 We are live Good morning, everyone this meeting will now come to order Welcome to this virtual meeting of the Durham Historic Preservation Commission on this fifth day of October 2021 my name is Matt Bouchard, and I currently serve as chair of the Commission The Commission is a quasi judicial board of record and as such all testimony will be recorded Under this procedure our meeting today will also be live-streamed on the city's YouTube channel The proceedings of this board are governed by the zoning laws as recorded As such please note the steps we have taken to ensure that each party's due process rights are protected as we proceed using this remote platform First today's meeting will be conducted in accordance with the statutes enacted in session law 2020-3 and codified at North Carolina general statutes chapter 166 a section 19.24 Which allows for remote meetings and quasi judicial hearings during declarations of emergency? second each applicant on today's agenda was notified before being placed on the agenda that this meeting would be conducted using a remote electronic platform Every applicant on today's agenda has consented to the board conducting the evidentiary hearing on their request using this remote platform We will also confirm today at the start of each evidentiary hearing that the participants in the evidentiary hearing consent to the matter proceeding in this remote platform If there's any objection to a matter proceeding in this remote platform the case will be continued Third notice of this meeting was provided to the applicants and to the public in multiple ways Including signage posted on site Notification letters mailed to all adjacent property owners Informing recipients regarding this remote platform and a general announcement via our website informing the public of the same The notices for today's meeting advise the public on how to access the remote meeting as the meeting occurs Individuals wishing to participate in today's evidentiary hearings were required to register prior to the meeting Information about this registration requirement along with information about how to sign up to participate Was included in the mailed notice letters sent to each adjacent property owner This information was also included on the board's website The public was advised to contact the city immediately in case of objection to the evidentiary hearing or to the remote meeting platform Two cases will be proceeding today in which the city has been contacted by an individual with an objection to the case All individuals participating in today's evidentiary hearings were also required to submit a copy of any presentation Document exhibit or other material they wish to submit at the evidentiary hearing prior to today's meeting All materials that the city received from the participants in today's cases As well as a copy of city staff's presentations and documents were posted online prior to this meeting The agenda and all materials to be discussed today may be viewed at any time During today's meeting by visiting the web link for today's agenda via Durham's agenda center Finally all individuals who registered to participate in an evidentiary hearing on today's agenda as well as all city staff Participants were emailed a witness oath and consent to a remote hearing form prior to today's meeting Any individual planning to testify or submit evidence in an evidentiary hearing was notified that they must sign the oath prior to today's meeting Who will also reaffirm everyone's oath on the record at today's meeting Are there any members of this board that would have any conflicts of interest with regard to the cases before us today? Matt, I can't um be on the last case the 501 washington one. I need to recuse myself since steward is involved in that Thank you commissioner helibn anybody else Are there any members of this board who have a request for an early dismissal today? Okay Hearing none as chair of the historic preservation commission I'd like to remind everyone that our quasi judicial hearings function similar to a court proceeding Staff will first present an overview of each case and then the applicant will have an opportunity to present their evidence Opponents if there are any may then present their evidence and the applicant may then present a rebuttal Board members will refrain from questions or comments until each speaker has completed his or her presentation Testimony should consist of facts each witness knows directly not hearsay Evidence already presented need not be repeated All witnesses who have signed up in advance will be given the opportunity to speak and their testimony will be recorded The board will vote on each case after the presentation of all evidence pro and con concerning that case All decisions of this board are subject to appeal to the board of adjustment and then to the Durham county superior court clerk Holmes welcome If you could please take the attendance of the commissioners who are here today All right Chair bouchard here commissioner dayan Commissioner de bairie here Commissioner fieselman here Vice chair gulsby commissioner hamilton here commissioner johnson here Commissioner craig here Commissioner waiters Commissioner waiters here Good morning, everyone. You've been forwarded an agenda today's meeting. Uh, would any of the commissioners uh, or any, um Members of city staff like to recommend any adjustments to today's agenda No adjustments on the part of staff Thank you, carla anybody else Commissioners you've also been provided draft minutes for our last commission meeting held on this same remote platform on september 7 2021 does anyone have any adjustments to the draft minutes they would like to recommend Hearing no comments. May I have a motion to approve last month's minutes? commissioner hamilton so moved second commissioner johnson commissioners Clark holmes if we could have a roll call vote, please for approval of the minutes uh chair bouchard approved commissioner dayan I would abstain. I'm not sure where I love but I wasn't here last uh for the last meeting okay commissioner de bairie commissioner fieselman I also was not here for the last meeting all right commissioner hamilton approved commissioner johnson approved commissioner kreger I was absent commissioner waders commissioner waders approved commissioner de bairie um commissioner de bairie you're on mute approved thank you all very much uh what was the tally? It passes five to zero. I'm sorry to look over you. Thank you so much Thank you very much and if we could go back to you Clark holmes to swear in all city staff that we're presenting today's cases all right Do you members of staff swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give in the public hearing proceedings for today's cases Is the truth by your own knowledge or by information and belief? Karla Rosenberg I do Great I believe we are prepared to begin with our first case Seeking a certificate for appropriateness this is case coa two zero zero excuse me two one zero zero zero six three fifteen oh nine maryland avenue addition Chris if you could bring in the attendees for that hearing Just waiting on david parker to come in and um we have john black here as well Great Chris did you say that mr parker's okay here he comes That should be everybody great Welcome, uh, mr parker and mr black I will first ask if there are any commissioners who have a conflict of interest in hearing this case Hearing none, let's proceed with the swearing in of mr black and mr parker in that order Claire holmes all right Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give in the public hearing proceedings for today's case the truth By your own knowledge or by information and belief Hi, john black do swear David parker I do And mr black and mr parker could I please have each of you Confirm on the record in that order that you consent to this hearing proceeding using this electronic remote platform John black I consent David parker I consent Wonderful. Thank you gentlemen. We may now proceed with the staff summary Carl Rosenberg planning department. Um, this is case ua 21 zero zero six three fifteen oh nine maryland avenue addition The applicant is riverbank construction represented by john black The owners are kyle and samar simons. It's located on the west side of maryland avenue between sprunt avenue and pershing street Zoned residential suburban eight and it's a non contributing structure In the watts hillondale historic district So the applicant is proposing to construct a one-story rear addition At the rear side of the existing two-story structure I'd like to introduce the staff report into the record and invite mr. Black to share his case Thank you Karla, are you going to be operating the Yes, would you mind going to the site plan? slow is mud this morning I apologize Well as she's getting there I can start by saying that We worked on this house in 2019 This was a new construction project so now is currently a two-story single family home non contributing to the neighborhood as it is brand new And the clients and homeowners Have contacted us about adding an addition Onto the home given all of the new demands on their lives from covid restrictions and change in working Um So as you can see there and that that's the foundation plan Karla if you go up one page to the first page You'll see on the site plan A small one there That we're proposing this addition towards the rear of the project But also on the south side And this location was chosen for a couple of reasons one being that there already exists A rear porch which provides living space and dining space For the homeowner to use and be used to the backyard So rather than interrupting any of that we have shifted the addition down towards the side So it's still towards the rear, but it's on the side um on the south side where the The lot has plenty of rooms still you see on the north side the driveway enters the site at that point And that's the main access point to the backyard. So we're trying to keep all of that on unobstructed also um, Karla if you'll go to the photos And I believe it's the last photo Uh, you'll see from the street We've done our best to do this in an inconspicuous way the the most inconspicuous place from the street um, that south side of the lot has a lot of um foliage and trees we planted a new maple tree on that side in the front yard when we built the house um Keep going That's the driveway side. There you go. So this is the side of the house where the addition is proposed We're essentially closing in that that back porch where the pergola is And the twin window there at the back that you see in this picture would be removed And that would be reused on the front elevation of the addition um And the for the addition the materials we've chosen all the same materials that we used on the house when we build it Um, so against same windows these black clad wood windows Those double hungs again would be facing the street There'd be vertical board and batten siding the same metal roofing that's on the existing house now um And the slope of the shed roof that's proposed on the structure matches the slope of these roofs that already exist on the house um so You see there's there's not much that would Change in terms of the appearance of the overall structure We're simply adding about 430 square feet. It's two small rooms on the back of this house Um, so the homeowners can have a office in gym area So with that are there any questions or comments about what is proposed? Thank you, mr. Black Do we have any questions for well? I guess we should ask mr. Parker if he has anything to add to mr. Black before we Ask any questions of the applicant Um, thank you David Parker here, uh, not necessarily. I'm just here to Just pay and help us in the year Great and obviously speaking up in favor Thank you Any questions for uh, mr. Black or mr. Parker from any of the commissioners? I'm scanning for raised hands I do not see any If there are no commissioner questions, uh, is there anyone else who? Is present who would like to speak for or against this case? Seeing and hearing from none. We will close the public hearing And discuss the case amongst commissioners So anyone who would like to Begin the discussion. I will note My own personal observation that this appears to be a relatively non-controversial application And I am prepared to approve it Is there anyone who would like to speak about any concerns they might have about the proposal? Hearing none. May we have a staff recommendation? Karla Rosenberg planning department staff would recommend approval of the application Thank you very much Karla Would anyone like to make a motion? I No, go go ahead go ahead I'll second you deal um Okay, here's the motion the Durham Historic Preservation Commission finds that in case coa 2 1 0006 359 maryland avenue addition The applicant is proposing an addition to a non contributing structure The addition will measure approximately 27 feet by 14 and a half feet And will be located towards the rear of the existing structure along the south side elevation The addition will be constructed using a brick veneer foundation vertical cementitious fiberboard siding fiberglass clad wood siding wood windows and a standing seam metal roof One pair of two or two windows will be removed from the south side elevation and relocated to the street facing wall of the addition Therefore the conclusion of law is that the proposed addition and alterations are consistent with the historic character and qualities of the historic district and are consistent with the historic properties local review criteria specifically those listed in the staff report And the Durham Historic Preservation Commission approves the certificate of appropriateness for case coa 21 0006 359 maryland avenue addition with the following conditions One the improvements shall be substantially consistent with the plans and testimony presented to the commission at this commission hearing and attached to the coa To the improvements may require additional approvals from other city or county departments or state or local agencies The applicant is responsible for obtaining all required approvals related to building construction Site work and work in the right of way And three a compliance inspection shall be performed immediately upon completion of the work approved here in Second Thank you commissioners fieselman and diane if we could have a roll call vote, please clerk holmes all right chair bouchard approved commissioner diane commissioner debari Commissioner fieselman Commissioner hamilton Commissioner johnson, I think you're on me a commissioner johnson approved commissioner craig approved commissioner waders Motion passes eight to zero Gentlemen, thank you for your time today. Good luck with the project. Thank you. All right We are prepared to move on now to our next case on the agenda. It is case coa 21 00064 111 wall street addition modifications new construction of accessory structure and site work It looks like we have a number of folks speaking for and one Person speaking opposed Chris do we have everybody in? chair bouchard, I only see one individual Attending today. That's mr. Mark barron. Um, we had three other individuals listed, but I do not see them They were here, but I don't see them anymore um So if they come in I'll try to bring them in or if you are here for case coa 21 00064 Um, please raise your hand now so that we may bring you in Thank you Oh chris, I know that mr. Miller uh was here earlier. Is he also uh not here? Um, he was here. Yes, but um, I don't see him on the attendee list. Um, I'm not sure if he by chance dropped off. Um, okay But if I see him come in oh, and I think um Both of our applicants are on one screen here. So there was a lot of our missing ones. Um, like james and jody worton just joined us Yes, um, so Yeah, if I see mr. Miller, I'll try to bring him in okay Well, let's go ahead and proceed with the swearing in of uh, the Applicant representatives who are here. Uh, let's start with uh, mr. Barron and then go with uh, jody and james work, um Claire combs if you could go ahead and swear in our witnesses All right Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give in the public hearing proceedings for today's case the truth? By your own knowledge or by information and belief yes All right, we could also have the oath uh from james and jody wort jody wort, yes and james wort, yep And if we could have each of you confirm on the record that you consent to this hearing proceeding using this uh electronic virtual platform jody wort, yes, I consent james wort, I consent mark barron. I consent Wonderful. Thank you all very much um, the words have put a comment, um in the chat Um indicating that the address is one one one wall street as opposed to one one one um I read it as it's indicated on the agenda. So my apologies um If we could now proceed with the staff summary carlo rosenberg planning department, this is case coa 21 00064 11 11 wall street addition modifications new construction of a sexory structure and site work The applicant is mark barron the owners jody wort and brandon wort Located on the northwest quadrant of the intersection of wall street and allston avenue Zoned residential suburban eight a contributing structure to the golden belt historic district And so the applicant is proposing to remove some revere some rear porches um replace damaged windows um with patio doors um Restore some original um A second door opening as this was a duplex originally and installed two new wood front doors um And these changes to the primary structure and then in addition they are proposing a new accessory structure to be used as an adu and um also to Relocate some accessory structures on the site I'd like to introduce the staff report into the record and invite Mr. Barron to present his case First of all my monitor shows me off to the side of my centered in the screen Okay, um, yeah, thank you very much commissioners. I'm mark barron the architect for this project Will I be able to share my screen? No, but you can um let me know which page you would like me to go to in the staff report Okay, one of the first images i'll ask for is the um existing east elevation um showing from allston um, yeah, so um Basically the the situation out at this house is that it's been unoccupied for close to two years now and it's been Broken into and vandalized several times the owners have Put a lot of effort into preventing this from happening. So both they and their neighbors will be um Well, I guess is Except for one neighbor whoever the opposition is most people are going to be happy to to have this house be occupied again And the owners are eager to to get that done um Basically we're not changing so much functionally inside the house most of the changes will be seen from the outside um Right now there so there are two original back porches that were with shed roofs that were enclosed at some point And um created a very tight dysfunctional bathroom and laundry area. It's very awkward and hard to get around So we're proposing to take those two enclosed porches down Remove them and replace it with an addition that largely has the same Functionality bathroom laundry and um mudroom entry on the back uh, there's we're also We're also Um, well actually it'd be good time to bring that picture up Carla of the east elevation um I think it's it's uh, it's in the application. It's one of the I'm not sure it's seen on this document, but um In the pictures Pretty sure it's not in this document. It's in the these are the These are the pictures that were submitted. Um, there may be another section of pictures Yeah, this is a document that I will be referencing later. Um, this is the one showing the views from pedestrian vantage points, but um, there's the uh application, um The narrative and all the pictures at the end of the um application attachments. Yeah. Yeah They're all application materials and um, yeah, yeah Yeah, I had a plan to share my screen. So sorry about that Um, and it's actually a photograph, but it's okay. We can we can reference what you just had go down Go towards the later pages I'm sorry. It's I'm just going to describe it. Let's forget about it So one of the enclosed porches from the east side Um, so the the register describes this house as a AAA roof structure So it's got very dominant um gable ends And one of them that