Historic District Commission

Town Hall TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL 405 Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard Historic District Commission Chapel Hill, NC 27514 Meeting Minutes Chair David Schwartz Josh Gurlitz Vice-Chair Angela Stiefbold Duncan Lascelles Deputy Vice-Chair Sean Murphy Nancy McCormick Madhu Beriwal Polly Van de Velde Thursday, January 21, 2021 6:30 PM Virtual Meeting Virtual Meeting Notification Board members will attend and participate in this meeting remotely, through internet access, and will not physically attend. The Town will not provide a physical location for viewing the meeting. The public is invited to attend the Zoom webinar directly online or by phone. Register for this webinar: URL After registering, you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the webinar in listen-only mode. Phone: 301-715-8592, Meeting ID: ###-####-#### Opening Roll Call Staff present: Anya Grahn, Liaison to Commission, Jake Lowman, Planning Staff, and Brian Ferrell, Counsel to Commission Present 8 - Chair David Schwartz, Vice-Chair Angela Stiefbold, Deputy Vice-Chair Sean Murphy, Deputy Vice-Chair Sean Murphy, Madhu Beriwal, Josh Gurlitz, Nancy McCormick, and Polly Van de Velde Absent 1 - Duncan Lascelles Secretary reads procedures into the record Approval of Agenda A motion was made by Van de Velde, seconded by Gurlitz, to approve the agenda. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. Announcements Petitions Approval of Minutes Page 1 of 7 Historic District Commission Meeting Minutes January 21, 2021 1. December 8, 2020 Meeting Minutes [21-0023] A motion was made by Stiefbold, seconded by Murphy, to approve the minutes. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. Items to be continued to February 9, 2021 Staff liaison Grahn explained there had been a noticing error which required that these agenda items be continued to the February 9, 2021 meeting. Grahn stated that these items had not yet been shared with the commissioners, but that the meeting agenda would be posted by January 26. 206 Spring Lane 3 Mint Springs Lane 211 Hillsborough Street New Business 2. 160D of the North Carolina General Statutes [21-0024] Alisa Duffy Rogers, Land Use Management Ordinance (LUMO) Project Manager, explained that the General Statutes 160D chapter updates included changes to the appeal of Historic District Commission (HDC) determinations. She explained that the current LUMO requires appeals of HDC decisions to be made to the Board of Adjustment (BOA). The 160D changes gave Council the ability to amend the LUMO so that HDC decisions would be appealed to Superior Court. The Council had directed staff to meet with the HDC and with the BOA to receive feedback from them. The Commission discussed the role of the BOA and the composition of its members. They considered the cost and time of appeals made to the BOA and Superior Court. Brian Ferrell explained that at appeal hearings there were usually attorneys present for both sides. He also pointed out that many members of the BOA were attorneys. He described the similarities of the hearings at the BOA and Superior Court. He discussed the benefit of appeals being made directly to Superior Court would create additional case law related to the congruity standards. Commissioners discussed the advantages and disadvantages of having appeals go directly to the BOA or to Superior Court. Some found that applicants may find that the BOA is made up of their peers and is more approachable than Superior Court. They considered how the costs, formality, and need for an attorney would discourage some applicants from appealing Page 2 of 7 Historic District Commission Meeting Minutes January 21, 2021 an HDC decision to Superior Court. Some commissioners felt that it was better to have a multi-layered appeal system that would allow applicants to appeal HDC determinations to the BOA first and then appeal the BOA's decision to Superior Court. 3. Historic District Design Standards Update [21-0025] Grahn and Stiefbold provided an overview of the Design Guidelines Rewrite Project. Grahn explained that the Chapter 160D update requires the Commission adopt principles and standards, rather than design guidelines, and the 2002 Design Guidelines had been amended as standards. She spoke to the scope of the project and explained that the formatted standards reflected the input of the HDC, the HDC-appointed Design Guideline Committee, and the community. Stiefbold summarized that the Committee had begun in February 2020 with a public open house. The Committee had completed individual reviews of the draft revisions from March through June. They then met regularly from July through December virtually to review drafts together and provide feedback on different topics. In October and November, Stiefbold and Grahn had brought discussion items back to the HDC for additional feedback. She stated this resulted in new and expanded sections of standards that were not in the current Design Guidelines, such as discussions about substitute materials, character essays, and expanded introductions to each set of