Historic District Commission - Regular Meeting

Okay. Hello. Welcome to the Historic District Commission meeting for Tuesday, May 13. I'm going to start with a roll call. Michael? Present. Josh?

Present.

David? Present. Don?

Present. Nancy? Here.

And Brian is here as well. Cherneka or Anna Scott, could I ask you to read procedures into the record, please?

I'll now read into the record the following. The commission operates under NC general statutes 160d-nine 40, which gives local governments historic preservation authority and the Chapel Hill Land Use Management Ordinance, including Article III, which established the local historic districts and sets forth regulations governing them, and the Chapel Hill Historic District's design principles and standards, which sets forth standards for changes in the historic districts, and the rules of procedure adopted by the Chapel Hill Historic District Commission, as well as the significance reports from all three historic districts and photos. I also call to your attention each of the applications and associated materials in your agenda packet. All of these items are hereby entered into the record. Thank you.

Thank you, Anna Scott. And I'll now read the public charge. The advisory body pledges its respect to the public. The body asked 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. Okay. I think that's all we have to say about that. Anna, Scott, and Shanika distributed a copy of the agenda for this meeting as a pre read. If there's no questions about the agenda or any amendments to the agenda, I'd like to ask for an approval in a second.

Brian? The agenda.

Yep.

We might need a change to the agenda.

Okay, please.

So with the materials, you have the application for Laura Moore. She was a candidate that the commission interviewed last September. And so her application is still active, and town staff are getting candidates ready to send to counsel for appointments. So we're going to ask if you would review her application and make a recommendation.

Okay. Thank you for that. And I think we'll add that to the first discussion item at the end of the agenda once we take care of COAs tonight. So I think the agenda would be amended to include the application for Laura. And we would do that in discussion items. If there's no other changes, I'd ask for someone to approve the agenda.

So moved.

Thank you, David. Second. And I'll say Nancy second. So all in favor, please say aye. Aye. Okay, that passes. Thank you. Are there any announcements this evening?

So we'll remind commissioners that you still have the CLT training requirements to meet. We need two commissioners to do that. And the art of preservation workshop that will happen on May 29, you could attend to meet that requirement.

I have a question about that. Mhmm. Were y'all able to get the forms for virtual attendance?

Yes. Because if we

can do

that I can send you those forms. Yes.

Awesome. And what was the date of that one?

It's May 29.

May 20

I think it's Thursday.

Okay. I'll email you tomorrow. I need to go check my calendar, but I'll try to do it.

Okay. I think we sent the registration link

so we can

resend Super. That to

Appreciate it.

Thank you. Any other announcements? Okay. Thank you. Were there any petitions this month? Okay. Thank you. I'll move on. So also distributed as part of the agenda were the minutes for the April 8 meeting. They were attached to the agenda. Are there any questions or points of clarification on those minutes? If not, I'd ask for approval on a second, please.

Move we approve All minutes are submitted. Nancy?

Second. Jeshel Sokol. Thank you. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Okay, that passes. Thank you. I'm going to move on to next item on the agenda, number two, administrative certificates of appropriateness. It's the approval report. Was there anything there? That was really for information purposes. Nothing to comment on, I believe. So then we're going to move on to third item on the agenda. And 208 Spring Lane Josh,

I I think

need to recuse myself. And I'm recusing myself with reservation.

Okay. Thank you. I think the challenge that that creates is because we don't have quorum with Josh recusing, we'll need to continue this item till next month. Is that correct?

Yes.

So Josh, we're going to extend this to next month so you can come back to the podium because we're not going to cover that item this evening. I apologize for that. And then we'll make sure we'll kind of check-in on quorum next month. So I apologize if that's getting delayed. Next item on the agenda is 742 Gimgall Road. And I would ask for the written decision and the COA placard are both included. I'd ask for there's no comment on that. I'd ask for a motion to approve and then a second, please.

So moved.

Thank you, David.

Second.

Thank you, Don. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. That passes. Thank you. Okay, so let's move on to new business. I'd like to start with 118 Malay Street.

So this application is for a rear addition, repairs to an existing garage, installing fencing, and replacing a gravel drive with brick. So the applicant yeah, I'll hand it to the applicant.

Thank you. Hello. Hey. So I'm going to read a statement. And if you agree with the statement, if you would say, I so affirm and state your name, that would be much appreciated. I affirm that the evidence I shall have I should give to the historic district commission on the reference application shall be the truth and nothing but the truth ISO affirm. ISO affirm. Jim Spencer. Thank you, mister Spencer. Please go ahead. Thank you. I'm to

sign this really quick. Good evening, everybody. I'm Jim Spencer with JSA Architects in Carbara, former nine year member of this commission way back when these houses were built. And it's good to see you guys. I haven't been here in a in a while, but I'm happy to be here representing Brian and Carol Clark.

They live at 118 Millett Street. They're my relatively new neighbors. I've lived at 121 Millett Street for twenty five years now, and we're excite excited to have them in the neighborhood. Anytime you get, you know, single family homes in single family, that's a good thing in in the historic district. So happy to be here representing them for a a relatively straightforward and small project, I believe.

