Design Development Review Commission is made up of volunteers with expertise or interest in historic preservation and design. We generally meet on the second Thursday of the month to review cases. Staff to the commission are our urban design and historic preservation staff. They are available to answer questions if you have them, but please do not interrupt proceedings if you do indeed need to speak with one of them. The meeting generally proceeds with the staff calling the case and describing it. I will call for the applicant to come 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. This rebuttal shall not exceed 5 minutes. In most 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 an error, you and anyone with standing 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. Also, and so that members of the public understand, the 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. Now, 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? Staff, could you please call the roll? Mr. Boggmite. Here. Mr. Broom. Here. Mr. Daniel. Miss Fuller-Wilt. Here. Mr. Savory. Here. Mr. Nguyen. Here. We have form. Thank you. And does the order of the agenda still stand? The order of the consent agenda still stands. And if you'd like, I'll go ahead and read that out and then address the regular agenda. OK. So the consent agenda falls within the historic districts. And the first item is 1507 Fairview, which is a request for design approval for exterior changes and for preliminary certification for the Bailey Bill. This falls in the Melrose Heights, Oakland Architectural Conservation District. The second item falls within the Northman Corridor Overlay District. It is 2428 and 2434 Northmane. It's a request for design approval for new construction. Is there anyone who wishes to take an item off the consent agenda for discussion? If not, could I have a motion to approve the consent agenda and the meeting minutes? Yes, thank you. So could I have a motion to approve the consent agenda and the meeting minutes from the special called meeting and the May meeting? So moved. Is there a second? Second. All in favor? I guess we're done with that part. And there was another piece. We also have the approval of minutes, which includes special called meeting minutes from April and the May minutes. I asked for, that was part of the motion. I'm sorry, I completely missed that. But there was another piece to the order of the. Yes. So the order of the regular agenda has changed. We have a member of staff who would like to speak to 140 South Walker, but he will have to leave early today. So we're requesting that that project move forward to the first item on the regular agenda. And do we need to make a motion to change the order? Yes, I do. Could I hear a motion to change the order according to what staff has just requested? So moved. Second. I vote. Mr. Bach night. Yes. Mr. Brown. Yes. Mr. Daniel. Yes. Miss Fuller-Wilt. Yes. Mr. Savery. Yes. Mr. Wendt. Yes. Motion passes. Very good. Could you please introduce now? What is now the first case? First case is 140, 142 South Walker Street. This is a circa 1940 duplex contributing to the Shandon Community Character or CC1 area. This is a request for certificate of design approval for demolition. A request for demolition for this building was denied by DDRC in August 2017. The motion to deny the request for demolition was based on the staff recommendation at the time. The request for demolition is being considered again as the applicant has provided additional information related to renovation and repair expenses and the future intent for the site. Section 17-674 lists the criteria for review of requests for demolition permits and states, the following criteria shall be used as guideline by the DDRC and ORT staff for review of all requests for demolition permits. Criteria one is the historic or architectural significance of a building, structure, or object. This building is a contributing building to the Shandon neighborhood. Shandon was developed as a suburb of Columbia with its earliest developments in the northwest part of the current neighborhood and later developments between 1920 and 1942 in the southeast part of the neighborhood, which is where 142 South Walker is located, as the area originally known as Rosewood. Shandon is architecturally diverse neighborhood with a large range in the house styles. The modest details of 140-142 South Walker is consistent with the patterns in this section of Shandon. Criteria two is a determination of whether the subject property is capable of earning a reasonable economic return on its value without demolition. The applicant has provided quotes for repairs to the building from the foundation to the roof, including interior renovations and the removal of trees compromising the foundation. These quotes total approximately close to $148,000 for a full building renovation that would provide two rentable apartments ready for occupancy. Comparable apartments in the area rent anywhere from 750 to 1200. And as Shandon is a popular area, it can be assumed that newly renovated apartment of this size would rent for at least $850 per unit. Considering the fact that Shandon is popular, it's likely that property could offer a reasonable return on its current value in time. The average cost of building a single family home between 1,800 and 2,200 square feet since January 2015 is approximately $145,000 with the range and construction cost between $75,000 and $250,000. The fair market values for single family homes in this area range anywhere from $150,000 to $450,000. As staff noted in their previous evaluations, this ordinance language does not suggest that any property owner is due an economic return. Real estate investment is complex and driven by many factors. Economic return would no doubt be quicker with construction of a single family home on this lot. However, it is also likely that due to the desirability to rent in Shandon, this property could offer a reasonable economic return without demolition as stated in the criteria. Criteria three is the importance of the building structure object to the ambience of the district. The duplex is a contributing building that is consistent in terms of height, scale, form, and material use with other houses on the block. The duplex was built in the minimal traditional style, typically has simple massing, low roof, and little to no decorative architectural details. It's a restrained style that gained popularity during the Great Depression and soon after became popular house style for World War II worker housing and post-World War II housing for returning servicemen. Use of the minimal traditional style could be found throughout the neighborhood and can be seen at 120 and 128 South Walker as well, which are two houses that are on the same side of the street as this property. The use of the minimal traditional style 140, 142 South Walker is consistent with the neighborhood patterns and contributes to the ambience of this portion of South Walker as well. Criteria four is whether the building structure or object is one of the last remaining examples of its kind in the neighborhood, the city or region. This is not the last remaining example of its kind. Criteria five is whether there are definite plans for reuse of the property of the proposed demolition is carried out and what the effect of those plans on the character of the surrounding area would be. The applicant has stated that the plan for reuse for the property will be for a new 1800, 2200 square foot single family home with a one and a half to two story height clad in either hardy board or brick. The applicant has provided plans and elevations of similar style houses to the intended design for this lot. As seen here in exhibit J, which is a house that is existing in Shandon already, this was a renovation. So a house similar to this style would be generally compatible with the existing character of the block. Criteria six is the existing structural condition, history of maintenance and use of, sorry, history of maintenance and use of property, whether in dangerous public safety and whether the city is requiring its demolition. The building was used as a rental property until it was sold to its current current owner in 2017. Staff members Amy Moore and Stacy Richie visited the property in June 2017. And these are some pictures from their visit at the time. Half of one unit of the duplex was more or less in good condition with the other one. Definitely needing some repairs. The applicant has also provided a termite report, which shows that there is active infestation of subterranean termites, as well as some fungi, moisture in the wood under the house and older evidence of currently inactive powder post beetles. Two structural engineers have also written letters detailing their findings at the property. Both engineers point out issues of the foundation floor system and roof. These are just examples of the information that was provided. An opinion letter addressing from one of the engineers is addressing not only structural issues found in the building, but all of criteria for demolition, including issues that are not typically inside the purview of a structural engineer. This letter is very similar in contents of the letter provided previously, although it does include pictures this time. There's another letter that also concludes that the building is not structurally salvageable. Again, this letter is not a structural report, which should include photographs, diagrams, and detailed discussion of the condition of various structural components of the building. Years of settling can often lead to sloping floors and windows out of square and older buildings. However, staff understands that additional structural repairs would be necessary at this property. But, as stated in previous evaluations, whatever conditions do exist in the building, they existed when the owner purchased the property, and there is still no requirement by the city for demolition of this property. Criteria 7 is whether the building or structure is able to be relocated and whether a site for relocation is available. Relocation is currently not a consideration for this building. And then finally, Criteria 8 is whether the building or structure is under orders from the city to be demolished due to severe structural deficiencies, which would have added significance and comparison to the other criteria mentioned. And the city has not found the building to have structural deficiencies severe enough to require demolition. But for staff recommendations, staff finds that the property has historic and architectural significance as a contributing building to the shanded neighborhood. It appears to be capable of earning a reasonable economic return. It continues to contribute to the ambiance of the district as a minimal traditional style building. And it is not under orders from the city to be demolished as per section 17-674 of the city ordinance. Therefore, staff recommends denial of the request for demolition. Thank you. I have two things I'd like to say, but the first is, are there any questions for staff? Before we continue on. The other I'd like to say is that I'd like the commissioners and everybody to bear in mind, again, as staff said, this project has been before the commission last year. And the request for demolition was denied just so that we're all clear that this is, in fact, the same project. So the criteria that we as a commission need to base another decision on are narrow.  