 Multiple staff members are behind the scenes to make sure that the meeting runs smoothly and all applicants and citizens are able to communicate with the commission at the appropriate times. During the meeting you will see live images or still images of DDRC members and staff, however images of the applicant and public will not be visible. The public will also be able to participate via three methods. When participating please provide your name for documentation purposes. You may watch email phone or log into a web session to participate in the meeting. If you're watching you may stream the meetings through City TV access at www.youtube.com backslash user backslash Columbia SC government. If you're emailing you may submit letters and statements to COC board meeting at Columbia SC.gov leading up to and or during the meeting as this account will be monitored. Emails or letters will be read into the record and there is a 500 board limit on anything read into the record. The public may participate via phone. You may call 855-925-2801. When prompted please enter the meeting code which is 6609. If you're phoning in you'll receive three options on how to participate. Star one will allow you to listen, star two will allow you to record a voicemail message that will be read into the record and star three will allow participants to be placed in a queue so that you may speak live when prompted. Please make sure your audio is muted if calling them via your phone. If you're streaming you can stream via the web. The public may join at publicinput.com backslash COCDRC-February. I'll call the roll. Please make sure that you are unmuted. Mr. Baker. I know you're with us. I see you here. Mr. Bram. Thank you. Mr. Dinkins. Here. Ms. Fuller-Wilt. Here. Ms. Jacob. Here. Mr. Salibi. Here. Mr. Saferi. Here. We have quorum. In order to avoid ex parte communications DDRC members are under strict instructions not to discuss cases under consideration with the public or with each other outside of the public forum. The meeting typically starts with staff calling the case giving a summary of the project and then calling on the applicant to present if they wish. Decisions are typically made on one evening and decisions may be appealed within 30 days to a court of competent jurisdiction. Oaths will be administered individually as we hear either from applicants or from live speakers. Applicants with requests before the DDRC are allotted a presentation time of 10 minutes. This time should include but is not limited to an overview of the project, case history, and any pertinent meetings held regarding the request. This time also includes all persons presenting information on behalf of the applicant such as attorneys, engineers, and architects. This time limit does not include any questions asked by the DDRC or staff regarding the request. Members of the general public are given the opportunity to address their concern in intervals of two minutes. Applicants may have five minutes to respond. Staff has a timer and will make presenters aware of when their time has expired. Are there any changes to the agenda? We've had a few changes since publication under the regular part of the agenda, 1511 Morrill Street, which was a request for a recommendation for removal of a DP designation for an individual landmark or landmark district. In a landmark district has been withdrawn and 1001 Senate Street a request for a certificate of design approval for exterior changes to a national register structure and the daily bill structure has been deferred. That would be all. The DDRC uses the consent agenda to approve non-controversial or routine matters by a single motion vote. If a member of the DDRC or the general public wants to discuss an item on the consent agenda, that item is removed from the consent agenda and considered during the meeting. The DDRC then approves the remaining consent agenda items. Will staff please read the consent agenda? Certainly. The first item is 2117 Jervais Street. This is a request for design approval for new construction and site improvements in the Waverley Protection Area. Our next case is 2200 Hampton Street, a request for design approval for changes to a previously approved design in the Waverley Protection Area. 304-306 Whaley Street, a request for design approval for new construction in the Grandi Architectural Conservation District. 1210 Fairview Drive, which is a request for design approval for exterior changes in the Melis Heights O'Connor Architectural Conservation District. And last 1917 Seneca Avenue, a request for preliminary certification for the Bailey Bell in the Wales Garden Architectural Conservation District. And this building is also an individual landmark. Is there anyone from the DDRC that would like any item removed from the consent agenda? Not hearing anything. Is there anyone from the public that would like to have an item removed from the consent agenda? Sherry. Do we have someone? I apologize. No, I do not have any call on the line that has indicated which to speak. Do I have a motion to set the consent agenda in the January minutes? I will move to approve the consent agenda with all staff recommendations in the January minutes. Do we have a second? Second. Mr. Baker. Mr. Baker, do you approve the motion on Mr. Broom? Yes. Mr. Dinkins? Yes. Ms. Fuller-Wilt? Yes. Ms. Jacob? Yes. Mr. Salivi? I would like to recuse myself in this vote. Thank you, Mr. Salivi. And Mr. Sabry. Yes. Motion passes. We are ready to move on to the regular portion of our agenda. All right. So the first case on the regular agenda is for, this is at 2020 Durbay Street. This is in the Five Points Urban Design District and the request is an appeal to a staff decision to deny a certificate of design approval for sign illumination. The image is taking a minute here. Let me read this while I'm trying to get the image up. So the request is for internal illumination of an existing sign. The permit for the current installed sign was issued in December of 2020 with condition that the sign not be internally illuminated per section 4.1c of the Five Points Design Guidelines. Those are included in your packet. Staff recommended external illumination as an alternative to the internal illumination for additional nighttime visibility. The applicant has returned to request internal illumination of the three dots. Let me see if I can, I'm having trouble with my screen share right now. Can you guys see that? Yeah. Okay. It looks like we see your whole screen. Yeah. Okay. Can you see the image of the? See the image with the three dots? Yeah. Yes. Okay. Great. So anyway, this is the, the sign has actually been installed. This is two sort of, I mean, three acrylic dots that, you know, the standard liquor store signage and the staff recommends denial of the appeal as it is not