MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SANFORD, NORTH CAROLINA  The Historic Preservation Commission met in regular session in the Buggy Conference Room, 115 Chatham Street, Sanford, NC, on Monday, August 26, 2024, at 6:001 PM.  ROLL CALL Members Present:  Jason Cline, Chair Aidan Harbison Aaron Shephard James Cox  Staff Present:  Liz Whitmore, Planner II Kevin Hornik, Attorney Angela Baker, Clerk to the Board Charles Petty Jim Erb Delorian Wicker  Absent:  Jean Dabbs, City Council Liaison  Having noted the presence of a quorum, Chair Cline called the meeting to order.  APPROVAL OF AGENDA  Board member Harbison made the motion to approve the agenda, seconded by Board member  Board member Shephard. The motion carried unanimously.  APPROVAL OFMINUTES  Board member Shephard made a motion to approve the minutes from July 22, 2024. Board  member Harbison seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously.  Chair Cline read the Quasi-Judicial Statement.  NEW BUSINESS  A. COA-24-42 Application by 107 Gordon LLC owners of 107 Gordon Street to remove a large white pine tree located in the front yard of the business. Administer the Oath: Chair Cline called all participants speaking in favor of, or against the COA's, as well as staff, to stand and take the oath. Ashley Whitaker; Kimberly Godon; Cori  Zeh; and Liz Whitmore appeared and took the oath    Historic Preservation Minutes 8.26.24 2  Conflicts of Interest: Chair Cline read the conflicts of interest statement. There were no  conflicts ofinterest.  The Agenda Packet was entered into the Record.  Staff Presentation: Staff Whitmore stated that the Historic Preservation Commission received a Certificate of Appropriateness: COA-24-42 application from owners 107 Gordon LLC who wish to remove one large white pine tree in the front yard of the historic resource. It was advertised in accordance with the General Statues on Thursday, August 15, and August 22, 2024; posted and letters were mailed to property owners within 100 feet on Thursday, August  15, 2024.  Exhibits A, B and C, pages 8 -10.  Guidelines: 4. Streetscape.  Streetscape is a general term used to describe the urban landscape. The streetscape includes streets, sidewalks, plazas, advertising and identification signs, traffic signs, utility lines and fixtures, planters, and landscape plantings, awnings, street lighting fixtures, fountains and and water features, benches, trash, receptacles, bicycle racks, bus shelters and any other sidewalk furniture. It generally includes privately-owned spaces, as well as, public spaces and rights-  of-way.  a. Landscape Plantings  1. Landscaped areas shall consist of planting materials that are compatible with and Comment: The white pine, a native tree to North Carolina, at the time it was planted would have been considered tol be compatible with the urban environment, especially since it was not planted in aj planting strip but rather in the front yard of the subject 2. Existing parks, trees, and other landscaped areas shall be protected from intrusive Comment: The subject tree was planted many years ago and appears to have out  appropriate for the urban environment.  property. development.  grown the spot in which it was planted.  3. -7. Does not apply Staff Comments and Analysis:  The white pine, a native tree tol North Carolina, appears to have out grown the space in which it has been planted. The roots at one time caused the sidewalk to heave up and the applicant has redone the sidewalk. The tree has been pruned hard to keep it out of the power lines    Historic Preservation Minutes 8.26.24 3  which make it heavy on one side. Ifthis tree were to fall in a storm it could cause severe damage to the subject historic structure and possibly the historic structure to the east. The tree also has a slight lean to it towards the historic structure to the east. The tree also has a slight lean to it towards the historic structure on the subject property. Staff recommends that this tree be removed and appropriate tree be planted in its place. A: small native tree would be suitable for this area such as a Chionanthus virginicus (fringe tree). This tree is a small ornamental tree that gets about 12 to 20 feet tall. Has showy white flowers in the spring and Please not Exhibit D, page 11, came in late and the Lee County Foresters recommend that the The commission may choose to agree or disagree with the staff's-synopsis of the facts  isc considered a specimen tree.  white pine be removed due to the lean toward the historic resource.  applicable to this case. Applicant's' Testimony  Ashley Whitaker, 107 Gordon Street, Sanford, NC.  Chair Cline asked if the applicant agreed to the conditions of replacing the tree with a fringe  tree.  