May 25, 2023 — Landmarks Board Special Meeting

Transcript

Captions from City of Boulder YouTube recording.

[0:04] So welcome to the special landmarks board meeting this evening. We'll call the meeting to order. It is 601 p. M. And this is a special meeting. For a hearing on 2119. And I want to introduce or turn it over to Marcy Growing to go over the decorum for this evening's virtual meeting. Thank you. And, Brenda now typically goes through this piece, but I am taking the lead. This evening so I'll Give me a minute, I'll go ahead and share my screen. Alright. Good evening. I'm going over the public participation at board meetings. The city is engaged with community members to co-create a vision. For productive, meaningful, and inclusive civic conversations. This vision supports physical and emotional safety for community members, staff, and board and commission members.

[1:05] As well as democracy for people of all ages, identities, lived experiences and political perspectives. You can learn more about this vision and the projects community engagement process online. With the link shown here. Around, productive atmospheres. And so, the following, examples of rule of decorum are found in the Buller device, coded guides. This vision and they will be upheld during this meeting. All remarks and testimony shall be limited to matters related to city business. No participants shall make friends or use other forms of intimidation against any person. Obscenities, racial epithets and other speech and behaviors that disrupt or otherwise impedes the abilities to conduct the meeting are prohibited. Participants may raise their hand to speak during. Open comment, and public comment period during hearing. Individuals must display their whole name before being allowed to speak online and currently only audio testimony is permitted.

[2:09] Online. I know. Thank you, Marcy. I wanna acknowledge that we have a quorum tonight. As with in person landmarks board meetings, the recording of this meeting will be available in the record archives in on YouTube within 28 days of this meeting. We're gonna do a real quick roll call and introductions. I'm Abby, Daniel, Chair of the Landmarks Board. Helsey. Hi, I'm Chelsea Castle. I know, member of the Landmark Sport. I'm John Decker. I'm a member of the Landmark Sport. And Mark. I'm Mark Macintyre, the planning board liaison, to the landmark board. Thank you. We know that people who might be participating tonight may have strong emotions about the project. We're about to hear.

[3:07] We want to hear from you and we found it more productive if you're speaking to persuade us rather than berating us. Staff or the applicant. As with regular landmarks, board meetings, you can only speak during this public hearing time when we open it up after both the staff and applicants presentations. Requests to speak outside of public comment will be denied. This is a legislative hearing tonight, so we will not be swearing anyone speaking to it this evening. Mark see what a difference you've already made in our meetings by being the liaison. As board chair, I will call for a roll call, roll call vote on any motions made. And next I believe we have the group agreements that came out of our July, 2022. We free this. Okay. No problem. Let's proceed to the public hearing.

[4:07] 2119 Mayor POSSA Avenue and Marcy will be making the presentation. Thanks. We took those out and I Alright, thank you, Avi. Okay, so this is a public hearing to consider adopting a resolution to initiate the process for landmark designation of 2119 Mariposa Avenue. Pursuant to section 9 11 3 of the Boulder revise code. Or alternatively issue a demolition approval pursuant to section 9 1123 of the boulder revised code. The owner is Vanessa Miles and the applicant is the city of folder landmarks board. So as Abby mentioned, this, initiation gearing is legislative in nature, which means, Board members do not need to reveal any ex parte contacts. We'll begin with a staff presentation followed by any board questions. Followed by the owners presentation, as well as board questions.

[5:02] The public hearing is then opened for 3 min each and the board may ask questions of the public. The owner then does have a chance to respond to anything that was said and then the public hearing is closed. The board discusses and if appropriate adoption resolution or makes motion. So this application started back in November when we had a demolition for the house and garage, submitted and staff record the application to the landmarks board. As the date of construction of the house. Was estimated to be 1940. In January, the landmark board held a public hearing in place to stay of demolition on the application. And on April 12 the board voted to schedule a hearing to initiate landmark designation or issue the demolition permit. On May third, the board voted. To continue the hearing to allow time for the structural report to be completed, which brings us to today, May 20 sixth.

