 All right, welcome to DDRC members, staff and guests. Multiple staff members are present to make sure that the meeting runs smoothly and all applicants and citizens are able to communicate with the commission at the appropriate times. I'll call the roll. Ms. Brannum. Here. Mr. Broom. Here. Mr. Greenberg. Here. Mr. McGuire. Here. Mr. Salibi. Here. And Mr. Wolff. Here. We have quorum. Thank you. 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. 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 requests. Members of the general public are given the opportunity to address their concerns in intervals of two minutes. Applicants may have five minutes to respond. Staff has a timer that will make presenters aware of when their time has expired. Staff, are there any changes to the agenda? There's one change under the regular agenda. 2320 Hampton Street, a request for certificate of design approval for exterior changes in the Waverley Protection Area has been withdrawn. Thank you. The DDRC uses the consent agenda to approve non-controversial or routine matters by a single motion in vote. If a member of the DDRC or the general public wants to discuss an item on the consent agenda, that item is removed upon request from the consent agenda and is considered during the meeting. The DDRC then approves the remaining consent agenda items. Will staff please read the consent agenda? Do you mind hopping through that? The first case is 1500 Calhoun Street, a request for preliminary certification for the Bailey Bill and for a certificate of design approval for exterior changes. This is in the Landmark District and is an individual landmark. 1231 Gervais Street is a request for a certificate of design approval for an ADA ramp. This is an individual landmark. 1429 Heights Street is a request for preliminary certification for the Bailey Bill in the Waverley Protection Area. 2321 Pendleton Street is a request for a certificate of design approval for exterior changes in the Old Chandon Lower Waverley Historic District, area A. 1407 Elmwood Avenue, request for preliminary certification for the Bailey Bill and for a certificate of design approval for a DEC addition and exterior changes in the Cottontown Bellevue Architectural Conservation District. And those are all of our consent agenda items. Thank you. Is there anyone from the DDRC that would like any item removed from the consent agenda? Is there anyone from the public that would like to have an item removed from the consent agenda? Hearing none, do I have a motion? I move to accept the items on the consent agenda. Can we include the minutes? Yes, and include the minutes as well, the main minutes. All right, I have a motion and a second. Staff, please call the vote. Ms. Branham. Yes. Mr. Bram. Yeah. Mr. Greenberg. Yeah. Mr. McGuire. Yes. Mr. Salibi. Yes. And Mr. Wolff. Yes. The motion passes. On the regular agenda, we have a lot on the southeast side of the intersection of Park and Buford streets. The current proposal is for the construction of 17 townhouses on the empty lot at the corner of Park and Buford streets. This is a review of the architectural design of the townhouses only. The applicant will work with planning and development staff to finalize the site plan for this development. This review will not address elements of the site plan such as landscaping, stormwater drainage, trash collection, police and fire code measures. The final number and arrangement of the units will be dependent on the reviews from staff. The applicant will work with Jonathan Chambers, the land development administrator to finalize these details. Developments with fewer than 25 units do not meet the threshold to go before the planning commission for review and they're handled at staff level. So this is the normal procedure for those. This review is only to determine the architectural design of the townhouses what we're looking at today. This proposed design features 12 three-bedroom townhouses with seven of them facing Park Street and five facing Buford Street. An additional group of five two-bedroom townhouses is planned for the center of the lot. All units are proposed to have projecting three-quarter width porches in the center of the facades with a central front door flanked by three over two windows. The second floor will feature two three over one windows and either a gable front or side gable roof lines depending on the design for each unit. So we've pulled a few of the guidelines for the neighborhood to discuss. And the first is for new construction in Earlwood. Within Earlwood, there are numerous vacant lots and non-contributing structures. The construction of new or replacement structures on those lots will greatly affect the district by either reinforcing or undermining existing historic patterns. New construction should be consistent with existing buildings along the street in terms of height, scale, proportion and rhythm of openings, setbacks, orientation and spacing. However, new buildings need not imitate past architectural style. They may reflect the era of their own construction to carry on the tradition of diversity in building styles present. So the guidelines for height, the height of buildings in Earlwood is one to two stories. These proposed buildings will present