compatible with the design guidelines and is inconsistent with past approvals for internally illuminated signage and sets a precedent for other approvals of internally illuminated signage within the district. And I'm not really sure if the applicant is here. Let me see if I can see their name on the attendance list. Is the applicant here? Well, I guess until we hear from them, I guess we can just let the DVRC discuss and if they speak up, then they can make their presentation. So no one at the moment wishes to speak on it, Lucinda. I don't know if the applicant is here. I haven't heard them speak up. So either they're not here or they're on mute, but And we can open it up for a commissioner discussion. Does anybody have any comments, questions? No, no comments. Okay. Amy with Sanford. I'm just wondering what, what are their, what are their grounds for coming back? I'm trying to understand. So basically, typically signage is reviewed at the staff level. And I mean, we use the guidelines every time we approve signage in a district. And really the only time it comes to DVRC for in a design district is if the applicant just wants to kind of appeal the decision. And so the way we make decisions, particularly when we have guidelines that say things like discouraged or, you know, generally discouraged, things like that is we just try to make very consistent decisions each time we approve a sign. So similar city center, we, we don't approve internally eliminated signage in the five points district at the staff level. So, and just as a little bit of background, I mean, that the five points design guidance, when these are being written, there is a strong desire from the the five points business association, people would tend to those meetings to be for things to have some flexibility so that if a particularly creative sign break them up, that that can be considered. So, or for example, a precedent that I can think of, which was in a different design district, but you guys saw the Prisma health signage come up and the city center district a couple of years ago, they had emergency room signage. And so that was something that DVRC took on as an exception to the guidelines to allow for internal illumination. So staff usually doesn't allow these unless the DVRC finds reason to make an exception. I guess that was my question is where is there or do they have anything other than a picture? I'm just not finding any requests other than the request itself as in the region. Right. This is all I've received in the field. Yeah, it's just an appeal and I they have the information about the meeting. I'm not sure. Like I said, I don't see them here, but the sign has been installed and I would have liked to have gotten a picture of it, but I just I didn't get to it. So, but if just a little bit of context, this is the kind of newly you guys saw this project when it came as a kind of a remodel addition. And this is the service station on the corner of Dervais and Hardin. Anyway, that's the background. Thanks. Thanks, Glufendor. Sure. I would actually like to maybe add something. Just from perspective of previous precedence was listening. You mentioned the Prisma signage, but that was that was unique. The commission determined it was unique. It was emergency room signage. But we have there has been precedent when we've had in fact in this district have had signage that's been approved by staff and then the sign that was put up didn't follow the what would have been approved and it was removed. The commission voted to remove it. I think I mean, in my mind, this is a clear case of it not being the signage that was approved being signs that is discouraged, strongly discouraged in the guidelines. So only under this only under very unusual circumstances would you consider this emergency signage. So I don't think it falls in that kind of category. So that I mean, at least that's my perspective. I agree with you, Tom. And just to be clear that they did get a permit to put the signage up, but it was with the stipulation that it not be eliminated. So yeah, okay, I just want to be clear about that. Yeah, I think that that makes all the difference. Any other comments from commissioners? We encourage those that would like to communicate via email to begin sending in letters and emails. I see the email address there, COC board meeting at Columbia SC.gov or on the web. For those wanting to leave a voicemail or speak live, please call the number 855-925-2801 when prompted. Please enter the meeting code 6609. Then press star two to begin leaving the voicemail. If you would like to speak live, press star three. Please be sure your computer audio is off to avoid feedback. So we will now hear comments that have been received in writing. There is a 500 word limit into the record. We will now hear any voicemails received, as well as those from calling in live. Have we received anything? We currently do not have any callers. We do not have any. And I'm not sure if you've heard me. I do not have any callers on the line at this moment. Making sure the dogs are not a caller, but okay, sounds good. So no communication, no calls? Okay, can we move to a motion? I'll move to deny a certificate of design approval for sign elimination at 2020 Jervais Street. Based upon the sign not being compatible with the design guidelines and it is inconsistent with past approvals for internally eliminated signage. I have a second. And the sign shall be removed. Excuse me. Wait, just to clarify that the signage shall be removed. Sorry, they have a permit for the sign to be not eliminated. It's just they were just asking to add elimination, just to be clear. Okay, I'm sorry. Author is already eliminated. No. Okay. Okay, my motion stands as originally stated. We have a second. Mr. Baker. Mr. Brown. Mr. Dinkins. Yes. Ms. Hohler-Wilt. Yes. Ms. Jacob. Yes. Mr. Salibi. Yes. And Mr. Sadevery. Yes. Lush and Hasses. All right, next case when you get ready. Sorry, I'm just going to try to switch back to this other. Yeah, yeah, I'll get started. This next case is a request for a certificate of design approval for exterior changes to a circa 1910 two-story front gable structure with a symmetrical facade and two-story porch supported by Tuscan columns. The facade has minimal ornamentation, save a diamond vent in the gable and is largely defined by the alignment of its windows and doors. A pattern found on similar stuff. The applicant is proposing to relocate the second-story door from the left to the right side of the facade location of an existing window. This is illustrated on sheet A dash 0.00 of the plans. This is to accommodate a later alteration to the interior plan. The proposal would reuse both the window and door, but relocate them to opposite sides of the facade from their current placement. This proposal would