 members staff and guest we ask for your patience during this virtual meeting multiple staff members are behind the scenes to make sure that the meeting runs smoothly and all applicants and citizens are able to communicate with the Commission at the appropriate times. During the meeting you will see live images or still images of DDRC members and staff however images of the applicant and the public will not be visible. The public will also be able to participate via three methods and when participating please provide your name for documentation purposes. So you can watch email phone or log into the web session. If you're watching you can stream the meetings through city TV accessed at www.youtube.com slash user slash Columbia SC government. If you're watching that if you're emailing you may submit letters and statements via email to COC board meeting at Columbia SC dot gov. Leading up to and or during the meeting as the account will be monitored throughout. Emails and letters will be read into the record. If you're phoning in you can call 855-925-2801 when prompted please enter the meeting code 7942. Those participating by phone will receive three options on how to participate. Star one will allow you to listen. Star two will allow you to record a voicemail message that will be read into the record. Star three will allow a participant be placed in the queue so they may speak live when prompted. If you're speaking live please make sure your computer audio is muted so we don't get feedback and you can stream the meeting. Public may join the meeting on the web at publicinput.com slash COC DDRC dash April APR 2021 and I'll read the role. Mr. Baker I see that you're here. Mr. Baker. Mr. Broom. Mr. Dinkins has not come in. I don't think. No. Miss Fuller-Wilt. Miss Jaco. Here. Mr. Salibi. Here. Mr. Savry. Mr. Wolf. Here. And let me try this one more time. Thank you. There you are. We have a question for you. Mr. Broom. In order to avoid ex parte communications DDRC members are under strict instructions not to discuss cases under consideration with the public or with each other outside of the public forum. The meeting typically starts with staff calling the case giving a summary of the project and then calling on the applicant to present if they wish. Decisions are typically made on one evening and decisions may be appealed within 30 days to a court of competent jurisdiction. Oaths will be administered individually as we hear either from applicants or from live speakers. Applicants with requests before the DDRC are allotted a presentation time of 10 minutes. This time should include but is not limited to an overview of the project case history and any pertinent meetings held regarding the request. This time also includes all persons presenting information on behalf of the applicant such as attorneys, engineers and architects. This time limit does not include any questions asked by the DDRC or staff regarding request. Members of the general public are given the opportunity to address their concerns and intervals of two minutes. Applicants may have five minutes to respond. Staff has a timer and will make presenters aware of when their time has expired. Are there any changes to the agenda? We have had a few changes to the agenda. This afternoon, case number four under the preservation agenda 915 Pine Street which is a request for certificate of design approval for new construction in the old Chandler Waverly Protection Area A has asked to defer and likewise we had a deferral from the advertisement of 3452 North Main Street which was a request for preliminary certification for the Bailey bill which is a national register structure in the North Main Corridor. These are all the changes. The DDRC uses the consent agenda to approve non-controversial or routine matters by a single motion and vote. If a member of the DDRC or the general public wants to discuss an item on the consent agenda, that item is removed from the agenda and considered during the meeting. The DDRC then approves the remaining consent agenda items. Will staff please read the consent agenda? Certainly. This item is 1695 Park Street also known as Park Circle. This is a request for approval for new construction in the City Center Design Development District. The next item is 1106 Sycamore Avenue request for preliminary certification for the Bailey bill in the Seminary Ridge Protection Area. Next is 2316 Preston Street, a request for preliminary certification of the Bailey bill and a request for exterior changes in Old Shandong, Lower Waverly Protection Area A. 1408 Fairview Drive, a request for design approval for an accessory structure in the Melrose Heights, Brooklyn Architectural Conservation District. And the next is 1213 Gladden Street which is a request for design approval for an addition in the Melrose Heights, Oakland Architectural Conservation District. Those are all of the cases on the consent agenda. Okay. Is there anyone from the DDRC that would like an item removed from the consent agenda? Okay. Hearing none. Is there anyone from the public that would like to have an item removed from the consent agenda? Please communicate by sending an email to cocboardmeeting at columbiasc.gov. Please communicate via phone by pressing star two to leave a voicemail or star three to speak in person. We will pause to allow communication from the public. We have no emails at this time. No voice either, I presume. And likewise at this time I do not have any speakers in the queue nor are there any voicemails. Okay. Thank you. All right. Do I have a motion in a second to approve the agenda and the last month's minutes? So moved. Great. Let's take a vote. Mr. Baram? Yeah. Mr. Ms. Fuller-Wilt? Yes. Ms. Jacob? Yes. Mr. Salibi? Yes. Mr. Saveri? Yes. Mr. Wolfe? Thank you. And Mr. Baker? Yes. Thank you. The motion passes. Great. We'll move on to the regular agenda. All right. First case is 537 San C Avenue. This is a request for certificate of design approval for an accessory structure in the Wales Garden Architectural Conservation District. This is a two-story brick veneer house built in 1931 with cast stone details, low hip roof, and wide eaves. The current proposal is for a shed roof, cabana, and carport to be constructed at the back of the property. Several members of staff went out to the site on different occasions to assess visibility of the proposed structure and all concluded separately that the carport will be visible from the right of way. Assessing visibility is the first step that staff takes when a project is proposed in historic district. Site visits are necessary to gauge the true visual impact that an exterior change or new construction may have on a property as experience has shown that photographs and online images do a poor job of depicting true in-person visibility. Experience with evaluating visibility has proved that changes tend to be much more visible in person than what would be assumed when looking at a photograph. As staff and the DDRC's purview falls to parts of properties and buildings that are visible from anywhere along the right of way, staff and the DDRC must evaluate changes according to the adopted guidelines when projects are visible. While the proposed location of the outbuilding is at the rear of the property, it will be partially visible through the metal gate at the end of the driveway. And while staff finds that the location and size and scale of the proposed outbuilding meet the guidelines, the proposed design does not. Per the guidelines, accessory buildings should be designed to reflect the character of the existing house in terms of building shape and detailing. As proposed, the outbuilding is a shed roof structure over an open carport area on the right and enclosed living space on the left. Materials include stained wood, stucco horizontally run slats on the carport, and aluminum siding and ceramic cladding on the enclosed living space. Staff assessment of the property concludes that the most visible portion of the building will be the carport area with at least part of the ceramic clad portion being visible from the street. Neither form nor material use and detailing reflects the character of the two-story brick veneer house. Therefore, staff finds that the proposed outbuilding is not in keeping with this guideline. Staff finds that the proposed outbuilding at 537 Santy will be visible through the metal gate on the property. Staff also finds the shape and detailing of the proposed building does not meet section nine of the Wellesgarden Architectural Conservation District Design Guidelines and recommends denial of the proposal. Do you have any questions for staff? Is the applicant present and wish to speak? We are. Thank you. Can everybody hear me? Right, yes. Please state your name and swear to tell the truth in these proceedings. Sure. My name's Annie Wilson and this is my husband Robert Wilson and I do swear to tell the truth in these proceedings. As do I. All right. Thank you. Well, thank you all from here in front of us today. We have lived in Wellesgarden for about 10 years and love the neighborhood, love the character. That's absolutely why we're here. So certainly for as well as to protect neighborhoods like ours. We as many folks during the pandemic, we were looking at our own four walls much too often and decided to undertake a backyard project. So that has taken much longer than we all envisioned. But in the meantime, we hire an architect and a contractor, both very reputable in their fields. And I know at least our architect, Jeff Lewis, is is on with this. And so I think he's going to be able to speak to you just a little bit later about the design and the elements that he chose to include. As you will see from Mr. Lewis and his expertise, we have gone to great expense already in order to pursue the project. So we would ask that that be considered as you make some of those determinations to kind of address those that Ms. Walling sort of brought in a nice summary. I think we can do that sort of in three steps. So first, the visibility from the street as you can can see from those photographs from staff, the visibility is certainly down that narrow driveway, which only fits one car down at each. You can see some of our construction zone nightmares. You can see my city garbage cans through that gate at this point. What would be visible through there, as Ms. Walling said, would just be that carport portion. So I think that which is essentially going to be the back of our cars because it is it is totally open. We are to address some some of the concerns about the visibility because I know that's really where so much of your decisions begin. We are willing to cover that gate to make it opaque. We're certainly open to that any sort of modifications to the gate itself in order to obstruct any visibility again into that carport or even potentially that cladding to to the left in that picture that you see. As far as one of the things that has been addressed at some point was the slope of the roof and whether that's been into the character of the neighborhood, we have identified other structures in our neighborhood that do have the same slope, that do have that modern design, and even probably later than we should have, we realize that it actually matches the the actual slope of our porch that you can see there coming off the back of our house in that picture that's I think in slide four. And so again it matches in that design. We are not the intro, we're not the first to introduce this design to the neighborhood. Again there are other structures. It Wells Garden and even in the guidelines that we reviewed, it is a very diverse neighborhood. There is not one character of design. Our house is one of a few in our neighborhood that is built from a kit from, so there are several houses, we even have a house to us on the street behind us. So there is no one design, there is no consistent, the diversity is what makes makes our neighborhood unique. So we would ask that you take that into consideration. We also, when you look at and I believe probably from that slide one you can really see our position, our location is very unique within the district. So while we do not contest that we are absolutely within the jurisdiction of the conservation district, we really are right on that line with five points. And so when you do look around at the surrounding structures, and there are again structures in our neighborhood that we would that do have that similar modern design, certainly when you start looking at the five points with flat roof, single slope, and a much more modern design criteria, it really fits in again to all those structures. And I'd like to point out that just one block over on Hardin Street, and this is in the packet that we've submitted, there is a very modern design house with a flat roof that is actually on the National Historic, the Registrar Historic Places, and also in our packet there is an ancillary structure with a flat slope roof at Edisto and Combehe, that also has a very modern horizontal wood design on it as well. So like Andy said, there's a lot of variation in the architecture, but those are two specific examples within 30 seconds of our house that are absolutely almost very similar designs to what we're proposing. And the last thing we would add again, the diversity of the neighborhood also has a diversity of materials, so while our house does tend to be that the brick and wood accents, that that really is what we're dealing with as well as part of the design. We are open to a proposed modification of replacing that the ceramic cladding, which is a much better word than what I've been calling it, so thank you for giving me that lingo. But we are very willing to replace that with with brick or with a even extending that wood that you do see there on the design to to accommodate some of the concerns that we know that staff at least had. And finally the renderings, obviously what you're seeing there, the renderings of that color of the wood is certainly not indicative of the color that we anticipate, which would be darker in the event that that was something that you guys were considering as well. And that sort of concludes my comments. I'll, Madam Chair, if you want, I don't know if we go to Jeff Lewis now or go directly to your questions. I'll we'll take your lead. I think let's let anybody on your behalf go ahead and speak. So who would you like to speak next? Jeff, are you there? I'm here. Can you hear me? Yes, can you just state your name and do you tell the truth in these proceedings? Jeff Lewis, I swear to tell the truth in these proceedings. Thank you. Okay, so when the Wilson's approached me about a year ago, they were talking about doing a full house slash carport. Wanted