May 3, 2023 — Landmarks Board Regular Meeting

Transcript

Captions from City of Boulder YouTube recording.

[0:01] Recording started. I don't know it says that it it did say that, or at least I heard that. So welcome to the Landmarks board meeting. It is now called to order at 602 Pm. Welcome to the May third, 2023 meeting. First, we'll introduce our moderator for this evening, Brenda, written hour before we begin. Brenda will review the virtual meeting decorum. Good evening, everyone, and thank you for joining us. My name is Brenda right now i'm with our communication and engagement department here at the city. and we know many of you who are here, particularly at this meeting, have been here many times, and have heard these slides many times, and we appreciate your patience while we go through them again. We always like to say them for folks who may be less familiar. So we like to share that the city engaged with community members to co-create a vision for productive meaningful and inclusive civic conversations. This vision was designed to support the physical and emotional safety for community members, for staff and for boarding commission members

[1:16] and supports democracy for people of all ages all identities lived experiences and political perspectives. More about the vision can be found on our website. The easiest to do is go to Boulder, Colorado, Gov. And put productive atmospheres in the search bar next slide, please. The following are examples of rules of decorum found in the boulder Revised code and other guidelines that support this vision, and we will uphold these during tonight's meeting. All remarks and testimony shall be limited to matters related to city business. No participant shall make threats, or use other forms of intimidation against any person. Obscenity, racial epithets, and other speech and behavior that disrupts or otherwise impedes the ability to conduct the meeting are prohibited.

[2:07] and participants may raise their hand to speak during open comment and public comment. Periods during hearings individuals must display their whole name before being allowed to speak online, and only audio testimony is permitted. If you plan to speak, and your whole name is not showing up, I will reach out to you to make sure that we have that for you before you before you speak. And with that I think we're ready to move forward, Abby. Thank you as always, Brenda, and we're delighted tonight to welcome our new liaison from the planning board. Mark Mcintyre. I know some of us briefly said hello to you a few moments ago. I do want to acknowledge that we do have a full corn this evening, as with in-person landmark board meetings. The recording of this meeting will be available in the record archives and on Youtube within 28 days of this meeting

[3:02] we're going to do a real quick roll call and introductions of each Board member, and you as well. Mark I'm. Abby Daniels Chair of the Landmarks Board. Chelsea. Oh, sorry. My name is Nathan I'm. John Decker landmarks board member and I'm. Ronnie Pelosi, Landmarks board member and mark if you'd be kind of okay, okay, Mark Mcintyre planning board Liaison to Landmarks Board great and again Welcome, Mark. We know that people tonight who may participate 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 a staff or an applicant.

[4:01] as with regular landmark board meetings, you may only speak at the appropriate time during public participation, or at the appropriate time during public hearings, request to speak outside of those times will be denied for quasi-judicial hearings any person testifying, including the applicant, will be sworn in individually as board chair. I will call a roll call. Vote on any motions made this evening. Next. I think we're ready to look at the group agreements that we're born out of our July 2,022 board retreat. Thank you, Claire. This is a living document. Changes are welcome. We continue to welcome any and all dialogue and board members are welcome to use the raised hand feature to introduce a new topic as we move between through board deliberations this evening.

[5:07] So the next item on our agenda is the approval of the April twelfth. 2023 min meetings. Do any? Do any Board members have any changes or alterations to the April minutes. seeing or hearing none? I move that we approve these minutes. Do we have a second? I'll second. Thank you, Ronnie, so we'll do a a roll call. Vote for the 3 of us that attended that meeting. John. I, ronnie. I vote I so that April twelfth, 2023 board minutes are approved now we'll be moving on to public participation for items not on the agenda, or they're actually for items that are not a public hearing this evening.

[6:05] And I understand, Brenda, that we do have. Catherine Barth may have some guests at her house. Who will be speaking? They'll each have their 3 min, and I will have to swear anyone who who may be joining Katherine tonight to swear you, and individually, when you choose to speak. and just a reminder if you're here to speak for any of the stays of demolition now would be the chance, though for 2119, Mariposa, that is a public hearing later on in the agenda. But if you're here for 1,741 walnut, 1,444 wholesome, or 1,918 pine and we'd like to speak. Now, does your chance so far we have sorry so far we have one hand up so we can start there, and then we will see what other hands go up, and are aware, Katherine, that you might put one hand up that actually represents 3 people. So, as you unmute at that time, we will ask you what order your guest would like to speak in.

[7:15] but we'll start with Patrick O'rourke. so I know that Aubrey has a timer that she will put up. I believe. and so I will. If Patrick is mute, Button, we can swear you in Patrick, and then we will get a timer going for you. Thank you, I swear. How are the truth. Good evening. Landmark's Board. Sorry my dog's parking right at the wrong time tonight. I'm not going to talk about the historic district. I know Catherine and her friends at her house will be addressing that on the non agenda items. What i'd like to do tonight is address the possibility of a cultural landmark assessment that is being proposed by the Parks and Recreation Board that it was sent to France sheets

[8:03] the cultural landmark assessment, a landscape assessment is a fabulous idea. I'm just hoping that the scope of it and the boundaries need to be expanded, and and there's a natural boundary for it. I mentioned it at the Parks and Recreation Board meeting the other night. and clearly I don't think they had a clue about what I was talking about, let alone franchise talking about the historic district. That being said. it was my recommendation that Cla. Follow the the border of the the creek, starting at the canyon park, which is the mouth of the canyon. and it it goes by no less than 15 historic properties, just to mention a few, and the people at the parks and wreck. I don't think I knew the ones I was talking about, the People's Park, which is obvious. Eden Fine park, which is the

[9:00] is a. Is a landmark building, but what they want to aware of is the Silver Shadow Motel, which there's 43 townhouses and single family resident in size. Residents is going up there. The news, some nurseries right there, the Highland City Club. And now we go to the historic district which includes the Tate Municipal Building, the atrium, the tea house, the Pomola, the banshell. and and then we work our way south, even though it's not designated. Without a doubt, Boulder High school would be considered a historic property if we could ever convince the school system to designate one of their historic properties. That being said, what's important is that the 1910 Homestead report given to the city of Boulder identified the creek, and it identified the high watermarks on both sides. But not only that it took it all the way down to 28 Street, and it had it, as it was going to be a a natural walkway. The reason it's important to take it down to 28 Street is you're gonna or you're not going to. They're going to tear down the Millennium Hotel, and they're also going to tear down the millennium apartments.

[10:15] And what opportunity would there be to review that that natural landscape, as when this development, and when especially when it's going through planning, we don't know if they've considered the the historic aspects of it. So please take that in consideration, however, we don't think it should run. We think it should run separately, then the historic district. Thank you. Thank you, Patrick. Next we have Katherine Barth. So, Catherine, as we unmute you, perhaps, and then Abby will swear you in, and then perhaps you can share how you and your guests will be speaking tonight. Hello! I have Dan Corson here. and Joe's to panic, and Carl and Nuda, and so I think Dan will start.

[11:09] and then Joe and then me, and then Carl. So I think we'll all have to be a smart and separately. So, Dan, if you would like to begin, if you would just swear to tell the Board the whole truth, state your full name, and then your 3 min will commence. I am commenting on the proposed Civic Center Historic District. I'm very confused regarding what the status is. If I might read from the council minutes of June fourteenth, 2,022. Furthermore, Council direct staff to ensure that the landmarks, board, and parks, and recreation advisory board are both appropriately engaged in the Park design process, and that the band shell is included in the design, and continues to be a centerpiece in Central Park

[12:02] Council, gave a nod to 5 providing direction, that upon formation of the historic district this porcelain would be bought back to to for landmark consideration. The council was also the of a concern, that this be done expeditiously, and be brought back to the current council. I have had communications with Council members, and that is the expectation of those Council members that this be done this year. This Council will end in November, which is now drawing closer every time this is postponed. The if you have one other point here. But see, I always blame a senior moment for it that you know just what is happening in in this respect. I I I have heard that nothing has really happened in terms of engagement by the landmarks board, or the parts board. And now we are in May. So that's the extent of my comments for this evening. I, I do, you know, would like to have some response from Staff at some time regarding the status of this, and why the Landmarks Board has not been engaged, and why, and how the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board has been engaged.

[13:18] pursue it to the Council Directive. Thank you and thank you for your service. Thank you, Dan. Catherine. Were you going to speak next? No, that's so cool, and then i'll get okay, Joe, and if you would be kind enough to swear you're going to tell the board the full truth. i'm pleased to swear that i'd speak the entire truth. I also strongly support this or proposal for a historic district. Chapter One strongly support comments from Dan Courson: I would like to add a perspective that I think is crucial to being inclusive historically, as well as inclusive of the public. And that is the fact.

[14:06] The the Community hospital on North Broadway is now completely down. which means that the city will start the process. or deciding which offices shall be moved which current city office buildings might be raised how the City Creek can be enhanced as a historic zone. And I think it's because of this potential move. not a potential move. A real move by city offices in a year or 2 or 3. It is very important for the Landmarks Board as City Council to approve this chapter, one district designation, so that we can be pulling together constructively in the years ahead. Thank you for your for your participation in your vote. Thank you. Thank you, Joe, for your time this evening. And. Catherine, are you our Carl speaking next?

[15:04] I'll speak next. you know. I'm going to ask you to of the tea house and friends of the band shell our 2 groups that have been very active in getting both the tea house landmarks both inside and out, and trying to get the site of the B so expanded last year. At that time it was did not happen, and Preservation staff came out against the expansion. and I wonder at that time why I wasn't really upset. But then James suggested, and the city council picked it up that we should just with the band shell site into a large, her historic district.

[16:04] and it occurred to me then that maybe this would be at least to put an idea. And so we are. We're waiting, and we knew it was supposed to happen in 2,023, and so not to offend anybody but again friends of the Banshill and friends of the Tea House have now come together and put in an application for the entire historic district in that district. We will have for city owned already landmark buildings. which are the 10 field tape. Penfield locate municipal building. the atrium. the tea House, and the Molka, and we will have one building that is maybe as much a structure as the building, the band house, the so these these buildings and and structure sit kind of in a semi semicircle around the park.

[17:14] and they kind of always. you know, looked into the Park even from the very beginning of the park. There were crossing sidewalks and crossing past, and so I think there has always been a lot of communication between these buildings and people who would come and have lunch. or when the Park Central building was being used as an office building. People would walk across the park to go to the at. So there there is a real connection to the Park. And since since we oh, dear, I'm gonna go out of time, Anyway, we've learned a lot from from Olmsted, and we know a lot about the trees now, and we're very excited to move forward as soon as we can.

[18:00] Thank you very much, and i'm sorry my time is running out. Okay. Thank Thank you, Katherine. And then now, Carl and Nuda, and again, if you'd be kind enough to swear to tell the board the full truth. your 3 min will begin. And sorry, Carl, I accidentally muted Katherine's computer. So you'll need to hit that mute button. There we go. Thank you. Sorry about that. I do swear to tell the truth before that I pleased to speak with you again. It's been a long time. This is the critical area of the City of boulder. All cities have a center, and this is the particularly our historic center. This is where the city started. This is where some of the most important buildings have been located. It's around this area that that the city grew and continues to grow.

