 Good afternoon. Welcome to DDRC members, staff and guests. We ask for your patience during this meeting. Multiple staff members are present to make sure that the meeting runs smoothly and all applicants and citizens are able to communicate with the Commission at the appropriate time. The public will be able to participate using multiple methods. When participating please provide your name for documentation purposes. You can watch the proceedings, email, phone in or log into the web session. If you're watching you can stream the meetings through City TV accessed at www.youtube.com backslash user backslash Columbia SC government. You can submit letters and statements via email to COC board meeting at columbiasc.gov leading up to and or during the meeting as this account will be monitored during the meeting. E-mails and letters will be read into the record. You can phone in calling 855-925-2801. When prompted please enter the meeting code 8841. Those participating by phone will receive three options on how to participate. Star one will allow you to listen. Star two will allow you to record a voicemail message that will be read into the record. Star three will allow a participant to be placed in a queue so they may speak live when prompted. And if you're calling in live please make sure your computer audio is muted so we don't have feedback. You can stream the proceedings at publicinput.com backslash COC DDRC-APR2022. And I will call the roll. Mr. Broom. Here. Mr. Dinkins. Here. Ms. Jacob. 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 if they wish. Decisions are typically made in one evening. Decisions may be appealed within 30 days to accord competent jurisdiction. Those 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 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? We've had one change to the agenda since publication. That is item number three under the regular agenda. This was 2805 Lincoln Street, a request for approval for an accessory building in Earlwood Protection Area A, and the owners have opted to defer that case until next month. Otherwise, the agenda stands. The DDRC uses the consent agenda to approve noncontroversial 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, the item is removed from the consent agenda and considered during the meeting. The DDRC then approves the remaining consent agenda items. Will staff please review the consent agenda? Certainly. Our first case is 317 Watery Avenue, a request for a preliminary certification for the Bailey Bill in Wales Garden Architectural Conservation District. The next case is 1418 Gladden Street. Again, a request for a preliminary certification for the Bailey Bill and an addition and exterior change to the structure, which is in Melrose Heights, Oakland Architectural Conservation District. Our third item is 1500 Main Street, which is the Sylvanes Building. It's a request for a certificate of design approval for exterior changes and preliminary certification for the Bailey Bill. And this is an individual landmark as well as falling within the city center design district. That would be the consent agenda. Is there anyone from the DDRC that would like to have any item removed from the consent agenda? Is there anyone from the public that would like to have anything removed from the consent agenda? Please communicate by sending an email to cocboardmeeting at clumbysc.gov. Communicate via phone by pressing star two to leave a voicemail or star three to speak in person. It will pause to allow communication from the public. I do not have any callers or emails. Like no one present has any request. All right. All right. Do I have a motion and a second to accept the consent agenda? I'll make I'll move to approve the March minutes along with the consent agenda items and all staff recommendations. Mr. Broom. Yeah, Mr. Dinkins. Yes, Mr. Jacob. Yes, Mr. Salivi. Yes, motion passes. Move on to the regular agenda. And our first case is 3310 Murray Street. This is a request for a certificate of design approval for exterior changes in the Melrose Heights Oakland architectural conservation district. It's basically a request request for painting the structure. The structure is a 1929 one and a half story brick veneer house featuring a cross clip gable roof with half timbering and bracket detail in the gables. It also features original three over one painted windows paired windows. Excuse me on the first floor, but they window on the left side and an original nine light perry style door centered on the front elevation. The front porch clip gable features a plating window within the vertical half timbering detail and is supported by two Tuscan and two square brick columns. So really lovely, very intact structure. The issues are that the variegated wire cut brick on the first floor in the foundation of the house have been splashed with paint in various places from a somewhat clumsy paint job of the wood and stucco of the gables and windows, which I will say happened before the current owners have it and or bought it. And in an effort to hide this over paint, the applicant is requesting that they be allowed to paint all of the brick. Over paint spots and drips cover portions of the bricks surrounding the windows, but the majority of the brick structure remains unaffected by the over paint issue. So removal of over paint would require spot treatment, which would affect a much smaller surface area of the brick facade than the proposed painting of the structure. I believe that the applicants have tried a few different commercial products on the brick to remove the paint. But there is not really in our experience a one size fits all method to removing paint different different methods work on different