 And we are live. Good morning, everyone. This meeting will now come to order. Welcome to this virtual meeting of the Durham Historic Preservation Commission on this third day of May, 2022. My name is Matt Bouchard and I am chair of the commission. The commission is a quasi-judicial board of record and as such, all testimony will be recorded. Under this procedure, our meeting today will also be live streamed on the city's YouTube channel. The proceedings of this board are governed by the zoning laws as recorded. As such, please note the steps we have taken to ensure that each party's due process rights are protected as we proceed on this remote platform. First, today's meeting will be conducted in accordance with North Carolina General Statutes chapter 166A, section 19.24, which allows for remote meetings and quasi-judicial hearings during declarations of emergency. Second, each applicant on today's agenda was notified before being placed on the agenda that this meeting would be conducted using a remote electronic platform. Every applicant on today's agenda has consented to the board conducting the evidentiary hearing on their request using this remote platform. We will also confirm today at the start of each evidentiary hearing that the participants in the evidentiary hearing sent to the matter of proceeding in this remote platform. If there is any objection to a matter of proceeding in this remote platform, that case will be continued. Third, notice of this meeting was provided to the applicants and to the public in a variety of ways, including signage posted on site, notification letters mailed to all adjacent property owners, informing recipients regarding this remote platform, and a general announcement via our website informing the public of the same. The notices for today's meeting advise the public on how to access the remote meeting as the meeting occurs. Individuals wishing to participate in today's evidentiary hearings were required to register prior to the meeting. Information about this registration requirement, along with information about how to sign up to participate, was included in the mailed notice letter 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. No cases are proceeding today in which the city has been contacted in advance by an individual with an objection to the case or to the matter being heard on this remote platform. All individuals participating in today's evidentiary hearings were also required to submit a copy of any presentation, document, exhibit, or other material they wished to submit at the evidentiary hearing prior to today's meeting. All materials that the city received from the participants in today's cases, as well as a copy of city staff's presentations and documents were posted online prior to this meeting. The agenda in 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 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 this oath form prior to today's meeting. We will also reaffirm everyone's oath on the record at today's meeting. Are there any board members that would have any conflicts of interest with regard to any of the cases that are before us today? Okay, seeing and hearing none. Are there any board commissioners who need to request an early dismissal today? Matt, I've got an 1130, no, that's not true, a 12th commitment. Okay. Matt, I've got to leave at 1145. Thank you, commissioners Feaselman and DeBerry respectively, anybody else? As chair of the Historic Preservation Commission, I'd like to remind everyone that our quasi-judicial hearings function similar to a court proceeding. Staff will first present an overview of the case and then the applicant will have an opportunity to present their evidence. Opponents, if there are any, may then present their evidence and the applicant may then present a rebuttal. Board members will refrain from questions or comments until each speaker has completed his or her presentation. Testimony should consist of facts that each witness knows directly, not hearsay. Evidence already presented need not be repeated. All witnesses who have signed up in advance will be given the opportunity to speak and their testimony will be recorded. The board will vote on each case after the presentation of all evidence, pro and con concerning that case. All decisions of this board are subject to appeal to the board of adjustment and then to the Durham County Superior Court. Clerk Holmes, could you please take the attendance of the commissioners who are here today? Yes. Chair Bouchard. Present. Commissioner DeBerry. Present. Commissioner Feaselman. Present. Vice Chair Gulsby. Present. Commissioner Hamilton. Present. Commissioner Johnson. Present. Commissioner Calhoun. Present. Thank you very much. Good to see perfect attendance. Commissioners, you have been forwarded an agenda to today's meeting. Would anyone, including city staff, like to recommend any adjustments to the agenda? And I will use the chairs prerogative to mention one item in old business. We had discussed at the end of last month's meeting, the possibility of shifting the schedule for June's meeting. We'll need to revisit that under old business. So I would suggest adding that as item A to old business. Any other adjustments to today's agenda? Matt, I'd like to add a couple more items under new business. If we could add a discussion of the full newsletter, just to get that on our radar. And then also, Krista Kukaro has some news for us all. I have added discussion of the fall newsletter as item B on new business. And Krista Kukaro's news to all of us is item C, new business. Anybody else? Okay. Commissioners, you have been provided with draft minutes for our last commission meeting, which was conducted on April the 5th, 2022. I will go ahead and note for the record that the minutes were inadvertently dated April 5, 2021. And so that 2021 will need to change to 2022. Other than that adjustment, does anyone have any other recommended revisions to last month's minutes? Seeing and hearing none. Might we entertain a motion to approve the minutes? I can make a motion to approve the April 5 minutes with the edit that you suggested, Matt, of changing 2021 to 2022. Second. Thank you, commissioners Feeselman and DeBerry. We could have a roll call, please, for the call. Chair Bouchard. Approved. Commissioner DeBerry. Approved. Commissioner Feeselman. Approved. Vice Chair Gulsby. Said approve. Okay. Commissioner Hamilton. Approved. Commissioner Johnson. Approved. Commissioner Calhoun. Approved. Motion passes seven to zero. Thank you very much. And Madam Clerk, if we could also please swear in all city staff that we presenting today's cases. All right. Do you members of staff swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give in the public hearing proceedings for today's cases is the truth by your own knowledge or by information and belief? Carla Rosenberg, I do. Grace Smith, I do. Wonderful. I believe we are ready to get started with the first case on our agenda. And so while Mr. Peterson brings those participants into the room, I will go ahead and announce that we are hearing case number COA 220012320 East Chapel Hill Street site work. Before we hear from staff, is there anyone of our commissioners who may have a conflict of interest in hearing this case? Seeing and hearing none. Let us proceed to the swearing in of anyone who plans to speak in favor of this case. Madam Clerk. Do you swear or affirm at 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. Shannon Healy. Thank you, Mr. Healy. And Mr. Bach. Alex Bach, and I do. Great, thank you both. Let me both ask you starting with Mr. Healy. Do you consent to this hearing being conducted this morning via this remote electronic platform? Yes. And Mr. Bach? Yes. Wonderful. Thank you both. We may now proceed with the staff summary. Carla. Carla Rosenberg, Planning Department. This is case COA 220012320 East Chapel Hill Street site work. The applicant is Shannon Healy of Alley 26, the owner. There are three owners because it deals with a right-of-way and the adjacent buildings. You have Empire Alliance Properties, City of Durham, and JTH Durham LLC. The location is the structural walls that frame Alley 26 at the junction with East Chapel Hill Street. It's zoned downtown design core and the buildings are contributing structures within the downtown Durham Historic District. A portion of the work is retroactively being sought. 12 dining tables and one gate have been affixed to the walls on either side of the alley. The applicant is further proposing six gas heaters to be mounted above the tables adjacent to Alley 26. I'd like to, oh, and just another note. In addition to the COA, a licensing agreement with the city and adjacent property owners will be required in order to receive full approval for this project. So I'd like to introduce the staff report into the record and invite Mr. Healy to present his case. And Mr. Healy, if you have opened the staff report on your own device, if you could just let me know what page number you'd like me to jump to, and I'm happy to jump to one of the materials you'd like. I don't have a staff report. Oh, okay. Well, if there's anything that you'd like me to show, just let me know what it is and I'll find it in the staff report to present on screen as you discuss. We can start with the photos. Okay. You want me to just describe what we're doing? Yeah. Oh, okay. So as you can see down, this is, I think this is 26, 25 alley we're in, right? We're 24, I forget the number of this one. This goes behind 320 East Chapel Hill Street, this alley, between from Orange Street to 26 alley. This is where this picture's being taken from. So in the alley, those tables are 26 by 26, a pine, they're covered in marine grade varnish so they won't deteriorate and they're collapsible, as you can see, against the wall so that vehicles can drive through to do any maintenance or whatever's required. And they don't, when they're not being used like right now, nobody has an issue getting their vehicle through. We had work was done on 120 Parish Street, excuse me, yeah, 120 Parish, that address that doesn't actually connect to Parish Street, that's actually only accessed by 26 alley, work was done on that this week and they just drove their trucks right through. So anyway, there's the tables that you can see what we're proposing is to mount six heaters above them high enough so the heaters are 10 feet from the ground level so that the tables can be warmed, but also you can continue to drive maintenance vehicles just right underneath the heaters when we're not using. That's all you can see from this angle and this is coming from Chapel Hill Street so you can see the tables on the right, you can't see is on the left, there's also some drink rails that were part of our COA for like from 2013, I believe that's when it was. Okay, there's the tables, you can see, that's what they look like when they're collapsed so they're not more than, I hate to give a number, but there can't be more than two and a half inches total from the wall when not used. This is the gate, the hostess gate that helps us to find the space when we're open and when we're not, of course, it collapses against the wall again to stay out of the way. Oh, once again, Marine grade and all that and then there's, that's a drink rail, that's the one we put up in 2013, it says hostess gate for some reason, this is actually the attachment of the hostess gate, I believe in your materials, you had shared the original drink rail so I can see if I can find that. Oh, sorry, yeah, that was a drink rail, but it's a similar idea, they're all done the same way, they're collapsible hinges, except for the host gate, you can see the host gate is actually, there's a piece of wood that's affixed to the wall and the gate is affixed to the wood so the hinges are a little bigger, because it's heavier, but you can see how we use it like that and so you can see we have these kind of disposable beer can versions of the heaters that we all have to use now, but they don't travel very well, meaning like if you move them a few inches, they start to break as if you have any, need any evidence, further evidence of that, I encourage you to walk around downtown and look at everybody else's, they look like somebody has vandalized all of them. So what I wanna do is mount heaters on the wall on the right of this picture, over the tables, right there, thank you, so that we won't be moving these heaters in and out of the alley and they won't deteriorate so quickly and it'll continue to look nicer. Okay, see, that's it, right? Yeah, thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Healy, Mr. Bach, is there anything that you would like to add? So what I had proposed to Mr. Healy as part of this work is that the heaters will be hung suspended above the tables evenly so that the six heaters are in between each pair of tables to cover all 12 tables. And the clearance by the manufacturer is, as he mentioned, about 10 feet is what they advise to best heat those spaces. So there's about 10 foot clearance from ground where the gas piping and electrical would come across the alley from the meter location, could be 14 feet or more. That clearance isn't something that I think could even be close to an issue. And turn to the fight requirement. And just to clarify, the alley is on a grade and so 10 feet in some areas is going to look different. It won't be the same row of brick at 10 feet. Is that correct? That is correct. The alley is on a grade and that would be the case. And 10 feet, can you tell about where 10 feet is in terms of the height above here? Would this be about 10 feet? From what I recall in measuring, the lights strung there are at about 12 to 13 feet. I believe that little round sign is at nine feet something or other. If memory serves, it has been about seven years, but I believe it's that round sign on your left, on the left side of the alley over the door, is hung at nine something. So the top of that sign is probably close to 10 feet. Okay. I believe. So we're looking at it going sort of in between these window infill. I'm gonna go back to the other photos that show the infill. Infill. So it would be about this level, right in between the infilled windows. Yeah. So yes, I think the entire run of it, but as you mentioned, since the ground, the grade changes, it would be at a slightly different level, but I believe all of them would be between those two windows. Yes. Thank you, gentlemen. Any further comments before I open the floor to questions from the commissioners? Okay. Do any of our commissioners have questions for the applicants? Carla, can you scroll up from where you are and that, I'm sorry, down then, other direction. Okay, stop. So it appears that this table has been affixed to the wall and drilled directly into an infill brick in a window, but then it also looks like it's been drilled directly into a historic brick. Is that a problem? Who are you asking the question to? Anyone? So I will say that that wouldn't meet the minimum impact criterion that we have in the general section. We would typically require, especially for something as lightweight as a table that it go into the mortar joints. If this were being proposed new and not retroactively, we would require that it be installed into the mortar joints to save the brick. Because once this is removed, it will leave a hole in the middle of the brick, which is the most vulnerable part of the brick, as you know. I think it's also important to discuss the heaters and how those will be mounted since given the security needed for a heater, and the placement, there's no infill for it to really go into necessarily at the height that it's requested to be installed. And so what will be the mounting impact of those heaters as well? But you're correct. We would want these to go into the mortar joints if they were newly installed. Chair Bouchard here, can we get clarification as to what the intent is for mounting the heaters, whether they would be mounted into mortar joints or into brick directly? So we spoke the other day, not the other day, I don't know how, Karla, I don't remember when it was, we spoke, and then I spoke to Alex, Mr. Bach is on this phone, on this call. And we proposed, he proposed that it would be easy or what could be done as we mount them, I'd have to remove, I'd have to move where the tables are, but we could mount the heaters into the infill brick, the higher infill brick set of windows and hang them from there. Alex, sorry, Alex, would you care to comment on that? Yeah, that is what we proposed and I don't have a drawing to reflect that as I had proposed original drawings, but the idea is that we use either a flat piece of structural steel or steel rods that where we can anchor into the infill brick above and just suspend the heater straight down from that to the height that's required. So that we're not actually tapping into any of the historic brick that's below. But if you move the tables, we're talking about another set of holes, whether they're in the mortar or the bricks, that seems like, I don't know, unnecessary. So just to add a possibility there, if they were to be reinstalled, they could be, the tables could be required to be installed into mortar joints and the holes left in the actual historic brick repaired in an appropriate manner. Can we look at a photo of the heaters together? Do we have an example photo? Yes, there are some cut sheets that were, let's see if I can, what's the fastest way for me to get to them? Scroll down here. Could be the first sheet after the pictures, Karla. Both the first sheet. Do you have a page number, Matt? I don't, I'm looking at a hard copy, I'm sorry. Oh, okay. It shouldn't be too far from where you are right now if you go back up a few pages. This is the cut sheet for the heaters and then- There it is, there it is. Okay. Okay, got it. And I understand these can come in two different colors, black or silver. And Karla, I'm wondering if you can just remind us what the commission's purview is for this kind of scenario where it's outside, on a building, a restaurant, a commercial application. What are the considerations that we are looking at as a group here today? Well, these are utilities. Heaters are considered utilities, so you would follow the criteria general, which applies to all work as well as the criteria for utilities. Okay, thanks. Which is minimizing visibility primarily. And a question for the applicant, did you consider aesthetically mounting the heaters the same height? Sounds like you're currently planning on mounting them at the height that keeps them exactly 10 feet above the tables as the grade changes, but did you consider the aesthetics of a single height on the mount? No, I didn't, only because either somebody's gonna light somebody's hair on fire if it's too light or I'm not gonna, I'm just gonna be wasting fuel. You know, like if it's too high, it won't heat anybody, it's just on wasting gas and electric. If it's too low, it's not comfortable. So like it's, I think, I don't know enough to mess with the heaters design recommendations to have suggested that we go outside its recommended use. Okay, and do we know the height of the grade change over the span of where we have the tables mounted looks like two-ish or I don't know, a foot or two? I think it's a little more than that, yeah. The back of the building I think is something like four feet higher than the front of the building. So it's a pretty good grade. Okay, okay. All the water for all the buildings on the whole alley, all the way going up to M and F I think, the Paris street ones, all that water, the rainwater comes back down into that alley and runs. It gets quite river-esque. So it runs pretty at a good clip. So it's pretty steep. Right, just to clarify, you could mount the straightaway and the gas line straight along the building, but you would have the suspension wires that actually hold the heaters at different lengths so that they are all evenly 10 feet above grade. So that's correct. And in fact, in the proposed drawings that I submitted Shannon, that's how I had drawn it, is that the lines be the gas lines and the electrical be level and then the heaters drop to the appropriate height. From there. And did you say you submitted those? Are we able to look at them in this? Or I don't remember seeing that, but... I don't know if those were passed along. I would like to say I'm sure, but it's been a while. If you tell me what they were, I could import them maybe. I don't know how this... Well, the way we would do it, typically we don't show materials. We would need the chair's permission to share materials. Typically we don't share them if they haven't been submitted with the application. Oh, okay. Well, at any rate, yes. Happy to have all the mounting stuff at the same height, at a uniform height, and then have the suspending materials be differently. One more question. There's a notch in the tables and a bracket below that makes it look like sometimes there's an umbrella situation at play. Is that true? That's entirely true. Okay. So when umbrellas were there, there would be heaters not on, plus umbrellas I assume in like a rain situation or sun situation? This is sun situation. So like, we opened in 2012 and I've had a... We did this process for the initial seating stuff in I think 2013 of a pre-pandemic situation. And I'm so, anyway, so we, I'm sorry, I just dropped the question. Sometimes sun umbrellas are up. Oh, umbrellas. 