 Okay, let's get started. The 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 two minutes per person. If there is, the applicant will have an opportunity to respond. This rebuttal shall not exceed five minutes. In most of the cases, we will make decisions, 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, excuse me, commissioners are under strict instructions to avoid discussing DDRC meetings and applications with members of the public or with each other outside of these proceedings to avoid ex parte communications. If you wish to speak during the course of these proceedings, please stand and raise your right hand. Do you affirm to tell the truth in these proceedings? Do we have a quorum? Mr. Boggneit? Here. Mr. Cohn? Here. Ms. Johnson? Ms. Moore? Ms. Fuller-Wilt? Here. Mr. Saveri? Here. We have quorum. Thank you. Does the agenda still stand? We've had a few changes to the agenda since publication. Under the regular part of the agenda, the historic section 2222 Rembert Street, a request for design approval for an accessory structure in Elmwood Park Architectural Conservation District has been deferred. 1028 Bryan Street, a request for a preliminary certification for the Bailey bill for a national register. Structure has been withdrawn. 1619 Pendleton, a request for a design approval for signage for an individual landmark has been deferred. Thank you. The DDRC utilizes a consent agenda for those projects which require DDRC review but which meet the guidelines and typically require no discussion. If anyone wishes to discuss an item on the consent agenda, I will ask that you speak up after the consent agenda is read and then you can pull the item for discussion onto the regular agenda. If staff would now please read the consent agenda. The first item is 2305 Lincoln Street, a request for design approval for an accessory structure in the Elmwood Park Architectural Conservation District. 1601 Gladden Street, a request for preliminary certification for the Bailey bill in the Melrose Heights Oakland Architectural Conservation District. And 2327 Santy Avenue, a request for design approval for new construction in the old Chandon Lower Waverly Protection Area A. Thank you. Is there anyone who wishes to take anything off the consent agenda for discussion? All right. Could I have a motion to approve the consent agenda and the April meeting minutes, please? I'll make the motion that we approve the consent agenda and the April meeting minutes. Is there a second? Second. Could we have a vote, please? Mr. Boknight. Yes. Mr. Cohn. Yes. Ms. Johnson. Ms. Fuller-Wilt. Yes. Ms. Moore. Mr. Savery. Yes. Motion passes. Would staff present the first case, please? Certainly. The first item on our regular agenda is 1,700 block of Calhoun Street intersection of Calhoun and Talley Street. This is a request for a certificate of design approval for modifications to the landmarked wall on the former state hospital grounds currently the Bull Street neighborhood. The wall itself is an individual landmark. Working on getting out of here, you'll have to crane your neck for just a moment. So as you know, the 180-acre Bull Street district, which houses the historic Bull Street state hospital on grounds, is being redeveloped for mixed use purposes. Given the age of the campus, we certainly have structures there that are city of Columbia landmarks, a status safe retained as part of the development. And this particular project regards the Bull Street wall. The request is to modify a portion of the existing wall along Calhoun Street, where there is a historic entrance in order to accommodate anticipated traffic entering and exiting the Bull Street district onto Calhoun Street. The request initially included the demolition of 35 feet of this wall, including both concrete columns on either side of the entry, to accommodate a new vehicular and pedestrian entry. It was first scheduled to come to the commission in March of 2019, at which time the applicants asked to have that deferred until this meeting. They revised their proposal, and so the current application includes a revised scope, some clarifying information and a brief report from a private consulting firm regarding the history of the wall and the potential impact of the proposal to the campus. So the current iteration of the application is to remove eight feet of the brick wall, leaving the right concrete column and cap in place, removing the left concrete column and cap, but removing, sorry, but rebuilding that column and cap once the expansion is taken place. They plan to reuse the salvaged historic brick for repairs to the wall, either here or in other locations, because we have a pretty extensive wall around the campus. My understanding is that, well, the PUD itself allows for three locations along Calhoun Street for access. One is along Pickens, one is shown along Henderson, and one, of course, is Barnwell, which is already a thoroughfare. My understanding is that the expansion of this Tally Street entry would take the place of the Henderson Street exit in the community. So you have a general history of the campus in your evaluation, but in brief, since 1828, with the construction of the Mills building, walls on the campus have been built and reconfigured over the course of time due to the expansion of the campus. They always enclosed at least parts of the campus and provided a barrier between patients and the public. By 1898, there was roughly the configuration, very roughly the configuration of the wall along Calhoun Street, which we see today, which doesn't actually include the lowering of the wall as we look towards Bull Street in the 1960s. The entry in question appeared to be a service driveway and perhaps pedestrian access behind the Babcock building toward the rear of the