September 7, 2022 — Landmarks Board Regular Meeting

Transcript

Captions from City of Boulder YouTube recording.

[0:00] Things that take two. Welcome to the September seventh. Ah, two thousand and twenty-two landmarks board meeting the time is six zero two Pm. I want to introduce our moderator, Brenda Ritinauer, who will review the virtual meeting, decora, and if we can have the first slide, please great and thank you so much, Abby. I appreciate it. As Abbey mentioned. I'm. Brenda Ritnower, with our engagement team, and happy to share with these guidelines with you tonight. We know that many of you who attend our meetings regularly have seen these slides many times, and thank you for your patience while we go through them, for folks who might be joining us For the first time. The city has engaged with community members to co-create a vision for productive meaningful and inclusive civic conversations. This vision was designed to support physical and emotional safety for community members, for staff and for boarding commission members, and it supports democracy for people of all ages identities, lived experiences and political perspectives.

[1:14] Um, if you'd like to learn more about the community engagement process that led to this vision, let me encourage you to go to the boulder. Um website, boulder, Colorado Go and type the words productive atmospheres into the search box you'll find there And next slide, please. The following are examples of rules of decorum found in the B to revise code and other guidelines that will support this vision, and we will work together as a team to uphold these guidelines through this meeting tonight all remarks and testimony shall be limited to matters related to city business. No participants 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,

[2:04] and participants are required to to ah raise their hands to speak, and to use the name and display the name that they are commonly known by um, and we do need to see that whole name before we can allow you to speak. I did see that we have one caller who's called in by phone. If you like to speak tonight, please just reach out to me um in the Q. And a box which you might not be able to do on your phone, and i'll help change your name. You can also text me at my city phone number three hundred and three, nine, one, six, seven, four, six, five, i'll try to reach out to you by text as well. Just let me know if you'd like to speak um, So those are the guidelines, Amy, and then I think we're ready to move forward. Thank you as always, Brenda. I want to acknowledge that we have a full forum tonight, and we'll do roll, call and introductions, including our um exit fishing a number from the planning board, and I know that one of our board members has to leave at seven. But, Chelsea, we're we're grateful you're here for however long you can join us this evening,

[3:10] so I will begin. I'm Abby Daniels chair of the Landmarks board and Bill I'm. Bill Galic Landmark's board member. Hi, Chelsea castellano land box board Member I'm. John Decker and I am a um landmarks board member and vice-chair, I think, and I'm Ronnie Pelosi I'm also a Landmarks board member and Laura. I know Laura. I believe it Laura Kaplan from the planning boards with us tonight.

[4:02] It looks like we can't hear Laura. Oh, I'm. I'm sorry. And I was Yeah, Can you hear me now? Yeah, Hi, Laura? Hi! I'm Laura Kaplan, I'm. The executioner member from the Planning Board. Sorry I was double muted. Oh, thank you for joining us. We know that people who are here to participate, and they have strong emotions about a particular project. We want to hear you, and we have found it to be more productive If you are speaking to persuade us, rather than rating us staff or the applicant, we will be following the usual format. The best we can. Applicants and owners have agreed to use this format as with regular landmark board meetings you may only speak at the appropriate time during public participation, or at the appropriate time during the one public hearing we have this evening request to speak outside of those times are denied. This is

[5:01] this month. We do not have a quasi-judicial hearing, however, to remain consistent with other meetings, any person testifying, including any applicants, will be sworn in individually, as with in-person landmarks, board meetings. The auto recording of this meeting will be available in the Records Archive within twenty-eight days of the meeting, as board chair. I will call for a roll call vote on any motions made; and next, if we can move to the group of agreements that came out of our retreat in July. So I just want to point out that this is what we discussed at our retreat, and we always welcome any feedback. It is a living document document, so we will always to to continue the dialogue and make any changes as we move on through meetings.

[6:03] But I think it's great to just take a moment and look at these as we've discussed in the past. One of the things we discussed under matters at the end of our last meeting was whether we were going to use the race he unfolded in our meetings, and you know we've been meeting virtually for almost two and a half years since April of of two thousand and twenty, and I think that um, after a discussion with Staff, we're still going to proceed where we'll ask people to provide any feedback or vote right alphabetical by first name. If you're not ready to share any deliberations at the time, you can wait, and we can come back to you uh for the one hearing tonight. But if we do get to, if there's a new topic or something new you want to introduce in any of our discussions tonight that might be an opportunity to use the raise hand function. But we're still going at this point to you. Sort of um what we've been doing for the last two and a half years doing it about

[7:12] alphabetically, or people asking to speak if there's something coming up, so we'll try to see how that works again. So, Claire, if you'll go to the next slide. So one thing I want you all to note, and Claire, thank you so much for adding this to the agenda in an effort to have our meetings move more efficiently. Um. Without stifling any dialogue or any conversation. There are estimated something to change times that we have put on this agenda tonight, and I will try to verbally remind us or do time check if we need to do that throughout this meeting. But I think this is great clear um to have this and um, this is something we'd like to do for every future meeting as well.

[8:13] So if there's no questions on that. Um! We'll go to approval of the minutes from the August, the third two thousand and twenty two meeting. Did anyone have any changes to the minutes. Bill, John Chelsea, Ronnie, any changes. Would someone like to make a motion? I like a motion that we approve. The minutes from August Landmark Board meeting in a second. I'll second. Okay, Bill, Thank you for making the motion. John seconded the Now we'll do a roll call, I John, I Chelsea. Sorry. I got a little bit out of order.

[9:02] That's okay. I and Ronnie Hi and I vote I So the minutes are approved unanimously. Now it's time for public participation for non-agenda items, and this will we have several days of demolition that we'll be discussing but they're not part of the public hearing. So now is the time to speak. If you want to speak to any of the houses that currently have a say of demolition. However, I would have any remarks for our public hearing. For thirty, one, twenty to Eighth Street you would speak after the presentation by staff at that point. So, Brenda, do we have any members of the public who would like to speak now at a moment. We do have one member. I'd also like to share with our caller on the phone, and if you would like to raise your hand to indicate you like to speak, you can do so by pressing Star Nine on your phone. Um! And again, it will be helpful for me to have your name, if, in fact, you would like to speak tonight.

[10:10] At this point we have three people who would like to speak. So I will start with Lynn Siegel, and then moving to Dave Loroka, followed by Kathryn Barth. So then, you should be able to explain when you're going to start open comment, because I have two meetings always when you have permitting. I also have the Ab. And I need to jump between the two. So, if you please, time specific time that you're going to have. Oc. Because I need to start the timer, Aubrey, can you share the timer. Aubrey, can you share the timer? Um, because my computer Won't: Come back. Whoa: So please, quickly. Okay, we're ready for you, Lynn. But I do need to be recorded. Have you heard anything? I said? Yes, we have, Lynn, but I do need to swear you in very quickly that you are ready to do whatever you say.

[11:05] Okay. And I think you how to record Ldrc meetings. Ldrc. L. Our design Review Committee means because it appears that some things that I hear are not the same as what the outcome is, and I know that puts you in a position of liability. But I think you should be liable for what you say and what you do in Ldrc. And I've heard people talked about it before, and it just it. It seems unethical to not record that. And also, I guess i'd like to say, but I have a concern about all the houses looking good on the outside or not being able to see solar panels, or what have you? But I think what's more important is that that these houses on the inside look like a New York city apartment, so like

[12:00] it's such a fake facade to keep the historic appearance for the public, which is very nice. But to have the insides no constraints on the insides. Um just shows the disrespect for the the people that live there and design that space. I've never seen anything that requires anything on the insides, and I've been into plenty of these houses. I've lived around here a long time, so I justified about that. Also, I think it's long overdue that you have video windows for the public. Christopher would not know me on the street, except that I think i'd met him at a field trip at one point. But um! Why? Why don't you want to know your public security? Come on, that's you know

[13:00] I If only I could swear right now I don't buy security at all. Um, So get your video windows up, you know. But we you have a public. You ought to know them. You really ought to done. Thank you, Lynn. Thank you. But, Brenda, David's next. Yes, Dave La Rocca, followed by Katherine Barth David, you should be able to unmute now, and David, if you will swear to tell the Board the full truth, and then state your name, and if you would also state ah, the address of the property you're speaking to tonight. Three, Sure, I swear to tell the Board the whole truth, and my name is David Laraka, and I am here about property at five, six, eight, Fourteenth Street. Um. So yeah, my my wife Andrea Dart and I are the homeowners of that property which has a pending demo application, and We know that Claire will be providing you all of an update on the status of our investigations into alternatives shortly. But Claire suggested that we

[14:15] take this opportunity to provide a brief update and address the Board directly, because unfortunately, we will not be able to attend next Month's meeting. Um. So yeah, just really due to limited availability of structural engineers. The earliest we are able to schedule a site, visit, and evaluation of existing conditions is next week, and while we Don't have exact detailed information to present tonight. The engineer who's going to do the site visit is familiar with our house, our goals, and the concerns concerns we have so conceptually. They've outlined some kind of possible worst case scenarios that we um should keep in mind and consider as we move forward, because they could have some pretty significant time cost implications for our for our home.

