March 12, 2025 — Landmarks Board Regular Meeting

Transcript

Captions from City of Boulder YouTube recording.

[0:00] Long as Aubrey is ready to record. Okay. it is 6 0. 8 pm. With apologies. And the March landmarks board meeting is called the arter it's March 12, th 2025. Marcy will 1st review the virtual medium meeting, decorum. And we have a 4 person quorum tonight. Thank you. Yes, it's Ronnie. Peluzio is absent, and this would have been his last meeting before his term is up. So the public participation for board meetings, guidelines begin with, 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.

[1:06] More about this vision. In the project's community engagement process can be found through the link on the screen. The following are examples of rules of decorum found in the Boulder revised Code, and other guidelines that support this vision. These will 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 or other speech and behavior that disrupts or otherwise impedes the ability to conduct. The meeting is prohibited. Participants may raise their hand to speak during open comment and public comment period. During hearings, individuals must display their whole names before being allowed to speak online. And currently, only audio testimony is permitted online. If you're having trouble changing your name. Please reach out in the chat, and Aubrey will help change that for you

[2:05] in terms of how to raise your hand at the time for either open comment or public comment during the public hearing. You can press alt Y on a PC. Or option y on a Mac, or if you're calling in on the phone, you can use Star 9. And if you're in the zoom app, the raise hand function is found in the reactions. Button. It's at the bottom of my screen. With that we'll hand it back to you, John. Thank you, Marcy. The recording of this meeting will be available in the Records Archive and on Youtube within 28 days of the meeting first.st We'll do a roll call introduction of our members this evening, and Chelsea Castellano. Yes, hi! Here! Rene Golovich.

[3:02] Here. And Abby Daniels. Hi! I'm Abby Daniels, one of the board members, and, John, thank you so much for leaving this meeting. Thanks, Abby, and I'm John Decker. I am acting chair this evening. We know that people who are here to participate may have some strong emotions about this project. We want to hear you, and have found it more productive. If you are speaking to persuade us, rather than berating us, staff or the applicant with regular landmarks board, or as with regular landmarks, board meetings, you may only speak in the appropriate time during the public hearing requests to speak outside of those times are denied as we are virtual tonight. If you would like to speak, you will use the raise hand function to let us know you would like to speak on. The function of that was explained by Marcy as board chair. I will call for a roll call, vote on any motions made.

[4:07] Our 1st item of business is the approval of the minutes from the February meeting. Does anyone have any changes or alterations to the February minutes? I do not. Okay, none, none appearing. I move that we approve these minutes. Do we have a second. I second that. Okay, thank you, and we'll do a roll call. Vote. Abby, I. Chelsea. Bye. Renee. Aye, and I also vote I serve the mess. The minutes are approved. 2548, 6th Street, which is the public item tonight is scheduled for this meeting. It is no longer a public hearing.

[5:10] so, Marcy, we'll expand on this issue. Okay. Yeah, thanks, John, for anyone joining us this evening. I want to acknowledge that we publicly noticed a landmark alteration certificate for the property at 2548, 6th Street, and then, after we publicly noticed it, we got further guidance from the city attorney's office that it was more appropriate to separate the code violation after the fact. Demolition review from the proposed construction or modification of the shed. So we will handle the code compliance portion at the administrative level, and the construction of the new shed will be reviewed by the landmarks. Design Review Committee next week on March 19, th that agenda will be posted online, and folks are welcome to attend that meeting and observe, and at that meeting the committee can either approve the proposal, request revisions, or refer it to Landmarks board for review.

[6:13] So if anybody would like to speak to that item 2548, 6th Street, you're welcome to this evening. It would be under open comment, which is what we're moving to next. And then, if you're here for the public hearing for St. Aden's welcome and the opportunity to speak to that item will be under the public hearing. Okay. So we now move to public participation for the non agenda items. and if there are any potential virtual participants, if anyone wishes to speak about St. Aden's Episcopal Church. Please wait to speak at the appropriate time for that item. And, Aubrey, do we have anyone who wishes to speak during open Forum.

[7:10] Just wanted to give it a second. John. Yes, so far we have 3 hands raised. We'll start with Patrick O'rourke, followed by Scott Kola, and then Lynn Siegel. So, Patrick, I will give you permission to speak and start the timer momentarily. Okay, we are no longer swearing people in open comment. By the way, so, Patrick, when you're ready. Thank you, John, and I would swear if you needed me to. I have 4 things on tonight's open comments. The 1st one is I wanted to thank Marcy and the landmarks team for getting involved for 8 1214th Street. As you know, the neighbors over there were concerned about about a demolition by neglect or partial demolition that was unauthorized without building permits, and once the landmarks board or the landmark staff was involved, apparently the owner has gone ahead and submitted proposals to to

[8:12] bring that building back to its shape. So that's what happens when we work together. Number 2 is the hip we wanted to. Now that they're reimagining the civic district, we wanted to come back, and we thought it was appropriate that now would be the time to revisit what's going on with the hip? And for those members that are not familiar with the hip. It was a a project that the city received a Grant in 2022, I believe, for a quarter of a million dollars for the 10 significant properties that the city of Boulder is a guardian of. To my knowledge not much action has happened, even though the recommendations are complete. I know that the band shell is the only one that's in the hip. But there's other buildings and other locations that are close to it that need to be taken into consideration. So I would hope that sometime in the near future, we'd get an update from the parks and recreation. We are planning to go to a parks and recreation meeting and bring that up and then request that it be added to an agenda.

[9:27] maybe sometime this summer, so that they can address it. I guarantee you that those members and those board members are unaware of what the hip is. I bet you most of them don't even know what it stands for. Finally, or 1, 2 more items is the family friendly zoning. I reached out to the building department, and on March 8th of this year that Staff was supposed to be brought up to speed on. How it affects all the the zoning in boulder. We're specifically want to know how it's going to affect the properties that are in the 10 landmark districts specifically, or mostly Mapleton and and those areas up there, and what can be built and not built. Finally and very importantly, Joyce Davies passed away last night. So I just wanted to make this board aware of it, because she represents

[10:24] preservation and molder, and I thought it would be a good idea if anybody was interested to read, to go to our homepage, and under her name she's a founder. There's an interview about Joyce that she did. That tells you the stories, and how involved she was in preservation and molder. Thank you. Thank you, Patrick. So who is next? All right. Next we have Scott cola. Just give me a moment to do the permissions.

[11:03] Alright, Scott, feel free to test your mic, and I'll start the timer when you're ready. Can you hear me? Yes. Working. Yeah, thank you. Scott, please state your whole name. And then you can begin. My name is Scott Cola. That's KOHL. A. Live at 6 20 Concord. I'm neighbors to the 2548, 6th Street House. and thank you for the opportunity to comment on this. This. All started about 5 years ago, right when Covid started, and my family. Once school was out, we went on a 6 week trip to go take care of my mom and my dad, who lived by themselves in 2 separate locations, and when we came back, after 6 weeks, our neighbor had demolished the existing shed and built the new shed. That's there now.

[12:00] And I understand that the current owners are asking the allow it to be as is And I said, we're not as supportive the current structure, and I think some of you might have seen the pictures I've sent. The building is 700% larger than it was a tool shed. Now, it's actually a 1 room cabin. and if you do look at the dimensions, it's 700% larger. So 6 significantly larger than what was there. And it's now blocking the sunlight, natural light into our Home office and into our front foyer. So just want to say, not not in support of that structure. Staying as is, we prefer to have the proper setbacks and resized. and would actually like a shadow survey, just to make sure it doesn't continue to block the sunlight coming into sweet.

[13:05] and I think that's it, cause I think that's I'm not really sure what the proposal is at this point. But last I heard it was. They're asking for it to stay where it is. that's all I have. Thank you for taking the time to listen. Okay. Thank you. Scott. All right. Thank you, Scott, and next up we have Lynn Siegel. Oh, Lynn, I think I see that your hand went down. If you're still interested. Would you like to? Yeah, okay. great. All right. You should be able to unmute now, and I'll get the timer started for you. Yeah, I empathize with Scott. And I think that. Lynn Lynn, can you state your full name? Please.

[14:03] Lynn Siegel. I empathize with Scott because Janet, Jan and Joyce had weren't weren't living there at the time. They were in Switzerland, and and Andy was there from I've known for 30 years, and I'm sure he didn't know what was going on with it either. So the best thing, I think, is, if Scott and Jan and Joyce can work it out. But they they had one closet door they were trying to store in there that they couldn't store if they have to rebuild it entirely the way they had to. I think it'd be really great if they could work it out together. Rather than have things imposed on them, because they're both really nice people. I'm sure Scott is, too But anyway, I wanted to bring up something about planning board. I don't know if you were aware of this, but they're doing impact fees for demolitions, and it's totally inadequate. Amount. $15 a square foot. You know what housing is going for in Boulder now. $1,100 per square foot. You know what Aspen's

[15:18] demolition impact fee is $113 per square foot, which is still nothing, and boulders doing $15 a square foot. This does not, you know all the things that the Progressives and Chelsea and the whole group are promoting for massive density in Boulder is just driving up that that's what drove up the cost from $800 a square foot to $1,100 a square foot, all in the name of making things more affordable. It's just the irony is just unbelievable to me. And we really need to get these impact fees to be realistic. And this board needs to convert from the landmarks, from the demolition board to the landmarks board I'm still furious about, and I'm being perfectly nice here, John.

