SUMMARY
MINUTES OF A CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL
WORK SESSION
WITH THE HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
MONDAY,
FEBRUARY 8, 1999, AT 5:45 P.M.
Mayor Rosemary Waldorf called the meeting to order
at 5:48 p.m.
Council Members present were Flicka Bateman, Joyce
Brown, Pat Evans, Kevin Foy, Julie McClintock, Lee Pavăo and Edith
Wiggins. Mayor pro tem Joe Capowski was
absent, excused. Staff members present
were Town Manager Cal Horton, Town Attorney Ralph Karpinos and Town Clerk Joyce
Smith. Historic District Commission
members present were Chris Belcher, Dale Reed, Catherine Frank, Sandra Dunfee,
Betsy Pringle, Toby Savage, Terri Swanson, Jim White and Kimberly Kyser.
Betsy Pringle stated that defining what was in the historic districts and determining the current status of preservation in those districts were among the reasonable goals that the Historic District Commission thought it could achieve by the deadline of June, 1999. She said that the Commission would then apply for a grant, would ask the Town to match that grant, and would begin working on a Preservation section for the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Pringle asked the Council to look at the Table of Contents in the Commission’s written report and respond to the reasonableness of the Commission’s approach. She noted that doing all that was outlined would mean a lot more work for the Council and staff, and expressed appreciation for that.
Mayor Waldorf noted that the Commission seemed to be
asking for direction from the Council on this matter. She asked if Council Members had any questions.
Council Member Bateman asked for an estimate of how
much in grant funds the Commission would be requesting. Ms. Pringle replied that State grants
usually were about $4,000. She said
that some work would be done in-house and some would be done by a consultant.
Town Manager Cal Horton pointed out that having work
done in-house would mean asking the Manager if there were staff and resources
available to do it.
Ms. Pringle added that the Commission had not yet
completely sorted out what work would be done by the Commission and what would
be done by the staff and/or a consultant.
Mayor Waldorf asked if anyone on the Council
objected to allowing the Commission to pursue this idea. Council Members replied that they supported
it.
Catherine Frank suggested continuing the dialogue
with the Cameron-McCauley neighborhood and finding a more efficient way to
address neighborhood complaints. She
noted that one of the Commission’s goals was to get the neighborhood involved
in the planning process. Ms. Frank said
another goal was to resolve conflicts that arise between the Commission and
other boards. She said that creating a
Conservation Overlay District was one way to resolve such conflicts.
Council Member McClintock asked Ms. Frank if she was
referring to conflicts involving Town ordinances implemented by the Planning
Board. She asked if the Commission
wanted to see something embodied in a Conservation Overlay Zone that would be
more specific to historic neighborhoods.
Ms Frank replied that was correct.
She stated that some issues, such as density, were not always congruous
with the normal development of housing in the conservation districts, and noted
that more creative zoning could improve that.
Council Member McClintock stated that she would be
in favor of something along that line.
She also mentioned that Raleigh had full-time planners who met with
neighbors. Ms. Frank cautioned that
having full-time planners could be a drain on a town’s resources.
Mayor Waldorf asked Commission members if they
wanted the Council to ask them to come back with a more specific proposal. Ms. Frank replied that the Commission wanted
to know if the Council had any direction for the Commission on this; for
example, should it be handled through the Comprehensive Plan planning process
or should it be a separate process.
Council Member Evans remarked that putting an
Overlay Zone over certain areas would not address the lack of communication
between the Planning Board and the Historic District Commission. She described incidents where the Commission
had not had an opportunity to provide input before the Planning Board made its
recommendation as a “fluke in the process.”
Council Member Evans also pointed out that the Planning Board had been
supportive of the Commission’s recommendation on sidewalks.
Ms. Frank replied that she saw it as more than a
fluke and gave other examples of the Planning Board making decisions before an
area came to the Commission as an Historic District issue. She acknowledged, though, that a
Conservation Overlay might not be the best way to handle this problem.
