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 Sean Murphy Josh Gurlitz Vice-Chair Duncan Lascelles Nancy McCormick Deputy Vice-Chair Polly van de Velde Anne Perl De Pal Chris Berndt David Schwartz Brian Daniels Tuesday, November 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://www.townofchapelhill.org/? splash=https%3a%2f%2fus02web.zoom.us%2fwebinar%2fregister%2fWN_uV9vJE eBTrGeh1JcPC5g5w&____isexternal=true. After registering, you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the webinar in listen-only mode. Phone: 301-715-8592, Meeting ID: 818 4700 9617. Opening Roll Call Anya Grahn, Liaison to Commission, Charnika Harrell, Liaison to Commission, Kevin Hornik, Counsel to Commission Present 9 - Chair Sean Murphy, Vice-Chair Duncan Lascelles, Deputy Vice-Chair Polly van de Velde, Christine Berndt, Brian Daniels , Josh Gurlitz, Nancy McCormick, Anne Perl De Pal , and David Schwartz Secretary reads procedures into the record Commission Chair reads public charge Approval of Agenda A motion was made by Van de Velde, seconded by Daniels, to approve the agenda. The motion carried by unanimous vote. Announcements Page 1 of 9 Historic District Commission Meeting Minutes November 9, 2021 Commissioner Berndt announced she had to leave at 10 p.m. Chair Murphy requested applicants to keep presentations between 10-15 minutes and instituted a 3-minute rule for public comment. Commissioner Scwhartz requested an update for resuming in-person meetings. Grahn stated the December 14th meeting will be virtual and she will let the commission know when in-person meetings can resume. Commissioner Daniels recommended the Commission appoint someone to represent them for the 150 E. Rosemary St discussion at the November 17th Council meeting. Hornik clarified that the commission should vote on the content of the message the appointed person should convey to the Council. A motion was made by Daniels, seconded by Perl De Pal, to appoint Schwartz as the spokesperson and requested he use the memo he drafted on the commission behalf as the content of his message. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. Petitions 1. Petition Regarding Stone and Masonry Walls [21-0830] Chair Murphy acknowledged receipt of the petition from David Swanson regarding the construction of stone and masonry walls. The petition pointed out that walls functioning as retaining walls had to comply the North Carolina Building Code and that it would be unlikely for a licensed structural engineer to sign off on a retaining wall of stacked stone or constructed without mortar. The commissioners commended Swanson’s thoughtfulness in preparing the petition and acknowledged a distinction between low site walls and retaining walls and how the information can be considered for future changes to the Design Standards. Approval of Minutes 2. October 12, 2021 Meeting Minutes [21-0831] Commissioner Berndt reviewed the list of amendments to the minutes she had emailed the Commission. The Commission discussed the need to record the reasoning behind nay votes, whether to cite the Design Standards, and the level of detail required in the minutes. Hornik stated that state law only requires action minutes to provide summary of the discussion and record the votes. A motion was made by Schwartz, seconded by Van de Velde, to approve the October 12, 2021 Meeting Minutes with the amendments proposed by Berndt, with the exception of the providing additional detail on the motions and listing reasoning for nay votes. The motions carried by a unanimous vote. Page 2 of 9 Historic District Commission Meeting Minutes November 9, 2021 Information 3. Administrative Certificate of Appropriateness Approvals [21-0832] Consent 9. 728 Gimghoul Road [21-0838] Grahn summarized the proposed installation of solar panels at 728 Gimghoul Road. A motion was made by Van de Velde, seconded by Lascelles, to approve the application as presented. Commissioner Perl De Pal wanted to stipulate that no solar panels would installed be on the street side of the house. Van de Vel objected as that stipulation conflicted with the Design Standards that allows solar panels on street-facing facades. Hornik clarified that the purpose of the consent agenda is to approve any number of routine items and further discussion would require the Commission to move the project to a business item. A motion was made by Van de Velde, Commissioner Lascelles, to approve the consent item as presented. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. Old Business 4. 214 Glenburnie Street [21-0833] Grahn explained she had emailed revised plans to the Commission in advance of publishing the packet and that she had shared additional materials on November 8th that included a modified request related to solar panels and additional renderings. LeAnne Nease Brown, attorney for the owners, presented the revised design for the project and described how the applicant incorporated feedback they received from the Commission at the July 13, 2021, and September 14, 2021, meetings. Nease Brown described how the size of the side addition was reduced and how the house sits at the end of the district where it transitions to a downtown area. Brown stated this proposal is consistent with that transition and that the Design Standards, Land Use Management Ordinance, and NC General Statutes do not limit the size of