the this meeting is called the order. All right. The first item on our document is consideration of the minutes. From the May 7th 2025 Board of Architectural Review Public Hearing Does any member of the Board wish to offer modifications to the May 7th minutes? Does any member of the public wish to make a comment or offer suggestions or modifications to the May 7th minutes? Seeing none, all those in favor, oh, can we have a motion, please I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I item is number three. The AR 2025-00128. Oldenstarch district. A quest for a window. Link at approval for Riverton condominium units. Parcel address 610-Bashford lane. And alterations at 500-Bashford lane. Unit 3322. Applicant is Bonnie J. Swanson. And number four is request for alterations at 418 South Washington Street. The applicant is Alexandria Roofing Company, incorporated, represented by Matt Stallings. Does any member of the board wish to remove either of these items from the consent calendar? Does any member of the public wish to remove either of these items from the consent calendar? All right, can I have a motion for the consent calendar. Second. We need a roll call on either of these. No, these are not demolitions. All right. All those in favor. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? All right. It's three and four on the docket are approved. We're going to approve the consent calendar. Second. We need a roll call on either of these. Aye. Any opposed? All right, items 3 and 4 on the docket are approved. Moving on to unfinished business and items previously deferred. Yes, sir. First item under, only item under unfinished business and that was previously deferred is item number five and six. BER 2025-0035. The old andark District, request for alterations and new construction at 1201 East Abingdon Drive. Applicant is PF3 Abingdon LLC and 1201 Parkway Center LLC by Ken Wire and Megan Repult attorneys. And six is BER 2025-0036. Oldenstark District district request for partial demolition and encapsulation at 1201 East Eppington Drive. Applicant is PF3 Eppington L.C. and 1201 Parkway Center L.C. by Ken wire and Megan repul attorneys. All right, who is going to be speaking? Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the BAR. I'm Ken Wyreff, the law firm Wyregill. My colleague Megan Repolt and I represent the applicant. As many of you know, this project has been the work for quite a while. These building conversions are something the city is pretty proud of. I think we lead the nation for projects of our size to convert. I wasn't able to make the last hearing, but I watched the tape. and there was certainly a lively discussion on how our prior proposal could be made to better fit within the neighborhood and meet the design guidelines standards. My client this evening will walk through some of the changes we made, direct response to your comment. As many of you know, the height, the mass and the scale was approved for this project with the DSUP by the city council. And we look forward to your action tonight. Thank you. Terrific. Would you like to just answer questions from the board or do you want to give a supplemental presentation on? I think our architect would like to point out it's a couple words. I promise I'll be brief. If you're indicating, we should be brief. We will be brief. You can take the time that you'd like. Go ahead. Mr. Chairman, my name is Benjamin Casson. of an architects at K2 jui and sign principal for this project. So we're just going to go pretty quickly through sort of our responses to the discussion last time. So I was also not here last time, but I also watched the tape. So really quickly, I mean, what we heard are effectively, there's some history of the three other times that we were before you, but Dan, if you're the next slide. So last time we heard just three things. We heard about brick color. We heard about minimizing the verticality and increasing the depth, especially along the main facade, and then wrapping the corner of the new addition. Conveniently, we happened to have got a brick representative in common with the 2019 townhomes next door. And so we got some intel on knowing exactly what bricks are in the context to the south and these are those bricks. And so we used that information, yeah,, go ahead and then Diane, to choose a new color, which I believe we have the physical samples here, if you'd like to see them more closely. And so the first move is to make the colors more compatible. It's interesting because the town home sex store have just got every brick color you could imagine. And so we worked hard to try to find one that is both compatible with the adjacent townhome building as well as with the existing portion of the building that has been renovated into a residential building on this project. Go ahead, thanks. Looking at the building, you can see sort of in its larger context of what the new brick color looks like from a few different views, the quasi-arrow view, the sidewalk view from both the north and the south. And then we did some Google Street View collages. So on the left side of this image is the existing condition taken straight from Google Earth. And then on the right we did a collage of showing the new addition and the changes to the existing building to make it more perfect for residential. Basically inserting residential windows and the addition. Go ahead Dan. So the next thing I want to talk about is minimizing the verticality. So on the left here is what we presented last time. And there were a couple of moves, especially on the outer sides of that main mask where we accentuated the stack of balconies in a vertical way. And on the right is what we're proposing now. We emphasize the horizontal on all facades really, but it's particularly evident here. And I have another exhibit that will show it a little more clearly. We also stepped the edges of that wing as well. And you can go to the next one to show those in a little bit more detail. The data line of that horizontal between levels two and three further accentuates the base and the base middle top arrangement of this composition. And then if you go to the next one, we start to show what some of the other contexts in terms of scale are. I mean, it's hard to see what on the bottom, those are the other buildings that you can see as you're entering into the north portion of Old Town from Washington Parkway. The last view is referring to wrapping the corner. So on the left is what was presented last to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to be going to a little bit more aggressively than it is now in the current proposal. We added another. They again using that 15 foot bay dimension. That's what the town homes next to us are using. So that's what we are referring to. It's also consistent with the Washington designs, Washington Street designs. And then our last slide is just a blow up of that condition. And you can see that hyphen is minimized. Really trying to wrap the corner with the architecture in a way that we hope addresses your comments from last time. I'm here to answer any questions you may have. Thank you for your time. I really appreciate it. Thank you. Do any members of the board have questions for the applicant? If so, go ahead. All right, seeing none, do we have any public speakers on this application? The first one is Philips Williams. Is it Williams? No, that's for a mouth, that's for the real estate industry. Oh, yeah. Yeah, that's for real. Oh, yeah. I got the wrong one. Yeah, let's read the first. Kaston Faya. Which one? Which one? No, this is the architect. Not typical. No, this is the one. No, this is the architect. Not typically. No, this is the one. Right? I'm sorry. You have too many... That's all right. We have a lot of forms. It's okay. Andrea has a lean jerk. Come on up. And the Lisa. Jure. Come on up. And the Lisa. Quimney. Melissa Quellen. Is Melissa here? You can go to the other podiums of that. There we have. We don't lose time and transition. It's like a racetrack. We're ready. Okay. Okay. And this. Okay. So, okay. Go ahead. I just please give us your name and address of the record. My name is Andrea Haslinger. My address is 522 Belvy Place. And directly behind the proposed project. The last time this project came up before the city, I think in like July of 23 before it was at this