 The applicant to come, that changed, forward afterward to add to the basic description of the request if necessary or if the applicant wishes to do so. If so, the applicant should keep the presentation to 10 minutes or less. The commissioners will then have the opportunity to ask questions. At this point, I will ask if there is anyone in the audience who wishes to speak for or against the proposal, audience comments should be kept to 2 minutes per person. If there is, the applicant will have an opportunity to respond and this rebuttals shall not exceed 5 minutes. In most of the cases, we will make a decision tonight after all information has been presented. If your case is denied or if you feel that our decision was made in error, you or anyone withstanding have the opportunity to appeal it within 30 days of the decision. If you plan to speak about a specific project you must have signed in, the sheet is at the back of the room and I think it's now been put up at the front of the room. Also and so that members of the public understand, commissioners are under strict instructions to avoid discussing DDRC meetings and applications with members of the public or with each other outside of these proceedings to avoid ex parte communications. If you wish to speak during the course of these proceedings, please stand and raise your right hand. Do you affirm to tell the truth in these proceedings? Thank you. Will staff please call the roll? Mr. Bachmite? Here. Mr. Broom? Here. Ms. Johnson? Here. Ms. Moore? Here. Mr. Savery? Here. We have quorum. Thank you. Does the agenda still stand? The agenda still stands. Thank you. The DDRC utilizes a consent agenda for those projects which require DDRC review but which meet the guidelines and typically require no discussion. If anyone wishes to discuss an item on the consent agenda, I will ask that you speak up after the consent agenda is read and we can pull the item for discussion on to the regular agenda. If staff will please read the consent agenda. Our first case on the consent agenda is under the historic agenda. It is 1619 Pendleton Street, the Anna USC. This is a request for design approval for signage for an individual landmark. The next case on the consent agenda is 1337 Assembly Street. This is a request for design approval for an addition and preliminary certification of the Bailey bill on a structure in the city center design development district and it's also a national register structure. The next case on the consent agenda is 2222 Rembert Street, which is a request for design approval for an accessory structure in the Elmwood Park architectural conservation district. Thank you. Is there anyone who wishes to take an item off the consent agenda for discussion? Could I have a motion to approve the consent agenda and the May meeting minutes please? Rembert Street as well as the May minutes. There a second? Second. Rembert please? Mr. Bucknight? Yes. Mr. Broom? Yes. Ms. Johnson? Yes. Ms. Moore? Yes. Mr. Savry? Yes. Motion passes. Wood staff please read the first case. The first case is 2100 A Divine Street. This is a request for a certificate of design approval for a new sign in the Five Points Urban Design District. This is a request for a sign that was installed without a permit. When the applicant applied for a permit after this time was installed, the sign was determined by staff not to meet the design guidelines for Five Points. It was denied a certificate of design approval. The applicant is requesting that the commission overturn the staff decision and grant a certificate of design approval. And following are the guidelines for the Five Points Urban Design Districts that are applicable. Under 1.4, Design a Well Proportion in Unified Building K says, When designing the architectural details, consider how the following can contribute to create a building that exhibits a coherent architectural concept. Exterior finished materials, architectural lighting, and signage in shadow patterns. The typical location for signage on a one-story building is above the first floor windows below the roof line. When a single name or logo while a single name or logo on storefront glass intended to be read by pedestrians is appropriate. This application of letters is duplicative of the cabinet sign already installed on the building. Section 2.1, Promote Pedestrian Interaction D says, Signage should be visible and oriented to the pedestrian. The size of the lettering is typical of signages intended to be read from a distance such as at the top of a tall building or along a high-speed roadway. While visible, the sign is not oriented to the pedestrian. 2.2, Provide Active Street-Facing Facades D says, Provide windows at street level to allow visibility into the building interior. 50 to 75% of street-facing facade. Providing transparency at street level is a critical component of all urban design districts. While there is limited ability to control interior window coverings or other elements that do not qualify as signage, signage on glass is within the purview of the guidelines. Generally speaking, minimizing the amount and size of glass-applied signage contributes to more transparency into the building and minimizes distractions between the pedestrian and their interior activity of the building. While the applied letters do not completely block visibility, the size and placement in each pane of glass greatly reduces visibility and detracts from the transparency of the windows. And finally, 4.1, Promote Pedestrian-Oriented Signage that Compliments the Architecture and the District. He says signs should be in scale with the building and compatible with the architecture. Signage applied to the glass should have the business name and or logo contained in a single storefront window with the intent of being legible to a pedestrian standing in front of the business. The placement of one letter per pane of glass over all six windows on the facade is out of scale with the size of the building, the size of the windows, and is not compatible with the architecture. Staff recommends denial of the appeal as it is not compatible with the design guidelines and sets a precedent for more distracting window signage that limits transparency into the buildings in five points. And I believe the applicant is here. Thank you. Does the applicant wish to speak? Aye. Have you been sworn in? Aye. Have you been sworn in? Aye. And could you state your name please? My name is Nikola Hakim, but I'm known by luck. Thank you. Thomas Wilkinson. Thanks. Go ahead. So restaurants and stuff in five points that have the same kind of design, you know, on their windows, like this one that takes up all their windows, the H&R block. Is this new? This one takes up the entire window of butyle skateboards. Went to apply for it. They told us we were over signed between our parcel, because we share a parcel of College Mart, the little gas station next door. So they said if we took down some of the signs at College Mart, we'd be okay. Which we did. And then afterwards, you know, only then were we allowed to put the application in and we were denied. And we feel like if all the other restaurants and shops in five points can do it, I'm not sure why we can't. We just kind of, you know, we always kind of feel like we're getting picked on. I certainly, staff can't really comment on the examples that were provided. But if something is not permitted, then it is certainly given a citation. And then, you know, those businesses would also have to go through this process. So this is, is this content that you haven't seen? This is new? Right. Okay. Is that about it? I mean, since we've added the signs, we've got nothing but compliments, you know. Like as she noted, you know, all the dark area, that's, you know, the negative space, the glass is still transparent. You know, I only think it takes up about 35 square feet of signage. Between that and that little Lucky's neon, we had like less than 70 square feet of signage on the whole building. And we were willing to take down any other things that were distracting. You know, but, you know, we're happy with the signs, you know. And just so I'm clear, this was put up without going through the review process, correct? Correct. Right. Okay. We went to the zoning to take permission. And the zoning, I think he told you that they said between Lucky's bar and the college bar, they're both mine. They have to take down some of their ads so we can meet. So we went and asked them, but Wiser came and took down some of their ads and we are in compliance. With zoning. That was on the zoning department? Zoning. His name is Mike. Going board? Okay. He went there. Different body? No, no. But we went through the right channels and he said, let me go and get an approval. And he told them no. We went and applied until we did that. And then once we did all that and we applied, that's when we were denied. After the signage was up. Yeah. Okay. Right. Has everybody seen all of this? Before I open it to anybody in the audience who would like to speak for or against, do we have any other, anybody have any questions for the applicants? Thanks. I hope you say yes. Thank you. Thank you. Is there anybody here who wishes to speak for or against the application? Is there any discussion or anything further than any of the commissioners would like to say or ask of the applicant or staff or anyone? We ready for somebody to make a motion? As it pertains to 2100 A Devine Street, the move that we denied the approval of the appeal, the fact that it is not compatible with the design guidelines and such a precedent for more distracting window signage that limits transparency into the buildings and properties. Thank you. Is there a