 Welcome to DDRC members, staff, and guests. We ask for your patience during this meeting. 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 time. If you are watching virtually, you may see images of anyone present at the meeting. However, images of anyone participating virtually will not be visible. In addition to watching the meeting virtually, the public will be able to participate via these methods. Email, phone, logging into a web session, and participating in person. If you're participating in person, please provide your name for documentation purposes. The public may stream the meetings through City TV, accessed at www.youtube.com, backslash user, backslash Columbia SC government. You can also email, submitting letters and statements to COC board meeting at ColumbiaSC.gov, leading up to and or during the meeting as we monitor this account through the process. Emails and letters sent during the meeting will be read into the record. Emails and letters received prior to the meeting have been forwarded to the Commission. You can phone in calling 855-925-2801 When prompted, please enter the meeting code 2674. If you're participating by phone, you'll have three options on how to participate. Star 1 will allow you to listen, Star 2 will allow you to record a voicemail message that will be read into the record, and Star 3 will allow a participant to be placed in a queue so they may speak live when prompted. Please make sure your computer audio is muted if calling in live via your phone. If you're streaming, you can participate via the web. You can join at publicinput.com backslash, excuse me, backslash COC DDRC-NOV2021. If you're here today to speak about a case, you must speak up when the chairperson calls for public comment. I'll call the roll. Ms. Branham. Here. Mr. Broom. Here. Mr. Dinkins. Here. Ms. Jaco. 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 in one evening, and decisions may be appealed within 30 days to accord a competent jurisdiction. O's will be administered individually as we hear either from applicants or from live speakers. Applicants with requests before the DDRC are allowed at 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 request. Members of the general public are given the opportunity to address their concerns and 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? No, the agenda stands. The DDRC uses the consent agenda to approve noncontroversial or routine matters by a single motion and vote. If a member of the DDRC or the general public wants to discuss an item on the consent agenda, they must speak up immediately after the consent agenda is read and ask that a project be removed from the consent agenda and considered as part of the regular agenda during the meeting. The DDRC then approves the remaining consent agenda items. Will staff please read the consent agenda? Certainly. The first item is 1314 Oak Street, a request for a preliminary certification for the Bailey Bill in the Waverly Protection Area. The next case is 2143 Marion Avenue, a request for a preliminary certification for the Bailey Bill in the Cottontown Bellevue Architectural Conservation District. The next is 1212 Daly Street, a request for a certificate of design approval for an addition in the Melrose Heights-Oconn Architectural Conservation District. And the last is 1225 Fairview Drive, a request for a certificate of design approval for an addition in the Melrose Heights-Oconn Architectural Conservation District. Is there anyone from the DDRC that would like any item removed from the consent agenda? Is there anyone from the public, either here today in person or who is participating virtually, that would like to have an item removed from the consent agenda? When participating, please provide your name for the minutes. Please communicate by sending an email to cocboardmeeting at columbiasc.gov or communicate via phone by pressing star two to leave a voicemail or star three to speak in person. We will pause to allow any communication from the public. Nothing received? Nothing received. Okay, great. Do I have a motion and a second to accept the consent agenda? And also the October minutes. I'll move to approve consent agenda items one through four and the October minutes of the design developer review commission items. Second. Mr. Broom? Yes. Ms. Branham? Yes. Mr. Dinkins? Yes. Ms. Jacob? Yes. Motion passes. We move on to the regular agenda. First case. This is a request for a certificate of design approval for exterior changes at 2314 Lincoln Street. This circa 1910 two-story front gable structure has a simple symmetrical facade with a two-story porch supported by Tuscan columns. The home has one over one windows, a six panel door on the first story and a half glass door on the second story. The facade has minimal ornamentation, save a diamond vent in the gable. The roof has two chimneys visible from the public right of way, both of which feature four rows of decorative coursing on the top. Chimneys are an indication of the way a home used to operate or function with careful consideration given to locations of chimneys and openings to take advantage of ventilation prior to modern HVAC systems. The applicant is proposing to remove a chimney visible from the public right of way from the right side of the roof. The proposal comes as a part of the applicant's desire to renovate the interior of the structure and remove the chimney below the roof line to create a more desirable interior floor plan. As the purview of the DDRC and staff is limited to what is visible from the public right of way, interior changes may be undertaken without review. The guidelines require that exterior historic features visible from the public right of way be retained and preserved. Based on this requirement, the chimney should be retained above the roof line. This is a routine requirement for applicants wishing to remove chimneys on the interior of a structure. Undertaking the removal of a chimney from below the roof line does require that the chimney above the roof line be braced from below so it remains stable. In this way, interior changes can be