 We're live. Good morning, everyone. Hope everyone had an enjoyable Memorial Day weekend. This meeting will now come to order. Welcome to this virtual meeting of the Durham Historic Preservation Commission on this first day of June 2021. My name is Matt Bouchard and I have chaired the commission. This commission is a quasi judicial board of record and as such, all testimony will be recorded. Under this procedure, our meeting today will also be live streamed to the city's YouTube channel. The proceedings of this board are governed by the zoning laws as recorded. As such, please note the steps we have taken to ensure that each party's due process rights are protected as we proceed on this remote platform. First, today's meeting will be conducted in accordance with the statutes enacted in session law 2020-3 and codified at North Carolina General Statutes chapter 166A section 19.24, which allows for remote meetings and quasi judicial hearings during declarations of emergency. Second, each applicant on today's agenda was notified before being placed on the agenda that this meeting would be conducted using a remote electronic platform. Every applicant on today's agenda has consented to the board conducting the evidentiary hearing on their request using this remote platform. We will also confirm today at the start of each evidentiary hearing that the participants in the hearing consent to the matter proceeding in this remote platform. If there is any objection to a matter proceeding in this remote platform, that 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 advise the public on how to access the remote meeting as the meeting occurs. Individuals wishing to participate in today's evidentiary hearings were required to register prior to the meeting. Information about this registration requirement, along with information about how to sign up to participate, was included in the mail notice letters sent to each adjacent property owner. This information was also included on the board's website. The public was advised to contact the city immediately in case of objection to the evidentiary hearing or to the remote meeting platform. Two cases are proceeding today in which the city has been contacted by at least one individual with an objection to the case or to the matter being heard in this remote meeting platform. All individuals participating in today's evidentiary hearings were also required to submit a copy of any presentation, document, exhibit or other material they wish to submit at the evidentiary hearing prior to today's meeting. All materials that the city received from the participants in today's cases, as well as a copy of city staff's presentations and documents were posted online prior to this meeting. The agenda and all materials to be discussed today may be viewed at any time during today's meeting by visiting the web link for today's agenda by Durham's agenda center. All individuals who registered to participate in an evidentiary hearing on today's agenda, as well as all city staff participants were emailed a witness oath and consent to a remote hearing form prior to today's meeting. Any individual planning to testify or submit evidence in an evidentiary hearing was notified that they must sign the oath prior to today's meeting. We will also reaffirm everyone's oath on the record at today's meeting. Are there any members of this board that would have any conflicts of interest with regard to the cases before us today? And are there any early dismissal requests today? Good morning. I have a dismissal request by 11 if we're still moving forward. Thank you Commissioner waiters anybody else. Again, this is April Johnson. Because I am the executive director of Preservation Durham, I was inadvertently included in some of its particular communications about COA case number 210036. However, I did not read the emails so I just wanted to be open about that. As chair of the Historic Preservation Commission, I'd like to remind everyone that our quasi judicial hearings function similar to a court proceeding. Staff will first present an overview of the case and then the applicant will have an opportunity to present their evidence. Opponents, if there are any, may then present their evidence and the applicant may then present a rebuttal. The applicant may refrain from questions or comments until each speaker has completed his or her presentation. Testimony should consist of facts each witness knows directly, not hearsay. Evidence already presented need not be repeated. All witnesses who have signed up in advance will be given the opportunity to speak and their testimony will be recorded. The board will vote on each case after the presentation of all evidence pro and con concerning that case. The commissions of this board are subject to appeal to the board of adjustment, and then to the Durham County Superior Court. Clerk Elliott, could you please take the attendance of the commissioners who are here today. Yes. Chair for sure. Here. Here. Commissioner DeBerry. Here. Commissioner Bezelman. Here. Vice Chair Gulsby. Here. Commissioner Hamilton. Commissioner Johnson. Here. Commissioner Crager. Here. Waiters. Present. Thank you so much. Thank you. So the meeting has been forwarded an agenda to today's meeting or rather for today's meeting with anyone including city staff like to recommend any adjustments to that agenda. Okay, hearing no adjustments. Okay, great hearing none. Um, commissioners, you have been provided draft minutes for our last two meetings. Uh, the meeting conducted on April the 6th, 2021. And for the meeting conducted on May the 4th, uh, 2021, uh, I think we should take these one at a time. Um, does anyone have any suggested revisions to the April 6th, 2021 minutes hearing no suggested revisions. May I have a motion to approve the April 6th, 2021 meeting minutes? Oh, ma'am. Second. And may I have a roll call vote, please? Um, commissioner Rashard approved. The chair, I'm sorry. Um, uh, commissioner Diane. Jane, I wasn't in the meeting. Okay. Um, commissioner DeBerry. Yes. Commissioner Feaselman approved. Vice chair of goals. The approved, um, commissioner Hamilton hasn't joined yet. I don't think, um, commissioner Johnson approved. Um, commissioner Crager approved. Commissioner waiters. Commissioner waiters approved. All right. Okay. Motion passes, um, seven zero. Wonderful. Let's move on to the May 4th, 2021 draft minutes that the commissioners have been provided. Uh, does anyone have any adjustments to the May 4th, 2021 draft minutes? This commissioner Feaselman with two minor edits. One is at the top of the minutes. Um, it says it happened in the conference room, but actually it was virtual. And then on the lettering below Roman numeral four, A, B, C, and then D and E that out of order, it goes to for the last cases that we heard that day. Okay. I can go in and fix that if y'all just as amended. I think that was trying to say something muted. All right. Any other recommended adjustments to the May 4th, 2021 draft minutes hearing none. Do we have a motion to approve the May 4th, 2021 draft minutes as amended? Make a motion. Second. Okay. Chair Bessaro abstain. I was not present. Okay. Um, Commissioner Dagon, Commissioner DeBarry. Yes. Commissioner Feaselman. Move. Um, Vice Chair Gulsby. Approved. Um, Commissioner Johnson. Commissioner Johnson. Approved. Commissioner Craggard. Approved. And Commissioner Waders. Commissioner Waders approved. And a motion passes seven zero. Thank y'all so much. Madam Clerk, could you please swear in all city staff that will be presenting today's cases? Yes, and do you members of staff swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give in the public hearing proceedings for today's cases is the truth by your own knowledge or brand information and belief? Hello, Rosenberg, I do. I believe we are prepared then to move on to our first request for a certificate of appropriateness on today's agenda. So we will now hear case number COA 2 1 0 0 0 1 4 162 West Ramsey Street, new construction continued from May 4, 2021. Before we hear from staff, is there anyone of our commissioners who may have a conflict of interest in hearing this case? If not, then let us proceed with the swearing in of anyone who plans to speak for the case or in opposition. 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 or by information and belief? I do. Mr. Arnison, we heard you, but Ms. Young, I think you were on mute. Oh, I apologize. I do. Thank you. Great. Thank you very much. Anybody else here speaking in support of the request for COA? I think there was supposed to be one other person is Mr. Herman going to join. I thought he was going to be on the meeting this morning. But maybe he's just joining for the next case. He's he's been an oath and a consent in and I forwarded it to Chris earlier in case he needs some help joining the meeting. He was a little bit late to register, so I'm not sure if anyone. Chris, if you saw that or not. I'll register for Mr. Herman. We can try to contact him. Yeah, I said it. I just forwarded it to you in case he had any issues joining. But it looks like he was a little late registering. He emailed. I think Carla not pretty late either this morning or last night. But I just texted him. We'll see if he is available to join. I think his plan was to witness, but not speak. Let's give him 30 more seconds and. Mr. Arneson and Miss Young, you prepare to move forward even if Mr. Herman doesn't jump on. Yes, Scott's saying that. He's on, but not sure why you can't see he. I guess he had joined with the Dillard link for the next COA. And I think he's trying to log back on. I suppose someone might have shared their. I think there's only one registered user in the end of the second time. I'm registering Mr. Herman right now. So we'll try to get him as soon as possible. This could take up to like five minutes or so. So we can start them in when they come in. Do you want us to support those otherwise? Mr. Arneson and Miss Young, would you be amenable to continuing the hearing until the next case on our agenda is heard? That's fine. OK, well, I guess I should ask city staff and council, whether or not I need to have a vote to continue this case or if we can just go ahead in my discretion, move on to the next case. Actually, I got a text from Scott saying that he's fine for us to just go ahead. So if it please the commission, we can begin. We're happy to present that that obviates the quirky procedural question I just asked. So let's let's move forward. If we could please, Carla, proceed with the staff summary. Everyone can see my screen. Can. Great. OK. So this is KCOA 2100014 162 West Ramster Street, new construction and the applicant is built for PLLC in collaboration with Center Studio Architecture. The owner is Crest 1933 LLC. It's located at the northwest quadrant of the intersection of Ramster Street and that's supposed to say Northmangam. And it's located I'm sorry. And it's located in the downtown design core district. It's a non contributing structure in the downtown historic district. And the applicant is proposing to construct a six story mixed-use structure on a currently vacant service parking lot. This application has been continued twice, originally submitted in early February. And so we are nearing the end of the six month adjudication period, which will end at the beginning of August. I'd like to introduce the staff report into the record and invite the applicant to present any updates to their case. Good morning, David Arneson. Thanks to Staff and Commission for continuing our case for the past two months. We've been making some revisions to our design and we're pleased to present those to you today. I'm assuming can I just ask if we advance pages or I can share my screen, whichever is easier? You can let me know which pages you'd like me to scroll to. OK, I think if we go to the first sheet of exterior elevations on the Southmangam and just for clarification, is it our understanding is that it's Southmangam Street, not Northmangam Street. 137. Yeah, yeah, that's right. It's south of Main Street, Southmangam Street, yeah, OK, cool. So the design has we've done basically four areas of modifications to the design. Essentially the same building, six story building, five stories of wood frame over one story of concrete. We have ground floor retail and a residential entry. And then the upper floors are all residential condominiums. The first thing that we did was lower the entire building. We did that by lowering the second floor level on this drawing. The east elevation facing Southmangam Street on the left hand side, there's a vertical dimension string there. The dimension of 16 feet four inches between the first floor and the second floor used to be on the previous set of drawings that the Commission had seen. That dimension was 20 foot 11 inches. So we were able to lower the entire building four foot seven inches. The what that did for us was you may recall that the second floor balconies were separate elements on the two corners of our building on this drawing. And they were distinct from the continuous horizontal awning that we had above the storefront and signage band. And we've incorporated those together and consolidated those. So we've cleaned up some of the geometry there by consolidating those second floor balconies into the horizontal awning element. And we've also lowered that awning element 15 inches. So you might notice that the top of our awning element, which is also the second floor line, is flush with the bottom of the horizontal band on the crest building adjacent to our building. So we're trying to be deferential to the crest building and still use that datum line, but be on the low side of it and let crest be on the high side of it. Lowering our building overall had a couple other effects near the top of our building, the top of our gray portion of our building, which is a low wall guardrail for the top floor penthouse level. Now you can see a lines nicely with another one of the horizontal trim elements in the crest building and then the very top of our building is just slightly taller than the crest building. But within a few inches, that is also set back 10 feet. You can see the shadow from the crest building onto our building. So we've tried to pick up on more of the datum lines from the crest building during the process of lowering our building overall. Second change that we made was to change the specification on what's shown in the tan horizontal siding that had been a product, Fiber cement product by a brand named Nichiha that had a wood grain, faux wood grain texture and appearance to it. We've substituted a different brand fiber cement panel that is a smooth painted panel. We're still going to paint it a tan color, but it won't have a wood grain texture or appearance to it. It'll just be a smooth fiber cement panel, the nine inch dimension. Third change we made was to the windows and doors on the second through the sixth floors, all of what is labeled as A and B windows and S one sliding doors. Those have been a vinyl product and we are now proposing an aluminum product. It's a commercial grade aluminum window and door product manufactured by Quaker. It's essentially the same type of product as a storefront, which we're using on the ground floor, aluminum profile, commercial grade, black anodized finish. The configuration of the windows is essentially the same as we had before with some minor modifications, punch windows, combination of casement windows and fixed picture windows, sliding doors. The upper floor we had two layers of transom windows previously and we now have one layer of transom windows that just works better with our roof structure configuration. And then the fourth change really was the when we lowered that second floor. We made some tweaks to the storefront on that ground floor level. Essentially the same basic configuration. It's all glass in a black storefront, aluminum storefront, but in lieu of having louvered panels where we now have the note for MP2. That's a gray metal panel in in lieu of louvers that we used to have. So those are really the summary of all the changes that we've made since the previous original application. And without I'll be happy to, Ashley and I are happy to answer any questions the commission may have. Thank you very much. Do any of the commissioners have any questions for the applicant before we ask to hear from anybody else? I do. Jonathan. Commissioner Dayard, floor is yours. Thank you. A couple of questions. One in your material you have these from the material I have, at least, I still see only the aluminum casement that's hollow. And you were saying that it is changed to aluminum. Is that correct? Believe me, excuse me. Do you mean that the original was shown as a vinyl window and the new one is aluminum? Yeah, we have we have vinyl hollow hollow profile vinyl in the application. That's correct. We have switched that to an aluminum product and I'm not sure. I don't believe that made it into staff report. I have that specification here. If it's appropriate to share my screen, I can show it. German. It should have made it into the staff report. I can scroll through and are you wanting to look at the wording of the report? If you've seen it and it's fine and it's not hollow, because I didn't see it in the staff report. It's not a hollow profile vinyl. It is an aluminum product, which may be hollow, but it's a storefront style aluminum. I think I have the window specs at the end of this report. I'll scroll to them. I believe so. And you have a photo of one city center. It's very similar to those windows. Maybe I got an old version. Jonathan, I have the same thing. You have the Plygem 1500 vinyl collection. Oh, OK. So I believe that remained in the staff report as part of the original. I apologize. I don't know where it is. OK, so that's well, then we don't have an issue. We had a question about where the mechanical equipment will be located. It's on the roof. On the roof. Concealed. That's correct. OK. And last one is you also in your drawing right now, when you presented, you were talking about signage on South Mangum, I think it is. Where is that? Do you have any information on that or that's going to be a different application? We're anticipating a different application for that, as well as the mural art. We have the locations identified on these drawings, but we're not making application for the signage or the mural itself at this time. OK, thank you. The other