 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 the 12th day of July, 2022. 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 on 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 evidentiary hearing consent to the matter of proceeding on this remote platform. If there was any objection to the 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 a general announcement via our website, including, excuse me, informing the public of same. The notices for today's meeting advise 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. This information was also included on the board's website. The public was advised to contact the city immediately in case of objection to the evidentiary hearing or to the remote meeting platform. One case today is proceeding in which city has been contacted by an individual or entity with an objection to the case or the matter being heard, excuse me, to the case or to the matter being heard in this remote meeting platform. All individuals participating in today's evidentiary hearings were also required to submit a copy of any presentation, document, exhibit or other material they wish to submit at the evidentiary hearing prior to today's meeting. All materials that the city received from the participants in today's cases as well as a copy of city staff's presentations and documents were posted online prior to this meeting. The agenda and all materials to be discussed today may be viewed at any time during today's meeting by visiting the web link for today's agenda via Durham's Agenda Center. Finally, all individuals who registered to participate in an evidentiary hearing on today's agenda as well as all city staff participants were emailed a witness oath and consent to a remote hearing form prior to today's meeting. Any individual planning to testify or submit evidence in an evidentiary hearing was notified that they must sign the oath form prior to today's meeting. We will also reaffirm everyone's oath on the record at today's meeting. Are there any members of this board that would have any conflicts of interest with regard to the cases before us today? Chair Prashar, Ms. Annie Gulsby, I'll be recusing myself from the Ritsby Avenue case. Okay, thank you Vice Chair Gulsby, anybody else? And Vice Chair Gulsby, if you could just provide some information about the nature of the, excuse me, easy for me to say, recusal. Certainly, my firm is the architect for the project and I'm also working on the project. Thank you. Are there any early dismissals being requested today from our commissioners? This is Katie, our commissioner Hamilton. I, based on the number of cases, I understood that we were gonna review, scheduled another meeting at 1030, so I'm hoping we'll be done by then, but in case we aren't, I did schedule another one just because of my understanding of how long this meeting was gonna go, but I might've been wrong on that. Thank you for that, anybody else? Matt, this is Andy again. I need to leave at 10.45. Thank you for that, excuse me, anybody else? Okay, 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 any, may then present their evidence and then the applicant may 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 that each witness knows directly, not hearsay. Evidence already presented need not be repeated. All witnesses who have signed up in advance will be given the opportunity to speak and their testimony will be recorded. The board will vote on each case after the presentation of all evidence pro and con concerning that case. All decisions of the board are subject to appeal to the Board of Adjustment and then to the Durham County Superior Court. Clerk Holmes, could you please take the attendance of the commissioners who are here today? All right. Chair Bouchard. Present. Commissioner Horton. Present. Vice Chair Gulsby. Present. Commissioner Hamilton. Present. Commissioner Johnson. Commissioner Calhoun. Present. Commissioner Chambers. Present. Carla, could you please provide us the details of Commissioner Johnson's absence as you understand them? Yeah, I believe she mentioned at a previous meeting that she would be at a conference. So she did give us notice, I think to all of us at the last hearing, at the last meeting. Do we have a motion to excuse Commissioner Johnson's absence? Commissioner Hamilton, so moved. Can I have a second? Second. Any decals, please? Thank you, Vice Chair Gulsby. Clerk Holmes, if we could have a roll call vote, please on excusing Commissioner Johnson's absence from today's meeting. All right. Chair Bouchard. Approved. Vice Chair Gulsby. Approved. Commissioner Horton. Present. Commissioner Hamilton. Approved. Commissioner Calhoun. Approved. And Commissioner Chambers. Approved. Thank you, Clerk Holmes. Motion passes, I'm sorry, motion passes six to zero. Wonderful. Thank you very much. Commissioners, you've been forwarded an agenda for today's meeting. Would anyone, including city staff, like to recommend any adjustments to that agenda? That. Mr. O'Toole. Good morning, Commission. Don O'Toole from the city attorney's office. I'm just a little concerned about the second case because we have one member recusing himself. So that only leads us with five members. I would just like