Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout03-01-2023 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 9 Minutes HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION Regular meeting 6:30 p.m. March 1, 2023 Board Meeting Room of Town Hall Annex, 105 E. Corbin St. Present: Vice Chair Max Dowdle, Elizabeth Dicker, G. Miller, Hannah Peele, Bruce Spencer and Mathew Palmer Absent: Chair Will Senner Staff: Planning and Economic Development Manager Shannan Campbell, Planner Joseph Hoffheimer and Town Attorney Bob Hornik 1. Call to order, roll call, and confirmation of quorum Vice Chair Max Dowdle called the meeting to order at 6:31 p.m. He called the roll and confirmed the presence of a quorum. 2. Commission’s mission statement Dowdle read the statement. 3. Agenda changes There were none. 4. Minutes review and approval Minutes from regular meeting on Jan. 11, 2023. Motion: Member G. Miller moved for approval of the Jan. 11, 2023, minutes as submitted. Member Elizabeth Dicker seconded. Vote: 6-0. 5. Old business A. Certificate of Appropriateness Application: 104 S. Occoneechee St. Applicant is requesting to build a new construction house and accessory structure. (PIN 9864767014) Dowdle opened the public hearing at 6:33 p.m. and asked if there were any conflicts of interest among the board. None were stated, but it was determined that Member Mathew Palmer could participate in but not vote on this item since he missed the last meeting where testimony was first given. Dowdle asked audience who had signed up to speak to stand to be sworn in together with staff. He then instructed speakers to keep their comments to three minutes each to allow the board to move through the other items on the agenda. Planner Joseph Hoffheimer reviewed the applicant’s request and reminded the board that this item is a continuation from the Feb. 1, 2023, meeting, at which the applicant had asked to have the request tabled. Hoffheimer said the applicant has made changes to the design based on feedback from the commission and is present to review the changes. He said the changes are noted in green text in the commission’s materials. HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES | 2 of 9 As applicant Fred Stewart came forward to review the changes, Miller restated that the applicant had requested the item be tabled at the last meeting. Stewart said changes to the proposed design are mainly surrounding the chimney, which has been converted to brick; the skylight, which has been dropped down with a parapet designed on three sidesand the retaining wall, where the height has been dropped and an additional level has been introduced. He said both levels reduce to grade on the lower sides. Stewart said the shed roof design has been changed to a gable roof, which lowers the overall height, and windows have been changed. Stewart also said he has obtained a letter from an arborist about the tree to be removed, as was previously requested by the board. Stewart said he kept the trellis and demonstrated precedent for this type of feature on a property on Wake Street, where there is an exposed steel structure. He also demonstrated full glass windows on a property on Churton Street. At this point, public comments began. Elizabeth Woodman was called and sworn in, as she had arrived after others were jointly sworn in. Woodman said she heard comments in the last meeting about aluminum being a new material. She gave examples of aluminum used in other places in the district. She said ranch-style homes were approved in their day, and in 30 years the Historic District Commission will be protecting this design being presented. Steven Petrow showed pictures of 209 Wake St. and said precedent was mentioned a lot in the last meeting. He said the demonstrated property has a metal trellis and is a very distinctive home. He said as one of Stewart’s neighbors, he appreciates the accommodations that Stewart has made to his proposed design. Nancy Baker said she has lived in the Historic District a while and complies with commission rules whenever making changes to her property. She said it doesn't seem fair if this is approved. Hoffheimer clarified that rules for new construction and existing structures are different. Andrea DeGette began to read a prepared statement and said she was speaking against approval of the request. She said the packet showed minimal changes. She shared photos of the house used by the applicant to demonstrate precedent and said they are not similar to the proposed design. She showed more pictures and continued with her statement. Some audience members began to object to DeGette going over the three- minute time limit. DeGette said she wanted her entire statement in the record. Planning and Economic Development Manager Shannan Campbell said all items have been entered into the record and copies of written statements were given to the board members and the applicant as evidence in the case. Evelyn Poole-Kober stated her address as 108 S. Occoneechee St. and said the design matrix has been expanded exponentially