commissioners. Last time we met, we talked some about the balconies that abut the crest building and whether they protrude or not. Can you team speak to if you've adjusted that at all? And if so, why? And if not, sort of remind us of your thinking on how those fit together. Sure, it might be easier to see in the three dimensional view. Carl, I'm not sure. Believe that's after these 2D elevations. What are you wanting to scroll to? I believe it's page 7. Yeah, there we go. The balconies both project and recess. So the leading edge of the balcony with the metal and glass guardrail on it projects forward of Cress a couple of feet. The wall of the building with the sliding glass doors in it and fixed windows is recessed. I believe it's three feet from the face of Cress. So we're revealing the original corner of Cress and the artistic treatment on the Cress building. But we just have the thickness of the floor slab of the balcony and the guardrail projecting forward. Thank you. Any other commissioners with questions for the applicant? Carl Rosenberg Planning Department, I know that I updated this report and I think somehow it got the wrong one was pulled. So could I ask for just a moment to stop sharing my screen and find the right report and we can share that one? That sounds fun. OK, all right. I know what happened is that this was labeled June. And a different the one the different one was pulled that said final. That was final for April. So let me scroll down. So we have you have all the updated. We have this. And I wonder if that's on us. I know we shared in an email attachment. The window specifications on the Quaker window. They may not have actually made it into the. Compiled PDF of drawings that we then sent you. I think that if you attest that it's that's aluminum clad, at least for me and wouldn't suffice. And technically, it's not aluminum clad. It's it's an all aluminum product inside now. Yeah, it essentially is. Storefront products, slightly different sight lines. Yeah, Carla, out of curiosity, would you mind scrolling up to Roman numeral six in your staff report? I'm just curious to see whether or not the possible motion makes reference to aluminum windows as opposed to vinyl. In this version. So I think that's what matters. Yeah, it does. OK, so it looks like the language here is going to be if and when we get to a motion correct. And just echo echoing Jonathan's concern that the version of the report that I have is very different from what we're seeing on that screen on your screen right now. Yeah, but it's three words to change. It's is that it? Yeah, can you return to the motion, please? Well, it's on bullet three second line, the black aluminum framed windows. Great, great catch. It's Andy. You need to change some of the language around fire or cement also, because what I've heard from the applicant, it's not a. What appeared product is just a panel, smooth finished panel product. Well, it says five or cement panels. Yeah, so we can take out the wood. Yeah. OK, all that is helpful. Any other questions from commissioners for the applicants? Just to clarify, the black aluminum will also apply to the sliding doors, right? That's correct, please. The quick question for the applicant, the language in the proposed motion or possible motion makes reference to black framed aluminum windows and sliding doors on the upper stories. Just to make sure I'm clear, upper stories here is meant to refer to the stories two through six. That's correct. Right. Applicant team, are you seeking approval today? We are. Yeah, we believe we have a final design. Thank you, Commissioner Feesman, for that clarification. Andy. Yes, I know Jonathan had asked the question about the mechanical units and quickly we spoke about. But could you indicate on the plan? I think there is one on the overall site plan where you intend to conceal the mechanical units. I'm not sure if the floor plans were included in these revision drawings because we did not revise the floor plans themselves. So, Carla, I'm not sure if you have them as a part of this report. No, but there is a site plan on your cover sheet, the drawings. OK, the mechanical unit that you are seeing in there is actually an existing one on the lot that we are relocating. And that is for the crest building. So that is also a part of this application for modification to the site, the mechanical equipment for our structure. Yeah, that's going to be on the roof. We only have small condensing units. How many? That I do not. It's twenty three. Yeah, there would be one per per residential unit. At some point in the future with the T.I. of the ground level, it is likely there would be obviously additional mechanical on the roof, but that is not a part of this. Current proposal. OK, and is there a general location that you've targeted on the roof for that mechanical? Yes, it's over the corridor, which is at the very center of the roof. OK, so I'll look at that site plan again. It's about where it says project site and we can scroll to that sheet. Carla, I don't have that in front of me right now. Could you specify what the page number is? It's titled C.O.A. Zero and page 20 of 32. So is it above this one? Yeah, correct. Keep going up. I believe we have two rows of them running. Building North South. C.O.A. Zero. Yeah, I was in the previous version. It seems like you don't have it in this one. OK, I'm happy to share the previous version. If we want to. Yeah, well, it's just an aerial view, correct? Yes, I believe we have two rows of them. They run parallel Mangum Street. They would be a little bit further away from the south edge because the to the corridor doesn't extend all the way to the south edge. So you would not be able to see them from any adjacent sidewalks. It looks like on the crest, there's a firewall. Is that like a continuation of that firewall? We're building a separate wall. The crest building has its own masonry firewall. Right, but the location on the roof, would it be somewhere on that line? Parallel to South Mangum. Parallel to South Mangum in the middle of our building east-west. Carlin, keep scrolling down. You might actually have the aerial view that we're looking at here in paper form. What are you looking for again? Yeah, I believe it's paid 20 of your PDF. If you have a 32-page PDF staff report, it's the first of our drawing sheets. Oh, if you're drawing sheets, OK. Yeah, it looks like you're on page 12. Those are all cut sheets. If you went to page 20 of 32, that should be our... OK, 20 of 32. That's correct. That's where I am right now, page 20 of 32. You may be not sharing that screen, maybe. The one we're seeing is static on 12 of 32. Oh, no, sorry. OK. There we go. OK, I'm going to stop sharing this screen. And I will share the other screen. I apologize. I thought it switched as I switched. Are you seeing the correct screen? There we go. OK. OK. So if you see the O in Project kind of right there and going at a diagonal line for this drawing that happens to be parallel to South Mangum, we'd have two rows of condens... you know, residential size condensing units. All right, that does help me out and clarify. Thank you. Any other questions from commissioners for the applicant? If not, is anyone else present who would like to speak for or against this case? If not, then we will close the public hearing and discuss amongst the commissioners. Commissioners, any discussion? Jonathan, I would ask just to Andy's point, do we want to add that into the motion regarding the mechanical units? Right, because right now I don't think the motion has anything regarding the mechanical units. Or Carla can say maybe... I'll go ahead. Sorry. That... Carla Rose McLean Department, that can definitely be added in to the motion. What, how to handle existing mechanical units? Existing or the... We have two. We have the existing and we have the new. Or the new ones. Chair Bouchard, my understanding is we've got 23 residential condensing units planned to be installed on the roof of the new structure. Do we have clarity on where the existing mechanical unit servicing the crest building is going to go? Yeah, you can see that on the elevation, west elevation that would be visible as well as the original floor plans that were issued. It's the northwest corner of our parcel adjacent to the exit from crests. We're building a new steel structure to raise that convincing unit, that mechanical unit. It's above the door coming out of crests. If that is already taken care of with respect to drawing sheet COA-5, I'm not sure we need to make specific reference to it in the motion, whereas the convincing units, I don't see any reference to in the drawings and it probably does make sense to give this nose on their currently planned location on the roof. I just circled back at the drawings we've got as well. And they're 27 feet from the east side of the building and 30 feet from the west side. So centered right in the middle of the roof. 27 of the east side and one from the west. 30 from the west. Commissioner Burchard, I want to speaking. I just want to be very clear that with the discussions that have happened so far, I am not clear as to what changes are going to be made in this motion. I'm looking forward to seeing how that's going to happen. Commissioners Gulsby and Diane, are you or one of you trying to draft language here for the location of the condensate units? I can run it by you if you want before or just read the motion. Oh, what do you have in mind? Mechanical units would be placed on roof of the new structure towards the center situated 27 feet east. To sorry, 27 feet from the east side and 30 feet from the west side of the building. Away from Street View and concealed. Does that work? Commissioner Waiters, does that address your concern about the wording? Yes, it does. It's great. Any other discussion among commissioners? If not, if we could have a staff recommendation. Carla Rosenberg, Planning Department. Staff would recommend approval of the application as revised for June and with the changes regarding the mechanical equipment. Wonderful. Thank you. Do we have a motion? Commissioner Diane, the Dormist or preservation commission finds that in the case, COA 2 1 0 0 0 1 4 162 West Ramster Street, new construction. The applicant is proposing to construct a new non contributing structure. This structure with will be six stories tall with the sixth floor recess from view. Building materials include brick and black aluminum framed storefront glazing on the ground floor and fiber cement panels and black aluminum windows and sliding doors on the upper stories. Resist lighting will be installed within the building canopy and bus stop along South Mangum Street. Five new street trees, two green vase, Zolkova along West Ramster Street and three Trident maples along South Mangum Street will be planted. Mechanical units would be placed on the roof of the new structure towards its center, about 27 feet from the east side and 30 feet from the west side of the structure away from street view and concealed. 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 Dormist or preservation commission approves the certificate of appropriateness for case COA 210014 162 West Ramster Street new construction with the following conditions. One, the improvements shall be substantially consistent with the plans and testimony presented to the commission. At this commission hearing and attached to this COA, two, the improvements may require additional approvals from other city or county departments or state or local agencies. The applicant is responsible for obtaining all required approvals related to building construction site work and work in the right away. And three, a compliance inspection shall be performed immediately upon completion of the work approved here in. Commissioner Bouchard, one slight modification. I believe as Jonathan was reading the motion, he said black aluminum windows and sliding doors would simply modify the motion so that it is it reads black framed aluminum windows and sliding doors. Thank you. Second. May we have a roll call vote, please? Claire Kelly. OK, sorry. Chair Persaud. Approved. Commissioner Dan. Who? Commissioner DeBerry. Who? Commissioner Bezelman. Approved. Vice Chair Goldstein and Commissioner Johnson. Approved. Commissioner Prager. Approved. Commissioner Wangers. Approved. Mention passes easy, brother. Thank you so much to Mr. Arneson and Miss Young for working with us here over the last couple of months. And good luck to you both on this very exciting project. Thank you all. Thanks very much to the commission and staff. Appreciate it. Thanks again. It is time to move on to our next case on the agenda. This is COA 2 1 0 0 0 2 4 2 12 and 2 18 North Dillard Street, new construction and site work. Before we hear from staff, is there any one of our commissioners who may have a conflict of interest in hearing this case? Hearing none. Let's proceed with the swearing in of anyone who plans to speak for the case. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give in the public hearing proceeding for today's case is a truth by your own knowledge or by information and belief? I do. I do. Miss Patel and Miss Smith, are you both here to speak in support of the COA request? Yes, we are. Great. Thank you. And I believe Scott Harman is the one that was going to be leading us. So still waiting on him. I just received a text from Scott. He said he needs to be let back into the Zoom meeting. Looks like he is arriving now. Yay. All right, I'll read to you. Mr. Harman, is 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 or by information and belief? I do. Thank you. One last administrative question for our witnesses, Miss Patel, Miss Smith and Mr. Harman, do you all consent to this hearing being conducted today through this electronic remote platform? Do. I do. I do. Wonderful. Thank you very much. We may now proceed with the staff summary. Hey, Carla Rosenberg, cleaning department. This is case COA 21-0-0-0-24 to 12 and to 18 North Dillard Street, new construction site work. The applicant is Scott Harman, the owner to 18 North Dillard LLC. It's located on the southeast quadrant of the intersection of North Dillard Street and Holloway Street, zoned office institutional. It's there is a portion of a landmark that's a part of this property, the C.C. Thomas House. There was a subdivision of land that moved that incorporated a portion of the landmark into the new parcel. It's a non contributing parcel, otherwise actually two parcels within the Holloway Street Historic District. So the applicant is proposing to construct three story townhomes on these two lots and also to create associated site work. So I'd like to introduce the staff report into the record and invite the team to present their case. Good morning, everyone. My name is Scott Harman. I'm an architect and real estate developer with Center Studio in downtown Durham. This is a this is a quirky site for the commission. I'm sure it's not the courkiest site you've ever worked with, but it's a particularly large gap in the historic fabric. There are two significant homes to the south of our site. And then a lot of non contributing structures immediately east. And then, of course, the what I believe was the first historic district first or second historic district in in the city along Holloway Street. The the very well known Victorians along there. The site is zoned office and industrial, which reflected the best ideas from maybe four or five decades ago in terms of what we would do on this site. And our proposal is predominantly residential with a commercial use at the significant corner of Dillard and Holloway that we intend to I don't want to commit to a particular use, but we are designing this as a small cafe that would be neighborhood facing, sort of a co-working cafe space. And we're hoping to attract local a local hospitality entrepreneur from the Eastern neighborhood to operate this. That is some some early economic development and entrepreneurial ideas we have about that that I think are important to the project, but perhaps less so to your decisions today. We we are positioning 19 townhomes in what we think is sort of appropriate urbanism fairly close to the street along the edge. We're making sure that all of our parking is located to the rear of the lot. I want to acknowledge that the rear of our lot. We have a sort of an odd shaped site with four. We have very little interior lot lines on this site. So so while the parking is not along the Dillard Street face, which is the most public face of the historic structures on this block, we still face neighbors across Peach Street. And so we are paying close attention to the the quality of that edge, accepting that parking is necessary to some degree. But we want to make sure this is a not unattractive edge. So we have a lot of tree planning. We have a new sidewalk that we're putting in a number of improvements that we're doing on that edge. We do have a significant stormwater requirement on this project. And at the lowest elevation of the site, which is at the lowest point on this drawing, we've got a bio bio garden, whatever you want to. There's lots of names for these things that are meant to hide their their practical infrastructure use, but to manage our stormwater quality. We do have some pictures that are showing this is not one of the deep the deep retention ponds that you would see, like along freeways or at giant malls. This is a much more modest scale. And you can see that they're meant to have live plants in them that are enjoying the extra attention of the water that is focused there. Um, we the studio is not unfamiliar with the the commission and our approach is always to create buildings that do not try to look like historic buildings, but use historic fabric and find details in the neighborhood that we can use for the the language of our design. But we also are not afraid to introduce new elements or new forms that clearly indicate to someone that this is not a 100 year old building. This is something that was built today and appropriate for today. The the other odd element about the site is that our parcel, the buyer retention area sits on what is technically the landmark designation for the C.C. Thomas House. I'm sure this is not the first time y'all have had cases where the configuration of the designation no longer follows the configuration of the property. And Carla and I talked about Carla explained to me the different ways that we could go