And our charge is really to make a determination on narrowly upon the demolition review criteria and whether or not we believe that we have new information in this hearing. So that said, to define the purview that we have here as a body, I'd invite the applicant to present. Thank you. Have you been sworn in and you took the oath? Yes, sir, I have. You state your name. My name is Ben Bruner. I'm an attorney in Columbia. I'm a resident of Shandon. I have been for the last 13 years. And I represent Mr. Rudder in this matter and in the current pending appeal in the circuit court over the prior decision. We are here, as I stated, in the letter accompanying the application under a reservation of rights with regard to the appeal. I feel we have to do this, but we are here in a good faith effort hoping we can find a quick resolution without need for further legal action. So to your point, Mr. Savory, what is the difference between where we stand now and where we were in August of last year? The difference is now the neighborhood is behind this project. Now we have definite plans that I believe the staff would agree and in the report agree for a single family home that is consistent with the rest of the neighborhood and that truly contributes positively to the character of Shandon. Now we have estimates approaching $150,000 for work that we know is required today to bring this structure into a habitable and livable condition where it can be rented. And now we have the members from the community to support this proposal as well. I'm going to focus on of the eight criteria, the ones that we dispute with staff because I don't know that it's worth going through all eight. With that being said, staff has determined that this building contributes to the ambiance of the neighborhood. Staff has determined this is a contributing structure because it's, in essence, because it's over 50 years old. We dispute that. And in fact, the neighborhood disputes that. At the annual meeting in March, not a regular monthly or bi-monthly meeting, at the annual meeting in March, the minutes from that meeting reflect that this structure, and I want to read directly from those minutes, and y'all have seen pictures of this structure. So you have seen that it is an old duplex. The meeting minutes say, quote, the property is not contributing positively to the neighborhood. So we strongly dispute that. We believe that the pictures you see will show and clearly demonstrate that this building does not contribute positively. Half of it is completely unlivable. In fact, the whole thing is unlivable, and how that structure can contribute is beyond me. With regard to the second factor, whether this property is capable of a reasonable economic return and the ordinance requires that you give consideration to the economic impact on the owner. Our position after reading the staff's report is that the recommendation of staff, if the DVRC chooses to adopt that, gives zero consideration to the economic impact on Mr. Rudder because in order to earn $850 a month worth of rent, he has to put in $150,000. Tell me where he's going to come up with that money. Tell me if he borrows it at prime, how long it'll take him to get a return on his investment. Tell me what his cost of ownership is going to be since this is an investment property and not his personal residence. All of these things have to be taken into account. Moreover, the conclusion that the property could be rented at $850 per unit was news to me and to my client, all of us, that we received Monday three days ago, three days prior to the hearing. How we're supposed to come up with all of the details to refute that in three days, I'm not sure. More concerning, I don't know what that's based on. You don't know what that's based on. Where's the data to support that? It's speculation in your rules and regulations prevent you from considering hearsay testimony, which is exactly what that is. There is no foundation, no personal knowledge upon which testimony can be given that we know of based on what I heard. Testimony can be given that this property will rent for $850 a month. What we know and what is undisputed is that it's going to cost at least $150,000 to bring this into compliance with building codes so that Mr. Rudder can rent it without exposing himself and the public to liability. The factor asking that you consider the importance of the building and structure, the ambience of the district, I think the neighborhood council's letter. And I hope you have received a copy of the letter so you know that the council supports it. Neighbors support it. I believe there are some neighbors here who support it. I was at the meeting in March, and there was strong support from specifically from residents on South Walker Street. And if they are here, and I hope they're here since we moved this up, I hope all of our people are going to be here to testify before you. If they're here, I hope you will ask them what their view of the property was when it was rented. Finally, the structural condition. We've gotten a full-fledged report from one South Carolina structural engineer, a licensed structural engineer. We've gotten a letter from another, which apparently is not being considered as a structural report. However, I do not believe that means it should not be given any weight. We have two licensed structural engineers who have submitted findings to you that this building is a tear day. Staff has had that information really since last fall. We know they've had it when it accompanied my letter two months ago. And I have seen no engineer's report that refutes the findings in those two letters. I've seen no engineer's conclusion that this building is structurally sand and does not require significant structural work or foundation work. And frankly, ladies and gentlemen, I don't know how we can require, as a public body, how we can require a property owner to continue owning this property, require him to continue down this path and not allow him to improve it when we know the state of the property right now. If staff had its licensed engineer to refute the findings of these that we have presented to you, that would be one thing. We do not have that. I'm happy to answer questions if you have any. We do have some other witnesses here. Mr. Burke is here again. He has assured me that maybe he'll behave himself. Do you have any questions that I would like to answer them? The new information relates to use the new structure, any of the things I'd like to respond to. Mr. Brunner, let me ask a quick question. The below floor estimate repairs were roughly $112,000. So now you've got another $40,000 giver taking things above the floor. Is that where the $150,000 comes from? The total I had, Mr. Daniel, is $147,000 in change. And that's below and above. The below floor, I believe, is in the vicinity of... I'm trying to add it up in my head. It's $111,000 if you added everything that I saw in the various estimates. There were some, and I did have some discussion via email with Ms. Walling. There were some overlap in some of those estimates. So we've removed some of that, and I did not choose the highest number. Maybe I should have, but I did not. But the 150 you feel is everything now. The 150, I believe, it's about... It's almost 100 for below floor, I believe. And then, now I don't believe that includes subfloor. There's some damage to subfloor that of course once you start removing flooring, you learn of more damage. It deals with electrical work, a new roof, reworking the roof. This building has tremendous problems. Thank you, sir. $150,000 to renovate, correct? The estimates we have received to address the concerns that we have learned about so far are $150,000. Okay, you said that it's $850 rent. Is that for a duplex one or a duplex one and two? Oh, to respect, Mr. Broom, I did not say that. Staff has said that. That was staff, and I believe it was per unit. That did not come from me. I would love it if it were true. Per unit. But I... Thanks. That was per unit, and it came from staff. All right. Thank you. Yes, sir. Mr. Broom, and one other thing, your client's current plan would be just to build one house. Single family home, yes, sir. Which now leaves an often lot on that corner. Correct. It's too small to build on. Our proposal before you today is to simply tear down the structure that is there and replace it with a single family home. That's it. That's it. Yes, ma'am. The cost to demolish the home and to build the new home. That is a good question. I do not know that right now, and frankly, given the history of these proceedings, because it has been so difficult to be able to demolish it, we have not put the time and resources into getting a full-fledged estimate for the cost of constructing a new home. What did it cost to build the two homes that he built across the street? We could ask him if you would like. We could submit that after. I'd be glad to ask him in on rebuttal. In the last few minutes on rebuttal. Are you talking about the house next door that was built? The other ones that he built that were, for example, the one that I know of, back in 2005, which was what, 13 years ago, the cost of construction was listed as 171,000. But our venture, new construction, is gonna run $120 to $150 a square foot, depending on finishes and all the other stuff. That's right. So there's also not, nobody's given a cost for just the demolition? I don't have a cost just for the demolition right now, no. I don't have a specific estimate. Okay. And I'm not sure why that's relevant. If it is, I'd be glad. It's usually, no, I'm sorry. Pardon? I was gonna say it's usually included as part of the cost of new construction when you're looking at values. I think they usually run $4,000 to $5,000 to $50,000 for the record, what's the number given from? I think that's too high based on right here. The proposed new construction is actually, will it encompass both lots? It will not. Just this specific lot? That's right, Mr. Wynn, and that's why it's staff's request. Now this is a rough preliminary site plan that we've submitted, but this is the proposal. Yes, sir. Are there plans for the additional lot? There are no plans for the additional lot because, again, it has taken so long just to get through this phase, and just through this one home. There are no plans for the additional lot right now. We are only worried about this one lot. Very good, thanks. So we see this concept of a site plan and there are several different possible ideas. Is there one specific plan that's being proposed now? The specific plan is what is in the application. There are several.  So there's not a specific one that's being selected. There's a specific plan that is described in the application. There's a concept, but there's not a specific, so you don't have a specific design that you're proposing for the site. We have not developed full-fledged plans as you would when you pull a permit to construct a new project. That's what I'm asking. Thanks. Because of the way the procedure is a little bit disjointed here. I just wanted to make clear you didn't have a specific design that you were proposing, which I think is the case. We've given plans of several different ones so that y'all and staff, and I believe, based on the report, staff is comfortable with what we have proposed and it is consistent. It is consistent more specifically with South Baltimore. Okay, but there's not one specific one that's being proposed. That's all I want. I just want to clarify that. There is a specific plan that is described in the application. I'm not sure how else to. No, thank you. Any other questions? Thank you. What was, staff question, where did you get, what was your source of the estimated rental rate? I looked at comparable buildings in the neighborhood and as I said in the evaluation, it ranged from 750 to 1200 for the same size department as this one. And as someone who's rented, kind of get an idea of how much something went through. I'd like to know the source. If we had a property manager who could be qualified as an expert witness here. I've looked for rents in that area as well, so I know that that is the proper range. It is available publicly for anyone who's looking for any rentals. Knows that that's the proper range, I think, or that. I don't think that we can. I don't think it's hearsay. Basically, it absolutely is. Are there any more questions for them? It's improper opinion evidence. Moreover. Mr. Wynn. Additional question of staff. Your inspection, so to speak, I guess we'd best for lack of better word of the current maintenance and structural condition of the home. How does that differ from what the city has looked at and as to whether or not this home is requiring or requires any demolition? Well, Jerry Thompson is here. If you have some questions about what the city is requiring. Mr. Thompson, can you please add to this? Would you step up to this podium, please? Have you been sworn in? I apologize to the board, but have not been sworn in. You swear to tell the truth in these proceedings? I do. Thank you, and state your name, please. Jerry Thompson, city of Columbia, building official. That's your question. For me as a building official to demo a piece of property, I have several steps I have to go through. What the code allows me to demo a property sends me to a different code book, so at that point I have different things to have to look at. As I read this report, both reports from both engineers which I have known for many years, I've been in the city 30 years. I didn't see words like dilapidated, dangers to life, to safety. I didn't see a lot of things in these reports that would trigger me to say calling a Democrat. I've demoed a lot of houses, I've walked through a lot of houses, even in the flood of 2015. I saw a lot worse than what I'm reading on here. We saved almost all of these homes we saved. So