August 12, 2025 — Board of Zoning Adjustment Regular Meeting

Transcript

Captions from City of Boulder YouTube recording.

[0:02] Okie dokie. Okay. Good afternoon, everyone. This is a meeting of the Board of Zoning Adjustments. Tonight, we have one item. We're going to hear BOZ2025-00007. But before I begin, I'd love to open us up by introducing ourselves. I like to do it because there are sometimes people on the phone who may have never interacted with us before, so I'd like to make sure that they know who they are speaking to. So, I'd love to start with, your name. How long have you been in Boulder, and something that made you smile recently? And I'm just gonna take a pause here for a second and let you guys know kind of why I do the… You know, something that made you smile. And I'm gonna tell you why, because of something that happened to me today, which was very interesting. I was on a walk today, and I was waiting across the street.

[1:05] And the person pulled up to the intersection, they ran right through the intersection, didn't leave room for, you know, a pedestrian, and I waited for the person to… go. And, they coal-rolled me. I don't know if anyone knows what coal rolling is, but it's when a very large truck, usually, they make their exhaust, so their exhaust goes in your face. … And… I hated that. I didn't like it. And so one of the reasons why I ask for everyone to say something that made you smile recently is because, there's a lot of ugly in the world. And… everybody as being infected by this ugly. And so, sometimes it's nice to just think of something that made you smile.

[2:02] Even understanding, the ugliness that's going on around us. People are being deported. People's rights are being taken away. And so, this… BOSA has nothing to do with all of that, but when we gather, it's just an opportunity to remind ourselves and to remind others that there are good things happening in the world as well. So that's why I do it. You all didn't need to know that. But I just, today, especially, I felt like just kind of sharing why, the why behind I asked for something that made you smile today. So… We're gonna go around, gonna say our name, how long we've been in Boulder. And something that made you smile recently. So, my name is Nikki, I'm the chair of the BOSA committee, the BOSA Board. I've lived in Boulder for 15 years. And something that made me smile recently was I got to help someone in the makerspace at the library, use the sewing machines, and I got to do it completely in Spanish. So that really, really made me smile.

[3:09] So, with that, I'm gonna go to Katie. Katie, please introduce yourself. I'm Katie Crane, and I've lived in Boulder for 18 years. And something that made me smile, my… my stepson, so my husband's son, recently announced that he's getting married, and he and his girlfriend were visiting us, and… and I casually announced that, if she… she was admiring the dress that I was wearing in the picture for my husband and I's wedding, and I said, oh, you can… You can go ahead and wear that if you want to, and … she… just… just before I logged onto this, call, she… she sent me this long text, like, thanking me profusely for the offer. She declined, but she was just so sweet, and it… so it made me smile to, like, think about them getting married and all that, so…

[4:06] That made me smile. Excellent. Thank you so much for being here today, Katie. Sean, please introduce yourself. Yeah, I'm Sean Haney. I've been in Boulder for about 3 years now. And something that made me smile today was, I was outside, and a car drove by and was turning a corner, and in the passenger seat was this big dog, looked like a boxer maybe, sitting upright like a human, and as the car turned, his head… Turned to follow me, but still… sitting upright, just like a human would. Though it made me laugh in addition to smile. Excellent, thank you for sharing that with us, Sean, and thank you for being with us today as well. Deshauna, please introduce yourself. Hello, my name is Deshauna Sasueta, and I am the Attorney Advisor for BOSA. I have been with the Boulder City Attorney's Office since 2021, and something that made me smile was…

[5:07] I… my family has ferrets, and they're adorable, and their antics just bring me great joy. Lots of… we're kind of on an animal thing, I like that. Thanks so much for sharing, Deshaun, and thank you for being with us today as well. Thomas, please introduce yourself. Hey everybody, I'm Thomas Remke, I'm the Board Secretary for BOSA. I've lived in Boulder for about 2 years now. And something that made me smile recently, I had some friends from back home in town over the weekend, so there was lots of smiling going on. Excellent, wonderful. Thank you for sharing, and thank you for being with us today, Thomas. Last but certainly not least, Robbie, please introduce yourself. Hi, Robbie Weiler with Planning and Development Services. I am also the BOSA staff liaison, and I've been with the City for almost 13 years now in October. I'll hit that… that milestone. And then something that made me smile is I am actively planning a family visit. They are coming to me versus me going to them. They live over a thousand miles away, so we're planning a little getaway into the mountains, and who knows where we're going, but just something nice to think about, especially right now, because I don't get to see my family.