brick surfaces. So here are a few examples of some of the issues on the house. You can see around the crawl space door in the back that somebody was liberal with the blue paint, some plain paint splatters on brick there. So white splatters on the brick there. And y'all have some more examples that the applicants provided that are in your packets. More pictures are there. We did include a photo here of some tests that we did several years ago on a building in the Vista of removing paint. So you can see that some products are more effective than others at removing paint off of brick. So depends on the depends on the brick depends on the product that you use. The guidelines for architectural conservation district here fall under principles for masonry, which say painting obscures detailing and alters the distinguishing original qualities of a building. The color of the brick as well as mortar color and bonding patterns can be important parts of the character of a historic building. And because of this where brick and other masonry finishes were unpainted, they should generally remain so. This particular building features very gated wire cut brick and a running bond pattern with brick window sills and a soldier course pattern at the foundation. I believe there's some maybe smooth brick at the foundation as well instead of wire cut. As an unpainted house, the brick and patterning on this house would have been chosen deliberately as a design feature at the time of construction. So preserving the original brick color of the house maintains historic and architectural integrity of structure. Painting the brick covering it over would alter the historical character and distort original features of the house and is thus not in keeping with the district guidelines and the above referenced guideline principles specifically. And a much more conservative approach would be to continue trying to remove the over paint with spot treatment, which would actually affect a much smaller surface area of the brick facade than the proposed painting of the whole structure. So staff recommendations find that the proposal to paint the brick at 3310 Murray Street is not in keeping with section five subsection six of the Melrose Heights Oakland architectural conservation district design guidelines and recommends denial of this request. And I will just going back over this and looking at past requests to DDRC for painting and checking our precedent on this. We painting brick has been allowed in the past where there's been significant infill of brick on an original structure and it's a noticeable difference in the facade or an important elevation. But painting brick has been pretty consistently denied when the conditions have included mismatched mortar colors or repointing work, stair step cracks, things like that. Those are basically reversible or repairable conditions. And so with the correct tools, those things can be addressed. And that's what we would encourage here is to work more with the applicants to see if we can find some solutions for them. Sorry, I'm filling in for Rachel, so I don't know the applicants. Please come up. Please come on up. Hi, please state your name. Brian Schener. And do you swear to tell the truth in this proceeding? I do. Thank you. We have tried. The previous owners of this house painted one side of the house every four years. They lived there for 30 years. There's a lot of paint on this house. I don't know why that was their plan, but that's what they did one side each year. So revolving around the house. There is a lot of blue if you put one more back even around one more forward. Sorry. Yeah, around the crawl space there. You can see how bad that is. The black there is the front porch, which is really thick, heavy black paint. We've tried for the last two days with a pressure washer and the chemicals that were suggested by the committee to just get that off of there. And in fact, we're destroying mortar. The bricks are very, very porous, and the paint is in them. We love the house. We love the neighborhood. We don't want to damage the neighborhood or anything like that. But we don't think that we can make it great by getting that paint off there. We're trying to get the paint off there. And in retrospect, what could have been done is previous ownership when they were painting at sloppy could have prevented this whole situation. But now we're left with where we are. We've chosen two period colors and just want to make it great, awesome trimmed out properly. And we don't think we can get there by getting the old paint off as much as the committee would want to stay in period and have everything looking wonderful. I get that. But I don't know that we can make it look wonderful by getting the paint off. We've tried. I don't know we can get it off there. It's just very porous open, what do you call it, wire finished? Well, some of what you see on the bottom right is a wire cut brick. What you see to the top left is just a basic masonry brick without the wire cut. Both of those kinds of brick are very much on the house. We're working hard on a wire brushed area that we can't get out. And so that'll just leave us with a spotty finish on the house that we're trying to make wonderful. She's right. The windows are wonderful. It has been left to period. It's it can be a show piece. But we don't know that we could make it a show piece with the painting the way that it is. Questions about? Yeah, which are any questions? Painting now. Visible from the road. From from the street. I mean, I drove by and I didn't necessarily see a painted house. Correct, correct. You know, there's splatters. I mean, I have some of those on my house, too. I'm afraid it's a very common problem