January 10, 2024 — Landmarks Board Regular Meeting

Transcript

Captions from City of Boulder YouTube recording.

[0:00] Where is the good evening. Welcome to the January tenth, 2024 landmarks board meeting. The time is 6 pm. We'll begin with Marcy, reviewing the virtual meeting decorum. There we go. Good evening, board members. Alright. So 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 experiences and political perspectives. You can learn more about this vision in the project's community engagement process online in the link.

[1:00] The following are examples of rules of decorum found in the boulder of ice code and other guidelines that support this vision. These will be upheld during the 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 the hearing sets for virtual participants. Individuals online must display their whole name before being allowed to speak online. And currently only audio testimony is permitted online for those of you in person who would like to speak during open comment or during the hearing items. You'll go over to Aubrey to sign up for public comment. and then we'll take public comment from folks in the room, first followed by folks who are virtual.

[2:04] and we won't go through this. Okay. thank you, Marcy. I do wanna acknowledge that we have a quorum this evening with 4 landmarks board members present as well as an ex officio member from the Planning Board and a recording of this meeting will be available in the Records Archive and on Youtube within 28 days of this meeting. We're gonna do a very quick roll call and introductions, John. I'm John Decker, member of the Landmarks board. I'm Abby Daniels, the current Chair of the Landmarks Board, Ronnie Plucci, a Landmarks board Member Renee Golobic Landmarks board member. and I'm Kurt Nordbeck on planning board I'm here in place of Mark Mcintyre, who who is the usual liaison. and I would be remiss if I didn't mention that Kurt once served on this board for more than 3 years. So welcome, Curt, we're thrilled to have you tonight.

[3:06] We know that there are people here this evening to participate who may have some strong emotions about a particular project. We want to hear from you, and we have found that it is more productive. 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, and, as Marcy already mentioned. Those in person who wish to speak can speak first, and then anyone who's joining us through Zoom will speak. After that we request that members of the public do sign up with Aubrey. As Marcy mentioned, virtual participants will then follow as normal by raising their virtual hand as board chair. I will call for a roll call. Vote on any motions made this evening. The first order of item on our agenda is to approve the minute meetings of our December

[4:07] third meeting, fifth meeting, December fifth, meeting, as well as the joint session that we had on December eighteenth, with the Parks and recreation Advisory Board. Are there any changes or alterations to the minutes we've received? Okay, seeing none. I move that we approve these minutes. Do we have a second? I second. Thank you, Ronnie Ronnie seconds it. We'll do a roll call. Vote John Ronnie Renee. Aye, and I vote aye, so both sets of minutes meetings pass unanimously. We now move to the part of the agenda where there's public participation for non-agenda items. So if you're wishing to speak at any of the 3 upcoming hearings this evening you will wait till after both the staff presentation and the applicant's presentations. This is the opportunity to speak for things not on tonight's

[5:09] agenda and Aubrey. I don't know if anyone's already signed up in person yet. and there's no and for those of you joining us remotely, we do have one person signing up at this point, in chambers, and then Aubrey will look to see if anybody has raised their hand or wants to speak. When we conclude the in person, speakers, or speaker. All right. So first up we have Katherine Barth. everybody happy New Year into 2,024. It's very cold night out there. And I was thinking.

[6:04] if you guys are all gonna get here, at least I'm gonna come and say, Hi, because it wouldn't be, you know. You've made a big effort to do this. I just wanted to. I mean, you know what's coming. But start boulder friends of the band. Shell friends of the tea House are all have all been working diligently for the February seventh designation here. So it's coming. And we're we're really trying to do good job and be worthy of your time and interest. So thank you very much. And this will be a good year, I hope. Thank you, Catherine and Aubrey. I'm not seeing anyone else in Chambers who wishes to speak to us.

[7:00] And do you have anyone online or remotely? We do have 2 speakers online, and Amanda is handling the Zoom participants for that. Yes, thank you, Aubrey. It looks like up first we have Patrick O'rourke. Patrick, I will allow you to unmute, and aubrey will set the timer for 3 min. and, Patrick, if you'd be kind enough to reiterate your full name for the record, and your 3 min will commit. Thank you. It's Patrick O'rourke and the preservation chair for historic holder. I know Katherine just spoke on behalf of the proposal that we're bringing to next month. We just wanted to get in front of it. There's a couple of things we wanted to touch, base on and on the number one, and it's a concern of ours is the Cla. We've not been able to, or had the opportunity to review with the completed Cla.