[19:11] It's important that we recognize this homestead. Recognize this almost a 100 years ago the community is recognized it prior to World War Ii. With the the construction of the bad shell. the Bamoka Building, which was a transfer storage building. It's been a city building for a long time. It's a critical area of the city, and you need to recognize this in the future, particularly as the city. his offices began to move, relocate to other directions. There are other important buildings in this area. I don't think anybody intends to have them designated at this time, but the fact that they're related to this community will become critical in the future, and i'd like, I. I think all of us would like to see some kind

[20:08] of of protection given, and I think I can't certainly speak for the Parks board, but they they also want to protect their parks, their facilities. I know they just like any other city agency, does not wish to have a second review of something that they do. But that's true of a lot of city agencies. Landmarks Board doesn't like to have somebody else telling them what to do, and we're not that this group is not trying to tell someone that they have to preserve something. We just want to be this area to be recognized as the significant to the city as a whole, the buildings that are included are already landmarked. We're not doing anything new to any buildings. If you designate this, all we're doing is saying this entire area is critical and important to the city of older. Thank you. We have more to talk about later on.

[21:14] Thank you, Carl Kathryn. Are there any more guests at your house who wish to speak this evening. and i'm sorry I push that mute button again for you, Katherine, because I know you all are conferring among yourselves, so you'll need to hit on mute. I mean my understanding. I think everyone I think so. So good for did you see? And this down. Yep. So I think they're all set. Thank you. Any other members of the public. I do not see any at the moment, or we do have one additional member of the public at this time. So we will go with Lynn, Siegel and Abby will swear you inland.

[22:02] Hi, Lynn. please swear to tell the board the full truth, and then your 3 min will begin as best as I know it. I I agree with what the folks have said about the civic areas center, and the fact that there's going to be a lot of flipping around of a city businesses with Alpine balson. And I think the civic center area should extend up to even fine park and and down to the millennium. Ideally. I think that'll improve things for the Creek habitation and and the homelessness in the area also. and I also wanted to bring up the fact that I really find it mystifying. And I don't say this to be mean, Abby.

[23:01] I say this because this is truly mystifying to me that 7 7 7 circle could be demolished. a 6 million dollar, 8,000 square foot. James Hunter House built a flagstone and rock fireproof on the urban wildlife interface. and was allowed to not even go before the board went through Ldrc. The committee and got demolished. It's stunning to me. Next to it is a house that the person who built that house. and it's it's a a a hunter. and the house that he built after that is the stones throw away on flagstaff on the west side of Flood Step.

[24:00] and that house is like a sister to this house. and same with Charles Hartling House, where Linda Jorgensen had had that same property. By the way. one of the people that spoke tonight. His house is being sold. It's Judge Holmes place the sign one up the other day, just fyi, and in in case any of you don't know this. But that historic home at 7 7 Circle had an addition that was very seamlessly accomplished. You really can't tell It's so well done. and I followed Landmarks board for 5 years. and I thought I know a little bit about what goes on in this board after following it for so long, and going to every Ldrc meeting. And right now i'd like to be at the Environmental Advisory Board Meeting, which is simultaneous to this.

[25:08] But I can't be because I'm. At this one. and that's the one I should be at, because that was a sin. I apologize, but your time has expired. Thank you. Brent. Did you see any other raised hands, and I know, as Marcy pointed out. this would be the time for anyone to speak on any of the pending stay of demolitions, except for the property on their post, because we have the public hearing, for that I am not seeing any other hands come up. so i'm giving a nice long pause. in case anyone changes their minds.

[26:01] And I oh. and I think we are free to move forward at this time. so we'll go ahead and close, close public participation, and I want to thank everyone for speaking. I think that we also had 3 people just speak to us who are former Landmark Board chair members. But I do know for those who are interested in the status of the civics in our historic district. I know, after our next agenda item to discuss the pending stays that Marcy or Staff will be giving us an update on that. So I think we should continue with of the agenda, as is. But just know that shortly we will be receiving an update on the civic center area historic district. With that. since we're no longer doing a presentation for this statistical report, but Board members will have a chance to ask questions. I think we can go ahead and move on to the pending stays of demolition.

[27:04] All right, Thank you, Abby. I will pull up some slides here for us. Okay. we have 4 active days of demolition currently. which is a lot. Usually we have one or 2. So the first 1, 2119. Mariposa is a public hearing later today, so I would suggest that we discuss it during the public hearing rather than right now. But just as a recap this one was heard at the January fourth Landmarks Board Meeting, where the board

[28:00] voted to place a stay on the application. Don, an abbey volunteered as representatives. We had a site, visit a meeting in February, and then a lot of the conversation has centered around the structure and the cost and condition of the house, and so, after the owner hired one structural engineer to look at it, and that wasn't very helpful. The city has hired Atkinson Nolan to prepare us structural engineering report, but that won't be ready until May nineteenth, and so tonight. The Board has a hearing schedule to consider initiation of the landmark designation process. or approval of the demolition. and this day of demolition expires at the end of this month on the 20 ninth. So I would say, let's go ahead and hold our conversation until the public hearing later this evening. The next one is at 1741 walnut, and this is one that the board voted to place a stay on at the March first hearing. And John and Abby also

[29:12] volunteered to represent the board. We had the first meeting on April fourth, which was virtual, and we looked at some examples of other site review projects. Knowing that this would likely come in for the site review, and the conversation, I think, was very productive in talking about the unique aspects of this building, where it one faces the alley rather than the street, and the most significant or most detailed facade is actually facing the alleyway. So the kind of leaving the first meeting we're going down the path of a preservation success. Isn't. Always preservation of the entire building, and it's setting, and perhaps in this one it's. How do? How do you incorporate that alley facade?

[30:04] And so we met on site with John and Abby and the ownership representatives on April eighteenth. and the applicant had prepared some rough sketchup models, showing how the facade might be incorporated into into the redevelopment. I think it was very productive. Seemed like it was going. It is going in a positive direction, and unfortunately the applicant has stepped back from the project. The owner would still like to move forward. building on the productive conversations of the stay so far and so tonight is the opportunity to schedule a meeting for June seventh, which is the last regularly scheduled meeting before the State expires on June fourteenth. Yesterday I spoke with the owner, and she is

[31:01] wondering if if there is a mechanism to extend this day in order to provide time, so that she could prepare a partial demolition application to propose rather than full demolition. And so we still are working out the details of how that might work. So my recommendation is that if the Board is interested in holding a hearing to either approval, partial demolition, or initiate the landmark designation process that you phrase it in a way that just says, Hold it before the stay of demolition expires, rather than putting a date certain in there that then we would. We would have to open the hearing and continue it. And I misspoke because I said John was at the site on April eighteenth wasn't able to make it. So, Abby, is there anything you want to add about this site? Visit on Walnut?

[32:01] So I was very excited up during the site visit, and afterwards, because I think the applicants were so willing to discuss creative alternatives to saving this facade facing the alley, the North elevation, and you know some of it also returning a little bit on, on, especially the west side, with some of the historic windows, and even keeping the original door openings. And I think what I walked away from this meeting was not only their willingness, but sort of some creative things they had already put on paper, so to speak, but the fact that when new things are being built in boulder all the time, whether large developments or smaller ones, and I think the thing that was exciting about this. What to different could potentially differentiate this redevelopment of this property is that it could have a piece of history. It could have this facade that has its own character in ambiance, and it could offer future residents future tenants something unique. That other brand new builds on empty lots are not going to offer. So that's sort of my 2 cents.

[33:17] you know, Abby, you just reminded me that on our way back to the office we Claire and I walked down the alley heading west, and took some photographs of some of these other buildings that are either on free standing, or have been incorporated into the redevelopment, and it does make such an interesting kind of walk along the alleyway and it and, like you, said a real opportunity here to create a unique project and go ahead, John. I I just had a couple of a quick comment, and then a couple of questions for staff. and the comment is is that I also subsequent to the meeting, that I did not make it to

[34:02] that weekend. I did walk down that alley and look at that facade in context, a little more seriously and kind of just to get the alley experience of it. And so the questions that I have, if this is a. It's partial partial demolition, partial preservation. How do we treat that? Because it's not designatable by by our standard criteria? Do we need to act at all? If that's the direction that we see the project going. Yeah, you would need to act, because if this stay expires June fourteenth, and the board takes no action. Then there would be approval for full demolition. Okay, I see. So then they could just go ahead and

[35:00] take it as a a full demolition approval. Okay. pursuing preservation through landmark designation. It's preserving it as a partial demolition. And and I like to say preservation happens outside of our program. You know, designation is not the only way to to save and celebrate old buildings, and in this case I think that this could be a preservation when, through a partial demolition that, then is incorporated into the redevelopment and and not ultimately designated. Okay, thank you. I I would support the partial demolition route for this. I do. I have a question if we approve partial demolition. the project sits for a period of time. and that all that is left is

[36:01] this kind of aspect of building that's currently facing the alley. If a decade from now somebody came and wanted to propose a project down this site, would the demolition request for this fragment of building come back to landmark's. Board. Yeah, yes. And in this scenario are you thinking that the building would be partially demolished? And then there would be like a portion of what's more likely is that the building as a whole with it? And then. as we all know, the demo approvals expire in 6 months, and then a new application would be needed. It would come back to the Ldrc because of its data construction. And then we would look at what the landmarks for decision was fired. but if it went down, an unlikely path in which what was approved to be demolished was demolished, but no action of reconstruction was taken. and we have a piece of the building left.

[37:05] and time elapsed. Would this still come back to the board? You know I don't think we've ever run into that scenario? Because I think it's. Is it a ruin, or is it a building? And if it's a building, then it would it would come in for review because of through the Demolition Review. It's a tricky, I understand your question. I'm just not sure we know until we have this scenario in front of us. and for that board to decide whether whether this would be eligible for designation a descriptor that but I guess. eliminates the possibility of landmarking. I don't. I don't think we have a ruin in folder to test that case. But

[38:00] I i'm i'm just curious, because in your approach. Oh, ruin, maybe all you have, and it does get landmarked. Yeah, there there are. Register that our ruins. so it's more of a structure than a building right? So tonight's conversation is more of a a scheduling discussion. And so the question is, would the board like to make a motion to schedule a hearing to consider either partial demolition or initiation of landmark designation. I would like to do you have a language for it, or should I let me just read it real quick. Yep. Okay. Great. So this leaves it, General. Just in case the dates change with this day. and it's up to whoever is making the motion to you can either include both options, initiation of designation, or approval of a demo request.

[39:04] or you can just do partial demo request if you want to make it specific. Well. but we haven't received a partial demolition request, so wouldn't we have to receive that in order first, I guess, from the applicant no cause. You can also schedule a hearing to consider initiation which comes from the board. So if you want to keep it the most broad, you would say, move to schedule a hearing to consider initiation of landmark designation, or approval of a demolition request, and that leaves all the options open about what motion you could make that night. Does it affect any of the presentation material that would be brought to us by staff in the applicant? That's a great question not significantly.

[40:00] okay. then, I move to schedule a hearing to consider initiation of landmark designation or approval of a demolition request prior to the expiration of the stay of demolition for the buildings at 1741 walnut, and it's just one building. 1,741 walnut. Do we have a second i'll second Thank you. So on a motion by Ronnie, seconded by John, will do a roll call. Vote Chelsea bye. John Ronnie. I and I vote I so the motion carries unanimously. Can I follow up question on this marcy between now and June seventh? Should we expect for information that will identify what is actually potentially approvable for a partial demolition. That's you know, graphic representation, you know. Okay, great.

[41:04] And I guess the on the off chance it goes. The route that I was describing. If there are other things to consider that are protective measures, I would love to hear what those options are. If you come up with something different than what we've heard tonight at the June seventh meeting. Okay. I'll prepare those. Thank you. Cool all right and yes, to answer your question directly to approval partial demolition. It's specific to a plan, plans and elevations, and so that's that would be part of the materials on the meeting day. Well. What would ha! If the if the petitioner withdrew the full demo application. and we re-entered a partial demolition? Application? What would that do to the process?

