 We are alive. Good morning everyone. This meeting will now come to order. Welcome to this virtual meeting of the Durham Historic Preservation Commission on this second day of March, 2021. My name is Matt Bouchard and I'm chair of the commission. The commission is a quasi judicial board of record and as such, all testimony will be recorded. Under this procedure, the meeting will also be live streamed on the city's YouTube channel. The proceedings of this board are governed by the zoning laws as recorded. As such, please note the steps we have taken to ensure that each party's due process rights are protected as we proceed with today's meeting 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 also confirm today the start of each evidentiary hearing that the participants in the evidentiary hearing consent to the matter of proceeding in this remote platform. If there's any objection to a matter of proceeding on this remote platform, then 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 the city of Durham's website, excuse me, the commission's website informing the public of the same. The notices for today's meeting advise the public on how to access the remote meeting as the meeting occurs. Individuals wishing to participate in today's evidentiary hearings were required to register prior to the meeting. Information about this registration requirement along with information about how to sign up to participate was included in the mailed notice letters sent to each adjacent property owner. This information was also included on the board's website. Public was advised to contact the city immediately in case of objection to the evidentiary hearing or to the remote meeting platform. No case is proceeding today in which the city has been contacted by an individual with an objection to the case or 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 wished 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 in all materials to be discussed today may be viewed at any time during today's meeting by visiting the web link for today's agenda via Durham's Agenda Center. Finally, all individuals who registered to participate in an evidentiary hearing on today's agenda, as well as all city staff participants were emailed a witness oath and consent to a remote hearing form prior to today's meeting. Any individual planning to testify or submit evidence in an evidentiary hearing was notified that they must sign the oath form 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 dismissals being requested by any commissioners? Good morning, this is Wanda, thank you. I am requesting a 1030 departure. Okay, thank you Wanda. I don't know if this is completely a conflict of interest, but I have intention to do business with the applicant of COA 21-0-0-0-0, 0-0-0-0-2. Mr. Jeffrey Bergman, he will potentially be a contractor for our grant program, home repair program, but we hadn't signed contracts yet or exchange money. I just want to make that, I want to be transparent about that. Done, yes. Mr. Chair, do you want me to weigh in? Yes, please do. Christopher Graus, city attorney's office. Thanks for sharing that April. I think in, based on what you described, I tend to agree that there's not a conflict of interest. And if you feel that you can be objective in voting on the matter, then you're welcome to proceed. But if that would cause a problem, then it would be appropriate to recuse. Okay, yes, I think I can be objective. Thank you. Thanks April for that disclosure. Anybody else with a conflict or early dismissal request? Okay, hearing none, as chair of the historic preservation commission, I'd like to remind everyone that our quasi-judicial hearings function similar to a court proceeding. Staff will first present an overview of the case and then the applicant will have an opportunity to present their evidence. Opponents, if any, may then present their evidence and the applicant may then present a rebuttal. Board members will refrain from questions or comments until each speaker has completed his or her presentation. Testimony should consist of facts. Each witness knows directly, not hearsay. Evidence already presented need not be repeated. All witnesses who have signed up in advance will be given the opportunity to speak and their testimony will be recorded. The board will vote on each case after the presentation of all evidence, pro and con concerning that case. All decisions of this board are subject to appeal to the board of adjustment and then to the Durham County Superior Court. Our clerk is Terry Elliott. Clerk Elliott, could you please take the attendance of the commissioners who are here today? Sure, Chair Prashard. Present. Commissioner Dayon. Present. Commissioner DeBerry. Commissioner DeBerry. Something with his microphone. He's saying hi, but he can't talk. Oh, okay. Commissioner Feaselman. Okay, I don't see her. Vice Chair Gulsby. Here. Commissioner Hamilton. Here. Commissioner Johnson. Present. Commissioner Craggar. Here. Commissioner Wagers. Present. And I'll go back. Commissioner Feaselman, are you here? Thank you very much, Terry. Commissioner, you have been forwarded an agenda for today's meeting. Would anyone like to recommend any adjustments to that agenda? Carlo Rosenberg Planning Department. No, thank you. Okay. And commissioners, you've also been provided draft minutes for our last commission meeting held on this same remote platform on February the 2nd, 2021. Does anyone have any adjustments to the draft minutes that they would like to recommend? Hearing no request to adjust in any way the draft minutes. May I have a motion to approve last month's minutes? Second. We had a motion by Commissioner Diane and I believe we had a second from Commissioner Johnson. Is that correct? Right. Fantastic. Thank you. If we could have a roll call vote, please. Yes, Chair Prashard. Approved. Commissioner Diane. Approved, but Grace is disrelated to the vote. Yes, Grace wants to speak. Just quickly, Commissioner Feaselman sent in an email. She's on the phone. So if Chris could get her joining in so she can participate in the vote, please. Thank you. If Commissioner Feaselman could press star nine so that I know that that's her number, please. All right. And then star six to unmute Commissioner Feaselman. Thank you. Can you hear me now? Can you hear me now? Yes. Okay. Good morning, everyone. I'm just driving home for an appointment and on the call until I can get home on video. I'm here in present. Okay. And we're voting on the agenda minutes. Do you have any changes? Did I have? Nope. Approved. Thank you. Okay. Commissioner DeBarry. Approved. Okay. All right. Vice Chair Gulsby. Approved. Okay. Commissioner Hamilton. Approved. Commissioner Johnson. Approved. Commissioner Craggar. Approved. And Commissioner Waders. Commissioner Waders approved. Okay. Motion passes non-zero. Thank you, everybody. And Clerk Elliott, if you could, Clerk Elliott, if you could please swear in all city staff that we'll be presenting today's cases. Sure. 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 by information and beliefs? Pearl Rosenberg Planning Department, I do. Grace Smith, I do. Thank you all very much. I think at this point, we can bring into the platform our witnesses for our first hearing. This is case number C0A2100001 801 Yancy Street. Demolition. Good morning. Good morning to everyone. I'm Sarah Lockenman. I'm presenting on behalf of West 4th LLC. Wonderful. Welcome, Ms. Lockenman. Yes. Sorry about that for butchering the first time. It's okay. Call me Sarah. Way easier. Terry, if you could please swear in Ms. Lockenman. Sure. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give in the public hearing proceedings for today's case is the truth by your own knowledge or by information and beliefs? I do. And Sarah, do you consent to this evidentiary hearing being conducted via this remote platform this morning? I do. Wonderful, thank you. I believe we can now proceed with a staff summary. All right, Carla Rosenberg Planning Department. Can everyone see my screen? Okay. So this is case COA2100001 801 Yancy Street. Demolition of a primary structure. The applicant is four over one design represented by Sarah Lockenman. The owner is Tom Hennessey. It's located on the Southwest Quadrant of the intersection of Shepherd and Yancy Streets. It's zoned residential suburban multifamily and it's a non-contributing structure in the Morehead Hill Historic District. So again, the applicant is proposing to demolish this primary multifamily structure that is non-contributing. So I'd like to introduce this staff report into the record and invite Ms. Lockenman to present her case. All right, can you flip to the photo first, Carla, please? This is a quadruplex built in the 1970s that is obviously not contributing to the character of Morehead Hill. The lot it's sitting on is quite large and it has that in-front parking and everything. What my clients are proposing to do is demolish this in total and then if you wanna flip up to the site plan, Carla. That is sitting sort of roughly in the middle of this large, this more square group of three on this map and they're going to infill three different duplexes to be proposed to you all in the coming months onto that property. So it will still be multifamily, but it will be six units instead of the four and something that is more in keeping with the guidelines of the Historic District. There's not a lot to be said for the building that's there right now. I'm not sure that anyone will miss it. So when it comes down, they will stabilize the site and get it ready for design and infill later this year. I'm happy to answer any questions about it, but this seems fairly straightforward to me. So yeah, I'm here