alter the highly symmetrical nature of the primary elevation. For the project architect, the second story floor plan has been altered within the last two decades. It appears that this door was originally accessed through a hallway, which has since been enclosed to become a closet. While interior changes are outside of the purview of the DDRC, in this case, they are responsible for the proposal to make changes to the exterior. For the standards for review set out in section 17-674D of the city ordinance, changes to contributing structures should be supported by physical, documentary, or pictorial evidence. As the proposal for exterior changes lacks support in any of these areas, staff is recommending denial of the request. Allowing for changes to openings without evidence or historic precedent, particularly on highly visible elevations, would set a poor precedent in the district. Rather than go through all of the criteria, I'll just focus on those pertinent to this particular project. Starting with criteria E. Distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property shall be preserved. This structure has a very simple facade, which is defined by the symmetry of its openings. Altering the symmetry of the facade would alter one of the most distinctive features of the primary elevation of this structure, and therefore is not consistent with this standard. criteria F. Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severe deterioration or complete loss requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature shall match the old and design, color, finish, texture, and other visual qualities, and wear possible materials. Replacement of missing features shall be substantiated by documentary, physical, or pictorial evidence, and character defining features that have been lost due to intentional damage, removal, or neglect shall be rebuilt. As previously stated, no pictorial, physical, or documentary evidence has been unearthed by the applicant or staff to support the proposed changes. As the symmetry is a character defining feature of the facade, alterations to this pattern are not consistent with this standard. The applicant has submitted a list accompanied by photographs of examples of other structures to support their request. Staff researched all of these examples, and all were either later alterations to the structure. The form of the structure was significantly different, or the openings themselves were not consistent with the applicant's request. As a result, these examples should not serve as a basis for alteration of historic features in this district. Staff noted on each photograph information specific to that structure, and this can be found in the evaluation packet. Staff also assessed historic examples of two-story porches in the district. Of these historic examples, with the same or similar form as 2314 Lincoln Street, all included a symmetry of windows and doors on their facade. Criteria H, exterior alterations or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. The proposed exterior alterations will alter the facade in such a way that it will be impossible to distinguish the altered location of the window and door. As the pattern for historic two-story porches in the district is for their openings to be symmetrical, this proposal would deviate from the patterns in the district, which is not consistent with this standard. As previously stated, alterations to the interior that do not impact the exterior of a structure are not reviewed by the DDRC or staff. While staff finds the proposed exterior changes to be inconsistent with the standards set out in section 17-674D, the applicant may address the interior floor plan issues created by later alterations on the interior of the structure without further review by staff or the DDRC and without impacting the exterior of the structure. Based on the criteria previously noted, staff finds that the project at 2314 Lincoln Street does not comply with section 17-674D of the City of Columbia Ordinance and recommends denial of the request for a certificate of design approval for exterior changes. And I believe the applicant is here. Yes, can you hear me? Yes, hi. Can you say your name please? Yes, my name is Jeff Rogers. I live at 2314 Lincoln Street. And do you affirm to tell the truth in these proceedings? I do. Thank you. Does that mean it's my turn? Yes, sorry, you may please. Okay, I'm just going to make a very brief statement and then I have a video that I'd like to screen share with you and then I was going to let our architect Justin Washburn make a closing remark. We'll keep within our 10-minute time frame. So my name is Jeff Rogers. My wife, Kelly, and I live at 2314 Lincoln Street and we are requesting a modification to our upstairs front porch. Forgive me for reading. We are committed to having this modification done in such a way that the new trim work will be indistinguishable from the original and we believe that most passers-by will never know the difference. Honestly, you can't even really see our upstairs window and door if you're standing in front of our house on the side wall. To be clear, we're not flipping this house. We are 30-year residents of the Cotton Town, Earl Wood, and Elmwood Park area and we plan to live in this house well into retirement. We love the historic charm of our neighborhood and we are not anti-historic preservation by any means. But our house is also home to our daughter, two dogs, a cat, and a hamster. We live in our house. To us, it's not a museum like the Robert Mills House or Hampton Preston Mansion, which is, we're beautiful and we love to visit them but we wouldn't want to live there without making significant upgrades and changes. We feel very balanced making modifications necessary to live in this university while still honoring the integrity of our historic homes that we all love and appreciate in our beautiful neighborhood and the following short video includes testimony for many of our Elmwood Park neighbors who support our request and if it's with your permission I'd like to, I'd like to share my screen and show that now. I think you can go ahead and try it. I'll stop sharing. Okay. So now is everybody seeing that? The affidavit? Yes. Yes. One. My name is Kat Scalacci and for the past eight years I've been proud to call 2308 Lincoln Street my home. Jeff and Kelly live just right there and they have been amazing neighbors and I'm in full support of their request to change the window and the door and I would ask that you also support their request. Hey, I'm George Maryweather. I have been in Elmwood Park for over 15 years. I've known Jeff and Kelly for almost all of that period. They have been wonderful neighbors very thoughtful the kind that make this a really neat community neighborhood. I know they've been