Wilmington Historic Preservation Commission Meeting - December 13, 2018
STREAMING COPY IN PREPARATION — RECORDING AVAILABLE FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE
Wilmington Historic Preservation Commission Meeting - December 13, 2018
The Wilmington Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) met on Thursday, December 13, 2018, at 5:30 p.m. in the City Council Chambers at the Skyline Center, 929 North Front Street, Wilmington, NC. The meeting was called to order at 5:30 p.m. by Chairman Murphy. The commission considered a range of agenda items including old business, new business, and other matters. The meeting featured discussions on replacement windows, new construction, accessory structures, chimney removals, roof replacements, a preservation agreement for unpermitted work, and approval of previous meeting minutes.
Consent Calendar
- No consent calendar was present on the agenda.
Public Comments & Testimony
- Tom Mitchell (205 Sunset Avenue): Former HPC member spoke in support of the PVC window stool replacement at 211 South 5th Avenue, citing practicality and guidelines that allow the commission to determine material requirements. He noted he had voted against plastic columns in the past but supported this request due to the conditions (visibility 35 feet above grade).
- Heather Koopman (308 North 16th Street): Encouraged approval of the window modification at 307 North 16th Street (the Albert M. King House) to restore the building and improve the neighborhood, citing the property's deteriorated condition.
- Louise Fogley (410 South Fifth Avenue): Spoke in favor of the roof replacement at 414 Walnut Street, expressing understanding of the applicant's need to replace a damaged metal roof and using similar problems with a slate roof.
- Ron DeBachelor (address not stated): Expressed support for the roof replacement at 624 Dock Street, noting that $50,000 for a slate roof was unreasonable and that the proposed architectural shingles would be indistinguishable from slate to the average observer.
- Letter from Mrs. Bean (615 Dock Street): Read into the record by staff; opposed the roof replacement at 624 Dock Street, stating that changing from slate to asphalt sets a detrimental precedent and that homeowners in the historic district should understand the cost requirements.
Discussion Items
- 402 South 3rd Street – Exterior Alterations (Windows and Fencing): Staff presented a continuation from the November 1, 2018 meeting. The applicant, Scott Burns, requested approval for after-the-fact installation of pella-clad replacement windows (second and third stories) and new wooden picket fencing. Staff noted the windows on the second floor closely replicated original one-over-one windows; however, the third-story windows are close to a gutter trough, making aluminum-clad sashes potentially appropriate. The fencing was simplified from a previous cast iron proposal. The applicant withdrew items relating to the driveway apron, metal/brick/lo wall, six-foot-tall wooden fence, koi pond, and wooden arbor for future planning. The commission approved the after-fence windows and fencing with conditions (gate to swing inward). Approved 5-0.
- 2. 402 South 3rd Street – New Construction/Addition: Staff requested withdrawal of this item as the applicant was not ready to present a detailed site plan. The commission voted to grant the withdrawal. Approved 5-0.
- 306 North 6th Street – Accessory Structure (Shed): Staff indicated several deficiencies: drawings not to scale, unconfirmed orientation, missing material specifications, tree impact concerns, and a dispute over the side setback (applicant proposed 1 ft, staff recommended 3 ft). The applicant (Jake Valenzuela) argued the lot is uniquely small and requested a 1-foot setback, citing similar structures in the neighborhood. Commission members noted building code requires a 3-foot fire separation from the property line (especially for combustible construction) and that the non-combustible structure could still require fire-rated construction. They maintained the 3-foot setback but allowed a simpler scaled drawing (drawing to scale showing dimensions and orientation) rather than a full professional survey. The motion included the scaled site plan condition. Approved with conditions (scaled drawing, 3-foot setback, compliance with staff conditions). Motion carried (vote count not specified).
- 211 South 5th Avenue – Dormer Stool Replacement: Applicant request to replace rotted wooden stools on four dormer windows with PVC material. Staff noted the stool is not visible from the street (35 feet above grade) and per guidelines if deteriorated replacement should match in material. The commission found the PVC material appropriate for durability and safety (prior HPC member Tom Mitchell expressed support based on practical experience). Approved with conditions. Motion carried (5-0).
- 2030 Washington Street – Reduction of 90-Day Stay of Demolition (Accessory Garage): The owners of a contributing garage in the Sunset Park Historic District requested reduction of the 90-day stay to zero because the structure was damaged by hurricane tree limbs and has been altered over time. The commission found the building's loss of integrity and the owner hardship (permanently deprived of beneficial use) justified immediate demolition. Motion to reduce stay to zero days. Approved without opposition (vote count not specified).
- 410 South Front Street – Chimney Removal: The Bragg family presented that the chimney (not original to the house) was deteriorated, unsafe (bricks falling, risk to pedestrians), and non-functioning. After being struck by lightning in 2012, rebuild was required, and after Hurricane Florence the chimney cap was failing. The commission determined the chimney was a safety hazard and not contributing to the character of the house. Motion to approve removal of the chimney above roof line, subsequent repair of the roof, and capping below roof line. Approved (4-1).