if you need me. Sarah, thank you. Does any commissioner have any questions for the applicant before we ask to hear from anybody else? Actually, I don't think we have anybody else, but does any commissioner have any questions for Ms. Lockerman? Okay, hearing none. I believe I know the answer to this question, but I am obliged to ask it. Is there anyone else present who would like to speak for or against this case today? If not, then I believe that we can close the public hearing portion of this case and begin discussion amongst the commissioners. Commissioners, any comments? While I know it doesn't have any bearing, I'm excited that they will eventually replace it with multi-family because one of my concerns about the demolitions of these multi-family structures is that inevitably they end up changing the character of the neighborhood. And so it's exciting to know that it won't be demolished and replaced by a large single-family structure. So no bearing on this case, but yeah. I'd like to second Katie. I think that's a blessed, especially multi-families that are built to higher standards, are needed in our area. Of course, our jurisdiction on these sorts of applications is limited to whether or not to impose a 365-day delay. Is there anyone among the commissioners who wants to advocate in favor of a delay of any period of time with respect to this demolition proposal? Hearing none, I think we can turn to a staff recommendation. Carla Rosenberg Planning Department, staff would recommend approval, no conditions. Thank you, Carla. Do we have a motion? Matt. Jonathan, please move. Thank you. The Durham Historic Preservation Commission finds that in the case COA 210001 801 Yancy Street, demolition of primary structure, the applicant is proposing to demolish a non-contributing multi-family structure dating from 1978. The commission has determined the accessory structure to lack sufficient historical value or structure integrity to preserve it. The site will be stabilized with grass seed and straw following the demolition until further developed. Therefore, in accordance with the UDO requirements and NCGS statute 160D 949, sorry, dash 949, the COA for the proposed demolition is approved. Without a delay. Thank you, Jonathan. Do we have a second? Second. Thank you, April, for the second. Madam Clerk, if we could have a roll call vote, please. Yes, Chair Prashard. Approved. Commissioner Hanne. Commissioner DeBerry. Approved. Commissioner Feaselman. Approved. Commissioner Gulls, Vice Chair Gullsby. Approved. Commissioner Hamilton. Approved. Commissioner Johnson. Approved. Commissioner Krueger. Approved. Commissioner Waders. Approved. Motion passes non-zero. Thank you very much, everybody, Sarah. Thank you and... Thank you. Best of luck on this project. I'll be back soon with some designs for y'all to review. Thanks. We expect as much. Take care. We will now hear our next case. COA 2100002 617 Arnett Avenue modifications. If we could please let in the presenters for this case. Hi there. Hi, good morning. Hi, I'm Jessica Poland. I'm Jeff Bergman. And we're the homeowners at 617 Arnett. Good to see you, Ms. Poland and Mr. Bergman. Thanks for being here. Madam Clerk, if we could please swear in our witnesses. Okay. 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? Yes. Yes. Okay. And both of you, Ms. Poland and Mr. Bergman, do you consent to presenting your case and having that case decided via today's remote meeting in this remote platform? Yes. Yes. Wonderful. Thank you very much. If we could proceed with a staff summary please, Carla. All right. Carla is from our planning department. This is case COA 2100002. It's 617 Arnett Avenue modifications. The applicant is Jessica Poland, owners Jeffrey Bergman and Jessica Poland, located on the Northeast Quadrant of the intersection of Arnett Avenue and Jackson Street, so residential urban duplex, and it's a contributing structure in the Morehead Hill Historic District. So the applicant is proposing to remove the existing front porch enclosure and restore the porch to its original design. I'd like to introduce the staff report into the record and invite Ms. Poland to present her case. Thank you. Basically, just like you said, we are trying to peel back the layers of time and remove the enclosure that was placed around the original porch. Most of the columns were still in the porch, so the siding was just applied to the outside, so there was no, so you can see the turned posts on the inside of the porch when you're in that room and the original porch floor is still what the slanted floor is in that room. So in some ways, the only thing missing are some of the just, the scroll details of the porch and the front wall where the windows would have been has to be reconstructed and windows placed in that along that wall at the front of the house. And so that in terms of deciding what to do, that was pretty much the only question marks were where did the windows go and what does the handrail detail look like or the porch railing look like? And there was a little bit of a segment that was remaining from one of those pictures you could see it. Maybe that was an original handrail. And that was what you see now on the screen is what you can see from the inside of the room after the sheet rocks been peeled off is some of the original siding and we're trying to do the best we could to try to, figure out where the windows were located originally because that's what our intent is, is try to just return it to the way originally was. Yeah, so that like that notch you see on the screen right now, there's a pretty good argument for that that was the upper right notch of that window. And then Jeff also looked at the ceiling, we couldn't get good pictures of this, but he looked at the ceiling joist, is that the right word? Where the studs would have been attached of the original front wall and you could see kind of shadowing where the original studs were and based on that spacing, you could tell where they would have had windows because there was more spacing between those beams or posts than the studs than there were in other areas. So it was a fun project to get this far with the kind of felt like kind of like architectural archeology or something like that to try to figure out what the details were and but we feel pretty good, we feel good about the placement of the windows, the placement of the windows would be centered on the interior room. Yes, on that picture you can see on the top of the grid, the windows would be placed in the center of the interior room, not centered on the porch, which when you look at the house, it's a little bit a skew, but looking around at other houses, even right across from ours, it's apparent that that's how it was done on this era of homes. And then yeah, I'll talk about the spindles or you can talk about the spindles too. So this is a picture of the interior of our staircase on the inside of the house and these spindles are kind of a rectangular routed detail, fluted, okay. And then there is a house, it's 708 Yancy Street that has the same thing on the outside and we thought, well maybe that was on the outside, but when we looked at the spacing of the post, if you can pull up that, yes, that, well okay, those are, yes, sorry, that this is the remnant of the handrail and you can see the nails where they were attached, that spacing of those nails matches the spacing if you can go back to the other picture of the upstairs, the spacing of the, yes, that one, the spacing there of the upstairs and which was missing that extra kind of horizontal bar going across. So we thought that that was, we think that that would be a good solution for the exterior also. So is that all we have to say or anything else? No, I'm good, I'm good. Okay, are there any questions? Thank you very much for that presentation. Do any commissioners have any questions for the applicant before we hear from others? Hearing no questions from commissioners. Is there anyone else present who would like to speak for or against this case? Seeing and hearing none, we will close the public hearing and discuss the case amongst the commissioners. Commissioners, any comments? Jonathan? Jonathan again, it's again, another blessed renovation in the neighborhood. And it seems like you're doing a lot to find what other people would say it's too hard to do and we can't look for it. Very blessed, thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Dian, anybody else? Katie? Yeah, I'd just like to thank you for the thoroughness of your report and that you actually gave photographic evidence of every point that you made and I think it was really thorough which helps us in making our decisions today. And Carlos, easier. Off to the same goal to me. Also want to thank you for, I'm guessing you're living in these conditions right now where the sheetrock is off the walls and the porch should post or expose. So thank you for enduring that until this commission could make that make a ruling. Fortunately, fortunately today I had actually put somebody at some point had put another interior wall kind of sectioning off that room. So it's just kind of like this kind of like extra room right now. So we don't have to live with it too much. Yeah, I think we'll, we again, we thank you for going above and beyond to bring this porch back to its original state. And I think we'll be excited to see the final project project. So this is what this is about. So thank you again. Good work. Thank you. Thank you. We're excited about it too. We bought the house and in 2004, like we said and it's been a dream to get to this point. So. Well, I would join the rest of our commissioners and expressing our gratitude and wish you much success with that. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Waiters. Yeah, I echo everybody's comments. This is chair Bouchard, just a fantastic proposal. This is, as others have said, what this is all about, what this commission is all about. We applied your efforts to restore this home to its original grandeur. I think that porch is going to be beautiful. And if you're contacted at some later point in time to see if you'd be willing to have this home featured in a newsletter, don't be entirely surprised at that. Any other comments from the commission? And if not, can we have a staff recommendation? I just have a question. I'm sorry, Carl. I just have a quick question. Did you do the pencil drawings yourself, applicant? I did those, yeah. Oh, okay. Nice. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Johnson. It did occur to me, I'm not trying to be a scold here, but if we could all, I'm just violating my own statement here. This is chair Bouchard. If we can all make sure to mention who we are before we speak, just to make sure that the record is clear going forward. And I'm as guilty as everybody else. With that, staff recommendation, please. Carla Rosenberg, Planning Department. Staff would recommend approval of the application. Thank you, Carla. Do we have a motion? Any goals on motion? Thank you, Vice Chair Gulsby. The Durham Historic Preservation Commission finds that in the case of COA 2100002 617 Arnett Avenue modifications, the applicant is proposing to restore the original front porch and steps on a contributing structure. Two window openings will be restored along the front elevation. And new windows will consist of custom milled Douglas fir one over one double hung unit. Original porch posts will be uncovered and missing ornamental millwork will be replaced to match the section intact around the front entry. The wood flap siding will be retained to the extent possible and supplemented with new wood siding matching the original in width profile and reveal. The wood railing with vertical square spindles, matching interior railing will be reinstated along the porch. Concrete center block steps will be replaced with new steps, eight feet in width of painted pressure treated pine. Wood decking will be partially replaced with new tongue and grooves wood decking to match. Therefore, the conclusion of law is that the proposed addition and alterations are consistent with the historic character and qualities of the historic district and are consistent with the historic properties local review criteria. Specifically those listed in the staff report and the Durham Historic Preservation Commission approve the certificate of appropriateness for case COA 2100002 617 Arnett Avenue modification 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 relating to building instruction, site work and work in the right-of-way. And third, a compliance inspection shall be performed immediately upon completion of the work approved herein. Thank you, Andy. Do we have a second? One to waiters, second. Thank you, Commissioner Waiters. Terry, if we could have a roll call vote please. Chair Passard. Approved. Commissioner Dhan. Approved. Commissioner DeBerry. Approved. Commissioner Feaselman. Approved. Commissioner, Vice-Chair Gulsby. Approved. Commissioner Hamilton. Approved. Commissioner Johnson. Approved. Commissioner Cragger. Approved. Commissioner Waiters. Commissioner Waiters approved. Vice-Chair Passard is non-zero. Very good. Congratulations, Ms. Poland and Mr. Bergman and best of luck to you on this very exciting project. Thank you. Thanks again. So that matter is resolved. We can proceed to our next case, which is COA 2-1-00-00-4-12-13-Carolina Avenue modifications. We could let in our presenters for this case. Looks like Mr. Ryan is here. Mr. Ryan, if you could unmute yourself. Yes, sir. Can you hear me all right? I can hear you just fine. Thank you very much. Okay, human. Do those now? Please do. Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give in the public hearing proceeding for today's case? Is this the truth for your own knowledge or by information and belief? I do. Thank you. Thank you all. And Mr. Ryan, do you consent to having your case heard and decided by the commission today via this virtual platform? Yes, sir, I do. Wonderful. Thank you very much. If we could proceed with the staff summary, please. Carla Rosenberg Planning Department. This is case COA 2-1-00-00-4-12-13-Carolina Avenue modifications. The applicant is Trinity Design Build represented by Dan Ryan, the owner Stephen and Juliet Wolfe located on the Southwest Quadrant of the intersection of Carolina Avenue and Woodrow Street, zoned residential suburban eight, and it's a contributing structure to the Watts-Hillendale Historic District. So that applicant is proposing to modify two original window openings on the North Street facing elevation, replacing with half height windows on that from the same elevation. And then also some changes from a window to French-style doors in that same area. So I'd like to introduce the staff report into the record and invite Mr. Ryan to present his case. Thank you, Carla. Good morning, everyone. My name is Dan Ryan. I work with Trinity Design Build and we're presenting a modification to an existing home at 12-13 Carolina Avenue. The existing home has at some point in history been clad with vinyl and vinyl replacement windows have been inserted into the original window openings before our clients, the Wolves, owned the property. And what they would love to do is turn this into their forever home and in doing so, they wanna make a modification of the location of the kitchen in the dining room. In so, they would like to take two existing windows and move them to the location to the right of the chimney in the picture there. So the two windows currently are difficult to see. They're behind the screen porch, but they would slide over and fill in where the existing windows are to the right of the chimney. Those existing windows are counter-height windows. So they are a bit shorter than the current openings. So our proposal would be to come back and replace with the vinyl siding to fill in vinyl siding to match the existing. And then where the window and door, where one of the windows is replaced, we would replace that door and that window with a set of French doors that would match with the historic nature of the house and the existing front door. I believe that's all the information I have to present and I'm happy to answer any questions that anybody has. Thank you, Mr. Ryan. Does any commissioner have any questions for the applicant before we hear from others? Mr. Ryan, this is Andy Goldby. On your elevation drawing, this is a clarification piece for my purposes. On your elevation drawing, there are a number of windows that have their tags associated with it. And I just wanted to confirm that there's no other work happening to these windows. It's literally just the two smaller kitchen windows you're asking to be replaced or to replace adjacent to it. Yes, sir, that's correct. Yeah, just those two windows. Sorry, Jonathan down. Where are the windows that you're bringing into a place of these windows? Where are they currently located? Yes. Yep, so on the picture that Carla has up, you'll see the two pictures or the two windows are in that screen porch area right now. That's where the current kitchen is. So those windows are kind of just above countersop height. And then so those two windows which match all the rest of the windows on the house, those two windows would slide over and be moved next to the chimney. And then we would backfill the window on the right next to the door would be replaced with the French doors and then the other window would be filled in with siding. Any other questions from commissioners? Hearing none, is there anyone else present who would like to speak for or against this case? Seeing and hearing from nobody else, we will close the public hearing and discuss amongst the commissioners. Commissioners, any discussion? Jonathan. Hey, Jonathan. So this is, it's not the front facade but it's a street facing elevation. There's a rhythm of windows here that I think is gonna be affected for sure from this change, especially when right now all the windows are aligned, almost all of them are aligned top bottom and we're gonna get this break. What the significance of this I'd love to hear if Carla has any idea of the similar changes or similar modifications. The change between vinyl to vinyl is a problem with our guidance, but on the other hand these are already windows that are in the units. I'm less concerned about that and I can understand why this is needed here. You don't want to change, well needed is maybe not needed but why it is done in this situation. The problem that I see or the question that I have concerns to rhythm of the windows and the size of them. Carla Rosenberg Planning Department. The rhythm definitely will be affected. It's a conspicuous location on a corner lot. Thankfully it is easier to reverse I think making window openings smaller because the original framing hopefully will be left intact and it could be expanded later. We always look at the reversibility of changes that are made, but in terms of the view from the street it's definitely as you've said an interruption in the rhythm. Now we do in the criteria allow for changes to window opening sizes for kitchen and bath modifications on non-contributing locations which are often the side of the house. This is just a much more conspicuous elevation than most sides of houses in the district. So yeah, this is a difficult situation I think to evaluate based on that. Thank you. Commissioner, is there any additional discussion? This