since the district came into existence. She said she opposes the new construction and the removal of the pecan tree. She compared the proposed design to structures made from shipping containers and said flat roofs and metal siding do not fit into the Historic District. Miller asked other board members whether the commission should handle the removal of trees differently if the roots extend onto other property. Stewart said the arborist reviewed all the trees on the plan. He pointed everyone to the arborist’s statement in the packet. Dicker asked what 19.8% impact means. Stewart explained that it is the amount of shaded area intruding into the critical root zone. He said it is the overall canopy divided by the size of the shaded area. Stewart said the arborist feels confident that the trees can survive HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES | 3 of 9 wherever that number is less than 30%. Miller asked whether the commission has a standard on that value. Hornik said there is none. Miller said he would like staff to consider decisions that have impacts on adjoining properties. Hoffheimer said that could be added to the list of items to review with the subcommittees. DeGette asked if she could ask a question. Hornik responded that public comment time was over. Miller asked if the chimney is wood-burning. If so, he is worried about the chimney height compared to the story next to it. Stewart confirmed the chimney is wood-burning and said he appreciates the concern and will look into it. Miller mentioned the sugar maple tree that is proposed to replace a tree to be removed. He said he would like to see a similar hardwood planted that is native to the area. Dicker said the board could make that a condition to the approval. The board began a review of each elevation, beginning with the bird's eye view. Miller discussed trees to be planted and asked which ones would provide visual relief. Stewart pointed to drawings in the packet to answer the questions. Next, the board reviewed the front elevation. Spencer said that he likes the roof and that it is similar to a home on North Hassel Street. Dowdle said that it is good the amended roof design also brings the overall height down and that the parapet is a good addition. Miller asked about the solar addition the applicant was discussing. Hoffheimer said this can be approved by staff as a minor work if the solar is not visible from the street. The board reviewed the changes to the retaining wall. Dicker said it is an improvement and described it as less stark. Member Hannah Peele said she notices a lot of walls like this around Hillsborough. The review continued with the trellis and windows. Miller said he has no issues with this in the district. Dowdle said it is in keeping with the rest of the house. Stewart said he sees the windows as American picture windows and not as storefront windows. Spencer said that he likes the new finish of the trellis and that it is not shiny. Stewart said the material will be zinc or similar material and it was never intended to be shiny. Miller said the materials are compatible with the district. Dowdle asked for other comments. Peele said she appreciates that the design uses the entire site as a living area and that it is very site specific. At 7:14 p.m., the public hearing was closed. Motion: Spencer moved to find as fact that the 104 S. 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: New Construction of Primary Residential Buildings, New Construction of Outbuildings and Garages, Site Features and Plantings, Fences and Walls, Walkways, Driveways, and Off-street Parking, Exterior Lighting, Roofs, Sustainability and Energy Retrofit, Exterior Walls, Masonry, Architectural Metals, Wood, Doors, Windows, Porches, Entrances, and Balconies. Peele seconded. Vote: 5-0. Palmer abstained. HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES | 4 of 9 Motion: Spencer moved to approve the application as submitted and modified with the condition that all tree replacements be made with native hardwood species. Dicker seconded. Vote: 5-0. Palmer abstained. Dowdle called for a five-minute recess at 7:17 p.m. The meeting resumed at 7:22 p.m. 6. New business A. Certificate of Appropriateness Application: 324 W. Tryon St. Applicant is requesting to build a safety fence along the east side of the driveway. (PIN 9874176601) At 7:22 p.m., the public hearing was opened for Item 6.A. There were no conflicts stated for this item. Staff and speakers had been sworn in earlier in the meeting for all items. Hoffheimer reviewed the item and said minor works do not allow for the approval of fences on the front of a primary structure. He said a split rail fence is not allowed except by commission approval. He shared site photos and a sample photo of the proposed fence. Applicant Kathleen Johnson came to the podium to explain the request. She said existing timbers along the driveway have been hit by cars and she is concerned about safety because there is a ravine next to the road. Dicker asked why this type of fence is being proposed. Johnson