As the newly minted chair, I'm gonna call this meeting to order.

Thank you very much.

And I think we have a quorum, but let's uh let's take the roll.

Uh please answer when I call your name.

Josh.

Here.

Nancy?

Here.

Laura.

Here.

Here Brian.

Here.

And uh Glenn is not here this evening.

So that does give us a quorum.

Okay.

And the secretary needs to read some procedures into the record, please.

I'll now read the following into the record.

The commission operates under NC General Statutes 160 Dine40, which gives local governments historic preservation authority and the Chapel Hill land use management ordinance, including Article 3, which establish the local historic districts and set forth regulations governing them.

And the Chapel Hill Historic District Principle 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 photographs.

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.

All right, thank you very much.

And then I need to uh read the public charge.

Uh the advisory excuse me.

The advisory body pledges its respect to the public.

The body asks the public to conduct themselves in a respectful, courteous manner, both with the body and with fellow members of the public.

Should any member of the body or any member of the public fail to observe this charge at any time?

The chair will ask the offending person to leave the meeting until the 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.

So next we need approval of the agenda.

And as I understand it, there may be one amendment to the agenda.

Yes, we need to remove the new business item for 304 North Boundary Street.

Um you can ask for a motion to just strike that from the agenda.

So can we get a motion to approve the agenda with the amendment of deleting 304 North Boundaries to you?

I move that we approve the agenda with the removal of 304 or North Boundary.

Second.

Thank you.

Seconded by Josh.

Okay.

Are there any um we need to vote?

Do we need to vote on that?

Okay.

Well, let's take a vote.

All in favor, say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

All opposed.

There you go.

Motion passes.

Okay.

Announcements.

Do we have any?

Staff does not have any announcements.

Staff does not have any.

Anyone, any of the members.

Okay.

And then petitions.

I understand we don't have any.

Correct?

No petitions.

Okay.

Then we'll move on to the approval of the minutes.

Move approval as submitted.

Second.

All in favor, say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

All opposed.

There are no.

Okay.

So that takes us to the consent agenda.

Um, is there any discussion from the members on the consent agenda before we ask for a motion?

Nope.

I move approval of the consent agenda.

A second.

All in favor, say aye.

Aye.

All opposed.

Okay.

So the consent agenda moves on.

Now it gets us right into new business.

Okay, so we're going to look at uh 132 South Columbia Street.

And you're going to set up the electronics for us.

And when you guys, whoever's coming forward, uh, I'm going to have to read a um an affirmation to you.

You need to answer respond by saying I affirm and then state your name.

I need to find the affirmation.

There it is.

Uh we can all do it at the same time.

It'd make it quicker and easier.

Excuse me.

Are there any conflicts or is anybody viewed the property?

Each of you will assume.

She's asking if there's any conflicts with anyone, any member.

No.

No.

Um, thank you.

Good job.

You know, you don't look like Kevin, but you sound like him.

Oh, okay.

Well that explained.

I've gotcha.

Very good.

Okay, so I'm gonna read this.

If you guys can each say I affirm and then individually state your names.

Okay.

Uh I affirm that the evidence I shall give to the historic district commission and the referenced applications shall be the truth and nothing but the truth.

I so affirm.

I affirm Excel.

I affirm Cal Fatum.

Was that all three names?

Yes.

Okay, very good.

And I assume someone will tell us if they weren't close enough to the mic.

Because we need to make sure it's part of the record.

Okay.

All right.

Let's hear your presentation.

And so then this is speaker mode.

And this monitor right here, they are seeing down front of them, so they'll be looking down.

And you can use the mouse.

Okay.

Good evening, everyone.

My name is Gazelle Hool, and I'm presenting this proposal on behalf of DTW Architects, and we are working alongside Barnhill to design an addition to the Kappa, the Delta Kappa Epsilon Fraternity House located at 132 South Columbia Street and in the Cameron Macaulay Historic District.

