 Good afternoon, Valentine's Day, we welcome and will call the meeting. The commission is made up of volunteers with expertise in interest and historic preservation and design. We generally meet on the second Thursday of the month. This is how I start the panel. We meet on the second Thursday of the month to review cases. Staff to the commission is our urban design and historic preservation staff. They are available to answer questions if you have them, but please do not interrupt proceedings. If you do indeed need to speak with one of them. The meeting generally proceed with the staff calling the case and describing it. I will call for the applicants to come forward afterwards to add to the basic description of the request if necessary. Or if the applicant wishes to do so. If so, the applicant should keep their presentation to 10 minutes or less. The commissioners will then have the opportunity to ask questions. At this point, I would ask if there's anyone in the audience who wishes to speak for, or I guess the proposal. The audience comments shall be kept for two minutes per person. If there is, the applicant will have the opportunity to respond. As we both shall not receive five minutes. In most of the cases, we will make a decision tonight after all the information has been presented. If your case is denied or you feel that our decision was made in error, you and anyone with standing have the opportunity to appeal within 30 days of the decision. If you plan to speak about the Pacific Project, you must have signed in the sheet that is over on that green table. Also, and so that the members of the public understand the commissioners are under strict instruction to avoid discussing DDRC meetings and applications with members of the public or with each other outside of the decision to avoid expatriate communications. Here we have a roll call. We do indeed. Mr. Cohn. President. Ms. Moore. President. Ms. Fuller-Will. Here. Mr. Nguyen. Here. Mr. Brunner. Here. We have quorum. Is the agenda order still standing? The agenda order does still stand. All right. The DDRC utilize a consent agenda for those projects which require DDRC review, but which meets the guidelines and typically require no discussion. If anyone wishes to discuss an item on the consent agenda, I will ask that you speak out where the consent agenda is read, and we can pull the item for discussion on the regular agenda. Is there anyone who wishes to take an item off the consent agenda for discussion? Motion to approve the consent agenda and meeting minutes. Just read these out and list them for y'all so you know what's on the consent agenda. The first item on the consent agenda is 2009 Lincoln Street, which is a request for preliminary certification for the Baileyville. This is a building listed on the National Register of Historic Places. And our second item, that's our only item, and then the approval of the minutes. Okay. The approval of the minutes for January? That's correct. Motion to approve both the minutes as well as the consent agenda. Can we have a vote? Second. I'm in favor. I'm okay. I'm in favor. The January meeting. All in favor. All in favor. Yes. All right. Motion passes. All right. The presentation of the case is on the regular agenda. Okay. The first case tonight is 700 Hardin Street. This is a request for a typically design approval for exterior changes to an approved design, which is an appeal to a staff decision in the Five Points Urban Design District. You can see on the screen, this is the location of the project. So this project, the renovation of the former Harper's Restaurant Building was approved by this commission in September of last year. The applicant has since requested a number of changes to the design, most of which have been reviewed and approved by staff. The approved design for renovation included removing the Northern Rain Barrel canopies over both the entrance and the dining patio, and replacing them with standing seam, shed type roof structures to tie into with the existing standing seam roof. The request before you today is to change the proposed material on the replacement roofs to a different material than what was originally proposed. The relevant sections of the evaluation from September are included in your packets. So the massing of the building is not changing. The barrel awning at the entrance and the arched roof over the patio are being replaced with simple standing seam roofs, which are consistent with the building and with the district. The new proposed roofs are still the same overall form as the September DDRC approved design. However, they would like to use a different type of metal than standing seam. And the proposed material is the master roof panel shown on the cut sheet in here. While there are a number of metal roofs in the district, the DDRC approvals on file specified standing seam metal as it has a story or commercial grade appearance for an urban building. One of the other guidelines is reinforce the positive urban form and unique features of the district. The outdoor eating area is being preserved as a screened porch dining area. The new canopies. Or sorry, the proposal before was that they were standing seam. And then the new proposal, let's see. Sorry, let me go to the next guideline. Design a well-proportioned unified building. Compose the massing and organize the interior and exterior spaces to create a well-proportioned building that exhibits a coherent architectural concept. Design the architectural elements and finished details to create a unified building so that all components appear integral to the whole. When designing architectural details, consider how the following can contribute to create a building that exhibits a coherent architectural concept. Exterior finished materials, architectural lighting and signage shadow patterns. So the existing building has a patina copper standing seam roof along the southeast side. And you can see that on the upper two pictures here. While matching this exactly would be cost prohibitive. That being copper, using