Ms. Whitaker agreed. Final Discussion  Chair Cline stated that the forester agreed that the tree should be removed; staff is in  agreement; and the owner agrees with the condition of the replacement tree.  Finding of Fact Motion  Board member Cox made a motion that the Historic Preservation Commission find as fact that the proposed project COA-24-42, 107 Gordon Street, remove one large white pine tree that tree has a significant lien; it has outgrown place; and forester agrees with the removal and is generally in harmony with the criteria in the design guidelines and the special character of the neighboring properties and the historic district as a whole. Seconded by Board member  Shephard. The motion carried unanimously.  Final Motion  Board member Cox made a motion based on the preceding findings of fact, that the Historic Preservation Commission grant a Certificate of Appropriateness to owner of 107 Gordon, LLC, and approve the proposals as shown in COA-24-42, 107 Gordon Street, with condition. Motion was seconded by Board member Shephard. The motion carried unanimously.  Condition:    Historic Preservation Minutes 8.26.24 4  1. Plant one Chinonanthus virginicus (Fringe tree). Staff recommends that this tree be planted in the fall of 2024 no later than November 15, 2024, or early spring March, B. COA-24-39 Application by 5-2 Many LLC owner of 305 Chisholm Street who wish to build an 1,800 sq. ft. one-story, single-family dwelling the front porch will be 7'x  2025.  14',ap paved driveway to accommodate two cars is proposed.  Conflicts ofI Interest: Chair Cline read the conflicts ofi interest statement. There were no  conflicts of interest.  The Agenda Packet was entered into the Record.  Staff Presentation: Staff Whitmore stated that the Historic Preservation Commission received a Certificate of Appropriateness: COA-24-39 application from owners 5-21 Many LLC, owner of3 305 Chisholm Street, who wishes to build a single-family home on a vacant lot. It was advertised in accordance with the General Statues on Thursday, August 15, and August 22, 2024; posted and letters were mailed to property owners within 100 feet on Wednesday,  August 14, 2024.  Exhibits A, page 9, view of the subject vacant lot.  NEW CONSTRUCTION  Introduction: The objective of the new construction guidelines is not to prevent change, but to ensure that future construction projects respect the general character of the historic district neighborhoods. Applicants for Certificates of Appropriateness: for new construction and their architects are strongly urged to meet with the Historic Preservation Staff to discuss their plans and ensure they are not incongruous with the special character of the historic district. Building site refers to the placement of the structure on the lot. Setback and massing should establish a framework of order and coherence. The use of continuous setback patterns ensures a strong and consistent streetscape. Setbacks in historic districts vary, but generally the  houses are relatively close to the street.  Guidelines  1.Iti is appropriate for new construction to be landscaped following the existing  guidelines for landscaping.  Comment: The applicant should provide a landscape plan.  2. Principal elevations should have turf installed or grass planted. It is inappropriate to leave principal elevations at new construction sites as unimproved dirt lots. Corner Comment: The applicant has stated that they will install turf or plant grass.  lots should have street-side elevations similarly improved.    Historic Preservation Minutes 8.26.24 5  3. Minimize any grading or site disturbance during construction and limit the use of heavy construction and limit the use of heavy construction equipment to prevent damage to significant site features and unknown (buried) archaeological resources. 4. Protect significant site features, including mature trees and known archaeological Comment: The lot is overgrown with bamboo which will be cleared. There are no mature trees on side. No archaeological resources are known to be existing on this  Comment: Minimal grading will be required for construction. resources, from damage during or as a result ofconstruction.  site. Exhibit A, page 9. Primary Structures Guidelines  1. Site new primary buildings sO they are consistent in terms of setback and orientation from the street and spacing between existing buildings with surrounding buildings which contribute to the historic character of the streetscape. New buildings should be Comment: The siting of the new single-family home meets this guideline. Exhibits 2. Design the primary building sO that the overall character of the adjacent streetscape and the building site, including its topography and any significant site features, are Comment: The overall character of the adjacent streetscape, building site, topography and significant site features will be maintained upon the completion of this project. 