July 12, 2023 — Landmarks Board Regular Meeting

Transcript

Captions from City of Boulder YouTube recording.

[0:00] Great. Thank you. The July Landmarks Board meeting is called to order. Welcome to the July twelfth, 2,023 Landmarks Board meeting. It is 601 pm. Our usual moderator, Brenda written. Our will be stepping back from this specific role. So Marcy will review the virtual meeting decorum this evening. Thank you, Abby. The city has 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 as well as democracy. For people of all ages, identities lived experience 150 and a political perspective for more about this vision and the projects community engagement process, you can visit the link on the screen.

[1:03] The following are examples of rules of decorum found in the boulder revised code and other guidelines that support this vision. These will be upheld during this 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, or other speech and behavior that disrupts or otherwise impedes the ability to conduct the meeting are prohibited. and participants may raise their hand to speak during open comment and public comment periods during hearings. individual must display their whole name before being allowed to speak online. And currently only audio testimony is permitted online. And I would just say there are a couple of participants here this evening. if you're planning to speak, please do go in and edit, so that your full name is displayed, and not just part of your name. and then there's one more slide clear.

[2:01] There we go. So when the time comes for folks to speak. you can either hit all y on a PC or option y on a Mac or Star 9. If you're calling in on a phone or under the reactions menu, there is that raised hand function. and we'll get plenty of time for you to find that. So Welcome to this virtual meeting, and that wraps up the decor. Thank you, Marcy. I do want to acknowledge that we have a full quorum tonight for our board as with in person landmarks, forward meetings. The recording of this meeting will be available in the records, archives, and on Youtube within 28 days of this meeting roll call and introductions will do a real quick introduction of ourselves. I'm Abby Daniel's chair of the Landmarks board Chelsea. Hello! I'm Chelsea Castle on a board member.

[3:04] Hi, John Decker, board Member Ronnie Pelosi. I'm also a board member. and mark Mark Mcintyre Planning board liaison non voting. Thank you, Mark, we know there are people who are here to participate this evening that may have strong emotions about particular projects. We want to hear from you, and we have found it more protective. If you are speaking to persuade us, rather than berating us, staff or the applicant, as with regular landmarks, board meetings, you may only speak at the appropriate time during the public hearing request to speak outside of those times will be denied as board chair. I will call for a roll call vote on any motions made this evening. So the first item on our agenda is the approval of the June meeting minutes. Does anybody have any changes or alterations to those minutes.

[4:10] Seeing no raised hands and not hearing from any of you, I move that we approve these minutes. Is there a second. I'll second. Okay. So thank you, John. For second minute we'll do a roll call. Vote Chelsea. Hi, John! June fifth. Meeting. Minutes passed unanimously. We'll now proceed to the part of our agenda where we have public participation for items not on the agenda. And I don't know Aubrey, Marcio Brenda. If you see anyone who has begun to raise their hands alright. Speak! Thank you. So. Yes. Now is the opportunity. If you'd like to speak to an item that's not a public hearing this evening. go ahead and and find the race hand function. I see 2 speakers, Abby. The first is Lynn Siegel, the second is Patrick O'rourke.

[5:18] Thank you, Marcy, and when you do speak, please state your full name, and then you will proceed. You will have 3 min to speak. So, Lynn Siegel. Yeah, I got to be at 6 10 at Osbt. yeah. I just want to say about the millennium. You know, we're losing our base in boulder when we're not preserving these, the these spectacular buildings that that we have, and when we're, you know, tripling the quantity of people in them, and we lose our sales tax revenue.

[6:05] you know. Instead, we've got, you know, instead of 269 folks bringing in the sales tax revenue to builder. We have 900, some going to see you. This really should have been changed, they should not. This, this this building should have been preserved. not unlike 7 70 Circle place. that what you you know ironically. What's coming up now? It's 5 h before now. It's 5 h again last night. It's going to be 5 h again. on the the pure mass of the face of this project from Cu that see who is going to get all the income from. And we need this. The the historic preservation costs a lot, and we're losing it in our in handing over to see you. It's it's stark walls there for stories high. They should not be given anything because of the fled claim. That's not your per view. It's planning board, but

[7:10] but I just don't understand how these kind of things can happen in Boulder. That millennium could have been well preserved and expanded a little bit. but it's not, and it didn't. And now it's re receiving a lot of hassle in the community, and nobody can play tennis anymore. They have to commute to come play tennis. It's it's just not acceptable. What's what's happened in that space. And so I don't trust landmarks board to do the next thing, do the right thing. I think these things are going to just slip by, and pretty soon all you're going to have to look at the landmarks of the future are going to be mindless buildings like what I just said to design Advisory Board at 2,206 pearl a very. you know, unpleasant looking building, with 300 square feet, you know, rented by the bedroom at the millennium. It it it's just dollar signs everywhere, and it's not integrity anymore for the community. And that's what the landmarks board is about is preserving the integrity of our historical.

[8:21] you know, value in this community, and it's not happening here. And why? Why? Why was the millennium just dump like that? This is utterly wasteful of our historic assets done. Thank you, Lynn. Patrick. I I asked for 2 pictures to be put up on the screen while I'm talking, if that's possible. When we could start

[9:04] there you go. Thank you, Claire. I I'm gonna talk to about 2 things before the at open comment. One will be the banshell. And what happened on June twentieth of last year. Nothing to do with those applications in today. And the other one is the Cla. So I went back and listen to the the Youtube videos from the June fourteenth meeting with 2,020. The reason the Landmarks Board or James Hewett, recommended that the City Council not approve it were 3 reasons. One, the hip wasn't time. Number 2. They wanted a collaboration in Number 3 is that he felt it would be better or holistically done in a historic district. Then today I listen to what Ally Rhodes said. It wasn't the same message, and this is the same staff. Allie Rhodes was dealing with about her question was process, and more important was her last quote, and I recorded it. If you want to listen to it later.

[10:08] Is she questioned, the motive of the people that had put the application in. And the reason she questioned the motive is because of the 2,015 comprehensive, and that was done for that whole area which is disappointing, because that was questioning, and the motivation of the people involved was unacceptable. Regarding the Cla. I I have some concerns on it. Number one. I question the reason why the Cla. Was only given to the parks and recreation, and the Planning Board to review and not given to the landmarks board. I find that unacceptable, awesome the the assumptions that are made in the proposal. The memo that was given to these boards is in is wrong. So I just wanted that to be put on the agenda. The the reason I had asked for the Cla is what it was my proposal to have a

[11:01] cultural landscape assessment that included the entire creek. You see the 2 pictures in front of you. The one on the right is what is currently the Silver Saddle Hotel Motel. That's the 34 townhouses that is being built that's on Boulder Creek. I don't know how that could have been acceptable. That's a 9 foot or 10 foot wall on the left, and it abs the creek. And then the second question I have is this is phase one, and we're going into phase 2 of this development phase. One has this same link and these posts. There's 2,000 linear feed of chain link in that area between the municipal building and the library. And I just question, is that an acceptable solution? And our is the parks and recreation planning to do that same concept if they found it acceptable there over at this new location plus, there's. And I calculated it today, there's 5,000 linear feeds of development going on in the next 10 years along with Boulder Creek from the the mouth of the canyon to 20 Eighth Street. Thank you.

[12:11] Thank you, Patrick. Are there any additional members of the public who would like to speak? There are so Lennard Siegel is next followed by Bob, and Bob will need your full name. if you're planning to speak, and then Kathryn Barth will follow and just a reminder to speak about items not on the agenda for public hearings. I know there are very closely related issues, but the time for public comment on those will be later. Thank you, Marcy, for that important reminder. Leonard Siegel. I I know you know, to state your full name, and then your 3 min will commence Leonard Siegel here. Thank you. Landmark's board. I just wanted to. bring up the Colorado Preservation Incorporated Saving Places Conference that is going to be taking place in Boulder

[13:15] and encourage the landmarks for to get involved with the planning of this. So I I'm speaking on behalf of historic boulder. We are involved in the planning right now for this conference, and the planning committee is looking for bolder organizations to provide keynote speakers to provide ideas for panels, and I'd use for tours and also individual Education sessions. And the topic is called Rethink Refine, revive, forging a resilient future with historic preservation. And it what better place than Boulder to have this topic being put forward and like we did last year, the historic holder would like to collaborate with

[14:06] The landmarks order the preservation planners to come up with programs for this event, and the deadline for these submittals is around the seventh of August. So please, let's put our heads together. Try to come up with some ideas for sessions and speakers and tours, and get folder to showcase itself in the best way possible, and to get attention to boulder preservation in the way that we think would serve this community and the board in in the city. So that's all I wanted to say tonight. And it other than please reach out to me. And let's maybe not. Maybe let's put together a. A meeting to try to brainstorm some ideas soon. Okay. thank you very much.

[15:01] Thank you. Letter to thank you for your heads up about this, because I know it is going to approach much sooner than we all think. and I apologize. Marcy next was Bob and Bob, if you could state your full name at the beginning of your comments. and then followed by Katherine Bar. Thank you. Okay, so frankly, I'm not plenty to talk off the record. I just can't figure out how to tell you what my full name is. I got a note in the chat from Brenda, and my chat says that it is disabled, so I don't know how to how to respond. So my phone, Robert knuckle. thank you. and I'll talk to you later. I mean since my time still running, I'll just say I I I everything that Len just said. I think the Cpi.

[16:00] you know. But when Cpi color a pu preservation Inc. Came to Boulder last year and they said they wouldn't come back, because, you know, they don't do the same they weren't. They were planning on moving around around the State. And then their experience in Boulder was so good they decided to do it again in boulder. So that's that's a great thing we should really take advantage of. Thank you, Bob, and we'll look forward to hearing from you later. Kathryn Barth. All right. I think I'm on muted now. I'm not going to speak about anything that we're speaking about later. What I am going to speak about is today. I spent some time re-reading some historic preservation sitting materials.

[17:09] And what I really spent some time on was our historic preservation plan, and I was part of the group of citizens that Marcy convened in 2,013 and it was really a good job. The the interface with the community, and many of us I I just went back and I read it again. And I think it's a very worthy document it's been. It was I guess a revised, or it was brought up to date in 2,018, and and maybe it'll be brought up to date again this year in 2,023, I guess. Is it supposed to be every 5 years? But I think it is an excellent document, and I think

[18:06] I don't know. I think it should be required me reading, or we should put it on the buses or something. But it's it. It was really good. And I think I'm glad we read it. And we have a good program in this town, and we just have to be faithful to it. So thank you so much, Marcy, for all your work so many years ago, and we are still at it. Thanks again, everybody. They. Thank you, Katherine. and I don't see anyone else with their hand raised for open comment this evening, so I'll just give it a little more time. If you there's anyone else who would like to speak to something. that's not a public hearing this evening. Go ahead and use the raise hand function otherwise. Abby, I believe that is it this evening? Okay, sorry. So

[19:01] the lead cover. Oh, I see. Katie Peterson. Cpi. Okay, Hi, welcome, Katie, and if you would state your full name, and then your 3 min will begin. Good evening, everybody. My name is Katie Peterson. I am the endangered places program director for Colorado preservation in I just want to echo Leonard statement. Here we are so thrilled to have our conference in Boulder again next year, and we'd love to work with. I know I've been talking with Mercy, and she's been absolutely amazing. So I'd love to work with the the landmarks board. And if you have any questions, please feel free to email me or our events and development manager. Nicole. Bob, thank you so much, and thanks for having me here tonight. Thank you, Katie. Okay, Marcy. Once again any more raised hands. Give it Brenda's 7 s. to count down If there is any final speakers this evening.

[20:04] And I would say, seeing that it's safe to move on. okay. And I just want to make a very quick comment about what Leonard, Bob, and Katie just said. One idea off the top of my head. I believe in 2,024. The landmarks, I mean the preservation program in the city of Boulder celebrates its fiftieth anniversary, so we might find a way to weed that in to something during the conference. So we now will officially close public comment, and we will move on to discussion of landmark, alteration and demolition applications issued in pending. So sorry. That's me. So there are 2 pending stays of demolition. well, technically, there's actually just one. So 1741, walnut This is one that the board put a stay of demolition back in March.

[21:06] We had 2 meetings, one virtual one on site. In April. In May the landmarks board voted to hold a day of demolition, but a hearing prior to the day of demolition expiring. This one is moving towards, I think, a positive outcome of preserving the alley side of the building. And so the applicant team is still working on getting a revised set to propose partial demolition rather than full demolition, and they asked for additional time. And so we signed a tolling agreement to extend the timeline in June, and then an extension in July. So currently this day of demolition expires on September fourteenth and so we would expect a hearing in September. and then the next one. Claire, if you don't mind going to. The next slide is 1918, Pine Street. This is A public hearing later on this evening. The landmark's board put a save demolition on the application in April, and then in June, the Board voted to hold a hearing. Prior to the stay expiring.

[22:18] We had an onsite meeting the next day spoke with the owner. Met with him. He's willing to work with the house, preserve the oldest part, which is quite old. and then remove some of the later additions, and that will allow the preservation of the house but also potential to expand it. So The owner has withdrawn the full demolition request. And so this day of demolition has been is no longer, and later this evening the Board will consider initiation of landmark designation. though our recommendation is based on the State, the application being withdrawn.

[23:05] so any questions on either one of those cases. Granny. Yeah, if you go back to slide 8. what is the I mean? It sounds to me. I I think I understand the the. The plan is that they're preserving this facade. are they? Is there a route in which there's some sort of designation process? that they're planning on pursuing for this building. And it's this elevation. Yeah, that's a good question. I think that this stay of demolition has come up with an outcome where, in my opinion, it's still successful, even though the building won't be designated it will be preserved. But outside of the program I think that this is a pretty unique building in that it is very utilitarian, and the front of the building actually faces the alleyway.

[24:04] And so the solution that was discussed during the day of demolition is incorporating the alleyway, and then the side walls. but not pursuing landmark designation for the building. and I'm sure we'll get to talk more about this in the future. So I'll wait another. Many more questions. Thanks. And, John. The only question I have is is that we? This is not something that's going to be designated in the traditional sense. Is there any way to acknowledge landmarks, boards, involvement with in the process. And the fact that this was a partial preservation. A plaque or some type of instrument that could make that acknowledgment I would love to explore creative ways, you know, especially as you walk along the alleyway. And there are these kind of remnants left as you walk downtown. so yes, let's brainstorm and think about about ways. I don't think there's a

[25:19] established way to do that, but that doesn't mean that that there couldn't be some sort of plaque or historical mark, or something that gives a little explanation of this. Just a thought. all right. Any other questions or discussion about the phase of demolition. I just want to make a really quick comment, and I know one of these properties will be discussing later this evening. But I want to give a shout out to Staff and and

[26:01] the landmarks board members who have signed up for various properties. I think recently this days of demolition in the meetings, and what has happened during those have been some of the most successful I've seen in the years I've been involved with the landmark sport in one fashion or another. And so, you know, I I just think there' been some great outcomes, and I just the process works, and there' been some very fruitful conversations, and some good things are happening because of the time and energy spent on that. So, thank you. I really appreciate that, Abbey. And it was one thing that I had in mind to bring up at the Retreat, because the demolition reviews can often be the most contentious cases that we review, but I think that the applicants have kind of understood what the process is, and have come into it with open minds. And then the landmarks, board members who have volunteer to represent the board have come up with some really creative alternatives. And I would agree that these 3 from this year have been some of the most productive use of this day of demolition which

[27:13] can sometimes just feel like we're dragging up the clock. But I think these 3 demonstrate why the process is written the way that it is, and it it can come out with a a number of different solutions that are positive. I agree. So it's time to move on to our first public hearing. Item 5. A. This is a public hearing in consideration of a landmark, alteration, certificate, application to remove offense at the property north of 200 Gillardi, Elaine, and my apologies. If I mispronounce that you guys, we moved here from San Francisco, and I keep wanting to say gear delay Lane, in the Chautauqua Historic District. Pursue it to section 9, 1118 of the Boulder Revised Code 1,981, and under the procedures prescribed by Chapter one, Dash, 3. Quasi judicial Hearings, Brc. 1,981,

[28:17] and I believe Claire is doing this presentation. I am, thank you, Abby. so I will go through the quasi judicial hearing procedures all speaking to this item will be sworn in, and board members will note any expertise contacts. I'll get the staff presentation, and after that the Board may ask questions the applicant will have up to 10 min to present to the board, and the Board may ask questions. will then open the public hearing. After all members of the public have made comments. The applicant may respond to anything that was said. and then we'll ask everyone to mute their computers, and the Board will deliberate. A motion requires an affirmative vote of at least 3 members to pass, and motions must state findings.

[29:03] conclusions, and recommendation. A recording of this hearing is available in a couple of days as a video recording and the official record will be added to the records like archive within 28 days, usually sooner. so I will pass it back to Abbey for exparte contacts. The Board has requested that we note who reviewed this at the Ldrc. And that was Abby Ronnie and Mossy. So back to you, Abby. Thank you, Claire. Chelsea in the ex parte contacts. No. John. no. And I actually did. I did go to this site and look at it on Monday, May fifteenth, just prior to the square nails. ceremony awards ceremony, celebrating national historic preservation month, and there were a few people, cottagers and people who lived at Chatauqua, who are also there when I was looking at the site.

[30:06] So back to you, Claire. Thank you, Abi. So the criteria for review are outlined in the Boulder Revised Code under 9, 1118 B. And C. This review is to ensure that the proposed work preserves, enhances, or restores, and does not damage exterior architectural features of the property does not adversely affect the historic architectural value of the property, the architecture, arrangement, texture, color, arrangement of color and materials are compatible with the character of the property, and that the landmark's board considers the economic feasibility of alternatives, incorporation of any G efficiency design and enhanced access for the disabled The options today for the Landmark Board are to approve the application. This is subject to a 16 day city council call up Period which we had to extend to the next city council meeting. So If City Council would like to review the application, they will let us know at their August third meeting.

[31:11] The board may also deny the application which would be subject to a 30 day period in which city council could request to review the decision. Strangely enough, that also would happen on August third because this is an after the fact review. If the board finds the fence removal to not meet the guidelines and denies the application, the city would require that the chain link, fence be reinstalled in the same location, and a denial would mean that the applicant could not submit the same application to remove the fence within 12 months. This is the application process so far in In April, staff received notification from community members that the garden and fence had been removed from the site. typically, we are tasked with reviewing exterior changes that for landscaping includes fences retaining walls and other hotscaping.

[32:07] so our focus tonight is on the fence that was removed. After we received that notification, the applicant provided a landmark ortration certificate application for the removal of the fence. and this, after the fact request, was reviewed by the Ldrc. On May seventeenth, and at that time referred to the Full Board for review in the public hearing, and that brings us to today. So the Board has received comments from members of the public regarding this application. Comments that were received before the memo was posted, are included in the packet as attachment B, and comments received after the memo was written, have been forwarded to the board, and will be included in the public record. So this is the property in question. It is located

[33:04] just north of Galadia Lane, which is right sorry it's east of Gala de Lane. It's at the terminus of Galadia Lane, just north of 200 Gala de Lane, which is the bachelor branch house and east of cottage 211 So this map is a bit confusing, because Noi North is pointing down so to Orient. You baseline is down here the trails are well all around, really. But the Bluebell Road is here. The dining hole is here in the auditorium here. and this is the Centennial Garden, which you'll see on some of the images. The area under consideration tonight is along this pedestrian path here between the the general store

[34:01] and community house, next to the box, office and cottage 2, 11. It. The site is approximately 25 feet by 30 feet, and until recently was surrounded by a full 4 foot tall. Jane-link fence. The area also has some mature trees. a loose rock border, and a a utility poll. So this area was historically part of the Butchilda ranch. on the top image. Here, from 1,907. You can see the the remnant of of the orchard that was planted after the ranch was founded in 1,882 around 1910, you can see that the area was was still open, unfenced. And you can see there was a tent pitched here. in around 1,918. The area was planted as a garden and marked with a simple fence.

[35:08] You might not be able to see it in this image, but if you look closely at this one, you can see the would post some wires in both this one, this image and the image from around 1,925. We're not super sure on the date of this one. This is to the cottage 2 11. This is Galadia Lane, which at the time went all the way through. and and you can see that this this is the flower garden with those fence posts and the wire between. So the period of significance for Shitock, where it's from 1,898 to 1,930, and these are the only images of the site that we could locate. During that period. however, we do have some aerial images from the late 19 forties. At this time Galadia became a a cul de sac. You can kind of see this car is parked at the end of Gala de Lane in the 1940 s. and a and a footpath.