accommodated without being in violation of the design guidelines, or in this case, the city ordinance. In looking for previous precedents, staff researched all historic districts with the applicable review criteria and has found no examples in which removal of a historic chimney visible from the public right of way was permitted. Previous requests to remove deteriorated chimneys have been denied and applicants were required to repair the chimneys. In terms of review criteria, several of the standards require that historic material be retained. However, there are also specific review criteria that address historic features. E. Distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property shall be preserved. The chimney proposed for removal is consistent with other historic chimneys in the district and includes decorative coursing. It is important to note that chimneys are a common feature found on roofs in the district and similar conditions exist on other homes. Other chimneys in the district with a similar level of visibility and detailing have been per-DDRC rulings retained and repaired rather than removed. Likewise, 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 in design, color, finish, texture, and other visual qualities. And where 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. The underlying principle in this standard is to retain historic features. And as previously discussed, past precedent has required that chimneys be retained above blue roof line when they are visible from the public right of play, as they are historic features. Removal of historic features is not consistent with this standard. In summary, while staff understands the desire for interior changes, there is an avenue to address the interior while also complying with the review standards as set out in the ordinance. Removal of a chimney below the roof line does require interior supports embracing, but this is a choice the property owner can choose to make if they wish to make interior changes. Previous precedent in districts where chimneys are reviewed, including Elmwood Park, has required that chimneys be retained above the roof line, regardless of their condition. Therefore, staff finds that the project at 2314 Lincoln Street does not comply with section 17-2.5G6V2 of the city ordinance and recommends denial of the request for a certificate of design approval. Any questions to staff from commissioners? I do have a question. Has anybody been on the roof to look at the condition of the chimney? Not to my knowledge. There are pictures of the interior in the roof itself. Does anybody know if anything deteriorated at that point? I believe the applicant is here and they may be able to answer that question a little bit better than I can. Okay. But I will say in terms of, again, looking at past precedent items that can be repaired, such as flashing around a chimney or if a roof needs to be replaced. Those have not previously been considered for chimney removal. I do have a question for the applicant. You want to come on up? Sure. Please state your name. I'm Dale Marshall. I'm an architect with Architrave and I'm here on behalf of the homeowner, Jeff Rogers. Okay. And do you swear to tell the truth in these procedures? I do, yes. We appreciate the commission's review of our request to remove the smaller rear secondary chimney at this house. The chimney is a part of a non-working fireplace and its removal below the roof line is desired to give the home a more functional living arrangement. While we acknowledge that it is possible to structurally support the chimney and leave a bestical remnant above the roof, we question if there really is a compelling preservation reason to make that decision. Retaining the chimney involves significant cost and permanently leaves that area of the home vulnerable to rot and water intrusion. As the photographs show, the chimney in question is up in the roof line and behind a more visible chimney on the front fireplace, which is on the side of the house. We believe the rear chimney is not a defining architectural element which impacts the character of the Elmwood Park Historic District. We appreciate staff's deep concern for precedent and the proverbial desire to avoid wandering down a slippery slope, but we don't think removing this secondary chimney with its rear wood placement sets the precedent that would harm the character of this neighborhood. The underlying language in the ordinance as stated is, in an architectural conservation district and preservation area, the historic character of a district shall be retained and preserved through the preservation of historic materials and features which characterize the historic district. Interpreting that language to require the preservation of every single element, regardless of its prominence or low relative visibility, goes beyond, in our opinion, the spirit of the ordinance, which is to preserve the historic character of the district, not freeze it as an archeological preservation zone. We do not believe that the removal of this chimney would impact the historic character of the district, and we believe that due, based on its placement, low visibility and the retention of the more prominent front chimney could allow for its removal without establishing a precedent or acting contrary to the intent of the neighborhood preservation ordinance. And I'm happy to talk to you about it, take questions. Thank you, Dale. I appreciate the commentary and the thoughts on that. I guess one question I do have for staff in light of what you just mentioned is, is this double chimney something that's prevalent in the area as well or just chimneys in general? Yes, actually there are several examples on your screen now of multiple chimneys on a roof. It's not uncommon in this area to find more than two even. The 913 Abbeyville example on the bottom left has actually is three chimneys. So it's very common to find multiple chimneys on a roof in this area. Thank you. So the other question I had, I think you answered Dale, is I was wondering if it's actually working right now, that particular