Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout10-05-2022 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 19 Minutes HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION Regular meeting 6:30 p.m. Oct. 5, 2022 Board Meeting Room of Town Hall Annex, 105 E. Corbin St. Present: Chair Will Senner, Vice Chair Max Dowdle, Elizabeth Dicker, Hannah Peele and Bruce Spencer Absent: Eric Altman Staff: Town Attorney Kevin Hornik and Planning and Economic Development Manager Shannan Campbell 1. Call to order, roll call, and confirmation of quorum Chair Will Senner called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. Senner called the roll and confirmed the presence of a quorum. 2. Commission’s mission statement Senner read the statement. 3. Agenda changes There were no changes. The agenda stood as presented. When asked, Planning and Economic Development Manager Shannan Campbell confirmed Item 5B was still on tonight’s agenda. She clarified the applicant requested to table Item 5B to the Nov. 2, 2022, meeting. Campbell noted two other items that previously had been tabled were removed from tonight’s agenda because the applicants have not submitted additional information for review so that they can be heard. The removed applications were for 318 N. Churton St. and 212 N. Occoneechee St. Campbell said staff will reissue public notices for those applications when they are ready to be heard. 4. Minutes review and approval Minutes from regular meetings on Sept. 7, 2022. Senner suggested several changes to the Sept. 7, 2022, meeting minutes. On Page 4 of the minutes, he said references to “as-built renderings” should instead refer to “as-built elevations.” Near the top of Page 4, Senner said his own comment, “the commission’s expectations for application materials are clear,” should instead say the commission’s requirements as stated in the Rules of Procedure are clear. On Page 5, Senner said the minutes should refer to applicant Doug Peterson’s partner rather than his wife. On Page 8, Senner said the sentence, “Senner noted the Design Standards for Roofs conflict with that standard,” should instead refer to a conflict between the Design Standard for Roofs and the application. Dicker noted the minutes should state the meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m., not 7 p.m. Motion: Member Max Dowdle moved approval of the Sept. 7, 2022, minutes with the discussed changes. Member Bruce Spencer seconded. Vote: 5-0. 5. New business HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES | 2 of 19 A. Certificate of Appropriateness Application: 420 W. Tryon St. — Applicants David Larkins and Erik Van Mehlman are requesting to build a new construction home. (PIN 9864757417) Senner declared the public hearing open for this item. He asked if any commission members had conflicts of interest to declare. None was raised. Campbell, applicant David Larkins, property owner Carol Gunther-Mohr, architect Arielle Schechter, neighbor Richard Bradford and neighbor Jo Birkmeyer were sworn in. Campbell presented the staff report. She said the applicants proposed building a new construction home on a vacant lot at 420 W. Tryon St. She said the structure is neither contributing nor non-contributing, as it does not yet exist. She outlined several staff notes: the application did not include information on exterior lighting; the application proposed aluminum-clad wood doors, which may not comply with Compatibility Matrix for the front entry door; the proposed cable rails are reviewed on a case-by-case basis; and staff is not familiar with the proposed TPW roofing material. Senner invited the applicants to speak. Larkins introduced himself and the project, noting his design firm’s experience building in other area historic districts. Gunther-Mohr said she has lived for many years 5 miles outside of Hillsborough and is excited to move into town. She said she proposed building a 1-story, 1,700-square-foot energy-efficient Ranch-style house. Gunther-Mohr detailed the work and consideration put into preserving the lot’s natural features, including a large red oak tree in the lot’s center. She noted the house is set as far back from the front setback as possible to preserve the large oak tree, noting the house’s proposed siting mirrors the house across the street. Larkins addressed the staff notes in the staff report. He introduced into the record a spec sheet outlining a proposed exterior lighting sconce to be mounted on the wall next to the front door, noting the sconce’s minimalist styling and small size. He proposed a fiberglass-clad entry door for the front door and showed an example, noting the color would be the same as the proposed color for the foundation, soffit and fascia. Larkin said the reference to TPW roofing was a typo, noting the roofing material would be TPO roofing, a material approved for use in the Historic District provided it is not visible. He said the roof would be a standard white color and would not be seen from the street except for its edge, which would be a painted aluminum finish material. Larkin provided examples of cable railings on two houses in the Historic District, noting those example houses are in similar situations to the proposed house. He offered to answer any questions the commission members might have. Senner proposed working through the application page-by-page. Regarding the narrative and extended site plan, Senner addressed the house’s proposed siting. He said the Design Standards specifically address siting houses with setbacks consistent with adjacent houses, noting the proposed house is set substantially further back than the adjacent houses though the house across the street is set back further. Senner said he appreciated the effort put into the tree survey and into investigating how to preserve the trees and the red oak. He said in his perspective preserving the red oak justifies the siting not being consistent with the Design Standards in this case. The other commission members agreed. Regarding the site plan, Senner, Larkins and Gunther-Mohr discussed how the recycling area would be screened. Larkins and Gunther-Mohr said the recycling area would be screened with a combination of boulders, plantings and a wooden structure. They said the recycling should not be visible from the road. When HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES | 3 of 19 asked, Larkins described the existing vegetation that would screen the driveway from the neighboring property, noting they also would plant additional evergreen screening. Spencer suggested the screening could be approved by staff as a minor work. Member Hannah Peele said the screening sounds satisfactory. Gunther- Mohr noted the house’s siting also was designed to minimize its impact on the neighbors. She noted her house would be set behind the house closest to her on the left. Larkins added the two driveways are adjacent and so they would be screening the proposed driveway from the existing driveway. Senner said it sounds as if the driveway screening meets the Design Standards’ intent. When asked, Larkins described the HVAC units’ location and screening. He confirmed the HVAC units are not on the back of the house but said they would not be visible from the street due to the site’s topography. He confirmed the HVAC units should not be visible from other angles due to the house’s siting. When asked, Larkins described the proposed house color, noting it would be muted and fairly soft. He said Gunther-Mohr obtained the “baked clay” paint color by color-matching a photograph of the bricks on the Bellevue Mill. He described the complementing “backdrop” paint color for the foundation, soffits and fascia. Larkins said the proposed color palette is simple and consists of only those two colors. Senner asked the commission members whether they feel the front