 All right. We're live. Thank you, Carl. Good morning, everyone. This meeting will now come to order. Welcome to this virtual meeting of the Durham Historic Preservation Commission on this second day of August, 2022. My name is Matt Bouchard and I'm chair of the commission commission is a quasi judicial board of record and as such, all testimony will be recorded under this procedure. Our meeting today will also be live streamed on the city's YouTube channel. The proceedings of this board are governed by the zoning laws as recorded. As such, please note the steps we have taken to ensure that each party's due process rights are protected as we proceed on this remote platform today. First, today's meeting will be conducted in accordance with North Carolina general statute chapter 166 a 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 the small platform. We will also confirm today at the start of each evidentiary hearing that the participants in the evidentiary hearing consent will be allowed to proceed on this remote platform. If there's any objection to a matter proceeding in this remote platform, that case will be continued. Third, notice of this meeting was provided to the applicants and to the public in multiple ways, including signage posted on site, notification letters mailed to all adjacent property owners, informing recipients regarding the remote platform, and a general announcement via our website informing the public of same. The notices for today's meeting advised 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 the remote meeting platform. I believe there's at least one proceeding today in which the city has been contacted by one or more individuals with an objection to the case. 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 present 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 the board that would have any conflicts of interest with regard to the six cases before us today? Seeing and hearing from none of my fellow commissioners are there any early dismissals being requested by any of my commissioner friends today? Matt, this is commissioner Hamilton. I need to leave by 1115, please. Okay. Thank you, commissioner Hamilton. 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 there are any, may then present their evidence and the applicant may then present a rebuttal. Board members will refrain from questions or comments until each speaker has completed his or her presentation. Testimony should consist of facts each witness knows directly, not hearsay. Evidence already presented need not be repeated. All witnesses who have signed up in advance will be asked to present their evidence. 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. Madam clerk, could you please take the attendance of the commissioners who are here today? All right. Chair Bouchard. Here. Chair Gulsby. Here. Commissioner Johnson. Commissioner Calhoun. Here. Commissioner Horton. Here. Commissioner Hamilton. Here. Commissioner Chambers. Here. Thank you, clerk Holmes. Has any of city staff heard from Commissioner Johnson in advance of today's hearing? I have not. Thank you. All witnesses, you've been forwarded an agenda to today's meeting. Would anyone including city staff like to recommend any adjustments to the agenda? And I'll go ahead and make one adjustment. Out of the gate. We do have the June. Minutes. The June 14, 20, 22 meeting minutes to vote on. We deferred that vote at our last meeting. And so I would add to. Any other adjustments? I would like to adjust the first case, the position to keep the cases together. I thought we had fixed this, but we would need to move the. COA 22, 0, 0, 0, 15. Together with, I think it's COA. 22, 0, 0, 0, 0, 4, 2. It's the last case. I think it's the last case. I think it's the last case. It's the last case. And we'll move those together to the end of the agenda. Yeah, I think the sixth case was COA 22, 0, 0, 0, 4, 3. Yep. But a colleague are absolutely right. Both cases involve one on one west mark them. Avenue. We will move the case. Identified on our agenda as items. Six F up to. Effectively. So that the 101 West Markham Avenue cases will be considered in tandem. Any other requested adjustments to today's agenda. Commissioners, you've been provided with draft minutes for our. Meeting conducted on June 14, 2022. Which was held on the same remote platform. Does anyone have any adjustments to the draft minutes that they would like to recommend? Seeing and hearing none. May we have a motion? To approve the minutes. Commissioner Gillespie motion to approve. Thank you. Vice chair Gillespie. May I have a second? Second. Thank you. Commissioner Horton, who I think beat commissioner Calhoun by a hair. Clerk Holmes, if we can have a roll call vote, please. Right. Chair Bouchard. Approved. Commissioner Hamilton. Approved. Commissioner Calhoun. Approved. Vice chair Gillespie. Approved. Commissioner Chambers. Group. Commissioner Horton. Motion passes six to zero. Thank you all very much. We also have on our agenda, approval of the draft minutes. For the. Meeting we held on the same remote platform on. July 12, 2022. Does anyone have any adjustments to. The July 12, 2022. Draft minutes that they would like to recommend. Seeing and hearing. From my fellow commissioners. Excuse me. Might I have a motion? I move that we approve the minutes for the July 12 meeting. Thank you. Commissioner Calhoun. I have a second. Second commissioner. Thank you. Vice chair goes be. Madam clerk. We'll call the vote, please. Chair Bouchard. Approved. Commissioner Hamilton. Group. Commissioner Calhoun. Commissioner Calhoun. Approved. Okay. Vice chair. Commissioner Calhoun. Commissioner Calhoun. Approved. Okay. Vice chair will speak approved. Commissioner chambers. Commissioner Horton. Motion passes six to zero. Wonderful. Thank you all very much. Madam clerk. If you could also please swear in all city staff that will be presenting today's cases. All right. Do you members of staff swear or affirm at 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. Thank you both. We are now prepared to move on with the first of our six evidentiary hearings. Today. And while Carl is bringing in our participants. I'll go ahead and announce the first case we are going to consider is COA 220015. 101 West Markham Avenue. Continued. Before we hear from staff. Is there any one of our commissioners who would have a conflict of interest in hearing this case? Okay. Seeing and hearing none. I'm going to call a quick time out on this hearing. I note that commissioner Johnson is now here. And if we could note that for the record. Clerk Holmes. Mr. O'Toole. Do we need to do anything to. Memorialize commissioner Johnson's attendance other than what I've just done. No, I think you've handled it. Thank you. Wonderful. And good to see you commissioner Johnson. Let's continue. Let us proceed with swearing in of anyone who plans to speak for or against this case. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give in the public hearing proceedings for today's case, the truth by your own knowledge or by information and beliefs. I do. And. My apologies, Charles. How do you pronounce your last name again? I know I should know this. It's pronounced both highs. Both highs. Good to see you again. Mr. Both highs. Good to see you. And Mr. Both highs. Are you prepared to proceed today on this remote electronic platform? I am. Wonderful. Thank you. I think we're ready to proceed with the staff presentation. My apologies. So we're doing COA 2200. 15 now. Yes. Post two at the end. Okay. I set myself up for otherwise. Okay. Do I need to share my screen? Or you got it? Um, Probably just go ahead. Let's do it. Mrs. Okay. Can y'all see it? Can. Okay. All right. So this is case COA 2200. 15. This is 101 West Markham Avenue modifications and site work. The applicant and owner are Charles bull types. Located on the Southwest quadrant of the intersection of West Markham Avenue and both Mangum street. So in residential urban five. And it is a historic landmark. So not an historic district. But historic landmark. That is named Dillard house. Um, this case was heard at the previous, uh, well at the June hearing. Um, and was continued for a couple months to gather further details. Um, but just to remind you that this is regarding the replacement of, um, non-original. There's only one original window on the home. Um, and all of the others bore a replacement. Um, and then the proposal is to go in with, um, Vinyl composite windows. And then, um, there's also, if you could scroll down a little bit, Amanda. Um, There's also replacing all of the wood siding. Um, Replacing the roof with new slate shingles, which is a change from the last hearing. Um, And then, um, Reconstructing the missing, um, front portico steps. Um, Actually it's the portico and the ballast straight. Actually the steps too. So I would like to introduce this revised staff report into the record and invite Mr. Bolt Heist to share, um, Any updates about his case. So, uh, with regards to the updates, um, we were discussing the, um, Windows that I had purchased to replace the vinyl windows that were in place. Um, and, uh, the, uh, Pattern of the windows I selected while, um, More ornate than the white vinyl windows I replaced did not match what was on the property. I guess 75 years ago. And, um, so the request was that I look into, um, Well, replacing my replacement windows with new windows that would be more ornate or more in line with what was there before. Um, so having looked into that, um, And then looking at this second case, I could take the windows that I've placed into the, um, West side of the house and the north side of the house, which are the most visible sides of the home, because those are the sides that are on Markham and Mandum. I could remove those windows and use them in the, um, Garage with the windows. And then I would replace those windows on the north and west side with windows that were matching what was there from a, um, aesthetic appearance previously. Additionally, um, I changed the roof to a slate roof. Um, And then I would replace those windows on the north and west side with windows that were matching what was there from a, um, And then finally, um, I changed the roof to a slate roof. Um, I found that the difference in cost was not $70,000. The difference in cost was $30,000. For me to replace the slate roof with a new slate roof. In building the ad use that I would build, I would also put slate roofs on those two structures so that they matched the current structure. Um, And then with regards to the, um, Siding, I'm going with wood, Ship lap to match what is there currently as opposed to going with the more modern hardy board. And I would do that on all three of the structures as well. Um, We've removed the balcony. If you've, uh, I don't think that's the updated photo there. That that's not the updated. Well, the photo is correct, but the new rendering I have has removed the, um, staircase that is in the middle of the home there where you see that door that leads to a, uh, balcony. That door is now being sealed and there will be a large open panel window there to allow light into the second story, uh, hallway. The balcony and subsequent staircase that come down off of that doorway are removed. Um, the. Left hand side lower balcony where you see a stair running down from on the right hand side to allow access to the ground floor, uh, will be there. Uh, but the connector to the second story won't be there. Then the balcony and, um, supporting metal beams that are currently on the second story right hand side of that rendering are being removed. So the, the, the balcony that you see in the photograph in the upper left, um, there's an upper right hand corner of that photograph with the two metal posts supporting it. That is gone. These staircase to the middle there where all the metal is, uh, at is gone. And there will just be a staircase coming from the first floor balcony on the left hand side of that photo to the ground level. There should be new renderings that I sent. Um, I apologize if, if they're not in there, but I did have new renderings made. Right. So that is the, uh, as you're scrolling through there, that's the south side of the property. That's only visible from my neighbor and that's where I'm getting rid of all those stairs. That is the north side of the property. Um, and those are the windows I'm proposing be taken out and added to the, um, ADU and garage. So Amanda, if you hit, um, there's a button on the top left. You'll be able to see all the pages at once. Um, it's got two pages on top of each other. It's the fourth button up on the left. On the side. To our. Yep. That one right there. And then that will let you see all of the different pages. Okay. Yeah. So I think the new rendering start right here. I'm not mistaken. I think they start on page 59. Okay. Okay. All right. Yeah, there you go. So as you can see, um, the, the sun room windows, um, in this rendering are now, um, they, I think can actually have too many squares. What, what, what do we decide, Carla? Um, well. So my comment about the proportionality of the window pains is that they're much smaller than the original windows, but you had said that these were salvaged doors, that these were actually the ones that were originally put on that sunroom when the sun room was created. Um, and so. I think there's sort of a weighing of. Um, like the standard to hold, to hold you to like they are gridded. Um, which is in more in keeping with the character of the property, even if that grid isn't perfectly proportional to the original windows. Um, I think it's. Um, less of an issue. For the sun room, which is those are non original windows, that sun room was never existed to begin with. As opposed to in these two doors that you've created on the second floor. Um, on the far left side of the front elevation as well as that, that door that's in the middle of the two. Um, windows on the. Right. For this. My intention was whatever is decided on in the front sunroom there, whether I take the. Um, Doors that were in place that I removed. Um, Or if I put in something that you would like to see that was there. Um, Well, well, that would match the other windows that I would do that. And then the doors that are on the second story would match. Everything else. Does that make sense? And, and so. My thought is that this case is. Going to involve weighing what is the most important priority, I think for. You know, I think there are other issues that I think need. More addressing than even the grid size of these windows is my opinion. But I'm not, I'm not supposed to give that to like in my recommendation. Well, I guess my statement here is that I'm not forced. I'm not in love with that many squares. That's why I took the windows down to begin with. So if I put, if you're asking me for less squares, I'm okay with that. And then I would just make the doors on the upstairs match that. But now let's move on to other stuff. What are your, what other stuff would you like to talk about? Well, Mr. Both eyes. If your presentation is complete, we can open the floor for questions from the commission. We don't want to cut you off. Well, I guess I would say is that as you referred to the two doors upstairs. And rebuilding this deck. And, and porticoes. I'm building it so that it has a weight bearing capacity of 35,000 pounds. And the intention is to. I'm not in love with that. I'm not in love with that. I'm not in love with that. I'm not in love with that. I'm not in love with that. I'm not in love with that. I'm not in love with that. I'm not in love with that. I'm not in love with that. I'm not in love with that. I'm not in love with that. I'm not in love with that. And the intention is that the upper version could be used. As a veranda. And by removing the balcony off of the bedroom on the south side of the house. That room is the smallest room in the house. It's very, very small. Even after I'm taking the bathroom out of that house. It's the smallest room in the house. And it's the first time I've been taken to the house that leads from the second story to the first story. The bathroom that's in that bedroom has to be demolished. And so now that that bedroom is losing its bathroom and it's losing its balcony. And it's become just basically. A 10 by nine room. So the idea of replacing the window and putting a door was to allow that room to have some additional living space and make it more functional than it is. If you guys aren't familiar with the house. In the 1970s, it suffered a major fire. And whoever bought the house and was supposed to remodel the house applied for historic tax credits, received money, did not put in historic materials, did not replace the damaged rafters. The roof is riddled with fire damage. When I replace this roof, I'm going to be replacing all of the rafters, the framing, a lot of the siding. I have wood rot throughout the house throughout the siding throughout the windows. And so it was converted at the time into a five apartment dwelling. So it's not even set up as a single family house. I'm going into this house and completely remodeling it inside and out. And then looking to add some additional structures to the property. My intention was when I bought this house that I would have the ability to have a large lot close to downtown that would have the ability to build a large garage because that's impossible to find near downtown. And so I waited several years to find a property that matched those needs and this is what I bought. At the end of the day, I'm trying to convert this into my dream home. I recognize that it is currently a landmark for the city of Durham. And I'm trying to accommodate how we can provide this house as a remembrance of the past that it represents. But at the end of the day, I'm hoping that we can, you know, also understand that this is my residence. This is my property. And I do intend to live here. Now I've done. Thank you, Mr. both heists. This point I will open the floor for questions from the commissioners. This is commissioner cool. I think I've got most of the changes that you've made here, but if you will, I can just run through those with him and check them off here. And I'm actually going to do the windows last so I've got a little bit more questions there but for the roofing materials, you plan to use slate roofing materials instead of asphalt shingle correct. All right. Plan on using new woodshed ship lap. Siding where you need to replace are you restoring what's there are you doing new ship lap everywhere. New ship lap everywhere. I have a tremendous amount of rot. And I can't fix what's behind. For example, Anderson installed all of the windows there commissioner and has to come out and remove them and reinstall them after this work is done, because there is not enough wood in the walls to properly secure the windows to the house if they're being held in with that orange insulating foam right now, because if you try to hammer the nails in the wood deteriorates. So in other words, in order to replace the fire and would rock damaged framing, I have to remove the siding, which is also would rather than many, many places. Okay, okay. All right, and then what was on the previous submission you're removing that balcony and staircase that went up to the second floor, and you're infilling that that doorway. I think on this screen I see it here on this screen it's got some white trim around it with four windows. Okay. All right. And then the windows, you're taking out the windows all the windows you've already installed and putting them on the next case and West sides of the house. The sides that are on man gum and mark them. So the street facing sides. Correct. And everywhere else would remain the same of your previous submission. Correct. All right, that's all I have for right now. Thank you. Thank you by share goes be any other commissioners with questions for our applicants. Okay, I will say that one change between this one and the previous one is that we have gone back with the railing. The previous version only had the portico railing in its original configuration just covering the porch area and now this has been extended above the sun porch. Yeah, sorry, I missed that one. Thank you for my name. Yeah, I would like to ask what the, what the intent is with extending that balustrade above the sun room. It's to allow for a safe usage of that area as a balcony to replace the balcony that bedroom is losing. But currently the window above the sun room is not a door it's a window correct. This is commissioner handles and I had a question and I guess it's for maybe Carla. What was like what was the divided light characteristic that that was, I guess, original 70 years ago or yeah what was the divided light that would be the preferred. Yes, and we do have some short photos I think they're an attachment three for sure and maybe other elsewhere in the document. If they're an unusual 12 over one so they're particularly large with like large pain size. It's, it's a 12 over one configuration. There were some other nine over ones on the side and then there were some fixed windows that leave there were like, maybe six pain fixed, I'd have to look again. But the main character defining window was 12 over one these on the front and on the sides on the street facing sides. Okay, and so then this sunroom wasn't original correct that but these doors that that Mr. Voltais is proposing to put on, or what was originally put on that sunroom when it was first built. And I understand that they are wood doors. They happen to have a much finer grade pattern than the 12 over one original windows. And previously, Mr. Voltais you had proposed to replace those doors with large pain windows. And so now the question at hand is whether to go back with windows with more of more and keeping with that 12 over one grid or with the doors that were there with the smaller grids. No, no, no. The doors that were there before that are stored under the house are option a. The doors that are currently there. The windows that are currently that I bought to replace the ones that are in storage. I would take those and move them to the summer. Are the pool room. Sorry, it's being proposed. Next application. Yeah, then as option B to versus the stored windows that I took out that are under the house right now. Option two would be putting up 12 over one to match what was historically on the rest of the house. I don't have to use the ones that are under the house right now they're stored I can go buy 12 over ones to match what was, you know, the rest of the house is going to have. I wanted to look nice. And I don't think that this grid pattern that you know that was there that I removed is going to look great sitting next to 12 over one. Yeah, and I wasn't recommending 12 over one I was just recommending a grid that had a larger pain size so that it was more in keeping with the 12 over one window. I agree with you I think that would look better. Okay, so I guess with option B. What would be the. What would be that would be whatever Carla says I can do, or whatever Carla says she would like to see. Yeah, I mean, my, my thoughts are really to try to focus your investment in the most impactful places. If this doesn't increase your investment because you're simply able to reuse those. Yeah, it doesn't increase your investment because you're going to have to buy new doors to replace, or new windows to replace these. You know, original sunroom doors. So that's where you're going to be spending money where maybe the money could be better spent on other parts that are more visually impactful. So that was my thought about it is understanding your position as well financially. Okay. Well my original budget on the house was $500,000 on the main structure and $200,000 on the ancillary structures. Based on the changes that we've discussed with slate roofs being on all three structures ship lap being on all three structures