about dealing with this. And we chose the option that says let's show that the things we're planning on doing do not violate the requirements of the landmark designation for that piece of property rather than trying to fix the boundary right now, which is something that really ought to be done by the owner of the C.C. Thomas House. It did not feel right for me to go in and say, I think you should change this when it's not my property. So that also felt like the option that would take the least amount of time. So our documentation includes the standards that we have responded to there. And I think that what we're proposing in that far southern end of the site, if you certainly if you look at the photos of the existing conditions and the kind of thing that we're proposing and lots of trees and fences, I think it's all appropriate for the landmark status. We are, our buildings are close to the street. We've got a lot of modeling that we did just to make sure that you had a good sense of how visible or not visible the C.C. Thomas House is from a great number of viewpoints all up and down this block of Dillard Street. Frankly, the C.C. Thomas House is mostly screened from view by its own landscaping. And so we ended up having to augment our modeling just to make sure you could see where the house was even if you can't see the house itself. So I'm a believer that there's a couple of ways to respect a significant historic structure next door. One is to sort of align with it and match the setback. But another is to actually come to the street and allow the more significant structure to be framed with a greater setback. This is a classic move that you see in a lot of urban environments where civic buildings are the only ones that are actually allowed to have plazas in front of them and things like that. So I personally just as a designer feel like framing historic buildings or can be accomplished by contrast as well as matching their position on the site. But fortunately, the adjacent property is also owned by the Durham Crisis Center which owns the C.C. Thomas House and they use that for parking. So we're able to utilize our property fully and max out the number of residences that we can create here, which is important from a housing production goal. And we still are a great distance away from the house. I think that that works. And I hope that you agree that our materials show that. Our pallet of materials are, the residences are clearly residential. They have gable forms, although it's definitely a modern interpretation of that. We have shingle roofs. We have four inch exposure lap cement siding. For the commercial building, we use a similar scale of materials but we changed the pallet a bit so that it clearly raises a separate use. It has a parapet roof and a different proportion of windows that I think say that it's more commercial. We do not have lots of little punched openings the way that you would see in the historic district with the original homes. We have chosen to have fewer but larger punched openings so that again, it is a consistent rhythm of openings. It's not bands of windows. It's not like Corbusier or something true high modernism. But if you look at each individual window opening, you can clearly see the combination of a picture window with a double hung window. This is clearly a modern composition. It's not a historic one. So again, we're balancing the rhythms and the textures that you see but not trying to duplicate them exactly. We do also have some playful shading devices that we've added. You can see these fins that are vertical on the East and West facades and horizontal on the Southern facades just to add, we hope to add a little punch of color and another clearly modern material that is not, I don't think is overpowering but definitely helps break up the scale and provide some good shading and also just manages the amount of sunlight and heat gain into the spaces. Our fencing materials, we have an unfinished number one KDAC wood that we have used. We have some photos of a project that we've, couple projects that we've used this material. It's a kiln dried pressure treated. So it's a high quality. It's a number one, which is a high grade of your pressure treated wood. And it, it weathers really nicely to kind of a Cyprus or a Cedar sort of a warm gray tone, which we really like. And I don't know that you could say this was a dominant historic material in the Victorian era but or the Victorian style you certainly see this material used for fencing all over the district. It's just a classic basic wood fence but again, we're composing it in a modern sense. We've located all of our mechanical equipments and mechanical equipments to the rear of the property or on the parapet commercial roof. We have very carefully designed front stoops that so that the town homes that are on the street are really engaged with the sidewalk in a quality way. Cause, you know, although, you know the relationship of the spaces and the relationship and our connection to the street and the public realm or as important a factor in maintaining a healthy historic district just like they are in any neighborhood. I think I'm having a rare moment where I get tired of hearing my own voice. So I think I'm going to be quiet and let y'all ask me questions now. Mr. Harmon, thank you so much. Is there anything that either Ms. Patel or Ms. Smith would like to add to Mr. Harmon's presentation before we open things up for questions from the commissioners. I would like to add that the windows are going to be an aluminum cloud window and storefront at the commercial space. I have nothing to add at this time. Wonderful. Thank you both. Thank you all three. Commissioners, do you have any questions for the applicant? Ms. Andy Coolsby, Mr. Harmon, could you run through quickly the siding? Again, I'm a little unclear if it's going to be wood siding or cement fiber based off of the images in your presentation where it calls out this is what the siding will look like or sometimes it's called rain screen at the top. It would just clarify for me, what the siding material is going to be on the project. Sure. Carlos, the 2D elevations are probably better for this rather than the models. So the actual technical drawings in our presentation. I apologize. Your staff reported a little more than my computer can handle. Are you saying I'm extra, Carla? Extra, extra, extra. Here you are. And the unfortunate thing is that I don't know what a page is until I opened it and it takes a while to open it. So maybe the best way to do this is maybe I should open the PDF view and jump to page numbers like we did with the last one. See. So what page number of the PDF? I think, well, it's the drawing right after the one you were just showing. So it's the fourth, I'm sorry. If you're looking at the Dillard plans PDF, one, two, three, four, five, it's the fifth. That's it. There you go. Okay. All right. So Commissioner Gulsby on the residential parts of the building, those are the ones with the angled roofs. We have four inch lap siding that is fiber cement lap siding. We also have between the windows a spandrel panel that is a solid surface cement panel, but not lap siding. That makes sense. So that's just a design element that is connecting the third story windows and the second story windows into a figure and just putting them together. And I think, and then you have the windows and then you have the single siding, the single roofs. If you look at the commercial building, we have a similar scale of siding, but it is here we're doing a rain screen, which is sort of, I mean, I'm sure you all know what a rain screen is, but it's a more modern and a fancier siding. So again, we're just trying to sort of make sure there's differentiation between the residential buildings and the commercial buildings, although they're physically attached with a party wall. And then on the base of the commercial building, we have again, the solid panels of cement siding that are trying to, in this location, they're not sort of an individual element that's trying to connect two pieces in the composition so much as it's just meant to be sort of a smooth material that's all the way around the base of the building. So without trying to mimic it, the look that we're going for is a more continuous painted surface like you would see in painted wood storefronts in various historic locations throughout the city. Please tell me if I have not answered your question appropriately. Yeah, I think that helps me understand and the commercial portion on this sheet, that is elevation, or it's best seen in elevation five, is that correct? And the left-hand portion of elevation four. Okay. Yeah, that helps me out, thank you. This is Commissioner Johnson, while you have this elevation up. Scott, I just wanted to ask, this is more of a comment slash question. I appreciate how you kind of described your midst of architectural elements and language and mixing that in with the new. But one of the things I always appreciate about historic districts are the porches. And I just wanted to ask, and I see that the facade for each unit is only maybe one and a half bay wide, but was there any consideration, and I know they have stoops, but was there any consideration or thought about porches to help with kind of engagement between neighbors? Yeah, so each, so April, I think a porch would work well on this. It's not what we've chosen to do. But the way the stoops are, Carla, actually the very next image, yeah. So each pair of townhomes shares a stoop. So there's, and the stoops are meant to be, they have small sort of seating walls. So we're just again, trying to create a space for, it's important to note that these townhomes are actually providing single occupant suites. Each townhome has five individual bedroom suites that are rented by five people who don't know each other until they live together. And so we're, there's an innovative housing model that we're incorporating into this project. Again, I think it's important to the project. I don't know that it's critical to the commission's decisions about the historic appropriateness. But one of the things we're doing is we're creating one kind of space in the rear, the units that are sort of larger and more congregational, like where you can kind of eat and hang out and relax a little bit. And then sort of smaller, quieter, more formal spaces in the front. But we're also are still encouraging a certain amount of interaction among the neighbors. So I don't know that, I may be dodging your question. I think porches would be perfectly appropriate along this facade in, but we have elected to present something that's a little, that's not- I get it. Yeah, I get it. I was thinking that these were family homes and so, I see your model now. So thank you. Sure. It might be a little difficult to do a porch. I mean, not difficult, but it probably would be more appropriate to do a communal space rather than a porch. Okay, thank you. Any other questions from commissioners? Hearing none, is there anyone else present who would like to speak for or against this case? Well, if not, then we will close the public hearing and discuss amongst the commissioners. Thank you for your presentation. Commissioners, any discussion? This is a commissioner Gulsby. Just kind of want to open up a little discussion about the scale of the project. Just by the nature of it, it is overall larger building that's then broken up into smaller massing and it's elevation, but overall, there's not much relief to the building itself in terms of its scale compared to other things I've seen in the district. I think there are other multifamily buildings in the area, but they're not the same number of units as this one would be, but want to hear from other commissioners any thoughts about just the overall scale and again, without any relief between buildings? Personally agree, I may, but it seems that some of it is perpendicular to Dillard. The ones that are parallel to Dillard, it does seem like quite a big mass, but I don't know if that, if we have any criteria, the... Yeah, that was commissioner Johnson. That was kind of one of my concerns too. It seemed rather massive on the end of the non-contributing properties as well as the contributing properties, but across the street from Dillard, you have, well, nevermind, that's outside of the district. I don't know, I kind of struggled with it because it is on the edge and you're getting into commercial area at this particular edge, but it's also adjacent to residential non-contributing and contributing. Is it a good transition? It's kind of what I'm kind of thinking about. Yeah, thanks to all three of you for the questions and thoughts you're raising here. I'm looking at the local review criteria for new structures and to pay the piece that speaks to scale, height and massing. Let me just read it out loud so it's top of mind for all of us. Design new structures to be compatible in scale, height, proportion and massing with contributing structures in the block face and within the district. Break down the massing of structures by not exceeding 125% of the average width of contributing structures in the block face or by recessing the footprint of the structure at such intervals. Anyway, I agree with you here that it feels like it's not achieving that guideline right there. And I appreciate the intent behind the project and that this is a transition zone and interfacing modern together with historic is cool and a part of the city that we are. So those are my thoughts. The staff had maybe staff can remark about it because they did address two way from the criteria. Sounds like they didn't have an issue with it in the report. Carl, am I on mute? Yeah, so regarding the massing and whether it's excessive, is that what you're asking? Yeah, so page four is your staff analysis for that. So my thoughts about the massing were, they were, yes, taken in totality. The massing is enormous compared to individual structures in the district. However, they had taken care to reduce the massing, the appearance of the massing by dividing into separate spaces with indentations along the facade. Carla, while we're here, can you speak specifically to the roof itself criteria? It is designed roof forms to be compatible with contributing structures in the district. And what's here to me seems not quite there. So my thought on that is it follows a gable sort of slope, even without being a traditional gable. The criteria don't state to match, it's just us for compatibility. And so we could refer to the definition for compatible in the local review criteria. It's not looking for exact match, but for it to sort of articulate a similar image. And so looking at, like image. And so looking at the serrated roof line, it follows the same slope to my eye as gables would, gable being a much more traditional roof form. And again, the massing is reduced by the insets. It's not a strictly flat elevation. And I believe the applicant included a photograph at five points, showing a similar slope of a roof. Five points isn't in the district, but just to kind of show the interpretation of a historic roof. I have a question about the materials. In some places it says some proposed materials. Well, in two different places, some proposed materials are appeared to meet criteria. And I was wondering what materials don't. I think I wrote it that way because we have, I was basically dividing that criterion from materials into three separate parts. And so I was saying some of them meet this portion of the criteria, some of them. This portion. So that's why I asked. Yeah. And we're missing someone here to talk about the landscaping, but it seems like there was not a lot of options with the, with the trees. Scott, I can see you've got your hand up. Chair Bouchard. Are we able to hear from. Scott. During this portion. Absolutely. My apologies for not noticing that thing. Thanks commissioner. He's a man. Mr. Harmon. Is it all right for me to speak and, and help the commissioners with this discussion? Please. Okay. Sorry. Chairman Diane. Your question about the landscape. I heard your comment. I'm not sure I understand the precise question that you have. One, I'm not a chairman. Commissioner. Oh, sorry. That's good. Sorry. So the trees, you're moving 21 mature trees. I didn't see any reasoning for it, except for architectural design. And they, they have a significant. Well, they're mature trees. That's all I was referring to trying to understand. The trees. I don't think our. Unfortunately, our plans do not show the existing survey. I don't think that's a good idea. Unfortunately, our plans do not show the existing survey conditions. Our site plan does. So it has been submitted the city. And it would probably have been a great idea if I'd included it here. The majority of the mature trees are located literally on the property line. Between the two parcels that make up our. Our site. And so if you're looking at. This image that Carla has up now. Carla, is that the site plan or is that the, our COA submittal? This is the COA submittal. I went to Google images like the area. Actually, I went to Durham maps. Images. I should have included that in my analysis of where the trees are placed, but. They're along here. It's mainly dividing. Actually, no, those, those were trying to, to leave because they, they're mostly on the, the adjacent property. Our property is two tax parcels. Right. We have, we have an image in our report. Well, it's later on the pages. Or maybe it's right after one more. Yeah. Back up right after the one you showed. Yeah, I know. Yeah. Yeah, this is what I included. I have also an area of you. I guess one after that three after that. All right. I have been told that this will go a lot better for us if I download it. I'm going to download. While she's bringing it out. Let me just explain the condition. Our parcel is actually two separate parcels. We're going to eliminate with a recombination. So the vast majority of these 21 significant trees are. Right down the middle of our project. And so imagine you have a piece of land you want to develop. And there's a line of trees going right down the middle of it. Reflecting. An old property line. And so. The trees are not. It's just, I would say, I don't mind using the word. I don't think it's too hyperbolic to sort of say impossible to develop a piece of land. If there's a solid line of trees going right through the middle of it, essentially the only choice you