But we're gonna present it to you and happy to answer any of your questions about it tonight. 118 Millett is one of the older homes in the district, as you probably know, is originally, we think, built in the eighteen sixties or seventies, but modified heavily around 1900 into the kind of four square you see today. It has been modified slightly in recent years. Believe it came to HCC in maybe ten or twelve years ago, essentially for replacement of siding and windows, kind of more of the aesthetic things to the house. It's about a 2,800 square foot house on a 0.5 relatively large lot for this neighborhood, about point five acres, has carport or a garage structure from, we think, circuit twenties or maybe early thirties on the on the side yard.

That garage is tarnished, never been modified in footprint, but it has been modified in pieces, the siding and studs are pressure treated, so they're not nineteen thirties era, but it is in the original footprint as far as we can tell. What we're presenting to you tonight is a small addition to the rear of the house, basically, to rework the entry sequence from the parking area of the house to have a new mudroom and laundry area in in the place where there is one now, but it was added on at some point to the house and then a few other minor changes that I'll describe for you. I I gave you a little bit of the the basic background on this sheet is the the kind of summary of the National Register entry for the house and, you know, describing it as a two story dwelling with a rectangular master plan and hip to roof and update of an earlier three bay Greek revival form. And it has the the previous revision of the renovation of the house installed some fiber cement siding and some some clad windows to replace the originals,

but in their

original locations and with the original form and all that. The it describes the and this is a contributing structure in the National Register District as well. It describes the the garage as a one story front gable, two car frame garage. That garage, as you see on the right hand of your screen there, was not on the 15 Sanborn map, but it we assume kind of appeared fairly soon after that. It does sit, you know, kind of close to the property line.

So it's kind of an existing nonconformity in terms of the town's zoning setbacks and so forth. There's not I know from living in this neighborhood so long, there's not many garages in the neighborhood. There's footprints of some shown on the old Sanborn maps, but not many that are extant right now. That kind of describes the history of the house. Again, the dates are a little you can see on the Sanborn map that the form of the house now is the form that was there in 1915 for the most part.

The little mud porch and rear entry that's on the house now is not on this '15 map, but so was, you know, added at some subsequent point. But the little l at the rear of the main kind of four square form was there, and the front porch was there in '15. I'll I'll I'll run through the existing conditions stuff fairly quickly. You can ask feel free to ask any questions that you as you have them, but these are just photographs of the house as it sits. And Brian and Carol have done a nice job of really keeping this up.

And and it has a a Chapel Hill gravel driveway and and walk here to the front, which you'll hear about a

little later.

Great foundation, Hardie Plank siding. All the windows are in the original configuration. As far as we know, they're not the original windows. They are replacement windows. This is the you can see the the west facade with the rear here, which is where, you know, we're talking about the addition and see it has it's it's clearly been modified at some point.

We don't know exactly what's been done, but it has a mini split sticking out the back. There was a little apartment in the rear, single double double hung replacement window there and so forth. So the there is, I think that original L part to the far left on the upper left photo is, we think, original to the house or at least original to 15, maybe not very original, but all that. These roofs are shingled roofs, but they're very flat roofs as that is right now. Just a couple of pictures of the existing garage.

So it's I'd there's there's very little that I would say was original to this garage other than I believe the footprint is original based on observation of the foundation. It's It's got some stone and some brick parts to the foundation that appear original. The siding is German siding that's old, but not maybe 15 old or 20 old. The most of the studs inside have been replaced. But what we're asking is to basically kind of repair it in place and kind of exactly like it is, but with newer materials, it is it's lean as you can kinda see in the upper left photograph.

It's got some lean to the walls and needs bracing. It doesn't mean any current, like, codes for structural integrity. So the idea is to just kinda put it back in place and make it usable for them. They they store some things in there now, but would like to to use it. And and I think, you know, as one of the few garages of this scale in in this part of the HTC, you know, I feel that's an appropriate move.

This is our our drawing set, and I'll just kinda run through these and point out the the modifications we're proposing. They're basically four pieces to this application. This is the existing survey. So in the main house and the carport there on that kinda center middle of the screen to the to the south there, which you can see is kind of close to the property line there. It's a half acre lot.

Existing floor plans just for reference of where the the original l on the back of the house is and and and the kind of on the upper left diagram, you can see the stairs and this little muttering that was tacked on at some point there and not in good condition and not original to the house. These are the these are the existing condition elevations. Most of the windows on the house, there's only in the main living spaces on the front of the house, the street side of the house, there's a kind of 24 over one double hung window, and then they're all one over one elsewhere in the house except for there's a couple of stranger newer ones in the very rear. So this is the proposed site plan. And it shows in a sense the four items we're proposing.

So the first is a small addition to the rear of the house in the hatched region on the floor plan there. We're showing an addition of this mudroom with a new stone landing and stair that goes into mudroom and laundry area, comes into the rear of the house. So not removal of any of the existing older parts of the house, but removal of the small mudroom that's there and replacement with this. So the addition is two fifty square feet. The previous mudroom that's on there is about 90 square feet, so it's a net addition of about 160 square feet.