to request that maybe we reverse the order on the hearing of the cases if that might be possible for the commission. City staff or commissioners, any objection to flipping the order of today's cases that would make the 2016-2018 Riggs v. Avenue, the first case we hear today and the 1223 Vickers Avenue, the second case we hear today? Okay, hearing no objection, I believe it's within my discretion to approve that adjustment to the agenda. We will hear case COA 220031 first today. Commissioners, you've also been provided draft minutes from our last commission hearing held on the same remote platform on June 14, 2022. Does anyone have any adjustments to the draft minutes that they would like to recommend? Chair Bichard, this is Commissioner Hamilton. I was just curious with the votes, like all of them are counted as seven to zero, but I don't think everybody was voting. I think only six of us were actually voting. So I was hoping, I wasn't sure if we should change that. I mean, all of us were in attendance, but. We are missing one commissioner. Ms. Johnson is not present. So I think that's, we have seven possible commissioners, but we have one missing, which is Ms. Johnson. So that brings it to six, am I? No, we're talking about last month's minutes. Oh, I'm sorry. We're talking about the recent vote. Yeah, and your team wasn't voting last month. So it'd be like six to zero and then one, you know, off to the side or whatever. I would imagine. I don't really know. Yeah. Katie, I still count seven people on the member minus for Keyne. So one, two, because I thought we only had seven. Four, because we still have Laura at that point. Oh, okay. Yeah. So commissioner chambers wouldn't be able to vote for the minutes and commissioner Horton wouldn't either. So we have Chair Bichard by struggles be commissioner Calhoun and commissioner Hamilton. So that is one, two, four. And four commissioners with seven currently serving Woodcons today quorum. Is that correct, Mr. O'Toole? I'm sorry, Mr. Bichard. I didn't hear your question. Absolutely. We are in the process of reviewing and approving the minutes from the June 14, 2022 meeting. Obviously with Mr. Chambers and with Ms. Horton, not participating in last month's cases and based on the folks who are here today, who were present at that hearing, we have four people eligible to vote to approve the meetings, the meeting minutes, excuse me. If we had a full commission of non-members that would clearly not constitute a quorum. But since we are currently two members down on our commission, I am asking whether or not four members. No, it's my understanding that under the rules five members is required for a quorum. So maybe we should hold off on approving the minutes until we have a full compliment next month. I'm fine holding off on postponing approval of the June 14, 2022 minutes until our next commission meeting in August. And I believe that is within my discretion and will not request a vote from the commission on that topic. So let's move forward. Could I also recommend one other adjustment to the agenda and that is before we start the hearings also introduce our two new members? Absolutely. And we also have a hand raised from Ms. Smith. Yes, I just wanted to ask the question if I knew that Rikim was present last month. And so he did hear all of the public hearings and all of the information that was entered and voted on. So I just wanted if for next month, if Commissioner Horton is to vote on the minutes, maybe she could just go back and look at the meeting briefly online or read over the minutes to be familiar with them before you vote on them next month. But I just wanted to throw that out there. Thank you. Commissioner Horton, you are voting on today's case is correct? Yes. Okay, wonderful. Thank you. Okay, well, let's move forward with the swearing in of all city staff. Claire Combs. All right. 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. Grace Smith Planning Department, I do. Great. Thank you both. The first case on our agenda today, pursuant to the adjustment to the agenda that was made at the beginning of this hearing is COA 220031, 2016-2018 Riggsby Avenue. I believe that Mr. O'Toole has some remarks he would like to make about this case before we get started. Good morning everyone, Don. In fact, Don, before you get started, we probably should have Chris Peterson bring in the participants and any opponents for this case into the hearing so that they can hear what you need to say and respond if necessary. And so Chris, if you could do that, please. And Matt, if I may, Commissioner Gouldy, I'll go ahead and recuse myself at this time from the case. Again, I'm part of the design staff for the applicant. And remind me, Mr. O'Toole, do we need to have a vote on recruit? Can't say that word today. Cusel, based on the explanation that Vice Chair Gouldy has provided us? I don't think that's required. Okay. Andy, thank you. And, very good. Okay, before we proceed with this case, swearing of any witnesses in this case, I would like to give the floor to Mr. O'Toole to make remarks. Good morning, everyone. Don O'Toole from the Durham City Attorney's Office. I just wanted to give a brief intro to this case to explain