 And all applicants and citizens are able to communicate with the Commission at the appropriate times. I'll call the roll. Ms. Branham. Here. Mr. Bram. Here. Ms. Jacob. Here. Mr. Lee Decker. Here. And Mr. Salibi. Here. We have quorum. In order to avoid ex parte communications, DDRC members are under strict instructions not to discuss cases under consideration with the public or with each other outside of the public forum. The meeting typically starts with staff calling the case giving a summary of the project and then calling on the applicant to present as they wish. Decisions are typically made in one evening. Decisions may be appealed within 30 days to a court of competent jurisdiction. Oaves will be administered individually as we hear either from applicants or from live speakers. Applicants with requests before the DDRC are allotted a presentation time of 10 minutes. This time should include but is 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 applicants such as attorneys, engineers and architects. This time limit does not include any questions asked by the DDRC or staff regarding their request. Members of the general public are given the opportunity to address their concerns and 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 aren't any changes per se to the agenda except for item number one under the regular agenda. Part of the request was deferred. We sent y'all some information about that but I just wanted to note that. So part of their application will go forward but part of it will be heard later at a later date. 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 agenda 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 is 425 Whaley Street. A request for a certificate of design approval for new construction. This is in the Granby Architectural Conservation District. The second case is 507 Denmark. It's a request for a certificate of design approval for new construction again in the Granby Architectural Conservation District. The next case is 1003 Elmwood Avenue. A request for a preliminary certification of the Bailey Bill for a national register structure. Item number four is next 22834 Gadsden Street and is a request for a certificate of design approval for new construction of a triplex in the Elmwood Protection Area, Area A. And last is 107 King Street. Request for a certificate of design approval for new construction of a single family home in the Old Chandon Lower Waverly Protection Area, Area A. Is there anyone from the DDRC that would like any item removed from the consent agenda? Is there anyone from the public that would like to have an item removed from the consent agenda? Because it will not be discussed once the consent agenda is done. Just be clear on that, all right? All right, do I have a motion and a second to accept the consent agenda and also the September minutes? I'll make a motion to approve the consent agenda in the September meeting minutes. Second. Mr. Brim. Yes. Ms. Branham. Yes. Ms. Jacob. Yes. Mr. Lee Decker. Yes. And Mr. Salibi. Yes. The motion passes. All right. We are ready to move to the regular agenda. All right, first item on the regular agenda is 3200 Amherst Avenue. This was originally a request for certificate of design approval for exterior changes and a pork tradition. As Amy mentioned, the exterior change, which was the request to paint the brick, has been deferred by the applicant. So today, we are only reviewing the request for certificate design approval for a porch addition. Although this house is on a corner lot and the proposed porch addition will be highly visible from Greenwood Road, staff finds that the addition siting materials and detailing and size and scale are in keeping with district guidelines. The addition will be located on the Greenwood Road side, which is on the right there where that one story sunroom is. Here you can see the side view. There's a pergola back there right now, but that's basically where the porch addition will go in its inset from the sidewall of the one story sunroom. So staff recommendation, staff finds that the proposed addition at 3200 Amherst Avenue is in keeping with section five of the Oakwood Court architectural conservation district design guidelines. And recommends granting a certificate of design approval for the porch with all details deferred to staff. And I'm not sure if the applicant is here. The applicant present or wish to speak. I don't think so. Okay. And it seems like a pretty much a no-brainer. Is there any follow-up questions from a commissioner? Okay. Any comments from the public? Move then to open up the floor for a motion. I'd like to move to grant a certificate of design approval for the porch addition at 3200 Amherst Avenue and defer all details to staff. Second. Does the motion need to include the other item? No, it does not need to include the other item, but if you could just cite the section number of the guidelines. Yes. Yes, and section number, is it the TMS? Section five of the guidelines. Oh, I apologize. Section five of the Oakwood Court Architectural Conservation District guidelines. Right. Mr. Brim. Yes. Ms. Sims-Branham. Yes. Ms. Jaco. Yes. Mr. Lee Decker. Yes. And Mr. Salibi. Yes. Motion passes. Next one. All right. The next item is 121-123 William Street, which is in the Granby Architectural Conservation District. This is a request to appeal staff decision regarding final certification for the Bailey Bill and a request for a certificate of design approval for exterior changes. This is somewhat unusual as DDRC does not normally hear final certification requests. However, since staff is recommending that the Bailey Bill be revoked for this property, the applicant is appealing it. This property received preliminary approval for the Bailey Bill in June, 2022. In August, 2023, staff noticed that all windows on the building have been replaced, as had porch details. The Bailey Bill application for this property listed only plumbing, electrical, HVAC, and refinishing hardwood