Historic Preservation Commission Meeting – June 29, 2026
Historic Preservation Commission Meeting – June 29, 2026
The Historic Preservation Commission met on June 29, 2026, at 9:45 AM to review the application for 226 North Forest and discuss other property issues. The board approved the minutes from the prior meeting and, after a lengthy work session, voted to conditionally approve the applicant's proposed exterior changes. The meeting included public testimony from a neighboring property owner.
Consent Calendar
- Minutes from Last Meeting: Motion to approve made by Jim Trimble, seconded by Martin Kendall. Unanimously approved.
Public Comments & Testimony
- Daphne Hill (neighbor directly adjacent to 226 North Forest): Expressed appreciation for improvements being made but asked that all work be done properly, with city approval, to maintain the historic district's integrity. Noted that the property had been in disrepair for six years and urged continued engagement from the city.
Discussion Items
- Applicant's Presentation (Caleb, representing the estate of the deceased owner): The application for 226 North Forest was discussed at length. Caleb initially arrived late and explained the property's poor condition (infestation, debris, structural issues) and his goal to renovate it. The board clarified that only work visible from the public right-of-way requires their approval.
- Roof: Previously approved metal roof two years ago; applicant now wants asphalt shingles in brown, black, or gray. Board expressed preference for brown to match neighborhood but did not restrict color choice since the commission has no authority over color.
- Siding: Applicant originally proposed vertical board-and-batten hardy board on the front and lap siding on sides/back. After discussion, the board and applicant agreed to use horizontal lap siding (hardy board) on all surfaces visible from the street, including the front. The board noted consistency is important for the historic district.
- Windows: Applicant confirmed he is not replacing windows. The board advised that if he later chooses to replace them, he must come back for approval and match the original style (six-over-six divided light). An AI-generated image incorrectly showed new windows.
- Deck: Applicant described a planned stairway/platform behind the garage, connecting to the back of the carport. Board determined it is not visible from the street and therefore not subject to their approval.
- Door on the side: Applicant agreed to remove a door that leads to a drop-off and seal the opening with lap siding, matching the rest of the house.
- Garage doors: Applicant will keep the existing two-door garage; no changes.
- Front steps and railing: Applicant expressed desire to remove the stucco wall and railing, but the board said that would require a separate application.
- Board’s Guidance: The board emphasized that the meeting was an unusual work session and that future applications should be fully prepared in advance. Staff recommended the applicant schedule a pre-application meeting with city zoning to avoid similar confusion next time.
- Other Property: The board briefly discussed another property (on Seminal) that had been a previous project but is now abandoned, with unpaid city taxes and incomplete work.
Key Outcomes
- Motion and Approval: Martin Kendall made a motion to approve the following scope of work for 226 North Forest: (1) remove existing roof and install architectural asphalt shingles (brown, black, or gray); (2) remove existing siding and install horizontal lap hardy board siding on all surfaces visible from the public right-of-way; (3) remove the side door that leads to a drop-off and side over the opening with lap siding. The motion was seconded and unanimously approved. The deck, fence, and rear work were deemed not under commission jurisdiction. Any future window replacements, changes to the front steps/railing, or other modifications require a separate application.
- Next Steps: The applicant will receive a formal letter outlining the approved work. The next commission meeting is August 3, 2026, with a submission deadline of July 20, 2026, for any additional applications.
Meeting Transcript
Okay, I'm gonna call the historic preservation commission meeting to order. The first item are the minutes from last meeting. I recommend approval of the opposite. Second. You got that signal. That was Jim Trimble and Martin Kendall. Yeah. Any other discussion? Um do we have four people of court? Okay. Any other discussion? All those in favor. Okay, the applicant for the whatever the address is. Um, 226. 226 North Forest. All right, hang on, let me get my notes. Here it is. 226 North Forest. They're not here. But Steve thought we could go ahead and at least discuss the application, but we can't take any action. So we can have a discussion with no action unless they show up before we adjourn. So it's Steve, I'll turn it over to you. Thank you. We don't want to belabor the point or talk over talk it without them here. Uh but I did want to share some observations and questions I had about the the application in general. Um one thing that uh I noticed uh was it was already underway before the application was ever made. And so there's a question about the the detection uh of um them having a permit and having a uh COA approved and they got underway. I understand there's a stop work order on it now. Is that correct? I don't think I'm not aware of that. Well there ought to be. It has been underway for three years, four years? Six years. Okay. That's the same thing. It's been they've come before the board before when they did the metal roof and the windows. Um and then now he passed away now. My understanding is his brother has taken over the estate, and so he's the one now. Are we allowed to let I don't know if any of y'all want to speak or if that's allowed without the applicant here? We can yeah, we can talk as long as we don't take any action. Yeah. Okay, that's fine. I mean, to make it worthwhile we showed up. I mean, and it may make another discussion more efficient. So in that sense, I think having some conversation. So anyway, there's a matter of it being uh you know underway without approval. Uh and it would save a lot of time and money and effort and hassle if if it's done more properly. And so we're here after the fact, and um it ought not to continue because it hadn't been approved, what they're doing now. Um there's uh there's several things about this that needs need some conversation. Um one is the metal roof, which apparently we approved two years ago, and they're gonna go back to an asphalt shingle roof.
openpublica.com