100 heaters. So what we, well, they wouldn't, well, yeah, we wouldn't set the umbrellas up if we were turning the heaters on. Like you have to choose, you know? And the umbrellas I really only use for brunch because there's only like an hour possible a day because this isn't a North-South alley. There's only like one hour a day where I get direct sunlight in it. And until we opened during the daytime, I had never had to deal with it before. So we are open for brunch on Sundays. It's delicious, come by, he says. But yeah, we do have like these little half umbrellas that go, that stay along the wall there so that people eating aren't in direct sunlight. Okay, got it, thank you. Commissioner, is there any other questions? Okay, seeing and hearing none, I'm going to invite anybody who has signed up to speak in opposition to the case. I believe that is nobody. Seeing no opposition, I will now close the public hearing and open the floor for commissioner discussion. Who would like to kick us off? Matt, this is Andy Gouldsby. I want to start off with the heaters. Mostly because I think of this submission, those are the biggest impact, I think, to the streetscape. Particularly when I think about the criteria about concealing utilities and mechanical work. We have used these types of heaters on other projects, both residentially and in restaurants. And they do have a visual impact. It's of my opinion that they don't conceal well. And it's like how a mechanical unit installed on these walls. So in this submission, I would not be in favor of the heaters. Also do have concerns about the long-term effect of that. That bit of heat. I know the staff report comments on that a little bit, but there's some fluctuation in the amount of heat that they're saying would be putting on the brick that I'd rather not get into in the long-term of this building. So yeah, I would like to start there. I'm looking and wondering what are their thoughts. This is Commissioner Johnson. So Andy, thank you for that. And since you have experience with these, I'm having a hard time trying to get a good visual with the additional lines. But I'm also having a hard time understanding the effect of the weight of the units. I'm trying to, because they're gonna be high up above a table, I'm wondering if how heavy they may be, whether it's safe to drill them into mortar or would it be better to drill them into the brick so that they are properly secure? That's just kind of a technical thing that I was thinking about. And also, Andy, I wanted to know from your experience, do you think visually, would it, if it was painted black, would that, from your experience, is that a better look or is it still kind of clunky? Would it still look good? Sure, certainly when anything is a darker color against brick, it does visually help things go away. But these things are, they're just not attractive because they have the actual grills to them are exposed. I think they're kind of big. I mean, they're 12 inches tall. I'm looking at the cut sheet now, they're 12 inches tall. I'm around 11 inches in depth. And they're about four feet, a little less than four feet in length. So I don't think they are a small thing when I think about them. So having them dark while the color would help recess them, I just haven't found these things to be helpful in minimizing unattractive things on our buildings. The one that's killing me the most is we just put them on a residence in Raleigh where there's lighter wood in the ceiling. And I think we try to find the lightest color to help that visually go away and still, I mean, you just look up and see them. So I don't think they're gonna go away on this wall. To address your weight, I don't think they're that heavy though. What looks to be the heaviest model is 44 pounds. That's relatively light for something that would be hung and there's probably a couple of attractive points that would be needed for that. Okay, thank you for that. And then my other comment I would like for the commission to discuss is visibility. And maybe I just need to go back to the criteria and read over that. I want us to have a discussion on whether or not we think that there would be such a high impact that these heaters and tables would be such a high impact that it would take away from the historic character of the district because the way that I'm kind of looking at it as well is that it's in an alley and there's just this, when you're walking down Chapel, this is on Chapel Hill Street, right? Chapel Hill Street. I don't immediately think that when I see there, and I've had dinner at this space that it's taking away from the historic character. I mean, maybe the wood is lightness it's kind of bright, bright, but I don't know. I would like for us to have a discussion about visibility and whether or not these items will negatively affect the historic character of the property and the district as a whole. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Johnson. Commissioner Fieselman, do you want to chime in on that? I thought you asked some really helpful probing questions about some of these visual impact issues. Yeah, I guess where my head is, it's Andy in April, I agree with the questions and concerns you're raising. Also in my mind is this is a locally owned business doing something relatively nice for diners and Durham. And I have a question in my head that I wanted to ask the applicant and I realized I forgot to during the Q&A period but can you help us understand sort of what adding the heaters now two years into the pandemic will enable you to do how will that change things for you in terms of the business that you're running and the way that you're serving the community? And I think if I need your permission to actually ask that. Yeah, I'll go ahead and briefly reopen the public hearing for that question. Go ahead, Mr. Healy. Okay. Well, A, aesthetics, like if you look now, that's what it looks like now when the heaters are set up that we have to roll into the alley. There is no way for me to buy heaters that don't look like somebody beat them with a baseball bat like three weeks into their life because we roll them in and roll them out of the alley and you can look at the same style heaters in front of all of the other businesses they all look terrible. So if I had heaters that were mounted, A, no one would, they wouldn't be breaking hopefully and they would look nice. B, this is North Carolina. So even before the pandemic people preferred to sit outside and I think it's a cool looking alley and why not show off downtown Durham's alley? You know, when I opened Allie 26, the most common question I got from people who sat at the bar was, is it safe here? And it took us a couple of years when that wasn't a common question but back when that was a common question it seemed like everybody downtown took it as a tentative faith that we needed people on the streets to make people feel safe and people to use the space outside. So maybe that's still my mindset but I think it aesthetically looks good. People like to sit outside even before the pandemic but even now, like we had a vaccine requirement at Allie 26 up until March 30th until the CDC said that incidents like the basically rated Durham County is low but even then if I didn't have outdoor seating people would in March people were turning around and leaving. So like maybe in Wilmington they don't believe that it affects business but in Durham I'm here to tell you it still does like we're two years into the pandemic but I don't know when it's over. I hope I answered your question. I have a couple of questions feeding off of what Commissioner Scott already asked. One is, could there be a high quality Dolly that would improve the transport of these heaters? The one- No, I don't believe so. I mean, maybe theoretically sure I haven't found one or I would have gotten it already because not only am I trashing heaters it's a lot harder for the staff to have to move these things in and move them out and then what do I do with the propane? Am I supposed to store these tanks inside? I don't believe that's entirely legal. Like for safety for all there's a myriad of reasons but all of them in my mind point to not using these heaters. And my second question is how many feet off of the wall would these be suspended? So what would the sort of the depth into the alley or the projection into the alley B of the suspension lines of the heaters? How close would they be to the brick? To the brick, okay. Alex, do you know that for any chance? The spec sheet should clarify that but I believe it's about 18 inches or so. 12 to 18 inches off that we had looked they have several mounting styles but we had looked at using the bracket that would basically mount it directly to the brick. Of course, now we have looked at hanging them from a point higher but the heaters themselves I think it was mentioned earlier about 12 inches in width and 11 inches in depth. And so that would be approximately centered off the wall. So I think it's safe to say about 18 inches centered off the wall. It's on page 39, Carla. It looks like, I wonder if that's, is it 27 and a half inches? It says here to wall 27 and a half inches. So that's the adjustable extension arm. The wall mount, which is the bottom left corner is what I had proposed. The wall mount, the bottom left of that corner of that. Right. And you said there's 18 inches between the wall and the heater? To the center of the heater is my best guess because that heater I expect above this point is about 10 and a quarter inches in width. So that's, so I'm thinking with a few inches clearance created by the bracket there off the wall plus the five or so that gets to the center of the heater you have 12 to 18 inches to the center of the heater off the wall. Two foot maybe total clearance. Just, and are these supposed to be angled or are they just straight down based on the design for the table widths and everything else? Absolutely good question. So they can be used in any orientation and you can see from the ceiling mount that's shown there it shows angle up to 30 degrees and angle up to 45 degrees. So it really depends on where they are in proximity to the space that they're heating being that these will be directly above the tables and the tables don't have much width off the wall. I had intentions to aim them straight down. With just enough clearance from the wall. One last question for the applicant. I take it the heaters are not intended to be removable. You're not going to be moving them during the warmer summer months are going to stay. Yeah, I would prefer not to move them. That seems to be an issue with the other ones it's the moving them that gets them all banged up and start looking terrible. I'm certainly as somebody who wants to entertain people in this alley I'm as, I'd like to think I'm as sensitive to the aesthetics as anyone else. And we're trying to do stuff as nicely as possible that can go away when we're not using it as possible but also we are doing all of the work down an alley like none of this is front facing but no, I hadn't intended to move them. I don't know that I don't even know how I mean, I'm sure anything's possible but I don't even know how that is possible. Unless anyone else has further questions for the applicant I'm going to re-close the public hearing and resume the conversation among commissioners. And because we have a heavy agenda today and some time limitations among our commissioners I do want to see if we can fast forward the conversation a little bit. Is there one among us or more than one among us who would like to make the case that this proposal would not create a visual impact that would run counter to the criteria for utilities and mechanical equipment? This is Commissioner Hamilton. I kind of have the same thoughts as April that this is an alley and it's an alley that we know about because of the applicant like for all being honest like if this outdoor facility was not there would we be walking down alley 26 would it be a visually impactful thing or is it their facilities that make us think it's a space and without their facilities it would just be any other alley where we would be like that's the appropriate place to put utilities, right? Like normally if you're going to have an exterior utility you want them to be on an alley. So I feel like from that aspect I find it less problematic. Now I think it would be really helpful for me to see an actual graphic to know how it's impacting views of that arched like window that's in the middle because I do think that one's an interesting feature of this alley that you don't see in every other alley. So I think like for me that would be helpful and then especially also getting a better understanding of how far off the wall these can be mounted and how far off that wall mount really is would be good too to understand how much heat is really gonna hit these bricks. So those are my thoughts like I don't really have a huge problem of having heaters in an alley but it's the not having enough understanding of what they really are that's troubling me today. Thank you very much, Commissioner Hamilton. Anybody else? My major problem is I don't know who owns that building that heaters are gonna be mounted to? You own that and that's the hill. I don't, Jane Hills or excuse me Alpine partners owns it and they also signed a COA saying that we could map to their walls. Okay. And they don't have one. An iterated a licensing agreement will be required so that part isn't, that isn't a concern right now. Yeah, my question is years of heat on those bricks over there I don't know how that would be favorable to that building, I don't know but others who have more of an architectural experience might know the effect of heating. It seems to me the arm mount would be built of an element that close to the bricks into the building. That's the problem. That's the only problem I have with bricks in the building. And they can. I'm gonna try to focus the remaining conversation and I'm curious to know do we have four commissioners of the seven present today who would be in favor of the application as currently written and given the level of detail that we currently have on the question of the heaters because I don't wanna put this to a vote or recommend putting to a vote if it means we're not gonna get adequate support and the applicant needs to wait a year. Do we have four commissioners who feel comfortable that there is sufficient detail from which they can lend their support to the heaters? I'm comfortable with the COA as it is. Okay. Am I? As long as it's painted black. I'm okay. Okay. I would definitely vote for it if I knew they were using the arm mount or something that mounted further than the wall mount. That seems a little too close for me. Would the applicant be willing to accept a condition that an arm mount be utilized? The applicant has said repeatedly, I'll do whatever you're telling me to do. So if you tell me arm mount, that's great except for an arm mount won't go into the infill brick. That's the concern. The reason that we were doing the higher amount is so that we could mount into the infill brick. If you wanted us to mount it, and Alex correct me if I'm lying, if we wanted us to mount an infill brick we could still bring it out far enough. We could bring it out further just like the same distance as the arm mount. Is that right, Alex? Yeah. I think we have the possibility to mount it as far out as we need to. I'm assuming the concern about the clearance is how much heat is being directed back towards the brick. So I think you have a couple of options with that which you could actually use the wall mount and then just angle the heater slightly away. I think you could also use the arm mount but just reduce the amount of the length of the arm off so that we have some clearance but not so much clearance that we can't support it from above. If that makes sense. Yeah. All right, then I want to return to the other issue which was identified by Commissioner DeBerry at the beginning of his questioning which concerns the penetration of the screws directly into historic and infill brick for the tables. Commissioners to retroactively approve this, are there any conditions that you think need to be imposed on any remedial actions that might be necessary once these screws or fasteners are removed? Are they removing them or are we saying that they're gonna leave the tables where they are so that they, I mean, like Tad said, the damage is done. Why put more holes into a wall? My understanding was they needed to move the tables to jibe with where the Peters will be placed. Okay, so you really can clarify. Okay. I mean, as long as the repairs are made and Carla can supervise that. So then Carla, do you have like a wording for how that should be? The repairs specifically. Take good notes, Commissioner Hamilton. Okay. So I did a little research on what would be required. I think the best course of action is to get some consultation from some historic brick experts we could talk to Shippo, we could contact a private company that deals with historic brick. But from what I've gathered, there has to be a sort of a colored brick material. It has to be absolutely a very soft, cementitious, I say that in quotes, because cement is not what you wanna use, it's too hard. You're gonna wanna fill it in with a sort of a putty consistency material that matches the brick. Something that's not gonna be too hard that would compromise the brick, but you want it to be able to last as well and not disintegrate and leave the whole exposed. Okay, so we're gonna say repair brick subject to staff approval, if that works for you. Okay. And do we need to impose a further condition that to the extent tables in their current location are relocated that they are fastened to mortar going forward? Absolutely. Okay. So all new mounts will be into mortar joints only. And so... In terms of the mounts for the heaters, we're not seeking to impose a condition that those are only fastened into mortar. But only infill brick as opposed to historic brick. So infill brick, we're less concerned about the integrity because it's infill number one, it's a harder material because it's a modern brick. And