 DDRC members, staff and guests, multiple staff members are present to make sure that the meeting runs smoothly and all applicants and citizens are able to communicate with the Commission at the appropriate time. Mr. Brim. Here. Ms. Jacob. Here. Mr. Lee Decker. Here. And Mr. Salibi. Here. We have quorum. 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 form. The meeting typically starts with staff calling the case, giving a summary of the project and then calling on the applicant to present if they wish. Decisions are typically made in one evening. Decisions may be appealed within 30 days to accord a competent jurisdiction. Those will be administered individually as we hear either from applicants or from live speakers. Applicants with request 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 the 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've had a few changes to the agenda under the urban design portion to 2109, 2119 and 2121 Sumter, 1212, 1214 and 1222 Scott and 2110 and 2120 Main Street, which is a request for design approval for new construction in the north main corridor design overlay district has been deferred. Likewise under the historic portion of the agenda, the property owner at 1414 Woodrow Street, which was a request for design approval for exterior changes in the Melrose Heights, Oakland architectural conservation district has asked that this project be removed from today's agenda. The DDRC uses, I've got to have my script. All right, thank you. The DDRC uses the consent agenda to approve non-controversial or routine matters by single motion in vote. If a member of the DDRC or the general public wants to discuss an item on the consent agenda, that item is removed from the consent agenda and considered during the meeting. The DDRC then approves the remaining consent agenda items. Will staff please read the consent agenda? Certainly. The first item is 1500 Main, a request for preliminary certification for the Bailey bill for an individual landmark. Also, 1112 Price Avenue, a request for preliminary certification for the Bailey bill and a certificate of design approval for exterior changes. This is a national register structure and that is the consent agenda. Okay. Is there anyone from the DDRC that would like any item removed from the consent agenda? Okay. Is there anyone from the public that would like to have an item removed from the consent agenda? So do I have a motion and a second to accept this consent agenda subject to all the conditions contained and also the January minutes? I would like to make a motion to approve the consent agenda, design history and the approval of the minutes for January. Second. All right. Mr. Brim. Yes. Ms. Jacob. Yes. Mr. Lee Decker. Yes. And Mr. Salibi. Yes. The motion passes. All right. We now move to the regular agenda. All right. So on the regular agenda is 1913 Bull Street. This is within the landmark district and the city center design district. This is an appeal of a staff decision regarding signage. Staff received notification of a permit for a seven and a half foot tall monument sign in the front yard of this former residence as well as signage in the freeze, which is the area above the porch. Staff denied the permit due to the size of the monument sign and the location of the signage and the freeze. However, since writing the staff evaluation, the applicant has clarified for staff that they only intend to appeal staff decision regarding the proposed pin mounted letter sign. The size of the monument sign will be altered and is thus not under consideration today. So we're going to review that. Instead, we're going to review only the pin mounted letters proposed for the porch freeze. Within this district, since it's in two districts, we use both standards or guidelines for review of signage. Looking at section six of the city center guidelines. We're going to review the size of the monument sign. It's consistent with the proportions and scale of the elements within structures facade. The particular sign may fit well in a plain wall area, but might overpower the finer scale and proportions of a lower storefront. A sign which is appropriate near an entry may look tiny and out of place above ground level. Sign should be located where architectural features or details suggest a location, size or shape for the sign. We're going to review the area between first and second floors of a building. Signs should be placed on buildings consistent with sign locations on adjacent buildings. This can establish visual continuity among storefronts. While the sign guidelines written for city center were largely written with commercial buildings in mind, design guidelines are largely about context. What is appropriate on one street or in one specific building may not be appropriate on another. The landmark district most non-historic infill was constructed without design review and is thus incompatible with the historic nature of this district. This is especially true along Bull Street where this property is located as commercial buildings have been built in place of original historic houses. The building at 1913 Bull Street was originally used as a residence. Historic building changes to the building should be considered in relation to other like buildings, meaning historic residences. As many of the large historic houses in the landmark district have been converted to commercial use, there are ample examples of signage to use as a reference for this property. The applicant provided two examples of signage that are similar in nature to the pen letters proposed at 1913 Bull Street. Those pictures are included in your packets. However, these example buildings are non-historic buildings that were built for commercial use. Staff has found no examples of historic residential buildings that use pen letters or any type of signage within their porch freeze. And just to clarify again, the porch freeze is the area above the columns. It's an architectural feature. We also consider section 17-2.5G6B of the UDO, which are the adopted standards for structure and site design of historically designated buildings. For landmark districts and individual landmarks, the historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided. Standard E states distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property shall be preserved. The historic character of