 And we're alive. Good morning, everyone. Good morning, everyone. This meeting will now come to order. Welcome to this virtual meeting of the Durham Historic Preservation Commission on this sixth day of July, 2021. My name is Matt Bouchard and I am chair of the commission. The 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 the statutes enacted in session law 2020-3 and codified at North Carolina General Statutes chapter 166A section 19.24, which allows for remote meetings and quasi judicial hearings during declarations of emergency. Second, each applicant on today's agenda was notified before being placed on the agenda that this meeting would be conducted using a remote electronic platform. Every applicant on today's agenda has consented to the board conducting the evidentiary hearing on their request using this remote platform. We will also confirm today at the start of each evidentiary hearing that the participants in the evidentiary hearing consent to the matter of proceeding in this remote platform. If there's any objection to a matter of proceeding in this remote platform, the case will be continued. Third, notice of this meeting was provided to the applicants and to the public in multiple ways, including signage posted on site, notification letters mailed to all adjacent property owners informing recipients regarding the remote platform and the general announcement via our website informing the public of the same. The notices for today's meeting advise the public on how to access the remote meeting as the meeting occurs. Individuals wishing to participate in today's evidentiary hearings were required to register prior to the meeting. Information about this registration requirement along with information about how to sign up to participate was included in the mailed notice letters sent to each adjacent property owner. This information was also included on the board's website. The public was advised to contact the city immediately in case of objection to the evidentiary hearing or to their remote meeting platform. Chris, do we have any objections today? None. Thank you. All individuals participating today's evidentiary hearings were also required to submit a copy of any presentation, document, exhibit, or other material they wish to submit at the evidentiary hearing prior to today's meeting. All materials that the city received from the participants in today's cases, as well as a copy of city staff's presentations and documents were posted online prior to this meeting. The agenda and all materials to be discussed today may be viewed at any time during today's meeting by visiting the web link for today's agenda by Durham's Agenda Center. Finally, all individuals who registered to participate in an evidentiary hearing on today's agenda, as well as all city staff participants were emailed a witness oath and consent to a remote hearing form prior to today's meeting. Any individual planning to testify or submit evidence in an evidentiary hearing was notified that they must sign the oath form prior to today's meeting. We will also reaffirm everyone's oath on the record at today's meeting. Are there any members of this board that would have any conflicts of interest with regard to the cases before us today and are there any early dismissals being requested? Thank you. Chair Prashard. I need an early dismissal. Chair Prashard, Laura Fieselman here. I need to go by 11. Please. Matt, I need to leave by 11 as well. Okay. 1130. And Wanda 11. Okay. We are going to do everything in our power here to keep things moving along expeditiously and make sure we've got a quorum for all three hearings today. As chair of the historic preservation commission, I'd like to remind everyone that our quasi-judicial hearings function similar to a court proceeding. Staff will first present an overview of the case and then the applicant will have an opportunity to present their evidence. Opponents, if there are any, may then present their evidence and the applicant may then present a rebuttal. Board members will refrain from questions or comments until each speaker has completed his or her presentation. 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 Elliott, please take the attendance of the commissioners who are here today. I say clerk Elliott. Is Terry here today? It appears she is not. She should be on the call. I don't know if she's having some technical issues. Chair. I'm here. I think. Carly, could you please. Call the roll in the meantime? Do you mind doing that? Because of my technical difficulties. I can't remember. Chris, could you just call the roll quickly for the record? Yeah. I'm pulling up the roster right now. Let me just one minute. Thank you. Or you can use the agenda. The agenda should have their names on it as well. Chair. Here. Chair Dan. Chair. DeBarry. Here. I'm sorry. Commissioner DeBarry. Commissioner Gulsby. Here. Commissioner Feaselman. Here. Commissioner Hamilton. Here. Mr. Johnson. Here. Commissioner Kroger. Commissioner waiters. Commissioner waiters here. Thank you very much, Chris. Commissioners, you've been forwarded an agenda. Today's meeting. Would anyone, including city staff like to recommend any adjustments to today's agenda? Carl Rosenberg planning apartment. No adjustments. Thanks. Also commissioners, you've been provided with draft minutes for our last regularly scheduled commission meeting that was held on Tuesday, June 1st. Does anyone have any adjustments? To the draft minutes that they would like to recommend. I don't know if Terry's here to capture this, but the start time says eight 30, it should be nine. Good catch. Anybody else? Thank you. We'll make that of that. Does anyone have a motion to approve the minutes as amended? So moved. Second. All those in favor. Of approving the June one minutes as amended by commissioner Fieselman. Commissioner. Commissioner waiters. Aye. I am in eyes. Well, I think that was everybody. I'm not sure I have the authority to take roll call votes, but the minutes appeared to have been approved. Seven zero. And it is now time to swear in all city staff that we present in today's cases. Is there somebody who can do that in Terry's stead? Chris Peterson. Well, from part of the department will swear in staff. Thank you, Chris. You swear a firm that the testimony you're about to give will be the truth. Carla Rosenberg. I do. Grace Smith planning department. I do. Carla and grace. I believe. We are ready to bring in members of the public for our first case. I'm chair Bouchard. Can we do a roll call for the minutes? Please. Staff. Staff would like to ask just do a quick roll call to approve the minutes. That's fine. All right. I'll go through this quick. Chair Bouchard. Approved. Commissioner. Mr. Johnson. Approved. And commissioner waiters. Approved. Thank you. Commissioner waiters has very helpfully reminded me that we should have a. A. A. A. A. A. A. A. A. A. A. A. A. A. A. A. A. A. A. A. A. A. A. A. A. A. A. A. A. A. A. A. A. A. A. A. A. A. A. We only have the meeting minutes from June 1st currently I believe we are now prepared to bring in members of the public for our first case. First request for certificate of appropriateness on our agenda today is case number CLA. 2100 031 2113 Englewood Avenue, new construction and site work. Chris, yes, great. Is there any commissioners who have a conflict of interest in hearing this case? If not, let us proceed with the swearing in of anyone who plans to speak for or against this case. This is Jeff mon scene I'm here. Chris, could you please swear in the witness. Yes. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to receive or that you're about to give will be the truth. I do. If you wouldn't mind turning your camera on, please. Okay, wait a minute. How do I. Oh, I can see it. And I think. You are. Okay. And I think KB called pepper. Is to be sworn in as well. Chris, please swear in Miss Culpeper. He's where the testimony that you're about to give is the truth. Yes, I do. First, Mr. Monsign and then Miss Culpeper. Do you consent to this case being heard this morning via the remote platform or currently using. Yes. Yes, as well. Thank you very much. We may now proceed with the staff summary. Carl. Carl Rosenberg planning department. This is KCOA 2 1 0 0 0 3 1. 21 13 Anglewood Avenue, new construction of an accessory structure. The applicant is J. B. Culpeper. The owner is rain rainbow trout investments. It's located on the southeast corner of the intersection of Anglewood Avenue and Hill Street. It's a residential urban five and is a contributing structure to be what's how and they'll historic district. So the applicant is proposing to construct a one and a half story accessory dwelling unit behind the existing primary structure, which is a corner lot. I'd like to introduce the staff report into the record and invite the applicant to present her case. I think it's actually the southwest corner, not to be too technical, but. Thank you for that correction. And we're really here. Mr. Monsign and I are here today to answer any questions and. Yeah, answer any questions you might have for regarding this accessory dwelling unit. Carl Rosenberg planning department. Would you mind just running through a little bit of your design decisions and compatibility and express compatibility with the existing structure. No problem. No problem. In general terms, we have an ADU that's proposed in the backyard. The main house is just a little under 1500 square feet. Let's see what else can I tell you. They're the main house. The main house is just a little under 1500 square feet. Let's see what else can I tell you. They're the main house has a curved gable. And with the ADU design, we're attempting to complement that main structure. As, as Carla wrote in the report, striking appearance of the main structure. Let's see. So clearly subordinate and designed to blend in. In general terms, we're at the backyard using an existing driveway cut. And we have a driveway that is single and then widens out for two cars. We've got a patio for the residents to share. We've learned that outdoor space is so important during this pandemic. Proposing concrete paver blocks to sort of soften the effect of the of that driveway. And yeah, Jeff, can you think of anything to add regarding the application? I just think that the main thing is, you know, the clearly subordinate and then Carla, if you could just go back to the elevations of the ADU. If you, if you compare that to the original house, we're trying to do the the dormer and doing the curved gable on it as well. On the on the dormer or the rakeboard basically just to try to blend it in. The ADU will face Hale Street, which I think will look nice as well. So that the front will