[15:09] So, just to outline some of these scenarios they mentioned, you know that extensive extensive foundation wall, and the slab repairs might be needed due to the water infiltration in the basement that it might require some waterproofing new perimeter floor drains tuck pointing the Cmu to repair water damage, and continued maintenance of mortar. There may possibly be nonexistent or under-designed foundation footers that don't have longevity since we're in a geological zone with swell potential um, and there may be shallow and hundred designed foundation footers at the sunroom as it was ever intended to support in a closed room. Um! So, aside from those structural repairs, the scope and cost considerations, we were told to keep in mind that all of asbestos and led mitigation. Um are all but guaranteed considering

[16:07] age of the home. Um. So just to um. So you know kind of close out here. Um to provide us with the most flexibility and efficiency to adjust when and if contingencies such as arise. Um, we've decided. The best course of action is to maintain our demo application that said, it continues to be our goal to work with and preserve the existing structure and character of the home while achieving a safe and functional room for us for many years to come. We appreciate the history of the home, and believe the spirit of the house should be honored, and I just wanted to share that with you all, and thank you for your time and what you do. Thank you so much, Dave. And next we have Kathryn Berth,

[17:01] Catherine, if you will raise your hand, it's for to tell the Board the whole truth, I do swear to thank you, Catherine. Um! It was very i'm very happy that um, Dave La Rocca spoke because I was at the site visit for that house, and I met him and Andrea and I met Andrea's parents. It's a wonderful family story, because Andrea's parents owned the house for I think, thirty years, and so they are really quite. When I was there and chatting with them. They were quite excited about the the the Hope wall, and hoping, and the possibility of their daughter and son-in-law, and a toddler, and then a new babies on the way. So they were just very excited about that, so I hope that the engineering investigations will come out in a positive way or a way that isn't

[18:11] prohibitive you um! The house That house is is wonderful, and it's so. It qualifies to be a landmark, and it reminds me of perhaps an earlier version or so that relates to the Floral Park houses in the simplicity of ah form and the whiteness of the house. So um Ah, let's cross our fingers and hope that that they will be able to um continue with the the house and rehabilitate it for their family. Um! The next thing i'd like to touch on is one thousand eight hundred and four Mapleton and um

[19:01] that house um I see to be related to the a house that was on Cross Street, that whole house, and it was the first house that was built in boulder by ex-slaves, and they built it by a hand by themselves, and this is some years ago. At that time he there was even Um, a developer who was interested in the house, but he wanted, he said the only way he could do it was, if he moved the house to be like an office on one corner of the property, and then built a new house. The city of older was absolutely inflexible at that time. Now, of course, we've got ads, and you get credit, so i'm hoping that there will be some way that we can just wave a flag and say to the city, Let's be as flexible as we can be; but eighteen or four may pretend,

[20:07] and that addition that is not, I consider, a really good part of the landmark, but the main house is so. I see that I've run out of time. Thank you, Catherine Brenda's or anyone else. I do not see any other hands at this time, so I believe we are. Um finished with open comment tonight. Okay, we will go ahead and close public participation. And um, Catherine, assuming you're still on, I believe that baby has already arrived. So congratulations um to David and his wife. So now we will move on to a discussion of landmark alteration and demolition applications tending.

[21:07] Thank you, Abbey. We're actually going to do the statistical report first, and if that's okay. And here's an overview of the august statistics, the um. This is a breakdown on the approved denied and withdrawn applications. Blue, as usual, are the L. A. Cs. And the pink purple ones are the demolition reviews. So August was relatively quiet. Thankfully we approved. Seven L. A. Cs. Four were administrative reviews, so roofing and ac units mainly, and three were approved by the Ldrc. Claire. I'm: sorry could you go back to slide seven. Please moved a little too quickly through that for me. And I did look at it before, but I wanted to ask a question. Regarding the

[22:03] um non-designated pre one thousand nine hundred and forty demos, and it's looking like there is just one of them. There was just one of them, and was that one that we had that the landmarks Board had seen at Ide. That that was one that you saw at an Lds that was approved. Yeah, Okay, Okay, That was my only question. Thank you. Did you have any questions on the Lacs before I move on? All right, And this is where you'll see that? Ah, that non-designated pre one thousand nine hundred and forty, which was approved at the ldrc and demos do continue to be somewhat busier Um, then the L. A. Cs. And Staff reviewed and approved fourteen applications that was for post, one thousand nine hundred and forty buildings and accessory buildings. Um! And Then there was that one pre one thousand nine hundred house that was reviewed by the Ldrc and approved as a partial demo,

[23:12] and no applications were referred to Lymeox Board in August for demolitions. So this is the year. So far demolition reviews are now this purple chunk matching the totals for the year for the last two years, and L. A. Cs. Are just under half of normal for the year, and this is a graph of new applications compared with the last two years we've received and processed twenty-three new applications in in August. So we had that little down slope that I was hoping for. And again, this is the six-year average. You can see that for new applications. We were down a bit, so I got the quiet month that I was hoping for,

[24:10] and This is a new graph that I thought I would throw out there just as an fyi, and I think it might help explain the increase in demo reviews this year. The bottom blue line is the housing stock, So that's the number of buildings added during the decade it's identified down here. Um, The yellow is the cumulative total of all of those buildings, so as you can see, because so many buildings were constructed in um boulder after the war until the nineteen, sixty S. That's this little peak. Here we saw this huge increase of buildings eligible for Demolition Review, so we currently potentially would review this many buildings because they are older than fifty years if they were proposed for demolition.

[25:07] Um. So I think that the reason we're seeing so many demo reviews this year probably is a lot of different reasons, but there are also a lot of of of buildings that potentially require our review. So any questions on the statistical report. I just here. I just want to make a comment just to make sure everybody understands. Um that what you're showing us on this chart right here are staff reviews primarily, because the only reviews that the landmarks board gets involved in, unless you, unless staff engages the Landmark board, are those properties built in one thousand nine hundred and forty or prior these could be. These are um cumulative. So these could be anything that was built since the beginning of time in Boulder um any um pre One thousand nine hundred and forty buildings are brought to the Ldrc. Initially, they are not reviewed by staff, so that would include these.

[26:09] So this is potential. So any of that. That's what I tried to point out. I'm trying to point out that that this surge that you're indicating on this chart is largely an impact of staff. It is crazy as time moves on. This is not an impact impact to the landmarks board unless staff wants to engage a language that's all i'm trying to point out. That is correct. So, Abby, I think you had your hand raised. Oh, I didn't mean to sorry. Oh, okay, John, Did you mean to raise your hand? I did. Okay. So I have. I have a question. Um is is the review that is executed by staff on any of these buildings pre one thousand nine hundred and seventy that come in is that the only real demo review that occurs in the city

[27:03] when somebody enters A, you know, tries to pull a demo application. What process does it go through before it gets to planning staff? It's the only historic review. So we're looking at for potential um historic significance. I don't know what else is considered during the process. I don't know that Kj. Would either we might have to get back to you on that one right. The question is, Is anything all other than historic, potential historic significance considered not by us, currently. Yeah. And then oh, sorry, Christopher, I was just going to say, Yeah, not by the historic preservation team. Claire's right. I unfortunately just Don't have the institutional knowledge to be able to tell you what other forms of review may currently exist, either within our development, review team or through climate, initiatives or other departments that i'm just not sure. So we'll have a follow up on that and get back to you,

[28:09] because because the next question is, If if someone has a building less than fifty years old that they wish to remove, is that just about a walk through the I mean are a countertop review, Or is there any kind of real review on some level of merit? The city of Boulder? I believe there is not. But we'll have to follow up on that if it's, if the building is not yet fifty years old, there is not any historic review any significance Review. A good example of that would be the tea House, which I think it's going to be torn down. It can't now, because it's land

[29:02] the word you use. John was of any merit not necessarily historical mirror, but like So if somebody built a brand new house five years ago, and somebody else decided to buy it today and totally demolish it, even though that house might have been designed by a noted architect or her brand new materials in it, or anything. The keyword that I like your question, framed it as anything having merit not necessarily only historical merit, and it doesn't sound from the got so far like there are any. It sounds like It's just at the dates. And Um, that's it. Yeah, the fifty years is a pretty typical um timeframe for historic review, because the idea is that you, you don't have the ah context to be able to look at anything younger than that, and decide whether it has significance. Um! There's lots of debate on whether that is true or not. But currently the city of Boulder, we only review things that are houses that are over fifty years for

[30:12] potential significance. So I think this is a good um type of discussion to further along when we get into. If we ever get into demo ordinance review and update the Exactly. I I agree. Yeah, because um, Claire, your words are chosen very um carefully and precisely um. But I think what we're talking about here with John is talking about what i'm reading into this is, we think there's other types of merit besides historical merit, notably, i'm. Comes to my mind first off is architectural merit by itself. There could be other types of merit again

[31:01] falling under what we would call historic preservation merit, but just under some other kind of merit, just, you know, outside of what. But there is the issue of materiality in Penn, loss of utility, and all of those issues sustainability, embodied energy all of those things that appear to not be really considered, because it's not in our purview staff probably does. But we have John, John, you you bring this up a lot, and I have to put you on a point here to explain this a little more seriously. Now, a little more precisely. What What would we do if somebody looked at a property that had embodied energy and calling. What could they possibly do to say? No, you can't do this, or if you do do this, you must do various types of things in order to meet some sort of city code or guideline.

[32:00] Well, there, I mean, this leads to a discussion that I guess Aubrey and I started after the conference about deconstruction versus like destructive demolition. These are These are, I guess, city-wide. Discussions. I don't want to get on my soapbox about it right now, other than we're it right now it falls on us. We end up debating these things in terms sometimes that aren't really our purview forms of preservation and historic preservation issues, but at the same time they are things that I feel need to be considered when you demolish a building, and they're not being considered because we don't have a blueprint for their consideration. And there's no process in place that really even subjects them to that kind of review. And I I I think that's part of the discussion that has to happen about this. There's there seems to be, and and I'm going to go one step further, and then i'll get off the soapbox.

[33:18] There's a trend towards demolition. It's national. It's not just boulder that it's the easiest way out in any kind of redevelopment option is to just knock it down and haul it away, and it's somebody else's problem, and I I think that older is better than that, somehow, and I'm just going to leave it at that. And thank you. I think this would be a real healthy discussion, either under, you know, Board initiatives, or at the next retreat. I see that both Laura and Ronnie have their hand raise. So Laura, did you have something to? I just wanted to ask a question, and to make sure i'm. Following the conversation. So when you folks talk about some other kind of review or other kinds of significance. You're talking about wanting to have additional criteria that would prevent a Demolition.

[34:10] Is that what i'm hearing besides the historic significance. I'd like a comprehensive look at the issue of demolition at top levels of city government myself, and have some type of, I guess, broader community initiative associated with that because I think it's an issue. It's It's an issue of sustainability. It's an issue of I guess resources and waste that just is being ignored. Ronnie's got his hand. Yeah, Ronnie: Yeah. I mean, I think we don't have enough information. There is a waste diversion program and demo requirements that are in place already. And so things don't just happen and get disposed of by just sending them to the dump.

[35:05] So I feel like, while that could be more robust. I do feel like we would be better suited discussing this as a specific topic with an aspect of it That is a presentation um potentially by staff. That highlights how the waste version program currently works. Um, And what other aspects might be involved in getting um a demolition permit that relate to these things that I think maybe this group is bringing up. Um, but I do think that we should probably get all of that information have that presented to us, and then maybe consider how those topics might relate to our area of review. Thank you, Ronnie and I see Bill's hand up that clar. Your slide certainly has provided a lot of food for God. So, Bill, go ahead, please. Yeah, no. I want to go back to Laura's point, Laura. That's exactly what I was trying to get to thank you for for clarifying that and bringing it into sharp focus.