as two story structures. Some of the units along Park and Buford may have garages that are built underground. So you'd not be seeing that from the front facade. The final designs for those will be approved by staff as we don't know what the final layout of the units will be and we don't know what will be visible from the public right of way at this point. Size and scale, the design of the building so that the width of the main facade is similar to historic houses in similar contexts in the district. The proposed buildings are two story structures, either two bays wide for the two bedroom units or three bays wide for the three bedroom units. The proposed size and scale of the building is consistent with surrounding buildings and keeping with the guidelines. Massing, arrange and distribute the mass of a new building, the relationship of solid components, example walls, columns, et cetera to open spaces, example windows, doors and arches. So it is compatible with existing historic buildings on the block or street. These rectangular two story structures match other buildings in the neighborhood, which consist of both one story bungalows and larger two story houses, often four squares and often these larger two story houses are located on prominent corners in the neighborhood as well. This design features nearly full width porches which match the array of porch types in the neighborhood. These porches will be deep enough to provide usable space which is also a key feature of the neighborhood. These houses will be highly visible from the public right of way on a very steeply graded lot which will affect the view of some units from the public right of way. There are few neighboring houses on this corner with the church at 2701 Park Street being the closest and most visually relevant to this project. The large massing of that building will balance the height of these structures. A setback, the guideline says to locate the new building on the site so that the distance of the structure from the right of way is similar to adjacent structures. The three bedroom units that will be along Park and Buford streets will have a minimal setback and will create a direct connection to the sidewalks. This is consistent with historic neighborhood patterns and fosters walkability and community connections. The interior units do not present a direct connection to the streetscape. The planning department staff will work with the applicant to determine an appropriate site plan for the development. The other relevant component are the staff recommendations. Staff finds that the design of the townhouses on the corner lot of Park and Buford streets complies with section three of the guidelines and recommends granting a certificate of design approval with the following conditions. A, the certificate is for architectural review only. A full site plan will need to be approved by planning and development staff. If units are reconfigured on the lot but keep the same or similar architectural design, staff may approve those changes. If significant design changes are needed due to a revised site plan and or code compliance, those designs may need to return to DDRC for approval. B, window door and siding details will be submitted to staff prior to purchase and see all other details are deferred to staff. Do y'all have those elevations? We passed out, okay. Right, I'm sorry. Somehow that did not make it in there. So that's why one reason Betsy was reading out more of the information about the individual guidelines. This is the lot along Park Street and it is somewhat difficult to see the drop in elevation here but the upper photograph is trying to capture that. So it's a pretty steep drop in elevation as the lot goes back. Sorry, I understand that. Sorry, just to keep with proper procedures and appropriate next for any members of the community to speak if they're present. Staff has more to add as part of the presentation. We can allow that and then we would have the applicant come forward if they wish. Very good, thank you. Yes, yes, the applicant is here to present. Yeah. Thank y'all for having me here today. There's really not much. Betsy's done a fantastic job. We've been working with Betsy and Amy. George, sorry, I don't mean to interrupt. Do you swear to tell the whole truth in these proceedings? I do. Very good, thank you. Thank you. And if you would for the record, please state your name. Wyman Bowers with LeFly Development. Thank you. Betsy and Amy have done a great job. We've been working with them along with our architect for the last three or four months. The site does have some significant typography, which has posed some challenges, but we've worked with Betsy in particular. She's been great. Just kind of guiding us along on what she'd like to see. So really, I don't have much to add, but would welcome any questions. Thank you. Do any DDRC members have any questions for the applicant? Yes, I do. I did look at the plans earlier. My concern is the site work is incomplete. It's sort of a diagrammatic type site plan. And as you explained, that is continuing. Correct. My question is, is there a retaining wall on the site? There will be probably two, at least two retaining walls. Yes, sir. And that looks like it's a long view. Yes, sir. And