have at that point is to do two projects. So. And Scott, is it correct that basically they're lined up with the driveway that would be between the two sets of town homes? It would. Yes, that is correct. There's the image. So. Essentially the only trees with a few exceptions that we have interior to our lot line or literally right in the middle of our property. And it's, it's. They're left over from when there were individual homes on this property, but, but trying to develop all of the acre and a half and maintain those trees. Would be impossible. I mean, would be very difficult if not impossible. So, you know, we're going, we're planting a lot more number of trees than we're taking down and we're making sure that those trees are located. Along the edges in the streets, we're making sure that those trees are located along the streets. We're making sure that those trees are located along the streets in order to make sure that, you know, we're, we're creating good urbanism at the same time. And it is unfortunate that, that the mature trees on the site don't lend themselves to being incorporated into the development. But I'm hopeful that, you know, 10, 20 years from now, people will think that we did the right thing. And planted trees that everyone can enjoy. And we have a significant number that we're planting near the bio retention area in the south, which is, we think a good use for that rear portion of that. Of the CC Thomas's designation area there. Just to make sure that that's a, an area that has a lot of trees concentrated together in a more natural arrangement rather than in a, this sort of rigor of a streetscape arrangement. So we have a little both on the property. And I do want to come back to the issue of scale, but I want to make sure that commissioner Diane that I've asked. Answered his questions here about the trees, just so we understand. What you haven't, I appreciate it. I would, I would wonder a couple of things, but I can understand that also the, there are a few placement of trees that look like they're very close to where there are current trees. But I can understand why change them. Including in front of the, on the Dillard side of the, that. And in the middle. Where the driveway turns into the parking lot. It seems like you want to put new trees, but I can also understand that there's going to be major development over there. And even if you want to save a couple, they're probably not going to be saved. I wish Katie was here. I understand it's. You know, what this drawing does not show are the electrical utilities and the water utilities and the sewer utilities that have to get buried on the site. And the best outcome we could hope for is that a tree would hang on for another two or three years before it ultimately died after that amount of activity is done. And that's just the reality of what it takes to build housing on the site. We have certainly. We have a number of sites that we're working on right now to save significant trees and rearrange and dodge them where we can. I just, I don't see a way to do that on this site. And have it and have an outcome that everyone would feel good about. Yeah. I think your team speak briefly to, if you consider putting that access to the parking off peach tree place rather than a drive off Diller street and how that water wouldn't affect things if you did that. So one, it would, you know, I mean, addressing the issue of scale. The, you know, the driveway off the Diller does. Is located next to the CC Thomas house. So we, so. So having the drive on Diller allows us to put a gap between the buildings. And utilize it. Where, you know, I admit that there's a large scale element on the corner and I'll come back to why I think that's okay. In a bit. Um, but just to be completely transparent with you. If we do anything along peach tree, except. Um, Except put in a sidewalk and a fence and plant some trees. We would be responsible for, uh, improving the entirety of peach tree street. Currently it's. A one lane paved alley, essentially. And the city would require us to improve that to a full fledged street with curb and gutter and sidewalks on both sides and trees and, and. Uh, Street scape on both sides and quite frankly, I'm trying to create housing here where someone can have a, have comfortable and well-designed place to live in downtown Durham for under a thousand bucks a month. And if I have to improve peach tree street as part of it, that it is the longest piece of single street scape. It's almost an entire city block. There's no way that this project could meet its housing and economic goals. So that's the only way that we could do that. If we had to do that. So we're leaving peach tree better than we found it. We're dedicating an insane amount of land at the city's requirement. Uh, so that it has the option of making that street better in the future. Um, but, um, So I feel like we're treating it right. We have a nice open low fence there. We're not turning our back on our neighbors. We're encouraging, uh, I promise you that the experience of walking down peach tree is much better than walking down the street. Um, And if you live on the other side of it, then it is now. Um, but, uh, I can't afford to, to be responsible for upgrading an entire city block with a street scape on a project of the scale. And if the drive to your parking came off peach tree, that would trigger that. It triggers. It triggers transportation requirements and suddenly. Yeah. All the things. Got it. Thanks. He had made Mr. Harmon. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I'm kind of, this is totally off from the other stuff, but just on the landscaping issue. I'm sure you can continue with whatever you want. I'm just requesting that you remove the eight. Black gum trees only because they're not good for canines. And I'm sure that anyone moving in this area is going to. Have their dogs and they're not good for them. Simple. Black gum trees. I can do that. I didn't know that black gum trees were probably meant for canines. The closest thing I have to landscaping tools at my house is a bottle of Roundup. So I'm not the plant person. Sorry. They address the commission's concerns about scale. Please. Um, Carl, if it, if it, uh, if it works, I would say. Yeah. One of the models, uh, looking from the, that's a, that's a good place to start right there. Um, uh, let's see, viewpoint for perhaps. Yeah. This is not, this is not the best view of it, but this is showing the entirety of the scale. The gap is really not very well modeled here. But in essence. So, I mean, there's a, there's a balance here. So again, the more housing units, you know, that we can provide the better that we're addressing the housing issues in Durham and, and, uh, you know, we, if you, if you look at this in the context of, we are creating 90 places for 95 people to live on the small site. So the density and the number of people that were accommodating with housing is, uh, is important. And so breaking this into smaller buildings would, uh, would be a great priority for the historic criteria. I mean, we could sort of lean more in that direction, but we're going to lose some of the other goals of the project. And so the question I think is whether what we're doing, just purely inappropriate or in violation of the criteria. Um, each of the individual town homes sets back like two feet. It's not a nominal, like six inch meaningless setback. So there's a, there's, there's a great amount of back and forth. We then further break the, um, each pair of town homes with the stoop. Um, and, um, and again, there's the, the, the large mass happens at the corner. This is a corner that used to have a gas station and then a house next to it. Um, it is, it is a gateway corner that between the historic district and downtown, um, it is directly across the street from, uh, a almost borderline razor wire security fence TV station, uh, which, um, so, you know, we have immediate adjacent uses that are outside of the district. And, um, and the smaller mass is placed next to the CC Thomas house. Honestly, what I want to do, I want to put porches on this. I think April's idea was really a good one. And I think our project looks better with them. And I think it would help break up the mass of this building. So we have, you know, so there'd be one portrait, each pair of buildings. It wouldn't be a particularly expensive thing for us to do. We could design something that looked at, and I'm probably shooting myself in the foot because y'all are going to see what those look like. Um, and I can't afford to postpone the, um, the approval here because we really need to get going on this. Uh, the construction costs are going up. And so like I'm up against a lot of pressure here. So having just shot myself in the foot, uh, maybe the commissioners and Carl can tell me how to go forward in a way that makes this better. Uh, I think April's idea would, um, and yeah, what do y'all think of that? Um, Scott, I'm, I'm going to ask, um, about something maybe there might be a possibility for you. Well, I'll just say we're having a special meeting the middle of the month. So I don't know if you might be able to, well, our advertising is going out for that today. So, um, I think making a change, like putting porches on would need to be reviewed by the commission again. I don't know that it could be approved at staff level. Um, because it is such a substantial change. Um, if on the off chance, um, Oh, we, the advertising wouldn't be an issue because it's being continued. So that's not an issue, but we are having that special hearing, um, on June 15th. So if you would like to be continued to that hearing, then we'll be hearing two cases that day. Another solution I'll offer just because I can ask these things because I'm the applicant, um, the commission could approve the drawings that we've done. That we're presenting if they're, if they're not completely objectionable to you. And we could just simply submit an amendment. Uh, to add the porches. Um, if that might make it just easier to review and approve or possible to approve at staff level or. Um, Carla, you know, we could have something to you within a week, uh, to review. And if there's a procedure internally between Carla and the commission that y'all could review that as an amendment. And there's some way to obligate me to submit that amendment. I'm making this more complicated than it needs to be. I'm trying to help out though. I'm trying to make it better. Well, I think that I think, um, I think that I'm going to, um, I'm going to be doing this. I'm going to be doing this. But I'm going to be doing it at the HPC level. So if you were to submit an amendment, it would be a major amendment as opposed to a minor. I can. Why not. But why not approve if it's, of course, if it can be approved. Uh, now for the current and then. This, this project is gone. Is it going to take more than three months. Uh, in, in a month or two. Go through a regular process of, uh, I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know which is themselves. Is that possibility? Let me, let me, let me. See if it makes sense to do it this way. Um, and sort of reclose the public hearing just to. Try to get a straw poll here of the commissioners. I mean, I'm hearing two. Um, reservations about the proposal. Um, and. The massing seems to be the greater concern. Um, than the, um, existing tree canopy. I don't want us to prematurely vote and potentially. Reject this proposal. Um, if the applicants willing to make changes, that might make it acceptable. And so I, I guess what I'm curious about, we've done this in the past. Um. Are there a sufficient number of commissioners who would not be able to support the application in its current form because of concerns about massing, uh, that. They feel could be addressed, uh, by converting these, these stups, um, to porches. I will still be willing to support the application as, um, as is, um. Uh, with the, with the, um, um. Potential changes to from stoop to porches to, um. Provide a more neighborly feel, um. Um, um, you know, even though the massing concerns me, I'm on the bench because I do understand the project. And also it's, um, it's transitioning to a more commercial area. The site where it is now is transitioning to transition to a more commercial area. Um, so. It's a bit of a concern, but I think the, um. The overall idea of the, um, of the. Uh, the project is, um, is great. Thank you. Which is not what, which is not what we have to, we have to focus on. No doubt. No doubt. I appreciate those comments. Mr. Johnson. I look, I. My understanding is there is an apartment. Um, complex. Admittedly outside of the historic district, but just south. Um, I think it's a good point. I think it's a good point. I think it's a good point. I think it's a good point. I think I love this parcel bordered by Liberty street. Um, north Elizabeth street and commerce street. Um, That plus the WTVD building, uh, which. All of just one story is a relatively massive structure. And I think the various design considerations that have gone into this proposal, including. You know, breaking the two buildings up, having the driveway between them, having one of the buildings, not to mention the insets. I, you know, I feel like Karen consideration has gone to the massing issue, even though the building that runs the, um, parallel length of North Dillard is, it's large. Um, I feel comfortable supporting the proposal as is. Um, and would support, uh, the COA, um, proposed motion as it currently exists. Um, but again, I don't want to move forward with a vote on this. If there's sufficient opposition, uh, particularly to the massing issue, um, that's going to, uh, basically put an end to this project for, for a considerable amount of time. Um, Carlos, we're planning department. You do have the option of doing a straw poll. If you want to see where people fall right now. Minus the porches. Well, I will, uh, I will take that, uh, uh, I'm going to, um, I'm going to go ahead and, um, I'm going to ask the vice and conduct the straw poll. Um, Vice chair Goolsbee, would you be a yay or a nay at this point? I would be a nay based on scale and actually, uh, materials. I do have some concerns about using the wood on the commercial portion. Um, Yep. Commissioner day on. I'll approve. Commissioner Fieselman. I would approve as is and I'd be more excited to approve with porches in two weeks. Commissioner Johnson. Yeah. Commissioner DeBerry, who I skipped in alphabetical order. My apologies. Um, I would probably vote no as is. Like to see a few improvements. Commissioner Craig. How would it prove. Commissioner waiters. Commissioner waiters. Um, Comments. Yes. Uh, I would approve. I do agree with, um, the porching being more appropriate. And I'm happy that you're going to take out, um, the trees that would be harmful to the environment. For the animals and people. So I would approve. It seems like we have sufficient support, uh, for the proposal as it currently exists. Um, I would approve it. Um, I would approve it. I just think the proposed to support the proposal as exists would be more excited about the project. Um, if it went from. Um, Stoops to porches. Um, And so I, I, I guess the question is both procedural on our end, as well as a timing question for, for Mr. Harmon. Mr. Harmon, let me start with you. case back on for consideration for our special June 15th session, would you be able within a relatively short amount of time to provide revised drawings and any other materials we would need to consider to be heard on that day? Absolutely. And for staff, it sounds like there are a few things that need to happen on your end to make this happen. Is it possible that everything could, you know, in the next 14 days, literally two weeks from now to come together for this to be considered? When would we receive the final drawings with those porches created? Mr. Harmon? My plan is just to create a one-page addendum to the existing materials that show a porch design that would replace the stoops along the front. Imagine the image in here that was the little 3D model looking down kind of at a single stoop in two townhomes. We would, you know, I think we can put this on one page. I think we can have it to Carla by the end of the week. And so just consider it an additional sheet that gets added to your consideration with the existing materials. And then you would specify building materials and have detail, it would be... I mean, it has to be presented to the same level of... Exactly. Okay. Yeah. Give me just a second. Carla, why are you doing that? I'll turn to Andy real quick. Vice Chair Gulsby, what other concerns do you have about materials that if we're gonna have additional details coming from Mr. Harmon by the end of this week, you might want to see addressed as part of that process? My concern is with the wood on the commercial portion of it. My experience has been that even though it's on a rain screen meaning that it's held off of the structure somewhat to allow air to flow through it which provides for drying out of the wood. Over time, there still can be significant warping that can potentially could occur. So I would ask just for real care put into how that siding is attached to the building, to the structure along with for my fellow commissioners used to see what that looks like because in my opinion, that's most likely a exposed fastener situation. It potentially could be concealed but what I've seen in the past is you would actually see the screws or whatever that actual fastener is on the face of the siding which I'm not aware of that in the district. So that would be, it would fall into the modern equivalent category, but I think it would be good for the other commissioners to see that and be able to weigh in. Chair Mesveek. Yes, Mr. Harmon. I mean, that is how we would normally do a rain screen. I mean, if we were building a rain screen on a building today, the most people would do them with exposed fasteners and you would do it and certainly on a good day, we're building this in a way where it's long-term maintenance and durability is appropriate. Sometimes we usually get that right. Sometimes we don't because we're human, but we will be owning this for 10 years. So I can tell you that this is not something we're looking to sell. So we're going to be, it is an opportunity zone project. So we are at least going to be the owners for the next decade. I feel like a rain screen is a modern equivalent that the