[36:08] I'm saying this specifically to John, because Johnny brings up all the time, and I don't know if this is the right place for this. I mean It's. Okay to have these thoughts. It's okay to have these values. But to Laura's point. What do we? What would we want to do with this information, anyway? This is a Historic Preservation Board Historic preservation group that looks at historic merit, and I also would think architectural merit would be sort of connected to that as well, which might not necessarily have anything to do with age that might have everything to do with the architect that designed a specific building, regardless of when it was done. So that's my only point we can talk about, you know, and redirected waste, and all these other things sustainability. That's great, the point of what this board should actually or could actually do about that, I would defer to Ronnie's point and say,

[37:03] you know, so noted. Let's move on, and I agree. This is very valuable, and I think, at an appropriate time sooner rather than later. We can pursue this as part of an agenda in the appropriate forum. Okay, that's fine with me. I just wanted it out there. Yeah, no, I think it's a great great comment. Rodney is your Did you raise your hand again, or is that okay, Claire, I think it's back to you. Thank you, Claire, for for starting this off all right. So, moving on to our demolition updates, we currently have two active stays of demolition. The demolition application for thirty, one, twenty, two, Eighth Street

[38:03] was withdrawn on August thirty. First, The initiation hearing is still on tonight's agenda, as it is a different application and a different process. Um! But for the demolition updates I would like to focus on the other stays that are continuing. Um. So five Hundred and Sixty Eight Fourteenth Street, and one thousand eight hundred and four Mapleton Avenue, so similar to last month. You're not making a decision decision on the outcome, the application. But you have an opportunity to schedule hearings to do that. So the scheduling discussion is whether the Board would like to add a public hearing to the agenda at a future meeting, and the public hearing would be the Forum, where you can lift the stay or initiate designation. And so I have my hand up on that, Claire. Oh, sorry I can't see you, Bill.

[39:04] I'm sorry I I see your hand up. Use my glasses. Maybe I don't. I should say any questions before I continue. Yeah, um. Regarding these these two on four Um, we will. We have an opportunity to just talk about these things. Ah, in not just to say ever. The only time we have the opportunity is, if we want to. I'd like to be able to get more information about where we stand on both of these. So I have some knowledge of what has been done at the site visits what the what the Board members were at the site that the visits have to say about what they saw. Where do we stand in terms of getting anywhere near um understanding the quality of these buildings, and whether or not they should be preserved. That's what i'd like to have us talk about.

[40:04] So you know you might, we might say something that could change my mind and say, Well, there's no point in going on to nine hundred and eleven three. If this building doesn't, you know, based upon the reviews. Lucas helped me out here, but I believe that the any decision making should be held if it's not part of the vote. Is that correct? So what Builder said probably wouldn't be appropriate, but he could. The decision would be in my own mind. Claire. Okay, something I want us to formal, though, would be on nine over eleven, three. That's what i'm saying. Okay, thank you. I have some other discussion prior to getting to nine, eleven, three, and I will go through the um some updates um. Ronnie actually requested that I go um into eighteen o four, a little bit deeper um to talk about the significance to remind you all of what was in the memo for that one, and i'm happy to do that with five, sixty, Eight Fourteenth Street as well, if you would like,

[41:18] Yeah, both of them Okay, and also just Ah, ah, a debris from what the Landmark Board members I know. We We talked a little bit about the one on Mapleton, but i'd like to have a further deeper discussion about it. Okay, um. So just a reminder of the process where we can go from here, so you can either vote to hold a hearing at the next meeting, or take no action and allow it to stay to continue. I will say that the stay for five, sixty, eight, Fourteenth Street expires on October thirtieth. So tonight is the last opportunity to schedule a hearing

[42:00] before the stay expires, and that hearing would be scheduled for October the twelfth, which is our next scheduled meeting. The stay for one thousand eight hundred and four. Mapleton expires on December the fifth um, So next month would be the last opportunity to schedule a hearing before the State expires, although you can make a scheduling decision tonight if you choose. All right. So five Hundred and Sixty Eight Fourteenth Street, as I said, the stay expires on October the thirtieth since we met on site at the end of June. It seems like a long time ago. Um! I've had a couple of conversations with the applicants. Um! The subcommittee has not been involved in those conversations. Um, as you heard from uh, Dave. Um, they have not been able to. Ah have a structural engineer go and assess the building, yet they do have it scheduled. Um, and they would prefer to continue the request for full demolition,

[43:07] as they feel like this gives them the best options for the future, whatever they're going to do with the house, which will depend on the structural. This is the sun porch portion of the house that that Dave was talking about. You can also see it it here, which was added in ah one thousand nine hundred and fifty, I believe. I'm guessing around that time I will correct that if i'm wrong by the current owner of a resident of the house, which at that time was Helen Carpenter, and the significance of the the historic significance of this house is that Helen was an employee of Cu. For many years she actually attended. See you in the

[44:08] teens um nineteen teens, and as a teenager, and then was employed first by the the the University to place teachers, which was the one of the only professions that women who got a degree at Cu went into, and then she went on to be the director of the placement department. I'm. Getting probably the name of the department wrong A, and and was very instrumental in bringing a lot of industry to Bolda through the placement office at Cu. So she worked there her entire life, and lived in this house with her mother.

[45:02] Um! And so that's the historic significance. Ah! The house was built in one thousand nine hundred and forty, and then the some porch was added in one thousand nine hundred and fifty, and is associated with with Helen. Oh, hey, look! I've got all the notes in here. So she worked at the University Placement bureau, beginning in one thousand nine hundred and twenty, two through one thousand nine hundred and sixty, eight, and would say was instrumental in forging paths for graduates at the University. In addition, this area is Ah was recognized Um in the last survey as a potential historic district. The house itself was considered at the time of that survey as a contributing

[46:10] please, contributing restorable within the potential expanded University Hill historic district. So, architecturally the house is masonry vernacular. It's representative of at this construction of the one thousand nine hundred and fortys, as was mentioned earlier by Catherine. It's reminiscent of the Floral Park Um historic district. It's also significant for its placement right at the corner of Fourteenth, and Don't remember what the cross street is.

[47:02] Yeah, any questions Is that waking yet? Assessment of the significance of this house? I think you've covered it. Yeah, Okay, get it. I mean, I was there, and and you got all the major points that I saw. I was just wondering if we could just cover the timing on this one one more time, so the structural review of it is underway. Um! There is an anticipation that that will be supplied to the landmarks board in the near future in the next couple of weeks, and the latest date in which we can have an initiation here. Schedule and initiation hearing for this is after the next board meeting. Is that correct? So we plan on getting the structural information before the Board meeting, we'll have an update at the Board meeting. We can have a board meeting. Talk about it again. Evaluate that, and make determination.

[48:08] If we is that correct, Claire? That is not. Unfortunately, the Board would have to make a scheduling decision tonight to get it on the October twelfth meeting. Otherwise, would it be a special meeting player? Uh, we Don't: Yeah, right. We don't. I don't really have time to fit in a special meeting. We would have to do. A special meeting would have to be notified ten days in advance. Right And, Bill, I do see your raised hand but you. This is an opportunity like we did last month, where I believe the motion to hold the hearing tonight that we're about to head into was to hold a hearing to discuss, initiating, and you also included or approving the demolition from it. Right? That is correct. Yeah. And um. The The other thing that that I think we should consider is that the

[49:18] the condition of the house, and the cost of restoration is only one part of the criteria that the Board should consider so, even though it I think it's It's playing playing a key role in the decision making for this house. I think that it is just one part of that bill. Did you have your hand raised? Yes, I did. Um, i'm not so much interested in the people that lived in this property in its history. I think I recall what happened that first heard it. I'm. More concerned with you where we feel this property sits in

[50:00] world of historic preservation at this point in time do we feel that this property is landmarkable. We obviously thought it was potentially landmarkable. Have we got any more information about the the construction of this property? Is that gives us some direction, either pro or con for landmark than what we had when we first looked at it. I did not. I didn't visit this property, so I don't I couldn't see it up close and personal. But I know other Landmark Board members did I? I think this house is landmarkable. I think it's a remarkable property. Now there's one voice. Um.

[51:02] I think it is a potentially landmarkable property. It is a remarkable property. The landscaping around it and the neighborhood that it sits in the context increases. I guess its value as a as a resource, a historic resource. So what would the engineering report potentially do to where they're rendering this more or less landmarkable. There's a section of the house that is somewhat in trouble engineering There's visible swamping the one side the sunroom side. It looks like it was a not correctly added addition, and it appears to be

[52:03] well. It's not really visibly pulling away from the house, but it's slumping away from it on one side that contributing to a lack of integrity for the rest of the property. Actually, interestingly, I think that the kind of germ of the house without the sunroom wing could be intact. If it had to be removed, However, on the back side of the house, it would have visible impact on them a um elevation, and and John one of the things we wrestled with um and Chelsea. I see your hand raised as well. Is that the addition John's talking about in the engineering report will shed a lot of light on this is that it is on the front facade. So you know that factors into when you're looking at the the primary facade of this house,

[53:00] Chelsea, Would you like to go ahead? Yeah, I'm. Just curious, because this is my first go at this part of the process. Um. So usually, when we have these decisions, do we often have the um and general or structural engineering results. By the time of this decision, or because it seems like we're so, you know we have to weigh it as a whole, and we're missing a really big part of of the criteria that we that we use to decide. I think we often do. But I don't think we always do. Do you agree with that clear? I do, and I would agree that it's also something that we should review when we review the the revisions to the demolition code, because I think, especially now it's been very, very difficult to to schedule people to come and look at properties, and I, I want to add Chelsea this: whatever quote decision unquote we make tonight would be only to um hold a hearing to decide if we wanted to go forward to land market.

[54:11] It wouldn't be to actually landmark. So the hearing oftentimes it's nine, eleven, three. We use that phrase a lot, and the Boulder code, That section is what would be voted on, I would think, which is what the property up on Eighth Street already is under, and that was just a decision to hold a hearing to decide if we should need to go further to landmark, oftentimes having invoking nine, eleven, three gives us that additional time. It also allows people to come out of the woodwork who has something to say about it, whatever, but it basically buys a little more time and clear. Remind me or clarify for me if i'm correct on this. I think it's posed to us tonight as more of the scheduling issue, and to get into a detailed analysis and discuss it too much on the merits correct.

