 We are live. Good morning everyone. This meeting will now come to order. Welcome to this virtual meeting of the Durham Historic Preservation Commission on this fifth day of April, 2022. My name is Matt Bouchard and I am chair of 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 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 in this remote platform. First, today's meeting will be conducted in accordance with 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 the request using this remote platform. We will also confirm today at the start of each evidentiary hearing that the participants in that hearing consent to the matter of proceeding in this remote platform. If there's any objection to a matter of proceeding in this remote platform, the case will be continued. Third, notice of this meeting was provided to the applicants and to the public in multiple ways, including signage posted on site, notification letters mailed to all adjacent property owners informing recipients regarding this remote platform and a general announcement via the city'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. The public was advised to contact the city immediately in case of objection to the case, excuse me, objection to the evidentiary hearing or to the remote meeting platform. It is my understanding as of this moment that no cases are proceeding today in which the city has been contacted by an 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 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 the meeting. The agenda and all materials to be discussed today may be viewed at any time during today's meeting by visiting the web link for today's agenda via Durham's Agenda Center. Finally, all individuals who registered to participate in an evidentiary hearing on today's agenda as well as all city staff participants were emailed a witness oath and consent to a remote hearing form prior to today's meeting. Any individual planning to testify or submit evidence in an evidentiary hearing was notified that they must sign the oath prior to today's meeting. We will also refer, excuse me, 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 any of the cases that are before us today? Matt, this is Andy Gouldsby. I don't have a conflict of interest but do want to be forthcoming and say that I live one block north of the 812 Lancaster Street. I am outside of the requirement for recruising myself and believe I can vote partially with this. Thank you for that disclosure, Vice Chair Gouldsby. Anybody else? Are there any early dismissals being requested today? Matt, I need to go for an 11 o'clock commitment. Okay. Thank you. Anybody else? I just need to leave by 11.45. I'm hoping we can wrap up three cases by then. Well, I can assure all of my fellow commissioners and the participants in today's meeting that I'm going to try to move things along expeditiously. We've got three cases today and I think we have five commissioners. So we are going to do everything we can to get through all three cases by 11 o'clock today. Anybody else? Okay. As chair of the historic preservation, excuse me, started again. 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. 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 the board are subject to appeal to the board of adjustment and then to the Durham County Superior Court. Clark Holmes, could you please take the attendance of the commissioners who are here today? Yes. Chair Bouchard. Here. Commissioner Fieselman. Here. Vice Chair Golsby. Present. Commissioner Hamilton. Here. Commissioner Johnson. Commissioner Calhoun. Here. By the way, Commissioner DeBerry, he has an excused absence. He announced on the 17th that he will not be at the meeting today. And Clark Holmes, have you heard anything from Commissioner Johnson? I have not. Okay. Carla, any other city staff? Any word from Commissioner Johnson? Okay. No, I have not. Okay. I do believe we need to vote on absences, but I would like to defer that vote until the end of the meeting at new business. Commissioners, you have been forwarded an agenda for today's meeting. Would anyone, including city staff, like to recommend any adjustments to the agenda? Matt, this is Vice Chair Golsby. Just one adjustment. It is Lancaster Street, not Avenue. Okay. And a quick question. The agenda says 400 West Main Street, but the actual material for the case says 411 West Main. It's 400. It's 400, so that just be changed on the COA. And I would like to add, as part of new business, just an update on the positions, the board positions, and then also we have another update on 1106 9th Street. Great. So under new business, I now have A, the minor COA report, B, excuse and unexcused absences, C, update on open positions, C, update on 1106, excuse me, D, update on 1106 9th Street. Any other adjustments to the agenda? Commissioners, you have also been provided draft minutes for our last commission meeting held on the same remote platform on March the 1st, 2022. Does anybody have any suggested revisions to the draft minutes they'd like to recommend? If not, I would entertain a motion to approve the minutes. Motion to approve the March 1st meeting minutes. Thank you, Commissioner Feaselman. Do we have a second? Second. Thank you, Gulsby. Thank you, Vice Chair Gulsby. If we can have a roll call vote. Clerk Holmes. All right. Chair Bouchard. Approved. Commissioner Feaselman. Approved. Vice Chair Gulsby. Approved. Commissioner Hamilton. Approved. Commissioner Calhoun. Motion passes five to zero. Thank you very much. And Madam Clerk, if we could also please swear in all city staff who will be presenting today's cases. Do you members of staff swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give in the public hearing proceedings for today's cases is the truth by your own knowledge or by information and belief? Carla Rosenberg planning, I do. Grace Smith planning, I do. Okay. I believe we are now ready to hear our first case. And so, Chris, if you could please let our participants into the public hearing. Our first case today is case number COA 2100109 400 West Main Street continued before we hear from staff. Is there any one of our commissioners who may have a conflict of interest in hearing this case? Seeing and hearing none. Let us proceed, please with the swearing in of anyone who plans to speak for this case. I understand we have at least three participants here today. Actually looks like more like four. Claire Colms. Yes. Do you swear or affirm at the testimony you are about to give in the public hearing proceedings for today's case, the truth by your own knowledge or by information and belief? Let's start with Mr. Oliver. Affirm. And Mr. Navarro. I affirm. Ms. Ross. I affirm. And Mr. West. I affirm. Wonderful. Thank you all. And in the same order, could you please also affirm your consent to this hearing proceeding on this electronic remote platform? Starting with Mr. Oliver. I affirm. Mr. Navarro. I affirm. Ms. Ross. I affirm. And Mr. West. I affirm. Wonderful. Thank you all. We may now proceed with a staff summary. Okay. Carla Rosenberg Planning Department. This is case COA 2100109 to 400 West Main Street. New construction continued from our February 2022 meeting. The applicant is Stuart, represented by Alden West and colleagues. The owner is five point center Durham LLC. It's located within the boundaries of North Great Jones Street, West Main Street and Morris Street. It's owned downtown design core and it's a non-contributing parcel in the downtown Durham Historic District. As you remember, there was an approval for a demolition on this site several months prior. The applicant is proposing to construct the 29 story tower. There have been some revisions incorporating feedback from the commission regarding the stair towers facing the streets, Main Street and Morgan Street, and then also regarding the parking deck facing North Great Jones Street. So I'd like to introduce this revised staff report into the record and invite the applicants to present their case. And feel free to call out any page numbers. I'll jump right to them. All right, thank you, Carla commissioners. Thank you so much. I appreciate you giving us the opportunity to go back and look at and sort of work with ownership to address some of your concerns. Specifically, we'll go through the list that Carla had mentioned and I think sort of addressed. You'll hear the word intentional a few times. So I think that was what we really wanted to focus on is coming back with very intentional responses to alleviate some of your concerns. So Carla, if you could go ahead and just jump first page. If you don't mind, please. I'm sorry, which page? The first presentation page. I don't think we can, I think we can skip through all the graphics and go right to the elevations, if you don't mind. Anyone has a particular page number from the PDF? Yeah, I apologize. I'm not sure which one that is. Yeah, page 40, Carla. Thank you. 40, okay. You have a good start there. Okay. Specifically, there was some concerns. I know Commissioner Goolsbee had some concerns regarding some asymmetric facades and particularly some massing, I think that was a concern to him. And though what we've done is I'm working with ownership to kind of address, there are a couple of options, but what our preferred option is we've gone back and removed some of the differences between the bricks that I think were causing some concern about not being in keeping with the facades or the existence of contributing buildings in downtown districts. So what we did is we removed some of the discordant colors and discordant brick materials and went back with a more simpler aesthetic. Still like to keep the multiple window expressions that's prevalent in a number of examples. And I think those are actually after, but that's what we have attempted to do actually, particularly on this elevation. That was one concern that Commissioner Goolsbee had. Can you zoom out, Carla, by chance? They, so this is option one, which is our preferred option again. And then what we did is because of being virtual, we said, well, look, let's, let's talk about maybe a secondary option. So if you go to the next page, correct Jonathan? Yes, that's correct. 41, the second option, which we looked at was instead of having a different window system in the small vertical element, we matched up the individual windows. Again, this is similar to a project that is directly across Main Street with sort of the large double windows and Carla, where you have your mouse is actually where we made that adjustment to the second option. Again, I think we prefer the first option because it blends the two different modules and adds some linkage between the different facade fenestrations, but we're okay and ownership's okay if this is maybe a more suitable in the commission's eyes solution. Commissioner Bouchard, do you wanna to address individual components or do we wanna go through all of them first and then go back to each one of them? But let's go ahead and have you complete the presentation. Okay, absolutely, thank you. And then we'll open up some questions. Thank you. Okay, thank you, appreciate it. All right, so if you go to page 42, please. This is the stair tower on the Main Street side. We took to heart, Commissioner Grilsby, your concern about keeping data lines relative to the base. This is this stair tower, I think before was a different color brick and felt, I think some of the words were a little left over, if you will. And so once again, we went back and said, well, how do we integrate this in the architecture in a much more meaningful way? Again, there are representative examples later on the presentation that talk about where we took some of the inspiration to make the change to hear to this piece in particular. So it integrates more fully into the actual development, but in this version, then what we've done is we've said, okay, we'll carry the data line of the parapet across as an element, an architectural element on that facade and being much more deliberate in the window system to once again make it blend in and make it less obtrusive to the overall execution of the facade. And so it's been mimicked and matched up on the north side as well. Keep going, Carla, please, 43. And here again, you can see how the datum cornice was carried across to provide sort of that continuous datum line to again be a little more faithful to the parapet location, the parapet height cornice will of the podium. And the windows again are more in keeping with the overall execution of the building. So they feel less like a basic or leftover stair tower and more about integration, the architecture of the overall podium. 