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 Brian Daniels David Schwartz Tuesday, December 13, 2022 6:30 PM RM 110 | Council Chamber Language Access Statement Opening Roll Call Anya Grahn-Federmack, Liaison to Commission, Charnika Harrell, Liaison to Commission, Kevin Hornik, Counsel to Commission Present 6 - Chair Sean Murphy, Deputy Vice-Chair Polly van de Velde, Brian Daniels , Nancy McCormick, Anne Perl De Pal , and David Schwartz Excused 2 - Vice-Chair Duncan Lascelles, and Josh Gurlitz Secretary reads procedures into the record Commission Chair Reads Public Charge Approval of Agenda Commissioner Van de Velde asked to add a presentation by Preservation North Carolina (PNC) to the agenda. The Commission unanimously approved the update. Preservation Chapel Hill Update Don Tise, a Preservation Chapel Hill board member, presented a video of the history of the Strayhorn House in Carrboro. He also gave an update on Page 1 of 14 Historic District Commission Meeting Minutes December 13, 2022 Preservation Chapel Hill’s work to help preserve the house and other projects. Announcements Chair Murphy announced the meeting would end at 10:30 p.m. Petitions Approval of Minutes 1. October 11, 2022 Action Minutes [22-0885] Commissioner Schwartz asked staff to correct a spelling error in the minutes for the October 11, 2022, meeting. A motion was made by Commissioner Van de Velde, seconded by Perl de Pal, to approve the October 11, 2022, meeting minutes with the correction. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. Information 2. Administrative Certificate of Appropriateness [22-0886] Approvals and Maintenance Memos Commissioners expressed concern about the staff approvals for stone wall reconstruction and generator installation. Grahn explained that staff approved the stone wall reconstruction because the applicant proposed to use the same materials and methods as the original wall. She also explained that staff can approve generators not visible from the street. New Business 3. 504 East Franklin Street [22-0887] Grahn-Federmack explained that the applicant proposed modifications to the rear elevation. She also said the house was protected by a preservation easement with Preservation North Carolina (PNC). There were no disclosures. Alan Haig, the property owner, said the proposed changes consisted of a new rear entrance, a new staircase on the side of the house, a new door and balcony railing on the third-floor dormer, and replacing the existing vinyl awnings with louvered wood shutters. He stated that no changes were proposed to the front of the house. Haig presented photos and elevations of the existing conditions and proposed changes. He said the improvements were to make the back of the house as Page 2 of 14 Historic District Commission Meeting Minutes December 13, 2022 appealing as the front. He said the stained and torn awnings would be replaced with new shutters that match existing shutters on the house. He was not sure when the vinyl awnings were added. He explained that a staircase would be added to the side on the house where no landing existed. He said there was no railing for the door in the third-floor dormer and that the door would be replaced with a glass door and railings to create a balcony. Haig said the railing would not extend to the edge of the roof. He also said the attic was converted to an office and bedroom and the existing door was below the finished floor. He said the door was not visible from the street. He also presented examples of French doors proposed for the dormer. Commissioner Daniels asked if the side staircase and rear pergola would be visible from Franklin St and for clarification on the materials for both. Haig said the staircase would be made of wood, and that it was proposed to alleviate a safety concern. He also stated it would be visible from Franklin Street. Haig explained the pergola would be an expanded version of the rear porch, and that it extended to the edge of the chimney. He said the porch would have a brick foundation and wooden beams. He stated the pergola would be visible from Battle Lane. Commissioner Perl de Pal asked for details about the Preservation North Carolina (PNC) preservation easement. Haig said the covenants protect a lot of the interior elements. Grahn-Federmack was sworn in to provide testimony, and she explained that she understood the easement also applied to exterior changes and that PNC would review the changes concurrently. She also pointed out that enforcing PNC easement is outside of the Commission’s purview. Haig confirmed that PNC reviewed the application materials. Commissioner Schwartz asked if there were photos from Franklin Street to help determine what would be visible. Haig presented a photo of the front of the house and reiterated that he did not believe the pergola would be visible. Commissioner Perl de Pal was concerned that the new door in the third-floor dormer was taller than the adjacent windows and would disrupt the continuous header. She found the header to be a significant architectural feature of the dormer. Chair Murphy asked if the dormer was original to the house. Haig believed it was original, but he was not sure. Haig also reiterated his safety concern because the existing door had no railing. Page 3 of 14 Historic District Commission Meeting Minutes December 13, 2022 Commissioner McCormick said rear entrances were traditionally subordinate to front entrances. She asked if the rear entrance could be scaled back. Haig said the front entrance was rarely