[16:11] I'm furious. About 1015 juniper that was so unacceptable that was affordable housing, Chelsea, affordable housing there with that basement full basement. I've been in there 30 years ago. There was a concert there that would have been so nice to keep that instead, I'm sure they're going to put up a 10 million dollars house that's going to drive up the cost of housing in Boulder and drive us further to get Lihtec funds. But how are we going to get Lihtec funds anymore with the trump administration figure that out we aren't. you know. So the problem is big. Now I guess the Trump Administration will help it, since we won't have litex funds to build all this affordable housing that these groups promote, you know, by by demolitions like this. So I think the demolitions should be much higher. The impact fee than.

[17:09] That's your time. Thank you. Lynn. Okay, do we have? Do we have anyone else who wants to speak. I'm not seeing anyone right now. If anyone else would like to speak during open comment, please raise your hand and we'll give you 3 min. I think we're good to go, John. Thank you. I will. I have to say that in open comment. I don't feel like it's appropriate to call out any specific person at this point. And I I just do not think that's proper form. So I would like caution on that in the future. Okay, let's move on to discussion of landmark, alteration and demolition applications issued, and pending

[18:10] and we have a slide. You know, we don't need a slide for this one, because it's pretty short. We only have one stay of demolition currently, and that will be discussed under the public hearing for 2425, Colorado. So I don't have other applications to update you all on. Okay, that moves us ahead, we will move to our public hearing. This is, item 5. A a public hearing and consideration of a motion to adopt a resolution to initiate the process for landmark designation. Pursuant to Section 9, 11, 3 of the boulder Revised Code 1981,

[19:05] or alternately issue a demolition approval. Pursuant to section 9, 1123 older revised Code 1981 for 2425, Colorado Avenue. That's his 202-40-0206, and we have the Powerpoint presentation. The owner is Saint Aidan's Episcopal Church, and represented by Jv. D'souza. and the applicant is the city of Boulder landmarks board, and with that Marcy will present the staff project side. All right. Thank you, John. Yes, Marcy Gerwing, principal planner in planning and development services. I'll start with the public hearing procedure for this evening, and this initiation hearing is legislative. This means that the Board does not need to reveal any ex parte contacts, but the rest of the hearing is similar to a quasi-judicial hearing. We will start with the staff presentation, followed by the owner's presentation. After that the hearing is open for public comment, and after the last speaker. The owner has a chance to respond to anything that was said.

[20:23] Board members may also ask questions after each of the presentations, and after public comment, and then the public hearing is then closed, and the board deliberates, and a motion takes 3 votes to pass, and finally a record of the hearing is kept in central records. This application started last fall, and the applicant submitted the demolition application in September, which was initially reviewed by Staff, and referred to the landmarks board the Board placed a stay of demolition at their November 20th hearing, and during the stay staff landmarks, board members, and the applicants and owners met twice to discuss alternatives to demolition.

[21:04] Last month the Board voted to schedule this hearing, to initiate, to consider initiating landmark designation, or alternatively issuing the demolition, approval before the stay of demolition expires on March 19.th So the options in front of you this evening are to either initiate designation of the property as an individual landmark by adopting the resolution included in your packet as attachment. A. The Landmarks board designation hearing would then be held between 60 and 120 days, and then go to city council. After that your second option is to not initiate landmark designation, in which case the stay of expire would continue and expire on March 19, th or you have the option to approve the demolition application, and that approval is valid for 180 days. The criteria for your review this evening is found in 9 11, 3D. Of the Boulder Revised Code, and that is to consider whether there is probable cause to believe the building may be eligible for landmark designation.

[22:11] Whether there are currently resources available to complete the outreach and analysis. If there is community and neighborhood support for the designation. If the building needs the protections provided through designation. If the proposed designation is consistent with the goals and policies of the Boulder Valley comprehensive plan, and if the proposed designation would generally be in the public interest. and since the hearing is legislative, the Board can consider any information heard this evening the property is located mid block between 26th and Folsom, on the north side of Colorado Avenue. The building faces south onto Colorado and the University of Colorado campus is located to the southwest across Colorado and Folsom, and the property is not located within the boundaries of an identified potential historic district.

[23:05] The building was constructed in 2 phases. The original part of the building was built by was designed by Fisher, Fisher, and Davis, of Denver. In the modernist architectural style, using the a-frame form. In 1965. An addition was designed by architects, Art Everett, Alan Ziegel, and William Heisman, and they constructed a masonry edition with an a-frame roof form to represent a spire, and connected the 2 parts of the building. The west and north elevations of the building also reflect the phased construction with the original design of the covered Court and Parish House. A comparison between the 1957 building and the view today shows the integrity of the asymmetrical gable roof with wide eaves, central ribbon window steeple and modified belfry with gable roof added in 1965. This slide shows the 1965 photograph with the original portion of the building, with the modified belfry and gable roof.

[24:07] and the new addition to the right side of the image with the a-frame form of the addition and the connection between the 2 sections of the building overall. The building retains a high degree of architectural integrity. The building is in its original location, and retains most of its historic materials predominantly. The rough, reddish brown bricks and the cedar shingle roof, and the original windows at the facade have been replaced. The building demonstrates workmanship typical of its period of construction, including the exposed framing members and the building's ability to convey a feeling as a mid-century church has not been diminished, and the addition of the parking lots on the northern part of the lot has not changed. The overall park-like setting of the property. Turning to the criteria for review staff, considers that the building located at 2425 Colorado Avenue is eligible for landmark designation, in that it embodies the distinguishing characteristics of modernist architectural style. Using a modified a-frame form. It is the work of Arthur Fisher, of Fisher, Fisher and Davis of Denver, with Art Everett and Alan Ziegel and William Heisman co-designing the addition to the building.

[25:22] all of whom are known statewide or locally. It's also significant for its association with Saint Aidan's Church, and as part of the post-world War Ii. Development of Boulder. When many congregations chose forward-looking modern designs to accommodate growing, worshiping populations. and it shows value as part of the cultural characteristics of Boulder. The next consideration is whether there are currently resources available for the application, and the city has limited staff resources to process applications for designations of a property without the owner's consent or community support

[26:02] diverting resources away from other board and program priorities is not recommended. The next consideration asks whether there is community and neighborhood support for the proposed designation prior to the November 20th Landmarks board meeting the Board received 14 letters requesting the Board not initiate designation. At the hearing, 8 members of the public spoke one in support of a stay of demolition, and the rest against it. Since the hearing. In November the Board received 70 letters. Most are from members of the congregation, and are in support of demolition and opposed to the initiation of landmark designation. The next consideration is whether the building needs protection provided through designation. There is an active demolition application that will be approved if the Board does not take action before this day expires on March 19, th in the form of initiating landmark designation.

[27:01] If it is approved that approval is valid for 180 days, and the applicants have represented that the application was submitted as part of an exploratory phase of redevelopment. If the demolition is approved and the approval expires, historic preservation will be considered in a future public process. The next consideration is whether the proposed designation is consistent with the goals and policies of the boulder. Comprehensive plan policy. 2.2 7 of the Comp. Plan states that the city and county will identify, evaluate, and protect buildings, structures, objects, districts, sites, and other natural features of historic, architectural, archaeological, or cultural significance with input from the community. And the plan does not speak specifically to landmark designation over an owner's objection. Historically, it's been used very rarely, and during the stay staff and members of the landmarks board met with the owner to discuss possible alternatives to demolition, but no alternatives were identified.

[28:10] The final consideration asks whether the designation would generally be in the public interest. Staff considers that in this case, designating the property over the owner's objection, would not represent a reasonable balance between private property rights and the public's interest. based on the scope of the proposed development and the applicant's redevelopment timeline, there will likely be a future public process to consider the redevelopment of the property, and whether the designation would generally be in the public interest, and provide a more comprehensive analysis of the balance of the balance of policies in the comprehensive plan. So with that staff recommends that the Landmarks board not initiate landmark designation for the property at 2425 Colorado Avenue, for the following reasons. while the building is proposed for demolition, the applicants have represented that the building is actively being used, and is in a years long process to consider options to redevelop the property staff believes that a preservation solution may still be found through incorporation of the existing building into the eventual eventual redevelopment of the site, as those plans are further developed.

[29:20] there are limited staff resources available to process applications for designations over the owner's objection and without strong community support. Staff considers that initiation over the owner's objection would not represent a reasonable balance between private property rights and the public interest in preserving the city's cultural, historic, and architectural heritage. This balance will be more appropriate to consider at the time of a future discretionary review application. When more of the redevelopment plans are developed that concludes the staff presentation, and this is a reminder of the next steps in the hearing process.

[30:02] The owner will now have up to 10 min to present to the board, followed by public participation. After the final speaker, the owner will have an opportunity to respond to anything that was said, and then the public hearing then goes to board deliberation. and with that I'm happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you, Marcy. Do any members of the Board have any questions for Marcy? Abby? And thank you, John and Marci. Thank you not only for that presentation, but the excellent staff memorandum. This is really more of a comment, because I don't want to lose sight of this later, when this is brought back to us for deliberations. it's really helpful to me. And not only did I so appreciate all the letters we received in support of the demolition. And I think it's very helpful when, during the various meetings where we've discussed this. You've outlined the number of letters received, and who's opposed and who's supported? What particular side of the issue? But I just would be remiss if I didn't say

[31:10] when a historic folder, as a nonprofit organization with hundreds of members, writes a letter that I want that letter to be acknowledged as representing more than just one person. And certainly, you know, potentially hundreds. And that's it. Thanks. Abby. Anyone else. No other questions. Okay. Hey, John, we have a question in the chat from an anonymous attendee. They are wondering if this is approved. Does it mean that the demolition has to take place in the next 180 days. Hey, Marcy! Why, why don't you answer that. I can speak to that, and we'll just acknowledge that the Q. And A. Is for technical difficulties, and there's not an opportunity for general comments from the public. However, I'm happy to address this question, so the historic preservation approval is valid for 180 days. That's the timeline

[32:17] provided to gather the other signatures required for the deconstruction. Permit and apply for the deconstruction. Permit. Once that permit is in hand, you have a year or 2 to actually demolish the building. And any other questions about the process. Please email me at Gerwing, GERW. ING. 1st initial M. For Marcy at Boulder, colorado.gov. Okay, thank you, Marcy. Any other members of the board have questions. Okay, none appearing. We will move on to the owner. Presentation. Who do we have from ownership that is prepared to present.

