 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 of the 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 in error, you or 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 parte 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 and everybody has signed in. Okay, then would the staff please call the roll? Mr. Bachknight. Here. Mr. Brun. Here. Mr. Cohn. Here. Mr. Saveri. Here. We have quorum. Great. Does the agenda still stand? The order? We've had a few changes since the draft agenda went out. So 1001 Washington Street, a request for certification for the Bailey Bill and approval for exterior changes has been moved to the consent agenda as has 2027 Taylor Street, which is a Bailey Bill project, and 514 Montgomery Avenue, which is a request for approval for an addition. Additionally under the regular agenda, item number five, which is a project on Maiden Lane, has been moved to the front of the regular agenda as our applicants have some time constraints today. So we'll be hearing that one first, and then we will hear the Geiger Avenue, and things will continue in the correct order from there. You said item number five, but it's showing up here as item number four. Oh, I'm sorry. Number four. You're correct. All right. Just want to make sure. Okay. 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 you can pull the item for discussion onto the regular agenda if the staff would now please read the consent agenda. Certainly. 700 Hardin Street, a request for design approval for exterior changes in the Five Points Urban Design District, 1001 Washington Street, a request for certification for the Bailey Bill and design approval for exterior changes. This is an individual landmark. 227 Taylor Street, request for preliminary certification for the Bailey Bill, also an individual landmark, and 514 Congaree Avenue, a request for design approval for an addition in the Wales Garden Architectural Conservation District. Very good. Is there anyone who wishes to take an item off the consent agenda for discussion? In that case, may I have a motion to approve the consent agenda and the meeting minutes from last month? Mr. Chairman, I'll make a motion that we approve the consent agenda and the meeting minutes from last month's meeting. Second. Second. Do we have a vote? Mr. Boknight, Mr. Brum, Mr. Cohn, Ms. Fuller-Wilt, Mr. Savry, motion passes. Great. Now, if the staff would present the first case. This is a proposed new construction of Single Family House on a lot on the west side of Maiden Lane, within the Melrose Heights Oak Lawn Architectural Conservation District. The long-term plan for the lot is to subdivide it into three parcels for new Single Family Houses. The proposed house on this that you're hearing today is on the southernmost portion of the parcel. It's a proposed two-story house to include 2,545 square feet of heated space, small 40 square foot front porch, and a 260 square foot screened back porch. Proposal also includes a garage at the rear of the property. Generally, the proposed design is in keeping with the guidelines for setbacks, since of entry, roof shape. Staff has several recommendations for details to ensure the design is fully in keeping with the guidelines for new construction. Staff has met with the applicant who has agreed to work with staff on several of the details, including the window sizes and design, the garage details, other details related to the foundation, siding, shutters, and columns. Staff still has concerns about the right elevation. In terms of proportions and massing, the right side elevation is approximately 13 feet longer than the left, which creates a longer uninterrupted expanse of wall plane extending well beyond the edges of the gable without the benefit of projecting masses or corner boards to visually break up that space. Staff is open to suggestions from the Commission about ways to visually break up the massing of this elevation to make it more compatible with neighborhood patterns. Additionally, the proportions on both side elevations are less compatible with historic patterns since the height of the second floor is taller than the first floor, so that within the gable neighborhood buildings are typically of modest size in this part of the neighborhood and have much smaller gables. So this gable is already a bit larger than what is typically seen, which may possibly be exaggerated by the fact that there are larger windows on that second floor and the height of that band board there. Staff recommends reducing the second floor windows and moving the board or widening it, which is an option I've spoken with about with the applicant in an effort to visually shorten that second floor so that the overall size and scale of the side elevations appear more compatible with historic houses and in keeping with the guidelines. So for overall recommendations, staff finds that the proposal is for new construction on Maiden Lane, which is TMS 13901-05-07. Generally complies with Section 5 of the guidelines and Section 17-674F of the city ordinance and recommends granting a certificate of design approval with the following conditions. An architectural shingle be the only roofing material used on the house and garage, including the dormers. The band board on the side elevations of the house be moved up or widened to shorten the appearance of the second floor. Window sizes and proportions consistent with the front and sides of the house, the sides of the gable windows reduced, but still proportional to the other windows on the house. With staff to approve final window size to ensure windows are consistently sized and proportional. Aluminum clad windows with exterior muttons to have some type of historically appropriate configuration in all windows. Windows on the garage to match windows on the house and design proportions. Foundation on the house and garage to be flushed with the walls of the buildings. Siding a smooth cement fiber board with exposure between five and six inches. Shedders to appear operable and be proportioned for the window size. Column proportions to be adjusted to reflect historic proportions with final approval deferred to staff and all other details deferred to staff. The applicant is here to discuss his request for the roofing material and to address the concerns related to the side elevation and the massing. Thank you. Would the applicant wish to speak? And you've been sworn in. Afternoon, Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen. My name's Wayne Smith. I live at 3118 Amherst Avenue in the Oakwood Court neighborhood. Thank you for seeing me. Thank you for seeing me first. This is a hurricane related wedding story. So we are going to scoot out the door as soon as we're finished. So thank you for that and thank you for the other applicants for letting me go first. I think I could hear Rachel well enough to know that we are down to a couple items. Just as background, this is a piece of property that we have our purchasing that will be divided into three lots and the plan has been approved by the city for recording. The house that you're seeing in front of you is going to be the house that we will live in. My wife, Susan, is here and Robin Brackett is here, our architect who's a longtime Columbia architect is designing the house. She's here. Our general contractor is here also. So I think if I heard Rachel right, we're down to just a couple of items to talk about. I think all the items such as the windows of three over one and the shutters and this signing I think have all been resolved in our several meetings. I think if I could make a suggestion on the right side of the house, we've had fair amount of discussions about window sizes and I think we're very close to being able to resolve that. We have to look at the codes for access on the second floor and we want to look at our inside of our house and the floor plans as it relates to those window sizes and if we could allow us to get back with Rachel with our architect and resolve those differences after the meeting that would be great. As far as the side of the house goes, we recognize that it is a long stretch there. These lots are 50 feet wide, we're for 32 foot house and we do want to put the parking on the back. So the house is obviously only 30 feet and does go back which includes a screen porch. The suggestions that we've talked about include, and Rachel mentioned, the band board across the top. I'm not sure we can move it up a lot because that runs along the joys and dies into their afters. One of the suggestions we talked about was putting an additional piece of trim above that band board to increase the height of that and then lessen the height of the second floor. So I'd like something like that to be considered. As far as the lineal nature of the entire stretch, we think that trying to break it up in a couple of different ways, we don't have a lot of ability to widen the house because we do want to put the parking around back so that a couple of the ideas have come as including a break in the house and the elevation length at the screen porch by indenting that a little bit and breaking that up that way. Other suggestions that we've talked about would be building some kind of a decorative lattice work along the side of the house, maybe about halfway down that could be attached to the house and give it a break and pull that out a little bit and that would be a structural feature tied to the house but also landscaped with Jasmine or something like that. So things like that we'd like to consider so that we break up the visual looking down the side of the house which is only going to be a small distance because in all likelihood the house next to it will only be five feet off that property line so looking down that corridor between the two houses will be pretty brief when you're driving by. The other item I'd like permission to have the option to is the metal roof accent over the dormer. We like that feature, we think it will add to the quality of the exterior, the front exterior. I think there's precedent in your neighborhood for that. If you look at a good number of the houses that have been built, let's call it since year 2000, six of those houses have metal roof accents on them in the Melrose Heights neighborhood. I know that because I built them. So, and I think that project has been well received at the corner of Butler and Gline Street. Secondly, as I said, we live in the Oakwood Court neighborhood and that is a neighborhood that has identical conservation guidelines as Melrose Heights. I think I worked with Amy for a long time when we put that in place a couple of years ago. Recently, you have approved a house, an addition to a house in that neighborhood at 30, 15 Amherst Avenue that has metal roof accents. So I think there's more additional precedent to do that. That is in a neighborhood that doesn't have any, so I think we've gone to a precedent that should allow us to do that. And I do think that your principles that you outlined