second? Second. Do we have a vote please? Yes. Mr. Bram? Yes. Ms. Johnson? Yes. Ms. Moore? Yes. Mr. Sabry? Yes. The motion passes. Thank you. Next case please. The next case is 144 Saluda Avenue. This is a remand from Circuit Court for Reconstruction of the Record for a project that was in Wales Garden Architectural Conservation District. Mr. Pete Balthaser is here to present. Pete Balthaser here as attorney for the DDRC. I'm just going to introduce this case, explain some of the procedural background as to how we got to where we are right now and why this is in front of the DDRC right now. This was originally a request for a Certificate of Design approval for exterior changes in the Wales Garden Architectural Conservation District. The proposal was for a wholesale replacement of 38 windows on the home. The DDRC originally heard this matter back in January 11, 2018. At that hearing, the applicant presented her request. The applicant's entire presentation from that date can be viewed on the city's YouTube channel. At that hearing in January 2018, the applicant presented a portion of a residential property condition disclosure statement in support of her argument that she had no knowledge or notice of the neighborhood's architectural guidelines. The applicant also presented some photos showing the condition of some of the windows in the home. At the conclusion of that hearing in January 2018, the DDRC deferred the matter for additional time for staff to review the information that was submitted by the applicant at that hearing. Then the matter was heard again in February of 2018. The applicant was present again and presented her proposal. The applicant did not submit any additional materials at that February 2018 hearing, and the DDRC voted 5-0 to deny the request. Three of the current members on the board, on the commission, voted to deny that request. The applicant then appealed this matter to the circuit court. There was a circuit court hearing held a couple months ago. At that hearing, the applicant asked for the matter to be remanded to the DDRC because the video recording of the February 2018 meeting did not capture any of the audio from that meeting. The applicant at that hearing in front of the circuit court argued the matter should be remanded for a new hearing. The circuit court judge entered an order on May 7, 2019. That order is attached as a hyperlink to the materials to the agenda. The order remains the matter to the DDRC for a reconstruction of the record. The order, and I'm going to quote from the order as to what it states, quote, well, the reconstruction of the record, quote, may consist in the discretion of the DDRC of affidavits of DDRC members sworn testimony of persons present at the February 8, 2018 hearing, statements of DDRC members on the record as to the substance of the previous hearing or any other method of reconstructing the record. The remand ordered hearing is not for a hearing de novo unless in the discretion of the DDRC it determines a new hearing is required. That's the substance of the court's order sending it back to the DDRC. Therefore, this matter is now in front of you on this month's agenda for reconstruction of the record. And in advance of this hearing, you've been provided and the public has been provided with a copy of the circuit court's order and a copy of all the materials that constitute the record on appeal that went up to the circuit court. That was 30 pages of materials consisting of minutes, consisting of the documents submitted by the applicants and also the staff summary from those earlier meetings. So, Mr. Chairman, unless you have any questions for me at this time, I'll turn it over to the DDRC for consideration of this matter. I think I'm clear. Does anybody other commissioners have any questions for Pete? Thank you. And before I invite the applicant up, because this is an unusual and very narrow process that we're in right now, I wanted to make it very clear. I'm going to actually read. I have some prepared remarks to make. Again, this was not advertised as a de novo hearing, as our attorney told us. This new evidence is not to be brought to this. This is just for reconstruction of the record. It's very narrow, so we need to keep it within that very narrow purview. So let me just read a few things and then we'll move on. The DDRC understands that the circuit court has remanded this matter to the DDRC for reconstruction of the record of the February 2018 hearing. The DDRC has been provided with a copy of the circuit court's order and a copy of the record on appeal that was filed with the circuit court. The record on appeal consists of minutes of the January 11, 2018 and February 8, 2018 meetings, the evaluation sheets prepared by staff in advance of those meetings and documents submitted by the applicant. The DDRC has also been provided the audio and video footage of the January 11, 2018 meeting. I have reviewed that footage in advance of today's meeting. In accordance with the circuit court's order and instructions, this matter is on today's agenda for a hearing on the reconstruction of the record of the February 2018 hearing. It is my belief upon review of the aforementioned materials that a new hearing is not required in this matter. This matter was deferred until the February 2018 meeting, only so that new information presented by the applicant in the January meeting could be considered by staff and DDRC members. Based on my recollection, the application did not present any new information at the February 2018 hearing. In accordance with DDRC procedure, the applicant or her representative will be given 10 minutes to provide any information she would like to offer regarding the reconstruction of the record. The applicant may summarize or restate the evidence presented at the February 2018 hearing. However, the applicant may not present new information today, and this is not a new hearing. Should it be determined by the DDRC at the conclusion of this matter that a new hearing is required, the property would have to be posted and notice would need to be provided to the public and advertised so that they had an opportunity to be at that hearing. After the applicant and any members of the public have spoken, I will open the matter to board discussion regarding the reconstruction of the record. I would like to hear from the board members as to their recollections of the previous hearings in this matter and whether a new hearing should be required or whether the record as provided to the circuit court is sufficient, accurate and complete, and the solicitation of the facts is considered by the DDRC at the two previous hearings in this matter. And so with that, would the applicant wish to speak? Good afternoon. My name is Conley Ann Ragley. I am the property owner at 144 Sluta Avenue. I'm the her that you speak of in the record. I also own the home with my husband, who again this time is conveniently on a business trip. I think he schedules these on purpose. I'm disappointed that I cannot present new information as I have photos of a street of a house on our street that was built four years after us that did a complete wholesale window change that is in the 400 block of Sluta Avenue. Since you're telling me that that cannot be shown, I will keep that under wraps. We came to you in January of 2018 to replace the windows. We have not had the ability to get them open after money spent trying to get them where it is safely able to be operated. I have two young children. I have a three year old and a one year old. And unfortunately, if the house were to catch fire tomorrow, those windows are not opening. We invited Ms. Walling to the property. She took some photos. She did add our initial application to replace the windows or our initial request, I should say. She sent me some information about windows that involved pulley systems and ideas on how to replace them. Unfortunately, our windows do not have police. I don't know if that was an error on her part or just a detail that was left out. She also gave us a list of recommendations of contractors to repair the existing windows. Most of those folks only work on commercial properties or are no longer in business or frankly would not return my phone calls. I'm sorry if I could. What we're trying to do just is to reconstruct the record since we don't have any record of the February 2018 meeting. So if you could focus on where you think that the February 2018 meeting brought new evidence or that you had something new that was not in the in January. I have the photos that I presented in January that were considered new materials there that you reviewed in February. As far as, you know, I've stated my case about why these do not open. We have had significant people work look at them. We've made a significant investment in this home. Commissioner Moore was involved in the transaction for this home as representing as the seller's agent for the estate that we bought this home from. We just feel like as far as recreating the record that these windows need to be replaced. We're willing, as I said, in February to work with staff to pick out a replacement window that meets the guidelines. And we are willing, like I said, willing to work with staff, but we did not know that this house was in a historic area. As I mentioned in our February meeting, I've reached out to city council members because I feel like that this is something that needs to be documented when you purchase a house in the city of Columbia that has some sort of special overlay district or some other requirements that are not attached to the deed. The purchaser needs to know that there are restrictions and covenants that come with this house or houses like these. Thank