So in kind of in attempt to adhere with the guidelines, the addition is set back from the existing structure, their existing historic structure, you know, kind of by the width of the corner board. And we have a slightly different siding proposed. It it it is under roof under new roof. We're planning on replacing that entire rear addition that shingle now and is very low pitch. It's about a two twelve pitch with a metal standing seam roof just to get it into a a safer and and more traditional roof.

And I feel like the main house has a composition shingle roof on it, but as an accessory lower porch piece, I I feel like that's an appropriate choice. The second part of the application, I don't really know if we we need to talk about the second part, but the replacement of the Chapel Hill gravel Drive with a red brick driveway. I see in the newer design guidelines that that replacement may be a staff level thing if you replace with, I don't know, gravel or don't know. Sharni can Anna Scott can guide me on that. But that's the idea is that that shovel of gravel drive spreads a lot.

And the idea is to move it a little bit away from the property line and away from the big two big trees that are on the property and put it on a gravel base so it drains still drains well, but it's a little more of a a permanent structure. We would keep the the concrete apron that's in place there. Third aspect mentioned earlier is kind of in place restoration of the garage. The idea would be that within the existing foundation, we would come in and replace studs that are I think we would have to probably straighten stud, take siding off, put new studs in, re sheath, and put German siding to match what's there on. None of it's in in really good enough condition to be structurally sound, so probably have some collar ties in the roof rafters and so forth, but basically replace in kind.

And the fourth item is the addition of a fence around the rear port primarily around the rear portion of the yard. It's a dash on this plan. It's a dash line that goes on the north side from about the rear of the addition of the L on the house along the backyard and then up front towards the east until it gets about to the front porch of the house. And this would be a five foot black aluminum fence to kind of mimic the wrought iron fences in the neighborhood. There's a few in our neighborhood already at the top of where Millette meets Cameron.

There's one on both sides there. And the purpose of that really is twofold, to keep deer out and to keep students from cutting through their yard as much as they do. We stopped it in the front to not kind of have more visual impact than it needs on the front of the property. So floor plans just showing the kind of proposed new work and again, the addition just set back slightly from the original structure there and and the the car part showing we're we're showing that in in hash walls just to to to explain that that those walls essentially will be new on top of the old foundation. It's a two twelve standing seam metal roof proposed, which you see on the lower left.

These are the elevations of the proposed. So I don't feel a very big change from aesthetic of the house. It's certainly almost none from the street. The rear would be under a lower pitch two twelve standing seam metal roof with this stone landing and the same kind of railing we were proposing for the fencing, a series of double hung clad wood, double hung windows to kind of match what's already on the house except for in the front. So these are I kind of consider these secondary windows on the house.

So but just to get more light from the west side of the house into the house there, a small kind of hip roof roof lit there over the entryway with brackets. And that pretty you can see from the shadow line on the model on the upper left that little just that little jog in the structure to to get the differentiation between original and proposed. And we are proposing a shiplap siding on the addition to differentiate from the lap. It's a it's about a seven inch reveal lap that's on the house. It's kind of a hearty siding that's on there.

And we're gonna use the artisan series ship lap siding on there. It just said that it looks similar, but it's slightly differentiated from what's there. You can see on the front elevation there, basically no no change at all to the to the front. There's just a couple of kind of renderings of of what that addition kinda looks like in the in the back with with that massing in the low the low pitch metal roof on standing seam metal roof on it. That's just an example on the lower right of the the fence that we're proposing, fencing that we're proposing.

If you want me to, I'll go through quickly about context or I can these are the houses in our neighborhood. And so you see their house, the Clark's house on the right, then kind of going up the street to the south on upper there is 120. These two brick houses from the twenties. They're a little bit smaller lots that were they were houses that were built a little bit after this house. These are both currently college rentals.

126 is a single family, more craftsman style house from 1930s. There's a more contemporary ranch, one up from that. Then to the north of them, the 116 Millet, which has enclosed ports, 116 And 14. The setbacks from the street and the lot sizes are comparable, but they the Clarks actually have one of the larger lots in and that has not been filled up with multiple residences every time. Our house at 121, so this is 110.

So as you come back up the other side or the the East Side of Millet, 113 is one of the older houses on the block. 117 is certainly probably the oldest house on the block, 1860. And then 121 on the right is our house at 121 circa eighteen eighty ish. And that was originally a lot probably similar in size to theirs. It was subdivided at some point and two cottages were built behind it in the fifties.

It's kinda looking down our driveway. And then 127 Millet, which is Chabad House. It's now probably the biggest house in the neighborhood. And then 129, which is a small, also very old house, 1880 ish. Then I just have a, really, a summary of how we feel we're adhering to the principles and standards.

