Historic District Commission Regular Meeting

Minutes HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION Regular meeting 6:30 p.m. July 10, 2024 Board Meeting Room of Town Hall Annex, 105 E. Corbin St. Present: Chair Will Senner, Vice Chair Mathew Palmer, and members Elizabeth Dicker, Hannah Peele, Sara Riek and Bruce Spencer Absent: Member G. Miller Staff: Planner Joseph Hoffheimer and Town Attorney Bob Hornik 1. Call to order, roll call, and confirmation of quorum Chair Will Senner called the meeting to order at 6:32 p.m. He 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 to the agenda. 4. Minutes review and approval Minutes from regular meeting on June 5, 2024. Motion: Senner moved to approve the minutes from the regular meeting on June 5, 2024. Member Elizabeth Dicker seconded. Vote: 6-0. 5. Written decisions review and approval Written decisions from regular meeting on June 5, 2024. Motion: Senner moved approval of the written decisions from the regular meeting on June 5. 2024.. Member Bruce Spencer seconded. Vote: 6-0. 6. New business 1. Certificate of Appropriateness Application: 404 W. King St. Applicant is requesting to construct a new detached garage with an accessory dwelling unit adjacent to the existing residence. (PIN 9864766393) Senner opened the public hearing and asked whether there were any conflicts of interest or bias among the commissioners. Member Hannah Peele disclosed for the record that the applicants are her neighbors but stated that she was confident that she could hear and evaluate the application without bias. All 101 E. Orange St., PO Box 429, Hillsborough, NC 27278 919-732-1270 | www.hillsboroughnc.gov | @HillsboroughGov HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES | 1 of 10  HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES | 2 of 10 commissioners disclosed that they had visited the site in preparation for reviewing the application. No other conflicts of interest were disclosed. Planner Joseph Hoffheimer was sworn in. Ryan Edwards, the project’s architect, and Rob Fielder, the property owner, were sworn in to speak on behalf of the application. Hoffheimer introduced the application by presenting the staff report. He noted that the inventory information, application materials, and applicable design standards would be entered into the record as evidence. He provided the staff comments: ● Because the proposed outbuilding would function as both an accessory dwelling unit and a garage, staff recommend applying both the New Construction of Outbuildings and Garages and New Construction of Accessory Dwelling Units standards. ● Several modern accessory dwelling units and rear additions exist throughout the historic district. ● The submittal does not include a separate materials list, although most of the materials are noted on the elevations. ● “Cementitious” panels do not appear to be directly addressed in the compatibility matrix, although fiber cement is permitted for siding and exterior trim. ● The garage door, porch brackets, concrete masonry unit surface finish, and light fixtures still need to be confirmed but can be approved at the staff level if they meet the minor works and compatibility matrix requirements. ● There was one question from commissioners about roof heights. The applicant has confirmed that the height of the addition at the chimney is 0.48 inches above the roof of the main house. Edwards introduced the application by explaining the physical limitations of the site. He said there is a restrictive stream buffer at the rear of the property and that there are limited options for locating additions on the site. He said he had reviewed many options and that this proposal is what works best for the site. Additionally, Edwards noted that the street is low compared to the house, and that any structure to the rear of the house is not visible from the street. He said the addition will be completely obscured behind the residence. Edwards explained that they referenced the design standards when developing the plan for this project. They are trying to create a structure that is consistent with the guidelines. He asserted that the design is meant to not look historic and to clearly be of the current era. He mentioned that he and the property owner have flexibility and are open to discussion on elements such as finishes. Edwards clarified that the cementitious panels referenced in the application will be the same material as Hardie Board, but with a wider lap that will reveal the joints between the panels. He noted that similar projects have been done in the area and the same application of this material has been approved by the commission in the past. He added that this portion of the structure is below the roofline and will not be visible from the street. Edwards confirmed that the color of the siding will be the same as in the renderings but not the same as the material sample included in the application. The color will be a gunmetal, light gray. Edwards said the windows will be Marvin Elevate fiberglass windows with a mitered finish that will look similar to a wooden application. The commissioners reviewed the site plan.  HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES | 3 of 10 Edwards said the path material will be screening or gravel to match what is existing. Senner noted that this should be added to the list to confirm with staff when the material is selected. Edwards said the proposed new retaining wall that will replace the existing block wall will be parged cement. He said this will look better than the existing wall. Edwards explained that the existing drive stops at the hill on the site and that the hill is indicated on the site plan. He plans to extend the existing drive to allow cars to turn around without having to back out onto the street. He confirmed that the gravel of the new drive will match the existing gravel. Senner expressed appreciation for the location of the addition at the rear of the main structure, in keeping with the design standards. Edwards confirmed that some trees under 24 inches will have to be removed because the rest of the yard is unbuildable. He explained that there are some larger trees near the property line on plan east. He confirmed that construction will take place well out of the dripline of these trees since they are along the property line and within the required setback. Edwards confirmed that the powder coated chimney cap will be aluminum or steel. Fielder added that it will match the window trim. Edwards confirmed that they would prefer the Thermoplastic Polyolefin roofing material to be white. Dicker noted that typically membrane roofing is limited to commercial and industrial uses only, but that there is precedent for this application. Edwards confirmed that the wood columns will match the side and that all wood will be stained as shown in the renderings. He confirmed that all colors and finishes in the renderings are accurate. Hoffheimer confirmed that lighting can be approved as a minor work. Edwards confirmed that the trim at the panels will be Tamlyn. They will be extruded aluminum and painted to match the panels so they will not look like a separate material. Edwards confirmed that the railing will match the windows, and the block at the bottom of the railing will be parged to match the wall. The point was raised that extruded aluminum is not in the design matrix as approved trim material. Edwards clarified that the trim will be flashing, not decorative trim. It will be used to create a finished edge on the panels. Edwards said the garage door material will be aluminum and glass. Edwards said the portico porch brackets will all be wood, which will match all the other wood in the project. Senner noted that while the design standards suggest that the elevation of accessory structures be lower than the primary structure to show that they are subordinate, in this instance, since the chimney is less than ½ inch taller than the existing roofline; and considering how the addition is sited relative to the primary structure; and considering the change in elevation between the street to the built structures on  HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES | 4 of 10 the site, the elevation of the chimney does not impede the intent of the accessory structure being subordinate to the primary structure. Edwards added that the chimney is for a wood burning fireplace and is required by code to be more than 10 feet above the roof. The commissioners agreed that this did not seem incongruent. The commissioners reviewed the renderings. Edwards confirmed that there is no physical connection between the existing house and the addition. He added that he pushed the accessory structure as far back on the site as possible to maintain the prominence of the primary structure. He also mentioned that though the style and materials of the house are modern, the design is intended to also pay homage to the primary structure in order to provide visual connection. Edwards confirmed that two elevations of the renderings were missing in the application. But he confirmed that the other elevations have the same general appearance as the ones included in the packet. The commissioners agreed that the plans appeared to be not incongruent with the character of the historic district. Gary Nelson, the owner of the house next door to the property under consideration, was sworn in to provide testimony. Nelson had questions for Edwards about the visual impact of the design on the sightlines from his property. Senner reminded those present that testimony must include evidence related to the design standards. Senner summarized the commissioners’ discussion: The consensus is that the proposed accessory dwelling unit and accessory garage structure is not incongruous with the character of the historic district. The siting of the structure is consistent with design standards and materials are consistent with the compatibility matrix. While the application of materials is more modern, the design is intended to reflect the current period. There is compatibility and congruence between the materials used and those of the primary structure, and those are thoughtfully complementary. Senner closed the public hearing. Motion: Member Sara Riek moved to find as fact that the 404 W. King St. application is not incongruous with the overall character of the Historic District and complies with all relevant standards of evaluation based on the commission’s discussion of the application and the standards of evaluation in Section 3.12.3 of the Unified Development Ordinance because the plans are consistent with the Historic District Design Standards: New Construction of Outbuildings and Garages; New Construction of Accessory Dwelling Units; Walkways, Driveways, and Off-Street Parking; and Fences and Walls. Spencer seconded. Vote: 6-0. Motion: Dicker moved to approve the application with conditions. Riek seconded. Vote: 6-0. Conditions: The walking path and driveway shall match the existing materials. 7. Old business  HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES | 5 of 10 A. Certificate of Appropriateness Application: 437 Dimmocks Mill Rd. Applicant is requesting to install windows in the northwest wall of the mill, demolish Suite 50, regrade, and add a bus drop-off. (PIN 9864646207.006) Senner announced that the public hearing was still open, all prior witnesses were still sworn in, and Riek was still recused from consideration of the application. Eddie Belk, of Belk Architecture; Frank Gailor, of Hedgehog Holdings; and Alex Gold, of Eno River Mill, were sworn in to speak on behalf of the application. Hoffheimer gave the updated staff report. He noted that information from previous staff reports is in the public record. He highlighted new staff comments since the previous meeting: ● Since the last Historic District Commission meeting, the applicant has provided staff with a letter that is included at the end of the packet. Staff interpret