[42:07] That's what? That's the path we're on now, and so that what I would be working with the owner on is revising the demo application to change the scope from a full to a partial demolition. Okay. yeah. All right. Moving on to the third of 4 stays of demolition 1444 fulsome. That was also a hearing on March first, and John and Ronnie volunteered to represent the board we met for the first meeting on site which was on April eleventh, and we had the opportunity to tour the building, and here, from the applicant team in terms of the structural

[43:00] kind of constraints, I think I gave a more thorough summary, because our last meeting was the day after this site visit. So we can. We can recap that site visit. But we had our second meeting just this afternoon May Third and Ronnie was able to join that one, and when we left our site, visit the direction was that, and I think that I've heard this from the board as well, is that this is a great mid-century modern apartment building. and it has some serious structural issues in part due because because of the way that it was constructed in the lateral forces, and then also its location in the flood plane. and so generally what the group has discussed through the site. Visit with that this building is very challenged, and how? What are the opportunities to document the building potentially salvage materials and

[44:06] potentially incorporate some of the design into a design for a redevelopment on the property. And so today's meeting, we talked about those 3 things. and the applicant team is open to preserving materials on site, kind of keeping it open, of how that might happen, but specifically the sandstone that could be incorporated. The Cmu block that's decorative is a bit more challenging in terms of deconstructing it and reusing it. But the group was talking about this flagstone or sandstone is more important than the Cmu block in terms of its materials. we can, we, being the city, can and do, intend to require the building be documented if the demolition is approved, or the stay is allowed to expire both through photography and then also through

[45:11] the documentation of its history. I think Claire and I were able to summarize the history pretty well, but with 80 8 units. I think we're not going to be able to kind of convey the social history of this apartment building in the same way that we would like a residential, you know, single family home. And so I think there's an opportunity there to to tell kind of what are the themes of who lived here over time? And then the third piece that the group talked about. which would not be a guaranteed requirement, but more of advice or something to consider for the team to carry forward, but not binding would be, how can some of the design elements be carried forward, and I've not had a chance to type up my list. But some of the things we talked about were, what are the character defining elements of this building. It's simplicity, the use of light and texture.

[46:11] light and shadow and texture, a limited material palette, these deep balconies that have these dramatic shadows. and there. There is more more there. So let me pause there before I talk about next steps and ask Ronnie. Is there other things you'd want to add about today's meeting, or the overall direction, or your impression of this building in this day. I agree with everything Marcy has said, and I would also just add that I think the applicant has been cooperative and forward thinking and ways to include aspects of the future design. You know the current design into the future design. And I really think that, like I said, they're thinking ahead about this. They've been collaborative

[47:05] when we are meeting. I think they're very transparent about the issues with the building, and I think that those issues are also obvious when you're on site walking around. So I think that this is headed in a good direction. and I have confidence that we'll end up with something that does acknowledge the history of the building in a redevelopment. If it goes the route of a demo. Yeah. Having had the experience of walking around with this group on the site at the first meeting I echo or or resonate with all Ronnie's statements. I I think that I think there are some. some. I guess. of the design approach of this thing, that it could be brought forward

[48:00] if they were done correctly this time things like reinforcing masonry and building above the flood plane. Now that the flood plane is a number known quantity that wasn't well responded to in the times that this thing was built. and i'm. I'm. I have confidence in this in this group that they will do something interesting and appropriately derivative from this. if they do go ahead and demolish it. And I I just like to add, I I think there's a lot of ways to acknowledge the building that is there today, with the future redevelopment, one of which might be more along the lines of what John is saying. That's like a derivative approach that's like, Identify what aspects of this building are the character finding components, and then try to

[49:02] incorporate them in some way into a future design. But I don't think it's absolutely necessary. I think a future building could look unlike this building, and still keep pieces of this building, whether they're the physical materials or documentation of its history and other ways, and then that they would just both be successful. So I don't know what the applicant will ultimately do. But I do know that they understand the building, and I think they understand what pieces of the building our team currently has identified as like the priority items. And so yeah, I just wanted to say that, because I know John knows that, too. But I just don't want to set the expectation that the applicant at some point is going to design the 2 version of this that's out of the flood plane and doesn't have structural problems.

[50:02] Yeah, I think I think I was. I was to clarify. I was, I was speaking more conceptually, derivative this, this building, the way the way it was built, that the structural approach they took. and was utilitarian and inexpensive, and it served its purpose. It did what it was supposed to do, and a new design that maybe took that same concept forward. not not locked into any kind of form or period. Kind of approach, I think. could, as Ronnie just said, be very successful, even if it had a completely different form. and the one other plug I just wanted to make is about the ornamented Cmu. because I I think the one of the Cmu, and the applicant said that they would try to

[51:03] use or keep pieces of that, if possible; and, as Marx, you said, it's harder for them to do that. But I think the ornamented Cmu is more typical of a building of this era as being the unique thing that is the ornament that makes sense, and I think the thing that makes it bolder is is the flagstone. and I think that the 2 of them together are the story about why it's unique, because the flagstone alone, while you know it's horizontal and nature and the cut, and the application is notable for this building. I think. by itself it is less important than when it's put in the context of this material. That was the traditional ornamentation used kind of prolifically, prolifically with kind of the highest level of what we'd say is mid-century. So I am hopeful that they'll incorporate both in some way and

[52:07] salvage both. And you know. I think we. They've said that they're going to try. but I think we'd be better off if if they were both present. It's so, Marcy, I just like to add something. First of all, thank you to Ronnie and John for taking this on, and it sounds like you put time and thought into this, and you know, when I look at this building I I love the simple elegance of it, and the way it it from this photo marcy you have on the screen the way it's sighted on the land. But but it does sound like, I guess my my question is, and I think you you gentlemen especially have answered it, that that I sort of lament that this building we may have to lose because of construction issues and structural issues and things from from when it was even first constructed. So.

[53:04] But I do appreciate. I do really think it sounds like this has been explored. and that you guys don't see a path forward for designation. and I think there's a little bit more to I don't think that's what Ronnie and John. I think that's what you 2 have concluded correct. Yeah, that is what I Yeah, I I don't think it would be productive to try to designate it as it stands. Okay, Thank you. So the Board has a couple of options tonight, similarly with walnut. But this is your opportunity. If you wanted to schedule a hearing for June 7 that's, the last regularly scheduled meeting before this day expires on

[54:06] June 29. However. what? I just described as a potential outcome of documentation of the building that's something that we can require just by code that doesn't require a motion. And then the other 2 things about salvaging materials and ideas to consider for incorporating some of the design into the future or not binding. And so you wouldn't necessarily need to have a hearing in order to convey that information. So the 2 options in front of you tonight are to either schedule a hearing for June seventh, and hearing this conversation, you could officially boat to approve the demolition. or you could just allow the State to continue and then expire it June 20 ninth. But at the June seventh meeting we could block out time during the day of demolition, update

[55:06] to articulate these components a little bit more, and the that second option is the applicant's preference, and they've said that they're willing to come up with a memo or a list something in writing for the Board to respond to at the June meeting. Okay. so that section second often would be to take no action and and let the State continue. Which just to reiterate, I think that's the preferred option. And so that's what I intend to do. Yeah, I agree. I think that's the correct approach. Okay, that makes sense. All right. So it brings us to our last day of demolition. And this one, you know, because the April meeting was

[56:04] postponed. It feels like we just met. We met maybe 3 weeks ago, so 1918 prim street. The hearing was April twelfth. where the Board voted to put a stay on the application. John Abbey volunteered to represent the board. and this one is moving fast, you know. 6 months seems like a long time. But then, with the timing of this coming to the board with some other scheduling issues, and then versus when they pay the fee, the say of demolition expires July 30 first. So this is just an update. Your next meeting in June, June seventh, would be the opportunity to schedule a meeting for July. and then you would have the decision. We have a meeting. The owner lives out of town, and so he's going to be in town. And so we confirmed a meeting as of today to meet on June eighth, with an invitation to meet virtually before then. So I don't have an update on this other than we have a site visit

[57:12] scheduled for June eighth. This day is going to feel very compressed. but Our first meeting is after the Board meeting, where we would discuss. Yeah. So i'm hoping we might. We might be able to meet virtually, but June seventh meeting, because otherwise I think I would advise the Board to schedule a hearing. just because otherwise you don't have an option to take action. But I I would prefer to have more conversations before that step happens. Okay, Thank you. All right. So any other questions or anything on this stage of demolition. and if not. I will go ahead and move.

[58:02] Oh, I didn't. I don't have a slide, so i'll stop sharing so on the agenda. We kept a special projects update, and that was a carry over from last month's agenda on April twelfth. So to answer one of the public comments, Dan Quest, Dan Courson's question about the update of the civic Area historic District exploration. We gave an update at the April Twelfth Landmarks Board meeting towards the beginning of the meeting, so I would encourage you to go back and watch that. And then additionally, the crab received a written update in there consent agenda about it on April 20, fourth, and then we're writing a. Let's see a City Council Information packet item for Council in May. So

[59:00] I don't have any update in terms of anything that's changed since you all got an update April twelfth. which is that parks and planning and development services are collaborating on a cultural landscape assessment to look at the park as a landscape. It's a the first step in evaluating the historic district. and something that parks especially finds to be necessary, because this isn't a typical historic district. It is a a park and an urban park. And so. yeah, what more to say about that other than I will circulate the Council memo once what since complete. And so you all have that same information. and then it's separate, but related. We have been working with the friends of the Tea House, and friends of the Banshell as they prepare a civic area. Historic district application. And we're anticipating that to come

[60:04] depending on when the application materials are finalized, likely in July for the landmarks for and review. So so, Marcy, can I make a comment about this? I don't know if you were going to see if any Board members have questions about this. But so I sort of you know this has been on my mind, and and you know it's interesting to me because this started as just a simple request from friends of the band shell to expand the boundary, and then somewhere along the line the historic district got introduced, and I never really thought about that or focused on that. I just thought it made sense to go back to the original intent in 1,995 to landmark, all of block 13, which I think we all know didn't happen because of the pending move of the trains out of the central part. And the more I think about this, I would just encourage us on the landmarks board members of the community who we already know. Some are many.

[61:06] many are already engaged, and really care about this, that we take a long view view of this, because the more I thought about it. This is the heart of Boulder. I met with the woman who was doing a an honor's thesis at Cu. About the creation of this historic district, and she brought up to me about be fascinating to know about the first people here, the native. the Indians here and so forth. And what might have been on this site, because in many communities what becomes a central heart of a community was also the heart of a community one hundreds of years ago. So I I. This thing has really, I think, sort of. There's a ground swell of support from the community, and I just think we all need to be mindful. I hope we're all supportive of this. I don't know what role landmarks board can play in this to help, especially since I understand there's a pending application. We'll see at some point soon.

[62:04] But I think the thing that I just can't let go is how the Iroquois nation always tries to make decisions looking ahead for 7 generations, as well as respecting decisions made 7 generations behind, and I think this may be a part of the community, a part of boulder that really takes a long view, and not sort of just sort of what our interest and needs. And you know what the community now wants, but take a much bigger larger picture on this, and I just wanted to share that, because I think it's important to to really take this issue as a as it as it travels in front of us as as something that may be one of the bigger projects or things we could be involved in, so I just wanted to share that. Thank you. I appreciate that.