very attentive to historical details and the one change they're proposing with respect to a door which would allow them to use the porch. I think in no way to tracks from the historical significance of the property and I think every effort should be made to support them as they restore this house. Hello. My name is Tony Chabora. My wife Eddie Weinberg and I live at 2300 Lincoln Street which is just doors down from Kelly and Jeff Rogers. I'd like to say that both my wife and I wholeheartedly support Jeff and Kelly's desire to change the facade of their house. Hi, I'm Michael Palson. Maria Fabrizio. And we've been neighbors of Jeff and Kelly Rogers for about seven years now speaking out in support of their proposal of your review of the plans and really don't think that it would be noticeable at all from the street from what we've looked at and I think it'd be a great addition for them and I'm in full support of it. Hey, we're Sean and Naomi Eubanks. We live at 2316 Lincoln Street right next door to Jeff and Kelly and we understand that they want to move their door and we are definitely okay with that. We think the historic appearance of the neighborhood is important but it's also important for these houses to be comfortable and marketable and we definitely want people to want to live here. Hi, my name is Margaret Varner and I live in Elmwood Park around the corner from Jeff and Kelly Rogers and I'd just like to voice my support for the work they'd like to do on their upstairs front porch. I'd love to see them use it and enjoy it and I walk down that street Lincoln Street several times a week and I think it would be great if they could get the work done. Good afternoon. My name is Rainey Wilson. I'm a recovering architect with Community Design Solutions here in Columbia, South Carolina and believe it or not for eight years I also served on the DDRC back when dinosaurs roamed the earth and so first of all I just want to express my appreciation for what you do. I do want to speak on behalf of Jeff and Kelly and their application with you today and I suppose from my perspective I have a couple of points just for your consideration. The first I think for all of us who care deeply about preservation matters it's this constant battle and wrestle between majoring on the majors and monitoring on the minors. There have been a few unfortunate instances in our neighborhood I think you're aware where people didn't major on the majors. The house to the left of Jeff's is an example of a very inappropriate porch recommendation. Around the corner there's a house that's built of the wrong material and of the wrong style in our neighborhood and around the corner is our two houses that are set back too far from the street wall of buildings and so in those instances when the majors weren't here too we really had a loss in the character of the neighborhood. But when it comes to the minor things you know we just have to exercise a great deal of care to make sure that we're making judicious decisions that are thoughtful that don't compromise the character of the houses in the neighborhood but it also allows us to to utilize them in our current situation. So in my mind you know the requests before you especially from the purview of DDRC and the things that are readily visible from the street it's essentially basically a detailing issue even a detailing question. And I think the architects done a very reasonable job of how to treat the lentils on the doors and the windows to make them look very, very compatible. And I think when we reference you know the standard that we all appeal to the Secretary of Interior's standards for historic rehabilitations you know their application satisfies it on at least two fronts. The point of being very compatible yet distinct and as well as the point of it being a reversible addition to the house itself. But I think the final thing that I would say in support of their request is the whole notion of distinguishing between character and conformity. You know what they're requesting in no way changes either the character of their house or their house within the block or the block within the neighborhood as a contributing structure within the historic district. Whereas if the issue was conformity I think we were going to lose something because there are examples all around the neighborhood of examples where doors didn't align with doors and instead align with windows both in the pre as well as the current period of significance. And so I would hate to see them be hindered from this change since they're doing something that has tons and tons of precedent in the neighborhood itself. So those are just my thoughts for your consideration. Again I appreciate everything you do for the City of Columbia and for our neighborhood and I wish you the best as you deliberate this decision. My name is Randy Wilson I reside at 2307 Lincoln Street in Columbia in Elmwood Park and this testimony is my own and it's true and it's without any compensation or anything it's my volitional will and I just want to be on the record is in support of their application for a certificate of appropriateness for their request. And I was just going to turn it over to Justin for the closing remark. Justin can you state your name please? Justin Washburn. And do you affirm to tell the truth in these proceedings? Yes. Thank you. I'm the architect for this renovation the interior of the home is in good condition and has already seen numerous renovations. The proposed project consists of minor interior adjustments to doors and walls to improve the function of the existing floor plan. In addition to the interior work we're proposing to change the location of the second floor porch door and for right window as shown in the elevation frame. The existing windows in the front elevation are not original to the house as evidenced by the window sash being a wood frame with double pane glass. The existing second floor porch door is a wood door with single pane glass and its exact age is unknown but we do not believe it is original. As shown in the proposed elevations and Photoshop rendering we are proposing to swap the location of the second floor porch door and for right window. This will allow the owners to access the front porch through the bedroom rather than through the existing bathroom and closet. The owners will regain the front porch for personal use as well as for entertaining guests. The existing door location leaves the front porch undesirable and forgotten leading to neglect and deterioration as evidenced by its current condition. In the existing photos you can clearly see temporary supports holding up the second porch. The proposed Lincoln Street elevation is consistent with several of the neighboring properties. Some properties have enclosed porches. Others have added