I kind of mentioned already on the addition, the small size, the locate additions in the rear to the extent possible, set them back from the original structure to the extent possible, materials comparable but differentiated, windows. We're kind of matching windows in that form. So we certainly feel that it's a pretty modest ask to update this beautiful old house. And one of the important houses in our district, we think, the walls and fences, same kinds of things really, place them in the rear of the property and not in the front yard. Always think to try and have them be kind of permeable in the sense of visually permeable and that you can notice them as little as possible.

This one, most of the fences, honestly, in our neighborhood that are in the front are picket, and in the back, they're this style, this kind of a black aluminum or black broad iron. Walkways and drives, we talked about that. It's basically we're replacing the drive, but with a material that's kind of approved under the guidelines and garages and accessory structures. I mean, we're kind of at a point, I think, on this where our choices are to tear it down and build something within the setbacks or keep the one, the scale we have. And my my feeling is the scale of this one is a little bit of a lost thing in the district.

So having a small scale garage that fits with the, you know, with the scale of the houses is, you know, subservient to the scale there and proportion is is a good thing. So but we we need to repair it or else it isn't gonna last much longer. With that, I will wrap up and be glad to answer any any of your questions. And the Clarks are here if you have any additional follow-up questions.

So because we swear you in, we're going to direct our questions to you. And then if the Clarks want to come up and make any comment, we'll swear you in also. So just order of affairs, I'll ask the commissioners if they have clarifying questions for you. I'll then ask if any member of the public has comment, and then we'll go into closed session, have a discussion, and then take a vote. Perfect. Does anybody have a clarifying question for Mr. Spencer?

I just had a question about the garage doors. Are you going to replace them with the same style as on the existing garage?

Yes, ma'am. Yeah. They're plywood doors now that have been replaced probably multiple times over the years. But they are going to be replaced with the only difference is right now they are hand swing hinge doors on the thing. So the appearance of them will be the same. There'll be a craftsman style door with panels like we're proposing. But they will actually be an overhead door with a track inside the garage is what we're proposing.

Thank you.

But the appearance would be the same.

Brian, before we get started wow, that's loud. I suggest, did we already do conflicts of interest and that sort of thing?

We did not. Does any commissioner have a conflict of interest they want to disclose?

I do not.

Thank you for the reminder, Kevin. I think we're good. Any other questions for Mr. Spencer? I do have one. And if you can navigate back to the top down view that shows placement of the fence, Could you clarify where the fence is proposed to start and what its height would be? Yes. And we have a panel here too, so if we're looking at your knee caps. Yes, I understand. Think the cursor, I

can't show you that.

But Yeah.

So I would describe it as the the there's a a little bit of a darker hatch line. They said this the property line on this model is a dash dot dash line just in board of the green the extent of the green there and right in board of that is a little bit darker line. And they on the north of this plan, the fence begins. If you go straight up from where the addition to the house is, you get straight up from there. Just behind or to the west of that is where the fence is proposed to begin.

So at the rear of the house addition, and it would then extend west just inside of the line there to the rear, all the way across the rear property line, and then back to the east along the south of the garage and stop where just to the east of where the big tree is that's that's south of the house there. So equal, the staff pointed out that they're kind of supposed to stop fences greater than four feet at or behind the front facade of the house or the front footprint of the house. So that's where it's proposed to stop in that portion of the house. Does that answer your question?

Yeah, it does. But just to clarify, where the fence will go in proportion to the house is uneven on both sides of the house. It's

Yes, it's uneven.

So It's lined up with the porch essentially on one side and then sort of a third of the way back in the house on the other side.

That's right. Yeah.

That What was the reason?

The placement of the adjacent houses is one and the way the cut through happens is a little bit of it. So But there's also some trees on that side. And the house directly to the north of this is very close to that property line and kind of acts as its own fence in a sense. And on the south, it's a little bit like that more open on that side of the house. And so it's just really to to control access a little bit more on on those two places.

They they do intend to that there there's some planting along that south side now and that's fairly mature and that's projected to stay. So it's really it's not it's more for just that cut through access and defining that space, I think, than anything else.

And how high is it?

Five feet is what we're proposing here. And that really has to do with not so much with the kids cutting through, but with the animals going over as easily as they do. And so we're under six. But I I think we're open to something different. But that's just kind of the compromise between the six limit and the and something shorter that might not be effective that we came up with. We have we have three and a half in the front, which is that and some juniper is enough to keep the kids out. And then on the back, have six which is better for deer and other varmints.

Any other questions for Mr.

Spohner? So I have a question about the proposed addition to the rear So of the I want to make sure I'm understanding correctly. It's basically after the addition, it would basically be the rear component of the house is symmetrical. There's effectively like a seam or a join to one side of the door. And then on the new side of that join, the scale of the siding is larger, and that's the main visual differentiation.

So put this image back up. And so the yeah. I that's a I think what you've described is a fair statement. More, I would call it, it's not absolutely symmetrical but more balanced on the back. But we've set the addition of this piece on really both places where it joins the existing just to differentiate it and use a little different siding there.

The mudroom that's on there is inset already from the original L that's there. But obviously not it's more inset, and it's also kind of fallen off the house. But it's this yeah, the differentiation is more subtle in this for sure.