[6:18] All that often, so that's something that made me smile. Awesome. Thank you for sharing, Robbie, and thank you for being with us today as well. Alright, we're gonna get into it, y'all. So, tonight we have one item. That item is BOZ2025-0007. And before we get too into the weeds, I'm going to ask Thomas if you can go ahead and review our norms of, our meetings, please. Sure, yeah, just give me one moment to pull these slides up. Get these shared. I'm just gonna cover some basic rules for public participation for our meeting tonight.

[7:04] These are adopted for all of our boards and commissions across the city. First of all, the City has engaged with community members to co-create a vision for productive, meaningful, and inclusive civic conversations. This vision supports physical and emotional safety for community members, staff, and board and commission members, as well as democracy for people of all ages, identities, lived experiences, and political perspectives. For more information about this vision and the community engagement process, you can visit our link below. The following are examples of rules of decorum found in the Boulder Revised Code and other guidelines that support this vision. These will all be upheld during this meeting. All remarks and testimony shall be limited to matters related to city business. No participant shall make threats or use other forms of intimidation against any person. Obscenity, racial epithets, and other speech and behavior that disrupts or otherwise impedes the ability to conduct the meeting are prohibited.

[8:03] And participants are required to identify themselves using the name they are commonly known by, and individuals must display their whole name before being allowed to speak online. Currently, we only permit audio testimony online. Whenever we get to the public hearing opportunity, if you would like to speak, you can hover over the bottom of the screen and look for the raise hand function, and select that to let us know you'd like to speak. If you're calling in, you can press star 9 on your phone, and that does the same function. If you don't see that raise hand icon, you might see the reactions icon, which you can expand, click on to expand, and then you should see the raise hand feature there. And that's all. Back to you, Chair. Excellent, thank you so much, Thomas. Alright, so, I just want to go over our order of operations. So, on each item, staff will present first, and the applicant second. Next, the public will be invited to comment, and then the board will discuss.

[9:01] An affirmative vote of 3 or more board members shall result in passage of the motion. An applicant cannot be approved with less than 3 affirmative votes. If the first vote taken on a motion to approve or deny an application results in a tie, 2-2, well, not 2-2 tonight, because we have a quorum of 3 members. The applicant shall be allowed a rehearing. A tied vote of any subsequent motion to approve or deny shall result in defeat of the motion and denial of the application. A vote of 2 to 1, or 1 to 2 on a motion shall in all respects be considered a tie. So we're gonna go ahead and get started with BOZ2025-0007, which is the address of 3550 16th Street. And Robbie, if you will go ahead and start the staff presentation, please. Okay, thank you, Madam Chair. Again, this is BOZ2025-00007. The address is 3550 16th Street, and this is a setback variance.

[10:08] As part of a proposal to construct a porch over an existing variance-approved and permitted elevated deck leading to the primary entrance of the home, the applicant is requesting a variance to the front west yard setback standards for a principal structure in the R01 zoning district. The project also includes the construction of a new screen wall around the existing elevated deck, as well as the construction of new side stairs from the driveway. The resulting front west setback will be approximately 19.1 feet, where 25 feet is required. And approximately 19.1 feet exists today. Section of the land use code to be modified, Section 971, Boulder Revised Code 1981. And again, this is an R01-zoned property. Up on the screen, you see, circled in red, the location of this property. And then also within your materials, you were provided several letters of support.

[11:03] And some of those were, two property owners to one property, so to simplify it, I just showed you the location of where those properties were, and those are the green stars that you see up on the screen. And… a little bit in the way of the history of the property, it is zoned RL1. The lot size is around 7,200 square feet, where 7,000 square feet is the minimum for the zoning district. The history of the property, the home was permitted and built circa 1970. But around, 19… or in 1996, an administrative setback variance for a front uncovered elevated deck, what is out there today, was approved through AR968. Again, that was in March of 1996. And, something we don't see often is the applicant for the 96 permit, the homeowner applicant, is still the homeowner applicant for this application. So, they've been at this property for quite some time.

