March 1, 2023 — Landmarks Board Regular Meeting

Transcript

Captions from City of Boulder YouTube recording.

[0:02] All right, and it started. Thank you. I'd like to call to order the Landmarks Board meeting. Welcome to the March first 2023 Landmark's Board meeting. It is 6, 2 Pm. And first, I would like to introduce our moderator this evening. Brenda Rittenhower before we begin. Brenda will review the virtual meeting decorum. Good evening, everyone. I am with our communication and engagement department, and here, just to help everything, be productive, and as soon as possible, particularly in this virtual environment. We do always like to start with these slides. I know many of you who are watching have probably seen them many times. We appreciate your patience while we go over them tonight. The city has engaged with community members to co-create a vision for productive meaningful and inclusive civic conversations. This vision is designed to support physical and emotional safety

[1:01] for community members, for staff and for the board members, as well as supporting democracy. For people of all ages, identities lived experience and political perspectives. You can learn more about this vision and the process that we went through to reach it by searching the words productive atmospheres on the boulder. Colorado website, Www. Dot, Boulder, Colorado, Go next slide, please. The following are some examples of rules of a decorum as they are found in the boulder revised code and other guidelines of the city that support this vision, and we will work to uphold these this evening. All remarks and testimony shall be limited to matters related to city business, and during public hearings matters related to that specific hearing. no participants to make threats or use other forms of intimidation against any person. Obscenity, racial epithets, and other speech and behavior that disrupts or otherwise impedes the ability to conduct the meeting are prohibited.

[2:06] and participants may raise their hand to speak during open comments and public comment periods During hearings individuals must display their whole name before being allowed to speak online. If I am looking on the list, and not seeing a whole name there, I might reach out to you and ask you to put it in the Q. A. Box. and currently only audio testimony is permitted online. So with that, I think we're ready to move forward. And as always, thank you, Brenda, I want to acknowledge that we have a full corn this evening with all 5 board members. as with in-person landmarks, board meetings. The recording of this meeting will be available in the record archives and on Youtube within 28 days of the meeting, and before we do a roll call and very brief introductions. I want to acknowledge that tonight is Bill Gelix. Last meeting, Bill. You have been one of the most passionate, articulate members of the Landmarks Board ever I boys appreciated. How candid you are.

[3:10] how how tireless you are in your efforts! I I know that that you have encouraged us to try to do more, and move in beyond the scope of Ldrc meetings and landmarks, board meetings, and I feel sometimes we let you down by not having the energy and bandwidth that you do for all things preservation, and I personally also appreciate. I think you bring an artist, I to this board with your your stellar skill as a photographer. So I just want to acknowledge it. Your last meeting you will be sorely missed, but i'm sure there are other ways you can be involved in in helping with place making in boulder. So thank you. And with that we'll do a real quick roll call and introductions. I'm Abby Daniel's chair of the Landmarks board.

[4:03] Bill Gelick. No, you're right, Chelsea. I'm John Decker and i'm Ronnie, Lucy, also a landmark board member. Bill. I'm gonna miss you tremendously. I was not prepared for this to be your last meeting. I want to hear a little bit from you at some point. If you have anything you'd like to say. I don't know now. It's the right time. I have you. Maybe at the end of the meeting we we had already thought that maybe during matters we could spend a little more time. Well, just to set it just to set everybody straight. I don't plan on saying anything, so don't worry. Well, no, but others may want to acknowledge your your

[5:01] yeah. There's something that comes up and matters that I brought up. Maybe that would be my my one time that i'll speak up. Thank you, Bill. and also with us tonight is our wonderful planning board. Liaison. Thank you, Abby. Hi, i'm Laura Kaplan. I'm the liaison from planning board. Thank you. We know that there will be people here tonight to participate who may have strong emotions about particular projects. We do want to hear from you, and we have found it more protective. If you're speaking to persuade us, rather than berating us staff or the applicant. as with regular landmarks, board meetings. You may only speak at the appropriate time during public participation, or at the appropriate time during one of the 4 public hearings request to speak outside of these times will be denied. There are quasi-judicial hearings this evening, so any person testifying, including the applicants, will be sworn in individually as board chair I will call for a roll call, vote on any motions made.

[6:12] and then I think next, if you would be kind enough to share the group agreements slide. So this is a living document, and as always, changes are welcome. This came from our landmarks board retreat on July 20, fifth, last year, and, as always, we do continue to welcome open dialogue. Board members this evening are welcome to use the raised hand feature to introduce a new topic when we move into deliberations during our 4 hearings. So the first agenda item this evening is the approval of the February first, 2,023 board meeting minutes, and Of course it will only be Bill, John and I, who will vote on these minutes. Does anyone have any changes or operations to the February minutes?

[7:11] Not hearing any, I will move that we approve these minutes. Do we have a second? I'll second. Thank you, John, for seconding the motion. We'll do a quick roll call bill. And I vote, I said the February first 2,023 Board members are approved. Next on our agenda. We move to public participation for any items, not on the agenda this evening. and we'll see if Brenda is aware of anyone who's already indicated. They would like to speak.

[8:00] Oh, Fringe, are you muted? Sorry it's just saying. Now is the time to use that raise hand function at the bottom of your screen to indicate that you would like to speak. Aubrey's screen will have a timer. So if you see Aubrey there you will see the timer come up when we enable your microphone. We have 2 hands up at the time at the moment Patrick O'rourke, followed by Kathryn Bark. So, Patrick, we will start with you. We will have 3 min on the timer. And, Patrick, I will ask you to swear to tell the board the full treat. Then state your name, and your 3 min will begin. Thank you. My name is Patrick O'rourke, and I swear to tell the truth. Hello, my friends. This past week I spoke at the Parks and Recreation Board. and I. I bought up the the question about the process and the procedures that they wanted to move forward with, as far as having the civic historic district

[9:09] initiated, and I I talked with him, and it was clear to me that several of the members were unclear about what their role in this processes, plus like any other board. They have new members coming on. So I wanted to take this moment in time to do a couple of things. Number One is, make sure that the historic or the civic historic district is a priority. as we all know, on June of last year, City Staff recommended that the City council not approved the boundary expansion for the Banshell, however, they their direction in their letter was very clear, and it goes like this: while Staff agrees that the landmarks board with the landmarks board, that the expanded landmark boundary meets the criteria for evaluation. It considers that the area would be more logically included in a civic historic district, and then I don't want to go on.

[10:08] and the last sentence of it says The historic preservation staff will commit to making development of a specific historic district to include the Bansh on all block 13, a work priority for completion in 2,023. The reason I'm speaking this morning is, I would like to to have it as a priority for this board. and put on your agendas in the future, as well as get feedback from the parks and wreck, because it was their opinion that community involvement was essential to getting their memo, and they they said they would not be taking an action step. However, they would be issuing a memo, either support or obviously against it. And to me it was. The timing is such that we should make it that it's on everybody's agenda I met with John Decker. Thank you, John, for meeting with me, and we're gonna

[11:07] work with this board. And hopefully get this completed by by the end of the year. On another note i'm glad that the planning board was on is on this call, because it would be nice if you bought that before your group, because surprises at the governmental level is never an acceptable solution. So I think it's Laura Kaplan. It would be fabulous if you would just at least put it on your matters so that you're not blindsided at some future possible development. And on the last note. If I don't get to speak to it. I thought 2 1 1 9 there, so I don't know if it's open comment today, but we thought that that was a significant building. Thank you. Thank you, Patrick. Next Catherine Barth. If you will raise your hand and swear to tell the Board the truth. Thank you.

[12:07] Katherine. You should have control over your mute button now. Yep. Oh, okay, Can you hear me? I I do swear to tell the truth. and i'm going to just continue a little bit from Patrick with what Patrick said. I also spoke in front of parks and rack at at their meeting, and I talked to them, or I gave them some information about Frederick. and in our Carnegie Library there is an amazing homestead, signed landscape plan, and I believe the date is March tenth, 1,924, and there was a cryptic little note on the left side of the drawing that says there is a list of plant materials that goes with this drawing.

[13:05] but of course it wasn't anywhere. and of course it's almost a 100 years, so the fact that there was a separate type written list of plants I was going. Oh, my God! Where is that? I mentioned it to Peter Pollock. who has been quite excited along with my excitement about Olmsted and and the Central Park area, and I mentioned that there was this drawing and a note referring to a planting list, and and it's not in Carnegie Library, so I still do not know the whole story, but Peter found it. and I believe he may have found it in the Library of Congress. and I have actually seen it, and I will send it around to you guys. But so we now both have this 1920 for landscape plan, and we've got the plant list that goes with it.

[14:04] So I am is. I find that just thrilling because i'm a kind of nerdy researcher, and I am just wondering how many of those trees are still with us, and Peter wonders too. So maybe in this process we will be able to locate and see how many of the trees we see. Now go back to Olmsted in 1,924, so I just wanted to bring you that information, and I think it's very exciting. So thank you very much, and we're looking forward to proceeding and doing whatever the process is Marcy and Lucas. You'll have to help us on how we proceed. So thank you all very much, and, Bill, i'm sorry that you're leaving, and I certainly enjoyed knowing you in these years, and I hope to see you after

[15:02] you no longer have responsibilities for the landmark for so again. Thank you very much, Billing. Thanks, Katherine. Thank you, Katherine, and thank you for all your nerdy research, Brenda, do you see any additional hands raised? I do. We have one hand raised, and now would be a good time for anyone else who might be interested in participating in open comment this evening, to use your raised hand button. We do have 2 hands up. We have Leonard Siegel, followed by. so we'll go with Leonard first. Leonard. You should have control over your mute button, and Abby will swear you in. Hi, Leonard, and and if you just will sorry yourself in, tell us the whole truth, and then state your full name again for the record. Thank you

[16:02] here as a representative of historic Boulder and i'm being followed by my alter ego. So we're we're connected tonight with Lynn. So thank you. Landmark Board members and others. I just wanted to reiterate that historic boulder is very focused on the Civic Center Park and that historic district, and we. as Patrick and Katherine said, we really want to do whatever we can to make sure this process gets achieved by election in the fall, and I think the clock is really bearing down on us right now, so whether we can do to help move this forward and get the city organizations involved, and then public organizations, like the farmers Market and the dairy center, and others involved to support this. So

[17:02] please reach out if you one brainstorm. I'm happy to participate with you. Another thing that we're very focused on, and I know that it's a little bit on your back Burner is the 1940 demolition ordinance, and thinking about how that should be adjusted, so that oh. we're operating the way. Other municipalities are around the country with a a 50 year rule, and it's not hampered by any restrictions. So that's on our radar screen, and it's really important, for I know all of us to brainstorm and try to figure out how to do that without having an avalanche of work overwhelmed the planners and the landmarks board. And then I I I did want to just circle back about the civic park. I had the good fortune of leading a tour during this color the Colorado Preservation Inc Conference of the Civic Center, and it was really great to hear people not from Boulder really get a sense of that.

[18:10] a resource that we have around the park and all the Landmark buildings there. So it just reinforced how great it will be when this becomes a district. And then finally, I also wanted to say to Bill, Thank you for your dedication to historic preservation, and there's a seat at the historic boulder table for you waiting, if you want to participate in the future in any way. So just I look forward to connecting with you afterward. Thank you. Thanks. thank you, Leonard. And now, Lynn Siegel. I swear to tell the truth, the best. Thank you. Land! That represents the truth. I just can't do that. I can only represent my truth.

[19:03] and my name is Lynn Siegel, and I wanted to also support the expansion of the historic district with the civic center. and I want to emphasize again that I think that the Landmarks Design Review committee needs to be recorded. and there's something that I really don't understand about the the and I don't want to speak for Len Siegel, because i'm lynn not Lynn, but I know he spoke to Marcy. going regarding 777 circle before it the summer before it was considered. and that that communication was quite positive for retaining its it as a as a historic landmark. And so I really don't understand what happened. All it can do is make me suspicious that there are city managers or higher ups that are pressuring people in the landmarks board, and I don't like to see that, and I don't think anyone wants to.

[20:17] And when I publicly hear these things that when he met with Marcy it looked great. And then in Landmarks design Review committee, it went down like a crashed. And how that can happen I'm: still completely astounded how an 8,000 square foot. perfectly in good shape. fireproof building on that open space, basically you know, just a few houses from the open space on the western Backdrop Mountain backdrop could go down like that. A a James Hen or home.

[21:01] with many other surrounding famous architecture near right nearby, very close nearby. It's just very disturbing that something like that can happen, and i'd like a forum for people to argue their case, Marcy, to argue her case and lend. Are you his case publicly, and see where maybe there was just a miscommunication? That's great. I want to hear about it. I don't want to just be part of the public that sees something like this, and holds a resentment about it, which I do very much at this point. So thanks. Thank you, Lynn Brenda. Do you have any other members of the public who wish to? I do not currently see any other hands up. So this is a long pause for last call.

[22:07] I think we are safe to close open comment. Thank you. So public comment this evening is officially close. I just want to add something, Lynn Siegel, you know. Thank you for always speaking up. I know you've spoken about this multiple times in. I I personally feel that the Landmarks Design Review Committee just stands by their decision, and if I remember correctly, Marcy was not employed at the city of Boulder at the time that Ldrc met to discuss that property. So that's all I wanted to add at this point about that, and Thank you, Katherine, Leonard and Patrick. Well now move on to discussion of landmark alteration, certificates, or alteration. Demolition applications

[23:01] issued, and pending great and I will go ahead and share my screen as a reminder. We're no longer doing the statistical report. Oh. presentation each month. And so this would be the time if there are any applications that the Board would like to discuss, that would be a good time. Otherwise I was going to provide an update on 2119, so. seeing none, I will go to let me. Just let's see. So 2119, Mariposa. The Landmarks Board representatives made a site visit in January. maybe early February to look at the building in person, and

[24:02] following that, there was a structural engineer that the owner hired to come look at it, and unfortunately he did not provide a lot of helpful information. He looked at it and gave some general recommendations, but I didn't quite give the expertise that that the owner, or that we were hoping for. And so this city has reached out to Dave Mortim with Atkinson Nolan. They are a local structural engineer group, but that has international experience with historic masonry specifically. and Dave made a site visit 2 weeks ago. and I spoke with him. And here's a summary of what what he found, so he said that it's possible to work with the envelope of the building, but that it could be inconvenient or expensive to do so. There's pretty substantial structural work that needs to be done, and part of that is the

[25:05] method of construction with 2 by 4 walls, with the 6 inch stone veneer applied on the outside. 2 by 4. All right. Dimensional lumber is pretty light to then apply over here on the outside. and so they would likely need to build a new interior structure to bolst up the framing and his in his first site visit he didn't look at the foundation. It may be inadequate if it were built for a frame building, and then the weight of the stone was added later. and then he also said that to me at the southeast corner at the front that is putting extra weight on that that front corner of the building, and there could also be issues due to poor drainage at that piece, and so there are some structural cracks visible at that southeast corner.

[26:00] So i'm happy to answer questions. The day of demolition expires at the very end of May, and it's march now, so the Board would need to decide at your next meeting in April, whether or not to hold a hearing in May to take action. That would be your final opportunity before this day expires. and I would like to ask the board. Mr. Wooden went out on the site. and is going to prepare a prepare proposal for us to do a full structural report. But I wanted to see if the Landmarks board would be interested in that level of detail for this property the city is covering the cost in this case, because it's a second opinion, and we have a pretty small operating budget. I just want to be responsible with those funds.

[27:00] If the Landmark Board feels it, it would be helpful information in your decision that will absolutely go ahead and do that. But if you feel like you have the information you need about the condition, then we would not go forward with the full structural report. How many, oh, how many structural reports can we fund in a year? Probably one. if i'm thick. maybe 2 in like a very if they are both really important. But you know our our budget is pretty limited for the historic preservation. Things like this and Marcy. At this point. We haven't scheduled like a Zoom Meeting or another meeting. If the owner is in town, have we we Haven't? But it? I'm happy to do that. It seems like with this information

[28:05] it might be worth doing a follow up. Call for me. Yeah, whether in person or maybe over zoom, since I know she Hasn't moved to Boulder yet. and that I just want to say we can't afford it. I just wanted to get kind of a general. Yes, go forward with it before I before I signed the proposal that. But if there, if you feel like it, could be helpful, that's enough to go ahead and move forward with it. John. Well, I can comment on that. I believe it would be helpful. But if if it's excessively expensive for the city, and and we don't have this option on other projects that are possibly more complex and require more, I guess, in depth analysis for us to understand them.

[29:00] That's that's my only concern; but I having having visited the house, and not being fully able to see what the conditions were in terms of structure. it would be nice to know a little bit more about it before making the decision. and and I I go ahead. Sorry, Chelsea, go ahead. Well, I think this was this was reviewed last month, so I wasn't here, for it. Is that right? It doesn't look familiar to me. But I guess I will say that this just based on looking at it, and I apologize. I did not review everything for the meeting I was there for, but it does look really similar to the house that we were looking at earlier this year, where we did tell them that we could not move forward with

[30:03] with that investment from the city, and so I guess I just wonder why we can do it here, and we couldn't do it for the house that we, I think it was on 8. Yeah, it was a street. Yeah. So just from a like fairness perspective, I guess i'm just curious. Since these look relatively similar and like, I I just want to make sure we're with the one time that we can do this per year that we're looking at this equitably. and cause I I specifically remember that we we told that applicant we were not able to move forward with that. Yes, and it is our discretion of of when we provide this, and in this case I think there are 2 pieces that distinguish it from that other one which make a difference in my book, which is

[31:00] first, it's a second opinion. So the owner already invested and pursued a structural engineer on their own, and it just wasn't up to the expertise, or provided the information that would be needed, and so going, and having a a very reputable structural engineer Provider report. I think, is is important. And then the second piece is that this house has a really unique method of construction where it was a frame house, and then, early in around 1,940. This 6 inches of stone veneer was applied to the frame. And that's not a typical way to build buildings, and so I think this one has some unique structural component to it that is, beyond my expertise in terms of of structural engineering and and and so

[32:02] I do hear you in terms of being consistent and and making it fair. And when we do this, but those are the 2 things that I see are different for this one it as someone who visited the house. I agree with John. It would be helpful, but I don't know exactly how to weigh what those costs are and what it could impact the rest of the year, and I know our site Visit was February third, when the owner was in town. And does this have to be decided tonight? No. R. C. Because. John, I was thinking if we could maybe have one conversation with her to kind of see where she is, and she now has this information correct. I will follow up with her. I mean she she'll be getting it. She'll. Yeah. But I wonder if it'd be advantageous to have a conversation. What she's had a chance to review this and see what she's thinking, since you know she met some of us in person on site, and even members of the community and of historic boulder.

[33:05] Okay. okay, that sounds great. And I don't want to take up too much of the time in this meeting. I've got the information I have to follow up. I did notice Ronnie had his hand up earlier. Was there anything you wanted to add? I would it to me like question might be answered. But we were John and Abby. You were part of the subcommittee for this, and so you met with the homeowner and went to the site, and I was just gonna ask you what your opinions were, but I think you've shared them, and, like Chelsea, I wasn't at the last board meeting. So I think this incremental approach sounds like the great approach. We actually voted on a stay on this house at our January meeting, but the the site visit was February third.

[34:03] Okay, Marcy, does that answer your question for this evening? Yes, thank you. And then we can see. Thank you so much so I believe it's time to proceed to our first public hearing. Item 5, a marcy. I don't know if you are clear or leading this discussion. I am okay. Thank you. So agenda. Item 5 a is a public hearing and consideration of a landmark alteration, certificate application to install a memorial sculpture at 2 2 0 5 Broadway, a contributing building in the Mapleton Hill Historic district. pursuant to Section 9, 1118 of the boulder revised code. The owner is the Boulder Historic Society. operating as the museum of Folder. and thank you to the Museum of Boulder who have agreed to this virtual quasi-judicial hearing this evening.

[35:06] All right. So thank you. Avi. I'll go through the quasi-judicial hearing procedures. So first all speaking to the item will be sworn in. and then board members will reveal any exporte contacts. I'll then give a staff presentation, followed by the applicant's presentation. The Board may ask questions of either of us, and then the public hearing is open for comment, and followed by any board questions. The applicant then, has a chance to respond to anything that was said. and then, After that the public hearing is closed, and the poor discusses. A motion requires an affirmative vote of at least 3 members to pass in motion to most state findings, conclusions and a recommendation. And finally, a record of the hearing is available. So i'll turn it back to you for ex parte contacts. Okay, thank you, Bill. I have none.