[55:06] That is correct. Yeah. But but and i'm sorry we're interacting here. I don't want to keep putting my hand up. But, Claire, this is where we might put a motion forward to decide to hold a hearing under nine over eleven, three. That's the best for the next landmark board meeting. Yeah. And just like with the hearing that we're holding today, the hearing would be scheduled for. Consider, to consider the initiation or to issue the the demolition approval. Ah, Ronnie, I see your hand raised. Yeah, um. I think that this property it's pretty squarely the category of needing to move forward with a hearing to review um whether or not to move forward to landmark designate this, I mean, I think we've

[56:06] heard from staff um about the people. The place, the larger and broader environmental aspects of it. I think it would be short-sighted of us to not review this in greater detail have that discussion, and also have the opportunity to discuss it potentially with additional information regarding the structure. Um and i'm being, i'm cognizant of Chelsea having to to leave shortly. Is there someone that would like to make a motion. Or do you want more discussion? I I think we're ready to make a motion and move forward. Yeah, i'll make a motion. Okay, I don't see any. I don't see any motion language. It's out there now. There it is. I move the landmarks board schedule a hearing to consider adopting a resolution to initiate the process for that

[57:04] for a landmark designation pursuant to Section nine, eleven, three of the boulder revised code, one thousand nine hundred and eighty one um alternatively issue a demolition. Permit pursuant to nine, eleven, twenty, three boulder device code, one thousand nine hundred and eighty, one for five Hundred and Sixty Eight Fourteenth Street. Do we have a second? I'm Sorry God I second that. Thank you. Ronnie Bill made the motion. Ronnie seconded it. Is there any more discussion before we take a about? Well, Chelsea, still with us. I do. Sorry I do have a few more minutes. So my a meeting that I Okay? Well, we appreciate you being here as long as you can. So um Bill, your vote, please. Aye, Chelsea, hey?

[58:02] Uh, John, I Ronnie. All right, I. So the motion passes unanimously, all right. So, moving on to my hopefully a little bit better update of one thousand eight hundred and four Mapleton Avenue. The subcommittee has not met with the applicants since the last site visit, which was on July the twenty second Um. We discussed some technical aspects of the zoning and code requirements. Um. And since then the applicant has stated that they currently do not see any viable options other than full demolition, and that they do not intend to submit information related to the condition of the building or the projected cost of restoration or repair.

[59:07] Um. So a little update on the significance of this building. It's a vernacular frame house, constructed pre one thousand eight hundred and ninety-eight We have not been able to nail down an exact date. It's very simple construction, with a hipped roof, form, and stone foundation. It was originally cited in wood, but now is cited in asbestos sighting. This front projecting bay also has a hipped roof Here, there's an inset entry porch with some moderate decorative details typical of the period, and a side porch which you can see kind of see behind the trees here and in the current image here

[60:05] is on the western elevation, and has similar detailing to the front porch. We believe it may, based on this photograph, which is one thousand nine hundred and twenty nine, We believe it may have been a duplex that early um, however, a a new rear edition, which you can't see it back here was added in one thousand nine hundred and sixty, seven, and that doubled the size of the house, leaving this front portion with its original form of massing, and creating a non-conforming legal duplex Ah, so this um hip reform was typically found in working class neighborhoods. Um! And ah, there are some. There's some history of the um, the renters and um people who owned the house

[61:09] um as early as the eighteen ninety S. Um. Mary Bartlett um purchased the house as a rental. She rented it to her various families, including the Bergstroms from Sweden. Um Gustav and his family purchased the house in one thousand nine hundred and five, and lived there until one thousand nine hundred and twenty six. They were um immigrants from Germany, and then Anna Anderson purchased a house, and she was an immigrant from Sweden in one thousand nine hundred and forty-three woody, Hewitt and his wife. Bertha rented the house. Briefly. Woody was a service station attendant, who eventually bought a Texaco station at the corner of Spruce and Broadway, and from one thousand nine hundred and fifty, one until one thousand nine hundred and sixty, eight. Woody was first State representative, and then a State senator.

[62:13] So for environmental significance This house is located within the potential Whittier historic district, and was recognized as a contributing building to the district. The proposed district in both the one thousand nine hundred and eighty eight, and the one thousand nine hundred and ninety-eight surveys. Um. Most of the ah residences in that proposed area are vernacular and reflect local taste custom and materials available at the time of construction. The buildings are predominantly single-family, although there are several early examples of deplexes, and in addition this house is prominently located on the east side of Jesse Fitzpatrick Park, which is a city park.

[63:03] You can see here the house right on the edge, and This is the one thousand nine hundred and sixty seven addition back here, and the rear of the house where you can see It's fully one thousand nine hundred and sixty seven. So any questions about this house? No clerk, thanks for that great refresher about this house. And again, this is an issue just like the previous property, where it's more a scheduling decision rather than going too far into the merits tonight. Um! And we have a little bit more time. I know Staff's recommendation is if the Board would like to hold an initiation hearing um that that would be at the November second meeting. So, Bill, and he thought it. Oh, I don't know to raise your hand first, Bill. Um! I was laughed so

[64:00] that doesn't matter. Um! I just want to point out, or I want to ask this question for clarification. The owner of this property as a developer. Am I correcting understanding that you know, Correct as such, he wants to make multiple units out of this particular lot. Is that correct? I mean, is that why that he does not have any more information to give us and won't provide any and engineering reports or anything else. The The answer that I actually got from the Development Review folks are. If this house was fully demolished. Then the ah! The thing that he could the developer could build on this site would have to conform to current zoning standards, and that would mean a single family residence. Not a duplex, I see, but regardless. Um. This particular individual feels that to get maximum value out of this particular piece of land, this

[65:03] believes that this property should be demolished in its entirety. Yes, that's my understanding. Yeah, yeah, i'm not trying to put words in your mouth. There, I'm just trying to point out that that what we're dealing with here is not someone who necessarily wants to live in and a homeown, or anything like that. It's a different kind of entity. Demolished property, Ronnie. Um, I I think we need to be careful about that description of who the applicant might be, because sure Lucas has plenty to say about this. It isn't an individual, a development team, or their motivation that might make us enforce the regulation differently. It truly is just the request itself.

[66:00] But that being said and Bill, you might have something to say about that. But that being said I do, I do. I do want to say something just to respond, Ronnie. It wasn't to do what you suggested I was doing. I wanted to understand if there was any hope at all of being able to preserve the property, because, you know, if you were a homeowner there could be potential to hold on to the front portion the historic portion, and demolish the rear, and maybe expand upon it. That's my only reason for asking that question. Just to get some clarity on where we're headed with this super smart. Yeah, I think that's available to this applicant, too. Um, but definitely And and so, you know, I I know that I'd ask Claire to present on this one, and i'm sure that they had that planned, anyway, because the you know, I think that again, like the last that we looked at, that This again meets the criteria for review, to advance it, to

[67:06] have a huge so to see if it'll have a hearing for landmark. Does it. Consideration, You know this building shows up in early records. I think it's form is still evidence intact. Window openings and placement, and even many of the details on this building are there? It's obvious that the back half of this home, not part of that You know aspect of the home that's of significance. But again I think that this home should move forward, and I plan to, after our discussion, make a motion um to see if we can um move it towards scheduling a hearing. Thank you, Ronnie John.

[68:02] I I just have one comment. I think it's very interesting in the picture that you have showing on the bottom left corner there. Um! Look at the veneer on that porch wall. It's just interesting. It's similar to the Eighth Street House veneer. I don't know if there's any relationship, or that's just something that was happening around here. So and I do concur with the things Ronnie just said, Thank you, Chelsea: Yeah, I agree that we should move forward with the hearing. Thank you and John. I don't know if you want to just say anything else before we entertain a motion. Um, yeah, i'm in favor of making a motion,

[69:00] and i'm sorry, Bill, do you um have anything to add before Ronnie makes a motion. No, I I I thought we were going to hold off doing this until next meeting um to hold a hearing for the November meeting. I think we could make this decision make the motion and potentially make a decision tonight with the expectation that it'll be scheduled for November. Yeah. Okay, okay, Ronnie, Would you like to make a motion right. I definitely do. I move that the Landmark Board schedule a hearing to consider adopting a resolution to initiate the process for landmark designation pursuant to Section nine, eleven, three of the Boulder revised code, one thousand nine hundred and eighty, one or alternatively issue a demolition, permit pursuant to section nine hundred and twenty, three brc, one thousand nine hundred and eighty, one for one thousand eight hundred and four. Mapleton. Do I have a second? I'll second.

[70:01] Thank you, John. So on the erosion, by bye, bye, by John! I heard his his reply. First, I will do a roll call. Vote um, Bill I Chelsea, I, John I, Ronnie, Hi, and I vote I, so that the motion passes unanimously to hold a hearing. On January the second for one thousand eight hundred and four Mapleton Avenue. Wait a minute, January the second. Oh, November, November. Did I say January? I believe you did. It's going fast enough. Well, I missed November second, twenty, twenty-two, Ronnie. It's. I just wanted to say that for these two properties

[71:05] I interested in hearing. If there is any opinion from historic boulder. Um, You know the the direction that these are headed. So I guess i'm just putting that out there. I know they have representation at most of our meetings. I have a participation list tonight, but if that is possible, I mean we do value your opinion. Um, and it would be great to hear that in either written format or at our next meeting. When we review these cases again, it looks like Patrick Patrick O'rourke is the historic boulder Attendee. Yeah, and Catherine Barth also serves on their board of directors.

[72:05] Um! I I think that you know it. It's interesting. Um, i'm so grateful when Catherine speaks up, um, And sometimes you know, I know that she's. I think she's speaking kind of as an individual um, and not read necessarily as representation from historic boulder. It's it's unclear to me. But I do think that maybe a voice from historic older that, you know, is there a consensus? Um would be super helpful on any topic like this. So I guess I'm just putting that back out there. So, Catherine, thank you for speaking up, and then, if maybe there is a version of that type of representation on behalf of historic boulder as well. That would be really great. Yeah. But I would say, if Catherine is a designee for this meeting. Then fine.

[73:02] I hear you, Ronnie, we don't. We don't know. Kathleen often speaks on behalf of herself. Yeah, exactly. Yeah, he doesn't register as a representative of historic boulder. Right? Okay, I don't know that, Brenda. You don't see me raised tams from someone, maybe from historic boulder. They may not have been able to join us tonight. Go! Work, is there? He's listed as an as an attendee, and I am seeing Catherine with her hand raised. Would you like me to unmute her at you? Yes, please, Catherine, you should be able to unmute. Hello! Um! I'd like to just clarify um, Patrick, I I think Patrick is. Patrick's mother passed away, and he has been doing ah funeral and family duties for the last week, and so I don't know if you

[74:07] he's here that's just great. But my participation tonight was really for me and my my personal interest in small houses, and trying to save small houses, because, in my view, small houses are the closest things we've got to keeping some affordable housing. I wish we had a program of the city that when a small house came up that the city would say, We'll take it, and we will have this be an affordable housing unit. Um, so i'm. I'm very interested in small houses. I've I think that as I mentioned, and I I don't know if you guys got my email, which was pretty late today, did you receive an email from. But we did, Catherine.