in your guidelines seem to allow for contemporary materials to complement the historic parts of the neighborhood. And I think with the addition of that kind of material will be proper in the neighborhood. I can answer any question, I'd be glad to. The metal roof over there, Doemer, what is the slope of that roof? Was it five real? Robin could answer that. The reason I'm pointing it out is a metal roof works fine when you have a slope of three and a half, less than three and a half to 12. If you put shingles down to three and a half, you might be okay, but the higher the slope, the better with shingles. But that's the reason I'm asking about the metal roof. I think we're at three over 12. Can you stand up? This is Robin Brackett, our architect. Actually, if you could come forward to the microphone, please, and were you sworn in? I was to tell the truth. Yes. And if you'd state your name for the record. I'm Robin Brackett, and I believe that the slope is three and 12, and it's been my experience working with contractors that that is, can be used for asphalt shingles, fiberglass shingles. But that's not an issue. Thank you. Anybody else have questions for the applicant before we move on to anybody else's wishes to speak? I have a question about the long facade, the right facade, right elevation, as we're calling it. I tend to agree that once other structures are built, it's going to be a pretty oblique view. Fairly obscured, but on the other hand, it's hard to tell exactly what'll be built next to it, so it's hard to know exactly. It seems to me that it could be very easily solved by pulling in both sides, where the, at the point where the gable comes down, pulling them just back, even six inches, would completely change that effect. It also seems as if you could, that piece that projects out could move over a little bit and you could do the same thing in the back. It doesn't seem like it would cause, you wouldn't lose any square footage. We've looked at that and that's why I suggested to break at the screen porch rather than at the end of the gable because it would change our floor plan, especially, and that's on the back side of that, that is our living area, and that would push one side of the living area, one side of it from the fireplace. Is there a floor plan? Can we look at a floor plan for a second? Yeah, I guess the front room, there's not much wiggle room there. To me, I think it's less important at the rear to tell you the truth, although it would help, but it looks like you, the gable comes down, okay. How wide is the house? 32 feet. And the property's 52 feet. 50 feet, all right, all right. Well, I think if you, I agree with the concern that it's a long run without a break, if there's something, I mean, I'd be willing to defer to staff a solution on that side for me because I think once, there, for the other properties, the other parcels are developed, it's gonna be hard to see that long, take in that long facade, assuming that they get developed similarly. I think you're going to hear from about the other lot sooner rather than later, that this is gonna be coming pretty quickly. Any other questions or comments for the applicant before we move on to others? Anybody who wishes to speak? This room, nope, okay, thank you. Is there anybody who wishes to speak before, for or against the project? Okay, very well. Could I have a motion? Oh, sure. Description in the guidelines regarding the middle address. Seven roof shapes states use roof shapes, hitches and materials that are visually compatible with those of surrounding buildings. When were the guidelines implemented? The guidelines were implemented, I think, in 2003. And the homes that have the metal accent door. I know the ones that Mr. Smith built were done before. The guidelines came into place, I'm not sure about. Does that feature on any historical homes in the area? I didn't notice any, and I have some context set up, context set up. I asked him to mention the roofing material to you as maybe a contemporary idea. I'm sorry, the line again about using contemporary materials, but it's not a new concept. No, I believe, under new construction? The last line of the principle state said it's hoped that new construction of today will be contemporary and contextual, so that it will be worthy of perfection of the designation of the future. New buildings need not imitate past architectural styles to be successful. They may reflect the era of their own construction while using significant themes, such as height, materials, roof form, massing setbacks and rhythm of openings to ensure that new buildings. Thanks, I did jump the gun. Does anybody else have any other commissioners to have comments or anything that they'd like to discuss? I'm having a trouble hearing everybody up. I'm sorry, were you intending that to be a standing seam roof if it was metal? Okay. Like a copper book? Okay. So to summarize, if I understand correctly what the applicant has said is that you're willing to work with staff on all of these items and in fact it sounds, my understanding is that you're willing to work with staff on breaking up the right elevation. The one point that you take exception to is going to the asphalt roof instead of the metal roof. And I think everything else you're willing to work within these parameters. Does anybody else have a comment? If not, looking for a motion. Good, I have a motion. And we have these new things. It might be a little bit cumbersome, but I don't know if everybody's seen this. If somebody would like to make a motion and use this and take your time going back and forth because we haven't used it before. Oh, I can give it a shot. Okay. You won't do any worse than the rest of us. Based on the proceeding findings of fact of section 17, that is 674 F. Of the Oakmonts, what's the name of this zone? Melrose Heights. Melrose Heights, I'm sorry. Oakland Architectural Conservation District. Yeah, I move that the design of the development review commission approve the certificate of design approval for the maintenance lane bordering 3325 Klein Street. The proposed location is Melrose Heights Oakmont Architectural Conservation District. And it's in all detail with the deferred to the staff. Is there a second? Second. Any discussion? I believe section five was excluded from the sections I mentioned. Do you get in on that? Including section five of the guidelines in your motion, as well as. Oh, okay. Here, do you amend that motion? I apologize, I needed to add generally complied with section five of the guidelines and section 1764 F. And was there any further discussion? Are we allowing the roof dormer to be shingled or not shingled in this motion, or? Okay. All other details as far as your staff is all shingled. Okay. Any other discussion? Mr. Bocknight. Yes. Mr. Broom. Yes. Mr. Cohn. Yes. Ms. Fuller-Wilt. Yes. Mr. Savry. Yes. The motion passes. Thank you. Thank you. Next on the agenda, please. The next item on the agenda is 1415 Geiger Avenue. This is a request for a certificate of design approval for an addition and preliminary certification for the Bailey Bill. This is in the Cottontown Bellevue Architectural Conservation District. And I have been asked to remind y'all to please speak directly into your mics because it's difficult to hear you. 1415 Geiger Avenue is located, situated on a large end lot. It is a colonial brick revival style house. It was built circa 1936 and is a contributing structure in the Cottontown Bellevue Architectural Conservation District. The applicants are requesting a certificate of design approval for a substantial two-story addition on the rear, stepping down to a one-story at the back and a one-story off the rear of the enclosed porch. This addition will be minimally visible only on the right elevation from the public right of way. We are large trees and a four-foot concrete wall block, most of that side. The left elevation has mature trees and dense landscaping blocking that side of the property from view at the street. The applicants have proposed, at a later date, installing a six-foot high brick wall in place of the four-foot concrete wall alongside the cemetery, which will further minimize the visibility of the addition. The 1950s Sandborne map reveals 1415 Geiger Avenue as the smallest structure on the street in proportion to the lot size. Staff has been working diligently with the applicants to adjust the proposed addition. Applicants had wanted to come before the commission in August, but after meeting with staff and having discussions about guidelines, they have made revisions. They took an extra 30 days to make revisions and to be here today. At this time, they are also applying for the preliminary certification of the Bailey Bill. The estimated qualified rehabilitation expenses exceed the 20% minimum investment threshold needed to make the project eligible. Staff finds that the proposal meets sections five B1 through nine for new construction and six B1 through four for additions of the Cottontown Bellevue Guidelines and section 17, 698 of the Bailey Bill ordinance. Staff recommends granting a certificate of design approval for an addition and preliminary certification for the Bailey Bill with the following conditions. The project shall meet or exceed the 20% investment threshold required for qualified rehabilitation expenses. All work shall meet the standard for work as outlined in section 17-698. All other details deferred to staff. Any questions for staff? Are we two, it looks like you're suggesting we vote on both parts of this as one motion or make one motion? I think we normally separate those two, which would be fine. Either way. I think it's a little cleaner to separate those. Okay, all right. So we'll proceed with everything altogether and then we'll make two separate motions. Is the applicant here and wishing to speak? And you've both been sworn in? Yes, sir. Okay, state your name please. Lauren Williams-Nosner. And Christian Nosner. Thanks. Hi, how are y'all doing today? Great. I've lived in Columbia since 2005 and my husband since he went to college here. We live in the Earlwood neighborhood and really love the downtown area. We love to feel the older homes and about a year and a half ago, almost two years my husband's parents died within about two months of each other. They owned this home initially. And when it came to us a little bit after everything happened that we realized that this is something that we wanted to carry on their legacy. This was Christian's mother's maiden name was Geiger. She thought a real connection to the neighborhood, to the family history and just loved this house. She envisioned it being the family home where children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren would come and spend holidays. And anyway, we really fell in love with that and realized we wanted to carry that on. However, we also have two very young children and I have aging parents who we're eventually going to likely have them move here with us at some point