[36:01] Chelsea. None. Hey, John. I have none. Ronnie. none. I actually went to the site on Saturday to to look at where it was being proposed to be installed. And I did run into Katherine Barth, but we we had no discussion of any substance, or neither of us discuss the merits of this. I think we spent more time discussing the warm weather that morning, so I did want to disclose that. So with Marcy. I think you're ready to proceed. Thank you. So the criteria for your review tonight are in Boulder, Vice Code, 9, 1118, B and C. And that's that the provo proposed work preserves and enhances our restores, and does not damage exterior architectural features of the property. that the work does not adversely affect the historic or architectural value and the architecture, arrangement, texture, color, and materials are compatible with the character of the property.

[37:02] and that the Board considers the economic feasibility of alternatives like incorporation of energy, efficient design, and it enhanced access for the disabled. Your options tonight are to either approve the application which is subject to a 16 day call up period by city council. or deny the application which is subject to a 30 day. Call up period typical with any L. A. C. If it's going towards the denial. The Board typically provides the applicant the opportunity to withdraw the application. Otherwise a denial means that the applicant couldn't submit a similar application within a year. So this application started on January fourth, when we received the application to install a memorial sculpture. and the Landmarks Design Review Committee reviewed it on January 11, and referred it to the Landmarks Board for Review.

[38:04] It was initially scheduled in February, however, the city manager's office in the group that's working on a similar memorial to commemorate the those lives lost in the mass shooting. They wanted to a little bit of time to coordinate, and so the applicants agree to postpone the hearing to tonight's meeting March first. So the property which i'm sure you are all familiar with is prominently located on the northwest corner of on Broadway and Pine Street, right on the edge of the Mapleton Hill historic district. The building itself is an individual landmark. It was designed by James hunter, and constructed in 1,952, as the Boulder Masonic temple and the Masons used it until they sold it to the museum boulder, around 2,012.

[39:02] The building is significant as an example of the international style reflected in the flat roof, asymmetrical plan, vertical windows and window, with windowless wall of the upper facade, which really gives it a monolithic character. And then, as I mentioned that building currently houses the Museum of Boulder. so the proposal in front of you all tonight is to install a 10 foot 8 foot tall memorial sculpture at the southeast corner of the property at the corner of the intersection of Pine and Broadway. This is the artist's description of the sculpture. Here it measures approximately 10 foot 8 in height, and has 10 facets to commemorate the 10 lives lost in the mass. Shooting an eleventh panel of stainless steel is located on the top to reflect like upward, and the sculpture sets the top of sand, blasted stainless steel cube, measuring about 3 feet by 3 feet by 30 inches in height, and the bases included in that 10 foot height.

[40:10] and then there are laser at commemorations of the victims names. and I will say the Lori Preston, who's the executive director of the Museum, and the artists are here, so they will have a much more articulate description of the hard work. The sculpture is proposed to be located on the brick patio, which was added in 26 team. and so going into the analysis against the design guidelines, i'll just read through the guidelines for the artwork, because there are 5 of them that guide the programs. Review of the installation of artwork on a designated property

[41:00] so first retain and preserve artwork that contributes to the overall historic character of the building, site or district. Second, the artwork should be subordinate to the overall building. Our work should not obscure or damage building elements or details. For instance, a mural should not cover windows. Fourth, artwork should not permanently alter the building or site, such as paint on unpainted masonry. and finally, artwork should not detract from the historic character of the building, site, or district, nor should it confuse the public regarding the period of significance of the building or district through acronistic images or details. So Staff considers that the proposed installation is generally consistent with the general design guidelines in that the brick patio was added in 2,016, and it is not a historic element to the landmark site. Therefore the proposed installation will not damage or destroy the architectural architectural features of the building.

[42:03] The scale of the sculpture is appropriate in relation to the monolithic monolithic massing of the boulder Masonic lodge and its location along Broadway and at the eastern edge of the historic district, which differs from the residential character of much of the rest of the district. and so, as such, Staff considers the installation will not adversely affect the special interest or value of the landmark site or historic district. and while the sculpture measures 10 foot 8 in height. It will be subordinate to the overall building, which is monolithic in character, and stands 2 and 3 stories in height. The sculpture is proposed to be installed below the entrance on the non-historic patio, and will not damage or destroy the building's elements. Or details. Its installation is reversible, and will not permanently alter the building or site. and finally, the sculpture is contemporary and design, and reflects the current period that the artwork memorializes and does not confuse the public regarding the period of significance

[43:05] of the building or the district. So with that staff recommend that the Landmarks Board approve the application to install the memorial sculpture. and we've provided proposed findings, if the board so chooses. and and also just want it to pause, and just orient where we are in the process. This concludes the staff. Presentation will then go to the applicant presentation, followed by public participation. The applicant then, has a chance to respond to anything that was said, and then the board will deliberate and make make a motion. And so the main question in front of you all tonight is, does the project meet the standards for issuance of a landmark alteration, certificate. If yes, approve the applications. Conditions may be discussed or added to the approval if needed. Our staff recommendation is to pro approve it as is, and there aren't additional conditions that we've recommended.

[44:11] Your other option is to find that the building, or that the installation does not meet the standards, and if so, that you would vote to deny the application. And so with that it concludes my staff presentation, and i'm happy to answer any questions the Board may have. Do any Board members have questions of Marcy seeing or hearing none. We will move on to the applicant's presentation. and I believe Lori Preston will I don't know if Lori is going to kick this off.

[45:04] Yes, so Aubrey Lori is here along with Scott Osborne, if he's here that's the artist. And then len a cocky with the rotary is also part of the applicant group. Great. The only one i'm not seeing is Scott. and maybe I just looked fast. He wasn't feeling well, so he may not be able to join. Okay, thank you. Hi, Laurie, Hi, Amy. Thank you and thank you for your team, Aubrey and Marcy. You all have helped so much, and all the way back and January, when this conversation started. So thank you very, very much, and I do want to interrupt you and swear you in before the 10 min that that both you and the other person speaking will do so just for the record. Lori State your name. We know you're the executive director at the Museum of Boulder, and then we'll begin with your 10 min. Absolutely. I'm Laurie Preston I'm. Representing the Museum of Boulder and I Square to tell the whole through.

[46:16] Thank you. Everyone, not just Staff, but all of you have who have volunteered this time and preservation of objects and structures in our in our city we have very, very similar missions, our role and your role and the differences you're not paid. You're volunteering to serve in this capacity. So thank you so much for volunteering to do this kind of work. I also want to thank you for reviewing the exterior alterations that you know Marcy talked you through. I feel like they were pretty self explanatory, but happy to answer any questions. I wanted to take some wording from your mission basically, and I love the wording that you all have, which states that. like our buildings in boulder, with their unique or extraordinary styles, represent the melding of people and backgrounds which are created in this city.

[47:13] There's a reason and a role that your decisions about structures like this, and interestingly, almost like the actual melding of something that represents a story in Boulder and a historical story. And that's a role that I play as the executive director of the Museum, is to make sure that the museum showcase inclusive stories and and preserves them for the future, and inspires us all. For to affect positive change. That's our actual statement. Our vision also includes that we're serving as a dynamic reflection of our community, a center where history is a resource for understanding our lives and times. Speaking of understanding, I don't think there can be any understanding of what happened in March of 2,021, and it was around that time, very shortly after

[48:13] the shooting that took place at King Supers that I was contacted by the city of boulder to become a partner. to send staff to help organize, begin to preserve very respectfully the items that we're left on the memorial site, etc. So we feel like we've been a partner really from the beginning of that, and through that have made many community connections. one of which was an artist. And I so wish he was here with us tonight. Scott Osborne is a very humble man, who has lived in Boulder for forever, lives in South Boulder. very close to the store. The grocery store was actually his store. I did not meet or hear of of Scott until after this tragedy happened, and after he had created something, and that is this 10 faceted

[49:11] sculpture. And he said he went about doing so because it was his way to process what had happened, so he was very mindful to note the 10 facets, all of which are pretty much the same size in their diameter. And then he was really mindful to say, there's an eleventh facet, and that's that one that reflects, or that is at the top and is stainless. Deal. What's beautiful about it in correlation with the building is that we have a rooftop, and that rooftop, unlike when the medicines were, there, is now very functional and very, very engaging for many who come into our space. So I love the idea of people actually being on our rooftop, and being able to look down to see that reflection as well. So that's pretty special. The other is

[50:05] why you mentioned we're on that eastern edge of the Mapleton Hill historic district. you know. It's the intersection of Broadway and Pine Street, and there are features of other historically significant buildings which draws people right: First Congregational Church. Trinity, Lutheran Church, Hotel, Bold Andorado, and Of course the Carnegie is adjacent to us as well, so we hope it is a gathering spot, kind of like you and Abbey Abbey. You and Kathryn gathered there to look at that serpentine wall that's already there as well, and one of the things that Scott. when he contacted me, as he said, I just want to give this to you, and I feel like it represents each life. And when he approached me that was back really just months after after the tragedy. and a few months later another tragedy hit. And here comes another piece of the story.

[51:03] His art studio, where this sculpture was made was totally destroyed in the martial fire. Everything in his studio. The only thing that survived is this sculpture that in itself is quite the powerful story. It fell over during the fire, and one of the facets was damaged. And so he was really distraught about that, and chose to build another version of it, and making sure that there was no damaged facet. He didn't want one of them to be damaged, and has quite a story about that. And so he approached me to say. i'd love to give this to the museum. I know that you served as a conduit during that time a conduit for healing, for preservation, for a gathering place for families.

[52:02] We have given time and exhibit space to honor those first responders in the first anniversary, and his thought even was, could this potentially come to the museum around the time of its second anniversary. But there's been absolutely no plans put in place to make it happen at that time, because we wanted to be respectful of it being actually approved. And before we would make any such movements. a wonderful partner who serves as a mission of service above self is the rotary of folder, and Lena, who is on with us, I believe, is also going to speak to this as well, and so I'd love for her to share the tie in, and the plan for rotary of Boulder. Hi, welcome, and Len. I will need to ask you to swear to tell the board the full tree. Thank you.

[53:01] I am happy to swear. To tell the truth, my name is Lena Kaki, and I am here on behalf of the Boulder Rotary Club. and our club is wholeheartedly in support of this project. Our club celebrated this one hundredth anniversary and 2,019. So if we were building, I think we'd be eligible for landmarking. But we, as part of our celebration, we raised over $100,000 to fund significant projects of lasting value that we benefit the boulder community. So when we heard the story of this sculpture, and we saw the the work that Scott had done, and we heard his story. We felt that it aligned perfectly with our goals, and we have pledged to fund the cost of transporting and installing the sculpture, and any additional signage that is needed. and we certainly hope that you will approve this project tonight. Thank you. Thanks so much. Lemme for for popping in, and I just wanted to also share a little historical piece and story very interestingly, and it was on your slide that was called the the property, description and history slide.

[54:12] There was a picture of the Masonic Lodges Flag, Poll, and, interestingly, if you know, if you were to take out that serpentine wall that there is there right now. This is very reminiscent of that very same spot. and that is actually where they held their time capsule. So when the museum took over this spot the time capsule, you know, was brought up by them, the the Masonic Lodge occupants, and then we came in. But I love that that placement is actually reminiscent of that time in history, and wanted to make sure you knew that historical piece. The other is to let you know that the city of Boulder, when we were collecting items from the site, to preserve

[55:01] for all the memorials, from poetry to flowers, etc., we cannot, as a museum. It's not appropriate to accept organic items, and so we didn't accept any of the flowers. For example, we did accept the silk flowers, but not flowers that were going to compost, and a group of artists worked with the city of Boulder to gather those organic materials separately from us. and they, too, have chimed in, as of late to say, if there's a way that this can be integrated, and in the space or nearby, and so we would love to say that we want to do that as well, whether that's using some of that organic soil that is in the place right below the bricks and or in the very, very steps away adjacent garden. That is gonna be a butterfly garden, also supported by Rotary. So again, this was a gift. The museum of Boulder is paying nothing. None of us are paying anything. This was a gift of Scott totally on his dime and his time.

[56:15] but mostly on his heart, and I would love for you to consider this as what I think would be the beginning of a story in the beginning of more healing that needs to happen in our community. Happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Thank you so much, Laurie. All of us just most of us on this call from the landmarks board and staff. Most of us were able to attend the Colorado preservation in conference in Boulder earlier well in February, and the theme was closer to the heart, and I just that just kept going to my my mind as you are speaking. Do any Board members have any questions of Laurie.

[57:01] Okay, seeing none at this point, it's time to move to public participation. and this is the time for people to raise their hand if they would like to part. Speak to this agenda item. and we'll ask Brenda if she sees any raised hand great. I do see one raised hand at this point, and I do have a couple of people on the phone, so just want to let you folks on the phone know that if you would like to participate in this public hearing. You can press Star 9 on your phone to indicate that to us. So we will start with the hand that we have up. which is Leonard Siegel. So, Leonard, I will give you access to your microphone. Thank you. Thank you. Everybody speaking on behalf of historic boulder. I do want to say that our preservation committee had quite a lengthy deliberation about this, and then we discussed it amongst our Board members, and

[58:05] it's a it, and also I I should let you know that I I did serve on the board of directors of the Museum of Boulder as well. So I have a a strong connection to that site and that building and the the mission of that organization. And you know, first, of course, is this tremendous weight of this horrible mass shooting and the value of the community making a bold statement Here, you know, one could argue that the memorial would be more appropriately placed at a government building, or at the site where the event took place. But it's hard to argue that this prominent corner at the Museum of Boulder Isn't, a logical site as well. And so as an organization, we decided not to come out in with a support or denial of this, we we appreciate that it's bigger than preservation, and in a sense, and and having worked

[59:05] with the rotary on the 100 year Old World War, one markers at the highway, 287, and Arapaho there's this really interesting connection a 100 years later, about memorials, and the significance. the the the design quality, and the location. So I. I just wanted to let you know that we did we? We did consider it, and we did want to speak our our thoughts. I wanted to represent the thoughts of the board tonight, and encourage you to have a good strong conversation about it. But it's it is a beautiful gesture, so I just want to close that way. Thank you. Thank you, Leonard. Didn't if I could. I'm so sorry, Leonard Retro actively. Have you saved it for you swear you told us the whole tree

[60:07] and Brenda anyone else, that you see. I am not seeing any other hands at this time. so I do see 2 more hands up and encourage others to put up your hand. Now, if you would like to participate. If you're on the phone again, Press Star 9, our next speaker will be Lynn Siegel, followed by Kathryn. Barth Lynn. Please allow Abby to swear for you. Lynn. I know you know this drill. But if you swear to tell your truth, that will be great. Thank you. Yeah. And sometimes the truth hurts. So what i'm going to say about this it's kind of might hurt some people, and i'm sorry if it does that. But I think this memory, I think that this is kind of interesting, because what happened in this small town came from a very

[61:06] difficult part of the world. Syria is where the shooter came from from our car, which is just east of Aleppo, which is having a lot of trouble right now, and I don't know the story of his family, and why they came here. But he was 3 years old when he came here he was bullied. I'm. Opposed to guns of any type. I'd love to see something that speaks to guns, because I don't think he could have strangled or knives 10 people. I don't think that would be possible. I and it's not just automatic weaponry gans of any time of any kind. We? We? We are not tribes anymore. We've evolved beyond that. and opposed to the war in Ukraine and supporting it and all of that. So and I hope that at some point in the future

[62:02] it we aren't going to want to take this thing down because it has memories like civil war statues or something because it's got a negative connotation with it. But I knew one of those people and the people that died As a result of this the are a a different situation that need to be commemorated. And i'm sorry that in a small town like this we have to have something potentially coming from the greater world, and it just shows that Boulder is part of. and can be the foundation of thought coming from a small town outwards to the world, too. So I support it, and I I agree it could have been at King Supers, or it could have been some other governmental

[63:05] agency. But this is a really prominent place, and it kind of puts it on the map for the city. This little city of boulder in the scale of the whole globe so. and and it's pretty impressive that it survived the martial fire, too. So thanks a lot. Good. Thank you, Lynn Katherine Bart. Catherine, you should be able to unmute. I think I am unuted. There you are. Yeah, and you do promise to tell us the whole truth. I will tell you the truth. and you know. Some of this truth is very heartbreaking about that day, and those people. and I have a a couple of questions that I don't know if you can answer, but I perhaps you can discuss among them yourselves.

[64:04] One is site, planning question. But as you approach the circular area where the where the sculptures plan to be. It seems to me it appears to me that the path, both from Pine Street and from Broadway that comes up toward those the steps. It appears to me that that is an Ada accessible path. and it, it appears like it's okay. But I think that that is something that was. Has. It must be confirmed. because if somebody who was disabled wanted to come to that site and and they could not. that would be very negative for me.

[65:00] So I think that's 1. One thing that I would request is that you confirm that the path there to the circular place where the sculpture is accessible, and it does conform to the Ada requirements. One thing that I find really kind of serendipitous is that your wall, the circular wall that goes around it is, I think it is not at the proper high, you know. Let's say again, this probably should be checked. But you. I think it's probably I don't know what what the height is, or if it's a proper height by 88; but it certainly is a proper height for quite a few people to sit on. And so I think that's a a positive. The the kind of reservation I have. And this is just an emotional

[66:00] reservation. Is that because it says the corner of Broadway and Pine. To me it seems like a very busy, very busy intersection. and with traffic traffic can be, you know, really really crazy around there. So the this is a reservation that I kind of have. That. Is it really a contemplative space? And I mean, I might wish that it was a much choir area where people could sit quietly and the and and think about things. But these are all things for you to. I don't see any major problems with it, and I want to just absolutely thank you all for coming and bringing this project to the land. My word, thank you. Your time just expired. Thank you, Catherine

[67:04] printed. Do you see any other members of the public who'd like to speak to this agenda? Item. I am not seeing any other members of the public who have indicated they would like to speak at this time again. That is your raise button at the bottom of your screen. and I think we can close the public hearing. Okay, so we will close the public hearing for agenda. Item 5 a Lori. You have the opportunity. You have an additional 3 min to re-bet or comment on anything you heard during public participation. Well, I just want to thank Lynn and Katherine for your time one, and actually going to the site and taking a look, and and having this kind of thought about such a piece, I do want to share with you that there is actually kind of a sister

[68:00] piece that Scott created. And he and I had conversations at 1 point also about it being a potential for the infinite walk of peace near the municipal buildings that near our city buildings. and so interestingly that piece it. It's similar. It complements, but it's not at all the same, but it's almost as if it was a keyhole that you would look through, and if you did, and you looked all the way through, and there were no buildings on Pearl Street. You would see this sculpture. And so it's kind of an interesting thought, especially because you've mentioned what what would it be like if it were on a a a public site? And then I also just want to reiterate the words that you know, Scott put in, and and talking about. You know the reason he chose this shape being like a gym, and and how he wanted each of those facets to represent each of those people moving forward, so just wanted to emphasize that as well. Thanks so much, everybody, for your time and consideration.

[69:11] and definitely come by. I do believe, Catherine, that is Ada accessible. We're pretty mindful of that at the Museum from both perspectives so great point, and I do believe that it as you could. Look at those pictures again, too. Thank you, Lori. We're now going to move on to board discussion. I ask that everyone else mute your computer or for the duration of this discussion. We've allotted approximately 30 min to discuss this, and we'll have a clock that will kind of show you as time elapses for this discussion. But we will take the time we feel comfortable with with making a decision on this, Aubrey, if you would please start the timer, and I don't know if any of my colleagues on the board would like to kick off this

[70:00] discussion. These deliberations. Ronnie. Yeah, this it's actually a really hard topic to discuss, because I think several things to talk about here, one of which is whether or not the proposal meets the criteria which it does, and i'm gonna vote in favor of supporting this application. And then all of the rest of it, which is like how impactful those events have been to our community the issues that Lynn brought up about how it relates at a global level as well as a national level violence in general. The touching story of the artist, and how we got to where we are today.