[75:01] Okay, Um. So I I will not repeat, repeat that. But to me I think there's them. The the small houses that housed big families usually that were not wealthy. I think those people are so important to Well, i'm in the boulder, and it's really easy to you know, focus on the lawyers and the bankers and the But I think that the the humble person ah, who maybe had a bed, you know, worked in those ah North boulder, vegetable gardens, and orchards. Ah! That to me is so important to the development of Boulder, and and that's my personal thing. I I really believe in small houses. Thank you, Catherine. And would you be willing to share with um the Board of Directors and the Preservation Committee kind of Ronnie's interest in seeing if they have any um

[76:08] thoughts about this as we proceed to the two hearings in the next two months. Yes, yes, and um. I'll be happy to talk with Patrick. I I I think, if he, if he's tuned in at all tonight, he's so far away with his grieving family, so he'll be back, and then we will. The The procedure that really we'd like to take is that we have a meeting of the Preservation Committee, and we examine whatever the issue is, we make a recommendation to the board, and and then the Board will take a position for the organization. Okay, Great? Well, we hope to hear from you on both these upcoming hearings. Thank you. So now it's time to move on to our public hearing this evening. Um, we're about nineteen minutes later than we thought approximately we would be. But I think that's great, because I think there's been some great discussion and some great things that we may even table for the future. But I think there's been some really um wonderful things. Um food for thought tonight, so we'll move on to agenda. Item five A. It's a public hearing and consideration of a motion to adopt a resolution to initiate the process for landmark Disease

[77:29] nation pursuant to Section nine over eleven, three of the boulder revised code, or alternately issue a demolition approval, pursuit to Section nine, eleven, twenty, three, Br. C. One thousand nine hundred and eighty one. But Claire Um. I see that on the notes, but actually because the demolition permits been withdrawn. That's no longer an action. We can take. Correct. That is correct. I missed that I should have liked so so it's a motion to initiate the process of

[78:06] um landmark designation, and with that, with that we'll move on to the first public hearing and the staff presentation. Thank you, Abbey. So this the everybody is correct. The the alternative to issue the demolition. Approval is no longer an option, and I will get into details of that a little bit later. So this is just an initiation hearing, and it is legislative in nature. Um. So the procedure is slightly different than a quasi judicial hearing. The board does not need to reveal any exporte contacts that they're welcome to do so if they choose. Um! The process is generally the same. I'll give a staff presentation. The board may ask questions. Um. The owner may give a presentation. The owners representative Um is going to give a presentation tonight,

[79:06] and the Board may ask questions. Um! The public hearing will be open for public comment, and the Board may ask questions of the public, and then the public hearing will be closed, and the Board will discuss and make a motion. I didn't update this one, either, and we'll get into the options for the motion a bit later also. So this has been the process so far. The Ldl referred the application to the landmarks board on January twelfth. The application was for a proposal of full demolition of the House, and the Board placed a stay of demolition at a hearing on June first. During the course of this day we've hosted two site visits with staff, landmarks, board members, and the owners and the public

[80:06] Um, and then, on August third, the landmarks board voted to schedule a hearing to initiate landmark designation or issue the demolition permit. On August thirty First, the owners withdrew the application for full demolition. The Landmarks Board is actually the applicant for the initiation. It's a separate process and a separate separate application. So, even though the demolition application was withdrawn, the initiation hearing was still held tonight, and this does change the options a little bit tonight. So the board has two options, because the application for demolition was withdrawn. The stay will not continue the board

[81:02] option. One may vote to not initiate designation, and if that's the case. The application will be closed. A decision today to not initiate designation does not affect a future decision. Um, so designation may be initiated at a future date. For example, if full demolition was proposed in the future, the process would follow the same demolition review process, and could end up in exactly this place at a different date. Um option number two is that the Board may vote to initiate designation, and a future hearing will be held. I've crossed out this one, because the Board cannot approve the demolition application. As this application has been withdrawn. Any questions, John, you have your hand raised. Yeah, Um. My question is, I do have one, I guess,

[82:07] um ex parte contact that I would like to state at some point when when is the time to do that, Claire, but I thought you said that that it was since it's not quasi-judicial it's legislative. We don't have to announce any export day we've had that is correct. So there's your answer, John. Okay? Well, I just want to quickly state it. Um, just because I like everything in the open. Um, i'm friends with both Emily Stack and her husband, Jason, who is potential builder on this project. I had a phone conversation with Jason one day um and explain to him. I really couldn't talk about anything at that time. I thought it was in quasi-judicial when I explained him what that meant,

[83:07] but I had that conversation, and i'm an old friend of his. That's just for the record. Okay, Did anybody else want to add anything or have any questions? I just want to add something just just for clarification. For myself. The process, if we were to go all the way through and recommend landmarking of this property to the Boulder city council would require two hearings: Right, Claire. It would require two additional public hearings. In addition to this one a designation, hearing, and then a city council, public hearing, and in between those it would also be on the City Council consent agenda. So it would be scheduled to three additional hearings.

[84:01] Well, but I mean. Oh, thank you. I I should have been more precise, I mean, in terms of the landmarks board. When we act, we only actually, if we go all the way through to recommendation to council. We go through two processes. So tonight um! Are we going to vote potentially to move to the next hearing process which would be the initiation of designation. No, you'd actually move to the designation hearing. So this one is the initiation of designation which the way I like to think about it is that the the application was created by the landmarks board It wasn't given to you by the owner. It's um against their wishes. So the Alarmox Board created the application, and this is the landmarks board, deciding whether they're going to accept their application to initiate, in which case it would move to a designation. Hearing. Ordinarily we would, we would go straight to a designation, hearing had the application come from the owner.

[85:07] So this is a nine hundred and eleven five designation hearing right now that we're having. No, this is the initiation hearing. So we're nine over eleven, three. What? So i'm confused. Yeah, tonight would be to move to nine, eleven, five if we were to go all the way through the process. Correct. That would require yet another hearing. The designation hearing correct. Yeah, we got it. Okay, Okay, Did anybody else have any questions? We can move on. Okay, Good. All right. We are in nine over eleven, three, which is the initiation of designation um, and the meat of the criteria is in nine, eleven, three um. The first item of nine, eleven, three, just to confuse. Everybody refers back to nine, eleven, one and nine, eleven, two, and that outlines the the purposes and standards that we use

[86:12] to determine. If the Board has probable cause to believe the building might be eligible for designation as an individual landmark. In addition, nine, eleven, three Um. Directs the board to review the application based on whether there are currently resources available to complete outreach and analysis. If there is community in neighborhood support, if the building needs protections provided through designation. If the proposed designation is consistent with the goals and policies of the Boulder Valley comprehensive plan, or if the proposed designation would generally be in the public interest. Um, nine, eleven, three is legislative, so the Board can consider any of the information heard so far about the property,

[87:06] so the way that that Marcy explains. This is that during the Demolition Review there are very specific guardrails that define what the Board may consider, and at an initiation hearing the guardrails are off. I'm. Going to. So did anyone have any questions about that. So the guard rails typically would have been off from the last meeting when we decided to vote to have this meeting the and now, so that whole one month period, the guard rails would have been on. I have no idea. I know, during the stay that the the Board can consider anything that might help preserve the building. Yeah, technically, we're still in. We were still in the stay until August the thirty first. Yeah, that's a little little gray area. But I think the fact of the matter is, we're about to vote on whether we want to go to a designation hearing

[88:05] that would be a whole different kettle of fish if we decided to go that far. So um to orient you thirty, one, twenty-two. Eighth Street is located in the Newlands neighborhood, between Evergreen. And Forest. Here a forest is up here. The house faces Eighth street. It is not within an identified potential historic district. The house features a shallow, pitched pyramidal roof, with a cooked gable at the peak, and an asymmetrical facade, where one half is recessed for this front entrance. Here the house is faced with polygonal stone,

[89:03] the house was built in one thousand nine hundred and forty-eight by Ira Long Ira worked for the city street department in one thousand nine hundred and forty, and was a carpenter by the late nineteen forty S. He went into business for himself. Um! In one thousand nine hundred and fifty. Clyde and opal folk purchased the property from the lungs, and lived there until one thousand nine hundred and seventy eight. Ah Clyde served as the Secretary of the Pleasant Range, Pleasant View, Grange and I, Clyde, and both both died in one thousand nine hundred and seventy eight, and their son Dahl, sold the house soon after the property passed through a series of short-term owners, and the current owners purchased property in two thousand and twenty-one. None of the past residents appear to be historically significant on local state or national levels. So, as I mentioned ere long built this house. He also built at least four houses in the Newlands neighborhood, between one thousand nine hundred and forty, eight and one thousand nine hundred and fifty, two,

[90:09] all of the ones that we found had a hit roof box style. Um shown here is a Thirty Seventy Eighth Street, which was constructed in one thousand nine hundred and fifty, one and twenty, nine, fifty, eight, Seventh Street, which Ira built in one thousand nine hundred and fifty, two, and they are both still standing relatively current images. So Mr. Long clad thirty, one, twenty, two, Eighth Street. Here, with the Polygonal stone um permit records show that He also clared the house next door, which he also owned with the same stone around the same time, although he did not build this house, as far as we can tell it's interesting. I should pause here and say, Did anybody have any questions?

[91:10] All right? Um! So even though there's not a strong association with historically significant people or events. And the area doesn't really have historic integrity. Staff interpretation is that thirty, one, twenty, two, Eighth Street would be eligible for individual landmark designation based on the criteria that's outlined at nine, eleven, one, and nine over eleven two. However, a probable cause which addresses whether the building could be designated is only one of the items the Board should consider to identify if the building should be designated. So the other items in nine, eleven three are, whether there are staff resources for outreach and analysis, and, as you know, staff resources are currently limited.

[92:07] Also, if there is community and neighborhood support which has been minimal um, and importantly, to today's hearing whether the building needs the protections provided through designation and in the memo we noted that if the stay of demolition expired, the demolition approval would be issued. Um, However, there is no current demolition application, so the demolition approval will not be issued if the Board takes no action today, or if the Board does not initiate designation, and the buildings do not currently need the protections provided through designation. The so the Board is also asked to consider if initiation over the owner's objection represents a reasonable balance between private property rights and the public's interest, and is considered consistent with the Boulder Valley Comprehensive plan.

[93:14] The ability to initiate designation over the owner's objection is kind of an extraordinary power that is given to the landmarks Board, and We've used it sparingly, and with a lot of consideration given to the interest of the public and to future residents of Boulder for this property, because the community benefit is somewhat diluted by the lack of historic character in the surrounding neighborhood. And Um. And also context is really important. And this neighborhood is not a proposed historic district staff. Couldn't recommend initiating um initiating designation over the Owner's objection. It's.

[94:02] So. This summarized staff's reasons for recommending to not initiate landmark designation but I can pause here and ask if anyone has any questions. It's that's the staff presentation. Thank you, Claire. And now we'll move on to the app um the presentation by. And Claire, did you say? Um, Is Emily going to be doing the presentation on behalf of the owners this evening? I believe she is, she can correct me if the owners would like to speak.

