SAFE, VIBRANT AND HEALTHY NEIGHBORHOODS COMMITTEE

The Safe, Vibrant and Healthy Neighborhoods (SVHN) Committee of the City of Raleigh met in regular session on Tuesday, November 29, 2016, at 5:00 p.m. in the City Council Chamber, Room 201, Raleigh Municipal Building, 222 West Hargett Street, Avery C. Upchurch Government Complex, Raleigh, North Carolina, with the following present:

Committee Staff

Chairperson Russ Stephenson, Presiding Deputy City Attorney Dottie Leapley Councilor Mary-Ann Baldwin Assistant City Manager Marchell Adams David Councilor Corey Branch Senior Planner Martha Lauer Councilor David Cox Preservation Planner Tania Tully

These are summary minutes unless otherwise indicated.

Chairperson Stephenson called the meeting to order at 5:09 p.m. He provided a handout to the Committee members and the audience with his thoughts and comments regarding the Design Guidelines for Raleigh Historic Districts and Landmarks (DGRHDL) and national best practices for historic preservation.

Item 15-01 Design Guidelines for Raleigh Historic Districts

This item was referred to the SVHN Committee at the November 15, 2016 City Council meeting. The following information was contained in the agenda packet:

DESCRIPTION/SUMMARY: On January 19, 2016 the Raleigh Historic Development Commission (RHDC) approved the final draft of the updated Design Guidelines for Raleigh Historic Districts (renamed the Design Guidelines for Raleigh Historic Districts and Landmarks, DGRHDL). The Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) provides that these guidelines are incorporated by reference for use in considering applications for Certificates of Appropriateness (COA).

The new guidelines can be accessed at the following link:

http://www.raleighnc.gov/business/content/BoardsCommissions/Articles/Raleigh HistoricCommission.html

After the completion of two pubic processes, the RHDC requested City Council adoption at the October 18, 2016 meeting. Council requested the item remain open to allow two additional weeks for public input. At the November 15, 2016 meeting Council referred the matter to the SVHN Committee for further discussion. Safe, Vibrant and Healthy Neighborhoods Committee

November 29, 2016

BUDGET IMPACT (FUNDING SOURCE/BUDGET ACTION): None at this time.

RECOMMENDATION:

1) Adopt the updated DGRHDL as submitted with the exception of Sections 3.2 Additions and Section 3.3 New Construction. 2) Authorize staff to prepare a text change correcting the document name in the UDO. 3) Refer sections 3.2 and 3.3 to the RHDC for additional public input concerning the National Park Service’s Preservation Brief 14 (PB14). 4) Clarify the definition and use of the term “contemporary” throughout the document.

Preservation Planner Tania Tully provided a brief summary of the item’s background. She explained that the DGRHDL are the development standards used by the COA Committee of the RHDC to review proposed exterior changes in the seven Historic Overlay Districts and for the 164 Raleigh Historic Landmarks. Each section of the DGRHDL is formatted such that on the left page, the specific features are first discussed; then, items to consider prior to undertaking a project are noted; finally, photographic examples with an accompanying caption are shown. She added that on the right page, the specific guidelines that relate to the feature being discussed are then presented. The DGRHDL also contain a special character essay for each of the seven Historic Overlay Districts, so that they may be applied appropriately in each district. The proposed work is reviewed by the COA Committee in a quasi-judicial evidentiary hearing to determine if the work is not incongruous with the DGRHDL. A COA is required before any other City permit may be filed.

She continued by stating that there has been an issue with citizens regarding the term “contemporary.” She noted that in this context, contemporary means “of its time”, not an architectural style. There have been other concerns that sections of the DGRHDL do not align with PB14.

Planner Tully added that the updated DGRHDL address key historic preservation issues where the current guidelines do not provide clear direction, as identified in the 2010 public process. Community input has also indicated that the current guidelines provide inadequate guidance to address known commercial development projects proposed in the historic districts.