[71:03] I mean It's just a very impactful presentation. I'm grateful that you guys have thought about it, and have presented it in such a thoughtful way as well as staff, and I am going to vote in favor of it. and just thank you for bringing this to us and bringing it to our community. It. Thank you, Ronnie Bill. I support the erection of this this monument on the location as it's presented to us by staff. Thank you, Bill John, or Chelsea. I would like to. I guess. echo some of Ronnie's statements. I think this is a a wholly appropriate kind of addition to that site, and

[72:03] I believe what's really interesting about it is the fact that it's a it's a it's a story it's it's representing and or memorializing a piece of history in front of a History museum. It has its own life history as a as an object in that it survived another piece of history, the Martial fire. and I think that it's it's just as I said. I think it's wholly appropriate. I think it's also interesting that it was expressed that maybe it should be in front of Government building or the site itself. I think this is a very good location for this I think it's a central. It's a central location against a building that

[73:00] is actually kind of different historic character from the rest of the district that it's in. and kind of it kind of from a from a form standpoint, or a formal standpoint, it kind of fits into the the aesthetic of a kind of stone modernism that that hunter created in a lot of his work. So I I just i'm. I totally support this. I think it's a it's a beautiful addition. And and I appreciate everybody involved with this and and appreciate all of the effort on this. Thank you, John Chelsea. Yeah. I agree that it meets the criteria. and of course it's a really sensitive topic. and I do believe that.

[74:01] having having this memorial in front of the History Museum is particularly meaningful, and you know it's unfortunate that this is part of our history now, but it is. and I think there's no better way to memorialize that than to celebrate the people who were loved in this community who we lost that day. And so i'm. Really, i'm honestly like it Just it. It feels really good to be a part of helping to make this happen, and I really look forward to seeing it once it's erected. So thank you for all the work you've done. I know that the the applicant has done a lot of work in helping the community heal. and so I I think this is another way to help the community move forward and celebrate the lives of the people who were killed.

[75:03] Thank you, Chelsea, for those powerful words. You know one of the things I've always loved about the landmarks board, and this for for many years of just observing it, you know, Board members bring their own experience, their own backgrounds, their own passions to it. And and this one person who has an art, history, degree, and also took every history of architecture class. I could. When I first saw this at Ldrc, I reacted to it powerfully as a piece of art. It was so moved by it, and how beautifully designed it is it? It's just something I I, you know, be fortunate to travel to. You zooms around the world and met famous artists and things when I worked at the National Gallery in DC. This is one of the most striking things I've ever seen that really resonated to me, and I knew someone who lost their life that day. And I do think I do think this is it.

[76:05] It's with something this, this compelling something, this powerful something, this tragic in our community to discuss the side and the appropriate. That seems sort of. you know, relevant. But it is important, and I do think Staff's analysis was spot on, and I think one of the reasons it is compatible in this location is because we have a wonderful modern building there. It's not in front of some, you know, Richardsonian or Victorian Building, but even then it might have worked because I think this will transcend time. I think it tells a powerful story. The artist story itself. I mean it. Just it just weaves together so many different things, and because it has brought a motion up even with from the speakers of the public that tells you that it's an important thing to do, because it's giving a place. I I I do understand.

[77:01] Catherine's point about a place for contemplation, and I do think that that what I see is kind of a a sitting wall there that retaining wall may offer that. Yes, there may be some noise, but but maybe you know that that's also part of of this community in this life to be in the center of downtown and kind of in, you know, pretty close to the heart of Boulder to have it standing. There is great, and and you know I do think there's something sacred in contemplation, but I think that's fault. We'll afford that with the way you've already designed. As Marcy said that that is not a historic plaza. That is a new plaza, so I think, for echoing everything Everybody has said I. I'm very honored and touched to be able to support Staff's recommendation to that. So with that being, said Ronnie.

[78:01] I I just had a quick thing to say. because I think what Katherine said resonated with me too. But I think that there are a lot of ways and places in which people can honor the people that you know. We're tragically killed that day. This isn't the only one right, and there are. And just to say, like there are different settings in which one might have a personal experience in which you might think about events and people. and you know what happens when you die. I guess I just wanted to say, like. you know, when I take it myself thinking about people that have passed. It is often kind of in privacy, but

[79:00] I don't think that this particular proposal needs to do that particular type of have that particular type of experience doesn't have to be like the responsible piece for that. It can do whatever it's going to do in this place, that it's being proposed, and there are many other locations and times and places, and our lives where we can have those other types of experiences. I just wanted to offer this up to the applicant is that you know there is something unique about what i'm just gonna say is the unprotected nature of this location. which I think resonates in a very different way for me. When I think about the police officer. the feeling of being protected and secure. The

[80:00] artists desire to fix the broken panel and to create a new sculpture because of what the broken panel might mean symbolically. And I don't know i'm gonna go there, and I will have a type of experience, and it might be one that actually brings up thoughts that I might not have if it were different location. So, anyway, I just wanted to share that, because that what Katherine said really resonated with me. But it actually inspired some other thoughts which I think is in part the purpose of having this. and having other types of art and sculpture, and sites that memorialize the things that happen in our in our lives I would be willing to make the motion unless somebody else wants to. No, I'd love. I'd love for you to make that motion. But, Ronnie, just what you said really hit me, because just like I ran into Catherine there, Saturday being in a public place and a fairly accessible place, you know, downtown.

[81:10] Others will run into each other and can share whatever they choose at that site. So if if someone shares the puts a motion on the screen, I think a better off reading it. That's fair. Oh, she's got it! Here we go. Okay. there we go. I move that the landmarks board, adopt the staff memorandum, dated March, first 2,023, as the findings of the board and approve a landmark alteration certificate to install a memorial sculpture at 20 to 205 Broadway, a contributing property in the Mapleton Hill historic district, as shown on Plans Day to January, fourth, 2,023. Finding that the proposal meets the standards of issuance of a landmark alteration, certificate and chapter 9 1118 brc, 1,981, and is generally consistent with the general design. Guidelines

[82:10] check in. Thank you, Ronnie, for the motion. Chelsea. Thank you for the second. Is there any more discussion or amendments to the motion. hearing or seeing. Then we'll do a roll roll. Call. Vote, Bill. Thank you, Chelsea. Hi. John! I Ronnie and I vote I said. The motion passes unanimously. Thank you. Everyone, really, truly, I I think about that contemplative piece potentially being on that rooftop looking down, too. So think about that. So you all got to come to the opening of this. First and foremost, we'll be honoring the families of the victims themselves before anyone else. And so thank you.

[83:17] Okay, Thank you and thank you, and and we do also applaud the bolt of road to generous involvement with this project. So thank you so much. Staff will now explain any next steps. Now that we have unanimously approved this landmark alteration certificate. Thank you, Abby. So the landmarks, boards, decisions on L. A. Cs are subject to a council call up as the Lac was approved. It will go to the city council within 16 days, so that's by by March seventeenth. and if if they don't call it up, the Lc. Is issue, and if it is called up, we have hearing scheduled within 45 days. But, Lori, you have my contact info feel free to reach out if you'd like to talk about it more tomorrow.

[84:10] Thank you likewise. Okay, Great. Thank you again, Laurie. And now it's time to move on to item 5 B on our agenda. This is a public hearing and consideration of a landmark Operation Certificate Application to install aluminum clad windows at 9 0 9; Mapleton Avenue, a contributing property in the Mapleton Hill Historic District. Pursuant to Section 9, 1118 of the boulder revised code thank you to the owners who have agreed to this virtual quasi-judicial meeting. So I know Marcy, is marcy, or Claire. Are you? Is Claire presenting this one I am presenting this one. Yeah, thank you, Claire. So

[85:09] after I just, I don't know if you want to quickly review this, since Marci already did it for our last hearing, and then we'll do board ex parte. Could I recognize the bill? Has his hand raised? Yes, I am within 3 houses of this property. So i'm going to recuse myself. Okay, and Bill, do we have a way to notify Bill when we're ready to continue with agenda Item. i'll mute everything, and then i'll just listen. I mean, Listen after. Well, I can listen to this, can't I? Yes, no, somebody. This is Lucas here. What I think we've done in the past is, since, you know, in a real back. In the old days, when we had our hearings in person, we would have the person leave the room entirely, and they part of that is so. The members who are speaking can speak totally freely. I think the same would apply to a virtual room, so that would be to leave the meeting entirely.

[86:11] So we would want to be able to just get back in touch with you when it is over, and you know you would probably be reduced to listening to it after the fact if you wanted to. Okay, i'll just leave the meeting. Thanks. and I offer to text bill at the conclusion of this particular hearing Bill, and then he can jump back on. That would be great, Ronnie. Thank you. Okay. Okay, Abby, With your permission, i'll skip over going through the process again, the applicant and owner. and not with us today. So this will be the same process as the previous review. I would like to say that before you go into our ex parte context. you've asked to note who's reviewed this previously, and

[87:04] the request for clad windows has not been previously reviewed. However, the request to replace the windows themselves was reviewed and approved by Abbey and John at Ldrc. Okay. thank you, Claire. And so we'll do exparte. I have none, Chelsea. Then. John. None. Ronnie. none. Okay, Thank you. Back to you. Clear Thank you. So the criteria for review are outlined in 9, 1118, B. And C. And the options today are for the landmarks board to approve the application. This would be subject to a 16 Day City council, call-up period, or denied the application which would be subject to a 30 day period, in which city Council could request

[88:02] to review the decision. A denial would mean that the applicant could not submit the same application within 12 months. The Board may also allow the applicant to withdraw. So on November 9 of last year, the Ldrc. Reviewed an application to replace the windows. At this location the lac was approved by the Ldrc. Specifying the use of all wood windows. At the end of last year we received a request to use aluminium, sorry aluminum cloud windows rather than wood. This review is for the consideration of the installation of clad windows rather than the approved replacement wood windows. as as the replacement of the windows has has already been approved by the Ldsc. So we are

[89:01] looking at 909 at Mapleton Avenue. It is on the corner of Ninth and Mapleton, in the Mapleton Hill historic district. Here the house was constructed in 1,901 by Judge Harry P. Gamble Gamble was apparently one of the greatest football stars of his younger days. He was then Boulder County, attorney, from 1,902 to 1,906, and judge of the eighth district, from 1,906 to 1,912. He was chairman of the committee that wrote the city charter in 1,917. This 2 story house is an unusually elaborate foursquare. It has a hipped roof and central double dorm. You can see here. and very broad, overhanging eaves, a classical freeze and a front porch that wraps around. and it's supported by head Tuscan columns.

[90:05] The proposal to use aluminum clad windows rather than wood would. It is for the windows here at the east elevation addition to the house. So I want to reiterate that the question in front of the board is whether the clad windows are appropriate. However, I do want to explain how Staff came to the conclusion that the addition. a character defining feature of the house, yet the windows themselves are non-historic. So you can just about see the addition. The edge of it is behind the tree. and it goes to about here. So the the addition is not original to the house. This floor, pan, floor, floor, plan from 1,903. It shows the original square footprint, and here's the front porch.

[91:05] The addition would be built here. This is the real estate Assessor appraisal card. It shows the addition in blue pencil. which indicates that it was probably added before 1,929 items that were written on the Assessor cards in blue were from the earlier time period. Red is the later assessment. So you can see that there's some red markings on here. Also. That's when the Assessor wrote, and B, indicating that there was no basement in this in this area. And there's also some mockings from 1,962 that were written in a graphite pencil. Unfortunately, we don't have a historic photograph of the side of the house

[92:02] during the period of significant significance to confirm that this was added during that period. We just have this to go off. We also have a photograph of the front of the house. So this is the the front elevation, the south elevation again. Here would be the the current addition behind here. So it wasn't original to the house. However, you can see the the roof line right in here in the Tax assessor image, and we believe that this is a 1,929 image. because at that time the Assessor typically wrote the address on the negative. And you can see that here in in white later photographs from the 1,949 time period are typically accompanied by a physical easel. Sign that they that they put the they use those movable letters and

[93:10] and put that in the front of the house. so that you had a an actual physical copy of the address on the photograph, and they didn't have to write it on the negative. The tax assessor card also notes that the house was remodeled and repaired in 1949. The owner's owner of the house found newspapers in the wall cavity of the edition that had dated 1,949. So we believe that the the addition was pre 1,929, and then probably modified in 1,949, to include the addition of the the windows; and this is important, because 1,949 is outside of the period of significance for the Mapleton historic district So we concluded that the windows themselves are probably non contributing but the porch, the sun Roof. Some room addition here

[94:10] probably predates 1929, and therefore is within the period of significance, and also is a character defining feature of the house. So these are the windows in question from the south elevation, facing Mapleton Avenue in shade. In my photograph, but visible from the sidewalk. This is these are the east elevation windows. These were also visible across the the adjacent property from the sidewalk. And we're looking at these ones here. and this is the north elevation, which are not visible currently from the from the alley. That house is back here somewhere, and there's vegetation in front of it, so

[95:07] it was impossible to see. So we're looking at these windows down here. So Staff based our analysis on 9, 1118, B. And C of the boulder revised code and the general design guidelines for historic districts, and the individual and individual landmarks and the Mapleton Hill historic district guidelines the district guidelines say that if repair is not feasible and the window must be replaced, Match the existing windows as closely as possible. Elements that should be carefully considered are size, frame, material, method of operation, single or double, glazing and divided, or single panes. and that snap in mullions or other unauthentic architectural details are generally not appropriate in the historic district. The new windows that are proposed will match the size, method of operation and divided light pattern. In addition to frame and munt in size.

[96:09] however, Staff determined that they will not match frame material, and the proposal also includes a simulated, divided light and simulated mountain putty bevel. The general guidelines say that if it is determined, the window may be replaced. The same material as was the original, is most appropriate. However other materials may be considered. If the operation, dimension, profile, durability, and finish are the same. Synthetic materials are generally inappropriate. Synthetic materials rarely duplicate the surface texture reflective and detailed qualities of original materials. A similar true divided light window that matches like dimensions profile and detailing of the original, is most appropriate high-quality simulated. Divided light windows may be allowed, if they maintain the mountain size of the original window

[97:05] and snap in mountains or other inauthentic architectural details are inappropriate. and that all retrofitted or replacement windows must match the historic feature as closely as possible. The replacement windows proposed match the historic features closely. Except in materiality. They will not meet, match the surface texture on the frame and the reflective properties of the paint and detail qualities will not match the existing. And again, the proposal includes a simulated divided light to maintain the dimensions, profile, and size of the original stuff, determined that the replacement windows will generally match the existing windows in size, proportion, method of operation divided light, pattern, frame and mountain size per the district, Guidelines and operation, dimension, profile and durability per the general guidelines.

[98:02] However, the frame material will not match the existing wood windows and surface texture, reflective and detailed qualities. and that the material is unable to match texture, color, or materials. So with that we considered. The replacement of windows using aluminum clad windows in this location is generally inconsistent with the general design guidelines. We thought that it would be it that would it impact exterior architectural features of the house. while the current windows were probably installed outside of the period of significance in 1,949. The two-story porch on the east elevation predates 1,929, and is a character defining feature of the house. and the addition of nontraditional material at a location visible from the public right of way, is inappropriate to the character of the house and the district.

[99:02] We thought that it would adversely affect the special character or special historic, architectural or aesthetic interest or value of the house in this location. as the windows are visible from the public right of way. as the proposed aluminum windows will not match the existing windows in texture or materials. and we considered that, replacing the windows with aluminum cloud windows incompatible with the designated property as even though the existing windows will be replicated to match style and arrangement. The nontraditional material is an unable to match texture, color, or materials. Additionally, Staff found that the wood windows would likely meet the city's energy, regulation and requirements. The energy code. in addition to the cloud windows meeting those requirements.

[100:02] So Staff's recommendation is to deny the application, as we found it generally inconsistent with the guidelines. However, this does not impact the determination that the Ldrc found that the existing wood windows may be replaced in kind with wood windows. and to quickly summarize staff's. Finding the introduction of nontraditional materials to a character defining feature visible from the public right of way, is generally inconsistent with the purposes of this chapter. In that it will damage the historic character and the exterior architectural features of the landmark property. The texture, color, and material proposed are incompatible with the character of the existing building and the site and the historic district. and the proposed work will adversely affect the special character or special historic architectural and value of the landmark property, as it is generally inconsistent with the general

[101:02] design guidelines, and will not comply with sections, 2 and 3.3 of the general design guidelines in Section 9, 1118 B. 3 of the boulder revised code. 1,981. So that's the end of the stuff. Presentation. This is a quick reminder of the next steps in the process. The applicant usually has 10 min to present to the board. However, the applicant and owner have let us know that they are not attending the hearing tonight. So then we can move it into directly into public participation, and then for deliberation. a reminder that the question today for the board is whether the request to use aluminum clad windows meets the standards for a landmark ortration certificate. If yes, staff will approve the application. Assuming city Council does not want to review the decision, and if no, the Board will

[102:04] deny the request. So any questions from the Board before we continue. I I Don't. See? Oh, Robbie. go ahead. Thanks, Claire. I could you go back to slide 52 for a second. I just want to make sure I understand something. Okay. so just to confirm the two-story porch predates 1,929 we believe so the enclosure of the area that we're talking about occurred when windows were installed in 1,949. Did I get that right? We don't know if there were windows before 1,949, but the windows that are currently there we believe, were installed in 1,949

[103:04] It may have enclosed that porch or it may have been in close before then. Okay, that's kind of No, no, no, that was just the obstacle in my mind which is like. Was that area enclosed? Or was it in? Closed in 1,949? And I guess the reason i'm asking is like you. Know, I want to make sure these applicants can go forward with something like if they're going to replace the windows. It's a loop. or as it would, or something else. and not to undo what they have, but and just it. It would be a very different circumstance if they came to us today, and they said. Hey, we want to enclose this porch, and I know that it's not what the application is. We're basically determining what the when the quality of the window is. But

[104:01] maybe i'm thinking about this incorrectly. but i'm trying to dissect the history of the window. and if the criteria of it just being front facing elevation or a public facing window is, in fact, the thing that is the predominant thing to make a decision on as to whether or not it should be. you know, would or not. and if it should be detailed in the way the current windows detailed. That makes sense. So i'm sorry I like thrown a little grenade in there. Maybe all stop there, and I see John has his hand up. Yeah, I I just want to ask one one clarifying question.

[105:00] The the windows that were installed in 1,949. They're non-historic by virtue of being installed after the period of significant. What what type of windows are they are they wood windows? They are okay. So they Weren't clad or vinyl, or okay. that's the clarification. Any more questions. Oh, Marcy, sorry. I mean, I heard Ronnie ask a question that I just wanted to answer of. He was concerned that the applicant would not be left with any options, and I just want to clarify that they have a current approval to replace the windows with wood windows which was approved at the Ldrc. And so, no matter what happens with this case tonight. They do have approval to replace those with wood windows. That is valid.

[106:04] Thanks, Marcy, and if there's no more questions for Staff at this point we can go to public comment, and I do want to say I know the applicant is not here this evening. But, Aubrey, I know you were kind enough to send the email with the the owner's comments. And you know, I hope everybody had a chance to read that, because that was. I think a lot of time and information went into the the owner's response to us. So, Brenda: yeah, this is the time for anyone who would like to speak to this public hearing to raise your hand, or if you're on the phone Press Star 9, do we see anyone yet, Brenda. who would like to speak to this. I do not see anyone yet who is interested in speaking to this. We do have one member of the public who would like to contribute. and so we will start with Lynn Siegel, and we invite others to raise your hand. If you wish to participate.

[107:11] Lynn, do you allow Abby to Welcome back, Lynn, and thank you for soaring. To tell your truth. this is the very swearing night. Okay, yes, I swear to tell the truth is, I know it. and it Lynn Siegel and I don't know I haven't read the documents, so I don't know why they want aluminum clad windows. I do know from the Gold Hill fire that aluminum melts also because I have memoranda from that an art piece that that a childhood

[108:01] memory of that house, and he never got to see the house again before it burned down. and he design this art piece that had all these aluminum pieces from from around the house after it was burned, when he didn't even know what was burning, never got to see his house again. It's interesting that this house again involves guns because it's where Big Boy was killed in front of Roger's place a number of years ago. and I have bad memories of that, because I tried to watch the trial. and I was thrown out, and that really upset me. and and that was like inappropriate, completely inappropriate.

