Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout01-05-2022 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 9 Minutes HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION Remote regular meeting 6:30 p.m. Jan. 5, 2022 Virtual meeting via YouTube Live Town of Hillsborough YouTube channel Present: Chair William Spoon, Vice Chair Max Dowdle, Eric Altman, Elizabeth Dicker, Will Senner and Virginia Smith Absent: Megan Kimball Staff: Town Planner Tyler Sliger 1. Call to order, roll call, and confirmation of quorum Chair William Spoon called the meeting to order at 6:31 p.m. Town Planner Tyler Sliger 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 Dec. 1, 2021. Motion: Spoon moved approval of the Dec. 1, 2021, minutes as submitted. Member Eric Altman seconded. Spoon called the roll for voting. Vote: 6-0. Ayes: Members Altman, Elizabeth Dicker, Vice Chair Max Dowdle, Will Senner, Virginia Smith and Spoon. Nays: None. 5. New business A. 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, installing a wooden balcony and adding hinges and shutter dogs to the current shutters. (PIN 9864-96-3464)
 Spoon declared the public hearing open. He introduced Item 5A. Spoon asked if any commissioners had conflicts of interest regarding this application. Smith said she is a friend of applicant Maureen Quilligan and her husband and asked to recuse herself. Smith noted she had not recused herself from Quilligan’s application at the Dec. 1, 2021, meeting because her vote was needed to reach quorum. Sliger recommended Smith participate tonight since she participated in December. Smith agreed. HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES | 2 of 9 Sliger summarized the staff report. He said the two-story, side-gabled, Colonial Revival-style house is three bays wide and double-pile with a two-story, shed-roofed porch that extends the full width of the façade. The house has plain weatherboards, cornice returns, eight-over-eight wood-sash windows, and an interior brick chimney. Centered on the façade is a three-lite-over-four-panel door with ten-lite sidelights and a one-lite transom. The two-story porch is supported by grouped square posts. A two-story, hip-roofed ell at the rear likely dates from around 1950. It has weatherboards, double-hung wood-sash windows, and a picture window on the left (west) elevation that is flanked by four-over-four windows. An attached, one-story, gabled garage at the rear has a brick veneer and wide brick chimney. The house is sited on top of a small hill framed with manicured boxwoods and historic hardwoods. County tax records date the building to 1926, however the front portion of the building appears on the 1924 Sanborn map. Sliger said the applicant is requesting to renovate the front façade of the house by replacing the middle second-story window with a door, installing a wooden balcony and adding hinges and shutter dogs to the current shutters. He referred the commission members to the application materials in the agenda packet, including a narrative, the existing and proposed elevations and materials list. Sliger said the applicable Design Standards are Windows; Doors; and Porches, Entrances and Balconies. Sliger displayed the new site plan showing the front façade with a wooden balcony. When asked, Sliger said he feels this more traditional wooden balcony is more congruent with the Design Standards than the previously proposed wrought iron balcony. Spoon asked Quilligan if she had any additional information to add. Quilligan said the wooden balcony would not be large but would be sufficient for two people to stand upon. She said the balcony would measure about 18 inches deep and would meet the building code for balconies. Quilligan said the plain balcony would look more like the balcony at Poplar Hill on Burnside Drive than the previously proposed wrought iron balcony. When asked, Sliger said he had received no comments supporting or opposing the application. Spoon asked for the commissioners’ questions, comments or concerns. Smith said she appreciated the color Quilligan had painted the house. When asked, Quilligan said she planned to paint the balcony the same gray as the window trim, adding she also is open to painting it white. Quilligan said she prefers a gray balcony that blends into the plane of the siding, noting white paint would make the balcony stand out. Spoon said Quilligan could work with staff to finalize the color. The commission members generally agreed that the wooden balcony is appropriate as proposed. When asked, Sliger confirmed Quilligan’s porch ceiling replacement is a separate issue from tonight’s application. Quilligan said she would pay the fine for replacing the porch ceiling without the commission’s permission. When asked, Sliger confirmed staff could handle the shutter dogs and hinges as a minor work. Spoon summarized that the commissioners were unanimous in their support of the application. He closed this portion of the