presentation time of 10 minutes. This time should include, but it's not limited to an overview of the project, case history, and any pertinent meetings held regarding the request. This time also includes all persons presenting information on behalf of the applicant, such as attorneys, engineers, and architects. This time limit does not include any questions asked by the DDRC or staff regarding requests. Members of the general public are giving the opportunity to address their concerns in intervals of two minutes. Applicants may have five minutes to respond. Staff has a timer and will make presenters aware of when their time has expired. Are there any changes to the agenda? There are no changes to the agenda. Thank you. The DDRC uses the consent agenda to approve non-controversial or routine matters by a single motion and vote. If a member of the DDRC or the general public wants to discuss an item on the consent agenda, that item is removed from the consent agenda at the request of the member of the general public and considered during the meeting. The DDRC then approves the remaining consent agenda items. Will staff please read the consent agenda? Certainly. The first item on the consent agenda is 2819 Earlwood Drive. This is a request for preliminary certification for the Bailey Bill in Earlwood Protection Area A. The next case is 1419 Anthony Street, a request for preliminary certification for the Bailey Bill and for a certificate of design approval for exterior changes. This is in the Cottontown Bellevue Architectural Conservation District. The third item is 1301 Woodrow Street. Again, a request for preliminary certification for the Bailey Bill and for a certificate of design approval for an addition. This is in the Melrose Heights Oak Lawn Architectural Conservation District. Our last item on the consent agenda is 303 Saluda Avenue. This is a request for a certificate of design approval for an addition and an outbuilding. And this is in the Wales Garden Architectural Conservation District. Thank you. Is there anyone from the DDRC that would like any item removed from the consent agenda? Is there anyone from the public who would like an item removed from the consent agenda? Would anyone like to make a motion? I'll move to accept all the items on the consent agenda and to accept the meeting minutes. Is there anyone doing that one? And the minutes from the last meeting. Mr. Broom. Yes. Ms. Sims-Branham. Yes. Mr. Greenberg. Mr. Lee Decker. Yes. And Mr. Salibi. Yes. Motion passes. Thank you. I believe we're moving on to the regular agenda now. Can you all hear me? Excellent. So the first case on the agenda is 1245 UG Street, which is next to 405 Gervais Street. The applicant is Seth Mendelson of Silver Hills Development, Inc. And it's within the city center design district. You can see in the map here that this parcel has frontage along UG Street, Washington to the south and is visible by, is adjacent to a utility owned by Dominion there to the west. The project came before DDRC in September of 2023 and was deferred. And I'm proceed with staff review. So section 5.2 of the guidelines states refers to the architectural style or theme. And one of the public comments in September was that the architecture was contextually anomalous with regard to character, materials and style of the district. You can see here that the proposal includes significantly more brick and additional detailing such as brick cobbling and relief patterns that are more in alignment with the character of the Vista. Section 5.2 addresses building mass in organization and reads the height and scale of new buildings in city center should complement existing structures while providing a sense of human scale and proportion. New infill structure should be designed to provide storefront windows, doors, entries, transoms, awnings, cornice treatments and other architectural features designed to complement existing structures without duplicating a past architectural style. The section outlines guidelines for building mass and organization. While these guidelines do not address the regulatory uses of the building, the city strongly encourages that in retail and commercial areas, the city center, the ground of the city center rather, the ground level of building should be developed with retail uses. Such uses draw activity to the street thereby enlivening the area. 5.3 addresses proportion of openings. Maintain the predominant difference between upper story openings and street level storefront openings, windows and doors. Usually there's as much, there is a much greater window area, 70% at the storefront level for pedestrian, at the storefront level for pedestrians to have a better view of the merchandise displayed behind as opposed to upper stories, which have smaller window openings at 40%. The applicant provided the percentage as follows. East UG street elevation, the ground floor percentage is 30.2%. In the north elevation along Washington street, the ground floor percentage is 37.9. South elevation, which is not street fronting Sorry, I seem to apologize. I don't have the ground floors for those in the report, but neither one of them are street facing. The recommended percentages are not code requirements and therefore flexibility is provided for conditions such as grade changes, residential uses, et cetera, but the ground floor percentages are much lower than what is typically approved. The percentage of glass on the upper floors is consistent with other approved projects. Section 5.3.5 addresses wall articulation and states long blank unarticulated street wall facades should not be allowed. Facades should instead be divided into a series of structural bays such as masonry's piers, which frame windows and doors. The subdivision of the wall plane establishes a rhythm similar to many existing older buildings found in city center. Monolithic street wall facades should be broken by vertical and horizontal articulation, e.g. sculpted, carved, or penetrated wall surfaces defined by recesses and reveals. These features are characterized by breaks, reveals, recessions in the surface of the wall itself. Large unbroken facade surfaces should be avoided, especially at the storefront level. Along UG Street, the two double door glass entry ways have been added. You can see in the top elevation they've been added for pedestrian access to the building. These entrances are enhanced with adjacent brick cobbling, transoms, benches, awnings, and a recessed brick detail above. Additionally, brick veneer has been added to the balcony partitions to better integrate them into the facade, giving them a sense of weight and permanence. The previously unarticulated brick bulkhead, which was along Washington Street, and you can see in the bottom elevation on the left side, which is addressing the grade change has been better articulated using a combination of brick pilasters and raised planters. Along the west half of the Washington Street facade, brick cobbling and pilaster details have been added for depth and interest. Two decorative ground floor balconies have been removed from this half of the facade and are now storefront windows. And you can see that in the right hand side of the bottom elevation. Section 5.4 addresses site planning and reads the manner in which a building and its accessory uses are arranged on a site are critical to how the building contributes to the overall quality of the built environment. This section outlines a series of site planning guidelines that will help establish a human scale pedestrian friendly quality in the city center. Section 4.1 deals with setbacks and reads in order to preserve the scale of the pedestrian environment and continue to foster the urban character of the city center. The design development district will have no minimum required front yard setback. The maximum setback for any new structure should be the average of the existing setback and adjacent blocks where the project is to be constructed in situations where the average is not established. The setback will be 10 feet. For this particular project, back in September, we recommended a 10 foot setback for a UG due to the use, the ground floor use, which is residential. So you can, and we also provided the applicant with section 9.3.1 of engineering regulations, which outlines ideally what the pedestrian realm should look like adjacent to the street. And you can see that in this slide. And sidewalks are the most fundamental element of the walking network as they provide an area for pedestrian travel separated from vehicle traffic. A variety of considerations are important in sidewalk design, providing adequate and accessible facilities can lead to increased number of people walking, improve safety and the creation of social space. And so along UG, the current drawings demonstrate a setback that varies between 9.2 and 15 feet with the rhythm of the architecture. The proposal includes an eight foot sidewalk measured from the back of curb with four foot pinch points to accommodate four by four foot tree wells. The trees are approximately located between the road and the sidewalk to provide a buffer for pedestrians within the sidewalk. The applicant has provided pedestrian scale light fixtures in alignment with the trees. Approximately a half foot to a foot of space remains between the back of the sidewalk, or I apologize. Yes, between the back of the sidewalk and the property line. The 9.2 foot to 15 foot between the property line and the building contains two walkways to access the shared entrances, which are approximately eight feet wide. One bench provided at each community entrance, three private first floor balconies, six walkways to access private entrances, six small enclosed private yards, a continuous five foot landscape buffer zone between private yard and balconies and the public sidewalk. Go back to that one. Overall, the proposal provides a greatly improved pedestrian corridor along UG. The landscape buffer combined with the aluminum picket fencing between brick pillars articulates a pleasing transition from the public to private realm while softening the ground floor balconies and providing small yet welcoming private yards. These features will encourage residents to occupy the exterior spaces and activate the street. In some instances, the metal picket fencing overlaps the metal balcony railings, creating an awkward double barrier. Minor dimensional adjustments should be made to better accommodate trees and pedestrians, such as increasing the size of the tree wells and extending the width of the sidewalk in kind. So if they were five by five wells retaining the four foot pinch points to widen the sidewalk of nine feet total. The wells will require adequate soil volume provided through the use of a suspended pavement system to meet the landscape requirements of the UDO. Along Washington Street, a similar sidewalk condition is being proposed. It's an eight foot sidewalk with the same four foot pinch points for four by four tree wells and pedestrian lighting and alignment with trees. The proposal includes the addition of eight on street parking stalls. There's approximately 12 remaining, 12 feet remaining between the sidewalk and the property line, which is proposed as a landscape buffer with additional trees. There are four raised planters located between the property line and the building setback, which add interest to the facade, especially where the grade changes. This proportion, and you can see them in this elevation somewhat, this portion of the sidewalk could also be improved through minor dimensional adjustments as mentioned above to better accommodate trees and pedestrians. There's a minor utility vault encroachment in the proposed sidewalk at the corner of Washington and UG. I just wanted to state in here that should be worked out with the staff for a location that's not within the sidewalk here at this major corner. 