[8:03] and only the executive summary, and we see some challenges in it. Under the executive summary that was not addressed. the indigenous people the key periods that were noted started in 1,903. There are 2 key periods that weren't noted. and we believe they should be. Before the 1859 time period between 1859 and 1903 are both significant. And it's my understanding and the the executive summary that the ditches aren't noted. But another point. And I bring it up to you because it's important that the topography really hasn't changed on that site. If it has, it's very minimal. The reason I bring it up is because I look at phase one that was completed by the parks and record just a few years ago. I haven't seen a review of it, but II do understand that they did change the topography, and that would be a concern of ours that that's not noted. At least it should be noted.

[9:03] Number 2 is city of Balder identified 8 properties that they're putting on up for potential sale. And I think it's important because 2 or 3 of them are in this future historic district. and which is Bomoka and the atrium. And so what we'd like to do is start getting the landmarks board, thinking in terms of adaptive reuse. One of the uses, for example, that we looked at for Bamolka, when it moves out, is to turn it into a children's museum, and that should be because this whole part of town is being redeveloped, that would, it would be nice to at least have them be part, let that be part of a conversation, and the same thing goes with the atrium and then that 2015 report that was submitted 2018. That was approved. There's a an idea of using that for community benefit. And I think that's a great idea. Pass that I want to thank you guys for all the work and specifically older staff for the amazing job you did with the storybook maps. This would tell us the story, and I believe that it's very fair. Thank you.

[10:12] Thank you, Patrick, and we might take a quick moment at we after we close public participation. If anyone has a really quick question for you, or response to your comments. Aubrey, who's next to speak. Yes, we have Lynn Siegel, with her hand raised. Lynn, you should be able to unmute. Can you please put up the board? I would like to speak to the board, not to the agenda. Great, and could I? There's the timer. Yay, hallelujah! Okay. Regarding 1015 juniper. I'd like to see a much more open process with these demolitions, because, you know.

[11:01] I'm not an expert in this. I'm an ultrasound technologist. I'm not. And you know, an architect. but I use the architect's work because I look at places all the time, and I don't know how to properly represent what the interests are when there's not an interactive situation going on which there's not. I'm just an observer. and I don't think that's right. Do you think that's right? I think you'd want me to be informed, be able to make truly qualifiable and good recommendations to what you do. You know, for for instance, on 1015 Juniper. I don't know exactly what it involves. The fact. There's it's 1928 size bungalow kind of craftsmen. I'm sure you wouldn't call it that, Marcy. But whatever it is really nice place, the only house that's left on that whole rural area that's has really historic significance, practically.

[12:07] And it has a basement. And when there was a site visit, we didn't go into the house to see what the format of it was. And the thing is what happens potentially impacts, whoever the owner is and what they do with the basement like, if they have to fill it because it's on a flood plain. And if they do anything to this house. They've got to change it somehow. Rise it up a little bit, move it back a little bit, or fill in the whole basement, which would be very detrimentary as far as community benefit, and that space that's a valuable space. They might be able to add onto the back. But if they wanna be able to do that practically, and they're gonna have to move the whole house. That's there. They're gonna take out basement. And what detraction is that

[13:03] to the value, the carbon value of having that as it is the conveyance. blood zone limits the back expansion of the property. That much, but essentially the public's being asked to to agree to things that would enhance the value to the owner of the property by virtue of basically a subsidy is what I would call it, of how they develop the space to maximize their investment. And and that doesn't seem ethical to me. I also don't want to see the property taken off. You know the the structure taken off of the property, and I have to commute to go see it. The the sense of place is very. Let. Lynn, I apologize. Your time expired.

[14:03] Blacks. All right. I'm not seeing anyone else with their hand up for public comment. We'll give it a couple seconds. all right. I think we're good to move on. Okay, so we will officially close public participation for this evening's meeting. I did have a question for Marcy based on Patrick O'rourke's. I know it was the parts of Rec. Department that wanted the cultural landscape assessment done. Do you happen to know the status of when the complete thing will be available. I haven't heard an update since the January eighteenth study session, which at that time they were preparing to release it. Complete it in January. And then we will be going to, perhaps January twenty-twond for a recommendation from that board about the proposed district before coming to you all on February seventh.

[15:14] Okay, tha, thank you. And I know there were some interviewing holidays in there since we last met with them, and I know it's their department who's taking the lead on. That the only other thing I personally wanted to say is the 2 buildings that Patrick, or work mentioned that may be sold by the city. Both of those are individual landmarks, so anything historic about them is already protected depending on on what the future holds for either of those buildings. So II just wanted to say that out loud. I don't know if anyone else has a quick comment or anything for public participation. But I did want to make that note. So now I think it's time to move on to discussion of landmark, alteration and demolition applications issued and pending.