the letter to have limited evidentiary value without further evidence and sworn testimony from the applicant, and it contains many topics outside the realm of the commission. The letter does include a request to evaluate the demolition of Suite 50 and northwest wall separately, and the commissioners will likely want to confirm this request with the applicant. ● As a reminder, any demolition is subject to Section 3.12.6 of the Town’s Unified Development Ordinance, and the Commission may delay a demolition COA for up to 365 days from the date of approval. Staff interpret the 365-day timeframe to begin when the written decision is issued. ● Staff do not recommend approval of a shorter demolition timeline unless the applicant provides the evidence requested by the Historic District Commission at the last several meetings. The commission may approve a delay in demolition of up to 365 days at this meeting. ● Staff further reviewed the Certificate of Appropriateness history for this property and found that a brick ramp to Suite 50 was approved by the Historic District Commission on March 2, 2022. The estimated project cost for that proposal was $35,000, and the applicant/s paid a $35 application fee. ● The northwest wall once had windows before it was veneered with brick in the 1970s. More information is available in the National Register nomination section on p. 88. ● Since the last meeting, the applicant has provided a historic aerial photo of the northwest wall from when it had windows. See the photo on p. 81 for more information. ● At the last meeting, the applicant provided several items that were requested by the Commission. These items included: o Updated materials list o Patio wall finish sample o Proposed window details o National Park Service site and demolition plans (plans only; these have no bearing on local commission review) o Proposed floor plans (interior use has no bearing on local commission review) o Existing door examples o Scaled elevations o Proposed entry rendering o Suite 50 ramp estimate email (contractor was not present to testify) o Cost-benefit analyses from contractors (not present to testify) o Letter from NC Drainage (not present to testify)  HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES | 6 of 10 o Existing window examples Hoffheimer also mentioned that Town Attorney Bob Hornik had emailed a copy of GS 160D-949 to the commissioners, which addresses demolition of historic buildings. He interpreted the statute to indicate that the commission cannot deny a request to demolish unless the building has been determined to have statewide significance by the State Historic Preservation Office. He pointed out that Subparagraph (a) establishes the basic rule that such applications may not be denied, but only delayed by up to 365 days. There was a request from commissioners to confirm that the applicants had requested a demolition delay. Hoffheimer confirmed that his understanding was that that was the most recent request. Gailor clarified that the applicants had not requested a 365 day delay; they had instead acknowledged that the commission has the capacity to delay demolition, but that they may not deny the application. He confirmed that the applicants are not requesting a delay but would rather have approval for demolition. There was discussion of the date from which the 365-day delay would be calculated. Hornik read from statute 160D-949A, which indicates that the effective date is 365 days from the date of approval. He clarified that the delay begins the day the demolition is approved, recognizing that the demolition may not be denied in this case, unless the building is shown to have statewide significance. Senner restated that the commission’s task was to evaluate whether the demolition should be approved effective immediately or with a delay of up to 365 days. The applicants stated that their timeline necessitates some urgency in making the decision. Senner assured the applicants that the commission has no desire to prolong the application; he reminded the applicants that the reason the timeline has been extended is because the requested information and materials have not been provided. There was discussion of the proposal and National Register-related approval from the State Preservation Office and the National Park Service. There was further discussion of the difference between local designation of and standards for historic significance of structures and designation within the National Register. There was discussion of the financial hardship faced by the applicant if demolition were delayed. Hornik confirmed that economic hardship of the applicant is a factor in considering the extent of the delay of demolition. It was clarified among the commissioners that the demolition of Suite 50 could be considered separately from the consideration of whether the windows and other elements are congruent with design standards. Gailor referred to the memorandum included in the application packet. He explained that the contractor’s estimate was $100,000 to complete a ramp. Additional improvements would bring the total cost to $290,000. The applicants estimated 25% of hard costs going toward architects and engineers, so the grand total would be $362,500. He explained that the return on this investment would work out to a little less than 4%. Senner expressed that the calculations were logically laid out. He offered an alternate calculation: Senner referred to the staff report and noted that a separate application had the ramp estimated at a different cost provided as evidence under oath. Senner said he had applied an escalation value of 15% based on the time period of the application submitted previously. He questioned why the applicants’ assumed rental  HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES | 7 of 10 rate of $15 per square foot would be different than the market rate of $28-$34 per square foot that he arrived at based on a basic Google search. Gailor explained that $28-$34 is higher than the office rate they have been receiving from tenants at the mill. He estimated that $15 per square foot is optimistic for small spaces in disfavored locations. He added that if the rental rate were raised, it would not change the basic financial feasibility. Senner made some calculations in a spreadsheet based on an $18 per square foot rental rate and a revised cost of the ramp. Those figures would place the return on investment at about 8%. Hoffheimer noted that there had been a request for contractors to provide those numbers, and Senner noted that those contractors were not present at the meeting. Peele asked the applicants whether the property could be sold, and what it would be worth if sold. Gailor explained that the property is worth more to the applicants as land than it is as a building. He reiterated that as it stands, the existing building cannot be used for any commercial, industrial or residential purpose. The goal of the applicants is to expose the front of the main mill building and add windows to allow it to be used for other purposes. There was discussion of the purpose of delay of demolition to allow alternative scenarios to be pursued. Gailor said that this is the first time in his career that he has ever had to propose demolishing a building in a historic district; he said that typically he tries to save buildings in historic areas. Belk added that he, too, goes to extra effort to try to make buildings work without demolishing them. He explained that he does not ever take demolition lightly, and that the former developer had allowed the building to deteriorate to the point that it does not make financial sense to rehabilitate it. There was further discussion of the purpose of delaying demolition. Spencer expressed confusion about why continued requests for certain evidence and testimony from contractors had been ignored. He said he was surprised that contractors were not present to be cross- examined. Gailor explained that they are experts in construction of historic properties and have a general contractor on staff. He said that the numbers presented were real numbers taken from current experience. Senner agreed with Spencer’s disappointment and frustration but also noted that he did not find anything in the presented logic or analysis to be surprising. Hornik asserted that the backgrounds of Gailor and Belk added to the weight of the testimony they provided. He proposed that there was substantial and competent evidence to support a decision. Dicker expressed confusion over the limitation that the commission cannot deny demolition. Senner and Vice Chair Mathew Palmer reminded the commission that it is worth considering the context of the larger development. Palmer added that everyone is trying to make good decisions for the town, and that the commission does that with the town’s historic character in mind. There was discussion of the historic significance of Suite 50. Belk said that as a historic preservation architect, he makes every effort to preserve buildings and put them back into use. He reminded the commissioners that the applicants are trying to preserve a large campus but have a building that is not architecturally significant to the history of the mill that is impeding the mill’s use.  HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES | 8 of 10 It was noted that the function of Suite 50 was discussed at previous meetings, and that testimony was provided that the building was the primary office of the mill. The question was raised of whether office space offers special historic significance. Gold explained that in a textile mill property, administrative offices moved around as the mill grew and evolved. He explained that owners would often move the offices to add more looms, and that it was not typical for an administrative office to stay in one place. Spencer raised the consideration that in some cases structures seem to have no special significance but over time people might recognize its historic significance as they look back on its history. Belk described the amount of research that went into developing the historical register nomination that designated the main mill to be contributing. He explained that it was unlikely that the in-depth research had overlooked the historical significance of Suite 50. He said that during the research it was concluded that the building was not significantly contributing to the operation of the mill during the mill’s main period of significance, when the mill had viability. He reiterated that the goal of the project is to re-establish the beneficial purpose of the campus to the community, and that the presence of Suite 50 inhibits the ability of the property to be useful to the community. The purpose of delaying demolition was discussed further. The consideration was raised that during the period of delay, someone would have to do the work of researching alternatives to demolition, and the question was put forward of whether that responsibility should lie with the commissioners. The question of the owners’ incentive to look for an alternative was discussed. It was proposed that in theory there may be an alternative scenario that is economically viable, but that according to the evidence presented so far, there is not a clearly economically viable alternative in this instance. The point was raised again of considering the larger picture and how the commission is encouraging connection and greater community reach through its decisions. Belk returned to the question of historic significance and reminded the commission that the National Register nomination is always done in collaboration with the State Historic Preservation Office, and that each entity comes to agreement about what is contributing and what is not. In those discussions Suite 50 was determined to be not contributing. Hoffheimer noted that inventories are not regularly updated, so structures can take on historic significance between the time of nomination and