 Good morning. This meeting will now come to order. Welcome to the February 2021 meeting of the Durham Historic Preservation Commission. My name is Katie Hamilton and I am the current chair of this commission. The Historic Preservation Commission is a quasi-judicial board of record and as such all testimony will be recorded and will be live streamed on the city's YouTube channel. The proceedings of this board are governed by the zoning laws as recorded. As such, please note the following steps we have taken to ensure that each party's due process rights are protected while utilizing the virtual platform. First, today's meeting will be conducted in accordance with the newly enacted Statutes and Session Law 2010-3, which allow for remote meetings and quasi-judicial hearings during declarations of emergency. Second, each applicant on today's agenda has consented to the board conducting the evidentiary hearing using this remote platform. This consent will be reformed on the record today. If there is any objection to a matter proceeding in this remote platform, the case will be continued. Third, notice of this meeting will be being held virtually, was provided to applicants and to the public in multiple ways, including signage posted on site, notification letters mailed to all adjacent property owners, and a general announcement via the city's website. The notices for today's meeting advise the public on how to access the remote meeting as the meeting occurs. Individuals wishing to participate in today's evidentiary hearings were required to register prior to the meeting. Information about this registration requirement, along with information about how to sign up to participate, was included in the mail notice letters sent to each adjacent property owner. This information was also included in the board's website. The public was advised to contact the city immediately in case of objection. No case is proceeding today in which the city has been contacted by an individual with an objection to the case being heard by remote meeting platform. All individuals participating in today's hearing were also required to submit a copy of any presentation, document, exhibit, or other material they wish to submit prior to today's evidentiary hearing. All materials that the city received from the participants in today's cases, as well as a copy of today's staff presentations and documents were posted online with our meeting's agenda prior to this meeting via the Agenda Center. Finally, all individuals who registered to participate in an evidentiary hearing on today's agenda, as well as all city staff participants, were emailed a witness oath and consent to remote hearing platform prior to today's meeting that they were required to sign. We will also reaffirm everyone's oath on the record at today's meeting. Are there any members of the board here today that have any conflicts of interest with regards to the cases before us? Are there any requests for early dismissals? Good morning, this is Wanda. Waiters, I have a request for dismissal at 10.10. Thanks, Wanda. As chair of the Historic Preservation Commission, I'd like to remind everyone that our quasi-dutiful hearings function similar to court proceedings. Staff will first present an overview of the case, and then the applicants will have an opportunity to present their evidence. Opponents, if there are any, may then present their evidence, and the applicant may then present a rebuttal. Board members will refrain from questions or comments until each speaker has completed his or her presentation. Testimony should consist of facts. Each witness knows directly, not hearsay. Evidence already presented need not be repeated. All witnesses who have signed up in advance will be given the opportunity to speak, and their testimony will be recorded. The board will vote on each case after the presentation of all evidence, pro and con, and all decisions of this board are subject to appeal to the Board of Adjustment and then to the Durham County Superior Court. And now, Madam Clerk, can you please take attendance of those ages? Yes. Vice Chair Prashard. Present. Commissioner Deyall. Present. Commissioner DeBerry. Here. Commissioner Fieselman is out today, so she's got an excused absent. Commissioner Gulsby. Here. Here. Commissioner Johnson. Commissioner Criker. Here. Commissioner Widers. Present. Okay. Thank you, Terri. And with that, are there any adjustments to the agenda today? Carla Rosenberg Planning Department. No, no adjustments. Thank you. With that, we will review and, if appropriate, approve the minutes from the January 5th HPC meeting. So a motion to approve was made by Commissioner Dan and seconded by Commissioner Widers. Can we get a roll call vote, Terri? Yes. Yes. Vice Chair Prashard. Approved. Commissioner Deyall. Approved. Commissioner DeBerry. Approved. Commissioner Gulsby. Approved. Chair Hamilton. Approved. Commissioner Johnson. Approved. Commissioner Criker. Approved. And Commissioner Widers. Approved. Motion passes 8-0. Thank you. And with that, we will proceed with the swearing in of city staff that will be presenting in today's cases. And can all city staff that plan present today please be sworn in at this time? Do you members of staff swear or from the testimony you're about to give in the public? Here in proceeding for today's cases, is the truth by your own knowledge or by information and belief? Carla Rosenberg Planning Department. I do. Egan Sacrifani Planning Department. I do. Grace Smith Planning Department. I do. All right. Thank you to all staff members. And with that, we will proceed with our first case of the day, which is case COA-200-0093-905 West Main Street signs. The first step in this process will be that we will have the applicants taken oath. And it looks like the applicant on this is Riverbank Construction Chad Wilkins. Is he in attendance? Okay. I'm going to go ahead and do those. Yeah, it looks like he's been brought in too. Yeah, they're coming in. This is Chris. Okay. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give in the public here in proceedings for today's case, is the truth by your own knowledge or by information and belief? Mr. Wilkins. Hello. Can everyone hear me? Yes. That's actually not my case. Oh my gosh. I'm sorry. That's my fault. I read the wrong staff report. That is, I'm sorry. This is Southwood Corporation. This will be hearing great. Sorry, Chris. That's not me. Thank you, Mr. Wilkins. I apologize. Terry, can you please? Yes. The right applicant. Do you swear or affirm that testimony you're about to give in the public here in proceedings for today's case, is the truth by your own knowledge or by information and belief? And is Adrienne Gray the only one here to speak on this case? Joseph Welch-Liles with Asana Partners. I'm Tom Fitzgerald with Asana Partners. And both of you also confirm that you consent to the oath as read by... Confirmed. Confirmed. Thank you. And this is this is Drew Simmerford with Southwood Corp as well. I'm with Adrienne. Okay, great. Can you also confirm that you consent to the oath as read? Yes, I do. Thank you. And then can each of you also confirm that you consent to having this hearing done via the Zoom platform? Confirmed. Confirmed. Confirmed. Great. Thank you all. With that, we will now have a summary of the staff report presented by City staff. All right. Let me share my screen. All right, you all see it? Yes. Okay. Keegan Sacropani, Planning Department. This is case number COA-2000093 at 905 West Main Street, signage for the applicant Southwood Corporation. Adrienne Gray, the owner of AP Brightleaf Square. This is 905 West Main Street and downtown design district is a historic landmark. And the proposal is the total 40 signs, including a painted wall sign on the east elevation facing South Gregson, six freestanding signs, five between the two warehouses and a six street facing freestanding sign, 20 aluminum wall mounted signs, six vinyl window signs, and seven banner signs. So with that, I'd like to introduce the staff report in the record and invite the applicant to speak. All right. Good morning, guys. This is Drew Semper with Southwood. I appreciate you all taking the time to review this project with us. As Keegan stated, there are a number of exterior signs