[33:06] I will start and Mary Kate, Mother Mary Kate Ridgewee will follow me. I am Jv. D'souza. I am the applicant on behalf of Saint Aidan's church and Mother Mary. Kate Reg. we will try to be brief tonight. We have applied for a demolition. Permit St. Aden's wants to be on its site, continuing its ministry for another 75 years. They need to develop alternative sources of revenue to fund that ministry. Their existing church currently ill suited to their needs is a threat to their financial viability in the future. We appreciate the opportunity we've been given to meet with board members both in virtual meetings and at the church we feel like we've said what we need to say. what we can say about St. Aden's present and its future

[34:00] mother. Mary. Kate will speak for a bit, and then we will look forward to your comments and decision. Thank you. Yeah. Thank you. Jv. My name is Mary Kate Raju. I'm the rector of Saint Aidan's. I am just a parish parish priest and campus chaplain. I'm here with Paul Vokes and Val Patterson, who are part of our leadership. I want to thank the Board and the staff for the time you've spent and the energy you've spent with site visits and your reports also members of the public. I'm also grateful that we could reschedule this from last Wednesday, which was Ash Wednesday. The Board, the Landmarks Board Staff report report recommends that you not initiate landmarking, and we agree with that. Please do that and quickly grant us a demolition. Permit. St. Aden's is a household of faith. Every week we impact about 200 people in ways that are religious and not religious.

[35:06] We know our building that we built and that we have taken care of and prayed in and changed in small and big ways, is 70 years old, and as a congregation of people. Almost 3 years ago we started talking about how we can remain a sustainable organization for the next 70 years or more. What is happening to St. Aidan's is happening to congregations all over the country we lose beloved aged members, and income streams continue to change as expenses rise. We chose to invest time and energy now to determine our future, so that our sustainability does not become an excruciating set of years or decades of hard decisions after hard years, after hard decisions as we respond to physical and financial decline

[36:03] in our discernment. We have known that if we are to secure our financial future, we need to look at options and big ones. Our building is our single largest financial asset. and if we were to do something big to our building, we knew that we would come to this historic preservation review like, we're here with you tonight. Our building is more than 50 years old, and it is a mid-century modern a-frame church. There are at least 10 a-frame style churches in Boulder that were built between 1958 and 1975. Some may be better examples of the form than Saint Aidan's. I'm a priest, not an architect. Not one of the 10 was listed in the survey of the most significant modern architecture of the city that was published in the year 2,000. So if St. Aiden's is to receive landmark designation, are all of the others to be treated similarly.

[37:00] and if they're not given their similar architecture. Then we have to assume that what sets Saint Aidan's apart is the people associated with it. Our parishioners, Art Everett and Alan Ziegel, Father Pat and Virginia Patterson, whose son sits here with me today with us today. And that's the point that we've been trying to make. St. Aden's is important, not because of its building, but because of its people, people, past, people, present, and people future. If the Board chooses to landmark the building because of people associated with St. Aidan's in the past. It will do so to the detriment of St. Aden's people in the present, and it makes certain that there will be no Saint Aidan's people in the future. You've heard from the people of St. Aidan's in great volume. You've gotten letters. You had public comment in the November meeting, the church of St. Aden's, not the building, but the people who make it. We are asking you for a future.

[38:06] and in this instance our future is tied to being allowed to demolish our current building and construct a new one to match our present and future needs. We value your time and also ours. So we did not ask for extensive public spoken support at this meeting. We chose to apply for a demolition permit now or back in September, because the only alternative in the city code and process is for us to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to get us to site review. at which time the same board can still say, No, you can't do that. Demolish the building for the reasons that have already been articulated, or we could revisit those site plans again for another tens of thousands of more dollars to agree on what could or should be preserved.

[39:01] Our annual budget is orders of magnitude smaller than the cost of this kind of site. Review. We are a local church, not real estate developers or wealthy landowners. This process is impossibly challenging for a small nonprofit with limited resources. I, along with many volunteers and some partners and consultants, have spent hours upon hours of time preparing and making our case to you. We have spent some thousands of dollars with our partners, so that we know how to navigate this process. Well, because it's complicated for a small example of scale. The permit application fee alone for this process costs more than my annual budget for continuing education. But I have learned a lot. The process to which you are constrained by city code is inequitable. It may work for a single dwelling owned by a person or family. It favors those who have the time and the resources to spend on this process. People who perhaps can make decisions quickly between an owner and an architect and a contractor in a short period of time.

[40:13] but we are a gathering of more than a hundred 50 souls, and we include the memory of those who have gone before, and those who will come after us. as we are very aware, from the beginning of this meeting. This demolition permit, if granted, lasts for 180 days. There are very few changes, especially in a religious organization that happen in that amount of time. We don't even change the color of our walls in that amount of time a process that involves collaborating with community city planners, architects, and our own congregation takes a long time navigating these changes takes years. and so we know that we will see you again. And although we have made our case quite clearly, we and you will once again be subject to this process, to the judgment of staff and this board, and it could go on for years.

[41:08] But what is at stake for us is our very existence in this community. Yes, our building could be historically landmarked. but it shouldn't be. This board has the power over Saint Aidan's self-determination. We do not want to destroy the Church. We believe in our mission and our people and our ability to do it. We are really good at maintaining our own history. We recycle and revision, and renew old things to be new things all the time we are envisioning a church built for the next century, that incorporates beautiful pieces that make the interior our beautiful church home, from stained glass to our columbarium, to religious symbols and more. we're asking for a future staff, have outlined 3 possible ways for you to move forward.

[42:03] You may initiate designation. You can not initiate landmark designation, or you can approve the demolition application. We respectfully request that you consider only 2, either initiate designation or approve the demolition application. Failing to either approve the demolition application or to initiate landmark designation doesn't help the people of St. Aidan's kicking the can down the road with the middle option. Not initiating landmark designation gives us no clarity in our struggle to survive. We will have spent 6 months and several $1,000 to not have an answer to our question. And that question is, do local community serving? Religious nonprofits have a future in Boulder, in the location where we are called to serve on the campus of Cu Boulder. Do the households we serve have a home here? Do the people we care for, feed, provide space for, make room for.

[43:04] have a place here in a faraway future that none of us will see. That is really the question for us. but it is not sadly the process, or the city code, or the question, or the power that you are charged with. So we ask you not to landmark this building and to grant the demolition permit. Thank you very much for your time. Thank you. That brings us to the point where any board members who would like to ask the owners questions directly may do so do we have any questions? Okay, that moves us to public comment.

[44:05] Aubrey, do we have people signed up. Let's see if anyone would like to speak on this item. Please raise your hand now. Alright. It looks like we have one so far. So let's get started. Okay, so speakers will not have to be sworn, and we will have 3 min per speaker. If we don't. We don't have an overall number, Aubrey, that you have seen. No, I I don't see that, John. Okay. So we will go ahead and allow 3 min per person. And before you start speaking, please speak your whole name and then proceed, so gail, Ray may proceed.

[45:15] Might be waiting on some tech issues. Gail, I'll wait until we can hear you to start the timer. Yes, I. Know how that is. Yeah. We can't hear you quite yet. Okay. Because it looks like their microphone is connected. Let's try this one. Is that better?

[46:00] Perfect. We can hear you. Right. My name is Gail Gray, and I was contacted to speak to this. This was a tough request for me. I'm a member of a church who developed property while retaining their original church. But it was different, and I was part of the preservation community actively when another church nearby wanted. I also requested demolition to make their property more valuable to sell, because they had someplace to go. I'm I understand this property is different. It is in a neighborhood. The neighborhood is essentially gone, as it was originally built into, and access is probably honestly limited. I read some of the requests that you parked cars and did other things, and the building is historically significant, and it speaks to Boulder in the fifties and sixties.

[47:07] But in my mind, is it still part of Boulder in 2025? And I understand what you're saying about survival. My church is totters. I'm stunned in the last 5 years to find that my church has gone from a membership of, you know, perhaps 400 people to about a hundred 50 at this point. And it's it's important. But I I wonder if just demolishing this building without knowing more about what you plan to do, is the right way to go. So with great reservation and almost an apology, I would like to recommend that the Land Board that the Landmarks Board actually recommend landmarking, because I can't find any other option to

[48:03] let us all think about what this, and I understand your urgency on this. Please trust me on this to see if there isn't another resolution, and I I mean what I say. Thank you. Thank you, Gail. We have others. We have one more. Oh, 2 more. So we'll start with Lynn Siegel, followed by Patrick O'rourke. Okay. Alright, Lynn, you should be good to go. I'm going to agree with the last speaker. And I'm crying, too. I feel very much for Mary.