[6:02] Which is the public hearing this evening. I do wanna mention that during the day of demolition between January and April, the 2 representatives of the landmark score, Abby, Daniels and John Decker and I met on site. I think for 2 site visits. to see the property and walk through it. So the, landmark sport options in front of you tonight, would be to, not initiate landmark designation in which case the day of demolition would continue for a few more days until May 20 ninth. If the board, allows the state to expire, then we will approve of the demolition application. After May 20 ninth Your second option is to initiate designation of the property as an individual landmark by adopting the resolution which was included as attachment day. And that means the land works for designation curing would be held between 60 and a hundred 20 days.

[7:04] Which should be towards the end of July through September. Your third option would be to approve the demolition application. That approval would be valid for a hundred 80 days and cannot be extended. You do have a fourth option which would be to take no action. And it's the board. Chose that, or that was the outcome, then the stay would continue and then the demolition would be approved. On May 20 ninth because the there's only 3 landmark board members this evening that's the minimum. Required for a quorum so you would need to make unanimous decision in order to take action tonight. So the criteria for your review. Is found in section 9 11 3. And it goes into 7 different criteria. The first talks about probable cause to believe the building may be eligible for designation. Second asks whether they're currently resources available to complete the community outreach and historic analysis.

[8:10] The third. Asks whether there's community or neighborhood support for the proposed designation. Fourth is whether the buildings may need the protection provided through designation. The fifth one talks about potential boundaries, which isn't applicable for tonight's hearing. Sixth is in balance the proposed designation is consistent with the goals and policies of the Boulder Valley comprehensive plan or the proposed designation would generally be in the public interest. So this, property is located on the north side of Neraposa. Just west of 20 s in the lower Chicago neighborhood and there's an alley that, runs along. This house was constructed around 1937 to 1940. It's a vernacular house with bungalow elements and the stone cladding we believe we know is added later we believe it was added around.

[9:10] It was associated with C. Cox and Donald McCormick. The Cox family had, various businesses, that operated downtown and Donald McCormick was a gardener that worked in missed for, many years and both families, own the property for, for many years. There we go. It's the properties located in inner urban park, which was, first established in 1908, but really didn't develop until the post war boom, in the 19 fifties. And it is not located in an identified potential historic district. Here are a few photos of the building as we move from the front of the house, which is on the left, to the back or rear elevation. And then going along the side, you can see the vernacular stone, masonry building with concrete shells and exposure after tails.

[10:09] And then, one. Let's say major change since the landmark sport last saw this is that the following the structural report which i will summarize next the owner is willing to keep the garage and so she has revised the demolition application to be just for the house only and not for the garage. So if the board takes action tonight to approve the demolition or take no action, it's for the house only and the garage will be capped and if it is proposed for demolition in future, that would be a new and separate application. Alright, so, the reason that the hearing was continued was to provide time for Atkins and Nolan who is a.

[11:01] Internationally known structural engineering firm that's located here in folder they specialize in historic masonry. The reason we continued the hearing was to provide time for that to be completed. And, since we received it late last week. And it had some findings that I would say reinforce what we. Have been talking about during the day. Okay. But also had a little bit more information in terms of the construction of the building. The first is that there's 2 construction types on this relatively small building in that the rear 11 feet of the building has a different floor framing exterior sheaving and masonry wall in the crawl space which I think raises more questions about the If instruction history of the of the property, but I don't think, our you know, key to the board's decision this evening.

[12:01] One of the major findings is that the foundation is shallow. And doesn't go up below the frost. There's settlement in the southeast corner. Due in part to the planter that's located in soil that is, kind of located at that corner of the building and then the to me just to, provides a lot of weight that's pulling. Pulling towards the south east. The stone is unforced random rubble that is varies between 4 and 9 inches thick. One white. Or 2 wives, but it's unreinforced masonry and they're vertical cracks, visible, especially on that northern. Elevation and then the cantilever roof support at the entryway. Is also. Problematic in that it's it's supported. It's under supported in terms of that iron. Railing that looks like it was replaced probably in the sixties.

[13:05] So in order to address the structural issues of this building. There would need to be. Basically a second structure. Constructed on the interior with a wood. Frame, to stabilize the masonry. And then the foundation would need to be either under pinned or completely replaced in order to get the required depth. So the estimated cost of repair for the structural report is estimated to be about $200,000. Which brings the total estimated cost of the project. To about, $630,000 or about 760 square. $760 per square foot. And while there's not a specific formula to determine. What is too much to, to require in terms of rehabilitation.