the current time without being reflected in the inventory. Senner offered that his opinion on the historic significance was based on the testimony that has been provided about the timing of the construction of the building; the determination of the building’s contribution during the mill’s period of significance; its standing in regard to the National Register application; and how it’s been viewed by the State Historic Preservation Office and the National Park Service in regards to their review. He stated that in his assessment he felt comfortable with all of that evidence and testimony that the building does not provide special significance toward maintaining the character of the district. He added that in conjunction with the lack of historic significance, the economic assessment shows that there is not a viable path forward for the renovation of the building, which provides justification for not delaying the demolition. Hoffheimer reiterated that local standards of historic significance differ from those of the Department of the Interior for tax credit eligibility, and that many locally historic properties have been vetted by rigorous standards but are not considered contributing according to the National Register. Senner acknowledged Hoffheimer’s comment and said he understood that point, but that his opinion stands in light of the totality of evidence presented. Palmer and Dicker said that they agreed with Senner’s assessment.  HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES | 9 of 10 Spencer said he also agreed with Senner’s assessment and asked for a review of the financial numbers. Senner said that at $18 per square foot for rental income and the lower estimated cost for the ramp, the return on investment comes to about 6%. Peele said she was satisfied that there are enough changes to that building that would need to be made to make it usable that it is not cost effective. Senner added that the proposed project would enable broader adaptive reuse and restoration of the mill that adds character to the landmark overall. Peele and Palmer agreed. Senner closed the public hearing as it relates to the demolition of Suite 50. Motion: Dicker moved to approve the demolition of Suite 50 at 437 Dimmocks Mill Rd. as submitted. Palmer seconded. Vote: 5-0. Palmer expressed appreciation both for planning staff members and the applicants in supporting the commission in negotiating such a complex application. The commissioners addressed the unresolved portion of the application: the windows, canopy and site work modifications. Senner noted that the majority of the scope of the project had been discussed in previous meetings. He reminded those present that there had been questions raised by a commissioner regarding the style of the proposed windows. Hoffheimer highlighted the comment in the staff report regarding the aerial photo of the northwest wall from when it had windows. The commissioners reviewed the example photos included in the packet. They also reviewed the rendering. The applicants confirmed that in the rendering on p. 55 the lower windows appear smaller than the upper windows but that they are in fact the exact same windows. They said there seemed to have been a software glitch which made them appear different proportions. No additional concerns about the windows were raised. Senner said that in light of the many other examples of rehabilitation of the mill and use of similar windows, and of similar materials in terms of the canopy and the doors, he did not find the elements to be incongruous with the district. There was agreement among the commissioners that the windows were not incongruous. Applicant Elena Wells confirmed that all of the photos included as examples were intended to show the different window types that currently exist throughout the mill. Senner closed the public hearing. Senner summarized the commissioners’ discussion, noting that that in addition to lack of incongruity of the windows, and the evidence provided around the masonry wall not being contributing, the commission has not found any evidence that the application would be incongruous with the landmark or inconsistent with design standards of the Secretary of the Interior. Motion: Dicker moved to find as fact that the application for 437 Dimmocks Mill Rd. is not incongruous with the overall character of the historic landmark and complies with all  HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES | 10 of 10 relevant standards of evaluation based on the commission’s discussion of the application and the standards of evaluation of the Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation because the plans are consistent with Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation: 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 9. Palmer seconded. Vote: 5-0. Motion: Dicker moved to approve the application as submitted. Palmer seconded. Vote: 5-0. 8. CLG Trainings Hoffheimer reminded the commission that one commissioner must attend a Certified Local Government program training by September to retain the town’s Certified Local Government status. Peele volunteered to attend. 9. Historic Preservation Awards Hoffheimer mentioned interest in resuming the town’s Historic Preservation Awards. He asked commissioners to let him know if there were any projects in recent years that stand out as having been exceptionally high quality or that did something unique regarding historic preservation. He added that the project does not have to be a restoration project. 10. General updates Hoffheimer announced that the design standard modifications were approved on June 10. They are now posted on the website. He added that the town has a new website that is active. Hoffheimer gave an update on fees for Certificates of Appropriateness. 11. Adjournment Senner adjourned the meeting at 8:32 p.m. without a vote. Respectfully submitted, Joseph Hoffheimer Planner Staff support to the Historic District Commission Approved: August 7, 2024