standing seam material and the new proposed roof over the entrance. And the patio would be consistent with the existing building detailing and create a coherent architectural concept. The newly proposed material has a different profile. And we'll have visible fasteners making this a departure from the existing roof detailing. And so at the top is the drawing of the proposed renovations to the building. The roof, the large roof over the porch to the left. And the small shed roof over the entrance are the new roof materials. And then the one to the right is the existing standing seam copper that is sort of a long sand tee in the side of the parking lot. And then there's some, this is the applicant had provided some pictures of some other metal roofs in the five points area. And like I said, a lot of most of these actually were written, the approval to written for standing seam. So whether how those didn't get installed properly, we'd have to look into each one of those cases. But I can't say none of these buildings have an existing metal roof that's different from, you know, there's not different types of metal on each of these. So, but I think that's that's it for the staff presentation. The applicants are here and they brought a sample of the roof. So Rachel DeBucker and Gretchen are here from the RR. I think so. Did we not, I guess we didn't square in our speakers. First of all, I want to ask you, have you signed in? I did sign in, yes. Okay. And I want you to take a note to tell the truth. Yes, sir. Yes. All right, go ahead again, go ahead and read. Thank you for having us here today to present. We have a large sample, in fact, this is the smallest they would cut it at the review place for us. So please don't cut yourself. So we, our clients are requesting this metal roof change. Our clients are home team barbecue. They have three other restaurants in South Carolina, mostly in the Charleston area. They've used this type of roof in their other restaurants. They haven't actually used the standing seam metal in the other ones. And they feel that this is part of their identity branding. This particular profile. Furthermore, as you stated, we submitted several adjacent businesses in the five points neighborhood. And in fact, of course, you right next to this site has this called the master rib metal roof. Also the thirsty parrot, Polly's front porch, pure bar. Even all of those are within a couple blocks of our site. And they're all using metal roof, just like this. So we feel like we are maintaining a community character by sticking with this type of roof. And where we do feel like we're being consistent with the neighborhood. And to your point of being consistent with the existing roof, we feel this weekend to have a small change to this type of roof because the existing copper standing seam roof is over an interior portion of the restaurant. And we are keeping like that patina look. This newer roof is overall exterior portions of the building on porch area and front entrance. So we feel like, you know, that makes sense for the building for between old and new. And then finally, the height disparity of the ground level and the bottom edge of both of those roofs. Both of those, the new roofs, the bottom edge is at like 10 foot 10. So it's really would be difficult to see it from the ground level to see any sort of exposed fasteners or really kind of make out the differences in the program. Can you come over here and tell us where on the picture please? Yeah. So this is existing standing seam copper roof on what was our harbors. I'm sorry. You said it was an interior. It's over an interior space is what I'm OK condition. This front canopy and this porch, those are the new roofs. And those are what we're not that color. That was just the sample color that the place had. You may remember that those were the barrel kind of green on a sticky awning at the front. And then it was a green canvas or plastic awning at the front entrance or kind of like a barrel shape to it also. How how different in color would the existing roof and this new roof be? The owners haven't decided on a color yet, mostly because they're waiting to hear if this profile will be allowed. But it would likely be this kind of burnished bronze color similar. We're not trying to match the existing, but we're not doing a complete departure in the color department either. Are you planning to remove all the copper that's there? No, that's that is staying. Yes, that is staying. This is new roof and this is new roof, what completely new. So what we took out was the for lack of there was vinyl vinyl awnings that were there before. We took those down because we thought that it branded it too much to Harpers. It wasn't consistent with kind of the quality that this time is up for. So we're coming back to that. So the installation of this type roof is different than the installation of the standing seam roof, which is why you see fasteners versus. Standing seam is his panels that are crimped together along the edge. It's a little bit more labor intensive. And you'll see the fasteners will bounce. The fasteners would be there. Actually, I think it would be hard to see them. Oh, yeah, sorry. I forgot to mention that. Yeah, she gave out a really good this. You got after packets for the river, right? So you can how I think you can see the more of them. So at a regularly, you know, measured out distance, you'll have a nice line of fasteners in their color match to the color match to the roof. Is there only one row of them? They're on the small awning. You can probably have it at the top of the bottom in the larger one. It just depends on the length of this, whatever you want it to. They have to do it for upwards and everything. Do you know what the sort of the diameter of the rivets is? Excellent question. You play like a half inch. Yeah, half inch, half inch, three quarters and three quarters of an inch. They're not they're not quarter sized. They're seven. Do you mind holding it this way because part of well, I just want to see