second floor porches on top of first floor porches along with door and window changes. The neighborhood elevation displays the neighborhood elevations display symmetry in their porches, roofs and massing. However, doors and windows are often not symmetrical throughout the neighborhood. The proposed door and window change will hardly be noticeable due to the depth of the porch and railings but it greatly impacts the use for the owner. Thank you for considering our application. Jeff and I would be glad to answer any questions you have. Thank you. So right at time there. Amy? Hi. Okay. Any follow-up questions? From DDRC? We encourage. Oh, yes. Go ahead. Just a quick question over here. So the plan seemed to also suggest a change to the rear of the house. It doesn't seem to be addressed by staff comments. I'm assuming that portion of the request would not be included in the staff's recommendation for denial? Yes, that's correct. That rear, it's essentially an enclosure of an existing porch that's not going to be visible from the public right of way. So it doesn't require a review. So that's why it's not noted. Any other comments? We encourage those that would like to communicate the email to begin sending in letters and emails. See the email address and the web. For those wanting to leave a voicemail or speak live, call 855-925-2801. And when prompted, please enter the meeting code 6609 then press star two to begin leaving the voicemail. If you would like to speak live, press star three. Please be sure your computer audio is off to avoid you back. We will now hear comments that have been received in writing. There is a 500 word limit on anything read into the record. We will now hear any voicemails received as well. And those from calling in live. Is there any communications? There is one email. I can read that right now. This is from Beth and Jamie Frost. I would like to give my full support of Jeff and Kelly Rogers at 2314 Lincoln Street for the relocation of their upstairs porch door. I live three houses down the street and my husband Jamie and I feel they should be allowed to make this minor change since they currently have a door on the upstairs porch. Thank you, Beth and Jamie Frost. And that is the only email I see at this time. Okay, have we received any other correspondence calls? Anything? I do not see any voicemails and I do not have any callers on the line. Does the applicant have any follow-up? I don't believe so. Move to any questions, comments from DDRC members? Yeah, you know, I'm not speaking out of term. Her and am I? No, I don't believe so. Amy, we're good. So reviewing the guidelines from section 17674D you know, the biggest hold-up seems to be subsection E which talks about distinctive features finishes, instruction techniques. And as the applicant pointed out and I kind of noticed as obviously this is a huge change, right? It's the front facade of the building facing the street generally in the public right away or viewable from the public right away. But I've got to admit that, you know, reviewing the pictures initially I was looking and thought, well, where exactly? Which side is the door on? I mean, it was a little hard to determine. Knowing now that, you know, it's all about the symmetry, obviously your view would be directed towards the left side because you can obviously see the front door on the first level. But to me, you know, I don't... The change wouldn't be a change of a distinctive feature in the sense that this is obviously my opinion that it was a little difficult to tell which side the window was on and which side the door was on initially. So I guess, you know, distinctive, that's a word that's left up to interpretation requires a little bit of discretion. And obviously it is a change of a distinctive feature in the sense that it is a door versus a window. But to the naked eye, it was a little difficult to tell and I don't think that allowing them to switch the door, especially... And maybe this is a question more for the applicant or the architect. I'm assuming the door that would be switched to the other side would still be glass. Yes, the intent is to repair the existing door and relocate it to the new location. So it would be the exact same door repaired in better condition. Those are all the comments I had. Any other comments from commission members? Amy, I mean, would staff like to comment anymore based upon what was just discussed? I would defer to Megan on that. Megan, do you have anything to add? I can make a couple of notes. So I just want to reiterate here that the examples that were provided from the district where windows and doors don't align on the facade, those were all much later alterations to these buildings. We're talking anywhere between 1950 and the 1980s, which is well outside the period of significance for this district. So I mean, those are changes that we don't use when we're looking for historic precedent in the district. That being said, you know, I would encourage that if you all are moving towards a motion to approve this request that you make sure that it's specific to this property. And you're kind of ensuring that this isn't creating precedent for other exterior changes down the road in this district. Thank you, Megan. Any other comments from commissioners? Anybody have a motion? I'd like to move that in accordance with section 17-674D of the city ordinance, taking into consideration that while a change in the facade, it is not a change of the distinctive feature to grant the certificate of design approval for exterior changes on 2314 Lincoln Street. Mr. Salibi, if I could interject, I think something that you spoke to that's specific to this house might be helpful to include if you all are so willing. And that is that to your eye, it was not highly visible, a highly visible change on the facade. That might also be a consideration in terms of setting precedent down the road. Yes, I'll add that to the motion in that while it is a change in the facade of the building, it is not in the spirit of it not being a change of a distinctive feature in the sense that it is not readily apparent or viewable from the public right of way that we grant the certificate of design approval for 2314 Lincoln Street. Staff, did that help clarify the motion that was made? Okay. I need clarification. Are you saying to approve the switch? Yes, Bob, that was what my motion tended to suggest. Okay, good, good. Second. We're ready for a vote. All right. Mr. Baker, Mr. Broom. Yes. Mr. Dinkins. No. Ms. Fuller-Wilt. Yes. Ms. Jacob. No. Mr. Salibi. Yes. And Mr. Sabry. Can we want to circle back to Mr. Baker? Yeah, I think we do. Mr. Baker, can you hear us? We cannot hear you. Looks like he's muted. I'm not sure he's got, let's see. Perhaps he can call in. Yes. You voted for him. Can you hear