 The 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 ten minutes or less. The commissioners will then have the opportunity to ask questions. At this point, I will ask if there is anyone in the audience who wishes to speak for or against the proposal. Audience comments shall be kept to two minutes per person. If there is, the applicant will have an opportunity to respond. This rebuttal 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 an error, you and anyone withstanding have the opportunity to appeal it within 30 days of the decision. If you plan to speak about a specific project, you must have signed in and the sheet is at the back of the room. Also, and so that members of the public understand, commissioners are under strict instructions to avoid discussing DDRC meetings and applications with members of the public or with each other outside of these proceedings to avoid ex-party communications. If you wish to speak during the course of these proceedings, please stand and raise your right hand. Do you affirm to tell the truth in these proceedings? And do we have a quorum? We do. We'll stop. Please read any changes to the agenda since publication. Since publication, we have had three deferrals. The first is 1328 Landing Street, which was a request for exterior changes and preliminary certification for the Bailey bill. This is an individual landmark. Also, 415 Hardin Street, which was a request for approval for side improvements, again, an individual landmark. And then 1006 Woodrow Street, a request for approval for new construction in Old Shandon Lower Waverly Protection Area 8. Thank you. 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 on to the regular agenda. Staff, will you read the consent agenda? Well, our one case on it was deferred. Okay. They have a minute. Pardon? A minute. They are still on consent agenda. I apologize. Yes. We should have a motion for March 9. I was just about to do that. Is that what you're talking about? Okay. Good idea. And yes, okay. Call for a motion to approve minutes. Some moved. Are there any additions or deletions or changes to the minutes? I think I did that backwards but we already have a motion. All in favor? Aye. Okay. Presentation of cases on the regular agenda. If the staff will please introduce the first case. The first case on the agenda is 1337 Assembly Street. And this is a request for certificate of design approval for a rear addition to the building in the city center design development district. This application is for the addition of a raised porch on the rear of the building. The building constructed in 1900 was originally the Columbia Electric Street Railway Light and Power Company substation. It was listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 2011. While the attachment and modification to the existing structure is relatively amenable, the visibility of the addition as well as the removal of original detailing presents a concern for a precedent standpoint. This proposal originated as a staff level approval which is being appealed to the commission at this time. You guys have been provided a brief history of the building which is from the South Carolina Department of Archives and Histories website that has their national register properties listed. And the sections of the guidelines that we're looking at are 5.9.1 preservation of traditional features and decoration. And 5.9.10 additions to existing structures. And the staff recommended denial of this request. And it was found not to meet the guidelines in sections 5.9.1 and 5.9.10 of the city center design development guidelines. Typically a rear addition with minimal physical impact to the original structure would be considered over the large scale of the addition on the highly visible back of this building in addition to the detailed architectural features of this rear elevation make this a unique case. The commission may decide to grant an exception to the guidelines if they determine that the uniqueness of this request will not set a precedent for future proposals. So this is just a comment. It's just a little bit of an anomaly as it is on the rear of the building but the rear of the building is very visible but there really isn't a way to add to this building that's not visible from the public right away. So it was just sort of one of those ones that was a little bit of an anomaly as it is on the outside of the normal rear deck addition. Butcher is here from Lambert Architects to do a presentation or answer any questions. Before I get to that, Ms. Great, kindly remind me, I knew something was off. I forgot to ask for the role to be called. Mr. Brim. Here. Mr. Cohn. Here. Mr. Daniel. Here. Ms. Fuller-Wilt. Here. Ms. Great. Here. Mr. Savry. Here. Ms. for letting us come and talk to you all this afternoon. Your name, please, Josh. My name is Josh Booker. I'm an architect with Lambert Architects. I don't have a whole lot to add to this. It's a pretty straightforward concept. The owner's requesting to add a back patio onto this building that connects to the second floor. Our design intent was to use as minimal as possible structure and to keep it as durable and lightweight as we could as well. Keeping maintenance and everything in mind as well. We worked with the city a couple of times on just some various options as to how to connect that second floor. The rear portion of the building is the least ornate facade and we looked at trying to add a doorway onto the side in the alleyway and there it's just a much bigger mess of detailing and such. So we've located it in the recess panel. We wanted to align that as much as we could. We also wanted to go with as much of an urban feel as we could as well being that we're downtown and in the city we didn't want to do something that had a residential feel to it. Certainly didn't want it to be made out of wood and look somewhat deteriorated over a few years. The concept is this is a place for the employees to work on a nice day outside or enjoy a happy hour in the afternoon while still maintaining as much of the activity in that back parking area as they can since their site's somewhat