Councilor Baldwin asked Planner Tully to expand on the controversy around the term contemporary. Planner Tully responded that the question seems to be the definition. City of Raleigh staff defines contemporary as “of its time” rather than a specific style. She added that in some minds it is easy to think of contemporary and modern, being a style, as the same thing. Councilor Baldwin asked Planner Tully how the term is defined in the City’s quasi-judicial setting. Planner Tully responded that it is not defined but it is treated as meaning “of its time”.

Page 2 of 13 Safe, Vibrant and Healthy Neighborhoods Committee

November 29, 2016

Chairperson Stephenson thanked everyone in the room for their work on the DGRHDL, which have been worked on for approximately six years. A summary of his handout titled “Chair’s Handout for Committee Discussion”, which he began referencing, is included below.

National Best Practice Documents

 Anne Grimmer is the principal author of the current (2010) PB14. Her 2012 article, Revising PB14 provides significant guidance in two areas: (1) additions to historic buildings and (2) new infill buildings in a historic setting. o Additions – Grimmer notes that original PB14 examples of compatible new construction have “not always been successful” and “may not be considered as compatible today” because they are “too differentiated (p. 12).” o New Infill Buildings – Grimmer states “generally the same recommendations for compatible new additions apply equally to new construction (p. 13).”

Questions for RHDC Consideration

Q1. Should the meaning(s) of the term “contemporary” be clarified in the DGRHDL? Here are examples of two different meanings in national best practices documents. Both meanings appear to be used in the DGRHDL.

a. Secretary of Interior Standards – meaning: of a recent time. Rehabilitation is defined as “the process of returning a property to a state of utility, through repair or alteration, which makes possible an efficient contemporary use while preserving those portions and features of the property which are significant to its historic, architectural, and cultural values.”

b. Updated PB14 – meaning: of a recent style. “ A new addition to a historic building that meets the standards can be any architectural style – traditional, contemporary or a simplified version of the historic building.”

Q2. Per the Grimmer guidance quoted above, should DGRHDL: 3.2 Additions be more closely related to PB14: Design Guidance for Compatible New Additions to Historic Buildings? If so, what PB14 text should be incorporated into the DGRHDL and where?

Q3. Per the Grimmer guidance quoted above, should DGRHDL: 3.3 New Construction of Primary Buildings be more closely related to PB14? If so, what PB14 text should be incorporated into DGRHDL and where?

Q4. Other items as directed by the Committee.

Page 3 of 13 Safe, Vibrant and Healthy Neighborhoods Committee

November 29, 2016

Process

P1. RHDC recommends Q1 changes to SVHN Committee. P2. SVHN Committee recommends revised DGRHDL, except Sections 3.2 and 3.3 for Council adoption. P3. RHDC recommends Q2-Q4 text options to SVHN Committee. P4. RHDC staff design stakeholder polling process and return with Q2-Q4 options to SVHN Committee. P5. SVHN Committee reviews P4 items and direct RHDC staff to execute poll. P6. SVHN Committee review poll results and send revised Sections 3.2 and 3.3 for Council adoption.

Also included in Chairperson Stephenson’s handout were annotated DGRHDL from page 66 and annotated PB14 text from page 7.

Councilor Branch commented that he does not have a grasp on the history of this item and asked staff to explain further. Chairperson Stephenson added that as a ground rule, one of the reasons this has taken so long is due to the amount of passion surrounding the subject.

Planner Tully reiterated her earlier statement of the history and added that there were a number of issues that needed addressing. She went over the RHDC DGRHDL Update – Public Process Chart, which was included at the end of the agenda packet. A summary can be found below.