[63:05] I know that the the last time that this came up we were, we had back and forth with parks and Rec. And I just wanted to understand what their involvement is in the process. since that was maybe a point of contention previously. Yeah, that's a good question. And so the landmarks board got an update on April 12, which was verbal. and then we put that together as a written update to for proud to, so that they have the same information within 2 weeks. And so we are being intentional about communicating with both boards as we move forward for the us. But what's there? Have they responded, or given any indication of

[64:00] what? How they want to be involved? Yeah, I wasn't. At the April 20 fourth meeting, and I heard that they didn't have any questions about it. I don't know. Kj: If you want to add anything to that, I haven't heard anything directly from crowd numbers. Yeah, I haven't either, regarding the board. I did want to just maybe mention the the role of staff, both from the parks and Rec, and then the landmark staff and our group it, and partly. I think. because of sort of the the process that happened last year in the review of the of the previous proposal for expansion of the landmark boundary. You know, we spent the first quarter of this year really being deliberate in having those conversations with Park Staff to develop a shared and coordinated approach to this and that's where you know. The the notion of the cultural landscape assessment came forward, and Parks ultimately delayed the design process for civic area, so that that could occur

[65:05] prior to any design effort. And so I would say that at least, moving into this conversation of this discussion about a historic district, we we are very much more coordinated than that. I think we were last year. That's really good to hear. Thank you for the update. No, we will continue to give the board by monthly updates about it, and then, like I said anything that we send to proud or council also sent to you. And yeah, what like with that? We'll move on to the public hearings. Thank you, Marcy. So the first public hearing agenda Item 6 a. Is a public hearing and consideration of an application to designate the property at 8 30 Fourteenth street as an individual, historic landmark, pursuant to Section 911 5,

[66:10] the Boulder revised code, 1,981, and under the procedures prescribed by chapter. one over 3 quasi-judicial hearings of the boulder device, code 1,981. The owner and applicant are Roxanne Ruggles and Steven Morgan. and I believe, Claire, are you making the presentation this evening? So this is a quasi-judicial hearing. All speaking to the item will be sworn in and board members will note any ex parte contacts. I'll get the staff presentation, and the Board may ask questions. The applicants are not able to join us today, so we'll open the public hearing after the staff presentation.

[67:01] We'll then ask everyone to mute their computers, and the Board will deliberate. Motion requires an affirmative vote of at least 3 members to pass. and motions will state findings, conclusions, and recommendation. And then a record of this hearing is going to be available in a couple of days as a video recording, and the official record will be edits. The Archive within 28 days, usually much sooner. The criteria for review is outlined in the Boulder Revised code under 9, 11, 5, c. We haven't done a designation for a long time, so the options for today, and I believe this is Chelsea's first for the Landmarks board to approve the application and recommend designation to the City Council City Council would hear the the final designation within a 100 days.

[68:02] Alternatively the Board may disapprove the request, and this is subject to a 45 day call up period. and the onus would need to file a notice of appeal within 21 days of today. This is a bit of an unusual route for a designation. The house at 8 30 Fourteenth Street is actually within the University Place historic district that was designated in 2,006. The owners contacted staff about getting a a landmark plaque for their house. and those plaques are a benefit of individual landmarks. We don't put them on all buildings in historic districts, so we asked the owners if they would be open to individually designating the house, and during the course of the application, we also discovered that the information that was in the designation of the district about the house was incorrect.

[69:04] so the owners were excited to be able to correct that information. and and also individually, landmark their house. Huh! So 8, 30 Fourteenth Street is located right here within the University Place Historic district. That's the the black outline here. It's midway between Cascade Avenue and an Aurora avenue. The house actually was considered contributing to the district in 2,006. When the district was designated. The house was built in 1,920. It was completed in 1,920. It's a one and a half story brick bungalow with a stuccoed upper.

[70:00] It has a a side gable roof. You can see that on the the 2 sit here. and this fled front gable that creates a full width front porch. The the the front roof includes this kind of somewhat iconic single gable dormer. and you can see underneath there the at the full width front porch, and it has large batted brick piers that are corbled at the top. and these low brick porch walls capped with stone. Right here. This the stairs, the porch are flanked by stone walls. and this randomly course Stone also forms the foundation which you can see right here.

[71:02] So the house was possibly constructed by Alonso Denham and his son Raymond or Denim. They owned the land from 1,918 through to when the first owners purchased it. and both were house builders and carpenters. Denim is associated with at least 6 of the buildings where he owned the property at the time the house was constructed, but we don't know much else about him or his son Catherine Agnes Mayhofer Powers. who's right here, purchased the property in 1,919. Her and her husband. Patrick lived in a different location in Boulder until 1,920, and we believe that was because the house was under construction at the time. So Catherine, who was known as Kate, was born in 1,871, in Pennsylvania. She had Bavarian parents, Sabina and Heinrich Meyerhofer.

[72:10] They married Patrick. Kate married Patrick. This is their wedding picture in 1896 in Lewisville. Patrick was born in Massachusetts, around 1,863 to Irish parents. and was listed as a coal miner or a coal mine operator as early as 1,900 in the in the census. By 19 18 he was the co-owner and president of the Shamrock Coal mine. which was outside Frederick in Wald County. and he is he was noted in the newspaper as one of the best known mine operators in Northern Colorado, but unfortunately, we don't know much more about him. According to Kate's obituary, the family moved to Boulder for the education of their 4 daughters, who are Nellie, Marjorie Katherine, also known as Kay and Murray.

[73:11] and this family owned the house and lived there until after both Patrick and Kate had died in 1,949, so 30 years. The proximity of the University, which you can see here. and the streetcar line attracted residents to the neighborhood. You can see that the historic district, I hope I got it in the right place outlined right here, and the district designation notes that the the one of the reasons this this area is distinct was the well preserved assemblage of early to mid twentieth century middle class homes with a tree line streetscape, and also the proximity of the the University and that street car line that attracted the Powers family to this area.

[74:17] So this building we found it to be architecturally significant. It retains a high degree of historic integrity as a craftsman bungalow. The construction itself demonstrates a high level of skill, with exposed rough tails and overhanging eaves, and that fled roof line that creates the porch and the large batted porch columns. We also found it to be environmentally significant as a contributing feature within the historic district. and a pretty prominent feature within the district itself. The Staff's recommendation is that the Landmarks Board recommend to City Council that it designate the property at 8 30 Fourteenth Street as a local historic landmark to be known as the Powers House. Finding that it meets the standards for individual landmark designation.

[75:18] and if the Lamarks Board recommend the designation staff's recommendation is that the property be known as the Powers House, to recognize the longest owners. Catherine, Kate, Agnes Mayhoff, of Powers, and Patrick Pat Powers and the proposed plaque would read Catherine Kate how has lived here? From the time the house was constructed in 249, her husband, Patrick Pat Powers, owned and operated the Shamrock mine. Outside of Frederick they purchased the house, so their 4 daughters could attend to the university nearby. and the the proposed boundary would follow the property line shown here. Unfortunately, the the onus had an unexpected family commitment, so they can't be here, but they are in support of the proposed name

[76:14] and boundary. So here are the proposed findings that the proposed designation is consistent with the purposes and standards of the historic preservation ordinance. and that is the end of the stuff presentation. This is a reminder of the next steps in the process. The applicant would ordinarily have time to present to the board. but as they are not here. We to move into public participation, and then for deliberation. and the options today are for the Landmarks Board to approve the application and recommend designation to city council or recommend denial.

[77:06] So are there any questions from the Board? I see John's hand is up. Oh. I just wanted to remind someone, Claire, we haven't done. Oh, shoot! Sorry I forgot. Why don't we do that right now for the ex parte contacts Chelsea. No. John Ronnie. no, and I have none great any other questions. So mark yeah. hi, thanks. And I might landmarks new. Be here. So forgive the naivete my question

[78:01] as I read through the packet there have been a what I read was: there have been a number of modifications and additions to this property, adding on to the rear. adding on back towards the alley. If this property was landmarked today and tomorrow they wanted to make a modification addition on the backside of the house, would they be allowed to do so? Yes, they would go through a the landmark alteration, certificate process. which, incidentally, if it was an individual landmark. it actually makes no difference, because it's already designated within a historic district, and the process is the same. Okay, thank you. And and and the other one. the plaque. not in 1,920, and and I I should have been paying more attention during your presentation, which was great.

[79:04] That was 1920, the first year of occupancy. It was okay. right. that's all I have. Thank you. Thank you all right. If there are no other questions, i'll pass it back to you, Abby, for public comment. Thank you, Clarence. Thank you for your great presentation. So, Brenda, this is the time we'll ask people to raise their hand or let you know if they'd like to speak to this item. Yes, I do have one hand up at the moment, and it is Kathryn Barth and the group over at her home. So, Catherine, as we unmute you, we will ask how you all would like to participate this evening, and then Abby will swear in whoever is speaking one at a time.

[80:01] So we'll start there, and we encourage others who would like to participate in this public hearing to use the raise and button you'll find at the bottom of your screen. all right. So Catherine and and team at Kathryn's computer. Well, I have to say the team had a little supper with me, and they were here for the beginning. But the team has kind of gone back to their respective spouses, and taking a little piece of cake home to each each of the so it's not where to tell this absolutely. It will be truthful. I just wanted to say that I went over to the walked over to the house, and the day when I was there it was better lighting than the lighting you have on that on your photograph. It was the lighting was so great when I was there that all of those disparate materials were just popping, and the bricks and the stone and the I was just like dazzled. And the way this the peers are made.

[81:14] So I just think I love the texture of that building and the texture just was so apparent in the light when I was there, and I thought, oh, it's a wonderful home, and how nice of these owners to come forward with the additional step of really honoring it. So I would certainly applaud them, and I think they're doing a terrific thing. Thank you. hey? Thank you, Katherine Brenda, Any other raised hands. Yet I am not seeing other raised hands at this time. We do have one raised hand, so we will go to Lynn Seagull when Abby will swear you in.

[82:01] Welcome back, Lynn, and if you will swear to tell the board the whole truth, your 3 min will start best of my not I'm curious again. You know. I've been going to landmarks board meetings for 5 years. and I know nothing. I I I feel like each time. I know nothing. This is in a designated landmarks district. So why is there even any question? Why is this coming up before the board. 7 7 7 circle swept through the Ldrc without even a hearing. and this place clearly is going to be designated. Of course it should be. It's. There's no question about it. It's it's it's academic. you know. and yet the things that really matter. Don't even get touched. It's it's stunning to me I just don't understand the landmarks here in Boulder, you know. I'm I've been here since 1,987. No, I don't have all over the world, and I know what it's like in this town and that count and stuff. But to me this just seems like an archaic process

[83:18] and a and you know. Can't you reach out to the public a little bit? Sorry if that's not all positive and Hanky dory and everything. But it seems like. you know, for example, 1741. Walmart. I didn't even realize, and I physically went there to see the place on the site view. I didn't even realize until I asked to mention people that the 2 bellings on either side the huge bulk of the context of that alley. You know, structure that's going to be left. It are being completely demolished, and they're within, you know. They're probably not

[84:01] within a period of time when they could be restored. But or or you know they're not applicable. But it did did affect the context, and like, so that building will be pretty well dwarfed by the other 2 buildings on either side it. It would just be nice to know for the public, you know. I'm. An also sound technologist. I wouldn't ask you to do a Bpd on a baby, you know, because you don't know how I'm. I'm not a landscape designer, i'm not an architect, but I think I deserve the respect of knowing kind of the basic things about some of these buildings and what's going on in the context of things. and that that should be brought out to me on a platter because you want to engage the public, and you want to preserve these buildings. I'm sorry i'm not from Colorado.

