Historic District Commission - Regular Meeting

Historic District's design principles and standards, which sets forth standards for changes in the historic districts, and the rules of procedure adopted by the Chapel Hill Historic District Commission, as well as the significance reports from all three historic districts and photographs. I also call to your attention each of the applications and associated materials in your agenda packet. All of these items are hereby entered into the record. Thank you. And while I have my microphone on, I'll just remind commissioners to please turn your mic on and speak into the mic clearly. Thanks.

I am now speaking into my mic. I'm gonna read the public charge. The advisory body pledges its respect to the public. The body asked the public to conduct themselves in a respectful, courteous manner both with the body and with fellow members of the public. Should any member of the body or any member of the public fail to observe this charge at any time, the chair will ask the offending person to leave the meeting until that individual regains personal control.

Should the quorum fail to be restored, the chair will recess the meeting until a genuine commitment to this public charge is observed. Property owners may represent themselves or be represented by attorney. However, professionals such as architects, engineers, designers, and others may provide factual evidence and expert opinions so far as they are qualified, but not legal arguments on behalf of the property owner. So that is the public charge. And now we need an approval of the agenda. Is there gonna be are there gonna be any changes to the agenda that you guys know of?

No.

Okay. Can we have someone want to approve the agenda?

Move the agenda as submitted. I second.

All in favor? Aye. We'll just go with a straight eye on that one. Is that okay? I'm not going to do the roll call on that. And then announcements. I don't think there are any, are there?

There's one Yes.

Phil Lyons is here. He wants to give the commission an update on the Coker Hills National Register nomination.

And staff is working on our CLG report that's due at the end of the month. We don't have any substantive update, but we are working on that to get it submitted.

Okay. Very good. Thank you. Come on up, Phil. Have exciting news.

Have approved our application or our nomination for the Coker Hills neighborhood and the National Register of Historic Places. We understand further, since Chapel Hill is a CLG, just recently mentioned, that this matter will come before this body sometime in the new year for action and possibly as much as a hearing. I don't know because I haven't seen the instructions from SHPO. Just and finally, this represents the culmination of three and a half years of work to get the nomination at this point. And, it's been a wonderful project and a collaboration between the Coker Hills Neighborhood Association And Preservation Chapel Hill.

So I look forward to talking to you again about it soon, but did not want it to wind up on your agenda without you knowing in advance. Thank you very much. If you have any questions, happy to try to answer them. Does anyone have a question?

I just wanna say thank you to preservation of Chapel Hill, but also to you personally because you've spearheaded this and done a great job as usual. We appreciate it.

Very kind. Thank you.

And so everybody knows when he says SHPO, that stands for State Historic Preservation Office. A lot of people don't know that alphabet soup, so that's what we're talking about. All right?

Thanks for that clarification.

Alright. So approval of the minutes from November 11. I'm assuming you guys have had a chance to look at them or you remember them. Do we need a motion to approve the minutes? Do we hear a motion?

I make a motion to approve the minutes as

I second.

And we have a second. So all in favor, aye. Aye. Aye. Minutes approved. Now let's move on to old business. Oh, good. Now we definitely have a quorum.

Don, don't forget the conflicts

The what?

Conflicts of interest and ex parte communication and swearing in

all speakers.

I have that. You had a piece of paper

left. Let me see if I have it.

While you're looking for that and before we get started, just wanted to make note that Josh Kerlitz is now in the panel. So we have five. We'll talk about you later.

The oath.

This one's the oath. Mhmm.

Yeah. So that's the instructions and not to

let it say.

Oh, no. Yeah. There's the

oath. So

this that was okay.

First, ask complex measures, and then we can get deals.

All right. So this is a redo from last time. But I need to ask, are there any conflict interest with this particular party, this particular applicant?

Is there a consent

agenda? If not, I'm going to read an oath for you guys to affirm. And after you say that oath, if you can say I affirm and your name, that'd be awesome. Thank you. Okay. Oath, I affirm that the evidence I shall give to the historic district commission and the reference to application shall be the truth and nothing but the truth I so affirm.

I affirm Cal Fathom.

I affirm Exela Hoole. Okay.

Thank you. Something more for you? Okay. Well, if they're ready, let's get started. All right.

Well, good evening, everyone. I'll be presenting our revised proposal for the design of addition to the Delta Kappa Epsilon House located at 132 South Columbia Street. After the presentation during last month's meeting, you all agreed to continue this business to tonight. So just as a quick refresher, these were the proposed items for the addition from last month. We were wanting to extend the existing cafeteria 14 feet outward toward Cameron Avenue.