be facing Hale Street. As the application says, you know, we use the hardy playing siding. The suggested windows that Carla has asked us to use. So in compliance with all the regulations of the HPC. So I think it's going to be nice and, you know, I don't know if you guys remember the commissioners, but this is clearly different from the first two that we, you proposed, and that was a concern. So this is a completely different design that we're using. Thank you both. Any additional testimony before we turned over to commissioners for questions? Let us turn it over to commissioners. Any questions for the applicant? Yes, this is commissioner bullsby. Pete speak to the height of the existing structure. Yeah, just trying to get to those exact numbers for you. The ADU is 631 square feet. If you count the front stew. It was a height of 24 feet and nine inches to the roof peak. And I'm almost positive in the main report. We had the height of the main structure. Carla, do you have that readily available? Or Jeff, do you remember that? I know we had it. We went to pictures of it and we met physically measured it, but I, I, I'm not sure where it is right this second. I think it was, I know, I know I sent it to you, JB. Oh yeah. And it's, and I'm pretty sure it's in the report. I'm just looking for it. We are the height of the ADU is less than the height of the main structure. And we used a measurement peak. I can find that email that I sent Carla. I did find it in the report. So you have the original house at 26 feet, six inches. That sounds correct. That does sound correct. Thank you for locating that. Vice chair goes to be any follow up. No, I think I just want to understand. I think it might be more of a conversation for, for us as commissioners about clearly subordinate and, and heights. So thank you. Any other commissioners with questions for the applicant? I have one, but I'm willing to hold off here for, for others to have a chance. I'll go ahead. Very quickly. Is there a read actually, Carl, if we could pull up the plot plan or the site plan. Is there a, a technical reason why that AC unit needs to be located so that it's visible from hail street as opposed to behind the proposed ADU. Carla Rosenberg planning department. There needs to be three feet between the AC unit and the property line. And I'm thinking in order to give access to anybody working on the unit, they would have to step it off the house as well at the ADU as well. And that would not leave enough clearance between the unit and the property line. Yes, sir. That was our understanding as well. So we're proposing a screening device, a picket fence to run parallel to hail, to help to shield the HVAC unit. It looks like we have a picture of that represented in the materials. Correct. For clarity. This is commission. For clarity. Carl, are you said the HVAC unit needed to be, how many feet from the property line? It needs to be three feet from the property line, but you also need to take into account the width of the unit and space between the ADU and the unit. And so I think all of those together is more than six feet. Okay. So I, and I guess this may be a question for the, the applicant. From the rear of the ADU unit to the property line, do you know how many feet that is? Commissioner Johnson, I know that our. The building. Builder did look to see if that it was possible to place it. And it, it was not. So I do not have those exact dimensions, but I do know that we were unable to locate it. In the back. Looks like the dimensions are on this plan. And it says 6.1 feet from. The property line. And so it looks like you'd have to, you know, get one inch on that block man. That was just showing. And so it looks like you'd have to inch the ADU forward toward the street. In order to get more clearance. The builder, Joe Barini checked on putting it behind or beside. And it's just, it's just too close with the setbacks. So that's the reason we had to set it on that side. And that's the reason I was, it's just too close. How is the fencing proposed to be installed? Just a, a bit of fencing in front of where the unit is not surrounding unit. Well, well Carla and JB had talked about that. And we, we can surround the whole unit with the wood fence, a picket fence. And that was one, one thing JB and I were talking about. So it's not a. We can. I'll defer to Carla or the commissioners. It's certainly not a huge issue to screen the whole thing in. And we just, we could do a removable panel so that the, you know, HVAC service would have the access to it, but we can definitely screen the whole thing. Or potentially two sides parallel to Hale and then parallel to Englewood and perhaps leave the HVAC open, but really whatever the commissioners prefer. I guess my question, this might be more for for staff, but or just for commissioner discussion or for the Africans to answer. If I'm at the corner of Hale Street and Englewood and only a portion, well, I guess the house is probably going to obscure it. But if I say I'm located on Hale Street at the corner of the primary residence and there's only fencing in front of the AC unit facing Hale Street, it would seem to me that I could I could pretty easily see the HVAC unit from at least a portion of Hale Street. Pearl Rosenberg Planning Department, I think you're right. So JP's applicants proposal to cover those two sides of the unit, I think makes sense. I think it would be wise to look at the opacity of the fence and just the type of fence used that it's not that the configuration of the fence makes sense with the style of the fence as well. Those are all my questions. Thank you. Are there any other commissioners with questions for the applicant? Hearing none. I will ask, although I think I know the answer to this question, are there any opponents who would like to speak seeing and hearing none? We will close the public hearing on this case to permit discussion among the commissioners. And I would ask Vice Chair Gulsby to lead us off with his concerns about clearly subordinate. Sure. And mostly it's opening up to hear from other commissioners about their views. One thing I see in the application is that the this ADU is let me just make a measurement, pushing this ADU to the rear of the yard. We know that the driveway that guy is 25 feet. So it's going to be 25 feet plus away from the existing house. You know, if these structures were side by side, I would have more of a concern. With there any being lower or a foot difference in height. But certainly want to hear from other commissioners about scale of this. The footprint, not a concern, in my opinion, but it's a height that's questionable. But again, being pushed in the rear of the yard, have less concern about it. So, Mr. Chair, I'm slightly concerned about the height. But the criteria says subordinate to the main residence. And if you face this ADU to the street, it's going to look like a second home on the street. And I that's what bothers me more than maybe even the height is the orientation. I don't I don't feel like it is subordinate the way it sits now. I think it looks like another residence. Mr. DeBerry, is that because it's a it's a corner lot? So it's, you know, necessarily facing. Yeah, you know, most of these are garage apartmenty sort of looking things in the front of the ADU faces the back of the house. But because this has been turned and faces the street, it appears to be, you know, a separate. Parcel and structure to me. Versus a subordinate structure to the house. Yeah, I'm Commissioner Johnson. I agree with Commissioner DeBerry and goals be on both sides. The height, I think I wish that we had a better kind of guideline for subordinate because it's just so close when it comes to height. But my first impression of the house is that it looks just like of the ADU unit, it looks more like a second house on the property rather than something a bit smaller, a smaller house. The typical granny flat situation in Los Suiz that you will see in a historic district. I would love to see if there are examples of this size of ADUs in the neighborhood with this this level of height. It feels like a second home. Hello, Rosenberg Planning Department. Would it be helpful to see sort of a sketch drawing of the existing structure with the with the proposed ADU on site together side by side? Yes, that I think that would be very helpful for me. Commissioner schools be that I agree with April also would be helpful to understand if there are other ADUs of this scale currently in the in the district, particularly ones that are going to be street facing. Because I can certainly agree that that almost does look like a second second property. Carla Rosenberg Planning Department, just keep in mind that the UDO changed in the last couple of years that allow ADUs to go into these neighborhoods. So we are seeing unprecedented proposals. These proposals are going to look different from previous proposals that the UDO previously didn't allow. If you have any questions about that, let us know. And it may be something that we need to talk about during our staff retreat next month. Commissioner Hamilton, I think the grade on Hail Street is climbing. So the ADU seems like it's probably going to sit at an elevation higher than the primary structure does. So getting a better understanding of the true height of that building at that higher elevation compared to the elevation of the current house would be. They got like having a section or elevation with both of them. At the elevations, I wish they were going to sit because right now it's like I can't, you know, I can look on Google Street View and tell that it's likely going to sit higher, but it's hard to know exactly how much that'll impact the ability to determine if it's subordinate. Carla, do you have the ability to pull up Google Maps? Maybe take a little peek at the lot. Carla Rosenberg Planning Department, I apologize. I had technical difficulties this morning. So I'm actually not presenting. That's Chris Peterson is doing the presenting. And I think he needed to step away for a second. So OK, I can get it up in just a moment. Bear with me and just OK. Thanks, Chris. Can not. Can anybody hear me? We can. OK. I don't want to break any rules, but can I interject or no? Is that if you could hold on just for a moment, Mr. Monty, and if we need to reopen the public hearing, we will in a moment. But OK, all right. Thank you. I appreciate it. Feel free to direct me as you wish if you need want me to go to different angles. Right now, I'm not seeing anything but the gallery view here of the participants. Apologies. So we're looking here at Englewood, correct? That's the view from Hale Street. From Hale, my apologies. That the