[36:12] I don't know if it was a formal footpath or a a desire line was ended up here. across the the south side of the the area in question to God in place, which at the time was this, this road here, which on this image is this one? So this is the area in question, on this image and same here on this image. We found it pretty hard to tell whether the area is fenced. but you can clearly see, for mature trees on the site, so it likely was no longer used as a formal flower garden. God in place. That that street that went through on the previous images. is

[37:01] was here and It was removed in or before 1,977, and replaced with a a footpath. But you can see this is the map that was created for the gauge Davis and associates. Reconnaissance, analysis and historic significance assessment in 1,977. This is the the site right here. this the the Colorado Chatauqua national historic landmark nomination from 2,005 mentions that low rock retaining wall with landscaping. We're install installed on the east side of the ranch house, which is is here, and you can see the rock holes on this on this map here. in the 1970 s. At the same time a fenced vegetable garden was planted on the north. so we believe that the that the garden

[38:01] as it was in the in the eighties, was actually planted sometime in the in the seventies. Unfortunately, we don't have a source for that information so we couldn't check it. But that's It's something that was said in the nhl nomination from 2,005 and this is the This is the map from the cultural landscape assessment from 2,002. And this shows fence around part of the property. It actually only goes around 3 sides. So this was a survey that was done at that time. So this is the this was the garden before the fence was removed. You can see the 4 foot tall chain link fence. here, and this is the garden. I failed on my on my photograph expedition, and did not take a picture from the same angle. So the the the power poll is kind of your frame of reference here. So the fence was

[39:07] here. Oh, in the rock. It's the same rock, I believe. so this application is specifically for the after the fact removal of the fence. So our staff analysis is based on 9 1118 B and C of the Boulder revised Code, and also the general design guidelines for historic districts and individual landmarks. and also the Chatauqua Park historic district design guidelines. From our research we determined that the wood and wire fence shown on photographs from the late teens to the mid 19 twenties no longer exists the chain link fence was installed outside the period of significance. Probably in the late 19 seventies or 19 eighties. although it's shown only on 3 sides when the area was surveyed in 2,002

[40:03] we also reviewed the Chatauqua Park historic district design guidelines, which says, the lack of distinction between properties should be preserved. property lines should not be defined by fences or landscape material, so the camp character of the park will be preserved. the use of informal landscaping and low fences to control access to Chatauqua Park historic district, and be between cottages, will be considered and also the design guidelines which say that fences could be easily seen through. And we're built of woven wire, not chain linked to iron and or painted or opaque stained wood pickets, and that chain link fences are generally inappropriate. so as as the 4 foot tall chain link fence was added after the 19 seventies. Outside the period of significance, Staff considered that its removal will help restore and will not damage or destroy the historic character of the district.

[41:05] As the change is consistent with the general design guidelines, and the Chatauqua Park historic district design Guidelines, we considered that the removal of the fence does not adversely affect the special character or special historic architectural and value of the property and staff considers that the chain link fence was incompatible with the character of the landmark property. Therefore removal is appropriate. so in summary In this case the staff considers the removal of the fence appropriate due to the following factors, the wooden wire fence is shown on photographs no longer exists. The chain link fence was installed during outside the period of significance. Probably in the late 1970 s. Or eighties and the removal of the fence helps preserve the character of the district, and the channeling fences are generally inappropriate.

[42:01] so our recommended motion is for the Landmarks board to approve the after the fact, application to remove the fence and the removal of the fence will be generally consistent with the purposes of this chapter. It does not damage the historic character of the landmark, property or the exterior architectural features of the property. The fence material was incompatible with the character of the historic district, and therefore removal is appropriate. and the work does not adversely affect the special character or special historic architectural and value of the landmark property, as it is generally consistent with the Shtaker Park design guidelines, and we'll comply with section 2.6 of the general design guidelines in section 211. Dash 18 B, 3 of the boulder revised code. So that's the end of the stuff presentation. this is a reminder of the next steps in the process. The applicant has up to 10 min to present to the board. and the Board may ask questions, will then hear comments from any member of the community who wishes to speak The applicant may have additional time to address anything said during public comment.

[43:10] and then the Board will ask everyone to mute their computers, and will deliberate. The question in front of the board today is whether the removal of the fence meets the standards for issuance of a landmark ortration certificate. If yes, you should approve the application conditions may be discussed and added to the approval if needed, if no deny the application. so Happy did you want to turn it over to. I think Jason is here from the Cca. To present. Yes, unless anybody sorry, unless anybody has questions for me. That's the part I missed. It looks like.

[44:02] and so does John. Alright. Ronnie John. maybe I can go first. actually, I fail to mention something. And, Lucas, maybe you can help me with this just going back to the ex parte contact. I just wanted to make it known that I was the architect on the cafe, the 1 billion which was recently constructed. helped the up to talk with with as built drawings for the auditorium some years ago. and then also helped with the rest of the construction, the design of the restroom that's on campus. and I'm helping them with a feasibility study for a current project. I do feel like I am capable of reviewing this case. but in this particular instance, Lucas, I wonder what your thoughts are on? you could help direct me on that.

[45:02] Well, yeah, I think it would kind of redirect it back to you, and you kind of already touched on this. Do you feel you can settle that aside and be if they are impartial today and based your decision on the evidence. And the long I definitely do all right. Well, I think in that case, it's really up to you. If you feel you are comfortable to make this decision not based on any other experience you have, I think you can remain on case. So thanks for okay, I have one question. does does staff have many. I guess, opinion or knowledge about what the purpose of the fence was which events the original and the the one removed. Well, yeah, the original fence. I guess the original fence we're assuming was a just a demarcation. It wouldn't keep anything out, and I think I probably should allow Jason to address

[46:12] the question about the one removed. Hi! Everyone! Should I? Should I get started? Yes, and Jason, if you would kind enough to raise your right hand or and swear you'll tell the board the full truth, and then you may proceed, and you'll have 10 min. I do. Thanks everyone. Good evening. for those of you that don't know me. My name is Jason Hill. I'm the chief operating officer for the Colorado Chicago Association. I've I've been with the organization for 5 years now. I have a few things to say tonight, but I I don't plan on taking the entire 10 min. so I I wanted to start by saying that, as I'm sure most of you know,

[47:00] Cca. Submits anywhere between 5 to 10 l. A. C's every year, oftentimes more and you know, as stewards of of Buller's only national historic land work. We take preservation very seriously and work closely with landmark staff to ensure that we are hearing to the guidelines and requirements for maintaining and preserving Chatauqua, which is in constant need of of care and attention. regarding the fence we're here to discuss tonight. Despite being very familiar with the Lac process, Cca was was unaware that La seems required to remove the 4 link channeling 4 foot shaling fence. Specifically, the administrative Review. Guidelines require review of fencing with the following language, rear our side yard fences. There are less than 5 feet high and have a minimum of one inch spacing between pickets. The guidelines imply that approval is needed to remove wood and pick it fences under 5 feet, but they don't necessarily address other types of fencing, including the the chain link fencing question, which is considered, you know, generally inappropriate. We we understand that level 2 review covers

[48:14] everything other than what's defined in the administrator of you. But there's there's still an implication of for wooden fencing. although there are, there are no other chain link fences that should taco outside of the tennis court area. we think it would be helpful if, if if landmarks for could clarify their intent regarding fencing of all types for future rents. Reference. This was definitely a point of confusion for the person responsible for the La C applications, and also confusing for for leadership, including myself. a. A having said that Cca. Concurs with the landmark staff recommendation to to retroactively approve removal of the fence, you know, photographs of the property throughout time clearly indicate various uses, and that the fence was

[49:05] installed outside of the period of significance. and that you know it. It's removal. This is is not detrimental to the historic character of the district, as the chain link fences are, are are considered inappropriate, and we see that a lot in our our design guidelines. you know, this hearing is specifically about defense removal. I think it's important to address some of the comments that you've received about the garden itself, and to be to be clear about the facts. Cca. Had had Cca. Taken the actions we were being accused of, taken by those who have written to you, and and probably speaking tonight, we we could certainly understand why those people will be upset. We did not, however, destroy the garden. We remove the fence surrounding the garden, and we're, in fact, careful not to destroy plant material within the garden itself. This was a perennial flower, guarded and annual vegetable garden, encompassing a relatively small area, and that started sometime from what we can understand the 1980 s.

[50:16] it's also, to. I think, important important to address claims that the garden was historic as described in detail in the packet prepared by landmark staff. Tonight the Sp. In question has had a variety of uses over many decades, including during the period of significance, and was not, from our view, considered a stroke at the time of the fence removal, and I don't. I think that that's the sentiment that I'm hearing from Staff as well. Nor is it considered a historic feature in Cca's Nhl. Application outside of the boulder wall. That's construction and constructed in front of Cottage 200. Nor is it mentioned in the Co. Cultural landscape, assessment and plan and stock was design guidelines. These are governing documents that we visit daily and that help guide our work.

[51:04] despite the fact that the garden is not historic feature of the property, Cca. Does intend to maintain the space as a garden, and is proposing to make it publicly accessible. a demonstration garden for fire, wise and native plants that will serve as a space for for research. development, outreach educational opportunities. we have drawn some preliminary plans we will be submitting them to the Building and Grounds committee. It should talk was we always do for review before bringing them to the full landmarks board for final approval in the coming months. lastly, I I'd like to reiterate what I believe most of you, though, to be true. The Cca. Staff at Cca are are diligent stewards of Chatauqua. We are professionals, many in the field of historic preservation who understand our commitment to maintaining and preserving this historic property. And we're collaborative collaboratively with landmark staff to ensure that we are meeting our obligations.

[52:11] just this year we received a landmarks project award for the construction of the Chicago Cafe. and whatever a long time employees received a lifetime achievement or for his work in the preservation community. for anyone to suggest that we do not care about preservation is disappointing, to say the least, and and not supported by the facts. I I also final final. I wanted to thank city Staff for their collaborative and comprehensive approach to having that navigating this L. A. C. And and so many others in the past, we we greatly value our relationship and rely on their guidance as we continue to care for what is truly a national treasure, and in the gradual order. This concludes my comments. on the L. I see before you tonight. I'm I'm happy to take any questions you may have now or during the discussion period.

[53:04] Thank you, Jason. do any board members have questions of Jason before we proceed to public comment. I mean this is Lucas. I was actually going to return to that conversation with Ronnie a little bit. I had a chance to look at a little bit more at the code of conduct. And Ronnie, did you say that you had? Are you currently an independent contractor working with this Chicago Association? Yes. okay, I think in that case. I'm going to read something from the code here. I can find my my right screen. But the an employment relationship. the definition of that includes an independent contractor relationship. And what are the prohibitions in the code is to use for a public official to use his or her public position to obtain a benefit for the official or employee, and that list goes on to state, or anyone with whom the official employee has a business or employment relationship.

[54:06] So I think in this case, since you do have an ongoing contractual relationship with the applicant, I would recommend that you recuse from this one. Okay, that makes sense. I'll recuse myself. Thank you for the clarification. And do we want to identify someone who can let Ronnie know when to return to the meeting. We certainly can. Yeah, if, whatever this is the most convenient context, I will. I will let you know, Ronnie. Thank you, Marcy. I I realized I don't have like Ronnie on my speed dial or anything. Thank you, Marcy. And That being said that with 3 of us. who will deliberate after we hear from public comment. And, Jason, you will obviously have an additional time to respond to anything. It will take a unanimous vote of 3, depending on any motions that might be brought forward before we when it

[55:05] before we start public comment. I just want to give a shout out to Chatauqua's 120 fifth birthday celebration, and how the weather cooperated and everything so congratulations, you guys, on a remarkable milestone. So let's do the public comment. And you could either raise your hand or press Star 9 on your phone. If you wish to speak to this item. We will be swearing in every speaker, and you will have 3 min to speak. and I don't know who is seeing who is interested from the public to address this. Okay? Again. Okay, so as a reminder, if you'd like to speak, you need to display your full name and use that raise hand function down in the menu. So we have 4 people, Abby. who have their hand raised. starting with patch shinks, followed by star warring.

[56:16] thank you, Marcy and Pat. If you will stay your full name and swear to tell the Board the full truth, your 3 min will then commence. yes, my name is Pat Shanks, and I do swear to tell the truth. and I'm a member of the Chautauqua Board of directors and I'm also the co-chair of what's been called for the last year, the preservation, Sustainability and Resilience Committee. which includes the functions of what's known as building and grounds and sustainability and resilience.

[57:01] And we tried an experiment this year, combining those boards, and we're going to split them back up to separate boards. And starting in September, I'll be chair of sustainability and resilience. But anyway, this board was had has its own design review committee that examines the applications to the Landmarks board for Chautauqua before those are submitted. And so I definitely will second what Jason said about taking landmarks, applications seriously. And what I just what I want to say and emphasize really, is that the only thing that was done to the garden area is the removal of the non conforming chain link fans. And we agree with the staff recommendation on that. And

[58:07] the garden is Jason mentioned. We'll we'll continue as a garden. it will be repurposed with a new dimension and sustainability and resilience at Chautauqua. That committee that I cheer is as you might imagine super concerned about fire. danger and fire, resilience and we've been working for years to improve defensive space. Remove under under brush and stuff like that, and planting fire resistant materials is really important in this demonstration garden will be really helpful for that. So I I urge you to approve this application for the removal of the fence, and we'll move forward with a discussion that the Building and Grounds Committee in the near future

[59:09] for exactly what kind of arrangement the new garden will have. and any other things that come up with regard to that that require landmarks, approval will be brought to you guys. So thank you very much. Thank you. Pat Star is next. I believe you, said Marcy. And Star. Welcome this evening, and if you would sort of tell the for the full truth before you commence. That would be great. Thank you. Yes, thank you. and thank you for letting me have a chance to speak. My name is Star wearing, and I do swear to tell the entire truth. The whole truth, and nothing but the truth. to the

[60:09] to the board. I do want to go on record as saying that I agree with the staff recommendation to approve this application, and I completely agree with the fact that we're laid out, and also those items that were mentioned by Jason and by Pat and Just in addition to that, I would add that I you know, I think, that the reason that the purpose of the existing space is being changed completely aligns with should talk with mission we, one of which is education. and the use of this space as a gardens, demonstration space for fire, wise plants and water. Wise plants is totally in keeping with that mission.

[61:00] and that that's important. That's not really related to why the fence was removed. The fence was removed, I think, for very legitimate reasons, but it is important to keep in mind that this space, even though it wasn't historically always a garden within the period in question. I think we'll serve a broader purpose than it has in the past, and it does align with Chatauqua's mission. So Those are my comments on it again as chair of the board. I think the staff has been remarkable in the way it's it's handle the application process and the adherence to preservation and historical of historical matters. So we want to thank you again for giving us the time to make a presentation. So thank you.

[62:00] Thank you so much, Star, for joining us this evening. Marcy. The next 2 speakers. Okay, Jen, Marcus, followed by Georgia, Georgia Chamberlain. And if there's anyone else who's interested in speaking to this item, go ahead and use the race hand function. Okay? So, Jen Jan, we will be swearing you in, and then your 3 min will begin. Okay, thank you. I swear to tell the truth. My name is Jen Marcus. I'm a real estate agent in Boulder. I also will mention that I grew up in to talk with Cottage 108, and I'm the daughter of Carrie and Ben Gilbert. I'm requesting that the Landmarks board denied the retroactive Lac application for the following reasons, Cca. Is denying the historical significance of the garden that existed on this site because it benefits them to do so. The area where the garden existed prior to its destruction. I'll mention the garden itself was destroyed, not just the fence. It was established in 1,917, as we saw in the photo. So it's very tenure on landmark grounds should be considered of historic significance. Many members of the Cca. Staff and some to talk with board members insist that the garden was not removed or destroyed. Only the fence

[63:13] photos prove otherwise. They've been submitted to the Landmark Office. The garden was destroyed without proper process, community input or submitted for review by the Chatauqua Board of Directors, let alone the landmark's office. This acts effectively undermined Landmarks Office. Prematurely. The gardens of Chicago overall have been an important part of the unique history, beauty, and cultural appeal and maintaining them is critical for the cultural residency and environmental benefit of the area. For all visitors. Clearly this plot of land has far more value to the entire community than a chain link fence, that it was part of the Chautauqua history, landmark grounds, and cultural preservation of Chautauqua. The actions of Cci. Staff has struck a particular chord with the entire cottager community. Some board members and many Boulder citizens, Cca. Staff and the Cca. Board have received numerous letters of outrage over this action.

[64:09] one of which was signed by many former Chataka Board members. It is apparent that the Cca. Never had a clear plan in place prior to removing the garden, and that they have applied for retroactive approval for doing so after sidestepping proper protocol, and only after being called out for failing to do so. Anyone who owns an historic home or lives in an historic district in Boulder has navigated the complexity of applying to landmarks for alterations or updates to their properties. Cca. Should be held to the same standards as any other applicant. To accept this Lac retroactively sets a dangerous precedent, not only for the Chautauqua community, but for all homeowners of historic landmark properties in Boulder it becomes a ask for forgiveness first and permission later situation. Chatauqua is far more than a plot of land with historic structures. It is a treasured time, honor, culture, and a community, and the preservation of the land, the environment and the structures only hold significance when a community and culture can benefit and thrive as a result of careful and intentional preservation and proper stewardship.

[65:19] I conclude by requesting that the landmarks Board reject this Lac, and require Cca to restore what they have destroyed. Thank you. thank you, Jen, and I apologize. Marcy, the next speaker, was Georgia Chamberlain, followed by to the turkey. Okay. so Georgia again, please. swear to tell the Board the truth, and then you may begin. Well, good evening. I'm Georgia Chamberlain, owner of Cottage Number 2 in Chautauqua Park, and I swear to tell the truth, this evening the issue in front of landmarks tonight goes deeper than just a retroactive application for an alteration certificate for a chain link fence that has already been removed. The don't ask for permission, ask for for forgiveness. Behavior

[66:15] of the Colorado Chatauqua Association shows disrespect to the Landmarks board to their purpose into the hard work of the Board members, and it also threatens the preservation of Chautauqua Park to award an alteration certificate after the blatant disregard by Cca. For the rules and procedures would set a dangerous precedent. I encourage the Landmarks board to find out why the organization that has been entrusted with the preservation of Chautauqua Park, Boulder's most iconic historic site continuously chooses to ignore rules and procedures that have been in place for many years. In a short period of time this spring Cca tore down a fence without following proper procedures.

[67:07] constructed defense behind the dining hall, using a plan that had been denied by landmarks, and also publicly gave erroneous information to landmarks as to the mentioned by Cca. Of a greenhouse as an alternative to the historic garden. I'm referring to the April 20, fourth Cca. Meeting, when the greenhouse possibility was mentioned, and then, at the May seventeenth landmarks meeting, when Cca. Denied that a greenhouse was ever considered. it is difficult to trust that Cca. Will follow the rules in the future, and that they will give landmarks good information on which to base your decisions. Also, I encourage landmarks to give consideration for including gardens in their preservation determinations.

[68:06] I acknowledge and thank all the Board members and staff for their hard work. Thank you. Thank you, Georgia and Finally, we have Trudy turvy, and if there is anyone else who is interested in speaking, go ahead and raise your hand at this time. hey, welcome, Trudy, and I think you know what I'm gonna ask you to do after you state your full name before you begin. I think I can manage. Thank you so much Trudy turvy, and I swear to tell the truth I am. The vice chair of the Cca. Board have been involved with Chatauqua for at least 4 years now. and. as I know it, this issue was about the fence

[69:00] and the fence, its staff from the landmark boards. Due diligence has been shown to not be part of the historic nature of Chautauqua. Some of the things that have been said have been untrue from my standpoint. So talk with staff are dedicated to preserving Chautauqua. and they have a very good relationship with the Landmark Board. This endeavor was really a reading of the rules as they exist now. and they don't seem to cover this Chain League fence in my mind. and I think that Jason has spoken to that. and perhaps that is something the Landmark Board needs to look at. but in no way the Chatauqua attempt to go around the Landmark Board. They've been very faithful in applying to you and seeking guidance for anything that they have tried to do.

[70:07] I think that for many people this issue is beyond the fence, which is why some of the comments have been made. We have actually already reached out to at least one cottage member for input on possible plans. I think that Cca. Tries very hard to be collaborative. Reinstalling the fence to me does not seem to be an appropriate thing to do at this point. and nor did it serve a great purpose, anyhow, as your own staff has shown, it was not part of the historic significance. so I would urge you to accept their recommendation for this application. Thank you so much.

[71:02] Thank you for your time. Trudy. Marcy, Do you want to give? Do you see any additional hands raised. This will be a final call for anyone else who would like to speak under public comment. seeing none. I think, Abby, that concludes the public comment. Okay, we will now close the public hearing for agenda. Item 5, a. This evening we will bring it back to board discussion. I ask that everyone else mute your computer phone. So so sorry the applicant does have a chance to respond to anything that was said during the public comment. Jason, my apologies, I apologize. You do have an additional 3 min if you'd like to respond to anything you heard. Thanks, Abbey. You know I I don't have much to say I I will say that. It's disappointing. to hear some of those comments. I think it's pretty obvious that

[72:07] you know my stance. Is that those comments, a lot of what you heard is is not true, and I tried to lay out the facts. I think that staff, and the city did a great job of that to begin with, and Part of the reason why I I didn't need very much time to to comment on this. The fact that the Cca staff is misled. Anyone in in in reference to the greenhouses. I I don't understand. There's we have a few ideas about how this space could it could succeed in in the new vision that exists. But we're nowhere near a of any sort of final recommendation at all. I'll work through the process and and talk to the appropriate entities as we work through it. So

[73:02] you know. That's that's all I have to say. and I'm happy to answer any any further questions. That you all might have. Thank you, Jason and Marcy. Thank you for reminding me. I miss that very vital step in tonight's hearing. So if if board members have no additional questions for Jason. We will move on to our board discussion. I do ask that everyone mature, everyone else mute your computer phone for the duration we have allotted approximately 30 min for this discussion. But we'll take the time we need to do that. And. Aubrey, I know you're keeping a time check on us, and if you would be kind enough to do that, I don't know if John or Chelsea, if either one of you want to kick off this discussion. Well, the

[74:00] did we get a chance to ask questions of staff or yes, I mean, Marcy asked that earlier after presentation. But go ahead. go ahead, please. It's always it. I feel like I always have questions after here. Everything. so I guess I I don't have any questions about the fence. I think that it's approvable to remove the fence. If this. Obviously things happen, people misinterpret the rules are very complicated with this issue. I don't think we would have had any issues approving the removal of the fence. I just want to get clarification for myself and for the public, because I'm still confused about the issue of the garden. Is that something that is under our jurisdiction as the Lamar exported at all? I I can answer that question and thank you for it. So the

[75:03] landscaping guidelines, and what's in our purview? for landscaping includes things like retaining walls and fences and the removal of mature trees. But we don't review what people plant in those spaces, whether it's a house in a historic district or up as Chatauqua. So the plantings themselves are not in our purview. Thank you. Yeah, that's very helpful and I think that that's helpful for the people who are here asking for us to remedy an issue. that it's not under our purview to remedy that issue. fortunately or unfortunately, so I think we should stick to the topic of the fence, and I believe, according to the guidelines and the information in the memo that we should approve

[76:00] the What's in the memo? Okay? I can cur completely with what Chelsea just said. I think that I think that as as brought to us our task tonight is to look at the fence. chain link is an inappropriate fence type in a lot of environments, historical environments that we look at and definitely. So here. the issue of the garden. The only I guess the only question I have is. is the garden there now is the plant material there now, other than possibly the annual plant material that didn't get planted this year just to clarify that point. and that's to Jason, I guess. Sure. So. as you you could see from some of the photos in the application that at the time of the removal of the fence, the perennial plants that were there at the removal of the fence were there. We did reach out to the gentleman that was tending to the garden, and asked if he wanted to remove any of those plants. including the irises and some rhubarb that was there.