floors as part of the Bailey Bill scope. Likewise, permits for the renovation did not reference any exterior changes beyond painting the exterior. Staff was not aware that exterior changes were part of the scope, which included changes to the porch and windows done without consultation review or approval from preservation staff. And I do wanna clarify one thing, staff noted in the evaluation that the changes to the porch were ultimately approvable. However, upon further inspection of the photos submitted by the applicant, staff noticed that at one point during the renovation process, the entire porch above the concrete foundation had been removed from roof and all. So this is an image of the house before. There had been several window replacements, but there were some original windows left and the porch columns and railing had been replaced with metal. This is it afterwards with all new windows and new porch. And there you can see an original window. This is an image that I was referencing that shows the entire front porch has been removed from the building. Staff was not given the opportunity to assess the porch condition or determine if original material like beadboard ceiling was present and salvageable. Likewise, evidence shows that the house retained some original windows, which staff was not given the opportunity to review prior to the replacement. Bailey Bill standards are adopted locally but are based on state legislation. The Bailey Bill is a very beneficial preservation incentive for property owners as it provides substantial tax abatement. In return, there are requirements for the abatement that must be met in every project. Consider of this, sorry, consideration of this property today is not related to the appearance of the building or quality of work. The owners have renovated several other buildings in this neighborhood using the Bailey Bill and have also done great work in filling in gaps within the Granby streetscape with several new construction projects. The two projects in Granby that were approved on the consent agenda today the new construction projects are being done by the same property owner. However, the process in place for review of changes in historic districts, whether the Bailey Bill is applied or not must be applied to every property in the same manner. Staff review of existing materials is required before exterior changes are made. This point regarding staff review is made within several documents related to the Bailey Bill process including the Bailey Bill language as listed in the ordinance, in the staff evaluation for the project, the follow-up approval letter for the preliminary certification of the Bailey Bill and the memorandum of understanding which staff has all property owners with the Bailey Bill to read, initial and sign prior to starting work. The memorandum was created to further emphasize the need for property owners to keep in regular contact with staff. Language in the memorandum states, I understand that any changes or additional work to the building which were not part of the original approved submission will need review and or approval by either the DDRC and its staff. I understand that any changes to the structure either before final certification at final certification or after final certification during the 20-year tax abatement period which have not been expressly approved either by the DDRC or its staff may disqualify my project from receiving tax abatement. This MOU was initialed and signed by the property owner and returned to staff. Further, language in the ordinance related to the Bailey Bill process states, once preliminary certification is granted to an application, substantive changes must be approved by the DDRC. Unapproved substantive changes are conducted at the risk of the property owner and may disqualify the project from eligibility. Section 17-2.5Y of the ordinance and section five of the Granby guidelines emphasize the retention of historic materials. While it is possible that some original materials may have required replacement, with the removal of these materials during renovation, staff is no longer able to make that determination. Likewise, historic windows were made to be repaired by their manner of construction and because they were made with quality materials that are no longer readily available today. Staff very rarely comes across original windows that are beyond repair and even more rarely comes across buildings that require wholesale replacement of materials. For Bailey Bill and district guidelines, even if one of the original windows was in repairable condition, it should have been repaired rather than replaced. For examples, these are the original windows or historic windows that I see from the applicants' information that they sent. These are examples of historic windows that have been repaired. So this is the level of deterioration you can see in historic windows and the level of repair that can be achieved with these historic materials. These windows have missing montains, sometimes missing rails but they are repairable because that's the way they were constructed. Since evidence shows that the house retained original features which staff was not given the opportunity to review prior to the replacement and because standards for the district and Bailey Bill require retention of original features, staff recommends that the Bailey Bill be revoked for this property. Staff finds that these changes are in violation of the MOU, section 17-2.5Y of the UDO and section five of the Granby guidelines. Furthermore, exterior changes do require a certificate of design approval which obviously was not granted in this case. So they are asking for a certificate of design approval for these changes. Basically looking at the building as it is now with very little historic fabric left as much of the historic fabric has been replaced. Bailey Bill and district guidelines allow for replacement of missing materials and features with features that