[95:07] See, i'm the way it's name, Emily. You should be able to turn on your camera and use your mute button. There you go. We can't hear you currently. However, I wonder if your headset is connected to zoom. They cannot. You may already be doing this. But if with the little drop-up arrow next to the mute button, we'll give you some microphone options,

[96:00] and you may want to tell it to use your headset microphone. Okay, there it is. Now you can hear me. We can. Hello! Oh, good! Okay, All right. Ah, Hi, Emily! Ella, Thank you for joining us tonight before you begin, and you'll have to ten minutes. Um, We do need to swear you in, so if you raise your right hand and state your name. That would be great. My name is Emily Stack. Okay, Thank you. And you Okay, Um, I'm: with Daedalus studio architecture, and I'm the architect for Tiffany and Josh, whither the owners of the house located at thirty, one, twenty, twenty, two, Eighth Street um also. First off I wanted to apologize for not being here at the previous hearing. Unfortunately, I suffered a pretty significant back injury. Um! I was in no shape to be in public, either virtually or in person, but i'm doing much better, and please be here now.

[97:05] Um! This presentation is going to be short and sweet from our perspective. Tiffany and Josh have decided to withdraw their application for demolition. They are not going to do anything to their house at this time. Ah, things were moving pretty quickly, and unfortunately, as we heard in other people speaking, we just did not have adequate time to perform proper due diligence on the house with respect to its existing structural integrity and other items that were raised by the home inspection back in October of two thousand and twenty one, and, as we all know, in the construction industry. Right now there are extreme shortages in labor architects, engineers, and general contractors. We were having significant trouble getting a structural engineer to the site to perform a proper assessment in the allowed time, frame, and understanding that once the clock starts ticking, it cannot be stopped.

[98:00] Um, I do feel the structural assessment is an absolutely mandatory step in the due diligence process, and there, just didn't seem to be adequate time. And to have we we contacted Jewel Smiley to come. Look at the house to give his opinion as well, which I think you all probably are familiar with him. But long story short, Tiffany and Josh were feeling overwhelmed, and they wanted to take a step back and assess all of the options before them in a more calm and relaxed and controlled manner. So in summary, the existing house is currently not at risk, and Tiffany and Josh are not planning to do anything until they can gather and process and assess all of the information. If and when they want to do something, the house might come back before you again. But thank you so much. Um, Thank you, Emily, for joining us, and for that explanation. Do any Board members have any questions for Emily?

[99:07] I i'm not seeing any. So now we will move on to public comment for this public hearing. Ah, Brenda, do you see any hands raised? I do not see any hands at the moment, but do invite members of the public who have joined us tonight to raise your hand at this time to indicate that you would like to participate in the public hearing. If they count to Seven Abbey, we don't see any hands. Okay, thank you. Then we'll go ahead and close what we participation for this item. And I also think it's fair to say, Emily, you don't have anything you need to re. But since there was no public comment, so we will now move on to board discussion,

[100:11] and I ask everyone else to please mute your computer phone for the duration of this discussion. So, Bill, would you like to start this off, Bill, you're still muted. Thank you, Ronnie. I see your ripe lip reading capacity still intact, though. Um now I have nothing to add at this time. Um, John, he's Well, i'm going to say that I pretty much concur with Staff's findings on this having gone through the process, don't feel like

[101:00] I guess Objectives are served by continuing at this point. The first and main goal was to attempt to avoid demolition, and i'm not going to talk about demolition again um you, and that the time being has been met, and I see Chelsea still here. So i'm going to ask her if she'd like to go next before, Roddy, because i'm not sure when we might lose you this evening. Yeah, Same: i'm not sure if there. Um. But thank you. Ah, yeah, I just. I want to um support the Staff's recommendation to not move forward with designation. There is no um immediate threat of the property or home. Um being demolished. And um I think that

[102:00] you know they they, you know they've There's been a clear um opinion and desire from the homeowners throughout this whole process that they, you know they don't want to landmark this this their own house and um, and they especially don't want to do it without the information that they need to assess whether or not you know they can afford those changes, or whether it's for it to them to make those changes um due to the higher cost. So I yeah, I hope that we come together and are able to to move forward in that direction, and knowing that if there is a decision in the future for them to move forward with demolition, request, or a designation request. Then we can handle that decision at that time. Thank you, Chelsea. Ronnie.

[103:00] Yeah, I agree with Chelsea's description. I think that as Staff and Emily have stated, the home is no longer under threat of demolition, and I think in this case advancing this further is not necessary, and so what I would like to add to the conversation is that I think both Emily and the homeowners have gone above and beyond to meet with landmarks Board members. You know you. You let us have two site visits there that I know it perhaps more. I really appreciate the efforts and the willingness to meet and hear our concerns, our questions, and our interest in this and um, this is unique, and and you know, I know there there are certain types of hearings where, by the applicants withdrawal we would not have a public hearing. But we initiated this we voted to hold this meeting, so we do need to um do something, and i'm in agreement with my colleagues that um

[104:14] Well, I personally think that this house um does meet the criteria for individual designation. Um, I don't think now is the time to pursue that I think that the withdrawal of the demo permit makes it clear. Cut um that we can vote not to initiate tonight. It does not preclude us down the road. If there was ever an interest or a need to do so, and I don't know if someone would like to make a motion at this point i'd be happy to make a motion. Um, Um, all right. So I move that the landmarks board adopt the staff memorandum dated September Seven Point one, two, as the findings of the board and not initiate the process for landmark designation. Finding that it does not meet the criteria for such initiation pursuance in Section nine, eleven, three initiation of designation for individual landmarks and historic districts of the Boulder Revised code, one thousand nine hundred and eighty one,

[105:18] and in balance is not consistent with the goals and policies of Section two point, two, seven of the volt. Folder Valley. A comprehensive plan is there a second John Seconds. It's on a motion by Chelsea, seconded by John. Is there any more discussion before we take a vote? Yeah, I have a point I want to raise um. This is to Claire. Claire. You made a comment in your presentation that, regardless of what happens at this particular meeting, this is not to indicate that this ah condition that we're voting on will hold. If, in fact, we land right back at the same place when and if a demo, a future demolition request comes through. Is that correct?

[106:11] That is correct. So that means that. And this is to Lucas Lucas. Would this mean, then, that if we put this motion in where we actually say that we find that the that this does not meet the criteria um, and then balance isn't consistent with the goals and policies that that particular is rendered moot. If we come right back to the same place in the future, this spell would be moved in the sense that you would be making a new decision, based on whatever evidence and facts are at the time that it comes before you again. So this decision would not bind you to any particular decision in a subsequent hearing in the future.

[107:01] Okay it. The language of that is kind of problematic, as Bill has pointed it out, because we're simply vacating the action at this point. Is there a better way to state that I I agree, John, with that, because I I would rather we take an action tonight versus no action. But I I think you're right now that I see it in front of me on the screen. Yeah, that is a little. That is, as Bill just brought out, it could be interpreted little more problematic way. We're saying it doesn't Meet the criteria the it just doesn't need to happen now. Yeah, it Doesn't: Well, not only that, but i'd like to suggest. Maybe we add instead of is not consistent with the goals and policies that we simply say, and therefore do not find it necessary to

[108:03] to hold a public hearing to um to discuss the designation, thinking that initiation is different than designation. Two separate hearings. They they are different. Yeah. So what i'm thinking what I'm: hoping we do. Here is we say, okay to John's Point. We're vacating this whole business. We're not finding anything, because I'm not necessarily going to say that I agree with what Staff has proposed, but I certainly am in favor of not going to nine over eleven, five, and initiating a designation, hearing, holding the designation, hearing, could we just end it at as the findings of the board, and not initiate the process for landmark designation. Could we just end it there and not get into, not consistent with the goals?

[109:03] Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, we didn't really find it. Yeah, yeah, we didn't find Ronnie. I saw your hand up. Yeah, I mean, i'm glad that you brought this up, Bill. I was planning on doing the same. I was going to suggest that we look at the criteria that was listed, but I prefer this direction, which is modify the language, and just for clarification. I think that the property is no longer under threat of demolition. To me. Specifically. That is the thing that is the that was the trick, the thing that it's the thing that everybody here has spoken about, and that they're agreeing on. Not that there are other qualities that are a criteria, but I am hearing one version of it from Abi in different versions from others. So to me it's no longer under the threat of demolition,

[110:00] right? And I think that that is the specificity that we need. Yeah, by saying that whereas the demolition request has been withdrawn. If you want to put that somewhere in this language. Yeah, I mean, I think that this captures that. What do you think, though I think it does. I think that's excellent. It sounds people here. Yeah, I accept your friendly amendments. But let's go ahead and read it to the record. If you would be kind enough to read it. Sure, I move that the Landmarks board adopt the staff memorandum, dated September seventh, twenty twenty two is the findings of the board, not initiate the process for landmark as a nation, as the property is not currently under demolition. Thank you, Emma. Okay. So um. The new motion, as read by Chelsea, seconded by Ronnie Any more discussion before we take a vote.

[111:02] Okay, Bill Bye, Chelsea, I. John I. Ronnie I it and I vote is so. The Board unanimously moves not to um initiate landmark designation of this property at this point. Thank you. I I do have to go, Chelsea. Thank you for making you in here. I like a bill, I bye. So now we'll move on to matters.

[112:00] I guess that's me. I should wake up on your schedule. We're only about eight minutes over, So thank you. That's awesome, Claire, I'd like to add. I'd like to have one more point to discuss, since I believe that Council has given it to the individual boards to decide if they want to start meeting in person or stay with virtual meetings. You I can actually address that. Now. We are waiting for some direction from city council as to when we go back in person, and also the the city manages office there. The um. The last proposal was to um to have boards go back in an organized way so that they can iron out any wrinkles there would be in in providing meetings that were both online and also in person, and

[113:12] that's currently, as far as I know where we stand. With that we're still waiting for direction from them. So well, I want to add a little piece of information. I spoke with a Council member directly about this, and they told me that they had voted on allowing boards and committees to decide for themselves whether they wanted to go virtual or not. So is what you're telling me, contrary to what he told me or is there? What? You What! You're telling me? Something additional to what he told me? That's the information I know. If how about Christopher? Do you know anything more about this. I no, I don't know anything in addition to that bill. So now the city manager's office, and they you,

[114:00] I to say that the um. The information that Claire shared is the last information that I have seen come out of both the city manager's office in the State Clerk's office, who we take our guidance from on boardroom, but I can certainly go back and and ask about that conversation. It was the last meeting. Yeah, i'm happy to um to try and clarify that and and send out a message to you to be clear. I wasn't fishing around, you know. Yeah, yeah, This just came up in a conversation, and I thought, Oh, wow! That's pretty interesting. So you guys decided that so we can decide for ourselves which direction we might go. So I was actually hoping to have seen that item on our on our matters list, and it's see it. That's why I put it on. But, yeah, if you can check it out.