[85:01] I'm. From the Pacific northwest. I guess I just don't think the way people think here. I feel very alienated from a lot of the people who in Colorado, because it seems to me. There's this superficial kind of chit chat about things that are obvious, Lynn: i'm so sorry, but your time has expired. I am not seeing other hands at the moment. as we're waiting to see if anyone else would like to join this public hearing, I will just make a friendly reminder that we do ask that comments during public hearings pertain only to the item, agenda, subject at hand. Open comment is the time for broader comments about how the landmarks forward. does it's business, and operates in general.

[86:07] I don't see any other hands at this time, Abby. so we'll close public participation for this hearing, and we'll bring it back to the board for deliberations. I just want to say, in lieu of the couple being here, that I actually was in this house on the first historic Boulder Holiday House to I, a Vertick in December of 2,006, and it's just. It's as delightful inside as it is outside, and they are excellent stewards of this property. So I i'm delighted to see them bring this forward, even though they are an historic district. We have many individual landmarks that are designated in various historic districts throughout Boulder. So I don't know if there's a board member who'd like to start this evening.

[87:03] I guess I will great thank you. I I think that this is one of those designation cycles that that we love to be involved in when it is brought to us by the owners. with the desire to be designated. even though already in a district so that the House gets the recognition that it does deserve. It's a it's extremely well preserved. and is characteristic of of the bungalow style, and that time. and it's it's a perfect candidate for designation. Just a quick comment. I guess kind of explanatory comment to Mark's question, which I thought was a very

[88:03] valid question, how we look at things, and what is therefore allowable. We look at, we look at the I guess, the elevations of a building in a hierarchical. since that the primary elevation, the thing that is the most important in terms of in most cases the character giving aspects of the landmark is the is the elevation that faces the most public or the major part of the public realm elevations that are secondary or tertiary, so that have a little less, I guess we regulatory boundary. and if if one is to propose to expand a building or add to it in a completely different way, or

[89:04] or even a repurpose, full or repurposing addition. But tertiary elevation, the back. the rear. The farthest oriented away from the public realm is the place where that is the most desirable. And this house actually had already done that. So if it had been an unimproved landmark, in the sense that no addition or such was on it. That would be. That kind of change or addition is allowable under designation. So that kind of just as clarify how we think about this. and I support Staff's recommendation. Thank you. John Rami. Sorry, swallowing. Yeah. I also support Staff's recommendation and commend the applicant for

[90:05] their stewardship of this home. I mean this just epitomizes a building that hits all the criteria, and I appreciate that it was brought to us tonight, and I will be supporting its designation. Thank you, Chelsea. Yeah, this is the first first application we've received of someone wanting to designate their home. So that's exciting. I have. We have gone through the process of a designation. It was actually my first meeting, so it's not my first designation process. But yeah, I mean, I think if if the owner is coming forward and wants to designate their home, then we should support that. So I agree with moving forward at. Thank you.

[91:01] and I totally am support of designating this, and do appreciate their willingness to do this and to honor their own house, even though they're already in a historic district. Oh, would someone like to make a motion? Sure I can make a motion? I move that the Landmarks Board recommends to the City Council that a designate the property at 8 30 Fourteenth Street as a local historic landmark, to be known as the Powers house, finding that it meets the standards for individual landmark designation and sections, 9, 11, one, and 9 11 to brc 1,981, and adopt the staff memorandum, dated May third, 2,023, as the findings of board Thank you is there a second. I will second thank you, John, on a motion by Ronnie, seconded by John. We'll do a roll call. Vote Chelsea.

[92:04] Bye. John Ronnie. Bye. I thought I so the motion passes unanimously. and I know that next steps, Claire, you will reach out and let the owners know that we're delighted to add this as an individual landmark to our list of other wonderful properties. Yes, thank you, Abby. We have a a city council hearing to get through first. Actually. there will be a consent agenda item, and then a public hearing within a 100 days, which will be before August eleventh. And then, if the city council agrees that the building should be designated, they'll create an ordinance. and then we'll provide the bronze plaque to the building and invite the owners to the to next year's square square nails award. Ceremony

[93:03] to celebrate. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you, Claire. And the next agenda item is item 6 B. This is a public hearing to consider adopting a resolution to initiate the process for landmark designation of 2,119 Mariposa Avenue pursuit to Section 911. 3 of the boulder revised code, 1,981 or alternatively, to issue a demolition approval pursuit to Section 9, 1123 old, revised code, 1981. The owner is Vanessa Miles, and the landmarks board is the applicant, and Marcy will be presenting this agenda. Item. All right. thank you, Abby. So this is a little bit different than our other hearings, because initiation hearings are legislature legislative in nature rather than quasi-judicial. So

[94:08] the process is similar. But you don't need to reveal any expertise contacts. We'll start with the staff presentation, followed by more questions. Then the owner has it 10 min to present, followed by board questions, and then the public hearing is opened for 3 min each to anyone that would like to speak the at the end of that public comment the owner would then have a chance to respond to anything that was said. and then the public hearing is closed, the board discusses. and, if appropriate, makes a motion. So. jumping into the application process, the application was referred to the landmarks board back in November. and in January of this year the landmarks board had a hearing in place to stay of demolition, finding the building was potentially eligible for landmark designation.

[95:06] and put this stay on in order to provide time to consider alternatives to demolition. We had a site visit, as I mentioned earlier in February, and then there was a structural engineer that came out to look at the property also in February, but that report was was inadequate in order to give us the information that we needed about the cost and condition, and so the city chose to hire Atkinson Mullen, who is an internationally known. a structural engineering firm located here in Boulder, and they specialize in historic masonry. So we've hired them to prepare a report. Unfortunately they are swamped right now, and the report will not be available until May nineteenth. and so

[96:00] that's where we are today is May third last meeting. On April twelfth the Board voted to schedule this hearing, in order to give the Board the opportunity to take action before the stampede evolution expires on May 29. So the board has 4 options in front of you tonight. The first is the one that staff recommends taking, which is to continue the hearing. That would be making a motion to continue the hearing to a date before the stay expires. On May 20 ninth Aubrey sent out a poll earlier. It sounds like May. 24 or May. 25 would work for 3 Landmarks board members staff would recommend May 24 because may 25 conflicts with the City Council meeting. but it would be good to confirm if this is the path that you're going, that there are at least 3 Board members that would be available, since that's the minimum for a forum.

[97:04] and that would allow time for the structural engineering report to be completed. Your second option would be to initiate designation of the property as an individual landmark. and that would be done by adopting the resolution which was included in your packet. Then your third option is to not initiate landmark designation, and allow this day of demolition to continue until the end of May. If the Board does not take action before that date, then the demolition for the House of Garage would automatically issue. and then your final option is to approve the demolition application, and that approval is valid for 180 days. The criteria for your review tonight is found in Section 9, 11, 3D. Of the boulder revised code. and it expands. I should back up and explain. This initiation hearing is a step that occurs when a designation comes forward

[98:02] from someone other than the property. So in this case it would be over. The owner's objection, which is why this initiation step is included in the Cl. Code, and why the criteria expands to not only the first point, which is that the building is eligible for designation, but also consideration of, are there resources available to complete the outreach and analysis necessary for the application. Is there community support for the proposed designation that the buildings need the perfect protections provided by designation that it's in balance with the goals and policies of the boulder advised No, the Boulder Valley comprehensive plan. or that the proposed designation would be generally in the public interest. The property is located on the north side of Mariposa. just west of 20 s Street, and south of Columbine Avenue. It was constructed around 1,937 to 1,940, the vernacular house with bungalow elements, including the exposed after tails, the singles in the gable, and

[99:13] and the divided light windows. The stone cladding was a unique and we're learning complicated feature of the building in that it was added to the frame structure later. and the property is associated with Cecil Cox and Donald Mccormick. Cecil Cox likely constructed the house. He and his wife are associated with multiple working class businesses in Boulder. and the Mccormick family was connected to the house for over 60 years, and he was a farmer and gardener at Miss. which at that time was the National Bureau of Standards. The property is located in into Urban Park, which is plotted in 1,908, but really developed in that post war era. As the lab, the Federal labs came to boulder in the building is not located in an identified potential historic district.

[100:07] Here's just a couple current photos of the building, the one on the left, the asbestos singles have been removed. but otherwise, as you can see, the building is very intact to its original or historic construction with very few modifications. It has its original doors and windows, no later additions. and then you can see on the west elevation is the chimney, and that is pulling away from the building that kind of a later photo. And then the demolition request also includes the garage which is located along the alley. It's actually a true basin reconstruction rather than stone cladding, and has this Cmu block. wall and carcore edition on the west side.

[101:01] So the cost and condition has have been a major factor in this These conversations during this day of demolition. the owner got a quote from so both homes, when, with the original intent to fix up the house and just update it. And at that time the work came out to be about $430,000, which works out to be about 518 dollars a square foot, which is about the average cost of new construction holder today, which is about. I would say 4, 50 to 5, 50, and pop a square foot Once you consider the structural estimate. The estimate this was from that first estimate was about a 100,000. That would add $120 square foot. totaling $638 a square foot to fix the building, fix the building up.

[102:03] If designated. There are state tax credits to help offset that cost which would bring down the cost of repair to about $510 a square foot. However, as I mentioned the first structural engineer that went out there gave very preliminary and no definitive information, and so I think that, having the structural report from Atkinson, Nolan, knowing that that's coming in a few weeks. would be the prudent thing to do, because they will have a much more thorough analysis, and then that will help understand the cost of of maintaining this building. So with that staff recommend that the Board continue the hearing to allow time for the report to be completed. and we've prepared a motion that has a date, either a date certain, If if you all want to commit to a date

[103:02] or a date prior to the May 20 ninth expiration of this day of demolition. However, because the time the clock is taking it is crucial that the that at least 3 board members commit to a date before May 29, otherwise the stable just to expire. So with that it concludes my staff. Presentation will then move to the applicant presentation, followed by public participation. applicant response, and then board deliberation, and then put board questions in here. So now is the chance to ask any questions that you might have. I I don't see any questions or hear any questions for you at this point, Marcy. Okay. And so with that, I believe the owner of an smiles is here the same thing.

[104:10] Hi! Can you hear me? Yes, welcome, Vanessa. You will have 10 min, and then you'll have an additional 3 min if you'd like after public comment. But I am going to need to ask you to swear to tell the Board the whole truth at Okay, this is past the miles. I swear to tell the whole truth is that it. That's it. You may begin. Thank you. Hi, I we've been over this meeting a lot of time, so I don't really have that much to say. I and I also don't exactly know how the process works from watching these meetings. It seems that whatever the Board recommends is what happens. so i'm kind of assuming this will go on to a hearing in May. but I would like to say, regardless of what this

[105:02] Well. i'll back up for people who weren't here in some of the other meetings. I've had this house for a few years. I have, you know, originally bought it with the idea that I wanted to save it. I was going to. Just, I guess. Touch it up, is what I thought I needed to do with this sort of the idea that a $100,000 could do that. I have put almost a $100,000 into it, and it's got it really is all. It is because everything led to another thing. And so then I got so go in to give me an estimate on what it would take to really do it all right to to make it approved by the city to have insulation and everything that I needed them to do. And so they came in. They gave me that estimate that you saw. and then it turned out there were some foundation problems. So we had the engineer come in. I he didn't even look at the stone issue, so that engineer who looked at.