the edge because I think part of it is that the profile is different. So instead of so what you'll see is this becomes our raised edge rather than something that's a lot. Yeah. Can you go back to the images of like pure bar and oh, that one's not showing up on here. So those were in their packet. And I guess I don't know if sorry, I just didn't put. There's somewhere those approved the standing seam and they just put them up. They were. Yeah. Over the course of years, and again, I can't I'd have to I did go check on all the I think one approval did not specify, but all the other ones. There's a leading edge up on a weekend, probably. So you have a bar here. Is that right? I think they have a gutter situation and there's pine straw or something in the gutter. We would also put that to the porch. They'll actually be a gutter all along here. You're not going to see the edge of the profile on this one. There won't be a better on this one. I guess, aside from just the challenge with the guidelines, my overall kind of hang up on all that is when you don't have a gutter or don't have a way to hide the edge, it definitely looks like a much cheaper panel than the standing seam finish. I don't know if there's a way to seal that when you see that edge. It just, you know, right. I mean, on on this long edge, there will be a gutter on this smaller canopy. We have not planned for a gutter. Is there a how much of a cost difference in the material? Is the large, large, like what? With this project, I think they said twenty thousand dollars. It's about three times as much per square. This one, they wanted the corrugated. So their branding is this master in the corrugated and they wanted to create really so I'm just where it says home team. There is the parking lot here. So if you're looking, you're seeing two different roofs. So, yeah, that's a that's a good way to see like from here. So so where the awning is. The roof here is the standing. This is the same thing here. Sorry, this long one here on C&T. Right. And then this is being removed and replaced with a little shed over the entrance. And then this is removed and being replaced with a new. So will that a but the standing thing? OK. The front canopy and that side where the copper exists will not actually touch each other when I say the front can be right over the door. The small shed roof. There's a corner here. And there is visually a tree between the two that is existing that will remain, which visually brings that up. Do you have a color the color slide of the master rib color chart? I don't think the whole sheet is over here. So which one we are asking. We are asking them to strong. We're strongly advising them to consider this one because it's you know, pretty close to the dark ones. You know, they have not made a final decision yet. Well, show me a detail of what has brought up about these. How's that terminated? Your proposal. How's your I think you have a metal piece that could be crimped onto the edge to terminate it for that for this short piece. And then here, could they put a gutter on it? Did not have the front one. I mean, they'd be opposed to that. Well, then you have to bring it down somewhere. You know, my question with that, I get I see where you're going with that. Just with having then a downspout or down later that has to get back to the face of the building and go down with that look more unsightly than just having a simple it's going to have to be taken out somewhere where it's not dumping onto people who are standing there by it. So my question is that. And I know someone will phrase it sort of simply and maybe it's a more complicated question. When they came in front of everybody to get approval, the cost hadn't changed between this building material and the steaming seam hazard. I mean, has there been a big price jump at the point that it was approved? Originally, they knew we were at that point. We did not have a contractor on board. We didn't have full cost of students at that point. We're only for design of them. But standing scene was approved and y'all already know what the usual cost of steaming seems to say. You're saying like overall cost of the overall cost in order. Yeah, I'm just saying at the point at the point that it was originally approved with the standing seam roof, wouldn't the cost gap have sort of been the same? I mean, standing seam roofs haven't gone up a whole lot since the original design was approved or have they? Yeah, I mean, and I guess they're not. I mean, you didn't bring up that the cost was a factor in the decision. It's more of a branding. Not clarify. Are we are we discussing this because we approved it differently? Yeah, I guess. Is that the only? We approve. Well, because the guidelines, you know, I mean, the staff, I guess, determination was that this wasn't consistent with the guidelines and what was approved in September was and so it was actually it was on the consent agenda. So there was not a presentation. It wasn't. OK. There were no outstanding issues. Right. OK. Any other questions? Yeah. Here. Yeah, I'm sorry. So I think the other challenge I have is that and we're not tasked with picking colors, but there's definitely colors when you get into this that would look like the more colorful that becomes, the cheaper it looks where standing seam. Yeah, I don't think it will be colorful. Yeah, we and I appreciate you guys are involved with color, but I agree with you a thousand percent. And that's why we are pushing them in a certain direction. The bricks going to be kind of like a pickled light gray or white. The existing patina on the copper, you know, that looks like so we don't want to be cheesy and try to make a fake patina copper look. So really pushing them towards kind of a neutral darker metal so that it blends with everything else. There's the storefront windows along the edge, the existing just there's some darker colors involved with this. So we're trying to provide a little bit of a contrast between the massing of the building with bricks going to be versus everything