are appropriate for the structure. Therefore, staff recommends that CDAB retroactively issued for this property with the condition that exterior grids be added to the replacement windows to better mimic historic pattern. So basically the windows that were installed did not have exterior grids. They were grids between the glass which do not meet district's guidelines and in talking with the applicant they did express that they would be willing to put the exterior grids on. Do you have any questions for staff? Yeah, that's a lot of information. Is anybody need clarification? Just one quick question. Considering the investment thresholds for the redevelopment, would this project have met the threshold without considering the expenditures for the porch and windows? Of course they did another way without considering the unapproved renovations. Would the project's investment have met the threshold? It's likely it would. Okay. Yeah. Any other comments? I have a question for staff. Are there replacement windows that would meet the historic guidelines aside from doing the exterior grids? Are there any modern replacements commercially available? Yes. So when you're replacing non-original features there are plenty of windows available out there that meet the guidelines. If we turn back the clock to 2002, were there suitable commercial replacements that would be, or did you just not replace any historic fabric at all? Oh, well so with regards to the Bailey bill it states when you have original historic materials they should be retained. Period. There's no. Okay. All right, let me, I'm gonna clarify my understanding of this recap. They put in a Bailey bill application for some interior improvements. Signed an MOU that said any other improvements anywhere were to be discussed first. Then they did a series of exterior improvements without talking to staff and or even coming here to get a certificate of design for the project. Did I recap it? That's correct. All right, thanks. One more quick question based on y'all's experience administering the Bailey bill. Has there ever been a situation where we've been able to or where I guess I guess I would be up to the assessor to bifurcate the original value, or I guess the pre redevelopment value of the building from the unapproved exterior changes? I guess specifically meaning is there a situation where the benefits of the Bailey bill could be granted to the approved rehabilitation but that the true fair market value of the porch and windows are added to the tax assessment? So if I were to come at this project now, it's a house that doesn't have original windows. It doesn't have original porch. It's had a lot of the siding replaced. It's barely even eligible for the Bailey bill because of the amount of replacement material on the building. So buildings that have had extensive historic material replacement, if people come to us and ask is this eligible, we'll say no. So that's the main point. And what the tax assessor does, I can't speak to. I would be surprised if they'd be willing to bifurcate. Yeah. Was the Bailey bill applicant the paperwork was that submitted for approval? Yes, and it's included in your packet as is the MOU and the follow-up letter that approved the preliminary certification. And today it's different from that application. The application only included interior kind of updates like electrical and HVAC and refinishing the floors and maybe painting the exterior. Right, so their original application was for interior improvements, which we granted to meet the Bailey bill. And they signed an MOU at that time that any other work to be done would have to be discussed with staff first, okay? And it's trying to understand the timeline. And then they did exterior changes without even consulting with staff or getting DDRC approval and removed historic materials. So that's kind of where we're at. Okay, yeah, now I know there's a lot of variables. Did I recap that correctly? Because that's just okay. It's complicated. All right. All right, is the applicant here and do they wish to speak? All right, please come up and state your name and I'll swear you in. My name is Keith Ancoe. And do you swear to tell the truth at this proceeding? I will. All right, thank you. So my business partner is not here. It's just me and him. Give you a quick background. She had mentioned we got approved for the two other projects. We've done nine in this same neighborhood and we've actually successfully done six other Bailey bills for the same exact salt boxes. And our previous experience has been with Megan McNich and we had a really good relationship where we would just call her and talk with her. We knew what guidelines that she has given us in the, and I guess this being a new relationship with Rachel, we didn't understand our boundaries or that we should have gone back to her on certain things, because we've already gotten approval for a lot of stuff that we've done in the past with Megan. So that's kind of where the miscommunication has been. But not only six Bailey bills, but we also have done two new construction salt boxes, which were the first ones to do in 130 years. And we also moved two of the historical houses that were the executive houses on Whaley Street where they were going to be demolished and we actually picked them up and moved them. So we have invested a lot into this community. And yes, we could have gone back and talked to the staff. My reasoning would be we usually met with Megan and she's never had a problem with anything we've done. As far as the porch goes, when we had our roofers out there to replace the roof, they would not even go on the porch roof because it was so dangerous. Trust me as an investor, you want to do as little as possible. And same with the windows, if we could have salvaged them, we would. I have receipts that can show you exactly what we spent. It was $5,000. And I don't have the tally for the porch, but we didn't do it out of a shortcut or we did it