visual texture with the four inch spacing is one that is going to read and feel appropriate and not out of scale for the district. So I would just argue that I feel like we meet the criteria with this material. And I say that respecting your encouragement for us to do it in a way that makes sure that it's long-term, durability holds up. Yeah, I think that you could just give some more examples. I know, I believe Center Studio did the, correct me if I'm wrong, the Luna restaurant. That's got some wood screen above it. Maybe an image of that would be helpful to see. And it's in its present state. Because I think we're also trying to be protective of the, of the district and the whole and how things appear in 11 years. If you, if you sell the, sell the building then. I'm happy to provide some images of the rain screen. I think at the risk of being borderline obstinate, I'm just, I'm wondering, is there, is it, is it appropriate to sort of hold a rain screen up to the, I mean, frankly, the, the cement siding material is going to require ongoing maintenance in order for it to continue to function and look well. That's true of all building materials. I'm not sure why the rain screen is being held up to a different lens or to higher scrutiny. Mostly because I, I tend to see it warp more in the long run, being a wood product expose, even though it's, it's, goal is to be installed in a way that allows for more drying. Being in North Carolina, I mean, we use wood in our product and our projects too. But, you know, it, sometimes you can come at a cost of a visual effect of warping over time given North Carolina's humidity and weather overall. Yeah. So I did verify porches that does require major review. So we are looking at if that change needs to be read by the commission. So the June 15th hearing, I heard Mr. Harmon say that he could bring, well, he could submit the new drawing at the end of this week. If there's any way to get it earlier, it would be better. Well, obviously there is some planning on his end that needs to take place. So we can put this to the, the June 15th meeting. If that's the route that he'd like to take. One second before, would the porches have a setback issue? We'd need to verify that. That's a good question. I may not be able to come that close to the street with porches. And I don't have the ability to answer that question. Right at this moment. I'm. Going to ask if the commission would approve the project as presented. The, um, I fear that the June 15th is at the end of the day going to complicate things more than help them. Um, and, uh, and it puts in jeopardy some of the economic and lending and other approval issues on our project that need to move forward. Um, I'm going to look and see if I can do porches. And if I can, I don't mind submitting that as an addendum. And frankly, as an addendum, it doesn't have to be resolved in two weeks. I could just submit it. Um, but if I have to set the whole building back 10 feet in order to put a 10 foot porch in the front of this, uh, I, the project is not viable because of, I mean, you can see how difficult the parking and everything is kind of wedged in there. So I think, I think in the best interest of the project and what we're trying to do and the people that are supporting us in the project and very eager to see this approved. That's what I should ask for at this point in time. I appreciate that. And I think we should move forward. Um, based on those considerations, do we have a staff recommendation? Carla Rosenberg planning department staff would recommend approval of the application. And I want to apologize to the commission because I'm the one that made this more complicated than it needed to be. And it feels icky to have me come up with this great idea that got y'all excited and then to say, oops, never mind. But, um, anyway, so I just want to apologize to y'all for that, but I think it's been an important discussion. Um, do we have anybody who would like to make a motion? No, it makes, I can make it again. Please Jonathan. Thank you. The Durham Historic Preservation Commission finds that in the case, COA 2 1 0 0 0 2 4 2 12 and 2 18 North Dillard street, new construction and site work. The applicant is proposing to construct two, three story multifamily structures containing 19 town home units and a commercial space on two vacant lots. The structures will be set back five to 15 feet from Dillard Street. Materials for the residential portion will include cementitious fiberboard lap siding and raw lumber, KTAD stewed stoops and benches. Materials for the commercial corner will include cementitious fiberboard panels and often an open wood rain screens with four inch gaps. We did not change that, right? No. Windows will consist of aluminum clad wood units. A parking area will front peach tree street with a driveway entry between the buildings accessible from North Dillard Street. 21 mature trees to be removed from the site will be replaced by 59 new trees, including swamp white oaks, ginkgoes, wait, okay. We have two trees here. The one we used to build an apartment complex and it was on the property of GLS, mignoli, river bridge and creek burtles. We don't have what we took out, right? I'm sorry stopping just to make sure because we had the adjustment with Wanda on the trees? Right. Jonathan the list you just read already does not include one one of us to pull out. 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 210002421218 North Dillard Street, new construction and site work with the following conditions. One, the improvements shall be substantially consistent with the plans and testimony presented to the commission at this commission hearing and attached to this COA. Two, the improvements may require additional approvals from other city and 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 three, a compliance inspection shall be performed immediately upon completion of the work approved herein. Second. Just one thing. If the black gum trees are shown on a drawing, but I didn't include it within the, not fully inclusive list in the motion, you would need to put a condition that Mr. Harmon would then sign on the COA to remove those from the drawing. Just wanna make that. So add a condition to remove the black gum trees from the COA. Would he replace with a different species? He can choose from whenever on it. Okay, so specify that, not just remove, but replace with. And replace with one of the trees listed in bullet six. Swamp white oaks, ginkgoes, magnolias, river birch or crape myrtles. Is that okay? You would be willing to sign that, Mr. Harmon. Sign off on that. I think so, or we could just say any of the other trees listed on the landscaping plan. If anyone thinks I need a little more leeway, but I'm solid that it's not black gums and I'm not reducing the number of trees. Did you get my second? All right. Commissioner Prashard. Approved. Commissioner Dan. Move. Commissioner DeBarry. We couldn't hear you. No. Okay. Commissioner Fieselman. Commissioner Vice-Chair Gulsby. No. Commissioner Johnson. Approved. Commissioner Krediger. Approved. Commissioner Waders. Approved. Mission passes. Six zero. Six two. Six two. Six two. Yeah, sorry. Thank you, Mr. Harmon, Ms. Smith and Ms. Patel. And good luck with your project. Thank you, Commissioner. Thank you. Thank you. Carla. Commissioner's privilege. Can we take a five minute break? We can be backed by 1110. Looks like folks are slowly returning. If we could have all of the commissioners turn your cameras back on, please, once you are back from our break. Wanda, I know that you had requested an 11 o'clock departure time. Are you able to stay on for the next case? Thank you, Matt. I'm going to be on for about 20 more minutes. Okay. Thank you, sir. Andy and Jonathan, if you could turn your cameras back on once you are back from our break. We're waiting for Andy and Jonathan to turn their cameras back on. Mr. Miller, I understand that you are only able to participate by phone and not able to turn on a camera today. Is that correct? That's correct, and I apologize. Andy and Jonathan, are you back yet? If so, please turn your cameras on. There's Andy. Jonathan, are you back? If so, please turn your camera back on. Can we take care of some of the administrative swearing folks in if needed while we wait? That was a good call. I was giving that consideration, but here's Jonathan. Let us get started. Welcome back, Jonathan. Sorry about it. Okay, it's okay. We will now hear case COA 210027, 1213 Alabama Avenue, new construction. Before we hear from staff, is there anyone of our commissioners who may have a conflict of interest in hearing this case? If not, let us proceed with the swearing in of anyone who plans to speak for or against the case. Terry? Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give in the public hearing proceeding for today's case is a truth by your own knowledge or by information and beliefs? I do. I do. And Mr. Miller, I don't think we've heard from you yet. I do. Great. And starting with Ms. Oliver and then moving on to Mr. Darville and then Mr. Levy and then Mr. Miller, if each of you could affirm that you consent to this hearing being conducted via this electronic virtual platform? I affirm. I've lost track of where we are. Tom Miller, I consent. Wonderful. For preservation Durham. Thank you so much. We may now proceed with the staff summary. Carla? All right. Carla Rosenberg Planning Department. This is KCOA 21-0-0-0-27. It's 12-13 Alabama Avenue, new construction and site work. It's the applicant is Chase Building Company headed by Dave Darville. The owner is Samuel Poole. It's located on the west side of Alabama Avenue between West Club and Woodrow. It's a residential suburban eight. It's a non-contributing lot in the Watts Hill and Dale Historic District. That non-contributing status is having been subdivided from the neighboring, the adjacent property. The applicant proposes to construct a new one and a half story home on a, on the newly subdivided small lot. And they're also this retroactive removal of two oak trees. I'd like to introduce the staff report into the record and invite the team to present their case. Okay. Thanks, Carla. My name is Dave Darville. I'm working with Chase Building Company for the purposes of, of this review. As Carla said, and if you would, Carla, put up, put up sheet A2 on the plans, the front perspective view, if you would, just to give everybody a feel for. Do you happen to have a page number of the PDF? I know it's A2 on the plan set. I'll just. There it is. Look right there. That's probably the best. Okay. So as Carlos said, this is a story and a half tutor style home that is being built on a small lot. It will have the next year mainly constructive natural brick. And on that brick, we will put a creamy white German smear finish, which is basically the process of applying cement based mortar over the brick and then wiping it off. So the mortar can create more of an old world look to give it, you know, an old appeal. The rear portion of the house, the dormers in the bay window, wall surfaces will be a seven inch reveal, cement just siding a hearty siding basically smooth finish. It'll be painted to compliment the brick. All the windows and the doors are Marvin elevate collection, which is a, we'll have a white fiberglass exterior finish with the wood interior finish doors and windows wall have two little panes as you can see on the drawing of simulated divided light and they will include the spacer bar, which creates, you know, closer match to a true divided light window. This proposed house does meet the criteria for small lot option construction. The house, the plans for this house have been submitted to planning and we have been advised that the plans have been approved upon our approval from, from the historical commission. This house has 800 square feet on the first floor, which is basically the small lot requirement. And then 369 heated square feet on the second floor for a total of 1169. There's a raised concrete porch at the entry of the house and a concrete patio with an open shade of arbor at the end of the house. This house is designed for outdoor living. The tutor style house fits well into the neighborhood. We believe we have supplied several pictures of houses in the area of this same style. So we feel like we, you know, are certainly not building something, you know, out of the ordinary for this, for this area. That's pretty much it. It's, it is a, it is a small, small house. So very, very different than what we've been talking about for the last two hours. Just a single family home. So with that, I will put any questions out to the group, although I will, I will mention, as Carla mentioned at the beginning, two large oak trees were removed prior to our submittal meeting with Carla. One of the trees was in the footprint of the house. The other was on the left property line and leaning severely and upon removal of the tree, it was found that the tree was, the entire core of the tree was rotted. So it very likely would have, would have fallen in the next, in the next storm. So again, those, those were removed prior to the meeting because of those conditions. So anyway, with that, I'll certainly ask the commission to ask any questions they have on this project. Is there anyone else here today who was speaking on behalf of the request for COA? No. Oh, go ahead. Well, I was just going to note that. My name is Wilma Oliver. I work with Chase building company. My coworker Josh Quinlan. He actually designed a house. So we're both here in support of the COA, but we defer to Dave Darville as far as giving the majority of the supporting information, but we're here to answer any questions in case there's something comes up that maybe Dave Darville needs additional information for. Great. I appreciate that. And with that, I'll turn. Mr. Chairman. Yes, Mr. Miller. I understand you're here to speak in opposition to the requests. And I wanted to correct that. We signed up before our board head actually had an opportunity to vote just to make sure that we were registered in a timely fashion. Preservation Durham appears to speak in favor of this application. I don't know how that changes our order speaking, but I did want to correct that for the record. I do appreciate that clarification. It's helpful to know. Commissioner, do we have any questions for the applicants? I just a small remark for the Jonathan Dan, by the way. Cores of trees usually do not, depending what tree it is. I happen to have a PhD in molecular biology and plant anatomy. Cores of trees do not in most cases of flowering trees are not. Not give any support to the trees. So having a rotten core does not mean the tree is not stable. I didn't see the tree and I don't know, but just, I heard that remark before. I just wanted to put things in. Yeah. And thank you for that feedback. Basically the tree was severely leaning. And the tree company that, that took it down, sent us some pictures of it indicating that it was diseased, maybe my. Discription of a hollowed out. The core was a bad one, but it was, but it has been removed already. It's not a question of removing. That is correct. It is. It has been removed. And we do have plans to replace both of those trees with, you know, similar species. Once construction is completed. Thank you for that. Any other commissioners with questions for the applicant? This is Andy Colesby. I was looking to confirm looking at the site plan. And I see both a water line and sewer line clean out. I want to confirm that those are both. Ground mounted or flush with the ground. Pieces and not, not a hot box. Style. We are confirming that they are ground mounted. Okay. And they'll be, and they'll be flush with the ground. Or as, yeah, the clamp clamp might stick up six inches or something like that. We'll make sure that you're not putting a box in the middle of your considered elevation. You're correct. We're using the standard installation. Any other questions? Excuse me. Anybody else? Oh, yes, I'm sorry. I didn't have my camera on. I just wanted to ask about the German smearing. Are there other examples of historic houses in the district that have this facade style? Is this in the district? I personally constructed a remodeled home over on Englewood. I'm not sure that's in the Hillendale district or not, but it's, you know, certainly close by, which we did a similar, similar exterior finish. Josh, I don't know any of the other houses in or around Alabama that you took pictures. You might Carly, if you would show some of those houses surrounding that we took some pictures of. That's the lot. Yeah, so this isn't the same exact method. This house has painted brick that has chipped away some, but it has a very similar look to it. And this is on, this is within a block from the house. This, this one obviously is, is under renovation. So not really sure what they're going to do with that brick. If they're going to add any exterior to it. I'm not sure why these aren't in color, but. Anyway, so. I'm sure Johnson to answer your question. Not really sure if there's anything in around Alabama street again. I did. I did a renovation on a house over on Englewood that had a, had a similar finish on it. Yeah. Okay. I was asking because I was trying to ascertain whether this is something. Compatible in the district, something usual for that time period. And I just don't recall saying much of that, but. There's a tutor very close by on club Boulevard. Maybe Tom Miller knows the address better than me. That has this. I don't know. Mr. Diane that has the smear. It doesn't have the smear, but it's a tutor style. Yeah, we, we know that there are a whole lot of tutors, but I was just talking about the. The. The style of their side. And Carla Rosemary planning department just to. I viewed it as its brick with a sort of a. Stuck. Oh, that's not fully executed. It's like partial stucco. I don't know. I don't know what it's doing. It's playing in the district, even though they're doing it in a different manner. So that's how I viewed it. That's the excellent point of you. All right. Thank you, Carla. Thank you, April. Any other commissioners with questions for the applicant? Is there anyone president who would like to speak for or against this case? Mr. Chair, can you hear me? I can, Mr. Miller. and I am appearing in favor of this COA application for a new house at 1213 Alabama Avenue. I want to explain our reasoning. As far as we know, this is a novel case