 September 2010 – Design Guidelines review group formed.  October 2010 – Design Guidelines review group roundtable took place on October 12, 2010.  November 2010 – Online survey available; two public forums held on November 8, 2010.  December 2010 – COA meeting held on December 1 2010 to discuss comments received. Comments provided to consultant.  February 2011 – COA meeting held on February 7, 2011 to discuss the first draft. Design Guidelines review group meetings on February 9, 2011 and February 17, 2011.  March 2011 – Draft available online.  April 2011 – Public forum held on April 26, 2011.  May 2011 – Deadline for comments on May 11, 2011.  July 2011 – COA meeting held on July 5, 2011 to discuss final draft. Final draft available online.  August 2011 – Public forum held on August 16, 2011. Final draft forwarded to staff in the City Attorney’s office on August 26, 2011.  January 2014 – City Council approves proposed public process.  July 2014 – Steering Committee formed to determine format of public meetings.

Page 4 of 13 Safe, Vibrant and Healthy Neighborhoods Committee

November 29, 2016

 September 2014 – Comments heard at a community conversation on September 22, 2014.  October 2014 – Community conversation held on October 20, 2014 to hear consultant response. RHDC meeting held on October 21, 2014 to discuss comments heard at September meeting. Draft changes to Section 4 forwarded to staff in the City Attorney’s office on October 24, 2014.  November 2014 – Deadline for additional written comments on November 17, 2014. RHDC meeting held on November 18, 2014 to distribute comments.  December 2014 – RHDC meeting held on December 16, 2014 to discuss comments.  January 2015 – City Attorney office staff comments on 2011 and 2014 edits received. RHDC meeting held on January 20, 2015 to discuss Attorney comments.  May 2015 – RHDC meeting held on May 19, 2016 to discuss new glossary terms proposed.  June 2015 – RHDC meeting held on June 16, 2015 to discuss new glossary terms proposed.  August 2015 – RHDC meeting held on August 18, 2015 to discuss revised glossary and provide an update on the proposed schedule.  September 2015 – Combined draft with revised glossary forwarded to staff in the City Attorney’s office.  October 2015 – Final combined draft posted online with 2011, 2014 and 2015 edits.  November 2015 – Society for the Preservation of Historic Oakwood meeting held on November 12, 2016 to provide information on the updated schedule and how to comment. RHDC meeting held on November 17, 2015 to provide update on adoption schedule. Boylan Heights Association meeting held on November 17u, 2015 to provide information on the updated schedule and how to comment.  December 2015 – Deadline for additional written comments on December 7, 2015. RHDC meeting on December 15, 2015 to distribute additional comments.  January 2016 – RHDC meeting held on January 19, 2016 to discuss comments, adopt guidelines, and direct staff to proceed with formatting and Council adoption.  February 2016 – Adopted guidelines sent to City Planning Communications staff to be proofed, formatted, and rebranded.  September 2016 – Final version of formatted guidelines received by staff.

Planner Tully added that the updating of the UDO, staff capacity, and waiting to receive comments from the City Attorney’s office all added to the delay.

Councilor Branch asked Planner Tully to explain in the simplest of terms why the issue is at its current state and why they were meeting today. Planner Tully responded that they were asked to be at the meeting. She added that the RHDC recommended moving forward with adoption. Councilor Branch confirmed with Planner Tully that the main two remaining issues for meeting are defining the terms “contemporary” and “differentiate”.

Page 5 of 13 Safe, Vibrant and Healthy Neighborhoods Committee

November 29, 2016

Chairperson Stephenson referenced his handout and commented that the confusion around the term cotemporary doesn’t need to be an argument. If the City simply defines how they are using the term it will be a straight-forward, technical fix. He stated that the language in PB14 would act as a compromise for both sides. He suggested sending his handout to the RHDC and asking them to consider leaving the language as-is, look at the national best practices, poll property owners, and return to the Council with findings.

Chairperson Stephenson commented on his annotated copy of the DGRHDL in his handout. He stated that there is a major distinction between different sections and it is worth discussing, according to everyone he has spoken with, in order to balance the ability to maintain historic character. When asked by Councilor Baldwin who he has spoken with, Chairperson Stephenson listed several groups including the RHDC and City staff. Councilor Baldwin responded that she has not heard of the consensus he is referring to.

