May 7, 2025 — Landmarks Board Regular Meeting

Transcript

Captions from City of Boulder YouTube recording.

[0:08] Thank you, Aubrey. Welcome to the May Landmarks Board meeting. It is called to order. It's the May 7, th 2025 landmarks board meeting, and the time is 6 0. 2 Pm. Before we begin on our agenda, Marcy will review the decorum for this virtual meeting. Well, all right, thank you, Abby. Hybrid virtual Meeting. 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 identity lived experiences, political perspectives more about this vision and the project's community engagement process can be found online. With this link.

[1:02] 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, and other speech and behavior that disrupts or otherwise impedes the ability to conduct the meeting are prohibited, and participants may raise their hand to speak during open comment and public comment. Periods. During hearings, individuals must display their whole name before being allowed to speak online. Currently, only audio testimony is allowed online. And here, if you're joining us online, the raise hand function is under the reactions. Tab. And if you're calling in, that's on Star 9 on the phone back to you, Abby. Thank you, Marcy. I do want to acknowledge that we have a quorum this evening. A recording of this meeting will be available in the record archives and on Youtube within 28 days of tonight's meeting. We'll do a roll call and quick introductions. I'm going to start

[2:18] to my right with Rene Renee Globek. Landmark Board member, and I'm Abby Daniels, the current Landmarks board chair. I'm John Decker, member of the Landmarks Board. Michael Ray, member of the Landmarks Board and Chelsea. If you can hear us. I know you're joining us remotely this evening. Hi! Everybody. Chelsea Castellano Landmarks board member. Thank you, Chelsea, and I just have to make a comment because I have the microphone on in front of me, and I just want to say. In April Michael was sworn in to be our newest member of the Landmarks Board. He's replacing Ronnie Peluzio, so he is an architect. As it was a design professional role, and we had a meeting in April, although we didn't have any public hearings. But where we got to meet Michael he got to meet us. He did come back tonight, which was great after meeting all of us.

[3:14] But I drove home from that landmarks board meeting on April second, and what I realized is how much I and my colleagues on the board are actually going to learn from Michael, so I hope you all reach out to him. Get to know him. I see some people from historic boulder who. you know, probably would love to meet you and chat with you someday. So it's just he. He is so so perfect for this role. He's going to be an asset to the board, and and I already know we're going to learn a lot from him. So, moving on from that, we know there might be people here this evening to speak to things, and you may have strong emotions about a particular subject. We do want to hear from you, but we have found it more productive for you to speak to persuade us, rather than berating us, staff or an applicant.

[4:04] as with regular landmarks, board meetings, you may only speak at the appropriate time during the public hearing requests to do out to do so. Outside of that time those times will be denied. We request that members of the public who are here and who do want to do want to speak, sign up with Aubrey. and then Aubrey will also facilitate any virtual participants who speak. This evening, after anyone in person speaks either during the public hearing or public participation as board chair. I will call for roll call vote on any motions made. So our 1st item on tonight's agenda is the approval of 2 meeting notes. We need to approve the minutes from the March 12, th 2025 meeting. I move that we approve the meeting minutes. Unless there's any changes or alterations.

[5:00] Seeing none, I I move to approve them. Do I have a second? I'll second. Okay. On a motion by myself, seconded by John, we'll do a roll call. Vote Chelsea. I. John. Aye, Renee, aye, and I vote aye. So the March 12, th 2025 min meetings are approved. and then we'll move now to the April second meeting minutes, and any changes or alterations to those as sent to us. seeing or hearing none, I'll make a motion that we approve. Those do I have a second. a second. Okay, on a motion by myself, seconded by Renee, we'll do another roll call. Vote John. Aye. Michael. Aye. Rene. Aye, and I vote aye, so those minute meetings are approved. As I recall, Chelsea could not join us, so that's why

[6:02] she cannot vote on that approval. So now, moving along. this is the part of our meeting where we have public participation for anything that's not on the agenda for this evening, and I'm going to look to Aubrey to see if anyone has signed up to speak to us. Yeah, we have 3 people in person who have signed up. So we will start there first.st We have Patrick O'rourke. followed by Catherine Barth and Fran Mandel sheets. Okay, Patrick, state your full name for just for our records, and then your 3 min will commence. Thank you. My name is Patrick O'rourke, and I'm used to saying, I swear to tell the truth at this. You don't have to do it to start off. We want to welcome Michael Ray. Leonard. Siegel says you're highly qualified for this position, so we're looking forward to your input

[7:10] and working with you in the future. I also want to thank Marcy for giving us an update on the civic center. So it was very helpful to get an idea of what the city's thinking about doing and the future plans there. While we're disappointed that it wasn't approved as a historic district. We greatly appreciate the idea that they're going to be saving most of the structures, if not all of them. We'll work on that later. You had a vote 2 months ago regarding a church over on Colorado Avenue. I think the vote while we knew it wasn't going to pass. I think the vote was done the wrong way. The way the ordinance is written. the preservation code in both the municipal ordinance is written in the affirmative. When the the

[8:01] the person that Chelsea, I'll say I should have said the Commissioner chose to vote not to designate the property. You should have gone to the criteria on section 3, which is, there's 7 criteria. The building met 6 of them. It didn't, or 5 out of the 6. It didn't meet this. The one criteria, which is criteria number 3, which, if I remember right, it didn't have the support of the neighborhood. But it did. It's a significant building, and I could read the 7. But what I'm going to ask you to do is maybe review it under matters of whether you should have taken into consideration when you turn something down, you should identify it. It did happen at City Council when they turned down the civic district they identified the reason why they turned it down. But just to keep that in. Keep that in mind if you would, and review it for the next time. It's because you're a quasi judicial board. So I think you need. And the attorney is the attorney for the city, I'm thinking, is watching this meeting. His input would be greatly appreciated because we think he's highly qualified from the one time we met with him.

[9:09] The the other thing I wanted to bring up is we're advocates in boulder, and the hip was done over 3 years ago, and we're looking for when we're going to be pretty serious about moving forward this year about getting an update about what's been going on, especially with the 3 or 4 of the buildings, the Harbeck House, the farmhouse, and the Platt house. We're concerned that those are just sitting there deteriorating and getting worse. We're not sure about the firehouse whether they they did it. But I sent all our members this afternoon the actual. Pdf. and there's a list of recommendations. And then there's a list of critical ideas that need to be done on these buildings. And just to give you an idea. The Boyd smelter simple thing, get rid of the tree that's growing through the middle of the ruin, and it should have been done in an afternoon, and it wasn't done.

[10:04] And and then finally, we're going to request. Thank you. We're going to request the 10 buildings that are going to be. Thank you. Thank you, Patrick. okay. Hi. My name is Catherine Barth and Michael Welcome. I was an architect on this board many years ago, and if it works the way it did for me. You won't escape. You'll you'll be. You'll be interested in historic architecture in this city for many years. I still am, you guys do a wonderful job. And I just wanted to be here to support all of you and say, you know, we really appreciate it. And if

[11:05] if you guys and the staff did not stand up for history and our historic built environment. I you know you just cannot even imagine what Boulder would look like. So realize you're all doing important work and just keep up the good work and and his. I'm at historic with historic boulder and historic boulder will. If you need any extra help or anybody, we will always come in. Do whatever you need us to do. Thank you. Thank you, Catherine. I have a whole lot. I want to say so I'm going to read it. Oh, my name is Fran Mandel sheets, and I live in Boulder. Is that what you want. Hi, everybody! I'm aware of the new parks. Design

[12:00] is by individuals who are either not aware of or do not understand and value Boulder's historic Park and the Landmark Bandshell Parks Department is once again wanting to discard the significant features of Boulder Civic Center Park, including the Berm and the Bandshell seating approval of this plan will rest with this board, eventually, hopefully, as protectors of Boulder's history, this Board will be more aware, and choose to protect our past by understanding the significance of both the entire landmark, bandshell and the berm. In November 2015, James Hewitt, who was at that time, as we all know Boulder's senior historic preservation planner, he wrote the following quote under Criterion A, the Banshell property has played a central role in the social and cultural life of Boulder since 1938, serving as the site of numerous public concerts, performances, ceremonies, and celebrations. The Bandshell property is closely associated with park development and use in boulder under criterion. C. The Bandshell property is eligible for being

[13:09] as a good, intact example of art deco style as applied to a rare type, and is representative of the work of prominent architect, Glen Huntington. The property is further significant as an intact example of a designated park landscape featuring an earthen berm, stone walkways, stone retaining walls, and a landscape plantings, all of which represent the work of prominent landscape, architect, debor. and mid-century concrete and wood bench seating and that facilitated enjoyment of the band shell as such. The 1950 bench seating as well as the deboer landscape design broadly are considered contributing to the overall eligibility of the band shell

[14:02] this on the heels of a letter from the State office of archaeology and historic preservation, at that time determining that the eligibility for the band shell concerning the proposed changes to the seating and landscaping. At that time, she said, quote the period of significance under criterion. A is from 1938, and the date of the band shell was placed into service to 1965 in keeping with the National Register guidelines. The period of significance of architecture is 1938, and that of landscape architecture is 1937. The date of Sacco de Boer's 1st landscape sketches to 1950, the date of the effective completion of historic landscape design as such, the 1950 bench seating as well as the De Boer landscape design. broadly designed broadly are considered contributing to the overall eligibility of the band shell.