Oh, so are you saying the new half of the addition or the new half of the rear component of the house with this addition would still be inset a little bit?

Yes. Oh,

okay. I understand that.

Do you see the on the upper left

Yeah.

Okay. I

see here, that shadow line is is that indicating where that setback is. Okay. And then the other setback happens just to the left of the entry door.

Any other questions? Okay. If you want to take a seat for a second, then I'll just take care of a couple other things. Does any member of the public wish to speak on this application? Okay. Hearing none, we'll then have a discussion with the commissioners. So I think the materials that were submitted with the application do a good job of outlining which components of the design guidelines are up for discussion this evening. Fences, exterior additions are the primary ones. Does anybody have a point of view they'd like to share?

Just real quick. First, I'd like to officially thank Jim for wading back in the historic district waters. We appreciate it, and we appreciate your work. At our retreat, we were talking about National Park Service standards. And this adheres I mean, if you were going after historic tax credits, you could get them because you did a good job adhering to the national standards.

I think it's excellent. I do like the way the additions pushed in so that it's part of the story of this house moving forward. It's not trying to pretend like it was there originally. So I think it's a very sympathetic architectural addition. And I love, from a practical standpoint as an architect, but also just the look of it going with the metal roof on the two and twelve. I think it's spot on. I'm going to leave the fence discussion up to Josh. Which discussion? Defense discussion.

Well, after living for the past forty five years in a house in which we have students crashing through the back of the house and going from one lane to the next, I certainly appreciate the need to have a fence or have something to obstruct that. I think that this fence meets our standards in terms of its location on the property. So I do not have a problem with this fence. I also do want to compliment this on the way the rear elevation is organized. The new part is set back.

It's distinguished from the original. And yet, you use the roof to help organize all these disparate elements back there and pull them together. And so I think that's not only well done, I think it's appropriate for a house of this vintage.

Thank you.

Agreed. Very clean. I approve.

Nancy or Dave? Good. Okay. So then I would love to entertain a motion. And Anna Scott and Tranika have done us the favor of putting scripts on the table. So if anybody needs one and they would like to make a motion.

I move that the application is not in Congress with the special character of the historic district and that the application be approved.

Second.

Kevin, is there anything else we need to say? I think we may also want to certificate of appropriateness, do we need to include that language? Or did we cover?

That we covered that stuff and then we also addressed the written decision.

Okay. That's great. So David's made a motion. Did I get a second? Yes. Okay, Michael. So I'll take roll. And if you would say yay or nay, please. Michael?

Yea.

David? Yea. Nancy?

Aye.

Don? Yes. Josh? Aye. And the chair votes aye. That passes unanimously. Thank you very much. Okay. We're going to move on to the next item of business, number six on the agenda, which is 707 Gimgall Road.

So this application is for a new exterior entrance and stair to an existing garage.

Hello. Good evening. I'm gonna read a statement. And if you agree with that statement, after I'm done, if you would just say I so affirm and state your name, please. I affirm that the evidence I shall give to the historic district commission on the reference application shall be the truth and nothing but the truth. I so affirm.

I so affirm.

And your name is? Alan Curtis.

Thank you, mister Curtis. Please go ahead.

I'm an architect. I practice here in Chapel Hill and in Chicago. The last time I was before the HDC, it was for a house I live in at 702 Gimgall Road. And I'm here representing Ken Shelton, my neighbor almost directly across the street, who is requesting a certificate of appropriateness to put a new entry into an existing stairway leading to a 2nd Floor attic over an existing garage. This project, meaning the house itself, the existing house, underwent an extensive renovation in 2020 and 2021 and included the demolition of an existing detached garage.

New garage was constructed in its place and contains an attic apartment with a semi private access through a stairway located in the interior of the garage. A certificate of appropriateness was granted by the HTC for this renovation in early twenty twenty, and construction was completed on the project in 2021 with a certificate of occupancy granted in April. So now in 2025, the owner is coming back and asking if he can put an exterior stair entry into this existing stair going to the attic space on the back of the garage that was previously approved by the HDC. I'm not trying to make a point of that other than I made the rash assumption of being able to jump off at that point relative to the existing property to give you a sense of where we're going and jumping off again from that perspective. The two photos here are the existing house from Gimgall Road, house on the left, the new garage on the right.

And here's the garage itself, both again from Gimgall Road. And here is a site plan locating where we are proposing to put an exterior stair and entry, gaining access to that 2nd Floor attic. A bit of a close-up here. We have three things happening at the back of the garage. One is the stairs that I've discussed.

There is an existing whole house generator that's going to be replaced, and also a new mini split compressor for HVAC to the 2nd Floor attic. Our guidelines that we were approaching here, new porches or entrances are necessary, locate them at a side or rear elevation where they are minimally visible. Given the location of this stair, there is no sight line whatsoever from Gimgul Road to the proposed stair and a minimal sight from the private drive of Evergreen Lane in the back of the property. In this illustration, the shading of the green is the stair going up to the exterior stair going up to a doorway that would be opened, in a new opening from the exterior stair to an interior stair at the landing level. Here are two more views of the existing garage.