[14:00] Generally my understanding is that the current cost of new construction in Boulder is about $400 a square foot. So this is getting close to, to double for kind of. Mid rains. Cost of construction. So I'll next go into the staff analysis of the code criteria. The first one. Ask is there probable cause to leave the building? Maybe eligible for designation. That the building is potentially eligible based on its architectural, historic and environmental significance. It's a stone clad vernacular bungalow with craftsman elements and it has a very high level of integrity. It's, it has historic significance for association with the Cox and McCormick families. And then it has environmental significance for its relationship to the character of the neighborhood. However, as you go into the following criteria, initiation of designation over and owner's objection requires additional staff resources, including outreach and analysis.

[15:07] There are limited staff resources available to process applications for designations without the owner's consent or community support diverting resources away from other board and program priorities is not something you recommend. Next, is there community and neighborhood support for the proposed designation? There has been some community support since the application was submitted last fall. At the January fourth hearing 3 members of the public spoke. In support of preservation one person spoke a dish also wrote to the landmarks board And then during the day of demolition, one additional community member spoke. And 2 reiterated their opinions. And, 2 additional members of the public wrote. To the board to advocate for preservation. So I think since the last meeting you've received 3 letters.

[16:02] 2 in support of preservation in one. In support of the demolition application. The buildings. Do the buildings need protection provided through designation? There is an active application for fill demolition of the house, not the garage. And so if the board does not take action prior to May, 20 ninth. Then this day would expire and the demolition would be approved for the house. In balance is the proposed designation consistent with the Boulder Valley comprehensive plan. Pelosi 2.2 7 states that the city and county will identify, evaluate and protect building structures, objects, district sites. With a historic architectural archaeological or cultural significance with input from the community. However, the plan does not speak specifically to designation over and owners objection. And members of the landmark sport met with owners during the stay of demolition. And as I mentioned, the garage has been removed from the request.

[17:11] Next the proposed designation would generally be in the public interest. Staff considers that designating this property over the owner's objection would not represent a reasonable balance between private property rights. And the public interest, as outlined above. And I think here I would just, note that I really appreciate having the structural report to make our staff recommendation as well as a estimated cost of restoration or repair. Often we're making these recommendations in the border making these. Decisions on vague information and I think in this case the the method of construction of this building has resulted in, it's structural deficiencies that we see today.

[18:01] So with that staff recommends that the landmarks for not initiate designation, for the following reasons. One is that the owners has considered alternatives to demolition of the house that given the condition and cost does not consider preservation of the house to be feasible. This day of demolition has provided time to consider alternatives to demolition and through that process an alternative for the garage has been found. As the owner has revised the request to post the demolition of the house. With that, I'll just check back in that completes my staff presentation. Will now move to the applicant presentation followed by public participation. After the last person from the public has spoken. Dplicant will have a chance to respond after that the board will discuss and make a motion. And so, the main question in front of you all tonight is should the landmarks board initiate landmark designation.

[19:05] Over the owners objection if yes vote to initiate designation and the board hearing would be held within 60 to 120 days followed by city council review. And, if no, then you can either vote to not initiate designation or take no action. In those cases this day would continue to May 20 ninth. Or you can actively vote to approve. So with that, I am happy to answer any questions the board may have. I don't have any Marcy. Just to confirm what you said earlier. Do you, you said that if. If it's not a unanimous decision, then no action will be. Will, expire at the end of May, 20 ninth. I think you said.

[20:03] That's correct. Yes. So it's a little bit unique that the board has, just 3 members. So if Yeah, 3 members tonight, so it does need to be unanimous in order to take action. Okay. Okay. Okay. What did you say, John? Any kind of action. Any kind of action, yes. But we could also take no action. Yes. Yeah. That's easy. Just go. And Yeah, that's it. Yeah. And, see, even if we had a full board tonight, it still would take 3 affirmative votes for any motion, right? Yeah. Hi, this is Mark. I have a quick question. Did we? Learn. Anything of any real significance. From our engineering report.

[21:01] That was not already. Shown in the applicants. Report and the follow on would be In hindsight was the city initiated engineering report. Required. Hmm, I really appreciate that question. So the first, structural engineer that the owner spoke with didn't put together a report and my understanding is that he was on the property for Maybe 15 min and throughout some numbers and some general structural issues, but. That wasn't sufficient in terms of really understanding this building. So I personally learned a lot from the engineering report and found it should be really helpful in this case. And I would say it's not something that we could do for each demolition. Case but I think that the unique kind of history of construction where it was built as a frame building and then masonry was added onto it having an expert weigh in on what are the what is the condition and what are the issues?