[15:00] So I hope that a majority on this board will understand the significance of the band shell and the history to this city because we're at it again. Thank you, Fran, I'm sorry the 3 min went so quickly. But thank you. That is halfway, Aubrey. Anyone else? probably not here in Chambers. But is there anyone on attending virtually who's indicated? They'd like to speak to us? Yes, we have one, and that is Lynn Siegel and Lynn. You're good to go. I'll start the timer for you. There's a problem. When 1015, juniper is given away as a demo. It's it's a giveaway of probably 3 to 6 million dollars to the city of Boulder. It's a concentration of wealth and power, and in likeness to Trumpism these days.

[16:05] This is not appropriate, and I'm sorry, Abby, if this is not convincing you kindly. because this behavior is unacceptable of a landmarks board that was an affordable house. There will be put up a 10 million dollars house in that space, all because of a conveyance zone for Flood, that owner and developer bought knowingly, and if they didn't know then they needed to know before they bought it. This same thing was done by the city of Boulder and the Council at the Millennium Hotel. Oh, it's on a flood zone we have to give them a height amendment. No, you don't have to give them a height amendment. The developers and the owners in Boulder do not need handouts, and they certainly don't need them from the landmarks board. You know the biggest thing that you could do as landmarks board is, get peace and fairness in Palestine.

[17:07] withdraw the funding from Ukraine, because this would fuel our economy much better than this concentration of wealth that's happening with trump which is reflecting itself in our localities and in the type of practices that happen with an example of 1015 juniper. You also did something horrific at Western resource advocates Hobie Wagner or Nixon influence, and the one just north of there 777, Broadway. In demoing both of these. that was just so. Not okay, at least most of the 1 7, 7, 7 Broadway should have been saved.

[18:00] That's why I call this board the Demolition Board, not the landmarks board. and guess what Patrick talked about the house from the church across from the engineering on Colorado. And I agree. Because I happen to know one of the neighbors in that neighborhood, for Number 3 reason that Chelsea did not consider. and that was for neighborhood opposition. And he's with the Una, and he's a prominent member of this community that I really like. and that's really upsetting to me that his space was taken that way. Thank you, Lynn, as always, for participating. Aubrey. I'm going to give you another moment or 2 to see if there's any additional members of the public who would like to address us this evening.

[19:02] We don't have anyone else online. and it doesn't look like anyone else needs to speak in chambers. so we will go ahead and and close public participation, and I don't know if Patrick can stay through till matters, but I do think he has an interesting point I'd like to see discussed under matters about siding criteria, no matter how we vote on something. And the second thing is, I have a really quick question about the hip document. So. But should we do that under matters, and move on to the rest of the agenda? Yes, I think that would be the right time to do that. Yeah. So, Marcy, I know. Next on the agenda is discussion of landmark, alteration and demolition applications issued in pending. But there's nothing this evening to report. Is there correct? Yep, there's no pending stays of demolition, so we can roll right on into the one and only public hearing. Okay, so

[20:10] now we will move to our one public hearing this evening. Item 5. A. This is a public hearing in consideration of an application to designate the property at 33, 75, 16th Street as an individual landmark. Pursuant to Section 9, 11, 5 of the Boulder revised Code 1981, and under the procedures prescribed by Chapter 1, 3, quasi judicial Hearings, boulder revised Code 19 81. And because this will be quasi judicial, anyone speaking to this to this item this evening will need to be sworn in, whether in person or remotely. And, Claire, I believe you're going to be doing the presentation. Yes, thank you, Abby, and swearing in includes me. I'm Claire Brandt. I'm historic preservation planner.

[21:00] and I affirm that I will tell the truth, and I will pause here to allow board members to note any ex parte contacts, if they have any. All right, hearing none, I'll move on to the staff presentation. After that the Board may ask questions. The applicants who are with us today will have up to 10 min to present to the board, and then the Board may ask questions of them. We'll then open the public hearing. After all, members of the public have made comments. The applicant may respond to anything that was said. The Board will then deliberate motion today requires an affirmative vote of at least 3 members to pass, and a record of this hearing is available, usually in a couple of days as a video recording. And then the official record is added to the records archive within 28 days usually sooner. So the criteria for the review today is outlined in the Boulder Revised Code under 9 11, 5 c.

[22:09] No, that's not right. Sorry. 9, 11, one and 9, 11, 2. And the options today are for the Landmarks Board to approve the application and recommend designation to City council, city Council would hold a hearing within 100 days, or the board may disapprove the request, and this is subject to a 45 day call up period, and the owners would need to file a notice of appeal within 21 days of today. If that happened so, the process so far. On December 20, th 2024. The staff accepted the application to designate the house as an individual local landmark. The house is in the flood plain, so one of the benefits of designation is that some of the floodplain requirements for substantial improvements can be waived.

[23:03] The owners concurrently submitted an Lac. Application and a pre-app review request for a rear edition based on this exemption. The landmarks design Review Committee approved the Lac application to construct a rear addition and a shed roof Dormer. So the designation, hearing needed to be delayed a few weeks, so the owners got the answers they needed on those items. This is the sorry. Let me find my pointer. This is the the property it's located at on the southwest corner of 16th Street and Iris Avenue, in Old North Boulder, which is now considered the West Hawthorne neighborhood. The house faces east onto 16th Street. and the property is not located within a potential or designated historic district.

[24:00] The building is a 1 and a half story craftsman, bungalow, with a classic side, gabled roof and exposed rafted tails. The facade includes a full width porch that's recessed under the main part of the roof. with a low shed roof, dormer clad in painted wood shingle above the porch. The porch has substantial square porch posts and wood decking, and the front Dormer, and they're all character defining features of the house. Other character defining features include the the non-symmetrical window and door openings that have craftsman style tapered trim, and there's also knee braces. the combination of wood shingle in the gable ends and on the dormer with the narrow horizontal siding on the main part of the house, and also the surroundings which include multiple mature trees on the property, the gravel drive, and the rural feel of the property. They also contribute to the character.

[25:08] The building retains a high degree of historic integrity. The earliest photograph we found is from before 1949. We're not entirely sure of the date, but it's before the addition of the rear shed roof projection. In this early image you can see the iconic crossfin style tapered trim, and the knee braces and the and the front dormer. By 1949. The House looks generally as it does today. so Staff considers the property eligible for designation based on its architectural significance as an example of a bungalow house with vernacular expressions of the craftsman style. and for its historic significance for its association with Roland Dickensheets and his family, who likely built the house, the minx family, and longtime owners, the Warren family, who lived in the house for more than 70 years.

[26:07] Boulder County records, lists the year of construction as 1925, however, there is a Dickensheets family photograph, dated April 1917. Here on the left. That clearly shows the windows at the facade. So we believe this is the front porch of the house. and then the minx family who's shown here on the on the bottom right hand side moved into the house in 1918. So we're sticking with a construction date of around 1917, and the house has only had 5 owners since it was built. so Roland Dickensheets likely commissioned the house, but never lived there. We do think that those are 3 of his children in the picture. The minx bought the house in 1918. George and Mary Minx were longtime residents of Superior, where they were fruit farmers from the 18 seventies.

[27:01] They semi-retired and lived here for about a decade. Mary Minx sold the house after George died. The Warren family bought the house in 1929. James Warren was a successful miner in Boulder County, and his wife, Pearl Warren, raised their 3 children on the property, and members of the Warren family lived in the house for 74 years, although they sold most of the surrounding land after the death of James in 1965. Did I miss one? Nope. okay, so here's a map that we're going to look at the solid yellow. Hopefully, you can see that shows the area that the minx family purchased and then the Warren family purchased, and it's within Parsons Park, which was platted in 19 0 7 by Charles Parsons, and he owned most of the area and grew fruit trees throughout Parsons Park.

[28:03] Jesse D. And Cora Gertrude Curtis Long, who you may have heard of, purchased the lots south of Hawthorne Avenue in 1916. It is down. If I can get this to work down here in the bottom. No, I can't make it work. This is still Long's Gardens. Jd. Long was a good friend and business partner of Roland Dickensheets, who purchased the half block. So half of this block the east side of the block. In the same year as as Long purchased his Apostles. We believe that Dick and Sheets was one of the 1st houses to be built within Parsons Park, And when George and Mary Minx bought the house and property from Roland Dickensheets, they added the other half of the lot.

[29:00] The property remained undeveloped, and a significant part of Parsons Park until the property was subdivided and developed. In the 19 seventies we found the property also eligible for designation based on its architectural significance. The bungalow form was popular in Colorado from about 1,900 to the 19 thirties, due to its simplicity and utility. Classic elements of this form include the gently pitched side gable roof, the overhanging eaves, the broad front porch supported by thick columns, then the central shed roof, dormer, and exposed rafter ends. We don't know who the architect or builder were, believe me, I looked We know from the deed that the construction cost was more than $1,500, and we have a theory that the building was constructed, maybe from a kit as a kit house, just because it was constructed so quickly during the 1st World War. So. But we haven't found anything that supports that.

[30:10] As for environmental significance, the house was constructed as the farmhouse for a larger area used as a truck garden by the minx. The site still includes mature trees and a gravel driveway that reflects this rural characteristic of the site. and although the larger area was subdivided in the 19 seventies, this corner lot retains a lot of the landscaping and rural feel from before the 19 seventies, the massing and scale of the house and the property's mature vegetation is compatible with its residential setting, and it's a familiar landmark within the neighborhood, and quite a striking remnant of when this area was mainly orchards staff recommends that the property be known as the Orchard House to recognize the rural origins. The plaque is proposed to say. The bungalow house was built when the surrounding area was fruit farms. The Warren family bought the house, and much of the surrounding land. In 1929 they sold lots in the 19 seventies that developed into the West Hawthorne area. The Warren family lived here for more than 7 decades, until 2,003

[31:29] staff recommends that the boundary be established to follow the property lines of the lot that's consistent with current and past practices, and the National Register guidelines for establishing landmark boundaries, and is supported by the property owners. So Staff's recommendation is that the Landmarks board adopts the staff memorandum, and recommends to city Council that it designate the property at 33, 75, 16th Street as a local historic landmark.