when people paint windows are not as careful as they should be. To to remove those. So I think in your packets, you can see that there are some places where on the windows where there's a little bit more on the trim, but generally overall the facade of the house and the sides. No, it very difficult to see from the street when you're up closer. You can see it to me like the wire cut break is pretty much constant throughout the front. Throughout the front, the visible area. I'm curious as to I didn't see any of this from the right from the right way. And just so you know, I mean, I appreciate you being here, but our purview is only what we can see from the street. So I have a question for staff considering the applicant's comments about taking taking the staff's recommendation for alternate chemicals that can remove the paint to no avail. I guess what's the alternative if there's not a product that does work? Are they just stuck with it? Or is there a potential fix? And I mean, I guess in the realm of possibilities. Is there definitely something out there that that will work? Or I guess I'm just curious, you know, what's going to happen if there's nothing that works and they're just stuck with it. I'll take it back on that and say is there something happening inside problems inside the house? I mean, I think this is limited to the exterior, the issue of the paint, right? It is limited. We have painted in the interior. The interior of the house is beautiful. It's a great house. So I guess there's no, I get Sanford, maybe you're getting it a protective measure. Okay. Yeah. But there's no position you have that somehow the unpainted break is allowing, you know, water seepage into the house or anything like that. No, there's no water seepage into the house through the break at present. But we have been working with a pressure washer. And so you can put the chemicals on there and pressure wash them off. And that seems to be where we make the most progress. But we're destroying mortar. It's 100 year old mortar. And we're pressure washers aren't kind to 100 year old mortar. Right. So we don't know that we can make it right. And so our intent was to bring it to period and paint the brick, have it look great. Best way possible because we can't get the old splatters off. So I guess getting back to the original question for staff, if there is no solution that chemical solution that will remove the paint. What are the options? Well, I don't I'm not clear on all of the chemicals that y'all have tried. I think that's something we would want to talk with you about as well as the power washing, because you're right, sometimes that can be very detrimental to the structure. So we would want to explore that with you a little bit more too. But there are several chemicals that have come out in the last couple of years that are better at paint removal. Some of them very successful used on commercial buildings. We have developers using them down in the Vista quite a bit to remove paint. And so I think our our preference would be to double check all those things and see what other chemicals there may be. There may be chemicals if these don't work that come out in the future that would not necessitate painting a house like this. And I will say part of the difficulty about this to is that many of our older brick houses do have paint splashes on them from from people who have not been careful. And so it's a difficult road to walk down to say this is a good way to approach the problem because then so many houses would become eligible for a complete repainting. Yeah it's a bad precedent. I hope the applicant can understand that the guidelines are pretty rigid. I'll just read straight from them where brick and other masonry finishes were unpainted they should generally remain so. And there are certain exceptions that would allow you to paint the the protective measure being one of them. But doesn't sound like that's that's the case. Can we have a continuance that if we continue to try to get it off there and really can't get it that it gets revisited. Well we'll probably make a motion today but if you bring it back up through staff I mean we want you to continue to work with staff of course. I mean our main concern is really preserving the brick the image and supporting the community's guidelines that they've adopted that we're here to uphold. So we would encourage you to continue working with staff and seeing what we can do to make that all happen. I would also say like I don't see any of measures that I'm looking at that would show me what it might look like. I mean all I'm seeing is the original structure and the damages but not what you're proposing to do. You say painting it and keeping with the historic nature. I mean I don't I don't see anything that shows me that I can visualize. Well if I can tackle into that. I'm not seeing any damage to warrant changing the appearance of the building. Right. I mean part of the charm of any historic building is going to be some of this which we understand. I understand what you're saying. You're saying the progressions. You put something before us that might help me feel better about what you're proposing because I'm not exactly sure what it is that you're proposing other than the paint to brick and out quite frankly. I don't think that's in line with the guidelines personally. Understood. If that's where we stand that's where we stand. Okay. Any other questions. Do you have a question. I think our systems are doing something here. I mean is there is there a proposed image or something. Do we have any. I'm sure online we can generate a take a picture of the house and then propose how it would be painted. We can do that graphically. We can do