[16:06] Okay, here we go alright. So we currently have one stay of demolition pending it is the house at 1015 Juniper Avenue. And if you recall, the board placed a stay of demolition on that application, finding the building was potentially eligible. For designation and provide time to explore alternatives. Could it be incorporated into redevelopment? Could it be moved either either on site or off site. Are there creative alternatives out there? Prior to, you know, a decision of whether to initiate landmark designation or allow the demolition. So we've met twice since the stay was placed on the application. The first was November 28, and Abby and John are the representatives from the Board and that first meeting I thought was very helpful. I think the owners are.

[17:02] or sorry the applicants are doing a a good job of coming with creative and open mind in terms of considering alternatives. Some of the constraints that were identified at that first meeting. Focused a lot about the flood plain regulations and how the building, as it sits today, is 7 inches below the base flood elevation. And there's a basement. And so as well as some foundation issues, so preserving the building on site would likely require raising the building, pouring a new foundation without a basement. since it's in the flood plain, and then either adding on to it or moving it on site and using it as an Edu, was another alternative that we discussed. One of the constraints the applicants raised. Is that because the conveyance zone is at the back of the property, the buildable envelope is more limited than it would appear from a lot this size

[18:04] so we then met on January eighth which was just Monday. On site. And I think there's nothing that compares to being. You know, we're we stayed on the public right of way, but being on the site in kind of understanding the context. And so we continue the conversation about potential alternatives to demolition. But at this point no alternatives have been identified. So with that. I'd love Abby for you to add anything about that, and then I'd like to know whether the Board representatives would be interested in scheduling a third meeting or the schedule looking ahead. Is that at your next meeting on February seventh, that would be the scheduling decision of whether or not to hold an initiation hearing before the stay expires, that initiation hearing would occur on March sixth, which is the last regularly scheduled meeting before the stay expires at the end of March.

[19:07] so II was impressed with the first meeting, the end of November, with not only how candid the applicants were, and I think that they were so willing to talk to us and hear everything. I still have to get a shout out. I may be repeating something I might have said at last month's meeting remotely, but Marcy did a really good job explaining. You know what the meeting was, for, what benefits are of preserving it, and and really giving some great food for thought, for creative alternatives to demolition, and I think they really have been really trying hard to do it. It's what was helpful on Monday site visit is that they're so constrained by the lot and the floodplain and the conveyance zone. And I do think they have really tried to see. Could they do this? Could they do that II don't think the conversations necessarily over, but the willingness to talk to us and then meet us there.

[20:08] Monday morning was great. It's it's a very charming house. I think the a a excellent staff memorandum we ha had on it showed that it did have a lot of history. So I mean, it's gonna be interesting kind of going through this and thinking about it when we get to a point where we have to make a decision. If we are a decision, if we are interested in holding an initiation, it it it's a wonderful block. It's a wonderful street, and this house really adds a grace note to that street, but we'll see what happens at the next meeting. and I encourage anyone who hasn't to just walk by it and really see. See it? I did. Monday, yeah, late. And and Abby reminded me of one other piece of the conversation on Monday that I that I really appreciate was that the the applicants came with some creative ideas about how to commemorate that history, because, this is one of the houses where you wouldn't know walking by that. The boulder county's first

[21:13] the first woman to serve as the treasurer lived here, you know, in the 19 fortys and 1950 s. And and so they offered some ideas of how to tell that history or market on the site if the if the house ultimately isn't preserved. So you just want to add that piece? Yeah, II just sort of. And I understand, sort of the conundrum the the design professionals have. It was marketed as a teardown, and the owners bought it, you know, fully anticipating that they could do that. So. anyway. Thanks, Marcy. Now we'll move on to our first public hearing this evening. Item 5. A. It's a public hearing and consideration of a landmark, alteration, certificate, application to install a front and side fence at 2, 3, 2 on Fourth Street.