3. Design new primary buildings to be compatible in height, roof form, scale, massing, material, detail and proportion of the street façade with surrounding buildings that Comment: It appears that the design of the single-family home meets this guideline. 4. Locate and size door and window openings in new primary buildings SO they are compatible in placement, orientation, spacing, proportion, size and scale with those of surrounding buildings that contribute to the historic character of the district. Comment: Per the back-up material the applicant provided this guideline has been 5. Select doors and windows for new primary buildings that are compatible in material, proportion, subdivision, patter, detail and finish with those of surrounding buildings Comment: It appears that the doors and windows are compatible and meet the  set back similarly to their neighbors. D,G, and H-K, pages 12, 15, 16-19.  maintained.  Exhibits B-K, pages 10-19.  contribute to the historic character of the district.  Exhibits B-K, pages 10-19.  met. Exhibits B-K, pages 10-19.  that contribute to the historic character of the district. Rosemount McIver Park Guidelines. Exhibits B-K, pages 10-19.    Historic Preservation Minutes 8.26.24 6  Select materials and finishes for new primary buildings that are compatible in composition, texture, scale, pattern, detail, finish and color with those of the surrounding buildings that contribute to the historic character oft the district. Comment: The applicant has provided a material list and per the list this guideline has been met. Exhibits E and F, materials list and proposed colors pages 13 and 14. 7. Design new primary buildings to be compatible with but differentiated from historic buildings in the district. Unless the building is an accurate reconstruction, it is not appropriate to create a false sense of historical development through the duplication of historic features or details from an earlier era on a new primary building.  Comment: The guideline has been met.  Staff Comments and Analysis:  Note that Exhibits L and M pages 20 and 21, reflect a similar house that the applicant has built elsewhere in Sanford. The commission may choose to agree or disagree with the staff's  synopsis of the facts applicable to this case.  Discussion  Chair Cline stated that the primary structure meets the guidelines; the materials are standard within the neighborhood, per the exhibits. It will meet all the setbacks, fence and driveway  standards per the planning department. Finding of Fact Motion  Board member Shephard made a motion that the Historic Preservation Commission find as fact that the proposed project COA-24-39, 305 Chisholm Street, who wishes to build a single- family home on a vacant lot, is not incongruous with the character of the district for the reasons that the materials, porches, fence and set-back and is generally in harmony with the criteria in the design guidelines and the special character of the neighboring properties and the historic district as a whole. Seconded by Board member Harbison. The motion carried  unanimously. Final Motion  Board member Shephard made ai motion based on the preceding findings of fact, that the Historic Preservation Commission grant a Certificate of Appropriateness: to owner 5-21 Many LLC for COA-24-39, 3051 N. Chisholm Street, with conditions. Motion was seconded by  Board member Harbison. The motion carried unanimously.  Conditions:  1. That applicant coordinate with Staff regarding the fence and landscape.    Historic Preservation Minutes 8.26.24 7  :. COA-24-37 -Application by Cori Zeh owner of 325 N. Gulf Street, who removed the porch railings and pickets without the benefit of a COA and wishes to install railings and pickets by installing 4x4 secured to the porch floor boards with metal brackets next to the original porch pillars, railing and stretchers will be attached to the 4x4s. All railings, pickets, hand rails will be painted white. Install handrails on front and  side steps of the front porch.  Conflicts of Interest: Chair Cline read the conflicts ofi interest statement. There were: no  conflicts of interest. 35:00  The Agenda Packet was entered into the Record.  Staff Presentation: Staff Whitmore stated that the Historic Preservation Commission received a Certificate of Appropriateness COA-24-37 application from owner Cori Zeh, owner of 325 N. Gulf Street, who removed the porch railings and pickets without the benefit ofa COA and wishes to install railings and pickets by installing 4x4s secured to the porch floor boards with metal brackets next to the original porch pillars, railing and stretchers will be attached to the 4x4s. All railings, pickets, hand rails will be painted white. Install handrails on front and side steps of the front porch. It was advertised in accordance with the General Statues on Thursday, August 15, and August 22, 2024; posted and letters were mailed to property owners Exhibits A, page 8, front façade 325 N. Gulf Street. Google photo, February 2024. 