[109:00] And it just reminds me of bullets after the last and case that came up. and i'd say that you have to go forward with this. I suppose, because it meets criteria that you can't have aluminum clad, although it's somewhat debatable. It seems that that porch would never have been covered from the images that I saw earlier of it. It didn't have a porch. and I don't know when that porch was added on. but in any case it looks like they have to stick with wood, so that's just the way it is. I wish that I knew and could have read about it before. and I do hope that

[110:00] the Landmarks Design Review committee meetings will start to be recorded. because what actually happens needs to be on the record. And there's, if it's not on the record. it's never going to be known. That's how history takes place. Is people observing it and recording it? I'm done. Thank you, Lynn Brenda, do you see anyone else? I do have one other hand at this time. So we will go with Katherine Barth, and invite others to take this time to raise your hand if you would also like to join in. So it you should be, I mean, Welcome back, Katherine, and you know we are going to ask you to swear. To tell the whole truth. I will tell the truth. Hmm. I think you are. I I really think you must not approve aluminum cloud windows on just the small portion of the house, and I think

[111:06] approving them, for the whole house would not, would not be a good idea either. This this window, if it was put in in 1,949 by my arithmetic, is 74 years old. and, as I remember, from the National Park service anything over 50 years has its own history that does contribute to a building. So. whether or not with the end of the period of history of the of the district, is this house has a 74 year old window, and so that in itself is contributing to that house. I can see no reason to to put aluminum cladding on one window of a house that is built of wood. The whole house is wood.

[112:01] and all the other one to so I don't think there's any argument about it's fireproof or not fireproof. And I think you are right in just kindly saying. No, I mean this is the appropriate window, for this house is a wood window, in my opinion. Thank you very much. Thank you. Katherine and Brenda. Maybe just another minute or so to see if anyone else has asked to speak to this. Sure, at this point I see no additional hands for our folks on the phone. Just a reminder to press Star 9 to raise your hand. I think we are clear to end the public hearing. Okay, so public participation or public comment for this agenda item is closed, will now move on to board discussion, and I ask that everyone mute your computer, or for the duration of this discussion.

[113:06] We have allotted approximately 30 min for the discussion, and Aubrey will start a clock that will start letting us know as our our time elapses, and I don't know if there's any board member who would like to lead off this discussion. Ronnie, John Ronnie. either one of us. Yeah, I think I just wanted to clarify what my line of questions were for staff. and I know that this you know. It's a basic thing, but it it's There's a materialities piece, and then there's a character piece. Are we just talking about the materials. Are we also talking about the character of the window, which is independent of the materials, the the divided lights.

[114:01] and whether or not. I should have divided lights. I bring that up only because of the era, because of the time in which these windows were installed, and whether or not. They are. you know, creating a false history of the design installation of something on the historic building independent of the wood piece. So I guess my question is, is the character of it something we should be talking about tonight, and that's that's not about the the material. The proposal is just for the material change from wood to aluminum clad. Okay? And and then I guess my only question would be, You know I. It was hard for me to read all of the the various applicant submittals that were additional information that came through today just because of work and crunching time between then and the kidding into this meeting. But I did skim through this applicant's letter.

[115:12] and it sounds to me like they are claiming that there's in inconsistent application of the way in which we administer the guidelines, and I just wanted to confirm with staff that we have been consistently applying the criteria of the need for wood windows on primary and secondary elevations for buildings in similar circumstances, historic districts and landmark buildings. Is that correct? I I can back that up. That is correct. There is about 6 documented approvals of cloud windows in

[116:06] through La C's, most of those being in Mapleton Hill, and they are either on new construction of an addition or on a tertiary elevation, but on the original house, but not visible from the public right of way. So we get a lot of requests to use cloud windows, and the vast majority of cases we've required that would windows be used. And when we have allowed cloud visibility, and whether they're on an old part of the building or a new part is the other determining factor. But on a, if it's a new part of the building. and it is on the primary or secondary elevation. It's still a wood window in new construction. I would need to go back and look at those specifically, because in this case it's not new construction.

[117:07] Yup. Okay. I I think that's good. I mean. So, Abby, what I would just say is, I think we need to remain consistent with the way in which we administer our judgment on these, and it seems like Staff wrote up a pretty clear report about the materiality of these windows. I believe, if we were to try to make a change and come to a different decision. that it shouldn't happen on a case by case basis, it should happen on a larger scale. That is about the way in which we describe these things in the code. And so I think, in this particular case, that the applicant should use wood windows. Thank you. Ronnie and John sits. You and Ronnie were vying to go first.

[118:05] What are your thoughts? Well, my thoughts are that we have been. at least, to my knowledge, fairly consistent in how we apply these guidelines. This is a fairly significant house in this district, visually very significant. I'm. I'm familiar with it just from casually walking by it catches in your mind. We have tended to particularly treat the significance of the primary elevation. This is at least portions of this or primary facing. Remainder of it is secondary facing. I don't think we're discussing character. I think the proposed character matches, Other secondary and tertiary windows that we were shown. Pictures of that are on other parts of the house. Is that correct, Marcy

[119:04] the divided lights? Or was that examples from somewhere else. The divided lights are actually exclusively on that sunroom addition. Yeah, I think that that is probably in being consistent with with what's elsewhere on the addition which you would want to do When When we reviewed this at Ldrc. We looked at other windows, but we did hold the notion that in kind replacement on this particular property requires wood for wood on parts of a building like this that are added after the fact. If it had originally had aluminum clad windows put on it in 1 49, which I don't think quite existed yet

[120:00] we would be able to allow a kind in kind replacement. But the guidelines are pretty clear about saying, when you add new windows into a property of this significance. and that is contributing or designated. The preference is to use wood and use it in the way that is within historic character. So I think that you know exclusive of brand new construction on a non- non- contributing building. I I think we're doing this consistently, and I support staff's recommendation. On this. Okay, thank you. John Chelsea. Yeah, I Don't, want to repeat what others have said, so i'll just say I agree with with what others have said, and I I agree with staff recommendation.

[121:02] Thank you. I also will be supporting Staff's recommendation, and having been with John at that Ldrc. Where I think it was a pretty fulsome conversation, I mean. I think it was very clear what not just those of us who attended, but best practices and preservation, that those windows should be replaced with with wood windows. So I. I was maybe a teeny bit surprised to see this before us tonight, because I think that I stand by that decision, and I think I think we. We explained it well. So before we entertain, if anyone has a motion or anything additional they want to share. I just want to be sure, Laura, let us know if you ever want to add anything, or have a question this evening since we have an ambitious agenda. But is there any other discussion or comments that want to be made before someone might make a motion.

[122:07] I don't see anyone, so if staff would be kind enough to bring up the suggested motion, language. motion. or if you would please turn off the timer. so I can bring up that. Or if we left. let me see if I can unsure I might be able to as co-host. and I mean I know I can find it on my cell phone. I mean in. The I walked away for 1 s.

[123:09] Thank you. Okay. While you folks are doing that, I just wanted to thank you, Abby, for that invitation to jump in. If I have questions. I promise I will raise my hand. I am here and listening. Even though I have my video, I know it. Every once in a while I I miss the hand raised to spend depending on what's showing up on my screen. So you know where to find us. Laura Gotcha. We'll do, Abby. Thank you. Okay, I moved this all right. I'll make the motion. I move that the landmarks board adopt the staff memorandum dated March first 2,023 is the findings of the board and Deny a landmark alteration certificate to install aluminum clad windows at 909 mapleton avenue a contributing property in the Mapleton Hill historic district. finding that the proposal does not meet the standards for issuance of a landmark alteration certificate in chapter 981,

[124:12] and is generally inconsistent with the general design guidelines and the Mapleton Hill Historic District guidelines. Thank you, John, for making the motion. Do we have a second? I Second. Okay, on a motion by John, seconded by Ronnie. Any more discussion or amendments before we move to a a roll call vote seeing none. Chelsea. Bye. John. I, Ronnie. Hi. and I vote I. So the motion passes 4 to 0, and I now nor, I know normally if the applicant was present at this meeting we would Staff would clarify what the next steps are, but i'm sure that staff will follow up with the the applicant to let them know the outcome of this vote. Correct?

[125:17] I will. They're also planning. On reviewing the recording of the meeting. So let me just quickly outline that city council has 30 days to decide whether to review or call up the decision. If they do not call it up. The decision is final, and the applicant may not submit a substantially similar application within one year. And if the City Council does want to review the decision staff will schedule a hearing within 45 days. Okay, Thank you, Claire. And because I know we need to reach out to Bill to bring him back into the meeting. Would everyone like to take about a 5 min break. Right now.

[126:01] We do have 2 additional hearings, or do we just want to give Bill a few moments to get back on? Well, first I just texted Bill, and hopefully he's joining anyone else need a break, or perhaps after our next hearing, we could take one as needed. How about a 2 min break. Okay, Thank you. We will. Let's let's give Bill a few minutes to get on, and we'll resume like at 80, 11 Pm. 8, 12 Pm: Thank you guys.

[129:50] Bill, you'll want to accept your pop-up. Oh, you got it. Never mind, Bill is here.

[130:05] Well evidently 2 min is enough time to get chocolate, so I I could do that. So thanks. So I think we are all back, so we will move on to agenda. Item 5, c. This is the public hearing and consideration of an application to demolish the building instructed in 1,922, located at 1741 Walnut Street, a non landmarked building over 50 years old. Pursuit to Section 9, 1123 of the boulder revised code 1,981. Thank you to the owners who have agreed to this virtual format and quasi-judicial hearing and Claire, I don't believe you are are leading this off.

[131:00] I am thank you, Abby, I will quickly go through the quasi-judicial hearing procedures for the benefit of the applicants that are here today. So everyone speaking to the item will be sworn in and board members will note any ex parte contacts I'll give the staff presentation. The Board may ask questions. The applicant may 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, or then ask everyone to meet their computers, and the Board will Deliberate motion requires an affirmative vote of at least 3 members to pass, and a a recording is available. Before I pass back to Abbey for exparte. The board requested that we note who has reviewed this previously, and this was reviewed at Ldrc by Ronnie and Abbey on December fourteenth 2,000

[132:04] 22, and by Bill and Abbey in August, 2,000, and 19 so back to you, Abby. Thank you, Claire. I have no ex parte contacts. Bill Chelsea man, John. none. And Ronnie not okay. Thank you. Back to you, Claire. All right. So the criteria for review is outlined in the Boulder Revised code under 9, 1123. The purpose for reviewing demolition applications is to prevent the loss of buildings that may have historic or architectural significance that includes loss of architectural integrity, and to provide the time necessary to initiate designation as an individual landmark, or consider alternatives for the building. The criteria that can be considered are the eligible eligibility of the building for designation as an individual landmark. The relationship of the building to the character of the neighborhood, and the reasonable condition of the building, and the projected cost of restoration

[133:15] or repair. Although not deterioration caused by unreasonable neglect. So the Board's options for today are to approve the demolition. If the Board finds the building does not have historic significance. or to place a stay of demolition for 180 days to consider alternatives to demolition. The stay would expire on June fourteenth, which is 180 days from the date the landmarks board hearing fee was paid. The third option is is to initiate landmark designation. The applicant submitted the demolition application. This go around. On December second it was referred to the landmarks board by the Ldrc on December fourteenth.

[134:05] and the building where talking about is 1,700 and 41 Walnut Street. It is located between Seventeenth and Eighteenth. The rear of the building faces Walnut Street, which is here. The front of the building faces Paul Alley, which is here. The building is not within historic district. The district to the south, shown in purple is the Chamberlain historic district. To the west. You can just see the corner. Here is the downtown historic district and the green at the North. Here is the identified potential Whittier historic district. The building is a one-story brick construction with a flat roof. It's divided into bays, using full Height, brick pilasters.

[135:05] You're in a here. You can see them here on the south. The this is the Walnut Street facade. These brick pilasters, together with a very simple projecting cornice, are the only ornamentation. The north elevation, the Pearl alley facade includes this curved and stepped pediment at the parapet. The building is very typical of the early Twentieth century commercial building style. It has window and door transms projecting con us pilastas acting as it's only ornamentation, and a parapet alongside a flat roof. This particular aspect is interesting. This is the

[136:01] the only view we have of the side elevation. This is the west elevation. It includes this central. a chimney. The adjacent buildings on both the east and the west side are constructed so close to the older building they are almost touching. You can't see the east elevation at all, because of how close this building is the window openings on the the west elevation. Here, you can see, have been have been boarded up, and the condition is unknown. So this building was constructed in 1,922, as an annexe to address Overcrowding in the Colorado State Prep. School. which was located between Seventeenth and Eighteenth Streets, facing Paul Street. So this is this is Pull right here. This is the the school building, the main school building.

[137:04] This is the between the trees. Here you might be able to see faintly the annexe in the background there. So the Prep school was demolished in 1,939. This is a picture of its demolition. and the the Annex is back here. The school district maintains the Annexe as a club house for the Panther Club during the 19 forties, and then in 1956. The building was purchased by the Knights of Columbus, which is a catholic fraternal organization. The criteria for review are outlined in 9, 1123 F. Of the Boulder revised code, and they are the eligibility of the building for a designation as an individual landmark outlined in 9, 11, one and 9 11 2.

[138:01] The relationship of the building to the character of the neighborhood, and the reasonable condition of the building and projected cost of restoration or repair. So Staff found the building. Do you have historic significance for its connection? Oops. Sorry for its connection to the older school system as the State Prep. Annex from 1,922, when it was constructed as a classroom annex until 1,939, when the Prep. School was demolished. and also a connection to boulder's social clubs. In the early to mid twentieth century the school district saw value in maintaining the building for nearly 20 years for use as a meeting hall. Although not much is known about this period of time. and also it's historic significance for connections to fraternal organizations that were popular during this time period.

[139:01] Once it was purchased by the Columbian home of Boulder in 1,956. It was used as a meeting place for the nights of Columbus. The building has also been recognized in the Boulder Survey of historic places in 1,988, which considered the property significant as representative of a type, period, or method of construction. and also by repair, who wrote an account of the Prep. School and the construction of the Annex in the book, as a town grows in 1,959 staff also found the building, significant for its architecture as an early twentieth century masonry, commercial building. notable for the window and door transoms and corbelled cornice, the pilasters acting as brick ornamentation, and the parapet alongside a flat roof

[140:05] stuff Didn't consider that the building met environmental significance as the connection to the Prep. School was diminished when the school was demolished. and the annexe retains the unusual aspect. Facing the alley which goes back to those those times when it was used as a classroom annex. This area was historically a transition between the commercial downtown and residential neighborhoods between 1890 and 1925. When the Whittier area to the north grew into a predominantly residential area. Paul Street, east of downtown, attracted practical businesses and services for the nearby residences by 1,961. The dominant business were car services. This general pattern of development persists today with the block surrounding 1,741 walnut, street.

[141:09] including a combination of commercial and multi-unit residential buildings within a two-block radius. There are, however, 7 designated and pending individual landmarks. In addition to the Chamberlain historic district to the South, and the potential identified Whittier historic district to the north and the downtown historic district is a few blocks west. and the potential identified walnut. His historic district which I forgot about before, is a few blocks east. The owner has not submitted information related to the condition of the building or the estimated cost of repair.

[142:01] Staff's recommendation is that the landmarks board placed a day of demolition on the property to consider alternatives to demolition, As I mentioned this day would expire on June fourteenth. 180 days from when the review feed fee was paid. Staff considers a State appropriate based on the criteria set forth in Section 9, 1123, F. Specifically that the building may be eligible for individual landmark designation based on upon its historic association with the Colorado State preparatory School and the Knights of Columbus organization, and for its architectural significance. As an early twentieth century commercial building. the property contributes to the character of the neighborhood as an intact representative of the area's past, and is not been demonstrated to be impractical or economically unfeasible, to rehabilitate the building.

[143:02] so that's the end of the staff presentation. This is a reminder of the next steps, and the the applicant has up to 10 min to present to the Board. followed by public participation, an opportunity for the applicant to respond to anything that said and then board deliberation. And the question today for the Board is, if the building has historic significance. If yes, the Board will place a day of demolition on the application to provide time to consider alternatives. and if no, the Board will approve the demolition request. Are there any questions from the Board before we continue with the applicant's presentation? Funny. I just had a quick question. I know we've seen this before. But we have evidence. This is a question of do we have evidence, and I think it might be in the 1,939 photo

[144:02] of the parapet, and all of the ornamentation as being part of the original building. We this is a pretty early photograph you can. You can kind of see that there's a shadow of a of a parapet on this one. I believe that's 19. No. it's not 1,900, and I don't know what you that is. I would have to look that up. I started calling the building the Yeti, because it is pretty elusive in pictures. This is this is a a enlargement of the 1,939 image, when the when the the prep school was being demolished. and you can. You can kind of see if you zoom in on this, that there is. There is something going on back there. It's pretty fuzzy.

[145:16] That is probably the earliest picture we have. We Don't, have many pictures of the front of the building. So to answer your question, I don't know that we can confirm that for sure. But we have no reason to believe that it was added. There's no permits for that addition for adding any kind of parapet ornamentation. Thanks. Can you any other questions.

[146:12] Claire? I don't see or hear any other questions for staff at this moment. so we can move on to the applicant's presentation. which is a total of 10 min, even if there's multiple speakers. Well, good evening. I'm Danica here for the applicant And, Daniel, I I will have you to your yourself, and hi! Nice to if you promise to tell the Board the whole truth, and then state your full name again just for our record. Yes, I swear to whole. Tell the whole truth. My name is Danica Powell, and I'm. With Trestle Strategy Group. I am here representing the applicant which is Stoke Investment Group.

[147:02] We do have the owners of the property on the call listening in, but I am here to present this application. and I just want to note that we respect the work and expertise of landmark staff, and we've already seen there's multiple conclusions about this property. We've already heard it called the gaddy property. So we are thankful for the Board to consider this case. My presentation is based on data in summary provided from an independent third party report and staff report. So i'm here to just present the information that we have. I am not a historic expert. but want to walk through what we know about this property next slide. So these are pictures taken today by the property owner, so you can see that what you can see from walnut is a recess building with a white painted brick facade, the alley.

[148:05] It's hard to get a good photo of this building. and the from facade is facing the alley. Here, as we can see, with the steps and Dumpster next slide. So his background on our process, the previous owner, which was the Knights of Columbus, submitted a demo permit application in 2,019. We believe this was referred to the landmarks board, and it was closed out due to inactivity. Current owners have purchased the property in 2,020 from the Knights of Columbus. The building is currently vacant. It's not very occupiable at the moment. The developer Stoke is interested in redeveloping this site, portions of the site and the adjacent site for middle income and affordable housing. So we submitted a pre-application of June of 2,022 to find out what the options would be.

[149:08] and so at that time staff said it's not in a landmark or historic district, but it's over 50 years old. Hire an architectural historian to do an inventory and come back to us, and then we'll let you know what we think. which is great feedback. And so we did that next slide. So we hired Ron Slatic to Tanka historical associates to research the properties. and he did a Colorado Cultural Resource survey, inventory forum. And so in his research he concluded that it did not meet any of the local city of boulder designation, criteria, or the State or national criteria. So we proceeded to move forward with the application next slide.

[150:01] and submitted a demo permit application. So this was not. There's no big development proposed. We were just following the protocol in the Development review process. So in with his report we found out that the prop school was, as Claire described, adjacent to the property to the north. and this was built as an annexe, and so once that Prep. School was removed, replaced with a commercial building. It severed the relationship between the 2 buildings next slide again. This I love the metaphor of the Yaddy Building, so there's the picture of it. I think, from the when the Prep. School was there. And here was today when we tried to take a picture of it from Pearl Street, looking southeast next slide.

[151:02] So after the Prep. School. sold the building and use it as a warehouse. The Knights of Columbus bought it as one of several buildings, and used it for several years. They use it as a club building a warehouse, another, you know, accessory building to their main services. and then decided to sell it in 2,020 next slide. So, as our historical consultant noted, it's not associated with any of it, individuals of note. It has a very interesting history of development. and, you know, played a role in the community's history of education and social life. It lost its companion when the Boulder preparatory school was demolished, and, as you can see, there's a big commercial building to the north of it.

[152:00] and it's just kind of located on an alley with no companion building up to the state outside. Another note of the historic report was: there's very little ornament, so this is the walnut side of the building. There's a big setback between walnut and this faced it's painted over brick with a I think they put a wood handicap eightya accessible ramp in. There's 2 doors, and it's a very an ornamented building from the walnut side. The defining characteristics, of course, are on the alley side with that brick parapet, and you know more of an alley facing building. As it was an accessory building to the Prep School next slide. It's experienced a lot of alterations, the large windows on the west again. This is from the our architectural or historian report, and presumably east. We're boarded, closed when the commercial buildings were constructed, and 59 and 79

[153:14] there are walls and fencing installed along Walnut Street in 74 sometime after 1988 to non historic doors and a window. We're installed on the south wall the 2 central entries were early, if not original, features, and the large opening to the west was created no later than 1,957. The wood. Ada. Accessible ramp was constructed from walnut, and the brick facade has been painted next slide as Claire noted. It's not in an historic district. and it's not contiguous with a historical district. The district to the south is single family, and to the north is more of a commercial district.