that. Continue to take what paint off that we can get and then resubmit it at a later date. And if we can be reconsidered then that would be awesome. Yeah I think we would definitely want you to continue working with staff to see what you can do. So if I have this correct it's just the spotted paint that is bothering the owner that can't come off. Is that correct? In certain locations where is it around around that foundation door that you can see there. That is in the mortar and in the brick and in the space between the mortar and the brick. And we have been treating that trying to get that all out of there. On my right there that is thick black nasty paint. It can't be trimmed out to look good. That is on the front side the facade of the house was very poorly handled and whether you can to prevent people in my situation moving forward when people are painting a brick house that and they're painting the areas that aren't brick that they're doing due diligence in how it's painted. Otherwise there's always going to be a me standing here. How far out does this go? I mean honestly I didn't see this when I went by. But Amy can they paint the door again? Their their front door? No the crawl space. Oh the crawls they can actually this is the crawl space is on the back of the house and they can paint anything on the back of the house that they choose because it's not visible from the public right away. So this picture I'm seeing is in the back of the house with the crawl space or the blue paint. And I think that the bottom right is on the front porch is that right? That is on the front porch. So top left is on the back bottom right is on the front porch. So commissioner like one point is to defer this understanding of working with staff or more chemicals and possibly having a better understanding of what's visible from the road for us. I would prefer not seeing. I don't see much. OK and we don't have to there's options. What I'm seeing on the front is very common. Yeah in the area. It's a solid no not deferred. It's just a solid no. Well we haven't made a motion yet. We're just we're now we're discussing this amongst ourselves and with you. We're just trying to understand some of the pictures are areas that are not in our purview. Our main concern is what's visible from the road. And from what we see it looks very normal typical of the period of the house in your area. So that this is that's what we were just trying to sort out mentally. We've got some strange. There in the back work. OK. All right. Good. Yeah. Are any other questions for the applicant. All right. Thank you. I don't know what to do because I don't have a problem. I think we have you all finished discussion among yourselves. I think we have so we can open it up if there's any other. Yes we would open it up to see if there's any. Any comments from the public. And then like Papal's dog trained to read this thing. And I know what we're supposed to be doing next. But you know it's taking any comments via email or phone or in person. So this would be the opportunity I believe for the public to call in any call in emails or a little music. Yes. So I'll let the staff work a second to see if anything's been received. Gathering not. I'm still checking. Nothing appears. I don't think we've had any phone calls. But let me get Mr. Living Good to double check to make sure that we don't have any comments that have come through. Bear with us. All right. It appears we have no public comments. And I will open up before to. What are we done with comments. Did you ask if anyone here wanted to speak to. I did when I was when we were trying to figure it out. But I'll open it back again. But anybody here like to speak in person. We checked. We had none on writing. None be emails. None be a phone. No new correspondence. No colors in the queue. Right. So we're looking at a motion by the commissioners. I will open up for a motion. I'll do it. I moved to. To deny the request for a certificate of design approval for exterior changes at 3 3 1 0 Murray Street. Based on. The fact that. It just does not. Meet the district guidelines and recommend. Of section five subsection six of the Melrose Heights. Long. Architectural. Conservation district. And I would say I don't want to add that I appreciate you being here. And these are very tough cases for us to set precedence. It's not that you know. I would like to further examine it. I just don't. See that it meets the guidelines. I mean my motion is purely based on that. I think I would like you to see continue to work with city staff and I think they would come up with something that probably could remove the pain. And make everybody happy. My motion is to deny. That a second. I'll second that motion. Mr. Broom. Yes. Mr. Dinkins. Yes. Ms. Jacob. Yes. And Mr. Salibi. Yes. Motion passes. Our next case is 1218 Butler Street. This is a request for a certificate of design approval for an addition and exterior changes in the Melrose Heights Oakland Architectural Conservation District. This is a 1949 one story brick veneer minimal traditional house featuring a side gable roof ferricated wire cut brick and an original six light over two panel door. The front porch is recessed under the main roof and is supported by three Tuscan columns. The house features some non-original windows and a variety of sizes and configurations including six over six pan configuration eight over eight a fixed 20 light picture window on the porch and a tripartite picture window on the front with the 16 light center flanked by narrow four by four over four windows. So the current proposal is the construction of an addition replacement of all windows shifting the front picture window to the right just a bit a few inches