 Okay, let's get started. The Design Development Review Commission is made up of volunteers with expertise or interest in historic preservation and design. We generally meet on the second Thursday of the month to review cases. Staff to the commission are our urban design and historic preservation staff. They are available to answer questions if you have them, but please do not interrupt proceedings if you do indeed need to speak with one of them. The meeting generally proceeds with the staff calling the case and describing it. I will call for the applicant to come forward afterward to add to the basic description of the request if necessary or the applicant wishes to do so. If so, the applicant should keep the presentation to 10 minutes or less. The commissioners will then have the opportunity to ask questions. At this point, I will ask if there is anyone in the audience who wishes to speak for or against the proposal. Audience comments shall be kept to 2 minutes per person. If there is, the applicant will have an opportunity to respond and this rebuttal shall not exceed 5 minutes. In most cases, we will make a decision tonight after all information has been presented. If your case is denied and if you feel that our decision was made an error, you and anyone with standing have the opportunity to appeal it within 30 days of the decision. If you plan to speak about a specific project, you must have signed in, the sheet is at the back of the room. Also, and so 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. So if you wish to speak during the course of these proceedings, please stand and raise your right hand. You affirm to tell the truth in these proceedings. Okay. Could we have the roll please? Mr. Botnite. Here. Mr. Daniel. Here. Ms. Fuller-Wilt. Here. Mr. Nguyen. Here. Mr. Savery. Here. We have a quorum. Great. Does the agenda still stand? There have been a couple of changes since publication. On the historic agenda, case listed as number three, which would, or five, excuse me, 2730 Cypress Street, which is a request for certificate of design approval for exterior changes and addition. And the old Shandon Lower Waverly Protection Area A has been withdrawn. And case number six, 140 South Walker Street, request for certificate of design approval for demolition in the Shandon community character area has been deferred. Thank you. And moving on to the consent agenda. 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, staff could please read the consent agenda. The first case is 1701 Pendleton Street. This is a request for certificate of design approval for an addition in the University Architectural Conservation District. Case two is 3421 to 3423 North Main Street. This is a request for certificate of design approval for new construction in the North Main Quarter Waverly District. And case number three is 1000 Hampton Street. Request for a preliminary certification of the Baileyville. This is an individual landmark. And also this will include the approval of the April Mets. Does anyone wish to take an item off the consent agenda for discussion? If not, is there a motion to approve the consent agenda and the meeting minutes? Second. Have a vote please. Mr. Botknight. Yes. Mr. Daniel. Yes. Ms. Fuller-Wilt. Yes. Mr. Nguyen. Yes. Mr. Savery. Yes. Mission passes. And our first case please. We'll go ahead for the record that the minutes will be. Okay. I asked for that in the motion. The first case, this is on the urban design agenda, is 1041 Marion Street. This is in the City Center Design Development District, and is a request for certificate of design approval for the replacement of storefront. Claire Tower is a 12-story residential tower with first floor retail space designed by Lyle's visit Carlisle and Wolfe completed in 1949. The building is a good example of mid-century modern architecture and retains most of its original features which represent popular modern building technologies and materials of the period. Included in your packet is a brief excerpt about the firm from a research report by Lydia Brandt South Carolina architecture seminar at USC. It reads, based in Columbia, LBC&W is the South's preeminent architecture firm for 30 years following World War II. The firm designed some of the state's and certainly Columbia's most notable buildings in a range of interpretations of modernism. LBC&W was able to transform the built environment of the South into a modernist landscape. Their magnitude and versatility coupled with their atypical organizational structure and breadth of work gave them the competitive edge needed to reshape the skyline of the South time and time again. The application is a request to replace the existing storefront with a bronze colored framing to match the Marion Street entrance that was replaced previously. The staff was unable to find a permit or a certificate of design approval on file, so it is unclear when the front door and the adjacent storefront and trim were replaced. And then following are the relevant guidelines from section 5.9 of the city center design development guidelines. When an existing structure is to be renovated or expanded, care should be taken to complete the work in a manner that respects the original design character of the structure. The appropriate design guidelines in the section are to be implemented whenever a structure is to be renovated or expanded. And under 5.9.3, the third bullet is where the original storefront is completely missing. Extensive remodeling has occurred. The first priority is to reconstruct the storefront based on historical, pictorial, and physical documentation. If that is not practical, the design of the new storefront should be compatible with the size, scale, proportion, material and color of the existing structure. While the thin aluminum framing that is currently in place is consistent with storefronts of this time period, it is