has the enclosed porch the um the way that they enclosed the porch The porch is in plain With the side of one of these dominant um gable ends right there. You can see it right there It's in plain and it masks the original form of one of these dominant gables that come out Because it's in plain So when we remove that um enclosed porch over there, which is the laundry room When we bring back our addition it will be set back So it will bring that That defining gable forward again So that'll be an improvement And the screen porch we're proposing is coming off of that same gable And it's set down far enough to still accentuate that that strong gable of the house So the screen porch is like an extension of one of those AAAs one of those three dormers But like I said, it is set back And also we're improving the accessibility to the house By there's a deck near that screen porch with a ramp down to the driveway. So that's an improvement In the front of the house as carla mentioned, we're bringing back the two the double front door front elevation One of the doors were concealed at some point. So we're bringing that back And we're also removing the decorative metal posts and railings and bringing wood back to the front porch For the posts and rails That's basically the the house. Um, but you know, most importantly Um, Jodi and Jodi and brand and want to bring the house back into the Durham building stock And they're excited also to present this This accessory dwelling unit as an addition to the much needed Durham housing stock as well And I'll just briefly talk about the adu We've been very careful and intentional To relate the adu to the house Um, and to keep the perception that the house is still the dominant house on the lot um the subordination of the adu is all about the perception of The vantage points of people moving through the community drivers bikers walkers So the subordination of the adu is is about their perception Is about how the lot is viewed primarily, which is by drivers and pedestrians Um, and I'd like to read the definition. I believe actually last Carla read this definition a couple meetings ago, but I'm going to read the definition of subordination out of the development ordinance It says it's to be secondary in appearance So is not to diminish or visually overpower another element or structure This shall be considered as a whole and shall not require each dimensional aspect to be subordinate so again, um, you know When these plans when these drawings are viewed on paper The adu does um seem to start to challenge the size of the house, but I'm encouraging everyone to Look at this project as it will be viewed in in real life From the vantage points of bikers walkers drivers And I would like to go to that document Carla The one you were first on showing the vantage points from from the streets. It's called perspective Something or other. Are you able to give me a page number? Um The one I want to it's not on this document It's on the perspectives um subordination perspective All right, I think it's yeah, yeah, I guess it's all merged. So it's um, did you have a page number katie? 23. Thank you. Thanks. Yeah, so if we could start Please go down to a later page slowly Um one more All right, it's sorry it's up maybe three pages up Thank you Yeah, um, yeah right here. So the picture on the right um That that is seen from the corner of austin standing on the sidewalk from the corner of austin and wall so it gives That tells you you know, this house is up on a hill You're basically looking pretty at a pretty strong angle up at the house So I just wanted to give that per for perspective So brandon and jody put this document together if if carla if you could go to the first page of this section There you go one Where the picture start? Yeah So I hope everyone can see it. Um, I can't point with my mouse like I was planning to but You see the little person there next to the house at the gable end on this. Yeah They're holding a pole and at the top of the pole is a red flag That red flag is the height of the adu at its peak the highest point of the adu And what brandon did was walk around with a friend Referencing the site plan and went around to the different corners of the adu and showed the highest peak of the adu As seen from the sidewalk in the street So um there it's just up against the house showing that Actually an earlier version It's it's the same drawings you're looking at but at one point the adu was about eight inches taller than the house And that's what we're showing here In the current submitted version. It's it's actually a little lower than the house But I wanted to point that out So carla if you could go down not all of these show the flag. They just show The house is seen from the streets, but you'll stop at the next page right here. Thank you So the picture on the left it's seen from the base of the driveway on the sidewalk That flag is the highest point of the adu At that front corner Over the garage So you can see even from the sidewalk it looks much lower The picture to the right is seen a little further down wall street looking up And that is the highest point of of the adu As seen from wall street a little further down You can see how much lower Carla if you could go down one more page Two more one more one more from here, please Um and one more. Thank you Yeah, so this one So this is a good one This one shows actually from the highest vantage point In the community walking down the sidewalk on wall street when you're actually a little bit of The site in elevation You can see the peak of the house behind the trees and even from the highest vantage point the highest point of the adu is lower In appearance As the udo defines it. So i'm done with that carla. Thank you so much So we've we have um met the criteria for the adu the heated square feet of the adu being smaller than the house Um with the addition of the garage up to the side Wall street is a very tight one-way street So introducing the garage brings a car off the street and extending the driveway brings another car off the street So we're actually helping the congestion on on that tight street Um And now carla if you could please go to and i'm sorry I can't help you the page number because they're all combined But it's it's the actual plan set the architectural drawings Um as the 3d page the page showing the 3d images So it's past this past as past the adu This one and i'd like to start with that image. You're on there. So i'm just going to um briefly talk about um about three ways that we work to relate the adu to the house One is the form you can see on the house in the forefront. You've got the gable with the square gable vent You've got the gable roof shape leading to the shed porch roof And then if you look back at the adu you have that repeating form The gable roof to the shed porch roof That square um gable vent is a predominant feature of the house historic feature So we brought that over to the adu in the form of um of a square A window up high in the same area of the gable to relate to back to the house and also the siding the lap siding um brandon Did some investigating and found the the spacing of the siding underneath The siding that's there now on the house the historic siding underneath that's covered So the new siding matches that um spacing so if anyone ever does Take off that siding and um brings it back to the original siding it'll match And carla if you could go to the next image down. Yeah, not the page, but the next image down there right there This one shows the the porch relationship so on the adu in the back That's the the the peak of that shed roof to the right by the way was the red flag So We subtracted some mass like took some mass away from that highest point of the adu to make it lighter or less dominant By introducing those porches and taking some mass out And also the the porch of the house the front porch of the house Is that porch on the adu which is sort of like Related back to that porch just turn 90 degrees basically So you you can see both porches From the same vantage point and the porch on the house has three main sections if we move from the right to the left It's a section of railing and then an open section and then another section of railing and then over at the The adu It's similar Section of railing and then you have the wall solid wall in between and then the another section of railing To try to and we intentionally left a window out of the bathroom in that solid wall between the porches To strengthen that relationship Um, we left the window out to honor the porch of the house There's a little skylight above that provides light for that bathroom Um, and then the square the last point The square windows on the garage Relate back to the square windows on the addition Which in turn relates to that square gable vent So that square gable vent provided a square geometry to carry over Into the new stuff Thank you for your time and i'll just leave it for whatever jody and brandon have to say in in your questions and comments Thank you so much Thank you. Mr. Barron mister or mrs. Work. Do you have anything that you'd like to add? Yeah, I just want to thank the commission for your good work and uh reviewing this application and to express our excitement about Taking what is a very neglected structure unlivable at this point and Eventually making it our home and a contributing positive factor in the neighborhood So thanks for your assistance with that and look forward to moving forward. Thank you Thank you very much. Do we have any questions from commissioners for The applicant Not for me I I've got a couple Yeah, okay Looks like both uh tad and jonathan have some questions. Uh Who wants to take lead? Uh, please so How did we get to the double front door? Um configuration Um, I'll answer that. Um It was there originally so we're bringing it back Um brandon and jody just wanted to bring the house back as close as they could to the original arrangement um And looking at um A lot of the other houses in the neighborhood They all have that offset front door, but I don't see any that have two I assume you went in the wall and found some ghost Marks from another door Yeah, there were some ghost marks and some signs that the door was there the siding changes over that area of the front of the house Um that indicates it was covered later And there is another another house. Um, it's in the application documents. We do show a house that has the two doors but our um our hunch is that all those houses had the two front doors At one point and it's offset because there were at one time two doors It's interesting if you look at the other houses in the district um Most of the front doors are offset and some of them have the um The board and baton You know along the porch, but then the regular siding along the side It's interesting that every single house would have both doors removed I'm wondering if maybe a second door was put in there as an uh as a subdivision of the house at some point um Yeah um So I have done some research with the city directories and um, there are houses that were duplexes Originally and they show Two residents of the homes Gotcha And then my my second comment or question is the The structure above the garage and the roof line of that it seems A little heavy handed to me and From the other side, I agree you've done a great job of of being very sympathetic and and and you know making everything look Correct, but I'm having trouble with the second floor Above the garage and the way that roof Sits Should I respond? Please. Okay. Thank you. Um, yes So there are many shed roofs that we're Referencing the original shed roofs to the rear porches the front porch shed roof and then we introduced the addition shed roof And this is another shed roof up there Um It there's several factors that went into that Um, we couldn't go up to the full 800 square feet for the adu because the house is actually a little smaller than 800 square feet The primary house even with the addition um So We have minimal headroom up in that per code up in those bedrooms up there So we dropped that roof as low as we could and the shed roof which referenced other shed existing shed roofs Was the only way we could fit those two bedrooms up there and and get the amount of bedrooms that the The client wanted there's three total and they're all fairly small um And then to offset that we tried to remove some of the you know massing and relate That formed to the front porch of the house like I described So lots of factors Um trying to tie it into the house and also just space requirements trying to fit the program in that the client needed Thank you for that tad. Any additional questions? Let's move on to jonathan Thank you jonathan dayan. Um My question really first of all, I second tad's uh remarks Uh, especially about the roof line, but I think the massing It says that it's the the new addition is 500 square feet The existing house is 700 but when I superimpose the two Taking out the porches I don't see I I think that it looks like the adu is bigger So it's and again the side the other side uh that uh mimics the the old house is is a great job And and should be commended but uh back to the massing In every field it feels like the massing of the new addition looks bigger and and is more pronounced than the than the original house Secondly is the bricks and the paintings Knowing that they've already been painted before on the original house Uh, now you have the parging Uh, what is the reasoning behind that? Yeah, so the the parging um at one point we were proposing parging the whole Foundation, but I went back and forth with Karla a bit on that before the um submission The corners of the existing corners of the house Our brick their parged brick and they were actually scored To mimic CMU So the corners were actually parged and we're we're proposing to keep those parged and to Touch up the parging and just repaint the already painted CMU infill and then for the um for the The new adu we were going to parge the any any foundation that was showing above grade Which is pretty minimal the house is pretty down close close to the grade And then to address the Back to the roof I'm trying to remember the first part of the question Or so it's footprint and height. Yeah. Yeah, so So back to that, you know definition from the development ordinance that it's about appearances and which we made our case for um, the mass of the whole mass Of the accessory structure when you include the garage and the dwelling The footprint is a little larger than than the house um And you you know tease that out between the heated square feet That the udo requires which is less than the heated square feet of the house And then the addition of the garage does like I said challenges the size of the house on paper But our whole our whole argument here in premise is Leaning on the perception rather than dimensions um, I know that you know that the udo and it's it's all it's about appearances and it's about perception um on paper It's a little bigger in footprint But you know from the people moving through the neighborhood and the way that the property is primarily viewed It's quite subordinate That's our that's our argument Is this this is a question to carla sorry isn't uh It looked like uh from staff analysis that you had it at 500 compared to 700 But I had it at 500. I'm sorry So you added like Two-thirds the size of the footprint for the original house is that is this new to you or is this something that you There's a distinction between the actual living space and then the full footprint um, so the full footprint is larger than the Than the house on the first floor level Thanks Also, I had a question mark. Are you saying that the parched coating Scored on the brick is an original condition or could that have been done? you know More recently I tried to find out and I I couldn't I couldn't uh confirm that thank you any other commissioners have questions for Mr. Barron or mr. Mrs. Work Hearing none. Is there anybody? here Present at this Hearing who would like to speak for or against this case? No one point Tom Miller was here. I think he rejoined at some point, but I do not see him present at this moment Chris can you confirm sir chairman? I'm here um Preservation Durham has no There we go There I am Mr. Miller before you get started. I don't believe you were sworn when we first began this hearing and so I've I could Once again, I was only going to say that we don't have a position in the case. Okay Well, that makes it easy Well hearing no opposition to this case and having heard from and Asked questions to the applicant. I think we are prepared to close the public hearing And discuss amongst the commissioners I'm hearing two primary concerns The one concerning Whether or not the ADU is clearly subordinate to the primary structure As well as a concern about parging of the historic masonry on the primary structure um Tad or jonathan. Did you want to lead off here with the discussion? I In looking at the picture that's on the screen now that upper level of that ADU just um Seems to scream that it doesn't um Adhere to the guidelines to me The guidelines that would be clearly subordinate to the primary structure tad well that and It doesn't seem sympathetic and and I understand there's some shed roofs and In the district, but this to me looks almost sort of neo contemporary um I just don't see any connection to the house or the neighborhood in and just in that one piece of the public Yeah, um commissioner johnson I'd have to agree what I think my my major issue is that if the The shed roof contemporary design was behind the house um, because when you're on looking at the on from the street Um, the garage the first level garage seems to fit. It looks like there's just a garage behind the house but then you have this very um off design sitting um sitting there as well but More for me more the more of the issue is the massing. I think that I don't think that this ADU is subordinate because it the square footage gets larger than the house um It says and and what I want to ask the commission is that are we to look at the um The footprint of the heated square face square square footage as commissioners looking at design Or are we supposed to take the whole unit the whole adu unit as a whole into consideration? um And that and that's where I am because that's where I am concerned I think the heated square foot is something code related but as far as design related Are we supposed to look at the whole unit? I would argue we don't look at the heated. We don't look at interior furnishing. We don't look at interior design uh, what's interior to the to the Envelope, I would say is not in our purview From what I understand And so we're looking at the structure. That's how I feel it Carl Rosenberg planning department, um Yes, I would agree you're looking at the structure as a whole but you don't also have to Only look at square footage. There are other Other factors That you would consider number of stories different design decisions in terms of shape and form Of the structure how it reads from the street whether it's a board and an app you're not tied specifically to Square footage for the accessory structures You are for the additions terrible chart here, um how it reads from the street is really interesting, um issue with respect to this case Carla as I see it, um and in that regard I'm curious to know What exists to the left of this driveway at the edge of this property and and how would How would that? ADU appear if we were actually looking From this very perspective, you know that we see in in planchee a 220 What would it be this obvious or is there? vegetation or another dwelling what Yeah, so my understanding is the streets This is a corner lot, but the street is on the other side of the house and then it comes here And so this is right here is another dwelling On a spot So if we're looking at the house Just straight on From wall street. We would see At least a portion of The garage and the second story of this adu All of it Well, that's a straight driveway. It's a straight driveway. So it's on and it's almost the width of the driveway. So Okay, obviously all of it. Okay And I suggest um that we move to that document that shows what we're talking about to match our conversation Sure, that was number 23 Yeah, I think that's great. Yeah, thank