else. So we are we can't sit here and say that we wouldn't go with the hunter bringing but we are very strongly recommended that they stay with the neutral. Yeah, so my other struggle is this is I drive through five points and I see those canopies and they make me cringe that are on there, which is why I was asking if they were actually approved. Oh, you mean the ones in five points that are on the slide? Right, like all the money was put into the street improvements and then people just kind of sneak in these canopies that don't. And they weren't approved and they weren't approved. And we I think in the spirit of trying to like make it nicer. And yet now they're a precedent. Because they're not a they're not a DRC or a staff approved precedent though. Sure. And if we were to approve this one, then we would be setting a DPRC precedent. Yeah, that's my yeah, I definitely don't think we want to emulate mistakes that were made or people who did things that weren't consistent with their permits. I mean, I see your point that it would reference it's it's both things. But for us, I mean, there's not a precedent for approving it. It's just a precedent set for installing it against the approval. Right. Yeah, that's that's my challenge, too. Any other questions? Thank you. In the audience, do we have anybody to support? Or opposition? And anybody want to call for a motion? The motion that we do not have the application for. To get a design approval based on for. 700 Hardin Street, based on the condition that the applicant's request does not conform with sections one point one and one point for the five points design guidelines. Anymore? I think that's there. I second. Call for a vote. All in favor. Or do you want to do a show? A total roll. Roll. OK. Mr. Broom. Yes. Mr. Kohn. Yes. Miss Fuller-Wilt. Yes. Miss Moore. Yes. Mr. Wynn. Yes. The motion passes. Our next guide on this one is the historic section of the agenda. It's 2707 Preston Street. It's a request for a certificate of design approval for an addition in the old Chandler Waverly Protection Area A. Megan McMitches, the staff presenting the application. So this project is a request for a certificate of design approval for an addition at 2707 Preston Street, the 15 and a half by six. There is 15 and a half foot by 14 foot addition is located on the rear of the structure and and is inset two feet from the left elevation due to its location. Approximately 10 feet of the addition will be visible from the right of way. Staff has two concerns related to this project, one of which is the rhythm of openings. In the current proposal, just the horizontally oriented window will be visible from the right of way. However, that window does not reference those on the existing structure. This window also creates a large expanse of solid wall on the lower half of the addition that is not in keeping with the rhythm of openings on the existing structure. To address this inconsistency and meet section for a guideline G, staff recommends replacing the horizontally oriented window with one to two windows that match the double hung windows on the existing structure and size and pane configuration. While two windows would be most appropriate, one window would be sufficient to meet the guidelines. The applicant may wish to reuse the existing window on the rear of the structure that will be removed during the course of the building of the building of the addition and any windows placed on that elevation need not be visible from the interior if the applicant so chooses. Staff's other concern is the roof shape. The drawing indicates that the applicants plan to use a 1.5 to 12 shed roof for the addition. While shed roofs are present in the district, their typical function is for porches, small dormers or additions not in excess of a few feet. The roof shape coupled with a low pitch create a form that is not seen in the district and therefore is incompatible with section for a guideline H. There have been few requests for additions that have required DDRC review in Old Shandon lower waverly. However, this example from the Elmwood Architectural Conservation District demonstrates a more appropriate connection between the reform of an addition and original structure. While the example addition is larger, the same principles can be utilized on this proposal. The applicants have indicated that they wish to construct a single story addition and not disrupt the second story windows on the rear. While the location of these windows has not been provided to staff, staff has determined that a gable roof with a pitch between 312 and 512 could be utilized in this location with the ridge of the roof still sitting below the bandboard. A 312 gable roof could also be accommodated and arise shorter than what is currently drawn. Staff recommends using either a hip or gable roof in which the gable terminates at the rear of the structure with a pitch between 312 and 512 to be consistent with the guidelines. Should the roof form change per staff recommendation, the material for the roof on the addition should also be altered to be consistent with the existing roof. Staff finds that the addition at 2707 Preston Street generally complies with Section 4A and B of the Old Shandon lower waverly protection area guidelines and recommends granting a certificate of design approval if the following conditions are met. The roof form be altered from a shed to either hip or gable roof in which the gable terminates at the rear of the addition. The roof should have a pitch between 312 and 512. Singles match those on the existing roof to be used in place at the standing seam metal. A minimum of one window matching the size and pane configuration of the double hung windows on the existing structure be used in place of the proposed horizontally oriented window. The tops of the window on the addition align with the tops of the windows on the existing structure and all details be deferred to staff. Are you the applicant present? How would you like to step forward? Have you signed in, sir? Did you