January 4, 2023 — Landmarks Board Regular Meeting

Transcript

Captions from City of Boulder YouTube recording.

[0:01] Recording has started. Thank you. I'd like to call the meeting to order. It is 6 o one Pm. Welcome to the January, fourth, 2023 landmarks board meeting before we begin the planning and Development services. Director Brad Mueller has joined us to say a few remarks. So i'd like to turn it over to Brad. Well, thank you, Miss Chair. I appreciate that. Thank you. Happy I simply wanted to. say Happy New Year to everybody it's a time to look back and look ahead. Appreciate all the service and work that you've done in the last year. And we've got a busy year ahead of us ahead of you. So. always very appreciative of your service in this capacity I appreciate the work you do I'd be remiss if I didn't also thank the staff for the great work they've done in the last year, and

[1:02] true public servants that they are in acknowledging that as well. So you here's to a New Year and all the best to you, and look forward to tonight's meeting. Thank you so much. And Happy New Year to you as well, and I just want to echo your appreciation of staff, and we're thrilled as a board that they're finally fully staffed, and and glad to have all of them on board. So thank you. Next, I'd like to introduce our moderator this evening, Brenda, written our before we begin. Brenda will review the virtual meeting decorum. Good evening, and thank you, Abby. I appreciate it. I know those of you who are joined us. You community members. Many of you have seen this many times. and we appreciate your patience as we go over it, for those who might not be as familiar.

[2:04] 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 the physical and emotional safety of community members, staff and board and commission members, as well as supporting democracy. For people of all ages, identities, lived experience and political perspectives. You can learn more about the community engagement process that went into creating this vision and read more about the vision itself. by going to Boulder, Colorado, Gov. And typing productive atmospheres into the search bar and next slide, please. The following are examples of rules of decorum found in the boulder revised, code and some other guidelines that support this vision. These will be upheld during tonight's meeting. All remarks and testimony shall be limited to matters related to city business.

[3:00] No participant shall make threats or use other forms of intimidation against any person. obscenity, racial epithets, and other speech and behavior that disrupts or otherwise impedes the ability to conduct this meeting are prohibited. and participants may raise their hand to speak during open comment and public comment. Periods during hearings individuals must display their whole name before being allowed to speak online currently. Only audio testimony is permitted. and with that we can return to the agenda Abbey. Thank you. Thank you so, much, Brenda. I want to acknowledge that we have a full quorum this evening, as with in-person landmarks, board meetings. The recording of this meeting will be available in the records, Archive and on Youtube within 28 days of the meeting. and we're going to do a quick roll call and introductions of each board member as well as Ml. If you'll introduce yourself after our Board members as the Planning Board, Liaison i'm Abby Daniels Chair of the Landmarks Board, Bill

[4:11] Dialogue. Chelsea. Chelsea, Castleano, Glamorgs Board Number John I'm. John Decker and I'm. One of the 2 architects. as Land Barks Board members and I am Ronnie Pelosi, the other landmarks board member. Thank you, guys. And Ml: If you'd be kind enough to introduce yourself. Yes, good evening, Ml. Robless. I am the planning board liaison substituting for Lauren tonight who is off to Florida. So thank you and welcome once again. Ml. We know there are people who are here to participate this evening that may have strong emotions about certain projects. We want to hear from you, and have found it more projective. If you are speaking to persuade us, rather than berating us staff or applicants.

[5:10] As with regular landmarks, board meetings, you can only speak at the appropriate time during public participation, or at the appropriate time during one of our 3 public hearings, request to speak outside of those times will be denied. There are cause, I judicial hearings so any person testifying, including the applicant, will be sworn in individually as board chair. I will call for a roll call, vote on any motions made. and then I believe we're ready to Look at the group agreement slide. This came out of our board retreat on July 20, fifth of last year. Changes are always welcome. This is a living document.

[6:04] and we'll continue to welcome open dialogue. Board members are welcome to use the raised hand function this evening when they want to introduce a new topic or want to If if if I haven't called on you during deliberations or another point. so the first item. Agenda is the approval of the December Board meeting minutes. Does anyone have any changes or alterations to the December seventh, meeting minutes. Hearing none, I'd like to make a motion to approve the December minutes. Do I have a second? I'll second. Thank you, John. I move that we approve these minutes with John second. So we'll do a roll roll call vote, vote Bill. Hi. Chelsea.

[7:00] Okay, John Ronnie alright, and I vote I. So the minutes are approved unanimously. Now we'll turn to public participation for any items that are not on the agenda. So this is the time for anybody to speak not including any of the upcoming hearings we have, and Brenda, I don't know if you see anyone who's raised their hand, yet I do have a hand up, and we'll just invite others who are in the meeting to raise your hand at this time. If you wish. You'll find that raise hand button, sometimes right at the bottom of your screen. Sometimes, if you have a reactions button, you might need to press that button. Thank you, Marcy. I I lost over this earlier, so I appreciate you sharing it. Now. this shows various places. You might find that raise hand button. I don't think I have anyone on the phone so. No one will need to press Star 9. All right, if we are ready, Aubrey. I have Kathryn Barth as our first hand up.

[8:06] and Catherine, I will enable your microphone, and Abby will swear you in. Hi, Katherine, if you'd be kind enough to swear to tell the board the whole truth, and then share your full name before beginning your 3 min. yes, my name is Katherine Barth, and I swear to tell the truth. Thank you. Am I can. I start. please? Yes, and Catherine, you'll see the timer in the top corner of Aubrey's screen, who should be on the top of of your viewing screen. Do you see that? No, I'm seeing the agenda? yeah, maybe, Marcy, we could take the agenda down for public comment, and that'll help people. See, Aubrey, you see Aubrey Noble in the top corner top left corner of your screen.

[9:02] I see you're in my top left corner. and she'll have a timer in the top right top left corner of her screen. Okay. well, I I I don't think I will be speaking. What do I have? 3 min. I don't think I will speak, speaking 3 min. But I've I've just returned to Boulder from from being out of the country, and so i'm seriously jet lagging, but I didn't want to having coming. Come back to the news about the contamination in our library. It was a a terrible shock. and it's also something that since I am a frequent user of Carnegie Library. I am wondering if you guys know if the Carney Library has been tested

[10:03] for methamphetamine residues and if so, what the plan for Carnegie Library is it's been close the last few times before the holiday. It was just playing close for the week. so I don't know, but i'm very concerned And whatever you guys can find out or or let us know I would appreciate it. I'm also very happy that Brad and Christopher are here, and I have to say that I I think in all the years I've been coming to a landmark's board, which is a lot. I think this is the first time we've had Let's see the big, the big powers that be come to the meeting that I'm aware of. So I really do appreciate it. And you'll get to understand a lot more about

[11:00] what goes on here, and why we love our town, and how much all of these people work to keep our buttown and its history. respected. So thank you very much. Thank you, Katherine. Oh. I just as far. Do you see anyone else, Brendan? No, sorry I didn't mean to interrupt Abby. I don't see any other hands up at this time, but we have had another hand. Come up now. Are you ready to move forward? Yes. okay, great. So we have Lynn Siegel in. I will enable your microphone, and then Abby will swear you as legal and there is no such thing as the truth, so I don't know how I can take that oath. Can you make a suggestion, Abby? It's your truth or my truth. Oh, well, I I think that if you will swear to tell the board your truth.

[12:02] You then may proceed with your 3 min. Where does Pow tell the board my truth? I really would like to hear something back. You know i'm not part of this community, am I? I mean I? I'm supposed to be all happy about everything and like, encourage you, and then and and be nice, and then i'll get answers to my questions. So okay, i'm being nice. Where's my answers? I can't tell you how many times I've written you. and never received a word back. and i'm completely flabbergasted by how 770 went through that that just doesn't make sense. It doesn't. There's nothing remotely plausible about how that went through for demolition. Not remotely. It's just this oblong house. Standard, you know, James Hunter, just like, you know. Seventh Day Admin is just like the Municipal Building, the baseline Junior High, you know the oh.

[13:05] the stuff! He's done all over town. and it's a beautiful piece of his work. And so they had an entry put on the front. God forbid! They have something over their head when they come into the house, you know, just like this overhanging thing with columns that's not an a a a terribly distorted addition to this property. And then on the back. They did another of their, you know. chronicle rounded things that that was never even shown at the Ldrc. You never even saw the back of the building and the significance of it, and nothing remotely close up. And and then Spacman, the archaeologist and classics professor at Cu. You know. Was he a bad guy? He built the thing, you know, with James Hunter, architect. and then, 10 years later, his family had shrunk. So he built another place like 2 lots away. A classic, you sonian, that Stevens barn we did. You know it? Doesn't stackman matter for anything.

[14:12] you know, and Korachini bought that house with Lenn. Misunderst did not understand. Korcini Wasn't in 770, but Spacman was. and then Mcfarland. the doctor. I don't know it's not the same as Bob Mcfarland. But what's what's insignificant about this? I don't get it something like that. Amazing a state that was going for 6.1 million. you know, listed with 5 chandeliers in it. A perfectly adequate place to live advertised even that you could never build anything that size again. So it. It would be good for a person that wanted that big of a building there.

[15:02] and instead. it's being taken down. it's. i'm, completely perplexed how that could happen. But your time has expired. Gotcha. Yeah. Once again to be ignored. It. Bryn, did you see any other members of the public? I do not see any other hands up at this time. So this is a last call to use that raise hand button. and I think we are safe to proceed. Thank you. Brenda will now close public participation. as far as Katherine Bart's question. I'm not aware of anything at the Carnegie Branch Library for local history. I don't know if Staff is aware of anything.

[16:07] and I know we could discuss this more under matters. But, Marcy, unless you are anyone from the planning and Development Services staff know anything more about that library specifically. Brenda does. If if you don't mind answering No, that's fine. I I reached out to our director of communication and engagement. as folks were speaking to see if we know that answer, and she shared that. You know we tested the main library because there was a definite identified use of that substance in the library. we have not identified any incidents of use of math at the Carnegie Library, so there has not been reason to test that facility. And also we appreciate you bringing that question. and just keep in mind that we do depend on staff. The Board members do depend on staff to help respond to correspondence. When correspondence comes in. We don't expect Board members to to speak for staff

[17:17] about matters that are outside their purview of the board. But thank you, Brenda, I should have known you were on top of this. So we have a response immediately. So thank you and thank you, Katherine, for your question. So we'll move on to the agenda. We decided to no longer do a presentation during our actual board meetings about the statistics statistical report. But this is an opportunity for any questions about the approved cases that were listed in the statistical report included in our packet. Do any Board members have any questions about that?

