We are live. Good morning. This meeting will now come to order. Welcome to the October 5th, 2020, a virtual meeting of the Durham Historic Preservation Commission. My name is Katie Hamilton and I am the chair of this commission. As always, the commission is a quasi judicial board of record and as such all testimony will be recorded under the digital procedures. This meeting will also be live streamed on the city's YouTube channel. Proceedings of this board are governed by the zoning laws as recorded. Before we begin today's evidentiary hearings, please note steps we have taken to ensure that each party's due process rights are protected. As we proceed in this remote platform. First today's meeting will be conducted in accordance with the enacted statutes in session law 2020-3, which allow for remote meetings and quasi judicial hearings during declarations of emergency. Second, each 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 consent to the matter proceeding in this remote platform. There is any objection to a matter proceeding in this remote platform. The case will be continued. Third, notice of this meeting was provided to all applicants and to the public in multiple ways, including signage posted on site, notification letters mailed to all adjacent property owners, informing recipients regarding the remote platform and a general announcement via the city's website. The notices for each, for today's meeting, advise the public on how to access the remote meeting as the meeting occurs. Individuals wishing to participate in today's evidentiary hearings were required to register prior to the meeting. Information about this registration requirement along with information about how to sign up to participate was included in the mailed notice letters sent to each adjacent property owner. This information was also included on the board's website. The public was advised to contact the city immediately in case of objection to the evidentiary hearing or to the remote meeting platform. No case is proceeding today in which the city has been contacted by an individual with an objection to the meeting. All individuals participating in today's evidentiary hearings were also required to submit a copy of any presentation document exhibit or other material they wish to submit as evidence prior to today's meeting. All material that the city received from the participants for today's cases as well as a copy of city staff's presentations and documents were posted online with our meeting agenda prior to this meeting. 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 that they were required to sign prior to this meeting. We will also reaffirm everyone's oath on the record at today's meeting. Are there any members of this board that would have any concerns about the conflict of interest with regard to either the cases that are here before us today? I do. Which case? The Inglewood case. Are there any requests for early dismissal today or time constraints? I think we'll leave it 945. Thank you. And Kay, this is Matt. I've got a 1030 hard stop. Okay. With that. No one else had any other needs for early dismissal. Correct. No one day. Okay. Thanks, mom. 1030. Okay. Alright, then as the chair of the historic preservation I'd like to remind everyone that our quasi-judicial hearings functions similar to court proceedings. I 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 to that opponent. We'll refrain from questions or comments until each speaker has completed his or her presentation. Testimonies should consist of facts each witness knows directly not hearsay and evidence already presented should 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 each case and the decisions of this board are subject to the appeal of the Board of Adjustment and then to the Durham County Superior Court. And with that, Madam Clerk, Terry, can you please take attendance of those HPC members and attendance today? Sure. Vice Chair Prashard? Present. Commissioner Dayan? Present. Commissioner DeBerry? Here. Commissioner Goldspie? Here. Chair Hamilton? Present. Commissioner Johnson? Present. Commissioner Jordan? Commissioner Crager? Here. Commissioner Waders? Present. And with the attendance having been taken, we will now review and if appropriate, approve the minutes from the August 4th HPC meeting. You should have gotten an email this evening. Good morning, Chair Hamilton. Grace here. If for some reason you would like to put that at the end of the agenda, because you might want a few more minutes till it goes over, that's fine. But if you're ready to approve now, staff would be very thankful. And sorry for the late notice. How's everyone had an opportunity to review? Yeah. I'm skimming it right now, but if everyone else already read it with the board. Okay. Were there any known adjustments to the minutes needed? All right. Hearing none, can I get a motion to approve the minutes? I'll move. It's being equal to the out motion to approve. I'll second. Johnson is second. All right. So Commissioner Goldspie makes a motion and Commissioner Dayan seconds. Terry, can I get a roll call to approve them? Yes. Commissioner Johnson? Yes. Commissioner Waiters? Yes. Commissioner Dayan? Yes. Chair Hamilton? Yes. Vice-Chair Persaud? Yes. Commissioner DeBerry? Yes. Commissioner Goldspie? Yes. And Commissioner Cracker? Yes. Motion passes 8-0. No, I think, Terry, if we can proceed with the swearing in of all of the city staff that we'll present with today's cases. Okay. Do you members of staff and citizens swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give in the public hearing proceedings for today's case is the truth by your own knowledge, information, or belief? Is it just Deegan and Bo? I do as well. Thank you. Do the staff need consent for the digital hearing? Well, I'm sorry. One last thing, Chair Hamilton, you may consider, I know we only have two cases, so we might not be pressed for time. However, you may consider reordering the agenda so that the case that Commissioner Goldspie can sit on, or can not sit on, maybe goes first, since we have some folks that might need to leave early. Or if you think time's not an issue, that's fine as well. I just thought I would throw that out there. Sure. I mean, does anyone, it's an hour and 20 minutes to get through two cases. Do we feel like that's possible, or do we think? An angular case, I think, is going to be a quick one. I hope. Okay. Okay. So we can reorder with that adjustment to the agenda if everyone is in agreement. I think it's probably best to vote on that. Or you can just ask if there's any objection from the board. Is there any objection from the board to reordering today's agenda to move the angular case first hearing none? We will proceed with case 20,00060, 2103 Englewood Avenue. Madam Clerk, can you please swear in the witnesses for this case? Yes. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to get in the public hearing proceedings for today's case is the truth, right? Own information, knowledge, or belief. I do. Give me if I pronounced your last name wrong. Shimron. Shimron. Shimron. Can you also confirm that you consent to today's hearing being done in this remote digital platform? I do. Great. And now that, is there another? Yeah, sorry, Matt Drepps. I finally figured out the technology. I also agree to the oath. And the digital platform as well. Yep. Okay, great. Thank you. And now we will proceed with the staff summaries on this one, I believe, is Keegan. Yeah, okay. So case number COA2000060, this is at 2103 Englewood Avenue. It is a proposed addition to the back porch ripping out a lot of the enclosed porch that exists now, but maintaining the foundation, installing new floor system to add a bathroom and another bedroom and then a back porch in addition to that in the back. So they only be adding a bathroom and a screen porch. The bedroom is existing in the house.  Okay, sorry about that. Yeah, adding the bathroom, screen porch, re-englosing, and then moving windows onto the new facade painted to match the existing. So with that, I would like to enter the staff report into the record and give the app the opportunity to speak. And then if y'all have anything you'd like to speak to in regards to this application, please feel free to use her now. I can speak. The proposal is basically just to essentially replace what's there with something slightly larger that looks almost identical to the style of what's there now. The back porch currently is just, it's not something that can be used as habitable space. So that just comes down. And then when that's coming down, it just seemed appropriate to go ahead and increase the size a little bit to accommodate a screen porch along with the bathroom. So I mean, when it goes back together, then we will be reusing the window that is currently on the back of the house. So it matches all the other three over, or excuse me, four over one windows that are there now. And then the addition will be clad in the same siding and painted the same. And Homeland already has some extra copper gutter that will go up to match. So it's essentially going to look like it's always been there. Oh, and it's all on the back of the house and can't be seen from the street. Great. Thank you. Um, are there any opponents to this case present today? All right. Hearing none. Do any commissioners have any questions for the applicant? I think Jonathan might have been right. This might be a fast case. So with no questions from commissioners, we can close this portion of the hearing. And is there any need for internal discussion amongst commissioners on this? Nope. This is Matt. Very quickly. You know, normally the staff reports contain the staff's analysis of compliance with the criteria. I would be curious to hear Keegan's analysis of whether or not the window changes that have been proposed do meet the criteria. Yeah, that was actually something. One of the reasons there wasn't an explicit recommendation in the staff report. Oh, sorry. Keegan's Agrippani Planning Department. One of the reasons there wasn't an explicit recommendation in the staff report was just me being relatively new to reviewing these. I wasn't sure whether that would constitute something concerning. The