chimney? No, it's not. But the other two are currently working and y'all are? The one on the front is actually in a semi-functional fireplace in a front living room. This chimney is in the wall between a dining room and kitchen downstairs and is completely boxed in in closets on the upstairs. So there's not even a fireplace on it on the second floor. Okay, so the two chimneys, I just was curious just from the aesthetics of the interior of the home now. But all of them, the two in the front will be operable upstairs and downstairs? In terms of operable, I don't know. In terms of visible and expressed as fireplaces, yes. But, you know, operable requires getting a chimney sweep in there and relining blues if you're worried about actually burning wood in them or that were actually gas or coal setups. Really the only reason I'm asking is it clearly doesn't meet the spirit and the specifics of the guidelines. And so I was just hoping that maybe the owner and you could look at ways. I think it could be incorporated as a feature and keep it either operational or, and I realize that, you know, it does limit some of the operations. It's in the middle of the house. I mean, it's on a wall between so working around it. The one on the front is actually on an outside wall and, you know, doesn't block the path to the house. This one is in the middle between the second and third room, middle room and back room of the house. And therefore, you know, makes it really awkward to work around. I mean, it's between what's now the kitchen and the dining room. The goal is neither of which are terribly huge rooms. And the goal is to try to open it up to recognize that really none of us live with dining rooms as dining rooms anymore. We don't set up formal China very often. And, you know, this is a family with the child and not really into formal dining. So it, and if you look at most of the other houses, I mean, some people still have dining rooms, but it's just a lifestyle change. And I, you know, I guess my primary argument is I don't think this chimney is a primary element. I think it's something that is secondary. And I think that if we get too caught up in the notion that every piece is equally important and the removal of anything changes the character of the house. It's not recognizing the reality of an evolving neighborhood and evolving architecture. You know, yes, we can, you know, we can tie it off, make it disappear below the roof line. It will cost, you know, substantial money, but that's the possibility of it. It's permanently up there as a, as something that, you know, you're fighting leaks, you're fighting intrusion, and you're just not getting anything out of it. I mean, I'm willing to bet you that if we drove 100 people down the street that two days taking it down and drove them back, not one of them would recognize it was gone. And so we've established this precedent that's absolute. You can see it on photograph. And I think it's to the detriment of doing, you know, positive things to the overall environment of the house and the neighborhood. Can I see the floor plan of what he intended to do? We did not get a floor plan as a part of the submission. I printed one box. It happens downstairs between, like I said, the second and the third room is the dining room in the kitchen. It basically, with the cabinets on the sidewall of the kitchen, you can't really get around it on one side if you leave it. So it forces you to funnel all the traffic to the left side of the fireplace to more or less get around it. So it becomes a giant block, you know, sort of blocking that, you know, opening up that part of the plan. Well, but you're still putting cabinets back where the chimney was so you're still blocking that part of it. Yeah, we're putting a bigger opening that you can walk. Please, that's fine. I adjusted the work from this. I'm pretty sure it's the same size. I'm not trying to, I mean, I think clearly it's easier to remove it from an architectural standpoint on the interior to allow for a little bit better layout. Do I think it's impossible to lay out a really nice kitchen and keep it there? No, I don't think that's impossible. I think you're very talented architect and you can work around that. The other part would be maybe it becomes an amenity upstairs in that bedroom and it actually becomes a working fireplace. I mean, there's other ways to look at guidelines as ways to maybe make something better that wasn't there before if it's not operable now. Yeah, I mean, I don't disagree that it's not impossible to do something with it. I don't think that it's, you know, after studying this house and various things that we've been doing on it for over a year, working with the owner, I don't think that it really is something that needs, you know, the calls itself to be an exposed, you know, to be an exposed feature. I mean, it wasn't a chimney that was exposed brick on the inside anyway. It would have been, you know, built into the walls with plaster in a fireplace. I mean, it's not really, you know, it would be architecturally just as disingenuous to leave it as an exposed brick element in the middle of the room as it is to, say, take it away because that's not historically what it ever was either. Unfortunately, we're just dealing with the exterior. I know. Mr. Brun, did you have a question? Did this help you? Well, I don't have a question, but I do have concerns. Okay. I realized that you were complying with the guidelines. I understand that, but this chimney is further back from the street and you already have a chimney and it's got a cap on it. In today's world, we always put caps on chimneys because of squirrels and rains, whatever. I personally believe the chimney to be removed is not going to affect the design of the house that much. You still got that chimney and everybody's going to look at that one chimney that otherwise they're going to see the house itself. You know, it's very, very nice design, the two-story, very, very popular in the Inwood area. I feel like the removal of that chimney is not going to affect the design itself. Mr. Dinkins, do you have