limited. Other than that, yeah, you guys have any questions? Any questions? Are you going to be losing some parking as a result of this? The intent is to try not to. I believe there might be one space that we end up losing. Obviously, parking's a premium down here so that was one of the objectives and reasons for keeping things as thin and simple as we could. Yeah, we started with a smaller design but because of what they needed for their employees and how they saw themselves growing in the future, this was kind of where we ended up. One other note is because of the size we're required to have the two egress points off of that, one being the stair and then the doorway onto the second floor being our second egress required. What's changed about the occupancy that's requiring a new means of egress? What's changed? We'll have over 50 people up there. I mean, is it a different occupancy than it was before? You have business on the inside. It'll be an assembly occupancy on the outside which just puts us over our limit to having. I mean, you've had interior renovations that have changed the occupant load? With the addition of this patio. Okay. But not inside the building. You haven't had to add an additional means of egress because of something that you've done inside the building. We're revising the first floor but nothing on the second floor, just this patio. But you haven't increased the occupant load except for the patio itself. Okay. Before we go further, do we have anybody in support or opposition that would like to speak? If you'd like to speak, you can come to the microphone. State your name. Have you sworn in? You promise to tell the truth? You know anything about that building? Could you state your name, please? Oh, sorry. Bob Cooper. Mr. Turnip Seed. I did who really make this building look phenomenal on the inside from what it used to look like. I saw for a company, I got two of the other founders. Here, we've grown from five to about 40. And really, our whole goal with this, we bought this so we could have a place to just make it the best place to write software in South Carolina. The kids that we compete, they got chance to go to Apple, Google. It's usually the companies that we're competing with for the kids we hire. We ran up here. I didn't realize it was so far away. And so we looked at the lofts in San Francisco, looked at when those kids go visit those high tech companies, what do they need? Why would they want to stay in Columbia? So if you walk in this building, what we've been able to renovate so far, we brought in old antique flooring, tore up the old cheap carpet, opened it up. It looks gorgeous on the second floor. The goal is to add this deck so the programmers can go out and relax and then to renovate the first floor to make it look beautiful. We've looked for a lot of the old pictures of the original building and tried to figure out because there's so many cutouts on the aisle side. You know, how this thing was completed but it means a lot to us. So we're definitely trying to make it look great for Columbia. I have a question. Are you going to, there's security light on the rear of the building now, right? One more time. Security light. How are you going to cope with that this addition? You know, I don't know. There wasn't a security light there when we moved in. So we had a lot of homeless folks sleeping and there was a fear when people would go out at night because there were people all around that people were nervous getting to their car. So I hadn't talked to the architects about where we located the lights. Some of them are in the alleyway, which would stay where they're at. And I think there's on that backside there's just the one light up on the top. The other two are kind of the doorway areas. You're going to have lights for this treasure. Say underneath in Paris you're going to have lights below. These guys would know that better than I would. We will have all the security grass and security lighting integrated below the patio. Thank you. Any comments or questions from the commissioners? Did y'all work to explore other options on where this was placed? Like on the roof? The only thing we really talked about when they first came to the table was trying to penetrate the building on the alley side instead of on the rear and that just wasn't feasible and ended up being I guess because of the elevation of the floor and where they're actually going to have to do a lot more actually modification to the window on the side of the building. So that was really the only thing that we talked about in modifying this design. I'm not sure if it's feasible or the roof deck or anything. We'll have to answer that I guess. Other comments? I have one other for the architect. Even though this is schematic rendering and I know it's not working drawings what about the wind bracing for this stretcher? How is that going to be handled? Are you going to have x-bracing or wires or roll metal or what? These are all moment frame connections which our structural engineer has assured us is stable moment connections? Yes sir. If you want to flip back to the alley way you'll see it it's essentially a similar design to the Washington Street view. So the issue with adding a door on that side is the floor height is just above where that cross piece comes across and our door height was actually up and into those archways which we felt was more intrusive than the square recesses on the rear back here. I do want to just say a couple things obviously I've read the comments from the staff in regard to the potential precedent and to the compatibility with the existing structure and I did struggle with this a little because certainly this would be within the owner's purview to build an addition to the back of this building. This is open air so it makes it a little trickier but my own feeling about this is that I do think that the historic nature of the building the fact that it is a national register structure and the fact that the location of this deck is very, very highly prominent on the street makes for very specific circumstances for this project and I think that the argument and