Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout07-19-2023 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 7 Minutes HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION Special meeting 6:30 p.m. July 19, 2023 Board Meeting Room of Town Hall Annex, 105 E. Corbin St. Present: Chair Will Senner, Elizabeth Dicker, Mathew Palmer, Hannah Peele and Bruce Spencer Absent: G. Miller Staff: Planner Joseph Hoffheimer and Town Attorney Bob Hornik 1. Call to order, roll call, and confirmation of quorum Chair 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 Senner asked staff if there were any agenda changes, and there were none. Planner Hoffheimer noted that non-essential agenda items would be held for the regular meeting in August. 4. Minutes review and approval Minutes from regular meeting on May 3, 2023. Minutes from regular meeting on June 7, 2023. Senner called for comments on the minutes. There being none, he asked for a motion to approve. Motion: Member Spencer moved approval of the May 3, 2023 and the June 7, 2023 minutes as submitted. Senner seconded. Vote: 5-0. Nays: 0. 5. Old business A. Certificate of Appropriateness Application: 104 W. Union St.— Applicant is requesting to install an electric vehicle charger on a pedestal between the building and the parking area. Senner asked if there were any conflicts of interest and opened the public hearing when none were raised. He called for any witnesses to come forward to be sworn in. Hoffheimer and applicant Amy Burns were sworn in. HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES | 2 of 7 Hoffheimer provided a background description for the property at 104 W. Union St. He said it was built in 1960 but renovated in 2019 as condominiums. Hoffheimer said the inventory predates the renovations, and the building is not a contributing structure. Hoffheimer stated that the application included existing and proposed dimension plans, list of proposed materials and photographs. Hoffheimer stated that there are no specific design standards for electric vehicle chargers, but he noted that the applicable design standards for Site Features and Plantings section 10 and Utilities sections 1 and 5 are the most relevant. He stated that staff is not aware of any similarly located electric vehicle chargers in the Historic District. He stated that staff may approve electric vehicle chargers as a minor work if they are located behind the front line of the primary structure. He noted that 104 W. Union St. is a corner lot with no parking areas behind the front line of the primary structure. He clarified that the pedestal will now be made of steel and not aluminum with a height of 51 inches instead of 47 inches. Burns noted that the condo structure was previously addressed on Churton Street. She said she had confirmed with town staff that the pedestal would not encroach on the public right of way and will be on private property. Burns described the proposed pedestal and charger installation details and noted that she would be using an experienced installation contractor from Raleigh. She said the pedestal will be on a concrete pad. She mentioned an electric vehicle charger on E. Union Street. She said she would consider landscaping around the pedestal. Senner asked if there was any additional testimony by the public before opening up to commissioners’ questions. Burns noted that her condo association had already approved the electric vehicle charger. Senner asked if any of the commissioners had questions for the applicant. Member Spencer asked if the charger could be located closer to her building. Spencer read the utility standard regarding siting and screening on page 67 of the design standards and from page 95 of the design standards for site features and plantings that described screening from the street view. Burns confirmed that she had spoken with Tesla about a longer charger cable but that the 24-foot length was the standard. She said the power conduit would be installed under the sidewalk and the steel pedestal would be painted black to match the railing. Burns said she would need to confirm that it was galvanized steel. It was noted that extension cables were advertised online and could be an option for locating the charging station on the building. Senner asked if other commissioners believed that the charger should be on the building to be congruent with the design standards. Burns stated that she could have the contractor provide installation alternatives, but she reiterated that if the charger was on the building, the cable to her vehicle would need to cross the sidewalk and may pose a safety issue. HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES | 3 of 7 Member Palmer spoke regarding the safety issue posed by the cable crossing the sidewalk. He spoke regarding the commission’s charge regarding adaptability and sustainability and stated his support for approving the application as presented. Senner asked the commissioners if they believed the application as submitted was congruent with the design standards or whether the charging station would need to be located on the building to be congruent. Member Peele stated that she believed it was congruent as submitted. Member Dicker stated she was in agreement that it was congruent as summitted. Peele asked the applicant about her intention to screen the pedestal and charger, and the applicant confirmed they were discussing it. The height of the pedestal was discussed as well as additional charging station