stage. The plan was for there to be about six to eight residences with direct access onto North St. A's of Street and they would park along there. At that time we requested that there not be resident access from that private street. Mostly because of the cut through traffic down, and perpendicular to St. A's of his Bellevue and everybody uses Bellevue which is a private street that is privately maintained to get to which is now the Harris building. Notwithstanding the private street signs at both ends, cars more often than not use Bellevue mostly because it's shorter than going down to second street and around and a lot of people are confused or not don't read well. I don't know. As I said it's a private street maintained by the Homeowners Association and we recently spent tens of thousands of dollars to repay it and there are only 20 houses there so our reserves are small. And we budgeted to repay it like every 25 years, assuming that's just us on the street, not 100 people behind us. Also drivers who don't live there tend to speed, and we've got several small children and pets there. We have signs posted but again people don't pay much attention. Anyway the latest plan now is for the entire building to have access from San Asta Street. We've been told that it's intended for pedestrians and dog walkers and such but the taxis, Uber drivers, delivery vans and others being dropped off at a door closer than the one that's on Abingdon will have access to that. The same issues we raised more than a year ago still apply, but much more so now. Instead of six or eight people using Bellevue, there are potentially more than a hundred. We brought up the cut-through traffic with the developers most recently when a giant crane used Belle View to access the site for I think window washing and we were it was suggested to us that we installed gates at either end of Belle View. Aside from the fact that the city probably wouldn't let us do that from a public right away and that would restrict access to emergency vehicles and such. It would be prohibitively expensive for a town-owned community of only 20 houses. So it appears that we have the choice of an expensive gate system or the expensive repaying Bellevue much more frequently do the increased traffic. And this doesn't seem right. I would ask that the developer revert to the previous design of having six to eight residences in the back rather than an all-comers access to the back. That's all. Thank you very much. You're at time. And who gonna be next after Melissa? Was Andrea? Melissa? No. Yeah, and then the next one. You're Melissa? I'm Melissa. Okay. And then the next one so she can come up to this podium and be ready. The next one's Gail. Okay, Ms. Rothrock. And Al Cox. Okay, so of Laura's yours, you have a few minutes. Okay. Good evening. I don't even know where to start. You heard me, my comments last month. I'm as a retired architect, I've designed hundreds of these multi-family units in historic districts. I hear what the architect is saying, but I don't see any evidence of what he is saying. There's no expression of horizontality on this building. It is continuing to use the vertical peers, which are more indicative of a building that belongs in the industrial site, former industrial neighborhood. This is a neighborhood of townhouses and smaller scale buildings, green lawns, and lots of trees. There's no former industry here. And I'm just, I'm very concerned about the fact that this applicant doesn't seem to understand what the zoning requirements are for the old and historic district. So there's an issue about verticality. The vertical peers, in, according to the language, violate the requirement for traditional, solid void relationships. It doesn't mean you have, you separate the windows horizontally or really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really recreate that. It's an opportunity to actually meet the zoning requirements. I don't need to say any more. Thanks. Thank you. Mr. Rothrock and then Mr. Cox, I believe you're next up here to my left. Will you be speaking for yourself or on behalf of your organization? On behalf of the Historic Alexandria Foundation. All right, you have five minutes. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman Scott and members of the board. Gail Rothrock for the record, 209 Duke Street. We've submitted a letter with our objections to this application, and I will try to summarize that letter. This proposal will impose a large new facade directly on the George Washington Memorial Parkway without complying with the mandatory provisions of the Zoning Orchid and ordinance, those Washington Street standards, 10105A3. The standards were adopted to protect the landmark district by prohibiting precisely the type of intrusive new structure on the memorial parkway proposed here. This planed addition explicitly draws attention to itself and does not blend into the background. The millions of visitors who come to Alexandria down the parkway will see this structure as their first visual experience of our city. So we request that you deny this application. We noted our concerns first during the initial concept review in July 6, 23, and review of the record of that hearing shows that the board did not endorse the scale or facade proposal presented. And many members of the board expressly called upon the applicant to search for a design that would blend better with old town and preserve the important entry point into Alexandria. As an example of the objectionable design methodology employed in this project, the applicant has repeatedly relied on inappropriate design precedence points of reference. These include billions that are not within the historic districts or subject to B.A.R. approval, specifically 12-1 North Pit and 1166 North Pit Street. Worse and its latest presentation, the applicant has relied on the designs of buildings which directly caused the adoption of the Washington Street standards and which could not be approved under those standards once adopted. 901 North Washington Street built in 1989 is the prime example. Unfortunately, the latest modest revisions proposed by the applicants continue to ignore these serious concerns. The project continues with a massive facade that intrudes onto the George Washington Memorial Parkway and its visual impact. Excuse me. The Washington Street standards make repeated and deliberate reference to the necessity that new construction along the parkway should draw upon architectural features of the historic property, property zone Washington Street. And by historic, the ordinance is referring first and foremost to the historic buildings that George Washington was familiar with, Christ Church, Lloyds Row, the Delaney House, and the Alexandria Academy, which H.J. F. Ones. The B.A.R. Staff reports correctly note that the approval requires conformity with the Washington Street standards. However, missing from all the staff reports is any reference to how the application complies with each of these mandatory standards. So in summary, industrial style buildings of the 21st century are simply not a reference point that is contemplated under the ordinance. And unfortunately the applicant has drawn extensively on this wrong design vocabulary for this landmark district. We do not believe the application before you satisfies any of the Washington Street standards and the absence of any review of these individual requirements in the application materials or in this staff report to make clear this is the case. So we would therefore urge you to reject this application. Thank you. Mr. Erick Cox. My name is Al Cox, 311 North Alfred Street, good evening, Chair Scott and members of the BAR. I would like to explain the origins of the Washington Street standards that were included in the staff report. Around 2000 when the BF Sal Center at 625 North Washington was constructed and that's where Trader Joe's and FedEx are located today, the public was outraged at the size of that building in relation to the historic buildings on the parkway. The BAR approved the project under the General Design Guidelines applicable at that time. Even though the project was divided into two halves and constructed of red brick with some very mild colonial revival detailing, it was considered far too monumental and the scale was incompatible with historic