to quote from the comments with regard to preservation of traditional features that sensitive responses to existing materials, details and proportions as well as patterns of materials and openings is strongly recommended. I think where I personally fall on this is that I think that the idea of being able to provide the kind of amenity that this provides is a wonderful, potentially wonderful idea. I think that the issue or the aspect of something that is compatible in terms of texture and rhythm and materiality particularly in terms of materiality and rhythm I think is a very important consideration because the idea of allowing a deck in the back is because a deck in the back as it says here should occur in areas that are not visible in the street. The problem is you don't have an area that's not visible from the street. I think that there is a solution to this that would be in terms of compatibility with the historically important building. It's a beautiful building that would be compatible with the building. I think there's probably a more compatible solution out there. This is sort of an interesting industrial structure in and of itself I think but it's sort of ad hoc and it's not even though you can see through it it's not transparent. It's got a fair amount of mass and visual presence that to me doesn't really take into account the existing historic structure so I've got real reservations about it from the standpoint of precedent and I do think that there would be a way to reconfigure this and would take more time but to reconfigure this in a way that would be historically compatible with historical nature and rhythms of the building so I don't know how other commissioners feel about that. I haven't heard anybody else voice any concerns about that but I do have those concerns and it's very quiet. If I don't know if you have any response to that or if any commissioners have any other comments. Obviously like I said our parameters we're trying to keep as thin and light as structure as possible. Obviously being heavy and steel it's hard to do at the size that it is but trying to maintain the urban feel and the utilitarian side of this building I suppose really the direction that we were aiming for. Scott has something to add. Scott Lambert. One of the things Tom I think that's a little bit complicated is you can see we're actually connecting to the second floor here so some of the studies we had was moving the stair on the backside to where maybe a little bit less visible but it actually adds more mass to it. So it was a challenge on being able to connect back to the second floor versus dropping you all the way down and then we have another access and you can see also there's an access to the basement here so it's from an egress standpoint it's a little bit tricky with all the different levels we're trying to connect and still gain access to that basement so just to give you a little insight on what the staircase is where it is. Could you get to the microphone and state your name again so we have it on the record? Sure. Thanks. That I-beam is carried out throughout the inside of the building so if you walk in that building there's big I-beams today inside and then a huge one that runs front to back so it is the same style of steel you know the railings are different but the rest of it matches what's inside the building so I thought from my perspective you know I liked you know the fact that that didn't match what was in the building. I guess if you're talking about trying to hide the mass it seems like if you start covering things then you bring the issue back that you're trying to avoid is with some of the population at night you need it open for security purposes I would tank too. Tom is looking at it from that standpoint I'm not suggesting that it would be more massive or that it couldn't be steel necessarily I'm not trying to sort of lead the design in any direction. My only observation is that I think that there would be I think that Scott alluded to the idea of trying to consider different kind of configurations for the stair and that's one of the aspects of it that I'm not sure that that's the proper location just from a massing standpoint from the standpoint of how it relates to the street to have the stair right there in the corner seems not in keeping with the texturing rhythm of the existing historic building so I'm not saying at all that I'm opposed to the idea of an open-air structure I could imagine a lot of different kinds of open-air pavilions back there that would seem more compatible in terms of rhythm and texture with the existing building and I may be the only one among us who feels this way so I just thought that it was important to state those concerns that I had Are there any other comments from commissioners? Anybody want to make a motion? I guess the unique site plan the commission grant approval for the addition at 1337 assembly street Your second? I'll second Have a vote Mr. Broom? Yes Mr. Cone? No Mr. Daniel? Yes Ms. Fuller-Wilt? Yes Ms. Great? Yes Mr. Savry? No Motion passes Motion passes Next case please Mr. Chairman before she starts I have accused myself in this case as I have an ongoing relationship with the applicant on some pending legal or real estate matters. Thank you This is 214 Wayne Street This is a request for certificate of design approval for exterior changes in addition and a request for preliminary certification for the Baileyville and Whaley street protection area This is a one-story brick pool building built circa 1918 which is at the rear of the Pacific Community Association building which is known as 701 Whaley today This was a space for swimming lessons and recreation for the associated mill community Here's some historic photos that show the interior of the pool as well as some large skylights that were originally part of the design Today the roof and skylights are gone as well as most of the or all of the windows however the tile work on the interior is still very well intact So part of the scope of work would include restoring the missing features such as the roof and skylights and repairing the features that