 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 second day of, excuse me, first day of February, 2022. My name is Matt Bouchard and I am Chair of the Commission. 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 the hearing consent to the matter of proceeding in the remote platform. If there is any objection to a matter of proceeding in this remote platform, that case will be continued. Third, notice of this meeting was provided to the applicant and to the public in multiple ways, including signage posted on site, notification letters mailed to all adjacent property owners, informing recipients regarding the remote platform, and a general announcement via our website informing the public of the same. The notices for today's meeting advised the public on how to access the remote meeting as it 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. The information was also included on the board's website. The public was advised to contact the city immediately in case of objection to the evidentiary hearing or to the remote meeting platform. No cases today, as I understand it, are proceeding in which the city has been contacted by an individual with an objection to the case or to the matter being heard on this remote meeting platform. All individuals participating in today's evidentiary hearings were also required to submit a copy of any presentation, document, or exhibit, or any other material they wished to submit at the evidentiary hearing prior to today's meeting. All materials that the city received from the participants in today's cases, as well as a copy of city staff's presentations and documents were posted online prior to this meeting. The agenda 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 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 before us today? Sure, be sure. I'll have to recuse myself from the first case on Moorhead Avenue because I was involved with that project while employed with Stewart. And then I also should note that on 400 West Main, whatever the Main Street one, I was involved in the demolition permit. However, I was very careful about not doing anything, anything that was gonna be proposed because I already knew I was leaving Stewart. So in order to make sure that I could continue to be involved in that one. So I'll leave that up to Krista and Carla, but like I was like very careful about not hearing anything about proposed designs. So I had to recuse myself from demolition, but I don't think I need to recuse myself from this one. Thank you, Commissioner Hamilton. You will be recused from 518 Moorhead Avenue. Carla or Krista, any comments about the 400 West Main Street matter? Krista Cougar City Attorney's Office. Katie, can you just confirm one thing for me? You're not at Stewart any longer, correct? No, yeah, I have no financial interest in this or any expert aid communications. So yeah, okay, thank you. I think that it would be appropriate for you to hear that case then. Wonderful, thank you for the disclosure. Any other commissioners with a conflict with respect to any of the cases before us today? Hearing none, seeing no hands raised. Are there any early dismissals being requested today from any of our commissioners? Matt, I've got a 10-30 call that I've got to jump for. Okay, thank you, Commissioner Feaselman. Anybody else? Okay, great. As chair of the Historic Preservation Commission, I'd like to remind everyone that our quasi-judicial hearings function similar to a court proceeding. Staff will first present an overview of each case and then the applicant will have an opportunity to present their evidence. Opponents, if there are any, may then present their evidence and the applicant may then present a rebuttal. Board members will refrain from questions or comments until each speaker has completed his or her presentation. Testimony should consist of facts each witness knows directly, not hearsay. Evidence already presented need not be repeated. All witnesses who have signed up in advance will be given the opportunity to speak and their testimony will be recorded. The board will vote on each case after the presentation of all evidence, pro and con concerning that case. All decisions of this board are subject to appeal to the Board of Adjustment and then to the Durham County Superior Court. Clerk Holmes, could you please take the attendance of the commissioners who are here today? Yes. Chair Roushard. Present. Commissioner Dehan. Present. Commissioner DeVerry. Here. Commissioner Feaselman. Here. Vice Chair Gulsby. Here. Commissioner Hamilton. Here. Commissioner Crager. Commissioner Calhoun. Commissioner Calhoun. No, Commissioner Calhoun is here. Present. All right, thank you. I just got an email from Commissioner Johnson. She said that she will not be able to attend today. Okay. We will circle back to today's absences later on in today's hearing. Commissioners, you've been provided draft minutes for our last commission meeting held on the same remote, excuse me, remote platform on January the 11th, May 2. Does anyone have any adjustments to the draft minutes that we'd like to recommend? Chair Roushard, I've got it. One to the minutes. I notice that those who made the motions are not listed on this set of minutes and we've done that in the past. I assume as we would like to carry that forward for future minutes. I noticed that too, Andy. Amanda, is that Google to add those back? Oh yes, what was that again? So, Clerk Holmes, the concern is that the January 11, 2022 draft minutes do not contain the identities of the commissioners who moved in connection with each of the cases. I'll also note that the commissioners who seconded the motions are also not referenced in the minutes. Okay. Yes, so I will, going forward for the minutes, I will add who moved and who motioned and who seconded for going for, yes, for the minutes. I'll add that to the minutes that you guys get. Thank you very much. Does anyone else have any other suggested corrections to the minutes? Krista, let me ask the question of you, given the fact that we're gonna have a revision to these draft minutes, should we hold off on voting on these minutes and to approve these minutes until such time as we have a revised set of minutes to review? Krista Cougar, City Attorney's Office. I think that that would be my recommendation to wait to vote until that information is incorporated. Wonderful. All right, so we will hold off on the vote until very likely next month's meeting. Commissioners, you've been forwarded an agenda to today's meeting. Would anyone, including city staff, like to recommend any adjustments to today's agenda? I'm from the planning department, no adjustments. Okay. Madam Clerk, if you could please swear in all city staff that 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 Department, I do. Thank you, Carla. Sorry, Chair, Grace Smith here, I do as well. Thank you, Grace. Okay, we are now prepared to move on with our first case today. While Chris Peterson brings in our presenters, I will introduce case COA 2, excuse me, COA 21-00-084-518 Moorhead Avenue. Once again, by way of reminder, Commissioner Hamilton has recused herself from this case that leaves six commissioners to consider this case. We do have a quorum before we hear from staff. Is there any one of our commissioners other than Chair Hamilton who would have a conflict of interest in hearing this case? Seeing hearing none, let us proceed with the swearing in of anyone who plans to speak for or against this case. 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? This is Linda Lavis from J. Davis Architects, and I do. Hi, this is Cindy Hoffman with Stewart, and I do. And this is Blake Goodman without any properties and I do as well. Okay, we also have a Robert Mills. Yes, hello, Robert Mills with broadly tree and shrub. And Mr. Mills, if you could take the oath as well. I'm sorry, you'll have to repeat. I was having some delays here in my... That's okay, Claire Combs, if you could please repeat the oath. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give in the public hearing proceedings for today's case, the truth by your own knowledge or by information and belief? Yes, ma'am. Great, and I will go one by one to confirm consent to proceeding with this hearing on this remote platform. Ms. Lavis. I consent. Thank you, Ms. Hoffman. I consent. Mr. Goodman. I consent. And Mr. Mills. I consent. Wonderful, thank you all. Let us proceed with the staff summary. Carla. Are you able to see my shared screen? Yeah, yes. Okay, great. Wonderful. So this is case COA 21-0084, 518 Morehead Avenue, new construction. The applicant, Jay Davis, represented by Linda Lavis. The owner is Dura Morehead Residences, LLC, and Edgebrook Associates, LLC, located on the north side of Morehead Avenue between Vickers and South Duke Street. And it's owned office institutional. It's a non-contributing parcel within the Morehead Hill Historic District. The applicant, of course, was here two months ago in December and the case was continued. Since then, revisions have been made, primarily some adjustments to the roofline on the rear side of the street-facing units and also further evidence regarding tree conditions on site. I'd like to introduce this revised staff report into the record and invite Ms. Lavis to present her case. And I'll jump in ahead of Linda presenting the BAME. This is Blake Goodman with Howquit Properties, representing the owner, Dura Morehead Residences, LLC. Yes, the two specific items that we looked at and our team kind of went back to the drawing board to just address the questions that had been raised regarding the roof profiles and also the potential of, I guess, really the survivability of some of the street trees if we were going to set back an additional five feet. I just wanted to highlight quickly that what is already approved on the site today is for four multi-family buildings that would constitute about 130 units. As part of that, that was inclusive of about 70,000 square feet of surface parking. So what we are intending to present here is an alternative solution. One that, in our minds, the motivating factor here was looking at, all right, we're in the historical district here. And we thought that by using a town home strategy that we could provide for a community that was more in fitting with the scale and the residential character of the historic neighborhood. So we hope that that would be favorably received. Obviously, we are open to further comments in terms of what we are proposing, but I just wanted to make sure that we keep focus in terms of what is entitled as it currently stands today and that basically what we're proposing is to remove a story of height, de-densify the site by about half, going from 130 units down to 68 units. And then further, what we're trying to do is to take those four large multi-family pads and break them up into 11 smaller pads, which then affords us the ability to introduce more green space into the interior site. The previous solution, the major interior site became surface parking. And by going through a town home solution, what that enables us to do is to identify some dedicated green spaces. And what we're hoping is to, at least at an incremental level is to be able to create a community here that is more focused on the pedestrian and less focused on the car. And we think that that would be beneficial one for the residents of the eventual community, as well as the larger community as a whole. So we hope it's favorably received. I hope that you find that we addressed all of your comments from the previous hearing in a thoughtful manner. And with that, I'll turn it over to Linda to present. I'm going to address the building comments that we received from the previous meeting in December. And when I've completed those, I'm gonna hand it over to Cindy from Stewart to address the tree comments. So just to get us oriented, if you want to take a look at, lost my pages here. Let's see. Ms. Lavis, feel free to give me a page number if you have that for the report. Then I'll jump to it. Yes, I was looking for that. And I seem to have lost my zoom. Hold on one second. Apologize. All right, it's sheet C3.0. And I'm not sure what the number is on your end, but in the original document from J.David, it's a sheet eight. So it's probably closer to sheet. Could you repeat the number? It's a, you said a 10. C3.0. Oh, C3.0. Is this it? The site plan? It's a site plan, yeah. I don't see that showing up on your screen. You don't see it on my screen. Okay, let's see. I see the stack report currently. Or the, yeah, this, yeah. Oh, it stopped sharing. I apologize, are you seeing it now? I still see the certificate of appropriateness report. Yeah, it was just increased in size. I'm going to stop sharing and then just reassure. Do you see it now? There we go. So if you could zoom in on building two, which is towards the bottom of the site or right along Moorhead Avenue, where it says private drive C. So the unit immediately to the left of private drive C had a salt box type form with a black roof deck off of the rear of the unit. And one of the comments that we received was that, it was hard to really understand what that salt box form was doing and also was there any precedent within the district for a roof form such as that. And we did find at 813 Vickers Ave, a precedent for that type of salt box roof form, which can be seen on it's about three or four sheets prior to that sheet C 3.0. Go a little bit further, two sheets prior to that. Okay, the upper left there is 813 Vickers Ave, which has an asymmetrical roof form, which then transitions to a low slope roof over the sun porch at the rear of the building. So what we have done is kind of taking that as a reference, if you go to sheet, two sheets from or maybe not the sheet right after that sheet. Two perspectives have been added. One is the first perspective is taken from Morehead Avenue, looking down that alley C. And you can see the roof in the front, the bearing plate is above the second floor. And then we have a roof, a room that leads out to the roof deck and that bearing plate at the mirror lands at that third floor. And then it transitions to a wooden pergola structure that we've added to cover the roof deck on that end unit. So that form of that roof is a little bit less severe. And previously it seems that it was probably hard to understand what that roof form was doing in two dimensions, which is why we've added the perspective but we've also added the pergola to help make that roof seem a little bit more and keeping with the precedent that we found on 813 Vickers. And then the second perspective is the same side elevation but taken from the rear of the building so that it's more clear what that pergola structure looks like when seen from a different angle. And those were, that was the main comment that we received regarding the buildings. I'm going to switch this over to Cindy and she can address the comments related to the trees. Carla, can you go to page 20? We'll start there. Good morning, my name is Cindy Hoffman. I'm a licensed landscape architect with over 20 years experience. Senior project manager at Stewart here in Durham. You're looking at the existing conditions and demolition plan for the proposed 68 townhomes, 11 structures. We looked at the removal of trees on the site to able to construct this proposed development. So there are 10 trees along Warhead Avenue that are proposing to be removed. And we looked