buildings on Washington Street. As background in the 1920s, the city saw a great tourism benefit if the proposed GW Parkway went through the city. But the parkway was only rattled along Washington Street after the city signed an agreement with the federal government in 1929, requiring that all buildings along Washington Street maintain the memorial character for businesses and residential units for visitors driving to the Shrine of Mount Vernon. The letter you received in your packet from the Historic Alexandria Foundation attached an article written by Dr. Peter Smith that explained the term memorial character for these purposes and the memory test became the de facto definition used by the BIR. In the 1940s, the federal government was concerned that there was too much commercial development on Washington Street that did not maintain that memorial character and threatened to move the parkway to the waterfront, destroying much of the city's industrial tax base. As a result, in 1946, the city created the third historic district in the United States to oversee any new proposals on the parkway within the city limits. The B.A.R.'s design guidelines were adopted in 1993 to provide general design direction to developers, their architects, and staff. However, after the public outrage over the construction of the Sal Center, City Council created a task force to amend the zoning ordinance to ensure that buildings like that could never happen again. They appointed members of the National Park Service, planning commission, the BAR and local preservation groups to that task force. They met for six months and created the Washington Street Standards as well as the BAR's concept review policy. Peter and I staffed that task force along with architect John Rust and drafted those policies. So it is with some confidence that I express my belief that the project before you this evening does not comply with the spirit or the legislative intent of the Washington Street standards adopted by City Council. Thank you very much. I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Do we have more speakers? Yes, I've won. Is Galahann? Is she our last speaker? Okay. The floor is yours. My name is Mr. Chairman and members of the BAR. My name is Yvonne Wade-Kalahann, and I am President of Old Town Civic, but I won't take five minutes. Mr. Cox referred to the earlier development of the Washington Street standards. He mentioned the memorial character of the buildings that were to be constructed if anywhere on the Washington Street. The buildings were to be, quote, in keeping with the dignity, purpose, and memorial character. Three things. This lacks all three things. I'd like you to do a comparison with Sunrise, which got, I think, rave reviews from almost everybody. Imagine that construction on the one or 200 block of north or south or the south-western district, you wouldn't allow it. One of the things, one of the oddities, I think, for all of us is that we think of the Old Historic District as kind of a core area. We don't realize that it's really larger than that, that it does include this section. I just explained to somebody who lived here 30 years now, did not realize that the oldest historic district went over to on the west side of the GW Parkway. Oh, I didn't know Michigan Court was on the, you know, in the oldest historic district. How easily we forget is the problem. The National Park Service does not deserve a lot of credit here. They seem to have gone AWOL, but we can perhaps understand right now why maybe not a year ago. But I think it's up to us to look carefully at what can be done to preserve something that was initiated in the late 20s, 2930, as a tribute to George Washington. Doing a little history, I learned that the first individual to drive from Key Bridge, from Memorial Bridge, down to Mount Vernon, was President Herbert Hoover driving himself in some sort of a vehicle. Nobody could drive at night, because nobody had figured out how to put up street lights that were adequately for the safety so it took several years for most people to even figure out how to use this parkway at night. I will say the brick color is a little bit better. That's just about all I can say. Again, if you were to transpose this to another location, it just wouldn't pass. And also it was striking that you didn't see this compared to say Christ Church, because it doesn't fit. It was shown as compatible with other buildings that aren't right there to begin with. I'll close with the words of the late and wonderful citizens Stuart Dunn who said we don't really own anything in old town. We're the stewards and this I think is what we need to be reminded of here. We're the stewards of a forgotten or almost forgotten part of Alexandria history. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Kelley. And are there any other speakers on this application? All right. With that, we will close the public comment portion of this docket item. Mr. Spencer, would you like to offer your thoughts? I would like to thank the architects for coming back in and revising the color of the brick. I said in the last meeting that I had personally had no issue with the height, mass and skill of this building. I still don't. So I don't really have any comments about what I think needs to be changed. Thank you. Mr. Lions. Yeah, thank you. I mean, I think I've been on the record as saying I've supported this project from the beginning. I've also been impressed with the changes that you have made from the input from the board and I think you've done that again with the color of the brick. I think it is much better. But yeah, other than that, I mean, it's, you know, in context with the other buildings that are on the parkway I also think it's not something that's terrible for the entry way to Alexandria. So, yeah, I can support this project. Miss Del Nino? I also think that the brick color is a little more subdued and that really helps the building, but I still feel that the vertical pie the, the vertical pi last years and, you know, the treatment of the sod is not in keeping with the neighboring buildings. But I do think it's an improvement. I do agree with a number of the speakers saying, you know, does it detract with the memorial character of Washington Street? Yeah, maybe a little. That's my thought. Thank you, Mr. Adams. Thank you. I've had problems with this project all along, principally because of the many of the factors that the earlier speakers spoke about. The neighboring townhouses were designed as a large project, but they were purposefully broken down into elements that's why you have all these different bricks and things that seem to be laughable to you but the improvement that you've chosen this other brick collar. But I've always had a problem with this facade that has this monumental look and you've taken away the corners. I've asked you to reduce the volume of these piers or columns by adding some variety at the corners. You've taken it away, you put it back on. I really don't see much change in the project ever, except the color of the brick, and taking things away, putting them back on. I don't think it's been respectful of the history of Alexandria and the B.A.R. and these Washington Street standards, which is an aside, I do think the board should include a checklist as you do with demolition items to make sure that we on the board know what these requirements are and if the project has conforms with those because I don't think it does. The issue of these vertical peers, the massiveness of it, and calling attention to itself, which the architect actually made a statement that that's why he wanted this, and one of the earlier presentations. That's not the point of that area or anything in Alexandria. It's a community where the design elements are purposefully broken down into smaller elements to fit with the historic nature of this city. And that's what brings tourists here. That's what drives our economy. And I think that although this isn't on King Street or Washington Street in the historic part of town, it is an area that was once considered the gateway, and there was circles to be there, and so forth. And everyone else who's done a project there except for the red brick building that was before the guidelines were established, you're joining a transitional apartment, the condo, has been broken down