[49:00] Okay, and I I can't see another property going down in Boulder, and you know I can't also can't see that we have certain sacred places. Admittedly, I'm atheist. I'm Booju Quaker Unitarian. So tell me what you will, but the fact that there's a property there, and that it should be valued up because it's a sacred place doesn't fly with me. And the you know, I know Danica Powell and Trestle is involved with this. And the last person yeah, they're going to build like you would never believe in that place, and they're going to make but zillions dollars of bucks. you know, and I don't think that's ethical to give them a handout. and I know that you're going to pass it anyway. So I'm going to say, Keep, you know. I just know

[50:05] I follow 5 city boards and city council, and I'm enmeshed in this. And I know that the developers own this town. I get it. But it's not okay, and I'm not going to stand by and watch it. And I'm not going to be, you know. Have my mind played games with because of it. So this is yeah. It's got to go for blend marking, I guess if that's the only pathway. And you know, Mary Kay. why don't you just go ahead and go through site? Review yourself. I'll pass it. Then I'll pass it for demoing, because it should be demoed. It's I agree. I went there twice. I saw all the interior and everything. So why am I? You know? And I listened to the whole history. So why am I supporting landmarking it? Well, I told you, because I don't want the developers to make a giant pile of money out of it, which is exactly what they're doing.

[51:06] and I don't care what public benefit they're giving like a children's daycare center. Sorry I don't buy that. They're destroying boulder, as I know it. And you know what I came here in 1958. This church was built in 1957, so I was here from 58 to 60. Then I lived in Salt Lake and Seattle and Palo alto and stuff. But in any case, I don't think that this is okay. And I know another person in the neighborhood that is getting pushed out, and he's lived there for years and years, you know, and that. And they're putting high rises and student housing everywhere in town, rented by the bedroom. It's it's obscene, done. Okay, thank you, Lynn.

[52:04] Others, Patrick. Great. I can go ahead now. Leonard, Siegel and myself had an opportunity to walk through the building, and we want to thank the pastor permitting us to do that. the building and the owner of the building, this building complex. If they wanted to preserve it, we would support that. Now we know that that's not the case here, but the building is significant. and because of the historical importance and the significance of the Church, the architectural importance of being a beautiful example of a modern design by 2 very important architectural firms in the history of Colorado, and its environmental importance as a highly visible religious institution in the heart of the main campus of Cu

[53:01] historic boulder encourages the Church to find a way to incorporate all or some of the redevelopment of that property. The concern we have is 2 number one is that applying for a demolition permit seems to be somewhat of a short circuiting of the process that's in in place in Boulder that they're not doing a design review. There's not going through a design review program, so that if the if the developer. And I'm just not going to say it's a church. But if it was the developer, because that's the person who will own it in the future, they would raise the property and then go through a building application process so hopefully, that's not the case here. So hopefully, this is just to find that they can get the demolition done, and then they'll work with some future developer to preserve it. Our concern is also that there's 2 other significant buildings in that neighborhood.

[54:01] This represents the 1st or the domino, the 1st one to go. So this church goes. The next 2 significant structures in that neighborhood probably will be on the list, you know. Cus right across the street. I imagine that they'll be courting this church in order to to expand their footprint. That's not a bad thing necessarily, but I'm just hoping that whatever happens to this particular property in the future is sensitive to the the the needs of the whole community past that I want to wish the best. I got a feeling that most likely this will not go through tonight because of the staff recommendation which we usually would follow, and historic boulder has no intention of requesting that this building be designated over the owner's objections. But it is a significant building. Thank you.

[55:03] Thank you, Patrick. Do we have anyone else. I am seeing one more raised hand. Debbie Asmus. So just give me a moment, Debbie. get you permission to speak and start the timer alright, should be good to test your mic. Yeah, I'm not sure what. So this is David Sullivan. I live directly next door to St. Amen's. I'm going to be impacted by this, but I support what a landowner wants to do, and I just ask that I be kept involved in the process. and God bless. Thank you. Thank you. And your name was David Sullivan. Correct.

[56:00] Thank you. Okay, let's give it a few minutes. Yeah, if anyone else would like to speak, just raise a hand and we'll give you permission to speak. Sorry, I heard an echo in there. Hope it wasn't too bad. All right, John. I think we're okay to move on. Okay? At this point the owner has an opportunity to respond with 3 additional minutes. Do, does anyone in the owners group wish to respond to anything that was said. We? We do want to respond. Just that. We did speak to Marcy back in September, when we 1st submitted the demolition, application, and Marcy encouraged us instead to go through the discretionary review of Site Review. We discussed this at length with her. It's really not within the Church's financial capability

[57:17] to have undertaken that sort of exploration and that sort of expense, to try and understand what the parameters are on its existing building, and how it might impact its future use and the Church's future ability to use its primary asset, its site to ensure its financial future and viability. So we appreciate every time every time people ask us about getting to a discretionary review. But we. this, we are not developers. As we sit here today, we are

[58:00] a priest parishioners, and people who are related to and care very much about St. Aden's. We are not developers, and we are trying to understand and know what is necessary so that we can go forward and help the church plan for its future. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. I believe that moves us to board discussion. and we're now going to move to board discussion. I ask that everyone else mute your mute, your computer or phone for the duration of the discussion. We've allotted approximately 45 min for the discussion. And so Aubrey is going to have a timer running for the purposes of knowing when that 45 min is up. But it does not by any means limit our discussion if we need it.

[59:05] So unless somebody wants to jump in and start, I will do it. Okay. Do you mind, John? No sorry if there's a little lag in my speaking based on where I am. But one of the reasons I would like to go 1st is, I'm going to be anxious to hear from my esteemed colleagues as I deliberate the decision before tonight. 1st of all. I want to thank Mary Kate and all our friends at St. Aidan's. You were generous enough to arrange a second site visit last Friday, since I was unable to join on December 13.th Now, in my defense, I was trying to get my 91 year old mother-in-law out of the gift shop at the Mother Cabrini shrine. So I arrived too late back in Boulder to join you guys. And I've got to tell you guys, I was really struck

[60:04] by being in the church on Friday and normally on the landmarks board. Our only real purview is the exterior, the architectural significance, the history, and the merit and integrity of a building. But I kept thinking, after I left on Friday afternoon that reminded me of a tour that historic holder had nearly 20 years ago ago called sacred places the spirit within. and I felt that there and Mary Kate, you've done such an eloquent job of talking about the people, but I will admit that I also felt some of that spirit in the wood beams and in the stained glass and in the art. So for me it wasn't. It is the people. But that is also sort of this space. and all the laughter and tears and music, and everything that has transpired in in those spaces since 1957. And then in the new sanctuary since 1964. So I really felt that I really

[61:14] appreciate and value all the communications we received beforehand. I think that that was very helpful, very valuable, you know. Some incredibly just heartfelt pleased that I felt in the letters we got, and I guess and thank you for just sort of answering the question about on your design from your design team. I am more accustomed to this over the last 20 years that I've either attended or been part of landmarks, board meetings. I am often more familiar with this coming more through a site review process. But I think you explained why you are still in an exploratory phase. I know that often we see these things and we don't get them. That often is at a later point in the planning for redevelopment of a site such as this.

[62:11] And, Mary Kate, you said something really interesting tonight, because Staff has always done an excellent job laying out 3 options for us tonight, and I was surprised to hear that you weren't as in much in favor of a vote to do, not designate, because I think maybe you felt that would lead to more uncertainty on your side, because you you kind of anticipated. and personally knowing this process, I will not be surprised. It won't necessarily be me but that a future landmarks board might have you guys before them again, just as you. You know this. This is truly long range planning, and so forth. So I was interested to hear that because where my struggle is, and this is why I wanted to jump in and hear from my 3 other esteemed colleagues tonight is.

[63:07] it's, you know I applaud the mission of savings. I applaud what you do in this community, what you want to grow, what you already have given back, and what you want to do. But I also feel my service on the landmarks board. Part of my mission is to kind of look at. Is there a strike pro property eligible for historic landmark designation, and so forth. And so where I'm having trouble. Staff has already acknowledged tonight that it would meet the criteria for individual landmark designation. And so just that that fact. What I'm really wrestling is, then it's very hard for me to vote. Yes, to issue a demolition permit tonight, knowing that, depending on what the votes are, what actions taken, it might just naturally expire. I think it's next week the only other shout out, I want to give, and I don't think it's part of our discussion tonight. That visit last week was also illuminating to me.

[64:12] as Marci mentioned that she and Claret attended a workshop where the State Historical Fund is trying to help the sacred places we love and cherish be eligible for up to a million dollars in tax credits. For what a lot of these! Not only perhaps aging buildings, but dwindling. Congregations are. basic. You know. You're not alone in that. You won't be, you know there'll be more to follow in your footsteps. The only other quick shout I want to give is historic boulder. In addition to this tour, sacred places of spirit within. We're champions of saving 1st Christian Church. Now I understand it's a much more high profile.

[65:07] property as you enter Boulder, and I think it celebrates and embraces everything that's innovative and creative about Boulder, and I know that there was some disappointment and some back and forth with, I think there were a couple of different teams of developers who finally got that through. But I I have to tell you that at the time that was completed, and that building was landmarked and beautifully readapted for use for the apartments around it. That historic folder, a nonprofit who has for more than 50 years done what they can to save the places that Mount Boulder. The developers actually wrote historic boulder. Thank you notes, and thank you so much for doing this. You know, we're getting such wonderful response and feedback from having this sanctuary now, a gift for our community and a beautiful space for them to congregate. So that's it for me, and I'm dying to hear from my other board members.

[66:12] Thank you, Abby. Who would like to go next? Renee. I was just saying that you wanted to go, so you might as well. I don't want to go yet. Oh, okay. Well, I think that. Ultimately. I'm a little torn. I think that this is a really good, you know role in preserving a historical architectural, you know, significant building in boulder and I wish that there was able to come together and be able to preserve parts of maybe the building, and, you know, build around it. But keep. you know, significant architectural features. You know. But I also understand that we're, you know, they're a, they're a church. They're a community. And the resources are limited.