that we have been working on with Asana partners at this new redevelopment that they are working on. And just going through some comments in regards to specifically the mural on Gregson Street, the exterior mounted signs, we have confirmed that the square footage of the mural sign does not exceed the 15% allowed. We will also take into consideration the distressing of the paint itself, allowing the brick to breathe. So in the process of commissioning this mural and the distressing of it to give it that historic look, we'll not be applying a very thick coat of paint to the facade of this elevation. If that is still a concern, there's also a different material that we can use in order to give relief to the brick. Specifically, in regards to the exterior signs that will be wall-mounted, we will do our absolute best to share the install method of how these will be installed. And if there are any concerns with how these will be mounted to the buildings themselves, we're happy to share that detail. Again, with the redevelopment of this space, a lot of these updated wayfinding signs are to help drive traffic around the property along with adding to the new design and development of the space. And with that, if there are any other concerns or if Tom and Welch want to jump in, specifically, please feel free. That's great, Drew. Thank you for the introduction. Staff members or board members, if you recall, we met, I believe, sometime this summer and kind of introduced the broader redevelopment of Brightly Square and gained approval for a lot of that work, including activating Main Street, some light touch changes to the courtyard, and trying to bring new tenants to the current and existing vacancies there. And this is just an expansion of that redevelopment and kind of the current rebranding and new signage package for Brightly Square. Great. Was there anything else that the applicants wanted to share in regards to this space? Was there any questions from commissioners? Were there any questions from commissioners for either staff or... This is Andy. Andy Gouldsby. Can you all describe two things? One, how the existing signs will be removed and I guess the holes that were there before repaired. And then you did mention describing a little bit how the new signage will be attached to the existing building. If you could talk about those two things. Sure, absolutely. Sorry, the sun's in the background. The existing signs will be removed and wherever the penetration points of that sign go or penetrate the brick will more than likely fill with a... What's the term I'm looking for? A... We'll do a point tuck of all of those mortar joints in line with the typical historical restoration of the mortar. Please turn on cameras so we can see you. I'm unfortunately not in a look case where I can have my camera. Well, I got you since you're on a plane. Do point and talk of the bricks and then the new signs are going to be... You use highest and best uses to try to penetrate existing mortar rather than the bricks as we go back with the new signs. Does that answer what you're looking for, Andy? I'm sorry, Tom Fitzgerald, the sauna partners? Yeah. Yeah, no, that does help out just to understand that yes, we are going into existing mortar joints and that, yeah, you're tuck pointing within the removal. So, yes. When you mentioned an alternative material being capable of being used for the paint, thank you. What were you considering as an alternative material? So, this would be called a milk paint, which is a more, I guess, soluble kind of material used to paint murals. It is not as thick as your, for example, like Sherwin-Williams paint. In the process of commissioning this mural, as I stated, it will not be a very thick coat of paint that will be on the facade. In part of doing this mural, we will act to distress the paint, giving it that more historic look and feel that the owner is trying to achieve. But if that is not an acceptable method of painting this mural, there is an alternative, which would be the milk paint, which we use on other projects, still giving that same look and feel, but allowing the brick to breathe. Yeah, I think, Katie, just to piggyback on Drew and point out that if any point in the future that the sign needs to be removed or taken down, there is a process to do that, to remove the paint without damaging the brick underneath it as well. Are you guys aware of the criteria that says you can't paint unpainted surfaces like that? Adrienne, we were not fully aware if that is a part of the code, but we're happy to look into that and work with the team on that as well. And the other thing that troubles me a little bit is we've required on other projects not just best effort on attaching signs, but we've required that the mortar joints be used and no new penetrations be introduced to the brick. And just your thoughts on that. I think, Mr. DeBarry, I think we can commit to, I mean, without actually going through and doing it, I mean, we're going to use our best efforts and try to go into the mortar at any place we can. And we feel like that we'll be able to do it everywhere without having gone through and done it. I don't want to promise it to you. And then turn out to not be true later, but that would be our goal is to only go into the mortar joints. If for any reason there's an alternate or a circumstance where we would not be able to, we will not connect and we can bring that back for approval at that time. But our instructions and details will only be to only connect to the mortar joints. And do you have, you don't have any evidence that this wall was painted historically? No, the only historical signage and painting that we have evidence of is the painted numbers over each doorway that are still in existence and would remain. All of the other signage that's around the property and painting this around the property has been added since. All right. Is that, so there's no, no historic sign that will be removed? That's correct. All the signage that's planned to be removed is not historic. To staff, I didn't see the exact sign that is regarded in the 5A of the report. Just to be specific about a sign that staff says it may be historic from it's not, ah, non-historic commercial use. Okay. In 5A you said? Yeah, but I missed right here. It's non-historic. Am I correct? Yeah. It's based on my review all signage proposed to be removed is non-historic. Okay. Thank you. Sorry about that. Are there any other questions for the applicants or staff? One thing I would like to flag is we've referenced the painted sign as a mural, but there's a specific and different definition between a mural and a painted sign. It would be considered a painted sign just to be explicit about that. Okay. Again, I know that's popped up in this area before. All right. Well, with that, I think we can close the public hearing and then if there are any commissioners who wanted to start us off. With any thoughts or concerns? I guess. Were there any issues with commissioners with any of the signs excluding the painted one? Let's start there. Vice-Chair Bouchard, I think I still have a concern about how the signs are going to be mounted on the facade of the building. We don't have a firm commitment here to only go through mortar joints. That's concerning to me. I agree with Matt Bouchard on that concern. My understanding from the applicant was that they were willing to commit to that, though, and then come back for us if they have to do something else. Was that not actually applicant? Can you confirm that that understanding is correct that you will commit to attaching to the mortar joints today? Yes, we will commit and then just because of the unforeseen circumstances, you go through this. I think if we were ever had a place where it couldn't be possible, then we'd bring it back to the committee board. Thank you. I think we could add that in our motion as a condition to help with those concerns. Were there any other concerns about signs other than the painted one? What is the proportion of the east side sign compared to the wall? Sorry, this to the applicants. Which sign specifically, Jonathan? I'm sorry. It would be on the east elevation and South Gretzen Street of the north building. So the elevation we have showing is 5,020 