[22:05] a contributing property in the Mapleton Hill historic district. Excuse me. Pursuant to Section 9, 1118 of the Boulder Revise Code 1981, and under the procedures prescribed by Chapter 1, 3, quasi judicial hearings, also of the boulder revised Toad. Here we go essentially alright. So I'll start by going through the quasi-judicial hearing procedures. Anyone speaking to this item will be sworn in, and board members will note any ex parte contacts. The staff will then give a presentation followed by any board questions, and then the applicant will have a chance to present followed by board questions. The public hearing is then open for public comment at 3 min each

[23:08] followed by board questions, and then, after the last person under public comment has spoke, the applicant will have 3 min to respond to anything that was said. After that the public hearing is closed and the Board discusses a motion requires an affirmative vote of at least 3 members to pass motions, must state findings, conclusions, and a recommendation, and finally, a record of the hearing is available. So with that I turn it back to the board for any ex parte contacts. John, I have none, I have none. I have none. Are you having none? Wonderful? Thank you. So the criteria for the Landmarks Board Review this evening is found in 9 1118 B. And C of the Boulder Revised Code, and that is, whether the work proposes, enhances, or restore, restores, and does not damage exterior architectural features of the property

[24:05] that the work 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 Landmarks board considers the economic feasibility of alternatives, such as as well as incorporation of energy, efficient design, and enhanced access for the disabled. Today the options for the landmarks board are either to approve the application, approve it with conditions, or deny the application. If the landmarks board approves the application. That decision is subject to a 16 day call-up period by city council. We did need to extend it because of City Council's schedule, so they have until February first to call up the decision if it is approved. If the Board denies the application, that decision is subject to a 30 Day Council call up period.

[25:03] Let's see. In 2020 the owners replaced a fence that had been constructed in the 1980 S. Using the same footprint, and in February 2022, the city issued a violation. Notice and order! To the property owners for the fence! The Ldrc. Then reviewed the application. And let's see, Ronnie Bill and my predecessor, James Hewitt, were on the Ldrc. They reviewed it in May of 2022, and referred the application to the Landmarks Board for Review. Here, in a public hearing. the hearing was initially scheduled for September of 2022 we were still holding virtual meetings because of Covid, and during that time of virtual meetings we, the city, sent a waiver to the owners, agreeing to the virtual platform. The owners have a option of whether to agree to that or not. The owners

[26:02] O opted to stay until we were back in person, which, as of November of 2,023. We're finally here, back in person. So here we are this evening. Let's see, the Board has received 6 letters of support regarding this fence so far. That's all. Public comment received before yesterday. At 5 Pm. The comments received early were included in the memo and those received after the memo was posted had been has those were forwarded to the board. and so I'm going into the application. The property is located on the eastern edge of the Mapleton Hill historic district, on the east side of Fourth Street, between Mapleton Avenue and Han Highland Avenue and an alley runs along the north side of the property. Here's a couple of views of the house. The tax accessor card is on the left hand side, taken in about 1929, and then the photo provided by the owners was taken around 1986. It's a one story frame house constructed in 1911 and features, a front gable roof with overhanging eaves. The building is clad in narrow lap, siding with shingles on the gable end.

[27:17] and a hip through porch extends across the facade, supported by slender square columns and stick balustrades. And there's a multi light door that's flanked by 2 multi light windows. There's a 2 story addition which was constructed in the late 1980 S. Located at the rear of the house, and the historic stone wall is located along the south property line and and still exists today. So the fence under your consideration this evening begins at the south with the southeast corner of the property, and extends the width of the front of the property and the length of the north property line along the alleyway towards the rear of the property. The fence jogs to provide. 2 off street parking spaces, and the fence ends at the accessory building at the rear of the lot.

[28:10] The fence is constructed of cedar, and is finished with a semi-transparent stain. It has 6 inch wide, vertical pickets spaced about a half inch apart, with a top rail and decorative finials. The height of the fence is 6 foot 3 at the northeast corner adjacent to the alley, and then steps down to the height of 5 foot 3 inches at the stone wall. And we had asked the right of way inspectors to confirm that it meets other City code criteria, and they confirm that it. It does meet the site triangle requirements. The height of the fence along the north elevation near the parking lot is 4 foot 8. You'd see that in the photos on the screen. Oh. and then going back. The fence is not located on the stone wall of the property, and so it's on the east side, along fourth, and then along the north side, which is along the alleyway, 2 sides of the property.

[29:09] So, turning to the criteria for the Board's decision. We based our analysis on the code in 9 1118 B. And C. As well as the general design guidelines for historic districts and individual landmarks. So going to the standards for issuance of a landmark, alteration certificate it asks, does the proposed application preserve, enhance, or restore and not damage or destroy the exterior architectural features of the landmark or the subject property within a historic district. And so staff found that the fence does not touch the contributing house, so it does not negatively impact damage or destroy the architectural features of the property. Next question, does the proposed application adversely affect the special character or special historic, architectural or aesthetic interest or value of the landmark, property or historic district.