and changing out the windows. And buying new windows for the west and the north. We've added about $130,000 to my budget. I get a little clarification when we've been saying that these were, you know, the original doors for the sunroom original a non original center for non original center. Yes. Okay. At some point what in the 50s or 60s that sunroom was added right. It looks like the last time it was redecorated was in the 70s based on the tile. Yeah, this is Commissioner Johnson I think if you, if we look at the historic photo on page 54, it says suffer 1940 it kind of gives you an idea. The sunroom room was built. It was sometimes it was a side entrance with it looks to be I mean the kind of blocking the view, but it looks to be a door with sidelights and transom windows, which is somewhat typical with style homes that you will see that kind of a sidelight. So at some point. The sunroom was at it. So when I was going to want it to say, and just to make a comment to say, I agree with the owner that the pain, the window pains look a little too small for the sunroom. You know, but I don't know, again, I'm leaning towards what Carlos and I don't know if I feel as strongly about them, because I think there are other places that we need to look at but it is at the front of it. The sun was at the front and most visible part of the historic structure. And I would almost almost say that perhaps the accessory structures don't need a slate towel that can probably help adjust the budget, and I would rather almost see the whole grand pain of sunroom. I'm kind of looking through neoclassical side homes to see what kind of light that will probably be to kind of match or look better, but I'm not finding too many but for some of the ones that did have the transom lights, I will probably say maybe a 24 light for each. Each window door, I mean that door but you know, window section be a little bit more appropriate than a smaller, very small penis existing. I think transoms would look great. Yeah, like yeah I see some here that have. Yeah they're just so many examples of just the transom entrance, but it but it's just, it's just the entrance part so it's not all the way it's not windows on on on the size of the structure. So sunroom. But those are my two cents. April, are you saying like 12 over 12 and you say 24 divided light sorry my. No 24 light fits. So they wouldn't be double does they would be a fixed. Are they double hung now. No, no, but like it would match like it would match the double hunts that are 12 over one as far as like the gridting it be like, but instead of having like a big pain at the bottom just continue. Right continue pattern all the way down. And maybe, maybe, and of course you can see if Anderson or whoever you work with have something slightly bigger with less pain. That would just kind of make it look more natural, but you know then again I don't know if I feel as strongly about it I think there's some other things we probably should worry about it, worry about. I'm not sure but I'm just throwing that out there as a as an option. Any other commissioner questions I know that we have some items on this application that we need to discuss amongst the commissioners and so I'm not trying to short circuit the questions but I do want to get to that discussion. I do have this commissioner Horton I do have a question about the stone on the front steps. Is any of that going to be replaced. Okay, so it's staying. I love it. I don't want to. I want to restore it. Okay, great. And it's not just for the staircase it's the whole front of the house where you would have what would normally be the skirt wall. It's all granite. And I, so I want to, I want to, I've already done the foundation portion of the house but I intend to have a Mason, remove the granite and then re reset the granite because the mortar is is very old and I wanted to be, you know, smoothed out and and refinished. Mr. both. Hey, so are the steps currently brick. Their combination Carla, the portion that you put your foot on is brick. The sides are all granite. Right. Okay, the cheek walls are granite, but I'm looking at the photo on page 47 and they are currently brick steps, even though historically they were either concrete or stone. Yeah, they're stone. Stone. Historically, the, the treads were. Oh, I don't know about. Now what I bought it they were brick. Right. And what we can see from the historic photo that they weren't previously, but was your question. Commissioner Horton about the treads themselves or the surrounding cheek walls. It was about the surrounding laws, but let me go back and look at the, but are you saying, well Carla are you saying that originally the trades were stone or concrete you said right. Well, if you look at this photo that's on screen right now you can clearly not break. So, I think they were caught out in the national register as stone and concrete. Presumably, I would think the treads would have been concrete and the risers would have been stone that's also what what it appears from the historic photo. So are you saying I could remove the red brick and put stone. I don't think I would have an objection to it. I wouldn't either. That's what that's what it looks like it was. I'd love to do that. The red brick doesn't match anything. I'm going to check that in the registry that just to make sure that I'm correct about that. Well commissioner Horton is looking at that. Any other questions from commissioners. Yes, Mr. Bullets. Mr. Bulls weekend. I do recall conversation a couple months ago about the type of window that you would be doing. Are the new windows you intend to purchase are they simulated divided like. Oh, no. Anderson only makes a simulated divided light and that's what I purchased the last time in speaking to Carla. She suggested that I look into because Anderson doesn't do a little divided whatever's she she's suggesting getting some like fake ones that you put up but I didn't I didn't like the way those looked they look really cheap. Can I can I clarify actually, so see Anderson makes the simulated divided light that we're talking about has it's called triple grid, where it has grid on the outside, the interior and the exterior. All three sides and the ones that you currently have installed are what's called real between the glass and so they don't have those outer months and that's not considered simulated divided life. They're not currently simulated divided life. And what I was saying is that the triple grid has a shadow bar that makes it look like there are mountains on the exterior. And so, if there was no way that you could replace all of the windows with the simulated divided light, then if there were some high quality stick on grid, because most of them are not high quality. Right, so that might not be an option but I was asking you know if you could research and find one that is high quality and durable, then maybe that could be something that we could accept, so that you wouldn't have to buy all new windows. So I think that that that suggestion while well meaning I couldn't find anything that didn't look cheap and anything I found I felt would probably work or fade it just didn't look to be good quality. So I'd rather like I said take the windows off the west and north sides of the home, and then put in the type of windows that Carla would like to see. And are those going to be simulated divided like what Carla is describing triple grid triple grid. It's both of us. You're welcome. Are you intending to put in what what is specified in the guidelines for a triple grid simulated divided like window for the new windows. Yes, on the north end of the west sides of the home. Yes. Okay, but you would retain the for the other sides of the home, you would retain the regular. Not regular but just the other grid between the glass. Yes, I have no place to put those windows I have no. I have no further questions other than how we're going to track all these changes but we'll figure that out. It's going to be a Chinese puzzle. Any further questions from the commission. If not, I will close the public hearing and invite discussion amongst the commission. I'm going to go grab a pad of paper because I think I'm going to need it right back. Carla, can you explain that the terms you use for the window again just so I can write it out. So triple grid. So our standard is for you to use a triple grid simulated divided like window. Basically it's also known as shadow bars. That mimics the true divided light that was historically in there. What you have selected is what's called a grid or grill between the glass, which is basically just in between those double panes of glass and there's nothing on the interior exterior it's missing the other two months. Yes, the shadow bars right as a man that has cleaned his own windows that was on purpose. So, yeah. And, and I know that you said that that was the case, because you explained during the previous hearing why that was the case why you wanted to go with a divided light window but it was too late to do a simulated divided light at that point. And so your rep, you had said you can correct me if I'm wrong. The rep had just said, Well, we can do the nine over one or the divide, you know, we do divided light but it will have to be this form of grid. Exactly. Right. Okay, yeah, because I, you know, I think this guy knew exactly what he was doing he knew that I was a landmark I didn't realize I was a landmark I was going to the guidelines of the National Historic Registry, which I was in compliance with. And so this guy had me sign a form saying, Hey, if you happen to have any problems with the city it's your fault not mine. The, the National Register District doesn't hold you to any standards unless you apply for tax credits, which you have elected not to do and so no standards apply for their end, but if you were to apply for the tax credits they would have the same standards we would in terms of that. Right. And if I was going to keep at a multifamily house it'd be worthwhile to apply for the tax credits as a single family house there's really nothing there. And to be a stickler but I want to make this, this distinction that those staff may recommend a triple grid pattern simulated divided lights and then all the other companies also offer just the exterior to be stimulated. And because we don't have jurisdiction on the interior. I won't, I don't want residents to think that they have to get the simulation on the interior as well. Well, if, if you only want it on the exterior. That's what we have jurisdiction on. I do think it's written into some of our criteria that they can triple grid. Oh, it's okay. Yeah. I just wanted to point out that I, I could not find that so what, what I did find the national registry was that the foundation has always been a combination of stone and brick. But it doesn't specifically call out those steps. So my recommendation would be to refer to the story for that. That makes sense. I have a follow up question. Mr. Bull. Hi. So would you'd like to amend your application to get rid of that brick at this time? Or do you want to leave the brick for now? Might as well get it done. Right. So I go into the den and let's take care of it all at once. So commissioners here. I, I cannot, I do just want to clarify that from that photo, the visibility is not 100% certain. So I don't know if it was, and I just want to know this. I don't know if it was concrete or stone or if it was potentially some, it could possibly at the time have been some sort of concrete over the stone application or stucco of something like that, because those were still building materials that were being worked through at the, at that particular time period. I just want to make that clarification that any of those combinations would. It could also have been part of brick. Right. So one, I mean, you could part of the existing brick that you have to create a look that's similar to what we see in this historic photograph. Are you guys going to be talking about the second and see a way that was submitted as well at the same time, or. That's a separate case that would be, I think we moved it to next on the agenda we mentioned. All right, so we've got some work to do commissioners, if we could, if I could get a hand here from my fellow commissioners as to what we think are the key issues and the changes that we think might need to be made related to those issues. So, Matt commissioner goals we I think one of the issues which we have not talked about with Mr. full ties but I think it's actually more of a discussion for us is the continuation of the porch on top of the Portico. And just where with the guidelines has to say about the next and on the sea elevations outside of that I'm I'm okay with what I've heard thus far, just getting out of track. What was that last piece by sure goes be. Oh, just saying I'm okay with everything else I've heard is just getting all kind of on record because we don't really have a clear document. And as these were the changes made. There's, there's the original application, and then there's the tech these new renderings on the end, but there's not much clarity about in the application. So the changes that are being made, and once we've talked about in addition to some extent, Matt. I think it does. I'm wondering if I could get a one of the ways of dealing with changes is to simply refer to the proposed motion and if folks could help me identify the areas where we think some revisions need to be made for discussion. But before in the staff report I underlined changes, things that would affect criteria I on the. But in terms of issues that could affect approval. We've got the continuation of the porch on top of the Portico in sunroom. As vice chair goes be has noted are there other issues that give the commissioners concern and pause with respect to potentially voting to approve the COA. This is commissioner Hamilton I just want to like make sure that we're all on the 24 grid. Window pattern because I know like not everybody seems to like it's not a big deal that I just want it to be like, this is what it is so that I know what it is when I'm approving it. Well I would like to point out the width may be different of the 12 over one original windows versus these sunroom doors so would a 12. Basically a four across pattern be the same width on the original window as it would be on the sunroom door. Because the sunroom doors appear to be narrower than the 12 over one windows and so would it would it actually be better to do an 18 grid window door window sunroom door. Yeah, I was just making a suggestion but I think it's something that needs to be reviewed so to prove. I don't know I don't want to have to make the applicant come back, but if it's something that we just can't sit well with. The goal is to match the proportions of the pains on the original 12 over one windows and if you just put it like that, then you know, just measure the pain of the original 12 over one window and then whatever that portion is should be replicated in the doors. So that would be very to 6 cent practical. Correct. Yes. So Carl, you're talking about the bullet point page 12. Third bullet from the bottom, which currently reads all windows of the enclosed some porch will be replaced with salvage 12 by four wood units previously installed there. And you're proposing a change to that. Right, I included that in the motion because that is what was provided to me in the drawings. I'm good vagueness about how to actually proceed there. You guys can change that. And so, let me ask you how you would change it. But I'm going to ask the applicant if he is okay with that proposed change and I'm going to ask the commissioners if they have any objections to it so we can try to move the ball forward here on this proposal. Okay, so you're asking me how I would rewrite that. Yes. Current discussion. Okay. The existing sunroom. Are they windows or doors fixed fixed windows doors. They're window panes they're fixed. They're fixed. Okay, the existing sunroom windows will be replaced with new simulated divided light. They're simulated divided light fixed windows in a gridded pattern that matches the proportions of the original 12 over one windows on the home. And we can add to the extent practical. I mean, I'm going to repeat it as best as I can is how I wrote it, but we'll see if this works. And so Mr. both heist, I will say this out loud and ask if this is something that you could live with proposal would be to change the language currently existing in the proposed regarding the sunroom windows to something like the following the existing fixed sunroom windows shall be replaced with new triple grid simulated divided light fixed windows in a grid pattern. Matching the proportions of the window panes on the original 12 over one windows to the greatest extent practical. And I would also include a material. I apologize for that you should include either it's going to be a fiberglass or would or, you know, one of those hard durable products as opposed to hollow profile line off for instance. So after between divided light and window either would or fiberglass should be inserted. Sure. Yeah, so if yeah or the owner has other ideas that he wants to propose that's fine to consider. Try this again existing fixed sunroom windows shall be replaced with new triple grid simulated divided like wood or fiberglass fixed windows in a grid pattern matching the proportions of the panes on the original 12 over one windows to the greatest extent practical. Mr bullet highs if we were to vote on a COA that included that language. Would you be amenable. I would that language. Yes, I would break commissioners any concerns about modifying the language pertaining to the sunroom windows as we've just been discussing. Let's move on then I share by shared goals be is concerned here about the extension of the porch on top of the portico sunroom both because I think there's a conflict with our criteria about retaining porches and balconies to the original size. So there's a bit of a concern as to whether or not extending the porch also detracts a little bit from, you know, the historic appearance of the structure from the street and so be curious to hear the perspectives of other commissioners who may not share those concerns and why. Yeah, I concur on the detraction of the focal point of the original house also think the guidelines point us that new decks in I'm looking at landmarks section J that new decks would be non character dividing defining elevations. So I think what we're asking here would be an increase of a non conformity by adding on a new deck. So, again, I don't think the guidelines push us to allowing that. This is Commissioner Hamilton, do you consider this a deck, because I do not consider a roof. A walkable load bearing roof to be a deck like I just to me that is not that criteria is not. I think we're starting to add or it's kind of being all the requirements one having guard rails to it places that are going to have to have a finish on it. That would be deck like to consider this porch part of the criteria is what I had used for it porch. I wish would take it under I three. It's not appropriate to enclose screen extend. Add or move courses. Yeah, I kind of saw this as as a balcony and the extension of the existing balcony. Well, though I do agree that I think this is a major change again to the care defining elevation of a landmark again I think landmarks are should be held to a slightly higher standard since they are getting the up to 50% tax deferral. It's not unusual for neoclassical home to have an extra side of the balcony extra parts of the balcony to be extended because you can see that again with these, these types, these, these architectural style. But I think for this house because it wasn't it wasn't originally extended, I think that makes makes it not conform to the guidelines. So I don't think it's a, I don't think it's a distraction only because it's not unusual. But for this house because it wasn't original. That's, that's when it kind of beers away from the room, keeping in in in conformity to the original structure. I do find it a distraction, at least from that front facing, I also think that it's important to note that the National Register calls this out, not saying neoclassical they call it as a colonial, which would mean the symmetry of that front entry. In my mind takes precedent over whatever would have been stylistically appropriate for neoclassical him. It's a major distraction for me from the front facade. For those with concerns what would be the remedy simply stopping that balcony second floor balcony, as it was configured in the most recent iteration of the COA and not as revised in today's COA. And keeping that window as a window instead of making it a door until walkout balcony. I will reopen the public hearing for the purpose of asking Mr bull heist, I mean, it's, it's, it's clear Mr bull heist that there is some concerns and reservation here about whether or not the extension of that balcony would comply with the criteria and obviously considering landmark properties. We have an obligation to preserve those quite strictly and so I'm hearing sufficient concern about the extension of that balcony that might mean that we don't have four votes in favor of the overall proposal. Would you be amenable to considering reverting the design of the front facade so that the balcony ends where it did in the prior iteration of the proposal and that the window that has since been changed to a door revert back to a window. I'm going to start off by saying I was a teenager once and I have had teenagers and teenagers are going to climb out that window and sit on that deck. It's going to happen. My only suggestion was putting railings around it to keep it safe and putting a door in so that they're not climbing out a window. I don't I think it looks fantastic. But then again I designed it that's why I like it. I think there were four people that voted against me. I guess that I wouldn't have that option. But if I had the choice I'd like to have it. Oh it's been my approach as chair to put motions in front of the commission that have the best chance of garnering the necessary support so that there isn't a risk that it's not approved and you're you're waiting a considerable amount of time to come back to us. And so that's that's why I asked the question. I see. Well I told Carla before that I'm not worried about doing this fast. I'm worried about doing this right. And at the end of the day this is the home I intend to retire in. So I want to make sure that I discuss everything as openly and clearly as possible with the city so that I'm helping you maintain a property appearance that you're happy with with the functionality that I want. So commissioners do we have sufficient support for the proposal. I'm going to go ahead and do a straw vote here. Do we have sufficient support for the proposal. If there is no change made to the proposed extension of that second floor. Portico balcony. Do we have four votes in favor. Good. Sorry this is Commissioner Hamilton I just said I would I would support it. Me too Matt I would support approving if if this Portico extension is removed. I would support it. Wait you would support it if it's removed. I'm curious to know if there's sufficient support if the extension of the Portico is not removed from the applicant. I would not support that. Commissioner Chambers here I would approve it. As long as it doesn't affect the colonial revival style. If they just have access to it and it's safe. My opinion it's fine. I would support it. And I would as well. Okay. We've got three votes to approve. As I've counted it. Mission Johnson. Again, you know how I feel about landmark properties. I can't support it. This major change to the original. Of the property. So I can't support it with the extension of the porch balcony. And I can't support it either. And so. Mr. Bollis once again. I