sash windows in that style are something that are mentioned in the historic registered description of the house, but it's also at the back of the house. If visible only at an angle from the right away. So I didn't know if that constitutes something character defining. And the replacement windows do fit in with the style match some of the existing windows. So whether that would be reducing the conforming any matching appearance of the district was something that I also did not feel comfortable coming down one way or the other on. Can I interject? This is Matt Repps. The window that's actually going to be on the rear porch when it's complete is actually one of the original windows to the house that's just being relocated. So there are no new windows being put in. This is an actual like it's the window that was there from construction of the house that we will only be relocating to the side of the house from the rear wall. So there's no there are no new windows on this project. The casement and just to add this is this is you not on the homeowner. This porch is not original to the house. It was built the house is from 1926. The porch was built in the 1940s. And so the window that I'm using is from the original 1926 home. And I'm just moving it from the back to the new what would be the new bathroom. Grace Smith here with the Planning Department. I just would like to clarify that yes being that the porch is not original but they are saving an original window and moving it and is on the rear of the house not the front elevation but there is no there is no new window. It's moving an existing window staff would be comfortable with that. Thank you. I'm sorry I'm going to have a question Jonathan. The rear windows where the door next to the door those are not new. No there's no to the right. So to the right of the to the right of the rear door is actually that's the screen porch. So what you're seeing there is just the screened openings. Okay. Perfect. Thank you. And then on the same on the drawing below that the detail below that on the side of the house showing the other side of the house. Same thing there. That's just the screened openings. And to quick Keegan's question if I may you referred to the right of way. Did you mean angle one or is there a right of way that another right of way that we don't see. I meant angle one. Yeah. Okay. Is there any discussion amongst the commissioners when a commissioner feel comfortable making a motion on this? I mean okay the planning. Sorry. The Durham Historic Preservation Commission finds that in case COA20000602103 Angle One Avenue new construction in addition the applicant is proposing an addition and modifications to a contributing structure. An existing enclosed rear porch will be removed with windows relocated and existing foundation maintained and extended as part of the new floor system. A 220 square foot addition over porch foundation including a bathroom a screen porch will be constructed. A 160 square foot deck will be constructed as well attached to the rear of the addition. Therefore the conclusion of laws 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 COA20000602103 Angle One Avenue new construction in addition. One the improvements shall be substantially consistent with the plans and testimony presented to the commission at this commission hearing and attached to this COA. Two the improvements may require additional approvals from other city or county departments or state or local agencies. The applicant is responsible for obtaining all required approvals relating to building construction site work and work in the right of way. And three a compliance inspection shall be performed immediately upon completion of the work approved herein. Thanks Jonathan. Do we have a second? Second. Second. In a few seconds. Thank you. And with that Madam Terry can you do a roll call. Commissioner Johnson. Yes. Commissioner Waiters. Yes. Commissioner Dayone. Yes. Commissioner, Commissioner, Chair Hamilton. Yes. Vice Chair Brasard. Yes. Commissioner DeBerry. Yes. Commissioner Bullsby. I'm a key to mystery. Oh yeah, I forgot. Sorry. Commissioner Crager. Yes. Motion passes 7-0. Thank you and thank you Keegan and applicants for coming today to present the case. Thank you all. With that we will move on to our now second hearing of the day which is case COA 20005057 2001 West Club Boulevard. If Madam Terry, if you could just swear in the applicants. Sure. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give in the public hearing proceedings for today's case is the truth by your own knowledge information or belief? I do. I do. Then if everyone who plans to speak on this case today could you consent to the oath first by stating your name and then by I'm not the oath. I'm sorry the digital path. I'm sorry state your name and your agreement. Your agreement. Yes. I do. Yes. Julie Cahoon. I do. Thomas Merrigan. I do. Thank you. And now there are no commissioners. There are no commissioners who have conflict hearing this case, correct? Hearing none. Bo, can you please present the staff summary? Sure. Good morning, Commissioner Brinsky. First I'd like to ask that all the staff report and the test materials be entered into the record. This is a proposal in the Watson and Dale local historic district 2001 West Club Boulevard. This is a contributing structure existing single family. The proposal is for a two story addition to the rear of the house and two one story accessory structures and some site work to include a pool, some heartscape and some fencing. I would like to note one minor correction from the staff report. It was stated that the rear addition elevation or the rear addition was going to be equal in height. That is true where it meets but it is slightly taller at points. This doesn't change the staff's statement that it appears to meet that particular criterion. It just as it still seems to be compatible. I just wanted to have that correction noted. At this time I can ask the applicant to speak on the application and I'll show any further report anyone would like. I guess that's time for me to speak. Good morning. I'm Tom Merrigan with Linton Architects. This project as Bo mentioned is at 2001 West Club Boulevard. It's sort of caddy corner across the street from the School of Science and Math. The home was built in 1921. As you mentioned it's a two story wood frame structure on a brick masonry foundation. As you see the house from the street has a wraparound porch and all volumes that you see from the street are sort of capped with a hip roof construction, a fairly steep hip roof. Trying to think here. The front four rooms of the house haven't really been affected or touched over the almost 100 years the house that's been here. There's been some additions and modifications made to the rear of the house that are evident came much later. The sandborn map kind of I think it was the 1937 to 1950 sandborn map shows these portions of the house. These sort of front four rooms as being original to the house. It's important to note our project proposes to add and renovate only to the sort of rear most portions of the house and beyond.  If you look at it you can kind of see there's three significant rooms, a little bit of a hallway and another room that kind of bumps out to what's the west side. And it's where the front porch kind of turns along that west side and enters on to that room there. So those four rooms in that hallway are kind of original to the house. They're the sort of original footprint. There was like a one-story kitchen we think added to the sort of eastern side of the house at the sort of top of this top of the I guess up on the plan that you're looking at. And that's been modified several times through the age of the house. So one of the most unique and characterifying features are the windows on the house. Most of them are four over one double hung wood windows. And they have I think it's mentioned in the sorry mentioned in the planning report that these are sort of have a little bit of a Victorian sort of detail to them. They have a little extra sort of arch in the tracery in the mutton bars there. So all of these windows are original to the house on the character defining elevation will remain and also on the volume of the house as it goes back through the lot on the historically significant parts of the house. The proposal is to make an addition to the rear of all of this and on the on the on the drawing that you see in front of you that addition appears kind of one room beyond the original four. It's the addition is only requiring modification to sort of the non-significant part portions of the house. The kitchen that has been modified through the through the age of the house and beyond that some of the decks and things that have been added. These these areas like I mentioned they've already been added to and modified. The volume of the addition we were very careful to kind of keep the size of it and its roof forms roof overhangs and materiality all consistent with the existing house and so it will it will have a hip roof as well with the same with the same slope the existing house has. The addition is also it's placed again on the rear in order to to really preserve these significant portions of the house visible from the right of way. There are a series of other things happening related to the project including a screen porch that's on the west side of the house. Again it's it's toward the rear of the okay so yeah so this is these are our kind of diagrams showing some of the sandborn map and how we are looking at the house. This is funny I'm not used to doing it this way. This this shows a little bit more of a blow-up of the actual plan and you can see here the screen porch on the on the lower portion of this plan and there's a series of terraces that that kind of step down into the backyard which is very deep. Beyond the improvements to the house itself are several additional structures. There's existing a non-historic two-car garage on the west side of the property that's being removed and a new garage that's being built at the at the terminus of the west sorry the eastern driveway. So there are two driveways serving the property one that is exclusive to