 Okay, let's get started. The Design Development Review Commission is made up of volunteers with expertise or interest in historic preservation and design. We generally meet on the second Thursday of the month to review cases. Staff to the commission are our urban design and historic preservation staff. They are available to answer questions if you have them, but please do not interrupt proceedings if you do indeed need to speak with one of them. The meeting generally proceeds with the staff calling the case and describing it. I will call for the applicant to come forward afterward to add to the basic description of the request, if necessary, or if the applicant wishes to do so. If so, the applicant should keep the presentation to 10 minutes or less. The commissioners will then have the opportunity to ask questions. At this point, I will ask if there is anyone in the audience who wishes to speak for or against the proposal. Audience comments shall be kept to 2 minutes per person. If there is, the applicant will have an opportunity to respond, and this rebuttal shall not exceed 5 minutes. In most cases, we will make a decision tonight after all information has been presented. If your case is denied or if you feel that our decision was made an error, you and anyone withstanding have the opportunity to appeal it within 30 days of the decision. If you plan to speak about a specific project you must have signed in. The sheet is at the back of the room. Also, and so that members of the public understand, commissioners are under strict instructions to avoid discussing DDRC meetings and applications with members of the public or with each other outside of these proceedings to avoid ex-partee communications. If you wish to speak during the course of these proceedings, please stand and raise your right hand. You affirm to tell the truth in these proceedings? Thank you. Will the staff please take roll? Mr. Broom? Here. Mr. Cohn? Here. Ms. Great? Here. Mr. Savry? Here. Mr. Nguyen? Here. We have quorum. Thank you. And are there any changes to the agenda since publication? There are multiple changes to the agenda. Under the consent agenda, 1544 Main Street, a request for a certificate of design approval for exterior changes and preliminary certification for the Bailey Bill, has been moved to the regular part of the agenda. 2316 Lincoln Street, a request for design approval for exterior changes and preliminary certification for the Bailey Bill in the Elmwood Park Architectural Conservation District has been moved from the regular agenda to the consent agenda since any outstanding issues were solved after we published but before the meeting. So everything on that project is now in compliance. Under the regular agenda, item number three, Seminary Ridge Historic District, which was a request for a recommendation to modify the architectural conservation district, has been deferred. We heard at a specially called meeting on Monday, April 30th at 4 p.m. Moving on into the regular agenda, of course, we have 1544 Main Street, which was added. And then 2316 Lincoln Street was the one I decided which was moved to the consent agenda. 1633 through 35 Main Street and 1637 Main Street, all of which are requests for recommendations for landmark status, have been deferred until next month. Thank you. The DDRC utilizes a consent agenda for those projects which require DDRC review but which meet the guidelines and typically require no discussion. If anyone wishes to discuss an item on the consent agenda, I will ask that you speak up after the consent agenda is read and we can pull the item for discussion onto the regular agenda. Would you please read the consent agenda? The consent agenda includes 2412 Lincoln Street, a request for design approval for an addition and preliminary certification for the Bailey Bill in the Elmwood Park Architectural Conservation District. 1006 Woodrow Street, a request for design approval for new construction in the Old Chand and Lower Waverley Protection Area B. 2316 Lincoln Street, a request for a certificate of design approval for exterior changes and preliminary certification for the Bailey Bill in the Elmwood Park Architectural Conservation District. Is there anyone who wishes to take an item off the consent agenda for discussion? Seeing none, could I get a motion to approve the consent agenda please? I make a motion that we approve the consent agenda as presented. Okay, we'll add the minutes to it as well then. The second? Second. All right, have a vote. Mr. Broom? Yes. Mr. Cohn? Yes. Ms. Graate? Yes. Mr. Nguyen? Yes. Mr. Savory? Yes. The motion passes. Very good. Could we have the first case please? This is 1544 Main Street, which is a request for certificate of design approval for exterior changes and preliminary certification for the Bailey Bill. This was taken off the consent agenda because of recent conversations with the staff, the applicant, and the State Historic Preservation Office. We all came to an agreement that the circa 1939 facade and storefront should be used for the design as it was a significant point in the building's history when it was completely separated from its next-door neighbor. You can see in the images here the original design had a shared window and staircase adjacent to the next-door neighbor. The submitted storefront design referenced the 1941 renovation, as seen in the