campus. And this, of course, as you can see, is the area in which the partial demolition is requested. Staff has considered this proposal very carefully. The original proposal would have completely altered the character of the opening, making it far too grand and a long cry from the modest opening, which historically has been there, and which also would have resulted in a quite large removal of historic material. However, a request for a removal of eight feet of brick wall with a commitment to rebuild a similar concrete column and cap on the left, along with the conditions that have been noted by staff is a request which might be considered. There have been some interesting changes to the historic wall over time, including among others, the notated height changes from 10 feet to eight feet on the sandborne maps, and the entry itself most likely had the concrete columns and caps added in the 1920s or 30s. As this is not a material we would have seen back in the 1890s at this location. In working with historic structures, there are times when sensitive and minor accommodations to historic features may be and are made so that existing features might function practically, but still be well understood and maintain their character, which is reflected in staff's recommendations. That being said, and we do make those accommodations when we're working with historic buildings, but I did want to note that further intrusions as we move east along this wall where there have never been any historic openings, would I feel impact the integrity of this historic wall? So staff is recommending a conditional approval with the following conditions. Given that more traffic will be increasing at this opening with the proposed modification, and given the number of recent vehicular accidents, which I may not know about, that I do as staff, which have impacted historic features on the campus and the wall itself, staff recommends that bollards be placed on all sides of the opening to protect the wall. That the removal of the brick and the column will follow specifications provided by staff, but which will include supports for the wall during the deconstruction and chiseling the original brick and our concrete from the wall and a mortar analysis. That we retain and reuse the original brick for later repairs and or reuse, including the damaged wall at Bull Street as proposed on the original application. That the applicants work with staff with the reattachment of the stored gates that used to be at this location, in which it long since been removed, but have been stored. So these could be reattached in a non-functioning manner at the opening to indicate how the opening used to appear. That staff work with the applicants on the replication of the concrete column and its details, any indications of that we might want to make of where the original opening fell. And last, but not least, that if there is any failure of the historic wall as a result of the proposed work, the historic wall will be repaired or restored immediately. And then one last note for everyone. Please note that DDRC review is step one of this request. Step two is review by the City of Columbia's Consolidated Review Committee comprised of city staff, including planning staff, those from traffic engineering, among others, which will look at the request and evaluate it based on their criteria, one of which will certainly encompass traffic flow. These are internal meetings. If folks want more information about these, then they can come to me or they can contact Jonathan Chambers. But this is where information about traffic, traffic flow, et cetera, is going to be considered. It does not fall within the scope of the DDRC. Thank you. And before I ask the applicant to present and then subsequently ask anyone else in the audience who would like to comment, I want to reiterate Amy's point, which is that anything associated with traffic flow is outside of the purview of the DDRC. This, our purview is strictly about the determination of the integrity of the historic wall. And within that, whether in our collective judgment, what is being proposed falls within the guidelines, which in this case is the Department of Interior national register standards. So our purview is very narrow. And I would ask everybody to, on the commission as well, to be cognizant of that as we present and discuss this issue. So with that, would the applicant like to present? And you've been sworn in. Thank you. Could you state your name, please, for the microphone? My name's Layton Lord. I'm with Nexon Pruitt and I represent the developer Hughes Development. And I'm going to try to be very brief. But what I wanted you all to know is we have people here available. If you want to delve more deeply, Chandler Cox is the project manager for Bull Street Hughes Development. We have Ralph Bailey with Brockington, who's our historic expert. And we also have Jonathan Guy, who's with Kimberly Horne, who's our traffic expert. We understand traffic is not what you guys delve into, but traffic is very important to what we're trying to do and with Calhoun Street. We're before you right now, mainly because when the Bull Street campus was originally built over the years, it wasn't built to integrate with the city of Columbia. It had a wall around it. At one point a very high wall and then later a smaller wall, which Amy and Ralph can tell you in greater detail in the history of that, but it's got walls around it. So it doesn't integrate well with the city. Part of the challenge is to figure out how to have points where you can enter and exit Bull Street that allow it to integrate with the city and also calm traffic. So you don't have traffic coming in too fast or too slow. Calhoun, as you all can see from this great visual, we