the this property on the east side and another that shares an apron with this property's western neighbor and currently the garage is accessed from that from that west drive but okay this drawing here shows kind of the garage beyond this is the proposed garage beyond on the left side of this drawing. This is a single story structure with the roof that has the same slope as the existing house and beyond it is a pool house that also has it's a one-story wood frame structure with a roof slope that matches the existing house. So these these additional structures are accessory they're completely entirely to the rear of the house they're sort of meant to be quieter versions of the house's vocabulary in terms of you know wood siding and same same slope roof and things like that. There's some additional things with fences and walls and things that you can see in the application materials wood fences that are sort of in keeping with many that we see within the district walkways and drives again we're we're sort of just taking what's there and modifying a little bit the western driveway currently goes all the way into the backyard and we will be kind of ending that where the steps up to the side porch occur so that we can have some planting along that that sort of south edge of that driveway. I guess that's kind of conclusion of this it's a little bit awkward trying to sort of route through you can kind of see in this drawing if we pause here the front of the house on this drawing is to the right side and so you see the front porch there and you can kind of see the original volume of the house you know this sort of the front the front of the house is on the right and then you get these these great windows this is on the east east elevation and then when you get to the the the portion that's dashed in where where summer mule is proposed we think that according to the sandborn maps that there was the the first floor of that may be original the foundation and some of the walls and we're going to salvage those things the second floor addition the sandborn map indicates it's only a one-story piece that was there originally so we were the second floor addition was not part of the original construction and so this is where some of the modifications and renovations start to happen and then beyond that further to the left in this drawing shows some decks and and further additions that were made even later and so those those areas are getting removed and making way for the addition was there anyone else here to speak for against this case this is Julie Kahoon and I don't have anything additional to add at this time um hearing that was there any questions from the commissioners for the applicants Katie I I have a few um this ain't equal to be Tom could could you speak to uh two items for me one would be the removal of the trees in the in the rear yard um and to uh the second thing is the the criteria to speak about uh in-setting porches um that's that's not what appears to be on the on the plan so I wonder if you could speak to to that portal a little bit and in reference to the criteria sure um yeah um so to start with the trees um there are two trees that are built very close to the to the rear of the house um they're within seven feet of some of the rear structures of the house um and they are very mature trees these are willow oak trees that are um you know we see a lot in the district um they appear to be we've had some folks looking at the trees and they appear to be um towards the sort of end of their end of their lifespan one estimate put them at close to 90 years old and they they overhang the existing house uh as they as as they exist today as as the structure and the trees exist today um they're located more than a hundred hundred feet from from the sidewalk um any any addition or change to the house um at the at the rear portion where we where we think is most appropriate to add to the house and modify the house would affect uh the health of the trees um the the messing with the ground and laying equipment and removing vehicles back there of any kind will will have a unfortunate effect on the trees um additionally we've we've spoken with um a couple folks and there's been detection of uh of an early early stages of a disease and and at least one of the trees i'm not going to try to pronounce the name of the disease but it's uh it's it's it's starting to affect at least one of the trees already um i think that uh and from a common sense and just straightforward um sort of reading of this we understand there's criteria that that speak to preserving the trees um but i think the trees are are living things that that we all know are are sort of finite in their lifespan um and so in an effort to sort of maximize the the the other parts of the criteria in other words add into the house and modifying the house only on its rear portion in order to preserve its its character defining elevation and other things um the trees are are uh sort of not not in the they will not be preserved as a part of the the proposal um there's a lot more we could probably say about the trees um we're going to be planting new trees as a part of the the proposal um in order to reestablish and continue to establish um the sort of hardwood canopy tree as a as a as a part of the district um so uh a lot of the trees along club boulevard of course were also willow oaks and they um have have been deteriorating and there's the news about that just about five or six years ago one of the street trees that's a willow oak at this property had had come down and landed I think just a few feet uh near that western driveway that we see here in the sort of closer portion or towards the bottom um and so I think that the homeowners have a very real sense of um impact to the existing um house impact uh this has on uh sort of the plans to to renovate and add to the house as well as um just safety in general um for the for their home um so that's sort of uh the story I guess with the trees um remind me again oh the park yeah on the trees real quick have you uh this ante goes again have you picked a species for the new hardwood trees yet uh I don't know that we've picked a species I think that we agree that it's a hardwood that they would be a hardwood I think um there's a couple of contenders um certainly oak but um you know maples uh I don't know I don't know if people are planting willow oaks they seem to have gotten a little bit of a bad rap just because you know at the end of their lifespan we we keep hearing stories about them sort of coming down and needing to be taken down and everything um I don't think we've gotten to that level of detail though I'm sure. uh Bo to Brinsky's staff here uh yeah the plans reflect all out um uh a hardwood and and from a uh knot I would suggest we we keep that rather than specify a specific tree if you haven't planned it yet um so that we don't have to modify in the future and then I just wanted to note um there that as you can see on uh in the materials they're preserving a great deal of trees um and actually after going to site visit um the um I know see here much the lot is wood um and so we we made sure that as a part of the application um they were replacing what was being removed um so that was something that was uh discussed with staff uh prior to the application. What caliber trees are they replacing it with? I'm sorry caliber so the diameter or is that what you're yeah and I am in our best height? Well that's a good question I would refer to whoever's the sort of landscape we've just recently um hired or brought in a landscape architect who is who's helping with this um I'm not really an expert on trees so I can't tell you exactly but they would not be I don't think our plan is to put um you know little saplings or seedlings I think the the plan would be to get to get a tree that's kind of uh of a size that's um obviously still plantable you know we're not going to try to transplant something that's 50 or 80 years old but I think it would be a uh a decent size tree I don't really know. Are there any other questions from commissioners? Uh yes and it's all about the screen porch. Yes so the screen porch um that they're they're the house um the kind of massing of the house as it stands today there's already um there are quite a few bumps and um notches and things that occur outside corners that occur um and on the on the like the addition we're making it does um it does move past the exterior walls on the east and west facades on the on the east facade there there's already a notch where this the original one-story kitchen was made and we are sort of abiding that notch and and maintaining that in order to give some sort of deference or or to kind of call out the addition being made to the rear as being an addition on the west side the place where you mentioned the the screen porch that here it's it's a little more complex um the thing that we're trying to do here is the original house was sort of an L shape in terms of its two-story massing so we get the primary hip roof facing club and then we have kind of a a ridge line that goes um further back into the to the lot and what happens today is that all of that kind of then disintegrates and there's lots of weird roofscapes and so we're trying to bring a little bit of um hierarchy here and so the main addition happens as a as a bar that crosses the back similar to the the original bar in the front and it kind of creates a c shape because that that fourth room in the in the original four square plan was um just a one-story volume according to the to the sandborn match and so we get what we end up getting is a is a it's a natural notch not at the at the main level but at the upper level because um as you can kind of see it here we're maintaining that one-story volume and we think that that gives gives a good uh massing in terms of calling out that here's the significant part that's close to the street it's two stories and then it kind of necks down to one story as it heads back and then it the addition is being made back there um that's not necessarily evident where the porch is um you know the porch does continue out but the the sort of architecture of the porch is made um such