Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout09-01-2021 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 9 Minutes HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION Remote regular meeting 6:30 p.m. September 1, 2021 Virtual meeting via YouTube Live Town of Hillsborough YouTube channel Present: Chair Jill Heilman, Vice Chair Virginia Smith, Eric Altman, Candice Cobb, Max Dowdle and William Spoon Absent: Megan Kimball Staff: Town Attorney Bob Hornik and Public Space Manager Stephanie Trueblood 1. Call to order, roll call, and confirmation of quorum Chair Jill Heilman called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. Public Space Manager Stephanie Trueblood called the roll and confirmed the presence of a quorum, noting that member Max Dowdle was not yet present. 2. Commission’s mission statement Heilman read the statement. Heilman introduced Town Attorney Bob Hornik, Alison Blanton of Hill Studio and Trueblood, who is providing interim staff support for the commission following Planner Justin Snyder’s departure for another position. Heilman said Snyder also handled commission-related minor works, which Economic Development Planner Shannan Campbell will handle during the interim period while Snyder’s replacement is found. Heilman added Planning Director Margaret Hauth will handle commission-related enforcement issues during the interim period. Dowdle arrived at 6:33 p.m. Heilman said the town hopes to fill Snyder’s position quickly. Heilman thanked Trueblood for her support, noting that Trueblood had provided staff support to the commission for many years until about 5 years ago. Heilman noted that member Candice Cobb’s and her own terms both expire this month and said two new members will join the commission in October. Heilman said she and Trueblood would help the new members transition onto the commission. Heilman reminded the commission members that they met Blanton of Hill Studio at the August 4, 2021, meeting when Blanton helped give a presentation on the revised Historic District Design Standards. Heilman said Blanton is here tonight to help answer any final questions the members have regarding the new standards. 3. Agenda changes There were no changes. The agenda stood as presented. Later in the meeting, the commission discussed Item 7B before discussing Item 7A. 4. Minutes review and approval Minutes from regular meeting on August 4, 2021. HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES | 2 of 9 Motion: Cobb moved approval of the August 4, 2021, minutes as submitted. Vice Chair Virginia Smith seconded. Heilman called the roll for voting. Vote: 6-0. Ayes: Members Eric Altman, Cobb, Dowdle, Heilman, Smith and William Spoon. Nays: None. 5. Old business Heilman noted that at last month’s meeting the commission members had deferred several items regarding the new standards to tonight’s meeting. She said the commission could cover those items as part of the adoption of the new standards later in the meeting. Heilman reminded the commission members that they have received emails regarding Certified Local Government Program trainings available to them. She said commission members have an obligation to attend trainings on a regular basis and said the emailed offers would meet that obligation. She outlined the steps members should take to receive training credit. Trueblood asked members to email her if they complete the trainings so that she can keep track of who has completed trainings. There was no other old business. 6. New business A. Commission adoption of Design Standards. Heilman said the board’s objective tonight is to identify any final changes to be made to the new Historic District Design Standards and to adopt the new standards provided they are acceptable to the members. Heilman acknowledged and thanked the staff of Hill Studio, the Town of Hillsborough staff and the commission members who contributed to revising the new standards. Heilman reviewed the objectives of the Design Standards update: to comprehensively revise and update the standards to address inconsistencies, issues and deficiencies that the commission members had identified; to create a more user-friendly document in a digital medium, rich in content as well as illustration; to provide the commission with updated standards to support consistent and defensible decisions, as required by N.C.G.S. 160D; and to create a document easy for the town to update in the future. Heilman outlined several specific areas the commission had noticed needed updating or including: sustainable energy and green technology; disaster preparedness; infill development; distinguishing between commercial and residential buildings; incorporating mixed-use, multi-family and accessory dwelling units; updating and including the Historic District Commission Compatibility Matrix within the standards; and addressing parks, cemeteries and public spaces. Heilman noted the town sought community input via surveys, the results of which were incorporated into the new standards. Heilman asked the commission members if they feel the objectives have been met, or if they have any significant concerns to raise. Noting that the new standards document would be easier to update than the previous guidelines document, Smith asked how commission members should suggest a change to the document in the future. Heilman said the commission could vote to adopt future changes. She said the current guidelines document was updated in that way every year starting in 2007. HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES | 3 of 9 Spoon noted his absence at last month’s meeting and asked if there had been a second round of public comments regarding the final draft of the new document. Heilman nodded yes and said the July 30 version was made available for public comment. She said that while there were some comments, many were