to make it fairly simple and not obtrusive whatsoever. And the design that we have, we have pretty much, I believe, done that. The colors on our rendering might be a little off just because that's how sometimes the renderings come off different colors. But we're talking about a wood siding structure. At first, they were talking about the ceramic. I did have brick. We can go back to brick very easily and bring that back into the design of the full house. The one thing that, you know, they involved it with the RCB4 and with the structures in the back, it was my understanding at the time was you can do whatever you want to do on the back of the house. Especially, I know that Rachel was saying that you get to see to the backyard. If I'm driving by there, which I've driven by there many times, you can barely see to the backyard. It's not something that's going to be glaring. It's not going to be something that's going to be out there in your face. Like I said, it is a very simple design. I wouldn't even call it modern. The modern piece on this whole thing is the fact that I have a long overhang on the front. So we actually have some cover at the doors by the pool house. So, you know, quite honestly, this is, you know, we do have some single slope roof. We have a single slope roof on the back side of their house on the back porch. It was exactly same with metal on the roof. So as far as why this is not conforming, I don't know if there's, if there's somebody who would like to actually have a conversation with me and help me through the process, I'd be more than happy to do that. And I really have nothing else to say. And I think, just to close to, I think, I understand that you all have a letter from our neighborhood association who we've been very active with. They are very supportive over our quest. Going back to our location and our experience in our neighborhood, we are on what many have called an endangered street. We are one of very few owners that live in the houses here. We have a lot of student housing around us. We love this neighborhood. We want to be able to stay here, but certainly being able to improve our property goes a lot into that decision. And I think that's where you see our neighbors that are very firmly in support of us, which they appreciate. They also call us young in the letter, which I very much appreciate. But I think that's why you see that. We have so few owner-occupied homes. It's an issue in Wales Garden, but Santee Avenue in particulars is a real challenge. And again, if you go back to our location, you really see we are right in five points, essentially. So I think that. Yeah, good. Just to echo what Andy said, we really think that this design will improve the value of the house, is in keeping with the spirit and design of the house in our neighborhood, and will increase the property values around Santee Avenue, which is something that really benefits the city. So thank you for your consideration. Okay. Thank you. I'm going to open it up to commissioners. Does anybody on the commission have any questions or follow-up comments from what we just received? I'd like to make an off-the-chart statement. I do not have screen sharing on my monitors. If anybody can help me with that, I've been having it before without this. How do you mean? Everybody got there? Yeah. Can you see the proceedings as it's occurring? No. No. Okay. I've been able to see everything. Okay. Yeah. Thank you. Yeah. So of course, it has pretty much mirrored exactly what came in the packet. I guess if you're able to at least pull that up, you could use that as a source. I had a clarification. I think both the applicants and Mr. Davis mentioned this. When you said that you were willing to look at using brick, for which specific part of the design were you talking about for that? I was just curious. Yeah. I'll jump in until Jeff does. Let's see. I'm trying to tell you guys which slide on your packet. So I'm looking at slide six in the packet. So you see the wood siding. It's that middle portion there on the slide that you have up. Exactly. Yeah. Right now it is the ceramic cladding, but we would be willing to extend the wood or replace that with brick. And can just to clarify to staff, Amy, Rachel, somebody, can you just clarify where the concerns are or where specifically what's being proposed, how it does not meet the criteria that we're looking at? Because I think Mr. Davis asked that question as well. Right. The criteria state specifically that the outbuilding should reflect the shape and design of the house. As I stated, the house is a two-story brick veneer structure, traditional, very traditional in design. Whereas the structure as proposed has a more contemporary take on both form and material use. The material use that you see on the outbuilding is not similar to that what you see on the house. That I mean, that's just according to the guidelines looking at that, that that was staff's conclusion. I would like to reiterate that the this house with the single slope faces the single slope almost as a mirror vision of our back porch. Of course, that's probably not particularly relevant because we can't see the back porch from the public roadway. I guess before Chloe moved to any other comments or questions or the public input, there was one thing that was said that I'm curious about, which is I think the applicant indicated that they would be willing to change their front. So I do something in order to make this not visible from the street. Is that and this is a question for staff. Is that something that you could envision would be able to be done and still meet the guidelines? It does depend. I had an early conversation with the architects a while back about staking out where it would be to kind of determine visibility. And part of that when I do that with applicants, we look at the height of the structure. And when they have a fence in place, I can draw that line and basically see what's going to be pulled up. If you just see like a tiny bit of the roof, there's really nothing for us to review in that case. So I'd be happy to explore visibility a little bit further. It's been a little bit complicated because I haven't been able to do in person site visits, which has unfortunately complicated things. But if they're wanting to explore that, I'm happy to do that. Because good. That might be the solution. I don't know how the commissioners feel. I mean, I think that the structure looks perfectly fine. It's pretty straightforward, but stylistically clearly is quite a departure from the parts of the house that we can see from the public right of way. I mean, it just is. So I take staff's point, but if there were a way to make it so that it's not visible, or as you say, just a small portion of the roof line is visible, I assume that the applicant likes this stylistic direction. And I mean, it's perfectly fine. You know, there's a stylistic direction in itself. But if there were some way to take this issue of it being visible from the right of way out of the equation, then it can go away from the DRC. So that would, to my mind, that would be the simplest solution. But anyway, Tom, do I speak to that? Sure. I mean, I'm not the chair, but yeah, sure. Go ahead. Yeah, I agree. And one of the things that I know, Rachel said, staking something out, you know, and Tom, you know, as an architect, you know, we need to probably get a contractor over there, you know, put some batter boards up, get something up so you could see it. But what my thoughts were on that was I, you know, we have everything done in 3D. We can actually do a 3D of the house, and we can set at eye level in the middle of the road with something where the gate's closed. You're going to have to have the gate closed anyway, because you have a pool in the back. So it has to be closed up because of the pool. And we could, we had spoken to the Wilson's about actually having something on the gate, so you couldn't see through to the back of the yard. If you want the contractor to put something up and y'all go over there, it's fine. I can also do a 3D rendering, and I'm sure you know, you know, set the height, you set everything, the camera point so you can actually get a complete view of what's happening in the back. Yeah, I get that. I think that, you know, to Rachel's point about seeing things more clearly on-site physically than in a rendering or a photograph, I think it wouldn't have to be very elaborate, and literally it could be a string bolt across, you know, from dirt, post to post. And staff in the past has, I mean, we've gone on site ourselves and held up a stick to the right height, you know, it doesn't have to be anything elaborate, it just basically needs to illustrate where that, where that top line is going to be. I mean, I think that the reality, I don't know how other commissions deal with the reality is that we're just sort of stuck with, you know, a reality that stylistically this is very much different from the existing house in terms of proportion and rhythm and materiality, and it's sort of all of the pieces together. I mean, I think it's a fine, it's a fine design, but I think it's undeniable. Stylistically, it's, it is, you know, quite a departure. So, I mean, I would feel personally, is if, you know, the applicant and you, Jeff, the architecture can have what you want, if it's not visible, that takes the whole problem away. Exactly. I'm with you on that. And, Tom, as you can imagine, stylistically trying to design and build a structure that is stylistically the same design of the house would be pretty expensive to do for the structure, which is trying to keep the budget down, that it didn't have a huge budget, trying to keep the costs down. That's not good with the materials that we can afford at the time. But I do agree with, if we can't see it, shouldn't be a problem. Should we move on then, Amy, to, or is there any other follow-up questions or comments from commissioners? Okay. This isn't really substantive, more procedural. Yeah, I guess at this point, that wouldn't really be a motion for us to approve, right? If they were to withdraw the application and put a fence there that blocks you from public right-of-way. Well, we could, I'm thinking perhaps we could approve it contingent upon a fence that staff agreed that that's not too much responsibility to put on the motion. Yeah, that's, I was thinking that direction as well. And staff always has the option to bring it back to y'all if they feel like there's some question about it. Right. Rachel? Yes, yeah, that's fine. I'm happy to work with that. So we encourage those that would like to communicate via email to begin sending in letters and emails at cocboardmeeting at columbiasc.gov or on the web at publicinput.com slash cocddrc-apr2021. For those wanting to leave a voicemail or speak live, call 855-925-2801. When prompted, please enter the meeting code 7942. Then press star two to begin leaving the voicemail. If you would like to speak live, press star three. Please be sure your audio is also off to avoid feedback. We will now hear any comments that have been received in writing. Yes, we have the email that the applicants mentioned from the Neighborhood Association via Frank Adams. This letter is written in total support of the application of Robert and Annie Wilson, the 537 Santy Avenue in the Wales Garden Architectural Conservation District. Once again, you are being addressed by an elected Wales Garden Neighborhood Association representative motivated solely in protecting, enhancing, and increasing the single family status in our historic neighborhood. You are a body seemingly more concerned with the abstract of bricks and mortar, and as I have told you before, seem rather disinterested in how your decisions affect people. Here we have a young couple both providing distinguished contributions to our city large and to our neighborhood in particular. They have the financial means to readily pick up and move to any neighborhood in this city or in this country. They however want to live in the city and they have steadily improved their property, which is only one of a few on Santy Avenue that is owned and occupied by its residents. Too many others are now student housing. Your decision could be the catalyst as to whether Santy Avenue collapses into a street of loud obnoxious students living in a haphazardly maintained rental structures or whether we preserve the essential stabilizing element of home ownership. Staff recommends denial based on the fact that the proposed enhancements could perhaps be viewed by peering through a metal gate. Although anyone so discomforted would have to either trespass physically on the Wilson's property or be invited to enjoy their hospitality. When Wales Garden agreed to accept what should be a partnership with the Design Development Review Commission to protect and to maintain acceptable standards, all structures rented and owner occupied within our neighborhood, we were assured that DERC influence was to be manifested only from what could be viewed from the street. That does not mean walking onto property in order to view what is ordinarily hidden from past revise. The staff recommendation should be reversed and the Wilson should thus be permitted to invest in their improvement of their home and their neighborhood. A request is that staff be instructed to understand that home ownership and owner occupied residents are the highest priority to Wales Garden. Perhaps diligence should be applied to bringing blighted rental units into an improved status more contributing to an architectural conservation district. And that is all. Anything else? Any voicemails received or anybody calling in live? I do not have any speakers in the queue and I do not have any voicemail. All right. If follow-up comments from the one piece of communication we received or? No, we very much. Oh, I'm sorry. That's great. All right. Not hearing. I'm going to open it up for a motion. I think we had a plan of action in motion. Maybe Commissioner Sabring, do you want to give us a start? I'll give it a shot. I move that we grant a certificate of design approval to 537 Santy Avenue with the condition that a fence be erected that visually blocks the proposed structure from the public right-of-way view contingent upon staff approval. Thank you. Can I have a second? Second. Great. Let's go for a vote. Mr. Brown? Yeah. Ms. Fuller-Weldt? Yes. Ms. Jacob? Yes. Mr. Salibi? Yes. Mr. Sabring? Yes. Mr. Wolfe? Yes. And Mr. Baker? Yes. Thank you. The motion passes. All right. Thank you. Thank you all very much. Thank you. All right. Next case. All right. This is 1107 Woodrow Street. This is a request for certificate of design approval for exterior changes and a request for