Maryland shoes image here. So staff has revised recommendations to make the storefront more in keeping with the design in the late 1930s. So staff recommendations, staff finds that the project at 1544 Main Street complies with section 17-698 of the city ordinance and recommends granting a certificate of design approval and preliminary certification for the Bailey Bill with the following conditions. The project meeting or exceeding the 20% investment threshold requirements for qualified rehabilitation expenses, all work meeting the standards for work as outlined in section 17-698, details and materials to be compatible with the 1939 facade, including the rectangular display cases and brick bulkheads at the storefront, second-story windows be wood windows with 6 over 6 pane configuration, details of the cornices to match historic photos with drawings and details to be provided for staff approval, and any future signage and all other details deferred to staff. Do you have any questions for staff? No questions? None here. Would the applicant like to speak? Jamie Campbell, I am the preservation consultant with the applicants. And yes, we have been in talks with the city. They have been very helpful and we have already changed the design of the storefront to have masonry bulkheads instead of the solid metal panels. We have also already had our display windows squared off and we're working with the architect to get detailed section drawings of the two cornices as well as the 6 over 6 configuration. So we appreciate staff's assistance in this and we look forward to moving forward. So you're fine with all of the conditions? We are fine with all of this. We've already been moving forward and we are in the right direction. This might be fast. Anybody in the audience in support or opposition that wants to speak? Any other questions from the commissioners or comments? I have a question. Yes, sir. What's going to be on the bulkhead? The bulkhead is going to be a brick bulkhead instead of the metal panels. So it will match the top of the building. The goal was to get it closer to this image here from 1940. Prior to the 1941 renovation, you can see that it's squared off in the front. It's likely some type of masonry there. Any other comments or questions for the applicant? Thank you. Thank you. Well, at this point then, could I have a motion? I'll offer a motion that we accept or yes, that we provide for an approval of this application at 1544 Main Street considering the staff recommendations. One, that the project meeting or exceeding the 20% investment threshold for qualified rehabilitation expenses. Two, that all work meeting the standards for work is outlined in 17698. Three, that details and materials to be compatible with circa 1939 facade including rectangular display cases and brick bulkheads at the storefront. Fourth, that the second story windows be wood windows with a six by six pane configuration. Five, that details of the cornices to match historic photos with drawings and details to be provided for staff approval. And lastly, that any future signage and all other details be deferred to staff. Any further discussion? Okay. Do we have a vote please? We need a second. A second. Can I ask that you state that it's for certificate of design approval and preliminary certification for the Bayley bill? I'm sorry. Yes. Motion should include the, it's a request for certificate of design approval as well as preliminary certification for the Bayley bill. Give us a second please. Second. And a vote. Mr. Broom. Yes. Mr. Cone. Yes. Ms. Gray. Yes. Mr. Nguyen. Yes. Mr. Saveri. Yes. Very good. Thank you. Next case please. This is a vacant lot along the south side of Longleaf road in 3000 block, Melrose Heights. It's a request for certificate of design approval for new construction. This is the eastern most lot of two vacant lots with proposed new construction that will be presented today. The lots are on the edge of Melrose Heights district with a limited historic context in the media area and a challenging topography. The applicant has stated the intention to grade the lot to create a flatter area for building. One of the major concerns with both of the lots is the foundation height and how it will affect the overall height of the building and its scale in relation to the street. This proposed building is a two-story building approximately 28 feet in height from top of the foundation to the peak of the roof. The foundation height as proposed ranges from four feet at the front elevation to one foot at the rear elevation. The average foundation height in the district is approximately two to three feet. However, there are variations to this height to accommodate changing topography. The provided elevations appear fairly accurate in depicting the four-foot foundation height at the front of the building. As depicted, this elevation in the front elevation, excuse me, the building's foundation height appears proportional to the overall height of the building. However, it should be noted that this is dependent on the site being graded for a flatter surface as proposed. As changes in topography can result in much higher foundation height than intended, which in turn can distort the building's relation to the street. The intended topography cannot be achieved on this site and the foundation height is altered due to this and staff and