44, please. I know there were several commissioners that had concerns about the West facade. So we went back to ownership and we were very diligently to come up with a more, let's say, complete execution, if you will. I think that was one of the bigger concerns. Obviously there is a ownership, you know, is working to develop the phase two component. But I think there was concern, obviously, about long-term condition of this facade. And so what we've done is we went back, we heard your comments, we brought the brick back around the edges of the building and a little bit further, at least a full bay, to the openings which lead into the deck, excuse me on the ground level. And we've surrounded then, so we put brick on either side of those to identify where those openings are. And then once again, we did two different versions, they're a little subtly different, but this version, what we've used is a screen. And Jonathan, if you can correct me on the nomenclature for it, it's a printable screen. Yeah, it's a polyvinyl mesh fabric. So using some examples you can see on the upper right-hand corner, ownership is committed to creating an image that if this is sort of the outcome and phase two is delayed for any reason, they obviously are concerned about making sure that whatever they show on that phase has equal quality. And so one version, what we've done is we've split it up to allow the verticals to still carry through so there's not just a continuous graphic. The graphic is yet to be determined. But again, I think there's, you see some examples of what it could be from a graphic standpoint, the advantage of this is if there's any damage to any of those panels, they can be replaced fairly easily actually in order to sort of maintain that long-term. But again, a much more intentional effort to treat this facade as if it were a more permanent solution, as opposed to a temporary solution. And I think they feel like this is a much better solution that way, go ahead and go to the next page, please, Carla, 45. I think the last, the next option is again, it's a little nuanced, but essentially saying, well, if the vertical elements are concerning, we can just close them all together. We did like to leave them a little bit of an air gap to let them sort of, their deck read a little bit more. This is 60% opaque. Is that correct, Jonathan? It's yes, that's correct. 66% opaque, 34% open ventilation. To meet our open deck requirement. But this is again, a nuance sort of take on what's available. I think we prefer again, option one to give ourselves a little bit more capacity to fixing damaged panels or making any changes to these. Keep going, I'm sorry, 46, Carla. And actually real quick on that 44 and 45, the gray, just to clarify, the gray portion on the first floor is not exposed, CMU, which was also a comment from the previous hearing. It is a smooth finish, it is part CMU, so it won't be blocked. Thank you, Jonathan, I appreciate it. And this, we just provided some axons to give you a little bit more clarity about how the brick returns the bay, how the stair towers are integrated in the base and removing some of the more objectionable vertical elements on the more street axon elevation, which is sort of the lower left-hand corner. Go ahead, Carla, one more time, 47. I think you could go to 50 or 51, yeah, page 51, please. Okay, these are, yeah, they're articulation elements. So I think, again, we had talked through some of these vertical articulation elements about maintaining the same brick color, but obviously that the window patterns could change, for instance, 115 marker. You've got a three light and a two light or a six and a four, depending on how you wanna, the nomenclature works, similar to what we were trying to accomplish in the mid bay of the facade, either out of the snow building where we've got a different vertical expression. Go to 52, please. The West facade, I know you're all familiar with various executions in the city with graphic panels that are covering or screening. I think we're looking more toward the one on the left as far as an example of sort of what it might end up being relative to the final graphic presentation, but sort of playing up some of the vertical elements a little bit more, keep, next one, please. And I think, particularly, I know we had talked in depth about the parking stairs. And so we had gone back and looked at the Carolina Theater is actually one that we took a lot of inspiration from. It's blocked from our site where they've carried a cornice line through the window system or through the stair element to integrate it in the architecture, similar kind of approach. And so there are a couple of options. We know we had talked to the 300 East Main job previously as an example. I think the one thing we felt, well, like on that job, it was a true historic building that they were adding a modern twist to versus where we were looking at this being integral to the actual building as a baseline. And we thought the Carolina Theater was maybe a more appropriate example of something of what we were trying to accomplish. And next one, please. I think the only other thing that we wanted to address was Commissioner Hamilton had some questions, concerns regarding the planter that we had placed on the window box planters. We had placed on the canopies as a way to mitigate the views from those units, there were multifamily units there that looked out over those canopies. And so we had gone back and said, these are really more portable planter units that are not in-ground, heavy kind of things, but they're more in keeping with the scale of the building and treating them more like window boxes. And so that was, we just want to provide a little bit more detail and clarity on what it is that we were trying to accomplish with those planter boxes. And I think, John, did I forget anything? That should be it. Okay, so I appreciate your time. Thank you, Commissioner Bouchard. And at the same time, I think that concludes our presentation. Thank you all very much. I will now open the floor for questions from the commissioners. Commissioner Hamilton, this is more for your site. Group, so all of it in Crystal. It looks like your site plan has a rev cloud on it for like the entire corner. And I'm not sure exactly what page that was on in this PDF, but could you all run through what changes that rev cloud? Oh, I think it's page 29, Carla. I think I have it as 31, but yeah, 29's too. Yeah, with them. You can take this one. This is Crystal Ross. It's to our, Katie, we had just adjusted the site walls down there and also eliminated the planting that was in between the tobacco curve and within the sidewalk. So we have eliminated that. We do still have some planting area and site walls though on that southern plaza. Thank you. The same thing Katie applies to the plaza too, as well. You just adjusted the site walls there. It's a different configuration, but we did eliminate all the planting once again from the curb with the face of building a long forest stream. Thank you very much. Any other commissioners with questions? This question will be. First of all, thank you guys, all of you for taking another pass through this and incorporating comments. I certainly see your efforts in this and so again, just appreciate everything. The one question I do have is with regards to the parapet line, the one spot where I see, it still kind of alters from what I see in the district is that swimming pool. And my question really is, did you look any options of that swimming pool piece stepping back from the parapet line so you're not breaking the facade with a glazed element and in my personal opinion, have concerns about that being dirty over the year with water and just maintenance on the street face? But did you look at any options of pulling that pool back off of the street face? We addressed that with ownership and they firmly believe that is one of the important sales part, pieces of their overall project. And so that was one item that they felt like they really wanted to keep. I think they're committed to making sure that it is to sort of address your concerns about getting dirty and those kinds of things. They obviously have a vested interest in making sure they're going to live in this building as well. And so they have a very vested interest in making sure that it's kept as clean and as well maintained as possible. But that was one of the items that they really were, they wanted to stick their guns on so we really feel like this is an important part of what we're trying to accomplish with this project. So just to kind of re-air what I'm hearing is that for them it's an amenity that they think really contributes to this project and its sales. Correct. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Vice Chair Gulsby. This is Commissioner Hamilton. Can I just get clarification? Andy, is your concern about how close it is to the art wall facade? No, just being on the street face. As far as I know, this would be the first swimming pool that faces the street in the downtown district. And my experience has been that these tend not to be the most clean pieces of glass. Given the water and the chemicals used in pools. And so I'm thinking about the long-term and just what that's gonna be like. I know it's good intentions that the developer is gonna live in this, but who knows for how long things happen, so. Your concern is the glass railing near the pool. I feel like I'm very confused by it. Oh, yeah, sure. So, if, let's just get it up on the screen. Katie, can you go to Carlos, excuse me. Sheep 42. So there in the axon, the perspective image, the upper left-hand corner. Let's see if you can scroll to the right. Mm-hmm. So the glass railing comes and it drops down into what I assume is the floor of that swimming pool piece. So water is gonna be meeting up against that glass. Right. And, you know, again, as far as I know, that doesn't exist in this district. It's going against everything that these guys have just worked on working around the building with their parapet lines. And just in my experience, I've not seen a whole lot of great maintenance on features like that. Okay, yeah, I was not reading that correctly at all. Like I read the pool as being in the middle. There's that too, there is that pool. This is a side piece. So this is like a little second baby pool? It's a hot tub, actually. Oh, okay. Spa. Okay, all right. Now I understand completely what's happening. I'm sorry, I was very confused. Yeah, sure. Any other commissioners with questions? Seeing no hands raised and hearing from nobody else, I'm gonna go ahead and invite anybody who is here today to speak in opposition to this case to have the floor. Seeing and hearing from no opponents to this case, I will close the public hearing and invite discussion amongst the commissioners. And I will go ahead and put Vice Chair Gulsby on the spot. And Andy, is this a concern so significant for you that it could impact your willingness to approve the COA as currently drafted? I think I'd love to hear some other opinions on it. I, beyond with you Matt, I can convince myself either way that it is a small portion of this overall scheme that they've done a lot of work to bring this to incorporate our comments. But in the long run, I think it's something that's not when I see in the guidelines, when I think about roof forms and other guidelines about moving up real quick for non-contributing new structures for design elements. Let's see, just to, so providing details on street level elevations. Let's see, yeah, here we go. See design roof forms to be compatible with contributing structures in the district. So with that, I think about, I also add in parapets with that. It does break, in my opinion, the rhythm and order that they've established on this ability. I think those would be the two main ones that apply. So A and C of part three, B three. I mean, am I the only person with any concerns about this or, again, I appreciate everything they've done so far. I'm just trying to round it out here. This is Commissioner Hamilton. Now