 members, staff and guests. 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 times. Next. Mr. Broom. Here. Mr. McGuire. Here. Ms. Jacob. Here. Mr. Salibi. Here. And Mr. Wolff. Here. We have quorum. In order to avoid ex parte communications, DDRC members are under strict and 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. Next. Decisions are typically made in one evening. Decisions may be appealed within 30 days to accord a competent jurisdiction. Those will be administered individually as we hear either from applicants or from live speakers. Next. 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 applicant such as attorneys, engineers and architects. This time limit does not include any questions asked by the DDRC or staff regarding the request. Next. 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. Also anybody who plans to speak, there was a sign in sheet when you walked in and your name needs to be on the sheet. Okay. Thank you. Are there any changes to the agenda? There are no changes. Next. The DDRC uses the consent agenda to approve noncontroversial or routine matters by 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 that agenda and considered during the meeting. The DDRC then approves the remaining consent agenda items. Staff, please read the consent agenda. Certainly. Our one item on the consent agenda this evening is 3452 North Main Street. This is a review of changes to a previously approved Bailey Bill project in the North Main Corridor and it's also a national register structure. Next slide please. Next. Next. You can just keep coming through these slides. Thank you. There you go. All right. Is there anyone from the DDRC that would like this item removed from the consent agenda? Next slide. Is there anyone from the public that would like to have an item removed from the consent agenda? Next slide please. Do I have a second and motion and a second to accept the consent agenda and also the January minutes. I'll make a motion to approve the consent agenda and the minutes of the January meeting. Second. Mr. Broom. Yes. Ms. Jacob. Yes. Mr. McGuire. Yes. Mr. Salibi. Yes. And Mr. Wolfe. The motion passes. Next slide please. We are now ready for the regular agenda. First case. This is a request for an eight foot fence in the Wales Garden Architectural Conservation District. Fences are typically reviewed and approved at staff level. However, the request for eight feet is not in keeping with the guidelines which limits rear fence height to six feet and thus requires DDRC review. Staff finds that the material and design of the fence are set to reflect the design of the neighboring fence. It is in keeping with the guidelines. So today I'm primarily discussing the height of the fence. If you could proceed to the next slide please. Next. These are two multi-family buildings which abut single-family houses at the rear property lines. These houses which face Edisto Avenue sit much higher than the Wackamaw buildings. The applicant is asking for an exception in fence height due to the extenuating circumstances of the property use and topography. Due to the topography change a higher fence would provide private privacy for the Wackamaw tenants and the single-family homeowners behind them. Additionally, the location of the fence at the far back of the property puts the fence approximately 125 feet from the right of way. The location of the fence far off the street and the views to the fence from the right of way limited to between the buildings. The overall height of the fence would have little to no impact on the streetscape itself. So if you can go back to the next slide and back one more. I just mocked up basically where you would see the fence we measured to eight feet. So that's approximately what you would see when standing on the sidewalk and looking down the driveway. Next slide please. And this is the second view you would see of the fence. Next slide. And that's the end of the fence that you would be able to see up the driveway. So although the proposed fence height of eight feet is not in keeping with the guidelines the extenuating circumstances of the property use and topography may justify an exception to the guidelines. Additionally the limited view of the fence from the right of way and the distance from the street limits the impact the taller fence will have on the streetscape. With these items in mind staff recommends approval of the fence and the design and location specified per section three item two of the Wales Garden Architectural Conservation District guidelines and recommends an exception for height at eight feet. You may due to the extenuating circumstances of the lots topography and use. And the applicant is here. It's a it's a Zeke Bennett. Thank you. So it's great to be here. I have to tell you in 1978 to 88 my dad was on city council was my first time at City Hall. It's a little intimidating, but I love being here. My sister Robin nears with me in the back. We have two. So I am the durable power of attorney for Paul and Billy Bennett who are our two aging parents that have some sort of oncoming dementia or Alzheimer's and was really forced into this role about two years ago. Our goal has been to improve all the properties that we have in Shandon as well as two locations that we have in the Wales Garden area. We've done a tremendous amount of work on this property at 431 and 433 walk them all. One of