I wanted to say to the board that no disrespect to either engineer, but I read the report all the way through. And I didn't really see, I wasn't looking for the wording. It just looks more of an opinion and more of a cost estimate of saving a piece of property. Not the actual words I'm looking for. I don't see collapse, I don't see a lot of words. I'm sorry, go ahead. What would trigger this specific property? What would trigger it to be in such a terrible condition or dilapidated boom? What would happen if the city property maintenance division visited the property, they posted the property. At that point, they would contact me. I would visit the property. I would look at the things I stated earlier, which would be collapsing roofs and walls blown out and things where it's beyond repair. My engineer's gonna give me a report that says it's gotta come down. Tell me it's beyond repair. I can't find it in any of these letters. It says it's not fixable. I see it says it costs a lot to fix it. Cost-wise, but I don't see where it says it can't be fixed. I guess that's what I'm trying to say. And lastly, would you consider therefore that this house would be able or capable of producing income for the owner, or whatever that may be? Anything in Shandon, yes. But Mr. Thompson, the other side of that coin is you have to look at what it costs to bring it up to a condition to be able to generate the kind of rents that staff is talking about. So then you get into the economic situation. If it's gonna cost more to renovate this house, then it would cost to basically replace it with something new. Or for a similar, then we look at that side of the coin too. And I think that also needs to be evaluated. We've heard from Mr. Brunner as it does that. And I think that's the other side of the coin that I think we need to discuss that gets into whether it's capable of earning a reasonable rate of return. I'll agree. Thank you, sir. We went slightly out of order, but I think that the applicant's entitled to a rebuttal if you care too. Absolutely. Thank you. I need to emphasize here how we got the CC1 overlay, the community character overlay. In 2010, Shandon, the neighborhood was asked to vote on whether it wanted to support designation as an architectural conservation district. And I know that because I lived there at the time. I attended meetings where Ms. Moore gave her presentations and the neighborhood voted it down. That summer, rather than passing ordinance designating, giving the neighborhood the historic, that architectural conservation district designation that a public hearing hear, City Council created a new designation, the CC1 overlay. And then later amended the zoning map. The neighborhood has specifically rejected the level of regulation that comes with an architectural conservation district and the guidelines that go along with that. The neighborhood specifically rejected that. So we are applying these eight factors in section, I believe it's 674. We're applying these eight factors and understand those apply to landmarks, landmark districts, architectural conservation districts. I believe historical business districts and protection areas. It is a one size fits all eight factor guideline. This is not a strict test. It's to be used as a guideline by this commission to apply these eight factors strictly as you would if we were tearing down a landmark in downtown. I think would be unfair. It's not called for by the legislative history. It's not what the neighborhood requested. Rather, I think you need to look at these eight factors and I implore you to look at these eight factors and the facts before you in light of the fact that the CC1 designation, the purpose of it, and I'm reading from the ordinance, the purpose of it is to avoid drastically, negatively affecting the existing character of the community. Not to avoid demolition that negatively affects, but to avoid a demolition of a structure that drastically negatively affects. This is the lowest possible level of regulation a neighborhood could request. And I implore you to keep that in mind because the issue before you is will the demolition of 140 South Walker drastically negatively affect the character of Shandong. The answer to that question is no. Thank you. I think the drastic negative effect has to do with the aggregate effect of demolition over time. If you take each increment, each individual structure, I don't think very many individual structures will have a drastic negative effect. The overlay, the purpose of the overlay is over time that the character of the neighborhood isn't drastically negatively affected. So I would take a little bit of exception to that. I don't disagree with some of the other things you've said, but you've put that in writing in your letter. And I think that there's a different way to interpret what the meaning of that is, and it's over, it's in the aggregate. But I wanted to ask you the reason that I asked, the reason that I invited you to make a rebuttal is specifically if you had rebuttal to what the previous testimonial was. Building inspectors testimony? Correct. I would ask him if he's inspected the property. Have you inspected the property? The answer was no for the record. Thank you. All he's done is a review of reports. Mr. Burke is here to testify. Which is I think what he referred to. Any other questions? Thank you. Okay, is there anybody who would like to speak in support? Yes, is there a question? I just wanted to remark on the community character overlay. Please. The difference between that and historic districts is that the will of the neighborhood was to have demolition and the subdivision, or new construction on newly subdivided lots were viewed. So yes, it is intended to be a very narrow scope of regulation, but those criteria were clearly laid out. So I just, I think it was clear what was being answered. I meant to ask you that question before we move down too. So thanks for providing that. We're still having trouble with your microphone. So thank you. Okay, thank you, Mr. Daniel. We need to get you one on the collar. And before we move on, actually, does any other commissioners have any question about this issue of the demolition review criteria as they apply to this overlay? I might have one last question that I might not have is whether or not there has been any consideration to relocating this current structure yourself or the owner? Sure, Mr. Nguyen, I stood up because I looked like you were looking at me. There is no, there has been no consideration. I think that factor can remove it. I don't think that's the consideration at this time, especially giving what we know about the structural integrity of that building. I'm not sure that would be an option anyway. Thank you very much. I just, to reiterate, thanks. I want to be sure that it's clear that staff has clarified that these criteria for demolition do, they do apply to this district, to this overlay, correct? Disconfirmation of that? Okay, thank you. Okay, and have you been sworn in? I have not, I have not. Okay, do you promise to tell the truth in these proceedings? I do. And state your name, please? Seth Rose. First, I just want to say thank you for your service on this board. I know you have a tough job and I truly appreciate it. And also thank you to staff. I know they also have a tough job. I come here in, I guess, a couple different capacities. I've been elected official, serving on County Council for this area for in my eighth year now. And next year, it appears that I'll be the state house representative for this area. So I come as an elected official, but I also come as a resident of Shandon. And my wife and I, we now have three children. But before we ever had children, our first home that we purchased was literally four or five houses down from this location. And so I also come now as a member of this neighborhood, but as someone who's lived right around the corner from this property. And I can tell you for the longest time, this property has been an eyesore. My neighbor, Brian, who's here, he lives directly next door in his home, was demolished and rebuilt. And it was really an asset and help property values. This was back in 2006, that it was built completely anew. And it's directly next to the property that we're here for today. When I first got a phone call, I got several calls from neighbors that I used to live with. It said, Seth, this is being brought up for consideration. Please, is there any way that you can help see this application get pushed through? The neighbors want to see this happen. The neighborhood council endorsed this. Everybody is in support of having this happen. And the fear is, as Mr. Daniel pointed out, is that financially, if this doesn't happen, then perhaps it's not financially feasible to do anything with the property. It remains an eyesore until it finally does fall down. I did tour the property with neighbors. There's fungus, there's rot, there's mold. I would just simply ask that you please approve the plan for demolition. This is in support of the neighborhood. And again, I thank you for your service. Thank you. Is there anyone else who wants to speak in favor of the request? Have you been sworn in? I have not. You promise to tell the truth in these proceedings? Sure do. State your name, please. My name is Boyce Planks. And I live at 131 South Walker, which is directly across the street and three houses down from the property that we're discussing here today. And I've toured the property several times. I've read the reports. Alan Rudder, the builder, has been very forthcoming with neighbors in sharing this information and answering our questions to help us decide as neighbors what should be done with this property or what we feel should be done with the property. And so I'm obviously in favor of demolishing it to improve the quality of life. It sits on the corner of Rosewood and South Walker. It is the gateway into our neighborhood. And it is the ugliest thing to come into our neighborhood too. In fact, when we moved into our home four or five years ago, we almost did not buy where we did because of that specific property. Since I've lived there, there have been problems there with the tenants, with police, because of the rent levels there. And so it's been a problem not just from an eyesore, but from a social standpoint as well in my family. In addition to that, we're talking about rents here. I am in the process of buying a property next door to me, which is a duplex of similar size, but actually better quality than what we're seeing on this one. And the rent history there is not $800 a month. It's about $550 a month. So if we want to use that as a comparison because it's live, it's recent. And that's about the standard that would bear it. I would imagine the rent upon the corner of Rosewood and an inferior property is going to be much less than $600 a month, perfectly honest based on my experience. So I would ask the board to reconsider the information the fact that the neighborhood now stands with the immediate neighbors in getting this property removed. Thank you. Is there anyone else who wants to speak in favor? Have you been sworn in? Not yet. Raise your right hand. Promise to tell the truth in these proceedings? Yes. And state your name, please. Brian Schuveld. And I'm at 136 South Walker Street. I'm the house directly next door to this property. I'm here in support of the demolition for quite a few reasons. I've been there 12 years now. And just the clientele that have been coming in and out, I've had to witness. Now I'm not to say if it is redone that that will make a change. But in this situation, this property as far as a historic value, I mean, if you've had a chance to go by and take a look at it and any other houses in the Shannon community, you'll realize that there's nothing historic about this except the possible years that's been there and the amount of time and work that has not been put into it. It's not a safe house. It definitely needs to be demolished. There's no doubt about that. Another question that I have too, being a neighbor, is how many more duplexes do we need? Is it going to benefit the community? Everybody here was at the Shannon community meeting. Not just myself being a neighbor, but people on the street, people that live in the neighborhood. They're all in support of the demolition of the property. What goes there at this point can't be any worse than this there right now. As we just heard, it's the first house on the street when you come into Shannon on South Walker Street, and it's always better because you were talking about bettering the community and bettering the Shannon community and the work that Mr. Rutter has put