you. Are there any questions for the applicant regarding the reconstruction? Okay. Thank you very much. Are there any comments from the public? Thank you. At this point, I would like to hear from other commissioners, if you would, who were present in your recollection of the January and February meeting in regards to reconstructing the record of the February meeting. Hearing none then, after considering further statements made to midday, I would move to reconstruct the record in this manner as follows. That the materials presented to the circuit court, including the video and audio of the January 2018 meeting, sufficiently, thoroughly and accurately present all of the facts and issues that were considered by the DDRC at the February 2018 hearing. That the facts and issues presented at the February 2018 meeting were similar in all material, in material respects to the facts and issues presented to the DDRC at the January meeting, and that a new hearing is not necessary. Is there a second? Second. Any discussion? Could we have a vote please? Certainly. Mr. Botnite? Yes. Mr. Barum? Yes. Ms. Johnson? Yes. Ms. Moore? I'm staying. Mr. Savry? Yes. I should pass this. Thank you. Next case, please. This is 1511 Laurel Street. This is a group to individual landmark building known as the Sims Stackhouse Mansion and is also part of the landmark district. This is a request for certificate of design approval for exterior changes at the front elevation. The house is owned and used by the South Carolina Federation of Women's Clubs. The request is to remove a triple-hung window on the front elevation and replace it with a double door. A Richland County Conservation Grant was awarded to the Federation in 2018 for this project. The Federation hired a local door company to build the doors to match non-original doors and transom. You can see here on the right. The doors were built and installation began in May, I believe, 2019. Unfortunately, the work was begun without design review, without permits, which resulted in the city only getting involved in the process this past May when the unpermitted work was reported. At that point, the window sashes and weights had been removed and the installation of the doors had begun. The window sashes are however still intact and stored on the property. The request by the Federation to remove the triple-hung window and replace it with a double door was requested based on the belief that making such a change would restore the house to its original appearance, stemming from the belief that the central front door was originally flanked by matching double doors. However, staff has concerns over removal of the triple-hung window, which all available photographic and physical evidence shows as an original and historic feature. Changes to the facades of landmark buildings are extremely rare and should be considered seriously not only for the removal of historic materials, but also for the precedent such an action would set. A Certificate of Design approval should be based upon the requirements set forth in the standards which, for landmark buildings and buildings within the landmark district, are the amended Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation as listed in Section 17-674-D of the City Ordinance. I'm now going to go through the pertinent standards. So, Standard A, historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided. To give a little history of the building, it was originally constructed in 1850s by the Sims family. It was purchased in 1909 by local banker TB Stackhouse, who then moved the house board by board, approximately one lot to the west in its current location at 1511 Laurel Street. The design of the house and its original location is unknown. We have not been able to find any definitive proof of what it looked like at that time. The only evidence we have found is the bird's-eye view of Columbia from 1872, seen here, which suggests that the house has undergone a significant exterior alteration, likely corresponding with the movement of the house in 1909, which effectively dates the exterior of the house to 1909. Today, the house has features in an overall design that's typical of classical and Greek revival style architecture. What we're considering today is primarily the front elevation and windows, which includes the triple-hung window on the left and the non-original double door with transom on the right. The physical evidence of the triple-hung window sashes dates the windows between 1880 and 1930, and the sash tracks that are built into the wall suggest that the windows are original to the house, likely original to the 1909 alteration of the house dating the sashes to 1909, oh, it's well. As evidence shows that these are historic windows that characterize the property, the removal of this feature is not in keeping with this standard. And staff did visit the property, look at the sashes with an expert who has worked on dozens of historic buildings and actually works restoring historic windows. And he's the one who dated these windows and also confirmed that it was likely that these were original to this house. Standard C, each property shall be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use, changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or architectural elements from other buildings shall not be undertaken. The desire to remove the triple-hung window comes partly from the understanding that the front elevation was originally fully symmetrical in design, which is true that it would have been originally symmetrical in design. However, the photos that we have show that the house was symmetrical through the use of matching triple-hung windows on either side of the front door. There is no doubt that the double door seen on the right is not original to the front facade. Photographic evidence shows that it was added between 1954 and 1963. You can see that change in these images here. In 1942, Ms. Stackhouse formally donated the southeastern room of her house to the Federation for use as their headquarters. The change from window to a door for ease of access in and out of the house by the Federation was suggested by Mrs. Stackhouse in 1942 when she donated the room to the organization. You can see here a news article that states that. The building as seen today, shaped in part by the changes made by the Stackhouses and by the Federation, remains a physical record of its time, place, and use. Recreating symmetry in the front elevation through the removal of a historic feature and replication of a non-original feature based only on conjecture creates a false sense of historical development and is not in keeping with the standard. Standard D, most properties change over time. Those changes that have acquired historic significance in their own right shall be retained and preserved. While some exterior changes have been made since 1909, many of these changes have acquired historic significance. Most evident, which we are talking about today, is the door to the right. It's changed into the double doors as seen today. It was made by the Federation in the late 50s, early 60s, as I stated before. The house as seen today has not only been preserved and protected by the women of the Federation, but has also been shaped by them. The door offering access to the room which was donated to the Federation tells an important story about how the house developed from a private residence into a space for the women of the Federation to meet and conduct their business. As such, this door, although not original, has acquired historic significance in its own right. Adding a door to the other side of the front door not only removes this historic material, but distorts the understanding of the house's historic development and its connection to the Federation as seen through the right door. Criteria E, distinctive features, finishes, construction techniques, or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property shall be preserved. Triple hung windows are fairly uncommon, but very historic. Thomas Jefferson himself used triple hung windows in his home, Poplar Forest, seen here after seeing the feature in France. The design of triple hung windows allows for a window opening that functions like a door, the bottom sash reaching all the way to the floor. And when both the bottom sashes are opened, they allow for easy passage in and out of a house or building onto a piazza or porch, as seen at 1511 Laurel Street. As early as 1930, show the use of triple hung windows on either side of the front door. The right triple hung window was removed for the current door, making the current triple hung window on the left of the front door the only remaining window of its type on the house. As a distinctive character defining feature of this landmark building, the triple hung window should be retained and preserved according to this standard. Finally, criteria F, deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced, and replacement of missing features shall be substantiated by documentary physical pictorial evidence. Character defining features that have been lost due to intentional damage, removal, or neglect shall be rebuilt. The historic triple hung window sashes show no sign of deterioration. As pictorial evidence suggests, the windows have been well protected over the years through the use of external screens and storm windows. The original sashes and tracks are still intact to the property, so the windows would not need to be rebuilt and just reinstalled. Installing a door in this location would be based only in conjecture without the necessary documentary, physical, or pictorial evidence as required for such a change. Staff recommendations, staff finds that the removal