and painting the original brick. Staff finds that the addition and the replacement of non original windows is in keeping with the pertinent guidelines and likewise while the request to move a window is not typical based on the design of this house staff finds that the slight movement of the window which is less than eight inches maintains the rhythm of openings on the house and is in keeping with the guidelines. However as might be expected staff does not staff does have concerns about the request to paint the brick. So let's see if I can get about the addition. Here's some pictures of the brick damage that I believe prompted the request to paint the brick. I'm going to go back here. And as you can see as the evaluation stated there are a number of configurations of windows here and therefore changing those out and moving that picture window a little to the right is not a major concern in this particular instance. So staff's recommendation is that the proposal to paint the brick at 1218 Butler Street is not in keeping with section five subsection six of the Melrose Heights Oakland architectural conservation district design guidelines and recommends denial of this particular part of the request. Staff finds that the proposed addition and window changes at 1218 Butler Street is in keeping with sections three four and section five subsection two of the Melrose Heights Oakland architectural conservation district design guidelines. And recommends granting a certificate of design approval with following conditions that the replacement of the windows be wood or aluminum cloud with exterior muttons with the specific window design being reviewed and approved by staff prior to purchase that the front central window be permitted to move as proposed since the movement is minimal and maintaining the existing opening size not extending that and finding that that does not significantly impact the rhythm of openings because of the existing window variation that the brick be keyed in for the front window relocation to match existing and all details and all other details deferred to staff. Are the applicants present? Whoever speaking or both of you please state your names. Brendan Rumsey. Each swear to tell the truth in these proceedings. You might need to speak at the microphone just so we can hear you. We have some of these things that we printed out. Could we? I think she was asking about hand to something else. So with the our issue with the brick is the veneer is damaged from I'm assuming acid rain, it looks like. There is a lot of water damage. Do what? It's all right. But the brick issue is more concerned of the veneer being damaged. It doesn't look too good. It's on the mainly on the front of the home and on the front right elevation as well. So that's what our main concern with painting the brick. I believe in that near the back of that those documents is a sample of the colors that we were proposing to paint the brick. If you have the specific color that we're proposing, which is the Benjamin Moore. We also have the shutter color. Make sure you're speaking. Yeah, I'm sorry. That's all right. We have the specific paint color in there listed along with the shutter color. And then we're planning on doing like restoring the original door to a wood stained. And then the shingle color that we were and the windows will be white that we're proposing to. Any and the windows himself, I think as stated previously would be a gelled when window aluminum clad gelled when window. I think I have the windows in there as well. If y'all need to look at those. But I think we can deal with the staff on that. And also there is an older building in the rear of the structure that is completely toast due to the termite damage that we propose be removed as well during the addition being built. Staff, is that building in our concern? I'm sorry, I missed a little bit of that. It's an outbuilding. It's not connected to the home. So typically what we would do would we would look at it for visibility in the public right away. Okay, and it's in the rear. Yeah, sometimes you can see those things from the side. So we can do a site visit to assess if it's not visible at all and we don't review it. Okay, I met with Rachel on site earlier. So I don't know if that was that was just bringing that up, but. It's not. So did you discuss that with her? Yes, I provided photos of all the damages to it. It's in the photo report. I think I remember. It's in pretty poor shape. Yeah, it's a very, very unreparable shape. I don't remember that being in this information that we received of case. I think because it's not part of the application that she felt like she could handle that at staff level. Okay, perfect. But our main concern is getting approval for the building permit so we can start the building. Of course, if y'all deny the paint, we understand but we were just wanting to present it to you guys. And maybe it can be discussed later but we would like to be able to get the addition portion approved so we can begin that process. Cause so we. Did you have any comments about the staff's recommendations and items they identified? As far as. For the replacement windows. Yeah, so the windows I will be getting with Rachel before we order the windows but we were going to go with a metal clad Geldoin window because if approved because the windows now are were replacement windows probably early 90s late 90s and they look they're really out of place for that neighborhood. So. And it would be the same size as the existing. Existing. Yes, we're not changing the sizes of the windows but we do propose to move the I think that center window over to fit more with the scale of the exterior and our new layout of the interior. I