is Commissioner Feaselman. Dan, are you willing to comment on that question that Jonathan just expressed? Yeah, absolutely. Yeah, I completely understand what you're seeing there Jonathan, I think it's definitely some things that we have going like you mentioned. These are existing windows in the house that will be in rhythm style wise. They're all a four over one replica vinyl window. They're also the same width as all the rest of the windows. So in that regard, the only thing that gets the only additional modification is that they are a bit shorter once again to allow them to be over countertop height. Would you be willing to, sorry, Jonathan, Commissioner Feaselman, I'm sorry if I'm interrupting. Did you finish? Okay, thanks. So according to what Carlos said, would you be able to retain the reversibility at least for the two windows, the ones that will be closed in with the door and the siding I think is less relevant but the two windows that are there. So if it needs to be reversed then would be easy to do so? Yeah, absolutely. We can definitely frame those new window openings so that it would be easy to modify and put larger windows in there in the future. Thank you. This is Chair Bouchard. I've got a question for Jonathan. Jonathan, trying to understand the rhythm issue, is it the deletion of the window on the porch the shortening of the windows by, or that'll be in the new kitchen area or is it a combination of both of those that you think is disrupting the rhythm of the windows on the first floor? Both, having them from the same material is in a way a good situation here because if we had changed that too, then I know even though they're vinyl but yes, now if you look at the revised elevation, the renovated elevation, we're missing windows from the previous rhythm that we had and then we also have a jump in heights that we didn't have before. Okay, so it is both. I guess another way of asking the question, Jonathan, would be hypothetically, would those concerns be allayed if a window slated to be removed remained and yet still kept the shortening of the windows in the kitchen area? Or would you still have the same concern? Since it's a side, this is my personal view only, since it's a side elevation and you have a ceiling on the porch, removing the specific, the two doors compensate for one of the windows, so that's less of a problem in my opinion. The missing window under the ceiling, there's an architectural break there, so maybe that's also alleviated in a way, but then the two shorter windows are distraction in my opinion, but they serve a purpose as Carlisle mentioned. Chair Bouchard, again, it's kind of why I'm asking these questions about the rhythm because if you, hypothetically speaking only, kept the short window that's on the, based on the plan elevation left side of the porch and then put in two additional short windows, arguably you'd have a little bit better rhythm, right? No, I'm not sure, I don't lean this way or that. Because we already have the existence of two windows that are short. One would be removed to make way for the French doors, the other one's being removed. And I'm just- But they're in the porch that is elevated from the ground, so it makes, it's more natural in a way to be like that there. It's less natural to be so far away from the ground outside of the porch. In my opinion, this is my opinion. Completely get it, completely understand. But does it contribute to overall rhythm? If we presume that it's okay to shorten the two windows in the kitchen area, to keep the shortened window that's in the porch area, if that makes sense. In other words- So having four short windows. Well, it'd actually be three because one's gonna be removed for the French door. I don't think that's gonna help in any way. Okay. Again, in my opinion. No, no. Chair Bouchard again. Mr. Ryan, can you help me understand why that window underneath the porch on the left-hand side of the porch is gonna be removed functionally? Yeah, two parts so that we can use those existing windows so that they match, you know, so when we backfill those two windows will match all the rest of the windows in the home. That was a primary concern. And then we felt like with the new French door they would still get as much natural light into that area. So that was the primary reason to switch both of those windows over there. They're the same width as the existing dining room windows. And then the two would match the rest of the house. So you're gonna be reusing both of the windows that will be removed from the porch to create the two windows proposed in the kitchen area? Exactly, yep. I'm with you. I'm sorry, Jonathan Danigan. Now I lost it because I lost my bearings. The dining room had long windows that are being shortened. Correct? Correct. And that is supposed to be more... So you can see on this floor plan this is the proposed floor plan that we're looking at on the screen. So the kitchen and the dining room are switching locations in the house for the homeowner's preference for this project. So currently the kitchen is in the back of the house where the proposed dining room is. So we would be switching location and those two new windows would be over the top of the countertop in the new kitchen. This commissioner Fieselman, I agree that shortening those two windows just to the right of the chimney does muck with the rhythm in terms of the height of the windows. Thank you for attending to the consistency otherwise in terms of width and window itself. My sense is here, given that we sort of regularly approve similar things for kitchen and bath modifications that we not dwell on this too long if we're willing to sort of go ahead and say yes or no to this. I guess I'm suggesting maybe we go ahead and move this forward if we feel like we have enough information to make a decision. Chair Bouchard with one more question for Mr. Ryan. I take it that one of the reasons why, well, you've explained to the reason why you're removing both windows is to then consolidate those two windows and reuse them above the countertop. But in terms of why you wouldn't have a window replace the one you're removing on the porch. It looks like on the other side, you've got a refrigerator. Correct, yes. Okay. Any other discussion? Just one thing to note is Andy Gould be, one thing that kind of does bring me comfort in terms of not having windows in that porch area is that it is a screened porch. So it is somewhat hidden by that material, that mesh that would be on the porch. So really for me, it's the question of the smaller windows that are being moved to the new location. Good point. So Mr. Chair, I have a quick question. This is Mr. DeBerry. What happens to the chimney? Mr. Ryan, is there any impact to the chimney? So the exterior chimney will not change at all. They're gonna reconfigure the fireplace inside, but we will keep the exterior chimney just as it is. Thank you for that. Any further discussion commissioners? Hearing none, I believe we can proceed to a staff recommendation. Carl Rosenberg Planning Department. This is a tough one for me. I do wish there had been more sort of consideration for keeping the windows in their lengthened form in their original openings in the design of the new kitchen. But because of the reversibility, I could recommend approval of this application. Thank you, Carla. Are any commissioners willing to make a motion? Ms. Hamilton. Thank you, Chair Bouchard. I am... Will you start, Katie? Sorry, one second. Just, can you make sure to add the reversibility into the motion? Okay, so a pair of full-size window openings will be removed and replaced with a pair of half-size vinyl windows with relocated from the wall area adjacent. This change could be reversed in the future. Something like that. With that note, I pose the motion that the Durham Historic Preservation Commission finds that in the case, COA 210004, 1213 Carolina Avenue modifications. The applicant is proposing modifications to the fenestration of a contributing structure. A pair of full-size window openings will be replaced with elevation and replaced with a pair of half-size vinyl windows relocated from the wall area adjacent. This modification can be reversed in the future as the existing framing of the windows will be retained. The wall beneath the relocated window pair, as well as their location of origin, will be enfilled with vinyl siding to match surrounding material. One single entry door along the north elevation will be removed and replaced with a pair of aluminum-clad wood-frenched doors leading into the existing screen porch. Therefore, the conclusion of law is that the proposed addition and alterations are consistent with the historic character and qualities of the historic district and are consistent with the historic properties local review criteria. Specifically, those listed in the staff report and the Durham Historic Preservation Commission approves the certificate of appropriateness for case COA 210004, 1213 Carolina Avenue modifications with the following conditions. The improvements shall be substantially consistent with the plans and testimony presented to the commission at this commission hearing and attached to the COA. The improvements may require additional approvals from other city or county departments or state or local agencies. The applicant is responsible for obtaining all required approvals relating to building construction, site work, and working right away, and a compliance inspection shall be performed immediately upon completion of the work approved herein. Thank you, Commissioner and immediate past Chair Hamilton. Do we have a second? Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Dianne. Roll call vote please, Terry. Chair Pichard. Approved. Commissioner Dianne. Approved. Commissioner DeBerry. Approved. Commissioner Hazelman. Approved. Commissioner, Vice Chair Gulsby. Approved. Commissioner Hamilton. Approved. Commissioner Johnson. Not approved. Commissioner Cragger. Approved. Commissioner Waders. Commissioner Waders approved. Okay, motion passes 8-1. Mr. Ryan, thank you for being here today for presenting the case. And congratulations to you and to the Wolves and good luck with the project. Thank you guys, I appreciate it. Have a great day. You too. And with that matter resolved, I believe we can move on to our final case. This will be COA 2100008709 Shepherd Street, new construction of accessory structure. If staff could please allow in our participants today, our presenters I should say. I just want to make a note that as you can see, I'm at work. I am scheduled to have an individual come in to my lab in the next 10 minutes. So I may have to step out for just a few minutes, but I will return in approximately less than 10 minutes once an individual arrives. And I'm here. So. Great, is it Dr. Kopek and Ms. Vota? Yeah. I am not a physician. Okay. Nor have I attained that level at this moment. So I appreciate the honor. Thank you. Well, I was going to ask if you're going to like perform surgery during this hearing, which would probably be why we don't appropriate. No, no. Certainly would be inappropriate. Well, thank you both for being here. Ms. Elliott, if we could swear in the witnesses. All right. You can swear or form 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 believe? I do. Yeah. Yes. Thank you both. And do you both consent to having your case presented, heard and decided by this commission by the remote platform we're currently using? Yes. Yes, I do. Wonderful. Thank you both. If we could please proceed with a staff summary. Carla Rosemary Planning Department. This is case COA 21-0-0-0-0-8, 709 Shepherd Street, new construction of an accessory structure. The applicant, James Kappach, the owner, Nicole Votel. It's located at the east side of Shepherd Street between Jackson and Yancey Streets, the residential urban duplex. It's a contributing structure to the Morehead Hill Historic District. So the applicants proposing to construct a two-story accessory dwelling unit at the rear of the property. I'd like to introduce the staff report into the record and invite Mr. Koppach to present the case. Okay, so the primary reason that we would like to build this structure is due, I guess, to the utility of the property. So there had been a garage on the property which you all approved demolition of during the January meeting. That garage, while spacious, had a number of architectural issues that prevented us from using it in any sort of usable way. The same can be said for that shed that is also, that was also approved for demolition. So we're proposing to build this structure, which will have two purposes. The first is to, of course, provide safe and secure storage for a vehicle or other equipment that are non-household items. So our house is certainly spacious. Currently, we have to keep some sort of materials that we wouldn't like to inside the house, such as large ladders and otherwise. So this building would serve that purpose of making the interior of our primary structure more usable. The second, as Carla alluded to, that this is a two-story structure we are proposing to build or plan to build a accessory dwelling unit in that second story, which would be used for either potential urban density increase as a secondary source of income or for, I guess, the traditional mother-in-law suite route, whereby we would allow our parents to live there if needed. I'm happy to go over any of the other detailing of the project, but I will certainly be willing to answer your question. Mr. Kopak, thank you very much. Do any of the commissioners have any questions for Mr. Kopak or Ms. Vota? Ms. Ann equals the... Can you remind me of the materials that are being used, one and two? Can you just talk through the relation of the height to the existing house? Of course. So the house is between 24 feet, six inches and 25 feet tall. It has a gamble roof, so I myself was not brave enough to climb up there and confirm the height, but based on the vinyl siding measurements, we can estimate the house to be at least 25 feet tall. In the rear yard where we're proposing to build the structure, there's an eight foot drop between what you can see as the front porch level to what appears to be an addition made at some point. That is an eight foot drop there. And so there will be a significant visual decrease in height between the proposed structure that we're building and the top of the gable, which you can see there. From a material perspective, the house is clad in vinyl. However, we are proposing to clad this new primary structure in similar white hardy plank siding or some other approved material. The windows, as you can see here on the primary structure are all one over one, which were added at some point unknown to us. We estimate probably in the 80s at some point. And so in the application to be consistent with the primary structure, we have also proposed to add the clad wood windows that are one over one, as opposed to another four over one type design, which I'm happy to hear questions from you all. I mean, I think aesthetically, I prefer the four over ones, but the one over ones would be keeping in, I guess the word of the day, it maybe might be flow of the windows for the house. So that is the exterior material of the house. I guess the other main architectural feature is the roof, which of course you can see here is asphalt shingling. And for consistency, we would also propose to clad this new primary or accessory structure in asphalt shingling, as opposed to the tin roof structure that can be seen throughout the neighborhood. Yes. Commissioner Hamilton, can you speak to why you chose to do the roof line the way you did with the 35 degree angle at the front and back for what looks to just be a matter of a foot and a half or two? So the 35 degree angle was, I think, chosen aesthetically. I think the gable on the current house is a 45 degree or a 90 degree gable. However, just in designing the structure to achieve the width of the proper, the width of the structure that was desired with a 45 degree roof would have added considerable height to the ADU or would have been awkwardly, the front facade would have extended awkwardly far down. So in that regard, we chose to go 35 degrees as opposed to the 45 degrees on the front of the house. So you chose to go with the steeper, because the majority of the structure appears to be the 22.5 degrees and you just have the very tail end. Oh, I see. Yeah. So the 22 and a half degrees was chosen in order to reach the minimum height allotted for square footage. And so that ensures that all the rooms in the house have every state put down. Thanks. Are we allowed to ask questions of staff at this time too? Let's complete the questioning of the applicant for now and we'll jump into staff questions when the public hearing is closed. Thanks for sharing Fieselman here. Can you speak briefly to the garage door choice and how like compared to what was on the previous garage? So the garage door choice, we have proposed here a double wide garage. We are proposing to use a carriage style garage door which has these elongated sets of panels as seen. The garage which you all approved to demolish had no door and there was no apparent door on the structure at any point. And so, I guess in that regard, there was no comparative choice made. This was merely a choice of, I guess, not convenient but it's what I have seen proposed elsewhere. Got it, thank you. Jonathan, Diane, just a clarification for the windows. You were speaking of the application that I'm seeing is for wood windows and you said woodclad? Yes, I think Carla and I have talked about what is allowed to be proposed from the historic district. I not being an expert, as I have alluded to, I wrote this application with the intent to keep obviously with the historic character in the neighborhood. So we have proposed wood windows, yes. But I think at other points the commission has mentioned that, you know, clad windows are allowed. However, I guess, you know, wood windows are a whole level above, I guess, that. So to answer your question, I would propose to put in exactly the style of window that is allowed, however, I'm unfamiliar with exactly what that is. And with that, I have to excuse myself very briefly. Sorry. Carla, if I'm not mistaken, both are allowed, right? We just need to have the right motion. Carla Rosemarie, Department, yes, both are allowed. I think considerable financial cost difference depending on whether you can fabricate your own windows of wood or not like another applicant we had today. But yeah, it's wood clad or aluminum clad wood or wood would be appropriate. And we've even allowed polyvinyl chloride, solid profile on accessory structures and additions. Yeah, so just to clarify, we had put wood in the original, but then with these conversations like in budget constraints, we would go for the cheaper option that was still like style appropriate. Lower cost, I wouldn't say cheaper. Is that, so your request is to get a COA for wood clad windows? Yes. Or aluminum clad wood windows? Yeah, yeah. Any other questions for Ms. Volta from the commissioners? If not, is there anyone else present who would like to speak for or against this case? Seeing and hearing from nobody else, we will close the public hearing and discuss amongst the commissioners. And Katie, you've got the floor. Thanks. So Carla, I would be interested to know what you think