users. The applicant stated that she would ask her contractor if the pedestal could be lower and screened. The commission discussed the height of the pedestal being based on an identifiable standard. Senner suggested that the commission could approve the application as submitted and direct the applicant to pursue installing a lower pedestal. Town Attorney Hornik stated that because similar requests would be coming before the commission, they would need to establish a standard but that this request could move forward without one. Spencer stated his preference for delaying the vote. Senner spoke regarding sensitivity for an applicant that has had her request postponed twice due to meeting issues. Commissioners discussed establishing the standard, reviewing other historic districts’ standards, delaying action until the August meeting, the August meeting caseload, landscaping, determination of the property as a corner lot, an existing charger at a home on East Union Street and sustainability practices. Senner summarized the commission’s direction to table to the next meeting and research other historic districts’ standards. Discussion ensued that the application could be approved at this meeting with conditions. Palmer restated that he supports the application as submitted. ADA standards were discussed. Motion: Dicker moved as a finding of fact that the application for 104 W. Union St. is in keeping with the overall character of the Historic District and complies with all relevant standards of evaluation based on 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 design guidelines Site Features Plantings and Utilities. Peele seconded. HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES | 4 of 7 Vote: 4-1. Nays: Spencer. Motion: Dicker moved to approve the application as submitted with the condition to encourage the applicant to investigate mounting the charger at a lower height and to include plant screening. Peele seconded. Vote: 4-1. Nays: Spencer. B. Certificate of Appropriateness Application: 437 Dimmocks Mill Road, Suite 2— Applicant is requesting to replace a wooden staircase with an ADA-compliant anodized aluminum access ramp, replace two existing roll- up doors with glazed anodized aluminum storefront assemblies, retain the right-most, roll-up door, add a guard railing matching the ramp system along both sides of the existing concrete ramp and at dock level, remove a portion of the existing planter at loading dock level for ADA-compliant parking bays, and add code- compliant handrails to the right-most stairs. Senner asked if there were any conflicts of interest and opened the public hearing when none were raised. He called for any witnesses to come forward to be sworn in. Project architect Will Riedel and applicant Elena Wells were sworn in. Hoffheimer provided a background description of the site which is a contributing structure of Eno Mill, a local landmark. He stated the application included the project narrative, site plan, plan of proposed work, views of existing conditions and proposed work, an updated rendering, a photo example of ramp system, itemized list of existing and proposed materials and responses to staff questions. Hoffheimer stated that the applicable standards were the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, standards 1, 2, 9 and 10 which are included in the Hillsborough Historic District Design Standards on page 32. He clarified that the site is outside of the Historic District. He stated that the loading dock is a 1980s alteration to a circa 1923 addition to Eno Mill. Hoffheimer stated that staff is not familiar with any other examples of glazed aluminum storefront assemblies replacing roll-up doors at Eno Mill, but that aluminum windows and doors have been installed in several contributing parts of the complex. He said that the nonconforming warehouse at the north end of the driveway from Eno Mountain Road has an aluminum door and window system that includes several multi- paned aluminum-framed windows. Hoffheimer stated that the wall on the upper left side of the dock is proposed to be reinforced CMU wall as a guard wall for maneuvering vehicles; the handrail along the right-most stairs will be of the same material and design as the ramp structure, which is iodized aluminum; and light fixtures are shown in the updated rendering as an indication of placement. He said the applicant will submit the proposed fixture type and landscaping materials to staff when those have been selected and that the existing landscaping in the island will be maintained and most likely remain as the only landscaping. Hoffheimer clarified which exhibit was the updated rendering. Riedel stated that he would respond to questions. HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES | 5 of 7 Senner asked if the commission had questions on the site plan, and there were no questions. Senner asked if the new doors would be painted orange as shown on the rendering. Wells said the doors would match existing doors and would be gray. Existing concrete ramps at Eno Mill were discussed. Riedel stated that the ramps were not historically common and that the space could not be accessed without a ramp. He said the potential tenant has asked for handicapped access. Discussion included maintaining material compatibility, industrial-looking facades, the ability to remove additions and the previous introduction of materials such as aluminum and metal-framed storefronts. Riedel stated that the project had been