This house is located on the corner of Columbia Street and Cameron Avenue, and the front of the house faces Columbia Street.

The original three-story building was added upon with an addition of a two-story cafeteria bedroom wing on the back of the building connected by a two-story hyphen.

The house later had a full interior renovation during which a covered single story entrance was added to the stairs down to the basement.

This entrance sits between the main building and the addition to the adjacent and addition and adjacent to the hyphen connector.

The two-story edition has a cafeteria which is situated on the lower level, and bedrooms on the second floor.

As the fraternity has grown over the years, the cafeteria can no longer serve their larger student population and can only accommodate about half of them at any given time.

Because of this, DKE has asked us to design an addition, which would create more space in the cafeteria.

In the same project, they also asked us to convert two bedrooms on the second floor into a single study lounge area.

They would also like to create a second story balcony above the cafeteria edition with access from the new study lounge.

The fraternity would also like to build an additional second story additional second story bedrooms above the stairwell connector.

And due to the cafeteria extension, we will also need to reconfigure the ADA parking on the site.

So as you can see here, the site on the site plan, the addition is located on the side of the building towards the rear of the property, and is highlighted here in gray.

The biggest thing here is we will need to relocate the existing ADA parking space.

Here we can see the addition as well as that relocated ADA parking space and an accessible sidewalk as means of egress from the building.

Zooming back out, you can see the addition, and I've highlighted here the visible area of the site when standing on the stairs from the sidewalk to Cumblumb to Columbia Street.

This is that view here, and you can clearly see the addition won't be visible from this front angle.

So this is the existing building and area of work for the addition.

And here is our proposed design.

You can see the cafeteria extension on the left and the addition of the two bedrooms above the basement stairwell connector right there in the middle.

We'll start with a cafeteria edition, which extends out 14 feet from the existing building.

The house is constructed with brick veneer, and we are aiming to have as little impact on the existing brickwork as possible.

All new bricks will be compatible with the existing conditions.

For the addition, we are aiming to complement the existing brick, but also introduce wood siding to differentiate the addition from the existing building.

We will also locate all doorways and existing window openings.

The new materials used in this edition will borrow features from the existing house and surrounding properties.

Masonry will be compatible with the existing brick.

Door and window details will be consistent with existing details, and new molding and trim will also match the existing building.

The balustrades on the balcony will be constructed to match existing designs, and we are also introducing wood siding to serve as stylistic relief in the building.

However, it will affect the surrounding properties.

In terms of site work, the cafeteria edition will be built out at a similar offset from the building as the existing balcony.

We will also not touch any of the stone walls during construction and only alter the site for ADA compliance.

The fraternity has asked us to convert two second story bedrooms into a single study lounge area.

This is located above the existing cafeteria.

We're adding a doorway which allows which will allow access to the new balcony above the cafeteria extension, and this doorway will occupy the existing window opening on the left bedroom, which you can see right there.

We have designed a balcony patio above the cafeteria edition, and it will be accessible from that new study lounge.

The new balcony will have balustrades to match the existing conditions around the building.

However, we will also need to replace the existing balustrades on the balcony pictured right here.

They're deteriorating.

The fraternity also says they need to be replaced.

The materials will be put replaced to match the existing balcony details and conditions.

We're also adding a second story or additional second story bedrooms in the space you can see pictured right there.

These will offset the loss of the two bedrooms, which we converted into that study lounge area.

In this addition, we will need to alter the roof form a little bit, and our solution to that is what you can see pictured up on the screen.

The new roof is designed to be incorporated into the existing roof.

We'll match the existing details, such as the molding and trim on the previous two-story edition.

And we've designed the low pitch roof.

We have designed a low pitch roof, which minimizes damage and impact to the original building.

However, due to the low pitch, we need to change the roofing material of this additional roof from the original slate to a standing seam metal roof.

However, this is consistent with the other properties in our historic district, such as the Carolina Inn.

In the bedroom edition, we will install new doors and windows, which aim to match the existing conditions of the stairwell connector.