preliminary certification for the Bayley Bill within the Melrose Heights Oak Lawn Architectural Conservation District. As stated, the current owner is applying for the Bayley Bill but is also requesting to paint the house. Besides painting, the scope of work proposed for the renovation includes roofing and plumbing, electrical and mechanical updates, which are all in keeping with Bayley Bill standards. However, staff finds that the request to paint the brick veneer is not in keeping with Bayley Bill standards or Section 7 of the District Design Guidelines. The applicant has included images of the current mortar and brick condition on several areas of the building, which are not ideal. However, painting is not a solution to poor mortar conditions. In fact, painting over poor mortar patches and areas of missing mortar may lead to further issues down the road. Staff has noted three different issues when looking at the submitted photos, which include improper mortar patching, mortar loss, and cracks. None of the listed issues would be remedied through painting the building. There are several guidelines and standards that staff has found that do not support painting of the brick on a house. I'm not going to run through all of them, but just to give a couple of them. When the design guidelines for masonry state identify, retain, and preserve masonry features, they're important to defining the overall historic character of the building, such as walls, brackets, railings, cornices, steps, columns, joint unit size tooling, bonding patterns, coatings, and color. Also mentioned in the principles for masonry, painting obscures detailing and alters the distinguishing original qualities of a building. The color of brick, as well as mortar color and bonding patterns, can be important parts of the character of a historic building. Because of this, where brick and other masonry finishes are unpainted, they should generally remain so. This building features a smooth red brick and a running bond. As an unpainted house, the brick would have been chosen deliberately as a design feature at the time of construction. Preserving the original brick color of the house maintains historic and architectural integrity of the home. Painting the brick would alter the historic character of the house, and is thus not in keeping with this guideline. As far as Baileyville standards, just like the design guidelines, they speak to maintaining character. Number five of the Baileyville standards states deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced, where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature. The new should match the old and design color texture and other visual qualities and where possible materials. As previously mentioned, there are areas of missing mortar and improper mortar patches on parts of the building. Staff recommends removing improper mortar to avoid additional issues in the future. Likewise, mortar should be replaced with mortar matching the original and composition and visual qualities. Painting the building would alter the original design color and visual qualities of the brick, and is thus not in keeping with the standards. Additionally, paint can lead to further deterioration down the road, especially if underlying sorry, especially if it's under state control. Okay. Yeah. Okay. Sorry, especially if underlying issues are not addressed first. Painting would thus not be considered a repair as required by this standard. So therefore, with staff recommendations, staff finds that the request to paint the brick on the building is not in keeping with section 17-698 of the city ordinance or section seven of the Melrose Heights Oakland architectural conservation district design guidelines and recommends denial of a certificate of design approval for exterior changes. Additionally, staff recommends granting preliminary certification for the Baileyville only if the request for painting be withdrawn. If the request for painting is withdrawn, staff recommends granting preliminary certification for the Baileyville with the conditions that the project meets the 20% investment thresholds. The work meets the standards as outlined in section 17-698 and that all details be deferred to staff. Do you have any questions for staff? I don't at this point. I have one quick procedural question. Is this the way it was worded? I think it's just we're just talking about one motion, but is that wrong? I mean, that would be right if they withdraw the request to paint, then yes, only one motion would be needed. Somebody could make one motion contingent on the withdrawal and the request to paint. Right. But if the DVRC concludes that painting meets the guidelines, you can approve that. All right, thank you. Is the applicant present? Someone trying to connect? Are we checking? I don't see their name in the list. Okay. They were supposed to be here. I'm not sure. I'm not sure what happened. Okay. We can just open it up. Is there any commissioners that have any comments or questions of staff? I don't have the picture on my screen that I remember reading about it. The concern you have is the owner wants to paint the house, is that correct? Right. They want to paint the brick, correct. And as a commercial property next door? Rachel, why don't you clarify? There is a commercial property right next door, yes. This is on the edge of the district. Okay. We're on the right page. That's what I need to know. Any other commissioners? Any questions? Follow-up items? No. We encourage those that would like to communicate via email to begin sending in letters and emails. You can email cocboardmeeting at columbiasc.gov or on the web at publicinput.com slash cocddrc-apr2021. For those wanting to leave a voicemail or speak live, call 855-925-2801. When prompted, please enter the meeting code 7942. Then press star two to begin leaving the voicemail. If you would like to speak live, press star three. Please be sure your audio is muted to avoid feedback on the computer. We'll now hear any comments that have been received in writing. We do have one email. This is from Josh Shelton, president of the historic Melrose Neighborhood Association. I am writing in regards to 1107 Woodrow Street. Our neighborhood association does not agree with the exterior changes, which violate or go against Melrose Heights, Oak Lawn, Architectural Conservation District design guidelines section 6 paragraph 6a reads in part. Painting historic masonry is another concern. The color of masonry particular brick is often an important part of the character of a building. In addition to color, the bonding pattern, treatment of mortar joints, and texture are significant parts of brick buildings. Where brick and other masonry finishes were unpainted, they should generally remain so. We welcome the revitalization of this property, as long as it is in keeping with the architectural conservation district's guidelines. We do not agree with caning the brick of this property and believe the brick and mortar should be repaired. It is essential to protect the unique character of our neighborhood, which is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. And that is the only email. We will now hear any voicemails received, as well as anybody calling in live. I do not have anyone in the speaker queue, nor do I have any voicemail. Okay. Yeah, I believe the applicant never materialized. Correct. I did email him, so I'm not sure. All right. All right. Move in, commissioners. Any follow-up comments or questions, especially after the one piece of correspondence that was received? If not, I'll entertain a motion. I'll make a motion. I will move that we, hang on, sorry, a strange thing happening with my phone. Trying to read this. Move that we grant a preliminary certification for the Bailey Bill with the following conditions for 1107 Woodrow Street with the following conditions that the request to paint is, the masonry is withdrawn, that the product meets or exceeds the 20% investment threshold requirement for qualified rehabilitation expenses and that all work meets the standards for work as outlined in section 17-698 and all for the details deferred to staff. Thank you. Second? Second. All right. We're to vote. Mr. Brim. Mr. Brim. Yeah. Thank you. Ms. Fuller-Wilt. Yes. Ms. Jacob. Yes. Mr. Salaby. Mr. Savry. Yes. Mr. Wolff. Yes. And Mr. Baker. Yes. Thank you. The motion passes. Can I ask a question? I'm sorry. Procedurally, since there was a request for a CDA and that request was not withdrawn by the applicant, should they make a motion to deny the CDA? Nope. That's why I was asking you earlier. Right. Yes. That's what I was hoping he was there to, if he wanted to, to withdraw. Therefore, you wouldn't have to make that motion. Yeah. If you want to keep it super clean, we could do that. Okay. I guess I'll make that motion. I move that we deny certificate of design approval for 1107 Woodrow Street. I think that's it. All right. Second. Do we have someone second? Second. All right. Mr. Brim. Yes. Ms. Fuller-Wilt. Yes. Ms. Jacob. Yes. Mr. Salaby. Mr. Salaby, you're muted. I'll move on. Mr. Savry. Yes. Mr. Wolff. Uh, yes. Thank you. And Mr. Baker. Yes. The motion passes. Okay. So, do we have everything we need for that case? Staff, we're in good shape. Okay. All right. All right. Ready to move on to the next. And I am recusing myself on this one. All right. Yep. Correct. Thank you, Mr. Savry. Okay. So, our next case is 1231 Bay Street. This is the South Carolina State Supreme Court building. The applicants came before the commission in an informational session in September of 2020 for feedback on exterior changes proposed for the building, which is a tier one landmark building. The proposed changes were including new roofing and downspouts to handle water problems and a proposal for a complete replacement of historic windows. Given that this is a landmark building in the city and that the windows on this building are a key architectural element, staff recommended soliciting feedback from the commission at the informational before submitting a formal request. So, the roofing gutter work basically received generally positive comments from commissioners during the informational session. And while there is some loss of historic material to accommodate the gutters, the applicants would really work to minimize the number of gutters on the building still effectively handling the water, but minimizing intrusions on the exterior fabric of the building. The window proposal was a complete replacement of the historic windows with visually similar windows containing ballistic glass. Since they have security concerns for the judges and their staff, the applicants had discussed options they considered, which included abating and rehabilitating historic windows and using ballistic glass as a security storm versus completely replacing the windows, in which case they would use an aluminum substitute, which would reference the original configuration of the windows, but which would contain ballistic glass. Some of the issues they cited with retaining the historic windows entailed a longer rehabilitation period versus the shorter time it would take to replace the windows, the cost of rehabilitation versus cost of replacement, and the problems that they see with interior storm windows. So, during the informational session, the commissioners basically expressed an understanding and an agreement about the need for security for the judges and their staff. Listen to the comments on new ballistically rated windows versus ballistically rated interior storms, which the applicants discussed, but commissioners remarked that the use of interior storms is a standard accepted practice, and they requested that the applicants take a more intense look at interior ballistic storm windows, which would meet both safety concerns as well as the city's preservation language and the ordinance for landmark buildings. The applicants have resubmitted their proposal for formal consideration this month. The submittal is largely the same submitted in September with the addition of a cover letter and one from the Chief Justice, a matrix which they used to evaluate the window proposal options internally within their own program, some refined window specifications for new windows, which are on the screen, and some photos of interior storms in a few Columbia buildings. And additionally, they fabricated a mock-up window to show what kind of detail might be possible with aluminum replacement windows for the commission to review. And I'll just say here, my understanding is this is not intended to be an exact replica of any of the windows on the building, but it's just intended to show the kind of detail that might be achievable with a replacement window. So our ordinance requires that if historic windows are in good condition, then they should be rehabilitated. And while you've received pictures of some of the windows in September's evaluation as well as this month, there's not a window inventory, although staff did walk through the building last year and saw the conditions as I've noted previously. I didn't see that the windows were unrepairable, but generally they were experiencing conditions that might be expected from deferred maintenance. An informed opinion and report from an experience to start rehabilitation firm on the window conditions could have been helpful here. The applicants submitted some photos of local interior storms that were either failing or showed some dirt between the windows and the storm. And while no doubt some storm windows do fail, many do not. The success of storm windows depends upon the design materials and installation. Shenandoah window restoration confirmed to staff that a tightly fitted storm window with adequate separation between the historic window and the interior storm should cause no condensation. And while there are companies that design and install ballistically raised storm windows on historic buildings, we don't have any information presented regarding industry standards or just designs for those historic windows. And if that could have been something accomplished for the windows on this building. So regarding the window replacement proposal staff, we didn't find that the material submitted substantially addressed the ordinance criteria for changes to landmark buildings in section 17674D or the recommendation by the Commission during the informational session in September to explore ballistic storm windows more deeply. And I recommended DeHurl at this part of the application to either allow for subcommittee or for further guidance from the Commission for the applicants. Based upon section 17674D of the City of Columbia zoning ordinance, staff recommends granting a certificate of design approval