[77:26] and he did choose to do that. So We allow that to happen. He he removed the iris from the garden. The other side of the garden was annual plant material. For the most part there's some sunflowers that are still there. But the answer to your question is, yes. After the removal of the fence, and carefully remove the fence to so as to not disturb the play material that is in there. But since then one of the community members was asked, if you want to move and and chose to to do so.

[78:04] I mean, that was, I just wanted a clarification there, because it's been. This has been batted back and forth as to the state of the garden, and and it's destruction. It's outside of our purview to say anything about a garden, even if it is a historic garden. We I don't have code that really allows us to visit that. As Marcy just said. there's been instances when I wished we did so the fence removal of the fence is approvable. We can understand confusion as to how these kind of processes go in a district, and they are supposed to come to us in terms of Jason in terms of your question about guidance on fences generally in Chatauqua. That's, I guess, something for for your group to take up with staff.

[79:02] because there is a pretty good set of guidelines at the general level, and probably specific guidelines for the Chautauqua community about what fencing would be appropriate, and what I don't think any kind of barrier type of fence would be appropriate there, because the guidelines state that the openness of the Territory and the and the I guess. continuity of it is part of the historic character. So you don't want to put up stockade fences and that type of thing open. visually open and historically consistent fencing. like something like split rail or pick it, or something in certain areas may be appropriate. But that's something that you should take up and get a little more depth on.

[80:04] So I'm I'm supporting the approval. Thank you, John, and my apologies for losing my voice. you know this. This is, and Jason, you you! You said the words, as did several other speakers tonight. You know this is the crown jewel of boulder. It is a national, historic, landmarked. It's it's beloved by everybody, a real treasure, and you know, perhaps we love it too much to death. And this is a hard one for me, because. you know. as Chautauqua evolves, it makes changes. It needs to and explore things, not only for you know fire, medication, and all of that, you know, I'm always cognizant that sometimes with the place is special at Chautauqua an incremental changes one thing, but collectively sometimes could a variety of incremental changes lead us to something that's not there, and and I do know that people

[81:11] who work their care about it also know that the cottagers care about it as well, and you know no one has a monopoly on that. And I I do think this is unfortunate because I think Chelsea and John have gotten to the heart of the matter, based on Staff's excellent memo and presentation, that our per view, even if we had documentation. This was a story. Go garden. There's certainly old photographs that that show during the period of significance. This space was used as a garden, and you know, I have to realize that really our per view is the chain link fence. I also think for everybody who's listening to this and took the time and energy to write emails and letters.

[82:00] when this was looked at at the Ldrc. We didn't have as much information as Staff was able to pull together for a full landmarks board hearing. That's the way it happens. And I think that sometimes where there ever is a question, because I understand this never went to brown grounds and building committee is that, you know, maybe always there on the side to see if you need an lac. And it really comes from a place where you know our task is to protect things, and especially something as as remarkable as Chatauqua. I I you know it's also not under our per view to help sort of navigate some issues or miscommunications between the Cca. Board and cottagers, or other members of the community who care deeply about this place. So as I. I think I join my colleagues Chelsea and John in supporting, because

[83:03] our focus has to be on is the chain link fence appropriate. And since it's not no matter how long it has been there, and become part of the fabric of that area. we do need to support the retroactive landmark alteration certificate this evening. and I don't know if there's any more discussion. If we have a board member who'd like to make a motion. Sure, I'll make a motion. whatever. Okay. I move that the landmarks board adopt the staff memorandum, dated July 1223. As the findings of the board and approve a landmark alteration certificate to remove offense at the property north of 200. I'm gonna Gaylardia Lane in the Chautauqua Park historic district. Finding that the proposal meets the standards for issue events of a landmark alteration certificate in Chapter 9, over 11, over 181, and is generally consistent with the general design guidelines in the Chicago Park historic district guidelines. Thank you. Chelsea.

[84:17] I will second that. Thank you, John. So, on a motion by Chelsea, seconded by John. We will take a roll call vote unless there's any additional comments. And, Mark, I want to give you an opportunity. If there's anything you'd like to ask. Thank thank you, Mark. So on a roll call. Vote Chelsea. Hi. and I vote I. So the motion does pass unanimously.

[85:01] and then. Marcy, I assume the next steps, for this retroactive Lac is to you. Always forget that I'm here. I'm still here. So city council usually has 16 days to decide whether to review or call up the decision. as the next City Council meeting is on August third. we've requested. we'll request an extension and then so if the city council does not call up for review at this time, the lac will be approved. and if the city Council does want to review the decision. staff will schedule a hearing within 45 days of today. So that will happen on August third. that wasn't very clear. Does anybody have any questions about that?

[86:05] It was clear to me? Thank you, clerk. all right, Abi, are we ready to to move on. Yes, so Marcy, will you reach out to Ronnie? yes, I have. And if someone could promote Ronnie to a panelist, I think we'll then be ready to get started. Thank you. All have a good night. Thank you. There we go. Looks like Ronnie's back, so we're ready to move on. So thank you, Ronnie. Item 5 C. On our agenda. Since item 5 B. Has been postponed is a public hearing

[87:03] to consider adopting a resolution to initiate the process for landmark designation of 1,918, Pine Street. Pursuant to Section 9, 11, 3 of the Boulder revised Code 1,981. The owner is Benjamin Oliver. In the applicant is the city of Boulder Landmarks Board, who voted to hold this initiation. Hearing this evening. Alright. Thank you, Abby, I will do this presentation also. this initiation hearing is legislative in nature, so the procedure is slightly different than the quasi judicial hearing. the board does not need to reveal any exporte contacts The rest of the hearing is somewhat similar. I'll give the staff presentation after that the Board may ask questions. The applicant will have 10 min to present to the board. and the Board may ask questions. We'll then open the public hearing. After all, members of the public have made comments. The applicant may respond to anything that was said. and then we'll ask everyone to mute their computers, and the Board will deliberate.

[88:12] A motion today requires an affirmative vote of at least 3 members to pass, and motions will state findings, conclusions and recommendation. A record of this hearing is again available in a couple of days as a video recording, and the official record will be added to the records I archive within 28 days. The criteria for the initiation review is in 9, 11 3D. The first items in 9, 11, 3D. Refer back to 9, 11, one, and 9, 11, 2, to outline the purposes and standards used to determine if the Board has probable cause to believe that the building or district might be eligible for designation as an individual landmark. In addition, 9, 11, 3D. Directs the board to review the application

[89:01] based on whether there are currently resources available to complete outreach and analysis. If there is community and neighborhood support, if the building needs the protections provided through designation. If the proposed designation is consistent with the goals and policies of the Boulder Valley comprehensive plan, or if the proposed designation would generally be in the public interest. as 9 11 d. Is legislative the Board can consider any of the information heard. So the Board has 2 options tonight. because the demolition application is withdrawn and the stay is ended. the board cannot approve the demolition application because it's been withdrawn. So option one, the board may vote to not initiate designation. and the case will be closed. a decision today to not initiate does not affect a future decision. So designation may be initiated at a future date. for example, if full demolition was proposed in the future, the process would follow the same demolition review process and could end up at the same point.

[90:11] or option. 2. The board may vote to initiate designation, and a future hearing will be held. So this has been the process so far. The Board placed a stay of demolition at the hearing. On April twelfth On June seventh the landmarks board voted to schedule a a hearing to initiate landmark, designation, or issue a demolition permit. On June 20 eighth the owner withdrew the application for full demolition. the landmarks board is the applicant for the initiation. So, although the demolition application was withdrawn, the initiation hearing still needed to be held tonight. Although, as I mentioned, this does change the Board's options.

[91:01] So 9 1918, Pine is located mid block between Nineteenth and Twentieth Streets. The front of the building faces north onto Pine Street. and the building is located within the identified potential with the historic district which is shown here in green. it is a one-story masonry house was constructed around 1,887 it has a front gable with the The cable ends here constructed of brick with the wide wooden barge boards, and has a full width porch supported by wooden posts. This is the rear of the house, which includes a shed roof addition constructed sometime between 1,906. There are also 2 accessory buildings on the site proposed, but sorry that are included in the The initiation of landmark designation. The older

[92:09] accessory building is a one-story frame garage with a gable roof and shed roof additions on the west and north sides. and the other accessory building is a one-story frame building with a shed roof. So some of the building history. Amos Widner actually owned the land in 1,874. Widner is important to Boulder's history, as in 1872 he and Granville Berkeley proposed extending the official city limits eastward from Seventeenth Street. Widnes sold the land in 1,877, and we don't know if the house was built at that time, but it does appear on the 1,887 Willett's map. William and Harriet Rowan and Son Freeman were the first residents, and are listed in the 1,892 City Directory, and on the 1,900 Federal census at this location William was a minor.

[93:08] The family moved to the adjacent property about 1911 and rented 1918 Pine Street. Their son Fremont sold the house in 1927, and it was owned by a variety of owners who rented it out. Mary Ann Hogan Klinky purchased the house in 1,953, and lived there until 1,985. Mary Anne's estate sold the house in 1,985 to John Emric, who sold the house to the current owner. staff, considers that the building has historic and architectural significance, and that the building and area have historic integrity as such the building would be eligible for individual landmark designation based on the criteria outlined in 9, 11, one, and 9, 11, 2, however, probable, cause which addresses whether the building could be designated is only one of the items the board should consider to identify. If the building should be designated

[94:05] 9, 11, 3 asks whether there are staff resources for outreach and analysis and staff resources are currently limited. also, if there is community support which has been limited, and whether the building needs the protections provided through designation, and as there is no current demolition, application, the demolition, approval would not be issued if the Board takes no action to initiate designation. So, therefore, the building does not need the protections provided through designation. At this time. The Board is also asked to consider if initiation over the owners, objection represents a reasonable balance between private property rights and the public's interest, and is consistent with the Boulder Valley comprehensive plan. we consider that the the designating this property over the owners objection would not represent a reasonable balance between private property rights and the public interest.

[95:04] because there is. there's no current demolition threat to the property. staff does not recommend initiating designation over the honest objection. So that's the end of the staff presentation. this is a reminder of the next steps in the process. The applicant has up to 10 min to present to the board, but I don't believe he is attending tonight. we'll follow that by a public participation, and an opportunity. for the applicant. If he is here to respond to anything that's been said, and then board deliberation. Thank you, Claire, and Ben is here. If someone go ahead and promote him. I don't think he's planning to do a full presentation, but we do want to give him the opportunity to speak if he wishes. so just a reminder. The question in front of the board today is whether the Board should initiate landmark designation. if yes, we will schedule a landmark's board designation hearing within 60 to 120 days.

[96:07] followed by City Council Review. If not, the process ends any questions from the board before I hand it over to Ben. Yes, John. could. Staff. I guess, address briefly the current state of discussion about the Whittier designation of Whittier as a district mossy. That's on you. I have no idea. Just yeah, John, I am not aware of an active interest or movement to designate the Whittier neighborhood as a historic district it was or has been, identified as potentially eligible for over 40 years. But you know I I am not aware of a current

[97:00] kind of interest or movement. to create a historic district there. that's helpful. Chelsea. yeah. I was wondering if you could elaborate on the conversations that led to the decision for them, for the owners to remove or to withdraw. Yeah, I me, too. So we met on site the day after the last Landmarks Board meeting in June. Abby was there, along with staff and the owner, and as as a group we walked around the property. The building itself is really old and was originally the brick gable roof. And then there were some early editions kind of tacked on to the back. and then the accessory buildings which were which were built later, and through those discussions about potentially removing the later additions. not considering the accessory buildings to be particularly special, the owner to withdraw and then revise the application to be a partial demolition because of the way the lot is set up. and where the building is located.

[98:24] When you remove those older additions, you can actually build kind of a sizeable addition, but still be compatible with the older building. and I think who his credit. Ben, the owner, was very open to alternatives. Throughout this process, and and was willing to keep the the building and work with it. of course I don't want to speak for him, so You might also repeat your question for him once he's spoken.

[99:00] Sorry it's muted. Thank you very much for the context. Any other questions from the board. Okay? Then, I would say. move on to the applicant's presentation for the owner in this case. So welcome, Ben, We don't have to swear you in for this legislative hearing. But, You would have up to 10 min for anything you'd like to share with the board. Then, if you're trying to speak with us. You are currently there we go. Use your camera to Yup. We sure can.

[100:04] So yeah, I just saw the thing pop up. I I just want to say. I appreciate what you're doing as a historic. you know, preservation effort. I know that, you know. If i' this house for over 30 years, I understand the significance of history and folder history. And it's it's just a little. It's just been a. It's just been a finally process. It's like we're thinking about this house is, you know, beyond its life expectancy. There's there's nothing great there as a building perspective to preserve. Yet I get. I get what we're doing here. I get history. I get older. I I just from a you know, materials standpoint. we're working with a bunch of aged out materials. And

[101:02] I want to. I want to do something here for this property that somebody is going to live in in the future. And And so through this process. We're starting this building project with a bunch of, you know, 150 year old materials. And so be it. You know, that's that's just. It is what it is, and we can work. We can work with that. So I I I don't know. I'm just. I'm just curious what you know what the what the point is exactly of of saving the old stuff and starting with that compared to the the you know, with just working with more appropriate current materials. That's that's I guess my question that I come up with in this. But I don't know a overall. We're gonna we're gonna get this done, we're gonna figure it out.

[102:06] I'm going to do you know something there? Because because right now, the house is. it's all it's falling apart like it's it's really not livable as is. And I want to do something there. And so we'll figure out what that thing is. But I just just wanted to say, Thanks for your thanks for your input. Thanks for your effort. This little thank you, Ben, and we will give you an opportunity. If you choose to speak after any comments made by members of the public. and we will move on to public comment. Now please raise your hand or press Star 9. If you're on the phone, if you would like to speak to this item. we'll give everyone a couple minutes here to go ahead and raise their hand if they'd like to speak to this item.

[103:05] currently, I'm not seeing anyone who has indicated they would like to speak. There we go. We have one person who would like to speak. first up is Lynn Siegel. So this is 1918 pine. Right? Yeah. Excellent. Yeah. I, Jonathan Cohen, just text me about the Environmental Advisory Board meeting. I don't know why they all have that to happen. It's the same night. But you know, environmentally I say that this house is a whole lot better excuse to be in the landfill than 77, 70 circle a 3 story, you know, like beautifully accommodated. Less than a third of the house was added, and

[104:05] was subservient to the rest of the place. There's no excuse for that house being demoed. this house, you turn around, and with this house it really probably could be demoed. you know. or maybe one face of you know, a partial demolition like you were talking about. But I just don't understand. I don't get it. You knock down a fortress that has tons of historical value. and then a guy like this. And if I like the one on Mariposa. you know what gives. There's no sense to it. you know, and you know I come to these meetings every week to Ldrc. I come to every landmark meeting for years years.

[105:04] and I don't see your logic. and I I can understand what this guy's saying. You know you should let him demo the place frankly. that 770 circle you're never going to live that down, never. There's no excuse for that. I don't care what you told me, Marcy, that yeah. What that was that you've been told many times. No, I haven't been told. I don't have any idea how that house was demoed that does not make any sense at all. This house. Let it go. give the guy A. Fr again break.

[106:02] Seriously. you have no consistency, and how you operate. You're not trustable. and I'm paying for it. It's my tax dollars. So start doing the right thing done. Thank you, Lynn Marcy, have you seen this in a excuse me, additional raised hands. no, I've not seen any additional raised hands, so this will be the final call. If there's anyone who would like to speak to 1918. Fine! go ahead and raise your hand now. Otherwise Abby, I believe. we are ready to move on. Okay, so we will. close public comment for this particular hearing. Been, if you'd like an additional 3 min, or any other comments you're welcome to make them at this time.

[107:05] no, no, I'm I'm good. Thanks. okay, thank you. So we will move on to board deliberation. I asked that everyone else mute your phone or computer for the duration of this discussion. Audrey will be keeping kind of a time check on for us, and I don't know if there's a board member who'd like to kick off the conversation for this hearing. I can do it. Thank you. Nobody else jumps in First off I I'd like to thank Been all over for his. I guess. Agreement with procedure and all here, and accepting to try to understand what what happened.

[108:03] These proceedings? I I think I I clearly agree with with Staff's recommendation that we don't take any action that's consistent with the way we've behaved with these things previously. not to advance designation after the building is, I guess, out of danger. To try to give Ben a little bit of an answer into what it is that we think he's dealing with here, or what is the right way to do this. I've I've said it many times. it's it's kind of a personal thing that I have a problem with demolition at least has it as it has occurred previously. I don't have a problem with the concept of removing something that has outlived its life and usefulness.

[109:07] but if there's any chance of preserving the life of a building. It seems to me that it's the intended thing that buildings live on beyond their initial purpose. by kind of the process of being manipulated. learning, as it were. There was a book called How Buildings Learn about instances in, say, European cities, where buildings that are 4 or 500 years old. are renovated internally and structurally in ways to continue their life and be utilized as sometimes fabulous properties. and just from a simple, I guess, environmental, ecological standpoint. The building that's still standing there

[110:08] is inducing a lot left environmental impact. Then, if it is removed and replaced part of the building that you can preserve. the exterior parts. our going to be things that don't wind up in the landfill or otherwise release carbon. So it's it's. I think, the right answer in this case, especially if there is an option to partially demolish and to expand the property to a different order of usefulness. and utility. So support. Not doing anything. Encourage Ben to I guess. Involve himself with this process a little bit indefinitely. Get some input from

[111:08] staff, which has a massive amount of knowledge to contribute to this and the rest of the thank you, John Ronnie or Chelsea. Chelsea. Would you like me to go? yeah. I also am in agreement with Staff. I think the particular piece to know is that the house is no longer in threat of demolition. and I appreciate John's bringing John bringing up the of consistency and an approach to working on homes like this and reviews like this.

[112:07] and so I'm going to agree with this. The staff recommendation. Yeah, I think. I'm I agree. with the staff recommendation. It feels like a compromise that guess us closer to the goals of the landmarks, board and program, and also can meet the needs of the applicant. So I it does sound like. obviously the applicant would have chosen to demolish it. That's what it sounded like from his testimony. so

[113:03] I yeah, I guess there was some convincing that that was the that this approach was the best approach. but not necessarily the one he would have chosen But ultimately that's what's in front of us. And I I think it's approvable. So that's it. Thank you, Chelsea. So first and foremost, I want to thank you, Ben, from for flying halfway across the country to meet with us on June eighth and I want to thank you for your stewardship of not only 1918 Pine Street, but this the house you own to the west of it, and for those of you who don't know this, and Claire and and Aubrey and Marcy and I got to see this.

[114:00] Ben is a very, very talented woodworker, and has done some cool things inside the property, but I think that your willingness to explore creative alternatives to demolition and withdrawing this application, makes me comfortable with supporting Staff's recommendation. I do think this house is Elo eligible for individual landmark, but at this point, with no threat of demolition in the fact that that may not be something you want to pursue at this time, although I do appreciate the case Marcy made to you when we visited on site of some of the the definite, distinct advantages of landmark, designation and tax credits, and so forth. It it seemed like that was something you were willing to at least think about. You know, we also have that opportunity to talk about an A do and so forth. So I just felt like your openness to to where we were coming from? Why, we saw it as important, and you know it just had such a grace note to that street and that neighborhood, and just some of the wonderful things you have done to it, both on the Exchange.

[115:16] It's exterior and interior. I just want to thank you again for that stewardship. So I do think Staff's recommendation is the route. We should go with this, and it sounds like my colleagues on the border agreement. I don't know if mark you have any comments. If there's any more discussion or deliberation. or somebody is willing to make a motion at this time. maybe I just want to say thank you for the opportunity I've been following along, and I seems like I know where we're going, and I concur. Thanks. I will make a motion.

[116:08] I move that the Landmarks board adopt the staff memorandum, dated July 12, 2,023, as the findings of the board, and not initiate the process for landmark designation for 1,918 Pine Street. Finding that the property does not meet the criteria for such initiation, pursuant to section 9, 11, 3. Initiation of designation for individual landmarks and historic districts of the Boulder Revised Code 1,981, and imbalance is not consistent with the goals and policies of section 227 of the Boulder Valley. Comprehensive plan there a second. I'll check on it. Thank you. Don. Marcy, I and Claire. I do have a question about this, because I just want to be sure, I understand, because I do think that it could meet the criteria at a future date for initiation. Is this, primarily because of the withdrawing of the application that it would be over the owner's objection

[117:10] if we proceeded tonight. Yes, and the and that the threat of demolition has been removed. that, you know motion might be different. So, on a motion by Ronnie, seconded by John, will do a roll call. Vote Chelsea. Aye. John, I and I vote I so the motion passes unanimously, and, Claire, I I'm not going to forget that you will walk through next steps. Thank you. Avi As there is no current application, this is the end of the the process. The case is closed. although it it sounds like Ben is interested in opening a a future case. which we look forward to seeing.