at trying to save them and for various reasons that I'll explain are proposing that they're not able to be survived or protected. And there's a report in your package by a local certified arborist Blake Mills who is also here today that can answer any of your questions. He is the owner operator of Broadleaf Tree and Shrub and he's evaluated the trees on the site and submitted the report in your package on the existing trees along Warhead Avenue. His findings include majority of the trees and plants material along Warhead Avenue have become negatively impacted by the dense sprawl of ivy and excessive crowding of plant material. The existing trees, the 10 of them along Warhead Avenue will likely not survive new construction of building, grading and utilities. Site clearing construction is likely to cause additional stress to these trees and the root beds by disrupting the surrounding landscape, including the construction of the buildings and structures and pavement, extensive grading and back billing that is required, installation of underground public utilities, soil compaction from heavy vehicles and machinery, and removal of densely wooded area surrounding the remaining trees increasing their vulnerability during periods of bad weather. So therefore that puts extra stress on these trees, making them more vulnerable to disease and infestation of insects. The likelihood of these trees ability to stain quality health and structural integrity is very low. The trees along Warhead Avenue, unfortunately are therefore unsalvageable and the proposed plan to replant new trees is more viable option. The owner proposes to replace the trees with 10 new street trees, orange caliper, and the UDA only requires two and a half inch calipers, so we're putting in larger trees that are more specimen type trees and healthier. The arborist was asked if, because it came up at the last hearing, if moving the buildings back would help save these trees. And he responded that it was his opinion that moving the structures back five feet would not significantly increase the potential of preservation due to their fragile condition. Internal to the site, we're proposing removal of 20 of the trees, but then we're gonna replace them with 20 new trees to be planted internally throughout the development. And you can see that on the landscape plan. It's a couple of sheets back. There's also a tree and you can see, I think it's one more page, there's a grading, you can see how that impacts the site. It's two more sheets. Down. There, right there. I think that's the landscape. Is that landscape? Nope, that's grading. Must be one more. Oh, sorry, I said I did have a landscape plan 24. So sorry, there we go, page 24. You zoom in and see the additional new trees being recommended to be planted internally to the tree. So we're removing 20 and replacing 20 trees that are back on the site and creating the green space. And there's also the existing tree-saving area to the north along I've 147 ramp. Apologies, Carla. Is this plan sheet C5.0? That's it. It should be at the top, right? Oh, top right. I can't see because my zoom window is there. I understand this. There it is, that's C10. So I'm supposed to be looking at which page? I'm there, okay. Oh yeah, okay. Thank you. We talked about the grading too, the topography of the site. It's over 24 feet of grade change. We're proposing filling in the depressed areas to improve the grades and drainage of the site. There is a proposed to be filling up the depressed area with permission of the adjacent owner. No removal of existing trees or on that site, restoring to existing pastoral grass landscape. But we will come before you with a separate COA request with support of the owners for filling on the adjacent property. And in the spirit of Moorhead Hill Historic District, we're seeking to develop a 518 Moorhead Avenue property to correspond to the mixed use residential neighborhood. The development of the site will allow for better integration with the city's plans of infilling a vacant lots within the urban tier and the proposed use architectural style, building materials are in keeping with the historic district. And we'll be glad to answer any questions. As I mentioned, Robert Mills is also here to answer any questions regarding the existing trees on site. Thank you very much everybody for your respective comments. Do any of the commissioners have questions for the applicant before we ask to hear from any others? Seeing and hearing from nobody. I do have a quick question that might be better answered by Carla, but I will ask it of the applicant first. The revised application for a certificate of appropriateness lists in the summary proposed work that one of the revisions is to show the adjacent property owner supportive mass grading. And I understand that a subsequent COA will be necessary for that work. I'm just curious if there's anything in the materials themselves, evidencing the owner's consent to that plan. I'll jump in here, that we had submitted a letter from the neighbor that is representing the owner of the gravestone and property. So that was submitted. But yes, I mean, based on conversations Carla our understanding is that will be filed as a minor COA, which will be treated as a separate, I guess just at a staff level hearing or I don't even know if a hearing is required. But yes, that was how we were intending to proceed with it. We're in coordination with them and their civil engineer. And we had that letter of support just in concept of what we're intending to achieve. And if it is not included in this report, I apologize. It would be considered hearsay because the owner is not here to represent himself. But as Mr. Goodman expressed it will be a separate COA, which could be achieved at the minor level if the criteria are met. I think it's the last page of the package is the letter from the adjacent property owner. Yep, it's on the back of the page. I'm sorry. That's okay. My apologies, thank you. I don't know. Matt, may I ask a question to this regard? Is this the letter? This is from Robert Mills. That is from the neighbor. Okay. It's a popular name in the area. Okay. Okay, Jonathan, sorry. Do you see there's any contingency between the two? So only if the other one, if the grading will be allowed in that, well, do we approve this? Is there any connection between the two COAs in your eyes? This is a question. So would I be more likely to approve a minor COA having your approval for this one? I mean, they're separate parcels. I'll be really looking at the landmark itself, which has written into it. In the landmark designation, this topography of the site was part of the character of the property. So I will be looking to make sure that that character is still preserved of the gently rolling hills of this, the Chateau-esque architecture of the building in sight of gently rolling topography. So if they are able to preserve the majority of the topography of the site, I would be inclined to approve it. And it would not have any bearing on the neighboring property. And that is your intention, right? And this is to that again. Yes. I mean, the basic purpose of the minor COA to do the grading on the adjacent property is to do exactly what Carlo was saying, is to try to maintain that natural rolling hill and prevent a situation where we kind of have a swell where we transition to our new development. So we want to be able to ease that break and kind of make for a more natural transition. So that was why we wanted to be able to spill over across the property line and maintain that more natural condition. Thank you. Any other commissioners with questions for our applicant? Okay. Is anyone else present who would like to speak for or against this case? Seeing and hearing from nobody, we will close the public hearing and discuss among commissioners. Commissioners, are we satisfied that the concerns that we had addressed back in December have been adequately addressed? Does anybody have any concerns about what is now being proposed? I think I was particularly vocal about the roof form and I'm feeling like the team here has addressed the question I was asking. So thank you for that. Thank you, Commissioner Feaseman. Anybody else? Okay. Do we have any recommendations from staff? Carla Rosenberg Planning Department, staff would recommend approval of the application provided that I think my biggest concern is that the tree replacement adequately compensates for what is being taken away. And I know it won't achieve the same level but just making sure that there are enough trees that are visible from the street. Carla, do you have any concerns about what is currently proposed with respect to the language replacing the trees to be removed with ginkgo, biloba, maples and oaks, 10 street trees and 15 interior canopy trees? Yeah, I think it will take a long time to get back to that level but I think, yes, I would approve it. I would recommend approval. May I ask a question with regard is the 15 to the 15, is the 15 to the 20 or is the size of the trees for the interior a lot? The outside, I think street trees is exactly the same number, right? The replacement. The replacement of 10 new street trees and then the interior. 15 to 20, I'm not mistaken. 15 replacing 20. Carla, I think the confusion might come in at pages four and five of the staff report which references the proposed removal of nearly 20 canopy trees from the site. The top of page five references approximately 15 new trees to be planted throughout the site. The proposed motion would have 10 street trees and 15 interior canopy trees, so a total of 25 trees. Here compared to 20. I can see that Cindy's got her hand raised if we... Let's reopen the public hearing for clarification on this issue. Ms. Hoffman, if you could, in addition to whatever you would like to add, help us understand how many trees total are being removed and from what locations and how many trees are being replaced and what locations. Okay, thank you. Along Moorhead Avenue, there are 10 existing trees to be removed and we're replacing with 10 forage caliber, larger trees and along Moorhead Avenue. And additionally, there are 20 trees interior to the site that are being removed and we're replacing with 20 new trees. So it's a one for one for the tree and we're increasing the caliber for those along Moorhead Avenue. I know the staff report says 15, but it's 20. I went through and counted again. You're increasing the caliber from what is required but not from what is existing, right? We're increasing the caliber for those 10 trees along Moorhead Avenue, correct. So there are 10 along Moorhead and there are 20 interior to the site, they're total 30. But the current caliber is larger than four of the existing. Correct. It's really hard to hear. You're increasing from what the UDO requires. Correct. It would be really hard to replace a 12, 13, 14. Exactly, yeah, but yeah. But yes, I think orange caliber is a large tree. It's a nice size tree. And that's what would go in immediately and it would grow larger, presumably. Yes, their shade would be today trees and that orange caliber is the installed size. So I would recommend approval. Well, I've been taking notes and I would be happy to make the motion. The Durham Historic Preservation Commission finds that in the case COA 210084518 Moorhead Avenue new construction. The applicant is proposing 11 new structures containing 68 townhome units accompanied by a clubhouse on a currently vacant parcel. Three two and a half story buildings will fall adjacent Moorhead Avenue, set back 15 feet from the right of way, 22 feet from the curb, and eight others may reach 3.5 story buildings will be adjacent and perpendicular. The buildings will be constructed with brick veneer foundations, horizontal seven-titious fiberboard siding at first and second levels, vertical board and batten style seven-titious siding at the top level, asphalt shingle roofs with metal roofed dormers, aluminum guardrails on balconies and porches, and double hung fixed and casement aluminum clad wood windows. Windows will consist mainly of double hung one over one with additional casement and fixed panel, aluminum clad wood units across the elevations, carriage, house style, garage doors will be steel with clear glazing, ground level entrance doors will be solid wood. A parking lot of permeable pavers will be located behind the street-facing buildings at a depth of at least 10 feet below street level, accessed via two asphalt drives measuring 20 feet in width. Concrete walkways will lead from the street to primary street-facing entrances as well as along the drives and parking areas. 10 black aluminum lamp posts, 12 feet in height with LED fixtures will be dispersed throughout the parking areas, subject to a Duke Energy lighting plan. All utilities and garage equipment will face the interior of the site out of view from the street and the adjacent landmark property. A grove of mature trees will be preserved along the rear lot line. All other trees are to be removed from the site and replaced with ginkgo, baloba, maples, excuse me, maples and oaks. 10 street trees along Moorhead Avenue with minimum four inch caliper and 20 interior canopy trees. Therefore, the conclusion of law is that the proposed addition and alterations are consistent with historic character and qualities of the 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 210084 518 Moorhead Avenue 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 the COA. Where to the improvements may require additional approvals from other city or county departments or state or local agencies. The applicant is responsible for obtaining all required approvals relating to building construction, site work and work in the right of way. In three, a compliance inspection shall be performed immediately upon completion of the work approved herein. DeBerry, second. Thank you, Commissioner DeBerry for the second. May we have a roll call vote please? All right. Chair Bouchard. Approved. Commissioner Dianne. Who? Commissioner DeBerry. Approved. Commissioner Fieselman. Approved. Vice Chair Gulsby. Approved. Commissioner Calhoun. Approved. Motion passes six to zero. Thank you all very much for your work with us over these last couple of months, your patience for the process and we wish you best of luck with this project. Much appreciated. Thank you very much. Thank you. Have a great day. Thanks you as well. Okay. While Chris Peterson is allowing our next applicant into the virtual room, we introduce our next case on the agenda. This is COA 21001212 Virginia Avenue. Before we hear from staff, is there any one of our commissioners who may have a conflict of interest in hearing this case? If not, then let us proceed with the swearing in of anyone who plans to speak for or against the case. 