for better work proposed with all details deferred to staff. And do y'all have any questions for me? Anyone have any questions of staff at the moment? Can you talk about any commissioners themselves? Yes. Okay. I went by there and saw the market and I took picture and the windows themselves, the frames looked pretty good. The question I had is why it looks like it hasn't been very long, is that correct? I'm sorry, Mr. Bram, it looks like it had a what? E, letter E coating. It makes it look green. Oh, on the glass on the maca? Yeah, I think so. Yeah, I am not sure that that would be the actual glass that they would go back with. That is a question we can ask the applicant as we move into that part of the presentation. We can get that answered for you. Okay. So if you look at the existing windows, the glass is more blue. And I'm used to, but if you look at the market, the glass is okay. Okay. With that green, that's the reason I'm asking that question. Right. Well, I think when the applicant speaks, maybe we can explore that further, because I think even the commission, we're probably still trying to get clarity, is based on our last informational session, what a different additional inventory or condition assessment was done on the existing windows. So I think that, but is the applicant present? Yes. To speak. Okay. No, this is Joe Guido from GMK Associates. Okay. And do you swear to tell the truth in these proceedings? Yes, ma'am, I do. All right. Please proceed. Before I begin, Amy, so just to keep this as brief as possible, I can just kind of skip through all the, I don't need to go over any of the downspout and gutter portion of the, yeah, Joe, I tell you what, I think that would be a good idea. And then if the commissioners have any questions on that, they can ask when you're through with your presentation on the windows. How about that? Okay. So we skip that. Okay. Yeah. If the commission is in agreement on that, I think that seems reasonable to me because it wasn't really any concerns with that even in the informational session. Okay. Let me see here. Let's see if I can share your screen. I'm going to go ahead and request that. I'll see my screen. Not yet. Oh, here we go. You clicked on the big green share screen button. Is that? I do. I'm just trying to figure out what screen I'm trying to select. Understood. Oh, goodness gracious. I'm not the most tech savvy one here. I think that's the one. You see the Supreme Court Water... All right. Yes. Looks like we have success. Bear with me. I want to thank you all, all the members of the commission for your time and consideration. We are GMK, an architectural firm working with the South Carolina Department of Administration to make repairs to the South Carolina Supreme Court building located at 1231 Jirei Street. As I said, I'll try to be brief and go through everything as quickly as possible. I know there's a lot of material to cover. Just to recap, again, this was a building that was originally constructed as a post office in... It started in 1917 and completed in 1921. It's a neocastal building style. In 1999, it was converted to Supreme Court Outbuilding. Originally, just a little additional information. When this was the post office, it did have a ceiling height throughout the facility at 23 feet. During the 1969 renovation, the ceiling around the perimeter of the building was lowered to 136. Then at some point, I'm not sure when, it might have been during the 1969 renovation, they actually added an intermediate floor between floors one and two. You can see this in this little photograph off to the side here where the intermediate floor now resides right at the base of the arch of the window. In 1969, it went through some major transformation. In our previous DDRC review, we went through five window options or we looked at five window options. One was restoring the existing windows. Although we determined that this option was infeasible for the following reasons. The restoration of these windows would not address security vulnerabilities, which were identified by the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division and the Bureau of Protective Services. It would require a lengthy asbestos and letterbatement process, which would require about two to three months per building elevation. It would require the staff to be relocated for an extended period of time. The restored windows would not give us any new additional energy efficiencies, nor would they provide any type of warranty. This was not a desirable approach. Option number two was to restore the existing windows and then to install external storms. Again, this has a lot of the same issues as option number one, but the exterior storms were not a good consideration because it deteriorated the aesthetics of the exterior of the building and neither DDRC nor the agency really cared for that aesthetic appearance. Option number three was to restore the windows and install internal storms. This option again has some of the same issues with option number one as far as relocating a staff, asbestos, batement, and cost. But it was something that the DDRC Commission appeared to favor and they did ask us, they tasked us at the end of that meeting to go out and look at some examples, which I have. Option number four was to use the existing metal frames and to install a thermal or ballistic glass panes within the existing strap metal type windows, window frames. We did consult a restoration expert. They indicated that the existing metal frames could not support this type of glazing, so that option was basically not a feasible approach. And then finally, option number five, which was to replace the existing windows with thermally ballistic-grated glazing frames. This was an option that the Department of Administration preferred. It basically checked off all of our boxes. It provided the security for vulnerabilities by giving us the ballistic-grated windows. It expedited the renovation process. It was take about a fraction of the time to make the renovations. It also provided energy efficiencies. It would reduce energy costs by 30%, reducing cooling and heating demand tonnage by 10 to 15 tons. Replacement would give us a warranty and it would fall within the agency's budget. So upon our conclusion of our October 8th meeting, we were able to narrow five options down to basically one, three, and five. Some of our takeaways from that meeting were to look at some examples where internal storms were used, that if replacement was used, the replacement windows would now have to replicate or come as close to the existing profiles as possible. For example, one of the items that we discussed during October 8th was the vertical muttons overlapped the horizontal muttons. And then finally, in an effort to better understand this process and the range of factors that go in to the consideration of replacing versus restoring, we took it upon ourselves to go out and we found a GSA project analysis matrix template for assessing values of restoration or replacement. And so we've gone ahead and done that. But just to take a step back, this is just an example of one of the projects, one of the properties we went and saw. This is 807 Jervais Street and this is where a large internal storm window, you can see this darker paint frame is the internal storm. It's the full width of the wind, full height and width of the window. And the window here in the back is the existing historic window. And there's this dead air plenum space between the two. And what happens is over time that this area kind of traps dust and debris. And unfortunately, in this situation, the internal storm is so large that the tenant or the owner, they can't even remove it to clean between the panes. They have to hire a third-party window company to come in every couple of years, take down the big internal storm so that they can clean out that dust and debris and actually clean the inside face of their exterior window. And this is just a little photo of a, you know, showing a vine going through the original metal window. And it can't be, they can't get to and clean it. And unfortunately, it's a shame because it's a beautiful building, windows are a big attribute. But these windows look dirty. And it's just, it's not something that accentuates the feature of a window, which should be accentuated. It's kind of a deterrent. The next project we went to was, the building we went to was Mills Jarrett. This is a wood window situation where an internal storm was used. At the Mills Jarrett, you can kind of see here, these are smaller windows, everything's at a little bit smaller scale. In this photo, you can see the exterior sill of the window, you can see where the pane is peniling and blistering. But that same condition is actually happening here in the plenum space. But it's not really happening here inside the building on the window sill space. So we feel like this plenum, which not only starts to trap bugs and dust, what it does is it also traps whatever condensation forms in there or whatever heat buildup forms in there. And it kind of exacerbates a situation where the backside of this window sash is peeling and blistering. It doesn't look pretty. It's hard to get to and clean. And it's just not something we think it's a shame that this is the alternative when you use an interior storm. It's not something more attractive. So just some examples. Our concern here is that if we put something like this in, particularly with a metal window, when you have the condensation, the rust will be accentuated, the moisture in there. We're concerned that the window might deteriorate quicker than it currently is. This slide right here is the window analysis matrix that I had mentioned earlier. This is by GSA. It is their assessment matrix. Each category, the vertical lines are a category. And each one has a numerical value, one to three. One being the best value, three being the worst. Each one of these categories deals with retaining historic materials, matching historical appearances, thermal performances, meeting security requirements, ease of maintenance, operability, risk of damage to the interior finishes, lifespan, internal initial costs, and lifecycle costs. So each one of these has a specific value. And these horizontal lines coincide with our one, three, and five option. Option number one was to restore the existing windows. And based on the values one to three, again, one being the lowest, and with regards to retaining historic materials and the historic matching the existing historic preference, you see restoration has a lower value here in the beginning of this matrix. But as far as lifecycle costs, maintenance, lifespan, it scores poorly and it has a higher weighted value. So all in all, for restoring the windows, we're looking at a score of 25. For restoring the existing windows and installing internal ballistic storms, we have a score of 24. This option did better with when it came to addressing vulnerabilities and security needs. But still, it was rather high at 25. Option number five, which was to replace with new ballistic thermally insulated windows. You can see that, you know, we weren't reusing the existing materials. So we had a high score of a three here in the beginning. But as you go through the matrix, you're seeing we're getting a lower score when it comes to lifespan, initial cost, lifecycle costs, I mean, risk of damage to the interior finishes, and things to that. So we actually came out with a really low score of 16 for replacement. Just want to, I think the time is actually approaching. I wasn't sure where you were in the presentation. So I just wanted to interject that. I appreciate that. Thank you. I'm sorry. Yes, I'll run through real quick. And as far as the question had come up initially about the mock-up, the whole point of this mock-up was not to try to provide a full-scale window, but basically a small-scale window with each condition. For example, where a mutton terminates into a jam or a mutton overlaps a mutton, you know, the size and how a mutton in a mullion terminates. So this was just kind of a mock-up. This mock-up was provided as a standard color. We can get a custom color to match what's existing. And yes, the color, the glazing, excuse me, the glass, this was what they had in stock. We were trying to rush to get this out the door, but we can go with a clear glass to match. This is one of the details that we are talking about trying to recreate. This is the original window where the mutton overlaps a vertical overlaps a horizontal. This is what we're proposing. You know, we're trying to match this detail, come up with the same look so that it appears identical. And then this is our final slide. Again, just a typical jam sill detail. This is what we're proposing. We're trying to match it. What's going to happen is this new window is going to sit over top of the existing steel window. We're going to leave the steel window frame in the wall so that we do not disrupt the asbestos and lead that there needs to be an abatement process from within, this way the occupants will only be out of their office for maybe a day or two while the window is being swapped out, but it won't require them to be gone for two to three weeks. And if I can, just sum up, you know, after reviewing all the information and looking at all of our options, it appears to us that replacement makes the most sense. And I understand that there's a desire on behalf of the city and some on this commission to preserve, build the elements at all costs. However, there are occasions where replacement is permissible and where it makes sense. And I think the GSA matrix does a pretty good, pretty good job giving us a weighted value that goes, that's involved with the decision making process. It's not uncommon that buildings are upgraded. And, you know, this happens all the time, we're replacing parts and components in buildings that no longer are being manufactured or they become obsolete. Whether it be a light fixture, mechanical equipment, an elevator, or even finishes, it's, this is just as true in historic buildings as it is in average everyday buildings. I mean, last year, I was involved with the replacement of the State House doors on the East entrance. The door was old, severely weathered. It didn't function properly. It was drafty. There was, it was a maintenance nightmare. And it didn't even accommodate a person in a wheelchair. Yet, the door was replaced. A new automatic door operator is installed. A new door was put in. It looks great and it's worthy of being in the State House. Thank you. I'm sorry. I hate to, I want to stop you just because I have it a little bit longer, but I want to make sure we have enough time if we want to go back