the problems that we've run into is as Mrs. Walling stated, because of the topography of the land and the height differences for the homes on Edisto. If you were to go back there, it's almost a 45 degree angle up the hill to the houses. So for the neighbors that are that are behind us, number one visually, you can see every single thing that goes on in the backyard. But the other thing is it's almost it's almost like a bowl for the sound. So any sort of normal conversation or anything that happens in that back parking lot just echoes up to the neighbors behind us. And really it's a problem for them. And it's also a problem for us. I mean, I want obviously to be a very good neighbor. And at the same time, I want the tenants of that property to have privacy and to feel like they can operate normally to grill or to do anything that they would do that we would all do in our backyards. What our intent is and I appreciate y'all considering us going two feet over the normal really, in my opinion, it needs to be a 20 foot wall back there. But what our intent to do beyond this, whether it's six feet or your approval of eight feet, is to come back there with Leland cypress cypress trees and just do anything and everything we can do to solve these two problems that we think we have. Y'all have any questions for me? I'd be happy to answer. Don't need to sign in. I'm sorry. Any questions? All right, I think we're good. We'll be getting there just second. Thank y'all very much. All right, thank you. All right, we will now hear comments from the public. Come up and state your name, please. I'm the neighbor in back. Okay. And do you have your name? I'm Harriet Scott. I live on Edisto Avenue. And do you swear to tell the truth in this proceeding? Hey, choose to show y'all what I can see. Yeah. Hey ma'am, I'm sorry. Let me just got to swear you in before you start talking. Okay. Yeah, that's all just. All right. So do you know, do you swear to tell the truth in this proceeding? I do. All right. Thank you. Proceed. We, you know, I live in a neighborhood that's been my house several hundred years. I've done a great job, but he's running to children and kids at the university, you know, do take up a lot of time like last night. I had to call the police and it wasn't Zeke's children. It was another neighbor's children after 12 o'clock. I had been walking up too many times with noise in the neighborhood. We're trying to get that going. I can sit on my patio and I can see his whole backyard. So therefore, voices come up. I don't like seeing the kids. I've seen a child pee in a tree on a tree. Now come on. So he's willing to put up. I want an eight foot fence put up so we can try to curve this problem. You know, the kids are going to be kids, but at the same time, I shouldn't have to take the price of it. Neither should my neighbor who's complained and neither should Frank, my other neighbor who's complained dime after dime. As a matter of fact, he asked one of the kids to be quiet one night and they told him, mind his own business. So what we're asking, we're trying to work and give us the fence. My house is in front of the back. You know, it is so having a ghost like this. So I hear everything, everything. And I want to be able to sit on my patio and not hear noises. And also, they've got that game table. Where the kids have big table and they put cups down and they drink on it. When they play that game. Oh, my God, you have to leave the house. So loud. And I think Shandon has come around and not forbid those tables at all. So we're something else garden needs to work on, too. Because once again, it's causing problems. That's all I've got to say. But Zeke is doing a good job. I just call him when I have a problem. And he had we just need a bigger offense. All right, thank you. Does any commissioner want to see the picture? Did I get enough? Okay. All right. Thank you. Any other public like to speak? I don't think you need. Yeah, I don't think there's anything to respond to. All right. With that, then I'm if there's simple questions, open up for a motion. Make a motion to grant the Certificate of Design approval to the property at 431 and 433 Walk on my Avenue. Her section three item two of the Wales Garden Architectural District Guidelines with the recommendation and an exception from staff for a height of eight feet or that an exception for a height of eight feet be made due to the extenuating circumstances of the lock topography and use. Mr. Broom. Yes, Miss Jacob. Yes, Mr. McGuire. Yes, Mr. Salibi. Yes, and Mr. Wolf. Yes, the motion passes. Next case. The next case is 1421 Height Street. It is a request for Certificate of Design approval for demolition in the Waverly Protection Area. The City of Columbia Unified Development Ordinance section 17-2.5 G 6 C states that the demolition of a historic building should be an action of last resort. When a structure is demolished, the community loses a part of its history which cannot be replaced. Accordingly, such requests are reviewed very deliberately and require detailed information. In order to properly address this, I will be going through the eight standards for demolition as listed in the ordinance as pertains to this case. First, I'll provide some general information on this house to best understand its current conditions. 