it's not original. It's not a historic material either. Obviously, there will be a visual impact once the heaters are removed, you will see holes, but they aren't as vulnerable as the historic brick would be. And I will say that I talked with inspections and I think they're gonna be wanting them to go into the brick because of the nature of the device being a security issue. The heater shall be mounted within infill brick panels and shall be mounted such that heater is hung as far from wall as possible. I think you should specify a minimum distance. Okay. I guess for the commission, does anyone have like a six inch minimum issue or is that too close or how are, I don't... I think it should be whatever is recommended by professionals. I don't know if I know, but what's a safety distance from the wall. No, something's on top of the heater's head. I can imagine we're the only city with this problem. There's gotta be some guidance somewhere on this. So, Carla, what's like a good, do you have a reference or Andy, does anybody have a reference or should I just say salving such that the heater is mounted at a distance staff approval? I don't know. I don't wanna put everything on Carla. How about at a distance to minimize to the maximum extent possible damage to historic masonry units? I would be more comfortable with a minimum distance that's researched and like I did. Yeah. The applicant proposed 18 inches from center. I'd be curious to know what that is from edge. Radiating heat, how hot do these heaters get? Like all of that information would need to be factored in to any recommendation, I think. So then like since you want the research, should we just say as hung at a distance, a minimum distance? Based on best practices or something like that. Yeah, like what? You can say approved by staff and I'll research it and with the applicant, make sure the applicant is in contact with what we decide as well. If it's mounted to infill brick, how close is it gonna be getting to the historic? Brick is one question I have as well. So, I think when they show me the visual that they created, it will help as well to see where the heaters will be in relation to the historic brick. Okay, let me get to the actual motion and make sure that notes are taken, can fit in. I think based on the conversation we had that what we're talking about is a mounting strip in the infill brick with the heaters hanging down to 10 inches above the tables, which will hit the building at the historic brick level. So, this concern will apply and I'm okay with the caveat that we're adding here. 10 feet, not 10 inches. So, I'm a little confused. Is it arm mount or is it, because what you just described was what I had envisioned initially was it being sort of suspended from like wires, but my understanding was these were going to be mounted via like an arm, either the shorter wall mount device or the arm mount that's longer. My understanding from the applicant though was that they could suspend it the way. They could suspend it, oh, okay. They could extend out from the level bar going across the minimum distance that we might require. So, it will be a bar parallel to the wall that's mounted to the wall and then the arms will come out from that or it will be suspended from a wire from that bar and the bar itself is mounted away from the wall. Oh, I thought it was going to go horizontal and then down. Andy, you're, I mean, that's what I expect. So, it may just be worse to clarify that with the applicant. You know, we're saying it's going to go into Intel Brick. What is the credit armature for this Mac? You would open that up for us. Yep, please, if we can hear from Mr. Cox on that question. Oh, I hope he's still on. Mr. Box, I'm sorry. So, we hadn't come to a complete conclusion on this, but what I had actually spec was one of two options, which was to drop a piece of structural steel or rod or a cable from the infill bricks, which would carry the weight of the heater and then we could still use the wall mount or arm mount bracket and just mount it to the mortar joints of the historic brick in order to just prevent the heater from having the possibility of swaying being that it's held suspended from a higher point. So that was one option. And then the other option being like attaching the arm mount or some similar piece up in the infill brick and then dropping the heater from there with something that would structurally keep it from swaying. And so that was kind of the two options that we had discussed and proposed. I think what we're saying would be the second option where you're only into the infill brick, but you're not in this commission. And something structurally supportive of these heaters, like a vertical structural element is not gonna be just a wire, it's to keep it from swaying, it needs to be something pretty substantial, just suspended from the arm. I think that's right. For what is worth the ceiling mount and I don't know if I can speak now, but the ceiling mount that's specced and that I'm still looking at, we could essentially use something like that and then come out with a piece of structural steel from the infill brick and then drop the heater straight down using those ceiling mount brackets, if that helps with the visual. And that those would have the strength to keep it from swaying and also to carry the weight up to the higher point at which we could come over with a brace to the infill brick. Mr. Bach, would you be amenable to both the ceiling mount brackets as well as the fixtures being black as opposed to stainless steel to minimize the visual impact? Absolutely, yeah, but black in fact, I think is what I had specced and initially discussed, so. So Carla, I just wanted to verify all of these should be put under the following conditions and not in the bullet point. So they should be numbered conditions, right? So the numbered condition of relocated table shall be mounted into mortar joints. Heaters shall be mounted within infill brick panels and shall be mounted such that the heater is hung at a distance approved by staff. There shall be the numbered conditions, right? And then the everything shall be black is the third one. Yeah, as long as we make sure that the bullet points reflect that they don't say anything counter to what the conditions describe in case, you know, the way I originally worded it. I think we need one condition related to repairing any fasteners that were removed, that are removed with respect to the tables. Yeah, sorry. Yeah, so repair of bricks subject to staff approval. Sorry, that was number two. And then this is three and I'm not four. Okay. Any other commissioner discussion? If not, I'll entertain a motion. Actually, sorry, sorry, commissioner Hamilton. I would first like to request a staff recommendation. This is a difficult one because I do think this is gonna have a major visual impact. And I would argue that this alley is pretty iconic and always has been. But given the discussions today, I would say I'm still not confident which like mounting is gonna be the least visually impactful and still maintain the structural integrity that's required, but whichever of those if you all caught, to me, like the arm mount seems like the most but I'll just say, staff would recommend approval of the application with infilling the, like repairing the brick that has been damaged when the tables are remounted and with the heaters mounted in the least visible fashion. And honestly, staff needs a little bit more information on that, but that's my recommendation. Thank you, Carla. Commissioner Hamilton. All right, I will make a motion. In the case, oh, sorry, the Durham Historic Preservation Commission finds that in the case COA 2200012320 East Chapel Hill Street site work the applicant is proposing wall mounted furnishings and utilities on two contributing structures and within a historic right of way the bifold gate of Yellow Pine has been mounted to the East wall of the alley and 12 fold down dining tables of Yellow Pine have been mounted to the West wall. Six natural gas heaters will be mounted to the West wall connected to each other and to an energy source across the alley via two conduits. 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 Durham Historic Preservation Commission approves the certificate of appropriateness for case COA 2200012320 East Chapel Hill Street site work with the following conditions. One, the improvement shall be substantially consistent with the plans of testimony presented to the commission at this commission hearing and attached to the COA. Two, the improvements may require additional approvals from other city or county departments or state or local agencies. The applicant is responsible for obtaining all required approvals relating to building construction, site work and work in the right of way. And three, a compliance inspection shall be performed immediately upon completion of the work approved here in. Four, this approval is contingent on applicants obtaining an outdoor seating permit for the work described here. And five, relocated tables shall be mounted into mortar joints repair of brick where tables were previously located is subject to staff approval. Seven, heaters shall be mounted within infill brick panels and shall be mounted such that heater is hung at a minimum distance approved by staff to minimize impact to historic structures. And eight historic heaters and support shall be black and color and mounted in a manner to minimize visual impact of the alley. Second. Thank you, commissioner Hamilton and DeBerry. Clerk Holmes. Right. Chair Bouchard. Opposed. Commissioner DeBerry. Yes. Commissioner Fieselman. Proof. Vice-chair Gillespie. No. Commissioner Hamilton. Proof. Commissioner Johnson. Approved. Commissioner Calhoun. Motion passes five to two. Madam and congratulations. Best luck to you as you move forward with this project. And thanks for hanging in there with us today with our multiple rounds of questions. Much appreciated. Thank you. Appreciate it. Carl, I'll chat with you about, like I said, I'll do whatever you say. So tell me what you feel comfortable. Sounds good. Yeah, I'd love to see the new materials that you have. And yeah, we'll talk offline. Thank you. Okay, appreciate it. Thank you. Okay. Well, Mr. Peterson is gathering the presenters for our next case. I'll go ahead and announce it. It is case number COA 220014841 Onslow Street, new construction of accessory structure. Before we hear from staff, is there any one of our commissioners who may have a conflict of interest in hearing this case? Seeing and hearing none, let us please proceed with the swearing in of anyone who plans to speak for this case. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give is in the public hearing proceedings for today's case, the truth by your own knowledge or by information and belief? Not Julie Kahoon and I do. Ms. Kahoon, do you also consent to this hearing being conducted today via this remote electronic platform? I do. Wonderful. Thank you. We could have a staff summary please. Carla Rosenberg Planning Department. This is case COA 220014841 Onslow Street, new construction of an accessory structure. The applicant is Julie Kahoon of Linton Architects. The owner is Keith Campbell, located on the Southwest quadrant of the intersection of Onslow Street and Green Street, zoned residential suburban medium. And it's a contributing property, contributing structure in the historic, the Trinity Heights Historic District. So the applicant is proposing to construct a new accessory structure on the rear lot, as well as we can figure an existing fence. I'd like to introduce the staff report into the record and invite Ms. Kahoon to present her case. And Ms. Kahoon, if you'd like me to jump to any specific page in the report, just let me know and I'll do that for you. I'm sure, thanks Carla. Thanks everyone for being here. I'd like to start with the site plan to clean everyone with kind of where we are. I think that's on page 11. So this is the property site. Onslow is on the right. Green Street is on the top of the page, which is North and alley number 40 is on the West edge. The original contributing structure is faces, it's front door faces Onslow Street, and it's on the sort of right hand side of the property. There's an addition that was done around 2015 that sits there sort of to the center of the property. And the vehicular access to the property is via the alley currently. As Carla shared, we are proposing an accessory structure, which will serve as a garage for the family's car and as storage space for a number of things. Carla, if you wanna go to the next page, which shows the site plan with the garage building the accessory structure on it. So the green area of the site is actually pretty important to the clients, the owners, because they do a lot of gardening that is real food producing gardening for their family, like hundreds of pounds a year, which is incredible. So we are trying to keep the proposed accessory structure compact and pushed to the five foot setback line that is allowable by the UDO. So this shows that proposed accessory structure on the Southwest corner, maintaining the vehicular access via the alley as it currently is, and maintaining the whole of Green Street to stay the vegetable and fruit and other vegetation that it also currently is. You will see that there's a tree, a canopy tree that is within that five foot setback. If Carla could point, if you could point to that with your arrow on the south edge right there. We intend to put construction fencing up. The owner is actually intending to build this himself to the greatest extent possible and he cares very much for his trees and is going to do everything possible to make sure all of that is, we are treading on the root system any more than absolutely necessary, et cetera. So the lifespan of that tree after the structures in place, I can't say for sure, but I will point that out and I think that's in the staff report pointed out as well that that tree is, its root zone is going to be impacted by the construction of the building, but the owner doesn't have any intention to remove it at this time. I'd like to jump to existing photos, which I think is page 19. So this is the Onslow Street facade, which is the main front door of the original contributing structure. The next image is the Green Street side. So the left section of the building is the original contributing structure and the right hand portion is the addition that was done in 2015. The next page shows sort of the rest of the long lot so that this is the west end of the lot where there's currently no accessory structure. And then the next image shows the, just another view back of that. This is the ground area where the owner currently parks, which is where we're proposing the accessory structure to go. And then I think the next, yeah, this is the back elevation, the south elevation of the whole house, but they have very tight side yards. So it's not very much in view from anywhere else. This is the neighbor to the south, the picture on the left. This is their accessory structure, which faces the alley also. And then the green accessory structure is the next neighbor down to the south who also has an accessory structure facing the alley, just sort of for context of what the alley looks like and feels like. So we wanna go back up a few pages to the elevations, sort of walk through what we're proposing on the building. So the bottom right corner of this image shows the accessory structure itself. We're proposing a gable shape that faces Anzlo with two dormers and the dormers have the same slope as the original contributing structure. We have a door on the accessory structure pedestrian door that faces Anzlo and it is sort of giving an echo to the original, the front door that's on the original structure that faces Anzlo. I think I said this faces Anzlo, I'm sorry, the gable faces green straight. There's a louvered vent above the door, also indicative of the original structure. And then we were going to use the same German style horizontal lap siding over all of the accessory structure. Can you go to the next elevation please, Carla? This is just the back elevation, which isn't very well in view. And then the west elevation on the left faces the alley. You can see we're proposing to put windows in the dormers, which would be the same four light style as what exists on the house already. The overhead door has a four light division on each panelized section. It's a single door, but it's aesthetically broken into two section, panel sections and with lights over them. And then the fence is currently existing. The fence was part of the COA from 2015. So we're essentially removing the pieces that are in the way of that building and then just kind of putting them back so that we can put that all back together, that the client works a lot, trying to keep critters out of his yard for the reason that they eat the food that he's growing. And then the other elevation, I'm sorry, one second, the elevation on the right is the one that faces their house. So the 3D view, this is standing at the corner of Onslo and Green looking at the original house. And the down at the end on the right is the accessory structure, the mount of it that's visible from this perspective view. The next one shows standing further down. It's sort of downgrade as you, the elevation goes down as you walk down the street to the west. So looking back up at the original structure where you can see the addition there in the middle and then our proposed accessory structure. And that's all the elevations. I don't think I have any other notes to make about the building. So I guess we'll turn it back over to you, Carl. Sure. Chair Bouchard, I'm gonna discuss. Yep, Ms. Kahoon, thank you very much for your presentation. Commissioner, is there any questions for our applicant today? This is Commissioner Johnson, I have a quick question for the garage door. I couldn't tell from the spec thing if that was a raised panel or flush panel. I think there's a drawing, yeah. So the perimeter edges are slightly proud of the center panels, which give a little bit of visual relief. So it tries to mimic a panel door in that way. So there's a little bit of difference in the depth. Okay, thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Johnson. Any other commissioners with questions for our applicant? If not, I will invite anyone who has registered to speak in opposition to this case. Seeing and hearing from nobody, I will close the public hearing and open the floor for commissioner comments. Do any commissioners have any comments with respect to this proposal? Seeing and hearing none, I will ask for a staff recommendation. Carla Rosenberg, planning department, staff would recommend approval of the application. Wonderful, thank you very much. Might I entertain a motion? I'm happy to make a motion, Matt. Thank you, Commissioner Fieselman. The Durham Historic Preservation Commission finds that in case COA 22-00014841 on Slow Street, new construction of accessory structure, the applicant is proposing a new accessory structure on the corner lot contributing primary structure. The accessory structure will measure 24 feet, eight inches by 21 feet in area with an average roof height of 20 feet, i.e. one and a half stories, and will be constructed with a painted brick foundation, German profile, woodlap, siding, pour light, aluminum clad, wood casement windows and a modern standing seam metal roof. An insulated steel garage door will face the alley and a fiberglass one light over two panel entry door will face the side street. A portion of an existing fence will be relocated and its gate moved adjacent to the new accessory structure. A 24-inch driveway apron will span the width of the garage door and lead directly into the alley. Therefore, the