elevation presents a clear front elevation facing the street, as called for in the Design Standards. Larkins said the house’s siting and the surrounding neighborhood provides context for the front elevation. He said clear front elevations with welcoming front doors and front porches are prominent on Nash Street and Occoneechee Street, with all those properties facing the streets. He said Tryon Street is unique, with only three properties facing the street. Larkins said most properties on Tryon Street either are tucked back or are facing Nash Street or Occoneechee Street. Larkins said there is not a strong prominence of inviting front porches on Tryon Street. He said having a front entry that announces itself does not seem appropriate for a house that is set so far back. The commission members agreed with Larkins’ reasoning. Peele noted the front elevation does feature a front sitting porch. When asked, Larkins confirmed the gray area above Note 11 on the south elevation represents the screened porch’s screen material, shown installed behind the railing. Larkins confirmed the screen would be a traditional screen material. Member Elizabeth Dicker asked the commission members how they felt about the flat roof, expressing concern the roof would be seen from the street. Senner said he struggled with the flat roof on a single-family residential building and had struggled to find comparable examples that show the proposed roof clearly congruent with the Historic District. He suggested a pitched roof would be more consistent with other Ranch- style houses in the Historic District but acknowledged the design of this house is very modern. Larkins said the proposed house is a contemporary modern home. He noted modern homes have a broad history prevalent in North Carolina. He said the deep eave, roof overhangs and flat roof represent a unique and existing architectural style, and the proposed house is true to that style. At 7 p.m. the meeting recording was interrupted due to equipment malfunction. During the interruption staff notes indicate that the following items were discussed: roof color relative to visibility from the street (white vs. brown or black) and that the white roof is preferred because it is cooler and more sustainable. A commissioner member noted that the white color fades from a bright white to a muted white/ light beige rather quickly. The commission also discussed the concrete foundation piers and whether or not those would be considered columns or part of the foundation. The commission determined that these were foundation features and not columns, for the purposes of the design standards. HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES | 4 of 19 Senner asked for testimony from those that were signed in. The recording resumed at 7:26 p.m. just prior to Bradford’s testimony. Bradford said he had no objection to the application as presented or to the proposed house’s modern design. He said the modern design might not have been approved had it been submitted decades ago, but he said the modern design accentuates the district’s older, historic homes in an interesting way. He said placing the home towards the property’s rear does a lot to buffer the modern look, adding he would find the house more interesting if were sited further forward. Bradford said he frequently walks the neighborhood and is 100% sure the roof will not be seen from the street, from the rear windows of the house next to him or from the house to his south. He said floodwaters should not impact Gunther-Mohr’s property. He noted a small perennial stream near Gunther-Mohr’s property that during a flood might approach her setback, but he said the stream should not encroach far beyond the setback. As a historical note, Bradford said the town used to disallow gravel meeting the street for driveways higher than the street to prevent washouts. Birckmayer said she lives in the house to the west of the proposed house, noting she appreciates Gunther- Mohr’s efforts to preserve the trees. She acknowledged the proposed house would be set back to preserve the red oak. Birckmayer said the proposed driveway screening is acceptable, adding that her house ends where the proposed house would begin and that she has few windows on that side of her house. However, Birckmayer said her upstairs office window would look directly at the proposed house. She requested extending any screening further down the property line to block the view from her office window. Birckmayer added she will see the proposed white roof but said she does not object to it. She said such roofs might need to be considered more often in the future given climate change. Birckmayer asked where the HVAC units would be located. Larkins said the current plan shows the HVAC units facing Birckmayer’s property but said that need not be their final location. He pointed out the proposed location. Larkins said extending the screening beyond the driveway would help hide the HVAC units, and relocating the HVAC units to the north elevation also would remove them from her view. Burke-Meyer said she would object more to the noise than the view of the HVAC units and she would appreciate moving them if possible. There were no further public comments on this item. Senner declared the public hearing closed for this item. The commission members discussed the HVAC units’ location. Senner referenced Page 95 of the Design Standards. Senner asked if the Design Standards regarding mechanical units are satisfied given the applicant’s commitment to screen the HVAC units from view. The commission members agreed the HVAC units’ location is satisfactory and the site’s topography and the proposed screening satisfy the Design Standards. Senner noted he learned a lot from attending a recent Board of Adjustment appeal to an Historic District Commission decision. Senner noted Page 76 of the Design Standards says, “The intent of these standards is to encourage new residential buildings that reinforce and respond to the principal design elements of historic houses in the district, while reflecting their own time in the development of the town.” He said in tonight’s review of this application he heard a recognition that this is a modern house that reflects a different style and period than the district’s historic homes, and that its design is consistent with that modern style. Senner said the commission members should make sure they feel comfortable that the house’s design and its elements reinforce and respond to the main design elements of the district’s historic homes. Peele said she appreciated Gunther-Mohr’s efforts to match the house’s color to historic brick from the area. Dowdle agreed, noting the HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES | 5 of 19 house incorporates elements from the Historic District without trying to emulate the past in a false way but in a way that speaks to the current time. There was no further deliberation on this item. Motion: Dowdle moved to find as fact that the 420 W. Tryon 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: New Construction of Primary Residential Buildings; Site Features and Plantings; Walkways, Driveways and Off-Street Parking; and Exterior Lighting. Dicker seconded. Vote: 5-0. Motion: Dowdle moved to approve the application with conditions. Dicker seconded. Vote: 5-0. Conditions: Staff shall approve final lighting fixtures and locations. The front entry door shall be fiberglass-clad wood. The driveway, recycling area and HVAC units shall be screened from the street and neighboring property. B. Certificate of Appropriateness Application: 332 W. Tryon St. — Applicants Anton Wilson and Alyssa Martina are requesting approval to retain an existing plastic deer fence. (PIN 9864779055) Senner introduced the item. When asked, Campbell confirmed the applicants were not able to attend