[118:09] So thank you. So thank you. Thank you, Claire, and before we move on to our last public hearing of this evening I wanted to gauge. If anyone wants to take a 5 min break at this point. John, I kind of I I will do that, so I do think this might be a good time before we start that next public hearing. So Why don't we reconvene at 805 pm.

[125:48] It looks like we are getting close to proceeding. I think folks are getting settled in. But I I would say we're about ready to get started.

[126:02] Okay? So the next item on our agenda is, item 5 d. Which is a public hearing and consideration of a motion to adopt a resolution to initiate the process for the designation of historic district, and come encompassing a portion of the area from 1,777 Broadway to Fourteenth Street, and between Canyon Boulevard and Arapaho, Avenue. pursue it to Section 900 eleven-three of the Boulder Revised Code 1,981. The owner of the property of the city of Boulder. The applicants are historic boulder ink, friends of the band, shell, and friends of the Duchambe Tea House. We'll move on to this hearing and thank you to the city of Boulder, as the owners and the applicants who have, who have agreed to this virtual

[127:00] legislative hearing. Wonderful. Well, thank you, Abby, I'll go ahead and get started. So the public hearing procedure this evening this initiation hearing is legislative, legislative. So it's a little different than quasi judicial It begins with the staff presentation, and the Board may ask questions of staff. followed by the applicant's presentation. after which the Board may ask questions. The public hearing is then open for public comment, followed by in board questions, and then, after that, the public hearing is closed, the board discusses, and if appropriate, adopts a resolution to accept the historic district application and we don't need to do cause a expertise contact. So I will head right into the criteria for review which are found for you in 9, 11, 3 of the Boulder Device Code and Claire just went over these. But there are 7 factors. that

[128:04] the Board may consider, but it is not limited to in making their decision first is whether there's probable cause to believe the building or district may be eligible for designation. Next considers whether there are currently resources available that would allow the city manager to complete all of the community, outreach and historic analysis necessary for the application. third, that there is community and neighborhood support for the proposed designation. fourth, that the buildings or features may need the protections provided by designation. Fifth, of the potential boundaries for the proposed district are appropriate. Sixth in balance. The proposed designation is consistent with the goals and policies of the Boulder Valley comprehensive plan, and finally, that the proposed designation would generally be in the public interest. and before I jumped right into my presentation, but I did want to let the Board know that we've invited. Tina breaks senior landscape architect from Parks and rec here this evening, and she's going to join in the staff presentation to provide an update to it to the cultural landscape assessment. Here in a couple of minutes

[129:12] I should have said that about that. So Following the criteria for review, the Board has 2 options in front of you tonight. It is either to not initiate landmark designation, in which case this case would end, and a historic district could be considered in the future through a new application. There isn't the same time requirement of an lac that is denied that an applicant can't apply for a full year. an application could be considered in the future. without that time piece for a new application. The other option is to initiate designation of the property as a historic district by adopting the resolution which is included in your packet under attachment. B.

[130:01] The landmarks board with designation hearing would then be held between 60 and 120 days, which would fall between September tenth and November ninth and later. I'll describe the other steps that would be to occur prior to that hearing. So, relying back the clock. this. a historic district application which was submitted by 3 community groups. one of the genesis at the end of August 2,021, when The friends of the Banshawe sent a letter to the landmarks board, requesting that the boundary of the band shell be expanded to extend to the to the ditch that runs through the park in November of 2021 and April of 2,022, the Landmarks Board held initiation and designation hearings recommending that City Council expands. The Boundary Council held a hearing on June fourteenth, 2,022 and while they

[131:03] chose not to expand the landmark boundary, they did give a not of 5 for parks and Rec. And planning and Development staff to explore a historic district in 2,023 and Historic Preservation staff committed to making that a work plan priority for this year which brings us to January of this year, when staff from both of those departments, began to meet and develop a collaborative approach. And that includes the development of a cultural landscape assessment. And that is currently under way. Meanwhile the 3 community groups submitted an application for the proposed historic district was accepted as complete on May thirtieth, and that brings us to today, July twelfth, which is for your consideration of whether or not to initiate the historic district designation process.

[132:03] just a recap, because there have been many emails. between a couple of the cases this evening. the Landmark board have has received letters from 10 people since the application was submitted on May thirtieth 2 of those were included and attached to the memo, and then 8 of those came since June thirtieth, and those have been included as part of the the packet, and they were all in support of initiating historic district designation. And so just to orient us in terms of what is being proposed as a historic district, you can see that outline on the screen which extends from behind the Penfield. Take Municipal Building at 1,777 Broadway. It follows Canyon east all the way to Fourteenth including the parking lots behind the atrium the tea house and Bimoka, and then it turns west and comes along the south side of the building, crossing Thirteenth, and then turning south

[133:14] along Thirteenth Street to a Rappaho, and then extending along the border of the park to then Boulder Creek, and returning back to that northwest corner. So Before I dive into the history of the site and the criteria for your review. I want to welcome Tina Briggs, who is here. There you are, Tina. She's got a couple of slides as an update for the cultural landscape assessment. I just want to clarify that. they are 2 different projects, but they are related, and our staff recommendation to not initiate historic district designation at this time. is because of the Cla that's under way. So we felt it was important. to provide an update as part of this presentation.

[134:06] So with that, take it away, Tina. And your. it doesn't look like you're muted. But we can't hear you. Okay, how about now? Wonderful? Okay, sounds good. Thank you. okay, so we'll just kind of start again with the cultural landscape assessment, just as that quick reminder. the borders that we're looking for looking at in the cultural landscape assessment really are what we call block 13, or, if you think about it, from Arapaho to Canyon bordered by Broadway, and thirteenth minus kind of a little corner that isn't owned by the city of Boulder. So what we're looking at in that is really that culture, landscape assessment. So from the parks and recreation perspective, what we're looking at is how do we put a process in place that we can examine cultural landscapes. with a lens that we're borrowing from the National Park Service. So we're just really thinking about, like the historically significant places

[135:11] in how we're seeing the evidence of the human interaction with the physical environment and then looking at the historical integrity, the characteristics, and the periods of significance. Because we're kind of just looking at the what I'm calling block 13 is really just. We're looking at that Parkspace just because we don't have a good or we haven't previously used. I should say, this this process, I think it's a good precedent to set so moving forward when we're looking at landscapes, and historic designation in general. I think this is a good practice. for us. So it really just shrinking right like how buildings are different than ecosystems for prairies, and even things that could be constructed like mouse terraces and gardens. So let's give ourselves a good framework to to use moving forward.

[136:05] And then if you want to go to the next slide. it's just really kind of evaluating like, what is that right? It's using the National Register of historic places. It's looking at that criteria. Again, we kind of talked about the significance, and integrity. And then what those periods look like. And then we really want to look like at what are the character, defining features and elements. And that does, it's gonna look at kind of how we're starting to look at Pearl Street in the civic area and moving forward to So we're using some of the models that we've used in the past, but really leaning on the National Park Service and the National Park Service. It kind of has these 13 defined landscape characteristics that we're using. we have a couple of sort of decision points and stopping. But ultimately, if this goes through to the end, we would then also be creating treatment recommendations. And this is also loosely related to the historic places plan, which you probably have a few questions on. and we're looking at the treatment recommendations that we have in there, and having a very similar style of treatment. Recommendations.

[137:11] for this property, should it move forward. So if you want to go to the next slide right now, currently, staff, is working on the research, the organization and the writing of it. And then. when we get closer to evaluation, we'll have a peer review of the documentation and then support on that analysis from a consultant And again, we're just focused on that Central Park area, because that's really only it's the the area that parks and recreation owns and manages out of the historic district that we're looking at as a whole. And then, really, it's just looking again. It's that understanding the parks. what a design landscape and those character characters, characteristics are, and then just having a a standard process to assess undeveloped treatment recommendations. So what we're looking at is an anticipated completion of September, October, December, this September and or October. it's just loosely defined in there, because we do have a few decision points that could stop or move us forward. So that would that would be the variation between that end date

[138:21] on the next slide. this kind of just as a quick thing that we're the first thing that we're looking at is that historic significance? so what are the periods that we're looking at? And again, I think the historic period periods could be different. for this area, versus, you know. Ha! If you're evaluating the historic district as a whole, because we're just looking at one piece. Then we'll be looking at that integrity and again just developing the treatment guidelines. and then just a quick overview of what that timeline looks like I guess if I go back one I should be a little bit more clear on that right. sorry. Thanks for going back with me. What we look at is the first thing we're doing is assessing the historic significance. So right now, we're looking at what those periods are. If we didn't find any significance.

[139:13] it would stop. My assumption is that we're going to find significance of. We haven't done the actual assessment. Then we'll move into assessing the integrity. and we're looking at the landscape characteristics. We're actually doing some Gis overlays and trying to look at different layers together. So we'll give you more information when we have analysis moving forward. If we don't find integrity, that's when the Cla would stop. If we do find integrity, then we would go forward. I move those develop those treatment guidelines. And maybe I want to say a little bit here about when we talk about this piece. How does that fit into the evaluation of the historic district and treatment guidelines for the historic district? And I would think of it very similar as the Pencil Tape building has its

[140:01] treatment guidelines. Banshell has its own atrium, has its own. Each one of those would culminate to work together within the historic district. So that's kind of how I see that working together. So then just kind of moving again to the timeline. What you'll see there is a couple of those points right now we're in July. So we're looking at. They start periods evaluating and making sure that they're correct. and then we're doing some of the analysis on the mapping, currently. And then by August we'll know if there's significance or or integrity and integrity, I should say and whether we're moving forward and speak in the process for building treatment recommendations. If the integrity and significance are both there. and that is a quick wrap up, so I bet there's lots of questions, so we'll just give a pause and I can answer anything.

[141:00] So I'm happy to jump in with the question, Ronnie, you go ahead first. So thank you, Tina, for taking the time this evening to join us. So I think you made a compelling case of a of a cultural landscape assessment, and how that aligns with how the National Park Service evaluates things. But I want to be clear. And, Marcy, you're the one maybe best to answer this. But we currently, in our historic preservation ordinance don't have a requirement for a Cla. Is that correct? That's correct. It's not required. But but but but, Tina, I think you explained what what the parks and Rex goal is to proceed with that. My second question is because you mentioned treatments, and you know things like that. How does this Cla differ, or overlap or correlate with? I know there's this very generous grant of $267,000, with the city of Boulder and most of the fence from the State historical. And how does that overlap with the hip.

[142:10] or some of those treatments there? and so forth. Yeah, that makes sense. So right now, we have 12 properties that are currently designated. So the hip covers those 12 properties through the context and the significance and treatment recommendations. So what I would see because the hip is really going to be a living document? it's gonna be very simple for us to add a chapter essentially to this part of of you know, the historic district. So the Banshell, for example, has treatment recommendations, and then the Cla. Will have treatment recommendations. And you know what we'll do is make sure that those are speaking the same language and not conf conflicting with each other. So whether it gets included with the band shell

[143:02] later down the line after the decisions are made. or whether it's a separate part, as the historic district. we would have to make that decision then, but it would certainly just be added as a chapter and and should align with the other treatment recommendations. Okay, thank you. Because I you know, it's interesting, like, are there building box? Do you already have some of the information and so forth. But I guess you have to dive into it to see where that leads. Yeah. So right now, I think we have, like all the building blocks and the pieces. What we don't have is the analysis. So right now, when we're looking at, you know we have the pieces. We know the mapping. We know what the maps that we have today and what we have in the past. but we really need to start to do those overlays and then and then come out with that analysis to really have any basis for decision making. Thank you. And I see Chelsea and John's hands up. But, Ronnie, I know you add yours up, I think initially sure.

[144:00] I was hoping that both Tina and Marcy could speak a little bit about the timing and how a advancement from the landmarks board tonight might have what the advantages might be for either department, and what the disadvantages might be for you. The department as opposed to Pursuing Staff's recommendation, which is to wait for the Cla. To come to conclusion. I would like to take that one sure and then add add anything in there so stops recommendation is to not initiate and to allow time for the Cl to be complete, and I think there are a couple of advantages there. one is that it will provide a gap in our understanding of the park. acknowledging that this area of boulder has been studied so many times over the decades.

[145:06] However, I don't think we have the adequate description, understanding, significance, analysis of the park itself. and so that's kind of a missing piece that will help us write a a better ordinance if it gets to that point and and design guidelines. The second piece is that there are additional complexities for city owned properties, and so. there are about 5 or 6 departments across the city that we will be looking to coordinate with as well as outside entities, including C. Dot, because Broadway goes through the boundary, and then the I think there are 4 ditch companies that share the boulder slew through the park so that will provide us time to coordinate with the various departments into these. And then there's the community engagement piece which is necessary for city owned properties at a higher kind of level than than a private, say historic district. And so What we have envisioned is doing things like walking tours. some sort of online presence, open houses.

[146:17] perhaps a technical review committee to draft those design guidelines that would need to happen. so our recommendation is based on providing additional time to do some of that leg work. I think that when the code was written I really appreciate how stringent it is with these different steps about meeting with property owners explaining the benefits drafting design guidelines. But I think in the most simple of cases it is an. It is an incredibly aggressive schedule to get a pretty significant amount of work done, and then, having this be city owned, property just adds additional complexity. But, Tina, would you like to add anything to what I said?

[147:03] If there's additional questions? Yeah, I mean, I don't. I don't want to confuse it anymore, too, because you put a lot of clarity in it. Tina, I feel like. and if you don't have a direct answer to this, okay, but I feel like it would be helpful for us to hear how the designation of this district, which I think you're hearing from staff as well as the community. is desired, and I will just take the big leap and say, there's almost an inevitability associated with this. how the timing of the designation may impact the parks and direct department. And and you know what we're hearing from Staff. has a lot of merit about their reasoning behind Staff's recommendation, for you know, waiting for the Cla. I'm just wondering if there's any aspect for the parks and direct department.

[148:11] so let me see if I understand. My. the sorry I come here just a second. Okay, so like the cadence of it really is thinking right now. So, for example, in the historic places plan. We have the band shell. We've got the context, that significance, treatment recommendations. And then, you know, really, what we were focusing on is there's trying to talk. Sorry. I think Ronnie is having an issue. Okay, thank you. Ronnie. Are you hearing us or or not? I don't think so. I don't know, either. It's like. but he's not frozen. But I we can't. Yeah, no, he's there.

[149:00] It's just silent. I see some adjustments coming our way. I chatted to him that we are. We've lost him. I'm I'm here. I was complaining about not hearing you guys, but I guess it was my end. I have no idea what was happening there. Sorry, Tina, you could you start again from where I answered my question? I think, yeah. So if if I understood the end of that question. And hopefully I caught most of it right? just thinking of, like the building blocks and kind of, I think how it's all working together, and what it means to parts and recreation. So right now, what we have is the hip has helped us to find our 12 properties. And within those properties, we're looking at historic context integrity. the treatment recommendations. And then the hip is really helping us focus on what those capital priorities are within that.

[150:03] that particular property. So if you think about then expanding it to this, Cla, it's really building the basis for what we would add to something like the hip. Because we're building that historic context, the significance that. And if that is all in place, then we have the treatment recommendations. So what that allows us is really as staff to be very aligned with staff and our boards, and very in line on how we should go forward. I think right now, one of the things that from the Parks and Recreation department, right? At least even from where, like I'm at, is like. is there enough information to really make a decision. and so we want to do that evaluation. And that's kind of where we're lined on that. And then, looking at the historic district overall. I think what that impact means to parks and recreation is. it adds, maybe a layer of oversight. but I don't think it's gonna really prevent or change much of what would happen or or prevent anything, any change based on the treatment recommendations that we would build. I think we all are looking forward to being that active Parkspace. And how do we keep it? Active?

[151:09] And alive as a Parkspace, and and work with how our community is changing. And I think, even whether it's designated or not designated. I know Shahomi is probably on the phone here, too. we're gonna be considering, because that that particular parcel is adjacent to 4 or 5 designated already designated buildings. We're going to take that into consideration. We're going to be looking at those treatment recommendations, regardless of whether it is a historic district where it's not so for us, it's more just that really building towards those data informed decisions and looking for that base of information. Thank you, Tina. Chelsea.

[152:02] John can go next. I'm still formulating my question. So thank you. Chelsea. Okay, John. Okay, Ronnie asked my first 2 questions, but I have a third and I'll throw this to Tina and Marcy. could you talk a little bit about in the case of a district. at least, and it's in it's kind of simplest viewing as a spatial boundary that's put around something that. for whatever reason is seen to have value as a kind of singular thing Can you talk about? If if we were to say, be approached by a neighborhood group that wanted to make their neighborhood a district. and a significant number or a sufficient number of the the neighbors agree that they want to be part of a district.

[153:00] and this this may be a very, I guess, different set of resources. In other words, these buildings may not have all originated from the same historical building period, or from the same kind of architectural tradition. and yet they feel that they have a relationship that makes them a district. Can you elaborate on the differences between designating this district that includes granted environmental and natural qualities or pieces as well as architectural and directly historical ones. Why is this so different from, say, designating Whittier? So I if from a park perspective, I would say, if that district included a park parcel. so then that would mean that

[154:01] future park would have a designation as part of that historic district. I think the parks would want to do also do a cultural landscape assessment of that particular park within that historic district. And the question really would be, should that park be included in the district or not, and that helps us give that base of information for the community to use whether they, you know they want to be part of the district or not. They have a a base of information, at least for the parkland. Okay. Marcy, do you have anything? Yeah, I I I understood your question. But to be asking about eligibility in terms of a district that has a collection of very different buildings is that when you are asking or or could you? Well, I having not been through the district process in Boulder before

[155:04] this level. I'm I'm not really clear on what the whole process is beyond developing a guideline set and things that you know work with the the preservation of that district, and to the satisfaction of the people. I I think I I I want to just amplify that statement that Ronnie made about the inevitability because I'm sensing a groundswell of public support for doing this, and I mean a significant amount of public involvement in this, which is very rare for something like this. So, anyway, Marcy and if it's helpful, I can go through. You know what's in the code and then expand on what is it is in addition to it? Because we're adopting it to a city owned properties if that would be helpful. But If your questions been answered, then I'm happy to move on.

[156:13] Okay, I it. It was answered. I guess I mean I I I think it would be helpful. I don't. Yeah, I think it would be helpful. Yeah. So well, we haven't had a new designated historic district in very long, I think. 2,006 I have been part of 2 proposed historic districts where the majority. It only takes 25 of the owners to submit a designation application. so as part of 2 applications that were started. But then weren't ultimately followed through on the owners change their mind during the process. so once a a designation application is submitted. This hearing must occur within 45 days, and then the code says that staff must hold a meeting with the property owners to explain the benefits and responsibilities of historic district designation. And then there's a questionnaire

[157:20] that is mailed out to each of the property owners to gauge their support or opposition. what's interesting is that it's not a code criteria to have a majority in support in order to designate. But there is an official step to gauge support for the district, and then there are also draft design guidelines which aren't developed for every single historic district. But if there are kind of unique circumstances, that is something that's part of the case. then it comes to the landmarks board for a designation. Hearing, then, to planning board for their input on the land, use implications. And then the ultimate decision maker is city council, and that goes into readings. first on the consent agenda, typically, and second, as a public hearing.

[158:16] maybe Chelsea than Ronnie. Yeah. So because I'm trying to understand this fully. So because all of the buildings in the area are landmarked. what are the benefits of a historic district that we don't have today. Yes, and I, too, I will. It will point out that these questions after Tina's presentation and it's be focused on the Cla. I have a whole presentation to give. And then another opportunity to ask questions of staff. So okay, I have one for for T and great so how how would the city be, or how would parks be limited in the landscape treatments?

[159:09] if if if a historic district was to move forward before the before the study is done, the cultural landscape assessment is done. So so sorry. Your question is, how would we be limited? Yeah. So let's say, there was a vote tonight to move forward with the historic district. How would parks be limited? in your work in the area that was designated if it's done prior to the cultural landscape assessment being completed.

[160:01] so that's a good question. And so limited. I'm trying to like when I'm thinking of limited, you know, of in that particular area at Marci. You can tell me if I'm wrong. But if you guys, if the landmarks board decides to move forward with this then that basically the Parks and recreation department would have to treat this area as if it were designated until the final decision is made. however, right now, the only improvements that we have planned between now and the end of the year really are the band shell, and we've already applied for a landmark alteration certificate which has been given to us. So the really the sort of caveat for me, or the thought process is The waiting for the completion of the culture landscape assessment. I think, gives parks and recreation board. the information also to be really like, you know. So we're all aligned in moving down the same road. I think that's kind of ultimately what we want to have happen here? versus having any sort of resistance or questions, or why are we doing this? Or how are we moving forward. So laying that out, really,

[161:14] really, simply is really just, you know. if there's something to celebrate, what are we celebrating? And let's get really behind it and be excited about it. yeah, I'll get into that in my commentary. And I I appreciate that answer. And if if it is what I guess, and I'm sorry that I had to miss the tour because I my work doesn't end until 5. But what areas will you be studying like are all, are you studying all the areas as part of the assessment, or is it the in between areas between all of the properties that are landmarked.

[162:08] What we're doing in the cultural landscape assessment is the park-owned property which would be cany into a Rappaho Broadway to thirteenth. So kind of if you think about it, those sidewalks in or the park land. that's what we're studying. So not Thirteenth Street, not the plaza, not the parking lots that space in between isn't owned and managed by parks and recreation. So we're sort of focusing on setting a precedence of how we evaluate hark landscapes or a cultural landscape. Okay. thank you very much. I'll be around after Marcy's presentation, too. So if any of the questions roll over, I'm happy to stick around and answer any questions I can thank you. Hey. Ronnie? I didn't know if you had your hand up, Mark. But, Tina, I have 2 really quick questions. something you just said

[163:02] Park owned and managed. I thought the city of Boulder owned Central Park and Parks and managed it. And that was just based on on what the Assessor Record says. You are correct. Okay, thank you. And but I know you guys manage it and have per view over it. That that I'm totally clear on. The second thing is. my understanding is, and it makes sense that the treatment for the Glenn Glen Huntington Band shell has been taken off the website as the hip proceeds because of this pending application for a storage district. But I so I can't look at it right now, but I had an understanding that for the Glen, the site, the current boundary of the Glen Huntington Banshill, that a Cla. Had been done for that as part of the hip. Is that correct? Or my.