[18:07] I don't see any raised hands, nor do I hear anything Anyone wanting to ask questions about the statistical Report this evening. So now we will move on to our first public hearing. The first public hearing is a public hearing and consideration of a motion to adopt a resolution to initiate the process for landmark designation pursuant to Section 9, 14 of the Boulder Revised code, 1,981 for 18 O. 4. Mapleton Avenue. The owner is R. Bb. Investments, Llc. And the applicant is the Landmarks Board and Marcy. I believe you are doing this presentation this evening. I am. Thank you, Abby.

[19:02] All right. So this is an initiation hearing which is legislative in nature, so the procedure is slightly different than the quasi judicial hearing. the Board does not need to reveal any ex parte contacts, but the rest of the hearing is similar. we'll start with a staff presentation, followed by any board questions. The owner, who, I do not believe is in attendance tonight, would then have a chance to speak, followed by Board questions. The public hearing is an open for public comment. At 3 min each, followed by a transfer board questions, and then at that point the public hearing is closed, and the Board discusses and if appropriate adopts a resolution to accept the application or votes not to initiate this application, started back in June of last year, where the Ldrc. Referred the application through the Landmarks board. Finding there was probable cause to believe the building may be eligible for designation

[20:04] in July, you will had a public hearing, and at that point voted to place a stay of demolition on the application to explore alternatives in September. Towards the end of this day the landmarks Board voted to schedule a hearing to initiate landmark designation or issue the demo permit, and following that meeting on October eighth, the applicant withdrew the demolition application. so there is no current demolition application for this property. On October twelfth the landmarks board voted to postpone the hearing I believe that was You wait until staff resources were back in, and that I would return. and that brings us to tonight's hearing, which is January fourth consideration of whether or not to initiate. So the options in front of you tonight are either do not initiate landmark resignation, in which case this it would be closed.

[21:08] A future demolition. Application would be reviewed by the historic preservation program. The second option would be to vote to initiate designation of the property as an individual landmark, and that would mean that we would schedule a landmark forward hearing between 60 and 120 days. That would be believe either the April or May landmark for meetings. If the Board chose to do that after the designation hearing, there would then be City Council Review, as they are the ultimate decision makers for the criteria for your review is found in 9 14 of the boulder Advice code for designations that have owner support. We don't have initiation hearings, but with third party designations we have this step in the process where the board may consider

[22:06] any number of things including these 7 items. one is, is there probable cause to believe the building may be eligible for designation. and balance that with, that there are currently resources available that would allow city staff to complete all of the outreach, and analysis required that there is community or neighborhood support for the proposed designation. The buildings or features may need the protection provided through designation. The fifth one doesn't apply before the talks about historic specifics. the sixth criteria for your consideration is that in balance the proposed designation is consistent with the goals and policies of the Boulder Valley comprehensive plan. and finally, that the proposed designation would generally be in the public. You all are familiar with the property which is located on the south side of Mapleton.

[23:02] Next to Fitzpatrick Park, just east of of that park where Eighteenth Street intersects it's located in the identified potential Whittier historic district. and the yellow marks are the other landmarks that are located in the immediate area. The house is a modest vernacular framed hipped box house with the central chimney that was built between 1,892 and 1,896. This facade, with the protecting they faces Mapleton, and then there's a port with them, decorative with detailing located at the on the right is the west elevation which faces Fitzpatrick park, which also has works with similar detailing, and there are pairs of narrow double on windows. around the house.

[24:04] moving around to the rear of the property. This addition was put on in the 1950 S. It's a 2 story addition, with vinyl siding and then there's a garage at the rear. That, is believed to date to the 1920 the building history, as you're familiar with it's one of the earliest houses in the neighborhood, and is associated with this series of occupants, which varied from numerous immigrants, and then also a State senator, who briefly lived here. so moving to the staff analysis of the criteria, the first one asks the board to consider whether there's probable cause to believe the building may be eligible. and so Staff considers that the building has architectural significance for its tipped box building

[25:01] which was very popular at the turn of the twentieth century. Those notable details include the building form for the sales the windows, and the stone foundation and for its state of construction nearly 130 years ago. and we found that the house is significant in the context of the neighborhood character, and for its location next to the Jesse Fitzpatrick Park and its location within the identified potential with your historic district. And so this first one is: Could the building be designated as a landmark and staff finds that it could be. However, the question in front of you is. should it be designated as a land? The second criteria asks the Board to consider whether there are resources that would allow the city manager to complete the work needed for the application. These designations over the owners objection require additional staff resources, including outreach and analysis, and there are limited resources available

[26:11] where there is, lack of owner support or communities support for the application and so diverting resources away from other board and program priorities is not recommended. in terms of community and neighborhood support. There's been limited community support for preservation since the demolition application came in, I believe, the Board has heard from 2 community members, and you've received a recent email in support of preservation of the building. but in general there has not been, I would say, a large amount of community support for the proposed designation. The fourth one is the buildings or features may need the protections provided through designation.

[27:03] this is the key piece of staff analysis in in our recommendation to not initiate is that there's no current application for demolition of the house or garage, and so there is no current threat to demolition. As the demo application was withdrawn by the so if demolition were proposed in the future historic preservation the program would review an application At that time the sixth criteria asks for the for to consider the balance in the proposed designation, and it's consistency with the goals and policies of the pump plan. The plan does not speak specifically to landmark designation over and owners objection. in some cases it is appropriate, and is one of the things that makes Folders program strong is the ability to do that, but Staff also feels that it should be used.

[28:00] very rarely. and that is also our finding for that the proposed designation, whether it would be generally in the public interest. Staff considers that because the demo application has been withdrawn, the initiation it's not appropriate at this time, and would not be generally in the public interest. So with that staff recommend that the Landmarks Board not initiate landmark designation for the property at 1,804. Mapleton. For the following reasons: that although the house has historic and architectural significance, initiation would not represent a reasonable balance between private property rights and the public interest in preserving the city's cultural, historic, and architectural heritage, and that there's no current threat of demolition to the house and garage. just a reminder of our process for this hearing. i'm wrapping up my staff presentation. The applicant and the public will then have a chance to participate, and then the the board will deliver it.

[29:06] and something that we are piloting this time. Trying out is a time management tool, which will help streamline the meetings. And so we've estimated with the chair that the board deliberation may take around 30 min. and so to frame that discussion. When you get to that point, the key question is, should the Landmarks board initiate landmark resignation over the owners objection, if yes, vote to initiate designation, and the designation hearing at the Landmarks Board would be held within 60 to 120 days, followed by City Council Review. And if the answer is no, then vote to not initiate designation and the process. And this evening so with that I am happy to answer any questions the board may have before we turn it over to the applicant if he is

[30:04] present. And is that Aubrey or Brenda, who is keeping an eye on the participants. this evening. I am Qp. And I on the participants. But just was just waiting for questions from the board. and I don't see any hand raised from board members. Pass Marcy any questions. and did my communication with the owner yesterday, and the kid. He would not be in attendance tonight. I just wanted to double track, and it doesn't look like is here.

[31:05] which would bring us to the public comment. But thank you, Marcy. So now is the time for any member of the public to speak to this issue, and you will have 3 min. Brenda, i'll give you a a a moment to see if anyone is racing their hand. I do have one hand up at the moment. but 2 hands up at the moment, and just we'll give folks a reminder that if you see Aubrey oper, if you'll wave okay. your timer will come up in the upper left corner of Aubrey's screen. so our first participant tonight is Kathryn Barth Katherine. I'll enable your microphone, and then you'll be sworn in and hello again, Katherine, just state your name and swear to tell the board the truth, and Aubrey will start the clock with your 3 min

[32:03] Catherine Bars, and I will tell you the truth. Thank you. Is this this little building, this little brave little building that has been on the corner by the park. since 1,898 deserves to stay. we should not lose this building and I don't know of of the meetings that I've attended about this building. The owner has never shown up. so I don't know what is in the owner's heart about this building. if it is. i'm going to say if it was like Bill Coburn from some years ago. Bill would would very nicely renovate a building, and often, even after it was renovated he would put it up for landmarking.

[33:02] I mean, this is a building that deserves protection, and it really deserves to have its owner land market. What I see is the danger of this little building is that an owner without a a positive attitude and a a kind, hard, or whatever we want to say. can easily ruin this building in the renovations or the remodeling that's done. and so I don't know anything about the owner. But the fact that he that they not come to any meeting. and and not participated. makes me wonder what's up, and what their intentions are. If this building were to, for example, have all of its windows knocked out, and it's porches yanked off. Probably it wouldn't qualify to be a landmark.

[34:02] Those porches are as they were in 1,906, and you can see them both in the sandborn map. so I don't know if it's appropriate or not. But this is an own truth that i'd want to take to lunch and say. Come on, you need to help us. So this wonderful little building does not disappear from this very important corner on the park, and it's a very familiar part of this neighborhood. and it's been there forever. So I don't know I I don't know how to advise you, and i'm and i'm sure you will. you know, discuss this thoroughly, but we we need to have some kind of an outcome that the building is loved and and restored and remodeled, but it's there it's still there. It hasn't been ruined in the process. so then they can come back for a demolition permit, and it would have to be

[35:02] granted. So it's a dilemma, and I wish you the best in solving the problem. Thank you very much. Thank you, Katherine Brenda. Who else has raised their hand? Yes, our next speaker is Lynn Siegel Lynn, I will enable your microphone, and then you'll be sworn in. Yeah, I swear to tell the truth as I know it. this this seems like a perfect example of 770 before any addition Scott got added on. So i'd say I was ready to say, like Don't put forth the demolition, because the owner already went forth with the demolition on 1,804, and then they went through it. So it's like there's nothing to fight here yet when they come for a demolition later on, then i'd support saving it.