4.2 point, sorry, excuse me, 5.4.2 addresses street orientation and states the way that a structure is oriented to the street plays a big role in establishing the overall feeling of the street. As a general rule, buildings should be oriented so as to engage and maintain pedestrian interest. Following our specific instructions, so I just want to repeat that line, sorry, as a general rule, buildings should be oriented so as to engage and maintain pedestrian interest. The following are specific directions on how this can be accomplished. Storefronts should be designed to orient to the major street frontages while side or rear entries may be desirable. The predominant major building entry should be oriented towards the major street. The front building facade should be oriented parallel to the street or toward a major plaza or park. Buildings on corners should include storefront design features or at least 50% of the wall area on the street side elevation. Excuse me, I just need to... Okay, so the staff comment for that is Washington Street remains, I apologize, 4.2. So you can see that Washington Street remains similar to the previous application providing an architecturally emphasized entrance as well as storefront along the west half of the facade, accommodating a common space and a model unit. While the proposal does not provide activating features such as a main entrance, common space or storefront along the most prominent frontage, UG, minor alterations to the floor plan, egresses and glazing have been made to mitigate the impacts of the ground floor, private residential units and controlled access points. These alterations include more prominent entrances along UG Street featuring glass double doors, transoms, awnings and benches, larger window openings on UG at the corner of UG in Washington and ground floor, private entrances to activate the street. Sorry, guess we're there. The main entrance to the building remains on the west side which is functionally the back of the building. Additionally, storefront windows have been added to this facade but have no relationship to the public street. The section 5.6 refers to landscaping and I guess the major thing I wanted to point out with this project is that the use of landscape is important in how they've chosen to address the public realm and our major component to the process that we've gone through with them and are included you can see here in along UG Street of landscape buffer is important to address the use of residential facing this major thoroughfare and here along Washington the use of the raised planter beds was important to articulate the wall along the first half of the building as you go to the west. Service and loading areas are addressed in section 4.4 of the guidelines and state service and loading areas should be located to minimize their visibility from public streets on blocks with multiple sides facing gateway streets. Individual determinations of the more visually significant frontages will be required. Refuse containers and actively use service and loading areas must be screened from the view by the buildings they serve or by solid masonry walls which are designed as an integral part of the building finished with compatible materials and with a minimum height of six feet. If screening walls are located adjacent to public use areas they must be buffered from view with a landscape strip at least eight feet wide. Where possible ground mounted mechanical equipment should be located within a screen service area where this is not feasible mechanical equipment should be located where it's not visible from streets sidewalks and adjacent properties. Areas used for occasional service are loading less than one day a week or less than one hour per day may be treated according to the guidelines for surface parking lots. Staff comments are the current trash location is integrated into the west end of the building within the parking structure. You can see that on this plan. It's accessed by vehicle through the parking garage and by pedestrian through an exterior access door. The applicant has stated that the development will be utilizing rolling containers which will not necessitate truck access within the garage. Pickup will be accessed utilizing the parking garage driveway where rolling carts will be placed temporarily. This will be visible from Washington Street right away. An electrical transformer is the elevation is unknown is proposed along Washington Street near the Northwest property corner and a vegetated screen has been provided. Three on-grade utility vaults which I mentioned before are proposed at the corner of Washington and UG. One awkwardly overlaps the sidewalk and juts into the grass landscape buffer while the other two are located entirely within the grass landscape buffer adjacent to the sidewalk. Because this is the most prominent corner of the development and the current proposal is not providing storefront a main entrance or community amenities on this corner. Rather it is mitigating the impacts of residential use through architectural features. It is imperative that the pedestrian realm at this corner appear resolved humane and inviting. In this regard it is the least appropriate location for these utilities and staff recommends that the applicant work with staff to relocate the proposed vaults to a less prominent pedestrian location. Section 5.7 addresses the storefront and reads this section focuses on establishing storefronts. Sorry, those are the vaults there at the corner. This section focusing on establishing storefronts that will help revitalize and unify city centers, commercial street frontages. It should be noted that the term storefront does not necessarily imply that a building has a retail commercial use. Storefronts are simply the sides of a building that face the street and connect with the sidewalk. 5.7.1 storefront composition, accessories and details. Entries and doorways states, the main entry to a building leading to lobby stair or central corridor should be emphasized at the street to announce a point of arrival in one or more of the following ways. Flanked columns, decorative fixtures and other details recessed within a larger arched or case decorative opening. Covered by means of a portico projecting from or set into the building face. Punctuated by means of a change in roof line, a tower or a break in the surface of the subject wall. Buildings situated at the corner of a public street should provide a prominent corner entrance to street level shops or lobby space in America consistent with main entries as described above. Commercial storefront entries are typically recessed in or sheltered by a covered arcade structure, canopy or awning. This provides more area for display space, a sheltered transition area to the interior of the store and emphasizes the entrance. Recessed entries should be retained and are strongly encouraged in new construction although overly deep entries over five feet should be avoided as they may attract transients. Staff comments are, the Washington Street entrance has been better articulated using brick pilasters, brick cobbling and additional brick veneer in the upper stories. Some ground floor balconies have been removed on the west side and replaced with storefront windows. The unarticulated wall along Washington has been enhanced as mentioned with raised planters and brick pilasters to add interest to the public realm. The existing UG entrance has been relocated closer to the corner of UG in Washington and an additional entrance has been added on the south side of the UG Street facade. Each entrance now has double glass doors, a transom, an awning, a bench, adjacent brick cobbling and a recessed brick detail above. Additionally, the window openings on the corner of UG in Washington facing UG have been enlarged. Brick veneer extends another two, an additional two stories up from the last submittal on the corner facade. There is no storefront along UG, excuse me, however, the applicant has made a concerted effort to activate the street. As mentioned, the first floor units along UG include exterior entrances and small humane private yards enclosed with metal picket fencing between brick pillars buffered by vegetation. By creating humane spaces along the street front, residents will be more likely to occupy the spaces adding life and interest to the street. So this is something that we worked together for, went back and forth on the iteration of how it interfaces this major thoroughfare. And one of the things that staff was emphasizing is the need for this transition, there to be an adequate transition between the public and private realm and that this, like I was saying before, the vegetated buffer and creating more humane spaces between the sidewalk and the street that would encourage residents to utilize that front sort of front porch area is important to the street activation as well as adding the entrances so the building can be accessed directly into those units. So door and window design in the guidelines reads doors to retail shops should contain a high percentage of glass in order to view the retail contents. Use of clear glass on the first floor is recommended. Storefront windows should be as large as possible and no closer than 18 inches from the ground. The first floor windows are entirely residential along the staff comments read. The first floor windows are entirely residential along UG and at the corner of UG in Washington, approximately half of the Washington street frontage is storefront windows with residential amenities and a model unit while the other half is a bulkhead to address the grade change. The functional back of house or that one. And here you can see the West facade where the main entrance is located which is the lower elevation has additional storefront windows with residential amenities but are not adjacent to the public realm. The main entrance and public spaces offering higher transparency and thus greater engagement with the street are not situated to engage the most prominent street quarter of the major thoroughfare. However, architectural features have been added to mitigate the residential use of the first floor and the first floor and on the prominent corner. These include ground floor private entrances, private yards and balconies to encourage the front porch and street interaction. Two furnace entry points with awnings and larger residential windows at the corner of UG and Washington. Grillwork and grillwork, metal and other details within the guidelines at States. There are a number of details often thought of as mundane that may be incorporated into a building designed to add a degree of visual richness and interest while meeting functional needs such as such details include the following items. Light fixtures, wall mounted or hung with decorative metal brackets, metal grillwork at vent openings or decorative features at windows, doorways or gates, decorative scuppers, catches and downspouts, balcony rails, finials, corbels, plaques, et cetera. Staff comment reads, the proposal includes brick pillars along the metal picket fence to add richness to the pedestrian experience along UG. However, there are portions of the picket fence that overlap the ground floor balconies with minimal clearance. This creates unnecessary replication of barriers. Brick corbelling and relief details have been added to the entrance on UG as well as brick corbelling and relief details have been added to the entrance on UG. I apologize, I thought I silenced that. Brick corbelling and relief details have been added to the entrance on UG as well as brick corbelling, pilaster and raised planters to the Washington Street facade. Because there's no storefront, communal space or main entrance along UG, the applicant is utilizing the architectural features previously mentioned above to mitigate the impacts to UG Street. Staff recommends additional features such as light fixtures be added to the entrances provided along UG for additional visual appeal as well as pedestrian safety and comfort. Within the West facade, there's a column that indicates that includes decorative, non-functional balconies misaligned with adjacent windows. This is on the West facade. Additionally, along the frontage of UG, the two provided entrances are, sorry, this is a, so okay. So on the West facade, there's, you can see in here there's some decorative balconies that are misaligned with the windows and the bottom elevation to, so it's in between the two bays there, that small column there. And along the frontage of UG, the two provided entrances are accentuated with a relief detail that's both a different color brick and misaligned with the other features of the building. Both instances appear awkward and unresolved and the applicant should work with staff to address these details appropriately. With regard to the exterior wall materials in section 5.7.2, the guidelines read, the design element for exterior walls involves two aspects, color and texture. If the building's exterior design is compatible with many design features, the wall texture should be simple and subdued. If the building design is simple, perhaps more monolithic, a finely textured material such as pattern masonry can greatly enrich a building's overall character. Storefront materials should be consistent with the materials used on significant adjacent buildings. The following materials are considered appropriate for buildings within city center. The number of wall materials used on any one building should however be kept to a minimum, ideally two or less. Building walls, clear glass, glass block, storefront only, stucco exterior plaster, new or used face brick, cut stone, rusticated block clapboard. The staff comment is overall the proposal is much more congruent with the existing architecture than the previous application. The materials include lap siding, stucco, two colors of brick veneer and two colors of painted concrete in the parking structure, which is quite