[32:00] to be known as the Orchard House. Finding that it meets the standards for individual landmark designation in Sections 9, 11, one, and 9, 11, 2 of the Boulder revise code. The proposed findings are that the designation application is consistent with the purposes and standards of the historic preservation ordinance, in that the designation of the property at 33, 75, 16th Street will protect, enhance, and perpetuate a property reminiscent of past era of history, and preserve an important example of Boulder's historic architecture. The proposed designation will maintain an appropriate setting and environment for the building and enhance property values, stabilize the neighborhood, promote tourist trade and interest and foster knowledge of the city's living heritage. That's the end of the staff presentation, a reminder of the next steps in the process. We'll ask Michael and Sidra if they have anything to add. Then we'll move on to public participation and then board deliberation.

[33:08] And the options today are for the landmarks board to approve the application and recommend designation to city council or recommend denial. So any questions for staff before we move on. All right. I don't go ahead, Michael. I would like to ask a question about the the name being proposed with the the landmark? Historically, are there other houses that could at some point be referred to as the Orchard house, because they were adjacent to orchards in that area. Did you want to take? Yes, yes. yeah, I'm I'm happy. And thanks for the question. So the

[34:04] the name, the Orchard house is proposed by the owners, and it fits within the the naming guidelines for a property, because it is part of this agricultural context of old North Boulder. I do think that in the future, if there's another farmhouse or another orchard house that comes in that name's taken, and so they'll have to come up with a more specific name. We'll cross that bridge when we get to it. But yes, does that answer your question. Yes, thanks. Okay. Okay. Seeing or hearing no other questions for Staff. We would love to invite the applicants up. You have a total of 10 min to speak. Whatever you want to share with us, we'll be delighted. Come on up to the microphone, and then after that we will hear from members of the public if they so choose, and you're invited for an additional 3 min at that point. So I will need to ask you to raise your right hand and swear you'll tell the Board the full truth, and state your full name for our recording. Yes, Hi! I'm Sidra Berstein, and I promise to tell the whole truth.

[35:24] Thank you. You may begin. Thank you. I didn't prepare anything formally, but I just wanted to share how important this house has been to us since the moment we stepped in and toured it. It was very clear that this house had a lot of historic quality to it. It had so much character, both inside and out, that we just fell in love with from the beginning. and meeting the neighbors on the street who've lived there for many, many years. We just heard all of these stories about the history of the house, and everyone had stories about the Warrens and the neighborhood, and how this had been covered in apple orchards, and there used to be an ice skating rink down the road, and people used to ride their horses down Iris Avenue.

[36:05] Our yard actually has 2 posts where they're very, very old posts, original to the house that used to be the places where they tie their horses to, and those still sit embedded in our yard, immovable and very old, but also appreciated for their history. So it's those little details that we really fell in love with, and when we bought the house from the owner who was moving to New Mexico sherry, she shared with us just a great love of the house that she also inherited from the Warren family, who had lived there for so many decades. and it was clear that in buying this house. We were also agreeing to become stewards to the house. So I think that's just what's really really important to us in finally taking the step toward landmarking the property in the house. It just. It's very special, and we care my apologies for our children, but we care a great deal about preserving this house for the future. It's just so unique in the neighborhood and kind of stands as a little piece of history that all of the neighbors are familiar with as having great stories to it. And so we'd really love to continue that legacy and kind of make it known throughout.

[37:14] Bolder. So thank you. Oh, thank you so much for sharing that, and thank you for your stewardship. We will now turn to public comment for this landmark designation hearing and Aubrey, I'm going to let you facilitate that have any members of the public. I, Catherine Barth. Are you interested? Come on up, Catherine, Catherine. I will need to swear you in for this, as as you well know, as a former former landmarks board member. Yes, Catherine Barth and I will tell the truth. Thank you mainly. I wanted to just address my comments to the owners and their family, and

[38:03] I think that this house will be such a wonderful environment for your children growing up. and I think I'm very happy that you're happy, that you've taken it on as stewards. But I think there are a lot of intangible qualities of the house, and of your life in the house of of the children's and your family life within that house. and I predict it will be a very rich and wonderful place for you. So thank you very much for doing this. Thank you. Thank you, Catherine. so all right. No one else has signed up correct. I don't have any other signups in person. If anyone virtually would like to speak, please raise your hand all right. We have one raised hand, and it belongs to Lynn Siegel

[39:02] Lynn. You'll be given permission to speak, and I'll start the timer and Lynn just a reminder, since this is quasi-judicial to swear to tell us the truth, as you know it. I swear to tell the truth as I know it, I don't like to swear, but I guess I have to. Yeah. So I know you're gonna landmark this. So you're not the demolition board for it. But This constant upvaluing of properties in boulder is very destructive, and the influence of the developers and the owners on the landmarks board and the community in general. I mean, I'm up to midnight every night. Last night it was a planning board approving another. Well, actually, they didn't approve. For once the planning board did not approve the cul-de-sac housing development. All in the name of we need more affordable housing in boulder.

[40:01] Okay? So the reason I bring this up is it's critical. What you do. What you did at 1015 juniper was unconscionable. That was a beautiful bungalow like this. and. Grandpa. That place really needed to stay. And you know, I talked to a friend today that said she, sees all these houses around our neighborhood that have been approved for demolition, and they sit. They sit there now, I'm sure. 1015. I know that it's gone down because I know the guy across the street, and 2 houses up that waited and sold his perfectly good place, didn't you know, go through a demolition, or try to landmark it, or anything. He just waited and sold it appropriately, and the market needs the fair market needs to be dealt this way. Instead. These people target these houses. They say I want to get a demo on it. Then I can sell it for more, and they hold on to it until the market's right, and they sell it at a high price.

[41:11] and that's what happened at 1015, although they've already that particular one, I guess, is probably already been built. Yeah, excuse me now, but you have an impact on your own need to preserve these houses, because if there are too many people with too much valued interests, and they will influence you. they will influence you. Then you will not be able or be able to be free, to feel. You can do what you're supposed to do. An example of this was Number 3 not being followed on. Oh, that was St. Aidan's church.

[42:00] So yeah, I know you're going to approve this one. That's great. Thanks for the good things that you do. I wish I had more positive input make me give you positive input. Thank you, Lynn, for speaking tonight, Aubrey. I'll give you another moment to see if any other additional members of the public would like to speak to this agenda item. we don't have any more in-person signups and no one else online. Thank you. So we will officially close public comment for this agenda item, you are granted another additional 3 min, but I don't know if there's anything else you want to add at this point, and if not, we will turn back to the board for our deliberations, and and Chelsea. I know you are with us this evening, so I don't know if anyone would like to kick it off. But

[43:10] I I will. Okay, John, go for it. Okay. I'm very pleased to be able to support designation of this property tonight. This is kind of a breath of good news in a sea of a lot of things. this is. It's an interesting. I live in this area and have been familiar with this part of boulder for a long time. This this property in particular, this particular house, speaks very directly to the kind of history, of what North Boulder at least what the boulder edge used to be.

[44:02] and even to the point where throughout this neighborhood and adjacent neighborhoods on the north side of Iris and there's there's remnant fruit trees throughout those areas. There's pieces of that orchard past that are kind of scattered. There were orchards. There was hop growing. There were a lot of interesting kind of kind of fixed agriculture in this area. which is, it's an important part. It's not just an important part of Boulder's history. It kind of speaks to the history of the whole Front Range, at least the northern part, which started out to be heavily a kind of orchard and producing kind of agricultural area. so it's a very interesting thing. It's also interesting that the bungalow type and kit houses that were frequently the source of that type.

[45:10] Were one of the ways that people were able to have a house. maybe an affordable house at that point in the early 20th century. and it was kind of related to also the railroads, and bringing the kits into boulder on flat cars and things like that. so it's it's just an it's an interesting piece of history. I'm very happy to see that it is going to survive into the future. it's in a it's in a context I think, in terms of in terms of the criteria. I think it meets pretty much all of the criteria The environmental context is of that whole street, and the areas adjacent to Iris

[46:07] is somewhat intact as a kind of semi-rural suburban kind of a environment which was characteristic of this area for a long period of time. It is in the context of a kind of kitschy neighborhood that is very interesting that has evolved around that side of Iris. And it's it's it meets, it's it's well kept. It it is, I guess, an architecturally significant and distinct form. And it it just that's all the things we wanted to see in a designation. So I'm very happy, very pleased to support this.

[47:02] Thank you, John Renee. I would just like to thank the owners. It's a great neighborhood. I also live within the neighborhood, so welcome to the neighborhood, but it seems like you've been there a while. I love that you took a stand, and, you know. heard all the lovely stories, and you realized how special this was, and you didn't just let it go by the wayside. And you really did something. And you there's there is history that we just learned about in the neighborhood for what this was, and I just want to say, thank you for standing up today and getting a landmark designation. Chelsea, I don't know if you'd like to weigh in next. Sure I will just say that I think the staff presentation was very comprehensive, and it was great to hear from the applicant, and I agree that it has met all the criteria to be a landmark, and it is exciting that this is before us.