[67:10] right? They're not a big developer who wants to, just, you know, scrape it and and put up homes to make a lot of money. What they want to do is, you know, and we keep talking about this. And they've done a really good job of telling us what they want to do with us, and you know the public comment about them not allowing us. They did bring us some options when we were discussing things on, maybe what they were proposing to do, and things like this. So that was well beyond what I think is required. so you know, it's a really good example of the architecture. So I'm I am torn. I love, you know. Always want to staff does a really good job of bringing forth a recommendation. And you know.

[68:04] I don't know if landmarking this building against owners, participation is actually the right thing to do and ultimately I think that I love architecture. But I also don't want people to, because architecture, the community people. Here's how do I want to say this, like architecture is gives its heart from the community. If there was no community at St. Aidan's, there wouldn't be much heart. So when you walk into abandoned buildings and places, you know, that have been abandoned there. The it's there now. Hopefully we can revitalize that in those places that have been abandoned. But we don't. That is not our community, and that is not so. 1st and foremost, I don't want to landmark against the owners, because the heart is with the community, and in saying that

[69:10] I think moving forward I will proceed with my decision later on. But, I do honor that the fact that the the community provides the heart for this building, and even though this is a great example of architecture, and I'm hoping that when they look to you know, provide a future development that they do incorporate some of these features, and some of the materials can be saved, and and maybe maybe a part of it can be an outdoor space or a community of whatever they're trying to achieve there. And some of the architecture can be saved, and that there is a glimpse into our past which, if we look into our past, we can see a future and

[70:00] St. Aden's built that church built a community. And so just taking away that past isn't really the best way to move forward with their community, either. So I'd like to have a juxtaposition, and really really push them to not just scrape the building. But look back at their past because those are. Those are their hereditary. They're in there. The community is in that building, so I would almost push them to, you know, have a connection between the 2. So I'm sorry that wasn't more eloquently said, because, you know, we fight back and forth between landmark and and the community. So that's how I feel. Thank you, Rene. That was very eloquent. Chelsea. Thanks. I I'm not torn. I believe that the best path forward is to approve the demolition request, and I have a few reasons why. First, st

[71:10] the structure itself, while there are some very beautiful elements that I'm sure will move on into a future building like that beautiful stained glass and other elements that are there. Beyond that there are definitely parts of the building that are in poor shape and require significant investment investment. That the Church does not have the resources, for in its current form. and I do not believe it serves the community as it once did, as the Church has express to us that they they see a vision for something new that truly meets the needs of the community. And as Rene just talked about you know, more importantly than the building, the work and the contributions of the people, their ability to gather, support one another and the community and continue their mission are far more significant than preserving a building that no longer meets their needs.

[72:17] Second, landmarking a property over the owner's objection is a very serious matter, and in this case the financial burden the applicants have presented is insurmountable. To deny this demolition request would be, in my view, irresponsible, and would place this organization in great peril, as as they have communicated to us. So I believe that we have an obligation to consider the real world consequences of our decisions, and in this case. I believe the responsible choice is to allow for the demolition. Okay? 3, rd I also want to acknowledge the overwhelming community support for this demolition request we received nearly 70 letters in support of the demolition, and in my time on landmarks board. I don't think I've ever seen so much public comment on a project.

[73:15] and it's striking how many members of the church and broader community have spoken in favor of approving the demolition, and I think that their voices make it clear that this decision is about more than just a building. It's about the future of their work and their ability to serve the community at large. And finally, you know, we something that has really spoken to me is that we've heard directly from the son of the church founders, which you know, whose family helped build the church, and he is here today asking us to approve the demolition. And for me, that carries a great deal of weight. If those with the deepest personal and historical ties to this place believe it is time to reimagine how this property serves their needs, then I want to respect that decision, and therefore

[74:10] will support the staff recommendation to approve the request for demolition. And just on a personal note. I have been really, you know, just incredibly inspired by your church leadership and the work that you do to be an inclusive and welcoming space for the community. And I just feel really grateful to have such wonderful people like yourselves in this community, and I hope that our decision tonight allows you to continue to do this work for many decades to come. Thank you. Thank you. Chelsea. Okay, that brings it to me. I did not want to start on this one. partly because I'm chairing this evening, and that's a handy excuse. But I wanted this isn't. This is a

[75:02] it. It is a package with a great deal of things in it that need to be somewhat systematically unpacked. Staff has done a very good job doing that, at least explaining all the pieces and the issues. And I concur with most of what all 3 of my comp colleagues have said. I hear a kind of consensus. I'm and I have been struggling with this from a lot of standpoints. The 1st is the architectural standpoint, as as Rene expressed. An architect looks at this, and immediately starts thinking of how

[76:04] something of the essence of it can be saved. I think it's very important that that be considered. That's not our consideration tonight, however. but I do think that there's there is the community that is in this building that's lived and breathed and expressed in this building for its life, which is slightly shorter than my life, but it's pretty much parallel to it. And there is then the building that is kind of a life of its own. And this is a very interesting piece of architecture that satisfies all the types of things that we would want to see in a candidate for preservation that's been set

[77:00] but as an architect. Your responsibility is to the people that you're serving in a project. and a responsible architect is going to examine the the situation from the issue of data and numbers that support viability of a project versus letting the project or letting the building go to keep the project alive. In this case it's kind of a semantic thing that's going on here. It's it's it's a situation of. They're asking us to allow for the possibility of demolition. This is the way I see it. And what that means is that in subsequent examination of this site and the possibilities on this site

[78:02] that the church not be there not be a fixed element of whatever they start proposing to do? And, as Marcy said, anything that progresses to the point of actually redesigning this site is going to involve a public process that is going to involve city staff, and very possibly this landmarks board or another landmarks board. and that would be the point when you would start actually examining the kind of essential things that could be saved in this building, I in the process that we went through with this group. this community, I have to call it that the process they were. They did a lot of homework. They presented the whole case as to

[79:04] why they were at this place, the junction that they were at. And I think it needs to be said also that buildings, especially from this time period, in this time period now are under considerable challenge. They were not built with any consideration of the environmentally environmental reality that we now have to have a building function and perform in. And the more it seems to be that. at least in Colorado's climate, the more challenging and daring the design was. the worse the thing performs in our environment. It's it's just. It's proved true over and over again when we look at these things. And so the sheer expense of maintaining this building in this time

[80:03] is is overwhelming, and it's challenging to the community to even to continue to persist. They've stated very clearly. They want to stay on this site and want to continue their work in the community. And the building is kind of an incidental part of their time and existence on this site. So they're willing, even though, as they've said, it's a building they created, and they've made alive and and live through their use of it. They're willing to let that go, or at least significantly alter it, to be able to preserve their presence on that site and in the broader community that they're serving. So from that standpoint, I think that we're put into the position that we're put into

[81:03] my understanding of of more than a few of the letters. Was that the ask to us was to not vote, to designate or to proceed with designation. And I'm very comfortable with that. I've never been comfortable with decisively voting a demolition. I don't think that's our role. I think our role in this case is to not do anything. and especially since the demolition expires next week or the 19th is the number I heard. That's not a long amount of time that's not fatal to their presence on this site, and it's not going to end the possibility of they continuing to explore things. I don't think it's our role to say this building should be demolished.

[82:01] I think it's our role to say this building should be preserved, or we can't see a clear way to make that happen. At this point. I do think that in an environment, an an economic environment where there were more resources available, to where we could offer something or some other group or organization or foundation or so on, could step up and say, We can help you do the things necessary to bring this building. Say up to appropriate energy performance, and we can help you move parts of it around in a way that allow you to redevelop other portions or repurpose other portions of your site so that you can have a more sustainable economic path. If those things existed. I'd be completely in support of designating this thing with certain conditions.

[83:05] But in this case those those resources just, aren't there? I've said it over and over again. So I advocate that we don't vote to designate, and then we go from there. John, that is the oh, sorry, John, that that is the avenue I'm most comfortable with, although I just have to reiterate Mary Kate May. It wasn't just the words you used to explain. that you preferred. We not go that route. It was your your absolute sincerity and just sort of who you are as a person that really moved me with that request. It's just that I have to be comfortable. And and, John, that's exactly what I was saying. I'm more comfortable to take no action or not designate.

[84:03] Any further discussion. Can I ask a question? I have a question for the applicants, what the tangible ramifications are for them, for us, not doing anything, and just letting the letting it lapse, and which is essential essentially an approval versus voting to approve the demolition. Our excuse me, our our hope. As part of this process, is to really have clarity. We have talked with Marcy and with you the members of the Board. We understand that St. Aidan's could be landmarked. We understand the criteria that were used to determine the merit that the structure has.

[85:01] The the question we're looking for certainty on is whether it really should be landmarked, and our concern is that by not approving the demolition permit, or conversely, not landmarking it so that we would then go directly to city Council to talk about this issue and get their input, and decision about how the church may be allowed to go forward into the future. The the middle ground. We understand it. It leaves us in limbo. It it says that you don't believe it should be allowed to be demo demolished. Now, you don't believe that it should be landmarked right now, but essentially we're in the same place we were 6 months ago. We're here without knowing what the real implications are for St. Aden's going forward trying to redevelop its property in a way that it can exist on the site and stay here in the future. It it leaves us in limbo, and we don't know then

[86:12] what that means. The building takes up a considerable portion of the site. It really has significant impacts on what might be redeveloped here, or how it might be redeveloped, and having uncertainty about that only casts the church in in more kind of uncertainty, and you know concern about how to move forward in the future. So we're we're trying. That's our goal here. And the reason we did not want to try and find a developer put together a discretionary review. Come in through Site Review. We're here trying to know right now what we understand. It could be

[87:00] landmark should it be landmark? That's what we want to know from you on the board should, should the thing be preserved. Is that more important than the community. I I can. I can answer that we've we've stated that by the by, the 1st reading of our criteria it could and should be landmarked. But part of our criteria is also consideration of all the other issues of this this property and the users of this property as a component of the community, and things that go to community good and things that inhibit that. But the reality of the process of demolition is is that you applied for the demolition. and if we don't hold it up, it will.