Further clarifying his point, Chairperson Stephenson stated that the national best practice language has strong validity and may be a better reflection of community values. He again suggested asking the RHDC to draft up text and poll property owners on preferences.

Councilor Baldwin responded that she is not ready to jump to a solution prior to hearing from the public. She added that she has heard concerns rearing tax credits, which need to be fully explored before jumping to conclusions. Chairperson Stephenson commented that he had positive conversation about tax credits with Steve Schuster, who is a member of the Planning Commission.

Steve Schuster, 313 West Martin Street, stated that he is hesitant on broad statements such as the ones that Chairperson Stephenson is making. He added that tax credits do not apply towards new construction. He cautioned the Council on adopting language that could be in conflict with well-established standards and applauded the effort of everyone in trying to find common ground. He again reiterated that the Council should be cautious of hurting the opportunity for tax credits.

Chairperson Stephenson suggested asking the RHDC to determine which language could cause issues. Councilor Baldwin asked Mr. Schuster to be specific about the language he is concerned about.

Mr. Schuster responded that he is hesitant to comment since he just saw Chairperson Stephenson’s proposed new language a few minutes prior. He reiterated that the tax standards have been present for decades and interpretations are ongoing. He added that a lot of thought and effort have gone into this process but the DGRHDL are now fairly out of date. He urged Council to move forward with diligence in order to adopt new guidelines.

Chairperson Stephenson then opened the floor for public comment.

Page 6 of 13 Safe, Vibrant and Healthy Neighborhoods Committee

November 29, 2016

Paula Huot, 534 East Jones Street, stated she has concerns about the interpretation of the DGRHDL. She noted that the intent of the DGRHDL is wonderful and thanked staff for going through an extraordinary process to get input from the public. She questioned if weight was given to property owner comments since there was no way to tell who was an owner and who was a renter throughout the public input process. When questioned by Councilor Baldwin as to Ms. Huot’s specific concerns, Ms. Huot replied that her issue is with the language. Planner Tully reiterated that the intent of the term contemporary is to mean “of its time” rather than a specific style. She agreed that defining contemporary in the language would be helpful.

Councilor Branch discussed potential options to reduce confusion. Ms. Huot reiterated that the term contemporary just contributes to the confusion. When asked by Councilor Baldwin if she would be satisfied after the term is defined, Ms. Huot stressed that in addition to a definition, language regarding compatibility within the district should be included. Chairperson Stephenson responded that he would like the RHDC to take another look at this in order to reflect more community values.

Councilor Branch recommended placing an asterisk beside each use of the term contemporary in the document and defining it at the bottom of the page. Chairperson Stephenson responded by stating that if the Committee were to try to come up with solutions at the table, nothing would ever get done. Councilor Baldwin responded that oftentimes, solutions are in fact determined at the Committee table. Under the impression that the RHDC had already looked at the DGRHDL and vetted them, she asked the Committee Chair to speak.

Sarah David, 500 Polk Street, Chair of the RHDC, stated the Commission is satisfied with the DGRHDL as they have been presented. She added that she is eager to have the final set and get to work on them. When asked by Councilor Baldwin to address Ms. Huot’s concerns, Ms. David agreed that adding the definition of contemporary to the document would be a good idea. Although the word does not appear often, she agreed with Planner Tully that contemporary means “of its time.”

Councilor Branch stated that he is hearing consensus on the term contemporary. Councilor Baldwin asked if adding that definition to the glossary would satisfy the issue. Ms. David responded that a definition can be constructed by the RHDC. She pointed out that the RHDC has to be trusted to do its job at some point. She concluded by stating that Don Davis, Vice Chair of the RHCD, was present to answer further questions. Ms. David needed to leave the meeting.