used because it had the original lock and parking was in the rear. He said guests were confused as to where to enter, and the proposed rear entrance would be more clearly defined and located where guests could be comfortably received. He also found the proposed entrance matched the aesthetic of the front. Commissioner Van de Velde asked if there was a building code concern with the door in the third-floor dormer. Murphy mentioned that the Building Department would confirm compliance. Counsel Hornik reiterated that building code compliance would happen after the Certificate of Appropriateness. Schwartz asked if the applicant considered adding a masonry staircase to the first-floor door instead of wood. Haig said a masonry staircase would block light to the basement windows below the door. He also stated his architect advised that a landing was required by building code. Schwartz asked if the addition was original. Haig explained the original house had four rooms and the additions consisted of previously converted porches. Haig offered to install the landing and staircase flush with the house to make it less visible from Franklin Street. The Commission expressed support for this modification. Perl de Pal was concerned about the metal railings proposed on the first-floor stairs and patio. Haig said metal was proposed because it matched what was existing, but a wood railing was proposed for the balcony. Perl de Pal suggested looking at other houses in the Franklin-Rosemary Historic District and thought wood railings were more appropriate throughout. There was no public comment. Commissioner Daniels was concerned that the new staircase and the pergola would be visible from Franklin Street. He preferred the staircase be hidden behind the chimney. He was also concerned about the size and scale of the pergola. He said the pergola was not original and thought it would disrupt the historic nature of the house. Commissioner Van de Velde agreed and thought the pergola should be pulled in to mitigate visibility concerns. Commissioner Perl de Pal agreed with previous comments about the staircase Page 4 of 14 Historic District Commission Meeting Minutes December 13, 2022 and pergola. Perl de Pal reiterated her concern with the new door in the third-floor dormer. She said the dormer had a strong architectural header that wrapped around the dormer sides and the proposed glass door disrupted that continuity. She believed the existing door was a window originally, and that the applicant should convert it back to a window or keep the height of the new glass door the same. Van de Velde agreed with Perl de Pal’s comment about the continuous header, but she said the door is existing and may need to comply with building code. She was concerned an operable window may not comply. Chair Murphy summarized the concerns voiced by commissioners. He restated that the applicant agreed to turn the staircase. He said aligning the pergola with the corner of the house could alleviate visibility concerns. He also said the door on the third-floor dormer was not visible from the street, and that the building code may require a door for the interior space. Perl de Pal suggested a custom design for the third-floor door that does not compromise the horizontal banding. Haig said he and his wife made significant investments in the house. He said he could make the change to the staircase but preferred to consult with his wife about the changes to the pergola. Hornik recommended the commission continue this hearing until the January 10, 2023 meeting to give the applicant time to work with their architect to address the Commission’s feedback. Haig asked if they could add landscape to screen the pergola. Murphy advised that the Commission would need to see it before approving it. Hornik reiterated that the motion had to be based on the evidence presented during the hearing. A motion was made by Commissioner Van de Velde, seconded by Perl de Pal, to continue this item to the January 10, 2022 meeting, so the commission can review the changes to the staircase, pergola, and door in the third-floor dormer. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. 4. 313 E. Franklin Street [22-0888] There were no disclosures. Anne Wooten spoke on behalf of the Chi Omega Sorority. Wooten explained the history of the house before introducing the project’s architect, Jim Spencer. Page 5 of 14 Historic District Commission Meeting Minutes December 13, 2022 Spencer presented a photo of the existing house. He described this part of the historic district as more institutional than single-family residential as houses were modified for students in the 1960s and 1970s. He said the center addition that connected the historic Woolen and Patterson houses was approved in the 1960s and constructed in the 1970s. He described the addition as being more modern but sympathetic to the Craftsman style of the two historic houses. He said it was visually distinct from the Patterson House by a brick fire wall. He also pointed to the screened terrace in the center addition that blocks the front part of the house. He stated the center addition was sympathetic to the Craftsman style of the two houses. He explained that this project aimed to create an outdoor gathering space and make the house more accessible. He described the need to replace existing building materials. He said the roof and siding had been patched many times. He also pointed out that some of the windows were in disrepair and the proposal included a restoration/replacement