[48:16] Thank you. Chelsea and Michael. Thanks for presenting this application for us to consider, and I don't have anything criteria related. But your your comments about stewardship are incredibly encouraging for for this property, but really to set an example for other owners of properties similar to it. So thank you. So I guess it's I'm last. So when we met on April second. as a board, we had the luxury without any public hearings to kind of talk to Michael, a new board member who we were, how we all came to be, and Staff shared their stories as well, and the one thing that was fascinating to me the theme that was woven through all of our reasons why we loved preservation. Why we were champions of preservation

[49:15] is because of the stories it told. And now, just less than you know, a little over a month later, to have this come what I see, what I feel, and just even in your really heartfelt remarks. This tells a story, and I can't think of anything more joyous for us than when we get to look at these applications that now we can add a chapter with your story with this house's story, and that your children's grandchildren may be able to enjoy the history of this place. So it's the story it tells. You know. There's a thing in preservation. Personally, I'm not worried about the grand large houses on Mapleton Hill. I think they'll always be someone speaking up for them, and they're already, you know, in a historic district, and landmarked many of them individually. But I think that these smaller homes tell such an important part of Boulder's history, especially this house.

[50:17] because we are rapidly losing any remnants of our agricultural history. So it's so wonderful to have this to add to that, and I mean I you know I'm glad, Michael, your 1st public hearing, and I know it happened with Rene was a landmarking, because this is when it's it's a joy to say, you know. Not only thank you, but you're giving something back to the community, and I'm glad this will be added to another fabulous collection of historic resources that really kind of range the gamut here in Boulder. So I think, just for me a heartfelt. Thank you, and I guess I'll be supporting Staff's recommendation. No, this is delightful, so thank you.

[51:03] Would someone like to make a motion? I'll move, I'll do it. Oh, you can stay there. No, I'm kidding. No. I move that the Landmarks Board recommends to the City Council that it designate the property at 3,375 16th Street as a local historic landmark to be known as the Orchard House. Finding that it meets the standards for individual landmark designation in Sections 9, 11 and 9, 11, 2. Boulder Revised Code 1981, and adopt the staff memorandum, dated May 7, th 2,025, as the findings of the board is there a second second on a motion by John, seconded by Michael, we'll take a roll call. Vote Chelsea.

[52:00] I. John. Aye, Michael, aye, Rene, aye, and I vote aye, so the motion passes unanimously, and Claire will take just a few moments to explain the next steps. Okay? So city Council reviews the the the designation application in 2 meetings. The 1st is a consent. Hearing where the don't ask for public comment. The second is a as a public hearing, and both of those will happen within a hundred days, so I will be in touch to to try and figure out the puzzle of your schedule and city Council's schedule, and see if we can figure out when to schedule that for great. Thank you so much. Thank you. Okay.

[53:02] so now we will move on to matters. Thank you again so much, and a goodbye to our future preservationist. All right. So, Abby, we have about really 2 items under matters, and then some calendar checks. Would you like to start with the public comment, follow up first, st or I think so, that I would like to start with just a question or 2 I have, and then anybody else's thoughts or questions for for Patrick, but I think it'd be nice of us to do it now, in case he has other commitments this evening.

[54:12] or he's welcome to stay with us till the the bitter end. But so so if we can do that, Marcy and I want to thank you for bringing that to our attention about the criteria, and as someone who has attended landmarks, board meetings, although wearing a couple of different hats for 20 years. there were times, and I can. I can name the past landmarks, board members whose shoulders we kind of actually stand on, who would do this thing during deliberations, whether it was an lac or whatever was in front of us that would go through the analysis a lot of times by staff, and they would look at the criteria and they would base their vote on. I think this meets this section or this section, or whatever, and I think it's helpful, and I see that our staff attorneys joined us. If he has any comments on this. But the reason

[55:10] it meant something to me, as in the past people have done, that it wasn't like it was mandated or required, but they used it as their justification. They used it as the hook they hung their vote on for a particular item, whether they were voting for or against a particular thing, and I just want to point out that that has happened in the past. I found I found it very helpful and informative, and then I'm horrible, and never do it that way. So, Chris, I don't know if you have any thoughts about this. Sure and good evening landmarks board? So, as I understand, the question is, you know what the question was like? Why did landmarks board do it this way. There were multiple options that the Board had. The Board can only act can only take affirmative action through motion or resolution, and by and large. It's through motion, and the board decided.

[56:07] but in March to take the affirmative step, to pass a motion to not initiate the process for landmark designation. It could have had the initiation public hearing. and then decided not to act. And then the demolition This day of demolition would have expired in the demolition permit would have issued. And so there's the same result would have happened in the end. And so I hope I'm providing some clarification here. I don't see anything. I would have said something if the board was acting outside of its scope at the at the hearing, and I didn't see anything improper happening, and the Board decided to to issue a to vote on a motion to not initiate designation, and that is completely proper in the findings of

[57:08] the the Board adopted the findings and the staff. The the staff member adopted the staff memorandum as its findings, and so I think the record is clear as to why the Board acted the way it did. Thank you, and I don't know if, Patrick that answers your question, or if you were more surprised because you felt the property did meet the criteria. I'm not used to be able to know matter and typically not but but I curious if if Staff Marcy, if you heard the question differently here in person or no, I think that the second part that I heard was, you know, like with the City Council's denial of the historic district. The Council went through and adopted written findings afterwards about why they voted against it. And

[58:11] I think, Abby, you built on that where sometimes in the past. If the Board has had a split vote, the people voting against the motion will state, and then it's recorded in the minutes about why they voted against it. And so that's the only piece that I heard that Chris hasn't covered in his his comments. Well. Or maybe you did. You did cover them because the board. I would just say that an initiation hearing is legislative, whereas a public hearing for a historic district is quasi-judicial. And so it's just different code provisions. And so you know what we do, for a legislative matter is going to be might be different. What we do in a quasi-judicial matter. And that is a fairly key difference, I think, though I think what it meant to me. Patrick, hearing that is, that

[59:06] I think it'd be great if we could ever be as clear as we can, no matter how we vote on whatever issue. Sometimes that helps the public understand how we got to that decision, because otherwise, you know, someone may not be at a meeting and not hear that. But it might be I don't know it really only the dissent might get reflected in the the meeting minutes. That's been our practice, that only the dissenting vote. that who's not in the majority has a chance to say, here's why I voted against it. Thank you. But that was helpful to me. Now. The thing about the hip, and the only reason I kind of wanted to take just a few moments to discuss. This is because it was something fascinating to me, just because I know it was a fairly enormous investment by both the State Historical Fund and the City of Boulder. I'm going to be off on the numbers, but maybe total about $267,000, with

[60:08] the bulk of that being money given to the State from the State Historical Fund. But the City State still was maybe around 68,000, or something like that. The main reason I bring it up, and what that was was to really focus on the historic resources that the city owns. So it included the ones in the civic center, obviously, but also like Harbeck House on the hill, and things like that. And the main reason I just want to say something tonight, and sometimes it's important me to say certain things just to get on. The record is recently. Now it's been a little while. It might have been 3 or 4 months ago. I went on parks and Rec, I went on the city website. And when I went to look for the hip project with previously I could access it said, Not available, or I couldn't get access to it, so it was more like, I want to be sure, I see the current thing, and I don't know, Renee. You weren't on the board, but I think John was, but we had a former parks and rec employee come to us and

[61:11] speak to us at a meeting. Give us a spreadsheet of the draft of the hip. I know it was going to go through many iterations, and there were public stakeholders involved, and a consultant and everything. And so I filled out. I spent quite a bit of time filling out things, and sometimes it was a little spelling thing, and then sometimes it was something more factual to make a note of or inquire about, and I sent that off, and so I felt just by that I had a little more investment in it, and then I couldn't find the finished hip thing, or you know, and it it I thought at 1 point, and I I'm totally could be wrong, but that the final hit might come back to us not necessarily for approval, approval, but somehow come back before the landmarks board. But I may be mistaken about that.

[62:05] So that's all. That's all I wanted to say about the hip. I appreciate that, and we can follow up with our colleagues in the Boulder Parks and Rec department to see if the link is broken, or if it's where to find it online, and then for those in the audience. Hi, Patrick, you know the hip is a document to help Parks and Rec. Manage the 13 landmarks that they manage. As we got a new board member. Recently the Parks and Rec Advisory Board got something like 4 new board members, and so many of the new members might not be aware of the hip because it was developed, I think, in finished in 2023. So

[63:01] for what it's worth. You might also attend that meeting with with your comments this evening, and then for Abby, we'll follow up with the with the website. Link. Okay? Great one. Last point. I just sent it to you. Thank you. I found it. It's called the Flip back. Okay? Maybe I was looking for it under the wrong thing, because I couldn't find it either. But and, Marci, thank you for, because the other thing I'd forgotten it's it's it does focus on the historic resources in a park in the city as opposed to like just City owned building. So that's why I thought it was great when that whole initiative was undertaken by Parks and Rec, because they were saying, What do we have? What's a condition? You know? What might we need to do in the short term. And what might we need to do in the long term, which is a wonderful planning tool? But then it's sort of. I think we all get busy with other things, and it just sort of

[64:05] fell to the wayside in my mind. And, Abby, I'm not aware of it coming back again for approval. I think it's been approved, I think, during the civic area historic district there was discussion that if the historic district past. Then the bandshell recommendations would be used as guidelines or updated, or there was like some intersection there. But I think the hip is is kind of done, and it was presented to us in a very rough draft form at 1 point. So we were. We were always aware of it so and I, that what I it may have been where I got confused may have been because of the kind of parallel process of the historic district. So now I feel like that answers my questions. I don't know if anyone else. as on either of those items. But thank you, Patrick.

[65:19] all right. The next item, then, is the nomination and appointment of the chair and vice chair, and typically, the board will appoint a new chair and vice chair. Once a new member is appointed by council, and so we reviewed this at the last meeting, but thought it would be helpful to review again. Of you all are 5 Board members. You all have an equal voice, equal vote, but there are additional responsibilities for the chair and vice chair. So for the chair. That person is responsible for conducting the Board's meetings.