that I understand what it is, no, you're not the only one with concerns. I thought it was some viewing platform. When I first looked at it, I didn't realize it was a hot tub. Like even with a viewing platform, it was weird, but I was like thinking some high line element type thing up there. Now I'm like, oh, it's a hot tub. I almost wish they did something like with the, to continue that line across there. Like if they really want to have the underwater part exposed or something, like if there could just be a continuation of the horizontal parapet cap somehow, you know, it could be level with our waterline or whatever, because it just, it does look really out of keeping with the rest of the rhythm that they've created and is in a typical condition downtown. Annie, can I ask a clarifying question about what you were saying about the maintenance on these? Are you saying that often that flap, it's difficult to keep the glass clean or that it leaks and water runs down the facade? That's going to be a different issue, but yeah, the architects will probably have that concern and probably spend a lot of time detailing that, but it would be from the glass aspect. Yeah, but there is, I mean, certainly a concern about detailing a proper way where water would not leak down the facade or the hot tub water leaking down the facade, but more concern would be the glass and the cleanliness of the glass. I see the point that you're making, I've never seen one of these in real life, but I'm Google imaging now. And certainly see the point you're making in terms of how it fits with the guidelines. You can also see the owner's perspective that it's cool. So that's where my head is. Andy, could you give us the criterion again or the criteria of concern to you? I just want to make sure I'm... Yeah, sure. So I was in non-contributing structures. Yep. B. Yep. And so three, B three design elements and A and C were the ones that I was looking at mostly. Got it. B is debatable, but it depends on your take-up and your street level elevations. I mean, Matt, I don't want to push this thing out further for this team. I know they want to get going here. I mean, is this an item that we can discuss with the applicant and figure out a way to move forward with some kind of motion today? I think that might be a call for Carla and for Krista. Ms. Wendler, this is something that could be looked at again after approval of the COA. Carla Rosenberg Planning Department, it does seem like it is a detail that could be remedied in some way through a condition if you were able to reach a solution at this hearing and were satisfied you didn't need to see a new iteration of drawings. You could be staff approval potentially. What kind of condition did you have in mind, Carla? Well, one thing to ameliorate the sort of the cornice line is like maybe using like a metal mesh panel over that glass so that visually it doesn't appear like a break in the roofline that doesn't solve the potential water leakage issue, but it does kind of disguise. While still allowing the hot tub swimmers to see through the metal mesh, that's just an idea. But something like that or even the placement of the hot tub could be moved. Does that require another major COA? Well, I was thinking as a revision to the current one. And it seems like a simple enough change that it wouldn't necessarily require a new revised staff report to be viewed by the commission. That's your decision. If you need to see new drawings, then you would continue it or you could just recommend, see if the applicant is amenable to moving the tub or refacing it in some way and approving that with that condition and staff would approve it. Any other commissioners? Obviously vice chair Gulesby and commissioner Hamilton expressed concerns that might prevent them from supporting the overall COA based on this design feature. Are there any other commissioners who wanna provide some input? Any other commissioners who might not be able to lend their support to the COA currently exists based on this design feature? April, can I just ask to hear your thinking? I don't know what I think about it. I don't have a basis based on the guidelines about the broad amount of opinions on this. So I can't share it, but as far as what commissioner Gulesby is kind of concerned with the break in the design, I'm kind of of the opinion that it is so high up. I think it could potentially be, how do you say it like asset design, like something kind of a quirk in the design if it was done in a different way. If you say, I'm thinking about it differently that I don't have a basis to support based on the guidelines. It's surely a design. I think that it could appear to be part of the design of the building if it was kind of made to look like an asset or ornament in some way, but I don't know. I mean, I agree with you that it does break the pattern, but I don't think it will distract from the historic districts. And so I'm taking the approach. This is a small detail, but how does it affect the district or the building as a whole? I'm not sure that it distracts from anything at this point. I don't see, I really don't see the problem that the whole of the city or agency was. The owner, entity design has been warned that that's the last because it ended up being just very dirty and not well maintained. Somebody tells you that about the glass that you have, then you have to put some extra effort in keeping it clean if it leaves you at the fixing. So in other words, they didn't want, I don't think it interferes with the historic district or the area or whatever. I just don't understand why it would, in other words, they'd have a problem that they need to maintain, period. And there's probably a lot of problems in the overall design that requires maintenance, they do it. So I don't have a problem with that. I mean, I wouldn't, if they replace the glass with some of the material, you're gonna have problems with the material, whatever the material is, a lot of the swimming pool or what ever it is. This is so mad at giving the overall project. I think we've heard from everybody except for me on this issue. My struggle on the maintenance piece is I'm not sure that we have a criterion that speaks to it on the roof form piece. That is where I am struggling a little bit. I think of the criteria that Vice Chair Gouldsby has cited, 3C strikes me as the most on point, design roof forms to be compatible with contributing structures in the district. Then you go back to the definition of compatibility to achieve through careful attention to the following aspects of the proposal, setback, orientation, scale, mass, and high proportion, rhythm, materials, architectural details, and landscape features. To me from street level, I can see it both ways. It does seem to be an interruption in the rhythm of that, I guess, glass parapet. And the notch is somewhat distracting now that it's been pointed out to me. But before it was pointed out to me, I'm not sure I was distracted. So I'm hearing sort of both sides. I'm struggling to justify not approving the COA based on this feature, but I also appreciate the concerns that have been expressed. There it is again. I mean, now that's been pointed out to me, I mean, now I'm focused on that notch. And if there is some way to approve the COA with a condition, assuming that the applicant would agree to the condition to try to minimize the visual impact of that break in rhythm, that to me from the perspective of being faithful to the criteria is my biggest concern. That's not to diminish or dismiss the concern about maintenance. I'm not sure how much jurisdiction we have over that particular issue. On the question of the sort of visual impact of this break in the rhythm, I think we do have jurisdiction over that. And I think it's worth having a little bit more additional discussion about what that condition might look like, what sort of, I think Carla mentioned screen mesh, what that might look like and whether the applicant would be amenable to something along those lines to try to reduce the visual impact of that break in rhythm. Chair Bouchard, can I just really quickly get one clarification question? Because when I look at this perspective on page 42, it bothers me. But when I look at the perspective on the bottom left of page 50, it's not the same. And so I would like clarification on which one is more correct. Because on 50, that bottom left, that like parapet cap is getting pulled down and around the pool and kind of creating like a continuous line. And not, it's a very different field than the one that we're seeing on page 42. I understand. And I'll go ahead and reopen the public hearing for the purpose of having Mr. Oliver or anybody else respond to that question. Thank you, commissioner, I appreciate it. I see your point. I think this is one where, and I apologize, this is sort of a new issue for us, obviously. We did not have documentation to sort of address this one. I do want to go, I'll come back to that, commissioner Hamilton, can we go to, as a little bit of a defense point, can we go to the 50, I want to say 52, 53, where we had the representative examples. Again, I don't have one that directly addresses this, but actually between the upper, I'm sorry, you were right there at 51, 53, 52, 51, yeah, I'm sorry. Right there. On the upper left too is a good example, I think of sort of addressing crenellation or a break in the facade that it has multiple vertical elements and breaks in that. This is, again, I don't have an exact answer for it because I didn't have something to address, but here is a good example. You see the little green building 115 to the left of 115 West Main where there is an arithmic break in the cornice line with a couple of different pop-ups and so forth. Again, not a direct example, but it's what I have to work with. And then the snow building with the crenellations and the machiculations that come up above the parapet to break that look. So I think there's examples of something similar going back to your question, Commissioner Hamilton. I think the intent is, and I apologize, that if bringing again and again, trying to find some ground here to work with, if it helps to bring the cornice line down and around and frame that opening per the rendering and be more faithful to that rendering, that's something that we can, that's easy enough to do, right? That's one of those things where we can make a quick adjustment and if that helps sort of address that idea, aside what it is behind it and obviously, Commissioner Calhoun, you made a good point that, they have to keep it clean because that's part of a maintenance issue that happens. Anyway, I appreciate that. If doing something like this, I think also if it would help, I think we could talk about putting a cap on the Plex, it's a very thick glass wall, right? Because it actually holds in the water. If putting a cap across it in some capacity helps to carry that line across, that's obviously something I think that we're open to. So that line appears to carry through. I think I'd have concerns about putting anything in front of it. It sort of defeats the purpose of that effect, right? And so I think there are a few things, again, that we can do architecturally to make it feel a little bit less concerning per this, you know, the surrendering, I think. Thank you, Commissioner Hamilton for pointing that out. That's an easy accomplishment for us. That's an easy thing for us to make the adjustment to the precast members. So, you know, we're open to kind of working the little details to make sure you're comfortable with it. But again, I think there are examples of not exactly this, obviously, but similar breaks in the cornice lines in different examples. So is that help and real kudos to the use of ameliorate today? I appreciate you working hard and I am very appreciative of all of your opinions about, you know, what makes this building, what's important to you all. So. Thank you. Yeah, Commissioner Hamilton, if the perspective on page 50 is correct or is made to be correct instead of what I'm seeing on page 42, that helps me feel comfortable with this because it looks more intentional at that point and like framed element and not just a cut in the baseline like we're seeing on page 42. Yeah, I feel like that's a lot, it gives it a weight and just feels a lot better to me. I think I'm in a similar