[88:00] as a matter of fact, proceed to a usable demolition permit, and you could drive a bulldozer through the church the very next day. We can't do anything about that, and wouldn't want to. At that point. It's just I feel like our role. At least my role on the landmarks board is to advocate for preservation. especially in light of the significant amount of redevelopment the city's going through which I don't necessarily oppose. But at the same time, in my role on the landmarks board, to actively vote for a demolition permit is to reverse advocate for what I'm supposed to be doing. That's just the way I see it. And so the rest of the board can vote the way they want to. I'm not inhibiting that in any way. In fact, at this point, does anyone on the board

[89:02] want to make a motion of any kind. Well, yes, I would like to make a motion. Can I get motion language to approve the demolition? And the reason why that I'm asking my fellow Board members to approve the demolition is because, while I understand that some folks feel uncomfortable approving the demolition, I don't think it's fair to say that as a board, like as a board member, we're supposed to look at this objectively and try to make decisions on balance for what is good for because historic. The historic preservation program, literally in its mission says that it's supposed to be on balance. The work we do for historic preservation is supposed to be on balance with the community needs. And so I think we cannot just be

[90:04] blindly preserve everything without considering the community, and I understand that it makes some folks uncomfortable to vote in favor of a demolition, and on the other side, I believe that what we are doing if we are to approve the demolition request. We are essentially approving the demolition. And so it's a little bit of like virtue signaling that you're not willing. You can't vote for it, but you're willing to let it happen. And the what makes me more uncomfortable then, like, I guess, sitting in the uncomfortability of not voting for it versus the level of discomfort that our applicants have in their futures, like literally, their whole lives are built on this. And so I'm okay, being a little bit uncomfortable, knowing that as a result this whole community can be more comfortable. And so I ask my fellow board members to consider that

[91:16] as they, as they contemplate their decision. Make, make the motion, then. Okay. One question I have just for Chelsea, and then maybe it's back to Marcy is if you make a motion and it splits like you make the motion to demo to continue with the demo instead of just continue with the stay, because it sounds like those are our 2 options at this point. If you make the thing, the the motion to demo and we vote, and it's 2 to 2, let's just say to make it? A a point. Does that mean that we're like what happens? So, Marcy, can you help us with that? Because I don't want there to be

[92:09] I I don't want this to continue on for the client. I also I I have a feeling that there's gonna be an they're not gonna that some of the Board members are not going to vote to move forward with the demolition, and they would, but they would move forward with the stay, which is ultimately the same. it which is ultimately the same. For, say, aiden's like, if you know demoing the building, I know it might mean something different. But so Marcy is there. If it is 2 to 2, what does that mean? I can date this one So if it's 2 to 2 then the stages continues until it expires on March 19, th because you need a vote of 3 to have anything

[93:00] actually pass. So yeah. So that's what would happen is so if someone makes a motion to approve the demolition, and the motion fails to carry. Then the stay would just continue, since the Board instituted 180 day stay, and then it would expire on March 19, th and then a demolition permit would issue. Okay? So I I kind of hear you. We make a motion to either continue that we make a motion to landmark, or we make a motion to Demo, and if if they, if, if landmarking, and and if it's 2 to 2, then we just continue with the stay. Is that correct or not correct? That's right. Okay, okay, so. Understood that we could make a motion to not designate. I thought we had 3 options. That's a yeah. That's a question I have does not designated it to not designate, I thought was to take no action.

[94:02] But if we. Yeah, it has the same effect, it has the same effect. If you make. But I don't. Motion to not designate, and then that passes, then the stay just continues and expires. On March 19.th Right. And I think that the the point is is, somebody makes a motion for landmarking or demo, and if we make nothing. if if no one makes a motion like we do in other sides. It just continues with the stay. Yeah, there's there is no requirement that anybody actually make emotion here. There's there's no required, because it's not like a quasi judicial hearing where, like, there has to be some sort of a decision. This is optional. for whether or not these, these are optional motions that you could choose to make the board could take no action, and then the the stay would expire. On March 19.th So just to confirm if once I make my motion, and if I get 3, that's great.

[95:05] If I don't, can I make another motion to not designate, to not initiate the landmark designation. Just because I do want to get a vote on the record. I think I think that because it just goes from 3 to one or 2 to 2. And again, Chris, why, I don't know why I'm talking, but then it just it it just. We have to have a 3 to one to move them up. I understand my question. I understand. My question is. can I make a motion? If it doesn't get 3? Can I make another motion to not initiate the landmark designation, which is essentially what I've heard. 2 of the other people, considering. You can. But I do believe it's proper procedure to see if anybody else had a motion before you made another motion. But if nobody. Okay, well, somebody else can make that happen. Okay. Yeah, I. And and Chris, won't someone have to second any motion we make before it even can go to a vote. Normal rules of procedure. When somebody makes a motion it gets seconded, and then it gets voted on.

[96:04] Right. Okay, that's good. Yeah. I just wanted to. I think, regardless of what happens with this motion. I would like for us to not just let this stay just. I would like for us to make a motion and vote on something one of these 3, and I will start with one. So my motion is to approve. Okay, I move that the landmarks board approve the application for demolition. Finding that the building at 2425 Colorado Avenue does not meet the criteria for initiation. Pursuant to section 9, 11, 3. Initiation of designation for individual landmarks and historic districts of the Boulder revised Code 1981, and imbalance is not consistent with the goals and policies of section 2, 27 of the Boulder Valley. Comprehensive plan as a condition of approval prior to approval of the demolition application, the owner shall submit to staff for review approval, and recording with the Carnegie Library for local history, a site plan showing the location of all existing improvements on the subject. Property measured evaluation or elevation drawings of all exterior elevations

[97:19] of the building, depicting existing conditions fully annotated with architectural details and materials indicated on the plans, and 3 high resolution and professional quality. Digital color images of all exterior elevations. Okay, do we have a second? All right, no second motion fails for lack of a second. Do we want to formalize the statement of not designating by making a motion, and I'm going to throw in the notion that not designating, not designating.

[98:09] could result in demolition of the building, and consequently a motion to not designate has to include all the conditions. The motion to demolish has to have the documentation, all the things. If the building were to be diminished or demolished. I'm throwing that in there, but I'm not making the motion. I can make the motion. So. But I just want to be clear again is that when we make the motion not to designate, we're still doing everything that we said in A, B and C, that she just said right. Right. Is that true? Chris? A bit more of a marcy question than a than a Chris question.

[99:03] Here I am. So the ability to require archival documentation in the code is actually at a staff level. And so we're fortunate to have the original building plans and the addition plans already. And so for this case, rather than requiring new plans, we're thinking that we would ask St. Aidan's to sign the consent form to put those plans in the Carnegie Library, or copies of those plans, and then include the current photographs of that. So you don't need to include it in your motion. That's something that we can add. If the stay expires and the demolition is approved. Okay. All right. Great. Do we have language for this type. Yes, it's up. Want me to. I'm ready.

[100:01] Okay. Okay. I move that the landmarks board adopt the staff memorandum, dated March 12, th 2025, as the findings of the Board, and do not initiate the process for landmark designation. Finding that it does not meet the criteria for such initiation, pursuant to section 9, 11, 3. Initiation of designation for individual landmarks and historic districts of the Boulder Revised Code 1981, and in balance is not consistent with the goals and policies of section 227 of the Boulder Valley. Comprehensive Plan. I second that? Oh, sorry, Renee, did you do that? Okay. Seconded by Rene. All right, we have motion, and a second. We'll proceed to a roll call. Vote, Abby. I. Chelsea. I. Renee. Bye.

[101:00] And I vote aye, so the motion to not designate passes unanimously, and the state of demolition will expire on March 19.th Okay? And that concludes the public hearing. and John so sorry we we have the next steps, but we hit that side because we didn't know what the outcome would be. Let me just pull up this really quick, so we can close this out. And I'll just tell you that by not initiating landmark designation this day of demolition will continue until March 19, th and then it will expire, and at that point the city manager will approve the demolition application with those requirements for archival documentation. So thank you for your time. Everyone at St. Aden's and everyone who came to speak tonight and wrote letters, and I will follow up with the St. Aidan's folks. By the end of the week.

[102:10] Yes, thank you to everyone who participated this evening. All right. That moves us to matters. and we have a number of matters. And, Marcy, I believe you're taking this. Yes, let me switch gears. Let me switch gears here. So, under matters we have a couple short items. One is that we are monitoring our kind of program. As the Ldrc changes went into effect at the beginning of the year. and looking at the changes to the Ldrc. In particular, I'd also like to talk about the April second Landmarks board meeting, and then the Landmarks Board project awards for May the beginning of May for preservation month.

[103:06] So let's kick off with some statistics. And so, looking at year to date from last year to this year, last year in January and February, we reviewed 4 demolition applications, one State tax credit and 10 lacs. This year the numbers are a bit higher, with 10 demolition applications, 3 State tax credits, and 18 lacs so quite an uptick from a year ago. and then looking at just the month of February last year, there were 4 Wednesdays in February we canceled one Ldrc. Meeting, and over those 3 meetings the Ldrc. Reviewed 10 cases. 8 of those were lacs. One was a tax credit and one was a demolition. The outcome was that 5 were approved, 4 had revisions requested, and one was referred to the Landmarks board.