conclusion of law is that the proposed addition and alterations are consistent with the historic character and qualities of the historic district and are consistent with the historic properties, local review criteria, specifically those listed in the staff report and the Durham Historic Preservation Commission approves the certificate of appropriateness or case COA 22-000-14841-Anslow Street, new construction of accessory structure with the following conditions. One, the improvements shall be substantially consistent with the plans and testimony presented to the commission at this commission hearing and attached to the COA. Two, the improvements may require additional approvals from the city or county departments or state or local agencies and the applicant is responsible for obtaining all required approvals relating to building construction, site work and work in the right of way. And three, a compliance inspection shall be performed immediately upon completion of the work approved herein. Second. Motion made by Commissioner Feaseman, myself, Chair Bouchard with the second. Clerk Holmes, if we get a roll call vote please. All right. Chair Bouchard. Approved. Commissioner DeBarry. Approved. Commissioner Feaseman. Approved. Vice Chair Gillespie. Approved. Commissioner Hamilton. Approved. Commissioner Johnson. Approved. Commissioner Calhoun. Approved. Motion passes seven to zero. Ms. Cohen, thank you very much for your very thoughtful design. Congratulations on having the application approved and good luck with the project. Good luck to both you and the owners. Thanks everyone. Thanks for your time this morning. Thank you. Gang, I'm gonna go ahead and propose a five minute comfort break. We'll have three cases on our agenda when we come back and hopefully we can get through them in an hour and 15 minutes before Tad needs to take off. See you in five minutes. Missionaries, if you haven't already, please put your cameras back on as you come back online. And once again, kudos to Vice Chair Gillespie with the coolest setup of all of us. Just rubbing in our faces with that remote control too. Man, I'm sure you can get that set up in your office there. Yeah, that's not bad. This is my home office. All right. I believe we are prepared to move forward with our next case on the agenda. That is case COA 2200 16306 East Main Street Edition. Before we hear from staff, is there any one of our commissioners who may have a conflict of interest in hearing this case? Seeing and hearing none, let us proceed with swearing in of anyone who plans to speak for the case. Do you swear or frown at 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? Thank you very much. Mr. Interliter, Mr. Bishop, can you turn your cameras on, please? Wonderful. Thank you all very much. And I'm gonna go one by one here with the next question. Do you all consent to this hearing being conducted by this remote electronic platform? Mr. Troutman, I think you're on mute when you respond. I think you said I do, but we can't hear you. I can't hear you now, yes. I do. Thank you so much. Mr. Interliter. I do. And Mr. Bishop, one more time, Mr. Bishop. Wonderful, thank you. We can now proceed with staff summary. Carla. Carla Rosenberg Planning Department, this is case COA 22-00016 306 East Main Street Edition. The applicant is and owner are Michael Hinderleiter of 300 East Main Street, LLC. It's located on the Southeast quadrant of intersection of East Main Street and South Roxborough Street zone downtown design core and it's a contributing structure in the downtown Durham Historic District. The applicant's proposing to construct a rooftop addition along with a terrace and pool deck. I'd like to introduce the staff report into the record and invite Mr. Hinderleiter to present his case. Yeah, Carla, I guess if you want to go to the exhibits and I can walk through the project from there or yeah. Yeah, so maybe Nick, would you want to take this part and I can add where necessary or should I walk through this? We're having trouble hearing. No, I can read your lips. Can you hear me right now? So our proposal is a roughly 1600 square foot penthouse apartment above 300 East Main. There was a 2015 COA that was approved for a penthouse apartment that has expired and was never built and we have modified the design. Then there's about a 19 foot setback off of the South Roxborough Street side which is about four feet off the front of the building Main Street, which is on the top of the plan. Our idea is to tie the penthouse into the existing circulation tower that is on the right side of the building which was a COA and added in 2015 as well. The materials and the roof line will match that circulation tower including the window style and the roof is proposed to just tie into the circulation tower roof. This page is renderings of what we are proposing to do. It's helpful to illustrate our intentions to tie the two buildings together. Michael, do you have anything to add? Yeah, nothing specific to add. I just wanted to make sure it was clear what the addition is and what the existing, I imagine most people are familiar with this building but to clarify that that tower is already existing and we would basically be fairly seamlessly tying into that and extending that out and then there is a pergola that would match the existing tower as well that would be mounted to it and also seamlessly transition there. Thank you both, thank you very much. Mr. Bishop, anything to add? Yeah, I was part of the original ownership team that had the COA submittals that had been approved in the 2000s team. I doubt that any of the board members was a part of those many meetings but there were multiple COAs that were submit approved, revised and approved, but by large what we wanted to accomplish back then was the tower was always to be part of this unilateral building addition that would go into the rooftop, the rooftop apartment place or the original owners to occupy as they make a little bit of their desire was to condo out the third floor, to rent it out, whatever it might be and being that they have a small two bedroom apartment, one bedroom apartment on the roof that they could go back and forth with depending on what kids lived at the time. They subsequently ended up making quite a bit of changes. They never built the structures that were there and at that point of leave we probably lost our COA abilities around 2018 when we've had following COAs that happened as the second was completed. So the original COAs just, I guess, had their inset dates at a point. And so this is from perspective as the part of the building team that happened in those two to the team 2018, this is the same effective extension of what we're looking at and completing the roof line across from the tower, structs cross having the open deck, having the consistent system of tier use. So this is predominantly we were looking at doing the previous approvals. Thank you very much. Anything else to add before I open the floor to question from the commissioners? Okay. Following what's existing and what's new, I'm wondering if we could walk it through one more time with Carlos sort of using your pointer to outline as we go. This is new right here. This was already approved and built. This over here is the new addition. And then this right back here is the terrace with pool. Well, this is the pool and there's a terrace behind the addition, which is right here. Okay. Thank you. This is the front of the addition. So facing, am I correct on that? No, this might be actually a back. That's no pointer before that one. So basically this right here. This is beside the stair tower. Okay. This is already existing, this triangular structure here. This stair tower is existing. This addition is new. Okay. Thanks. Your commissioner Feesam and other commissioners with questions for the applicant. Actually have another one about the slope on that pergola. The words that you said, where it would be sort of the same and would tie in, but visually it looks like it's a different slope. Can you explain what's going on there? Nick, I'll let you confirm, but I believe that's just how it's showing on the rendering. I guess actually that tower has a bit of a slope currently, but we would tie in at a level area that it would stay a standard uniform height across. But I believe partially that's just the way it's looking. It looks in the rendering, but it would be an uneven level height across with where the deck area is. The roof of the tower is sloped, but the pergola would be flat. Actually, technically the back end of the tower, the flat spot on, there's an area that we have like a three foot kick where it's to be flat originally we did that so that we could tie in a flat that's covered pergola area on their real COA. This is about the same though, the difference on that is that the slope of the roof structure that's coming off of the denuition is going to continue a slope process, which is pretty cool, but our original COA, we were going to come across their dead flabble and that's kind of why we tied that tower, but we had a small, small back rear of it, a small flat action that we could pull together or a pergola that was approved in the previous COA. So this pergola is the same configuration, but this pergola is actually a slight bit of it. We had some more, I don't know how to describe it. It was a French architectural term for some cutout out panels, but this one's more common bomb in place and it's more standard-handered. Is the Andy Gould be, can we turn a piece of memory? Hey, are you satisfied with your questions? I'm not satisfied, but. Well, I didn't have a question for this, but for the pool deck, it appears that it's going to be over part of the addition that was put onto the structure, or the addition that was put onto the building a number of years ago, but to get down into that, will you be needing to remove part of the existing parapet to be able to walk down into this pool? Yes, so the current design of this is that there's an addition on the parapet wall that's removed. We won't actually walk down into anything that will itself will be recessed into this new structural platform. So ideally what we're doing is we're going to leave the new addition and it'll be a flat platform across in the pool as it's recessed. So there'll be a section of parapet wall that's removed. If I'm not remembering, the parapet section is more of the top cap than it is anything. We do have to confirm some structural elements on how the beams are going to land. Predominantly, the beam structure is going to reside exclusively on our, that's how we originally designed the tower to hold roof loads so that we can grow it later. So this whole structure, it's itself going to not tie itself into structurally into the buildings that used to be free stand with towers, the towers. But yes, there will be a small section of the parapet that's pulled down so that we can have a flat entrance into the pool deck. The pool will be really recessed on into the deck itself. And this was not part of your original COA, correct? This would be a new request. That's complicated. I guess we had a lot of labor visions. There were some revisions that we showed some parapet wall removal back. I don't know if any of you looked at the history of it, but at one point we had an airstrip that we were looking to put on top of the roof with a large roof deck that would tie back to the parapet wall and it had some removal. So this, I actually feel like this is probably one of the least interest into this, the historic elements elements we had from some of the original COA approvals. Because again, we're going to put down to use the tower structure for it to free stay. Okay, thank you. Thank you, Vice Chair. Goolsbee and Commissioner Feaselman. Any other commissioners with questions for our applicants? Seeing and hearing from no other commissioners, I will ask if there is anyone here today who has signed up to speak in opposition to this proposal. Seeing and hearing from nobody, I will close the public hearing and open the floor for commissioner discussion of this application. Vice Chair Goolsbee and Commissioner Feaselman, you asked a few questions. Do you feel like those questions were answered? Mostly because the sound feedback, I'm still not totally following. Andy, if you are, can you just at a super high level recap one more time, what's happening? Andy, you're muted. Thank you, sorry about that. Oh, shit. One second, please. All right. So, Laura, I don't know how familiar we are with this project. What's there now, and was added a couple of years ago, a number of years ago, is a stair tower in the lower right-hand image is probably the clearest image of what's there now, which included an entry hallway and an elevator and stair tower that rises vertical and gets you up to the roof deck level. And the addition in the back is also there. So there's this taller vertical piece and then there's the two, I'll call them saddle bags on each side of it. So that's there now. Okay, everything has the stripes in it, is already there. That's right. Okay. And in over the years, there's been some exterior improvements too, I think, to the left of this, kind of not necessarily a garden, but some, I mean, they've cleaned it up a fair bit. I think it looks pretty attractive what's there on the left-hand side now. And from my understanding, the original CLA continued part of that stair tower over the roof of the existing building, the brick building, and it was a penthouse there. That work was not done, but had been approved by the original CLA. When the work's not done, that eventually becomes void and they're coming again to recommission this work or get a fresh CLA for the work. With some slight variances, you know, things that I've heard are, you know, a little bit of changes, maybe in the windows. Again, I'm getting broken things too, but in what I can tell from the staff report, some little bit of changes in the windows, maybe some changes in the sighting. You know, I think what I'm hearing is they wanna continue the roof pitch for the penthouse. And, but for the perla itself, it'll, once it comes down to its lowest portion, it's gonna come out flat over a pool deck. The pool deck is gonna extend over the back addition. So, Carl, if you can point back to that lower right-hand corner, lower image, excuse me. Yeah, so you see this light can piece that Carl is pointing to right now? That would be new work and it's gonna come out over an existing roof and be a pool deck. To do that, they're requesting to remove portion of a parapet and then, if I understand correctly, come out flat basically onto a pool deck. And because this just previously approved, the structure's already prepared to hold a pool right there? Yeah, it's, I might look to the app there real quick and you can just nod your head. You guys have structured that appropriately for this project. Okay. But for what I'm hearing is that that pool deck is gonna be free-standing and not relying on the existing building. It's gonna rely on that addition that was put on a couple of years ago. Thanks. And to the applicants, I know y'all said all that. I just was getting so much feedback that I couldn't be sure how long to follow. So thank you, Andy, for the recap. I appreciate the recap as well. Do either of you or any other commissioners have any concerns about what is being proposed and how the design elements jive with our criteria? I'm concerned about the cut and the parapet. And do we have an image of that, Carla? Yeah, that wasn't something that I was aware of. So maybe the applicant could let me know where that was stated. Do we have an image of the existing parapet that would need to be removed? I'm happy to go to Google Street View. That would help. Why don't I just do that? Okay. As the commissioner will be further for the app. We just know where we're headed down with this is when pieces are added on the buildings if it was ever to be removed, the existing parapet to be intact. But for this addition to your move, I mean, it's still gonna have that whole there. So that's a piece we're going to discuss. Well, Carla's formed that up. Yeah, I'm not finding where my, I'm not sure how I can do this. I'm not seeing where I can share my internet. It's not giving me the option. So maybe it's not showing on my windows. There we go. Okay. And it's a little bit narrow in here. I'm not sure if I can get the view entirely. I assume it looks like that, but it's on the other side. But this is what we're looking at. It looks like there's some, is that terracotta coping? Vice Chair Gillespie is the criterion in particular that you'd be concerned about here. B1 in the downtown district's chapter of our criteria. It is not appropriate to modify character defining original roof forms or is there something else that might be implicated? Let me double check. One it's popping out of my head is about additions and things were to be removed. Okay. And also a general criterion about minimal impact to start materials. It would be in section A general. I think what you're referring to Carla is A3 undertake new additions and alterations to the structure in a manner that if they were to be removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the original structure would be unimpaired when attaching to the structure all to historic building material to the minimum extent possible. Correct. And so my question would be, is it essential to remove that parapet to build this structure? Y'all, I'm looking at a listing from photos from a unit that was for sale and found this image of the parapet that is pretty good though you can't see it the way I'm holding it. What it is there. If you want to put the link to it in the chat I can go to it. Okay, sure. That's a better idea Carl. It's the basically the second to last photo on the photos included with the listing. Well, you have a faster computer than I do. I'll try loading it again but I may not be able to share it for you all. I apologize. It may be that you gave me a link that is generic and it didn't actually go to the listing. I don't mean to distract us as this is one problem. We can move on. I don't know if I've got a, I think I've got an image that shows it. I just, I don't know if there's a way for me to submit it. If you put it in the, is it online? I might be able to put it online real quick. Let's see here. Oh, wow. It's on my phone, but I'm sharing too. Let's see, let me warm up here. So our tech manager just sent a photo. I'm gonna share my team's app so that you can see that. I think I'm still sharing, so maybe you saw it. Okay. And I'm hopeful, I think I might have sent that as a direct message. Hold on. Hopefully that- Are you all able to see my screen right now? We just see your Google map. Okay, I'm gonna stop my share and- So what area are we talking about? Where would the pool deck go? Just where it would go. Yeah, yeah, that's correct. So the deck would be on top of the roof of the lower portion of the addition and the pool itself would be on the roof of the building, the original building. Is that right? No, every, all of that, all of those components would be on the new tower. There'll be an extension built vertical on the new tower, structural addition there, and that's where it will all rest. So the pool and the deck would be on top of the addition, but the penthouse space itself will be on top of the roof and the travel from the penthouse to the new pool and deck is what would require the parapet cut. Is that right? I'll let Mike or Nick comment on that to clarify, but in general, yes, the new residents would be on the rooftop and I don't want to comment on the parapet change because I'm not that familiar with exactly how that's being done, but if Mike or Nick have any thoughts on that. Nick, I think we can't hear you. I don't know if