standards. She spoke to Committee and HDC input on updated standards for new construction and additions, dormer additions, as well as garages and accessory buildings. Stiefbold and Grahn reviewed what they had heard from the public and how these topics had been addressed in the updated standards. They explained that the HDC had discussed approval authority in the fall and their input is evident in the approval authority charts in the Design Principles and Standards. They stated that the updated standards tried to incorporate plain language and images to help users understand the intent of the standards. They also discussed that the historic districts contained 200 years of development and the Committee had chosen to concentrate on form, rather than style, to address the different needs of historical buildings. The Committee had also focused on the material selection, mass and scale, and location of garages and accessory buildings to try to make them less conspicuous. They had also heard there was an interest in promoting sustainability and there was greater flexibility in allowing solar panels. They Page 3 of 7 Historic District Commission Meeting Minutes January 21, 2021 stated that there were some items that were already covered by the LUMO that were not addressed in the updated standards, including specific requirements for signs, floor area ratios, and increased setbacks for new construction. They explained the Council had not granted the HDC landscape authority and so references to tree protection had been removed from the standards; the HDC only has the ability to regulate manmade structures, not plant material. Grahn summarized the feedback they had received at the Virtual Open House. She explained that participants had expressed an interest in encouraging public participation by amending the discussion of standing in the updated standards. Others had commented on making the Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) process more efficient by having the design standards allow for more predictable results. Others supported sustainability and historic preservation. Grahn outlined the next steps for the project. The Commission discussed landscaping. Stiefbold explained that the Commission could only make recommendations on plants and trees, and they could not regulate planting materials. Commissioners considered the length and formatting of the document. Some thought the standards needed to be separated from the recommendations to prevent confusion and others thought maintenance should be moved to the end of each section. There was interest in the COA process being clarified graphically. Others spoke to the clarity of the content compared to the Design Guidelines. The Commission considered separating the document into sections that would be made available online to reduce confusion. The Commission asked for feedback from members of the public. Beverly Kawalec stated that the new standards were a great addition and improvement over the Design Guidelines. She spoke to her concerns about the discussion of standing in the updated Standards. She believed it was imperative that the public has the ability to speak at COA hearings and did not want to discourage public participation. She found that the standards should encourage resident participation. Kimberly Kyser agreed with Kawalec. Susan Smith expressed concerns about how the standards would work with Page 4 of 7 Historic District Commission Meeting Minutes January 21, 2021 the LUMO. She worried about the timing of LUMO amendments. Chair Schwartz explained that he was in discussions with Town Council members and the Town Attorney on making LUMO amendments so that standards for setting, open space, and density could be incorporated into the updated document. She thought the photos in the document did not feature the best examples; she committed to providing photos and suggestions to staff to share with the Commission. She believed line drawings could help improve the understanding of congruity. Smith questioned the delegation of authority to staff for walkways and patios. Stiefbold and Grahn explained that this list was based on conversations with the HDC and that there was always an opportunity for staff to refer a COA to the HDC if there was any uncertainty. Kimberly Kyser spoke of the BOA process and her support for the appeal of HDC decisions to Superior Court. She supported incorporating setbacks, floor area ratios, and other limitations into the design standards. She believed trees and tree canopy contribute to the character of the Historic District and she hoped the Town would recognize the significance of landscaping. Chair Schwartz asked if the historic districts as an overlay functioned the same as a neighborhood conservation district (NCD) overlay. Ferrell explained that to the extent there are stricter standards for the historic district overlay, then those standards would need to be adhered to. Schwartz requested that the standards be clearer, specifically as it related to the congruity standard. Bill Raynor spoke to the role of the design standards in the COA process. He thought the Committee