think she said by eight inches, correct? Right. So what I'm hearing then for the non paint issues that are listed here applicant is comfortable with what the staff is recommended is working could work with staff on that, right? Okay. Moving that one aside. All right, thank you. I'm gonna open it up to commissioners. Questions. That is correct. Yeah. One heck of an addition there. Yeah. Yeah, yeah. That's what we hope it ends up looking like. All right, and I'll just add because y'all were here to hear the previous conversation prior applicant about the painting. And unless there's, you know, some protective measure that necessitates painting or there's extensive damage to the brick our hands are kind of tied by those Melrose Heights guidelines. Yeah, we understand. And there's nothing, you know, the questions we asked to the prior applicant you heard. There's no water damaging to the interior. There is water damage to the interior. It's gonna be a full gut on the inside, but we haven't identified exactly where water penetrations are coming through quite yet. I'm sorry, you have identified? Yes, we have identified a water damage on the interior of the home. That's why we're gonna fully demo the entire interior walls to, you know, figure out where the water is coming. If it's coming through the exterior or the roof. And Amy, that would be an appropriate situation to approve of fine paint. That correct? Not in every instance, no. If you're renovating, you can also preserve the brick. I'm sorry. I said even during the renovation, you could preserve the brick or take measures to preserve that element. Right, and if for some reason that particular brick is compromised, I believe there's enough brick coming off that y'all were planning on cutting it in for that space where you're moving the window over. Well, we will be removing the rear, so we will have hopefully a good amount of brick saved to use for the front. So, you know, if there is damage found, we're assuming that there's gonna be enough brick that they could repair. Our concern with the damage facade, well, it looks like acid rain damaged those areas. When you go to replace that brick, you know, even though we're replacing it, it's not always a perfect, you know, uniformed appearance. And that's what our concern was why we proposed painting and other homes on that street also have been painted. So, but understand what y'all said earlier in the previous. I was just gonna say, we did a renovation at our personal home in Shandyn neighborhood and we have the same issue where we wanted to keep the brick the same and we saved some of the brick because it was a full like gut but because the brick couldn't match and then we couldn't find appropriate brick somewhere else to match it, it just would have looked very hodgepodgey and that was what we wanted to steer clear of and to us painting it would just kind of solve those solutions where it would look uniform and it would fit in with the rest of the neighborhood because there are a lot of other, even the house next to it is painted brick. There are a lot of other homes that are painted too and we just thought that would look nice. Other homes in the district is what they're referring to. This would have been before the guidelines came out. Any other questions? The, can you hear me? The addition in the back, it shows brick and it's gonna be the same pattern, same color as the existing brick, is that correct? Yes, the brick we're removing off the rear. This brick pattern was developed back in the 1910, 1920. I was called the rug design and it's still available from what I remember. We had a case come up several years ago in right in your area where a woman would like to have her house painted. But unfortunately because of the guidelines, he was denied painting. I just wanna bring you up to date on that. No, we understand. Any other questions? Thank you. All right, thank you, thank you. We encourage those who would like to communicate via email to begin sending in letters and emails to COC board meeting at Columbia SC.gov or on the web at publicinput.com slash COCDDRC-APR2022. For those wanting to leave a voicemail or speak live, call 855-922-2801. When prompted, please enter the meeting code 8841. Then press star two to begin leaving a voicemail. If you'd like to speak live, press star three. We will pause to check. I do not have any callers or emails. Nobody else in person has come up, all right? Comments received in writing, correspondents, we're good on all those fronts, okay. I wanted to ask clarification staff. Will this one require two separate motions? I would. Okay. I will open it up for motions. I'll make a motion to deny the request for a Certificate of Design Approval on 1218 Butler Street as it relates to the proposed painting of the brick because the request does not comply with section five, subsection six of the Miller Rose Heights Oak Lawn Architectural Conservation District Design Guidelines. I have a second. Second. Motion passes. Oh, sorry. Would you want to vote? Mr. Broom. Mr. Broom. Yes. Ms. Jacob. Yes. Mr. Salibi. Yes. And Mr. Dinkins. Yes. Motion passes. I'll take the next motion. I'll make this one. I move to grant an approval for the request for a Certificate of Design for exterior changes located at 1218 Butler Street with the following rec conditions. Replacement windows will be wood or aluminum clad with exterior muttons with the specific window design being reviewed and approved by staff prior to purchase. And let me just say prior to purchase is important. Front central window permitted to be moved as proposed as the movement is minimal, maintains the existing opening size and does not significantly impact the rhythm of openings