you're, are you able to, maybe I don't know if you're on a desktop or if you're able to go without your, nope, okay. Anything you can, any comments you can put in the chat then, perhaps. And I think, Mike Bishop, we also can't hear you. I'm not sure. And then I guess just for the record, can you read what he wrote in the chat? I know that's annoying, but we have to have the audio. Understood. So the parapet cut would be four feet wide. The cut would not go all the way down the existing roof line just a notch down. I have a question. Why would this be essential to cut the parapet? And is there a way to construct it without doing that? Mike or Nick comment on that. Mike, I can't tell if you're trying to talk, but chat. And if either of you want to type into the chat, I can read it out. So according to the clearances of the roof line, you do not leave enough room for steps over the parapet. Karla, can you hear me now? Okay, I'm just gonna call in on the cell phone real quick. Sorry about that, y'all. Yeah, we can hear you. I want to go back. So I tried to say this earlier, but I don't think anyone heard us. When we did their original COA, we did a pretty major modification to egress pathway so that we could reduce the door cuts that went in and out of the building structure. We were adamantly aware of how important it was to make sure that we modified this building to the least possible. We built the structure, it's a free stand. We modified quite a bit of the structure and how it... Not entered any number. The building in a way so that we could come up and do modifications to the parapet. Two of the parapet cuts that we were gonna need was the door leading on to the roof structure, partly because of the height restrictions in the historic district to allow for the tower structure to be to the height that it currently is. So we did a lot of modifications previously in the 2015 approvals to make sure that we had enough leeway to make parapet cuts to come back out and meet for floor structures. There's some floor structures that are inside the tower that allow us to come in and out directly. And so being able to modify the structure into later date in a way that was least impactful, that's kind of what we did. If I remember right, we removed almost 450 or almost, maybe 500 square feet of brick removal that we needed previously. And we also reduced beam pockets in the walls by nearly 20 pockets so that the tower free stood. So we did a lot of that work. I understand that now we're talking about a new COA so we have to look at it independently. But a lot of what we did previously was so that we could remove some of this parapet to access a deck or a new structure across the backside of the building. This is Andy Kulesby, can you just clarify one thing? You said, I got a little confused when you were talking about cuts in the existing when you did the original edition. Did you just cut for that parapet for a doorway or did you cut it for the full length of the stair tower that's shown here in the image? So right now the only cut that we made was for the doorway. And just like Nick says, it's not a full cut. I think it was, because every bit of that up there is block works. I think it was two blocks that we removed so we could get the doorway in. So there's a four foot wide by probably 16 inch deep cut if I'm right. And we maybe we only removed one section of block. Don't quote me on that, but I know that there was no more than four foot wide so that we could get the door access in. Thank you. I'm gonna re-close the public hearing so we can continue discussion amongst commissioners. With respect to criteria B one, I suppose I'm a little dubious that where they're intending to cut and the degree to which they cut would result in a modification to a character defining original roof form, particularly where it's located. And so I'm not sure if I'm troubled by B one. And then with respect to A three, when attaching to the structure, all to historic building material to the minimum extent possible, they're talking about another, sounds like four foot cut, and it sounds like what has previously been made as a four foot cut. So again, I'm not sure I'm troubled by that amount of removal, but those are just my thoughts and one here what others have to say if there are other criteria that other commissioners or Carla think might be implicated by this alteration to the roof form, then I think we should discuss it. The mission to Calhoun, it's my understanding at this point that you're gonna go up with the new addition, somehow put a swimming pool and a lounge area up there and then a two bedroom apartment on the roof of the historic building. Is that correct? Yes, ma'am. Simply spoken, is that correct? Yes, ma'am. All right, I'm opposed. Absolutely. If I can provide a little bit of clarification when we say swimming pool, it's, you know, I think when I think swimming pool, I think like a, you know, Olympic pool, this is a prefab swim spa. It's not a full-on pool. That makes any difference to anyone. And that's going on the addition, is that right? Yes, ma'am. And then a two bedroom apartment on top of the roof of the historic building. Yes, ma'am, but it's meaning that it's... The original health department building. Yes, ma'am. Yes, ma'am. Disagreeing that it's that. All right, so focusing on the conversation in an attempt to try to move things forward, we've heard an expression of disapproval from Commissioner Calhoun. I'm curious if other commissioners have issues with the proposal other than the pool deck issues and the cut into the parapet wall, such that if this were put to a vote with the deck potentially exiled some proposal, would it not garner enough support? Are there other commissioners like Commissioner Calhoun that are troubled by the proposal outside of the parapet wall issue that we're talking about? I guess it's probably an easier way of asking the question. Well, so Mr. Chairman, we haven't really discussed the addition that the pool is gonna sit in, and it appears to be different materials and a different look from the stair tower. I'd like a little, maybe just to look at that and understand why it's not wrapped in the same stuff that sort of will make it disappear versus it looks like it's something that's gonna stand out a little bit over there. Carl Rosenberg Planning Department, I did bring up the issue of that trex material being more of a residential material, perhaps not meeting the criteria and the applicant did propose an alternative of using the same metal. I don't know if I'm able to share my opinion at this point, but my thought on it was that the trex actually echoed the natural brick more readily than the metal, and that adding more metal only compounds that sort of massive structure there. And I actually think that the trex would be more fitting, even though it isn't strictly, it's not really a material that you'd find downtown. I'm sorry, this is Commissioner Hamilton. So the trex is being used as the facade treatment, not the pool deck, right? It's using as the facade treatment on the pool area. And that's the preferred, but the applicant is willing to use the similar dark metal that is used on the stair tower if the commission would prefer that. I would also, I don't know if I can point out, but this is that back section. None of this is visible from the street, but I went by yesterday and looked again, and that area is not visible from either Main Street or Rocksboro. Carly, can you please do us a favor of pulling up some pictures? I want to just flesh this out a little bit. While she's doing that, Andy, what are your thoughts on trex as a facade material? While you're thinking of that, let me just quickly point out that we've got this picture that shows the trex material and my packet at least has either a painted trex material or metal earlier in the pictures. Same area, different. Yeah, I did include, I thought I put it at the end, but I did include an image that shows using the dark material instead. I think it's earlier than where you just were. Can you give me a page number? Again, I'm using hard copy, so I don't know. There it is. Here it is. Now this shows some vertical striations, but that is not going to be evident. It's just a solid black panel. Okay, so sorry, Vice-Chair Gulsby. Oh, no, I think one thing to double-check is that it can be used on, based off your building type of construction. We've had this in a couple other multi-family buildings where you can only use a trex-like material up to a given height. Hey, it's something to just look into. I can't remember off the top of my head, but it would need to be confirmed with the building code if trex itself can be used. My, I'll be honest, my personal opinion is in the downtown area that it is not an appropriate use of material to have it as a siting. Not to say that it's, you know, couldn't be appropriate for this project, but again, that's my personal opinion. It is a more residential material. I do agree with Carla. I think it was Carla who used to say that. It is a residential material. And so I think I would actually lean more towards that that it would be on the residential side, which are criteria do not allow that. I would point out that the pictures in the bottom right-hand corner of these two sets of pictures that we've looked at do actually show, I guess, from a bit of a distance what they would look like with the two different treatments. So what we're seeing on the screen now shows it with the black. And then if we go back to where we just were Carla, I think it's actually, yep, there you go. Maybe blow that up. There it is with the lighter material. And I can see what you meant by echoing the brick Carla, just sort of comparing that back corner with the front of the building. But I'd be inclined to agree with Vice Chair Gulsby on the appropriateness of the treatment in a downtown district. Again, to keep the conversation moving, are there other concerns shared by commissioners similar to what we heard from Commissioner Calhoun about the sort of proposal writ large other than the pool deck issues that we've discussed involved in the parapet wall and the treatment of the proposed facade for that pool deck area? That suggests to me that there is a consensus among a majority of the commissioners for the addition itself. Let's focus the attention then or the discussion on the pool deck. Do any commissioners have any suggestions as to how we might be able to tackle that issue today? So that we could potentially move forward either on a portion of the COA or is there sufficient support for the proposal, including the removal of the four feet worth of parapet wall? Carla, is there a section or elevation of, I guess, the backside of the building help me understand? Let's see, that's close to the gate, isn't it? Because to me, I question whether or not, given it's a pool deck, that it couldn't be more of a raised pool deck, given you would only have to go 18, 16 inches up higher. You'd have a little bit of difference in your ceiling height or your pergola, and one of the images made it look like it was higher than what it's shown in this elevation. It was more in line with the slope roof. We talked about it on our lab scheme where we landed, but the difference there would be, you also would be raising your guard real height that same extent. So if they had a raised pool deck, you'd be raising that guard rail, that glazed guard rail up with it. But I'm not opposed to seeing a raised pool deck. There'd have to be a couple of steps to walk over the parapet as opposed to coming into it. Add to, I'm not opposed to the existing proposal for the pool deck. I think the four foot wide parapet is, again, I tried to think of the visibility aspect, and we're talking about the rear corner is already gonna be covered as is by the pool and with the additional top. But I do like Commissioner Gulswi's suggestion of even raising it to avoid cutting. But I'm good with Ina, I think the impact is minimal. This is Commissioner Gulswi and just to say, I think my concern about cutting the parapet is even though it had been done before for the door, is that with the addition of this pool deck, and we're continuing to chip away at the parapet. I can live, I can sleep with a doorway, I can probably sleep with this too, but I'd love to see as much of the parapet remain as possible. This is Commissioner Hamilton. I just wanna note that the evidence we were given said the clearance of the roof line does not leave enough room for steps over the parapet. So is your thought that the steps would have to be beyond the existing roof line? Because I'm thinking that's where the clearance issues coming in since that is coming down. Is it? Yeah, I'm not convinced based off what we had having drawings, that's the case. I would need more information to prove to me that it couldn't be done. I mean, to me it looks like a couple of steps off of where their patio is on the left-hand side. That if it really is 16 inches, that you would raise the pervula, and you may have, I mean, it might have to be six foot eight clearance between the pervula and the deck, but just appears that they have it in the drawings and we need to be convinced otherwise. Let me just clarify for a second. I think someone said roof line. I think what they actually meant was floor line. Again, we're gonna use the tower as part of the structural element to be able to recess the deck. The floor line of that tower is what's gonna receive the structural elements to the roof decks or in a tie to the beam lines. And the beam lines exist at where the door line is. So the pull deck is in line with the floor line of the tower. So when we tie the structural steel together back into the tower, the way that it was previously designed, it's all one level. By picking the pull deck up, we're gonna then be super imposed over top of the floor line and we'll have a different structural problem. We're struggling to make some of these racking designs work unless we can tie directly into that floor line. And that's pretty ubiquitous across some structural elements, especially with a building this tall. So the idea is, as you can see, there's the floor line is in line with the floor structure of the tower. So I think someone said roof line, but we meant picking it up above the floor line would be problematic. So this pull is in line with the floor of the tower. I'm just going back through the printed materials and noting that the previous approval had the pergola and deck on the roof of the original structure, not on the addition with no pool, which feels like just in my own mind, a major shift from what was originally proposed. I know that doesn't quite fit with the conversation where we are right now, but I just wanted to note it. I feel like with the evidence presented, I'm overall okay other than the treks siding, which I just, I can't get over. It's just too residential and not appropriate here. Not appropriate here. So I understand what Carla is saying about the massing. So maybe it's just that it's a different, more durable, like appropriate for downtown material, but it still mimics the color of the brick or something to break up the massing, but not use treks as the material to do it. I don't know if that would be a reasonable solution and Carla and Andy and anybody else's who's concerned, but I mean to me that seems like a good compromise between the two. Yeah, I'd be happy to review another, if the applicant wants to share a third material that kind of compromises between those two. I'd be happy to review that staff approval. Actually sent Nick a link this week because we've been having conversations around this. The reason for us wanting to do that treks is what we've talked about. It allows that massing to kind of dissipate a little bit. It's a lot of black on black with the way that the tower is. So the treks concept was that gives us a durable wood that I don't have to go up for stories to replace every three to five years on behalf of our owner. Like we want this to be a really durable long-term product, but this week we did find flat panels that are made to the same width and striation as the existing tower panels. However, they come in wood grain and slate grain. So that would allow us to do the same metal siding, but we could do a different coloration and different graining so that it will allow us to kind of roll back into that lighter color and dissipate the way that we wanted to previously. If the council wanted to make an approval with an exception that allowed us to come back for approval of that one panel that would, I think that'd be sufficient for us, but we definitely have a panel that we've looked at and that we like that can do the job. Mr. Calhoun, that would be better. If I can, it just looks like something reached over and grabbed a whole of this historic building on my own property, because this is not a factory building. At all, it's not the building that did it, if this is, you know, it looks like something you're trying to dobble up in a historic building. Carlo, what kind of conditional language might you recommend for this issue? Well, the condition would be that applicant will use a material for the swimming pool, cladding subject to staff approval. No, Carlo, don't go approving tracks. Understood. Understood. Is there any other commissioner discussion? Carlo, do you have a staff recommendation? Carlo Rosenberg, planning department. Just, I was not aware of the parapet removal. I wish that had been clear in our pre-submiddle meeting, and I know the applicant has worked diligently to make sure that this could be adjudicated today. I do have relevant reservations about the staff. I'm sorry, about the parapet removal. Per Commissioner Gouldsby's remarks about it chipping away. Apart from that, I recommend approval of the application with the staff approval of the cladding. Carlo, would you be in favor of suggesting to the applicant holding this case in advance to provide them an opportunity to provide a potential alternative design on the issue of the parapet wall? That would definitely be up to the applicant because I know that they wanted an adjudication at this hearing, so we'd need to get their opinion on that and maybe a straw poll of how the commission will rule on this today. I mean, I'm happy to conduct the straw poll to move this forward. Obviously we would need four out of seven votes in order to approve the request for a COA. And I will go ahead and pull myself first and say that I am in a position to support the proposal as it currently exists with the condition that staff approve the material for the cladding in the swimming pool area. But before we put it to a vote and potentially have it not approved by a majority of the commission, which would require a one year waiting period to reapply, are there three other commissioners who are prepared to approve the proposal with the cladding condition, but no other changes? Looks like Katie in April and... You said approved, right? We would be willing to, sorry. Yeah. I'm on the fence, Matt. And Laura's on the fence, so. If we were... Maybe if we could... Sorry. Go ahead, Carla. I was just gonna say, maybe if we could get clarification from the applicant, what would be involved in rebuilding this parapet should this pool deck be removed in the future, what would be needed to restore this parapet? Oh, I can actually talk to that. We actually saved quite a bit of the brick from a lot of the other demolishing work that we had to do in 2015. I would recommend that we were to maintain the outside brick and then putting back in the four sections of blocks and bringing the brick back up and then maintaining that cap. I think that that would be about two days worth of work if we were to need to do that and we'd be happy to maintain those materials on site. Y'all have a wild card