potentially on between, well, you've got one on Buford, and there may need to be another one on the curb between Buford and Park. We'll work with our engineer on that, and of course, land development, so. And it's gonna be concrete with railings on top and stuff like that? We will seek for there to be as little seen from the road as possible. So I don't have those specifics yet, just we hadn't gotten that far in the engineering of it. My other concern is a lot next to the residents, power left of the site, is that a buffer? So are you talking about the one down Buford? Yes. There is significant vegetation there right now, which creates a natural buffer. We're gonna seek to keep as much of that there as possible. We will have to address some stormwater, and it will likely be towards the south, I guess, southwestern part of that of the site. So we'll have to see how that impacts it. So we're just not there yet, I guess. Are you asking for a fence or something to kind of shield that primary residence from this development? Is that the concern, I guess? Well, we got an email from the neighborhood and we're talking about the trees, and we don't know which trees has hounds, and I don't know the rules, with DNRC, not DNR. DNR? And I don't know the rules about owls in a tree. A tree has to stay or it can't be removed, I don't know. I just question that. That's the first I've heard of it. I'm not an expert in DNR, but we will certainly comply with whatever Mr. Holder with the city would ask us to do. All right, that'll be part of the staff review of the site plan. So we have a landscape planner with the city who would review those plans. Look at any concerns. Okay. Any other questions? So following up on what he asked, that other, that side that you're gonna try and keep, is that, are you saying that's green space on the opposite side of park? I'm sorry, I could quite hear the question. What was the question? The area he was just talking about, is that planned green space or future development? No, sir, we're gonna keep it as green space. Yeah, welcome. Any future development would need to go through land development at the city. But we don't have that intent. Just, that's not our intent, so. Yeah, I'm actually familiar with that area. Is that in a flood plain? So, and I guess the question would be, are the designs made to handle that type of water? It is not in a flood plain, but if there are any of those concerns, we'll of course address them with land development at that time. From our perspective, we were just trying to get the design right to see if it was even possible before we kind of went to full engineering. So those are great questions. We just hadn't gotten there yet. Yeah, and that too, stormwater will be part of site plan review. Sure, yeah, but any designs that come as a part of that, potential changes would then have to come back here, correct? So if they have to go higher or. If it's a significant change, yeah, in the design, yeah. Yeah, I just wanted to, Mr. Chair, to go on the record by saying that since we're purely today looking at the building design, it does seem to be a good reflection of just the two-story maximum height in that area and seems very, very sensitive to the neighborhood. So just to go on the record that the complaint was saying it was a three-story, but clearly it's a two-story. Yes, pal. Thank you for pointing that out. And we have spoken with the neighborhood association president, Ms. Slice and didn't, at least from the association, didn't have any concerns and was in general in favor of the proposed development. Amy, are you telling me that we're gonna see this on the next case as we're gonna see this right next month? No, no. So y'all are here to make a motion on the architecture and design of what's presented to you today. Stormwater, landscaping, egress, fire concerns, anything else is not part of your purview. It's part of the purview of the site plan review team that's internal to the city. If any part of that comes back that's gonna alter the architecture significantly, then we could bring it back, but I don't anticipate that's gonna happen. This is not in a flood plain. I think we're probably gonna be fine, but if it does change significantly, we would ask to bring it back to y'all. Well, in looking at the elevation that shows the floor plan, my question is on the windage as located, they're not symmetrical. They look like the front elevation. One with the floor plan. Yes, sir, I'm following you. And if you look at the door, I suppose that's the back door or the front door. Front door has a porch. The front door would have the porch. I'm just trying to find that. Symmetrical, but the back door is there. So the back is on the left, the front's on the right. Okay, the windows are not symmetrical. I'm sorry, sir. The windows are not symmetrical on the back elevation. One is too close to the door and one is off the door. I do see what you're saying. They will be symmetrical. Okay. And the other thing that confused me is the floor plan. I don't know if that I would approach you or not, but I don't understand the floor plan. It's a two-story building, right? Correct. This one is, yes, sir. And you're showing the first floor as well as the second floor. I'm the