tonight and requested to table this item to the Nov. 2, 2022, meeting. Town attorney Kevin Hornik recommended the commission members vote to open the evidentiary hearing at the Nov. 2, 2022, meeting so the town would not need to reissue public notice about the hearing. Motion: Senner moved open the evidentiary hearing at the Nov. 2, 2022, meeting. Dicker seconded. Vote: 5-0. C. Certificate of Appropriateness Application: 144 W. Margaret Lane — Applicants Matthew and Catherine Martin are requesting to repair and renovate an existing shed and add a metal roof to part of the primary structure. (PIN 9874060025) Senner introduced the item. Applicant Catherine Martin and builder David Cates were sworn in. Senner declared the public hearing open for this item. Campbell summarized the staff report. She said the house is a contributing structure and was built circa 1924. The shed also is a contributing structure and was built circa 1912. The applicant is requesting to repair and renovate the shed and add a metal roof to part of the house. She said staff had no comments about the application. Martin introduced herself and summarized the application. She noted she was a member of the Hillsborough town board many years ago. She and her husband currently live in Asheville where her husband is a judge but anticipate retiring to Hillsborough. She said work to the house includes renovating the 1950s-era bathroom on the back of the house, which is not visible from the street. Martin said they would like to renovate and restore HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES | 6 of 19 the shed to create an office for her husband. Martin said they have approached the project with the Historic District Standards in mind. Peele noted she had a conflict of interest to disclose, as she had worked on the project under Cates. Senner apologized for forgetting to ask for conflicts at the opening of the public hearing. Hornik advised that the commission members did not need to vote to allow Peele to recuse herself, as Peele’s conflict is a statutory conflict that automatically disqualifies her from participating in discussion or voting for this item. Hornik noted that for a six-member board with one member recused, a unanimous vote would be required to approve the application. Cates summarized the application. He said the work to the house would include adding a transom window to the bathroom, noting the elevation would face the Colonial Inn’s rear façade, in which there are no windows. Cates said the shed currently is in bad shape, and the proposed renovation would restore the building to much better shape and make it functional. He said the project is in keeping with the spirit of Hillsborough’s history of law offices on residential properties. There were no questions or comments regarding the project narrative or materials list. Senner proposed addressing the house first, then the shed. When asked, Cates explained the proposed metal roof section would match an existing section of roof on the house. He confirmed there would be no striations between the crimps of the metal roof. Senner noted the transom window would not be visible from the street. The commission members had no concerns about the transom window. Regarding the east elevation, Dicker observed the house’s dormer windows are simulated divided-lite above over clear glass below. She suggested the shed’s windows might match the style of the house’s dormer windows for consistency. The commission members agreed that change would help the project meet the Design Standards. Martin agreed to the change. The commission members and Cates discussed the proposed French door that would face Margaret Lane. Cates said they proposed a French door to bring more light into the south-facing entry door, making the entry more welcoming. Senner said he struggled to find similar French doors used as entry doors or French doors on sheds in the Historic District. Spencer said the project is an adaptive reuse, noting he did not see the French doors as more extreme than the large glass-paned garage door the commission recently approved. When asked, Campbell confirmed the shed is a contributing structure. Cates said a clear glass door without simulated divided-lites would feel more modern and would be less congruent. Senner said standard doors without glass are more common on historic sheds. Cates said the structure is being reinterpreted as something other than a utility shed. Senner wondered to what extend the Design Standards allow the commission members to consider a structure’s use. Hornik noted the Design Standards are not an objective set of criteria but rather a set of guiding principles for development within the Historic District. Given that the commission recently approved similar glass garage doors on accessory structures or outbuildings, he recommended the commission members focus on the broader statutory standard, which requires that changes not be incongruous with the special character of Hillsborough’s Historic District. HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES | 7 of 19 The commission members agreed the French doors were not incongruous with the Design Standards and the character of the Historic District. Regarding the east elevation’s windows facing Cedar Lane, the commission members agreed with Cates that Cedar Lane is not a traditional public vehicular street. Senner said from that perspective adding windows to the shed’s east elevation would not be incongruous. The commission members agreed. There were no questions regarding the shed’s west elevation. Senner noted the elevation is straightforward, involving the addition of aluminum-clad wood windows. When asked, Cates confirmed the shed’s north elevation faces the Colonial Inn’s rear, in which there are no windows. The commission members discussed that the shed is not very visible from Margaret Lane. Senner noted the shed’s other door would face Cedar Lane. There were no further questions for Cates or Martin. Senner declared the public hearing closed for this item. Senner said from a reuse standpoint, the application’s unique question involves transforming a contributing historical shed for a new use in a way that is congruent with the Design Standards. Spencer applauded Martin and Cates for resuscitating the shed. Senner summarized that the commission members did not find anything about this application incongruent with the Design Standards. The commission members generally agreed. Motion: Dicker moved to find as fact that the 144 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: Exterior Walls; Windows; Doors; Roofs; Exterior Lighting; and Outbuildings and Garages. Spencer seconded. Vote: 4-0. The commission members discussed adding a condition that the shed’s east-facing windows mimic the house’s east upper dormer windows. When asked, Martin agreed to the condition. Motion: Dicker moved to approve the application with conditions. Spencer seconded. Vote: 4-0. Conditions: The shed’s east elevation windows will mimic the look of the house’s east upper dormer windows with simulated divided-lite above over clear glass below. 