Doors and windows will be constructed with hollow meadow frames and painted to match the existing white color.

And finally, we'll need to reconfigure the ADA parking on the site.

There are no historically significant exterior lighting fixtures within the proposed area of work.

However, due to lighting requirements, we may need to add light fixtures to the new balcony patio, but they will be selected to match existing fixtures on the building.

In terms of accessibility on the site, we're relocating the ADA parking to a similar location on site, and the sloped sidewalk from the parking space will be located in a similar place as well, and this will be on the side of the building.

So to conclude, this is our area of work on the side of the building.

We're very minimally impacting the original three-story building.

We're really mostly building off of the two-story edition and the hyphen connector.

There's no work really being done to the front of the building as well.

And so this is our proposed design.

We believe that it complements the original building and its features.

However, the details of our edition help differentiates itself, differentiate itself from the house and make it a clear addition.

This is consistent with other fraternity houses in the area.

So we will aim to match existing conditions in our design and we'll look to build upon the growing history of the fraternity house.

We believe this is a thoughtful edition, which looks to add historic character of the district.

So at this time, I'd like to invite my coworker Cal Fatum up here to help answer any questions that you may have.

Ready for questions.

Ready for questions.

Well, I think he's still gonna jump in with the just here to help answer the questions.

Oh okay.

Yeah.

Well, are there any questions?

So the view that you currently have on screen is the view from Cameron, correct?

Yes.

So this is the view from the front of the Carolina inn.

Yes.

Yes.

Roughly.

This is probably from the sidewalk on uh adjacent to the side.

And on the left of the screen is the new addition.

Yes.

How how far out from the existing building does that new addition?

Can you speak into the mic?

Yes.

Um 14 feet out, and that's that's basically where our setback is.

And if you look on the right hand side, um the the balcony extends to that that extent.

So we're we're basically matching that.

Do you do you have a view from the front of the house that actually shows what that looks like from the front of the house once it's built?

No.

Um not in this presentation, though.

And how much further out from the building does that new addition set than the balcony that's on the historic building?

How much further out does the how much further out is that extension than the balcony that sits?

It's the same.

14 feet.

But that's a balcony, not a structure, correct?

Correct.

So I I would like to see what that looks like from the front of the house.

Do you have that?

No, we don't.

You won't be able to see it from the front of the house.

We have a view of the house if you're standing in front of it.

However, you're not going to be able to see the addition.

Which is town's front yard for all intents of purposes.

So can you go to the site plan real quick?

You just zipped past it there.

We can get it too.

There you go.

I think that illustrates how far that comes compared to the structure on the right, the balcony and the right.

And then what's the setback from the sidewalk?

So the new structure is how far from the sidewalk on camera.

I I think it's 25 feet.

And does that adhere to the limo for the side?

Yes.

Yes, it does.

Okay.

So you're not asking anything special?

No, nothing special.

From a setback standpoint, okay.

Can you confirm something for me?

Um the three-dimensional view that you showed before shows the cafeteria extension to be offset from the wall of the building.

Yes.

The plan drawing you're showing now shows it to be contiguous.

Uh-huh.

Yes.

So the question I have is which do you which are you proposing?

Yes, sir.

That is a that's a good catch.

This is um a site plan from our civil that was produced before we read your standard that stipulates that new additions should be um made to to be distinct from the original structure.

So the most up-to-date version would be where it is set in from the exterior wall.

And that's the one you want us to consider.

Yes, sir.

I had a question about the roof.

Are you proposing the standing seam just for the rear or for the entire building?

Just for the section above that stairway connector where we're in filling it with two rooms.

And it's it's it's just because um to to tie it into the existing roof requires a low slope, and um it under a uh one and a half and twelve, something like that.

And so the slate wouldn't wouldn't work in that case.

So it would be just above that two bedroom connector.

Okay, thank you.

Um could you go to I guess the photo elevation of the Cameron Street side?

Yeah, there you go.