1421 Height Street is a two-story American, two-story American four square house that was built in 1903 and is a contributing building to the Waverly Protection Area. It has a long association with Allen University and is often referred to as the President's House or Man's House in the neighborhood. In 2008, this house was moved from its original location on the corner of Pine and Hampton Streets so that Allen could build a large dormitory in that space. At that time, DDRC approved the relocation of 1421 Height Street with the understanding that it would be rehabilitated and remain a continuing structure, contributing structure to the neighborhood. Move made headlines at the time with the state paper publishing at least a dozen articles about the process and the relocation. Many of these articles included quotes from Allen University officials, such as, the Man's House has been a very important part of Allen's history, and we are proud to be able to save it. The house was not rehabilitated after the move, as was the plan at the time. Instead, work on the house was stopped shortly after the move and code cases started to be reported in 2013, with dozens of violations building up over the years. In August of 2022, an attempt was made to demolish the house without permits, at which time staff issued a stop work order. Having established an understanding of the historical significance of this house and the lengthy pursuit to rehabilitate it, we'll now discuss the criteria for demolition according to the UDO. criteria A, the historic or architectural significance of a building, structure or object. This is a contributing building to the Waverley Protection Area. The Waverley neighborhood developed as a hub for African American educational, medical and business facilities as early as the 1870s. This house was built by successful grocers, Thomas J. and Ida Roberts in 1903 and later sold to the Man's Family. Dr. Robert Weston Mans served as the president of Allen University and his son, Dr. Robert Mans Jr. was the superintendent of Waverley Hospital and a civil rights activist. The building also possesses a great deal of original architectural character, including six over one windows, wood cladding, hardwood floors and interior pocket doors. These features show the depth of architectural integrity the house possesses and how well it fits with the period of significance in the neighborhood. criteria B, the importance of the building, structure or object to the ambiance of a district. This is one of several large approximately 3,000 square foot, stately homes in the Waverley neighborhood that visualized the success being had by African Americans at the turn of the 20th century. Families like the Roberts and Mans' were able to establish successful careers in spite of harsh Jim Crow segregationist policies, which hindered their ability to compete with white owned businesses. criteria C, whether the building, structure or object is one of the last remaining examples of its kind in the neighborhood, city or region. This is not the last remaining example of its kind in the neighborhood, city or region, but it is one of few grand homes in the Waverley protection area, making it a significant contributing structure to the neighborhood. criteria D, the existing structural condition, history of maintenance and use of the property. The deteriorated condition of historic buildings attributable to the owner's failure to provide proper maintenance over an extended period of time will not be considered a mitigating circumstance in evaluations for demolition. This building has had little to no maintenance performed on it since its move in 2008. Code violations began to be reported in 2013, which included damaged woodwork, broken windows and general complaints from the community. Despite a decade of efforts on the part of the city, the proper maintenance and repairs were not conducted by the owner. This deferred maintenance has resulted in safety concerns and further damage to the building that could have been prevented through proper and effective maintenance. Again, city guidelines for demolition clearly state the deteriorated condition of a historic building attributable to the owner's failure to provide proper maintenance over an extended period of time will not be considered a mitigating circumstance in evaluations for demolition. The applicant submitted two broker's opinions regarding the condition of the house. No information was provided by a building professional familiar with historic structures such as an architect, engineer or contractor. No documentation was provided to identify structural deficiencies in the building. Section C or section E, a determination of whether the subject of whether the subject property is capable of maintaining a reasonable use and earning a reasonable economic return on its current value without the demolition. The applicant submitted a broker price opinion that gave a generalized estimate of the cost of rehabilitation being three hundred and seventy five thousand dollars. This was not supported by any technical documentation documentation such as a bid from a contractor or engineer, a structural report or estimate from a historic preservation expert. No itemized expenses or details were given of what specific work would need to be done. The structure is owned by Allen University, a historically black college or university or HBCU. Staff was able to determine that there are numerous funding opportunities for HBCUs to renovate, restore