public hearing and asked for a motion. HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES | 3 of 9 Motion: Senner moved to find as fact that the Quilligan 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 Standards: Windows; Doors; and Porches, Entrances and Balconies, particularly given the evidence of a pre-existing second-story door and balcony. Spoon seconded. Spoon called the roll for voting. Vote: 6-0. Ayes: Members Altman, Dicker, Dowdle, Senner, Smith and Spoon. Nays: None. Motion: Senner moved to approve the application as submitted. Spoon seconded. Spoon called the roll for voting. Vote: 6-0. Ayes: Members Altman, Dicker, Dowdle, Senner, Smith and Spoon. Nays: None. B. Certificate of Appropriateness Application: 310 N. Cameron St. – Applicant Diane Eckland is requesting to add an addition to the rear of the dwelling, build a roof over the front stoop and build a garage behind the dwelling. (PIN 9874-18-9223)
 Spoon opened the public hearing. He asked if any commission members had conflicts of interest regarding this application. None was raised. Sliger and applicant Diane Eckland were sworn in. Spoon confirmed no one else was present to speak for or against the application. Sliger summarized the staff report. He said the one-story, side-gabled brick Ranch house has Colonial Revival details. The house is four bays wide and double-pile with vinyl windows, an interior brick chimney and an exterior brick chimney on the left (north) elevation. Colonial Revival details include a denticulated cornice at the roofline and fluted pilasters flanking the four-light-over-four-panel door. A picture window in the left end of the façade is flanked by double-hung windows. There is a gabled, screened porch on the left elevation, and a small vinyl-sided gabled wing on the right (south) elevation may be an enclosed porch. County tax records date the building to 1957. Sliger said the applicant is requesting to add an addition to the rear of the dwelling, build a roof over the front stoop and build a garage behind the dwelling. He referred the commission members to the application materials in the agenda packet, including a project narrative with photos of the existing house, proposed materials, a site plan and elevations showing existing and proposed conditions for the proposed projects. The applicable Design Standards are Additions to Residential Buildings; Porches, Entrances and Balconies; Windows; and New Construction of Outbuildings and Garages. Sliger noted Eckland had submitted the documentation the commission members requested at the Dec. 1, 2021, meeting. Sliger said that in his opinion the application meets the Design Standards. Sliger said he researched a 5-year period between 2009-2014 and found the commission approved 20 additions that were 800 square feet or larger. He said most of those structures originally measured about 1,000 square feet and most proposed a final square footage between 1,200 square feet and 2,000 square feet. Sliger read two written public comments he received regarding the application. HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES | 4 of 9 The first written comment, submitted by a former resident of 310 N. Cameron St., Michael Strayhorn, supported Eckland’s renovation plans. Strayhorn wrote that there was never an issue with drainage or moisture while he lived at the property. He said any drainage problems at the neighboring property likely are due to the concrete driveway sloping down into the carport. Regarding Eckland’s plan to remove the non- working chimney, Strayhorn noted a similar non-working chimney had been removed from the neighbors’ house. Sliger confirmed the Historic District Commission has no purview over drainage or inside structure. The commission members requested he skip reading any portions of the next letter over which the commission has no purview. Sliger agreed, noting the commission members also received copies of both written comments. Sliger read several portions of the second written comment, submitted by another former resident of 310 N. Cameron St., Eleanor Beach. Beach wrote she rented the house and researched possibilities for renovation before deciding not to buy it. She said she believes the proposed addition’s height and mass would have an unfavorable impact upon the Swainey neighbors. She noted the Design Standards say additions should be lower and narrower than the original structure. Beach noted the proposed garage would be visible from the street and appears from the side to be a two-story building with a pedestrian door on the south neighbor’s side. She worried the garage could house an upstairs recreation space that would impact the neighbors. Beach wrote there is no existing driveway that could be extended to the rear, only a parking pad. She said any driveway would be totally new and would require grading, filling the flood-prone low spot in the backyard and installing drainage and the fence and plantings discussed