you It's this wasn't just about the flag. It's it shows views from all around the uh The the neighborhood Some you can't see the house because for the foliage And I know my my renderings are sorely lacking any sort of um natural item at all No tree So we've got a basically a dirt drive We've got foliage to the left Is that foliage remaining mr. Baron? Yeah, the trees to the left are remaining this please distinguish between uh trees and leaves and branches because It's just hard for me to conceive that you can build that and leave all those branches in place Is that maybe I'm completely wrong. It's a question. Sorry Yeah, it is hard to tell from the photos. I know there's a tree that we're saving that's um That's shown on the plans. That's more than 12 inches of breadth breast height So that is a tree that we will be saving that's shown in the site plan um and Maybe jody and brandon can help me out. You're more familiar I don't it's not that big tree that we see first I think it's behind that Yeah mark, uh, we will gladly speak to this um brand you've walked in more Sure, the large panel that does sit directly on the property line between ourselves and our neighbors to the west We do want to save that tree and so that There are three branches that come off of that tree that would need to be removed in order for to accommodate the roof line as designed But that is a huge tree with massive foliage both to the south and west and above the house So the house really will tuck into that tree Quite nicely once those three branches are removed. I'll also say that duke power did some of that work for us by clearing the line behind the house So there's been a lot of foliage removed from the north property line already from maintaining the property lines The last thing i'll say is that our Our builder our contractor suggested that we Get an arborist to come and look at where the roots for that tree are And that in order to save that pin oak the entire ad structure may need to shift a little bit to the east In order to not disturb the roots of that tree which would Shift that shed roof uh, the second story above the garage a little bit behind the house by Five six seven feet eight feet. Maybe we're not sure yet because we haven't had an opportunity to get an arborist on site And i'll just say too for for perspective Uh, I'm thinking of commissioner dan here. So when you're looking at the second the middle picture here Uh, thank you corolla. Um, so you see the drive you see the branches hanging over those are um, belong to a tree that's um, it's like a little more shrubby kind of tree And if you look back and you see the massive canopy that's darker green behind the house It takes up like the whole yeah the whole back part there That's that pen oak. Um, so while some of these branches would have to be trimmed for the drive or whatever The pen oak canopy actually goes up and wouldn't you know being conflict with any part of the adu This is a tricky picture for seeing the depth of of what's really happening here So sorry, i'm clarifying my question. I think it was the following smath uh, bouchard's question Is that would it Mask the building or would it be seen or would it would you don't won't see it and from what I understand From what would be needed for the integrity of the new structure the It would be clear sight from the street unless you do if you do move of course eight feet the whole the whole The driveway is about 15 feet or sorry the the whole addition of the garage is 15 feet wide So if you move it eight feet to east It sounds it looks like it would mask most of the addition But if it stays where it is I don't think I think there's going to be clear sight and it's going to be pronounced compared to the main structure That's how I feel One one other aspect to this because that adu is set so far to the north property line There's really a narrow window Of viewing that adu from the street and it's only when you are directly in line with the driveway for that 12 or 15 foot width Because of the foliage on the west property line and because of the original the the structure the original structure It really is about a 15 or 20 foot wide section of wall street from which you would have clear views of that adu the the foliage would mask it when you're Moving east on wall street coming down the hill and the house blocks it when you're moving west up wall street So unless you're turned your head is turned to 90 degrees for the entire distance of uh trans Uh Secting the driveway. That's really the only place where you'll have a very clear view Of the adu in that south face of the garage and second floor This is a clarifier. You said east to austin or west to austin Uh, if you're moving east on wallston austin. Sorry on wall street towards austin east. Okay. Okay. So yeah You would be I guess the whole point is that really because it's set so far to the back That driveway and the foliage and the house create a tunnel such that you really only see that full face When you're standing at the front of the driveway looking directly north down that driveway If you take three steps either direction That adu becomes obscured But that's mr. Thank you Excuse me, but that's a seasonal Issue as well. I mean the foliage is not Going to always be there It's my only response to that. I think that points well taken. Let let let me Ask one more question to mr. Baron to mr. Mrs. Wurt related to this issue um of of Subordination then I'm going to reclose the public hearing. Um, so commissioners can resume discussions amongst themselves um Would it be fair to say that a lot of this discussion? um Maybe all of it is is being driven by the programmatic decision To have a garage on the ground floor and that if there were no garage on the ground floor We'd probably have a one story Uh, maybe one and a half story adu or something that would not require as much massing on the left hand side of Of that structure and if that's the case i'm just curious to know Um, why that garage is is such a key component of your program um, well, my program is driven by the brandon and jody's Need so the answer if you want to Brandon and jody certainly these are both exceptionally small living Structures and so the one-car garage is meant both to provide off-street parking for a vehicle on a very narrow street Uh, but also some storage space So you'll just notice that there just is no internal storage to either these buildings. They really are uh people storage Places for shelter and so that one car garage is actually quite a modest addition to get a vehicle off-street and provide some mode of storage for residents at this property I appreciate that. Um, why don't we go ahead and re-close the public hearing and go back to commissioner discussion um, because I think it's important uh, and this might partially respond to commissioner johnson's uh question about Um, what we should or should not consider in terms of massing And the evaluation of whether or not something subordinate The definition is secondary and appearance so as not to diminish or visually overpower another element or structure That's subordinate Our criteria actually uses the expression clearly subordinate which, you know, my personal construction is There should be no doubt. Um, it should be obvious that this is clearly subordinate and I think what we're hearing from a number of commissioners here is some reluctance to accept that clearly subordinate uh standard Is being met here? um I mean I think it probably makes sense uh to do what we've done here in the past and and just try to take a straw vote um To sort of see where the commissioners minds are um on this application uh Would it be fair to say jonathan and tad that you are not prepared to um Support this application as it currently exists mostly because of the the size of the adu Yes And location well I can't say just size I would say Just hypothetically if you if the two stories were were spread out on the ground to for one story Even though the footprint would be much bigger. I think then I I can understand subordination In a different way, but so but as is as described. Uh, yes, I feel that this is this is mass bigger than the original Any other commissioners want to chime in? Yeah, uh, well the issue with me is that most of it is is um unseen It's just the the portion the small portion of it that you can see from the driveway and if That even this small portion you can see from the driveway does not cause me um too much alarm except for the the contemporary look but um If they if they are able to move it five to seven feet to the east, I think I will feel better about it As far as the um massing of the property Again, most of it is hidden any way. Um It just still and as far as the appearance is part of that definition of subordination It only appears that way if you're looking at the plans If you're looking at it from the street, you wouldn't really know how big it is Um, I'm a little torn. I think I will vote in favor of it um Yes, I think I will probably vote in favor Katie um So I think You know for me the size of it isn't as much of an issue is I think that shed roof being the primary or tallest roof I think is a little odd um to me normally a shed roof Isn't above a gable like this one currently is it's kind of a weird configuration um I would I do think like based on You know information given with the views that I I do think it falls into the category of Subordinate to a certain degree But it would be in my opinion more subordinate if the two-story structure portion of the structure were actually behind the primary structure to allow The part that's most visible from the street to be like the one-story portion of the structure I think would kind of help in some of that, but um I don't know that it's Not supported it to the point where I wouldn't Support it based on that but I do feel like this shed roof is more my My concerns than the actual size of the structure. It's the the roof lines that I'm thinking are a little odd for me um Could you support the proposal as it's currently Before us I I think I could um, but I would If they would if they'd be willing to reconsider the the roof lines, I'd actually be More happy with that, but I could support it. Um, if it came to a vote How about Laura? Um I have a tough time supporting it as is for both the massing reason and the roof line reason that we've talked about here And I'm and appreciate what you're doing here about adding more housing off-street parking. Um, and I'm curious what the design creatives in the room could do to help sort of meet Both the programmatic requirements and help the Form feel like it fits better with the existing structure in the neighborhood Wanda Well, I'd like to um Make sure I compliment what was done to the original portion Um Because you know my my thoughts on that roof line is it is um a bit bizarre As a compliment to what's already been done on the front and this whole issue About Um being covered, you know, again I brought up the seasonal issue that coverage is not going to go with our seasons There's going to be a time where it's not um, and I also think I could accept It better on if it was moved more Uh, as they said it could possibly be so Um, but that roof line Um, there's a bit bizarre for the beauty that they have put in front of it already. So Uh, I That is my concern Thank you Wanda tom Time you there. I was apparently not here. Um, I'm hearing Four At least four Fairly significant concerns Um about the adu um And I'm always cautious to put a case to a vote that might not succeed In the implications that has for when The application could be resubmitted This might be a question for krista. Is it possible to Obviously with the consent of the applicant to consider those portions of An application that relate to the primary structure And excise from the application those portions that deal with the accessory structure And essentially continue discussion of the accessory structure until such later time as perhaps The structure could be redesigned whether that's Moving it change in that roof line that is causing concern Um, is it possible to bifurcate? I guess the application into the portions dealing with the primary structure from those dealing with the accessory structure or Alternatively, if we think it makes sense to give the applicant an additional opportunity to make some revisions to the accessory structure to simply continue The entire application to some way to turn Krista kukrasity attorney's office. Um I certainly think that the commission could hear testimony about The primary structure today and and kind of deliberate on that. I think the dilemma is You know, the the commission isn't going to issue two different certificates of appropriateness. And so You know for the applicant's sake having that discussion today could sort of Give them a sense of what the commission might do in terms of that primary structure But they wouldn't get an approval necessarily today upon which they could then act So I just threw that out there for But the applicant and the commission's consideration in terms of what it might want to do Timing wise That's helpful. Is that into your question? It does. Um, and with that in mind, let me turn back to the applicant. Um I am as as the Chair of this commission willing to proceed however the applicant would like we can certainly put your case to a vote today Um, you heard through the stroll paul Excuse me straw paul that I conducted that there might not be sufficient support to approve this application Is there a willingness to consider some of the concerns that we've raised today? go back to the drawing board and resubmit the application with some revisions That might make the overall application more palatable to a majority of the commission members Um, I guess I would ask a question. Um In that scenario, what would it look the re-applicate? What would the re-application look like would we be able to salvage our application? And the fees and just basically submit revised drawings I think we're looking at a continuance Right, so it would be the same application that you would make revisions to your current drawings. Um, and it would You'd basically redo redesign your package, but within the same app It would have the same case number and it would be heard. Um, the minimum Continuance is two months minimum So right either two months Right, so we wouldn't be able to hear it next month, but we could hear it. Uh, january I'm sorry, wait won't go to november. It could go to december Um, or january I just wanted to ask that question. It looks like brandon might want to say something How to put you on the spot just look like you're about to talk Thanks, I really appreciate all of the feedback from the commission on this and the shed roof Was not a light decision. It really does accommodate the square footage Needed to have any sort of a livable dwelling at under 800 square feet If that were a gable roof It actually pushes the Foundation out several feet in both directions in order to get headroom in that second floor So I just want the commission to know that we agree with you in terms of your evaluation That it it's not a perfect match with the neighborhood But given the constraints, uh for headroom In those rooms above the garage and things like that It really was the only feature that we could come up with to to accommodate that um, I would We are very ready and willing to consider shifting that adu to the east to to push that Shed roof back behind the front elevation of the original structure. I think that that's a that would be a great compromise position um I'm a little of course, we'll do what we need to do to uh To accommodate the concerns and if that's a two-month continuance and a redesign that's expensive Both in terms of time and money on a project that already has a lot of consideration invested in it If we could do a straw pole About moving that structure the adu to the east eight feet something like that that would Help to hide that roof that would be my preference Although I don't want to get a no vote. So I appreciate y'all's positions. I agree with them And uh, want to to find a compromise where we can move forward and I'll be happy Well, I look I'm I'm more than happy to see whether or not that one adjustment Shifting the footprint of the adu You know up to eight feet to the east would be sufficient to garner significant um or scoomy sufficient support From the commission I'll I'll start with tad and and jonathan who I think express the strongest concerns to see whether or not Chair bouchard, I have a quick question for before we do the straw pole for the architect um I just have a design question if that Is it possible to do a low a low um A low profile um a low pitch um Hip roof for that for that roof above the garage. Would that still give you the height you need? Um, well, I think So you're introducing um two slopes instead of one with a Gable roof so it actually pushed the peak Would make it taller So to me that works against the subordinate requirement all right So we're already at the minimum head height up there All right. Thank you Chad and jonathan would shifting the footprint be sufficient to garner your support Everyone will first Okay, I'll start jonathan down It's going to be reluctant. Yes. Well, I'll say yes If not not happy. I also think that half of the second floor is a porch is an outside porch The roof line above it makes it much bigger than what would have been without a roof line But I'm I'm also reluctant to to give any advice on design. I don't think that's our position and I don't think we should do any of that Uh, yes, if it would be hidden more behind, um because of the The the east side is great is beautiful so much thought into it and and and this feels like that In a way it can ruin the whole picture of when you look at it from the from the area on Wall Street, which is the entrance to the house. That's my biggest fear But again, you're you're nice people. You've did a great job done a great job. So yes, I will Chad but it'd be I think I should know you're you're on mute Yeah, I the way I read the criteria I I just don't think this particular roof line and massing works Let's move on to april I would probably vote yes on on be on be premised that Um, even though the massing doesn't seem to work um That it wouldn't be highly it wouldn't be visible the appearance of the massing Will be hidden Thank you Katie um I just have one so with the driveway s curve into the I just i'm Eight feet's a long way for a single car garage door. That's probably only eight feet wide to begin with So, I mean it's fine. I think I could vote yes I'm just concerned about like a verbal agreement to this thing and is it actually still functional for the driveway? Um, not that that's really our purview. I guess if they have a non-functional drive really it's not our thing but To make a verbal agreement right now and then have them have to come back. Um, I would just Make sure they Agree that it'll still be functional. Um, but yeah, I think I agree With April and I also think I need the architect on the commission to give me a lesson in roof lines and how these work because Like the architects that come before us make these, you know statements and I just I sometimes like geometry wise don't understand them. So, um That would be uh car life. We can get training in the future on how roof lines work That would be nice for me as a landscape architect who doesn't have to deal with roofs Um, but yeah, I think if it's uh more hidden behind the primary structure I'd be willing to approve Laura um It's I'm having a hard time getting excited about the massing and the roof shape Regardless of whether it's visible or not and I'm in the local review criteria trying to understand Where that comes from and there are two things here that apply for new structures, um to be design New accessory structures to be clearly subordinate to the primary structure and for me the massing negates this This to do and then new structures 3b design elements design roof forms to be compatible with contributing structures in the district and Even yeah, shift it over or not. I think we're still not there With this guideline. So I'm a no at this point Can I can I jump in before you say no because there's something that I think we need to take into consideration and I agree with you totally I said from the