[22:11] Was a good use of, city. Resources in this case. Right, thank you. So if John or Chelsea don't have any questions for Marcy at this point, we can move on to the applicant's presentation. Yeah, I have no questions. Okay. Thank you. And I know Vanessa is on this call. And that's that you should receive a pop-up to be promoted. Looks like it's happening.

[23:09] There we go. Can you hear me now? Yes. Okay. I don't really have that much more to say over what Marcy's already said. Just that I've, you know, I appreciate everything I've done. I really wanted to save this little house and I'm. Sad that it's isn't really possible, I guess, to save it. And I am kind of excited about. Fixing up the garage making it cute making it making sure it stays around because I think we can do that relatively easily. And at least there'll be a piece of the history there. That's it. I mean, we've had a lot of details on this and a lot of meetings on lot of days.

[24:01] I don't really have much more to say. Thank you, Vanessa. And I will come back to you after any public comments in case there is something you want to add or address. But thank you, Vanessa. Okay. Thank you. So are there any members of the public? Are wanting to speak to this this evening? And so if you are interested in speaking to the board this evening, you would use the raise hand function in Zoom and on the phone I believe that is star 9. And we will just give a few minutes. In case anyone who is attending the meeting would like to speak this evening. And. I have not seen any cans raised for, for this. Item so I don't know Brenda how long you typically wait a little longer, but I think, I don't see anyone who's wishing to speak on public comment.

[25:13] I think a good count to 7 is efficient, Mercy. Yeah. Wonderful. Okay. Steve. None. I would pass it back over to. Thank you, Marcie. And, Vanessa, I assume you don't need an additional 3 min to respond to, no public speakers, but I do wanna, thank members of the public who wrote in support of initiating, initiating this house as well as the letter we got from someone who didn't think it was in. Alignment with the the balancing between the the city's code and the comprehensive plan. So that being said, we will bring this back for board discussion.

[26:05] I do ask that everyone mute your computer or phone for the duration of the discussion. We've allotted approximately 30 min for this deliberation but we will put whatever time is needed. I know Audrey will be keeping us keeping. Keeping us on track by timing this. I don't know Chelsea or John if either one of you would like to start or jump in. I could start. Thanks, John. There's a few. I guess comments I have having. Gone to this house. And having investigate it. Little bit beyond that on my own I spent certain amount of time talking to the neighbor. About the house. And, And it's a very interesting little house. And it is. Interesting because It is.

[27:14] In at least aesthetically or externally. A good example of what it is. A house of that period. With the applied masonry veneer. Well it's kind of It's a kind of full. Full wife veneer. And so it's an interesting form of construction. It would also a kind of interesting set of lessons in all the wrong things you could do if you built a house intended to last for more than 80 years or a hundred years, it did last for that period of time. With marginal conditions. The other things that I observed just from what I've been seeing in the town.

[28:04] In other areas was the kind of impact and or effects the 2,013 flood had on properties that had been in repose up until that point and then various Still mysterious processes were set in the motion by that flood. All of that being said, This would have been a type of a house that. I would have thought met the criteria. For landmarking and provided kind of a Nice little piece to the community, however I can't make the balance. Between what the what the cost to restore this to any level of utility is going to be against private property rights and my impression of Vanessa and the intention going into this was The intention was to to restore the property and to, save it and use it.

[29:21] And it just was full of hidden. Secrets and bombs that were revealed when the process started. It was partially deconstructed already on the interior. And it just was overwhelming. To put this thing together in a way without additional resources. All of that being said, I agree with staff's memo and I agree with the fact that we should. Let this one pass. But I'm also going to make this statement, which I've made before. Somehow, some activist component of the preservation community needs to engage in resource. Development of some kind.

[30:10] Many communities that have active preservation programs, larger towns like Pittsburgh. And towns that are very dedicated to historic preservation. Like, charleston and other southern towns have resources available. They aren't necessarily public, they're private, but there are groups and and sources of funding. We need to develop that if we're gonna be able to save some of these more marginal properties. Otherwise, we're gonna end up losing a mall. And some of this is directed at. What we're looking at now more and more is mid century modernism.