because of the existing window variation. Brick keyed in for front window relocation to match existing in all details and all other details deferred to staff. I'll second that motion. Mr. Broom. Yeah. Ms. Jacob. Yes. Mr. Salibi. Yes. And Mr. Dinkins. Yes. Motion passes. So we have, sorry, that was our, we have, there we go. We have one item under other business. This came before y'all a few months ago. This is 1011 Bryan Street. So if you might remember, this is a development called Park and Bryan and it was being done in phase one and phase two. Phase one was Park Street, which you see up the left here in green. Phase two was Bryan Street, that's in blue. And phase two, of course, is the one that was most recently approved by y'all. So the lot in question is lot four, the first house under the blue strip and the motion by DDRC when these came before y'all was a separate motion for each of these parcels. So the developers would now like to move a previously approved house from phase one over to phase two and use it instead on lot four. And I will, I have a picture of that. The house, I'll just explain it to you. The house on Bryan Park Street that they would like to use was one, as I said, that was previously approved by DDRC. And so it's really the question of moving using an already approved design in the place of the one that was proposed for parcel four on Bryan Street. So I was just going to thank you, there it is. There we go. So you see what was approved for lot four, phase two originally and now at the bottom right, you see the house that's approved for lot four, phase two instead. So both of them very appropriate for the neighborhood. It's just the movement. It's almost more of an administrative request unless y'all have any other thoughts on it. Staff agree and okay. Yes, indeed. And I believe that one of the developers is here. Mr. Bowers. Hi, please state your name. Wyman Bowers. Swear to tell the truth in this proceeding. Yes, ma'am. Any questions? I'm glad to answer them. So pretty much it's approved designs that we've already approved. It's just the order or the placement that's switching. And I believe that the request was because the house, there's actually a little more square footage on this lot. Yes, ma'am. And so this is slightly larger house that will fit. Correct. I think the commission brooms that question. Are you going to present or are you waiting for us to ask you a question? He's here for questions. I'm just here for questions. I hope you have a good question for us. I'm very familiar with Park Street and I'm not familiar with Brian. Where is that? Brian just, it's right on the corner. So it's Park and Brian. And a railroad across his parking. Are we down in that area? No, you're closer to Elmwood, right by the church. By the church. It's almost, I think it's the first cross street. Brian, it's the first cross street from Elmwood. Clear. Yes, sir. What exactly is the request? It's really just a motion to approve the new design for lot four. The previously agreed to design, but to be at a different location. That's right. Okay. I think we're good. Does anybody have any other questions? Okay. Let's get it. Does the city have any concern with the future development, that the changes are kind of keep snowballing? I don't know. It looks different to me. In a good way. Thank you. I don't think there are any plans to do any other changes. This one just kind of came up. So, but the rest of the houses should be in the locations that they were originally. I was gonna ask. Yeah, and I'm sorry I didn't put a motion down, but I think what we would want would be just a motion to approve the proposed house for lot four on Brian Street. If someone is comfortable doing that. Do we need to take public comments or anything on this? Or can we just move forward? Pardon? Can we just move forward? Do we need to take any other comments on this? Well, I guess it might be a good idea just to see if anyone, if we get any comments on this, Andrew, I've gotten any comments. It almost just seems like a procedural thing. So, it really is. It really is. I think we're here, you know, if it's something that requires a motion and a vote for someone. I'm kind of where Andrew is. I mean, I'm not sure I see a formal application or maybe it's not necessary. Right. Right, okay. I don't have any objections that I'm seeing, but then again, see the whole picture or public's been allowed to comment. Right, and this was advertised as part of our final agenda that went out to the public. So, we did not receive any calls on it, any questions on it, if that's helpful to you. Nothing's required. Yeah, it was really, if y'all are not comfortable making a motion, but if you're comfortable sort of giving your blessing and understanding that this change is taking place and you've been informed about it and there are no objections from y'all, maybe that's enough. It's your call. I'll move to say there are no objections to build on lot four as proposed in the current design. And move forward as proposed. I'll second that. Mr. Broom. Yes. Ms. Jacob. Yes. Mr. Sleby. Yes. And Mr. Dinkins. And I'll add that all other details be deferred to staff as well, but yes. Thank you, sir. Motion passes. Thank you. And that is all the other business, just a reminder that we do have the South Carolina State of Start Preservation Conference tomorrow at Archives and History, starting at nine. So for those of you who are attending. And I will mention that we have somewhat of a lengthy agenda so far for next month. So I'm encouraging attendance. Good, thanks for telling us that. All right. Have a motion to adjourn. I'd like to make a motion to adjourn this meeting today. Meeting adjourned. Thank you.