 expertise or interest in historic preservation and design. We generally meet on the second phase of the month to review cases. Staff to the commission is our urban design and historic preservation staff. They are available to answer questions if you have them. But please do not interrupt the seating if you do intend. And D, 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 after we're to add to the basis 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 would ask if there's 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 bundle shall not exceed five minutes. In most of the cases, we will make a decision tonight after all the information has been presented. If your case is denied or you feel that our decision was made an error, you and anyone with standing have the opportunity to appeal within 30 days of these decisions. If you plan to speak about a specific project, you must have signed in. The sheet is in the back of the room. It's in the back or in the front. OK. Also, and so that the members of the public understand, commissioners are under strict instruction to avoid discussing DDRC meetings and applications with members of the public or with each other outside of these proceedings to avoid at-my-date 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? No. Staff, proceed with a roll call. Mr. Bockneid. Here. Mr. Broom. Here. Mr. Cohn. Here. Ms. Johnson. Here. Ms. Moore. Here. Ms. Fuller-Wilt. Here. Mr. Nguyen. We have quorum. Here. I'd like to ask the staff if the agenda order still stands. We have had a few changes to the agenda since publication under the regular part of the agenda, the historic section, 2301 Gadsden Street. Excuse me, a request for design approval for unapproved changes and an appeal to a staff decision in the Elmwood Park architectural conservation district has been deferred. Likewise, under the same agenda, the 1,700 block of Calhoun, intersection of Calhoun and Talley Street's project, which is a request for design approval for modifications to the landmarked wall on the former state hospital grounds currently, the Bull Street neighborhood, which is an individual landmark, has also been deferred. The DDRC utilized a consent agenda for those projects which requires a DDRC review, which meets the guidelines and typically requires no discussion. If anyone wishes to discuss an item on the consent agenda, I would ask that you speak up after the consent agenda is read and that we can pull the item for discussion on the regular agenda. Is there anyone who wishes to take an item of the consent agenda for discussion? Read those for you. Jisoo, we're sure about those. Those are 1301 Fairview Drive, which is a request for a certificate of design approval for new construction of a garage in the Melrose Heights Oakland Architectural Conservation District and also 2200 Remburt Street, which is a request for a certificate of design approval for new construction in the Elmwood Park Architectural Conservation District. Motion to approve? A motion or move that these be accepted without questions? Can you stand? Take a vote. Mr. Boknight? Yes. Mr. Barum? Yes. Mr. Kohn? Yes. Ms. Johnson? Yes. Ms. Fuller-Wilt? Yes. Ms. Moore? Yes. Mr. Nguyen? Yes. The motion passes. May I add also that we will accept the minutes from the last meeting along with that? Addition to the vote to approve the meeting minutes of last month? I would just make a separate second motion in the second bit. Second that. Second the motion. Good vote. Mr. Boknight? Yes. Mr. Barum? Yes. Mr. Kohn? Yes. Ms. Johnson? Yes. Ms. Fuller-Wilt? Yes. Ms. Moore? Yes. Mr. Nguyen? Yes. The motion passes. This is the presentation of the cases on the regular agenda. So the first case is a request for a certificate of design approval for a wall and a re-approval of a garage demolition and new construction at 15 Gibbs Court. The garage demolition and new construction was approved by the commission in 2016. But it needs to be re-heard since the project wasn't started. The primary structure at 15 Gibbs Court was designed by George E. Le Fay and was constructed in 1912. As I said, this request will be broken into two parts. The first for the garage demolition and new construction and then the wall. The only change to the request for garage demolition and new construction was an addition of a window to a grouping on the facade. So staff's recommendation is the same from the previous request. And this is that staff finds that the garage demolition and new construction complies with section 17-674E of the city ordinance. And section 6 of the University Architectural Conservation District guidelines and recommends granting a certificate of design approval with all details deferred to staff. The other half of this request is for the construction of a 12-foot brick wall along the rear property line, which if approved would require a variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals to the 7-foot maximum height for fences along rear property line. The applicants are requesting this variance due to the truck traffic created by Capstone House, a residence hall and restaurant, which is a part of the University of South Carolina that has been in operation since the 1960s. There is an existing 5-foot-6 brick wall on the front and sides of the property, which predate the existing 4-foot maximum height permitted in front yard. Although this is an interior lot, the location of the proposed wall is highly visible from Gregg Street, as there is a parking lot and access road for the Presley-Spagner House, which is a group 2 city landmark, and Capstone House to the west. The rear lot line of 15 Gibbs Court sits 2 feet above the adjacent University property. The measurement of the wall height is from the applicants grade and does not include the additional 2 feet that will be visible from the right of way. If permitted, a 12-foot wall built from property owner's grade would actually result in a 14-foot wall, which is inconsistent with section 17-277 of the city ordinance and historic examples in the district. Staff researched the height for visible walls in the district, and except where there is a significant grade change along a property line, walls were no greater than around 7 feet in height. There is an example at 1927 Pendleton Street. Part of the purpose of an architectural conservation district is to maintain a consistent sense of scale in a neighborhood, which would be disrupted by a 12-foot wall. And staff understands that the owners may wish for additional buffering at their property line, but this can and should be addressed with alternative solutions that work with the guidelines, such as dense plantings, rather than a 12-foot wall, which is not in keeping with the guidelines. The applicant's choice to continue the design and match the brick of the existing wall is consistent with the guidelines. And a 7-foot wall at these site conditions, which would essentially be a 9-foot wall from the street, would give the applicant's additional buffering than what is typical. A dense evergreen planting, which is compliant with the guidelines, can effectively screen the property above the 7-foot permitted wall. In addition, this is a district in which there is a great deal of intersection between the neighborhood and businesses, in this case, the University of South Carolina. The applicants have a legitimate desire for noise reduction and privacy, but there are very likely many such cases in this district. And although this situation is repeated in the district, it's also unique in that the primary impact will not actually be on the structure at 15 Gibbs Court, but instead on the adjacent city landmark. And as staff, we are required to consider how, if this request is duplicated many times over in the neighborhood, how that would alter the character of the district. This is why staff recommends a 7-foot wall from the property owner's grade, which would result in a 9-foot visible wall from the street and is 2 feet taller than what is typically recommended. The applicants could add a screen of evergreens or some other kind of dense plant, which could be as tall as they wished as it's a landscaping feature and gain the privacy that they desire while still being in compliance with the guidelines. So the recommendation for the request for a Certificate of Design approval for the wall is that it is generally compliant with section 17-277 of the city ordinance and section 5-2 of the University Architectural Conservation District Guidelines. And staff recommends granting a Certificate of Design approval only if the following conditions are met, that the brick and mortar match the existing wall along the front and sides of the property, that the wall be no more than 7 feet in height measured from the grade of the applicant's property due to the additional 2 feet allowed because of the great change between properties and all details be deferred to staff. Is there anyone would like to stand up and speak? Mr. Chairman and members of the commission, my... Hold on. Sure. All four of you are going to speak. Have signed in? Yes. But only if necessary. Thank you. As a commission, I am Matthew Richardson. I own the property, live there, 15 Gibbs Court, and appreciate y'all having us back here when we're now in a position to proceed with this reconstruction project. We're trying to preserve the home. We love it, and we love the neighborhood, and that's really where we're coming from. We appreciate this opportunity and asking for full approval from the commission for this project, and this is just the first step. We heard, I think, repeatedly citations to an ordinance that is really the next step. It's the Board of Zoning Appeal to deal with the height of the wall. But let's put this in context. We very much appreciate the staff's work and support for every part of this project, except this difference of opinion we have about the rear property