tangential. Spoon asked if the commission had replied to the public comments. Heilman said the small working group had discussed public follow-up and said the commission should discuss what follow-up actions should be taken. Spoon said he wants to know that the commission is being responsive to the public before finalizing the document. Heilman clarified that the survey responses were anonymous and cannot be responded to individually. Heilman outlined several public follow-up options, including writing answers to frequently asked questions (FAQs) and making educational videos to clarify areas that can be confusing. When asked, Heilman summarized the most relevant responses from the first survey, saying respondents had asked for a more user-friendly document and for the standards to address green energy, infill development and alternative materials. Heilman said the second survey yielded comments that were less useful. Cobb agreed the comments from the second survey were not very relevant. Trueblood suggested placing a copy of the public comments in the project file, after which staff could annotate how each comment was addressed. Heilman noted that she, Kimball and Cobb made such notes on the first round of survey results. Heilman said her takeaway from the surveys is that there is a gap in education about the commission’s purpose and function, which she hopes can be addressed by releasing FAQs and educational videos. Heilman said some members of the public emailed their comments directly to Snyder, to which he responded directly. Heilman reiterated that the survey comments were anonymous and cannot be responded to individually. Heilman asked if the commission members have any other significant concerns about the new standards document, summarizing Spoon’s comments regarding an action plan to address public response. No other concerns were raised. Heilman noted that Snyder had planned to update the commission website to align with the new standards and to make it more accessible. She said that the website update will be tabled until Snyder’s replacement arrives. Trueblood clarified that the new standards document will be posted on the website. When asked, she clarified that the current guidelines document would be taken offline when the new standards document is posted. Heilman noted that the new document does have copy mistakes, including typos, subject-verb agreement issues and line break issues. She said the Hillsborough Public Information Office has agreed to review the final version of the new standards document and address such copy issues before it is placed on the website. She said all the mistakes that were noted on the July 30 draft have been addressed in tonight’s final draft, but she noted the main priority for tonight’s final draft was ensuring the content was correct. Heilman added that Snyder had asked Hill Studio to ensure the final document is gender-neutral, which they did. She said the Public Information Office also will review the final document with an eye toward being gender-neutral as part of the commission’s equity and inclusion principles. Heilman added that Hill Studio also will provide the town with all of the document’s graphics for easier updating in the future and will train town staff on how to update the new document. When asked, Blanton confirmed that training likely would happen by end of September. Heilman said she has identified two graphics that would benefit from revision, which Hill Studio will update within the next several days. Heilman described the two graphics. Alison confirmed she likely could update the graphics quickly. Heilman outlined the revision process regarding the July 30 draft and the August 27 draft. She said the July 30 draft received nearly 500 comments from the commission members, which Hill Studio addressed with help HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES | 4 of 9 from Heilman and Snyder. Heilman says she believes those comments were comprehensively addressed, with the exception of the comments to be discussed tonight. Heilman said she paid particular attention to comments regarding the distinctions between standards and recommendations; she said all such distinctions appear to have been changed appropriately. Heilman added that the final version includes an updated town history that is more inclusive of African-Americans and women. Heilman noted that some comments from community members or commission members were added from outside of the document, offering Spoon’s language regarding trees as an example that is in the document for discussion tonight. Heilman added there were many comments in Section 5 regarding treatment of new construction in the Historic District, the solution to which is included in Section 5 of the final draft. Heilman noted again that she and Snyder had reviewed the comments from the public and had provided wording guidance to Hill Studio to incorporate the comments that were relevant and substantive. She said some of the language regarding sustainability and windows might still need tweaking and could be discussed tonight. Heilman said Snyder had updated the Historic District Commission Compatibility Matrix to reflect the use of Trex, which appears in tonight’s final draft. Heilman said she had reorganized the section on minor works to reflect the new document’s organization, noting she had not changed any content. She said she also had reviewed the minor works section with reference to the new standards and had flagged any inconsistencies for the commission to discuss tonight. Heilman said the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office had reviewed the July 30 draft and provided comments that were incorporated into the final version. Heilman asked if the commission members had any questions about the revision process since July 30. Spoon clarified he had provided