will. Certainly put the proposal up for a vote as you would like that proposal put up. I don't think you're going to garner four votes in support with that Portico extension today. Now you guys understand what I mean that rendering me. The photo doesn't show. What I'm talking about the roof for the sun room already exists. What I'm talking about is putting a banister. On top of the sun room. That's that's what I'm talking about. Yeah, I think that's understood the sun room is not original. And so putting a banister just further solidifies the non original state of that. The sun room can stay because it's already built, but you're adding something new. That's not original. I think is. My intention was to use the banister to tie in something that wasn't original to what was original. See, if you look at the photograph, the rendering, do you guys have that picture of the front of the house? What's that number 59 again, Amanda, if you wouldn't mind. Currently the porticas and the porch are all to the right side of the house. The porch and the patio run all the way to the right, but not to the left. So that sun room got added at some point later. And it stands out as not being in sync with the porch because it was added later. The idea of adding the railing to the top. Not only made it a functional deck for that bedroom, which lost its deck that it's losing its balcony. But it ties it in with the rest of the structure so that it looks as if it would have been original. I think it's important. I just want to reiterate that the character defining entry in my mind is that neoclassical semi circular. And adding anything to that is against the review criteria. Amanda, could you go to page 33 please. What am I adding to the entry. The ballast trade extending over. The character to find it's the character in my mind is, is symmetry. And while the rest of the house is was designed asymmetrically with intent, the entry being symmetrical is part of the primary character of that style and the way that it was intended because of the way that the property was facing at the time. The photographs it's up right now is the way it looks right now. And that's the balcony on the left hand side of that bedroom. That's the sunroom without a railing above it. And that's the entrance to the house with the portion patio. That's how it looks right now. Yeah, I asked Amanda to put this up to show what you had originally proposed with this railing stopping where it originally stopped. You can see that the sunroom was added on it is not original. You can extend that railing over does sort of incorporate this. I mean you said it in your own words actually make it look original, which is not what the criteria intend to do. They do not want to create a pretend original look. So this is Commissioner Hamilton. Is there like a alternative fall protection measure that the other commissioners would be comfortable with on top of this sunroom that would give him the functionality that we previously asked him to remove because we've asked him to remove that patio on the side right like that happened last time. It's an existing patio we asked him to remove it. He wants to maintain that functionality. And the other question is, is there like another fall protection measure that like commissioners could be comfortable with to maintain the functionality that he wants without modifying the symmetry and character defining elements of the balustrade that exists. Like is there something like a parapet that matches with the wood siding or something along those lines. I don't know. I'm not an architect. This is not my forte, not historian or anything but like is there another ball protection measure that he could use that y'all would feel more comfortable with I guess would be my question. Something that doesn't pretend to be original. Something that distinguishes itself from the original materials, but it's still compatible and preferably minimally visually impactful. That's, I think that's a bit tough because it's again it is we're talking about the, the most characters finding elevation of the property. It is a landmark, and we go back to the purpose of the landmarks was to kind of maintain the most historic aspect of the property. And so, again, because you're getting almost financial assistance, or you have a financial incentive to maintain the original structure as best possible I understand it already have a bunch of changes in the past. I think I'm going to find it difficult. I think I would be more okay with it if it was maybe not a landmark. But because I think the landmark have more incentive to maintain the historic character. So I think it's our responsibility to make sure that we do that. And I understand it's not functional and safety and everything but I don't know unless somebody else has another idea. I have one question please. The landmark status that provides me a benefit of about $6,000 a year. I have to live here what 120 years to get back the money I'm going to spend. So, I guess my question is, if I don't want my house to be a landmark what do I do. Yeah, I can answer that it would require a landmark repeal application. So you would you would go through, it's the same application as applying for landmark status, but you would apply to repeal it instead. It goes through North Carolina Historic Preservation Office after it goes to this commission, and then it goes to our city council for review. So, Mr. both eyes just for additional perspective for me and probably unique to me. At least right now on this commission. I don't have the same sort of architectural knowledge experience that others have on this commission. I was familiar with the various historical styles. I learned something new every every month but what I try to do is be faithful to the criteria that have been put in place and make sure that as a presidential value. We are applying those criteria objectively. I'm not beyond making accommodations where I think the language of the criteria allows us to the problem that I'm having is I three of our criteria says it is not appropriate to extend balconies on character defining elevations, unless reconstructing documented historic features. And we just haven't seen any evidence to suggest that the extension of the Portico balcony is historic to the structure. And then the concerns you've raised about safety and I certainly understand your perspective here on, perhaps, making it look more historic by sort of tying that balcony into the sunroom that was added after the house is an initial construction I always feel constrained by the language of the criteria that's in front of us and I can't figure out a way that allowing this balcony to be extended doesn't directly contradict a criteria that we are bound to follow. And I worry, especially on landmark properties about straying from the criteria and creating a precedent that, you know, this commission is free to ignore on on the most important architectural assets in our city. We can feel free to ignore. And this is what is set forth these criteria so if there's a commissioner who would like to help me understand how we can get around I free. I am, I'm absolutely open to change in my mind and I suppose with what the criteria states right now I'm just not I'm not seeing it. I think Katie suggestion was excellent. It might not be something that reaches that safety standard that an actual railing would provide. But if there could be maybe something metal shorter than the original railing and maybe painted black instead of white so that it recedes instead of stands out. I think, I think I could get behind that in the name of safety, but it's technically not extending the porch if you're not pretending that's original right. And take this out of I three entirely if there's a way architecturally to do that, and functionally to do that. Yeah, I don't think there is architecture because once we start talking about putting some kind of rail there needs to meet the guidelines of the requirements of the residential building code and then we're talking about four inches on center. You know we're making a we're making a real Braille here. We're talking about keeping people off of it off of this. I mean, it's got to be a locked window. I mean, we've all been teenagers to I get it but we're here with guidelines and if you want to keep people out there, you have to make it a fixed pain or lock the window. I wasn't trying to keep them out of there I was intending for them to use it but use it safely. I can we all agree that there's a balcony there right now to the to the left. There's a balcony. No, it's a reason or an architecturally it doesn't match the home. Yeah, so I guess my question for the commissioners based on that is, is it that balcony that exists today if it were to just be refurbished. It does that balcony exists today or balconies on that side of that side of that building looks like I'm not to be offensive but it looks like trash right now. It looks like crash she's right. Yeah, and there's a bill and he was just reconstructing existing balconies in the past. And then we told him we don't want those. So now he's come back with this. We scroll down one page. Are you saying if we go back to the previous because I wasn't here for the I mean I've watched it but if we get back to the previous ruling and say that the balcony can be replaced the balcony that's existing now could be replaced with a more stable structure if we would be okay with that. With that, with that solve I guess some of the concerns because it's not the character defining front it's replacing in kind something that exists that's not original but it's still an in kind replacement of an existing structure. That's bringing it more into conformity with the historic character than the current ones and I guess, and Amanda can you go to the picture of the current. Yeah, it's the next page. There we go. From my standpoint that would not be sufficient. I mean I, I understand that it's a small room and that, you know, it would be nice to be able to walk out from it. But that back news in Congress with the historic structure as well. Yes. However it's existing. If he were to make it more congruent structure, therefore bringing an existing condition into closer conformity with the style of the building would that make people more comfortable I guess so that he retains the functionality. Because I mean part of me is like well what criteria do we have to say that well you can't reconstruct the existing. We as a commission. You can't I guess make him take down that balcony that's existing but if he were to reconstruct it you certainly could say no to that to reconstruction of it but he could keep that existing balcony. Without the commission having any mandate that he take it down. Could maintain it. He can maintain what's existing. You could both deny the front balcony extension and reconstructing the side are like can we be a little clear there on the side balcony. Yes, this front one on the very far right. If existing. It can be maintained correct correct. Okay, so what is the dividing line between maintenance and reconstruction. The dividing line would be removing all of those what you can see what is existing has sort of ballast trade that's maybe 18 inches max with a top rail and then there's another rail that goes across and what he has in his rendering is a railing that actually much is the original that's on the front and so he's changed the look of that rail like taking that railing off even would be part of reconstruction repair is basically. That would consist of just replacing a board here and there selective replacement of material existing materials would be repair but if you're doing any sort of structural changes or wholesale. Changes to the the ballast rate itself that would be replaced, which is requiring COA approval. Is that clear. It is Carla so theoretically what is there could be repaired. What is there could be repaired with selective replacement of pieces of it. So theoretically you could replace each piece one month at a time right, but it would have to match what's existing. That's fine. So you wouldn't be able to like, go to this other style that's in the rendering for instance because rendering that style was done by the draftsman not by me doesn't matter one bit. I actually like the style of the wood I like what they did there. And that's me to remove it and I was thinking that okay I'll take it down because it's ugly. But yeah I didn't really want to lose the porch to be honest, I didn't want to lose the balcony. Yeah and I think the Commission, speaking for them but they, they made that recommendation, not having in front of them, the alternate your alternative that you came up with which is. That's why I wanted to do it all at once. I wanted to get that you, you brought it forward all at once. If there is no criteria that would prohibit the refurbishing of that existing side balcony. I would probably be able to support the proposal because again I'm concerned about faithfully applying these criteria particularly in the landmark context. So the criteria of all criteria being followed, even if we might not necessarily love the visual impact of the existing side balcony. I think the applicant has met his requirement to bring his proposal within the four corners of the criteria so if the applicant is satisfied that keeping that side balcony. And jettisoning the extension of the portico balcony is acceptable to him. I would change what I'd forecast as a no vote to a yes vote. Yes, I will agree. And so just to clarify you would make all the other changes to the elevation that you would retain that one box in its current state. Yes. Okay. So we would just need new not in its current state of disrepair I will be repairing it. Okay, with selective replacement of parts. Yeah. That match the existing appearance match the existing. Okay. So, um, you know, once we get through the motion and there is an approval then we would just need you to update your renderings so that I can pass those to the approval. You got it. All right, so closing the public hearing again to resume conversation among commissioners and with Carla. Carla I'm on page 11 of 12 of the staff report and it's possible motion second bullet from the bottom talks about the replacement of side deck stairs and landings. I take it this is the bullet that would need to be worked on here to memorialize these changes. So it's 123 the fifth bullet is up. No, wait, sorry. The fourth bullet. Yes. So probably you just need to add on. Yeah, because I mean this bullet only specifies the side deck stairs and landings will be replaced with wood versions. In a new configuration, reverting existing door openings to the original window proportions. You can put in an exception is that the, you know, front side balcony front south side balcony will be retained in its current form. Will it be in its current form now or in the original proposed part of the application that's here. As I said, he does not need our approval to retain what is already here that he inherited. If you all want to approve a balcony that you believe may not meet the guidelines sounds like several of the commissioners, including I believe that that balcony actually meets the criteria. And so probably the commission wouldn't approve rebuilding it. They didn't last time right in June, the commission asked him to remove that balcony. So, I have a question if he were to retain that balcony and just replace the balusters to match the others to be more in keeping. That would meet the criteria correct because he's not adding a new, I'm just trying to make it look with that. Huh. Yeah, I agree. We don't want to say the same. Can we at least get what was proposed at the, at the June meeting at the, at the least so that it kind of at least blends in with the balcony. You can approve that if you believe that that is more in keeping with the criteria then you can absolutely approve that it would just need to get a majority vote. Katie and April, how would you propose changing the language of that fourth bullet page 11 of 12. Carl has said as an exception the front south side balcony will be retained in its current form. Sounds like you might want to add some or modify some language. I would say the balance the balustrades could be replaced to match character defining the balustrades on the character defining elevation like would that make sense, because then it's the same configuration it's the same porch being kept in situ it's the balustrades that are being. And I don't know if I'm even using the right word here right now but I think that's right. Yeah, long as it match because it's still even though it's not on a character defining elevation it's still kind of it's visible from the character defining elevation. So if it can at least kind of match. I don't know if I'm if I can say this. I feel like this, my question of that balcony leads into the subsequent. Like with the landscaping and everything and they do the other one that we're meant to discuss later today, because the removal of the trees here makes that balcony more visible. And the tree canopies significantly more visible. But let me know. Do we do we focus on visibility or character defining elevations. We prioritize both visibility. Yeah. I think just specifically in this instance this deck was not favored because it is toward the front of the house toward it's very visible from the front elevation whether it's actually on the front elevation or not it's highly visible because of its location at the front. Well, what additional modifications will we need to make to the proposed motion to make it clear that we're not permitting the extension of that portico balcony. Not seeing where we've affected that. Well, second bullets, the second bullet the front protocol will be constructed for a 1940 photographs. I think I altered. I don't think I altered that bullet point to allow the extension because, you know, it's, yeah, so you wouldn't have to read that any differently to get the original rendering. If you wanted to approve the extension of that ballastrate but insert in there extending the original balustrade to cover the sun porch area, something like that. Yeah, I mean, I guess the current version of the documents show it. And so I almost feel like we have to have language here that prohibits it. Yeah, I would need to get updated renderings. I had planned to do any way for the side, because he's keeping one of the balconies. And Matt maybe with that where it just says the existing sunroof will remain you can say without balustrades above. And where was that at the end of that second bullet point where it says include an existing sun porch will remain, and then you could just say without balustrades. I did. Yeah. I think you also have to address the that that was changed from a window to a door. So we have to make sure I don't I need to find that. Right, that's true. bullet point one two three seven. Yeah, for nine over one grill between the grass blast windows on the front elevation will be replaced with 12 over one triple grid units to match originals. The other two windows were replaced with 12 by four French doors and so you would need to amend that. I mean, you haven't talked about actually the door between because there were three original windows across the front and he's proposing to change one of those into a door, and then also change the side window into a door so there will be two original window openings on that front elevation that will be coming doors if he doesn't extend that front balcony to the left then there's only one that he's proposing to turn into a door that has not been discussed at all today. And I don't believe that was in the June application so this was inserted for August. So the four nine over GBG windows change to five, not over one GBG windows, since one fewer will be replaced with a door. So there are currently on the upper level for four, and then there are two on the lower level. Can we go Amanda if you wouldn't mind it could we go back to the front elevation. Just even just one up one page up. Okay, so one to five windows here, this this door that's here. That's an original when I mean that's an original window open currently it's not currently a door. Don't leave might need the applicants input there. I think the definition to the Portico balcony. Correct. Is right now a fixed window not a door. I believe so. I would need to look at Mr. Boyd I did you confirm that. Yeah, currently there are four windows on the second story and two windows on the first story. Right. The most recent renderings had the window on the far left and the window in the center above the front porch as changing two doors. If we're not going to have a balcony above the sun room, then I would obviously not want a door there. I would ask that you know I would want it to be a window as it is expressed in this diagram. It's not a window rendering but in this rendering you see a door above the main the front door and that would be a change. So I'm seeing then 59 over one GBG windows here. Yeah, three three on level two two on level one and then replacing the existing window between the two windows. That's what he's proposing with a door with a door. That's what he's proposing. Now, one of our criteria does say to retain a window openings in their original size proportional location on street facing a character defining elevations I could bring that up in the staff report. Yeah, I mean this is not the intent the character defining of this particular structure was meant as a widow's log, not as an operable balcony. So that's stylistically what it would have been curious what is a widow's walk. I mean the term comes from mariners that would mariners wives that would walk around the edge of something that was not a usable surface, basically around the edge of a rewind searching for their husband coming back. They were looking out. Exactly, but they weren't you know I mean the thing is that when it becomes a balcony and it becomes, you know, an additional living space which is lovely, except for the fact that this is a landmark. It's not regardless of whether or not it is struck structurally capable of holding furniture people a party etc. That's not the original intent that's why that's a window instead of the door. The original intent was to be a window, a widow's walk that couldn't be walked. That's the original stylistic intent of those colonial Italian eight neoclassical however you want to talk to call it it would in my mind it would define it would be defined by all three. Yes. I just I see so many houses where I could drive down man gum and there's a widow walk that's 18 inches and width, but it still has a door. I respect all of those aren't considered landmarks. Okay. Well I don't know how widows got to their walk without a door. I understand it's a character it's a characteristic term it's not really also very fabelistic to understand it. There's a lot of architectural terms that extend, you know, from from terminology that we don't always use anymore, but nevertheless they would have gone out of windows sometimes they would have been. It's all right, I understand. I know that your staff report mentions the new door being posed to replace the center window on the front elevation above the original portico. I don't see any verbiage here as to whether you feel that that does or does not comply with the criteria. And my thought and I thought I put it in there but my thought was, you know, it's not very visible. In particular, it's not as visible because it's kind of covered by the balustrade as long as you are able to really match the window patterns beside it. But it does bring that top, the top of the window down, obviously like that you would have some wood cladding above the door where previously the header would have hit the freeze board there. So that is a change but I definitely thought the matching the grid pattern was far more important here