when they get to that time. So we took this idea and started coming up with different designs and plans and this is what we've come up with. We basically see this as our long-term. This is what we view as our forever home. And this is, we wanna stay downtown. We love what's happening here. We want to raise our children in a diverse community with historical roots. This is something that's very special with us. And so this is what we are proposing. Basically it would be the existing home. Then adding on an addition that would be a living, an open concept living area in the back, kitchen, eatin' kind of breakfast, and the living area. And then on the floor above that, a master suite. And so that would allow us to be able to move our family into it. Anyway, I just wanted to share with you where we are going with it and why it is that we are proposing the designs that we are. You really just wanna be able to picture us with our children in the backyard with the big trees and overlooking the field and just having this wonderful community. Thank you. You wish to speak? I think she said it all, we're good. I moved to Columbia and renovated a 1925 bungalow with two little children and lived in it through the whole thing, so. How do you feel it? You know, more power to you. We're in Earlwood right now and so we're already living that right now. I've outgrown our home. Do any of the commissioners have questions for the applicants while they're up? I'd have the roof. Hot in town, sir. Yeah, hot in town, okay. Thank you. Thank you. That's my concern. We originally designed it. I actually had the roofs bein' the same height. After meeting with Doreen, we actually learned that we needed to make it subordinate and so therefore we took it from I believe a five down to a three and so but that was at the advice of the, you know, of them telling us to do that. Sort of to be a subordinate structure but that was our original preference but we're, we were changing that to comply. But yeah, I think that the thing about it too is that you don't get a vantage point where you can actually see the pitch. So as long as it, you know, it'll keep the water out. It's got enough pitch to do that. We do, we have a little front, yeah. Yeah, the front of the house, there is a small gable which obviously we- The plans aren't showing that. There's actually only gables. Any more questions for the applicants? Thank you. Is anybody here that wishes to speak for or against the project? Any more comments from the commissioners? We're making two different motions on this? We are. One is for the, for design approval and the other one is for approval of the Bailey Bill. Yes. You know, I would say about the project it's a massive addition but I think that in this case what makes it work well is and going from the first concept to the second concept is all the difference in the world and we get a lot of residential projects in historic districts that come before us that have a significant impact on what's visible from the street and it makes it difficult. I think that you all have done a commendable job of making a significant addition, making the house the way you want it and making that in a visually private way so I think that's helpful to the process and I know you worked with staff to get to that point. No more comments? Could we then I guess have a motion first for a certificate of design approval and I think what we need to do with this one is use the second one here, motion for approval with conditions so you can name the conditions. Anybody want to take a crack at that? Ms. Bola-Will. Okay, I make a motion for approval with conditions based on the preceding findings effect and sections B, B, one through nine. Is that correct? For new construction and six. All right, I guess it's not. Is that really five? Okay, yeah, I didn't realize that was a Roman numeral that time. Six, B, one through four for additions of the Cottontown Bellevue Guidelines and sections 17-698 of the Bailey-Bill Ordinance. I move that the Design Development Review Commission approve a certificate of design approval for the 1415 Geiger Avenue. Nope. Project. Straight to with the following conditions, I think. With the following conditions. If we, do I have to read them all or can I just say all the ones? I guess in this case, these all apply to the Bailey-Bill, I believe. That's correct. Right, so there were no conditions. I was wrong, I was duty the wrong way. With all details deferred to staff, I suppose. With all details deferred to staff. Any discussion of the motion? All right, I guess I need to call for a second first before we discuss it. Any discussion? Move to vote then, please. Mr. Bachknight. Yes. Mr. Brim. Yes. Mr. Cohn. Yes. Ms. Fuller-Wilt. Yes. Mr. Savery. Yes. The motion passes. Thank you. Next. We have to do the bail. Pardon me. Oh, I'm sorry, we still have to do them. Thank you. We still have, we have to do the Bailey-Bill. You can leave if you want, but we need to do the Bailey. Bailey-Bill. Could I have a motion for the Bailey-Bills? For preliminary certification of the Bailey-Bill. I'll take a stand. That would be the second one. Based on the preceding findings of facts and section 17-698 of the Bailey-Bill ordinance, I recommend the Bond Development Review Commission approve preliminary certification for the Bailey-Bill following conditions. The project shall meet or exceed the 20% investment threshold requirements for qualified rehabilitation expenses. All work shall meet the standards for work as outlined in section 17-698 and all other details deferred to staff. Have a second. Second. Any discussion? Have a vote, please. Mr. Boknight? Yes. Mr. Broom? Yes. Mr. Cohn? Yes. Ms. Fuller-Wilt? Yes. Mr. Savry? Yes. Motion passes. Thank you. Now we're done. Now you can leave. And next case, please. Our next case is 811 Eaton Street. It's a request for a Certificate of Design Approval for an Accessory Structure in the Oakwood Court Architectural Conservation District. This is a one-story brick veneer house originally constructed in the 1940s that is considered not contributing to the district due to its extensive changes to the house that make the original design unclear. Applicants are currently proposing to build a two-story 500-square foot garage at the end of their driveway due to its proposed location at the rear of the property, primarily behind the house and behind the privacy fence. Only part of the front and right side of the garage will be visible from public right of way. While most changes related to non-contributing buildings can be handled at staff level, new construction of visible accessory buildings over 120 square feet always require a DDRC review and approval. Staff has found the overall form, size, and location of the proposed garage and keeping with the guidelines. Concerns over design relate more to details of the proposed design. Number one, the roof. The garage is proposed to have a metal roof. Staff recommends using shingle rather than metal to remain consistent with the house, which has a architectural shingle roof. Number two, windows. Windows in the house are 3 over 1 wood windows. Staff recommends that the windows in the garage either match that or use a 1 over 1 or ungritted windows for compatibility with the existing house and due to the proportions of the windows and the dormers and the windows flanking the garage door. Staff recommends the use of ungritted glass in those locations rather than the four panes as proposed. Number three, siding. The proposed siding for the garage is a cement fiberboard and baton. The only two siding materials staff has found on historic garages in the neighborhood are horizontal wood siding and brick. Historically, either siding would be considered compatible with this brick house. Additionally, staff has found no evidence of board and baton being used in any way within this neighborhood. Staff recommends the use of a more historically compatible siding material like siding or horizontal siding, excuse me, or brick to be consistent with historic neighborhood patterns and in keeping with the guidelines. I have spoken with the applicant about the details, and they are happy to alter the roof materials as well as the windows. They would like to discuss the siding material with the commission. And the applicant did submit an alternative siding scheme that uses half timbering in the gable, which I've provided the photo of that to you to look at. And he'll be here to discuss that in a moment. So for overall recommendation, staff finds a proposed garage at 811 Eaton Street to be generally in keeping with section 12 of the guidelines and recommends granting a certificate of design approval with the following conditions. Siding material changed to a historically compatible material such as a brick or horizontal siding with details and final siding approval deferred to staff. Roofing material changed to shingle to match the roofing material on the house. Windows be 3 over 1, 1 over 1, or single pane ungritted windows in wood or aluminum clad. And all other details deferred to staff. Any questions for staff? I think for them, I think. First, if the applicant would like to come forward, we're ready for you now. I thought he was asking a question of staff. State your name, please. You've been sworn in. My name is Tripp Stoner, and I'm the property owner. I live at 811 Eaton Street. You have a question. OK, we just got through. Yes, sir. What is your intent? Well, our intent is, and quite frankly, my wife does not want to do horizontal siding. We are planning, in addition, we've been working with Rachel on our home. And we're going to do some shed dormers on the back, which you will not be seen from the street. And we intend to use board and batten material on the shed dormers. And we'd like to do board and batten on our garage to match that. My intention with that was, I discussed with Rachel last week, an alternative that may work since the first floor is not very visible at all from the street, because we have a six-foot privacy fence, plus there's some vegetation on the right-hand side there, is come up with an alternative for the gable or the upper part of the structure that may work. I mean, we'd prefer it to be all board and batten. But we're open to working with staff to come up with a solution. And we're obviously agreeable to the other changes that I recommended. It's going to be femicitious siding for us. Pardon? Femicitious siding. Yeah, I guess so. I can't really hear you very well. Femicitious siding. Yes, sir. Is that what that is? Is that what that would be? Is cement siding? Well, the staff said that it can be cementitious siding. It usually is horizontal. Yes, sir. That's what they're suggesting. Yeah, we'd rather it be a vertical look versus the horizontal siding. Yes, sir. But my point I'm trying to make here is this picture tells me this is a cementitious vertical. Yes, sir. Yeah, that was just something that I'd seen that I would share with her. Because