[164:01] So we didn't do a cla, for though for those, or what we call to Cla it was a very similar process that we worked through a consultant with, but we didn't have to do the assessment, because the information was already out there. Most there. The sites were already registered national, local, right? So the information and what we had asked the consultant to do was take the information available and compile it. So they weren't really digging in and looking for originals. But they were looking for what's been compiled to date and putting references to that. So basically that research had already been done in different ways. It was compiled. so the analysis didn't have to be made it. It was already existing. So that's just a little bit of a difference between the bench on that. So the reason it's just pulled down is the one thing that we wanted to do is as we're doing this. We wanted to make sure that the treatment recommendations in the hip are also aligned and have the correct word, alignment and association with this cultural landscape assessment. So it's like, let's put it on pause in the sense that if anything new comes to light that we didn't have before. So, for example, the planting plan and a grading plan, that we're included in the hip. We want to make sure we examine those and cross exam them so they're very aligned and nothing it has any conflict in the future. So we're not trying to figure out what takes precedence. And what's

[165:25] what? You know, what I mean, like what comes first, and what should we be looking at first? Those treatment recommendations need to be really aligned, and if anything new comes in light for the cla that affects the band shell that can be added to. So again, we're talking about the hip is kind of that living document. but we certainly don't want to put conflicting information up either. Okay, thank you so much. I mean, thank you for taking these questions, and and we appreciate your willingness. later. And you know I don't know if there's anybody else on the board that has questions before. Oh, Ronnie. Yes, please.

[166:03] yeah, thank you. So I just wanted to pick one little thing apart here, which is the proposal or the application to designate the district versus the creation and definition of the ord ordinance. and I just wanted to understand that a little bit, because I mean, I feel like I could describe it. But, Marcy, maybe it would be helpful to hear that coming from you. of course. So there are 2 kind of legal components to a designation for a historic district. The first is the ordinance which identifies. Why area is significant and can call out contributing features in that ordinance. And that's the designating, you know, piece, that that creates a historic district, and then the design guidelines help manage change in that district over time, which are informed by

[167:10] the pieces that have been identified as contributing or not contributing what makes this area significant, that then translates into how it should change over time. and how it should be managed. Does the final designation require the completion of the design guidelines? That is a great question. I was looking back at the University Place. a process from 2,006, and it appeared that the design guidelines were adopted after the designation. Perhaps they were drafted during the process, but then adopted afterwards. Design guidelines are required as part of the historic district process, but they are very helpful when the properties are unique, and I would say that it would be very helpful, considering the unique structures and the parkland of this proposed district, that I think our program would benefit from, and I would extend that across to other departments, too, would benefit from design guidelines. But to directly answer your question, I believe they can be added later.

[168:27] and then it seems like the potential designation of the district is going to at a minimum set. How the district meets the criteria and what the characteristics are. as well as to find the boundary. Is there any question? And I feel like starting with the boundary.

[169:00] That's the highest level piece here of what might be in flux, or, you know, might be impacted. Does. Is there any question? Or I've read a little bit about this. So maybe I've already answering this about what the actual boundary should be. and if we move forward with designating the district can the boundary change before a potential conclusion. It it can, and that is something that we would expect to assess a little farther if the Board chooses to initiate the process. The decision in front of you tonight is Is there probable cause? And do we start this process? And so, like you mentioned Ronnie. the process would allow time to Look at the boundary, develop design guidelines. Consider the name of the district. These sort of things can be worked out during the process. and the boundary can be modified all the way at the end by city council, or they're the ones that

[170:07] that's the boundary. Okay. I think that's actually that's kind of a good point. Ronnie, too, is right like. So because we haven't done that assessment yet for the Cla. If the assessment. you know, we're to say that you know it has significance. But there's no integrity that also, you know, and if we can kind of show that if if that's the case, is that a cause or a thought to maybe adjust that boundary right? Thank you. We have another opportunity to ask questions at the end of my presentation. But maybe I'll take that queue to to start it again. How does that sound?

[171:01] Okay, good. Let me get pointed here. Okay, so here's a map just for our reference, if needed. the proposed boundary includes 5 individually landmarked buildings that are all city owned. It's the Municipal Building, the Atrium Building, the Tea House, the Storage and Transfer Building, which is also known as Bimoka, the Glen Huntington Band Shell, and then the Central Park. So I am going to start my presentation. I warm you. It is a bit longer than our normal 10 min staff presentations, but because there is a lot to cover in a lot of analysis. just forgive me because I'm going to go a little longer so. again, the decision in front of you tonight is, is there probable cause? And then the other 6 categories. So this is not by any means an exhaustive history of the area. But I did want to provide kind of unknown history of Central Park and the surrounding buildings. So starting first, this is the ancestral phones of indigenous peoples.

[172:18] I will say there is work to be done. I don't know if that's part of this project or beyond To further understand that portion of the history, I will say, most of the documentation starts in 1,859, when Boulder was founded not too much longer. After Boulder was founded, the Boulder and White Rock Ditch Company was created in 1,875 and In this area it was largely railroads, mills, smelters, lumber yards. These are all industries that are water based. And so the proximity to the creek is why they were located here in 1,894. Boulder experienced a very devastating flood. And This area was known to flood. And so it was a more undesirable area to have houses. There were scattered residences, in the area that's now Central Park and along the creek but the more

[173:18] expensive or desired land was a bit farther up the hill. and then, in 1897, the Boulder Citizens Reform Group was established, and this can really be seen as kind of a turning point in Boulder's history. There were 2 kind of groups that were pulling for which way boulder should grow into the future. One was very industry. base to attract the the mills and the smelters and the lumber yards, the other ones. I think it was a quote like a quiet and and beautiful city. and so you can see in the early 19 hundreds these citizen led efforts that kind of informed what boulder is today. So In 1903, the Boulder City Improvement Association was founded.

[174:09] and in 1,907 the park board was established. interestingly, I don't believe it was appointed by the city, but it was a parks board that fundraised for the different areas around town. and kind of was a booster for creating an establishing parks. That group commissioned Frederick Law Olmsted, junior, to write the Improvement of Boulder and Frederick Law Olmsted, Junior, visited in 1,908, and produce the report that we know as the improvements of Boulder in 1,910 to provide some context of what else was happening in this early period of boulder. In 1,898, Chatauqua was established. That was also kind of a community led effort And one of the earliest parks in Boulder. The Boulder Colorado Sanitarium opened the same year, and that was a very popular treatment facility initially for

[175:09] people with tuberculosis who are coming out for the clear, dry air. and then the sanitarium kind of continued this health seekers theme of Boulder's history. in the period between 1,898 and 1,938 saw a significant series of private land donations. in order to establish these parks and open spaces. And Hannah Barker was one pretty much any any name that you might recognize from this early period. There were a number of of land donations in the 1907 There's the parks board that was founded, and then in 1,917. That's when It was officially the parks and planning board of the city of Boulder.

[176:02] This next period looks to the kind of period, where the park was established in 1,923 Olmsted produced a plan for a larger green way which included a World war, one memorial City Hall athletic field in the park, and it was much larger than the park we know today. It extended east towards Boulder high, and, as I mentioned, had these other amenities. There was a legal case that election was, or the vote was challenged, and then, subsequent bond measure failed. And so The park was reduced quite a bit in size to its current kind of location and boundaries that we know today. So in 1,924 Frederick Law instead, junior, his firm, which is the Olmsted Brothers out of Boston. produce the plan. It's a planting plan for Central Park. that was in 1,924

[177:06] at the time the city actually leased the land from the railroad. It was an area of land that Olmsted encouraged the city to purchase, and they did so in 1,933, and for context. it was in 1,928 when Boulder passed the first zoning ordinance, and it was one of the earliest in the West for the United States. So the theme, so far, is, I think, a a very intentional effort both through legislation and then community led land donations and activities to make boulder kind of what it is today in terms of recognizing the environmental qualities of the foothills and then deciding, you know what sort of I mean was desired. So Continuing on in this period, it was, in 1,937, the Alliance Club proposed construction of a Banshill for public concerts and soccer. Deborah was hired to recommend the site and design it setting, and then Glenn Huntington was hired to design the structure.

[178:14] this was just following the Great Depression and in 1,932. There were 2 other significant art deco buildings that had gone up. One was the new courthouse in 1,932, and then The high school around that time, as well both designed by Huntington. In 1,947, Deborah produced a plan for the the amplifier seating, and that was installed in 1,950. The next period, began with the bond issue for the Municipal Building, which passed in 1,945 it was envisioned to be a bit larger, with the museum as part of it. but due to some funding. By the time it was built it was a bit smaller. It was designed by James Hunter, and dedicated in 1,952.

[179:10] And then the next period looks at the Bank building, the Midlands savings and Loan, which was designed by Hobart Wagner in 1,969, and then to 1,982, was the genesis of the Soviet sister City project, which thought the tea house constructed in Tajikistan in the late eighties though it took a while to reconstruct it here in Boulder. The location was decided in 1993, and then the tea house was reassembled and dedicated in 1998. so with that again, that was kind of a broad overview of 120 years of history. if if the land works for chooses to initiate designation, we would do further research and kind of provide a comprehensive history of

[180:04] the site, and how it's changed over time. but I am now going to move into the criteria for review, which is found in 9 11, 3 of the boulder revised Code and I will be facing my screen over here. So so the first criteria goes to Is there probable cause to believe the district may be eligible for historic district designation. Staff considers that there is probable cause based on a number of factors. One is, it's inclusion of 5 significant buildings and their sites that have been previously designated. It's historic significance in the history of Bowlers Park Development, and for the role played by the Boulder City Improvement Association, Frederick Law, Homestead, Jr. The Lions Club and Soccer D. Or as well as its contribution to the social and cultural life of the city for over a century. It's our architectural significance that includes work by notable architects, builders.

[181:05] urban planners, and representing examples of a progression of architectural styles. And it's environmental significance for its planned and natural site characteristics that represents an established and visual feature in the community. Additionally, there have been past determinations of eligibility that have included the assessment of the following structures, and the Banshaw was standard site. is eligible for listing on the National Register, which was determined in 1,995 and 2,016, the atrium was found to be potentially eligible for listing on the State register when it was surveyed in 2,000. The tea House is eligible for listing on the National Register that was determined in 2,006, and I think, reconfirmed in the last year or 2, and then the Broadway Bridge was found to be eligible for listing on the National Register in 2,004 Central Park was surveyed in 1,995. it was not. There wasn't an eligibility determination, for local designation at that time, but it states that the park is significant for its association with the development of the Boulder Park system and with the activities and events for which the part provided offend There was a letter or a memo commission from mundus bishop, the landscape architecture firm.

[182:23] I believe, last year the year before, and that firm determines that the significance of the band shell it currently in its current boundary. That same significance that extend to the ditch which was the proposed expanded boundary. The second criterion is whether there are currently resources available that would allow the city manager to complete of all of the community. Outreach and historic analysis required for this application. as I mentioned, designated of designation of publicly owned property, requires a high level of analysis and community engagement.

[183:03] and if the designation process is initiated we'll have about 2 to 4 months to conduct a series of stakeholder outreach efforts, including a meeting with the various city departments. c.in the ditch companies. and then also along with the broader community, which could include walking tours pop up events in an online presence through be her boulder. And then additional historic analysis will include determining the period of significance, historic district boundary, and name identification of contributing and non contributing features in the development of design guidelines. Additionally, as we've covered staff from parks and rec and planning and development services are currently collaborating on the del development of a cultural landscape assessment to thoroughly document the site and understand it as a designed landscape and completing the community outreach and analysis within these tight code mandated timeframes. in addition to the work on the Cla and ongoing program, operations will strap, will stretch our staff capacity and other initiatives will likely be delayed or reduced to the scope.

[184:20] The designation of publicly on properties. does require an increased level of analysis and community engagement by not initiating at this time. It will allow us additional time to explore the district through the Cla. And the civic area phase 2. Planning process and allow us to streamline our resources. Third asks whether there is community and neighborhood support for the proposed designation. as we mentioned 3 local historic preservation organizations have partnered on the application, and since May thirtieth, 10 letters of support for the historic district have been received.

[185:02] going back to last year, during the public hearings, to consider expansion of the Banshell boundary. The public comment included, 8 people speaking or sorry, 10 people total Commenting before the November 2,021 landmarks board meeting 13 people speaking at the April meeting, and 9 people speaking at the City Council meeting. and so staff is not yet engaged in a broader community outreach activities to gauge the level of support across the spectrum of residents, businesses, and visitors that may be affected by historic district designation. Fourth asks whether the buildings or features may need the protections provided through designation. as we mentioned, it includes 5 properties that are already designated as individual landmarks. So those structures won't be impacted. if anything, they'll have additional guidance through design guidelines. But the regulatory piece, is the same, whether it's individual designation or historic district designation.

[186:13] yeah. However, let's see, in 2,021 the extension of the C. The Rs tax was approved by voters, and that includes funding for the phase 2 park improvements in the civic area. That project is currently in its scoping phase with the site analysis starting in 2,024 and schematic design anticipated to begin at the end of next year with implementation starting in 2,026. So historic district designation would add another layer of review for exterior changes to the landscape areas within the district boundaries, which would ensure changes, preserve and enhance the character of the district and do not damage or destroy. It's contributing features

[187:04] so to summer. Summarize. There are parts with the already designated structures that wouldn't change. It's the spaces in between and the parts that would have a layer of design. Review. The next question asks about the potential boundaries for the proposed district and staff finds upon our kind of initial review that the inclusion of the Central Park and 5 City on landmarks in the streets and plauses are appropriate as a concentration of significant sites that represent distinct periods of time spanning the Twentieth Century however, Staff considers the inclusion of the parking lots. to not be appropriate. so, of course, we would study this more if the Board initiated designation But best practices is not to include buffer areas. and since the parking lots aren't significant in their own right. staff would likely recommend that the boundary be a little bit tighter to the contributing elements.

[188:10] I think we also need to look a bit more at the inclusion of Broadway and thirteenth in in terms of their inclusion in the district. next, the code asks the board to consider in balance. The proposed designation is consistent with the goals and policies of the Boulder Valley comprehensive plan. and there are a couple of policies that apply here. I won't read these. but 2.2 7 speaks to the preservation of historic and cultural resources which says, the city and county will identify those important places and protect them through a designation 2.2 8 leadership and preservation for a city and county owned resources, states that the city will evaluate their publicly owned properties to determine their historic, architectural, archaeological, or cultural significance and eligible resources will be protected through local designation

[189:14] policy. 2.30, eligible historic districts and landmarks. notes that there are identified potential historic districts within the comp plan. and that they will be continued to be assessed and updated. and then preservation of archaeological sites and cultural landscapes states the city will develop a plan and process to identify designate and protect archaeological and cultural landscape resources. such as ditches. We're practicable in in coordination with the ditch companies. Street now escapes railroad rights away and designed landscapes. and the final criteria is The proposed designation would generally be in the public interest. designation protects sites and buildings that are important to folder's history. It enhances property values, stabilizes neighborhoods, promotes tourist trade and interest and fosters and knowledge of the city's living history.

[190:18] Local district designation would not preclude alterations, additions, or even new construction, but will ensure that those changes are undertaken in a way that's compatible with the character of the district. Central Park in the surrounding civic buildings are important for the role they have played in the social and cultural life of the city, and as examples of a progression of architectural styles, and for Central Park's contribution to the history of park development and boulder. However well there is probable cost to believe the area may be eligible. Staff considers the designation or initiating the designation process at this time would generally not be in the public interest because of the additional research and analysis to determine the significance of this area that would be provided through the Cla

[191:07] Additionally, the designation of publicly on property requires an additional level of interdepartmental coordination and community engagement. and if the designation process is initiated, staff will have a relatively limited time to conduct the thorough internal and external research, or outreach efforts that are appropriate for a district of this importance. So with that staff recommend that the Board not initiate the process for historic district designation in order to allow the completion of the Cla. To assess the parkland as a design landscape and understand its characteristics defined by the National Park Service. It will also allow for a more robust community engagement to assess the level of support for the proposed designation as well as interdepartmental collaboration necessary for city owned properties.

[192:07] so with that, and I go ahead, Ronnie. I just wanted to ask the question, but with that I were you gonna turn that back to us to ask questions? I was going to do a quick check in on these 2 slides, and then be ready for your questions. So that, concludes my staff presentation. will now pause for any questions from the board, and then move to the applicant presentation, followed by public participation. The applicant has a chance to respond to anything that was said after the last person has spoken, and then the board deliberates and make them make some motion. we have estimated about 45 min scheduled for board deliberation. This is just an estimate. It's not not a requirement. But the main kind of key question in front of you all tonight is, should the landmark for initiate historic district designation? If yes, but to initiate designation that starts the the process. if no, then

[193:15] a vote to not initiate designation. And the process for this case ends. Okay. Now I'm ready for your questions. Oh, actually, if you could go back to that slide! I just wanted to understand the timeline piece there the 120 day timeline. Okay. all right, hang hang on to this. This is correct. First of all. it is, it is okay, and then and then, after the landmarks board holds a hearing. Then W. Could you repeat the 45 day process? I just want to make sure I understand the timeline for everybody listening. I'm very focused on the timeline.

[194:02] You're going to hear this from me over and over again, and so I want to just beat that up a little bit. So go ahead, Marci. Okay, this is this is good, and I'm wishing I had a a more graphic slide to show it. But but I'll explain it. So if the Board votes to initiate this evening, then the clock starts for us to do the outreach, the draft guidelines, all of that work prior to the designation hearing, which needs to be held within 60 to 120 days, which I can go back to the beginning. It's between September and early November. that's the landmarks board designation hearing. And then, if the Board votes to recommend designation, then within 100 days, we go to planning board to get their input on the land, use implications and then to city council twice, typically once I'm consent.

[195:02] agenda, and once as a public hearing, and that timing would be planning board around November, and then City Council or planning board. November, December. City Council. January early February of next year. Okay. okay, I'm gonna ask a tough question here. You may not have an answer, but what I'm hearing is, there's the Cla. There are multiple departments to coordinate with in community engagement that are kind of these 3 large pieces that would influence a timeline among others. But those are kind of robust, and you've described them as a need for, you know, working on but potentially before an initiation. If the Cla wasn't one of the factors would. Staff still recommend that we not initiate tonight because of the inner departmental coordination and community engagement efforts.

[196:08] The hypothetical is hard to answer because we did. We have been meeting and and working between our 2 departments, parks and planning and development services. since the beginning of the year, to find this collaborative process and and out of that the Cla was identified as a a critical piece. And so it's hard to kind of Guess what our recommendation would be. without that piece I can add a little something to that, too. It's just when I'm thinking about. This, too, is right. The what the other thing that the Cl. A. Will do, at least for the Central Park area. He's gonna again provide that sort of like that data informed decision piece. So what will happen during this part is to date. the preservation community has been active and vocal, and we're so excited about that

[197:09] But because this area is so highly used by so many different user groups. When we start to talk about public engagement, keep in mind that that's going to bring right business owners, you know, and lots of people to the table who might have different opinions. so if we insert that Cla, with that information on the parkland. I think that that's a way to answer a lot of the questions that are going to come up from the community members of what does this mean? And what is it gonna do? And what does it limit? And what are we looking for? And if we can really find that significance and integrity it really like helps us tell the story to the community, and why this would be really important. or it could help us tell the community. Why, this part, maybe, isn't included in the boundary change, but the boundary that's left we want to make sure that that has, like

[198:00] the most importance and the most value. So you know that boundary, I think, is going to be really important in that story. When we start to live across the board to the community in general. That's helpful. I I was hoping to just ask a couple more questions, fellow board members just on this topic of timing. I kind of have a thought crafted here that would help if I followed through if the board uses not to move forward with initiation tonight would staff begin the multiple department coordination and community engagement process. We would In fact, I met with forestry this afternoon. and reached out to C dot. And so yes, it would provide. We would make good use of that time. in terms of the departmental coordination. And then also the the community engagement piece.

[199:02] Okay? And then I just wanted to say one other thing here in correct me. If I'm wrong with an initiation. there is a a form of protection that immediately occurs. which is the treatment of the areas, though it already is a district correct. Okay, so wait. I thought once an application was submitted. I know, for an individual landmark. It's considered land mark until a decisions made not to. Is that not true? With historic districts? No. and Lucas, you might jump in here. Is it from the date that application is submitted, or the date of the the initiation? And I actually have it. Marcia, which deadline are we speaking of right now? The piece of the code that says, well, an application is pending. It's subject to review under an L a. C. As if it were designated.

[200:12] and for clarification, Marcy, if we, if we voted not to designate, wouldn't that application lose its protection regardless right. So so the pivotal point about an is that that's interesting to know. But the pivotal point about initiation would either begin a form of protection or continue the protection that's in place because of the application. Okay? Because the one and I I'm sure there are multiple points. But 2 things that I hear from our community members and the applicant are about. One is about protection. and the other is about commitment and the commitment to follow through on a plan to pursue the district.