are still there The renovation also includes the addition of approximately 845 square feet to the north side of the building and catering space as well as hardscaping along the west side of the building for new courtyard and entry patio The new entry patio also includes a ramp for ADA access Overall staff has found that the proposal meets the guidelines for the Baileyville and for the Whaley street protection area with the exceptions being the placement of the ramp and details of the courtyard First, the proposal for the large brick courtyard area directly in front of the historic building abutting the brick of the building Staff suggest creating a small visual buffer either with a change in material or with a small planting area to break up this brick and visually differentiate the old from the new to be in keeping with the Baileyville ordinance Second, due to the grade change on the lot in the high floor height where the pool is located the entry also includes a brick patio staircase and ramp to lead guests from the street into the building Staff have been explored by the applicant for the placement of the ramp with great consideration being given to its placement away from the historic building which staff agrees with However, there are still some concerns with the current proposed scheme which places the ramp and guard rails directly in front of the lobby area which creates a circuitous route into the building with the ramp and railing obscuring the sense of entry as seen from the street Staff suggest moving the staircase in front of the entry doors to create a direct line of entry to the building with the ramp most likely being moved to the north Staff is happy to continue working with the applicant to work out the details of the ramp location These are just some perspectives that show the sense of entry being obscured slightly with the ramp there This is another scheme that they considered that includes some planting in front of the ramp This is a very rough idea of a staff suggestion that includes the ramp being turned and moved to the north with the stair directly in front of the doorway Staff recommendations are in two parts Staff finds that the project complies with section 17-698 of the city ordinance and recommends granting preliminary certification for the Baileyville with the following conditions The project meeting or exceeding the 20% investment threshold requirements for qualified rehabilitation expenses All work meeting the standards for work is outlined in section 17-698 that a small visual buffer zone be added between the brick courtyard and historic building and that all other details be deferred to staff Second part of the staff recommendations Staff finds that the proposal for exterior changes and addition to 214 Wayne Street is generally in keeping with sections 5 and 6 of the guidelines in section 17-698 of the city ordinance and recommends granting a certificate of design approval with the following conditions The entry stairs move directly in front of the entrance and the location of the ramp be adjusted so that it does not interfere with sense of entry The final configuration being deferred to staff A small visual buffer zone be added between the brick courtyard and historic building and that all other details be deferred to staff Very good. The applicant wish to speak? Never missed an opportunity to speak State name please Richard Burks Phase 2 of I guess 3 pieces to this project A long time coming Thanks staff I got some good recommendations I'd like to see some working together on we're trying to get 72 feet of ramp to get up to the pool elevation It's not an easy fit and we've got 72 feet to work with If y'all have any questions I'd be happy to actually mark Kotterl on this portion and Scott or Josh or Wendy on the Anybody that would like to speak in support or opposition 2 minutes Okay Comments or questions from the commissioners? I have a question Realize that we have to meet the ADA with the disease of the ramp Have you considered the electric lift exterior type? Kotterl, Grimle, Kotterl Landscape Architects We did consider a lift from discussions with the architect and we don't think that's an egress That would now not allow us to get people out and down fast If that you ask about a lift You would have I guess that's an interesting question but you have enough space for an area of refuge I assume An area of what? Area of refuge Patio I hadn't thought of the question but just to clarify that We can't get far enough away from the building to meet the code If the building is on fire we'll be out into the street So that was the challenge So yes sir we did look into the lift idea but if you had more than well it would have to be on some kind of emergency backup but if you had more than one person in a wheelchair you'd be gammed up I might want to not the subject is good enough for me to understand I do want to say thank you for making this improvement I've been looking forward to seeing this Thank you Any comments from commissioners? Well I would echo Mr. Broom's remarks I think it's great that this is finally happening No I think you do too Richard I have a question that's not related to our purview at all but only because I've been hearing about this for years and then I read about it in here too the glass floor over the pool just out of curiosity Very cool So the other question I have and it sounds like maybe we'll make this relatively quick if I understood what you were saying is that you're willing to work with staff on all of these recommendations? Yes I mean in other words let me ask you the question this way if a motion is made with all of these caveats you're fine with that you're comfortable with that there are some things that I think that we need to I don't want to just say I'm willing to do it right out of hand I think we agreed that we'd sit down and try to as we put it yesterday put 14 ounces on a 12 ounce jar you know one point I think we can figure out some stuff on the handicap ramp I'm not a big fan of putting a planner against the side of the building we don't have the side of 701 on Whaley Wayne the brick runs