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. Thank you. Ms. Lackerman, am I pronouncing that correctly? Close, it's Lackerman. Lackerman. Oh jeez. That's why I'm wearing these now. Don't worry. My name is mispronounced. So many different ways that it is not a big deal when it happens. Occasionally, Bouchard is as well. So I empathize. Okay, Ms. Lackman, do you consent to this hearing proceeding today using this virtual electronic platform? I do. Wonderful. Thank you very much. If we could please proceed with the staff summary. Carla Rosenberg Planning Department, this is case COA 2100104. It is 1110 Irdell Street, additions and modifications. Applicant is four for one design represented by Sarah Lackerman today. The owner is Brent and Alexandra Sirota. And it's located on the east side of Irdell Street, between West Club Boulevard and Englewood Avenue, Zoned Residential Urban Five. And it's a contributing structure in the Watts-Hillendale Historic District. So the applicant is proposing some roof form changes to allow for an unfinished attic to be finished creating additional score footage. And then there's also some changes to fenestration, including replacement of some front and side attic vents to that new living space. They'd be replaced with casement windows, as well as a rear screened porch. I'd like to introduce the staff report into the record and invite Ms. Lackman to present her case. Hello, everyone. This one, I think, is a pretty straightforward attic conversion. If you could flip down to maybe the proposed exterior elevations. I think that's the easiest place to talk this stuff over. That's existing. So can you keep going down a little bit? This is a sweet one and a half story cottage that has this incredibly tall front gable roof, sorry, side gable roof at the front of the house, and lots of space in the attic. So the homeowners are proposing to add these two long shed roof dormers that are hidden entirely behind that tall front gable, siding it with hardy plank and putting in windows and trim that match the original four over ones to create three bedrooms and a hangout space in the upstairs of the house. The only changes that you'll be able to see from the front are, and that if you'll scroll up one page, Carla, are taking the existing Palladian vent that is on the south side of the house and the square vent that is on the west front facade of the house and putting in casement windows to match the existing framing opening there. That's a spot, the Palladian window will be sort of at the top of the stairs that are getting you up into the attic and we really love the idea of having some light there. Other than that, the changes to the front of the house aren't changes it's maintenance, so paint and repair to the porch floor and things like that. At the rear of the house, we're adding a fairly simple gabled screen porch that is slightly inset and continues the gable pitch and angle that's coming back there. Carla, would you scroll down one to the rear? Yep, which you can see there, which would have a simple wood picket railing and stairs to the backyard. Otherwise, work being done to the house is all in the interior and this is a tax credit project. We have gotten an initial readover from the State Historic Preservation Office indicating they don't expect there to be any trouble and have submitted the full packet to them for review already. So I'm happy to answer any questions about it. I think this one's pretty straightforward. Thanks. Thank you very much, Ms. Lockenman. Do any of the commissioners have questions for our applicants? This is Andy Gouldsby. How will the the louver and the windows be treated? Is that, is there gonna be the trim coming off and I guess I'm trying to figure out if it's gonna be treated like a replacement window or if there'll be a little bit more work than that where you're actually gonna be pulling off the trim, putting it in a window and re-trimming out and doing a little siding work? We're aiming for it to be the same size as the existing vent. So I'm hoping the exterior trim, like the louvers will come out and casement window going into the same framing. If the trim is not compatible with the new window, new trim that matches the existing would be added. The goal is that it really fill the hole that the louvers are currently filling. John Fish from a campus is the contractor on this project and he has a really good track record with building windows to fit if he can't get the right window. So I, in my directions to him as designer is to really match the sizing of the louvers and not expand the opening at all. Yeah, thank you. Sure. Anybody else? We could, Ms. Lachman and Karla with reference to the pictures that are part of the application, could we get clarity on what windows are being removed? Yeah, Karla's got it. It's the little square front vent over this triple in the attic and then that Palladian vent that's on the south side, not the little half round by the fireplace that she was just, by the chimney that she was just pointing to, but only, yeah, only the two vents shown in that picture. What about the windows of the dining room that are being removed? There are no windows in the dining room being removed. That's a separate case. I think that may be that my other COA in Virginia which is coming. No, you'll have that question next go around. Yeah, there are no changes to first floor windows on this at all. So we're on case 104. Why did we skip 100? I thought I spread 100. You know what? It may be my fault because somehow the order of the pages on my screen got switched. And then inadvertently, I don't know. I apologize. No, that's fine. It took me, I was having the same issues as Matt when this began and then suddenly I was like, because I recused myself from the first one, I was like, did I completely miss the hearing? And then now I feel better. I'm on board for all of them. So we just need to keep rolling through the other packet. I'm here. But I think just for the record and for clarity, since this hearing is being recorded and everything we're doing here is a public record, we are considering, despite what I said earlier, case number COA 21-000-104-1110 Ardell Street, the dishes and modifications. Is that correct? That is correct. Okay. And we will return to case COA 21-00-100 after this case. Okay. My apologies. Mine as well. I have no further questions. Do any of the other commissioners have questions for the applicant for case COA 21-00-104? Okay. Seeing and hearing none, are there any other speakers wishing to present either for or against this case today? Seeing and hearing none, I will close the public hearing and invite commissioner discussion. Well, case COA 21-00-104. Matt, if there is none, I am happy to make a motion. Let's go ahead and ask for a staff recommendation first and then we'll move forward with that. Carlo Rosenberg Planning Department, staff would recommend approval of this application. Thank you very much. Commissioner Feaseman, all yours. Great. The Durham Historic Preservation Commission finds that in case COA 21-00-104, 1110 Irodale Street Edition and Modifications, the applicant is proposing an addition and modifications to a contributing structure. Two shed dormers will be added, one on either side of the rear roof gable of the primary structure behind the front cross gable. Each will be clad with cementitious fiberboard siding matching the width, profile and reveal of original wood siding along with matching trim and rafter tails. And its windows will consist of four over one double hung simulated divided light windows with spacer bars as well as four light casement windows proportionate to adjacent upper sashes. The home's front attic vent will be replaced with a four light casement window of similar size and proportion. The side attic vents will be replaced with fully glazed casement windows of similar size, shape and proportions. And a 200 square foot rear screened porch will attach to the previous addition. Therefore, the conclusion of law is that the proposed addition and alterations are consistent with the historic character and qualities of the historic district and are consistent with the historic properties, local review criteria, specifically those listed in the staff report and the Durham Historic Preservation Commission approves the certificate of appropriateness 4K COA 2100. I think we're missing a zero there. I'm gonna add it in my motion. 2100104 1110 Irodale street addition and modifications with the following conditions. One, the improvement shall be substantially consistent with the plans and testimony presented to the commission at this commission hearing and attached to the COA. Two, the improvement shall require additional approvals from other city or county departments or state or local agencies. And the applicant is responsible for obtaining all required approvals relating to building construction, site work and work in the right of ways. And three, a compliance inspection shall be performed immediately upon completion of the work approved herein. Second. Okay, before we have a roll call vote, point of clarification for Carla, once we get to triple digits for case numbers in any given calendar year, are there two zeros or three zeros before? Yeah, it's two zeros with triple digits. Okay. So just when we work on the draft minutes, Madam Clerk, if we could make sure that the case is listed as COA 2100104. Okay, so my motion takes that into account that for that first COA, the motion would read as written, but with a deletion of one zero the first time that COA number appears. Great. Thanks. Okay, Madam Clerk, roll call vote please. Yes, one moment. Second it. Take it with Jonathan. Okay. All right. Chair Bouchard. Approved. Commissioner Dayan. Move. Commissioner DeBerry. Approved. Commissioner Feeselman. Approved. Vice Chair Gulsby. Approved. Commissioner Hamilton. Approved. Commissioner Calhoun. Approved. Motion passes seven to zero. Wonderful. Thank you very much, Ms. Lachman. Sorry for the confusion there, but congratulations on having this COA approved and good luck on the project. Thank you. And while Mr. Peterson brings in our next presenters, I'll introduce our next case, hopefully accurately this time. COA 21001001212 Virginia 18. Avern, excuse me, 1212 Virginia Avenue modifications. Before we hear from staff, is there any one of our commissioners who may have a conflict of interest in hearing this case? Okay. Seeing we're hearing none, if we could please proceed with swearing in of anyone who plans to speak for this case. Yes. 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? It's Sarah Lachman again, and I do. Deja vu all over again. And Ms. Lachman, do you confirm consent to this hearing moving forward on this remote electronic platform? I do. Wonderful. Thank you very much. Carla, if we could have a staff report please. Carla Rosenberg, Planning Department. This is case COA 21001001212 Virginia Avenue modifications. The applicant is 401 Design LLC, represented by Sarah Lachman. The owners are Suzanne Buckley and Jeremy Magged, located on the east side of Virginia Avenue between Woodrow Street and West Club Boulevard, zoned residential suburban eight, a contributing structure to the Watt-Tillendale Historic District. The applicant is proposing to construct a rear screen porch, which would involve taking out two original windows and replacing with a pair of French doors for access to the rear porch. And then the applicant is also proposing to remove some large pine trees in the street yard. Like to introduce the staff report into the record and invite Ms. Lachman to present her case. Hello again. All right, on this one, if we could go down to the proposed first floor plan, I think that's the easiest place to look at it. And I wanna start by talking about the tree because I think that's pretty simple. There is a large fast growing pine tree about eight feet off the front porch, or sorry, the facade of the house that the homeowners would like to remove. And I know we went back and forth with a bunch of different site plans on this, but it isn't showing up. It's basically where the brick pavers on that front walkway are listed, and there it is shown in photo. They are very happy with replanting a good size. I think it was a maple that they've selected to replant in the front yard further away from the front facade, and that's the goal. So the species of tree is not significant to the neighborhood, and it's young despite its size. So it is not a historic tree by any stretch of the imagination, they just like something that's further away from the house. So that's the tree. And then actually that next photo of the rear of the house is I think useful for talking about the screen porch. This is a fairly narrow lot and a sort of strange floor plan with the house. So as they currently use it, this back room is an office and a guest room, and it has the only exit directly to the back yard beside that pair of windows you see on the right. It's through sort of a private space though, because it's a guest room. And when they approached me about designing a screen porch, we talked over a lot of places that can go and that can't fit on the side of the house. It needs to go in the back for obvious reasons, both because of the narrowness of the lot and the historic district. And putting it off of the office guest room direct like straight out the back, both leads to roof form issues and is not how they use the house. So this corner where the existing back door off the office guest room comes out and the pair of windows, that's their dining room. And to have that go straight to the screen porch is really the very logical location for it. We went through a lot of possible ways of getting out to that screen porch. And the thing that makes the most sense both in terms of historic patterns in the neighborhood and the flow of their house is to put the doors where that pair of windows are. Now, I know removing existing original windows is something we do our best to avoid. But in this case, there really wasn't a better form for it. They are committed to saving those windows for future use. And I know that that is not something that y'all have jurisdiction over, but you can know the intention is there and replacing those pair of windows with a pair of French doors of the same width and same head or height to lead out to a new screen porch. The aluminum siding that is wrapping the house is gonna stay except on that wall and the adjacent office wall where they wanna expose the original siding and repair it. Long-term and not part of this is that they would love to turn that downstairs bedroom into a first floor primary suite and add on stuff there. That's when they hope to reuse the original windows and when hopefully they would also remove the aluminum siding on the other house. But I know that's not for evaluation on this particular COA, but just so you know the long-term plans. Could we go down to the proposed floor plan or exterior elevations, whichever? Yeah. So here is new screen porch that's showing on the bottom left-hand corner. It's got a hip roof that matches the office. It does extend out the side corner of the house because of how narrow it is, but that is tucked behind the original mud room, which I think was a side porch to begin with there. Fairly simple wood columns. They're gonna do a conduit railing and stairs down to the backyard and finish it out with details that match the existing architecture with a nice wide beam and wood flooring and things like that. So I know that inherently we do our best to not remove original windows, but it really is the best location and siding for this screen porch on the house and the best way to get there. So I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you very much for that presentation. Commissioners, do we have any questions for the applicant? Commissioner Hamilton, I had one question. Understanding the flow and everything else. Why did you not choose to relocate those windows to where you're removing the door from the office? Was there not an ability to reuse them currently