replied that this type of fence is strong and low. She said it would be approximately 3 feet tall and 15 feet from the road. She said it is intended to keep people from driving into the bushes and ravine. Miller asked why the guidelines don't treat safety fences differently. Hoffheimer reiterated that front elevation fences cannot be approved at a staff level. He suggested Miller’s question could be considered by the subcommittees reviewing the standards. Hornik said there is no special guidance on safety. Campbell reminded that the commission has the authority to approve this type of fence. She said only staff is limited in approval authority. Dowdle said the board should consider approval based on appropriateness and not on safety. Hoffheimer said a split rail fence does not meet the design matrix, but the guidelines allow staff to send the approval to the commission. Dicker said it is a good argument to approve the fence based on it being so strong and low. Spencer asked for clarity as to whether the board’s hands are tied because of the matrix. Hornik asked whether the fence actually is split rail. Campbell said she does not think so, as split rail fences generally have top and bottom rails on a post system. Dickers said she had researched examples prior to the meeting and the proposed design is similar to online examples of a split rail fence. Hornik said it is up to the interpretation of the commission if it is split rail. Palmer said his search shows it as a rail fence but not as a split rail fence. Dicker viewed the examples and concurred with that distinction. She said she is OK with the fence since it is not specifically split rail. Spencer said he thinks about precedent but there are enough extra details to explain why this fence would be approved. At 7:36 p.m., the public hearing was closed. Motion: Dicker moved to find as fact that the 324 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 HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES | 5 of 9 of the Unified Development Ordinance because the plans are consistent with the Historic District Design Standards: Fences and Walls. Miller seconded. Vote: 6-0. Motion: Dicker moved to approve the application as submitted. Spencer seconded. Vote: 6-0. B. Certificate of Appropriateness Application: 207 E. Queen St. Applicant is requesting to add inoperable shutters to the front and eastern sides of the building (PIN 9874176601). The public hearing was opened at 7:42 p.m. No conflicts of interest were stated among the members of the board. Hoffheimer introduced and reviewed the item. He said the home was built in 1962 and it is a contributing structure. He said staff can only approve as a minor work operable shutters that match the width of the window they are next to. Applicant Kenneth Garrison gave examples of pictures of other homes with similar shutters. He said the design for the proposed shutters would be a composite material with the appearance of wood. He said this material was chosen over vinyl despite being more expensive to fit with the other examples. Miller said the west side is less visible, but it is visible. Garrison said they did not include the west side because of the cost of composite over vinyl and because the front and east sides are much more visible. Spencer said the design standards caution against adding features to structures not originally there, although other houses within the district have these features. Garrison said he thinks it improves the appearance of the house, and he has put a lot of time and money into improving the house. Spencer said the commission’s role is to uphold the standards and to determine if the request is congruent with the district. Garrison suggested that half to two-thirds of the homes in the neighborhood have these shutters. He said he chose composite because he suspected vinyl would be an issue for the commission. Dowdle said approval could set precedent, but other houses may have been built when these shutters were standard. Garrison referenced a house on 327 Mitchell St. that added shutters which were not original to the house. Campbell showed the board a picture of the house referenced. Dicker said it is a different style house. Dicer said she had looked at brick ranch houses from 1962 in preparation for the meeting and described the results as a mixed bag. Palmer counted homes on the street from an online search and said 9 out of 12 have shutters. Spencer asked if they are mid-century homes. Palmer said some are. Dowdle said homes with shutters is pretty ubiquitous when looking around on Google Street View. Hoffheimer asked why the standards have a guideline about this and why inoperable shutters cannot be approved by staff if they are ubiquitous. Hornik said the question is whether the addition is congruous, and if 9 out of 12 homes on the street have them, it seems so. Hoffheimer said he would ask if the other homes’ shutters are original. He also said the standards have changed over time and the board must go by the current standards. Dicker said the board approved closing