or the DRC will need to review the changes to evaluate its effect. Therefore, staff recommends that a maximum foundation height of four feet be used here. Other staff suggestions and concerns are related to massing rhythm of openings and materials, textures and details. The overall massing of the proposed building is that of American four-square, which is a common building form in the neighborhood. Typical four-squares include a hip roof, often with small vented dormers in the attic space. These are some examples of American four-squares in the neighborhood. The type of dormer proposed here is large in proportion to the roof and uses windows. At this scale and detailing, the dormer design seems to indicate that there would be a third-story space, which is not actually the case according to the drawings. To create a more compatible massing and keeping with the guideline staff is reducing the roof form to a hip and reducing the gable proportions. Staff is happy to work out the details of the roof and dormer proportions with the applicant. The applicant has stated that they are happy to work out those details with us as well. As it relates to rhythm of openings, on the right and left elevations have visually incompatible rhythm of openings, not in keeping with the guidelines. Staff suggests adding a third window on the second floor of the right elevation between the two proposed windows and changing the double window at the front to a single window of similar size to those below. You can see in the suggested drawing there. On the left, staff suggests changing out the two small-bedroom windows on the second floor for one or two windows proportional in size to other windows on this elevation. Staff also suggests adding a fourth window on the first floor that is proportional to the other proposed windows and these changes made with the effort of making the rhythm of openings more compatible with historic buildings in the neighborhood. The windows proposed are a two over two simulated divided light vinyl clad wood windows at the front of one over one vinyl clad on the east side. While the vinyl clad windows have a slightly more defined profile than the common flat appearance of vinyl or row between glass, no vinyl window of any sort has been approved for new construction in this district and the profile is still much flatter than what you see of historic windows or with aluminum clad windows. Other small items such as shutter design, door trim and porch step and materials are inconsistent with historic patterns so staff has recommended changes for those items as well. Staff recommendations. Staff finds that the proposal for new construction on Longleaf Road is generally in keeping with section five and eight of the guidelines in section 17-674 of the city ordinance and recommends granting a certificate of design approval with the following conditions. Should the intended topography not be achieved on the site resulting in an increased foundation height to over four feet, then revised drawings will be provided for staff and or the DDRC to review the change and evaluate its effect. Foundation height not to exceed four feet on any elevation and foundation material be brick with lattice used only at the porch. The roof shape change to a hip and the dormer be reduced in scale with final design approval of the dormer and roof details deferred to staff. The shutter design change to louvered or panel design. Front porch stair clad and brick to match foundation. Door trim increased in width to six inch minimum. Window material is wood or aluminum clad wood with exterior mountains. Left side windows adjusted to include additional proportional window on the first floor with the, sorry, and adjusted so that the small bedroom windows on the second floor are changed to one or two similar in size to other windows. With final configuration approval deferred to staff. Right side windows adjusted to include a third window on the second floor with double window on the second floor changed to a single window similar in size to the window below with final configuration approval deferred to staff. And driveway may be expanded into a parking pad only once. It is behind the front corner of the house and all other details deferred to staff. Do you have any questions for staff? Yeah, I look out wish to speak. And you were sworn in. I have not. I swear. Promise to tell the truth. Promise to tell the truth. Thank you. I don't really have anything with staff's recommendations. Other than I would like to request to use the vinyl clad windows. They're a very high-end vinyl clad window that we've used multiple times in neighborhoods like Saludo River Club and other neighborhoods throughout the greater Columbia area. And I think there's some pictures. I don't know if they're in any of the slides of some examples. There's one on Burwell that we recently had that have those windows. And we would also like to do the front steps as shown in this picture, which are wood stairs versus the brick clad. Those would be my only two bottles or requests versus what staff is recommended. Thank you. Any comments or questions from the commissioners? I have a comment. I'm kind of miss OAN and who we are. I have lock one, lock two. There's a corner line. You're not developing that corner, right? No, sir. Those belong to somebody else. Okay, sir. Lock one is next