Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout06-01-2022 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 11 Minutes HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION Regular meeting 6:30 p.m. June 1, 2022 Board Meeting Room of Town Hall Annex, 105 E. Corbin St. Present: Chair Will Senner, Elizabeth Dicker, Hannah Peele and Bruce Spencer Absent: Vice Chair Max Dowdle and Eric Altman Staff: Town Attorney Bob Hornik and Planning and Economic Development Manager Shannan Campbell 1. Call to order, roll call, and confirmation of quorum Planning and Economic Development Manager Shannan Campbell called the meeting to order at 6:33 p.m. Campbell said she would run the first part of the meeting because there was no commission chair and Vice Chair Max Dowdle could not be present. Campbell confirmed the presence of a quorum, noting member Eric Altman also was absent. 2. Commission’s mission statement Campbell read the statement. 3. Agenda changes Campbell proposed changing Item 6C regarding electing a new commission chair to Item 5A and changing subsequent item numbers appropriately. Motion: Member Will Senner moved to approve the agenda with the discussed change. Member Hannah Peele seconded. Vote: 4-0. 4. Minutes review and approval Minutes from regular meeting on May 4, 2022. Motion: Member Elizabeth Dicker moved approval of the May 4, 2022, minutes as submitted. Senner seconded. Vote: 4-0. 5. Old business A. Elect Commission Chair Motion: Dicker moved to nominate Senner as Historic District Commission chair. Member Bruce Spencer seconded. Senner accepted the nomination. Vote: 4-0. HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES | 2 of 11 B. Certificate of Appropriateness Application: 220 S. Churton St. — Applicant Patrick Cummings is requesting to fill in an old basement access. (PIN 9874-05-4774) Senner introduced Item 5B. He declared the public hearing open for this item. Senner asked if any commission members had conflicts of interest regarding this application. None was raised. Campbell and applicant Patrick Cummings were sworn in. Campbell summarized the staff report and entered it into the record. She noted the building was built in 1932 and is not listed as a contributing structure. She said the applicant proposes filing in a basement access, noting there is water intrusion because the access is below grade. She said the building originally was a car dealership and had been altered significantly over the years. Campbell displayed photos of the existing building and the included rendering, noting it is illustrative only. She said the applicant would coordinate the plantings shown with the neighboring property owner if possible. She said the HVAC equipment might need to be brought to grade depending on the project’s final engineering. When asked, Cummings said he was happy to answer questions. He said he does not propose changing the drainage, windows or lighting above grade. He said if the HVAC equipment needs to be raised, he would move it straight up from its current location. Cummings said the material would be concrete and would have consistent landscaping around it. He said the goal is to create a seating area for Volume, the neighboring record store and taproom, and for people in the community. When asked, Cummings confirmed the project’s intention is to create community access space rather than parking or vehicular access space. Senner and Cummings discussed the project’s grading. Cummings described the project’s intended grading, noting water would drain away from the building. He confirmed the grading probably would cover part of the mural on the side of Volume but said he would minimize or avoid the impact if possible. Campbell noted public murals are expected to last 1-to-2 years and said she would reach out to the mural artist if necessary to address any potential impacts. Cummings noted any required railing would comply with the Design Standards. When asked, Campbell said a railing could be approved as a minor work as long as it was a compatible material. When asked, Cummings confirmed he does not propose adding lighting or any permanent seating structures. The commission members discussed requiring the applicant to screen the HVAC unit if it needed to be relocated or elevated. Cummings agreed he could screen the HVAC unit. When asked, Cummings confirmed the application is primarily for concrete hardscaping. He said any landscaping would comply with Hillsborough’s zoning code. He said he does not intend any materials or construction other than what is shown on the application. When asked, Cummings displayed the rendering and pointed out the HVAC unit’s proposed location. Senner noted there was no one to speak on the item. He declared the public hearing closed for this item. Dicker and Senner discussed adding conditions to the application regarding railings, impacts to the mural and screening the HVAC unit. HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES | 3 of 11 Motion: Dicker moved to find as fact that the 220 S. Churton St. 