[66:03] so really facilitating the meetings, making sure that minority opinions may be expressed, and that the majority is allowed to rule, calls the meetings to order, and runs. The meeting according to the agenda, decides all points of order or issues to the procedure, unless otherwise directed by a majority of the board in session at a time, so that can be allowing additional time for public comment or allowing somebody to speak after the public comment period is closed. You're allowed to debate issues as chair make motions and vote on motions. and for each meeting the chair should be familiar with the order of business for the day parliamentary procedures, and how to conduct meetings and staff does support the chair with that, with an agenda meeting the day before. Kind of a a guide for the agenda, and I will also say that the chair also has taken the lead or or spoken. If

[67:05] there's a topic at City Council, the chair has spoken on behalf of the Board for the annual letter to Council. Sometimes the chair has a a larger role in it, and then things like the the square nail awards which is coming up on Monday. The chair has presented the new landmarks or the project awards, so there's a little bit additional time and ceremonial things. In addition to these duties for the vice chair, it's pretty simple. They preside in the absence of the chair, and assumes all duty of the chair. So since we shifted to a hybrid format sometimes, when Abby has been virtual and the rest of the members are in person, she's asked John the vice chair to chair the meetings just because it's a little bit easier in person, or if the chair is absent.

[68:00] and then of all members that's in the code, and you apply the standards and criteria, debate and decide all matters and then also decide preservation policy and legislative matters as well. So typically this has been somewhat informal. But I'll pass it back over to you, Abby, to lead this next part. Thank you, Marcy, and while I will be happy to open the floor for any nominations for the next chair of the landmarks board. I would like to start off by saying, I would like to nominate Rene to serve as the next chair of the landmarks board, and I'm going to very briefly tell you why. I remember that I think I knew that Renee had applied for the landmarks board, but she may have had the interview, but I don't think City Council had done the appointments yet, and she was an applicant at Ldrc. And I'll always remember this. You had this great shirt that said this old house, and I think what I've admired about you, Renee on the board. You've been a breath of fresh air. You have always spoken from your heart, and I think what comes through to me every time you speak participate is how genuine you are and how

[69:20] sincere you are, and I think you've been a valuable member, because, even though you are appointed as a community member. You know. We get that luxury of your architect's eye on every project, and I can see and feel and hear your passion for preservation. But I also think, because you are an architect. You also can look at a proposal before us and see sort of the challenges structurally of a building. The cost. I mean, you have this way of achieving that balance sometimes where you know, because you can also look at it from the practical building side of it, and so forth. But you've just been such a champion of preservation and saving what we can while recognizing that our ordinance doesn't even want us.

[70:11] doesn't allow us to save every building, and I think you've been able to bring to the board that ability to really weigh the balance between the goal of the preservation, ordinance and personal property rights owners. So I appreciate that. So that is, I would like to nominate her. But I think it's only fair for Chelsea and everyone else. If there's anyone who would like to put their own name forward, or who is interested in serving as chair other than the Renee has indicated. She will. She is until Marcy put the slide up. No, I'm kidding. No, but Not hearing anything. Would anyone like to make a motion to nominate Rene to serve as the next board

[71:05] chair. Yeah, I would like to move to nominate Renee Globek as the next chair to have a second second on a motion by John, seconded by Michael. We'll do a roll call. Vote Chelsea. I. John. Aye, Michael. Aye, Renee. Oh, she can vote. You can vote she's going to vote. No, no, I'm kidding peer pressure. Aye, so the motion is unanimous. So Renee, bye, no, I'm kidding. I'm kidding. I'm kidding. So Renee, as of the June meeting, which I think will be virtual, will be the new board chair. Well, starting tonight. But the 1st meeting you'll preside over is the June 4th meeting. So now we need to find someone to work with Rene and all of us as the the vice chair. I don't know if there's anyone who's interested in serving in that role.

[72:11] They can be newer to the board. I'll make one statement. Okay, just Excuse me. It's I think, that it's useful to become vice chair. because it gives you the opportunity to experience the chairs position every once in a while and it. It kind of gives you insight into that whole process. So it's kind of preparatory path to being chair, or, alternatively, another excellent vice chair

[73:02] person is someone who has served as chair, because then they can immediately take the the role of chair, if if need be. So it's it's arguable either way. And in my case. I had been chair. I agreed to be vice chair, because it just made it simple to step into that role when it was necessary. But I could also see that it's a excellent kind of developmental role to learn more of the inside track on everything. Do we nominate we? We can nominate people, can nominate themselves. Do you have someone, Renee? You'd like to nominate. Well? Does Chelsea have any input? Is she still on? She's still with us. I'm I'm still here.

[74:03] Wait. Didn't we vote on Renee or no? We're doing the ice chair. Oh. We're not doing one at a time. We're on device, chair. Oh, okay, sorry. I don't have any. Input I don't wanna be. I don't want to be vice chair. That may be the input, Chelsea, but I didn't know how to do that gracefully. Thank you, Chelsea. I mean, you know, Abby being vice chair, or Michael being vice chair. so should we all make a nomination to nominate Michael into the hot seat as vice chair, so that he can be with me. I think you'd be excellent, Michael

[75:01] and Marcy. There's no reason if there would, just on the very slim chance that Renee or Michael weren't available. John or I, or anyone could lead the meeting right, could lead a meeting. Correct. Okay. So that gives you. Oh, look, Chris! Oh, here we are! Oh, here. I was also going to just say correct. So correct. Okay, thank you. Thank you. I want you to speak. I'm happy to do it. I see the the value in getting up to speed like immediately. My! My original thought was, it's too early, and I am still trying to figure out what I'm doing. legislative or judicial quasi, judiciously. But sure. yeah, I think that'd be great. And what I

[76:01] What's amazing is how excellent this staff is as setting up a chair, a vice chair and board members in general. To succeed is amazing. They do all the heavy lifting, and you know, I think that they'll they'll make sure you. They'll go over all of that. So you know that my advice to do that is, when you are able. If you do become vice chair when you are able to occasionally attend as often as you can, the 30 min agenda meeting the day before. Because that's where you'll see how that comes to be. It's just a little frightening to think that my 3rd meeting out of the gate will be in this position. But why not? Why not? Yeah? Why not? So do we have a motion to make. I motion denominate Michael as vice chair. Do we have a second? I'll second on a motion by Rene, seconded by John Chelsea.

[77:06] I. John. Aye, Michael, aye, Rene, aye, and I vote aye. So the motion carries unanimously that Michael Ray will be the vice chair. The inauguration will be on. No. okay. And then, Marcy, you want to move you wanna take over on the rest of the items under matters I do. And I will just say congratulations to Rene and Michael and the whole staff team of whom you can see half of us are really here to help and support and the the board. It's a 1 year kind of commitment. If it's not working, you're you can have a conversation and make adjustments along the way, so I can

[78:06] feel a little bit of hesitation. But know that we're we're here to support you all, and I think you all will be great. Okay, I don't need that computer. Here, we go. Almost okay. So this historic preservation program has been around for about 50 years. And in the last couple years, we've really focused on improving our historic preservation process to make criteria-based decisions, to streamline and standardize where we can and we've made small incremental changes over time. But the biggest change happened, thanks to the landmarks board with some process improvements that went into effect really fully in January. And so this item is to reflect back on these last 4 months and

[79:14] say, you know, have they achieved? Are they achieving the goals that we set out to achieve? Are there any adjustments that we want to make? Is it working? Is it not? And so to kind of reorient the the project goals were to increase the efficiency of the historic preservation review processes increase the flexibility for application review and reduce the time commitment for volunteer board members, and this work also advances the Department's goal of operational excellence by standardizing and streamlining our processes to provide efficient service. So what problem were we trying to solve? Historic preservation review is required for all exterior changes to designated properties and demolition review for non-designated buildings over 50 years old.

[80:07] The code required the majority of applications be reviewed at a committee meeting. and that's 1 staff member and 2 volunteer board members within 14 days. As a result, the committee reviewed many simple alterations and must meet even if there's only one agenda item, and we looked at the at the time and have a pretty confident estimate that for a very simple request like storm windows. That item would take 30 min as a staff review and 4 h at a committee review. Considering the prep. Time, putting the Powerpoint slides together, getting, you know, 4 people's times for that, for even if it's a 30 min item, and then the follow-up notes, etc. And so

[81:01] really wanting to look at. What's the best use of that committee format? And is it a good use for simple cases like that? Historic preservation approvals were also only good for 180 days seems like a long time, unless you're doing a project, in which case it goes by really fast. And so it results in many repeat applications adding time to the review process. A little bit of uncertainty for the applicant, and it also adds to the volunteer board commitment. So what changes were made. I, you all, and Council passed a code amendment and administrative rule to expand the types of projects that can be reviewed by staff. We also extended the initial review period for Lacs and Demos from 14 days to 21 days, to provide additional flexibility for scheduling those Ldrc meetings and extend the approval period of from

[82:01] 6 months to one year, and then remove the Planning Board liaison position from the Landmarks board. So let's take a look at the last 4 months. Here is a chart looking at the landmark, alteration, certificate applications and the non-designated demolition applications over the last 6 years, and in 2025 year to date. We've received 62 lac applications compared to 45 applications last year. So that represents a 35% increase from last year, looking farther back, it's about a 20% increase over the 5 year average. So you can see in 2020 right in really, right? Before the pandemic hit. We were at a much higher case level, and then for lacs. It declined steadily over the next 4 years, and then spiked up this year

[83:03] for Demos. We were at a lower number 47. At this point in 2020 it climbed up. peaking in 2022, and then sharply declining in 2023, and then it's kind of leveled off or so so non-designated Demos have stayed the same since last year. Another thing to keep in mind. In addition to this, 35% increase in lacs is that the Ldrc rotation really was shared between 4 members in the 1st 4 months of this year, because Ronnie was ending his almost 9 year position. He was. His volunteer hours had been maxed out, so we kind of gave him a lighter load for his last 3 months, and then, as Michael gets up to speed, you're really sharing it between 4. So those 2 things should really have intensified the Ldrc. Time commitment, however. however.