straight up to the wall it was a shippo thing when we did that not putting any planners or plants Scott wants to address that he can I'm sorry when you said it was a shippo thing their recommendation was to or to not do it to not do it to not put the planner in Right so shippo doesn't want anything green up against they don't want to go ahead Lambert yeah so basically with the nature of this building much like the mills there wasn't a lot of ornate landscape right so I think the challenge is Richard's talked about putting just planters but not planting beds for example just to make it softer and I think that's part of what the intended city is but if I'm correct but I think the issue is if we go in and try to create a whole landscaping it's really not consistent with what the original nature of the building is I just wanted clarification I thought that's what Richard meant Right and to clarify we did originally suggest a green strip to separate a little bit of the new patio from the building an understanding shippo's viewpoint not wanting to do that what we were thinking is that having some sort of different paving material aside from the bricks we don't have brick meeting brick but just a visual other paving material there would help separate the old from the new just a little bit more so you could put your planters on that we wouldn't have a landscape buff or anything I'm willing to look at anything I just feel like I'd like to you know I'm kind of an OCD guy anyway so having the consistency as it flows through it's a plausible understanding to me the big deal is getting that I agree with staff's comments getting that ramp right in front of everybody's face as they walk up I'm sure there's a way to do it I'm sure I can't even tell you how many days and plans but as I told these guys when we met with them the more eyes on it the better you get a better product from pounding it out I really believe that we've got a better you know just from what Mark worked on and Rachel producing this morning I think we're very close we just have very tight tolerances it's going to come down to where do we have a five foot ramp or do we have a four foot four foot ramp to get all the hardware I think without getting into detail about that I think that what I'm trying to get at is if you're comfortable getting through that with staff I think we'll probably be comfortable making a motion I just wanted to get clarification on that one other point it's not visible in this rendering is there's a whole nother addition planned on this that was originally the fly so when we submitted to the National Park Service and got approval on the part originally the next there's a whole nother piece to this which was the fly on the back of the stage so that's the reason it looks like visually you just move the ramp to the left hand side of this image you can just put it there but that's actually part of where the future fly will go and access to it so there's another phase to this that's not really represented because that's not part of the project right now just to clarify anything else thank you would anybody like to make a motion I think we have two different motions actually let's make a motion first anybody want to make a motion about the Bailey bill grant approval for the grant certificate of design approval at 214 Wayne Street for the addition and preliminary certification for the Bailey bill based upon the project complying with section 176 98 of the city ordinance with the following recommendation that the project meets or exceeds the 20% investment threshold requirements for qualified rehabilitation expenses that all work meeting the standards for work as outlining section 17-6 98 that a small buffer zone for low plants be added between the brick courtyard and historic building and all details be deferred to staff there a second pardon me if we can amend we are in agreement that a plant buffer zone is not necessarily required here so I didn't want to make that a requirement just an motion to allow us to continue working with them on some ideas for just a simple visual buffer so do you want to amend that motion I'm in the motion for the applicant and staff to evaluate the buffer zone are plant teams I think we can eliminate that qualification from the yeah I make an additional amendment that the reference to the buffer zones and plant teams be redacted do you need me to read it okay that the project meets or exceeds the 20% investment threshold requirements for qualified rehabilitation expenses that all work meeting the standards for work as outlining section 17-698 and all details be deferred to staff at 214 Wayne Street granting a certificate of design approval for exterior changes in addition for preliminary certification of the bill is there a second could we have a vote please if we mention the rent in the motion is that we're voting for just the Bailey bill now right I'm sorry y'all it sounded like they were both included in one motion there is that what you're talking about she said preliminary certification of the Bailey bill and a certificate of design certification for Bailey bill we're banking the motion for was the Bailey bill okay thank you just for the Bailey bill okay and we have a motion the second we did Mr. Broom yes Mr. Cone yes Ms. Fuller-Wilt yes Ms. Grape yes Mr. Savery yes and could we have a motion for the certificate of design approval anybody would you take a motion that we approve the application for exterior changes in addition to 214 Wayne Street as it is generally in keeping with sections five and six of the guidelines in section 17-698 of the city ordinance based on the following conditions that the entry stairs move directly in front of the entrance of the location of the ramp adjusted so that it does not interfere with that with final configuration to be approved by staff and that all other details be deferred to staff we have a second I'll second it Mr. Broom yes Mr. Cone yes Ms. Fuller-Wilt yes Ms. Grape yes Mr. Savery yes motion passes we have any other business we have a second motion to adjourn second all in favor aye immediate adjourned . . . . . . . .