have a couple of ability to put a couple of entrances. So the wall has to be modified in some way, shape or form to have entrants and exits along Calhoun Street. The original plan that we looked at was to actually enter it kind of right where you're looking, which would have been a total breach of the wall if you mark it up with Halley Street. The developer decided to try to utilize an existing entrance for two reasons. One, it's an existing entrance and two, it would calm traffic by not having a city road going directly into Bull Street. And we thought with the traffic issues going on and Jonathan can talk more to that if you want to hear it. It was a better traffic solution, but more importantly into your purview, it's a better historic solution. Came up with a plan. We put it before the city. Amy really didn't like it very much and we went back to the drawing board. We hired Rockington to help us with the historic issues and we came up with a design that got rid of the pedestrian entrance and basically took the existing entrance and widened it a little bit to one side. And it's not my area, but when I looked at it, I didn't think they had done anything to it in first blush compared to the old one. It's a wider version of what you see right here. And we believe it's the best solution for the two issues before the developer. Traffic and historic preservation and respect. And with that, I won't say anymore. We appreciate what staff has done. We appreciate working with staff. We're glad we got to a point where staff could recommend. That's why we took it off the agenda and took it back to the drawing board and hired people to help us do it. We accept all the conditions that staff has proposed on this exception. We've gone through them in detail and every one of them are fine. We'll work with staff to implement them however they want, but we've found them all very reasonable. And that's all. You all want to hear from any of our folks? Not unless they want to speak, if they have anything that is cogent in addition to what you've said, unless somebody else wants that. Before Mr. Lord takes a seat, are there any questions that any commissioners have for him? Thanks. Thank you. All right. Is there anyone here? Let's start with opposition. In opposition, who would like to speak? You promise to tell the truth in these proceedings? Yes. Is that your name, please? Robin Waits, I'm here on behalf of Historic Columbia. The request to modify the City of Columbia Group 1 Landmark does not meet the criteria outlined in the city ordinance, Section 17674B. Under 1A, for individual landmarks, the historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize the property shall be avoided. That's from the criteria. This proposal removes eight feet of historic brick, destroys an existing historic column, and alters the historic character of the entry, which, according to the applicant's assessment, is at least 100 years old. Section E, distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques are examples of craftsmanship. That characterizes a property shall be preserved. Again, that's from the criteria. Clearly demolishing features of the wall is out of compliance with that criteria. Staff notes that while there is not a way to retain the concrete column to the left, the new proposal does retain the one to the right and suggests replicating the one, which would have to be removed. I would offer that there is a way to retain the concrete column to the left, and that is to deny the proposal. H, new additions, alterations, or related constructions shall not destroy historic materials. Clearly, this proposal will destroy historic materials. Even if the applicant plans to reuse the brick, there's not a way to ensure that in the demolition of the wall that the brick will be able to be salvaged. I, new additions or adjacent to related new construction shall be undertaken in a matter that, dot, dot, dot, retains the historic integrity. The removal of the wall is in fact not reversible. Ultimately, the bottom line here is that the proposal negatively impacts the city of Columbia, group one landmark, which is your highest designation. And it's one of the few remaining character defining features of the Bull Street campus. This city landmark structure is also one of only two features on the entire 180 acre site that the DDRC has per view over. So while we agree with the observation made in the staff evaluation that this certainly is a better solution to the first one that was submitted, it doesn't necessarily mean that it's the right one. The best solution is to leave the historic elements of the group one city landmark intact. Historic Columbia respectfully submits that as opposition to the request. Thank you. Would anyone else like to speak in opposition to the application? Have you been sworn in? I was sworn in. State your name, please. Elizabeth Marks. I own property at 1908 Henderson Street. I think you already have a letter that I signed from the Robert Mills Historic District in opposition to this. First, you know, I would like to say thank you to the city staff. They've been really easy to work with. And also to the Hughes company who has offered to make some potentially helpful restoration and preservation attempts at the wall. It needs a lot of work. I wish I could say that I was in support of what they want to do. The neighborhood is not in support of what they want to do. As a property owner at 1908 Henderson Street, we get to see what happens at the corner of Henderson and Calhoun. And while we can't talk to you about traffic, I want to bring to your attention the fact that this is an offset entrance. It's in the middle of a block. There is an excellent, brand new entrance, 100 feet to the east of this at Barnwell and