something that a staff is going to request that the commission do. We've all needed to be flexible over the last two years with the pandemic. And when the city initial, well, when the world initially went remote, there were questions under North Carolina law of whether quasi judicial proceedings could be held over a virtual platform like Zoom. Our legislature remedied that, the pandemic started March 2000. That next legislative session, a law was passed and Mr. Bouchard actually cited the law at the beginning of the meeting. It's 166A-19.24. And that meeting specifically allowed quasi judicial proceedings to be held remotely when certain conditions were met. One of the first conditions was there needed to be an emergency order in place that governed the locality where the hearing would be held. Since 2000, Governor Cooper has had an emergency order in place that covers the entire state of North Carolina. I don't know if many followed the news yesterday, but the governor issued a press release indicating that his statewide emergency order will cease on August 15, 2022. So it is actually still in effect. So to the extent that we have a remote meeting today, that is still authorized. There is another requirement under the statute and I'll just read it to everyone so it's in the record. And what it says is all persons subject to the quasi judicial proceeding who have standing to participate. And that phrase standing to participate has special legal significance in the quasi judicial hearing have been given notice of the quasi judicial hearing and consent to the remote meeting. Essentially what that means is if people have standing to participate in the hearing then they have to consent to that meeting going forward. I think you'll note that in the package of information that's in the online agenda, a request was made from some nearby neighbors. In that letter, they contend that they have standing. I'm not here to dispute that. I'm also not the decider of that question of whether they have standing or not. And they are represented by an attorney, Mr. Rother who is actually on this call and he'll be given the opportunity to speak if he so chooses. But in that letter, he indicated that his clients who he contends have standing that they do not consent to this meeting proceeding remotely. In response to Mr. Rother's email, I indicated that he and or his clients might need to be present in case the applicant wanted to contest whether those folks have standing or not, which would be the applicant's right. In the end of the day, one of the things that Mr. Rother and his law partner indicated is that, and obviously Mr. Rother can speak for himself, but that he and his clients didn't actually want to consent even to attend the meeting remotely in order to consider the standing question. And so that was discussed internally. I discussed it with Carla, Grace was involved in the conversation and the planning director, Sarah Young was involved. And one of the things that we discussed internally was probably the best way to avoid this issue would be to request that the HPC refer this matter back to staff such that a live hearing can be heard on this matter, which eliminates the whole question of consenting to a remote meeting. And as I just stated previously, the governor's order will be lifted next month. So that should facilitate the city's quasi-judicial boards which the HPC is one of them, returning to an in-person format. So by way of saying that, I would like to ask on behalf of the city staff that this matter that the HPC consider referring this matter back to city staff so that it can be scheduled for an in-person meeting. Mr. Rother, thank you very much. I think I'll turn to Mr. Rother first just to see if he would like to say anything in response, confirm the same Mr. O'Toole made. Yes, Mr. Chairman, thank you. I'll be very brief because I think Mr. O'Toole characterized the situation very fairly. My name is Jeffrey Rother from Morningstar Law Group. We represent the Eleanor Condominium Owners Association which is the building next door to the subject property that shares a party wall with the building that's proposed to be demolished. As Mr. O'Toole mentioned, this is a quasi-judicial hearing that's being taken place virtually under North Carolina General Statute 166A-19.24. The city only has a statutory authority to go forward if all parties would stand in consent. As Mr. O'Toole mentioned, my law partner wrote letters dated July the 5th and July the 8th, which I believe have been included in the agenda packet in which we state on behalf of our clients that we object to the meeting taking place virtually and also object to any remote proceeding to adjudicate our client standing. We believe the standing is self-evident, but nonetheless believe the statute requires in-person meeting to the extent that there is any question as to standing for that to be adjudicated. So we would request that this be adjourned until such time as the board can hear this matter in person. Mr. Rother, thank you. I'd like to give the applicant an opportunity to respond and just by way of reminder, we haven't sworn anybody in yet. We're just talking solely about the issue of the opponent's