[31:00] Which in many cases was horribly badly built. At the level of technology that it was built at. And is causing a great deal of problems bringing it up to any kind of performance levels or other survival. Levels. So We have to let this one go. To properly respect. The program's relationship to the community. Thank you, John Chelsea. Yeah, I I appreciate staff's recommendation. I agree with it. I don't necessarily agree that this is clearly a building that should be landmarked. Based on the criteria but I don't wanna belabor this meeting and so I agree that we should approve.

[32:05] The demolition request. It's been. We've taken this property owner through quite a bit of hoops. And if we can save her 4 days, I think we ought to do that based on the information that we have. Thank you. Okay. And I'll leave it there. Oh, you just wanna also say I really appreciate. Laura Kaplan's email, that she sent to us. I, agree with everything that she has said. I think it speaks to some of the feelings that I've had about a lot of projects that we've looked at. And how The degree to which. Certain projects meet the criteria. Can be debated and oftentimes. I feel that there is. Oh, weak argument for meeting a criteria. But there always seems to be a way to create an argument for why it meets the great deal like the criteria is so broad that it seems like every house could be landmarkable if we decide we want to do that.

[33:20] And to me, that really diminishes the power of landmarking in our community. So I just want to really appreciate the comments that she said and I hope that this is a topic that we can. Consider talking about in more detail not project by project because I think it is an issue especially as our housing stock like John said, is going to continuously get older and we're going to be faced with more decisions. I think we need to have more specific guidance on what actually is. And should be a landmark. Thank you, Chelsea. So first of all, Mark, I want to thank you for your question because I do think that.

[34:08] The staff presentation based on the structural. Tip in my tip the way I would be voting tonight. It did make a difference and also it may we may come across other buildings of this ilk and with the near added or you know the soil conditions or whatever so in that case I don't think that was a wasted effort. I do think that this and I also appreciated Laura's letter and the other letters we receive from the community. I do think that one of the reasons I think if an applicant came forward and said, we want to landmark this, I do think it was eligible for landmarky, primarily because of its uniqueness and rarity. And that is something that over the years we have looked at the historic preservation plan that was created in 2,013 and updated in 2,015 did address this thing in Chelsea it's a little bit what you're getting on is how do we explore ways to protect the smaller buildings, you know, and and not

[35:16] all of them need to be landmark, not all need to be preserved, but when they're something really unique or special, you know, we need to see if there is a mechanism or a way to protect more of the smaller buildings, they're simply the ones most vulnerable. You know, my heart is broken a little because I do think Vanessa really did want to save this building. I do think Vanessa really did want to save this building. I know this process really did want to save this building. I know this process has been drawn out but I also I think that Vanessa with your patience and with your. You know, willingness to work with us and have these conversations. Once the building's gone, it's gone forever. So I think that I know we delayed your process in moving forward but I think that I can live with that because it will be hard to lament the loss of this building precisely because we went through this and I think there are important discussions about when do we place this day in when don't we and I think that's where we

[36:16] need to make the decision not at once to stay is made is really look at what does this and I am delighted to hear your planning to keep a little bit of history in that backyard. That that also was a charming sweet building and I think that You know, I know you're gonna be a good steward and I don't know if you've hired an architect or looked at you know what you're going to build in the. In place of this this house but you know if there's any materials that could be. Reused or incorporated somehow or whatever. It might be a creative way to explore what next sits on that property. So I just have to quickly I would be remiss if I didn't quickly say.

[37:01] I know it's unique. In our ordinance and I think Boulder is fortunate to have the tool in our toolkit. We can proceed with designation over an owners objection and even though I've been involved in, I don't wanna say how many applications to designate over an owner's objection. Reality there have only been 3 properties in this city. And I can name wonderful places we go into that are public and private homes that if we didn't have that tool at our disposal would have been gone forever. So, so I'm not worried about that, but I do think based on stash recommendation. Along with my 2 colleagues tonight, then in that balancing act that we have to do, you know, that I don't think I can support initiating. That this house based on every all the information and and And also your wishes, Vanessa. So, I don't know if anyone would like to make a motion.