[154:02] It's a very interesting building. It's set back far from walnuts. So it's an alley loaded building, and so it does. It. It has this unique configuration in the neighborhood. Next slide. And here's again a couple of pictures from today that it was fronted, although it has an an entrance or a you know, accessibility onto walnut really faces that alli, and it just has the the the again. These are excerpts from our historical report. It just has changed as time has gone on. It's it's kind of been buried in the environment outside. What was interesting to us when we looked at it is that this was an accessory building for many years. It was kind of a a

[155:04] accessory building storage building, kind of a modular building for the Boulder Prep. School, which is now Boulder high School. nice to Columbus use it as one of several buildings they had. and when they decided to sell it wasn't an essential building to them next slide. So this is directly taken from the report from to Tanka, so he he determined that it did not meet the city of Boulder designation criteria. Again, we understand this is up for debate. But this is an excerpt from the report that we. you know, conducted with a third party consultant. Next slide. It also didn't meet the National Register criteria next slide. So in summary we we looked at this and did the report, and decided that maybe it didn't play a big role in the community's history. So we proceeded with a demolition permit, which is the natural next step in trying to determine if

[156:14] redevelopment can occur on the site. and with the knowledge that it didn't meet national, state, or local criteria. We submitted this demolition permit, and that's why we're here tonight to discuss this with you. Our consultants had determined that it didn't meet the significance criteria. And so we would love to discuss this with you next slide. And as a conclusion side, you know, life the world changes. This was a building that was meant to meet the over. You know the the extra storage needs of the Prep school, and a rapidly growing boulder. My client's intention is to build middle income and affordable housing downtown in boulder. And so we'd love to understand what the opportunities are, and what the restrictions are tonight with you. So that's why we're here, and we'd love to continue this discussion next slide.

[157:20] And this is just a diagram of the slide, so that concludes: oh, you have 4 s left. You did great. Thank you, Abby. We're done. Thank you. Thank you dearly, Cat. Thank you so much for that very thorough presentation. Do any Board members have questions of Danica before we move on to public comment? Yes, I do great go ahead, Bill Danica. Can you hear me? I can hear you, Bill. Yes. where is Stoke? It located?

[158:00] Stoke is a Local Development company, Ross Holbrook. They're based in Boulder, in Denver. and the owner of the property is a locally held company, and they are on the call tonight as well. So this is a joint effort to understand what development or redevelopment options exist on the site is. Stoke, related to an Llc. Based out of Rockefeller Center or a bank based out of Rockefeller Center, New York. I have no idea I don't think so. Ross Holbrook is my client, and he's based in boulder. You I did a little research based upon the application. And I just because I have the time, you know. and I just wanted to know who was behind this this effort and that entity came up at some point, and I thought maybe you could clarify it. But but okay, if you don't know, Thank you. Well, I mean my client is based here. I've worked for them on multiple projects for several years. I have no idea. If they're based out of

[159:05] Rockefeller that may be an investor, but my client space here in Boulder. and we're working on several projects of middle income housing and boulder. Okay, maybe I'll, I'll do a little more wandering. We're going through this. And now I'm. I have the website up. Maybe I can give you the exact entity and the exact address out of Rockefeller. Okay, thanks any other questions for Danica at this point. Hi, Abby. I just noticed that there's one of the attendees that Jordana shoots with her hand. Up. I don't know if she's part of the applicant team. Yes, Jordan, it represents the owner and and she just message me. She knows a little bit about your question, Bill. You to panelists. There we go. Okay.

[160:07] Oh, hi! There! Can you guys hear me? I think I just got promoted to yeah, welcome to your promotion, and just to cover all our bases before you address Bills question, Will you just swear to tell the Board the full truth, and then state your name. Yes, I I will tell the truth, and my name is Jordan, that shit, and i'm one of several representatives of the owner on this call. There's Jake Rowden also on the call. I think I have information related to the question. I think i'm not sure what exactly. I'm not sure if I know exactly what's referring to, but there is a an accounting office that's part of a firm that's called Rockefeller. Rockefeller capital, management, and the ownership Llc employees that accounting office to do some of the sort of like bill pay and stuff like that. So it's it's, I think that's probably what we seen.

[161:09] but the ownership. So the mailing. So that would be a mailing address to the account, and accounting firm for this Llc. I think that's what you saw. Yeah, but that's not where the ownership group is or the developer is. Yeah. they're local and and Jordan, I actually took all those photos today. So she lives on that same block. So we are a very local team now. I was just curious about that particular address, and why it popped up when I was researching this case. Thank you. Yeah, it's a recognizable name. So makes sense. Yeah. thank you, Laura, for seeing that raised hand and any other questions for the applicant at this point.

[162:00] Well, we'll move to public comment, and because you will know you will have an additional 3 min after that closes to address anything you hear during that. So this is the time for any members of the public to raise their hand. Or if you're calling in to Press Star 9, Brenda. I am not currently seeing any hands of folks who would like to speak to this. We do have one hand up now. so we'll go ahead and start with Kathryn Bars. Catherine, I will enable your microphone and Abby Wells, where you in Hi, Katherine. and thank you for telling us the whole truth, if you will state that I will tell the whole truth. I This is a humble building. and it's had quite a few uses. and it's got a very to me.

[163:03] intriguing and potentially creative elevation back in the alley, and I think it would be a shame to not give it some time the extra time. so that creativity could be used towards figuring out a good solution for it in boulder. Here we sometimes have some really kind of funky and interesting designs that come out of circumstances. and I think that this very interesting parapet on the alley is a a real surprise when you're back there. And so I would think it would be a shame if we didn't give this building an opportunity to have somebody figure out a creative solution for it. So I would

[164:00] urge you to put a stay on it. And besides that, there's a lot of this building a lot of bricks that would have to go into the landfill, and just from that standpoint I think we should try and save as many historic structures as we can. So thank you very much. Thank you, Kathryn Brenda. any additional hands raised. I no longer see anyone on the phone, so each of you should have a raise hand button at the bottom of your screen. In the meantime we will go with Lynn Siegel, when I will enable your microphone, and Abby will ask you a question. Yeah, i'll swear my truth. my truth. thank you. I don't i'm not so arrogant as to support

[165:03] someone else's truth. This is fascinating that this project has come before the landmarks board when looking at James Hunters place at 7 7 7 circle. and how it didn't even make it out of Ldrc. It's just absolutely stunning. and I can't contest Val Jellic, because I don't have the record. I can't go to Ldrc from and watch it over and over until I can figure out what could have anyone could have plot it? LED. Lynn, as a reminder this time is to address this particular hearing and proposal that this, that this thing came through and is being debated. is just absolutely stunning to me, because it's so much less of a structure than James Hunter, who would be turning reeling in his grave right now.

[166:08] if he knew what what it happened. The other thing is. I know Stoke from 22 pearl Stoke wants to put in affordable housing, middle income, no 300 square feet for 1,700 to $2,600 a month, without a parking space 300 square feet. This is unspeakable. They should have maybe 10 units at that place at 20 twenty-second and pearl and they've got 45, and it's going to draw down. The the transportation cost in boulder. You know the open space bringing all these people costs money. It's not free. I wish that, you know, like I handed down Llc. Once I went door hunting until I tracked down to Ww. Reynolds

[167:17] and saw the kind of step he's doing So I can appreciate looking and trying to find step. I wish it could have been more for Stoke, but Stoke is stocking it up there. They're a major stock firm. They are bringing the bucks in big time in the name of affordable middle income housing. So you know, for that reason I would love to keep this as day of demolition. But this is nothing compared to circle, nothing the part on the alley. Yeah, I agree with Catherine there's some

[168:01] so lynn your time has expired. Thank you. Bryn. Did you see anyone else before we close public participation? I do not see any additional hands at this time. so I invite a last call for raising a hand to participate and provide comment on this public hearing. Abby, I think we are clear to close. so we'll close the public hearing for this agenda item in Danica. We will give you an additional 3 min Thanks, Abby, and I appreciate how you run such a tight meeting. Thank you. I don't have much rebuttal. I think that the desire here is to provide housing as with the other projects that my client is proposing. and I'm excited because downtown needs

[169:01] different types of housing. But I also love figuring out how to solve problems. So this is an important discussion for us Tonight we proceeded with the understanding that this wasn't a historic building, and so we would love. That's why we're here, and so the the ultimate goal is to provide housing downtown that's attainable to different markets versus large luxury condominiums, so that isn't super relatable. But that's what some of the folks brought up tonight and that's what I care about in our community. So you know we appreciate your attention. We know you have a full agenda. So thank you so much for discussing this. Thank you. So we are now going to move to board discussion. We ask that everyone mute your computer or your phone for the duration of this

[170:01] discussion again. We've anticipated about 30 min for this discussion, but we will. We want to make sure we have a full. Some discussion about this, and Audrey's gonna be kind enough to start the cloth that will show us as we progress through this. Is there any board member who'd like to kick this off this evening. Okay, not everyone at once. I don't know if you know. Sometimes it's helpful. When one of our design professionals, one of our architects, jumps in, and John, I don't know if you would be willing to. Are you? I can kick it off. That would be great. I think I one. I did think of one question that I had for Danica in the in the interim, after I had said, I didn't have any. I'm just curious, Tanika, how

[171:02] how much property do you own in and around this building it for this particular project? Is it just that site? Well, I personally Don't, own any property? So, to my knowledge. The application was for this property, and the one to the west of it. and those are the 2 properties that would be considered for a redevelopment. So the one to the West was not considered historic. Jordan is the property owner, so I think; but to my knowledge, those are the 2 properties that are being looked at for redevelopment. Yes, that is under contract for 3 properties. So to on both sides of 1741.

[172:06] Okay, thanks. That really has nothing to do with what the discussion is going to be here. However. I I just wanted to have an understanding of the full, full breadth of proposed development here. The discussion, what what we're looking at is this unique and strange little building that seems to be inverted to the way, I guess a building would characteristically address the street in the city. The most. I guess. address. The most developed elevation is the one that faces the alley. It's a very kind of strange thing, I think, that speaks to the history of the building as an annexe to a complex across the alley. From it it was regarding the connection back to what it was, part of

[173:04] which is an interesting little piece of history. This is a this is a complex one in the sense that beyond that elevation it's hard for me to see it as a particularly significant building it it. as it has an interesting history. but it doesn't have a lot of, I guess. a character fabric contributing character beyond that elevation. That's the thing that I feel is is, as I said, the most compelling thing. And we're. I agreeing with what Katherine said. I think some kind of creativity needs to be brought to bear.

[174:05] which is one of the reasons we do. Place stays on things where there's some kind of complexity is to provide time to research those kinds of alternatives. and that's pretty much what I have to say to start it off. Thank you, John. Would someone like to go next? Kelsey? Sure. Sure. Sure. Okay. Okay, yeah. So based on the information that Staff has provided in that Dana and her team have provided. I'm. I'm. Personally leaning

[175:02] towards Well, I would. I would like to have it. I know that Hmm. This board likes to initiate stays when there's any level of interest in seeing what can be done with this property. I don't. I I mean this to me when I look at it. I was realizing that I don't know if I've ever like actually noticed this building in Boulder, and then I was just looking at it on Google Maps and realize. I think I have noticed it. And the thing I've noticed about it is that it probably has like the biggest front yard on in the downtown area of any of any property I've seen down there, so that that's the one thing that I feel like is distinguishable for this property. I mean to me this is a square brick building that was auxiliary to it's main purpose, and I think it was built with that in mind. And you can. I feel like, since that in the design. the fact that the main

[176:12] creative or interesting piece of the building faces the Alley I. While that is unique, I think it's unique for a reason, because people don't typically especially now walk through these alleys. The Allies are for cars for parking for receiving shipments. It's not a pedestrian area. and so based on based on that and the I guess the fact that there are many other beautiful historic buildings downtown, and the relative I mean. We're not basing decisions off of this. But the relative.

[177:06] How do I put this? The need for housing versus the value of this building as a historic landmark I feel for me. It pushes me to want to approve the request, because I don't necessarily feel like this can be turned into housing that's gonna meet the need for our community while acknowledging this building that as a historic structure, because I don't like what part would we celebrate of it? It's a it's a brick box, so I guess i'm just trying to imagine if we were making that decision down the road. What would that look like? And I just. I don't see a way in which that would be feasible. So I would like to i'm leaning towards approving the request at this point, and not requiring an extra

[178:13] several months before this project can move forward with creating more housing for our community. Thank you, Chelsea Bill. I'm ready to vote. Well, I and Roddy Hasn't waiting yet. Nor have I. Well, that's my only comment at this one. Okay, Thank you, bill. Yeah. I appreciate Staff's presentation of material and Danica. I think it was very helpful to actually hear you narrate that. Then it was, You know, parts of that most that was in the report. But it was good to hear that directly from you.

[179:07] I do agree, I think, with what John is saying is that I i'm in agreement with Staff. In this case I I think we do need to take another look at this, and hopefully, in a collaborative way to determine if there are ways to save the important aspects of this building into Chelsea's Point. and I think, to John's point, understanding what those important pieces are that could be saved, and how you. I might integrate them into a project. So I am going to recommendation, and let my dog out of your handbar in the background. The the Thank you, Ronnie. So I do appreciate both staff, excellent presentation and Danica, as always. The way you deliver the information and share it, and prepared. It has always been very valuable to this board.

[180:01] I think that even though it delays a decision till for a few additional months I will support staff, stay to play, or to place the same demolition on this property without knowing really what the the outcome will be, because I think one of the things is, you brought some valuable information from a consultant. I also do agree, and do think personally, that what staff has brought to us. It does meet local criteria, and so forth, and I think we need an opportunity to have that discussion. Even outside of that I I do think. And and sadly, Chelsea, as as much as we need the housing. That's just not under our purview per se, and so but I do think there could be some incredible. You know design that incorporates. I think we've all identified, especially that ally facade as something so unique. Is there an opportunity to maintain that, knowing that there can be quite a bit of redevelopment on that lot, and it sounds like, perhaps

[181:10] perhaps adjacent lot. So I still think there's a way that it could even be housing there just because it was built as an educational annex. And then, you know it's had its own evolution for different uses. I don't think it precludes. Somehow. They're being housing somehow. I don't know what that looks like, but that's exactly why, as they may see what a creative alternatives are there, and I know it delays the applicants things. But I think I think this building deserves a little bit more discussion before it's lost forever. Anyone else want to add anything. I don't know if there's anyone ready to make a motion. Bill is

[182:12] Bill. I think you said you were ready to make a motion to, should we have the stack pull up all the options here? I know Bill said he was ready to vote. I didn't know if he wanted to make the motion, or located at 1,741 Walnut Street for a period not to exceed 180 days from the day the permanent application was accepted by the city manager in order to explore alternatives to demolishing the building and adopt the findings of the staff number random dated March first, 2,023. Okay.

[183:01] Thank you, Bill, for the motion, and Ronnie for seconding it. Is there any more discussion? Anything as far as an amendment which is is atypical to a stay, but anything else to have before I do a roll call vote. Okay, seeing or hearing nothing, Bill. Hi. Chelsea! No. John Ronnie. bye. and I vote I. So the motion passes 4 to one. and then, Clara, if you will take a moment to explain next steps. Yes, next steps. Once the board places a stay of demolition on a property, it is to allow the Board time to discuss options with the applicant and owner, and we'll be in touch to schedule a meeting.

[184:10] Abby, would you or the Board please volunteer 2 members to be representatives during this day I I will be one of them. I don't know who else might. Okay, so John and I and I know that when you arrange a meeting with the applicants that all Board members are welcome as well as the public to 10. But John and I will great thank you. I didn't. I didn't mean to nominate you. I'm glad you I I i'm interested in this because it is. It is unique, and you know I I think we have the the staff view of of criteria and eligibility, and then we have a consulted. So I think I I am definitely interested in seeing and learning more about this.

[185:09] Thank you. I know it's I. We would look forward to working with you. So thank you so much for your time. Yeah, thank you. Very nice, Tim. All right. Presentation to Hi, Danica. Thank you. So we're ready to move on to agenda. Item 5 d. Does anyone do we need to take a break. Does anyone do we want to take a 5 min break or soldier through? Okay, I guess at this point we'll move on on through. So this is a public hearing and consideration of an application to demolish a building constructed in 1,959 located at 1444 fals and street

[186:06] a non landmarked building over 50 years old, pursuant to Section 9, 1123 of the boulder revised code, 1,981, and the applicant and owner is Kenneth Stone, and thank you to the owners for agreeing beforehand to this virtual cause. I judicial hearing. All right. Well, with that I will go over the quasi-judicial procedures one more time. So first all speaking to the item, are sworn in and then board members will note in the X partake contacts. I then give a staff presentation, followed by the applicant's presentation, and the board may ask questions of either of us, and then the public hearing is open for public comment, followed by any board questions.

[187:04] The applicant then, has a chance to respond to anything that was said, and then, 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 kept in central records. This is where I know whether the Board has previously reviewed this, and so but you all haven't seen it before. It's a post 1,940 a non-designated demolition, so that is a staff level review. and after a site visit we as staff, refer to up to the landmarks board. So with that i'll pass it back over to you, Ali, for expertise contacts. Okay, Thank you, Marcy. I have none, Bill. 9

[188:00] Chelsea. None, John done. Ronnie. None. Thank you. Okay. Now back to you, Marcy. All right. So the purpose of this demolition review 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 for your review is found in 9 1123 of the boulder revised code, and that looks at the eligibility of the building for designation as an individual landmark. The relationship of the building to the character of the neighborhood as an established and definable area. the reasonable condition of the building, and the reasonable projected cost of restoration or repair. and the Code States, in considering the condition of the building and the projected cost of respiration or repair. The Board may not consider deterioration caused by unreasonable neglect.

[189:06] Your options in front of you tonight are to approve the demolition request, in which case it would be valid for 180 days, which would be at the end of August. The Board may place a stay of demolition on the application, in order to provide times to consider alternatives. and this day would expire June 20 ninth. or the Board may vote to initiate landmark designation, in which case staff would schedule an initiation. Hearing this application was submitted. November 20 ninth, 2,022, and the hearing fee was paid after Staff referred it to the board on December 30 first, and that brings us to Today's March first hearing this property is located. It's a 3.3 acre property located on the east side of Wholesome Street, between Arapaho Avenue and Taft Drive. just north of the Boulder Creek path.

[190:08] The property is bordered by 2 commercial properties. The Millennium Harvest House Hotel to the east, and then the village shopping center to the north. and the University of Colorado family housing is located up to the west, across Bolson. This is a two-story apartment building constructed of concrete block with stone accents, and it's an example of the international style. The other prominent International Style Building was the Landmark Sports first case this evening, which was the Masonic lodge designed by James Hunter just a few years before this. One. The west elevation facing Folsom, has 2 two-story wings connected by a one-story entrance pavilion. The horizontality of the building is expressed through its repeating bays and flat roof. and the bays are divided by concrete block walls.

[191:02] Each unit has a sliding glass window and door accessing the back to your patio. This is the south elevation, facing the Boulder Creek path. It has a central entrance with a glass curtain wall. The east portion is constructed of concrete block with a decorative pattern of alternating smooth and rich texture. and the western portion of the ele elevation is clad in red sandstone in a pattern similar to the municipal building, which is still in 1,959 contemporary with this one and buildings on the University of Colorado campus, and the building is capped with a step metal cornice. the east elevation near as the west elevation, with a series of units divided by projecting concrete block walls. and the rich pattern found on the end walls is repeated on in each of the days moving around to the north elevation. It mirrors the south elevation with an articulated central curtain wall, flanked by a concrete block in red sandstone.

[192:06] And then here are some detailed shots. The one on the left is the entrance pavilion on the west elevation which features a curved cloud, a curved wall cloud in red sandstone, with clear story windows above. and 2 solid metal doors provide access to the building. and are connected by a curved covered walkway supported by square posts on the east elevation, which is the rear elevation. There's the curved concrete block wall that spans the distance between the 2 wings. It was originally designed as the main entrance to the building. However, this area is now used for maintenance and storage. and a curtain wall of windows is located behind the curved wall which you can see here on the right the Harvest House manner. Here, in 1,444 Folsom was constructed as part of the development of the harvest house hotel, currently known as the Millennium Hotel.