This would interfere with the existing ADA parking on the site, so we also had to reconfigure that on the site plan as well. And above the cafeteria extension, there will be a balcony with access from a new study lounge, which was converted from the two bedrooms located above the existing cafeteria. And so to offset the loss of those two bedrooms, we were also proposing an addition to the 2nd Floor. So after you reviewed and discussed last month's proposal, we were told that there were six main points which needed to be addressed. Firstly, there was a big problem with the overall massing of the 2nd Floor addition.

We were told to explore designs which would help create visual distinction between the existing building and the proposed addition. The roof of that 2nd Floor addition also needed to be further fleshed out in order to be more compatible with the existing building. There are also some discrepancies between the site plan and the renderings when depicting the cafeteria edition as being inset from the existing building. And we were also told to be careful in acknowledging the setbacks and the offset of the existing of the addition from the building. Additionally, in last month's discussion, it was brought up that the cafeteria addition could potentially be situated on the north facade of the building.

And so to address all this, I'll be going through our response with updated imagery and drawings that will have more contacts added to them in order to better visualize our revised proposal. So I'll start with the site plan, which now shows rendered materials in the two front yards of the house as well as where we're altering that ADA parking. This is the existing site with that ADA spot on the bottom left for the Southwest corner. And the plan also shows the rough locations, the types of vegetation on the site. So now here is the proposed site plan, and you can see how we are not impacting any of the existing vegetation, any stone walls, or any masonry and walkways and patios.

You can also see that one foot inset of the cafeteria addition and how the addition leads to this new layout of the ADA parking space. So this right here is an image of the Southeast corner of the house. And here's a view of our revised proposal, a view from when you're standing on the sidewalk at the intersection of Cameron and Columbia. So now this is a picture taken from the sidewalk in front of the Carolina Inn. And here's our proposed design.

And I should point out that the two trees in front of the basketball court aren't present here. And we did that in order to show the south facade just a bit better. So I'll go back to the feedback that we received from last month. Firstly, the design or the placement of the exterior wall, the 2nd Floor addition needs to be changed from the last proposal. The solution that we landed on here was to place a new brick wall back one foot from the existing walls.

This helps create some distinction between the existing building and the addition so you can visually understand the history and the iterations of the additions to the house. And in that addition, it was also mentioned that the form of the roof should look more compatible with the rest of the house. And in order to make this happen, two dormers have been incorporated into the roofline. These dormers help visually tie the addition into the existing building. The next item that we needed to address was the inset of the cafeteria addition from the existing wall.

We had some inconsistencies in our representation during our last proposal. And so here, you can clearly see that one foot offset or inset. Sorry. And there was also some confusion regarding the offset of the addition from the existing building. And so just to make that clear, the cafeteria extends 14 feet outward from the existing building while the existing balcony extends 13 feet out.

This is similar. However, it's not the same, but this is well within the setback that was required by the Lumo. There's also some discussion and encouragement to explore placing the addition on the north facade of the building. Unfortunately, as you can see here, that is not really an option. We're extending out the cafeteria and not the kitchen, which is located on the north side of the building.

Finally, you asked to see more context in our presentation of the proposal. So here are some new renderings to show the existing vegetation of the two front yards. And these views are also taken from ankles, were requested by you all. So hopefully these images can help you better understand our proposal and help see our revised proposal as well. And so I'd like to invite you all to ask any questions that you may have. Thank you.

I always hate to be the first one, but everyone's being so quiet. A couple of things. One, I like conceptually where you're going with it, where you've pushed back the 2nd Floor and left a horizontal over top of the 1st Floor, the 1st And 2nd Floor level. It's kinda good idea. What concerns me and what my questions are about are some of the details. Right now, it looks like the way you've got the downspout strong in relation to the existing gutters and cornices, are those built in gutters that they have there now?

They are. And those are fairly accurate representations of how they are currently.

Okay. So would you have built in gutters on your new addition? Because that's a long, low slope roof, so there's a lot of water coming that way.

So we have not addressed that currently, but my thought was that they they would be at the eve of the roof.

That they would be what?

At the edge of the roof.

At the edge of the roof. Okay. Like a like an exposed gutter? Or

Yes. And and that's that's also how how it currently is on on certain parts of this roof.