and reuse historic buildings on their campuses. These are offered through organizations such as the National Trust for Historic Preservation and the National Park Service, among others. Criteria F, whether there are definite plans for the reuse of the property if the proposed demolition is carried out and what the effect of those plans on the character of the surrounding area would be. No plans for the reuse of the property have been submitted to the city. Having a vacant lot in this location would be a detriment to the Waverly Protection Area and would still offer opportunities for loitering, dumping and other undesirable activities. Criteria G, whether the building or structure is able to be relocated and if a site for relocation is available. The building was relocated to its current position in 2008 and sits on a new foundation that was built at that time. While not optimal, another relocation could be considered, but no locations have been suggested by the applicants. Last one. Criteria H, whether the building or structure is under orders from the city to be demolished and this criteria shall be given more significance than the above mentioned criteria. The building is not under orders from the city to be demolished. With all this in mind, the staff recommends that the building at 1421 Heights Street has historic and architectural significance as a contributing building to the Waverly Protection Area. It continues to contribute to the ambience of the district as a remnant of the larger homes built in the area by prominent African American families. It appears to be capable of earning a reasonable economic return with options for grant funding available and it is not under orders from the city to be demolished as per Section 17-2.5 G6C of the UDO. Therefore, the staff recommends denial of their request for demolition at 1421 Heights Street. Any commissioners have any questions for staff at this point? I have a question to the staff. I think you showed a picture of being demolished and the city stopped it. Yes, that's correct. Do they have a permit to demolish it at that time? They did not. That was August of 2022 and community members reported to the city and to Historic Columbia that there was a demolition in progress and we were able to go out there and issue a stop-work order. Prior to the move in 2008, was the home or the structure in the Waverly District? Yes, it was. It was at Hampton and Pine. Thank you. Applicant presenting. Can you hear? Applicant want to come present. Is there any presentation from the applicant? Yeah, I'm sorry, next. I'm not sure if they can hear us. Oh, too far. It's all right. Hi. Yeah, when you come up, please um state your name. Hello, I'm Dr. Eric Gamble, Vice President, Planning and Information Technology at Allen University. All right, and do you swear to tell the truth in this proceeding? I do. All right, thank you. Proceed. So, Allen University, as everyone knows, is a story located in in the Waverly District. We've been here for 152 years. We are in anchor. The decisions that the Board of Trustees and the Executive Cabinet at Allen University are the decisions solely under Allen execute within the Waverly District to protect Waverly District or the Waverly Hospital. So, Allen University isn't in the Waverly District to hurt it. But we have to make decisions that are applicable for the University. And the Board of Trustees and the CEO, Dr. Ernest McNeely, have made the decision to move forward. But we do ask that you do approve this. One of the statements made by the staff was that we did not present a contractor bid. We did present a contractor bid. Contractor's name was Betty Price. I don't know what happened with that information, but that bid came in at over $500,000 to restore 421 High Street. We've hit every single point that Section 7 addresses. They did mention the BPO's. The brokers that we actually got the broker price opinions from are Columbia-based brokers who actually do properties in the historic districts of Columbia. They did give rehab costs and to suggest that these brokers are not real estate professionals, well, we went to them because they are real estate professionals. We do have a contractor who is responsible for the overseeing of it. And again, Allen University is not here to hurt the Waverly District. However, Allen will always stand that Allen needs to make decisions that are driven by the board, executed by the president, and he continued to move Allen University forward. Clarify. I think you commented that there was some bid that had been received that wasn't in our package. Has staff received that? No, we did not receive that. Do you have that with you by chance? May I have my director of facilities actually speak to the... Yeah, you still have they still have time, I think, correct? Yes, you can have another individual come up. Hi, please, when you come up, state your name. Ration Manager Allen University. And do you swear to tell the truth in this proceeding? All right, thank you. There were carbon construction, which is very price, quote on remodeling the Allen, $500,000. Also, we have hard coiled here from coiled construction here who gave a quote and also put its permit in to demolish the home. I'm not even sure how to comment yet, but does any other commissioner have a question at this point and maybe we'll just continue to take some testimony until we... Okay, so