of triple hung window and installation of double doors at 1511 Laurel Street removes a historic and distinctive feature and creates a false sense of historical development. It is not in keeping with standards A, C, D, or F of section 17-674-D of city ordinance and recommends denial of the request. Thank you. Thank you. Is the applicant here and wish to speak? And have you been sworn in? Yes, sir. If you could state your name for us, please. My name is Ann Malpus. I am chairman of the headquarters committee for 1511 Laurel Street. The Simstack House mansion located at 1511 Laurel Street is maintained entirely by volunteers known as the headquarters committee of the General Federation of Women's Club of South Carolina. There are 10 of us and at least one of us goes by the house almost every day to make sure that there's not another leak or that something has been broken or something gone wrong. We have survived many catastrophes, including pipes bursting, leaks, ceilings falling, rotten porch, seals, and much more. But we have managed to raise the money necessary to maintain the building as it is today. We respectfully request that we be allowed to finish the project that we believe will enhance the historical significance of the Greek revival architectural design and return the front of the building to what we believe was the original state. I sincerely apologize for not making sure that the proper permit was obtained in the beginning. It was not our intent to be negligent. It had always been the contractor or the worker who has received the permit and applied for the permit to work on the building and I should have made sure that it was done, but I did not. And all the work that we have done over the past 10 or 15 years, the contractor or the person doing the work has always done the permit and I take full responsibility for not double checking on that. Much of our information has come from stories passed down through the years, but we do have definitive explanations of what the building once was. A picture of 1952 shows the symmetrical front adorned with two identical French windows is our interpretation. We also know that a French window and a French door are synonymous. The enlargement of the picture that I sent to you clearly shows a division in the center of the frame and a wood frame around it. In addition, the two sides have identical thresholds, the left and the right, identical notches in the top and the bottom that indicate that there was something that opened on those two sides. In addition, Mr. Bill Barrett of Southern Custom Homes that we contracted with found two types of male nails on the frame of the west side. Some very, very old nails and then some wire nails indicating that a change had taken place. Mrs. Jan Hadwin who is here today spent years visiting with Mrs. Stackhouse in the mansion and distinctly remembers the lack of air conditioning and the doors flung wide open to catch the breeze. Based on many hours and days of research done recently on my part, I believe the French door on the east and the three-tiered window on the west were installed sometime in the mid-50s. It is our intent to return the mansion to its original look of symmetry by making the west side a door that matches exactly the east side. All of this is in keeping with the Greek revival architectural design of the original house and would be very similar to the French windows pictured in the 1952 photograph that you have a copy of. Many functions are held at the Sims Stackhouse mansion and another operating exit will certainly add to the ability to have people flow in and out of the building when using the porch as part of the function. In addition, in 2020, the International President of the General Federation of Women's Club will be from South Carolina for the first time ever and the mansion will be showcased by many visitors. We consider it a source of pride and a place where many will want to visit. To give you a little background of the enormous amount of work that's been done to the outside to preserve and to repair it to its original state, I'd like to emphasize a little bit of the history. As she said, and some of our dates are going to be a little bit different, but I can assure you that I've done plenty of research. In 1853, the building was built by James Sims. It was originally on three lots right beside where it is now. In 1909, the Sims children sold the house to TB Stackhouse, who was a banker along with many other things. He had the house moved to the present location piece by piece, as she said earlier, and it's a four by four symmetrical building upstairs and downstairs. A number of changes were made at that time. We know that a solid oak staircase was shipped in from England and installed by someone from England. We know that a bay window was added in the dining room. We know that Corinthium columns were added, and the side porch, which was cement, was added. In 1932, TB Stackhouse married Eunice Ford. This was his second wife, and he was 29 years older than her. In December of 1939, TB Stackhouse died, leaving the house to Eunice. In 1952, the picture showing symmetrical front with French windows on both sides that you have a copy of. In 1953-54, there was a big emphasis on raising money for repairs and miscellaneous furnishings, such as things that could be used inside for meetings, as well as paint for the interior of the garage apartments and miscellaneous repairs. The city council at that time promised the labor for conditioning the house for painting. In 1959, Jan Hedwin moved to Columbia, became an integral part of Mrs. Stackhouse's close friends, and the French window or door were on the east side in 1959. She distinctly remembers the lack of air conditioning and the doors swinging wide open. April 16, 1974, with Eunice's declining health, a quick-claimed deed was given to the city of Columbia with the stipulation that the building would remain the headquarters for the Women's Club. This was done primarily to help Eunice avoid paying taxes as she was moving to the nursing center in Orangeburg. In 1980, she passed away. From 1974, when the city got the building to the year 2000, nothing was done to the exterior of the building by the city, and it was in great need of repair, and I saw really to the community. On August the 14th year 2000, a quick-claimed deed was given back to the General Federation of Women's Club of South Carolina after several attempts to get the city to make general repairs and paint the exterior. The inside was always okay. It was maintained by GFWCSC and was in excellent condition. At this point, the mansion was in much needed repair with a lot of rotten wood and very little paint on the exterior, and the building is made of cypress wood, so it was a little difficult to find that wood at that time, but we did. In 2004, the Corinthium columns had to be repaired near the bottom and had to be completely lifted by machinery to where they had completely rotted out. The balusters and some of the cypress siding on the east side was replaced, and that cost $8,500 done by Brad Phillips. In 2005, after soliciting clubs and individuals for more money, the exterior was painted. Most of that money came from the Women's Club of Columbia. It cost us $29,720. In 2012, the baluster and spindle railing was repaired and much of the wood replaced. In addition, the seals under the front porch had to be replaced. The wooden porch had to be replaced. The side cement porch had to be replaced. In 2013, the roof was replaced and all the rotten wood around the ease was replaced. In 2015, the mansion was painted again and much of the cost coming from the Richland County Conservation Commission and the rest coming from fundraising, that cost us $26,200. As you can see, we've made great effort to preserve the building, to put it back in its original state. Many other major repairs have been made over the past 10 or 15 years to the inside, replacing the HVAC. The HVAC repairs to the inside ceiling, the ceilings falling in, making it handicapped accessible, and I could go on and on and on about things that we've had to do to get the building back in good shape. We have planned for the front to be symmetrical just like the original building was, and that's the reason that we are here today to try to get you to understand that we care for this building tremendously. And we would like for the west side to look exactly like the right side, which was what you see in the picture from 1952. I also have a couple of newspaper articles from 2005 that you have copies of that showed the disrepair of the building at that time. And then the better one after it was painted, how it looked then. But we do appreciate all that the city can do to help us move forward. If you look in any historical document, all the things that we've used on tours, it's always said that there were double French doors on either side. And the historic Columbia book, it says double French doors were on each side. So that's where we were coming from, trying to put it back to what we felt was the original. Thank you. So just so I'm clear, you're not suggesting that the triple hung window on the west side is not original to the. Yes, I am. You are. So what are you saying was there before. I think it was a French window. And if you look very closely in the enlargement that I sent off, and I have the original enlargement right here. If you look very closely, you will see that it. Well, I do have it. This is this is content that we already have received. Okay, we've seen that. This is the original 52. That shows both sides the same. That was before the French door was put on the on the east side. Right. Okay. But that looks like it's the same thing