The west elevation on the left, the south elevation on the right, and here's the east elevation. We have no proposed changes to any of these elevations. This is the north side. It's essentially a utility area more than anything else. There was, at one point, the electrical panels were going to be placed on the house, but we're asked for a approval to put them on the garage, get them off the house back in the day of the first review by the HDC.

And you can see on the photo to the left, we have the generator straight ahead from a Chapel Hill gravel path that exists from Evergreen Lane. So access to the rear stair to a rental unit would be gained on this pathway. And the stair that we're proposing is just to the left in the picture on the right. The drawing here on the top is from that original presentation in 2019. The electric panels are located where a shuttered opening was constructed or proposed to be constructed, but was not done at that time in order again to allow for the electric panels.

As part of the project that we're proposing, we'd be removing the shuttered opening or fake opening on the left, bringing the brick forward to the face so we'd have a solid brick facade there. And this is our proposed addition with the stair going up to the entry, a door passing through into the existing stairway, and then continuing on up to the 2nd Floor, which you can get a sense of back here on our elevation, the stair going up to the left. So it makes a U-turn. There are two views from the back showing the new stair on the left, the existing garage on the right. Another view.

We're proposing here that that the materials would be essentially all the same that are on the existing garage. We're extruding the roof out using the same details that are existing, same gutters, same family of shapes, the same railing, the same light fixture, essentially, that's already included on the existing garage. And two more views. There's an existing stair currently on a property just 600 feet to the east on a house that faces Glandon Street. So it's our precedent for the neighborhood.

The list of materials here, again, as I mentioned, gutters with the half round that match the existing. Eaves painted to match, all the same color palette and stylistic characteristics. So that essentially is our project.

Great. Thank you. I'm going ask the commissioners if they have any clarifying questions for you. I'm going ask for comments from the public and the public.

Yeah. I noticed in one of the pictures what appears to be a very heavy vegetative screen between the back of this garage and evergreen.

Is that the case? It is. It currently exists. Oops. Uh-oh. Lost it. Sorry. So you can see the screen here on the right photo.

On the upper photograph. Correct.

I believe Evergreen Lane is essentially a service lane for these homes. Is that true?

It is. That is correct.

The back of this house is not facing the front of another house,

essentially. Correct.

Any other questions?

Well, I'm just confused. I think this is slide 26 about the shutters.

Yes, let me get back to that slide. Okay, so initially, the drawing on the left was the one that was initially shown for the original HDC review. I'm sorry.

Go on. I'm sorry.

So two things are happening here. The two openings with the closed shutters were originally proposed. The one on the right was not constructed. Back in the day when HDC was reviewing the project, the owner came back for an amendment to allow that opening to be eliminated so that the electrical panels that are there currently could be located in that location. Does that make sense?

So are you proposing to take out the left, the existing shutter? What I didn't understand. Yes. So you just have like the blank wall under that window in the gable.

And that's where our our stairway, our new stair is going. That's where it's located.

Okay. Thank you.

Any other questions? Give us just a few minutes, if you would, please, sir. Sure. Are there any members of the public that would like to comment on this application? Well,

the stairs are located where our guidelines indicate they should be, which the architect noted. Okay. I move that the application is not incongruous with the special character of the historic district. According to the application of the relevant positions of the Lumo as stated in the application and the HDC's design standards based upon the facts presented in the

record. Second.

Thank you, Josh. And thank you, David. So I'll just take a vote. Michael? Aye. David? Aye. Nancy? Aye. Don? Aye. Josh? Aye. And the chair votes aye. So unanimously approved. Thank you very much. So I think that completes business for this evening new business. We're going to move on to discussion items. And with the change to the agenda that was approved at the beginning of the meeting, we're going to talk about a pending application to join the commission. Sharnika or Anascot is there.

I think you distributed this evening an application for Ms. Moore, who I think was with us last fall, if I'm not mistaken. And so I think the open topic for discussion this evening is I think your plan is to forward her materials forward to have her be considered to join the HDC because we actually have an open seat because Polly has stepped down. So I think the purpose of this discussion is to just make sure that the commission is aligned with us moving Ms. Moore forward for consideration for the counsel to add her to the commission. Do I have that right?

Yes. The clerk's office is spearheading this effort. You can still vote to recommend her. But I think they're going to reach out to her to actually see if she's still interested. I think she still has to interview with the council subcommittee.

Got it. So then she would be so we've actually already for those of you that were on the commission last fall, we actually had Ms. Moore's application. We advanced two. Commissioners are actually seated with us tonight, but we agreed that all three were viable candidates.

So I think Camille is our commission liaison, will be involved in moving that forward. That would be my assumption. She's part of the subcommittee for commissions, I think. So I think this is really just a question on whether or not do we need to take a vote on advancing her application, is this just informational? Okay. So I don't think David and Don were not on the commission when that happens. So if you want to take a couple minutes to review this application and just make sure you feel comfortable voting on that.