objections to proceeding on the remote platform, but I do want to give the applicant an opportunity to respond to what it has heard with respect to that issue. Good morning, everyone. My name is Niche Evans. I am the president and CEO of Durham-based company called Linux and Gray Construction, as well as Linux and Gray, a CRE investment firm. This is actually the third project that I'll be working on related to the historic district. So just providing some context there, I would like to contest in terms of the hearing being made in person. The reason for that is because the objection is based on hearsay related to the demolition of the party wall and that is not what we are planning to do. And so with that being noted, there's no longer a basis for the objection. And so we would like to ask if we can please proceed with our presentation today. And I'm accompanied with both my structural engineer as well as my architecture firm. Thank you very much for that. I think I need to turn back to Mr. O'Toole for thoughts on the authority of this board to proceed with this case in light of the fact that we do have an opponent who has objected to proceeding on this remote platform. So as Ms. Evans just said, it sounds like she would contest that the opponents have standing. And Mr. Rother has indicated that he objects to a hearing on standing proceeding remotely. I believe it is safest for this board and the city for this to be referred back to staff so that it can be scheduled for a live hearing and in person hearing. I'm going to go ahead and open up the floor for conversation among the commissioners about how they believe this matter should best be handled in light of the objection that we have heard to proceeding on this remote platform and the response that we have heard from our applicant. Mr. Chair. Mr. Miller, this is just a conversation among commissioners at this point. Yes, but I wanted to be heard on the motion that's pending. Right now there is no motion pending. Well, you're talking about sending it back to the staff that will require a motion. I'm assuming that's what was being suggested. I'd like to be heard on the matter. Mr. O'Toole, could you please, as a point of order, let us know whether or not it would be appropriate at this time for Mr. Miller to speak? I mean, we haven't even opened a hearing where this is a preliminary matter. I believe it's appropriate for this just to be discussed among the commission at this point. And that is how we will proceed. Very well. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Commissioners, any thoughts in response to what you have heard? Commissioner Haliton? Yeah, I mean, so while I understand that the demolition of the party wall might be here, say, the party has standing regardless, because they are an adjoining building. And so I don't think standing, I have to agree with Morningstar it's self-evident. And therefore, if they're against having this hearing digitally, I just don't think we can in due process have this hearing digitally without their consent. Thank you, Commissioner Hamilton. Anybody else? Is there anybody who would like to speak in favor of proceeding today? Hearing none, I'll entertain a motion from any commissioner who would like to make a motion. This is Commissioner Hamilton. I guess I'll be the vocal one today. I would move that case. COA 2200031 be referred back to staff to be scheduled at the next commission hearing held in person. Do we have a second? I second. Thank you, Commissioner Calhoun. Clerk Holmes, if we could have a roll call vote, please. Great. Chair Bouchard. Approved. Commissioner Calhoun. Approved. Commissioner Chambers. Approved. Commissioner Hamilton. Approved. Commissioner Horton. Approved. Motion passes 5 to 0. Want to thank everybody for your patience as we work through this issue. We look forward to scheduling or city staff working with you to schedule this matter for an in-person meeting. And we look forward to hearing evidence pro and con on the substance of the matter at such time. Thank you. We're going to move on to the next case on our agenda. And while Mr. Peterson is bringing in our participants and any opponents, I will go ahead and announce that the next case is COA 22000251223 Vickers Avenue. Before we hear from staff, is there any one of our commissioners who may have a conflict of interest in hearing this case? Seeing and hearing none. Let us proceed. Well, actually, I don't believe we have our participant in just yet. Chair, it's taking us a minute to get Noel Gonzales. Oh, I think they're coming in right now. Noel Gonzales, can you hear us? You're currently on mute. Yes, I can hear you. Good morning. Good morning, Mr. Gonzales. Good to see you this morning. Let's proceed with swearing in of Mr. Gonzales and anybody else who may be here for this case, Clark Holmes. 