clear that the existing storefront has most likely been completely replaced. In the historical photographs, there appear to be several storefront entrances on the first level, three on both main-center and at least an additional one on Marian, close to the corner. The concrete sidewalks still lead up to the glass in these locations. Currently, there are fewer storefront doors, and the ones that do exist are framed differently than what is shown in the photos. Since all of the evidence suggests that the storefront is not original, and since it is in very poor condition, the staff recommendation is to allow for replacement with a similar material in pain configuration as the original, and what we historical photographs. The applicant's request is to replace the storefront with a wider profile dark bronze in a dyes framing and a narrow narrower pain configuration than what currently exist. Staff denied this request and that it was found not to meet the guidelines in section 5.9.3 storefront renovation of the city center design development guidelines. The recommendation to the commission is for allowable replacement with a thin profile silver colored framing with as few seams as possible aligning the seams with the columns. I believe the applicant is here to present their case. Did the applicant come forward if he would like? I guess not. Okay I think we are then going to move into deliberation. One question that looks like it's just a mishmash of a whole bunch of different things on the front nail. Currently. Their proposal is to replace everything that's there except for the bronze existing door that was placed a few years ago. That's correct. Would this be on the rear side too or just the three sides that are visible? I think all the storefront that is on the building. So yeah it's almost all visible from the right away. Any other comments? Well I would like to say for the record that I agree with staff's recommendation and although perhaps the building doesn't at first blush seem as if it's a historic building it very much is. It's over 50 years old and very much is a absolutely prime example. 1949. Prime example of a mid-century modern building in Columbia that is eligible for the national register without any doubt. Liles of the Carolina Wolf was to this day still probably the most prominent firm that has ever existed in Columbia and one of the most prominent firms that's ever existed in the southeast and this was one of their very very first projects. So I think it's very important that new work that's done on the building should as much as possible emulate the original detailing and materials that were on the building. So I completely agree with staff's assessment and recommendation. What was the applicant's consideration of the recommendation for silver colored framing? My understanding and I haven't actually spoken with the building owner. I believe they live out of state. So the applicant is the glass company that was that they were working with in order to replace the storefront. So we've actually had very little communication. I mean they have the staff evaluation and the recommendations and they just they submitted their application as an appeal. Basically this would have been a staff level approval if they had you know replacing storefront on a building in city center that's not a historic district or a landmark building. It had been done at the staff level if it followed the guidelines. But since they wanted to do something that staff found was inconsistent with the guidelines they basically appealed the staff denial to the commission to try to get that approved. So I mean I'm surprised I thought they were going to be here but I haven't had any correspondence since we sent them the evaluation. I believe Friday or Monday. Okay. Thank you. Should we defer to next month or just press on? No, they must have Harris's Outlook calendar. So let me ask a question about the about the emotion that I'm about to ask. You have really two different things here. One is recommendation of denial of the request. The other is a recommendation for something that would be allowable. Are we are we able to make a motion based on what would be allowable at this point so that you can move forward or how do you think so? I guess I was hoping that the glass company being the applicant was going to be here to answer technical questions about maybe what they could do. I mean technically the request was denied by staff. So the application as presented I mean the other request is to deny that but I think it is reasonable to replace the storefront because it isn't original and because it is in poor condition and just would recommend that whatever that is as close as possible to what we can tell. And you're comfortable that if we were to make a recommendation for allowable replacement that that could be that's narrow enough to be handled by staff. I think so. Okay. Is any commissioner interested in making that motion? I'll make it. I would recommend that we deny the request for the Palmyter State Glasses requests for wider profile of dark bronze aren't as framing on the set 4 to 1041 Marion Street address as it is not in compliance with the guidelines in section 5.9.3 storefront renovations of the city center design development guidelines. I would also propose or recommend that they be allowed to work with staff for allowable replacement of a thin profile silver colored framing with as few seams as possible aligning the seams with the columns. Second. Any discussion? Have a vote please. Mr. Boknight. Mr. Daniel. Yes. Mr. Will. Yes. Mr. Wynn. Yes. Mr. Savory. Yes. Motion passes. Thank you. Next case. The next case is 1111 Bull Street and this is a request for certificate of design approval for new signage. This also is an appeal to a staff decision in the city center of design development district. So this case is the WIS TV studio building