 We are live. Good morning and welcome to the second virtual meeting of the dorm historic preservation commission. This meeting will now come to order. My name is Katie Hamilton and I am the chair of the commission. We wish to thank all applicants for their patients as we have worked to put new procedures in place in the wake of the COVID-19 outbreak. We also thank the public in advance for their patients today as we continue to navigate the nuances of digital meetings. As always this commission is a quasi judicial board of record and as such all testimony will be recorded. Under the new procedure, this meeting will also be live streamed on the city's YouTube channel. The proceedings of this board are governed by the zoning laws as reported. Before we begin today's evidentiary hearings, please note the steps we have taken to ensure that each party's due process rights are protected as we proceed in this remote platform. First, today's meeting will be conducted in accordance with the newly enacted statutes in session law 2020-3, which all 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 remote electronic platform. Every applicant on today's agenda has consented to the board acting the evidentiary hearings of their request using this remote platform. We'll also conform today that at the start of each evidentiary case that the participants in this evidentiary hearing consent to the matter of proceeding in this remote platform. If there is any objection to a matter of 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 the remote platform and a general announcement via our website, informing the public of the same. The notices for today's meeting advised 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 mail notice letter 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 an objection to the evidentiary hearing or to the remote meeting platform. No case is proceeding today in which the city has been contacted by an individual with an objection to the case or to the matter being requested by the city. All individuals participating in today's evidentiary hearings were also required to submit a copy of any presentation, document, exhibit, or other material they wished to submit at the evidentiary hearing prior to today's meeting. All materials that the city received from the participant, all materials that the city received from the participants in today's cases as well as a copy of city's staff's presentations and documents were posted online prior to today's meeting. All materials that the city discussed today may be viewed at any time during today's meeting by visiting the web links for today's agenda via Durham's Agenda Center and then clicking the links to each case report. 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. We will also reaffirm everyone's oath on the record at today's meeting for each case. Are there any members on this board that would have any conflicts of interest with regard to the cases before us today? And are there any early dismissals being requested? I have one possible early dismissal if we're not finished by 1045 or whatever. But as I said, I may stay later. Thank you. Did anyone else have an early dismissal request that they needed to put on the record? Yeah, I would. I love my clock. Great. I will also have to recuse myself from the last case on today's hearing as I am involved in that. It's a middle. So that will be a conflict for me. And Matt will take over as chair for that case. As chair of the historic preservation commission, I'd like to remind everyone that our quasi-judicial hearings function similar to a court of proceeding. Staff will first present an overview of the case and then the applicant will have an opportunity to present their evidence. And the applicant may then present a rebuttal. Board members will refrain from questions or questions. The next 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 the case. All decisions of this board are subject to appeal to the board. And with that Madam clerk, can we please get a roll call of the members and attendance? Yes, this Terry Elliott. Vice chair. Here. Commissioner day on. Commissioner day on. Here. Sorry. I was meeting. Commissioner DeBerry. Commissioner Gulsby. Here. Chair Hamilton. Here. Chair commissioner Johnson. Commissioner Jordan. Here. Commissioner cracker. Here. Commissioner waiters. Commissioner waiters. Thank you. Do we have any adjustments to the agenda today? No, not as far as we know. Okay. And with that, thank you. Thank you. I'll entertain a motion to approve the minutes. Second. And Terry, can we get a roll call for approving the minutes? Yes. Commissioner Johnson. Yeah. Commissioner waiters. Commissioner down. I didn't see the minutes. I'm sorry. I didn't see where they were published. Yeah. Commissioner Hamilton. Yes. Commissioner Bouchard. Yes. Commissioner DeBerry. Commissioner Gulsby. Yeah. Commissioner cracker. Yes. Thank you, madam. We will now be swearing in the staff. For all hearings. Proceeding today. You administer that. Members of staff. Swear or firm that the testimony you're about to give and the public hearing proceedings for today's cases is the truth by your own information. Knowledge and belief. I do. Carla Rosenberg. I do. Grace Smith. I do. Thank you. And with that, we will open our first public hearing of the day, which is case. Oh, a zero. Two zero zero. Zero zero one nine. One one one. Georgia Avenue demolition of accessory structure. Before we hear from staff, is there anyone of our commissioners who may have a conflict of interest in hearing this case? Seeing none. Madam clerk, can you please administer the oath to the applicants? Yes. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give in the public hearing proceeding for today's, for today's case is the truth by your own knowledge, information or belief. I do. Thank you. And now that you have confirmed the oath, we also will need the applicant to confirm your consent to the digital platform of the meeting being held today. Do you consent to the digital app? Jeff monstein. I do. Yes. And now I'll proceed with staff report. Carla. I can't. Can everybody see my report? Yes. Okay. Excellent. All right. So, um, Carla Rosenberg planning department. This is case. You a two zero zero zero one nine. Um, 1111 Georgia Avenue demolition of accessory structure. The applicant is Jeff monstein, the owner monstein investments LLC. It's located on the west side of Georgia Avenue between West Club Boulevard and Englewood Avenue. He's owned residential suburban eight and it's a contributing structure contributing property in the Watts, Hillendale historic district. Um, so essentially the applicant is proposing to demolish, um, a contributing accessory structure. I'd like to introduce the staff report into the record and invite Mr. Monstein to present his case. Okay. Tell me, should I start Carla? Yes. If you could go ahead and give a brief synopsis of, uh, what you are intending to do. Okay. And are there, uh, if we scroll down or the pictures of the structure you'll show. Your staff report is here. All of your application materials are attached. Okay. So, uh, basically this is, uh, a large structure behind a 1111 Georgia Avenue. And if, if you can see with the pictures, uh, it's, it's seen it's better days. It has significant foundation issues. Roof issues. It's beyond repair. And, uh, I would like to tear it down. And once I get approval for that, then I would like to come back to the committee to, uh, you know, to build accessory dwelling unit, but obviously the first step is to remove the structure. I did, um, have some violations from the, from Don Hill, Austin, uh, from the neighborhood improvement services. And you know, they, they want me to do something with this as well. It was similar to the property right next door at 1111, uh, or 1109 Georgia Avenue. So, uh, I think the, the photos speak for the sales for themselves and, um, and I would hope that I don't have to wait a year, uh, to tear it down because it isn't such bad condition. And with the COVID virus, everything is taking so long. I want to come back to the committee. I know that's separate, but I do want to come back and try to get approval for a ADU in the next several months. So, uh, that's pretty much my overall plan with the property. Any, any questions for me? Thank you for your presentation. Um, did any, is there anyone here to speak against this application? I guess I should ask first. Seeing none, um, I'll open it up to the other commissioners who have things they like to talk about, Joseph Jordan. Um, Yes, this is a minor detail, but I'm wondering Mr. Johnson, if you can say, when you say, uh, with an appropriate ground cover, uh, what are the range of, of, of, uh, options that you're thinking of? Um, let me go. Hold on. Let's, um, excuse me. Um, well, once, once we tear it down, we'll, you know, we'll grade it out and, you know, clear the property. I mean, it's just overgrown. There's not a lot we can do with it. But, you know, I'm kind of, you know, I'm not sure how to do that. But I, I'm not sure I would do that. But, uh, I'm not, uh, sure how to do that. Um, I don't think I would. I would say I would grade it. I am actually. Uh, I don't want to mix things up too much, but I'm a working on the house next door. So while I'm doing that, I'll, you know, I'll plant some grass and get it, you know, looking nice until I can get approval for the next step of the process. Okay. That's, that's all. Thank you. Were there any other questions for the applicant? salvage any of the materials for use elsewhere? No, I actually haven't. I mean, it does have a hardwood, wood siding on it. And I haven't considered that. And, you know, if somebody was interested in salvaging them and reusing them, I'd certainly they'd be willing to get them and for free, you know, basically, but I haven't, you know, there's not a not that much material there and it's in pretty bad shape. But if somebody wanted to reclaim it, any of the hardwood siding, if any, you know, I'd be certainly open to that. Were there any other questions from commissioners for the applicant? I have one. Andy Bullsie, was there any structural assessment of this accessory or is this, we say it's beyond repair, is it your own assessment? Well, I'm, I do, I am a North Carolina licensed general contractor. I mean, it's, I mean, I guess anything could be repaired to answer your question. I mean, the amount of money you'd put into it wouldn't be worth it. In my opinion, it's not worth repairing. And again, it's, I don't want to repair it because, you know, with the new expanding housing choices, zoning changes, my goal is to build an ADU. So, you know, even if it could be repaired, that would not be my goal, you know, because I would like to take advantage of the new zoning changes that the city passed in the past year or so. Any other questions from commissioner for the applicant? Right here. Jonathan, I'm sorry. Go ahead. I wasn't, I wasn't about the plan. I thought this is a simple one to ask the question, but now after Andy's question, I would like to, so it's obvious from what you wrote in the pictures that the roof needs a replacing. What's beyond repair or very hard to repair and the rest of the structure? Well, the foundation's crumbling. I mean, not exactly sure. I mean, that structure's probably got to be, you know, probably built in the 40s or 50s. So, I mean, it's probably 70, close to 70 years old, 60, 70 years old, but the foundation, I'm not sure if you can see it in the pictures, but the foundation is crumbling. It's just pretty much sitting on a brick veneer wall. There's really no footing, you know, so, you know, just sitting on the brick veneer wall. So, the foundation or the bricks are crumbling and then the roof has, you know, just significant structural damage as well. So, it's just, again, it's not something I want to repair. You know, I mean, I'm just trying to be upfront with everybody. I want to develop, you know, I want to, you know, it's in really, really poor condition, as you can see, but again, the goal is, you know, I have no interest in trying to repair it. You know, I want to build an ADU behind the property and, you know, and improve the property, you know, and again, you know, so that's my goal with it. If that answers your question, thank you. Okay. Is there any other questions from commissioners before we move on to internal discussions, deliberations? Hearing none. I think we can close the public hearing and discuss this amongst the commissioners. Thank you, Mr. Monsign for your presentation today. Thank you. Are there any commissioners who'd like to speak on this, to open up the discussion on this? I'm actually satisfied with what I've said. All right, this is April Johnson. I agree, I don't, well, I don't know if you mentioned, but it's probably not being used right now for what it was built for. If anything, it's probably just storing things that unwanted things in the building and those buildings, I don't know what people will use them for today. So putting money into rehab, it will be excessive just to be used as a storage unit. So I've become pretty satisfied with what I've seen as well. Thank you. I think personally, Katie Hamilton, I'm satisfied with allowing it to be torn down, but I would like for him to see if anyone does wanna use the material elsewhere. So I don't know, I mean, I don't think it needs to be a condition of approval, but it would just be a suggestion on my part that he try to get someone else to use the material elsewhere if it is usable. April Johnson, and if the applicant is open to that, I'd be willing to put out a notice of available salvageable materials out to preservation during reserve and social media platforms. I want to add my voice to what Katie's saying and encourage Mr. Monsame to seek out people who might be interested in those any materials that could be salvaged. I would not make it a condition, but I would urge him to do so. I would, Jonathan, a question to Krista, legal whoever's here. The precedents for an applicant asking to, and I agree in this, but maybe minutes have to be advised or not, asking to remove a structure because of financial or other reasons that have nothing to do with the structure itself, but his intentions of a future built on that property. I think that's, that could, that may have, and that's the question I'm asking, wouldn't have any precedents for future requests of that sort. I don't think so. I think you shouldn't even be legal. April, this is legal, I would really like to say legal. Yeah, sorry, you can say whatever you'd like, yeah. If you don't mind my answering, Jonathan, I think all decisions are, this Carla Rosenberg planning department, I think all decisions that are made generally have a precedence, give a precedence here. So they could have a precedent? Yes, but you have many other mitigating factors such as the condition of the garage and all of these other- The only condition that I've seen here is a roof and a roof repair of this replacement of a roof here would be $4,000, $5,000, not enough to satisfy a future, the cracking foundation without a report is very hard to assess if that crack is serious or not. I agree that the dwelling, I think April put a very important point that the structure probably doesn't have any use and it's deteriorated while I put money into it. I'm just afraid of this precedent unless we have some kind of out with the decision so it won't become a precedent that someone else in the future would say, hey, we had this case, the COA and the COA got it because they just wanted the accessory dwelling being built there instead of that structure. Well, I want to remind you to look at, the staff report has listed the three different categories of sort of reasoning by which statutes allow you to put, to reduce the delay, to remove or reduce the delay. And one of those is a contribution to historic character. Another one is economic hardship. You can see those written in the staff report. So those are the bases by which you would reduce the one year delay. Hey, Jonathan, this is Tom Krieger. Just also wanted to add in that, I think when we as a commissioner reviewing whether or not we want to delay this building being taken down, we probably don't even really need to look too much at the intentions of the owner, what they want to do with it. It's more about why do we want to delay the owner's right to destroy that building? And I think that's why some of the panel members are saying they're comfortable with it is because we're not seeing a lot of reason to delay it. And I think if another applicant came in with a different property, there might be a whole number of reasons why we would want to delay that. And I think some of those are sort of covered on the actual report, but I don't think that an applicant's intention on what they want to do with the property is a huge factor in delaying them. It can be a factor, but in this instance on this case with these facts, it doesn't seem like that's playing a lot into it. Seems more what the property's value is to this district is kind of what some folks are focusing on. So from a precedent perspective, I don't think if somebody came in an applicant came in with a lawyer and had this case and had what we're saying here today that they would have a really strong precedent when we had a completely different property. Can we strike out that request? It's not even in a way that the owners, I feel much more comfortable if we didn't have any minutes or anything that's saying that the owner, that's his intention of doing it because I have no problem not delaying this because of the other reasons. I'm really afraid of other people coming back in the future and saying, his intentions is that he didn't have any intentions. I understand what you're saying, Tom. I just wanna be on the safe side, if that makes sense. Is it possible to strike that out? Well, I don't know that we can strike on the record as to what he's testified to, but certainly if, however we wanna go about emotion, I mean, it doesn't speak really closely. Matt, if you wanna jump in here too as a lawyer, but I don't think that his stated intention, I think he's on the record is saying that the condition of the property doesn't warrant