Calhoun. I think there are two themes that we're hearing here. The first theme is that the wall has already been compromised by bad judgment in the past. So let's go ahead and chip off some more of it. That's a really bad argument. That means that the preservation of the undamaged and significant portions of the remaining wall are just not a priority. So let's go ahead and do more damage to it. The second theme is that this requested entrance is absolutely necessary to the development of Bull Street. If so, why was it not included in their own traffic study the street does not even appear in their traffic study of March 2016? I've gone over it over and over again. There's just absolutely no mention of Tally Street. We believe that this was a recent misguided decision to open this wall. Furthermore, it doesn't show up on any of the maps that Tally Street doesn't, that they provided to the neighborhood and to people at public hearings and meetings for at least the past two years. I think I got this one in 2017. So we think that this wall was an afterthought, that it wasn't planned, it wasn't studied. We believe this is an absolutely unnecessary elimination of an historic gate at the expense of our history, our history, and that it should go back to being what it was initially introduced as, which was a bike and pedestrian entrance as was the other beautiful gate on Pickens at Calhoun. So my question is, why are we negotiating a bad concept? I mean, we're negotiating a bad concept, which is to destroy this historic entrance and its context for what? It's an offset entrance. It doesn't connect to anything. Thank you very much. Thank you. So I'll ask for any other, anybody who would like to speak in opposition, then I'll ask for the applicant to, if you'd like to make a rebuttal after that, is there anyone else who wants to speak in opposition? Is there one person who's going to speak? Have you all been sworn in? Raise your right hand, please, and promise to tell the truth. So whoever is speaking, if you could state your name. My name's Olivia Dozier, and these are my siblings Evans and Sophia Dozier, and my mother Victoria Dozier. My family owns three lots on the corner of Henderson and Calhoun and one additional lot on Calhoun Street. My father and his family has owned these properties for over a hundred years, and our family knows more about the history of the historic wall and the Taley Street gate than anyone alive today. When my children were growing up, the raw iron gates at Taley and Calhoun streets were closed. When my husband's mother was growing up, that gate was closed. When her mother was growing up, that gate was closed. Through all those generations, the gate was closed. As a child, my husband saw only a very tall wall, not the scaled-down version here today. From his bedroom window, he could see children playing inside the gates, both white and African-American. It was a familiar day-to-day activity of the real mental hospital. Thank goodness the Calhoun side of that wall still includes two important historical gates from that time. But one of those gates is now in danger because of a questionable 21st century planning. What is happening? For years, we were told by the developers that the Pickin Street gate and the Taley Street gate would be bike and pedestrian entrances. When this change, or when the PUD or the development plan was amended, no one in the neighborhood was notified by the developer or the city, or even had the opportunity to discuss it. If you approve this request, it means the loss of an important irreplaceable historical architectural feature and the further diminishment of the history of our city. This is coming from our hearts, from the only family here speaking with 100 years of knowledge. Thank you for your time, consideration for leaving this historical landmark intact. Thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak in opposition to the application? The applicant? Oh, looks like we have. Have you been sworn in? Have you been sworn in? No. You promise to tell the truth in these proceedings? I do. And if you'd state your name, please. My name is Wanda Breedlove. My property is in the Robert Mills Historic District, which adjoins the Bull Street property. My residence is at the corner of Laurel Street and Marion Streets. I want to add my voice to that of the others who have spoken against this change for all of the reasons that they have said I am in support. Something that I noticed in the pictures, it appeared to me there was a large tree less than eight feet in some of the pictures. What's going to happen to that large tree? I recognize that's not a DDRC issue, but that had not been. I couldn't tell you the developers would have thought that. Because it's a significant large tree and I think you can see it in this particular photo. Aside from the historic nature of the other issues involved. Thank you. Is there anybody else who'd like to speak in opposition? Would the applicant like to make a rebuttal? First off, I won't refute Provins' reading of the law, but I'll mention that there would be no need for this body to meet if the law could not be interpreted. And that's what we're asking this body to do. That's what our application is about, is to try to evaluate when you do make a modification, not a destruction of an historic landmark. Regarding the gate, I can tell you that when Hughes Development took over this project, Department of Mental Health had taken the gate off of this wall and they had laid it down. Hughes Development is preserving the gate and if this is approved they'll reattach the gate but leave the gate open so it can be visible but it's not going to be operated. We're not going to open and shut this entrance, of course, but the gate is going to be