Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout02-01-2023 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 12 Minutes HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION Regular meeting 6:30 p.m. Feb. 1, 2023 Board Meeting Room of Town Hall Annex, 105 E. Corbin St. Present: Chair Will Senner, Vice Chair Max Dowdle, Elizabeth Dicker, G. Miller, Hannah Peele and Bruce Spencer Absent: Mathew Palmer Staff: Planning and Economic Development Manager Shannan Campbell and Planner Joseph Hoffheimer 1. Call to order, roll call, and confirmation of quorum Chair Will Senner called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. He then called the roll and confirmed a quorum. 2. Commission’s mission statement Senner read the statement. 3. Agenda changes There were none. 4. Minutes review and approval Draft minutes were presented from the regular meetings of Nov. 2 and Dec. 7, 2022. Planning and Economic Development Manager Shannan Campbell pointed out that a vote for Item 5a on the November minutes had been inadvertently left off the draft. Senner said a statement attributed to him on Page 7 of the same meeting summary was made by Vice Chair Max Dowdle. Senner also requested some minor modifications and insertions in three other portions of that set of minutes for clarity, which were noted by staff. No changes were made to the December draft. Motion: Senner moved for approval of the Nov. 2, 2022, minutes with the discussed changes. Member Bruce Spencer seconded. Vote: 5-0. Abstained: Member G. Miller because he was not on the board at the time of the November meeting. Motion: Senner moved for approval of the Dec. 7, 2022, minutes as presented. Miller seconded. Vote: 6-0. 5. New business A. Certificate of appropriateness application: 104 S. Occoneechee St. Applicant is requesting to build a new construction house. (PIN 9864767014) Senner opened the public hearing and asked if there were any member conflicts. None were stated. Planner Joseph Hoffheimer was sworn in and introduced this item. Hoffheimer reviewed the applicable standards for a new construction home with accessory building. He said the applicant intends to remove an existing pecan tree and plant a replacement elsewhere on the property. He said a certified arborist had found HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES | 2 of 12 the tree to be compromised. Hoffheimer said this can be handled as a minor work with a letter from the arborist. Hoffheimer said the all-aluminum windows are only addressed in the matrix as aluminum storefront windows and are not generally permitted in residential uses. He said the materials proposed for the retaining wall, exterior light features, polycarbonate roofing for the accessory structure and metals for flashing, gutters and downspouts are not addressed by the matrix. Senner referenced having people in the audience who may wish to speak. Planning and Economic Development Manager Shannan Campbell polled the audience to ensure any who wished to speak had signed in. Hoffheimer handed the sign-in sheet to Senner, who said he would begin by calling on those who had signed up to speak on this application and would then call on those who may have inadvertently listed their own address rather than that of the property being considered. Applicant Fred Stewart was called and sworn in. Stewart presented his project beginning with the existing state of the lot. He said a home had previously existed there until it burned in the 1980s. He said it is a nonconforming lot, meaning it is smaller than the current town ordinance requires. He said this allows for decreased setbacks, although he is proposing to adhere to a 30-foot setback on the front of the property. Stewart said the plan is to flatten the site by moving dirt within the site and using retaining walls for the higher areas. The design for the sitework and the location of structures and features were planned with the positioning of the sun in mind to allow for gardening, as well as lighting and heating efficiency, and for the installation of solar panels on the roof. Stewart said a deeded 12-foot-wide access easement dating to 1947 from Margaret Lane to the center of the block serves four lots, including his. He said a neighbor is crossing his property to access the neighbor’s driveway. Stewart said he has designed his site plan to allow that to continue as a courtesy. Stewart said he would like to remove a pecan tree, as stated earlier by Hoffheimer. He said although an arborist told him the tree has been compromised by years of travel over the roots, that is not his argument for requesting to remove the tree. He said he does not take the removal lightly and intends to plant a replacement hardwood tree at the end of construction. In leveling the site, Stewart said air spades will be used in the areas of other trees to avoid or minimize root damage. When addressing the home’s style, Stewart made a distinction between contemporary and modern and said the proposed design is contemporary, meaning of the current time. He said this was done throughout the district and showed examples of homes built in a contemporary manner for the era in which they were constructed, spanning 160 years. He said at the time these homes were built they reflected the “latest and greatest” architecture of their day. He said his design reflects today’s technology and sustainable practices. He said the Historic District Design Standards refers in several places to building new construction to reflect the current period to demonstrate the town’s evolution and the district’s ongoing history. Stewart addressed Hoffheimer’s earlier