we've had all the applicant presentations, correct? I believe so. So I think let's hear any comments from the public. All right, hi, please state your name. Good afternoon, I'm John Shear, I'm Director of Preservation for Columbia. So we're going to tell the truth, thank you. One of lower Waverley's more significant buildings, the Syrica 1903 American Four Square style residents that was home to Reverend Robert W. Mantz from 1922 until 1957. Time, which he served as President of Allen University, remains with us. Afterward, this son, Dr. Robert Mantz, Jr., Superintendent of Waverley Hospital and who was heavily involved in the Civil Rights Movement lived here. The building's relocation from its original location on Hampton Street to its current sighting at 1421 Heights Street was an integral component for construction of new dormitories on part of Allen University. Within five years of that agreement, the building had already begun to deteriorate to the point that it had started receiving code violations. That wasn't something that was supposed to happen. It didn't happen because the building was failing. It happened because the commitment was failing. However, the greatest breach of this commitment is in front of you today in the form of a request to demolish an historically important, structurally sound, aesthetically and architecturally contributing building that speaks to the history of not only Allen University and of lower Waverley and Waverley in general, but Columbia at large. For these reasons, Historic Columbia vehemently opposes this request and asks this committee's members to neither request outright. Any other members from the public? Excuse me? He was speaking against demolishing the building. All right, yeah, all right. Yeah, please, when the people come up, make sure you get as close to that microphone as you can. Yeah, please come on up. And please make sure you're signing in. Yeah, make sure you've signed in. Hi. Yeah, turn it, that's great. Please state your name. My name is Frank Houston. I'm president of the Historic Waverley neighborhood. Okay, great. And do you swear to tell the truth during this proceeding? I'm looking at this request for permission to demolish the historical building. I see that this building, this request, is being requested by Allen University. A historical black university designed by John Anderson Langford, the first United States registered African-American architect in honor of his first president. I see that it is the university that is requiring requesting the demolition of what is known as the President's House, the Robert Mans House, built in 1903, over a hundred years ago. In this month of February, which is known as Black History Month, any time when black history is trying to be whitewashed and black history is trying to be taken out of the school systems across the country, the university is asking to destroy a part of its own history. So many times, Historic Waverley community has written to the university and its president citing the deterioration and the dangerous conditions of the President's House. For over 15 years, the university has deliberately and knowingly allowed the Robert Mans House to deteriorate. Doing nothing to save it, despite the fact that the community has asked so many times for them to do something about the condition of the house. Let us know when time, because I hear things, but I'm not sure. The timer just went off. Can you give a concluding statement? I'm standing here in disbelief that Allen is asking for the demolition of this property, knowing that they deliberately neglected the opportunity to do this, to restore this house. This particular property is not only a part of Allen University's history, but it's a part of historical Waverley's history, and they should not be allowed to destroy our history. And I'm asking that you reject their application and require them to restore that house, because it can be restored. Thank you. Whoever has signed up to speak, you can just queue and come up. Come on. Please state your name. My name is Jackie Whitmore. Do you swear to tell the truth during this proceeding? I do. First, I want to start off by saying to you all my place in all of this. I am a proud 1993 graduate of Allen University, and I do not speak on behalf of the University of the Alumni Association, but my comments will reference them. I want to first start by telling you all that as a student, when I attended Allen University, this house that we're talking about was the grandest place in Columbia. We had all our dining etiquette, training, workshops, everything that students there hosted by the President and his wife at that time. It was a grand training ground for us as students. I also want to let you all know that as the gentleman just spoke, I think it's insulting that right here at Black History Month, we're having this kind of conversation about demolishing and tearing out a piece of history in the city of Columbia. I want to encourage you all and let you all know that as the city of Columbia, when we take a look at other cities around our state, around our country and our nation, one of the things that attract the people there is their history, and as Columbia, we have absolutely little to nothing at all that reflects wanting people to come to see African American history in our city. So to tear down the little bit that we do have continually is insulting. I