to the corner, correct? Lock one is the furthest one down the hill along the way. Okay. Away from the corner, surely. I was looking at it to plan why I locked one, lock two in the corner. Yes, sir. I noticed you got a real heavy vegetation. And I'm sure I've got Ivy League growing all over the place. My concern is I want to know how your development is going to affect the trees. You can clean it up the trees as well, but I'd like to know how many trees you're planning to save if there's a number. Yes, sir. There is not a number, unfortunately, to grade these logs to a buildable pad to keep it within a height that doesn't become out of proportion to the massing that the historical guidelines recommend. Everything's going to have to be done in order to cut those lots and to add a retaining, about a four foot retaining wall to make it work. Is it a retaining wall in the back? Yes, sir. Yeah. Is the retaining wall on the setback? Is it on the setback of the property? It's on the building setback. It's not on the property line. Okay. I see it. Thank you. I have a question for you. Did I understand you to say that you would prefer the aluminum clad windows? I would prefer the vinyl clad windows. It's a supply gym window that we kind of developed in a neighborhood called Saludo River Club, which is in Lexington County. That has an architect and Buford kind of put this window together that accomplishes the historic guidelines, in his opinion, that make it look really well and really user-friendly. And it comes with the bull-nosing massing on it and the 1x4 and the 1x6 header. And it still has the raised mullions on it. And it's the panes of the glass are setback within the frame. So it gives you the depth more of what your traditional wood window would have, but without the maintenance of it. The aluminum clad is an option. We're just trying to keep it as affordable as possible. If we were to go forward with any approval, would you be amenable to accepting the aluminum clad versus the vinyl? If we have to, yes, sir. So as I understand, it's the vinyl rather than aluminum clad and the wood rather than brick stairs. Those are the two exceptions that you're taking to the recommendation. Everything else is workable for you? Yes, sir. Any other questions for the applicant? Does anyone else wish to speak either for or against? Sir, thank you. My name is John Plork, and I'm from Longleaf Road, directly across the street from these two lots. And I've got a few concerns. Let me first just address the certificate of design approval. I've read all the materials, and I read what the staff has recommended, and I strongly urge the commission to require that all the staff recommendations be implemented as a condition for approval. I think they did a great job in their review and their recommendations. I'm not sure where... I'm going to... This is the first chance I've had to talk with anybody or say anything about this project. You all are volunteers with the city and these are staff. I've got some very strong concerns. These two lots are on the... They're on Melrose Heights, and Melrose Heights is a hill. This is on the side of the hill. It's very steep where these two lots are, which is one of the reasons why they're still vacant. The Longleaf Road runs horizontally across the hill, so it's running east-west, and these lots are on the south side, and I'm downhill. My neighbor and I are downhill on the north side. The street has no curbs. It has no stormwater drainage outlets. The only stormwater outlet along this entire block is a drainage on my private property, 30 feet from the end from the street in my parking area. I live in a town home that was built in 1987, and I don't know what the history is on how that got there, but that is the only drainage on that street. Historically, because we're downhill from those two lots, historically stormwater frequently drains into our parking lot and into our yard. We actually had storm damage from that big rain we had a couple years ago, had flooding. They caused my neighbor considerable expense. Generally, however, water is, we don't have a problem in a normal rainfall because there's foliage on the lot, and you've got permeable ground. Now, what this proposal will do with the two structures, the two lots, porches, driveways, parking aprons, it looks like to me it will add 7,000 feet of impermeable property on the upside of the hill. And water, rainwater, the rain's still going to come down no matter what, and it's going to go somewhere. And so during and after construction, the stormwater that was previously absorbed into the ground on those 7,000 square feet will drain off the property downhill and into my property, causing flooding on my property. Furthermore, the disturbance of that natural landscape up there and you were asking about the trees, and we got an answer about all the grading, it's going to have to have a lot of grading to make that a flat surface to build on. It's going to increase erosion, there's going to be large amounts of dirt and debris flowing from the two lots into the street and into my property. The plans that I've looked at, and I may have missed this, I've seen no paths for stormwater egress. The city provides no stormwater drainage facilities along that entire stretch, along all of 3,000 block longleaf. So I very strongly believe that no construction