 All right, welcome. The Design Development Review Commission is made up of volunteers with expertise or interest in historic preservation and design. We generally meet on the second Thursday of the month to review cases. Staff to the commission are our urban design and historic preservation staff. They are available to answer questions if you have them, but please do not interrupt proceedings if you do indeed need to speak with one of them. The meeting generally proceeds with the staff calling the case and describing it. I will call for the applicant to come forward afterward to add to the basic description of the request if necessary or if the applicant wishes to do so. If so, the applicant should keep the presentation to 10 minutes or less. The commissioners will then have the opportunity to ask questions. At this point, I will ask if there's anyone in the audience who wishes to speak for or against a proposal. Audience comments shall be kept to two minutes per person. If there is, the applicant will have an opportunity to respond and this rebuttals shall not exceed five minutes. In most of the cases, we will make a decision tonight after all information has been presented. If your case is denied or if you feel that our decision was made in error, you or anyone with standing have the opportunity to appeal it within 30 days of the decision. If you plan to speak about a specific project you must have signed in. The sheet is at the back of the room. Also, and so the members of the public understand, commissioners are under strict instructions to avoid discussing DDRC meetings and applications with members of the public or with each other outside of these proceedings to avoid ex parte communications. If you wish to speak during the course of these proceedings, please stand and raise your right hand. You affirm to tell the truth in these proceedings. Would staff please call the roll? Mr. Bachnight. Here. Mr. Brim. Here. Mr. Kohn. Here. Ms. Fuller-Wilt. Here. Here. We have quorum. Thank you. Does the agenda still stand? We've had a few changes since publication. Under the historic portion of the agenda, the 1700 block of Calhoun Street, intersection of Calhoun and Talley Streets, which was an appeal to a staff decision regarding a rehearing request for a certificate of design approval for modifications to the Bull Street wall. Which is an individual landmark. So this has been deferred until December 12th. Also, 2200 Hampton Street, which is a request for a design approval for an addition. And exterior changes in the Waverly Protection Area has been deferred. Thank you. Could we, we have the, the DDRC utilizes a consent agenda for those projects which require DDRC review, but which meet the guidelines and typically require no discussion. If anyone wishes to discuss an item on the consent agenda, I will ask that you speak up after the consent agenda is read, and we can pull the item for discussion onto the regular agenda. Staff, please read the consent agenda. Certainly. The first item is 1925 Pickens Street, a request for design approval for an addition in the Landmark District. This is a Bailey Bill property. 3201 Amherst Avenue, a request for design approval for a Dormer addition in the Oakwood Court Architectural Conservation District. 1403 Richland Street, a request for design approval for exterior changes and site improvements to an individual landmark in the city. 1312 Northwood Street, a request for design approval for an addition in Earlwood Protection Area A. 700 Gervais and 1100 Wayne Street, a request for site plan approval for new construction in the Innovista Design District in the Westervais Street Historic Commercial District. And 1428 Oak Street, a request for design approval for new construction in the Waverley Protection Area. Thank you. Is there anyone who wishes to take an item off the consent agenda for discussion? Being none, could I have a motion to approve the consent agenda and the meeting minutes from last month, please? Mr. Chairman, I'll make the motion that we approve the minutes from last month's meeting as well as the consent agenda as it stands. I have a second? Second. Could we have a vote, please? Mr. Boknight? Yes. Mr. Brim? Yes. Mr. Cohn? Yes. Ms. Fuller-Wilt? Yes. Mr. Saveri? Yes. Mention passes. Thank you. I'm going to make another motion. Also, that we delete the executive session from the regular agenda, or I guess it's right before the regular agenda comes up now. Anyway, make a motion that we remove the executive session from the agenda today. Could I have a second? Second. I assume there's no discussion. Could I have a vote, please? Mr. Boknight? Yes. Mr. Brim? Yes. Mr. Cohn? Yes. Ms. Fuller-Wilt? Yes. Mr. Saveri? Yes. Mention passes. Thank you. Could we have the first case, please? The first case is 20 Governors Hill. This is a request for certificate of design approval for new construction in the City Center Design Development District. This project was before the commission in August and was deferred to address a number of concerns. At the September hearing, a subcommittee was formed to discuss the outstanding concerns and provide guidance. The relevant guidelines and comments from the subcommittee are in your packet, and I'll just read the staff recommendation before we turn it over to the architect. The applicant has addressed many of the concerns and are much closer to meeting the design guidelines for City Center. Staff recommends approval of the