Myrick Howard, 206 Woodburn Road, with Preservation North Carolina, stated that both uses of the term contemporary in Chairperson Stephenson’s handout are extremely similar. He mentioned that he completed a study on this issue in Oakwood as part of his master’s thesis in 1976. He further expounded on the term and its different uses, mentioning that contemporary means “now”. Mr. Howard noted that he has spent countless hours sitting through meetings, hearings, and court cases on its subject and he wishes everyone involved could just move on. He added that the RHDC has done a very substantial job at studying these guidelines and hired one of the best consultants available in North Carolina, which have produced a very highly regarded

Page 7 of 13 Safe, Vibrant and Healthy Neighborhoods Committee

November 29, 2016 set of guidelines. The main issue comes down to visual differentiation. Mr. Howard stated that he would have annotated the DGRHDL differently than Chairperson Stephenson. Stressing how tired he was of this subject, he asked the Committee to realize that they hired a great consultant and that great work has already been done.

Chairperson Stephenson disagreed that the two uses of the term are similar in the DGRHDL. Mr. Howard responded that both uses relate to the balance between compatibility and differentiation. Chairperson Stephenson responded that PB14 specifies that the reason you find a balance between compatibility and differentiation is to maintain historic value, which is not clearly specified in the DGRHDL. He further stated that he thinks the national best practice verbiage clearly addresses that issue and explains why. He asked how using this verbiage would hurt the outcome that all sides are trying to achieve.

Councilor Branch, Councilor Baldwin, and Mr. Howard discussed the use of the word “and” in the language. He reminded the Committee that the City won court cases at a great expense and has spent ample time on the issue. Councilor Baldwin asked Deputy City Attorney Dottie Leapley if there is a difference between the two uses of the term contemporary. Referencing North Carolina General Statute (G.S.) 160A-400.9, Attorney Leapley responded that the language should focus on preserving the special character of a historic district. The goal should be to preserve the special character rather than imposing regulations based on other characteristics. She referenced the essays in the DGRHDL for each neighborhood, which define special character. Councilor Baldwin confirmed with Attorney Leapley that the special characteristics of each historic district would reinforce the DGRHDL language.

Councilor Cox confirmed that there is a state law focusing on the special character of each individual historic district. He asked if adding explicit language from PB14 in Section 3.2 of the DGRHDL would address the issue. Attorney Leapley responded that the language should not detract from the special characteristics of historic districts. Councilor Cox agreed and added that it is a bad practice to use the same word in two different ways. His preference is to use two different words. He noted that he does not have a problem with using the national best practice language since it supports state law and is much clearer.

Don Becom, 308 North East Street, thanked the Committee for another chance for public input. He noted that the citizens do not have complete trust in the RHDC, referencing the recent addition to the Mordecai Center. The concerned citizens are striving to achieve protection for each of the historic districts and it is worth the extra work.

Councilor Baldwin commented that no one is specifically stating their issues. Mr. Becom responded that citizens thought they were protected by the DGRHDL and referenced the 40+ homes that were built in Oakwood and blended beautifully. He showed a photo to the audience of an addition to a historic district.

Chairperson Stephenson commented that even if considering the national best practice language, it is still up to the RHDC to analyze compatibility. Mr. Becom responded that if there were

Page 8 of 13 Safe, Vibrant and Healthy Neighborhoods Committee

November 29, 2016 language in the DGRHDL for each district, it would be just one more tool. He added that the definition of contemporary should be standard throughout the City, although his peers in the audience did not agree, since they were all not sure of what “of its time” means.

Dan Becker, 1807 Wills Avenue began with two statements, which were to “respect the process” and to “recognize the timeless resiliency of historic resources and places.” He pointed out that Q1 on Chairperson Stephenson’s handout is not a standard, but an introductory paragraph to the standards. He added that the RHDC has no jurisdiction over use, only design aspects. The RHDC cannot say whether or not a house should be single family, rented, etc. Mr. Becker added that he does not see confusion in these uses of the word contemporary. Chairperson Stephenson again reiterated that defining the term contemporary in the language would be helpful and a minor housekeeping issue.