into the houses. Everybody in the community has seen and it's fit well into the community and everybody that's here, as well as the people in the Shannon community, all want to see it demolished and have Mr. Rutter put up a new property. Thank you. Thanks so much. Anybody else who wants to speak in favor of the request? Have you been sworn in? Yes, I have. Yes, you've been sworn in. I'm a structural engineer. Three degrees in engineering. I've been practicing structural engineering for almost 30 years. Fairly familiar with what goes in a structural engineer's report. The breadth of my report also includes a few things because of my knowledge of the code. Having served on the South Carolina Building Code Council's Code Study Committee for nine years, just reappointed to another three-year term, six years as chairman. To comment on, is this thing fixable? If you have an endless supply of money, virtually any structure is fixable. That doesn't mean it's feasible. Structures that have collapsed, a lot of times can be picked back up and repaired. But it doesn't mean it's feasible to do so. Y'all have seen my revised report. Any questions? Any questions? I guess not. Thank you. Anybody else who wants to speak in favor of the request? Is there anybody opposed who would like to speak? I guess at this point, we will, commissioners will deliberate on the case. Any comments that anybody wants to make on this? Again, I think that our charge is to, is narrow. It has to do with the demolition review criteria. And we need to make our decision based upon whether there is compelling reason based on the criteria to change our decision based on the criteria and any new information we have to change, to come up with a motion to approve. And there may very well be, I'm not making a statement either way. But if there's no other discussion, yes, sir? I was opposed, I was in favor of demolition at the earlier hearing based on my experience as a commercial real estate broker that I did not see a reasonable economic return on the property with the amount of work that needed to be done to get it to a point where it could generate a rent that you would typically find in Chandon. I have experience in dealing with low income housing. I know what the rents on those are. I know what the value per unit typically is. And the properties I've been working with are no different than what this one in its present condition is. I do not see how this property as is and warrant the kind of rents that the staff has thought that it could possibly generate. I'm very familiar with rents in the university area because I'm dealing with those on an ongoing basis. But that's where I come down to is I just do not see this generating a reasonable economic return for Mr. Rooder when he brings it up to a condition that would at least be rentable. And that's where I am on the other comments. Just for clarification, in no way would say in its current condition, it would be rented at 8.50 a month. That's not what I was saying. I was saying after fully renovated apartment would be pretty desirable in that area. Yeah, I think that's an important distinction.  I can't personally say, but I think the question is whether once it's renovated, it could return, provide a reasonable return on the investment. Mr. Danny, you'd know better than I do, but I have to rely upon what the commissioners and what staff has determined. I will say that I have found some things in the 70 pages of materials that we were given to be a little bit questionable as an architect who has done a tremendous amount of the rehabilitation and adaptive reuse of structures that are in considerably worse condition than what disappears to be from the outside and from what I see from the photographs. So I know a great deal professionally about rehabilitation of old structures. And I know a fair amount about the history of the history of historic buildings. And I live in the adjacent neighborhood. So I'm very familiar with the neighborhood. There were some statements that were made, particularly in Mr. Bruner's letter that nothing, nothing about the existing structure as the historic integrity of Shand. And I think nothing is an overstatement. That staff says that as one of the last residential buildings along the southern border of the district, that the comment about that was that the building itself must have some characteristic aside from location that enhances the ambiance and that it does not. That was two things. It's the building and the location and then staff has made the argument that the building itself does contribute to the historic character of the neighborhood. And we talked about the drastically negative effect issue before. A couple of times in the letter, it refers to a slum rental. But there are a lot of areas where there are slum rentals that become coveted areas once the neighborhoods and the buildings are restored. So I think that that has to be taken into consideration. And I did find as a practicing architect myself who works with structural engineers on a regular basis, assessing older buildings, some of which are very, very dangerous to walk into that a structural engineering report that refers to plumbing and electrical wiring and window frames and trees and siding and kitchen updates, I would ask that structural engineer to revise the letter. Same with the comment that with the other report, though it may be limited, I would collect any good materials and hardware to be used in a future project. These are statements that go beyond structural engineering reports that if I were the architect involved, I would ask them to remove those statements. So they were a little odd. I have to say they were a little odd to find in structural engineering reports. And I think maybe we can decase some. That said, I also believe that we heard some compelling testimonial and compelling arguments. I still would contend that the, you know, this is a criterion five, whether there are definite plans for reuse of the property if the post-demolition is carried out. I don't think that there is a specific plan. That's why I kept asking that question. There are some example concepts. So that's just something to consider. I think that there could be a much more specific plan for that site right now. There are examples of what's been done elsewhere as possible, possible proposals for the site. So I personally, I could see this either way, but I think that those, the things that I just said were, I hope service clarification for the commission in terms of the statements that have been made because again, our purview is very, very narrow. And we need to only base our decision on these demolition criteria and on new information that we may have received. So I don't know if there are any other comments. I'd like to hear them otherwise. I'd like to ask somebody to make a motion. Mr. Savie makes a good point about what's going to go there. I mean, I can cite the example. Before I came on the board was the question of a historic, not on any kind of city landmarks list, historic building, black building on Assembly Street that was going to be torn down as part of a multi-story apartment complex next to the library. They got permission to tear it down, develop about the property at a vastly inflated value, decided not to move forward. The remaining eight or nine lots had had to be part of that complex whenever purchased. So now we got a vacant lot. No hope of ever seeing that guy ever building anything. So there we are. On the other hand, Mr. Rooter has built the house next door. He's built numerous other houses. If I'm not mistaken, he's building one in the Wheeler Hill neighborhood as we speak that's already been sold. So I guess I have more faith in what he's able to accomplish than I would have ever had with the developer out of Kansas City. They had great plans, but it never went anywhere. So on the other hand, to be able to get a design in final form to bring before us is not an inexpensive matter. You have to weigh those two together and you sort of have to look at his track record at least on the houses that he has built in the Shandon neighborhood. My bigger worry is he's got a vacant lot that's now an orphan lot. I mean, I would have thought that would have been solidated with this lot or you would have shrunk the lot to build two houses. My concern is Shandon is a beautiful neighborhood. If you read up on the design, how it was laid out the very first time, wise trees, five walls, curving gutters and trees. My concern is on this property, there are trees on this property once the demolition occurred, the question I have, are the trees going to go with it? Well, it would be subject to the tree ordinance. If they're declared to be a grand tree, it'd be subject to that. I'm afraid that's outside our purview. Any more comments from commissioners? Did somebody please make a motion? I'd make the motion that we approve the demolition requests for 140, 142 South Walker Street that one, although this property is a duplex in the Shandon neighborhood, it is one of many similar structures through the Shandon neighborhood. Two, that I do not believe that the value to renovate this property, to put it in a condition where it could receive a reasonable economic return on its value does not seem to be there based on the estimate that it would cost to renovate this property to a position where it would generate a reasonable return in comparison to what it's gonna cost to get it to that position. Three, the actual value of the lot, in my opinion, is worth more than the building placed on it. And again, there are a number of other duplexes in the Shandon neighborhood. It's not one of the last remaining examples of its kind in the neighborhood. Mr. Rooter has presented a conceptual plan for a property to go on this location. Existing structural condition based on the reports shows that it needs major structural repairs to be able to get it to a position where it can be hattable. The interior on the one of the side of the, one of the units is in deplorable condition with mild and moldy issues. And as far as relocation, because of the structural issues, you'd have to do major repairs just to get it to a position where you could relocate it. So that doesn't seem to be a viable option. And it's under no orders from the city to be demolished. But I think when they start to renovate the property, the city will look at it and realize the significance of its present condition and may reconsider their position. Is there a second? I will second that motion. Any discussion? Could we have a vote, please? No. Mr. Brim. No. Mr. Daniel. Yes. Ms. Fuller-Wilt. No. Mr. Savry. No. Mr. Nguyen. Yes. The motion fails. What was Mr., what was Mr. Broom's vote? I didn't hear it. I guess- Mr. Broom's vote was no. Thank you. Could we hear the next case, please? Mr. Savry, will you hold for just a moment? We want to check a point of procedure. So if I could have your attention, please. So we had a motion that failed. We need a positive motion to follow. Of course. So what do we do now? They've all left the room. That was my mistake. I guess would somebody like to make another motion? Let me try one. I move that we approve a recommendation for demolition with the stipulation that a specific design be approved by staff before demolition is approved. I'm sorry, we don't have review of design construction. You can see they're up or down, I think. Okay. Okay. Then we need another motion. Somebody want to make a motion? They might again, if they want to reconsider that one based on the fact that staff can't have a review of what's going to go there before demolition. I don't think stating the same motion again is really going to get us very far. Okay, I'll make a motion that the request for demolition is denied. Based upon not meeting the criteria for demolition review. Okay, I make a motion that we deny the request for demolition based on the fact that the criteria have not been met per section 17-674 of the city ordinance. Is there a second? Have a vote? Mr. Boknight. Yes. Mr. Broom. Yes. Mr. Daniel. No. Ms. Fuller-Wilt. Yes. Mr. Savory. Yes. Mr. Nguyen. No. Motion passes. Okay. Thank you. Sorry. Okay. Next case, please. Next case is 9-11 Washington Street, a request for design approval for new construction in the city center design development district. Lucinda Stattler is an urban design planner who will be presenting the project to you. This project is a request for certificate of design approval for new construction of a hotel at the corner of Washington and Lincoln Street. It's a five story, 104 guest room hotel. This is in the city center design development district. The, I'm not going to read the entire