[36:02] But I can. I'm glad this is why I like to speak last because I learned from others. and I can see from Catherine's point that's probably what potentially happened to 770, although to me. It was not at all obvious that building really maintained its character very closely. It had an additional garage on the south. I mean on the north side as well, which I didn't mention. But if those I don't know what happened historically with 770, when those additions were made. But I guess if you have to be kind of preemptive and do a landmarking. then we save you're you're more likely to save the building like Katherine's saying. like Coburn went and changed buildings, and then

[37:00] and they could be then they couldn't you landmark. So that's I degree. So along with Catherine for the best chances of saving this building. although I didn't quite see why we needed to until they apply for a demo permit. But i'm sure that there's somebody that could explain the reason for that to me, too. But nobody is going to. So that's the way. It is no interactive. No? Back and forth just one voice into the void versus another voice into the void. That's the way you do things with the city of building. So that's the way they happen done. Thank you. Lynn and Brenda. Do you see any other members of the public that have joined or have to speak to this matter.

[38:00] I do not see additional hands up at this time. so we'll take one pause for last call on this public hearing no other hands. Okay, so we will close close the public hearing for 18 o 4 Mapleton Avenue and bring it back to the board. And you know, Marcy, thank you for sharing with board members about piloting this chance to try to have the Board deliberation in 30 min and approximately 30 min to see where we are. With the discussion of this particular item, and also I appreciate you reiterating the things before this evening. And how we should proceed. I don't know, Bill, if you would like to kick off your thoughts on this initiation.

[39:00] I have no no, nothing to say on it. John. Okay. I would like to kick it off. I visited this building and am somewhat familiar with the site. I believe that this building, because of its location, age, and history is worthy of protection. However. I'm gonna agree with Staff that it doesn't. in my opinion, and hasn't in most of our actions serve the public interest to proceed with a preservation against the owners or owners intent. If there is no immediate threat. saying that I do wish echoing the public speakers

[40:00] that there was some kind of interim protective status that we could start putting on these buildings that would put them in the radar without encumbering them in the I guess way of designation. I do. I'm not as troubled by the situation with this building in that. because at least observed in the field. It appears to have asbestos siding on it. which any renovation would probably want to pull off and replace, which would trigger a review, and consequently bring it back into our purview because of its age. So i'm. Supporting Staff's recommendation at this time. But I do think we need to have discussion about this interim protective status for some of these threatened properties. thank you, John

[41:01] Ronnie. just to confirm, did you? I can definitely go next, unless you want Chelsea to go, are we? I'm not going in any particular order, so I promise not to forget Chelsea. Sure, I am in agreement with Staff's recommendation, I mean specifically the point of there being no threat of demo currently. and I just want to say I appreciate our public comments, and i'm an agreement, in fact, with what they're both saying about the qualitative aspects of this building, and then the lack of clarification associated with the you know owner's position. I think to just specifically respond to something that Lynn said. I know we have a fixed amount of time tonight. but I think the questions that you were asking

[42:04] about why Staff was recommending the motion, as stated, are pretty well defined in Staff's Memo. And I would, you know, if you haven't read it or recommend going there, if if you have I think they're really in there, and I think it explains kind of why they've landed on that position which I agree with. So i'll hand it off to Chelsea. Thank you, Ronnie. Thanks. yeah. I agree with running, and with the staff recommendation. so to keep it short, i'll just say that stick to that. Thank you, Chelsea. as much as I respect and admire Staff, I think this building is worthy of protection, and I think that my concern is incremental change that would render it ineligible for landmarking down the road. I also think, and sometimes it's not so incremental change that can consider that can make it

[43:12] no longer worthy of landmarking. I I think, when I went to a site visit this summer, the thing that really struck me is how intact this block is, and I think these are one of those houses that that tell the story of Boulder's evolution, that that we're losing more rapidly than others. And I I was thinking about the very first Colorado preservation. In conference I attended in February of 2,007, and there was a speaker there, Wonderful speaker named Anthony Tong, and he'd written a book called Preserving the World's Greatest Cities, where he traveled around the world to see what was being lost, and he he wrote: there's a great great quote from the book, and the following day from his book that goes in the following days I would explore the back alleys.

[44:04] looking for vestiges of the texture of the historic city, largely composed of modest vernacular structures, sometimes abandoned, decayed, or forgotten. These were the neighborhoods of the history of everyday life, testified testifying to our capacity to endow the built environment with grace and meeting. And I think this is one of the houses I've seen in recent years that really does end out this this block, this neighborhood, the community, the entire city of Boulder, with grace and meeting, and I just. I know there's no imminent threat, but I just would hate to see alterations done to it that would change it so radically. It could no longer be landmarked, and I have witnessed so many times. If if we do ever proceed with an initiation over an owner's objection, how many times, by the time this even reaches city council, the owner has agreed to land market. So tonight I won't be supporting Staff's recommendation, but I I respect where they're coming from, and I respect everything My colleagues have have said about their thoughts on this as well.

[45:15] Bill, I don't know if you want to say anything at this point I don't feel you're muted. We saw you. Okay, I don't know if anyone has a motion they would like to make a actually, I wanted to say something quick. I reached my digital hand and reason both hands here. but what it's okay. If you don't sweat it. what I was gonna say is that I agree with you, too, Abby. I do think that this building and I think Staff does too, rises to the merit of potentially pursuing landmark designation.

[46:01] but the threat piece that I think that you're pointing out is unique to this case for me. not so much about the block face, but about the exposure of the side of this building, as it face is what I think is a public amenity that used to be a right of way. And so there's a definition aspect in the code about what the front of this is that I think is unique to this particular property. I don't think we can solve that right at this moment, but I do believe that there is a route in which significant modifications could be made under the existing demolition code. that might be able to skirt something that could be problematic. that being said, i'm hopeful that we can dig into the demolition code this year, and I know that that's on our agenda, and I think that this is a good case. Study for us to talk about some of the aspects that do trigger different types of review, and allow us to. you know, prevent the potentially unwanted demolitions that could get through circumstances that are unique.

[47:07] And I Don't have a solution to that right now, but I still feel like I will support Staff's recommendation in this case, and hope that when the time comes for us to have a more robust conversation about Demolition Review that we can talk a little bit about this and you know maybe there's something in there that will help give us a lever to pull that is like a hybrid version that John is describing, or perhaps just brings it up to the board, or just greater scrutiny. that is subjective rather than just the prescriptive check box about square footages. That's my position on this. I just felt like I should say that. because I know that that's one of our objectives this year. Thank you, Johnny. John. Did I see a raised hand? I had one quick comment. As far as the

[48:00] elevations of the house. If we were to see this in Ldr, see what we would normally save it. The site and the front elevation behave as primaries, because they're both exposed to the public realm. it's it's fuzzy when it's two-sided but we've done that with corner lots, and it's a corner lot for all intents and purposes. Can I jump in there, John? I don't think this is designated as a corner. A lot. I feel like Staff actually has the expertise to explain that better than I do. I know there was a conversation when it went up to went through the planning department about that, and the nuances of what we see as a parkspace, and how it behaves. but I don't think that is the case here, Marcy. Maybe you could answer that more quickly than I could. That's correct the the code. It says any street that is facing any wall that's facing a street, but not an ally, and the west wall is facing a park, so only the

[49:05] north wall. The the facade facing Mapleton Changes to that elevation would trigger review. or, if they were taking off more than half of the roof, were more than half the ex exterior walls. Abby, i'd like to make a motion if that's possible, and staff, if you could pull up the staff's recommended motion. That's the one that i'll go with. I move that the landmarks board at the office staff memorandum data, January the fourth, 2,023 is the finding findings of the Board and not initiate the process of landmark designation. Finding that it does not meet the criteria for such initiation pursuant. so Section 9, 14 initiation of designation for individual landmarks and historic districts of the boulder revised code, 1,981, and in balance is not consistent with the goals and policies of the Boulder Valley. Comprehensive plan.

[50:10] Do we have a second? A second? Thank you, Chelsea. On a motion by Ronnie, seconded by Chelsea. We'll move on to a roll. Call. Vote Bill Hi. Chelsea bye. John I. Ronnie and I vote. Nay, so the motion passes 4 to one. so we are. We'll now move on to agenda. Item 5 B. I believe Clarice taking the lead on this. This is a public hearing and consideration of an application to molly demolish a building constructed in 1,971,

[51:00] located at 8, 25 South Broadway, Street, a non landmarked building over 50 years old, pursuant to Section 9, 1123 of the boulder revised Code. The owner is mock property. Management. And the applicant is Steven Spawn. Thank you, Abby. So I will go through the quasi-judicial hearing procedures. all speaking into the item. We all speaking to the item will be sworn in and board members will note any exparte contacts. I'll give the staff presentation. After that the Board may ask questions. The applicant will have 10 min to present to the board, and the Board may ask questions, will then open the public hearing. After all, members of the public have made comments. The applicant may respond to anything that was said. We'll then ask everyone to meet their computers, and the Board will Deliberate motion requires an affirmative vote of at least 3 members to pass motions, must state findings, conclusions and recommendation.

[52:08] and a record of this hearing is available in a couple of days as a video recording. and the official record will be added to the records archive within 28 days, but usually sooner. so. I will pass this back to Abbey for ex-parte contacts. The Board has requested that we note who has reviewed this previously, and it was reviewed at the Ldrc. By Runny and Bill on October nineteenth. So back to you, Abby. Thank you, Claire. we'll do this in alphabetical order. Bill in the ex-parte contacts no chelsea no John none Ronnie as you heard I reviewed this at Ldrc and I, you know, was in support of this coming to the board.

[53:02] and at that Drc. I also said what i'm about to say. Now. I am former colleagues with the applicant. That's the signature. his name Scott Checker. I feel like I am fully capable of reviewing this application. and just to clarify. We were co-workers at another firm, and I still like the guy a ton and respect him a ton. But i'm fully capable of reviewing this case. Okay, thank you, Ronnie. And Before we get the stop presentation I do want to thank the owners who have agreed to this virtual quasi judicial hearing virtually all right. Thank you, Abi. So, as we note in the agenda, the criteria for review is outlined in the boulder revised code under 9 1123.

[54:04] The purpose of reviewing demolition applications is to prevent the loss of buildings that may have historic or architectural significance. and to provide the time necessary to initiate designation as an individual landmark, or to consider alternatives for the building. The criteria that can be considered are the eligibility of the building for designation as an individual landmark, the relationship of the building to the character of the neighborhood. the reasonable condition of the building, and the projected cost of restoration or repair. although not deterioration caused by unreasonable neglect. and the options for the Board today are to approve the demolition. If the Board finds the building does not have historic significance. or place a stay of demolition for 180 days to consider alternatives to demolition. the stay would expire on May the fourteenth, which is 180 days from the date the landmarks board, hearing fee was paid.