Council Member Evans commented that such conflicts
seemed like ideal Comprehensive Plan issues because they involved changes in
the process. She said that some towns
have separated neighborhoods into districts which have their own governmental
organizations and support staff.
Council Member Evans added that she would like to see that approach
implemented throughout Chapel Hill.
Ms. Pringle noted that that Council’s new Concept
Plan review process addressed some of the issues that have come up in the
past. She pointed out that such issues
would now come to the Commission for a courtesy review and go to the Planning
Board with a concept plan. Ms. Pringle
also urged the Town to give that process time to work because it seemed like
the right order of things. She pointed
out that a Conservation Overlay offered flexibility that strict zoning does
not. Noting that the quality of life in
historic districts was affected by the ambiance there, Ms. Pringle observed
that the character of Chapel Hill was a reflection of the beauty of the land
and the layout of the Town.
Kimberly Kyser stressed that incidents of conflict
were not “flukes” because they are consistent. She reported that applications come to the Commission which say
that someone could develop their property in a way that was legal as far as
zoning is concerned but was not consistent with the Commission’s conservative
task to preserve and guard the atmosphere of Chapel Hill. Ms. Kyser stressed that current zoning did
not, in many cases, support what the Town has asked the Commission to do. She said that the Town could use more
concrete language to bring zoning more in compliance with the aesthetic
standards that the Commission strove to uphold.
Toby Savage stated that zoning could not solve the
problem because the authority to look at the context and the overall size and
scope of a development was somewhat limited.
He said that updating the Geographic Information System (GIS) would help
the Commission to document existing conditions in the Historic District. Mr. Savage added that having a Conservation
Overlay District would also help.
Ms. Pringle asked if the GIS would be available in
printed form. Mr. Horton replied that
the staff could print maps of any area of the community.
Council Member Evans asked if someone from the staff
was out doing measurements. Mr. Horton
replied that the Town was using aerial photography to locate structures,
driveways, and paved areas of all kinds.
He stated that the staff would be able to show the outline of those
areas either in a simple map or imposed on top of an aerial photograph.
Council Member McClintock stated that it sounded as
though Commission members did not feel they had the tools to accomplish their
mission. She suggested following up on
Mayor Waldorf’s suggestion that the Council ask the Commission to meet with
those in Raleigh who were creating Conservation Overlay Districts and then
develop a more specific idea about what would be the best thing for Chapel
Hill. Council Member McClintock also
advised the Commission to find out what tools it needed and to come back to the
Council with a proposal.
Council Member Foy asked what the current process
was. Stating that he understood that
property owners come to the Historic District Commission when they want to
change the outside of a structure, he asked if property owners then needed to
get a certificate from the Commission in order to proceed. Ms. Pringle said that they do.
Council Member Foy asked what the guidelines were
for granting or denying that certificate.
Ms. Pringle explained that the Commission needed to find congruity on
all elements that the change would involve.
Council Member Foy asked if that judgment was based
on what the Commission knew about the surrounding area. Ms. Pringle replied that it was, adding that
they needed to make findings of fact as to congruity with the neighborhood and
then give a majority vote in order to award a Certificate of Appropriateness.
Council Member Foy asked if a Conservation Overlay
District would provide criteria that the Commission could use in evaluating
proposals. Ms. Pringle explained that
the Commission intended to review its criteria anyway, but the Conservation
Overlay District would address the size, scale, and level of development on
each property. She added that the
intensity of development on a particular piece of property was not part of what
they look at now in approving or denying certificates.
Ms. Frank explained that the Commission could make
judgments about the architectural details of a project, but it might need to do
more to really preserve the character of the Historic Districts, and its
authority to do more was limited. She
said that a Conservation Overlay District was a new way of looking at bringing
the planning and preservation processes together.
Ms. Kyser pointed out that some of the houses on
Franklin Street occupy a small portion of the lot they were on but that their
zoning allowed them to be torn down and replaced by something built out to the
perimeter of the lot. She stressed that
the character of Franklin Street would be completely altered if everyone
followed the setback regulations because there would be big houses on small
lots with little space in between them.