comment about aluminum windows not being allowed for residential use. He said most windows would be aluminum-clad wood, which is allowed, but some would be all aluminum because of the size of the windows on the front. He said they will have the same look and color of the other windows. He then walked through other proposed materials and gave examples of some homes in the district with features similar to what is proposed in his design. HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES | 3 of 12 When the applicant had completed his comments, Senner reminded members they had received two emails that were sent to Hoffheimer before the meeting which should be considered as public comment. He also reminded that public comments should be considered with regard to the application’s applicability to the design standards and congruence with the district and not based on commentary related to opinions and preferences in design. The first speaker called and sworn in was Evelyn Poole-Kober. She read a prepared statement that explained her history with the neighborhood, her professional history, and why she moved to Hillsborough in 1980. She stated opposition to Stewart’s application due to what she referred to as modern materials being used on a modern structure that did not fit in with the district. She said the design is in opposition to the commission’s mission. Poole-Kober said she has questions about the applicant using the shared drive for construction activity. She said it is her understanding that the Historic District Commission does not determine matters related to driveways and that this topic is addressed by the Unified Development Ordinance. She proposed some alternative locations for the driveway and said she does not oppose new construction that is compatible with the district. Following Poole-Kober’s comments, Senner confirmed with Campbell that matters related to driveway access are outside of the purview of the commission, to which Campbell agreed. The next person called and sworn was Andrea DeGette. After addressing the applicant to say she looked forward to being neighbors, she also read a prepared statement. She said she has lived in the district since 1997 and cited other connections and service to the community of Hillsborough. She said she opposes the project as proposed because it is incompatible with the unique and historic character of the neighborhood. She said it will fundamentally and irrevocably alter the natural environment and landscape to the neighborhood. She said the proposed design is inconsistent with the commission’s mission statement. She showed pictures of her home and described the process she went through to renovate it while preserving the original character. DeGette said that the examples Stewart had presented of other homes in the district with similar design features were add-ons to existing compatible structures and that there are no standalone modern homes in the district. Senner then called Tom Sedlak and swore him in. Sedlak said he is one of the neighbors using the shared driveway. He said he renovated his home in 2016 and recalled there was an issue with a window that would face the street and whether it would change the look of the district. He said he believes the proposed design would change the look of the district. He read the commission’s mission statement and said the commission will have to answer the question of whether the design is appropriate. The next names on the list were called, and each said they did not need to speak. They were Julia Mack and Jimmy Holcomb. Elizabeth Millar was the next speaker called and sworn. She said she does not live in the district but visits because of the historic look. She referenced the investments the neighbors have made to preserve the historic features of their homes. She said she is not opposed to a structure being built, just the proposed design. At this point in the public comments, Hoffheimer addressed the commission members to say it is up to them to determine if comments of those residing outside of town, expressing preferences, have any bearing on the case. He explained that only neighbors within 100 feet of the property have standing in the case. He also said the board members may limit comments to those related to the design standards in the application. HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES | 4 of 12 Senner reminded the audience to keep comments to the items in the application that they believe may or may not be congruent with the design standards and why. Steven Burke was the next speaker called and sworn. He said he has lived in the district since the 1990s and has brought several items before the commission. He spoke in favor of the application’s approval, stating that life in Hillsborough is shaped in part by its richly evolving townscapes. He said he was speaking as a resident of the district who is attentive to the preservation of Hillsborough and also as one attentive to the evolution of American architecture. He commended the proposed plan for the thoughtful use and shaping of a sloped lot and responsible attention to the access road shared by other properties. He said the proposed materials are harmonious to the district. He referred to the design of the house as a modernist cottage. Next to be called and sworn was Steven Petrow. He spoke in favor of the application’s approval. He spoke of projects that the applicant has completed in the town as a renowned architect and how Stewart’s work has enriched the town. He said that although there may not be another home designed like the proposed one, there are others that were contemporary