at the Dec. 1, 2021, meeting. Sliger noted other aspects of Beach’s written comments addressed topics outside of the commission’s purview. Spoon asked Eckland if she had any information to add. Eckland apologized for not making a personal presentation of her project at the Dec. 1, 2021, meeting. She said she had taken for granted that her more than 40 years of experience doing historic preservation work, particularly in Hillsborough, would speak for itself. She said her work has always been well-received in historic districts around the state. She said she has received several preservation awards, including a lifetime achievement award from the Town of Chapel Hill. Eckland said she had listened to the commission members’ concerns and she appreciated the opportunity to address them, noting she had provided the requested three- dimensional drawings of the proposed project. Eckland gave a brief history of the house, noting it has been long-time rental. She said her goal is to create a marketable home for a family. Eckland said the sellers who built the home were familiar with her work and excited about the potential for their beloved home. She said increasing the square footage of a smaller, single-story home without overwhelming the original structure is always a challenge. She said additions are important tools for preservation that allow homes to be preserved instead of torn down or left to deteriorate. Eckland noted the Historic District contains numerous additions on homes of all sizes, with some additions much larger than their original structures. She said her goal is not to add an addition larger than the house, but to capture as much space as possible on the existing home. She said the roofline of the addition must match the main structure’s roofline as closely as possible in order to add an upstairs bathroom. Eckland said her goal is for the addition to blend into the property. She said that in all the historic districts she has worked in, massing was considered and viewed from the front, not from neighboring properties. She said she plans to add significant foundation plantings to enhance the property and greatly reduce the massing from the neighbors’ viewpoint. Sliger displayed the three-dimensional renderings. Spoon invited the commission members’ comments and questions. HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES | 5 of 9 Senner said he agreed with much of Eckland’s commentary. He said he continued to struggle with the addition’s massing. He agreed the massing viewed from the front is most important but said the side view is quite visible and also should be considered. Senner noted the ground slopes to the rear of the property, creating more massing. Eckland agreed and said she was committed to installing plantings along the addition’s foundation to soften the massing. Senner noted the Design Standards state additions’ height should be lower and width narrower than the original house. He said he would feel comfortable with the massing if Eckland dropped the addition’s roofline slightly below the original structure’s roofline. Senner said he had done a visual survey of rear additions to similar ranch-style houses in the Historic District. He felt a slight drop would make a substantial difference in making the addition feel clearly subordinate to the primary structure. Eckland said she had planned to build the addition’s roofline 3 inches lower than the original structure’s roofline. She said if the roofline were much lower she would not be able to build the upstairs bathroom. Eckland offered to lower the roofline a total of 6 inches. Senner agreed lowering the addition’s roofline 6 inches would help decrease the massing and meeting the standards in section 5 for additions to residential. Dowdle noted that his house at 425 W. King St. has a very similar addition with a roofline that is the same height as the original structure. He said his house is one example of an approved addition, noting that Eckland’s south elevation, which is very visible, is very similar to his own very visible west elevation. Senner agreed there are additions in the Historic District with matching rooflines, saying he calculated about 80% had lower rooflines. Eckland said that she definitely could build the roofline 6 inches lower than the original roofline, and she said she would build it even lower if she finds she can once she is on site. Smith endorsed Eckland’s skills. Dicker said she also had looked at additions in the Historic District and noticed many houses have large, visible additions. She said she had no problems with the addition’s massing. Altman agreed. Spoon agreed and said he could support the application, especially given Eckland’s willingness to meet the standard’s intent. Smith agreed and said she appreciated Eckland taking the commission members’ concerns seriously. When asked, Eckland confirmed she had committed to installing screening plantings and a screening fence along the