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 need you to vocalize your ascents. Oh, yes. Thank you. And Mr. Gonzales, do you consent to your hearing proceeding today on this electronic remote platform? Yes. Wonderful. Thank you very much. We could have a staff report, please. Carla. Sorry, new computer. Noel, I'm not doing exactly what I want it to do. I'll just. This is Carla Rosenberg, Planning Department. This case, COA 2200025. The project is 1223 Vickers Avenue. Modifications, new accessory structure, and site work. The applicant is CQC Homes represented by Noel Gonzales. The owners are John Subner-Darnell and Lalitri Darnell. It's located on the east side of Vickers Avenue between Cobb Street and West Lakewood Avenue. It's zoned Residential Suburban 8, and it's a contributing structure to the Moorhead Hill Historic District. The applicant is proposing to replace an existing screen porch. And this will require some minor change to the rear roofline. And there will also be an attached deck. Also, the applicant is proposing two accessory structures in the side yard. And I'd like to end up. There's also the removal of, I'm sorry, protection of a tree on site. I'd like to introduce this staff report into the record and invite Mr. Gonzales to present his case. Speak now. So the clients came to us to renovate their existing screen porch, which is informally done. So the structure is attached to the overhang of the house. So we're going to stay within the same footprint, but just add a little bit to correct some of the slab work that was done because it's all cracked and settled into that area because it was improperly done in the past. So we're going to correct those issues. But part of that, in order to kind of minimize all the, to minimize how much we connect to the house, we are going a little higher than the actual roofline. So we're just going to extend and to minimize how much we touch on the existing roof. So we propose to go up about two feet above the existing roof level in the back of the house. And then on the exterior, it's all going to match with the same architectural style of the house. We're also proposing a privacy fence to kind of match the other side of the house, where it was one, it went through the whole COA approval as well. So we're kind of going to match one side to the other with our privacy fence where the deck is going to be. And that's where the sauna is going to be placed. And then the owners wanted to add a greenhouse in their backyard as well, which is only 96 square feet. And it's a pretty manufactured greenhouse. So all the materials are just going to be shipped and put together on site with just a pad. And it's all going to be within the setback lines provided on the site survey. Yes, I think that's all I got. Mr. Gonzalez, thank you very much for your presentation. I will now open the floor for questions from any of my fellow commissioners. Mr. Gonzalez, Commissioner Gillespie, was there any consideration to different placements of both the sauna and the greenhouse that would be concealed from the street? So what I'm getting at is both of these would be considered accessory structures to the property. And given the materials being prefabricated, they're not associated really with the house. They're kind of what they are. And so typically with the accessory structures, we see them kind of back behind the site, particularly when the materials don't have an association with the main structure. The greenhouse and the sauna kind of end that deck that we're adding on that part of the property. I don't know if you've seen the pictures, but there's like a lot of trees next to the house that kind of conceal everything that we're not taking down. So the pictures from the street looking towards the house, you can kind of see that it kind of, it will be concealed based on the trees. In the back of the property, the ground, and they have a lot of natural landscape that they wanted to minimize on touching. So we didn't have too many options on kind of where to place it. We just knew that kind of need to be concealed towards the back of the house. And we chose kind of something similar in like to minimize that it would conflict with kind of the architectural nature of the existing home. So the sun all kind of has that same flat roof. The greenhouse, unfortunately, we were unable to find something that had a flat roof based on what the client's budget was. OK, so what I'm hearing is that there's a lot of landscaping in the kind of the rear of the property. And so for y'all, this made the most sense in terms of siding to minimize impact on the rest of the landscaping. All right, I don't have any other questions. Thank you. Mr. Gonzalez, was that a sent to Mr. Gillespie's last question? Just want to make sure that that's clear for the record. Yes. OK, thank you. Commissioners, any other questions for Mr. Gonzalez? Seeing and hearing none, I'll ask if there is anyone else present who intends to speak either or against this case. And seeing and hearing from nobody else, I will close the public hearing and open the floor for discussion amongst the commissioners. Is there anyone who would like to lead us off? This is Carla Rosenberg. I just wanted to make sure. Are you able to see my screen? Yes. And you're able to see when I'm scrolling through? Yes. OK, thank you very much. Matt, I'm sure I'm just kind of skimming the accessory structures for contributing real quick. And one piece that does come to mind is even though it's currently shielded by landscaping, I mean, we can't guarantee that that will always be