of a small option house being built in a local historic district. I might be wrong on that, but as far as I know, this is a first. It's our observation that the small lot option under the expanding housing choices initiative is who to stay. Under the small lot option, a lot may be as small as 25 feet by 80 feet. That's just 2000 square feet on the ground. When the lot is smaller than the minimum for the underlying zoning district, the lot on the house on the lot can't be any larger than 1200 square feet. You can occupy a building footprint no larger than 800 square feet and can be no taller than 24 feet as the city measures building height. We observe some of what has been done already under the small lot option so far is not good. And we note that the ability to take a typical 50-foot lot in a historic district demolish the historic house there, cut the lot in two for two more tiny lots for the small lot option can be a real threat to preservation of Durham's historic homes and districts. But the question on whether or not we're going to have a small lot option has already been decided. In our view, the question now before us is a more subtle one. What should the standard for these new houses be when they occur in a local historic district? The case on Alabama is a case of first impression as far as we know. So the new lot is not, we support this one because the new lot is not the result of the demolition of a structure within the district. The new lot is not as small as the rules permit and consequently it does not significantly interrupt the pattern and feel of the district as much as the smallest allowed might. And then three, the house itself has been thoughtfully designed and cited on the lot while not being a pastiche of any earlier historic design is appropriate to scale and its architecture is informed by period houses nearby. The subject house is a story and a half gable front house perfect for a narrow lot. It will have brick veneer, the homes in the vicinity are either clad with claps or brick veneer. The older, more bungalow style houses tend to be clad with wood but in this area of Alabama there are a fair number of tutor revival homes clad with brick. These houses fall outside the official district but the there are period structures in the historic integrity of the area does not stop at the invisible district boundary. Subject house is designed with more than a tip of the hat to nearby tutor homes. It's reflection of some of their qualities without being a copy or a neo-tutor itself. No one will be confused about whether the subject house is old or new but it will be sided with the same setback from the street as its nearby neighbors. It's formal resemble other houses in the neighborhood. Scale will be appropriate in its organization, fenestration and essential materials at least at the street front and for some distance to the rear. We'll agree with the neighborhood standard and if I could throw in if I were the designer of this house the one thing that I think is missing is a chimney. Chimney and hearth in a house are a link way back to humankind's earliest domesticity and we think that a chimney would be a nice effect but we're not asking you to stop this case for that reason. Preservation Durham support of the COA for this house is not to be taken as a broad enthusiasm for the small lot IDM local historic district. Our worry about the possible impacts of the new rules is not diminished. Our support for this case is based upon the narrow circumstances we've recited as applying here. That's our hope that when other small lot option houses are built in Durham's local historic district those houses will touch the same basis this house has touched along the way to this COA approval and if you have any questions for preservation Durham Mr. Levy and I are here to answer them. Thank you very much Mr. Chairman for the opportunity to address you. Thank you Mr. Miller. Does anyone have any questions for either Mr. Miller or Mr. Levy? Hearing none I believe we are in a position to close the public hearing and to discuss amongst commissioners. Would anyone like to kick things off? Commissioner Feaselman. I am wondering if we are ready for a motion. Well if there's no discussion we could certainly turn to Karla for a staff recommendation. Karla Rosenberg planning department staff would recommend approval of the application and so long as you're satisfied also with the replacement trees proposed. Do we have a motion? I can make it. Thank you. This is Commissioner Feaselman and the Durham Historic Preservation Commission finds that in case COA 21-0-0-7-12-13 Alabama Avenue new construction the applicant is proposing a new 800 square foot one-and-a-half story structure. Two mature oak trees have already been removed from the center of the site to accommodate the new construction and two new oak trees will be planted in the rear yard and also be constructed of cementitious fiberboard siding, brick veneer siding, and foundation with a German smear mortar wash, architectural shingles, modern metal roofing, and fiberglass windows and doors. A ribbon drive way will be located on the far right side of the lot. Therefore the conclusion of law is that the proposed addition and alterations I think it's actually that the proposed new construction is 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 per case COA 21-0-0-0-7-12-13 Alabama Avenue new construction with the following conditions. One the improvements shall be substantially consistent with the plans and testimony presented to the commission at this commission hearing and attached to the COA. Two the improvements may require additional approvals from the 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 three a compliance inspection shall be performed immediately upon completion of the work approved herein. Second. Who's second? Okay. Thank you. Chair Persard. Approved. Commissioner Dianne. Approved. Commissioner DeBarry. Approved. Commissioner Faizelman. Approved. Vice-Chair Gulsby. Approved. Commissioner Johnson. Approved. Commissioner Cragar. Approved. Commissioner Waders. Approved. Mission passes 8-0. Thank you all very much for your time today and good luck with your project. Thank you very much and we'd like to also thank Mr. Miller for their support of our project in Watsondale. Thank you. Thank you. All right. We have one remaining request for COA on our agenda today and it is case COA 210036. It's 2326 Englewood Avenue demolition of primary structure. Before we hear from staff, is there anyone of our commissioners who may have a conflict of interest in hearing the case? If not, then let us proceed with swearing in of anyone who plans to speak for or against the case. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give in the public care and proceeding for today's case is the truth by your own knowledge or by information and belief? You know what, Terry, I think we might have gone a little bit too quickly. It looks like Mr. Wilkins is just now coming online. If you could read from the oath one more time. Sure. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give in the public care and proceeding for today's case is the truth by your own knowledge or by information and belief? I do. Mr. Miller, Mr. Levy. I do. This is Miller. Levy as well. And for all three of you starting with Mr. Wilkins and moving on to Mr. Miller, then Mr. Levy. Do all three of you assent and consent to the consideration of this case via this electronic virtual platform? I do. Preservation, Durham, consent, Mr. Chairman. I do as well. Great. Thank you all very much. With that, if we could now please have a staff summary from Ms. Rosenberg. Ms. Rosenberg, Planning Department. This is case COA 21-0-0-0-36. The applicant, I'm sorry, it's 23-26 Englewood Avenue demolition of a primary structure. The applicant and the owner are Riverbank Development LLC. It's located on the north side of Englewood Avenue between Alabama and Virginia. It's zoned Residential Urban 5 and it's a non-contributing structure in the Watts-Hillendale Historic District. So the applicant is proposing to demolish the non-contributing primary structure on the site. There's also a request for removing it to Dutch to shed. I'd like to introduce the staff report to the record and invite Mr. Wilkins of Riverbank to present his case. Thank you, Carla. Sorry, I was having a little trouble unmuting. As Carla said, this property is considered non-contributing to the historical character of the neighborhood. The existing dwelling foundation and floor framing are in poor structural condition. Part of the reason for that is this house has been unoccupied for over five years now. So you can imagine that's contributed to its current state. There's also been no power on the house for a substantial period of time since a tree knocked out power, the overhead power to the house. The bedrooms are very small. There's three bedrooms in the house. So in order to support kind of modern everyday living, it would just take a substantial amount of reconfiguration to make this house practical. The other reason we're proposing to demo the structure is there's quite a bit of impervious surface with the current driveway and the roof of this house. By demolishing the structure, we're able to rework the grading to greatly improve just the drainage off of the site, particularly onto neighboring properties, which is a major approach to demoing the structure. In addition, we're also working with a specific client currently to design a new house on the site. So that client doesn't tend to save and reuse materials where possible, both in the house and on the new site. We have spoken with adjacent property owners as well to make them aware of this application. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Wilkins. Are there any questions from the commissioners for the applicant before we ask Mr. Miller or Mr. Miller to speak? This is Andy Goldsby. Mr. Wilkins, when we're looking at this, we're judging against mainly three aspects, and I wonder if you could speak to those. Essentially, the 365 delay would not be justified if the commission found that the property owner will suffer extreme hardship or the property owner will be permanently deprived of all beneficial use or return from such property by virtue of delay or the building has no special significance or value toward maintaining the character of the district. So I wonder if you could briefly just touch on those three aspects. Sure. The current structure, as I mentioned earlier, is really unoccupiable in its current state, so it would take significant repair even to make the current structure livable. In addition to that, we do currently have a specific client that we are working with to develop the site into a new home. They're currently in temporary housing, so to delay would cause significant concerns there as well. Chair Bouchard, I wanted to just follow up on the last of the three criteria that Vice Chair Goldsby mentioned. The building has no special significance or value toward maintaining the character of the district. I understand that the structure itself is either a 1950s or 1960s structure, so mid-century ranch. Mr. Wilkins, can you speak at all to any architectural significance the building does or does not have? Sure. I'm sorry. I'm sorry I missed that point. Yeah, the current structure really has no significant contributing character to the neighborhood. It's a very standard mid-century ranch with no real outstanding characteristics. You know, it doesn't really fit within a lot of the context of the neighborhood, which was built mostly earlier than that period. The red brick kind of mid-century structure kind of stands out in that aspect as well. Any other questions from Commissioner for Mr. Wilkins? Jonathan. So to the maintenance of the house, the financial impact to you are the owner right now, correct? Correct. Because I heard financial impact, so what's the financial impact to you and not a prospective buyer? Well, financial impact is just the delay and development of the house. You know, again, to turn this existing structure into something that's occupiable would take quite a bit of rehabilitation and financial resources. Currently, if we were to put that into this house and then delay the construction of a new home for a year, it would be quite a significant cost in order to do so. If you do fit the house and I assume the water issues can be so what I understood diversion of water can be done also while the house is still intact, you will be able to resell or occupy it after that without building a new house. Is that correct? Well, one reason that we're proposing to demo the house is we were able to re-grade the site. You know, with the existing house, it kind of sets our grade at certain at certain points around the house. So we're able to re-grade the site and kind of reconfigure that grading once the house has gone in its current state. Again, a lot of the grade is kind of set. The existing driveway configuration is also set and I'll add that the driveway is extremely narrow in order to get by the side of the house to the backyard. There's quite a bit that the entire backyard is almost filled up with driveway and pervious surface. So we are in the new site plan proposing to reconfigure the driveway, make it wider and much less impervious and we're pulling the house back on that side in order to get a wider driveway and improve that condition. You have a lot of experience. We've seen you a lot in the commission with this neighborhood and you did say that it's not a historic house and it's not, according to our criteria right now, contributing historic, but it is, in my opinion, very characteristic of the neighborhood. We have a lot of non-contributing structures or post-war there. What do you think about that? Well, I think the property has been deemed non-contributing for a reason and I think the reason is that there's no real significant contribution from the house to the historic fabric of the neighborhood just because it's very plain red brick mid-century ranch. I think it just doesn't contribute any character to the neighborhood in that sense. Well, I just want to add to the applicant, though it may not contribute to the character based on the National Register nomination, during that time, I do think that mid-century modern houses in current historic districts contribute in a different kind of way as far as showing us how house designs have evolved, especially after World War II. I think this type of housing is its own genre. I mean, preservation term, we had a post-World War II housing tour, the last annual tour we were able to do, and it got good support and there's a great contest behind this type of housing. Unfortunately, at the time of the National Register nomination, this housing was not considered, but I think, well, this is a conversation for the commission of the month. Okay, thank you. I just wanted to make that point. Thank you, Commissioner Johnson. I've got to follow up Mr. Wilkins to something that Jonathan was asking about. Commissioner Dan was asking about what did Riverbank development acquire this property? November of 2020. And was Riverbank aware of the condition the property was in at the time it acquired it? Yes. And was it aware that the property had been unoccupied for a period of about five years prior to acquiring it? Yes. Okay, thank you. Commissioners, any other questions for Mr. Wilkins before we provide Mr. Miller and or Mr. Levy an opportunity to speak? Okay. Mr. Miller or Mr. Levy, the floor is yours. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Can you hear me? We can. Thank you. So I appear on behalf, again, my name is Tom Miller. I appear on behalf of Preservation Durham, my service president of that organization. I'm an attorney with expertise in real estate regulation and administrative law. I'm also an architectural historian. I wanted to provide you with a little bit of historical context for the house, if I may, by way of evidence. First, I ask that the commission take official notice of the Watsillendale Preservation Plan and the Watsillendale National Register nomination and to receive those documents into the record to provide a larger context for this one property. So Englewood Avenue was laid out in the 1910s as a street for solidly middle class housing. Club Boulevard one block to the north was intended for Durham's professional and upper classes. It had the new hospital, the streetcar, the country club and the golf course. Englewood is a step down from club, but a step up from the worker housing that had grown up around the cotton mill to the south. From the late 1910s to the mid 1960s, when the very last houses were built along Englewood in the historic district, the population of its homes, the population of its homes were meant to serve, remained the same, even if the style of the houses changed with the times from bungalows to ranches. The story of the subject house starts with the design and construction of the house at 1106 Alabama, the house where the principles of the applicant currently live. It's called the Dr. Iris Stoner house, but it was originally designed by Hill Carter Lenticum, one of Durham's earliest prominent architects, to be his own residence. It's a very important house in the craftsman style. Today that house sits on a single very deep, very narrow lot, but originally the property that went with that house included all the lots on Englewood Avenue from the corner of Alabama down to the subject property that we're talking about today. Mr. Lenticum died in 1919, about the time when his fine house at 1106 was completed. The house then became the home of Dr. and Mrs. Stoner. Dr. Stoner died in the 1930s, but as Widow lived on in their home on Alabama until around 1940 when she built a new one-level minimal traditional home for herself on the corner of Alabama and Englewood. When she died in the 1950s, her heirs sold the lots where the subject house and its neighbor to the west at 2328 are located today. The purchaser of those lots built new houses there. These houses were relatively modest brick ranches. They were built 1957 to 1958, according to city directory entries. Of the two, the subject house has more solidly ranch features, a shallow pitch tip roof with deep overhangs and two over two horizontal windows. Thousand question and the one beside it represent the last blush of infill development in the Watsill and Dale district. They are modest ranches, a