request conditional upon the following items being addressed and reviewed by staff. The roof be modified to a flat roof, in closed space on the roof, and the screen wall on the west side of the roof be simplified. The west elevation be reconfigured to be a brick facade with applied metal grates to grow vines on for which the design and detailing to be worked out with staff. The brick color to provide more contrast with the stucco. All windows will provide at least a four inch depth reveal in all other outstanding details to be reviewed and approved by staff. And Matt Davis, the architect is here to present the revised proposal. Thank you. Would the applicant like to present? If you could state your name please. Yeah, Matt Davis, I'm the architect for the client, for the property. We agree with the comments from the staff, and I don't know if you have any questions and be glad to answer them. So just to be clear, you're in agreement with these comments and you'll make the revisions for the staff recommendations. Yes, and what I'm understanding is that, it's my understanding that basically the outstanding items are primarily the west side wall and the privacy wall is what it consists of. Yeah, there are a few more than that. I mean, if you're in agreement, I think that's great. We'll short the process. I just want to make sure that that's... Yeah, let me just, the flat roof is good. The enclosed space on the roof and the screen wall on the west side to be simplified. Our understanding of that is simplify the detailing on it, and just to be clear that that's the part of the screen wall that is on the west side of the side. And then the west elevation be reconfigured to be a brick facade. That's fine. The brick color to provide more contrast with stucco. We're good with the more contrast on that material. The windows having a forest depth reveal, they're gonna have that. They're not service-minded windows. They're gonna be clad windows, good quality with the brick mold and all the details. And then with the understanding that any other outstanding details will be reviewed and approved by staff, my understanding with that is that if we edit the detailing on the west wall, if the staff is okay with that, then that would be the approval. Before I ask if there's anyone here in support or opposition, does the other commissioners have any questions for the applicant? Okay, thanks. I will say I think that this is, I think it's a result of a lot of effort, several iterations in the work session. I think there have been some positive changes to the design, so. We're grateful for the input. We appreciate that. In my direction. Thank you. So at this time, is there anyone here who would like to speak in opposition? Or support. My name's Ashby Gresset. I'm an architect. I'm also a neighbor. I live at 19 Governors Hill. And I know Matt and his client have diligently been trying to revise the design and do what's been recommended by the staff and the committee. And I appreciate that. I would be in support of the design. I'm also on the community BAR, our Board of Architectural Review. I'm not speaking for them right now. They will have their own review and vote. But again, I applaud the efforts made to date to try to make the changes and make it fit in. I think one of the outstanding items is the tower design. And I hope that Matt and the architect will give special attention to maybe some detailing of the tower design as it's a very strong element in this particular design. So the color of the brick, I would think that with such a slightly different approach to design for the neighborhood, I would encourage the designer to maybe fit in a little bit with the coloration of the brick and the stucco and not be too far out and left feeling that. But maybe that would be an element that might help it blend in to the neighborhood, even though it's a little bit of a radical design in its geometry and its style. That would be my two cents worth. Thank you. Thank you. And I think that's reflected in the recommendations from the staff in terms of the color of the brick and the stucco. We'll be part of what they work on with the applicant. Anyone else wish to speak? Do we have any comments or questions about the application from any other members? Would somebody like to make a motion? I'll give a shot. I'll make the motion that we approve the applicant's request for a certificate of design approval at 20 Governors Hill based on the following staff recommendations that the roof be modified to a flat roof, that the enclosed space on the roof and the screen wall on the west side of the roof are simplified. The west elevation is to be reconfigured to be a brick facade with applied metal grates to grow vines on for which design and detailing will be worked out with staff. The brick color will provide more contrast with the stucco. All windows will provide at least a four inch depth reveal and any other outstanding details will be reviewed and approved by staff. Bear a second? No, I can. Any discussion? Do we have a vote, please? Mr. Boknight? Yes. Mr. Baranth? Yes. Mr. Cohn? Yes. Ms. Fuller-Wilt? Yes. Mr. Sable? Yes. The motion passes. Thank you. Next case, please. The next case is 117 Lincoln Street, which is a request for a certificate of design approval for site improvements and is an appeal to a staff decision in the Whaley Street Protection Area. Make a magnitious the planner for this project. We'll present the case. So this