evaluation. I think you guys have all read it. But I will read the staff recommendation at the end if there's any additional questions or clarification, certainly we can go through those more individually. The staff does find that the proposal in its current form does not meet a substantial number of the city center design guidelines, including facade proportion and rhythm. I'll go through the proportion of openings, wall articulation, street orientation, exterior walls and materials, perverside wall materials and piers. And the recommendation is to defer the approval until the outstanding items are addressed. And the architect Craig Otto is here to make a presentation and discuss the proposal. Very good. The applicant will step forward. And were you sworn in? Promise to tell the truth in these proceedings. I did. State your name. Craig Otto. Thank you. I'm the architect for the project. The owner, Mr. Casey Udonny, sends his regrets. He wishes he could be here. He's with his family in New York on vacation. And we also have Tim Jones. He's the builder for the project. He's only here to watch. I don't think he's going to speak. Thank you very much for seeing us today and for the time and effort that you volunteer for this board. Thank you. My intentions are just like yours and the staffs. I want the building to be a beautiful addition to the city of Columbia. I haven't grown up here. So I do heed to most of what the staff had to recommend. So on a side note, on a good note, I don't disagree with many of their comments. I do, however, have a couple that I'd like to address specifically with you to get your input and reaction. One of the big comments that sort of defines the whole project and drives the whole thing is the orientation of the building towards the corner. As Lucinda stated, the project is right on the corner of Washington and Lincoln. However, it is, in our case, we made a decision very early in the project not to orient it exactly towards the corner. In other words, at an angle or sort of catty corner or specifically right dead on in the corner of the building to be oriented that way. And we have three reasons for doing that. Washington Street is the main road for the project. And so we wanted a orientation to be on Washington Street with a bit of a nod to Main Street, which is up the road, as you know, and with a nod towards the vista, which is straight ahead from Main Street. So if I'm at the front of this building looking out, I'm looking straight out towards the vista to my left is Main Street. We wanted that to a certain degree, wanted that orientation. I feel very strongly that the building should be oriented towards the corner when it's on a corner. However, in this case, in our opinion, Lincoln Street, in that particular block, in that specific location is not a desirable orientation. Lincoln Street is sort of an odd street at that particular block. It's sort of like the road stops and a parking lot begins. And beyond that block, I think it's a dead end, but the funny thing is, is I don't know what's beyond that block because I don't think I've ever driven past that point. There was no reason to. So it's kind of a parking lot. Second, Lincoln Street is a little below the property in terms of elevation. There's a little rise from Lincoln Street on our property. Right now, there's no sidewalk. There's no attractive landscaping. It's kind of rough. Obviously, our development will improve that and we're going to add a sidewalk on Lincoln Street. But the sidewalk will be somewhat below the elevation of the building. So there's gonna be a bit of a drop and we'll have to figure out how to landscape that. But if we're oriented right towards the corner, it makes it a little more difficult and awkward. And the third thing, though we love what the police department does to protect the community, we don't really want to focus the building towards the police department and towards the municipal court building in that same block right next to us on Lincoln Street. The folks going in and out of those facilities, not counting the police, are sometimes not what you necessarily want to watch out the Out Your Hotel window. No offense to anyone in particular. But we just don't really want to focus the building towards that side of Lincoln Street. We obviously have windows on that side because we have guest rooms, so we have to. But as far as the main focal point and the main entrance of the building, we really want to focus it on Washington Street and Washington Street only and towards the vista. So what we did was we put the entrance as close to the corner as we possibly could, which is to the left side of this to go elevation. And by the way, I forgot to mention a fourth very important point of not putting it right on the corner. It's hard to see on the site plan, but there is a power pole right at the corner of Lincoln and Washington. And there's another pole, a power pole up to our driveway on Washington Street.  The city of Columbia's fire department has advised us that we need to take those overhead lines down. In case of an emergency, a ladder truck might have to get up onto the building to rescue people. And so you can't have power lines on the way. So those power lines are gonna come down at great expense to the owner, but he was fine with that to make the project better. But the poles remain, the poles remain, all of the stuff, the power goes down the pole under the ground and then back up the other pole. So it's gonna be a clear view there, but the pole remains on the corner. It's not attractive and it'll be kind of in the way of the focal point. So again, I would like to have your input eventually, but I would prefer that we keep the orientation that we've got it, facing Washington and not necessarily emphasize the corner. Another factor that the staff brought up was the extensive use of EFIS. I've already, I've met with Lucinda this morning. We have no problem with deleting the EFIS, but rather than replace it with a lot of brick, which is more expensive, we would like to just, we'd still like to use stucco, hard-coated stucco system, traditional stucco system. And so we're hoping that you don't have us do too much brick. Let me look at my notes. Some of the input that I'd like from you is on the glass, the comments regarding fenestration and glass and openings facing Lincoln Street. We had, we oriented, again, we've oriented the building specifically towards Washington Street. So there's tons of storefront across the front facing Washington. We were able to locate meeting rooms facing that way, an office, the entrance lobby, a fitness room. We had lots of opportunity to put spaces on that side of the building that could have big glass sections. On Lincoln Street, we're not as, we don't have as much opportunity. The front two windows are in the office. The next two windows are in the dining room area. So we start off really well, but as you work your way back, we then have infrastructure like a pantry and dining area, or not dining area, but breakfast area, where you need countertops and things where windows get in the way. The staff report mentioned maybe having some spandrel glass. We're not opposed to that, if we need to punch some windows into those openings. But there's, behind one of those windows would be kitchen equipment. Behind another one would be a bunch of countertops with breakfast stuff. Eventually on down the line, there's mechanical rooms, water heaters, a storage room. So again, there's nothing to see inside, but we could put in spandrel openings. Staff also mentioned the corner on, right at the corner of Washington and Lincoln, on the Lincoln Street side. There's four stories of wall with very little glass. And staff mentioned that that's obviously very important corner. Again, we will do everything we can to present a more glass in that wall. Those are guest rooms. Those guest rooms face Washington Street, so their main window is facing Washington Street. So imagine if you're in that guest room, you walk in the door, you look straight ahead and you're looking out Washington Street towards the vista. On your right is Lincoln Street. Right now it's a blank wall because there's TVs, dressers, luggage benches, things like that on that wall. If we put windows there, we can put windows there. We would just have to have the furniture pulled away a little bit, put curtains up, and it faces dead south too, by the way. So the sun's gonna be beating in that guest room.  We'd have to figure out how to put electrical, receptacle in there. I think we can work that out. So I can figure out perhaps how to add some windows there. Another thing you'll notice is the colors. I know that the rusty red color is perhaps a little unusual. That is a brand identity. I'll just say it's not 100% required. So the brand isn't going to say if you don't give us these colors, we're going to pull our agreement. They won't do that. But we were trying to work with them and provide something that provides a little bit of their identity in the project. And another reason for the color of Pallock is we were trying to go with a little more modern look rather than traditional red and brown. Just so you understand, we don't have any purview of our color per se. The color is not something that we, we do have purview over too many different profusion of colors and materials, but not the actual color specifically. Okay, well, thank you for pointing that out. It was mentioned in the report that we were, it appeared that we were trying to create, I don't remember the Jack wording, but more we were trying to present the architecture with color rather than perhaps material texture. That's a different issue in that. I think I would probably agree with that. But the actual colors that you use are not within our purview. Okay, all right. And again, in my meeting with Lucinda this morning, we talked about perhaps framing the windows on the first floor a little more, maybe setting them back a little so that there's a little more depth. On the upper windows, we talked about creating some bands or small high lasters or casings around the windows to give the windows, again, more depth in the wall. I'm amenable to many of those suggestions. So, but that sort of gives you my perspective along with the staffs and I'm open for any comments and input that you have. Any questions for the applicant before we continue on? Question and or just clarification perhaps. In your discussions with the city planning office there, do you have a clear understanding of what that first floor presentation is in terms of the city center design guidelines are? And the reason I ask it like that is the main focus is the pedestrian friendly relevance. I believe, based again on the staff report in my meeting with Lucinda that the first floor, I feel like we're in pretty good shape on. I felt like the comments were such that she's fairly well satisfied with the first floor with some improvements, but the amount of glass that we've got is good, approximately 70% and I understand the pedestrian aspect of it and it is right near the sidewalk and that is our intent. So, if I need to get a better education, I don't know, I'd be glad to do that but I think that we've met those requirements to a great degree. Okay, Lucinda, has that been appreciated and? I guess I'm just as clarification, we hadn't actually met before this morning, so an application was turned in with all the materials on the application deadline so that evaluation is written on those drawings. So there wasn't really any back and forth correspondence prior to the evaluation being written which is what we generally recommend because then we have a little bit more time to massage things before it comes to the DRC. We didn't have that opportunity so you guys are sort of seeing the raw first to the middle and so they're here to get feedback from you guys and we did have a good meeting this morning but whatever the concerns are, we certainly like that feedback. Okay, thank you. Well, I would say Craig that, I mean my understanding of this from speaking with staff before today and yesterday and also if you're consistent in what you're saying is that there's mutual agreement that this is a work in progress that you continue into work on it. I don't take any exception to anything that staff said. I would agree with everything that they said. I think that the issue of what happens when you turn the corner on Lincoln Street is pretty important. I'm actually pretty familiar with the site because at a certain point I was actually momentarily hired to do something on that site. So I kind of know the site. And I think that the fact that you have plenty of other fenestration