him spending any time doing any repairs to it. And also he's just being candid about what his intentions are with the property. But I think that at least me as a commission member, but then also as a lawyer looking at precedent, I really don't think that the guidelines on us delaying the destruction of a property are, I don't think that what the owner intends to do with this particular application is super significant. I think if the structure itself was one that was more worthy of being preserved, that's where the commission would spend more time trying to press this to be delayed. Yeah, Commissioner Bouchard here, just to make a point since Tom referenced me. I'm looking at the unified development ordinance and weighing whether or not the structure has any particular significance or value toward maintaining the character of the historic district. And I'm not seeing it. Perhaps that is subjective on my part, but it looks like a fairly- Because there are a lot of these structures and if all houses are gonna, this is a very typical structure. And if all these houses will take them down just because it's not significant anymore then that's a serious precedent in my opinion. Well, I mean, has anyone heard any testimony or seen any evidence that this is a particularly significant accessory structure? I mean, it looks to me like a shed garage built 20 years after the original structure. We've dealt with many of these before. There are a lot of, it's Karla, if you can. I also want to mention that my decision wasn't, you know, my comfort level, which I expressed, came before Mr. Monsign began adding to his comments and talking about the financial elements and whatever. And as I looked at the photographs, the roof, the walls, the foundation elements and whatever seem to be in fairly dire shape. And on top of that, this is for demolition, which means that coming to us isn't coming to us for approval of his intent. We have those three guidelines and those are the guidelines that I'm going by. And I mean, we've seen other demolition requests that we've argued over at length for what I think are some really important reasons, but with this particular case, I think it's acceptable. It doesn't speak for you, Jonathan. I know you- No, no, I agree completely for the case. I'm afraid of the minutes and presidents. I agree for this specific case that if we hadn't heard the request, the testimony saying that in any case, the applicant would like to remove this structure, even if he could have fixed it because we didn't hear evidence he can't. Even if he would remove it, that's what I'm afraid of people coming in the future and saying, listen, this isn't a structure. Exactly like Matt just said, this isn't an accessory structure. It doesn't have any use anymore. Then really there's no reason for keeping it. And we want to, and please don't delay and we want to build a new accessory dwelling unit. You know, I would personally like, you know, have that conversation and debate it, but not here, you know, at this point, it's not something that's going to change the outcome of this case and it's not something that has direct bearing. Well, it's direct bearing because if we can't strike it out, I can't vote for it for that testimony. If the applicant would like to strike out that testimony and we have that ability, I would love that to happen. And it is very relevant to this exact request. No, no, I didn't say it's not relevant to it. I'm saying it's not necessarily going to be relevant to our decision, what we can do. So I wouldn't dismiss your idea that way. I'm just saying that in the future because you have a really strong idea about what is appropriate in these kinds of cases, let's do that and have a full discussion. But I don't think that, you know, at this moment, it will be able to change the outcome of his case. So... Carla Rosenberg planning department, we are due for a retreat at some point soon, which we can schedule remotely. And I think this is an excellent topic for us to discuss for the longer term. But I agree that for this case, we should make a decision based on our, you know, personal beliefs about, and based on the actual evidence presented and the state statutes, what they allow us to condition this approval on because it does have to be approved. It's whether the delay occurs or not. Yeah, so for Katie Hamilton, for me personally, I feel like it meets the condition that the accessory structure lacks sufficient historical value or structural integrity to preserve it. And I don't see, you know, obviously with me, it's like a 365 days delay to me has always been a way of encouraging people to look at options to preserve or to relocate or to do a number of other things. And when we look at the pictures, when I looked at the pictures today, I sat there and was like, I don't think you're gonna get much out of that roof. I, you know, the siding is questionable when you've had vines growing on it for decades potentially, what can be salvaged. So I mean, while I'm encouraging the applicant to look into salvaging materials, to me it's just the 365 day delay is not warranted based on the evidence that was presented of what the condition of the structure is currently. It's my view. May I offer one other thing, Madam Chair? This is Joseph Jordan speaking. And even if you look, I think in the motion, the way the motions are structured now, it also, I think in the second bullet there, there's enough that gives us a way of describing what we're doing, which falls in line, I think with the guidelines in any case. So I know that the retreat is gonna be lively now, now that we're gonna add this to it as well. All right, thanks. Madam Chair. This is Christa Kukar with the city attorney's office. I'll just kind of reiterate, I think what's already been said, which is that I think so long as the decision is rooted in the criteria, I don't think that there is a danger of a precedent. I think just sort of in contrast, I think if the motion maker said, oh great, this is going to be redeveloped and that's why I am making a motion to approve it, that would be problematic. That is not what I'm hearing of the commissioners. And so I think so long as the board makes this decision rooted in the criteria, it's acceptable. I do not believe that testimony should be stricken from the record. Okay, were you speaking just now or? I was just commenting, but it's okay, it doesn't need to be. Okay. Are there any, or is there any more discussion on whether or not a delay is felt to be necessary by any of the commissioners? All right. Seeing no, oh, yes. And I don't have any other comments on the delay, but in the motion, it does speak to the commission has determined the accessory structure to poses or lack sufficient historical value or structural integrity to preserve it. I don't know if we can determine the structural integrity of this based off the evidence that we have. And I'd like to see that removed from the motion. So you just want structural integrity portion removed and leave the sufficient historical value. Yeah, I don't think we can determine the structural integrity. Okay. Well, with that, I would be willing to entertain a motion from Commissioner Goolsbee with the amended motion as noted if all other commissioners are amenable to that. Yes, I am. Thank you. I will entertain a motion. This is Andy Goolsbee. The Durham Historic Preservation Commission finds that in the case, DOA 20000191111 Georgia Avenue demolition, the applicant is proposing to demolish the contributing primary structure of dating from the 1940s post-dating the 1920s primary structure. The commission has determined the accessory structure to lack sufficient historical value to preserve it. The site will be stabilized with grass and straw following the demolition. No further construction has thus been proposed. Therefore, in accordance with UDO requirements and NCGS1600A.400.14, the COA for proposed demolition is approved without a delay. Is there a second? Second. Vice Chair Bouchard, seconded first. Terry, can we please get a roll call vote on this? Yeah. Commissioner Johnson? Yes. Commissioner Dayan? Yes. Commissioner Jordan? Yes. Chair Hamilton? Yes. Vice Chair Bouchard? Yes. And let's see, Commissioner Goolsbee? Yeah. Okay, Commissioner Prager? Yes. Motion passes 7-0. Thank you. And thank you, Mr. Monsign for coming up. Can I say something? If Commissioner Johnson wants to put me, people in touch with me about reclaiming the, possibly the bricks or the siding, I'm certainly open to do that. And I will, you know, I won't start demoing tomorrow or anything. I'll, you know, wait a couple of weeks if that's okay or anybody else on the committee wants to, you know, Carla has all my contact information. I'm certainly willing to do that. Okay, thank you. I have your contact. I'll reach out. Okay, thank you, Commissioner. All right, thank you. Thank you. All right. And with that, we will move on to our second case of the morning, which is COA-2006. 2-1-2419 West Club Boulevard modifications. Are there any commissioners who have a conflict of interest in hearing this case? Hearing none, we will now move on to swearing in of anyone who speaks, who plans to speak for this case. Madam Clark, can you please administer the oath? Yes. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give in the public hearing proceeding for today's case is the truth for your own information, knowledge or belief? So, Mr. Wilkins, if you could state your name and say whether you agree. I thought that was directed to staff. I do. Thank you, Mr. Wilkins. And now that you've confirmed the oath, can you also confirm your consent to the digital platform of the meeting being held today? Yes, I do. Fantastic. Now we'll proceed with the staff summary. Carla, can you please present the staff report? This is Carla Rosenberg Planning Department's case COA-200021. It's 2-419 West Club Boulevard modifications. The applicant is Riverbank Construction, represented by Chad Wilkins. The owner, the owners are Sayan Mukherjee and Jenny Tung. It's located on the south side of West Club Boulevard between Georgia Avenue and Alabama Avenue, Zoned Residential Suburban 8. It is a contributing property in the Watts-Hillendale Historic District. And the applicant is proposing to enclose an original side porch. It's a covered side porch, but open, and convert it to a sunroom. And there's expansion of a window into a door as well. So I'd like to introduce the staff report into the record and invite Mr. Wilkins to present his case. Thanks, Carla. Carla, if you don't mind, if you can go to the photos. So as Carla said, there's a current existing covered side porch that we're proposing to enclose. We are not proposing to demolish any piece of the existing side porch. All of the columns, the trim components, the brick floor, as well as the railing above are all to remain. And as you can see in the drawings above the photos here, the infilling elements will be divided light windows that will match the existing window proportions of the home. And then below the window sills will be panels, panel elements that will also mimic the panels on the front elevation below the windows, as you can see above. The new door that's being proposed is replacing a window on the right side of the chimney. It's a little difficult to see in these photos because they're so dark, but there is an existing door on the left side of the chimney. And we are matching that door with the door that we are proposing to place on the right side of the chimney in place of the existing window. Any questions? Thank you for your presentation. Before we have the commissioners ask any questions, is there anyone else here to speak for against this case? Hearing none, commissioners, if you have questions or Mr. Wilkins, I'll start us off. How do you plan to attach the new structure or the new infill portions to the existing columns? So the new walls will be two by four stud walls and so they will need to be attached to the columns in some fashion, either with mechanical fasteners or nails, but in the case of these walls being removed in the future, it would be a very easy repair to those columns. Thank you. Are there any other questions from the applicant? I have a question. On the front elevation where the enclosed porch extends out, there seems to be vegetation there with that vegetation remaining as a covering or screening? Yes, there's no changes proposed to the existing vegetation as part of this project. Okay. And so looking at the, what elevation is this? I guess the north elevation, there seems to be right there. Where the six foot, yeah, there and where the six photos are, it's the far left on the bottom, that opening so that railing will all be removed. Will that railing be all be removed? Yes, that's correct. That railing is not original to the house. Okay. I have a question for staff. This ain't equal to me. In the report, you do comment on the fact that it's not appropriate to enclose porches on character-defined elevation. I wonder if you could just talk through your assessment of that because you do note that to your eye it continues to read as a porch, but what we're determining off the criteria, it doesn't look like it's acceptable. Right, Carla Rosenberg Planning Department. And I've discussed this with the applicant as well that it needs to read as a porch. It was originally constructed as a porch. And so the applicant adjusted the construction design to maintain the columns. It still has the look of a porch. It's now an enclosed porch. My concern is the criteria strictly read to not enclose porches on character-defining elevations. I would consider this a character-defining elevation because of the significant architectural features such as this chimney that juts out and the fact that it's symmetrical on the other side in terms of like fenestration. This really makes it a colonial revival house, these porch structures. However, on colonial revival houses, occasionally these porches were enclosed. So I'm not as concerned about that. And I believe that the design that the applicant chose is the best possible that could have occurred in this situation. My main concern as I alluded to several times in the staff report is the fact that once this becomes enclosed, this elevation here no longer gains the protection of the COA because the COA only governs exterior surfaces. So we're creating an interior surface of the exterior that will no longer be, we couldn't regulate. The painting or fenestration changes and that sort of thing. So I had discussed with the applicant that this was a significant concern of staff for sure. In your- Can I further that question, Carla? Because it's actually the same question I had because there's nothing to me that would ever indicate that someone would go through this in order to alter the exterior. But if this is removed in the future and the interior elements have been moved around and constructed so that they no longer fit with the district, what are the implications? Like I said, once again, this is one of those instances where we might not be able to solve it today. But from the very beginning, when I started reading this, I was a little bit concerned in the same place as you were. Right, section A, Carla Rosenberg Planning Department, section A, it's the general criteria at the start of the contributing properties criteria states that any changes should be reversible. So you were correct that if someone were to remove the enclosure in the future and bring this back to an open porch, any changes that were made to that exterior elevation would then become visible and relevant. So I guess my question is, how do you deal with this? Because if Tom is still here, I guess this is the difference between the letter of the regulation and the spirit of the regulation in a way. So it's out of a sticking point for me. Carla Rosenberg Planning Department, you may wish to ask the applicant whether he has considered this further and come up with any solutions. Staff did share the possibility of a deed restriction for moving forward to protect this particular wall. So you could ask and see if that was investigated. Okay, I'll ask Chad, you go ahead. I can speak to that. I did ask the homeowner if a deed restriction would be an option for them. They, in speaking with a couple real estate professionals decided that they would prefer not to do a deed restriction unless that was the approval was contingent upon having a deed restriction. And the main reason that they preferred not to is not because they intend to alter the existing elevation in any way, but it could just limit pull of buyers down the road for the home. One other thing I wanted to say as well, I mean, I think, as Carla mentioned, there are many of these homes had enclosed porches that were enclosed decades after they were built. And as such, many of these homes have existing, what would be deemed existing porches now that are enclosed? So I don't think we're proposing to do anything that's not in fitting with earlier renovations of homes like this. And obviously we fully intend that the new exterior elevation is the exterior elevation of the enclosed porch, not the brick wall within, if that makes sense. No, could you repeat that? My internet went out for a minute. They're beginning part of the question. Yeah, my point was just that many of these homes while they were built with open covered porches several decades after they may have been enclosed. And as such, today they would be deemed part of the existing structure. So my point is just that we're not proposing a type of enclosure that's not in keeping with what may have been an original renovation to one of these homes anyway. Yeah, I know that, but I was just wanting to know if there were any examples of this, but I guess not anything readily available, but nearby, but okay, thank you. Were there any other questions directed at the applicant before we move on to internal deliberation between the commissioners? Chad, I have one. Can you remind me, you may have it in the report. Can you speak to the door that you are putting in there? What type is it? It's elevation, so what's it now look like? Sure, Carla, do you mind going down to the photo that shows the door a little closer up? So you can