and for new signage or it's replacement signage. Currently there are two signs on each side or each street facing elevation. One each for WIS News 10 and one for Ray Com media. All four signs are routed aluminum wall signs with halo illumination consistent with the city center design development guidelines. Let's come out of recess. Okay. Okay. So currently there are four signs on the building. They're routed aluminum wall signs with halo illumination consistent with the city center design development guidelines which were permitted in 2015. The new signs are the same size and in the same location. The changes include Ray Com media's new logo as well as the proposed change that all four signs will be internally illuminated acrylic based channel letters. Staff found the proposal being consistent with the design guidelines and denied the request. This is an appeal to the staff decision below are the relevant sign design guidelines for city center. The following materials are recommended for signs in city center. Metal etched formed etched cast engraved and properly primed and painted or factory coated. Custom neon tubing in the form of graphics or lettering may be incorporated into several of the above permitted sign types. Individually mounted internally illuminated channel letters and internally illuminated plastic based cabinet signs are discouraged. Eternally illuminated channel letters and other plastic or acrylic materials for signs are not allowed in city center. The only exceptions are when the skyline provisions are triggered. This is a sign at the top of a multi-story building more than five stories tall. And then illumination. If the sign can be illuminated by an indirect source of light this is usually the best arrangement because the sign will appear to be better integrated with the building's architecture. Light fixture supported in front of the structure has light on the sign and generally a portion of the face of the structure as well. Indirect lighting emphasizes the continuity of the structure surface and signs become an integral part of the facade. Backlighted solid letters are a preferred alternative to internally illuminated letter signs. Signs comprised of opaque individually cut letters mounted directly on the structure can often use a distinctive element of the structure facade as a backdrop thereby providing a better integration of the sign with the structure. The internally illuminated channel letters are inconsistent with the design guidelines. Alternatives to illumination could be indirect lighting, halo illumination similar to what is existing or exposed neon tubing. And then 6.3 wall signs. Signs should be located where architectural features or details suggest a location size or shape for the sign. The best location for a wall sign continues to be a band or blank area between the first and second floors of the building. This building does not lend itself to wall signs as it is a style that is not typical of urban commercial businesses. While acknowledging this fact staff has consistently approved signs in the current locations as they're not any other areas that are suited for signage and it is the area between the first and second floors as recommended by the guidelines. Staff recommends approval of the request for certificate design approval for all four signs conditional upon revising the method of illumination to reflect the recommendations of the city center design development guidelines. And the applicant is Hugh Jacobs and is here to present there. Your name for the in the microphone please. Hugh Jacobs, design director at WIS-TV. I'm with Lyle Shelsey, the general manager at WIS-TV. Three years ago when Lyle came to WIS he realized we didn't have any logos on our building. It had not had them there for 62 years. I have myself had always wondered why we didn't have any more than just the letters WIS-TV on the wall to designate our location. We're often having to call people up and when they were coming to visit us I'd have to give them specific directions and tell them the building with the columns in front. So having the logos on our building to let people know who we were and where we were we felt it was a very great addition to a building. We applied then to have internally illuminated letters for our signs. We used a company named Sinerama out of Orangeburg. They did the presentation to y'all. We returned down and we decided to do the, as y'all suggested, the backlit channel letters. The problem with that especially at night is we have a big tin in our logo which is a large box to merely have it as backlit. We were afraid at night it would just look like a big box that was backlit. You wouldn't be able to see the tin which is our main part of our logo. So we went ahead with the backlit and it just didn't pop out. Of course it's off the brick and so we had a warm color off the letters on our logos. Whereas we were, we did get the push through acrylic for the tin approved. However that is kind of a bluish cool white whereas the rest of the white was a warm color and there's a dichotomy between the two colors. It just looks, they look different like they're two different signs. So Raycom changed the logo in December. We knew we had to get a new sign put up. Their logo and where it's white and yellow and as you can see the letters are very narrow. So when we decided, when we realized we had to put up a new Raycom logo, we decided we probably should see if we could get internally illuminated letters. Hopefully to make our logo show up better in the evening especially the Raycom logo. When we had that problem the first time when we were not happy with the backlit letters, we were told that we could put acrylic or metal backing on the two logos to get a little more reflection off of the backlighting. The problem was that was then we would have these huge dark black or brick colored plaques