beginning about the massing uh tad Wanda, um the The issue here is the primary structure that is very small And we have we have we have to deal also with neighborhoods that have very tiny houses Usually lower income or or mid to lower income and they have to deal now with criteria That when we have a house on club olivar and they add 2000 square feet because they have a primary structure that's 3000 square feet so I I feel that if we are able to read between the lines and play with the massing and understanding so there's no We don't want a 3000 square foot house come back and say hey wait a second We have a president presidents here. We can build 3000 square foot house Usually we will just tuck it behind and it's uh, and you you give an okay before this situation, I think we There's a reason why we can I at least I'm able to shift to the yes As long as it's not really seen and pronounced from the street because we have to keep the integrity of the historic uh, uh, of the present the store presence of this house So that's where I am and where I'm jumping in and I'm sorry I do that sometimes but I feel that here that there's There's a good reason to do so Yeah, thanks, jonathan, and I um Totally agree with you in spirit. I think it's a little bit tricky here And then we've got a small original structure. That's one bedroom We are trying to add a three bedroom plus one car garage plus two bath accessory structure on a very small lot and it chromatically is asking a lot of the accessory structure um Maybe there's a magical way using good design to make it happen. But yeah, I I I get what you're saying in In spirit, um, and it makes total sense to me too Wanda We'd simply shifting be sufficient to garner your support. I just unmuted. I wasn't paying attention. I'm sorry on the mute issue um, I think the intent was magical and so I'll go with the magic of hoping that it will be shifted as much as possible I agree with katie totally on missing our Our commissioner who could tell us a little bit more about the roof today We'll have to tell him about that. Um, but Um, I think if it's shifted it will help during some seasons so In lieu of that only in some seasons and I'm in that area a lot So when all of your leaves are gone, I'm gonna say what did I do? But I could support it Tom we haven't heard from you. We would like to provide some input on this issue before we move along for for the record, um And I'm not trying to be contrarian. I'm gonna have I think trouble supporting the proposal even with an eight-foot shift I'm concerned that There's a precedent. Uh, there would be a precedent said here. Um And I'm not convinced that the adu is currently designed as clearly uh, subordinate, um to the primary structure and so um I I understand the programmatic, um decisions that have been made. Um in why a garage might be um, preferable why, um Uh, porches on the upper level might be preferable and like jonathan said, I don't think it's really our purview to say how folks should or shouldn't design structures But those design decisions I think have increased the massing of the building and Um, I'm a little bit concerned about the presidential value of approving. Um, this adu would have on on, you know, our future work. And so That that's kind of where we're at. I there may be sufficient support. Uh, if solely, um, you know, a footprint shift is is what's being contemplated here, but Uh, to the extent there is a desire to to look again at some of the programmatic decisions and design decisions I think there's probably an opportunity to to garner additional support Um, if if some additional changes are made, um But with that, I think it probably does make sense to, um entertain a motion to continue presuming the applicant is prepared to Make at least the one adjustment that we've talked about. Um shifting the adu footprint by eight feet If the applicant is, uh, prepared to accept the continuance, uh, we can certainly move to to do so I guess my question is, um The continuance does that mean it's like a conditional approval and it's continued Um, to the point where I submit a new site plan showing that the adu has been shifted Or are we talking about the two month wait period? Carl Yeah, so it it is new materials. You'll Change you'll revise your design that includes the site plan elevations All of your materials will need to match whatever the new design is. Um, and we're saying new design You obviously don't have to change everything about the structure. There's key Um parts of it that I hear were supported by our commissioners, but um to address their concerns You'll need to revise Some portions of the application and then you'll submit those new materials to our department And it'll have the same case number. There's no additional fee incurred. Um, but there is a two month Continuance at a minimum to allow for my review And a new staff report Basically a revised staff report And it won't need new advertising, but it will Post the agenda as a as a revised case as a continued case Is that clear? Yeah, and just a quick follow-up question. Um So the the alternative is to go ahead and vote now and risk a no vote and that would Bring about a new a completely new application Yes, it would need to be substantially changed and that right now you can tweak it Um and get it but get a good idea first from the commission about how much tweaking is needed to ensure a positive outcome Um at your continuance But if you were to just go ahead with a vote now you do risk It not being approved And then you would need to if you ever wanted to come back with a new application It would have to be substantially different Hmm. Um, I guess those are my questions. Um It's a lot to put on Brandon and Jody. So I'll see if they have anything to say about that um, it's uh disappointing To hear this result from this hearing. I think we put a lot of time and effort into accommodating um The historic restoration and creating a livable space On a very small property um, I think mark's been exceedingly thoughtful about that and working within parameters that meet code uh and Aesthetic preference for no shed roof seems, uh A lot to accommodate However, uh, I personally believe in your work. I believe that you help contribute to our hometown and the integrity of historic neighborhoods and so I would be willing to uh go back with mark and Try to tweak the design on a continuance basis because I want your full support with this project um It's a disappointment though. I have to say that um, I I think that we've been very thoughtful about these things. Um, but uh If I get a nod from both jody and mark that Tweaking the current design and entering a two-month continuous process is what they would also agree to I'd be willing to do it Yeah, I'm willing to as well. And um, I just Bring it home about the so yeah, this This case is a precedent and I hope it's also a precedent to Um Really exploring the definition of subordinate for how it's stated and that it is about appearance um, that's the definition specifies appearance and it's only Um mention of dimension is that you can't take one dimension and and judge it from one dimension It's got to be taken as a whole Um, so not arguing against your your findings But I think it's an interesting an interesting Dimension of subordination To to consider and and some lots are very unique like this one and that You know the vantage is really skewed from common viewing angles Um, so I'll leave it at that and I agree with brandon. Thank you brandon It's you all are doing very good important work, and I appreciate your work as well Yeah please thank you tom Miller is here and I I think that a lot will have a a recollection I think there is precedence and I'm shooting myself like no one will like me after this. I think there is precedence on club boulevard It was a 1100 square foot house on 2308 if i'm not mistaken That had an addition of 3000 square foot and the reason for that precedence was that they wanted to demolish the fund and the If this is all of my recollection is correct me and what happened was the when there was a compromise And the compromises know the militia and they added that addition in the back So if i'm wrong then then i'm wrong, but if not I think that we A second look here should be given to Oh Go ahead carl. Sorry just just to clarify that was an addition and there is a square footage criterion for additions Where there isn't for 80 us, but that was the previous criteria So just want to clarify that Would someone like to make a motion to continue? I'm so moved. Is there a wording for that? I moved to continue case number Coa 2 1 0 0 0 6 4 And do I have do I need to give a date specific? I yeah to december 7th to um december 7th Second And miss holmes click holmes we could please have a roll call vote on the motion to continue Yes, who was second? That was me. Okay chair bouchard All right All right chair bouchard Yes Commissioner day in yes Commissioner de barry. Yes Commissioner fieselman. Yes Commissioner hamilton Yes Commissioner johnson. Yes Commissioner craig Commissioner waiters Yes Motion passes seven to zero Well, thank you all for your patience and for your understanding and your hard work And we look forward to seeing you again here in a couple of months and Hearing what changes you've made and and and hopefully garnering enough support for the proposal to be Acceptable to this commission All right. Thank you Thank you If we could Do a five minute recess would everyone be amenable to that? Perfect. Let's try to be back at 1045 As we return Individuals who are signed up for case coa 210067 we are bringing you in right now so You may be receiving requests to accept as a panelist Please do so I would ask that commission members as you return if you could go ahead and put your cameras on so I know that you are back To add in jonathan when you come back if you could please turn your cameras on so that we know that you are here Apparently is not yet the case Yeah, it won't let me turn my camera on says the host has to open up Hmm Chris can you uh Yeah, I think your camera is left on so I turned it off during the break. So you should be able to go Sorry about the head tide. Welcome back commissioner de verre All right, uh, jonathan tom Can you turn your cameras on if you're back here? Yeah, all right terrific I believe we are ready to proceed now with our next case on the agenda. This is coa 210067 1108 alabama avenue new construction of accessory structure and Chris have you brought in all of the I believe all who are registered are in they just need to turn on their cameras, please If you are in the attendee panel and you wish to join Please raise your hand if you're calling by phone. We do have one caller Please press star nine if you intend to join for case 210063 Thank you All right, I see miss fellows Uh, miss rickford. Am I pronouncing that correctly? Okay, um, and I see Mr. Wilson Mr. Wilson can turn on this camera Well, while we're waiting for that to happen if we could um go ahead miss holmes and proceed with swearing in of our witnesses All right Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give in the public hearing proceedings For today's case the truth by your own knowledge or by information and belief David parker. I do Uh, miss rickford. Yes. Yes, sorry Uh, miss fellows. Yes And Mr. Wilson Maybe need to come back to mr. Wilson If he speaks if I could also ask each of you to confirm that you consent to this hearing Proceeding today use using this electronic virtual platform Yes Yes And miss fellows If you get a mute, please Yes Wonderful Thank you all very much. Let us proceed then with the staff report This is case coa 21 00067 1108 alabama avenue new construction of an accessory structure The applicant is riverbank custom homes represented by fletcher wilson The owner jane fellows is located on the east side of alabama avenue between west clubblvard and inglewood avenue Zoned residential suburban eat and it's a non contributing structure within the historic the rottstown down historic district So the applicant is proposing to construct a new accessory structure That will be used as an adu. I'd like to Enter the staff report into the record and ask mr. Wilson to present his case Um, carla. I'm not registered. I actually sent a note Indicating I was gonna present Okay, I missed that so Is that okay? Parker, please present your case Okay Thank you. Um Good morning. My name is david parker. I am representing the applicant riverbank custom homes And we are here seeking approval of the proposed accessory structure and 1108 alabama avenue In the what's hill and dale historic district I also have the good fortune of being a neighbor of the property and owner jane fellows The primary structure at 1108 alabama avenue is a simple 1,300 square foot brick ranch with a dump ship roof Built in 1961 The property is classified as not contributing according to the what's on the preservation plan Despite carrying no official designation of significance We recognize the architectural value of style House of the american dream And its contribution to the diversity of housing Within this district thus We've submitted an accessory structure design inspired by the primary dwelling here 1108 Replace the new structure completely behind the primary structure to limit visibility from the street The one-story height shorter ridge peak And two foot lower grade Front of the new structures compared to the front existing all contribute to experiencing the accessory structure as clearly I hope clearly subordinate In form we chose to echo features such as the roof windows and doors We sought to match the foundation brick to that of the existing structure But are proposing to deviate materially in regards to the site We're introducing a horizontal lap for the main body Of the structure with a section of cedar single accent Each a common cladding throughout what's on them We thought that pivoting from the from the brick veneer of the primary structure Would help clearly distinguish the original from the new While providing a complementary aesthetic As for the site There's thoughtful consideration and design and placement of the new structure To preserve and better experience the back portion Of the lot which is quite unique given its Narrow but deep orientation And it's about a tenth of an acre there of wooded area containing over 20 trees and made that just a greater diameter And vehicular access is being modified by extending the gravel driveway And introducing a rear parking pad of concrete pavers That material is intended to better harmonize with the natural environment And I noticed in the right of specific to that driveway there was a Reference to the driveway being extended 971 linear feet That would be a really long driveway So that the plans actually said square feet. So obviously the site plan shows you there How long it's being extended So we hope you'll find that this proposed accessory structure in the right alabama Consider it of its surroundings and respectful to the district as a whole and Welcome any comments or questions Thank you so much mr. Parker. Do any of the other Uh folks who have signed up as potential speakers wish to add anything to mr. Parker's remarks Parker looks like you covered it. Um any commissioners have any questions for Mr. Parker at this time scrolling through to see if I Come across any hands raised Or any microphones coming off I do not see any Is there anyone else present during this hearing who would like to speak for or against this case Hearing from and seeing none. We will close the public hearing and discuss amongst commissioners I guess I'll get it started. Um Back-to-back cases involving ad use um Speaking just for myself it appears to me that this meets our uh criteria Um looks like great care was taken in making sure that the Uh accessory unit would be Clearly subordinate to and consistent with Um the primary structure. Um, and so I don't have any concerns about it. Um, does anyone have any concerns about the application or any of its details Okay, Matt, I don't have a concern either, but I I'd like to congratulate the The applicant and the construction company. I think this clearly Meets our criteria and is what? Um was envisioned when the criteria was written Thank you And I like to echo what the barrier commissioner bouchard's commissioners the barrier and bouchard spoke, I think it was It doesn't give me an ease So thank you I have a question. I Everything as well. Um, the question is for carla There's for some reason lighting signage and art was put into the Poor process There was no staff accommodation. I don't think there's anything related, but I just want to make sure we didn't miss anything Is the applicant proposing any lighting on the accessory structure Uh-huh No We'll have some lighting per code outside of the entry doors Yeah, that's that's what I thought. So, um, if we could discuss that during this hearing Um, so that we can ensure that it could be incorporated in your c way. Otherwise it would require a separate c way Is there not a um Lighting like fixtures in that packet. I've got it in mind. Yeah, there is it looks like a arts and crafts version of a mysterious light There is and are you able to hear me? mm-hmm I had this fletcher wilson with riverbank I had a little bit of a Computer issue there earlier. I apologize Hey, mr. Wilson before you speak. This is chair bouchard. We do need to follow the formalities here and make sure that you're properly sworn in And so I would ask Clerk Holmes to go ahead and and swear you in all right Do you swear or affirm at the testimony you are about to give in the public hearing proceedings for today's case the truth by your own Knowledge or by information and belief I do And mr. Wilson, I take it you consent to Proceeding using this remote virtual platform today I do great. Please proceed Yeah, I mean the exterior lights are really just the one you see there and that would be part of the screen of gorge on the back of the house and then an exterior Can light under the the front porch And that really is all the exterior lighting So they would be included in these elevations um We can we can revise the um Elevation just include that if it gets approved then you would just need to add that to the elevation Yeah, it would just be a part of that um screen and porch Any other comments from commissioners Before we ask carla for a staff recommendation Seeing hearing none carla, can we please have a staff recommendation? Carla Rosenberg planning department staff would recommend approval of the application Wonderful. Thank you Can I have a motion, please? I can do it. Um, give me a minute Go down here. The Durham Historic Preservation Commission finds that in the case of COA 2 1 0 0 0 6 7 11 0 8 alabama avenue new construction of accessory new construction of accessory structure The applicant is proposing to construct a one-story accessory structure intended to be used as an accessory dwelling unit at the rear of the Of a knock attributing primary structure The accessory structure will measure 716 square feet and footprint and one foot in less And one foot less in height than the primary structure The construction materials will include concrete masonry unit Cm new foundation walls with brick veneer horizontal cementitious fiberboard lap siding Cedar shakes a natural wood six by six Column six inch by six inch column fiberglass screening wood composite trim fiberglass clad wood windows and doors a modern modern standing seam metal metal roof asphalt roof shingles and pressure treated wood decking The existing gravel driveway will be extended 971 linear feet towards the adu and a 216 square foot concrete paver parking pad installed in the rear yard Therefore the conclusion of law is that the proposed addition and alterations are consistent with the historic character and qualities of the historic district and are consistent with the historic property's local review criteria Specifically those listed in a staff report and the Durham Historic Preservation Commission approves the certificate of appropriateness for case Coa 2 1 0 0 6 7 11 0 8 Alabama Avenue new construction construction of a sensory structure with the following conditions The improvements shall be substantially consistent with the plans and testimony presented to the commission at this commission hearing and the attached and attached