we intend to paint it all the same color. So if it has that half timber type look on the upper part of it and board and batten around the first floor, I mean, we could work with that. We're starting to get in backwards. Did you have a different or more presentation that you would like to make before we go to questions? That's obviously a question we were going to ask. But all I was going to say is that the structure is not going to be very visible from the street. We're also, and I didn't discuss this with Rachel, but I'll share with y'all too, the owner of the property to the right of the structure, this picture you see here, we're working with them. We're going to plant vegetation. They're going to do some other stuff in there to block the back of our yard from being seen there. So it's going to be less visible once that those shrub debris all gets planted there. But I think on the backside, it's still not going to be very, very visible at all. Looking down the driveway, you'll see a little bit of the front of it maybe. But not much. Most of what you'll see would be roof, would be the shingles that we're agreeable to. Thank you. Any other questions or comments for the applicant before we move to anybody else's comments? I guess not. I guess I could make one comment. More mic? Can you hear me? OK. I just wanted to say, unfortunately, that the alternative plan that you've presented with it, it's got the same issue as what your preference. It's not compatible with the building materials that are used in the nature. The top portion of our alternative would be compatible with other structures in the neighborhood. I mean, there's homes that have that kind of siding, that half timber siding on it, the house directly across the street from ours. My understanding, let me ask that. Rachel, so the compatibility issue, is it with the primary structure or with other buildings in the neighborhood or accessory buildings? It's both. I mean, I think the guidelines talk about being compatible in details with the building itself. They are going to be making some changes to this house, which they have the flexibility to do since it's not contributing. There are a lot of 2-to-revival in the neighborhoods that use a lot of half timbering. This house is not 2-to-revival. I'm sorry. No one can hear me. So that still does conflict. And it uses trying to find some alternative materials that are seen in the neighborhood. Still don't necessarily reflect the character of the house. Thank you. And I don't understand you just to say that the house itself is not contributing? It's not. OK. Just to say, we're just missing one more time. Our intention when we do, we're going to do an addition on our home, which again, like I said, we've worked with Rachel with. And on the back side of the house, we're going to use bored and batten on portions of that. And we would like that bored and batten to translate to our garage. I mean, it's not there yet, but it will be soon. Not soon enough for my wife, but it'll be there soon. And so if we go with the bored and batten, then it would go with our home when we get finished with the rent. I think that the issue, and really it's narrow for us that we are considering and have to consider, is that what you do on the back of the house that's not visible, except to you, is not relevant to this body. It's a matter of what can easily be seen from the street, or what can be seen from the street, or as you move down the street from the public point of view. And that's really the issue. So in other words, if there's something on the back of the house that relates to something back there, but all you can see is what's back there, then that's what we have to take into consideration. The other caveat I would say to that is that it is fairly far back, so that's helpful, but it still boils down to the issue of the architectural expression on the exterior of whether or not it's compatible with the district. So it's a very narrow consideration that we have to make. Just explain. Thank you. Again, it's not going to be very visible at all. And like I said, when you look that way, you'll primarily see shingles, since that's what we're agreeing to put on there rather than a metal roof. And then we're going to paint it. I mean, we intend to paint all of the siding and the trim, the same color. So we'll all blend it together. Yeah, and we don't have purview over color, believe it or not, either. So it's really the material on the exterior that we have purview over. Well, just from a visibility standpoint, you won't notice much of that texture anyway, because it'll all be the same color. That's the only reason I'm mentioning it. We're not doing like a dark trim and a light field or anything. Okay. Yeah. Any other comments or questions for the applicant before we move on to any other, anybody else who wishes to speak? I can't find the dimensions of the building. How deep is it? It's, on the back part of it, it'll be 24 by 16. That'll be the two-story part. And then it has about a 20 by 10 kind of extension on the front. I mean, the purpose of the design is to make it look not very big in a racquet or not very noticeable anyway. I guess I'm kind of leaning toward it. I mean, if you paint it pretty neutral, whether it's horizontal or that, and then you're making concessions on the shingles and windows, I guess I'm struggling to see how it would really look different. What you would see if it's painted. I mean, unless you have a question for him, I mean, we can talk about it. No, no, we're just gonna be all like a light or a cream color. I'm gonna light, neutral-ish kind of thing. Okay, I think that's good. Thanks. Is there anybody who wishes to speak for or against the project that's here? No, okay. And in that case, I guess we'll call for a motion and we'll discuss it after the motion is seconded. Unless there's further deliberation that anybody wants to talk about. Harris, you said a few things, but anything else before we make a motion? I think if it's horizontal, hardy, cementitious deciding versus bourdon baton and it's all painted, that kind of neutral monochromatic color, I don't know how you really tell a difference from that far back is if the shingles blend and it doesn't stick out to me as much as maybe others we've looked at do. I wanna make sure I understand what you're, so you're... If I was to make a motion, I would be inclined to go along with everything on here but the top condition. Okay. Well, unless somebody else has a comment or a response to that, I think I'm going to ask you to make a motion. I move that the Design Development Review Commission grant a certificate of design approval for the project at 811 Eaton Street as part of the Oakwood Court Architectural Conservation District with the following conditions and in keeping with section 12 of the guidelines that the roofing material be changed to shingles to match the roofing material on the house, that the windows be in some configuration that is three over one or one over one or in a detail that's agreeable with staff and that the siding, I'm not putting that on there, sorry, and that all of your details are deferred to staff. Is there a second? Second. I'm sorry, I didn't do a lot of the siding. I just left it off as a... That was a mistake. You pulled back on that. Okay. You took it out. And I heard a second. Any further discussion on the motion? I would say that I would typically see it as fairly, fairly clear that it's not one of the kinds of patterns or siding that is considered part of the Historic District because you can't find another case. I think one thing that makes this a little different is that it's at the very back corner of the property. So I'm not suggesting how I'm going to vote but I do think that that's a significantly mitigating factor in this case. Any other comments before we move to a vote? I would just say along those lines if that could be added to the motion, that the consideration of the siding is due to the fact that the location on the property, amend that motion. Sure. Amend the motion? Sure. Just, I'll amend the motion to include that the applicant be allowed to use a vertical board and bat in siding with details deferred to staff specific to that with regard to the fact that it is so far back on the property that I think it's not as significant as it would otherwise be. You can clean that up. Yeah, sorry. Any other discussion? Have a vote, please. Mr. Bach Knight. Mr. Broom. No. Mr. Cohn. Yes. Ms. Fuller-Wilt. Yes. Mr. Savry. Yes. The motion passes. Thank you. Next case, please. This is 3000 Amherst Avenue, which is a request for Certificate of Design Approval for an addition and a driveway within the Oakwood Court Architectural Conservation District. This is a circa 1930s Huda Revival Style brick veneer house, which sits on the corner of Amherst and Sims Avenue. The applicant is proposing a one-story bedroom addition at the rear of the house to add approximately 330 square feet, as well as adding a circular concrete drive on the Sims Avenue side of the property. The circular drive would be used in place of the existing driveway on the left side of the house. The addition is proposed to be a 22 foot by 15 foot extension off the back corner of the house, clad in brick veneer with a hip roof and six over six windows. The location and size of the proposed addition are compatible with the house. However, staff has recommendations to ensure that the addition is fully in keeping with the guidelines. One brick, the original brick of the house is a running bond with soldier course, marking the top of the foundation that runs around all sides of the house. The applicant has suggested painting all of the brick on the house and the addition so that any differences in the brick would not be seen. However, masonry principles for the district emphasize the importance of keeping brick unpainted and further state that painting brick should only be allowed in rare cases of extreme deterioration. The brick here appears to be in good condition and the color is a character defining feature of Tudor revival style houses. So painting the brick would not be in keeping with the guidelines. Staff recommends that the brick color, dimensions, and details for the addition be chosen to complement the existing brick of the house and that the details of the brick bond and patterning match the house to be in keeping with the guidelines. Staff further recommends that the applicant submit brick samples for review and approval prior to the purchase of materials and staff is happy to review the brick if commission wants to defer that staff. At number two, the windows. Overall the proposed windows are proportional to the other windows on the house and are consistent in terms of paint configuration. However, the windows on the Sims Avenue elevation use less than typical rhythm of openings than seen on the rest of the house has a fairly dense rhythm on the original portion. Staff suggests rather than using that paired