 Welcome and call the order of the Thursday, November the 8th, 2018. The commission is made up of volunteers with expertise or interest in historic preservation and design. We generally meet on the second Thursday of the month to review cases. Staff to the commission is 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 basis description of the request, if necessary. Or if the applicant wishes to do so. If so, the applicant should keep their presentation to 10 minutes or less. The commissioners will then have the opportunity to ask questions. At this point I would ask if there is anyone in the audience who wishes to speak for or against the proposal. The audience comments will be kept to two minutes per person. If there is, the applicant will have an opportunity to respond. This report 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 if you feel that our decision was made in error, you and anyone withstanding have the opportunity to appeal it within 30 days of the decision. If you plan to speak about a Pacific project, you must have signed in a sheet in the back of the room. Also, 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 ex parte communications. If you wish to speak during the course of these proceedings, please stand and raise your right hand. Do you affirm to tell the truth in these proceedings? Yes. You succeeded. Staff, roll call. Mr. Bucknight. Here. Mr. Broom. Here. Mr. Cohn. Here. Mr. Daniel. Here. Ms. Fuller-Wilt. Here. Mr. Wynn. We have quorum. If the agenda order still stands. We have had one deferral since publication of the agenda that is under the regular agenda under the historic portion. It's 2414-2416 Lincoln Street, which is a request for design approval for exterior changes and preliminary certification for the Bailey Bill in the Elmwood Park Architectural Conservation District. Otherwise, the agenda stands. Thank you. In regard to the consent agenda, the DDRC utilizes a consent agenda for those projects which require DDRC review, which meets the guidelines and typically 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 the regular basis. I'd like to ask some questions about 1219 Elmwood Avenue. Do I pose them now or shall I pose them? We'll pull it off the agenda and we can post them after the consent agenda has been approved. So the motion would need to reflect the removal of that item to be put onto the regular agenda. Regular? Okay. Is there anyone who wishes to take an item on the consent agenda for a discussion? I wanted to ask questions about the one on Elmwood. My honor. So if I'm hearing that correctly, that's a motion to move it from the consent to the regular agenda. And I will second that. Second. Yes, I second. No. Mr. Bach Knight. Yes. Mr. Brim. Yes. Pardon? Yes. Yes. Thank you. Mr. Cohn. Mr. Daniel. Yes. Ms. Fuller-Wilt. Yes. Mr. Nguyen. Yes. The motion passes. In regard to review of cases, presentation of cases on regular agenda. Staff to introduce the first case on the regular agenda. If you'll permit me, I'll just introduce the rest of the items remaining on the consent agenda very quickly. And we can approve those and then move to the regular agenda. You're made. The first item on the consent agenda is 1132 through 1136 Woodrow Street. This is a request for design approval for exterior changes. And in addition, in the Melrose Heights Oakland Architectural Conservation District. The next case is 1100 Darlington Street. A request for a certificate of design approval for an addition in the Earlwood Park Protection Area A. 2425 Cypress Street. A request for design approval for exterior changes. And a request for preliminary certification for the Bailey Bill. In Old Shandon Lower Waverley Protection Area A. 822 King Street. A request for preliminary certification for the Bailey Bill in Old Shandon Lower Waverley Protection Area A. 3000 Amherst Avenue. A request for design approval for exterior changes in the Oakwood Court Architectural Conservation District. 2001 through 2000 Green Street. A request for site plan approval for apartments in the National Register Structure and Bailey Bill Project. 802 Gervais Street. A request for design approval for exterior changes in the West Gervais Historic Commercial District. This is also a Bailey Bill project. 1530 D Main Street. A request for preliminary certification for the Bailey Bill for an individual landmark. 1425 Richland Street. A request for a recommendation for a special exception for 17309 C of the City of Columbia Zoning Ordinance. This is in the Landmark District. A portion of 920 Maple Street. A request for a certificate of design approval for new construction in the Old Shandon Lower Waverley Protection Area A. And then of course we also have the approval of our September minutes as well as the approval of minutes for the special called meeting in that month. And that concludes the consent agenda. Move approval. Second. Rock Knight. Yes. Mr. Broom. Yes. Mr. Daniel. Yes. Ms. Fuller-Wilt. Yes. Mr. Wynn. Yes. The motion passes. So we would now move to 1219 Elmwood Avenue under the regular agenda to answer any questions Mr. Daniel may have. This is a request for preliminary certification for the Bailey Bill in the Cotton Town Bellevue Architectural Conservation District. Rachel Wall. I'm sorry. Megan McNich is a staff member who's handling this project. I don't really think you need to go into detail. I just have one question. The pictures seem to show that a number of the windows have rotten seals and rotten bottom portions of the windows. Their Bailey Bill application says they're going to deal with 37 windows. Are all 37 windows in the same condition as the few that I see that have rotten seals and rotten bottom of windows? Or is that more of a minority situation? They are all in similar condition. In addition I got a call from the applicant not too long ago noting that there had been some damage, additional damage to some of the windows. So they're going to be doing their best to maintain as much original material as possible. The issue I raise, I mean I'm okay with what they're proposing. The issue I raise is the quote is like $25,000 to do this plus another $5,000 for other things that may come up. I replaced windows in 1970, windows in my house in Arsenal Hill. I mean Wheeler Hill that were deteriorating. I replaced them with historic gel wind windows similar to the ones they used on Adlou. My cost per window was in the range of what we're looking at here. They're double pane, they have a metal siding on the exterior so you don't have to paint them. And they have true divided lights and they have e-glass. This seems to be a good example of a case where if they've got this many windows in that poor condition, their money is better spent in replacing them with new historic replica windows that are double pane, e-glass, et cetera, et cetera. They're wasting their money doing what they're doing because they're still going to have the issue with air infiltration. That can be solved by having interior storm windows which will double the cost they're already spending. Staff typically works with applicants to just ensure that anything that can be saved will be saved but that can't be replaced. So in any situation like this where there are multiple windows, we go through and walk through everything with the applicants and make sure we're all on the same page about those. So thank you for that. My comment is we've already had one historic district downsized because of winter issues. I think if you have just a few isolated ones, that's one thing. When you have 37, I think we really need to look at our guidelines and make some perhaps recommendations that in cases like this, there ought to be an exception to be able to put new windows there instead of trying to replace or repair windows that are not going to meet the standards of the new windows we see today by gel wind, for example. We will indeed look at the windows. This is a baili bill project where they are getting significant tax abatement for retaining historic material as required in all of our historic districts. I understand that. I think that whole process needs to be really looked at based on the ability for new windows to meet much better criteria than these rehab windows will be. Thank you. Just my comment. I think we would need a motion to move forward on this for approval. Make a motion to move forward. Second. Make a vote. Mr. Boknight. Yes. Mr. Broom. Yes. Mr. Cohn. Yes. Mr. Daniel. Yes. Ms. Fuller-Wilt. Yes. Mr. Nguyen. Yes. The motion passes. Thank you. That's going to bring you to the next case on the agenda, which is a site plan approval and design approval for construction at 1328 and 1400 Hugie Street. I'll take care of the site plan portion. This project is comprised of two parcels, approximately 4. 