[55:03] the third option is to initiate landmark designation. So the process, so far for this property staff, referred the application to the Ldrc. Which reviewed it on October nineteenth. and referred it to the landmarks board, finding probable cause to believe the building might be eligible for landmark designation. I need my pointer There we go. So the property is located on the west side of Broadway. This is Broadway here. and south of Hanover Avenue, which is here. The Table Mesa shopping center is located to the north. Right? Here. the property is surrounded by residential neighborhoods. You can see on either side of Broadway. and is not located in a potential historic district it's a one-story commercial building. It features this prominent neo-mannsad roof

[56:05] here with very deep eaves on the east and west elevations this is the east elevation facing Broadway. it also has a stacked stone facade. and typical of a 1971 building. The entrance is not particularly obvious. but this is the front. there's a door in here somewhere. and each corner has a pretty large stone mass which you can't see very well on this picture, but you can see very well on the next picture. and these deep, narrow stone columns between the windows here. So here the Kona masses. You can also see on this elevation that the the roof is inet rather than overhanging that is, on both the north and south elevations.

[57:06] You can see this is a better picture of this. The stagstone is interspersed with these larger organic geometric pieces. So we're going around the building. This is the west elevation. So facing the mountains. You can't quite see Broadway over here. this is the rear of the building. So again the man sawed roof overhangs. On this elevation you can see the the pretty deep shadow there. And the stonework, and this Rio Deck that was added after 1,992. So we're all the way around the building. Now this is the south elevation very similar to the north. It has the inset roof. and you can see the the pattern of the large corner and the narrow horizontal stone columns.

[58:04] How the building was constructed in 1,971 by Leach and Arnold, engineering and construction for a security bank of boulder. It originally featured this which shingle the mansard roof with no window openings. neo-plan bus company. They were a bus manufacturer in the eighties They purchased it in 1,983 for a sales office. and then that closed in 1,988. The building was vacant between 1,988 and 19 92 mock properties. The current owners purchased it in April 1,992 They remodeled it including the second story on the inside, adding these window openings throughout the roof. They switched out the for standing standing seam metal roof.

[59:01] and added that deck on the west side, and also the this ducting on the south elevation. so you will have seen in the memo that Staff doesn't believe the building retains integrity of its character defining features. The National Park service provides standards that define whether a building retains enough integrity to convey appropriate historical associations or attributes. and we use these standards, in addition to the criteria, set out in 9, 1123 F of the boulder Device code which, as a reminder, are the eligibility of the building for designation as an individual layer mark which is outlined in 9, 12, and 9 13. The relationship of the building to the character of the neighborhood, the reasonable condition of the building, and the projected cost of restoration or repair.

[60:00] So the research that we completed confirmed the date of construction is 1,971. we did not find any information associating the building to any specific, notable persons or businesses. and we didn't find any recognition by local historians or other organizations. the building does demonstrate somewhat the growth of South Boulder after World War Ii. As bolded developed areas outside of the downtown for residential businesses. this period of time saw innovative mid-century designs especially for banks which saw a benefit in having this modern appeal. so for architectural significance. the building does have the characteristics of the near neo-man side form with rustic modern elements. but due to the extent of alterations it doesn't meet the architectural significance. Criteria.

[61:00] The rustic modern characteristics include the use of traditional materials like stone in the original wood shingle which has been removed. also the combination of horizontals and verticals, the deep overhanging eaves, and no ornament ornamentation. however, this this building we feel is no longer a good example of Boulder's mid-century architecture, the introduction of the windows into the mansard roof breaks up the volume of the roof. and the the replacement of the original which shingles alters the scale and texture of the original design. so other than its visibility from Broadway, we didn't find anything of note for environmental significance that which enhances the variety, interest, or sensor of identity of the community. So this is boulder in 1,971 south boulder. I couldn't tell you where the building ended up. Being on this map. I looked and looked, and could not see it, but it was built the year after this image was taken. So this gives you an idea of

[62:10] what boulder in this area looked like. Then. The development of these commercial areas along Broadway. In this area. including the table mesa shopping centre, were key to the success of these residential developments. Table Mesa and Martin acres. During the 1950 S. And 60 S. The building, once it was built, was prominently visible along Broadway. However, the area immediately surrounding the property has changed significantly. and doesn't retain this historic character for criteria. 3 and 4 information about the condition of the building, and projected the cost of repair. was not submitted as part of the application.

[63:00] So with that Staff's recommendation is that the Board approved the demolition request as the building doesn't meet the criteria more specifically. that a stay of demolition for the property, 825 South Broadway is not appropriate, based on the criteria set forth in Section 9, 1123, F. As the building does not retain the integrity of its character defining features. so that is the end of my presentation. Again. This is a quick reminder of the next steps the applicant has up to 10 min to present to the board. followed by public participation. Then the the applicant will have an opportunity to respond to anything that said, and then the Board will deliberate so a reminder that the question for today, for the board is, if the building has historic significance. If yes, the Board will place a stay of demolition on the application to provide time to consider alternatives.

[64:05] and if no, the Board will approve the demolition. Request any questions from anybody before we continue with the applicant's presentation. Okay? Hopefully, Steven is here. I believe he is going to present to the board. I think. Yes, pardon me, it will take just a second to get situated. Steven. It looks like you have been successfully promoted. Okay. Stephen, Would you like me to show your slides?

[65:01] Yes, please. I think if you could just jump, i'm gonna be very short, because I think staff has done a very good job in presenting this property. If you go to the next slide. I'll make this very short. There's only one piece of information I'll add to this. and that'll be needs to. I represent mock properties and Happy New Year. Thank you. You may proceed. Okay. If you could go to Page 2, please. Really, the only thing that I wanted to show here on on this page

[66:00] is is this is kind of a synopsis of the history. Curiously, I I was the young architect I I came to Boulder in 69 as an architecture student, and I actually watched this building be built, and then I did not know who the architect was, or even who the contractor was. But it in a way, it was a very interesting building in my mind. but Working with the owners we. I put together the history. and it is kind of an interesting history. But the the key point that I I really wanted to show with this slide is that the building is 52 years old, and I won't go through the history because Clear and Marcy put together a very nice detailed presentation here. but the building was in its original form, which is rather interesting for 21 years, and then it was substantially modified in 1,992. And so it's really looked like that for the last 30 years. And so it really hasn't retained any of its original integrity.

[67:02] and so that is why I agree with Staff's recommendation, and happy to answer any questions. But i'll keep it short and sweet. Thank you, Steven do any Board members have questions of Stephen? I do actually just one quick question. Steven, Can you elaborate on the modifications that being identified as substantially altering the I guess character giving form of the building. Sure, I think that's a very fair question. It originally was a one story building. and it was converted into a a 2 story building. So, as you can see, it was a it was a bank back then, and when you walked in. It had this big atrium. and

[68:02] it what? Yeah. The list of the things what happened is they created a second story and added, approximately 3,500 square feet, so that the building was substantially increased in size. as you can see. they added 20 exterior windows, if you could scroll through. If this is my yeah, this is my presentation. You can now keep moving on. Yeah. So the second story has been added, and the roof has been significantly changed. And so, as you go around the side it was created, it was turned into a 2 story building. So it went from a one story building to 2 story building this massive hvac, ducting was put on the south elevation there was a deck that was placed on the West side. it probably most notable, you know. It's got a standing. Seem rough on it. I do agree that the you know I the the parts of the building that I really

[69:04] like our, you know it does have the stone corner anchors with this nicely proportionate vertical stone phones. but the point of the point that i'm trying to make is it does not retain its original integrity. And then one last thing the large skylight was added onto the roof. So those are the exterior changes. There are a lot of interior changes that are not relevant to this discussion. did answer your question. Yeah, that that answered the question. Thank you. Any other Board members have questions for the applicant. I don't see any raised hands or hear from anybody, so I think it may be time to move to public comment.

[70:11] And, Brenda, do you see anyone who has indicated they'd like to speak to this agenda Item. I do not see any hands raised as of yet, and invite folks to use their raised hand button to indicate they would like to speak. We have one raised hand Lynn Siegel. Then, as a reminder, your timer will be in the top corner of Aubrey's screen. I will enable your microphone, and then you will be sworn in. Yeah, I I agree to say the truth is, I know it. i'd say lose the h back and the second the second story is Steven was talking about it should be demolished, but the columns and the stone anchors at either end.

[71:03] should be preserved otherwise. I think that the the way this has been done there's, I I think there's integrity in the stone columns and in the anchor some side, and that that was the original scene of the whole building. Right. it just added on the upper floor. and I I guess you know Theoretically, this should have been landmarked back then for the stone columns in that original and the anchors on the side at originally. landmark. but you know I don't know how this works. People can come and and do additions without going through any kind of a landmarking situation, I suppose, if it's before

[72:05] the 50 years, or whatever, then they can do what they want. But in this, in this case, when that was added on, and they could do what they want, so let them demolish that. but keep the stone on there. And not only that it this is this is something that's really important. This should go through Environmental Advisory Board before it's approved at Landmarks are considered at landmarks. and it shouldn't be a matter of cost. you know, number 3, and for the the cost of renovation, because you know what the cost goes down as we stop demolishing things and challenge the architects to do with what they've got like. Stevens barn did up at at Speckman's other house at the last house in Boulder, going out at Flagstaff Road.

[73:01] No, he managed to get that, you, Sony, and built into there. He can manage to get these columns in those rock the stone anchors into some that he wants to put on the space and the more that you challenge the architect to do adaptation, adaptive, reuse the cheaper. The adaptive reuse is going to be isn't it, Ml. you know. I bet it is. I know it is because the more we demolish, and the more it's new, it's it's more expensive for everybody. and it doesn't drive creativity. Architects need to be creative. They need it creatively. There there need to be courses at. See you in environmental design on creative react the adaptation. And Lynn, i'm so sorry, but your time has expired. and we'll give you a moment to see if any other members of the public would like to speak to this agenda. Item.