at the time they were built, which he believes set a precedent. Bartow Culp was called and sworn in. He said the proposed site is visible from his front porch. He said when he moved to the district, Fred Stewart was referred to him as a local architect who is the most sensitive to the town. He found that to be true when he used him for an addition soon after. He said he believes the proposed design would enhance the neighborhood. James Tomberg spoke next after being sworn. He said he echoes the statements of Culp and Petrow. He thinks that the proposal meets the design standards and that approval would continue the variety seen in Hillsborough and would add to the neighborhood. Eric Hallman was called and sworn. He thanked the board members for their service. He said he has lived in two Fred Stewart houses in Hillsborough. He said that scale is not a determinate if it meets other criteria. He cited another historic home that would not be in existence if scale had been a determinate when it was built. He said the board has taught him that history is ongoing, noting the board has avoided imposing a faux historic feel on Hillsborough by maintaining diversity, such as through preserving brick ranches. Pat Revels was sworn and said she is empathetic to all as a resident of the district. She said change is inevitable, and the evolution of change in architecture is evident in the Historic District. She believes the applicant has painstakingly applied the guidelines to his application. Next to be sworn in was Elizabeth Hays, who stated she lives in direct view of the site. She said she has done an addition on her house and appeared before the board as a part of that process. She asked the members to please go by the guidelines and be objective. She said she does not have an issue with the proposed design and said something will go there since the lot is currently vacant. John Rearman was the last to be sworn in for this item. He said he is in support and sees change as good. He referenced an earlier comment from another speaker that Hillsborough is a creative community and asked what better way to show that than a beautifully planned design. Senner called Stewart back up to begin the process of working through the application. Senner suggested starting with the site plan. Senner asked for the material of the driveway extension. Stewart said it would be gravel. HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES | 5 of 12 Senner asked about lighting. Stewart said there would be low-voltage landscape lighting but nothing additional on the outside of the house. Senner requested that Stewart work with staff for landscape lighting approval as a minor work once that was determined. Miller asked for more specificity about the driveway gravel. Stewart said it would be a compacted base of crush and run with a couple of inches of pea gravel on top. Member Elizabeth Dicker noted a picture is in the packet. Senner asked about the material for the rear retaining wall. Stewart said it would be poured-in-place concrete. Senner told the commission members there are two issues to address. One is the impact on the existing trees. He said the standards desire to keep development out of the root zone. He asked Stewart about documentation from the arborist stating the development would not put the trees at risk. Stewart said he has spoken with an arborist but has nothing in writing. He said he will ask for that documentation and share it with the board. Dicker asked about removing the pecan tree in the front due to damage to the roots over the years while impacting roots of other trees on the site by the development. Stewart said he is not using that argument for the removal of the tree in the front. He is removing it because it is in the way. Senner asked for confirmation that the applicant intends to replace the tree, to which Stewart averred. Senner said the preference is to preserve trees whenever possible. Miller said he considers that preserving trees is a part of establishing congruency with the district. The diameter of the tree was said to be 26 inches. The second issue Senner said needed to be considered was the modification to the topography. Preserving the topography is a part of the standards. Senner said the introduction of the retaining wall raises that portion of the site considerably. Dicker added that Item 8 on Page 97 under the fences section of the standards reads that it is not appropriate to locate new fences or walls in front yards. Stewart said he saw that in the standards but does not understand it because the town is full of fences and walls in front yards. Senner said he thinks it is related to the introduction of dramatic changes to the topography. He said existing walls in the district are low. Dicker asked how high the retaining wall would be, to which Stewart replied 6 feet at the most extreme and reduces to zero. Senner suggested that keeping the wall to 3 to 4 feet would be more congruent. Stewart asked if terracing would be more appropriate, to which Senner said he thought it would. Spencer agreed. Senner asked if there were walls or earth within the steps of the terracing. Stewart said it would be earth with the possibility of some metal edging on the outside to control mulch. Spencer said the planting plan is favorable. Dicker asked about the material for the trellis proposed on the front of the house. Senner said this was listed to be steel painted gray, with which he struggles to see congruence with the district. Member Hannah Peele said the new porch has to be compatible with the new building according to the design standards for porches and