[38:09] I'm sorry, this is Mark. I wanted to speak before the motion. I just wanted to speak briefly as well. Please go ahead. Yeah. 2 things I, what I failed to ask the applicant a question at the time and if it's appropriate I'd like to ask the applicant. Does the date of the 20 ninth or tonight. Have any effect. On your plans. Of the mind that we said that we should approve the demolition permit versus take no action or let the. Let the stay expire so my question to the applicant is does it make any difference to her in regard to the timeliness of our action tonight.

[39:12] Those 4 days don't make a difference to me. Alright. I don't have any immediate. Plan, I guess it should say. Right. Okay, thank you. And my only other comment is I concur with Chelsea. And I want to lift up Laura's letter because I think as I've experienced on planning board. Precise readings. Of the code. Mean at times that we have to set aside our views on what or something is. Interesting something is. Kind of sort of maybe something we're fond of or whatever. And we owe it to.

[40:12] Our citizenry. And the public that has adopted and the councils that have adopted our code. That if we. We have to apply the code in a manner. That is that is precise and I realize that the code by its nature. Can't always be precise. It's not always numerical. But in this case, I just want to make sure. That the action of the board tonight. Is not solely based on some economic impossibility of this imposition on the applicant.

[41:01] That, too expensive for them to rehabilitate. But in fact, Laura raises the right question, and that is, Should this home. Really have been put forth. For landmarking and I understand probable cause and But beyond the probable cause and the initial investigation. Over the opposition of the homeowner. I agree with her that that is the most essential question and should have gone forward at all. And so I just want to make sure that our decision tonight is not fully based on the economics that that it's just too difficult to do. So those are my comments. Thank you. I can take that one. We have 2 design professionals that sit on this board. Preservation is a somewhat subjective. Thing that happens in communities. But there is there are levels of interest in buildings. And contributions to the community.

[42:08] Kind of like The community's sense of history. That are part of the judgment and those are vague things that really can't be. Quantified to the level of even a code, it's It's. In a given instance. Looking at the building, looking at the site, looking at the environment. Looking at any sense of the history. That's passed that you can see you make a call. That there is probable cause. And in fact, there is value to the community in trying to preserve some part of this particular. Built instance. And so. It's an interesting. And there are a lot of ways to mark history.

[43:03] There are a lot of ways to like edify the kind of memory of what happened in a community. But it's an important process. It's something the community grapples with continuously. And at the same time. You can't do it numerically. But in this instance, I and the other design professional felt that there was value in this. House at least to work to look at preserving and my understanding was that the owner saw that value at least to the degree to start trying the process. And so, yeah, it was worth. Going through this extended process. To make a determination and I think it's also worth further.

[44:00] The full documentation process of the house it was a style of construction that happened here it may have been colloquial. It may have been, rare and in fact that makes it more interesting. But it's worthy of documenting and somehow marking. It's something that happened. And we'll. Okay. I agree, John, and you know, Mark and you write some interesting points as did Chelsea and Laura's letter, but I think we all bring our own experience and, you know, staff's expertise in a memo when when they recommended placing a stay on this. So we all do bring different things to the table to have that dialogue and I've never made a decision on this board that's based solely on one factor. You know, we have to weigh it all as we look at it. So, but that's very thought provoking and something that may be valuable at a retreat one day.

[45:04] Yeah. I'd like to make a motion. To approve the demo. I will pull that up for you. Give me a minute. Here we go. Okay. Being a lot of potential. Emotions drafted for you all. You found the one. Let me just make sure. A menu of Just read it before you, read it out loud. Yes. You're not sharing your screen, or at least I don't say anything. Thank you. Yeah, I don't see it. Bear with me. Can you see it now? Yes. Yeah. Yes, okay, so I move to the landmark board approve the application for demolition finding that the house at 2 1 1 9 Mariposa Avenue does not meet the criteria for initiation for to section 9 11 3 initiation of designation for individual landmarks and historic districts of the Boulder revised code, 1,900 and

[46:22] 81 and in balance is not consistent with the goals and policies of sections 2.2 7 of the Boulder Valley comprehensive land. Is there a second? John? Hi. Not real happy with the language. And. Hey. Hi. And I'll just jump in, John. My preference would have been not to make a motion not to initiate tonight.

[47:03] Yeah, I I prefer that. Well, so then can we at least have a vote? I made a motion so. You can say no to my motion, right? But. Okay, yeah, let's. If there's no second, if there's no second, it just doesn't move forward. Now there's no second at this point. Oh. Okay, there's no second. Okay, sorry. Marcy, thank you for pulling up the language not to initiate landmark designation. If there was a bigger space of time between tonight and the expiration of the state. I would support lifting it now, but.