Mr. Becker referenced Attorney Leapley’s statement about G.S. 160A-400.9 stating that there is more to it. He mentioned that the statute also indicates that the RHDC shall take no action except to prevent that which is in conflict with the special character of the historic district. The state legislature intended that this be a very soft approach to dictating design treatments for private property owners. He added that a property owner can demolish their house should they wish to do so. The reason the RHDC exists is because there is no specific formula to handling issues. Refinement to the language, which could assist in determining when something bad happens, is the place to focus rather than trying to perfect the language in order to get a certain outcome. Chairperson Stephenson responded that he is attempting to have less conflict within the community. His goal is to arrive at a place with the least pain and suffering. Mr. Becker responded that having this discussion now is not a bad place to be and he hopes to reach a resolution quickly.

Chairperson Stephenson announced that in approximately 30 minutes the meeting would adjourn due to scheduling conflicts with some Committee members. He stated that any further discussion could be continued at a future meeting.

Dave Weisner, 515 Euclid Street, thanked the Committee for an opportunity to speak. He expressed frustration that City staff and Committee members have had ample time to speak, not leaving much for concerned citizens. Councilor Baldwin disagreed, stating that the purpose of today’s meeting was to hear citizen input. She also pointed out that there was about half an hour left in the meeting. Mr. Weisner commented that Raleigh’s historic districts have been a vital part of the community. He stated that the process of reviewing guidelines started in 2010. In the beginning, only a small group of people (15-20) showed up to comment periods. At the latest public hearing in 2015 over 200 people attended. He stated that the majority of people want traditional architecture as a value of the community. Many people left the public hearing disturbed about the compromise that was proposed. He provided an example of a modernist home in Oakwood, stating that the RHDC still clings onto its opinion that it is fitting for the modern house in a historic neighborhood. Mr. Weisner expressed concern that this proposed language will permit the same thing to happen. He added that the City shouldn’t prevent certain styles, but make decisions based on what is in that district. He fears that because of the RHDC,

Page 9 of 13 Safe, Vibrant and Healthy Neighborhoods Committee

November 29, 2016 contemporary homes will have a “Greek revival.” After indicating his opinion that any style should be allowed, Councilor Branch expressed confusion with his statement. Mr. Weisner responded that the DGRHDL should say “any style within that district.”

Councilor Branch asked City staff about the purpose of character essays. Martha Lauer, Senior Planner for the City of Raleigh, provided a brief purpose of a character essay, which is to provide a very broad, general feeling of a district. These essays determine the multiple architectural styles of each district.

Reminding the Committee that he was personally involved with the appeals relating to 516 Euclid Street, Mr. Weisner stated that the Board of Adjustment overturned the RHDC’s decision because it was arbitrary, meaning a modernist style home did not exist in Oakwood. Councilor Baldwin reminded Mr. Weisner that the courts disagreed.

Chairperson Stephenson asked Mr. Weisner if he thinks using language from PB14 would be helpful to address his concerns. Mr. Weisner replied that he is concerned that the portion of the text stating that an addition in a historic district shouldn’t be “glaringly different” is up to opinion. Chairperson Stephenson disagreed, stating that this is the national best practice, even though it is not as specific. Mr. Weisner responded that people with power within the City could always decide that something is not “glaringly different” when the public thinks it is.

Chairperson Stephenson stated that the RHDC will always have latitude to interpret these guidelines. It is how the City remains fair and even handed. Mr. Weisner responded that he just wanted to make the Committee aware that he is concerned and that many groups are swaying to a certain perspective, which is specifically why PB14 was written. Mr. Weisner again reiterated that architectural style should be better defined in the DGRHDL and that he would be satisfactory with approving them, with the exception of Sections 3.2 and 3.3, although they still need some work. He lastly mentioned that Oakwood is hosting a candlelight tour on December 10th and 11th.