entrances. She finds it to be compatible with the architecture of the new house. There was discussion among the members as to where the guidance for the trellis is found in the standards. Senner said there is no section for trellises. They are treated as posts and columns, and metal is a material that is considered case by case. Senner agreed that metal makes more sense than wood for a building of this style. He said he wrestles with a trellis on a front elevation. He said the front elevation should face the street HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES | 6 of 12 on a new construction, and he has trouble seeing this as a front elevation with a clear front door entrance. He also said that a roof overhang would typically address the purpose of the trellis in this design. Spencer asked Stewart to point out the front door. He did, and he also said the steps lead to the front door. Dicker asked if there is an overhang, and Stewart said the trellis is meant to function as the overhang. Peele said that her primary struggle was locating the entrance and that the trellis and steps point to this as the front and resolve this for her. Senner moved on to the material for the chimney and said the proposed use of steel is explicitly not allowed in new construction if visible, according to the standards. Peele asked if the chimney would be screened. Stewart said trees were planned but would not cover the chimney. Senner asked about the use of full glass aluminum storefront windows for the front elevation. Stewart said the use is congruent with the house and windows of this size are not made in another material. Senner then mentioned the predominant use of flat roof massing on the front of the house. Dicker said a house on Tryon Street had been approved for a flat roof but is off the street. Senner said it is sited very differently. Spencer said his challenge is that this design is for a very contemporary house in a district which is not full of contemporary houses. He also mentioned the flat roof and said it is not jarring, but he is grappling with the second-story roof and materials due to scale. Senner said the combined use of aluminum storefront, flat roof, and modern materials lead him to ask if the design reads more as a commercial property than residential and if that’s congruous with the district. He commented about statements made earlier by community members about an opportunity to add character to the district and add homes that represent this age. He said the board is trying to allow Hillsborough to evolve while preserving the character of the district. Spencer said there are other materials that could be used to present a softer look and be more congruous, such as a wood painted gray instead of steel. Senner pointed out use of the word “expect” in the application when addressing the visibility of the skylight. He wanted more assurance that the skylight would not be visible from the street. Stewart asked if the skylight would not be approved if visible. Senner replied the skylight would warrant a lot more discussion if it were visible. Senner asked if there were any more comments. Spencer said the roof on the second story is visible from the front elevation, and he does not think there is an example of that elsewhere in the district. Miller mentioned another in the district on Tryon Street but thought it was a special case. Dicker asked about the height of the second story as compared to the neighboring home. Stewart demonstrated that it is just under the height of that home. Spencer said the proposed design should be considered as a whole instead of element by element. He agreed that it has a commercial feel. He said the examples provided by Stewart of similar features on other homes in the district are not easily visible from the street. Spencer again mentioned the flat roof, and Stewart replied that it is designed for proper solar panel orientation. HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES | 7 of 12 Senner suggested the board table the item until the next meeting to allow Stewart to provide responses and solutions to some of the concerns raised by the board. Campbell asked Stewart if he would like to do that or receive a decision based on what was presented. Miller said he had a comment that may influence Stewart’s decision. He said his concern with the design is overall congruence. He said new architectural styles may be approved but not all architectural styles and elements. He said it is unlikely that the Brutalist style would have been approved in its era. He said he has trouble with the style and materials and does not know if this is the next step the board wants to take in the district. Senner said the challenge is how to accommodate more current styles and view projects in their own period while concurrently considering their compatibility with the overall character of the district. He said this is why the standards exist. Stewart said it is tough because the standards mention in several places about building for today. Stewart said he did not think the vote would go well, so he would choose to table it to the next meeting. Senner told Stewart to feel free to work with staff on the items of concern and said the board is eager to find solutions that fit the intent of the standards. He said he appreciates the thoughtfulness that has been put into the proposed design. Stewart said it will be tough to find solutions that are not mediocre. He affirmed, when asked by Dicker, that he understands what the board’s concerns are. Revels again came forward with comments. She said stacked stone walls are one of the most historic things