additions. Commissioner Berndt was pleased with the reorientation of the playroom addition. She also asked about a kitchen pantry that was mentioned in a memo prepared by Brian Peterson. Project architect Cari Paulus Filer clarified that it referred to a one-story project on the northwest elevation, but they did not move forward with that design because it detracted from the main house. Page 3 of 9 Historic District Commission Meeting Minutes November 9, 2021 Commissioner Berndt also asked about the overall square footage and if the additional net square footage is 3,000. Paulus Filer stated that sounded right. Commissioner Perl De Pal asked if they found red brick that matches the existing structure. Paulus Filer clarified that the only new brick is on the foundation wall for the addition. She stated their intent to reuse as much brick from the demolition of the rear portion of the structure that matches the existing structure. Perl De Pal also asked about the window replacement, porch design, garden house, and HVAC utility fencing. Paulus Filer clarified that the new windows are as close a match as they could obtain and replicating the original would be very expensive. She also stated they provided photos of porch design in the past and there are similar examples of projecting porticos in the district. She clarified the backyard has a steep slope and the added terracing to slow water runoff and create a usable area. David Swanson, the landscape architect, confirmed that the fencing will be outside the setback and screened by landscaping. Commissioner Schwartz asked if the redesign changed the amount of the original structure that would be demolished. Paulus Filer stated that has not changed. Schwartz asked if they considered ways to reduce that amount. The architect said they explored options, but there was not a way to preserve the structure and achieve the applicants’ interior programming. Chair Murphy reiterated one of the original comments was the overall scale of the project and demolition of a significant portion of the original structure. Murphy stated he heard the size of the addition grew in the applicant’s testimony. Paulus Filer clarified the total square footage increased slightly due to the redesigned addition, but the overall scale was not affected. Murphy restated his concern for demolishing a large portion of the existing house. He stated he heard that severe plumbing and foundation issues were the reasons for the demolition and asked if the applicant had a structural report or report from an inspection agency as evidence that describes the extent of the damage as beyond repair. Nease Brown clarified the applicants moved out of the home due to the plumbing issue and the poor design of the original structure as the evidence. She also stated that the General Statutes did not prohibit demolition, and they are removing portions that were not intended to be preserved. Nease Brown further clarified that the back of the house was not as well built as the front. Murphy stated that he was not referring to the demolition of the non-historic portion of the house, but the original structure. Nease Brown stated she viewed the goal of the Design Standards as Page 4 of 9 Historic District Commission Meeting Minutes November 9, 2021 retaining historic structures and that the portion of the house that contributes to the character of the district would be retained. Susan Gravely, a neighbor, expressed support for the project. The Commission discussed how the redesign addressed their previous comments on the scale and size of the additions. They considered that the redesign of the playroom addition made it appear more subordinate to the main house. Gurlitz was disappointed that a portion of the historic structure would be demolished; however, he did not find it would affect the historic character of the house as seen from the street. Van de Velde expressed concern that the rear addition on the northeast elevation overpowers the front elevation of the house. They discussed how the design was congruous with the historic district. Schwartz pointed out that the standards state additions may be located on side elevations only when rear setbacks don’t allow enough space. Schwartz said the proposal is not consistent with that standard, but he also acknowledged the photo in the standards shows an addition on the rear and side. McCormick was concerned about the garden house and thought the redesign addressed those concerns and was not as distracting as the original design. A motion was made by Daniels, seconded by Schwartz, to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness with the conditions as listed in the staff memo. to approve the application with conditions as listed in the staff memo. The motion carried by a vote of 8 to 1. Aye: 8 - Vice-Chair Duncan Lascelles, Deputy Vice-Chair Polly van de Velde, Christine Berndt, Brian Daniels , Josh Gurlitz, Nancy McCormick, Anne Perl De Pal , and David Schwartz Nay: 1 - Chair Sean Murphy New Business 5. 