4.49 acres, which are bounded on a north by property owned by Richland County, east by Pulaski Street, south by property owned by Sri Columbia Vista LLC, and west by Hugie Street. The northern parcel is currently zone C1 within the design development overlay district, as well as the southern parcel is zone M1 within the DD overlay. On the northern portion of the parcel, the applicant is proposing to construct a six building town home style, which is attached single family residential units, development that will contain 27 units. Each unit will contain three bedrooms and two off street parking spaces. And the parking spaces are located in a gated surface parking lot south of the units. The southern parcel will contain a four story 99 unit, 405 bedroom private dormitory and a parking garage. The dormitory will be contained three, four and five bedroom units and the required off street parking for that portion of the project will be provided in the parking garage. They will also provide bicycle parking in the garage as well. The offsite, well the offsite improvements contain sidewalks, landscaping and street lining adjacent to the project. Pulaski Street improvements will be in the right of way. The Hugie Street will contain sidewalks along their property and the northern property line will have sidewalks adjacent to it as well. And there are several comments notated in the case summary, however from a site plan perspective, staff feels that the site plan largely meets the requirements and can be worked out after the site plan is approved through staff. And Lucinda can speak about the design review portion of the project. If you want to talk about the site plan first, we can take that and then go into design review. I want to get something clear about the site plan and its use. Gotcha. And looking at the site plan, the road is already there, divided into two apartments. There's parking on the left, apartments on the right, and there's a road running down the middle, right? There's a road on the left-hand side to be used by the apartments and the business next door. Who is going to actually own that road? That is a parcel that is owned by Richland County, which was a driveway that was left over from the previous use when it was, I believe, the old Madison Street building. So the ownership of that will remain Richland County at this time. It will remain as Richland County? Correct. It's currently owned by them and they have the responsibility of maintaining it. So the people who are in the office building at the corner of Hampton and UG have an easement or at least the right to use that because I think that's their main access in and out. Correct. And the applicant is proposing to improve their property up to the property line with sidewalks, street lighting, and landscaping. Okay, there's another road it has on the fall right and it said here 28-foot electric line setback. On the south side, the right of the parcel, it's not actually a road. That road is going to disappear. It's not a road. There's just a driveway. There is a curb cut at that corner of the parcel that goes into the parking lot but there is not a road through there. It's just an easement with overhead power lines. Thank you for clearing that up. Mr. Chambers, I have some questions on the site plan. I mean, is it easier to go ahead and dress those now rather than do everything at one time? How would you like to proceed, yes. Okay, let me proceed with the site plan. A couple of things right off the bat, looking at what they gave us today, they project 07-4 spaces per unit. I don't think that's correct. There are 432 bedrooms in this and there are 303 or 305 parking spaces which works out to 0.62 per bedroom. If my math is correct, I'm not sure where they're getting that number from. My issue with this site plan is serval. One, we've got a situation where there's only two accesses and exits from this property. One is off of UG in the middle of the property and the other is on or off of Pulaski. Pulaski is a lightly traveled road at present and basically serving those who live in the condominium complexes on the east side of Pulaski. We're looking now at a situation where we're going to have considerable new traffic coming and going from there. The traffic consultant suggested that they could walk, they could bike, or they could use the university shuffle. I was running errands today. From the Pulaski Street exit to the horseshoe is 1.2 miles. That's not going to be an easy distance to walk or bicycle. There are limited accesses. One is to Hampton which is a one-way street going east. Then you have Lady Street which has a stoplight. If you turn right at Lady Street, you're not going to be able to get out of that intersection with UG because there's no traffic signal. If you go straight to Gervais Street, you cannot turn left, you can only turn right. To me, this appears to be a traffic nightmare starting to happen. The other is my office is in Olympia. I'm in the old Olympia administration building. There are three student housing complexes there. There's been parking issues ever since that developed. PMC, the developer, recently purchased four tracks of land between our office and the newest student housing project. The day after that land became available for parking, those parking lots filled up and have pretty much remained so ever since. Secondly, PMC also owns the compress at the corner of UG and Blossom. They purchased the building at the corner of Blossom and UG for some long-term plan just like what they bought on Haywood Street for some long-term plan. But in the interim, they've opened it up for parking, and that parking lot is pretty much full. So, I know they're meeting the city code when they designate how many parking spaces they have to allocate, but in a real-world situation, these folks have either an individual car themselves or they're several in each unit. And in this particular place, there's no off-site parking where any excess parking can go. Pulaski has no street parking. You can't park on UG. You can't park on Hampton, and there's limited parking on Letty Street. So, if they miss their number by just a little bit, say it goes to 062. If it goes to 07, they're going to need 340 spaces, which is not what they're providing. So, my point is I think even though their traffic study shows there's no issue, the real-world issue is they're going to be more cars at that property than what they have parking places for and nowhere to put them. So, they either got to do what PMC did and find additional parking, and they're not going to find it in that area. So, I mean, I think real-world, this is the wrong project at the wrong location. It was the VISTA plan called for mixed use at this location, not housing, and particularly not student housing. The student housing that is successful is within walking distance of the university. This is not within walking distance of the university. And I think, again, this is just really a poor project. Are there any other questions or comments regarding the site plan? I'm going to start on the site plan because I know that the applicants are here and can speak to their application and their plans for parking and that type of thing. Yes, Lucinda, where's this paper that you gave us just now or before? Who is this from? That letter is from an adjacent neighborhood. I mean, it's not a find or anything, so I didn't know who the group was. But they've been, at each of the hearings, the Planning Commission, the Zoning Hearing, and at the earlier DDRC hearing, all say the same thing I'm saying. I think the neighbors are here and will probably come up and explain their letter a little bit more in that part of the hearing. So, I think we'll hear from them specifically. Yeah, I'd like to hear from them. I thought that included the site plan. I mean, it's definitely related to the site plan. I guess we're not to that part yet. Okay. I'd like to hear from the applicant, too. But aside from parking, the traffic patterns at both lady and adjacent intersections are of great concern to me without street lighting, or without crosswalk lighting, red, green, and so on. Those intersections are troublesome as they are now, but with that additional parking and traffic, we certainly need to consider that. Any more comments? How about the, are we finished staff member? How about the applicant? Should I ask any of the applicants on this project? You signed in and you're standing here. That's my right hand, yes. Speaking to the microphone, please. Good evening, everyone. I'm Brad Wolfe with 908 Group. Pleasure to meet you all tonight. We're supposed to be here in September for the informal presentation with you all, but the hurricanes have scared us off the past two DDRC meetings. Glad to be here tonight. We're excited about the project. We've been working on it for almost a year now with planning staff. Jonathan, Lucinda, John, their colleagues have met with the neighborhood association several times over the past year and have been working with the planning staff specifically through multiple iterations on the site plan and architectural to get where we are today and are happy that we have their recommendation for approval and they've placed several conditions on our plan, pretty much all of which we plan to meet and work with them. I guess to address Jim's concerns specifically, there are a couple, one being parking. I guess first off, we're code compliant. We're not asking for any reduction in parking. Secondly, our parking ratio is about 75% per bed, so three out of every four students. This will be a student-oriented apartment community. We'll have parking. And for us, I really believe that a large portion of that garage will sit empty. Student housing development across major state universities in the southeast is what I do. We have operating communities in Louisville, Memphis, Tallahassee, Gainesville, Austin, Texas. Our common parking ratio per bedroom is around the 30% to 50% range and this one will be 75%. So we believe it's actually too much parking and in most cases I would have been here asking for a variance for that but I know that the neighborhood really cares about this project and wants to see it done right and doesn't want any concerns so we're not asking for a reduction. We're going to build that 75% of parking and it truly will be more than enough. And on top of that, even in our complexes that have say 30% parking where you really might think it could be an issue for overflow we have our management company tell everyone, hey, you have to buy a spot from us because we rent the spots and if you don't, please do not bring a car to campus. You will not have a place to park it. You know, bring a bike, bring a scooter, walk, will accommodate you, ride public transit but we clearly communicate that but with this parking ratio it really will not be an issue. As far as traffic, as you all know, attached to the report is a traffic study. We're meeting all of the recommendations that the traffic engineer told us to meet and one big thing that we're excited about on this project and I hope the city and the neighborhood is as well, there is currently no pedestrian connection from Fuji down to Pulaski and through to Lady, the Spring Hill Suites to the south of us. For some reason there was never a sidewalk built that connects Fuji to Gervais there. So really there's a dead end for pedestrians when they're walking there. So what we've done and planning staff has really encouraged us to do this and that's why we're doing it, is as you can see if you're coming down to Fuji and you go along that unnamed right of way where we're built that the