Uh go back one to the uh yeah, there you go.

Let's talk about that for a second.

Um I actually brought a copy of one of your slides, 4.3, because that was the only issue that I had in previewing your application.

Um, is this section right here where you're gonna add a floor on top of that one story piece?

Um, what gives that building its scale and proportion, which is a big deal in the design standards, which I'm sure you know.

Um, is the fact that the two masses to the right and to the left are clearly separated and always have been, even before that little addition was slid in there, but it it still maintained the general massing and volume.

Um and with what you're proposing with taking a brick plane that lines up with the other planes all the way across, it kind of kind of wipes out those proportions and totally changes the look of them.

Did you consider anything where you were setting the the wall back a little bit?

Uh yes, sir, we did.

We we actually first considered a material change in that in that area, and the um client was not receptive receptive to that.

So um we came away from that wanting to match the brick as close as possible.

Again, this is from the client.

Um, in terms of adding a relief or something to that, um we did consider that.

Uh we wanted to present this to just see if we were in the ballpark first before we went down that path.

But um certainly it could be stood off from that to like you said, uh play up the existing forms.

Yeah, well, and we'll uh close the public discussion a minute and then we'll discuss among the board and you'll hear, but I'll go ahead and say one of my comments is when you're considering all the design standards.

I think when it comes to materiality and things like that, you're spot on.

I can't say anything bad about what you presented.

But when it comes to this kind of abolishing of the existing proportions of what faces, as Brian says the the front yard of Chapel Hill.

Um I have a real problem with that.

Um, and um in our discussion, I can point out the article 4.3.1 to there's quite a few articles that I feel like your presentation.

If you go down one more slide to your render, thank you.

I think that drastically changes the look and the feel and the presentation of the community to the point that it deserves a little discussion, maybe a little further thought.

But what do you think, Josh?

I strongly agree.

I think that the same point I made about the offsetting um in the other for the cafeteria would apply here, although here I didn't I didn't see any um difference between the plan and the cafeteria, so I was saving that comment for later.

But I'm glad you bring it up, sir.

Um I think this is a very critical elevation, and um handling the two the two the proportionality of the original building on the right and the addition on the left, creating this infill actually ties them together instead of maintaining the separateness, which gives the current building its sense of scale.

So I think that you you I really appreciate the fact that you did raise this issue with your client, and um I'm going to encourage you to be more forceful with your client, because um we're gonna need to see from what I'm hearing, we're gonna need to see something here that goes in that direction, whether it's whether it's offsetting the wall, whether it's changing materials, whether it's dealing with the roof form, those are three areas in terms of design in which you could start dealing with that differentiation that we like to achieve.

So did I hear you say you talk to the client about a different material there between the two?

Because I know in the original one-story piece, the little gable portion is quite horizontal siding.

Um you can almost consider that to change the material, and that would also set it back a couple of inches.

But um, but I that's on my only strong comment is about that connector piece, not as much about the actual uh dining hall extension itself.

Yes, I actually that that was the direction we first explored um before uh deciding to carry on with masonry, but I I do think that um even if we are to tie it together with masonry all the way across, we would like to look at um setting it back or creating some sort of reveal to separate those forms.

Is there a view going south on Columbia of how much you can see the cafeteria extension?

Like if you're at the light looking towards the building, how much of the new part do you see going n north on Columbia?

South north, yes.

Yeah, if you're heading north on Columbia.

No, if I had heading towards Carbero.

That's south campus.

On Cameron.

Well, never mind.

I'm going toward the Carolina Inn.

Yeah, okay.

I'm gonna turn right.

Oh, I see what you're saying.

How much if I'm coming that way, how much of the new extension do I see?

Either going north or south.

Yeah, um, I think the the uh closest thing we have to show you is is the the diagram with the uh the field of view from the front.

Can you bring that back up?

There's also a lot of hedges on the property.

That's that they will also help shield that.

I feel like maybe the the renderings are not giving a good um a good example of how much hedge cover there is on that side, but this this brings up the Brian issue from previous meeting.