out of necessity and safety because when we did this house, and I have pictures that you didn't get to see in the pamphlet or in the presentation, but this house was completely gutted down to the studs and passed the subfloor foundation work, termite damage completely everywhere. It was basically a new construction build from inside and out. So these houses have been around for over a hundred years. There's a lot of moving parts. When I applied for this, I didn't know what I was gonna get into. The previous owner was living in there, he was a hoarder. He didn't even have water running. He had cut on the water of the street just to use the bathroom. And it was running through his subfloor into the street when we bought the house. Like this is the kind of stuff that we're dealing with. He was using pillows to fill holes into the walls. So it's not as easy as we know, it's not a cookie cutter house that we know that every corner we're gonna be running into the same thing. I wanna also point out that Joe Weeder, Mill District Alliance called my business partner to thank us for the good work that we've done. We have also gotten approval, a DDRC approval for the Bailey bill for other houses that have had replacement windows in them already. And we've kept the windows, the ones that we could keep. So we've gotten approval for Bailey bills with houses that have had vinyl windows in them is what I'm getting at in the same exact neighborhood. I also have an affidavit notarized from my general contractor saying that there was 12 windows or 12 windows total and only four of them were original and those were not repairable. Now, again, we have successfully done a lot of these projects and we have successfully replaced the windows in those projects. You can drive by them, they're on Church Street, they're on Denmark Street, they're on South Parker Street and we've done that and we've saved money and saved time by doing that. But this project, we could not save them. So again, I think this is a lack of our connection with Rachel and where we've been able to just be on the same page with Megan and we just didn't realize that we were gonna get ourselves in this kind of situation. So one thing I wanna point out, I tally it up. So what we're really talking about is us saving money on taxes. This Bailey bill is designed for people like me, investors to reinvest in a community in a house that should be really deemed demolished. We bought it for X, we put $250,000 in it. So you were asking about the threshold. We would only have had to spend $20,000 to meet that threshold. We spent 25 times that to reach this. So we have spent two days in this neighborhood, $3.5 million investing in all of the community and make it better. And we spend yearly $40,000 in taxes. So yes, we understand that we messed up, but we ask that there's be some solution. The grids that are on the windows, that are on the interior, they're removable. We can move them to the exterior. We don't have a problem with that. The original, there's only two original windows in the front, they're on the bottom floor. The two on the top that you can see from the street were vinyl windows in the first place. So we're open to a solution on remedying this, and thus getting approval for the Bailey bill. As far as the siding goes, we replaced it with all pine siding, just like we have for all of our other houses. We weren't anticipating once we had to scrape the paint off that they were falling apart. When you stood inside the house, and I have videos inside the house, you could see light through the walls, through the siding, how bad the house was. So it's easy to sit in the back and not be part of the project and not realize how much work we did to get to that point. So, and I also like to point out, this house does not look historical. It's got a chain link fence in the front. It's got a handicap ramp. It's got lattice instead of balusters. And I'm pretty sure these metal columns were not original. There's only two metal columns and then two wooded columns. So we took what didn't it look like a historical house and turned it into what I think looks way better. And we really, we should not be punished for that because our whole intentions were to keep the look and feel of the neighborhood. All right, I'm gonna open up to commissioners. Anybody have a question to the applicant? Yes, to me, sir. So, yeah, first of all, let me applaud you for all the work you've done in the Granby area because it's clearly a wonderful neighborhood to be putting some investment into. Seems a real shame that this happened the way it did. And I guess my question is, why didn't, if you knew this house was gonna need quite a bit of exterior work, probably from walking on the inside, even knowing it was gonna, why didn't you just come to begin with all of the interior and exterior things you wanted to do for the Bailey-Bill approval? So, yeah, the permit we pulled and the Bailey-Bill did include exterior paint, which basically is scrape and repainting and then a complete interior renovation. So, but I have to believe with all the experience you just told me that you could look at that porch and see that it wasn't in good shape. I mean, I just find it, you've given us all this history of how experienced you are. And yet, and again, I don't know this whole situation of previous staff. I don't think that's relevant. It is relevant that you signed the MOU and that you knew what you were signing. And I just would recommend in the future that you know those things as an investor and having done so many pieces that you see those things upfront, you know the possibility and come prepared for the full approval as opposed to trying to do it after the fact with some other ways and means. So, from our experience out of all the ones that we've done, we've never had to replace the porch. So, we've done a lot of work and all out of them and the porches has not been won. So, we actually did not know that until we were