[115:00] Yeah, And maybe that that the will of Council is that we work is that staff make that possible. There are, as Claire said. Some logistic issues that we're trying to get through in order to make hybrid meetings possible for boards and commissions. I i'm not sure if we've addressed an either or question. I think we have made an assumption that our public who currently is able to attend meetings online would like to still have that option for boards and commissions um as opposed to offering boards and commissions, the opportunity to be wholly in person without a hybrid capability. Um, So I can also check on that question for you, Bill, and for all of you. Thank you, Brenda. Um. So the other thing that you might have seen that came out of the um City clerk's office, I believe, was that they have scheduled a chair and vice-chair orientation um for October first, and um you are all welcome to attend that. Um, I don't.

[116:05] No if the information went to you also, if you'd like more information about about that, it is a Saturday, and it is going to be a virtual meeting. So if you want more information about that, let me or Aubrey know, and also we have an upcoming Conference, which is also going to be held virtually, exclusively. I believe, Aubrey, is it exclusively virtual? It is the the saving Places Conference, and they are going to do some virtual sessions before the Conference date, which is November first through third. So if you would like to attend those Conference sessions, please let Aubrey know before Friday after next, which is the sixteenth. So September sixteenth, because we would like to um. We would like to get you all signed up, and then see if we can offer the um those slots to to other people in the city. If we don't fill them all, we have

[117:16] ten available slots that come with our membership to that organization. So um any questions. The schedule for the virtual sessions in the chat. If you want to check it out, he's. Yeah, and just let me know. We're giving you first dips ten slots. Total. Yeah. And this is the National Trust for Historic Preservation Conference. Correct? Yeah, Yes, thank you for clarifying, and it's technically called the pass forward right right? And then you

[118:00] three more continuing education units for this year, thanks to it, via Napc very generously getting me nine, and you should check out the schedule because there'll definitely be some in that com during that conference. Yeah, I will. I'll be looking all right, Abby. Did you want to talk a little bit about the Board initiatives? Yeah. So this won't um take too long. But I really appreciated Bill really considering topics of bringing this forward to us, and he and I had had a conversation about this before the last board meeting, and I was trying to think how to not let this just all off the radar, and what i'd like to propose, and I didn't have an opportunity to tell Bill about this, but what I am willing to do is take um the initiative I I have a copy of the topics that both Bill gave and that staff it on the slide in our August meeting. And what i'd like to do is maybe do a little spreadsheet for each topic, or if a couple of them can be worked together in buckets, and what i'd like to approach it. You know, in journalism how they,

[119:19] who, what, where, and when I would like to look at each topic, to try to see what it might take to make progress on that, and I would do sort of my first threshold. Question for me would be, Why, what we would need to do, what all might be involved, especially what might have to be involved on Staff's time and energy. And then, you know, the other question for me is, who and Bill? I've been thinking a lot about this. I think we have some wonderful resources we could reach out to that. We don't utilize a lot, and that's past Landmark's board members because they might have an interest in a certain topic or a certain issue, and they've said

[120:03] in our seats, you know, and they walked in our feet, and I thought they might be willing to do that. And what I thought I would do is, you know, do a little template for each topic. Or again, if they can be grouped under one, you know. Let Staff see it. Let Bill see it, but you know, I think I would also try to put what I think it would take time wise to do that. But after that, and this is going to be over, you know, multiple months. It's not all going to come to everybody before October twelve. But then what I think would be interesting, and um would need. The whole board buy-in is to have board members that if we can get a grasp of what a particular topic might entail time in or do resources, and who might be interested in assisting with that. It's kind of rank them, you know, and kind of see what topics rise to the top. It doesn't mean that other topics would go away, but that they might just be further down the road to kind of um have a really robust discussion, or bring um, you know, into something we could actively pursue. But that sort of i'm willing to take that on and do that, and to see where we get on this, because I i'm afraid if we don't do anything, they're just going to fall by the wayside.

[121:30] So if everyone, if anyone has any questions, things that might be a path forward to, at least see what we you know, I want to try to get my arms around what each potential initiative might require. Can we? I was gonna say thanks for taking that on. I think well wait a minute. I have my hand up, Ronnie.

[122:02] Sorry I can't be on my screen. It's waiting to see how long it would take for somebody. This is why we have to step in. And you know, yeah, on on top of people. Because this is why I hate virtual meetings. I do not like these things. I'd be much happier in person as much as a pain as it is to go down to that building. Much rather have it that way. But anyway. How do you really feel built? No, that's how I, Ronnie, my age. I don't hold back much, but you know I want to say one thing before Ronnie starts having this will never drop by the wayside. You know why? Because we've written it down, we true. True, we all have copies of it, and I will never let my copy go away, so it'll never go. By the way, we may never act on any of that stuff, but it won't ever go away, confirmed

[123:00] Bill. What do you think about what Abbey is saying? Do you think that's a could step forward to help us organize our thoughts on these topics, or you know I don't want to pool it, and I I I like the way it sounds, Abby. I think it's as good as anything to try to like. Keep keep this moving along. I happen to think the real, the real rub, the stands with our historic preservation staff that are staring right at us on this board on this meeting board. That is where I think the issue is because it most of the stuff going to require them to participate in some way, shape or form the and um getting more staff. I've not been quiet about this. I've gone. I told Christopher I've told Brad I've told some Council members, you know. I keep saying we need more staff partially out of You know self

[124:03] self-interest. I mean, I want to see a lot of that stuff get done. That's on that list, and I know, with our staffing situation, where, as it currently is, that it ain't going to happen. So I think it's okay, Abby, to do that. But but I honestly, if you want me to speak, my heart have to say, I think we have to deal with the real staff situation that's before us today in order to make any of this stuff actually physically happen. I hear you, Bill, but I do think there are some potential partners out there in the community that can help move the ball forward. Yeah, okay, I mean, I didn't say don't do it. I just said, I still think that the final rub comes down to the You know what Staff is going to be capable and able to help do, and um, you know I know it's a different ball game. It will be a a much different ball game once once um Marcy gets back from her um leave um than what it was before under prior guidance. So maybe that will cause things to change, and maybe we'll be able to do

[125:11] in a different fashion that will, actually, you know, accomplish some of these goals. I don't know. I mean Christopher, You're kind of silent here. This is your team. Yeah, I know you don't hold the purse strings. I get it. So you know, i'm trying to be as effective as I can. And what limited way that I can be, and that is just to use my mouth and use whatever little energy I have left in this body, and go around and try and get more staff. However, I think I can make it happen. Yeah, absolutely no. And I think you know, I think we certainly at my level, and I know Brad, our you know our new director is very, very interested in this for our preservation, and and very sympathetic to the you know, to the limited size of our team, and so I think we, as a department, are continuously starting to look at other ways that we can make the current team that we have work as efficiently as possible, so that we can take on

[126:17] a bit more special projects, and you know not be dealing so much with the day-to-day type of work as well. And so, looking at our current team, obviously looking at future opportunities to expand that team that's, certainly on my radar one going forward at the you know the current two thousand and twenty-three budget doesn't include any additional staff or um historic reservations specifically, but we're always looking for some cross-training opportunities across other other groups and other divisions within the department, to again to see if we can't sort of spread out some of that some of that day-to-day work to free up folks like Claire and Marcy and the rest of the team to work on some of these other more policy-driven projects,

[127:03] or maybe that will help, you know. Maybe maybe other money will come available for contracting um contractors or consultants to come in and help. Possibly one thing I do want to add to Abby's list Abbey, and I think another dimension to each one of these should be Staff's assessment to um success, like what the staff an is a stout whoever the heck is designated that could best from Christopher's group. Best address this and say, Okay, this particular thing, right here is going to require too much staff, level work and or this particular thing requires. And and before we can get to say we've been successful in actually accomplishing that.

[128:03] What I wouldn't want to see us do is like what happened with the paint project that John and I got sucked into the we were misled into thinking we were doing something that was going to be correct. And then at the last minute somebody pulled out a pocket veto and said, Oh, no, no, no, no! Here, give us all that here. You guys can't do that here. We'll do it. And if I had known that from the beginning. I wouldn't have done all that work. Neither would have John, but that's what i'm saying. Have a staff assessment upfront on each one of these guys, let us know a the possibility or the probability for for um actually having it accomplished within this current year. And or um, is this something that can actually conceivably ever done without any staff work. So we don't waste our time. Well, what i'm happy to do is start putting something together for staff to even respond to, you know, to start breaking it down a little bit in bullet points, and maybe identify some some resources in the community and in boulder and beyond, you know, with Cpi and Denver, and

[129:14] let's go forth. So I think it's. I think it's better than yeah. I think somebody has any better ideas. I'm for it, John or Ronnie. Do you have anything to add? Well, I think I think that it's it's kind of a excellent approach that you're taking Abbey, I think at least it's. It's It's breaking things into bite sizes, maybe, which is the only when you have in my experience with having twenty things going at the same time is kind of what happens in my life a lot. At some point you just get to where you just have to jump in on anything, because everything that gets done needs to be done in some form.

[130:12] Some things are critical path, and they're dependent on a previous thing being done but other things. You just take a bite and start working from one side to the other, So that's if that's all we've got um until we get staff or we get other support outside body. Maybe I think that's the right. That's the right way to try to accomplish something and not just talk about it, Ronnie. Anything you would. Yeah, I mean, thanks for working on this Abbey. I do think it will be valuable. So you know, I look forward to seeing it. I don't disagree with Bill

[131:04] kind of on two points, one being like we're going to need some staff help in order to accomplish these tasks, and that's just a reality. And I think we need to be, you know, patient, but also prepared when we have the bandwidth to do it. Um! And then I think one thing that Bill brought up that's just worthy of repeating is that we don't want to put our volunteer efforts to waste, and that in the past, when there has been significant time spent on something that seems like a subcommittee project, and it gets shelved because we're the wrong people to be working on it, for whatever reason you know, that makes it hard to show up for a meeting or to volunteer for the next thing, and I do know that that has happened. So you know I hear you, Bill. I think, Bill, you have done an incredible job, you know, spending extra time outside of these meetings, pushing forward some of these agenda items and

[132:01] um, you know, I think, that we have had significant success on some of them, and then I will say, I have also felt like we've dropped the ball on others. Um! I am particularly interested in the demo review um and regulation around that updates, and whatever we can do to push that forward. When I think we're fully staffed, and I think this might actually be an area of expertise from Rc. That that would be a significant accomplishment if we tackled that within a year's time, and actually had a change in that world. So I look forward to that. Thank you. Um! So I mean i'll start on it, and i'll. I'll share it with stuff. I'll keep building the loop, and we'll just see you know It's It's going to become kind of crystal Clear quickly. What's doable? What's not what might you know need more time, and so forth. But I want to start somewhere.