in the town. She said she is trying to hear objectively what the concerns are according to the standards. Hoffheimer and Campbell stated that the public comment portion of the public hearing was over. Spencer addressed Revels to say that the guidelines are there to assist the board, but the board’s decisions can be subjective when determining if the project is congruous overall. Senner asked Stewart if he, as the applicant, understood the guidelines he was being asked to address. He said he did not make notes of specific guidelines. Campbell indicated that staff was making notes and could assist. Burke addressed Senner and said architecture is history. He said he had previously served on the board and assisted with creating some of the guidelines. He said there was discussion during his tenure about the need to accommodate infill that would take place in the district and that the guidelines should prevent ossification of a certain moment in history. Senner called to close the public hearing at 8:39 p.m. and asked the board for a motion to continue the case to the following meeting. DeGette commented that she asked for her letter to be shared and that she had left a digital copy with staff. Motion: Senner moved to table the item until the March meeting. Spencer seconded. Vote: 6-0. Senner called for a five-minute recess at 8:41 p.m. The meeting resumed at 8:46 p.m. B. Certificate of appropriateness application (after the fact): 212 N. Occoneechee St. HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES | 8 of 12 Senner opened the public hearing, briefly stated the purpose of this item, asked for any conflicts of interest, and swore in Campbell when none were disclosed. Contractor Allen Knight was present to speak on behalf of the applicant, and he was also sworn in. Campbell gave an overview of the item and said that the board had previously reviewed a certificate of appropriateness after the fact for this project in September 2022 when the homeowner had made some changes during construction. At that hearing, the applicant was to provide final as-builts for review, which was a condition of the original application for a certificate of appropriateness. The applicant asked staff to postpone the case until the applicant was able to prepare the as-builts. There were additional miscellaneous comments from staff to be addressed, as well, such as sidewalk encroachment into the right of way. Campbell said some changes had taken place during construction that were not approved. The applicant is now returning to continue to seek a certificate of appropriateness after the fact. Campbell reviewed some items that were included in the meeting packet, including a landscaping plan that had been approved by a former planning staff member as a minor work. There was a dialogue between Senner and Campbell as to whether a driveway that was included in the plan was or should have been approved as a minor work. Campbell stated there was gray area based on notes included with the approval that led the applicant to believe the driveway had been approved with the plan. Campbell then reviewed the staff’s final inspection comments, which stated that necessary approvals from other agencies had been resolved. She said the applicant states a window muntin configuration in question was included in an originally approved submission, but staff has no internal record of that. Campbell said that does not mean there was not a conversation about it, but the previous application was handled by staff no longer with the town. She said the board would have an opportunity to ask the contractor about these matters. Campbell said windows were left off from the garage doors and some other items differed from the original certificate of appropriateness. She stopped there to ask Senner how he would like to work through the items. Senner called on Knight. Knight said most of the changes were decisions made by the homeowner. Regarding the muntins, Knight recalled his conversation with staff to be a question of whether the window order would be the same as what was submitted, to which he averred. He said what was presented on the original certificate drawings and as-builts and what is on the house are the same configuration. Senner asked whether the window order was missing from the packet. Campbell said the as-builts are what is being reviewed. Knight said the windows are now in place. Miller said it would be helpful to have pictures. Senner said pictures had been provided but it was before Miller joined the board. Miller said he had seen the windows in person, so he was OK to discuss. Senner asked if Campbell could provide the original certificate application and drawings for the approval of the landscape plan. He moved on to other items as she retrieved the information. Senner asked if there were any items from the first page to be addressed. Miller pointed to items 1 and 2 under the certificate of appropriateness conditions not met and read the statement, “Staff will work with applicant to determine the correct scale and associated muntins to be used.” He asked if staff agreed with the applicant’s statement. Campbell said windows on the rear are consistent with windows on the front and sides. Miller asked about the picture window. Campbell confirmed there is one picture window. HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES | 9 of 12 Miller said the second item related to the garage doors with windows being a condition of approval and asked if it should be enforced. Senner said it was his understanding from the meeting minutes that this was made a condition because of the applicant’s request