many versions of his comments regarding trees over the past year and a half, noting he had tried many times to change the standard through the normal revision process. Heilman acknowledged that Spoon had raised his comments multiple times, including inside the document. Heilman asked if other commission members had any comments or questions. None was raised. Heilman noted that one issue deferred from the August 4, 2021, meeting to tonight’s meeting regards whether to allow staff to approve as a minor work the use of Trex composite on the top rail of a porch or deck that is on the side or rear of a house. Heilman noted that currently Trex is only allowed for porch or deck flooring on the side or rear of a house. After a brief discussion including input from Hornik, Blanton and Trueblood, the commission members decided not to change the minor works section to allow Trex as a top porch rail, noting that property owners still could apply for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) to use Trex on the top rail of a porch. When asked, Hauth shared her screen with the proposed changes. Heilman noted that space for changes in the new standards document is limited because the document already has been laid out. Heilman said any changes they discuss might need minor editing to ensure the changes fit. Regarding the minor works table on Page 16 of the final draft, Heilman said the proposed change would clarify that, while property owners can remove small damaged or diseased trees of any size as ordinary maintenance and repair, removing mature damaged or diseased trees would require meeting certain criteria with a verification letter from a certified arborist. Heilman noted that the table is meant as a quick reference, with HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES | 5 of 9 the full language available as an appendix. Heilman asked if any commission members had questions or concerns. None was raised. Regarding the flow chart of the Certificate of Appropriateness process on Page 17 of the final draft, Heilman noted that the proposed change corrects some previous incorrect language and also adds a sentence clarifying that the applicant must obtain any required permits before work begins. Smith and Cobb noted two typos in the corrected version. Hauth said staff would correct any copy mistakes. Heilman asked the members to focus on content changes. The commission members raised no further concerns. Regarding “Changes to Approved COA” on Page 17 of the final draft, Heilman noted that this section allows staff to approve as a minor work changes to previously approved Certificates of Appropriateness that staff has deemed insubstantial or minor in nature. Heilman said the proposed change would add that staff can approve as a minor work changes that meet certain criteria. The commission members raised no concerns. Regarding “Windows Considerations” on Page 50, Heilman noted the proposed changes to this section are more substantial. She said the windows section received a lot of community feedback, noting that people want to replace their windows or are concerned they cannot replace their windows. Heilman said the “Windows Consideration” section outlines how people can replace their windows. Heilman suggested changing the amount of total air loss from residential windows to read “less than 25%” to reflect recent research. Heilman said that property owners frequently ask if they can replace their historic windows with double-pane windows and noted that the answer depends on many situational factors. Heilman said the changes in this section are intended to signal that the commission is open to considering window replacement, noting the commission would have to evaluate each application before granting permission. Heilman said that the most sustainable choice often is to seal and caulk old windows rather than disposing of them in the landfill. Heilman noted that the language in this section is intended to encourage and raise awareness of energy-efficient windows. The commission members had no questions or concerns. Regarding Window Standard 6 on Page 51, Heilman noted that one survey respondent said, “I have 1980 PVC windows, and I was told I couldn’t replace them because they’re historic.” Heilman said this is unlikely to have been accurate based on the standards, noting that there is no way to know who gave the respondent that information. Heilman noted that windows are a very confusing point. Trueblood said the changes to this section are intended to clarify the commission’s position. Heilman said writing FAQs could help respond to such confusion by providing more education about the window standards. Heilman noted that the previous language read simply, “Avoid replacing historic single-pane windows with contemporary double-pane windows.” She compared the previous language with the proposed wording, which reads, “Historic single- pane windows should be replaced with contemporary double-pane windows only when other methods to assure their energy efficiency are not feasible.” Heilman asked if the proposed language is too open-ended, saying she was trying to walk the line between respecting historic preservation and signaling openness to window replacement. She acknowledged there are cases in which windows have deteriorated too much to be salvageable, but she said in many cases single-pane windows can be caulked and weather-stripped to be more energy efficient. The commission members discussed whether the proposed new language should be a recommendation or a standard. After a brief discussion, the members agreed to change the word “should” to “may” and to incorporate the proposed language as part of the standard. Trueblood pointed out that wording should be added addressing windows that have deteriorated beyond repair, noting that the county Planning and Inspections Department would