logical choice in a portion of the district Englewood Avenue that was always intended to be solidly middle-class residential development from the earliest homes built there in the late 1910s, clear up until the 1960s. The significance of this house is not so much as an exemplar of the ranch style, but as a continuing and last chapter in a district which for nearly 50 years chronicles American middle-class suburban residential living. The homes on Englewood, no matter when they were built or which style or was fashionable at the time they were built, all serve the same population in very much the same way. These are the houses of the American dream. Whatever their significance may be as individual buildings, it is significantly amplified by being together intact in a local historic district. Together they tell an important story of American social history, take any of the houses out of the district and the fabric of that history phrase, the integrity of the district is eroded. The subject house isn't identified as non-contributing by reason of age in the now 20-year-old national register nomination. I'll point out that the national register nomination was completed in August of 2000. That isn't that it's non-contributing is an issue in this case, but we must be careful not to place too much emphasis on a now stale non-contributing classification. Instead we must look to the meaning of the classification after the passage of 20 years. One of the remarkable things about the Watts Hill and Dale district is how very few non-contributing buildings there are. If you just look at the raw numbers in the nomination document, it makes it seem like there are a lot, but in fact in terms of primary structures there are very few. Most of the non-contributing structures are outbuildings and sheds. This is a district with a very high degree of district integrity. If the Watts Hill and Dale local district were updated and this is overdue, the subject house and its handful of ranch style neighbors throughout the district would all be classified as contributing. Because of this and because of the damaged demolition of this house would do to the district, Reservation Durham asserts that the outdated NC classification when I say NC non-contributing classification of this house carries little weight in analyzing the application for demolition in terms of actual guiding policies and the goals of historic preservation. Respectfully we asked the commission to impose a 365-day delay on the demolition of this house with a view that perhaps a better alternative can be found to demolishing it. The house sits that the lot the house sits on is large enough to accommodate a sizable addition to the rear in their application. The applicants argue that the house is small and that greater economic value can be derived from the property if the house is demolished and replaces something more commodious. This of course is not a justification for demolishing even a non-contributing structure in a local historic district. The house in question is run down but is by no means in poor condition. There's no extreme hardship at work here and that's the standard. There are alternatives to tearing this house down. The applicants have a great deal of experience some of it quite imaginative and enlarging and remodeling houses in the Watsillendale district so that they provide homes for modern living while keeping and enhancing the home's historic integrity and the way they contribute to the historic district. Finally we have to point out the Watsillendale historic district is in danger of being loved to death. For the last few years your agenda has routinely had cases in Watsillendale. In recent months those cases have turned from alterations to demolitions. Demolitions threaten the integrity of the district. When this happens we urge you not simply consider each case on a standalone basis but to take notice of what is happening over time. One of your jobs is the historic preservation commission and ours at Preservation Durham is to protect districts as much as the individual buildings in them. In addition to considering the cumulative effect of demolition requests in Watsillendale we ask that you undertake to update the local district to establish a new date of significance perhaps 1965 or 1970 and re-examine the contributing and non-contributing classifications of the homes and other buildings in the district. Fortunately we have a very thorough nomination document prepared by Ruth Little to work from. Each property is identified and cataloged in the nomination document the same the same way without regard to its classification as contributing or non-contributing. The updating work would not require beginning again or a comprehensive redo of the historic research. The major results of an update would be reclassifying the homes built between 1945 and 1965 from non-contributing to contributing and there are a number of them including the Fort's house on Coble of Art which is a jewel box of the ranch style probably I would argue the finest ranch style house in Durham is designed by Archie Royal Davis. An update would better tell the story of the district would not change the jurisdiction of the historic preservation commission over any property in the district but it would extend to the benefits of reclassified the owners of reclassified homes the benefit of historic preservation tax credits the benefit which would work as an economic counter incentive to demolition in the district. For these reasons Mr. Chairman and members of the commission we respectfully ask for a delay we would like to work with the owners of this property to find another solution to demolishing what we think is an important ranch style house in the area. Again I want to point out too that that if you were to look at the especially the Englewood Avenue portion of the district you're not going to find a single house that is a remarkable architectural exemplar of its style. They are all ordinary yeoman houses designed for solidly middle-class people and so the standard can't be can't be that this house or that house is better than another they're all ordinary houses. What makes them special is as they exuse together with remarkable historic integrity once we start demolishing houses though we erode that integrity in a way that reduces the value of the district as a whole. This case is about the district and we and also the cumulative effect of the demolition applications that we've been seeing in the area. Thank you very much and I'll conclude my remarks there unless there are questions. Thank you. Thank you Mr. Miller commissioners. Any questions for Mr. Miller or Mr. Levy at this time? Hearing none I will close the public hearing so that we can commence discussion amongst ourselves as commissioners. Anyone like to take the lead? Mr. DeBerry. I agree with Mr. Miller that just because a house in an older district that has not been re-inventoried is called non-contributing that it is that it does not contribute to the historic quality of the district. I think there are a number of districts in Durham that need to be re-inventoried, Watts-Hillendale among them and I have a hard time because I I'm seeing this same phenomenon where people look at these neighborhoods and they like them because of the historic character yet they want to come in and demolish the houses and build new homes in the midst of the fabric of the community and the fact that we're seeing this over and over and over again I think points to a larger problem and I understand that we you know you can't make one project an example for the rest but I think this clearly to me shows what's what's going on over there and certainly deserves the year delay to hopefully find some other recourse to this property. Yeah I tend to agree with Mr. Miller he said what I wanted to say and more and also Commissioner DeBerry I don't see I don't have anything else I think you covered everything I wanted to say so I have nothing else to add but I agree and I do have concern about the argument what I do have concern is the argument being made that it it does not contribute to the historic character of the district whilst the plan the future plan is to build something which was surely not contribute to the district so. Thank you commissioners DeBerry and Johnson moving on to Commissioner Dayan. So though I I also agree and I would I would like to touch the three points Suffer extreme hardship I'm I cannot see where that hardship is buying the property before and I can understand why it was done but probably that value already represents that then the hardship of renovating and enlarging as was proposed or is not different than the hardship of building so that for me is not a criteria that is affected here the deprived of beneficial use I don't think we heard any claim that this house cannot be used as a dwelling residence and the third one I'm hearing a lot if it's contributing or non contributing I don't think that's the the tension here the intention is the character of the district not the historic character of the district it is a historic district but the character of the district is part and we heard that from Tom Miller as well it includes the non contributing homes that that have a history in the end and this is part of the soul of that district so for all three reasons I do think that we need the 365 day delay to find a better solution. Jonathan thank you for that I am going to reopen the public hearing because I just realized I made a mistake there is an opportunity under our rules for the applicant to rebut anything discussed by an opponent to a request for COA and so Mr Wilkins would you like to respond in any way to the concerns you've heard from the commissioners or Mr Miller. Thank you chair Bichard I would like to say make it make the point that the property was purchased you know during a period which obviously is still intact where where it was considered non contributing so you know when the property was purchased we can't control you know when when the property is characterized as non contributing or contributing so you know our intent to develop the property was and by the property was based on its current classification you know we we do have a vested interest in this neighborhood as well and we have renovated and rehabilitated you know plenty of houses where we've deemed that you know that they can be rehabilitated this one is in such poor condition that it just doesn't make practical sense and in a lot of ways we would you know we would be demoing much of the house just to just to rehabilitate it so yeah just just wanted to make those points I mean we are proposing a new home as well that still maintains a modest appearance and presence so we're you know we're not proposing something that does not fit within the character and fabric of the neighborhood appreciate those remarks I'm going to reclose the public hearing and return back to my fellow commissioners is there any of us who would like to take the the I guess countervailing position the contravening position that commissioners Diane DeBerry and Johnson took that we should not delay or we should delay for a shorter duration than 365 days Chairman Pashad this is an inappropriate response to your question just now I'm only saying it because I must leave I do appreciate Mr. Miller's presentation it was very helpful I also do agree with Ms. Johnson and Mr. Diane on their views on the situation and I must go I hope you guys have an appropriate resolve thank you thank you commissioner waiters I'll speak just very very briefly I'm not sure I have anything new to add for what it's worth I like others can't find extreme hardship or permanent deprivation of beneficial use when a company comes and buys a property sort of knowing all the facts eyes wide open and wants to redevelop the property in a way that you know is I'm assuming the profit motive is what's what's motivating Riverbank there's nothing wrong with that but our job is to protect the historic character of these districts and I just can't find hardship or permanent deprivation under the facts as we understand them in terms of how this property was acquired and what its intended use is which gets us to the third factor no special significance or value toward maintaining the character of the district and you know it's always my practice whenever we have demolition cases to you know right wrong or indifferent probably wrong from from Carla's point of view is to throw it at Carla and to ask whether from an architectural perspective or you know any other perspective does the property have value that warrants consideration of a delay and so Carla did you have a perspective on that question with respect to this particular property or Carla Rosenberg planning department I appreciate the view that preservation is putting forward and we do have a strategy in place that every 10 years we review the districts and change non-contributing structures to contributing where necessary where we deem it appropriate but our last instance of that was in 2015 and 16 and it retained its non-contributing status at that time and so I don't know that we can just switch the rules up on an applicant when they've brought forward an application in our manner of always addressing this issue has has been you know what does the preservation plan say in terms of its significance what does the national registered nomination say in terms of its significance to the district so I do appreciate you appreciate you know the idea coming coming forward that we need to reevaluate the what's significant and what isn't but the preservation plan really doesn't address much about the 50s and 60s other than to say infill occurred it doesn't call out special 50s and 60s houses as having special significance where it does for all of the structures in the 20s and 30s you know it'll call out different houses so and so the historical significance that the period of significance for the district per the preservation plan I read as being from the 19 teens to the 1940s so that's how I approached it and was the 1940s an increased time frame from the last review of the preservation plan for that area or was it no did that change no because the preservation plan when it was written you know it it said the period ranging had a list of houses ranging from you know the 19 teens to 1940s we didn't adjust the time period of significance of the district okay let me ask you a question follow up on that so it goes about no special significance or value toward maintaining the character of the district I think here we have an interpretation because when I'm hearing in most people is a historic character I'm I read it as the character without the historic before it I think it's assumed as being historic because we're the historic preservation commission so that it would be the historic character is how we would read that I how I would read that maybe others have different opinion yeah it's difficult because I think these plans and the national register nomination is the national register nomination is about what 20 years old and then this plan is almost 10 years old but we still haven't talked about this particular era you know yes the houses are very modest but I think the historic context as now we we go into 21st century into the 21st century century and we think more broadly about preservation and while we preserve these we are starting to move away from just looking at the architectural value alone and it starts to incorporate the meanings behind things the context around housing and design and these are that sort and and I also want to make the point that well somehow these plans don't incorporate the evolving story and what and and talk about the story of how houses are evolving in these historic districts but I do want to bring up the point I think Mr. Miller made a great point that even on that on that that street anyway the houses are not example excellent examples of their particular house types and sounds as if they're all just modest homes and you do have set those types of sections you have sections in historic districts where there are excellent examples and then you have sections where it kind of goes I hate to say it like this way but downhill from there difficult conversation well I'm looking at this is uh chair bruschard again I'm looking at the introduction to the preservation plan which reads in part as follows two quick sentences the neighborhood includes an eclectic mix of residential structures from the early decades of the 20th century that ranged from queen and four square in various revival styles to the popular bungalows of the 20s and 30s the neighborhood through these and other more modest structures reflects the importance of tobacco and clothing mills and dirhams early economy um I realize this structure wasn't you know part of those early 20th century structures but it sure seems like it does play a role in that last sentence of the introduction from the preservation plan um and so I'm struggling with this one I mean I what what is the character of the district in 2021 um and do we need to wait for you know a re-inventoring uh to to move something from not contributing to contributing before we determine as a commission that something is maintaining or does contribute has value towards the character of a district and that's and that's the question can we determine now with the information we have now um some some other form of contest without getting in trouble you know is the is the standard just what the um plan says and what the national national register nomination says or can we incorporate these other things if it if it were contributing we wouldn't read this no special significance or value toward maintaining the character it would just say if it's non-contributing you can demolish why would we need the sentence that's that's true I want to say thanks for all the bots that are on the table and add one additional thread around the idea of smallness and one of the things in the application is that this house has unreasonably small rooms I get it that's not the size that people are expecting these days and we just approved a smaller house Durham has you know a new set of rules around small lots and accessory dwelling units and we are actively as a city trying to fit more modestly sized houses in our existing fabric and here we've got an existing modestly small modest house and so I think sort of the blanket assumption that larger is better is