this building is related to its residential construction and design. Changes to the property should be sympathetic to the residential character of the building. While signage related to a historically residential building are best located in front yard and not on the building itself, signage attached to the building should not detract from the residential character of the building. The freeze where the letters are proposed is part of the entablature, which is commonly left unadorned and flat. The unadorned freeze is a characteristic of the design of this house. It was not designed with the intent of being used as a signboard. Signboards are a specific feature or part of a facade of a commercial building. Adding any signage in this location detracts from the historic character of the building and its historic residential design not in keeping with this standard. Standard H states 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 in massing size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. Standard I states new additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be undertaken in such a manner that if removed in the future the essential form and integrity of a historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. The pin letters, which the sign contractor did install previously without a permit, have already left over 100 holes in the freeze. Any penetration into wood offers opportunity for water and insect infiltration. In this case, it could lead to long-term damage to the porch beams. Other options for signage that are more sympathetic to the historic nature of the building could include a hanging sign attached to the porch roof beam or a smaller plaque sign mounted to the clabbered adjacent to the front door. While any penetration into wood is not ideal, signage under the protection of the porch is less likely to cause widespread damage from water infiltration. These types of signs are more appropriate for this residential structure and would have less impact on the historic integrity of the building. So I'll just run through some slides here. This is the, I believe this is an actual picture of the sign in place. So that shows you the sign that is being proposed here that we are talking about today in the freeze. So it's hard to tell on the screen, but that just shows you where the sign once was. Because of their pin letters, they poke holes into things. We don't allow pin letters in on masonry buildings and in the Vista because they damage buildings. So we treat buildings the same here. This is some examples from around the neighborhood that show unadorned freezes and small signs by front doors and ways that other residential structures within this formerly residential district treat signage. Again, these have unadorned freezes and signs in the front yard. And these are the only examples that saw anything in the freeze and those are house numbers, which we do not regulate. So for staff recommendations, staff finds that the proposed location in the unadorned freeze is not sympathetic to the residential nature of the historic property, nor is it in keeping with approved signage for other historic residentially built structures. And that this type of sign is damaging to the historic buildings as it creates dozens of punctures in the freeze. Therefore, staff finds that the proposed building mounted sign at 1913 Bull Street is not in keeping with section 17-2.5G6B of the UDO, nor section six of the city center guidelines and recommends denial of the request. Is the applicant present? Does someone plan to speak? Great. Come on up when you get settled. If you state your name and then I'll swear you in. Okay. My name is Michael Burkett. And do you swear to tell the truth during this proceeding? I do. All right. Thank you. A little closer. Okay. Yeah. And make sure we can hear you. All right. Well, first of all, Michael Burkett, I'm one third of the owners. Curtis Dacin and Rami Shelby with me also. You may have figured out we own the building and we own the law firm. Also, are you Rachel? She's been great. She's been dealing with my emails and answering lots of dumb questions. We may not agree, but she's super responsive and very helpful. So kudos to Rachel for walking us through this. So as best I can tell from what Rachel has sent me, there are two main features that we've got to deal with. And again, the street sign is we're going to redo that and resubmit that. One is the concern of our damage to historic building, which I think we're deemed historic building because we're located not because we are an actual historic building. It was built in 1920, moved from Landing Street to its present location in the mid 80s. I've got some pictures I'm going to show you of that. And then the other concern is it's located on an inappropriate part of the building and I'm just pulling that from the first paragraph of the staff review. And I'm going to address both as best I can tell with regard to the location of it and the guidelines, it's kind of an aesthetic thing. When you look at the city code, it's what looks good in the context of where things are. I think it's important to note that we're distinctive from other buildings like us, these former residences that are now commercial buildings because of where we sit in the district. We sit on Bull Street on the main commercial thoroughfare. What might look odd, two blocks back or somewhere else off the main thoroughfare, doesn't look bad on the front side. And now the first picture that you saw from Rachel was actually what the vendor submitted. I probably wouldn't approve that either. It was up for about seven days, five days somewhere in there before we realized it was wrong. We had it taken down until we could get through this process. I think it looks a little better live, looks even better on my phone when you can see it in color, but it's professional, it looks good, it doesn't take away anything and it actually makes our neighbors look a little bit better, I do, I think. But we haven't asked for a neon sign or anything similar to what our neighbors have, but the sign that was selected actually fits with the character of our building and that character, it has to include where the building sits, the street it sits on. The analysis can't be about the building itself, it has to include the site of the building. We think that's