OPENPUBLICA · PUBLIC MEETING RECORD
Record of Proceedings

Wilmington Historic Preservation Commission Meeting - October 13, 2022

Historic Preservation CommissionThursday, October 13, 2022
BodyWilmington, North Carolina
SessionHistoric Preservation Commission
DateThursday, October 13, 2022
StatusFILED
Video Record

STREAMING COPY IN PREPARATION — RECORDING AVAILABLE FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE

Transcript — Verbatim
11:07

Good evening and welcome to the October 13th meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission.

11:13

Hearings before this commission are quasi-judicial in nature.

11:17

This is a design review process to determine whether a proposed project is congruous with the special character of the historic district or landmark in which it is located.

11:29

Decisions of the commission are based on the record of these proceedings, the Wilmington design standards for historic districts and landmarks, and the Secretary of Interiors standards for rehabilitation.

11:41

Evidence submitted to the commission for review will become part of the record.

11:46

Appeal of a commission decision must be submitted to the Wilmington Board of Adjustment within 30 days of the date of the commission's action.

11:54

Further appeal must be submitted to Superior Court.

11:58

Evidence pertaining to an agenda item must be presented during the evidentiary portion of that item.

12:04

Individuals who wish to address the commission will be sworn in as witnesses to present material and substantial evidence.

12:31

As a brief reminder, members of the commission are appointed by and serve at the pleasure of the city council.

12:37

Our charge is with respect to the protection and preservation of the properties located within the city's designated historic districts.

15:00

And that I will endeavor to support, maintain, and defend the constitution of said state not inconsistent with the Constitution of the United States to the best of my knowledge and ability.

15:18

So help me God.

15:20

Thank you.

15:23

Now if the commissioners would please introduce themselves, I'll start at the second.

15:28

Ron Wilson, Stephen Salke.

15:30

Ashley Wilson.

15:32

Kathleen Egan.

15:33

Christopher Yermal.

15:38

Miss Watts, you'll need to turn on your mic.

15:41

Allie Watts.

15:42

Thanks.

15:44

And next we will need to swear in at those present who wish to present evidence related to an agenda item tonight.

15:55

If I could now have all staff applicants and any members of the public who wish to speak, to please stand up and raise your right hand.

16:03

In order to speak this evening, you must be sworn in.

16:10

Do you swear that the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

16:16

Thank you.

16:23

That ends our oh no, it doesn't.

16:26

Sorry.

16:26

The next item on the administrative port part of the meeting is approval of the minutes from last month's meeting.

16:35

Does anyone have any correction to the minutes?

16:38

No.

16:39

Can we have a motion then to approve the minutes?

16:42

I motion to approve.

16:43

All in favor?

16:44

Aye.

16:45

Aye.

16:45

And then motion passes.

16:48

Then we move on to the evidentiary hearings.

16:52

And the first uh item of new business number one is 114 South Sixth Street.

17:11

All right.

17:13

The applicant at 114 South Sixth Street proposes a new accessory structure in the rear yard.

17:20

The shoemaker house was built circa 1915 and is a two-story craftsman style front gable dwelling.

17:26

The house features four large brick columns with decorative recessed reveals along the first story facade.

17:32

The first the one-story porch has a simple picket balustrade and a roof deck at the second story with a balustrade to match the first.

17:40

In between two short brick columns capped, in between short brick columns capped with stone, the front facade has a central gable vent, one over one windows, and an off-center transomed entry.

17:52

The building has flared eaves and a wide frieze at the second story roof line.

17:58

The subject property is located on the east side of South 6th Street between Dock and Orange Streets.

18:04

The subject property is a contributing resource in the historic district residential and revisions to office size of the building and the site are subject to design review in this district.

18:17

The applicant seeks to construct a one-story garage in the rear yard.

18:20

The garage will be 20 feet by 24 feet deep, and the garage will be set back from the side south property line five feet and set back from the rear west property line five feet and then from the north property line 11 feet six inches.

18:39

The proposed garage will be Clyde and Hardy board smooth lap siding, paid in Sherwin Williams Meadow Sage to match the existing dwelling.

18:48

The trim will be painted to match the existing dwelling.

18:52

The proposed garage foundation will be reinforced concrete on a pad on grade, and the proposed garage roof will be Owens Cording, Oak Ridge shingles in Estate Gray to match the dwelling.

19:06

The proposed front facade features one garage door, which will be a Mar 16-foot aluminum four door four panels wide by four panels tall.

19:17

The proposed sorry, the proposed gravel driveway will extend to the new garage and the gravel will match the existing.