a bit more than the recommended number. Lap siding on a building of this size is predominantly seen on more suburban apartment buildings and does not provide a contextual relationship to the vista. The location of the lap siding will likely eventually be screened by a building on the adjacent parcel to the south. However, until this time, the incompatible material is highly visible from Gervais Street at a major gateway to the city. The material of the parking structure is incongruous with the architecture, which you can see in the bottom elevation there. It's painted concrete. The structure will be permanently visible from Gervais Street, the Gervais Street Bridge, Lady Street and William Street. Stay on this slide. Under section 5.8.1, cornice and fascia. The guidelines read, a cornice or fascia creates a strong roof line and gives a finished appearance to the building facade. The new cornice or fascia should be designed in proportion with the overall mass of the building. And staff comments read, the proposal includes three varying cornice applications along with minor variations in parapet height. Along UG, the variations follow a regular rhythm. Sorry, let me get you to, there we go. Along Washington Street, the variations do not follow a regular rhythm and detract from the overall resolution of the facade, leaving the second bay from the east, looking incomplete with a lower parapet and less predominant cornice, which is visible in this rendering in the second bay from the east there. You can see it's a little bit lower and the cornice is varied. Under section 5.8.2, under wall materials, should be selected to coordinate with neighboring structures and to complement the design of the storefront. Staff comments read, the materials include lap siding, it's pretty much the same comment as before, regarding the lap siding on the north-facing facade. Windows, the guidelines state in section 5.8.3, the upper story windows should create a sense of scale and add articulation and visceral interest to the upper facade. All of, most of the windows in the development are between 3.5 and, 3.5 inch and four inch relief, except for those within the lap, the portion of the building that has the lap siding application in which those window details are a quarter inch to a half inch, which again is less than the recommended four inches and more of a reason to deter this material from this application. Section 5.10.1, structured parking reads, where possible, parking structures should be located within the block core with actively programmed building space fronting all streets. Where location of parking within the block core is not feasible, parking structures should be located into the rear of the principal use building with the principal use building oriented to front on the address street. The ground floor of the parking structure should be actively programmed on streets with the active commercial frontage. The parking structure should be compatible in quality, form, materials, color and textures with the structures being served. Parking structure roof lines, which are visible from the street should be level. Ramping should occur within the structure and the interior of the block where it is screened from the street. And so this, the unique part of this development is that the parcel to the east, excuse me, the west is not going to likely be developed, it's owned by Dominion and so this parking garage will likely be visible for the time to come. And in this case it's visible, as you can see here, this is the view of the west elevation from the traveling headed east on Jervay Street. This is just a crude diagram utilizing the existing construction and the power lines to get a sense of scale. And so that's from Jervay Street and a diagram of the visibility from Lady Street looking east at the intersection of William Street. And there you can see it'll be minimally visible, but more visible from a pedestrian environment along the Jervay Street bridge, which is a main gateway to the city. And then this is just to capture some significant pedestrian viewsheds where the back of house or west elevation will be visible from the right of way. And so the structured parking situated such that it's visible from Washington Street, Lady Street, William Street and Jervay Street, including minor visibility heading east on the Jervay Street bridge. The future development on the south parcel will mitigate the visibility of the south facade from Jervay Street, but the aforementioned visibility will remain for the west facade. Refer to the diagrams, which I just went through, showing automotive and pedestrian viewsheds. The parcel to the west is a utility service and not likely to be developed, which contributes to the long-term visibility of the structure in this configuration. The applicant has effectively screened the ramping on the west facade. However, the materials are still incongruous with the quality form textures and materials of the building it serves. And so the staff recommendations are that staff finds the proposal overall to meet the city center guidelines and recommends approval with the following conditions. The first continue to develop the parking structure to mitigate the impacts to the public realm by utilizing consistent quality form materials and textures with the building it serves. Remove all lap siding as it's inconsistent with the architecture of the proposed building, inconsistent in quality and character to the surrounding neighborhood and necessitates the use of a quarter to half inch window jam details, which is significantly less than the recommended four inch minimum. Refine the decorative balcony placement on the west facade to have an appropriate spatial relationship with the windows or work with staff to provide an alternative solution for this bay. Refine the bays at the north and south corners of UG Street frontage to resolve the transition from brick to stucco in the upper facade. Add additional wall mounted decorative light fixtures to the UG entrances near the proposed benches. Resolve the parapet height and cornice variation on the second bay from the east on the north facade. Continue to develop the pedestrian realm to adequately accommodate trees and pedestrians, including larger tree wells, suspended pavement and root barriers, widen the sidewalk in kind to provide the necessary 48 inch accessible clearance. Resolve the access, resolve the areas along UG Street where there are double barriers, balcony and aluminum picket fencing, running parallel with minimal separation and work to revise the location of the utility vaults at the corner of Washington and UG. So they are either located in a less prominent location away from the corner and adequately separated from the sidewalk or seamlessly integrated into the pedestrian thoroughfare. So that's such that they do not detract from the design or functionality of the sidewalk. Thank you for the report. I believe the applicant is present and as such has 10 minutes to address DDRC if they would like. Yeah, absolutely. If you would please state your name and do you swear to tell the truth in these proceedings? My name is Seth Mendelson and yes, I do. Thank you. We're very excited to be working with the city. I think we've done a good job and we'll continue to work to make a design that we're all very proud of. You could see the city has spent a lot of time and it's been very thorough and we're very excited for that and just want to thank everyone for their time today. Now, Mr. Mendelson, before you take your seat, I want to give DDRC members an opportunity to ask any questions if they have any. Mr. Chair? Mr. Chair? Absolutely, go ahead. So Mr. Mendelson, thank you so much for clearly a lot of work from the last submittal to this one and working with our fabulous staff to really start to understand where these guidelines come from, I think y'all have done a great job in trying to really meet some of those requirements. I mean, there's quite a few still recommendations here that the staff has outlined. Have you, do you have any objection or thoughts about the ones that have been outlined here? A few of them, we have no objection at all. In fact, one or two of them were things we actually prefer. The rest we don't have objections to, it's things we would work with the city on. And then the last one that we'll have very little power over would be utility vaults. We recognize that, but that's that we agree with the city's comments on it. It's just dealing with utilities is always difficult. That said, we're also excited we're bringing down all these power lines and other things as well. So there's going to be a lot of work with utilities on this. And we think it'll be a really good project with, as long as the utilities work with everybody, but they'll let us bring these power lines down, I think. Well, that will certainly be a nice asset to Dervish Street for sure. So you don't have any objection to really going ahead and accepting with these, or is there any in particular that you have an issue with that we need to go into more detail about? I guess is where I'm coming from. No, in fact, fortunately we have in-house architecture also is even here and we don't have any objections to any of them at an overall scale. And then a few of them we actually would prefer. So sorry for those few ones that we didn't catch. Quick question about accepting staff recommendations and some of them I think by design or I don't want to say vague, but don't give tons of detail. For example, removing all lap siding, that's something y'all don't have a problem with. Or for example, with regard to the parking structure, it says that the material should be more consistent with the primary building. I mean, can you say that you would agree with any material changes or quality changes they would recommend? So for those two in particular, those are things that we'll work with the city on, as far as the parking structure, I think it's come a long way. I would have brought some more to the backside as well, which I think will make the city happier. Other ideas of whether paint more. We saw one cool building downtown where they did something to their garage, trying to think of what else has been done elsewhere. Yes, the garage is in the back and more hidden than some, but also at the same time, it's important to us as it's an entryway to us and making sure that that does look good. From the backside where you have utility there, I understand where the city might have concern there as well. That's what we also have concern. We need to make sure that the utility area there looks much better than it does today. We don't have total control over utility space, but whether it's trees, whether where we hide transformers, things like that is also a concern of the cities. If it's a concern of the cities, it's even a bigger concern for us than anyone could imagine. Having an ugly transformer at the entrance is not something anybody wants. Obviously transformers are necessary, but we do like to screen those with plants. And frankly, it's something we battle with utilities everywhere. We just, we've had a project where they've literally put a transformer right at our entrance when it wasn't supposed to be there. Then after we're done, we have to screen the whole thing because can't have people walking right by that. But that said, we can work on the siding whether some sort of stucco, some sort of other item there, we could figure that out. And then I know at the entrance, it was called out that there was different color brick. We actually agree with the city on that. I think it should just be a single color and we just didn't catch the shade difference there. It just wasn't taken out. So we appreciate that as well. I kind of thought that the shading was to accentuate the new entries. This is the reason I thought y'all had done that. So I didn't really have a problem with it because it was bringing you to the front door that we asked them to put in and they put in. But either way I'm fine with changing it or leaving it. Thank you. And no problem with the setback changes to the sidewalk that we went into a lot of detail about the trees and none of that as well. No, we don't have an issue with that. In fact, when we talk about the width of sidewalks, something that we've seen, we like to build urban projects throughout and sometimes we like to go between six and eight and throw benches in our planters in to make it actually have character along the way. That's pretty important as well. That said, we don't see any issues with it. It'll be something where we work. The hardest thing for this project has been the grade of the property and we're handling that I think pretty well. So as long as we can handle the grade of the property, which none of the comments get in the way of dealing with that, that works pretty well. And then the other big issue that we've had is fixing the height, fixing even the