than on the sunroom even because this was an original window opening. But I still don't think it actually meets the criteria like I think you'd have to really make some accommodations to be able to meet the criteria, you'd have to justify why meeting the criteria straight out as it's written. Is not, you know, necessary in this case. The criteria talking about the one at page 612 staff report retained window openings and original size portion and location on street facing and character defining elevations. Correct. For the commissioners who are inclined to support the proposal could somebody speak to why converting that window on the second floor to a door is in compliance with that one of our criteria. At this point in the history of the house is that a window or a door, a window. And we have a picture of the house with that as a window. Amanda, could you go to I think it was 59 was it. Where, where it keep going down a little. Okay, let me try to find it. Okay. That's the real elevation. While we're pulling up a picture and I hate to do this vice chair goes we but I'm going to put you. I want to put vice chair goes beyond the spot here. Andy, could you live with the conversion of that window to a door. If the portico balcony slash balustrade is limited in the way that we've been discussing, or do you think that that is a bridge too far for you. Based on the criteria. I think the conflict I'm having with it is in the new renderings that we're, we're just looking at and the one we've been presented with today in the back of this package is showing that the heads of the windows so the top of the windows have been altered. There's some inconsistency there. If I was to support this, I would say it's the two windows on each side of the middle to the right and left of this portico. Those remain the same. And this center. I'm, I'm, I could live with it being a, being a door but it's got to be able to meet the same head height as the adjacent windows so we're keeping that consistent line. I think from the street, we don't really see would see the bottom the seal of it. So to me I don't think it's changing that but the head conditions to the top of the those doors and windows, we would see that that alteration. Hi, would you be amenable to ensuring that the French door added to replace that middle window was restrained such that the head height of that door was the same as the head height of the adjacent to windows. Absolutely. I think what I am hearing is the potential modification of the second bullet on page 12 of 12 to read something along the lines of the following five nine over one GBG windows on the front elevation will be replaced with 12 over one triple grid units to match the handles. The other window will be replaced with a 12 by four French door providing access above the original portico with the door having the same head height as the adjacent to windows. I think all of that, but you could specify, instead of just the other door but the. I think it's the door at the center of my right thought. It's like it's the door at the center of the two upper windows, the center center window specify that there and then you mentioned a little bit better language next. The other window, which is located between the two upper. Front, most windows. Or the center window in in that front elevation. And I would say because it's 12 over one, I don't think they make 12 everyone doors so I would say, again, a grid pattern that matches the proportions of the 12 over one windows and this is a wider opening than those sunroom doors. And so it might not be, you know, the same door, but the proportion should be similar. Those pains should be proportionally similar so it has that seamless look. And you tell me where to add that language and what language you're asking for. I was still working on the location of the original window. Yeah, so you had said a 12 over one door. I would say instead of a 12 over one door, I would say 12 by four French door. Oh, you did. Okay. That's what it says in the proposed motion. I. Yeah. And so I would scrap that because the opinion was that that is too fine a grid pattern. Okay. So with a French door of a grid pattern that proportionally matches. Hold on. You're going to wait. I'm sorry. No, no, I'm doing the best I can to keep up. This is a very complicated case with a French door. Yes, with a French door that matches the grid pattern of the adjacent original 12 over one windows. Just to be clear, you will be picking those windows out for me, Carla, because I'm not screwing that up. I'm happy to look over any cuts you want to send me. We can't we can't steer you toward any brands or anything like that, but I'm not even going to pretend to be an architect. So I want to impose upon the applicant and affirmative duty to provide updated renderings to city staff, memorializing the changes. Discuss during this hearing that will absolutely be required whether you want to formalize that in the motion is okay. If it's going to be required then so need to add the verbiage. Yeah. So that when you and Carla were working through that bullet point. Was there a caveat about maintaining the width of the current opening. Should be able to get a door should be able to get a door in that way. Good point. Yeah. So maintaining the header height and the width. I want to reiterate that we're going against guideline F one to retain window openings and their original size. Proportion and location on a street facing and character defining elevation. This was stylistically never intended intended to be a walk out balcony. It was intended to be an aesthetic. That is correct. And I completely see your point, which is why I brought up. We are going against the criterion and we have to have sufficient justification to do so in this particular case. And I think Andy brought up what I brought up in that. You know, it's if that as long as that header height is maintained. As long as that header height is maintained. And the proportion of the pains is maintained the bottom of that window where that ends is not really that visible from the street given the size of that front yard. And so an allowance. Some of us may make it some of us may not. Some of you may make it some of you may not that allowance for this criterion but that's where it stands. Let me not make any commentary and let me ask if there are any further comments from the commission about the proposal, any aspect thereof. I would just like to make one response to what was just said. I know that you worked on language about what that center door between the two windows language that may be acceptable to the commission. Let me just say that if a majority of the commissioners approve that approve this co a with that language, then the commission would not be finding that this is inconsistent with the criteria. And so reading between the lines there. Are you saying that that creates precedence for future cases or what is the concern there. I guess I'm just the way you had stated that Carly you were you you sort of indicated that this door with these conditions would would be inconsistent with the criteria. But then potentially would be accepted. I guess the point I'm making is, if this co a is approved with those conditions, then the, then the commission is actually finding that the proposal is consistent with the criteria. As a little bit. I see what you're saying. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. And I will simply add. That's Carlos point as well taken here. Folks can have different interpretations of the criteria that's why we have multiple members on this commission. And I think it is fair to say that if we approve this proposal as we've been working to amend it during the course of this hearing. There could be a presidential value and that Prince presidential value is where you have a fixed window that we are converting to a door but keeping the proportions larger the same with the exception of the very bottom which is already obstructed by balistarad, then that's something we can live with if we approve this. Okay. And so, yes, there's presidential value but for the reasons of the firm Carla and from vice chair goes being others. I think the impact is is is minimal visually and that's why I feel comfortable supporting the proposal. The impact is minimal visually with regards to the windows and the openings, but it's not minimal once you have furniture and people out there potentially because it opens and it opens up an area that's meant to be aesthetically pleasing to an area that's habitable. And I know that that's not in the review criteria, but I just wanted to express it. Important perspective to share without question. Any other discussion about the proposal, or any aspect of it. If not, I'll ask for a staff recommendation. All right. Carla Rosenberg planning department stuff. I do continue I will just say that out there I do continue to have reservations about the retaining of the windows that are still bread between the glass as opposed to replacing those also on even the non character defining elevations with the triple grid. But I, I think as long as that doesn't set precedence for other I don't think we should in other cases I'll ever allow that. But I would recommend approval of the application, in spite of that, with the alteration of the, well basically removing the extension of that upper front ballast trade, keeping that in its original form. The applicant has the option, if he chooses of retaining that balcony on the side, all the other balconies will be reconstructed and window openings and door openings, etc. reconstructed according to the latest drawings. And again, what we were discussing about the header height and the width of the center window, staying the same, but converting to a door with appropriate grid pattern. And yeah, I would have liked to have seen the money that went into these new sunroom doors spent on getting new actual simulated divided light windows on the other elevations but given discussions today I'm fine with us going ahead and replacing those original sunroom doors with new, more appropriately gridded sunroom doors. Carla, at one point you had mentioned the possibility of parging the brick steps. Is that still something that you would be. Okay, I'm either here nor there on that. Okay, because right now the the proposed motion says salvaging existing not original brick steps, or installing new concrete steps to match originals. Are you suggesting that adding a part in the brick steps is a third option. Yeah, I would, I would hesitate, just given the substrate, I don't know what kind of brick they used. I know on the wall, that exterior wall that they built. They seem to be using historic bricks, which is a soft brick that really doesn't like to be slathered with Portland cement. So, that would. Yeah, I don't know if what if the brick that is there would we stand. I'm going to leave that often. I'm going to leave that off. Yeah, I'm going to attempt to make a motion. Okay. The Durham Historic Preservation Commission finds that in the case COA 220015 101 West Markham Avenue modifications in site work. The applicant is proposing modifications in site work to a landmark property. Front Portico will be reconstructed for a 1940 photograph and physical remnants still in place shown in a recent photograph salvaging the original stone foundation and stone cheek wall with caps, replacing tongue and groove porch decking salvaging existing not original brick steps or installing new concrete steps to match originals and adding new curbing wood balustrades with narrowly spaced square pickets modeled after existing at the first and second levels and existing enclosed sun porch will remain but without balustrades. The roof and underlying roof structure will be removed and replaced salvaging three brick chimneys, the three foot eaves will be reconstructed with salvage tongue and groove heart pine supplement excuse me supplemented with new matching material skylight not original will be replaced with a matching unit in the same location. The chimneys will be repaired with matching historic bricks and an appropriate soft lime based mortar and all slate shingles will be replaced with new slate shingles. The side deck stairs and landings will be replaced with wood versions and a new configuration reverting existing door openings to the original window proportions. With the exception to this, the front south side balcony will be retained in its current form, provided that balustrades can be replaced to match the balustrades on the character defining elevation. The main will be replaced with new wood lap siding to match original one original window and all other replacement windows have been replaced with new nine over one double hung grill between glass GBG units or single pane sliding units. The windows will be removed and stored during the current renovations five nine over one GBG windows on the front elevation will be replaced with 12 over one triple grid units to match originals. The center window above the original portico will be replaced with a French door with a grid pattern matching the original 12 over one windows. All windows of the enclosed sun porch will be replaced with salvage excuse me. Strike what I just stated with all windows of the enclosed sun porch. That was where we discussed new fiberglass or would the existing fixed sunroom windows shall be replaced with new triple grid simulated divided light wood or fiberglass window fixed windows in a grid pattern. Matching the proportions of the pains on the original 12 over one windows to the greatest extent practicable six canopy trees have been removed without replacement a brick wall along the north and east sides of the property has been removed without replacement. I need to amend something I read about the replacement of the window, the central window above the original portico. I previously read central window above the original portico will be replaced by a French door with a grid pattern matching the original 12 over one windows, provided that the door will have the same head height. As the adjacent to windows and maintaining the same with as the original fenestration. I'm not sure if I read this a brick wall along the north and east sides of the property has been removed without replacement. 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 dorm, excuse me with the historic properties local review criteria. Specifically those listed in the staff report and the Durham Historic Preservation Commission approves the certificate of appropriateness for case COA 220015 101 West Markham Avenue modifications and site work with the following conditions. The applicants shall be substantially consistent with the plans and testimony presented to the Commission at this Commission hearing and attached to the COA. To the improvements may require additional approvals from other city or county departments or state or local agencies. The applicant is responsible for obtaining all required approvals relating to building construction site work and work in the right of way. A compliance inspection shall be performed immediately upon completion of the work approved here in. If anyone would like me to reread the requirement on the front elevation windows I'd be happy to reread it I know that that was confusing. This is Commissioner Hamilton I'll second the motion. We can have a roll call vote. Madam clerk. Right. Chair Bouchard. Approved. Vice Chair Gulsby. Approved. Commissioner Calhoun. Approved. Commissioner Johnson. Not approved. Commissioner Hamilton. Approved. Commissioner Chambers. Commissioner Chambers. Commissioner Horton. Not approved. Not approved. Okay. Motion passes four to two. Mr. Goldheiss I think that was one of the more challenging applications that we have dealt with. I want to thank you for your efforts between June and now to get us to this point. Thank you for your patience and working through these very important issues with this commission here today and wish you good luck on this project and don't go far because I know that we need to entertain the next DOA on our agenda which also concerns a portion of this property. Y'all we've been going for a while I would recommend a. Matt. Um, did Commissioner Chambers not vote. No, he didn't say anything. Okay. His boat. It should be counted in the affirmative. So that should be a five to approval. Okay. So motion passes five to two. You couldn't hear me for some reason, but I said approved. Okay. Motion passes five to two. And then to be shared. This is commissioner Hamilton. I need to. Excuse myself at this time for another meeting with city staff. Thank you commissioner Hamilton. I did not schedule just to let y'all know I. Did not schedule this and my coworkers out of town who did schedule it. So I just want to let y'all know I. I don't normally try to schedule things during commission hearing. Sorry. We thank you. Hamilton, we do have a good amount of work left to do, but I think we all use a. A quick break. So let's try to get back if we could as close to 1120 as possible. Okay. If folks can please turn on their cameras as they returned. So. You know that you are here. And so I can see your smiling faces again. All right. I got a little smile from April on that one. Seeing a chat here from. Oh. So commissioner Horton can't turn her camera on says it was turned off by the video up. She's back. Okay. I believe I have seen. Everybody, but. Hey commissioner Bichard when we stepped away for the break, I turned some cameras off because folks left their cameras on. And I didn't want, I didn't know if something weird might happen. So I just went ahead and turned them off. So that explains that. I was, I was pulling pranks on folks behind the scenes. Okay. Commissioner chambers, if you can keep your camera on that would be great. And we're waiting for commissioner Calhoun to return as well. There's commissioner Calhoun. Commissioner chambers. Can't tell if your camera's on or off. It's looks like it's on because it doesn't say your name in the middle of the box, but I don't see your image. Okay. You want me to unmute on mute. I thought you're trying to say something. No, no, no. Okay. Commissioner chambers is back. He's walking. Let's move forward with the next case. And based on our agenda revision, we have moved COA 220043. We're going to move on to that first COA to the end of the agenda with the other. I would like to revert to the originally posted agenda. If we may just to give the other applicants a chance to get through because I think it's inevitable. We're going to have to continue some cases today. Mr. Boatheist is here in the room. And so I think my preference would be to just continue on with what we said we would do at the beginning of the hearing. So we're going to move on to COA 220043. I think we're going to move on to that next. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. It's great to have you. New construction of accessory structures and site work. Mr. Boatheist, if you could please turn your camera back on. It says the host has stopped my video. Carl, is there something you can do about that? Yes, I just pressed the button and should work. We're good. And, uh, Madam clerk, if we could read minister of the oath, please for Mr. in the public hearing proceedings for today's case, the truth by your own knowledge or by information and beliefs. Yes, I do. And Mr. Bouldheist, do you consent to this case proceeding on this remote electronic platform? Yes, I do. Thank you. Carla, if we could have a staff summary, please. COA 22-00043, 101 West Market Avenue new construction of accessory structures and site work. Applicant and owner is Charles Bouldheist, Southwest Quadrant of the intersection of West Market Avenue and North Macon Street, zoned to Presidential Urban Five. It is not in a historic district, but it is a local historic landmark, Dillard House. The applicant is proposing two new accessory structures on the lot, one which will entail garage apartments and the other a spa. And this will also entail a new parking pad and a perimeter fence with gates. I would like to introduce the staff report into the record and invite the applicant to present his case. Chloe Harris, Mr. Bouldheist. The parking pad is not actually going to be an impervious or semi-impervious surface. It's going to be these appliques that you're allowed to insert into the soil that provide for a weight bearing capacity of 80,000 pounds, but do not actually cover the ground. I submitted a link showing the material that I'm going to be using. I don't know if that link is available, but are you familiar with what I'm discussing? They look like cookie cutters and you put them in the ground and they link up together and form a grid that has open space to allow for water to flow normally, naturally. But then that intersected grid as a load bearing capacity that will prevent the parking area from erosion or indentations that would normally occur from traveling over it with vehicles. You guys feel familiar with what I'm talking about? I don't know. If we're not, we'll have some questions for you. Okay. So if the rendering shows walkways or a parking pad, it's only to indicate where the walking will occur or where the parking pad will be, but there is not going to be asphalt, concrete, or gravel. Those are not the surfaces I'm using. So it is considered a 100% impervious material, which is something I wanted to make sure that I incorporated so that I didn't exceed the amount of impervious surface area that I was creating on the property with the structures that I'm proposing. The garage element there is a three-door, six-car garage. I currently own four vehicles. My fifth vehicle is on order when it arrives. Maserati's not sure, but fourth quarter, first quarter next year. So I wanted to have parking for my collection of vehicles. I wanted to have apartments above the garage to allow for me to either have extended family stay in the property or in the future, rent it out to people that may want to live in the area that cannot afford a home. I own a property management company, so I manage about 450 properties and we provide section eight to about 300 of those tenants. So if I did rent it out to the general public, I would of course leave it open to section eight because that's part of my business practice. The doors to the garage are solid wood and they have transome windows above the solid wood because I wanted to maintain a characteristic that was associated with the era in which the home was built. There will be carriage lighting that will be attached to the structure to allow for lighting as you enter into the garage. There will be no electrical panels or air conditioning units or anything of that nature on the exterior of the home or the ADUs because they will be using mini splits and those condensers will be hidden in cages that will be at the base of the property. I am providing for a line of Italian cypresses on the east side of the property that will prevent me from prevent people from seeing the garage from next door and I'm planting Italian cypresses on the north end of the property from the eastern most, or excuse me, western most corner of my property line to the opening of the driveway so that the garage is not visible from Markham Avenue as you drive down Markham Avenue. The spa is a enclosed structure that will have a resistance pool that I will be able to use for exercise. I am a service related disabled veteran. I served as a combat medic during desert storm. I was airborne in air assault and my knees just gave out, I can't run anymore and then when I broke my arm they put two 10 inch plates with 17 pins and screws in my arm and I can no longer do calisthenics the way I used to. So my doctor's recommended four diabetes and weight control management that I swim. So I'm trying to create a room that I can have a resistance pool installed inside of. I was going to take the windows from the front and from the west