in a garage on this house and that was a major change to the original intent of the design. Peele said she is torn. She said the request is easier to approve if she can look at the house and say that shutters may have been there because the shutters are wide enough to cover the windows. With these windows, they are clearly too wide to have been covered by shutters, she said. HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES | 6 of 9 Spencer said this house is the only house with horizontal muntins, which is a strong design feature. He questioned whether the shutters are consistent with that feature. Garrison gave an example of another house in the district on Cameron Street with shutters and horizontal muntins. He said there is no way to put operable shutters on his home, which is also true of several other houses. Members continued to look at other houses online. The applicant cited 159 West Tryon St. as similar. Peele said she thinks the request is compatible. Dowdle said he sees enough examples to support it. Palmer said he appreciates the applicant's research and efforts. Dowdle said the board could make a stipulation to add shutters to the west elevation also. Dicker thinks all three sides should be done or only the front. Dowdle asked if the board would like to make that the applicant’s preference. The applicant said he thought about doing just the front but the east side is very visible, also. He said he would do the west if that was the only way to get it passed. The public hearing was closed at 8:03 p.m. Miller said the tension for him is what he sees in the standards versus what he sees in the district. He asked if the board would allow a Victorian or other era versus the mid-century modern to have inoperative shutters. He thinks the standard should be clearer. Spencer said for him the challenge is the integrity to the house versus being like other places in the district. Palmer said he thinks the applicant is bringing it forward because he wants it to be congruent. Dicker said it is interesting that the board is spending so much time on adding shutters to the home when a garage enclosure was approved on the same house. Dowdle said someone later could take the shutters off. Motion: Peele moved to find as fact that the 207 E. Queen 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: Sustainability and Energy Retrofit. Dicker seconded. Prior to the vote, Hoffheimer said it would be helpful to staff if the board would state the reasons for approval to provide guidance to staff when faced with cases like this in the future. Hornik said this does not need to be stated within the motion but could be included in the minutes as comments after the vote. Vote: 4-2. Nays: Miller and Spencer. There was then a discussion as to whether the board was approving that shutters be installed on one, two or three sides. Dicker asked if the motion could allow the applicant to choose between front only or front and both sides. Hornik said this is a possibility. Garrison asked for clarification that the board was approving two options: front and both sides or front only. This was affirmed. Motion: Peele moved to approve the application as submitted with the condition that shutters will be added either to the front only or to the front and two sides, per the applicant’s discretion, and that the proposed material be used wherever shutters were placed. Dicker seconded. Vote: 3-3. Nays: Miller, Palmer and Spencer. Hornik told the board that the vote requires a majority; therefore, it does not pass. The applicant thanked the board and said he had been in their position before and knew they had a hard job. He then left the meeting. HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES | 7 of 9 Palmer said the partitioning of the either/or in the condition of approval is what caused him to cast his vote as nay. He asked if the board can reconsider the item with a more specific condition. Hornik said the board can move to reconsider the motion. Motion: Palmer moved to reconsider the motion on 207 E. Queen St. Dicker seconded. Vote: 6-0. Palmer said he was concerned about a slippery slope and quoted the state motto. He said he is not opposed to adding shutters but thinks it should be all or nothing, specifically since those proposed shutters are inoperable. He said the board should be consistent in its decisions and perhaps this case is before the commission because there has not previously been consistency. Hoffheimer said there are only two examples of approvals of shutters since 2020. He said both were required to cover or appear to cover windows. He said perhaps this should be covered in the subcommittees’ review of updates to the standards to allow for consistency for staff. Spencer said elements almost always can be found elsewhere so approval should be based on standards other than being found on other houses. Dicker again asked why the board would let the applicant enclose his garage. Hoffheimer asked when that approval was done. Dicker estimated it had been about six months ago. Hornik asked if it