is a request for a certificate of design approval for site improvements. At the end of July of 2019, during a routine drive-through of the district, staff noticed that the parking area had been enlarged to approximately 20 feet in width, well beyond the 12 foot maximum, allowed by city ordinance without design approval, and immediately contacted the owner who alerted staff, excuse me, to the sale of the property. The original parking area on the property was in place prior to the creation of the district in 2010, but was not compliant with section 17-674 of the city ordinance as it was larger than 12 feet with an accompanying curb cut to match. Staff worked extensively with the previous property owner to bring the parking area into compliance in the early part of 2019. While driveways with existing curb cuts do not require a permit, they do require a design review. The current property owner is requesting to keep the parking pad as is to provide additional parking for their tenants. Staff could not approve this request as it was found to be not in keeping with city ordinance. Therefore, the request has been appealed to the DDRC. The view of parking areas and driveways and residentially zoned districts is subject to section 17-674F of the city ordinance, which states that unless a showing of extraordinary and exceptional circumstances, exceptional conditions, excuse me, pertaining to the piece of property can be shown, the amount of allowable area paid for the use of a driveway or vehicular parking area shall be limited to a width of 12 feet, measured with a straight line that runs parallel to the front or secondary front lot line. It is possible to accommodate parking on the property that would comply with section 17-674 of the city ordinance, either within the 12 foot maximum or in a location that is not visible from the public right of way. In addition, the ordinance requires that parking areas be placed in a location that minimizes the visual impact on the structure. Due to the width of the parking area, it runs across a small portion of the facade of the house. This is not a typical pattern in the area and it detracts from the primary structure. This does not mean the ordinance as it has not been placed to minimize its visual impact on the house. Staff finds that approval of this request would create a precedent that would undermine the administration of this portion of the city ordinance. And as such, staff recommends that the parking area at 117 Lincoln Street is not in keeping the section 17-674F of the city ordinance as it exceeds the 12 foot maximum width and does not minimize impact on the house. Staff therefore recommends denial of this request versus if you have design approval. Thank you. Is the applicant here and they wish to speak? And you've been sworn in. I was one of the ones, yes. You could state your name. Bekton. Thank you. So I'm assuming you guys have a packet of the information that I presented to you. Real quick background, I purchased this or my two sons purchased the property. One of them's going to the University of South Carolina in May, so May 21st. At the time, we didn't realize there was any ordinance in place that would restrict the driveway, fixing up the driveway. At the time, it was actually a gravel driveway about the same size as it is now. And there's some photos that we can show if we can pass them up. I got a copy for it. I would have more than enough copies. Is this the same information that was in the package? This is extra information. It's actually not in that, but one of the pictures is that one right there that says 2014 on it. That 2014 is depicts basically a gravel grass driveway with a couple of cars on it there. And it shows the existing curb cut and approach coming up to it. So, but at the time, we didn't realize there was some ordinance in place that it needed that we needed to abide by. So one of the issues that we did have, we called the, we had some issues with the water contract. So we called the city and asked them about this water contract. And in that conversation, I asked them about permitting for a driveway. They said that it wasn't their division. They gave me the number of the permitting division to discuss a driveway. I called that location. They informed me that if we were not cutting into the curb, we didn't need a permit that anything was on our property. We can do what we want on that property, which we were not cutting into the curb. As you can see, it was already there. The approach was already there. So we proceeded on with concreting the driveway about the same width as if you went straight up from that curb cut right there. During the construction, we, obviously our cars had to park elsewhere than in the driveway. And the construction took a little over 10 days, I believe is what it was about. But we received a parking ticket as we were sitting out in the street area. And so I emailed the parking division and said, hey, can you help us out with this ticket? Because there's no other place to park while this driveway is being put in. Didn't really get a response other than we need the tag number or something. So really no response from that, but no one ever still from the city informed me of any ordinance that needed to take place. So about three days later, after it was completed is when I got the call or the email from Megan that said, hey, you violated this and you need to do something about it. About that time, we met