behind our logos which we felt took away from our building during the daytime because you would be covering up most of the brick between the two windows on both sides. So we ruled against that. We were told we could build lights off of the top of our building but when we went in and photoshopped and looked at what the lights hanging off, you know pulling down off of the top of the building, we weren't real happy with how that would look from the street. So we're just when we decided to do this we we decided to look at the your regulations and we we did see that and talked to several people also that although you discourage internally illuminated letters, it's not we couldn't find that it was actually not completely not allowed. We don't feel like the internally lit letters would be we actually think that would look better than what we have up there at night at night now. We don't think it's out of keeping with the character of downtown Columbia. It's not we don't think it's garish or gaudy. We think it actually look nice and more elegant than what we have now. So we're just asking to be allowed to use internally illuminated letters if possible. Thank you. Is there anybody here who would like to speak in support or opposition to the applicant proposal? Okay. Comments from the commissioners please. Staff can you put back the present there's a picture here that shows what's proposed do we have one that shows I write about all the time but I don't remember. You don't you don't have one at night that shows existing do you? No there's not a there's not one that shows the current nighttime illumination. I took pictures at night. They didn't look any the photos no matter what I how I took on or the lighting I used I couldn't get them to actually replicate what they look like at night so I did not include them in this. I guess the question for staff that he's raised is in 6.2.2 it does say individually mounted internally illuminated channel letters and internally illuminated plastic face cabinet signs or discourage. Further comments it stated that these are not allowed in city center so I think one or the other is wrong they don't seem to. Well I guess I'll just chalk it up to I mean these guidelines were written 20 years ago and I think that most of staff would agree that the word discouraged is really unfortunate because it's not clear and in order for us to be clear making decisions at the staff level we don't allow for them so we have never written staff level approvals for internally illuminated channel letters since since the district was in put in place that I'm aware of so that's kind of that's just again a consistent look at this pre-interpretation of what we actually have to follow and it all it says is discouraged. Right so I mean I guess the argument would be like like like the evaluation says the only exceptions have been at the top of a multi-story building where you literally couldn't see any other type of illumination so those of where exceptions are made I mean I guess discouraged is a word that when you have to do something with that so we we discourage it we don't we don't permit them at the staff level which is why the board is here to make those kinds of exceptions if you feel that this warrants an exception. Well I know that I mean from being involved when the guidelines were being written 20 years ago that there is always the the sort of friend to go to should language rather than channel language you know for obvious reasons the guidelines are always a matter of interpretation that's why you know we're sitting here so I think discouraged I mean the meaning of the word is clear it's not shall not but it's discouraged and I think the other question for the commission is the question of precedent you know I think it's you can talk about the effect of what this would the effect that this would have on this building in this particular case but as as Lucinda mentioned it's a matter of looking back at previous precedent but also looking forward at the future if we continue to set a precedent what kind of precedent we feel is appropriate as a commission so I think that's that's an important consideration. Other comments or questions? Sure when I was looking through the reasons that it was discouraged the main reason that I could find was that it might have too much illumination on nearby residences which I can understand but we don't have anybody living on either side of the street from WIS so that was the only definite reason or for discouragement of having internally eliminated letters that I could find and the laws rulings that I've found online. Thanks. Thanks. Any other comments? I have a couple questions or the we're talking about all four signs is the WIS News 10 sign is that essentially the same? The sign looks the same I mean during the day it's just the type of illumination is different so the actual graphics and the logo have not changed on that one but it is currently Halo illuminated so this would be more like a you know internally illuminated face. Thank you and then the is the current Raycom sign is that are those channel letters on a raceway or just channel letters individually attached to the building? I believe those are individually known. Okay. Also Halo the current ones. Okay and then just just so I'm clear I think we're talking about whether they're reversal it or facelift? The the proposal right the proposal is for everything to be face the face to be illuminated channel letters yeah acrylic faces they're all lit up. Okay thank you. Would you like to make a motion this for me? Were you sworn in? All right. Were you sworn in? No I was not. Did you sign in? Well did you swear to tell the truth in the proceedings? Okay and state your name please. Lyle Scholes the general manager of WIS. I just wanted to make the point that what we're doing here is not any different than what's up there right