property is at address as an Englewood Avenue address, correct? Yes, it faces Englewood and it's it's a duplex. I just interjected. So there's a front door on it that goes upstairs and then the side door is the downstairs apartment. I see. So that's the front door. What we're looking at now. Yes, correct. OK. It goes straight upstairs. We could turn another 90 degrees, Chris, to the Englewood side. And so really where that shed is located is roughly where the ADU would be located. Right. That's correct. And you approved several months ago for us. We got the approval to tear it down, but we just haven't. We're waiting for this process to play out. Mr. Monson, I'd like to give you an opportunity to just provide some clarifying comments, but if you could keep them relatively brief so we can return to the commissioner's comments. Absolutely. Thank you. Well, so we design this, you know, and I was pretty excited because I thought it would tie into the existing house, as you can see. But this is this is the third one I've done. And then the last meeting, there was a lot of pushback. I can't remember the exact the commissioner's name, I'm not sure. But of well, all the two that you're building are exactly the same. So, you know, and we don't want to see a bunch of the same exact things being built. So we went to a lot of effort to get a different design and to tie it into the house so it looks good and and and blends. And so that's that's my main comment. I could easily come back with the one we built before. There's only so many different ways to build these things, you know, when you're when you're limited to 800 square feet. So that's why we did this. So that's my comment. And I'm not sure if you remember, I know you have a lot of meetings, but I don't know if that if anybody remembers that conversation. I think most of us do recall it. And that point is well taken. But once again, closing the public hearing and returning to the discussion amongst the commissioners and to try to frame what we need to discuss going forward. I don't see this as an issue of this particular design being differentiated from earlier edu designs proposed by Mr. Monsign that the issue here for this unique design is is it clearly subordinate as that phrase is used in our criterion? And I spent a little time here during the discussion just trying to review the various uses of the phrase subordinate and clearly subordinate in our criteria. There are instances where we use subordinate. And then there are instances where we use clearly subordinate. This is one of those instances. We do not have a clear definition for subordinate, let alone clearly subordinate. So, you know, we've got an interpretation issue we've got to work through. And it sounds to me like we have at least three commissioners who've got concerns that this particular design based on the two stories, the fact that it's only a foot or so smaller than the primary structure based on its location adjacent to the structure where it might actually be even higher than the primary structure based on sloping. It sounds like we've got concerns about whether or not clearly subordinate is met here. I am loathe to schedule a vote on a case that may be a no vote requiring the participant to wait a fair amount of time before coming back to us. And so to avoid that, I would like to take at least a straw poll before we vote to get an idea of whether or not there are sufficient commissioners to support this proposal and its current form to pass. I am presuming from the comments from Vice Chair Goolsbee and chairs to Barry and Johnson that the three of you would not be able to support this proposal at this time. Is that fair? Yes, Commissioner Bouchard, that is fair for you, Commissioner Dawson. Commissioner Goolsbee, that's correct. Chad, is that correct for you as well? OK. Carla Rose, we're planning department. Matt, would I be able to read to you a definition of subordinate from the UDL? Sure. Secondary in appearance, so as not to diminish or visually overpower another element or structure, this shall be considered as a whole and shall not require each dimensional aspect to be subordinate unless specifically required by another provision of the ordinance. Um. So it's I think similar to the criteria. Well, based on that definition in the spirit of continuing the straw poll, I am likely to support the proposal as it is currently drafted. And I'm curious to hear from our other three commissioners on the straw poll, Commissioner Waders, Hamilton and Fieselman. I could also support it. I hear what Carla was saying in terms of, you know, it's new, the way that the city is allowing these ADUs. And I hear what Jeff is saying in his attempt to speak to the original structure and and and provide a different type of ADU than the others. He's brought us. Commissioner. Go ahead. No, go ahead, Katie. Go ahead. Go ahead. Go ahead. Commissioner Waders, I appreciate Carla providing the new definition of this. The emphasis on this being clearly supported has been stated since we started this morning. So I guess we clearly needed a new definition. I did not speak up when our other three commissioners were concerned about the new of this property. I did agree with them. And I also appreciate again, Carla, letting us know that there is now a clear definition that we may not have been where I was aware. So thank you. So Commissioner Waders, are you likely to support or not support the proposal in its current form? In its current form with the questions that are on the table. Chair, Matt, I would think not. So based on the straw poll, we do not have sufficient support for the proposal. We could, of course, go forward with a vote and formalize that determination or we could offer the applicant an opportunity to provide revisions to the proposal and come back and talk with us. And so I think I will leave it to Mr. Monti and Mr. Culpepper as to whether or not you would want us to go forward with a vote. And of course, you'd have rights of appeal with the Board of Adjustment or if you prefer to have the opportunity to redesign and come back and see us at some later date. You know, I mean, I have other designs we could use. I guess, Mike, it's OK for me to talk now. Correct? Yes. I'm to address the question on the table, which is, would you prefer and doing, you know, coming back with another design and, you know, I'm not interested in appeals and going to the Superior Court. I mean, that's just time and time and money wasted. But if I come back, you know, my concern is, and I believe it was Mr. Commissioner DeBerry that last time, you know, was really concerned about, you know, or repetitive design. So I feel like I'm kind of caught between a rock and a hard place. You know, we're trying to do it, you know, the commissioners are asking. And then I come back with another design. Then am I going to say, well, it's similar to the like I said, these are they're 80 accessory dwelling units. There's only so many design elements you can implement in these in these things. And I guess with that question is, are you saying that? I mean, if I if I don't even know if this is doable, but if we can lower the height a little bit, is that would that do it? Or I'm not I'm really not sure what the objection is. If you can, if we can formalize the objection, then I'll know what to do. My objection is that it faces the street. If the front of the unit face the back of the house and we're slightly lower, I could support this proposal. The design is great. The fact that you've changed the design is fantastic. I love the design. That's not the issue here. It's the size and orientation for me. OK, and I'm sorry. Excuse me. Go ahead. I just wanted to say I agree. I think that if we're looking at the spirit of an accessory dwelling unit in a historic district and the purpose of this commission is to review it in in harmony that that changes to the districts are contiguous with the historic character of the district. I think it's it's out of character, or at least it may be an anomaly for an accessory dwelling unit or what people would call a granny cottage or something like that to be facing the street. It should be facing. Usually it's facing the back of the house and it's clearly subordinate. But with the city's definition of subordination, it's two feet below that, you know, that subordinate. So that, you know, I think we can get past that. But I think it's just its orientation that's kind of concerning. OK, and we can come back to the drawing board. I guess, Mike, if you could, Carla, can you go back to the elevations, please? Because if we turn the house, which we may be able to, where it faces the back of twenty one thirteen. That's the elevations. Then what I'm afraid is that we're. So let's say if we if we can actually turn the house where the front elevation is facing the back of twenty one thirteen, then we're going to you're going to be looking at a flat gable wall, basically. So, yeah, Carla, could you go down one more planche to a three? Go to the side elevation, maybe. I guess two more planche. Yeah, right. So that's what you're going to look at. If you'll be looking at the one. I believe you'd be looking at the right side elevation. We want one of, you know, either one you can see. So that's what you're going to be looking at from Hale Street. So I guess the question is, you know, in my opinion, I thought that the way the house orient is better. And that's and that's also what we did on a previous one on Oakland. And we faced it. It was a Cornwall Englewood in Oakland. We faced it towards Oakland. So, but, you know, I mean, if I could turn it, I will. And if if the commission thinks that that would look better. Carl Rosenberg playing the department, I agree with what you're saying. Jeff, the same thought came to my mind. Also, just thinking about historic accessory structures, if this were a utilitarian garage, it would likely be facing Hale Street. You would drive in from the street and drive your, you know, 1930s roadster right into the garage. Like it's not necessarily historically accurate that it always faced the direction of the house. Yeah, you're right. I kind of forgot that this was a corn a lot. So just I just forgot that for a second. But yeah, you're right. Coming having that side facing elevation on the corner lot does throw it off a little bit. Yeah. And I mean, I know I haven't looked at this exact neighborhood, but I know in Watts Hill and Dale, you'd have a father owned the primary structure on one side. And then his son would build what at the time was a second structure facing, you know, the side street. I'm having looked at the history there. You just wasn't that uncommon. Of a organization in