shape in the front, trying to also figure out what material costs are still very escalated. And I think we're able to avoid those also so that we'd be able to finance and actually build this thing. I have a question. This has a retail on the ground floor. No, no retail. Traditionally, we prefer not to put retail in. We've had some developments where it was required by a municipality. Some of those three to five years in, the retail still sits half empty. For us, what we have found is it's best to be right near retail. So for instance, the public's being across the street is very important to us. We find that to be something tremendous for our residents. When we find the retail right underneath, the deliveries early in the morning, the smells coming up from the kitchens will drive away tenants and our turnover goes up, which nobody likes to have a lot of turnover. We like residents to stay for many years and not be so transient. So retail corridors, we like to build dense, walkable product, but usually across the street from some sort of retail. That said, in the current environment, even more so, it would be very hard for anyone to even get a retail, a half retail, half residential apartment through, because financing for that would be very, very difficult as well. No, thank you. Does anyone else have any other questions? Some comments? Absolutely. On your original submittal, there was a staff comment about, can you please try to put an entrance at the corner? And I understand with the topography and you're not gonna get a vehicle access on Hugie streets where your main entrance is, but your first entrance on Hugie was just like a fire escape. And I see you've made a lot of progress, two entrances north and the south on Hugie street. And when I first saw that, I thought, well, why have two small ones? Why not one big one? But then I see you've got a really nice, overall symmetrical facade on Hugie. But one thing I would point out to you is your southern entrance on Hugie is almost perfectly aligned with Lady Street. And Lady Street is gonna get a lot of attention. We just put a new mural there a few days ago. The Vista Guild is gonna put a lot of attention on Lady Street. And you can look at Lady Street as a view corridor. And if you put a little more attention to your entrances on Hugie, you could really enhance the overall development of the Lady Street corridor as something to consider. My other comments about, I'm a little puzzled about the exterior materials. I admit, I know more about 19th century building technology than 21st century technology, but you have painted brick as, or not painted brick, painted concrete, I'm sorry. I don't think you're planning to put murals on this parking deck, but painted, that means the pigment is added before the concrete is cast or it's gonna be after the building is up, you're gonna paint it. It could actually be either way. Most likely it would be after in this case, but we actually saw a garage just while we're driving today and we're seeing more and more of it where it's being put on. Because these garages are precasts, they're built over in a factory, then they're driven over. If that can be done before, it would be very, very helpful. That said, don't yet know if we would just have to have our painter go over and paint it at the end. Traditionally that's how it's been done. I wouldn't oppose a mural, but I do have concerns with the amount of just bare concrete though, raw concrete, it's no texture and no detail and that material is really not seen in any of the historic buildings in the Vista, so I would encourage you to go put some texture on it or use stucco or when you finish your work on the parking deck, put a little more detail there to soften the image. And I appreciate the staff doing all the work on the visual analysis, the pedestrian visual corridors and even though your parking deck is sort of the back of the building, it is gonna be visible from a lot of places around the Vista, so I'd encourage you to make that a better appearing structure. Yeah, and one thing I would also point out is as you drive on in, the garage at the, called the front of the building actually does have more texture and it looks, it's not just plain concrete the whole way through, the architect kind of shaded that out because what they're trying to show is that that's probably over a hundred feet further back and it was a question we actually had for the architect but it made sense when they were explaining to us that, okay, it's really to show that it's not on the street if they showed the brick that we have right over under the entranceway, then it would make it very hard for anybody to study it and understand what was going on there. But so I agree with you, it's not gonna be so bland especially as you enter into the garage, that wouldn't work. Thank you, any other questions? Mr. Minneson, thank you for your time. Thank you for your time, thank you all. All right, we will now hear comments from the public. Does anybody wish to speak on the project? Good afternoon, if you would please state your name and whether you swear to tell the truth in these proceedings. My name is Steve Henson and I will tell the truth, I promise. Thank you. I appreciate the work that the staff has done and that you guys do and the developer also. I live a block away, I'm a member of the Vista Guild and Vista Neighborhood Association and we're excited about your development, we're excited to have a market rate department there, frankly rather than student departments everywhere. So we think that'll be good. And I sound like a one trick pony but basically when you look at the neighborhood, the neighbors are the state museum, the publics, even McDonald's are all brick, all brick. And when it does have more brick, it's not nearly enough. When we talk about taking down the lap-siding out, we hadn't talked about what it's gonna be replaced with but my thought is it should be pretty good development. When you look at those two big pieces of property which are right in the middle of town, the clown property. To me this is a precedent for what's gonna happen in the future kind of the standard. Five years from now you're coming on Jervais Street, coming on UG and what is that development gonna look like? Not just this one but the ones that will be added later. So it's very important to me and our neighborhood that that be a brick, nice-looking building because we're gonna be here to do the RC referring back to what this building looks like when we go forward. Anyway, so I'd like, my thought is there would be nice if we could not be fully approved until there's actually, I know they're gonna work with staff and all until we have a commitment to exactly what it's gonna look like with a primarily brick building, thanks. Thank you, Mr. Henson. Does anybody else wish to speak? Afternoon, if you would please state your name and whether you agree to tell the truth in these proceedings. I agree to tell the truth and this is Rosie Craig. Rosalie Gray. Craig, Rosie Craig. Rosie Craig, thank you, Ms. Craig. A rabid historic preservationist. Somebody was in the elevator and I think I shared it. And this interesting part of town was a catalyst, if you will, for the restructuring of the South after the Civil War and that State Museum was actually a mill and the Palmetto Compress, which was the one that I was involved in, not too long ago, was where the cotton was stored. So it's steeped in that kind of history. And I met this team on the front end with a gentleman by the first name of Ryan and we were delighted because we could tell that there was knowledge and sophistication that they were bringing to the table. And at this point, I'm glad there's more break because I do think there should be a stronger conversation with the historic mill. But I'd also very much trust our staff to do the best that they can. But personally, I'm disappointed in the vinyl windows and the lack of profile. Just it looks like anywhere USA almost, now I don't wanna say it's as bad as Frontage Road, but there's gotta be more of a conversation. And I know that's an abstract way to put it, but I'm not an architectural professional. Also, in the name of history, want to let them know, I don't know how long those vinyl windows are gonna last because there is a fierce wind that comes off the Congre and I like calling it Sherman's Breath. It's intense and the windows just don't look, they don't look sturdy and they're too flat. But other than that, I trust they'll get it right or I certainly hope so, because we are gonna be looking at it for a good long while. And it is a significant location for the entry to our city. Thanks. Thank you, Ms. Craig. Any other members of the public who would like to speak on the project? The applicant has, I believe, five minutes to respond to comments if they would like. We appreciate those comments and we'll work with the city also, discussing those comments. Thank you very much. Right, do any members of the DDRC have follow-up questions after hearing from the public? Great, in that case, do I have a motion? Yes, sir, I can make a motion. A very long motion, looks like. I'd like to approve this request for certificate of design approval for the new construction at 1245 UG Street and the NX405 Gervais Street corner in the city center district development district with the following conditions. To continue to develop the parking structure to mitigate the impacts to the public realm by utilizing consistent quality form materials and textures with the building it serves. Remove all lap-siding as it is inconsistent with the architecture of the proposed building, inconsistent in quality and character to the surrounding neighborhood and necessitates the use of one quarter or one half inch window jam details, which is significantly less than the four inch recommended minimum. Refine the decorative balcony placement on the West facade to have an appropriate spatial relationship with the windows or work with the staff to provide an alternative design solution for this bay. Refine the bays at the north and south corners of UG Street frontage to resolve the transition from brick to stucco in the upper facade. Add additional wall-mounted decorative light fixtures to the UG entrances near the proposed benches. Resolve the parapet height and cornice variation on the second bay from the east on the north facade Washington Street. Continue to develop the pedestrian realm to adequately accommodate trees and pedestrians, including larger tree wells, suspended pavement and root barrier. Widen the sidewalk in kind to provide the necessary 48 inch accessible clearance. Resolve the areas along UG Street where the double barriers, balcony and aluminum picket fencing run parallel with minimal separation. Work to revise the location of the utility vaults at the corner of Washington and UG so they're either located in a less prominent location away from the corner and adequately separated from the sidewalk or seamlessly integrated into the pedestrian thoroughfare such that they do not detract from the design or functionality of the sidewalk. I would say also to look at including, looking at vinyl windows and their profile as well as potential additional brick on the facade and all other details deferred to staff. Thank you very much. We have a motion. Is there a second? Second. Any discussion? All right, staff take a vote please. Mr. Broom. Yeah. Ms. Sims Brannum. Yes. Mr. Greenberg. Yes. Mr. Lee Decker. Yes. And Mr. Salibi. Yes. The motion passes. Thank you very much. All right, the next case is number two and this is 746 to 748 Hardin Street. This is in the five points design overlay district and the case is an appeal to a staff decision for the installation of a gate. The property in question is a commercial building on Hardin Street near the corner of Green and existing alcove in the front of the building facing Hardin houses a dumpster which has been there for many years. The applicant has been struggling with people using the alcove for illegal and dangerous activities and wishes to secure the space. The five points urban design guidelines require that when a non-conforming condition is improved the improvement must meet the design guidelines. Therefore a gate in front of an exposed dumpster must provide screening per section 3.3 minimize the presence of service areas in order for it to receive a certificate of design approval. The request is to provide an arched metal picket gate at the front of the rectangular opening to enclose the space. Staff has asked the applicant to provide some type of screening to attach to the gate to help screen the dumpster from the right of way. The screening is not required to be opaque and staff is recommending a translucent screen that would provide visibility into the space while also providing some level of screening. The applicant is opposed to any level of screening due to security concerns. While the