on these two lots should be allowed unless and until builders in the city put a place of stormwater drainage plan for these two lots, as well as a plan to prevent construction and post-construction soil and debris from flowing onto the public thoroughfare or longleaf road and into private property, my property and my neighbors, located downhill from the reference lots. I'd be happy to work with the city and with the builders to plan and develop a stormwater drainage solution for the 3,000 block of longleaf road as well as a system to prevent construction debris and eroded soil from exiting those two lots and coming onto the road and into our property. But until that plan is completed, I strongly believe no building permit should be issued. Owners of the property, if it is, I believe owners of the property will be liable for damage to the neighboring private property. As well as dirt and debris on longleaf road itself. Thank you. Thank you. Did the applicant wish to respond? I can't speak to exactly his location. We obviously would take every effort to keep our silt fences maintained during construction and a appropriate construction entrance. Our construction sites, which is the fabric silt underlayment with the appropriate size rock or ballast for construction entrances. Besides that, this is the first I've heard of it. And more for staff. Is this a project that would meet the requirements for the other city departments to weigh in in terms of some of the neighbors' concerns regarding the stormwater? From the information I was given, if it's under an acre, it does not meet that requirement. However, as he mentioned, during construction, there are specific requirements for residential properties, for erosion prevention and sediment control. That's during the construction process rather than the effects that would take place afterwards. Those concerns are completely outside of the DDRC's purview as we just look at the design and materials used on buildings. But I just wanted to try to see if that neighbor's concerns could be addressed. And this project is under the one-acre limit? Besides, yeah. Anybody else in the audience that wants to make any comment? Thank you. Well, as the other commissioners have stated and implied, many of the concerns that you have about erosion and means and methods during construction just are outside of the purview of this commission. Your comments are so noted, just are outside of where we can make decisions. Any comments? Any other comments from the commissioners? Well, my concern is what the gentleman said about the property, his property, used on the downward side of the hill. If I recall, there's no curb and gutter. You do have an asphalt cover, right? On each end of the property, you got a drop inlet. You got it? On each end of the block, you have a drop inlet to take in the water down the far end. Okay. On the west end, which would be irrelevant for this property, that street runs, as it runs from west to east, it runs downhill. Everything that comes off the property runs eastward as it gets, it runs southeastward. I don't think there's any outlet on that entire block all the way down. I can tell you this, that a neighbor behind them had cleared out, I don't know, with or without permission, and cleared out a piece to get equipment to the end of their backyard some time ago. And every time we had rain, large amounts of dirt come out of that clearing, come rushing out and sit in the streets for weeks. So, as far as I can tell, I've lived there for almost 10 years, there is no drainage, there's no stormwater drainage provided by the city for the rain coming off of that land. Like I said, it's a very steep incline, but it hasn't been too much of a problem because it's got foliage on it, and I don't see how you can, well, you can't put 7,000 feet of square feet on there without cutting most of the trees. I think unfortunately it is outside of our purview, so if we could contain our comments to what we have at hand, which is the massing and composition of the facades of the building. We can move on through that. Are there any other comments or questions from commissioners before we move to a motion? Well, I'd like to weigh in on the question of the windows in particular, and I'd like other commissioners to comment about the steps. I think that given the fact that we have never allowed vinyl windows in these historic overlays, I don't think that we should set the precedent. I understand the issue about the cost, but as a practicing architect myself, I also am extremely sensitive to the integrity and the character of windows, so I would not support vinyl-clad windows in lieu of metal-clad wood windows. I'd be interested to hear someone else's comments about the steps, the wood versus the suggested brick by the staff. I tend to think you have a good design, but I think you don't have to break steps. It really kind of underscores the character of the entry with the neighborhood. And in time, they usually don't hold up as well and they're kind of looking like they undermine what other people have, I guess, in my take. Any other comments? And then I'm going to ask for a motion. Yes, sir. Have you been sworn in? Come to the microphone, please. And if I could swear you in, I promise to tell the truth. Excuse me for being late. I'm sorry. I need to swear you in. No, I need to swear you