wall. And so I'm just going to focus on that, but we welcome your questions on any part of the project, and these folks are here with us, because they have better knowledge about other aspects of the property, about the project. Our request for the variance for the wall is really a very unique circumstance, and we don't think it's going to change or set precedent in any way. And we also believe it's a reasonable request under these specific unique circumstances. Number one, it is not owned property adjacent to the city property, city right-of-way, city sidewalk. As they said, it's an interior property, and this is adjacent to the university property. It only borders university property. It will not impact directly any other private residence, and as the presentation made clear, and we take observation, there's no historical value of being able to see the back of our house. And in fact, it has recent renovations that were approved on the basis that it would not be visible from the public right-of-way. So we know there can be no objection to it blocking the view of our house. The burden, if any, is on the university side, and the landmark being referred to as university property. I will tell you about this as in your package. The university, although often times taking no position or opposing things, actually supports our request for this wall. As does the University Neighborhood Association, and all of the adjacent landowners. Down Gregg Street and on our block, there's only three private residences on this side of the block. The second way reason that this is a specific and unique circumstance is illustrated actually by a picture left up there. This representation of the wall is not taken from the public right-of-way. This is taken from university property. So that's not the view that you would have even if the wall were there. The previous picture, do you mind going back to that? That's taken from the edge of the city property, and can show that it is harshly visible, not highly visible from the public right-of-way, and really it's the university, as we said, that it's impacted. In fact, the university property that it mortars itself is very unique. Yes, there's other university property in the neighborhood, that's why it's called University Hill, but it also is unique because there's an 18-storey dormitory with two restaurants and other commercial business activity at the end of this service road. So it's not only university property, but it's actually a service access road, and you can even see in the back right corner of the picture some of the trucks that have pulled in and backed in that are accessing what is a loading dock, loading and unloading materials for the restaurants, cleaning supplies and other supplies to service the 18-storey dormitory building that is at the end of this service road, and for the trash dumpsters that are adjacent to that loading dock, and there's ADA compliant things to wheel the trash things down, other big safety walls, OSHA compliant aspects to the loading dock that you can see if we saw the end of this service road, but it is this unique capstone service access road that creates a very different character of this unique part of the border, the interior border between our property residential and the commercial there. This access road is actually used daily by tractor trailer size, 18-wheeler size trucks. They back in, they've got the reverse warning beeping and we've got a picture in our package that shows from the house that you can clearly see the trucks even from the elevated portion of our house looking over the wall, our request for this wall simply blocks to the very top of an 18-wheeler that we see on the daily block design. So we want this border and a barrier between the historical residential part of the neighborhood and on this interior service, commercial service road that is for capstones building. The current fence, you can't really see it and that's part of why it's only partial visible, but if you could see it clearly, you would see the metal framing is exposed on this side of the wall and there's wooden slats there. So our reconstruction is important for actually putting up a brick wall that's consistent with the neighboring historical properties, the brick that's been matched. It's part of the reason the university is supporting this project. Another aspect that the university likes, if you see it at the top, you can see the faint lines of electrical and other wires. Part of our project that we're undertaking at our expense to beautify this area at that level is to bury the power lines and it's something the university wanted, we're doing it for them, capstone building and the neighbors and that's part of why we think that building a higher wall is not, is complimentary of this project. So let me just talk a second about the design guidelines, the walls. They do not address the height of the wall. It's not in the design guidelines that are under consideration here. Just doesn't mention them. What was mentioned is that there are specific ordinances that address the height requirements and we're asking the commission to approve the design of the project, including the wall, before we go on to the Board of Zoning Appeals to ask for the variance that would be required for the height of the wall and we're fully cognizant of that. The design guidelines, as I understand them, require that the reconstructed wall should complement the historical preservation and residential character of our neighborhood. And as we said before, and as you can see a little bit here, is in what I said with the approval of the addition, you can see the top of with the white windows and this dark, different, not brick, is that it's not intended to be seen from the road and they were approved on that basis. We believe that the proposed wall is consistent with the guidelines because of two really important reasons. One, that it is consistent and it complements the historical materials and buildings that need to be preserved. It does nothing to block the view from the public right away of any historical building. It has no impact whatsoever on the Spiderman House. It has no impact on our house because it's a rear. The second reason is it will not be obscuring any significant features of these historical buildings. And converting it from what it is now, bearing power lines, putting up the brick that is complimentary and blocking it from the view of 18-wheeler trucks because it's a very different character from the residential and historical area to this commercial and busy area. We think complies with the spirit and the letter of the guidelines. But we would say that even if it's not consistent with the design guidelines, it's this special and unique circumstances of the 18-story building, the service access road, the dumpsters and loading docks and the constant truck traffic, that we say you can approve this without the concern that it's gonna be brought back. There's no other private residences along that service road, we're the only one. Everything else touching that service road is university property and they've approved it. The other precedents of walls in the neighborhood in one afternoon, and we've put that in our materials, there are at least three other walls that are over seven feet and are directly owned the city sidewalks. And we've given you those examples, you can see them. Okay, I'm sorry, you don't have them. Then can we approach and hand them up? I thought you had it, I apologize. But we've got a map that will show you the location in the neighborhood and has a picture of a small picture of the wall that, of the side, for example, at 1033 Gregg Street, there's a 14 foot tall wall facing Senate Street. Directly on the public right away, there's a sidewalk, right on the sidewalk, that's the first picture of the packet. You see on the very next, the third page, in 1932 Penelope Street, there's a nine foot wall right on the sidewalk facing Lawrence. And there's another 14 foot wall facing Green Street at 1807 Lawrence, and that's the fourth one in. And then the last one you can see from the public right away, we took the same old picture from a little farther back so that you could see the back of the property. But in a sense, it puts it a little bit in perspective that this is not gonna set a new precedent, okay? Because this is unique even from these examples of 14 foot walls on the city street in the neighborhood. This is not on a city sidewalk or property. In addition, and I mentioned this in passing, but I wanna kind of highlight this because you should have these letters in your packet. We have the approval and written support from the University of South Carolina. We have approval and written support from the University Hill Neighborhood Association for this wall and request of y'all's approval. And all the adjacent, the only adjacent landowner is the University, but the one's in close proximity. So 17 years, which is next door to us, the one behind it is 835 Greg. That's at the top of College Street. And if you look at the last picture of our picture, excuse me, of our handout is now, there's a White House on the left, that is 835 Greg. The homeowner there is in full support and signed and included a letter of support. Also at 900 Greg, four of the residents in that complex have issued support, letters of support. In the next house down at the Dibbles, 914 Greg Street, a better written letter than I could have in support of it. Pardon me, Mr. Richardson, we're I think over the 10 minute mark of this call, so Mr. Richardson. Sorry, let me just say this in closing, if the chairman had a mind. For our standpoint, we don't think it should impact any other project. We respect for the request of your commission to approve the entire project. And of course, we'll be happy because we've got to go to get approval for the height of the wall. We think that better