and not because of an issue with congruence. Vice Chair Max Dowdle confirmed as one who was on the board at the time of the earlier application. He said the board should consider each element as if it were something the board would approve today. It was determined that there is no requirement for the windows in the garage doors. Miller said he is concerned about the pea gravel that was proposed versus the gray gravel that was installed. Senner said it is a matter of whether the board would consider the gray stone as congruent. He and others said they would. Miller said he would not. Senner asked if anyone else would not, and all other members said they would consider it congruent. Senner pointed to Page A 202 to express concern about the addition of one full-light window while the house has no other full-light windows. Knight said all transom windows are without muntins. He said some in the back are without muntins, as well as the doors. Miller pointed out that the others are not visible from the street. Peele said if she had this in front of her today, she would not approve it. Spencer read from past minutes to say the previous board was not going to approve the windows. Knight said they did not vote, so that was inconclusive. Senner confirmed that the screened porch plan had been submitted. Campbell said it had been submitted but not processed, so it met the condition. She said the screened porch minor work application was in the packet to demonstrate that the condition had been met. Dicker asked about earlier plans proposing a new construction shed that would require the removal of a tree. The tree had been removed but the shed has not been built. Dicker wanted to know if the tree had been replaced. Knight said some had been planted and others are proposed in the current plan. Senner asked if staff checks up on minor works projects to see if they are completed. Campbell said spot checks are done, but the owners are not required to build what is approved. She clarified that just because a construction project is approved does not compel the owners to have to build it. There were questions as to how this would apply if conditions were attached. Campbell said the conditions would need to be met. Senner said any approval tonight should include previous conditions. Specifically, board members wanted to include that a replacement tree should be planted. Knight said new trees were in the proposed landscape plan and asked if there is a timeframe on the conditions. Campbell said it is usually 6 to 12 months but is at the discretion of the board. The discussion then went back to a transom window on the right elevation. Senner said it does not appear that this window would be considered congruent with the design standards. Others agreed. Senner proposed that the installation of a window with the same muntin profile as the other windows on the same elevation would be considered consistent. Others agreed. Spencer pointed out that an earlier condition was all windows would be simulated divided lines with grill patterns. With the homeowners not being present, Senner asked Knight if he was open to accepting that condition or whether he would like to have the application voted on as submitted. Knight said the owner wanted it voted up or down. Senner explained the two options were the board could approve the application with the condition that the window would be replaced or removed or the board could vote with the design as drawn and likely not approve it. Knight said he thought the owners would want them to vote on the application as presented. HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES | 10 of 12 Senner asked Campbell if there were any updates on the driveway. Campbell said yes and demonstrated on the screen in the meeting room a section that read “landscaping and driveway.” Senner asked to have the minutes reflect that the design standards clearly state it is not appropriate to site new off-street parking in locations visible from the street, so he would view the design as incongruent with the standards. He continued that he did not think this element could be approved by staff as a minor work. Campbell agreed but said it appears a previous staff member did approve it and it was installed in good faith. Senner wanted the record to reflect that what was approved was not a minor work and was not congruent with the standards, although approved by staff. Spencer said the front door was to be stained natural, but it has a dark stain. Knight disagreed and said it is a mahogany door with a natural stain. Senner closed the public hearing at 9:15 p.m. Motion: Senner moved to find as fact that the 212 N. Occoneechee St. application is not in keeping with the overall character of the Historic District and does not comply 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 inconsistent with the Historic District Design Standards for windows. Spencer seconded. Vote: 6-0. Motion: Senner moved to deny the application as submitted. Spencer seconded. Vote: 6-0. After the vote, Dicker asked what the next steps would be in denying an after-the-fact application. Campbell said that is a question for the town attorney and she will follow up. Senner addressed Knight and said he hopes Knight will relay the specifics to the homeowner, specifically that the main issue is the transom window and that the tree replacement would still be a condition of approval if the homeowner reapplied. Spencer asked whether there are consequences if an original certificate approval has conditions that are not met. Campbell said a notice of violation may be issued. She said she will check with the town attorney on the next steps and provide an update. Senner said it is important to ensure the minutes cite the standards violated in case of an appeal. Hoffheimer said an appeal would to go to Superior Court. 