scheduled to get the roof on and the roofers would not get on the roof to do it. So, it became a hazard. And again, we're not shortcutting anything. Like I spent a lot of money to do that. It's not something I wanted to do. It was a safety thing. So, yes, the procedure was not right, but what we've done is correct. And that's what I, I guess that's what I've, you went into this assuming that what we were doing, it was correct. The procedure was what was wrong. The project was correct, the procedure was wrong. Just, I'm gonna tell you from our perspective, we can't say yes or no to that because our staff should have been involved to make sure that was the right procedure. So, this is the paradigm. The problem. Commissioner Brandon, anything else? I mean, excellent points. Yeah, I think that's my whole point is that the procedures is why we exist, right? And why the guidelines are in place. Now, I think the benefit to use that the staff is also recommending that you get retroactive approval of the windows. So, you're getting a little something out of this. And I think that's a positive. But I agree that it's really hard for us to, if we grant you an approval to get around the procedures, we're opening it up for anybody to do that. And that just can't be a precedent that we set. Yeah, I understand completely, yeah. Yeah, and we've been part of this, we've been part of them for as many as we've gotten. I don't know anyone else in that neighborhood has gotten that many Bailey bills. So, we are basically the ones who started the whole thing for that specific neighborhood, to my knowledge. I'm sure there's been some others, but we have probably the majority, I imagine. So, I guess it was just assumption of, here we go again, here's another project, the same one. Because those salt boxes are exactly the same as the next. I am hoping that there's never been another project where you didn't get the proper approval before moving forward with all these other projects. It's been approved for everything we've always done. So, you do know the process? Yes. Any other commissioner have a question? All right, thank you. This will open up to any public comments. Please come up and state your name, and I'll swear you in. My name's John Shearer, I'm Director of Preservation with Historic Columbia. And do you swear to tell the truth at this proceeding? I do. Thank you. Without a doubt, Mr. Anchorman and his business partner have done a tremendous amount of investment in the district. And in fact, our leaders in that, they've gone through the Baylor Bill process and as such, over time, they've developed a relationship with that process, the familiarity with it. I can't speak to a change in staff, I can't speak to what they encountered when they actually ran into deteriorated. But what I can speak to is the process and Historic Columbia has to stand behind that process because we're concerned about precedent setting, regardless as to who the applicant is, regardless as to what district it's in, provided that district falls under the purview of DDRC. And so for that reason, we're just, we're asking that the process be respected, we're asking that a precedent isn't set in this case. And that's notwithstanding all of the investment, all of the things we ought to be applauding them for in the past. But here we have a, we're kind of at a watershed moment. So just wanted to state that. Thank you. Any other comments from the public? All right. Any discussion? Yeah, I'm sorry, does the applicant, do you have any response to the last public comment? Okay. Any discussion here from the commissioners? If not, I'm gonna open it up for a motion. So can this be a two-part motion or would you do it in two motions? I would recommend two motions. Okay. So I'll start with the first motion. I would like to move for de-certification of the Bailey Bill incentive for 121-123 William Street due to a violation of the signed MOU, section 17-2.5Y of the UDO and the section five slash two of the grand B design guidelines. Do I have a second? Second. Mr. Broom? Yeah. Ms. Sims Brannum? Yes. Ms. Jaco? Yes. Mr. Lee Decker? Yes. And Mr. Salivi? Yes. Motion passes. All right, motion two. I guess I'll keep going. I would like to move for a certificate of design approval to be retroactively issued for the replacement windows and the porch details at 121-123 William Street per section five dash two and five dash six of the grand B guidelines with the following conditions that the exterior six over six grids be applied to the replacement windows for better compatibility with historic details and all other details deferred to staff. All right, do I have a second? I'll go. Mr. Broom? Yeah. Ms. Sims Brannum? Yes. Ms. Jaco? Yes. Mr. Lee Decker? Yes. And Mr. Salivi? Yes. Motion passes. All right. Anything else under the regular agenda? No? We have a couple of things. First of all, if anybody has continuing education training they need to do, which is different from introductory training, we have a list of seminars that are available but they'll run out, we're coming to the end of the year so just to note about that. And then secondly, we have the great pleasure of introducing our new urban design planner, Amber Malthus. All right, good. Thank you. She is coming to us from Florida and she will be helping to staff the DDRC. So I wanted you to see hers and allowing Lucinda to do more planning administrator functions instead of the triplicate role she's been doing. And we also have another planning department, new member, Tristan. How do you say your last name, Tristan? Kircher. Kircher. So he's our new associate planner, I believe. So we're fully staffed again after three years so we're delighted that they're both with us. Well, that is excellent. Welcome on board. Great to have you. Good news. Okay, I'd like to make a motion to adjourn this meeting. See before I even ask, I'm ready. All right, is there a second? Yes. Someone second it? Thank you. All right, meetings adjourned.