there. And so what we typically see when these are presented is the accessory structures are more pushed to rear the property, or at least back behind the building themselves. I mean, it's almost a similar thing that when we talk about decks, if they're put in a new deck or an addition on a contributing structure, you really see it kind of within the bounds of the primary structure, not outboard of it. I would agree that that is typically what we see, Vice Chair Gillespie. But we're obviously constrained by our criteria. And I think L3A, which is going to apply here, states that accessory structures should be located to the rear or side of the primary structure. And so I'm not sure that there is something proposed here that is in violation of the criteria, even if it is based on our recent experience, somewhat unusual. Thanks for pointing out. The word rear stuck out in my head. I forgot the side piece. That's why I was trying to read through it real quick. Any other discussion, commissioners? Searing? Commissioner, sorry. No, please proceed. Commissioner Horton, I was also looking at the greenhouse from the standpoint of the roof. To me, the greenhouse looks in Congress with the rest of the architecture of the actual house and the other proposed accessory. However, it is compatible with other things in the neighborhood, that Mansard style. So that would be 3B. Well, in 3C, design new accessory structures to be compatible with architectural style of the primary structure. Within the district, right? So Commissioner Horton, let me just ask, is the potential incompatibility that you see between the greenhouse and the primary structure a reason for you to potentially vote against the proposal? I'm not sure, because F, so F is designed to accessory structures to be compatible with architectural style primary structure. To me, I feel like it's incompatible with the primary structure, even though it is compatible with others in the district, other roof lines specifically in the district. I don't think I'm going to vote no, but I did want it sort of on record that I wish they'd choose something different. Carl, I guess I'll go. Mr. Gonzalez, right now the public hearing is closed. Carl, would you like to comment on anything you just heard from Commissioner Horton and whether or not the greenhouse is or is not compatible with the primary structure? Yes, so I mean, I agree it has a different roof form. I also agree with what Ms. Horton brought up that I think the criteria states compatible with the contributing structure and with structures in the district. This happens to be a more unusual mid-century contributing structure. Most of the contributing structures do have a more slanted roof line. My thought on it was given its location far back from the street that it would be minimally visible and that the differences that it did show would not be readily apparent from the street. That was my position on it, but I understand that there are different factors to weigh. But I was weighing that it wouldn't be incompatible as viewed from the street. I'll go ahead and briefly reopen the public hearing for the purpose of giving Mr. Gonzalez an opportunity to respond to the concern. So this is within their budget. Once we get pricing back from the contractors, the greenhouse roof, there's different options that are more expensive that might be a possibility where the roof can be flat on the greenhouse versus this style. The likelihood of that is little, but it's possible, depending on what we get for pricing back from the source. All right, thank you for that, Mr. Gonzalez. I'll re-close the public hearing and simply observe that we're voting on the proposals that currently exist with the greenhouse with the current roof form. Commissioners, anyone else want to address this issue and whether or not they share concerns about the roof form for this greenhouse and its potentially incompatibility with the primary structure? This is Commissioner Hamilton. Like I understand the concern, but part of me looks at it in a wire frame building. So it doesn't have the same weight to it as a true roof with either tile or my brain is not working. Other roof materials that are opaque instead of see-through. So to me, it doesn't have that weight. And especially with it being so far back, I think especially the green, it could just disappear into the landscape to a certain degree with this style of building. So I find it far less concerning than if it did have an opaque roof material on it. And if I may ask a question, Katie, you may know, is the functionality of the structure as a greenhouse affected by the roof shape? So that one has vents on it, which you're typically not going to find on a flat roof. So cooling-wise, there can be a functionality to having this low roof that has the vents that pitch out. So for temperature regulation, depending on the orientation, which I really haven't looked at this one that much, sometimes for solar orientation, it makes sense to have a non-flat roof. But normally it has more to do with ventilation than anything else. My memory from my future farmers of America, agricultural production days. Thank you for those comments. Commissioners, any other discussion, whether