[74:07] Okay, last call on raising hands for this agenda item. and I am not seeing any additional hands at this time. so we'll go ahead and close public participation for agenda. Item 5, B. And Steven. You do have an opportunity for 3 min, additionally to respond to anything you heard during public comment. Am I? Am I live right now? Here I put on a nice shirt, and you can. But anyway, that's fine. the only thing I would. Maybe this is more direct to Lynn is I I I do agree that architects need to be

[75:08] more sensitive to this thing, and and it's real important that the board I I see myself as a preservationist, and, in fact, I've had the honor of landmarking 8 buildings this year. they are all in Boulder County and 2 different projects, and and I do believe that the burden is on architects to do better, and whatever possible. And but this case, this specific does not retain its original integrity, and does not meet the criteria. So that's all I'm going to say. Thank you very much. and thank you. Stephen. And now we're going to move on to board discussion. I asked that everyone mute your computer phone for the duration of this discussion again in this pilot program. We're alloting approximately 30 min to have a board discussion about

[76:03] this property, and I don't know if there's a board member who'd like to kick off the discussion. Ronnie. Sure. Going to thank you. Yeah, sorry and just sorry I shut my video off eating dinner. but I stopped. So. yeah, i'm in agreement with Staff's recommendation again. Here. I am grateful that it went through this process first of all, because when it came to us at Drc, it looked like it had all of the merit that should go through for the review, and I think it did. and I think Staff and the applicant have both identified and resonate with the money, chat with one another as to what modifications have been made to this building, and why it no longer qualifies, and i'm an agreement, and you know I could repeat them, you know predominantly. It's the root form change

[77:03] and the fact that there's habitable space where there wasn't, and then the process. There were windows at, or added in this dormer, like fashions, as well as a change of material on the second floor. So I think that I am an agreement with Staff. I think that they have described this accurately per Our regulations. I also would say, I think that public comment is a great reference point for a way to potentially preserved aspects of the building. While it may not be the applicant's desire that those comments are also on target, with a version of preservation that addresses aspects of the building that are still evident, and we're present and evident when we saw the trc, which is why we called it up here. So I am an agreement with Staff's recommendation. Thank you. Ronnie. John, would you be willing to go next?

[78:02] i'm. Not in complete agreement with Staff's recommendation. I think it's arguable that at least a significant percentage of the character giving elements of the building are still evident. I understand that the change to the roof is what based on our criteria makes things, I guess, fatal to the building. I think that this is another example of kind of a failure, particularly with this type of architecture, and this period of history seems to be failed by the criteria in boulder mid-century modernist buildings there's kind of an implicit design intent in many of them particularly the commercial ones, that they are going to be changed and evolved through their life. and we have no way to, I guess, Accommodate that, and we're losing a great deal of it

[79:04] because of of somewhat cosmetic changes. That being said. I think that at this point it would be nice in a in a more non binary way if there was some differential preservation, at least of the stone elements on the public side of the building or the Broadway side of the building, because I think that they would continue to lend character to whatever ends up happening behind them. that's just my comment. Otherwise i'm supporting Staff's recommendation because it matches the criteria as written. and thank you, John Chelsea. yeah. I agree that the staff recommendation follow the criteria that is laid out in that. that we should approve the request.

[80:04] Thank you, Chelsea Bill. I have no comment. And first of all, I would say, I think when this was first built it was a really cool building. I think it still is a real cool building, as my colleagues have pointed out primarily because of that stonework, and I don't know if this would ever fall into a non contributing restorable building, because I agree that the roof form has changed it so dramatically. I also see elements from the original 51 year old building that are still there, but I will be supporting Staff's recommendation this evening. Are there any other questions or comments from the board before we entertain a motion. Would someone like to put forth a motion? And Claire, would you be kind enough to bring up the language of the suggested motion.

[81:02] Yeah, I would like to make a motion. and then I don't also would like to see if this is a great moment to allow Ml. To speak if she has any comments on the matter not to force you to do that, Ml: but you know we often do that with these cases we missed it on the last one. you know you may or may not have something to say about this one or the next one, but this seems like a good time right before I make this motion. Thank you, Ronnie. I appreciate the opportunity. I did go out and look at this building actually. and I would agree with the staff's motion. there were 19 70. Were not the best time for architecture. and I think that this building as probably serve it useful purpose.

[82:07] I think. Yeah, not. I think that is it cool? If I move forward no problem, we're all on the same team here, and you know that's cool. So yeah, I move at the Landmark Board. Adopt the findings of the staff memorandum, dated January fourth, 2,023, and approved the demolition application for the building at 8, 25 south broadway finding that the building to be demolished does not have significance of the criteria set forth. and Section 9, 1123, F. Vrc. 1,981 is there a second I'll Second. Thank you, John, on a motion by Ronnie, seconded by John, will proceed to a roll. Call, Vote Bill Hi. Chelsea! Hi, John! Hi!

[83:00] Robbie! Hi! And I vote I? So the motion passes unanimously. Can I ask a quick question before? I certainly, before you go to the next case? I always appreciate Bill's thoughts on this, and I know that he might be just trying to expedite a process here. Bill, you know I just want to encourage you to make sure that you get a voice in here, because I really do want to hear what you have to say. and if you have anything to say about this one. and why you voted that direction. That might be unique. Please do. I have nothing nothing to say about it. Thanks, Ronnie. There. Okay, thanks, Bill. So we will now. move on to item 5 C. Unless any board member was to take a brief break or we could go ahead and proceed to agenda. Item 5, c.

[84:04] Is everyone. Okay. I think so. Okay. So this is a public hearing and consideration of an application to demolish a house and garage constructed circuit, 1,940 at 2119 Mariposa Avenue anomly and marked building over 50 years old, pursuant to Section 923 of the boulder revised Code. The owner is Vanessa Miles, and the applicant is Eric Barry, with Colorado demolition. and I believe Marcy, we're handing this back to you to do the presentation. Yes, thank you, Abby. yes, and I would just like to say we were piloting these adjustments, in part because our last meetings went to one o'clock in the morning. we are flying through the agenda. and I just want to say I. None of the adjustments were intended to cut off any of the board's deliberation or

[85:13] cut the process short, so please don't feel like You can't share your full thoughts. without being said. I'm going to get started on this final case in front of the board this evening. which is consideration of a demolition application for 2119 min. So the The quasi judicial hearing process for the demo hearing is that all? Speaking to the item, we're sworn in board members then reveal any exparte contacts. and then all provide the staff presentation, followed by board questions. The applicant then has 10 min to present. Followed by a chance for the Board of Questions. The public hearing is then open for comment.

[86:04] And the Board might also ask questions. The applicant then, has a chance to respond to anything that was said, and after that the public hearing is closed, and the Board discusses a motion requires an affirmative vote of at least 3 members to pass motions, must state findings, conclusions, and a recommendation; and finally, a record of the hearing is available approximately. Well, within a couple of weeks of the All right. the purpose of the review tonight is to deter is to prevent the loss of buildings that may have historical architectural significance, and to provide time necessary to initiate designation is an individual landmark, or consider alternatives for the building. The criteria for your review is found in 9, 1123 of the boulder of ice code.

[87:01] and it is in 4 parts. The first is the eligibility of the building for designation as an individual landmark. the second is the relationship of the building to the character of the neighborhood as an established and definable area. Third is the reasonable condition of the building; and fourth is the reasonable production, cost of restoration or repair. and in considering the condition of the building and the projected cost of restoration or repair. The Board may not consider a deterioration caused by unreasonable neglect. So this property, at 2,119. Mariposa is located on the north side of Mariposa. between Twenty-first and Twenty-second Street, in, I would say the Lower Chautauqua neighborhood. there is an alley that's located to the east of the property, and then runs along the rear of the property. and there are 2 buildings. there's the house here, and then of this

[88:05] it is not located in a potential or designated historic. Here are the photos of the house, which is of their own construction, or a frame construction with stone plotting. It's a bit unusual. I think the history is a bit unique. but you can see that, the stone has a rubble appearance, and then there are concrete stills underneath the windows. which are divided lights on the side, and then basements at the front. The front of the building which faces Mariposa has a shingles in the gable and on the front. It's actually asbestos shingles which have been recently removed. The ones on the back are the original wood symbols. and then there is an inet porch with the concrete lentils, and as you can see, the casement windows to the right of

[89:08] i'm looking at the Texas cards. was a bit of a puzzle for staff to unravel, because the stone garage looks in. Looks like it's in a state of disrepair in this 1,949 photo we believe that the stone garage is older than the house, and from what our research goes. the house was likely built prior to 1,940, it's evident in the 1,938 aerial of the area, and then may have been faced with stone at a later date. In any case it has been in this appearance since 1,940 as a stone craftsman. So, going into the criteria for review and the Staff analysis. stock finds that it is potentially eligible for landmark designation

[90:00] and starting with its historic significance, that's based on its 1,937 to 1,947 date of construction. so we don't know the exact date. It's one of the few post depression the Pre World War Ii. Houses constructed in this area. Second is it's Association with persons or events? Cecil Cox and Donald Mccormick are notable owners of the property. Cecil clocks, like likely constructed the house. He and his wife Mary, are associated with multiple working class businesses in boulder. He had a coal and firewood business, and later a landscaping business downtown. and then the longest owners of the property where the Mccormick family. which owned the house for more than 60 years, starting in 1,955, and Donald was a farmer and a gardener at NIST, which, geographically, is very close to this house. Third the house is located in the inner urban park addition to the city, which was plotted in 1,908.

[91:07] The eastern part of this neighborhood remained rural until the 1,900 fiftys, and indeed this property was used as a farm in its early days. In the 1950 S. The area was developed in response for the housing needs for returning service persons in construction of the National Bureau of the Standard Central Radio Propagation Lab. now known as Yes. and that occurred in 1,944. And then finally, this property was surveyed in 1,992, and at that time it was considered to be significant as an example of vernacular architecture, and notable for its done moving on to its architectural significance. Staff find that it's a vernacular house with elements of the bungalow form those elements include the moderately pitched front gable, roof, overhanging eaves with originally exposed raf or tails

[92:07] simple horizontal lines and craftsmen elements like the shade single gable, and and this vernacular form of the bungalow was popularized in both world 4 one by companies, who offered self self-built house plans and kits. There is not an architect or builder of prominence. we did find that the polygonal stone facing does exhibit artistic merit. It is an example of the uncommon as a Stone Face vernacular bungalow. Although there are some examples of similar properties. it is becoming increasingly uncommon. and the stone is likely that brings us to environmental significance. we' that it is it has typical residential characteristics that house that's back from the front of the lot.