as you go down Lincoln Street is to me an indication that it's, I mean you can clearly, the views are not terrible. In fact you've got some pretty decent vistas beyond the immediate street right there anyway. I think that regardless of any of that, just in terms of meeting the guidelines and the kind of patterns and fenestration that is expected in the guidelines that I think that this body, I mean speaking for everybody, maybe I shouldn't, but I think for this body, to be able to see significant fenestration on that Lincoln Street facade is particularly at the corner, near the corner is going to be pretty important. So I would encourage you to continue down that path per staff's comments. And without getting into the weeds or trying to hold the pencil for you, I think that it's fairly clear in terms of connection between the base and the middle of the building and the top what the intent is. And if it's not, there are plenty of examples in the neighborhood of buildings that are composed more in keeping with the guidelines I mean you know them and staff can direct you to them just as examples. It's the base as you know, the basic aesthetic of the VISTA is not particularly muscular. It's fairly straightforward and simple. So I think that those compositional kind of devices and gestures are, I don't think they're gonna be difficult, but I would agree with the staff's comments that they're not there yet with the design we're seeing, but I mean I think you can get there. But I think that it's probably not our charge or appropriate to get very far down in the weeds with how you do that and how you propose to interpret it and bring it back. Having been on your side of this with buildings in the VISTA myself, I know that that's the appropriate things to have you take a crack at it working through it with them and looking at examples in the VISTA. The depth of the windows is something that's in the guidelines. It's a big deal to get shadow line and to get relief as you know. I think that the, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the issue with the EFIS is the actual EFIS product. It's not the Stucco finish. That's correct. Okay. Hard code Stucco is an allowable material and I guess what we talked about this morning was there's nothing wrong with using Stucco as a material. The struggle is getting it to be articulated and then fenestration having depth because so often we've seen Stucco buildings and proposals that are very flat. So that's the challenge is making it work well. That is true. I mean, I've done plenty of Stucco and inset the fenestration four inches or more. It's just that you have to take special care to do that. You have to have the wrap and all that stuff and so easy you're done with Stucco, hard code than it is with EFIS, but it's not about the finish. And like I said, it's not about, we're not talking about the specific colors, we're just talking about keeping the pallet relatively simple and giving some depth relief along the facade and the vertical organization being consistent all the way through. But all this stuff is, it's all itemized there and staffs, colors. Right, right. I wanna make sure one thing is clear, make sure I don't misunderstand it's something, I know we have to respect the VISTA, but we're not in the VISTA district, correct? Well, you're not in the Western Bay Street Historic Commercial District, which is different overlay, but I guess the VISTA depends who you're talking to, if it's the VISTA Hild or if it's the City of Climbing. There's different definitions of the VISTA. I would say generally you're in the VISTA as a sort of area of town. It's not the historic district overlay, but it is sort of city center. You said VISTA, I was thinking historic district overlay, right? I was using those as, if I were in your shoes I would look to those buildings for clues about how to organize this building since it's adjacent to it, that's what I meant. Yeah, like the city center design guidelines actually covers a huge area and it's broken down into smaller districts. So this, it does, I think, call this area as part of the VISTA, so. I do have a question about mechanicals. What is your plan with the mechanicals and so on? Well, there is no room on the site around the building to place any equipment down on the ground, so all of the equipment will be on the roof. And in this case, for this particular design we're doing, we're not going to be using a large central unit to provide fresh air and or air conditioning to the whole building. It'll be done with smaller, separate units. So the units will be more like your home residential split system units and they'll be located on the roof. The parapet wall should easily screen the view of those and you shouldn't see them from anywhere. Very good. Especially within a few blocks. So I'm not, if we should happen to change that system, we'll readdress that, but that's the intention, especially by my client. It's a less expensive system as well. Thank you. What would be, by the way, what would be good when you come, when you read submit is that we have wall sections so that we can really see the height of the parapet relative to the roof, the depth of the windows and the relative push and pull in the different facade planes. Right, right, okay. And I mean, you've come before us before and shown us three dimensional renderings, I think, so that would be helpful to, it would be helpful for you. I mean, it'd be helpful for us, which is helpful for you. Yes, yeah, it will have that the next time. In fact, had one done sort of the last minute of client, dude, I sent it to Lucinda. It wasn't, I didn't feel like it was, it was had some incorrect stuff in it and I didn't feel like it was appropriate to present it today, especially in light of the comments. But I think that in general, this is going to be a great thing to have this building on the corner, holding the corner there, which has not been, it's just been a sort of an open gaping spot for a very long time. The other thing I would say is you've shown us the street facades and those are, of course, the facades we're going to be, this body's going to be most concerned about. There may be ways that you can consider cost savings on the sides that face the parking lot, to simplify those. Those are visible from the street, though, so we'll correct me if I'm wrong, but we're going to need to see the whole way around the building, because it's all visible. Yeah, we do have all four sides shown. And the ends and the front will be very visible. You pretty much have to drive into the parking lot to see the back, too. But you can see as you're driving around on the streets, it's, you're on some of the side streets. Yeah. Mr. Otto. Yes, sir. Is this, it looks like from what I'm seeing here, it's basically flat all the way up. The only thing that actually goes out is where the sign is. Is it? That's the unfortunate thing about not having perspective. You don't have the rendering that I sent you, did you? Yeah, that's fine. If you see the floor plan, the left side of the building is what's facing Lincoln Street. The upper floor plan, you can see better. There are projections of three and a half feet for two guest rooms in the lower section and then two guest rooms in the upper section. And then on Lincoln Street, there are as well. So no, sir, it is not a flat facade. It's in and out by three and a half feet as you go. The entrance tower is two bays and that's projected out three and a half feet plus it has the roof projection. The other bay to the right is also projected out three and a half feet. It only goes at four stories rather than five. But no, there's lots of relief in the facade. I guess my only other concern is a hotel is basically a box with a facade. This quite frankly looks like everything else down there. Is there any possibility to make it look a little different than everything else down there? Have a little flair to it? If it was up to me, yes, sir. I know that's a price item. But I mean, why do we want everything down there that it'll look alike? I mean, if they are- Well, I didn't think it looked like everything else with the white and gray brick and some of the rusty red in there and the dark facade, the charcoal colored facade. Most everything down there is red brick and anything older is very nondescript. New stuff looks pretty good. I know, but there are some buildings in the vista that aren't hotels that have some pizzazz to them that are smaller. They have some contemporary looks to them. They have something at the top of the roof that sets it apart. That's my only concern is it just looks like everything else down there. Well, the one thing I would say as you move along with pizzazz or lack thereof is to just most importantly make sure that it is falling within the intent of the guidelines and working with staff on that and nothing is pizzazz, but you know, I would not go to pizzazz at the expense of not following the intent of the guidelines. Sure. I'm sure that you have had some ADA consideration as well. Yes, as a matter of fact, that was one of the staff's concern and I agree with them wholeheartedly. There is handicapped accessibility on the backside for the canopy and at the ends of the buildings. So there's three handicapped exits out of the building. One on Washington Street is not handicapped accessible, but up from the main entrance, there's another set of a sidewalk that has steps going up to the building and I agree with staff that we need to have a handicapped ramp in that location. So that would add one. That would be good. And that was specifically so that the folks are coming up from the vista and they want to go in the building, they don't have to go all the way around through the parking lot to come to the back and I agree with that. So we're gonna have a handicapped ramp in the front. You realize Lincoln's one way there. Lincoln, there's one way on one side of the median and there's two way on the other side. The street in front of the police station is one way with parking in the middle of the street and so basically your people going in or coming out are basically gonna either go out Lincoln and go towards, what's that, Tavor Street or Hampton Street or but the only access is gonna really be off of Washington Street and a little bit off of it. Well that's true. We do have a driveway on the site plan on Lincoln Street so there's gonna have to be some sort of signs or something that tells people it's right turn only. Yeah, you're absolutely right. Let's start to get a little out of our preview. Let me ask one quick technical question about the Stucco in Epis. Hard coat Stucco is very relatively thin and flat so to get features on the outside of the building you need to add thickness and generally you do that with the use of expanded styrofoam, which is an Epis component but in a hard coat Stucco system it's only used for accent pieces. Is there any prohibition against using styrofoam or EPS board or decoration casings, headers, things like that? Our purview, it has to do, correct me if I'm wrong, but it has to do with appearance. Does somebody else have purview on that? With respect to the Stucco effect, it has to do with, so the hard coat Stucco is, I think that it was referred to smooth finish. Yeah, smooth, yeah, there is a. I didn't read that, yes. Which is harder to do with EPS. Right, and I agree, I like the look of the smooth better, much more than the EPS through. I'm not aware of an EPS finish that comes in as smooth coat, but that's part of the issue. All right, well I very much appreciate everybody's input and comments and yes I'll continue to work with staff and present something to you again next time or the time after that I think everybody will be pleased. Thank you, thank you. I'm not sure at this point with this kind of a submission, but just in case, is there anyone else in the audience who wanted to speak to this application? Have you been sworn in? Have you been sworn in? No I haven't. Raise your right hand, do you promise to tell truth in these proceedings? I do. And state your name please. Thank you, my name is Fred Delk. I'm Executive Director of the Columbia Development Corporation, I'm not going to address the design, but just the location and what is going on in the area. This is the Vista and Lincoln, I mean, Gervais and Lincoln Street in the Vista is ground zero for hotels in this market. And the closest you are to that location in the entire Columbia market, the better your hotel's gonna be. This site is about 800 feet from there. So this is a ground zero going to be great hotel that is going to be occupied. It's gonna be a hot property. And so it's important that it be a really