[104:07] The average meeting time was an hour and a half. and during that same period we reviewed 4 applications at the staff level. So we reviewed about half of the applications at the staff level and half at the Ldrc level looking for this year, and this should say, February 2025. There are also 4 Wednesdays. We canceled 2 meetings, and in that time 5 cases were reviewed by the Ldrc. 4 of those were lacs, and one was a demolition. The outcome was that 4 were approved and one had revisions requested, and the average meeting time was about an hour, though over those 3 meetings we had a really long meeting and a really short meeting, so the average takeout with a grain of salt. During that same time Staff reviewed 14 cases. So 78% of lacs were reviewed at the staff level. 7 of those would have been reviewed by the Ldrc. Last year, and in that time we reviewed 2 State

[105:14] tax credits, not staff tax credits, 2 state tax credits so total. Those are 9 cases that would have been reviewed by the Ldrc. In February that were reviewed by staff. So that is an Ldrc Caseload decreased by 64%. So it's working the total Ldrc time, which I didn't have comparison for for last year was 3 h, so that averages about 40 min a case, I think, what that statistic tells us that these cases are a little bit more complex, a little bit more challenging. We've cut the easy ones that can take like 20 min or so, but we do also see a few of those still trickling in there, but would love to provide a little bit of time for any reflections or observations or feedback on how we're presenting these statistics.

[106:19] Okay, we have any questions. Marcy, you. You showed this. How how different from previous years has this been. Well, so I only looked at last year, and we're only doing year to date. But we do have another chart that I could reintroduce. That shows a 5 year time span, which is a little bit more accurate for trends. So I'll add that in next time, because there is quite an uptick in cases of this February versus last February. So I'd want to see like, is this the outlier? Or was last year the outlier.

[107:10] That's my, that was kind of the gist of my question. Yeah. Anybody else. Okay. Yes. So then, we have an update on recruitment. Yes, thank you. Okay. So the City Council will appoint board and commission members on March 20, th and we had one landmarks board applicant that met the design. Professional qualifications he did great in his interview. So it's up to council. Sometimes they will choose to leave the recruitment open. If there's only one applicant, just in case there's another applicant that comes in or in the past. They've also chosen to appoint that one applicant, so we won't know until

[108:08] the 20th of March in a couple weeks, or maybe that's next week already, and that is a good segue into the April second meeting. And right now we have no public hearing items for April, which is, which is a break. We haven't had that in a while, but I do. I am thinking about being intentional about welcoming the next board member on if they are appointed on the 20.th And so I would like to propose that we use that 1st Wednesday of the month for a landmarks board dinner that would be publicly noticed and in council chambers, and have kind of a a welcoming with an agenda. But but to get to know the new member, and for the new member to kind of get comfortable in the space and and get to know you all, and staff as well. So I wanted to do a straw poll if you love or hate that idea and

[109:09] and then we wouldn't know until the 21, st really, whether we would have that meeting. I would propose that if the member is not appointed, then we just cancel the April meeting altogether. Okay, what do people think? I think if someone is appointed oh, sorry, wouldn't they? I'm so sorry. No, no, no. Time lapse thing, and I think it's 3 am. Where I am. So here's the thing. I think it would be wonderful if if a new person is appointed to do this, I'm assuming it wouldn't be as long as certain board meetings have been in the past, you would design an agenda accordingly. Because and I think both Chelsea and Rene started when we were still all virtual, you know, so I think it'd be great that someone could even come into chambers and see the chairs and the microphones and everything before the 1st official meeting, which would then be.

[110:10] Nay. Okay. But I also don't have a license. Reneck you started. I just was voting. I like, I agree. I think that sounds wonderful. I was voting. Yes. Chelsea. Would that would that be recorded? Or is it just? Is it not really a meeting. So because it's more than 2 people, and we'd be talking about landmarks items. It would be open to the public for observation. And chris dropped off. Chris left the meeting, so I would have to check with him about whether we would record it. Audio video, or if there's just a meeting summary, so it would be open for observation. And let me get back to you about the recording part.

[111:08] Okay, I maybe have. I feel like a grinch. But I think if we don't have meeting like meeting like an agenda, I mean it's great to get to know people and if we actually don't have an agenda, then I think we don't need to meet and if people, but that's just me. But as much as I would be happy to meet the new person and get to know them. We will have plenty of time to get to know them like we have dinner together before the meetings. and there's a lot of I don't know just volunteer commitment, so I'm happy to not have to do it if we

[112:00] don't have anything substantive to talk about. But if you do this, Marcy, we aren't required to come. Great. Correct. Yeah, so. Alright. I think if it's optional, I definitely think it's a great idea, and and would love to participate in this. I think an informal setting of of getting to know each other and explaining some of the things outside of agenda bound items might be nice. I kind of was at a loss when I started on the board, and even though I had an extended kind of warm up meeting with with James. the 1st couple of Ldrcs and meetings. I was feeling kind of lost in the wilderness. So I think it's a i think it's a great idea. I think it would. It'll help preserve.

[113:02] I said it yesterday of the agenda meeting. I think this board has always had a really solid collegiality, and I think this is a way of extending kind of that to a new member, and bringing them into the the kind of just just kind of this this sphere of thinking. And I agree, John, I think it should be totally optional. I mean. I hear, Chelsea, that sometimes, when there's just a natural break that's great, too, because it even occurred to me I felt so guilty. I was going to be out of town when the meeting date changed, but the reality is that I realized, oh, we might not have had a March meeting necessarily, except that at our last meeting we voted to hold this public hearing. So I was cognizant that this one was based on our decision to do that. But I think if it's optional, let's see if someone's even appointed

[114:06] the night of the 20.th And just to be clear, I don't like meeting without a purpose, and the purpose is to welcome the new board member on. And so because of the Colorado sunshine laws, there's really not another avenue that you all can get together and talk about landmarks, related things. and the orientation is usually with the city attorney's office and staff. When we sit down and we give them a fire hose of information about the Ldrc. And landmarks, board and quasi-judicial, and all of that, and the kind of getting to know you. What advice do you wish you had when you 1st started? What do you wish you would have known, or, you know, things like that. We really only have the annual retreat for that piece. So just wanted to provide a little more context of like, I wouldn't propose a meeting without an agenda and without a purpose, and the dinner is totally optional. So I'm hearing that at least a few of you are interested in that, and so we'll wait to see if council makes the appointment on the 20, th and then we will either cancel the meeting or confirm it.

[115:31] Okay. Alright! Great, so that moves us on to update on Ldrc changes. Oh, we covered that already. So the last thing was. it is March. It is March, which means that the board, if you want to recognize any projects at the May Preservation month awards ceremony. We'll need to make a decision on what projects those are, so that we can notify the owners, and so I think that we have a little bit more time. I'd like to give them at least a month

[116:11] notice which would be the beginning of April. Last time we introduced some ideas for projects. John had another one. If you'd like to share that, and then I would propose, because we always stick this at the very end of the meeting. If there's a way we could make this decision over email without it being an email thread It'd be a lot easier if you all just decided tonight. So mark. I. Marci Marty. What you're asking is, do we have any projects we want to nominate? And if we do nominate them, do we vote on them now? I would say, if we can. If we can vote on them tonight, then, like that's best case scenario. I would say, pick 3 and if you all

[117:10] look at this list, or want more time to think about it, then I think we could figure out a way to do it, but it runs the risk of not giving any awards this year, which I think would be a missed opportunity. Do you think at least. Oh! No, I was. I was just gonna say, Marcy, should I offer mine tonight? Yeah. And meanwhile I'm gonna pull up this other slide that had the ideas we presented last month. Oh, okay, let's look@thatfirstst Okay. Marcy right now. The square nails award ceremony is Monday, May 12.th Correct. Okay. Yeah, I'll ask Aubrey to send an appointment reminder for you all totally optional. But it is a nice event.

[118:03] Okay, let me share this. Oh, I'm already sharing. Okay, cool. I got turned around. Okay, go ahead, John. Okay, I I don't have the address or the owners of the project. It is. I put the address on the bottom. Okay, so it's 1815. Iris. this is a project that I actually was recused on, or or should have been recused on when it came into Ldrc. One morning. It's fairly close to my house. And they elected to not do historic designation. It was a house that may have possibly be been it's it's a it's a house that that could have been designated had they wanted to bring it forward for that

[119:05] But they wanted to demolish it, and they were told essentially to avoid all the issues of review associated with demolition. They could stay within certain limits and renovate the house and not have to face that whole process. They went ahead and did exactly that, and did a wonderful job, in my opinion, of retrieving this house from the state it was in, and renovating it, and adding to it in a way that I felt, and in addition to their treatment of the entire site and the renovation of another potential historic structure on the back of the property.

[120:00] and they did a very nice job and did it within the spirit. I think of our goals and our regulations and our criteria, and I think that we've given awards sometimes to completely outside projects, and I think it would be beneficial to do this. Do it in this case to make a point that you can do this, and you can be a steward and and it will be, or should be recognized. So that's my. That's my recommendation or nomination. And I think that is, would be totally appreciated and completely unexpected from the owners who went through the demolition review process. I think that's it's good to think outside the box and recognize that preservation happens outside of designation. Outside of La Season. We did. The Board did recognize the Crown Wellness Institute that's owned by Cu up on the hill last year or the year before, and that also is a project that didn't come through our review process, but that the landmarks board recognized as a really great project.

[121:24] Let me go through these. Oh, go ahead. So oh, I was, gonna say, I support John's recommendation. I I, Marcia, are you gonna go through these with any pictures or anything? I need something to jog my memory. Yeah. I think I couldn't pull it together right away. But we could do a virtual tour on Google Earth. Yes. Google Map. Honestly, that would be great. Yes. Do it. Give me a second to pull this up. This may have been mentioned at the last meeting, but 3 to 4 is probably about the right number. Don't you think, Marcy.