see the door to the left. It's basically a double or pair of doors with eight divided lights and panels below where we would match that door and its details and replace the window on the right side of the chimney with a door that's symmetrical about the chimney. The door that you guys buy as Andy calls me again, would it still be listed for exterior use? What I'm getting at is if the porch element was removed one day and you have two doors side by side, could they still act as exterior doors? Yes, that would be our intent. And the door, the existing doors are wooden, it's really the sill detail that would make it an exterior door and so the door that would be installed would have the same type of sill detail and everything. Not to mention the fact that the slab or the brick surface of the floor is actually several inches below, which would also further allow this door to be an exterior door in the future. So it's a solid core door as well, not hollow. Correct. April Johnson, just have a clarifying question. Will the new door also, will it just be your door or will it also match the existing door and also have a matching screen for it? That's a great question, April. My honest answer is I don't know that we had planned on the screen doors as well. And I'm honestly not sure that they're original, although they probably are. But if that's something that we need to revise and include, we would be willing to do that. It was just a question, but thank you. Are there any other questions for the applicant before we move on to deliberation? All right. Hearing none, we will close this public hearing and start discussion amongst commissioners. Is there anyone who'd like to speak first? I think I still have some of the original concerns about some of the original concerns about once this is enclosed, it's reversal and what is left on the interior of the wall, not knowing who would buy it in the future if it is ever sold. To some extent, I think it's almost like we need to decide if it's accessible to increase that window size to a door first and then come back to if it can be a screen porch after the fact. And Commissioner Bouchard has his hands raised. Yeah, it wasn't related to the point that Andy just raised. It was more just an observation from the discussion that was had during the public portion of the hearing. You know, like Katie, excuse me, like Carla, I'm concerned about I3 of the criterion and would argue that the very reason why the criterion don't allow for enclosure of porches on character defining elevations is so that we don't lose the ability to have jurisdiction over the very features that now if we allow the enclosure to go forward, we lose control over. That being said, I'm having a difficult time determining whether or not the elevation is character defining. Carla, I completely agree with you with respect to the architectural features and an argument can be made that it is in fact character defining. What is difficult for me to get around is the definition of character defining in 31, on page 31 of our review criteria, which seemed to suggest that character defining elevations are usually only the front elevation. However, if the property has multiple street front frontages, any street facing elevations may also be considered character defining elevations. And so this elevation, as I understand it, does not face a street. And so I'm wondering whether or not it can be truly considered character defining based on the criteria upon which we need to make our decision. As a final thought, there's no question that a portion of this porch is visible from the street facing side of the property. And I think an argument could be made that because of that, it is a character defining elevation. And not to get too esoteric, but I'm struggling with the definition of the word on in criterion I3. Is this porch on the front facing elevation or is it on a non front elevation? To me, I think the porch is probably on the non front elevation, on a side elevation, yes, visible from the street, but I mean, at this moment, my sense is this is based on the limitations given to us, not a character defining elevation and probably permissible. Thank you. Matt, I want to say I concur and you said it way better than me, maybe it's that lawyerly training, but I was having qualms about, I was thinking about its visibility. I don't know if that's still something we consider anymore, but I was thinking about how visible from the street is this porch and does that make it character defining because of that? And I do see that it does have features, but I wasn't sure about it being a character defining elevation. And I do understand you made a great point about the porch actually for the most part facing a different elevation, but there is a side of the porch that does face the front elevation. That's why I asked about the screening, but the screening will remain. Does that at least help shield the visibility of the change? But also like Carla said, this is normal. We see this in a lot of houses that somewhere down the line, the porch side porch has been enclosed. I'm not too concerned about the interior wall. The wall becoming now an interior space is highly unlikely. I guess we can't speak for future projects, but it's not likely that people make a bunch of changes to that wall to keep it like that. But yeah, anyway, I was just gonna say, I agree I have some of those concerns too. I'm not character defining. Thanks, Commissioner Norton. I'll recognize Commissioner Jordan who has his hand raised. Yeah, this is not rare. I mean, we've seen this on multiple occasions where we've gone over this character defining, not character defining, et cetera. And the question of visibility, if it's visible, and it does contribute not only to the character of the district and whatever that it should be considered. So for me, that's not so much the question. I think it's there. It's how it's treated if it's character defining, which is much more important for me. And we also have seen porches covered, uncovered, recovered, a whole range of those different kinds of things. So I don't want us to dismiss it that way. And having said all of that doesn't necessarily mean that I would not support approval for this, but I do want to know, and I thank you Carla for taking us through the steps that you went through. I'm still thinking about that. But I don't want to dismiss the idea of whether it's the front or whether it's a side for a very, very important property, for example, that might be on a corner and it's visible from more than one side or even visible from the back. I mean, we've done that, like I said, on multiple occasions and had to consider those elements. So I want to add that. Thank you to Matt in April for starting that conversation on this. So we can at least have a sense of what we feel. Thank you, Commissioner and Jordan. Did anyone else have thoughts they'd like to share? Well, I guess I feel that this is character defining. I don't feel like enclosing the porches out of character, though there are precedents within the historic district of Durham, like Commissioner Jordan said. And I do feel actually exactly the same that I would actually be much more comfortable with this if we conditioned it on the restrictions that Carla had mentioned. While I understand the current applicant doesn't intend to do anything with the wall, the idea that they don't want to put conditions on it because it'll narrow the field of people willing to buy is actually like further concerning because it kind of brings the same issue up that, well, in the future, the people who aren't willing to buy it because it has those conditions could significantly change that external, currently external wall, soon to be interior wall. And then we do lose the ability to remove this in the future without significant changes. So that's my view on it. Commissioner Dalyan. You called on me. Thanks. Yeah, so I agree with that on the, I didn't want to speak, but once I heard you reverting back to the covenants, I think that deep restrictions or anything in that regard, I don't know if we even have that procedure in place because who's going to sign in on the planning side if we go that way. I agree with this being a character defining and I agree with how problematic it is to trust and no one will do any interior changes that can become exterior afterwards. But I'm not sure that the deep restrictions, I'm not sure that we want to go there as a commission and I don't know if we have that purview. The valid point. Yeah, I don't know that that's really in our power either, but it would make me more comfortable. Madam chair. Yes, Christa. This is Christa Cougar City Attorney's Office. I think considering the concerns that the commission has raised, do you think that the deed restriction is an appropriate condition and I think that that is a preferable method rather than just conditioning that the property owner doesn't change the interior. I think it's a more enforceable tool. There is a state law that requires the applicant to consent to that condition that's sort of wrapped up into the COA signature process. So it sounds like the applicant owner would likely agree to that. And so I don't think that there's a problem from a legal perspective on that condition of the deed restriction. If the applicant is the one signing the deed, the applicant can also cancel it. What I know from community development and what they do with the low income housing when they put the restrictions is that they sign it too so that it's dependent on the signature of community development or self-help or whoever's helping there. In our case, who's the one who's going to sign it? So I'm also the attorney for community development and we can put into the deed restriction some type of consent from the city for cancellation. We do that from time to time and in our restrictive documents related to affordable housing. And so I was just messaging with staff about how we would go about the deed restriction. And so that could be sort of a collaborative process in terms of what the language looks like in that document that would be my thought on it. Okay. And then I think the other issue that Andy brought up was the window being converted to a door and he wanted to verify that everyone was acceptable and a minimal to that change. He said first, but we're doing it second. Did anyone have any thoughts on that? I'm personally okay with that conversion. I think I'll take silence from everyone else meaning that they are okay with it as well. I'm okay with it. It's on the society elevation. I'm conflicted, but it's the story of my life. Okay. Was there any other points of discussion that people wanted to go over on this one or anyone willing to proffer a motion at this time? Umps. Can I, is it possible to hear a staff recommendation on it? Oh yeah. Can we get a recommendation from staff? Sorry, Carla. Carla Rosenberg Plany Department staff would recommend approval of the application but with the condition of the deed restriction to be reviewed by staff. So we'll need a condition added that the applicant will work with staff in the city attorney's office probably to come up with that. To come up with a yes. We would approve their wording. They could come up with the wording and we would approve it and help them and if it works as factory. Mr. Wilkins, did you have something you'd like to say? Sure, I just wanted to ask is that something I would work with you on directly Carla? Yes, that's correct. Okay, thank you. Is there anyone who'd like to proffer the motion or make a motion at this time? I'm trying to see exactly where to put the clause that Carla made. So when we get to that point I'll just ask you all to chime in. Are we thinking it's gonna be 0.4 under the conditions? That's exactly right, it would be a condition. So it would be the, you could put it as the first condition. Usually when we add conditions to the template three that we always put on the COAs we just put the condition first. And then I'll also need to get the applicant's signature on the COA after I've written it out and before I issue it. Showing consent to that condition. Okay, I'll go ahead. Who are we going to say something? I don't think anybody has, I think it's your floor commission. Okay, okay. Okay, the Durham Historic Preservation Commission finds that in the case COA 2000021-2419 West Club Boulevard modifications. The applicant is proposing modifications to a contributing structure an original side porch will be enclosed with nine light aluminum clad wood casement windows over solid cementitious fiberboard panels with way scouting preserving original porch columns. One original window will be removed and its opening expanded into a French door to match and adjacent original door. 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 2000021-2419 West Club Boulevard modifications with the following conditions. The improvement shall be substantially consistent with the plans and testimony presented to the commission at this commission hearing and attached to this COA. The improvements may require additional approvals from other city or county departments or state or local agency. The applicant is responsible for obtaining all required approvals relating to building construction, site work and work in the right of way. Compliance inspection shall be performed immediately upon completion of the work approved herein. The additional condition stated is where I will need your help again. So... You'd like wording for the... Yes, I need wording for this final element. So the applicant will obtain a deed restriction for the, I think it was the north side. North elevation of the structure in, if we could say maybe in collaboration with planning staff and the city attorney's office. Does that sound okay, Krista? Krista Kukarassi, attorney's office. I think it probably needs to be articulated or explained what the intent of the deed restriction is, not just that it's a deed restriction, but that would be my suggestion. Yes, if you wanna clarify that. To protect the exterior wall that would thus be made interior. And I think, I'm not sure if this is Andy's point, but I think it's the east elevation. Yeah, okay. Maybe they will check that. And you said to protect the... Yeah, I guess such that no further alterations would be made really is what we're getting at. Commissioner Bouchard here, looking at plan sheet A02. Is it the west elevation? It's the east elevation. I think with the confusion from theambulance map that someone can just confirm that. Okay. So for the applicant will obtain a deed restriction for the east elevation of the structure in association and with the assistance of the association of planning staff and legal staff to protect the interior wall so that no alterations will be made. So it would be no further alterations because we are allowing the expansion, I believe, of the... So no further alterations will be made. All right. Thank you, Madam Chair. That's it. Is there a second? Is it the east or the west? I think you'd corrected it to east, but it is west, like Matt said. Please note that correction there. Thank you. Can the applicant confirm whether it's east or west? It's the east elevation. It's towards Alabama or towards Georgia? The front elevation of the house faces north. Right. As you're facing the front elevation from the street, this is on the left side, which would make it the east elevation. It's on... If you're facing... So it's facing Alabama. It's... Alabama is east, Georgia is west. It's facing Alabama. Okay. Yeah, it is written on the drawings, I believe. All right, thank you. Maybe we should just say the elevation that is being covered with the... The elevation in question. Yes. Okay, thank you. Yeah, because on ATA02, it says west elevation. I think that's where the confusion is, but okay. So... It's exactly right. It's written incorrectly on the drawings, but it should be the east. All right, so no one's seconded, Katie. I will second the motion as amended in this conversation. Madam Chair, can we get our roll call? Yes. Commissioner Johnson. Yes. Commissioner Dayan. Yes. Commissioner Jordan. Yes. Chair Hamilton. Yes. Vice Chair Bichard. Yes. Commissioner Gulsby. Yes. Commissioner Crager. Yes. Motion passes 7-0. Thank you, and thank you, Mr. Wilkins, for coming to our virtual meeting this morning. Thank you, everybody. With that, we will consider that matter closed and move on to hear case COA-2005-1308 Fayetteville Street addition, modification, sign, and site work. Before we hear from staff, are there any commissioners who have a conflict of interest in hearing this case? Seeing none, let's proceed with this bearing in of anyone who plans to speak for this case. Madam Clerk, can you please administer the oath to the applicants? Yes. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give in the public hearing proceeding for today's case is the truth or your own knowledge, information, or belief? I do. Could you please state your name and then your agreement? Adam Brackenberry, architect with Vines Architecture. Is there anyone else who's going to speak for against this case who will need to swear in the oath? Looks like we have a number of people who joined. So if any of you plan to speak, please state your name and affirm the oath. Tom Dawson, Assistant Director on Parks and Recreation, I take the oath. Seeing no one else who plans to speak, can Mr. I'm sorry, I'm John Puchas-Wiles with General Services. I'm the project manager for this, and I take the oath as well. Is there anyone else who wishes? And I don't see Dan Jewel on here. He was going to join us. So I don't know if he might have lost his signal. No, there he is. All right, Dan Jewel, Colter Jewel, Thames, and I swear to the oath as well. All right, with that, can the individuals who are planning to speak also confirm that you can send to the digital platform of today's meeting? I confirm. I confirm, Dan Jewel. I confirm, Tom Dawson. I confirm, John Puchas-Wiles. Great, and with that, we'll now proceed and bring up the presentation and present the staff forward. Carlo Rosenberg Planning Department. This is case COA 200025, 1308 Fayetteville Street Edition modifications, sign, and site work. The applicant binds architecture with Colter Jewel, Thames, PA, represented by Ed McLean, the owner, City of Durham, located on the west side of Fayetteville Street between Linwood and Price Avenues. It's zoned office and institutional and it's a non-contributing structure in the Fayetteville Street Historic District. So the applicant is proposing a vestibule addition on a recessed front entry, also some perforated metal screening over the building street facing windows, replacing some clear story windows in the gymnasium toward the rear of the building, and a new storefront glazing system. In addition, you can see there's some site work, a seat wall along the street facing property line, replacing some front and side walkways, installing a monument sign at the street and planting two new street trees. I'd like to introduce the staff report into the record and invite Mr. McLean and the rest of his team to present this case. Sure, thanks, Carlo. I'll go ahead and give a brief overview of the project, starting with just, I think it's important to understand a few of the primary goals that are driving the project. First and foremost is really improved security and safety for the building. There have been a number of instances of straight bull striking the building and in some cases actually going through the front windows. So we've been working with Parks and Recreation to address these issues by providing some screening to deflect the bullets and do this in a way that still keeps the building open and inviting the community center. So we wanted to try to be able to maintain that openness. The other drivers making the building entrance actually more visible than it currently is and inviting. And then also creating a stronger identity for the Rec Center. It's pretty easy to drive by it on Fayetteville Street right now and miss it or not recognize it as a community center. So those are really the goals that we're driving the renovation work that we're doing. The improvements include additional street trees, additional sight lighting, the new buildings signage that Carlo mentioned, which will be a little more visible to automobiles driving by as well as pedestrians than the current signage. We're creating a new vestibule which actually brings the entrance forward a little bit more on the building and makes it more visible as well as creating kind of a front porch entry. Again, that is more visible. We are widening the entry walkway and adding pavers. So there'll be some site improvements, adding some texture to the site and widening that entryway. And then of course the perf metal that was mentioned, which is the perf metal and the polycarbonate are two materials that we're layering to help deflect the bullets that have been coming in from drive by shootings. This has been a recurring problem, but these are materials that also maintain visibility. We wanted daylighting to still get into the building and we also wanted the occupants of the building to still be able to see out of the building and maintain the visibility that's there and also to be able to see the existing finistration and the articulation and scale that's on the building and not obscure that. The perf metal screen that we're adding does reinforce the vertical proportions of those windows by the way we've set up the structure of that screen. So those are reinforcing the existing proportions that are beyond that screen on the existing building. So I don't know if you wanna scroll through some of the pictures, Carlo, of what we've proposed. You can see the existing brick is very dark, the entry is recessed, particularly difficult to see from the street. We're painting the brick white to brighten it up. That's where the new vestibule will be added that'll bring that entrance a little bit more forward. And then also the perf metal, we're proposing a green perf metal that's meant to, that's using some of the color from Parks and Rec to kind of help with their branding and identity as well as bring some more vibrancy and liveliness to the front. There you can see a section showing that porch entry where that's creating some additional protection and into the main lobby, but doing that while still actually making the entrance more visible. So we think we've been successful and both providing screening but not making the building feel fortress-like, still making it very open and have the feeling and appearance of a community building. There you can see the signage, the new monumental signage, which will be visible both for pedestrians but also cars passing by so that the presence of the community center is more felt and the identity is enhanced for the building. These are some precedents showing the perf metal. You can see that that allows the daylight to still come into the building, occupants of the building to see out and also for pedestrians and others on the street to be able to see in, to maintain that public building. We think that's important as a public building and community center. These are details of the monumental signage. You can see that it's three foot 10, so it's not blocking views that would make the site unsafe. It does provide a little bit of a barrier. They wanna have some programming in the front lawn. This would help with, particularly with smaller children playing in that front yard area to keep them from running out into the street. It is a rather busy road. So you can see here, we've taken some of the branding and iconography from the Parks and Rec signage that they're using currently and incorporated that into the new sign. It's the same perf metal that we're using on the building to kind of bring cohesion to the overall, both between the site and the building. We'll be using a similar brick to match what's on the building for the base of the sign. So there'll be kind of overall cohesiveness with the site and the building. There's some small branding or logos that would be on the glass next to the front entry with the city of Durham logo and DPR. That's more to pedestrian scale. You can see that's more what you would see when you walk up to the front entrance. So as Carla had mentioned, the building, although it's historically non-contributing to the historic district, it's certainly a building and a program that's contributing to the community and the neighborhood. Our hope is with this renovation to help support those programs and again, provide greater visibility while still getting that much needed security and protection to the building and the building occupants, okay. Are there any questions? I suppose, is there anyone else who wants to speak for this application? Raise your hand and be acknowledged, right? Seeing that it does appear that Commissioner Jordan has a question and I'll recognize him now. Yeah, I just wanted to ask, you mentioned about the addition of the metal mesh type structure there as being there to as a protective element against bullets. Is that actually capable? Is it rated as being capable of stopping any kind of bullet projectile or whatever? That's a good question. This is not like a bullet proof glass where it's specified to block all bullet fire. Our understanding is that a lot of the, most of what's impacted the building are 22 caliber. So a metal screenwood is intended to deflect as much of that as possible. Likewise, with the polycarbonate to try to find materials that when we layer them are improving the security and safety of the building, it's not necessarily a guarantee, but it is a way to significantly improve the safety and security of it while maintaining visibility and daylighting. And will the wall itself actually be part of that? Is that intended to also add to that protective element? It can, yes, yes. We asked the designers to design off of crime prevention through environmental design principles. So every element in here is designed to connote a sense of safety ownership, but also to slow down any projectiles that might go our way. And they do go our way. So we feel as DPR staff that the designers have been very responsive to our needs both for programs, but also for safety. Yes, thank you. Thank you, Tom. Also, I did forget to mention that in the new vestibule, the glass that you see there near the entry is actually that is bulletproof glass. So that is intended in order to keep that entrance as open as possible. We needed to, we didn't want to put anything at all, even the translucent material in front of it. So that's where we've actually used the bulletproof glazing, that we limited the amount of that that we use because it can be very expensive to maintain. So if a bullet does strike that, it's very costly to replace it. So we've really used that at the main entrance where we can get the most out of it and then use the translucent materials everywhere else. Thank you. I have a question about the lighting. And it's not necessarily, I guess it's germane to what you're using as an argument of safety. You only have two ballard lights being submitted. Is that correct? Karla, could you go to the actual site plan? This was a, the ax on there is an earlier design representation. I don't know the number of actual lights that we have specified. It may be only a couple, which we're also incorporating lighting into the screening and the signage. So we will, we're adding this in addition to the lighting that would be already part of the building. So the building has some building lighting attached to it. We'll be adding lighting to the perf metal and then we'll have the site ballards in addition to that. And DPR is, in terms of our lighting strategy, we're comfortable, we're not looking for the kind of security lighting that you often see at the high powered sodium lights. We're looking for a consistent glow where you can see activity within there, but not necessarily a glare. So we're looking for glow, not glare. And we feel that this lighting scheme works with the streetscape and our security needs. Did any of the other commissioners have questions for the applicants? Hearing none. I think we, do we have any one else here that needs to speak for against this case? Seeing no one's hand raised or I think we can close the public hearing on this and move on to deliberation amongst the commissioners. Anyone have any thoughts they'd like to open up with? I hate to hear you have to plan a building for possible bullets flying. It's not something that makes you comfortable. It's a reality, but I passed there just about every day and just never had that sensibility. Any other commissioners who had, I agree wholeheartedly, but are there any other commissioners who had any, anything they'd like to discuss about the application and the discussion willing to entertain? Actually, one thing I'd like to do on behalf of the applicant is can we, with the street trees being Chinese pistach, I love it, they're hard to find right now. So can we just say in that portion, Chinese pistach or other trees as allowable in the Durham Landscape Manual, because I will tell you I'm having issues getting contractors to find Chinese pistach right now. So I'd like to just leave that flexible. Dan Jewel here. Yes, that's a reasonable modification. If there's no other discussion, I'll entertain a motion and like to your staff's recommendation on this. Carlo Rosenberg Planning Department, staff would recommend approval of the application and is certainly fine with the condition or the amendment regarding the pistach trees. Is there anyone who feels that they'd like to make this motion? I can make it this time. So at the next to the last bullet point, we'll say we're seeing for other pistach trees or other. Or as approved in the Durham Landscape Manual. The Durham Historic Preservation Commission finds that in the case of COA 200025 1308 Fayetteville Street, addition, modification, sign and site work, the applicant is proposing an addition, modification, signage and site work to a non-contributing structure. The addition will consist of a storefront glazed vestibule within the existing recessed front entry. A row of clear story windows facing the street will be replaced with a new storefront glazed window system that will match the existing. All first floor street facing windows will be shielded by transparent polycarbonate panels and perforated metal panels. The front walkway will be expanded with new concrete pavers removing existing low shrubs and a concrete sidewalk side walkway will also be relocated and reconfigured. Two new street trees, Chinese pistach or as approved in the Durham Landscape Manual will be planted or trees approved in the Durham Landscape Manual will be planted. A brick seat wall up to 30 inches in height will be installed along the front sidewalk and a monument sign of perforated metal matching the window shields measuring three feet, 10 inches in height will be installed just beside it. Two light topped metal ballards approximately three feet in height will be installed along the front walkway. 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 the staff report in the Durham Historic Preservation Commission approves the certificate of appropriateness for case COA 20000251308 Fairfield Street addition, modification, sign and site work with the following conditions. The improvements shall be substantially consistent with the plans and testimony presented to the commission at this commission hearing and attached to the COA. 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 the compliance inspection shall be performed immediately upon completion of the work approved here in. A second. Terry, can we please get a roll call? Yes. Commissioner Johnson. Yes. Commissioner Dayon. Yes. Commissioner Jordan. Yes. Chair Hamilton. Yes. Vice Chair Prashard. Yes. Commissioner Gulsby. Yes. And Commissioner Krueger. Yes. Motion passes 7-0. And with that, this matter is closed. Thank you to the applicants for coming or for being at home for this online meeting. I think it's been requested that we entertain a 15 minute recess. Also, can the commissioners who need to mention need to leave early, let us know if you intend to leave? I will not. If it's, if we're going to take a 15 minute recess, that'll put me way late and I would not be able to stay unfortunate. Me too. I can stay till 11 if we don't have the recess, we're not more than that. Okay. Yeah, I also need to take off. I wouldn't be able to sit for the lap if I could sit for the bright leave. Okay. So do we want to try to fit another case in before 11? It sounds like we probably need to. Is that acceptable to everyone? Yeah, we have to go to this. I guess it's the next one. Jordan, if you have to go and Tom and I can stay, I think we still have a quorum, correct, Katie? Yeah, my concern may, Carla, should we reorder the cases since I need to recuse myself from the last one to ensure we have a quorum or how does that work? Well, I am concerned that the last one may be a long one, just because of the, it's a big project and probably won't be reviewable in 10 minutes. Okay. So maybe. Commissioner DeBerry did offer to be on standby. So that's one we could add potentially if he's still available. If we add him for that last one, we'll have a quorum still. I'll just add in that I am leaving at 1130. This is Tom Krieger. Okay. Based on this discussion, I don't think a recess is prudent. So I think we can move on to the next case if everyone's okay with that. Chair, this is Grace with the staff. Yeah, I mean, if we need to reorder so that we ensure a quorum for the last case, we can do that. It's really imperative and important that we have a quorum for all of these cases today. So if we have to reorder, staff is amenable to that, but Ms. Rosenberg had a good point and that case is gonna take a little bit longer probably than the other one. So please decide now if you want to reorder or not. All right, so we need five commissioners for a quorum, correct? All right, who, if I can just get everyone who's on this call right now to say what time is their dead stop that they're gonna have to leave, that would be helpful to making this decision. 11. 11. I'm extending one more time. I'll do it to 1110. Okay. 1130. 11. Brandy. Matt Bouchard, no limitation. April, you're on mute. No limitation. There's not gonna be a quorum. Yeah. That leaves two commissioners for the last case, potentially three, if we can get Mr. DeVerry to participate. And... Yeah, so I think we, if we reorder, then we can get Matt April, Tom, Commissioner Jordan for the first 18 minutes. While I'm gonna mute myself and cancel my next meeting so that we can move forward if it's all right. Okay. Thank you, Commissioner Jordan for that. This is Grace. Thank you for doing that. It seems like even if we reorder, we need Tad to get a quorum on that last one. So I think, can we reach... I'm going to try to call him right now. Okay. Are we trying to reorder? Can we do the first one quickly and wait on the answer? I'm fine with doing the first one. Well, Tom's only available until 1130 and we'll need him for a quorum on the last one. So I guess it depends on how long we think the discussion on that last one's gonna take. I would not be surprised if it's gonna take 30 minutes. So is there not one member that can adjust their schedule? This is Grace again. I apologize. My video's slow. Is there not anyone that can adjust their schedule at all so that we can get these two cases heard today? I'm just asking. I think we can get the first one, the second one, I can't adjust another. I already postponed half an hour of my, even my call, I have to take this at 11 o'clock. Any, I can, I'll make an adjustment, I can do that. Okay, well, if Andy is willing to make an adjustment, then I think we'll still need an adjustment to the agenda to get, to ensure Tom can be here for this next item, because I can vote on 25, but I can't vote on 26. So I think we still need to do an adjustment to the agenda to move 26 up and 25 to be the last correct tab is available. So I believe Carla is contacting Tad now. So she'll come back live in a minute, hopefully. This is Grace. Okay. As Tad said that he is able to participate by phone, he does have his paperwork. Great. Well, then I think at this point, we can excuse Commissioner Jonathan, thanks. Thank you. And good luck. Thanks. If Tad's joining, then we will have Tad, and then Joseph until 11, 10. Yeah, I think we're gonna need to reorganize, reorder the cases and go with COA 200026 ahead of COA 200025 to ensure we have a quorum for both hearings. I'm sorry to your Hamilton. I think we've already heard two five, right? I'm sorry. Yeah, so I think you mean three five. 35 ahead of 26. I'm sorry. Tad's here. Hi, Tad. Thanks for joining. Absolutely. So do I need to make a motion to reorganize the agenda or? Yes, can we please have a motion to reorder? I move to reorder the agenda to hear case COA 20003035 ahead of case COA 200026 to ensure we meet a quorum for both hearings. Okay. Can I get a roll call vote? Commissioner Johnson? Yeah. Okay. Commissioner Jordan? Yes. Chair Hamilton? Yes. Vice Chair Prashard? Yes. Commissioner DeBerry? Yes. Commissioner Gulsby? Yeah. And Commissioner Crager? Yes. Motion passes seven zero. Okay. And with that, I'll be recusing myself from this next case and Matt will be taking over as chair. Commissioner Prashard here. Thank you, Katie. We will now hear case COA 20003035 318 Liberty Street, new construction in site work. Before we hear from staff, is there anyone of our commissioners other than Katie who may have a conflict of interest in hearing this case? Hearing none, let us proceed with the swearing in of anyone who plans to speak for this case. Do you affirm, do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give in the public hearing proceeding for today's case is the truth by your own knowledge, information, or belief? Who is providing the presentation for the applicant? Katie, is it you or is it somebody else? So if there are people in the attendees, they just need to be promoted to panelists to be allowed to speak right now. You know what I mean? Go ahead. This is Jolderbrowski a little, can you hear me? We can. Yes, we can. Okay, great. And you don't see me though. Okay, I'm sorry. Do we need to repeat or can I just repeat myself? Terry, could you go ahead and re-swear in the witness? Sure. Thank you. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give in the public hearing proceeding for today's case is the truth by your own knowledge, information, or belief? This is Jolderbrowski a little, I swear. This is Terry Mann, Deputy Director for Durham County Engineering. I take the oath as well for managing the project on behalf of the community. Anybody else? Anybody else? This is Katie Hamilton and I also swear. This is Ian Shelton, Architect with neighboring concepts and how do you swear? Thank you everybody. I will go one by one, but I do need to verify that everyone speaking on behalf of this COA is giving their consent to holding this hearing by virtual means, starting with Mr. Dabrowski. I consent. And Mr. Manns? I consent. And Mr. Shelton? I consent. And Ms. Hamilton? I consent. Terrific, thank you everybody. Mr. Chair. Yes. Krista Kukro with the city attorney's office. There is also, there was a last minute registration, someone in opposition, Mr. Marcus Hill. And I believe that the county attorney's office has spoken to Mr. Hill and informed him that the county wishes to proceed today with the case acknowledging that Mr. Hill would like to speak in opposition. So Mr. Hill will also need to be sworn in and consent to the virtual remote hearing, please. Okay, Mr. Hill, are you present? I am, I consent to the virtual hearing. Thank you for that consent. And if we can have you sworn in as a witness and again, Terry, if you would. Thank you. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give in the public hearing proceeding for today's case is the truth by your own knowledge, information, or belief? Yes. Thank you. Thank you everybody for working through that. And for taking the oath and providing those consents. Let's proceed now with the staff summary. All right, Carla Rosenberg Planning Department. This is case COA 200035318 Liberty Street, new construction and site work. The applicant is Stuart architecture, represented by Katie Hamilton, the owner County of Durham, represented by Perry Mans. It's located on the eastern half of the city block bounded by East Main Street, Liberty Street, North Roxbury Street and North Queen Street. It's owned downtown design core and it's a non-contributing property in the downtown Durham Historic District. So the applicant is proposing to construct a new multi-use building that will be seven stories tall. As well as associated landscaping. I believe signage is actually not a part of this package. I'd like to introduce the staff report into the record and invite Ms. Hamilton and others to present the case. Thank you, Carla. All right, this is Joel DeBrowski again. I'll be presenting most of this information with some help from Katie and from Ian at neighboring concepts. It's a complex project involving two architects, one civil and landscape design team. It is mainly for affordable housing and parking for both the County and the residents of the affordable housing with ground floor, amenity and commercial space. Here's an image of the existing site. It's been a parking lot for approximately 80 years before there was a few single-family homes on the property. Significantly, there is the former historic, the historic former library building which is now an office, uses an office just to the west of our property. And that's probably the single most important factor in some of the design decisions we're coming to you about today. As you can also tell, in the area, we have both St. Phillips and First Presbyterian churches. First Presbyterians on the same block. St. Phillips is right across the street, across Queen Street there. The building itself, if we can move down, takes out the majority of the block. It's essentially an urban building. Oh, this, I'm sorry, existing conditions. You can see it's basically just a parking lot today. So we would be planning to repurpose this entire property. The new site plan here, what we're proposing is that the affordable housing wrap the parking and it wrap on the interior of the blocks that we have a long pedestrian passage, public amenity cutting north, south on the west edge of our property between the historic library and the new proposed building. This is one of the things that we want to talk about in terms of exceptions. I'll try to make this quick because I know everyone's pressed for time. Typically the pedestrian passage should be acquired going east west on this building, but since it has a limited amount of use and access because it reaches a parking lot for the existing property, it's going to, we propose a north-south one that connects from the library to Main Street. And in addition, we use this green space and public amenity connector to push the building up against Queens Street as we typically would do for these downtown urban blocks. But on the interior of the block that helps create space away from the historic neighboring property to open up view corridors to that neighboring property. It's about 44 feet to the property line, about 51 feet to the historic library at this point. It opens up views about 120 degree angle to see the front facade of the library and try to step back. The building itself also notches and steps back in two ways. One, instead of maintaining a 12 to 18 foot urban frontage along Main Street, it steps back with essentially a plaza in front. This helps open up the view corridor. It also notches back at the corner there to afford more view of the historic library and to try to meet the frontage requirement in terms of historic reservations requirement to meet the block face. So in other words, the front face of the building lines up with the front of St. Phillips and that notch lines up with the historic library. The public passage helps create that distance that you see in the drawing in front of you right now. And what we do is in order to acknowledge the scale of that building because it is essentially a tall one-story building. When you take the top of the pediment it reaches roughly a third floor of our building and we bring materials across and a cornice line to acknowledge the scale of that building. As we've crossed the street, we can see a similar kind of proportioning on buildings across Main Street. The parking deck itself lines Queen Street. The idea with that is that the linear park is activated by the residents being on that block. The historic nature of this is somewhat limited because we have on the north half of its Jason block, there's urban ministries and we have St. Phillips which is really a monumental building of sorts. So we try to maintain the simple building base that comes across with a brick frontage and up above to help screen the deck for you to do requirements with the lightweight material. We're showing something that's more like a graphic, potentially public art up there. But we're trying to maintain and for open air requirements of an open parking garage, a perforated material that will begin to show some similarities to the panelization that we have on the rest of the building. In addition, the red brick comes in because of St. Phillips and additional buildings in the district and we try to maintain the more tan brick that's associated with the library on that Main Street facade and down the length of the adjacent linear park. Liberty Street, you can see there's glazing along the streets and open storefront requirements for the UDO in terms of historic preservation. We're trying to limit the impact of the taller first story by both stepping it back and also making the materials recede as they go up. So you get darker and more assessed. The building face itself is relatively straight and plumb but we do have balconies that recess as well. The only other thing that is sort of exceptional from the UDO that we'll be talking to you about is in terms of that ground floor amenity space, we do have areas where it's lower 14 foot clear that's required that's in order to both maintain a podium of just under 75 feet. This whole building is considered a building being that high. We could go higher because of UDO allowances for affordable housing but for construction and proposal of what we want in terms of scale of the project we would not try to seek any exception in terms of the height. What we're looking at is just on the ground floor in some cases, like at the parking garage level, maintaining a height that's slightly less than that about 12 feet clear. If we go down a little further, you can see some views where we try to get some idea of the materials, some of the details using gray brick and using fiber cement on the residential. Those are on the upper levels. The ground floor elements are always brick. And then we have high quality PVC single hung windows on the residential side. That's an example of the metal panel type material though we'd be using different colors for it. It picks up on a simple base structure there. And then Katie, if you wanna speak to some landscaping elements that helps tie all this together into the regular UDOs streetscape plan. Sure. So we are presenting this with the standard downtown streetscape where there's a double row course of bricks along the back of curb, as well as trees and brick paver grates. We're also proposing a seat wall along the main street elevation that kind of seeks to create the typical street wall that you see in downtown where the normal setback of 12 to 18 feet would be where you're creating a clear demarcation of street versus non street or plaza space. So we're putting those seat walls there to create that same edge of the street while still keeping that open visibility towards the adjacent landmark. And then again, the linear park that is adjacent to the former library that connects the library currently being built to main street also has a couple of playgrounds in there. That's because the programming of this building does include a preschool that is on the corner that has the recessed entry. So that needs to be a private playground just based on how preschools function. And then we've also provided a secondary playground on the northern part of that, which will have play structures included that residents can enjoy without being enrolled in the preschool. We've also created a meandering concrete path there. And we are having to replace the wall that is between us and the adjacent library. It's currently in a state of disrepair. Rebar is sticking out of the wall currently and exposed. So we're going to reconstruct that wall. Currently we're not proposing replacement. Yeah, and the fence has also grown into the tree or the tree grown into the fence there you can see as well. We're not currently proposing to remove those trees. Once we get into what the root structures are actually like, we may have to come back with another application. But that is in response to the existing conditions of how those trees are growing. And if we came back with that, we would work with our adjacent neighbors to propose that. But currently there's no tree removal proposed with this application. And I think that's it. Is anybody else? This is a Commissioner Bouchard. Does anybody else wish to speak in favor of this application? Do any of the commissioners have any questions for the applicant before we ask to hear from others? I may have something after you hear from others. Actually. Okay, well, here I have a question. Go ahead, Eddie. Katie, is there any agreement with the adjacent property about those trees? Do they understand that this development could impact things on their property? Currently, there is not an agreement in place. I think we need to get into whether or not it will impact that. And then we would move forward with discussions with them. The hope is that based on how the trees are where specifically with the wall is that their root structure grew away from the wall since they were in place adjacent to the existing wall. And the hope is that we can kind of put another wall in front of the existing wall and with the appropriate batter and everything else and that we won't do too much damage to the root structure and we'll be able to maintain it without impacting their property. If I might say I'm the property owner of the historic library, Marcus Hill. Yeah, Mr. Hill, we will hear from you shortly. If we could just go forward with this portion of the hearing with questions from the commissioners to the applicant. Thank you. This will be, oh, sorry, go ahead, Joe. So Vice Chair, I'm wondering whether if there is opposition, whether we should hear that first before we begin asking questions? Is it the other way around? Does anyone that wants to speak for or against? I think- Accounting this case for Mr. Hill? Is it someone else? Mr. Hill, we'll be speaking against. Typically we allow time for the commissioners to ask questions of the applicant before, hearing from those who are opposed to the application. I think it's the other way around. I think it's the other way around. Can we ask staff for clarification on that rule that once the applicant is completed, we then ask is there's anyone that wishes to speak for against the application? Then we come to the questions. Is that correct or incorrect? Christa, are you there? I am here and I was looking at the rules of procedure because I want to reference those since, okay. I want to be accurate. Oh, hang on, just a second. So the rules say in this order, the commission shall receive testimony from persons in favor of the COA, the commission shall receive testimony from persons opposed to the COA, the chairperson may establish limits and then there's discussion of the case by commission members. I believe what the vice chair was doing was just requesting of the commissioners, whether there was any clarification that they wanted to seek from the applicant, persons in favor of the COA. I think it would be appropriate at this time to proceed with the opponent. Thank you, Christa. Commissioner Bouchard here, Mr. Hilt, are you prepared to speak against the application? Well, I am, I'm not really, there wasn't a, it's a difficult dichotomous choice for or against, I own the historic library, I've been there for 25 years and questions I had had to do with landscaping. Firstly, those trees are an important part of the landscape and I was wondering what accommodations they may make because sometimes building and putting in foundation and other building products can cause trees to die. So I don't know what the, I read the statement in the PDF from the developer, but it doesn't look like they're clear and after hearing them speak, it seemed like they didn't really have an exact plan they were thinking they would check into it and figure it out later. Is that what the developer had planned? My understanding is that we were going to get further in development of that linear park and essentially see where the level of impact is going to be on those trees. And then the plan was to go to use the owner about the potential impact of those, of those trees. My understanding is that the trees aren't necessarily, cause they don't face a right of way under any other jurisdiction for preservation. So between, it would be between the county as a property owner and you as the other property owner. Yeah, this is Katie Hamilton. Again, I think a lot of ours, we don't currently have an exact plan. The intent is to look at the health of those trees specifically as it relates to the wall that's adjacent to the one that's closest to your historic library structure and just verify that they, one are in good health after we look at the roots and I think we'll do everything feasible to preserve them, assuming they are in good health and that their root structures are capable of, and have grown away from the wall like we're assuming. That sounds reasonable. And what about additional traffic that you're bringing to this corridor? Is there some sort of plan or other structure for that? This is Jilled Brailsgate little. There are, there is a play area in the front that Katie mentioned for the pre-K by state regulation that has to be dedicated for that, and excuse me, as a childcare daycare, not a pre-K dedicated to that with a fence around it. Up above, there are some lightweight structures and some playground equipment essentially for the residents of the block. They would not be considered, I think, accessory