serve you? Yes. My wife served you? Have you taken off? Tell the truth. I tell the truth. Carry on. All right. I want to thank you all for giving me this opportunity to present my vision. For the addition, we want to add to the 27th and 7th Preston Street. To begin with, I must begin with my mother who moved to an assisted living facility eight months ago. She recently told me she often thinks about going back home, but she does not think of a home she lived in for 61 years on a permanent average. She takes 27th and 7th Preston Street, a house where she grew up. In any ways, I grew up in that house too. Many Sundays we would have dinner with my grandmother's feast of fried chicken, green beans, rice, gravy, homemade yeast rolls, and other delectables. On special occasions in the summer, I would be pressed into service to churn the ice cream. And it was usually peach, made with my grandmother's own homemade boil custard, which I liked as much as the ice cream. And more than just memories, my eldest daughter is named after my great aunt who lived with my grandmother on Preston Street. And my youngest daughter was born when she was 27th Preston. Her current bedroom is the same room she was born in. Now the reason I'm telling you all of this is to relate one simple fact, and it's I love 27th and 7th Preston. You brought us some pita, sir. Yeah. And my love for 27th and 7th Preston extends to the neighborhood at large. And for that reason, I served as great writer of the Neighborhood Association from 2002 to 2005, during which time we were awarded can-do grants, which resulted in many improvements in our local neighborhood, such as the old sand chandon signs and the tree plantings along Maple and Woodrow Street. Every time I see those trees in bloom, as they are now, I'm proud to have part of it given there. Now I was committed to and worked diligently for the historic oath, when I spearheaded my Pat Hubbard on the zoning of our neighborhood. It is important to note the overlay we obtained with us the lightest possible sort due to the radical alterations to the neighborhood, which had already taken place in the years following World War II. And the general exodus from the neighborhood in many significant houses were demolished to make room for parking lots or multi-family complexes, while other homes were converted from residential to business properties or from single-family to multi-family use. Not only was the light overlay of the zoning essential to sell the idea to the residents, there simply were not enough historically-relevant houses left to warrant any kind of stronger protection. Now the remaining houses, 2707 Preston, is not a contributing property. The reason is simple. It is architecturally boring. You've nothing left to box in the room. The only details of interest are the stoop over the front door of the freeze-band, approximately 140 inches, from the top of the foundation. My wife and I are all willing to add a second bathroom. There's currently only one bathroom upstairs, and a den so that the original dining room, which we're currently using as our den, can be converted back to its original use. Our design options were driven by two primary considerations. First of all, we wanted to preserve the integrity of the existing house, and secondly, to achieve a functional addition in a very limited space available to us. These two considerations have led to the design presented here today. The shed roof of the addition mirrors the shed roof of the existing rear porch. It also mirrors the shed roof of the addition of the house by the partners immediately looked all right. In fact, the shed roof is common to two-storey box houses of that era. I'll find an example of which can be seen at 3,005 Blossom Street, which has them on both sides of the house, facing the street. In the case of 2,707, Preston, the shed roof is the only design which allows for an addition without intruding into the distinctive band around the house for the windows of the second storey while retaining its foundation height. A gap over a hip roof design on the addition would require either the foundation to be dropped or the roof protruded into that free span. And achieving that functional space where the shed roof also requires a metal roof since the stand necessitates a low slope, not allowable with shimmy roof. That was the stand of this new addition I mentioned. Metal roofs are compatible with the air, certainly more than the solar panels around the corner of the local street. A drive-down local street needs solar panels. On the left elevation of the proposed addition, there's a fixed window visible from the top right away. Our intent with this window is to both allow for natural light at the same time limit the exposure of the lights and cars and noise from the driveway to HVAC, some panels to be adjacent to the parking house. As opposed to you look at this proposed addition, what you can see is the large HVAC components in the driveway. I'm sure y'all all know those houses in shed and are squished by a couple of inches. To conclude, I sincerely believe the design presented for your consideration best preserves the integrity of the home's house, including those not visible from the public right away, while providing the functional den, second bathroom, minimal intrusion in the backyard, preserving most of the existing screen culture through the house. I also sincerely believe that portion of the proposed addition which is visible from the public right away is aesthetically and organically compatible with the existing structure and indeed is characteristic of any other houses and period in the surrounding venue. I just want to add one more little foot in, I started with my mother. My mother worked and retired from standard federal savings in London. Right here. The building. This may have been what her office was. Thank you all. Thank you. Oh yeah, I'm sorry. Anybody have a question? I do have a question. So there's a couple of conditions here. Are you through that saying that you would like to not? I would