[12:02] And, something they want to do is they want to add a porch cover. over the existing deck without demolishing the existing deck. They want to reuse that, but also add some access stairs to the driveway to the south, and then also do some kind of screening, and railing features on the deck, just to kind of bring it up to code and bring it up to their preferred standards today. And existing and proposed floor area is 2464. This is not considered floor area, so, there is going to be no moderation or modification. Of the existing floor area on the site, but you can see the maximum allowed for the property is 3540, so they are still well below maximum allowance for floor area. And with building coverage, there is no change to building coverage outside of possibly a very minute part for the new stairs that are more than 30 inches above grade. Anything below 30 inches is exempt from building coverage.

[13:03] So that's why I put the little asterisk there, saying we will verify all of this, that building permit. But the maximum allowed building coverage for this property is 2490 square feet, and they are showing around 1,537, so building coverage also is well below the maximum allowance for this property. And then when it comes to solar access, side yard wall articulation, side yard bulk plane and height, due to the design and location. Of the project, no issues, have been presented, and we will verify all of this at time of building permit. So currently out on the site, circled in red, I have where the subject elevated deck and proposed covered porch slash elevated deck is to be located. The survey is on the upper left of the screen, and then we have a summer of 2024 street view of the property, and behind that big tree is the deck, the porch we're talking about, and then we have an aerial view, a 2024 aerial view, and pretty much under that same tree, if you look very closely, you can see the location of this.

[14:11] And then we also, the applicant did provide some photos of the deck that is going to have the porch put over it, and then also some more street view photos, of the property. So tonight, what the board is considering is a front yard setback variance. Typically, a front porch, kind of goes under its own development standards. We do have, in Boulder Revised Code 974, front porch encroachment standards, which allows Without the need for a variance, porches to go into a front yard, and we even separate that out into meeting setback, or standard homes and non-standard homes, meaning homes that are not meeting setback, and this home is technically a non-standard home because of the 24.55 foot existing setback from the front of the house. That said, otherwise they would be permitted a 6-foot deep porch out from the front of the house.

[15:09] But there are also around 8 to 10 development or design standards that have to be met in order for somebody to be able to do that. One of those being that the deck or the floor of the porch cannot be greater than 3 feet above grade, unfortunately, for this. It does not meet that, and we cannot vary that height standard. So, typically when something like this presents itself, they just have to go through a standard front yard setback variance. They're not varying the 974 front porch encroachment standards, this is just a 971, setback standard. Other than that, this front porch would otherwise meet those front porch standards, it's just the height of the deck. Or the decking is what's kind of preventing them from going under those standards. So with that, they are requesting a front yard setback variance of approximately 19.1 feet, where 25 feet is required, and approximately 19.1 feet exists

[16:07] Today, they are not intending on making the deck bigger. They actually would prefer to… prefer to not… demolish the deck and then have to rebuild it in kind. They would rather just keep the deck and then make the modifications as needed. And because of the existing location of the house, and the existing location of the deck, which was approved From the 1996 permit without the roof cover. They are in need of requiring this 19.1 foot setback. And then also, they are just over the 20% threshold for an administrative setback variance. It's 20% of 25, so… Because this is at 19.1 feet versus 20 feet, they do not qualify for an administrative setback variance, which is why it's in front of the board tonight. And I can go over any of those details, in more detail if anybody needs.

[17:01] So what we have on the screen now are some elevations. We have the proposed top, and then we have the existing bottom. You can see that deck, and then we have the new roof cover. the… and then the two stairs going to the left and right, north and south, and then we have that kind of new railing system around. Again, it's not being extended out any further than what you find today. And the next screen, or the next… this image we have is the side view, both the south, which is the top one, and the north. Which is the, bottom one, just showing you, kind of, from the side what it's gonna look like. And you can see the existing decking with the cover above it, and then we would otherwise permit upwards of 2.5 feet or 30 inches of roof overhang into a setback, regardless of there needing to be a setback, variance, or if it's being done by rider per code. So the 2.5 foot eave. or roof overhang is something we would permit without the need for a variance, which is why they put it on there, and which is why it's not a part of the variance tonight.

[18:08] And then we also have a floor plan, kind of showing you the interior layout… layout of the main level. It does… it is a semi… kind of split-level home, but the deck that this… that the board is considering tonight, the front porch that the board is considering tonight, is the primary entrance to the home. So, they somewhat need some sort of a landing, or some sort of a… kind of a place to stand when they go in their front door. Otherwise. It's a 3-4 foot drop to the ground below, which is not ideal for a front door. So, that's why they are requesting what they are requesting tonight. And the, criteria that the applicant both responded to and what staff looked into when making our determination was criterion H1A and H5A. In short, staff is in support of this variance request as it has been proposed.