6. Old business A. Certificate of Appropriateness Application: 116 N. Wake St. — Applicant Fred Stewart proposes to renovate an existing home including adding a rear patio, raising the roof pitch and adding a rear dormer to the rear to create a partial second floor. (PIN 9864968420) HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES | 8 of 19 Senner declared the public hearing open for this item. Senner asked if any commission members had conflicts of interest to declare. Dicker noted she shares a property line with this house and she feels the conflict prevents her from acting impartially. Hornik advised the commission members did not need to vote to allow Dicker to recuse herself, as her conflict is a statutory conflict that automatically disqualifies her from participating in discussion or voting for this item. Applicant Fred Stewart was sworn in. Campbell summarized the staff report. She said the circa 1971 house is a noncontributing structure. Campbell noted the application is a resubmittal of a previously denied application from April. As such the commission members must first review the previous submittal and the new submittal and decide whether there has been substantial change in the evidence. Campbell noted that in the elevations there is a conflict in whether the windows will be white or brown. She said the application proposes replacing the front door and adding a new door on the south elevation but includes no mention of material or color for those doors. When asked, Campbell and Hornik confirmed the commission members first should decide whether tonight’s application constitutes a substantial change from the applicant’s previous submittal. Hornik explained the reason for that determination is to overcome the general prohibition on submitting the same application a second time after denial. Senner said during deliberations from the first time this was heard earlier this year there was significant discussion about the many proposed modifications to the front elevation and to the changes in massing and roofline. He said the roofline question remains, but tonight’s application keeps elements of the front elevation much more consistent with the current structure. The commission members agreed there had been substantial changes to the application since its first submission. Motion: Senner moved to consider Stewart’s new application a substantial modification from the previously submitted application. Spencer seconded. Vote: 4-0. Senner invited Stewart to speak on the application. Stewart noted the changes made since the previous submittal, including eliminating the proposed rear roof terrace and retaining the building’s windows, front portico, front door and front steps. He said he could not avoid the fact that in order to create space upstairs the roof pitch would have to be changed. Stewart displayed a few images for evidence of a few very unattractive attempts to increase the upstairs space without changing the roof pitch. He said changing the roof pitch is purpose-driven. Senner suggested addressing other design elements first and the roof last. When asked, Stewart clarified the windows are proposed to be brown, not white. The commission members had no issues with the windows. When asked, Stewart confirmed the fiber cement siding would face out. He confirmed a window on the left elevation on Page 66 of the agenda packet was shown incorrectly and would match the other windows. Regarding the proposed changes to the roof, Senner noted the roof currently is 15.5 feet tall and the proposed change would raise it 6 feet to 21.5 feet tall. HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES | 9 of 19 When asked, Stewart did not know the exact height of the house at 114 N. Wake St., which is owned by the same homeowners. Stewart said the house at 114 N. Wake St. is a 2-story house with a gable roof, but the house at 116 N. Wake St. is at a higher elevation. Senner said this application is unique in that the 116 N. Wake St. house is not technically an accessory dwelling unit but is sited like one in relation to 114 N. Wake St. Senner said one of his concerns is making sure the 116 N. Wake St. house is still clearly subordinate to the 114 N. Wake St. house. He said determining those roofline heights would be helpful. The commission members discussed whether the two houses’ roof pitches relate to each other. Stewart said the front house’s roof pitch is quite close to the proposed pitch of the 116 N. Wake St. house. Spencer noted the Design Standards for Roofs state, “roof form and pitch are among the most distinguishing features of a building’s architectural style,” and direct applicants to , “retain and preserve roofs that contribute to the overall historic character and form of a building, including their overall shape and form, pitch, overhang, and functional and decorative features and details.” Spencer said he struggled with the proposed roof change considering the Design Standards for Roofs. When asked, Hornik said the house’s noncontributing status is irrelevant for the purposes of the commission’s review of the application. He said legally the standard the commission must enforce is that any work done on a structure in the Historic District must not be incongruous with the special character of the Historic District. He said it is appropriate to discuss the roof pitch and said the special character of the Historic District is a contextual standard. Hornik said if the work proposed is not incongruous with the character of the Historic District as a whole, state law disfavors denying Certificate of Appropriate applications. For the purposes of this discussion, Hornik said the commission members should decide whether competent, material, substantial evidence has been presented that convinces a majority of commission members the application is not incongruous with the character of the Historic District. He recommended discussing what roof pitches generally look like on homes of a similar architectural style in the Historic District. Campbell noted the commission’s job is especially hard given how large Hillsborough’s Historic District is and how many architectural styles and time periods it comprises. Dicker said she could think of many brick homes in the Historic District with a similar roof pitch, noting those homes probably were built in the 1950s rather than the 1970s as this home was. She asked whether the commission members should consider only buildings of a similar vintage or instead consider general congruity with the Historic District. Hornik acknowledged the home’s original vintage is important to consider but said the commission members’ decision should be based on the overall character of the Historic District. He recommended considering whether the proposed changes would be incongruous with houses currently in the Historic District. He said the commission members’ decision ultimately should be based on the overall contextual congruity standard, not strict conformance with the Design Standards. Senner noted the Design Standards reference reviewing non-historic properties as products of their times. He wondered whether the property could be evaluated as having a non-historic roof form rather than an historic roof form as referenced in the Design Standard for Roofs. Senner noted the Design Standards define historic properties as 50 years old or older. When asked, Stewart said the house was built in 1971. He agreed the house is more than 50 years old. HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES | 10 of 19 Peele said she could see the original house in the new renovations. She said she would lean toward finding the changes congruous with the Historic District and its many other similar brick houses. Senner said what he struggled with in that line of thinking was the fact that it would not be clear where the addition began. He said even though elements of original house would be seen, it would not be clear the roof originally was lower. He said with other additions it’s more obvious where the addition starts. Dowdle agreed with Peele that he could see the original house in the proposed renovations. He said he found the proposed design conforming. The commission members discussed whether there was a way to differentiate the addition from the original house, noting such differentiation would be difficult with a vertical addition. Dowdle and Senner agreed their decision on this case would set a precedent, and the commission members needed to carefully articulate their interpretation of the Design Standards. Senner