me? Yes. Yes, we can hear you. Thank you. My vote is yes. Your vote is yes. Thank you. So the motion passes. All right. Thank you. All right. Next case. Next case is 2418 Lincoln Street. This is a request for a certificate of design approval for an addition to a home that was constructed in about 2018. The applicant is requesting to add a 14 by 20 foot sunroom and deck to the right rear portion of the structure. An existing fence will obscure some of the proposed work, including the deck and the location of the addition will be shielded on the left elevation and will be visible from the public right of way. The right elevation in the addition, however, will be visible from the public right of way. While this elevation is generally consistent with the architectural style of the structure and historic structures in Elmwood Park, one area that is not consistent is the side entry. The addition is located behind an existing porch at the rear of the structure, creating a five by six foot recessed area where a side entry is located. Side entrances are not common in the district due to narrow lots, but the form of the inset entry is also a significant deviation from historic building form. As the addition largely meets the guidelines, with the exception of the side entry, we'll focus on the criteria that the project doesn't meet. Number three, massing. Arrange the mass of a building, the relationship of solid components, such as walls, columns, etc., to open spaces, such as windows, doors, and arches, so that it is compatible with existing historic buildings on the block or the street. As built, the structure has a small porch located at the back right corner. The porch is about five feet deep and conceals an entry located on the right elevation of the structure. The proposed addition is cited behind the porch but flush with the existing plain of the right exterior wall, creating an approximately six foot by five foot recessed area. On the exterior elevations, this reads visually like a deep alcove or hallway, which is not consistent with the side elevation of structures in the district. While this is an addition to a relatively new structure, it should conform with patterns in the district. There are several possibilities to ameliorate the inconsistency, which include altering the siding of the addition, bringing the existing entry forward so that it is flushed with the rest of the right wall or removing the side entry altogether. The first option would be to cite the addition so that it does not interfere with the existing open porch. This may allow the left elevation of the addition to become visible and therefore require review. This would likely also involve alterations to the left elevation. However, changing the siding of the addition would address the massing issues on the right elevation. Another option would be to bring the existing side entry forward so that the right elevation is a single continuous plain, rather than including a recessed entry. The last option would be to remove the side entry altogether, bringing the wall forward and installing a window rather than a door. Of these options, it is staff's assessment that bringing the entry forward, removing the recessed area, would be preferable as it would involve the fewest changes to the proposed plan. However, any of these options would be open to the property owner based on their preference. Number six, sense of entry. Place the main entry in associated architectural elements, porches, steps, etc. so that they are compatible with surrounding structures. The main entry shall be constructed with covered porches, porticos, or other architectural forms that are found on historic structures on the block or street. The siding of the addition without alteration to the existing entry deviates from the pattern of side entrances in the district. Doors located on the sides of structures are not particularly common due to the proximity of structures to one another. However, where they are present, they are not recessed. The entry therefore does not meet this standard. It is important when changes are made to new construction, whether through an addition or exterior changes, that these alterations be sensitive to historic patterns in the district. Deviating from these patterns is not consistent with the requirements set out in the ordinance. Staff finds that the proposed addition at 2418 Lincoln Street generally complies with section 17-674D of the city ordinance and recommends granting a certificate of design approval with the following conditions. The recessed area be removed and this entry be flushed with the remainder of the right wall. Siding and window details to be submitted to staff for approval and all other details deferred to staff. And I believe the applicant and designer are here. Okay. Yes, this is Caleb. I'm here. Hey, okay. Please state your name. Caleb Unverfurt. Okay. Do you affirm tell the truth in these proceedings? I do. Thank you. With permission of the council, is it okay if I share my screen and walk through a few slides? Yes. Can everyone see my screen? Yes, I can. Everybody. All right. Well, thank you so much. Really appreciate the time sending with you here today. So my name is Caleb Unverfurt. I'm the owner of the property at 2418 Lincoln Street. My wife Emily and I have been here for coming up on three years, which is pretty exciting. And my wife is actually from the United Kingdom. So when it came to the two of us choosing a place where to live, Elmwood Park was the natural fit for us. Never mind the fact that she's actually a history major from the UK. So historical preservation, historical value of properties is very important to us. Interestingly, as we were looking for a property to purchase, we came across a new construction on Lincoln Street that met all of our needs. And so we ended up moving forward to purchasing this property. The interesting thing about this new construction was the fact that it actually doesn't have any easy visibility to the backyard. And for those of you who are familiar with the English culture, they love their back gardens, as they call them. So this idea of constructing a certain room was something that has been on our minds since we first moved in. So as as staff mentioned, we are complying to all of the requirements as it pertains to historical preservation with the addition of the sunroom, albeit this one consideration regarding the side entrance. So this is part of the agenda materials. We'll just walk through just for everyone's awareness, kind of what we have as it pertains to the existing structure, as well as the proposed architectural renderings for the new structure, as well as some photos that were taken with regards to the visibility. So currently this is the right side of the existing structure. And as you can