as what you have now. On the on the west side. Looks the same. It's it actually is French windows. If you look closely at the enlargement, you can see that they're I'll be glad to bring it around. But you can see a division in it. And you can see a wooden frame around if you look at that. I think we actually have seen that. Does anyone else have any other questions for the applicant? We think it was changed in the mid fifties to the triple hung window. And one of the reasons that we feel that way is because of the difference in the nails. And that that was very obvious when the window was taken out. And the fact that the picture of the 1952 Club Woman magazine is where it came from shows all the board of directors out front in front of that. And it's the same on both sides. And of course, the building is a Greek revival architectural building, which symmetry is the thing that's emphasized in that type of building. The plexiglass covered triple window the way it was is just not what we feel was there originally. You all have done a commendable job with maintaining and improving this building over the years. You should be applauded. It looks like the interiors as well. The question really boils down to a very, very narrow question for us, which is whether it's historically accurate to do on the west side. What already was done on the east side. And it has an implication on precedent that we set for structures that are protected by the city of Columbia. So it really, we understand the issue of symmetry, but it really boils down to that question. If there is compelling evidence that what you want to do on the west side will replicate something that has been historically clearly done in the past as part of the history of the building. But still, there is the, you went through a marvelous history of the building, but the bits and pieces that are on this facade that's protected now also tell the story. So it's unfortunately for us, it's a very narrow question that we need to consider. Do you agree that the picture shows the symmetry in 1952 before the French door was changed? I can't tell. It looks to me from what I've seen to me personally as if the triple hung window is the original. I can't see any, I don't see anything that looks like the window on the east, the door on the east side. It certainly doesn't look like it there. Okay, this picture that's shown now is after the door was changed on the east side. And the triple hung window was on the west side in that picture. If you look at the transom it's different. The 1952 window, the transoms are the same if you look at that. And Jan who is sitting here remembers that it opened to the outside when she visited there in 1959. So it had to be a French window at that time. And by definition a French window and a French door is the same thing. Well without getting too stuck in the semantics because French doors are also something else as well. Are you saying that what we're looking at in this image on the top image on the east side is the same as what's there now? No, not in that picture. Okay. But in the 1952 picture it was the same. So you're saying that somebody came along, you're contending, that somebody came along and took out what we're seeing on the upper image on the west side and replaced it with what we see in the west side in the lower image. That's what you're saying? I'm saying that in the mid-50s somewhere along the way in the mid-50s it couldn't have been in 1952. But in the mid-50s prior to 1959 there had to be a change in those sides. Both of them have been changed in somewhere in the 50s because in 59 we know that it looked like on the east side like that. In 52 it was not like that. Really the reason I'm asking the questions is because I think that staff, I think what we would need to see is evidence that what you are proposing to do on the west side is clearly to restore it back to one of the original periods, historic periods. And I'm struggling to see that that's the case. I don't think anybody disagrees that having a door on the other side, on the west side that would match the door on the east side would be symmetrically pleasing but that's really not what we have to consider. It's really a matter of maintaining historic integrity with whatever goes on. I'm struggling with the proposal to put in a door on the west side that matches the door on the east side for that reason. Well we can't very well take the east side down that was put there sometime early, I guess late 50s. We can't take that door down and the contractor or the person, Southern Custom Doors person went to great length to make the quarter sawn wood exactly like the right hand side to do the left hand side and he did that offsite. So when he came to install it, you know, it's there now. It's behind plywood but it's there hung now and the transom is ready to go up. It's ready to be put exactly like same hardware and everything that's on the right hand side. And we stand to lose a grant of $10,000 which is not the most important thing in this issue, but if we don't act quickly we will lose that. We've already paid the man over $6,000 just for materials to do the door. So and we did all of this in good faith thinking that we were preserving the building back to its original state. Thank you. We don't like to be put in this position either but we have to make our decision in consideration of the design guidelines in the process. So we just need to take that into consideration. Before you leave, any other commissioners have any questions for the applicant? Anything you'd like to say? You have a copy of what's in the book. And also in all of our tour information for the past 20, 30 years, it's always said there were double French doors on both sides. And that comes from stories told over the years. Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone who wishes to speak for or against the application? I'll let this gentleman go. Are you speaking in favor or against? I guess it doesn't really matter. Why don't you come ahead please? Have you signed in? Have you signed in? If you could please sign in and then I'll swear you in. Raise your right hand. You promise to tell the truth in these proceedings? Yes, sir. Thank you. If you could state your name again. State your name again before you. Bill Barrett. Thank you. Go ahead. All right. When I started this, I have done every possible thing I could do to match the stuff on the right. Everything is exactly as it matches over there. Species, the moldings, the glass, old hardware that I found online, but it's old hardware. Everything is 100% matches what's on the right side. I didn't know in the beginning this was a big misunderstanding about the permits and stuff. When I do this for historical homes, I usually present owners with drawings or whatever. So that's why I didn't pull anything because it's not normal for me. It appears to me that there were doors on this side at some time because when we took stuff off the bottom, the seals on both sides were identical. The nails were a big thing to me. Something was done to that left side because there were cut nails all over the place in the side where we took the whole windows out except for several places where new wire nails were shot in. They weren't shot in. They were drilling in. So it could easily have been either one, probably been both. I don't know. Obviously, there was something there different. But that's just what I've discovered when we took stuff out. You spoke of permits, but did you pull a building permit for this? No, because I do not. I don't pull permits if I don't modify the structure of the building. Now, changing a door in a window does not modify the actual structure. I didn't get into the framing. And that's what I've been told many times in the past as long as I'm not changing anything. I'm not taking studs out and changing the structure of the house. The reason I asked, it would have triggered this review. We're not the building department, so I don't need to. That's the reason I asked. That's where I was with it. And I've done everything I could possibly do to match what is there now. Thank you. Have you signed in? Is your right hand? Problems to tell the truth in these proceedings? I do. Thank you. Can you state your name, please? My name is John Cher. I'm the director of cultural resources for Historic Columbia. And I'm familiar with this building. I've had the pleasure of going to it many occasions. I've been invited to presentations. And I certainly enjoyed the hospitality that the Women's Club has afforded me as a neighbor in the Robert Mills Historic District. What I would like to speak to really are three things, I think. And I'd like to pull up that picture that shows the two photographs. There we go. From 1954, if you look at the top photograph on the left-hand side, you're speaking about the southwest aspect of the building. I believe the way people may have been interpreting that is that there's a division in that upper sash. And what I think what you're seeing is you're actually looking at the reflection of the column, that column on the southwest corner of the porch that's giving you that dark shadow on what would be an interior roller blind. If that's part of how people are reading that to be a French door, I think that might be where that was an issue. I'm not exactly sure. I heard there was a 1952 picture. We've got a 1954 and then the 1963. A couple of other things. The book that was presented, it was a book that was published in 1980 under the auspices of Historic Columbia. It was by Russell Maxey. That book has dated material in it. And quite frankly, that's not one that I would necessarily look at and expect to have all of the evidence that