now largely. I mean the significance of the change will be minimal. Our our logo is our representative of our business not our building so it's significant that we have our logo on the building the other significance to this is our company changed its logo which hadn't been changed in 25 years so it was the motivation behind it and that's all I wanted to say that there will be no notable to anybody who crosses paths with Bull Street and Jervay every day changed to what we're doing other than this Raycom logo really changing that's all thank you thank you I do have another question please if we are in fact making a substitution then I would tend to feel is an improvement is there precedent or well allowing one in the same to proceed what staff has said is that there's not that it hasn't been allowed before okay correct is that right correct I'm not aware of any exceptions that have been made for this particular one again except for the skyline provisions which those have been done at the staff level so I think I mean the the recommendation from staff would be particularly with the Raycom I think then the night time picture I think that type of illumination could be achieved with an exposed type of neon tuning which is in line with the guidelines as opposed to having an acrylic base and you know the concern of courses like you said making an exception if it's made that's up to the commission but I think the condition or the reason for that should be clear so that we're not just opening the door for every business who wants one you know to have one I actually did have another question is how much how much yard do you have from the face of the building to the sidewalk about five feet okay but it could be done but you could I mean it could be done it could be done okay I just want to clarify that any more comments before we look to a motion are you ready you want to I mean a hot seat somebody else crafted one I make the motion that we I'm sorry if you want to you can just if it fits you can read the staff recommendation and amend that in any way you care to okay I'll make the motion that we approve the applicant's request for a certificate of design approval for the new signs at 1111 and on 1111 Bull Street and 1416 Gervais Street I would make the motion that we approve them as submitted based on the particular exception that to me they look here to be presented almost distinctly the same except for the change of the rachom sign I don't really know how to craft this I need to clarify I'll circuit that motion any discussion well I think that there's I think that the whether or not it's an acceptable difference there's a significant difference in the fact that the signs glow I don't think it's I think we should characterize it as being no difference I think during the day it's not going to be much different but I think the evening shots that we see here are they're clearly different so I think that we need to acknowledge that well we're in the middle of deliberation before the vote so we have a second on the motion so I guess it's the upper down on that and if it doesn't pass then we have a new motion exactly right so and if there aren't the other comments we need to take a vote Mr. Bocknight Mr. Cohn yes Mr. Daniel yes Ms. Fuller-Wilt no Mr. Wynn yes Mr. Savery no I have a tie tie okay we need another motion can I have if you want to do I would make a motion that we approve the request for certificate of design approval for all four signs conditional upon revising the method of illumination to reflect the recommendations of the city center design development guidelines any discussion on this one clarify well there are several different ways to light the signs the applicant has there are some ways that the applicant doesn't want you know we prefer not to do it but the the motion leaves open for further discussion with staff as to how to create a lighting effect so that could be within the guidelines and staff correct me if I'm wrong but that could be lighting either they discussed from the roof that don't prefer that it could be lighting from the ground it could be backlighting similar to what they have now so the the the motion is to allow staff to work with the applicant on arriving at a solution that still offers illumination of the signs but not but they're if I if I may add also um I would recommend staff to consider the um conditional method of illumination to consider that the there is that five-foot distance from the street side to the building side to where these signs would be illuminated this is not like being in the heart of the vista up against the pedestrian right of way etc um I think that should be taken into consideration as well one might make a choice my concern too is that the neon signs have tended to be brighter than the led if that's we have installed those in the past in my experience the brightness is a limp for the board if illumination in the intensity of is an issue I think what's on here potentially is something that's actually working against what the concern is I think I mean my understanding of it there there are different concerns the like um acrylic cabinet signs you know that's I think the the issue comes in when you against that a precedent and we start to get multiple things along a streetscape and it's just you know you have more glowing boxes and more glowing letters and it just so it's not necessarily just brightness I mean there are a lot of I mean that the guidelines specifically say neon is allowed it's just a material that's allowed so we just we allow those it may be a little bit brighter but it's not the same as like an and they also talk a lot about the facing you know plastic facing it's a materials and an illumination issue there's other types of illumination that wouldn't include a plastic or acrylic type face so we're sort of dealing in some ways with two I guess violations