Mr. Savage intimated that some people wanted to make
zoning so restrictive that it would eliminate flexibility in the use of the
property that was permitted by the current zoning. He suggested finding some compromise that would simplify zoning
in order to evaluate density and context more carefully.
Council Member Brown said that it would be good to
have ideas of what kinds of things the Commission might write into an Overlay
District that would give them the flexibility they want. She asked if they were concerned with the
effects of new development within the Conservation Overlay District. Ms. Pringle replied that a number of
properties within the current zoning could ask for more development which would
be out of character with the neighborhood as a whole.
Mayor Waldorf said it was her understanding that a
subgroup of the Comprehensive Planning Work Group would look specifically at
preservation issues regarding the neighborhoods surrounding downtown Chapel
Hill.
Mr. Horton said that preservation of those areas
would be addressed, but not through a special subgroup.
Mayor Waldorf asked Council Member McClintock to
restate her suggestion that the Commission meet with experts and come back to
the Council with a proposal for endorsement.
Council Member Bateman asked who the approving body
would be in an Overlay District if someone wanted to build a series of colonial
style townhouses. Ms. Pringle replied
that if it was a single lot it would be the Commission. If it was a multi-family development it
would be the Planning Board, the Commission, and the Council. Mr. Horton added that it would depend on
size.
Council Member McClintock asked Mr. Horton for the
disturbed area figure. Mr. Horton
replied that it was 20,000 square feet of building and 40,000 square feet of
disturbance. Mayor Waldorf noted that
that was the trigger that brings the issue to the Council.
Mayor Waldorf summed up the main objection to
Overlay Districts: They would give the
Commission more absolute control over density in the historic districts. Ms. Pringle agreed that this was the
objection, but pointed out that there could be guidelines as to the intent of
the Town and the Commission.
Council Member Foy asked if the Overlay District
would be for all of an historic district or merely for part of it. Ms. Pringle replied that each neighborhood in
Raleigh had taken its own approach and had worked this out with the Town. She added that Cameron-McCauley was in need
of attention in many areas. Ms.
Pringle said other historic districts
might need their own overlay in the future.
Mayor Waldorf suggested that the Commission get more
information and advice on what the specific approaches and tools might be, then
confer with the Comprehensive Plan Work Group, then meet with the Council about
the general approach, and then get down to work with the neighborhood to see
what was agreeable. All agreed with
that plan.
Ms. Pringle explained that the Commission chose to
discuss rental licensing because it felt that this was an underlying issue that
affects Cameron-McCauley as well as other neighborhoods. She stated that such licensing would not
have to require huge reports or lengthy applications or much money. Ms. Pringle said it could merely be an agreement
with the Town to abide by the rules of zoning and the number of people who live
in the house. She pointed out that the
lodging of a complaint could trigger a safety inspection if the owner was
licensed. Ms. Pringle noted that there
were safety violations which no one now knew how to address.
Mayor Waldorf pointed out that rental licensing was
one of several issues that the Council had referred to the staff. She added that the Town Attorney needed to
know the Commission’s and the Council’s objectives in order to make his
recommendations. Ms. Pringle replied
that overcrowding itself was an issue in addition to the safety issues
connected with overcrowding.
Dale Reed noted that speculators made so much money
packing houses with students that the neighborhood feared it was being overrun
with student housing and that single family buyers were being driven away.
Ms. Kyser explained that the Commission could
sometimes see by the way a proposal was configured that a house was meant to
hold more than a single family.
Nevertheless, she explained, the Commission could not deny the
application if the general scale and architecture of the building blended
within reason with the neighborhood.
Ms. Kyser remarked that a month after such a house had been built it
looked like a slum, and the Commission had approved an application which they
knew to be inconsistent, incompatible and incongruous with the
neighborhood. She added that requiring
a license would create a contractual arrangement from the start.