[122:05] I would say no, I would say 3 is probably. Okay, okay. I know we skipped last year and handed out none. I am kind of a I like John's project because of the route it traveled. I also kind of fond of 1836 Pearl Street. That's an epic epic project. okay, here we go buckle up. Okay, this is. I love Google Earth. It's very helpful. Here is 1815, Iris that John was just describing, and we could go back and see, here's what it looks like looked like before, and it's a you know one of the original farmhouses with a 19 fifties edition. They got approval to rebuild this fifties edition and put dormers on. It's an eligible building, and they did it. Oh, I think

[123:06] a wonderful job of preserving this as a non-designated but eligible building. Let's go over to 1511, Bluebell next, and this is in the Floral Park Historic district. I'm putting a vote for that one. Okay. Put tallies next to them. I should Claire or Aubrey, could you please note the votes? And we'll say, maybe there's some that rise to the top. We can't choose them all. This is a Floral Park project. We saw it through the State Tax Credit Review in the Ldrc Review. I think more than one of us remarked that this is a potential award winner, I think, because of the care that they had taken in the rehabilitation and kind of the innovative approach to the clay tiles.

[124:04] So that is one 661. Maxwell is not built yet, and it's a little bit awkward, because that is Rene's project that she designed right before coming on the landmarks board. But I put it on here because I think it's a really good example of new construction in a historic district, and how to add an adu in a historic context. But since it's not built, I think we should take it off the list for consideration this this year. Next year Renee will get you. Next year. My ears, earmuffs, earmuffs. Well, you yeah. Let's see, the next project is back in Mapleton Hill historic district, and this is one that you all will recognize because it was a landmarks board case. Gosh, Google really

[125:00] is just on top of it. Here's the after photo, the before photo, as you all probably know this house had the one of the oldest metal roofs, I think, in the city. The owner had wanted to replace it with asphalt shingles, but the board denied that request, and said it really does need to be metal. And so he did a wonderful job, not just on the roof, but restoring house, and he got state tax credits for this project as well. But I think this was one that you know, really was a labor of love, and and did a wonderful job on on this one 8 14 Pine Street is one that you all wouldn't have seen. Or maybe you might have seen the solar panels because it was last year. This is this is the Eb and G fine house. It's this blue one. It's a contributing building in the Mapleton Hill district and owned by Jim Lindbergh, who's

[126:11] has a long resume. He is with the National Trust for historic preservation, and leads the preservation green lab. And so he used his own historic home as a model for how to increase the energy efficiency of the house through a geothermal solar panels, storm windows. just about everything in such a sensitive way. So this is another State tax credit project. The exterior changes aren't dramatic, but it really embodies the kind of model of energy, efficiency and historic character. Okay, 6, 4, 6, pearl. I hope you all are writing like your top. 3 down.

[127:00] Everybody knows this little house called the Arnett Fullen House at 6 4, 6 Pearl. I don't think the landmarks board has given the long term owners an award. They've lived there for decades, and just take the greatest amount of care and detail in restoring every nook and cranny of this house, and they continue to chip away at projects, and I think they are just model stewards of of this really important, really important house. and then, more recently, the project that came through our program was for State tax credits, but now that I'm thinking of it, it was mostly interior restoration. the next one, and then we have one more. After that is 1836 Pearl Street, which is a real Cinderella story. This was originally proposed for demolition. It was

[128:09] landmarked. and through the stay process the owners went from proposing demolition to supporting the designation. They moved the house forward on this site. It's 1 of the oldest houses in Boulder, and then built the higher density housing behind it. And it we finally saw that come through the landmark designation just last year. So this is the Thelma may do house. And these. Yeah, this house could have been demolished, I think, in in an alternate scenario. This last 1, 9, 46 spruce is back over in the Mapleton hill historic district, and looks like as of June. The house the project was still

[129:03] under construction, so I would need to know what the status of this is, and whether or not it's complete. But this is a pretty extensive renovation of a house that's on a key corner of what is this 11th sorry 10th and Spruce right off the Mall, or right off Pearl Street, and the landmarks board saw this with a brick wall and some landscaping. Changes to. So that is 2, 4, 6, 8, that we need to narrow down to 3. Our secret the last time I was on spruce and 10.th I don't know if that project's quite done. Let's delete. Let's remove that one from consideration. But I I can't, you know, don't read it. That is still. I don't think we should select it if we're not a hundred percent sure.

[130:01] Yeah. And I haven't personally been by. So now I'm going to number these, so we can say 1, 2, 3. There's now 6. You just have to cut them in half. I love personally the Oh, my God! Did I get Floral Park once. The floral park? One. Yeah. Others that how would you all like to do this? As we went through these I heard at least an echo saying, 1815, Iris 1936, pearl and bluebell. But I don't want to cut the other ones out. I'd like to hear from you all, but those were the ones that that I've heard so far. So maybe we'll just go through maybe what we do is go member by member and say, here are the 3

[131:02] who's our fearless leader? Oh, no, okay, we I don't. Oh, oh, do you wanna go. I. I have 3 written down. Go for it. I have the bluebell. I have 6, 4, 6, Pearl Street, and 9 9, 8 spruce. 9, 10, spruce. Oh yes! Okay. Is that the one with the metal roof. Yeah. Oh! Well, which one were you thinking of? I thought I wrote down spruce 9, 9, 8. But that might have been 9, 9, 4, 6, pearl the big house that we're but we're not sure if the work is complete. So. Okay, that was what it was. Okay. I didn't hear the address on that one. So fearless or not. I came up with 2. I'll do Iris. Then. Okay. Okay.

[132:00] I have 3. Go ahead! I have 1836 pearl. I have Arnett Fullen and the Iris one. Great. I hope somebody's helping me out in the background. Here. I am. Just rewatch it. Oh, okay, who's going next? I'm happy to go next. I would do. Floral Park, are we do? 1836, Pearl and I would do. I do like the one on Iris, but I'd probably go with Jim Lindbergh's house. That's a good one, too. Okay. I didn't write down the addresses as I was supposed to, so I liked the the one that you said they that they took, took really great care of it. And have been doing a lot of work.

[133:06] 6, 4, 6, pearl. Say that one I love the little purple house with the metal roof. I think it just they really we've refurbished it to its prime. So I'll go with that one and I'll just a mystery 3, rd which everyone gets us to 3. They're all great. Okay. So I think. And thanks for tracking the votes. Whoever in the background it looks like 646 pearl is the one with 646 pearl and 5 11 bluebell have 3 votes each. So let's do that, and then 8 14 pine only has one vote, so I'll remove that one. And then guy, we got a 3 way tie between the these 3.

[134:04] Do you have 4 votes from Renee? I think I misheard Renee. Did you vote for Bluebell, Spruce, Pearl Street and Iris. I think it was the Us. Bruce. We took spruce off of there. So it was just Iris. Yeah. Okay. So Rene did not vote for any spruce, not the metal roof house. Right? Okay, so that one just has one vote, then 2. So I would propose that you all give these 4 these for an award, and we'll just keep our presentation short, and that I will reach out to both Jim and Mark for 9, 10 spruce and 8 14 pine to just say, like great job, and express some appreciation for those 2. So that was a little clunky. But we got there. So thank you. Everybody.

[135:09] What are the 4? Drum roll. Sorry I'm looking at is 1511, bluebell in Floral Park 6, 46, Pearl Street, the Arnett Fullen House, 1836 Pearl Street, the house Relocation on East Pearl and 1815 Iris. And so some years. There are themes other years there are not, and I think the theme this year is around stewardship and preservation, even when you didn't have to kind of above and beyond. we'll come up with a better thing. Thank you. Great. It's done. A lot of restoration this year, actually. Yeah. So I will invite each of you. If anybody would like to present any of these at the Awards ceremony on May. Do we decide it was the 12.th It's either the 12th or the 14, th whatever the Monday is, we'll help prepare the talking points. But if anybody would like to present these awards. Let me know, and we will share the mic.

[136:26] Okay. I've done it before. I'd like to. Wonderful alright We're we're at the end of this. I just want to say this. This would have been Ronnie Pelucio's last meeting. but he unfortunately, wasn't here tonight. but I just want to say that Ronnie was such a force on this board. He was on it when I joined. He had a lot to do with helping me know how to be useful on this board, and

[137:05] he will seriously be missed, at least by me. and I'm sure everyone else might want to say something quick. But you don't have to. He's not dead. John. Not on our board anymore. It is a loss, you know it is Marcy. Is it fair to share that there might be a special award given to Ronnie at this same ceremony. On March on May 12.th It. It's premature. But why don't we say there's a possibility. Utility. That he might be nominated. Yeah. Okay, it's a potential positive. Yeah. I didn't know. Oh, my God! No, that's okay. That's okay. Okay. Wonderful. Well, thank you. Everyone.

[138:00] Okay. No one else has anything. No, John, thanks for leading the meeting. I haven't been up this late guys in our administration. Now? Where? Where are you? Spain but 8 h. 8 h, later, right? This is the best walking camino Santiago, with my 91 year old brother-in-law. Oh, that's cool! That's a story that's wonderful. John. So thank you, because I really wanted to attend this meeting, but it would have been too hard to lead it and everything. Thank you. You for staying up, Abby. I know it's late like you. Yeah, it's working. Thank you guys. And maybe. Bye. Each other. April second. Okay. Thank you. Bye. Thanks to the staff, you guys, for always doing such an excellent job.

[139:01] Thank you, take care! It's 8, 27. Oh! And this meeting is adjourned. Thank you. Yay! Hey, Mark Marcy, I'll help with the whatever that's to present things. I think. Oh, here! Oh, you'd be. On! Okay. Right, right. Will you make a note? I will! No, you'd be great bye. Okay. Bye, everyone have a good night. Night.