you'd want, really any type of decision. I think the structural evidence is something that is compelling. It's interesting. We know that the building was moved. We know that most buildings over time do change, obviously depending on the needs of various owners, whether they're staying in step with aesthetics or they're making repairs. And so during the course of this building's history, during the 19th century, all the way up until when it was moved in the early 20th century, there may well have been modifications that we're interpreting today or have been misinterpreted to suggest that there were doors much like the one on the right hand side that would have been on the left hand side. But you could have had a lot of different things going on there up to and including jib doors. There are buildings in downtown Columbia that had jib doors that would have left you with some telltale evidence of a downrod locking mechanism in the threshold. So I just throw those things out there for what it's worth. We are, you know, happy to help in any way we can when it comes to sort of preservation. Those were the observations that I made upon reviewing this. And again, it's very important to, I think, appreciate and as y'all have mentioned and as staff has mentioned, the impact that the club has had on the building itself. And so the retention, obviously, of this asymmetrical facade speaks to a really important chapter in the building's evolution from just a single family residence into something that was much more to the community. Thank you. I'm very, very familiar with Russell Max's book as well. Would the applicant wish to say anything in rebuttal? You're welcome to if you want to. No? Thank you. Does anybody else wish to say anything before we deliberate? So at this time, are there any comments, any discussion on the part of the commission? I have to say I do have, I don't see any photographic evidence that the door that you're proposing to put in the west side would match something that is or was historically there. I understand your desire to do what you propose to do. I think there's a lot of, there's been a lot of back and forth about how things had been altered, maybe may have been altered, how people remember things, but looking at the photographic evidence, I don't see a compelling evidence or proof of that. And we are compelled to follow the design guidelines as we understand them and it's a very narrow charge. This is a structure that's protected by the city of Columbia, so we have an obligation to be stewards of that as you have been wonderful stewards of the building. So I would just place it in that context. And if there are no other comments, then I would ask if somebody could make a motion please. Thank you. Thank you. Is there a second? Second. Any discussion before we vote? Okay. Mr. Bach Knight. Yes. Mr. Brim. Yes. Ms. Johnson. Yes. Ms. Moore. Mr. Savry. Yes. Motion passes. Thank you. Next item please. Actually we have the perfect person here to answer that question. And you're welcome to appeal. The next case is 2307 Pendleton Street in the Old Shannon Lower Waverly Protection Area A. This is a request for certificate of design approval for demolition. Old Shannon Lower Waverly has demolition guidelines, not only through section 17-674E of the Sydney Ordinance, but also in section 4E of their design guidelines. Section 4E states that demolition of historic buildings should be in action of last resort. As in any historic district, the demolition of a contributing historic property should be very carefully considered, taking a close look at the information presented by the demolition criteria in district guidelines and city ordinance. Demolition guidelines in section 4E of the design guidelines states that demolition of contributing buildings is not permitted if the building or major portion of the building is of such architectural interest and value that its removal would be detrimental to public interest or the building or major portion of the building is of such old or unusual or uncommon design and materials that it could not be reproduced. While the building is contributing to the district, its architectural value is not so great that its removal would be detrimental to public interest. On the other hand, while the shotgun design of the building could technically be reproduced, it would be difficult to build it back on this lot due to current code and zoning requirements. These modern requirements would require any new construction on the lot to be even narrower than it currently is due to the necessary setbacks. The guidelines also state that demolition is permitted if the structure is not judged to contribute significantly to the historic or architectural character of the district and its removal will result in a more historically appropriate visual effect on the district or the building has irretrievably lost its architectural and historical integrity and its removal will result in a more historically appropriate visual effect. With regard to these guidelines, the building does contribute to the historic and architectural character of the district and while the building has experienced some exterior changes, most original features remain intact as does the overall shotgun form. Moving on to section 17-674e of the city ordinance, there are eight criteria used by the DDRC and staff for review of all requests for demolition permits. Number one is the historic or architectural significance of a building structure or objects. Criteria three is the importance of the building structure or object to the ambience of the district and criteria four is whether the building structure or object is one of the last remaining examples of its kind in the neighborhood, city, or region. This house is one of the oldest remaining houses on this block of Pendleton Street. It is a contributing building to the district and contributes to the historic ambience of the district. The historic houses along the 2300 block of Pendleton Street while diverse and architectural style details share similar ideas as setback, passing in rhythm of openings that contribute to cohesive feel along the street. However, due to widespread demolition in the area, the historic streetscape has become fractured with wide stretches of vacant land including the land to the west of 2307 Pendleton. Along with 2310 Pendleton Street, this house is the oldest of the 12 remaining historic houses along the block. The house appears to have undergone a few exterior alterations during the creation of a side porch but it does still maintain most of its original exterior features and its overall shotgun form. Likewise, similar shotgun houses to this house were once found all along Pendleton Street. Unfortunately, most of those have been lost to demolition over the past 60 years which does leave this as one of the last examples in this particular area. Criteria two states that determination of whether the subject property is capable of earning a reasonable economic return on its value without demolition. Criteria six states consideration of the existing structural condition, history of maintenance and use of the property. So the building is currently in disrepair partly from common deferred maintenance issues and neglect but also from structural deficiencies. Documentation shows that the house has widespread problems in the foundation as well as the roof. Repairs to the house appeared to have been piecemeal and often did not address larger structural issues. The current condition of the property would require renovations to make it habitable and safe for future tenants. The applicant submitted estimates for the cost of repairs totaling just south $150,000. These estimates include structural pairs to the foundation and roof as well as changes to window siding doors which some of which are required per code. Systems updates, interior finishings and items like that. The total estimated cost related specifically to repairs of the structure add up to over $77,000. The estimated value of the house after renovation based on comparable houses in the area is less than $75,000. So it's unlikely based on the number of repairs needed for this house that it would be able to earn an economic return on its value. I also want to note that the current side setbacks of this house is kind of hard to see here. They range from 2.5 to 3 feet which is below the modern zoning code and zoning code, sorry, zoning requirements of 5 feet minimum side setbacks and as such bringing the house up to code which would be required based on the amount of investment they would have to put into this house would require that both side walls be converted to firewalls. Certain fire resistant measures would need to be taken on the exterior walls to be in keeping with code and proposed changes to historic windows by the applicant which would in turn make the house ineligible for a Bayley-Bill-Tex abatement program. Criteria 5 states whether there are definite plans for reuse of the property proposed demolition is carried out and what the effect of that plan on the character of the surrounding area would be. So due to the fractured nature of the streetscape because of all the demolition that's gone on it would be very, very important that any permitted demolition along this block be followed by plans for rebuilding. Should demolition be allowed the applicant has plans to combine this lot with a vacant lot next door. It's a little bit hard to read here but it's a plan for the placement of the house so that they can make a bigger lot which meets current zoning code. They've also proposed rendering here of this house which is not a final detailed design for the construction which would in turn require review