Okay.

So there is the the basically, the the roof that we're filling in currently has an exposed gutter on the left side. On the right, the existing house from the is that the 20s? The Yeah. The right side. That has the built in gutter, the

three Okay.

Can we make sure we're speaking into the mics? Both? Everyone? Thank you.

Oh, was I being too quiet? That's rare.

Can I see an elevation of the Cameron Avenue of the, sorry, the Columbia Street elevation? Okay. Now switch back to the Cameron Avenue elevation. Right. One thing that you're doing in the, addition, which is inconsistent with the existing house, is that the the windows on the addition are extended up right to underneath the cornice.

I can understand why you would do that from a construction perspective, But it does not it feels like a non compatible detail with the Columbia Street elevation. So the detailing is changing as you move around the building. In this case, I find the windows particularly disturbing, extending up the way they do. Because windows always have structure above them to hold up the roof or to hold up some other thing. So while I guess I know why you're doing this.

My question is, why are these windows extending so far up?

You're talking about on the brick facade, correct?

On the brick facade, but also, yeah.

On the brick facade GREGORY On this elevation. GREGORY Yes, On the brick facade, those windows are actually made to match what is going on in the 2nd Floor to the left side of this image where they actually do extend to the bottom of the cornice.

If you look to the left of the 1920s edition. So

carry us around there.

Would you like a view of just the house as there's like a picture of the house?

That'd be great.

Yeah. I'll get that for you.

Yeah. They're right there.

I see. Okay. Thank you for explaining that.

Yes, sir. And then I will add that, yes, we do have two different conditions going on here. There's there's no it's a broken pediment on the the right hand side original structure. So we thought that since we're matching the height that we would we would simulate that detailing.

And go back to your render. Thank you. Okay. Back to the windows thing, but this is going up a little higher to the dormers. I like the idea of the dormers there, but the way they're rendered needs to be adjusted because you can see a little bit of a dormer sticking up on the original building there.

Those dormers are actually six over six with some really nice trim detail around them. And I don't have a problem with the dormers if they're detailed to match the original because that has a really nice look and scale to it, whereas those dormers are strong without any window mullions. Look a little austere. Do you agree or disagree? I'm just curious what I would agree with that.

Can I ask a question? May I ask a question about the dormers? Okay. On the front of the building, it looks like the pitch of the roof is much deeper. So you see some of the roof behind the dormer. And I don't see that here. Is that correct?

Yes, that's correct. That's because of just the low slope of this roof. We intend to have some sort of cricket behind these dormers because we looked at running the dormer all the way back on a one and a half and 12, and it just did not look right now.

But you bring up a good point. Thank you. Is that I know you can't run the dormer all the way back into traditional dormer detail, but the way it's you can flip through some others, but the way shown in some other renders, you can see the front and the back of the little dormer boxes you're creating, and it looks kind of like a faux dormer. If you could make them a little longer so that from the street eye level, you're not aware that you're putting little they're basically monitors. They're not really dormers. So that's it's kinda odd. It looks good from the street level in this render, but it's you're kind of faking everybody out.

Then can I change it to monitors that we would like to add to this?

Yeah. Because I mean, that's what they actually are. They're actually monitors. They're not dormers, but I know they're meant to mimic the dormer.

We do we do intend for them to actually bring light into the space.

Good. So they're not fake? No. Mhmm. Awesome.

This point, they're not real, but they will be real

Mhmm.

At some point.

Nancy, you've been awfully quiet.

No. I really don't have any questions. I'm relying on the architects.

So any more questions for these guys? Is there any public comment? Okay. Well, then I guess we can close the presentation portion, and we'll have a quick discussion, if that's okay. All right? Sounds good. Well,

I think they've answered the issues that we raised. And I think, at least for me, the principal issue was the monolithic brick facade. And while I wish you could recess it more than a foot, because I would like deep shadow lines rather than shallow shadow lines, I think recessing it a foot is going to make a big difference. And I do notice in these renderings that you are recessing the cornice molding and you are reflecting the fact that that wall is back. So

Yes, sir.

I'm glad you answered that question.

And I'll kind of repeat myself. I agree with Josh in that I love the concept behind what you're doing and the placement of the windows and everything. My biggest concern is with how it ends up being detailed, particularly how you're going to catch water and keep it from flying over the edge. Because obviously, you don't have a gutter, that facade will look really bad in six months. So detailing it properly is going to be critical. And the same, if we make a motion, we could probably put this in there. But your dormer windows need to represent something I think is more appropriate to the original building with the six over sixes and the same trim detail.