about this roofline. I think it's odd in my opinion and not something I've seen before. I noted in your staff report, you called it a shed dormer, I think, or maybe in their application, they called it a shed dormer, but I would consider the majority of it to be that 22.5 degree and not really a dormer. So I just want to know your thoughts on it. Yeah, exactly. And the applicant and I had a discussion on that whether it was, in fact, because I think it was originally represented as a one and a half story or I think a one and a half story, but it clearly appears two-story because the entirety of the length of the structure is a full story, second story and with the 22.5 degree roofline and it's this 35 degree gable sort of superimposed on that elevation. So I think to the eye from the street, it may appear from one vantage point as a dormer system, but I think that would be, it would be revealed that it's not actually a dormer if you just moved a few feet in either direction from that vantage point. So I guess just looking at it, would you, and I mean, this might also be a good thing to get April as the historic specialist on the commission to weigh in on, is it more important to maintain a roofline that is more in keeping with what you see throughout the district, I don't believe this configuration is currently done, is or is it more important to simulate the steepness of the primary structure on the same property? Do you have an opinion on that? I think my opinion is that it's more important to, for the properties to be in Congress with the district or in Congress with the type of property that it is, those are my thoughts. If it's normal for a accessory dwelling unit to have certain types of roofs, then any new construction should have that type of slope roof. April, can you also speak briefly to on the main house? I don't know what it's called, but there's the gable and the main roof and then the main roof takes a different angle at the very top. It looks like- It's a gamble? I think it's called a gamble. Okay. Gamble. And maybe it's too late to ask the applicants this, but did you all consider a gamble in the accessory dwelling unit at all and could that work based on what you're trying to pull off? We did and so we ended up sort of matching as you could see like the front look of the house has this deeper roof. Cause when we sort of played with the idea of a gamble with that extra sort of downturn, it brought the roof line sort of too low and like made the internal space smaller. Got it. Thank you. So there are, it's Andy Goldsby. There are some liencies in the residential building code that do allow for shorter ceiling heights. It's one of the ways that, folks are able to access some of the smaller one-and-a-half story houses for bedrooms on that half story. Essentially it's a percentage of the floor plate can be a shorter ceiling height. So it doesn't have to be the eight feet in which eight feet isn't the, I think seven feet is actually a ceiling height that that's the limitation or typical limitation. And then there's some exceptions there. So you can have shorter ceilings in here and the gamble might help out. Just for my own clarity, I think I missed something the whole time. Does this accessory unit have two slopes on the building? I just thought the other slope was just the background of the house or something. I think I missed it. Does it? Can somebody tell me? Is that all right? Yeah, most of the house- Kyla, can you go to the side elevation? Yeah. Yeah, most of the house is the 35, excuse me, the lower slope pitch. And then the steeper pitch is kind of tacked on on the end in which this elevation isn't quite what would happen. I mean, they would need to come in into the house a little bit just to make that feasible. But she said, but the applicant said that they had to make this, they had to do the higher, increase the ceiling, their ceiling height minimum was eight feet or something like that. And that's why she can't go into the- Yeah, and what I'm saying, there's Andy, what I'm saying is there's some exceptions that can allow that to be lower. Got it. Sorry, this is April Johnson. Sorry, I forgot that. This is Commissioner Hamilton. Andy, I guess it wouldn't, those exceptions would get you to seven feet, you're staying so that would only be a foot, right? So they wouldn't get the 33, it couldn't do like the 33 continuous throughout, right? There's actually some exceptions that I'm looking at right now for rooms with flood ceilings, the required floor area of the room shall have a ceiling height, not less than five feet and not less than 50% of the required floor area shall have a ceiling height of not less than seven feet. So with the exception to the entry, I mean, there could be considerably lower ceilings on that app story. So Commissioner Hamilton, again, I guess for me, what is proposed is inconsistent with what you see throughout the historic district. So I just, I can't see myself approving it as currently proposed. I could see myself potentially approving it with the entire structure having the 22.5 degree slope if Carla and April think that's appropriate or I can see myself approving it where this shed dormer size was actually made, where the shed, the 22.5 degree slope was actually made into what the true shed dormer would be that is more consistent with what you see throughout the district if they can meet the standards that Commissioner Gulsby has spoken to. Because right now I just feel like this is, did not, the current refline is not something that I could approve how it is currently done. Commissioner Dan, I agree with the second option that KD represented. I think that would be much more appropriate for the district to have the dormer or real dormer and not an attachment to make a roof slope and make it look as a dormer and not a real dormer. And so for clarification, to the applicant with Sandy Gulsby, by a real dormer, you're meaning that it's only a portion of that, this elevation that we're looking at right now, it's not the full extent that's currently drawn. It's been a third. A third half, the two central, that's their design but something that is more consistent with the historic character. Yeah, this is Commissioner Hamilton. That's exactly what I mean. Commissioner Gulsby is, I mean the entire habitable structure is currently proposed is under this shallower slope. So to have what I consider a dormer, it can't be the entire habitable structure under that shape. So as Jonathan mentioned, any portion, it doesn't have to be certain percentage in my view, but just less than the entire habitable structure. This is Chair Bouchard. I am mindful of the reality that if a vote is taken and the application is rejected, the applicant must wait a year to reapply, which has me wondering if the concerns that have been expressed by some of the commissioners are shared by a significant number of commissioners that we might want to entertain giving the applicant an opportunity to redesign in a manner that a majority of the commissioners would find to be more compatible in Congress with the character of the historic neighborhood. We don't do this often, but I'm wondering if it makes sense to do a non-binding strop hole to see where folks are right now before we proceed to a final vote that might set back the applicant's plans for building this accessory structure. So... And that process-wise, if we sort of invite a redesigned submission, can that happen sooner than a year from now from the applicants? Yes, absolutely. Carla, if you could speak to how quickly that process might take in total. Absolutely. Carla Rosenberg Planning Department, we could allow a continuance. We could, you all could vote to continue the case to a future hearing that is within six months, preferably, because there has to be an adjudication within a year of the application being submitted complete. So I would suggest asking the applicant how long they would need for this redesign and choosing that future hearing date for the continued case. It could be as early as next month. It could be. Well, I have a quick question. Sorry, I think I understand the direction that's being taken, but as a quick point of clarification, is the redesign that's being requested in favor of the gambrel-style roof or in favor of a gable-style roof? Or is it open for debate still? Katie, or Eddie? It's Andy. Andy Goldie. I would say it's for a redesign of a consistent roof. From what I'm hearing, it could be one of the other. There may be some other topics. I know myself, I had some reservation about the overall scale of the project, particularly with its relation to the house. So one of the other options may, one of the other types of roof may alleviate that. I don't know right now. I do have a rendering of this project as an example that I could show and that could potentially direct your thought process, I suppose, if that would be allowed. I want to be careful that we don't overstep our jurisdiction here. Obviously, we need to make sure that accessory structures that have been proposed are compatible with the character of the historic neighborhood. I'm not sure we can dictate particular design features, only that the architectural features chosen, plus things like scaling, setback and the rest are compatible with the character of the historic neighborhood. So Commissioner Johnson. I just wanted to make a recommendation for the applicant if there is a continuation to, so that I think part of this discussion was trying to determine if the accessory structure was in harmony with the historic character of the district. So in order for us to better judge that if you do come back with a redesign, could please maybe take some pictures of historic accessory structures in the neighborhood that you can kind of compare your project with so that we have an understanding of what's in harmony with the district as well as how it fits with the property. I'll have to check, yeah. I am unaware of any at the moment. If you can find something visible, but I think that'd help sometimes. And I did have a quick question though, I wasn't clear on, is the garage door, is any part of the new garage facing the street? Or what can we see any part of the new garage from the street? I believe that you on the front elevation of the house may be able to see. So this is the shared driveway. Yeah, I suppose from the Google street view of the property, if you look, this driveway is shared. So half of the building or not half of the building, but a third of the building would be set behind the house from the west face, so this face of the house. So the garage door view of the house would be overlapped with the back of the primary structure. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Chair Bouchard, again, are there any commissioners who want to make a case that what has been proposed is compatible as that term is defined in our criterion? I think that silence suggests Mr. Kopik and Ms. Volta that there is significant concern among the commission that what has been proposed would not be deemed compatible. And there would be a significant risk that if we put this case to a vote today, it would be denied. And so I would like to extend an opportunity to continue the case so that the concerns that you've heard addressed here today might be incorporated into a revised application that addresses those concerns. And we'll get your case back on for hearing as quickly as possible, but would a continuance be something that you'd be interested in based on the concerns you've heard expressed during today's hearing? Yes, I would certainly be interested in it. I would like to hear the concerns about the size of the structure because if I go back and do the revisions, I mean, I think it's plainly obvious to you all that I am doing this on my own accord, so as to save money. So I would like to understand the extent of the revisions that are being requested because it is a matter of moments to change the gable and length of a dormer on the design. However, if other things need to be addressed as well, that may change, especially the size, right? Because right now as the building is drawn, it can only go in certain areas of the property. However, the building needs to be significantly reduced, you know, other considerations may need to be taken. Mr. Coppick, this is Chair Bouchard. I'm gonna have other commissioners, or at least I'm gonna invite other commissioners to address your question directly, but I think just for context, it makes sense to just read a few sentences from our criteria about compatibility. References to compatibility in the review criteria indicate that the proposed work must be respectful of not incongruous with and make reference to character of historic district or landmark while not requiring replication of historic elements. Compatibility is achieved through careful attention to the following aspects of the proposal. Setback, orientation, scale, massing, height, proportion, rhythm, materials, architectural details and landscape features. The proposal does not need to match district properties in these areas and not necessarily need to be similar to district structures in all of these areas. However, the overall proposal must share basic key design elements, setback, orientation, scale, massing, and height in the above list. And some secondary design elements, proportion, rhythm, materials, architectural details and landscape features in the above list with district properties. I think what we've heard so far during the deliberation of the commission is a concern about the architectural features, a concern about the roofline and how compatible it is with other properties in the historic district. And we've also heard particularly from Vice Chair Gulsby a concern about things like massing scale, height and proportion. And so with that sort of context out of the way, I'll turn it over to other commissioners to directly address the questions they might have about those criteria. Okay. The only thing, the comment that I have as it relates to the size of the structure, again, like I mentioned before, I don't, I can't recall seeing an accessory structure that's four base long. So again, it has like four windows to the side. I think the most I've seen is two, maybe three. But again, take your cues from the neighborhood when it comes to the historic structures and as it relates to massing of the unit. Yeah. Go ahead, go ahead. I was just gonna say briefly to the applicant sense of appreciation that you're doing this on your own and trying to make it fit both ADU guidelines and our commission's guidelines. And I get it that there's a lot to consider and especially if you're doing this on your own without the professional training. Thank you for attending to both our concerns and all of the rules and want to just say can see that you are trying to sort of meet everything that's here, for example, with the one over one carry over from the house windows to the proposed structure windows. So yeah, just wanna say thank you for doing the work that you're doing and for hearing our concerns today and bringing back revision if that's where we land as a group today. Thank you. This is Andy Goldby. I would also ask to take a look from the neighborhood of the relation of accessory structures in comparison to the main structure. From my opinion, I get a sense that this scale of project is quite close to the main structure to where it may have the appearance of a second primary structure as opposed to something that's the accessory to the main. Particularly since from the street, it has the appearance of, or the main house has the appearance of a one story or one and a half story, but when the accessory, the garage and the accessory structure are added, I think to my eye, it would have the view of a two-story structure. Vice Chair Goldby, is that a way of saying to the applicant that you really have two concerns? That one, you might not have a design here that's clearly subordinate to the main structure. And on top of that, you might have a structure that is not compatible with other properties in the historic district. Very well, could be. I think I would need some more understanding of that district, at least the adjacent properties. I mean, there's so much, Chair Bouchard again, there's so much that goes into subordinate in our criteria. I mean, on the one hand, you could say because the property slopes to the back, it's not going to be as high, the roof line is not going to be as high, but I understand Andy's concerns. I mean, in terms of the massing of the structure itself, it's large for an accessory structure, larger than accessory structures, I think we've been asked to approve in recent months. Just saying again, even if I just take the floor plan from the plat, it's on here, the floor plate of the accessory structure is half of the floor plate of the house, which gives me some pause there, but then to also add into the height that it's only seven feet off of that rear deck. It gives me pause. I would recommend maybe speaking with staff about this, they would have a lot of insight into what would be more compatible if you wanna work with them about it. This is Commissioner Hamilton. It'd also be good to just see some photographic evidence of the eight foot drop from the front to the back and how that relates to the street. I know when I go in Google Earth now and I can see the old structure, it does lie a good bit below the street elevation, but it would just be, there's a truck blocking the way and some other things. So getting like a good current photo where you can really see what kind of impact the topography would have on our ability to consider this accessory at the height proposed would also be good because I mean, an eight-story drop is a lot, but currently it's just kind of hard to tell if that's it, I'm sorry, an eight-foot drop, if that eight-foot drop is actually from the street level or if it's from the porch level or like all of that. So getting that kind of context would be helpful. Carla Rosenberg Planning Department, the applicant did have a pre-sub with staff while I was on leave and I'm happy to work with him further on addressing all of these concerns. Can we ask the applicant a question about preferred number of months between now and when you might come back if we do land on a continuation? I suppose my preferred number of months would be next month. Okay, thank you. And if I could ask either Krista or Grace, whether or not a continuance vote would need to be taken or if the applicant could simply indicate its consent to continue? Krista Cucarociti, attorney's office, the board would need to vote on it and it would need to vote to a date certain it sounds like next month might be where we're headed just to specify that date. Okay. Carla Rosenberg Planning Department just want to say though that our staff reports are due imminently for next month. So a total redesign might need a little more time but if we were just to make some adjustments to the roof line and location I could see us maybe hurrying that through a little sooner. But we do have advertising deadlines of a minimum of two weeks prior to the hearing. And our staff reports undergo several layers of review. And I have a question. If we continue it to date certain does the applicant have the discretion to outside of this commission continue it further to if they can't meet Carla's deadlines is