see, we do have this recessed entry way and this side porch. And so when we thought about plans for building on our sunroom, we wanted to keep to the existing or integrity of the existing structure, which meant maintaining roof lines, maintaining materials, maintaining everything of the original structure to ensure that this keeps with historical preservation, but then also makes us look like it was one build, not a build and an addition. So our proposal, as Megan mentioned, we are looking to do a sunroom off the back that would keep with the existing roof line that would carry on with the existing side, albeit this external entry way here. For everyone's awareness, so as we talk about the visibility from a public right of way standpoint, I took a few photos just so that everyone has this for context. So this is on the opposite side of Lincoln Street. And I try to get the best angle possible over the fence that we constructed, just so that you can see exactly what it would look like once the addition is built. And so you can see the roof line is fairly visible, but you can see roughly the top third or so of what would be this external entryway and then what eventually would be the new addition. Getting closer, so on this side of Lincoln Street, the near side, again, try to get a really good photo of what it would look like. You can see that overall, the porch would not be visible as noted, but you would see a little bit of this alcove as well as the top roof line and the top portion of the sunroom extension. So as noted, I will say that it's been great working with staff, working with Megan. She actually spent some time kind of talking through our options. And it's just been great kind of hearing through or talking through and hearing about what we could do to make sure that this comply complies with all of historical preservation recommendations. And so as noted, the recommendation per staff is that the rear entrance door will be brought forward so that it is flush with the existing wall. This is something that I just want to note to the committee here that the covered entrance as it stands today does offer shelter from the elements. For those of you who are in the neighborhood and kind of know our house who probably have seen me outside covered in mud, spending a lot of time in the garden. And so what this covered entrance does is it a full opportunity to get out of the elements whatever I'm outdoors, especially when we have those wonderful South Carolina thunderstorms. Another component to notice that the recessed entryway actually keeps rainwater off the door. So I want that to be noted as well in terms of this providing shelter not just for individuals but also shelter from the back entrance there. Another component to note that is a concern for my wife and I is that we understand that if we were to bring the door forward, we would need to per code construct a three foot landing and steps. So we have some concerns that if we were to do this off the side of the house and make that door flush that it would actually impede the flow from the side of the house to the rear of the house. And so just want that to be noted as it pertains to easy access to the backyard. The backyard actually does slope upwards and so as we think about steps kind of running into this upward slope it would make for slightly more difficult passageway if you will from the side of the house to the backyard. So ultimately we're requesting approval for the drafted architectural plans as they are that leaves the covered rear entrance intact and maintains the existing roofline for the new addition. With permission I did have a chance to talk to several neighbors didn't have a chance to get a video to take note of that for next time. But do you have a letter from one of our neighbors two doors down but if I have permission I would just like to read really quickly. So dated February 9th, 2021 to whom it may concern this letter is in regards to the sunroom extension request as presented by Caleb and Emily Umberford owners of the new construction home at 2014 Lincoln Street I would like to declare my support for this extension. After reviewing the drawings for the addition of a sunroom deck area it seems clear that the Umberfords have no intention of building something that negatively impacts the historic character of our neighborhood. Their plans seem thoughtfully planned out and looked to take into consideration the current style of their home which was built to my understanding in alignment with the DDRC's historical design guidelines for this area. While I expect a small part of the addition would be noticeable from Lincoln Street Lincoln strong slope towards West Confederate paired with the Umberfords recently installed gate would make it difficult to see without intentionally looking. As a resident with a strong passion for historical homes maintaining Umberparks charm and beauty is important to me. However modern amenities are also important to my quality of life and without the ability to make improvements additions or alterations to historic homes or homes built within a historically protected area I fear there would be left abandoned for newer construction or neglected ultimately leading to lower property values and or higher crime. With that said I am in support of the addition the Umberfords have proposed as I feel it will contribute greatly to the continued revitalization of our street increase property values and show others in the area that taking the proper channels for approval can pay off sincerely I've been twiddling 24 12 Lincoln Street. So respectfully I would request the council's consideration for the design as it stands today and would open it up to any questions or comments. All right. Thank you. Another question for staff is was this the conservation district in 2018 when the house was built? Yes. Yes. This was reviewed and approved by the DDRC. Any other follow-up questions or comments from DDRC members? We encourage those that would like to communicate be in email to begin sending in letters and emails to the email address you see on the screen and or at the web address shown for those wanting to leave a voicemail or speak live call 855-925-2801 and when prompted please enter the meeting code 6609 then press star two to begin leaving the voicemail. If you'd like to speak live press star three please make sure your computer audio is off to avoid feedback. We will now hear any comments that have been received in writing. There's a 500 word limit. Have we received anything else in writing staff? I do not see any emails at this time. Okay we'll now hear any voicemails received as well as anybody calling in live. And likewise I did not see any voicemails nor do I have anyone on the line to speak. All right move back up. Any other follow-up questions