to this c oa The improvements may require additional approvals from other city or county departments or state or local agencies The applicant is responsible for obtaining all required approvals relating to building construction site work and work in the right of way And a compliant suspension shall be performed immediately upon completion of the work approved hearing I've done Did you get that second to you? Thank you. You're my dear We're gonna have a roll call vote I have a question. I'm sorry. I don't have the second page the page 44 of the motion 900th feet driveway Yes, it says 971 later your feet towards the 80s It's square feet. He brought that up at the beginning. It's 971 square feet. So we correct that Yeah Did that get caught did I You corrected that to square feet Okay, we'll we'll correct that in the motion on this all right Ms. Holmes if we get a roll call vote, please all right Chair bouchard approved Commissioner day in group Commissioner de bairie proved Commissioner fissleman correct Commissioner hamilton approved Commissioner johnson approved Commissioner craigar I was absent for that kiss all right Commissioner waiters approved Motion passes passes seven to zero Thank you all very much Really a nice job here with the design and concept for this adu and good luck with the project Thank you all so much very much. Thank you We are now paired I think to move on to The final case on our agenda for today's meeting This is coa 2100068501 washington street demolition of accessory structures We have A number of attendees slated here Looks like Chris is working to bring them in miss hoffman Good morning Mr. Kurtz Good morning Mr. Miller good to see you again Good morning And it looks like mr. O'leary is still working to get the camera up and his camera is up If we could Clerk Holmes swear in the witnesses All right Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give in the public hearing proceedings for today's case the truth by your own knowledge or by information and belief I do I do I do Couldn't hear you there. Mr. O'leary you are unmuted, but I do not hear any volume Well, let's come back to mr. O'leary and while we are waiting Let's go ahead and Make sure that the other presenters consent to Proceeding with this hearing using this electronic and virtual Facility if I could hear from miss hoffman first I do Mr. Kurtz Yes, I do Mr. Miller I do And mr. O'leary you back I think so and I do Great, and if we can also now Confirm that you accept the oath I do. Thank you. Wonderful All right. I believe we are Prepared to move forward with a staff report Hey, carlo rosenberg planning department. This is case ceo a 21 00068 501 washington street demolition of accessory structures The applicant is steve vinson the owner magnolia fire tower place llc It's located on the northwest quadrant of the intersection of washington street and west corporation street Zoned downtown design support one and this is a historic landmark not in a district. It's the city garage and fire tower So I'd like to introduce this staff report into the record and invite the applicant to present this case Oh, and I would also like to note if if you are able to give page numbers. Um, if you're able to access Via our agenda page this application that will help in My scrolling through this application to the page that I'll do my best Well, good morning, and thank you for the staff report. My name is cindy hoffman I'm a professional landscape architect representing the applicant of the 501 washington street property i'm a licensed landscape architect north calina with over 20 years experience and a senior project manager at stewart in durham Also speaking a little bit later today will be nathan olegary an environmental consultant with over 15 years of national experience And project manager with park hickman and charlotte We are here today requesting a major certificate of appropriateness for demolition of accessory structures And additions to the primary structure on 501 washington street property and downtown durham We've got the existing site plan up and showing the buildings highlighted to be demolished The project site is located on 2.78 acres And is a prominent visible site at the corner of washington and west corporation streets and adjacent East of the existing abandoned railroad and future durham belt line The site um is part of the foster and west gear street national historic district The city garage building and the fire drill tower are listed as local historic landmarks The city place complex was developed over a 70 year period of time during the 20th century City garage and the fire tower drill A fire tower were originally constructed during the 1920s Significant modifications were made to the site during the 1940s through the 1990s as new accessory buildings were constructed In addition to the city garage building were added There are a total of seven um buildings on site Based on the 1999 landmark application Three of those are non-contributing buildings or structures being the signal shop Let's take that there The metal shop and the pole shed building which is Covered parking There are also four contributing buildings or structures the former employee's restroom The signs and marking shop The city garage building And the local fire tower The overall character um today the city garage building houses various commercial uses including shops restaurants and professional offices The accessory buildings on site behind city garage have undersized footprints and limited window openings The signal shop which was the former board of elections Building adjacent to corporation street has interior low ceilings and structural cinder block walls dividing the building into multiple small spaces They're extremely challenging to modify and contributing to the building's outdated functional use The accessory buildings were constructed with their back to the railroad or future belt line property The ad hoc nature of the building complex on site Has multiple material types and architectural styles not in keeping with the primary historic structures So we're here today for the certificate of appropriate application proposing demolition to five of the structures And two of the additions on the city place garage The structures have been heavily modified After the period of significance or continued public health nuisance Three of the non contributing structure buildings and two are contribute contributing structures Which are include the one non conforming structure The pole shed covered parking The two non contributing buildings The signal shop and metal shop They have no historic value Um, and then the two contributing buildings the signs and marking shop Which has been significantly modified with the ashore pavers of which the applicant has is proposing to maintain and salvage and also the former employee's bathroom It has in addition to the The ashore pavers it has new materials of steel doors lock and windows and modern light fixture Can you scroll through some of the photos, please? And we'll look at some of those building. There's the employees for employees restroom. You can see the metal doors um next photo And the black windows it does have the use of a reuse of the ashore pavers that were once a part of the Durham streets And applicant is proposing to reuse those And then this other contributing building um Well, this is the i'm sorry The addition that we're gonna get to in just a minute. Let's get back to the bathrooms. I'm sorry They're not in the order that I was going to so a lot of these Then the other contributing building is the employee's bathroom Again with the steel doors block windows and modern light fixtures It has significant mold issues Um, and I think there's some photos of there the interior the last page maybe of the photos shows the mold I'm sorry there they are existing conditions of the uh former employee's bathroom has significant mold issues and a mold report survey has been prepared and at this time Nathan O'Leary an environmental consultant with heart and Hickman will address the bathroom issues Good morning everybody and I appreciate the opportunity here. Um As was alluded we did complete a indoor air quality and mold survey In relation to this particular structure And I mean even without, you know our specific findings. I think it's it's fairly evident that there is some water damage In this structure, which is creating the the molds for issue One of the components of the mold survey we complete is mold, you know cannot grow without a moisture source So one of the first things we try to do is to identify where the moisture is coming from And in this particular structure it looks like there was multiple contributing factors and The first one it appears that they even though it's a somewhat newer membrane roof It does appear that the roofing systems are leaking somewhat substantially um, and You know exactly where it's coming from on the roof is not certain but looking at the roof decking It's pretty evident that just by the amount of water damage and damage to the wood material There is a water issue coming from the roof Um a second issue we identified was on the actual exterior of the building as well in the uh brick grout The grout has some fairly significant cracking Enduring precipitation events, you know, that does provide pathways for moisture to enter the wall cavities And then not sufficiently dry out which can lead to the proliferation of mold spores Um, and then the third um somewhat significant moisture source we believe is when we were doing the indoor air quality surveys The relative humidity Inside the structure was higher than what is typically recommended and it was up over 70 And uh, so this this doesn't allow the building materials to dry out sufficiently Um, and that moisture just kind of sits there. Um, and that also can contribute to mold spore proliferation um And so our findings were kind of consistent with this water issue. We did have a number of Mold genre that indicate water damage Um, specifically, uh, there's two spores called aspergillus and penicillium Um, they typically won't be found in indoor environments unless there is some water damage present and Once there's water present Building materials such as wood and sheet rock Insulation those sort of things provide a carbon source So with water appropriate temperature and that carbon source it it allows that mold to proliferate The other significant finding was that we did see um spores of stachy botchers in in Interior spaces and that's concerning aspergillus or excuse me stachy botchers does have Kind of the reputation it's it's better known as black mold And this is what leads to the common building sickness syndrome Um, so, you know different people react differently to it, but it can cause fairly significant alert allergic reactions to people that are sensitive to those spores And then you know part of the mold survey there's not I guess what you would call like regulatory standards for for us, you know fungal spores So what you'd like to do is compare what's inside to what is in the natural environment And um because of the time of year that this was conducted There is a lot of just natural mold spores in the air And one of the main ones was the city of spores Which can also be an indicative of moisture inside building materials and it wasn't viewed inside at comparable concentrations Um But the big difference was is that um the spores I previously mentioned aspergillus and penicillium They were present in outdoor air, which is expected as they occur naturally However, they're at significantly lower counts Roughly outside, you know in that maybe the less than 1000 score counts In an interior we are seeing that score count up over 32 000 score counts per area So it it just Kind of is another line of evidence that there is a moisture issue that there is a significant mold issue And it's not really safe in its current condition for occupation Thank you If you can go to the additions on the city garage now photos So in addition to the accessory structures on site, there are two additions There's the first one um that have been added to the city garage building This first one is built in 1955. It's two-story addition to the rear of city garage It includes residential siding modern storefront windows and patent CMU block It's out of scale with the primary structure of the city garage and The ash or paver. I think there's some on the other side if you go to next photo It's proposed to be salvaged. There's some of them on that backside there um Although that portion with the cover There will be maintained, but there's some over on the other side of the building The other addition proposed to be Removed is on the north side of city garage And it's the radio room Going There we are you can see the appendage on the right left side It's on the north side of the city garage building It was built in 1965 as a radio room addition It's painted CMU block windows do not match the primary structure It has a residential Appearance and is out of character with the primary structure The applicant proposes to demolish these five accessory Buildings and structures in two additions to city place garage site And excuse me and salvage the ash or pavers for reuse for use on future The city garage and the fire drill tower are to remain and in summary And in the spirit of the site's history of change and adaptation for different uses over time We are seeking to modify the site to correspond with the neighborhood's evolution into a mixed use residential retail restaurant and entertainment destination Modification of the site uses will allow for better integration with the city's plans of the abandoned railroad and the future belt law Along the properties western frontage In addition, we propose removing all accessory buildings and structures on site allowing for the addition of a new building That will address the belt line with an appropriate frontage and more harmonious with two primary historic structures We're committed to reusing the granite ash or pavers as part of the future design of the site continuing the legacy of reuse A separate coa or certificate of appropriateness will be submitted Or a new structure to support the preservation of the two contributing buildings city garage and the fire drill tower We also request the reduction of the 365 day delay period be minimized for the beneficial use of the site We appreciate your time and consideration of the major certificate of appropriateness for demolition of the outlined accessory structures in addition And we'll be glad to answer any questions the commission may have Regarding this this request. Thank you Thank you for that presentation. I'm going to go ahead and exercise a little Chair prerogative here and just ask a couple of questions just to make sure That I and my colleagues understand which buildings are which With respect to the marked up demolition plan if we could just maybe quickly go through the pictures one more time and tie those to the Demolition plan that would be helpful So the demolition plan carl is on page 10 of 52 okay so the where the pointer is The arrow right now that you're pointing to the long yes that building that is the signal shop That's a non-contributing building It has a low ceiling samu blocks Are you able to give me a page number and I can switch to that photo? Um, I don't have that okay hold on um I might carla. I think it's page 12 of 52 if i'm sure i'm taken There we go Okay, we got that one okay The next one to the north Is the signs and marking shop? That is listed as a contributing building because of the ashore blocks um Is that page 20 of 52? Let's see Yes, yes, okay And you can see it's got some block windows storefront windows Doors and um partial ashore block Stone their neighbors Okay, if we go back 10 That is the metal shed. It is a non-contributing Um building it has no historic value Um is that 13 of 52 22 uh I think it's okay. Yes, that's a shed. Okay Thank you I want to go. Yes. There we go. That is the pole shed Uh, it's covered parking It is also non-contributing Okay, I know which one that is okay, um You want to give me the page number for that just for the record. Yep 25 of 52 We can come if you guys south of the pole shed. This is the first of the addition of the radio room 1965 edition Nothing. That was one of the last images photos. Yep. I think it's pages 23 and 24 Okay The next edition is on the back the two-story Edition on the back of City garage was built in 1955 I don't have a page. I think it's 17 and 18 here. There's part of it. There's one side of it from the back side and then one Next one should the other side And then the last one is the small building there to the south is the employee former employee's bathroom that was built with the um actual pavers from the former Durham streets We're proposing to salvage Also has the steel doors lock windows and modern modern white fixtures and as you've heard is um Has significant mold issues Okay, um one last question just so i'm clear. I think I now understand. Um Page 13 of 52 is just the right hand side of the First building that we looked at right the former board of elections building Um, can you go to page 13? Let me see what that is Correct. Okay, wonderful. All right. I think I've got it straight now. I hope the other commissioners do as well And with that I will open up the floor to other commissioners who may have questions for the applicant I assume you're going to come back to us with Plans to fill in Where you've torn things down Yes, there will be a separate Uh certificate of appropriateness for proposed Building that will address the belt line and be more complimentary to the city garage What steps will be taken to preserve those granite pavers? Um, if demolition proceeds before You're ready to construct on the site They would have to clean them to get the mortar off and then store them Until reuse and the construction of the new project Are there current storage plans? Is there a facility identified or a location identified? Um, Jeff would you like to speak? Hey, good morning. This is Jeff Kurtz. I work with the development team We're still identifying exactly which contractor we would work with that would be part of the specifications that we would put into their contract Is to remove all of those clean them and then store them off site safely until they're ready to be incorporated into the design So until we have the contractor identified, there's no specific storage location Determined Thank you other commissioners Um, I have one question. Do you know how you will use the pavers? Um, or is that still something in question? It's still preliminary, but then the intent at the time is to restore them into some type of roadway pavers Right back to the original design intent of how they were originally used Thank you Are they pavers or are they the granite curbs that have been cut into blocks? Or do you know? It's my understanding. They're the pavers that were Part of the original darn streets that they then used on the accessory buildings Other commissioners with questions for the applicant Okay, uh, don't think that okay don't think go for it so What I understand is no plans are yet. Uh, you don't have any plans yet for a new construction or anything Other than and you're you're you will be moving for the later In the future to do that correct What is so Why do you want to demolish it right now? Um, understanding there's um A time period and we're asking that it not be 365 day delay But just thinking we need to get this in the process As soon as possible so that we couldn't move forward with Understanding that we do have a project to move forward with So why are you asking for a 300 uh to shorten the 365 days? Excuse me. I Yeah, go ahead. Do you mind if I jump in? No, please Just to clarify so we have actually submitted a second a site plan Coa for the construction of a new building on the site That was submitted We have not received any comments back but the plans are progressing They're relatively kind of schematic as we expect to receive some comments back from the hpc regarding those plans But we are moving forward with the design anticipated construction for middle of next year And you know based off of our permitting process We're looking at beginning construction somewhere around summer or early q3 of 2022 So that was submitted