left reserve for another day. And we're happy to answer any questions about the project or anything that we've handed up or presented today. Thank you. Anybody have a question? You need to speak? As my understanding, you're looking at a, to increase the height of the wall at 12 feet, is that correct? Yes, we're actually gonna reconstruct the wall because it's metal and wood, metal framing and wood right now. So we're gonna reconstruct the wall with brick that matches the historical structures that are adjacent to it. And we want it to go up to the height that the trucks that are coming back and forth on this road are. And that's 12 feet from our property. Are you looking at new materials or existing materials to match? How are you gonna do that? The supplier of the brick has matched the brick at our house and the Spigner house. And that's part of why the university gave us a letter of support is they like the fact that instead of looking at a metal framing with wood on the other side, facing our property, that they get brick wall that matches the brick on their side. And included mortar. Right. Let me ask you, is this wall gonna be reinforced in some fashion? In fact, the engineering has been interesting. They had to core down and design sufficient support. There is this been referred to as two foot concrete wall retaining wall on the university side. And we've worked with the university, both to bury the power lines, they're gonna add some vegetation in front of these parking spaces. But there's a spot there, bury the power lines and reinforce the wall so that it's sufficiently strong. In fact, we had to take out a significantly large tree because it can't survive the engineering required for even a shorter wall. But also it would be, we wanna make sure that the footings are sufficient. I think it might be two or four feet up. Geosystems is a structural engineer for the wall to make sure that it's, and again, the university would not have signed off on it if they thought there was any risk on their side. Yeah, we see their ladder. Thank you very much. Looks like y'all have done a good homework. Anybody else have any questions? Let me just address first that, I'm sorry, let me just address first that the height is a part of the review for the guidelines. So that is part of what you'll be reviewing for this project. The guidelines reference specifically the city ordinance section 17-277 where the height is specifically outlined, but that's incorporated into the guidelines. So like I said, it will be a part of your review. Very good. I have one question for you. Excuse my voice. The other walls that you referenced here, are they not all university property or university walls? None of them are even adjacent to university property. They're all private landowners adjacent to city sidewalks. Okay. If I might. It's been suggested that the... Have you, give us your name, please. Yes, I'm so sorry. My name is Beth Richardson. I'm also the homeowner of 15 gifts courts. Oh, okay, very good. And we have three children. My husband didn't mention that. Who are two boys and a girl, 12, 10, and nine. And we've lived at this property now for over 2008. We moved in, so it's been almost 10 years. And we've been trying to work on the property and renovate and restore it back to how it was originally built in 1912 from the beginning. So, but these walls, while two of them in the package that we handed out to you are on city streetscapes that do appear to have sort of like a gradation. They're even just because these walls that exceed the apparently they were allowed for height are on this graded property. There's no reason why the wall actually has to be that high still, just because it's on the grade. On the first property, 1033 Gregg Street, these are friends of ours. The backside of their property, the land, actually rolls down with the streetscape too. So the height of this wall is not for like a retainment of land purpose. It is truly for a privacy purpose, meaning that they were able to keep the wall that high going all along this city street side in order to maximize the privacy and the view into their backyard. It doesn't serve like an engineering purpose or anything like that. And there is the gradation on 1932 Pendleton Street, but I will point out that at 807 Lawrence Street, that wall, there's very little change in gradation on the drive on both the Green Street side and the driveway side. And this is a unique spot in our neighborhood where the Gregg Street townhomes were developed sort of all along Gregg Street and Lawrence side. And there's one house that refused to sell to the developer and the developer must have way back when got in permission to shield this one townhome from the one hold out home for privacy purposes because this wall which is 14 feet tall really served no purpose other than to block the view with the hold out to the development. So I propose that our justifications are much more compelling in that that our property is residential and we're next to very commercial side and we have the consent and support of all the people around us. You're not trying to keep a caravan out as much as before doing more property and privacy, I guess. 18 hours. Okay. Does that run all hours? Coming pretty early in the mornings, but they typically go at least until five or six. I don't know how long, I couldn't say that. Every morning from four to seven, one or two trucks comes in. The trash is pulled at all different times during the week. Let me ask you something. This property is how far from the railroad tracks? It's the railroad tracks will be on the other side of property that's on the east side of Lawrence Street. We come up College Street to Gregg Street and then there's another house and you go around to Gibbs Court and that's where we are, 15 Gibbs Court. So we're a number, you know. I was trying to get my bearing. Sure. If you look at our map of our most recent handout, you can see the curve at the top is actually the railroad. It's the Southern Cut or whatever they call it. And if you come up the hill, you'll see in the bottom right is where Capstone House is, the 18 story with the circular restaurant on top. So you would start at the top and you'd come almost to the bottom right and you'll see it's a, it's a, the Askin-Finney variant is the railroad. Yeah. Do you know if the examples in this were done before the design guidelines? From what I could find, I did find these in my research. They came into place before the design guidelines. I have another question. Mr. and Mrs. Richardson, I just wanted you to be aware of that, but this does come up frequently. So just as a matter of general public knowledge, very frequently examples are given to us that predate the guidelines. So it's almost kind of a, it almost reinforces the reason not to set a precedent. And that's why even though, I mean, this is really only done in response to the statements and the reasons given by the staff. We would say that these, that we're more unique and not really relevant. I mean, those are right on a city sidewalk, okay? It shows that it's not unprecedented at whatever time, but this is not on adjacent to City Line. So it's more to show that we're different and unique than even these examples that we just found literally in one afternoon. And so I don't think it sets a precedent and wouldn't, and it'd be the same question next time. You'd say, well, that's not on a city sidewalk. That's adjacent to a service access road. That's the university and they approved it and they wanted it. Plus it was converting it to the right complimentary materials. It didn't block any historical features because that was the rear of the house that had already been renovated without, on the basis of it not being visible from the public street. I have a question. Y'all, you and your family have lived there for 10 years. And so probably nothing has significantly changed in the design of the neighborhood since you purchased the property. I mean, there's capstone was there, et cetera. In living there, you've had experiences which made you decide that you wanted to wall. And what are you hoping to accomplish? What will be different for you that you didn't expect maybe when you bought the house? Well, actually the answer would be nothing. We wanted to wall when we bought the house, but the house had not been lived in for eight years except for a very short interim time. It had a steam boiler, no central heating in air, exposed asbestos, and we put more into the house at that point than we bought it for. And so this would be basically phase three of reconstruction and restoration or renovation, rather, of the house. And that's, you're seeing part of the first phase there in the back is that extension that add-on that we had. It was a lot of things that were done to it, but nothing has changed with our desire to put a significant barrier there. And when this house was built, there was no capstone. There was no service road. It was just an interior adjacent property to this firehouse. And so, you know, that there wasn't an intervening somebody that had both the time. I mean, even this project, even this phase for us has been approved and we've had taken for a number of reasons, some personal, some financial, some others, some of them engineering, that we are just getting to this project now. Thank you. Question and reference to your garage. It was previously approved by the DDRC, is that correct? In 2016, and we did not get in a position to actually do the, I'd say the replacement of it, so that it's actually usable. And there was no, it wasn't found to be a contributing factor to the neighborhood. I think there was a lot of damage if I'm not. That previous approval, there is a detailed engineering report, which I think is in your package from Chow and Associates that evaluated the existing garage, significant rot, termite damage, any