square feet. And then the approximate size of the painted mural, painted sign, excuse me, would be 720 square feet. Thank you. Did any of the commissioners want to discuss anything else other than the painted sign and then we can get into the painted sign issue? So while I appreciate the applicant coming forward and offering a milk paint, and I understand it's a lot better of a product, our criteria is very explicit in not painting unpainted surfaces or not painting historically unpainted surfaces. And with no evidence before us today of this elevation being historically painted, I cannot see a path forward for the commission to approve the painted sign. There's a commissioner here who disagrees, please. Ms. Hamilton, as an alternative to the paint for the milk paint, would you all be open to some sort of applied graphic or cling that would be removable? Can you explain what that means? Like almost you'd see on a window cling or an applied graphic that essentially it's not going to do it justice, but for lack of a better way to describe it, kind of a very high-end sticker more or less that is able to be removed that wouldn't damage the brick. This is commissioner Johnson. I think that will still be considered a fine by the way, no matter what material. Does any other commissioner think differently? Nope. I don't find an issue with the sign there. I think the problem here is painting on brick that has never been painted before and preserving it. If the sign, unless sorry commissioner Johnson, I think that's the distinction nicely unless you see something else. Yeah, you're right. You're right. It's more about the paint than the brick. Do they have advanced stickers that stick on brick? Let's stay. Adrienne Drew, you want to take that one? Yeah. It's a high-end exterior grade vinyl material that would be applied to the brick and it could be used as a long-term material, but if one day it needed to be removed, it could be removed. What kind of adhesives are part of that backing that allow it to stick to the brick? The back of the material actually has an actual grade of material that would be going on, but if you were to apply this same type of material to a window, it would act as like a sticker, but when you go to remove it, it would peel off in one continuous piece. So it would not be like a glue or something that would potentially leave residue behind. You have an example of that that we can look up or you have something that you can introduce to us to show us. And Adrienne Drew, I don't know if you guys have an example. You can share your screen and show, I guess, as an alternative. We can potentially do a very small one and have you all out to the property to show you how it would adhere to a brick and then it will be removed as an example. Sure. I do not have one pulled up right now, but I'm happy to try and find one quickly. So I don't think you'll be able to share your screen just based on how these meetings are organized, but if you can tell us a website to go to or something like that, we can maybe just because of how the evidentiary hearings are having to be held on this platform. We can't accommodate a screen share. Okay. I do believe we have some on our website, which is Southwood Corp. But let me thank you. I have a question for staff while he looks that up. Is it possible for him to email or send you the, send you all the link for this new evidence so that it can be shared and we can have a better understanding? And if there's some spec information to it to kind of help us figure it out. In the Sacramento Planning Department, if he can post a link in the chat or if it's already on the website and he can just tell me the URL, I am happy to pull it up in the screen share. Thanks. Chairman Hamilton, I'm not sure we're going to be able to resolve this today. I think we're going to need maybe some advice from the National Park Service or other historic entities that would help us understand this material. I'm prepared to approve the rest of this, but I'm not sure I can approve this part today. Vice Chair Bouchard, if I could just piggyback on Tad there. To me, the criteria that we're bound to speak to more than just the potential damage that paint or any other adhesive might have to the brick. We have a criteria for landmarks, which these are the most stringent criteria that we deal with that prohibits us from permitting introduction of signage that covers a large portion of the character defining elevation or any significant architectural features. I don't see how we get around that today with respect to the the the mural or whatever we want to call the Grexton Street signage. To me, it speaks something more than just the integrity of the brick itself. It speaks to whether or not it's consistent with the historical appearance of the building. I'm struggling to figure out how we get around that criteria, even if we could get around all the other stuff that we're concerned about with respect to protecting the brick. Yeah, Commissioner Johnson, I just have to agree with DeBerry and Bouchard. I'm a leery about introducing new elements to historic structures, especially a landmark structure without really taking the time. So I was open to discussing it here and now, but I think we should take a little bit more time to research. Yeah. One second. I do have a question, if I may. To the proportions, I looked at that too. I wasn't sure this calls 720 a large portion or not, and what brings you to think that it is a large portion? I think it's huge, 720. Let's put it as a square feet, but why do you think it's a large portion? That's what I'm deliberating when thinking. I think it's a fair question. It is. I think the large might be in the eye of the beholder. When I look at the elevation for Gregson Street, I'm seeing the bright leaf sign more than I'm seeing the architectural features of the building itself. That's what my eye is drawn to, and so I'll be the first to concede that is subjective, but to me it is large. To me, it fits the criteria for being large. So Matt, Andy, it may not be the fact that in the scale of the thing, but what pieces it's touching. So given its size, it now becomes part of the brick detailing that is making up that elevation, whereas if it was a smaller scale, it would only hit certain portions and maybe more agreeable to you, right? Does that make more sense? I think that's fair. I think that's fair, but I feel like that signage dominates that elevation, as I can understand it from the C1 client sheet. So that means even if it were a sign, not any adhesives or paint, we would not agree to it. Or would you, at least? If it was covered in an elevation, a significant portion of that elevation, I'd still have a similar concern, even if it's not directly applied to the brick. Yeah, I think I would too. I think it's, unless there are some historic photos of some large sign on the brick, it's again introducing a new element on the historic aspect, historic integrity part of the building. I just have a reserve. I agree. And the criteria, just to be sure, is for character defining and not street, right? Right. And I believe that is considered a character defining elevation. No, I'm asking, but in the criteria, the criterion itself is the character defining or street elevation. Oh, that's a good question. Is there a scale that would be acceptable if you, I mean, it's all subjective on the 700 feet versus the 5,200 of that facade? But is there a size that you would deem acceptable if it was only covering flat brick? I know that I would feel more comfortable if it wasn't going across the different elements of the vertical elements. I don't know about the other commissioners, but currently it's going across both horizontal and vertical elements and multiple of each from the looks of it. I'd suggest that maybe we're getting a little ahead of ourselves before we even approve the material. My concern on the material even is that it may come off, but the brick is going to weather around it. And are we going to have shadow lines? I think there's a lot of other questions maybe need to be answered before we worry about the size of this thing. For the size, what I'm reading, and I'd like to hear maybe legal perspective as well. It is not appropriate to do a signage or art