that it really reads as a very light um rather than an outdoor room really light kind of like a stick framed trellis-y sort of sort of thing um one of the things we're doing is we're we we're letting it in relative to the two-story addition that it's um parked against and that allows um it to read as something that's kind of honoring that that the larger wall behind it the two-story wall behind it of the addition so that it kind of feels like it's it's uh you know kind of on that wall rather than exceeding that wall um and so I think the combination of the the lightness of its of its frame stick frame architecture um it's low slope or flat roof and the fact that it kind of sits on the the two-story addition we're making um sort of help it help it feel subservient to the the parts that are close to the street that are taller and more significant were there any other questions from commissioners for the applicant uh Vice Chair Bouchard here uh Andy or are you do you have any other questions before I ask a few no go ahead man okay thank you um following up on Andy's questions about the trees I've got a few questions um in points of clarification the existing site plan appears to suggest the removal of six trees um not two trees while the application itself uh makes reference to the removal of just the two trees closest to the house um is the intent to remove the two trees closest to the house plus four other trees uh that appear to perhaps be in or near the footprint of the new accessory structures and or the pool uh that's a good question I think that our focus has been on the trees closest to the house um for the reason that they their presence is just more felt on the street um I think that we would would endeavor to uh we haven't gotten to the point because there's a little bit of a chicken and egg thing here with the we always face this with with preservation history of preservation trying to get as specific as possible um without necessarily having a approval to do the things that we're trying to get specific about and so I think um we need to kind of map out and flag um if there are any other trees and what um what diameter those trees are because there's there's um as as Bo mentioned there are especially the very rear of the lot um a great deal of trees that we're leaving alone um but there there may be one or two and I don't know if they are larger than 12 inches or not in the diameter again we just we need someone who can um come out and kind of um sort of get get a caliper reading give a diameter reading on some of these trees so it's it's um a little bit hard to know exactly um whether those things needed to be included um in this in this application I think that um if if if I guess if folks are comfortable with that we can we can get much more specific quickly and and and give Bo or Carla or whomever um an update on that that would um that would include sort of those details um for the approval process of today I think um you know I think that it would the two trees closest to the property or the the significant ones and that we could um I don't know I'm not sure what the suggestion could be other than than having sort of an administrative uh uh read of of any other trees um as as we get more specific with those trees and speaking um uh Mr. Merrigan to the two trees closest to the house but I'm looking at this google street view screenshot on page one of ten uh of the uh coa would it be basically that the trees I'm seeing immediately behind the house that would be removed um I'm not positive I know there there are yes the I think two of two of those trees are the ones immediately behind the house I believe the middle one and the one to the right there's another tree that's that you see that that looks like a similar um size tree and I think that the photograph may be a little deceptive in the sense that that one I think is is further back and it's close much closer to the fence line um it may not even be on the the property uh at that at that point it's not something that we've um identified as being necessary to remove um it's just the two the two closest to the house that I think are center and to the right here center and to the right okay thank you well Jonathan down I have a couple questions the and some maybe are for the for bill but maybe that will do afterwards um when you look at your design from the street would the new addition be visible above the building um I think the we have some I think we have some views of that in our application I don't know if it's and it shows there that it would I'm just asking if that's the case um the the the addition let me think about can you repeat the question that would it be visible above is your question right so you have the roof line right now the top not that's not uh if you go to 11 drawing 11 drawing 11 okay I think you're you're much further the the other direction to sketch proposed north elevation uh yes so in in in a two-dimensional elevation drawing you see the the the total roof height of the addition is a little bit higher than the the the the current ridge line of the of the house higher right uh yes um that said the um the criteria I think say that um from the from the street uh views from the street I don't remember the exact I'd have to look up the exact um sort of criteria and we we discussed this a little bit with Carla um that views from the street um the addition should look um in keeping with or below the height when viewed from the street which I can give you the criteria is designed the height of additions to be compatible with the historic structure and to be subborn in it to the historic structure when viewed uh from the property street frontage right so this this two dimensional elevation is so when we used to do this it was always elevational things that were um were considered and we couldn't really enter in three-dimensional um perspectival views and I think that's that's sort of changed recently um and and I think that that's a good change just because it's it's important to note that this is sort of a view of what it would look like from an infinite distance away towards the north here so if we if we go back down to to the I guess the the view I think the 3d view that you see and I think it was where were we 24 or 25 or maybe further yeah here we go so this the 24 I think it was um kind of shows that from the from the street this is looking from um from club Boulevard towards the the the principal elevation of the house you do see the addition behind but um just the loss of perspective help keep that addition in sort of in keeping compatible with the the existing um sort of architecture or existing height um and and and kind of because of the laws of perspective um they don't overpower it um so that's kind of what we what we wanted to do um again keeping everything on the rear of the house is is helping us a lot with keeping the front of the house feeling feeling like it's it's preserved and is significant okay the other the other part is for uh street view and it's looks like the vegetation does disturb it right now to to the side of the well front elevation would have one garage on the right side the garage will move to the left you won't have an additional structure on the right except for the pool ah and you have a porch correct that's right yes yes the screen porch you can kind of see in this one uh in this view right here is a again it's sort of a stick stick built um post and and beam structure okay the windows in the rear of the casement where are they going so all of the windows you will see from the street um are similar double hung four over one uh i'm not talking about the the four over one i'm asking about the um yes there there will be some that are are specific only to the rear um never visible from the street and those are single single sash casement um undivided casement um just in the sort of nook space um the breakfast nook which you see uh kind of uh maybe in the in that gable bay uh in this view um on the on the lower level then my next questions would be to uh the staff but that would be afterwards thanks thank you can we go to the view of the garage from the street um have you chosen garage doors for this project uh not specifically i think that we um trying to remember what the what the doors i think they would be sort of a wood panelized door um with i think that we we had in our in our in our elevation drawing may have shown um some glass in the upper portions in the upper panels of some of the you know they would be you know overhead segmented garage doors um but i think that they would be sort of a painted wood with um some glass lights and one of the upper panels uh one of the upper segments of those of those doors so that's not pure glass but no i don't think it would be all glass i think it would just be just be um more more like the well like a lot of the crashes you see in the district where there there is some glass but it's um it's usually limited to just sort of the top or the second from the top segment are there any other questions for the applicant um commissioners um jonathan did you want to go ahead and ask questions yeah so my question is for the criteria about uh windows f4 how do we deal with in saying select new or replacement windows that conform to the shape proportion and configuration configuration of window lights or panes i'm sorry is that a question for for me staff sorry okay sure uh voter brinsky certainly that can chime in as they're sort of making the argument for it um when we were evaluating this uh the majority of the windows provided were were matching in terms of the um four over one double hung the um for the bulk of the addition the the case and windows to the rear uh were similar in shape obviously not not style uh similar in shape and non character defining uh elevation and and truthfully not uh visible from sorry uh not visible from anywhere except probably their their uh their patio that their um so that was sort of uh our evaluation um obviously that the word similar the shape is somewhat vague but if i can chime in just for a moment the one of the other parts of the criteria is to make sure that the addition resonates with or or is um in keeping with the