good property because of that, the visibility of this property, the design putting this building away from that intersection. When you stand under the canopy along at the Blue Marlin, you're not going to see this building because of the way it is oriented on the site, probably a mistake. In the Vista properties that have done well, things that do well are really top quality materials and interesting programming, interesting street programming and active street programming. And so this is going to be a good thing in the Vista. The Vista Guild, I know just from discussions with the area is gonna be real supportive of getting another hotel, getting more people on the ground, getting all the activity. Those people come with credit cards and they spend money in the restaurants and bars. There are 90 restaurants and bars in the Vista now. I would urge Mr. Otto and his client to reach out to the neighborhood. I don't believe there's been any communication with the Vista Guild or the other businesses in the Vista. Even the hotels in the Vista are gonna be thrilled that this is coming. Appreciate your comments and would urge everybody, the designer and the developer and you guys, push, push, push for really great design, a really good building, really good active ground floor uses. Thank you very much. Thank you. Back to Mr. Daniel's comment about Pizzazz. Does the applicant have anything they'd like to say in response? Bunch of appreciate those comments, Mr. Delk. I've always wanted to meet you by the way. I think I had in the past and I wish my client was here to hear that. So I would like to hook up and let you hear him. Yes, sir, and there's one more. Thank you very much. Thank you. Anybody else have a comment to make before we move to deliberations and emotion? I'll just mention that Meredith Atkinson of the Vista Guild was here. She did want to speak, but she had to leave to go pick up her child. So she just wanted to express that the Vista Guild supports the staff recommendations and wanted to reiterate that they asked that the applicant continue to work with staff on meeting the city center design guidelines. Very good. Mr. Savie, I wonder if we're to the point of making a motion based on the fact that the Vista Guild, other people in the Vistas have not participated in this process yet. Do we want to give them, let Mr. Otto and his client have a chance to talk to those that are there and just see what they want to do before we really go down this road? I think the motion we're going to make is to defer the application. Anybody like to make that motion or comment before? Both a comment and then I'll make a motion if I may. I think that we're at a point along with staff that we can reasonably provide for a motion to continue on here. The Vista Guild and others have had their opportunity to present or to add or deny, detract from this presentation up to this point. I would like to go ahead with the motion that we accept this application as it is with continued work with staff on those particulars that have been discussed here and mentioned, those to include the specifically the street orientation, wall articulation, proportion of the settings, the facade proportion and rhythm, exterior walls and materials as discussed and the upper facade and wall materials as well as ADA access. Before we move to any further discussion, is there a second of this motion? Okay, I guess we need another motion. I'll make a motion that we defer this matter for a month so that the applicant can have, and his architect can have further conversations with adjacent landowners to discuss, to propose projects and seek their input into what he's proposing. Is there a second? I can't. The only thing that I would wonder is really what we want to, is the reasons that we want to defer it. Well, my concern is Mr. Delt was not even aware of this project until I asked either yesterday, day before, if he was aware of the project. So it seems like there's been very little reach out by the applicant to even find out, to let people know what's out there. I think that's true, but I think that, just to our purview, it is as staff has outlined here, 5.3.2 on and so forth through 5.8.4, which are very clearly in the guidelines that the applicant needs to address before they come back. So I mean, I think that's really, that's really what, I don't think we can make a recommendation that the applicant speak to the community. Even though I agree completely that they should. Staff always encourages that, but it's not something we can require. So hopefully they will still do that, but. I would agree with Mr. Savory. I think our purview is the design itself. It is not the public outreach. That's not what we are here. Well, the effect will basically be the same. So if I could, maybe I'll make another motion and, okay. That we do not feel that the application meets a substantial number of the city planning design guidelines, including 5.3.2 facade proportion rhythm, 3.3 proportion of openings, 3.5 wall articulation, 4.2 street orientation, 7.2 exterior walls and materials, 8.2 upper facade wall materials, 8.4 piers. Therefore, we move that the application be deferred pending further development of the design. There a second? I'll second it. We have a vote please. Mr. Backnight. Yes. Mr. Brim. Yes. Mr. Daniel. Yes. Ms. Fuller-Wilth. Yes. Mr. Savory. Yes. Mr. Nguyen. Yes. I should pass this. Remain on your agenda for each month or do I need to just make sure we stay in touch about that? It's not automatically on, but she did. Thank you, sir. Thank you very much. Okay, next case please. Our next case is 316 through 318 Catawba Street. This is a request for design approval for exterior changes in the Granby Architectural Conservation District. Rachel Walling will present the project. This duplex is currently undergoing extensive renovation that will involve updating systems, replacing the roof and addressing several other deferred maintenance issues that have accumulated throughout the years. Most of the exterior work is considered maintenance and repair and can be handled at staff level. However, the applicant is also requesting to cover the existing wood siding and vinyl siding, which is not recommended for the guidelines and therefore cannot be approved at staff level. The principles for wood siding maintenance and repair state that artificial siding over wood can lead to deterioration of original wood by trapping moisture. It can also result in covering over removing or removing details such as window trim and other original details that contribute to the historic nature of the building. Guideline number three states artificial replacement siding over wood or brick is not permitted. In guideline five states that vinyl siding is not a preferred siding material. The current proposal to place vinyl siding on top of the existing wood siding is not in keeping with these guidelines. Therefore, staff finds that the request to install vinyl siding at 316, 318. Catabistry is not in keeping with section seven of the guidelines and recommends denial. Is the applicant here? Would it wish to make a presentation? Can I ask one question? In your review, you say that, I'm sorry, that it was not allowed in the Grandview Village. It actually is, in my copy of the Grandview Guidelines, it is permitted but not preferred. So I think we need to at least state that your comments are incorrect. It says on the boundary, let's see. Vinyl siding is not a preferred material and has not been allowed in this. Well, I'm just reading from materials that says vinyl is not a preferred material for siding in the district, however, in certain cases it may be permitted if it is shown that details typical wood frame houses, such as insert windows, typical sized windows sails, adequate view on siding, trim details, and so on can be constructed. It is the applicant's responsibility to provide required drawings and information which support their application for vinyl. It also states in another place that symbol language is there. This is further back on page 22. It says in the case, it's talking about aspects of siding if it's removals required. They talk about that. It says vinyl is not a preferred material for siding in the district. Nowhere in the Grandview Guidelines do I say that it is specifically not allowed. And I'm looking at the Grandview Guidelines that y'all provided to us in our packet dated 2010. I just think we just need to clarify that. Then we decide based on what they say from there. Thanks. Have you been sworn in? Oh, yes. And state your name. State your name, please. Saper Fox. And I guess I want to start by saying and giving you a little background on me. Grandview Mill is right on the outskirts of Olympia. And I have owned or lived in a home in Olympia since 1970. So I have the best interest of the neighborhood in mind always. I attend all the Olympia meetings. I donate to the museum and actively involved in that. All that aside, I bought this property because I love that salt box look. And I'm going to try my very best to keep it looking that way. I am part of this community. And I want to keep it somewhat. But when I did buy this, we did not have access to under the house. We did not have access. There was no attic. And in our demo of the inside of the house, as it turns out, this house has been in a fire, which is going to cause my original estimate to remodel the house was going to be $200,000. Now, if there ever was a case of a house that could have been demoed, it would have been this one. And I absolutely would not have done that. I would have done everything I could to keep from doing that. And I still don't know that. But the fire damage, all the roof has to be replaced. Every rafter has to be replaced. And then when we pulled the floors up, not only does every seal under the thing have to be replaced, every floor joist, all the pillars were crumbling. So this house was literally falling down. And as we finally got our permits to proceed on some of the inside stuff, as we are doing some framing, this lap site and is literally falling off as we work. So initially, I think we were saying, well, the difference in the cost of the vinyl siding versus the lap siding, if I was replacing all of it, the vinyl siding would be an additional, would be $12,000. And the lap siding, if I did all of it, would be $38,000. And I'm already well over 200 on this house. And I do not think that that's repairable. I think it would look horrible if I did try to repair it. Number one, I don't think that we could match that. So that's one of the reasons I'm asking about the vinyl. Now, as far as the windows go, I'm willing to do whatever you need me to do. I'll make it happen. The doors, the front doors, I think they were part of it, they are not code. And I don't think I can make that work. I would have to do something with that. I'm not going to change the way the house looks. I'm not adding anything. It's going to be shaped the same way. And I'll do my very best to make it look like the rest of the neighborhood. I would like to point out, though, it is only kind of the outskirts. It has a business right beside it. And then on the opposite side, the house that's there is vinyl-sided. And then across the street, obviously, is the baseball stadium type thing. So it's like three houses and a business. And it's facing not part of the neighborhood, but the baseball facility. So two of the three houses there are vinyl-sided. And I'm already enduring a lot more than what I originally signed on for, because before we found the fire damage, I was at $200,000. And before we found that all the seals had termite and all of them had to go and the pillars were falling out. And I still would like to continue to renovate the house and not tear it down. So that's why I'm asking to try to go to the vinyl side, and if it's at all possible. Any questions for the applicant? And the other thing is that I would like to do some brick skirting, because currently, that lap-siding, when it comes down on the side, it is met by a piece of metal flashing, which is causing a lot of the rotten seals and stuff under the house. And that's just, it's insane to me. So I was hoping to do some brick skirting as well. Are you hearing things for the first time, or? I'm not about the brick skirting. Most of the things that we've talked about with windows, doors, stuff like that can be handled at staff level. That's why I'm asking. Right. So we're just talking about the vinyl side, right? Yeah, OK. The only thing. Right. We're just talking about the question in the vinyl, I think, is. I have a question to the staff. She said the next door, the two houses down, has vinyl siding. Yes, sir. What bothers me is the guideline. When was the guideline adopted? I think this was in 2010. I want to say, and maybe Joe could correct me on this, that that was done before the guidelines came into place. Or the adoption. There are basically four buildings in that block that are residential. Hers, the house next door, has vinyl siding. The house next door to that one has wood siding. It's in awful condition. And then the house on the corner of Williams has vinyl siding. My office is right around the corner. I ride by there at least twice a day. Approach the microphone. And have you been sworn in? I've been sworn in. OK. You promised to tell the truth in these proceedings. And state your name? My name is Joe Weider. I'm a vice president of the. Excuse me? Please speak into the microphone for the recording. I'm the vice president of the neighborhood association. And we work with Amy Moore when we put together the guidelines. They're a core group. The house right next door to the house in question, the old men's house, had vinyl on it, I guess, probably in the late 90s. The house next door had an asbestos product on it.  