that an option Krista? Krista Cucarociti, attorney's office. I think if that were to happen the case would just get called at the next meeting and the board would just vote to continue it again. I think that that would make the most sense. Thanks. Yes. And actually I misspoke about the advertising because I guess it's already been advertised and so it would just be continued from this so that wouldn't play in. It's the staff reports. So is there a specific date that he needs to have his information to you and can the applicant, does the applicant think he can get it in by that date? Yeah, so the deadline already passed for all of the other applicants for this meeting. I'm actually, I've already submitted for review one of the staff reports. I think if we could get this done in the next week then we'd be on time. And I can check with Grace about some flexibility about the deadline to her. But we would, we definitely need to meet with the applicant in the next week and have the plans finalized no later than two weeks from today. So commission members, should we, instead of the specific date then in April should we say May just in case something comes up and he's not able to get his things in in a proper time? Whatever the May HRC date is. So it sounds like we could just schedule April and then if he can't do it based on what Chris has said we could just continue it again. Okay. I mean, I would like to give them the option to do that unless Carla does not think that's feasible. And I mean, if that, if the timing doesn't work we can, that works, that seems fair to me. I'm willing to make a motion if we feel ready for it. Go ahead, commissioner Fiesman. Great. So the Durham Historic Preservation Commission some motion that we continue case COA 2100008 at 709 Shepherd Street the new construction of an accessory structure at the April, 2021 commission meeting if possible and see a fresh version of this proposal which addresses some of our concerns about roofline massing scale and other things that indicate that the structure is consistent the proposed structure is consistent with other accessories structures in the district and also with the primary home. Ted, I think you're on mute. I just liked a second. That's what I thought. If we could have a roll call vote please. All right, Chair Richard. Approve the motion. Commissioner Dianne. Approve. Commissioner DeBarry. Yes. Commissioner Fieselman. Vice Chair Gillespie. Commissioner Hamilton. Commissioner Johnson. Approved. Commissioner Crueger. Approved. Commissioner Waders. Motion passes 90. Thank you to you, Mr. Coppick and I believe as both how might be off the call now but thank you to you both for your patience. You are to be applauded for doing this on your own. I know it's a difficult process. Please do work with city staff for assistance going forward and we'll try to get you heard just as quickly as we can and hopefully that's gonna be next month if everything comes together the way we hope it does. And with that, we have reached the last of our applications for certificate of appropriateness per our agenda. We have a couple items, one of old business, one of new business on old business. We have 2021 newsletter progress. Yeah, so we had talked about our I think annual newsletter which usually goes out in September. I'm working on the one that Wispos got last year to highlight all of the new processes and the new criteria that we're working with. And we had talked about this next newsletter that we would hope to go out around September 2021 to focus on accessory structures. We did reach out to one of the property owners that had done that's in the middle of a rehab of an accessory structure and they have agreed to be featured there are a couple other options as well to include. And we had named several of you with different roles in this, the writing and where the copy and the graphics. And if I'm not mistaken, it was April and Tad on the writing, is that right? And was it Katie or Andy on the graphics? Yes. For both? It was Katie on the graphics. Okay. So do we want to set some deadlines for ourselves just to make sure that we have this moving and let me know if you need anything of me. Katie, I think you have the layout from last year. Do we want to do, do we want to make a slight departure from what we did last year? Or do we want to keep things super simple and keep the same theme? Did you know you live in a historic, do we want to keep that? I think that's important for the new people coming in the district, you know, we'll keep it simple. Okay. But yeah, I need a deadline. That's why I put it in my calendar. Okay. So let's work backwards from when we want to put this out. September is mail and distribute. So we would want a final design, let's say by August 1st or our first commission meeting. That's where we want to get everybody's approval. This is good. So maybe we would want a first draft. Perhaps June, the June meeting to give plenty of sort of editing time. So if we have that first draft in June, let's say May is we have the copy. Written up. And then we have the draft draft. And then we have the draft draft. And then we have the draft draft. And the draft draft is in the photo is selected. And so by April. Meeting, we will have reached out. And actually. If you guys want to interview. Those applicants or. If any information gathering. We want to do in this next month. What do you guys think about that? Is that too fast? Nope. That'd get every month we have something to do. And then we have the draft draft. And then you already have some people. You've already looked at property. Yes, we've reached out to one property owner. There's actually another that could be. It would be nice. I don't know. What do you think? Should we be sure more than one or would keep it simple with just one? We'll see how it goes. We can do one or two. If we think. Two, we can't decide between. Yeah. We can look at the information and decide. Okay. Yeah. I'm going to tell you the addresses of. The two that we have in mind and the. And I'll also reach out to that second one today. And get his permission to. Share his contact information with you all to reach out to him. And we can take photos of the property. I'm happy to go and take photos. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Carl. For. Getting us together on this. Absolutely. Thank you guys. And Tad and April. Thank you for your. Contributions. And then the minor COAs. Did you get the ones that sit out last month. I know it was a lot. It was a lot. Thank you. Yeah. So I was only a few that all send out this month. So I'll get those out after this meeting. Okay. Terrific. I had a question about one of those minor COAs. The work on the Hill House on Duke street. And the shutters. Can you talk about that? Can someone talk about that? Yeah, that was, um, that was a long time. That was. Maybe a year ago, um, where they removed the shutters. And we asked that they store them. Yes. Um, the original architectural drawings, um, from when the house was first built that showed no shutters on them. However, we had photographic evidence that they were at least early shutters, even if they weren't on when it was first built. So we, um, sort of compromised and allowed them to be removed. But stored. How was that policed? That is. Um, It is written into the, um, Into the certificate of appropriateness, but it's not something that we can go in and, and sort of knock on their door every year and say, Hey, do you still have those? But, um, Yeah, it doesn't have a whole lot of. Um, It's not something that anybody can visually see and report if they violate that. Um, do you guys still kind of. Check to see if these properties have covenants with the preservation, um, Protective Covenants. I think I sent a list a long time ago, but. Did you send me a list? I think it was a long time. It was like when I first got here. I was like, I don't know, I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know if there's something needed to be police that, you know, that would, if it has a protective covenants, we can do that on our end. Okay. Um, Because they're supposed to let us know anyway when they make changes. And I had, I just hear about one property a year. I don't know what people are doing. Yeah. It was a unique situation with a lot of sort of gray area. Because he had those original architectural drawings without them. So I think that was a great, if you wouldn't mind if you, if you have that list handed, you could send it to me. Um, Cause I don't know that I have it. I can. My, my sort of question and all that was. When the house was landmarked. Does that freeze in time its appearance? Or do we do have wiggle room. For projects like this where they can alter the appearance from. The landmark. Yeah, that's a good point. Well. Yeah, because houses. Structures that are landmarked may have some. You know, materials or. Modifications that. Are original and yet they're still landmarked at that. Point in time. So I don't think we're looking to keep landmarks exactly as they. Are in that point of time. If they've already undergone some modifications that were not consistent. We don't ask people to revert entirely to their original form. Just because they're landmarked. Take off that addition or. Any other comments on the minor COAs? Well, we have reached the end of the agenda. Hope everyone is doing well. Anyone want to guess if Duke's going to make the NCAA tournament. That can be happier. Well, thank you everybody. Hope everyone's staying well. And I think our next scheduled meeting is April the fourth of them. If I'm not mistaken. April the sixth. Sorry about that. Hope everyone has a great month. Thank you. Everyone. Have a great day.