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 Duncan Lascelles Deputy Vice-Chair Sean Murphy Nancy McCormick Madhu Beriwal Polly Van de Velde Josh Gurlitz Tuesday, February 9, 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: https://us02web.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_Y4wq6TeVQa6Cs1te4aTWCg. After registering, you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the webinar in listen-only mode. Phone: 301-715-8592, Meeting ID: 894 4999 1187. Opening Roll Call Staff present: Anya Grahn, Liaison to Commission, Jake Lowman, Planning Department, Brian Ferrell, Counsel to Commission Present 6 - Chair David Schwartz, Deputy Vice-Chair Sean Murphy, Josh Gurlitz, Duncan Lascelles, Nancy McCormick, and Polly Van de Velde Absent 1 - Madhu Beriwal Secretary reads procedures into the record Approval of Agenda The Commission considered moving the Design Guidelines to the beginning of the meeting. They decided to limit public comment to three minutes per person, and the Commission did not want to discuss items that had already been decided. A motion was made by McCormick, seconded my Murphy, to move the Item #7 Historic District Design Standards Update to the beginning of the agenda. The motion passed with a vote of 5-1. Page 1 of 8 Historic District Commission Meeting Minutes February 9, 2021 Aye: 5 - Chair David Schwartz, Deputy Vice-Chair Sean Murphy, Duncan Lascelles, Nancy McCormick, and Polly Van de Velde Nay: 1 - Josh Gurlitz Announcements Commissioner Lascelles stated that he would recuse himself for Item #6, 709 E. Rosemary Street, in order to provide comments as a member of the public. Petitions Approval of Minutes Historic District Design Standards Update 7. Historic District Design Standards Update [21-0073] The Commission asked for public comment. Randall Lanou discussed using the Design Guidelines project to improve the Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) process. He advocated that the updated Design Standards follow the state legislation to focus solely on congruity with the special character of the district. He found the draft Design Standards to be cumbersome as it has a lot of information not related to the COA application review requirements. He thought the document needed to be more concise to reduce confusion among stakeholders, including commissioners and applicants. He spoke of the unpredictability of the COA process and Historic District Commission. Kimberly Kyser supported Chair Schwartz's recommended edits. She believed some photographs and staff responses to Commissioners' individual edits were inaccurate. She found the historic character of the historic districts to be defined by historic structures and patterns of development. She spoke to the mission of the Historic District Commission in protecting the historic character of the districts and the challenge of accommodating new developments. Commissioner Van de Velde lost connection from approximately 6:54PM to 6:57PM. Susan Smith questioned staff's responses to Commissioners' edits as she believed the Commission had the final authority on the draft document. She found that staff's comments contradicted the Commission's charge. She Page 2 of 8 Historic District Commission Meeting Minutes February 9, 2021 argued that the purpose of the Design Standards was to protect the historic character of the district. Chair Schwartz pointed out that there could be changes to those items that were approved at the January 28, 2020 meeting. Murphy supported taking action on the summary table provided by staff that addressed which changes should be incorporated into the Design Standards. He found the document to be consistent with the discussions and Commission's agreement to only make minor changes to the document. McCormick advocated that the maintenance section of the narratives be moved to the end of the specific standards. She explained that the standards were what was enforceable and required. Maintenance was another issue. Gurlitz supported Schwartz's recommended edits on page 13 stating that all members of the public are welcome to present sworn testimony during a hearing. He believed this should be prioritized over the explanation of standing as he did not want to discourage public participation. Lascelles had reviewed the history, various drafts, and evaluations. He found the current draft to be carefully and clearly written. He agreed with Murphy to accept the revisions as proposed by staff. Van de Velde agreed. She clarified that the Historic District Commission (HDC) did not have the same authority as the Community Design Commission (CDC) as the CDC had the ability to regulate paint color. She thought the sections on maintenance and repair were helpful to residents. Schwartz reviewed his proposed edits to the document as outlined in the summary table. The Commission discussed stating that the Design Standards are more restrictive than the Land Use Management Ordinance (LUMO). They considered Schwartz's recommendation to site new buildings so that they did not project either to the front or rear of neighboring historic buildings, and they discussed traditional development patterns of constructing additions to side and rear elevations of historic houses. Gurlitz and McCormick summarized the Design Guideline Committee's discussions on the treatment of side and rear yards as well as corner lots. The Commission considered adding language about overlay districts and the proposed edits to the section on hearings. Page 3 of 8 Historic District Commission Meeting Minutes February 9, 2021 A motion was made by Murphy, seconded by Van de Velde, to approve the edits to the draft Design Standards as provided in staff's summary table. The motion passed with a vote of 4-2. Aye: 4 - Deputy Vice-Chair Sean Murphy, Duncan Lascelles, Nancy McCormick, and Polly Van de Velde Nay: 2 - Chair David Schwartz, and Josh Gurlitz Historic District Candidate Interviews 1. Historic District Commission Candidate Interviews [21-0067] Staff liaison Grahn explained that during the meeting she had received an email that Springer was no longer interested in serving on the Historic District Commission. Staff explained that the HDC had forwarded a recommendation to Town Council for the appointment of Anne Perl de Pal and that Cathy Brigham, the other candidate under consideration, had also withdrawn her application to pursue other volunteer opportunities. Information Item 2. 370 Glandon Drive [21-0068] Grahn explained that the HDC had reviewed and approved an after-the-fact COA for field changes at 370 Glandon Road at the December meeting. Due to concerns raised by the neighbor, the HDC had requested that staff investigate additional work that may have been completed without a COA. Staff reviewed the neighbor's concerns and found that the project complied with the COA and zoning approvals. The Certificate of Occupancy was issued and the application was closed. Consent Agenda 3. 