my mind. To have this type of secondary structure. Faces side street, I don't know. But those structures weren't a to use. They were true homes most of the time when they subdivided up, you know, the parents lot. I just feel like the the spirit of this ADU business is a little different from a subdivision and a second home on a parcel. Carlo Rosenberg planning department. Do do we need to continue the case for the applicant to bring more evidence of the current design? Do we need more design changes or just to continue discussing? I'd like to discuss for at least five more minutes. I think there is benefit to if we're going to consider continuing the case, providing Mr. Monti and Ms. Culpeper some guidance in terms of what we think needs to be changed. And I think because we're dealing with a corner lot, the fact matter is this ADU is in the back of the primary residence. It just happens to be facing a side street. And so I'm not sure there's much we can advise the applicant in terms of the orientation of the property. And I'm not sure looking at the side of the property on Hill Street makes any more sense than seeing the front of it. And so if the commissioners agree with that or if they don't agree with that, I think we need to provide some guidance in terms of what we think might be required. Tad, I heard you mention it. If it was a little bit shorter, that might help you conclude that the structure is clearly subordinate to the main structure. Yeah, the main thing for me is the way that it's oriented. The height was sort of secondary, but those are my two issues based on my understanding of the criteria. If the rest of the commission feels differently, I'm certainly not hurt by that. How about Vice Chair Gulsby? Do you have some comments for the applicant for how he might be able to improve the proposal for our consideration later on? I think it's mainly the height. Yeah, sure, if you can work a couple feet out of it. And I mean, I am coming back to that definition that's in the UDO of secondary and appearance, so it's not to diminish or visually overpower the other element or structure. So working in a way to make this look more like a accessory to the main structure as opposed to its own house. And the place where my head is as a layperson, not a design professional, is that the spirit of Durham, putting the ADU rules in place is to enable us have a little bit denser housing in town. And the spirit with which Jeff and JB have designed this proposed ADU is to speak to the original house and create structure that's modest in size. I like the orientation to the street. And I guess one other piece of this is that the original structure is a duplex. That means it is providing two modestly sized units. And this would be a third modestly sized unit on the lot. And that feels sort of in keeping to me as I hear it with the historic use of this lot. So I actually like the proposal as it is. I deferred to the design professionals on whether we need to lower the height just a little bit or whatever to get it right. But I appreciate the thoughtfulness that's here. I'll ask for one more contribution here, going back to Commissioner Johnson. April, there's been some conversation here about orientation and street-facing versus non-street-facing. What in your view would need to modify or be modified from this proposal to gain your approval? After just realizing, Jeff made a good point about how, because it is a point a lot, I just forgot about that that quickly, but it was just better to face the front of the property to the street rather than the side being shown. And I do agree with that because it is larger than a typical ADU unit. And I think my overall, and I'm willing to change my vote for approval, but I want to say that, I think the overall point I want to make about accessory dwelling units, the height of this building, this accessory dwelling unit is the same as a typical two-story home. So it's just the feel, and one of the things about preservation is that look and feel is part of what we're supposed to consider as far as is the design of this particular item, the building or whatever it is, contiguous with the historic character of the district. And so, oh, go ahead, Krista. You need to make a correction. Oh, okay, I thought she was... Oh, okay, sorry. So that's what I was trying to... Yes, it's approvable. ADUs, these things, this is not a new concept. It's been around in historic districts a long time. That's why I said, do we have examples so that we are maintaining the same feel of ADUs in historic districts? But if we want, I think this is something we're just gonna have to talk about next month about how we review ADU units. This particular one, this feels like a second house. But I'm willing to go ahead and approve it because it meets all the basic criteria. Well, Chair Hamilton, I think I've put you squarely in the decider seat here. Straw poll, could you support this proposal as it currently exists or not? I can, I'd like to just ask that a condition of the approval be that the final elevation of the approval of the peak of the roof is below the final elevation of the existing house's peak. To just 100% make sure we are ending up with a shorter structure. I know that the current house said it was 266, I think this is 249. I'm just concerned about the elevation changes in the property and if it will. And I mean, I know that every exact dimension is not important, but I do think like once we get to the point at which it could be sitting two feet higher, just knowing that it is subordinate and height will be important to me. So I mean, I would approve it with that additional condition being agreed to that like that 249 could just be lowered to ensure it does. 100% fall below the peak of the existing house. Carlos Rosenberg planning department. The applicant would just need to consent and sign off on the COA if that condition were implemented. Chair Bouchard, I just want to go on record that I totally agree with Katie, Commissioner Hamilton. And if I could ask Mr. Moncine and Ms. Culpepper, if you would agree to proceed with a vote with an additional condition at the peak, excuse me, the final elevation of the peak of the accessory dwelling unit be less than the peak of the roof of the primary structure. Yes, I agree 100% and I can, and we will sign off on whatever we need to do and I will recon, but I physically went out there with a gentleman who works for me. Carlo asked me, at one point, we pulled off some vinyl signing and we physically measured it, but yes, we would confirm and reconfirm and sign whatever we needed to make sure that's accurate. And yeah, so that's fine. Yes, no problem. I've got a question for Christo and or for, well, I think it's for Christa. Should we place this condition among the bullet points in the possible motion or make it one of the conditions below the bullet points? Christo could go to city attorney's office. I believe it should be a condition. Okay. This is Commissioner Goulds being Katie, correct me if I'm wrong, but this is also with consideration of the grade, not only the height of the structures. Right, yeah. So if the finished floor elevation of your accessory dwelling in it ends up being two feet higher, you just need to make sure your overall elevation of the roof peak is lower than the primary structure. Katie, how should we word that in the condition? I would just say that elevation or the, all right, Andy, you can throw your two cents in there, but I'm thinking the finished elevation of the peak of the accessory dwelling units roof shall be such that it is below the finished elevation of the peak of the existing primary structure in relation to sea level. Now it's clear. I like it. Okay. I know grading elevation sources, architectural elevations is always, okay. Well, I am prepared to make a motion. The Durham Historic Preservation Commission finds that in the case COA 210031 2113 Englewood Avenue new construction accessory structure, the applicant is proposing to construct an accessory dwelling unit at the rear of contributing structure. The unit will have a footprint of 631 square feet and a height of 24 feet nine inches from base to roof peak and will be constructed with a brick foundation, smooth cementitious fiberboard siding, PVC trim, architectural fiberglass shingles, six over six double hung solid PVC windows and a fiberglass door. A new HVAC unit with a height of 29 inches will be concealed along the street facing sides by a three foot section of 30 inch tall, low opacity wood picket fence. A driveway, a double parking pad and a patio will be constructed with concrete pavers. Therefore, the conclusion of laws at 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 2100312113 Englewood Avenue new construction accessory structure with the following conditions. One, the improvements shall be substantially consistent with the plans and testimony presented to the commission at this commission hearing and attached to the COA. Two, the improvements may require additional approvals from other city or county departments for 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. Three, a compliance inspection shall be performed immediately upon completion of the work approved herein. And four, the finished elevation of the peak of the accessory dwelling units roof shall be below the finished peak of the roof of the primary structure in relation to sea level. I can't. Now, before we take a roll call vote, we have a motion and a second. I neglected to ask for a staff recommendation and I feel it's incumbent upon me to ask Carla for that recommendation before we take our vote. My apologies for doing things out of order. Carla Rosenberg Planning Department, staff would recommend approval of the application with the conditions stated. Clerk Elliott, if you could please take a roll call vote. Did we get a second? We did. Commissioner Waiters. Waiters, okay. I will. Sheriff Pashard. Approved. Commissioner DeBerry. Approved. Commissioner Feaselman. Approved. Vice-Chair Willisby. No. Commissioner Hamilton. Okay. Commissioner Johnson. Approved. Commissioner Waiters. Approved. Okay, motion passes six to one. Thank you, Ms. Culpepper and Mr. Moncine. Mr. Moncine, you come here with challenging cases for us. Thank you both of your patients as we work through things today. Well, thank you for all your help and we appreciate it. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. We have two additional cases on our agenda. Chris, if you could bring in the participants for case number COA 210034. This is 2410 West Club Boulevard additions and modifications. So Mr. Chair, can I ask city staff a couple of questions before we move to the next case? Yes, sir. One, what is the city's stance on number of unrelated groups in a single property in a neighborhood? If that home we just talked about was a duplex and we're adding a third dwelling unit, I thought there was some sort of background there. That's my question there. And then secondly, in the approval process, it says that there'll be an inspection. And how has that done? And what's the teeth there? Because I've asked about another project in town where they clearly did not abide by our ruling. And what's the teeth in the inspection process? Well, Karla Rosenberg, my new department. So for your first question, wait, now what was that question again? About number of unrelated family. Right, I don't think that there is any maximum. We have quadruplexes, we have historic apartment buildings. But in a neighborhood that's zoned this way? Well, we are just as a city, we are shifting away from single family zoning. And historically, there were often duplexes mixed in. We're looking at the historic character of the district, right? So I don't think there's anything. My opinion, I don't see an accessory dwelling unit as being out of character with the district. My concern was that I know in my neighborhood at one point, there were issues with more than a certain number of people that were not related living on a parcel. And I did not wanna set these developers up to fail if we approved something and then they weren't allowed to derive income from it. So that was my concern. So, I know that we're upsetting. Grace Smith with the Planning Department, I could just quickly talk about that. The number of unrelated people that can live together in the UDA has been recently ended, but that's also per dwelling unit, not a lot. It's not how many people per lot, it's per dwelling unit. Sorry, Krista Kukera was going to say something and I didn't say her hands, I apologize. Krista Kukera, City Attorney's Office. Thank you, Grace. I was gonna make that point. And I believe that there are also building code provisions that would come into play in terms of the number of people per square footage. But I think anything of that nature would sort of be handled, I think via enforcement. And so we'll just sort of cross that bridge when we get there. And you had a second question, Todd, was that answered? Yeah, when our criteria, when our approvals are inspected, what's the enforcement there? Cause I've seen in one very agreeable case. Yeah, I can tell you what that is. So we have a zoning enforcement officer that goes out after each property owner has notified that they have completed their project. She goes out and she has the COA in hand and makes sure that everything that is built matches the COA. And the project that you're speaking about that you had mentioned to me, that is in process right now. So just know that's in process. But that's what the inspections officer does. They go out, sorry, the zoning enforcement officer does, they go out and they match what is on the ground with the COA. And if there's anything out of order, then I work with them to bring it into your clients. They would either have to, if it's something that's already built, bring a retroactive COA to the commission to ask to change it the way that it is built. Or if they haven't, if they're like still in the process of building, which usually they wouldn't be because the project's already completed, then they would just adjust then. But often they're just minor things that I can approve as a staff at a staff level. So you don't see them. But they're made, and that's the applicant actually has the incentive to stay away from the commission a second time. And so often we work out how they can change it at a staff level. This is an extremely important conversation. I think I have an idea of the particular project that Commissioner DeBerry is concerned about, but it's not just that one project, it's others. But we are going to lose quorum in 45 minutes or so. So I wanna move forward. Perhaps we can talk about adding these enforcement mechanisms as a hot topic discussion after a future hearing. Because I think it's worth learning more about how our motions and our votes and our conclusions get enforced in the field after the fact. So with that out of the way for the time being KCOA 210034, it looks like we have two speakers in support. Can you please turn your cameras on? Thank you. Jamie, please help me with the pronunciation of your last name. Greener. Greener, thank you very much. Clerk Elliott, if we could please swear in Mr. Greener and Mr. Horton, whose last name I can pronounce, I think without issue. Sure. Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give in the public hearing proceeding for today's case? Is the truth by your own knowledge or by information and belief? I do. Mr. Greener. Oh, can you hear me? Yes, I do. Thank you very much. Go with Mr. Greener first and then Mr. Horton, do you both agree and consent to having this case heard today through this remote online platform? I do. Yes, I do. Wonderful. Thank you very much. Any commissioners with any conflicts of interest with respect to this case? Seeing and hearing none, Carla, if we could have a staff report. Carla was from the planning department. This is case COA 210034. It's 2410 West Club Boulevard, addition and modifications. The applicant is Brett Horton Architect. The owner is James Greener and Brandy Hagerst. It's located on the north side of West Club Boulevard between Georgia Avenue and Alabama Avenue. It's stoned residential suburban eight and it's contributing structure to the Watts Hill and Dale Historic District. So the applicant is proposing a new re-edition with a deck in cardboard and also to replace some dormer windows and remove the chimney. I'd like to introduce the staff report into the record and invite the applicant to present this case. Carla, thanks so much. Mr. Horton or Mr. Greener? Flores Horton. I'm happy to. Yeah, please. Yeah, I'll present the project to y'all. Yeah, I'd like to go through the photos in our application. Oh, great, thank you. You can keep on scrolling. Yeah, here we go. Okay, so the house is in the Watts Hill and Dale Historic District built in 1923. It's a bungalow and we're looking at the street elevation here. You can scroll to the next picture. This picture shows a second floor bedroom with dormer or shed dormer that created a bedroom space on the second floor and it's got four windows which we propose to replace so that the owner can have an emergency escape and rescue opening from their upper bedroom. So we can see on both of those photos, those four windows. We can go to the next picture. Our next image. Okay, so this image shows the rear elevation of the bottom image is the rear elevation of the house. We're proposing an addition to come off the rear of the house. The addition is going to expand the owner's kitchen and mud room. We'll give a closet to one of the bedrooms that doesn't have a closet and then off that addition is gonna come a deck. So this photo that we're looking at the bottom shows portions of the house which are gonna be removed to make way for the addition. So there are three plate glass windows on the right of that image that will be removed. It was an old screen porch that got enclosed. The triple window that we're looking at, one of those window units in that triple window is gonna be removed to make way for the addition. And then there's an upper second floor window which is currently a double hung. And we're proposing to remove the bottom sash of that window so that that window will clear the ridge of the addition. And then lastly, the deck that you're seeing is in poor condition. And so that deck is proposed to be removed to make way for the addition. And then a new deck will be built. And if we can go to the next photo, the next page, photos of the rear of the house. Let me go to the next page. Let's go to the next page. Okay, so this shows the West elevation of the house. And we can see in red at that top image, there's an existing window and door which are proposed to be removed as part of the renovation or the addition. And then the bottom right image is kind of a small part of the application but we're proposing to infill an old opening in an old basement opening which is currently order top. Next image, please. It's just image of the deck which is to be removed. And I think that's it for the photograph. I don't know if y'all wanna go through the contextual photos or not quickly scroll through the neighboring property. Okay, and if we can go to the drawings, please. The first, yeah, actually the A2 the drawing before that. Okay, A1 shows the site plan shows the addition. It's a 266 square foot addition and much smaller subordinate to the existing house. It goes out about 12 feet, it's 22 feet wide. It's inset from the east side of the house. And then there's a 378 square foot deck with a pergola that's proposed overhead. And then if we can go to the next sheet, the floor plan just gives you more detail about what's entailed in the addition. There's a dashed line which, a heavy dashed line going through the kitchen and across the stairs which indicates where the 1937 Sanborn maps show the rear of the house. And so at some point in the house we think the house was extended. We're extending along the west side of the house where the kitchen is. We're proposing to take off the old kind of enclosure of the screen porch and add new siding along there. And I'll show that in the, that siding in the exterior elevations. And then the basement plan on the left, sorry, the basement plan on the left is gonna be open underneath this addition. There's gonna be storage underneath the addition. Underneath the deck is gonna be a single car carport. If we can go to the next sheet, A3. The east elevation shows the addition coming off the back. The addition we propose to be clad with fiber cement shake siding, which will be very similar to the fiber cement shake siding which clads the upper dormer that we're looking at in this east elevation as well. And we can see in this east elevation the four, oh, we see three of those windows which we propose to replace. We're replacing them either with double hungs or with casements which have a check rail in the middle to simulate a double hung window. And then we can also see the deck and Pergola ever had coming off the addition. And then the bottom, the north elevation, which we see below, we can see that close to where the ridge of the addition is which is clad in the shake siding. We can see that double hung window which has been turned into a single sash fixed window. In the second floor of the house. We go to the next sheet, please. This drawing shows the addition along