in first. If you promise to tell the truth in these proceedings. Raise your hand. Raise your right hand. You promise to tell the truth in these proceedings? Okay. And if you'd state your name, please. To the microphone. Here in justice. Okay. My neighbor there, I assume you're talking about a long-leaf property. Yes, we are. I live on the corner of surely a long-leaf. You can step a little closer to the microphone too, please. All right. Probably. Yeah, I live on the corner of surely and long-leaf, directly across the street from the proposed property. And, of course, I'm down here to basically try to determine what the proposed construction is. And I guess my question is how we'll find out about that. And I guess I see, I assume that's the design of the property that we're proposing to build there. Is that correct? How does this meeting work? We've been living there since 1981 and have invested interest in the community and, of course, the property across the street. So that's what brings me here today. I guess my interest is, you know, what the idea is about the property to be built there and the size of it. And, of course, that's going to affect me living directly across the street. The water flow, I believe, which is really outside of our purview as we've discussed. And it's a fairly steep slow play and that water goes somewhere. Again, while we've been there we've had to deal with it on our property. You know, I guess my concern is anything that goes over there across the street, you know, we wouldn't want it to adversely affect us. As a matter of fact, due to the water situation in the past, I don't know if it was the county consumers which they actually came in and built up the curb on our side, along the to keep the water flow out of our yard. Were you here for the discussion we just had about that, or have you walked in since we discussed the issue of concern of erosion and permeability and storm water flow? Were you here for that discussion? Okay. Just to bring you up to speed we have been through, you have a neighbor who has the same concerns and we've been through that discussion. That is outside of the purview of the Design Development Review Commission in terms of site and storm water and civil engineering issues. It's just outside of our purview. I think your neighbor is on record and you're on record with those concerns. If you have any specific comments relative to the design of the house itself we can take those into consideration before we move on. This point is what part of the process are we in today or how close are we to this try to either be being approved or not being approved. We're about to do that. We're about to make a motion approving or amending the design of the house itself just the exterior of the house and the part that you can see from the street. That's it. These are apartments, are they? We think it's a single family home but we need to move on unless you have a specific comment. That's good. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman if I may I'd like to just voice one or two or three different thoughts here. I agree with Mr. Cohen the stairs would serve this home better and the neighborhood itself if they were to be brick in my view and I believe the aluminum clad windows I had mentioned or discussed with the applicant he would be willing to agree to that as per the recommendations. My one other question is in terms of the dormer and the roof shape sir if you would would you be willing to agree to changing the roof to a hip with the dormer? I think I'll answer for you unless I'm wrong I think that what he has said is he would be willing to make all of the recommendations of staff except for the two items that we just discussed which I think we're, I have a feeling I know where we're going with those two items am I correct in that? Okay great. Thanks. With all that said any more comments before I ask for a motion? Okay would somebody please make a motion? I make a motion that we grant certificate of design approval for long grief long leaf road 3000 block with the following conditions that should the intended topography not be achieved on the site resulting in an increased foundation height then revised drawings be provided for staff and R of the DDRC to review the change in the evaluated effect that the foundation height not exceed four feet on any elevation and foundation material be brick with lattice used only at the porch that the roof shape be changed to a hip and the dormer be reduced in scale with final design approval of the dormer and roof details deferred to staff that the shutter design change to a louvered or panel design that the front floor be clad and brick to master foundation the door trim increase in width to six inches minimum that the window material is wood or aluminum clad wood with exterior mountains the left side windows be adjusted to include an additional proportional window on the first floor and adjusted so that the small bedroom windows on the second floor are changed to one or two windows similar in size to other second floor window with final configuration approval deferred to staff right side windows be adjusted to include a third window on the second floor with the double window on the second floor change to a single window similar in size to a window below as shown on the images that were presented to us with final