structures in that sense, their playground equipment. Katie, can you remind me if there are any covered areas for picnic benches, that kind of thing? There is going to be a covered picnic area associated with that playground so that attendance of children have shade provided. Provided. Were you speaking to pedestrian traffic? I was speaking to pedestrian traffic but also to vehicular traffic. So obviously there's parking in the building, there's a number of apartments. So we're going to increase the traffic, the vehicular traffic load on Main Street, correct? There is some degree of increase. However, we did a traffic impact analysis that says that there's no need for further improvements. However, the county is interested in some traffic calling measures because they will have staff parking in the garage. As far as project, getting to the human services building and probably other buildings in the area. So they will be looking at separate streets gave improvements to calm traffic and get people across safely. But yes, there is a minimal impact, I believe, on the existing traffic. In the downtown area, there's essentially no required improvements. Note also the entrances to the parking deck are on Queen Street and not Main Street. So the hope is that while there will be additional traffic because you're not having multiple drive entrances off of Main Street, like the current configuration of the parking lot, that some of that using a controlled intersection will help with some of those issues. Seems like those have answered my queries at this point. I was also concerned about the details of the fence. There's a chain link fence and then there's some concrete fencing or basically preventing the height differences from causing a landslide and rain. And it seems like you all have addressed those to some extent as well, is that right? Yeah, we'll be replacing those retaining structures to ensure that we've re-stabilized that slope with a new wall that is, you know, the existing walls deteriorating, I'm sure you've seen. So that is correct. So that's all I had at this point. Thank you for listening to me. Do any of the commissioners, this is Matt Bouchard speaking, do any of the commissioners have any questions for Mr. Hill? It appears Commissioner Jordan raised his hand. Yes, Chair Bouchard, I don't have a question for Mr. Hill, but I have a question for the applicants. Please proceed. Okay, yes, I'm wondering what is gonna be the impact on the library? I think Katie mentioned that the condition, I think everyone has actually indicated that the condition of the library is basically fairly fragile and that if there's rebar coming through, how would construction of this particular, in this particular area affect the building? What would be the impact on the integrity of that structure? Just to clarify, the rebar that's coming through is on a concrete retaining wall that actually is holding up the library's lawn, adjacent to this parking lot that exists. So it's not the library itself, it's a proxy, maybe in feet from the library building. It's about seven feet, actually. Yeah, it's close, yeah. Okay, well, I mean, I still have the question, I mean, if the rebar is sticking to the wall, what is gonna be the impact? If there's gonna be any structural, possible structural damage given its age and giving any other elements there, the wall not withstanding. We would be making sure that when that wall is replaced, that we would be supporting on the one side so that there is no damage over there. We'll be doing everything in our power also, as we've done already in terms of planning, keep the building away from that, keep its footings and all digging away from that building. It's about 50 feet away right now. And everything's been done so that there's minimal impact on that area. In terms of what's happening with the landscape, there will be some grade change, but it should not be major impact to remove or replace, remove or replace the soils and the wall when we do that. It's gonna be enough to limit the existing impact. Joseph, do you have any other questions? I'm gonna listen to other folks. I have questions about the depiction of the setback from the street, which looks a little different in different depictions, but let me hear if any other folks have questions and then I'll come back to that. Thank you. Commissioner Bouchard here, April Johnson has raised her hand. Go ahead, April. Thank you. And you may have covered this. My handyman came early today and so I had to show him where the problem is. But I wanted to ask the applicants if they had the scale and height of the building concerns me. Scale and height of the building concerns me just a little bit for that particular block because though it may match in scale and height with as compared to the other buildings, they are either or but not combined. And I was wondering if there was ever any consideration for breaking up the building. And I know across the street, I believe whether the public health building is across the street and that's pretty massive. The public health building is a caddy corner, yes. Yeah, caddy corner, yeah. This building is a little bit taller than that. Honestly, the real impetus was to get as much portable housing in the district as we could which led to this five plus one solution. The floors are only just over 10 feet tall or 10 foot eight floor to floor. So the floors tend to be shorter than like an office building like the human services building is. So that's why at the end of the day, even though it's more floors, it's similar in height, just slightly smaller. We do have corner elements, you know, per the UD that pop up a little bit higher just to kind of put accents on where like pre-cantrances where the main rental lobby is, things like that that are typical that we do on an urban block. And we are using the brick and the panelized material to help break down the scale of that. We do have some large balconies as well to help break down the bulk of the building, particularly the length of it. Is it possible to go to the elevations and see like the West elevation where along the linear park, it's broken up into pieces along there to try to make it feel like it's a series of smaller, I say smaller, not as long buildings. That's it to pull that apart with these kind of reveals in between it. The effect is when you look at an elevation, the balconies look there, they're about the same height when you're looking from the ground level up at this as balconies recede so that the impact is more pronounced. Can we go to the other perspective that shows more of the linear park and historical library? It's down below. Yeah, that's what I'm looking at in comparison. And some of that is also the wide angle of view. But if we can find that. It's on page 12, it's on page 12. Yes. So that's another reason why we pulled the building away from the existing, the former library because we recognize that mismatch in scale. It's more in line with the scale that we see throughout the rest of the historic downtown district in terms of Main Street. It is a different kind of piece here. And one of the arguments we're making is while we don't know the specifics of the architecture, those plans of above show proposed future developments that are gonna be similar in scale along East Main Street at the Oldham Tower currently and on the 500 block that are gonna be similar in scale to this one. So while this is the first piece of that, there is gonna be much more of that content in this area as part of a sort of larger scheme of how to deal with this district as Durham grows. Thank you. You're welcome. Any other commissioners wish to ask questions out of the applicant or of Mr. Hill? I did. It's Andy Gould. Go ahead, Andy. This question for the applicant. And it's in reference to the materials used on the building, particularly the cement fiber, which in my personal opinion, it would be a residential style material, but there is precedent for it in the district, which I believe you referenced. But I don't see it coming to the ground in the precedent you give. And I wonder if there would be some consideration about not bringing the cement fiber to the ground. And I'm speaking to the pre-K entrance if there would be any consideration about continuing more brick in that area just to reduce the amount of cement fiber on the building. I'm going to direct that to Neighbor Concepts, who's the architect for the residential portion of the building. And while we were working in concert, they've been dealing with the specifics of those elements. Ian, is that something you can feel for me, please? Sure. This is Ian Shelton. So I think looking at that corner, we're really just trying to kind of highlight that main entrance to the pre-K by using that vertical corner element and then also kind of acknowledging that that piece is a little bit different from the historical elements. So trying to keep, maintain the brick pieces as the acknowledgement to that historical library next door. But also, I mean, we'll have a small base, I think, below that fiber cement. So not necessarily a full story height, but a few feet of brick that would match the adjacent brick. This is Joel Dabrowski. A little one thing I would say though, it was a response to it may not be relevant in terms of the historic preservation aspect. The county commissioners, the time we were responding to their concern that they want to draw people from Roxbro and parts of West Main Street towards us. And so they wanted a signature element on that corner that people could see. How that gets defined here based on the feedback we get, that's for neighboring concepts to be able to determine, but that's the original impetus for having a kind of expression there. Did that same type of, is the same type of expression be done in a different material? I think it's something we can explore, yes. I mean, I'm speaking for our neighboring concepts here, but I think it's something we can explore particularly at the ground level, as you say. I'm sure we'll talk about it more in our discussion with the rest of the commissioners. I would like to hear their thoughts too. Commissioner Bouchard again. Any other commissioners have questions? I note that Able Johnson has a hand up, but that might be from earlier. Able, could you let us know? That was from earlier. I'll lower it. Thanks for reminding me. Any other commissioners have questions, either for the applicant or for Mr. Hill. Okay. Hearing no further questions and seeing no additional hands raised. We will close the public hearing on this case and proceed to deliberations by the commissioners. Does anybody want to lead us off with any thoughts they might have about this application? I'll go ahead. This is DeBerry. I agree with Andy. I think that corner looks jarring and is doesn't quite fit, I think, with the goals of the district and what we're doing. I'd love to see some sort of other treatment there, including BRIC. I think there are ways to make that stand out without using that fiber board all the way down to the street. It's Andy Gould. Now I would add to that bit that in a downtown district every time I get worried about the maintenance of that material being so close to the street, but I also am responding to what's in the criteria, which references residential material. When I think of cement fiber and when we look at a lot of the houses that we review, cement fiber is often used there. It does give examples of lap-siding in the criteria, but thinking about the materiality of it, I consider cement fiber to be a residential material. Now, again, I know there's precedent of it both in the criteria and referenced in this document. So I'm willing to say that it can be used in the downtown district, but would like to see a different treatment at the pedestrian level. Commissioner Bouchard here, either Tad or Andy, would you want to make a proposal for what that different treatment might look like that we can see whether or not the applicant might be willing to agree to as a condition of the COA approval? It's Andy. Even looking at the example they give, which is on page 23 of the proposal, this is a condominium on Main Street. It's a different street frontage type, which I think helps out a fair bit. But what I see is the pieces that are actually on the street are a brick. In this case, it was a black brick on the condominium. Yeah, here we go. And mostly glass. I see in their elevations, I see a lot of glass on there, which I know there are a lot of requirements that stick to that, but also I just think that corner could be treated similar here with brick wrapping it or a transition to the cement fiber. I think that would be more appropriate for this type of building in the district. Dad, I don't know if you would add anything. No, I agree. It just doesn't seem appropriate there. Commissioner Bouchard here. Carla, could I ask a favor, please? Could you pull up a image of the corner in question? Sure, so you'd like me to go to Google Street Images? No, actually from the proposal itself, the application. Got it, okay, let's see. If anybody wants to tell me a page number, it would be helpful. Page 35 is a perspective of it. Sorry, I'm not supposed to speak during this. Thank you. Commissioner Bouchard again. So, Andy, to be sure that I'm clear that the cementitious material you're concerned about going down to street level would be what is depicted as white panels to the left of the glass that has ABC on the corner of it. It's 80 goals, yes, on the left and right-hand side, particularly in looking at this, I mean, they've done a considerate job of establishing these podium heights, particularly with the restrictions that they have for not being able to step back to building and in the block base. I think it's a shame to not carry some of that material through, in my opinion, at least on that first level around the glass, to my eye, it wouldn't be terribly too much material. Others might want to see more brick, but yes, to my eye, just on the left-hand and right-hand side of the glass. Commissioner Bouchard, again, so you would suggest brick or some other transition material basically to the same height as the glass to the left and right of the glass? I would be comfortable with that, maybe. Might we hear from the applicant about this portion of our conversation and what might be feasible and what might be acceptable if we were to contemplate a condition to the COA? This is Ian Sheldon, Numeric Concepts. Yeah, I think we can definitely look at making those kind of first floor levels brick or just really studying that material. We'll likely have to maintain most of that glass to meet our glazing requirements for the UDO, but we'll study really exactly where that transition lands within that kind of first to second floor area, but I think that's something we can definitely look at. This is Andy Goldby, just to clarify, I think the glass is appropriate, and I understand that there's a certain amount that you need for zoning in general, so I'm responding to the cement fiber. Okay. Commissioner Bouchard, again, Andy, would you be willing to take a stab at trying to draft some conditional language in connection with the possible motion on the COA? I knew you'd asked. Yeah, I could do that. Terrific. Any other discussion that's raised here is about this issue or any other matter arising from this application? Go ahead, Ted, please. Thank you. I just would like to say to the architects that I appreciate their efforts to differentiate this building from all the other cookie cutter apartment buildings that now are popping up all over town. It concerns me that we have so much similar architecture everywhere you look downtown, and I think their use of materials and setbacks and color has really mitigated some of that, and I appreciate that as a citizen, if not a commissioner. Thank you. Thank you, Ted. Joseph, I think you wanted to be heard again. Yes, I would actually have said the same thing Ted said, except I really, the size still bothers me. I understand, however, that there's a, and I've been reminded that we're moving into a new age by people younger than me, so I just, I appreciate the care that was taken to try to balance those kind of competing aspects of the project. So that's it. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Commissioner Bouchard again, opening up the floor for discussion by any other commissioners who want to be heard on the application, seeing no hands raised and hearing no further comments, I would turn to Carla for a staff recommendation, please. Carla Rosenberg, Planning Department, staff would recommend approval of the application, adding conditions regarding the material at ground level around the front entrance or the main street entrance, and possibly if there were concerns about the tree preservation, any sort of tree protection measures that may be taken to protect those trees. Do any commissioners have any thoughts about potential condition language related to tree protection measures? Carla Rosenberg, Planning Department, you could also ask the applicant what steps that they propose to protect the trees. I'm happy to do so. Mr. Dabrowski or anybody else? So I'm going to defer to Katie on this one. I think we went over some of that here, but Katie, can you kind of go over the steps we're taking to kind of ensure that we have healthy trees and do our best to preserve them? Yeah, so I think I would propose that we work with planning staff to mitigate any impact to existing adjacent trees, during the raising or lowering of grade on site. I think we will be using tree protection fence and all of those measures. I don't know that we have an exact plan right now to speak to, but I think we can definitely commit to working with staff and the adjacent owner on protection of trees and tree roots during construction of retaining walls and raising and lowering of grade, if that is amenable to the commission. Commissioner Bouchard again, mainly for the benefit of Andy, what I'm hearing is a willingness on the part of the applicant to work with city planning staff and the adjacent property owner to mitigate any impact to existing trees during construction of retaining walls and the raising and lowering of the grade. Any other discussion by the commission about this issue? Hearing none, do we have a motion? One second, let me finish some notes here. Sure, Bouchard, just to review that one more time, the applicant will work with city planning staff to mitigate impact on neighboring trees with tree protection or retaining walls. Is that in line with what you noted? Yeah, a little bit different. A little different, yeah. Commissioner Bouchard, but very close. What I scratched out was that the applicant is willing to work with city planning staff and the adjacent property owner to mitigate any impact to existing trees during construction of retaining walls and the raising and lowering of the project site grade. That was much better. I'll use that one. Okay, this is Andy Golsey. The Durham Historic Preservation Commission finds that in the case, COA-2000035318 Liberty Street new construction site work, the applicant is proposing a new primary structure and site work on existing surface parking lot. The new seven-story structure will be constructed with heavily glazed aluminum storefront along main and queen streets and residential units above. The parking deck will be located at the interior and east side of the structure screened by perforated metal panel along the Queen Street elevation. Building materials will consist of varying tones of brick in sections of black, red, orange, tan and charcoal gray, white and dark gray cementitious fiberboard panel, painted perforated aluminum panel, cast stone, cornices, polyvinyl chloride PVC one over one windows and coated aluminum frame storefront. The concrete pedestrian path will follow the western edge of the property connecting Main Street to Liberty Street. Adjacent to it, a retaining wall of concrete measuring units being used, which is faced with brick veneer, capped with cast concrete and topped with an eight-foot metal fence will surround the elevated playground and seat walls with the same materials, excuse me, and seat walls of the same materials will line Main Street. All exterior mechanical components will be screened from the use by rooftop parapet. Therefore, the inclusion of law is a proposed addition and alterations are consistent with the historic character and qualities of the historic district and are consistent with the historic properties and overall review criteria. Typically, those listed in the staff report and the Durham Historic Preservation Commission approve the certificate of appropriateness for case COA-2000035318 Liberty Street new construction and site work with the following conditions. One, the improvement shall be substantially consistent with the plans and testimony presented to the commission at this commission's hearing and attached to this COA. The two, the improvement may require additional approvals from other cities or counties, 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 three, a compliance inspection shall be performed immediately upon completion of the work approved herein. Four, the applicant is going to work with city staff and the adjacent property owner to mitigate impact on neighboring trees during construction of retaining walls and raising the lowering of grade. And five, the material brick will be used at the main street entrance. One point of clarification on that last condition, Commissioner Bouchard here. Shall we specify by height or by floor level how high that brick should be located at the front entrance? That would probably be appropriate. So it'll be, is it okay to restate or do I need to amend anything? You can just amend. If you can amend that last condition, Andy. To amend condition five to say that brick will be used at the main street entrance, particularly on the ground level for the first floor. Do I have a second? Second. Thank you, Commissioner Jordan. Terry, if we could call the roll please. Okay. Commissioner Johnson. Yeah. Commissioner Jordan. Yes. Vice Chair Bouchard. Yes. Commissioner DeVerry. Yes. Commissioner Gulsby. Yeah. And Commissioner Craggar. Commissioner Craggar. I had to leave at 1130. So I believe he won't be counted toward our quorum, but we still have maintained quorum. Yeah. Motion passes five, zero. Thank you everybody for your participation on this case, which we may now close as it is settled. And I think at this point, it would be appropriate for Ms. Hamilton to resume chair responsibilities for our next case. Thank you. It's not moving on. We are now going to be here in case COA, 2000026, which is the 905 West Main Street modifications. Are there any commissioners who have a conflict of interest here in this case? All right, hearing none, we will have Terry administer the oath. Could, and make sure that everyone who's on here planning to speak when you take the oath, say your name, and then say that you affirm the oath, please. Okay, do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give and the public hearing proceedings for today's case is the truth by your own knowledge, information, or belief? So we can start with Mr. Gable and move on from there. Yeah, this is Jason Gable with Little and I affirm the oath. It looks like Mr. Jules next. Yes, this is Dan Joule, I affirm as well. And then Mr. Liles. Yeah, this is Welch Liles with the side of partners I affirm. Thank you. And then having each confirmed the oath, can each of the applicants also in the same order confirm your consent to the digital platform on the meeting being held today? This is Jason Gable with Little, I do. This is Dan Joule with Culture Joule, Tim. I do. Welch Liles with the side of partners, I do. And then Carla, can you give us your staff report, please? Yes. This is Commissioner Bouchard. Carla, I believe you are on mute. I apologize. Okay, this is case COA 200026. It's 905 West Main Street, modifications. The applicant is Little, I'm represented by Jason Gable and others. The owner is Asana Partners LP and the location is on the Southwest Quadrant of the intersection of West Main Street with South Gregson Street. It's owned Downhouse Design Support One. And in addition, well, actually it is not in a local historic district but it is a local historic landmark, the Watson Yule Tobacco Warehouses. So the applicant is proposing to expand two window openings into door openings on the Main Street facing elevation. There is a separate minor COA submitted for hard scaping and landscaping in that vicinity but that's been covered with a minor COA. So we are only addressing the window openings expanding into doors. I'd like to introduce the staff report into the record and invite Mr. Gable and others to present their case. Thanks Carla. This is Jason Gable of Little. Can I ask that we swear in Ryan Ives, our landscape architect also, during this process? Yes, we should do that now. Yes, I don't hear him but... Very close. Yeah, sorry, I accept the oath. I didn't know if I needed to wait for the oath and I consent to the digital plot one. Thanks Carla, thanks Ryan. Thank you commissioners. As Carla mentioned, this is relatively straightforward. It's a well-known local landmark, also a certified historic structure on the National Register. Right leaf square, the elevation of the building is that we are speaking about today is the north elevation, the main street elevation of the north of the two buildings on the site. And we would like to take slight modification to two of the 40 window openings on that facade and change them from window openings to door openings so that we can provide accessible access from main street to the tenant spaces in that building. At present, the tenant spaces in the building are only accessible if you can get to them from the courtyard side. I apologize, this is a very large file so it may be difficult to maneuver. That's all right, that's a good image to show. So originally, you know, 115, almost 120 years ago, these were tobacco warehouses and they didn't actually have any windows, those were just vent openings. We would like to, as I said, take two of them indicated here on the first floor only and make them taller such that you could pass through them from the street, from the street front into the building. And then we will use on the inside of the building invisible to the exterior, we will use accessible lifts to negotiate the vertical height difference between the streetscape and the finished floor elevations of the warehouses. The image on the left there that Carla's got for Bay 19, you can see the window opening is intact but it has already had a modification below it. So the amount of brick would be removing there, constitutes that window sill. Commissioner Bouchard here with just a brief interruption. Mr. Gable, is there any way you can turn your video on during the portion of this case presentation that you're actually speaking? I am unable to make it work, apparently. I've been trying here for the last time. I'm having the same issue, Jason. Well, that would be preferable. We also want to move forward with the hearing so please, please proceed. Okay, I'm trying. Apologies for that, but yeah, I can't seem to make it function. Glad the audio is working at least. The other thing that we propose to do as part of this is to remove the existing canopies that are on the four arched openings, one per bay. So to clean up the facade quite a bit and reveal it. Yeah, those canvas openings that were added in 1980, there's one behind that tree and that image also, but there is not one on Bay 21, which is the one closest to Seoul East on the West. Is there anything else that you wish to present at this time, Mr. Gable? No, that's it. That's what we're requesting permission to do. Okay. It's a limited intervention. Yeah, Anderson, thank you. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak for this application? Carl, I'm happy to describe the landscape interventions briefly, which are part of the minor COA. If you think that would be appropriate or helpful, but don't want to confuse things either. I think that might confuse things. Okay. I mean, if the commission has specific questions about it, but it is a separate application that's reviewed at the staff. Yeah. This is Welch-Liles with the SANA partners property owner. I think Jason did a great job explaining everything here. Really, I think I just wanted to elaborate the intent of it is to just better activate the current building along Main Street and allow for there to be direct tenants facing Main Street as well as activated to the current interior plaza area. And in order to do so, we need to have that ADA accessibility, which is really the request for these doors and allows for executing on that intent and really being able to kind of activate and just provide some more vibrant uses fronting Main Street as well as the plaza. Thank you. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak against this application? Hearing none, do any of the commissioners have questions? Commissioner Bouchard. Thanks, Katie. Mr. Liles, very quickly a follow up to the point you were just making a moment ago. Was there a change in the code or is it really just a change in tenant configuration that's driving the need for this additional point of egress on Main Street? There's a potential change in tenant configuration. As you all may know, there's a great deal of vacancy at this property currently. And when Asana partners acquired the property about six months ago, we're looking to do a full redevelopment and repositioning of it to bring it to kind of a new and best use. And with that, we see potential to redemise a lot of those vacancies and additional ADA access and being able to have true accessibility from Main Street allows for that feasibility and flexibility into redemising and new tenancy. Thank you. Just Katie Hamilton, just to clarify, you have parking across Main Street. So these would be the closest doors for an ADA access point from a parking lot that is used for this structure that is on Main Street, correct? That's correct. There's parking, I believe the address is 910 West Main Street. And then also parking at the corner of Main and Gregson for these properties. Did any other commissioners have questions for the applicants? This is Commissioner DeBerry. Is there not already a ramp that's somewhere along that facade for handicap access? Yes, there is. This is Jason Gabriel with Little and it takes you into Bay 20, but it does not provide access to the other bays. And does this plan eliminate cross-building access from Main Street into the courtyard, except through a business? No, the passage in Bay 20, which is the one that goes through the building at present is being slightly reconfigured, perhaps, in an alternate interior scenario, but it will continue through the building as it does now. Bays 18 and 19, you can't go from one side to the other and 21, so you can't go through anywhere other than Bay 20. So Bay 20 has handicap access and will continue to provide access to the interior from Main Street? Yes, that's correct. My only comment on this is that this seems like a very inelegant way to create something that I think could be maybe engineered differently and it seems to run counter to our criteria on exterior changes, especially to masonry like this. And I'll leave that for the rest to discuss. I can speak to that just briefly, Commissioner, that we looked at multiple ways to do this and this actually seems to us to be one of the least invasive ways we're not creating any new openings that have historic facade and we're not changing the width or location of anyone not breaking any up. We're just removing a very, very small percentage of masonry from what is a very large facade in order to create access to all four bays, accessible access to all four bays on the primary street front. So our intention is to be as minimally invasive as possible and to reveal the historic nature of the facade by removing those canopies and creating the new street front. This is, this is any goal to clarify the accessibility. First of all, are you able, do you have accessibility to all four bays from the courtyard? To the courtyard side tenants? Yes. I guess is the plan on COA-3 to be able to begin. Is that the current tenant layout? What page was that again? I think it's COA-3. Andy, this is Jason Gable with Little again to answer your question is that the current tenant layout. In Bay 18, yes, it essentially is. There was a large restaurant in there that occupied the entire Bay. That is the image on the screen that Carla's got there is very close to the existing layout in Bay 19, which is the second bay from the right, which was from very many years satisfaction restaurant. So the handicapped access to satisfaction was from the courtyard because that tenant went all the way through the 120 feet normally through the building. And Bay 18 at Gregson also had access from the courtyard because it was a single tenant. But none of the other street front tenants would have access from Main Street in an accessible manner, exception of I think it's a yogurt place. What about the courtyard? Accessibility from the courtyard to all four days. Right, to the courtyard side of those days. And how many accessible entrances do you need? Do you need to? Do you need to? Well, I guess the line of question I'm getting to is that your brief speak to that accessibility is required. To my eye, you're achieving accessibility from the courtyard side. Now, if two accessible entrances are required, I don't know, I haven't done your safety plan, right? That's your purview. That's one thing, but if you only need one accessible entrance and that's achieved from the courtyard side, then what we're talking about is accessible entrance for convenience, not because it's required by law. And I think there'd be more of... So... Heaviness given to making these openings if they're not really required. So I guess I'd like to question you on that, Andy, just because they're accessible parking spaces. Are off of Main Street. And I think by code, they can't be required. Like the ADA access can't be that much further away than the non-handicap access, correct? Like it has to be just as convenient to the... Yeah, I think that's what I'm trying to get at is what's going into it, just making it required. Because if it is required openings to achieve accessibility, then I'm satisfied by what's required by the guidelines in terms of ADA needs to be met in these buildings, no matter what. But if the distance from those parking spots to these entrances is within building codes, then I think it's a different question of what we're getting here. And it could be a question to the applicant. Do you know what the distances are from those parking spots to the various entrances? This is well, Charles, with the sauna. So I think where we're getting lost is in the current demising versus a future redemising, in which case, it's highly unlikely for some group to take that entire front bay or to take the former satisfaction space in its current layout. Frankly, the size and layout is just not very leasable and it's really necessary in order to activate Main Street and to help with the vibrancy of the property to redemise it and allow for two smaller bays, Fronting Main Street. And in that scenario, there is no ADA access which is requiring the new entrances proposed for Bay 18 and 19, Fronting Main Street. Correct. Yeah, I was just gonna say, it's Andy Goldby again. I guess that is where I'm trying to confusion is our current plan just to the open floor plan without any proposed demising. So it's hard for me to understand what the reasons are for these without... We can only review what's in front of us, right? So what we have is an open floor plan. And I would say that we don't have executed leases or exact tenants in place. So we're trying to maximise flexibility in order to create interest for the property and continue that activation along Main Street and to revitalize that portion and building itself. And that flexibility is critical for that revitalization. And this is Jason with Little again. Commissioner Goldby, it's a bit of a chicken and egg. You're indicating can only review what you've got here and the application understood by the same token, we can't redemise the building if we don't have accessible access from Main Street. So the first step to us was to achieve COA such