with an architect correct? That is correct the architect has submitted those plans steward and is the landscape architect on that So we have submitted the coa number two. I think that just went in late last month So before when I think it was mark brashard. He asked about use of the of the pavers Maybe I missed something there Is it is it good? Where's the use the reuse of the pavers for the after the militia? The reuse of the pavers are anticipated to be within the site paving materials So we're looking at Using these granite cobblestones that were originally part of the street paving around the area To bring them back in to create a space in between the existing city garage building and propose new construction We're creating what would be a pedestrian walkway and an access alley through that site and we're proposing at this point to reuse the stone structures for that paving material Thank you Any other commissioners with questions for the applicants? Okay, hearing no other questions. I would like to give mr. Miller an opportunity to provide Whatever evidence he has in opposition to the application Thank you, mr. Chairman. I appreciate that. Good morning everyone My name is tom miller and i'm the president of Preservation Durham, which is the trade name for the historic preservation society of Durham the I am a licensed attorney and have been for 40 years In my professional career. I was the head of the attorney general's real estate section For 30 years I also am A non-professional Architectural historian in the city of Durham and have researched and written about literally dozens and dozens of Durham houses and other structures With regard to preservation Durham preservation Durham is an organization a non-profit organization organized under the laws of north carolina in the mid 1970s Um and our mission of course is to preserve the history and architectural heritage of the city and county of Durham I also want to the make sure that the commission knows that the Preservation Durham has historic preservation covenants on this property They were granted by the city of Durham in 1999 and are recorded in book 2612 page 867 of the Durham county register of deeds The covenants are covenants organized under north carolina general statutes 121-34 um And I lay all that down as a record groundwork for standing in the case Um I ask that the commission take official notice of the landmark status file in the possession of the city of Durham And that you receive that into evidence in this case. It's often referred to It's often referred to in the application and in the staff report I also ask that the board take official notice of the national register nomination For the foster and west gear street national register historic district as it relates to This city garage property Portions of that have also been submitted by the applicant and I would like for All of that document as it relates to this property to be received into evidence in the case and then finally I would ask carla to confirm that in fact a new certificate of Appropriateness application for new construction on this property has been submitted And that at the current time It is anticipated that that will come before the commission At its meeting in december. Is that correct carla? Carlos Rosenberg planning department that is correct. I also want to refer you to The third attachment of the staff report that includes the landmark staff report that you mentioned All right. Thank you very much carla Um so This is a complicated application and and I think during the presentation by the applicant getting Clear in everyone's mind which buildings we're talking about at any given moment is is difficult. I mean we have essentially seven Impacted structures some of them freestanding buildings and a couple of them Are additions and so it becomes difficult at times to to talk about them and to keep what is said In one's memory at all times and so I just wanted to talk about that Preservation Durham is concerned about this property and also it's a historic context One of the things that worries us a little bit in evaluating whether or not The structures on this property should be demolished Is separating those questions from Questions about what will go on the property? What is the overall plan? We realize that these cases don't have to be considered together But they can be considered together and given the complexity of this case and the importance of this property We would like the opportunity As advocates for historic preservation in Durham to for more time to work with these developers about Not only the proposal to demolish buildings on the site in this coa But also to look at the proposal for new buildings on the site and the coa that is coming to you And for that reason and without surrendering the floor at the the current time We request that this case be continued From today's date to november and that would give us more time. So i'll leave that request standing For the board to rule on Uh at the appropriate time Apologize for that So it happens when you turn 65 everybody wants to sell you insurance The I apologize so essentially and to boil it down Preservation Durham Uh wants to be reasonable about the site We agree that the garage building and the tower are the most important historic structures on the site But they are not the only important structures on the site We're worried about their context And we're worried about anything that would diminish the the site as it exists now Um Without having a clear picture of what's coming in the future, but Having said those things if the continuance that we have requested has not been granted This is what our position is with regard to the application First the non contributing uh low building to the rear of the property the sign shop that was uh not long ago The headquarters of the Durham board of elections. We have no objection to the demolition of that property. It's non contributing Second with regard to the non contributing shed roof cement board clad building north of the former boa building which is represented in photograph two we don't object to the demolition of that building Three with regard to the non contributing metal two bay garage shed, which is represented in photograph 11 in the application We do not object to the demolition of that building Likewise, uh with regard to the non contributing pole mounted awning shed That is represented in photograph 14 of the application. We don't object to the demolition of that building Then with regard to the contributing uh small 1965 addition that is depicted in photograph 12 In the application, uh, we do not object to The demolition of that building. However, I do have a question for the applicant concerning the application Um, so, uh, thank you carla for showing the the building in photograph 12 So what is depicted here is the garage building which has the uh, the uh Spanish colonial revival parapet and then extending from it is a one-story brick wing And extending from that is a what appears to be stucco clad Small kind of box Um, it is our understanding from the application What is desired to be demolished is just that stucco clad box and not the The brick extension from the original building. Is that correct? That is correct. Thank you very much jeff. I appreciate that. Um And then finally with regard to the contributing one level building made up partially of granite cobblestones um We do not object to the Uh demolition of that building this building is depicted in the application in photograph number nine that building That building I mean, we have concerns for it and we condition our uh consent to the uh or assent I guess we've not in a position to consent our assent to the demolition of that building based upon the understanding that those Granite pavers will be uh reused appropriately on the site um Now uh with regard to Uh, the remaining buildings that are implicated in this application We uh do object to the demolition of the contributing granite bathroom building which is depicted in photograph number three Uh of the application We'll pause while there it is so that building and um, and we've we we heard that it's it's got a leaky roof and deterioration of its roof deck and that it's got uh moisture infiltration The building is disused. Um And it's one of those things but we also point out that it is a tiny building It is an older building was built in 1940s We think the purpose of this building is especially pertinent to the site And to the history of Durham this building was constructed by the city of Durham So that the city employees who worked at the garage building Uh black and white would not have to share bathroom facilities One of the bathrooms was for black employees. One of the bathrooms Was for white employees Preservation Durham Increasingly is becoming alarmed at the rapidly vanishing uh architectural and historic evidence of the african-american experience in Durham And by way of an illustration for years and years Preservation Durham has done what we call the civil rights tour Uh in the downtown area a walking tour in the downtown area increasingly uh over time and then rapidly increasingly recently It is a tour of buildings that no longer exist And it is worrisome We will note also that what remains of of the history of the african-american experience in Durham It has a tendency not to be grand structures, but Small structures like this with poignant stories We are terribly concerned that this building might be demolished And then the story that it tells erased from Durham's architectural and historic landscape I know that the applicant has suggested that the building Those pavers could be taken down and cleaned and used in pavement I will suggest to the preservation commission That you might as well buy new pavers and use them that would so Divorce the story that this little building tells from What will continue on the site that you might as well just demolish it and forget about it We don't think it should be demolished. We know that this building is smaller than 200 square feet It is a solid masonry building so that on the other side of those pavers are bricks You could completely gut this building Properly waterproof it and roof it and create a new build a a sound building you could remediate All of the moisture infiltration problems and the mold problems With a building this scale it's just not that big a deal We would hate to see this building Leave this site and in consistent with Standards for historic preservation. We think it is best that it be kept in this original location We are open however because we want to be reasonable open to working out a plan perhaps of moving the building Or deconstructing it from out at this site and perhaps moving it to another Site close by on the property and rebuilding it Again, it's a tiny building. It's simple. It's basic. It's just not that big a deal The problem that the Applicants have with the building as it is today is it's in the way I've had an opportunity to review the new application. You have not I realized that We only learned about it friday, but we're grateful that The developers and carl has sent it to us But this building is is in the way and If we can work out a compromise We want to be practical preservationists that the building's story is too important to have it go away And then finally with regard to the addition which is depicted in photograph number six And carl, thank you for scrolling to these photographs Because it makes it so much easier for people to understand what they're talking about. There you go that building and of course there are several photographs This is an addition off the back of the original garage building. This building is built in the middle 1950s We object to the Demolition of this building And but we also have questions about because it's not clear from the application Uh, what is to be demolished? So if I may mr. Chairman may I put a question to the developers? So you ask the question we Thank you very much. So uh, jeff, uh, can you tell me? When when you talk about this addition the original garage city garage building as I understand it was a A building that had kind of a notch in the back of it and that that notch got filled in A shout that shallow notch got filled in in part by the creation of this addition So when when I look at this you can see how The city garage building is shaped and so And when I look at the what is colored red here Which is that uh, uh brick block structure with its connecting wing if that's all that's going to be removed We still we still are nervous about it Are you planning to take more because the discussion of The use and removal of brick pavers of and connected with this demolition is not clear to us Can you confirm that what it what you would like to demolish and what the request pending before the commission today Is just the area that is shaded in red Yes, that is confirmed just the area that is shaded in red is intended to be the most And are there photographs in your application that uh, can help me understand Uh, what brick paving materials, uh, might be removed? No, I don't know that there are photos. Um And can you just describe to me where those brick pavers are And and and how they're implicated in the portion of the building that is depicted in red here Yeah, I guess I apologize. I'm somewhat Confused by by that question Our primary intent was to reuse the cobblestone pavers that are shown elsewhere So if I go ahead and just sort of moderate here if we go to page 19 of 52 carla Is the question where these Um Pavers are in relation to Yes, that's very helpful. We're looking at it at photograph number eight from the application Um And what part of the building depicted in this photograph is to be demolished. That's what we want to be clear about The two-story addition Okay, but not the area of Where the brick pavers has have been used as part of the infill of the notch That's correct. All right. Thank you very much. That's very helpful. Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it um with regard to the two buildings that I've talked about the addition and the Bathroom building that's the position of preservation Durham that a delay of less than 365 days is not appropriate um The criteria for reducing the delay is extreme hardship Or deprivation of all beneficial use of the property Or structures as a result of the delay And I don't think either of those criteria or even closely approached this building is In use now and while the bathroom building has been allowed to deteriorate It has been allowed to deteriorate while under the ownership and control of the of the applicants It's a tiny building. It could easily be put back into some beneficial use The delay would not deny that And so for those reasons again to recap We urge first that the commission continue this case For at least one month so that preservation Durham may work earnestly with the developers and I think it's fair to say I don't want the commission to think that our relationship with these developers is adversarial. It is anything but that We have spoken frankly with the developers and we have shared our relative positions Nobody is surprised by our presentation today We want to work this out. We do see this as a site that needs to be redeveloped But we do think that it should be done That if we can Come together with a developer for a better design for this property In at a a meeting after a reasonable continuance, it's better than imposing a delay It would be better to have no delays imposed at all than imposing a delay today That we would have to undo later In other words, we'd like to try to fix this the problems we see with this property first Before we take action rather than after we take take action. But if that continuance isn't granted We are Not opposing the demolition of the buildings that I described to you But with the exception of the this addition depicted in photograph eight and the bathroom building Which is depicted in photograph three. We think these are important um and To the site and to the story that it tells and to the history of Durham And so We need two months for continuing. I'm sorry. I can't understand you very well We need a two month continuous minimum for continuance two months Well, that's not I appreciate the staff's position, but I know that that's not in the rules um So And we don't want to delay unnecessarily, but if the earliest that the new construction coa is coming is december We don't see the the hurt in it And then I will say mr. Chairman because they're the position that we've taken has lots of parts I have submitted to the applicants and to Ms. Rosenberg Essentially the same thing that I've read to you in written form so that you will not have to rely on Memory of what I've said or the notes that you have made maybe taken in the in the margins of the application document And with that, uh, I appreciate for the the opportunity to appear before you to testify And to state the position of preservation Durham. Thank you Commissioners any questions for mr. Miller? Okay, hearing none, um, I Would like to give the applicant an opportunity to robot I can begin go ahead Jeff you go first I would say, you know, I certainly appreciate mr. Miller's position I appreciate the conversations that we have had to date and look forward to working with him preservation Durham As we discuss the the new construction that will take place On this site and work through the appropriateness of what we've presented in in the architectural Kind of a direction of those plans um specifically related to a couple of of these points into His opposition regarding the demolition of the two structures The building that is shown here, you know, we think that this Structure is is out of a scale in context with the other building The main city garage building We upon studying it did not find any significance sort of architectural characteristics of the building and felt that the demolition of this Would be appropriate and would actually help to Uh, sort of accentuate the main city garage building Keeping it within the scale and the original construction of that structure Regarding the smaller bathroom We are in agreement that it it is a small structure is a very small structure That the size of that structure really makes it difficult for reuse of of any kind In today's environment for it to be anything other than just storage or you know, perhaps some sort of Just kind of a relic of of of old days past That being said despite its size it does have a six-figure price tag for The renovation that would be associated with that with the remediation of the mold the new roof structure And the cleaning of any of the brick and the updating of hvsc and electrical that's in there So it's it's not insignificant despite the fact that that it is small I will say, you know, just in complete honesty between You know the preservation commission and and with mr. Miller and preservation Durham He is correct and that the location Of that building is problematic I know that mr. Miller has worked with the building owner On previous plans for the redevelopment of this site and has looked at plans Some of those plans Looked at acquiring Through some sort of easement or acquisition from the city of Durham part of the land that is designated as the belt line to the rear of the building and the acquisition of that land was to make further development redevelopment of this site feasible and Part of that, you know, I know that there was opposition regarding the the acquisition of that land from from Durham um In lieu of that not having the ability to acquire land beyond the property line The location of that bathroom structure With the requirements for fire truck access in egress Makes it extremely difficult to put any new construction on that site that meets today's modern footprints and space requirements Um, which is why we have proposed utilizing the materials for that building elsewhere on site and trying to preserve Um, the architectural pieces of it as opposed to the building within its current site and context Um outside of that, you know, as I said, you know, we look forward to working with them We would ask that we not be continued for for one month or two months um, we do believe that the time between now and our presentation or when we're expected to come before the commission for the Second coa for the site