configuration approval be deferred to staff the driveway may be expanded into a parking pad only once it is behind the front corner of the house that all details be deferred to staff make this recommendation based upon the new construction being and keeping with section five and eight of the Merrill's High Scott lines and section 17-674 of the city ordinance that was an amazing motion second that any further discussion I think we're ready for a vote Mr. Broom Mr. Good. Yes. Yes. Very good. Thank you. Next case please this is the second vacant lot on the south side of Longleaf Road and the 3,000 block this is the western most closest to Shirley Street staff concerns and recommendations are very similar to the other proposed new construction that was just presented this law also challenging topography, which is the Applian has stated in the intent to grade to create a flat area for the building. This proposal is for a two-story house with approximately 2,298 heated square feet and a 132 square foot partial width front porch. Staff has concerns with the foundation here as well. The proposed foundation height is listed as five feet, which would be higher than other houses and higher than the house that was just approved. Staff suggest keeping the maximum foundation height on this building as four feet as well to remain consistent with adjacent property and stay closer in maximum height to similar historic houses. Staff also has recommendations related to the proposed massing, rhythm of openings, and materials, textures, and details. The proposed building is roughly 33 feet wide by 35 feet deep and includes a one-story partial width front porch on the left half of the front elevation and a two-story one-foot projection under a gable roof on the right side. The massing of the front elevation is not typically seen in the district, but the massing of the front porch and the two-story projection working as disconnected features. As proposed, the right side of the front elevation projects only one foot out, so staff recommends that this projection be extended another three to four feet so it has more connectivity with the porch and more variation in the massing as stated in the guidelines. Additionally, Borden-Batton is proposed for the front elevation underneath the gable, which is not a common siding material. In fact, there's only one very small house that uses it for siding in the whole district, so staff suggest using lap siding only as the siding material to keep with historic patterns. As it relates to rhythm of openings, the right and left elevations have visually incompatible rhythm of openings that are not keeping with the guidelines. On the right, staff suggest adding a third window of the same size on the second floor between the two proposed windows and adding another window of the same size on the first floor between the proposed windows to be more in keeping with the guidelines. However, staff would note that if the commission agrees with the staff recommendation to change the massing at the front elevation, the right elevation windows would need to be adjusted accordingly as well. On the left, as presented, overall, the rhythm of openings is close to what's typically seen with the exception of the center window, which is slightly smaller. Staff suggest changing this window out for a window of similar size to the others to fill that space a bit more, which is more typical pattern in the district. Again, these windows are proposed to be the vinyl windows as well. Other small items such as shutter design, door trim, porch steps, and material are inconsistent with historic patterns, and staff has recommended changes to those items as well. For staff recommendations, staff finds that the proposal for new construction on Longleaf Road, which this is the western lot, is generally in keeping with Section 5 and 8 of the guidelines in Section 17-674 of the city ordinance and recommends granting a certificate of design approval with the following conditions. Foundation height not to exceed four feet on any elevation and foundation material be brick with lattice used only at the front porch, should the intended topography not be achieved on the site resulting in increased foundation height to over four feet then revised drawings be provided for staff and or the DDRC to review the change and evaluate its effect. The front elevation projection be extended an additional three to four feet. For more connection, excuse me, to the front porch with final approval of details and proportions deferred to staff. The setback of the building at 30 feet to be consistent with the adjacent proposed new construction. Board and baton not used on the building with cement fiberboard lap siding uses the only siding material. Shutter design changed to a louvered or panel design. Front porch stair clad in brick to match foundation. Door trim increased in width to six inch minimum. Window material is wood or aluminum clad wood with exterior mountains. The central window on the second floor at the left elevation changed to a window in size to match the other windows on the elevation. A third window of the same size added on the second floor of the right elevation between the two proposed windows and another window of the same size added on the first floor between the proposed windows noting that further adjustments of windows may be required