And it needs work, siding needs work. The house next door to that on the corner is Hardy Plank. Because that house was very much like your place. And that there was hardly a usable board on it. OK. I said, that's what they had said. The reason why it looks vinyl is because there was no historic preservation consultant to guide them when they're with the design and of the windows they used. There was no relief there for the windows. There's no wind to sills. There's only one vinyl siding house there. OK. Thank you. And I'd say in the whole neighborhood, at least on the railroad, this side of the railroad tracks, there were probably about five, maybe six. And they were all done mostly in the 90s, 80s and 90s, when people were trying to do some kind of preservation or do something to their home to not have to paint. As we say, our motto for the Grand Ville Mill Village was preservation by neglect. I really do feel like the only reason these houses are standing is because most people did nothing to them. And I remember I was sitting in a meeting with Krista Hampton and the code inspectors right after we had received our designation. And someone, oh, one of the code enforcers was there. Pardon me. He was saying, what a great job this vinyl job was being done right across from the mills on Triown Street. And I went by there. And the vinyl guys had vinyled over one of our front doors. Even though my house is a single family residence, and it has both front doors. And it's something we're proud of. The way the homes looked, you don't have to use the door, but they're still there. And they have that. It has that look. I mean, it's with the whole neighborhood. There's supposed to be identical homes. And there's a charm to that. So our experience with vinyl has not been a good one. That's all we say. We're more than happy to allow people to do the hearty plank look. Because when you have a house that's as badly damaged as that, you saw the interior shots. There's no way that you can put just the phone paneling over it and then apply vinyl on it and have any kind of, you're going to have to nail it up. You're going to have to nail all those boards up before you can put any kind of material. Or you can see that. Or you've got to take it all off and sheet it. And if you're going to do that, you might as well put hearty plank up and have something substantial rather than a vinyl. The hearty plank, I think, is just about $130 a square buying it from a wholesaler at our reveal. So that's what we encourage to not request that people put up the wood. And hearty plank even has a product now where you can match up some of the existing wood. And I believe it's called the Artisan Line. And it has a 5 8 thickness. So the shadow lines match the shadow lines of the homes in the middle. So you have options. You'll have an opportunity for a rebuttal, by the way. But excuse me, sir, before you leave. So I just want to make clear, I think somehow we backed into this. So you're making a statement in opposition to the applicant's request. The use of vinyl, yes. Not been a good experience for us in the neighborhood. And I remember when Amy and I were talking about eliminating that fascistically. So no vinyl in our neighborhood. She said to me, don't worry. In order to do vinyl, that'll have to be done to the nines to where it would be so expensive, you'd be better off using an alternative approach. So that's what we're encouraging is an alternative approach. Most people can't afford to do a first class one vinyl job, which is what we would recommend only for a while. Thank you. That is why we're emphasizing needing to keep profiles, reveals, the cornerboards. It's very difficult when you see how flat that siding is. Put anything on top of it and keep any kind of distinction and profile on those trim pieces around the windows. So it's just tend to disappear when you put vinyl on top of it. So it takes a lot to make it look like that. Can I ask staff a question? Is she finished?  Let's get back to normal order. So you're finished, right? OK, and you'll have an opportunity to make a rebuttal. But go ahead and, yeah, that's the question. Is there any possibility, like windows, where you could do the front and not the sides in the back? I guess in this case, it's going to be visible from the road on three sides. The only sides that's not visible is the rear. Is there any kind of compromise? I mean, I think you still have the issue is when they come together, how do you mesh the hardy plank with the vinyl and not make it look really bad? I mean, I think that is an issue, yeah. It would have to match. It has to match what's there currently, that they have a specific board width and reveal that they have in Granby. But if they could make it match, there's no prohibition on having vinyl on everything but the street side. I mean, probably that doesn't make any sense. I'm just trying to figure somehow to help earn a cost. I mean, if they could show us that, as Amy just said, that we're not going to be leasing those trim pieces, there's more concerns than just matching the reveal.  There's also the issue of putting vinyl siding over existing wood. I mean, that's another guideline. My understanding is the two issues, one is right, is that it causes potential deterioration to the original materials. So just to clarify the other part of this question or the conversation that we're having is that theoretically, if the vinyl could match the profile of the existing historic facade in every way, in theory, that would be potentially acceptable in theory. Right, but I understand the difference between vinyl siding and what you're describing is vinyl over the matching historic profile. Those are different animals. Are we done with that? OK, if you have an opportunity to make a rebuttal if you'd like, but you need to do it at the microphone. I think in the same thing, it's still $26,000 difference. And I brought a contractor with me that could show you some samples of what we were thinking. And we do know that we wouldn't be able to put vinyl siding over that lap siding anymore, because that is not repairable, and it is falling off. And we would have to do something different under the vinyl siding. We do know that, because that's going to fall off. And whatever we decide today, I hope that I can go with the vinyl siding. But if not, I don't want to have to repair that, because it's not going to work. And I invite everybody to come by and see what I'm talking about. Pictures don't do it justice. They're not going to match that. No, it's not going to happen. It's really in bad shape. So I guess that's all I got. If you want to see samples, I could tell you a little more. You have your contractor with you now? Yes, my contractor's right here. Can I ask him a question? Make sure everybody talks in the microphone. Have you been sworn in? Yes, sir. Say your name, please. Jeremy Gower. Thank you. Go ahead. What's your name of your company? Hardin. Who are you with? A GB building company. My question is, she's made a statement that the current side of this problem, and it seems like the stats might be a problem. The nail has nothing attached to it. It seems like, have you looked at the framing of the house? Yes, most of the framing is being redone. The exterior walls will stay. What's there is being reassured. OK, that's what I need you to know. Thank you. Question? Thank you. One other question to staff. Since this is in our architectural conservation district, does this qualify for any type of baili bill situation or any other tax credits that might benefit her? Yes. Can you all discuss that with us? We have. You have? OK. Is there anybody else who wants to speak for or against this application? You could approach. I'll take all the siding loft, sheeting it with a sheeting material, and then putting the vinyl siding on it. But you're going to have to answer the question at the microphone. Our plan is to take all the siding off, sheave it. Sheave it with what? OSB. And then vinyl siding. And what does vinyl siding cost per square for 10 feet? Anywhere from $50 to $65? Yeah. So it's not that big a difference in price. I guess my way he's heading is if you put the hardy plank on, you don't have to put the other material between the two. Do you, architecture, or do you stuff to put something? To do. Either way, we need to sheave it. OK. If we do, hardy plank, we're looking at about $135 a square. And then labor's more to put it up. I've got to have paid to get it painted. And then there's upkeep. So long term, there's more. You can buy pre-painted. You can buy primed. Or you can buy pre-painted, but then you go up in price as well. Yeah, it is more. Thanks. I think when you put up the hardy plank, you've got to put up plywood sheaving, or OSB, whatever. You've got to have a range screen, am I correct? Yes, sir. OK. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I think we're finished with anybody who wants to comment. Is that true, or is anybody else OK? I think we're moving to our own deliberations. Any comments from other commissioners? I guess I'll ask for a motion. Make a motion. I would make a motion that the commission be requested to install the vinyl siding at 316, 318, to keep it up with a session 7 of the guidelines and recommend denial. Is there a second? I'll second. Any discussion? Could we have a vote, please? Certainly. Mr. Boknight. Mr. Broom. Yes. Mr. Daniel. Yes. Ms. Fuller-Wilt. Yes. Mr. Savry. Yes. Mr. Nguyen. Yes. Motion passes. Thank you. Any further business? Starting an architectural survey update to the city's architectural survey. Amy. Oh, I'm sorry. Mr. Daniel, let me just talk like this. We are starting that. Rachel is in charge of that. She can talk a little bit more about the details. I'm sorry. She's in charge of what? You didn't hear that. We're doing an update to our architectural survey. It's a historic resource survey. It'll be in the north part of the city and part of Eau Claire. We're starting with the public meeting on June 25. We're going to have it at the Eau Claire print building at 530. We're asking for public input. If anybody has any history for that area to get some oral interviews and we're working with a consultant, they're going to be doing surveying the area during the month of July, going out, recording each of the buildings that was built prior to 1975. So most of this area hasn't been surveyed before. Kind of updating based on the last survey, which was in 1993. So we're excited to get started on that. Hopefully, we'll have our consultant come in at some point to let you know about the progress that they're making. There's something you may want to have somebody discuss at this meeting. As part of the tax act passed in November, certain census tracts have been identified as opportunity zones and they have certain tax benefits. The area north of Elmwood is included in that. So if you're having a general meeting to discuss what that is, you may want to just, and we're still trying to find more information, but that might be a good time if you've got people there to get an update on that area, which may be of some help to them in the future. Thank you, Mr. Daniel. One last item. We have a new planner who's handling historic preservation in our department, Megan McNish. So she will be presenting projects from, let's see, Arsenal Hill, Chandanlar, Waverly, University Hill, Granby in the future. So I just wanted to introduce her to y'all. Thank you. Welcome. Any other business? That was it for us. Motion to adjourn. Second? Second. All in favor? Aye. Adjourned. Aye.