[93:04] creating the front garden as well as a where you are Between the house and garage. We did not find that it had compatibility with its site or that it is geographically important. It's not a visually prominent building. however. Its location in into Urban Park, and one of the earlier houses in that in this area is multiple The property is not located in an identified potential historic district, and the area has not retained the rural feel of the 1,900 fortys it does remain. It retains its residential character. and finally, which repeats the area, is not in it identified to central historic district. the criteria Next, as us to look at the relationship to the surrounding area

[94:00] and the surrounding area has an eclectic character with a wide range of building ages, mostly post-world War Ii. Many of which have been heavily modified. and this vernacular construction and the use of the stone facing identifies the house is one of the older properties in the area. and adds to the character of the block and area in the owners. The owner has submitted information on the condition of the building and the projected cost. I will let her speak to those the the cost estimate was included in the packet, and some estimated numbers which include both interior and exterior work. is about 430 $1,000 and for an 830 square foot house works out to be about 518 dollars per square foot. I'd be curious if the board

[95:01] discusses that to go from John and Bonnie about the current cost of construction in Boulder based on my knowledge, it's about somewhere from 3, 50 to 5, 50 is a square foot these days. and then in terms of the condition of the building. i'll also let the owner speak to the condition. So with that staff recommends that the Board place a stay of demolition on the building for a period not to exceed 180 days, in order to explore alternatives to demolition and I I included the date of one this day would expire, but I can look that up with the board would like. and then. as a matter of the order that includes my staff presentation. The applicant will then have a chance to respond.

[96:00] and as well as the public, and then the board will deliberate. And we've estimated about 30 min for the board deliberation, and the question in front of you all tonight is, Does this building have historic significance? If yes the Board would vote to place this day of demolition to provide time to consider alternatives, and if no, then the Board would vote to approve the okay. With that i'm happy to answer any questions from the Board. and I would also ask the chair, Abby. I may have skipped over the why Don't? We do x part, and then any board members who have questions can ask them of of staff. So Bill? No. Chelsea? No. none. Ronnie. not no. I had none. But I did drive by the property to see it before this meeting occurred. Do any Board members have any questions of Marcy at this point?

[97:17] I don't see any raised hands, so we will move to the up. You should for this and we do want to thank the applicants for agreeing to this virtual quasi-judicial hearing procedure. So thank you for that. I don't know who will be speaking on behalf of the applicant this evening, or several people. If you pull your time you will have a total of 10 min. and Aubrey, the owner, is Vanessa Miles. Thank you for this for a moment.

[98:08] Okay. Can you hear me now? yes. bye. Thank you all for everything you do for the city. I do really appreciate the history of Boulder and the things all of the things you all are doing to help reserve it. I bought this house a couple of years ago. I actually i'll bid somebody for the house because I wanted to save it, because I don't want boulder to lose its character and lose its history. But over those 2 years I have I I just had the idea of pulling out the kitchen and putting it back. you know, updated. And in doing that everything started falling apart, and it was like floors had to come out because they were rotten in places electrical. And then this picture that you're looking at is

[99:00] just showing the support in the house. The foundation is gravel, or I don't know what you call that the rocks that they use for foundation. and then we have like logs there. supporting the beams under the house, which are also not up to code in their with the part from each other. So I Just at this point I got to this point, and I realized it was just a much bigger project than it wasn't. Just like quickly fixing it up to look cute and and save it and live in it. so at that point I hired a contractor to come in to give me an estimate that was the one that you all can see. and and it just for an 800 square foot house. It just was

[100:02] it felt like I was having to rebuild the whole house, I guess, is what? So that's where that's where I stand. That's where I felt like. And this is just the house I haven't even really looked at the garage. The garage actually is a lot more sturdy than the house it's. It seems to be standing sort of strong. The house, you know. The chimney is also leaning. and it just needs it. It's just hard to understand how to to bring it back to where it should be to to be a house without being overboard. So that's My, that's my dilemma in this, and that's why I wanted to take it down. I think that's all. Thank you, Vanessa, and if you don't mind for the record. I know i'm doing this after you spoke, but if you would swear that you told the Board the full truth, that would be great, and then we'll see if any Board members have questions for you.

[101:07] Okay. I swear I told the truth. Thank you. I'm sorry about that. And to my colleagues. Any of you have any questions for Vanessa seeing and hearing none, we will move on to public participation for anyone from the public who would like to speak to this agenda. Item. And, Brenda, I'll give you a moment to see if there's any member of the public who's raised a hand. Thank you. At this point I have one raised hand and invite others who are here from the community to raised hands to Raise your hand if you would like to also participate. We'll start with Adrian Sheffey

[102:02] apologies if i'm pronouncing your name incorrectly, I will enable your microphone, and then you'll be sworn in Brenda, you got my name perfectly. Thank you. so I think Staff gave a great summary. I think they did a really good job researching this building, and I just wanted to chime in on a few things that I thought maybe could be bolstered from neighborhood familiarity. I mean, I think going back 20 years you used to see a lot more of these stone type houses in Boulder, especially in the realm of essentially nineteenth to ninth. On both sides of baseline, and they were kind of a key part of boulder that tied it to Chicago. When you go up there you can see the stone structures. And Chatauqua. You can see how they've preserved those

[103:08] they're found throughout, but they're becoming less common. I think the closest one to this one would be 2021 columbine. So one block over, and I think they just really do bring out an element of historic boulder that needs to be preserved and keeps the neighborhoods tied to Chautauqua and kind of the natural elements. so. And I think there might be ways to do this, so I just wanted to speak in support of trying to see if there's anyone else or any other professional who can look at this and see how to do something other than demolish that. beautiful stonework that's really just native to our flat earns. And when people bring the materials from locally. and that's it. I'll see the rest of my time. Okay, thank you so much. And Brenda, did you see another hand? I did, and i'm pretty confident about this last name? Steven Sheffey.

[104:04] I will enable your microphone, and you'll be sworn in. Hello, welcome! And if you would state your full name and swear to tell the board the whole truth, and then your 3 min will begin. Yes, my name is Steven Sheffey. 2125 Mariposa and as a traditional. The Quaker, I firm that I will tell the truth. And so I hope that's what you need. That's perfect. Thank you. You may proceed so in 1,995, when I needed to find a place in Boulder to raise my 2 daughters. because if i'm sorry I have you got. I got Covid on New Year's.

[105:00] so I find that be clear voiced. Anyway. I got to find this house in Lower Chatauqua. That was probably the worst in the neighborhood. and went ahead and purchased 2125 at auction in Boulder can you believe that. And it was a project that nobody had wanted to deal with. For years they had been on the market. Rudy Olson, who the previous owner, had died. His property, went to his children. They kept the house for call views, tried to sell it. could not sell it, and ultimately I said, I need to stay in Boulder and and make this work. So I looked at this house, and I said, this is my possibility, and I bought it $458,000.

[106:00] So that was one way of going about going into a property that is problematic, and has historic features. and the possibility for maintaining some of the traditional look of which didn't have much going for it. Before 1,950, when all the the little houses went in in this neighborhood it's in that, in the papers you can see the the picture of to the West into the East from the corner of 20 s. I think it's 20. No. yeah. I think it's 26 s in Mariposa. But anyway, there's no trees. You can see that there wasn't much there from the aerial map. You can see there weren't many houses here. and so all in this neighborhood is not 19

[107:01] 19. It's 19 forties the houses that were first built were built by craftsmen, working people. people who had businesses, and they were part of boulder. They just weren't up the hill. At Chatauqua they were lowered to talk with. This is Lower Chatauqua. There's not much left of Lower Chautauqua. so I completely sympathize with Vanessa Miles in that you know when you take on a difficult project. You have to anticipate encountering obstacles and things that need to be done. And Steven, I so apologize. Your time has expired. But if you could wrap up with just a few more words this, the house that 2119 was bought over one weekend very fast.

[108:02] with an absolute, firm decision. I couldn't get a word in edgewise over the weekend. So it happened. That's something to consider. I am not currently seeing any additional. Oh, we do have one additional hand. and so and in Siegel I will enable your microphone. and you will be sworn in that it's kind of a chicken or the egg type of a question. it. The more and more we demolish. the more and more the industry for a new build it gets supported, subsidized effectively, and

[109:03] and makes it cheaper. You know it's a dollar per square foot to demo 1,500 minimum. It's who wouldn't demo you know who wouldn't. That's from the next to study which I followed for years. and it's it's set to fail. It's set up for us to be demolishing everything you know in Europe. Places Stay around 500 years, you know, here 30 to 50 years, and you can just rebuild it. It's a culture. and it's a culture that needs to change fundamentally. And if you if you demo these places. you're going it straight into the culture of just scrape and Bill rebuild, you know I I can tell you, from my place where I tried to just

[110:01] add, storage in the attic, and God forbid! You know the the P. The the quality of people that you get to do little jobs on your place. Yeah, it's bad. The guy had been in jail, you know now i'm stuck with what he did and structural that 14 vertical posts it it's it's it's not navigable the storage space. and I had gone to the structural engineer, because I wanted to do the thing with the structure like he's got with her boards and the and the logs holding them. you know. But there are ways to do things. and there are people who can do it, and who can be creative in doing it. And and if you set up the culture so that that that creativity is engaged. It will happen. but it's not going to happen at a dollar a square foot.

[111:01] Of course it's not everybody's gonna demo. and you're going to be right there approving it. you know, and that's that's what Boulder is, you know. I mean. that's what I really can't understand about 770. Because it should have gone through Environmental Advisory Board. It should have gone through sustainability, and Jonathan Cone and the people. that are that are, you know, preserving our carbon footprint in Boulder And because there is embedded energy in everything in this house. and there's embedded energy and getting rid of it. And then so it's Lynn. I'm so sorry. Thank you for your comments, but your time has expired. and Brenda any more hands raised. I do not see any additional hands at this time.

[112:05] so we will now close public participation for agenda. Item 5, C. Vanessa. You have an additional 3 min to comment on anything said during public comment. If you would like I don't have anything else to say. Okay, thank you. We just wanted to give you that opportunity. So thank you. Now we will move on to board discussion. I ask that everyone else mute your computer phone for the duration of this discussion. We are tonight alloting approximately 30 min to this. But I think Marcy made a very compelling case that everybody's voice matters, and you know I do encourage board members to have this wholesome of discussion or comments that you wish to share this evening.