Peter Rumsey, 515 North Bloodworth Street, stated that a huge issue is the fear that the loss of historic character in neighborhoods will occur from houses being torn down. He mentioned that he received a call from a colleague inquiring about tearing down a house in a historic district. Mr. Rumsey is a realtor and has lived in historic homes for over 30 years. He has added over four houses to the district and is familiar with a range of issues. He wants to encourage people to buy existing houses and modify them rather than altering the character of the neighborhood. He stated that in the end, it all depends upon decisions and interpretations of the RHCD, which is not an easy job.

Matthew Brown, 601 East Lane Street, stated he is a long term historian for Oakwood. He mentioned that his group has sent a letter to Council three times requesting specific changes to the DGRHDL, which include specifying that it is not appropriate to build an addition that is notably or conspicuously different. He added that the majority of Oakwood has expressed favor for language to protect the district, and the PB14 language falls between the DGRHDL and the

Page 10 of 13 Safe, Vibrant and Healthy Neighborhoods Committee

November 29, 2016 desires of most “Oakwoodians.” Noting that Oakwood is the oldest historic district in Raleigh, he stated that it is the biggest and most valuable tourist attraction due to daily tour groups, annual candlelight tours, and more. All of these items require thousands of hours and dollars and are done due to the love for the City. Mr. Brown hopes that Oakwood opinions count because of the value they add to the community.

Nick Fountain, 3056 Granville Drive, stated that he lives in a mid-century modern landmark. He noted that he served on the RHDC and resided over the COA process for several years. Thinking of how this language would have worked with his project in 2005, he has some legal concerns. He advised the Committee to leave the language alone and not add any more to it. The more words there are, the more opportunity there is for lawyers to pick it apart. Mr. Fountain thinks that once the RHDC has deliberated and done their job, their decisions should hold.

Gail Weisner, 515 Euclid Street, handed out a packet of research to the Committee regarding enabling legislation. She stated that it is important to consider the intent of the law, which has not changed. She believes there is no reason to have a historic district if Oakwood doesn’t have that premise. Ms. Weisner stated that although there has been talk about being specific, the “powers that be” want the language to be very vague. She stated that she feels Oakwood has been insulted all night. When Councilor Baldwin commented that the Committee needs to move forward, Ms. Weisner replied that Oakwood is not being listened to. Councilor Baldwin disagreed, responding that the reason the Committee is meeting is to listen to citizens.

COUNCILOR BRANCH DEPARTED THE MEETING AT 6:55 P.M.

Ms. Weisner expressed her exhaustion with the situation and urged the Committee to stay with its original recommendation. Chairperson Stephenson stated that the point of looking at national guidelines is to consider the compilation of best practices.

Peggie Feddersen, 401 Elm Street, asked the Committee to not refer to Oakwood as the “Oakwood Historic District” if they are going to take away the historic characteristics.

Fred Belledin, 711 Gaston Street, stated he is 100 percent behind PB14 and the national best practices. He provided two examples that follow these standards yet fall on opposite ends of the spectrum, Christ Church and the Contemporary Art Museum (CAM). He noted that the intent of PB14 is to accept the full spectrum. Chairperson Stephenson commented that this change would have no effect on CAM since it would only address residential. Mr. Belledin responded that using PB14 language would make the approach consistent, whether it is for residential or non- residential.

Chairperson Stephenson added that there is a separate section in the DGRHDL for non- residential. Planner Tully clarified that sections on new construction apply to both residential and non-residential. The non-residential section of the DGRHDL speaks specifically to height while also referring back to other sections.