on the greenhouse or any other matter pertaining to this application? Seeing and hearing none, I will request a staff recommendation. Carla Rosenberg Planning Department, staff would recommend approval of this application. Thank you so much, Carla. Do I have a commissioner who would be willing to make a motion? If everyone's going to be shy, I'll go ahead and make the motion. The Durham Historic Preservation Commission finds that, in the case COA 220025 1223 Vickers Avenue, modifications, new construction, and site work, the applicant is proposing modifications to a contributing structure, as well as two new accessory structures, a new screened porch measuring 356 square feet with new 240 square foot attached deck will replace the existing screened porch to accommodate its height. A section of the home's original rear roof overhang will be removed. A sauna measuring 30 square feet and approximately 7 feet in height constructed of cedar wood, glass panels, and asphalt roof shingles will be located to the side and rear of the primary structure. A greenhouse measuring 96 square feet and nearly 8 feet in height constructed with resin framing and clear polycarbonate panels will be located immediately behind it. 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 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 2200-025-1223 Vickers Avenue, modifications, new construction, and site work with the following conditions. One, the improvements shall be substantially consistent with the plans and testimony presented to the commission at this commission hearing and attached to this COA. Two, the improvements may require additional approvals from other city or county departments or state or local agencies. The applicant is responsible for obtaining all required approvals relating to building construction, site work, and work in the right-of-way. And three, a compliance inspection shall be performed immediately upon completion of the work approved herein. Commissioner Hamilton second. Thank you, Commissioner Hamilton. Clerk Holmes, if we can have a roll call vote, please. All right, Chair Bouchard. Approved. Vice Chair Gulsby. Approved. Commissioner Calhoun. Approved. Commissioner Horton. Rift. Commissioner Chambers. Approved. And Commissioner Hamilton. Approved. Motion passes six to zero. Thank you so much, Mr. Gonzalez. Thank you. Good luck on the project, both to you and to your client. Thank you. Appreciate it. Take care. Well, commissioners, it's the end of our case. This is for today. Short docket, which is nice. We're going to get out of here, I think, by 10 o'clock. We do have a few small matters to discuss. Old business. We have the newsletter. I believe we're going to try to focus on accessory dwelling units. Carla has sent me some information. I've volunteered to take the labor and go and try to draft something. And I have not yet started. So that is on my plate here for the next couple of weeks and hope to have some progress. To keep me in line, Carla, is there a deadline from which I should be working? No, we were looking to have a September publish date. We could move that back to October. But I mean, I'm happy to also speak with you, meet with you again in the next week or so, and just sort of review the plan that we had and whether that is going to work or if we might want to adjust and do that plan maybe a year from now. Commissioner, there's one of the obstacles that we have with this plan is we don't have an ADU that we've approved built from which we can take some pictures and try to highlight. And so let Carla and me regroup here in the next couple of weeks and see whether or not we can still work with this or if we should segue to a different feature for the newsletter this time around. And Matt and Carla, one I don't know if it's worth looking at is I know David Parker had a project where they took down a mid-century structure. It was not contributing, but they used the materials or they were slated to use the materials for an accessory structure in the back. I know the main house, if not completed, is fairly far along. I don't know if they've done anything to the original materials. Yeah, I'll go ahead. So you were saying, are you saying in terms of that ADU, whether it's been built yet, or you're saying shift to the use of original materials from demolished structures as a new highly? Either. Again, I don't know where he's at with it. Yeah, I think that was one of the ones that I saw hadn't been built yet. But I will review that. And then that is another potential frame to work with is reuse of materials. We could look at that. Another theme that came to mind was intensive restoration. We've had a couple of projects, one in Moorhead Hill and one in Golden Belt in the last couple of years, where they were taking very, very altered structures and bringing them back to their original shape, which is unusual. That seems pretty interesting too. Yeah. Yeah. Kyle, let's definitely regroup here either this week or early next and come up with a game plan. Sounds like we have several interesting themes. So this is good. This will set us up for the next three years. Yeah. New business, minor COA report. Yes, I hope we'll be having that to you