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 and Doors. Spencer seconded. Vote: 4-0. Motion: Senner moved to approve the application with conditions. Dicker seconded. Vote: 4-0. Conditions: The HVAC unit shall be screened in a manner consistent with the Design Standards. Any required railings shall be of a compatible material and submitted to staff as a minor work. Any impacts to the adjacent mural shall be reviewed with staff and addressed as needed. C. Certificate of Appropriateness After-the-Fact Application: 421 W. Corbin St. — Applicants Gabriel and Carrie Sealey-Morris are requesting to paint the house’s exterior, remove a chimney and change out windows with a different configuration. (PIN 9864-78-2842) Senner introduced Item 5C. He declared the public hearing open for this item. Senner asked if any commission members had conflicts of interest regarding this application. None was raised. Attorney Sam Coleman was sworn in. Town Attorney Bob Hornik said this item was being continued from the May 4, 2022, meeting and thus Coleman remained sworn in from that previous meeting. Campbell noted at the May 4, 2022, meeting, the commission members asked the applicant to determine the replacement door and windows’ materials. She said the commission members also decided at that meeting that the removal of an integrated brick planter and metal patio railings were part of the after-the-fact scope of work for this application. Coleman said the replacement front door is steel and displayed a picture of the door’s tag. He noted he also removed the door’s screws to confirm the door is steel. He said the replacement windows are vinyl with added front aluminum cladding. Coleman noted the vinyl is not apparent from the front. He said his clients would be willing to install windows complying with the Compatibility Matrix, noting the process of ordering windows could take eight months or more. Coleman noted the Design Standards discourage throwing windows into a landfill and said approving some or all of the current windows would mean they would not be thrown away. Coleman noted the previous owner had removed the integrated planter and painted a rock wall in the right of way. He reminded the commission members that the previous owner, not his clients, had made the changes being discussed in tonight’s after-the-fact application. Coleman said the commission members discussed the painted brick at the last meeting and determined the brick is not historic brick in terms of how brick has been viewed by other commissions. He gave several examples of older brick buildings in town that have been painted, noting they add to the variety of buildings in town. Coleman said removing the paint would involve damaging the brick. Senner noted the front door is steel, which is not a compatible material for a replacement front door. When asked, Coleman confirmed the applicants are comfortable replacing the vinyl windows with windows of a compatible material. Senner asked for the commission members’ thoughts about requiring the applicants to replace the windows with those made of more compatible material in the district. HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES | 4 of 11 Dicker and Spencer agreed the after-the-fact nature of the application is very troubling. Senner and Spencer agreed to return to the question of the windows after discussing other parts of the application. Regarding the painted brick, Senner noted he researched ways other historic districts and the National Park Service have removed paint from brick without damaging the brick. He said he would be happy to share the information, noting the methods are often successful but must be done carefully and professionally. Hornik said the commission members should focus on the standard of congruency within the Historic District. He said the legal standard is whether there are other painted brick structures in the Historic District in the same time period. Senner and Hornik discussed the tension between the fact of other painted brick structures in the Historic District and the Design Standards, which say brick that has not previously been painted should remain unpainted. Hornik agreed the Design Standards’ preference is to leave brick unpainted. The commission members discussed examples other painted brick in the Historic District. Dicker noted the commission recently had approved painting brick, thus setting a precedent that painted brick is not completely incongruous. She said in this case she would have preferred the brick remain unpainted, but given the exceptional nature of this case and the work it would take to remove the paint, she felt comfortable approving the paint. Peele agreed she felt comfortable approving the paint. She said as a minor point she felt the white color was incongruous. She agreed there are enough brick structures in the Historic District to find painting the brick congruent with the Historic District. Peele said noting in the record that this case is an exception would help her feel more comfortable approving the painted brick. When asked, Hornik said the commission members could make sure the record of discussion of the motion reflects that if this was a new application, painting the brick might not be approved. He agreed approving the paint creates a risk that other applicants might submit after-the-fact applications after having already done work that cannot be reversed. Hornik suggested the penalty for after-the-fact applications could be increased. Campbell agreed to research increasing the after-the-fact penalty. Spencer said he is in favor of not requiring