11. Porches, Patios and Steps. A distinguishing feature of most houses in historic districts is the front porch. Originally, the front porch kept the entrance dry and provided a place to escape the summer heat. Furnished, the porch was an outdoor leisure area. Other accessories included canvas awnings, blinds made of canvas, wood or reeding, straw or hemp rugs, plant stands, and flower boxes. Entrances and steps serve as an important first view to the property and require significant effort toj preserve them as they were originally intended. Porches were embellished with details, which reinforced the architectural style of the house. Machine carved posts, brackets, railings, spindle work, and sawn work make up the "gingerbread" found on Queen Anne style houses. Classical columns and trim work are often found on Neo-Classical and Colonial Revival style houses. The floor of the porch was often  within 100 feet on Wednesday, August 14, 2024.  originally built with a slight pitch to shed water.  Guidelines  a. Itis appropriate that, if built as part of the original structure, a porch and all of its features (steps, handrails, balustrades, columns, brackets, spandrels, and roofs should remain in their original state. Porches and steps should not be stripped of any original Comment: The applicant has had the original handrail and picket removed and is proposing to install new ones. The original plan was to install 4x4 posts approximately 8 inches off the front of the porch and install handrails and pickets to  material or architectural features.    Historic Preservation Minutes 8.26.24 8  them. This would not have met code. Exhibits B -D, pages 9-11. The applicant is now proposing to install 4x4s to the porch floor and anchor them with L-brackets and add railing and pickets. The railings do not appear to attach to the pillars. Exhibit E, b. New materials used to repair porches should be like-kind and compliment the design and original materials in size, shape, placement, patter, and details. Comment: The material proposed to use are wood but does not appear to compliment the design in size, shape, placement, pattern and details. Exhibits E, page. 12. Porch restorations that involve the placement of missing details such as steps, brackets, or balustrades should be based on historical documentation. Adding details Comment: The applicant has removed the previously approved historically correct handrails and pickets and intend to replace them with 4x4s to the porch floor and anchor them with L-brackets and add railing and pickets. Exhibits A-E, pages 8-12.  page 12.  top porches to create a false historic appearance is not appropriate.  d. -g. This guideline does not apply. Staff Comments and Analysis  Please note that the applicant wishes to install handrail on both set of stairs leading from the porch, a sample handrail has not been provided. The commission may choose to agree or  disagree with the staff's synopsis of the facts applicable to this case.  Staff Discussion  Board member Cox asked if there was a concern with the railings between the pillars. Staff Whitmore said that they came loose and were not attached properly. The applicant does not want to attach them back to the pillars because she does not think they will be secure; and wants to use L-brackets. There are no structures in the Historic District with 4x4s attached to Chair Cline asked about Exhibit A, page 8 that the porch had spindles and asked ifit would be Staff Whitmore said no. The applicant was requesting to use 2x4s and 4x4s to do the porch. Board member Harbison clarified that the applicant would be using 4x4s between the pillars. Staff Whitmore said yes and they would not be attached to the pillars, but attached by L- Attorney Hornik stated that determining whether or not it meets code is not the decision of the Board. The Board decides if it is not incongruous with the District, require the applicant to  the porch with L-brackets.  the same.  brackets to the porch deck boards.  get permits; and the inspectors determine ifi it meets building code.    Historic Preservation Minutes 8.26.24 9  Staff Whitmore said that she has strongly recommended that the Applicant talk to Building Board member Harbison stated that his concern is in order to meet code, then the appearance Staff Whitmore said that Exhibit E, page 12, it looks like straight pickets between 4x4s.  Inspections before continuing with the porch, ifit is approved.  would change.  Applicant's7 Testimony Cori Zeh, 325 N. Gulf Street possible designs.  