aesthetics of the arched gate design are acceptable, staff has suggested that if the gate design completely encloses the space for example, a rectangular gate to fill the rectangular opening access would not be possible and therefore security issues would be moot. There is an existing pedestrian gate on the exterior stair on the building's facade that has a metal mesh screening and is one of the recommended materials as shown on the screen. So just a couple of the relevant guidelines in the five points overlay district 2.3 designed for personal safety and security says provide adequate lighting and avoid building features that provide hiding places for criminal activity. The staff common is the proposed gate will provide a needed security feature that will prevent people from accessing the alcove. As noted, a gate that encloses the entire space would provide a more secure space than the proposed arch gate which could possibly allow entry over the gate at the corners. Lighting could also be utilized to deter criminal activity. In section 3.3 in the guideline says minimize the presence of service areas and screen service areas to be less visible and use durable screening materials that complement the building. And the staff comments says since the service area is existing the condition is considered grandfathered and can exist unscreened. Since a gate is being proposed, however, some level of screening is required to meet this guideline. The staff recommendation is to approve the request to install the gate conditional upon one of the following screening solutions. One, the gate is designed with a metal mesh panel attached similar to the one that exists on the pedestrian gate to the exterior stair. Two, a gate similar to what is proposed but rectangular to enclose the entirety of the space with a mesh panel. And if desired, the curved metal details similar to the pedestrian gate for design continuity. Or three, another screening material to be proposed by the applicant that provides screening and also allows some visibility into the space. Thank you. Is the applicant present? And if so, would they like to speak? One quick question I have about the gate and the drawing on that graph paper. Is the height of the opening is surely, well, I guess 113 and a quarter inch. Is that, am I reading that right? That's the width. The width, okay. Oh, so the eighth. So eight feet is, so the arc of the gate will enclose or I guess will be up against the brick. Is that correct? I'm sorry, what's the question? I guess is the height of the opening is eight feet. Is that right? That's my understanding. Okay. I have a question. What brought this up? How this came about? What, like what brought this up? What kind of activity? How this came about? Was it there was enforcement or a complaint? Actually the applicant reached out to the city about the process for approval of the gate. And it's actually an interesting anomaly in that it, because it's not a fence on a property, it doesn't require a zoning permit like a fence permit normally would. And it also doesn't require a building permit. But because it's an exterior change to the building, it still requires a certificate of design approval. So there are those cases where it's kind of a standalone certificate of design approval that's not actually attached to a different permit. Those are a type of permit in themselves. So that's kind of what it required. But the applicant did reach out to the city about the process for approval. So was the applicant not willing to do these recommended changes? No, we had a lot of correspondence about it. And he was very adamantly against any type of screening on the fence. Because he was wanting to be able to see any activity, was that his concern? That's my understanding, correct. Any other comments or questions? Is there anyone from the public who would like to speak about this project? Unless any members of the DDRC have additional comments or questions, we can open it up for a motion. I'll make a motion to approve the request and install a gate at 746 Hardin Street conditional upon one of the following screening solutions. One, the gate as designed with the metal mesh panel attached similar to the one that exists on the pedestrian gate to the exterior stair. Or two, a gate similar to what is proposed, but rectangular to enclose the entirety of the space with the mesh panel and if desired, the curved metal detail similar to the pedestrian gate for design continuity. Or three, another screening material to be proposed by the applicant that provides screening and also allows some visibility into the space. Second. All right, thank you very much. Is there any discussion? Very none. Will staff please call the vote? Mr. Broom. Yes. Ms. Sims Brannum. Yes. Mr. Greenberg. Mr. Lee Decker. Yes. And Mr. Salibi. Yes. The motion passes. All right, so the next case is 1235 Main Lane, which is a request for certificate of design approval for new construction in the Melrose Heights Oak Lawn Architectural Conservation District. This proposed new construction of a single family house is on a vacant lot on the west side of Main Lane between two recently built and fill houses. A previous design for this lot was reviewed and approved by the DDRC in 2022. The proposed design of the building has been altered since that time and thus requires review by the DDRC again. While most elements of the design are compatible with the district guidelines for new construction, staff does have a few concerns as it relates to roof shape, rhythm of openings, sense of entry and materials, textures and details. Chief among staff's concerns is that a front door is absent from the design. Front entry ways are fundamental to the design of homes within historic districts and the inclusion of sense of entry as its own guideline in the new construction guidelines underlines the importance of this critical design element. As proposed, the house does not have a front door as the applicants wish to use the side doors as their primary entrance. This, sorry, the side entrance is in the middle of the side elevation, roughly 40 feet back from the front of the house and over 65 feet back from the street accessed off the driveway and behind driveway gates. While using side entrances or even back doors for a building's primary access is common, historic buildings within this district also have a front door at the front of the house. Any included front door is not required to be used as the primary access, but it should still be present as part of the design. And I've indicated in the site plan here in red where the current doors that actually lead into the house are located in the middle of the current design. And the green box I've included is basically where a historic front entry would be located, either on the front of the house directly or within one of the front bays on the side. Entry ways in Melrose have plenty of variation. Since Melrose has a high percentage of bungalows, a large front porch is very common, but smaller stoops or recessed entries are also found throughout the neighborhood. A previously approved design for this lot included a recessed entry similar in style to the one included in the design of the house recently built next door. Although there are many different types of entry ways that could be added to this building that would be compatible with the design of the house and neighborhood patterns, it is not always simple to add such a critical element to an existing floor plan. Staff recommends that the applicant give further consideration to the inclusion of the front entry way that is part of the overall design and resubmit drawings once this element is added. Staff's other primary concern is the inconsistent design of the front most dormer on the right side of the house. Not only is this dormer positioned much closer to the front elevation than is typical, this dormer cuts through the eve, which is not a pattern staff has found in this district. As the dormer is inconsistent with the neighborhood patterns and inconsistent with other dormers found on the house itself, staff recommends eliminating this side dormer. When considering new construction, it is important to look at the greater pattern of the neighborhood rather than individual outliers that deviate from the whole. For example, using the Prairie Style Powell House as an example for new construction in Melrose would not be recommended as it is an outlier in style, size, and form for this district, although it is a big part of the district as well. While it is occasionally approved to use less common or less historic details for new construction, such as allowing for painting new construction brick when it's not allowed for historic brick, it's not recommended for every element, especially something as fundamental as an entryway. As a key component of any building, a front entryway cannot be tacked on as an afterthought. Because of this, staff is recommending deferral of the project so that adjustments to the plans be made to accommodate a front entryway and door. Staff further recommends that the redeveloped plans do not include the frontmost right side dormer as proposed. And I would like to add that, as we know, it's very common with any new construction project to have recommended approval with a list of 10 to 15 to 20 conditions sometimes. And on the whole, there are not a lot of conditions for approval that staff would recommend. However, staff is not comfortable recommending approval of any design that does not have an integrated front door, which is why I am recommending for deferral rather than condition of a front door being added. Do you have any questions for staff? I have a question. I totally understand the requirement for a strong sense of entry at the front of the house, but what is the objection to the dormer at the front there specifically? Sure. So the way it cuts through the eve like that, you can see it's most dormers are going to be sitting on top of a roof. And that is how they are historically in historic districts. If that particular dormer type was on the back of the house and the back half, you probably wouldn't see it. It probably wouldn't be an issue. But because it's so front on the house itself, the pattern of it and the closeness to the front of the house is not something we see in the district, which is why I'm recommending that that either be altered in some way or eliminated. In looking at the site plan to propose layout, you're so into interest to the building from side to side halfway up the driveway. Is that correct? That's right. Where it's in red indicated here. Okay. Now the house is already built. Where's the front door of that building? The house is next door. You can see here. I don't know if this. Yeah. What I'm looking at, the house on the right has a door on the front. Yep. And then, yeah, they both have doors and entryways that face the street. Well, to be clear, the one on the right actually has an opening, but the door is on the side. Exactly. Yeah. Which is a pattern you see in the neighborhood. Yeah. Which I think may have even been, no, I think they had a front. They had a stoop on the original design of this, but the door was still facing the street. But we have allowed for doors, not that don't face the street. Makes me kind of wonder how the post office gonna handle that. I don't know. Is the applicant present and would they like to speak on the project? If you would please come forward. Good evening. If you would please state your name and whether you swear to tell the truth in these proceedings. Yes. My name's Robin Brackett. I'm an architect. My firm is Robin Brackett Architecture, PC. And I will tell the truth. Thank you very much. So, I along with my clients, Kaki and Dalton Ziegler, are here today to appeal the staff recommendation to redesign the project to include a front door. And we certainly appreciate the efforts of Ms. Walling and the committee to reinforce and uphold the historical significance of the district. My clients knew your approval was part of the process when they purchased the lot. They actually, as Rachel said, have been through the process and received an approval on another design. But since that time, they've had major life changes that resulted in a new design. So, we are not here asking you to modify the guidelines to suit our new design, but we're here to show you hopefully that our design does meet the criteria of the guidelines. The DDRC determines the appropriateness of proposed work in the historic district. We maintain our project as most appropriate for the district as a whole and specifically Maiden Lane, which is a two block street on the very edge. It borders the edge of the district. The design guidelines repeatedly speak to new construction goals that our design, we believe, has fulfilled. Those goals are reinforced historic patterns. And this is evidenced by the items the staff has mentioned in their review and approved. Be