number of other things. Staff at the time actually came out and inspected it and the garage simply is, it's beyond repair. I mean, it would be obvious to you if you walked and looked at it, but we have an engineering report to back that up, but it's not even borderline, it's beyond any measure of repair. And if you remember the approval in 2016, any approval from the DDRC is good for a year, and if construction isn't started at that point, then it needs to come back for a stamp of approval, that's correct. Nothing's changed as far as the garage goes. There was a window, they got added to the garage design that the staff talked about, but nothing's changed in the plans for the replacing. And we have the original plans, they mentioned Shannon LaFaig drew them. That's not the original plan for the garage. Not sure when and if it was added. The plans to the DDRC approved three years ago or like the middle? I've got a question for Mr. Marshall. As far as the, back to the wall, as far as the materials and the composition of the detailing, is everyone in agreement on the finishing, illustration of it or? It shows in your drawing, it's a brick wall with pilasters and a cap. I am sure that if the board or commission were to grant approval for the height, the Richardson's would be open to additional detail. I mean, there is detailing on it, but if staff wanted additional detailing or different detailing, I'm sure the Richardson's would be open to that as long as we also could get the university's sign off on it since it's adjacent to their property, but the height is the big issue. It is detailed with a series of caps appropriately scaled for the height and a series of pilasters, but if there was some desire or some feeling that some additional handling or something would somehow make it better. I think it's really what's presented and what the landscape architect has designed presents a very simple straightforward, it will largely not show up once landscaping. This is one of those things that I know we're going through a great deal of discussion about. I can almost promise you that five years from now, if this is put in place, it's not something that is going to stand out like a sore thumb. It is a fairly sensitive, low-key brick wall. There will be planting in front of these parking spaces and five years from now, if you played guess what changed to the picture, I don't think most people would be able to tell you that something had really changed. It's not a sore thumb. It's a very low-key side solution. May I interject? We didn't have any information about plantains. Is this in front of the wall? Because that's on university property. So who would want? It's part of burying the wires and they just told us we haven't seen planting. It's on university property. It's really hard to tell, but unless you're standing in front of those cars, you don't realize there's about a four or five foot dirt spacing between there and the wall. Front of the cars and the wall. That's where the wires are going to be buried and that's where they told us, but we haven't seen what they're going to do either. The university said we're going to put plantains on this side as well. Thank you. I've got one other question. So the height of the wall is dictated by the ordinance specifically? Yes, so the guidelines reference the ordinance which delineates the maximum height. So my question is as a commission, if we were to approve the wall and design, could it be subject to a variance approval for the height? It'll still need to go to the Board of Zoning Appeals. We're on the April agenda for the Board of Zoning Appeals. The logical order was to come to y'all first. They meet two days before you, so it had to be a month. It will definitely have to be approved by the Board of Zoning Appeals. The underlying city ordinance says by right you can have a wall up to seven feet and anything above seven feet is a discretionary approval of the Board of Zoning. I've got one question. We're approving a wall as the ordinance reads now. Any variance has to be approved by the Board of Zoning Appeals, correct? We are asking you to approve a wall that is taller. We're asking you to approve a 12-foot wall to give a certificate of design appropriateness to the 12-foot wall. There will be a second step, which is to go before the Board of Zoning Appeals for the height variance, which is required by the underlying city zoning ordinance. So if the order was reversed and you had a variance, we would be talking about the height or not talking about the height? No, you would still be talking about the height. If you choose to make a motion to approve anything above the seven-foot maximum, it would be pending approval from the Board of Zoning Appeals. Does that answer your question? Because I thought you were saying if the Board of Zoning Appeals approved it first. Right. We would still have DRC would still have authority to say yes or no to the height because it is in the design guidelines. Walls are part of the purview. Right. Given the fact that there are other walls in the area if they had a variance before they came here, would we be talking about the height? Because it feels like the only reason we're talking about it is because it's not seven, excuse me, it's seven feet in the ordinance. The height is still within your purview. It's just that the height, many of the historic district's guidelines have a specific height that's located in them. This particular set of guidelines is a bit different in that it references the ordinance, but the understanding is that it will, those guidelines are referencing the ordinance to, it's kind of, Yeah. Yes. Yeah. The guidelines, it does reference it, but this is how it references it. The guidelines say specific ordinances apply to heights and setbacks. Y'all don't give approval of setbacks and then it cites the height. So it is a good question and it's one that you do consider it in the context of approving the design of the wall, but either way, y'all can't approve or disapprove the height of the wall independent of the Board of District Appeals. So it's part of, to the extent it's considered, it's part of the design approval. Sure. I think where I'm going is, I think you've done an amazing job to the property and really appreciate the effort over there because I think most people would be scared away. And I can appreciate the noise behind there. I can appreciate this not necessarily on the street. And I think the composition of the materials is a great improvement. And I think what I'm just trying to get my head around is like the chicken or the egg. If the height was different, would we be talking about the height? I think if you were to look at the guy, and remember, these are the university district design guidelines, which may be different than other districts, but the principles that are listed for walls in this district do not mention the height. And so you can feel, we would argue, you can feel comfortable not being the final answer on the height because that needs its own variance independent of this because they are approving variances to the specific ordinance. And so even though it's referenced here, it really is referenced. It could be read as a reference that you still got to comply with the specific ordinances or get a variance. But here are the principles that we're looking at in the commission and there's no mention of the height of the wall. It is, they need to demark property lines, distinguish between a yard and the street. And it doesn't say it, but here, we're distinguishing between commercial access road and a residential living. New fences should respect the use of traditional materials. Again, definitely what you're interested in, consistent with the materials in general, and they should complement the building and not obscure significant features, period. Those are the principles without any mention of height at this stage, except to reserve it as part of the ordinance. Pardon me, but when the ordinance is referenced in the guidelines, it's part of the purview of the DVRC. So I understand the thought process there, but it is part of your purview. And let me just reference one other item that's come up. Your purview is what is visible from the public right of lighting no matter where it is. So even if it's on the interior of a lot, if you can see it from the sidewalk, from the public alley, from the public place, that is part of your purview. I just wanted to be clear about that. I said one more, but this is it. The only thing we can approve is the guidelines in compliant with current ordinance. That's correct. Okay, so the height is truly out of it. The ordinance takes precedence, right? The ordinance. If the guidelines say that it references an ordinance, it doesn't talk about the height of the fence. Ordinance references the height of the ordinance. But the guidelines reference the ordinance. And the guidelines reference the ordinance. I have a further question. Sorry. You can't give them the variance for the height, but you can approve it within the framework of your guidelines where you say that it serves the purpose under 2A, meets the principles, but you can't, you as a board can't grant the variance for the height. Our height, our decision on height is meaningless. All we can look at is the wall. You can make a motion as to the height. You cannot, for the zoning, Board of Zoning Appeals, you cannot make that decision for them, but you also have purview over the height of the wall. As Mr. Marshall was saying, you can't actually grant a legal variance that's the Board of Zoning Appeals' job. You can weigh in on the height of the wall for the zoning. I feel like it wouldn't be setting precedent if we're not approving something we don't. And let me, I'm gonna add my two cents, if I may. Chairman, Mr. Chairman, may I? Please. Reading directly from the guidelines here, it says the