county owns, we're building a sidewalk there with the recommended pedestrian improvements from the planning staff. That goes on and connects to Pulaski. It runs down Pulaski all the way and then even past our property all the way down to Lady Street along Spring Hill Suites we're building an additional sidewalk connection based on planning staff's recommendation. So really we are going above and beyond here for the pedestrian connection. It's going to solve a real problem with the city of Columbia and you know, as you all know a road that you're proud of it's the entryway to the vista here and pedestrians walking along should be safe from UG down to Pulaski down to Lady Street. As far as vehicular traffic, we're following the recommendations from our traffic engineer and one thing about student housing that sometimes people forget and we talk about a lot is the times of day that these students drive is very different than a typical commuter. So first of all, they're going to be on the road at different times than most people. Second of all, these parking garages end up being like car storage facilities because while Jim made a good point that it's, you know, a mile walk to the horseshoe giver take, if a student wants to take their car and battle for a parking spot on campus it's going to be pretty tough. You know, they could wait 20, 30 minutes to try and find a parking spot in a garage there. So we're following all the recommendations in the traffic study. We have plenty of parking and we're providing a really good missing pedestrian connection here. Those are the two concerns that I had remembered. Is there anything else that I should address while I'm up here regarding the site plan? I've got a question for you. One of the things I've seen at some of these places, maybe you can speak a little bit to it with the demographic being younger. Are you seeing people use more like Uber or Lyft or like I've seen the bikes around Columbia. Is that something you guys were trying to look into? Absolutely. Yeah, we really encourage ride sharing. And as you know, students, you know, they ride it all the time and the rental bike programs. We'll put those on our property and partner with those specific bike rental programs which we'll explore once we get a little bit further in the process here. And we'll see. I don't know if those Lyme or Burge scooters are in Columbia yet. They're popping up in pretty much every community and a lot of students ride those in Austin, Texas where they have it. Tallahassee and Gainesville, they don't have it yet. But yeah, scooters, ride sharing and the bikes are a big portion of transportation. Good point. I have a question about your numbers. The thing we were sent by staff basically shows there would be 27 units of the low rise with three bedrooms. Is that correct? Yes, so that's the 81 beds of the college apartments. And then you got a 405 beds, so you got 486 total beds. That's right. Yeah, and you're providing 303 or 305 parking spaces. That doesn't sound right. Well, that's what your thing says. You got 276 plus 27. Yeah, we can confirm that here. Laura Baker with Cox and Dinkins. So I'm the civil engineer. The problem is the different zonings. So the north side is zone C1, so it will be 27 units. And we provide two parking spaces per unit, even though they're three bedroom units. But that is per the zoning code. That's how we are providing that. And then with the M1 parcel with a private student dormitory is the 75% per bed. What I've looked at is the 486 total beds, the 303 total parking spaces, and I get .62. Maybe my math's wrong. I don't get .75. Right, but we don't have private student dormitory with the 75% per bed. I understand that, but I'm looking at the total picture. We've got so many parking places that you can park your tenants. And no matter what zoning it's in, you're going to get to an issue where you're not going to have enough parking place. I take exception to these spaces that are going to sit empty. I'm right across the street from the mills. I ride by the one on Gervais Street. I've been on Assembly Street several times a day. Trust me, they've got more than two cars in a unit, typically. So, I mean, and your site plan also addresses the fact that there might be a university shuttle. There is a university shuttle to ADESO, which is at the corner of Assembly and Whaley. There is not a university shuttle to the three mill projects. And I see they use the students use the ADESO shuttle a lot. But that bus takes a right on Lincoln Street just past ADESO. It does not go to the three student complexes. So, what I'm seeing when I go to work in the morning is cars coming from the student complex with either one or two people in it going to try to space somewhere on the park. They go either turn left on Assembly Street. They turn left on Main Street, or they turn left on Sumter Street. I mean, you meet code. There's no issue there. I'm just saying this is an accident waiting to happen. And where are you going to park your people when that happens? My name is Yao Yu. I'm from Humphreys and Ponders Architects. I just want to address the number of parking that you were having a question about. The 305 is actually only the parking for the C1 section. There's also another 59 space for the cottages. So, that was not added together. Wait a minute. I'm looking at what you've provided. Maybe what you've provided is different. You say that you'll provide 276 spaces in the garage and surface parking of 27 spaces. The 276 spaces, the way I read that, is for the C1 portion. The 27 spaces is for the M1 space. Added all that together is not the number you come up with, nor the number you have in your document. You submit it here. Excuse me. We need to be in the mic. Please use the mic. I mean, I'm just raising an issue. You meet code, but I think... No, good point. I guess call it out more specifically on this plan. Like Yau was saying, the 305 spaces is for the M1 big building. And there's another 59 spaces for the cottage apartment. So, there's 364 spaces, I believe. That's right. It's correct. And it's called out on the site plan. If you look in the legend, there's a breakdown of the spaces. I know, but it's not in this. It's on the site plan. I guess a few minutes ago. The parking spaces are on the site plan, which is labeled DDRC site plan, and there's a parking summary. And they break it down by parcel. The C1 parcel with the 27 units, they have 59 total parking spaces provided. And then the M1 parcel, they have a total of 305 parking spaces. It's on the right-hand side. This seems to be confusing because these documents don't... All it should have been more clear, you're right, Jim. So, the parking ratio is about 74.8% altogether. 364 spaces. Apologies for the confusion there. So, parking and transportation, any other questions of the site plan that I could answer or provide more clarity to? I think one of the questions I have just on that side alley that serves the building to the left in the plan view, I haven't seen it as far as illuminated at night, but it would be, I think, just from a safety standpoint, making sure it's well lit. Yeah, good point. So, Lucinda and Jonathan are requiring, as one of their conditions, that we have proper street lighting within a landscaping strip between the curb and sidewalk to make sure it's well lit. Thank you. We'll talk a little bit about the site plan and how we got to what it looks like today. We do have a large storm drainage line that runs down the middle of the site plan, 72-inch storm drainage line, so we're certainly not moving it, and so that's kind of why you see where the big building and the cottages have kind of where our parking is, is because we're not moving that storm drainage line. We also are moving the sidewalk along UG Street, so right now it's right up next to the curb, and so we're now providing a 8-foot landscape strip with the street lighting and the street trees, and then providing the sidewalk, so we are moving that. We're adding the sidewalk to Pulaski Street on that side, unfortunately because the road shifts closer to our project, and with the grading that's going down through there, we can't provide that landscape strip right between the curb and gutter and the sidewalk, so the sidewalk will be up against the curb and gutter, but it is larger than a normal 6-foot sidewalk. It will be about 8 feet, but we have some overhead power lines with the power poles that we run into, so rather than have people run into the poles, we're keeping that sidewalk at 8 feet wide, but then we will be providing still the street lighting and the landscaping per the city standards along Pulaski. With recent iterations with the site plan, this road to the north will look similar, so it will have new curb and gutter, a sidewalk with street lighting and landscaping with street trees through there. The sidewalk is going to be moved away from the road, and the old sidewalk is going to be taken up, and you're going to keep the trees, the ball cypress? No, we can't keep the trees unfortunately. I think with the construction, especially of the large building, the foundations that are required for that type of building, I'm pretty sure they're all going to be, we're going to have to take them out anyway. There's also an existing storm drainage line that apparently runs right under the bald cypress, so I'm thinking the city would not want to maintain that storm drainage line, so they're getting taken up unfortunately. Pulaski Street is graded differently. Have you considered that in terms of storm water drainage and so on, that there will not be any flooding? Correct, so right now as it comes towards Lady, it'll go down to the site to the 72-inch storm drainage line that's running through the middle, so right there there are points of pickup that exist that it shouldn't be a problem, but we'll make sure it's not a problem. And then with the extension from our site to Lady Street along Pulaski, we do have the grading is flat through there much better than on our site, the road shifts, it's kind of got a little curve to it, so we are able to pull that sidewalk back on that portion, so it will be the curb and gutter, an eight-foot landscaping