into, purposefully into elements that reduce the massiveness of it into different elements by changing the façade treatments, punched windows or solid and voids. These would have been very easy things to do on some area of this building, in the corners, for instance. Instead of these massive amounts of ribbon windows, which again, it just... It seems... instead of these massive amounts of ribbon windows, which again, it just, it seems illogical to me that you wouldn't have listened to us when we asked for those kinds of changes when you re-study this project. It's too large. I think the Washington Street standards, I understand there may be different interpretations for different sections of Washington and Street. Is that true that some have some areas have? The guidelines do break. The guidelines do break down the Washington Street corridor by section. By section. And what is different about this section on Abington that's from this is the guidelines and not the zoning ordinance I'm just to be clear. OK. It's in the staff report. Give me one. Thank you. You got it. OK. Well, again, there's there are aspects of this project that we could learn from when something else comes up on Washington Street. So I would hope the staff will do consider educating us more about this and the clients, the architects and developers. I think those are the main points. I just think it's caused too much attention to itself. And it could have been salt and I would hope some without changing the mass scale or kind of it, it could be sensitively altered in a way that would conform to what the townhouses next door do, breaking it up into smaller elements, even though it's a huge thing, that wouldn't be that hard to do without just changing parts of the facade. That covers my points for now. Thank you. Thank you. I'd like to echo a lot of Mr. Adams' comments. I do think that if I were a developer this this probably is not the building I would have asked for a detective design. I think that There certainly could be easy changes which the applicant has chosen not to make And I also think it's a really useful learning point that for the Washington Street standards I think it would be helpful in the staff reports if they just go by each criterion really as much for us as for the city staff so that you can mentally and your own mind check to make sure that it's done. With all that said though, I actually do think that this building compliance with the standards. There have been some very deliberate efforts, although again, this is not a building that I think is the most beautiful building it could be in the location. You do have some attempts by the applicant to apply the standards. You have the 15 foot modules. This is a brick building. It is not a new material. And the windows are, in fact, broken up by bricks. They're not solid panes of glass. I don't think that this building just tracks from the dignity of the George Washington Memorial Parkway. Again, I don't think it's the most beautiful building that could be built, but it's not the charter of this board to demand the most beautiful buildings in all places. It's to assess whether these buildings apply, comply with the standards. I do find that it complies with the standards. I'd also like to make the point that this is an addition on a 1980s office building. And I think to suggest that a building like the retirement center on North Washington Street would be a design style that's appropriate here really removes the context of the building that it's going to be attached to. And this addition does have to find a way to link to the 1980s office building that's being converted into residential. And also, as Mr. Adams pointed out, the guidelines, the design guidelines for Washington Street, this is in the section of Washington Street, although this building is not on Washington Street. In fact, it's not particularly close to Washington Street, but it does face Washington Street. And so the interpretation is that the heightened standards apply here. It's quite a bit of a distance from the street. And the guidelines, our guidelines say that this section from Pendleton Street to Bashford Lane is predominantly commercial with a number of modern office buildings and highway oriented uses. You have several gas stations in this section. I just added that. New buildings in this area should be oriented to the street, create an attractive pedestrian environment, and foster a sense of place, arrival, and community. And I do think they've done that with the entrance, with the fence that they've proposed, with the sort of graceful entrance. There's a pullover in the front of the building for ubers or cabs. There will be a nice sidewalk in the front. I also don't think this is going to be very noticeable from the parkway. I happen to live in this neighborhood very close to this and I drive by the existing office building every day many times a day and I almost never notice the building. I think this will not be more noticeable than the existing building. And I think that the brown color will just help it recede into the background. So with all of that said, I can support this project while acknowledging respectfully the differences of opinion that have been voiced here today, and which I sincerely appreciate. Well'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Well, does anyone want to add anything? Mr. Conkin, I think we're ready to call the rule. I'll leave it in motion in a second. Would anyone like to offer a motion on this? I can't move to approve the I can item estimated five and six by even six African I can't motion to approve the Aukid item. 5 and 6. 5 and 6. I have six recommendations. Let's see if we staff recommendations. Yes, sir. Is there a second to the motion? Second. All right, let's call the rule. Excuse me. Sorry. Mr. Spencer. Hi. Is your Adams? Yes. Is your Adams? Yes. Mr. Williams. Mr. Williams. Yes. Is your Adams? Yes. Is your Adams? Yes. Mr. Williams. Yes. Yes. Mr. Williams. Yes. Yes. Mr. Williams. Mr. Tonya. Mr. Alliance. Aye. Mr. Scott. Aye. All right, docket items. Five and six are approved. What do we have next, Mr. Conkey? Okay, thank you, sir. We're going to on to new business. and number seven, excuse me, is BER 2025-009-8. Oldenstoric District requests for alterations at 222 southwest street. Applicant is Lynette Axelsson, represented by Karen Conkey Architect. And for obvious reasons, I will be stepping in. What are the obvious My name is Karen Conkey. I'm an architect here in town. I have the office as it is for the record. I'll let him scoot out first. Good evening. My name is Karen Conkey. I'm an architect here in town. I have the office at 407 South Least Street. I'm representing my client, Lynette Axleson, at 222 Southwest Street. She profusely apologizes. She has a newborn child who started daycare and she is now really ill with a bad cold. So she absolutely wanted to be here this evening but felt it was best to not be here and make everyone sick. So with that, again, she purchases home in 2010. Our application looks very familiar to what we submitted in 2023. Our approval expired, so we're here requesting for approval again. The main thing is that we want to replace all the windows and siding and trim with the project and would ask the board to consider fiber cement siding on the elevation, which is the side elevation simply because the gap between us and 220 next door is only a 1 foot 10 wide. So it's very narrow and it's actually it's 220's property. It's not 220's property. So she doesn't, it's her elevation or wall is right on the property line. So it makes maintenance kind of difficult there. She has put off replacing the wood siding on this side for a while. It needs replacing. And she would really request that she have fibresment there. If we could have the picture that shows the side from the street, the public view up pictures, yeah, so the other direction, please. Keep going, keep a couple more. Yep, there you go. That's the extent that is kind of visible from the street side. And she acknowledges that yes, it is visible. But you know, it's a 20 inch wide gap between the two houses, but makes the most of the side not visible. So that's why she's asking for Fibersament. She even offered that she would be, as a compromise, do wood to a certain point down the little alley and then switch to