driveways and ordinances is specific with the guidelines. It says fences and walls should be compatible with the associated structure and design of the materials. Specific ordinances apply to heights and setbacks. And that refers to Columbia Code of Ordinance section 17277. It says the following materials, and it talks about materials and so on, but that always check with the DDRC before construction. So my take on this is that the ordinance ordinance is there, but we have the purview of looking at both the height, regardless of where the ordinance stands at the time. Does that make sense? I have a question. Have we even seen a design of a 12-foot wall? So that's, so the picture. You were talking about caps. Is this the picture you're talking about? Is this the image? There's no caps on here. Anyway, we can get this on the screen here. Didn't you say there were, I was picturing. If you look at that. Can we go to the front wall picture? Do y'all have the front of? It's in the packet. See, if you look at the front wall, you see there's a layer of brick at the very top. That's the cap. They see the columns are actually in between. Thank you. So if we, and I'm asking all this, if we approved a 12-foot height walling, then it would create the opportunity to go before zoning and say we've already been in front of DDRC and they've approved it so it would strengthen the argument that zoning. I think they would certainly consider the motion by the DDRC and making a decision. They have certain criteria that they follow themselves. It's a two-way street. We need to do it in this order because if we did it in the other order, zoning approved the height variance all to ensure certificate design. It felt like from talking at the zoning office, they didn't want, as the design review for the entire project, it's no point in going to need y'all to grant a certificate of design. And it makes a little bit of sense because they don't want to consider the variance until the wall design has been approved. And they say, all right, now they'll decide whether we get a variance to build a higher wall. It's not a reluctance. It's not that they were going to defer to y'all. Y'all decide the design and they decide the variance to the order. Any other comments? Questions? I've got one more. If we approve a wall compliant with current ordinances, all details deferred to staff. If zoning approves a 12-foot wall, you would still have to approve all details, correct? No, it's including the height. But the details, if you're 12 feet tall, the height, the details will change. This would not move forward, basically. Word of zoning appeals decision is not the DVRC decision. I think if I understand your question, if y'all approve the design today, next month we go to the Board of Zoning Approval. If they approve it, then it would be approved and built. If they didn't, then we could come back and work out whatever different details for a smaller wall with the staff. That's necessary. Your decisions need to agree. If I think what you're, if y'all approve this, based on the design that's submitted for a 12-foot wall, and zoning, if there were details beyond fees that needed to be reviewed by staff, staff would still have the detail review if we were to change to an OG brick on the cap or if we were to change to a different scored mortar joint, then those would be staff level reviews. Right, we would handle design details. That they would handle the design details based on the, we need y'all to approve it as a 12-foot. We're approving a 12-foot, or we could approve a 12-foot design that is non-compliant. It doesn't comply with the ordinance. You absolutely can. You're right. And I think that what Matthew's tried to say is you can approve it for a variety of reasons. One, you could decide that it complies or you could decide that even though it doesn't literally comply with every aspect of it because of the uniqueness and special circumstance, you would not be setting a precedent to approve it in this application backing up to a service drive. You're not opening yourself up to everybody in University Hill asking for a 12-foot wall. I can tell you knowing what this is gonna cost that virtually no one in University Hill is going to come ask you for this wall because this is the wall alone as the cost of a typical house renovation but this is something that's designed for a very specific unique circumstance and you're approving it in this unique circumstance does not set a precedent where you're putting at risk the design guidelines for the neighbor. If we approved it for seven feet, do you still have the opportunity to go to zoning and ask for the 12-foot wall and then come back here? The underlying zoning order that says by default you are allowed as of right, a seven-foot no point for a zoning variance. So if you were to make a design determination just so I understand what you were asking, were you asking if we approved the wall as it's designed, subject to the approval of the variant zoning appeals then with the detailing deferred to staff? Yeah, that's what I was asking. It puts the height decision on the Board of Zoning Appeal and not us. We'll approve the design. Y'all have a responsibility to weigh in on this. For the height, the Board of Zoning Appeals is looking for a decision on the aesthetics of the wall. I know that's your role, how well it fits the guidelines. So I imagine they would review those comments. For that, in making a decision, any design details will return to this Board for the staff review. And so I do believe they will take your motion into consideration, but the height issue is not theirs alone. So if we approve it with the height, they still have to approve it either way. I do. So if we found it generally in keeping with the guidelines from the uniqueness and didn't find like it was creating a precedent and got comfortable with that kind of motion, it's still subject to the Board of Zoning Appeals for the height. Right. It is. Yeah. Okay. Any more discussion? So I do have some language here from the criteria or from the principles of the Board of Zoning Appeals that they consider, which says the authorization of a variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property or to the public good and the character of the district will not be harmed by the granting of the variance. That's one of the things they consider if that's helpful. The next question is only the side adjacent to capstone. It is only the side adjacent to capstone and it only extends to the point where the proposed guest house garage starts. So it doesn't, there was no point to put the fence, when you see the silhouette of the guest house on the drawing, there's no, the fence is only at the extra height is only extended that point at the behind the guest house. Every bit of it is adjacent to University property. What is the height of the back half of the wall in option A? Any more discussion? Is anybody here with opposition? Anybody would like to make a motion? You actually need two motions, correct? We're gonna need to do two motions for the demolition of the garage and reconstruction of it, and then for the wall itself. Anybody second that? Just know that wasn't an emotion. That was an answer to his question. We need two motions to move forward. Take the easy one first. Okay, all right, ahead. All right, Mr. Chairman, I'll make the motion that we approve the application, prove a certificate for design approval at 15 Gregg Street for the demolition of the garage based on the work being in compliance with section 17-674 of the city ordinance. And it generally comply with section six of the guidelines with all details deferred to staff. Did everyone hear Gibb Street or Gregg Street? Gibb Street. I thought you said Gregg, but I know that's where it is. I just heard Gregg. Okay, so correction doesn't... Anybody second? Second. I go vote. Mr. Bocknight? Yes. Mr. Bram? Yes. Mr. Pown? Yes. Ms. Fuller-Wilkes? Yes. Ms. Moore? Yes. Mr. Wynne? Yes. The motion passes. For a second motion on the wall, I will put that forward. I move that the wall construction generally does comply with section 12 or section 17-277 of the city ordinance with a variance to be established by Bosa. And section five dash two of the guidelines. And we recommend that staff be consulted in terms of the brick and mortar existing, match the existing wall along the front and sides of the property to that the wall be no more than that the wall be allowed to be 12 inches in height based upon current or variance by Bosa. And then all details therefore be deferred to staff. 12 inches, 12 feet, not inches. 