consistent with existing buildings along the street, which we believe is more than demonstrated by the sketch that's in your packet. And reflect the era of their own construction while blending with its context of the district. The design guidelines include nine individual principles. Staff has said that the project meets or generally meets all of the nine principles except number five, sense of entry. This principle states do not construct facades without a strong sense of entry. This definition of strong sense of entry, we feel can be very subjective. Nowhere does it state or mention a door is required. It lists numerous other items such as covered porches, porticoes and other architectural forms. We consider the front gate in Pergola an architectural element of form, a specific item that is mentioned in one that gives our house a strong sense of entry. Staff would like for us to add a front door to the design and we don't believe that merely adding a front door satisfies the principle of strong sense of entry. And an entrance should be an experience in addition to feeling welcoming. There are many homes in the district that don't particularly feel welcoming even though they have a front door. And we believe that if you were driving through the district that you would not stop in front of the house and say, where's the front door? You would say, look how nicely that complements the houses on either side. Again on this short little two block area on the edge of the district. So in closing, the guidelines advise the committee in several different places to, number one, appreciate the development of the district over time. Number two, encourage not restrict design creativity. And number three, allow new interpretations of historic themes and innovative solutions to design challenges. One cannot anticipate the needs of the future except to know that change will be involved. The district should reflect these changes while maintaining its essential character. And lastly, the guidelines advise the committee to apply moderate design control. And we ask that you consider all these points when making your decision. And Belton would like to state. And if you would leave that out. Thank you very much. If you would please state your name and whether you swear to tell the truth in these proceedings. Belton Ziegler and I intend to tell the truth. We'll tell the truth. Thank you. My wife and I are excited about the possibility of building on this lot. Our daughter was gonna be with us. She was a special needs child. He died at 34 while we were in the design. So we had to go back and redo it. We believe that this house absolutely fits the character and fabric of where it is located in that neighborhood. Remember that this is a side street. There are only going to be three houses if this one is built that front on this side of the block.  Across the street you have six very unadorned 1950s era of quadriplexes. So it's not as if we're popping something down that's not gonna fit. It fits beautifully. And if you see here, I mean, we've got the same architect, the same style. I don't think someone was gonna come here and say, gosh, you put that ugly house in between those two. That's not gonna happen. Now, I think the use of the word strong sense of entry is absolutely intentional. It doesn't say you've got to have a front door. It says you've got to have a sense of entry. I think anybody with any sense is gonna know where the entry is looking at this house. It's as clear as it can be. Now it's not a house of door that goes directly into the house. But I just heard said that this is about form not function that if we put something that looks like a front door in the middle of where those windows are, we'd be fine. So it's not really about whether you have a front door that goes into the house there. It's a question of a sense of entry. We've created that. In today's world, with a doorway like that, you put in one of the fine virtual doorbells and you can have that entry. The reason we want the house to look the way it is is because of the kind of use we want to make of it. The back, these are very narrow lots. And so it's very hard to fit everything in in this sort of train car style. We have, we're gardeners. We're people who entertain outdoors. We're porch people. Unfortunately, you don't really have room to put the garden and porch anywhere but really in the back. So the house is set up so that when you come through the entrance, you go to where the dining room is and then you can either go back into the public area of the house with the garden on the back of it for entertainment or you go forward to where the bedroom's gonna be. If you were to put a doorway where those two windows are in the middle, that would go into part of our bedroom, the master bedroom. I snore. My wife sometimes has back issues. We have always a separate beds that one of us can go to if we're not having a good night. That's the room that's behind those windows. We don't wanna have a doorway into that room. These are very narrow lots. So if you wanna take up a huge amount of space, if you have a hallway going past these private spaces, going back into the back of a house to maximize this narrow lot, we want to have that division between the public and private spaces located in the middle of the house. And we think that does it. We don't think there's any reason to believe that putting a false doorway of some sort in the front of the facade of this house would improve how it fits with this location. We think you've got discretion of the idea of strong sense of entry to say there is a strong sense of entry. Nontraditional, obviously design amendments are, modifications of the designs, evolutions of design criteria are part of what it takes to keep a district going. This house, if built as planned, will be in addition to the neighborhood. People will say, isn't it wonderful? We now have three very consistent houses in an enclave located there. So we'd respectfully request with all due respect to the staff that you approve us building the house with the doorway as indicated. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Siegler. One question I have and I appreciate the emphasis on the strong sense of entry language. And I do believe that provides some flexibility. I guess one area and I am trying to be pragmatic and look at this from y'all's perspective and figure out a way we can all work together to make the design fit within the guidelines. The sentence that's giving me pause is the first one that says place the main entrance in the associated architectural elements so that they are compatible to the surrounding structures. And I don't think we've seen any examples in the neighborhood where the main entrance is so far back into the side of the house. Now I think maybe it would be a compromise and staff can correct me if I'm wrong if, for example, this doorway opened up onto a patio of sorts that also had a door to the side similar to the house next door where you walk into that entryway and the front door is actually on the side. Is there any possibility to redesign this entrance? That's, there's a stairwell that comes in at the end of the next step. That's the stairwell going upstairs. I'm not an architect. Could you speak into the microphone please, thanks. There's a stairwell there. You know, I thought is that the front entrance is gonna be that entrance under the portico. It'll have a portico, it'll have a pergola behind it and that will be the entrance. This consistency here, again, there're only gonna be three locks on this, three houses on this side of the block. It's gonna be very consistent with what you've got there. It's a different, it's a evolution of the design to have it this way, but I think it's traditional. It's good looking and it would work. I'm afraid as tight as that house is, it's gonna be hard to engineer another entranceway at that point. Thank you. So I'd like to tag on to what Andrew said about the side entry and first of all, let me just say both of you are all very compelling about your sense of design and I applaud you, Robin, for all the great work that you do. But I do have a little bit of an issue with pretending we have a front door to a covered portico that has no function is what this appears. So is it possible to tag on to what Andrew said? Is it possible to actually enter the study or have an entry there, whether you ever use it or your people do, you could convert that, you could move the couch. So there's an actual entry on the side like the project right next door to the right. And it satisfies that it's actually an entry off of there. That way you could actually enjoy the Pergola area and come out from your study. You just talked about being outdoors people and enjoy that, that could become an amenity for your study and your master bedroom. So let me, and thanks, Mary Beth. Michael Brown. Kind of words. If you could please speak to the microphone. Thank you. So just to understand, you would have an entry, a door on the side, the left side that goes into the study. Correct. You still would not have a door from the front.  And you may not use that door, just put it. Right, but at least it is really an entry and not just a false portico with a front door that doesn't really, isn't utilized. We had intended to develop the portico and the drive and more of a series of how you get from here to there that we were, well, we were affected by the deadline and also just to discuss it at the meeting. So we feel that there wouldn't be a sense after you go through the gate at the portico that leads you from there to the doors to that arched entryway on the side. Well, that would be more in line with what Andrew just mentioned about. Could you actually make it so that you go to that entry? But I wasn't sure, then it gets into the stairwell as you all discussed, so I don't know. Well, if I could jump in too. I mean, isn't the sort of the purpose of our commission to be concerned with how things view from the public rights of way? Can you even see the front door in the house next door? No, but you do enter it from the side. But we're not really concerned with how you enter the house, are we? I mean, is that something we're specifically concerned with? I guess my concern is that it's even more non-functional because it's tacked on and you can't utilize it. I mean, how did you visualize utilizing that space? Because you can't enter it. No, not, I understand. It's the access port, the point, and then again to develop it.  I think we talked about having a ring door bell there and you arrive to this little arbor pergola area. And then from there, there's again a series of how you get from that point around the stairwell chunk. But it's definitely designed to show a pathway and then there'll be a paved area and kind of a courtyard or a terrace in front of that arched walkway that defines this is the entry. So, I think it's, you know, I think gone are the days where we just drive up to someone's house.  Well, to me, it seems like an accommodations design made to comply with section five, the sense of entry.  So, I can see that. I mean, there's some function to it too. I mean, it will provide some privacy. You won't be able to see directly into that bedroom. It gives a sense of entry. It appears there's a door on there. Whether or not you can actually enter the house from it. I just don't see anything in the language that requires the ability to enter. I mean, I think staff even said it doesn't have to serve that purpose. I know on maybe some of the larger commercial proposals that we hear, there's concerns about the appearance of parking garages and things and, you know, just aesthetically thing, the plans are amended just so it looks like there's a functional component when there really isn't. It's just sort of to make it appear consistent at the surrounding area.  They have other aspects, though, that are called a sense of entry. And so, again, we feel that we can develop, even though it's not fully developed right now, that the pergola and the gate and all of that to have a sense of entry. I'm looking at a letter from Manning. Is that a neighbor? A neighbor, or that's Manning? Yeah, Daze lives on the- Daze, I'm sorry. Okay, he seems to be very favorable of what you have and from what I've seen so far, you've done an excellent job with that block with three houses on such a narrow lot. And given the owner his wish, as long as you got what this letter said, I'm in agreement with what you got designed. Thank you. The other neighbor is here too, and is very supportive. So Robin, do I hear you saying that you think you could develop something that allows that entrance to access the main doors that are in the middle of the house, because I think if you could show us that progression of how it gets you from that door to that door, I could get behind it. But if it's not fully worked out, then I'd defer that to staff, if y'all are willing to, that would just be what I would wanna see, not saying that's what the other commissioners would say. But if you think you can do that, then- And in my mind, it is developed to still be exterior access, not a walk, not something off of that pergola that goes into the house directly there. It's something from the pergola that leads then. Yeah, that's what I'm saying. If you do it on the exterior, I could even support it, as long as it is really a door to the, if you could work through that so that, and I think you'd get more use out of it for y'all to use it, the pergola area. I'm gonna say not. Okay, yes, I think we can. I think that was our plan to have something that would walk people, you know, you greet them at the, someone, obviously if we're having a guest over, we'd open that door, we'd turn the light on, and it would be obvious that that's where you would walk through.  