same plan. I'm not following your question. So are you talking about the top left picture? Yes. Could staff weigh in on that real quick? I'm sorry to interrupt. Is that within our purview? The interior design? I believe I could clarify. Bob, I think that what it's showing here isn't what we would normally, how we would normally show it, but the left is the first floor and the second half is the second floor. They're just kind of showing it side by side, but it's really the second floor plan. Yes. Right, so they'd be stacked on top of one another if... Okay. And floor plans to respond to Mr. Salibi, floor plans really are not part of your purview unless they affect the exterior of the building. I understand. Yeah. None to my knowledge, Betsy. No, I don't think so, no. Oh, yes. The one other detail on this end unit is for the top right image, we would like to see four windows on that side so that they are symmetrical as well and then any other end units because that would be very visible from the public right of way. We'd be overseeing those two and making sure to approve the designs of those end units. That's fine. So what we tried to show with this was there's going to be of course some interior units as well as some exterior two bedroom units. So we just chose really the elevations for this purposes, but certainly we can put that one on the ends. That's fine. Yeah, and to follow up with my fellow commissioners question, there are no recommendations made by staff that you have a problem with. None. Okay. Any other questions for me? We're good, okay. Thank you all. Yes. All the units that are facing Park and Buford are three bedroom units. Treat for those two. Did you already catch that? Yes, there's just, there's been a little bit of a difference in the naming of them because some of them will have a garage that would be underground. So in some places I've seen it referred to as three stories and others two stories, but from what we're seeing from the street, it would be presenting as a two-story building, but it would have that garage that's built underneath of it. So it would be like a basement, not visible. Right, there's a lot of topography on that site. So. Great, well, if there are no other questions, I'll entertain a motion. Public input. Oh, yes, apologies. Right, I believe we have an email from a member of the public if staff could read that into the record. I think we've been summarizing these actually. I don't actually have that email if someone would just state the name. I just need the gentleman's name to thank you, Sky. Thank you, Taylor. So we did receive an email from the gentleman who lives at 722 Buford Street, basically summarizing that he is concerned about the landscaping and the buffers, the animals that live near on this property and sort of the beauty of the site and the trees. So we have, I think, sent that email to y'all and put printed copies for you. And I think that's all we're doing for things that have been received before that period is just name and address and summary of the substance of the email. Great, I don't believe, at least I didn't receive a copy via email. Is there any way you could summarize whether there are concerns raised in the email that are within our purview? I mean, I know a lot of it deals with, like you said, landscaping and, yeah, the wildlife habitat of the property. Anything within our purview that's addressed in the email? The one is that he does ask that the buildings remain at the same distance from my property line as currently shown on the planning map, which again, we're not looking at the placement of the buildings. He had said that the setback towards the road was actually something that he agreed on and it was mostly concerning the layout of the whole development and what it would do to the natural environment that's there now. Thank you. All right, we will now hear comments from the public if anyone is here to comment. So now I will entertain a motion. I'd like to make a motion to approve the grant, to grant the certificate of design approval for the lot on the southeast side of the intersection of Park and Beuford streets, subsequent to the following conditions, that the certificate is for architectural design review only. A full site plan will need to be approved by planning and development staff. If the units are reconfigured on the lot, but keep the same or similar architectural design, the staff may approve those changes. If significant design changes are needed due to a revised site plan and or code compliance, those designs may need to return to DRC for approval. Window door and siding details to be submitted to staff prior to purchase. I'd like to add in that they do look at four windows at the end units as discussed, as well as symmetrical windows on either side of the back door and that all other details be deferred to staff. Great. Do we have any discussion? Hearing none, will staff take the vote? Mr. Broom. Ms. Sims-Brandham. Yes. Mr. Greenberg. Yes. Mr. McGuire. Yes. Mr. Salibi. Yes. And Mr. Wolff. Yes. The motion passes. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Is there any other business? None. Great. Do I have a motion to adjourn? I'd like to make a motion to adjourn this meeting. Very good. Thank you, everybody.