strategy. Spencer said the sorority was seeking approval to remove the exterior portions of the firewall and fire escapes from the house to create a more residential feel for the house. He explained fire sprinklers were installed in 1998 and the fire wall and fire escapes were no longer needed. They were working with the Fire Marshal to obtain approval to remove them. Spencer presented the existing site plan and described the existing conditions. He mentioned that a portion of the existing porch on the Woolen House was enclosed, but he was not sure when. He said a copy of the 1970 site plan showed the enclosed porch. He also believed that a rear porch on the Patterson House was previously enclosed, but he was not sure when. Spencer presented a site plan of the proposed modifications. He described a new entrance on the center addition. He stated that the entrances to the historic houses would be maintained. He said accessibility ramps would be added to the side of the Patterson House and at the rear of the building behind the Woolen House. He explained the existing cedar shingle siding would be replaced with fiber cement siding for longevity. He also said all roofing materials would be replaced with a standing seam metal roof and pointed out that nearby houses had metal roofs. He presented elevations and described the modifications for each portion of Page 6 of 14 Historic District Commission Meeting Minutes December 13, 2022 the house. He said the windows on the Woolen House were in various states of deterioration, and they would be replaced with simulated divided light windows. The accessibility ramp would lead to a rear entrance on the Woolen House. He said the existing door was half-step below grade and would need to be moved up to match the finished level of the ramp. He mentioned that a storage shed would be removed and replaced with two windows. He said the fire escapes on the Woolen house would be removed because they were in bad condition and posed a safety hazard for students. Spencer described the changes to the center addition. He explained the existing terrace would be replaced with a new porch to create an open gathering space. He said it would have a stone foundation to match the Woolen House. He also stated all windows on the center addition would be replaced and French doors would be added in the middle of the center addition. He said the roof over the new porch would be standing steam metal. He said they propose to remove a portion of the firewall and put siding over it. Spencer described the changes to the Patterson House. He said the roof and shingles would be replaced like on the Woolen House. He said the existing wood windows were in reasonable condition and would be restored. He presented a rendering of the house with the proposed improvements. He shared that the color of the center addition was still being discussed, but the idea was to differentiate it from the Woolen and Patterson houses. Commissioner Daniels asked if the improvements were meant to unify the center porch with one of the historic houses or to distinguish it. Spencer clarified that the project aimed to unify the building, while maintaining a distinction between the center addition and two historic houses. Spencer thought the one of the defining characteristics of the Franklin-Rosemary Historic District was the openness of houses and porches as viewed from the street. Spencer said the porch floor would be continuous through the two houses and center addition, but the roof pitch above the center porch would be different. Daniels asked if different materials were used for the center porch, and Spencer explained the center addition would have stone flooring and wood columns with a different column design than those on the Woolen and Patterson houses. Spencer mentioned that the building was non-contributing on the National Register because of the center addition, but he thought it made sense for the building to appear unified at the street. Page 7 of 14 Historic District Commission Meeting Minutes December 13, 2022 Commissioner McCormick asked about the change in roofing materials for the entire building. She said the standards call for in-kind replacements. Spencer said the existing roof is not original to the building, and that it was changed to composite shingle at some point. He agreed with McCormick’s point about using a different material, but thought the standards spoke more to residential uses while this was a more institutional use. He also said the sorority was open to replacing the top roof with shingles and the porch roofs with metal. Commissioner Perl de Pal asked if they considered replacing the wood shingles with cedar as the standards also call for in-kind replacement of shingles. Spencer said fiber cement shingles were preferred over wood for maintenance and financial reasons. He also understood that it would be acceptable according to the Designs Standards if different materials were visually like the existing. Perl de Pal asked if they considered using newer style windows on the center addition and wood frame with storm windows on the historic houses. Spencer said they could match the light patterns and muntin style with new wood clad windows which was preferred, but they would consider other options presented by the Commission. Perl de Pal asked about the location of the accessibility ramp on the side of the house. Spencer felt strongly that the accessibility ramp needed to be visible from Franklin Street. He said the rear accessible ramp was the primary