[84:00] Oh, that was a good, that was a good segue, but I forgot this one just as a reminder of before we made these changes. Staff could review very limited scopes of work, reroofing paint colors, landscaping, very specific fences, awnings and signs, awnings and signs and railings just downtown very limited. And so the administrative rule really shifted the majority of lacs over to the staff level. So it's anywhere from solar panels, skylights. all fencing, all signs, state tax credits, and what that leaves at the Ldrc. Is things like additions, new construction pools, artwork windows and doors. Things like that that are a little bit more complex and would benefit from a collaborative committee kind of design review.

[85:00] So let me go back to that crescendo. So we know that there's 35% more applications. We know the Ldrc rotation was shared by 4 members in that period. These 2 pie charts show the difference between the level of review last year on the left and the level of review this year. And so the Ldrc is the blue piece. So last year the Ldrc reviewed 67% of Lac cases. You can see that's been reduced to 39% where staff has now increased and has is reviewing about 60% of the applications. So even within the 4 months, we've seen a pretty immediate shift over over there. The another project goal is to increase the flexibility for application review. So let's take a look at the landmarks. Design review committee meetings. So there's been very little change to the average length of each item that goes to

[86:09] the Ldrc. Which was a little bit surprising. I thought that that would increase a little bit because we wouldn't have 15 or 20 min items, let's say storm windows, or or something like that. But last year the average time was 36 min. Now the average time is about 33 min. Really, what we're looking at is the shortest item is about 20 min. The longest is an hour and 15, which you know those are the outliers, but the average is is about half an hour. The average length of the meeting also hasn't really changed. Last year it was about an hour and 10 min each time. Now it's about an hour and 15 min. However, we've held 21% fewer Ldrc meetings 14 last year, 11 this year year to date.

[87:03] And then there's been a 19% decrease in the Ldrc applications that go. yeah, 19% decrease in these should be lac applications that are reviewed by the Ldrc. We found 17 applications that would have been reviewed by the Ldrc. Last year that are now reviewed by Staff. So that's 30% of all the lac applications moved from Ldrc to Staff Review. This was a lot we'll we'll find the gold in here. We'll find we'll find it. This one might only make sense to my brain, and it looks like an eye trick. But this is what helped me find the pattern of, you know, before, we would say the Ldrcs are held every Wednesday morning, and they're about, you know, 8 30 Am. To noon.

[88:02] That was a while ago. But now we say, well, now, they're kind of every other week or not. But what is the pattern? So each of these dots is a week, and so at the beginning of the year we canceled for the New Year's, and we had 3 Ldrcs in a row, one with one case, the next with just 2 cases and one with one. When you see a agenda with just one item on it, it's because we're running up against that time limit. And so we have to come together to review just one case. We try to avoid that, but sometimes we can't. Then we canceled 2 meetings in a row for the Cpi Conference and the Landmarks Board meeting, and that meant that we had 3 cases of the following meeting. We were able to cancel the next one. So then it goes into a pattern of one week on one week off one week on one week off with a range of one to 3 cases each, and then, more recently, it's been 2 weeks on one week off 2 weeks on one week off, so

[89:02] we can't quite see a full pattern of getting into something that's really predictable that staff and the board can count on of the frequency of meetings. But it does seem to be a pattern is emerging where we're canceling about 40% of the of the meetings. But we are still constrained by that 21 days of oh, we have to hold a hearing or hold a meeting to meet that time. There's an average of 2 cases per meeting, and you'll see. I mentioned that the few with one case we try not to do that, but sometimes we can't avoid it. We had one where we reviewed 4 cases in 90 min. That was too much, too much to facilitate. It was too quick, and and it was rushed, and and I think we will do our best to manage the agendas to cap it at 3 cases each time. Because, yeah, 4 was was just a little too much.

[90:08] And then, yeah, the meeting time ranges from 30 min to 2 h depending on depending on the cases there and then. The other project goal was to reduce the time commitment for volunteer board members. And so there's a almost 30% decrease in the volunteer time commitment for the Ldrc. Compared to 2024, a decrease from an average of 8 and a half hours to 6 h for each board member. It does range a bit, but this is an average. And then those 17 cases that would have been previously reviewed at the Ldrc. A very conservative estimate would say that we saved 9 h at the Ldrc. Which is really 3 to 4 meetings, and so, with that increased case volume.

[91:06] I think we would have likely not canceled a single Ldrc. Meeting since the beginning of the year, including the ones on the Landmarks board days. Another stat I wasn't looking for but found super interesting is that there was a 42% decrease in the landmarks board meeting time from last year, and so last year, January, February, March, and April, the board we were consistently going t(093) 010-1030 at night we had a lot more agenda items than we have seen this year, where we've had pretty light agendas that has saved at least 10 h in volunteer time for the planning board member who previously served as the liaison. So

[92:00] think that that one was a pretty clear time savings there. So That was a lot of statistics. I think the general takeaway is that the cases are up, but that we have a better process, I think, to manage those cases where we're not funneling everything to a weekly committee meeting, but are better able to review the simple kind of straightforward projects at the staff level. And then focus and really, kind of define the value of the Ldrc meetings as something where we can really work through a design and and say, this is what works in the design. This is what we need revisions for, and have a meaningful conversation rather than a rubber stamping board, or something that just catches so many things up in the process.

[93:00] So I would be really interested in hearing from you all, as you've each served on the Ldrc. In the last couple months. What have you noticed? Has it generally been working, and are there any adjustments that you would like to see? Well, thank you for the numbers? I mean, that's kind of amazing and and kind of staggering, and it seems like it is starting to achieve the goals that were set out. I know, and I think this is important for Michael to know. I know that one of the things I learned through this process that I kind of knew, but didn't quite understand is when it came up, not only about the, but even though I think both the applicant and the interview process made it clear about this Wednesday morning commitment. and we don't know how that got started. Maybe it's that's when the Olmstead Conference room was available in Park Central or something. But but I was clear about that. The one thing I didn't know, and I think, Marcy, I think it was Kj. Who really made me understand. This is. This is considered a city's business meeting, so it does have to be done

[94:18] during like the business hours, and the city staff, or whatever. It wasn't something that we could really have the luxury to have on a Tuesday evening, or anything like that. And I think that was sort of eye opening to me, because then I understood that that is different than a landmarks board meeting where people come to us. I will say, when I 1st heard about Ldrc. And I knew there wasn't public participation. However, it has always been completely open to the public, and I think when the agenda is posted, I've never heard that someone from the public or an organization like historic boulder couldn't send an email saying, Hey, I see you have this on the agenda item, you know. Maybe consider

[95:05] this or that, or something, so I mean, I do know. But but I have to admit when I 1st heard about Ldrc. I mean, I got to admit it kind of reminded me of the conclave in Rome, you know. It's sort of like there was a mystery about it then. Once I got to, and I attended a few while I still worked at historic boulder, but once I got on the board I realized the tremendous value of that collaborative conversation. And I know, Michael, you've attended a few and have seen just sort of like, you can't really put a price tag on that, you know, and I think that that I can. You imagine what the board meetings would be like if all of those applications aren't dealt with, and for I think it was for a letter to city council a few years ago Marcy gave us statistics like 83% of applications were approved in like 2 weeks or something, and that the the vast majority of things were getting approval. I mean, there might, it might have been returning to Ldrc.

[96:06] For approval, or coming to the full board for approval. But the majority of things do seem to get approved by us a much higher percentage than I. I might have guessed so. What I what I've noticed about the changes is I can feel the difference in the amount of time I have spent on it. And you know it's it's kind of I maybe I shouldn't admit this. I'm the most productive on the any Wednesday I serve on Ldrc. For some reason it just sets the tone, and I get everything else I need to do for that day, and I'm all ready. It's interesting for me that that's really kind of a Kickstarter for the rest of whenever I'm assigned. I have noticed that they they start at different times, and

[97:01] my understanding is, or my guess is, you're accommodating different landmarks, board member schedule. And I've also noticed that there's sometimes where is I think it's all a lot more efficient. What what intriguing to me is sometimes 3 landmarks board members are on. And again, is that just a scheduling thing to accommodate people's schedules or a recusal? Well, I yeah, that's true. It could be a recusal, that's true. But but so I've noticed that that sometimes it seems like. you know, rather than 2 kind of throughout. Well, of course, a recusal makes sense. Well, sometimes, like mine is the 10 o'clock, so Chelsea will come in at 9, and then she'll have to exit, and then I come in at 10, so there's 3, but there's never 3 on at one time. One time there's only 2. It's just, but it's more they're listed as 3, so that we know each of us know when to jump on.