all by Friday. Great. Thank you, Clark Holmes. Before we adjourn, preview of coming attractions, my understanding, Carly, is we've got a pretty deep docket for August the 2nd. If you could just share with us a little bit of what's coming down the pike. Sure, we have six cases. One of those was continued from June. I would recommend that the commissioners who are here today but were not present without hearing review and be able to vote. That would be necessary in order for you to vote, to have that precedent. So there's two cases on that property because there's also the major COA for additional accessory structures there. And then there are four other cases, three of which I think won't be too contentious. But I think a couple of them are going to take a bit more time. Sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt. Go ahead and finish. No, I was just going to say I'm not too worried about us getting through the six. I think we can do it. But we do need you to clear your schedules for the entire morning, if at all possible. I think that makes good sense. Carly, is the new construction for the Riggs B project among the six that you have? It is not. I have not received the materials for that new construction yet. OK, so that will not be part of our August agenda. And so Don has his hand raised. And Don, for just curious and this question for planning staff, is the plan for the August 2 meeting to remain remote? The yes. I'm sorry, Carly. Yes, that's correct. His emergency order is still in place, correct. It'll be our last one, guys. And we all have to get back together again. Yes, and just for everyone's just a quick note before we leave, I put in the chat earlier in case you didn't see that Carly will be where we'll land. If you need to come to City Hall to see the meeting space and reacclimate yourself with City Hall or get to know City Hall because you're a new member, we're happy to meet you there sometime. I'm there and, Carly, we're in and out and we're able to meet you there and walk you around. So we'll send out the email and then we'll wait to hear back from you about what you may need from us. Grace, you broke up a little bit for me. Just to reiterate, we're going to meet in city chambers again. We, I'm not which room we'll be in. That's something we'll let you know in the email that we send. But offering up, if anyone wants to come see the meeting space, once we verify that, we're happy to take you on a tour. Got you, all right, thanks. Thank you, sorry about that. I think that's it. Unless anyone has anything else they'd like to share. If not, we are adjourned. Oh, Carly, you. I was just going to say, if because we're not in person where we usually would have our chit chat, if you guys would like to know a little bit more about Mr. Chambers and Ms. Horton, give them an opportunity to share a couple of sentences about themselves. That's a great idea. I should have thought of that. That's a great idea. We'll start with Rakeem since he is a little bit more senior here and then we'll go to Alva. Good morning, everyone. My name is Rakeem Chambers. I'm a commercial real estate broker in the Durham area. I've been here since I was 17. So I'm a transplant from Hartford, Connecticut. Outside of that, I like to eat devil's pizzeria on 9th Street about three times a week. I like international delights. I like Tater Bread on Austin Avenue. I just love Durham. My cousin went to North Carolina Central University. I didn't go to college, but me having that experience with going to his dorm and seeing the different things actually encouraged me to go full fledged after high school straight into real estate. And it's been amazing. So I mean, that's really me in that shed. That's great. Awesome. Thank you. We're psyched to have you, Rakeem. Alva? Hi, I'm Alva. I've been in Durham about 10 years this year around, but I was here in 2007 for several years as well. My previous career, well, my education background is in interior architecture. And studio art and then my master's is in architectural history from the University of New York. So in Northern England, so I worked for a designer there and have reviewed some projects similar and worked on some projects similar to hopefully what we'll be doing. And yeah, I love Durham too. I'm excited to see it change and grow and keep some things the same as well. Awesome. Thank you both so much. Yeah, thank you both for serving. We've got a great group here. And it'll be interesting to go in person a couple months from now. It's going to seem kind of foreign. I've been on the commission for this is my fourth year. And so I'm about like half in person, half remote. And so I'm looking forward to being back together again. And hopefully everybody else is as well. And just so you all know, we have one commission position that is being advertised this month for an at-large position. And then we still have our attorney position as well. If you know anybody who would be interested. Carla, when do I need to, I guess, reapply? It's in three years. So usually a few months before your three-year mark. All right. 10 AM sharp. Everyone have a great one. We'll see you in a month. Bye. Thanks, everyone. Bye-bye. Bye. We're adjourned.