[193:07] The apartment building, was designed by Ralph D. Pearson and associates, and was constructed by Tcon construction. Construction began in in 1,958, and the building was completed the following year. and the building advertised 82 efficiency units and 6 to furnish one bedroom units. So, moving on to staff's analysis of the criteria. We start with the historic significance and stock found the building to have historic significance for its state of construction of 1,959, and it's association with the development of the modern movement in in architecture in Boulder. and then the building was recognized in it was one of the 66 building surveyed in the 2,000 Modernism survey. At that time the building was determined to be eligible for designation at the State and local level.

[194:08] and maybe i'll just touch on in terms of its historic significance. We didn't find that it was associated with any individuals that were historically significant. However. from our cursory research. It looked like most people, stayed there for a year or 2, but with an 88 unit apartment building we certainly don't know the stories of all the people that lived there, and there could be additional research that comes forward for the architectural significance stock down the building to be significant for it under architecture. As an example of the international style, the distinctive characteristics include the horizontal orientation ribbon windows, expression of windows, the large areas of glazing

[195:02] in the use of concrete. the eveless walls and flat roof. We also found yeah. potentially significant for its association with Ralph D. Peterson and associates. and the 2,000 modernism survey identifies Peterson as an acknowledged master of architecture. and in 1,960 the firm received the architectural award for of excellence from the American Institute of Steel Construction for the design of the Harvest House Hotel, which was part of this Development staff on the building to be significant for its construction craft. And is it? And as an example of the uncommon in that's a it is a rare example of the international style and boulder, and is the only remaining piece of the modernist complex, comprising of the Harvest House Hotel, which, as you all know, is currently approved for a demolition. and it was also part of the

[196:00] a village shopping center which has been significantly altered. We also found that it is significant for it, under indigenous qualities for its use of local stone. and then moving on to the environmental, significant stuff on the building to be eligible under the site. Characteristics with an open lawn on the south and east portions of the property and for the embankment along the west side of the property. and it is also a familiar visual feature due to its location along Folsom and the Boulder Creek path in terms of its relationship to the neighborhood. The area surrounding the property is a combination of commercial and multi-unit residential buildings. The property relates to its surroundings as a visual feature along Folson Street and next to the Folder Creek path. and it retains its settings surrounded by an open lawn and a mixture of planned and natural vegetation.

[197:01] and the design of the building relates to the style of the mid century buildings at the University of Colorado campus, which is located less than half of them up to the south. In terms of the condition of the building. The owner provided a narrative and structural report in their initial application. The detail, the condition of the building and staff acknowledges that there are an there are major structural issues that need to be addressed if the building is preserved. And so, as I mentioned before, the criteria does include that in considering the condition and the projected cost of restoration or repair. The Board may not consider deterioration caused by unreasonable neglect. and so Staff considers that updating mechanical and electrical systems installing gutters and downspouts and addressing the roof leaks, are part of anticipated and reasonable building maintenance. while the building's location in the flood plane and its structural issues due to this, that the shallow foundation and use of reinforced concrete block

[198:06] are not factors caused by neglect. and I will let the applicant speak to the projected cost of restoration or repair is, they submitted additional information after the packet was complete, or after the staff memo was complete. So with that staff's recommendation is to place this day of demolition on the application, finding the building may be eligible for a landmark designation. and with that I am happy. Well, I can go through the rest of the findings, if you would like, in terms of its potential eligibility and for its relationship to the site and geographic importance, and that it This that feels it has not been demonstrated that it would be impractical, or on it economically unfeasible to rehabilitate the building.

[199:06] and as a orientation of where we are. In the hearing that concludes my staff presentation. The applicant will then have 10 min to present, followed by public participation, those 3 min each following the last person that speaks the applicant will have a chance to respond to anything that was said. and then, after that, the board deliberates and make some motion. And so the main question in front of you tonight for this demolition application is, Does this building have historic significance? If yes, place a day of demolition, on the application to provide time to consider alternatives. and if No. Approved the demolition request. and with that I am happy to answer any questions the board may have. Okay, Marcy, remind me when the if a stay was placed when it would expire.

[200:04] I think it's June 20 ninth. But let me confirm, and it is compressed that this because of the docket in February, and then it it is shorter than normal. Good. It would sorry. And I yeah, thank you. You know. John, do you have a question? No, I have no question. I don't see any hands up or here, anyone. So we should move on to the applicant presentation. which will be 10 min. 10 min is allotted. and I am promoting applicants. Now, applicants, You'll just need to accept that invitation.

[201:11] Well. I think we got some extra folks hold in. They have the right folks in the room now. and Lindsay okay? And anyone speaking to this during the 10 min from the applicant will need to raise their hand. It's where to tell the board the full truth, and state their full name it, and sorry point of procedure, the timer isn't working, and so we'll just have to keep an eye on that time it's 9, 24 now. So the applicant until about 9 35.

[202:02] Okay. if the applicants ready, you may proceed. Thank you and I'm. I swear to tell the truth. Thank you. Good evening. Landmarks Board. My name is Lindsay, Lida. and I'm. With the law firm about Johnson, Robinson, Nev. And Rackinetti in our firm represents the Horton family, llp and its affiliates who are the owner and applicant for the requested demolition permit for the existing structure located on 1444 wholesome street. I'd like to start by thinking marcy she's been great to work with, and we appreciate all of her work on this application. In thorough review we do respectfully disagree with the findings in the staff report and recommendation for this day of demolition. We could go to next slide, please. We do not think the application satisfies the relevant approval criteria to support a recommendation first day

[203:07] of demolition, and accordingly we are requesting that you approve the application for demolition. The request before you not only serve to mitigate the serious life safety issues that have been uncovered during the applicants teams. Investigations related to this application. But it would also further the city's important public policy goals by allowing the opportunity to provide much needed additional housing on this location. and the applicant applicant team certainly acknowledges the public interest and value and preserving buildings of historic merit, and commence the board and the historic preservation staff for their work and preserving buildings of historic, cultural, and architectural merit. However, we do not think 1444 false Folsom Street meets those standards. And again, we cannot ignore the public interest in addressing a serious housing issue that stems in part from a lack of housing supply and boulder.

[204:09] If the application is approved. the property could be redeveloped in a safe manner that's compatible with the existing site in in a way that provides additional housing units for boulder residents. as demonstrated by the applicants materials and in your hearing packet. And as we'll further discuss tonight. Not only does the building present serious life safety risk to its occupants. The building is also plagued with serious structural issues. and there really is no reasonable path to rectify the buildings, issues and incorporate it into a potential redevelopment, as doing so is practically and economically and feasible. and risk leaving the building susceptible to total collapse. As such. The applicant team sees no reason to put a 180 day stay of demolition on the application to consider consider any other alternatives to demolition. And so, instead, we are asking you to approve the application for demolition before you tonight.

[205:12] If we go to next slide, please. And as Marcy noted, this is the building, as it was originally constructed. I'm. In 1958 1959. It was constructed to serve the harvest house, hotel, and notably its initial construction, was level with Folsom Street. This picture shows, you know, on Fsome Street, looking at the building next slide, please. and this is the building today. Again, looking from Folsom Street. It is still utilized as an apartment complex, but notably over time. The building and site have changed. You'll see the grade as compared to Folsom Street. has significantly changed as the surrounding properties, and Folsom Street have been developed and redeveloped and elevated out of the flood plane that is causing a lot of issues with the building in its existence existing state.

[206:10] Next slide, please. as we've noted in our application materials that are in your packet. The applicable review criteria here support, approving the application for demolition of the building. First, the building is not eligible for individual landmarking. It does not meet the historical. architectural, or environmental criterias of significance that would be necessary to initiate in this initiation of landmarking for the building. The building's only real historical relevance comes from its association with the Harvest House Hotel in a, in the Rappaho village shopping center. Modern is complex from the 19 fifties. but again from it from the building's initial construction. It was always secondary and subsidiary to the Harvest House Hotel.

[207:07] Even the staff report focuses primarily on the history of the Harvest House Hotel, and not this building. The building. Secondary importance is also evidence in the building's. Physical relationship in orientation to the Harvest House Hotel again. It's oriented away from the street and to the hotel, because it was meant to serve that. you know we we acknowledged that the Harvest House Hotel itself might have once been a symbol of the modernist movement in international architecture, style, and boulder. But this building is not. and preserving this building will not preserve that legacy of the modernist campus that once surrounded it. The changes to the building. as I mentioned elevation and and changes to the building's face have really changed its relationship to the surrounding area

[208:02] in the sense of time and place relative to how the building was originally a period in the 1960 s just it no longer exist. Further, that the city's 2,000 modernism survey and stack report confused the buildings use of readily available and sheet materials shortcuts taken during construction. It's relationship to the Boulder Creek and location in the flood plane. All is having architectural or environmental merit significance. When the engineering reports that we've in further analysis that we've conducted as part of this application really show, that these are some of the very elements that are exasperating the life safety risk associated with the building, it really creating an urgency to demolish the building next slide, please. And this this is a photo showing that original modernist complex. Next slide, please

[209:04] you. Today. The building has no unique or distinguishable relationship to the character of the surrounding area. The Arapaho village shopping center has been entirely transformed in the Harvest House Hotel will soon be demolished after finding it ineligible for landmark designation. Next slide, please. And again, this this shows the change relative to fullsome street and elevation. Next slide, please the most significant issues. Here are the condition of the building which certainly supports approving the application for demolition. The applicant has conducted very thorough engineering and design investigations on the building. There's a structural engineering report in your packet conducted by anthem engineering. There's a historical significance in building condition. Assessment from Eric Smith Associates, PC.

[210:01] And a Restoration Cost and feasibility Analysis that was provided by pinker construction. and all these reports highlight the severity of the building's, existing condition and serious life, safety threats to the existing tenants on your screen. And as as Marcy went through as well, these are some of the bigger issues with the building that are noted in the anthem report. And again, many of these issues are due to the poor original construction quality. and it's reliance and cheap materials. which again, the modernism survey from 2,000, and the staff report both mistakenly characterize these elements as high quality, workmanship, and the higher standards of the the anthem. Report and pink and construction. Analysis also describe the complications associated with trying to restore the building as mitigating one of the building structural issues really just creates additional issues that can be just as if not more significant.

[211:06] and any structural repairs to the building risk subjecting serious damage or total collapse to the building, as those repairs are underway due to those structural issues. And what could occur during those times next slide, please. So in in the Pinker construction analysis that we submitted after after the initial hearing packet went out. their analysis does project restoration cost would be practically and economically in feasible to restore the building. That estimate finds that it would be nearly impossible to actually restore the building and bring it up to modern code standards and part of the issue. Here, too, is that even if the repairs could be done, it would have to be done in a way that requires the complete deconstruction, and then reconstruction of the building to mitigate some of these issues from the ground up.

[212:13] and I mean a concern. There is not only the incredible cost, but also that this type of reconstruction would classify the building like this as a reconstruction rather than a restoration of a historical landmark site. The cost to restore the building would also be significantly higher than the cost of building a new construction the next one. and Lindsay, I apologize, but I think we probably gotten to the 10 min market. Do you have a Can you wrap up in? Just a sure I can. You know, if the Board approves any alternatives to full demolition of this building Tonight the Board is fixing this, this building in a location in a condition that we already know creates serious issues, life, safety threats to the tenants, and it's not economically or practically feasible to restore it.

[213:10] You know that if you go to my last slide I have the members of our applicant team who are online and available to answer any questions you may have. Thank you so much for that thorough presentation. Do any Board members have any questions of Lindsay or the Okay, John, please, John, please. First question is, is the building in the flood plane, the mapped flood plane the entirety of it or just it. I believe it's an entire building is in the 100 year blood plane, and we have. you know we have more. You know analysis on that point that Cody from Jba could answer any additional information on that.

[214:02] Okay, that's. And then the second thing is. is it currently occupied? Are there It is. It is currently occupied. So it's so. It's not actually in danger of eminent collapse. You're you're saying that it would be in danger of collapse during reconstruction. Is that correct? That that is, that's true, and our structural engineer can speak more to this. I can kind of give you the you know my understanding is given the structural issues with the property that, for instance. the the concrete block walls were constructed without being reinforced. So to reinforce those walls would not only require. you know, removing portions that then leave it more susceptible to extreme wind or seismic activities that the buildings already

[215:03] been found to be incapable of surviving that. and obviously without an additional wall or roof, it becomes more susceptible to collapse. and then again, by reinforcing the walls. It then creates issues with the soil. saturation, and in other foundation issues. And I think well, I mean by unreinforced. You're saying that the the concrete walls, concrete block walls were stack constructed without putting Rebar down the parching chambers. That's correct. And I think I would ask Case okay, yeah, there she is. I can see her now, hey, everybody, you know it's a really good question until the lab right on it. You're You're exactly right. The Cmu walls and the buildings exterior are stacked on Cnu without any additional reinforcing, or go out and leave the interior course. So.

[216:03] of course, we know current code doesn't allow that particular type of construction in any locations that are subject to high wind. But again, to your point in it clamps isn't really the concern that we have here. The concern is that there is structural damage that's observable, without any sort of destructive demolition to investigate at the roof and meet upper floor levels that ultimately will need to be addressed. And so, as soon as we start looking at the water damage that we see at the upper roof sheathing which one can assume. That kind of ponding has resulted in rotting of the roof structure when we start to remediate that, obviously that means partial removal and the point at which we remove any kind of bracing from those 2 story on reinforced share walls is the point at which they become a real concern. so it's. It's fair to say that that those repairs are necessary to keep the structure habitable and safe.

[217:03] but also that as soon as they are undertaken also at that point. Code requires that we bring this. Once we bring one section of the lateral resisting system up to current code. we have to make sure that the rest of the system me that. And then to Lindsay's point, that's where we come up with the situation. There are, of course, ways that we could reinforce the existing Cmu. But at that point our grade beans that land down on footings no longer meet the bearing criterion of the soils. Oh, I see. And and would would it be? Would you be required then to raise the occupied floors above the flood plane level? Well, that's a fair question. I I can't speak to that with any. you know any certainty. But if that was a requirement. it would be very. It would. That would be a very dangerous and borderline on feasible process, simply because of the construction of the structure itself. One can imagine, if it is not durable against wind, it's not particularly durable against being hoisted on stilts

[218:08] the 1015 feet that would be required. Okay. John, do you have any additional questions? I see Bill's hand is raised, maybe. Let's go ahead and swear in this Casino. Oh, yes, please. I am so sorry, and I I am sorry to thank you for that so retroactively. Will you please raise your hand? It's where you told the board the full. I saw that what I said and what I will say will be the full truth. Thank you. Thanks, Lucas. No, I don't have any more questions. Thank you. Bill. How much damage did this structure endure during the 2,013 flood. We know. Yeah, we okay. I I only know that what was reported anecdotally to me. So Lindsey may have more information. I'll fill in if you have any.

[219:05] It is anything that I know more than what you know, Lindsay. Yeah, I do know that the tenants on the lower floor were evacuated during that flood Ken. Could you speak to some of the damage during the 2,013? Oh, this is. and one kid's, neighbors and an architect of the U.S.A. architects. We did not do a structural evaluation for the flood, but basically all of the lower level units were in water, and the 100 year. Flood plane elevations at that site, I believe, are about 4 quote above 7 foot above the existing slab level. So if we were to try to raise this building up out of one plane. We need to jack the building up almost a story. I think. The ceiling heights on the main level currently 8 feet, so we'd have to literally somehow try to figure how to lift all these, c. A new walls up

[220:04] in the air 7 feet to get up above the flood plane, but then try to figure out how to compact all fill below that, and then re-establish a foundation for these walls. So when we looked at the practical problem of racing this and fixing all these problems, we had quite a lengthy discussion of Excuse me, excuse me, I we're trying to get through this. I I appreciate your your knowledge. I just wanted to know how much of the structural damage that this did this building incur as a result of being in the flood plan. That that's all I was after. So you say all the bottom floors were flooded. and I guess, evacuated as a result, and then there must have been some structural damage. As a result of that right correct on the May on the lowest level. It was about 2 foot under water. and and something

[221:00] happened as a result of that, you think I mean there's some sort of a you know, weakening of the structure that that that occurred as a result of all that water there. Yeah. Consolidation of the soils and so forth, that occurred with saturation of all the materials around the building, which probably has helped recipient some of the movement settlement of the building. Yeah, there's a there's a lot of cracking in the existing Cmu that indicates rotation of the foundation elements, particularly the lightly motive foundation elements. and that is consistent with saturation and consolidation from something like a historic. Here, Flood, and we can infer we can infer from what you just said, that that flight had something to do with with those conditions. And sure, if you would just kind enough to again retroactively thank you and swear and state your name just for our records.

[222:00] Thank you. Since this meeting being recorded, I appreciate that. What other questions do board members have of the applicant? I don't see the at this point, so we'll go ahead and move to public comment. And the applicant. You guys will have 3 min to respond to repet anything said during public comment. and anyone from the public. You can raise your hand or Press Star 9 if you're on the phone, and Brenda has anyone identified themselves? Yes, we have 2 people so far with their hands up. so we'll start with Leonard Siegel. Leonard, I will enable your microphone, and then Abby will swear you in. Welcome back, Leonard, and if you would like, kindly raise your hand. It's where to tell the for the full truth. Yes, and Leonard Siegel, executive director of historic boulder, I am raising my right hand. You can't see that I swear to tell the whole truth, and I was the co-author of that survey from 2,000 that identified this building as a significant.

[223:12] important building and boulder, and it's culture and history. And i'm going to elaborate on that a little bit. The international style of architecture, and Eric Smith knows this as well as any other architect in the room was the the pioneering movement of architecture that brought innovation and progressive ideas to the world, and it was started by the Bauhaus with Walter Gropius and Russell Broyer. And you can actually look at this building and see how it was influenced by those theories that those gentlemen in that school put forward the the thing that was is important about international style is it led to the next levels of it's of of of

[224:02] expressionism of brutalism, of the organic architecture, etc., etc. and boulder. It was a hotbed of that exploration, and so it was a keystone style and approach to architecture that led to a spirit in boulder that became. create help, to create boulder, to be key, be the most progressive, innovative community, maybe, in the Rocky Mountain region which has created this place that we love, that is known worldwide as a thought leader, as a an innovator in the sciences and the arts and culture, environmentalism. And so this building, more than just it's use as a residence is a signifier and a symbol of that expressive.

[225:03] innovative, progressive attitude in Boulder. That's why it's important to to consider it's it as a as a landmark, and to ask the owners of the building to maybe consider that maybe the the the construction. while it is expensive, and I recognize that to repair it you own a a a symbol of boulder of the boulder that we love. and I just want to say to the landmarks board: it's delightful that this building is being brought up to the full board where the Harvest House, which is even more significant historically and architecturally didn't get its opportunity for the public to weigh in. So I thank you for bringing it to the public tonight. and I encourage the the wholehearted conversation that you're about to have. Thank you very much.

[226:03] Thank you so much, Leonard Brenda. Yes, next we have Chad Cole, who will be followed by Lynn, Siegel and Patrick O'rourke, If there are others who would like to participate, please also raise your hands. Chad, you should be able to unmute, and Abby will swear you in it. Welcome, Chad, and just raise your hand and say you'll swear to tell the board the full day full the whole truth, and restate your full name for our recording. Yeah, of course I I can swear to tell the truth. Thank you for let me comment on this. My name is Chad Cole. I recently graduated from the lead School of business, so I've been around for. you know, the past few years. I'm kind of tuning into some of these meetings to kinda get a deal for the get a better feel for a real estate here in town, but Pre, pursuing my graduate degree here in Boulder as well. But I previously lived on a rappel avenue. So I've actually walked by this property a lot over the last several years.

[227:02] you know. Kind of my voice. I could have lived in this area over here. The general area around the building, just because so close to University and the business school. But unfortunately, a lot of the vast majority of the options, for, like housing rentals for around campus are, you know, 50 to 100 years old. and they're very often run down and dilapidated, which is pretty unfortunate, for you know, students trying to find, you know, safe and a comfortable place to live, so I can respect the prospect of bringing a brand new and safe housing, like you know, Bring more brand new and safe housing options for rent in the area, considering you know, kind of the lack of there of especially around campus for for students. So Anyways, I would. I hope you could. Probably the Board could probably work with the owners, you know, with this demo, so they can, you know, build something, you know, at the location that would offer some some better housing for, especially for students. But, you know, just get people an opportunity to live in a nice place in that area, but that's kind of all I have to say. But thank you.