that we could create the accessible access from Main Street. And then the owner can demise the building based on the availability of accessibility from the Main Street side of the building. Yeah, I understood. Sorry to put you through this. I think it just would have helped us out with a, sometimes in the intent plan, we would put proposed demising walls, even though there wouldn't be anybody signing up for those quite yet. Just be able to help us understand what's coming up. Okay. And this is Jason again. One other thing is there are four bays to the building they're divided by Main Street firewalls. At one point we had looked at doing four openings to make sure that each bay and each tenant demising condition would be accessible. We paired that back and are proposing, as you can see, only two openings to modify two openings to achieve accessibility to all four bays. And we really are trying to touch it lightly while still make available accessibility from this side of the building to each of the potential tenant spaces that will be coming to help re-energize this street front. No, I appreciate the intent of like such a clarifying. With these landmark buildings, we wanna make sure that we've talked through because any impact on is a big deal, no matter how small it is. So we just wanna make sure that we've reviewed this thoroughly. Oh, agreed. Were there any other questions for the applicant? I do have one more. Just once the opening is made, what will we be looking at? Because we see the opening, but you're creating a new elevation and that will be maturing beyond a more glass. Inside the building? Yes, sir. You're essentially making a new exterior wall. Oh, I see what you're saying. Yes, that wall will be eight to 10 feet deep into the building, so it won't be right up against the opening. But yes, it will largely be glass, new stud wall in there similar to, I'm trying to think of another example on the building. I can't at the moment. At one point in the original renovation, there wasn't a glass in several of the windows on the courtyard side, for example, and the corridor ran inside the building down the side of the courtyard. So you actually passed through in a very similar manner to what we're proposing here. And then you can walk under cover in the building. It will not be visually impactful from the exterior of the building, especially on the north side here, where it'll be in shadow all day. I'd like to say that out there, as Andy moves me again, would you guys entertain if we were to add to our motion, the condition that a tenant needs to be in place before this work is done? No, we really need to have that flexibility in order to gain tenant momentum and to get that tenant interest and to have a contingency like that on a deal, especially in times like now with COVID concerns and other headwinds against restaurant retail leasing in general, I think it would just be an ultimate killer to any kind of interest that we have, unfortunately. In Carl Rosenberg planning department, the condition would have to be based on something in the criteria that would, yeah, there wouldn't be contingencies allowed. I guess I would like to ask of your landscape architecture, our civil team based on their interpretation of ADA, regardless of whether this is demise or not, my interpretation of ADA is that it currently isn't meeting it because the accessible route is so much longer than the non-accessible route. And I just like to hear from the civil and landscape team on the exterior of whether or not they agree with that because to me currently it doesn't meet the accessibility requirements without like regardless of whether there's myzing walls in there or not. Yeah, this is Ryan Ives and that's correct. This is a very challenging along this face, the getting ADA access in an elegant way is challenging and we think this is the way to do it to really unveil this facade, but yeah, currently they're not all accessible. If you were to read demise. Thank you. Were there any other questions of the applicant before we move on to deliberation? Hearing none, I think this is public hearing of this case can be closed and we can start internal discussions. Andy, would you like to kick us off? I don't know what quite I have to add. I mean, it's hard just as a person reviewing this to understand the need without seeing even a proposed plan. You know, the interior wouldn't be set in stone but just in the future it would help me understand particularly when we're talking about landmark cases. Are there any other commissioners who had strong opinions one way or another? This is DeBerry. I have worked and shopped in this complex since it was built. It's been reconfigured a couple of times, but originally it had some interior corridors that architect mentioned them that served to connect these bays both to keep people out of the rain but also to maintain the facade on the outside. And I would be very amenable to a terrace across this entire facade that would create any kind of access to all of those bays or an interior corridor along the facade that just a few steps in would allow you into the bay. You'd lose a little bit of your square footage for rental but you're gonna make it up on your common area. I just think there are some other ways to accomplish what they need to do without disturbing the facade as dramatically as they're asking. So my read of the criteria particularly for landmarks is that this is one's counter to what we're supposed to be doing. I guess Carla is with the minor COA there was a plinth type condition or correct? You're on me. Carla Rosenberg planning department perhaps I should have allowed the applicant to share about the minor COA but yes, they are proposing a terrace that goes along. But I think what the issue is is the applicant can speak to this better than I can but the need to access multiple entrances by potentially handicapped persons that there's going to be more tenants and more tenant spaces than there were previously. So there would need to be multiple entrances that were accessible. There are currently two I believe that are accessible by handicap ramp at present but they would want to add more because they intend to have more tenant spaces on this elevation that would not be accessible from the other elevation from the south facing. Carla, would you like me to elaborate on the terrace a little bit? Can we do that? Can we open the? I'm sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt. We have public hearing to hear on the proposed terrace condition seat. Okay. I wanted to add something. Yeah, apologies. We didn't want to confuse things by bringing in the minor COA to this conversation and apologies again that my video won't connect but the ADA access question when you get away from the building, it starts to frankly have a bigger impact on that facade in a way it's visible or not visible within the city along West Main Street. And the condition right now that you're probably all familiar with and you have the pictures of has individual stair access with guardrails to the different current openings and entrances. And it really, it successfully met whatever the code was I think in the 80s when it was installed but when you're looking down Main Street it becomes these series of these small entrances that obscure the facade and not have it read it really breaks down the scale of the facade by having these smaller interventions at each entry. And so the, I appreciate the sort of terrace comment and we did also look at the other option that was mentioned, but it didn't work for other reasons but the approach we're taking is a lower terrace or plinth or elevated patio that will really stretch and create a datum across the entire facade and is low enough that no guardrails are required so you remove a ton of visual clutter and these two proposed openings will allow us to essentially unveil this facade to the city. So there's the required access that we, is the real basis for this but the secondary benefit in terms of the way this facade sits in the city is gonna be tremendous because you'll have one unified space that people can move across and actually get near the facade whereas in the current condition you're off on the sidewalk and the number of different access interventions for stairs and ramp really keep you from seeing this face. So that's the two cents on the part that we're not talking about today but I think it's important context. And that's on page CO807, a good image. Yeah, I mean, I think you can see it in this elevation here and then if you continue down to the rendered views you can see it a little bit more activated. So as opposed to a bunch of individual pieces getting to each door, creating this one level where you can actually inhabit and sit and really opening up that facade and by having this terrace plinth be aligned with certain parts of the facade and in scale to it will really help reveal the facade. And so I think when you look at it from this angle it starts to feel like there was some heavy handed things done to that facade in the 80s from a site perspective that we're able to undo but we need to make some facade alterations to make that work and keep this low enough that it doesn't bring in a bunch of guardrails and create just a long wall. Cause if you take it up to a five foot terrace you really end up with a long wall that's a little bit hostile to pedestrians and then it has to have a guardrail on top or is this gonna really get people walking by and to get people near the facade in a way that isn't possible right now. All right, were there any other questions about the minor COA that was submitted before we re-close the public hearing? Hearing none, we will re-close the public hearing and I'm gonna back up to deliberation. Matt and April, did y'all have thoughts on this? Commissioner Bouchard speaking. I am sympathetic to the applicant's need for a greater degree of flexibility with the space particularly given the economic headwinds we find ourselves in. I think I share some of the frustration expressed by other commissioners with respect to just how unnecessary this change is now. It strikes me that there's kind of a chicken and an egg issue here. There may not be a tenant configuration that requires this now, but without making some sort of adjustment that might meet code could be difficult to actually lease out the space. And so I'm open to hearing some other or additional perspectives about balancing the need to make sure that this very important landmark is preserved while at the same time the space is still usable in a meaningful way. Cause I'm having trouble actually finding that balance. Thank you. Yeah, I suppose, I don't know if April has any comments, but she doesn't. Bay 19, I have absolutely no problem with that opening just because that exterior door that's below that was obviously an addition to me getting rid of that is preferable. One of the things I kind of wish we had clarification from inspections on is my interpretation is even without those mind's and walls, no matter what they do with the interior, they aren't meeting ADA currently based on my interpretation of the accessibility code because accessibility to these spaces does require a circuitous route compared to a very quick route in for non-accessible route. So I kind of wish we could get interpretation from inspections on whether or not I am correct in that cause if that is correct, then I think that's an important thing to know in making this determination. Carl Rosenberg Planning Department. So Katie, are you saying that you think that the current parking arrangement and going to the current ramp that exists to the current door that exists is not meeting the ADA? For those two bays that are on the Eastern side, correct. Because what they have to do is they either have to go all the way, they have to find a way all the way to the doors on the courtyard side. For the Eastern Bay. Okay. So I don't think there's anything to those bays that exist which I don't think meets. I see, well in the rendering, I see a ramp right there at 19, right there near base 19, it's 21. Is that not in the plans? No, so they're planning to do ADA. Oh, okay, okay. So I don't think currently the existing building meets. Okay. Oh, I agree. ADA requirements, like they mentioned like sure in the 80s, it probably did. I think our accessibility ordinances have gotten more and more stringent over the decades. But so to me, the fact that those two Eastern existing bays don't have ramps to their front doors on Main Street currently is problematic. Commissioner Johnson, yes, I agree. I don't think I have an issue with the proposed application. I think it does give this elevation on Main Street a cleaner look and feel. I've often been frustrated having to go down one set of stairs and then go another if that happened to be at the Rome Bay or something like that. But so I'm glad that it'll just be one patio and I can easily maneuver around in that area. So whether or not it's necessary, I don't know if that's particularly enough per view but I think what they're doing is making it easier for tenants and patrons to assess the building to get in and out. I think it just makes the building more accessible and it improves the look to remove the wall of stairs and all of the railings and things. It just is clear to me. So I'm okay with the opening and extending the two windows to entrances. Yeah, those are my thoughts. Thanks, April. Is there any other internal discussion? All right, hearing none. I guess, can we get a recommendation from staff on this? Our Lord Rosenberg Planning Department staff would recommend approval of the application. Terry, can we please get a roll call vote? Oh, I'm sorry, can I get it? You guys, it's been a long meeting. My vote counts for everyone. I don't need for a motion or a second, just Carla's saying the proof. Can I get a motion from someone? We didn't make any conditional changes, did we? I remember. Okay. The Durham Historic Preservation, I'm sorry, Commissioner Dotson. The Durham Historic Preservation Commission finds that in the case of COA, 200000 two sits, 905 West Main Street modifications, the applicant is proposing modifications to a landmark property. The two original window openings on the Main Street elevation will be expanded into door openings from the bottom only, removing the brick sales and metal shut shutters, but maintaining the original window width and arched tops. Four canopies not original to the structure will be removed from the original arched doorways across the same elevation and not replaced. Therefore, the conclusion of law is that, 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 the case, COA 20000026905 West Main Street modifications with the following conditions. The improvements shall be substantially consistent with the plans and testimony presented to the commission at this commission hearing and attached to the COA. 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. The compliance inspection shall be performed immediately upon commission of the work approved herein. Chair Hamilton, I second that motion. Terry, can we please get our roll call go? Hello, Commissioner Johnson. Hi. Commissioner Jordan. E, stepped away. Okay. Chair Hamilton. Hi. Vice Chair Prashard. Hi. Commissioner DeBerry. No. Okay, Commissioner Golsby. No. And Commissioner Craver. He's left as well. Okay. We still have quorum. Okay. Motion passes three to two. Thank you. And with that, this hearing is closed. And that is the end of our COAs for today. Thank you to the applicant for coming and presenting. It appears we have no old business, but we do have the new business of approval of the revised rules of procedure. Karla, would you like to speak to that? You're on mute, Karla. Sorry about that. Okay, so as you all recall, we were working on getting the local review criteria approved by city council and city council did approve on June 15th with one amendment to our work categories, what we consider normal maintenance. We had previously added that we would allow removal of one canopy tree within a two year span, only if impeding solar utilities and are replaced with a new canopy tree. So that was struck from the rules of procedure and the chart that we extract from the rules of procedure and put in the criteria. That's why city council had jurisdiction over that because it was in our criteria as well. So we have removed that at the request of city council and then there's only one other change that we've made that you all have seen this over the last year and a half. The only other change we made was 8.3 remote public hearings which we are all becoming more and more familiar with but these are some of the sort of procedural guidelines that are taken from the NC session law regarding remote hearings. So provide some clarity there. So we've made those two changes and everything else you've seen before and we would love to go ahead and get this approved if you all see fit. Is there anyone on the commission who has a issue with this that they'd like to speak to? Carla, do we need to make a motion on this? Yes. And it's just moved to approve or I think adopt probably or yeah, approve the revised. Rules of procedure. Okay, all right. Was there any discussion by any of the commissioners on the rules of procedure that they would like discussed? Hearing none, I move that we adopt the revised rules of procedures as presented before us today. Second. Okay. Terry, can I get a roll call though? Commissioner Vashchere Breschard. Yes. Commissioner DeBerry. Step to one. Yeah. Okay, yes, okay. Commissioner Golesby. Yes. Chair Hamilton. Yes. Commissioner Johnson. Yes. And Commissioner Jordan. He stepped away. Okay. Passes five, zero. Fantastic. Well, with that, it looks like that's the end of our agenda. No one else has new business to present, correct? Fantastic. Then I move that we adjourn the second digital meeting of the Durham Historic Preservation Commission. Second. Fantastic. Nice job, everyone. Bye. Take care, everyone. For all who stayed. Yes, almost one o'clock. Maybe we should do five cases from now on. Yeah. Well, we had to catch up, right? This is- Yeah, we did. Yeah. Carla, how's it looking for August? Three. Okay. Okay. And you will meet new planning.