19:27

Staff knows that garages and accessory buildings occur throughout the local historic district.

19:32

Seen here in this area, a small section of the area.

19:36

You can see in red the uh current accessory structures.

19:44

Staff notes the proposed garage at 114 South 6th Street has minimal visibility from the public right-of-way.

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting
Architectural Preservation█████████████████████████████████████37%
Historic Preservation██████████████████████████████████34%
Procedural████████████12%
Window Regulations██████████10%
Public Engagement█████5%
Public Safety██2%
Summary of Proceedings

Wilmington Historic Preservation Commission Meeting - October 13, 2022

The Wilmington Historic Preservation Commission met on Thursday, October 13, 2022, beginning at 5:30 p.m. (called to order at 5:32 p.m.), to conduct evidentiary hearings on eight applications for work in Wilmington's local historic districts. Six members were present; Ross Tomaselli was absent. Chair Kathleen Egan presided. The commission approved six requests (mostly with conditions), denied one request, and allowed one request to be withdrawn. A procedural note: the agenda listed the meeting at City Council Chambers, Skyline Center, 929 North Front Street, while the approved minutes state the meeting was in City Council Chambers, City Hall, 102 North 3rd Street; this summary relies on the minutes for the location.

Consent Calendar

  • Approval of minutes (September 8, 2022): No corrections were offered. Stephen Sulkey moved to approve, and the motion carried 6-0.

Public Comments & Testimony

  • At 710 Grace Street, Travis Gilbert of the Historic Wilmington Foundation read from the National Register listing, explained that the home's non-contributing status resulted from loss of Victorian details when the porch was infilled, and noted the restored gable detail could make it eligible again if resurveyed. He expressed opposition to vinyl windows for this period-era house.
  • Georgia Savas, a neighbor at 612 Grace Street, supported the applicant's request for vinyl windows, noting the current wood windows were single-pane and had contributed to high humidity (77% with an air conditioner and dehumidifier running). She also noted the property had previously had some vinyl windows.

Discussion Items

  • 114 S 6th Street - New rear garage: Applicant James Rishavy proposed a 20-foot by 24-foot one-story rear garage with wood windows and no shutters. The driveway would curve to preserve an existing tree. The commission approved the request 6-0 with conditions, including a maximum garage height of 18 feet, no tree removal, low-e glass with no tint, no shutters, a bypass application for exterior lighting or security equipment, and documentation of the window lite pattern.
  • 620 Chestnut Street - Addition and exterior alterations: The applicant proposed a two-story addition, siding repairs, new windows and shutters, a standing-seam metal roof, changes to the detached garage, a dining gazebo, a brick wall with iron gate, a garden walkway and water feature, and removal of two trees. Applicant representative Ashley Cameron said the magnolia tree would remain and the new brick wall would be 4 feet high. The commission approved the request 6-0 with conditions requiring bypass review of exterior lighting, final balustrade/bracket designs, paint color, breezeway door specifications, gazebo details, garage balcony details, and landscape design, plus submission of a cellar plan before the certificate of appropriateness was issued and tree-removal permits before work began.
  • 710 Grace Street - Window replacement: The applicant, Coreena Schultz, requested vinyl windows to replace wood windows installed earlier in 2022 under a prior COA, citing a mold report caused by improper installation and incorrect sizing. Staff noted the house is non-contributing but that the design standards do not differentiate by status. The commission denied the request 6-0, with members stating the problem was installation quality rather than window material and expressing hope that the house could become contributing again. After the denial discussion, the applicant was allowed to speak again about timing, and staff noted that installing and inspecting proper wood windows under the prior COA would not require a new HPC appearance.
  • 516 Grace Street - Roof replacement: Withdrawn at the applicant's request; the withdrawal motion carried 6-0.
  • 108 S 2nd Street - Modification of MJW-20-5 (hotel): Vice-Chair Yermal recused himself because of professional involvement. John Murray with Bowman, Murray, Hemmingway Architects presented minor revisions to the approved hotel, including changes to door/window and balcony railing materials, relocation/recessing of the main entry, storefront modification, stucco finish, some window removals, and a higher parapet to screen rooftop equipment. Overall height and square footage would not change. The commission approved the modification 5-0 with conditions covering exterior lighting, an entrance sign, EIFS color approval, landscaping, preservation and donation of significant archaeological materials to the Cape Fear Museum, retention/restoration of granite curbing, sidewalk repairs, Technical Review Committee compliance, and code compliance.
  • 114 Nun Street - Exterior alterations: This contributing house (c. 1885) would receive a replacement front entry door, sidelights, and transom; new rear sunroom windows and French door; a new rear deck; and removal of a non-original octagonal window. Applicant Nick Balding asked that a condition requiring salvage of the colored glass door be removed because the glass was unsalvageable. The commission agreed and approved the request 6-0 with the remaining conditions (lighting bypass, final deck design approval, clear untinted glazing, code compliance, and HPC/bypass review of changes).
  • 701 Market Street - Window replacement: Contractor John Hanley proposed composite replacement windows for the non-contributing office building. At the commission's suggestion, the lite pattern was changed from 16-over-8 to 12-over-12 with a center sash, and simulated divided light with spacers was accepted instead of grilles-between-glass. Three false windows near the AC unit on the east facade were allowed to be tinted. The request was approved 5-0 with these conditions.
  • 514 S 4th Street - Window replacement: Applicant Eric Slivken requested vinyl windows for the contributing Atkinson House (c. 1910), citing long wood-window lead times and current problems with only storm windows in place, including water intrusion and poor temperature control. The commission instead approved wood replacement windows 5-0, with conditions requiring clear glass, a six-over-six lite pattern using simulated divided lites with spacer bar, color matching the existing storm windows, no new window openings, and wood material.