and forth a little bit as well. Understood. No, no. You know, we, we understand and appreciate the challenges here. Yeah. That's procedurally. Do we move to see if commissioners have any questions at this point or do we see if there's any other applicants to add? Where are we? Well, I do we, do we have justice, Chief Justice on this line as well? I think I saw him on earlier. Are you on, sir? I know he had something he wanted to add, but you may step in. Yeah, no. I see him on there. I don't know if he's, I think he's muted. Do you like me to turn the screen back over? Muted or unmuted? I'm not. Let's see. Does the Chief Justice have something he wants to share or do you would like to just speak? I guess if we can stop sharing the applicant, then we can get back to the procedural side. Okay. What do we, what do we need to do, staff help me out? It looks like the, and I see the note from Ashley Lancaster. Yeah, it appears he's not muted, but for some reason we can't hear him. I'm not sure why that is, but when he's trying to speak, you could call in. You may be having some microphone problems. Can we put the instructions or call in on the screen and perhaps? Yeah. I think we're trying to do the transfer of power. Right. Okay. Can you see that now? Yes, we can. All right. Yes, we encourage those that would like to communicate via email to begin sending in letters and emails to COC board meeting at columbiasc.gov or on the web at publicinput.com slash the OCDDRC hyphen APR 2021. For those wanting to leave a voicemail or speak live, call 855-925-2801. When prompted, please enter the meeting code 7942, then press star two to begin leaving the voicemail. If you'd like to speak live, press star three, and please make sure your computer audio is off to avoid feedback. We'll be able to get a connection. I think it looks like the Chief Justice left his desk. I'm presuming he's going to a phone. Perhaps. Is there anything received in writing, staff, while we're waiting here? We have no email. Okay. Wait a minute. Here's something. And I had to go to another. I apologize for the technology problems, but we experienced a problem this morning. We had our IT people come in and repair it. And now, Lord, I'm going to hold this out again. Understood. Sir, if you would mind, if you would just state your name and do you swear to tell the truth in these proceedings? I do. My name is Don Bate, and I do swear to tell the truth during these proceedings. Thank you. Yes. Please. Again, I'd like to apologize for the delay and concluding our remarks to the commission. We do appreciate the opportunity to come before you and to respond to your concerns expressed to us back in September. I think everything that needs to be said has been said, but I want to reiterate our security concerns here. In fact, recently this week, we had a lady stand outside of this Supreme Court building and heard of water bottles at the building. About two weeks ago, we had one of our courthouses, or at least a gentleman was sentenced to jail for trying to bomb our courthouse in pickets. And in fact, the bombs were there. A few years back, we had one of our courthouses breached and set afire. We get threats on a regular basis. And our judges here and quite a bit of our staff on street level, right where the windows are. And we need some protection, and it's a very serious matter. And we are hopeful that in your consideration, you consider the safety of our justices and our staff in this building. We've taken up all way too much time, more than the time it was a lot, so I'll stop now. Thank you very much. Thank you. All right, I think we'll move to comments from commissioners. Comments, clarifications. I'm sorry, staff, I assume there were no other voicemails or emails or such. I'm going to assume. There was a question about one of the comments I saw in the materials. It stated that there's no proof the existing windows are the original windows installed at the building. Staff, any have any comments on that? I didn't say that. I didn't say they weren't the original. No, I believe, and I could be getting this confused with another project, but I believe I saw in some of the materials, not that you presented. But there's no indication, or I guess staff couldn't tell or determine whether the existing windows in the building were original, meaning that if they weren't, then it might not necessarily be the historic windows that are being replaced. Staff want to comment on that? Sure, yeah. So I think that was actually in part of the documentation from the applicants in terms of there were renovations in the 60s to the building. Staff's take is that those are original. I haven't seen anything to show me that they are not original to the building. And I don't know that there's, Joe, I don't know that there's really any documentation out there that says that they're not original, unless y'all have something that I don't. No, I don't think we were contesting that, or that certainly wasn't our intent. We don't know. So I think the commission is struggling, as I'm sure you can appreciate, because there's no doubt about the need for protection and the need for what we're trying to accomplish here. We're just trying to accomplish it within the criteria that's been laid out. So I'm still struggling a little bit myself to understand, have we been able to thoroughly determine that the current bills just aren't viable or able to, I guess I'm struggling still a little bit myself on that one. Well, I know that it wasn't our intention to make the argument that the windows are beyond restoration. What I guess our argument here is, or our opinion is, is that the window, certainly the existing window can't support a ballistic pane, it just can't support the load physically. I understand that. Right. So I guess the opinion that we're trying to present here is that the window is not functioning as it needs to function in today's society, where we need this window to be ballistic rated. And so it's obsolete or, you know, it's beyond repair in that we cannot adapt it for ballistic glazing. And I think, you know, in what we had commented even previously, and as we've worked on projects around the country, and it has been addressed with these interior ballistic storm windows. And so your concern that was presented was just for the couple of places you went to where they weren't being maintained correctly or not installed correctly or there was something going on, correct? That's correct. There was the visual aesthetics of having a ballistic or thermal pane installed was one aspect. The other aspect was to restore the windows and then to go through the expense of restoring the windows, which is, which was beyond the budget initially, then to compound it with the installation of a ballistic rated glazing would would be well beyond the project's scope. It would it would that's a little that's a different situation than the charge that we're facing. I'm trying to identify how this commission, the landmark building and doing something that, you know, making sure whatever the precedent is or isn't. Please tell me I'm not sure everybody understands what I'm saying. So we're just, I'm trying to understand how, you know, it'd be great if we just had a better window inventory report that just said, you know, really these windows really just aren't viable to be saved. Do we have something like that? Or is it just more from the comparison perspective? We do not have an assessment of the windows that says that they're non salvageable. Okay. I don't like other commissioners. Y'all please comment or give thoughts on this? I might want to add to, I read the report that the frames are painted with lead paint and the caulking has led in as well. Is that correct? I believe so. Yes. So being said, that has to be abated. The intent is for the metal frames to be left in place around the perimeter and that they would be cut from the exterior on scaffolding. So basically the webbing be cut and pulled out from the exterior to avoid having to do abatement of lead and asbestos at the wall, because the walls actually contain asbestos, the interior walls. Okay. Thank you. Other commissioners? Hi, this is Angie. Sorry. Joe, thinking about the option of using storm, the ballistically rated storm windows, are you saying that the examples that you reviewed would be the type of work that your company would do? Or is it possible that putting in ballistic rated storms properly would avoid the situations that you've documented here? We would work with the ballistic company basically using their standard details and installation practices because all of this has to be installed in a manner that the companies would warranty their product. When you're dealing with ballistic rated frames, the way that it's anchored and what the frame is made of, that all impacts the ballistic rating of the system. So they do have standard installation and mounting processes. But what we have determined through our own experiences, when you do have whether it be an external storm or an internal storm, there does appear condensation and dust and dirt collect. And I'm sure you're all aware of that in any house as a storm window. As a matter of fact, I just power washed all mine last weekend. The problem is with a ballistic storm is that they're so large and heavy that it becomes difficult to install something that is operable. I don't know if there's a such creature for that. And that was our only concern is that we've seen what smaller internal storms look like, just regular eighth inch panes of glass and how after a couple of years or months that space begins to look. It just doesn't seem like it would be appropriate to have that in a national registry building or for that matter a Supreme Court's office, Supreme Court Justice's office. So we're trying to come up with a solution that is both aesthetically pleasing, it's sensitive to the historical nature of the building and it's functional. I mean there are maintenance concerns that you have to take into consideration as well as costs. Angie, do you have any follow-up to that or? No, thank you. Any other commissioners? I mean this is a tough one. Oh, thank gosh. Okay, yes. Go ahead. I don't want to put my foot in my mouth. You know, I think people are all aware of the security concerns of the Supreme Court Justices and in one of our main hurdles here is and I actually had the opportunity to go out and take a look at the mock-up and it's quite well done. My main concern was the where the grills and the disparaging sizes, but that seems to be sufficiently explained in the submitted materials. You know, I think if we're concerned with setting a precedent here, this is an unusual situation where the residents of the building or the inhabitants of the building are at an elevated risk, right? Something that doesn't typically come before us. You know, I know we're really only concerned with how it looks from the right of way, the public right of way, but I don't think that based on what I saw in the mock-up, it's terribly different considering the security risks at hand. My only thought and I also went to view the mock-up myself and the mock-up gave a pretty good representation of even some of the smaller windows that are actually on the second level, which aren't as visible as those large arched, you know, very large ones that are very visible on the first level. I agree with you if we go down that road stating the precedent and the purpose is very important for this, but I think we would almost need to see a mock-up of that, those big windows. I mean, I almost feel like we would need to see and approve, you know, like a full-scale mock-up of how that could actually do, because those first floor, the big, you can mention ourselves, do you know what I'm talking about? Like the one on there is just a small one and so the large ones, a little bit more intricate, I don't know, I mean, feedback. Angie, I mean, what do you think? No, I agree with you. I think that that seems like something that we should be able to see and evaluate. See and approve. Yeah, yeah. Joe, she was talking about the arch, the oversized window. You do not have a mock-up for it to be too extensive, but the frame itself is going to be the same throughout that, correct? Yes. The frame and the shape and all are going to be the same. Correct, yes. The window hierarchy, am I unmuted? Yes, we can hear you. The window hierarchy will be the same. We're going to try to match where there's a, currently where there's a mullion where the old windows would swing open. We're going to put a wider, fixed mullion there. Yeah, we're trying to mimic it as best we can so that if you're driving by, you wouldn't, it wouldn't catch your eye at all. I'm not opposed to doing a full-scale mock-up. Obviously, we would have to go ahead and get a custom color selected and things of that nature. That's where I was hoping to get an input from the actual owner of the building, the Department of Administration, they would be the ones to determine whether they would be willing to afford that expense for this. I certainly appreciate y'all's consideration for that. I know this is a challenge for you. I understand this is a precedent situation. I think to be good stewards of the decision, we would almost need that to have confidence in how it's, I think that's a very reasonable request. Dan, are you available to comment on that? Or Ashley? All right, this is Ashley. I'm here. I guess my question would be, Joe, well, does the budget accommodate that? I mean, what I would hate to do is spend, I don't know how much that larger mock-up would cost, but I wouldn't want to spend tens of thousands of dollars on something that would then potentially be rejected. That would be my fear. I understand exactly what the committee's requesting. And then if we did do that and it was approved, is the mock-up then usable? As part of the larger project? Will, would the board consider doing one of the where smaller windows and actually, I mean, do an install or you don't want to? Well, my struggle is just the difference between the two windows. It's such two different type windows, you know, and scale, size, features, all the above. I agree with Chloe. I would imagine, though, to, in response to Ashley's comment, I would imagine if it's a full-scale mock-up and it's, you know, good if you'd be able to use it. I mean, someone tell me, is that normal? Yes, no. I imagine we could install it. I guess we'd have, it would be a conspense consideration, I think would be the big thing, because that small mock-up was around $6,000 to have fabricated and it did take, it took about 12 weeks before we got that in, nine to 12 weeks. Well, I think we're trying to find a middle road