Page 11 of 13 Safe, Vibrant and Healthy Neighborhoods Committee

November 29, 2016

Chairperson Stephenson commented that there is difference in opinion on the best language and provided a past court case as an example. Mr. Belledin responded by saying, using the same example a Chairperson Stephenson, that the difference between what would and would not be approved is very small. Chairperson Stephenson asked if he would have a problem asking RHDC to find language that would reduce conflict in the community and not stray from national best practices. Mr. Belledin responded no; however, people are spending too much time trying to assign meaning to words and should look at real examples of additions that have been approved under PB14 standards. Chairperson Stephenson clarified that his proposal is to ask RHDC to incorporate language that is consistent with the intent. Mr. Belledin added that changing a few words will not change the way professionals, who understand the philosophy, interpret the rules. Councilor Baldwin referenced the PB14 language which states that an addition and the historic building should not be glaringly different in terms of design, materials, and other visual qualities. From this language, she would assume that a contemporary addition to a historic building would not be allowed. Mr. Belledin responded that her definition of “glaringly different” is the key and why he brought up CAM as an example.

Comparing the three different proposed languages of PB14, DGRHDL, and Chairperson Stephenson’s handout, Councilor Baldwin pointed out that PB14 is not much different from the DGRHDL. Mr. Belledin agreed, adding that design is qualitative rather than quantitative. He recommends approving the DGRHDL as written. Mr. Belledin noted that there have only been a few applications that have caused issues out of approximately 800.

Councilor Baldwin asked staff about the consequences of not moving forward in a timely manner. Planner Lauer responded that there are a lot of downtown developers looking for opportunities to add onto commercial buildings, which are not available under current guidelines. Language in the new guidelines would allow proposals to come forward. She added that there are also cemeteries that are not being addressed.

Councilor Baldwin asked if it would create problems for the Committee to move forward with approving the DGRHDL and ask the RHDC to do a little more work. She requested the revisions to come back to the Committee at the first meeting in January. Planner Lauer responded that staff could not meet a January deadline.

After brief conversation about unintended consequences of moving forward with partial DGRHDL, Councilor Baldwin moved to approve the DGRHDL and asked the RHDC to look at the issue of defining the word “contemporary”, in addition to comparing PB14 language to Chairperson Stephenson’s handout. She requested that this information come back to the full Council.

Chairperson Stephenson pointed out that the staff recommendation is to hold Sections 3.2 and 3.3 and confirmed with Councilor Baldwin that her intent is to approve the entire document except for those sections. He then asked Councilor Baldwin if she was satisfied that the Committee has heard enough public comment.

Page 12 of 13 Safe, Vibrant and Healthy Neighborhoods Committee

November 29, 2016

Chairperson Stephenson offered a friendly amendment that the RHDC should narrow down their research to only using PB14. Councilor Baldwin responded that she included that in her motion.

When Chairperson Stephenson asked if Councilor Baldwin was on board with his proposed process (detailed in his handout), Councilor Baldwin responded that she does not want to micromanage the process. She pointed out that the RHDC has access to his handout and has heard discussion.

Chairperson Stephenson offered another friendly amendment to have RHDC offer comments on his proposed process in addition to the DGRHDL. He added that staff is comfortable with his proposal. After clarification and brief discussion, Councilor Baldwin accepted Chairperson Stephenson’s friendly amendment.

Assistant City Manager Marchell Adams David confirmed with Councilor Baldwin that she was on board with authorizing staff to prepare a text change in order to correct the document name in the UDO, per staff’s recommendation in the agenda packet.

Chairperson Stephenson confirmed with Councilor Baldwin that his handout would be considered. Councilor Baldwin’s earlier motion, with a friendly amendment by Chairperson Stephenson, was seconded by Chairperson Stephenson and carried by a vote of 3-0. Councilor Branch was absent and excused.

Adjournment. There being no further business Chairperson Crowder announced the meeting adjourned at 7:16 p.m.

Cassidy R. Pritchard Assistant Deputy Clerk

Page 13 of 13