[201:01] and I'd love to hear we're going to hear from others. I'd love to hear others opinions on that. Maybe I'm missing pieces of this and what I understand from Staff is that there's a timeline component that would be better suited to take a longer track. in order for us to have adequate information and enough time to be able to carry out things, I think, in a more successful way. Is there any opportunity to vote, to initiate and extend the hearing duration. which would, in my opinion. demonstrate that there's a protection in place, and demonstrate that there's a commitment to proceed while achieving a potential objective to extend a timeline. I'm looking to Lucas for that one. I think

[202:03] the question is, could the board. But you've heard Johnny's question. Well, the timelines, if this proceeds to a designation, hearing under 9, 11, 5, those timelines can be extended by agreement of the the applicant and the city on the board. I'm not sure how that affects 9 11 for public process. or if that's you know, if that's the that's the issue. or for just trying to push out the the later processes. That is the 9, 11, 5, and city Council hearing until after you know Cla is performed. For example. I mean, I'd love to hear Staff's response. Marcy's response to that. My thought was that if the Landmark Board hearing was pushed out. Then we could follow the standard processes with City Council

[203:06] and we might be able to give ourselves upfront more robust research. That Staff is requesting. and maybe we don't have an answer to this. I just wanted to frame that is that, and then maybe again, others will speak to this is that I hear there's a question about protection. There's a there's question about commitment, and then there's a desire for a different timeline which may be an obstacle that we can work within and I'm not sure if that's the case. But that's what my thought process is right now. So and, Marcy, I'm hoping to come back to that at some point, and I'd love to hear if you have a thought about timeline. That is a better timeline. I'd love to know what that actually means. And I know that's asking a lot of you right now. but maybe you are clear. Somebody can be thinking on that, and I'll

[204:03] you know, hand over the microphone to my colleagues. I see questions from Kelsey, and Abby don't know who wants to go first go for it. Chelsea. Okay. okay, I'm I'm trying to wrap my head around this question, so forgive me if I stumble through it. But in reading the memo. It says, so. It says, Yeah, in the part around the cultural landscape assessment, it says it's the first and second steps of this assessment conclude the area does not possess significance or integrity. Then work on. The Cla. Will stop, and the city will not apply for a historic district designation that makes sense to me. If there, if the part of what we're trying to

[205:06] make a historic district don't actually qualify under these guidelines, then it doesn't become an historic district. My question is, how if we were to move forward with. or how are we able to move forward with creating a historic district without? I guess we're just cause if if we go forward with the initiation, we're just saying that we think that there's a chance that there's a historic district. So I think I just answered my own question. I apologize. is that is that correct? Is that yeah, I mean your threshold tonight. Is is there probable cause to believe this area may be eligible for a designation as a historic district. Okay? And

[206:00] I. I know that Ronnie just talked a lot about different timelines. But I'm not sure if the question was answered, and maybe if it if it wasn't sorry that how long the Cla will take and when it will start. Yeah, I can take that one. So the Cla is under way. yeah. So right now, research and background has been and pull together. We're looking at right now. We're defining what The historic periods of significance could or should be. And then our next step is to look at the integrity. So right now we're looking at, you know, when you see those stops we're looking for, does it have significance? So the answer to that is, we have found enough significance that we're now going to go to that next step and start to look at the integrity. So right now, we're doing analysis on the integrity of what we have. And then you know what it's going to look like is

[207:03] you know. So mapping, for example, is going to show. you know. for this particular period, this is the period of significance that you know. we're going to focus on because it has the most value. And then we're looking at the integrity, and then what is left of the integrity in there. So then, when we look at it, is what is the historic district at that point actually protecting and saving in that integrity. Right? And so. so, okay, yes, thank you for the timeline. So the timeline is. we will have these answers in September, or what's in the table. Okay? Yeah. The September October timeframe. And the reason we have 2 of those is, our next step is to look for that integrity. If that integrity is found, then we will immediately start to go into looking at what those treatment recommendations would look like.

[208:02] And then that would take until early October. Okay, if they don't find integrity, and the client would stop in September. Chelsea, if I could just say something if it goes to the end of October from today. that's about 105 days. I feel like saying that because we're gonna talk about days again. And I'm hoping that Staff talks a little bit about days later. But that's a 105 days from today period would be end of October if I did my math right. So then keep in mind right like our memos, and things have to be turned in about 3 weeks in advance of like of the next meeting. So you know, once we have that finalized document, we're gonna have a peer review with the consultant which is included in that timeline. And then, basically, when we have a final document, we're assembling that for our boards, which our memos go ahead in, you know, 3 weeks in advance with the review and all of that sort of thing. So it

[209:05] when you say 110 days. Yes, I just want to think about adding those 2 just staff side of things. the community engagement and public, like the broader public participation. component of this fitting in in a way that would be the most meaningful for the public. So Marcy is, runs the public engagement. So I'll let her take that part of it. Yeah. Well, I think it's the It depends on the timing. So going to the public, once we have the historic analysis and the the history written would be helpful. But before the design guidelines were drafted so I I know it's

[210:01] It's not a specific timeline, and we intentionally didn't kind of sketch out every possible outcome based on on this evening. But but but but generally there is a sequence that makes sense of having enough information to then present to get good feedback and get broad feedback but not have it so cooked that you know the design guidelines are already finished, or the is already written. Okay? And then no, that makes perfect sense. And yeah, just kind of get a general sense of when that fits in. And then. So let's say, we don't move forward with doing a historic district tonight, but we it. But we go through this whole process. So we have the the Cla, some community engagement that will help to inform decisions around the guidelines. And then at what like? At what point would the

[211:06] historic district be, is there like a resubmission, or like, at what point do we actually step back into this process with the landmarks? Word. yeah. I mean, I think there's work that can be done before, like, if the Board chose not to initiate tonight. there is, you know, this work that we can get started on that is focused on the coordination, the assessment, that sort of piece. I would say that. that if the Cla determines there is integrity, and going forward then bringing forward an application once the Cla is done and I apologize. I'm not going to have specific timelines in mind. It takes so much coordination between staff and different departments. for me to tell you, you know, or to make a commitment of when you want to come

[212:06] it. That being said. designation applications can come from 3 entities, the city. the property owner, or a recognized historic preservation organization. So I'm speaking more of like city application. So yeah. And that makes sense. And again, yeah, I don't expect the day just trying to figure out where in the like steps. Would that happen? So that would happen if it was the city? bringing it forward? It would happen after this Cla was done, and would the community engagement happen? Would there be community engagement before the historic district is brought back? Because I guess my question is one of the things like this was. We talked about this a year and a half ago, and one of the questions our concerns we have was that there wasn't enough community engagement

[213:08] up until that point. And so I just wanted to make sure or like, I want to understand the, is there an intent to have more community engagement before the it's an application is brought forward, or is it once the application is brought forward, then the community engagement starts at that point. So I agree that there needs to be robust community engagement, not only to inform things like the design guidelines, but also to understand what is the broad community support or opposition to a historic district, and so whether it happens before you know the A new application were submitted. whether it happened before that or during it. We have a draft engagement plan ready. We're working with the folks in communications. and our intent is to have a robust engagement piece. But I again, I don't have the

[214:11] each step of the process kind of figured out at this point. I I will say that I think there is a sequencing thing with the Cla in terms of when we would go out to the community. It seems like a preference would be to do that after the Cla were. We are okay. I think I think those are my questions. Thank you. And Abby so. And first of all, thank you. Everybody. I think we we did expect a robust conversation, and that's already happened. I think that it's very important. We hear not only from our esteemed applicants, but also our dedicated members of the public on this.

[215:01] But, Marcy, I did have one comment. I really appreciate both of your presentation and memorandum when you spell out the number of people who have speak and support it, because I want everyone on this board to be very mindful that when historic boulder speaks. It's not one person they are speaking on behalf of dozens of people of the organization, and you know I want to be careful now for whatever questions I do have. I have not to really tip into what I think I should wait and say at during our deliberation. But I just want to be mindful, you guys, if someone is representing historic boulder, that's not really just one voice, it's many voices of the premier Advocacy group in Boulder for historic preservation. And speaking of historic boulder, Marcy, tell me when you think we're ready to have them begin their presentation. I see another question from Ronnie. Oh, Ronnie, sorry, thank you.

[216:03] I as we're about to go into the other aspects of this meeting tonight, I just wanted to say I read, that's presentation as support of his, of initiating designation and a request to delay it. because of a process oriented timing component. So I just wanted to say, I don't think this is a debate as to whether or not the area rises to the merit of initiating designation because of the characteristics, the people, the environment like Staff wrote up a really great report about that and you can hear my interest primarily, and not that this is everyone's is about Staff's request associated with timing. I just thought that I would say that

[217:01] and hope that as we continue to move forward with other comments and presentations. that if everybody is in agreement with what I said, that staff is actually saying that the project rises to the merit of designation for all of the other criteria based pieces that have to do with the with the the and the people. Oh, sorry I just. I just want to clarify that. I I agree with that statement, and I also do want to acknowledge that I do believe the Cla. Is going to provide a missing piece of information that will help us will help us understand, particularly the park space as a design landscape. But in general yes, it's it's more about the timing and the resources of this application

[218:02] didn't mean to diminish the role that Staff is presenting, the that the Cla would play. thank you very well made a case of the significance and important part, and said this not only in the staff memorandum in your presentation, but the site visit you arranged on Monday. You know it. It brought it home to me and reconfirmed to me. How how special that area is? Thanks, Debbie. I I'm all set. Okay. I don't see any other board questions. so I think we'll go. Now then I'll hand it back over to you. Thank you, Marcy. So my understanding is that Bob Mecca Board, president of Historic Bowl Boulder, and Leonard Siegel will be giving the 10 min applicant presentation.

[219:10] Yes, and I think they're both on the call welcome. Thank you very much, everyone. I've enjoyed this conversation. and thanks you. Thank you for all your work. I'm I'm Bob, Michael, I'm for Mayor of Lewisville, and I got my started and store preservation there. And now the president of historic boulder, I do want to just a shout out to Marcy for picking an excellent background because you could. You could almost see the house I grew up in behind you there, across feet like so can we go forward? A slide or 2 here and one more. So I So you know frankly, my introductory marks mostly have been covered by the staff presentation. I just wanted to remind us we all got here because there was an application to expand the

[220:06] The landmarking of the band, shell lamb landscaping. And when we that got to the City Council. the staff recommendation by James was that we actually go down this road to creating a district, and the Council appeared to agree with that, as Marcy said. So, so that's how we're. That's how we've gotten here? can you? go forward to slide? So I I I this line is just to reiterate what Abbey just said, which is that? the. You know we're not. It's not just those of us on the call tonight. I mean, there are, you know, are hundreds of historic folder members who are reading about this in our newsletters and websites, and also the friends, the T. Shell and friends of the band shell. So we're, you know, we're small but mighty can we go for it again?

[221:01] One more slide. So so this is actually kind of our primary issue is, what is the issue that Ron he was talking about, which is, we're interested in having preservation of what we what we consider the kind of critical, historic but and public heart of the community. and there are going to be other planning processes in progress while the Cla is in progress. So what you know we support the Cla. you know, good data is always good data. but there's also civic park planning. processes going on. This this picture shows a previous civic park plan where the Badgell is gone, even though the Banshill was landmark at the time this plan was completed. So we're we're concerned about having protection for the park. I mean, it's it's it's been said that all the the buildings are protected. But the landscaping between them, and of the park itself

[222:06] we feel like needs protection. and the idea of delaying how long the process takes, I think, would be pretty. We might be pretty amenable to that if there is a way to get protection for the park in this district during that timeframe, so I'll have a few other things to say at the end. But I want to let Len's gonna kind of go through our of the beach, of our application so that but thanks again, everyone for letting us present tonight. All right. Thanks, Bob. Then next one. So just Marcy did a great job in identifying the components of the the district. But I just wanted to reiterate that. What's unique about this district beyond any other landmark district in Boulder is that it's a timeline representing most of the historic areas of boulder starting with the ancient indigenous peoples who

[223:04] inhabited Colorado. And then the the banks of Boulder Creek, next image. and of course you can see that strip in the middle ground of the trees along the creek. So this town founded itself along the banks of the creek. It was really the crux of why we were in this location, and right there on that spot. next image. And then the railroads came to town. And this image is interesting because this wasn't an 1870 S. Image. This is more like a 19 fifty's image, or just, I think, before the seating was built for the Banshill. But you can see the trains are still there. Canyon was a train yard. The Banshee was never an acoustical performance space, because there was always traffic there. so. But it has that history and the city storage. Thanks. Next image the city storage and transfer building also part of that whole train history next image.

[224:08] and then the influence of Olmsted. And you've seen this image before to the next thing. The next image I wanted to show is he was that that company was really trying to clean up the slum that existed along the park along the creek to turn it into a park next image. and then building on that was sacco de bores contribution. This is a sketch. He did. That showed a grander tower element for the Municipal Building, the Central Park band shell And so he already was thinking about ideas that are still in place. in the park today in the region next image, and then the depression era very strongly represented by the bravado of on a geometric art deco shell and the seeding next image

[225:01] the Post World War, 2 boom time in boulder when it expanded, not only with population but with the Federal labs coming to town. the prosperity in town and the the optimism that's represented in the municipal building. The next image. and then in the sixties there was a huge growth in the population, and the companies, like Midlands savings, were providing a low cost. Loans for working class people to be able to build in boulder, and then it had a second life as the city grew as a place for the government to grow into next image. Thank you. And then the tea house really was kind of blew the the minds of a lot of people because it was Boulder saying, we're like in United Nations. We're going to try to create peace in the world and have an expanded sister cities program. So the next image. really goes to. Why, this district is in the public interest. it's going to help to reinvigorate the park. Give it a fresh appeal sort of rebrand it with a new cohesive story.

[226:08] The next image, please. It's going to be able to open up the neighborhood to attention on a national level that could be receive support from national organizations like the ones listed here. The next image is really the same kind of story, except at the State level, maybe even stronger attention that it would receive. And it could be a feature at the upcoming Colorado preservation ink saving Places conference in boulder, next image. and then tourism could be increased. The publicity of landmarking could attract more events to better utilize the neighborhood and the pride of the city. would be exemplified in celebrating this intact timeline of historic areas of boulder next image is the boundary kind of a blurring image. Sorry, but our intention was to just draw a line around all the

[227:03] elements, to call it a a cohesive, clear land area, and, except for the southern portion of Central Park. All the properties in the district are landmarked. We are open to adjusting the boundary through the processes with the preservation planners, but with all due respect. The applicant strongly advised that the Cla. Is not necessary to determine that Central Park is culturally significant. The data informed decisions that Tina mentioned as a justification for the Cla is valid in principle, but the data already exists. There is a abundant documentation that the park was designed by 2 of the most famous planners in the history of America. and much of that design is still intact. And, furthermore, Central Park has tremendous social history that wouldn't show up in a Cla. It has been the setting of hundreds of cultural community events for 100 years. The decision of this landmarks board can and should be independent of the Cla. This is a preservation issue, and the pro prospect is about preservation.

[228:09] And finally, we just want to say, the applicants have been out working to get notice to the public and business owners, including the farmers market in many ways since last summer, and there is a lot of acknowledgment of the historical importance of this neighborhood. So now I want to turn over the rest of our time to Bob, and I'm not sure how much time we have left. But go for it, Bob. do we have time left? We have 9 min left. Is that possible? No? 1 min? Well, so I'll just read it. One of the things Len said. There, which is that we we are. We have been working to get the word out to the public, and we would be very happy. The our preservation groups to assist the city, and this in any way we can, which would, you know, we would have booths at the farmers, mark and offered tours of the historic district. So I mean, we we're willing to.

[229:03] you know, put boots on the ground to help with the areas where where we can And And then I I just, I want I don't need to take a lot more time. I what we? We believe that we've shown probable cause that the Central, but that this district is is landmarkable. We believe that we showed that it's has integrity in our application. We we have maps of the trees that were planted, and with comparison of trees that are still there. that we provided to the park staff, anyhow. So the So again we don't oppose this the cla at all. But we don't think that the landmarking process should stop waiting for that. I mean. Marcy said. We don't. You don't. We don't have to have the design guidelines. I don't think we probably have to have the treatments from the Cla done, either in time

[230:05] to do the landmarking decision we need. We need the initial. We need the an information to compel us, but it's got integrity, and it's got Ben Scott histor significance. And like, I say, we, we believe that that's already demonstrated. And we I don't. We're not worried that the Cla is gonna somehow find that this area that's so obviously significant is not significant and doesn't have integrity. So we we really feel like the process could go forward our, and we actually, we urge you to go forward with the desk with the initiation tonight. what I said earlier, which is, we're we're not opposed to an idea of of extending the process. If there's a way to do that. I mean, I don't remember enough of the details of this, but the atrium building what we were asked with that on hold by the staff for, like several years, where it was protected all that time, because it was in this process of being designated. And

[231:08] if there's some way to do a similar. I mean, we wouldn't want to do this for several years, but if there's some way to do that for several months, and give the time more time for the staff to finish all this work. we would support that. So. And I think that's all I need to say. Thanks again. Well, thank you with 23 s to spare Bob and Leonard, and you will get an opportunity. a 3 min chance to respond to anything that is said during public comment. So I I'm ready to move to public comment. I don't know if any of my colleagues on the board have specific questions for Leonard or Bob. At this point. I I I do.

[232:02] Okay. Well, Bob, it's nice to meet you and Excellent presentation, both of you, Leonard. It is always wonderful to hear you speak, and I've heard you touch on similar topics when we walked the campus area just the other day. But I just have to tell you. your reporting of it is outstanding and it's definitely engaging. And I hope that there is a documentation of the story line. that is, you know, easily accessible to public. that track something similar to what you're saying, because it's very compelling. It's compelling for me, and I'm sure there will be other versions and more robust information. I'm sure you could even share a lot more information with us. but I really do appreciate the work that your organization. And you guys as individuals are putting into this. I just you you you heard I I feel like I heard you say the protection piece is important, and you gave documentation of what 2,015 plan that you just showed the ban jog on. So the protection piece associated with initiation clearly as a priority.

[233:15] and hopefully designation right? and then the commitment piece just to touch on again. I I do think that we're going to hear some of that from the public, but I do hear a little bit from that from you guys as well, and and also how it relates to maybe a prolonged timeline associated with the I think I heard Bob say, that there could be a negotiated timeline and an understanding of why there is merit and of of of having a slightly longer timeline. I I do rely on staff reporting of their ability to. you know, conduct the work that they need to as well as stats reporting of what a smooth process it's an inner departmental process might look like.

[234:04] But I just wanted to. Now ask you, Len, what your thoughts are about. extended timeline with maybe boundaries that are agreed on. That isn't some infinite, you know, multi year timeline, but something that we craft collectively based on a reasonable expectation. from the applicants, and a reasonable timeline from staff. Thanks, Ronnie. I appreciate that. And I I think Bob and I are having a bulk in mind, Meld, and we're on the same page that we would be in favor of extending the timeline so that the staff can do that work in a thoughtful manner as long as the voice of History has a a seat at the table during the civic area phase 2 project, because that's even more concerned in some ways than the Cla, because that I'm not sure if you know about it. But there's an Rfp. That's about to come out by the city to have a redesign of the entire civic area from Ninth Street to Fourteenth Street. That includes this just proposed district, and if there's no protection for that, then the voice of historic preservation is.

[235:22] is is gone, is not at the table during this design process. So that's why it's important to initiate tonight. So great. Thank you. I really appreciate that additional information. I don't have any more questions. Yeah, thanks. Thank you. Well, you sort of just answered my question, which was you had talked about there being a perceived or a threat in the area. And I I was curious what that threat you were proceeding was. And it sounds like it's the civic area

[236:01] plan. Is that correct? Yes. and I'm curious what your thoughts are. I mean. That was a plan that was voted on by the boulder community to reimagine the civic area right? It was a tax that was voted on and approved by the community. So there's clearly interest in in reimagining the civic area. And so I'm curious what your thoughts are on the tension. I suppose it's a tension between. you know. yet 1,000 tens of thousands of people voting to support a reimagining of the civic area and the preservation of the civic area. And I think that you know it's it's a it's something that I'm grappling with personally. So I'm curious what your thoughts are on that.

[237:05] Well, there is. There is a historic preservation ordinance that the community has been supporting for 50 years. So it's not like. you know, there's not a voice out there of interest in the community for historic preservation as well, and that historic preservation allows for thoughtful additions and changes to historic properties. So we're totally supportive of a re-examination of the civic park to create more benefits for the great needs that the community has, such as workforce housing, etc. for bike, lanes, for multimodal transportation, for helping the homeless, we're supportive of that. But if but historic preservation is a voice that this community values as well, and it should be at the table. So I I agree with that. I mean, I mean they

[238:03] the the design plans for the whole, you know, whatever that is, 5 5 blocks of the civic center. So we're not talking about all of that property. But we're yeah, we we well, And just to reiterate what Land said, which is that you know this, the having it, the historic preservation voice at the table doesn't mean that you won't be able to do things that the committee wants to do with the part, but you'll have to. You know, you have to contend with at least the input from the historic preservation community. I also would just want to take a quick moment to respond to Rowdy. But I have a talk that I give about the importance of city staff and how much value they add to communities. So I'm with you. Chelsea. Did you have any additional questions? I don't think so. John, at this point. Do you have any?