plan leaves plenty of time for us to be able to work with preservation Durham um, and other constituents regarding the design Of the future project and we feel confident that we'll be able to do that and come up to a agreeable solution Mr. Kerr, thank you very much Do the commissioners have any remaining questions for the applicant before we close the public hearing and discuss Jonathan Jonathan um Concerned you said that it's six figures to to uh Fix the bathroom building. Do you have any estimates you can share with us? I received something yesterday late afternoon and I was not able to get that To miss Rosenberg prior to this meeting But I do have something that was provided by a local contractor that is rough water and magnitude Costs that has that at over a hundred thousand dollars for For the retrofit of that building I can't send it to retrofit or repair. Sorry. I need I need to understand the retrofit or repair The repair so that includes removing all of the all of the drywall Remediating the mold Taking off and cleaning all of the brick putting the brick. I'm sorry the uh, stone material Visiting material back new HV HVAC Bringing electrical up to any sort of code required lighting and electric And plumbing Is it possible to share that with us? I don't know Chair Bouchard As an evidentiary matter I'd probably need to turn to christa to see whether or not we could receive it to evidence materials that were not Uh previously shared in advance today's hearing Chris I could grow city attorney's office. Um, it has been the policy of the quasi judicial boards for the city Due to the virtual setting that we're operating in to have those items submitted in advance um That's that it's a policy that would be a departure from the policy. I would not recommend it Um, but it is ultimately up to the chair Mr. Kurtz, would it be difficult to transmit that estimate? to city staff No, I said the spreadsheet form I can send it on to Carla if that works and she can send it to you I would like to receive that into evidence Sure, I will send that While we're waiting for that to come through to the commissioners of any additional questions for the applicant In connection with the rebuttal testimony we just heard Well, let's proceed then to close the public hearing and discuss amongst the commissioners So obviously a lot of moving pieces with this particular application Seven different excuse me seven different structures slated for demolition um I don't know if there is a a good or bad way a more efficient way of dealing with the seven structures. It seems like the likely Pushback that we're going to hear certainly concerns that I have relate to the the bathroom structure and Its history and perhaps some of the Um Other other structures, maybe the addition Is is it going to be an issue for some? Is there anyone maybe to organize the the discussion? Is there anyone who has concerns about the demolition of the non contributing? freestanding structures And Jonathan go ahead My question is not concerning the non contributing, but it's more to staff to Carla If the what happens to landmark designation once any of the building's on or contributing non could be what you understand the question I think by now there would uh if the if the historic integrity of the landmark were um deemed to be compromised then the city would need to take action to D list the the landmark um, so but it would be a question of whether these uh accessory structures and additions um If they were to be demolished would that compromise the integrity and of the landmark Thank you. Is that the intention of the applicants? the landmark um historic landmark or the city garage building and the bar drill tower and the applicant is proposing to For those to remain and not to be taught, you know, nothing So they will be parceled out. They will be parceled out of the or subdivided out of the for the new construction Is that your intention? Currently, though any of the other buildings are not on the local historic landmarks It's only those two buildings which we're not proposing to demolish So none of them The bathroom nor the but it's connected the last building. I think it was number six that uh That was connected to the main garage building parlor Rosenberg planning department. Um, all of the structures are Listed as part of this landmark. They're all included in the staff report and they um have Contributing and non contributing significance to the landmark and the land both the buildings and the land are landmarked for this for this particular landmark Since that is the case, excuse me wonder waivers. Um I think it is clear that tom has done with extreme due diligence and careful analysis uh analysis of each designation and what is appropriate to do with it. I I strongly support the work that Tom has done with this and the desire for continuance cat I agree. I support what tom is proposing support as well so I'm hearing that Wanda tad in jonathan by way of straw pole only uh would be in support of a two-month continuance as proposed by tom miller Do any of the remaining commissioners um have strong opinions to the contrary and would want to Move forward with consideration of this application today Um, I support but I what I want I forgot to say this. I'm supposed to say this Um, but I am the executive director of preservation dark and um, I want to let the commission and um citizens Know that I did not have communications or participate in board communications about this case So my decision Um, regarding this case is impartial and separate from that of my board. Thank you So for the benefit of the applicant, it is not my policy to force upon any applicant a continuance It is always my practice to suggest to the applicant that Continuances might be in the best interest of the application long term So that various issues can be addressed And the commission can feel comfortable Proceeding after those issues are addressed. We had another one of those cases come up today And so I'm not going to force this upon the applicant I would be curious to know whether or not there would be an interest on the part of the applicant to take Mr. Miller up on his offer to continue the conversation And to continue this hearing to uh, december and have it considered at the same time or One after the other I guess in conjunction with the site plan that's been submitted that be part of its own Coa hearing that month Mr. Miller and I had this conversation yesterday and you know our Our concern as um, as he pointed out and you know that uh, as I understand it Is that uh preservation Durham and um, you know historic preservation commission working independently of each other The reason that we objected and and do object to a continuation of this is because of the ability of the preservation committee commission to still um instill 365 day moratorium or a waiting period um on the demolition Even if we have the meeting with preservation Durham and are are able to work through some of these Um issues that he raised on today's call um, you know, we have A timeline for construction and are eager to to get that moving And i'm very concerned that you know, if we were to continue this that We would still wind up running into a significant delay the 365 day delay Um at the december meeting So i'm hearing from the applicant a desire to move forward with Today's application and for a vote on today's application and the question then becomes Um, it would seem to me what are we voting on? um Because if we vote on the entire package and can basically consider all seven structures the demolition of all seven structures as as one um, my sense is there's going to be some some pushback from this commission. Um, and A desire to observe certain of the buildings Um and impose a delay because of their historic significance Um, why don't I go ahead and before I presume as much ask my fellow commissioners, um Again reclose in the public hearing Um, which of these structures uh commissioners are you most concerned about? um And why do you think um a delay of up to 365 days? Is appropriate with all right, I think the bathroom building and the Components that were added to the original building Tell the story of that property add to the historic character of that property and give it a historic patina and I think that's why That property was landmarked that way. I don't have trouble with the stuff on the outer perimeter um And the stuff I had to vote today it'd be a 365 day delay Uh tad for clarification um You are concerned about the addition that is reflected in photographs six and seven pages 17 and 18 Anything attached to the building and the bathrooms? Okay, is there are there any commissioners who are concerned about um Demolition of any of the other structures not um expressed by by tad is uh areas of his concern Um, I have just a slight dealing delineation, but christa is your hand up. Did you want to say something? I'll let you go Thanks, april. I'm christa kagracity attorney's office. Um, I did we were talking about this as staff And you just want to mention one thing which is that I think it would be acceptable and appropriate if the board I mean, I think this is the direction you're heading um chair bouchard, but to sort of make A distinction based on the criteria for for the demolition delay between these structures and apply a delay to some of them And then reduce it for others of them, but again that distinction would need to be Based in the criteria, which I think have already been articulated, but I'll repeat You know the delay is reduced where The owner will suffer extreme hardship or be permanently deprived of all beneficial use or The commission shall reduce the delay where it finds that A building or site has no special significance or value towards maintaining the character I Disagree with them and there's a reason if I may sorry, of course I can disagree with you because you're the you're the council, but the but If if there is a criteria if we want to Keep the integrity of the landmark and now we're separating it. So cut one comes The molesters nine buildings and then waits another year for the two or they can't do anything And now they're need to think with us or think or really use the time and don't have the advantage of very of Demolishing other buildings. I also don't know if the applicant understands what it means to them To lose the landmark designation, which is something that can happen And from what I understand in the situation So running forward allowing some kind of demolition allowing the trucks to come down and demolish Can't be to the detriment of the property and and What Carla or crystal would the landmark status of the the land and the the entire property potentially be threatened by say immediate demolition of the Not contributing building that used to house the elections board the garage shed Um Or with the landmark status from demolition Planning departments. We haven't officially discussed this and um, it would we would take a lot of material into consideration. Um I don't know if I'm even allowed to give my sense. Um, okay on that like representing the department on that but Yeah, yeah, I don't know Richard Johnson who gets to make that decision. Is that something we as the hbc? um, do we vote to Remove a landmark status or is that something? done by the city I mean, I think stuff Could initiate it, but you would be a part of that process because you're you're part of every landmark process You would recommend approval or not the city council So Okay, so um my my thoughts on this is that um, I think the The preservation represented preservation during representative made a great point about the bathrooms Um as part of the stories for you know The built environment historic buildings are part of are part of our storytelling artifact in the in the environment and I think that um I I think I will be okay with the all of the other buildings, even the other additions. Um Been demolished with this application, but with the exception of the historic bathrooms and um, I think remediation is possible um And so maybe some work would have to be done and they'll have to figure out a use for it The I guess the only concern is that um the Jeff Jeff mentioned that Keeping that building there on site where it is now They will run into code problems When it comes to when they're ready to construct the new site them and building on the site So I think that's my only concern, but um, I do like the idea of this particular building continuing The storytelling of this whole entire site So the garage and the tower are the most important features, but also this bathroom is um is Supplements in adds to the story. I think everything else even the addition I I'm okay with the rest of that being demolished and I wanted to know is if if we had to vote today and Um could they modify the application? on the spot To maybe not demolish the bathrooms and we will be okay with that all right, so that's just a question I'm posing for the rest of the The commission anybody else Wanda, okay I um, I concur with that. I thought I'd clearly heard Tom give those options of either moving the building or I took some notes on that or If it was in the way or rebuilding it In the presentation that he made And it was real clear for me to also understand that he said that this had been on it They've been it would have been non adversarial throughout this whole process and discussions I do agree that that one building Out of his presentation and Um In your comments also miss johnson that it's important that if that can be changed at this time um that it would Make things a lot clearer to look at Says laura fieslem and I stepped away for some of the discussion here But april what you just outlined resonates with me to yes My sense is that And we can certainly stop hold it if we need to there's probably a majority of board members Present for this hearing today Who want to impose a delay at least with respect? to the bathroom building um and perhaps other buildings I am Comfortable moving forward with chris's recommendation to Split the buildings between those that we don't believe are contributing to the landmark status And that we don't have reservations about demolishing now and then imposing limitations on other buildings, but I'd be curious to know um Whether that there is significant or excuse me sufficient support for that sort of bifurcation from the commission Or alternatively the commission believes that if we're going to impose Um any sort of delay it needs to apply Basically universally to all seven structures that are slated for demolition in the application I don't think it needs to be for all seven structures I'm with the bifurcation uh with the 365 for the bathrooms and maybe we can figure out how I'm doing that time use that time period period to figure that out um, but as far as the other structures um Don't require a long delay for that those Laura saw a thumbs up from you. So I presume that you're in a favor of bifurcation ted I still struggle with Cleansing the original building. I don't have any problem with the stuff on the perimeter um That's where i'm at tom I don't prefer to separate them out Okay Jonathan I don't think I don't think the applicant is is uh, I think that we're not I don't have enough information. I don't want to separate anything if if anything. I agree with tad, but I prefer not separating the buildings I think we should probably consider then a Motion related to treating the entire application as as one and if Somebody has a strong opinion about the amount of delay that should be imposed Uh and would like to present that position Please please do so if we impose the maximum delay um and preservation dorm and the developer come to a An agreement. I assume they can come back and we can revisit that just as we did recently with another project Is there anybody in favor of imposing a delay of less than 365 days and would like to um Advocate for that position No, but I agree with that again with tan Um, but it doesn't have to be also preservation dorm if they find a solution that can uh that they think that Can work with the with our with the storm preservation commission I don't think we should ever put a criteria of preservation dormant But if they if something that can satisfy the commission it could be it could be early Down the road that Yeah I'm in favor of less than 365 just I would tie it more to how much time the parties need to try to come up with a solution not Just go to 365. So whatever Jeff and tom thought that they needed to explore their options is what I would have went for Right I was gonna say I I agree with tom. Um, I don't know if 365 is um I'm sorry If we if we early if we early this if we early this then and they don't get to agreement We just gave them the sort of time. So what's the point of doing that? Well, I I'm not Focused on whether they agree or don't agree. I just want to make sure they have an opportunity to hear each other out and make have time to See if they can find a solution whether they find one or not I just want to make sure that they have time to do their due diligence hear each other out explore options If we apply a 365 delay and then The um group comes together cooks up the solution and brings it back to us. Can we override ourselves? sooner than your agency five days Yeah, I mean we just did that So I've heard two votes for something less than 365. I say votes and not really votes Two opinions for uh, 365 two for less than 365 um Laura Wanda, do you have um any thoughts about the duration of delay that is appropriate under the circumstances? the duration delay I I can't really say now that I have any particular concerns about that I don't know where My hearing is different, but I clearly heard that earlier went on presented that that there would be further discussions on the specifics that were presented and That's where my mind is Thank you, Laura Finally in towards 365 with an invitation to bring us a solution that satisfies the parameters as soon as you can I'm going to go ahead having received from Carla the spreadsheet that mr. Kurtz had sent to her and Make the call that it should be admitted into evidence. I want the Commission to have full information on on this application In light of all the various issues involved with this application and so Carla I am authorizing you to share That spreadsheet with the rest of the commission Mr. Chairman for the record object Objection overruled Carly can put up on the screen And I will direct a reopen the public hearing for a brief question to mr. Kurtz What is the name of the contractor that provided you with this estimate? This was by clancy and phase construction And I should note that You know, they looked at the existing building and the photos that were taken as part of the remediation and the study that was done by heart Pikmin There are no plans for at this point For renovation or design. So they've done this as sort of rough We're at magnitude pricing based off of their experience the area and the square footage of the existing structure for the record Line number seven ten Sorry Not ten. Yeah So we have replacement of concrete new CMU walls stone removal There's over 30,000 at least just from looking at this that are not relevant to repair This is a redoing Part of this based off of the world the molded is there and their Anticipation is that some of the existing wall structure would need to come out that it would be replaced rebuilt and then reapplied with the Stone that is there on the wall A contractor has told you that they think that stone needs to be replaced for mold remediation They said that everything if there was mold in there, this was the This is what we received yesterday is their scope of work for the retrofitted this building Thank you Well, we don't even know what the purpose of this building would be so things like $6,000 for vanities, you know, it may end up being a small office or you know Some of this is seems irrelevant to the main question here I'm going to go ahead and re-close the public hearing and I'm once again going to Invite the applicant To consider whether or not a continuance is in its best interests. I think there probably is sufficient support for a 300 for a motion that would impose a 365 day delay with respect to The demolition that is proposed And I'm prepared to make that motion and see if I'm right about that