require double-pane windows in such a case. The commission members HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES | 6 of 9 agreed that rewriting the standard in committee would be difficult, and with the commission members’ consent Heilman and Smith agreed to continue refining the wording after the meeting. Regarding “Sustainability and Energy Retrofit Considerations” on Page 64, Heilman said incorporating sustainable technology within the Historic District received a lot of community feedback. She noted the proposed new language is intended to signal that the commission is open to considering sustainable technologies such as solar panels, wind turbines, geothermal heating and green roofs, as long as their addition does not impact compatibility with the Historic District. Heilman said the proposed new language is very similar to the previous language but offers more examples, noting that there may not be room on the page for so many examples. Smith said she thinks including just one example, such as solar panels, is sufficient to signal the commission’s openness to sustainable technologies. The commission members briefly discussed other wording changes and agreed to retain the rest of the proposed new language. Regarding “Sustainability and Energy Retrofit” on Page 64, Heilman noted that she and Snyder had discussed inserting a text box emphasizing the commission’s alignment with the town’s sustainability goals. Heilman said this page is very crowded and thus the storm door picture would have to be deleted to make room for the text box. Heilman outlined the proposed text box’s content, which would state the commission’s commitment to encourage sustainable technologies and to continue reviewing sustainable energy technologies as they evolve. No concerns were raised. Heilman added she recently found a website about sustainable development code that captures examples of sustainable development ordinances around the country. Heilman said the new standards’ language is consistent with that website’s examples regarding sustainable technologies in historic districts. Regarding Standard 7 on Page 65 and the corresponding minor work section on Page 140, Heilman said some community feedback had asked for roof ridge vents to be allowed as a minor work. Noting that other roof vents already are allowed as minor works, Heilman said the proposed change would allow low-profile roof ridge vents consistent with roof materials that do not impact historic roofing materials and details. Heilman noted that in order to qualify as a minor work the roof ridge vents must match historic roof materials and must not destroy historic roofing materials and details. No concerns were raised. Regarding Standard 9 on Page 67 and the corresponding minor work on Page 141 regarding window-mounted air conditioning units, Heilman said the proposed change would align the minor work’s language with the standard’s language, clarifying that such units must be mounted on inconspicuous elevations. The commission members agreed with the change. Regarding the introduction to Section 5 on Page 71, Heilman said the proposed change would clarify language that was confusing. She said the previous language said, “successful applications are encouraged,” which is illogical. The new language would clarify, “applications for new construction and additions are encouraged and are most successful when communication with town staff occurs early in the design process.” No concerns were raised. Regarding “Additions to Residential Buildings” on Page 88, Heilman said she and Cobb had discussed adding a picture of a very modern addition to a traditional residential building, space permitting. Cobb confirmed she has a suitable photograph of the Hallman addition at West Tryon Street and Wake Street. No concerns were raised. Regarding “Site Features and Plantings Considerations” on Page 94, Heilman said she added a link and updated the appendix numbering to the language that Snyder and Spoon had proposed. Spoon confirmed he HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES | 7 of 9 approves the language. When asked, Heilman said the language refers to trees that can be removed with staff approval. She said the language discourages tree removal except when absolutely necessary. Heilman confirmed this language is not within the standard itself but within a context-setting paragraph. Trueblood said she thinks the language in this section is helpful and clarifying. Heilman noted two other proposed changes that clarify a tree can be removed if it poses a clear and immediate threat to public safety. When asked, Heilman said there should be room for the proposed changes on Page 94. No concerns were raised. Regarding installation of solar panels and other roof equipment allowed as a minor work on Page 141, Heilman said the proposed language would specify that such equipment should not be easily visible from the street rather than from the public right-of-way. Heilman said Trueblood had suggested the change after pointing out that the public right-of-way can be quite wide. Cobb and Smith agreed with the change. No concerns were raised. Heilman summarized that the changes presented tonight would make the new standards document more internally consistent and would better respond to community feedback regarding windows and sustainable energy use in the Historic District. She asked if other commission members had any changes to propose. None was indicated. When asked, the commission members agreed that the proposed changes could be edited to fit within the space available on each respective page. Smith said the images are helpful and it would be nice to keep as many images as possible. Heilman agreed and said she only proposes removing one image in order to emphasize the commission’s alignment with the town’s sustainability goals; she noted