Vegetation, vegetation dies.

Which is we're we're not wanting to hide this, but that's I just wanted to I was gonna I was gonna say, Nancy, you really couldn't see hardly anything what we're looking at as it exists today if those hedges stay there because as you're walking down, there's a little raised up area, and then there's the bushes, and so it's a little above five foot six, which is the average eye level.

But uh yeah, we've had a lot of vegetation conversations on this board.

So understandable.

Um yeah, no, we we do not have uh that's a that's a good point.

No, we do not have uh that view for you.

Can you go to the site plan that shows the um extension and the rearranged parking, handicap parking?

There you go.

So in this, it shows the sorry the parking.

Um the cars will be pulled sort of a third of the way across the elevation of the building.

Is that right?

That hatched area is where they're parking.

That hatched area is the striped for the ADA spot.

The ADA spot itself is at the bottom.

At the bottom, okay.

So the car will pull in and block about a third of the building.

Almost a half.

I suppose you yeah, you could look at it that way, not right up against the building, but if you're looking at it straight on from the Carolina end.

And that's already how they have it set up.

That's configured there.

Yeah.

Okay, thank you.

There is a uh aerial view.

There's actually sort of four views, an aerial view, proposed south elevation, proposed dining room, balcony, um, and two different views on page 26 of the applicant materials.

If that's uh there you go.

Yeah.

So it looks like this building is sort of pulled towards Cameron Avenue, but there is the historic building actually kind of extends towards Frack Court on the other side.

Yes.

Was there any consideration given for some of this massing on the other side of the building to balance it out versus pulling it out towards Cameron Avenue and flattening the building?

Um no, there really wasn't.

This this seemed to be the way to do it.

And if we if we looked at the uh the floor plan of the house, it might might make more sense.

Um but uh this seemed to be the most logical uh place to build that build onto that that side of it.

So I there is some concern about the massing that you've created as you filled in that hyphen between the two buildings that we're gonna have to talk about how to resolve.

And so if I'm in your shoes, I would think about what your alternatives are, and just and looking at that top-down view, it appears as though the massing is on the side of the street that faces the public versus facing the back of another fraternity house where it's not visible from the public.

Right?

Yes, that's correct.

Do you want to?

I guess next would be public comment.

There you go.

Next would be public comment.

Is there any?

Okay, so do you want to close?

I guess we're closing the evidentiary portion of it.

There you go.

Use my lawyer word like I'm supposed to.

And now let's have a board discussion, please.

Well, I'll jump in and continue the discussion about this um south elevation.

And I think it before I could approve this, this south elevation needs more work.

I think it needs more articulation of the different elements that are being added and in filled.

Um I think the roof can also have some work done to it so that there is a more apparent roof rather than this very low slope roof would almost appears in the elevation like a flat roof, which I I can see here is not a flat roof.

Um I think that that elevation needs more work before I can approve it because we do have standards about um about making additions read differently um architecturally than the buildings they're attaching to.

And so that that's my comment.

So, in addition to the massing issue that Josh just mentioned, I I'm concerned about a 14-foot extension moving out towards a public right-of-way on Cameron Street and its visibility from Columbia Street, which is the most prominent corner in town.

And so I'm concerned about the view of that structure from the front of this historic building.

And I'm would not approve something if I can't see what the rendering looks like to understand what that's gonna look like from that very prominent part of town.

Okay.

Just uh jump in the discussion here to address both issues here.

First was what Brian's saying.

And it actually adds a little more three-dimensionality, and it does it's a more contemporary compatible to use a National Park Service term, a funny term.

Um so I don't have a problem with that as much, but uh I have a big problem with um blowing up the proportions of the existing structures and not telling the story in such a way that you see the original 1925 plus the addition plus what you're gonna do.

What you're you have every right to do something just like they did in the past, but yours needs to to complement uh and not completely turn its back on and change the look of the other two.