submitted to the National Park Service for historic tax credits, and no objection had been raised. Wells stated that they had wanted to have a removeable ramp instead of a concrete one. Spencer suggested that the applicants were not trying to mimic historic features, and Riedel agreed. Differences such as materials for railings were discussed, and it was clarified that the Historic District standards do not apply to Eno Mill. Senner confirmed that the new storefront openings are accurately reflected in the renderings. He also noted that he had observed other CMU walls on the site that had been introduced over time. Riedel spoke to the safety aspects of the walls and to the elevation drop. Peele confirmed that the paving material was existing concrete. Senner closed the public hearing and asked for a motion on a finding of fact that references the Secretary of the Interior Standards on page 32. Motion: Spencer moved as a finding of fact that the 437 Dimmocks Mill Road, Suite 2 application is in keeping with the overall character of the individual local landmark and complies with all relevant standards of evaluation based on discussion of the application and with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, standards 1,2,9 and 10. Peele seconded. Vote: 5-0. Nays: 0. Motion: Spencer moved to approve the application as submitted with the condition that door colors match existing doors in the structure. Palmer seconded. Vote: 5-0. Nays: 0. C. Certificate of Appropriateness Application: 216 S. Occoneechee Street — Applicant is requesting to add an outbuilding to the property. Hoffheimer stated that the applicant, Doug Peterson, was not in attendance. HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES | 6 of 7 Senner asked if there were any conflicts of interest and opened the public hearing when none were raised. He called for any witnesses to come forward to be sworn in. Hoffheimer confirmed with Hornik that the public hearing could continue without the applicant present. Hoffheimer provided a background description and noted that the inventory is already part of the record. He said the existing building was built in 1920, and it is a contributing structure. He said the packet included the certificate of appropriateness application, project narrative including example photo and materials, plot plan, floor plan and elevations. He noted the applicable design standards were New Construction of Outbuildings and Garages, 1-7 and 9. Hoffheimer provided the following staff comments: - The accessory structure will be a duplicate of the one previously approved at 404 Calvin Street, but the long side will orient toward the front. - The applicant has confirmed that the barn door and windows will be made of wood, and the side door will be steel. - Future fencing may be handled as a minor work. - Lighting may also be handled as a minor work and will match the existing structure. Senner stated that he had questions and suggested that if staff could not answer them, then they could compile a list of questions for the applicant to respond to at a future hearing. Comments and questions discussed included: - The siting of the proposed shed behind the house and at the end of the driveway is consistent with existing sheds in the district. - Most, but not all, existing sheds are oriented 90 degrees from the subject shed, but it’s not incongruent with the district. - Site lighting details are needed to confirm it matches the house. - Materials list is needed and not just a reference to 404 Calvin St. materials. - Barn door elevation is needed. - Clarification on the roof is needed - Confirm steel-frame door is 36-inch all-glass door. - Confirm pitch of the roof is to match 404 Calvin St. - Window profiles are needed. - Compatibility of side glass door. - Relationship between main house and proposed shed. - Accessory dwelling unit and shed definitions. - Addition should be shown on site plan. - Elevation difference between the addition and the shed. Consensus of the commission was to continue the application to the August meeting. Motion: Dicker moved to continue the application to the Aug. 2, 2023 HDC meeting. Peele seconded. Vote: 5-0. Nays: 0. 6. Elect new vice-chair HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES | 7 of 7 Senner asked for nominations. Dicker, Spencer and Peele indicated that they did not want to serve as vice- chair. Hoffheimer suggested that the matter could be postponed until the full board was present. Palmer agreed to be the vice-chair. Motion: Dicker moved appointment of Palmer as vice-chair. Spencer seconded. Vote: 5-0. Nays: 0. 7. Certified Local Government (CLG) updates Hoffheimer provided details on training needed to retain the town’s certified local government status for the upcoming year. He said two commissioners must attend either remote or in-person training offered by the state historic preservation office by the end of September. He said in-person meetings are in Washington, N.C. on Aug. 24, Mount Airy on Aug. 31 and in Sanford on Sept. 25. Alternatively, he said commissioners can attend three Zoom meetings and respond to a questionnaire for each. Peele indicated her interest in attending, and Hoffheimer said he would send out a link to the commission. Senner asked for other updates and there were none. 8. Adjournment Meeting adjourned at 8:08 p.m. without a vote. Respectfully submitted, Joseph Hoffheimer Planner Staff support to the Historic District Commission Approved: ____________________