important and we think the pictures, that's a good one, thank you, Rachel. I think it looks good. As far as damage to the building, I think the concern is a legitimate one. We certainly don't want to damage the building either. We paid a lot of money for it so we don't want to mess it up. I think damage is relative though when you look at what was done to the building when it was moved. I know this is unorthodox, can I just let y'all take a peek at this? Sure. I'm sorry, any discussion has got to be held at the mic, please. Thank you, Amy. So, again, we don't want to damage the building. I think damage is a relative term compared to what was done to the building and what it looks like now when it was moved. That's substantially damaged. I don't think we can complain about a crime that hasn't been committed. There could be water damage one day. We don't know. I hope not. I hope they do a really good job of sealing it up and putting them in. But if there is water damage, relatively speaking, it's an easy repair and one that we would make because we don't want the building damaged either. So, again, I think it's all relative. I get the point. But when you look at historically what that building's been through compared to what we're asking for, I think it's minimal and something that could be easily repaired. Again, we apologize for the miscommunication when the vendor put it up. And Rachel and I have talked. We will certainly, if you deny the request, we hope you give it some consideration and don't. But if you deny the request, we'll certainly have it fixed and take care of that. Anything else? Any questions? Yeah. I'll open it up to commissioners. Any commissioners have a question? I haven't seen to sign out front of the building yet. When I was looking at it earlier, I don't see you to the freestanding sign in any of these presentations. The sign on the sidewalk? So we took down the old law firm sign. But the sign that was submitted to the city, it was too tall, I think, was one of the concerns. So we're actually having that redesigned. So that's not part of our presences. So the only thing we're doing today is just the one on top. So we're doing it. That's the first thing we're doing. We're doing it. That's the first thing we're doing. That's the first thing we're doing. That's the first thing we're doing. There's a freeze. We are going to resubmit and see what we can do. For what it's worth. The sign they took down was about seven feet tall. But yeah. So that helped. Okay. Commissioner Lee. I guess I'm very grateful for you adopting a historic building. And I guess you knew what you were getting into when you first started. I don't know what you were talking about. But I think what the guidelines are telling us is try to keep any changes compatible with the historic character. And it was a historic residence. And I'm trying to figure out how having lettering on the freeze board is compatible with the use of the building as a residence. So. Well, I think the answer to that is, I don't think there's anything historic about it. If there is, we'll take the tax credit instead of the sign. But number two. None of us were around in 1920 when it was built. It was a residence, but I think that the city is allowing these buildings to be used as commercial buildings. And these things have changed again. I agree. If we sat two blocks somewhere else back, but I think the analysis has to include where the building sits in the main thoroughfare. I don't think we present anything unattractive or ugly. I understand your question. Any other questions? All right. Do is there anybody else who's scheduled to speak on this? We're not sure. Okay. Is the applicant complete? Because your time is your time is up. Amy is your time up. I'm not even sure. Got to be close. Okay. He got about four minutes left. If anybody else wants to speak. I just wanted to see. So you still have like few minutes left. Yeah. I will say this. I'm trying to get anybody in trouble, but 1405 Calhoun street, the Warner law firm, a big old sign on their building right, right in the corner from us. And we, you know, we didn't, we see it every day. We just didn't take a picture of it. So take, you know, take that for what it's worth. All right. Don't tell Kerry Warner. I said that, although I'm sure I'm live. Oh, we're streaming as you speak. All right. All right. All right. Well, thank you. Thank you very much. And I can't speak to if that properties in the district, much of that block of Calhoun is not part of our historic district. Right. Understand. It's a little bit odd over there. Yeah. That's the challenge with these examples. Yeah. Now we'll hear any comments from the public. Anybody from the public like to speak. No. Okay. Okay. I had one more question for staff. If I can go out of order. You mentioned about the street addresses, the lettering, if it's 1919, is there a separate ordinance or guideline for somebody putting their number of their street on the freeze board? Is that regulated by the postal service or some other city guideline? Well, I mean, you do have to have your address clearly, you know, visual for fire safety reasons and postal reasons. But in terms of signage, you know, that's a completely different thing. So we don't regulate that. It's distinct. Right. It's very distinct. All right. And just to piggyback on Mr. Lee Decker's comment about the, the addresses, I was actually going to ask a question about that before you pointed out that that's not under our purview because I guess not considered a sign, but it does seem like somewhat of a, maybe not fully arbitrary distinction, but you know, when you talk about locations of lettering similar to what's written on adjacent buildings as in, as in I guess part three of section 6.3. It doesn't say locations on adjacent buildings of like character. It says signs on sign locations on adjacent buildings, which I guess the, is it the Northwestern Mutual Building that's right next door. And while you point out in your report, that is not a historically residential building. It is an adjacent building. So those are those, I think what you're referring to there is the city sitting lines, which was written for commercial buildings. And we use them together with the historic guidelines. And when we're looking at historic buildings in any historic district, we compare it to