any comments? You mentioned it would be a positive for the neighborhood to remove the chimney. Can you just give me an example of what would be a positive? I'm sorry. You mentioned it would be a positive for the neighborhood to remove the chimney. Can you just give me an example? I think I said I don't believe it would be a negative for the neighborhood. So there's no benefit you can see to the neighborhood? The benefit I see to the neighborhood is that it won long-term maintenance. You're creating something that's, you know, when you take the fireplace out from under the chimney, you know, 15, 20 years down the road, you basically allow people inside the house to begin to wonder why things are leaking, if things are falling off of the chimney. You're perpetuating a maintenance for no functional purpose. And so I think there's some positive to be said to allow things to evolve. And I think this is within the framework of, you know, in the era when this house was built, chimneys were an essential part of heating the house. They're there for those purposes. Those functional things have changed. And I think, you know, again, allowing small elements to change without freezing things in place is not created, is positive for the neighborhood because it allows the neighborhood to grow and evolve. And I don't think this, I don't think the absence of this chimney changes the character of the house or the neighborhood. I don't think that, you know, we've engaged in what I call a slippery slope philosophy, which is any little change, sends us down the road to instant ruin instead of recognizing that there are opportunities for improvements and some changes can be enhancements. So I don't see this as, this is not an important element. I'm not going to pretend to you that it's removal or its placement really makes much difference other than the cost of this homeowner and the lifetime of maintenance to this house. If you were granted a certificate of design approval, are there any plans for reuse of that brick? At this point, no, although I'm sure there are opportunities to do that. So I guess I would be the counterpoint to the slippery slope, Dale, and saying that if we also say we can pick and choose which things we want to enforce and which things we don't, then someone's going to say, well, you allow this to be changed and this window isn't important to me. If we just allow an option to pick and choose whenever it's convenient, I think it becomes a different slippery slope. I think you're here in a quasi-judicial capacity to say this instant is not going too far. This other one potentially is. And ultimately, it is, of course, y'all's judgment as to whether this is going too far. But were there not some instances that required judgment and review, there would be really no point to have a commission. We simply would have a long list of guidelines and everything that somehow fell on it would automatically have no discretion. I think you do have the discretion and I think there are ample incidences where the DDRC has exercised discretion over the years based on the particular circumstances and doing that I don't think sets us off on a case where you can't say next time that if we were asking to remove the front chimney, no, that chimney is much more visible and much more important. So our new precedent would be that if it's a back chimney and not so visible, we're okay with removing it? I think your precedent would be that there's not a precedent that you've made an individual evaluation based on the totality of the circumstances of this house and determined that following the language of the guidelines, the historic character of the district was not damaged by the removal of this element. So I think that everything is not establishing a precedent. It's based on the circumstances in this particular case. I will say that past precedent has been very consistent in terms of how situations like this have been handled. Applicants have across the board been required to maintain their chimneys. So that's been the past precedent. But that's this neighborhood. You go to Arsenal Hill, which has houses in the exact same period. You have Arsenal Hill, which has a different standard, but it's exact same architectural period. It's not a historic district. But it's the exact same architecture. It's the exact same vintage. It's not reviewed by this commission. But it is reviewed by this commission. It's just reviewed under a different district standard. All of Arsenal Hill is under the city center guidelines and is reviewed. It's not in a historic district, which would preclude it from being reviewed based on similar standards. But it's the same architecture. Do any other commissioners have any other questions or comments? All right. I appreciate your time. Thank you. Should we move on to any public input? Yes. We encourage those that would like to communicate via email to begin sending in letters and emails. You may email at COC board meeting at ColumbiaSC.gov or go on the web at publicinput.com slash COCDDRC-NOV2021. For those wanting to leave a voicemail or speak live, call 855-925-2801. When prompted, please enter the meeting code 2674. Then press star two to begin leaving a voicemail. If you would like to speak live, press star three. Please be sure your audio is off to avoid feedback. We'll hear any comments. Is there anybody else here in person who wanted to speak on this? Any comments received in writing? Yes. We did receive two emails prior to the meeting forwarded from the applicant. First one is dear members of the Design Development Review Commission. I am writing in support of the request for a certificate of design approval for 2314 Lincoln Street. Jeff Kelly and their daughter are my neighbors in Elmwood Park. I live at 2308 Lincoln Street and we are only separated by one house. I have lived at my Lincoln Street home for nearly a decade and the Rogers have been incredibly kind, considerate neighbors who are committed to the well-being of our community. My request, removal of the rear chimney, will be a change not noticed by anyone on the street given