I do. I know her. And I thought it was a great application and thought she should be on HTC.

Okay. David, I don't to put you on the spot.

I'm fine voting on the application.

Okay. So then I will put forward a motion for the commission to approve Ms. Moore's application being advanced to the council subcommittee on commission membership with a recommendation from us that she would join the commission. That sound good? Okay. So then all in favor, if you would say aye. Aye. Aye. Oh, sorry. Second. David second. Thank you. Okay. Now let's say all in favor, please say aye. Aye. All opposed? Okay. That passed unanimously. Thank you, Shanika and Anna Scott, for bringing us up to speed on that. I think the next item that we had on the agenda was vice chair elections.

So we had a discussion about this earlier today. And I think everybody is aware that there are some changes coming to standing commissions and committees that are sponsored by the town council. There is a recommendation that the size of this commission go from nine to seven and that there are some procedural changes around us being able to get to a quorum. And so I think with those changes pending likely to get approved by the town council over the summer, we're not sure that it makes sense for us to add a third officer. So Nancy and I are essentially serving as chair and vice chair at this point.

Nancy has agreed to continue in that capacity, even though she's technically associate vice chair or whatever the deputy vice chair. Thank you. And so we're just going to essentially continue with the officers we have through the summer. Once the new policies come into place, we'll sort of reconsider how many officers we need and who's going to fill those positions. So I think we're just going to continue that item for future discussion.

And I'll remind folks that when the new commission year starts, my tenure as chair is up. I've served two. So we would need somebody else to step in as chair at a minimum. And then, Nancy, I think we'd have to sort of look at what officer positions you've served in to see sort of what would be allowed procedurally. Does that that sounds right, yeah? So we'll still have to talk about officer elections at some point this year. Any questions about that? No. It all makes sense to me. Okay. Good. Anna, Scott, and Shaniqua, is there anything I missed that you want to comment on?

I think while we're on the topic of officers and membership, we would like to also share Duncan has decided to not reapply. And he's obviously not here tonight, and he won't be able to make the June meeting. So he wasn't able to make that announcement himself. So just so you all are aware. Yeah.

Thank you.

Question. If Duncan does not make the June meeting, will there be a quorum if I have to recuse myself?

It depends on other commissioners being able to be there.

One other commissioner. Clark. I'm cranky.

I don't think that would happen by the June meeting.

I don't think so either. We're going to send good vibes towards that, Josh. So anything else on commissioners and officers? Good? Okay. I think the next topic on the discussion is we typically take a month off over the summer. It's really, I think, at this point of discussion between July and August keep me honest on that. We talked about that a little bit earlier today. I'm proposing that we would take the month of July. But some of that comes down to if people know they're going to be out of town second Tuesday of the month, July or August, because we don't want to create an issue for ourselves as it relates to having a quorum.

Shanika and Anna Scott, I think we discussed this morning that there's no new certificates of appropriateness that would be applied for June. So if we took July off, that would we wouldn't have any COAs that we would have to approve at that meeting. So it sort of procedurally seems elegant to take the month of July off. I think the only hitch in that giddy up may be if folks are planning on taking vacation in one of those two months and are not going to be here, and we're not going to have quorum anyway, that may make a decision between July and August. So I wonder if anybody's going to Maine in August as an example, as some people do.

I think in the past, Charnica or someone else has sent out a little poll to the membership so that even people who aren't here right now could say which Yeah. Suits

This may be a good idea if you all don't mind. We'll just do a which month would you prefer to take off, July or August, just so folks can check their calendars. And given that we have a bit of an awkward situation for one of our commissioners, just making sure we know that we're going to have quorum. I would also suggest,

if you all recall, on a

few occasions in the past, we've called

soon might we can find a date

where we can get a quorum of the board present for a Zoom meeting at lunchtime or whatever is convenient for everybody, that might get Josh's approval more quickly. And it avoids any conflict if we can't get a quorum for the June a quorum minus Josh for the June meeting. And if we're planning on taking July or August off, it avoids any potential for further delay.

I think that's a great idea, if you all don't mind polling for that. And then if Duncan can be there, we can also thank him for his service and send him off as opposed to him just vanishing.

Actually, I need to bring up too that I'm also rolling off in June. It will be my last. I will be here for the June meeting, but that's my last meeting. So I'm not going to reapply.

Okay. Thank you for letting us know.

You're welcome.

We can also send you off and say thank you for your service.

Thank you for that.

Appreciate We

can do you and Duncan together.

I enjoyed serving.

Flowers or cake or something. We'll figure that out. Okay.

So are you asking for us to look for times for a special meeting in June for Josh's item?

I would say anytime between now and the June meeting, essentially. Next week. As we soon can get quorum minus Josh. And that's also pending your all's availability also because we need your help administering that. So I think just as soon as practical, essentially, with the quorum minus Josh so we can get that approved. And then I think a second question would be July or August as our month off.

Does that make Yes.

So if Michael's not applying, then the five that we know for sure will be here in July are here. So if you all could talk if you all want to take July or August off, is that a decision you all are prepared to make now?