[30:05] The fence does obstruct the primary view of the House from the East and the North, public rights of way. But the house remains visible from the south as you're heading north along the sidewalk because of that historic stone wall. The stone wall is along, the south, property is maintained, and the front fence does not interrupt to the pattern of open front lawns. That's common in other parts of the district, especially the streets that run east, west generally characterized by broad lawns or open lawns with very uniform setbacks. That character does not exist on Fourth Street, where the houses on the east side of Fourth Street it's often the side yards that face forth, and then the fronts of the houses on the west side of Fourth Street. Don't have that uniform character that you might see on, say, spruce or or Mapleton

[31:01] and so staff on the front fence does not interrupt the pattern of front open front lawns, or adversely affect the special character of the historic district. is the architectural style, arrangement, texture, color, arrangement of color, and materials used on the existing and proposed structures compatible with the character of the landmark property. The front yard fences 5 foot 5 inches to 6 feet in height, with approximately half inch spacing between pickets, which does provide some visual relief. and it is constructed of traditional material, which is wood finished with an opaque stain. The general design guidelines in Mapleton Hill design guidelines, discourage front, yard fences, and state that where they are approved they should be lower than 3 feet, and then open in continuing that where there are side yard fences they should remain low until the front corner of the house, which at point a taller height, may be appropriate. however, due to the character of Fourth Street, the location of the alley along the north side of the property, and the fact that the view of the contributing house is maintained. The construction of the height and location of the fence in this case is appropriate.

[32:12] The approximately half inch spacing provides some visual relief in the the fence is constructed of wood. As I mentioned a traditional material. and then, in determining whether to approve an Lac, the board will consider the economic feasibility of it. Alternatives information specific to this code criteria wasn't submitted or may not be relevant to this particular application. So going to the Mapleton Hill, historic district Guidelines and the general design guidelines. We can reference these, if needed, but going to the kind of the meet of the staff analysis. Staff finds that while the height of the front and side yard fence is inconsistent with the general design, guidelines and the Mapleton Hill historic district guidelines. Its construction meets the standards for the issuance of an Lac.

[33:07] In that the fence matches the location and height of the fence constructed in the 19 eighties before the establishment of the historic district, as well as the general style and materials of the older fence. The construction of the fence does not result in the loss of historic fabric. As the fence does not touch the contributing house. the historic wall along the South property line is retained and provides a view of the historic house from the south. The front yard fence does not interrupt a pattern defined by open front lawns. As there is no cohesive frontage along Fourth Street. The streetsscape character of the 2,300 block of Forth is not characterized by uniform setbacks or open front lawns as side yards meet the east side of Fourth Street. and finally, the fence uses traditional material and finish. And the finish side of the fence faces the street in the alley, and they're spacing between the pickets. So those components of the fence do meet the design guidelines.

[34:07] So if that staff recommends that the landmarks board approve the application as proposed. And with that I'm happy to answer any questions. That the Board may have. I have a quick one, and I should know in the Mapleton historical district was established. But are you talking about when the expansion of that district cause it expanded at 1 point to include that west side of Fourth Street correct and that is a piece of trivia. I'm not sure but your point is the original sense that the current owners used as a footprint that did not go or need to go through the preservation program for approval. Right? It was put in before before the district designation of the property.

[35:03] and I was just wondering if you could speak, maybe, to that topic, and a little more detail as to how the establishment of districts and components of buildings that may or may not comply with current regulation. They have some relevance to today's review. Yeah. And it's a little bit tricky, because when something that didn't go through design review before that wouldn't be the only reason to approve it again. I think in our staff analysis. One thing that we considered is that this fence has obstructed the view from 2 public riders way of this house since the district was created, and that hadn't detracted from the overall historic character. And so it's replacement in kind wouldn't further detract from the from the historic character versus one that had been added with with no precedent, or or that had changed the character that was there previously.

[36:12] but it but just because it was there before the district was created. Isn't the sole reason that we're recommending approval tonight? And you you mentioned that the style of the fence is the same that was put there before, but when we look at the old style it was more the the location, and the height was the same as well as the material, but the design of the top is now straight, whereas before it was curved. and I don't know if

[37:01] maybe we could just get a quick report on the number of public comments that came in via email. On this. I believe there have been 6 letters, all in support of the fence as as constructed and exists today. Thank you. And now I know I promise not to forget this. It. The district was designated in 1,982, and expanded in 2,002. Thank you. I guess my comments are that based on what I read in the letters that I read and based on what I've been given to see tonight, John. Sorry to interrupt you. I just not sure if we're in deliberation. I just know John so well. We always lead in the same way.