like to proceed with the addition as shown. Okay. We really want to avoid putting in a full-length window. As I say, just the view is on mechanicals and there's a driveway there. Those two windows, the only operating windows on the lift elevation that you see, which we're using as our doing, we have permissioned lines on those that have been dropped and closed for 26 years from the lift there. It's just nothing to look outside that house. I feel like that one window does. Early on in the process, Miss McBeish was careful to point out because originally I had an eight-foot end wall which dropped that header height with that window that we have in the addition. And Miss McBeish felt very strongly that the header height should line up. So I went back to our designer and we were able to immediately drop the slope of that roof but the standing seam metal could still achieve that. So we were able to lift that window and standing here looking at it, I think it does look better than the one we had at lower height. But I do think it flows with the rest of the house. Probably the reason for the shared route. I'm curious to that as well. Yeah. And it's difficult to see but on the drawing that Ken has got the freeze band. It was underneath the windows, directly underneath the windows on that second story. Right. I guess what I'm struggling with is shed roofs typically look like something that was just stuck on when it's used as more than a porch or an actual dorm or whereas this is a whole addition. Yeah. I think the intended guidelines wherever I make it look more conforming. You'd still stay under that band. As I said, that freeze band is the only distinctive feature of that house other than the stoop of the front porch. It is literally a box that helps with the roof. And so, like I say, I love the house. I love the whole house. I don't want to intrude into that. If we were to put a gable on there and keep the foundation height the same. It'd still be under that. That roof would come in and there's a, our bedroom window, let's see if you've got a floor plan in there. There you go. In that floor plan, the cased opening leads into a little hallway. And directly above that cased opening all set, maybe a foot and a half is our bedroom window. So that, putting that gable or a hub, I mean, the only thing HIP would do was change it on the end. In any case, the ridge is going to run back into the house and it would be, it would hit that. It would eat into that area. I'm afraid I can't visualize it. So I almost would, right at this point, if you still want to continue to argue for this plan, which in my mind doesn't meet the guidelines, I would need to see the images of what you're talking about in order to make a judgment on it not, you know, the suggestion not meeting the needs of not interrupting the. I feel like we don't have that elevation. Yeah. Do you have a picture of it on your phone? Well, I didn't do some pictures. There should be some photos in your packet that were submitted. Oh, I thought you didn't have a picture. They don't show where that window on the second story is. That's why I'm asking for this. This is the, I wanted to picture this, didn't you? No. It's not the picture. There's a bottom of where you see this. Can you see the picture? I mean, part of that consideration is the house has the first four and the signals are nine foot six, okay? So if I have a continuous foundation pie to match the signal in times, which I have, you know, I have no desire, because I'm living in the house, the whole house. I have no desire to walk from a nine foot six into an addition where the signal drops down, you know, a foot. And I put a great deal of thought and I can tell, you know, and I've got 23 years of experience in residential construction. Let me ask you, is this visible? The only part that's visible is the, can feed of the, There's a house on each side of you? Yes. I'm going to park now on the left and the residence is now three apartments on the right. This, the elevation that will be visible is also abutting a driveway and this slide shows you, it's also included in your packet. Those lines indicate lines of sight from the right of way. From the right of way, yeah. I'm sorry, if you could just say for the record what the picture is that's being passed around. So we're looking at a photograph of what's this from? It's the backyard. Oh, your phone, sorry. The applicant's phone which shows the back of the house and where the bedroom window hits the, what do you call this, freeze? Freeze, freeze band. And you calculated that the, see that the a nine by nine foot six elevation with a gable would not interrupt this freeze. No, so at the current height they could do a three to 12 gable roof with the gable terminating at the rear of the structure and still be under actually the height of the shed roof. And do you argue that that is not true? Yeah, that's not the case. If we matched the ceiling height, we would have to drop the ceiling height. I calculated it at that height. In other words, it might be possible because that's putting a rear wall of nine feet, plate height nine one and a half and another four and a half inches for truss and sheathing. Then you would add three on 12, 14 feet wide, seven feet from the span. So you're talking about another 21 inches. And that might just barely fit under there. But as I said, the ceiling height in the existing home, the ceiling height now, everybody inside is nine six. So if the homeowner walking into addition where the ceiling drops down. I don't think anyone's asking you to do that. I'm asking if you all did two different measurements. You said that the ceiling height could remain the same from where it is and you're saying it can't if you were to do a gable roof on it. So I'm not sure what to do with these conflicting pieces of information. Okay, the putting a gable roof on that house would have to raise the wall height even further on. You would have to raise the what? The wall height. I thought you said it would be shorter if you. Depends