Fibersament as a compromise. So. Thank you. I'm do any members of the board have questions for the applicant? This is Parker Gray. Isn't that right? It's not. It works. If it were, then Fibersament would be fine. It's old and historic. Right. On West Street. So it must just be the work of mine. It's Southwest. So if it were Northwest, you'd be exactly right that it would be in park regret similar era similar type construction. Any other oh excuse me any other questions from the board do we have any public speakers on this application? All right then we'll close the public common portion of the hearing and we'll offer board. Do we have any public speakers on this application? All right, then we'll close the public comment portion of the hearing and we'll offer board. Oh, no, of course Ms. Teleno has more questions. So you mentioned, you know, transitioning to Fiber cement at a certain point further into the alley. So would that be identical to the wood? I mean, I'm gonna be able to totally match that. I'm gonna be, yeah. It's an interesting question. I've talked with my client about possibilities of using like a borrel seametitious material that has the German lap look. She doesn't like that product because it's made of fly ash. So she really would prefer to use a fibrous cement siding and unfortunately, Hardy does not make that profile. So it would be a change in profile. So we'd have to have like a corner board and then one profile and then another, which I'm not sure if that's great or not, but she offered it as an option. I don't know. I really don't know, but I've suggested that. Okay. Mr. Adams, would you like to offer your thoughts? I recall the project was here once before. Sure. And I don't remember about the siding, but I do would prefer the German profile because that's what it was. And I think I'm not sure why she, what that means, fly ash. But she doesn't like the idea that it's an industrial waste product that goes into making the siding on her house. She just has a fundamental issue with that but I don't know. I can't explain it more than that. Okay, thank you. Well, so that would be one issue to me. And the windows in the front which we spoke about And last time I asked that the sill be lowered and now It hasn't been I understand she doesn't want to lower the sill I assumed it was a kitchen or some room that needed a higher sill but it's the living room and She's going to the expense of replacing the windows and yet it's just wrong. It either should be matched what was there before if you're doing to do this fine work, you're proposing the windows to over to and all the things you're bringing it to that's correct period. But this window is, word I wouldn't want to use here. So I, and I think adding trim to it is, you know, is adding to the insult of having a modern triple window which doesn doesn't really fit, and is not historic, and so it's a conflict and for the viewer to think that that's how it's always been. So I think she should consider either going to a simple window like the neighbor has and really restoring the house and bringing it up to the park that you have done in every other project. And then on this one, it's just a fist on the eye to see that window there. Thank you. Still, you know? I think it's true the window is probably a little short given it's on the first floor and if it were a little taller the scale would be a little more appropriate for where it is on the elevation. We were utilizing the opening that is there. That was modified at some point prior to my clients for owning the property. Oh, it was modified to be higher. And she just preferred not to go to the expense of changing it. So. But you're saying the sale is the same. The sale is exactly the same as the existing. We've just put trim on it to make it look a little more like the rest of the house. And okay, and so in a way that the center window is much wider, right, than the two on the floor, I think I don't have any problem with this one. I do think that it may be good to turn the siding around the corner just because she should be able to reach the paint, you know, maintain that side for writing that length. Mr. Lions? Yeah, I don't have a problem with the new window. So far as the hearty plank, I'm always very conflicted about that. Because I've had my own personal experience with hearty plank, so I should let that go. But, you know, I think, you know, at the very least, what's viewable really from the street should be, you know, the same material that it is now. So I mean, I'm okay with that compromise. I mean, because I can appreciate that, but I don't see, you know, allowing the hard to plank all the way down. So from, especially the stuff that's visible from the public. So those are my only comments. Mr. Spencer. So, noting answers to my questions, but I'm answering, asking them anyway. So you are not you, but the owner is planning to replace the siding along that whole facade, right? They need to replace the siding on all sides of the house. All sides. Including the back that's not visible from the public way. Yep. Which is okay. I'm going to jump back to the window. Jump to the window really quick. I even though I agree with Mr. Adams, I'm not going to push back on the window being left in his current position, but it would be nice if they were to grow the window or actually simplify the pattern to be something that would have been a little more keeping with the historic character With deciding issue. I mean I've been on this board long enough to remember times when we've asked people to put wood siding or whatever in tight spaces because Oh, one word I heard in one was, we have to be in a city of friendly neighbors and getting access to the side of someone's house to repaint, shouldn't be an issue, shouldn't be a deterrent from someone doing the right thing with the proper materials. So for that one, I oppose the actual idea of not having the wood siding on the facade Thank you mr. Spencer We know all too well that this is not always a city of friendly neighbors They often come talk to us I do agree with mr. Adams. I think this is a missed opportunity. I think the window Replacement is a great opportunity to really restore the front facade of this building to a condition that is more in keeping with the buildings next to it and to its original character. I don't think that the B.A.R.s zoning ordinances really permit us to require you to do that. And so I think this is a marginal improvement. And I don't mean marginal in a bad way, but on the margins, it's better after than before. And if your client changes her mind and has an inspiration for restoring this to something more historical or at least more proportionate, we would love to see that again. I will agree with my colleagues on the board that I think we really don't have a precedent for approving flyborsament on early buildings, which this is. I can't think of a time we may have done it under extraordinary circumstances, but typically with with early buildings the guidelines pretty much to say needs to be wood. So the good news is the wood is not an industrial waste product. That's true. So I think we could have a winner all around, but I would support this application on the condition that you that you don't use the hard plank in anywhere that's visible from the public right away. Are there any other comments from the board? Can you clarify that for me? Mr. Chair, you said visible so far down the, that facade are you thinking? I mean, visible from the public right away is the standard of review for the board. So anything within the board's jurisdiction on this building, I think should be what's hiding. If we could have the side elevation, I'll just... Couple more, one more, there we go. Yeah, I can be a little clearer. If you can see the side of the building all the way down from the public right away, I think it would be. Yeah, because basically the building has a rear L. So it would be kind of logical to change at that transition of the L. Is any portion of the rear L visible from the public right away? No. Well, then I don't think that's within our jurisdiction. Okay. That would be fair fair I guess. Yeah. Okay so given all that does anyone want any commotion on this application? My commotion to approve this application with the stipulation that the wood siding be installed to do you