206 Spring Lane [21-0069] Grahn explained that the Commission had approved a COA for a second story addition at this location in January 2020. The applicant proposed to modify the window configuration on that addition. A motion was made by Van de Velde, seconded by Gurlitz, to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. New Business 4. 3 Mint Springs Lane [21-0070] Grahn stated that the applicant proposed to construct a new six foot tall stone retaining wall adjacent to the house. She explained that staff had worked with Page 4 of 8 Historic District Commission Meeting Minutes February 9, 2021 the applicant to clarify the repaving of the driveway and work on the existing retaining walls was repair and maintenance not requiring HDC approval. Chase Pickett, contractor, described the history of the property and the location of existing stone walls. He explained that the garage had been converted to living space, and the garage door had been replaced by a window. He provided photos showing the stone wall bowing due to the weight of the soil and its age. He presented plans for changing the angle of the wall, constructing stairs with a handrail, improving the entrance into the basement, and providing space for garbage cans. Pickett stated that the improvements would address the structural issues while contributing to the livability of the house. A motion was made by Van de Velde, seconded by Gurlitz, to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. 5. 211 Hillsborough Street [21-0071] Grahn stated that the applicant proposed to renovate the c.1919 house, construct a new basement addition, enclose a side porch, and make site improvements. Kevin Clark, architect, reviewed the history of the house and later non-contributing additions. He explained that the homeowner had discovered plans from the 1950s for changes similar to the current proposal. He pointed out that the facade from Hillsborough Street would remain largely unchanged as the addition would be at the side and back of the house. He described how the screened porch addition mimicked the design of the current side porch. The proposal would incorporate materials already used on the house, though a metal roof was proposed on the side porch. The Commission discussed the improvements. They discussed the construction of a new chimney directly adjacent to an existing chimney on the north side of the house. They considered the louvered openings of the basement addition to allow air circulation into the storage space beneath the deck. A motion was made by McCormick, seconded by Van de Velde to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness. The motion carried with a unanimous vote. 6. 709 E. Rosemary Street [21-0072] Commissioner Lascelles recused himself. Page 5 of 8 Historic District Commission Meeting Minutes February 9, 2021 Ferrell clarified that Lascelles's recusal did not defeat quorum or the majority voting requirement. He explained that the Commission would need a vote of four to take action. He stated that it was not permissible for members of the Commission to discuss applications outside of the hearing without disclosing it to the commission and voting on these applications. He explained that Lascelles would not be able to participate in any matter related to the Commission's discussion and voting, though he could provide comment as a witness. Charles Nunn, applicant presented plans to enclose a back porch on the rear elevation and construct a new garden shed. He discussed that the HDC had approved a garage on this site in 2017; however, the application had expired and he now preferred a garden shed. The Commission discussed the proposed improvements and that the site was not contributing to the National Register of Historic Places. Duncan Lascelles, neighbor, explained that his house and shed was on the lot line. He found that the proposed placement of the new shed would create an unusual cluster of buildings that were not consistent with the historic district. He believed that the proximity of the buildings created a massing effect that compromised the open feel of the historic district. He suggested that the shed be relocated further from the property line. Nunn described the adjustments to the design that were made to address the neighbors' concerns regarding rainwater runoff. He spoke to Lascelles's concerns over the size and placement of the shed. He explained that he had considered alternative locations but the proposed location was preferred. He described the need for storage. The Commission discussed the placement of the shed. They considered whether the applicant should apply for a variance application in order to construct the shed within the lot setbacks, similar to the placement of other accessory buildings that were built on side and rear lot lines. Commissioners spoke of their inability to regulate impacts of development on neighboring properties. They found that the proposed location of the shed was congruous with the location of sheds on the same block and within in the district. A motion was made by Murphy, seconded by McCormick to approve the Page 6 of 8 Historic District Commission Meeting Minutes February 9, 2021 Certificate of Appropriateness. The motion carried with a unanimous vote. 8. Text Amendments to Land Use Management Ordinance Section [21-0074] 3.6.2(e)(4) and Section 8.4 Grahn explained that staff proposed to amend the Land Use Management Ordiance (LUMO) by eliminating the A through J review criteria outlined in LUMO 3.6.2(e)(4) and requiring compliance with the Design Principles and Standards. She pointed out that references to the Design Guidelines would be updated to read "Design Principles and Standards" in LUMO 3.6.2 and 8.4.6. The Commission discussed the confusion caused by having both the Design Guidelines and the A through J criteria to evaluate COA applications and to determine congruity. Schwartz said that the A through J criteria had been developed prior to the adoption of the Design Guidelines to provide a basis for reviewing COA applications. Many found the wording in LUMO 3.6.2 was not concise. They considered the language of the State's Model Ordinance regarding Design Standards. They recommended replacing 3.6.2(e)(1) and (3) with the language provided in the Model Ordinance. A motion was made by Gurlitz, seconded by Lascelles, to forward a positive recommendation to the Town Council for the adoption of the LUMO amendments as amended to include the replacement of LUMO 3.6.2(e)(1) and (2) with the language from the State Model Ordinance. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. Page 7 of 8 Historic District Commission Meeting Minutes February 9, 2021 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. Note Page 8 of 8