accessible entry, but someone would not know that coming from Franklin Street. He also said the ramp was placed where they thought it would have the least visual impact. He explained that side of the house has heavy existing vegetation. Perl de Pal asked if they could incorporate the ramp into the grade and landscaping. Commissioner Schwartz was concerned about the window changes. He said the Design Standards discouraged changing the size of windows, removing windows, and changing window materials. Spencer thought the Standards should apply differently to non-contributing institutional buildings and contributing single-family buildings. He said the proposal was an effort to incorporate the Craftsman elements into the center addition and unify the building. He thought the commission should consider how new technology allowed contemporary materials to match the aesthetic of historical structures. Commissioner McCormick asked if there was a picture of the front parlor addition on the Patterson House. Spencer presented an elevation that showed the parlor. He said the goal was to make the parlor feel more open. Page 8 of 14 Historic District Commission Meeting Minutes December 13, 2022 He did not think the existing windows were original. He said the window change would be screened by the existing tree. He also clarified that the proposal was to replace two existing windows with three larger windows. Schwartz asked about the windows to be removed. Spencer said the windows on the rear needed to be reconfigured for the ramp and elevator. He said the windows that would be removed for the elevator were part of the 1970s renovation. Perl de Pal asked about the removal of the shingle banister on the center porch. Spencer said they were removed to create more openness to the front of the house. He also said they were okay with keeping them, but the banister would need to be reconstructed due to its current deteriorated condition. Chair Murphy asked about the removal of the fire escapes. Counsel Hornik said the Commission only needed to determine if their removal was not incongruous. Hornik also said any changes deemed necessary by Fire Marshal would need to be reviewed by the Commission. Commissioner Van de Velde thought it was important for the side ramp to be visible. Commissioner Daniels expressed concern about how the windows, pillars, materials of the center addition relate to the historic houses. Chair Murphy stated the center addition would remain. Daniels thought other changes could be made so the building feels like one structure. Hornik reminded the commissioners of the congruity standard. There was no public comment. Commissioner McCormick was concerned about replacing the entire roof with metal and the proposed shingle materials. Commissioner Perl de Pal said houses in the Historic District typically have metal roofs over porches. Perl de Pal said many applicants tried to replace shingles with Hardi plank, and if they allowed people to change materials, the Standards would become obsolete. Commissioner Schwartz asked how other commissioners felt about the change in window materials. Commissioner Van de Velde thought the applicant was making a good effort to restore windows that could be restored and replacing others with custom windows. Chair Murphy said the Commission has approved aluminum clad windows, and that these were modern materials that could be made to match historic windows. Page 9 of 14 Historic District Commission Meeting Minutes December 13, 2022 Counsel Hornik reiterated that the Commission must base their decision on the congruity standard. Perl de Pal said the applicant had not identified the exact windows that would be restored or replaced, and that they had not received any evidence of damage. Hornik said the Commission could move to approve the portions of the application they found were not incongruous and continue the remaining items to another meeting. He also said they could deny the application and allow the applicant to return with a substantial modification. A motion was made by Commissioner Daniels, seconded by Van de Velde, that the application was not incongruous with the special character of the district, provided the applicant replace the upper roofing materials with shingles and the porch materials with metal, and to grant the Certificate of Appropriateness (COA). Schwartz requested a friendly amendment about the window pattern on the front of the house, but Daniels declined. The motion failed with a vote of 4 to 2. Aye: 4 - Chair Sean Murphy, Deputy Vice-Chair Polly van de Velde, Brian Daniels , and Nancy McCormick Nay: 2 - Anne Perl De Pal , and David Schwartz Excused: 2 - Vice-Chair Duncan Lascelles, and Josh Gurlitz A second motion as made by Commissioner Schwartz, seconded by Daniels, that the application was not incongruous with the special character of the district, provided the applicant only replace the porch roofing materials with metal and the upper floors with shingles and that the parlor windows be replaced to match the existing 12-1 pattern. Hornik cautioned the Commissioner about adding design changes as a condition in the motion. Perl de Pal asked about including a condition about the ramp, but Schwartz declined. The motion carried by a vote of 5 to 1. Aye: 5 - Chair Sean Murphy, Deputy Vice-Chair Polly van de Velde, Brian Daniels , Nancy McCormick, and David Schwartz Nay: 1 - Anne Perl De Pal Excused: 2 - Vice-Chair Duncan Lascelles, and Josh Gurlitz A third motion was made by Commissioner Perl de Pal, seconded by McCormick, to continue the hearing for the parlor windows to the January 10, 2023 meeting. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. Page 10 of 14 Historic District Commission Meeting Minutes December 13, 2022 A fourth motion was made by Commissioner Schwartz, seconded by Murphy, to grant a COA for the portions of the application approved in the second motion. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. 5. 311 McCauley Street [22-0889] There were no disclosures. Margaret Sheridan, the applicant, presented photos of the existing house and a site plan. She explained that the house was converted from an apartment to a single-family residence in 2015. She said this application was for a shed that was installed during the pandemic and that she did not realize a Certificate of Appropriateness was needed. Sheridan stated the shed was made of wood, simply detailed, and painted to match the house. She said the siding was vertical and not horizontal like the house. She said the shed was in the rear and was not visible from the street. She explained the whole backyard was gravel and they had converted a portion of the gravel driveway back to grass. There was no public comment. A motion was made by Commissioner Perl de Pal, seconded by Van de Velde, that the application was not incongruous with the special character of the district and to grant the Certificate of Appropriateness (COA). The motion carried by a unanimous vote. 6. 312 McCauley Street [22-0890] There were no disclosures. Jim Spencer explained that the existing multifamily building was constructed around 1969. He proposed to add wood siding over the existing plywood siding in the center of the building, construct shed rooflets over the entry doors, and to stain the brick. He said he was not sure how to apply the Design Standards to a non-contributing building. He stated the original proposal was to paint the brick, but the request was to stain it in a contrasting color. He described that the rooflets would be simple and modern. Commissioner Perl de Pal asked about the staining material. Spencer said they were using Stain Tac Define and that it would be used to stain the brick surface and not the mortar. Commissioner Schwartz asked if there was a Page 11 of 14 Historic District Commission Meeting Minutes December 13, 2022 picture of what the brick would look like after applying the stain. Spencer presented the proposed elevation that shows the painted brick. He said the stain would have different transparency levels. There was no public comment. A motion was made by Commissioner Daniels, seconded by Perl de Pal, that the application was not incongruous with the special character of the district and to grant the Certificate of Appropriateness (COA). The motion carried by a unanimous vote. 7. 405 Ransom Street [22-0892] Grahn-Federmack explained that the application proposed changes to the front walkways and reconstructing a porch. Chair Murphy disclosed that he was a personal friend of the applicant. Kurt Ribisl, the owner, said there is a covenant on the property by Preservation Chapel Hill. He presented a photo of the house from c. 1924. He said the previous owner removed the deteriorated front porch fifteen to twenty years ago. Ribisl presented a photo of the existing house. He said he wanted to repair the stone wall on the front of the property, replace deteriorated concrete front steps with mortared natural stone, replace the crumbling concrete front walkway with mortared natural stone, and add a stone pathway. He presented a photo of the damaged stone wall. He said the wall along the driveway would be dry stacked and the wall at the front left of the driveway would be rebuilt as a mortared stone wall. He said the front steps would be mortared stone and presented a photo for steps in the Gimghoul District. He said the front walkway would be replaced with a mortared stone walkway with Tennessee flagstone. He said a three-foot mortared stone walkway would be built on the side of the house to connect the front and side porches. He presented historic photos and pointed out that there was a path and steppingstones still in existence. He said the application included building a new portico and widow’s walk. He presented a photo of the existing front porch and described the damage of the Page 12 of 14 Historic District Commission Meeting Minutes December 13, 2022 wood deck. He said the proposed porch would be a three-pillar structure for the rebuilt porch. He also said there would be a membrane roof and the roof would be slanted. Commissioner Schwartz was concerned that the proposed Tennessee Flagstone for the walkway was lighter than existing stones in the districts. Ribisl said the photo was a sample and he would choose colors that complement the district for the walkway. A motion was made by Commissioner Van de Velde, seconded by Schwartz, that the application was not incongruous with the special character of the district and to grant the Certificate of Appropriateness (COA). The motion carried by a unanimous vote. 8. 109 Fraternity Court [22-0891] A motion was made by Commissioner Daniels, seconded by Perl de Pal, to continue the hearing for 109 Fraternity Court to the January 10, 2023 meeting. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. Adjournment Next Meeting - January 10, 2023 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. Page 13 of 14 Historic District Commission Meeting Minutes December 13, 2022 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 14 of 14