point where I'm going to say to that, where transitions to the rear L, which is visible from which is. Yeah, that outside corner is opposed to the inside corner. Outside corner, yes. Yes, the part of it that we can't see is on our purview. approve it to the beginning of the rear. And to stay with staff recommendations. Modified staff recommendations. Modify staff recommendations. Thank you. We have a second. I don't know that we have demolition here. Missed deviceise we don't okay so all those in favor of the motion say aye I aye Hi any opposed? Graduation. Thank you so much and we will wait until mr. Conkey reappears And the shadows Come on in I'm sorry. People working in the home and We've made it through docket item number eight I believe we are on numbers nine and ten Seven we're I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry Jane Thorpe, represented by Harry Fraser, a senior. Is the applicant present? You can just approach the microphone, and if you wouldn't mind giving us your name and address for the city of San Francisco and the city of San Francisco and the city of San Francisco and the city of San Francisco and theet item. I understand that the reason this is before the board was because the work had started before you'd had board approval. Is that right? Yeah the problem was we took some boards off where we're just going to fix random boards there and then when we realized everything was run behind, that's when things stopped and I applied for the permit and went from there because we on the planet were getting into all that at all. Just a few pieces here and there and then it's turned into a full blown three size of a replace. Everything was rotting, molded behind it. Just wasn't done correctly. So I'm putting it back like it needs to be to keep it old. OK, thank you. That's helpful context. I think it's a good idea to keep it all down. Thank you. Of course, repairs are always permitted. But a wholesale sign-in replacement would have to be correct. So, thanks for coming to us. Would any members like to offer comments or a motion on this one? Motion to approve per staff recommendations. Second. Do we have demo on this one? No. It's a roll call vote. No, it's not a roll call vote. Okay, all those in favor? Aye. Aye. Any opposed? All right, congratulations. Wonderful. Thank you nine. I'm gonna read it in and then this one needs to be deferred Because of some noticing issues, but we're reading in regardless and ask you guys to vote to accept the deferral place so number nine is BAR 2025-00139 Old historic district request for alterations and new construction at 802 and 808 North Washington Street. Applicant is 808 Washington LLC, represented by Ken wire and Megan Repole attorneys. This will be coming back to you at the next hearing. If you, assuming that you approve the, um, the parole. Okay, this is, this is just number nine then. This is not number 10. This is just number nine. Yes. Thank you. I thought they were grouped, but they're not. No, sorry. Okay, no, that's my bad. So the applicant has requested a deferral. Correct. And the board needs to vote on whether to approve the deferral. Correct. like to weigh in on this issue or offer a motion. I move to approve the deferral for item number nine. All those in favor of approving the deferral for docket item number nine? Aye. Any opposed? All right, the deferral is approved. Now we're on number 10. I think Mr. Adams has to recuse himself. So we'll give him some time. Yes. And this is number 10 and 11 just for the... Okay, I'll let you read it in because I'm going to keep getting this wrong. That's why I'm here, sir. Give Mr. Okay. Okay. I don't remember 10 and 11. BAR 2025-00140, Oldenstark District. Quest for alterations in an addition at 303 Queen Street, applicant John S. Williams, represented by Robert Bentley Adams. And number 11 is BER 2025-00141, old district, request for partial demolition and encapsulation at 303 Queen Street, applicant is John S. Williams, represented by Robert Bentley Adams. Are you the applicant? I am married to the applicant. So my name is Phyllis Williams. And I live with my husband, John Scott Williams, and he is the applicant. But we are co-owners of this property. And we personally live at 108-3200son Road in Fairfax Station, Virginia. But together we own, we co-owned the House under discussion at 303 Queen Street, which is known in our hearts as 303. That's what we always call it. John really wanted to be here tonight, but he just got out of the hospital today after a heart procedure, so he asks Phil that he needed to be a little more horizontal than be here. And so I'm here to represent him, but he sends his regards and apologizes for his absence. The story of 303 is a family story, and we're going to start in 1952. John and his family came back to the United States in 1952 after Louis Post-war Germany, where his father, John Z Williams, had been working in the High Commission. They lived in Badgotisburg in the only habitable house on the street, and John and his twin sister Susan had great memories of playing in the bomb-doubt buildings that formed their neighborhood in spite of all the danger signs. Returning to the Washington area meant returning to a normal neighborhood. And his folks were delighted to find a sweet little house on Queen Street, 303. As my mother-in-law, Milia once told me, she said the house cost $22,000. This was back in 1952. And the mortgage was a shocking 1,5% of 1%. So that's put in perspective of how much time has passed. And we look at our current mortgage rates. When she told me this story, we were busy buying a house. And our mortgage rate was 18%. So it certainly was an interesting bit of information for me. John and Susan grew up, excuse me, for a while, in Old Town on Queen Street in a very, in this lovely little house. They went to Fickland Elementary School, which has been torn down, as you all know, for many years ago. They smelled the smells from the fish factory, and they rode their bikes on the bricks of Queen Street to the little store up the street. And then they would return to 303, which was their cozy home. And in the late 1950s, John's father was posted to a van a Cuba, where everybody went where further adventures awaited them, including being thrown out of Castro's Cuba. But luckily, 303 was waiting for them. Again, this cozy home that has been in our family for so long. This time, John was at St. Stephen's for high school and before graduating and then going onto the University of Michigan, leaving 303 for Ann Arbor. And they just have to insert Go Blue. And then his parents had a last post in Guadalajara, Mexico. And they too came, finally, came back to 303. So there's been a lot of back and forth always coming back to this family home. At that point, my mother-in-law, whose name was Melia, Melia Williams, in case anyone remembers her because she lived here for many years. She thought 303 needed a facelift, and it was ready for one. And she found the very talented polyhullfish. And I believe that everybody recognizes that name. Or could a wonderful house restore and decorator to help her do the job of this facelift? Their shared vision for 303 was a backdrop of a lot of dark green walls and lots of bright brass and gold and warm glowing fireplaces and cats, of course. And it was a little gem of a house, warm, inviting with this small and closed garden that had irises, camellias, begonias, and a fish pond, and a small studio back with its own petite fireplace, a real gem of a house in so many ways. That was the 303 that I met on my first trip to Alexandria when John and I became engaged. Time passed, John and I returned to the Washington area after our time abroad and brought our two children. Back to the family house of 303, visits see Granmond Mill and Grandpa Jack from our own house in Springfield, Virginia. We're filled with really good family times, always in 303, playing partizzi and Michigan Rummy in front of the beautiful fireplace at 303 in the kitchen, the kitchen fireplace. Going around the corner with Grandpa Jack to the China Gate in case anybody remembers that. And that was brought back. The carryout would come back and we would eat in the enclosed garden on pink tables, which matched the pink shutters, like those are not. There was a lot of yelling and peeking through the male slot of the