want to echo to you all and let you all know I bought my daughter here today because I wanted her to come, Rebecca. I bought my daughter here today because I wanted her to hear this conversation because as the gentleman just spoke, we are constantly telling our children about the history of our people and our community. Here we go. I love Allen University, I love Allen University to death, but what we're doing now is unfair. And I just want to echo that to you all and ask that you not do that. I think that the building could be utilized in another way in collaboration with the history of Columbia, the Alumni Association or whomever, it could be utilized in another way instead of being torn down. Thank you. All right, did you get her name? Ma'am, can you say your name one more time? And do you swear to tell the truth in this proceeding? In the city that that building should be rehab. Here put into the record why Allen in the past has spent money on that building. That brick surrounding, I don't know how much keep that so we can hear you please. I don't know how much they paid for that, but at that time they were doing rehabbing on it. I don't know what happened because they stopped. I've tried to buy property from Allen Allen, but I'm not here to speak on Allen when you all are through. I'd like to speak on I came here on the brewery and I've been told that there was a consent degree. But notice in front of the brewery did not say that there was a consent application. I went to the brewery and talked to the guy who's the manager. So that's what I'm here for. Hold on ma'am. Just a moment. I want to clarify what exactly she heard. The brewery was on the Consent Agenda 3452 North Main Street. Okay, but we've already had that on the agenda. It's already been approved and moved on. I understand that, but I want to speak on that. The billboard that's out there said public hearing. It didn't say that there was already an application for consent. I went into the brewery. They would did not give a copy that they were having a consent order here. We cannot be expected to become to a public hearing and paperwork has already been submitted and we as the public who are interested in what's going on around there is not given the opportunity to be informed. Okay, and I will just respond ma'am to clarify. There was an opportunity to remove it off the consent agenda at the beginning of the meeting and to put it on the regular agenda, which no one spoke at that time. All the paperwork was on the our website posted before the meeting. Okay, well, it was out there. I'm Kit Smith. I'm still. I'm affiliated with this the coalition of five points neighborhoods and those are all the neighborhoods that I'm here to speak against the demolition of the property. Just wanted to sort of put it in a flyover perspective for those of you and I tried to sort of look up the backgrounds. If you're not familiar with the residential real estate market in our area, I would invite you to come take a peek. We have three big threats. One of them is student housing. One of them is short term rentals and the other is demolition of our historic properties. We are losing the fabric of our neighborhoods unless our city will support us in trying to protect what we have like most major cities are doing. So I just want to give an amen to Mr. Houston and the folks from Waverly. They participate in our coalition and we all are having the same issues. So I would invite you to visit us if you haven't been through our neighborhoods lately. Look at what's happening, particularly to Martin Luther King neighborhood. Student housing is taking over that neighborhood and there are a lot of Waverly has some of that. We've got it on in big in big sections and swaths in our neighborhoods as well. So thank you for your service. I appreciate your time. Any other members from the public? All right. I think at this point we get the applicant a chance to respond right if they want to. I don't know if the applicant wants to say anything in response to the public comments. No, okay. I mean, I will comment even when I read the case file originally. I'm having a hard time finding any significant grounds to support this request, but I'm going to open up to commissioners for conversation. Make sure your microphones are on. Thank you. I think I agree with that that not all of 17 2.5 G6C has been met. I know that there was some conflicting, I guess, conversation between whether or not certain things had been submitted. It sounds like Allen is saying they have and staff is saying they have not. So I don't think I'd be able to put my approval down without staff having received the correct documentation and all the requirements of 17 2.5 G6C. I understand that. And I will just also comment that even with that, and I look at all the other requirements, I'm having a hard time understanding it. So I'm willing to either, I mean, I don't know if we want to open it up, someone makes a motion. I mean, we can go a couple of ways defer, we can deny or accept. I mean, there's all types of directions. We can go in any other commission with any other thoughts. I have a question for staff then. So denial, does that mean that the applicant is unable to reapply or? There are some options. In terms of a denial or deferral, I'm sorry, which one did you just say? I said denial. Denial. So denials are typically taken to, if they wish to appeal, it's