and excuse me, from the east and north portion of the main structure as we discussed earlier and use those windows in these two structures so that I wasn't throwing them away and that's why you see them as nine over one in the garage. The roofs I proposed to be slated to match the house, the siding I proposed to be shiplap, yellow pine to match what's being done to the home. I'm going to have the viewing of the spa slash pool house obstructed from the road by having the fence installed. The fence will have, I intend to have vining orange, trumpet flowers growing over the fence and I intend to put white flowering dogwoods at the frontage of the property and then behind set back from the front of the property obstructing the view of the pool house would be Japanese maples. I think that covers it. Thank you, Mr. Boatheis. Questions from the commissioners? I'll go ahead and get it started. Mr. Boatheis, is there any exterior lighting in connection with this proposal? There is. The garage will have four lights, one on each side of the opening doors. There are carriage lights that will be set flush against the wood siding and then there'll be a carriage light next to the entrances of each of the doors to the apartments upstairs. And then on the front of the spa structure, there will be a carriage light adjacent to the door and then on the property itself, I currently have six, six foot tall posts that at some point provided lighting to the majority of the property, but those have failed over time and I would replace them with a product that would be a six foot tall pole with carriage style lighting on top of it. The existing ones look to be installed somewhere around the 70s or 80s and they're just kind of a diamond shape. The ones I'd like to install would be more in mind with the characteristics of the esconces and the lighting that was on the front porch of the house when I bought it. But as of right now, your proposal does not include changes to those exterior light fixtures, the existing light fixtures. The ones in the ground. Yeah, the ones on the six foot posts that you just mentioned. Yeah, they're not functioning. I didn't know how to address that weather. So as of right now, the proposal doesn't suggest any changes to those. Well, then I take it, well, then my intention would be to take the non-functioning lights and replace them with functioning lights. Karla, would that require a new major COA or a minor COA? Lighting, site lighting would require a minor COA. Have you provided any sort of spec sheets or shop drawings or product data for any of the carriage lamps you mentioned? Yes, I did email those. I did not receive them. I had also looked for any HVAC, I'd asked about HVAC equipment, lighting, et cetera. Yeah, well, sorry. I know that when I asked the draftsman to redraw that he put them into the drawing, the most recent drawing I sent you had those things indicated as far as the material that was gonna be used for the lighting. I thought I said that with the links when I said the gutters and the fencing and the garage doors and all of those other items. Everything that I received is in the PDF. I did receive your fencing, I did receive the exterior doors, but no light fixtures. Do you have the material for the driveway? I don't believe I received that either. I'm not seeing anything about any of those materials and the materials that we have in front of us. I see the fencing spec sheet, garage door sheet, and that is pretty much it. That plus an email from June 29. If you'll recall, we added this case as a conciliation, I guess, to being able to continue that last case. And so a lot of it came in very last minute. So I think even the basic information came in last minute and I did not receive a lot of the extra stuff that I had asked for, which included the lighting and so forth. Well, in the interest of moving things forward, Carla, do you need additional information before you can make a recommendation on the driveway pad and the exterior lighting? I think the lighting could be approved by staff if he would be able to send me those materials after the fact, I would feel comfortable doing that. And if he can declare here at the hearing what he plans to use for his paving, I think the commission could rule on that easily. Well, have you described that material again? So are you familiar with those little foam pads that you can connect and make a mat out of so you can exercise on top of it? You ever seen something like that? It's like puzzle pieces that you put together. Well, this would be puzzle pieces you put together that are hollow. So they're just an outline and these outlines connect to each other and they're hollow and there is no material in the center of them. And you place these on the soil and then you push them into the soil that their depth is about four inches. And when you push these interlocked pieces into the soil it creates a pad that you're capable of driving up to 80,000 pounds of weight over without damaging the material and it provides you the stability and strength of a driveway while allowing for the natural absorption of water that a grass or dirt surface would accommodate. Do you have a brand name for the product you plan to use? The answer is yes. The real question is, do I remember the name of the brand? Yeah, so we can look it up. Yes, so right now I'm going to open up my browser and find the material. Wonderful. And we're not going to necessarily hold you to the brand you give us but we'll probably slap an oral equivalent on it just to give you that flexibility. We just want to make sure we have enough information to describe. Yeah, it's really good stuff. Yeah, it may be a proprietary product that only that brand produces. Just trying to figure out how I can open up my browser with all this stuff here. I will use my phone. Okay, so they are a permeable paver and an example of a manufacturer of this product is spelled O-R-E-A-L-G-A-R-D. Are they plastic? This version is plastic, yes. Planning on putting grass or sorry, this is Commissioner Horton. Is what goes in between? Because on that website I'm seeing several different. Yeah, I would want dirt in between and I would want grass in the dirt. Yeah, I've seen this before and I think it's just like he says it provides kind of a weight structure for vehicles to be able to park but also kind of maintain the natural, I guess environment you can say. So that you don't have, what is it called? I just, it just left my mind but so that water can still be absorbed in the ground. Exactly, I don't create a storm. Runoff. Runoff issue. No one can hear me. So if we were to include in the motion a requirement that the driveway shall be fortified by plastic permeable pavers by Oreo Guard or equivalent, would that meet your intent? Absolutely, yeah. Okay. And then Carl, you said that exterior lighting details could be provided to the staff for approval. Yes, and there's another point that was brought up in our staff discussion about the gates, whether these gates will open into the right of way because that would involve a licensing agreement requirement. So we do need to review that and in that case, we would need to continue the case. So probably should jump to that. It will not be opening into the right of way. There'll be on wheels traversing the length of my property. There will be wheels, you said? Rather than a swinging gate that would be on a hinge, our gate will be on wheels. Okay, so they would open like pocket doors, but... Correct. Okay. So Carl, I guess they are shown inaccurately on the information that the applicant submitted because the, and I can't tell what page number it is, but the sheet that shows sort of an overall of the site shows both sets of decorative gates opening up into the right of way. Yeah, they're not supposed to. I think that Mr. O'Toole is referring to the plot plan. Page 13, Amanda. Yeah, so where it says decorative gate, for instance, the top along West Markham Avenue, it's showing it opening into the sidewalk area. Yeah, I had a huge problem with this drawing in general. He didn't put the cypresses all the way up to the gate. He has the gates opening out into the street, which is not correct. The gate on the driveway is on wheels. The gate in the front of the house actually opens toward the property. They're not into the right of way. And all those walkways are existing and they're all being torn out. So it's just a horrible rendering. So we may want to consider continuing the case to get updated drawings. We might also want to discuss just make sure that all of your plantings are on the Durham landscape or in the Dant Durham landscape manual that the commission is approving the plantings as well. So the criterion is that the planting should be in the Durham landscape manual and I was wondering if the Italian cypress is in there. I was looking for it and didn't find it. So in any case, I think certainly for the gates and making sure that we have adequate renderings we might want to consider continuing the case. Client agree, Mr. Botheis, especially given your characterization of this rendering. Let's just make sure that we provide Mr. Botheis with everything that we do require from him. I think it would be helpful to have an updated rendering. I think it would be helpful to have those exterior lighting details. I'd like to see them as part of our consideration. And I'll note in that regard, Mr. Botheis, there is a requirement in our criteria to maintain historic exterior lighting fixtures. So it would be helpful to know what your plans were for those currently inoperable, perhaps salvageable fixtures. It sounds like we need some additional detail on plantings. Carla, what have I missed? The permeable pavers go ahead and provide a cut sheet of that and discuss what you're using as your intermediary material. What's going to go in between the pavers? No, what were you saying about HVAC? I don't know. So I'm assuming you're going to have HVAC in your apartments. We want to know where your unit will be located to know that you're minimizing visibility from the street. How many you'll have? Those will need to be included also in the plot plan. Mr. Botheis, did you say that you were going to use those interior HVAC units? Yes. Okay. I hope I'm able to get a cut sheet on those as well. And I think you also mentioned that the sidewalk was going to be altered as well. It's due to no review. Yeah, there's a walkway right now that goes from my property to the adjacent property to the south, to the south. The parents lived in my house and they built the house next door for their daughter as a wedding gift. And so they had a little path and a little archway connecting the two properties. But the concrete is all broken up and the archway is dilapidated and it's all overgrown. So we were going to remove the walkway that's between my property and theirs. And those other walkways that are drawn in don't exist. I don't know why he drew them. Again, I don't like this rendering at all. So you'll provide an accurate representation of the pathways and the material that you plan to use for those pathways. And then also provide some sort of either a cut sheet or an image of another version of the decorative gates that you're planning to install these decorative gates on wheels. I think both gates because it looks like there's a gate to the front of the tree as well. Yep, there are two. All right, anything else? If that is everything, then I will go ahead and make a motion to continue case number COA 220043, 101 West Markham Avenue, new construction of accessory structures and site work to the, Carla, do we need two months? Yes. And what is our date for October? It would be October 4th. To the October 4th, 2022 in-person meeting of the Durham Historic Preservation Commission. If I might have a second. I think Commissioner Johnson might be trying to say something. I'm just talking to myself. I didn't realize we were in person next month. We are. May I have a second? Second. Thank you, Commissioner Johnson. Ms. Holmes, roll call vote please. All right, Chair Bouchard. Yes. Vice Chair Gulsby. Yes. Commissioner Calhoun. Yes. Commissioner Johnson. Yes. Commissioner Hamilton. Oh, wait, she's out. Yes. Commissioner Chambers. Moved. Commissioner Horton. Yes. Motion passes six to zero. Well, hi, thank you once more for your patience with our process. I think it's going to result in a COA application. It's a little bit easier for us to evaluate and make a vote on in a couple of months time. And we look forward to seeing you then. So in addition to setting these things to Carla, I make a new COA application. No. No, okay. Just send those to me and I'll update your staff report. Please send them to me as soon as possible. All right, thank you very much. Thank you. Carla, before we move on to our next case, could you please let us know what our time constraints are? I know we've run late with our first two cases and you had, I think mentioned it, we're likely looking at a continuance of some of our cases. It all depends on you all. I just know that typically people have needed to leave around noon. And so why don't we quiz the commission right now and when they need to leave so that we know what we're working with? So I don't know which I see folks on the screen. So I'll start with commissioner Johnson. I need to leave by noon. Oh boy, okay. Commissioner Horton. I can stay an extra hour if I need to though. Okay. We're at noon now, so. Commissioner Horton. I can stay an extra hour. Commissioner Calhoun. I can remain. Commissioner Gulsby. I'll get it. Okay. Commissioner Chambers. I'm here. Good. I mean, I can go for another hour as well. And depending on what we come across, maybe we can get through two. We'll see. I'm gonna try to move them along. I know the first one went long, but let's go ahead and have Carl bring in the participants for the next matter on our agenda, which is COA 220034911 South Duke Street. Addition. It looks like our proponent is coming into the room. I'm here. Hi, is it Ms. Arroyo? Or am I mispronouncing that? You are. Arujo. Arujo. Thank you. It's good to see you. Okay. Ms. Arujo. If we could please swear in our proponent, Clark Holmes. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give in the public hearing proceedings for today's case, the truth by your own knowledge or by information and beliefs? I do. And Ms. Arujo, do you consent to your case being heard today via this remote electronic platform? I do. Wonderful. Thank you. Carl, if we can proceed with the staff summary, please. Carl Rosenberg Planning Department, this is case COA 220034911 South Duke Street. Addition. Applicant and owner are Rochelle Arujo, Northwest Quadrant of the intersection of North Duke Street and Cobb Street. So in residential suburban eight, it's a contributing structure to the Moorhead Hill Historic District. And the applicant is proposing to construct a conservatory. So we have an addition with a lot of windows on the second floor of an existing garage addition at the rear of the home. So I'd like to introduce the staff report into the record and invite Ms. Arujo to present her case. Can I first note that you're, and I'm sorry I didn't catch it when I first saw the staff report, your description of the location is incorrect. Okay. So it is the Northeast Quadrant of the intersection of South Duke Street and Cobb Street. So that- Ah, yes, sorry. I'm, yes. Thank you. Yeah. Ms. Arujo, the floor is yours. Okay. So in short, yes, I'd like to build it. I'm not sure that you'd actually call it a conservatory because it doesn't have a glass roof, but a sunroom orangery conservatory type structure on top of my existing garage, which was built with the intention of someday building such an addition. So it was built to engineering specs that would support the way. And I did include the engineering report in this. It's not something you folks would normally consider, but just in case you had any concerns about that, that is in the application. So it sits to the rear of the house. It is visible if you are down on Cobb Street on the side and looking up, you could see it, but it's very clearly not part of the original house. As clearly the garage is not part of the original house. It's consistent stylistically with the existing garage, which is in itself sort of consistent stylistically with the house, but not confused with the house itself. So it is built out of a series of windows, which are already in my position. They are as you call them triple-gritted, simulated divided lights, Pella architectural series windows. They're wood inside, aluminum clad outside with shadow bars in between them. The proportions of the gridding is comparable to what is in the major part of the house. The first floor of the existing house has double-hung windows with divided lights in the upper sash, single lights in the lower sash. And the second story has divided lights in both the upper and lower sash of the existing house. So in a sense, this basically, you can see that here is, and the proportions of the existing lights depends on the width of the windows. They're roughly a light per somewhere between nine inches and a foot. And then once, so many of them are six over six, but the wider windows are either eight over ones down below. So they're consistent, but not exactly the same measurement. Well, you need to know about it. The height is comparable to the height of a story. It's just shy of 13 feet. I believe the garage itself, it's about 13 feet. The low slope gable, it's that and the slope and the material of the roof are comparable to the shed dormer that is currently in the attic is the only place where you have such a low slope roof. I've probably seen it from the rear, one of the photos of the rear. I can't really quite see it, but it's way up there on top of that other. Yeah, I didn't really catch a picture of that. No, none of those. Now, there is up that little dormer that you can see in the upper left is an attic dormer. And that has a similar slope and the material that I'd be proposing for the roof of this little sunroom addition. It would be entered off of the existing kitchen where there is a set of French doors. They are existing, they will remain, there they are, they are exterior-grade doors. So in the sense that, although I do plan to heat in the air condition to an extent the addition, it's not part of the central part of the house. And I would be adding one of those mini-split systems with the unit outside there on the north side of the house where the existing HVAC units are not visible to anybody, but barely the neighbor. It's all well-vegetated and pretty well hidden from view. Not sure what other sorts, oh, and you have asked questions about lighting. I know Carla followed up with a question about lighting. I only propose to add one exterior sort of carriage light, similar to what you see right there next to the existing French doors. I'll be putting that most likely in that overhead gable just for safety and coming in and out. I'm not intending to illuminate that exterior to any greater extent than it currently is. It just has one post light on one of the existing garage posts. Not sure what other questions y'all have of that. And I guess I do have maybe one thing that I would put to you in terms of the bifold doors that would be the east side of the addition proposed. I have not yet ordered those. And right now I have them in the drawing as having full divided lights. That is an option. I would also like to consider perhaps not dividing the lights in that bifold door just to bring in more light and understand the view out. It would be the same as what there currently is right now on the exterior doors of the present kitchen and consistent with the first floor of having divided lights over a single. I'm not committed either way. And but if it would be amenable to you folks for me to do a not divided in the doorways, I would like to consider that but I can live with the ruling either way. Thank you, Ms. Arujo. I'm gonna go ahead and open the floor now for questions from my fellow commissioners. This is Commissioner Gullsby. The doors that exist now from the kitchen and will be proposed to be the entry into this room. Are they original to the house itself or were they replaced at some point? Thank you. They were replaced at some point. There was a structural failure at the rear of the house there. I've had to put in 14 pilings all around that section of the house and that part of the wall collapsed when they were doing some work on the house. Prior to when I got the house and so I had a steel overhead beam across that opening. And so it's not the original opening. It was, it predated when I got it. It was a repair and it enabled there to be a wider door than probably was original. Thanks for the help. Okay, thank you. I think that clarifies it for me. Thank you Vice Chair Gullsby. Anybody else? Seeing and hearing from none of my other fellow commissioners I will open the floor for discussion amongst the commissioners and I'll get us started off with a question for Carla is would any changes need to be made to the current proposed motion if we were to entertain making a change to the doors as the applicant has just described? I'd have to look at the motion. And I guess Carla I should go ahead and just ask if you have a preference for. Yeah, I think they're not highly visible. I would, for me, neither here nor there. I don't have a preference. I could even handle that as a field. I would be comfortable handling that as a field adjustment. Okay. You know, she decided to switch later. Okay. So not necessarily anything we need to worry about for the purposes of our motion. I mean, do you have a preference, Ms. Eruja? Would you like to go ahead and let me see if I even included anything on it? It looks like I didn't specify anything about your door, your that fenestration pattern. So if you wanted to go with a fully glazed door instead of a divided light door, you would need to send me an updated drawing and I would need to attach that as a field adjustment. Okay. But that would not require further action of this commission. Apparently not. So I will go ahead and ask for a staff recommendation. Carla Rosenberg cleaning department staff would recommend approval of this application. Thank you, Carla. Would anyone be interested in making a motion? Okay. The Durham Historic Preservation Commission finds that in the case of COA 2200034911 South Duke Street the applicant is proposing an addition to a contributing structure. The addition consists of a heavily fenestrated one-story stucco conservatory measuring 16 feet, eight inches wide, 14 feet, five inches long and 12 feet, eight inches tall resting upon a previous rear garage addition. Fenestration will consist of simulated divided light aluminum clad wood windows as well as bronze clad wood bifold doors. All painted bronze to match existing iron railings on terrace. The addition will have a gently sloped gable roof, two to 12 pitch with standing seam copper to match existing roof dormers on the primary structure. Therefore, the conclusion of law is that the proposed addition and alterations are consistent with the historic character and qualities of the historic district and are consistent with the historic properties and local review criteria. Specifically, those listed in the staff report and the dorm historic preservation commission approves the certificate of appropriateness for case COA 2200034911 South Duke Street addition with the following conditions. The improvement should be substantially consistent with the plans and testimony presented to the commission at this commission hearing and attached to this COA. Number 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 wear and work in the right-of-way. And three, a compliance inspection shall be performed immediately upon completion of the work approved herein. Second, Commissioner Gulsby. Thank you, Commissioner Calhoun and Vice Chair Gulsby. Ms. Holmes, roll call vote please. Chair Bouchard. Approved. Vice Chair Gulsby. Approved. Commissioner Calhoun. Approved. Commissioner Johnson. Approved. Commissioner Chambers. Approved. Commissioner Horton. Approved. Motion passes six to zero. Ms. Rujo, thank you so much for working with us today on your proposal. Best wishes on that addition to your home and... Thank you. And can I add one point of edification to your proceedings prior? As someone who came from New Bedford in a wailing town, a widow's walk is on the roof. So the thing to prior was not a widow's walk. Just, so you know, there's no mariners around here. That was quite an interesting experience this morning. Appreciate the work that you guys do. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, let's move on. Our next case is COA 220035. 6404 Ahmed Road. Hope I'm pronouncing that correctly. Modifications to accessory structures. And if we could go ahead, Carl and bring in our proponent. Ms. Pittman, good morning. Excuse me. Good afternoon. Ms. Holmes, if we could administer the oath, please. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give in the public hearing proceedings for today's case, the truth by your own knowledge or by information and belief? I do. And you consent to this hearing proceeding on this remote electronic platform? Yes. Wonderful. If we could have a staff report, please. Carla Rosenberg Planning Department. This is case COA 220035 6404 Ahmed Road. Modifications to your accessory structures. The applicant is Meredith Pittman. The owner is Jennings Brody, located on the north side of Ahmed Road between Kossum Road and Old Oxford Road. Zoned Rural Residential or RR. And again, not in a local historic district. This is a local historic landmark named the Ahmed Tilley House. Applicant is proposing to restore three accessory structures on the site. There are two tobacco barns. One is a smaller one. There's another one that's in three sections. And then there's also a tractor shed. Two of the structures will be raised onto new concrete foundations. And the three structure barns will have two early additions removed. There's also three trees that will be removed adjacent to the structures. I'd like to introduce the staff report into the record and invite Ms. Pittman to present her case. Hi, everybody. This entire property was purchased by my client, Ms. Brody, in October. And I am the architect's kind of overseeing restoration of the whole property as well as the historic home that's on site, which we already have gone through a minor COA process for. And there are roughly 20 to 25, depending on what you count, outbuildings all dating potentially early 1900s. Not exactly sure on the date of any of those. But there are two that have already fallen into, well, have actually collapsed. And there are a couple more that are going to need to be demolished because they're so unsound. And we've gotten that approval via Carla's guidance from the inspections department coming out and taking a look at those and giving approval to go ahead and demolish those. And the new property owner really wants to keep that from happening to any of these others. And so that is the goal here with the three that are still able to be rehabbed but are in the most disrepair is simply to get those more sound, more secure, safer and hopefully to last another 100 years if possible. Thank you very much, Ms. Lippin. Do any of my fellow commissioners have any questions for our applicant today? I do have one question. Did you all involve a maybe a restoration specialist to also kind of look at the barns, the sheds? Yes, we did. There's a gentleman who lives in Oxford who does a lot of work like this. And so we walked around the entire property with him, got his input and advice on what was possible to restore, how he would go about doing that and what he felt was most important to take care of soonest. And so that is, those are these three and the ones that were recommended have already been approved to be demolished are further away from the house less kind of contributing to the character right around the historic home. And those will be taken down in such a way that everything is preserved on site, dried for use in rehabbing these structures. And that's based on his guidance as well. Yes, and I'll say that I have toured the property before and they were quite a lot of these types of buildings. So even if a few are saved, I think it is still giving you that kind of idea of what was going on on the site. Any other questions from my fellow commissioners? If not, I will close the public hearing and invite discussion amongst the commission. In the absence of any discussion, I will ask for a staff recommendation. Carla Rosenberg, planning department, staff would recommend approval of the application. Wonderful, thank you. I would entertain a motion. Commissioner Coolsby, I will re-serve. The Durham Historic Preservation Commission finds that in the case COA 2200356404 Ahmed Road modifications to accessory structures, the applicant is proposing to raise and restore three accessory structures on a landmark property. Salvage materials from previously demolished structures on site will be used to replace rotten boards throughout the structures and to reconstruct and repair doors that are deteriorated or missing. Doors will be designed to match the still extant shed door. Two additions will be removed from the sides of the largest tobacco barn, leaving only the central portion constructed of logs. Each structure will be raised onto a concrete pad or concrete masonry unit pierced based with natural stone to protect from water intrusion. Two trees will be removed immediately adjacent to the smaller tobacco barn and one adjacent to the tractor shed without placement. Therefore, the conclusion of the law is that the proposed additions 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 2200356404 Ahmed Road 6404 Ahmed Road modifications to accessory structures 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 related 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. Duncan, thank you Vice Chair Gulsby. Second came from me and I'll ask Ms. Holmes for a roll call vote. Chair Bouchard. Approved. Vice Chair Gulsby. Approved. Commissioner Calhoun. Approved. Commissioner Johnson. Approved. Commissioner Chambers. Approved. Commissioner Horton. Approved. Motion passes six to zero. Ms. Bidman, thanks for your appearance before us today. Good luck on this project and I hope you do get another 100 years out of these structures. It's a remarkable project. Thanks to all of you. Next case on our agenda is COA 220037. It's 36. I skip one. 220036, 2210 Woodrow Street Edition and Modifications. And it looks like Carl is bringing our applicant into the room. Hello, Merrigan, how are you? I'm great. You're doing very well, Faggs. Thank you for your patience. Oh, no problem. Lots to do today. We're gonna go ahead and get you sworn in. Clerk Holmes. Do you swear or find that the testimony you're about to give in the public hearing proceedings for today's case, the truth, by your own knowledge or by information and belief? I do. And Mr. Merrigan, do you consent to having this hearing proceed today on this remote electronic platform? I do. Wonderful, thank you. Carla, staff report, please. All right, Carla Rosenberg cleaning department. This is KCOA 220036, 2210 Woodrow Street Edition and Modifications. The applicant is Tom Merrigan. The owner is Christopher Scott Weintraub and Deborah Jean Lugo, located on the north side of Woodrow Street between Virginia Avenue and Oakland Avenue. Zone residential suburban eight. And this is a contributing structure to the Watts-Hillendale Historic District. So the applicant's proposing to remove a previous upper stories or attic edition as it's described, replaced with a new second story addition in a dormer form. And that would entail enlarging the roof structure itself and then also the footprint then of what was the original portion of the structure, staying within the boundaries of the current footprint but expanding the original footprint of the structure. So I would like to introduce the staff report into the record. There are a couple other things about like adding a screen porch as well. I'd like to introduce this staff report into the record and invite Mr. Merrigan to present his case. And Mr. Merrigan, if you'd like me to skip to any particular page in the staff report, just call out the number, the page number and I'll happily do that for you. Okay, great. Thank you so much. And yeah, I guess this property is one that has been altered a lot over its history and is a difficult one for us that we've been before the commission and had a lot of success on a lot of projects over the years. And I think this one is a little bit of a head scratcher. This is a good slide to show. This one or the next one. It's originally was shown on the sandborn maps sometime after the 1937 maps as a single story structure and was later modified both to the top of the original house as well as to the rear of the house. Making sense of kind of these previous modifications in the context of sort of the homeowner's interest in kind of making the spaces more up to date, expanding a little bit of the square footage in the context of homes that are generally modest in size in this Watts Hill and Dale district is a careful balance. And so there's a lot of nuances and things. I think one of the other factors on this as well is that the house is a fairly muted sort of muted character looking at it and kind of trying to describe it stylistically has been, it's kind of a vernacular and doesn't have a very strong craftsman or classical or federalist or any of those kinds of kind of traits to it. And so I guess trying to navigate what we're doing in that context has also been a little bit of a trickier thing. There is a front sort of porch element that doesn't appear on the sandborn maps. And so, and it actually has probably the strongest kind of stylistic sort of attributes in the sense that it does have a little bit of a craftsman. Okay, yeah, so here's the sandborn map showing its I think it's 1950 sandborn map single story. There was a little back porch and a little side porch. That side porch on the right hand side of it is now part of the house. And almost all of its materiality matches like the windows, other things match the rest of the historic portions of the house. So we think that happened very soon after it was built or documented. The upper floor and rear portions of the house are the sort of main big things that happened though. And I was just talking about the front porch has a little bit more of a little more character to it that gives us something to draw on and maybe borrow from a little bit. You can see there's some sort of paneled columns on it. The house was wood-sided, but is now aluminum-sided. There's a tiny bit of area that we opened up to sort of see what condition it's in because we often find that it's in not bad shape. In this case, unfortunately, I think there's a photo somewhere in this that shows it's very badly deteriorated at least in one area. And so I think our proposal is to take whatever portions of that. There's the porch. Whatever portions of the siding are in good shape and put it on the front of the house and then use cementitious, solid cementitious siding on the rest. The main work that we're proposing doing is confusing. If we could go up to the three-dimensional models, the 3D model views, the very top ones of those, these I think explain the two-dimensional drawings do this as well, but these help a lot explain. If we go up one more slide, please, I think we'll see. So the existing house was added to on the back with a cross gable element. And then it was also added on to above with what is sort of a Russian doll kind of putting of a second floor that has its own gable roof that's actually at a lower slope, lower steepness than the other portions of the extant roof. And it kind of makes for a messy palette to start with. So we're starting with this and that upper floor level is there today. And obviously the owners aren't interested in trying to reinstate its original form. They wanna make use of that upper floor and even expand it. And so trying to navigate around what we think is kind of a terrible thing that happened to the house in a way that makes use of some of the things that it brought to the house of value, which are added floor areas and still keeps the house feeling like it belongs in the district and feeling like it's true to at least the intent of the original structure is sort of what our main goals have been through this process. If we go to the next slide, we can kind of see the proposed changes. The proposed changes keep that second floor addition, the outside walls of that second floor addition are maintained as well as all the windows on the front of the house. And I think that's a little bit, as I read through the staff report, it was a little confusing that we were rebuilding something, the walls of that piece on the front. And that's actually not what we're proposing. We're proposing keeping those walls and just modifying the roof over those walls on the upper level to become a dormer in what is once again, a consistent gable from end to end, sort of as you look at the massing of the house. So it makes that upper level less dominating and more subordinate. And so we were trying to maximize that relationship as we started thinking about how to expand and get a little more square footage in the house. The next couple slides might show better kind of, so there's the way it looks today. And you can vaguely make out that that upper gable slope is not the same as it is below. And so you get kind of this, like I said, like a Russian doll nesting kind of thing going on. And then the next slide shows kind of the proposed, which allows the gable to be maintained across the top and lets the house read more like it has dormers and it's one and a half stories and not really two stories. As we go, keep going through the... Oh, I'm sorry. In this one you can also see, sorry, back one, you can also see we are also proposing a little floor area in the front that has just a little pergola over it that is something that homeowners, the existing porch is not very useful. It keeps the weather off of you as you're entering the house but otherwise isn't very, not a very useful thing. And other houses in the neighborhood do have some kind of a porch or other place to sort of land and spend time. And so the criteria on that is not really in our favor but it seems in keeping with the house and helps give character to the house while also giving them something they are interested in having which is sort of a place to sit on the front. As we go through the next slides, you can kind of see other views of the before and the after. So not only the sort of changes to the extent roof would also encompass some of the rear portions of the rear addition so that those things, while they're not on the principle, character defining elevation, they are additions and kind of aren't necessarily things that gel with the house. And so this would kind of help it all be one thing with more hierarchy to it. This also shows the rear screen porch and the sort of detailing of the porch columns matches what is it extant on the front of the house for that small front porch. There is in the current documents, a proposal to remove, if you go back one slide, remove the little accessory structure that's sort of a garage structure that I guess officially, Carly can probably enumerate on this a little more, but that's not actually part of this proposal because I think that's handled under or more administrative. It's a separate, it will be a separate COA. And so that's just for clarity, not part of the actual proposal on this COA. I think that's kind of it. That's sort of the story of what we're trying to do. The ridge height of one last thing is the ridge height of the house is also not changing. It will match the height of the extant ridge line. And so while that's not part of the original house, we are trying to be mindful of not expanding further the sort of certain parts of the extents of the house, we're trying to keep the house's overall presence similar to what it is today. Mr. American, thank you for that presentation. Gonna open the floor now to questions from the commissioner. This commissioner goes be the wood siding that is underneath. What is the profile of that? It's hard to tell because it's not in good shape. If you're able to scroll down to one of the last photographs, I believe it's shown, yeah, on 48. Yeah, it may be a German, the slide on the left or the photo on the left of this slide gives it kind of the, there's something going on at the top that makes me think it's German or it just has a funky kind of tongue and groove situation. It may be like a German profile. I don't know, the proposal currently is to have fiber cement, cementitious, like a hardy or other kind of siding where we need to replace it. And I don't know of any manufacturers who make kind of that German profile. I guess getting it out of wood is also a possibility. It's not one that we've explored yet and we would need to kind of understand the costs and other things, I guess, about that. We've come across a company, True Exterior, TR exterior that is a thicker cementitious material that does allow for the profiles. We've been able to use it actually for more shiplap conditions. We haven't used it in a Dutch profile yet. But that'd be one group to look at if needing to match the shape. Yeah, thank you. That's actually great because there used to be, hardy used to have the, I think it was the Artisan series. And those were nice thicker, like the old sort of shiplap used to be. But yeah, yeah, okay. Yeah, we would need to fine tune what that is. I guess at some point, this picture kind of shows that. And so I'm not sure exactly, we have said cementitious, but we haven't been specific yet about that. And I don't know if that's sort of administrative thing or if that's something more like we would have to come back or something to kind of say, this is the actual product we're talking about. Sure, sure. My other question for you is, you did allude to that the guidelines are not very supportive to the trellis that you're showing out front, this front porch addition. Are there any parts of the guideline that you feel do support this addition? I kind of agree with you right now, but I'm hoping that if there's something that you can point us to. Yeah, so yeah, thank you. That's helpful. In looking over the criteria, things like pergolas or almost like garden structures seem not specifically addressed. And so the portions of this front area that are probably hardest to argue and favor for relate to the floor. It seems like continuing the floor that is next to the extant, which is maybe not original, part of the porch seems a little tough. One idea is I think our current thing, our current proposal shows sort of continuation of like a concrete slab on a masonry, a stem wall construction. I think proposing that it may be a lighter construction like something that is either wood or is just sort of a sand set, almost like a patio or something that isn't quite so permanent treats it lighter and makes it feel like it is more like a independent structure or something that is yeah, just not competing with this original or not original, but this extant porch element. I think one of the things that's interesting is that all of the criteria about porches and stoops and things like that seem related to, I guess, contributing sort of original elements. And I don't know, I think they just say that it's not okay to expand them or build new ones where there's no evidence historically, but if you have one that doesn't have any evidence of being there historically either, but is existing, I guess I feel like that's a little ambiguous and I just may need to read the criteria on that. So I think those are kind of the, I think that the owners would be happy if there was something here. And so I think we're flexible on if the floor system of it was instead of matching the height and being similar to what's next to it that's existing, if that wanted to be something that felt more like it was just from the gardens, garden stones or something like that, I think that would help, yeah. Yeah. And it being to one side as soon, that's more living space there during the common day we need more shade. That's right, yeah, there are some really nice, I think some really nice willow oaks on the western, the sort of left as you face the front side. And the window that's furthest west on the front facade is in a bedroom. Sort of office or bedroom space. The main living room is to the right-hand side of the front door. And so having that kind of circulation happening on the centered door maintained and everything, but then having kind of an outdoor version of that living room that's in a similar placement relative to that door made a lot of sense. So yeah, I think that's the reasoning for that. And I think it also helps because the, that bump that's on the east end that was sort of once a, we think a porch, but is now fully enclosed and it has a lot of matching materials helps a little bit because that pergola that we're proposing is sort of bounded on the front facade rather than extending to one of its ends. So that seemed like the right thing to do there. All right, I don't have any other questions. Thank you. Thank you, Vice Chair Goolsbee. Any other commissioners with questions for our applicant? If not, I will close the public hearing. Stand by Mr. Merrigan, we might have some questions for you at which point I would reopen the public hearing. But I would invite discussion amongst the commission. And I'll go ahead and get started as it's getting a little bit late in our day here. I think where I am struggling is in connection with the various criteria identified in the staff report involving the roof form. And whether or not these changes are distinguishable from the original structure. Now, this is one of those quintessentially difficult cases as our applicant I think has already acknowledged. You have a structure that's already been heavily modified. And now it's coming to us with the owners clearly wanting to expand their space, making a more livable property, but we're bound by our criteria. And so I am struggling right now with whether or not this addition essentially makes us a different structure than the historic structure that makes it a contributing structure in this neighborhood. And so I don't know if anyone else would like to address that or any other aspect of the application, but those are my preliminary thoughts. I don't struggle with the roof change because it looks like it was already modified from the original structure. And it just looks like they just kind of remodified it to make it look like dormers. So I don't think, I think that the guidelines from what I understand the intent is to focus on changes to the original structure. And if the additional second floor was not original, that's what I understand it wasn't original, right? April, just to clarify, the change that took place was that sort of hat addition, that roof, that attic addition, that's the change that took place to the roof. The roof is otherwise original apart from that and the rear gave it the addition. So it wasn't changed. Hey, Commissioner Wolfe's question real quick is, was there a shed dormer on it to begin with? It doesn't appear that there was. The Sandborn map only shows a one-story structure. I mean, this was a modest one-story structure of about what, a thousand or fewer square feet before that side porch got enclosed. And obviously, you know, there's value and there's importance with those modest structures. Obviously over time, it got modified to accommodate more modern living. And the fact that folks need