[106:03] He gave me the first estimate which is for the foundation. And so, when I look at that estimate of it being. you know minimum of $550,000 to redo this house. It's just far over my budget. and so I don't. I don't really know where to go from there, and it sounds like the tax credits could give me 50,000, which is yeah, like not even a bathroom in the house. So you know my wish would be to tear it down at this point. and it's it's sad to do that in the city, and I understand that. But also to try to. you know, stabilize rocks, and we're originally there, and to put it all back together. It's just

[107:05] just far out of my budget. That's all. Thank you, Vanessa. Now we'll move on to comments for this particular public hearing. And Brenda, i'll turn it over to you to see if you see anyone so far who would like to speak to this. I am looking to see if we have any hands come up. We do have 2 hands up at the moment. So we'll start with Steven, Sheffey and Steven. I will unmute you, and then Abby will swear you in. Hi Welcome, Steven, and if you would be kind enough to swear to talk. Tell the board the whole truth here. 3 min will begin. Did I unmute properly?

[108:08] Thank you. You may may proceed. and I just want to say it's it. It is obvious what this house is, and it's right next door to me, and I've looked at it since I moved in, and oh, 1998, and I knew Ida Mccormick who lived in it, and her to her son and his wife, and I understand that it's a modest house, and it is not new or perfect. but it is unique in its own way. and when it's gone it's gone, and I sympathize with Vanessa. I understand that I guess it was

[109:02] April 2021 when it went on the market, and it was purchased over a weekend. So when on the market Saturday, and by Monday it was gone. It was a very rapid process. so the entire time of ownership has been one of trying to figure out how to resolve the issues with this house. and because of the city, did such a good job of reporting on it and gathering information and materials. I think you have a very good amount of information to make your determination on, and I don't have anything that I can add to it, but I do appreciate the chance to to say that I appreciate

[110:01] things that are old and bolder, and I also appreciate the quandary that this is presented for Vanessa. so i'm not a sympathetic. I'm just watching the process. I appreciate being able to speak about it. So that's it. Thank you. Thank you for your comments. And Brenda, did you say there was another hand already raised? Yes, we do have a hand up, Lynn sequel. I will unmute you, Lynn and Abby will swear you in. Thank you and and Lynn. We're pleased to have you. But remember that this time is for comments for this property. So if you'll. I'm sorry to tell us the truth. Your 3 min will begin. Thank you. The best. I know. The the front part of the house, I understand, is clad rather than

[111:01] made of the actual. You know rocks. It's just a veneer facing. I'd say that the building in the back is more important to be preserved in the building in the front. and i'd say, if if the building in the front is to be preserved, it seems like it needs to have a partial demolition. The the fireplace. It seems like a kind of conundrum. It it also seems like, you know there's going to be further iterations of what happens with this structurally to be able to move forward. and considering Vanessa having sinking 500,000 some dollars into a little tiny house. is is an undo constraint on on the owner.

[112:06] It's you know it, it's very. This is a debatable house. 777 circle is not debatable, not one wit. and it just doesn't make sense to have this debate about this little house when you just demoed an 8,000 square foot house in Boulder. a Rock House, a solid rock house with no structural issues like, what is that out? So, Lynn? If you can keep your comments to this property, please. It's impossible to Abby. It's impossible, because I don't trust the landmarks board anymore. I don't think you know what you're doing. You're debating all crazy on a house like this. and you just RAM through 7 7 Circle Room Landmark's Design Review Committee.

[113:06] This comes before a hearing, and another hearing. Your process is flawed deeply flawed. I don't know what you're doing this, for you know, for social reasons, that you can get together with other people and stuff, Get a social life outside of the landmarks board. This is I. I have to step in and ask you to focus on the specific project. I'm laser like Ronnie I'm. Laser focused on this. This is a very, very unfair process that you are all contributing to. and I don't think it's right for me to stand up here and just make a judgment. Oh, she should, or she shouldn't have this house.

[114:02] But your 3 min has ended. If if I could just say something when i'm sorry I wasn't trying to criticize you. I was hoping that some of the comments about the way that you are depicting. Why, board members might be involved in this group. You know I was trying to put you back on the topic of this building, because I think that is the offensive type of talk that we're trying to steer away from, and that you know you heard us talk about at the beginning of this meeting that you know the Board has made commitments to do, and we're hoping the public does as well. That being said, I hear you and what you voice about 7 7 7 circle. If I've got the address correct, and I think you've said that at more meetings than just this one. I'm sure you have.

[115:03] and I feel like we need to answer your question. I do not feel like I'm. The person that is capable of answering your question about that. How it went through a Drc. Process didn't get to the board, and how it was determined for it to be demolished. Those are great questions. and I would just like to ask Marcy what might be the best path for us to answer that question for Lynn, so she's not just repeating it kind of in what I imagine might feel like an echo chamber, as I don't think we a at least in these meetings, address it directly. Marcy, Can you help us with that? And maybe it'll help Lin and and and some form everybody's understanding. I'm not asking you to answer the question now. But what's the best process for her to get an answer to that.

[116:01] Certainly. And thank you, Ronnie. Yes, the staff has answered this question before and thoroughly, and so I don't believe that there is a need, or that we will continue to provide an answer, I think, at the heart of it. It's that Lynn disagrees with the decision of the Landmarks Design Review committee, but it did go through the process. The Designer Review Committee determined that it was not eligible for landmark designation, and approved it at that process. So I believe we have thoroughly answered and addressed her concerns, but she does continue to to bring it up, and it did go to the landmarks board, I think last October or so. So it has been, you know, 6, 8 months since that decision was made. Yeah.

[117:00] thanks, Marcy Lynn. I guess I would just offer to you. If you have other clarifying questions that Haven't been addressed. you know, please write them. and if they, if it's new information that we can offer to you to shed light on how that building was demolished. Then i'm sure everybody that is part of this group will do our best to make sure we get you that information. No, thank you, Ronnie. You you really articulated that very well, because I I hear Lynn's frustration. I I do know there were many communications between City Staff and Lynn, and and I know it's frustrating to her. But I also know that Staff has done the very utmost and the very best in in answering the questions as thoroughly as they can. I do want to get back and see Brenda, if we have any additional members of the public who wish to address this item.

[118:15] Thank you. I do not see any additional hands at this time. but we'll give a good pause in case anyone chooses to join. and I think we are clear to close, so we will close public participation for the hearing. On 2119 Mariposa Avenue, Vanessa, you do have an opportunity for an additional 3 min if you would like to to take that before this comes back for board deliberation.

[119:02] I don't know if you may not be, fill the need to say any more. But you're welcome to. And, Vanessa, you we're like blur stuff. Yeah. I I don't really have anything more to say other than you know. If there was any possibility to end this here and vote to allow the demolition before waiting for the end of the month. That would be great for me. But I understand, if we need to go on with the process as well. Okay, thank you for that. And now we will move back to for discussion on this, and we do ask that everyone mute your computer phone for the duration of this discussion.

[120:02] I don't know if there's a board member who'd like to kick it off and Marcy I don't know if it'd be helpful for you to put our options in front of us again, since we have a few this evening. Yeah, this slide says next steps. But it is your option. Yeah, I guess i'll jump in, although I haven't been to the house. I wasn't part of the subcommittee on this one. you know. I've heard the reports on it, and I think we have some questions that are last meeting Regarding this. I think that Staff is suggesting a pretty sensible approach to this, that is, to continue to collect information that is already underway, and I would suggest as well that we continue the hearing as line. Item number one here says, so we can get that info, and, you know, make a decision at a future date.

[121:07] Thank you, Ronnie John or Chelsea. I just asked how much was this engineering study that we paid for on the applicant's behalf. I'd have to look at the invoice, but I think it was about $2,000, and our like general Historic Preservation Fund. Dedicated Preservation Fund is about $10,000. So, but it's not a huge amount in the course of a project. It is maybe 20 of our historic preservation money. Okay. and we are. We have confirmation that it will be complete by the nineteenth, you said, or

[122:07] Yup. So I spoke with. Yeah, Dave Woodham late last week, and he said he agreed. You know that's the date that he said it would be completed by that being said, I know that he's swamped. He's not like legally tied to to that, but that's the date that we talked about, and and I conveyed the urgency in terms of our timing. Well, I guess since I mean I I I I felt like at the time of when we first heard this, that we had enough information to make a decision of whether or not we wanted to designate this building or allow the application to move forward. But since the since the

[123:05] Board of approved moving forward, and wanted to designate resources or dedicate resources to having our own study be done, and we've already paid $2,000. I would at least like to see the results of that study as part of our decision making process. I do. If we could, maybe if we're heading in that direction, maybe turn to the date and time of when this might, because I i'm not available on the evening of the 20 Fourth. So I guess. Yeah, I just. Wanna I think that's the direction we're going in, and just want to confirm that there's actually a time where we all, where we have a quorum to hold that meeting. Yeah, I think that's important, Chelsea. Thank you.

[124:02] John. I support Staffs recommendation Number one, which is to continue the hearing. This is like this is a very. I guess quandary creating case. and I particularly feel for the owner in this case. Having visited the property. it's. It's arguably very much. I guess a house that in a better world should be designated. But I I think I want to see the engineers report. and and then discuss the full case in the meeting which the 24 at least works for me. I believe I can't remember if I responded to that yet or not.

[125:02] it was in my mailbox. But yeah, I I think that I think. And then I think once we have the engineers information that that completes, I guess our package of information, and we owe this case a speedy resolution at that point. So I agree with all of my colleagues, and first of all, I'm. Available on May 20, fourth, and May 20 fifth. I I do know. Marcy was heading towards the Wednesday evening because of the City Council meeting on Thursday. So it does sound that Staff already has identified 3 a quorum for either Wednesday night, the 20, fourth or Thursday night, the 20 fifth, and and I know, Vanessa. I know you've been patient while this process has has moved through, but since it appears, if I can do my math right, we're talking about as soon as 3 weeks from tonight, because of this city's investment in the engineers report, I think we really have.

[126:13] I feel obligated to continue the hearing and have that information before a decisions made it still before this day expires. And you know, I think we're here tonight, too, because throughout this process there was probable cause that this meets the criteria for designation that is not changed from me, but that additional information, I think, will make a very well informed decision, so I will be supporting Staff's recommendation if there's no more discussion. I don't know if a board member would like to make a motion and abbey if I could interject Brenda. Just let me know that the 25 is a City Council study session, which doesn't have public comment, and so the conflict that we were concerned about isn't there, since those are recorded, and so

[127:09] to recap. What I understand is that 3 members were available on the twenty-fourth 3 members were available on the twenty-fifth. But I would just advise that you all land on a date that has at least 3 members otherwise we can't over hearing. and and Chelsea. You were available on the the Thursday evening, but not the Wednesday, Ronnie. I cannot remember your availability. and I don't have my calendar complete complete calendar available to me, so I don't remember. but that probably is that poll. They could tell us Ronnie's answer on the poll was availability. Wednesday not available Thursday I'm. Available either night. And, John remind me.

[128:04] Aubrey. what did I answer for? The Aubrey? John was available Thursday as well between the 2 dates. So it's John Ronnie and Abby for the 20 Fourth. and then let me double check. I might be mixing up John and Ronnie. I'm sorry for the delay. Well, that's fine, I think, I answered, that I was available both so just thinking ahead, if it is 3 and 3 marcy, how do you recommend? I mean. Is there a day that's better for staff? No. And the conflict with other boards with the only other thing that we were considering.