Obviously we'd wanna have a way to do that that was, you know, well laid out and well thought out. But we were thinking that more in terms of landscaping than in terms of architecture. So just wanted to confirm that we're talking about installing a real front door, you know, not a pergola gate, but a front door into the architecture of the house. No, I think creating a sense of continuity between that false front door in the actual entryway. So that the, and again, my, you know, not to steal anyone else's thunder, but the language that I'm having a hard time getting past is that it says, I mean, it's not a May, it's a place to the main entry so that it's consistent with other structures in the neighborhood, and I'm not looking at the language of the guidelines, so I'm paraphrasing, but similar to the house next door, I don't think that means the front door necessarily needs to be facing the street, but if the, is that a pergola? Sorry, I'm not an architect. The false front door, if it were somehow to be part of a continuous pathway that led to the main entryway to the house, I think that's where Mary Beth and I are, or an agreement that that would then meet the guidelines and something that we would be okay with. I think Amy's clarifying that that's a gate and not a door. Oh, right, right. That it looks like a door. And I don't think what we're suggesting is that that may come a front door into the structure. Right, yeah. Was that your question, Amy? Can you read us the guideline? Maybe we're having trouble with the language of the guideline. So the guideline says the main entrance shall be constructed with covered porches, porticoes, or other architectural forms that are found on historic structures on the block or street. Obviously this is in an area that does not have a ton of historic structures. The one across the street is that it has a big front porch. And obviously not saying you have to have that. But I'm not sure, my issue and why I asked to defer is I'm not sure how you develop an open portico that you can clearly see leads to nowhere into a sense of entry. This is gonna be highly visible from the street. So when you're walking up to the house, you see this open area with a window. Perhaps, perhaps it doesn't lead to nowhere. I mean, that's, I think the discussion is that we expand on this, these initial elements and take that portico and expand it perhaps down to the arch entry. And maybe it's not a pergola and it's a little bit more of a structure that you actually, they could utilize. I mean, I think we can get behind maybe deferring it if y'all need to work through those details unless staff feels comfortable that you could work through the details as is. And the other point I would make, there's one part of this design that I don't think we intended, which is you see the gates that are there to the driveway, the intent was for those gates to be at the same plane as the entrance. So the entrance would look like the entrance to a Charleston sideways house where you'd have a solid door that would not enter into the house itself, but in Charleston it would enter into a gallery porch. Here it would enter into that passageway and then go down and that would be the obvious place to enter because it would be a sort of driveway gates on the other side of it. So it would accentuate the sense of entry as that being the thing to enter into. I'm not following exactly. You're saying the gates aren't really where it's shown on that site plan, Robin. They're farther back. Our thought was to move the gates up so that they were in the same plane as the door. As the doorway. As the covered portico gate. Okay, thank you, Robin. Okay, that makes more sense to me because then you're not separating that front portico thing from your actual entry. I know, it becomes the only entry unless you're driving a car in would be the idea. Architect error. This communication by client error. No, I'll take responsibility for that. But that's the thinking. And the idea would be again, the vision is that you would have one entrance. That door would not be a gate in the sense of a garden gate. It would be a solid door with a brass knocker and numbers on it and everything that would look like a door. And it would move you through. That gate would look more like a door. Is that what you're telling me? Absolutely a door, yeah. Okay, did you hear that staff? They're talking about it, thank you. The problem I'm having is racial is going by the guidelines. And you're here to appeal that guideline, correct? We're here to appeal an interpretation of the guideline based on other specifics that the guidelines include. The Melrose Heights District cannot continue on its vibrant path of renewal and growth without allowing innovative solutions to design challenges. Now that's why we have a board. That's why it's not just a staff decision and it's over. There are places at which you can say yes, given the competing considerations, given the specifics of this, this is an innovative solution that can work. We believe that's what we have here. It is a strong sense of design. Three houses are gonna look wonderful together. There's nothing else within two blocks that they could possibly conflict with at this point. It's gonna be a major addition to the neighborhood to have this new house slot in with these other two. I mean, the great risk would be if this house doesn't get built, someone comes in and complies with the guidelines but creates something that doesn't really look good with the ones around it. And that's very possible. So we think this is a place where the discretion that you've been given as the board decides to let what is gonna be a pretty beautiful, consistent, elegant set of three buildings to be built next to each other. I think one of the concerns that we have as staff is that consistency with the context and the other historic structures in the neighborhood is the sort of foundational concept. And so while we wanna be innovative with our solutions and try to work with the folks who are trying to do great architecture in the neighborhood, we have to look at the possible repetition of this once approved in other places in the neighborhood. So that is one of our major concerns. So if there's some way for us to make this entry to the house look more like part of the structure with walls, that would be an important element for us. We don't have as much as lovely as they are. We don't have Charleston style houses in the neighborhood. It's not part of the context. And so... Couldn't that be though because of the specific lot design? I mean, this appears to be a pretty... Well, we have front entries on all the other two houses on similar lot sizes. So there are ways to do it. And I don't disagree with the concept that they would like to come down further. You notice their main entry, it's lovely. It's just that it's the way it's designed which is why staff had recommended maybe we need to go back and kind of look at some of the plan on the interior to see if somehow we could make this work. Maybe you don't have to do that. Maybe there's a better way to do that with this side somehow just to make it look more like the entry. And I'm not the architect here, but I just wanted to voice that concern. It's something that we have to think about. I reply to that. And I'd again appreciate what you all do, what you do. I think our conversation is we seem to be stuck on one, I would say minor design element. When you look and when you talk about the neighborhood and the district, and I have spent hours driving through the district, there are many, many homes that do not meet all those non-design principles. And I know they were probably grandfathered in, but there are some newer homes that are being built. And I think a few of them we submitted that this house is probably, something that again, someone would stop and take a second look at where some of the others that have been approved, I would dare say you wouldn't. So we think again that given the adjacent homes, the nature that this is just a two block area on the very border of the district, when you talk about surrounding homes, there's really no surrounding homes. There's two story very non-descript brick apartment structures across the street. And that's just in the whole two blocks is not even included in the district across the street. So Robin, I so appreciate all that. The problem is you are in the district and if we allow one thing to be a precedent in the district, even if it's one that's a little bit more central and not on the fringe, that precedent can allow certain things. I appreciate the narrowness of the site. I really think if we could kind of meet in between, like Andrew's been saying and say that this, if you could, sir, if you're planning to use this as kind of a front door and there's a ring doorbell there, let's make it a door. Let's use it and let's cover it. Let's make it a part of your structure instead of the pergola, excuse me, thank you, the pergola with a gate. If you're gonna use it that way anyway, we're not even telling you to use it different than you're already intending to, but just to make it a door with a structure over it. I mean, you could just continue that edge of your eve and continue it out and make it a roof structure. And then whether you wanna cover it to the back main entrance to your, or have it just be, oh, we're covered now, but we're gonna need to go outside to get in our main doors. It's up to you about if you wanna add that on and make it enclosed to your front door. Isn't that what you're thinking? And I think I understand, you know, if you, as you said, extended the eve, did something to create an entry similar to the house on the right? Well, I'm not even saying you need to enter to the right. I'm saying if you wanna enter the front and just go on back and then to the right. You're not saying to redo the plan to include a door into the house on the front of the house. I mean, that would be one solution, but if that's not what you wanna do then, but you do wanna go have a ring doorbell out there and have a real door and not a gate and it leads you to the other entrance covered or not. I'd recommend, I know you've got this beautiful archway thing, but I think, I mean, that was our intention. It doesn't come through on the submittal, but we are just do not see any way to change the plan to still suit, you know, the program and how they want to use the light by changing the plans to include a door that enters into one of those areas. I think I may be able to help with this. I don't think she was suggesting a door that actually enters into the house. I think what she was suggesting is just being able to walk straight through once you get in that front. Because it appears on the plan. I'm on the first, I guess, what is this? Eight by 17 page in the application that shows the floor plan.  