[239:06] I'm not seeing or hearing from John that there is. So let's move on to public comment for this public hearing. please raise your hand or press Star 9. If you're phoning into this meeting if you would like to speak to this item. Thank you, Abby. Oh, oh. how do we do that? That's amazing. I I see a couple of people Kathryn Bath is going to be our first speaker, and actually, Marcy, she has a slide that she'd like to share. If you could bring that up. It's after Leonard and Bob's presentation. So, Katherine, you make it go ahead and begin your 3 min. can you? You can hear me? Oh, okay, here we go. Okay, can we move this up a bit so you can see? All right. Look at the lower. I'm Katherine Barth

[240:11] and We started. We formed friends of the band. Shell after the 2,015 drawing came out, showing the bansh of On the seating gone, many trees gone, grading gone. And that's when our organization was formed. We also formed a friends of the tea house, and that was mostly just to help them with thinking about paint, and how they should be handling the building and also help them when they when they decided they wanted to land market. But in this particular photograph that you can see in the lower left hand corner. This is a 1940

[241:02] aerial photograph. And really, sometime just get a magnifying glass, because you can see almost everything in both of the Bulgarado and the New and the county buildings, and you can even see up on Mapleton Hill. I don't know how this photograph is so excellent that it is. and you can look in in it 1940 in the lower left hand corner, and you can see that that photograph goes beyond where the ditches and it encompasses almost all of the area that we are talking about. I don't. I wish it went a little further, so we could actually see a rap a whole avenue. But there is the park, and that is what it looked like in 1,940. And if you were able to, just if you just were in there today, it is not much different Olmsted. One of his tenants was

[242:01] that people should be in secure and shaded and safe areas, and he would. He recommended that people sit under trees, and that they have views to the mountains. And the mountains, of course, are just a bit, you know, to the left. and it you can see that is both in the upper part of the park, which is above the irrigation ditch, which you can also see. You can actually see the water, and then you can see that other round area toward the lower left corner. And that's the second part is, it's not part. This is the part that we would be adding to the site. And again Olmsted discussion about being sheltered and gazing on to the mountains, and and the health, both mental and physical, health. that would come to the population from having parks. He recommended that parks be no more than a than 15 min away from any part of boulder.

[243:12] and he did design the number of parks that were not built. But this one happily, was it? I believe that if today both Olmsted and the Bohr just were dropped into this park. Almost it could say, Hey, the board! That bansh all turned out pretty well, and they would both recognize where they were from when they were working here. So so I think that gives a lot of the integrity of the sound. So am I going to my end of time. Yeah, we let you go a little over. We're very thank you so much. Thanks, Lynn. And okay, next up we have Dan Courson, followed by Fran Mandel sheets.

[244:02] Thank you. Welcome, Diane. I'm muted okay, so we can hear you. Now you can. Okay. Hi, I'm Dan Corson. I've tired the landmarks. Board the planning Board. 2 terms on City Council on. I'm a member of the friends of the Banshell. I want to talk about process a bit, because I do not believe that citizens should be punished by I will terminate a lesson ideal process that has occurred. I am actually frustrated in Paris, and saddened by how this is current. You know by now that just last year President Banshill wanted to extend the boundaries to what they were originally envisioned. That was not. They decided to back off because train cars were there landmarks. Board agreed, but Staff said, no, we disagree. You should do it as a district. and by breaking tradition, Staff went against in his recommendation to counsel the landmarks for determination. If that had not occurred, we would not be having this meeting this evening, and the many, many evenings of of of a meeting on this matter

[245:05] the five-four vote, with a request by some council members that this be heard by this council by the end of the year, that's not going to occur. I believe that there are still some Council members who believe it is going to occur unless they've ended advice. actually talked about a collaborative process. The collaborative process did not include the citizens. if it had. This is one of the reasons the initiation was filed to get information on that. and then we find halfway into over halfway into 2,023 that we just can't do a district without a lot more stuff, a lot more information. Shouldn't that information been depart imparted to the city council 13 months ago, before it made its final decision on the small increase down, and also regarding the Cla. The experts on this site are right here in boulder. Kathryn Bars, preservation architect who's spoken before me, and former planning Director Peter Pollock, who and I'm not exaggerating that, and have put in hundreds of hours of research on this site, not only in Boulder but in Brookline and the Library of Congress.

[246:16] Yeah, have they been consulted on this at all. We also have a hot off the press. 3, sir. You are a citizen board, and you are one of the most important things that is occurring. When I was doing the Council. I thought appointment of the boards was the most important role of a city cap. and you're the most important people in this virtual room, your obligation. and the main maintenance of your and I'm very impressed with the questions that have been asked by the Board members so far in terms of that you may get shot down again in terms of your that you will retain your integrity.

[247:00] Then we have the same government of the citizen by the citizen the convenience of the staff. Thank you very much, and thank you very much for your service to our community. Thank you, Dean. And next Fran Mandel sheets. So what? You said? You, too. Can you hear me, Abby? Yes, we can hear you, Fran. Great thanks for waiting. I'm in the East. So this is really late for me right now. And I won't repeat what's been said. This has been an amazing and very wonderful discussion that you guys have held tonight. And I think Marcy's packet and lens talk and and Catherine's talk really do display

[248:02] how much we really do know about this area, and how qualified it is to be a a, a, a district and I just don't know why Parks is putting this cla in there now, except to to not have us at the table while this process is going on. And I just want to remind people that that in Chautauqua. They did a Cla. And 2 years later the Nhl designation came through, and it pretty much invalidated what the work was on the Cla and it's never been. The Cla. Has never been updated in Chautauqua, which makes it largely irrelevant in many, in many ways. and that will happen again if they do it backwards. I have yet to have. An an answer as to why they cannot be done at the same time. Why, we can't be parks, do their cla and get their answers. And why preservation can't go ahead and have a seat at the table and push for designation. They're they're just there just has not been an answer to this.

[249:28] And and I still just to reiterate what a number of people have said. The our problem is that it doesn't seem that preservation is really valued or understood. and in that process. if we don't get a place at the table, if there is no initiation going on. We won't have any protection, and that's the bottom line in all this. and I just wanted to remind people again that on June fourteenth. We were promised that this would happen within this calendar year 2,023, that they would complete this historic district. And if this can't happen because we don't have staff. Why does some of the money from the Cla

[250:15] go to support more staff time? That would be helpful in in having making this occur. So that's my overall. I just support all of you people, and I hope you all do. I hope this board does vote to initiate you guys came through for the expansion on the Banshill last year and we have to come back. And this is our. This is the solution that the city gave us, and so thank you for supporting that, and thank you for supporting this this time, too. Thanks. Thank you, Fran. Other members of the public who wish to speak to this topic. Yes, next up we have Patrick O'rourke, followed by Lynn Siegel.

[251:04] Thank you, Claire. Patrick. Hi, everybody! Claire, could you go ahead and put up the timeline for the Cla while we're talking This process started a year and a half ago? Actually, it almost started. By the time this is done over 2 years. Staff, you've had plenty of time to get your ducks in order. You knew when the Banshill expansion was moving forward. It was your recommendation to do a historic district. It wasn't from the a historic folder, and so, if I'm sounding a little angry. I think I am. because you let us down so lens. Comments are right on the the integrity and the significance of this area has already been documented time and time again.

[252:04] What are you waiting for? The city of Boulder has 2 landscape architects on staff. One of them spoke tonight, and you know what. And I'm looking at the timeline. It's already been determined by her own words that this property is significant. The question is, is it? Does it have integrity. Of course it has integrity, and she knows it, and Marcy knows it, and so does everybody on this call tonight. So I'm just really disappointed that this occurred, and it reminds me, the last time there was the Cla. It it it mentioned It was done on Chatauqua as Fran just mentioned. and at that time the Parks and Recreation Board recommended the demolishment by the demo in certain buildings there, and was, wouldn't have that been a tragedy if historic, older, and other organizations weren't in the room and going back to process

[253:02] in January of this year. And Marcy, you Miss Bulk. the phase. One initial project for this area is already started the scoping and project management. It's to be completed by the end of the summer this summer, not next summer. The pre planning work started already in the second quarter, and it's to be completed by the fourth quarter of this year. So it's done. The designs are scheduled for the fourth quarter of this year through the third quarter of next year. So when they're talking about timelines, this is the most current one and last, but not least, I'm going to talk about a little bit about the 2,015 comprehensive plan it hasn't been executed, and so we're talking about to it several acres, and we're down to literally talking about one and a quarter acres on this whole project, holding up this deliberation because I want to remind everybody.

[254:05] The architect Mondays, Bishop, I believe, already signed in on the historic integrity of the band shell plus the land up to the creek. So we're left out of the 4 acres of the Cla. We're left with one acre, and we all know everybody on this call knows it needs the guidelines. Thank you. Thank you, Patrick. Lynn Siegel. I mystified. Why this is not done decades ago. you know. One of the reasons might have been

[255:00] it should have gone down to the Millennium Hotel. and we should have the millennium now instead. There's so much debate over it. 5 h last night, 5 h a month ago, another 5 h on the millennium, because it's not turning out the way they planned, you know, if if if that historic preservation had been done in the millennium, it would be. Avoid all of this. avoid full of. See, you take teams of the city of Boulder again. She is a great thing, Dan Courson spoke. Tonight is family helped get it here instead of Canon Canyon City. But it should have been all the way up to to even find Park and the whole area. And it's the Cla. It's gonna benefit the city, somehow, with some kind of national historic preservation. We've got that behind us. Anyway, we don't need to over engineer this thing.

[256:10] Why, study what's clear and obvious. Boulder has another history, and that is doing a lot of studying of what they know better. And this thing should have been done a long time ago. And it's clear, you know, this is historic place. one of the historic aspects of it is the homeless Libino around there and back. Then they were trying to get that cleaned up. Now it needs cleaned up more than ever, doesn't it? No, so do we need this historic district. Yes. but long time ago. and holding things up, waiting for staff.

[257:01] What for what? All of this? All of this complication? It's not complicated. It's very simple. This is an educated town, you know. University. Here. get things done. Just do it. I give up the rest of my time for you to think about how it is that boulder's taken so long to do something so simple. and it's so obvious done. Thank you, Lynn. Are there? Excuse me, any additional members of the public clear? Yes, Abby, our lost hand raised is Kristin Lewis. Thank you. Hi, welcome, Chris.

[258:03] Hello! Hi! My name is Kristen Lewis, and I do support the proposed district application, and I think this is a great opportunity for Boulder to lead by example. And and you know this process has gone on a long time. I think we're very fortunate to have 5 historically important structures in near proximity, and I see the district as a way to really protect them. but I'm concerned about the protection issue. I think especially since you know, the original plan was that we would probably have some city offices on the East Side, and that, you know, there was some book in thing, and once the the city had once it was decided that the city is gonna consolidate at the Boulder community hospital site on Broadway. I think

[259:04] there's a lot of opportunity here, and I and I don't think landmarking it the district is going to preclude future development. I think it can, you know, but it does to me it's very important that there' be protection, and that the Landmark Board be at the table and be able to look at a broader issue. I mean, you you guys have a lot of his institutional knowledge that all these desperate groups don't necessarily have. So A lot has been said. And I and I just see that that this is a really good opportunity, and that you guys should approve the landmark designation tonight? and and be involved. And I think that you know, I appreciate all the pressures. The staff has right now, and will really continue to have. And I you know it's my feeling that if the district is approved

[260:12] If the proposed district is approved the other priorities can also be attended to especially if we can, you know, work on some extended dates, but I think it shows a real commitment to you know, to to preserve this site. and you will have friends of the band shell, the tea house and historic boulder at your side. So I encourage you to support the district. and that's all because everybody is. And I and Marcy, I really appreciate your background information that was really helpful. anyway. Thank you for your time. Thank you so much, Chris, for joining us. Clear any additional hands, or do you want to give a last call for this

[261:11] or press Star 9. If you are joining by phone. I am not seeing anyone additional who would like to comment. Thank you, Claire, so we now will officially close public comment for this hearing. I do want to give Leonard and or Bob an opportunity. You have an additional 3 min to comment on anything said during public comment. I don't think I have anything to add. Hmm! I might. I might just touch on what Patrick said, which is just that it's been. This process has been going on a long time, which and you guys have been involved in that. So you know that but

[262:07] Otherwise I think what I had to say earlier about our. you know, wanting to have protection and being willing to work on timelines is probably the that's that's my take home message, I think. Land, yeah. Leonard, did you have anything to add? Oh. England might have frozen. Yeah. I forget, somebody commented on this. I'll just say it while we're giving it a chance to recover. Which is that this has been a very This has been a a deliberation and a discussion amongst the board and the staff. It's very

[263:01] encouraging about good government. So thank you thank you for that. So I think that actually the 3 min may have just elapsed. It's a right, and I I agree that I would talk if there was anything to be said. So I think we're okay. So we are now going to move on to board discussion. Sorry before you move on to board deliberation. I just wanted to take a chance to respond to something that was said, as the city is technically the owner. But the timeline for the civic area phase 2. That Patrick O'k referenced was from January, from a a council IP and so the correct timeline and the updated. One is that it is in the project scoping phase with site analysis. Starting in 2,024 schematic design anticipated to begin at the end of 2,024 and implementation starting in 2,026. And I know Christopher Johnson is here. 2 to add anything he's been involved in

[264:16] developing the Rfp for that project. Yeah, thanks, Marcy. I'll just. I'll just confirm that as well. Then, the the actual analysis site analysis really runs through all of 24, and schematic design would run through 2,025. So any kind of more detailed design development construction is, is still much further out into the 2,02627 timeframe and the Rfp. That will be issued for some of that planning and design work is likely to be released sometime in the next couple of weeks. So by the time that process goes through and they actually get consultants on board. I would imagine that will be at least October By the time that that would actually be on their contract, probably closer to the end of the year.

[265:13] Thank you, Christopher, for clarify that and Marcy for bringing that to our attention. Thank you. So now I think we're ready to move on to board discussion. I ask that everyone else mute your computer phone during the duration of this discussion. And, Aubrey, I know you're going to keep a timer kind of do a time check for us as we proceed with this discussion. And I really don't remember my Roberts rules of orders that well, but I don't believe I'm I'm happy to jump in and start this discussion, but I don't. I can't remember if that's kind of forbidden for the chair to do so.

[266:08] So I just there's this wonderful report that was written by Beverly Kerrigan, and it was part of the Boulder historic Context Project, and her paper was entitled Frederick Law Olmsted, Jr. Maker of parks, planner of Cities. And the reason I'm calling it out in the beginning of my remarks tonight is that on on on the last page of her report she says. Boulder was indeed fortunate to have a handful of citizens. K. Contact a landscaper from the East, a dedicated man who climbed up our mountains and down our ditches and presented plans that would improve with passage of years. The parkways, open space and ribbon of green. Along Boulder Creek are all elements of a lifestyle that draws visitors and citizens alike, and serves as living testimony to visionary man in quote.

[267:06] but I wanted to start with that, because I want to thank more than a handful of people who were the coalition that submitted this application as well as the members of the public who have written us emails spoken and we're with us tonight to to share their share their thoughts with this as a board. So I think I thank you for your tireless time and energy on this in Denver. That same report also mentioned that in 1,917 Olmsted said a telegraph to a telegram to a member of the Boulder Civic Improvement Association, and I think it was to Dr. William Bear. But I could be wrong. And what Olmsted, Jr. Was proposing is that the city of Boulder create a planning department? So Christopher Marcy, Aubrey Claire.

[268:00] Brad, you know it seems like the genesis for the very department you serve came from Frederick Law Olmsted, Junior. The next thing I want to point out, because there there is a thread. If you'll bear with me just a few moments is that when the country was celebrating, it's 2 hundredth birthday. and the State of Colorado was celebrating its centennial in 1,976 the Denver Civic Center Historic district was designated as a landmark. This district showcases the wonderful is a wonderful setting example of the city beautiful movement that swept across the country after the 1,893 Chicago World Fair, Columbian Exhibition. and the person who picks the side of that exhibition was Frederick Law Olmsted, Jr. He picked his side along the shores of Lake Michigan, and after the crowds had gone away and the displays were taken down, the vast majority of buildings were raised, even Louis Sullivan's transportation building. the only things that remain that enhanced Chicago after that World's Fair.

[269:17] where the Parkways and the waterfront designed by the Olmsted firm, and how I can connect that now to the civic center in Denver is the fact that Frederick or Olmsted, Jr. Was one of the landscape architects on that, and what kind of blows me away about Denver Civic Center is that a smaller portion of that was even designated as a national historic landmark in 2,012, and we know we have to talk with the national historic landmark and the pardon in Denver civic area that is designated as a historic national, historic landmark is one of 26 total in the state of Colorado. There is no other area in Boulder that better celebrates the best of boulder in our progressive, innovative spirit than our civic center, and the more than 100 year old central part, as onset envisioned a lot of it as the park at Boulder Creek. The legendary names we've heard tonight.

[270:21] James Hunter, Blynn Huntington, Soccer, our Debore Hobart, Wagner, and last, but certainly not lease Frederick law Omsted are all woven into this potential historic district, physically, with tangible connections to their work and their labors of love, and as well as woven into our history. I was grateful to be invited to be a stakeholder in the 2,013 creation of the Civic Excuse me, the city's historic preservation plan, and it's entitled A Sense of Place, a sense of purpose. On page 34 of the plan I'm going to quote. Boulder aspires to lead by example, modeling excellent stewardship for all city owned historic buildings, including those in parts and on open space.

[271:12] Additionally, city-owned buildings can be used effectively to illustrate successful integration of historic preservation and environmental sustainability. The city's willingness to actively participate in its own historic preservation program instills a sense of unity with owners of landmark properties and buildings within historic districts. In quote. I think that the landmarks Board purpose tonight is to initiate this historic district, and I think that this is We need to embrace it. I think the time has come. We traveled down one path a year ago, then was told to create a story. District members of the community. T. Came forward to do that, I think we owe it to them. I was really struck last June fourteenth.

[272:05] at the City Council meeting with our mayor pro Timoth, the time racial friend said she was voting for the boundary expansion specifically because she was hearing from Citizen. She heard the groundswell, and she doesn't want to waste people's time. She didn't want us all. Death go through this process again and again and again. when Staff makes a recommendation. I know other departments are involved in that decision. One of the most important rules all of us on this board on this call is to foster an appreciation of historic preservation and to champion the value of it. It's possible there are dedicated city staff who are concerned about the ramifications of landmarking without understanding that it does not preclude changes, but rather preservation helps guide any changes. This district could actually become a shining example

[273:02] of celebrating not only our history and built environment, but to spell many of those misconceptions we come across all the time about designation, and be a teaching moment that things are not frozen in time, but rather evolved to meet current needs while leaving a legacy for future generations. The pot Laureate of North Carolina recently said. what we keep keeps us. I think we all need to come together and keep this place and let it keep us as somewhere to enjoy a picnic. Listen to the boulder opera, watch a classic movie. Go see an art exhibition, dine in sip tea, and in the glorious splendor of the tea house, as well as buying vegetables and fresh flowers at the farmers market. It's in the very heart where one of our most important civic duties is, and that is, raising our voices and lending them at City Council meeting and other board meetings. This historic

[274:08] district will engender civic pride, but it does so in a place that our beloved Creek runs through it, and it's beautifully frame vistas of the mountains brings the community together day after day after day. This district will bring us together, if we can collaborate on the future. Re imagining of this, together with other city departments and I will be supporting initiation this evening. I don't know who'd like to go next. I'll go next. especially since that's so hard to follow. That was beautifully eloquent. and it encapsulated a great deal of the thinking that I've had going into this

[275:04] For all the reasons that have been stated tonight for all the people that have spoken, including Marcy's argument. 2. Do this in due time. the due time. Part, I think, was essentially dispelled by the line of questioning that Ronnie had when it was stated that there is some flexibility there. but I think a great deal of time has gone by. This has been a convoluted process. Many processes that are worth doing are. And we've gotten to this point where it's time to act. And so I'm supporting designation at this point the initiation. yeah.

[276:02] Chelsea, Ronnie Mark has his hand up. Mark. thanks. I actually I I am and I'm worn from last night. And and this has been wonderfully interesting and fascinating. But I'm going to excuse myself after just a very brief comment. And I I just want to say that this. This whole discussion has reminded me of the A. Graph that back in the eighties that people were talking about important and urgent. And I find the proposal tonight to be very important. I also. I am not typically one to just blindly agree with. I agree with Staff, and if Brad were still on the call he could certainly attest that I am not a I see both sides kind of guy, and I can't make up my mind. However, this is, this is a top one, and I'll simply say that

[277:22] after. And I sympathize. And I understand with the urgency that the the the testimony tonight in person, the emails have been really they've been profound, and I and I, I really understand, to sympathize with them. conversely. I have a experience over the last year, plus with the planning department and their load and and and their struggles, and I know that Marcy and her team are not. We're part of the planning department, that there's a little bit of separation there. But

[278:05] I I I'm going to sum up and say that I find this to again be important and I understand the urgency, and but would if I had a vote tonight. And finally and I'm maybe I'm glad I don't. Tonight. I would. I fall down on Staff's side of this reluctantly, and with the hope that they would hold true to their commitment to bring it forward using their process. So that that's my that's where I come down tonight. And I I I I appreciate all the discussion, and it's certainly been educational. I appreciate the the the testimony from the citizenry, both in person and her writing tonight. So

[279:03] and I'm going to excuse myself now. Thanks. Thank you. Mark Kelsey. Thanks. Yeah. I I have. I have a few thoughts. so historic district is a big deal, and it's a very important aspect of what we do on landmarks board, and in a lot of ways it's a very permanent change. And I think if if the if the Cla wasn't or the Lca. yeah, if the if the Cla wasn't already under way, and we had a very clear time. Oh, I wouldn't say directly, but if we had a general time we have a sense of the steps that are taking place. If we didn't

[280:07] know that those things were already happening. I would feel like there would be a better case for taking a step forward because it wasn't we. We didn't even know we wouldn't even know when we would be able to get the information that is needed to truly understand what the boundaries of the historic district could be, or what the validity of the historic district is like. When I think of a historic district. I want to go in knowing and having the information that this there's a really strong case to create a district. And I understand that we believe that there is. But there's still analysis that needs to be done to prove that that is the case. and I personally

[281:04] want to see that and I think that the community deserves to know why it's so important to put all of these resources together, to move in this direction. And ultimately this was the first vote that I took a year and a half ago when I started on the Lamars Board, and I will vote. Similarly tonight, because the conditions our while they have changed, and while their progress has been made materially like the issue, is the same issue, and it is the premise of why I voted no the first time, and we, although no this time Staff is asking us to hold back because they're in the middle of a process that will make the decision making a stronger

[282:04] process and a stronger decision in the end. and the collaboration with Parks is really important. Parks manages this land. The way that I think about this decision is that if we move forward we are similarly moving forward to designate over an onerous objection in some ways. That's how I feel in this process, because they're asking us not to designate at this time, and if we move forward and design it. Anyway. It is it is at it is over the objection of the people who are running this. so I don't feel comfortable with that, and I think that they know what we know a lot about, and I don't. I don't even include myself in that. But while a lot of people here know a lot about this area. I think that that staff really knows the most about this process and

[283:14] they are on the same page, like everyone has said, they are bought into pursuing this in a way that is meaningful and effective, and while it hasn't necessarily been as efficient as many other people want. They are moving forward. And to me it's a little bit like like we're engaged with this process. We're getting married into the district, but there's no rush, and this is so long. long-term commitment, and I don't feel comfortable moving forward at this time without knowing the pieces of information that we don't yet know, and a piece that it's not necessarily

[284:05] hinging on tonight's decision, but something that I think a lot about, and one of the things that I One of the reasons why I voted no, the last time which I still feel now is that this area sees thousands of people walking through it every single day, and the fact that we're only hearing from certain groups makes me very concerned. this is a part. This is not just, and I understand that those groups are representing others, and their interest is to preserve the place as it is. But I want, and I'm not, and I don't discredit that. And I think that those are very important perspectives to hear, especially in this context, but without hearing from more day-to-day users of the area.