strip, and then a six-foot sidewalk on that portion, where we could do it. Is Pulaski two-way? Yes, it is two-way. And will there be parking on Pulaski? There cannot be parking on our portion of Pulaski because the road curves towards us and we don't have enough room to add the parking there in the right-of-way. Any more comments? Thank you. Support and opposition? At that point, have you signed in? Yes, I did. My name is Bart Walrath and I am a resident of the Vista. Any comments on the site plan and just one comment on the design review? Should I hold my design review comment? Okay, thank you. My comments on the site plan review, first off, there's no details of the Pulaski roadway improvements are mentioned in the site plan or the review. I would like to know who's responsible for improving the actual roadway, including paving up to the curbing that 908 is installing, has committed to install. Pulaski will be the egress of choice from the proposed complex. It's not even one full lane in each direction right now. If you look at the picture in the letter I saw some of you had looking down Pulaski, you can see that a lot of the roadway is... There's a picture on the next page and you can see a lot of the roadway's been washed out. Improvements are needed to that road if you're going to put 486 residents in there to avoid putting citizens that live there and elsewhere in an unsafe situation and at risk of injury. Another comment I have is that there's no recommendations included in the traffic impact study for the intersection that it covers of Pulaski and Gervais. The study incorporates vehicles making illegal left-hand turns at that intersection and states that the peak holding time will increase from 90 to 120 seconds. The intersection is currently rated at the worst level for an intersection in the handbook used for this study. The neighborhoods have been working with the city and SCDOT to make this intersection safer and I was really disappointed there's no recommendations in the traffic impact study for this. Matter of fact, a week ago an innocent bystanding pedestrian who remains in critical condition as a result of a traffic accident at that very intersection. Two cars and one went up on the road on the sidewalk and hurt him. I agree with the city traffic engineer that the traffic impact study needs to be reden to include pedestrians and bicycles. I don't think you get a good picture of the real impact of the traffic with the current traffic study as an example the study reflects only about 60 residents leaving the site out of the 486 that lived there between 7 a.m. and 9 a.m. on a weekday. I just don't think that's representative of the traffic you're going to see coming out of that whether it's bicycle or mopeds or walking. To step back on the site plan review the summary list 25 conditions that 908 must take actions on for approval. At the end of the city's report they have 28, they have 30 conditions but some of them 908 doesn't have to take action of but on 25, by my count 908 has to take action to meet approval by the city. For instance, that traffic impact study revision that I mentioned is listed by the city's traffic engineer that needs to be done in that list. I just don't think that the DDRC should approve the site plan with those many issues outstanding and 908 haven't even presented their position on them. I do have one more issue on the design but I'll get about it. Any questions? All right, next? Is that followed? I want to follow up on what your score is. Yeah, a score I swear I did. But you know, I'm a resident too and I'm concerned about basically a parking nightmare because I live less than a block from there and you can just see on weekends and all people parking everywhere and it's going to be a real issue plus regardless of whether they drive or not you got 486 students trying to get to campus and Bart pointed out the problem there at Jervay and Pulaski and I also encourage you all to when you have a chance to drive down that Pulaski from Lady to Hampton it's really kind of a goat path that's really not been upgraded at all so we see big problems there and I just wanted to comment on that and one other thing, we have met with the developer several times but when the developer says that we met with them this implication that we agreed on something we have met several times but there hadn't really been agreement or any of the changes that have you know, pleased the community Thanks Thank you Any questions? Any comments? Anybody would like to make a motion? Volunteer please I'll make a motion considering that city departments have weighed in on this and voiced approval with various conditions I I move that we approve the site plan as projected with staff comments and conditions from various city departments Is there a second? I think we might need to include a few more details on the address I do not need to state with the You're welcome to add those comments and conditions if you care to Amending the motion to state that the the DDRC approve the site plan to 1328 to 1400 UG Street a request for certificate of site plan approval for new construction recommendations I'm the petition of approval subject to staff comments to include the continuing to work with staff regarding the sidewalk landscaping and street lighting along with the northern property line Second Second Mr. Cohn Yes Mr. Daniel No Mr. Broom Yes Looks like it's a It's a top vote Is there a subsequent motion? Can you tell me what the vote is? It's 3-3 3 in favor and 3 against So the motion fails so we have to have another motion that we can take action on Since there's 3-3 Is there a motion to possibly defer to work with staff to address some of the concerns and come back with another site plan possibly I'll make a motion I move that 1328-1400 UG Street that the work with staff as well as neighborhood to resolve some of the issues Second Your vote please Mr. Botknight Yes Mr. Cohn Yes Yes Mr. Daniel Yes The motion passes So we're going to move on from here to the certificate request for certificate of design approval for new construction on the same project 1328-1400 UG Street Just as a little bit of background for this project I'm not going to read everything to you guys since you have a pretty good understanding of the request but basically they were here in September for an informational presentation so they came and presented their plans they got some feedback from the commission about some of the guidelines and things that they were going to work on and the October meeting as you know was canceled because of weather so basically the drawings and the evaluation in your packet are just carried over from the October meeting they did submit some revised drawings last week that are trying to address some of those concerns so I've put three hard copies up there I have put in the PowerPoint we'll just click through the previously submitted drawings and the revised so you can sort of see what they've done to make those adjustments and then I'll let them come up here and talk in more detail but just to kind of try to better get a feel and so the image you're looking at now is a perspective of the development this is what was presented in September and then this is indicates some of the changes that they've done there was some staff comments about the cornice and the parapet feature and then I think they may have started off the dark bronze color and then they changed it and the staff recommendation was that it was more successful as the darker color and they scaled back the size of it a little bit and also the parapet wall came down and scale a little bit and that was a response to some of the staff comments and this is again you can see in the distance this is sort of looking from the townhomes back at the larger scale development in the backgrounds you can sort of see that's the old one and here's the change and then this one also indicates previously you can see this this is a Pulaski street sort of looking northwest so this is the southeast corner of the multifamily or the student housing the bigger building I guess so there is a pedestrian entrance you can sort of see on the corner and there was some staff comments about making that pedestrian entrance just more prominent and more accessible for pedestrians from the street they were a little tucked away so they did bring an entrance more to the front of that building and put a canopy over it to address that concern and just clicking through the elevations so this is the south elevation which is this is against the the transmission line easement that's on the south side of the property so it's not a street frontage it will be visible of course as somebody is traveling north on Pulaski street you can see that dramatic grade change and then these are just some enlarged elevations from the revised drawings that they submitted again at the top left this is the southeast corner of the if you're heading north on Pulaski street you're looking at the south corner I guess of the parking garage and the building there and that's where that entrance was added and then at the top right is the southeast corner that's looking if you're standing in Pulaski street looking at the building and then again you can see an enlargement of how the Pulaski street grade changes addressed with that elevation and then going to the the upper drawing is the north elevation of the large building so this is internal to the development sort of on a long parking area that goes through the middle of the property that's the elevation you would see there and then the lower one of course is UG street and again you can see the grade change on UG street and then this is some clips from their revised drawing showing the garage elevation this is if you were heading north on UG street this is sort of what you would see to your right is the south elevation and then this lower portion is sort of an enlargement of what the internal elevation would look like and again would also be visible if you were heading south on UG I know this is a lot but just try to orient yourselves they only have, I mean they have three sort of street frontages but a lot of more visible elevations just because of the orientation of