[19:06] The original deck, or the existing deck, was approved through a variance and permit back in 1996. Unfortunately, with new survey or ILC information, it was found out that the house was not exactly where they thought it was. And rather than, demolishing the existing deck and making it shorter or less deep. They are requesting from the board that they just keep what is out there today, and then allow the roof cover to be put over the top, due to inclement weather. And also, we feel that it meets all of the other criteria. It's an existing condition. They are not making it bigger. We feel it's a modest and appropriate request. And then also, we had, letters of support. from multiple neighbors, especially the two impacted neighbors to the north and south. So we, …

[20:00] We agree with the applicant that it would not substantially or permanently impair reasonable use and enjoyment of any adjacent properties, and we have not heard from any neighbors. as of, the time of this meeting, that they are necessarily against it. So, with that, staff is recommending support, and I will leave it at that. If you have any other questions, I'd be more than happy to answer them. Excellent, thank you so much, Robbie, for a thorough, synopsis of that. Does the board have any questions of staff? Let's joke. Go ahead. … Yeah, you, you made reference to it there in your presentation, but I just want to make sure I understood. You talked about, the administrative variance back in 96 being okay, and… and that you made reference to the different survey standards, and I was just a little bit confused about that element, like, why… The different survey standards had an impact on…

[21:03] The appropriateness of administrative variance back then versus now. That it's not appropriate. And the applicant could probably expand in terms of them getting the new survey, but it appears that with newer surveys, and of course we have Surveys today are far more accurate than surveys even 20 years ago, so with that, it was found that the location of the house, and therefore the location of the existing deck, was not exactly what they thought it was back in 1996. And because of that, the house is considered non-standard today. And, where it sits today is at 19.1 feet versus the probably 20 feet that it was assumed it would be back in 1996. …. And the 20% threshold for administrative versus BOSA level is it's 20%… we can administratively vary, or staff level.

[22:01] vary something, but only 20% of a required setback. So, 20% of 25 feet, which is the front yard setback, means we can administratively vary anything that is no less than 20 feet from that front property line. Because this deck is at 19.1 feet approximately, they're not qualified to go administrative. They have to go BOSA level, because it's more than that 20%. Huh. Whereas… so… and in 1996, probably the inaccurate survey showed it was 20 feet, maybe. Possibly, and also this was discussed with Jeff, because I was like, hey, is there any way you can kind of chisel a little off to get to that 20% and go the administrative route, and it was discussed, I believe, and Jeff, you can fill… fill this in later, but it was discussed, and they ultimately decided they would rather keep what is out there today and not have to deconstruct and reconstruct. Got it. Thank you.

[23:00] Excellent. Thank you so much, Katie, for your question. Sean, do you have any questions for staff? A quick question. I noticed in the, outdoor floor plan, it said, originally constructed in 1970 near the deck with some red outline around the deck. Was the footprint of that front deck, or there when the house was built in 1970, or was that the 1996 edition that required the variance at the time? So, I am not sure what… I'm assuming there was a deck of some sort, because the front door's been there since 1970, but the deck that is out there today was, varied and constructed as a part of the 1990s variant. So, something was probably there before what it was, I don't know exactly. Thank you. Excellent. Robbie, I have a question. So… We're referencing 9-7-4, but then you actually, when you went through the staff recommendations, you…

[24:03] went back to 9-3, is it 9-3, that we normally look at? Yeah, 9-2-3, in terms of the variances. So, what exactly were we supposed to be looking at or considering in the 9-7-4? So tonight, the board is considering 971. What… when I brought up 974, I was just telling you that there are typically front porch encroachment standards that somebody can work with that allows you to construct within a setback, and unfortunately for this design, because of the hype, they do not qualify. to reconstruct the front porch under 974, so they are requesting a variance to 971. Okay, so 974 would be by right. Correct. Okay. And the board can actually vary the depth of a porch. But, one thing that the board cannot consider under 974 is the height of the floor, which is the problem tonight. So, 971 is what the board is, considering the variance under.