preserved, reattached, and left open. That's all we have. If you'd like to speak with any of our people, we're happy to. Thanks. At this time I'd like to ask if there is anybody supporting the application who would like to speak and then any discussion on the part of the commissioners or questions? Just so I understand you, I think you said in the beginning, there are two things that we probably want to take into account. One is that there was another design that was withdrawn that was more, I think, more destructive, right? And the other is, I believe you said that the PUD allows for three entrances along Calhoun Street. That's right. So this will... The PUD that I've seen allows for those along those intersections. Henderson-Pickinson corner. Okay. Specifically at those locations. That is the extent of my knowledge about the discussion about those entrances. Okay. We have a picture of what the gate's going to look like. There it is now. A picture of what it's going to look like when it's done. That's what it's going to look like when it's done. That's the model. One more question for the applicant, I guess. And your proposal is to remove the concrete on the one side, but then your proposal is not to protect it and put that particular concrete post back in place. Excuse me. It's to replicate it with new construction? I believe you're correct, but I want to be sure. I've not been sworn in, but I do promise to tell the truth. My name is Chandler Cox. I'm the project manager for Bull Street. And our intention would be to save as much of this as we can if we can remove it in a way that will allow us to work with city staff and move that column. We will do so if we have to rebuild. We will do so with city staff's interpretation to make sure that it is historically accurate and is matching the one that's on the right side. Okay. But is your proposal to protect and relocate the existing column or end piece? Yes. That's your proposal? That'd be the proposal. Okay. Concrete? Concrete. I don't think we're going to answer that. Okay. Thank you. Any other comments or questions from the commission? All right. Then could I have a motion? I'll make the motion for seven, the 1700 block of Calhoun Street at the intersection of Calhoun and Talley streets that we approve the applicants request for design approval modifications to the wall in accordance with staff's recommendations that it is in keeping with section 117 or section 17-674-D of the city of Columbia zoning ordinance and that it is done with the following conditions. Given that traffic will be increasing at this opening with the proposed modification and given the number of recent vehicular accidents which have impacted historic features on the campus, the wall itself and the wall itself staff recommends that bollers be placed on all sides of the opening to protect the wall. And I would add that the bollers, the design and finish be subject to staff's approval. That the removal of the brick and the column will follow specifications as provided by staff and with all efforts to ensure the integrity of maintaining the column. This concrete but will include supports for the wall during deconstruction, hand chiseling, and the original brick or concrete from the wall or and or and a mortar analysis that we retain and reuse the original brick for later repairs and or reuse including the damage wall at Bull Street as proposed on the original application where sections are missing and or covered with plywood. That the applicant work with staff with the reattachment of the stored gates in a non-functioning manner at the opening. The staff work with the applicants on the replication of the concrete column and its details if it's unable to be retained. And that if there is any failure of the historic wall as a result of the proposed work, the historic wall will be repaired and restored immediately. Is there a second? Second. Well, any further discussion before we have a vote? We have a vote please. Mr. Boffnight. No. Mr. Cohn. Yes. Ms. Johnson. Ms. Fuller-Wilt. No. Ms. Moore. Mr. Saver. No. The motion. Okay. I need another motion. Based on the evidence presented and section 17-674D of the City of Columbia Zoning Ordinance. I don't mention the Bull Street Guidelines there, do I? It's only the ordinance. Correct? Okay. I move that the Design Development Review Commission deny a certificate of design approval for the 1,700 block of Calhoun Street intersection of Calhoun and Talley Street's proposed project proposed at the location that I just listed in the Bull Street neighborhood. Is there a second? Second. Any discussion? Mr. Boffnight. Yes. Mr. Cohn. No. Ms. Johnson. Yes. Ms. Moore. Mr. Saver. Yes. The motion passes. Thank you. Are there any questions? Next case please. The next case is also on the Bull Street campus. It is the 2,100 block of Bull Street intersection of Calhoun Street and Elmwood Avenue. The applicant is Raven Gambrale, manager for Richland County Penny program who has been working her way through this process. The request is for a certificate of design approval for relocation of pedestrian entry gates of the landmarked wall found at the entry to the former state hospital grounds currently the Bull Street neighborhood. This is an individual landmark again. So y'all know the history here. I'm going to reiterate it. The pedestrian gates that we can see there, we think were probably the wrought iron pieces may have well been from the earliest wall we find in front of the Mills building. And I can't remember exactly when the first picture of it was. There was a picture in your packets but in the 1800s. So we think there's a good possibility given the age of this wrought iron and their appearance and based on descriptions of those that they may have been part of that