I guess the question is whether or not Clark if Clark has a preference one way or the other. And given that we're losing some commissioners, that could be a factor.

And I need to go back and check with my cruise director, my wife, and see when in August I'm going to be gone. I'm going to be out of the country sometime in August. I can't remember if it's the first part of the month or the last part of the month.

And I know, Nancy, you're going to be out. In August. So In I think there's enough sway there that I'd actually prefer folks to consult their calendars so that we know we don't create a problem for ourselves.

Can we put it on the agenda for the special meeting?

Sure. Let

me ask a question. If and I don't know if this is possible. I'm waiting for a text back. If Clark were able to join a Zoom right now to participate in the non quasi judicial component of this meeting, would that be procedurally permissible?

There's no Zoom meeting now. I

appreciate

the agility.

But thank you. However, you very much, Dan.

Kevin, pretty clever. Yeah.

I do just have a question for Kevin. The special meeting would have to be noticed, correct? So next week is not feasible because we have to give enough time to send out public notice.

Next week would not work anyway because that's when Clark is getting married.

Yes. My gosh. Okay, wow. We can send out a poll to find out a time maybe later this month or very early June for a special meeting to get Josh his solar panels.

Well, try try to schedule that around the solar panels.

Congratulations, Kevin. I

do considering how long Josh has been waiting

to get this done, I do think

it's been

like four months.

Okay. I think the last thing we wanted to just take a moment to talk about for a few minutes this evening is earlier today, Anna Scott sent out notes from the retreat that we had sometime in the last month or so, April 25. It says here at the top of this piece of paper that they distributed also. And so there are notes from that discussion. And what we had agreed to in that meeting is that we would use the HTC meetings moving forward to tackle special topics.

And there were several things in the design standards that we wanted to revisit. And what we are planning on doing is using this time together to tackle a topic a month, essentially. So we'll conduct the business we need to with the public, get applications taken care of, and then sort of use a reasonable balance of time, say thirty to forty five minutes, to have a discussion while we're together in session to talk about one of these topics. So as opposed to handling it as a subcommittee, we're going to handle it as a commission discussion altogether. And we're just going to sort of peel them off over the next FAHERTY: couple of months based on when our agendas will allow that.

Kevin, could you just clarify for me, if, say, suppose we decide to change one of the standards, can we just do this, or does it have to go through counsel?

I'm going give you the lawyerly answer. Decisions unilaterally. I think what the statutes say that the commission shall prepare and adopt principles and standards that guide your decisions. But those are regulatory standards, which typically have to be approved by the governing body, the town council. So I think there's a little bit of gray area there.

And I would defer to the town council, figure out whether they've do you all recall whether I think the last time you updated your principles and standards was right before I started working with the commission. Did you all unilaterally approve create and then approve those? Or did those go through town council for approval?

I just really don't remember.

I actually think

it says I think it may have gone through council.

I think it did. I'm just going to check because I think it's actually in the guidelines. It says that it was approved. I'm just going to check. Adopted by the Chapel Hill Historic Commission on 03/18/2021. So it actually does not say whether or not it was approved by the council. It says it was adopted by the HDC.

Right. And the general statutes say the same thing, that the rules that the principles and standards should be adopted by the commission itself. I think the question then becomes, because these are effectively land use and development regulations the way that they're written. Do they need and they, at least then in theory, have the impact or weight of an ordinance. Do they need to be first reviewed and approved or signed off on by the town council? And that's something that I think we need the town council and the town attorney's office to weigh in on.

But they're not binding. I mean, we can't deny an application simply because it doesn't meet one of these standards as long as it's not incongruous. Is that right?

That's true.

So if it's, in a sense, advisory, then it wouldn't really be a regulation.

And that's why I say, I think that we need them to weigh in on it.

I'll talk to Camille about it as our counsel liaison and make sure we have her advice.

Smart. We could also just do it and see what happens.

There's also that approach.

As a lawyer, I love

A lawyerly recommendation.

That's how we get our name on some good appellate opinions

here. So

if you all keep a folder of materials for this meeting, it may be just a good idea to keep a copy of this with you. Because I think we're going to peel them off one at a time in the next couple of months and just talk about them so that we're tackling those things and not letting them sit followed, but that we sort of get through them in the time that we already have together. Good? Okay. Good. I don't have anything else to say. Is there anything else we need to discuss while we're together? Phil, is there anything you wanted to say to the group while you're here?

One thing.

Would you like to come up to the podium?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. For the record, my name is Phil Lyons. I'm with Preservation Chapel Hill, and I'm pleased to announce that on Thursday, we transmitted our application to the National Register for the Coker Hills neighborhood. We've been working on it for five years. And it's now in Raleigh.

Congratulations. Thank you. Yeah,

had Heather Fernbach put together the application and turned it in, I got to read it. It's impeccable, really well done.

Is it available If we want to look at it, where would we find it?

We'll put it on our website.

Okay. Congratulations.

That's a major accomplishment. Well done. Okay. I think that's it. We're adjourned. Thank you.