so that we can ensure? As you said, it's great to store them for future use, but if they could be reused now in a way that we could ensure that they're maintained properly, that would be obviously the desire. So I guess my question would be why could they not have been switched door for window for door? Part of it is the expense of reframing that wall and not wanting to put the money into that at the moment. The general plan, can I annotate when I'm a guest? Is that possible? I think so, I'll check. I think it is. I think we had that happen in a previous hearing. Wonderful. We'll double check. So here is where eventually long-term this would become a primary suite. The narrowness of this front office means that this chunk of it is probably gonna be bathroom and closet. And if we put in those windows on that screen porch wall now, they will have to be removed and moved again in this future plan. So that's another piece of it, is just not having to remove and install and remove and install another time. Mr. Hamilton, any follow-up? No follow-up questions. Any other commissioners or questions? I guess, Sandy Volsby, I've had a few questions about the roof forms. First is on the office, the existing office portion of the house. The screen porch appears that it's basically gonna, I'm gonna use a, not the correct terms here, but kind of butt up, slam into this office portion. So how's the overhangs and the soffits gonna be treated of the office? Are they going to be removed? And my line of questions kind of getting to if the screen porch was ever removed, is the historic nature of that roof form being retained? My second question, if you can also answer it, is about the cricket that will be between the two roofs. So the roof of the office and also the screen porch. In the drawing one elevation from the backyard, it appears that cricket is gonna come right underneath the windowsill, if not kind of come right into it. And could you kind of describe what the intention is gonna be there in terms of ensuring that the roof flashing and things like that do not impede on the existing windowsill, but that there will be some room kind of left again in the event if the screen porch was removed, the historic portion of the building are intact. Sure, Karla, could you scroll to the rear elevation? Up one? Yeah. So the, yes, the eaves along the office side that butt up to the screen porch would be impacted by this. I think they need to be caught back as the framing joins. And then that said, we're gonna run that same line of eaves and soffit all the way around. It'd be the sort of thing that if screen porch were ever removed, I think there'd be ample evidence of where the original eaves had come back and wrapped around. That would make reconfiguring this roof or putting the roof back to its existing state, its current state, a simple process. The cricket will be as low pitched as it can. It just needs to be about two over 12 pitch to fill in that space between the two hips. And I know in the elevation, it really does look like it's coming right up to that that sill, but that would be the top of the flashing so that the sill itself is not impacted and they get good water flow out of that away from the house. How, what's the distance you would put between the bottom of the sill and the top of that flashing? I don't know that we have gotten that precise with our cricket locations in the past, but I'd be happy to put it at whatever you'd like me to put it at. Again, I just want there to be enough work in your room that if it's removed, that you don't have to pull that window sill out. Oh yeah, no, I entirely appreciate the intention. I just don't know that I've needed to think that through at that level of detail for an HPC meeting so I can't give you a specific inch distance. I'd like there to be a good six inches in between. Thank you Vice Chair Gulsby. Any other commissioners with questions for the applicant? Hey, seeing and hearing none. Is there anybody else present at this hearing who would like to speak for or against the application? Seeing and hearing nobody else. I will close public hearing and open the floor for a commissioner discussion and I'll kick it off. I guess chairs prerogative. I didn't see anything about the tree removal in the application materials themselves. Carla, is this tree not something we need to consider or is this something that we will need to increase the motion? It said attachment to, but I didn't see attachment to. Attachment to is supposed to be the staff report. So it had the picture of the tree had the image of the tree here. I didn't see anything in the materials themselves, the staff report itself talking about the tree removal. That's, I just missed it. We went back and forth between what fit into the minor COA and what fit into the major and I had thought that. That fit in the minor. I think that tree ended up in the minor. Okay. Okay, so not the consideration today. Great. Any commissioners have concerns about the removal of the original windows? Yeah. Commissioner Hamilton, I'll start this off. I completely appreciate that they have future plans for them, but without plans being submitted for reusing them now, I don't really, I mean, I'll leave it up to the rest of the commissioners, but to me it seems like not having them included now. And I understand that like in the future they're going to have to be removed again, but that plan could also never come before us. They could, any number of things could happen and these applicants could never, these applicants could never come back with this master suite addition for any number of reasons. And so like intent is great, but enforceability is better. So I just am finding it problematic to approve this with a future COA being where these would be used and they're not currently applying for that. So that's my concern. Nice, massive question to that regard. Let's say they didn't even talk about retaining or keeping the windows. Wouldn't you approve the work anyway? Not mentioning it at all. Yeah, so mine, I think to me it was like, okay, I don't have a problem with replacing the windows with the doors, but I do see that there's an easy solution of then putting the windows back where the door had been to ensure that they are like still retained because there's a criteria about what is it? Retaining them and like, I can't remember what exactly the criteria is like. So to me, it just seemed like that was like an obvious, like, okay, for the flow of the house, it does make sense to replace them with the doors, but then it seems like there's this obvious spot of like a hole where the door had been to at least put one of those windows back. And so I don't know. I guess I'll leave it to the rest of the commission if they think it's okay to lose the two windows because they are on the rear. And I see your point. It is rear facing, but yeah. Cools me. Katie, I think one of the criteria that speaks to it is undertaking the addition in a manner that if it was removed that it's for nature, it's still retained. So the opening being the same size and being able to put those windows back in. One thing to chew on though is once, I believe and anyone can correct me if I'm wrong, that once the addition takes place, that portion of the exterior is no longer in our property. So if the port had been put on before the window is removed, then the windows could be taken out at any point and we would have no say over that. Carl Rosenberg Planning Department. I'll also point out another criterion. It's F2 that deals with window openings when they're added or removed for kitchen or bath arrangements. This is a dining situation, but it is allowed for that reason. Is the intent there, Carla, to ensure like co-compliance, egress? The intent there is to allow some flexibility to allow for changes that deal with life quality. For kitchen and bath, people want to be able to update those areas of the house primarily. And so to have some flexibility for those specific uses, that was the intent. I guess I've got a question and I might need Ms. Lockeman's assistance in answering it. Piggyback's on something that Katie was mentioning. In addition to the doors being added, it sounds like a door is being removed. There is a door from the existing office. It's right beside those windows in the photo that is being removed. I can, Carla, can you scroll up to the Sandborn map? This room on the back is this little bump that has the one on it. It's at the rear of the lot. And it is not, I was hoping that this would show a little bit differently there. That room is not finished as an original, like the windows at the rear of it are not original to the house. And that door is, it's like a steel six panel door. It isn't original. So that door is being removed and sided over. It's also shoved straight up into the corner, like it's in an awkward space. So I have not, zoom out a chitchat, Carla, it's all blurry. I'm not sure if this was back porch with that dotted line that has since long gone. The way this house was sited originally, it was sort of intended to have two fronts and that would have been a side porch then. I'm not, that's sort of overly complicated to get into. No need to. But the room at the back there is not, is not an original part of the original enclosed footprint and the windows and doors, they're there and not original to the house. That's the short answer. It's all good. The reason I brought it up was to ask a follow up question, which was to sort of gauge your reaction to commissioner Hamilton's suggestion that perhaps one of the two windows to be removed could be placed in the location of where that doors can be removed. The, I think that the homeowners are really, would love to keep those as an intact pair. Breaking them up and finding like, that's one of those that sounds really good in theory to use the opening, but in terms of the rope and weight pockets and this, that and the other, it would involve changing that opening significantly. It's also shoved way up in the corner against the dining room wall. Can we go to the existing floor plan maybe, Karla? Sorry, I wish I could steer. Yeah, anytime if you have page numbers to PDF, that's easier to do. So that's proposed. It's this gray bar is where that would be filled in or yeah, if you want to go up one, that's not true. Existing, okay. Yeah, so it's this yellow and it's way up close. So it would be almost colliding with the doors if we put a window in there. So, and would involve the same reframing of the wall. Yeah, okay. That's what I was looking for. I'm gonna re-close the public hearing and reopen the commissioner's discussion. Obviously we have a concern expressed by one of our commissioners, Commissioner Hamilton about not being able to support this application is currently drafted. Curious to know if there are other commissioners who share the concern about the windows. Katie, I understand what you're saying, but I'm able to support this proposal as is I'm also gonna need to go for my other meeting. So I'm trying to draw the conclusion if I can. Tad, did you wanna add something as well? I just, I'm always worried about windows, but I can support this and hopefully they'll be stored and reused. I can support it as well, Matt. I just, if I understand the applicants' arguments now, it just seemed so easy to me to just move them over, but I'm a landscape architect, not an architect, so I'll listen to the professionals. Don't say yourself short. All right, any other commissioner discussion? No, I will definitely support it. Those letters need to be just kept nicely and it seems like they do have an intent to do that and that's a good thing. Thank you, Commissioner Calhoun, anybody else? Okay, I will close the commissioner discussion and ask Carla for a staff recommendation. Carla Rosenberg Planning Department staff would recommend approval of the application. Great, we have someone who would like to make a motion. Matt, I can do it. Same goals, we. All right, the Durham Historic Preservation Commission finds that in the case, COA 21001001212 Virginia Avenue modifications, the applicant is proposing modifications to a contributing structure, a screen porch measuring approximately 16 feet by 16.5 feet will be constructed of wood on the rear of the structure adjacent to an existing rear L. It's front, it's footprint, excuse me, will not surpass the boundary of the original side porch. Two original eight over one windows will be removed and replaced with a pair of fully glazed, fire blasts, French doors. Therefore, the conclusion of law is that the proposed addition and alterations are consistent with the historic character and qualities of the historic district and are consistent with the historic properties, local review criteria, specifically those listed in the staff report and the Durham Historic Preservation Commission approves the certificate of appropriateness for case COA 21001001212 Virginia Avenue modifications with the following conditions. One, the improvements shall be substantially consistent with the plans and testimony presented to the commission at this commission area and attached to this COA. Two, the improvements shall 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. And third, a compliance inspection shall be performed immediately upon completion of the work approved here. I second. And in the service of time, share my vote. Yes, and I'm gonna hang up and go. Let's go ahead and just get a roll call about clerk Holmes. If you could start with Commissioner Fiesemann, please. Commissioner Fiesemann. Approved. That's it. Chair Bouchard. Approved. Commissioner Dayan. Who? Commissioner DeBarry. Who? Vice Chair Gulsby. Approved. Commissioner Hamilton. Approved. Commissioner Calhoun. Approved. Motion passes seven to zero. Thank you again, Ms. Lachemann, for your participation in this process and good luck on both of these projects. Thank you very much. Have a good day. You too. Commissioners, how about a brief comfort break before we consider our last case? Five minutes? Enough? 