driveway if she moves forward with building the garage and driveway. Sliger recommended adding a condition requiring a landscape plan be submitted as a minor work if the driveway is extended and the garage built. Eckland agreed. Spoon noted that Eckland could submit a lighting plan to staff as a minor work. He said staff could approve exterior lighting in traditional locations. Spoon said he considers traditional locations to be one or two shielded lights at doors, not indiscriminate lighting or floodlights. Eckland confirmed she does not plan to install indiscriminate lighting or floodlights. There were no other questions, comments or concerns. HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES | 6 of 9 Spoon summarized that the commission members seem comfortable approving the application with slight alterations, including lowering the addition’s roofline 6 inches. Spoon declared this portion of the public hearing closed and asked for a motion. Motion: Senner moved to find as fact that the Eckland 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 Standards: Additions to Residential Buildings; Porches, Entrances and Balconies; Windows; and New Construction of Outbuildings and Garages. Spoon seconded. Spoon called the roll for voting. Vote: 6-0. Ayes: Members Altman, Dicker, Dowdle, Senner, Smith and Spoon. Nays: None. Motion: Senner moved to approve the application with conditions. Spoon seconded. Spoon called the roll for voting. Vote: 6-0. Ayes: Members Altman, Dicker, Dowdle, Senner, Smith and Spoon. Nays: None. Conditions: The addition’s roofline shall be at least 6 inches lower than the original roofline. The applicant shall submit a lighting plan to staff for approval as a minor work. If the garage is built and the driveway extended, the applicant shall submit a landscape plan to staff for approval as a minor work. C. Certificate of Appropriateness Application: 314 W. Margaret Lane – Applicants Tim Logue and Regina Baratta are requesting to install a 7-foot wooden privacy fence along the north border of the property. (PIN 9864-86- 3060)
 Spoon opened the public hearing. He asked if any commission members had conflicts of interest regarding this application. None was raised. Sliger and applicants Tim Logue and Regina Baratta were sworn in. Spoon confirmed no one else was present to speak for or against the application. Sliger summarized the staff report. He said the one-story, side-gabled, Minimal Traditional-style house is three bays wide and double-pile with a brick veneer, interior brick chimney and eight-over-eight wood-sash windows with soldier course lintels. Centered on a projecting gabled bay, the six-panel door has a fluted surround and is sheltered by a small front-gabled porch supported by square posts with plywood sheathing in the gable. A partially inset shed-roofed porch on the left (west) end of the façade is supported by square posts. There is a shed-roofed storage area at the basement level of the right (east) elevation. County tax records date the building to 1951. Sliger said the applicants are proposing to install a 7-foot wooden privacy fence along the north border of the property. He referred the commission members to the application materials included in the agenda packet, including a project narrative, site plan and police reports. Sliger said the applicable Design Standard is Fences. When asked, Sliger clarified the Design Standards limit privacy fences to 6 feet in height. He said the applicants are requesting a 7-foot fence. Sliger said the 6-foot height limit is found on Page 146 in the Ordinary Maintenance and Repair and Minor Works appendix to the Design Standards. Sliger said there are HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES | 7 of 9 several 7-foot fences in the Historic District that were approved based on the elevations of the surrounding properties. Spoon asked the applicants if they had any information to add. Baratta confirmed that she and Logue are requesting a taller fence because of the elevation slope in their backyard. She said the sight line from their backyard hits their neighbor’s back deck. She said she and Logue want some privacy between the two properties. Baratta noted the neighboring house is a rental and said they have had numerous issues with varying tenants over the years. She referenced the police reports included in their application. Sliger displayed a photograph of the applicants’ backyard view of the neighbors’ deck. Logue added there is a line of privet just over the property line on the neighbor’s side but said it is unkempt. He said he and Baratta have added plantings to screen the view but they will not mature to screen the deck for some time. He said the tenants tend to congregate on the back deck, which is 7.5 feet off the ground. Logue said the neighbors would still be able to see into their backyard even with the fence, but he and Baratta feel that the fence still would improve their privacy. Logue said