said he struggled with the fact that the Design Standards define historic properties as being older than 50 years, and that the Design Standards for Roofs clearly state it is a priority to preserve historic roof forms. He said the fact that the house is over 50 years old makes the situation difficult. Dowdle reiterated the case could set a precedent resulting in other owners of 1-story houses wanting to add second stories regardless of the houses’ ages. Stewart said he and the homeowners were distinctly trying not to make a 2-story house but instead to tuck the added space under the roof form so the house still feels like a 1-story house. Dowdle and Spencer agreed the design is very nice and a good solution. Stewart said he understood that was not the issue. When asked, Hornik confirmed a unanimous vote was needed to approve the application. When asked, Hornik confirmed the commission members could table the application and ask for more information to be presented at the Nov. 2, 2022, meeting. He suggested the members could request photographs of similar structures with similar roof pitches in the Historic District. Campbell said staff also could research whether there are precedents for similar work in the Historic District. Senner added it would be helpful to confirm the adjacent roofs’ elevations with some additional evidence. After some discussion, the commission members agreed to table the application to the Nov. 2, 2022, meeting. They asked Stewart to provide heights of the roofs of the houses in each direction from the house, as well as information of any precedents for vertical expansions impacting the front elevation of a historic structure from staff. Motion: Spencer moved table the application to the Nov. 2, 2022, meeting. Dowdle seconded. Vote: 4-0. The commission members took a brief recess at 8:15 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 8:20 p.m. B. Certificate of Appropriateness Application: 224 N. Occoneechee St. — Applicant is requesting to make elevation modifications and add a front retaining wall to a previously approved certificate of appropriateness for a new construction home. (PIN 9864779464) HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES | 11 of 19 Senner introduced Item 6B. He asked if any commission members had conflicts of interest to declare. None was raised. Applicant Allen Knight and homeowner Chris Moore were sworn in. Campbell summarized the staff report. She said the after-the-fact application concerns modifications to an originally approved Certificate of Appropriateness application. Campbell said the applicant submitted a landscape plan showing a front yard retaining wall and paved driveway as minor works, both of which require Historic District Commission review. Staff also noted other changes to the elevations in progress. Campbell said the house was under construction as of the Aug. 3, 2022, commission meeting, but the commission did not meet due to lack of quorum. On Aug. 19, 2022, the applicant and homeowner requested a Certificate of Occupancy, at which point staff discovered more elevation changes than what had been submitted for the Aug. 3, 2022, commission meeting. Campbell said staff asked the homeowner to sign an agreement acknowledging the non-compliance issues and the changes before issuing a Certificate of Occupancy. Campbell noted the applicant and homeowner submitted revised final as-built elevations after being deferred at the Sept. 7, 2022, commission meeting due to illegibility of their application materials. Senner asked the applicant and homeowner if they had information to add. Moore stated they made no changes to the elevations after Aug. 19, 2022. Campbell clarified that staff discovered additional changes to elevations not captured on the application submitted for the Aug. 3, 2022, commission meeting at the final site visit when the certificate of occupancy was requested in late August. Campbell said it was possible staff missed some of the changes during previous site visits. Senner clarified that the applicant is supposed to note all changes needed to the original COA. Senner asked if Knight wanted to add any testimony. Knight said he believes relocating the HVAC unit was prudent given the area’s water flow during flood events. Knight said the HVAC unit is only visible from the street because of the lot’s slope. He indicated that the unit was screened. He said the changes to the front retaining wall were related to the lot’s slope and were essential to successfully building on the lot and preventing on-going erosion. Senner suggested reviewing the application piece by piece beginning with the site plan. Before reviewing the application, the commission members, Campbell, Knight and Moore discussed the after- the-fact nature of the application and the commission members explained that the changes should have been seen when they were decided on and not after they were completed. Knight described the building constraints that led them to have to operate more informally, noting he had informed previous town staff of some changes via phone conversations. Knight said most changes are in the rear of the house and no changes involved scale, massing or materials. The commission members impressed upon Knight the importance of formally submitting changes to staff or to the commission before they’re made. Moore described the reasons for changing the retaining walls, noting the sloped lot was eroding quickly. Campbell clarified the front wall requires commission-level review per the design standards, while the back walls were issued minor works. She added she would not have felt comfortable approving the large number of changes at staff level as minor works because there were changes on all four elevations. When asked, she said the normal turnaround time for a minor work approval is less than a week. Moore, Campbell and the commission members returned to discussing the changes to the front elevation. Moore said the only changes to the front involved changing the retaining wall and adding stairs to the left. He HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES | 12 of 19 described the safety reasons for adding the stairs to quickly get his children out of the house in the event of a fire. Moore noted that originally the front elevation had one more egress door, which the Historic District Commission requested he remove during the original COA approval for the house. Campbell noted additional changes to the front elevation, including changing a single window to a double window, eliminating the columns on the porch, and changing the driveway and walkway materials. When asked, Senner agreed the driveway and walkway materials are allowable, but he said they should have been approved prior. Senner suggested working through the application one page at a time. Regarding the site plan, the commission members discussed the change in the front retaining wall, noting the change was difficult to see on the submitted application. Knight described the change, noting the wall originally begin in a different place but otherwise is in the same location. Knight said site conditions prompted the change in the retaining wall. Campbell pulled up a final survey in the address file that better showed the front retaining wall location. During the commission’s questions about the retaining wall change, Moore asked the purpose of the questions. Senner explained the in the absence of drawings clearly showing the changes in the walls, he was asking questions to ensure the commission members were correctly evaluating the wall change against the standards. Senner noted he did not want to misinterpret the changes that were done. Moore noted the two retaining walls in the back of the house serve the same purpose as the front retaining wall, to hold back the slope’s dirt. He noted the walls in