here. Sure. That is what makes us all, you know, responsible, all our charges, so to speak. Well, I'll say that I'm going to be taking my direction from the project manager, which would be, I think either Ashley or Dan, Dan Perini, I think is running this enough. I think I need to have him speak to that. I'm texting with Dan as well on the side. Understood. I mean, unfortunately, this is definitely more in the commission's purview, but I mean, I think we're just trying to identify what would be responsible and comfortable on our behalf. I think if that is what we need to try to get to a positive decision, you know, and to make you all feel comfortable with this and really be able to also meet the needs of these tenants that are, of course, very special with the spring car being there and certainly protecting their safety, we would be willing to do the mock-up if that's what needs to be done to move forward. Let me ask, do staff have any comments on what we're talking about at this point? No, I mean, I certainly support the direction that if y'all are moving in the direction of allowing for new windows, a full-scale mock-up is definitely pretty standard and would definitely be needed since these are significant pieces of architecture in the building. So I think I'm still trying to wrap my head around really how it fits, like the windows would fit into the existing frames, Joe. I know you're talking about tearing them or cutting them out and then installing them. So from the standpoint of how the windows sits within the entire frame, would it actually be forward, I think, forward of the existing windows as they sit now? And I mean, I think from the sections you sent me, the glass looks bigger, but certainly the ballistic glass is bigger. But in terms of how they're placed in those openings, they would attach to the existing framing and they would be flush with it sort of in this way. In my packet, I have a little detail of the sill detail of the existing and showing the new frame sitting in there. So basically what's happening in those frames, there is an L bracket that's been placed on the outside of the window, it's like a piece of trim, but the actual frame of the window is embedded into the wall. And we are proposing to leave the embedded piece into the wall on metal windows. And we're going to take the L bracket off the front, leave the embedded piece in and basically take a saw and cut the webbing and all the glass panels will come out and then we'll cut the webbing. The new panel will sit on basically pushed up against the existing frame that's embedded in the wall and a larger L bracket will be put on the inside. So these will be braced with a steel angle on the inside or I should say a head and duty aluminum angle on the inside. And then that will be covered with new trim. So on the exterior of the building, it will be relatively unchanged. It's just the perimeter jam or the perimeter track around the entire window will be slightly larger about an inch larger than it currently is to conceal all of that. Thank you. So it was a good clarification. Commissioner comments on that. So what we're hearing then is the new windows going in will be a slight different look or appearance on the front. In that little packet that you have dimensions on it, you'll see it's I think it went from I don't know two and a half to three and five eighths or something like that. But I think out of window at that scale and as wide as it is and tall as it is, one inch difference is very hard for the eye to pick up. But all the internal millions and muttons will be spot on. Commissioners, any other follow-up comments or questions? As I move for anyone to make a motion, let's clarify with staff. There are we kind of handling this as two items, one being the gutter work separate from the window. We're just helping to clarify how best to proceed. I think that would be cleaner and more helpful to our applicants. Yeah. Okay. All right. So first I will ask commissioner would like to make any motion in regards to the roof gutter work as presented. Andrew, are you on? I'm trying to find the appropriate language. Understood. Yeah. I was also searching for that. Well, I was like, I know this one's a little interesting. So I think on page eight of our packet, you know, you kind of find for the the roof gutter. Angie, do you want to do the roof gutter? And then when we move into the next or I'm just trying to figure out how best to proceed here, whoever would like to make a motion on the roof gutter, please. Okay. I think I can do this. Okay. I move that the DDRC approve the request for the certificate of design approval for the roof and gutter work proposed at 1231 Jervais Street, which is an individual landmark within the city center design development district, with proposed proposed with all as proposed with all details deferred to the staff. Thank you. Do I have a second? Pardon me. Did that did that cite the section? I might have missed that. No, it did not. That would be section 17-674 D. Thank you. All right. I'll call for a vote. Mr. Brown. Thank you. Ms. Fuller-Wilke. Yes. Ms. Jacob. Yes. Mr. Salibi. Yes. Mr. Wolfe. Mr. Wolfe's still with us. It looks like he's muted. Yes. Sorry. Thank you, Mr. Wolfe and Mr. Baker. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Baker. That motion passes. All right. Thank you. So now we need a motion for some idea of how to proceed forward with the windows, window replacement. So it sounds like a mock-up is going to be put together that we're going to allow to be used in the final construction assuming it meets our satisfaction. Are we going to review that by subcommittee? Well, I think, I mean, this is the challenge with the whole window replacement. You know, I think there's several things here that the commissioners need to feel comfortable with. One is the proposal. If we, and if we are comfortable with the proposal, then what are the parameters on that proposal? Like you just reviewed, in my opinion. And if we do kind of support the proposal, we need some very strong language on the precedent and what makes this unique. I'm just trying to lay out all the options, right? I mean, one is potentially subcommittee. I, you know, it's such a tough one. Yes. Amy, help me. Am I hitting all the points? I mean, it can be anything. If anybody has any emotion or feeling about how to proceed best. Yeah, there are several options. So, you know, we did talk about a hierarchy of windows, perhaps earlier on that was in your packets here. If y'all wanted to look at second floor windows, if you wanted to look at complete replacements and get a mock-up, if you feel like that storm windows are a viable option with the rehabilitation of the existing windows, which are all, I think, possibilities that have been brought up, or I guess you could do some combination of those. So, yeah, it depends on where the commission's comfort level is. And yes, indeed, this is a serious and potentially precedent setting motion so well. We absolutely want the justices and their staff safe and secure. You do need to think about possible implications down the road for the many other requests we get for window replacement that don't meet the ordinance guidelines or the ordinance language and how to handle that appropriately, potentially put us in a great bind. Thank you. So, I'll open up to, the commissioner has a thought of a course of action here. Just to clarify with the applicant, you are okay putting together a mock-up of the larger first floor windows? Yes, we would prefer, this is Ashley Lancaster, we would prefer to do that than to have you make a decision now that does not fully approve replacement of all the windows. So, you would prefer that over say, for instance, approving the ballistic window replacement on the second floor with the first floor approval pending staff's review, staff and commission review of a mock-up? I didn't realize that was one of the options. I thought what you were going to be approving was that we would only be able to do certain floors and that that would be the end of it. So, I think what we're really looking for is our goal is to make the, if possible, is to get the committee comfortable with being able to replace all of the windows with the ballistic protection included. Correct. Right. Well, and I think anything we do is towards that goal that there's so many ways to get there, okay? So, I mean, I think we all understand what the need is. The question is how to get there and how us to meet the criteria that are laid out for us to follow as well, given what the information we have right now without asking, we could go to a subcommittee and possibly get a better window inventory that would validate, you know, I mean, there's so many ways to take this. So, I'm just, we're trying to figure out, excuse me, I'm like thinking as we're talking, you know, how best to proceed. Andrew, did that help at all? It did, yeah. And, you know, maybe if I could clarify a little more, I'm envisioning a situation where, you know, maybe a motion is made that approves the ballistic glass replacement on the second floor, first floor pending subcommittee review of a mock-up. But, you know, depending on what they determine could lead to a, well, you know, the second floor is okay with the replacement, but the first floor, that's just too visible. The ballistic glass is too different. That maybe on the first floor, we recommend the interior storm windows with restoration of the exterior existing windows. Or we're applicant, is it all or nothing, right? So, if the second floor is approved, then first floor is all or nothing. Well, I mean, the applicant has stated their preference, but I think we need to move forward as we fill best within our charge, you know, then that's in consideration of also the goals that I know everybody's trying to reach here. Did that help? I think I feel like we need more information. So, would a deferral on that aspect to either have a subcommittee or to see the mock-ups be appropriate here? I think anything's appropriate here. I think we need to figure out what the commission is comfortable doing. And I appreciate your, I mean, I understand, Angie, I think that's exactly what we're all wrestling with. Speaking to the commissioners, does anyone have a problem who's had an opportunity to go review the existing mock-up with that being used as a full replacement of the existing window in the second floor? Yes, sir. Yeah. But just for the second floor? Right, understood. Yeah. And those are not quite as visible to being up higher. So, yes, I would say I'm probably comfortable with that. Thank you for taking it. For me, I think the issue could be if we approve the ballistic on the second floor, you know, does that determine, and we want, we want the, we want visually for the first floor to match the second floor, obviously. So, I'm not sure that we... Yeah, I guess one thing for, go ahead, Angie. Well, and you don't get the full project budget if you, if we say approve the second floor. Well, yeah, I mean, one thing for all us to consider is, you know, given the unique security requirements, is it, is it, is it press, is it, is it unique enough that we can come up with a precedent for this particular project that won't transfer to other projects? That's one thing for consideration. And then the second is how best to deal with whatever is put in the place of the window. I think the state of affairs and in the inhabitants of the building establish enough, well, a strong enough of a precedent that, that where this will not carry over into other projects. I mean, maybe I could see at the state house, but, you know, thinking of buildings with such important inhabitants toward democracy, I'm having trouble thinking of something that compares. It's tough. I mean, I think now government too, going, you can, you know, people the height and security is everywhere, but yeah, I think you're right. Maybe we can make sure we word it. If we go that direction, tend to make it unique. I hesitate to make a motion in the worry that not everybody is on board and then we go back. Well, it may not be. I mean, I think if someone has an idea of a motion, let's put it out there and you can always take it to a vote and let's see where we end up. All right. Well, in that case, I will make a motion that based upon section 17674D of the city of Columbia zoning ordinance and taking into consideration the extreme importance of the safety of the inhabitants of the building and the current risks posed to them by the state of affairs and society currently that we grant a certificate of design approval or the replacement of the windows at 11 1231 Jervais street with the ballistic windows as proposed by the applicants. Would you are you adding to that amendment anything about the mock-up? Are you is that there is that your is that your motion? That's my motion considering the concern of having mismatching windows, which would be worse than then a yes or no. Staff, what is protocol? Do you take the original motion and go through with it? And then if someone wants to amend it or do you try to do an amendment? I think you do. If y'all correct me if I'm wrong, I think you go for a second and then you discuss and then there there you would and then you would make an amendment if needed. All right. I'll second the motion. Okay. I think where I was struggling with the motion, I would amend it to don't disagree with making sure we have the unique qualifiers for this project and why we would grant the certificate for replacement. But I do think it's probably not reasonable for us to request that full scale mock-up to view before all the windows are replaced. I agree with Chloe. Just to clarify the existing mock-up is satisfactory in my opinion. You think it is? I guess I wasn't feeling that it was. Existing mock-up appears to be satisfactory as we're meeting up with what we're trying to do. I disagree because of the scale of the larger windows with the arches and all of that. It's hard for me to picture. Chloe, so are you saying that approval would be contingent upon approval of the mock-up if y'all choose to go in that direction? Correct. Okay. I just wanted to be clear. Right. Right. That amendment is acceptable to me. Because of course that would be state and architect working with staff. I mean, we want success. We definitely want the mock-up to be successful, but I think we need some comfort in that. So I'll amend my motion to make approval contingent upon staff in commission's satisfaction with the mock-up of the larger first floor window. Do we need a new second on the amended motion? I think so. Second. All right. Thank you. Any more discussion? Do we want to try a vote and see what happens? All