that covers a large portion of the character defining elevation or any significant architectural feature. So the character defining elevation or a character defining elevation? Well, an elevation, a building can have more than one character defining elevation. Christa Kugria City Attorney's Office. Yeah, I don't think that the in that phrasing implies that there is only one. I agree with Commissioner Johnson. In that case, I agree completely with everyone else we heard here. Vice Chair Bouchard, I mean, I want this applicant to be able to move forward with the otherwise acceptable elements of its plan here. And so I guess I'd be curious to know from the applicant if we were to remove the Gregson Street mural from this application at this time, if they were willing to take that off of this application at this time, would that be acceptable to move forward with the other elements of this application? I think in theory, yes. We'd probably have to have an internal talk and send that back over to you guys. We're not trying to change the structural integrity of the building or degrade the historical aspect of it. I mean, that's part of the reason why we bought it, is we love the historical feel of it. In our eyes, we felt like this, it wasn't really a mural, but it was kind of more of an homage to the bright leaf. And that's why we wanted to whitewash it, fade it out and have it appear like it had been there for a long times. We think it adds character to the building and really builds to the bigger story of the bright leaf district and the area surrounding it. I think there is currently signage applied to that corner of the building that says bright leaf square and we could pivot and go back and do something similar to this upgrading or reusing the signage that's already there. We just felt like this was a better way to show it and give the bright leaf square a better identity in the community and make it more visible to everyone. But I think not knowing the full workings of this is if we agree to remove it now and move forward with just the basic signage package and way finding that we had presented so that we can keep moving forward. As long as it doesn't prohibit us from kind of revisiting this with you all later after we've done some more research and we do a lot of historical buildings all over the country and we've applied these claims and had it approved elsewhere. So we can pull some internal data and share it with you all. I think we just would like to be open to continue to work with you guys to get something that you all are proud of and that the community can be proud of in terms of signage on the building. Yeah so I think this would just allow you to proceed with those other signs as you mentioned but you can definitely come back with more evidence on this other sign and we'd be willing to hear evidence y'all bring for it and it would also just give staff a little bit more time to get there you know as Commissioner DeBarry mentioned what the park service thinks of this and you know a couple other things just so that we have enough evidence before us that we can feel comfortable voting on it but we don't want to hold up your other signs as Commissioner or Vice Chair Bouchard mentioned. So if you are amenable to that it would just be that you'd come forward with a separate application for this specific sign and the application that you're you know considering in place of paint. Yes I think we're totally open to that and want to continue to work with you all on it and provide you all the information so we can all make the best decision possible for the building. Great all right well with that I guess do we want to suddenly feel comfortable making a motion with the amendments I suppose we can go over them. I'm fine if the amendment is the the connection to the wall through the mortar only. And then removing the painted. Yeah that's that that's easy that just that's the second one out yeah. Should we should we specifically Vice Chair Bouchard sorry to interrupt should we specifically mention that the mural has been removed from this application just to make that clear. We're just going to read the CDA without the mural okay see always sorry is that okay or do you prefer something else. I guess the one thing I'm concerned about and this is not me being an annoying lawyer but there's going to be language you know at the end of the motion where we say that the application the work would be consistent with the application and so I don't want to leave any ambiguity that the mural is is actually being removed from the application at this time and that the applicant you know may may submit a new application for the Gregson Street mural but it's it's removed from the application at this time. How about you take the motion. I'll try give me a second. I guess does Krista have thoughts on that I feel like she she might have city city council or city yeah um Krista Kukro city attorney's office um I agree with Vice Chair Bouchard on that I think that it does need to be explicit um just so that it's reflected accurately with the COA. With that sounds like Vice Chair Bouchard has volunteered to make the motion. Wow hey Matt can I ask city staff a question before you get started. So um I'm worried or I'm concerned that when they come back I want them to have as clear a path as possible. Can can someone on staff comment on the um criteria that says you're not supposed to make things look antique that are not antique on a old building just am I making myself clear. I think that applies to architect architecture itself or in building structure and not a sign. Carla Rosenberg Planning Department that is one of the Secretary of Interior standards for rehabilitation which were sort of incorporated into our criteria. I don't know that we've explicitly used that language. Commissioner Diane is right that we have a criterion specifically reflecting like the architectural features shouldn't pretend to be of a certain style like historical style. We didn't incorporate that standard in explicitly but it's sort of historic preservation principle that should be followed. Because my concern is again I want if they come back to us I want them to be able to move through and they just need all the information they can gather to bring a application that's going to work. So I think my suggestion to the applicant would be to make sure that you before bringing the sign back clearly go through the criteria with staff to make sure that you're you're meeting it. And you know that way staff can work with you on making sure that you're you're meeting Commissioner DeBerry's concerns. Absolutely thanks. Chair Hamilton should we get a staff recommendation before I move? Yeah it would be a smart thing to do thank you. Keegan do you have a staff recommendation on this? Keegan Sacrifani Planning Department with the conditions discussed making sure it's mounted to mortar joints and severing the painted sign I would recommend approval. Thank you and now Vice Chair Bouchard. Thanks Katie the Derm Historic Preservation Commission finds that in the case COA 2000093 905 West Main Street signs the applicant is proposing a total of 39 signs six freestanding signs 20 wall mounted signs six vinyl window signs and seven projecting banners attached to or placed near each of the two buildings on the property. The proposed Gregson Street mural has been removed from the COA application without prejudice to the applicant's right to submit a new COA application to this commission. Four monument type freestanding signs including two consisting of aluminum channel letters attached to concrete base walls and two others consisting of aluminum cabinets with applied acrylic faces. One pylon type freestanding sign will consist of an aluminum cabinet with aluminum and vinyl applied graphics. The 20 wall signs will be constructed of aluminum pans with painted graphics mounted by a mounting frame with the aluminum pan wrapping around building columns or attached via 0.125 inch aluminum backers. All building mounted signs shall be mounted through mortar joints and not through bricks. The six vinyl window decals will be attached to each glass door and measure 8.125 inches by one foot eight inches. The seven banner signs will consist of fabric banners