sort of architecture of the original house but also is differentiated and and and not the same and so we this is um this is always a little bit of a tightrope walk um and i think one of the things we're doing is where we are doing the four over one um double hungs we aren't trying to copy the the sort of what i'll call tracery the the montan pattern that that adds uh adds sort of a um gable or a a pediment in the top portions of the of the window and so we're keeping the windows in the in the in the new addition where they are the four over one we're keeping them a slightly simpler version of the four over one and then by the time we get to the very rear elevation the part that's that's literally not ever visible from from the from the public um it seemed like giving a nod to or sort of saying that yes this is this is new this is not um you know that the proportions are are kind of the same as bo mentioned that the sizes are the sort of the same but but it's it's a it's not quite um it's not trying to be um too historic or we're copying too much the original um i think this is something for discussion for the commission maybe after uh the questions one last question for uh bo i think that you probably are the best person to answer this about setbacks any issue with the setbacks and building the pool garage and accessory building into the setbacks there were no issues with setbacks with the proposal thank you good good question though because i i was the first thing i looked at when i saw that there's a lot going on there thanks were there any other commissioner questions for applicant or staff um grace smith if i could um interject just for a second um the staff we've been chatting behind the scenes and we may have um some language for you to add to the motion that would cover the concerns about the trees you could add a bullet to the motion that basically states that um they will they will plant two new trees of a minimum dbh of 12 feet at maturity and in accordance with the Durham landscape manual if that's something that you would like to add to the motion we can help you with that when it comes time to make the motions okay yeah i do find the current language of the applicant saying that it's 20 foot max um not really covering what i think it means too so that would be good to add minimum size at planting um and a minimum size of maturity and uh jonathan how i guess let's close the public hearing portion of this um i don't think we have any more questions for the applicants um and let's open it up to discussion within the commission um jonathan would you like to kick us off with your thoughts about the windows yeah so we my problem is how to how to deal with the the i think the massing of the height uh is understood into three-dimensional drawings uh give me ease uh thank you for the for those drawings for the windows it's very clear in the one where i lost it f f4 it's very clear that it says uh that we need to keep configuration of the window lights not referring to any other uh section or guideline i'm afraid of a precedent of uh so i understand that this is not seen from the street but it's not regarded to be seen from the street in the guideline here and maybe the lawyers on our commission can help out too um that another applicant would say okay this is still in the rear behind an addition um i'm also not concerned much about the um distinguishing it from the historic uh building with a new addition because the new addition already does that both in in where it's placed and it's uh um niching out i would say so i'm i'm just concerned with modern windows in the rear that are not congruent with the rest of the house are there any other commissioners who had thoughts on the modern windows and strong opinions and i really like modern windows don't get me wrong now johnathan i i do agree that there's some language in the criteria that's a you know one or two words that are that are gonna caught up here for you i think it's the language about the windows for me it's the inset on that on that porch piece um and in with with regards to the windows um yeah i think i think there's some clear criteria about uh the configuration of it so i agree with you there giving matt opportunity to read that lawyer it up i agree though the way i read it is the same as johnathan um maybe tom too johnathan this is i agree with your reading on it i'm just not sure there's any way reading it definitely uh vice-chair buchard here um i mean we have f1 that makes it clear that applicants are to retain window openings in their original size proportion and location on street facing and character defining elevations well at limitation is nowhere to be found in f4 with respect to the configuration of the window lights open parence panes closed parence um that criteria is not limited to street facing or character defining elevations so i'm i'm i'm troubled uh just as johnathan is okay so i guess um i would ask race do you have i'm sorry this long wait it's occurring in my house right now um um grace do you have a recommendation on whether this should be sent back to staff for further evaluation and come back before us with changes um if you could just give us a moment i'm actually reading the criteria myself um if you could just give us one moment we'll be right back with you all right thanks thank you i appreciate it we have a count on the total number of windows this affects is is my count of six incorrect that's definitely incorrect it gets five it's five all right and i'm looking at the proposed south elevation everything to the left of those five windows are clearly patio doors not not windows would not be affected by f4 that's that's not what the floor plan should is matt um it's and equal to the floor plan seven is there's only a pair of doors that that right time start yeah that's okay i guess what defines a window versus the doors is a little bit of a question the door folks would call all of those things on the proposed south elevation that are to the left side you know doors some of them happen to be fixed um so um they they read as doors sort of visually and so we we've we we call them in our drawing side lights but um they would be from a door manufacturer and we kind of think of those as doors um to clarify about the casement windows there are five on the south elevation but if you look at um drawing 13 shows two more on the east elevation um and i think that's yeah i think that's it i think that um i haven't said anything mainly because um i think you guys my read is that you guys are speaking within the context of of the commission um but i think that you know if we needed to to to look at these um casement windows we could certainly come up with an alternate proposal i think that if we if we can match them and i don't know if we need to deal with the doors or not um but um but for the windows itself that if we match them i don't think there's any issue with the criteria that would match the criteria percent in your in your opinion do you think the um the matching needs to be an operability or just in the way that that's divided i think the criteria sound more like they're talking about that conform to the shape proportion and configuration of window lights in parentheses panes of windows originally structure and so if the owner was interested in maintaining um casement type windows this piece of the criteria doesn't seem to this is a question um it may not speak to the the type of window it may only be speaking to again the proportion and the division and configuration um and so i think i think that we would want clarity about whether having casements that have um montan bars in them that mimic or or follow the same um division of lights and things as um as the other windows uh that we're showing would be sufficient or whether or not or would they need to be actual double hung windows myself i've never seen a casement window like that but i don't think the criteria addresses it so i don't think that's an issue if that could be proposed at least in my opinion i'm not i'm speaking for myself another portion i agree jonathan whether it's double hung or casement it's really just the appearance of it or concern not the operation of it okay well i think that's probably um it's not our first choice um but i think um i see i see i see exactly what what you're pointing to in the criteria i think it's worth noting that new windows were putting on the house um as i mentioned they follow very very closely to the original um four over one uh double hungs but they we felt like it was appropriate to to make some nod to the fact that they weren't trying to be those old windows and so um having that sort of pedimented or angled piece of the montan at the very top of those divided lights in the upper sash was something we were deliberate about about doing and i think that i think that that um in some ways that um that is in violation of this criteria because we're not copying exactly um it says it shall conform to but it doesn't say it if it's um if it should copy or if it should be in keeping with or it should be um i forget with some of the other terms that are i think in the defined um portion of the criteria where they define things there's a the definitions there's somewhere that talks about yet tom i think i think we're we're uh the piece that's helpful is the clarification about the configurational window lights being paid right which what you're proposing is the four over one um but i don't see any language that specifies the curvature piece or so uh chair hamilton you had asked um our thoughts on this and the staff has been chatting back and forth and we understand the the chair and the board's commitment um position and concerns and we agree that it doesn't if you're looking for appearance to be the same and that's what you're looking for that's probably you know perfectly fine and that's in your purview we do not um we do also agree that it doesn't matter whether they're casement or their um double hung if you're just looking for the appearance but um i think our our thoughts were the windows were on the back i know the the criteria is very straightforward in its read however you do have some discretion in that regard um if