- 105 South 5th Avenue – Chimney Removal: The owner of a rental property reported that a non-historic chimney on the northeast corner collapsed during Hurricane Florence, damaging the roof. Repairs to the roof are planned. The commission approved removal or capping of the chimney below roof level and repairs to the roof as part of a comprehensive plan. Approved (5-0).
- 307 North 16th Street – Window Replacement Modification: The project manager for the Albert M. King House requested substituting the originally approved windows from Jeld-wildline to Polygen due to building code requirements (DP rating). Both window types were four-over-one double-hung. The applicant noted the house needed sealing after Florence. The commission approved the change of material, and the staff condition allowed the applicant to work with staff to finalize the specification. Approved (5-0).
- 414 Walnut Street – Roof Replacement (Standing Seam Metal to Asphalt Shingle): The applicant (Rhonda Batchlor) expressed severe leekage, hurricane damage, and inability to afford a standing seam metal roof. Staff recommended repair and coating rather than replacement. The commission debated whether the existing roof was beyond repair and economic hardship. The motion passed (4-2) to approve replacement with architectural asphalt shingles, with adjustment of staff conditions (excluding conditions 1-4). The color of the shingles to be approved by staff. Motion approved (4-2 roll call).
- 624 Dock Street – Roof Replacement (Slate to Asphalt Belmont Shingle): The applicant (Edward Vogley) discussed unpaid, retained after damage from the storm to the historic slate roof, which was tarped and suffering interior damage. He requested approval to install Belmont architectural shingles. Staff supported a light material change and recommended the shingles. A neighbor letter recommended against the change. The commission approved the replacement with Belmont shingles, allowing the use of any salvaged state slate for donation to historic properties. Approved (5-1).
- 617 Red Cross Street – Preservation Agreement: The applicant purchased the property after the violation was issued. Vinyl windows and fencing installed without a COA by the previous owner. The commission discuss entering into a preservation agreement that runs with the land, requiring eventual compliance when repairs or replacements occur. Conditioned that the existing gates be modified to swing into the property (not into public sidewalk). The motion to approve the preservation agreement passed (5-0, with the understanding the fence is not currently compliant but will be addressed over time).
- Meeting Minutes: The commission approved minutes from July 12, 2018 (as read), August 9, 2018 (with marked corrections), and October 11, 2018 (with correction of typo
Meeting Transcript
Good evening. I would like to go ahead and call the Thursday, December 13th, 2008 meeting of the City of Wilmington Historic Preservation Commission to order. Thank you for coming. We appreciate your interest. Hearings before the Historic Preservation Commission are quasi-judicial in nature. This is a design review process to determine if the proposed project is congruent with the historic aspects and special character of the historic district or landmark. Decisions of the Commission are based on the record of these proceedings, the Wilmington Design Guidelines for Historic Districts and Landmarks, and the Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation. Evidence submitted to the Commission for review becomes part of the record. Appeals of commission decisions are to the board Wilmington Board of Adjustment and then to Superior Court and are based on the record. Appeals must be filed within 30 days of the date of the commission's action. Public comment is heard during the public comment portion of the agenda item. Those who want to address the commission are sworn in as witnesses. Comments should be directed to the commission. To ensure that all comments are properly recorded, please come to the podium to address the commission. State your name and address and speak clearly. John Muzzy. Joan Keston. Rob Romero. Tara Murphy. The applicant did ask for some items that he has requested be withdrawn at this time. I think first we'll start with the windows. If you recall, the initial request was for approval of the after the fact replacement windows on the second and third story of the house. They were aluminum clad pillow window, and the commission has already taken action on that specific request. You did ask staff to meet with the owner and review the specifications of the windows, which we did. The owner was very generous in showing us a number of the second story and several of the third story windows to give us an idea of how they may replicate the original historic windows. So we'll start with the second story. This is the subject site again, southwest corner of nun and third. If you recall, some of the windows on the west east elevation, which is the primary elevation, were a little bit different. You had some one over ones and some two over twos, then you had this the stunning 36 over 2 in the third story. These are the renderings as provided by the owner. And again, there are some different configurations on this front elevation. So the owner didn't want to present documentation that a number of those windows on the front elevation were not two over two, they were one over one. Again, this is the north elevation, two over twos on this elevation. This is a third-story window that was replaced. I'll have to let the applicant, I don't remember looking at this window. I think that is an original window. All the ones on the on the north elevation are. Um were very comparable. I think the gel one window is a good fit. It's got a similar mutton style. The rails and the styles are similar. And let me see if I can give you some close-ups here. Again, this is a replacement window. And these are original two over twos. So based on staff's findings, there might be some slight variation in the rails and styles width, but the put the putty strike is present on the mutton, and the mutton does replicate the original mutton. This is the replacement window, one of the replacement windows on the third story. Again, this was a pella aluminum clad. One of the things I wanted to point out to the commission, again, these have been denied, but one of the things I wanted to point out, this is looking out south out of this window on the third story. That's the original window. One of the things I wanted to point out is the proximity of this gutter trough to the third story window.
openpublica.com