back are parallel to the home, are about 10 feet long and are not visible to the neighbors or the street. He said the rear walls support a platform to hold one HVAC unit, while the other HVAC unit had been moved to the side of the house. Moore said all of the walls are 4 feet tall or lower and are cinderblock that has been painted and capped. Moore noted the lot was very difficult to build on because of the slope, which is why the walls were needed. Senner explained that the commission members’ questions were aimed at correctly understanding the scope of the changes they were reviewing. Hornik explained state law requires quasi-judicial bodies such as the Historic District Commission to base their decisions on competent, material and substantial evidence submitted in the record. He explained such evidence includes the original application materials that were submitted, reviewed and approved during the first application. Hornik explained that because the applicants now are requesting changes from the first Certificate of Appropriateness approval, the commission members must have evidence in front of them to clearly understand what the changes are. Moore and the commission members discussed whether the walls were moved or added. Knight explained the changes made to the retaining walls. He explained the wall is in the same location but now comes off the house at the garage instead of at the originally approved location. Hornik clarified the commission members by law need to base their decisions on evidence that clearly shows changes between the original approval and what has now been built or is being proposed. He explained the commission members must be able to understand the original approval rationale and evaluate whether that rationale changes with new application. He explained without such evidence the commission members cannot review the application or make a decision. HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES | 13 of 19 Campbell explained the rear walls could be approved as minor works but the front wall needs to be approved by the commission. Campbell said the items needing commission review tonight include the front retaining wall and the changes on all four elevations of the structure. Senner noted the original COA required a replanting plan that does not appear to have been addressed. Knight confirmed they had replanted the required tree. Campbell confirmed. The commission members agreed to first address the front retaining wall, then review each elevation one at a time. Regarding the front retaining wall, Senner noted only the cap is visible from the street. He said the face is not visible, which is the critical piece from the Design Standards’ perspective. Spencer said he had no issues with the retaining wall, which he saw as necessary and required by the site, as explained by the applicant. When asked why the wall was not anticipated ahead of time, Knight said they did not have a landscaping plan when the project began. He said the wall was added later based on site conditions. He said a similar wall at the property next door was approved by staff, noting he was told this wall needed commission-level review. When asked, Campbell said she did not know why the wall next door had been approved by staff. She said that it may have been approved via minor work by mistake. She noted the Design Standards call for commission-level review for a wall in front of the house. When asked, Campbell confirmed the driveway’s material change needs commission approval and could not be approved by staff. She said concrete was an acceptable material and confirmed it has been used in similar driveways in the neighborhood. The commission members raised no issues with the driveway material change. Knight confirmed they did not originally foresee the need for a retaining wall. Knight and Moore explained the difficult nature of the site and its slope. Moore described the work done to manage erosion and water on the slope, noting it was difficult to foresee how best to manage the site. Moore asked how a question about the walls might have been handled. Campbell explained when she has a question about whether an issue needs to come before the commission, she consults the design standards and when in doubt sends the issue to the commission for a formal decision. Senner said usually on new construction applications most unresolved items are small and can be approved by staff as minor works. He gave several examples of small things that may come up. Moore said he and Knight attended the Aug. 3, 2022, commission meeting but were unable to present their application because the commission did not have quorum and expressed his frustration that the board did not meet. Campbell noted the application still would have been an after-the-fact application and the application materials that were submitted for the Aug. 3 meeting did not capture all changes. The commission members discussed changes to the front elevation. Campbell summarized the changes noted from the staff on-site inspection, which in addition to the wall included omitting the front columns, changing the upper story single window to a double window and adding stairs to the left. Knight agreed those changes were correctly identified. HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES | 14 of 19 The commission members discussed the single window changing to a double window. After some discussion, the members agreed they had no issues with the window change. The commission members discussed the columns’ omission. Knight clarified the columns were decorative, not structural. When asked, Knight identified the corner board shown on the front elevation. The members agreed they had no issues with the columns’ omission. The commission members discussed the stairs added at the left of the front elevation. When asked, Moore confirmed the stairs were added as a safety measure. He explained the house has a wood stove, and he wants his children to be able to quickly leave the house in the event of a fire. Knight added the stairs are below grade. Moore said the stairs are parallel to the side of the house and are not out in front. Dicker said the stairs are highly visible. Moore agreed and explained after the commission asked them to remove a door from the mudroom, only two egress doors were left: the front door and the door leading to the garage. Moore said the stairs were added to be able to get his children out of the house in the event of a fire. Senner said he understood why the stairs were needed. He asked if there was any opportunity to bring the stairs off the back of the porch so they are less visible from the street. The commission members agreed the originally approved application had rear stairs that were deemed congruent as they were tucked behind the house. Senner expressed concern that the original stairs were more congruent while the new stairs are less congruent with the Design Standards. Knight explained the stairs were moved from the rear to the side due to the steep grade continuing down the hill to the creek. He explained the rear stairs would have been extremely long. He said they were put in their current location because that was the shortest point to reach the ground. When asked, Knight explained the rear area under the porch was leveled. Senner asked if the stairs could land in the rear leveled area. Moore said then his children would have to go through the basement to leave the house, which would not be the fastest way out. Knight explained the rear sunroom and deck also create obstructions to rear stairs. When asked, Knight confirmed the sunroom originally was approved as a screened porch. He said the sunroom is the same size and scale as the originally approved screened porch, explaining they added windows instead of screen. When asked, Knight confirmed the rear deck also