taken to the circuit court. They can also reapply if it's the same request, basically. They have to wait a year if they're submitting the same application by our ordinance. They have to wait a year unless the DDRC by two-thirds majority consent allows them to waive that time period. They would have to submit any new information. You would have to evaluate it and judge as to whether they needed to adhere to the one-year time period or the case could be heard sooner. So they could at that time submit new or additional information. You could also choose to defer. They could choose to defer if you wished. So depending on what your will would be on this. Just for the sake of having a well-rounded conversation, are we still able procedurally to ask questions of the applicant? I would say certainly if you have more questions. All right. Just one question for the applicant because from the pictures in the presentation, it does look that the house is in a poor state. Obviously, you know, according to the standards, we can't consider that if the deteriorated state is from omissions by the owner. And one of the public applicants referred to an agreement. I'm sure it was probably a handshake agreement, nothing reduced to writing that following the move in 2008, the property would be upkept. Are you familiar with that? And if so, do you have any comments to the standard that we can't consider? I guess the state of disrepair based on omissions from the owner? Allen University is the owner. Correct. So you had a picture of its current state and the exterior is not even close to some of the other pictures that were shown. Those other pictures were shown from the 2008 move. So the side-by-side where the all white with the brick on the bottom and the slightly collapsed cupola, that is the current state. The deterioration that Allen is talking about is the interior deterioration. There is, yes, that is the current state of the property. So the question, though, is when you agree to the move and to do repairs on it in 2008, right? So I'm actually asking the question back. So the 2008 administration, I am not aware of any physical signed document, right, of what that university said it will do. Though we're about five administrations removed from that particular and the administration that I currently work for and represent the Board of Trustees and the CBO has made a decision to. I'd just like to clarify with staff. Is there something in writing from the 2008? I believe there was originally an agreement with Historic Columbia that the house would be rehabbed. Because obviously it had been approved for the DDRC at the time. Correct. So there has to be some documentation on that. All right. Did that answer your question? It did, yes. Thank you. I have a quick question. Was there any reasoning behind demolition that was provided to you? So when we went through the application, right, for demolition to go through the standards under Section C, right, one of the major pieces that was in there is the rehab cost. And Carver Construction, and I don't know where this paperwork went, actually gave us an estimate of over a half million dollars to bring that property back to the operational standard. Now the market price of homes in that area is not even close to $500,000. So it becomes a financial quandary for the university to look at, you know, spending that type of money, rehab a facility that the university would not be utilizing. But even though the university did move it with intent of repairing it so many years ago. Okay. I'm making sure I track the process here. All right. Any other questions from the commissioners? Yeah. As a part of those conversations, concluding in the decision to demolish the house, I'm trying to remember if it was staff or were the representative from Historic Columbia who referred to certain grants or credits that might be available to renovate historic properties. Was that factored into the consideration? So we did have that conversation with DDRC. We are aware of a number of grants also. However, the decision to move towards grants and utilizing those grants, that is still a decision of the executive team and the board of trustees. So it was taken under consideration. Thank you. Any other questions? I'm looking at the broker price options at the very bottom is said, am I mine? Yeah. Anyway, I said here the estimate of $375,000. My question is the demolition has started, obviously it's going to be more than the estimate because you've already started the demolition on the front. Anybody figure what that's going to cost? Well, that note from that broker price opinion inside of the comments that broker actually states that this does not include the structural costs. So there's foundation on structural issues within the house. So the $375,000 would just like bring it into the beautification of the inside and the outside, but it does not address the cost that would have to be spent to shore up the structure. Follow up on Phillip's question. Let's say in the event the approval for demolition was given, does Allen have a future use for the lot? You'll have any plans or ideas for what you would intend to do there? So at this particular time, I'm not able to speak in the affirmative in that to that answer, but the university does not sell property and it would be utilizing that property. This is not a question for the applicant, so maybe I can wait