[228:04] Thank you, Chad, for taking the time to be with us tonight and speak to this. Brenda. Did you say Lynn was next, or Patrick Lynn is next followed by Okay and Lynn, you know i'm going to ask you just for to tell the trick. But my true yeah. you know the last speaker 942 student bedrooms at the millennium isn't enough. Oh, My God! You know we're gonna have all these people in Boulder. But what are they going to be here for? If we don't have anything historic left to appreciate. This needs to be landmarked. How come, I only get 47 more seconds. I think the clock was a little off, so we'll be sure that the appropriate. I think you have a little over time. I'm: I'm restarting it now. Okay, thanks. Okay. The millennium next door got an extra 3 feet

[229:10] because they are on the fled plane also. So it's not like nothing's being built because this is a fled plane. No, the millennium should have been landmark. I can't believe that the same thing that happened to 777 circle happened to the millennium. It it broke through. Straight. Through. Okay. Ldrc. Apparently or staff just approved it, I guess, because you can have Staff approving something, or else the proposal before us tonight is this particular? Yes, and this is an example of precedent. because when something when some process that's happening in the city is not changed, it's it. It's it's just like jail, You know there's there's no precedent.

[230:06] I mean there is precedent for something that's wrong. and it's happening all over Boulder, and we need to preserve our spaces. And this is one of them, and if you deconstruct it, and then you reconstruct it so what that means that you don't have to bring all this stuff in from miles away from all heavy materials and everything You redo it. However, you need to. I love the fact that there's the overhang. So there's natural aid, and people don't have to experience too much. You know. Heat it. It's efficient. I appreciate everything. Len Siegel said about the Bauhaus and the background of this. It's really significant to keep what little we have in boulder left.

[231:02] and this is a perfect example of it. and it's already housing people right now. It couldn't be too bad off, or they wouldn't be living there. And right next door the millennium is doing their 3 foot they got. That's how they got 942 bedrooms in there. This is way too much. We, I mean. There should be some means to take this back and still preserve the millennium. That is, that that was a crime that was a crime like 7 7 7 circle, and it doesn't matter if Marcy is not there it people can have they? These people can get different jobs that doesn't mean that as a result. developments in boulder are not preserved. That's a that's a reason to keep historical people here, or to have some oversight.

[232:02] so that this kind of a thing can't happen and lynn. I apologize. Your time has expired. and I believe Patrick O'rourke is the next speaker. Patrick is the next and last speaker who's indicated they'd like to speak so as Patrick is speaking. If anyone else would like to contribute. Please raise your hand using your button that You' on the bottom of your screen. Patrick. You should be able to use your microphone. And, Patrick, I know you've already spoken what this evening; but if you would swear again to tell the board the full truth. Hi! I'm Patrick O'rourke, and I swear to tell the whole truth. I think Leonard Siegel, for getting on earlier. I had to run downtown for a while, and so he spoke to most of what I was going to address tonight, as far as the relevance of this building in relationship to the Millennium or Harvest House. It. In fact, this is called the Harvest House Hotel, which tells the story.

[233:03] and in truth be known. The standard that was how that bought this before us tonight should have been done at that time. That being said, the question I had for you and I had in front of me is the fema maps. So you know I've been involved in enough subdivisions throughout my career to know that you can't build in a flood plane. I mean, you can build in a flood plane, but you can't build in a floodway. And the way I look at this building is that it is up to the the southern edge of it. as well as the almost the entire western side, and then the north side is all in the floodway. When the owner of this building terrace, this building down there will not be permitted modifications to that. And that's a question, I think, for city staff more than the the applicant, or maybe the applicant, and and how it relates to the Harvest House as well. That's all I had. Thank you.

[234:02] Thank you, Patrick and Brenda one more time. Do you see any additional members of the public who'd like to. I do not see any additional hands. Oh, sorry we have one who is coming in right here at the end. We have Katherine Barth, who would like? Oh, no, yes, we have Kathryn Barth. Who would like to do it. Catherine, I enabled your microphone. Oh, dear, I I. I always tell the truth, especially to you. But I just. I just wanted to. I have looked. I've driven down Seventeenth Street from the University, where you. You you know I am fulsome. and I've just driven down the street. For the 30 years I've lived in Boulder. and every time I come down i'm just very happy that this building is still there.

[235:02] and I I kind of just look at it, and I appreciate what Leonard said about the the even before I knew and had knew that Leonard had done that work. But you just looked at it and thought, You know, this does kind of look like really modernism. So again here I'm saying, here is the building that's occupied. Now people are living in it. and I think it's would be good, and it would. If if we can just evaluate and really explore. if it can be modified or fixed, or something, so it's still useful. So I guess i'm just hoping that it will get more of a chance to exist. because I've been what, looking at it for a lot of years and admiring it. So Thank you all very much for your concern and your efforts. Thank you, Katherine.

[236:02] At this point I see no other hands up. This is our last chance on this topic. and I think we are clear to close Abby. Okay. So we will close public comment on agenda. Item 5 D. And because the applicant does have 3 min to we better speak to anything said during public comment. Lindsey, will you be doing that? I believe Ken and Esa. Are you going to take that. Okay, Hello! My name is, and I do what you sorry. Sorry. I'm. So sorry to interrupt. Just raise your hand. Good evening. I'm: Ken Ston. My family is on the property at 1444 for some. Since I was a young boy. I won't Take a lot of your time tonight, but I do want to put a face on the project for you. Having grown up here in Poly, I can tell you that there are many examples of properties like this that have been owned and operated by the same family for so long.

[237:12] I can assure you. I've studied my options a 100 different ways for several years, and I've surrounded myself with the best possible team to understand exactly where I sit in this building. that one demolition is my only feasible option. I have great respect for the work that land work does for Boulder. The community is better for your service, my building isn't precious, and it never has been. The fact is, it simply outlived it. Service life. There's no more complicated than that. Boulder has changed a lot in the last 70 years, and if we're going to continue to be a great place, a place where families like mine stick around for generations. We can't anchor ourselves to the past. We gotta keep moving forward. It's time for the next chapter. Thank you. Thank you so much for sharing that. So now it's time to. I think Erica will be like it. So I just had a closing comment from like Eric Smith. We looked hard at the idea of trying to renovate this as as suggested. We've got about a 50 million dollar cost estimate from paper construction, and do what we need to do to try to even fix this

[238:16] without any guarantee that we can do it reasonably. We can't grout and reinforce the course of these blocks without taking the the precast for spot which set on top of the block. So the idea of trying to fix this structure is really impractical, as much as it might be nice to try to do that. We've looked at this a number of ways, and we've done a lot of the historic renovation and boulder. I own the Landmark building that we did about 20 years ago, and I, I take this very seriously. We office out of a 120 year old building here in West Boulder, and we've tried as hard as we can to figure out a way to remodel this, and we just can't figure out how to economically do it at at a cost less than probably $600,000 a unit for this thing, and then we lose half the units in the building, because we do the re bottle. We can't occupy anything in the flood plane, and we can't really elevate the building so effectively. As soon as we can fix it we lose

[239:14] 41 of the 82 units that are there for. So that's All I wanted to say in closing is we've not taken likely our task of trying to figure out how to creatively renovate the structure. We just can't figure out how to do it. Thank you. We appreciate that. And now we will move on to board discussion. This is the time we ask everyone to mute your computer phone for the duration. And again we allotted approximately 30 min. But I know that this may be a little bit more complex issue. So I want to be sure everyone takes the time you need on the board to share your thoughts and opinions, and I don't know if there's someone who would like to lead off this discussion.

[240:07] Okay, i'm looking at John and Ronnie as as architects. I guess i'll leave it off. Thank you, Ronnie. You know I appreciate the applicants there on this. So and and also, you know, I I think Lindsey and Casey, although I hope i'm getting your names right. I don't see on my screen what your presentations were. Spot on, in terms of the covering, the content that I think is relevant for us tonight. I do still agree with Staff's recommendation to this to stay on this property, to continue a review of it, so that we can explore options.

[241:00] and that's where I stand right now, I mean, without repeating what others have already said, including Staff and Leonard. I feel that this particular property rises to the merit. and I think we need to place to stay, so that we can do a little more research on this. Thank you, Ronnie. John, Bill Chelsea. So it's so, just to follow up on what Ronnie was saying. So, Staff going to do more research on this, or I guess I I am still unclear. On what additional research is going to be done, and by who I I took I can follow. I guess that Chelsea, that's a good question. This is this is an issue

[242:01] that that we have been. I guess, Encountering quite a bit is the fact that we have examples of of our early mid century work in boulder, a few remaining not a lot. We're losing them at pretty good pace, and one of the reasons is because of construction issues, flood plane. Other types of things like that. Mistakes that were made, I guess, would be the way to put it. It was a fact that that early modernism very often used what would be considered, I guess. cheap and efficient means of construction, because one of the notions of international style was to disseminate architecture to the masses, and to make modern forms available to everyone

[243:05] and those kinds of things, at least in the longevity of these things as seemingly backfired. So we've lost quite a few of these already. I think, because this is because of the I guess the location of this piece. The project that was, it was originally associated with. and because of the fact that the the core piece of the project is already slated for demolition. I kind of think we oh, this building. the State to do additional research, and I think the additional research is to look at this building in its context and get full documentation of everything here and and hey. give ourselves a little bit of avenue and time for additional discussion as to what. if any creative options there may be left here.

[244:14] I'm. as I said, i'm concerned by the fact we haven't been able to hang on to much, if any, of this. and for totally legitimate reasons. It's just wait underwater, economically or literally. And so I think that's what we owe this project. Nice support Staff's recommendation. So, John I'm, i'm choosing to speak up on this one, since it's my last one. You use the word oh, the billing we owe the building something, or we all the community something because of the treatment of the Harvest House.

[245:03] That's an interesting choice of words. It might very well be that when you and Ronnie go out there and look at this property through the lens of the landmarks Board architects that you see exactly the same problems that the client has presented to us. and maybe come to the same conclusions the client has come to. But to use your word oh. I think is a good one. because that's what this board offers is a bit of a due process for these old buildings. We're kind of like the last set of eyes that can do anything about a demolition that is uncalled for. I agree that applicants presentations were good. I think they were persuasive. but I expect that when the stay is placed

[246:04] that you and Ronnie will go out there and and give it your best shot and give this property. I do it's due. and that something comes out of this. It works for everybody. So i'm inclined to go on with the this day. Marcy, can I ask a question? I thought we talked about in previous meetings. How stays were not intended for site visits. Didn't we talk about that? That the site visit should have any site visit, should have happened before this before this meeting a little bit different in that at the time. In that conversation it was what I heard was we should put a stay on it in order to be able to make a site visit, because the site does. It has been made before that

[247:00] during this day we almost always meet at the property and make site visits. It was that the reason for a stay needs to be that meets the criteria not to provide time to a reason. So okay. that's why I i'm curious. What else besides visiting the site would we be doing between now and the end of this day? And I don't know if that's for staff, or I can, I can expand on that Chelsea. Having having done this with you couple of time, or one time, for sure that I remember it gives an opportunity for us to interact with the owner and the project itself in a way that all of our other processes don't. It gives us an opportunity to.

[248:01] I guess. to fully regard the the quality or lack of it, of the design of the building, because we're kind of do this, even with the information that we're provided. there's a certain cursory aspect to the formality of the meeting. and being presented with a case, and having to make what is for the for the building, and it's design legacy. It's a life or death kind of a decision. and so the state is as much to, I guess, accomplish a more broad look at the issue and the challenges, and what the options might be than we would have otherwise. And so that's Why, I think it's a valuable part of our process, and that's kind of why it was put in there as an option rather than either proceeding

[249:01] without sufficient information directly to designation. and or allowing things to go by. That, maybe should be looked at. This question, too, because this question comes to mind for me. I can attempt to answer this, but I'm going to hold off for a second, and I wonder if Staff could answer your question, and if I think if I if I think there's something that they missed, that I've been thinking i'll jump in and share it. But I know that we receive some new information since the staff report was written. and I would like to hear what Staff has to say to your question as well. Thank you, Ronnie. So the purpose of this stays, as the has been said, is to provide time to look at alternatives, and so often what we do during those stays is neat with the

[250:03] property owner and the applicant group to take a closer look, and by that I mean at both the documents that have been submitted. Brainstorm. If there are creative ways to incorporate the building into the redevelopment, I think what is. And then we report back out at at each board meeting during this day. I think. What's unique about this property is the amount of information that the applicant group has provided on the front end. I will say that the quality of materials, both in the initial application. But then the materials that followed after our staff report was finished, and in tonight's meeting, and so, in terms of additional material. I don't know that there would be additional reports or studies, or things like that, or research conducted during this day. I think the decision point in front of the board. Right here is Doesn't Meet the criteria

[251:10] for review? If so, is it worthy of the time of a day of demolition? Or do you have all the information and find that it does not meet the criteria? I I do think that there is a lot of information and a lot of factors in this property. And so if the Board members we're interested in learning more about like the flood questions that come up, we can pull in the flood plain administrator, and help to understand. Well, what does it mean? What's the threshold for bringing this building into compliance? Is it possible things like that. But I do believe you all have ample information in front of you tonight to help make your decision. Okay, yeah, If I could just cause. I I mean I do understand the purpose of this day. Generally. I have been sitting here for a year in these meetings, but I guess the the the reason why I was asking the question was because

[252:14] the level of information that we received tonight is typically what we ask for as the end result of a stay like that, right? So that's that's why i'm asking the question. Because I I guess as a board member, I feel a level of responsibility that if we have the information that we think like on on the whole, gives us enough information to make the decision that we will make, then I personally feel a responsibility to not delay that decision. So that's that's why I was asking the question.

[253:00] Bill, I see your hand up. Yeah. I'm gonna come clean here a little bit. One of the reasons I resigned was just over this topic, and the answer that Marcy gave me a few months back to the point that Chelsea brought up. Why must we decide here and now that this place is landmarkable at this point? That was never the way it worked in my head. it always read. may be landmarkable. and I always saw stays for a non-construction. Non architect like myself as a way to go out and get a bird's eye view of this property that could inform me as to whether or not it should be, we should proceed with landmarking it. So this is, I know that other one was a little different, because it was. you know. barely meeting the concept of what a demolition is, because it was modifying the front of a home.

[254:03] but in my opinion that home could have had a very important mid-century modern form to it that we just allowed to to go away. But anyway, neither here nor there, that was what my comment was going to be about. and I distinctly remember, Marcia, you saying you have to decide right now that's what this is stayed. Vote is about. Should this place be landmarked. you were, You recall saying that I do not. Chelsea? Do you recall it? No, I don't. I'm not totally following what you're saying so. But I I certainly understand frustration with the process. I relate to you right. You were quick to join me out, but we were not going to go ahead and do a stay, because you didn't want to stay just like you don't want to stay on this one.

[255:07] so I thought it might have stuck in your mind. But anyway, that was something that really, because, having been on this board for 6 years. and having gone through God knows how many stays the the fact that I was delivered that information at this late date that I needed to make that decision right then and there. If that place was landmarkable or otherwise, I should not vote to put a stay on. It was a bit of a shock for me, and we can go back if we want to, and go read or review the recordings, because it's possible at my age that that my brain has misfired and I misunderstood. But that's how I understood that vote, and and maybe one of the other Board members could chime in, but regardless, we have this vote now we have to look at. and i'm wondering if Chelsea feels that she's got a good enough answer from John and Marcy

[256:00] regarding what we might accomplish through this day, that you feel that you could actually put a vote down right now. I personally feel like I could hope. I I understand there's a desire for other people to. I guess. Confirm the information that has been presented to us. I guess that's what I feel like we'd be doing, but that it it just doesn't. I I I guess you know we've been presented legal documents. This is a quasi judicial hearing. I feel like the information that's been provided. People had to swear. And O, to tell the truth. so I feel like whatever information we have now is basically the information we'll have in a 180 days. So that's It's it's gonna be no easier to make this decision in a 180 days I personally feel than it is now. So you don't feel that that there is anything that

[257:03] an additional review through the lens of John Decker or Ryan, Pelosi, or even Marci or Claire. that could change anything about what the presentation was that the applicants gave us today in terms of potentially being able to incorporate some aspect of this structure into a new building effort that they might want to to put in place. You don't think that that could even be a possibility. No, I think there's always a possibility, I I mean. But that's why I was asking the question of what additional research we would be given, and by whom would be doing it? So i'm not. You're the one forcing me to answer questions. I was asking questions, but i'm not forcing you, Chelsea. No, i'm not forcing you at all. I'm asking you that's all. No, these are legitimate questions, but I I want to. I want to take this a step further

[258:15] as a as an architect. with with my particular education and and experiences on a cursory view of this building. especially from the standpoint of its of its inclusion in the the 2,000 Survey I my I wouldn't say knee-jerk. But my quick reaction. Is This is of design significance. and it's a historically significant building in terms of the social life of the City of Boulder in terms of it's kind of contribution to that area, and the association with the University. and I could answer the question now. Yeah, it's worthy of designation because of those things.

[259:11] However, what has frequently happened in these days is in my case. I've gotten into these buildings. I've looked at them with the I of a practicing architect. and started to think about what the issues are in trying to do anything with it beyond what its original purpose was, and to get it beyond whatever the shortcomings of its original construction and location are. and I have declined to go forward with designation. So it's a valuable process in that respect. because that cursory kind of just designating things because they meet the most baseline level design. Criteria is not the most effective way to us to, I guess

[260:02] effectively. Apply this program to the community, and to give the the things it really does need to keep. So it's it's a valuable part of the process, I guess, is my argument. John. I wholeheartedly agree with you and Ronnie. I don't know if you are trying to say something as well, but and I would like to weigh in personally, and you know i'm going to take it a step further. I have seen where these stays have come up with some great solutions, and some things have definitely been saved through this. and to take it a step further when I were a different hat and worked at historic boulder, because our ordinance does allow for landmarking over the owners objection. In all the times. I could think that I personally signed an individual landmark designation application. Only 3 and only 2 happened while I worked at historic boulder wherever actually landmarked over the owners objection, because that forced a conversation meetings. It forced a discussion that then yielded

[261:10] the saving of some buildings that I think, would have been an enormous loss to Boulder. Now for this particular one. I am not tonight saying I. I would like to propose. We initiate it. The threshold question on the staff's. Powerpoint said. If this building has this historical significance. that you should place a stay, and I totally wholeheartedly support that i'm cognizant that from the applicant standpoint, and I appreciate their thorough presentation, and so forth. And the information we have received from them, which is, is. is a lot is that it's 4 months until this day expires, and I do think that I feel, because of the significance of this building that that I would. I'm definitely going to support a stay and see what happens. But the Chelsea. There are times. This process has been very valuable, no matter if the outcome is that it does get demolished or it does get initiated.

[262:16] Yeah, I I want everyone to know that I was not questioning the validity of this process. I was just asking questions to help me understand where we are now, and what we hope like what it. Where is the how big is the gap between where we are now and where we will end up because of like what I've seen previously. The level of information we have now is often what we ask for at the end of a day. So that's all I that's all I was trying to understand of where. how like, how much? Again, No one No one has answered this yet of except for John saying. we're going to go to the site and look at the issues.

[263:02] but beyond that no one has answered what research is actually going to be done beyond that, and it's fine if that's the answer I just I Still. I think the site visit, and in a collaborative conversation. Our what you know is where the value comes in, Ronnie. I maybe I can quickly answer what I was thinking for this, and then can I make a motion? Okay, I don't have the answers as to what may occur during a state for this project, and I agree, Chelsea that, like quite a bit of content, has been shared. That often is stuff that is requested and brought to us during the process of this this is a little unusual. It's further advanced. I think so. I'm glad that you asked. You know I was the one that first said a. We supposed to stay on it. And then you spoke, and you know I didn't say anything, because I

[264:03] I was actually hoping that as as it ended up getting to that the stack would respond, because I think that they kind of know in more detail other aspects. But I think Marcy touched down one thing that was on my mind Aspects of the flip plane. How it affects the property to there's been quite a bit of financial information and structural information that's been shared, which I haven't fully digested. Yet some portions of that do not apply to the preservation pieces, as they may be. Regular repairs associated with the so dissecting that I think it's a little bit on us. I'm hopeful that we could maybe talk about funding source options that might be able to be available for the applicant that they pursue alternate routes. and

[265:00] I think that there could be some value for all of us, or at least for me, to going there and being there and doing the site, visit that might inspire new conversation and new ideas that again, could vehicle ever process with this applicant. Anyway, those were the things that came to my mind, but I also kind of questioned it as well, because I think that they did give us quite a bit of information, and came very prepared, and I plug them for that, because it will only advance our conversation more quickly, and I think more thoroughly in these next steps. I am speaking to the applicant at this point. because i'm about to make a motion. We'll see what happens, but i'm going to make the motion that we do places they. And again, my hope is that we have a collaborative conversation, and that we understand a little bit more. You understand, a little bit more, and that there's common grounds that we end up in at the end.