But I'm also prepared to Offer a motion consistent with mr. Miller's recommendation to continue this case for for two months And I think it is important to get the applicant's input as to how we prefer to proceed all right, you know, we would I respectfully ask that that we'd be able to come up with something that is not the 365 days You know, I appreciate the suggestion that we give ample time for us to have a discussion I think that if we Said six months, you know, that's plenty of time for us to discuss with HBC and with preservation Durham to come up with some alternatives So we would request it to be six months I think that, you know, we would Uh, also be open to within that time frame if there is a solution that is that we can come up with that everybody agrees upon That we can present it again and perhaps get a reduction within the time frame that is agreed, but Um, we would like to to go ahead and move forward So chair request to be heard on the question Uh, the question was really for the applicant mr. Miller. So I'm gonna Hold off on receiving any additional comments from you on it. Um Unless you have anything to say about the duration of time you think it might take to Work through these issues potentially work through these issues with the applicant I just wanted to point it out to the commission that the point I believe that this kukaro was making is is that There are legal criteria for imposing and reducing the delay Uh, you the delay a continuance you can create to to allow parties to work together The delay has to relate to the extreme hardship deprivation of of use Standards, um And it it's not you can't set the delay in order to give people time to talk And it was with that in mind that we made our original proposal Matt if I can respond to that Yes, tom, please The statute says that There may be a delay that's imposed by the commission not that there shall So we're not required to do any delay And then it says if we do a delay We shall reduce it to the extent that there is a hardship And so I think in establishing what delay we as a commission choose We can do zero we can do 365 or we can do something in between there And I was just suggesting that a logical way to establish what type of delay Given that the statute says during the delay It's an opportunity for the owner and other parties to negotiate an outcome So in the statute it talks about this process where during the delay these parties are going to go back and forth And see what they can do to preserve this site So whatever amount of time that that's going to take would seem to be a logical amount of delay Sometimes it might be tremendous and sometimes it might be very simple And so to the extent that I get more information on What's actually going to happen during this delay? Is this going to our side's going to be working either even if not together like it Is this one side have a lot they have to accomplish If that's going to take them a long time I want to do 365 so that both sides have a chance if it's not And I don't want to just do 365 because I want that building there because I do want the building there But if this is going to take them three months to get through this and they either agree They reach an impasse and I would vote give them the three months They'll figure it out and then We'll move forward. So that's I'm trying to separate out my desire for the building not to come down with giving people the opportunity to do the work That they need to do to figure out a solution It doesn't seem to me when I was looking at these materials That this is going to take a year for the parties to figure out So I was in favor of something less than a year And I appreciate that. Um, I think the rest of the commissioners do as well I The thing that I keep hearing though is that Even if we were to impose a 365 day delay, there's nothing stopping the parties including Mr. Miller preservation term from Working together and coming up with something um That might be mutually advantageous and coming back to us and you know Having that 365 day period removed So I I'm not as concerned about the duration Given the fact that we would have that flexibility Yeah, I'm not that concerned about it because I do trust that the commission You know if the parties come back and say that they had a chance to work on this and that they've reached an end pass I do trust that the commission is just gonna Shorten that delay. I do worry though that we get into this Situation where what we subjectively want to see just defaults us to doing these maximum delays And not really tie it into whether or not we're letting go of control and letting the parties You know have all the time that they need to figure this out because it's not our choice and so sometimes I I get the sense that It's clear what the commission wants and that we're just going with maximum delays Because we're in denial that we don't have control over it. And so I'm trying to sort of That's what I'm trying to separate out is my desire for that to stay and just to make sure I'm giving them enough time And this stuff does take time and we all know real estate and Durham takes time right now So I do think a substantial delay would help the parties. I just I'm not in favor of just the sort of default Like I don't want it to come down. So I'm doing a year Jeff has asked for a six month continuance Seems viable I would vote for that. You asked for a delay a six month delay, correct? Not sick continuance. I think it was a six month delay Go ahead Well, let's do a quick straw poll Something short I'm willing I'm willing to consider if this is something that applicants will Continuance but counting the months of continuance into the 365 on my next vote Which means if we do a three if I decide if we decide on on the On the delay of a year then these continuance months will be counted into that year Which enables them to already have a date forward to be three six months wherever they think is right But at that point I will they will not get a vote for me to continue for another year but a year minus or whatever it is minus the Time for continuance. So they do get the chance to continue it and they're not afraid they lost it the count from today I think I heard mr. Kurtz express an interest in Just having a vote today on a 180 day delay Approval of the application with a 180 day delay and it sounds like Tom would be in favor of that and Laura would be in favor of that I'd be in favor of it to 100 I will add the caveat though that I would want to hear from tom miller as to whether and I felt that 180 days would be sufficient for them to Fully explore their their options. That's really key to to what where I land on it I Know we go there jeff. Can you clarify? Are you asking for a 180 day or would you be satisfied with a 180 day delay or continuance? I'm asking for approval with a 180 day delay for the construction Thanks for the clarification Mr. Miller, I'll reopen the public hearing very very briefly if you could just respond to commissioner craggers question So I get what commissioner craggers saying this is something that troubles us constantly And that's why we our proposal to you was more nuanced And was building by building however, I realized too that from the the statute doesn't envision a A seven building application That doesn't contemplate that We view the delay Uh that the statute contemplates Uh as being different from A continuance to allow interested parties to talk um I uh my board Uh sent me here uh to ask for a 365 day delay on the addition and the bathroom and I don't feel like I can change that but we I can tell you that we are completely committed Uh to working with these parties Now we are new to ram But we have an established relationship with the owner of this property the folks at magnolia Uh, and we value that and uh I feel really good about the The possibility That it in a few weeks of of meetings That we can come up with something that's why we would prefer to do that in the context of a continuance Now if the case were not If you continued the case and it came up in december with the other case And we hadn't gotten anywhere and we were still arguing for a delay I think it would be appropriate for you at that time to say Well instead of a 365 day delay We're going to give you a 300 day delay because you've already had we're going to give it's like time served. I suppose Uh, that's not a very good analogy, and I don't really mean it that way But that would be within the commission's just uh sound discretion. I believe So, uh, I appreciate the question We view the delay as having broader purposes Than the opportunity for preservation Durham To work with interested parties. We believe a continuance is a more approach appropriate procedure for that Thank you, mr. Miller We close I could just suggest it sounds like 180 days would work For the parties to do the discussions that they need and The applicant could still bring this back up in a month or two and ask for it to be shortened because they might have already finished That that process so I I would actually suggest that we were on the right path. We just had the wrong outer limit 180 days seems acceptable to the applicant and we all agree that if they reached the natural end of their discussions This could be brought back onto the docket and we could lower it So that's what I would suggest so I'm hearing based on the straw polling We've uh been conducting here as we've gone three votes for 180 days Wanda tad And jonathan, um, would any of you be amenable to 180 as opposed to 365 jonathan shaking his head now If they if they can come back they can come back with the 360. I don't understand the 180 at this point Jonathan if we're doing a delay my straw poll goes to 365 if we're doing a continuance then Whenever the applicant That I agree and I agree to lower the timing afterwards as much as much as needed So exactly what laura just said Dad you're sticking with 365 Yeah, I don't I don't know why we would tie their hands When they can come back if they get an agreement anytime Well, I think we've had sufficient discussion. Um, this has been a complicated process. Um But I think I understand which way the winds are blowing. Um, and I'm prepared to go ahead and make a motion To move things forward before doing so If we could have a staff recommendation Hello Rosenberg planning department. Um, staff would recommend approval of the application with a 100 and 60 day delay Was it 180 180? I apologize. Um Just hoping that the reduction of delay doesn't compromise The good faith efforts of the applicant to actually save these buildings The particularly the ones, um, since we're not bifurcating it, but staff is most interested in the washroom Um, I'm going to make a motion. Um, it is going to be for 365 simply because I do not believe there's sufficient support for 180 days Um The Durham Historic Preservation Commission finds that in the case coa 2 1 000 68 501 Washington avenue demolition of primary structures The applicant is proposing to demolish three contributing accessory structures as well as two contributing ones The commission has determined the accessory structure to possess sufficient historic value or structural integrity to preserve it The commission has determined that the property owner has not shown Substantive evidence of facing extreme hardship or being permanently deprived of all beneficial use of or return from the property by virtue of a delay Granite pieces will be salvaged from the structures for future use The site will be stabilized with grass seed and straw following the demolition until future construction is completed Therefore in accordance with udo requirements and ncgs 160 d-949 the coa for the proposed demolition is approved with a 300 Excuse me with a 365 day delay second thank you commissioner de berry and Miss holmes if we can have a roll call vote, please all right chair bouchard approved commissioner dan commissioner de berry approved commissioner fecalman proved commissioner johnson not approved commissioner craig suppose commissioner waders approved motion passes five the two Well, I want to thank everyone for your patience. This was a tough one. Um, there have been a number of tough ones recently, but we Uh, where's the party as well and and hopefully a resolution can be achieved and in relatively short order. Um, so that we can Revisit this and and and potentially uh shorten the period of time Thank you And with that that is our final case on the agenda. We do have um a bit of old business To which we need to attend and that is our newsletter Carla Yes, thanks very much to april and to katie for um creating this newsletter. I'm gonna share it right now Um, thank you all received it via email So, um We have the the mailers for fall 2021 um Following of our usual format um and then Having some project highlights some old cases that you may remember from um The last couple of years dealing specifically with accessory structures that were successfully adapted to new uses So if everybody has had a chance to look it over, um, I'd love to entertain any any feedback Corrections or edits otherwise that you might have I like the version we're looking at that has the picture in the middle column sort of in the middle um sort of offset from The picture at the top right, which I think was the earlier iteration um Yeah, I think it's great. I like the fact that we've got like action shots of uh, you know a structure in transit I think that's really neat. So I think it looks great and want to commend everybody for Uh, your help with this and it looks terrific Yeah, they they really did a fantastic job and um I think we're ready to distribute if if there aren't any other question any well actually tad you did have a concern that there isn't specific um mention of You know, you are receiving this because you live in a historic district where you own a landmark So right I think you know if I got this in the mail And I didn't realize why I was getting it. I might toss it So I just think it makes sense somewhere Maybe above the address or in the bottom left of the address panel or somewhere in there To make it clear the reason you're getting this is because it affects you you're in a district um, you know, I wonder if that could be part of the addressy Could every addressy have you know property owner in a of a historic But basically say dear historic property owner and then their name underneath it You know, I mean if that's possible, I think that makes the most sense And you can probably put it on the front too right where it says right up under fall to 2021 newsletter Uh, maybe some type of comment somewhere where they can see it really really well that this pertains to you you Uh, you own a property in a local historic district Or a landmark or something like that. Uh, let me see. Let's see. Um Or maybe somewhere hold on Yeah, the way we used to do it was the question, you know, did you know? Um, but yeah, that's what it was Yeah, we're just trying to get into, um, maybe a sort of cleaner aesthetic and um Because you know We do have people from time to time they come and they say, well, I didn't know I lived in a district, you know Or they've already published some expensive repairs and we have to make them undo it And I'd like to avoid that if possible That'd be in favor of some language it telegraphs why folks were receiving it Any does anybody have any strong feelings about whether it should be done on the front cover or as part of the addressy label No strong feelings for me as long as it's there and And that we can document that is that we placed it Why not both it seems a pretty important Yeah Have a bold idea can we approve the nose letter with the addition of Indicating why people are receiving it and delegate to the staff how to make that happen and Second That sounds great Thank you together. It looks great Um new business minor coas Yes, um terry has not sent that out yet, but she will uh send that out this week Okay, very good Thank you Carla, what are we looking at for next month busy docket? I'm looking at four cases for next month And are any of those carryovers or continuances from prior months? No, don't believe not not from our recollection. No, okay So we don't have the more head hill one coming back Oh wait Yes, we do So yes, that's a fifth one That's one So we got five Guys, we're cruising along here after three and before we got bogged down that last one These these applications seem to be getting harder and harder. Um Each month. I mean this one was particularly tough with seven different structures. Um But I I tried to move things along as best I could Not sure I succeeded and you did a good job matt You did an awesome job You guys have a I just have a quick announcement. Um preservation darm is having his annual historic home tour. So you all are Uh, welcome you you can go to our website to purchase tickets, but um, the theme is the two two door revival Um, and we the featured property would be the pinecrest estate over there on west four seals boulevard which is um Wait, is that neighborhood? No, it's not a local resort issue. I don't think Um, and so it will potentially soon be developed So this is your last opportunity to take a look inside this property before Um, it gets developed. So, um, I hope to see you all there What was that again april? October 16th and 17th And uh information about it on the preservation journal website Yes, and the home tour and lecture will be on the 14. Um, one of the preservation consultants that we see Tip irregularly here. We'll talk about the two door revival style in darm cool stuff I live in a tutor although it's really kind of I think more colonial on the inside but outside tutor Is that say thank you to carla or to staff because they're doing a lot of the all of the background and all of this dealing with all Much more than what we have to do all so thanks try to Try to get things as presentable as possible. But obviously there's you know, there's still going to be issues that come up I mean, look, I mean, I think We've seen some themes here over the last several months. I mean What is an acceptable uh adu? Both in terms of not being like just you know cookie cutter You know, uh in having some uniqueness and being true to the the neighborhoods and not being Too humongous In these demolitions. I mean I think we're going to continue to struggle with that and it probably makes sense that we we do because we're living in a vibrant growing changing city um with lots of uh folks with lots of competing needs and Uh, we just got to do the best we can like I thank everybody for your patience your thoughts and your hard work sticking in there sticking with it Second that yeah, absolutely And just so you know, I do let applicants know when there's something that tells the line I let them know you're you're towing the line with us so I know I used to be on your end. We we tell them everything and they'll come to a meeting and that's if yeah They think that the commission will think differently will be on their side and that's not always the case All right. No, we've been in this for a long time today. So again, thank you for all you do But my little side question. How was the retreat because I really did not want to miss that How was the Does somebody who attended want to share? I mean, I thought it was helpful. I did to me the the process of um, you know looking at our our stock and revisiting the um inclusion of say like mid-century modern, uh structures into Our historic neighborhoods, I think is a little bit more complicated than I was imagining It's kind of a but Yeah, I thought it was helpful Because you want to share something laura? Uh, oh, she's just saying bye. That was what that was And so we we will have access to it for you all. Um, I think it's going to be first via Maybe a google drive. I'll check with um our technology manager Really appreciated. Yeah me too Yeah And then we also have a schedule to vote on um, but we can do that at the next meeting. There's no rush on that so For the 2022 schedule We do need to do it next month though because the deadlines for january will be coming up. So yeah, if amanda or Terry could make sure that that gets on to new business On our agenda. Uh, I'll make sure to remember it Next time That'd be great Hey, thanks everybody. Uh, have a great halloween and See you in a few weeks. Thank you Bye