would be a minor work if the shutters cover the windows. Dicker said faux shutters are original on this period house. Hoffheimer said he looked through black and white photos with the senior planner and did not see any shutters on this house going back to the 1980s. Campbell said Spencer’s comments are similar to a commission decision on an application on Calvin Street whereby the commission did not approve a gable roof on a house that had houses on either side with gable roofs because there was no evidence such a roof had ever been on that particular house even though the houses were built all the same year. Dicker said that example made her think. Spencer asked Palmer if there were some conditions under which he would approve the request. Palmer asked for clarity on what the board would be voting on. Hornik said the board is starting over and may reword the motion as the members see fit. Dowdle said that through further deliberation he is now on the no side. Dicker said if the board approves, it needs to say why. Miller asked whether a motion to reject would be needed if the motion to approve does not pass. Hornik said no. Palmer asked to hear from Dowdle. Dowdle said he was torn until the gable roof reminder was presented. That example made him want to deny the request. Motion: Dicker moved to approve the application for 207 E. Queen St. Palmer seconded. Vote: 2-4. Nays: Dowdle, Miller, Palmer and Spencer. C. Certificate of Appropriateness Application: 421 W. Corbin St. Applicant is requesting to build an accessory dwelling with screen porch and stoop behind the existing house. (PIN 9864782842) Hoffheimer introduced the item and reviewed the materials. He said his only staff comment is that the door is fiberglass, which is approved for entry doors on a case-by-case basis. He also noted that the commission approved an after-the-fact Certificate of Appropriateness for the existing dwelling in June 2022. He said the screening for the HVAC system has been installed and replacement windows have been ordered. HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES | 8 of 9 The public hearing was opened at 8:35 p.m. No conflicts were stated by the board. David Cates came forward to present the item on behalf of the applicant. He said a privacy fence exists and will remain, which has influenced some of the features of the proposed design. The board began with the site plan review. Miller asked where the driveway is located. Cates demonstrated from the packet, and Miller asked if it would be the same material. Cates affirmed. The front elevation was reviewed next, and all was said to be compatible. In a review of the left elevation, Dicker asked about compatibility for the fiberglass front door. Cates said it is allowed if it is not visible from the street. Dicker said her review of the standards was that the approval would be case by case. Cates said the door is not visible from the front and it is mostly glass. Peele said fiberglass- clad wood is allowed for new construction. Cates confirmed that the proposed door is fiberglass-clad wood. The board moved on to the right elevation. Miller asked if the material is Hardie board, and Cates said yes. Spencer asked if the proposed roof or that type of roof is found in the district. Cates affirmed it was approved on Lydia Lane. He said it is a 3:12 pitch, which he said is not stark. Miller read from the standards for materials and asked if the applicant had considered brick. Cates said the owners prefer this style. Peele said the original house is painted brick, so if the owners were to build with brick, the board members may need to consider if they would ask for it to be painted brick. The public hearing was closed at 8:46 p.m. Motion: Dicker moved to find as fact that the 421 W. Corbin St. application is in keeping with the overall character of the Historic District and complies with all relevant standards of evaluation based on the commission’s discussion of the application and the standards of evaluation in Section 3.12.3 of the Unified Development Ordinance because the plans are consistent with the Historic District Design Standards: New Construction of Accessory Dwelling Units, Site Features and Plantings, Roofs, Porches, Entrances, Balconies, Walkways, and Driveways and Off-street Parking, Walls, Windows and Doors. Miller seconded. Vote: 6-0. Motion: Dicker moved to approve the application as submitted and amended the motion at Miller’s request to add the condition that the fiberglass door be confirmed to be fiberglass-clad wood. Spencer seconded. Vote: 6-0. 7. Updates Hoffheimer said there is one enforcement case on N. Nash St. Staff have since confirmed that the property has valid permits. Hoffheimer said the commission’s standards updates subcommittee that he has been working with will be meeting Monday. 8. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 8:53 p.m. Respectfully submitted, HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES | 9 of 9 Joseph Hoffheimer Planner Staff support to the Historic District Commission Approved: May 3, 2023