So that's kind of where we're going with it.

That's sorry, I said we, that's where I'm going with it.

Um I agree with everything my fellow commissioners have said.

Uh I'm still a little unclear as to how the appearance of that elevation is going to be with the extension and the parking and any plant material that may or may not be there now and may or may not be put back.

I'm not clear on that.

And if for example, are there any trees being removed?

But anyway, I don't think I have enough information on those incidentals that I think will make that elevation blend into the streetscape and be attractive from Carolinian.

And the and for the rest of us in Chapel Hill.

Um let me jump in to Kevin and Brian.

Brian's my uh my help this evening.

He's my muscle.

Um so uh do we do I just ask for a motion right now, or what are some of options for where we're heading with this?

So it was a little loud.

Uh so I think there are really kind of two options at this point.

Either uh a motion could be made to approve the COA.

It sounds like there's probably not sufficient a sufficient vote to approve the COA.

Um another option would be, and I suggest that you all discuss this with the applicant first, but another option would be to continue the evidentiary hearing uh on this application to perhaps like your your meeting next, your regular meeting next month.

The applicant would then have some time to you know to bring back newer additional information that might address some of the questions or the concerns that you all have raised this evening, and then assuming that uh you all are satisfied after that evidentiary hearing, you could make a motion and take a vote on this uh to approve the COA itself.

Okay, so just from a time perspective for the client, it makes the most sense for to move to um to put it off until the next meeting, basically.

I think we should be as specific as possible in what we want them to bring next month because there have been a lot of points raised.

Do you want to try to craft a motion?

So I what I would suggest is that we continue this item to the next meeting because if we took a vote tonight, I would vote no, and I think others would also, and I don't think that's what you want.

I think you want to be able to build something.

And so I think what we're suggesting is we're gonna give you what we're concerned about and give you an opportunity to address those things with your client and continue this item to the next meeting.

And I I think before we decide on a time a time frame, uh, does the next meeting so the the first week of December is that sufficient time, or do you think you might need to and Sharnika that we're that is fine that is fine with the uh LUMO's timeline uh in terms of when the application was submitted.

I I think so I think Yeah, I think um it's fine in terms of the the time limit, Lumo says we would need materials before um that first week of December, so probably the end of this month.

I I don't think there will be a hold up on our okay.

Yeah, I've never known many architects that are outpaced by a uh a board as an architect myself.

I say that.

Um so it sounds like we want a continuance of the event evidentary hearing.

Uh, do we need a motion for that?

And along with that motion could include specifics.

I think that's what it sounds like to me.

Should be one motion that says continue in what we're looking for.

I yeah, I think that's fine.

Okay, great.

So I'll make a motion that we continue this item to a future meeting based on your timeline with your client.

I think I'll ask other commissioners to weigh in on the things that we're concerned about.

I think the massing of this proposed structure in the articulation between the historic structure and the new structure feels like it got lost in translation.

It feels like it's one large mass of brick, which is inconsistent with our standards.

And I feel like Don, you actually have a couple of um things called out that we may just want to draw their attention to the standards.

Yeah, it's um Article 4.3 roof form materials and details.

Um design new roofs to be compatible and form slope and orientation with historic buildings in the immediate surroundings when the form slope and orientation are important in defining the overall historic character of the district.

There are others, but that one is spot on.

And I think uh that's what keeps this from being congruent with the design guidelines, uh, quite frankly.

Nancy, do you have something specific?

No, I this is up to the architects.

Yeah, well, I would I would add um I would further amplify what Brian said, and which is on the south elevation to um study the articulation of what you're proposing relative to the 1925 building and the later edition, which flanks what you're proposing.

And then one last thing, it's more of a presentation thing than uh than a finished product thing.

Um you mentioned, and so we all assume you you say in the in your presentation that you're going to copy all the existing trim work and details and corners work and all that stuff.

Uh from a presentation standpoint, if you could show that in your renderings a little more so they aren't quite so plain block simple lines.