12 feet, did I say inches? I'm sorry. I'll second that. I go vote. Mr. Bocknight? No. Mr. Bram? No. Mr. Pown? Yes. Ms. Fuller-Weld? Yes. Ms. Moore? No. Mr. Wynn? Yes, I've got a question for you. Is the height dictated by section 17-277? Of the ordinance. So it's not generally compliant with it then? No, it's not. Okay, and that was the way that motion was reported. Pre-word that. That's the only way I'll support it. I'm thinking we're, while it may not be in compliance with section 17-277 from height, that we find the uniqueness of the circumstance and shielding the street, service route, and not adversely impacting the neighbor is the general aesthetics and all in keeping with the guidelines. You can speak up, I can't hear you. Yeah, I'm sorry. I'm just, I'm thinking a lot, sorry. While it may not be directly in compliance with section 17-277 for height, this body finds the uniqueness of the circumstances that the homeowner's faced with and both shielding from the access drive behind them and not adversely impacting the site next door, that we find this to be generally in keeping with the guidelines from our standpoint with all details deferred. It's not a motion, I'm just... Correct, correct. I mean, I tried to establish in that motion that we are finding acceptance of that 12 foot height based on the fact that it still needs to be a variance granted by BOSA. Therefore, the motion is to accept the height difference based on future acceptance by BOSA. And that sense of this generally in keeping with an ordinance, is that not correct? And I'm gonna support back about night, sorry. I'm following you. I'm just trying to figure out how we'd word this. Yeah, I understand which... If I might suggest, I think since we have a tie vote, the vote is lost. I think there needs to be some understanding of where the discrepancy in opinion is so that y'all can come to a vote that you can come to a different vote or a different motion to vote on. I'll offer a new motion. While not compliant of section 17277 of the city ordinance in section 52 of the guideline, I recommend that the Board of Zoning Appeals approve the design. Nope, we can't make a recommendation, pardon me, to the Board of Zoning Appeals. Oh, I recommend that DDRs. My motion is that we approve this via the wall even though it's not compliant with section 17-277 in the city ordinance section 52 and that the brick and mortar match existing walls along the front and sides of the property, height to the wall while we're comfortable with the design. It has to be approved by Board of Zoning Appeals and all details deferred to staff. Basically, we approve the design. Should y'all decide to put that motion forward, let me just speak to the fact that the motion of this sort would need to include the very unique circumstances so that you're not setting precedent and let me just say that there are many other dormitories and commercial buildings in this area so you need to speak to how this is different than all the rest of the residential area Joe sent properties to those beautiful buildings in this area. Would you entertain a meeting that? You can amend that. Adjacency to commercial properties, but it's the only reason I think the height is acceptable. Yeah, it's a service quarter. I have to get a second and then you can amend. I'll second. Now we can move on. A motion or an amendment. I would suggest that we add, our approval is based on the uniqueness of the circumstance that we're shielding the homeowner from a service corridor on a commercial property and in doing so we don't believe they're adversely impacting that property. Does he need a second to the amendment? Yes. I will second his amendment. Okay, we have a vote. Mr. Bocknight. Yes. Mr. Brown. Yes. Mr. Kohn. Yes. Ms. Fuller-Wilt. Yes. Ms. Moore. Yes. Thank you. Thank you, folks. We'll have Ms. Johnson come back in, please. And Ms. Fuller-Wilt, it's leaving, is she? Okay, while she's heading back, next case? This next case is a request for a Certificate of Design approval for new construction of a two-story approximately 1800 square foot single family home. This is the first request for new construction since the Whaley Street Protection Area went into place in October of 2010. Staff finds that the proposal generally complies with the guidelines. However, there are several items that are not consistent. First, the porch is not consistent with two historic examples that I'll show up here that feature either full width front porches or covered entrances, house types E and F. Second, the massing and rhythm of openings are not consistent with historic examples which have very symmetrical rhythm of openings. And lastly, trim and detail material doors and windows should all be submitted to and approved by staff. So I'll just read the recommendation. Staff finds that the new construction at 200 Mulberry Lane generally complies with Section 5B of the Whaley Street Protection Area guidelines and recommends granting a Certificate of Design approval with the following conditions. The porch should be extended so that each corner is approximately 8 inches from the corner of the structure with railings added to the design. On the facade, the windows on the first floor be moved closer to the corners while the grouped windows on the second story either be scaled down with a million added between the windows or a single full-sized window be used in their place. Two additional windows be added to align with the windows on the first story. None of these windows need to be functional on the interior. On the right elevation, two windows be added toward the rear, one on each story. And again, none of these windows need to be functional on the interior. On the left elevation, two windows be added near the front corner, one on each story. Of these windows need to be functional on the interior. Windows have exterior window sales, trim and detail material, including but not limited to porch flooring, windows and door trim, be submitted to and approved by staff. Window schedule be submitted and approved by staff. Front door design and material to be submitted to staff and approved by staff. And then all details to purchase staff. Do we have an applicant here today? Please come forward. Have you signed in, sir? I have. OK, thank you. You did take the oath. I'm sorry? I want to ask you how to tell the truth. Have you taken the oath, sir? Have you been sworn in? Yes. Yes, earlier before the 12-foot. I didn't know if I had your knowledge there. No problem. So Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, thank you for allowing us to come before you today and speak about our proposed property at our proposed home at 200 Mulberry Street. Let me start by saying we started this process back in December, working with Miss Ignish extensively. Our original design looked absolutely nothing like the one that you have before you today. It was a little bit more contemporary. But after speaking with her and sensing that that particular design was not going to open, when I say contemporary, I'm thinking it's just basically a country home with maybe a higher-pitched slope. But since that time, we've been back and forth numerous times through emails. We've gone to our designer on six different occasions and made numerous corrections in addition to our design based on those recommendations. After this last set of design prints that you have before you, I think really the question comes down to really just one core issue for us. And that is on the left and right side elevations, where you see four windows on each side. Basically, we're being asked to add four more windows to kind of take away that small, dead area of the wall. There are reasons we can't do that. But before I get to those reasons, I guess I'll address the concern regarding the front. We have no issue whatsoever moving the windows out. So they align one above the other on the front elevation. And also, as far as the porch is concerned, just basically creating a stoop area per the recommendation that we've had since this original evaluation sheet. But I do have one issue, even regarding those recommendations. And that is per the guidelines for the Wadley Street Protection Area. In section five, it specifically says, new construction shall be consistent with similar buildings along the street in terms of height, scale, portion, and rhythm of opening, setbacks, orientation, and spacing. However, new buildings need not imitate past architectural styles to be successful in fill. They may reflect in the area of their own construction. And then further, it goes on to say, it's hoped that the new construction of today will be contemporary and contextual so that it will be worthy of affection and designation of future residents. I think we're being asked to build, basically, we're being asked to imitate houses that align Wadley Street, but specifically in those guidelines, as well as in the massing, the setbacks, and, most specifically, on the rhythm of openings, it specifically says, compatible with historic buildings on the block or street. Now, while I didn't take photographs of every, there's only a few houses along Mulberry Street. It's a very short street, or at least that portion that's in the historical district. There are houses along that street with only one window on the side. They are nothing spread out. And you see a few in the photographs that I provide. It's kind of hard to kind of picture them. But the adjacent house next to ours has no really historical or any flow to it. You see there's just one window. There's a house on the end of the street with just one window on the side. At the end of the day, I think that's really our only main hiccup, maybe except for this question about window seals, which I find nowhere in the Gaumanns either. So I guess I'm coming before you to ask, and by the way, the reason we can't, all right, I don't want to add certainly two of the windows on the sides. They'd have to be tempered glass. Any window within 18 inches of the floor has to be tempered glass. You're extremely expensive window glazing for residential. And if it's not required by the Gaumanns, I don't see where it should be required of our house either. We're trying to improve. If you've been off that area, I certainly think what we're planning to build here is gonna be a much vast improvement. And hopefully we'll be an asset to the area. And therefore I ask for a variance on the additional of those four side windows. Or maybe I'm not asking for a variance. Maybe I'm asking that you look at the guidelines and that they should not apply to our house. Just as a point of clarification, there are several buildings on that section of Mulberry Street that are non-contributing. So their rhythm of openings would not be part of the context for this particular new construction. These guidelines were established in 2010, as I'm looking at the guidelines. So were those homes that you are referencing built prior to? They were either built prior to 2010 or they are heavily altered. Okay. Any questions? The additional windows you're requesting. Well, I'm requesting that they not be required. I'm sorry. They're basically the illusion of a window. Yes, that's