window on that elevation that the windows be separated into two individual windows with the same proportions and sizes as seen there but to allow for the appearance of a more consistent rhythm of openings. Along that elevation. Lastly, staff recommends in setting the or shifting the addition over by six to 12 inches to create a visual break in the stretch of brick wall that will help with that extent of brick wall. It would also prevent the elongation of the Sims Avenue elevation from detracting from the original architecture of the house and making the addition clearly subordinate to the original structure per the guidelines. The second part of the request is to install a circular drive on the Sims Avenue side of the property. Circular driveways are not typical in any historic district in Columbia, including Oakwood Court. A circular drive breaks with the overall pattern of driveways in historic districts where driveways typically run in a straight line up the side of a house. Ornate's language for driveways state that the driveway should be limited to a width of 12 feet measured with a straight line that runs parallel to the front or secondary front lot lines and that the designated vehicular parking area or driveway should be placed to minimize the visual impacts on the primary structure. Measuring the width of a circular drive and parallel line to the front of the house far exceeds the 12 foot width requirement, staff has found no extraordinary or exceptional conditions pertaining to this piece of property that would require an exception to the ordinance language. As proposed, a circular drive would have a high visual impact on the Sims Avenue side of the house as the length of that driveway spans beyond the front and back walls of the house, which creates a large expansive paved area on a very visible elevation. And while staff understands the need for easy access into the house using the side door entrance, staff cannot recommend approval of a circular drive that both breaks with historic patterns in the neighborhood and has a high visual impact on the property. It is likely that an alternative parking scheme could be explored that will allow parking and access at the side of the house without the high visual impact of paving along the entire side. Staff recommend the use of a small parking pad at the rear of the house to allow for additional parking with a minimized visual impact on the house. So staff recommendations are in two parts. One, staff finds a proposal for a circular drive at 3000 Amherst Avenue is not in keeping with section 11 of the guidelines and section 17-674F of the city ordinance and recommends denial with the option for staff to work with the applicant on an alternative, less visually impactful parking scheme. And number two, staff finds a proposal for an addition at 3000 Amherst Avenue to be generally in keeping with section 10 of the guidelines and recommends approval only with the following conditions, that the right side elevation of the addition should be set back six to 12 inches from the right wall of the house. Windows be six over six wood or aluminum clad wood windows with exterior montains. All window details and dimensions including trim and sills to be consistent with original windows. Paired right elevation windows to be separated into two individual windows spaced out along the wall for more visually compatible rhythm of openings. Brick detailing on the addition be consistent with the details on the house such as the use of soldier course above the foundation and brick color samples be submitted to staff for approval to ensure compatibility with original brick. All brick remain unpainted and if alternative siting such as hardy board is used in place of brick details and final approval of siting be deferred to staff with all other details deferred to staff. Thank you. Any questions or comments for staff? Is the applicant here, would they wish to speak? Sorry, I have one question. Go ahead. The current driveway, does it end at this staircase on the side, is that existing? It's a little, yeah, and there's a curb cut there. I don't think it's not a paved area. I don't believe the applicant might be able to better answer that. Is that the Sims Avenue side? I'm sorry. It's not. It's not, okay, great. It does not currently, it doesn't really have a curb. I mean, this does say on here that this is the Sims Avenue side. Yes, the proposed circular drive is to go on the Sims Avenue side. The current curb cut is on the left side of the property. On the left side? If you're facing the house, it's on the left side. Just out of view of this photograph? Yeah, well, I mean, it's where that fence is. I believe it's where you would drive a car off. Okay, okay. Is there an existing driveway there? There's an existing curb cut. Okay, okay, gotcha. Okay. Any more questions for staff? The applicant is here, would like to speak. And you've both been sworn in. Yes. Can you state your names before you speak please? I'm Shirley Lohman, one of the owners. I know that, first of all, this is a corner lot, which it is visible. But we've done several homes in the area and have made them look so much better and also keeping them within the look of the neighborhood. The reason we wanted to paint the house is to make sure that the addition, since the brick is an old brick, that the addition would look, the house would look as one. We were gonna trim the windows if you can see the windows are not been painted or anything. And so we were gonna paint all the windows just to give it a beautiful visual look. As far as the driveway, there was only on the left side of the house just a little pad. So otherwise you would have to park in the street. We wanted the circular only because Sims is a busy street there. And it could be a small circular area, but just something so it would be easy to get in and out on the back door. As far as the painting, on that street, there are 25 homes, 13 are painted now, 12, no, I'll tell you that back, 13 are not painted, 12 are painted. With additions, some without, the house across the street is actually yellow. We were gonna do like a muted, creamy white with a trim of light gray with all new roof will connect the back and the front, all with a brand new roof. So it would look updated, but yet everything will look like an older, beautiful home. All right, do I understand that the two exceptions you take to the conditions are the paint on the brick and the circular drive and you accept all the rest of those conditions other than those two? Is that correct? When you say accept, what other? Staff is listed, one, two, three, four, five, six, eight conditions and so I'm just asking in the mix of all of that, are you willing to accept staff's conditions in the recommendation except for the circular drive and the painting of the brick, is that correct? If I understood it all right, because the window is not a problem. I'm not really sure I haven't heard all the other. All set, yes, I would rather not, but could. Okay, so it's just those two that we're, I guess discussing is those two, the circular drive and painting the brick, that's what we need to discuss today. Is that the case? Yes. Okay, that simplifies things, I think for us and for you. So I just wanted to make sure that was the case. Okay. Circular drive will be adjoining the next door to the left. It goes nowhere. Nothing there, but if you come in and put in it now, it's gonna be adjoining to the next door neighbor. That corner actually does a lot of, have a lot of traffic coming in, back and out of the center. No, I'm sorry, yeah. I thought I was loud enough. But I mean the safety, that was one of my main things when I recommended it, is to pull the safety and then get them back and out because there's a lot of traffic cutting through from Millwood down to the Main Street through there. There's a good bit of that on there. And with the Amherst coming out and the house being on the corner, there's a good bit of traffic. I thought it would be a good idea for that to get it, somebody gets, get in the parking off the street. It would be another good idea. I thought it would be a beneficial for everybody. Thank you. Any questions for the applicants before we ask if there's anyone in the audience who wants to speak? Good day. The driveway. You are aware that road parallels your house. It has two speed bumps. And I guess they enjoy it. Secondly, house paintings. You said 13, not painted, 12 or painted, whatever. What street are you referring to? Are you referring to your neighbors into Oakmont? Or Oak, where am I? Amherst, just that little strip from Amherst, going from Divine Street to, that curves over into Divine Street, and Sims. So it's that one stretch. On Sims Street, right? Correct. No, on Amherst. Amherst and Sims. Well, Amherst connects to Divine and Sims. And so it's that area there. I think before we get too far into the weeds on which houses and which streets, where are any of those houses painted before this became the overlay district? I mean after, after. Not that I'm aware of. Okay. It's a precedent issue. Any other questions for the applicants? Have you explored other driveway options on the side of a staff? We have, and the only thing is the front yard is very, very shallow. And so there's no room to put anything there. So they would park on the street. Then if you look at where Sims is, you wouldn't want to back out into Sims. We just thought that that was a safety issue that this could resolve that. Anything else for the applicants? Thank you. Is there anybody here who wishes to speak for or against the application? Okay. In that case, let me, any other comments or deliberation on the part of the commissioners? I'm trying to find the part about, and this has come up a few times with painting brick that is in the guidelines. It talks about why, why they want to keep the brick unpainted. Where's that in here? I apologize, I didn't include them. It's in the principles of the masonry add-in. Could you just, if you do have it here that you could restate that? I just want folks to understand why we don't, why the guidelines don't. I mean, well one of the, sorry, one of the guidelines, this is not the principles, but the guidelines state to identify, retain and preserve masonry features that are important to defining the overall historic character of buildings such as walls, brackets, railings, cornices, door pediments, steps and columns, joints and unit size tooling, bonding patterns, coatings and colors as it relates to brick. The principles, I apologize, I don't have them in front of me. Do you talk about painting brick problematic for the issues of deterioration? Right, so the colors of the house or of the brick on houses often tells you something about the period in which the brick was made, the period of the house, as Rich mentioned, the tooling patterns, also you start to obscure some of those details when you start painting masonry, which is why we don't provide support and