Key Outcomes

  • Approved with conditions (6-0): 114 S 6th Street; 620 Chestnut Street; 114 Nun Street.
  • Approved with conditions (5-0): 108 S 2nd Street (Yermal recused); 701 Market Street; 514 S 4th Street.
  • Denied (6-0): 710 Grace Street.
  • Withdrawn (6-0): 516 Grace Street.
  • Administrative actions: Minutes approved 6-0; Chair Egan thanked outgoing commissioners Joan Keston and Michael Smith and welcomed new members Ross Tomaselli and Alison Watts; no staff items; next meeting scheduled for November 10, 2022; meeting adjourned at 7:37 p.m.

Meeting Transcript

Good evening and welcome to the October 13th meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission. Hearings before this commission are quasi-judicial in nature. This is a design review process to determine whether a proposed project is congruous with the special character of the historic district or landmark in which it is located. Decisions of the commission are based on the record of these proceedings, the Wilmington design standards for historic districts and landmarks, and the Secretary of Interiors standards for rehabilitation. Evidence submitted to the commission for review will become part of the record. Appeal of a commission decision must be submitted to the Wilmington Board of Adjustment within 30 days of the date of the commission's action. Further appeal must be submitted to Superior Court. Evidence pertaining to an agenda item must be presented during the evidentiary portion of that item. Individuals who wish to address the commission will be sworn in as witnesses to present material and substantial evidence. As a brief reminder, members of the commission are appointed by and serve at the pleasure of the city council. Our charge is with respect to the protection and preservation of the properties located within the city's designated historic districts. And that I will endeavor to support, maintain, and defend the constitution of said state not inconsistent with the Constitution of the United States to the best of my knowledge and ability. So help me God. Thank you. Now if the commissioners would please introduce themselves, I'll start at the second. Ron Wilson, Stephen Salke. Ashley Wilson. Kathleen Egan. Christopher Yermal. Miss Watts, you'll need to turn on your mic. Allie Watts. Thanks. And next we will need to swear in at those present who wish to present evidence related to an agenda item tonight. If I could now have all staff applicants and any members of the public who wish to speak, to please stand up and raise your right hand. In order to speak this evening, you must be sworn in. Do you swear that the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Thank you. That ends our oh no, it doesn't. Sorry. The next item on the administrative port part of the meeting is approval of the minutes from last month's meeting. Does anyone have any correction to the minutes? No. Can we have a motion then to approve the minutes? I motion to approve. All in favor? Aye. Aye. And then motion passes. Then we move on to the evidentiary hearings. And the first uh item of new business number one is 114 South Sixth Street. All right. The applicant at 114 South Sixth Street proposes a new accessory structure in the rear yard. The shoemaker house was built circa 1915 and is a two-story craftsman style front gable dwelling. The house features four large brick columns with decorative recessed reveals along the first story facade. The first the one-story porch has a simple picket balustrade and a roof deck at the second story with a balustrade to match the first. In between two short brick columns capped, in between short brick columns capped with stone, the front facade has a central gable vent, one over one windows, and an off-center transomed entry. The building has flared eaves and a wide frieze at the second story roof line. The subject property is located on the east side of South 6th Street between Dock and Orange Streets. The subject property is a contributing resource in the historic district residential and revisions to office size of the building and the site are subject to design review in this district. The applicant seeks to construct a one-story garage in the rear yard.

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI
TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com