spot. Thank you for articulating that, Katie. Yeah, and I think the examples that are in the application prove that the historic buildings within downtown do break from their rhythms at times. And so this building is in line with that. I share goals, but I'll give you the last word on this. I'm fine to move on. I appreciate everyone's one spots in it. It's giving me enough comfort to put a motion together. Wonderful. I'm now going to re-close the public hearing and invite any additional commissioner conversation that might be desirable. And if none, I'll entertain a motion. Do we need to add a condition that the Cornus line will continue and is that the correct term Cornus line will continue as per perspective on page 50 of the. That would be staff's recommendation. Okay. Commissioner Hamilton, would you like to contemplate bringing the motion? I will be happy to bring the motion if everyone else is in agreement. Let's go ahead and get a staff recommendation before we do so. Carl Rosenberg, Planting Department staff would recommend approval of the application with the condition that the Cornus line along the south elevation be brought around the outline of the hot tub. And commissioner Hamilton, before you begin making a motion, I do want to make one observation and perhaps ask Krista a quick question here. Obviously commissioner Johnson joined us at the beginning of this hearing. She was not sworn in initially, but I think that she has heard the entirety of the evidence and I believe is in a position to vote on this case. Krista, if you agree, I would ask the clerk Holmes note commissioner Johnson's attendance at today's hearing. Yeah, Krista Kukersity attorney's office. I think that that's fine. Amanda had noted like kind of in a chat when she entered and it was right when the hearing was starting. So I think it's acceptable for her to. Great. Holmes, can you change the attendance to reflect commissioner Johnson? Yes. Yes, I can call you commissioner Johnson. Present. All right, I got you. Thank you for that little administrative detail. Commissioner Hamilton floors yours. All right. The Durham Historic Preservation Commission finds that in the case COA 2100109 400 West Main Street, new construction. The applicant is proposing the construction of a nearly 30 story tower 310 feet tall on a vacant lot. The building will be constructed with stacked brick masonry, concrete and glass at the lower levels and metal framed glass walls and metal panels in upper levels. 17 street trees will be removed from the site and 23 new street trees will replace them. Seven large 25 to 27 foot wide by 56 to 10 inch in height. Polyvinyl coated fabric mesh panels at 34% opacity will be placed along the West elevation of the parking garage. If construction of base two on this parcel does not begin within. What should our time frame be on this motion? Sorry, I forgot to put that in. I'll start again with that one. Is it like a, what's a temporary CO typically like six months, Andy? Do you have a, you know, Henry? And that is just a suggestion. If you wanted to put a timeframe on it. Okay. Are you sure it goes big? Yeah. No. It was threw me off too. Uh, God, what was the last one? I thought it was 60 days. The last one I've seen. For a TCO. Uh, yeah. So how much time after TCO would. We want. To require. The mesh panels. If phase two is not going to begin. The question is how long would we be allowing an exposed. That's exactly right. That's exactly right. Three months, six months. Yeah. I'm thinking six. Yeah. So how much time after TCO would we want. To require. The mesh panels. If phase two is not going to begin. The question is how long would we be allowing an exposed. TCO. I'm thinking six. I'm by me. Laura has a thumbs up April and pay RLR. It was six months. I'm going to close. Parking deck. If it's not. Good. Okay. Right. I'm getting thumbs up from April. Okay. So then I will. Start this motion again with the knowledge that I will say six months. I'm going to close this motion again with the knowledge that I will say six months. The Durham Historic Preservation Commission finds that in the case COA 2 1 0 0 109 400 West Main Street. New construction. The applicant is proposing the construction of a nearly 30 story tower. 310 feet tall on a vacant lot. The building will be constructed with stacked brick masonry. Concrete. And a glass. And glass at the lower levels. And met metal framing glass walls and window and metal frame. The building. And new street trees will be removed from the site. And 23 new street trees will replace them. Seven large. 25 to 27 feet wide. By 56 foot 10 inches in height. Polyvinyl coated fabric mash panels of 34% opacity will be placed along the west elevation of the parking garage. If construction of phase two on this parcel does not begin within six months. Therefore the conclusion of law is that the proposed addition 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 this certificate of appropriateness 4K COA 2100109 400 West Main Street scope of work. New construction 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 this COA improvements may require additional reveals 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 way and a compliance inspection shall be reformed immediately upon completion of the work approved here in approval is conditioned upon the approval of site plans currently under review COA 2100334 and D2100401 and the cornice mine on the south elevation shall be continuous along the hot tub as shown in page 50 of the application of materials. This is Chair Bouchard one suggested revision to the motion after six months as read by Commissioner Hamilton I would add of issuance of the temporary certificate of occupancy for phase one of the project. A motion amended as suggested by Commissioner Bouchard. We have a second second. Thank you Commissioner Feasel and Claire Combs roll call vote please. All right. Air Bouchard approved. Commissioner Feasel one approved. Vice Chair Goldstein approved. Commissioner Hamilton approved. Commissioner Johnson approved and Commissioner Calhoun. Motion passes six to zero. Want to congratulate the applicants and thank you for your good hard work. You're incorporating the comments we made at the last hearing you're working with us today. I think all of us have a vested interest in this very important project and getting it right. And I think we've made good progress over the last two or three months to make that happen. So best of luck to you always you move forward with the project. Thank you very much. Thank you. I appreciate all your your work as well. Thank you. Thanks. Everyone my suggestion is we continue to power through here. We have at least one commissioner who is leaving at 11 and I think we should go ahead and move forward with our next case. Chris I would ask that you go ahead and bring in our participants for case COA two zero zero zero zero eight eight oh four shepherd street. And before we hear from staff is there any one of our commissioners who may have a conflict of interest in hearing this case seeing and hearing none. Let us proceed with the swearing in of anyone who plans to speak for this case. All right. Excuse me. Do you swear or affirm at the testimony you are about to give in the public hearing proceedings for today's case the truth by your own knowledge or by information and belief. I do. Thank you. It's Sarah Lachman. Hi. Thank you miss Lachman and do you also ascent to this case being heard today using this electronic remote platform. I do. Wonderful. Thank you so much. We may now proceed with the staff summary. Carla Rosenberg Planning Department. This is case COA 22 zero zero zero zero eight eight or four Shepherd Avenue new construction. The applicant is four for one design represented by Sarah Lachman. The owner is West 4th LLC. It's located on the southwest quadrant of the intersection of Shepherd Street and Yancy Street zoned residential suburban medium RSM. It's a non contributing parcel in the Morehead Hill Historic District. So the applicant is proposing to construct a two story house on a vacant lot with associated site work. If you'll remember probably close to a year ago now there was a demolition of a non contributing structure on the site. So I'd like to introduce the staff report into the record and invite the applicant to present her case. And feel free to shout out any page number that I can jump to for you. And Ms. Lachman before you get started I see that Mr. Thomas Hennessy has joined us. Mr. Hennessy are you planning to speak? I don't believe so. I think Sarah should be able to handle the presentation. Well, why don't we go ahead and let's worry you in any ways just to get it past this as an administrative requirement. No problem. All right. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give in the public hearing proceedings for today's case the truth by your own knowledge or by information and belief? I do. And Mr. Hennessy do you consent to proceeding with today's hearing through this electronic role platform? I do consent. Thank you so much. Ms. Lachman floors yours. Thank you. A couple minor notes about the staff report when the owner is West Fourth and it says John Hennessy. His name is Tom. I don't think that's apologize, but and there was one thing I had sent an updated site plan that included a ribbon driveway and in the staff report it says that there would be a solid driveway. So I think that's Yeah, I think that the site plan is correct and the staff report on page four says that it is a fully paved rather than a ribbon driveway. So I think that was just a something that updated one place and not another. That site plan is actually a really useful thing to look at at this. This lot had a larger quadruplex on it in a different configuration. And after it was demoed, the owners got the notification about that storm sewer easement from the city and the amount of lot that it took up made initial plans for the lot a little bit different. So it's ended up with two story single family house that has sort of a jagged massing to the rear of it because of the site. However, as we know from all the historic houses and two story things around town, the back of it actually follows a lot of patterns that you see in the city as things get added on to gradually. So it was an unhappy accident that I think has turned out well for the design because of the constraints were going as far close as close to the street as we possibly can. And as tall as we possibly can, based on other things on in the surrounding areas. So the lot is a little bit low. And there are much taller things around it. So we felt like we had the room to go up as high as we did. And it's not quite as wide as the contributing structures up the block from it. You want to switch to the exterior elevations, Carla? I'll see if I can give you a page number 11. Yeah. So this is a side gable house with a lap siding and a bay window to the front. The front porch is slightly different depths because of how that bay projects into it. But we wanted to get that front porch across. And at the back, you can see there's a gable going back and then the sort of shed roof off to the side, like you would often see an enclosed porch on a historic home. The windows are two over two, and we're doing our best to match neighborhood president of some of the larger vernacular Victorians in town. There's some up the block on Yancy and on Parker that have a similar feel to this. So I'm happy to answer any questions you'll have, but I think it's pretty straightforward. Yeah, I'm here. Thank you, Ms. Lockerman. Is there anything you'd like to add? No, I agree with everything that Sarah said. She's, you know, she's great. Thank you. With that, I'll open the floor to commissioners to ask any questions they may have. This is Commissioner Hamilton. Just one quick question. Overall, I feel pretty comfortable with this one. My only question was about this bottom left elevation with the windows with your stairs. And and can you just explain why you went with that window configuration at the stairway? I guess just a little background on that. You mean the double with the transom above? Yes, I guess it's a transom, but it's like two feet above the double, right? Right. I think that was to get a sort of a standard size window that was fairly easily accessible with matched that would be at landing