out there. She kind of gave me some different alternatives to it. I would propose those alternatives aren't really reasonable alternatives. In different slides, if you go to this one, she said you can park on the side there. Well, you can't park on the side up down that. Two things would be there's a light pole or an electricity pole that would prevent you from driving back up in there, located on the side right there next to the edge of the corner. It would also require a new curb cut to get back up in there. So I don't think that one's really a logical solution. The next one was basically parking the back. No way to get to the back other than you got that pole on the side where you can't get down that side with the car other than driving across the front of the yard and driving around the back. I just didn't seem like a logical solution to me. The other is park, cut it back down to 12 feet and the other car is gonna need to park in the street. And I would say that's probably an unsafe parking situation for there's actually three students that live there. I understand the ordinance is allowed after I've bred them now. Allow three adults living there. So there's three vehicles that need to be parked someplace to have access to the house. And the street, we've already received a ticket on the street. If you park across, you're gonna get ticketed. The side of the street where we are has a slanted slope which kind of relates to the curb cut when you're coming up to the curb. If you're coming straight in, it's a pretty deep drive or as you go down to the road. So you're gonna scrape your cars as you go in if you don't come at an angle. So I don't think it's gonna be a reasonable solution to park on the street with the car. So we're requesting an exception to this and I think there was some issues that you can see in the top corner there. There's a driveway in that house that is probably bigger than the one that we have. Now Megan said, well, that's around the back. And I think in the notes it says that it was constructed prior to the ordinance I think was maybe 2010 or 2011 or something but I gave you a couple photos of that house. It wasn't prior to, it was after the ordinance at least in those photos. There's a 2011 and a 2014 photo but not knowing about the ordinance, not being informed about the ordinance when I questioned on the permitting. I took it as taking it straight up the driveway approach and taking it straight back to the house to set in that driveway. So now we're at a position that, you know, what can we do about it? I'm requesting that if we can have a variance or an exception to it that's allowed in the ordinance or the board to approve that. Overall circumstances, if we go back kind of overall circumstances I had just a few things on it but it's never advised by the city that didn't need or about the ordinance, asked about permitting, permitting said do what you want to do on that property. The curb cut showed the size of what I thought the driveway to be at the time. The neighbors showed the size that I thought I was adhering to at the time. I don't know, there's really no good alternatives for three cars to be parked at that location. The cost in removing it is gonna be kind of an expensive on trying to cut out that and it actually, it doesn't appear a distraction to me as you look back from the previous drive, pretty much all gravel grass, all that versus what this looks now. It doesn't distract from the site, the view of the home or anything like that. So, and I think it actually makes the neighborhood look even better than it. But that's what we're asking. I'm just asking if there can be an exception to that, to where I don't have to dig that out and repair, take it back down to some other issue. I don't know of any other proposals that would be out there that we could do on it. Thank you. Does anybody, any commissioners have any questions for the applicant? I have a question. When was the house purchased? I'm sorry? When was the house purchased? May, May 21st of this year. You got it through a realtor? Yes. The realtor was not aware that you were in the historic district? I wasn't aware of it. She may have said something on it at closing or something, but I was not aware that it was a historic district or a planned development district or whatever that, yeah, whatever that is. You have a question? I'm David, you're welcome to. I'm not sure that this is necessarily, I think it is maybe potentially relevant, but have you shared the names of the individuals that you spoke with at the city with staff? I didn't catch, I didn't get their names. You don't know who they were? No, I called, like I said, I had some issues with the water contract not going through and actually called them twice, have you tried to determine who they were? I have not, as far as the permitting division and really the only one that matters is the permitting division, the water division. But you don't know who they were, haven't tried to follow up to find them. I had, I don't know if I had some notes that I took on it, some contemporaneous notes that I took with it so that, yeah, I wrote down whatever it was and all that. But I didn't ask names of anything. Okay. Sir, is parking allowed on that street? There's not parking allowed across the street. There's a section. But in front of your property, it's allowed, right? On my property? In front of your property. I mean, that's where I'm saying I don't think