the paint to be removed but noting for the record the exceptional nature of this case. Dicker asked if the commission members felt comfortable requiring the windows to be replaced. Senner said he felt there was consensus that all the windows should be replaced with windows of a compatible material. The other commission members agreed. Senner declared the public hearing closed. Coleman noted the applicants had agreed at the last meeting to screen the HVAC unit. He clarified the HVAC unit had not yet been screened but confirmed it would be screened. The commission members discussed whether the vinyl windows should be replaced with windows matching the original windows’ lite configuration. After some discussion, the commission members agreed the replacement windows should be either true divided lite windows or windows with no lites and should be submitted to staff for approval. HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES | 5 of 11 Motion: Peele moved to find as fact that the 421 W. Corbin St. 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: Masonry; Paint and Exterior Color; Windows; Doors; Site Features and Plantings. Senner seconded. Vote: 4-0. Motion: Senner moved to approve the application with conditions. Spencer seconded. Campbell suggested adding compliance dates to the approval, noting a notice of violation already had been sent and replacement windows could take a long time to arrive. She suggested requiring the windows be replaced within one year. Senner agreed and said the HVAC screening should be completed within one month. Peele noted for the record that this case represents a unique situation and that the commission does not wish to set a precedent for future cases. Senner agreed, noting that if the application had been submitted before work was done, it probably would not have been approved. Senner said in evaluating the application the commission members were considering that the situation was out of the current owners’ hands. Spencer added it should not be assumed the commission would be flexible with any similar after-the-fact situations in the future. Senner noted this case has prompted the commission to ask staff to investigate increasing the penalty for after-the-fact applications. Vote: 4-0. Conditions: All windows shall be replaced with windows made of a material listed in the compatibility matrix within one year. The window lites shall be congruent with the house’s style and with the surrounding neighborhood and shall be submitted to staff for approval. The HVAC unit shall be screened in compliance with the Design Standards within one month. 6. New business A. Certificate of Appropriateness Application: 423 W. Margaret Lane — Applicant David Arneson is requesting to remove an existing shed, remove a portion of existing fencing, construct a new 558-square-foot accessory structure consisting of a combination garage and art studio/storage space and construct a new portion of fence to include a trash/recycling roll-out enclosure. (PIN 9864-75-2718) Senner introduced Item 6A. He declared the public hearing open for this item. Senner asked if any commission members had conflicts of interest regarding this application. Dicker said she works at PORCH with the property owner, Meaghun Darab, but she felt she could be fair in her assessment of the application. Darab and the applicant, architect David Arneson, were sworn in. Campbell summarized the staff report and entered it into the record. She noted the home was built in 1942 and is listed as a contributing structure. She said the applicant proposes removing an existing shed, removing part of an existing fence, constructing a new 558-square-foot accessory structure with a combination garage and art studio/storage space and constructing a new portion of fence including a trash/recycling roll-out enclosure. HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES | 6 of 11 Campbell displayed the application. When asked, Campbell looked up the house’s listing in the Historic District Inventory. She confirmed the shed also is a contributing structure with its own inventory listing. Senner said the Design Standards for contributing structures ask applicants to investigate alternatives to demolition and request documentation. Senner asked the applicants what alternatives to demolishing the shed they had investigated. Arneson said he and Darab were unaware of the shed’s contributing status but said the building is in a badly deteriorating condition. Darab and Arneson described the building’s extensive damage, including water and termite damage. Arneson said that in his opinion the building was beyond saving or repairs and would not stand much longer. Spencer said demolition is not inappropriate given the building’s deteriorated condition. When asked, Campbell said the commission could request additional documentation regarding the building’s condition from a contractor, engineer or pest control company. Arneson said his professional opinion as a registered architect in the State of North Carolina is that the shed has deteriorated beyond repair. He said repairing the building would essentially mean building an entirely new building. When asked, he said he did not think any parts of the shed were salvageable. Spencer said the shed in an inconspicuous place on the property and is