height with the header height to go at the transom to match the other windows on that story. I am 100 percent sure that if y'all wanted a little tweak to that, it could be done. I know underneath that there's that long stretch of blank that is both the underside of the stairwell and the kitchen. So there's no there was an effort to get more windows from an earlier iteration. There weren't very many windows on that side of the house at all. And that was an effort to get more windows on that side. So it wasn't a big blank wall. All right. Thank you. Sure. Thank you, Commissioner Hamilton. Any other commissioners with questions? Seeing and hearing none, I will invite anybody who has signed up to speak in opposition to the case to speak. Seeing and hearing nobody, I will close the public hearing and invite any discussion amongst the commissioners. Commissioner Hamilton, did you get the answer you're looking for in your question? Oh, I like the application to sign. It's like good. That rhythm seems a little wonky, but it's not like, oh, my gosh, I can't approve wonky. It's just like a little, but I understand the stairs and, you know, some of that type of stuff. And functional windows are always something I appreciate as someone who's, you know, lived in places of non-functional windows. Yes. Not my favorite, but also not like can't vote for it. Uncomfortable, so. I agree with you, Katie. The rhythm does feel off. Not the worst thing on the planet, but any other commissioners with comments about this design element or any other aspect of the COI? If not, I would ask for a staff recommendation. Well, staff would be interested to know what sort of tweak Ms. Lachman would suggest. But otherwise could recommend approval of the application. All right, I will reopen the public hearing for the purpose of. Seeing if Ms. Lachman has any thoughts, I see two possible solutions. One would be to get rid of the transom windows at the top, that pair that are high up, which I think would be nice to add some light to the the upper landing, but are one of the things that are unusual in that layout. We could also see if there's a way to bring them as a unit closer together so that they're mold with the upper sort of touching with those transoms touching the pair. There are definitely examples of that. There's a big old craftsman four square that is on the east side of Vickers that has a situation like that in its stair well, that I is a neighborhood precedent. So that would be another way to do it. I'd want to be sure that the windows were still accessible from the landing at that point. And I'm not quite sure of the elevation change on the interior, but that's something I'm sure we could we could talk about if if y'all are interested in in bringing those two units closer together. The second version that you mentioned is what I had in mind. I saw that you were trying to keep that sort of that line with the existing position. But I think the rhythm would actually be improved to move them closer together to drop it down or to raise the pair up to drop the transom down so that it becomes an actual yeah, mold transom. Now, Miss Lockman, is that something that you would need to work on in terms of making sure it fits within your your overall design concept and. Well, in this particular case, I am I am not the designer. I am the I am the presenter of this. And what I would love is if we could get that filed under staff approval so that it's something that we could just work directly with Carla to make sure we can get a unit that does that or have a fallback where if we can't get them all together, we just get rid of the the upper transom pair so that we can move forward in general and not come back next month. But I think it should work either way. If if I may say, Sarah, so on the agenda, you all may know that legacy revisions Mr. Cecil Barker has a matter coming up. So he's he's listening and watching in. So he's actually our builder for this project. And he just sent me a text and he said it should be should be able to mull those windows together. So I have no problem if we drop down the transom and mull them together. I think that would look great. I think it should be simple enough. Great, let's do it. Yep. Now, Cecil, if you're listening, thank you. If we could have one of the commissioners working on some language, potentially for a motion to make that change, that would be terrific. In the interim, I will once again close the public hearing and reopen the floor for any additional commissioner comments. Looks like that. Finistration issue was the. Primary concern here among the commissioners. I will go ahead once more and ask for a staff recommendation based on the additional testimony we have heard. Staff would recommend approval of the application with the condition of staff approval of a new elevation showing the two transom windows on the left side elevation to join with the window pair in the stairwell. Do we have any of our commissioners who would like to make a motion? I can do so, Matt. Sandy, thanks. Go speak. One second. The Durham Historic Commission Preservation Commission, see me finds that in the case Co a two two zero zero zero zero eight eight oh four Shepherd Street new construction the applicant is proposing a new two story structure on a vacant lot. The structure will measure 31 feet in width at the street and 30 feet in height. Set back 12 feet seven inches from the street. A full front porch measuring six to 10 feet in depth will span the street facing elevation. The structure will be constructed with cementitious fireboard sighting. German profile red bricks fiberglass clad wood windows, mostly two over two double hung a solid wood front entry with sidelights and transom if I were a fiberglass rear entry door, a wood porch railing and architectural asphalt sheenable roof singles. Light will consist of lighting will consist of four black metal sconces, two flanking front door, one beside each rear and side entrance. A nine foot wide concrete driveway will connect ribbon. I'm going to restate that. A nine foot wide ribbon concrete driveway will connect the street into space parking had 25 feet square at the rear of the structure. 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 stack report and the Durham Historic Preservation Commission approves the certificate of appropriateness for case COA 22000008804 Shepherd 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 COO. 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 away. Three, a compliance inspection shall be performed immediately upon completion of the work through here in. And fourth, that the left side elevation windows at the stairs, the transom and the double haunts will be paired in some configuration approved by staff and elevation will be provided to staff for approval. We have a second. Commissioner Hamilton, second. Thank you, Commissioner Hamilton. Click homes, roll call vote, please. Yes. Chair Bouchard. Approved. Commissioner Thieselman. Approved. Vice Chair Gulsby. Approved. Commissioner Hamilton. Approved. Commissioner Johnson. Approved. Commissioner Calhoun. Motion passes six to zero. Thank you all. Thank you. Good to see you again. Good luck with the project. Thank you. Thank you so much. OK, folks, this is normally when I take a comfort break. I know we've got some time constraints here. Do we want to push on or do we want to take a quick five minute and come back at 10 30? I'm OK to keep going. Push on. Let us then push on. Chris, if you go ahead and bring in the participants for our next hearing final case on our agenda today, which is COA 2200 009 812 Lancaster Street. What we hear from staff is or any one of our commissioners who may have a conflict of interest in hearing this case. Seeing and hearing none, let us proceed with a swearing in of anyone who plans to speak for this case. Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give in the public hearing proceedings for today's case, the truth by your own knowledge or by information and belief? If we could get Mr. McGee on the camera. Great. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. McGee and Mr. Barker. Yes, it's in the same screen. Yeah, creating a bit of an echo effect here. Is it possible for perhaps you to be together on the same screen? Sure. Come over here. Thank you very much. I should help with our feedback issue. If Claire Combs, you could readminsure the oath to Mr. Barker. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give in the public hearing proceedings for today's case, the truth by your own knowledge or by information and belief? Wonderful. Thank you both. And if I could beginning with Mr. McGee, ask if you both consent to this hearing moving forward this morning on this electronic remote platform? Yes, we did. And Mr. Barker? Yes. Wonderful. Thank you both. We could please have a staff summary. Pearl Rosenberg Planning Department. This is case COA 220009 812 Lancaster Street modifications. The owner and applicant's revision developers LLC, represented by Cecil Barker located on the east side of Lancaster Street between Green Street and West Markham Avenue. It's a contributing structure in the Trinity Heights Historic District has owned residential suburban M RSM and the applicant is proposing numerous changes to fenestration, including removing what appears to be a non-original arched window opening at the front and also replacing some entry doors on the front. Extensive changes to the fenestration on the sides. They're non-original units, but they're going to be changing the grouping significantly, also to replace a rear dormer on a rear dormer with a larger one. And just numerous changes. So I'd like to introduce the staff report into the record and invite Mr. Barker and Mr. McGee to present their case and feel free to call out any page number and I'll jump to it. OK, so we're doing a full renovation on this property with some minimal enhancements on the front, mainly the arched window being removed. And then if you look at the side elevations, you'll see where we've changed the side elevation, the rear, and added some windows all in keeping with the style of the home. And I think the material list supplied tells you a little more about the project as far as windows and so forth and citing materials. Thank you, Mr. McGee. Mr. Barker, is there anything that you would like to add? Not at this time. I think Mr. McGee's covered it and the staff report has covered the submittal. In that case, I will open the floor for questions from the commissioners. I'll go ahead and kick us off. In terms of that rounded window and the front elevation, what information, if any, have you been able to uncover about when that window might have been placed in that location? It's hard to say. There it is right there. Thank you, Carla. It doesn't appear to be original from the standpoint. It's this odd window in an odd space. I don't know what the purpose of that window was. But we demoed the inside part of that. We took the sheet rock off and it wouldn't appear to have been added at some point. Yeah, it was added at some point. By looking at the framing members around it. So the plaster has been removed on the interior. It looks like it's an added component. Hard to tell from the outside. Would you expect this sort of feature to be part of a structure designed and built in the mid-1930s? I really wouldn't because I don't understand its purpose. And generally that's a lot of stuff's purpose built. We've done several houses. Matter of fact, one, two houses up. I've never seen one of these windows around. So I'm I'm uncertain. Great. Thank you. That's all I have. Other commissioners? Can I just ask for a clarification in the photos in the packet? There seems to be some things that are painted blue and with the wood and gun condition and some things that are yellow and peeling just like the one you've got it now. What's the blue situation? The photo of the blue was showing the example, an example of the window that we selected from an adjoining property. Okay. Got it. Thanks. This is you mentioned you did a structure on that same block. The house next door to this one, the I think it's pan brown now. No, it's the one the other direction that's blue. It's actually in that photo. 806. 