right. Mr. Bram. I'm here. I'm thinking about that. Is that larger version of what we already have? Right. More like the scale of the first floor window. Is that included in your heart? Yes. Thank you, Mr. Bram. Ms. Fuller-Wilt. Yes. Ms. Jacob. Yes. Mr. Salibi. Yes. Mr. Savery. Oh, sorry. Mr. Wolff. Yes. And Mr. Baker. Yes. The motion passes. All right. And staff, did we have all the language in there that we needed? Well, we have it on video. I think we do. Okay. I think we do. All right. I know that was a process there. Right. All right. I think to be clear, just to make sure we're all on the same page, next steps then would be creation of a mock-up. That would be placed next to one of the existing windows when it's finished. And then it would come back to DRC for approval. Or I might have missed something with the motion on that. I want to be clear. Yes. I think that makes sense. Okay. Andrew, does that make sense to you? It does. Yeah. Okay. Thank you very much. I appreciate y'all's time on this. All right. Yeah. Thank you all. Have a good job. Thank you. So yeah. Next slide. We can skip 915 Pine Street. This was the one that was deferred this afternoon. Okay. This request is for a driveway extension located at 921 Pine Street. This existing two-story single-family residence was built in 1997 prior to the establishment of the historic district and currently has a front approaching roughly a 17-foot wide driveway built to accommodate two vehicles. The owners are requesting to extend the driveway in additional 9 feet and width further into the left yard space to accommodate more vehicle parking. Based on section 17-674 of the city ordinance, driveways cannot exceed 12 feet in width. Driveway construction is typically handled at staff level, but as the current driveway already exceeds what it is allowed, staff cannot grant approval. The owner is appealing staff decision to allow for the additional paved space. The requested paved space would be approximately 440 square feet of the front yard, which is within the 500 square feet of yard space and allowed paved space in the front yard, allowed by zoning ordinance. However, in regard to a historic district, where driveways are required to be placed so as to minimize its visual impact on the primary structure, this driveway will be more than 50% of paved front yard space, which would greatly impact the primary structure once cars are parked directly in the front yard. In addition, per zoning ordinance, they are only required to provide two parking spaces for a single-family residence, which is already accommodated within the existing driveway. Staff does not recommend approval of this driveway extension due to the existing placement of the driveway and its visual impact on the primary structure, the inconsistency in keeping with driveway patterns within the historic district, and the fact that the existing driveway already exceeds the ordinance by five feet. And I believe the applicant is here. Applicant President? Yes, I am here. And my name is Wade Chen. Okay, and do you swear to tell the truth in these proceedings? I do. All right, yes, please proceed. The, on that street, when I count how many houses that has parking in the front yard, very few houses has parking in the front yard, and we all have to park on the streets. And luckily, that three of our house, three of the house there next to me has parking, two parking, and mostly around there has no parking. So people park right in front of my house. I eventually, with the third car, had to park somewhere else, and people knock on the door asking to remove the car, not park in front of their house, which understand is public park, but then everybody claiming that parking in front of their house is their parking. So we have shortage of parking, and many of those who has yard in the front, they just park their car in the front yard without parking space, without pay. So I'm asking that not only me, but for those who has base land in front of the yard, permitted to pay for parking to eliminate fighting over parking. And we cannot park in our front house. We have to go to the next street, which is good, have to find other place. And it's a walking distance to the house. So my conclusion is, it's a shortage of parking, and I have space to make it a parking. Yet understanding is a historic, and want to reserve it as historic as much as possible. But as a resident to live there, it is not an ideal to reserve it where it can look nice. But for the residents who have hardship to find parking, can you all hear me? Hello? I can hear you. Yes. I'm sorry, yes. We heard you. Yes. And that's all of my, what I need to tell. Okay. Thank you. Any follow-up questions? Commissioners? This is more directed at staff. This is an initial matter. Would this need to get approval from the Board of Zoning Appeals? It would not, since it is within the 500 square feet of allowed yard space. So the total square footage with the existing driveway, I think comes in at roughly 440 square feet. And I believe the zoning requirement is 500 square feet is the limit. And looking at the current, the pictures of the current layout, the curb cut seems to be blocking where the proposed driveway expansion would go. Is there also a request? Maybe, I'm not sure how it works. Would you just cut back the public right of way? I'm sorry, what was the question? So with the existing curb, it being, I don't know the proper verbiage, the curb cut, the elevated curb, whereas driveway you have the slope, would they then need to come in and cut out the public right of way and repave that? Yes, with the driveway extension, it would include a new curb cut. I'm sorry, I'm not able to get to the hyperlink in the agenda that was emailed to us for this. Is there, are there, yeah, thank you. I just wanted to see some photos. Also, could you clarify, I'm sorry, what was the aspect that you said was already over the, I don't know, square footage or the width, I think it was, is that correct? The width is already over? Correct, it's over by about five feet. So the ordinance language allows for 12 feet wide driveways. And since this house was built prior to the either historic guidelines and the, the ordinance language for historic districts, it has therefore a, I think it's a 17 foot and nine inch wide driveway. Which is over. So I feel like that should be addressed first, unless it's, you're saying that it, I mean, it's, it's not a DDRC issue if the width of the driveway is over what zoning allows. The existing driveway is what it is. So, you know, sure. That is what it is. The question in my understanding is whether you should permit them to extend it. Any other comments? It seems to expressly be outside of, I guess, the violation of the city ordinance. How could we, how could we approve it? I guess if we were to find that. That's what I was saying, Andrew. Thank you for restating it in a different way. Well, I guess if we were to somehow find that there are extraordinary and exceptional condition. I mean, you know, you can, I guess, again, one of the benefits of having these meetings virtually is you can pull Google maps and take a look at street view. I mean, there's a car parked right in front of where, you know, like, like the applicant said, and like a lot of her neighbors are doing or just pulling up into their extra yard space and parking a car can't do that because the street is lined with cars. Just that, does that create an exceptional circumstance? I'm saying if, if we were inclined to grant it, I think there might be a path forward. I don't know, I live in a block that's lined with cars. So I, I understand, I understand the spirit of what you're saying, Andrew, but that's, I think one can always find an exception. No, of course. And I'm not, I'm not suggesting to do that. I'm just throwing it out there if anybody feels so inclined. This is Amy. I'm sorry to interject in this discussion, I just, I was wondering if parking services has been approached about any parking plans for the neighborhood. They reserved parking for residents or Christina, do you know? I don't know that part. I do know that parking is, is allowed on the streets without a permit. It's my opinion that this needs to be this parking situation and the dearth of it needs to be addressed. Not by the DDRC, but by another department, such as you just mentioned, it widening the driveway really does not meet the guidelines and doing, allowing so would have every, that would open the door to every house on that street, paving the front of their houses, correct? Could, yeah. If they requested, if they requested. I mean, it's illegal to park on unpaid surfaces. So that's not allowable either. Then again, if you drive on that street, you will see that people just park in front of unpaid because there are no way to park and either have to find a couple of street now or somewhere or park right across from Chick-fil-A, and which is not permitted overnight. Yes, they can do the daytime, but not at night time. If I could interject, I think, I think, Angie, you get to the point. I think it's about precedent and also it's just clearly, to me, about the guidelines and whether it means the guidelines. And to me, it seems pretty clear. We encourage those that would like to communicate the email to begin sending in letters and emails to cocboardmeeting at columbiasi.gov or on the web at publicinput.com slash cocddrc-apr2021. For those wanting to leave a voicemail or speak live, call 855-925-2801. When prompted, please enter the meeting code 7942. Then press star two to begin leaving the voicemail. If you would like to speak live, press star three. Please be sure your computer audio is off to avoid feedback. We'll now hear any comments that have been received in writing. We haven't received any additional emails on this project. We'll now hear any voicemails received as well as any live calls. There are no speakers in the speaker queue. Okay, thank you. And there are no voicemails. Okay, I'll move in then to any other commissioner comments or if anybody is ready to make a motion. I'm happy to make a motion. Thank you. I move that we deny a certificate of design approval for site improvements at 921 Pine Street. Second. Based upon what section? I'm sorry. We'll get back there. Based on section 17-674 of the city ordinance. Thank you. Move for vote. I'm sorry. Who's seconded? Second. Andrew. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Bram. Yeah. Ms. Fuller-Wilt. Yes. Ms. Chaco. Yes. Mr. Salibi. Yes. Mr. Sabry. Yes. Mr. Wolfe. Yes. And Mr. Baker. Yes. Thank you. The motion passes. Thank you. Next case. Okay. So this next case is a request for a certificate of design approval for a six foot tall wood fence in the front yard setback of a vacant lot in the Elmwood Park architectural conservation district and is an appeal to a staff decision. During a routine drive-through of the district staff noted that a six foot tall wood fence which had not been permitted or reviewed had been erected on a vacant lot which is used as a side yard for 2225 Rembert Street. Per the zoning ordinance and previous precedent in the district, fences are permitted to be four feet tall in the front yard setback and six feet tall in the side yard and at the rear of the property dependent upon the visibility. In historic districts the front yard setback is determined by the setback of historic structures within the context of the site and on this side of Rembert Street the average setback as measured from the front lot line is about 20 feet. The fence is sited within the front yard setback created by the adjacent historic structures within the context of this site and is above the four foot permitted height. Due to the sighting and the height of the fence, the fence is inconsistent with the standards as installed. As the fence height is also a violation of the zoning ordinance the project required review by the Board of Zoning Appeals and while the fence height was reviewed and approved by BOZA, the height is still a part of the DDRC review of the project and is a deviation from the pattern within the district. While fences in the front yard are not common within Elmwood Park they are typically below the four foot height allowance and are always transparent. A key characteristic of Elmwood Park is how structures engage with the street and the low transparent fences along the primary street frontage of lots maintains a cohesive streetscape. Staff recognizes that the lot in question is used as a side yard where privacy is desired. If consulted during the permitting process staff would have, excuse me, staff recommendations would have been to site a six foot fence further back where it would have aligned with the setbacks of the plan construction on the adjacent lot. The house on the adjacent lot and its setbacks were reviewed and approved by DDRC in January of 2021. As installed, staff finds that the fence is not consistent with the standards for review and recommends denial but will outline some alternatives which would meet the ordinance language as well as accommodate the desire for additional privacy. While vacant lots are not common in the district there is potential for this request to be repeated in other areas making careful consideration of the request and its potential impacts on the district as a whole critical. So the standard most pertinent to this request is as follows criteria each new additions exterior alterations or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing size scale and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. As installed the six foot tall fence is located within the front yard setback and Pro City ordinance fences are only permitted to be four feet in height in this area. As previously noted front yard setbacks and historic districts are determined by the historic properties within the context of the site and in this area that's about 20 feet and the fence is installed in that area. In addition due to the siding and the height of the fence it disrupts the pattern of fences found within the district. Fences located within the front yard setback are always under that four foot height limit and transparent with brick walls with metal pickets being the most common form. While low wood fences are less common these 2 are generally under that 4 foot height allowance and are also transparent. The height and transparency of these fences ensures that the facade remains obscured continues to engage the street and prevents fences from disrupting the rhythm of the streetscape. As installed the fence is not compatible with this standard as well as the height requirement. As indicated in this standard new construction and site improvements should maintain the integrity of the property and