I think that would help people with the scale of the building and scale of whatever you're gonna come back and propose.

Okay.

If you would just put a little more detail in the cornice work.

Okay.

Also, if you could show the setback of the cafeteria part that you mentioned that wasn't in the drawings so that we could really see that.

You mean the existing with you set back?

How the addition was gonna you said it was in the, you know, you look at the guidelines, and it's supposed to be set back a little, but you didn't have that in your drawing.

If I maybe I misunderstood that um, I I believe I I said that we were building out to the allowable setback.

Yeah, I I think what you're showing there is that the addition is set back from the corner, which makes it a clear addition, which is yes, understanding.

Whereas in your civil rendering that our eagle eye here picked up on it it was in the same plane.

So this this render is what we want.

We want the new pieces to be a little bit distinct from the old pieces.

They're compatible but distinct.

And the view from this corner looks like your cafeteria extension actually uh is more prominent than the patio or the the covering on the original structure that you echoing, and looks like it actually extends further out from the building.

So I would like to see standing in the front yard of the structure once this is built.

What do you actually see from that corner?

Okay.

And there's a lot of discussion in the guidelines about backyards and visibility.

You actually have two front yards.

So you're the front of the house does face Columbia, but the side of the house faces Cameron, and it's an extremely prominent part of town that faces a historic building.

And so I think you have to think about this not as a backyard, but as actually an extension of your front yard and think about how it's gonna read to the rest of town, which is a concern.

You're looking for a render from the corner of Columbia and Cameron.

That's right.

And then I I agree with the questions around so you know if we could get a little bit more detail around what this is actually going to look like.

Is that is the gray area parking?

Is there gonna be a car parked right on the street?

What is it actually?

And help me with uh you had some other important points.

I I feel like the the appearance of the streetscape is very important, and I can't tell from this plans exactly where that parking space is.

Okay, what sort of landscape was there that you're gonna replace, if any.

Okay.

Well, it sounds like we want to.

I'm gonna kind of recap the motion.

Here we go.

Um we want to continue the uh excuse me.

Kevin, do they need to specify the date?

Yeah.

Do we need to what?

Um in the motion, if you could specify the date that you're going to continue the hearing to, which is I think December 9th.

Let me double check.

I think Brian's motion was to continue the hearing to it the the next available date at which uh the applicant could be back.

I think that's fine, but in order to avoid the need to like, for instance, mail new notices of the hearing.

Yep.

Uh which will take some work off of our staff's plate.

If we specify the continued date in the motion, then they don't have to to send new notices.

Do you have a problem with that?

Okay.

So I'll I'll amend the motion that we continue this item to the December 9th Historic District Commission meeting, and which gives the applicant uh and your team an opportunity to address the feedback that the commission just gave.

Okay.

And the feedback included uh massing, roofing.

Um something else about south elevation.

I can't read my own writing.

But there's consideration for the view that's currently on screen is actually the front yard of the house.

You actually have two front yards, not not a front yard and a backyard because of how prominent it is, and we're concerned about what that's going to look like on Cameron Avenue.

Okay, so that wasn't really a motion.

That continued to be a discussion.

Sorry.

So Brian, you can correct you can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think we have a motion to continue to the December 9th uh meeting on the floor.

I think there's been plenty of discussion amongst the board about what specifically should be brought should be addressed and brought back at that time.

So just to kind of cut through and cut to the chase here.

I think there's a motion on the floor to continue the evidentiary hearing to December 9th.

Is that right?

So I made a motion and Josh made a second.

Okay and Josh did second it.

Okay, so all in favor of the motion, say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

All opposed?

Okay, we're gonna continue to the next meeting.

Thank you.

And thank you for uh bringing out points in the design guidelines as part of your presentation.

That's a good move.

Thanks.

Okay, so I don't think there's anything else on the agenda for this evening, is there sure?

Well, there's no so do we need a motion to close?

So move.

No.

Do we have a second?

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Okay.

Meeting adjourned.