[98:02] just to accommodate schedules. and that's great, and I think it's great to when you can accommodate volunteers. What I don't know is, does that add extra work first, st I mean, is it is it easy for Staff to do that? Or does it become sort of like what in mind would be a Cirque du Soleil schedule, where it's like, you know, working around? I'm just putting that out there, because I think this is the time to ask these questions or share. I really appreciate that the Ldrc scheduling is like a 3D puzzle. And we have brainstormed ways of how can we? How can we like find a formula? Right? But then you think about all the inputs, and yeah, I, it's it's increasingly challenging. That is an area that in the ideal world we would have

[99:04] figured out that it would be easier. But some of the yeah, some of the inputs are, you know, availability. You know. Renee's available after 10. John has a preference to start after 10. Chelsea's available from 8 30 to 10. We also try and have an architect on each rotation, and so that creates a natural pairing of the board. And so you all aren't getting to serve with each board member. You you're more in pairs than you were before, and I do want to keep an eye on that, because I think that the Drc. Can create can can develop a personality of oh, if you have these 2, they care about these things, but they're super permissive about these. We're going to wait until these 2 are on, because they're really strict about this, but not strict about that. And we're, you know Claire and I are the consistency in terms of staff, but

[100:08] I think a healthy Ldrc. Is when all 5 board members are rotating and learning from each other and hearing from each other. And so there's that piece. I think if there was a consistent start time that magically worked for 7 people, I would prefer that if there was a 2 h time commitment window, even though the data says we were an average of an hour and 15 min, there's a lot of juggling when it says, Okay, we have 2, 30 min items and a 45 min item. can we do this one and this one? So a commitment of a 2 h window would be a lot easier on, even if you wouldn't necessarily even need it, that often you wouldn't need it consistently. You would just need it occasionally right, and then we could fit the. We could fit 3 cases in there

[101:08] more consistently, but we might not need it every time. I do think one of the values of when I 1st became aware or started on Lgrc is sort of that random assigning, and that we all work with or assigned with different board members at different times, only because it precludes it from becoming, like, you say, almost engineered a little bit in people's minds whether it is or isn't. You know, it's that perception. Yeah. And I would like to get to a place where it's predictable for you all, you know, it's a lot for us to ask. Oh, can you hold 2 h on your calendar for 30 weeks out of the year? I don't think it's 30, but it's somewhere between like 20 and 30 weeks out of the year. I would love to get to a place to say. can you dedicate 2 h every other week for

[102:01] 3 months on 3 months off, or whatever the pattern is. I think predictability would probably help everybody well, and and I was so well when I 1st started it was always 8 30 in person. Then it went to 9, and then it went, and I mean there was a time recently where I was like walking the dog, and I knew I'd held her seat. I'm like. Oh, my God! It's a day, you know, and I raced back and and but I think that here's what my! I don't know how the others feel, and I'll quit talking. Here's what I think is there's a real world and the perfect world. I think a lot of strides have been made. It already looks like you can quantify savings and times and and energy, and so forth. So what I think is is maybe because of the progress that's already been made. Maybe we can start thinking about ways. Is there a way we can get to a more universal start time and and a universal time frame, even though maybe

[103:04] 80% of the time it wouldn't be a full 2 h, and maybe kind of think individually how to do that. And maybe when we have a retreat or something, we could revisit that, because I know we're not going to resolve that tonight. But but it's helpful for me to hear that, because we need to. All these improvements in being efficient. What I was wondering is in reality, is it still efficient for the staff? And is it sustainable like we're doing? And the thing is in this process. It certainly didn't happen overnight. It took time. So maybe that can be the next goal. But you know not anything that any of us can expect or necessarily have to commit to in the next few months. But think about yeah. And for the staff reviews for that shift coming over. And, Claire, you're welcome to chime in as well, but they're generally working well. I think there are some internal adjustments that we have made of. We are. We are almost recreating the Ldrc. But at a staff level. So it's not as formal. We don't have a Powerpoint, but we do have an agenda, and we say, Okay, here are some tricky ones that came in. Let's talk through them and then follow up. And so we're still kind of feeling that out and

[104:26] and appreciating the Ldrc format even more because when you have the applicant or the property owner in front of you, and you are talking through the guidelines. And you're saying, here's what meets it. Here's what's not. You can get to a resolution a lot faster than emailing them and saying, This doesn't meet the guidelines. Try again, which is not how we message it. But there is something really, there is something very efficient about having a meeting and talking through when something doesn't meet the guidelines to say, Okay, well, here's why. And here's how it could. And so we are still kind of leaning into that and and figuring out

[105:08] what that looks like for the ones that we that don't meet the guidelines. do we call? Do we call them up right away? Do we take them to the Ldrc. For a second opinion. Do we have a Mini Ldrc. With just the applicant? Those sort of things? I will also share that the State tax credits were the one thing that immediately took a whole lot longer, because because there, I mean, that is all about checking paperwork. And there's something about preparing for the Ldrc. That was like. By the time we got to the meeting it was like, Why is this in front of us? But all of that work to prepare is what made it go so smoothly. So we're also working through. Okay, how do we make those reviews a little bit more standardized because

[106:01] the those are the one case types that actually got that took longer at the staff level. I'm surprised that like I was feeling even this week, you know, and I'm we're in the industry. So you know. And I have. I get new clients. And then, you know, I have someone that cancels because of the tariffs. So you get like a little on edge. And I thought to myself. Oh, well, we haven't had any Ldrcs like maybe the whole world is feeling these tariffs right? So a little part of me, because that person had canceled. I thought, you know, I had looked at the Ldrcs. But seeing now that they're up, and that we're just not having these meetings is lessens my anxiety about the tariffs. But what it does is it really shows that, like just the improvements that were put in place, and that is great.

[107:04] And I love the idea of having consistency, because on my end, even though I might be the one that's the 10 o'clock which is shifting because the Kid is going to go to high school. So so the 10 o'clock, might not? It won't exist anymore. But you know, sometimes I'm like, because I get a schedule, and then I'm on. And then so then I have it in my calendar, my calendar, like the family calendar that I'm on because I got that schedule. But then the schedule gets revised. So then I'm not on the schedule. So like if it was just like automatically, you know, there's 4 times a month, and I'm on twice this because it's an odd month or something. You know what I mean like. If there was that, then I would know in my head that this is when I'm to be on. You know what I mean? so maybe the consistency like that would help you guys and us. And then, you know, if we're trading amongst ourselves, like, you know, then we can adapt somehow, if there's something that way. But I don't know if that might be more helpful in that long run. But we I do appreciate you guys accommodating that piece for us. And I mean all these things

[108:16] for us. It's generally working. You know. Chelsea talks about the time her 1st board meeting she was on until the next day. So so I feel grateful that we, you know, haven't we? Hopefully, next month, when we're on my 1st that we're not going to do that. So I'm really grateful that these changes took place when we're been on the board, and I know that it's been a lot of work for you guys. And I just want to thank you. And you know, on our end a question could be asked of us, and you know we can say yes or no, so don't hesitate in asking for us to

[109:02] be of assistance in any way so. and I'd just like to say, Thank you for this beautiful. Without it I wouldn't know where I'm supposed to be okay, but careful to print it out because it changes. Yeah, I already did that. That's what I mean. But no, we do want to give you something that you can plan around or tell us early. Oh, this is where I'm going on vacation or whatnot. So yeah, I think this feedback is really helpful. John Michael, are there other other comments about? Well, I I want to say that I think that the things I've noticed is that it does seem to be the the types of projects that I've been seeing at the Ldrcs. That I've been at tend to be the interesting parts, and have have

[110:03] seem to be more efficiently presented and discussed since these changes, and so I would say, generally. I think things are working. I don't miss looking at tax evaluations. And I think that I think that I the only adjustment I guess I would like to see on some of these is more ability to have the interactive part of the discussion with the with the people that are coming in, because I think that's 1 of the most useful things we can offer. But I understand the time constraints they apply to all of us equally. And and it's just that's the one thing that

[111:03] that we get to a very interesting point in discussion with a with a potential project. And then we've we're done. And it doesn't go that much further, which which is also the correct thing because we're not supposed to be solving design problems. We're supposed to be guiding the process of people meeting the the guidelines themselves. And and so I just think it's been a very positive thing. And I think that Chelsea Castellano deserves a bit of credit for initiating this part of this. I think it was like. It was a great kind of a great kind of a optimization of our system. And and so I I believe she deserves credit for that.

[112:06] Yeah. Ransom. Oh, Chelsea. Oh, thank you. Oh, and and thank you for acknowledging that. But it was a big team effort, and I'm glad that the whole board was supportive of moving forward, and the staff were supportive of moving forward with these changes. But, I just wanted to say, I think it's been working well, it feels like, you know, it does feel like we're having less meetings. I will say for myself, I can't be on a meeting past 10 am. Because I have a job that requires me to be online at 10 Am. And I usually have meetings right at 10 but we have the staff have been really great at starting the meetings where I'm on an 8 30. So we have been able to get through 3 applications in those. So I really appreciate that. And I think that one thing that I've noticed, and I'm not sure if it's I, I think it's just something worth talking about is that

[113:23] is that I find that, like the staff presentations, no matter how complicated or simple the project, are, tend to be the same length. And so I'm wondering if there's maybe some time optimization, because it can be a really simple project. But if the if the presentation is 15 min. Then you're going to like the minimum amount of time that you're going to have. A conversation is 5 min. It seems like, so I'm wondering if there could be some consideration to the level of complication of the

[114:00] project and the proposal to kind of match like a length of the presentation, so that it so that so much of the meeting isn't taken up with presentations as amazing as those presentations are. It just. It feels like we would gain some time back, where the the simple type of projects and proposals get a shorter amount of time with the presentation, because otherwise I don't think we will actually reduce the time of the meetings. Even if some of the proposals are more simple. So I wanted to see what Staff thought about that. So. One thing I have on the applicant side, just because I've been on the applicant side. And so I I think I like to hear their response to you, but I also feel like, you know, the fact that the applicant has to put in a lot of money and time to, you know. Get all the paperwork in, and there's a little bit of

[115:10] rest like, you know, receiving on the applicant side to know that you guys have done the due diligence, and according to the ordinance, it kind of has to be said in those documents, and you have to give us because we are not required. And we, I think Chris has asked us that we do not research. you know, prior to being on in the the board or the Ldrc. So I feel like the thoroughness has to be there, and I don't know how you could shrink that time and be as thorough as you need to be, is there? I mean, no, I appreciate that. That thought and the question. And I'm thinking about what our you know presentation is, it's we get the benefit of looking at the agenda items beforehand, and the board members come in cold, and when Claire comes in with a question about a project I haven't seen, and asked me for a decision. I take a lot more than 15 min to to come to one, so you know. I do think that the kind of orienting us.