measuring six feet six inches by two feet mounted on aluminum tubes that project two feet six inches from the wall. Therefore the conclusion of laws at the proposed addition and alterations are consistent with historic character and qualities of the historic district and are consistent with historic properties local review criteria specifically those listed in the staff report and the Durham Historic Preservation Commission approves the certificate of appropriateness for case COA 2000093 905 West Main Street signs with the following conditions. The improvements shall be substantially consistent with the plans and testimony presented to the commission at this commission hearing and attached to this COA. The improvements may require additional approvals from other city or county departments or state and local agencies. The applicant is responsible for obtaining all required approvals relating to building construction site work and work in the right of way and three a compliance inspection shall be performed immediately upon completion of the work approved here in second with the motion being made by Vice Chair Bouchard and seconded by Commissioner Gulsby. Terry can we please get a roll call vote for all commissioners. Vice Chair Bouchard approved. Commissioner Dall? Approved. Commissioner DeBury? Approved. Commissioner Gulsby? Chair Hamilton? Approved. Commissioner Johnson? You're on mute. Approved. Commissioner Cracker? Approved. Commissioner Waders? Approved. Okay. Motion passes 80. Thank you and thank you for coming out and presenting your case today. Thank you for hearing us. Thank you. Thank you. With that we will move on to case COA 2000094 which is 101 1017 West Trinity Avenue additions and modifications and it looks like Chad Wilkins is actually applicant on this case. Terry can you please confirm that Mr. Wilkins? Yes. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony we're about to give in the public hearing proceeding for today's case is the truth for your own knowledge or by information and belief? Yes I do. Then can you also confirm that you consent to this hearing being held in a digital platform via Zoom? I do. Thank you very much. With that we will hear from city staff to present the case. Were there any commissioners who had any conflicts of interest in hearing this case? I'm hearing them. I think Carla Rosenberg is the city staff associated with this case so we will hear her staff report. Thanks. Carla Rosenberg Planning Department. I'm going to share my screen right now. Can everybody see this? Okay. This is case COA 2000094. It's 1017 West Trinity Avenue addition and modifications. The applicant is Chad Wilkins of Riverbank Construction. The owners are Peter Allen and Sarah Hodder located on the south side of West Trinity Avenue between Watts Street and South Gregson Street. Zoned residential Urban 5 and it is a historic landmark so not in a district but a landmark. It is the Bassett House. The owner I mean the applicant is proposing to replace a screen porch that's not original to the house with a new sunroom also to construct an 80 square foot addition adjacent for a mudroom and then remove the existing rear deck and reconstruct a new one in a different configuration around the perimeter of the addition as well as make some changes to the accessory structure including expanding the attic space via a shed dormer and adding an exterior stair to access that space. So I'd like to introduce the staff report into the record and invite Mr. Wilkins to present his case. Thanks Carla. Good morning everyone. So there's as Carla mentioned there's really two pieces to this project. The first is the addition to the primary residence. As Carla mentioned there's there was an addition done in 2013 by River Bank to the primary residence where a sunroom and an exterior deck were added and you can see that on the 3D here on the left or the 3D model on the left or on the right side there. So those the existing screen porch that's there now is is unoriginal to the house. So we're proposing to take down the screen porch and then to build the sunroom back in the same footprint as the existing screen porch and then just the left of the new sunroom would be a small mudroom entry and then you can see the wraparound deck around that mudroom. So all the all of the new materials infinistration you know would match the existing as closely as possible and the roof the roof slope as well would match the wraparound porch on the front of the primary residence. Be standing seam metal again to match the wraparound porch on the front. And Carl I don't know if you can show the photos of the front to reference to reference there. So there you can see the existing screen porch. So really the 2013 edition also included the gable above the screen porch that you see in this photo. So really the only original piece of the existing structure that we would be touching is where the mudroom will attach to the gable that you see on the left side of the structure on the back. So that's this piece of the project and then the other piece again is the carriage house. The carriage house that is on the site now is also not original to the site. So that was built in 2013 when the primary residence addition was completed. So what we're proposing is a shed dormer addition to the attic space that would allow us to occupy the attic space with an office and exercise room. So you can see the shed dormer addition there on the left side in the 3D model. And then the only other exterior addition that we're proposing is the stair to access the attic that you can see there again in the 3D model. No changes to any windows or doors with the exception of the entry doors that you see at the top of the stairs. There are two existing windows there that will be replaced with those doors. That's a summary of the two pieces of this project. Thank you. Did any commissioners have questions for the applicants or staff? Jonathan, thank you. Wrap around stairs for historic landmarks. Is that a wrap around stair case? To staff, sorry. Are you asking whether this is a wrap around? It does wrap around this non-historic accessory structure. Because it's not in the district, there's no issue to that. I don't believe there is a criterion that specifically says that you can't have a wrap around stairs on a landmark property. But in the district, you're not allowed to have it, right? Or if not appropriate. I don't recall a criterion even in the district criteria that state that. We had a case like that once, okay. There may have been other aspects of that staircase that were an issue, particularly visibility from the street. Thank you. Are there any other questions for the applicant or staff? It's going twice. Just a good question for staff. Sorry for the delay. It looks to me like the accessory structure was approved by COA in 2014. That's correct. Okay. Thanks, Carla. Are there any other questions for staff or the applicant hearing none? We will close this public hearing. Did any commissioners have anything that they would like to discuss amongst commission in relation to this application? I'll entertain a motion unless commissioner has something they'd like to bring up. I'm the staff recommendation police today. I'm sorry, Katie. Carla, can we get a recommendation from staff? Carla Roseberg Planning Department staff would recommend approval of this application. Thank you, Carla, and thank you, Matt. Katie, it's Andy. I can entertain a motion. All right. Thanks, Andy. All right. The Durham Historic Preservation Commission finds that in the case COA-20-00-094-1017 West Club Boulevard addition modifications. The applicant is proposing additions to a primary and accessory structures of a landmark property. The addition on the primary structure will be constructed with wood lap siding and the carriage house with wood shades. Both additions will feature standing seam metal roofs, two over two fiberglass clad wood windows, eight light aluminum clad wood doors, and wood composite trim. A two-story L-shaped steel staircase with wood treads will be constructed on the side of the accessory structure. Gutters and downspouts will be a black half-round and round type. A slightly elevated pressure-treated deck with railings will be constructed around the primary