more space than that. And, you know, this is sort of a progression of that theme. Well, what I'm seeing in front of me is, you know, no longer that modest one-story structure. And I don't think that modest one-story structure is distinguishable from the structure it's going to become if we approve this. And that might be okay. I mean, I'm not ignorant of the fact that, you know, the alternative for some of these properties could be, all right, if we can't make them livable, then we'll just submit our demolition application, even if we have to wait a year. And so I'm cognizant of that risk as well. But I'm struggling to figure out, especially when you've got now a roof form that's making what was a one-story structure, a two-story structure indistinguishable from what the property was at the time it was first erected, I am struggling with that. I think it's distinguishable. And that could just be, when I look at it and I think about that neighborhood and the way that that neighborhood has evolved over time, this looks like exactly what you were saying. And I think it's distinguishable because of the shutters and because of the windows. So is the form distinguishable? Yeah. Can you tell where the previous house began and? I think I can get close enough to distinguishing that. And I am more than happy to be a minority of one on this issue. I was just curious if anyone else shared that concern, but Vice Chair Gulsby, you introduced a concern about the extension of the pergola. Did the answers to your questions satisfy you or do you still have those concerns? I still have them. I don't think the criteria supported it. I was hoping to find something amenable to it or something that the applicant had or could point to. But I think it's the canopy. I kind of see this as canopy and haunted structures. And even with the suggestion of it being something of wood, yeah, I'm struggling to find something that supports it in the guidelines. And I can put my hat on. Some of the guidelines talk about historic porches, but I think there are, there's at least one part of the guideline that says it just refers to just porches or just stoops and porches. So I struggled with that as well, just because if the existing porch isn't historic, is that make this... So what it's saying is locate new decks, extreme porches on non-character defining elevations. Yeah, that's where we're having an issue with it. Yeah, and it says in I, porches, stoops and balconies, number three, it is not appropriate to enclose, screen, extend, add or remove porches, stoops and balconies on character defining elevations unless reconstructing documented pictures, right? Yeah, and we went through the same thing on a previous application today and decided that it was not appropriate to extend the balcony. Yeah. Yeah, and this one I struggled with because, well, it's lighter and it's not as heavy, you know, but it's still, I don't think it meets the guidelines. Front facing for character defining elevation on the front of the house. Yeah. That's a really, really nice character defining elevation on the front. And I would not, I'm opposed to that going on the front. And, you know, what you're gonna build on the back if you wanna sit outside, you're building a screen then put what you're on the back. So sit outside there, but you don't need this on the front. Yeah. And to the extent I still harbor concerns about the roof form, again, it's the character, you know, defining elevation here. I think keeping the pergola and that little stoop, the way it is, I think is more in harmony with the original structure. And I think would make it easier for me to support the application if that, you know, first floor elevation is a little bit more true to the original construction than what's proposed here. Yeah, I understand that. And I think that's a very fair shake. And I think that that compromise doesn't seem insurmountable for us. Other than the porch, extension and addition, I'm in favor of approving the application just to build it out there. It's getting late and I have to leave it wine. So it's one of the- Yeah, I think it's more than appropriate, Commissioner Johnson and for others to let us know where you stand by way of straw poll vote. And let's try to bring any remaining concerns to a head here so that they can be discussed. It sounds like our applicant is okay with us imposing a requirement that the existing porch remain as is without extending it and creating that pergola. Are there other concerns about the application beyond what we've talked about that we would like to address with the applicant? Just real quick, and I know I've asked this before, I do want to confirm one more time because I'm reading, going back to the national district language and it was described as a one half story gabled house with a shed dormer. So that is or is not an exact, the original house did or did not have shed dormer on it. So that was one inconsistency. Unfortunately, they write these national registered nominations sometimes with what's extant and not what was original. So it's kind of hard. It didn't give me any guidance as to what was original on that house. Unfortunately. Thank you. Carl, if I were to modify the existing final bullet in our possible motion to simply say the existing front porch shall remain and not be extended, would that effectuate the change we've been talking about? What you've been discussing, yes, I think so. Well, to move things along, I will ask for a stat. Well, I shouldn't do that. Let me make sure that there's no further discussion amongst the commissioners. Okay. Seeing and hearing nothing further, I will ask for a staff recommendation. Carla Rosmer planning department staff would not recommend approval of the application just because it's not reversible, what they're doing, what this proposal is. I would actually do the opposite of what you guys have been talking about by allowing the purgula because it is reversible but changing that roof structure and the footprint of the original house. There's no going back. The other changes were made maintaining what was original of the house. You can still see it. So that is why I am getting an unfavorable recommendation. Thank you, Carla. Is there anybody who would like to make a motion? I can do it, hold on a minute. We didn't change any wording, David. We just left out the porch point. I think we changed or suggested a change to the last bullet that would essentially say that the existing porch shall remain and not be extended. This team front porch. Okay. The Durham Historic Preservation Commission finds that in the case COA 220036, 2210 Wood Grove Street addition and modifications, the applicant is proposing additions and modifications to a contributing structure. Edit normal will be removed and the home's original roof structure rebuilt, preserving front roof slope and elevating the peak height while expanding the home's footprint. Shared dorm for additions will also be added to the front and rear of the roof constructed roof form. Aluminum siding and trim will be removed from all elevations revealing original wood surface. Will be restored to the extent possible. All salvageable wood siding will be consolidated on the street facing elevation and smooth finish scimiticious fiberboard siding of matching dimensions, profile and reveal will be used on the other elevations. New windows will consist of wood double hung encasement windows matching the size of the existing upper story windows. A screen porch will be added to the rear constructed with wood columns that match the front porch columns. The existing front porch shall remain and not be extended. Okay, therefore the conclusion of law is that the proposed addition and alterations are consistent with the historic character and quality of the historic district and are consistent with the historic properties, local review criteria, specifically those listed in the staff report. And the Durham Historic Preservation Commission approves the certificate of appropriateness for case COA 220036, 2210 Woodbridge additions and modifications with the following conditions. The improvements shall be substantially consistent with the plans and testimony presented to the commission at this commission hearing and attached to the COA. The improvements may require additional approvals from other city accounting departments or state or local agencies. The applicant is responsible for obtaining all required approvals related 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 herein. Thank you, Commissioner Johnson, do we have a second? Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Chambers. We might have a roll call vote from Ms. Holmes. Yes. Chair Bouchard. Not approved. Vice Chair Gulsby. No. Commissioner Calhoun. No. Commissioner Johnson. Approved. Commissioner Chambers. Commissioner Horton. Approved. Oh, it looks like a tie, three to three. I think we might need to get Mr. O'Toole to let us know what that means. Well, what, I'll tell you in one minute I need to look at the rule, but I'm pretty sure Naughty vote is required. So I think four affirmative votes would be required. Let me just check the rules one second. And yeah, the item fails because that's not a majority vote. Mr. Merrigan, thank you for presenting the case. I'm sorry that he was not able to garner a majority approval from the board today, but we hope that perhaps some changes might be made so that the property can be improved, but in compliance with our criteria. Okay, thank you. Do we have five commissioner members who are able to continue beyond the one o'clock drop dead date that we heard from Commissioner Johnson? Yes. I can too. I can stay as well. Yes. Alva? Yeah. So we have quorum with five. So we're gonna hear our final case. Thank you, April. Bye. Final case on our agenda today is COA 2200-037-1610 Fayetteville Street demolition. Carl, if you could bring in our proponents and our opponents. Okay, we have a number of folks who have been added to the meeting. I'm gonna just go around and number one, make sure I'm pronouncing your names correctly, but also ask you if you are speaking or intend to speak for or against the application, starting with you, Ms. Hester. Ms. Hester, I can't- I cannot hear you. You're not on mute, but we can't hear you. There is an option of calling in by phone if you aren't able to get your computer to work. I will move on to others while we wait for Ms. Hester. Ms. Huggins. In opposition. Okay. Mr. Morellis. Oh, I'm sorry. It's actually David Gaster. I'm the second one on the list. I'm actually working in our offices. She's sitting without me, but I'm sorry. I will change your name to David. Could you say your name again? Gaster, G-A-S-T-E-R. And you are an applicant today, correct, Mr. Gaster? Correct. Wonderful. Thank you. I believe we have Ms. Malloy. Ms. Malloy, can you turn your camera on and unmute? Okay. Can you hear me now? Can hear you, but cannot see you. Okay. I'm not sure what to do, but I mainly want you to hear me. I am opposed. Okay. And Ms. Hester, were you able to get your audio to work? No. Okay. I can- This is Carl with the Planning Department. I can share the call-in number in just a moment. It may also be changing the audio settings on Zoom, but I'll share the call-in number in just a moment. I just forwarded it to you via email. Okay. Great. Thank you. So it'll- I think it's what you're looking for, I hope. Yes. I'm going to put it in the chat. So- Great. We'll probably request- I'll put this as the number, and then it'll probably request the meeting ID, which I will share in a moment as well. Are you able to see that, Ms. Hester? It looks like it. Okay. I see a call-in number. I'm going to promote them. So I see there's a phone number here. I believe that should be- Okay. Can you guys hear me? Yes. Yes, we can. Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you. And Ms. Hester, are you planning to speak for or against this application? Again. Okay. So I'm going to go around, starting with the applicant, and then covering everybody else. Actually, I'm not going to do it. Madam Clerk is going to do it, because you swear everybody in one at a time. All right. Do you swear or affirm at the testimony you were about to give in the public hearing proceedings? For today's case, the truth by your own knowledge or by information and beliefs? Mr. Gasser? I do. Ms. Hester? Still can't hear you. I think there's a delay. Okay. Am I back in? You are. Okay. All right. Go up. Yes. Anita. I'm on another. Yes. Okay. I read it again. Do you swear or affirm at the testimony you were about to give in the public hearing proceedings? For today's case, the truth by your own knowledge or by information and beliefs? Ms. Huggins? I do. Yes. Ms. Malloy? Ms. Malloy, I can't hear you. You're on mute. Could you repeat the question? I was interrupted with a phone call here. Yes. Do you swear or affirm at the testimony you were about to give in the public hearing proceedings? For today's case, the truth by your own knowledge or by information and beliefs? Yes. And Ms. Hester? I think you said yes, I do, but we could not hear you. It keeps muting me. I don't know why and I keep having to do star six over and over. So I'm not sure what's happening. And do you accept the oath? Yes, I do. Yes. Thank you. Gonna go around now and ask if everybody can sense to this hearing proceeding on this remote electronic platform starting with Mr. Gaster. Yes, I do. Ms. Huggins? Yes, I do. Ms. Malloy? Yes. And Ms. Hester? Yes. Wonderful. Thank you all very much. Carla Staffelport, please. Right, Carla Rosemary Planning Department. This is KCOA 22-00037-1610 Fayetteville Street demolition. The applicant is David Gaster, the owner is Vista Properties and Homes Incorporated. It's located on the west side of Fayetteville Street between Moline Avenue and Dunstan Street, zoned Residential Urban 5, and it's contributing structure to the Fayetteville Street Historic District. The applicant is proposing to demolish the primary structure. I'd like to introduce the staff report into the record and invite Mr. Gaster to present his case. Okay. So I purchased the property July of last year. But before I bought it, the owner did tell me the house had burned. So once I looked at the house, I was pretty sure it was unsalvageable, but I didn't just say that for myself. I did hire a private engineer. We went into the house, it was crumbling. There was a fire, I don't know how many years ago. I think when I bought it, he said it could have been five years ago. So there was a hole open in the back of the house for that long. So it was taken on rain, brought it all the way down to the crawl space. So everything in the house is completely rotten. I did walk with an engineer, I think a couple of report may be in here, but basically it's not a referable home. I have redone many homes in Durham. And this one would probably cost several hundred thousand dollars to build new and maybe a little more, but I think it would cost way more than that, just to try to salvage what's there. My engineer said everything would have to be replaced including the foundation. Thank you, Mr. Gaster. Do you have anything else? I mean, that's it. I've got a report and I mean, so I mean, I know the worst case I would have to wait a year, but I'm hoping that's not the case. I think our commissioners might have some questions aimed at that very issue. And so before we hear from the opponents, I will go ahead and give the commissioners a chance to ask you questions in connection with your presentation. Mr. Gaster, you bought the house one year and a month ago. The question is, it was in just about the same condition when you purchased it, right? Oh, yep, that's correct. Other than me patching the hole in the back, yeah. Other than you patching a hole in the back? Where the fire damage was, I did cover it up just to keep it from rotting any further because there was a lot of people coming into the home that keep kicking the door's end. I was really scared somebody's gonna get hurt, so I did cover the hole. Okay, I'm having trouble hearing you, it's just not clear. I don't know why. Yeah, Mr. Gaster, you could maybe get a little closer to your microphone and elevate your voice just a little bit more, I think that might help. Okay, yes, yes, the home is in the same condition other than patching the roof where the fire damage was. So over the year you did, only thing you did was patch a roof, right? And getting the debris, the crumbling debris out of the house. Okay. The other thing is I'm very curious because you don't have a picture of the front of the house right now. Is there any way to get a picture? I've looked at the house from the outside and I think the commission should see a picture of this house as it is right now on the front, the front of the house. I was just thinking that we don't have a picture of the front and I'm willing to pull it up on Google Street View. If you can, I would appreciate that and also a picture of how it was prior to someone removing the vinyl siding. Are you able to see my screen right now? We're not. Just the staff report, okay. It's still the staff report. Okay, I will need to change that but I'm gonna MN Street View right now, dropping my little man in front. Yeah, I'm gonna stock share and reshare. Is this what we're looking at? Is this a 16 time? I think that might be across the street. On the side of the street. There we go. There we go, okay. Yes, that's now. Okay, so right now that house that had vinyl siding on it, right? Yes, ma'am. And now someone took the vinyl siding off and started to. Yes, on the exterior. Yes, I did remove it. I was in attempts to repair the house and further damage, but for example, the windows on the entire left side are missing. So I was trying to get it repaired to a point where I could put something in those holes. But upon, once you open something up, you realize how bad it is and that's when the engineer, I got him involved. And I said, look, now you can see everything behind the siding. You can see everything inside. I've got all the debris out of the way. So we had to go in and put plywood down just to be able to walk across the floors because the joists were completely right. So we weren't able to get to the second floor to do any more inspections. He wouldn't go up there, but basically, yes, I did remove the siding in attempts to find out how much damage there was. When you bought this house, I had the vinyl siding off and that's why it looks dark gray. The siding looks dark gray. And your intention was to renovate it, right? Originally, that was just in case, yes. Because when I spoke with the city and I spoke to Carla, I realized because I hadn't built in or done anything in historic area, it was gonna be a very hard process. So just keep things moving over. Maybe I could possibly renovate this home. But like I say, upon taking things out and uncovering it, you started running into more and more problems. And then that's when I got my engineer. I said, look, am I even gonna be able to do this? I need a professional opinion. And that's when he told me my professional opinion is narrow. Well, Mr. Gaster, it's rather routine for houses that were built in 1910 to be renovated starting from scratch, going down to the studs and coming back out. As a matter of fact, what you have presented makes you a mile ahead in a renovation process. If you had to pay to take the vinyl siding off, replace some of the wood on the siding and take all of the plaster out down to the studs on the inside before you could start your renovation, then you're in bad shape. So I'm a, you know, I've just done one. I did one all the way down to the studs. I've done many, I've done many. And with a bunch of money on the foundation, I know how to do this. So I know I have done this on Fayetteville Street and therefore tearing it down is not an option. There was a house before us, I think in the last meeting or meeting before that, that was in kind of the identical situation and it was brought back. Now I disagree with the colors, the colors that they put on it, but it is a very nice house at this point. There was one, I think five houses down from me, I believe, four or five houses that burned. And I think within a few weeks was approved to be going down. Well, that house was born to the ground. That was 1500, I know the foundation burned there. So Commissioner Calhoun, I think some of this is more in the vein of commentary for us to talk about as a commission. Do you have any additional questions for the applicant? Oh, yeah. What's your estimate? Well, let me hear your estimate on the amount that it would cost to renovate this property. Okay, so the estimate to renovate that property, I would say is over 400,000, but here's the second problem because I don't know if you, I see you shaking your head, but I've done this. The problem is, and it happened on Eva Street, I renovated two on Eva Street and the same problem happened. I put all that money into it, took it completely down to the foundation, reframed it better than a new house. I mean, it was sealed insulation. I did everything the right way. The problem was when I sold it for what I had in the house, it didn't appraise. I asked why it didn't appraise, they said because we appraise this as a used house as a renovated house, not new construction. So it burned me. I had to lose money on the house. So I've been through it before and that's why I'm approaching this. Well, just for entertainment purposes, you have not presented what you would rebuild, would you rebuild a house that looked exactly like this house on that property? That would be up to you. I would submit plans that would get approved. So that would be up to your recommendations on what you would approve. Yeah, well, it would have been encouraging to have that now, but I think it would cause more to build the house and it is going to be to renovate the house. And the house next door to you is for sale. Is it not? It is for sale. And how much is that house for sale? I don't remember. I looked it up when it went on the market. I don't remember. I don't know. I mean, I don't remember. Now, I think it's approximately 600,000, but that's it. Okay. All right, I'll stop right there. Other commissioners with questions for our applicant. Mr. Chambers. Can you guys hear me? We can. All right, Mr. Gaster. Thank you for coming before us today. My question would be in regards to the finished product if you were approved to demo this property as Commissioner Calhoun said, is it going to be a single family home? Will you stay there? Will you rent it out? What are you just looking to put it back on the market? It would be a single family home. And if approved, and like I say, that would be up to what you plans you would approve. I was looking to do a product similar to something I've done in Durham with a porch across the front single family. The lot's deep enough where I could put a car court or a garage in the back, it would be a sideline. So I knew parking needs are in Durham and all of the houses that I've done, I try to incorporate that if possible. But it would be a single family house, probably same width, a little deeper and with a garage in the back, that's what I'm planning. Is that something you would hold or would you be selling it after? I would sell, it would be for sale. Mr. Chambers, any other questions? That's it. Well, I'm going to piggyback off that last question. Mr. Gaster, is it fair to characterize VISTA properties and Homes Inc. as a corporate entity that's in the business of renovating homes? Yes, we've done both, but renovating in downtown Durham is something we started out with and we migrated into new construction. We've migrated into that, but almost everything we do is in downtown. And this is an investment property for the company? Yes. And it's not intended to be your personal residence? No. What hardship, if any, would VISTA properties and Homes Inc. experience if