correct. They don't need to be functional. So could they be shuttered windows and not be a wonder at all, but have the detailing of a window with the shutters closed? The detail I've used. Is that a question for me? I'm asking. No, it's not. So there are not many instances of shutters on the side of a building in this particular district. So it wouldn't really be consistent with historic examples. I've got. Does this left and right elevation reflect your comments or not? No, these are the plans that were submitted. Okay. So I, we have six, excuse me, non-bullet points. I'm going to use the term bullet points. So I'd like to go over. Number one says the porch should be extended so each corner is approximately eight inches from the corners of the structure with railings added to the design. Are you saying you will do that or you don't want to do that? So since that recommendation came out, we had a discussion and basically, basically it was suggested that we create, or we could, not that it was suggested, but we could create basically a stoop similar to this. So that would be, that would be our proposed revision would be to create a stoop instead of carrying that porch all the way from one end of the house to the other. Okay. So you're in opposition to condition number one. That would be the porch should be extended so each corner is approximately. We're looking at the. So the applicant, sorry. We have discussed the porch since the packets were completed and staff is in support, if the applicant wishes to alter the design to incorporate a covered entrance, rather than a porch that is consistent with historic examples staff would support that. Okay. Then number two, on the facade, the windows on the first floor be moved closer to the corners while the grouped windows, second story either be scaled down with a million added between the windows or a single full size window be used in their place to additional windows be aligned, be added to align with the windows on the first story. Neither of these windows need to be functional on the interior. So if I just look at the first part of this where it says the windows on the first floor be moved closer to the corners while the grouped windows on the second story either be scaled down with a million added between the windows or a single full size window be used in their place. You're in agreement with that part of this? In general terms, yes. If we can put that front elevation back. And so in that particular bullet point, it says two additional windows be added to align with the windows on the first story. Neither of these windows need to be functional on the interior. That is not the right or left elevation that's on the front of the house. So the front of the house, we would move out the front windows and then move out the top windows so that the two align one above the other. So you're in agreement with that? If I'm understanding the recommendation correctly, yes. Is the recommendation to split the windows in the middle and push them out or add windows to the sides up top in addition to the window in the middle? So the recommendation to move the windows out is just for the first story. On the second story, the recommendation is that those grouped windows either be scaled down or they become three windows essentially, one over each opening on the first story. Okay, thank you. Then number three, on the right elevation two windows be added towards the rear, one on each story, none of these windows need to be functional on the interior, you do not want to do that, correct? I do not wish to do that, but I also need to go back to item number two because that was not quite my understanding, please. So on the front elevation, I would have to redesign the whole entire house. We have a set of stairs for the fifth time. I would have to, we have a set of stairs and a closet there, so I couldn't just simply move the top window out all the way to the left side. We could get it close to alignment to the first floor. So there may be an issue there with like immediate right above one or the other for clarification. Do you have a copy on the podium of the staff recommendations? I do. So do you mind, it would probably be faster if you just looked through and said which of the staff recommendations that you are asking for us to not approve? Sure. So on item two, I don't mind making the front interior or the front elevation sliding the windows over. They may not, they may not can fully align with one another due to the stairs and the closet. But let me just say we will, I have an issue with the second window on the upper story on the upper right. If I had a window to that bathroom and I keep the other window on the other side elevation which we added by the way along the design process, I've got two windows in one small little bathroom. I have to have somewhere to put a sink in there. So the window on the upper floor while I can't just make it a full height window, it seems a little overkill. I'm not sure if any of you have two windows in your bathroom, I wouldn't think so. So that creates an issue for me simply because I can't go redesign. I mean I have only so many places to put a sink, for example. We've already added a window to meet the original request on the right side elevation. And it's not simply a matter of adding a window where it can't go. Any of the windows that staff requests, any of the windows that staff is requesting be added do not need to be functional on the interior. They only need to be visible on the exterior just as a clarification. So that's item number one. So item number one is, I'm sorry, item number two is my first issue. Item number three, I already have four windows on each side elevation and adding two additional windows. Sir, it's not compatible with any house on that street. No how, there's zero houses on that street that look anything like the recommended Whaley Street houses, zero. So I think we're being asked to do something that while it's a great intent, it doesn't, it's not per your guidelines. So I have an issue with item number three. Pardon me, excuse me, just as a reminder, those houses are non-contributing and they're not in this context for this structure. Just so we're clear. So which houses do we use as contributing? If there are no houses on the street, your guidelines say specifically compatible with houses on the block or street. That's what the guidelines say. When there are non contributing structures in the immediate vicinity, the search for contributing structures as examples is widened. Many of the homes along Whaley Street are quite close to this particular lot, which is why they've been used. As an example, there are also two stories like this one. There are other examples of one story contributing structures in this district, but they're not used in this instance because we're looking at two story structures to have like to like. I don't mean to be difficult, but does it say that in the guidelines? I think the guidelines extend beyond your street. Sorry? The guidelines extend beyond just your neighborhood. The guidelines specifically say historic buildings on the block or street. I'm just wondering if it says that there are no, if there's no historical buildings on the street. I do want to commend your effort. I think the challenge I see when I look at, I mean, it's obviously putting it on there is going to be an improvement, but looking at the different facades and I mean, the floor plan has a great efficiency, but the window placement definitely lends to a facade that just doesn't quite look right with the windows. We run into this quite a bit and I think doing nothing is help us get to a place that we can help you. I've been trying for three months now. Like I say, I have the two windows on the side. I'm just not sure how, if they're not required by the guidelines, how I can be required to add four additional windows that aren't required by the guidelines. That's all. I mean, am I missing something? Please tell me. I mean, it's pretty, it's pretty, if you read the guidelines, they're pretty straightforward. Okay. Oh, sorry. So I just need clarification when you say non-functioning window. So for example, in my own home, what I've done is I have windows that show on the outside, but on the inside there's sheet rock. It's a sheet rocked wall and it's just that the window exists so that there is an exterior look, balance, whatever. So on the inside of my house, I don't have a window at all, but if you're looking at the window, if you're looking at the side of the house, I have these windows that exist. Is that sort of what you mean when you say a non-functioning window? Yes, that's correct. So from the interior, they can be sheet rocked up or rolled up, they don't need to be visible from the interior. I would say from just the general composition of the massing, I probably would tend to agree with you on the right side and could maybe get comfortable with that. I think the left and the front are probably where I'm a little more stuck. Oh, I have very little issue on the front. I mean, I prefer not to add a third window, but if there's a compromise here, then I would be willing to add a third window and have two windows in that bathroom such that the windows align with the openings. I would ask though, if I have to do that, that I would be at a minimum allowed not to add the windows to the right and left side. By the way, the left side elevation, the house adjacent to ours was allowed to build right to the property line. So if you look at the photograph, literally that home, which was burnt in the fire also, sits right on the fence line, immediately on the fence line. So my home will not hardly be visible from anywhere simply because I'm gonna keep it off the side of that property as much as feasible but only have 50 feet to work with. Obviously, we've already been to zoning. We've got approval. The