was very helpful in providing a clearer understanding of the expectation for applicants. He talked about measuring congruity first from adjacent properties, then the streetscape, then the district as a whole. He supported the appeal of HDC determinations to the BOA, and he and Schwartz discussed the need for BOA members to have relevant experience or specific expertise, similar to the requirements for serving on the HDC. Raynor worried that the HDC would use landscape authority as a way to deny COA applications for new construction on vacant lots. Schwartz recommended that the Commission create a list of changes they would like made to the draft document. He considered ways that changes may need to be reviewed by a subcommittee. Grahn explained the Town Council and Town Manager had allocated Page 5 of 7 Historic District Commission Meeting Minutes January 21, 2021 resources for this project when it began in 2019. The consultant had developed the draft document based on the scope of work provided as well as the input of the committee, HDC, and community, and she had delivered the final product. Grahn stated that small tweaks could be made to the proposed draft. If substantial changes and additional committee meetings were necessary, the HDC would need to go back to the Town Council and Town Manager for additional resources. Schwartz asked Commissioners to contribute to a list of topics requiring additional attention. Murphy recommended they focus on tweaks that had not previously been considered by the committee, rather than rehashing topics that have already been considered. Van de Velde asked for clarity on the issue of standing and the need to comply with building codes. Beriwal did not believe the standards should include a recommended list of trees if landscaping was not regulated and Schwartz indicated his interest in extending the HDC's purview to include landscape review. Gurlitz stated that the standards are a living document that can be amended in the future. He found that some items such as standing or inserting diagrams were small tweaks that could be made to the draft document; however, items such as landscaping, trees, and the relationship with the LUMO as an overlay district were projects that would require more time. His interest was in adopting the document so applicants would have something new and returning to amend the document later if the Town Council gave the HDC additional authorities. Schwartz expressed concerns about the appropriate scale and size of proposed additions and accessory structures; he found that applicants needed clearer guidance on the placement and scale of new structures and the impacts of those structures on open space. Schwartz was reluctant to adopt the design standards until scale, ratios of built to un-built areas, and landscaping were better defined in the standards. The Commission discussed the issue of standing. Ferrell explained that standing had been incorporated into the standards because the HDC had requested the draft document better explain the process. The language came from the General Statutes. Many favored including language stating that anyone could provide testimony at a COA hearing about a project. They discussed ways to avoid the misunderstanding that only those with standing would be able to provide testimony at a COA hearing. Schwartz described how landscaping could contribute to a COA determination. The Commission considered that the Town Council had not Page 6 of 7 Historic District Commission Meeting Minutes January 21, 2021 given the HDC landscape authority and the timing of future changes. Some believed that landscape standards could be incorporated into the document in the future should the HDC purview include landscaping. The Commission discussed the standards as a living document. They discussed how some areas could be further clarified with photographs and diagrams. Grahn stated that the Commission should review the document and come prepared to discuss specific changes and recommended amendments at the January 28th HDC meeting. Adjournment Next Meeting - DATE Order of Consideration of Agenda Items: 1. Staff Presentation 2. Applicant’s Presentation 3. Public Comment 4. Board Discussion 5. Motion 6. Restatement of Motion by Chair 7. Vote 8. Announcement of Vote by Chair Public Charge: The Advisory Body pledges its respect to the public. The Body asks the public to conduct themselves in a respectful, courteous manner, both with the Body and with fellow members of the public. Should any member of the Body or any member of the public fail to observe this charge at any time, the Chair will ask the offending person to leave the meeting until that individual regains personal control. Should decorum fail to be restored, the Chair will recess the meeting until a genuine commitment to this public charge is observed. Unless otherwise noted, please contact the Planning Department at 919-968-2728; planning@townofchapelhill.org for more information on the above referenced applications. See the Advisory Boards page http://www.townofchapelhill.org/boards for background information on this Board. Page 7 of 7