs ascending from the parking to the deck. Spoon clarified that county and town inspectors examine safety issues. Noting that a similar question arose at a recent meeting, Spoon said inspectors are fine with such steps as long as there are no sheer drops. Trueblood clarified that while safety and function do not fall under the commission’s purview, the design and materials of any required handrails would fall under the commission’s purview. Trueblood said the commission would have to approve any exterior changes to the Certificate of Appropriateness, such as any required handrails. Sanfelici clarified that building code requires handrails for four or more risers or for risers more than 30 inches off the ground. Sanfelici said the steps should be under those thresholds but agreed to return to Trueblood for approval if handrails are needed. Trueblood confirmed staff could approve a handrail as a minor change. HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES | 7 of 11 Dicker agreed that staff could use their judgment to approve any required handrails. She had no further comments or questions. Dowdle had no comments or questions. Regarding the front (north) elevation, Trueblood noted there were no changes proposed. Regarding the right (west) elevation, Spoon said he had no comments or questions. Senner asked if the applicant had chosen a siding color. Sanfelici said they have not yet chosen a color, confirming that the siding would be painted. Trueblood confirmed the applicant would need to submit the color to staff as a minor work before painting. When asked, Sanfelici confirmed the trim would be either wood or Hardie plank, depending on costs. Sanfelici confirmed the trim would be painted white to match the house’s existing trim, adding that the intent is to be compatible with and to match the existing house where possible. Trueblood clarified that Hardie plank must be installed smooth-side out. Senner said he believed that was noted in the application. Sanfelici confirmed the applicant would prefer the Hardie plank be installed smooth- side out. Trueblood noted that exterior light fixtures usually are either submitted to the commission or to staff as a minor work. She noted that the building inspections department generally requires exterior lighting fixtures at exterior doors. Sanfelici agreed and clarified that the project is in an early design development phase but said the applicant felt it was important to come to the commission early to ensure the project is in keeping with the guidelines. She agreed to submit exterior light fixtures when their locations have been decided. When asked about floodlights or other security lighting along the driveway, Baker said she would not want a floodlight to irritate her neighbors. Sanfelici asked if there could be a condition either to have staff review the lighting plan or to have the applicant return to the commission if the lighting decision requires commission input. Spoon agreed and noted the design standards emphasize using human-scale lighting pointing downward. Baker agreed that is her lighting preference. Dowdle and Dicker had no comments or questions. Regarding the rear (south) elevation, Dicker and Dowdle had no comments or questions. Senner noted that the application references two-over-two horizontal pane windows “if feasible.” Senner said he assumed the intent is to match the house’s existing windows, and he asked what windows would be used if matching windows are not feasible. Sanfelici clarified that some window companies do not offer simulated divided lite windows or offer them at a very high price. Sanfelici said the alternative would be double-hung windows, which she said would look and function very similarly except for the muntin across the middle of each pane. Trueblood noted that simulated divided lite windows on new construction in the Historic District must include interior, exterior and middle muntins, rather than only middle muntins. She said alternately the windows could have no muntins at all. Spoon confirmed Trueblood was correct. Sanfelici said she would follow up directly with Trueblood if she has any questions about window compatibility. HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES | 8 of 11 Spoon recommended including a general lighting condition summing up the lighting requirements for all elevations. Sanfelici agreed. There were no other questions or comments regarding this elevation. There were no comments regarding the left (east) elevation. Regarding the accessory dwelling unit, Trueblood noted that the standards for accessory dwelling units are fairly new, having been added during the recent design standards update. She said the repetitive theme in the standards is that the accessory dwelling unit should be subordinate to the main dwelling, that there be a traditional spatial relationship between the primary and secondary structures and that the materials be compatible either with the primary building, with the Historic District Compatibility Matrix or other buildings in the Historic District. Trueblood said she did not see anything in the application incongruent with the design standards. Dicker said she appreciated the intent of allowing new construction of accessory dwelling units in the Historic District to provide diversity of housing types and bring vitality to neighborhoods. She said she thinks the design of this accessory dwelling unit fits in well with the design standards. Spoon recalled a previous meeting at which the commission members said new accessory dwelling units designed to look historic could create a “dollhouse” effect. Dowdle had no questions or comments. Senner noted the application indicates the accessory dwelling unit would have a concrete foundation. He asked if the intent is also to have a concrete stoop. Sanfelici confirmed the front stoop likely would be an extension of the accessory dwelling unit’s concrete slab foundation. When asked, Trueblood said that recently the Historic District Commission has tended toward adding specific conditions to Certificates of Appropriateness to make sure those conditions are in the public record. She said adding conditions about any unresolved project details discussed at a public hearing is not required because public hearing testimony is considered the truth, with anything said or submitted at the meeting becoming part of the public record. Senner said he does not feel it necessary to make the approval motion overly long provided the applicant understands any changes need to be presented to staff for approval. Sanfelici noted one mistake on the accessory dwelling unit’s west elevation, saying there should not be a window on that elevation. When asked, she confirmed the metal roof would not have striations and that the trim would be wood or Hardie plank. Spoon agreed with Trueblood that recent Certificates of Appropriateness have included many conditions, noting a recent noncompliance situation in which