guidelines don't support it unless there is excessive deterioration. Right, I think the fact that the applicant has agreed to set the addition in some, to me makes a world of difference in that respect as well. They're not having a too thin brick that's not going to match perfectly because it's obviously in a different plane. And the guidelines do also state that additions should not be seamless. You should be able to tell the difference between the addition and the primary historic structure. So that's why they've asked you to move it back in a little bit in the back. Which is consistent with the Department of the Interior guidelines for historic structures. Any further comments from staff? I would say one thing about the circular drive, I don't think anybody on the commission is opposed to the idea of putting a drive elsewhere or doing something different from where the curb cut is now which would be a shared driveway and that's, there are other options. I think it's specifically the circular drive and a staff has pointed out, it's the comparatively large amount of pavement then that'll be in the yard. That combined with the circular circulation is unusual for the district. So I think it's not a matter of not being able to do a new driveway or do something that would be safe, certainly, but it's specifically the circular drive, the arc across the yard and the amount of pavement on the yard that's the issue. Any other comments? And if not, I'd ask to someone to make a motion. And we're asking for two motions. One is for the circular drive. So let's start with that one. Based on the preceding findings of fact and section 11 of the guidelines and section 17.674F of the city ordinance, I move that the Design Development Review Commission deny a certificate of design approval for the, for this, I don't know why we're supposed to call it, for the circular driveway. Thank you at 3000 Amhurst Avenue. Is there a second? Second. Any further discussion before we vote? Hearing none, could we have a vote please? Certainly, Mr. Bocknight. Mr. Barum. Yes. Mr. Cohn. Yes. Ms. Fuller-Wilt. Yes. Mr. Savry. Yes. The motion passes. Thank you. And we have another motion that needs to be made with regard to the application for design approval. Anybody want to make that motion? There'll be the second one here. Visual windows spaced out along the wall for a more visually compatible rhythm of openings. Brick detailing on the addition to be consistent with details on the house, such as the use of soldier course above the foundation and brick colors samples to be submitted to staff for approval to ensure compatibility with the original brick. All brick to remain unpainted. If an alternative sighting such as hardy board is used in place of brick details and final approval of the sighting be deferred to staff and all other details deferred to staff. Is there a second? I can't. Further discussion? I'm sorry, pass that. Hearing none, could we have a vote please? Mr. Bocknight. Yes. Mr. Barum. Yeah. Mr. Cohn. Yes. Ms. Fuller-Wilt. Yes. Mr. Savry. Yes. The motion passes. Thank you. I think that's the end of the regular agenda and we are moving on to other business now. Is there any other business? There is and we are going to start with Ms. Stattler. This is an informational presentation to get some preliminary feedback. This is a project, a new construction project at 1328 and 1400 UG Street. The applicant is actually a developer out of Tampa with the 908 group. They were going to be here today but cancel their flights because they're afraid they'd get stuck because of the hurricane. So in a minute, Laura Baker, the engineer on the project is going to come up and do a presentation but I will just give you a little bit of background and on the project. So this is the aerial photograph of the site. I don't have a, let's see, do I have a, I don't see it. This is, the site is basically between UG Street and Pulaski Street. It's about a half a block south of Hampton. So it goes all the way through from UG to Pulaski. It's two parcels and it's not extremely relevant to this, to y'all's purview but just so you know, the north parcel is zone C1 and the south parcel is M1. So there is a split zoning on the property which does have some influence on the design of the project. Just to kind of get you oriented. This top, these are just Google Street views. This is looking north up UG Street from sort of the south edge of the property north. You can see on the far, oops, the far right hand side of the top photograph is the Spring Hill Suites that's on UG and Lainey. So it's north of that. In the middle of the parcel is currently the Richland County Magistrate Bill Public right away but it reads sort of like a driveway that's across the north boundary of the property. And then on Pulaski Street, this is on the east boundary of the property is Pulaski and across the street is a multi-family residential and then you're looking at the parking lot and the Magistrate Building on the parcel looking north and then the bottom picture is just further up the street. So Hampton Street is sort of in the distance across the north so that's just kind of to get everybody oriented. So here's the site plan and I'll just read through just a few bullet points. This is an informational presentation so we don't have a full staff evaluation but just kind of some highlights. The site currently two parcels stretches between UG and Pulaski and about a half walk south of Hampton, Bacon Richland County Magistrate Building site in the center of the north parcel is surrounded by surface parking and the south parcel is entirely surface parking. The proposed project is a private off campus student oriented apartment complex consisting of 126 units with 486 bedrooms. While the parcels will be combined they will remain split zoned which is driving the massing and density of the building types. The north parcel C1 will be lower density with 27 units and 81 bedrooms. The larger south parcel zoned M1 will utilize the private dormitory ordinance to develop 99 units with 405 bedrooms on the larger 2.7 acre site. The proposal is before the commission to get preliminary feedback only. It is being advertised for formal review at the next meeting of the DDRC on October 11th. The project will require both site plan review as well as certificate of design approval for design review. Overall the buildings are arranged on the site consistent with the design guidelines with street facing facades and surface and structured parking within. The townhouses do leave a gap in the UG street frontage with the parking lot adjacent to the street. The site plan could be arranged to have a continuous row of townhouses along UG similar to the street frontage on Pulaski in order to conceal the parking behind the buildings. This would require rearranging the parking in courtyard configurations of the townhouse layout but could be accomplished. The larger residential building of three to five stories and the two-story townhomes all of brick and hardy board with flat roofs are compatible with the surrounding context in terms of scale and materials. Immediately to the south on UG street is the Spring Hill Suites, a five-story red and buff brick building. Across Pulaski to the east is a three-story red brick and stucco multifamily residential building with structured parking. Commercial retail is not planned for the development. The basement level, which is at grade on the north side of the larger southern parcel does contain a fitness room on UG street at the northwest corner of the building. The grade changes dramatically from here along the UG street property line, putting the first floor residential at grade along the southern property line. The townhouse development is all residential. A mural on the UG street facade and a living wall on the Pulaski street facade are being proposed to help add interest to the street-facing elevations of the buildings as it transitions this dramatic grade change. The fenestration pattern and percentages have been increased from earlier design iterations due to what is recommended by the guidelines. While there is certainly additional flexibility in the first floor recommended percentages when a building has first floor residential units, the goal should be to get the upper floors as close as possible to the recommended 40%. Window sections and details have not yet been developed. However, staff has emphasized the importance of the depth of windows and providing relief to the facade. Structured parking is being provided on the southeast corner of the site and while not street-facing, it will be visible from Pulaski street. Some metal screening is being proposed as well as some planting along this property line. There are overhead transmission lines along the southern property line as well as distribution lines along the Pulaski street frontage, which will affect the ability to plant shade trees to a large degree. Staff has recommended a green planted screen on the visible portion of the parking garage, understanding that it will be limited due to open garage ventilation requirements. Staff is working with the applicant as they develop their detailed site plan. Site plan issues that will be addressed are traffic circulation, pedestrian and bicycle connectivity, landscaping, emergency access, streetscaping and lighting. The detail reviews are currently underway and the agency comments will be provided in the packets in advance of the advertised public hearing currently scheduled for October 11th. And then I'll just kind of flip through the elevations of the townhouses. They've provided an alternative. So the townhouse type two is basically on the site plan. It's gonna be all of the little small sections of townhomes along the northern property line. And then the type three townhome is the longer string of townhomes on the Pulaski street. So this is the type two front elevation. And keep in mind the front will be, these are sort of facing each other with little courtyards and then the rears face each other. So the, and then the side elevations left and right will alternate along that right of way that's sort of like a driveway. And then they provided a type two alternative and this is just using more hardy board and less brick. And then this is the type three townhouse which will be facing Pulaski street. And then these are some perspective renderings they've provided. So looking southeast from the northwest corner of the property on Yiji. And then this is gonna be looking northwest from Pulaski street, looking at the multifamily and then seeing the townhomes to the north in the distance. I think that's all the drawings. So I know it's a lot to kind of wrap your mind around. Do y'all have any just general questions before Laura comes out? I think she's gonna more be presenting some site and concepts. Any questions? You said the municipal building is being torn down or whatever that's called. Yeah, it's the Richland County, I think it's like the