the property I'm not being clear just stop me and ask for clarification and then here's some just enlargements of the UG street elevation so the northern end the left end if you will and then the southern end and you can see where they've added some detailing particularly along the just to sort of define that sort of basement first floor level that just adds a little bit of articulation to define the base of the building that's a new feature that they've added to address some of the concern as well in pedestrian scale townhouses this is the previous elevations of the side of the townhouses and then this is the revised elevation they've added some more of these sort of shuttered windows to the first floor to address adding some articulation which is a comment from staff and I certainly do want you guys to ask questions but I'll just sort of read you what the revised staff recommendation is based on the changes that they've made to these drawings since the last evaluation went out and of course some of this also is based on the fact that they've had some changes to the site plan so that will affect you know especially how these townhouses are addressing various sides of the property so the staff finds that the project substantially meets the city center design guidelines with a few exceptions and recommends approval with the following conditions that the site plan changes and details be reviewed and approved by staff to ensure that new configuration meets the letter and intent of the city center design guidelines that the architectural elevation of the townhouses be reviewed and approved by staff for the newest site plan configuration to ensure street facing elevations are articulated in a way that is consistent with the city center design guidelines that a higher level finish be provided for the upper floors of the parking garage screening and details to be reviewed and approved by staff to address section 5.10.1 structured parking that roof mounted mechanical screening, first floor glass selection and all other outstanding details be deferred to staff for review and approval and a standard procedure if the applicant and staff cannot come to consensus about the resolution of any of these conditions that the outstanding items come back to the commission for review and approval. So we came for the informal presentation or Laura represented us on our behalf and we received some free feedback from many of you I think overall it was good feedback, not a ton of comments. One of them was I don't think you all liked the cornices and the very big parapet on the top so we reduced the size and scale of that parapet which Yao from Humphreys can talk more about but we listened and made that change. We've been working with planning staff on several rounds of comments from them to making sure we had the proper punch window openings consistent with district standards a ton of brick massing tower elements within the city district standards and pretty much doing everything we've been asked of from staff to meet those standards so a lot of work has gone into this I'm glad that we had some feedback from you all back in September and with the recommendations that Lucinda has placed on this for approval we're dedicated to working with them on all of those conditions to make sure we work with something that's acceptable to them on each condition. Any comments? Yes I have comments but I'd like to hear more from them. I just want to address one thing last time when we heard that I think one of the comments was on the feature that the roof decayed so what we have done is we scaled it back slightly and also we opened the top up to us the big thing of doing a project is that we want to bring something new I think last time you did mention that we should look at some historic examples so I think the way we relate that is by using similar materials and on this project specific project we want to create some different forms and details to make it stand out and I think that's part of the thing is for place making create some special identity I think is critical for that so that's all I want to point out and capture the feature Any question? Question I have is with the September presentation between then and now has the amount of hardy board been reduced? No we have not we looked at the surrounding architecture especially the condo next door and hotel next door the percentage of brick that we have is comparable to what they have so we did not add any more brick Would you be amenable to increasing the amount of brick and certainly we'll be open to that idea Thank you Do we have support or opposition? I'm Steve Henson and I live in the Vista neighborhood association which we have several members here tonight and have all along and I'm chairman of the development committee and I want to make clear in the Vista we want growth we move into the Vista because it's an active kind of area but we want that growth the new buildings to look good and most importantly to fit in and there's kind of three areas of concern or many but three major ones one is that cornice and roof and all and that it fits in and I'm not an architect but that's just kind of not the look that you see in the Vista and there is some I think in canal side but that's not really in the core of the Vista most places just have a brick that goes up to the top that's one concern another very big concern is the cladding of that parking garage and we hadn't seen any detail on that when you come up lady which is a real major and you look across there you're going to see that cladding on the parking garage and we would respectfully request that this not be approved until there's a lot more detail on what that's going to look like because that's a big deal on Lady Street and the third thing is what we're talking about a while ago the amount of brick we were here in September and there seemed to be a consensus that there needed to be more brick on the building when you talk and there was also a comment a while ago and a couple of months ago in September that Renaissance Plaza has some stucco on it and it does but that part is set back about 70 feet from Pulaski Street the actual part that's owned Pulaski is all brick and the part on Lady of that is all brick if you look at the office buildings to the north they're completely brick those two if you look at the hotel it's all brick it's not all red brick but it's all brick the storage place that's new on U.G. Street is all brick the State Museum is all brick the Trustus is all brick the engineering is placed on the quarter U.G. and Lady is brick the Publix is brick the McDonald's is brick so we would we think that this is the entrance to Columbia the big entrance people come down U.G. they turn left and go up Gervais to the capital and it's kind of we look at it as the historic warehouse district of Columbia so we would just ask that I mean we'd like for it to be all brick that may not be I don't know if that's possible but basically this is a brick district and people are coming into Columbia and that's the first thing one of the first things they see is this building again it's surrounded by brick buildings and we'd like for that to be clarified hopefully you know before it's approved thanks have you signed in I did thank you good evening Jonathan Comish I'm the president of the arsenal hill neighborhood association I believe there's a comment earlier about a neighborhood adjoining the site that's us our neighborhood starts at Hampton street and I just want to be here to express my neighborhoods unified support of the this position of our VISTA neighbors we view the VISTA as one of the great success stories of Columbia over the last 10 years we want to make sure that whatever building goes up is entirely in the character of that district and contributes to that success our great concern and the concern of our neighbors is that once this goes up we're stuck with it that's a building that will be here for the rest of the time that I live here and the rest of the time that they live here and we just want to impress upon you guys the passion we have for where we live and the importance of keeping new construction in the character of the district so that it contributes to the district's success so I'm just here to express that to you guys I just want to say that we stand 100% behind what our neighbors are saying thank you anyone else come on my name is still part Walrath I live in the VISTA district our neighborhood excuse me and I just have a summary comment the staff list eight conditions in its design report that need to be addressed by 908 for approval Steve Henson mentioned two of those actually but acceptable responses from 908 have not been made available regarding any of these conditions I and I've asked the staff as late as last night I feel acceptable responses from 908 must be available to DRC before they approve the design and that's my comment thank you any comments sure, come on I guess first of all I just want to make sure I'm familiar how both the site plan and this architectural review work so the conditions that staff has placed on this we basically have to meet after you approve so we'd be happy to add some more brick along UG on the main entrance and we'd be happy to do some of things and we would hope that you approve with the condition and trust your planning staff that we will make these changes we've already started to make many we already have draft responses out to Lucenda on many of these and hope that you can approve with conditions that you all think are acceptable because we want to meet them and I don't know if you can bring the rendering back up and also, I guess before you make a motion or whatever it is do you guys have any other thoughts on this view that you could tell me we've really tried to make this very consistent with the Vista and hopefully better than a lot of the other buildings we think it's beautiful, we've hired a premier architect to do it so we want to get some any more candid thoughts that you have so we have proper guidance if we're missing something I have the both the question and the concern about all the about several of the conditions that are stated here yes you will meet with staff again