309 N. Boundary Street [21-0834] Harry McLean, applicant, presented the proposed sunroom addition to the side of the on the non-historic house and retaining wall reconstruction. McLean explained the steep topography limited the location of the sunroom addition. He described the failing retaining wall required reconstruction. He Page 5 of 9 Historic District Commission Meeting Minutes November 9, 2021 stated his intent to incorporate salvaged brick from the existing retaining wall repair into the sunroom addition to match the brick of the house. Commissioner Schwartz acknowledged the topography dictates the location of the proposed sunroom and he found the addition to be consistent with Design Standards. Commissioner Perl De Pal was unsure why this portion of Boundary St is part of the Historic District. Schwartz explained that it was part of the Coker estate when the Historic District was established, and it warranted future discussion on whether this portion of Boundary Street should remain in the Historic District. A motion was made by Lascelles, seconded by Schwartz, to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness as presented. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. 6. 604 E. Franklin Street [21-0835] Grahn summarized the request to construct a new four foot (4’) to six foot (6’) tall fence. David Swanson, the project’s landscape architect, mentioned the fence was included in the 2016 approval for an addition, and property owner Betsey Blackwell described the need for the proposed fence in order to protect her gardens and contain pets. She explained the fence wasn’t constructed with the 2016 renovation of their house because the fence was not needed at the time. Swanson described the design of the fence and its height. He requested the Commission consider the addition of a gate on the southeastern corner of the fence as part of their review. Swanson stated the gate did not change the appearance of the fence. Chair Murphy asked if the Commission is amending the previous Certificate of Appropriateness or reviewing a new application. Grahn clarified that the previous COA has expired, and they are reviewing the fence as a new application under the current design standards. The Commissioners discussed if the proposed fence meets the Design Standards. Commissioner Schwartz acknowledged the proposed fence is not strictly consistent with the standards regarding height and location. Commissioner Gurlitz clarified that the intent of the Design Standards is to have a fence as inconspicuous as possible. He thought the proposed fence as presented met the spirit of the Design Standards and did not think the Page 6 of 9 Historic District Commission Meeting Minutes November 9, 2021 fence would be a dominating feature. Schwartz agreed and confirmed based on his site visit the heavy landscaping will shield the proposed fence from view of the street. Commissioner Van de Velde also questioned if they would want a combination of aluminum and deer fencing, and Swanson stated they only requested the aluminum fence. A motion was made by Daniels, seconded by Perl De Pal, to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness based on the evidence presented in the staff memo, except for standard 1.3.9 for temporary fencing, and accepted a friendly amendment to include the gate at the rear. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. Commissioner Berndt left the meeting at 10 p.m. 7. 114 South Columbia Street [21-0836] Grahn stated that the applicant proposed to construct a new stone landscaping wall along the front of the property. David Swanson, applicant, presented the proposed 20-inch-tall solid stacked stone wall. He also explained modifications to the design of the wall to protect nearby trees and the addition of a cap to demarcate the brick walkway. Swanson mentioned they would use the same stone mason who constructed the solid stone retaining wall for the site in 2019. Commissioner Schwartz encouraged the mason to maximize usage of the stone materials and limit the amount of mortared used. A motion was made by Perl De Pal, seconded by Schwartz, to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness as presented. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. 8. 223 E. Rosemary Street [21-0837] Leslie Brock, applicant, explained the urgent need for the roof replacement due to an active leak. She stated she had worked with the State Historic Preservation Office to develop a solution that closely matches the historic tin roofing material. She acknowledged that her application had originally proposed to replace the existing roof with asphalt shingles, but she found a new material that closely resembles the historic metal roof. She requested to amend her application to replace the existing roof with a slimline standing seam metal roof. Commissioner Schwartz commented that the amendment was more Page 7 of 9 Historic District Commission Meeting Minutes November 9, 2021 appropriate. Commissioner Perl De Pal asked about the spacing of the ribs on the new roof. Brock confirmed that they will try to align the ribs of the new roof to match the historic roofing. A motion was made by Lascelles, seconded by Van de Velde, to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness with the understanding that the roof will be replaced with slimline standing seam metal roof. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. Discussion- Continued to December 14, 2021 Meeting Council petition regarding Design Review Advisory Committee Adjournment Next Meeting - December 14, 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. Page 8 of 9 Historic District Commission Meeting Minutes November 9, 2021 Page 9 of 9