1035? Okay, see you shortly. I think it's fair to say that architects are really cool workplaces, workspaces. Andy, your set up there looks pretty remarkable. Yeah, look, I can do this too. Very nice. I spent more time in this spare bedroom in the last two years. I can't help but acknowledge it. We couldn't do it. We banded together and said we were all gonna protect each other and work in the same space. That lasted about, I don't know if it lasted about three months for us. That's great. That's great. We did sort of a hybrid thing. We're still doing it. The firm policy is try to spend at least half your time in the office, client development activities, mentoring, team building, all that good stuff. But I've been kind of just hanging out here at the house during the Omicron wave and we'll probably go back to the office two, three days a week sometime soon. Now the case numbers are starting to come back down. Yeah. I've been exposed so many times in the last three months that I've been at home more than in the office because you have to stay home. I don't even think I just can't get it. Like I was in a house with somebody who had it and was symptomatic for a week at Christmas. Still, I didn't get it. I'm starting to think I'm just like immune because I've just been stupid and not gotten it and I don't know how. It's your superpower. I don't know. I do think I have one of those blood types that they say is less likely to get it because it's been like that. Work for gander development. I know. All you know is that it's not steward anymore. Yeah. Yeah, I work for gander development. It's a brand new company. So, but it's out in RTP off Miami Boulevard is where I work, so. Well, congrats on the move. All right. If we could have Ted and Amanda and Jonathan put their cameras back on. Okay. I think we're all back. Let us go ahead and resume hearing certificates of appropriateness. The last one on our agenda for today's hearing is case COA 2100109 400 West Main Street. Before we hear from staff, is there anyone 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. Can 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 affirm. All right. Okay. Going in order, starting with Mr. Oliver, do you consent to this case being heard using this remote electronic platform? Yes, sir. I consent. And Ms. Ross? Yes, I consent. Looks like we had somebody else join us, Alden West. Yes, I can say it. And there's something going on with my video. It's showing up all blurry. Not really sure what's happening there, but I'll just leave it off if that's okay. If you present, we would love to see your video. Yeah, again, I don't, it's blurry. I'm not really sure what's happening. I can maybe try to exit and rejoin. Krista, my understanding is anyone speaking on this remote platform does need to have their video on during the presentation, correct? Krista Kukris, the attorney of the office. That is the expectation from time to time. We have folks who have technical difficulties and are only able to participate by voice. So I think it's up to you, Chair, what you want to do here. Okay. Mr. West, can you speak one more time? Yeah, sure, can you hear me? I can, just wanted to recognize your voice. You have consented to the case being heard on the remote platform. I believe we need to make sure you take the oath as well. So if Clark Holmes, you could administer the oath to Mr. West. Yes. Do you swear or affirm 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 in belief? I do. Great, thank you. Carla, I think we're prepared to move forward with the staff summary. Right, Carla Rosenberg planning department. This is case COA 2100109 411 West Main Street. New construction. The applicant is Stewart, represented by Alden West. The owner is five point center Durham LLC. It's located within the boundaries of North Great Jones Street, West Main Street and Moore Street. It's owned downtown design core and it's a non-contributing parcel in the downtown Durham historic district. So the applicant is proposing to construct a 29-story tower. This is on a lot where a previous approval for demolition that came through a couple of months ago. It was approved without a delay. So I'd like to introduce the staff report into the record and invite the applicant to present his case. And feel free to tell me what page number you want me to skip to since it's a large document. Yes, it is. Crystal's okay if I go ahead and go first, talk about site plan after that. Yes, please, thank you. Okay, Chairman Bouchard and commissioners, thank you so much for your time today. As this is a very large project. We appreciate your time kind of going through this. The intent is really to kind of go through and talk about sort of what we've been working on obviously and get a good understanding in this large project. Removing the South Bank project that we agreed to back in November for a demolition site has given us a real opportunity to come back with a significant mixed use development and get back to a more, we'll call it a traditional model of sort of building to the street edge, that the city and the block and the attempt to reflect and reinforce downtown cores, diversity and historic community and but providing, maintaining a sophisticated, modern sustainable interpretation of what that means. And so we've looked at some concepts for streetscapes and from a sighting, we've looked very clearly at trying to pay close attention to the review criteria for the placement of the site, the placement of the building, excuse me, the scale and the height, obviously, the design elements and materials. The easiest thing to do probably is go to sheet 29 Carla, which is the site plan just to get everyone sort of referenced on the, just get them a clear understanding of where it sits on the overall site and zoom out. Again, it's, yes, thank you. No further, there you go. So essentially we'll be working on, right now, this project is the e-taff of the West Main, this block. It has a mixed use, like I said, a mixed use development, has a parking podium with multifamily wrap on the podium and then a multifamily and condo tower that rises out of that podium up to 310 feet. The main entrance, just so everyone's clear, the main entrance, the building is sort of mid block on Morris Street, which is the main entry for the multifamily and condominium portion of the building. On both sides of that, on the corners are large retail spaces that front and provide a significant amount of sort of frontage to the streetscape again. We've pulled back the facade at the five points corner to allow for a larger sort of pedestrian plaza. And again, I don't wanna talk over Crystal, leave some stuff for her, but we've also done something similar on the Great Jones Morris side where we've sort of pulled back and provided an outdoor plaza space there. Now if you go to, and I'll do an overview real quick, if you go to the rendering on 44, Carla, this may be the best sort of overall view and we can kind of get into the details of those, the design criteria. So this is an overall aerial view of phase one. You can see kind of phase two thoughts about what phase two might look like on the remaining block behind. Again, a six-story podium with retail that's predominantly retail on the ground floor and then multi-family podium wrap, the parking. So therefore trying to disguise or if you will, or sort of push the parking as a minor point of view overall project. If you go to the next page, actually there's a view looking up, but we can come back to this one, but the amenity deck up then on the rooftop and then on the right side of this one is the overall amenity of user to your left. But so this is a street level shot. So showing the podium and how it's set back, we do have running the covered canopies for outdoor dining and outdoor event space at the corners. And the attempt here and where you can start to see where we've subdivided this goes back to the scale of the space. What we've done is we've divided these in the vertical base to sort of create a meter on the streetscape of buildings, if you will. Again, the attempt here is to not mimic any particular architectural style, but to be sensitive to the overall scale and scope of typical traditional sort of downtown district facade elevations and multiple buildings along those block frontages. So we've got a variety of vertical openings and gathering of elements. So if I go to, I was looking at sort of the scale and height where right now the overall building again is 310 feet similar in height to one city center. So a bit taller than some of the other buildings, obviously the podium is at 75, which is in keeping with some of the other buildings. I think there's a misprint in the actual application about directly across the street. This is really more about being sort of in keeping with other projects or other project buildings that are along Main Street. Snow building, which is anywhere from 75 to 85, which is the Viceroy building. I think that's the next two pages down. Yeah, if you go down one more, I think there's Durham ID, which is a block away, but they're in the middle right, we call it the Viceroy building. And I apologize if I getting the names wrong in these buildings. I'm not nearly as familiar with the sort of local names on the buildings themselves. But we also looked at a block further down, obviously, is the Durham Hotel 21, which is again, 78 feet. So there's a variety of projects of this similar scale within a block or two of the site that we were kind of saying, well, this is being referenced to that again, breaking up the vertical nature of the building, the facades. Then also, if you can stop right there, Carla, I was gonna say on the top sheet, next one down, I'm sorry. It's the buildings right across right. So as a reference point then, when we look at sort of how we do the design elements and break up the window elements, when we get to the elevations, we'll talk about how we've gathered windows in large frame format similar to the building right in the center, which is across the right of way on Main Street with a large window in the center and the smaller windows in the side or the building in the bottom where we've gathered these windows over multiple stories and combine them in larger frames in an attempt to sort of again, break up and barricade the facade expression using brick, metal panel, multi-like glass windows. Actually, the elevations in are on 38. So the podium then is broken into a series of four, five, let's see, one, two, three, four, five, six buildings, if you will, is kind of the thought process here. Similar to gathering some of the windows, so like in the left-hand corner, that thing mass, if you will, is broken out, projects out from the face of the built, the portion of facade next to it. Brick fascia, large frames adding two windows or two stories of windows together similar to the building across the way in a little bit different scale than breaking down into multi-light windows. The portion between some of the brick piers is actually a metal panel and window wall inserts. So again, a high quality material, more in keeping with sort of, we'll call it an industrial or a warehouse field from a window size, those are actually, these all have, they're not all operables, but they're a number of operable windows that are in this facade. I don't know if you can zoom in close enough to see them as they're called out, but we have some, they're big tilt windows similar to what you'd see in a more traditional kind of warehouse style. And then breaking up the base of the building with a number of smaller pier to sort of give a meter and a rhythm to it that varies as you walk down Morris Street, specifically the building called facade in the far left, deep recessed windows so there's indoor, dining can happen within those sort of enclosures of the brick piers. And then having some repeat and mirroring of these elements to provide some variegation to how that facade is perceived and reviewed. Again, not an attempt to mimic anything in particular, but sort of being sensitive to sort of how the scale of the buildings of this size are up here in other locations throughout. I think there's anything else that I've missed here in general terms. We have some really wide right of ways across, in fact, one of the, if we go back to the site plan, excuse me, Carla, which is 29 again. We can go into any more detail you want on any of these items again, it's a lot to digest. And I apologize if I run through it, we've obviously been working on this a long time. So what seems like I've seen a lot of times, obviously as maybe the first time you've seen these. So by pulling back the facade on the retail space and providing that plaza, we actually now have the closest building across the five points corner straight to the south is about 120 feet away. So now we're more than twice what a standard right away separation would be. The original South Bank building was 90 feet. We've pushed the building a little bit, about 50 feet closer to the curb in this location and we've dropped 15 feet out of it. So again, trying to keep something in the correct scale or proportion to sort of what's happening around the downtown core. And being sensitive to that. Alden, did I miss anything? Is there anything that I've sort of lost over? Is there anything else, Crystal, you wanna talk about in the corners or Alden, you wanna talk about on the plazas of the corners? This is Crystal Ross, I was just gonna add a little bit about the site intentions and mostly the streetscapes. We're trying to create kind of a synergy with the existing conditions and context of the downtown area. Give you with the same materials, the same type of scale and canopy trees and all that kind of stuff. The improvements will be predominantly hardscape and then, you know, landscape planters you can see in both the plazas, a little bit of planting along the streets, Morris and Main Street, sightlining as well for sure. And the plazas, the bottom one on the, you know, what we're calling plaza A on the south side, we're just trying to provide more of a flexible space, you know, an indoor outdoor kind of opportunity there with the retail that Phil has proposed in that corner, creating kind of opportunities for street activities that kind of vibe with the rest of the outdoor plazas and that intersection there. And then on the northern plaza on Great Jones and Morris, you know, creating sort of a gateway into the city center down there along that streetscape. I think that's mostly at first sight. Okay, okay. I mean, ultimately, I think our goal for this project is to completely reinvent this block from a vehicular based, you know, block and getting it back to really a pedestrian experience, you know, putting the, putting a retail back on the street level, on the street frontage, taking the big, you know, traffic and moving in board and hiding it with the, you know, the mass of the building, providing tremendous amount more of obviously retail experience. And then again, the plazas of the corners to provide, you know, further reinforce the five points corner and give a sense of, you know, you know, building element of the corners is the intent and the overall project. So. And also to add to that, as part of our demo COA, we included some photos of what five points looked like prior to South Bank being constructed. And there were, you know, buildings right along the frontage of the streets on both main and Morris. And so historically, you know, prior to South Bank, you know, there was much more pedestrian friendly area, you know, built right to the adjoining streets. And South Bank kind of did away with all that and put a building in the middle of the site. And so this, you know, new construction will kind of return, you know, the property back to more like it used to be historically. Well, thank you all very much. I'm going to go ahead and ask my fellow commissioners if they have any questions about what they've just heard or any other aspects of the application. So what is the facade of the West facing podium gonna look like since I assume it will, at some point, adjoin whatever comes next? Oh, phase two, Commissioner Berry, is that what you're gonna asking about? Right. So what's it gonna look like until phase two happens? Oh, temporarily, I see what you're saying. I think, has that elevation shown in here? Next one, I think. Oh, actually, look at the axons that work. Okay, right now, there you go. C4 is the detail there, right? Or C1. So right now the brick will return, basically appear, and then we're doing CMU infill between the precast or the cast in place deck elements. And then right now, tentatively, looking at graphic, large graphic panels to use on that facade for a variety of ownership is excited about using that as an opportunity for sort of public art is sort of the intent right