[129:02] so I know it's a tough decision. I don't know what you all should base it on. You could ask the owner if both dates work for her, but I think it's it's a board discussion of Oh, okay. Which date? Yes. and Vanessa. Is there a date that fit your schedule better. Vanessa? You're muted. Can you hear me. There's not one that's better than the other. Can you hear me? Yeah, we can hear you. That's Thank you. Thank you. Okay. What I recommend that we do. The 20 fifth Chelsea is available, I think. She went to the site, and had first-hand experience with it there's a chance that I can make the twenty-fifth, and Chelsea know she cannot make the 20 fourth.

[130:13] So let's I. I would suggest that we push for the 25, and see if we can all attend. Sorry i'm looking at the doodle poll now, and it looks like Chelsea is unavailable. On the 20 fifth I think I might have accidentally not clicked that for my, so I think I can do the 20 fifth. and I can do the 20 fifth. and John could do the 20 fifth and Ronnie, there's a possibility you might. Yep. Okay. Marcy, can you pull up the motion? Great. I would like to move that the landmarks board? Continue the hearing to consider initiation.

[131:01] Consider initiating the landmark designation process. or approve the demolition application to May 25 23. Do we have a second? I second thank you Chelsea on a motion by Ronnie, seconded by Chelsea. To continue this hearing to May 20 fifth. we'll do a roll roll call. Vote Chelsea. I, John Ronnie bye. and I vote I. So the motion passes unanimously. All right. At the beginning of the meeting. I don't remember, Abby, if you said it or not, but the demolition Application for 226 of baseline has been withdrawn.

[132:04] and they plan to revise their plans from a full demolition to a partial demolition, and so that is likely going to be submitted in the next couple of weeks. So we do not have a third public hearing this evening. which would take us to matters. Okay. Okay. thanks, Marcy. Okay, wonderful. Okay. So the Landmark Board recruitment is. these are rough dates still. But what we understand from the city Clerk's office is that the application is going to be open. May 29 to July second. So just think of it it'll be open for the month of June

[133:00] interviews in mid-july, and then appointments in early August, and so that would mean that hopefully, we'll have a new, you know fifth landmarks board member in September. because this person is filling the remainder of Bill Gelix's term. They will only be on for about 5 months, and so hopefully hopefully, they'll re up afterwards, because it takes about 5 months to to get your feet on to you. But it could be a great opportunity for someone who just wants to dip their toe into the landmarks board. It's only a 5 month or so. Commitment. so there's a. QR. Code here, but also a link, and so help get the word out. If you know anyone who might be interested in serving on the board, encourage them to apply. and of course sent them my contact info if they'd like to talk. talk through what what it entails, though you all have firsthand knowledge. So

[134:03] the second QR. Code on here is related to historic Preservation month, which is may so very fitting that we had a landmark designation come forward from an owner. We hope to all see you at the square nails award ceremony, which is a really lovely event up at Chatauqua on May fifteenth. The program is about 6, 30 to 7, 30. There'll be refreshments at 6, and then a tour of Chatauqua at 4 30 that leads from the community house. So last meeting the landmarks Board chose 5 projects to recognize. And so I was hoping under matters we would. We can figure out a plan of who is presenting who is presenting the awards, and i'm happy to help support talking points, you know, etc. If that's helpful.

[135:03] So why Don't? I just cover these next 2 things quickly, and then the award presenters is the only main discussion thing I had for members. So, Nova, the High School mark. This is fitting because this will come to the planning board in a couple weeks, and so here's a direct tie between the 2 boards. So the Boulder Valley Comp. No. The Boulder Valley School district is ruled by State law, and there's an agreement that they will present their plans to the Planning Board for comment. But they're not subject to the same review process. because they are the school district. and so there have been cases in the past like the University Hill School, Whittier School, and the Mapleton School. Those are all individually landmarked. And so the Board has reviewed changes to those buildings through the landmark cultivation certificate process.

[136:11] though at the end of the day it is still please take this into consideration rather than a binding approval. for not designated buildings like New Vista High School. The Planning Board will review it and provide comments, but it doesn't go through our same start preservation, demolition process. So this is an opportunity. If the Board would like to write a letter to the school district or the planning board about the building. I should have put a photo of it in here, but it opened in 1,954 as a baseline Junior High school. and it was originally designed by James Hunter, and then Hobby Wagner did a in addition to it in the early sixtys, and then it's had a couple more additions since then.

[137:05] but it hasn't been surveyed in the past, but those 2 architects are are prominent kind of mid-century modernists here in Boulder, so maybe that's more of a question. I would open it up. Is the board interested in writing a letter to include in the planning Boards packet. and as you discuss, I'm going to pull up the comments that I wrote for the staff comments the site, review. and Marcy. Did you envision this would possibly just, you know, highlight, its architectural significance, and the prominent architects involved. Yes. yeah. And and then what our stuff the staff comments

[138:02] say is that we encourage that the building be documented. If I didn't say it directly the school district is planning to demolish this building. let me let me open this guy up. and so you know I don't know. I don't think all of this is going to make it into the memo, because concise is better. But but I just want to kind of go over what I've provided, which is what I said. It opened in 1,954. It's Baseline Junior High School. The original building included a North South Bar. I don't know I don't seem to have an an aerial image, but maybe this one

[139:00] it is helpful to it, Had this bar extending north south, with these windows pretty typical of mid century school design, and then this fabulous, vaulted gymnasium, and then these are the renderings for the hobby Wagner Addition, which is on the north side here. and then it goes through. You know there were other addition between 1,971, and 1,983. There were 3 editions in that time, period. and then another one between 99 and 2,004. And so then there's a little bit of history about James Hunter and Holy Wagner, and the other projects they did. and then the documentation that the city strongly encourages the district to document the building and incorporate the history into an interactive exhibit is part of the new school. and then has some ideas of what that documentation might be.

[140:03] So I'm. Of 2 minds: one you, as the landmarks board, carry some weight, you have an opportunity to make a kind of public stance or comments. On the other hand, you could say this kind of covers it, and as long as we're conveying this in one way or another. This might be sufficient. So this is your opportunity to write a letter if you'd like to. Well, maybe I can jump in Abby, I mean I I feel like this does kind of cover it. This absolutely covers it, but I think that writing a letter of support would only kind of bolster the message, and it's worth doing. I just think we're all probably kind of quiet, because maybe nobody feels like informed enough prepared enough to say that we're willing to write the letter like as an individual.

[141:00] I think you nailed it exactly, and it's. We all know how hard it is to do a letter by committee or board in the past. And, Marcy, you said this was on a pretty fast track. Timeline. Correct? Yeah. So it it's currently aiming towards the May Sixteenth Planning Board meeting. And so today's May Third. which means that memo. I maybe already went out yesterday, unless it was delayed so that the letter would be submitted prior to the Planning Board's Review on the sixteenth. But it is a very fast turnaround. and and I will say because this building hasn't been surveyed in the past. It was challenging to pull something together in a matter of a couple of days, but

[142:00] but it looks like what you've done is amazing. It thanks. In large part to the Carnegie Library's excellent digital archives. Yeah, it's actually a beautiful document. Okay? Well, I'm happy to share it, too, and if somebody wants to take a. you know, take a first go at it. You can. Yeah, I apologize for such a type turnaround. I do you think it's? Yeah, it's a quick turnaround. Yeah, maybe if you could share the document with each of us, I just look forward to learning what you you discovered. Sure. I think I think that's the appropriate approach is to is to disseminate it to the board. If we to side to get individually proactive, or if a couple of us partnered to do something.

[143:03] I think that would be the best outcome. And, Mark, I see your hand. Yeah. I. I just wanted to comment that. having some recent experience with letter writing as a board it has taken, we. the planning board opted to weigh in on the airport community collaboration group working group, whatever I forget their moniker. But anyway, for the airport group and the rep of their deliberations and their goals. And so under the Colorado Open Meetings Act. you know it has to be only 2 members, and then it any editing approval, etc. All has to be done at a meeting.

[144:06] and so given the timeframe that I I sympathize with this fast track, and wanting to weigh in. You know it. It it doesn't seem particularly practical and to given we've also had we? The Planning Board has had, you know, recent over the last year some desire and frustrations at weighing in on university matters and other things Where? Where? Gee! We'd like to have something to say, but we really don't have any authority to do so. So. Anyway. I I I say that as a way of encouraging individual members to if you have something that's actionable, or whatever to planning board, we we, you know, we obviously read and and value other boards and commissions. Input especially we value it if there is

[145:04] specificity and recommendations or actions. And again, there aren't, many that we can take. But even if you said Gee, we really want to recommend that you really recommend. Gee, we we would certainly take that into consideration. But a again, in this case is kind of a a stack of things timing, and our the actual ability to affect anything is is challenging. So that's my comment. Thank you. That was incredibly illuminating and valuable. So thank you. I learned some stuff I didn't know about that with with the the board, you know, submitting a letter which which is not an easy task, you know, Noble that it might be he. There may be an opportunity, small about stream streamlining things with Mark Here, as the liaison between the boards might be an opportunity for the Board to convey

[146:11] something that mark you could then carry on. And so I am happy to share these staff comments. But I really appreciate. mark you saying, what are the actionable recommendations, and the actual recommendations is that we would. That I would propose is that the school district document, the building prior to its deconstruction and incorporate historic photos or the social history into some sort of interactive, engaging exhibit that could be measured drawings, archival photos. preparation of an inventory form to go document it more thoroughly. That's that's what I would recommend to the Board that they recommend to you to recommend to the Planning Board.

[147:06] I I think, to take that a step further, Marcy. I think it needs to be set, and this was. would be the approach I guess I would take in the letter. Writing is the significance of of Hunter and Wagner architecturally to the town, at least to one period of the towns built history, and also the fact that a great deal of what these 2 did is being lost for any number of reasons. As time progresses here. things are badly located relative to flood planes. Things were built at a I guess, an approach to construction that was acceptable at that period of time that no longer is. and other issues have been causing these buildings to be lost and not easily

[148:06] converted or not easily having their their use redirected. And so it's just the the kind of encouragement for the district to fully document this building also, because of its significance. It's. It's been seen by everybody because of its location and quick question here. So I understand. Really, the request is about documentation, not preservation of buildings in the formal sense, keeping aspects of buildings in place. And what have you? Yeah, I You could certainly recommend that. I I mean, I was commuting a month ago or so, and saw a rendering on the back of the

[149:04] Here's our new building at New vista, so I just didn't. I just didn't go that far, because I I truly feel like that ship is probably sales. But again, I think it's always valuable to take a stand. Make the case for preservation. But I think I you use the word sensible, which I've been accused of before, so I think that's that was my approach was if the renderings on the side of a bus, i'm not sure. I'm not sure we could sway them at this point in time. But arguing. I propose we take Marcy's suggestion here, although I have written something that I feel like I could share and get unanimous consent on this. Is it? The City of Boulders Landmark Board acknowledges the historic significance of the new Vista High School, and appreciate your stewardship of the property. We strongly encourage the preservation and documentation of the significant buildings.

[150:10] documentation of the significant buildings and people associated with your properties. You explore development options and hope that you use our preservation staff's memo as a tool to evaluate the historic merit As you proceed. Can you see the part again about preserving the building? Yeah, I think that needs to be re-crafted. But we strongly encourage the preservation and documentation. Can we just stay? Yeah. since I mean, I I think we we we could. So here, how about this? Can I? So this is written. can I? What's the best way to just source this to the team for

[151:02] like tomorrow? Can I do it via email and people can give me their suggestions, Mark saying, No, mark like, do it right now. You got him. He's muted. You probably not allowed to go back and forth on email have typically tried to avoid drafting these over email. For example, when we have our city council letters and stuff like that. if I can just comment. I I think that what you have drafted there is a great beginning. I think it can. It feels like it could be edited right here right now. I don't know if that your meeting protocol allows you to share a screen or email what you've written to Marcy, so that then she can share her screen. and then it it gets edited right here right now. Totally. Let's let's hammer it out. I I feel like I can. In fact, read it again, and I think we'll agree.