proposal is to have 15 feet there. The setback from the street will be, let's say identical to that house. So the only people that are gonna see my windows are gonna be the neighbor when they look out of that one window. You're referring to a photograph. Which photograph? Well, you can see it right there on the board, but it is the photograph on the bottom right here. So that property, the fence line, is right along the property line. And so that extension that obviously was added at some point is literally built right on the property. It might be six inches over, eight inches over or something. I'm not even sure if the overhang might actually extend on to my property but I'm not here to create an issue there. My point being, nobody's gonna see that left side anyway other than that person. Because our house is gonna be totally obscured by their property. On the right side elevation, yes, you could see that from Waley Street. But again, I don't think I'm asking for, I don't think I'm asking for anything that's, oh, that's not part of the guidelines. I'm just asking for some compromise. Any discussion, any questions? Was the house that burned down, was that yours? It was not, no. So you bought this recently? I recently bought that lot, yes. Okay. When you said that you were referring to the guidelines and you were referring to section five, I was referring to section five guidelines for new construction. My section four shows administration unless I'm, get the wrong one. Any more questions? Excuse me. Yes, yes. Well, I had more of a statement than a question in that we wanna remind both you, sir, as well as ourselves that this is a historic district and that the guidelines in terms of openings, and fenestrations, et cetera, really refer to being consistent with keeping in mind that this is historic and not necessarily, as you're suggesting that they are specific to the houses on your street alone. Does that make any sense? I'm just saying, that's what the guidelines say. Whoever wrote the guidelines didn't write them like that. Unless any commissioners are in disagreement with me, I mean, our concern is more with the entire district and its guidelines rather than any specific houses that might have been there before 2010 when. Oh, sure. It has nothing to do with the date they were there. Okay, just to understand. One other item I will point your attention to, it seems to have gotten lost somewhere. On the left elevation, those two smaller windows, staff is recommending that the smaller windows be proportional to the rest of the windows on the structure. Again, that seems to have gotten lost somewhere. It was in the evaluation, but I don't know that it made it its way to the recommendation section. So if I could address those two windows. Those two windows sit above a washer, dryer, janitors, I'm sorry, a laundry room, as well as the kitchen sink. So it's not simply a matter of making those windows lengthwise, obviously the windows above have to be that large, because they have to meet egress requirements for the bedrooms. So there's obviously a certain opening requirements. The windows on the lower floor, again, they're sitting above a laundry room. The middle one would be a kitchen. And then if one was required on the right side, would be above the stair landing, which would be less than 18 inches. And would definitely have to be tempered. Can't there be some interior modifications to comply with exterior design requests? Well, we've gone through four or five. We didn't, I didn't plan on having near this many windows. So yes, we've gone through a lot of back and forth already to reach this point. And a lot of modifications, which honestly, obviously costs me money. Then my other question is the use of the word tempered in that I just wanna make sure what the difference is. Like for example, I know with sliding glass doors, glass has to be tempered or with a shower door, glass has to be tempered so that if someone is impacted, they're not cut. So windows, the windows you're referring to would have to be a different type of building material. If they were, you don't want to do certain windows because they would have to be tempered. Well, if I had to add an additional window to that left side on the bottom, that's correct. The ones on the, the bottom ones on the, I see no easy method to make those match the heights on the top, simply because we've already totally redesigned everything to add additional windows. And again, those sit above the kitchen sink and the laundry. So I mean, there's, there's, there's, there's reasons that it's set up the way it is. It's not because I think, you know, this is just. If I may, when, when I say proportional, it's not that they need to match in size for those on the rest of the structure, but that they reference the dimensions. So it can still be a smaller window, but that those windows need to reference what a half of one of the six over sixes pulled straight down where you just saw six frames as opposed to 12. Would that be what you're referring to or? No, but rather if you, you know, imagine just having a, a flip of the window and just squeezing it in so that the size is compatible that design is compatible in its dimensions. Mr. Warts, what are the dimensions of your windows? I, at this point, I can't tell you the exact dimensions. Because, and I may need to edge it later, but eight dimensions from the floor is very long. And so I was just wondering if they were extra large windows. Well, keep in mind now, if you, if you look back at the, at the actual house design, if you look at the main floor plan, the stairs actually go up to a landing. And for that reason, it's not that they're so massive. It's that, that landing would put it, the window would literally be like on that floor or on that landing floor. Well, I mean, I couldn't pull it up because there's only so much ceiling height. That, that's the reason for the requirement would be if I had to put that window in with a tempered glass. And as you can see there, the other window is above the island. And then the other one on the far end, which we tried to keep in good faith to match up to the windows above in the bedroom was in that laundry room there. You helped me understand that again. The small windows? Yeah, I'm not sure I understood that either. I'm sorry. I think that was one of the windows that was asked to be added. So we already, again, we went through many iterations of this, by the way, but we aligned a window up to the window above. And then so, if you look at the floor plan, there's basically the kitchen island, I'm sorry, the kitchen counter sits below that, hers right beneath that. And so you're gonna be added, I'm sorry, let me rephrase that. That was the request, my style. Yes. Okay. So we had six windows, total on these small windows, sometimes they're more for four, they could be framed. Smaller windows sometimes is framed. That's a more typical configuration of historic buildings generally. Ms. McNichess is going by what she has seen in way, way, way before. Thank you very much. Is there any opposition here on this case? Anybody on the panel would like to make a motion? We'll take a shout at it. As it pertains to 200 mulberry lane, I move that we, as it pertains to item number three and four, regarding the right elevation and left elevation, in the addition of the four windows as recommended by staff, that we vote to approve the granting of the certificate of design of approval with the conditions that the four windows be added. Is there a second? Do we have a second? I'll second it with a motion to amend. Amend to the motion that the certificate of design approval is granted with the following conditions from staff that the porch be extended so that each corner is approximately eight inches from the corners of the structure with railings added to the design or with details deferred to staff with the owner to work through. On the facade that the windows on the first floor be moved closer to the corners while the group windows on the second story either be scaled down with a million added between the windows or a single full size window be used in their place. Two additional windows be added to align with the windows on the first story. Neither of these windows must be functional on the interior. If the applicant proposes something alternative that they work those details with staff that the windows shall have exterior windows sales while trim and detail material will be submitted and approved by staff, not limited to but included the porch flooring, window and door trim, the window schedule to be submitted and approved by staff, the front door design and material to be submitted and approved by staff and any other details deferred to staff. And that was per what section of the guidelines? Section 5B. Do we have a second? Mr. Boknite? Mr. Boknite? Yes. Mr. Broom? Yes. Mr. Cohn? Yes. Ms. Johnson? Yes. Ms. Moore? Yes. Mr. Nguyen? Yes. The motion passes. I make a motion to have any more information we need? There is no executive session that was deemed to be needed this evening so there's no need to make a motion to move into that. I did also want to just mention I sent y'all an email but the State Historic Preservation Conference is April 26th, which is a Friday. And that's an opportunity to get all of your continuing education credits to those of you who are not new members out of the way. Well, I just need to know by now. Fuckin' about this. Yes, and I did. Yes, I suppose I was out of the aisle to look at the schedule. But that's all the... Did you send that in an email? I did. Did you want me to send it again? Recently, if you would, because this is a great conference. It is. It's terrific. And it's also very helpful in terms of getting those continuing ed credits out. But that's it. That's all the information I needed to send. I'd like to make a motion to adjourn. So moved. Thank you.