now. The thought process right now is while this project is under construction, we'll actually be coming back to you with phase two. This is about a 32 month build, a 30 month build all in. And they are, I want to say chomping at the bit is probably a little bit of a clash of euphemism, but working hard on phase two to sort of complete the block. So right now that's sort of what's terribly shown that it will not have a full facade because that would all have to get torn off immediately upon completion, basically. So right now that's the placeholder for the large graphic panels. And the property, will it be just surface parking or seated with grass or? I think the final outcome after just seated with grass is what the final, and Alden, you correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that's what it is right now. I don't think the intent is to actually replace the parking in kind. Yeah, because that'll be used by the contractor basically as a lay down area while phase one is being constructed. And then the idea of being that'll kind of roll into construction of the phase two building so that the actual lot may not ever need to be seated and grassed because of the construction of phase two will occur prior to that. Yeah, my concern here is that downtown and all over Durham many well-intentioned projects never get to phase two. And I just worry about that sort of raw edge ending up being the default. I'm not sure what can be done about it, but the economy is shifting even as we speak. And I'm hopeful you'll get your phase two and it'll all be tidied up, but nothing's certain. Understood. Carlos in the planning department, could you clarify there will be four graphic panels? What's the material? These will be about four stories high. What will be the material? Right now they're looking at like printed vinyl. Okay. So would that be like a more sort of like a softer, not rigid panel then? Yes. I think that's more like a printed banner. I assume those would have to come by you, Carl at least maybe by us. Yeah, I'm contemplating whether it should be added to the COA as an additional motion point. We don't review graphics. It's really the material and the size that we would be reviewing. So because these have been shown on here, we could add it to the COA noting the materials and size or we could do it as a separate COA. But since it is drawn on here, I think that's sufficient. As long as they're not promotional and they're just- Right. They have to be- Understand. Right, right. Thank you for that discussion, Carl and Mr. Oliver and Commissioner DeBerry. Any other questions for the applicant? Yeah, I have a comment. The original, the photo of the original building that was on the site is quite interesting. And it had on it a corner of five points. It had a sign saying five points. Do you have any intention of having that site identified as in fact high points on that building? It was a drugstore on the first floor. And I know you at this particular point don't know what vendors are coming in because of the ground floor of the podium. But you have five points drugstore here. It's a very nice photo. I don't know if you can show it, but at any rate, do you have any intention of a signage that would designate this as five points? I'm just making some notes. Excuse me, Commissioner. I don't think we have anything on the building per se. You have another name for the building. The name of the project. The name of the building. I think that name was for... I'm sorry, John. I think that the five points was for a drugstore that was placed in that corner. Yeah. That was the name of the drugstore, yeah. Another building. I see. Okay. So this building will have a name? It does, ma'am. It's called the Novus. That's right. It'll be in the U.S. Yes, ma'am. The drugstore was not on that corner. It was in the middle there. Correct. It's in the area now that is where the restaurant has its outdoor heating area. This corner has always been a little more of a square. So if any of this pertains to the design of the building that needs to be discussed, we can talk about, you know, whether that meets the criteria. Otherwise we can move the discussion along. Commissioner Gould, I've got a few questions for the applicant. Regarding the elevations and the rhythm and form. And the podium. I'll start with the podium height. If you could just kind of talk through. Which buildings. That are contributing to the district that you're pointing to as your, your precedent for establishing your, your podium. The application shows a lot of buildings with heights measured to it, but many of them are not contributing in summer outside of the district. So if you could speak to really how you established your podium height with contributing projects. Okay. I was going to say, let me, let me go and call up which page it is. So the Marriott doesn't qualify as a contributor. That's a joke. No. I was looking at, if you go to sheet 47. And where, right. Particularly, I think we've called it out as the bike story building. I believe it's called the snow building, the snow building, excuse me. Specifically we talked and we're looking at. The height of the building and then the sort of, we'll call it the adder, which is the additional sort of. Tower at the corner on the, on the West facade was one that we thought was again, it's half a block up the street. We went the Durham hotel. If you go in the lower right hand corner. It's the 21 hotel. Is approximately 80 feet. 21 C. 21 C. Excuse me. Yes. Yes. Yes. Sorry. That's approximately 80 feet similar in height, similar in scale. And then obviously. Now we're using one city center as an example, but obviously that's, you know, it's not traditional. And I don't know if that's, it's obviously not contributing. The building on the West main. Corcoran street. Is 100 feet. That's the one on the right hand side. So we're, you know, we're kind of looking at the downtown district as a whole and be within a couple of blocks of the, of the, the site saying, well, there are some fairly large, some larger buildings that are nearby that sort of were reference points for the scale of this. And I think that's, you know, I think that's, you know, I think that's, you know, an understanding sort of that, that the downtown core as a whole. And again, having some wider setbacks. I think we felt like that was. Appropriate relative to some, some anchor, you know, sort of corner elements within the city. Does that answer your question? Come on. Yeah. It helps clear up about that for me. Okay. Which one's your point to, to establish. Right. My, my second question is about the overall rhythm. One in the materials. When I, when I looked at your elevations and my guess is it's, it's the stair towers. Let's see. Let me get back to that. Sheets. 38, be she 38, 39, 38 East elevation. Yep. Carla, can you zoom in on the podium, particularly the left hand side. Thank you. So I know these are real building materials here values the, the graphics you have a band. So you got a bright yellow, got a bright yellow here on the left. A gray tone and then more of like a pinkish. Peach tone here in the center. That's the area where I'd like to understand kind of understanding the rhythm and order. Because when I think about buildings in downtown, I think of more. Kind of expands of materials across the facade. And this seems like a, kind of a funny break in the, in the facade, mainly because it's proportions compared to everything else. It is quite slender compared to everything else on your, your elevations and slender compared to portions. I think about in the district. And are you talking about the, the little, the peach patient in particular. Yes. So it seems like you, you kind of establish it at your, um, storefront level and then you're turning that up the building, which also even that kind of seems like a, um, a different move compared to rhythm and order. I think about in the district. Go to. Sorry. Say that again. I was going to say, if there's any examples that you've, you've established in district. Oh, I see. All right. So, um, that one's sort of a hybrid between the two and, and what I was going to say is if I looked, um, the axon, maybe the better one to read, I think, and that axon's on 41. If you don't mind, I think it's a little easier to read there. How that, that turn to sort of meter, meter between the two buildings is sort of, I guess we'd look at it as sort of a pseudo infill piece between what, you know, maybe two existing builds. And this is sort of that infill between the connection, you know, between the two buildings. Uh, left hand, lower left hand corner, I think is the one we're looking at. Yeah. So there's, there's a shift back. And so if, if, if thinking of this as a series of buildings that are built over time that, that, you know, the thought process being, uh, similar to, if you look on the left hand side, the, the, it's a three, two bay configuration of that building on the corner. If you will, if you look at it as a separate entity, same applies on the right hand side where, um, we're using that, that sliver building, if you will, is sort of a nice insert building between the two, um, to, to differentiate between the two. I was going to look and see if on the photographs, if I've got a good example of that one. Um, let me see. Get up here separately. And, and, and it's sort of thought of as, and, and maybe, and this is not necessarily the best example of it. I was going to say, if you look at page 48, um, and the attempt to sort of create a rhythm corner in particular, um, again, this is not necessarily the best example, but it's one of God is, um, on the upper right hand corner of 48. Um, and what we looked at is sort of how do you change a fenestration on the one facade? Uh, zoom out. Yeah. Side over to the right. If you don't mind. Sorry. Carla. I don't think we can see it yet. I can't see on my screen anyway. I apologize. There you go. That's it there. So on that, the, uh, Corcoran street, for instance, see how there's, there's that in the bay treated a little bit differently than the rest of the facade to create a separate element. Again, not, not the same as sort of the inverse of the, of how they mix up. Um, I don't know if I have a good photograph to address exactly your, your question. Yeah. We have all that question with your line of thinking here is, um, Remind me, is it a change in the brick color or the change in the brick, um, Finish shows it. You going from a smooth break to the. It's both. It's, it's in this instance, it's both. We're actually, well, we're actually recessing it slightly and we're changing the brick color. In that, in that instance, so we're, we're, we're taking some of the base brick color and raw and using that recessed separate element. And again, this probably didn't do myself any, any services by using these sort of odd colors, if you will. But the idea here was to sort of clear it all out the brick, but, um, the lower west, yeah, you can zoom in on that. You can see that it's a different brick color, which is actually, um, yeah, if you look at just that one there, it's, um, it's a lighter, um, brick in the same family, but a lighter color. And then we're actually using the darker brick as an accent tone within it. So there's, it's, it acts as, so it isn't as, um, straight a transition from one style to the other. It's sort of, again, this has been keeping with sort of a, um, a building that's got a little bit of an infill piece next to it to make that transition happen. At least helps clarify just the, the thinking there. Um, So I appreciate your, appreciate that. And the last thing is about the stair tower. So in this same image, I see you guys, what I'm guessing is your stair tower here on the left, breaking your, your pyramid. So you've got a, you've, you basically are establishing a parapet height around the building, but it's broken here at the stair. Well, um, one is that's on a, a street facing facade. Correct. Yes, sir. Okay. I think what I'm struggling with is when I think about the district consistent parapet heights across, uh, besides, um, and you've established one barely consistently around this, this building, but then it's broken by, by the stair tower element. Um, I don't know if I have an exact question, but it just gives me pause in terms of thinking about that elevation and breaking of that parapet and the rhythm you established everywhere else. Um, I don't know if there's anything you could, could help me out with there. Well, again, that was sort of a recall. I, you know, I think sort of, um, a little bit more, um, contemporary takes on some of the ideas. I think we were looking at in particular, again, that snow building where the vice where, where there's a big shift in the portion of it that sort of identifies it's the same facade, but sort of that one shifted up that, that there are elements again that, um, small infill pieces that sort of sort of help break up between just very large facades. Um, and so I think that's what the attempt was here. Again, that this is a visual cue to say, okay, this building is complete, if you will. And then there's this building here. And so I think was the attempt on, on this is why that stair tower is important to kind of, um, break up that, that basket spans. I know we've got some, some, um, and there's another view of it. I think either it is there to the right. Sorry. The northeast one there. Oh, no, I'm sorry. The wrong one. Uh, there it is on the top. So I think it's there using a different brick color. Um, you know, we obviously have a, uh, this odd break where we're going from one, one geometry to another. And so you had facade as, as a, as a way to meter that transition again was the thought. So just like in this case, we had a little bit more flexibility because our towers, the overall building towers set back so far. We, we felt like we had some opportunity to break the, that that, um, we had a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a, a little bit of a. Parapet height. In a little bit by here was sort of the thought, but again, this is back another 15, 10, 15 feet from the facade. So sort of an inset recess is our thought on this, this stair tower. Was there any consideration about, um, at least the last. What I'm guessing is the 10 feet. Other being able to step that back. your paraffin straight across? I don't think we looked at that. I mean, I can we can look at that and see I think that's the whole stair. I'd have to see if we can make that transition because the way the stair sits within that that stairwell. If that's something that I don't know how far we could pull it back and and make the stair work on the landing, I think it's so if that's something that would make it easier, I guess, you know, we could talk about that if that's something that's is really a significant problem. I mean, that's kind of just the approach we took. So I understand what you're getting at. What we'll probably talk about a little bit more in our communications with as a commission. Yes, sir. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. I appreciate your questions. Thank you, Vice Chair Gillespie. Other commissioners with questions for the applicants? This is Commissioner Hamilton. I just had one question for Crystal or Alden. It looks like there's planting areas along Main Street. So if we went to let me get to the actual sheet. Yeah, 29. So I'm looking at like there's these hatched areas caught out as planting area one directly to the south of your on-street parking on the east face of the block and then another couple along Main Street look like they're also planting areas. My questions are where are you seeing that in the district as far as like having planting areas in the streetscape and then like why do you that instead of just leaving it as concrete? That seems to be more typical within the district of how these sites are getting developed. So I agree. It's definitely not as popular but common in the district downtown. We introduced it more so as increasing pervious situation to kind of help with the storm water. Also kind of creating a barrier specifically on Morris Street for some of that outdoor dining seating area. But again just trying to help with the aesthetics and kind of take away some of the overall paving. Yeah to kind of add to that it's a pretty large it's a pretty large distance between the backup curb to the building there and so it would create a very large expanse of just concrete you know in this plaza area. And so this is something that we've talked about with Durham Planning as well because to the current UDO I think it has to be all hardscape from the basically from the backup curb to the right of way but that's not really the intent for you know areas that are quite this large between the backup curb and the right of way. And so it's sort of breaking that up a little bit while still maintaining you know a pretty large sort of sidewalk area as it kind of goes around the curve. Right certainly helping with the pedestrian scale and the street. Okay I think that's it for me. Thank you Commissioner Hamilton. Anybody else? Yes I'm back to the designation of that area as five points. The designation is the historic destination. There's a five point and a little five points in the history of Durham. And the question is I can't think you know I'm thinking about that whole area and I can't think of another place a better place to designate this as I don't care what you name the building you know know the style of whatever else you want to name it but somewhere in visibly to that entire intersection should be a designation that this is five points it's a destination. Designation of a destination. So are you open for that? Dr. Calhoun we don't do we do you have any particular criteria that you're pointing to that says that they must provide that designate historical designation? I'm not saying they must but you would be in for my sake. I can't think of a I'm not thinking of any other way of showing or getting that view included. No you don't have to I'm just asking if they are open to doing that. Well just to clarify that that can't have any bearing on whether this is approved or not. Yeah I'm clear I'm clear on that it's not a problem Mr. West? Yeah I mean I don't think we'd probably have to run that back by ownership. Phil you're muted. Sorry you know I think part of the reason we looked at the plaza with the planter that's there there was a discussion about you know future art you know future designation I think that's something that's obviously something that ownership would would be willing I mean I think part of this is also we're trying to work through with planning about these plazas so they're not just large you know hard skate plazas but I think there's an opportunity there then obviously in that in that area to to add some some of that information and and talk about that as part of this execution. There's also a parcel that's owned by the city that we call five points across the street where the flat iron building used to be located and that's sort of an opportunity that maybe at the city level a naming could be done. I think colloquially we all know it as five points anyway. All right yeah we know but we've got a lot of new people coming in they need to know five points existing. Okay thanks. This is Commissioner Hamilton I'm sorry I have one more question. When I'm looking at the covering of plaza A it looks like a green roof with like hedges along the building that look like foundation plantings at the second floor. I guess what was the thought behind that again it's not atypical to have a green roof but it looks a little atypical well it's atypical of anything to have foundation plantings in the downtown district. So I guess what was the thought behind putting those hedges on that green roof? I can address that Commissioner Hamilton that the owner is concerned we have units obviously looking out over the top of those canopies and so we wanted to soften that up and asked if we do an artificial turf and hedges out there to sort of buffer so if I'm in the unit looking out at the top I'm not looking at this giant roof is the intent there. The idea is that they're all artificial at this point so they don't wait you know they don't become you know dead plants out there and they yeah you can see the canopy on the lower left hand corner of the elevation and it shows up I think in the rendering as well. Did I answer your question? What's the page number of the rendering? It would be 44 or 45 I think 44 shows it clear there. A similar thing happens up in the many level where they've asked to put artificial turf on those to make sure that they're softener. All right thanks Chair Buchard if you're talking you're muted. Thank you. Any other questions from the commissioners? Commissioners having no further questions for the applicant I'll ask if there is anybody else who wishes to speak for or against this application seeing and hearing from nobody I will close the public hearing to invite discussion amongst the commission obviously you all had a lot of really sound and pertinent questions for the applicant we heard questions and responses regarding podium height finished condition of the west elevation podium and the materials might be used in that parking deck area plantings rhythm of the parapet wall at the podium obviously lots of good questions helpful comments in response to those questions I want to try to steer this conversation towards those issues that are causing commissioners you know particular pause and being able to approve this application as it currently exists and so with that I'll open up the floor for anyone who wants to kick us off. Jonathan go ahead. Thanks so Jonathan Dan I think that had a very commission or the very had a very interesting point if you drive down Main Street and phase two is not approved or because we don't have any plans for we have a main entrance to the city that becomes a parking a parking deck and then if we come from the south side we have a main entrance for with self-help and if we come from the north side we have the parking garage on Morgan it becomes every entrance to the city became a parking garage it's something that disturbs me and I don't think maybe Carla can add some should like the only criteria we have for parking is that that is three section three correct which is very vague that's correct sorry yeah right it's under site work I think it is the third section within the site work yeah and it's very vague so I'm not sure how well vague saying that it has to be compatible it really disturbs me especially when we don't know what phase two looks like and how or if it's going to be built or how is it going to conceal the good the parking garage the artwork the vinyl does not as smoothened the wounds this is commissioned will be jumping just thinking out loud here if brick material was to be brought around the corner even at the bands of the parking levels I'm thinking about the parking deck that's on new in downtown the city city a lot where you see the brick material band at the parking would that bring you know does that ease it or do you do you think anything that would conceal I agree anything that adds to concealing the cars and being a parking lot is is advantageous giving more of a finished look to right I think this is what I'm hearing by the way one city center I think did that if I'm not mistaken carl Rosenberg planning department just to throw in there as well there are design standards for this being in a design district for parking structure parking and so I believe one of the motion points is to condition this on approval of the site plan right but does the site plan discuss the appearance or how well it does but yeah yeah I have I could pull up what those requirements are but they they can deal with sort of opacity versus you know transparency screening those types of things even if they don't dictate a particular material this is commissioner hamilton they're actually pretty stringent site plan requirements for exposed parking decks you can't see the sloping of the deck and it's a lot of opaque materials and I do think they're I'd have to like be reminded and Andy might know more what I think there is something about like the materials matching the building if I'm remembering correctly um but the UDO changes pretty regularly so I could be wrong on that one but um I don't feel like what we're seeing right now in those axons is clearly reflective of like what would be required for site plan approval is that right carla because it looks like there's a lot of exposed like parking deck right now what was the question again whether so like looking at that axon that doesn't look like it would be approval at site plan like just having worked on exposed parking decks downtown and knowing how hard they are um so I guess and that might be I don't know if the architect or if you know but it doesn't look like it was not called that when I reviewed with the staff member who's doing this the site plan reviewed that wasn't called out in particular as a concern but that's not to say it's not but that wasn't one of the things that was brought to my attention okay it looks like Alden's hands raised mac should be allow them to address that absolutely let's you open the public hearing for that purpose yes um I can address that so um in discussions with Durham planning they're allowing us to um you know use basically phase two um building to help meet some phase one requirements and including like the required build two zone um and then as well as um you know that that west facade of the building um with the understanding that there there will be a phase two constructed that will cover that that facade up and so you know the site plan's approved um and if you look at the site plan it says phase two you know to be constructed at a later date and and so that's that's why you know it it doesn't meet all all the you as far as I'm aware it may not meet all the udo requirements um for parking on the west facade and and as well as like build two zone requirements because it is all you know the site is all one one parcel right now but again yeah using using the phase two building to help meet uh phase one requirements with the understanding phase two to be constructed at a later date and that's the that's the approach that um Durham Durham planning has has signed off on thank you mr west question for vice chair ghoulsby I want to make sure I understand um some of the suggestions that you've raised so looking at the northwest and southwest views we've got up on the screen but were you thinking that perhaps we could soften this make it look a little more finished if there were a brick on that facade rather than what I'm presuming is CMU block to see so we're talking about the left hand side of that uh parking entrance correct I'm actually talking about the left and the right to be honest yeah no I think I'm um I would suggest on the left hand side um I'm not as concerned about the I believe it's metal panel to the right of the the parking entrance okay I'm not concerned with the metal panel parks but at least in giving a finished condition coming around that parking and and being able to conceal the actual parking structure and you know that those lighter gray bands which I agree with you Matt I'm guessing are CMU um if that was a finished condition there um it's I agree with Tad that you know we're we can't presume on a building this important that the developer will come back I know everyone's got great intentions but who knows where the world will take us I also don't want to create a condition where we're wasting materials I mean I am sympathetic to that right um you know I think we try to do a great job of avoiding things going to landfill just by this commission so um let's keep that in mind today quick question for clarification uh Andy so describe for me the extent of the brick that you would ideally like to see on that left hand side would it just be where we are seeing the the lighter gray bands or the the entire entire face going up into the sort of exposed area yeah I think it'd be more seeing it and just getting a response from the from the designers and you know I don't want to say let's be 30 feet in to comply I mean I think there's a real concern here until we know more about the second phase um so I would leave it up to designers to propose and work with the city staff um to get an agreed upon design okay so we have identified one potential issue here um and we might need to come back to let me um open the floor to other commissioners to discuss other concerns they might have that might prohibit them from approving the application um chair buchard can we also talk about the parapet heights and whether they should because I feel like there was if I'm running from I'm remembering correctly what Andy said he wanted or Andy you'd wanted um a continuous parapet in front of the staggered one which I can agree with but I almost feel like it's either that or having more breaks in the parapet to make it more like what you see the you know main street where they aren't so consistent because it does to me it seems a little out of character the rest of the district that there's one break in the parapet and not multiple parapet heights and it's just like one consistent one and then like very isolated breaks is that what you were struggling with too or yeah I would lean towards the condition not having multiple parapet breaks in in this building um to create a condition that you know I would the building be able to stand alive for itself too um but what I'm struggling with is when I think about the district and trying to bring in um similar forms to it is that line that strikes the line across at the parapet height um I I've worn against us wanting the parapet to be taller because the building is quite tall and again with right now at least at the podium level and adding to the podium is going to increase that height to go with the buildings across the street um so having that what I'm guessing is a glass guardrail um helps bring the building building down at least at that parapet height but I saw yeah I don't I don't have a solution to the to the parapet break of those stair towers um the person I got was they were in in board so that we didn't have to worry about it but Carla Rosenberg planning department one thing that I was thinking the applicant mentioned that um he was really drawing in from the snow building and that raised tower which is a very decorative element on that building it it really accentuates whereas this tower is almost devoid of detail it's got a more utilitarian feel sort of the opposite effect and so I'm wondering if there's something design wise with this taller section that could make it more of a feature rather than and that would fit more with the character well in in this particular condition