he had communicated with the Gates Management property manager about their plans for a fence. Logue said the property manager liked the idea of the fence. He said the property owner did not give feedback. Spoon asked for the commission members’ thoughts, questions or concerns. Altman said he did not have any problems with the 7-foot fence, noting there are precedents in the Historic District. He said he thought a 7-foot fence is appropriate in this situation, given that the neighbors’ deck dominates the applicants’ backyard and any screening plants would not mature for quite some time. Dicker agreed with Altman but asked Logue if a 7-foot fence would give them enough privacy, considering the height of the neighboring deck. Logue said he and Baratta ultimately intend to plant evergreen screening plants that will grow taller than 7 feet. He said they would like to install the fence for immediate relief, given the number of issues they have had in the last year and a half. Baratta noted that Logue is a gardener and spends a lot of time in their backyard. The applicants and the commission members briefly discussed types of screening plants. Smith agreed that the 7-foot fence is reasonable in this situation, since the fence is located in the back of the property. Dicker, Dowdle, Senner and Spoon agreed. There were no other questions, comments or concerns. Spoon closed this portion of the public hearing and asked for a motion. Motion: Altman moved to find as fact that the Logue/Baratta 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 Standards: Fences. Spoon seconded. Spoon called the roll for voting. Vote: 6-0. Ayes: Members Altman, Dicker, Dowdle, Senner, Smith and Spoon. Nays: None. HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES | 8 of 9 Motion: Altman moved to approve the application as submitted. Spoon seconded. Spoon called the roll for voting. Vote: 6-0. Ayes: Members Altman, Dicker, Dowdle, Senner, Smith and Spoon. Nays: None. D. Approve meeting schedule for 2022. Sliger introduced Item 5D. He said the commission members must approve the commission’s 2022 meeting dates. The commission members discussed whether to cancel or reschedule the July 6, 2022, meeting to accommodate members’ vacation schedules. After a brief discussion, the commission members decided not to cancel or reschedule that meeting. Motion: Spoon moved to approve the Historic District Commission’s 2022 meeting schedule as proposed. Dicker seconded. Spoon called the roll for voting. Vote: 6-0. Ayes: Members Altman, Dicker, Dowdle, Senner, Smith and Spoon. Nays: None. Motion: Spoon moved to close the public hearing for all applications. Smith seconded Spoon called the roll for voting. Vote: 6-0. Ayes: Members Altman, Dicker, Dowdle, Senner, Smith and Spoon. Nays: None. 6. Updates A. Staff Updates Sliger updated the commission members on an upcoming case. He said a development company renovated the house at 421 W. Corbin St. without seeking a Certificate of Appropriateness. He said the development company likely was aware they were in violation but has since sold the house. Sliger said the new owners say they were not aware of the violation. He said the case could come before the commission at the Feb. 2, 2022, meeting. He confirmed he would request Town Attorney Bob Hornik attend that meeting. Sliger summarized the changes that were made to the house without permission. When asked, Sliger updated the commission members on the Axelbank case at 330 W. King St. Sliger said he has been in contact with the Axelbanks’ attorney and said a deadline for their response is approaching. Sliger updated the commission members regarding a definition of historic brick, which the members requested at the Dec. 1, 2021, meeting. Sliger said he asked preservationists in several other North Carolina historic districts if they have a definition for historic brick. Sliger said those preservationists treat all brick materials the same way. He said one preservationist suggested using the dates bricks were laid and defining a cut-off date; for example, he said any brick laid before 1950 might be considered historic. When asked, he confirmed discrepancies in tax records could make using a cut-off date difficult. When asked, Sliger confirmed he is comfortable with the commission making periodic changes to the Design Standards, noting he would like a little more time to get familiar with the Design Standards. He confirmed he HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES | 9 of 9 would keep a list of changes the members suggest and would bring the list to the commission for consideration when it reaches a certain length. 7. Adjournment Motion: Dicker moved to adjourn at 8:01 p.m. Spoon seconded. Spoon called the roll for voting. Vote: 6-0. Ayes: Members Altman, Dicker, Dowdle, Senner, Smith and Spoon. Nays: None. Respectfully submitted, Tyler Sliger Town Planner Staff support to the Historic District Commission Approved: Month X, 202X