806. Chris and Elsha's house. I think you're sounds like you're one of their neighbors. I'm a block up. Okay. So attachment 14 is showing a photo of the window style that was used at 806 Lancaster, which we did a renovation in addition on, I don't know, three or four years ago. The reason I bring up the house to the north of the two story lines. It does have a rounded window to the side porch of it in a similar configuration. The reason I'm bringing it up is sometimes when the houses were constructed, you know, you see one or the same builder does the one next door and puts in the same a similar feature. So it just brings in the question. The half round window on this structure was, you know, other other properties on the street. Would you like me to pull that up on Google Street View? That would be, that would be good. It's 814 Lancaster. And when you get there, Carla, it's not the quite the street facing elevation. It's on the left side of the porch. So you kind of have to look at it from a perspective piece. I'm going to share my screen and you can help guide me to where I need to go. So this is the house that we're discussing right now. And you're talking about this brown one or? Yeah. So go to the other direction. One click down. Um, sorry, this way to the north. No, the other direction. Okay. So, all right. So you can see that half window. Oh, I see. Yeah. I've never noticed that, but it looks to be a lot higher than the other one. So I don't know it was added or maybe it was added this house. I don't know. I think the difference is that the subject property that we're looking at has the half moon front facing as if it was a kind of a major feature. Um, and this one is kind of on the side facing the porch area sitting here. Um, it is it is. It is odd to see that kind of right there at the front of the house. Um, I don't know, but it is interesting to see another feature that is a similar to the one that was added in the next door. And to our knowledge, there is no other example. Is there another example of a, a prominent moon. Um, half moon window. I'll say half moon. I meant half round semi circle. Not to my knowledge, but, um, I think this is interesting that commissioner Goolsbee pointed this out. And I'm sure with research, we could find out, you know, I think it might be, and I don't know this, but it looks like these are replacement windows on this house or at least a good portion of them. I don't think all these windows are original. Could be wrong. I haven't, I haven't been snooping around their house. So I don't know. It's, it's on my nightly walk. So I see it often. Um, and all of the windows on the house that we're reviewing right now. Um, they are, they're all vinyl windows. They're all replacement. So if the window in question is original, it's the only original window in the house. Is that correct? I wouldn't know if, I mean, they look replacement windows from this picture. No, I'm sorry. I'm talking about. Oh, I'm sorry. Oh, on our house, you're exactly right. Yes. Yes. That's right. So if it is original, it's the only original window left. That's right. It doesn't quite have the same. I mean, it has this sort of sill here that maybe the other one didn't have. It's not at the same head or height as any of the other windows. So it has the appearance of being added at some point. Were you able to find the outline of the original window that, that you're supposing was there. Were you able to find any sort of framing that indicated the window was the size you're posing? No, but a lot of times they use that structural. The top plate is the header on these old houses. So I don't know that it would been that pronounced. Carl, I take it you don't take anything from the sandborn maps. No, unfortunately, it's not going to show the window. It's not going to show the window. Only on industrial buildings really show window materials and placement. Okay. Any other questions from commissioners? I will say that I'm curious about this question. If it is historic or not, particularly given that the two houses side by side, both have it and I'm Googling now to try to figure out if there's a reason behind that. I'm not quickly finding the answer, but I am curious and feel like if it is historic or tell some sort of story, it's not going to show the window. Now, but Google doesn't quickly have the answer. I am trying. I have seen these windows in a number of historic properties. Both came around here and also in looking at the feature. Now, what's the proposal list that we move, get, and do so? The proposal is to take that window out. That's correct. The proposal is to replace it with a window that matches others on the house. I would not like for it to stay in a man. It's a, it's in a really strange spot for the interior of that house. That's why it leads me to leave, even if it were an old window, and someone salvaged or kept, it seems to have been added. It's not in a foyer area as you see here. I would assume when you come in the front door of this brown house that there's probably a drop zone below that half round. That's why it was there that man laughs. That's probably why it was there. That's why it would be on that front wall of the other house. So, no, we would like to, to remove it so that we can bring some commonality to that front area. What you're saying about the usage in this brown house makes sense to me, and I can see the confusion on why it's lower in the wall on the yellow house and how it would be frustrated to work with as the resident of the house. I can ask the applicant once more at the risk of flogging a dead horse. Could you describe for me what you did see when you removed either the drywall or the plaster that led you to believe that this was added after original construction? Well, I didn't see any evidence of, yeah, new framing members. We didn't see a header either. There was no header there. Yeah. I don't know if maybe there wasn't, for some reason, a window there or a wall before. And this was added. Yeah, that's, it's a little bit of a mystery. Okay. Yeah. I've got a question for Carla, but I'm going to hold off until we exhaust all the questions of the applicants. Any other questions for the applicant? If not, I will ask whether or not there is anybody here who wishes to speak in opposition to this proposal seeing and hearing from nobody. I will close the public hearing and open the floor for commissioner discussion. And I'll go ahead and exercise my chair prerogative to go ahead and ask Carla question. Carla, if you could help us understand the architectural style of the overall property and whether or not in your experience, the sort of half circle window would be consistent with that architectural style. So I agree that the placement seems odd. It doesn't usually take such a front seat. It's usually a decorative sort of sort of side display or something and exactly like usually opening on a foyer. So I when the applicant said to me that they believed it was not original, I took that at face value. Although I do think it shouldn't be too difficult to see the quality of the wood and any hardware that might be used in it as well. So I think the placement is unusual but I think having the sort of decorative element is not unusual. I think it's just the placement. It's usually a more sort of subtle use, not something that's in such a prominent location. The balance is off. Is this a Craftsman style house? So it's a little post Craftsman, but yeah, it doesn't have a lot of the decorative like this one over here has a lot more Craftsman elements. So it's a little bit post Craftsman. Okay. Maybe a vernacular. Yeah. With columns. My observation is all the evidence that we've heard and we must make our determinations based on evidence is that it's not original. Do we know that for certain? No. Have we heard any evidence that suggests that it is original? I'm not sure we have. And so my view is I don't think we can consider not approving this application based on our concern. This might be original and original window. It seems like the weight of the evidence that we've heard suggests that it is not. And that is in fact unusual at least with respect to its placement. If not, it's outright existence. So those are my thoughts on the issue, but obviously I'm hoping to hear any other folks thoughts and concerns that might have about it. Yeah, I agree with you, Matt. Matt, I don't believe we've got the evidence to say that it's not not original to the house. We don't have any images of the framing inside to substantiate what's going on in there. You're from the images here and what's in the application. I mean the trim boards or the siding appears to be installed in such a way that it looks like it was done originally. It doesn't look like anything was spliced in. I could be wrong about that, but just from the images that we have doesn't appear to have anything that's spliced in suggesting that putting in the new window and cutting it in, they would have to take off some siding and put on new siding around it. Unless there was not a window there before. There wouldn't be any splicing. I would find that unusual to not have any window there at all as well. Do you have evidence that the walls inside the structure changed? No, I don't have any. Because maybe it was a foyer type area. Oh, oh, no, yes. No, no, there's not. There's a corner. There's a corner fireplace. There's a corner fireplace. Across the room. This is definitely the front room of the house. I would have expected to see this window if anywhere around the side porch where they added that 80s looking door. I mean, I don't know if that, you know, you talk about the materials of the window, the window could be original to that time period, but I don't know that it was in that location originally or with or even on this house. Originally. Yeah, so. Mission Johnson. I was just thinking I think we need certainty. I mean, I think from a stylistic approach aesthetic approach, understanding what these houses typically look like. Yes, that one window wouldn't fit. But in the case that there was something done that was abnormal, you know, an ornament out of the box by the builder. I think the applicant has to shift. Maybe perhaps should provide us with a little bit more evidence. Declare that, but to say I don't know. I don't know if we can rule that. Do we need work? I think we need a little bit more evidence to be clear. Commissioner, I agree with you April. That we can't rule for sure without further evidence and, you know, walking around the neighborhood of, you know, I don't, I don't think there's a whole lot of classic examples throughout the neighborhood. They've all got some kind of peculiar aspect to them. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. Whatever the owner who built it at that time, you know, brought to that piece of property. So, yeah, go ahead, Matt. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I was going to say, I mean, just be good to know for certain, you know, what the framing looks like inside and some close up photos around the around that window. Is it trimmed out original? I mean, there's just another evidence right now to have that. So, hypothetically, if we were to recommend to this applicant that we hold off on the vote and ask them to provide us with additional information, additional investigation, what, what, I mean, obviously you started listing some some things to look at, but could we provide that guidance in terms of what we think that additional investigation, the additional steps and additional evidence we'd like to see might look like? Yeah, sure. So, so it all kind of comes into the evidence aspect of, you know, Senate giving us the photos that we're asking questions about, you know, what's the framing look like? What's it look around the window on the exterior in terms of the the siding? And is it, I think Carl asked this question, is it the one existing window in the house, meaning it's not vital? Is it a wood window? What else? Are there any other things that would be helpful? Carl, are there any other steps that can be taken from an investigative point of view that might not necessarily relate to observations or pictures taken at the property itself, but seeking the service of an architectural historian could get some professional expertise like in the historic aspect of it could also follow Andy's suggestion that it might have been a similar like the same builder, so finding that information out could be helpful. I think I think the applicants and I already discussed trying to find as many photographs of the property as possible. I think they've exhausted what they could their historic photographs, so Mr. Hamilton? Can I just ask so if it's found to be original are we going to want them to maintain it in that location or would we be okay with them relocating it because it is a typical of the district to have it there and this is obviously a district? I think the criteria state to especially on character defining elevations to retain original windows in place. Just so the applicants aware that's why we're struggling with this issue. It's not to suggest that we're not appreciating the desire to do something different with this facade but I've now served on this commission for I think a little more than four years and original fenestrations on street facing elevations have been some of our more challenging issues during that time and so I appreciate Vice Chair Gillesby's and Commissioner Johnson's desire to try to get this right and with that in mind we can certainly poll the other commissioners who have not yet been heard on this and I'm cognizant that Commissioner Feaselman has time limitation here for the next five minutes. It is not unusual and I'm not sure if you're aware of this or not but it's not unusual for us to express these exact sorts of reservations to applicants and rather than having up and down vote with these sort of unanswered questions and concerns still swirling and perhaps no guarantee that you're going to garner a majority of the commission invite you to take our concerns seriously and conduct the additional investigation and provide us with additional information in a couple months time so as we're considering that as an option I think it's probably time to ask the applicant if this is something that they would be willing to engage in to give the commission a greater degree of comfort about what it's being asked to approve here. I would be willing to do that if we can do this on a staff level. I do not want to wait if at all possible two months as my clock is ticking and it's costing me quite a bit of money so I don't know if there's a way to proceed with us either figuring this out or repurposing this when they were leaving it there I'm certainly going to do that. I don't want to wait two months to get my process started here. I think Chris's comments there's a lot of other work that goes on besides this one window so if there's a way that we could look at everything else with the exception of this window and circle back on this one window with Carla and then we could even resubmit this one window it doesn't preclude the other 99% of the project. So I guess let me ask a question and response to that is it possible to move forward with the COA but keeping that window and then if you want to come back to us to remove that window basically conducting a new COA? I'm certainly amenable to that. That's fine. So that would be a second major COA? Yeah. That's what I would support. I would definitely support that. Move forward with everything else. A lot has been proposed and that window is a separate issue. I'm sort of piping in and opening something new but it's adjacent literally I'm curious about the placement of the front door and the columns and how it doesn't like line up on center in the way that I might expect it would and I'm curious if the placement of the door is connected to the questions that we're asking and one question on my mind is as you're gathering evidence from the inside and or from an architectural historian if you might explore that a little bit too like did the door and the window move are they both original and in those places because of something that was happening in the interior that's a question that's on my mind. Yeah, I mean I'm sitting here looking at like the column in front of this like half moon window seems like you would frame an element that you're creating like I don't know maybe I'm wrong maybe they weren't doing that during this time period but like as a designer I wouldn't put some architectural element like a half moon and then block it with a column it just seems odd to me. So let me ask this question I mean no one I'm not hearing anyone with any strong opinion that this is original can we just relocate the thing up there's a gable vent that's that's not original that's vinyl could it go up there I mean is there a possibility to nip this in the bud today with respect to everybody's time I think I would need to I need to understand its current placement and it's it's original to its current placement for any role in that is chair how about everybody else Commissioner Johnson we have to make our decision based on I think facts and based on the guidelines they're kind of like our a little law book to speak but I need to we can't base our decisions on opinions only we have to have some concrete facts and information something to follow and I think we just need to know the status like Commissioner Volsby said the status of its window period we need confirmation on whether it is original or some type of replacement window or something at a later yeah any other issue being that our criteria are pretty strict about original doors and windows and preserving them maintaining them and especially something that's street fronting and I'm not sure we're in a position to entertain today a proposal to relocate something that could be original to some other place on the house and be faithful to the criteria that we have to honor as part of our work what I know we can do today is to the extent there is a possibility this is an original window is to approve the COA without to allow you to move forward with the work and then come back in front of us to discuss the window after some additional information is gathered my concern is if we would have the vote right now based on the COA as it currently exists there might not be a majority of commissioners who would be willing to support it sure I appreciate that I understand that but yeah if I've got the ability to move forward then I don't have a problem tabling this for some further then it's a good solution so I'm going to reclose the public hearing and suggest to my fellow commissioners as well as to staff that we would add a bullet point to the possible motion here that just makes it clear that the half circle window in the front elevation of the property will remain but the rest of the application would remain as it is any other discussion amongst the commissioners I will say this commissioner rules me at one point that I do appreciate the scale that you guys have worked with this house this house sits lower than its neighbors it's not built up on the foundation like we can see in the house on the right here so I appreciate the efforts that you guys have gone to to keep the condition low like the house so thank you for that appreciate that any other comments from commissioners if not I will ask for a staff recommendation Carla Rosenberg planning department staff would recommend approval of the application with the condition of removing the removal of the lunette window from the scope of work Carla do you believe that needs to be as part of the conditions or part of just the motion itself well I guess it should be removed from the motion itself but in addition to make it clear that that has been adjusted also make it a condition which the applicant has to agree to and will need to sign off on does the motion itself actually speak in terms of that it might not call out the lunette window in particular Chair Bashar Grace Smith here I just wanted to add with Carla but I would not at a condition since at this time the window is being removed from the overall scope of the work I think that it should not be mentioned as a condition or even in the motions it's being removed entirely from the scope and as Carla had said earlier they would have to come back with another application to basically deal with or address the window situation if they don't need the applicant's approval to move forward without that being part of the scope they don't need to sign off on it I think if they've removed it during this meeting and we have they're under oath and we have witnesses I'll let the attorney weigh in but I think if they're removing it from the consideration in the scope then I'm not sure that it needs to be included at all in anything with this application but I'll let Krista chime in thanks in my experience if someone removes an element out of the application you know as long as we state that I don't I don't think we consider it a condition or anything like that because we'll need updated drawings and everything reflecting that that is that Lunette window is staying so just to be safe should we just include it as a condition since Krista's offline is there any danger to doing that miss Smith is Krista hi can you repeat the question thanks so Krista there is a design element here which is up on the screen it's this half circle lunette window which is part of the plans would have been removed as part of the scope of this overall project the applicant is willing to keep the window and really take no action with respect to it pending further investigation and perhaps another COA down the line for its removal and so it's a piece of scope that's coming out of the work it's as of this moment not referenced in the possible motion and so the question is whether or not there needs to be expressed reference to the retention of this window somewhere in the motion just to make it clear that when we read the portion of the motion that says that the improvement should be substantial consistent with the plans and testimony presented it's clear on the record that this design element is going to remain my recommendation would be to include it as a condition just for full clarity okay we do have this as its own light item number three so it may simplify the process for you to approve everything number three and we'd be happy to draw an elevation to correspond with that and that's on page after the certificate information is under scope of work Sunder our scope of work description from elevation three I think what we're looking at is page eight of the full application we're talking about possible motions and the conditions we're trying to review that language which does not know that right now speaks to the half after island though so simply adding a condition number four here you could add it as number one and bump all of these down that condition would be to retain an elevation and update drawings accordingly okay the Durham historic preservation commission finds that in the case COA 2200 009 812 Lancaster street modifications the applicant is proposing additions and modifications to a contributing structure an existing rear dormer will be replaced with a larger rear dormer and an existing rear addition the ground level addition two front entry doors will consist of half light over two panel would units rear doors will consist of fiberglass fully glazed units new windows will consist of triple grid simulated divided light three over one with units nonoperable shutters will be removed from all straight excuse me from all street facing windows a screen porch with brick foundation would decking and it would lap to the rear of the home therefore the conclusion of law is that the proposed addition and alterations are consistent with historical character and qualities of historic district and are consistent with 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 2200 009 812 Lancaster street modifications with the following conditions 1 the existing half circle window at the front elevation of the structure shall remain and drawings shall be updated accordingly for staff approval 2 the improvements shall be substantially consistent with the plans and testimony presented to the commission at this commission hearing and attached to the COA 3 additional approvals from other city or county departments or state or local agencies the applicant is responsible for obtaining all required approvals relating to building construction site work and work in the right of way and for a compliance inspection shall be performed immediately upon completion of the work approved here in thank you commissioner johnson roll call vote please madam clerk chair bouchard approved commissioner fissleman she is she