[48:00] I, I don't think it's worth. Doing that that language is troubling. Because we did find at least initially that there was value in the property. And it's kind of wiping it. In. Even though the whole action is public record at this point. Join us. Motion up on the screen has similar language in terms of its findings. And so the board's other option is to just not take action, in which case the state would expire. On the 20 ninth. Yeah. I could make this motion. If that's okay. You're welcome too. I move that the landmarks boarded. Adopt the staff memorandum dated. May. My stuff. May 20 fifth, 2023 is the findings of the board and not initiate the process for landmarks and not initiate the process for landmark designation.

[49:04] Finding that it does not meet the criteria. For such initiation personally to section 9 dash 11 dash 3. Initiation of designation for individual landmarks in historic districts. Of the Boulder revised code. And in balance is not consistent with the goals and policies of section. 2.2 7 of the Boulder Valley comprehensive plan. I second that. That's it. It's the same motion though. I mean, it's the reason. It kinda is, but it's I was just troubled by it as a Yes. Cut off motion. I don't understand. Okay, I'll explain further when we what I'm troubled by is the fact that When we approve. A demolition application. We need to add language that. Actually addresses the manner of demolition and or deconstruction.

[50:05] The building. That's completely absent from the one we had. I think it needs to be re-crafted. To include that. And to also include the condition of full documentation, etc., even though that's in the report. I don't understand why I don't I guess I just don't agree. I, I don't think we should be making motions to demolish, frankly. I agree with. Last week. Hi. Okay. I guess we're essentially doing that. But I mean, it is within our scope of responsibilities to approve. Demolition requests. So that feels wrong that you, we like. That we can never. Make a

[51:03] We can, but I'm, but I'm just saying that in most instances, I don't think I think that we put a state, we explore. We find that it doesn't meet our criteria to proceed. And then we let the stay expire. You had said if this day was. Further out in time that would that would Make a difference. I could be argued in to supporting it, yeah. Okay. So because it's been a motion by John. I seconded it. Unless there's any other discussion, we can do a roll call vote. Chelsea? I'm conflicting. I think it's silly to not approve.

[52:04] What we are approving, which is the demolition. It just feels like an abdication of responsibility. So I'm gonna vote no. Bye. Hmm. John. And I. So the motion fails. This is Mark and I It gets it. I don't have a vote here and I just I just wanna say Chelsea. I really understand your concerns. And I agree with you, however. I want to urge you that John's motion. Actually was quite strong in its citation of code. And that the property failed to meet. The criteria of the code. And while I support you in the idea.

[53:00] That the board should. Be able and willing under The right circumstance and the right property to approve a demolition permit. I disagree with John on that. I agree with you. We should be. That is something that should happen. However, John's motion was quite clear that the property based on the code and based on the BVCP. Did not meet the criteria. And, and so if I had a vote. I would have seconded his motion and supported it. So I just wanted to provide that input. I appreciate that and I would like for it to be noted in the notes of this meeting. That I voted no. Because I wanted to approve the demolition request and I clearly made that motion. So I hope that that is noted as. My reason for voting no on this.

[54:05] It was a minute, it was a procedural, Chelsea that was bothering me. And it's a discussion that we could have. Discussion that we could have down the road. And same here. Nope. Yeah. Without getting buried in this. Hmm. And I agree with John. So, but because we do need, because there's only 3 of us and we need to be unanim I suppose another option is no action. Yeah, so it'll have the same effect. Exactly. Correct, correct. Yeah, I believe Marcy said there were 4 actions. One of them if we had voted in favor to initiate unanimously.

[55:00] Is would have had a different outcome than the other 3 motions. Marcy, correct me if I'm wrong. That is correct. And because the first motion didn't get a second and the second motion failed. Are we at a point Lucas where we're taking no action tonight? Yeah, I mean, you can, there's 2 ways to take no action. You can actively take no action and you can have a vote Say well, there's no motion here that we can't agree on so we're not going to take any action and there's no vote, well then that's also no action. That's more of a passive no action. So either of those outcomes will result in the. In this stay expiring. What's that, John? It's all good. Yeah, it's all okay. Sorry, Louis. It's all gonna accomplish the same thing.