structure's new rear addition. Therefore, the conclusion of law is that the proposed addition and alterations are consistent with the historic character and qualities of the historic district and are consistent with the historic property's local review criteria. Specifically, those listed in the staff report and the Durham Historic Preservation Commission approves their certificate of appropriateness for case COA-20-00-094-1017 West Club Boulevard addition and modifications with the following conditions. One, the improvement shall be substantially consistent with the plans and testimony presented to the Commission at this Commission hearing and attached to this COA. Two, the improvements may require additional approvals from other city or county departments or state or local agencies. The applicant is responsible for obtaining all required approvals relating to building instruction, site work, and work in the right-of-way. And three, a compliance inspection shall be performed immediately upon completion of the work approved herein. Carla Rosenberg Planning Department, I heard with railings. It is without. I just wanted to make sure that was on the road without railings. And this is on Trinity Avenue, not Club Boulevard, correct? Correct. Was that a typographical error? I apologize. It was in the motion. Yes. Yeah, it's in the motion. I'm gonna say I apologize. Okay. Anything that I need to do to correct this motion are we okay with those comments? I think we can second as amended with the... I'll second. One of us will second as amended. Okay, so I'm going to go with the motion was made by Commissioner Gulsby and seconded by Commissioner DeVerry. And then can we please get a roll call vote? Yes. Vice-Chair Bichard. Proved. Commissioner Dianne. Commissioner DeVerry. Proved. Commissioner Gulsby. Proved. Chair Hamilton. Proved. Commissioner Johnson. Approved. Commissioner Crager. Approved. Commissioner Waders. Approved. Masha Passes, 80 road. Thank you, Teri, and thank you to the applicant for coming out and presenting your case today. Thanks for your time, everyone. And with that, we will be on to our third case of the day, which is Case COA 2000095, 2015 West Club Boulevard New Construction and Accessory Structure. And this application is being brought forward by four over one designs, Emily, Emily Kate, Hanna Pell, and is there anyone else here who wishes to speak for against this case? Teri Nunn, and Teri, can you please have Ms. Hanna Pell please? And I'm sorry if I'm betraying your name. Please have her affirmed it. Yes. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give in the public hearing proceeding for today's case is the truth by your own knowledge or by information and belief? I do, and Katie, you're pronouncing my name correctly. Thank you. Thank you. Sometimes it's difficult these days to know. And especially on days when you haven't had any coffee yet. All right. With that, we will hear from Carla Rosenberg with a staff presentation on this one. Carla Rosenberg Planning Department, this is Case COA 2000095, 2015 West Club Boulevard New Construction of an Accessory Structure. The applicant is Emily Kate Hanna Pell of Four Over One Designs. The owners, Andrea and Justin Sitlinger. It's located on the south side of West Club Boulevard between Carolina Avenue and 9th Street. It's zoned residential suburban 8 and is a contributing structure to the Watts-Hillendale Historic District. So the applicant is just proposing to remove an existing prefab shed and construct this new accessory structure in the rear yard. So I'd like to present the staff report into the record and invite Ms. Hanna Pell to present her case. Thanks for letting me speak for you this morning. It's nice to see all of you all. Like Carla mentioned, this is a major COA for the demolition of a small prefab shed and the construction of a one and a half story accessory structure. The accessory structure will have a side gable with shed dormer. It will be slightly over 800 square feet with a two-car garage on the first floor and a small workout room and then upstairs a large open space with a bathroom. 2015 West Club Boulevard is a really beautiful craftsman style four square constructed circa 1915. And for the design of the accessory structure, we really want the structure to sit nicely behind the rear of the house, but we decided it wouldn't be appropriate to kind of pick up some of the fussier details that are on the main house. So the features that will be matching for the accessory structure are the window pattern and the siding material, which is a shake style, cedar shake style. So the main house has 12 over one double hung windows and nine over one windows. So we'll be matching that nine over one window pattern with an aluminum clad component. And then we'll also be matching the cedar shake with a composite material. Also as a part of this, COA will be doing some site work. So there'll be a new path from a patio to the the entry door and then we'll also be kind of repositioning an existing fence. The new fence will match the existing fence, but that is kind of all the site work that will be done. Any questions? I think that summarizes the project. All right, thank you. Did any commissioners have questions for the applicant or staff? I think clearly I'm not the only one who didn't have coffee this morning. We are a lively bunch today. I think this is a beautiful proposal. Thanks, Jonathan. All right. Well, were there any other questions or comments from commissioners on this application? This is Vice Chair Bouchard. I won't ask Carla whether or not this prefab shed has any architectural value this week. Yeah, I mean, this one seems pretty cut and dry. So with that, I will close the public hearing. If any commissioners have anything they want to say amongst themselves hearing none, we will hear a staff recommendation on this case. Carla Rosenberg Planning Department staff would recommend approval of this application. Thank you. And see this time I remembered Vice Chair Bouchard to ask for it. Are there any commissioners who would like to offer up the motion? I'll make a motion. So the Durham Historic Preservation Commission finds that in the case COA 200000952115 West Club Boulevard new construction accessory structure application. The applicant is proposing to remove an existing prefab structure in the rear yard and construct a new accessory structure along with minor site work. The new garage will be one and a half stories in height 21.5 feet and 837 square feet, 27 feet by 31 feet. The garage will be constructed with a brick veneer foundation cementitious fiber board shakes nine over one aluminum plaid wood windows, fiberglass and steel entry doors, a paneled steel garage door and asphalt shingle roofs. A split system HVAC unit will be installed along the garage rear elevation and one black metal sconce will be installed beside each garage door. The new section of pressure treated wood fence will be placed between the primary and accessory structures, matching the appearance of the existing fence on site. The new walkway constructed of concrete pavers identical to an existing patio will connect to the primary and accessory structures. Therefore, the conclusion of law is that the proposed addition and alterations are consistent with the historic character and qualities of the historic district are consistent with a historic property's local review criteria. Specifically, those listed in the staff report and the Durham Historic Reservation Commission approves this certificate of appropriateness for case COA 200095 2015 West Club Boulevard new construction accessory structure with the following conditions. The improvement shall be substantially consistent with the plans and testimony presented to the commission at this commission hearing and attached to the COA. The improvements may require additional approvals from other city or county departments or state or local agencies. The applicant is responsible for obtaining all required approvals related to building construction site work and work in the right way and compliance and section shall be performed immediately upon completion of the work approved here at Vice Chair Bouchard second. Hey, with the motion being made by myself and seconded by Commission Vice Chair Bouchard, Terry, can we please get a roll call, but Terry, you're muted. Vice Chair Bouchard, sorry. Approved. Commissioner Bowne, Commissioner DeBerry. Approved. Commissioner Gholstein. Approved. Chair Hamilton. Approved. Commissioner Johnson. Approved. Commissioner Krueger. Approved. Commissioner Waders. Approved. Motion passes 8-0. Thank you, Terry, and thank you to the advocate for coming up and presenting your case today. And with that, Ms. Waders, I realize we're now sticking to the faster, hard stop. Do you need to be excused at this time? I do, and I thank you all of you. I hope you all have a wonderful day and everybody has some coffee. Thank you. Thank you, you too. It's been, I can't even read addresses today. Every single time I try to read in the dress, I'm just like, whoa, all right, sorry. Now to our final case of the day, case COA 20000096-1208 Virginia Avenue Edition. With this case, the applicant before us appears to be Diane Eckler. Are there any other applicants or any other attendees here who wish to speak for against this case? Hearing none. Terry, can you please administer the oath to Diane Eckler? Yes. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give in the public hearing proceeding for the day's case, this is the truth for your knowledge or by information and belief? Yes, I do. And then can you also confirm that you consent to this hearing being held in a digital through Zoom? Yes, yes. Thank you very much. With that, we will hear the staff reports. All right, Carla Rosenberg Planning Department, this is case COA 20000096-1208 Virginia Avenue Edition. The applicant, Diane Ecklin, the owner, Cook Edge Properties, also Diane Ecklin, located on the east side of Virginia Avenue between Woodrow Street and West Club Boulevard, is owned Residential Suburban 8. It's a contributing structure to the Watts-Hellendale Historic District. So Ms. Ecklin is proposing to construct a two-story addition, first floor and basement, on the rear of the existing bungalow. So I'd like to introduce the staff report into the record and invite Ms. Ecklin to present her case. So Ms. Ecklin, if you could just provide an overview of the addition that you're proposing to build. Hi, good morning. So it's my first time on the Durham Commission. So anyway, so we are proposing to do a two-story addition off the back. The property is one to one and a half story. And at some point, somebody finished some of the basement space and made some finished space out of it. And basically looking to do a two-story with a master suite on the back of the house. And the lower would be just a done area with a walk out. It all would be on grade. The main level, I mean, the lower level would be on grade. We would be removing two existing windows on the main floor and then one or two in the basement, which were, the basement looks to be at some point, was probably originally on piers and just open the lower walls because it looks like at some point when they closed it all in, the brick is all different on the lower level. If you look at the pictures, you can see all the lower brick is different from the upper, the main level, which is a little bit of an odd look. So we're, the materials to use, we're going to do lap, hearty plank siding to distinguish it. And then the gables, we're going to match the existing gables with the board and baton. And windows and all would match. Overhangs, roof pitch, all to match, the existing really doubt, you probably won't really be able to see the addition from the front at all due to the way the lot sets. That's about it. And then we're just on the interior, we're just moving the existing bath over a little bit and we're doing the kitchen, but in the same location. Well, thank you so much for representing your case today. We appreciate you coming out. You know, first time experiences are always fun, but you did great. So thank you. Were there any commissioners who had questions for the applicant or staff? Maureen, this is Andy Gouldsby. A few questions about the windows. One, is there any plan to reuse the windows that are being taken out? Two, are they actually original to the house? And then what is the type of window that you're planning for the new windows? Is it a clad window or is it all wood? It's all, the windows that I'd like to use are all, they're double hung wood windows. They're, should be in the packet, but they're just double hung wood. They've got PVC seals just for rotting, but they look like the traditional, they got nice wide dials and stuff like the old ones. The upper windows are original. The lower ones are not my experiences that they will not let you reuse old windows because they don't meet energy codes and new structures. Sometimes you can get away with just moving it like from across the room. Often they, if you don't say anything, they don't really notice that, but when you're doing a new structure, they won't let you put in old windows or old doors as far as exterior. Interior, we're going to be using all old materials. So often we do have a comment about moving windows even in new structures. I'm not sure about the energy code when it comes to that, but it'd be something to look into if it's possible. Yeah, I've been doing this for about 40 years and I've not been allowed to do it. I mean, I doubt Durham is any different. I mean, I would love to reuse them, but that's been my experience. I mean, if they'll let me reuse them, I'm certainly well. Carla, can you sort of speak to that? Obviously we do. Carla Rosenberg Planning Department. This is a condition that we've often made in applications for additions where windows have to be removed. Original windows are removed and we've never encountered any problem up to now, but I could verify with the inspections department just not immediately. Yeah, I mean, I'm willing to commit to using the old windows on the main floor, which are original of the house. The basement ones are junk and but as far as the original windows upstairs that we'd be removing, I mean, I'm happy to, if they'll let me do it, I'm happy to reuse them. Carla Rosenberg Planning Department, we could put in the motion to reuse them and if you encounter any problem, then we can make an adjustment after that. Yeah, we can add that with the condition to reuse them subject to approval by the inspections department. Carla, does that sound like a good way to word that? Okay, perfect. That's in terms that we have that already because they supersede us anyway on inspections, right? What did you say, Commissioner Dianne? I'm saying if, let's say they call for an R value on new additions for windows and though they don't apply, if they decide not to allow it, it supersedes our COA anyway, doesn't it? It would be in conflict and they would risk having to come back if we don't have it in there that they could use a different window type or I could make potentially a field adjustment but I think it would be cleaner if it's just included in the COA that subject, as Katie said, subject to meeting the building code. I would phrase that as an approval by authorities having jurisdiction just so it encompasses anything, if it's a building code issue or if it's an energy code, there's a couple other factors in there. So if you say authorities having jurisdiction, you'll be covered. Were there any other questions or concerns from commissioners or staff or the applicant? Real quick, how many windows would it be? You mentioned it was the ones on the main floor, there's three, yes, and I would probably just try to, I would probably, if we could use them, I would use them in the main level, you know, in the back in the bedroom. Thank you. Also, it would all be on the same main level. Were there any other questions or applicant or staff? None. We'll close the public hearing. Is there any discussion amongst commissioners? Hearing none, I'll hear a recommendation from the staff. Farrell Rosenberg Planning Department staff would recommend approval of the application with the condition that the windows be reused subject to approval by the appropriate jurisdiction whatever Commissioner Gulsby said. Thank you. And with that, I believe that Commissioner Gulsby has volunteered to make this motion based on his wording. Real quick, is it another