Magistrate's building. It's been vacant for some time and they've, I mean, the county's selling the property and we don't have any purview over demolition of those. Any buildings in city center unless they're historically protected. So, mm. Alma. We're into the site plan that we have, I'm assuming Hujiji's on the bottom. Yes, on the site plan, that's correct. And then Pulaski at the top. Correct. Hujiji access all full corner, right? I'm sorry? Access, road access on all full corners of the site. Well, there's actually the south, which is on your right, is actually, there's an easement there, an electrical easement, but that's not a road or a driveway. That's just, I mean, that's just an adjacent property line. The access is from Pulaski Street and from Hujiji Street. And then there is that public right of way on the north of the property. So on the left, it sort of reads like a driveway, but it actually is apparently a public right of way. Sorry, I'm unable to read this as well as our architect friend here. So are there driveways off of Hujiji to get into this? Yes, there is, at the bottom where it says entry exit, that's the primary circulation through the site is from east to west. And so that would be to access all of the surface parking that's sort of adjacent to the townhomes. And then also the structured parking, you can see the garage, I mean, I don't know if you can, but it's like, you see the structured parking? So that driveway will enter the structured parking from that same sort of driveway slash road that goes through the center of the property. Has there been a traffic study done? The traffic study has been conducted and submitted to the city traffic engineer. That's all part of the site plan review. So it's being reviewed now. We don't have those comments back, but that'll definitely be part of the comments that are provided for the formal hearing. I have two questions. Was the alternate for the type two something like that was requested? Well, no, I think I want to say they submitted both of those to staff and we preferred the more brick and they just wanted to submit it to get y'all's comments. Okay, sure. Can you give me your J Street elevation? Rendering or the Black and White elevation? What is that opening in the middle? The mural. It's actually, yeah, it's a mural because that's where the, yeah, the grade change, that's kind of gonna be basement. There's no real active space there. And you said this is all student housing again? This may be the other question maybe for them, but what was the South Street? Was that UG? On the bottom of the page. Right. Yeah. Was type three for the bottom unit given consideration just to help screen some of the parking? We have a type two. Yeah, really it was the, yeah, the staff discussions have been, perhaps they could do the type three row on the UG Street just to make sure, to have that not parking, not come all the way to the street. Yeah. Maybe reconfigure the parking. I think it would look better. Right. They would just have to probably reconsider, you know, the townhouses are sort of, they have their backs together and then fronts like little courtyards. So they have to figure a little bit of that out, but I think that could certainly be done. Unless there's a question that we need to have Lucinda answer, we should let Laura, excuse me, make the presentation on behalf of the developer. I'm Laura Baker with Cox and Dinkins. I know the 908 group wanted to be here, but they couldn't. They were afraid they were gonna get stuck here in the airplane. So I will try my best to answer any of the architectural part, but obviously I'm not an architect. So the site plan, as Lucinda has said, is laid out this way in part because of the separate zonings for the pieces, for the two parcels that we're talking about, as well as this is where some of the main drainage for the city of Columbia comes through the middle of this site. So if you see the dash lines that are sitting in the middle of the site, that's a 72 inch storm drainage pipe. And it comes from the creek that's on the east side of Pulaski Street. And then it's a 72 inch pipe that kind of meanders, and it does have the curve at the end before it reaches Yuji. And that would be why we can't put seven buildings on that part of it because of the 72 inch pipe, which is obviously not financially viable to move. There's also a 10 inch sewer line that runs kind of parallel to the storm drainage pipe. And then unfortunately, it kind of kicks back to the south as opposed to the north. So we have a pretty wide area in there right at Yuji Street where we will not be able to build on. So that's kind of why it's set up like it is. We did go back and forth several times with staff and with the neighborhood association and with the Vista Guild as far as the placement of the large building with the five stories closer to Yuji Street. And we now only have three stories on Pulaski Street. We also have the, with the townhomes, they're more of like a cottage style apartment. So they're not planning to sell these individually by any means. So they're gonna be contained as one big project and ownership will continue to maintain that and gear it towards students. On the C1 parcel, there'll be the three bedroom units. And these will be more of kind of a brownstone look. The two different type twos for the building. So they want the more brick on the street sides. So the street part will be more of the brick, brownstone look, but then, yeah. And then in the rear elevation because these will face each other. So the rear will face the rear of the next. But the other middle buildings for those type two, they were hoping to go with all of the, most of the Hardy Plank, the Hardy Board type, as opposed to the brick, just because you won't really be able to see that from either Yuji Street or Pulaski Street. And that's why the type three is mostly brick on the Pulaski side. And then it drops back to the Hardy Board on the rear part of that. Again, some of the concessions that we have tried to make is that the pool is kind of located closer to the Yuji side of the project, as opposed to towards the rear. We do have residences that are across the street from us on Pulaski. Because of the elevation, those residences, that's a three or four story building across the street from us. And they actually sit really far up on their land. And so they're not gonna see, I mean, they're gonna be looking more at the roof of our building, just because we're only three stories tall, they're on the Pulaski side. We do have some other constraints with that. You'll see the electric transmission lines running down our south boundary right there between us and the hotel. And those are transmission lines. So we do have to stay 25 feet away. So that's why the building kind of has that buffer there just for the safety precautions. I think if there was anything else that I needed to point out. We do have the kind of a tower element that's on the Yuji part of it, where it's five stories where the amenity space would be kind of where the front entrance of the property would be. Or did you, earlier, I may have missed it. Did you talk about what's happening along when you were talking about utilities and dash lines? I couldn't see any of that when I'm looking at this little image. Were you talking about things that were running along Yuji Street? No, it's running through the middle of the site. So that was formerly Washington Street right of way. The county has bought that part so it's no longer a right of way anymore, but that's why the 72-inch is sitting right there. I couldn't see that dash line, all right. Dash line. But it's through the middle, it's where our driveway will be. You did ask about existing driveways. There are three curb cuts right now. I guess there's two of them on our specific property and then there's the public right of way and we are using the middle one that's there now. Yeah. Yeah, I see the dash lines that go through there. It'll be like 35 feet wide because of the pipe size and the depth. So you're talking about the dash lines? Yeah, the one that angles in is. And that's what you're saying? That's the 72-inch pipe, yes sir. And then the sewer part of it is on the other side so it kind of parallels it for a little while and then it kind of takes off on that side, yeah. The parking garage. How many parking spaces would be in the garage? Apartment units. Apartment on the top floor or total? So I think it's... In the parking on the left, there are these buildings on the left side. Right, so originally we were trying to keep them as two separate parcels and staff has recommended that we combine them so that we don't have to worry about cross access easements and but there is always the intent that for the most part, the people who have the cottage style apartments will park on their portion but they will have rights to use the garage if they need to. There will be more control to let that happen. When you say that you can't build over the 75-foot lines, do you mean that you're not allowed to or it's just complicated? I mean, obviously something could span across them. So I'm just... Yeah, I don't think the city's gonna let us build anything on top of it. And liability-wise, I'm not sure that owners would be willing to do that. As far as you know, you guys agree with that? I think that's correct. Yeah, it was just something, I don't know. Okay. We forgot about that when we were talking about the site plan and the building arrangements, but yeah, that's definitely consistent, I think, with engineering. Yeah, there's a similar problem in five points I remember years ago. There currently is no easement on the line itself, but when Mona clients will be purchasing the property, the city will be putting an easement on it, so there's the potential to reduce the width of it, but that's engineering to decide. City engineer. Let's see, I think we have folks here who also wanna, from the community, who wanna speak. I don't know, I guess we've, if we're finished asking the applicant, Laura representing the applicant questions, we probably should go ahead and let folks from the community speak. And before that, I would like to make it very clear what the limit of our purview as the DDRC is. We're not zoning. Right. We can't address, as long as it meets zoning, we can't address the occupancy. We can't address the massing as long as it doesn't exceed the massing or the density that zoning allows. The only thing that we can address, there are two things, we can address the exterior materials and because of the district that this is in the city center, we are going to be responsible for approving the site plan, but that's it. So I wanna make sure that as we discuss this any further that we don't get into issues that are maybe important, but we just don't have any purview over them. So, if somebody would like to speak and have you been sworn in? Right. State your name when you get to the microphone, please. Okay, my name