one we want to at least consider checking ourselves on uh look it's it's 12 17 I don't want to belay where the point is there are there any commissioners who want to speak in favor of approval of the coa without any delay or were they delay shorter than 365 days because I've we haven't heard that perspective yet here to start this any goals be I'm just trying to skim over the statement of philosophy um in my my copy it's on page uh six um I haven't fully gotten through it but the one that's sticking out to me right now is uh the following methods are used in evaluating the significance of each district district property generally properties constructed in the period of significance for each district um are classified as contributing so this one obviously due to its age did not meet that um but in in my opinion I mean that's that's what I'm holding or that's what I'm weighing against its current stature is that um you know this this building did not meet that guideline as the um during the preservation plan so when I go back to no special significance you know I don't see anything that that coordinates with the preservation plan as in terms of this philosophy um and so I'm just kind of looking over this so right now I'm I'm in favor of moving forward with no delay um certainly could be convinced otherwise chairman Bechard mouse speak this is this is Chad Wilkins mr Wilkins the the public hearing has been closed and you you've had a couple chances to speak um okay did you have a brief remark very very brief I just wanted to I guess ask the question um there you know there is a criteria for these homes um you know that defines the ones that are that are contributing and non-contributing and I guess you know we didn't we didn't come up with that criteria and I think to Commissioner dolesby's point um there there is a criteria which calls it calls this one non-contributing um so just I just wanted to make that point um you know I feel like we're we're asking questions that are that are making it um seems as as if this house was should have been considered contributing when the criteria considers it non-contributing parlor Rosenberg cleaning department I also want to clarify with what um Commissioner Diane said about why why didn't we just write it as non-contributing uh so that language about the character contributing to character is directly from the state statutes whereas in Durham we have our own system of non-contributing versus contributing which it is modeled after the national register method of categorizing structures so if I'm really understanding you correctly it means the reason why it's coming to the to the Commission while being non-contributing is that a non-contributing structure it can be regarded as uh having a significant role in maintaining the character of this district if the Commission determines that to be so yes um but it's the state statutes that sets the rules in terms of the delay and one of those is whether or not it contributes to the historic character of the district well the state structure doesn't have this word in it from what I'm reading maybe I'm wrong I didn't please correct me if I'm wrong because this is a very important point I think I think the state statute says special special some it's special it's the word special special characters special significance or so disjunctive special significance or value toward maintaining the character of the district I I personally am afraid of uh and I and I value very much what uh Riverbank is doing and I think the Riverbank did a lot to preserve uh historic homes everywhere in our in our city and and I'm afraid of the President's that from after this meeting every non-contributing house is uh demolishable and I don't think that's the that's the intention of the law or our Commission I agree with Jonathan I think the the intent of the Commission concludes demolishing every non-contributing home Tom do you have your hand up yeah I do oh I was just gonna say that when I'm hearing these cases about whether we should have a delay or not what I'm really looking at for me is whether or not the Commission is going to negotiate or try to find a way to keep the building which is written right into the statute I kind of read the statute is all working together so it doesn't say we have to do 365 if we don't find that there's an extreme hardship it doesn't necessarily say that we have to give any delay and it does talk about what the Commission would do if we if we want a delay and so normally when I'm trying to decide I want to know what is the Commission going to do during this time what are we asking a homeowner to do or are we just sitting here waiting if we're just sitting here waiting and nobody's working to try to find a way to not have actually be demolished then I then I'm not inclined to ask for any delay and so I really haven't heard any of that so I wouldn't be inclined to ask for any delay at this point any of the commissioners want to address yeah thank you that point Tom and you're right we haven't discussed yet though Mr. Miller did bring up the idea that Riverbank is a smart sharp and creative crew and has done some really cool renovations and or additions in the past and perhaps that's what a delay would give us is some time for either Riverbank alone or Riverbank with the support of the Commission if they're interested to get creative with what could be done to both keep the house and make it marketable to a contemporary audience and and sell it as as they intend to it that might involve not working with the current client that you're working with on that site or it might I don't know and I think at the risk of getting too technical of the statute actually says the commission shall negotiate with the owner and with other parties in an effort to find a means of preserving the building which I think speaks to the intent of the statute there's nothing in the statue that suggests you just give delays and do nothing with them the statute clearly is speaking to negotiating to try to find a way to keep the building and so if we come across properties that that's clearly what the commission wants and that's what we want to see happen and that's there's going to be some work towards that I would be inclined to go for the maximum I mean I'm going to be very extreme on this either no delay or maximum delay because we're either trying to preserve the building or we're just wasting people's time and so that's I when we spend a lot of time on on other issues for me it's not really speaking to me but right now I'm inclined to go with none but if if the commission was pretty interested in and trying to push to make some efforts to keep the building I actually might switch to 365 well and my assumption is that because the president of preservation Durham is here and he also lives in the neighborhood that a delay is predicated on them wanting to figure out other solutions I don't know if April can comment on that in this forum but I don't think they would be here if they just wanted to push this down the road a year I think they are here to get the delay so they can work on behalf of their neighborhood to save this house is that yes you're exactly right um commissioner DeBarry this is typically something that preservation down with step in to to try to assist the property owner or to to find other options during that delay period and that's the purpose of the delay period alongside with the commission usually I think staff not the whole commission would get involved but maybe staff are trying to also assist in that but yes so that's always a given for us okay I mean that that's helpful the statute says we may delay it it doesn't say we shall and then it talks about trying to find a way to preserve the site and so you know knowing that's we're not just trying to say well we don't really like demolishing buildings so let's just create like a chilling effect by basically making people wait even though we're not going to do anything it seems almost like an improper use of the statute by our commission if I'm hearing that people are going to actually work on trying to keep this building then I'm on board with along with having this delayed if we're going less than than 365 I guess I want to know like is this just something that's going to take less time to try to intervene so that's where I'm at mr chairman this is Tom Miller may address that point mr miller I think at this point we should keep the public hearing closed um I understand I appreciate your review no that's fine but um I get it do we have any other discussion amongst commissioners do we have a staff recommendation parlor Rosenberg planning department staff would recommend approval of the application with no delay do we have a motion it can make I'm trying okay I was trying to pull it up um I think I've before I make the motion I think I've heard that the bulk of the commission is in favor of a 365 delay 65 day delay with preservation terms supporting the applicant and owner on finding an alternative solution before I read this whole thing out am I right on that yes that's what I get to okay so since commissioner fiesland um making a motion in which the Durham historic preservation commission finds that in case coa two zero zero zero zero three six 2326 Englewood avenue demolition of a primary structure the applicant is proposing to demolish a non-contributing primary structure dating from circa 1960 the commission has determined the structure to possess significant value and structural integrity to preserve it the commission has determined that the property owner has not shown substantive evidence of facing extreme hardship or of being permanently deprived of all beneficial use or return from the property by virtue of a delay and therefore in accordance with UDO requirements and in cgs 160 a dot 400 dot 14 the coa for the proposed demolition is approved with a 365 delay and the intent of preservation Durham and or city staff to support the applicant and finding an option to preserve the building one small correction the coa there should be only three zeros not four thank you well you read the motion has it four but the case itself has only three second christus got her hand up okay he's office sorry hang on sorry great um so i just wanted to make sure i heard it right um commissioner fiesland did you did you put the 365 delay day delay on it yes okay thank you okay chair was hard approved commissioner dam commissioner de berry tad you're on mute approved sorry um commissioner fieselman approved bus chair goesby no commissioner um johnson approved commissioner credor no motion um passes back to thank you everybody this was a difficult case um and a very candid discussion uh but we appreciate everybody's participation today that is the last of our certificates of appropriateness next item agenda is old business we have one item on the agenda for all business and that is the newsletter and i sent them out this past week the newsletter the minor coas the newsletters oh okay so they're out and inviting copies let me know i think we need to distinguish between the newsletter so there are two different um terry's referring to the version that i just created regarding virtual processes and our new our revised criteria um sort of a a late version of what we had meant to create over the summer to go out in the fall so that's what just went out now in the spring or yeah spring so and then we are still in the process of creating a new newsletter for 2021 fall 2021 that's going to address accessory structures um yeah so i know that i was in charge of getting the team of us together to get that done and i've just never taken the time out to do it so is that is is there a way if i because i haven't i'm about to do this to get the draft going can we approve the draft or have them review the draft at the special meeting i didn't know what we're going to tag is the other case still coming to the special meeting are we is it still as far as i know they just submitted their application so i need to send well i can tell you all now that please hold that spot um for the 15th on at 10 am is what i was going to select for this special hearing that was when we had a quorum okay all right um i just wanted to for the meeting and not during the meeting like may like have a chance to look at it before yes i can send it we can we can work on it i think me tad and um um katie was the other yeah katie was doing layout yeah she has a lot going on right now though so oh okay yes i should mention i was informed of this at the very beginning of the the meeting today um katie's father passed away unexpectedly uh last week um that that's obviously um awful news uh for her for her family so uh keep her in your your thoughts and prayers okay all right thank you next item new business um minor coas i will email those out this week i'd like to add a couple of items for discussion going forward maybe in the under new business i think the the hearing we just had reveals a bit of a blind spot for us here um on demolition and um character of the district um i think we need to probably give some thought to that and it also occurs to me unless i'm looking at the statutory history incorrectly the state statute upon which we've been reliant for all these demolition cases has been um uh let me make sure i'm right about this it's 160d now it's um it changed in january it was formerly 160a so it's 160d is it in effect yet because it looks like 160a is still in effect until august my understanding was january it switched over okay but christa maybe you could verify yeah it's effective um i believe it's 160d that 949 um there was there was an option for it to become effective uh i think july 1st depending on how jurisdictions approached it but we have updated um our udo and so we're sort of under the umbrella of the 160d now and so there was basically a recodification of all the land development regulations from 160a now they're all in 160d i'm with you you said 160d 949 i'm there the same language looks like it's the same language mm-hmm yes so the standard hasn't changed i still think we need to think through this issue because i there was a lot of room today i think for interpretation of what the statute versus our criteria um do or do not permit so i just want to throw that out there the only other thing i wanted to throw out there was are we going to start meeting again in person is is there any indication as to how soon that could happen not that i'm necessarily itching to do it but i'm just curious if city staff has begun discussions about when some of commission these types of commission meetings might um might happen i kind of like virtual now but okay um grace smith here can you hear me planning department so we have not um received direction in that regard however um we will let you know as soon as we do you'll be the first ones to know um i do know that the city council um had spoken about or intended to to start meeting in person in august i think when they come back from their summer break however i don't know how that impacts the other boards and commissions i have not been told that we can schedule our boards and commissions in person at this time so as soon as i know something about that i will share it with staff and with the board for sure so it sounds like the earliest we would do it would be september i really don't know um like i said i'm kind of thinking that they'll let us know over the summer like i'm probably in the next month or so once they firm up their plans i think they'll probably decide what to do about boards and commissions so um yeah i would i would like i would hope that we could give you a 30-day notice so you would know um you know what to expect so it's always good seeing y'all virtually but be great to see you in person um at some point if you know everyone feels comfortable doing it um it'd be great to reconvene in person anyone else have anything else just a thank you matt and city staff team for guiding us through today and every time we get together really appreciate it thanks yeah i echo that city staff you guys do a terrific job these cases these cases seem to be getting increasingly difficult yes just me yes we uh we had one other thing i'm not sure carla was pretty had her hands full trying to manage the cases during the meeting and i had put in the chat but i don't know if she saw it so i just wanted to throw out there that um we're having some um what we're calling ask the preservation planner information sessions kind of like virtual open houses uh on june the 10th um i'll let carla tell you more about that if she wants to hop on real quick but it's uh the hpc is not required to be there um it's it's not a public hearing it's not a meeting of the commission it's just an open house for folks that are interested in maybe they reside or they own property in a historic district or they own a landmark and they would like to know more about the process for approvals so that's something that carla and i are going to do on june 10th and i'll just let her hop on real quick and yeah anything i may have missed no i mean you said it that's uh we're going to be doing two different sessions one during the day and then one in the evening um and it's going to be announced in that newsletter that just went out uh and also it's advertised on our web page so we're hoping that we get um you know a crowd of people by zoom uh to ask all their questions or expecting it to last maybe an hour um each session so and we're also talking about uh holding a retreat soon which we need to do um every year so uh i think it's been already a couple years so we'll look into that as well well um just to make a little announcement last week preservation dove had a um a speaker dr um Erica Avrami and she's a professor at columbin university you can go look at it now on our youtube channel but it she she hits on a lot of great points especially concerning the conversations we had today about this not contributing type of property houses like this you know are they still worthy of preservation what other stories do they tell and how do they still continue to contribute to the built environment and so um it's called uh historic preservation social inclusion and equity um it she is a great kind of primer um conversation uh about those kinds of things and other ways to look at preservation so take a look at that if you have the opportunity great thank you thanks everybody see you in a couple weeks yeah take care thank you