this commission were to apply a 365 day or 180 day, some period of delay to the application for demolition? Well, the hardship would be that there's running costs. There's money coming in, money going out. The money for the property has already went out and our return on investment has already been sitting and it would sit further. So it's basically time and money that we could have put into another project. Because you say we do a certain amount of jobs a year, this is one that's on the books and it's sitting. So the hardship would be just financial basic. So just financial hardship. Are you obtaining or receiving any beneficial return on the property currently? No. Those are all my questions. Chair? Yes, Mr. O'Toole. Just based on some of the comments, I did want to make the commission aware, COAs for demolition are somewhat different from other COAs that come before the Historic Preservation Commission. And I just wanted to remind the commission members that under North Carolina law, and the specific statute is 160D-949, the commission is required to approve the COA for this demolition. But as you've correctly noted, that COA, the effective date on it can be delayed by up to 365 days. But just to be clear, the commission has to approve the COA but it can approve it with a delay of 365 days. Thank you, Mr. O'Toole. Can I just ask, because this isn't my area of expertise, there are of the other commissioners, and this can go into discussion if that's when it needs to be. But also of Mr. Gaster, have you looked into any sort of historic tax credits or would there be any available for this property? They would be so minor. I would never see a return on it. I mean, it's not enough to make a difference. I guess if that's something that's right. When you say they would be so minor, do you mean the, because it's done by a percentage of your expenditure. So if it were a 30% return, that wouldn't be sufficient for you. So maybe you could explain to me exactly how that works because I really don't know for sure exactly how the tax credits work. And that's, I would refer you to the North Carolina Historic Preservation Office as I have previously to talk with them about the tax credit program and what it offers you. Okay. And if I was going to live in the home, there might be something more beneficial. Whether you're a company that's going to sell it or you're going to have tax credits available, but you're correct that depending on whether it's a income producing property versus a non-income producing property, there are different tax credits with different rates of credit back to you that apply. Right. I did five or six houses on Andrew Avenue and this was years ago and I went down to the city and we talked about the tax credits and I looked into it again and I never even went forward with it just because I remember it wasn't a whole lot. Any other questioners for Mr. Gaster before we give the opponents an opportunity to speak? I don't have any. And Commissioner Horton, just so you're aware there will absolutely be opportunity for us to discuss as a commission once we've heard all arguments pro and con. At this time, I would invite one of the opponents to provide their remarks. I'm not sure how or in what order you would like to proceed. I will remind everyone of what we just heard from the strow tool, which is this commission is not able to carte blanche stop this demolition from happening, but we are empowered with imposing a delay of up to 365 days from the date of approval of the COA. And with that disclaimer out of the way, is there someone among the opponents to this COA who would like to speak first? I'll go first. Please proceed, Ms. Maloy. I want to point out that Fayetteville Street is a historic street. The street has existed since the turn of the century. Once the Stokes family started selling parts of their farm, African-American residents began buying it and Fayetteville Street began. The houses there deserve to be preserved. A change will begin to destroy the fabrics of our historic neighborhood. I live in the neighborhood. There are plenty of brand new buildings surrounding our neighborhoods, surrounding hay tire or Stokesdale. There should be a limit on destroying what exists in our neighborhood since so much of it has already been lost. And I am afraid to think of what will be built there and what it will be replaced with if 1610 is torn down. That's all I have to say. Thank you, Ms. Maloy. Ms. Hester or Ms. Huggins? I can go next. Can you hear me? We can. Thank you. Okay. All right. Of course I oppose the demolition of the home and with support having it renovated. One of my main concerns for anyone who's in the home building and construction business is due diligence. Now anybody buying property, having researched hopefully and done their due diligence prior to purchasing a property, at least that's the way I do things, my husband and I, is that you research all the restrictions and limitations. And in this case, there's a historic district with limitations on various aspects of rehabbing and improving properties. It's in a historic district. And also due diligence in terms of cost, which anybody buying something and contemplating doing something with the property, which surely with many years in the business have done their engineering and their cost estimates and all of the due diligence before purchasing said property to determine its profitability return on investment or whatever the investor's requirements are. So this sounds like a little backwards explanation to me in terms of the process that the applicant has presented. I mean, I would never buy something without knowing how much it's gonna cost and what restrictions, easement, covenants, whatever are attached to the property to determine if it's worth my while to embark on that journey. So that's why I say I questioned the logic of what the applicant has presented. Secondly, if the applicant could possibly sell the property to someone who is willing to renovate it. I don't know that that discussion has ever been broached with the applicant, but certainly that's an avenue if it's a money-losing proposition. And in particular, as Kathy mentioned, with the history of Fayible Street, the destruction that we have already endured with urban renewal, and now the dismantling potentially of the neighborhood, I think in the interest of historic preservation that a sale of the property would perhaps solve all these problems and also stop the owner's losses that he claims he's experiencing. And that's those are my statements. And then I have a question for the commission. I know by law you're saying that you can't deny the demolition and you can give a max of 365 days. However, are there any enforceable standards on what can be built, rebuilt under our historic guidelines? Yeah. You're on mute. I'm sorry, I was on mute. Good question, Ms. Hester. I'll just very quickly respond to it before giving Ms. Huggins a chance to speak. Yes, any application to build new in this historic neighborhood is going to require whoever might be applying at that time, whether it's Mr. Gaster or somebody else, come before this commission and comply with our criteria for new construction in the district. So we of course have limitations on what we can do when that application comes before us, but we do have the opportunity to review it and make sure it complies with our requirements for non-contributing structures in a historic neighborhood. And with that- Okay, so another, if I can just clarify. So in other words, if someone wanted to come and put an ultra-modern container-type construction that we see all around town, what would be the position of the commission on such an application? Yeah, we can't forecast what we would do without actually having a proposal in front of us. I can say that our criteria requires that new construction be compatible with the character of the district. And we take those standards very seriously. And that's not our interest. We do modern houses throughout town. We do a lot of modern houses, but that's not our intention. Our intention is to match what's around us. We come in- Well, without any assurances and statements and no rendering or plan, that's a conjecture at this point, Mr. Gaster. I don't necessarily disagree with that assessment. The reality of the situation is we have to consider the merits of this application, irrespective of what might be proposed in the future. And so it doesn't really have any bearing on our decision-making. Today, our decision-making is really eyed towards whether or not we as the commission believe there is justification for withholding or not withholding for imposing upon the applicant a period of delay between when the COA is approved, which we must do by statute, and when this building can actually be demolished. And that's what our focus is on today. Ms. Huggins, your chance to speak. Thank you, commissioners, city staff, and Mr. Gaster. Give me just a moment here. I had sent a written comment to staff earlier this morning, so I'm just going to read that and keep it short. This comment is an objection to the demolition of 1610 Fayetteville Street. 1610 Fayetteville Street is a contributing property to the Fayetteville Street Local Historic District. While I understand that the property is in a state of disrepair and presents a safety issue for the owner and the community, there have been many properties in our city that were also once in this very same state. I toured the American tobacco properties before they were rehabilitated. I remember the state of the buildings and the neglect that was evident. But with the proper funding and a commitment to a vision that saw the value in the rehabilitation of the property, the owners rehabilitated something that our city is proud of and that celebrates the history of our community. Staff has provided a report and I now highlight some of the statements in that report. The applicant does not mention other alternatives, such as sale to a buyer willing to rehabilitate and rebuild. The applicant appears to justify the demolition based on the extraordinary expense required to rehabilitate which he states would pose a severe economic hardship. The applicant has not formally submitted plans for the site beyond demolition. He does assert that he intends to construct a new structure on the site as soon as possible. The application offers pictures and statements regarding the condition of the property. However, there don't appear to be any objective numbers or information offered to support the contention of severe economic hardship or extraordinary expense. What does that mean in the context of this property and how do we even calculate it? It appears that in the past, the owner has sold properties in Durham in the $650,000 range. Thus it makes sense for us to have a better understanding of what the owner plans to build given that the owner does not discuss the possibility of selling the property to a buyer who is willing to rehabilitate the property and the owner intends to construct a new structure on the property as soon as possible. The residents of the historic district have worked hard to establish the district and to honor the heritage of the neighborhood. Without knowing more, it's hard to support the demolition of the contributing property. Consequently, I object to the demolition of the property and I hope that the commission will consider instituting a delay. Thank you. Ms. Huggins, thank you very much for your comments. I'm gonna open the floor for questions from the commission to any one of the three speakers from whom we have just heard. Okay, seeing and hearing from none of my fellow commissioners, it is the right of the applicant to rebut any of the statements made by an opponent. And Mr. Gaster, I'll provide you with that offer on my behalf. No, I thank you all for your time. I appreciate your opinions. I do understand what you're saying but at the same time, I've got a business to run and it's not just about destroying community that I do respect communities. I know that's not what it's about today. It's about whether or not I can tear the house down now or later, so I appreciate your time. Thank you very much, Mr. Gaster. I'm gonna go ahead and close the public hearing. You all can stand by and listen in as the commission discusses amongst itself. And if we have further questions, we will entertain, we open the public hearing to have those questions answered. Any of my fellow commissioners want to lead us off? Matt, our chair, Chair Bouchard. This is Commissioner Gouldby. I'm struggling finding the evidence to do this, I'm not sure I say it correctly. Right now, I'm in favor of a delay based off the evidence I've heard so far because I don't think there's support that there's a hardship. I don't think there's support that there will be permanently deprived beneficial use. And I do believe that this structure, given the structures around it, the neighboring properties, their scale and appearance and form overall give it significant value to this block and the neighboring properties. Thank you, Vice Chair Gouldby. Other commissioners? I would like to agree that of all properties given the history of this structure and of this street, that all alternatives to demolition should be proposed and pursued. And if they aren't, then the maximum delay, if that's all we can do, rich by all we can. Thank you, Commissioner Horton. That leaves commissioners Chambers and Calhoun. If Mr. Gaster can provide us with what the home will potentially look like after demoed, I would like to see that before actually saying yay or nay. But at this time, I would agree with the delay for demolition. Thank you, Commissioner Chambers. Commissioner Calhoun. I wonder if there's any benefit from delaying this so that he might be laying it until the October meeting because starting the 365 right now is not a good thing. If we delay this and let him determine the benefits of selling this property to someone who is going to or coming to the conclusion that he and his firm are going to rehab this property appropriately and present some evidence of that, then we might consider that in October. Well, the delay we're talking about is the delay for the demolition, not a delay in the consideration of the application. I think we're all prepared to vote today on whether to impose a delay and if so, how long? I don't think there's a need to delay the determination of that question. And the delay does give the opportunity for the commission to work with the community and with the applicant to find an alternative to demolishing. Several alternatives have been brought up during the securing, such as selling to another party or pursuing tax credits to renovate, for instance. And arguably that's the intent of the statute to begin with, right? Is to create that time and space. We've had a number of challenging demolition cases come before us, especially during the period of COVID. Those are the ones I seem to remember the best or the most. And one way this application strikes me is easier than some of the other ones we've had to deal with. We've had to deal with 1950 structures that aren't technically contributing, but you can make an argument that maybe they are and they're contributing to the historic nature of the district, those are theoretical questions. We're not faced with today, which is great. This is a historic structure. I don't think anyone in this room, including Mr. Gaster, would deny that. And so, you know, there's language in the statute as well as in the UDO that says, if we don't find any special significance then we can't impose a delay. Well, I think we all would agree there is special significance here and that a delay is appropriate. The question then becomes one of duration. And I don't wanna take the lead on that discussion, but I will open it up to my fellow commissioners as to what period of delay they think is appropriate, 365 or something less? Well, the maximum, 365 is the maximum and that's what I would propose. Do any of the commissioners have a countervailing view? In that case, I will suspend further discussion about the case and ask staff if she has a recommendation. Carla Rosenberg, planning department staff would recommend approval of the application with a delay of 365 days. Thank you, Carla. Is there anyone who would like to make a motion? I can do some that. Vice Chair Volsby. The Durham Historic Preservation Commission finds that in the case COA 22000371610 Fayetteville Street Demolition, the applicant is proposing to demolish a contributing primary structure dating from 1926. The commission has determined the structure to possess sufficient historical value or structural integrity to preserve it. The commission has determined that the property owner has not shown a substantial, substantive evidence of facing extreme hardship. The commission has determined that the property owner has not shown substantive evidence of being permanently deprived of all beneficial use of or return from the property by virtue of delay. The site, let's see, I need to rephrase this tonight. The site will be stabilized, Ms. Perez. I think I still read this correctly because it'd be the demolition after 365. So the site will be stabilized with grass seed and straw following the demolition if new construction does not commence within 60 days. Just give me one moment here. I don't think the last part of this motion makes sense for a COA for demolition. It would be after 365 days, the site would still need to be stabilized. Is that not correct? That's correct. So if after 365 days, this board demolished, then they would need to stabilize the site afterwards if the new construction hadn't commenced within a certain time period. And Mr. Goolsbee, I wasn't talking about that bullet point that you just read, but where it says therefore, I think therefore it should be the conclusion of law is that this COA is approved with an effective date that's delayed 365 days from today. That's the same how it's starting to look for because usually there is a line item that's in certain day value. Yeah, I think the language here is not the language we typically use for demolitions but for approval of new construction or improvements. I think that paragraph should just say something to the effect that net therefore the conclusion of law is that COA number title is approved with a 365 day delay on the effective date. Yep, I think that's exactly right, Mr. O'Toole. All right, so let me make sure I got this right therefore the conclusion of law is that the demolition is approved with a delay of 365 days, would that be okay? Say that one. And Mr. Goolsbee, I would not say the demolition, just say therefore the conclusion of law is that the certificate of appropriateness for case, blah, blah, blah. The last part of that paragraph is approved with a 365 day delay on the effective date. Okay, thank you. Therefore, the conclusion of law is that the case for case COA to zero zero zero three seven zero zero zero three seven 1610 Fayetteville street demolition is approved with a 365 day delay effective August 2nd, 2022. Second. That's not right. Basically you're approving the COA effective date 365 days from today. From the day that's the state, say it for me again then because I stated today's date for the record. For the record, Mr. O'Toole, I think today's date is fine because the statute reads 365 days maximum period up to 365 days from the date of approval. Today would be the date of approval. So what the statute says the maximum period of delay authorized by this section, I'm sorry, the effective date of such a certificate may be delayed for a period of up to 365 days from the date of approval. Okay, so why don't we say this? Therefore the conclusion of law is that the certificate of appropriateness for case COA 220037 1610 Fayetteville street is approved with an effective date 365 days from today. And do I need to state the date? That would be great. Okay, okay. Therefore the conclusion of law is that the certificate of appropriateness for case COA 220037 1610 Fayetteville street demolition is approved with an effective date 365 days from today, August 2nd, 2022. Second. Third columns, if we might have a roll call vote, please. Chair Bouchard. Approved. Vice Chair Gulsby. Approved. Commissioner Calhoun. Approved. Commissioner Chambers. Approved. Commissioner Horton. Motion passes five to zero. Thank you all very much. Your participation in this process today, your patience, not just during the hearing, but also looking up to it. I know it's been a long day, but thank you all. Thank you. Thank you. We will very quickly go to old business now that our cases have been all heard today. I've got nothing to report on newsletter. I have just been quite candidly drowning at work. That's a terrible excuse because I think we all are, but I am really drowning and barely treading water, but I will try to get in touch with Carla here in the next couple of weeks to talk about the path forward. I realize I've been delinquent in doing that. Clark Holmes. I will say that I didn't, yeah. And I checked into that second option of the major renovations and converting, reverting back to original form. Neither of the projects that I had in mind have been completed or completed as per the COA. So that's out. I think we're with Andy's idea, which we can discuss that further offline. Great. Reminds me of what Andy's idea was. That was looking at that project where they reused materials from the 50s non-contributing structure in form, like landscape forms. Very cool. Very cool. Yeah. Clark Holmes, minor COA report. Yes. I sent that out to you all yesterday. I don't know if anyone been able to chance to look at it. But should have been about eight cases on there. That's been approved since, I believe, 6.16 to 7.31, 20.22, I believe. Did everyone get that? I received it. I have not yet looked at it. Okay. But it has been received. Okay. Well, the next one will come in a couple of weeks for the month of August. Great. Brief housekeeping. We're in person, folks, in September. The governor has lifted the state of emergency, I think, effective this week, next week, which precludes us from conducting these hearings going forward on a remote basis. So we'll be in person. Where in person will we be, Mr. O'Toole or Carla? Can I call you Don now? Yes. You know, we will be in the committee room as we were before. Okay. So, yeah. Familiar to all of us. I also wanted to add one other thing is we're planning a retreat. We usually have one in the fall and we'd like to do one in September. And so I wanted to get to feel from you all whether you would be available, perhaps the third or fourth week of September for our annual retreat, which would also be in person. I'd love to find sort of an outdoor venue if the weather's nice, but we'll see about that. Would you want to keep it on a Tuesday morning or would you rather discuss this via email? Understanding that, you know, we can't discuss it amongst each other, you can just get back to me. Yeah. Yeah, because of all the meeting law. Meeting law, yeah. I think email might be fine. I've got to check my schedule. I'm supposed to try a case on October 10, which I hope doesn't happen. If that case settles, then I should be able to participate if it doesn't. Yeah. Carla, how are we looking for September, by the way, in terms of our docket? Three, three cases. One being the case that was moved from August. The demolition case. Sorry for July and then two others. Okay. Is it possible that list will grow or at this point will anything new that comes in the door be October? That's correct. That, be October. Well, thank you all so much for hanging in there. Does anyone have anything to add before we adjourn? Enjoy the rest of summer. It's going to be after Labor Day the next time we meet, which is just bonkers, but. Year's flying by. Thanks again, everybody. Yes, thank you all. Bye. Thanks to our new members for this. Bye.