its environment including the streetscape. As the fence is located within the front yard setback the adjacent property owner who received approval from DDRC in January of 2021 to build a new home with a 20 foot setback is left with about a 6.5 to 6 foot tall fence in their front yard. Should they wish to install fence of their own in the front yard they would not be permitted to match the height or lack of transparency in this fence. Leaving them with as I said a 5 to 6 foot section of 6 foot tall would fence with the unfinished side facing their property and that would be within their front yard. That being said there are several alternatives that would meet the standards for review but are also sensitive to the desired use for the property. Had a permit application been submitted prior to the construction of the fence. These are recommendations that staff would have provided to the applicant at that time. If the desire is to maintain the 6 foot height the fence sighting could be altered pushed back to that 20 foot setback so that it was consistent with the requirements as laid out in the ordinance and the standards for review. If the location of the fence is preferred however the height of the fence could be lower to 4 foot to 4 feet in height and due to the use of staff assessment that the lack of transparency can be permitted. In either instance if additional privacy is desired landscaping could be added without DDRC review or staff review as well. Either alternative noted above could be reviewed and approved at staff level and as I said earlier while vacant lots are not common in the district there is the potential for this request to be repeated in other areas making careful assessment of their request and its potential impact on the district a really important part of this review. So the staff recommendation is as installed staff finds that the site improvements on the vacant lot adjacent to 2225 Rembert street do not comply with section 17-674-D of the city ordinance and recommends denial of the request and I believe I saw the applicant here earlier. Applicant present. Yes my name is Phillip Biarcha. And do you swear to tell the truth in these proceedings? I do. Yeah please proceed. Okay in June of 2020 the original fence was built at 2225 Rembert street from my understanding based on the outline of the Elmwood Park Historic or Conservation District 2225 is not in the district 2223 is 2223 is a lot that was purchased by the owners of 2225 Rembert for the express purpose of building a putting a pool and a pool deck in and keeping your dog contained. With that being the case they elected to expand the fence and asked to put it up from my wife's home and my dogs are about to go crazy. One second let me get my dog outside. That's the first. Well it's part of the virtual world we're in I guess. Staff can you clarify quickly. Is the comment that the lot that was that's fenced is not within the district? Is that what they were saying? I believe the comment was in relation to yeah that's perfect thank you. So on your screen now you should have an image that shows you Rembert street 2223 is in gray there that lot it is located within the district. The house that the property owner owns the house and the adjacent vacant lot the house itself is not located within the district that's where you see 2225 and 2227 but as the vacant lot is located within the district any kind of site improvements new construction anything of that nature would need to be reviewed by the DDRC or staff. Okay you know just thanks for clarifying okay Mr. Yarchuk you're back. Yes thank you sure. So yeah the BOSA approved the height on March the 4th and I understand that the issue that was the setback the height is where it is because if you look at the first picture that was submitted or the first picture all the way to the right that picture there all the way over to the right right next to the driveway the height of the fence is four feet and the fence comes out horizontally and it stays level all the way across to the corner because of the slope of the property is where that six foot height comes from is where that six foot height comes from. If the property continued the way it does where the fence starts on the right hand side the fence would meet the requirements of being four feet or less to maintain privacy if we did want four feet with the fence right there as you can see through the yard all the way to the house that you see the back of you're already looking in the first first floor windows there will be absolutely no privacy whatsoever in that yard so but I think the height has been been addressed by BOSA the setback I'm not sure if I'm understanding the setback correctly it's the setback from the sidewalk or is it from the roadway because it's from the roadway we're 20 feet from the road and as we previously stated the houses are roughly 20 feet from the road to begin with so I guess we're just we're asking for you know approval on this based on the fact that according to the city ordinance 17-674d number five the setback located a new building on the site so that the distance of the structure from the right of way is similar to adjacent structures it doesn't say has to be identical it just has to be similar if you look in this picture here that you have pulled up that yellow house I mean we're if you draw a straight line we're in line with that yellow house granted if we had if we got from an approval the way we were supposed to which that was ignorant on my part then we would have avoided this all together question two gates in this fence and neither one of them swing out into the right of way I believe there was a question in regard to both the setback and the height just to clarify for members of the commission the height is also something that is within your purview so the height did require approval by the Board of Zoning Appeals but the height in its current location is something that y'all would have to approve as well as for the setback setback is from the front lot line that's typically um at thank you um you can see that there um you know that's outside of the right of way it's not measured from the street it's measured from kind of the inside of the sidewalk the the lot down here at 2219 or it says 19 feet eight inches 19.8 feet that white fence is extending out past that lot line is that something that so um this is from our internal GIS system and the lot lines are approximate so the measure there is from the sidewalk okay so if they're approximate for that then they're approximate for 2223 as well and all's all's I'm contending is that according to the ordinance you know the distance is similar to adjacent structures that may not be identical but it's similar to adjacent structures Mr. Yartuck did you make all the points you wanted to for a moment all right any other is there any questions or clarifications from commissioners we encourage those that would like to communicate via email to begin sending in letters and emails at coc board meeting at columbiasc.gov or on the web at publicinput.com slash cocdvrc-apr 2021 for those wanting to leave a voicemail or speak live call 855-925-2801 when prompted please enter the meeting code 7942 then press star two to begin leaving the voicemail if you would like to speak live press star three please be sure your computer audio is off to avoid feedback we will hear comments that have been received in writing any voicemails received or anybody calling online we don't have any emails for this case okay and likewise no voicemails and I do not have anyone in the speaker here okay all right back to commissioners any follow-up comments any comments andrew you're very low or just miss you there you go uh basically just wanted to point out you know it's an interesting situation where where the home itself is outside of the district and they could put a six foot fence in their yard within the front yard set back and that would be outside of our purview but because a lot next door just maybe a question to the applicant and I don't know I'm not a real estate lawyer but if you were to combine the two flats into one would it then take on the address of the residents thereby taking that vacant lot out of the design district I can answer that mr salivi know typically when you have lines drawn for a historic district whether parcels are subdivided or readdressed they what what was originally within the boundaries stays thanks any any other commissioners have any thoughts I just have a question again Megan you'd mention I'm not sure if you mentioned this or not just basic city ordinance if it's if a fence is not in a historic district is it allowed to be six foot tall in a front yard not without a variance from the board of zoning appeals and that's what they received that's correct thank you okay I add something to that do you guys have access to the the Boza ruling you guys given the the commission hasn't seen staff may have seen it I would just say that these are two separate boards that have different purviews so um you know the the both approvals would be required in order to keep the fence as it's called but one isn't really pertinent to the other Tom you have any wisdom this is a this is an unusual case sorry I'm more interested in what other commissioners think about this one so I'll bring this up because staff made a point of it in in their description um you know it could certainly negatively affect the person building building the home on the the adjacent property um have they provided like I guess we would have heard if they provided any comments but maybe to the applicant have you reached out to them to see what their thoughts on it are having I mean I guess when they how long I guess the fence would have been there when they came before ddrc and so they're probably aware of their surrounding properties so it doesn't seem like it's a problem to them or else they might they might have raised it or at least commented on on these in this meeting on this matter I understand that new residence was approved in January of 2021 at which point the fence was there um you know and to go back on something that you had mentioned earlier you know with the actual residence being outside of the district and the lot that they purchased next door being in the district if we were able to get the variance request approved for their house where it sat previously and they didn't purchase the lot we would still have the same issue of a house within the district facing a fence that may not necessarily fit within the district does that make sense am i correct they can have they can have a chance okay but yeah to answer your direct question I believe that property was approved in 2021 January 2021 at which point this fence was was already there well maybe maybe I would like to offer some wisdom based on Andrew's line of question and um you know this conversation uh and I would just say that you know in my I guess it's been six years on this commission I think that the most important consideration is precedent I've always thought it was uh and you know that combined with the guidelines the intent and the letter of the guidelines um I think that you know with respect to that I don't think this is I don't think there's a lot of gray area to this um you know we've had a lot of cases where we have had to respond to things that have already been installed and typically typically we fall back on and rely on the guidelines so I you know I think that you know whether or not a neighbor may or may not um find it acceptable is probably not the reason to consider whether or not to approve or not approve no I understand that Tom it's just with with staff's comment in their description it makes it seem relevant in what sense that they felt the need to point out that someone was constructing a new residence next door to the lot and how okay yeah yeah well you know that still I and I and in my town wasn't to wasn't to point to your comment really uh Andrew it was more to broadly speak about uh concern about precedent and uh you know coupled with coupled with uh a diligent interpretation guidelines and past past experience with um things that have already been installed you know whether their drives or fences or whatever they've been and where we have traditionally fallen with respect to those installations and the guidelines and the precedent aspect so that would be you know I would leave it to the rest of you to decide specifically about this case but that would be the context in which I would think about it and the staff recommendation on just additional screening that was just that could be done in lieu of the fence right I mean that was the point there yes that could be added um you know we don't review landscaping um you know in this context so that could be added without staff or ddrc review well okay with that I moved to someone who would like to make a motion no no one wants to I will try I recommend that the ddrc uh deny the request for a certificate of design approval for the site improvement to 22 25 Rembert street within the Elmwood park architectural conservation district uh based on section because it does not comply with section 17-674 d of the city ordinance do we have a second second application first the first thing you said um and the denial a denial of the request okay thank you um I think that just as a note um this is the vacant lot adjacent to 22 25 Rembert street I'll amend to the vacant lot adjacent to 22 25 Rembert street thank you I'm sorry once again I missed that second who was that second I did thank you Mr Baker all right mr bram yes is that a yes yeah thank you thank you mr miss Fuller-Wilt yes miss jaco yes mr salibi yes mr sabry yes mr wolf yes and mr baker yes the motion passes all right um so under other business the only thing we have is um that continuing ed continues to be offered to commission members and so we have some folks who um I think are in their first year and have some six hours of continuing and to do it and some others who have three and we have lots of good educational um actually more interesting sessions than we've ever had before so if y'all could uh just keep up with the emails and contact the report if you see something that looks interesting and just knock that out that would be terrific okay um I had a question for staff too is there any um any discussion or movement with the city columbia about when they may move back to in-person meetings or is that not being discussed right now I haven't heard anything listen to have you no I'm not okay all right uh any other business if not I have a motion to adjourn hi motion to adjourn Bob heard that clearly yeah second all right all right thank you guys have a good night good night thank y'all