idea. If you've got a bunch of existing brick already and we're taking some out of the parapet, is there a way to use that to clad the side of the pool thing so that the original building and the pool cladding are in conversation? We definitely don't have that much. We've got enough to maybe infill a window, which is what we had to do previously. I think that that's what we used. I'm almost 100% sure that's what we ended up using for refilling a window that had been removed previously. So I don't think that there's any brick remaining from the original structure, but I know that we can maintain what we pull off of this so we could put back what we take out. If even a portion of it could be used for just several rows, at least it would remain under commission jurisdiction as an exterior material as opposed to stored in a basement where we don't have jurisdiction over it anymore. I'm sorry, Carl, I missed that last piece, could you? Yeah, so once the material is removed, even if it's stored on site like in a basement, it's not an exterior material that that commission can keep track of. But if it's kept in use, then it can remain under commission jurisdiction, if that makes sense. And would there be enough material to clad the area in, Rick? Well, so he's saying there's not enough to fully, but I was mentioning maybe even if a couple rows, you know, just do like a base two rows and then use a different cladding above it or something like that. Find a way to incorporate it. I think we're talking about roughly six to eight feet of exterior face aside being removed. So four foot wide roughly, I wanna say it's gonna be about 16 inches, but let's go with two feet just for conversation. So we're talking about eight ish for a feet of brick removal. This commission goes to, I actually would not advise using it on the pull deck. It's already kind of a feat to have this pull out there, but also just support the brick. And then we're starting to mix materials because we've got two feet of brick, then we've got another material, which is a, I went to Virginia Tech, but I like to use this phrase, it's a bit hokey. So. Good point. But just to reiterate, once it's removed, we really can't say whether they're gonna reuse it again in the future. So we, there's really no condition we can impose. Not in terms of- I'm sorry, Carla, is there somewhere we could use, somewhere else on the rooftop, we could use it, just as, I don't know, anywhere, just so that you would be able to keep that jurisdiction as opposed to trying to use it on the siding, just use it somewhere else on the rooftop. We could increase the height of the rear. It was an abandoned smokestack that was in the back corner. If you can see it stood up in that corner, it's probably three foot by foot. We could cap that off and raise that up a little bit. And it's actually integrated with the parapet wall in that back corner. So, you know, it would effectively be raising that up. Say a foot, that'd probably three quarters of brick. So done. Yeah. Mr. Bishop, I'd be adding the removed parapet wall brick to what architecture feature now? There's just that old, there used to be like a cold shoot in the building and there was a boiler. So that would have been smokestack off the boiler. And that was abandoned, I think in the 1950s, 1960s, if that's sure off the top of memory. And so all they did was just put a metal cap on top of it so we could pull the metal cap and bring the smokestack up, you know, probably a foot. But it'd still be, I think it's only maybe three foot above the parapet line now, so talking four foot above parapet line. I don't know that it's a particularly wonderful solution, but I mean, it is. I mean, the real question is whether or not it's enough of a solution to garner a fourth and clenching vote for the proposal, which right now does not appear to be there. And I am loathe to have a vote that could result in a disapproval by this commission that would require a year's wait. And so it would seem to me to be risky to put this to a vote at this moment. Applicant? I do just want to reiterate in the 2015 applications when we did the tower, we removed roughly 11 doors and a couple window openings that we applied for in bean pockets. It was nearly 500 square foot of brick that we were able to maintain and keep for this exact reason. I know that it doesn't matter today. I know that old historic COAs, but in the essence of what we're trying to do here, we've done the work in previous years to allow us to latitude of being able to work with the parapet walls when we got to this point. So again, a 500 square foot offset to the historic building as opposed to the eight square feet that we're asking for today. I think that we've done, I think we've done our due diligence the right way to make sure that we're maintaining the historic integrity of the building. And I'd like to think that there's some agreeable place that we can reuse that brick or hold that brick that would help us get an agreement here. It seems like there should be plenty of options on the rooftop where this could go to satisfy that requirement. Mr. Hinderlander, I don't disagree. The question is whether or not we can accomplish that during this commission meeting or whether it might make sense to hold this vote in advance to allow those details to be submitted to this commission and garner that fourth and critical vote. Matt, I'm in a spot where if Carla can work with the applicants to find an agreeable place to use the removed brick on the exterior roof and that we can make that a condition of approval today, I can say yes to this. Carla, is that within your jurisdiction? Yes, I can work with the applicant on that. I am curious whether we have the, you said it was 500 square feet of brick that had previously been removed and that is still available? They removed that from their application. That was not a brick that we removed. We removed the request to remove that brick from a previous application. So we were able to redesign it in a way where we... Oh, got it, got it, got it. ...building by 500 square foot of brick removal. Okay. So that 500 square foot of brick is still remaining in the building. Good, okay. Phew. Carla, Carla, is your recommendation to approve the proposal with your approval for the cladding for the material for the swimming pool area? Yes. Does that stand with this additional condition? Correct, both conditions. Okay. Is there any further commissioner conversation? Matt, you're on top of the conditions. I'll do the best I can. Okay. The Durham Historic Preservation Commission finds that in the case COA 220016306 East Main Street Edition, the applicant is proposing a rooftop addition and pool deck to a contributing structure. The addition will measure approximately 1600 square feet and we set back 54 feet from Main Street and 20 feet from Roxborough Street. It will be clad with alternating light and dark gray pre-finished metal panels. A pool deck will be located directly above and inset from the existing stair tower and clad with a material to be approved by city staff. A 42-inch guardrail of glass and steel wall frame. Excuse me. A 42-inch guardrail of glass and steel will frame the pool deck and a modest rear-facing terrace, which will be covered by a black aluminum pergola and a roof overhang respectively. Four HVAC units measuring six feet square and three feet, six inches tall will be installed in front of the addition at the center of the main roof. Therefore, the conclusion of law is that the proposed addition and alterations are consistent with historic character and qualities of the historic district and are consistent with historic properties, local review criteria, specifically those listed in the staff report and the Durham Historic Preservation Commission approves the certificate of appropriateness for case COA 2200016306 East Main Street addition with the following conditions. One, the improvements shall be substantially consistent with the plans and testimony presented to the commission at this commission hearing and attached to the COA. Two, the improvements may require additional approvals from other city or county departments 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. Three, a compliance inspection shall be performed immediately upon completion of the work approved herein. Four, cladding for the pool deck shall be approved by city staff. And five, the applicant shall submit a proposal to city staff for the reuse of materials removed from the parapet wall for staff approval. Can we add to that such that the bricks could be used to rebuild the parapet in the future just so that we have a record of why that's being done? That is fine. Do we have a second to the motion as modified by Carlo? Commissioner Hamilton second as modified. Clerk Holmes, if we could conduct a roll call vote please. All right. Chair Bouchard. Approved. Commissioner DeBarry. No. Commissioner Feeselman. No. You said approved. Yeah, approved. All right. Vice Chair Gulsby. No. Commissioner Hamilton. Approved. Commissioner Johnson. Approved. Commissioner Calhoun. No. Motion approved. Four to three. Applicants, thank you very much for your time today and for your presentation. Good luck with your project. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Fellow commissioners, I note that we have reached 1145, and I think Tatt has already dropped. Commissioner Feeselman has until noon. Let's move into our next case and see if we can get through it here while Commissioner Feeselman is still with us. We're down to six. What is quorum with a commission of seven? Do we need to have at least four? I believe that's correct. I think it's five, but let me double check. Okay. Thank you, Krista. In the meantime, let us now continue on and hear case COA 220, excuse me, COA 220017, this is 2518 Englewood Avenue, new construction of accessory structure. Before we hear from staff, is there any one of our commissioners who have a conflict of interest in hearing this case? Seeing and hearing none, let us proceed to the swearing in of anyone who plans to speak for this case. Chair, sorry, I was just gonna jump in and clarify. So quorum is five and an approval is simple majority. So, okay. Thank you, appreciate that. 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? Maybe Cole Pepper, yes I do. And Ms. Cole Pepper, do you consent to having this hearing conducted via this remote electronic platform? Yes. And before we proceed with the staff report, there is a hand raise. I don't know if that's Chris Peterson. Yes, Chair, this is Chris Peterson. JB, I had another, the individual that was with you. I don't see them anymore. They dropped out just as I was trying to promote them to panelists. I'm still here. Oh, good. Okay. And who is there? Yeah, I'm Joe Barini. So he needs to be renamed. He came back as JB Cole Pepper. That's what was listening to me up. He came back and he got named JB again. Let me try to get him on video and renamed. Thank you. I lost the volume and I had to shut it down and it came back after I signed back and Joe for the record, could you please play your last name? B-E-R-I-E-N-I. B-E-S-N-B-O-D. And Mr. Barini, I'm going to have you take the oath here from our clerk, I'm going to Holmes. Do you swear or affirm at 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 Mr. Barini, do you consent to having this case heard by the electronic remote platform we're using today? Yes, I do. Wonderful. Thank you. Carla Stafford Court, please. Hey, Carla Rosenberg Planning Department, this is case COA 22-0017, 25-18 Englewood Avenue, new construction on the accessory structure, the applicant, JB Cole Pepper, the owner is Rainbow Trout Investments LLC, located on the northeast quadrant of the intersection of Georgia Avenue and Englewood Avenue, it's owned Residential Urban 5. It's a non-contributing property within the Watts-Hillendale Historic District. So the applicant is proposing to construct a new accessory structure of approximately 450 square feet and also perform associated site works such as removing some trees, extending a wall, et cetera. I'd like to introduce the staff report into the record and invite Ms. Cole Pepper to present her case. Thank you, Carla. I'll be fast, could you put up the plot plan at the end of the, so the new ADU is proposed in accordance with the city's Expanding Housing Choices Initiative and we're proposing a new ADU meeting the approval criteria for historic districts for a non-contributing structure, including placement, scale, height, massing, design and materials, landscaping and lighting. The unit is clearly subordinate to the main structure. As Carla mentioned, we're at about 456 square feet for the new ADU. The main house is 1,344 square feet approximately. The new ADU is one story. It's coming in at 15 feet, two inches while the main house is closer to 19 feet. And knowing the interest of the commissioner, we did take a look at the elevation, the sea level elevation and the main house is at 428.6 feet for a height above sea level and the proposed structure is at I think it's 427.1 feet above sea level. So, and I'll refer to the materials for a more complete description. I'm happy to answer questions and the builder Joe Berini is here with me today as well. Thank you very much, Ms. Culpepper. Mr. Berini, do you have anything to add to Ms. Culpepper's remarks? Not at this time. I do not have anything to add. In that case, I will open the floor for questions of the applicant from the commissioners. This is commissioner Bolsby. I don't know if you've reviewed a number of these kind of scale of ADUs. I mean, honestly, I haven't looked at it. I didn't go back and look at the previous submissions you've had. Can you help me understand how this one varies from others a similar scale that you've submitted? Because I know those other discussions have blended towards hoping that there'd be some differentiation between those structures and as well as how does it speak to the house that it is on this property? Yes, thank you for those questions. We have heard loud and clear those interests and concerns and have been very careful to not come in with any, you know, a same ADU. This one is designed looking to compliment the main structure, the duplex. And we're very aware of those interests and have taken special care to do that. Thank you, Carla. But you're making me dizzy. Yes, thank you. That's a good one just to show the six over six windows. We've been very careful to try to compliment the existing structure work with the area. Joe, do you want to add anything? Can you hear me? Yes. Okay. Yeah, just one other thing, this particular structure was the reason it's a little smaller it was designed to fit within the setbacks, the street yard setbacks and so it was restricted on size due to that. So that's why it's a little smaller than the last several ones that we have done. Okay, so if I may, so how is this one? You mentioned it, it compliments how I think you, the one thing I heard was the six over six windows which from this image are of a different proportion, at least in the height than what's on the original structure. So to me that doesn't compliment the existing structure. So how is this differentiating from other ones that you've put in the district or around and how does it compliment to this house, please? So Joe, are you able to talk about the difference between this particular ADU in relation to say the one going in over on Hale or I'm just... Well, I mean, the last one we did on the corner of Hale and 2113 Inglewood Avenue, that one was a story and a half structure. Right, and where the roof was, trying to remember that roof. Yeah, we did a little, we did a radius roof on that one on the front and back to match the existing structure at 2113 Hale Street. Right. Was there one, the one on Oakland, was that of this scale, one story, around five, six hundred square feet? Oh yeah, the one on Oakland was 800, I think it's seven, it's between 750, it was a little over 750 square feet. The one at Oakland and Hale, or Oakland and... I think it's the two bedrooms. This is a one bedroom. Joe? Two bedrooms, Inglewood and Oakland was one bedroom, but it was 750 square feet or so, roughly 300, this is 300 square foot smaller than that one was. And just to clarify the criterion that we're discussing here is whether the ADU architecturally follows the primary structure. Is that what you were looking at, Andy? That, and I'm also kind of curtailing off of our previous discussions as a full commission with this applicant about the ADUs. And I think Mr. Francine was on one time mentioned, there's only so many ways that we can do these things. I just agree with that statement, but I think there's gotta be some way that we're not just having cookie cutter ADUs put throughout the district. And so I wanna understand, again, off of those previous conversations, how this one is different and also how does it directly speak to the house because the accessory structure should compliment the existing. Right, it needs to be compatible with the architectural style of the primary structure. Yes, and we do feel that it is compatible with the style of the existing structure. Commissioner Gulesby, was your, do you have a concern about the dimensions of the windows? Well, I still feel like I've had an answer about how, you know, how are you doing it? I hear that you feel this way, but how are you accomplishing that? And yes, I do see in this elevation that's on the screen, if it were to come out and compliment the original house, why not use the same proportion of window on the accessory structure? Why have a taller window? No, that's the good one. I will say one of the windows is a egress window and it has to be of certain size. I'm not sure what, Carly, can you go to the floor plan so we can see what size windows these are? If you have a page number, that would be helpful. Are these the plans that you're mentioning? Yeah, you're getting close. It should be the next page, I would think. Next page, no, not the next page. Here's the first floor plan. Oh, I see it, okay, yeah, we're good, this is it. So those windows are actually in a bathroom, so. You said only one of the windows needs to meet egress? Well, the one in the bedroom, which that's on the rear elevation, so that's not a concern on the front, so. I mean, those windows could be made shorter, that would be no problem across the front elevation. Okay, let's just move on, I'm trying to figure it out myself. It does look like similar materials are used between the two structures. Gable, roof, form, they share a door, same style door. Let's hold that commentary if we could, Carla, to commissioner discussion. Are there other commissioners who have questions for the applicant? Seeing and hearing none, I will ask if there is anybody present today who has signed up to speak in opposition to this request. Seeing and hearing none, we can go ahead and open that conversation amongst commissioners. Carla, beyond what's in the staff report, and I see a reference to horizontal lap siding, single roof, dormer, brick foundation, six over six windows, six light over two panel door. Is there anything else you can say about how the ADU is complimentary of the main structure? Yeah, I mean, those are the main points. I think my thought was that, it is a very small scale structure, and so to mimic another Gable here might be going above and beyond. I mean, there are definitely things that they could do to tie in even more, but I thought that they were meeting that criterion based on my review. I do agree about the window proportion that that could be an easy fix to be more in line. Could that be a... This is a non-contributing structure, which I find this window disparity here to be actually distracting. I wouldn't want them to repeat that. Yeah. Yeah, I'm thinking about looking