you're not comfortable with the proposal then you can continue to work with the applicant if they may they can propose something different here in this meeting or it can be continued and they can work behind the scenes and come back or um i mean we can certainly take some um changes here on the spot if that's what they would like to do to can be keep moving forward um it's really up to the applicant and the commission at this point um i suppose the question is for the applicant i'm sorry i'm sorry uh but i'm in and also uh because i don't think this was uh stated um the applicant had mentioned it as a means to differentiate the addition and and uh staff agrees with that as an appropriate way to um and he's determined uh not at the addition not being the original not trying to match so i just want to also throw that in there i'm agreed as well um you know that there's different ways to differentiate additions you can use different siting materials you can use uh trim boards things like that this applicant i believe is trying to do that through the way of the um the windows that face the rear yard so i agree with mr. de brinsky in that regard however it is up to the commission i would add i would add to just thinking of the president because that means that we're really changing the criteria at this point to allow anyone putting any type of window at least the shape and the size are the same apart for shape and size uh and the rear end says the first and the differentiating it uh if we're fine with it uh then we may i think that that'd be fine but we i think that at this point we won't be able to stop anyone else doing the same and there's also no limitation to how many windows in in an addition can be added that are different in configuration uh vice chair bouchard um jonathan i don't deny that at all but and i don't know how i miss this the first time around i suppose we could construe f2 in a way that would allow us to move forward with the uh casement windows that's currently designed um f2 says when window openings are modified added or removed on non-character defining non-street facing elevations retain the overall rhythm an individual proportion of window openings on the structure nothing about conformance i'm not sure how you can reconcile that with f4 but to grace's point there may be some flexibility for us uh to make a call on this since it is a non-street facing elevation a vote of brinsky of the staff here um i certainly from our practical standpoint understand exactly what uh tensor john down and saying about precedent but i just want to note that being quasi-judicial each application um is should be evaluated on its individual merits each property is different um so that it it it's certainly uh understandable and possible that uh one proposal could have a certain type of window or have different windows and and another couldn't and you could deny it um for uh with legitimate finance effect um yes and grace smith here i would like to agree with um bo on that um you are not changing through your action if you find in within your discretion that this meets the criteria um very similar to what mr um bashar was just saying you are not changing the criteria through this action this is 100 focused on this one application and based on its merits and it's um and your findings of fact in regard to this application it does not change the criteria for future applications is that what legal counsel thinks as well christa curiosity attorney's office i do agree with that um the comments that bow and grace offered um you know i appreciate the concerns that the board has articulated but i do think that each application is considered on its on its merit on its facts um you know i think what what you have explained commissioner dion is that um you know this is just part of the board's history and decision making and you know if there was a very similarly situated property the board would need to consider it similarly um but chances are it would be unlikely that you would have this exact of fact pattern or scenario um and so each case gets considered on its facts so how do we reconcile and uh and thank you very much matt for the for the distinction between f2 and f4 and i'm trying i'm trying let's say we want to move forward with f2 and which would allow it as matt said how do we reconcile it with f4 yeah this is matt i still don't have an answer to that question i really don't it's tough it's tough to glean the intent of the authors of the criteria um on this particular issue uh matt bouchard again i the the the straightforward way out of this i guess is if the applicant is willing to make these um seven windows um four over one in their configuration but if that's not something the applicant is prepared to do during this this hearing that i'm not i'm at a loss to determine how best to proceed i'm i'm uh i'm hesitant to volunteer it's sort of like who goes first right it's um you know we've we've put forth an application that we think is in keeping with the criteria i see a clear discrepancy between f2 and f4 i would i i don't think that um i think that i think that we're prepared to to to make compromises and came came to this meeting very much you know wanting to hear everybody's feedback and and everything but i am hesitant to suggest that the easiest way out would just to have the applicant say the four over one is is fine um it may come to that and and i'm not necessarily um saying that's off the table or anything but i also um would like to hear the the commission and the staff rule on the sort of applicant the application we've put put forward using these criteria okay do you there are some implications of us ruling if we decide to deny it for the windows yeah i would prefer we don't um deny it just based on the implications of that with the year delay and everything um so if we were going to go that route i would say we would need to just send the applicant back to staff to work on it we should not deny it outright um if it's a matter of something as minor as this and it's not an overall proposal to the application as presented um to me the i i've been rereading f2 and f4 um and what happens what happens if we um um hypothetical uh if we vote on a four over one and there's a change would that maybe that's for bow is that a fee uh is that a staff change is that a minor change no it's great i don't know grace someone so um i mean you could you could typically um we can do field adjustments for minor changes but this has been such a large discussion here at this hearing i don't feel comfortable with us making a field adjustment you change out the windows um at the at the um end of the process and i believe our our our legal counsel would like to say something so i'm going to let her chime in mr kukrasi attorney's office um i do want to just offer to the board sort of in the conversation that we're having about section f um that i do think it has to be read in tandem with section h uh on the following page and um which which is on additions because i think what we're sort of and again i can't really speak like matt said to the um to the intent of the drafters you know but i do think that f is is more focused on the windows in the context of sort of the existing structure so in f4 where it says select new or replacement windows i don't really think that that's necessarily contemplating new or replacement windows in a new addition um that's why we have section h which speaks to addition and is a little bit more broad in its language about how it treats windows um that is in h3 and so i i just want to point that out for the board's consideration in this conversation because i do think that this is a tricky um tricky one that we're navigating but i do want to point that out as the board contemplates h3 is footprints sorry what was that you said h3 that's footprint of additions how is that related the version that i have um h3 talks about design additions um to be compatible with and support it to the historic structure and mass proportion general amount of and pattern of window and door openings i may be looking at a different version it's h2 and the newer okay version i think i don't know where it does and it does speak to additions need to be distinguishable through placement and or design grace and for me i'm looking at the old version so sorry about that actually um as a note to staff we do need to publish the new version if it's been approved by city council i don't think it's currently linked on the website but it is not we're in the process probably in the next five days publishing it we had um some technical issues with some maps that needed to be included in that version and it's been challenging so it should be posted in the next five or so business days i'm going to email christa the current version right now it is 1030 and i know that some people need to uh get off so maybe we might make less words and talk about h i'm sorry what was the question again so we um h2 does that reconcile it better with f4 for additions regardless specifically i mean i i i think we could rely upon h2 in determining whether or not the addition in particularly that south elevation um is in congress with the overall historic character of the primary building and conclude it is not in congress um but i you know whenever i'm construing um language like this in our criteria um you know i usually default to um specific provisions should govern over general provisions um and so we've got this specific provision regarding the the window lights um and it's it's kind of hard to ignore that since that's far more specific with respect to the discrete issue we're looking at here i.e these casement windows than h2 is so i i'm still having trouble uh reconciling um h2 with with f4 with respect to this particular issue wish april we're still on here because there is obviously a historic preference in certain instances for the additions to be distinct and not to mimic exactly the existing so that you really are um able to you know tal how the building has grown over time um and i do think having a different type of window supports that style of preservation and i mean chris's point to how f4 is worded where it speaks of new replacement windows