its location and the overall design of the Elmwood Park neighborhood. It's hard to find folks like Jeff and Kelly committed to caring for these older homes and I hope you will approve the request. Thanks, Kat Scalacci. The second email from George C. Maryweather at 2326 Lincoln Street. The letter is being written on behalf of Jeff Rogers and Kelly Cordell of 2314 Lincoln Street. I've known Jeff and Kelly for over 10 years and can vouch that they are the kind of conscientious and thoughtful neighbors that make Elmwood Park the wonderful neighborhood and community that it is. I know they have taken on a significant project to repair and restore their home at no small expense and are doing a carefully thought-out plan with meticulous attention to the architectural and historical significance of the home and appearance. I do not believe the request to remove the smaller chimney in the back of their house for functional and structural purposes diminishes the appearance or historical significance of the home in any meaningful way. I have never noticed this chimney in the 15 years I have been living on the same block until it was pointed out to me. I need to stand in a small space across the street at a certain angle to discern it. I am appreciative of how challenging it can be to maintain and preserve these older homes and have watched a number of neighbors make changes without going through the proper channels and forethought that Jeff and Kelly are so careful to do. I ask that this minor exterior change be approved. Sincerely, George C. Maryweather 2326 Lincoln Street. And we have one more email so far that just came in. Sorry, it's loading. Hello, my name is Sean Eubanks and I live at 2316 Lincoln Street next to Jeff and Kelly at 2314 Lincoln Street. I am writing in support of allowing them to remove their rear chimney. It serves no purpose. It cannot be seen from the street. It wastes valuable interior square footage. I did not even know they had one until they told me that they wanted to remove it. I trust that this board understands the need for practicality in dealing with these old, very impractical homes. Our community goes to great lengths to preserve the street appearance, but we also live in and have invested greatly in these houses. They are not simply architectural specimens. They are our homes. Thank you in advance for your consideration. Sean Eubanks. Voice mails or live speakers? Do the applicant want to provide any response after? No. I understand. Yeah. All right. Well, I guess I'll open up to commissioners or if someone would like to make a motion or any follow-up? I'll make a motion if we're ready. Okay. I move to deny the request for a certificate of design approval for exterior changes at 2314 Lincoln Street based upon the design. It's not in compliance with section 17-2.5G6B2 of the city ordinance. Second. Mr. Brannam. Yes. Ms. Sims Brannam. No. Mr. Dinkins. Yes. Ms. Jacob. Yes. The motion to deny passes. Any other cases? Other business? We do have one item in other business. This is basically just an update for you guys. There was a project that went through in September of 2019. You've probably seen it being constructed on the corner of assembly and lady. So this project got approval. One of the discussions at the meeting was about articulation of the windows. The plan was to have some of these window or these sunscreen elements on some of the windows on the facade. And then the applicant can't get that material at this time. So the proposal came to staff to if they could articulate the windows just by providing a recess. The motion at the DDRC meeting in September of 2019 was to provide window screens or to recess the windows that did not have screens four inches. So they are consistent with the motion that was made by the commission to recess all of the windows instead of putting on the sunscreen. So that is basically where we are. This is some of the windows that have already been completed that you can see. So that's what it's going to look like ultimately. But I just wanted to keep you all posted because it was kind of a big discussion at the meeting. And you all are probably going to see it going up. So if there were any questions about that, we just kind of wanted to keep you in the loop. Did you have any questions? I'm confused. Are you saying the original approval has the feature around the windows? On some windows, yes. And the reason they've been eliminated? They cannot get the material at all. Like it's not available and it's not something because of the way it's detailed that could be added at a later date. So the reason they had to propose those in the first place was one way to articulate some of the fenestration. And so the original plan that came before the DDRC did not have a recess in any of the windows. So they had made a proposal to articulate some windows with the solar screen and some windows with the recess. So the motion was made that the windows without the sunscreens have the recess. So now the windows without the sunscreens will have the recess. In other words, all the windows will have the recess because they can't get the sunscreens. So it wasn't really the original plan, but it still meets the intent of the guidelines and the motion. So we just wanted to keep you guys in the loop. Do you want to just mention what you said earlier today? Yeah, there had a couple of things. One, I just wanted to announce that Ms. Johnson resigned from the commission. So I just wanted to let y'all know that. And our dates of meeting are going to change. So we're meeting the second week of the month right now. We're going to be switching to the third Thursday of the month starting in January. So I sent an email out to y'all about that earlier. And of course next month we will be meeting in City Hall too. So we will not be meeting here, but we will be meeting as we used to in City Hall. So y'all will be getting information if you needed about parking passes or the procedures for entry, et cetera, et cetera. Is that everything? I think so. I have a motion to adjourn. Motion to adjourn. Second. Second. The order.