at this elevation. This condition will be the six over six window proportion. I think we'd compliment better on the smaller structure on the accessories. And are we confident that wouldn't create some sort of code issue with respect to egress if we were to impose a condition with the applicant's approval that the scale of the windows be the same as on the primary structure? Yes, Matt, the requirement is for bedroom windows. And when we looked at the plans, this was for bathroom and living room spaces. Okay. Let me ask the applicant then, if the commission were inclined to look favorably upon the application subject to a condition that the windows on the ADU be modified so that they are of the same scale as the six over six windows we see on the primary structure, would that be something that the applicant could live with? Joe, can you see any reason why we wouldn't want to agree to that? It seems reasonable to me. Yeah, I don't see any reason why that shouldn't work. We would agree. And one thing I noticed about these, there's a different header height. So maybe the difference in window height, this would remain the same, but maybe come down a little to match where the windows reach on the primary structure. Yeah, I see what you're saying there. Maybe, Carla, I would say that's a little bit more of a study because often the window heads align with the door. But also you don't want to make a sill height that's not usable either. Right, good point. Okay. This will be pushed back to the rear of the lot. So it won't be as visible as this side elevation of the primary structure. It's still street facing. It is street facing. So it sounds like we have agreement from the applicant to modify or rather to impose a condition upon the proposal whereby they would make the windows in the ADU of the same scale as six over six windows shown on plan G day two for the primary structure. Any other concerns, comments from commission members about any other aspect of the application or for that matter, this aspect of the COI. If not, I will ask for a staff recommendation. Carla Rosenberg planning department staff would recommend approval of the application with the condition that the windows proportions be changed to match those of the six over six windows on the primary structure. I'll go ahead and make a motion with things along. Durham Historic Preservation Commission finds that in the case COA 220017 2518 Inglewood Avenue new construction of accessory structure. The applicant is proposing a new accessory structure on a lot of a non-contributing structure. The accessory structure will be constructed with a brick foundation, seven-titious fiberboard siding, solid polyvinyl chloride, parentheses PVC closed parentheses trim, cellular PVC six over six double hung windows and an asphalt single roof. A three to five foot concrete wall will be extended along the East property line and parched in its entirety. Four mature trees will be removed and replaced with two new trees of the following varieties, crepe myrtle, flowering dogwood, redbud or American holly. A 30 inch tall painted wood picket fence will screen the accessory structures HVAC unit from view. Therefore the conclusion of law is that the proposed addition and alterations are consistent with the historic character and qualities of the historic district 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 22-00017-2518 Englewood Avenue new construction of accessory structure with the following conditions. One, the improvements shall be substantially consistent with the plan's testimony presented to the commission at this commission hearing and attached to the COA. Two, the improvements may require additional approvals from other city or county departments 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. Three, a compliance inspection shall be performed immediately upon completion of the work that we are in. And four, the window proportions for the new accessory structure shall match those of the six over six windows of the primary structure. Second. Thank you, Commissioner Johnson for the second. Senator Collins, if we could have a roll call vote, please. Chair Bushard. Approved. Commissioner Fieselman. Commissioner Fieselman. Okay. Vice Chair Gulsby. Approved. Commissioner Hamilton. Approved. Commissioner Johnson. Approved. Commissioner Calhoun. Motion passes five to zero. Thank you very much, Ms. Culpepper and Mr. Barini. Appreciate you working with us on the window issue and good luck with the project. Great, thank you and happy historic preservation month. I just got an email that says, thank you very much. Thanks for what you do. Thank you very much. So we are down to five commissioners. Oh wait, are we down to six? We're down to six commissioners. Nope, five commissioners. So let's all hang in there. We've got one case left on our agenda today. That would be case COA 220019 905 West Main Street modifications amendment. Before we hear from staff, is there any one of our commissioners who have a conflict of interest in hearing this case? Seeing and hearing none, let us proceed with a swearing in of anyone who plans to speak for this case. I'll just make a note since we're down to five, we would require three approval votes for this next case. So the applicant is, even though we are down several commissioners, it's still just a simple majority required. So it's three approval votes. Thank you. Chris Peterson has his hand raised. Before we swear into witnesses, let me see what is going on with Chris. Once again, we have two Marie, two of one individual Marie farmers in twice. Marie, did you share your link with someone else? Yes. Well, trials. His link wasn't working, but I think he was able to change his name. Looks like he just came in. There you go. Yep. Well, trials. Sorry about that. And I should have, I'm preregistered, but wasn't able to get my link to work. So. So Clark Holmes, if you go ahead and read the oath and then I'll just say by name, each person so we can do it in order. 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 police? Ms. Shwedler. I do. Ms. Farmer. I do. Mr. Atchison, we need you off mute. You are still on mute, sir. Yeah, sorry. I got my windows all messed up. I, I do. Mr. Gable. I do. Mr. Lyles. I do. And I will go one by one with a followup question. Do each of you consent to this hearing being conducted, utilizing this online electronic platform today? Ms. Shwedler. Yes. Ms. Farmer. Yes. Mr. Atchison. Yes. Mr. Gable. Yes. And Mr. Lyles. Yes. Thank you so much. Carla staff report, please. Okay. Carla Rosenberg planning department. This case COA 2200019, 905 West Main Street modifications. This is an amendment to a previous application. The applicant is Little, represented by Jason Gable and colleagues. There's the owner is Asana partners. It's located on the southwest quadrant of the intersection of West Main Street and South Gregson Street, zoned downtown design support one. And this is a historic landmark. It's not in a historic district. It's the Watts and Newell tobacco warehouses. So the applicant is proposing to remove and repurpose eight rows of brick. These were removed from the bottoms of four main door openings on the north elevation that faces Main Street, as well as remove the company sealed door sales. And then the applicant is also proposing to extend some original door jams, steel jams down to the bottom of their new openings. There was some discrepancies as to the original work requested. It's described in the staff report. But I'd like to introduce this staff report into the record and invite the team to present their case. And just let me know of a page number that you'd like me to jump to. I'm happy to do that. Great. Thanks so much, Carla. If it's our turn to go, I'll try to make this as efficient as we can. I know it's been a long meeting. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members of the commission. I'm Jamie Schwether with Parker Poet through in Fayetteville Street here on behalf of the applicants. We'd like to thank Carla and staff for working with us to get back before the commission. And we're here today requesting that the commission find our amended application consistent with the historic character and qualities of the historic landmark property as outlined by UDO 3.17 and 0.5 B5. UDO establishes the approval criteria for certificates of appropriateness for historic landmarks. And the commission is to take into account the historic architectural significance of the structure and the exterior form and appearance of any proposed additions or modifications such that it's in accordance with the principles and design review criteria adopted for historic landmarks. We do have several people here to speak and we'll try to be as efficient as we can. And before we touch on those three points, I'd like to turn it over to Welch Lyles with Asana to just make a few remarks about the intentions for this building. Thanks, Jamie. As we presented to many of you during the original COA hearing and presentation in 2020 for the now complete improvements, our intention has been and still remains to really be to preserve this building and the distinguished architecture features there mostly with the masonry detailing. But at the same time, we're working to activate Main Street and create a welcoming experience to retailers and their patrons. And this activation included the new openings and walkways that are in question and the preserving the arched openings and the masonry detail to more closely resemble what they were in 1904. While at the same time navigating the difficulties created by changes from improvements made in the 1980s and kind of the unknowns and up for scenes from removals of those improvements. So it was our understanding that the work we did was covered previously by the approved COAs. But we understand now that was not the case. The brick and sills that were removed and are in question today have been hidden from view for nearly 40 years by those 1980 improvements and leveling these openings to align with the entryway terraced and assist with accessibility was implied but the removal of those specific features was not fully identified and realized at the time. So we just wanted to provide some background on that and really apologize for that confusion and misunderstanding that's kind of brought us back here this afternoon. And we really have appreciated staff's guidance and help as we've attempted to kind of work through this and work through viable options to preserve all the original masonry. So with that being said, I'll turn it back over to Jamie and the rest of our team to really kind of get into the details. Thanks Welch. Let's do that at this time. I'd like to call first on Jason Gable followed by Marcus Ackerson to address the three relevant criteria that Carla has outlined in staff report. Jason? Good afternoon commissioners and Carla. I'm Jason Gable, local architect had a very good fortune of working on historic buildings in Durham since 1996 when I first started on West Village. So I have lots of experience working with SHPO and the National Park Service to rehabilitate these grand old heritage buildings. Brightleaf is no exception. In fact, it's at the top of my list. My mentor in this profession is Eddie Bell whom most of you must know and he was the architect on Brightleaf Square for the 1980 intervention when it was the very first ever tax credit project in the state of North Carolina. So this building and its rehabilitation is very important to me personally. We made the interventions that Welch referenced in 2020 to improve the accessibility along the North building which was only accessible, tenants on the ground floor were only accessible from the courtyard side of the building. So from the south side of the building. So on the main street side of the building we wanted to improve that condition and the design solution was to create an accessible path parallel to the facade of the building, parallel to the right way and to lift it up from the sidewalk about halfway between the sidewalk and the finished floor elevation. And in doing that, that was by our estimation the minimal extent to which we could get into the building in an accessible manner. There's just limited space between the right way and the side of the building. So this, the plinth as we referred to it along the path of the building helped us navigate and provide each bay of the building, four bays of the building and thus all of the tenant spaces on the ground floor of the building accessibility from the main street sidewalk. There are various diagrams in this application that I'm sure you've seen that allows us to do that. So the three main criteria that we were focusing on were under the general criteria about doing the minimum extent necessary to achieve the code required accessibility. So in our estimation, we did that. That leeway provided by the criteria is pretty general when it says minimal extent necessary, but it does not say that we can't remove anything or touch anything in order to achieve those things. It just says do it to the minimal extent possible. And we believe that we have done that. The second criteria that we were definitely cognizant of were the doors and doorways criteria, where we were maintaining all the doorways and door openings in their current location design shape along the facade there. We didn't move any of those. We didn't touch any of them there. Still rectangles with arched tops. And we have rerevealed those to closely resemble what they were in 1904, as Welch mentioned. The interventions from the 1980s were monolithic steps, tall guardrails, canopies that are now gone and now we can see what the building looked like in 1904. Sills is not one of the protected things by the criteria. It's not mentioned in the criteria. And similarly, the proportion is also not one of the protected criteria. So we have maintained them in their design shape location. We thought we touched them as lightly as possible to access the interior spaces. The third criteria is about exterior walls, trims and foundations. And to that effect, there's several there, but all the historic materials maintain its brick. It was only brick, it's still only brick. There's no new materials, no replacement materials, no infill materials. There's no new architectural details introduced that weren't already there. Thank you, Mr. Gable for summarizing how the criteria in A and E on the staff report, page four are satisfied. I'd like to next turn to Mr. Ackerson to briefly sum up the very last criteria addressed and using the slide on the screen or page 11 on the staff report as it suits. Great, thanks, Jamie. I hope you guys can hear me. Marcus Ackerson, I'm an architect with Little. I have a studio principal here for the workplace group which does keep all the historic preservation and the adaptive reuse among a series of other market sectors. I have a master's in architecture and have been working since 1994, don't do the math. I did wanna sort of point out that the original plan was to reuse those bricks. We had an idea to maintain that character and reuse it but it should be noted that we did actually bring it to the group's attention that they were just not possible. They were deteriorating, they're very soft. So we were able to take them and reuse them inside as an artistic and historic display. I think we have some of those images on page 23 of this report. Our plan all along was to retain that historic character. I think as everyone in this call loves this building, loves how it fits into the character of the town. And so with that, I think we really just wanted to add that flavor and that intent to do, I think what's required. So Jamie, I'll turn it back over to you. Thank you, Ms. Jackson. So based on these facts, this application is consistent with historic character and qualities of the original warehouses and the required changes are in harmony with the historic character aside to this, the reasons for its initial designation. The testimony you received establishes the proposed changes are appropriate given the architectural significance of the structure and the realities of modern ADA requirements and disintegration of the brick, which was not anticipated in full. It also supports that the exterior appearance of modifications is very similar to the original and the alterations were minimal. Finally, as the staff report notes, the essential form of the overall structure was not impaired by the slight modifications. And thus we respectfully request that the commission approve the proposed COA as amended. And thank you very much for your time. We're available to answer any questions. Thank you to everybody who has spoken in support of the application. Fellow commissioners, questions for the applicant? Seeing no hands raised and hearing no questions, I'll ask if there is anyone present who intends to speak in opposition to the application, seeing and hearing from nobody, I will close the public hearing and open the floor for discussion amongst the commissioners. Is there anyone who would like to kick us off? Commissioner Gould, it's a bit of a hard one because as much as we have talked about important buildings in the districts this morning and being very particular about the amount of paraphernalia taken off of a building today, this is kind of hard to me. The openings in the basement were maybe larger so the portions did change, but we're also kind of left with they were already done so this is what we have. Yeah, I don't know if I have much to say but I think it's a hard one for me right now. And I do believe this group has made the building more accessible so I appreciate that and I appreciate the work that the design's gone into it. I've asked brightly often and so I appreciate what you've done to make it more accessible for all people but wish we would add this kind of understood more in the original proposal. Thank you, Vice Chair Gouldsby. I share a lot of the sentiments and I think sort of playing off them question for Carla. What would be the consequence of not approving this application at this point? I mean, the work has been done. Some might say the damage has been done. So what is the consequence if this commission elects not to approve the COA? Well, the without, you know, COA approval will be considered in violation and therefore would need to be restored to what its original condition was but if materials are missing, then there could be, obviously we still have the brick but you know, if sills are missing, for instance, you would need to reconstruct or restore what was original and which has implications for the overall design. I was just gonna say which has implications for the overall design and whether should do so would fit in with what has already been constructed around it. I was gonna ask, I think there were some images of other projects where we've made larger openings in windows for doorways. I wonder if you can pull those up and let me just kind of absorb that a little bit more. So for instance, the first major COA that came where they extended doorways into, I'm sorry, windows into a doorway. I don't know if I included that because you had already seen it. I only included the COAs that you hadn't seen. Yeah, actually it was the one, it was an image you just had, I think COA page 10, 2004. So if you're on set now, maybe three or four down. Okay. I think page 22 might be what you're referencing, some similar buildings in the area. Yep. Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Lawson. Yeah, those are other. One back, Carl, 22, thank you. I just wanna remind myself what we've looked at in the past in terms of making some of these openings bigger. So these we didn't, these are not changing, right? These were part of a previous project, like early in the 1980 project, but were not touched during the most recent COAs under little. Well, these are actually different buildings, but of similar construction and architecture throughout the neighborhood. They just kind of give that precedent and show similar conditions where that floor and sill have been lowered. Well, those are other Durham historic tax credit projects in which existing exterior doorways were modified in a very, very similar manner. Let me reopen the public hearing for the purpose of getting some clarity on this. Were these openings lowered for accessibility reasons? They were lowered to make, yeah, exterior conditions with interior conditions. This commission goes to Matt. I'm familiar with the one, most familiar with the one on the right, the Venable Building. That's an egress stair that's on Pettigar Street. That's correct. No, the ones in the middle are American tobacco rebuilding and the ones on the left are West Village, phase two. And just to follow up on Vice Chair Ghoulsby's point, we understand that they're the discomfort and that this has already occurred and just would submit to the commission that of course there are things that happen in the field that require immediate reaction and try to modification. And then when you're trying to marry the goal of ADA accessibility with the overall intent, this commission is charged with, which is preserving historic buildings to the great extent possible. Our ultimate goal is trying to keep this tax credit, to keep this building in the majority of intact, as best we can, while modernizing it for those accessibility reasons. And I think Welch really outlined the circumstances that make it kind of an unfortunate turn of events as to what the understanding was. But the overall goal is still there, which is to preserve the structure as you see it and allow for those modernization areas to take place. Of course the bricks can't be replaced because they've been disintegrated, but we believe that the artistic kind of repurposing of them is the best restoration or best possible scenario in this case and just would respectfully request that we're able to reach a solution here today that allows us to go forward, keeping that designation and keeping the overall intent and purpose of the commission, which is to see projects like this succeed and be accessible to everyone. Thank you for that. I will go ahead and re-close the public hearing to resume the discussion amongst the commissioners. I mean, Andy, would it be fair to say that what your experience is with the Venable Building might create a precedent? Let me put it this way. If the applicant had come to us before making these changes, could a persuasive argument be made that the modifications to the Venable Building serve as a precedent that might justify what was being requested? I do. In my eye, I do. One thing that comes to mind too is just the increased accessibility to this building and hopefully seeing more people interact with this building than I've seen in the past. So I'm hoping opening up with ramps and the new stairways and things like that, but they've opened it up to Main Street in such a way that there'll be some more activity and people really engaging with this building. So increasing the accessibility, I think has precedent here. I think, yes, the other openings around town have precedent. If we were to do this again, we probably would have stressed out a little bit more and tried to figure out, could the sidewalk be raised a little bit more to preserve the integrity or lots of ways that conversation could have gone, but here we stand today. So I do think there's precedent. I do think for the openings and increasing accessibility. I appreciate that and I really do. Yes, I agree with Andy. This is tough and we have to see this as if they're coming to us for the first time and that's kind of the way we have to review the application. But the examples are good because it does show us some of the, I hate to say trends, but how these buildings are being adapted for new use downtown as we grow and become more vibrant and alive as a community and the buildings are used in a different way. And just a side note from what I understand, if the examples of other altered openings are federal tax credit projects, I hear that our North Carolina person is tough. She does not, she's not easy when it comes to approving tax credit projects, especially these huge warehouses. So if she approved it, I trust it. But I mean, but that's neither here nor there. That's not for, that's not our purview. But it's unfortunate that we're having to review this afterwards, but I think the examples help me a lot deal with the alterations after the fact. And I'm inclined to vote in favor of the application. All those thoughts are extremely helpful. Commissioner Johnson, thank you. Commissioner Calhoun and Hamilton, any thoughts? Yes, I am the one that needs accessibility. I have to applaud what they have done. Sorry, it's retroactive, but I have used those doors and I appreciate very much what has been said. So I'm in favor of the project. And you say the bricks, which is great. And I would love to see what's going to be built on the inside of the building. Using those bricks, what that might look like. All in all, it's something that has to be done. It's ADA, I use it with this. Yeah, I mean, Commissioner Hamilton here. I mean, life safety is always going to trump historic preservation from a hierarchy. And I mean, ADA egress and all is part of that. So, I mean, yeah, I wish we'd had a better understanding last time around, but I understand, you know, I've had enough grading experience with ADA ramps to know that doesn't always work the way you think it's going to. And surveys are not always, you know, right to the 10th of an inch that matters on ADA ramps. So, yeah, I mean, it is what it is. And, you know, I agree with everything Ms. Calhoun just said. So. So, Matt, Commissioner Goldby, you know, I'm kind of hearing that we're leaning toward in favor of this proposal. And I kind of want to ask this question, but didn't know where our discussion would go. I'm wondering if you would reopen the hearing so I can understand the existing bricks don't work because there are softness and they're going to be used elsewhere. So what will go in place? I don't know if I'm missing it in the submission or what, but what will go in its place? Another steel plate or, you know, what's the proposal? Certainly reopen the public. Well, let me have Carla see if she wants to take a stab at see if we need to reopen the public hearing. Well, I was just, it's for clarification. This would be if they were to reconstruct in the future, like part of the reversibility criterion in the general. Is that what you're asking, Andy? No, just, you know, since the bricks can't be used as a seal here, as a threshold. Well, the threshold was originally steel. Yeah, so the sill, yeah. Basically there was a sill plate that sat over the bricks and the sills were removed as well as eight rows of brick and then these jams here were extended down. So we're not missing any material from the jams. Those were extended. The sills are missing and then the brick, they're going to be used on an interior, have been used on an interior installation. So they're no longer under HPC jurisdiction. So the question, I guess I'm wondering if you're getting at, if this scenario were to be reversed in the future for the criteria, could brick be put in its place or what would be put in its place? Yeah, so I am asking a different question, but let's go ahead and get that one answered too, of just what's the retroactive, you know, someone buys the building one day and decided they want to rip out all the concrete and put the windows back. You know, what's the answer there? All right, let's go ahead and reopen the public hearing for an answer to that question. Yeah, this is Jason Gable. The local criteria allow for infill material and it describes how to do it and see if I have that. Here it's in the exterior walls trim criteria and it talks about select replacement cladding and trim, et cetera, et cetera, and select replacement masonry in order to match the historic material strength type. So if it were to go back, it would be replacement masonry, but following that criteria. Well, and just to add to that, so the masonry that is being preserved inside the building could also then be put back in place on the exterior of the building. And it's in a condition that it could probably be maintained in that kind of vertical condition where we ran into issues was, you know, trying to put it back in a horizontal, kind of like a paver condition, in which case it was too much wear and tear. The one minor area that had been done as part of the original COA is already showing a lot of wear and tear and we're working through ways to how to seal that and permanently protect it. And so I think that answers your first question, Mr. Goldsby. Yeah, and also just to further that, it's also important the mortar that you would use to go alongside that, when you were proposing the horizontal setting, that was gonna be dry set and so didn't use a mortar at all. But if you were to put it back in a wall, you'd need to use a mortar and it would need to be a soft mortar. I'm curious about what mortar you used here because I see it is a slightly different color. I'm wondering if you used cement here, like Portland cement, or if you used a soft mortar, but it would need to be soft. Sure. And then obviously, like this extra material could be removed. Stairs would be removed, you'd use a salvage brick to build back up the eight rows that were removed. Then the sills, there is photographic evidence of them, but they could be replaced with something else and weren't visually impactful anyway. And there's still eight sills on site that could be used as a model and a restoration. Yeah, one of the sills on Main Street was already missing. The one at the former satisfaction's entrance, satisfaction's restaurant. There are 12 more still on campus. They're all buried by great changes, but they're still there. Okay. And then my question was, it was now the current threshold here. Is it just concrete steps going up and then comes to a slab at the storefront or beyond? That's right. So it's just concrete and then the steel sill extensions that you can see on the right and left-hand side of those concrete stairs. And that ties into the existing concrete slab at the interiors. Okay. Thank you. Yeah, the existing slabs of this north building on the ground floor or the existing floors were concrete. Many of these tobacco warehouses around the ground floors were crawl space and they were heavy timber, but in this building they were already concrete. Okay. I don't have any more questions. Thank you all. Thank you. Thanks. Any other commissioner discussion? If not, I would like to request a staff recommendation. Staff would recommend approval of the application. Thank you, Carla. I will entertain a motion. Commissioner Hamilton, I'll supply the motion. Just give me one second to get to the right page. The Durham Historic Preservation Commission finds that in the case COA 2200019905 West Main Street modifications amendment, the applicant is proposing modifications to landmark property. The applicant has lowered the threshold of four original door openings from their original loading dock height by removing eight rows of brick from the base of each opening. Steel fills have been removed and jam guards extended to the new doorway height. Bricks salvaged from the door expansions will be used in an interior art installation. Therefore, the conclusion of law is that the proposed addition and alterations are consistent with the historic character and qualities of the historic district and are consistent with the historic properties, local review criteria, specifically those listed in the staff report. And the Durham Historic Preservation Commission approves the certificate of appropriateness for case COA 2200019905 West Main Street modifications amendment 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 or county departments or state or local agencies. The applicant is responsible for obtaining all required approvals relating to building construction, site work and working the right way and a compliance inspection shall be performed immediately upon completion of the work approved herein. Second. Thank you. Commissioner Johnson, roll call vote please. Airbuschard. Approved. Vice Chair Golsby. Commissioner Hamilton. Approved. Commissioner Johnson. Approved. Commissioner Calhoun. Approved. Motion passes five to zero. Thank you all very much for your time today. Thank you very much. Appreciate everyone's time. And we are going to segue to old business. That was our last case today. Carla, great job letting us know last month that this would be a heavy lift this month that certainly turned out to be the case. And thank you all for being here really. How do things look for June? And then let's have a discussion about which day we're going to hold for June. We have at least three cases for June, some big like new construction projects. So I don't think it, I doubt it will go past noon. Okay. Well, you all might recall, we had a conversation under new business last month due to a arbitration proceeding I was scheduled to have the first week of June. We were going to shift the hearing into the second week of June. We probably should keep that plan in place even though my case, that's actually cases plural have settled as of 5 p.m. yesterday. So I am now available the first week of June, but Carla's been communicating with the applicants and communicating that second Tuesday, excuse me, of June. So we would need to put that to a vote to make change. But it would, I think be my recommendation since we have already tentatively scheduled in the second Tuesday of June that we keep that date and not go back to our normal date. Is there anyone who wouldn't be able to? I would not be able to join. I'm going to be, I've made some other arrangements. I'm sorry, Angie, you would be able to make, I'll turn the room. I would not be able to do the first week. Okay. So second week it is. Let's go ahead and put it to a vote. Claire Combs. All right, Chair Bouchard. Yes. Vice Chair Gulsby. Yes. Commissioner Hamilton. Yes. Commissioner Johnson. Yes. Commissioner Calhoun. Yes. Back to zero. Fantastic. Next meeting, June 14, 2022. New business. Amanda status of the next minor COA report. Well, we provided after this meeting. Excellent. Any comments from any commissioners on the previously received COA report? Minor COA report. Item B, a new business. Discussion of fall newsletter. Do we want to defer this since we're a little short here? Yeah, I only brought it up to put it on the radar if anybody is interested in doing layout and or what do you call it? The text copy then please let us know maybe at the next, I'll send out an email as well but we would love to have some volunteers to do that. And we typically put out in September so we'd be looking to have a final draft for commission review in August. So a first draft would be nice in June or July. Yeah, we're coming up on it, no doubt. So good to get it on the radar. What topics I guess we can discuss next month but I mean the topics for the copy are we should probably get that. Exactly, Katie. Yeah, that's another thing to think about. And item C is an announcement issue but none of the announcements have been good recently so I'm gonna just cancel that new item. Now wait a second, I can't do that. Krista has an announcement for the group. Hi everybody. So I just wanted to let you know that I am leaving the city of Durham and I am headed to the School of Government which I am really excited about. So I will be over there as a faculty member teaching in the local government law group on procurement and contracting. So this is my last month at the city of Durham which was not an easy decision but I'm really excited to be going over to the school and still working with local governments across the state. Dawn will be joining you next month and I think thereafter, I think that's the plan at this point. And I just want to say thank you for allowing me to support you and thank you for all that you do regarding preservation in Durham. I really admire your commitment to this work. Well, Krista, thanks so much. I won't speak for others, I'll let them speak for themselves but our loss is absolutely the School of Government's gain and we wish you all the best in that new adventure. Thank you. I was looking with you Krista. Yeah, Krista, you've been our right hand through all of this, just like it's, you will be heavily missed. Yeah, all the best. All the best. We'll miss being with you and seeing you here. So, but I know that that's a great organization over there with the School of Government. So I applaud your advancement. So thank you. Thank you for making it. So Krista, we do have to make you do one like other thing for us before you take your leave of us. What is the status of emergency authorization for these hearings to be conducted via Zoom? Well, I just sent a memo to the clerk's office today. So the emergency order obviously still in place once that's rescinded, there is authority to conduct electronic meetings. It's sort of different terminology under the statutes than remote meetings, which is what we're doing now. Our advice, our office's advice is that quasi-judicial meetings be conducted in person and not under the electronic meeting statute. And the reason for that just being, that they're sort of statutorily prescribed procedures and it doesn't talk about physical presence, but I think so as to not endanger the process and sort of open it up to legal challenges. Our recommendation is that quasi-judicial boards and commissions meet in person after the governor rescinds the emergency order. Two follow-up questions. Will that be subject to a vote of approval by the city council? And when do you expect that rescission to happen? I'll answer your second question first. I do not know. I had anticipated and I think many folks had anticipated that once the general assembly was sort of back in action, that there would be pressure perhaps to lift that order. I think what we're seeing with COVID cases right now suggests that there are good reasons to keep that order in place. So I haven't heard any movement over in Raleigh to rescind that order. In terms of what would happen here locally, my suspicion, although this is only that, it's just a suspicion, is the city council would sort of vote in some way on kind of what it's deciding to do. So just for some additional context, our office's advice is also that the planning commission meet in person, again, because of sort of statutory requirements, city council has a statutory physical presence requirement. So it will be required to meet in person as well. But all other boards and commissions that essentially serve advisory functions can meet electronically. And so I think city council will need to take some sort of action to make that really explicit, probably under its city council rules of procedure. So I don't know exactly when that will happen. City council does take a break during the summer. The last meeting that it will have is June 21st. So maybe before then. So up in the air, so whether or not we will be in person or electronic for our next meeting on the 14th. Yeah, I mean, as of right now, you would be meeting remotely unless something really drastic happens. And I just can't predict that. Yep, all very helpful information. We appreciate it. And now you are done with us. Thank you. Thanks for all your help, Krista. It's been wonderful working with you. Any other business from any other commissioners? I mean, we've only gone four hours today. We keep it going. Y'all have a great rest of the week. Thank you all again for being here and staying.