of the guidelines so it's the internally eliminated part but it's also the plastic facing part so exposed neon would provide I think a brighter answer but it wouldn't it would be in line with the guidelines again I think in my mind I'm most concerned about precedent about future implications on future signage well anyway any other comments before we move to a vote okay let's try this one Mr. Boknight yes Mr. Cohn no Mr. Daniel no Miss Fuller-Wilt yes Mr. Wen no Mr. Savery yes and we have another tie somebody else has another idea we need another motion or further discussion before we make a motion we've got two camps here one that it did I don't know how we meet in the middle or then send it back to staff to continue to work with the applicant which is what the last motion was no but that's why we're here with an even number of people yeah does somebody have another motion or another thought so I can prepare something so I wouldn't do the decision but that's something that we could come back next month with actual images of what it would look like in the different areas and so that we actually know what we're voting and I do think it's a precedent setting aspect just to be able to excuse me about staff recommendation or something I can turn this as well. Falling up on her comments I mean if we could have something that maybe shows what it looks like now I mean I ride by it all the time but quite frankly you know just to sign I haven't really highlighted on maybe I mean they provided what they think it's going to look like right uh maybe we have an example of what it looks like now although that's still not the kind of sign they want to put up in the future. I mean we can certainly if that's I mean if the commission decides to defer this to get that information we can certainly provide that I think I think that doesn't really change I mean the proposal is to do this which is an exception to the guideline so um I mean certainly it would be a comparison of what's there now although I would still say that there are other ways to eliminate the sign not just what's currently there and not just what's being proposed but there are other options that could certainly provide more elimination. Maybe that's where we need to be is what other alternatives are there? Well I guess that there's two that we've already discussed one of them is external elimination so some type of spotlight and those could be done multiple ways on the top of the building on the grass on the ground it could even be there's like little almost like the ones you see on a piece of art that actually shine down on the the logo there is exposed neon there's all kinds of technology that I probably don't even know about with sign companies I mean there's lots of different options out there probably stuff that's not specifically addressed by our guidelines that are 20 years old but certain things you know pretty I mean I think there's newer versions of exposed neon that may not that may be more technologically advanced that have that same look. I mean you know this looking at these images I I mean I don't I don't find them offensive although they are brighter than what's there now and that certainly will be the case at night in terms of way finding we all drive by Google these days so I you know I think that there's signage is already there but I think aside from that in my mind what I envision is if we approve this then another applicant will come with signs that are eight feet by ten feet that are fully lit and bright and we don't have information we typically don't get information about you know the foot candles of the sign this I think potentially I don't think it would potentially open the door to a next applicant or the one after that asking for something that's much much more intrusive than than this sign it so my understanding from what staff has said is that to their knowledge this kind of technology this kind of sign has not been so far approved if we approve it then I think we need to assume that we are future you know commissions will have to approve it again so I you know that's my my my concern is really based on precedent and future implications and I guess my concern is the guidelines say are discouraged but that's what's in writing if there's a problem with that it needs to be updated to reflect does it date from our knowledge no that's true too but I that's my concern to have to make a judgment I think if it was 20 years ago to one of the concerns used to be that most of those signs were lit fluorescently or with neon tubes that used to go out I think the technology's kind of surpassed the potential of this this guideline but I think there's also there there is the materials issue I mean these internally made signs do have acrylic faces and that is also that's even more clear in the guidelines that that's something that you know is not I forget the language but I mean I guess I would argue if discouraged is not the same language as not allowed but at the same time I feel like if it's discouraged then there should be a real reason why the commission would approve something that's discouraged I mean aside from just this is what the applicant is asking for I think we'd have I think for not to be a precedent for future cases we'd have to exactly explain why this why this particular application gets an exception I don't see a particular reason that it would get an exception that then wouldn't apply to future applications my last point would just be I think in this particular instance we're almost substituting equal signs equal size signs that appear to be the same you're right about that it's not like they're coming for something significantly different or that is arguably less attractive than what's there now well I don't think it's the size the CSU or even the graphics because I think you're absolutely right about that it's the fact that it will you