[152:00] The City of Boulders Landmarks Board acknowledges the historic significance of the new Vista High School, and appreciate your stewardship of the property. Right? Everybody like that. That's we strongly encourage the documentation of the significant buildings and people associated with your property as you explore development options and hope that you use our preservation Staff's Memo is a tool to evaluate the historic merit As you proceed. I that's i'm agreeable to that. Okay. It's the governmental neutral. I think it is. It's a it's another thing, Burger. No, but the I do like the part that you had around the preservation of documents, since that's essentially what Marcy is asking for. So if we could. that seems like the most tangible. Ask we have. So if we're gonna ask for it. Let's ask for in our statement.

[153:01] I think, Ronnie, what you had was good if we just take out that piece around preserving the building. But for the doc instead, just focusing on the documentation. I I think that one strengthening. Oh. okay. John, Did I lose John John's frozen, so we strongly encourage. I I don't think I can capture exactly what you're saying, Chelsea, without you telling me. But I wrote, we strongly encourage preservation through documentation of the significant buildings and people associated with your properties to explore blah blah blah! For I, without going down the words with the I would just say in her, strongly encourages documentation of the building, because documentation

[154:02] isn't technically presentation. But it's it's like second. So I would just I took it back out. So yeah, so then, the other pieces that I don't know what of what I've written is going to make it into the memo, so I would suggest that you attach this document to your letter and then and then it's just in there. And what is that document called? I would say so. Preservations. Staff's comments. Sorry you cut out staff. and you're gonna share that with us when it's done. Correct. Yeah, I'll, I'll send it to you tonight. Okay. Mark, I feel like you had another piece of good advice you're about to share.

[155:11] Sometimes words that seem obvious to everyone else maybe have a a more distinct meaning, and that word of documentation is that a process? Is that just the obvious things that hey? Just preserve the documentation, the photos, and the history in some form? Or does it have a more formal meaning that to someone not present on the on in the in the landmarks business it wouldn't be a parent to, and so does it. Does that need any elaboration? I I think the answers that are all. Yes, like it is not a parent, but and I think we need to answer that question. But I was hopeful that in preservation Staff comments that they actually describe how a doc, how documentation might occur more specifically.

[156:10] That's what I was thinking so, Marcy maybe can, and I do. But I do feel like answering to sharing with Mark the ways in which documentation can occur is valuable either now, or at some future point. Well, especially during the planning Board meeting, I would be happy as planning as the liaison between the 2 boards to say Gee! During our last landmarks meeting I became aware of the meaning of the word documentation, and and and etc. And gee wouldn't it be great if staff would give us a quick primer on on on how that how that's used for something. So anyway, i'd be happy to facilitate that during our our May sixteenth meeting.

[157:05] Yeah. So there is. There are standards for documentation in our comments. We kept it more general like there's so many ways kind of going back to the fulsome apartment building where there are, there's like the Habs level, which is the National Park Service. If there are very specific requirements and different levels of documentation. I was keeping it more open, as you know. Maybe it's a fun interactive exhibit as part of the High School. Maybe it's documenting the social history and a report. Maybe it's as built drawings of the building as it is today. I wasn't trying to be too prescriptive, but just encouraging that that it be documented before before it comes down.

[158:00] But at the minimum, usually it means photographing the building great. Yeah. So, having having written this to just keep this advance in for a second here. What's the best thing to do with this now, Marcy Scott, it's we're a little out of practice for better for worse with board letters. So, Lucas, is it acceptable for Ronnie to email that to me, and for me to format it? Or does Abby as the chair. Just send it I. My plan with the case manager was to include a letter in the packet. I don't know if it matters. If it's email from a board member or from me. So you would. You were your thing of including a letter, the letter.

[159:01] and it would say, this is from the landmarks board, or this is drafted by Ronnie on behalf of the landmarks board. And then you would submit that with the packet correct. I think that's fine. Yeah. So I think you can just email it to me, Ronnie, as long as all the whole board is good with what's written can show a hands, raise your hand so we can see if you're good with what is written. So would you be kind of once more? Yeah, yeah, I was just gonna ask, Can you? Can you read it? The City of Folders Landmarks Board acknowledges the historic significance of the new Vista High School, and appreciate your stewardship of the property. We strongly encourage documentation of the significant buildings and people associated with your property. As you explore development options and hope that you use our preservation Staff's comments as a tool to evaluate the historic merit As you proceed. So Marcy made a really good comment about not going down a word. Smithing rabbit. Hole. There's one word I would add when you first say historic significance, I would say historic and architectural significance

[160:12] if my got it any other anybody else, Chelsea. I felt like you were an outlier always. The No. Yeah, it's fine. Thanks. Okay. I just sent it to Yeah. Great job, Ronnie doing that on the fly, and you know, because I do think our voice is important. But I do think time was becoming a real conundrum for this. Yes, thank you. That was very efficient. That was great. That was great. You probably saved hours for the next week or so.

[161:02] so that takes us. Oh, July rescheduling the first Wednesday of the month falls on the fifth of July, and so we are going to pull the Board members to say, do you want to keep the fifth of July meeting, or are you available for the following week, which I think is this fall? July twelfth would be great. Okay for me. Yeah, it's fine great in between those dates. I just learned to talk with this this big July 8. It's on July 8 this year. Big celebration up on the green, so that doesn't have anything to do with our meeting. But it sounds like a good event that now brings us to the square nails award. I'm looking at my screen, but i'm not sharing it. Here.

[162:03] Last meeting the Landmarks Board voted to recognize these 5 really exciting projects. And so now we need to decide who is going to present the awards on the fifteenth. So Ronnie Pelosi is part of the team for the Chatauqua Pavilion reconstruction. So. Ronnie you probably shouldn't present that one. But other other than that Abby's indicated that she's willing to present. Some are all of the awards. I'm happy to help prepare talking points, and then generally, I think it's better to have maybe one or 2 people at most rather than rotating through multiple people up at the podium. But however, you'd like. yeah, I was gonna say that last year we did exactly that, Marcy, and it worked pretty well.

[163:06] Yes. there was a group of us that was there. But how many? I can't I wasn't there. Ronnie was there, Bill was there. I was there. Who else was there? I I was not Well, I I guess in this case I I don't feel like I need to present. so I will attend Abby. I definitely think you should be one of the presenters, if not the only presenter, because you do such a great job. And you're very articulate, and you're well spoken and clear. So I would say that I would love it if you either presented all or some of these. and if John and Chelsea are interested in presenting others, that would be greatest by me, too. I I don't feel like I need to be a presenter.

[164:01] Yeah, I i'm willing to do it. Which one me for When would you like? Oh, sorry, Chelsea? Oh, I was just gonna say I need to confirm that. I'm gonna be in Boulder during that time. so you could let Marcy know. Then. Yeah. I would. I would like to present our hardware. Yeah. Nice. Well, I'd like to do the pavilion just because of knowing Martha Campbell for so many years. I mean, whether we even mentioned that Marcy about. you know, and i'm i'm gonna hope I hope she could maybe attend. But so so. So. The 2 that really speak to me are the the pavilion at Chautauqua and the Rosetta Hall. Great and John, I mean, it seems like you, could

[165:02] we? We can either have John do all of their 3, or Chelsea could attend and do one or more of the ones that John doesn't present. Yeah, I i'm. I'm fine with it either way, if I have notes for Marcy. Yeah, happy, too. I don't mind getting up there and given some high fives as a board member. But yeah. well, it and, Ronnie, you kind of have a little bit of an acceptance, you know. I don't think there's accepted speeches, but you'll You'll be up there for the pavilion. Yeah, it it goes back and forth, but I think the recipients are welcome to say like a very short Thank you. So, Chelsea, what's your preference? Would you? Would you like to do one if you're available? Or would you rather not? Yeah, I I would. I just need to

[166:03] confirm with my husband, who's not here right now, because we were schedule to be potentially in the mountains during that time. So I don't. I just don't know if i'm gonna be here. Okay. So I will let you. I can let you know by tomorrow afternoon. Great? Yeah, and I don't think that changes are prep at all. I've I'll start writing talking points, and then it give you. You guys can decide. Chelsea, if you want 1102 pearl, which is the old Chicago, the old, old Chicago location, or 3,015 calendar, which is really it's it's woman who restored this house. It's an individual landmark kind of completely on our own. It it was a labor of love. I think I would put that this is a representative of a large scale of projects, and 3,015.

[167:03] Kalmia is really, I mean, it took her 5 years, and she really put so much care into it. And then the 1102 pearl is an oh. good example of new construction in a historic district which is just a tricky design problem to solve. So okay. just let me know. Send me an email when you know, and i'll circulate the talking points before the fifteenth. I think that's it. if that's it. And I just want to give another shout out and heartfelt welcome to market for you what you've already contributed. It's going to be great having you on the board, and it looks like you may want it. Do you have something you'd like to share? Yes, i'm under matters. I have a I have a I just a question. That's a bit of a curiosity from me. After having served on many different boards and commissions over my time in Boulder.

[168:04] I have never been part of one where members of the public were sworn in every time, as they gave testimony, and I actually kind of checked the munic code and stuff. Anyway, I'm. I'm just curious if that has always been part of your adoptive procedures. Why, why, that is I'm just very curious about that. My meeting my planning board meeting last night. We had 0 planning items. It was all about motion making and procedures, and that sort of thing. So i'm i'm a procedural guy. So this was a procedural curiosity to me. Couple of years ago. when I was sharing the board. there was a challenge from a member of the public. because

[169:01] he claimed that our actions. particularly one. were not valid because we had not sworn him and others well, or maybe he got sworn. But he noted that everybody else who spoke that night had not been sworn, and was trying to use that as a basis to invalidate the decision that we went on to make, because it wasn't, too. what he had wanted it to go. and and so after that we just decided to be very. I guess, meticulous about procedure, and make sure that every prescribed procedure was applied every time. and Lucas might be able to shed light on why we do do this Well, Strictly speaking, the quasi judicial hearings are the only ones that require speakers to be sworn in. So perhaps we have swung too far in the other direction. We're not too far, but we're being very careful to with that. But technically we do not have to swear people in in the initial open public comment period, where it's not in a quasi traditional hearing.

[170:15] And the same goes for I think the legislative hearings as well. So if you want to be strict about what is the actual legal requirement, it's for the quasi judicial hearings doesn't hurt to do in the other ones either. It might slow it up slightly right, but but that that that makes sense to me, and that the the quasi-judicial hearings, the the procedure is particularly important, and and and that was something we discussed last night about motion making and all sorts of things. So, anyway, that that's a good answer to me. I'm not going to tell you what to do, but i'm as a board. I just wanted. I wanted to find out about that. Thank you. How much. I appreciate you asking the question, because I've also been wondering that. But it's been a year, and I thought it was too late to ask Chelsea. It's never too late test. But I I want to be sworn in at City Council meetings.

[171:13] you know, when I would go testifying, I don't know if they still do that any longer, you know. So it's different. And also before we end. I don't know if anybody has anything else. But Olivia did the most fabulous job on the brochure for a historic preservation month. So you know, we've had informative brochures in the fast in the past, but this one looks awesome. So well done, Olivia. Thank you so much. Thank you for all your confidence guys. I really appreciate that it it it's great. So does anybody have anything else. If not, the May meeting is adjourned at 8, 54 Pm. Thank you. Thank you.