the west elevation that shake siding, skirting boards that enclose the basement space below. And then lastly, the south elevation which is the street elevation shows that 1960s dormer and shows a single window which faces the street which we're proposing to replace with a new window. And I think that said, I'm happy to answer questions. Thank you, Mr. Horton. Mr. Greener, anything to add before we turn over to commissioner's questioning? I was just gonna note that the dormer that you see on the second floor is the result of a previous renovation that was done, we believe in the 60s or 70s and that the house at one time was actually a triplex. And so there's some weird artifacts in some of the ways that the house was laid out to accommodate having a primary residence on the main floor, a residence in the basement and a residence on the second floor. So that's just sort of a little bit of history on the house. And so when we got it, it was a single family residence and we've been slowly trying to undo some of the choices made in previous iterations of the house. Thank you. Commissioner's, any questions for the applicant? Can you speak to the choice of railing on the decking? We've had some conversation in past cases around deck railing. What are you planning to do here and what made you choose that? We are proposing welded wire mesh with inserted between a pressure treated wood frame and the idea behind it is it's, I mean, honestly, I think we want the railing to kind of go away. I think they want, they want you, the owners would like views to their backyard. And so it's kind of a, it's a less expensive version of a cable railing. And I've seen, I've seen it. I mean, and y'all, I'm sure y'all have too. I've seen it done with them historic district on the other projects. I think the idea is just that it kind of goes away so that you're not looking at railing when you're trying to look into your backyard. Got it, thanks. Sure. Any other commissioners with questions? This is Chair Bouchard. I'll ask one quick question. And I think we have the answer in our materials, but I'd like to get confirmation from Mr. Horton, if possible. My understanding of the proposal is that no windows original to the house or installed during the house's period of significance are slated to be removed. Is that your understanding as well? There is the windows that we, the windows that we propose. So certainly the upper dormer, we know that that's a 1960s, maybe a 1970s edition. Along the rear of the house, there's that triple window. The sandborn map indicates that that's not an original portion of the house. And I don't know when, I don't know when that the house was extended or maybe it was a porch that got enclosed. But we don't believe that the windows along the rear of the house or the side, the west elevation where the screen porch was. We don't think that they're original, but we're just not sure when exactly they were installed. Thank you. Sure. I think I know the answer to this question. Is there anyone else present here today who would like to speak for or against the case? That being the case, I'm going to close the public hearing to permit discussion amongst the commissioners. Are there any commissioners with concerns about any aspect of this proposal? Looks like there is not, do we have a staff recommendation? Carla Rosenberg planning department, staff would recommend approval of the application. Thank you, Carla. Is there any commissioner who would be willing to make a motion? I can do so, Matt. This is commissioner Goldweb. Thanks, sir. Durham Historic Preservation Commission finds that in case COA 21000342410 Westcull Boulevard addition and modifications, the applicant is proposing an addition and modifications to a contributing structure. The 266 square foot addition will attach to a previous addition. The secondary gable roof will peak just below the primary roof structure. The addition will be constructed with cementitious fiberboard shapes, six over one fiberglass clad windows, wood composite trail and architectural asphalt shingles. Let me amend that, and architectural asphalt roof shingles. Four double hung windows in a non-original dormer will be replaced with one double hung and three casement windows, all of fiberglass clad wood in a six over one configuration. One rear chimney will be removed without replacement. One deteriorated 12 inch DBH large tree will be removed to facilitate instruction without replacement. 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 their certificate of appropriateness for case COA 2 1 0 0 0 3 4 24 10 West Club Boulevard addition and modifications with the following conditions. One, the improvements self will be substantially consistent with the plans and testimony presented to the commission at this commission hearing and attached to this COA. Two, the improvements may require additional approvals from other city or county departments or state or local agencies. The applicant is responsible for obtaining all required approvals relating to building instruction, site work and work in the right of way. And three, a compliance inspection shall be performed immediately upon completion of the work approved hearing. We have a second. Second. Sorry. April can have it. All right. Second from Ms. Excuse me, commissioner Johnson. Terry, if you could please take a roll call vote. Chair Prashard. Approved. Mr. DeBerry. Proved. Commissioner Feaselman. Proved. Vice Chair Gulsby. Proved. Commissioner Hamilton. Proved. Commissioner Johnson. Approved. Commissioner Waders. Your own new commissioner Waders. Yes, I give my commissioner Waders approved. All right, motion passes seven zero. Mr. Greener, Mr. Horton, thank you so much for your time today for this proposal. Good luck to both of you with this project. Thank you very much. And staff members, thank you very much for your time. Andy, were you the commissioner with a 1030 hard stop? I am, I was about to speak up. Okay. Well, that leaves us, I believe, with six commissioners and a half hour for a number of commissioners who also have hard stops. So I say we move forward and try to do so expeditiously. And so with that, Chris, I'd ask you to bring in the participants for case number COA 210036. This is 2326 Englewood Avenue, new construction and site work. All participants have joined. Wonderful. Looks like we have Mark McClure and David Parker and Chad Wilkins. Are there any other participants? John, could you please help me with the pronunciation of your last name? Is it Leggy? Leg, just like what you walk on. Leg, okay, great. So we got Mr. Leg, Mr. Wilkins, Mr. Parker and Mr. McClure. Mr. McClure, if you could turn on your camera, please. Fantastic. Clerk Elliott, if you could please swear in all of our witnesses. Okay. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give in the public here in proceeding for today's case is the trace by your own knowledge or by information and belief? I do. I do. I'm laying, I do. Thank you very much. I'm gonna do another quick roll call vote. I'll do this alphabetically. So Mr. Leg, then Mr. McClure, then Mr. Parker, then Mr. Wilkins. Do you all consent to the hearing of this case via this remote electronic platform? I do. I do. I do. Wonderful. Thank you all very much. Staff report, please, Karla. Karla Rosenberg Planning Department. This is case COA 21-00036-2326 Anglewood Avenue, new construction and site work. The applicant and owner is Riverbank Development LLC, represented by Chad Wilkins and David Parker. I'd like to, oh, actually located north side of Anglewood Avenue between Alabama and Virginia avenues, Zoned Residential Urban Five, non-contributing structure in the Watts-Hillendale Historic District, non-contributing property. The applicant proposes to construct a new primary structure on what is to become a vacant lot. Eventually, as you would recall, the existing structure was approved for demolition with a 365-day delay in June. I'd like to introduce the staff report into the record and invite the applicants to visit their case. Thank you. Gentlemen, I'm not sure which of you wanted to speak first, but please proceed. Thanks, Karla. This is Chad Wilkins. I'll start here. So our goal with this project was to create a modest house that's both progressive and creative, but there also draws on the form, true funds, scale and aesthetic of the district that it's in. It addresses challenges of the site with water and an impervious surface and lessens the environmental impact about reducing the impervious surface and also uses modern construction technology and materials. The front porch, similar to most homes in the district, is large and welcoming, helping to maintain the sense of community that Watson is known for. These were all very important objectives for our client and I'll talk briefly through the local design review criteria, but we'll try to keep that brief because I know we have others that want to speak as well. Karla, if you can go to the colored elevation kind of perspective view for me, right there. Thank you. That's perfect. So this is a view just showing the house placed on the site and I just wanted to talk through several elements here. We were very intentional with the way that we specifically designed the front elevation, both to relate to the existing context, the immediate context of the neighboring houses on either side, but also the district context. You can see the dashed lines that kind of denote the water lines of both the neighboring houses and this new house. And you can see that we were, again, very intentional about making sure that the front single story form related to the context of the neighboring houses by way of height. And that also, even though this is a two-story house, we made the roof lines, hip roofs such that you don't get the kind of overshadowing nature of a large gable. So you'll also note that the two, there's two different sodding materials used on the front. That's to kind of diminish the two-story volume and scale. You'll see the color change as well of the two materials where we've stepped back that second volume to kind of make it very secondary. In addition to that, the front porch roof steps down and it's supported by brick foundation and planters that kind of bring the scale down to street level even more. As far as the site itself, we are, as I mentioned before, significantly reducing the impervious area. The existing impervious area on the site is almost 54%. We're reducing that to just under 35%. So, which is significant given that we've got a larger home than the existing one, but also we're eliminating quite a bit of driveway in the backyard. You'll also note that the windows and doors draw on the characteristics of