[116:25] you know, staff, the board members, the applicant, the homeowner, saying, Here's where the property is located. Here's the history a bit about the history, some key things about the thing the criteria, I think, has is really important to state each time, because when we get a bit looser. It's really easy to say I like that color. I like that porch when really it's like, what's the criteria? So we are always looking for ways to optimize.

[117:00] And I think the solution I see is making sure we're right sizing the projects that come to the committee, so that those are the ones that benefit from the conversation rather than having these super simple storm windows is the one that I keep thinking of mechanical units, something like that. That would be a waste of time. I wouldn't want to spend half an hour on a mechanical unit, for example. But yeah, here I'd be interested in other board members, too, of the staff presentations? Do they seem too long, too short? The applicant's presentation? Is it enough time? Is it too short? 1. 1 final thought is that what I appreciate is when we cover the scope of the project and where the project's located, etc. The applicant then, doesn't have to repeat that which is a pretty big

[118:00] time savings there, because they'll walk you through a whole story. and sometimes it says, Oh, you've covered it really well, here's 1 or 2 things I wanted to add, and then we move to the deliberation. So, Chelsea, I really appreciate your comment, because I think the whole thing is, there's been an enormous and and I agree with John, thanks to you, an enormous kind of pretty monumental shift in how things are done through Ldrc, and so and that was kind of my point earlier. But I didn't articulate as well as you know. Let's keep working on this to improve it and fine, tune it, and make it as efficient as possible, I think, for me, and the one example I'm going to give, and that's when I'm sitting, you know, at home, with my dog licking my feet, trying to decide whether to issue a demolition permit on a house. I do want those presentations as fulsome as they can be by the staff, because to me, you know, that's the kind of thing to

[119:07] I can't be casual about. You know the the question, and so I need quite a bit of information to say, is there probable cause this, or whatever? So I I think there might be certain, we might find that there are certain items before us that can be short and sweet. But I think the ones and I think part of that is because our decisions are based on criterias outlined in the ordinance and the bold revised code. Some of those things have to be shared even at the Ldrc level. But I do think there are some where. you know. And and of course the one that comes to mind is paint colors. But we're no longer reviewing those. So I think there are ways to find the ones that can be abbreviated, you know, or shorter. But sometimes I have needed, and it, I'd say, particularly a demolition, because that's a that's those are always hard decisions when they they just want a full demolition. And

[120:10] something's been standing for 135 years. I need to feel confident with. You know enough information at that level. So I appreciate that level of detail. There. Can I jump in? Oh, I just wanted to clarify that I wasn't suggesting to you know, not have robust conversations for those big projects. In fact, I think it's more important that we have those very detailed presentations for those bigger projects that come through Ldrc. What I was suggesting is that in order to you know, see the benefit of the reduced time, I think, in order to have the time to have those robust conversations, it might be helpful to consider paring down some of the presentations for the very like, for the only the proposals that are very, very simple and straightforward. So if it's usually a 10 min presentation, maybe it can be 5, so that we have more time, because I have noticed that in

[121:17] for those more robust proposals that are more complicated. We are running out of time a little bit faster, because we only have 30 min for each one, but if we could get the quick like the ones that are very simple done in 15 min. Then we could have 45 min for those longer ones, and I, personally, I don't think that applicants or owners will be sad to have their proposal approved faster. That's just my opinion. But yeah, I don't think that it's like like disregarding a project to, to kind of get through things a little bit quicker when it's when it's really straightforward.

[122:05] Yeah. Maybe a final thought is that people will get upset if we deny their project faster. And I think the I think the methodical way that we go through the criteria is is important, and what I'm hearing you say Chelsea is, we're not saying cut it for every single one, but for the simple ones or the straightforward ones. Cut it down where we can. Some feedback that I've got that I got from somebody who's known me for a while, said, I can't believe you've explained the same thing a thousand times, and yet you don't sound tired of it, and and I think that's something that I often keep in mind is that you all have now heard us say the same thing 300 times. But for this homeowner it's their 1st experience. It's their 1st impression of the program. It's all of that. And so I try and keep that in mind too. Well, there are people that come through regularly, and they know the process, and all of that for a lot of people. This is their very 1st time. How are decisions made. Can I do my project? All of that? And

[123:21] and I think that's sometimes where I'm coming from. When I lay out the criteria and the the presentation. So I I think it's very useful the way you go through the guidelines in a systematic way, especially when it is something complex like windows. and I and I. And it's useful. It's useful, at least for me on the board. for 2 reasons, and one is, it confronts me with the guidelines continuously, because I have a tendency to construct my own guidelines and it also shows shows the the client or the petitioner that

[124:07] you know we're we're bound by criteria and guidelines. And this is how we're going to apply them. And so they understand that level of the process. And I. So I think it's very the way that you do these. I I don't, hey? Some of them. Some of them are very straightforward and simple, and we usually can manage to get through those very simply like position of a fence relative to the house or something. It's essentially a single guideline. And but but windows in particular are one where I do think there needs to be some discussion around the guidelines we've we've all talked about that, but as written and as being applied, I think it's very. It's very useful to go through the process the way we've been doing it, and I don't think anybody goes away

[125:09] thinking, oh, that was a completely arbitrary review. Well, and I think what must be a challenge for Staff is, and I don't know if it'd be an art or a science, but that conceiving of the agenda when there are times in Chelsea, I agree with you here about like, you know, when there's times when, like 30 min allotted. But we've we're done in 18 min, or something. That's the that's the that's the sweet spot that's hard to to hit, because it. I think, as we keep going down this path with these new changes in place, staff will get like, yeah, that probably can be a 20 min discussion and then have the next agenda item start, you know, right right afterwards. But but I know that takes a little bit of time to get to that real sweet spot, you know, and and I know that that

[126:09] Marcy. What I want to say about this discussion is, I know, when we met yesterday at the Agenda Committee. We thought the meeting might have concluded by now, but I think this is probably one of the most important discussions, because the time and effort, Chelsea, that you did in in in really making this come to pass. It's not worth it if we don't evaluate it along the route, and you know, it would have been silly to evaluate it before Michael got to attend a couple of rotations. It's it's sort of the perfect time. So I think the thing is. This is maybe something. We need some check-ins and can kind of move it along and just fine tune it, because I think it's all great. I share Rene's appreciation to Staff, because I don't know how you even figure this out, and you know it's amazing to me that it always goes as smoothly as it does. But but I do think it's worth kind of checking in

[127:07] every 3 to 4 months on this, because it's 1 of the bigger changes to the program. certainly. And and yeah, we'll We'll continue to check in, and as well as a our retreat whenever that happens this year, and I'll particularly be interested in looking for what is that pattern? And can we get to a more predictable frequency for everyone? And then closing out. I just want to highlight a couple other process improvements that we've made. We've just shifted all of our applications from a Pdf to direct, apply online. And that's been a huge effort the last 4 months. So major kudos to the team here. But that is going to improve the process

[128:01] helps explain what's needed from the applicants more clearly, and then, as soon as they hit, submit, they have a case created and they can see it go through the process. We've also been tracking our statistics of what is our average review time. And so for for lacs and non designated demo reviews, that initial review. So whether it's approved or called up to the full board. The code gives us 21 days to make that decision. Our average for the last 4 months has been 7 days from from that and from the submittal to the end of that initial review. So they're moving through the program within a week. So, despite the increased volume we are managing pretty well. So that's impressive. Yeah, okay.

[129:01] we'll wrap up because that was a good reminder, Abby, that we estimated this a little differently. there? Oh, no, okay. Well, I don't need that slide. The thing I was going to tell you is that the square nails award ceremony is on Monday. In what a beautiful, what a beautiful place it's at the Chautauqua Community house. The refreshments are served at 6 o'clock, but the program starts at 6 30 usually runs for an hour, and then the Cca. Staff is giving kind of behind the scenes. Tour of the Chautauqua Green Room from 5 to 6 if you're interested in seeing that. And Abby and John, thank you for presenting the Landmarks Board project awards, and maybe we can follow up via email to make sure we all know what we're doing. And then there was something else. And I think it's that the next meeting is on June 4, th

[130:10] and it may or may not be virtual. Oh, you don't know yet. Yeah, we're still, we're still deciding. So we'll have at least one case. Oh, that's not my concern. That's Renee's concern. I'm kidding. I'm kidding. so is that it? The only question I have. So I know Ronnie can't be there. Will you? Will someone be presenting his award? Yes, I'll be presenting his Ronnie's getting a preservation and local history award from the Heritage roundtable for his completion of his landmarks board term, and so I'll just say nice things, and he won't be there. But but no, what I was thinking is, if John or I could maybe just videotape that portion or something to send on to Ronnie. Okay, that's it. So, Marcy Aubrey Claire is that it?

[131:05] The meeting's adjourned at 8 13 pm. Thank you, everyone, and thank you. Renee. Thank you.