[113:01] on this item. I don't know if someone would like to kick it off off. but I might call on Job to start us. Okay. I can allow that based on my understanding of the criteria. and based on Staff's comments, I think that I can. The first question, I guess, is that this is worthy of protection. It has uniqueness. It has at least. according to the photos shown. and what it appears like from the outside. has retained most of its historic integrity. And so I think it's worthy of of considering a state.

[114:03] Thank you, John. Is that it for the moment? That's it for the moment. yeah, I I agree with the staff recommendation, and and sorry i'm not i'm 6. So i'm not feeling well. but I I agree, and I think issuing a stay makes sense in this case, based on based on what's been laid out in the recommendation in the Memo. Well. i'm sorry You're sick, Chelsea, but thank you for joining us, despite being under the weather. We're doing great on time we're making up for last month, I know I know, but maybe going a little too fast. But we can discuss that later. thank you. Chelsea. Bill. i'll support a stay.

[115:00] Thank you, Bill and Ronnie. I agree with my colleagues. I support a stay. Okay, Thank you, Ronnie. I also will be supporting Staff's recommendation to place a stay of demolition on this and Marcy, have you been able? What? What is the date that it would expire? I'm: just curious. It would expire on May 29. Okay, thank you. Thank you. And Ml: I don't know if you would like to speak to this at all. Thank you, Abby. Gosh! You know. I think that this project illustrates the reason for a landmark for because modest vernacular houses and highly desirable neighborhoods are clearly at risk, You know they're not the big fancy houses on Mapleton Hill. but they play a role. So I appreciate the task at hand for you all, and i'm really appreciative of the staff

[116:05] of the Staff's findings. and I think that there is a solution to be found out there. So good for you all. And I agree that this should have a stay of demolition. Oh. but I really appreciate the hard work you guys have to do when you encounter. You know these tough little projects. You know, these are modest people trying to do right by a historic building, and unfortunately it's it's of the type that is gonna have the kind of problem she encountered people with a modest house to begin with. Thank you. Thank you so much. So I don't know if anyone would like to make a motion at this point, and if Staff would be kind enough to pull up the suggested motion language

[117:02] it make the motion. Thank you, John. and and I can do it. In addition. I move that the Landmarks board issue a stay of demolition here. I'm going to of my window around here a stay of demolition for the building located at 2119 Maripos Avenue for a period not to exceed 180 days from the day the permit application was accepted by the city manager in order to explore alternatives to demolishing the buildings and adopt the findings of the staff Member memorandum dated January fourth, 2,023. Thank you, John. Is there a second? Yep, I'll. Second, that Thank you Ronnie. So we have a motion by John seconded by Ronnie. Are there any additional

[118:04] discussion or amendments to the motion? Hearing none, and not currently seeing any raised hands, we'll move on to a roll call Vote Bill Hi. Chelsea. I, John I and I vote I. So the motion passes unanimously. And now, Marcy, would you like us to identify 2 landmarks board members who will take the lead on any future meetings to discuss creative alternatives to demolition. Yes, please. pardon John. I was offering my name on that list. That would be great, John. Anyone else would be interested to

[119:03] from a subcommittee to during this day I I would be willing to as Well. I will offer that if there is a site, visit probably as many board members as possible should attend. I agree that's always very helpful. so for the interruption. But, John, your term is unfortunately ending before this day. I don't know if you're planning to re I I am a planning to reapply. Can I? Can I see something quick? Can you all hear me? Yes, yes. I just want to let you know I'll be in town

[120:00] on February third. and i'd be happy to meet with anybody at that time, too. Okay, that's very helpful to know. so I believe it's time to move on to matters. Can I just jump in for a quick second there, hearing the applicant? My understanding is well, that's great that you're going to be around in February. because that timing seems appropriate for us to be able to come, check it out and hopefully help in as many ways as we can. and my understanding is that staff will reach out to you and help to coordinate. And you know via email and possibly other ways to make sure that the timing works for you and for others. And Marcy my right, that you guys follow up with an email to kind of summarize that and then

[121:03] possibly other, You know mechanisms. I just wanted to share that with you. I have been an applicant before and I've walked away wondering what happens. and maybe you do that. That's what happens. So you'll hear from somebody, and we'll sort out the timing of things and explain in better detail what the process is moving forward. Thank you, Ronnie. And before we move to matters I'm just gonna check and make sure everybody is okay or do. Does anyone need to take a 5 min break. Or would you like to move on into matters? Yeah. okay.

[122:07] All right. So under matters, the first item is that there is a diversity, equity, and inclusion training for all boarding commission members in 2,023 and the city is providing a number of options of how to take that training, and so I am actually going to hand it over to Brenda to walk through the auctions, and then the board. Will decide? You know how they would like to. and thank you so much for having this slide prepared for me. I should have known you would. I was just quickly putting one together, because I know it's nice to put things in front of you and writing so i'm glad to see this it looks much nicer than the one I was throwing together. so I was fortunate enough

[123:02] to spend a lot of my time in 2,021 working with a consultant and working with Claire and Kj and Aubrey to and Lucas to work with staff on a training about increasing inclusivity and belonging equity and diversity on our boards and commissions. So we worked with all the staff members who support our various boards and commissions across the system. you all have seen some of that come into play as we brought some of that into your retreat. you're actually one of our examples that we're pointing to, of a board who has started to embrace some of these learnings. And agreed to some agreements together that are helping create a more inclusive environment among you. and so we really appreciate that effort you've already gone through. And we realized that a next step after working with Staff is really starting to figure out how to support you all in carrying forward the commitments that the city of Boulder has made to racial equity.

[124:13] and so we can't expect you to do that unless we have shared some of those concepts and language with you. and so in 2023. Sorry, I said. Most most of my time in 2,021, because I, the years are weird since 2,020. That was last year in 2,022 now we're in 2,023 and we're bringing this work to you. So we have a training that staff. All of staff have started with it is not mandatory, but it is highly encouraged for all staff. It's called advancing racial equity. The role of government. and it really lays out how our systems that we all live under and govern under and exist under we're not built

[125:02] in a space of equity for all people. and so it's us to up to us. we who live and work in those spaces now to try and dismantle some of those systems that are oppressing some of the members of our communities. So we want to bring those concepts to you. in the way that they've been brought to all of us. So we have options in front of you for this first training. advancing racial equity, the role of government. We can invite you to come to one of our Thursday monthly new employee orientation sessions where this work is taught. So you would sit alongside virtually, or maybe sometimes in person. Now I think You would sit alongside new employees to the city and learn this work with them as they are on boarding into our organization. and you'll see that takes place the third Thursday of every month. It's during the day during working hours. I think there in the mornings, but could not be confidently quoted on that.

[126:04] and it looks like they alternate between virtual and in person. and the second option is, we can come here to you. My colleague, Anna, Sylvia and I anticipate visiting boards and commissions throughout the year with a 3 and a half hour training, but the first hour of that you would do on your own time. So we would be asking for a 2 and a half hour chunk of one of your monthly agendas or a special meeting that you all convened together. and we will give you links to videos to watch ahead of time that last about an hour. All total so that's one way that it can sort of fit into your regular meeting cadence. If there is the agenda space for that. we would endeavor to bring another board to this meeting. if possible, or maybe there are other boards that are already meeting at this moment, and we could bring you all together into one room. so that there was a maximum of 18 participants.

[127:03] and then we can also stand up trainings that we invite you to. This is actually the first approach we we tried to use a couple of years ago for this training. we try to create times outside of everyone's meeting times that you could then sign up for, and come to and sit alongside other board and commission members from other boards and commissions. and we're thinking those would probably look like a Tuesday or Wednesday evening, or a Saturday morning. Again the hour assignment at home, and then the 2 and a half hours spent with us in conversation. so we want you to have autonomy over. How you do this? it's probably best to decide as a full board, so that we're not trying to bring a training to a board where half of you have already attended that training elsewhere. and so it's great for for you all to decide together what option you like best, and then we can slot you in and and build what you need.

[128:02] And then I love. Once we figure out the what I would love to hear about the when and think about what quarter might work best for your port, but I can also work more closely with staff on that one. So I open it up for questions and discussion. or however, Abby would do that, since that part is her job. Sorry, I mean. Well, no, I'd like to hear the thoughts of what works best for each of my colleagues I could actually do any of these suggested times or dates and ways to achieve it. The only thing I would. suggest we not do is have it on one of our meetings or regular meetings, just because it's already. So yeah, I would.

[129:02] No more one am meetings. That's our new goal for 2,023. That's not a good learning environment, chelsea so that would be my only my only suggestion is to not do it then, but I think, other than that. I don't. I don't have strong preferences. I mean, we did. Okay, just to address at Chelsea. We did have one instance last year in 2,022, when we had a meeting where we had no public hearings. and we kind of didn't really have anything going on. That would be the only option for something like that. 3 and a half hours is kind of long, even if there was nothing else. and if we brought the meet, if we brought the training to you all here in this space, it would be 2 and a half hours here with an hour of homework before that, so that hour on your own.

[130:02] And then we'd spend 2 and a half hours, so it really would require some agenda balancing for sure, because we don't wanna attach an additional 2 and a half hours onto your regular workload. I I mean, just personally speaking, I think option, c. It looks like the best for me. So there's an option for everybody there. It looks like Ronnie or Bill probably be for me. I mean, I think we're here saying there's a agenda balance piece that could make it possible to meet during a landmark Board meeting. I would prefer that, because that time is carved out. But I am not in the position to say that that's possible.

[131:03] So you know I kind of feel like for me. That would be ideal. We're already meeting and so I guess it would be good to hear from staff if they we can forecast that or carve it out, and if not, then idea for trying to find some others. right. It's unpredictable, and I would say, I can tell you that we have 3 cases already for February, and we're talking to folks about March. So while there is usually a meeting with no agenda throughout the year, it's unpredictable. but we could have a special meeting, which but what i'm hearing is plug into the time commitment you you all have already made rather than an additional time outside of that I I think I would

[132:01] that I mean, I guess i'll also just offer. I don't know if it's on this list here, but during one of our Drc Sessions, if we actually have the time during one of those, you know, I I could see myself being able to carve that out, too. That's very good. I see it running. My schedule is mine, and you know we could find something else like I'm sure that there's an evening or a Saturday that would work. and I just proposing another option there. Yeah, that that could definitely work. But Brenda, how much advanced notice. do you and your colleagues need to schedule this? We can put it together pretty quickly. I mean, I think the biggest concern for advance notice is to give you all time to do the our homework.