a detail discussed at the public hearing was not made a condition. Spoon said he thinks adding conditions makes details easier for staff to manage. Spoon asked if the accessory dwelling unit would be completely obscured by the house. Sanfelici said a small part of the accessory dwelling unit would be visible from the street, noting it would look like an outbuilding rather than an elaborate house. Sanfelici said their goal is to not compete with the main structure. When asked, she confirmed the rendering on Page 73 of the agenda packet shows scale and massing but not color. There were no further questions or comments. HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES | 9 of 11 Motion: Spoon moved to close the public hearing. Dowdle seconded. Spoon called the roll for voting. Vote: 4-0. Ayes: Dicker, Dowdle, Senner and Spoon. Nays: None. The commission members briefly discussed what conditions to add to the Certificate of Appropriateness, including that temporary tree protection fencing must be installed around mature trees and that exterior lighting fixtures must be human-scale and submitted to staff. Trueblood and Senner noted several points of clarification discussed during the meeting, including that the applicant will not use windows having only middle muntins; the applicant will check in with Trueblood regarding window selection; the stoop of the accessory dwelling unit is intended to be concrete; there is no window on the accessory dwelling unit’s west elevation; there will be no striations on the accessory dwelling unit’s metal roof; the trim will be wood or Hardie plank; if a railing is needed it will be submitted to staff for review; and paint colors will be submitted to staff for review. Trueblood clarified that generally accepted paint colors are almost always approved. The commission members agreed that double-hung one-over-one windows would be acceptable on the house’s rear elevation if windows matching those on the other elevations are not feasible. Trueblood confirmed there is precedent for that choice. Sanfelici confirmed she would work with staff to finalize the window selection. Motion: Spoon moved to find as fact that the Baker 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; Porches, Entrances, and Balconies; Walkways, Driveways, and Off- Street Parking; New Construction of Accessory Dwelling Units; and Additions to Residential Buildings. Senner seconded. Spoon called the roll for voting. Vote: 4-0. Ayes: Dicker, Dowdle, Senner and Spoon. Nays: None. Motion: Spoon moved to approve the application with conditions. Senner seconded. Spoon called the roll for voting. Vote: 4-0. Ayes: Dicker, Dowdle, Senner and Spoon. Nays: None. Conditions: The applicant shall provide an updated site plan to staff showing temporary tree protection fencing around mature trees and will install fencing as per the plan before ground is broken. Exterior lighting fixtures shall be submitted to staff and will be low-level pedestrian-scale lighting. 6. Review final edits to Hillsborough Historic District Design Standards Spoon introduced Item 6. HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES | 10 of 11 Trueblood summarized that the commission adopted the Hillsborough Historic District Design Standards at the Sept. 1, 2021, meeting, contingent on final copy editing from the public information officer. She said the public information officer has now made those edits, which were not content-based. Trueblood added there also have been a few edits to the language in the tree protection section. She referred the commission members to the revised standards document, which was posted on the town website under the calendar link for tonight’s meeting. Trueblood said the new document, if approved tonight, would replace the version previously approved in September. Senner said he had no comments on the changes. He said he appreciated the update and found it to be valuable and beneficial. Spoon said he had discussed one more change with Community Services Director Margaret Hauth. Trueblood confirmed the commission could approve the document with modifications. After a brief discussion, the commission members agreed that the two instances of the word “health” on Page 94 of the Historic District Design Standards should be changed to “rehabilitable,” and the two instances of the term “diseased and damaged” on Page 95 should be changed to “not rehabilitable.” Spoon agreed the changes sufficiently capture the standard’s intent to protect trees from being removed without all efforts being made to save them. Motion: Spoon moved to approve the revised standards as posted on the town website with the following modifications: In two instances on Page 94 the word “healthy” will be changed to “rehabilitable,” and in two instances on Page 95 the term “diseased and damaged” will be changed to “not rehabilitable.” Senner seconded. Spoon called the roll for voting. Vote: 4-0. Ayes: Dicker, Dowdle, Senner and Spoon. Nays: None. 7. Updates A. Staff updates Trueblood updated the commission members on code enforcement of the Axelbank case at 330 W. King St., which Hauth is handling. Trueblood said the Axelbanks have communicated with Hauth, though work has not yet happened because it has been hard to find a contractor available to work at short notice. Trueblood said Hauth issued a letter to the Axelbanks giving them until Nov. 15 to provide an update about when the work will be done to bring the structure back into compliance. Trueblood said there is a new code enforcement case for 421 W. Corbin St., where the property underwent significant interior and exterior renovations without a Certificate of Appropriateness and possibly without building permits. Trueblood said the Hillsborough Planning and Economic Development Division and the Orange County Building Inspections Department are following up. Trueblood said she will update the commission members when she has more information. Trueblood introduced Town Planner Tyler Sliger, who was recently hired and will be supporting the Historic District Commission. Trueblood said she has begun training Sliger on Historic District Commission procedures and relevant laws. She said Sliger will continue training and will gradually take over responsibilities for the Historic District Commission. HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES | 11 of 11 Spoon welcomed Sliger. Sliger said it is an honor to support the commission, noting that he lives in Hillsborough. Sliger said Hauth had updated him on the two code enforcement items and said he probably would take over those enforcement cases in the future. 8. Adjournment Motion: Dowdle moved to adjourn at 8:24 p.m. Senner seconded. Spoon called the roll for voting. Vote: 4-0. Ayes: Dicker, Dowdle, Senner and Spoon. Nays: None. Respectfully submitted, Stephanie Trueblood Public Space and Sustainability Manager Staff support to the Historic District Commission Approved: December 1, 2021