and approval by the DDRC should demolition be allowed. However this does appear to be generally compatible with the character of the surrounding area. Crateria 7 states whether the building or structure is able to be relocated whether a site for relocation is available. The building may be capable of relocation the condition of foundation means that it wouldn't basically need to be rebuilt so demolition was not approved which would be accomplished if relocation were undertaken. There are several lots along this block that could accommodate this building if it were to be removed. Moving this building is the overhead wires which could cost upwards moving such wires could cost upwards of $10,000. That cost combined with the cost of moving the house cost of repairs would likely make relocation a cost prohibitive for anyone who purchases this house. Crateria 8 is whether the building or structure is under orders from the city to be demolished and it is not currently under orders from the city to be demolished due to the structural deficiencies. So staff recommendations. Staff believes that this property has historic and architectural value and is contributing to the district. However, due to the extenuating circumstances related to the limitations of the lot and the resultant difficulties of bringing the house up to code Section 4 of the Old Shandon Lower Waverly Protection Area Design Guidelines and Section 17-674E of the city ordinance staff recommends allowing this request for certificate of design approval for demolition at 2307 Pendleton Street. Any questions? So the applicant owns both this lot and the adjacent lot? They are here. They can talk about it. They do not currently, but they have spoken with the owner of the adjacent lot because you basically can't really build on it as it is. So they have spoken without purchasing it and combining. You can't build on the adjacent lot as it is? Well, I mean, you can. It would just be a very, very narrow house I think it came out to about... Oh, you mean you can't build on it if you build on it without having this lot too? Right. You can build like a 12-foot wide house, I think. It's a buildable lot. Okay. Does anybody have any questions for staff? Is the applicant here and wish to make a statement? I work for the City of Columbia and Community Development Department and I just want to let you know my experience and where all this is coming from all the information that she shared with you. I've been working in this department for 31 years. I do what the Community Development Department does is we, for the most part, we use federal money and we go out and rehab houses, fix up houses, help stabilize communities and things like that. We've actually done several houses in this particular community where we go in and fix everything up, bring it all up to code. We focus on safety and health issues. We try and make affordable housing in neighborhoods. My job is to go out and assess the condition of homes and come up with the estimate that you have there and determine if it's a feasible project to do. Obviously, if we can use a particular house, we don't want to tear it down because it saves us money. This particular house, when I looked at everything, it's not just one item that was bad on it. It was a collective amount of items. For instance, it wasn't just a bad foundation. It was a bad foundation. We would want to fix the foundation and use the rest of the house. It was not only the items as you normally do when you do a house, which is all the cosmetic stuff inside, bringing everything up to code, wiring, plumbing, those kind of things. None of that's been done on this house over the years and what was done was not done, for the most part, was not done correctly. We have to fix that back up because, again, we're representing the city of Columbia. We put somebody in a house and then have things go bad once they move into the house. So we give them new plumbing, new electric, new heat and air, the whole nine yards. We also make their housing energy efficient. That's one of our focus, to try and save the homeowner money when they come in and purchase the home. We don't want them spending all their money on utility bills. So we try and do that as well. But in this particular house, it was the foundation. It's also the roof framing is bad. And you have all that information I'm sure in your packet where I've gone through the house and taken photos and hopefully you have enough notes and everything there for you to kind of see what I encountered when I was going through this particular house. But if you have any questions, that's mainly what I want to try and answer for you. If you have any questions about the paperwork that you have, any estimates or anything like that, I'm more than happy to try and answer those questions for you. Any questions? I just want to make one thing clear. You're saying that a house foundation-wise is very deplorable and I'll be clear. Well, anything can be fixed. It's just a dollar amount. My estimate for that is just shy of $150,000. I know that sounds like a lot, but there's a lot going on with this house. And the other thing that we have to keep in mind is the only funding that we have to spend on this is the federal dollars. And so whenever we do that, they kick in a lot of other requirements or regulations we have to follow. We have to keep that in mind as well. And it's, of course, our taxpayers' dollars, so we're trying to do what's best for our taxpayers and not spend an exorbitant amount of money on them. Thank you. So what were the circumstances under which you purchased the house? What was that? What were the circumstances under which you purchased the house? In which we got the house, so it's owned by someone that alone, the city actually does loans for people. And the gentleman at this house, unfortunately, has passed away. And his family didn't want to do anything with the home. So they gave it to you? We still have a mortgage on it. Okay. Any other questions? Thank you. Is there anybody here who wishes to speak? If you could let her go first, please. She's been raising her hand. Thank you. And are you sworn in? Did you state your name, please? My name is Abedia Counts. I'm a neighbor and I'm also representative for the Martin Luther King Lower Waverly Neighborhood Association. We are against the demolition at this house. It's not just the house, but it's part of our community. It's part of our character. It's part of who we were and are as a predominantly African-American historical neighborhood. It's important to us because this house was not owned by somebody famous or well-known. It was owned by regular people. It was owned by poor people that were. And I knew people that lived there for decades. He was a janitor. He was a janitor for decades. It's important to us on not just looking at the structure. It's important to us emotionally. It's important to my family. It's been there. We've had our property there for probably 100 years. So it's a part of who we are and it's painful for us. The house is not falling down. I look at it every day. Yes, it needs work. But sometimes you need to put money in to get money back and you get much more than that. It's representative to young people in our neighborhood that there were people that worked and contributed and they didn't have a lot of money and they didn't have a fancy house. You don't have to have this now to be a good person to contribute to the city. Each time you take away a property from us, it's emotional and it's very painful. And yeah, it takes money to fix it up. But we need some money also in our community to not just fix up this house but fix up our young people and our old people, our character and who we are. It makes us afraid that you're going to take everything away from us. And I'm going to use that phrase gentrification. Take it away and just build up new things and we're gone. We're disappeared. And when people go to look at something older, it's a few houses here that are African American, but even when you go, it's not. It's not so much that neighborhood. I ask you to reconsider or postpone about doing that, demolishing this building, and maybe there's someone else that will be able to help in a historical manner or in any way to help save this house that it is very important. So I don't have any statistics. I only have emotions and I love our neighborhood and I love for this home. Thank you, sir. I saw that you were sworn in. I assume you signed in. My name is Jim Daniel. I'm here to support this project. I understand her concern because I'm dealing in some other inner-city neighborhoods where we have the same issue. On the issue of the smallness of the lot, I actually have a client who has asked me to identify historical lots that are vacant but had a house on it one time that you could build a small house, 16 feet wide, 1,000 square feet. So I'll cite his example. Two houses that were built by Celtic builders on Barl Street. There were two lots. One was, I think, 37 feet wide. One was 54. But they built smaller houses. It turned out very successful. But to get to this one, there have been three houses recently that y'all had come before you for demolition. I view this as different. The one that came before you on Senate Street was a house that had caught on fire and the estimates by city staff were X. I had cited as an example that I worked with a client on Stark Street that had a similar house. They sold it for way under what they had renovated it for. And the argument I made in that other case was the cost to renovate did not warrant what you could economically get back from it. In this particular situation, this house was foreclosed in 2016. It looks