does kind of feel like it is relative to the existing structure or the you know original structure um but i don't have a strong opinion as to how to interpret these either i'm not sure really this is a hard one andy you're the architect how do you feel well it's it's hard because i uh i i really understand why they did what they're doing um you know it does bring me comfort that it is in the in the rear it's a similar portion um you know you have a larger glass pane of the doors uh with with their side lights um which are fairly large comparably the other uh presidents of its nature but um you know they're continuing that band of under the structure of glass across that that elevation um you know so i i truly understand why why they're doing this um i also am a stickler for for what things say so if we're having a hard time getting confusion or having confusion about uh what what this is um you know i was i was lean towards having the the applicant or take it back to staff and and work sure and to confirm uh this this work within the criteria it's interesting because i feel like i've been in i've been in similar situations with making an addition that was uh that followed h2 very very much but was trying almost to be more distinctive from the original structure um and and and having made those kinds of applications with with some success and and you know folks saying that yeah it's okay for it to to look and and be different um it carried through through the windows or materiality or other things you know sort of there's always like i say the slippery slope between copying what's there and and trying to make it look historic and and making it really seem like it's new um but it is still congruous um and so i feel like in some ways we've gone very far because all of the all the parts that you see from the public right of way are in fact you know four over one and materials and roof slopes and overhangs and you know that whole palette of vocabulary proportions and things are are very much in keeping with it and it's just sort of this one area on the back of the house um again i i i feel like uh other other applications i've seen or or been part of um you know give a little bit more leeway to an addition than than than this that's not to say at four is uh not intended for for this i it's hard to know would that mean that would that mean that any addition accessory building in the rear is uh can have modern windows in the historic district um i'm not sure about that and i i'm not going to speak to that necessarily but i i will just speak to the fact that on other other applications i've seen um that that that that did become something that um was was approved and was um and and a lot often case it is related to the um the fact that it isn't part of the historic fabric it's it's a new thing and so that's that's i think that's why i really like h2 because it's talking about it's compatible with and it's um the massing and the proportion it's not talking about the lights of the glass you know that seems like a very um specific to the original house piece of this i'm ruminating and and just speculating here um so i don't i don't know what the intent was with the criteria but there's clearly a conflict within it f2 and f4 don't agree and then h2 um is also another tangent i guess to the to it so to me it doesn't seem like it's um it's very clear uh boat of brinsky with staff here i just we said earlier i wanted to remind folks that you know that this case is special so or not nothing special in this case but each case is special so the set of facts um will dictate the decision so if these windows were approved here it wouldn't necessarily mean that modern windows would be approved throughout and i agree with the comment that was just made about the criteria sort of the though as it relates to h2 i'm not sure if there's a conflict as much as there's a um an insinuation of priority that isn't stated um at least i think staffs read in terms of the the criteria for an addition and then how the specifics are laid out so i just wanted to try to help out so which one do you think uh perceives the specific f for the general h i think our read and probably why other cases may have had more leniency as a part of their consideration is that h has been prioritized and in terms of the discussion and consideration um again it doesn't state that so i'm not and i'm a stickler for words as as well so i but i didn't want to chime in that i think it's it's not that they're completely conflicting i think it's just one um uh you know it's the the specific sources the the bro the broader one in age it's your call how to move forward well i guess can i one how many measures we still have a quorum correct um or for the um yes can i get like everybody's temperature on this would they approve it with the casement windows as opposed i would not i would really prefer giving that and i don't want to deny the application by the way my personal feeling is that it does look great i think those windows are appropriate in in the in the lake andy said uh i think it's appropriate where it is and how it's designed i have a problem with the criteria and and i do and i understand what bow and and staff spoke about uh about being a unique situation however it's very hard for me to distinguish what makes this one so unique and that's why i won't be able to vote i and to approve this in the meantime i wouldn't really you know uh appreciate if we could leave that aside in a way so we can approve the whole application then come back only to this regard if needed but that's not for me to decide that's for the applicant katie this is this is andy um given given that it seems seems like a commission okay with the other factors in this house yeah i think the the one piece is the windows um and just getting clarification about about this piece so i would i would vote no right now oh with that in mind um my question to the applicant is would you prefer to propose today to use the simulated divided light casement windows as you discussed or would you prefer to have this taken back um so that you can you know either discuss amongst yourself or come up with another concept and bring it back forward with the windows um and we can i think today approve everything other than those windows um but that would be the question to the applicant thank you and i very much appreciate this discussion then and i think um i'm not trying to drag this out or anything else um if if i think in the at the end of the day um the decision about how the windows are configured in this one small area isn't is not a big a big deal to us and so i think um agreeing to have those be configured as either double hung four over one similar to the other windows we had proposed or having them be casement four over one with with just mutton bars that that again will um mimic um the the same division of lights and proportions of those lights that you see in the double hung examples um we're willing to do that and so i think that that probably seems like the easiest way forward at this point um i appreciate all the conversations about it i think that that there do there does seem to be a lot of um relevant to me about it so um but yeah i'll put that forward as as a as a kind of way forward um we can we can certainly change those and agree um in in in this approval that those windows be four over one um in their in their visual read all right so with that um we will move forward with this case with the um additions to the or the modifications to the application of that the rear windows will be four over one simulated divided light in either a casement configure uh operation or double hung operation and then with respect to the trees grace um i know you'd said you were working on um wordsmithing that have you um yes um so i think um an acceptable motion for that would be hold on one second i have to get back to where i was let's see let's see okay so i think what you can do you can add a bullet for the um landscaping or you can change the bullet for the landscaping that states um that um any new plantings of minimum um any new plantings would um let's see here new trees of a minimum dbh of 12 feet in maturity and in accordance with the Durham landscape manual so you can wordsmith how that how you want but i think they need to it needs to state that it will be a minimum um diameter at breast height of 12 feet in maturity and in accordance with the Durham landscape manual and then that way the species can be decided upon later all right so the minimum dbh is a diameter um at breast height so that is two averages and minimum maximum height at maturity of 12 feet yes yes that's correct thank you you got it i know you would because that's your that's your space so fine i always mess up and say calvary when i mean dbh and then told i'm wrong so um another quick point vice chair bouchard here on the trees um since the motion will have our usual language about um the work being in accordance with the application materials those application materials right now do call for the removal of four additional trees so i don't know if in connection with this bullet point we're writing related to plantings of new trees we also want to limit the trees are going to be removed uh to the two closest uh to the existing um historic structure my understanding that the application still called for the removal of those rear trees does it not i know that was kind of a tom saying they might be able to preserve them but they might not so i think if we um are going to approve it today we should approve it with the understanding that those might be removed um but that they could save them correct tom is that uh yeah the the trees further back um the we we have not um a very we don't have a precise measure of the number of trees that measure greater than 12 inches um it i think that if it's okay with everybody we would say that if there's another tree that's greater than 12 inches that that we find as we survey and get closer to this um further back um that we would need to go back to staff or or something like that i don't know i'm not very familiar with how the commissions the gears turn and everything so um but yeah so i would defer to