I'm hoping I already expect both for the site plan and for the design review the increase in brick would decrease the amount of stucco, not stucco but hardy board in use and you agree with that yes further concern would be the actual mechanical screening of rooftop both from the with a west view as well as an east view me adding as far as screening like the units and such all of those are screened and you're willing to work with staff on both those elements on all those elements and on the garage screening we already have screening on there and we can add more if necessary if that's a condition that staff gives us an appropriate recommendation and they have to ultimately approve the screening that we do on the garage and we'd be happy to do that and have some good ideas to screen the garage because the neighborhood was right that as you approach from lady going towards or from Pulaski going towards Hampton you'll be able to see a portion of the garage behind the trees even though it's a low portion of the garage we'll absolutely make sure we have some nice looking architectural screening with that Any more questions? Yes sir, come upon the developer working with the site planning and everything but I just respectfully would ask that since the site plan has to be delayed anyway perhaps we could delay reviewing the other part too because it's not going to progress until the site plan can be approved anyway we appreciate your thinking Thank you My question would then come to staff is there an actual in the site plan or motion the last motion which was approved for a site plan was that it would be reviewed by you and approved by or work with you for approval I think it was deferred to December meeting deferred to work with staff in neighborhood Very good, okay I think the motion was for the conditions to be worked out and then a revised plan that reflects those to come back to the DDRC Very good, okay I wasn't clear on that Anybody want to make a motion on that? I'll make a motion I move that the architectural review be deferred until the details can be worked out with staff in the neighborhood So moved So moved Okay, go vote I was just going to ask if y'all could add some specific items that you would like to be addressed I mean because the staff recommendations are based on the guidelines and there might be things beyond what we recommend based on the design guidelines that the neighborhood wants So I think it would be helpful for the commission to be very specific about those items that might be a little bit beyond what we can require from a guideline standpoint I would like to see the screening of mechanical units as well as the garage addressed, I'd like to see details This is the second time we've asked for a reduction in the hardy board and it hasn't been reduced So, yeah those are the two I'd like to see addressed and I'm really not real comfortable with the idea yet I don't know what it relates to in the Vista So those are my concerns Have you stated that as a motion? Then Did you need that as a motion or just some of the items that I'd like for y'all to look at? Yeah, I mean I think that's my understanding is those are going to be included I mean that's part of the motion, I guess maybe you could restate that to include those just so we have a coherent list Do I need to restate the motion then? Okay, I've moved a decision on the design review for 1328-1400 UG Strait be deferred until details can be worked out of staff and neighbors to include the amount of brick hardy board, the screening of the parking garage as well as rooftop units Second Here we have a vote Mr. Boknight Mr. Broom Mr. Kohn Mr. Daniel Ms. Fuller-Wilt Yes Mr. Wynn Our next case is on the historic agenda it is 203 Watery Avenue This is a request for Certificate of Design Approval for exterior changes in addition and a request for preliminary certification for the Bailey Bill This is in the Wales Gordon Architectural Conservation District I did I'm sorry, not in addition This is a two-story brick veneer house built in 1918 and features side gable roof, original wood casement and double hung windows and a front entry portico with fluted columns. The only requested exterior change visible from the public right of way involves the enclosure of the side porch. The original proposal for the side porch enclosure was to remove the existing windows seen here in this image and replace them with shutters. Staff found this proposal not to be in keeping with the guidelines as it did not maintain openness as the guidelines require. However, since the evaluation for this project was written the applicant has altered their proposal for side porch to use screens rather than shutters. These are some examples that the applicant provided here which staff has found to be more compatible with the guidelines as the guidelines do state maintain openness through the use of transparent materials such as glass or screens into place enclosures behind significant detailing. I don't believe the applicant was able to be here today but he has mentioned that he's happy to work with me through figuring out the design of the screens basically keeping it behind the details such as the columns. So staff finds that that proposal isn't keeping with the guidelines. So overall staff recommendations two parts first for the Bailey bill. Staff finds that the project generally complies with section 17-698 of the city ordinance and recommends granting preliminary certification for the bill with the following conditions. The project meeting are exceeding the 20% investment threshold requirements for qualified rehabilitation expenses all work meeting the standards for work as outlined in section 17-698 and all other details deferred to staff. Second recommendation relates to the porch enclosure. Staff recommends granting a certificate of design approval for the porch enclosure with the use of screens based on section 7 of the Wales Garden District Guidelines and section 17-698 of the city ordinance with details deferred to staff. Do we have an applicant here today? They had a scheduling conflict. I was going to make sure. Can I pose a question please? So the the metal greenhouse that was added a number of years ago would all come off? That's correct. Right. Yes. All those, all those, yeah, metal windows would come off. And its place would be on the porch basically? Basically. Yeah, similar to one of these images here. There are no existing columns or anything on the front of the house that would hold the screen porch. There are existing columns on the porch. You cannot see them in this image, but they match the columns on the front of the house. They're fluted columns. The columns in the rear but not in the front I think. No, there are columns on the corners of the porch. It's just hard to see. They'll basically be attached to that then. Any more comments? I'd like to make a motion. I'll make a motion that we approve the request for exterior changes to 203 Watery Avenue to remove the existing metal sunroom and add screen porch to be screened in its place. I'd also move that approve preliminary certification for the Bailey Bill based on them meeting the monetary requirements required by the Bailey Bill. And this would be per section 717-698. Here we have a second. Second. Can I have a vote please? Mr. Bach Knight. Yes. Mr. Brown. Yes. Mr. Cohn. Yes. Mr. Daniel. Yes. Mr. Fuller-Wilt. Yes. Mr. Winn. Yes. Motion passes. Our next case is 2327 to 2329 Lee Street. This is a request for a Certificate of Design approval for an addition in the Old Shandon, Lower Waverly Protection Area A. This two-story 2800 square foot home at the corner of Lee and Meadow Streets was built circa 1912 and was among the first to be constructed on this block. With its primary facade addressing Lee Street, it features a cross-gabled roof and front porch supported by turned columns. Originally constructed as a single family home, it is currently used as a duplex. The house is situated on the western side of the lot creating a large side yard. The applicant is proposing to construct a 1000 heated square foot side addition with an additional 400 square feet of porch space in this side yard area. Staff recommended to the applicant that the addition be cited at the rear of the structure per the guidelines which require that additions do not detract from the principal facade. The applicants moved the addition several feet back from the principal facade however the addition remains highly visible from the primary elevation on Lee Street. Staff has several concerns with the addition. As proposed, locating the addition at the side would increase the width of the principal facade by more than 65% making the primary elevation highly elongated and out of scale with other structures on the street and in the neighborhood making it inconsistent with the guidelines. The addition also creates the impression of a second house attached to the original structure detracting from the original composition of the structure including the principal facade. For post entrance on the side elevation creates a false second primary facade which is inconsistent with the guidelines a single family historic residences on corner lots address one street not both. This approach to have the structure address both streets is not compatible with the historic fabric and architectural style of the original structure as the primary facade faces Lee Street. The addition to have the historic homes is not locating like elements on the site. A similar request for a large addition on a side elevation came before the commission in March of 2017. While this addition did not create a false sense of entry it did alter the massing making it incompatible with other homes on the street therefore the commission denied this request. The applicants revised their plans and approved. In 2014 a large addition to a corner lot came before DDRC for review. This addition added over 1,000 heated square feet to the structure and several new entrances to the left elevation. The applicants used a hyphen to minimize the alterations to the historic structure and clearly differentiated the original structure from the new addition. The new entrances were clearly inferior to the