like whoever lived there just moved out, left everything they owned there. I have a shotgun house on the rear of my property that was moved when Wheeler Hill was demolished years ago. And I use it as a guest house in my wife's art studio. It's roughly 16 feet wide by whatever. It's roughly 800 square feet. But I think the city has done an excellent job of basically showing realistically what it would cost to renovate this house. And even if it's half what they estimate, the house still is not going to be worth in today's market what they've got in it. So I think it's this one that we said to see it go, but I think it's so far gone that it's just not going to work. The only suggestion, and I know this is not on the agenda today to community development, is I would hope they'd look at it more than just a house out of a design book when they design whatever they put there. There are numerous fake-it-lots in the neighborhood and we really need somebody particularly like them to set the scale for what these future infill houses are going to look like. This one does not seem to have any basement. It's built on slab. So I would hope that they could find someone, a creative architect that could come up with sort of a conceptual design that would fit in the neighborhood like Celtic did with the houses on Laurel Street and like Celtic did with the house on College Street. Thank you. Thank you. Have you been sworn in? I was told the truth in these proceedings. I do. And if you could sign in please and then state your name for us. I didn't plan on speaking. My name is Gloria Syed. I'm actually the Community Development Director for the City of Columbia. And I just want to come up and make a few remarks just to add some additional context to what it is that we are attempting to do with the house that you have before you now. One of the things that we did prior to submitting our application is we did meet with the planning department along with another affordable housing development corporation that owns additional lots on Pendleton Street. Our goal based on what the City Council has asked us to do in revitalizing certain areas around the City of Columbia, particularly this one, is designated a targeted redevelopment area for the city. There are about four in the area right now. So our goal is to really focus the federal funds, the limited federal funds that we do have in these areas so that we can really begin to make a difference. There are additional vacant lots on this particular street, the development corporation that we met with along with the planning department actually has about five other lots right within this block area and we've provided some funding to them. So ideally the goal would be to redevelop this lot, put up a particular structure that would be more energy efficient that we can actually make more conducive by acquiring the adjoining lot where you'll have a different layout. So that house, in addition to the other five that could be done, you're looking at six new houses in that area. And to address, did you say your name was Ms. Count? I think I know you. To address some of her concerns about gentrification, that's a concern of ours as well. A lot of our funding that we use, we're required to make sure that what we do is available to families and individuals who earn 80% or below the area median income. And when I say that, I don't want it to sound like it's a little bit of money. So, you know, for example, for a one household family, it's about $39,000 a year. So, you know, we will be looking at, by adding the additional houses, actually enhancing the neighborhood by attracting more families and individuals in the neighborhood and getting rid of a lot of those vacant lots because there are quite a few in this particular community. And we want to begin doing something about it. And one place we can start is right here on Pendleton Street. I would like to say that while we gave an example of an elevation of what could go there, we would be very happy. In fact, we're honored to meet with the neighborhood association to look at some different designs that we could put on this site. And I know you saw the one that we have here, but we can certainly meet with the neighborhood association and really give them some more information about what our plans are for the entire block so that we can make sure that they're involved in helping us with some of the decisions that can be made for this area. So, that's it. Thank you. Thank you for your time. I don't... It's not possible that there's anybody else who wants to make a comment. Any comments or questions from the commissioners? I have a question. Please, the first one. Yeah, okay. So, I didn't... for your name. Yes, Adam. So, what I think that I'm hearing you say is that this house is really not safe for someone to live in. Is that what you're saying? Safe for someone to live in. Oh, no, absolutely not. So, the situation is that here is a house that has a lot of history in the neighborhood and contributes but nobody can live in the house because the foundation is not safe. The wiring's not safe. You should have some pictures in your packet there showing the condition of it. I mean, the roof's leaking. The foundation's bad. You got the floors and places where you wouldn't want people walking on them. Obviously, there's a lot of debris and stuff in there from when the former tenant was in there. But yes, I wouldn't want to put anyone in the house. Not even my worst enemies. You'd have to renovate it. So, I just wanted clarity on that because I didn't want to say think that there was something that could be done to save it or to make it habitable right this minute. Nobody can move in and I'm looking at the piers, the floors. You would not be able to move in there. And I mentioned the federal dollars and we haven't had the house tested because obviously we're trying not to spend taxpayers' money on something that we are not going to rehab the house. But one of the things we have to deal with is the possibility of lead-based paint on this house and the hole inside this house is paint and stuff. The ceiling's flaking off, stuff like that. So, you have to look at that as well. So, currently, you wouldn't want someone living in there because of those risks as well. Thank you. Anybody else? I have to say I'm not going to tonight vote for demolition in favor of demolition or granting the application for demolition. At the very least, for me, I would need to see and I'm not saying at all what other commissioners should do or what kind of motion should be made at all. I'm not saying that. I'm just speaking for myself. I find the fact that it's one of the last of its type and contributing historically as it does to be tremendously compelling. The fact that it's owned by a public entity to me also adds to that compelling narrative. The notion that there is, although it wasn't actually discussed, I don't think by the applicant, I know that there is the desire to buy the adjacent lot so that they can build something like the structure that's been represented here. To me also means that there might be the possibility of maintaining a certain amount of the existing structure and building an addition to it as an architect. I know that's a possible thing to do. I do find the neighbors plea compelling and I know that it's possible to renovate buildings that are in this kind of condition. That's my own... For lack of a better way of putting it, it hurts my heart to think about this house being demolished given that it's one of the few that's left of its kind and it's in the neighborhood. I understand the other points which are very compelling. I can see for myself and you've made a very clear argument in that case, but that's where my conflict lies. Since nobody else wanted to make a statement, I just wanted to make that statement. I guess with that, and again, that's my own personal opinion, but I guess with that, I will ask someone to make a motion if there's no further... Someone would make a motion, please. In favor of granting the request for the certificate of design approval for demolition at 2307 Milton Street based upon Section 4 of the Old Sheen and Lower Wavelay Protection Area Design Guidelines as well as weighing all of the seven factors outlined in Section 17674E of the city ordinance. Is there a second? Second. Any discussion? Before we vote, I would say that if this were to come back with an actual plan in place for a renovation and an addition to this or with a plan in place to move it, my vote might be different, but under the circumstances, I've already said where I'm going to land on this, so to know the comments, I guess, let's have a vote. Mr. Bocknight. Mr. Brume. Yes, Mr. Wallach. Yes. Ms. Johnson. Yes. Ms. Moore. No. Mr. Savry. No. So, we need another motion. Can I have another motion? Okay. Perhaps I will make a motion. I move that we deny as a certificate of design approval for demolition for 2307 Pendleton Street in Old Shand and Lower Waverly Protection Area A. Can I have a second? Second. Any discussion? Okay, so this is the opposite. Several votes, please. I'll do something wrong. Oh, based on the section of... Oh, okay. There it is. Yep. Based on Section 4 of the Old Shand and Lower Waverly Protection Area Design Guidelines in Section 17-674e of the city ordinance. Mr. Bocknight. Yes. Mr. Brume. Yes. Ms. Johnson. No. Ms. Moore. Yes. Mr. Savry. Yes. Motion passes. Thank you. Any more business in any other cases? There is no other business. In that case, could I have a motion to adjourn, please? Second. I haven't had the motion yet. I'm going to adjourn this meeting. Is there a second? Second. All those in favor? Aye. Aye. All adjourned. I made a motion.