the, if you look at the front page of the separate package I put in, I gave you. If you see the curb cut, it's kind of hard to see. The slope of that curb cut from the asphalt up is pretty steep. And if you try to go in front of our lot there, right here, you can see it kind of in this top picture here, that slope is, I don't know what the degree would be. But in that front picture, you can kind of see where there's a tree there on that outside area. I would say the slope, it would take your car at a pretty steep angle. Is there a reason you couldn't park not on the slope on the street? I don't think that would be, I bet I would get a ticket for that. I mean, the street's one way. So it's not a huge wide street park on, but if you, I think if you park on the street, totally on the street. They ticket you for that? I don't see what the whole car on the street, would you get a full car on the street, would you be allowed? No, parking is permitted on this street. It is permitted on adjacent streets, though. Okay. How close is the adjacent street? How many houses away? I mean, I mean, it kind of looks like a safety issue. Is the street behind it? The way I understand it, this street is one way, but it's another street over. It used to be a railroad. There is, there is, there's a, there's a median. It used to be a railroad between those two. Years and years ago. Yeah, there's a, oh, here you go. You can see it on the initial picture there. I'm very familiar with that. Yeah, so this, that's the one way street in front of the house, right here. See, there's a car actually parked right there in the median. On that side, that's no parking, though. They got no parking signs all through there. Okay. So that's, that's where we parked and got the tickets. So. Did, did you have something you wanted to add or ask? I'm just trying to get my head around where, what would be an alternative. Yeah, it's. Any more questions for the applicant before I ask if anybody else wishes to speak? Is there any, anybody here who wishes to speak for or against the application? I, to me, and I'd like other commissioners to weigh in this. I think I am very concerned about the precedent. It's clearly, clearly not within the ordinance. And unfortunately, we all know ignorance of that is not really an excuse. We don't know who, there's nobody specifically at the city that we know of that was involved in these conversations was even if they were, they might not be in position of authority to talk about that. I, I, I think that if we were to grant an exception, it would have to be a very clear and very unusual exception, or we'd be setting a precedent that I think would be a bad precedent. So if there are commissioners who feel as though there is a very clear and warranted exception, then I think we should discuss that. But I think that would be the only criteria that I would, I would think would, you know, help apply to that kind of decision. I mean, when, when a, when a new purchaser comes in, what are the, what are the steps for them to know about different ordinances in there? You'd have to ask the staff, you'd have to ask the staff. There is a disclosure on a property disclosure that was recently adopted and would have been in place when you purchased the property. Staff worked with the previous property owner who was aware of the designation and, you know, assume that that was filled out correctly as a result of that. So there is a disclosure available at the time of purchase. There is one, there was one provided at the time of purchase. Right. Staff, staff worked for, for, for, across South Carolina, the disclosure firm has been adopted, which includes language that says, is this property within a regulatory district, like a historic district or a design district. So, yes, that's, How do I find that though when you're going through the purchase? It should, it's there, it's supposed to be there to my understanding, even when you're looking at the house you were talking about. Supposed to be on the property itself? You would have to talk with your realtor, and I don't think our realtor is satisfied with me. But yes, it's, it's part of the, it's a long form with a lot of different disclosures, including stormwater, floodplains, all kinds of things. So it's a standard part of the process. Yeah, I don't remember seeing any, any disclosure that, that recognized that. Any other comments? Any questions? This is me just, any feedback to this is totally encouraged, but I guess my concern is the material is compatible whether how we got here is not part of what I'm getting at, but where we started was worse. In my opinion, if you can't park on the street, it kind of feels a little bit like there's a potential safety issue over there, or if it's not going to change where they're parking. And this, this one's just a little bit unique. Usually we're having to deal with people changing the house, not the driveway, but I'm just thinking out loud here on my initial thoughts when I'm looking through this and challenges it, I don't know where you would park alternatively with the power pole and how you would work something differently. I mean, I know, you know, we have three cars to fit in the driveway. We park in the streets of a very, very busy street and we don't have any speed bumps. So I, If they're ticketing here, that's the, But not, not immediately in front of the house. I mean, I'm not, I'm saying that I think that, you know, if there's