on your slope. What slope are you talking about? In other words, okay, looking at this, we check that end wall was raised to nine feet, it wasn't reached in our original sign, eight feet. So we raised it up to nine feet, that end wall so we could accommodate that and raise that window up. You got hair by your ass. Mm-hmm. Now if we would change that to a gable roof, again a hip roof is not gonna make any difference. The roof is gonna terminate in the house anyway. But wouldn't it terminate lower? Okay, it would. Then the freeze line, it would terminate several feet below. So would a hip roof, you know? I might. The property line is like 30 feet from the street. The, I guess I'm just struggling when I look at it on the aerials and I probably could have done a little more service pastina there, but it seems like it's really far back. And what you would see was very limited. If you stand on the sidewalk, there's a sidewalk that's about 10 feet from the street. So it's fairly visible from the sidewalk. Yeah. Currently, there's a lattice work with the Confederate jasmine there, which we intend to put there even later. We will have to move it so that contractors can get in there, but we want to put it back because we enjoy it right there. Right. I'm gonna try a little time at this roof business. We can't have the gable coming out this way. That would run water all the way into our house. So the gate would have to be turned, okay? Right. And that means the ridge of the roof is gonna run in the past. I think we're not getting anywhere with that. For me, I think the bigger concern is, if depending on the visibility, I think we try to work through this maybe with some in the past, but it's typically been a challenge on corner lots where you're guaranteed to see it. Yeah. But there's other criteria on here. And if we're gonna get into this kind of detail on every one, are you objecting to every one of these or? Do you know what the four are? I believe so. Okay. Run by the... Sure. Go ahead. Well, the shingles, using a shingle roof to match, probably asphalt, if that's what you have instead of the... No. The shape of the roof determines everything. If we can't use a shared roof. Well, you can use shingles on a 312, so. Yeah, you can use shingles on a 312. Okay. But then the other one was to have a minimum of one matching window. In size and pane configuration of the double hung windows on the existing structure to be used in place for proposed... Okay. Pardon me, pardon me. I don't believe that we've gotten your name for the record art. Have you been sworn in? Patricia C. Lee. Yeah. Oh, I'm sorry. I'm sorry too. But you did. Right. My thought on that is, and Pat and I were talking about the other night, is we really don't want the long windows, I don't know what y'all call them, I call them long windows, tall windows, because of the traffic of the driveway right beside us. It's a rental, they go in and out all the time. But my thought would be that to flank on either side of the dining room, what is really the dining room, but we do it as a din, to have the addition to have the two small windows that are really in our front room, which those are not tall windows. Those are short windows. So my thought would be if you have to give up the light, which that little row of long windows horizontal, give us light in that room. But if you were to take the windows that are on either side of the chimney and put them on the addition, then you would have a mirror image you to have symmetry, the two small windows in front of the house, two small windows at the back of the house, and we wouldn't have to put in the tall windows. I'm not following you, do you want to say that again? So she wants to use similar, I mean the same size and style, these two, put them here. Right. Because then, in that middle room, I was wondering why you didn't use this size here. Me too. That's a narrow hallway. The interior trend in that house is one by five, a base cap on it. So I'm going to duplicate the interior trend with my intention, if we can do this addition, is to duplicate the trend. I mean, I want this house to look like it's part of the house. So we did it here. I think you got to understand two or test with a host of guidelines that you may help make. Yes. Yes. So. Well, and the other thing is, I keep saying, and I've said it to Megan, you really can't see it. I mean, if someone is standing literally on the corner across the street, yes, they can see it. Most people aren't going to even notice it. We are not on the corner line. We're the next one in. I just don't think that people will see it. I mean, it's way back in the back of our house if we put the loudest work back up, you're even going to see less of it. So. Sure. But, so my ballot time is here. Yeah, I mean, do you have any objection to duplicating one of the fixed windows on the inside of the chimney in place of the lawnmower? Where are the tops different, or is that just a comment? On the first proposal, the tops. Oh, but they're now all the same? OK. We did change it. Do you have a rear elevation, like an entire rear elevation for us to look at? So. We've got to look at the, well, I mean, you can see the rear elevation of the addition, but not the entire house. Would keeping two windows that flank the chimney and replication there be conforming? So we're really, if we're in agreement on three and four, you would be fine taking the two windows and replicating that by the chimney, as opposed to going to full height. And we're finding that would be, OK. So we're really down to this roof pitch and direction. Sounds like? And the material. And the material? If it's still relevant. If it's shetted and going to the rear, you'll never see the roof that's on it. It'd only be if it was capable that the shingles would. Sure. You wouldn't be able to see it. And then the rental house sticks out significantly past on the corner, even if you're looking backwards. Do you have more crosses? So you said that there are several examples in the neighborhood normally. We would