I always wonder if it's having um a similar material to the metal panel in there because to to my eye this is a personal opinion having it be a different brick color different material there calls attention calls attention to it um I don't know if my other commissioners commissioners agree or have other thoughts but um you know I think the more it can reseed and having similar materials help things reseed in my my opinion and I was just saying does it call attention in a positive way or negative way oh I'm sure none of us want the the back of the house stair to be exactly and so is there a way for it to be disguised as a more of a feature than a utilitarian feature more of an architectural feature rather than a utilitarian one is there a parallel for this condition at city center I don't know I don't think so I'm happy to do a google map search of it um are you all seeing my screen or do I need to you are we can see thank you let me know if there's anything in particular you'd like to see had nothing standing out um that's a similar condition I know they got the big elevators sent in their core don't know about the stairs and we'll say there is one other building um 300 west main but it's a side stair they accentuate it's a sort of a feature it's not yeah that's that's the one that was added on to the building exactly set back don't know I'm not able to advance here but yeah I can go to it I don't know why am I okay let me try this again sorry where's the east main it might be east main east main I'm pretty sure we're talking about the same thing right I'm going to car bro sorry no you know where I am now okay right am I still in car bro oh my goodness yeah so this condition I mean that that stair tower really set back from the street um and I think I you know my concern about the stair would be alleviated that stair was pushed back from the the street face um as opposed to being right on the street breaking the parapet I mean let me let me open it up to my to the other commissioner I mean am I the only one with this concern or um if so we'll move we'll move on why don't we proceed with having Mr. Oliver respond his hand is raised and reopen the public hearing for the purpose of receiving any additional information he might have on this issue and then when we return to commissioner discussion I think we might need to become a little bit more targeted in our conversation and we've got some staff limitations today as I understand it from the chat so Mr. Oliver please proceed thank you I appreciate and you know I'm sensitive all this is while I'm looking for a couple of other examples there is a there's a stair tower on the Carolina theater on great jones that's now it doesn't come all the way to the ground but it also sticks out by itself I'm trying to think of from a it's in Google Earth you can kind of bring it into Google Maps but there's a couple of stair tower but again they're not they're very and it comes all the way to the ground as well um I would go so far as to say city hall I don't know if that meets your your contributing building standpoint it's got the the big stair tower right in front of it as sort of a beacon element again but again I'm not trying to you know sort of mince words here relative to if there if there's a sense that again I think the intent was that it was used as a as a way to meter the the facades in a similar fashion not trying to mimic exactly what's maybe existing um uh yeah if you go to city hall you can yikes good right now and is there all or I think what I'm kind of getting at fall this line of question about the this discussion about rhythm and order and the either pair of it is um even the the buildings downtown may have really intricate brick work cornices etc details um there's a simplicity to the facades that I think in newer buildings having simplicity kind of helps everything else shine a little bit um so yeah things like popping above the parapet or um changing the materials uh to me stand stand out and again I might be the only one with the concern and that's a cable move forward and we all are going to be about that okay well I'm sensitive to it I mean obviously um you know this is a big project and it's impact and I want to make sure that we we address those concerns as best we can and and you know there are some functional components obviously with it um uh and so the attempt again was while it's on the street it was pushed back so it wasn't right out on the street facade so that it felt like it was a break in there that would be a logical location for a a way to break that up and and but again I'm um but I understand what you're getting at now if it's a it's a matter of um changing materials on it so it's less obvious right as far as I think you sort of alluded to if it were metal panel a little of uh brick maybe that would sort of receive more um you know ownership asked so they could take the windows out of it is is a choice would that make it be less less of an obvious thing and so more more again more of a background element um but that was a question I said well I don't you know we have to sort of address it here with the the commission is that what they're comfortable with so um anyway that's is that let me let me propose something go ahead sorry let's cut off discussion um but to try to move things in a targeted direction um and I'll address this first with the applicant then come back to the commission um it has not been unusual um in our last eight ten months of considering you know significant uh coa applications like this one uh for us to articulate our concerns of things that are holding us back from being able to give full-throated uh support to a uh proposal um and working collaboratively with the applicants to have those issues addressed and to sort of come back to the table and have a conversation with us about how you've incorporated our concerns into some um some revisions uh that this strikes me as a good candidate for that um if that is something um uh that you would be open to um and given what I understand to be some staff limitations today and how much longer we can go with this conversation I think it would be my goal if the applicant is uh open to that suggestion for us as a commission to try to uh really identify those issues we would like for the applicant to go back to the drawing board on so that when we we convene in a couple of months on this case um the applicant gives us what we think we need to to lend our uh support to this project um that does all that make sense does all that sound like uh a feasible approach uh for the applicant I think I think if that's what's necessary you get everyone comfortable I think that's something we can we'll go back to ownership with and and uh be more than happy to work with uh with uh staff and and team to sort of address some of these concerns great we we greatly appreciate your flexibility on that um and so I will reopen it back up to the commission uh to sort of uh I guess one at a time and maybe we just sort of go around the the zoom windows here um to talk about those issues that you would like to see the applicant work on um and and I think I'll begin with vice chair Gulsby uh yeah thank you thank you matt um um I think I would like to see some more precedent or um do some design consideration to what I'll call the slender it looks like they're about 20 foot base um portions of the buildings that we we target at the stairwells we target it already we spoke about not target excuse me um the stairwells and we talked about the different brick material uh on your on the east elevation so those again they'll collect they're about could be 20 foot base no 15 foot base the the peaching color um and then the stairwells popping up above the parapet we talked about that again that um if there are more examples in the in the district um happy to consider those as well um and then just and then I think where we were going also with the slender portions it is a change of materials um okay thank you vice chair Gulsby I'm gonna just go alphabetical from this point forward uh commissioner Calhoun I agree with the uh the criticism on the stairwell the placement and it's like the problem should be back a little bit that's all wonderful thank you commissioner dayon uh Jonathan you're on mute sorry my issue is uh mainly with the parking garage uh how we may continue and put a contingency on that to see that maybe give a year that they have to or start working on phase two or just conceal it in the in the proper manner but uh leaving it as is so one day in the future there's gonna be a phase two I don't know how we how I can approve such a thing thank you commissioner dayon how about commissioner DeBerry now my my concern too is the the parking deck facade the western side um I'm hopeful they can work on that parapet as well but the that open deck bothers me commissioner Hamilton yeah the open deck and the way it's exposed right now again it's the same the same issue as the last case you know intense great but enforceability is better um so having something that when they come in with phase two they can remove and hopefully like they said they'll come in with phase two while phase one's under construction and they never actually have to waste those materials um and then the other thing I find those this is so small but there's shrubs that look like foundation plantings on the second floor are really um troubling me because foundation plantings aren't standard at the first floor downtown so I would just hope that they could explore like either like a window box type style or something like that that's more standard downtown way of incorporating plantings into your even if they're fake or real um it just looks very strange to have foundation plantings at the second floor um and then the other thing I would just say about the materials is that some things make it look like the seat walls are wood and other things make it look like they're concrete so getting a better understanding of um uh commission to bury think you need to mute no okay um yeah so just getting a better understanding making sure that they are actually concrete which is what the detail shows but then some of the renderings look like it's wood um and I think concrete's more standard in the district so yep well look I appreciate everybody's concerns and comments and the applicant's willingness to continue working um on those concerns I have nothing further to add other than to say that I echo um all the concerns we've heard about that west elevation um and a desire to get into a more finished condition um but again I just want to extend my thanks to the applicant for um listening attentively to our concerns and going back to the drawing board I think what we have done and Carla please chime in let me know if what I'm about to say is accurate we typically um need a two-month turnaround time on these requests for revision so that there's enough time for the applicant to go back to work provide the new information to Carla for us to get it onto our agenda and so with the applicant's consent it will be my intention to move for a continuance um to our scheduled hearing on Tuesday uh April the 5th if I could have a second all second well before I move I was actually going to just make sure the applicant is comfortable with what we are preparing to move on I think that's uh that makes perfect sense wonderful I don't I don't think we can accelerate any more than that so uh we need to take the time to do what's right I'm more than happy to come back wonderful thank you Mr. Oliver with that I will go ahead and move that case number COA 2100 109 400 West Main Street be continued to the scheduled Tuesday April the 5th meeting of this commission second and Ms. Holmes if we could have a roll call of please sir Bouchard yes Commissioner Diane yes Commissioner DeBerry yes Vice Chair Gulsby yes Commissioner Hamilton yes Commissioner Calhoun yes yes motion passes six to zero again thank you all very much um thanks for your ongoing efforts and we look forward to hearing from you in a couple of months thank you all commissioners appreciate thank you thank you very much that is our final hearing for the day uh fellow commissioners we have all business new business and adjournment left on our agenda I do want to circle back to today's absences we did not have Commissioner Craig or here or Commissioner Johnson Amanda did you say that she received something from John Commissioner Johnson yes yes she sent me an email me and Carla an email at 9 0 5 a.m yeah the R. O. P. does specify a larger um advance notice than that okay any reason given for the the absence no we would need there's um I'm trying to find where it's located in the R. O. P. but it it does um say that under extenuating circumstances um that the advance notice can be waived so um I would need to check with her to see if that applies any sort of emergency or extenuating circumstance any word from Commissioner Craig or no I haven't gotten anything so I think the way we've handled these here over the last several months is if there are grounds to approve an absence we vote on the absence but in uh the absence of evidence of the reason for an absence we we do not and so my understanding is we just sort of let things lie now and we'll allow Carla to do the research you might need to do talk with April um about why she apparently needed to be excused from today's hearing on a very short notice um I do see here that she did put in the email she said I forgot to put the meetings in my work calendar and sure enough a meeting is scheduled this morning during HPC I could log in but only stay for 30 minutes that was her reason and Carla the R. O. P. you're referring to rules of procedure that's correct Chair Beshard I already um Grace Smith here I actually looked it up earlier this morning I can read it to you to everyone if you yeah please do I just opened it but yeah please sure give me just one second um okay it says I have to find it where I pasted it earlier hold on one second Carla is is correcting what she's saying but I can actually read the um the statement to you it says um from 3.9 attendance a member who will be unable to attend the regular meeting of the commission must contact the chairperson or secretary at least 24 hours before the scheduled meeting and indicate the general reason for being absent to receive an excused absence earlier notification is encouraged unforeseen emergencies or illness shall be considered excused absence of this the commission will be notified of the absence and reason at the meeting that's that's per the rules of procedure okay but sure this situation gives rise to an unforeseen emergency or illness um just on the express language of the um the R. O. P. so um unless somebody would like to to move um to excuse the absence I don't I think we should just move on to new business which is our minor COA report I'm actually working on that so you all will get that today I apologize because I know last month that's there my resolution is to have it to you all but I guess what I'm actually working on thanks Amanda you've reached the end of the agendas or anybody who has anything to add before we adjourn I mean I'll add this the university that's located in the city is the darker shade of blue so I take it everyone's going to be rooting for Duke on Saturday yes yes yes maybe not everybody all right everyone hanging in there today we're adjourned see you soon all right