not noticeable from Margaret Lane or Nash Street. When asked, Arneson described the proposed accessory structure’s horizontal open-joint rainscreen siding. He noted the proposed siding mimics the existing house’s vertical board-and-batten siding while rotating it 90 degrees. He said the siding is reminiscent of agrarian buildings such as tobacco barns and corncribs. The commission members discussed the proposed accessory structure’s siding and whether the more modern aesthetic is congruous with the Historic District. Dicker said she felt comfortable with the modern aesthetic since it’s new construction. When asked, Arneson described the siding materials. Spencer said he liked the proposed modern aesthetic but was not sure it is congruent with the Historic District. Senner agreed and said while he liked the design, he struggled to find similar modern accessory structures in the Historic District. Arneson said the building would be more modern but noted it would be an accessory building, would be clearly submissive to the main house and would not be highly visible from the street. He described the proposed accessory structure’s location downhill from the house and set back from both Margaret Lane and Nash Street. Arneson said he and the homeowners think the accessory structure should represent the present time. Dicker noted there are now many modern structures in the Historic District. She offered several examples. She said she feels there are enough modern precedents to find the accessory structure congruent with the overall Historic District. When asked, Arneson said the accessory structure’s window and door frames could be either aluminum or aluminum-clad wood, noting they were leaning toward aluminum-clad wood frames. HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES | 7 of 11 The commission members discussed the proposed garage door. Arneson said the garage door would have an aluminum frame with frosted glass panels. Senner noted frosted glass is approved on a case-by-case basis and said he had not found any similar full-glass garage doors in the Historic District. When asked, Arneson said he had not looked for similar doors in the Historic District. Senner said the frosted, full-glass garage door contributed to his hesitation regarding the building’s very modern aesthetic. Senner said he would be more comfortable approving a door with fewer glass panels. When asked, Campbell said she could not think of any cases in which frosted glass had been approved for the full doors. Darab noted the proposed accessory structure would be downhill and not very visible from Margaret Lane. Arneson added the wood fence would obscure part of the proposed structure. Arneson described the fence, noting the narrow gaps between the boards. Senner read from Page 80 of the Design Standards, noting the standards offer an open-ended assessment regarding style. He said the proposed structure’s siting and massing are appropriate, and the accessory structure clearly would be subordinate to the primary structure. Arneson displayed a photograph of the fence in front of the existing shed. Senner clarified he was concerned with New Construction of Outbuildings and Garages Standard 2, which reads, “Design new outbuildings and garages to be compatible in roof form, scale, massing, material and detail with the architectural character of the primary building on the site and with other historic outbuildings or garages in the district.” He noted New Construction of Outbuildings and Garages Standard 4 states, “Compatible contemporary materials may be acceptable if they convey the visual qualities of traditional materials and are of comparable quality and durability.” The commission members agreed to return to the question of the garage door after reviewing the rest of the application. Regarding the site plan, Arneson and Darab confirmed the diameter of the tree to be removed is smaller than 5 inches at breast height. Darab confirmed the large willow oak would remain and said they would be careful to protect its roots during construction. Arneson and Darab described the protective measures they would take. Darab said she already has consulted an arborist about how best to protect the willow oak. Regarding the north elevation, Senner noted the light fixtures are very modern. Darab said the light fixtures are the same as those on the existing house. Regarding the east elevation, Arneson confirmed the windows would contain clear glass. Regarding the south elevation, Arneson clarified the windows would not be a storefront window but rather a series of windows placed together. He confirmed the windows would be aluminum-clad wood windows and would contain clear glass. He said the only proposed frosted glass is in the garage door. Regarding the west elevation, Arneson confirmed the door would be wood with an aluminum-clad frame. The commission members returned to discussing the garage door. When asked, Arneson said their goal with the frosted, full-glass door is to let light into the structure while maintaining privacy and avoiding placing more windows along the building’s sides. He said if the commission does not allow the glass garage door, he and Darab would consider adding windows along the sides, which would impact the interior layout. When HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES | 8 of 11 asked, he said they would be open to using clear glass in the garage door. Arneson pointed out the fence would obscure about half of the front façade. Senner said he felt a garage door with fewer glass panels would be more compatible with the Design Standards, but said he was unsure whether the proposed door was incompatible with the Design Standards. Spencer said the Design Standards are vague regarding style. Peele noted frosted glass can be approved on a case-by-case basis. Senner said he would be more comfortable approving the door if it were on a façade not facing the street. Arneson said he and Darab would have taken a very different approach to the design if it was for an addition. He said the accessory structure is freestanding, secondary, downhill and behind a fence, and they felt it appropriate to design a structure representing the present time. Peele said she felt comfortable approving the modern design with compatible materials, noting there are some very modern structures in the Historic District. Dicker agreed. Spencer said he thought the design consistent with the Historic District. Senner observed there was adequate support to approve the design and suggested including in the minutes the reasons the commission members were approving the design. He noted the structure’s siting relative to the main structure, the existence and height of the fence, the narrow openings between the fence’s boards and the structure’s location downhill from the street all contributed to the application being consistent with the Design Standards. Senner declared the public hearing closed for this item. Motion: Spencer moved to find as fact that the 423 W. Margaret Lane 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: New Construction of Outbuildings and Garages; Exterior Walls; Windows; Doors; Roofs, Fences and Walls; and Demolition; and because the existing outbuilding is damaged as to being beyond repair. Dicker seconded. Vote: 4-0. Motion: Senner moved to approve the application with conditions. Peele seconded. Dicker stated for the record that the commission members are approving this application because of the accessory structure’s distance from street and its location behind the fence and below street grade. Senner added the fence’s height and materials influenced the commission members’ decision. Spencer added the structure’s location at the edge of the property influenced their decision. Vote: 4-0. Conditions: The windows and doors shall be aluminum-clad wood consistent with the Compatibility Matrix. B. Certificate of Appropriateness Application: 303 W. Corbin St. — Applicant Mike Dodson is requesting to add a 220-square-foot building addition and deck, replace all exterior siding and trim and replace all windows. (PIN 9864-88-6841) Senner introduced Item 6B. He declared the public hearing open for this item. Senner asked if any commission members had conflicts of interest regarding this application. None was raised. HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES | 9 of 11 Applicant Mike Dodson and property owner Cruz Lozano were sworn in. Campbell summarized the staff report and entered it into the record. She noted the home was built in approximately 1945 and is listed as a contributing structure. She said the applicant proposes replacing all siding and trim, replacing all windows, constructing a 220-square-foot addition with metal roofing, adding a deck on the rear, replacing the front door with a 6-panel fiberglass door and installing a 6-panel fiberglass door on the rear addition. When asked, Dodson said he had no information to add. Regarding the proposed fiberglass-clad windows, Senner noted the Design Standards allow fiberglass-clad windows for additions but not for modifications to existing buildings. Dodson said he had considered aluminum-clad windows but fiberglass-clad currently are the only available option and still would take months to arrive. Dodson said he was under the impression fiberglass-clad windows had been approved in the Historic District. He said the texture, feel and look of fiberglass-clad windows are the same as aluminum-clad windows. He added fiberglass-clad windows are slightly more durable. He said the windows are wood on the inside. When asked, Campbell said that fiberglass-clad windows can take paint and are a high-quality material. She confirmed that this is a hard time in construction and material availability can be challenging. Senner suggested the Windows standard could be met with the fiberglass-clad windows. He noted the project involves an addition to the existing building and all the windows need to be replaced, thus it makes sense to replace the windows consistently across the entire project instead of having two different kinds of windows. The commission members agreed. The commission members discussed the proposed fiberglass doors. Senner noted fiberglass is not an approved door material for an addition or replacement of the front door. The commission members agreed wood, steel or aluminum-clad wood doors would be acceptable. Dodson agreed. Regarding the front elevation, Dodson confirmed he planned to replace the porch roof’s L-brackets with columns. He said the L-brackets are not very strong, noting the porch is falling away from the house. He said the columns’ material would