left vice chair gulsby approved commissioner hamilton approved commissioner johnson approved commissioner calhoun motion passes 5 to 0 great thank you clerk holmes and thank you both thank you appreciate it that is the end of our three hearings today we do have some new business to attend to let's start with the minor coa report we'll give that to you all by Thursday and I said that last month I think a little bit after that but I got you this Thursday okay any commissioner concerns about the minor coa report from last month second item new business excused absences do you vote on excused or unexcused absences I know that tad asked weeks ago to be excused due to a prior obligation my recollection is that we don't need to vote on that we need to vote on whether or not an absence is unexcused but I might have that completely backwards you actually sorry go ahead carla no you go ahead okay thanks you vote on excused absences I am sorry for my mistake I will go ahead and make a motion to excuse tad to Barry's absence from today's commission meeting second commissioner will be clerk Holmes roll call vote all right chair bouchard yes vice chair goalsby yes commissioner hamilton yes commissioner johnson yes commissioner calhoun yes all right thank you all very much let's go ahead turn to carla for update on open positions yes so currently we have three open positions we have two on the county side one is a general position tad is actually being very generous and staying on filling that position for us until we get new applicants which as far as I know we don't have any yet so that's he's in a general position and we also have the attorney position under the county and then on the city side we have the real estate developer position and for that one I know that on the 14th the 30 day advertising period will be up and they'll see whether we've received any applications at that point so three open positions if you want to recommend to anybody that you know that you think would be interested then feel free can refer them to I think I already sent out the links to the city and county clerk websites in the meantime we are down three people to with the grace of tad continuing to serve and so that means that our numbers are really low we we definitely need as much help as we can get from you all in terms of attending and next month in particular for May it's a very full agenda so I wanted to let you all know in advance that we do hope that you can clear your the entire morning hopefully it won't go to the afternoon but it may because there are a couple complicated cases for that hearing as well so any questions or concerns no I'll just add very briefly that tad has obviously served on this commission for a long long time he's willing to continue to serve while we are trying to replace some recently departed members but I think we need to be cognizant of the fact that he is looking to step down and so it's wonderful that he's willing to continue to serve which gives us seven commission members but I think we need to try to fill those two other seats as quickly as possible and then move as expeditiously as possible to find a tad replacement so that means we need an attorney through the county and a developer through the city so immediate priorities and somebody general for replacing tad he's committed to making sure that there's a smooth transition and that all of us are prepared to carry on without him he's had great insights the entire time I've been on the commission but let's see if we can't get the other two positions filled hopefully soon and then move forward with trying to find a replacement for tad we'll have some new blood on our commission last item of new business 1106 9th street update yeah so I forwarded an email to you from Ms. Robin Burnett who is a base daughter who owns the property that that structure is moving to do you want to share a little bit about what your daughter shared in that email yes it has been a rough ride the first thing one of the things that happened is that when we went down to a platform to get we found out that Cliff cradle had missed a piece of the property that he was developing the plaque for us and so that and the piece of property was something that was unsold and went back to the previous owner and had to get fat and get a lawyer and go through that and then found out you know we resolved that case and a new plaque was drawn et cetera so that held us up for a while but the number one the thing that rocked us off our seats was the fact that we have a mover who's ready to move the building and brought in the steel beams to put under the building so that he could all see this thing come down the street and when they started to remove some of the boards at the bottom they thought we'd rather take a look at the property it was I mean you talking about the ceramites they are fat and sassy because they had beaten up half of the first floor of that property and what wasn't beaten up was ruined by water from you know moisture and water damage so the mover said there's no way that I can lift this property up in one piece you know the first floor and move this property so it's going to be okay and are they going to then reconstruct the first will they then reconstruct the first floor and put the second floor on top right minus all the rotten pieces and all the termites that cannot so everything else it's amazing that you're soldiering on with that project yeah I remember saying yeah I was joking at the time but I remember saying we will move this house and we have to take it board by board over to the other it looks like that's what true to your word I was joking but it's this through now you know so all the historical pieces and parts and whatnot and cabinets that were historic and built in the kitchen they've owned everything is the one that's historic except for half of the first floor and the construction was so sorry there was no insulation in the entire house it's unbelievable so it was not good construction it's typical that houses didn't have it's typical that older houses didn't have insulation on the interior only on the feeling level okay well thank you so much for that update okay thank you there's a point there's not going to be a parade high hopes but I think there's something magical of seeing it built up from the ground again too it's remarkable what you and your daughter are doing that's what we wanted to build it up from the ground replace everything that was chewed up and move on continue good luck with that into your daughter great stuff alright everybody announcement real quick yeah go for it as you know the national alliance of preservation commissions is the national organization that provides education and training to commission staff as well as commissioners and they are having their bi-annual conference coming up in July 13th through I think 17th so I just wanted to inform you about that conference it's going to be in Cincinnati Ohio this year and I wanted to encourage people to come out if you can and of course you don't have to say the same I think most people do Friday Saturday Sunday and not the other Wednesday and Thursday days but so it's an in person say what? oh it's just going to say is it in person or is there a virtual option it's in person this year and there isn't a virtual option this year we're still talking about whether maybe a few of the sessions will be virtual for those who are still not comfortable traveling but it will be in person this year and so and I will do a session on affordable housing and preservation and moderating that session with some developers I don't remember who is still early but I'll do a presentation and moderate a conversation on that but I just wanted to let you all know and if you want to join me so I'm not alone what were the states again? say what? what were the states again April? July 13 to 17 I can send it to Carla to send it to everybody yes do that I'll forward it to everybody we actually just had a couple commission members participate in a training from NAPC that was Andy did and then I guess Krista as well that's great speaking of in person I know we did a survey last fall like before Omicron about folks wanting to get together again to hold these meetings in person the survey was probably outdated before the responses came back in because of Omicron is that something we should be thinking about we're all comfortable just doing things away we're doing them now I will say from my side I haven't heard anything further okay from the city on that so I was just going to weigh in on that just from a sort of logistic standpoint I think in terms of what the city approach is at the moment so city council issued I think for all intents and purposes a directive that board's and commissions are to continue remotely until the governor's emergency order 116 is rescinded I think there's some speculation that that may happen sometime this month but unclear I think after that time the city council will have to sort of decide what it wants to do in terms of board's and commissions at this point our office's recommendation would be that once that emergency order is lifted quasi-judicial boards should meet in person so that's kind of just a really informal update on where things stand kind of from a legal perspective I think after the emergency order is lifted quasi-judicial boards should meet in person we don't know when that emergency order will be lifted hypothetically if it were lifted the end of this week would that mean our next meeting could be live or would there be some sort of transition period that is a great question I think we would just have to sort of evaluate the risks of having a remote meeting in terms of the challenges to that meeting so I think we would just have to see my belief is that we would need to move to a live meeting I see what you're saying about order 116 I mean it's a statutory mandate during periods of declared emergency that we can actually do these hearings remotely and once that's lifted that statutory authority is gone and most certainly for governing boards I think there is some authority for what's called electronic meetings for boards and commissions otherwise that are not governing boards that statute existed prior to COVID-19 it's been on the books since 1979 but I think for quasi-judicial meetings because of their nature I think it just makes sense to have those in person we'll keep us posted on all that stuff I might be seeing your happy faces in person for the first time in over two years next month yeah one more quick question when is the earliest time that we may get a new member because I know that I won't be here I may have to ask for an excuse absent my organization is having its annual event it happens to be on the morning about meeting in June and so I know I won't be here June 7 but do we think that we have our new people by June if the application ends on the 14th well I know I think the city's deadline is the one that I know of on the 14th I was told by the clerk's office that they were going to look at any applications assuming that we've received one or two or who knows and so however long it takes from there to get to council for their approval which I would have estimate could take up to two months I think it's kind of hmm I hate to throw a working letter to this I'm glad that April brought that up I am definitely out that week I haven't yet reached out to anybody to have one week arbitration that goes from the 6th to the 10th that week makes me wonder whether or not we should be thinking about if it's not too late to do so pushing the June meeting out until Tuesday June 14th that's a good idea yeah I will so we already know April would you both be able to would anybody be able to attend on the 14th if we moved it a week would there be any other conflicts created it's a very good question for me it would work it would work for me too everybody else Dr. Coughlin give me a second to look at things here yeah it looks like that works on my end also okay I'll propose that with grace and then that's great I think Oliver should maybe put a hold on our mornings if we can for June 14th just in case that does in fact be the case I appreciate everybody's flexibility thank you for thinking in advance on that as well alright everybody well great seeing you and hope you have a wonderful month you too bye thanks everybody