Thank you for clarifying your presentation from last time. It's much more clear to see what's happening with the site and I agree with what's been said so far.

So does anybody want to make a motion? Can I ask that now? Okay. I don't have a motion piece of paper here. I can't imagine why. We were motionless. Gotta have our cheat sheet. Do you want to read it? Yeah. Be more appropriate.

I move that the application is not incongruous with the special character of the historic district. According to the application of the relevant provisions of Lumo and the HDC design standards based upon the facts presented in the record. I would add that the monitors on the top be extended more deeply so that they are more compatible with the elements on the roof of the existing building and that the they have a six over six glazing pattern to keep them compatible.

Okay. Does everybody understand the motion? Motion's been made. Would Would anyone like to second it?

I second.

Okay. If we have a motion, we have a second. So do I need to roll call this one? Or do I just say all in favor?

You can do either.

Okay. We'll just say all in favor, say aye.

Aye. That

sounded unanimous, aye, as well. So it passed. Very good. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you all very much.

And thank you for getting the senator monitor turned on.

And hit, control alt delete. Yeah.

All

lowercase.

Lowercase. Okay.

Alright.

Okay, so 304 North Boundary Street. I'm going to read you the oaths.

Afterwards Is

your mic on?

Sorry about that. Case 304 North Boundary Street. After I read the oath, if you could say I affirm and your names, that would be excellent. Thank you. I affirm that the evidence I shall give to the Historic District Commission and the referenced application shall be the truth and nothing but the truth I so affirm.

I affirm Madhu Barry Wall.

I affirm Leanne Brown.

Very good. Thank you.

Don, can we do conflicts of interest?

Are there any conflicts of interest on this

one? Nope.

No. There are not.

Are you ready for us to go ahead?

Please.

Good evening. We are delighted to be here with you today. We're going to split the presentation in in two parts so that we are more entertaining and also because I think each of us is is better suited to do the part that we're going to do. This is the the the bare wall house. You may be familiar with this house.

It is house at 304 North Boundary. It is a a modern design house. We're gonna go through I'm gonna talk to you about the district history, context, and character of this particular project. Madhu will then talk to you about the narrative that you go through existing conditions and the photographs, the drawings, and visualization. I'll talk to you briefly about context within your design guidelines.

So let me begin here, which want to talk to you a little bit about the history of the neighborhood that we are in. And I can't read that far on that screen, so I have to find my notes. This particular North Boundary neighborhood was a northern expansion of the Franklin Rosemary Historic District and includes Coker property and the development of adjacent lots. It was developed and subdivided with large lots and wooded buffers. And this house was approved as a contemporary architecture back in 2000, right?

It was built in 2000.

Built in 2000, approved before that. And it became a part of the historic district. There have been additions to the house since then which have also been improved by the the commission. I'm doing this part because I'm gonna brag a little bit about the house. It is a house that has been recognized in triangle modern architecture among other architectural digest.

It's been written up in the News and Observer. There was a publication in Thames And Hudson, London about this glass house building for open living. It is, in essence, it got the AA Triangle Honor Award in 2005. It's been featured in the New American House Innovations in Residential.

Excuse me?

Could you please speak into the mic? I will. I was trying to read my notes. I'm sorry. It was also recognized in 2003 in the new American House for innovations for residential living.

So the House, we believe, and actually have presented to this commission before and really said the same thing to you. This particular house has added to the architecture in the district in a contemporary fashion in a way that has been recognized for the quality of the house that is there. But this house, the other thing I will say about this house is I cannot go around the district and find other examples of this house or other examples of features of this house. It is a unique contributor to the particular district. And with that, I'm going to turn it over so you can find out more about the project. Do you want to keep this?

Yes, please. I might not be able to read that far either. Okay. So what we are proposing to do is add an entrance to the property. And what is remarkable about this house is that it doesn't have sort of a front like you would normally have.

I think I need to explain that a little bit because it's going to be germane to the whole request that we have. The back of the property fronts on North Boundary, and the front of the house is actually hidden deep inside the cluster of homes that's there. So this house was completed in 2000. I did not build this house. This was another couple who lived there that got permission from the HTC for this house and then it was completed in 2000 itself.