bullet point or would it be a condition? I mean, I think it's another bullet, right? I tend to steer toward conditions because it's changing the application. And gosh, do we, I might need to get legal counsel, do we need the applicant to sign off that they're okay with this change? Kristi Kugro City Attorney's Office. I agree with Ms. Rosenberg that it should be a condition rather than a finding. And my, I think it would be good to get on the record that the applicant consents, but I think as part of the process for the COA, my recollection, although staff can clarify, is that we have the applicant signed that they consent to the conditions before issuing the COA. So I'll add that, that signature space and we'll need to get the applicant signature that she's okay with this extra condition that we're putting on it. All right. Go ahead, ma'am. I just wanted to make sure that we put in there that, you know, it's for the upper, the original upper windows, not the basement windows. Yeah. Yeah. Thanks. All right. I'm going to entertain a motion. The Durham Historic Preservation Commission finds that, in the case COA-20-00-096-1208 Virginia Avenue addition, the applicant is proposing an addition to a contributing structure, the 22-foot by 24-foot addition will be two stories in height, not exceeding the height of the original ridgeline. Yes. It will be constructed with brick foundation, cementitious fiberboard lap siding, cementitious fiberboard panels, and treated wood to match existing gables. Fiberglass clad, triple grid, six over six, double hung wood windows, fiberglass entry, and sliding glass doors, and asphalt shingle, asphalt roof shingles, excuse me. Therefore, the conclusion of law is that the proposed addition and alterations are consistent with the historic character and qualities of the historic district and are consistent with the historic property's local review criteria. Specifically, those listed in the staff report and the Durham Historic Preservation Commission approves the certificate of appropriate appropriateness for case COA-20-00-096-1208 Virginia Avenue addition with the following conditions. One, the improvements shall be substantially consistent with the plans and testimony presented to the commission at this commission hearing and attached to this COA. Two, the improvements may require additional approvals from other city or county departments or state or local agencies. The applicant is responsible for obtaining all required approvals relating to building instruction, site work, and work in the right-of-way, and, excuse me, three, a compliance inspection shall be performed immediately upon completion of the work approved herein. And four, three windows will be removed from the main level and reused, all subject to approval by the authorities having jurisdiction. I'll second with the motion being made by Commissioner Gulsby and seconded by myself. Terry, can we please get a roll call vote of all commission members on this case? Yes. Yes, Vice-Chair Bressard. Proved. Commissioner Dianne. Move. Commissioner DeBarry. Proved. Commissioner Gulsby. Approved. Chair Hamilton. Proved. Commissioner Johnson. Approved. Commissioner Crager. Approved. Motion passes 7-0. Thank you, everyone. Have a great day. Thank you very much and thanks for coming out and presenting your case. With that, that concludes our public hearings for today. And we will now move on to old business, of which there is none, and then the new business of election of officers. Is there anyone here today who's interested in... Yeah, Katie, I'm Karla Rosenberg, planning department. I don't know if I need to say that, but I just wanted to say this election, we could, of course, continue on with our current Chair and Vice-Chair if they are willing, having done a fabulous job. This is a point where we could elect new officers, but certainly that doesn't mean that we have to as well. So I just want to be clear with that. I do have a nomination if it's open. I nominate Matt Bouchard as president. Yes, Chair, sorry. Matt, would you be interested in taking the title of Chair? I am more than willing to step down for anyone who's interested in being Chair. I appreciate the nomination. If the Commission wants me to serve in that capacity, I'd be happy to. Thank you. Sounds great. I feel like Matt will be far better at remembering to ask Christophe and doing things the correct way with... Katie, you've done it the perfect job. Don't apologize for a second. Yes, stop. Thank you very much. It's not a... I don't think there's any... In what April was saying, I don't think there was anything that... Oh, no. Oh, no. Trust me, April knows I'm more than happy to step down this way. I definitely... I know Matt's much... That is myself. It's an accolade for Matt and his ability to know the correct way of doing things a little bit. So were there any nominations for Vice Chair? Or any interest from any of the Commissioners in being Vice Chair? I nominate Tad DeBerry. Can we have two nominations? Hold on. I think we can. I know that he has served as Vice Chair in the past. Oh, that's... Yeah, okay. Yeah, I'd really love to see us move the issue along to some younger folks. It's Andy Gullfee then. I nominate Andy Gullfee. Andy, would you be willing to be the Vice Chair? I'd be willing to do so. Yeah. Fantastic. With that, do we need to take a vote on this, I believe? Yes, she needs to take a vote. With that... They're separate votes, correct? So with that, I would like to get a roll call vote from Terry on those Commissioners who approve of Matt Buchard being the new Chair of the Historic Preservation Commission. And Matt vote for himself? Yeah. Vice Chair Buchard? Yes. Commissioner Dianne? Who? Commissioner DeBerry? Yes. Commissioner Gullfee? Chair Hamilton? Approved. Commissioner Johnson? Yay. Commissioner Crager? Approved. Motion passes 7-0. You are now Chair. Congratulations, Matt. Thank you, Katie. Thank you, Katie. Katie, you've done an amazing job. You did. Well, thank you. It was definitely a year to have to be Chair. I'll say that at the beginning. You did one month, maybe, and then we were virtual. Actually, what it was, it was like, oh, okay. And we... You just have a round of applause. So Vice Chair Buchard, we're going to be Vice Chair now? Yeah, so all those in favor of Commissioner Gullfee being promoted to Vice Chair Gullfee? Okay, Chair Buchard? Approved. Commissioner Dianne? Who? Commissioner DeBerry? Approved. Commissioner Gullfee? Yes. Chair Hamilton? Hamilton? Approved. Commissioner Johnson? Yay. Commissioner Crager? Approved. Okay, Vice Chair? Gullfee. Thank you. Thank you to my... Well, I guess this would be the closing out. I had one thing I wanted to... I've got the minor COA report done, and I'll be melding. That was out of the sleep. Okay. Thank you. Marie? Was there anything else that we needed to discuss before closing the meeting? I have a quick announcement. After last month's meeting, the applicant for birth 310 East Main Street invited me to walk through the building, and I did so about two weeks ago, and just it confirmed everything we did in the meeting, and they're going to do a good job. And I was happy to be a part of that discussion, and they were... They're doing a responsible job over there. Great. Good to hear. That's good. Is there anything else? Yeah, I have one more thing. So the accessory structure that's being moved on Green Street, they have got the framing underneath it. I don't know what day they're going to move that accessory structure, but I know it'll be something that we should get photos for the newsletter or... A great idea, or what not. I know we talk a lot about the accessory structure. What is that? I jumped in and I'm interested, because that was my only case I've ever processed for y'all. I can contact... I have their contact information. I'll send them an email today and find out what's going on. I can try to get... They have some staff on the ground, like in the field. Try to get them to get by and take pictures. Thank you for letting us know. Yeah, yeah. Anything else? All right. Well, I think that's it. Thank you everyone for making it such a great time to be your chair. Bye. Thank you. Thank you, Kate. See you all tomorrow. Thanks, Katie. Thank y'all. Bye. Bye.