whatever you guys say but um it is true that there are other trees further back that um that just don't have the level of precision about where exactly they're placed and how big they are and so um if the approval today is just regarding these two trees that's another way forward we could say that if there were additional trees then we would have to go back to someone the staff could offer this um we could focus on the two trees that we know are mature um and then we could they could present um evidence or um materials to staff later and and and receive approval for the other tree removal through a minor special i mean a minor um coa um versus having to come back through the commission if you just wanted to focus on the two that you know will be removed and then that way you don't have to worry about any other trees that might come into play they would be reviewed by staff and we would work with them to be sure they're replaced accordingly or appropriately oh and also the um the um changes with the windows um that would have to be a condition on the coa because it was added today during the meeting so um that would need to be a condition versus a bullet in the motion that needs to be part of the conditions thank you so with all of that new knowledge um is anyone willing to you take a stab at the um motion so we're going to add to the existing motion you're going to add a condition that the closed casement windows will now be a simulated four over one divided light window that is either casement or double hunk and that the tree any additional trees beyond the two closest to the existing structure that are to be removed shall be subject to minor coas why do we need to add that that's that's obvious right if they if they have any changes and it's a minor coa they just go to staff and ask for it correct you just need to focus on the two and then if there are other trees to be dealt with we will deal with that separately that is correct thank you um commissioner dan all right so we're we're going to say this is limited to just the two trees closest because they do have graphics that show six trees being removed so that's where we need to clarify that we're only proving the two trees closest to the building wait we're not approving all the the removal and i missed this i thought we're proving all trees to be removed and only two additional two to be uh replanted um because the other trees will they need to remove them for the accessory pool structure and the pool itself so that's what i thought we were doing it first but then after speaking with tom i thought we were saying that they might not need to so we weren't going to prove that and that was going to be subject to a staff approval minor coa yeah yeah that that that's my understanding is that it's um these two trees are the ones that are really in the the limelight they're the ones that that we know we're going to need to get rid of there's other trees back there that may or may not be big enough to warrant um consideration or the the sort of staff or whomever's approval so i think that to me it sounds like if we just say that these two trees are the subject of this approval um and that that are included in the the removal of these are included in this um approval then that would satisfy me from your drawings right now i just want to be clear because if we don't approve this i don't see how you can build a structure on two trees because you have the two two of the four trees are on the pool structure and the the fourth tree maybe the one in between is not but the fourth tree that it's where the pool itself is it looks like the foundations of the pool and the tree are at the same point on drawing one um i think the the location and the size of those trees is to be confirmed so i think um the two that are closest to the house the size and location of those is confirmed so i think um that speaks to i think the the approval that we're after okay matt someone yeah i'm working on a good sense one for the motion for review in the chat and kind of get the condition just for the benefit of anyone who may be listening or watching on youtube um andy sent in the chat proposed language for emotion which says two trees closest to the house will be removed and replaced with plantings having matured dbh of 12 feet and additionally i added for the commission's reference the added condition regarding windows i see katie you shaking your head yeah katie give it to me i'm not i'm not waiting for you guys dbh is diameter of the trunk it can't be 12 feet all right that's like a big tree disney of life size it's going to be 12 so maybe when um when it comes up for an actual motion that can be revised i'm just reading it from the chat for the benefit of youtube watchers who i don't think are able to see the chat um and then i also offered for the board the an added condition regarding the windows which katie had already stated but i wanted everyone to be able to see it casement windows will be simulated divided light for everyone that can be casement or double hung i guess the first casement should be removed but there you go um yeah perfect so andy when you mature height of 12 feet yes and a minimum dbh of two and a half inches that install two and a half inches yeah inches not yeah no i know it's very confusing there's too many words regarding trees all right andy yeah all right i have a motion yeah the Durham Historic Preservation Commission finds that in case coa two zero zero zero zero five seven 2001 club boulevard removal of non-contributing accessory structure construction of new accessory structures with the associated site work and a two-story addition to the rear of a single family dwelling the applicant is proposing a two-story addition modification and site work to a contributing structure the existing non-contributing accessory structure dating from the 1950s both dating the 1920s primary structure will be removed two new one-story accessory structures will be constructed an end ground pool and associated concrete and stone paver walkways will be constructed in the rear yard two trees closest to the house will be removed and replace the planting having a mature height of 12 feet and a minimum dbh of two and a half inches at install therefore the conclusion of law is that the proposed additions and alterations are consistent with the historic character and qualities of the historic district and are consistent with the historic property locality criteria typically those listed in the staff report and the Durham Historic Preservation Commission approves the certificate of appropriateness for case coa two zero zero zero five seven two thousand one west club boulevard scope of work with the following conditions one the improvements shall be substantially consistent with the plans and testimony presented to the commission at this commission hearing and attached to this coa two the improvements may require additional 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 or working the right away and a compliance inspection shall be performed immediately upon completion of the work group here in or windows will be simulated divided like four over one that can be cases or double home um did we have a second second maybe we want to clarify it's only the rear windows the addition i don't know if we have to i think that's the only place they propose the casement right and also maybe the single home can also be optional any home um yeah that's true singling is fine do i need to amend what i just said or remind me to process your act i think christy kukro city attorney's office i think if you want to accept those as a friendly amendment i think that that's fine do i need to state it christa um if you want to state that that last condition regarding the windows i think that would be helpful for the group okay all right uh i'm gonna amend the last condition to restate it as the fourth condition windows will be simulated divided like four over one on the rear elevation that can be cases double home or single home with that revised one are we now good to do a roll call vote dairy yes uh commissioner down yes chair hamilton um vice chair poshard yes uh commissioner de berry yes and commissioner goalsby motion passes five zero all right thank you very much thank you so much thank you thank you talk and it is going to be a beautiful project yeah we're looking forward to it thank you again applicants i think we can now close kcoa two zero zero zero five seven um there's no new or old business on the agenda correct that is correct chair hamilton i do have two announcements um i did receive confirmation from the county uh clerk's office that we did have an appointment made to replace um commissioner jordan so i will get with that person and um work on um acclimating them through orientation and um get them on board as soon as possible just wanted to make sure you knew that and also um well three things back to the um revised criteria the vetted criteria online we should have that posted in the hopefully five business days we've had some um technology issues with the mapping that we had to basically redo all the mapping for that for that so yeah at any rate um it's getting there the the word document the actual wording in the text is correct so we may post it and just have a holding spot for the map for the moment that might be the best thing to do um the other thing was next month we're going to have several cases so i would ask that you not have any conflicts with your time if possible um i will send out an email to the others that have already left the meeting i know that seems like every month we have at least three people that say they have to leave by 10 30 so this is a heads up that maybe next month you program a little extra time maybe just today at least till 11 30 it may go till noon um because we have several cases so i'm just throwing that out there um we would like to not be caught without a quorum so i will be sure to remind the others and um thank you for your um participation today and we look forward to seeing you again virtually thanks grace and thanks for the update next week i think with that we are good to adjourn thanks thanks next month next week happy halloween everybody fire