Applicant Zeh presented to the Board Exhibits F-Jof what the Contractor has proposed of Ms. Zeh stated that the hand rails would be attached to the 4x4s, not to the porch decking. Staff Whitmore stated the handrails didn't have to meet a certain style, because they were not Attorney Hornik clarified that when the applicant stated that the railings were not attached to the pillars; it was not attached securely and had become loose at some point.  originally there  Board Discussion  Attorney Hornik directed the Board that if they did not have evidence that what is being proposed is not incongruous with the character of the district; the best that the Board could do ist to continue the evidentiary hearing and request the applicant to study the historic photos of Staff Whitmore stated that she would like the Board to approve the handrails for the steps sO Applicant Zeh stated that if the Board approves the handrails, and the handrails are designed Attorney Hornik suggest that the applicant look at other railings on homes throughout the district and ask the contractor to do the same and then propose something similar to something in the district. He suggested to make photographs of railings that she liked in the The Board had discussion on what could be approved at Staff level and a continuation date for  the railing and bring back a design that is as similar to that as possible.  the applicant's: mother can get in and out of her house.  one way, then the porch railings themselves she would want to match.  district and bring back to the HPC for approval. items that could not be approved at staff level.    Historic Preservation Minutes 8.26.24 10  Attorney Hornik asked the applicant if she could commit to having the contractor replicate the porch as best as possible then that could be approved at staff level. The HPC has sufficient Board member Cox mentioned that at the beginning the original scope was. just to replace the railings as they were and add a handrail. At that point it was just minor maintenance. Attorney Hornik encouraged the applicant to reach out to building inspections prior to making Staff Whitmore gave Ms. Zeh inspections information and encouraged her to have building inspections meet at the property with the contractor to discuss the porch railings and code. She reminded Ms. Zeh that she could not approve the porch railings to be attached with the L- Attorney Hornik recommended that the Board approve the COA with respect to the stair railings based on the same design as the original porch railing design. Rather than withdrawing the COA as relates to the porch railing, then continue it until the next regularly scheduled September meeting. If the contractor indicates he can recreate the porch railing and bolt to pillars, then there will be no need to come back and Staff can approve at Staff  evidence to approve the porch rails.  any repairs to insure it meets code.  brackets. It would have to be attached to the pillars.  level.  The applicant was in agreement with the proposal.  Finding of] Fact Motion:  1. Board member Harbison made a motion to bifurcate the COA 24-37 into two separate COA porch railings and stair rails. Seconded by Board member Shephard. Motion 2. Board member Harbison made a motion to continue the porch rail decision to September 23, 2024. Seconded by Board member Cox. Motion carried. 3. Board member Harbison made amotion that the Historic Preservation Commission find as fact that the proposed project COA-24-37, 325 N. Gulf Street. Who wishes to install handrails on front and side steps of the front porch, is not incongruous with the character of the district for the reasons that there are other houses in the district with similar style hand railings and the applicant has agreed to match the design of the stair rails to the original porch railings as shown on Exhibit A, and are, for the following reasons are generally in harmony with the criteria in the design guidelines and the special character of the neighboring properties and the historic district as a whole.  carried.  Seconded by Board member Cox Motion carried.    Historic Preservation Minutes 8.26,24 11  Final Motion:  Based on the preceding findings of fact, I move that the Historic Preservation Commission grant a Certificate of Appropriateness to Cori Zeh and approve the proposal as shown in COA-24-37,325 N. Gulf Street. Seconded by Board member Shephard. Motion carried.  D. COA's were presented by Staff Whitmore.  ADJOURNMENT  With no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned on motion of Board member Harbison, seconded by Board member Shephard, and unanimously carried.  The meeting was adjourned at 7:30 pm.  23-4  this Adopted  20a4  day of Aigua  BY:  2 JaserrClime,Chair  ATTEST:  Cowfrsg AngelM. Baker, Clerk