original and consequently the new addition was approved. Staff concerns for this project extend beyond the size, scale, directional expression, and sense of entry. Staff has concerns regarding the proposed additions massing, rhythm of openings, roof shape, materials, and details. While the guidelines accommodate the need for additions to historic homes they require that careful consideration be paid to the location, size, and detailing of additions so they do not have an existing architectural form of the structure. Staff recommends that the plans be revised and the addition be cited at the rear of the original structure which can accommodate an addition of similar square footage. Staff finds that the proposed addition at 2327 to 2329 Lee Street is not in keeping with section 4a or section 4b of the Old Shand and Lower Waverly Protection Area Guidelines in size, scale, massing, directional expression, sense of entry, rhythm of openings, roof shape, materials, detailing, sighting, and style and recommends denial. Staff? I'll ask one. Looking at the proposed first floor plan it looks like the addition is 25 feet 8 inches wide running parallel to Lee Street 33 feet going back towards the east that lot is only 100 feet deep. It would appear to me that if you put this addition behind the existing house you're going to be almost to the edge of the property line. Have you all looked at that? Had made any determination on that? There is room within the required 10 foot setback in addition in the rear. Is the addition clearly defined, differentiated in terms of setback and so on from the existing home so that one can tell the difference? Staff does not find that the addition is clearly differentiated from the original structure and feels that it creates the impression of a second structure attached to the original that disrupts the massing and directional expression. Thank you. We have an applicant for this project. Please come forward. Have you signed in? Thank you. Thank you for the valuable work. I'm sorry to interrupt. Could you please state your name for the record? My name is Mairdod Vejdani. I'm one of the owners of this property. My fiance Trace Klimby here today. She has lived in this house for 25 years. This is a duplex and we've decided to expand the downstairs apartment so we can both live in it and be homeowners and living in that space. This property is a duplex as a upstairs unit which is 2327 with an entrance that faces Lee Street and has a downstairs unit at 2329 with the entrance facing Meadow Street. The duplex was created in 1994 by the addition of a second entryway on the Meadow enclosing a side porch and adding 12 feet onto the rear of the house. The duplex is set on a double lot that has its vast majority of the vacant land, approximately 5200 square feet open to the Meadow Street site. It's on a double lot and on one side it's all open. The current entryway for the downstairs unit sits back over 40 feet from the entry facade of all the other houses on the side of the 800 block of the Meadow Street and 50 feet back from the property line on the Meadow. The proposed addition will bring the downstairs unit entryway facing Meadow into compliance with the design protection guidelines via its facade which will match the other single story homes on the 800 block of Meadow and also because it will be in line with the other homes' entryways. Our proposed addition will only alter the 1994 addition and will leave the original 1920s structure intact. This mainly a rear addition will also extend out toward Meadow Street since the duplex sits on a corner lot and any rear addition will be visible. The part of our proposed rear addition that extends to the side is set back over 30 feet from the Lee Street entryway and also so that the addition does not detract from or obstruct the main entryway on the original house. The staff has recommended that we do a two-story in the rear of the house to get the same square footage. Well, this is the duplex that the upstairs apartment would be completely blocked by that two-story addition and the edge of our two-story addition in the rear would be overlooking the neighbor's living room just not a practical solution. We have submitted some photos of some of the neighborhood this area on Lee Street is a lot of duplexes, triplexes, apartment housing a lot of student housing in this area and just within a couple of blocks of our house we took some pictures of a few other duplexes entrances on both sides staircases coming up from the back side which was presented but not shown for some reason. I believe that information is in your packets. We also took some pictures of the four adjacent houses on Meadow Street which is right next to ours and of course we were again sitting back 40 feet from the facade of those houses and all of these houses have entrances with covered porches single-story houses which again what you're proposing we would create that kind of a look by extending the downstairs apart and we've also presented some pictures of the three other corners of Lee and Meadow which are a very good presentation of the diversity that exists in that neighborhood. The other three corners are multi-story apartments or four unit townhouses right across from us and they all have multiple entrances so we originally had planned to have the addition a little more forward by talking to staff and discussing this issue about altering the facade even though we were six feet back and we thought we were not doing that we decided to move it further back to 30 feet back from the Lee Street side so it would essentially would look like a rear addition that comes off the side would match all the other houses on Meadow and it would if you look at it from the Meadow side it would look like one of the houses on Meadow if you look at it from the Lee side if you stood in front of the house on the Lee side you wouldn't see it so it would look distinct it would look like it's kind of a different house if we have a little indentation on the side of it so it would make it look like thank you for your concentration any questions anybody about to make a motion on this let me ask at least ask questions of staff if the first floor plan was extended the addition was on the rear then it looks like we run the potential of losing a room or trying to figure out how it would all work together this plan shows that he would have a room sort of in the middle that would hook on but I guess he's got options it's a double lot he could build a separate structure next door but that's not what he has in mind too he could go off the back but then he's with a one story to add what he wants but then it looks like he's going to be losing conceivably a space and then he can do this is there some possibility to distinguish the two you have a different material for the addition from the original so you can tell it's not part of the original building are you talking in its present configuration well I guess I'm back to if we leave his proposed configuration one way the historic properties have tried to distinguish the original from new is to have a different material for the addition is that a possibility I'm not sure that given staff's comments about the multiple ways that we don't see that it meets the guidelines I'm not sure that that would be a helpful move in the right direction if you will but if you do the addition he'll pull up his whole backyard the only yard he will have then of course will be the side yard which he has the potential at some point in time to sell reserving an easement on the back of the lot to access the back of his house but he's barely going to have enough room for parking a vehicle behind his house if he goes off the back I appreciate all the things that you brought up and things that we've thought about I mean it does have that secondary lot to the side where there's a lot of room right there but what we have to do is really apply the guidelines to the project I think if you apply the guidelines to this particular house you're really creating a problem with him being able to do what he wants to do but we are still bound to fall within those guidelines we're going in circles here I forgot to ask is anybody support or opposition any more comments? I have one further question or a question from the homeowner what can you step forward please what adjustments are you willing to make based on suggestions and discussions with the staff again we had it at six feet from the Lee Street we already moved it to 30 feet back from Lee Street we had suggested that the original house has got a vinyl siding and we had decided to do party planning to distinguish it even further but their objection mainly is any kind of side addition is not per guidelines even though you have an entire land sitting there you're not allowed to use it because the guidelines would not allow you to use the side you need to make something that's one-third of the floor space go two-story high block the upstairs windows and everything else for the apartment upset your neighbor in the back and leave the entire lot empty because this house is not the house was a single family home back in 1920s and the fact that's a duplex now it seems to be a problem but we have a duplex we'd like to like to improve it add to it and the only way to add to it is to do a single-story addition downstairs thank you anybody like to make a motion yes I will it's got to be a more creative way to solve this problem I mean we had this same issue on interstate where the owner there wanted to go out to the left in front of a pool that was turned down and they eventually added on to the rear of the house that's correct that was one that was in the PowerPoint just now but that was a two-story addition but they were only affecting a kitchen in this case they would be if they did a two-story they affecting both both rooms upstairs so how many square feet could the a single-story addition be with the 10 foot if it was extending back behind the house so I pulled up the PowerPoint what I recommended what staff recommended that would be done instead I didn't measure the specific square footage but visually it appears to be approximately the same amount of the picture that