an exception that I would, I would urge that there would have to be clear documentation for the exception, or for instance, if you didn't have the disclosures and you could show us that you never received the disclosures, and that would be additional information. You know, you could bring back in the future, but we don't have any of that information now. We don't have any, any information about the folks that you said you've spoken with at the city. So I, I, you know, we, I agree completely that it looked worse before, but it also clearly doesn't fit within the ordinance. So I don't, you know, our, our purview is narrow. So we're, we're sort of, that's the position that we're in. I think that the ordinance, it gives you the authority. It does, if there's, if there is ex, ex, extenuating circumstances, and that is, you say you can't park at the, in the curb in front of the house, but I, I don't, I can't personally see that that's clearly the case. And, you know, it's a matter of, a matter of degrees. And I'm thinking in terms of precedent, the next person that comes along is a slightly more slope, slightly less slope, is the traffic, you know, high volume traffic on their street. And there are, there are a whole host of possible exceptions I could imagine somebody might bring once we start the precedent. So that's, I'm just saying, that's the concern I bring, I bring to the. And if I might interject it, I know you cannot park on the median. Right, sure. And I know it's a, it's a narrow road, but I think you can park on the road, or at least it appears. I can't speak with certainty on that, but it appears that. No, Megan has been there. And it could probably, the slope on this side right here, with the tree there. I don't know. Right. I'm not talking to the particular condition right there, but just generally as a statement, you can probably park up and down that street. Just not on the median. Well, sure. It appears to be on our street here. Okay. You wish to speak? If you do, you need to come to the podium. Have you been sworn in? Have you been sworn in? You promise to tell the truth in these proceedings? Yes. Can you name please? Wesley McManus. Only thing, I mean a lot of times, their curb cut's already large. And a lot of other areas that maintain the 12 foot, would it be okay or a viable option for the driveway that he has to maintain a smaller entry and then just flare out to still provide parking? It wouldn't be quite as amicable for a maneuverability in and out, but it may take away some of the presents that's there. The only thing is I would be in favor of him as well, just because the situation, I mean if he or his children or someone else has to park a block away and walk to their house for on-street parking, and it doesn't look like he actually has distance to park two cars which by code are compliance and he has to be able to park two off-street parking spaces. Really at that point, he can park one, if he were to bring it in there, he'd make a park one vehicle. And then on-street would be an issue because of the one side you can't park in, he has to be ticketed. And the other side it's a one-way street. Doesn't leave a lot of clearance for other vehicles, service vehicles, amulets, fire trucks, any larger vehicles after due and come through, it could be an issue later on. I mean I have no interest or anything in there, but just listening to it, it sounds like one that I would be in favor of entertaining some sort of. I'm sorry, you need to come to the microphone if you're gonna speak please. But just in order to do and help them, but I mean I agree it would set a precedent so it would need to be clear. But it sounds like this would be a very great place for an exception of some sort. Because even if they could only park one it also would detrimentally affect the value and marketability of that house and property afterwards. Okay. I mean there are a lot of things to consider. Anyways, thank you. Thank you. Just as a point of clarification, there is space to park two vehicles stacked on that property. And I don't disagree. You could stack them. Park one was likely behind that one there, but as far as what he was. I'm so sorry, they're having trouble recording because they can't hear you on the mic. Or anybody, not just you. Sure, sure. If you could speak to it. No, and I don't disagree that two could park stacked if it was 12 foot. But to the gentleman's point, I'm not sure who that was. The gentleman's point, I didn't put in the curve, I didn't put in the, Right. We're not talking about the curve. That was already existing. Yeah, that was there. And that's what I kind of gauged off of. Yeah, Brian, we understand that. Okay. So it'd be kind of strange if you put it off that 20 foot entrance, a 12 foot, where are you putting it off that 12 foot inch, now you've got 20 feet and then it goes straight down to nothing. Straight up. So that's what I gauged on when I, after I talked to someone and, I mean, I know it's a violation of the ordinance now after I've seen it and read it and all that stuff. It was just, that's why I'm asking if there can be an exception to it. I don't think there's a whole lot of those curb cuts coming in. There's only two houses, me and that one that's been under repair for what I understand to be over a year or something next door to it. But the others on that road, I don't think there's any other on that little section of road. Behind it is a whole apartment.