was extended. He explained egress stairs could not come off the deck, because the deck only connects to the master bedroom. Possible fire escape routes were discussed. Moore said the house’s egresses should be in the easiest places to leave the house. He explained currently there are three egress points all on the same floor. He reiterated the lot’s slope makes building egress stairs in the rear difficult, and he said he did not want his children to have to go through the basement to leave in an emergency. The commission members discussed the left rear porch, the door to which Knight said leads into the garage. Knight confirmed the ground beneath the porch drops off very steeply. Knight reiterated the stairs were installed in their current location because it was the shortest point from the house to the ground. Dowdle noted a deck also had been extended in the stairs’ original location, which now HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES | 15 of 19 blocked the stairs from being in the originally approved location. When asked, Moore agreed that was the case. Dowdle acknowledged Moore’s safety concerns but said the Historic District Commission is charged with architectural review and compliance with the design standards and the district. Dowdle said safety aside the stairs also were installed in their current location because a deck not previously approved was extended to the stairs’ approved location. Moore said the stairs would not work in their originally approved location because they would be too high off the ground. Peele said if these stairs were to be presented as part of an original submission, she would not approve them. Dowdle agreed. Senner noted the commission cannot disallow safety features governed by the building code but could recommend more congruent ways of installing those features. He asked Hornik if there was any legal requirement regarding the distance of the egress stair that would take priority over congruency with the Design Standards. Hornik said the commission’s role is simply to review the submitted application and determine its congruency or incongruency with the special character of the Historic District and with the Design Standards. Moore indicated that he was unwilling to move the stairs and they were needed for egress. When asked, Senner clarified the Design Standard relating to the stairs’ visibility is the first Design Standard for Decks. He read the standard, noting the visibility of the deck stairs from the street is not ideal. He said the intent of the Design Standards is to minimize such features’ visibility to the greatest extent possible. Senner asked if there is any way the egress stair could be located in a less visible way that would be more congruent with the Design Standards. Dowdle asked if there was another acceptable stair solution that also would comply with the Design Standards. Moore said there was not. Dicker summarized that Moore and Knight’s original approved application was congruent with the Design Standards, but she did not find the current stairs congruent with the Design Standards. The other commission members agreed. When asked, Campbell confirmed the commission members should continue discussing the remainder of the application and could come back to the stairs. Regarding the left elevation, Knight confirmed the HVAC unit had been screened from view. The commission members found no issues with the HVAC unit. When asked, Senner explained the HVAC unit and its wood screening material were congruent with the Design Standards even though they are on the same side as the stairs, which also are wood. He explained the stairs are incongruent not because of their material but because of their location. Regarding the rear elevation, Senner summarized the changes staff had noted: the addition of a chimney with a cap; a new door and light fixture added to the garage side of the façade; a small, circular, black light fixture over the rear exit door to the right of the sunroom; a rear deck and screened porch changed to a sunroom with six bay windows facing east; a set of double windows added left of the lower French doors; and a lower level deck built under the sunroom. Knight agreed the changes were correctly identified. HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES | 16 of 19 The commission members agreed the chimney was not incongruent. After some discussion Knight confirmed the added door is fiberglass-clad wood and is white in color. The commission members agreed the door was not incongruent. Dowdle noted the porch also was not originally there. Senner said because the porch is on a rear elevation it likely would have been found congruent if submitted with the original application. Dowdle agreed the porch is congruent, but he noted the porch’s presence meant the stairs had to move to their new location. Moore reiterated the stairs were installed in their current location because that was the closest point to reach the ground. He said it would have been very difficult to put the stairs in the original rear location given the slope and the creek. When asked, Knight confirmed they did not have a thorough sense of the grade when they submitted the original application. Dicker said that was helpful for her to know. When asked, Knight explained the rear basement door does not open at grade but opens to a deck. Regarding the small, circular, black light fixture, Knight confirmed it is the same as the other approved light fixtures. The commission members agreed the fixture was not incongruent. Regarding the sunroom, Knight confirmed its siding material is the same siding on the rest of the house. He confirmed the windows’ trim, color and other elements match the house’s other windows. The commission members agreed the sunroom and windows were not incongruent. The commission members agreed the double windows left of the lower French doors were not incongruent. The commission members agreed the lower-level deck under the sunroom was not incongruent. Senner noted it is inset at the house’s rear and not visible from the street. Regarding the right elevation, the commission members discussed the changes one at a time. When asked, Knight confirmed the exterior light over the garage is the same light fixture as the house’s other lights. The commission members agreed the garage light was not incongruent. When asked, Knight confirmed the three bays of windows right of the garage match the aluminum-clad wood windows approved for the rest of the house. He confirmed the exterior light added to the windows’ upper corner is the same light as the house’s other lights. The commission members agreed the windows and light were not incongruent. When asked, Knight confirmed the siding material for the sunroom with double glass doors and flanking door- length windows was the same as the house’s other siding. The commission members agreed the sunroom and windows were not incongruent. The commission members agreed the lower-level deck with wood railing had already been discussed and was not incongruent. When asked, Knight confirmed the sunroom supports have concrete bases with wood column tops. The commission members agreed they were not incongruent. HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES | 17 of 19 Knight clarified the garage door had not changed and is the same door as was originally proposed and approved. The commission members agreed the door was congruent. When asked, Campbell confirmed all changes had been discussed. Senner summarized the only item in question was the deck stairs being visible from the street. The commission members agreed they were ready to close the public hearing. Senner declared the public hearing closed. Senner said usually there would be an opportunity for the applicant to offer modifications to bring the application into compliance with the