historic buildings. We don't compare it to infill construction that didn't require review. Okay. And, and also if I, unless anybody else, I guess I'll call it subsection two of 6.3 of the city guidelines. Okay. So, you know, if I were a lay person reading second sentence to, or the second sentence of that, that provision, I mean, it almost, it almost contradicts a decision denying this application, right? The best location for a wall sign continues to be a band or blank area between the first and second floors of a building. Yeah, that is not what this is. This is a freeze board. It's not a freeze board. It's not a freeze board. It's not a freeze board. It's not confusing, which is why I included other guidelines. Because it's, these, these, these guidelines are written for commercial buildings. And that a freeze board is not a, is not what that's talking about. But I would also say that sometimes even things that we recommend in Iowa for do meet some of the guidelines. So we consider all of them together. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Well, one other, and this may be different enough, but I did notice and it actually wasn't one of the example properties. But on page nine of the, I guess the packet, not necessarily the application for 1825 Bull Street. And I think that was included. As an, an example of appropriate street signage or sidewalk signage. But if you look at the building behind it, there's a sign on the, I guess it's not the freeze. Or is it, I'm not sure, you know, not being an architect. But I guess what's the distinction there? Is that because those aren't letters and it's just a sign? Yes. I love that building right there. It's not attached to the building. No, no, no. The building behind 1825 Bull Street. If we could pull up the. That is not a historic building for one. I'm not sure what the review of that signage was. So is the, the district line is between 1825 Bull Street and that. So you're saying the guidelines don't apply to that building? Right. She's saying it's not historic. I'm just saying it's not, the guidelines apply, but it's not historic. So we wouldn't, we wouldn't necessarily apply the historic guidelines to that building. We would just apply city center guidelines. Which is what we're signage. Which is what we're applying here. I mean, I think the differentiator with this location. It is an historic building. Right. So I mean, that's just something we need to separate. Because the one guideline we've been focusing on those section 6.3 of the city center guidelines. Is that correct? Yes, that's the only one I've included today for relevant to this type of sign. So are there, are there provisions specific to historic buildings that would prohibit this sign? Not in the city center guidelines. They were not written for historic buildings. Okay. But they do, they do. I'm sorry. The city center guidelines. Sorry. Sorry, can you repeat the question? Sure. So I guess referring to page 9. The building. There wasn't included as an example, but what you can see behind 1825 Bull Street. I guess I saw that and I thought, well, that's odd because there is a huge sign on the facade of that building. Well, it might not be the freeze in the same location where the freeze would otherwise be. And I guess the reason or maybe the justification for that is it's not a historic building, but still subject to the city center guidelines. Right. And what we're applying here to potentially decline this request are city center guidelines. And I was asking, are there any prohibitions in historic guidelines that were not included in the report? Yes. So the historic guidelines are the section 17-2.5 G6B of the UDO that's listed first, I think, in your evaluation. I think I listed those first. Those are the relevant standards I pulled out from that were A, E, H, and I. Do you see that? I do. Thank you. Did that clear? Does that help? Any other commissioner or comments or questions? No? Am I allowed to rebut just for one second? I believe you are, yes. It's now appropriate for me to sit back down. Thank you. And I think this discussion goes to kind of the point that I was making and I'll be brief. Is our signage that we propose, is it taken away from the building? I don't think it is, but it's certainly making a pretty ugly corridor look better compared to the giant sign on the chiropractor building, the building next to us, the Northwestern Mutual Building. I think if we're looking for what does the city center look like, what does downtown Columbia look like, what does the city center look like? I don't know. I don't have any chance to be honest with you. Thank you. I'm sure you understand our challenge is to preserve historic features of the city and also know there are other signage options. It's not like you don't have options. We've got to weigh all that. Thank you for that. Any other discussion? Okay. Thank you. And check me on my language here. Support the staff decision regarding denial of the signage on the freeze board in that it is not in keeping with section 17-2.5 G6B of the uniform development ordinance of the city nor section 6 of the city center guidelines. Just state the address to 1919 13 bull street. Thank you. Second. Did you say it correctly? 1913. Second. Second. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. All right. Any other cases on the agenda? That's it. Any other business? We do have a little business. I just wanted to make y'all aware that tomorrow at our offices on Washington square 3rd floor we are having an in-person continuing ed class is adapting to climate urban landscape transformations in the 21st century from 1 to 230. Anything else you want to add on the agenda? Okay. And then there's another one on the 22nd of February 1 to 230 again. And this one's about the affordable city. So we just wanted to make you guys aware in case somebody needed their continuing ed credits. And then also we have some sad news to share with you. We have some sad news is leaving us unfortunately. We're very sad about that, but we wish her well. And I just wanted to let y'all know. Which one? Wish you the best. I know. Okay. That's what we keep telling her. All right, Amy. Is that it on the other business? Okay. And then we'll start to move on to adjourn this meeting. All right. Second. Second. All right. Thank you, everybody. Have a good afternoon.