I think what she was discussing is just there was a second, maybe a gate or just an opening that would lead you along the side of the house. Is that? Yes, exactly. It would be a sidewalk to the front door, to the center doors, I'm gonna call them the center doors. So just to see if I'm following, there really should have some sort of roof on it. That should be a roof. And there should be a well-defined walkway going back to the entrance there. That seems to be a suggestion. It can still be a pergola? I said, I should not do that. Exactly, that's what I was saying. Yeah, it should not be a pergola and it should not be a gate. If it's real, you're already told us you're gonna use it as a door anyway. So let's just, I think it would satisfy both the district's guidelines as well as what you're saying functionally you can do anyway, but to make it a real front door with more like a porch, in other words, a covered porch and then you can go outside to a sidewalk if you want and then go into your center doors. It's what I think we're saying would satisfy the look of the neighborhood. Yeah, not, you don't need to change the plan unless you need a wider sidewalk. Mary Beth, can I just, I'm sorry. Yes, yes. Are you suggesting to have like a porch with their roof with a door in it or like more like a walkway with walls and a roof that's open air? I think either would be fine. If I were actually using it at my house and I wanted guests to come through there, I would try to cover it all the way. But I don't know that the guideline says that that you have to stay undercover the entire time but we do need a real front door. Okay. Is what I feel like if you sit, didn't you say shall have a front door? Place the main entrance. That doesn't even specify if it has to be the entrance into the house though or onto the property. Right. Very good point. Yeah. Well, I guess considering the context of the entire guideline, it is referring to the main entrance to enter the home. That same term, the main entrance is used in the second sentence referring to covered porches, porticoes, so on and so forth. Or other architectural reforms. I just think this is such a uniquely shaped lot. I mean, if we were gonna make an exception, why don't we could limit it to lots that have below a certain feet of frontage on a main road, just to access it, they have to have a driveway to be able to get to the back of the property. And then that severely limits the design and the floor plan inside the home. I mean, it seems to be a pretty unique situation. I would say that situation exists on the other two lots that were designed with front doors. Right, so you'd be limited to just how those two houses were designed. Those lots are already built. There are no other lots like this. This is the last one like it that you're gonna find. Right, but so this lot was created by dividing a lot into three, a very large lot into three, which was a choice that could have been divided into two and would have bigger lots. There's other places in the neighborhood that could potentially be divided in such a way as well. Or areas that have non-contributing, non-historic houses that could be torn down and redeveloped in a similar way. So I would not say that this is a unique condition. Before we get too far down the tracks on this issue, is the applicant okay with removing the dormer as recommended by staff? I'd rather not. I think it breaks up that right side elevation. But if that's a requirement, we can, there are windows on the side. Let me see that elevation. Pardon me. Because of the high eve, I think it adds to that elevation and it is a common architectural feature, perhaps not in this district though. But that goes back to one of those things about being creative and challenging and new construction not having to, well, new construction just being a little different if you wish. Thank you for that comment. Do any members of the DDRC have any other questions for the applicant? Or comments they would like to make? Thank you very much. Are there any members of the public who would like to speak to the project? Evening, if you would please state your name and whether you swear to tell the truth in these proceedings. My name is Wayne Smith. I live at 1231 Maiden Lane in the house next to the proposed house. I was also the owner of the entire lot. So I subdivided the lot in accordance with the zoning requirements. A lot sizes. And you do agree to speak truthfully in these proceedings. I'm sorry. I apologize, it's procedure. You do agree to tell the truth in these proceedings. Sorry. I may be the oldest one in the room and I may have a hard time hearing but I think others would join me in that.  So I'm having a hard time understanding exactly what's being said. Will you tell the truth in these proceedings? Yes. Thank you. So we are excited about the proposed addition to the three lots, the middle lot. I know that they've been through this before with you and had to make changes to the lot and they're here again. I think that if you look on balance at those three houses and how they're designed and how they fit together, especially in accordance with what else is on Maiden Lane. And I say that in a way that sometimes it doesn't make a lot of sense that I could have put three duplexes, brick duplexes on that according to the zoning on that lot just like it's across the street. I think that given what has happened and what those three houses have been proposed and have been built that on balance that approval of the Ziegler's house, even with the discussion about the door is a good thing for Melrose Heights, a good thing for Maiden Lane. And I would think that a little bit of forbearance is in order because of the quality of the three houses that have been put forward. So, and I think that just an addition of what has happened on Maiden Lane with those three houses was worthy of consideration. Thanks. Thank you very much. Any other members of the public who would like to speak? I actually given a question. When those other houses were built, did they go through a similar process in front of DDRC as to where the entry was gonna be placed and how it was gonna be designed? Yes, both of those were presented and staff had 10 to 15 conditions for approval. DDRC talked through all of them, decided which ones needed to be met and which ones didn't. And that's how they came to be designed. It was at the staff's position that were bound by those, how those prior hearings went? No, no, with reference to the guidelines, I mean, we always look at historic context. So honestly, the houses to either side aren't even historic. So we would be looking at historic context in the neighborhood rather than the new construction. Obviously, you want them to be height-wise and massing-wise similar, and they've definitely achieved that. But when I'm talking about concerns about sense of entry, I'm talking about its inconsistency with the historic nature of the neighborhood and the historic buildings, not with any type of new construction. But so those other two houses that they are inconsistent with the surrounding architecture, is that what you're saying? No, I mean, when they came up for review, staff did have a lot of conditions for approval, and the DDRC reviewed it and approved them. And then Robin and I went back and forth with the designs to make sure they met DDRC conditions for approval, and that's how they are built and constructed today. So they, per DDRC, the design met the spirit of the guidelines. All right, thank you. Any other members of the public who would like to speak? If not, would the applicant like to respond to the public comment we have received? Any other questions or comments by members of DDRC? I feel like if the applicant is willing to create, and I've already drawn your elevation for you, Robin, about how this porch could be actually covered, be actually be covered, and then have a covered trellis to get you to your door. If it actually had a roof structure over it that met the pitch of your other roofs, it could be a really nice little detail on the corner there and actually have a real front door. Then I think, at least I know that I could get behind approving it if those conditions were met, that it was a real front door, not a gate, and it was an actual roof structure that led you to wherever you wanna go once you get through that door. Because it becomes your front door. So all my comments. Great. If there are no other comments, then I'll open the floor to a motion. For the sake of transparency, we're discussing whether the application should be deferred to give the applicant more time to redesign so that we know what we're approving, and so that we know we're approving something staff is relatively okay with. Also, there's the remaining issue of the dormer, which I think is still unsettled. And I welcome applicant comments during this process of trying to figure out where to go from here if you would like to respond. But that's what we are considering. Okay. I'm sure the next one. I believe we're talking about the same thing. It's not if we actually covered it, but can they do it in another picture? Would staff like to be a part of this conversation? I think it would be pertinent to wait until the staff has had a chance to also review. We would actually need the conversation or the discussion be part of the public record. Right. Projects with conditions to be worked out at staff level. I don't know how that, you know, how you have to be comfortable with that, but that's what I would suggest. I mean, yeah, that's why I recommended deferral just because I feel like DDRC really needs to see it. And I think you'll have specific ideas of what would work and it might be better to have y'all actually sign off on the final design. I think we've been through a lot with this process. I think it would be good to get some markers laid down. It would be helpful. And obviously, this is the time I would think to do it, to say we approve the design with the Brabham's issues related to what goes on with the entrance way and that staff would be instructed to discuss whether the dormer, removing the dormer improves or not the overall design and that way, if any issues come up, that would be my preference just to begin to resolve this. It's been a long process. Thank you. Let me ask you about the dormer. It's occupied upstairs, correct? Correct. It needs outside light. That's the purpose of the dormer. Two-fold, there are two bedrooms, two baths upstairs. And that front bedroom does have openings street side. So it's not really necessary, code-wise, to have that because there are windows on the street side. It just makes the room nicer and I think it helps elevation. Does that answer the question? Yeah. As my kids would say, it's a feature, not a bug. It's supposed to make it look, I think Robin's saying it's supposed to make it look better, not worse. I guess the issue there is this staff's opinion is that although it may look nicer, it's inconsistent with the surrounding structures. I guess I'm trying to figure out as a non-architect what the issue with the dormer is. Yeah, that was the issue. I do agree that it helps break up the elevation. I think having something there is good, but because of the unusual roof structure on that side, that wall is a little bit long. I understand why they put it there. Again, that's slightly inconsistent with the massing of the neighborhood, but I'm overlooking that as it fits in largely with the massing. But yeah, that's the issue is that it doesn't fit historic patterns. I thought the issue is that it cuts through the eve and that to me, that's the biggest issue. Which doesn't fit historic patterns. Right, and here we are back to an open floor for emotion. Well, I would like to think that we have some really great applicants and architects that are working to figure out how to make this work within the guideline. So I'd like to make a motion to grant the design approval for new construction on 1235 main lane with the following conditions. That the front door, it's to the left of the structure, be an actual door with a roof structure over it. And then be able to access the house in other manners. And with the condition that the dormer on the right side of the facade be removed. That's not in keeping with the district's standards. And for clarification, as part of the motion as it relates to the front door, that the main entry, we'll call it, that there be in addition to having the roof structure that there be some continuity between that and the actual main entrance to the home. Yes or no? Architectural continuity or continuity? Continuity is a good word. All right, there's been a motion. Do we have a second? Second. Any other discussion? Will staff please take it to a vote? Certainly, Mr. Broom. Yes. Ms. Sims-Branham. Yes. Mr. Greenberg. Yes. Mr. Lee Decker. Yes. And Mr. Salibi. Yes. Motion passes. Thank you, everyone. Is there any other business? We do actually have a little other business. It's quite happy. So we have our Coalition of Historic Districts, historic districts who banded together to share information, resources, et cetera, et cetera. And so we've been helping them with a project, a fundraising project for homeowner workshops in historic districts. And it is called Pause for Preservation. And it is a 2024 calendar. Oh. And people submitted photos of their dogs showing historic features of their homes. And so we have put that together and it's going to be out for sale shortly. Out for sale now. It's out. Okay. So you can pre-order. So anyway, we think it's fabulous. And we just wanted to let you guys know about it. So you can be looking for it, encourage other preservation, rabid preservationists as I think I heard tonight to purchase and support their historic districts. Two questions. One, where can we purchase those? Is there a website? There is. I brought flyers if you are interested. It has a QR code. Very good. And are any staff members dogs featured in the calendar? It's possible. Is that it? You in a hurry, Mr. Broom. All right. Well, in that case, the meeting is adjourned. Thank you, everybody. Thank you.