windows and doors throughout the neighborhood with kind of triple, double, and single units and put together in kind of a composition, particularly again on the front elevation. We do have some corner windows on the upper volume, but there is precedent for that as well within the district and one in particular prairie style ranch. You know, we also are using, Carla, maybe you can go to the 2D elevations for me. We are using several very basic standard materials. You'll note the horizontal hardy plank lap sodding and then the vertical board and baton on the two-story or the second-story volume. But Carla, if you can go to the next sheet. The kind of the bump out that you see on the upper elevation, the east elevation, we're using a natural spruce product called thermory. It's a very similar to a vertical kind of tongue and groove sodding, but it's basically pre-weathered so that it has kind of a grayish, a gray toned weathered look. The chimney as well is proposed to be that product. And you can see that maybe a little bit better actually in the 3D views. All of the porch elements, the porch columns, as well as the screen porch columns and decking is all stained. We do not have any railing on the project as our porches are all less than 30 inches above grade. And then the roof is a standing seam, metal roofing also seen throughout the district. That's all for me at this point. Thank you, Mr. Wilkins and recognizing that we may have some time limitations here due to when commissioners are no longer available. Is there anyone else who would like to speak on behalf of this request? I would... Please go forward. Good morning. My name is David Parker. I am current owner of 2326 Inglewood Avenue. I'm also a general contractor, lifetime dorm resident, resident at 11 or six Alabama Avenue, which is the North neighbor of the subject property. And I'm speaking in favor of the new home plan presented to you today. As a neighbor, I've worked for years to address the adverse effects that this abandoned site has created for those of us that surround it. I've put in swells, catch basins, piping to try to capture and divert. In many cases, simply slow down the immense amounts of water runoff from 2326. This major existing issue was the impetus for us involving our landscape architect as a primary contributor from the outset of the design process. I've routinely cut up and removed large limbs when they fall from the deteriorating trees in the back. The most recent, which came down in the fall before we acquired the property. This one fell across our driveway and threw a section of another neighbor's fence. Immediately had the fence patched and recruited some folks to help remove the large section of limb that was upside down and hanging from the tree, which presented obvious danger. For years I've trimmed weeds and vines that grow up around the shed and in a bit of non-paved area adjacent to our property. This is routinely eroded then. Fortunately, the neighborhood alas offer assistance in helping control that population. My neighbor, John, who's on here as well, has logged many more hours than I in and around the property through the years. Something he began doing is neighborly assistance to the last owner occupant, Ms. Ola Cook, has continued in the years since her passing and has the site set vacant. John and I would routinely chat about the sad state of the property and express hopes that one day we would again have neighbors at 2326. All these years later, I'm grateful and excited to be working to make that happen. The design before you today is the fruit of collaboration with the future owner occupants of 2326, Inglewood Avenue, Mark, McCore, and Sherri Elliott. I met Mark McCary last October when they contacted Riverbank to inquire about housing opportunities and what's still in there. Well, this is a fairly common occurrence in this housing market. The thoughtfulness with which they described their housing goals was atypical. Our discussion was more about the culture of community, creativity, and stewardship, and square footage, beds, baths, and a Pinterest wish list. I was so excited about the two of them and their vision for their future home that I immediately began looking for an opportunity to collaborate. Fortunately, I didn't have to look very far if I'm going to make it a neglected property that could eventually become their home. It had been a while since I last spoke with the current owner, but he was willing to engage the idea of finally selling the property. I was excited to share the news of the property with Mark and Sherri and even more excited to one day have them as neighbors. My colleague, Chad Wilkins, worked for months crafting the design presented to you today. Each detail thoughtfully considered, discussed, critiqued, and refined. We also engage neighbors throughout this journey, recognizing that redevelopment affects more than the physical appearance of a block face or a neighborhood. It affects people within our communities. Ultimately, I feel that we have created a healthy home that respects its historic surroundings. One that embraces the eclectic mix of residential structures, as described in the Watts-Hillendale Neighborhood Preservation Plan, contributing to its diversity, expressing the creative and progressive spirit of our city while harmonizing with its past. At the end of the day, I recognize that this commission is tasked with a difficult job. I appreciate each of you for serving to protect Durham's historic assets. I appreciate groups like Preservation Durham for chanting that call it as well. At the grown-up in Durham, I'm hearing stories of my father's childhood in West Durham, the Mill Village or Irwin Auditorium, Knight Street and Durham High School. I too am passionate about this place. I spent my career restoring homes in Durham. I hope folks would see our body of work as having been for the betterment of Durham and specifically local historic districts. I agree with how Preservation Durham describes our historic structures, saying these places tell our story, one of scrappy entrepreneurs, creative reinvention and stubborn optimism. That story fills personal. And I hope that local historic districts will allow margin to continue writing those stories while protecting valuable elements from the past. Today, I hope you will find our plan for 2326, a thoughtful contribution to our community. And I believe eventually it's issued. Thank you. Thank you very much. Are there any other speakers who wish to provide any further testimony in support of this request for COA? I'd like to make a brief statement if I can, Matt. Please proceed. Actually, Carl Rosenberg Planning Department, I just wanna make sure that all of our proponents and opponents know that it's really important to stick to the criteria. This is a prized judicial proceeding. And so all of the commissioned decisions are based on the criteria for new structures in this case. Mr. McClure, was it you who wanted to speak? Oh, yeah. Go ahead, Mark. I would just like to say that we have worked, my wife and I have worked very closely with David and Chad on coming up with a design that we think will add to the character of Watts Hillendale of Ruth looking at the history of Ruth Little's National Register application. She stated that structures built after World War II had a different character that was not congruent with the rest of the neighborhood. Hence the existing structure is non-contributory. But I'd just like to ask for the commission to consider that 100 years ago that the Lithicum stoner house was considered to be eccentric. As was the house across the street, the Edkins Williams house, you may consider this to be different than other houses that are in the neighborhood, but I'll pose to the committee that this is in the spirit of Durham as David so nicely proposed. And we welcome your consideration and thank you for your time. Thank you, Mr. McClure. Anybody else prepared to speak on behalf of the application? Mr. Edwards? Actually, Mr. Edwards, I don't think you were sworn in earlier. Ms. Elliott, could you please swear in Mr. Edwards? Yes. Let me get those. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give in the public here in proceeding for today's case is the truth by your own knowledge or by information and belief? Yeah. And Mr. Edwards, do you consent to participating in these COA application requests via this remote electronic platform? I consent. Please proceed. Good morning. My name is Devon Networks and I'm speaking in support of the Riverbank Project at Inglewood Avenue. I've worked for Riverbank for the past 10 months and what attracted me to this company is its ability to maintain the integrity of the community and neighborhood while also using creative methods to rejuvenate and represent the core values of the neighborhood. Every project is well thought out and handled with care. And I believe this design for 2326 Inglewood Avenue embodies those values of the Watts-Hillendale neighborhood. For this reason, I stand behind this application and believe in the work that we do throughout the Durham community. Thank you, Mr. Edwards. Anybody else prepared to speak on behalf of the application? And just want to reemphasize that some commissioners have obligations at 11 o'clock so we are running out of time here. Matt, I'd like to make a brief statement. Mr. Leger, please proceed. I live next door in the house with the CRDs to the right. And speak on my and my wife's behalf. Although we appreciate living in a neighborhood that preserves history, we place a higher value on the principles of safety and decency. We want to live in a community with persons who care about their properties enough to at least maintain them and possibly even improve and beautify them for theirs and others' benefits. The reality of 2326 is that no one has cared for or about this property for decades. In fact, no one has even lived in the house since December, 2013, a period of seven and a half years. As David mentioned over this time, I have personally done all of the yard maintenance of the house, including lawn mowing, leaf raking, and tending to fallen tree branches in order to avoid the unsightly appearance of an un-maintained abandoned dump. I repaired the hole in the roof created when a vent was blown off and a storm to prevent the house from being flooded with water. I devised and maintained with David a drainage system where our properties meet in order to manage the deluge of rainwater that pours off the half acre of concrete, the constitutes the driveway, and the entire backyard. One summer, our travel nurse's daughter lived with us between her contracts. When she reported noises coming from Ms. Cook's house