[133:02] Brenda has an update about board and commission meetings returning into person. So, Brenda, would you like to share that with us now I would um. I reached out to Sarah Huntley, my um director, and the director of communication and engagement. Um! And she said that the Council discussion did not result in a vote on this. They were more focusing on formats for their own meetings in that discussion. Um! And so there has not been a vote of any kind on formats for words and captions. Um, she's not sure what um that will look like. Yet, if that is something, Council will want to weigh in on um. But currently Staff is working on um plans and proposals for that. Uh, thank you. It's Wendy. Thank you, Brenda. Is there anything else We're We're kind of close to journey at a projected time of eight, fifteen, a eight, fifteen, Pm. Hasn't: been that one. But yeah, I only one comment just can't comment back back on our list of stuff and staff

[134:12] staffability, You know we we all voted. It was a unanimous vote to allow the shell boundary to be expanded, and it was shot down partially because somebody said, Well, we can do a historic district in its place, and that would be even better than just having a Dan Shell boundary expansion. Well, you know, there's a trade off on that right. The trade off is that Staff is going to have to be doing. That's a big project. So that's less stuff that staff can help us do, because if we had just put it to bed with the banshell Boundary could have taken our time on coming up with the historic district for that area. But now not only one staff, but

[135:02] Oh, yeah, it's a big deal. I know it is. I'm sure. Marcy called everybody like she called me before she went on leave, and we talked about that, and she understood that that was going to be like a top priority. Um! So ah! Yet yet there was never a vote taken by council to tell Staff to do that. It was the same kind of thing that Brenda is talking about with the in person versus virtual. They talked about it, and they said, Well, we should do it, and you know, but I think I don't think Christopher correct me if i'm wrong. I don't think you've gotten a direct mandate from city council to start that project them, to remember that there was a not a five to it, to direct Staff, to begin that project, or to to plan for that for next year, and initiate that as soon as possible. I think there was definitely some caution from Council members about making a work plan decision just during rate of repeating, and not as part of the retreat at the beginning of the year.

[136:07] Um, But we took that direction to heart and and the historic district and the demolition code update are the two primary items that we are planning to focus on in twenty, twenty, three. So there's going to be some overlap in terms of when they actually get, you know, get started. We have some work to do to prepare for the district conversation. But those are both definitely the two priority projects that we have planned out for next year. As long as you know, it does get going, and somebody doesn't, you know, throw you a curve ball and come back at you and say, Well, no, you don't have to go. Do go through with that we never really told you to do it. I mean It's a good thing to do it. I'm not saying it's something we should not do. But but I just say well, because you have to do that, there's all these other things you can't do. We have a whole list of stuff, as you now see of things we'd like to work on. That can't be worked on because

[137:04] for the come up with a there's Ronnie with his. He's saying he's Ronnie. No, I wasn't trying to get your attention. I was. I didn't have a hand up It's just different topics, though I didn't try to interrupt you. No, i'm done. I'm done. I just wanted to point that out. I had a very different thing to say I just if anybody else has anything to say about the last topic. I don't wanna Okay, Um: Oh, yeah, i'll just I'll just empathize and say, Bill, you're You're not alone. That happens to the planning board as well that there are things that planning Board members might want to put forward or ask city council to prioritize on the work plan, and it's It's always a discussion of you know. What? What's the staffing? What's the budget? What's the work? Plan?

[138:02] Um. So i'll just offer my empathy that you know we're there, too. See? I'm sure I know we're not alone. Uh, thank you, Laura Ronnie. Um. So off topic a handful of years ago the city offered tours of public works facilities, including the water treatment plant. The and I missed. It was out of town. I would love to see the water treatment plan, and to have a tour of that, as well as any other major public facility that we're managing. That is kind of like backbone structure to how the city works. Um! There might be an aspect of it that has to do with waste, disposal and waste removal, although I've been to the dump so many times in my life. Um!

[139:01] I'd still go there again and get the tour. I'd love to see what's going on. I know that sounds silly, but in the sense that in the sense that it seems so removed some of the stuff that we're talking about. But i'm very interested in that, and I felt like participating on this board, opened a door for me that was going to reopen again, to get to see some of those inner workings that again are just like how this city functions and it didn't show up again. I asked for this again a couple of years ago. I think it just kind of disappeared. I mean, obviously, I don't know who else to ask. But how can I do that? How do we get involved in that? And when are those made available to volunteers for boards. Maybe that's a question for you, Christopher.

[140:01] I'll certainly dig into it. Obviously, I don't have the history of that. And what that looks like, or what the history is there. Maybe Brenda has some full time. Allergy mean? It should be required for all voters in the city of you question for the city manager's office. It might be. I do have a little context for how those tours came about, Ronnie. We did that as part of volunteer appreciation, at least in my time here, which is five years. I think it was in my first couple of years. So maybe in that time frame you're talking about. We offered that as part of how we appreciated our volunteers for their work,

[141:00] and people could sign up for different tours of different facilities. Um! And then with Covid that fell away because we weren't able to invite people into those facilities any longer. Um! So the last couple of years for that volunteer appreciation we've done drive in movies outside, but I can certainly share with our Volunteer cooperative how much that type of thing is appreciated by those of you who are really invested in the city and doing this work And, don you're not wrong. I think. The more we all know about how our city runs, the better we build. That's great. I want to be on that tour, even if it's just me showing up. And you guys let me walk around, and i'll make things up. Yeah, I'd much rather do that than go go to the drive-in um. I just feel like it is so applicable to our everyday lives, and I know that we're like, you know, talking about preservation, and we're commingling it with

[142:00] conservation, maybe sometimes inappropriately. But I would. Really. Anyway, you you guys see, I'm very interested in this. I'd really like to, And if there's a opportunity, Brenda, that you see that's made available, I would jump on, and I don't know how much longer I have in this board. I think i'm about to time out, so let's make that happen. Then we can get to an invitation, even if you've turned off Ronnie. So um. But for that reminder, because I don't think you're alone in your engagement, and and desire to do that, and it's just something that we haven't had the option to think about. So we haven't thought about it. But now I think we're back in that place where we do so. Thank you for that, you know, if you like those kind of tours, Ronnie, i'll tell you I took one a little off topic here, but Noah gives a great tour. Um man, i'll tell you I I learned so much by taking the know a tour. I don't know if they still do it. If you ever want to see how you know they manage the whole mechanism of you know, coming up with weather reports and

[143:07] solar flares, indicating where tornadoes are going to pop, and all kinds of crazy stuff it's. It's how they collect their carbon. You know the mechanisms, for you know, all around the world where they got a person up at the North every so often, you know, takes a dig and puts it in a puts it in a little capsule, sends it up in a helium balloon, and it blows over, You know, just all kinds of crazy things. It's a great little tour to take if you haven't taken well, and that provides me and Ronnie Probably not really what what you're talking about. But another great tour when they can do it based on global pandemics, is ah older county elections. Will it take you on a tour of the process from when your ballot arrives in the whole process through that, and it's an excellent tour to see how much energy and effort they put into every vote, counting, including at one point where, if they kind of think, they know what a voter meant, they find a Republican and a Democrat to sit down together and try to verify a particular mark on a ballot. That's a fascinating one, because they

[144:18] they go up and beyond to make sure every one of our votes are counted. I just put them both in my phone. Is Is there anything else anyone wants to bring up under matters? I do want to give a shout out again it to the staff. Claire. Aubrey. Thanks, You guys are awesome. Um, I know you're missing an important piece for a few months, but it's well worth it. But, you guys, thank you again, for you know, just plugging away. Getting this meeting organized all the great communications. Um! And how timely you said things to us with something changes like in Demos um withdrawn, or a member of the public sent an email this afternoon that you got to us very quickly. So. Thank you.

[145:07] You know I never did get that that message that. But what's her name was talking about? I'm sorry, Kathryn Barton. Catherine. Yeah, I never got that, and I that has nothing to it, Staff. But it has something to do with that email list at Landmark's Board Email list. There have been issues with that in the past. Some people don't get. John. Did you get that message today from her from Kathryn? Because in the past you read her letter. Yes, yes, that shit. It actually came. It actually came through us. And you are ah historic at Boulder, Colorado, Gov. Email, which is our general email box, so you might want to make sure it's not in your spam, but you guys forward it on like within thirty minutes. So thank you that that was today. Yeah,

[146:00] that was it mid or late afternoon. I got it at like three forty P. M. That was about when I got it. Yeah, So Thank you. Thank you. Claring. Oh, I see I was looking for Catherine's name. I know. I see that. Yes, okay, darling, Thank you, Abbey. You appreciate it, and I nearly forgot. Our next regular scheduled board meeting is on October twelfth, which is actually the second Wednesday of October. Um. It conflicted with Yom Kapoor. So we moved it. So we actually have extra week of preparation time this month, and then October the twelfth, and November the second. It's going to be very tight, so we appreciate you your kind words and nice feedback, because it's going to be a bit of a crazy month. So it is. But but I am pleased that the Board didn't vote to have two initiation hearings on October twelve. So thank you, everybody. I think that that makes it easier for staff, and easier for us, as you know. Um and members of the public have an opportunity to weigh in. So thank you. So if there's nothing else, the meeting isn't clear. I just briefly quickly read Um,

[147:15] red Katherine Snow and um One of the points I did agree with in in the in your memo was, There was little community interest in the post a demolition. Usually we get letters usually like the one Catherine just put right here. Usually there are people that come forward and say something. When we get as far as nine over eleven, three people people start to organize, and if they care enough if they think they. There is a reason, as far as I know, this letter from Kathleen was the only one that I've seen on this topic is that all you ever received as well. Yes, it is. Yeah. We've received some letters during the stay, but not since the initiation was scheduled. Yeah. So I would disagree with her conclusion that you know.

[148:02] Yeah, this is normally the period when people will be coming forward, and they didn't. Yeah, what kind of this great district over there, but it. But I also build my experience as you're right that sometimes we hear more before an initiation. But usually my experience has been. There's been. If people are really interested, it's more at the designation hearing. But you're right. Usually we hear from more people. Yeah, I mean more than just Catherine, somebody would have come up with it. People had any kind of real concern or interest in that building. Anything else uh the September Board Meeting is adjourned at eight. Thirty Pm: Thank you. Thank you. Everybody. Everybody.