be smooth cement board to match the proposed siding. He confirmed the portico would remain. Senner and Dicker agreed adding columns would be congruent with other structures in the Historic District. Regarding the right elevation, Dodson confirmed he proposed removing a window. He said the window’s presence in the bedroom makes arranging furniture difficult. Senner said the right elevation is a non- character-defining, side elevation. Spencer disagreed, saying the right elevation is very prominent due to the shape of the lot and removing the window gives the house a modern feel. He said he felt removing the window to be a major change. Dicker said she felt comfortable allowing the window to be removed. Senner agreed. When asked, Dodson confirmed he would use a ridge vent instead of an attic vent. HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES | 10 of 11 Peele and Senner discussed whether the right elevation is character-defining. Peele said she agreed with Spencer that the elevation is prominent. Dodson said the window could remain if necessary, noting there is a long wait time for windows and construction might be delayed if another window must be ordered. Campbell noted many people are boarding up windows while waiting for replacement windows to arrive. When asked, Hornik read the Design Standards’ definition of a character-defining elevation. He suggested installing a transom window might be a good compromise. Senner said he does not think the right elevation is noteworthy or has much character. Peele said she felt having a full or transom window in that location is more consistent with the house’s character. Dicker said she thought a transom window would look odd. Dodson said a transom window would not improve the house’s resale value and he preferred either leaving the full window in or removing it completely. Spencer said the window would have to remain for him to find the application compatible with the Design Standards. Regarding the rear elevation, Lozano said the brick pilings had once supported a dilapidated lean-to washroom addition that fell apart. Senner noted the Design Standards call for additions to be clearly delineated from original structures. Dodson said a previous addition left a half-inch offset in the siding on the right rear elevation that would not be very visible. When asked, Dodson said he could keep a similar offset on the left rear elevation but said he did not think it would work well with the design. Spencer said the elevation is not very prominent and said he would be okay with the addition melding into the main structure. Dodson noted the shed-roof design on the rear elevation indicates the area as an addition. Senner and Dicker agreed. Spencer said he regretted the loss of the German shiplap siding but said he felt comfortable approving the Hardie lap siding given the poor condition of the exiting siding. When asked, Dodson confirmed he would install landscape screening around the HVAC unit. He said the driveway would remain gravel. Returning to the right elevation window, Peele said she felt comfortable allowing the window to be removed. Dicker and Senner agreed. Senner declared the public hearing closed for this item. Motion: Peele moved to find as fact that the 303 W. Corbin St. 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: Wood; Paint and Exterior Color; Exterior Walls; Windows; Doors; Roofs; Porches, Entrances and Balconies; Additions to Residential Buildings; and Decks. Senner seconded. Vote: 3-1. Nays: Spencer. Motion: Senner moved to approve the application with conditions. Dicker seconded. Vote: 3-1. Nays: Spencer. Conditions: The HVAC unit shall be screened. The front door shall be of a material consistent with the Compatibility Matrix and shall be submitted to staff for approval. HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES | 11 of 11 C. Historic District Commission Training After a brief discussion, the commission members agreed to table Item 6D until a later meeting when more commission members and the new support staff member are present. Hornik and the commission members discussed elements the training should cover. The commission members discussed holding a special meeting for training. 7. Updates Campbell updated the commission members on efforts to recruit a seventh member. The commission members discussed ways to recruit diverse applicants. Campbell agreed to reach out to Public Information Officer Catherine Wright regarding outreach and diversity. The commission members discussed whether to change the date of the July 6, 2022, meeting. The members agreed they could be present for the meeting. Campbell agreed to check the absent members’ July availability. When asked, Campbell said she had not yet received any applications for the July meeting. Senner noted the commission members received an email regarding the 214 W. Union St. application approved at the May 4, 2022, meeting. He asked how the situation had been resolved. Campbell said she was working with the applicants on how they want to approach returning to the commission. 8. Adjournment Motion: Dicker moved to adjourn at 8:49 p.m. Spencer seconded. Vote: 4-0. Respectfully submitted, Shannan Campbell Planning and Economic Development Manager Staff support to the Historic District Commission Approved: September 7, 2022