know completely glow from inside I mean I think the end it's the you know the acrylic material it's just something that it's it's it's in the original language of the guidelines that is discouraged and I'm not saying that you know that I'm not making a value judgment on the guidelines themselves I'm just saying that it has been discouraged in the past this type of signage hasn't been hasn't been approved if we think that it's time to change that that's another statement or you know if we think that there's an exception whereas this can be you know we can we can approve this but it's not going to apply to maybe future applications that seem to be garish and seem to be outside of the spirit of the guidelines then we can state that that exception exists in this particular case but I don't know what the exception would be let me these may be entirely different situations but St. Peter's has a sign at the corner of their church across the library that is more of a sign to show what events are going on at that facility how is that one lit in relation to how this one is lit I believe that's like a message board an LED message board yes and those have been allowed on occasion but that is not an it's not an internally illuminated you know acrylic face sign I mean message boards have been allowed again that was something that wasn't specifically addressed in the guidelines but they do have a dark background and individual you know like LED lights like I mean it's just a different type of sign it's a different material it's a different type of illumination and I think too I guess if I'm not mistaken please correct me or refresh my memory we recently had a bank located in the city center that was internally illuminated did we not you had a request a request decision and that request was for two things it was for the size it was the height of the free standing sign right it was street level materials and internally illumination the request for the internally illumination was not granted they are doing an aluminum sign and there was the height was brought down I don't remember off the top of my head what the height was I guess again just as a thinking about exceptions and what those might be typically have to do with context some type of context that's different that doesn't apply to other properties you know this is a they have it's a corner property it has two major street frontages and the sign is between the first and second floor which is generally where signage is recommended to be so I guess thinking about future signs this is a very common placement for signs in a very visible location if it were a business that were maybe you know at the back of some parking lot where they're just you know you literally couldn't see it that to me feels like a sort of reasonable unique situation where they're you know so I guess that concerns me because it's this is a very visible corner with a very prominent location and a very typical placement for signage so let's go back to that one that's the nbsc at finnerton and sumpter and that is it's not an internally maybe it's internally it's aluminum cabinet with push-through letters which are allowed so and that's that's always been allowed aluminum-facing it is at a major corner similar to this location right I'll make a suggested motion and let's just just see what happens I'll make my being heard I'll make the motion to support staff's recommendation approval of a request for certificate of design approval for all four signs conditional upon revising the method of illumination to reflect the recommendations of the city center design development guidelines pertinent to section six point two point two there a second I can't now sorry I will I will second any further discussion let me let me add that onto that in keeping with the recent decision in the nbsc new sign at the corner of sumpter and pinnerton street in which internally illuminated letter signs were not approved second second second the amendment any further discussion before we vote let's have a vote mr bach knight yes mr cone no mr daniel yes miss fuller will yes mr win yes mr savory yes mission passes okay thank you thank you next staff can review it with you and I think they're very clear on it and make sure I don't want to make a mistake thank you next case please so this is 1633 1635 main street it's a request for recommendation for landmark status as a request for landmark status the commission is asked to make a recommendation for approval or denial to city council at city council will have the final decision on whether or not this building becomes a landmark this particular building was constructed in 1873 by john c seegers as a saloon staff has found that this particular building meets group three landmark status for criteria one and five criteria one states the site of events or homes of men etc that are interesting locally and this building was owned by seegers and his partner and son-in-law seegers was a prominent businessman locally um the 1800s he owned property on main street that was destroyed in the fire in 1865 so building this building was part of the reconstruction of main street after that fire seegers was a prominent in several businesses he um he owned ice factories bottling plants breweries and saloons so specifically in the liquor manufacturing business which was popular especially along the 1600 block of main street and so this particular building was a saloon uh operated as a saloon until the liquor laws changed in 1892 which prohibited all but the government from selling and manufacturing liquor but even after that seegers remained a prominent and prosperous columbian through his other business ventures so staff has found that as a building that has connections with prominent businessmen and is part of the reconstruction of main street and meets this criteria um this building is also one of two buildings