or comments DDRC members? I would like to ask staff Megan do you have any comments you'd like to make or anything additional? None. Okay all right well ask for a motion if there's no other questions or comments comments questions and or motion anything's accepted. Well in that case I will go ahead and I will move the thing is I do not have all the the verbiage in front of me. Amy I was going to let me see back I'm sorry I was I was trying to make a motion. I was oh thank you Sanford help please yes help me out here members of technical issues. Yeah okay I will move to grant a certificate of design approval for an addition at 24 18 Lincoln street with the following recommendations or conditions that the recess area be removed and the side entry be flushed that your remainder of the right wall the siding and window details be submitted to staff for approval and all other details be deferred to staff. Do we have a second? Okay may I vote? I guess we'll we have a moment to discuss the motion now right. Sure sorry yes. So I guess I should have spoken up earlier I've been trying not to I've been trying not to speak up to speedy this as much as possible but so the motion before us means that and you know in my case I this is one of the rare times where I think I might differ with the staff recommendation in the sense that the house is not in the storehouse and the design was approved in 2018 I think that the just to sort of get boils down to a general kind of massing question and given the location of the aspect of the massing question in my mind this is different from for instance the previous case and so I mean a funny position if that's my position of voting no on the motion because I feel as if the motion is a little bit restrictive I don't I don't feel as though the applicant should not be allowed to lead the existing door where it is so anyway I don't know if that that's just sort of a logistical I don't know how how others plan to vote but I just thought I'd go ahead and take that before we take the boat right you expand on the door what's your feeling and I mean well one is that like I said initially it's not an historic building the original design was approved uh under under the current condition of the conservation district it was approved to I guess three years two years ago or so but it was still a conservation district at the time it was approved and I understand that the massing of the house is changing with the sunroom but in my opinion I don't really consider that to be terribly a terribly significant issue and I would even potentially make the argument that moving that door is altering the altering the you know recent degree of the construction that was approved two years ago and considering the fact that it's pretty far away from the street and it's behind the fence and that we're talking about a really broad interpretation of what massing might be in the conservation district for instance is different from swapping a door in a window on an on an historic house in my opinion because this is not an historic structure so it just gets down to the idea of massing and interpretation of massing in a store in a conservation district on a contemporary house so what does it have any significance to you that there is already may I I think we have looking at the picture as the house is currently constructed there does already appear to be a recess in that area where the door would go yeah the door is already there okay so if you look at the floor plan that the applicants provided you'll see that there's a dark part on the floor plan that's a new construction and the the walls are dark and the walls that are not colored in those are all existing they exist as that they exist in that configuration now so the the walls around the sunroom with the hatching those those walls are new construction but the walls that don't have any hatching in them those are existing could I ask staff to expand on why that's included further or respond sure so as it's currently it kind of creates a strange situation to vote against the motion where I you know I would feel as if the applicant I would approve the application but I'm going to end up voting against the motion and I don't know I don't know you know it's an unusual situation all right I can clarify why this recommendation was made so as it's currently built this area reads like a porch and so it's with the change in form that this recommendation comes into play so again you know the way that this looks on the exterior elevations is like a very deeply recessed area or I kind of think of it like an exterior hallway and that's just not really a pattern that we see at all in the district and Amy might be able to clarify this a little bit further here but you know in the past when changes have been proposed to new construction it's my understanding that you know things that were built were also required to be changed to to make the proposal more consistent with historic examples we don't get a lot of those but we do occasionally get get some changes to new construction in historic districts and we do try to follow the patterns as much as we can so that's consistent with the house and and with what we see in the district and I think staff's perspective on this was that this originally read as a porch which is a which is a you know feature you commonly see on the back of homes but with this change it becomes a fairly deep alcove cut sort of into the side of the house a recessed alcove so that was staff's perspective on it Commissioner I I think my motion stands that it's stated is there a second move to above Mr Baker I believe you're muted Mr Baker may I get a clarification if if the motion does not pass in the certificate of design approval was denied will the applicant have another opportunity to or could we make a second motion as a part of this meeting if the motion does not pass then yes you could you could feasibly come up with another motion thank you Mr Baker yes thank you Mr Brown yeah Mr. Dinkins yes Ms. Fuller-Wilt no Ms. Jacob yes Mr. Salivi no and Mr. Sabry no so we have a tie vote so basically oh I'm sorry no the motion passes we had a four to three vote one two it's up two minds as far as I could tell pardon nobody was up two minds as far as I could tell which is the only way for us seven people to have a tie vote right we had Mr Baker Mr. Brown Mr. Dinkins and Ms. Jacob voting yes we had Ms. Fuller-Wilt Mr. Salivi and Mr. Sabry voting no so a four to three vote so the motion passes okay believe is there anything else on the regular agenda don't believe so we have nothing else on the regular agenda is there any other business not at this time do we have an a motion to adjourn then motion to adjourn did we get that all right thank you thank you Amy thank you staff thank you thank you