[25:08] Okay, but when the board votes, we will be looking at 9-2-3 in order to… with the… 9-2-3H, 1, 2, 3, and 4, that's what we'll be considering in terms of the motion that we're making. Okay. Right, yep, so the variance criteria are still 923H1 and H5, and the section of code to be varied is 971. Understand. Okay, excellent. Thank you for that explanation, Ravi. Does the board have any other questions for staff? All right, seeing none, we'll go on to the applicant's presentation. So, thank you, applicant, for being with us this afternoon. You have a total of 15 minutes for your presentation, and when you start, if you can please introduce yourself by stating your name and your address as well, and then go ahead into your presentation, please.

[26:05] I don't know if you can hear me now. A little bit better. Oh, okay. Keep talking. I'll, I'll try and raise the volume if I can, but, … My name's Jeff Borchard. I am an architect. My firm is Jazz Architecture. I've been working in town for about 35 years, and so… have a lot of history, maybe even beyond Robbie, of all the different, changes along the way. So the survey, Question you had was. We were allowed to build off ILCs, which you get with your mortgage papers. They used to cost $100, and they were fairly accurate, but not terribly close, and that's probably what they built the original house on, an ILC back in the 70s. … So, we, you know, all the houses along the street were built at the same line. They assumed that was 25 feet back, and, it would… it happened to be 8 or 9 inches into the setback.

[27:12] So, that's what started the ball rolling. When they applied for the variance, the staff level variance in the 90s. It was assumed that that was still 25 feet, and they built 5 feet out within the allowable setback that staff level was allowed to give. Since then, every project in town, almost every project, is required to have a high-level … what's it called? High-level survey, it costs $2,000 or $3,000, and you find out, oh, it's… it's built 8 inches into the setback, and so that's what got us to this point here. Otherwise, we could have gone through another administrative variance with this proposal.

[28:04] So, the front door, is actually, originally was… is on the driveway. You know, it looks like a little side entrance, but that was always the front door, and they had no exterior access, front or back. You had to go through the garage to get to the backyard, and then, Through this side door to get to the front yard. So they wanted to, have kind of a friendly porch, and access to the front yard. They have a little decade, on the ground out there, that brings them close to the neighbors. But what they found out is everybody started using this as the front door, even though the stairs are on the other side of the house, you have to walk across. So, we decided. And I've worked on these projects numerous times. These split levels, you come in, and there's about 3 square feet to negotiate, and you have to go up or down. they're really tough, and this is, like, one of the better solutions. They came up with this back in the 90s to, access the main level in a gracious way, and we just…

[29:11] looking to… to bring the stairs down to the driveway, so everybody can… everybody and the UPS guys can see where the front door is. And… and make it a little more substantial. Right now, it's… it's a little thin on, detail, and it just seems a little… … Yeah, it needs to be a little more substantial, in my opinion, to make it look like it is the front door of the house. And the roof over it, of course, is for weather and the western sun, which really hammer in on those windows and doors there. So that's another reason to do this. Yeah, so… I can't think of anything else beyond what Robbie has already gone over, that… to add to this, but if you have any questions otherwise, let me know, please.

[30:04] Excellent. Jeff, thank you so much for your testimony, for your presentation. Does the board have any questions for Jeff? All right, seeing no questions for Jeff, thank you so much. Now we're going to ask if there are any citizen comments on the application. And Thomas, if you can please remind anyone in the audience who'd like to speak how they do that, please. Thank you, Nikki. And we actually do not have anybody from the public joining us, we just have the homeowner and two members of staff in our attendee list right now, so I believe we can go ahead and close that public participation section. Excellent, wonderful, thank you so much, Thomas. So, if there's no other… if there's no public comment on this matter, then it's open to the board for discussion. So, Sean, I will start with you in terms of the discussion.

[31:04] Yeah, so from looking this over and looking at that, lot map and the surveying that was done, I think it definitely, complies with paragraph, 1C in that, it would be impossible to access the front door of the house without some sort of non-conforming structure … closer to the street, because even the front door seems to be, inside of that setback. Not to any fault of the… when the house was built, just because, the surveying at the time was not accurate. So, you know, it's not any hardship created by, the homeowner or the builders or anything, it's just, a unique part of how the house was built. And I do think it satisfies, in my opinion, all 5 of the requirements in paragraph 5. So, for me, I would say I'm leaning towards, approving. But curious to hear what everyone else has to say.