that remain as part of um the seegers family enterprises they built several buildings all throughout columbia with their businesses and only this building in the building next door remain as part of that today it also meets criteria five criteria five states that it's evidencing evidencing one or more criteria of group two but to decrepit or destructively modified to constitute a prime historic document um the building was recently renovated to go back to its original appearance you can see in the image here but through several renovations throughout the years it was drastically altered as you can see in the photograph and a lot of the original historic material was lost so the side you see today is a reconstruction which is why it's not considered a prime historic document but it does meet the criteria for five so staff finds that it meets criteria one and five of the city ordinance and uh first group three landmark designation and recommends recommends a recommendation of approval yeah i'd like to speak no okay i think this is uh i think this is a wonderful thing to do our you may know that uh our building on washington street that my partners and i bought several years ago number 10 over 10 years ago um is the first the first modern facade to have been protected and when uh i came before the ddrc uh i was asked by one of the commissioners are you sure you want to do that and i said absolutely and uh you know i i applaud and and uh congratulations by the way on your historic columbia award for it i i applaud the uh you know the the gesture quick quick quick question that we have do we know when the the top part of the facade was removed or yeah i um i don't know when it was removed but we attempted to duplicate it exactly as it um in these pictures and i don't know what the picture is on the left um but this one was 1880 and it was there then but that's the 70s the 70s i i don't know i wish i did um she she i don't he also was in the legislature for five years and head of the an attentionary system that you did a lot of stuff and for the record uh state your name so we have that oh i'm martha fowler thank you his great great granddaughter the motion uh for approval for landmark status 1633 1635 main street as a pending individual landmark or as an individual landmark there a second second any any discussion have a vote please mr botknight yes mr kohn yes mr daniel yes mr will fuller wilt yes mr win mr savory yes Russian passes thank you next good afternoon the final case is 1637 main street this is a request for recommendation for landmark designation group three section 1769 1d group three consists of structures or sites which round out and extend the material visual history of columbia when added to groups one and two the evidence one or more of the following criteria for selection 1637 main street is part of a century of economic expansion and architectural development in the state's capital this is the site of one of columbia's early grocery stores Solomon and Hendricks grocer is listed at this location in the 1899 city directories this building built circa 1867 has continuously contributed to the economic commerce of columbia over the years through local businesses 1637 main street is also architecturally significant as a contributing structure in a collection of the work of important local architect james b ur ur heart i don't know if i'm pronouncing that this structure is part of the art modern collective or genre of buildings of architecture in the columbia commercial historic district the remaining architecture including this building represent columbia's renewal after the civil war and the growth of the city from 1865 to 1963 as a period of historical significance staff finds that the building meets criteria one the site of events homes of men etc that are interesting locally and criteria three belonging to a family or genre of buildings recognized locally staff finds that the building meets these criteria for landmark status as outlined in section 17-691d group three of the city ordinance and suggests a recommendation for landmark designation does the applicant wish to speak the microphone please and state your name again your name again again i'm martha fowler thank you john segers didn't build it um but the one thing that i wanted to tell y'all because i know y'all like little little cute fun things when we got down in the building after we bought it and john sharer went with us and we decided it didn't have a termite contract you didn't have anything on it you know so we were exploring what was down there we went down and i noticed a difference in the coloration of the basement which is just a dugout like passageway when you walk into it i said what's the difference with this and he said martha do you know what that is and i said i'm asking you and he said that's the burn line from when the whole town burned and you walk through this basement that's dug out dirt and you see the whole line of where the town burned and dissolved into a foot of different color material so if you're very in the dry cleaner ask microsoft yeah because i think it's pretty cool thank you any comments the criteria one i don't know what the criteria but i think that's what it called it said it was related to a famous a well-known person the site of events homes of men etc that are interestingly local so in this case the event would be that it's the commerce the commerce yes the local business that was continuously evolving any other questions or comments someone like to make a motion make the motion that we approve for landmark status as a group three landmark designation is there a second second any comments or deliberation we have a vote please mr rock knight yes mr cone yes mr daniel yes mr spiller wilt yes mr win mr savory yes motion passes great any further business motion to adjourn move second all those opposed it's unanimous