original wall. So I think they've been moved around over the years and they currently reside across the front columns on either side of the entry to the Bull Street campus in the circles there that you see. So there's some realignment work of lanes going on here to accommodate increased traffic coming into the campus. And so these are actually going to be in the way. And rather than we'll move these all together, store them never to be seen again, Ms. Gambrell has worked to ensure that we can just simply actually move these back and in this picture on the right side, the right picture, you can see the column behind the column that the wrought iron is attached to. That's actually where those are going to move to. They're just moving back to allow some space for this lane enlargement that's happening. So they're going to move back in concert so they'll continue to sort of read as pedestrian entry gates into the campus. So staff has to make some criteria, specification sheets about how this is going to be done without damaging the wrought iron. The brick underneath the wrought iron is probably not historic. I think it's probably newer that those have been moved there later. So I think we can probably just reconstruct the bottom pieces and then move these back and move those as soon as we do. So I've been consulting with some specialists about this and how to do it so we don't lose the story material. So staff is recommending approval for this. And Ms. Gambrell is here if you have any questions about the proposal. Thank you. The applicant wish to speak? Is there an applicant? Were you sworn in? Tell the truth. I do. And state your name please. My name is Raven Gambrell and I work for HDR. We're a consultant that hired to help manage the Richland County Transportation Program. And this is one of the projects within the program. And I'm sure you're all very familiar with the Bull Street and Elmwood Avenue intersection. And so the point of the project is just to improve the traffic flow and the safety accommodations in the intersection. And it's part of those improvements in the lane reconfiguration. It is causing some shift at the Bull Street entrance, which is impacting the railing sections. The design team has worked hard to make sure that the brick wall section as you approach the railing sections is not impacted. It is just the railing sections. And the proposal as Amy mentioned was to just shift them back about 15 feet. And I neglected to mention that they will actually reattach to the columns. I think I neglected to mention that. Any questions for the applicant before we move on? Thanks. Thank you. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak in opposition to the application? Anyone who wishes to speak in support? Any comments or discussion from the commissioners? Good. I have a motion. So I move that we grant a certificate of design approval for relocation of the pedestrian entry gates located at the 2100 block of Bull Street, the intersection of Bull Street and Elmwood. And that's in accordance with section 1760, section 17-674 of the Columbia City Code. And that would be subject to specifications provided by staff. We have a second. Second. Any discussion? Do we have a vote, please? Mr. Bocknight? No. Mr. Cohn? Yes. Ms. Johnson? Yes. Ms. Fuller-Wilt? Yes. Ms. Moore? Yes. Mr. Savry? Yes. Motion passes. Thank you. I think that concludes our cases. And I understand that there is something to discuss in executive sessions. So if I could have a motion. Pardon me. Our lawyer is not here. So without him. Oh, well. In that case, any other business? Nothing? You know, I just did want to mention since we're running away, I had it of where I thought we might. This is preservation. And our staff has worked really hard to provide some events and fun activities which are listed on the website. If you want to take part in any of those or at least to be aware of them, they're always about outreach engagement. And hopefully fine because so much what we do is regulatory and not fun for a lot of folks. And as part of that, we always do a Mabel Payne Award. Mabel was an urban pioneer with the city. And she was sort of the foundation of all the beginning preservation lists that we have, that we work from for our landmark lists. So we instituted something some years ago called the Mabel Payne Award. And it just, I just wanted y'all to know that this year we awarded it to Bob Dile and Joe Wieter in the Brandy Mill Village neighborhood. It had been there for over 40 years. And from the beginning have been fighting to keep that neighborhood intact. And people are engaged in architecture there to tell that very important story. And I mean, they have been constantly engaged. It has not been on again off again. But they are the kind of people who are often not recognized for their garbage. And so those are the sorts of folks we want to honor. So I just wanted to let y'all know that. I will be on our website. Next year, we will make sure that y'all are all invited to City Council meeting on those types. Well deserved award. That's nice to hear. Can we call recess for just a moment? Sure. I guess we're in recess. Is it easy for you to go to motion maker? Yeah. Well, because I just want you to know. So now, I think it's good. I think it's perfect the first time. Did I have a motion to go into executive session, please? Make the motion that we go into executive session. Seconded. All in favor? Aye. Okay. Not yet. Could we have a motion to come out of executive session, please? But we have a motion to come out of executive session. I'll make the motion that we come out of executive session. And a second. Second. All in favor? Aye. Motion to adjourn. I'll make the motion to adjourn. Second. All in favor? Aye. The adjourned. Thank you.