sustainability was a big theme in the community feedback. Smith said she understands. Motion: Heilman moved to adopt the Hillsborough Historic District Design Standards to be effective on September 3, 2021, with the conditions that the changes identified and agreed upon at tonight’s meeting are addressed and that the final copy editing of the document is performed by the Hillsborough Public Information Office, consistent with N.C.G.S. 160D-947, Section C. Altman seconded. Heilman called the roll for voting. Vote: 6-0. Ayes: Altman, Cobb, Dowdle, Heilman, Smith and Spoon. Nays: None. Heilman thanked Blanton for her work and guidance. Blanton said she would get back to Heilman the next day regarding when the two graphics discussed could be updated. Hauth congratulated the commission members and Blanton, noting they had addressed the project objectives and had finished on time and on budget. She noted that the funding partner is satisfied and that it is time for the document to be released to the public. She said updating the design guidelines to design standards was a very big job that had been well done. Heilman agreed and thanked Hauth for her acknowledgement. Heilman noted the new standards document will not be a static document and that future commissions will be able to update and adjust the standards appropriately to respond to future situations. Regarding the commission’s response to the community feedback, Heilman asked Spoon if he feels satisfied that releasing FAQs, educational videos and a press release would sufficiently address the community feedback or if he feels more could be done. Spoon said Heilman had satisfied his concerns. Heilman noted some ways the survey could have been better designed. Heilman thanked the commission members for their input and work on the updated standards. HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES | 8 of 9 7. Updates A. Discussion on staffing and updates for October and beyond.
 The commission discussed Item 7A after Item 7B. Trueblood said the commission members have done a great job updating the Historic District Design Standards. Noting Snyder’s departure, Trueblood said that this is a hard time to lose Heilman and Cobb. She said the town board will appoint the two new commission members at the town board’s September 13, 2021, meeting. She said the new members’ terms will start on October 1, 2021, while Heilman’s and Cobb’s terms will end officially at the end of September, allowing Trueblood to consult Heilman and Cobb about ongoing applications and enforcement issues through the end of September. Trueblood asked for the commission members’ understanding over the next several months, noting that she will be performing her own job as Public Space Manager while also supporting the commission. Trueblood said she and staff will do the best they can to support the commission through this transition. She said hopefully the Planning Department would be able to hire Snyder’s replacement very soon. When asked, Trueblood said the town would post the planner position very soon. She said the town tends to have a good applicant pool, noting that currently there is a lot of movement within the field of government workers. She said the town hopes to have the position filled by the end of 2021. When asked, Trueblood clarified that staff does not have a dedicated code enforcement position, clarifying that Planning Department staff handles code enforcement. Hauth added that the planner position will support the commission and also will be the code enforcement officer. Hauth clarified that the town’s other open position is for a planning technician, and she updated the commission on progress toward filling the planning technician position. B. Recognition of Jill Heilman and Candice Cobb for their service to the Commission. The commission discussed Item 7B before Item 7A. Heilman recognized Cobb’s many years of service on the commission, noting that tonight is Cobb’s final meeting. Heilman said Cobb served on the small committee for updating the Historic District Design Standards and took wonderful photographs that improved the updated document. Cobb thanked the commission for the certificate of service she had received. Cobb confirmed she has served on the commission for 9 years. Cobb thanked the commission members and said that tonight also is Heilman’s last meeting. Cobb said Heilman had done an enormous amount of work on the updated standards and said the commission members are grateful for the many hours Heilman put into the project. Smith agreed. Heilman thanked the members and said she had benefited and learned a lot from the project and from serving on the commission. Smith said Heilman had done a great job leading the commission and noted her kindness to applicants who did not receive the outcome they wished for from the commission. Heilman thanked Smith. Heilman asked if staff had heard any response regarding the Axelbank project at 330 W. King Street. Hauth indicated she has heard no response from Axelbank. Heilman proposed that she and Smith meet to discuss transition issues, including follow-up for the Axelbank project as well as other ongoing issues. Heilman noted that Smith is the commission’s vice chair, noting that the commission would elect officers at the October 6, 2021, meeting. 8. Adjournment Heilman thanked the commission members for their work tonight and all of their work on the Historic District Design Standards update project over the past 9 months. HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES | 9 of 9 Motion: Smith moved to adjourn at 8:23 p.m. Cobb seconded. Heilman called the roll for voting. Vote: 6-0. Ayes: Altman, Cobb, Dowdle, Heilman, Smith and Spoon. Nays: None. Respectfully submitted, Stephanie Trueblood Public Space Manager Staff support to the Historic District Commission Approved: October 6, 2021