Design Standards. He suggested the commission members and applicants could have that conversation about a compromise solution for the stairs, but he said he understood the applicant was not interested in reviewing alternate approaches. Hornik said the commission members could choose to offer a collaborative discussion to find a compromise, but he said that was not required. He said the members could vote to deny the application, which would not preclude the applicant from resubmitting a changed application later. The commission members all agreed the location of the stairs was incongruous with the Design Standards. Senner summarized the commission members either could vote to deny the application or could reopen the public hearing and discuss alternate stair approaches to be able to find the stairs and the application congruent with the Design Standards. He said excepting the stairs, the commission members found all other application components congruent with the Design Standards. He said discussing a stair compromise could allow the commission members to approve the application, but if the applicant was not interested in that discussion the commission members could vote on the application as it stands. Hornik and the commission members discussed potential wording for a motion to find the application congruous except for the stairs. Neighbor Cam Cover asked to speak. Senner reopened the public hearing to allow her speak. Cover said she spoke as a member of the public, noting she lives up the block from Moore’s house and has watched the house being built. She said the neighbors are delightful and the house is gorgeous, though they are not what one thinks of when thinking of historic Hillsborough. Cover expressed concern that the commission might vote to deny the stairs. She said she did not understand how to eliminate stairs that already exist and fit well with the house. Cover noted stormwater comes very close to the house. She appreciated that the applicants did not follow the correct approval procedure but expressed concern with the notion that there was no alternative but to deny the stairs and try to have them removed. Senner addressed Cover’s concern. He said her point was valid and speaks to the larger challenge of after-the- fact applications, which puts the commission members in a difficult situation. He explained the commission members are trying to avoid the perception that it is easier to ask forgiveness for changes than ask for approval, with people building things that do not meet the Design Standards and then submitting after-the- fact applications to get them approved. Senner said from a quasi-judicial standpoint the commission is tasked with evaluating whether applications meet the Design Standards regardless of when they are submitted. He said the commission members are trying to navigate a reasonable solution that meets the intent of the Design Standards without undermining the integrity of the process and while respecting the effort other applicants HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES | 18 of 19 put into submitting their materials in advance and working through design solutions that meet the intent of the Design Standards. Moore said they did not build the stairs to spite the commission or intending to disregard the rules or the Historic District. He said they had made all the changes the commission requested, noting they had come before the commission several times before for the original approval. He summarized the concessions they made at the commission’s request and reiterated his reasons for moving the stairs. Moore said he felt the commission is very unforgiving. Dicker noted Moore chose to build within the Historic District, which comes with a set of standards and rules. She said she would expect Moore to understand the process given how many times he has come before the commission. Moore noted one time he came to the commission they did not have quorum. Senner offered a potential compromise. He said he would look at the situation differently if the applicants presented additional evidence for the case stating there is no other way to configure the stairs given the site’s challenges or presenting alternate ways to lay out the stairs that would comply with the Design Standards. Campbell noted another idea, indicating that the ‘Accessibility and Life Safety’ Standard 4 on Page 63 of the Design Standards directs applicants to, “minimize the visual impact of life safety features,” and to locate such features so they are not visible from the street. She asked if it would be possible to screen the stairs with landscaping so they are not as visible from the street as a way to meet the standard and keep the stairs for life safety. Spencer agreed and said given the late hour he suggested tabling the application to allow the applicants time to develop a visual solution for the stairs. Dowdle and Peele agreed screening the stairs could be a feasible compromise. Peele agreed the applicants should have time to come up with options that might work for all. Dowdle noted one option could include reconfiguring the stairs. Moore agreed he was open to planting screening trees such as evergreens. He expressed concern the stairs would always be somewhat visible. Moore agreed they could plant screening vegetation to block the stairs. The commission members discussed the steep slope. Senner noted the applicants might need to plant relatively mature plantings to ensure the stairs are screened without having to wait for plants to grow. Moore agreed. Hornik said it is the applicants’ responsibility to address the commission’s concerns. The applicants agreed they could provide a landscape plan as a reasonable solution. Moore asked if the commission could approve the application’s other changes tonight excepting the stairs. Hornik advised the commission members on how to articulate motions for a finding of fact and the final decision. Senner closed the public hearing. Motion: Senner moved to find as fact that, with the exception of the rear/side deck stairs portion of the application which will be continued to the Nov. 2, 2022, meeting, the 224 N. Occoneechee 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; New Construction of Primary Residential HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES | 19 of 19 Buildings; Decks; Site Features and Plantings; Fences and Walls; Walkways, Driveways and Off- Street Parking; and Exterior Lighting. Peele seconded. Vote: 5-0. Motion: Senner moved to approve the application with conditions. Dicker seconded. Vote: 5-0. Conditions: The deck stairs portion of the application shall be continued to the Nov. 2, 2022, meeting. The applicants shall provide documentation regarding potential solutions to minimize the deck stairs’ visual impact from street, such as potential landscaping plans or alternate stair layouts. 7. Updates Campbell updated the commission members on several items. She said a seat on the Alliance for Historic Hillsborough board is reserved for a member of the Historic District Commission and commission members should let her know if they are interested in serving on that board. When asked, she confirmed member Eric Altman has accumulated a number of absences and has not been responsive via phone or email. Campbell said she would investigate procedural next steps to remove Altman and would begin recruiting in anticipation of his seat being vacant. Campbell confirmed an upcoming UNC training for board members will be held in December. She confirmed she is signing the members up and the Town is paying for them to attend. 8. Adjournment Motion: Spencer moved to adjourn at 10:19 p.m. Senner seconded. Vote: 5-0. Respectfully submitted, Shannan Campbell Planning and Economic Development Manager Staff support to the Historic District Commission Approved: November 2, 2022