[56:00] Yep. I, the discussion about demolition is one that I think we should have at a. Retreat. So John and Chelsea. Yeah. Do we want to try? A motion to take no action, Chelsea. No, I think. We've taken enough motions tonight to say I don't I don't see why we would do that. . Action So, so the net result is we're not taking any action this evening. And this day of demolition will expire and right. On Monday. So Marcy, I believe that brings us to matters.

[57:01] Yes, and just to close out, with next steps. So this, will expire on Monday will still require archival documentation. Of the house in then approve the demolition. application for the house. It's, for 180 days and, it can't be extended. So. If the house is not or if the demolition permit is not finalized within 6 months, then the process. Starts again with a new application. Infinite, I'm happy to follow up with you. In an email or call after. The meeting probably early next week. Okay. And then with that, I think we're ready to move to matters. So I have a slide for that too. Hey,, this is Mark. I'm going to excuse myself now and I appreciate all the time and intentions what that went into this.

[58:05] Particular project and subject. And, anyway, I have some other things. So I'm gonna excuse myself now for the matter section. Thank you all. Good night. Thank you, Mark. Thank you. Thanks, Okay. Alright. Alright, so we just have one thing under batters. This is a special meeting. So our regular matters, will pick up in June. But I just wanted to take the opportunity to, highlight that The landmarks for recruitment and other recruitment for boards and commissions is. Open from May 20 ninth, and will be open until July second. So basically the month of June. The city is accepting applications online And, between, well, over the fourth of July. Weekend or week I guess July third to July seventh.

[59:02] The city clerk's office will process the application Send qualified applicants interview sign ups. Send the application packet to council and then post those online. The interviews will be held July eleventh and twelfth. Those will be completed, by 2. Bye City Council members. From the, the boards and commission subcommittee. And then August third is the date that council will make appointments. So. Here's hoping that we have some applicants to the board and if you know anyone who might be interested, please. Do some recruitment. We have the website online with some information but of course give them my. Information if they'd like to talk to me or you all know what. It is to serve on the landmark sports, so feel free to share your experiences. And then if the If we have someone appointed in August, their first meeting would likely be in September and then they would serve just an 8 month term because it's, finishing up Bill Gelix term.

[60:11] So it would be a good way to dip your toes in into the landmarks board. They would then have the Choice to react for a standard 5 year term up to that. So that's all we had under matters. Any questions or discussion about that? Well, one quick question. I know that, over the years, landmarks board retreat is typically held in the summer. So, they've been early fall or once we have that. Yeah. Hmm. Yeah, good point. Yeah, typically we, wait until the new board member. Is appointed. Let's continue discussing that because. It may be helpful to have a mini retreat. You know sooner rather than in the fall or we could wait until the fall and have a have an in order retreat.

[61:05] Yeah. Great, looking forward to. Someone to take more LDRC shifts. Cause there's a lot. Long ago around. And Abby, your computer is muted. But you could see me talking, sorry, if I could add one thing real quickly, this is just an idea that's suggested. I'm sorry to throw it kind of at staff, but, I understand that I don't know if it's been submitted or will be submitted but a application for a civic center historic district or whatever. This is just a suggestion when we have our meeting earlier this month. I know there were some people who traveled to Katherine Barth's house to speak because they, they weren't like, they were having technical troubles logging in to Zoom and participating.

[62:07] Is there a possibility down the road with that initiation. I think it'd be an initiation, Harry, but when the first tearing is that, would there be a way as we inch closer to in-person meetings to maybe contemplate something like that where there might be members of the public, some who may be Zoom isn't like easy and instinctual and natural to use. To do an in meeting person, I just no response is needed, Marcy, but I just throw that out there. Thank you, Abby. Yeah, we'll follow up. We'll follow up with you. There. We are not. I think quite ready, but I hear you and I hear from the community members who want to be back in person. Right. So, July is probably not possible. But, why don't we talk about it in and see because it is something that he's working towards.

[63:08] But we wanna make sure that we We can do it. Right, no, no, that makes sense. I, I'm just trying to think that or at some point is that, you know. We appreciate that. Anything else guys? If not, this special meeting is adjourned at 705 p. M. Wonderful. Thank you all. Yeah. Thank you. Have a great, memorial day. Thank you. Oh right, right. Thank you.