have images of the examples of a standing ceiling metal roof on an addition in the neighborhood. There are some on some porches around the immediate neighborhood. Do you know if those were installed before or after you all did the guidelines by any chance? I don't know. What we have next door to us is an addition that's a shared roof design. And that addition was probably put on 60 years ago. I mean, it's been on their own. The house that I'm meeting with Virginia is an apartment house. It always has been. Even in 1925, when my mother lived there. And the house to our, I'm sorry, Virginia's on our left, house to our right, was a single family residential that's been cut up three or four apartments. What's behind you? Like, here's your house. Backyard. No, there's Sarah in the backyard. There's a backyard behind us. We have one of the smallest ones in Shendon. They're all narrow. Most of them are long. Where we are on the corner, the house sits on the wood room, they can work on the other side of the house. Their backyard cuts across. So we end up with half of that house. See, I don't think you'll see it because the street's all the way. Yeah. You're not on the floor. He's not on the floor. Do you have that slide? This slide stops at the sidewalk. That's where the sidewalk is located. So the house to the left, if you go up a little bit, that's the Virginia. And if you move above that, that was Mr. Clark's house. And his backyard comes all the way to the right side of our property. See what there? So literally in our backyard is the neighbor's backyard. So this is the house that you said has a shed roof in the back. On the back of that house, of course, you can't see it from that view. You can't see it. Or can't see it, right? From that view. If you were directly over the house looking down, you would see it. Like a drone around. You said, just to confirm, this isn't contributing property in the district? It's non-contributing to the National Register District, but it is contributing to the local district. Is it non-contributing because of these two windows in the phone? In the National Register District, yes. But again, it's contributing to the local district. OK. I don't think you can see it. I don't either. Yeah. I mean, I need to see it a little bit, but not enough to be. I want to work with you here. Yeah. So I'm concerned that if we do this and the metal goes on back there, it's going to look kind of like what got presented earlier. Except that no one's going to be able to see it unless they're. Would you be opposed to shingles? Well, we can't put shingles on. You can't on 312. 312. You can on 312. You can if it's over 3 and 12. I mean, 3 and 1 and 1 half. 3 and 1 half over 12. OK. But I'd prefer it to be 5. The more slow, the better. Right, right. As I said, in residential construction for 23 years, we heard that. Have you considered all these factors? And just as a note, the 312 was calculated based on a gable roof, not on a shunt roof. So that's something to take into consideration as well. It looks like you have some room. If you had to pick it up, you could still stay below that. And I feel like I'm not explaining myself well. And if I can borrow a pen, do you want to start making it? OK, so I'm just going to put one in. I calculated this in great detail. And that roof would. We're talking about a shed roof. OK. But I couldn't get a shed roof in either with that end wall high. So you could just pull the shed roof out of our six inches or so. That design that we have is the. So you're 1.5 on 12? No, that should be. I don't know. I'm falling in there. That shed roof terminates immediately under the freeze band on the house. Oh, it doesn't have to be here at night. This drawing is 1.5 on 12, not 3. So if you took it to 3, you probably would be over the band. I thought it was 3, I'm sorry. Yeah. OK. Yeah. OK. I mean, yeah, as far as the visibility of the roof, there would be no visibility of the roof from the street at all. And my intention is to run at a 16-inch overhang, run a 1.5-6, and face you on that overhang with exposed bar rafters, a skeleton eagle in that house, duplicating what is visible to that existing structure. Definitely appreciate your attention to detail. We've talked about this for a long time. It's evident. OK. Any more questions? Do we have anybody? Thank you. Do we have anything, anybody, about there to support or opposition? Do I hear anybody? OK. Someone on the board would like to make a motion. OK. I'll try. OK. I make a motion for approval based on the evidence presented. I guess, would it be approval with conditions since we're making some modifications of the bullet? So I'm making a motion for approval with conditions based on the evidence presented. And I can't see the section number here. Four. Ah, thank you. And section four of the Old Shand and Lower Waverly Protection Area A, Guidelines. I move that the Design Development Review Commission approve a certificate of design approval. I don't know how to describe the project for this project. For the addition, thank you very much. Proposed at 2707 Preston Street with the following conditions that two smaller windows replace that look similar to the chimney dimensions on the existing house to replace the horizontal and smaller window. That the tops of the windows of the addition align with the tops of the windows on the existing structure. And that all other details are deferred to staff. You second? Yes. Can we have a vote? Yes. Ms. Fuller-Weldt? Yes. Ms. Moore? Yes. Mr. Wynne? Yes. Mr. Bram? Yes. And I should pass this. You all understand what we've gotten? Thanks, brother. OK. Thank you. Happy battle times today. Thank you. All right, see where I am. That's all for the pages we have, right? Those are all cases. And just so you know, there won't be no executive session tonight. OK. Right? So we've concluded the business, other business we don't actually have any. Do we need your vote on that? Nope. Just adjourned. All right. I don't have a gallery, but. Yes. Adjourned. Second. Bye. All in favor.