I purchased this house in 2015. An addition was approved, as Leanne mentioned, last year, and we are working on the extension now to build this extension to this house. The house is a modern design made of metal and glass, and as you'll see in the presentation, we've tried to keep the materials the same for what we are proposing for access to the home. So since 2020, when a garden was put in and there was a fence that was approved by the historic commission, there's been a temporary gate to access the area inside the garden. And that temporary gate, which was supposed to be there for a short period of time, now it's approaching six years.

And it's just a very rusty construction, temporary gate that's been there. So what we are proposing to do is to remove that gate and put a permanent access point. So we are wanting to put a vestibule to come into the garden area which is fenced. And it so happens that a greenhouse is available that would fit there, which fits the architecture of the house and the materials in the house and would form, I think, a unique entry to a very unique house. So it will be just replacing the temporary wooden doorgate and putting a greenhouse there instead.

It will be more apparent as we go through it exactly how it looks. So I'll talk a little bit about the existing conditions here. So the green area, the green polygon there is the is the property. And the little blue rectangle in the center of it is where this would sit. So it's far inside the property boundary that you'd actually have the structure sit.

This is a schematic of all of the surrounding properties. But as you can see, again, there's a sort of a green rectangle where this gate would, this greenhouse would sit and it's not visible to anyone at all. They would have to be, they have to be coming to this house for them to actually even see this structure. This is what the entrance to the driveway to the property looks like. Actually it's not visible from this angle, but there's a jog in the road so you actually can't even see the house at all until you corner that jog and then you can see the house itself.

And this is just past the jog as you can see for the first time you see the house itself. I will show it in a subsequent photograph where the gate is, but you can just about see it. Where you see that right next to the tree, there's a space right there between the two ends of the masonry walls. That's where that temporary gate is sitting and it's got like chicken wire there in between. So it's sort of transparent in this photograph, but that's where it would be sitting.

Now you can see it much better. So there's masonry walls on both sides and there's a gate in between. It's it's it's been there for six years and it's, I would say, quite an eyesore to have it be there. But hopefully, it will be replaced. This is the view from Northboundary Street.

And as you can see, you can't see the house from there at all. And just just as just as a explanation, this is the backside of the house, so the structure is on the other side. So you'd never see that structure from this side from North boundary. Another view from along Rose Lane towards North boundary, again you can't see the house, definitely won't see the structure because it's beyond the house. So here's a visualization.

This is the actual structure. It shows it in black, but it's going to be a silvery gray, the color of the house itself. So it would blend in with the house itself and it will not be this black color. This is a AI rendering. This is the best we could accomplish working with AI to try to kind of cite it within the masonry walls that there is a slope to it.

And you have double doors that lead in, and then you have double doors that lead out to enter the garden area and approach the house. This the AI portion of it is just the greenhouse itself. The rest of it is actually a photograph. Here you can see very clearly the existing wooden structure. As you can see, it's very primitive and rustic but has served its purpose for the last almost six years.

So what are the materials to be used? The materials are metal and glass, exactly the kind of substances that are used in the house, metal and glass. The front of this this structure is eight and a half feet tall and it slopes down to six and a half feet. It because of the way that it's designed, it has to slope down. And if the front was shorter than somebody my height could go through, but other people might have trouble getting exiting from that structure.

It's seven and a half feet deep. There's enough space there for, there's still a patio there, existing patio so it would not require making more space to be able to enter this particular area. So here you see a schematic of it. The the parallel lines there are steps that lead down towards the house. And the the black lines are for the masonry wall that is currently there, and then the greenhouse sits there.

On the side of it is the existing garage. This shows at least one of the walls. The right side wall has been facing the house and then the greenhouse sitting over there. And this one shows the slope of the greenhouse. It's flat in the front and then slopes down. It kind of echoes the roof of the house, which also has a little angle to it. So I think it is consonant with how the house and the roof interact to have the roof of the vestibule also echo a slope structure. I'm gonna turn it over to Leanne.

So finally, I wanted to speak to you briefly about how we believe this project meets the applicable design standards. And the two standards that were particularly important to be considered here, I think, is standard one point one point seven, which contemplates that new site features be compatible in scale and design and material with the overall historic character of the site and of the district. The proposed addition is compatible in scale design and materials with the existing house on the property. This particular proposed addition is compatible in scale and design. The materials match this particular this particular house, and yet it does not appear to be part of the original house.