[133:03] if you're if you're doing B or C right I would also ask sort of what to me, I feel like there's value both in sitting alongside each other, so that you're having a consistent experience together. There can also be value in going and sitting with other folks and and getting different types of perspectives. B. Could ideally hold both because if we could find another board to match. Make with your board at the time that you're meeting You could get both of those things. but I would. I would put that in the mix as a consideration as well. It it is interesting. Oh. Brenda, just a comment. I attended one of these in the conference in Cincinnati this summer up. I don't know if it was the same type of program, except it was

[134:00] a session on inclusivity, and it was interactive with the audience. And it was interesting because these none of these people that we're in the room I knew before. and they were from all over the country, and it was really interesting to get that kind of kind of almost some of the different regional perspectives on all these issues, and I found it to be a very interesting session. So that being said. check. Yeah, I I do like the idea of perhaps doing it with other board members and commissions. but what's the best way to kind of move forward, or next steps or nail this down We could take a preference straw poll. I'm not gonna call it a vote.

[135:01] But I heard so I did not hear anyone. Very attracted to option a right where you would join new employees at their orientation on the third Thursday of every month. virtual or in person. Right so i'm. Hearing more interest in B, which would be, could be Lrd. C. Time could be landmark's board time or in see where we would pick a time and invite you and other board members to come, and and that would probably be multiple times. That would be the the opportunity where you'd most likely be sitting alongside other board members. While doing it. be, you would definitely be sitting alongside each other and potentially other board members as well. So i'm going to straw poll for option. B. And Ronnie's not here to strap hold, but I heard him very strongly say, B. So i'm going to count him in that one.

[136:00] I'm here and and I can. I'm flexible so I think the with something that we'll raise my hand for all right. Others repeat. Yeah, i'll raise my hand for that. But i'm gonna I'm: i'm gonna throw in. The Ldrc is a landmarks board meeting also, and so that should be an option considered as part of option. B. Absolutely. I also would go for the Okay. Chelsea. I'm: not sure if that's a not full agenda. Sounds great, all right. And, Bill, how do you feel about that just circling back. All right. Awesome. so we will work toward that for you. I'll work with staff.

[137:00] and Marcy will help us figure out how to make that work for you all. and in what quarter to You know, some folks are preferring sooner than later some folks are preferring if they're anticipating a change of the members of the board waiting until after that happens. but we know that that is not necessarily guaranteed in this case. So yeah. yes, clarification because we're going to go and start working calendars and and all right applications. Does anyone oppose using an Ldrc time? If we can't use a landmark sport time. I don't oppose that great Thank you. We will get to work on finding a time where we're balancing agendas and we will let you all know. Thank you. Can I throw one more out there? if we can't find

[138:01] either of our regular meeting times to work. Does anybody oppose option? C. No, no, no, no! And I offer. I just offer that marcy because I can imagine what it's like on the other end of the street, I think, have a list of things that you gotta do so there could be an option. See as well if we're confronted with some scheduling nightmares. I yeah. yeah, i'm gonna caveat that I would. I would like options, see? But I would prefer the Saturday time. I believe maybe if we end up going that route we do a doodle pull thing or something and sort it out built those yet, but I imagine there'll be a variety of different times, including Saturday mornings. because those have been successful for us in the with other types of orientations and trainings for boards and commissions

[139:07] to to put us in a warning option. So thank you for voicing it and that that reaffirms the direction we were heading with that option, John. Thanks. All right. Another decision. okay. There is a historic preservation. Nope: a historic places Plan hip. public open house. That's the plan that parks and Rec is completing about each of the city owned landmarks that parks and rec manages. And so it's a a public open house. You all are invited. It is January 20, fifth, from 4 to 6 Pm. And it is in person at the Muni Building.

[140:01] So we will send additional information about that to well, that mark your calendars. if you're interested in going Also note that the project manager from Parks and rock will be attending a future landmarks Board meeting to present the plan to you all. So you will have a chance for board specific. Input but if You're interested in the open house. It's on June. Okay. Great. Hey? Marcy? Quick question. it's just a favor. Can we have You know someone on our team. Put that on our calendars like it's one of the invites that we normally do. Those. Those are always so helpful We'll do for okay. all right. And then the last thing we call under matters is that the 2,023 saving places Conference is coming up. it's just around the corner.

[141:03] February eighth, ninth, and and for the very first time it is in boulder, and so it's very convenient. I know historic Boulder is planning some tours of the little rectangle, the civic area, and the downtown Pearl Street, Mall, and some of the other sessions, especially the keynote speakers look really great. and then Abby and I will be on a panel discussion. for boulders. First 50 years of historic preservation. historic holders leading that one, and then i'm representing the city. and then Claire will be a part of the civic area tour. so let Audrey know if you're planning to attend I would say, even if you can attend just a few sessions, go ahead and register it's so convenient

[142:01] being local this year. And the sessions are always high quality. There is my plug for okay. that's all I have for matters. So, Marcy. would you be kind enough to introduce Olivia? Oh, absolutely. Olivia Sumard is our new historic preservation Intern. She replaces Faith, who is now back in Virginia starting her. Her first professional job, Olivia was in the same program. Is faith at you, Denver. She is getting a dual degree of historic preservation and urban planning. we've really appreciated all of her work in just her first 2 weeks. She's getting up to speed very quickly, and is going to be really helpful

[143:02] for our program. So welcome, Olivia of them. Yeah, welcome. and do any Board members have anything they'd like to bring up. so I will be traveling. I think, over the next board meeting, which is February first. so I won't be here, but I also I saw that all of our 2023 Ldrc meetings were put on our calendar recently. And I believe, If is there an Ldrc meeting the day of the February first meeting. We usually try and cancel those. Okay? Well, I was wondering if if it's not cancelled. I I need to switch with somebody for the media Ldrc meeting of the 20 fifth and the first, if there is one. so if somebody is willing to switch with me, i'm happy to take

[144:10] your Ldrc meetings. But I need someone to search. That will be out of the country. I'm happy to do it if i'm not already scheduled. If you and Chelsea are scheduled. I'm. Probably not. So I'd be happy to do that, Chelsea, and then you're talking about January 20 fifth or February. January, so i'll be gone. January 20, fifth, and February first. So if there's if you have one of the upcoming one, just let me know which ones you want to switch me for. I I don't think i'm assigned the 20 fifth, so i'll do that, and it may be sometime in the summer sometime down the road, Chelsea, but i'll let you know it's like, let me know. Thank you so much. I appreciate that

[145:05] anything else then in kind of a world record setting base the meeting is adjourned at 8 26. Pm: so sorry. I thought you were going to a debrief afterwards. Oh, okay, my apology. You're right. I so so, Marcy, I have the wrong cheat sheet in front of me all night I've been trying to do it for my tiny cell phone that I can barely rate. So, Marcy, I do see that. Sorry. Okay, I just want to say it's 8, 27 we had 3 cases, and I really appreciate the board. I mean open to these adjustments. I will also say it went way faster than I anticipated. because just as the observation we had

[146:00] an hour scheduled for each one, and the board deliberation was 30 min of that. but the first 2 cases you all made motions in record, setting time within 10 min of fourth deliberation, and the last one with the was within 5 min. So I just want to say that I do think that it's beneficial for the board to hear each other's perspectives, and for the applicant to understand the decision making process and to to do it in a timely matter. So I think there's maybe a balance between last meeting and this meeting, and we can figure it out together. but please reach out to me if you have any feedback on these adjustments, or if you have new ideas. I'm. very open to hearing your feedback. Thank you, Marcy, and it's funny, because the last one, you know, I felt like it took me 2 weeks to kind of recover from that, and I don't have a newborn baby, but I think that it's funny, because I

[147:06] I I do think the last meeting was a little bit more unique than this one, because I think the cases were more complicated, and there were more nuances in each of those issues. So I think it's a little difficult to compare. Last month's meeting to this one just based on the agenda items. I also think staff's, presentations and memorandums, really, but just some of the speed with which decisions could be made tonight. But I also know how much it means to me to hear from my colleagues. There was one of the hearings last month. That was the last one there were some things John said that that made that that we're so compelling it. It actually impacted the way I ended up voting. And so, I think it's important to have fulsome conversations, and everyone feel comfortable saying what they want, because not only have I appreciated that not only has it maybe swayed me, or given me a new perspective to look at something, but I just value everybody's remarks at every meeting. even if we go on longer than we really

[148:13] probably needed to last month. I just. You know I don't want to see anything stifled, because I also will say I just learn things. During some of the other board members remarks and comments during deliberation. So I think it's important to keep that up. Yeah, I feel like It's very similar to what you're saying. I I think these are examples of 2 kind of extremes. I want to hear from Bill in future meetings. I think that the third applicant represented something unique.

[149:00] that I have. A feeling was a missed opportunity to talk a little bit about the benefits of this day. and the resource that that provides, which we sometimes explain a little bit to folks that don't have professional representation or aren't you know, experienced veteran developers that have gone through a process like this, and you know that cross my mind, but I was in. Keep it short. Anyway, I think we did a pretty good job, and I agree with you guys, it's like there's probably a little bit of a balance there. I feel like that was maybe a a missed opportunity that I felt like I should have jumped in and said something and didn't but we'll next time. Yeah. But having said that, Ronnie hopefully. Staff staff will explain to the applicant what this means, and what they could possibly gain from it. And

[150:03] as as a participant in the process, i'll take pains to explain things to the applicant to as we go through that. Yeah, and maybe Stephen already did. So I don't want to like, you know, make something out of nothing. But I do know what it means to leave a meeting with questions as opposed to like, you know. Maybe tomorrow there's going to be something circulated, and you know somebody will sleep a little bit better with that little bit of effort, and I feel like we could do that when we know that you know that person might not be aware, i'm just making this up. So maybe this person is totally aware. but I do feel like in principle one of our goals here is to be collaborative with people. that is something that I think it would go a long way.

[151:00] So any other remarks or comments specifically to debriefing this particular meeting. hearing or seeing then and Marcy nothing else from staff. nothing else. So the January 2,023 meeting is adjourned at 8 32 Pm: Thank you, everybody. and they get Olivia here here. Thank you. Happy 23. Yeah. It's he.