brass male slot that is a part of the front door of 303. So it was a very often helping grandpa Jack watch golf in the TV room of 303. So a lot of happy memories there. Time passes again. Grandparents pass from the scene and the sister too. They leave this mortal coil and the ownership of 303 returns to John and to me in November of last year. It was very sad to walk into 303 after this 20 year absence. The brass was not polished, the fireplaces were cold, the garden overgrown and ceiling falling in. But we're here tonight and from the bar approval and from the board to start a renovation to return the happy glow to 303 to keep it in the family, which generates, which has been the point of all of this. We really want to do this. And because of that, I've brought the children, my two children, Kenton Williams and my daughter, John Allison, William's Bauer Line, and Gray Bauer Line. So this is the family that we wanted to keep it for. The house obviously is a need of a lot of help of general updating, general interior updates, kitchen and beds, mechanical systems, interior exterior maintenance. We're seeking bar approval for the addition of two dormers at the rear of the house, one of the second floor to improve headroom in one of the and an egress window. And just to mention that that was the bedroom my husband lived grew up in and smacked his head on the ceiling every single time. So he's particularly interested in having a little more headroom in that room. the egress window and a second dormer on the third floor to add a bedroom at the rear of the attic. Otherwise, there's only a change of size to match the adjacent properties. And they have all had a lot of, have had dormers added and things. This is the least of the four and the four houses that are together. It's the one that has never been had any additions to it. We're also looking at replacing windows with the appropriate wood as for the B.A.R. guidelines so with that, I'm able to answer any questions that people have. Thank you for that really interesting presentation. Do any members of the Board of Questions for the applicant? I just had a detailed question about the ridge of the roof because it looks like it's coming up higher. I can read what I was prompted when I was given, but so with a third floor headroom, floor to ceiling measurement is slightly lower than code requirements. Therefore we're asking to add a new ridge beam slightly above the existing, which will remain and extending the front roof's height by a few inches. The new ridge beam will be at the same height as the adjacent parapet separating wall, separating adjacent houses roof and attic. Was that the right info? I know. I close the way. So I understand you're putting on the shed dormer. And it's not really as wide as your house. So you'll have to continue the ridge up to a certain higher point. But then the distance between the shed dormer and your neighbors, Roof is going to be just like a sliver of a roof. It'll go up to a certain height and then kind of stop because there won't be a shed dormer on the other side. I'm just thinking that might be some detail that Mr. Adams can work with. Yeah, I mean, yes, you've probably got a point that the existing bridge line is shown anyway on the front elevation as going all the way across from party wall to party wall, and you write that there'll be a gap in the back there, so we'd have to work on that detail. And I'm happy to work with that. Yeah, and because the height of the building, you're gonna kind of see it cut off. Because it's not the full width. It's a dormer's, it's not quite. Right, it'll be like a footer or something. There's a slight, I mean, there's a concept drawings, but it's in plan, it looks like it's wider than it is in elevation. Yeah, the elevation shows it going from party wall to party wall. Yeah, so it would probably be cut there. And there may be an opportunity to kind of move the ridge beam further north and then bring that down. So you could keep the existing ridge. I don't know. It's a detail. You go to the rear elevation? The rear elevation shows it. If you can zoom in to the bottom please. Yes, please. Zoom in to the top part of that one. Thank you. Oh, I can just imagine. Yeah, there you go. There's the step. And that's a separate referring to him. Right? On the right side, you can see it where there's a gap. It's going to be on the left side too. Yeah, I think it's probably just hidden by the chimney on the left side. But yes, it'll happen on both sides, yes. I think that chimney is just cutting it off. And the front elevation is where you're going to notice it more? Yes, it's not shown properly on the front elevation, I think. Right. Okay. Yes, to answer your question, I'm still happy to work with Mr. Adams on a detail for that. It's really this part of Queen Street is just, you know, so nice. These few blocks of Queen Street with historic buildings. It really is characteristic of Old Town. Well we want to be part of that. Yeah. We do have speakers, sir. Do we have any more questions for the applicant? Do we have any public speakers on this? All right. Who's up? Wayne Fisher. Good evening and thank you for presenting a situation here where people can speak on issues that matter to them. I got to know this house and the Williams is over the course of the last, well, it's well over six months now, and we started dispersing the contents of the house. And we all worked collaboratively to bring some dignity to this closure, the state of the interior was just, I would say heartbreaking when we walked in together. And I said, can bring some closure to this. We can find homes for your late sisters great things. And we went about probably one of the most extensive estate sales I've ever managed. But it was a joy to help them bring closure to this. The lady who lived there was Mr. Williams's fraternal twin sister. There was a lot of emotion there from all of us for each other and to each other. And we, I brought in, I thought the house was just extraordinarily special despite the fact that it was a complete mess. I thought we'll clean this up and we'll place things and we'll stage things. We'll find great homes for her artwork. We did accomplish all of that in a couple of sales. If anyone was not aware of that, it was a pretty extensive undertaking on all of our parts. We had great trust and confidence in each other and it was a joy work with them, and to bring some dignity to just a profoundly sad situation. When I saw this house, I thought, I have to recommend somebody to them that I trust professionally and personally, and I actually recommended Mr. Adams to them because I thought he is the right person for this house to do a first class proper restoration of this house. He would know about the scale and he would have the respect for the integrity of the interior of the house that I had the scale of the house. So in the quiet time that I spent there by myself staging this for the sale and January, I thought this house, I begin to develop an attachment to it. It's a very, very special little intimate, not showy, but just a sweet, sweet little house. And so when I introduced Mr. Adams to them, they were just an instant collaborative for the cause. So they wanted me included on a lot of the discussions. What did I think, what did I think should be altered, taken away, what did I think should be preserved? My answer was, of course, preserve everything. That's the way I'm wired. And so what I wanted to say was I wholeheartedly endorse what they're doing with the guidance of Mr. Adams and three minutes are probably running up. But I think what has been proposed is dignified, the scale is right, it's tasteful, it honors the proportions of the house and as much as possible it can be preserved and the house is being preserved. And I think we have to be grateful when somebody a client does honor the historic nature of the interior because they're not required to do that. I think your time's up unfortunately but we really appreciate your public commentary. You're very welcome. Thanks for the opportunity. Thank you so much. Mr. Lions would you like to offer your thoughts? Oh, we have another speaker. I didn't know that. Who is it? As Scott Corzani. Mr. Corzani. The floor is yours. Thank you. Good evening. I'm Scott to go to the committee. Good evening. I'm Scott Corazon. I live at 300 Queen Street. Directly across the street from this property. I witnessed the estate sale and the long lines of people that were dying to get in there and buy things. I had to go over there myself to see what I was missing. I just want to say that I I think it works. It's raising that roof line just a slight bit. And from someone that this body knows more about my opposition to the tragedy of 301 North Fairfax, I appreciate that this one respects the size and scale of our historic city, so we endorse it. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Corzine. Do we have any more public speakers? All right, now Mr. Lions, would you like to offer your deliberative comments? Yeah, I fully support the project and I think it'll look fantastic when it's done. Sounds like inside and outside, so I support it. It's still Nino. I'd like to make a motion. Yes, please. To approve this with the recommendation that staff work with the architect on that rich detail. Do we have a second to the motion? Second. Do we need to do a roll call vote here? I think we do. Yes, this has got demolition. We won second. I'm sorry. I'm just not sure you were this second. Yes, sir. Thank you. You guys caught me by surprise there with a motion. You've got to pay attention. I got a whole thing happening here. Okay. Mr. Spencer. Yes. Mr. Lines. Hi. Mr. Scott. Yes. Congratulations. Your application is approved. Thank you. All right. Mr. Conkey. See if we can come over 11. You want us to live with Mr. Adams? Come on down. Words. Yes. Mr. Conkey see for 11. You want us to look at Mr. Adams come on down. Words. So, Mr. Adams is making his way to the front here. I will introduce this one. This will be very quick. I promise. That's words, right? This is just back to the drawing board. Okay. You said you said I have an architect. Wow. I know. You should get that last architect in here. Yeah, you. What are we now looking at? Okay. So this is a very, very, very brief item on the docket tonight. This is an update to the administrative approval standards for signage. And you've seen the memo. This is there's no policy changes to what we're talking about. And I'm going to say that this is a very, very brief item on the docket tonight. This is an update to the administrative approval standards for signage. And you've seen the memo. This is, there's no policy changes to what we're talking about tonight. This is wording only. And it's an update to our guideline. So you get the actual right title for the criterion standards for administrative approval of signs within the historic district is the name of the document. We are making proposals from changes to this that bring it into line with the recently adopted signage ordinance. And again, this does not represent any policy changes. All this is is definitions. We will be going forward with a chapter on signage very, soon. The City Council is continuing to address signage and once that's all finished, then the Design and Guideline Committee will be ready to go forward with the chapter on signs and we'll bring that to you at that time. And that'll have some policy stuff. This is really just some definitions. One of the biggest things is that projecting sign is now a subset of a wall sign rather than being classified as a separate sign type. So again, it doesn't affect anything, it doesn't affect the enforcement. It is just bringing the language into line with the zoning ordinance. That's all this is. And like I said, we will be coming forward with some changes to the chapter on signs. Once we get the final language on the signage ordinance, which hopefully July, we'll get that. So with that. Sorry, did you say a projecting sign is a subset of wall sign? Yes. If you look at, it's just the way it's written. It looks like it's a, make sure you're going to look at different category of sign. If you go down to the new version, which is going to go to highlight and look at the wrong version. Yeah. And that's why it was a different one. Now it's underneath wall sign. It's a projecting sign is there. This makes more sense. That probably does. So just to be clear, we recently had a meeting of the Design Guidelines Committee. And the sign guidelines aren't ready to be voted on because there are other considerations taking place in this city right now that will affect how those guidelines are written. Is that right? That's correct, yes. Are any of those considerations before the city right now reflected in any of the changes you're offering? No. These are just updating definitions. This is updating definitions and reclassifying that one sign. So we try to do this sort of tidying up on language periodically just to make sure that we're consistent with the zoning ordinance. Now we did see some references to a digital sign in the prior guidelines. Is there any reference to digital sign in here? Nothing changes here. Does that change here? That was a confusing thing in the guidelines that we'll have to address. Yeah, and we will address that in the new chapter. And hopefully the new chapter will align with the definitions in here. Yes. Okay. The idea is that we, this is our first shot because this gives us, this is what's on the website now. We really don't like it when we have language on the website that argues with our zoning ordinance. And so, um, And then we, sorry, I'm dominating the discussion, but we had some issues with understanding the difference between an awning and a canopy. And when we looked it up in the city ordinance, it's essentially they're defined as synonyms. Right. And so for consistency, that's how we'll probably will treat them in the guidelines, subject to the boards and put, is there anything in here that is inconsistent with what's in the zoning regulation? Do we have new or different definitions or conflicting definitions with what's in the zoning ordinance? Not really. It's mostly just categories. It's unlike that one where there was a difference. This one is really just categories. It's just sticking the projecting sign underneath the wall signs and this becomes Workable in how we measure the signage Because a certain amount of area is allowed for for a wall signs and if you consider to protect the sign to be a wall sign Now that counts towards that so it's just it really is just bringing it into alignment with how this being enforced We'll have a robust discussion about signage once we have the design guideline. Chapter ready for that. Okay, so like where we have permitted sign lighting, we discuss not having goose neck lighting approved by the board so you'll be changing that. Yeah, again, we're not changing anything policy. Nothing policy. Yeah, OK. This doesn't affect any policy stuff because we want to have that conversation holistically. And this is just language. OK. OK. OK. So we need to vote on this. Yes. And a motion to a to a second to approve the, um, um, these modifications. Okay, well before we do that, does anyone have anything else to add on these? Okay, can we have a motion? So moved. Do we have a second? All those in favor? Hi. Any opposed? All right, congratulations, Mr. Conkey. Your application is approved. Yes. I'll know we have a whole bunch of administrative approvals on the... What do you... On the docket for today. I found those were already administratively approved. Correct. I found an interesting statistic the other day. You guys might, since we're talking about administrative approvals. In the last year, I had to go look it up for something. And this is reflected in our end of the year report. It's online if you should ever have time to kill. It breaks down the number of administrative approvals versus full board approvals. And in about 400 overall approvals for both, 72% were administrative. To us, that means the administrative approval process is working, because every time something is approved administratively, that means that people are following the guidelines that you guys have set forth and doing things the right way. So I consider a high number there to be a good thing. Sounds like we're doing a third of your work and we're not paid for it. That's what that sounds like. Wow, see, I mean, you know, that's, well. Yeah, that's not that. Wait till next month and see how often you think you need to meet. All right, thank you for that. Anything else from anybody? The meeting is adjourned.