until. Okay, thank you. Procedurally, are we allowed to go back and ask questions of members of the public who provided comments? I don't know if we've ever done that. I guess maybe I'll just state it as a comment and see if any of staff can answer the question. If it is a question. So I think you made the comment earlier that there was an agreement between Allen and Historic Columbia back in 2008 prior to the move. That's my understanding, right? I guess I'm wondering about the existence of that agreement and whether we can see it, although it may not make a difference to the decisions made today. Does staff have a copy of the agreement? We do not have a copy of the agreement. Mr. Shearer is here from Historic Columbia and my understanding was when the building was moved in 2008, it was moved with that agreement with Historic Columbia in mind. I believe for a five-year span to get the work done within, that never happened. None of that work was ever started, or as he said, I think the commitment failed there. And then of course, there was a lack of further work on the building over time. And then of course, what you are seeing in the picture on the screen right now with the damage in the front was the result of demolition started without a permit. In August of 2020. That's right, very recently. Are we, I think, hold on, sir. Are we still, hold on, hold on, hold on. We do have a, we do have a process to it. I think public comment is closed. I'm just addressing the comment that was made. Okay. I think we need to take a pause for a minute, please. Yeah, I don't think we can do that. Let us let staff confer. Yeah. All right. Staff, what do we get closed? Yeah, thank you. We're trying to determine correct procedural process moving forward. So you have the information before you that we have that we have given you. And we believe that it's best to either defer for more information. Public comment should be closed. So you can either choose to defer for more information or you can make a decision based on the information that you have based upon the criteria in front of you and whether it substantially meets the criteria in front of you or not. Thank you. I agree. I think public comment was closed as I closed it be inclined to defer until additional information is provided. Well, okay, I'm going to open it up for a motion here in a moment. I mean, for me personally, I'm just heartened by everything I see, but I'll open up for a motion. I'm going to make a motion to deny the application for certificate of design approval for demolition property located at 14 21 Height Street not being in accordance with standards for demolition under UDO section 17 dash 2.5 G 6 C. Yeah. Mr. Brume. Yeah. Mr. Jacob. Yes. Mr. McGuire. No. Mr. Salibi. Yes. Mr. Wolf. Motion passes. We'll now move on to other business. We have historic Columbia here with the team of consultants. So Mr. John chair is going to introduce them to you and let you know about the scope of their work, the work that they're doing. They're interested in evaluating historic districts and our historic resources in the city. So I will let them give you all the information. Good afternoon again. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. As I said earlier, my name is John chair and the director of preservation for stored Columbia and one of historic Columbia strategic initiatives within its overall scheme, but specifically within the preservation department was to commission an economic impact study to gauge the role that historic preservation advocacy preservation related guidelines overlays and incentives and heritage tourism have played in shaping Columbia. This end historic Columbia has commissioned a place economics perform the service. We have representatives in the capital city this week. And today with me is Mr. Donovan Ripcama, who I invite to the podium today, speak a little bit more about his work in the coming months. Madam chairman commissioners, we're thrilled to be here. Our little firm place economics. All the work we do is at the intersection of historic preservation and economics. And much of what we do is an impact analysis. And that's what we've been hired to do here in Columbia. And we spent this wonderful week down here. And the report, which should be done by by first of June and probably presented to the council in September is going to measure kind of five broad areas. That is the demographic characteristics of the historic districts as compared with what the entire city looks like at the role of older historic housing in terms of affordable housing in Columbia that we understand is an issue here. The role of heritage tourism as a part of the growing tourism industry here. The impact of local designation on property values and the costs and benefits of the Bailey bill for the last 20 years or so. So that's what we're going to be looking at. It's going to be database, but we're surrounded by the context and we spent the last two days really listening to people with a lot of perspectives about the kind of role of preservation here and we're thrilled to be working here. And we'll look forward to coming back in a few months and giving you a peek at what we learned. So thank you very much. Yeah, thank you. It's exciting. Any other business? All right. I'll have a motion to adjourn. I'd like to make a motion to adjourn this meeting. Thank you. I'll second that. All right. Thank you.