[285:05] I just don't feel as though we've done enough diligence in having a community feedback process to this at this point. And I know that that will happen once designation occurs, whether it's now or in the future. But it does not make me comfortable. I've been a part of really big community conversations in Boulder over the last few years and 13 people providing emails like that. And that's not a lot. It's a very small group of people who have are having an outsized influence over what happens to the future of the heart of our community. And so I just don't feel comfortable with that at all. so those are the some of the reasons that I will be supporting Staff's decision.

[286:06] and I also think that there's a chance that Council will do the same thing that they did the last time, and reject the designation because we are in the same situation and the for the same reasons that they voted to know the last time. So so, Ronnie, do you mind if I just make a few comments, Chelsea? Thank you for your comments. Thank you for your point of view. I totally respect that. I'm going to push back a little bit because the input from the people who use the park every day actually happens, I think, after the initiation happens, and my concern with this is a year ago, you know, we were told not to support the boundary and go for historic district. We did. And then. Now we're supposed to support a Cla. Which is not part of our preservation, or it's the Cla under way can still proceed on a parallel track to designation. But I just I just have the feeling that

[287:16] if we don't act tonight. This just goes away. The application goes away, and Staff might come back with us. But I think my biggest concern, if I understood Tina correctly, is that as this? If they do the Cla. And we just say, Oh, go ahead, and we'll revisit this down the road at any point in that process. If they have one of the 13 criteria that they don't agree with or doesn't think is met, the whole process stops, and they'll never be a historic district and landmarks board is no longer involved in that potential district. Okay, Ronnie. okay, I mean, I imagine that you all know what I'm going to say, because it's what I said at the beginning.

[288:05] and and so let me start by asking. I need to address a couple of things that have been said tonight. But I want to start by asking Lucas a question. Lucas, can you confirm that there is an opportunity to extend the 120 day requirement, or whatever the 120 day standard. That's in place after initiation to hold the hearing. Yeah, let me clarify that? So 9, 11, 5 states that for individual landmark, designation, applications. so not historic designations, but for individual landmark designation, applications. the time requirements. may be waived if mutually agreed upon by the board, the applicant, and the owner. What that means most likely is that the city and the applicants would have to mutually agree in the form of a tolling agreement, so that would be a written agreement that the city has used on occasion.

[289:06] for this kind of situation. So we've heard today something that they might be willing to do that the applicants, I think, if the Board were going to. I don't think the Board can force them to do that. It would be more of a an understanding of the board hope or request that they're going to do this. But ultimately I think that's going to be a decision they make. If this, if this Board votes to move forward that makes sense. it does make sense. So I will get to that momentarily. Okay. So I had a couple of things I just wanted to say to kind of address a handful of things that have come up tonight. First of all, the gratitude piece. a lot of people have worked on this and brought us to the point we're at today. And I understand that it has been a long effort. And it's because of many individuals that were who where we are tonight. And can you still hear me? Can Lucas? Can you raise your hand if you can hear me?

[290:06] Okay, great So you know, I don't want to overlook that And I really just want to say, you know, thank you for your efforts. I do also hear that there's quite a bit of frustration, and to some degree some anger. because of the process, and I think maybe expectations that were put in place. that may or may not have been delivered upon, or may or may not have been you know, fulfilled in ways that people were hoping. And so I I also do here that I want to clarify that. I do not think that's our staff or our board thinks that an integrity interpretation associated with the Cla is the pivot point for us to make a decision about whether or not initiation should happen.

[291:05] So I don't think that is the piece that we're focusing on. I think what we're hearing from staff is the report itself and the content. may illuminate additional information, and it may not but that that process, along with working with other departments and making a more robust and timely communication. with the I'm sorry community engagement effort. is the reason why they were suggesting, that we don't do not initiate tonight. I do have to say there's been a major change in our preservation program. and that is, we we had our senior preservation plan or retire. and then we were without a press, a senior preservation plan, or for a while.

[292:02] and that we are extremely fortunate to have Marcy. and I am so grateful that she is here helping us. and I promise you that in every interaction I've had with her, and I meet with her often as a board member, that she continues to demonstrate extreme knowledge about the subject matter and personal integrity. whenever she's conducting herself. And so it's very hard for me to hear any type of attack to her. This is our common responsibility. Pushing these things forward, I think we hear truthful information from Marcy. I think if there has been any conflict of information, there's nothing intentionally deceptive. and I think that we would be further behind in this process, had she not been the applicant or an applicant in the process of selecting a new pro senior preservation planner? Okay. So

[293:07] I want to one recognize that the timeline may be delayed, and that the words End of year this year came up from a previous preservation planner. and those are use like loose terms. and that we have somebody that is an amazing person on our staff helping us, and that we should respect that. And I do so. I'm grateful that Marx is here, and I really feel like I have to say that because it's hard to digest when I hear this. That's not to diminish anybody's experience that they may be frustrated because they understand why you would be as well. Okay, so what about this? just going back to Kind of what I said at the beginning. I think some of the frustration comes out of the commitment piece which is about the timing and the follow through. And another frustration is about a potential consequence which is lack of protection, and how lack of protection is demonstrated that some valuable asset may just not show up on a drawing, which means that someone may move forward in.

[294:15] you know, jeopardize parts of our community that we think do need protection and preservation. So for that reason I would like to propose initiating tonight to come through on the protection piece that will come with the initiation to demonstrate that there is a commitment from our board and our preservation program and our staff. and to also have a conversation with the applicant about a tolling agreement based on a realistic timeline that can incorporate the aspects that staff in Chelsea has. I, you know, reiterated They're being asked that would let this process unfold in a reasonable manner for them, and so on. That note, Marcy, I'm wondering if you could help us understand what a possible

[295:12] extension to the 120 days might be that could be reasonable, so that I can understand that. And maybe we could talk about that and Raleigh as always, your articulate and eloquent. And one thing, Marcy. if you could also do, I know you had mentioned that earlier. You wanted to really know the timing piece. Marcy, I believe the threshold question tonight, and if there's a slide you can pull up. Is is there probable cause that this is a historic district? And if so initiate. And I think, Ronnie, you said something that resonated with me about that is sort of what's in front of us tonight. Correct, even though the timing piece is something that could be discussed. Additionally.

[296:01] I I believe that this meets the requirement for initiation, as Staff has described by all of the criteria that is, the people to place the etc., and Staff has said the very same thing. I think what they're looking for is additional information from the Cla and a timeline that allows them to service this with you know, appropriate staffing. Ronnie was one little piece that I intended to mention that didn't come out of my mouth for some reason. Patrick. I believe, said that there would be resources available. Historic boulder and other groups could be leveraged to get some of the outreach part of this done. And so I think that's something that needs to be mentioned, too. Some one of the sort of citizen

[297:04] presenters made that statement. Okay, can I? Can I? Can I go back to my question to Marcy, though I just am curious, Marcy, if you could answer. it first of all your thoughts on it. And if you could answer my question about timing. okay. yes. So you're you're asking for my reaction to the proposal of having like initiating tonight, but having some sort of totally in agreement, it jointly with the applicants to extend the timeline to provide time to do the the work that we described before is that that? Absolutely. That's correct? Yes, So I think that's a good approach. I think that it is something that we could work with.

[298:00] And So the answer is, yes, we're open to that. The second question was about like a a window or a timeframe. And I wonder, Lucas, is that something we need to determine tonight? Or is that something we could work through with the applicants and and haven't agreed upon time in it in an agreement. yeah, I don't think you need to decide that tonight. I mean. you could put something in emotion to, you know, encourage a tolling agreement for a specific timeframe. But if we don't really know at this moment, then I I don't think we would have to do that, and it would be more of a request or a hope, anyway, so we could probably do that at a later time. I just wanted to answer Abby's question for the criteria for review what

[299:00] Marcy has put up on the screen. It's we're also looking at the current resources available. Number number 2, right? That I know there was a slide. Marcy, at the I'm thinking of the other slide. Can I just ask you, are you suggesting that we do not pursue a tolling agreement going back and forth about it? I do. If it comes to tolling agreement? And I actually remember, years ago, when historic Boulder was engaged in a tolling agreement with the moving of Johnson's Corner, and we have that with the walls. Walnut Street property, Marty, I think you said something I just want to clarify. I think you said something that that is important. I think you said a tolling agreement with the applicants, including the 2 friends, groups, and historic boulder. So thank you for saying that.

[300:08] So I I mean, I would like to have that discussion. maybe just by show of hands from my fellow board members. Can I try to instigate that discussion with the applicants? I think it would be valuable. Okay? So I think that's at least 3. So it looks like it's all for And since I'm making this up, you know, anybody else, you know, Staff, you're welcome to make it up. I was wondering if we could start with Bob. and then, and maybe I could get some assistance on other representatives. That might be here because I don't see everybody. Bob, are you still there? His name is. I am, and I just promoted Leonard again. If he's still around. Wait. I'm still here. Sorry. Yeah. I mean, I'm I'm I'm you know. I start my video. Okay. Sorry I've been waiting for the host to do things that need. Do we share? So yeah, I'm I'm glad to have that conversation.

[301:12] Okay, that sounds great. seems like a very reasonable you know, kind of way forward. And marcy which other representatives should we be calling on? What I could I I could take that on Marcy if you want, I mean Alex. Well, I I would just say, if you're asking my opinion, Ronnie, it would be to not figure this out at 110'clock on a zoom call. My! My request for my preference would be that we hear your intent which is to figure out a time that that both moves it along it maybe a reasonable time, but provides the time that we, as case managers feel we need to do the the

[302:07] level of analysis and community outreach, and that we hear that direction from the board. And then With fresh coffee, fueled energy. Lucas and you know representatives from the applicant group and staff we all meet and then decide on that. A specific timeline. Can I Ask Tina, as she can weigh in on what is currently being discussed. Well, Tina's kind of say, Tina's schedule is set for us already, like she says by October they will. I would like to have you know, so can I. Please ask Tina. Sorry. So you're asking my opinion on

[303:03] on the extension port portion of it is that we would you be comfortable with The proposal from others is to move forward with designation, and but to extend the timeline to whatever. I suppose. What I, however, much time is needed to complete all the tasks before the hearing date. And so what are. I just want to hear your reaction to that. Yeah. So I don't necessarily get away in. But my reaction to that is So that initiation with an extended timeline, I think, just shows things that I we're trying to express, anyway, so that that protection and the commitment piece of it, I feel like

[304:03] as a department. we're committed to that. And so if that's what they need to show that I think we're committed to that either way. we're committed to that protection. We're not going to start that civic area planning until there's an you know, like we have a result from this, you know, and they're going to be combined and regardless of the outcome. We're going to be talking to historic preservation folks because of the Jason properties. so I think, if it, you know, as Ronnie was saying, that those pieces that they're really thinking about is if this is the piece that's going to sort of prove that commitment and that protection. I, as a staff members, is comfortable with it. Right? This is also something that you know I would want to, you know, have, you know, a department level? buy in on it as well. So like Marcy's idea of what is that, timeline? And and talking about it in that morning with that fresh coffee, I think, would be fantastic. and then

[305:04] one other question I have is related to Tina potentially, is, it was in the memo it talked to for. And we talked to earlier about how the Cla could potentially impact, how the lines are drawn in the boundary of the historic district. And so I'm just. I'm I'm not sure if someone can answer this, of how moving forward like, let's say, the historic district as proposed today, it turns out based on the Cla is not actually the way that we think it should look in the long term like, how do we? How do we coalesce around an updated version? Is that possible? If in the in the way that we're currently trending of approving it tonight?

[306:06] this might be more of a marcy question, but, as I understand it, right in this process, there is the opportunity to kind of to change that property line if it makes more sense throughout the the process. Is that true? Marcy? Yeah. So the boundary can be modified through the process and up until Council, you know. Would that would vote on the designation. And, Marcy, that even includes a name of a historic district. Correct? Yeah, that I mean, that gets sorted out through the process. Correct? Yeah. The process allows for some evolution of the definition. Okay, they thank you. That's very helpful. I I would like to make a motion. I do not know how to incorporate the tolling agreement.

[307:04] Ask Lucas to I just I just sent some to Marcy, or and clear and Aubrey to perhaps put on to the the motion on screen. If we have, if we have one. just a sense and it's hopefully it gets the message across. I just wanted to circle back to one other thing here, which is you know, kind of the frustration piece. And one thing that I think we can do as we progress. and I know that we do this. But just to maybe a a a more robust version of reporting on a timeline for this project. like regularly.

[308:00] and showing how it might change and update. Not that there cannot be changes, not that it's fixed. and my personal request is that there's a graphic representation of it that's easily digestible. that shows us kind of a totality of things that we might expect and experience in windows of times in which they might occur. and I believe that might help a lot of people feel like they're both understanding what's happening. knowing when they have greater opportunity to engage and seeing when things may change based on, you know, undetermined things today. So how I can make the motion. If you guys haven't what pop it up.

[309:02] Okay? And somewhere in here the tolling is at the end. Okay. okay. all right. And and I hope that this is a celebration for everybody. You know. I know we're late on and time here, but I move that the landmarks board adopt a resolution attachment B to initiate the historic district process for a portion of the civic area, as shown in Figure 2. Finding that it meets the criteria for such initiation, pursuant to section 9, 11, 3. Initiation of designation for individual landmarks and historic districts of the Boulder Revised Code 1981, and in balance is consistent with the goals and policies of the boulder fairly comprehensive plan. This resolution is passed with the understanding that the applicants are willing to extend the timelines and sections 9, 11, 4, and 9, 11, 5 brc. 1,981, to allow the Cla. And other necessary components of the process to be completed prior to the designation hearing described in section 9, 11 5.

[310:14] The Landmarks Board strongly encourages the applicants and historic preservation staff to work together to execute a tolling agreement with the city to accomplish this goal. I second, that. Is, there any amendments to Ronnie's motion, or any discussion from the Board members? I don't see any raised hands, or here from anyone, so we will do the roll roll call, vote Chelsea. No. John, I, Ronnie. Hi! And I vote I so the motion carries 3 to one.

[311:04] and then Marcy And I know this is different than you proposed a motion language prior to the meeting, but I know you'll discuss next steps. Briefly. I I don't have a graphic. But, Ronnie, I hear you for a timeline at this both formative and and nice looking. So we'll work on that next steps for this. app. It. Based on the outcome of initiating, is that we'll reach out to the applicant group, to meet and work out the tolling agreement, and then stop full work to begin the Well, continue the efforts to prepare, and then it will come back to the Landmarks board for a designation. Hearing. the timing will be based on that to an agreement.

[312:05] Okay. thank you. Marcy. Okay. well, I mean again, I hope that this is a celebration. I know that it feels a little contentious. It's an awfully quiet right now. but I think that this is a huge step forward and I am hopeful again that you know we can continue to move forward with the same level of support. And you know. See this come to fruition. So thank everybody for coming and participating yet again. for something that I think will have a really significant impact on our city. And and, Ronnie, I want to echo your your sentiments, I think that you know, and I know this. I know there's competing interest in multiple departments, and I do understand that. But I think ultimately this is a legacy that everyone who is supporting it, everyone who is working hard to get a Cla completed, and so forth. I do think this will be a real cause for celebration, and we'll be leaving something, you know, again for future generations. And thank you, Bob Leonard. Katherine.

[313:22] you know those of you who who led this application because it came from the citizens. It came from a community groups. And I think that's very meaningful. Yeah. I want to. I want to. Also this echo. The fact that this is a celebratory thing. I think it's a first step in, and it's a very important first step in what I think is going to be at some point a bigger process in Boulder that is going to be.

[314:01] I guess. Make this something like the nucleus of a much larger structure of of parks, and I guess ecological districting along the creek is going to need to happen for a number of reasons, and I also think that the thing I heard swayed me the most strongly is the fact that the citizenry was very involved in wanting this, and ultimately they're the real owners of the place. So the owners were coming to us and saying, We want this designated. The city is the steward that's been put in the position of of stewarding the land and delivering what but ultimate owners want. So I'm very happy with this, and thank you to everybody at any part of this, and thanks for everybody

[315:02] on this discussion this evening all the board members and everybody else. Yeah, I I I'd love to encourage Bob and Leonard and Katherine and others who are really involved in making this happen to really think about how to reach out to and bring people into this process who are not typically a part of historic preservation activities, younger people, communities of color. renters, students, the people who use the park on a daily basis. I would love to see more advocacy and support from those people. so if you can take ownership of helping to bring those people along this process, I think that would really help

[316:04] to make sure that this decision is not just a decision made by a smaller group of people, but by the whole community. What else is on our agenda tonight. Hopefully, there we go. There we go. I think it's it's all getting late. So thank you. we just have a couple of things under matters to cover and that is that the landmarks for recruitment here. Here's an update. We had 2 applicants. apply for the board. The interviews were yesterday yesterday morning, and council will appoint the new landmarks board member on August third. That means that their first

[317:02] meeting will be September sixth. but that provides time in August for a new member orientation, and I would love for the city members to participate in that kind of share here. You know what I wish I would have known as a new board member or something along those lines. kind of share that. So? maybe we'll follow up, but kind of winning check Gates interest in maybe doing an crowdsourced orientation and then maybe we look towards a retreat in the fall. Once the new member has had a meeting or 2, and then a reminder that It'll be a full 8 months, but this term is technically only 8 months long, and then they'll have the option to reapply for a 5 year term in March. Any questions or conversation about a new landmarks, board number

[318:05] locations available. Are there applications available? Oh, there we go! That's a great question. let me ask the city clerk's office. I know that the interviews were recorded and will be public. so I'm guessing the applications are as well. I will say we had 2 highly qualified people, and I think I can share who that is, which is Renee Goblick is an architect. You'll recognize her name from last meeting where she was the architect of that accessory building does work in historic districts. kind of the theme of her interview was integration with the building permit process and helping kind of streamline that identify code issues early and kind of of working with the owner. the owners

[319:01] through design review, and then the second applicant is Jim Lindbergh, who has worked at the National Trust for over 30 years. He also is involved in the master's historic preservation program in Denver, and he recently moved to Boulder. And so he is looking to get involved. and so he's applied. So I'm so grateful for candidates and extra grateful for very, very highly qualified candidates. and it was cool because they both attended the site visit of this potential historic district. Oh, I guess this initiated a story. It's now initiated. I mean, I I would possibly be up for a meeting with the selected person. if you need somebody. And also I think my term is up in 8 months.

[320:03] so you probably want to keep that other person that doesn't get selected around. I thought you had at least another year and a half on me. I don't think so. I see this every year. It's like it's coming up. But I think it's coming up. And you're and Marcy Ronnie would be replaced by a design professional. Right? That's correct. I'm gonna check right now. But you don't have to wait for me. I thought mine was in 2025, and it's 2026. It'll fly by. I'm not good at math. Okay, so I'll I'll follow up with some dates. Maybe it's something that's casual as a coffee something like that. Mine's 2025. Gosh! It's like true. The

[321:02] drop your head around around that one. So then the only other thing that I had for you all under matters is that We wanted to follow up on the Board's discussion last month about proposed changes to the Ldrc. staff has met. We did a little brainstorming workshop a couple of weeks ago, and we'll come you in August. It looks like that should be a pretty wide agenda, which is helpful, considering everything else that will be going on. but we're we're planning to come back to you all with some ideas for changes to the Ldrc. To get your feedback. Thank you. Not for John. Okay, and that's all we have. if anyone's curious why I put this picture up, there's no reason other than I was looking for a fun. Historic photo I hadn't seen, and I absolutely love her hair, and it kind of matches the decorative porch. And if you're curious. This is a house in the

[322:09] Highland long historic district, but the porch has That decorative piece is no longer there. We we don't see it. You have to. That's embarrassing. Okay, it's late. I know someone mentioned waiting for coffee to discuss the totally agreement I'm waiting for. Oh, that's cool. Everyone appreciate this cold photo. Here's the entire house of your oh, my goodness, cool, cool. That's awesome. Okay? Well, and does this have a porch? And so, yeah, this this kind of funky porch is no longer there. and the porch roof is but all the decorative. Yeah, that's awesome.

[323:06] So you guys, thank you for this, you know, and this was a this was a hard issue to do, you know, but thank you for taking the time and staff for staying and hanging in while we have this kind of robust discussion. But I think it was very important. We haven't done a straight district since 2,006. So it's a lot, you know. So if that's it, the meeting is adjourned at 1124 pm. Okay. bye. thanks, everyone. Thank you.