6. Review/adoption of updated Rules of Procedure Assistant Town Manager Margaret Hauth stepped to the podium and introduced herself. She stated that in working with various town boards, inconsistencies were discovered in the rules of procedures for each board. She said this can happen over time as boards are represented by different staff, etc. She said the purpose is to ensure that all 10 basic tenets are covered and that there are no conflicts where the town board determined there should be consistency. Hauth said some items were pulled out of the Historic District Commission’s rules of procedures because they were added to the town ordinance. Examples included meeting participation requirements by board members and how to define a quorum. Hauth noted that the application procedure is still included in the rules and that she recommends removing it as a part of the approval, if approved tonight. She said the procedure is included in the town code. Having HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES | 11 of 12 items in more than one place is more likely to lead to conflicts, as language changed in one place will inevitably be overlooked in another. Hoffheimer said he could remove it. Hauth also said the section on emergency works in Section 12 is covered by the Unified Development Ordinance for major emergencies and she thinks it should come out of the commission’s rules. She said it was included there for personal emergencies, such as fallen trees on personal property, that could trigger the need to review roof materials, etc. She said the design matrix now provides this guidance and allows property owners to move forward with repairs without delay. She recommended approval of the document with the changes discussed. Senner asked about Hauth’s recommendation that meeting attendance be removed from the rules. Hauth said the requirements are the same across all boards and explained the procedure. She said 12 meetings per month are assumed. If a member misses three meetings, a staff person will reach out to remind the member of the importance of attending and that continued absence could result in removal from the board. She said six absences lead to automatic removal. Hauth also said this language is meant to address problems, so if a board member's absence does not create problems for a quorum, it would likely not be reported. Dicker pointed out that removing items because they are in the town ordinance would lead to having to look in more than one place, but she understands how problems could arise otherwise. Senner recommended to take out anything that is included in the Unified Development Ordinance. He asked about language related to landmarks and use of the Secretary of the Interior Standards from Section 15.0. Hauth recommended removing language about use of the Secretary of the Interior Standards since landmarks are now addressed in the commission’s standards. Motion: Senner moved to approve the proposed modification to the Rules of Procedure with the adjustments as noted in the discussion. There was no second. Vote: 6-0. 7. Updates Hoffheimer said staff investigated a screen porch at 216 W. Orange St. Senner had observed it with a screen, and Campbell had later observed it without. The investigation revealed the owners have a snap-in-place screen application that allows them to put the screen in place when using the porch and remove it when not in use. Campbell said the standards do not address this scenario. She suggested this may be an item for discussion among the subcommittees. Miller said this is similar to temporary fences. Peele said there are other retractable outdoor elements, so the standards should probably address all temporary uses and applications. Hoffheimer confirmed that 214 W. Union St. has complied with a request to replace vinyl windows with another material. The windows have been replaced with aluminum-clad wood. Hoffheimer updated that 421 W. Corbin St. has provided a receipt to show that windows have been ordered and will not arrive until March and that the screen for the HVAC has been installed. Hoffheimer said 122 N. Nash St. is a Habitat House and a tree is being removed by Duke Energy. He said staff is following up on what to do about that. He said work also is being done on the windows and doors to replace rotting trim, and a minor work will be submitted for approval to replace a door with a historic, wooden exterior door found in storage and previously used on the house. HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES | 12 of 12 Hoffheimer said a house on Queen Street has installed parking pads and added stone along the driveway for additional parking. Campbell said the parking pad is in the roadway right of way, so the Public Works Division will address that portion first. Dicker inquired about the temporary fencing on Tryon Street. She noticed it is still in place. Campbell said she has spoken with the residents and their plan is to remove all of the fencing and replace it with a wooden privacy fence. She said she will follow up again. Senner said the subcommittee for design standards has met and will meet again in March. Dicker said the other group has not met. 8. Adjournment Senner adjourned the meeting at 9:46 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Shannan Campbell Planning and Economic Development Manager Staff support to the Historic District Commission Approved: April 5, 2023