for consistency with guidelines should the front projection be extended further. Driveway may be expanded into parking pad only once it is behind the front corner of the house and all other details deferred to staff. Looks like we don't have the applicant like to speak. Is this going to just before you speak is this going to be the same. Well, I can see it everything. Other than these two windows on the right, the one downstairs is right in the middle of the kitchen range. If we if we bring forward the front of the house to three feet, we can split that twin into two singles at the corners of that dining room. They're you know, for giving you more spread there. And then upstairs the window that is being recommended to be added is is in the middle of a master bedroom. And I know if my wife was willing to buy that house, she would she would not like having a window right there. So you know, pushing that three feet out, perhaps we can double the that single window up there to give more glass volume. If that's the desire, but I would request not adding that window upstairs. Besides that, I can see the other request. Okay, so if I understand correctly what you're saying is you can see everything except those two windows. Is that yes. Okay. Any comments other than the previous concerns? Yes, sir. No, I just want to reiterate what I said on the first one with regard to design. As a neighbor, I strongly urge you to approve to provide design approval, including only with inclusion of all the recommendations that city staffs already made, and to not make exceptions. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else? I didn't ask for any questions for the applicant, but I think we've sort of been through this once. Any comments from commissioners? My concern is the drainage of the street itself. And since he's mentioned no curbing gutters, I mean, some some development don't have some do. But I'm still concerned about the drainage off of that property on to their property. Right. And I just spoke with the gentleman who lives on the street. It's outside of our purview, but we're going to see if we can't get him in touch with some other departments to see if there's some help there. I don't know exactly what but we'll put him in touch with the right people of the city to see if there's some answers there. We're both on them. Okay. Good. Thank you. So I am going to ask for a motion in a moment unless anybody on the commission would like to comment about the applicants to requests that we can see which have to do with those windows on the right side elevation. Are there any comments with with regard to that? The front elevation are the front of the house. Closer to the street. I'm in support of the proposal. Okay. Very good. I wonder if Ms. Great would be willing to make another one of those fabulous motions. Make sure I have all of the windows correct. Take your time. Space out. I move that we grant a certificate of design approval for new construction on Longleaf Road, the Western Lod with the following conditions that the foundation height not exceed four feet on any elevation and foundation material be brick with lattice shoes at the front porch that should the intended topography not be achieved on the site resulting in increased foundation height to over four feet then revised drama and speed provided for staff and or the DDRC to review the change and evaluate its effect that the front elevation projection be extended in additional three to four feet for more connection to the front porch with final approval of details and proportions deferred to staff. Setback of the building at 30 feet be consistent with the adjacent proposed new construction. Board and batting not be used on the building with cement fiber board lap side and used as the only side of material that the shutter design be changed to a louvered or panel design. Front porch stair be clad and brick to match the foundation. Door trim increase in width to six inches at a minimum. That window material be wood or aluminum plaid wood with exterior mutants. The central window on the second floor of the left elevation be allowed to stay in size as presented by the applicant on drawings due to the front elevation projection being extended the additional three to four feet. That a window of the same size that a window of the same size be added on the second floor the right elevation between the two proposed windows and that an adjustment be made on the first floor to allow the front window to allow the front windows to be spaced out due to the front elevation projection being extended the additional three to four feet that the driveway may be expanded into a parking pad only once it is behind the front corner of the house and that all details be deferred to staff. I make this recommendation based upon the proposal generally being keeping with section five and eight of the guidelines in section 17-674 of the city ordinance. Is there a second? Second. Any discussion? Does staff agrees we got that right? Okay good no other no discussion. Could we have a vote please? Mr. Brim. Yes. Mr. Kohn. Yes. Miss Grape. Yes. Mr. Wynn. Yes. Thank you very much. I think that's the last of our cases today right? Do we have any other business? Could I have a motion to adjourn? So moved. Second. Second. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Okay. Adjourned.