Mayor Waldorf noted that the Commission seems to be
striving for a proper ratio between single-family and multi-family homes—which
primarily are student rentals because the district was so close to campus. Ms. Pringle, noting that it would be illegal
to prescribe a ratio, suggested that the Town work on the kinds of things that
would make it viable for single families to live in the neighborhood and to buy
property there.
Mr. Savage asserted that there currently were tools
on the books for enforcing the use of some of this property, but stated that
there had been trouble using them. He
pointed out that having a rental license which needed to be renewed on a
regular basis would provide an opportunity to review the situation and would
give the Commission some leverage on regulating how the property was being
used.
Council Member Evans asked if one of the
Commission’s goals was to try and increase the number of owner-occupied
homes. She pointed out that would be
better than having an absentee owner even if the owner did rent a few bedrooms
to students. Council Member Evans
suggested that the Commission find out what tools other communities had used to
increase the number of owner-occupied houses.
She noted that having a representative in town would cost the property
owner money, which would then be turned into rental costs, which would defeat
the goal of affordable homes for families.
Ms. Pringle added that Davis, California, required
absentee owners to have a local representative. Mayor Waldorf explained that she was sending out letters
requesting their licensing plans from the Towns of Davis, Boulder and Annapolis.
Council Member McClintock said that pressure for
more student housing was going to increase.
Ms. Pringle predicted that this pressure would not
only change the character of the Cameron-McCauley Historic District but
probably would change all of the historic districts in Town.
Terri Swanson noted that the University, being part
of the symbiotic growth process in Town, must look at places other than
historic districts to house students because those districts were reaching the
saturation point. She added that the
recent announcement of new University growth could be the impetus for everyone
to begin thinking in more of an area-wide fashion.
Ms. Pringle said that the Town needed to prepare
rather than wait and react.
Ms. Reed said that she felt helpless because nothing
had been done about traffic calming in her neighborhood despite her many
requests.
Council Member Brown noted that her own neighborhood
association—which is part of the Cameron McCauley Historic District—recently
had an annual meeting. She reported
that traffic calming was one of the main issues discussed at the meeting, and
added that a petition might result from their research. Council Member Brown remarked that the four-way
stop on her street had helped.
Council Member McClintock explained that the Council
had frequently discussed traffic calming and had endeavored to do a
comprehensive policy but could not resolve a number of issues. She said that the Council had concluded
that they would support a good idea for traffic calming when presented with
one.
Mayor Waldorf said that experience had shown her the
importance of having a high level of consensus in a neighborhood before putting
any devices in place.
Ms. Reed added that this was difficult when the
neighborhood consisted of houses with absentee landlords.
Council Member Evans pointed out that the entire
neighborhood needed to be involved in changes because what was done on one
street affected the neighboring streets.
Council Member Foy noted that the Council would be
meeting with the UNC Master Planning Committee on February 23rd. He suggested that it would be helpful for
the Commission to also see those plans so that they could comment on them to
the Council.
Mayor Waldorf said that the Comprehensive Plan Work
Group would be notified about the meeting as well.
Council Member Foy asked members of the Commission
what they felt about their ability to restrict tear-downs. Commission members explained that they had
no authority to deny demolition, only to delay it for a year.
Mayor Waldorf asked if that was State law. Ms. Pringle replied that it was, adding that
some Historic District Commissions had pushed for delays to be extended and
others already had longer waiting periods.
Council Member Foy said that he brought the issue up
because if it concerns the Commission he would like ideas from them on how to
address it.
Chris Belcher suggested making the property owner
responsible for maintaining a building rather than allowing demolition by
neglect.
Ms. Frank suggested requiring a mediation process of
some sort because the theoretical purpose of the 365-day waiting period was to
find a solution other than demolition.
Explaining that most people saw the waiting period as punishment, she
pointed out that it would be better to make negotiation required for those who
intended to make such a radical change.
Ms. Pringle stated that the Commission would look
into this and come back with specific ideas.
The meeting was adjourned at 6:50 p.m.
The minutes of
February 8, 1999 were adopted on the 22nd day of March, 1999.
__________________________________________
Joyce A. Smith, CMC