in the evenings, I suggested to her that she was hearing things. We came to learn that a family of possums had moved into the attic space and the sound was the critters clawing the soft vents, possibly trying to escape the house. When we informed Ms. Cook's grandson, who owned the house at the time of the infestation, we believed he enclosed the holes in all the entries to the attic and allowed the animals to die in the home. My wife and I are tired of living next door to an abandoned, decrepit shell of a house. We were ecstatic when we learned that Riverbank Homes had purchased the property because we knew of the exceptional work they had done in our neighborhood for more than a decade to preserve its history and enhance its character. We are fully supportive of the plans that Riverbank has developed for 2326. We are confident in Riverbank's commitment to the Watts-Hillendale neighborhood. We believe a new home will greatly enhance the appeal, integrity, and the safety of our block. And we look forward to having Mark and Sharia's neighbors hopefully sooner rather than later. Thank you for listening. Thank you, Mr. Legg. Anybody else wishing to speak on behalf of the application? Commissioners, any questions for any of the speakers who have presented on behalf of the applicant? I know our time is tight, but why prairie style? Mr. Wogan. Thanks, Matt. Thanks, Laura, for that question. I wouldn't say that we specifically have designed this house to, or set out to design this house to be a prairie-style house. I probably wouldn't describe it that way, although I agree that it has many characteristics of a prairie-style house, including obviously the hipteroos. But it was really a result of trying to bring down the scale and respect the scale of neighboring homes and of the district. And the hipteroos really kind of met that strategy for us. Got it, thanks. There are also, you know, there is precedent in the district for prairie-style homes, per se. Any other commissioner questions for proponents of the request? Seeing and hearing none, I will ask, as I'm obligated to ask, if there is anybody participating today who would like to speak against the proposal. Seeing and hearing no opposition, can we please have a staff recommendation? Carlo Rosenberg's cleaning department, staff would recommend approval of the application. Thank you, Carla. Do we have a motion? I can do it this time. Hold on a second. Thank you, Commissioner Johnson. Okay. This is ending in three, seven, right? Which one? It is. Okay. Let's get the motion. The Durham Historic Preservation Commission finds that in the case of COA 2103037, 2326 Englewood Avenue, new construction, the applicant is proposing to construct a new primary structure. The structure would be constructed with cementitious fiber board, horizontal lamp siding across the lower floor, and vertical board and batten siding across the second floor. Wood composite trim, thermally modified wood cladding on rear chimney and a rear bump out and standing seam metal roots. Three trees will be removed from the rear yard and replaced with two American beaches in a rear yard and two street trees recommended in the Durham landscape manual. A ribbon driveway will be paved along the east elevation. Therefore, the conclusion of law is that the proposed addition and alterations are consistent with the historic character and qualities of the historic district and are consistent with the historic property's local review criteria, specifically those listed in the staff report. And the Durham Historic Preservation Commission approves the certificate of appropriateness for case COA 2103037, 2326 Englewood Avenue, new construction with the following conditions. One, the improvements shall be substantially consistent with the plans and testimony presented to the commission at this commission hearing and attached to the COA. Two, the improvements may require additional improvements from other city or county departments or state or local agencies. The applicant is responsible for obtaining all required approvals relating to building construction, site work and work in the right of way. And a compliance inspection shall be performed immediately upon completion of the work approved hearing. Thank you, Commissioner Johnson. Do we have a second? Commissioner Hamilton, second. Thank you, Commissioner Hamilton. Clark Elliott, can we please have a roll call vote? Chair Prashard. Approved. Commissioner DeBerry. Approved. Commissioner Feaselman. Invading Terry. Oh, okay. So she doesn't count in the vote. Thanks. Vice Chair Gulsby. He's already departing. Oh, that's right. He is. I'm remembering now. Commissioner Hamilton. Okay. Commissioner Johnson. Approved. And Commissioner Waders. Approved. Motion passes five zero. Thank you very much. And thank you all for your participation today. Mr. Wilkins in 30 seconds or less, could you give us an update as to the work with Preservation Durham on the existing structure? Out of our curiosity. Thanks, Matt. I'll defer to David on that one. You can better answer that. Yeah, thanks, Matt. I had not heard anything from Pres... Had not heard anything from Preservation Durham or anyone else for that matter regarding any efforts to talk about the meeting from June 1st of the application. So I reached out to Mr. Miller via email early last week and wanted to just set up a proactive discussion in advance of today's meeting. So we met on Friday. I shared just more context about what we were planning to present today. I wanted to have an thoughtful conversation with he and Mark and Sherry. I confirmed with him that we have no intention of saving the hall and asked for his feedback on existing plan we brought forth today. He gave some thoughts on that but said that given that we have no intent to keep the structure that's there, he really, let me say, it didn't really matter when we got to the new hall. And Mr. Parker, Tom Miller, he's the board president for Preservation Durham, so. Yes, yes, he was speaking on behalf of Preservation Durham when he said it didn't really matter. I mean, he did thoughtfully engage on a personal level. I appreciate that update. Again, thank y'all very much. And good luck with your project. Thank you everyone. Thank you all. That is the last of our COA requests for today. We don't have any agenda items under old business, new business minor COAs. Terry? Yes, I will mail those out. I sent the previous out already. Do y'all have any questions on them or? I do not. I know we've got everyone anxious to get on with our day but I do have one last question here. I think for Carla, Carla, what was the result of the poll for resuming live commission hearings? I will have Grace Smith speak on resuming live, but I will, I do want to say I should have made an adjustment at the beginning. I didn't have an agenda to look at to make an adjustment and not and see that we didn't have any old business. I just wanted to check in about the newsletter and also let you guys know about the retreat, which I'll send an email about, but we are going to have the retreat in place of the August hearings because we actually don't have a hearing scheduled for August, but we will have a meeting and we will have a retreat during that time. And I'm looking to get somebody from Shippo to come speak on a couple of topics that have been of particular interest to the commission in the past months. April and Katie, I have checked in with you via email about the newsletter. We were contending to distribute in September. Hopefully we can stay on board with that or not be too much later than that. So yeah, so I got those pictures from you from the new or from that relocated structure for last week. I will, I had dropped the text into the InDesign, but with those graphics, I'll add those in and I will probably send it to you in the next. I'll say by Sunday, just so that I get myself the weekend to do it. Thank you so much. And I know that the applicant, the owner of that property for the second accessory structure is just sent some new images as well. So I'll forward you her email and you can choose from those as well, whatever looks good to you. And I sent the draft of my little piece. So I probably need to fine tune it, but I remember that the commissioners wanted to are we gonna have them, are we gonna do an email review for the commissioners to review before we approve it or are we gonna approve it at the next meeting? Like they wanted to review the draft. I think maybe we could have it sent out in an email during the month and have final approval during the retreat, if possible. That work. But if we need an extra month and it needs to be final approval in September, that's fine too. Okay. And let me know if there was something else I was supposed to deal with that. I felt like I was just supposed to write that piece, right? I think so. Okay. Yeah, you gave me the copy. Karla gave me the pictures. I just didn't put it all on, which I have, literally. Thank you both. And thank you both so much for going above and beyond with that. No doubt. No doubt echo that sentiment. Grace, how are things looking for return to live hearings or not? I don't have any updates in that regard. The survey that you received that was passed on to you, that's actually being initiated or managed through the clerk's office. And I have not received any results on that yet. As soon as we do, we will let you know. I will say that the city council plans to go back live in August from what I understood, they may even have one of their work sessions live at the end of July. But the last I heard, they want to test the waters out first and then they will decide how to move forward or give the boards and commissions some direction at that point. So I believe we will, two things. I don't think you will go back live before August, probably more like September, if we go back live. Well, three things. Just said number two, that might be a hybrid option. I'm not 100% sure on that. There might be an option where people can participate remotely and in person. I don't know that for sure, but I know that's being talked about. And the other thing is I feel like they will give us a 30 day notice before they require you to come back in person. So that's just kind of the highlights of what I can offer right now. That's helpful. And so the retreat schedule next August, that will be in lieu of our regularly scheduled monthly meeting and that will be virtual. Next month, yes, that's correct. Good deal. Thank you. That's all I've got. Anyone else? Good to see all your smiling faces. I hope everyone had a great holiday weekend and a nice month of July ahead. Thanks. Bye everyone. Bye everyone. Thank you. Bye everybody. Bye bye.