is Steve Henson. I'm, I live in there about a block away from this building on Lady Street and I'm also on the VISTA neighborhood association and chairman of the development committee. And one thing I wanted to mention, there were some zoning stuff. We understand we're just talking about the design now, but we have not interacted. We have met with the developer before by zoning. We've never been approached or talked to a developer about the design of these buildings. The neighborhood has not been included in that. There's a few things I guess we're concerned with. One is just the look of, now y'all have your iPads, but the look of those cornices or whatever don't really fit in with the typical neighborhood thing. Usually brick goes to the top as you can imagine as you ride down your Bay Street or whatever. The other thing we're concerned about or second thing is the parking, particularly as you ride down Lady Street, which is the major thoroughfare and you look across there kind of the cladding that's gonna be on that big garage. And the third thing and the most important thing, particularly on a hurricane day, although I know the brick wouldn't be structural, is the amount of brick. This is an old warehouse district. This is a very large building for that area. And we just don't think that hardy board that you see all over it really fits in with the district. I mean, if you look around the neighborhood, you got the state museum practically next door. There's a law office building next door. There's a several surrounding buildings that are all brick, pretty much brick. Even the, which y'all were recently involved in that storage building was built at Jarvis Clapman and UG. It's all brick. Even our McDonald's is all brick into this to say. I mean, that's our primary concern is the amount of brick on that building or the whole complex. We like for it to be a lot more brick so it fit in. Again, you got the state museum, the state museum just had a study on what's gonna happen on those other two lights, the Klein light and the old bus light. We see those as looking, you know, like the state museum does in that area with pretty much 100% brick. So that's our primary concern is that it'd be more brick involved in it. Thanks. Very good. Thank you. Anyone else? And you've been sworn in? Yes. State your name to the microphone, please. My name is Bart Walrath and I'm a resident of the Vista. And in addition to Steve's concern, we also have a concern about the safety for vehicles and pedestrians in the area and the infrastructure. Pulaski Street will be the egress of choice because you really can't turn left on UGY out of there. You're prevented by the median and one and the traffic is so heavy you just can't do it. Could you put up your slide 59? That's Pulaski Street and if you look down at the bottom, that is the only egress out of the complex on the Pulaski. And if you go down there, it's not even one full lane on either going in either direction and there's no sidewalks. There's also no sidewalks. Nor I don't think there can be in front of Spring Hill Suites. But I think this is where the traffic from the 400 and however many people are gonna come out. And that infrastructure has to be completed because I just think it's not gonna be safe. Two cars have to maneuver to pass each other if they happen to arrive at that bottleneck at the same time. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else? Thank you for those comments. Well, I think that at this point, the opportunity is for us as commissioners to pass on to Laura and any other comments that we may have that may help the process and result in at least more successful hearing in a month. Sure. I do wanna say that we were gonna make some improvements to Pulaski Street. So we will be adding curb and gutter to that because of where Pulaski Street currently crosses that large 72 inch. We can't add parallel parking spaces or parking spaces like it is up between our property and Lady Street. But we will be adding curb and gutter with sidewalk down that portion on our side. And the driveway that you could see was the existing one of that odd public road right of way. So we will be having a more standard 26 foot wide driveway for the proposed project there. And I know that staff comments that preliminary comments here that Lucinda read to us address those concerns. And I trust that as the site plan continues to be developed the way that you've described it, that we'll have something more, that's more thoughtful in terms of connectivity and particularly pedestrian connectivity. For the October meeting, we should have a lot of that worked out. Good. I for one would strongly support the concern about BRIC. It is true that the historic buildings in that district, the State Museum is a very good example, are simple. They are almost 100% masonry. I would support if moving all of the masonry virtually to the street facades along Pulaski and UG and along the north facade, but around the perimeter of the site so that the building is much more BRIC than it is right now. I think that would improve it significantly. And then the other thing, and I do agree that the cornice detail of the big gap where the hardy board or stuck over whatever it is is a really, really big gap and that the bracketing is kind of foreign to the district. So I guess from my own point of view, I think it would be, I don't necessarily see that what we're looking at doesn't meet the guidelines, but I think that there are, it's really going to be questions. This is a big development and it's important to get it right. And I think that one way to help that process would be to see significantly more BRIC along the exterior facades of the building. And then the other thing that is addressed in here is a real need to see some depth in the facade. I mean, there are pushes and pulls of planes, but also at the window openings to pull those windows back. So, and again, that's based on, yeah, I imagine so. But just to make sure that we as commissioners support that concern. And again, I think that the best places to find inspiration or precedent are the historic buildings in the district that again are simple, they're BRIC, they've got deep penetrations for the windows. So that would be my preliminary thoughts. I know that others have other areas, typically areas of concern and things that you'd like to talk about. So, Mr. Bulk, you often talk about the street experience just to give some heads up. Brick, Brick. Sarah, I assume there's lighting down Velasquez for that, where the sidewalks are at the entrance. Well, lighting will probably be part of the required streetscape improvements. It typically is, so we just have to work through those details. And a lot of that will be like an encroachment process. As they develop the streetscape, we'll be working with the different staff agencies and make sure that that's consistent with the district. Thanks. And I would echo the same sentiments with regard to the masonry and BRIC finishing so that it's more in keeping with the area. I don't think that the architects should be concerned. I mean, we don't want, we never want to see monotonous buildings, but there is language in the guidelines. And I don't, I'm not suggesting that they have, that they're out of bounds, but there is language in the guidelines about not having too many materials. So I think that if they look at the historic buildings in the district, the State Museum, but also in the Vista, what you see consistently is really pretty simple facades, but with the rich material of masonry and deep penetrations of the windows. And that's a really key component. So that's something that I think we'd all like to see. I had one question, and I think that probably the not the rendering and the more technical looking drawing probably is correct, but the UG Street Elevation, so the inset, you've got the very right end, then you've got another inset, then you've got another inset that's got windows that are, I think because probably they're stairs, they're jumping up and down. That's different on the rendering than it is on the drawing that we're looking at right now. No, it's not, I'm sorry. I didn't see that it was in shadow, nevermind. Nevermind. They look like they're consistent. Lucinda, can you pull up one of the images that has the neighboring, the Polasky Street current town homes? So those are all topped with stucco? Yeah, they're similar to what's being proposed. On the top, I mean, that seems kind of similar to what is happening in this design. Yeah. Sure. I will say that is correct that the ones on that side do have kind of the more look that what we were, I guess, trying to emanate. The Spring Hill Suites also has some crown part of that, but we did go back and forth with staff on the amount of materials, so we did have three, maybe four kinds, and we've cut back to two, so. That's good. We're still negotiating. Going into my correction. But yeah, surprisingly, there are, I guess, in the immediate area of us, there are some buildings that look more like what we're proposing as opposed to something that would be mostly, almost all brick. And are these buildings the ones that we're just now referring to, have they been done since the? The guidelines? Since the guidelines? Over there. I guess. Gosh, it was a long time ago, but I cannot remember what year. I mean, they may have, but that's often a problem is that people, you may have seen it today, that people will make reference to other buildings that came along beforehand, but. No, your point is taken. That's clear, looking at this. Any other comments? Any other help we can give the applicant? I think we're good. Thanks. Thank you. Any other business? We've got a little bit. We were gonna have our final survey report from our consultants for the architectural survey of historic resources that Rachel has been overseeing. But given the weather possibilities earlier in the week, we've decided to defer that to next month. I also just wanted to mention to y'all, I won't go in great detail, but City Council's Economic Development Subcommittee has asked staff to explore demolition delay ordinance given that we have lost some historic resources in unprotected areas of the city. So we are looking at that right now. I believe we are going to go back to them on October 2nd with a little bit more fully sort of fleshed out proposal for them to consider. But should they adopt some version of this demo delay, it would be coming before y'all for those buildings that were deemed historically or culturally significant for y'all to review and make a decision on. So we'll keep you in the loop on those things as they move forward. We'll probably have more next month for you since we'll have that Economic Development Subcommittee before the next DDRC meeting. So we'll have some more information for you at that point in time. Great. Anything else? Motion to adjourn? Anybody? Moved. Second? All those in favor? Aye. All right. Meeting adjourned.