[266:03] So Abby or I mean. yeah, the the step with the language up. I think we've got Yeah, there we go. I moved to the Landmark Board, adopt the findings of staff memorandum dated March first 2,023 an issue State demolition for the building located at 1444 fullsome street for a period not 880 days from the day. The permit application was accepted as complete by the city manager in order to explore alternatives to Demo demolishing the building. Is there a second? I'll Second. Okay. Thank you, Ronnie, for the motion. And John Second, is there any more discussion or amendments before we take a roll call vote?

[267:01] Okay, Bill Alright. Chelsea. I, John I, Ronnie. bye. and I vote I. So the motion passes unanimously, and I know that Marcy will go over next steps for the applicant's sake, and we should identify 2 people from the Board to represent the Board to represent the Board for this one, if you need it. Great thanks. That would be great, Ronnie. I'm: i'm gonna definitely participate, too. So okay. Ronnie and John, Thank you. So the next step that after we've done this, is it appropriate to make a comment now.

[268:00] and it's the the comment is simple. It's just address to the applicants. Just so. They understand that you know. This may delay their the of their project. but that I believe that what they presented was was a good presentation. and this is not something that they should take this decision as a necessarily a negative one, and in terms of their overall success for what they intend to do. Thank you, Bill. All right. And so the next step, the 180 day stay would expire on June 20 ninth, and so I will reach out Lindsey to you to set up a phone meeting, and then Ronnie and John have volunteered as representatives of the landmarks board.

[269:02] Thank you. Thank you. Should we pull up the agenda? But then we will be moving on to matters correct. Yes, I'm just pulling up this slide to see. All right. all right. So we've got a couple of things under matters. Starting with a request from Bill to talk about the landmarks board role in Enforcement cases.

[270:11] Yeah, thank you. I'll I'll just. I don't want to belabor this. Of course it comes at the end of the meeting, and nobody wants to talk about anything at this time. But I want to spare with you for a second. Okay. Okay. can people see me? Can you see my background? Yes, it's a house. Yeah, now that happens to be in the Mapleton Hill district. that house and that paint job was approved by staff. or let's put it this way. was Staff chose not to actually

[271:02] large a formal complaint against that paint. So that was One of the reasons that I decided to bring this up is one of my my goodbye kisses to the Landmark Board and to the historic preservation program I wrote to Staff. I wanted to know if they had seen this. and I got an answer back that said yes. Now, granted it was not any current staff. It was prior to staff. but that was the end of it. It was like, Well. James said it was okay. He wasn't going to go ahead and enforce an act. Put an Enforcement action on it. But you know you know I I i'm sorry you might think this is trivial. but this to me is an abomination. and it and that's why I brought up doesn't the Landmark Board have any control over any of this. so you know, and and all fairness. So you know I spoke to Lucas about this.

[272:05] not about this house particularly, but just about what? What exactly can the Landmarks board do as an entity. if it in fact decides it wants to do something like, Say, I don't want. you know, this Lewis Carroll House paint job to be part of my historic district. It's like Abby still looking at it, and get a good look at the eyeballs there. It's actually kind of fine but very inappropriate my opinion for what we've been trying to do in terms of enforcing our standards. So, looking up in the in the the Prc. And I came across this one section in the section as 9, 1118. I don't know if anybody has looked it up or not. but

[273:02] I don't know if. In fact, this is anything that gives the Landmark Board any ability to supersede staff when Staff decides that it's just not going to go ahead and ask the attorney, or whomever to do an Enforcement action. But 9, 1118 says it's under property. Maintenance required. So see 9, 1120, c. I'm. Sorry I said. 18 am. At 9, 1120, c. Says. before the city attorney files a complaint municipal court for failure to maintain the property on the landmark site. or within a historic district. the landmarks board. or the city manager. She'll notify the property owner. and she'll give the owner a minimum of 30 days to perform such work. Now, in the end

[274:02] it would not be it. My understanding is, it would not be the landmarks board's call to actually file the Enforcement action that would have to come from the city attorney. But part of my frustration recently, aside from having to go through zoom which I absolutely hate. and the sooner this board gets into an in-person meeting the better off. Everything is going to be, in my opinion, but I won't be around to see it. But part of my frustration is that there's very little collaboration anymore. I don't feel it. you know. I I don't feel it coming through this PC. You know I I don't get it. I write messages. I make phone calls. I get polite answers. but I don't get any give and take. I don't get any back and forth. So i'm thinking, Well, you know what's the point of being on this board. But what good do I actually do other than just help you provide a quorum to get a vote through.

[275:04] so we can move the machinery along. and that's a very frustrating position to be in. Honestly on this one topic here. You know it's a small one. I'll leave you with this Christopher. You know about this. I copied you on this. the fact that this program would sit still and let this thing sit there like that. I don't care what po politics are involved. I don't care. You know why you think that it's something that you don't want to actually take care of. It's a smack in the face to every property owner that believes in the program, and i'm one of them. I know when I go there won't be a property on it. Maybe that that can speak like this, but I do speak from that at least that one little position of of authenticity that I own a property in one of these areas. When I walked down the street with some friends mine that came out to visit, and we happened to hit this house.

[276:03] They looked at me and they said. Really. is this historically correct? It's in the district. And I said, yeah, it's in the district. What can I say? I had not seen it before. It's on Spruce Street. but anyway, beyond all that it's just the fact that I don't feel personally like I'm getting the kind of response bang for the buck that my effort is putting in. So I will leave this board and put my effort. which I still have some into helping to change city council. so that we can actually put some teeth into our landmarks and into our into our codes that affect are preservation program. And so staff doesn't have to bend to a political hue that takes

[277:04] emphasis off of enforcing things like this, and doing other things that build preservation, strength. and take away that effort. So that's what i'm going to be doing. and that's it. and I will spare you all the Oh, wait a minute. What if we don't want to be spared, Bill? I'm gonna really miss your commitment. I'm gonna really miss your your intensity of commitment to this and what you brought me into by being so involved in this, and I think we'll all miss that. Well, you know. Come over to my house if you want to, or maybe I or maybe if you want to reach out, I mean, i'm trying to find. I've I've kind of connected with some

[278:08] some other people in the in the town that have some ideas. Politically. This is not the right place for me this board this is truly not. I'm much more of a problem Oriented person. I like to solve problems. and then you my head against the wall. Isn't any fun trying to solve the problem. So I think Try another approach. I do want to say thank you to Lucas. You've been great. You're welcome, Bill. You, you and your predecessor, Deb. have been incredibly accessible. Help me understand a lot about the code and about process and various other things. So I don't think you guys get enough credit for what you do. Well, thank you. And since I started on this kind of brand new, I was learning in real time with you. So it was very helpful for me as well to to get into the nitty gritty. So appreciate that

[279:11] Todd. Okay. So Anyway, you might want to use 9, 1120, and you know. bring Bring what you might consider to be your Enforcement suggestions directly to the land wants for it as I just did. Yeah, thanks, Bill. There's actually one. I walk by a lot that I think. Wait. I don't remember approving that at Ldrc. But it may. I don't know what the final approval was, and it's it's a simple question that that I can bring forward on a particular building. But, Bill, you will be missed. There are times when you have said things like Oh, my God, that's exactly what I think. I could not articulate it. And you. You You know your candid, your Frank. I think that will be missed. I think the fact you live in a historic district is a loss, because you know

[280:14] you know what that's like. I don't so well. The forces are out there that are that are that will threaten this program. and those forces will be applied politically. and you know I help defeat one such effort and the last election, and i'm ready to do it again in a in a different way for this next election coming up. Well, Bill, i'll just say thank you for your service. 6 years is a very long time, and you've seen a lot of different cases, and have always been a voice that is pushing us to be very code focused, and to be very clear in the decision making, and so I just want to extend my gratitude to your service on this board.

[281:08] I calculated I invested about 2,000 h of my time over 6 years unpaid. That's one here year of salary. I mean, considering, you know, all the time reading and the visits, and the the meetings, and a couple of the seminars that I've attended it all together. I mean, that's a lot of time, honestly. But yeah, though I I agree with everybody, I mean, you know that you and I have served on this work together for a long time. I you're my friend. We're good friends. I'm gonna miss you for sure. We're gonna see each other around here and stuff. But i'm going to miss you on this for it's a reason to get together.

[282:04] I've learned a lot from you. I think you've got a really good mind. I respect that tremendously. I think you have a beautiful mind, Ronnie. You have a great mind. I think you've got a great sense of humor. I think you've got flexibility and thought, which I think can be rare to go and do some of these abstract things and put a picture behind you, and it can be fun, and it can also be pretty provoking, and it could be detailed, and it can be broad, and it's been really great working with you on this board. I wish you weren't leaving. I'm excited to see what you're going to do next. And you know, thanks for doing this with us. Oh, thank you. I have, to say at least for part of the time. It was fun. How many of those 2,000 h

[283:04] I don't know. Maybe maybe about 1,500 of them. We might take that. Yeah, I don't know for a year. I agree with you. You know. I think these last 3 years have been harder. I I think, like it's finally catching up. And I just you know I think there has been some really great things that have advanced through the expeditious nature in which we can handle things digitally, and I can sit in my kitchen and do this meeting and stuff, but I think it's been a little taxing, and I think you know I know that's not all the reason reasons that you just brought up. But sometimes i'm grateful that i'm not sitting in the City Council Chambers at 110'clock doing this and then other times. I'm like, yeah, no. Bills right like it would be different. We're sitting there. It takes a lot of effort to get down there, but it would be

[284:04] it would be pretty different. And there's a cultural thing that I think is slipped a little bit. I'm sure everybody feels it when you sit in council chambers. and we get to look at these people in the flesh. not through this screen thing we're doing here. There's a different dynamic that goes on. You all know that except for childhood, because she hasn't been there, She hasn't seen this yet. But what i'm telling you, I mean. I worked on this technology back when I worked in. Telecom it. This stuff we're doing right here. We we use very different company that we didn't use zoom, but the stuff I worked on, and we. And so we started using this stuff way before the outside world started using it. You know what we ended up doing. This was only. So this was a fall back. and I work for a global company where to get us all together. They have to fly us. you know, from like London, and you know, Boulder, and get us into one spot, and they were willing to spend that money

[285:08] rather than just do it this way. And there was a reason why, because we just weren't getting the job done doing it like this, so as as convenient as this might seem to you all, and I know it is. It's nice to be able to just shut this machine off and go to bed. You're giving up something. You're giving up something. It's important. You don't realize. At least that's been my experience. So I agree there's a loss. The the dynamics are different. The you know we the camaraderie is gone. you know, even just that time kind of clustering together in the kitchen before meeting one of my favorite times. I just I felt a connection. I felt like that. That was the chance I got to know what what people outside of the landmarks board. You know it it I mean. John, what you and Bill knew about music. You know I I was like Wow, you know I mean so. So there is a loss. But it, you know it's hard because it also was a global pandemic, you know. So I mean it's. It's really hard. And I do think, especially how quickly Staff turned on a dime to make us go virtually

[286:16] the preservation program I mean some boards, you know. Weren't a place to keep kind of. I've met one woman who I think it's now counseling the downtown design. I can't remember which board, but they weren't even meeting monthly during the beginning of the pandemic, and you know we still keep getting applications through somehow. But you're right there. There is a I think it's the human lost sort of the connection. you know, to to see someone stand at the podium, and you know, speak about, I mean. think about the memorial that was before us tonight, you know, I mean, it is different. There is a loss, but i'm glad you have something to say. if it's important enough to you. I mean not the board, but anybody in the public.

[287:05] and get in your car, or catch a bus, or whatever, and come down to Council Chambers and tell it to the world. It's just too easy to be just logging on here, and just like throwing stuff out it just. I don't know it's just not not for me, but more power to you all. If you can deal with it. Well. yeah, as soon as there's a violation at your house, i'm going to be the first enforcer. Well. I haven't seen this since I bought it, so I don't expect to, either before I sell it. Anybody knows anybody interested in buying a 123 year old home in Mapleton Hill. Let me know because we're

[288:03] Yeah, yeah, exactly. It's a great house. you know. It's hard to say, but i'd like to start considering what the other houses around me have gone for? Probably going to start close to 2. Are you really moving? Yeah. And eventually, yeah. you know, I am not getting any older. I don't know about the rest of you. You all look pretty young to me, but so I am getting older. Except for John. He way around it. I didn't use to have to work glasses, you know. and Chelsea I mean. Sometimes I think I i'm like, oh, my God, this is so hard sometimes to do when you're a boomer, you know I hate being a boomer, and like oh, wait! I can't manipulate things that i'm sure for someone like Chelsea and Marcy and Claire and Olivia and and Aubrey. All these technical things come so much more naturally.

[289:09] Well, you know, I've never recovered from my eye surgeries. I don't know if anybody knows that I mean I've i'm not sitting here bleeding through my allies anymore, but it's difficult for me to actually do this at this stage of these meetings. and then you can look at my eyes. I mean they don't look very good to to, you know it's, you know things are just very difficult. So that's added to all the other crap I mentioned earlier at. Put that one into it, and it's sort of like. Now I I can't. I can't be doing this for like 5 h a night. It'll it'll just. you know, Burn me out. And, sadly speaking at this stage of the meeting, Marcy, I think there were a couple of other things on the under matters.

[290:05] Yeah, just a few things. The saving places. Conference happened since the last time we met, and so usually we do a report out. I I would say, let's say that for another time, or we get creative. I I hear, kind of a desire to convene in person, and so maybe maybe maybe there's an opportunity there to for those who want to convene and share what they heard and learned at the Saving Places Conference that we could set something up or do it at the next meeting. and then I just wanted to look ahead. It's March first. Historic preservation month is in May, so if the Board wants to organize any events to help boost in good boost community engagement around historic preservation. It'll wants to put together a walking tour, or knows of other things that we can help promote.

[291:06] Let me know. And then mark your calendars for the first. Is it the it's always the Monday after Mother's day in May is the annual awards ceremony. And so it's really nice when the landmark's board recognizes some exemplary projects. and so start to think about those projects around town that have turned out really great for or in bottle of what we, what you all would like to encourage more of. And we can vote. or we can talk about potential awards, maybe at the April meeting. and then the final thing was that the April Board Meeting is rescheduled to Wednesday, April twelfth, because of the holiday. And so I think we've got a confirmation that we'll have all 4 4 members there. So thank you, and that's all I have for matters.

[292:05] Can I ask you what what sorry. What's happening with the what Bills vacant position? Hmm. So we only had one applicant. Mr. Decker, apply for the 2 open positions, and so the last that I heard was that they would tell us when they made the appointments. Does anyone? Is that correct now? They said to me, March. which my zoom is the first March meeting after tonight. so that the decision is whether Council will open it. open the position, advertise it separately, or wait until a mid year cycle. So I don't have an update. But if I hear anything, i'll email

[293:01] the whole board because appreciate you bringing that up. Yeah, I so the one thing that just went through my mind that I know it's late, and I know it's it's i'm in the meeting in just a few moments is you know I know it takes 3 board members for a motion to pass. So the four-person board doesn't concern me as much. I think. I guess what I want to say if there i'm thinking of Ldrc. And if there are times Bill is assigned, and i'm not let me know, and I might be happy to substitute. Yeah. And I think Aubrey's started out the calendar where we've got the rotation, so that once. when spill's position is filled they'll have that person will have a couple of months before they're back in rotation. So I think we've

[294:02] we've got that covered. Okay. I was. I was a lot of my stuff was done. and I just in coming back on for a while. Yeah. So there's a whole chunk of time here where I won't. Be doing anything on that note. I've got a march 29 Lvrc. Which i'm sitting with Abby. That I can't attend. I have to be out of town for work. I can't remember if i'm assigned that day. But and you i'm not so I might. I Probably I could probably cover that. and we may also be we may be canceling that week because it's the boulder Pbsd Spring break. So right right we'll make a note. March 20 ninth. Oh, yeah.

[295:00] yeah, I mean, we're talking about getting together in some fashion, you know. I think we should get together and get a drink with Bill. I'll second, that is, there a motion over the course the next month. Here we'll send an email out. Okay. Is there anything else? I have one last thing to staff. What about the eyeball house. Are we going to just sit on that. we letting that go? Honestly. Christopher? Well, obviously, what I what I can say is that you raised it with James, who's not? No, no, no, no! I raised it with. After James had gone I raised it with Claire. And

[296:07] okay, Well, at the time, you know, that was probably during Marcy's parental leave. So we had to make some strategic. You know choices about what we we actually do at the time. but, as you know, if that is a formal request, then we can certainly look into that as an as an enforcement case I don't know I didn't fill out a form, but I wrote a letter, and I brought it up as my last. Hurrah! Here I mean i'm serious. I don't think that thing belongs there. and I cannot believe that city would allow it. and that this landmarks board would not do anything about it, and i'm the only one, because I'm. I'm leaving hard to believe. I think it's a discussion we have to have for sure. I mean.

[297:00] Yeah, I think the building doesn't comply. I think we probably have to have a deeper talk about it. I know the guy that owns that house is a local artist, and he's brilliant. I'm not in a good position. I did. I did. But I don't know what to say, guys. Let's commit to Bill to have a discussion about this. I don't know what I can help with on this particular one. But there there are. This brings up issues that go both ways. The issue of art and historic preservation. We actually had a case of it tonight that we talked about. There was a previous case of of public art that was installed downtown. We didn't get a chance to look at

[298:00] that we probably should have. And so it's. Yeah, I think it's a discussion we have to have. and I also think it relates to the district that we're talking about, just to throw this in there, because I think that I think that the issue of public art needs to be brought into that district somehow. and we have to talk about how that fits into designated spaces and so on. Hmm. I think, yeah, I think we need to do this in an informal meeting in the future. and that because it's 1101 right now, I think. Get on to these meetings. step in line with everybody else. Get my 3. It's actually not allowed for a year, right?

[299:02] What's that? It's not allowed to provide public comment for a year here. or is it? Oh, that something you had? Is it on any matter matters You had a vote or say in previously? I don't know. But Lucas can clarify that for us that that anything that you had been involved in, or championed, or whatever you were essentially muzzled about. For a year after you leave the board. I mean, i'll send you the I'll send you the law. They're Bill. Okay, I get somebody to do it for me. You won't know who he is, or she I didn't see a handy grace by you, did I, Laura? If I don't want to interrupt before the conversation wraps, I have something different to to say just briefly.

[300:05] Go ahead. Okay. So I think I had sent you all an email earlier, saying that I will stay on as your liaison from the planning board until a new liaison is assigned. We do rotate assignments every year. and so I was assuming that I would be here for the April meeting. However, I just hearing tonight that that date has changed. That is the week that I have planned to be out of town, and I will be camping in the desert, and I will not be able to attend. so I will try to arrange with Ml. To see if she can be here for your April meeting. I do intend to come back, for when Marcy gives her presentation that she gave at the Saving Places conference, but it may be attending as a member of the public rather than your liaison. This might be my last night, as your depending upon when we assign someone new. Oh, thank you, You've been awesome, but I hope we see you again, and and I don't think Marcy's presentation has been scheduled. But she gave this amazing presentation at Cpi, and I'm sitting there thinking. I didn't know that. Oh, I probably should know that. Oh, that's fascinating! And so it's great. I think sometimes especially if there's a new landmarks board member. It would be great after that for them to have that, you know 15 min

[301:13] orientation about the city's program, and it's all it's pretty impressive. The numbered statistics. So, anyway. Thank you, Laura, but I hope we see you again as a liaison. I will definitely be around, but we do rotate every year, so if depending upon when the assignments are made, I might still be on. Come May, but I don't know for sure. So it's been a pleasure. I have learned so much, and it's been a delight getting to know each of you at least observing and understanding where you're coming from, and how these decisions get made. I really appreciate the education and thank you so much for welcoming me so warmly. Oh, well, you've been great anything else. and if not, the meeting is adjourned at 1104. Pm. Okay. Thank you. Feel good luck.

[302:05] Bye, bye.