[32:01] Excellent, wonderful. Thank you so much, Sean. Katie, any discussion? No, I was pretty persuaded by… by Robbie and, Jeff's presentation. And I think I have a pretty clear handle on it, so I'm in favor of approving it as well. Excellent, thank you so much, Katie. And, yeah, ditto! I believe it satisfies, all four of the requirements on H… excuse me, in 5 requirements of all variance approvals, and so I'm leaning towards approval as well. So, with that, I entertain a mission, to… I entertain a mission on this matter. I'll make a motion, I make a motion to approve, BOZ2025-00007.

[33:03] Excellent. Need a second, please? I second that motion. Thank you so much, and we'll call the roll. So, Sean. I'm a yes. Katie? Yes. And I'm a yes as well. Congratulations, Jeff, and the homeowner. You're, … Application has been approved as submitted, so good luck with your future construction. Alright, thank you. Thank you. Alright, moving right ahead. the minutes. Am I missing… The minute… oh, well, there they are! They weren't there when I first looked at the minutes. Okay. Yeah, those were added in after the packet was originally posted. Okay, perfect, not a problem. Alright, so I will… are there any corrections to the minutes? It sounds like there are no corrections to the minutes, so is there a motion to approve the minutes?

[34:02] I make a motion to approve the minutes. Excellent, thank you so much, Katie. And I will second it. I will second the minutes. So, we'll call the roll. Sean. I mean, yes, approve. Oh, I'm so sorry. Go ahead, Sean, I didn't mean to cut you off. Yes, approve. Katie? Yes. And I am a yes vote as well. All right, motion to approve the minutes. has gone through. So let's look at other matters. Are there any other matters from the board? Hearing none, any matters from the City Attorney? No matters for me. Wonderful, thank you so much. And any matters from the staff? Of course. I'll try to make this quick. Just a few things. The application deadline for the September 9th meeting was yesterday. I… we did get some submittals, but I have yet to do formal completeness checks, so stay tuned on there being a September 9th meeting.

[35:02] Number 2 is interviews for Ben Doyle's now-vacant position were conducted, and a formal decision, if there is going to be one on replacing that, will be made on Thursday, August 21st at City Council. So, stay tuned on that as well. I don't really have any information beyond that, but we did have a couple applicants for the vacancy, and my hope is that one of the two will be chosen to replace VIN. So, and then number 3 is, I don't know how much the board members kind of play around with the BOSA website or the forms or applications, but we are actively updating some things, mostly the forms and guides for BOSA, Both to be more in line with the other boards and commission application forms and everything, but also in, … More primarily is we are also, doing our best to adhere to the accessibility standards that are now in place for pretty much all of Colorado and all of the country. So with that, we are going to, in the near future, probably in the next two to three months, be updating the BOSA application form.

[36:14] So, that will look a little different, and then also, just while we're at it, we're going to be updating the guides that are on the BOSA website right now. So, looks a little messy on the website right now, but that should all be changing for the best here soon. So, that's all I have. Thank you, Robbie. I have a question about the update to the application. Is that something that the public… do you ever, like, listen to the public in terms of any updates to the application, or is that completely internal? So, it's internal, but we definitely… I talk with applicants, both prospective and active and former, all the time, and they let us know what looks good, what doesn't look good. And right now, it's a form, but because of the accessibility

[37:02] kind of rules that are coming into play, or already in play, we are turning it into a form stack. I don't know if anybody's familiar with Formstack, but you pretty much input your data, and it generates an application form for you, versus the PDFs that you're used to seeing, … where you pretty much print out the PDF and put your information on it. Soon, it's going to be a form generation process to where you put all the… pretty much the same information in, and then it will generate the form, and you'll still provide that form with your application when you apply. So. slightly different, it's just gonna look a little different, but, for the better, I think. So, yeah, we definitely listen to our applicants and the public when it comes to what could be What's good, what's… what's not good, and with that, we are doing what we're doing right now. is updating stuff. So hopefully the board likes it as well, but that probably won't come into play for another, probably, 2 months.

[38:00] Excellent. Thank you so much for that, Robbie. Any other questions for staff? Alright! Woof! We may have been getting out of here in record time, y'all. 4.39. All right, with that, the meeting is adjourned. Thank you so much, everyone, for being here, and most likely, we'll probably see you in September. Have a wonderful rest of your evening. Bye, everyone. By everyone. Everyone. Bye. Thanks, everybody. See you soon.