staff did there shows an indentation to which is what is typical that we see on additions to differentiate them from the original structure can be read in the footprint and its composition from the street you've used Palma to do your design have you given any consider I know they're draftsmen have you given any consideration to talking to an architect and see if they can come up with something that might work better we've designed it once we've spent a bunch of money design changing it for a second time the staff gave us the impression that basically no way no how so we've stopped the bleeding at this moment you okay? you're finished with the applicant Jim? thank you again I'm going to ask anybody who would like to make a motion I guess I will I move that the design development review commission find the fact that the project proposal I would make a motion to deny the case 2327 2329 Lee Street not keeping up with who's section 4 A or section 4 B of the old Shandon lower Waverley protection area guidelines in size, scale mouthing directional expression rhythm of openings roof shape material detailing lighting and style and therefore thank you second Mr. Bach Knight yes Mr. Kohn yes Mr. Daniel yes Mr. Wynn yes under our other business we have a report on the historic resources survey that was done Rachel has been working with the new south associates on this and they are here to present tonight hi Stacey they are hopeful they are here to present tonight we welcome a familiar face to DDIC well I'm Tina Poston with the new south associates we were here earlier this summer to propose our survey of the Eau Claire area that we completed this summer and we completed the report as well in September so this is just kind of to let you know what we found and know what was there so the city was awarded the grant and then they gave us the job to complete or update the inventory of the historic buildings in the city of Columbia focusing on the Eau Claire area and this is the project area in which they chose for us to focus our survey in so we were surveying everything that was older than 50 years with also anything that was built prior to 1975 we wanted to focus on ranch houses all of those houses that would have recently become eligible for the national register as well as identifying any new districts the other thing that we were required to do was to write a report and to do some historical background research to try to create a historic context where the city of Eau Claire or Eau Claire area and Stacey Richie did that good evening nice to see you all my job was to write a historic research context and a context is generally to deal with the buildings as well as the history so just briefly the history of Eau Claire area is that Frederick Hargrave Hyatt who you can see here bought a lot of acreage two miles north of the city in 1890s planning to make this area a white resort town basically he built the trolley two miles up from the city up to this area to attract growth and there were some very nice wealthy people buildings built here in the Victorian style that you can see as well as Hyatt's house and also parks and recreation facilities like a club the city's first club but it did not attract people as he hoped because there was a lot of competition for growth and other suburbs like Shandon and so in the early 1900s Elmond Park is developing Cotton Town which is leading for suburban development north of the city so Hyatt shifts his program here and by the 1910s he drafts this that you can see here which is much smaller lots and also the types of houses coming in are much smaller like this bungalow which was built in 1916 which is still there today he donated land to Columbia College so that became kind of an anchor for the development in this area which was very slow again with the competition that occurred through the subsequent decades so we see a bunch of different architecture here slow growth from the 1910s 20s 30s with small bumps along the way of growth pockets this is a 1928 map showing the town of Eau Claire 1899 in an effort to stop a black cemetery from coming into the area and then the yellow section that is labeled Arden incorporated in the 1910s to avoid annexation into the city that's actually college place there were a lot of annexations of the 1910s from the city pulling things up from the north and there were a lot of discussions between Eau Claire and the city for annexation for a period of about 30 years that finally occurred in 1955 and up until that point Eau Claire had been probably 98% white and the annexation that occurred in 1955 started a huge shift in the Eau Claire area here you can see the original Columbia College building that burned in the 1960s and the college place United Methodist Church built their sanctuary in the 60s so we did have some mid-century buildings that were showing up in their research but the big change in the 1960s and 70s was that African-Americans were pushed out of the downtown city area through urban rehabilitation and white flight and fighting blight and so a lot of them relocated in Eau Claire the city also put in low-income housing in Eau Claire so there's a huge change in demographics here but also there are very few businesses of this way so North Maine remained residential it didn't really grow commercial and so they didn't have a big tax base and that's part of the reason they annexed into the city in 1955 and that's basically a brief history of Eau Claire so just to go over a few of our findings we didn't find any individually eligible structures but we did identify a few prominent house types that attributed to a few of the potential districts that we did identify we looked at some commercial properties we looked at a few churches in the area as well as a cemetery and then the residential areas that we felt could potentially become eligible as a National Register District were a Long Colonial Drive Miller's Edition College View the Burke Homes area and Middleton Heights so these are just examples of some of the house types that we saw in the area that we're contributing to some of those historic districts these are examples of some mid-century resources that we had in the area though they were kind of sparse so the recommendations that we made all followed the National Register of Historic Places Criteria and if you look on the map everything in green was confirmed by the State Historic Preservation Office as eligible for the National Register and those include College View District the Colonial Drive and the Middleton Court which is Middleton Heights area the other two were determined locally significant and that's the Miller's Edition District and the Homes Burke area we also identified two other areas that needed further study that just kind of exceeded the limits of this particular survey and that was the Columbia College area and the Pine Ridge Cemetery they both had more resources than anticipated so a lot of the buildings on the Columbia College campus were built after the fire in 1967 I think it was and then around in the 80s so it kind of fell outside of the year mark that we were looking at so it could have a good potential to be its own district or also offer information to the community as a whole in its development and then Pine Ridge Cemetery was located in the north end of the project area it had a lot of association with the African-American community and development within the area so we recommended that further research be conducted to understand the extent of the site and its attributions to the community we also identified two other potential survey areas for future survey the first survey area they are highlighted in blue kind of compliments the current survey area that we did it kind of finishes off the original area of Eau Claire which Frederick Hyatt extended his development into that area and then the second survey area which is highlighted in purple has other development histories that started in 1910 and then went into the 1960s let me ask about another district and that's the Cotton Town commercial district which basically runs from Elmwood along Maine to Anthony and then it would have Sumter Street as its boundaries on the east has any consideration been given to that because it's a pretty intact 1940s commercial district it's not in the Cotton Town historic district but it is the mostly intact commercial district along Main Street that still exists and it's gone through a significant revival without any tax credits and there are not a lot of properties left quite frankly to be redeveloped they have already been done but it's a shame that hasn't been identified as something that should be looked at that fell outside the scope so thank you why is that outside the scope we only had so much money speak up please sorry we only had so much money for our survey so we're working on other areas we're working through there is one house I don't want to plunge things there's one house that backs up to the school the college on Main Street that's on the back street what's this empty vacant derlich any idea what's the story on that she recorded over 900 houses so you have to be a little more specific okay thank you any other questions thank you nice survey thank you and I do have to say they did this in a very short period of time and did really great work for us so we are grateful for the work and the information we have now alright call this adjourned no we do have an executive session we do have an executive session so you need to make a motion to move into executive session I'll make a motion to move an executive session to discuss pending legal matters listed on the three items listed on the agenda for today I apologize I didn't realize we were having this tonight carry on need a second second thank you Mr. Bogg Knight Mr. Broom Mr. Cone Mr. Daniel Mr. Will motion passes first I guess I need to make a motion that we come out of executive session was taken while in executive session second vote please Mr. Bogg Knight Mr. Broom Mr. Cone Mr. Daniel Mr. Will alright y'all are re-adjourned then I'll make a motion that we adjourn thank you second how's the vote I don't think we usually vote on this thank you thank you what we can form now