It is it is separated in a way that meets your guidelines. I am not going to to tell you that, the the metal and glass that's used in this greenhouse is compatible with what you would see driving down Franklin Street in the Franklin Rosemary District, but it's very compatible with this particular house. And it's this this greenhouse is designed to lean into a green garden, So you'll have that sense of greenery coming in as as you are there. The other standard that I wanted to particularly point out is one point one point eight, which contemplates the introduction of contemporary site features in locations that do not diminish or compromise the overall character of the site and district, typically in real yards or other locations not visible from the street. The house is sited in a way that the the entry is what most of us would consider the rear of the house because the the part of the house that fronts the street is not where you enter.

And as was demonstrated in the pictures, it is in a location that is not visible from the street. The only time you would ever see this particular feature would be if you were coming to the house for some reason and coming down the driveway. You have to get as you could see in the pictures, you have to actually come down the drive before you would you would it would be visible to you at all. That in no way would this addition compromise or diminish the overall character of the district, and it is compatible with the modern design and materials of the of the house. I wrote on my notes, and I just want to to include it here because I think it's particularly applicable here.

Lumo section three point six point two picks up from what the state statute says about development in the historic district. And the intention is not to impose an architectural style, but to encourage design, whether contemporary or traditional, which is harmonious with the character of the district. Because the house in and of itself is as a contributing part of the district is compatible with the district, we think this addition, this very very small addition is compatible, and we would ask your consideration to approve it. And we're happy to answer any questions you have.

Does anyone have any questions for the applicant?

Pretty straightforward.

Seems pretty straightforward. I can see that there's going to be no comment from the public. But I felt like I had to put that in the record. Okay. So I'm going to stop the public portion, and we'll have some discussion. Is that Okay? Well, I'm going start it. First of all, I've got to say, when I took the chairmanship, I didn't think I would be reviewing a greenhouse gateway. It's a unique animal. But at the same time, I've got to say, I knew Ken Hobgood.

He was the original architect there. Ken would really prefer this over the temporary gate that you have.

He's aware of

it. He's aware of

Okay, good. So, yeah, for you who don't know, Ken's quite a character.

Comments? I'd like to underscore the fact that in this particular part of the district, the we have a variety of design expressions. I would refer to the Peacock House next door. I would refer to other houses in the area. And this area incorporates very modern design.

It incorporates some very, very good design. This particular house is, I think, one of the best designed modern houses. And I'm very proud to have it in the district. I think this particular greenhouse reflects the transparency of the original house. And it also reflects in the proportion of the metal members holding it up and the glass area.

Those proportions are similar to the existing house. They're not the same, but they are similar. So I think that this particular greenhouse addition is very compatible in terms of design with the original house. And I think that thinking of it in context to the neighborhood, that we do have a variety of modern expression. And so the fact that this is similar in context to the original house satisfies my concern. I think it's a good addition.

Anybody? Okay. Well, I concur with what Josh says. I think it's a very appropriate, even though interesting, very appropriate solution to an interesting problem.

What's also seems to be a great improvement over what is there now.

Without question. And I think it's important just to put into the record that we're not setting precedent here for gateways for other parts of the historic district. I think you kind of alluded to that. In this district, for this house, at this moment, it's appropriate. So does anybody want to make a motion? We have the motion cheat sheet here.

What's the address? 304304

North

All right.

I move that the application for a certificate for 304 North Boundary Street is not incongruous with the special character of the historic district according to the application of the relevant provisions of the LUMO and the HDC's design standards based upon the facts presented in the record.

Motion has been presented. Second. Okay. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Aye. I think you get it unanimous. You pass. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Certainly. Nice to see all of you today. Yes.

Nice to be seen. Okay. Last but certainly not least, Sharneka, think you're up. There's a discussion of some revisions you guys made to the procedure.

Yeah. So staff have made some revisions to the commission's rules of procedures. Most of them were just reformatting and making the document a bit easier to navigate and also bringing the rules, into alignment with council policy as far as, the the policy for officer roles, and referring to that policy, instead of restating it in the the rules of procedure. So the change does eliminate the deputy vice chair role. So there would just be two officers. And

So the two officers are chairman and

Chair and vice chair.

And what?

Vice chair.

Vice chair. Just vice chair. Okay. Very good.

Yep. So I think y'all do need a motion to adopt the rules of procedure?

Well, I'll make the motion to adopt the rules of procedure revisions.

I'll second.

Okay, all in favor? Aye. Okay, that's unanimous. So we're good. So I think we are ready to adjourn.