[38:09] Well, if if there are no further board questions, I could revisit the Order of tonight. So I've completed the staff presentation. The owners now have 10 min to present. And then, after that it's open for public participation, followed by a chance for the owners to respond to anything that was said. After that, then you'll start your board deliberation. Thank you, Marcy. So the owners Marsha and Charles Lamb are here this evening. Thank you, and you're welcome to come up. I will need to swear you in. Hi, welcome, and just raise your right hand, and say you swear to tell the Board the whole truth.

[39:04] I do state your name for the recording, and your 10 min will begin. Charlie Lamb. Is that all? That's all you need? Yeah, well, II wanna thank you for what you guys do we believe in in historic preservation, and we have recently, before we rebuilt this fence. We worked on a project with James Hewitt and other people on the on the committee. To restore an alley shed, which we did. We had to dig it up out of the ground, raise it up on stilts. and re pore the foundation, regrade, grade the landscape, and build the shed from inside out to the tune of about $50,000. But it it looks the same as it did, but it's something we can use. and we appreciate it.

[40:01] I can read a letter that you've probably all read, but I don't want to waste anyone's time with that. If if everyone's read it. I just I think it seems to me according to what we received from Aubri in an email that the decisions already determination's been made. But I'm not sure about that. So do I need to make a case here. That's well. We have staff recommendation, which you know is always important as well as letters of support from the community. But we will be making the decision. You know. Well, I'll just read this, because that's all I got. So we receive. Let's see.

[41:00] First of all, it never occurred to us that rebuilding our fence would re require an lac, and we apologize for that. But we built the fence, and and now we're here. So. There's a brief history of our life on Fourth Street, as it relates to our fence when we moved here in 1,977 property had a quiet, almost rural feel to it. surrounded by a small picket fence which you may have seen in some of the photos and a modest through traffic. On Fourth Street in 1978, Jim Drescher, a local Buddhist practitioner, built a large house in the alley behind to the west of our house. It soon became a gathering place for a growing Buddhist community. Large gatherings and followers began to take place at the property. Fourth Street. In. Let's see. Fourth Street in front of our house became parking for these events, and people were walking through our yard and up and down the alley constantly. We were unable to

[42:05] sit on our front porch without serving as sort of a receptionist for these people and directing them out of a need for peace and privacy, we decided to build a fence along the east and north sides of our property. leaving the beautiful historic stone wall on the south, exposed at the time Mapleton Hill was not designated historic, so we we permitted and built a fence in accordance with the codes and guidelines of time. Over time the fence began to wear out, and the posts were rotting beyond repair. So in 2020 we rebuild it to the same specs and the footprint as original with the exception of the scalloped contour that we had provided over the original fence, which lent itself to deterioration, and and we had to repaint it all the time, and it was rotting. And so we we chose cedar for this new one.

[43:06] Over the years. Boulder has grown. Traffic has increased on Fourth Street. Mount Senita's trail has become wildly popular. Trailhead community has been developed, and the massive 3 11 Mapleton Project has begun in full force in good weather, especially on weekends. Senitis, hiitas, senitis, hikers fill the parking places in front of our house at. and and some even have, after after hike, tailgate parties in front of our house. We don't begrudge them this, but our need for privacy is more important than ever. We. We spend more time in our garden than most people on in the neighborhood. Ours is not one of those man's with 30 or 40 feet setback. and our front porch is only steps from front from Fourth Street. This is all compounded

[44:05] by the fact that parking on Fourth Street is confined to only our side of the street. In spite of all this, we still love living in the neighborhood, in our special location. which would not be the case. if not for the privacy of our fence. We've taken special care and pride in building an aesthetic and fitting addition here. I'm also pleased to mention that our many neighbors, without exception. have complimented, complimented us on the improvement. We realize that our fence does not allow or does not follow, all the current historic based suggestions for Mapleton Hill. We do hope that you'll take into consideration our need to ensure our quality of life. And we've obviously supplied photos, etc. Please forgive our technological sort. Well, that that has to do with the application process. But you got it. So yeah, that's all I got. So thank you for listening. Thank you so much. Do any of my colleagues have a question for the applicant for Mr. Liam? I don't know.

[45:16] Yeah, I do. I appreciate you working on the shed in the back. I've heard a lot of stories about it from Kersley. but I do want to know, like you kind of said in your letter, but you do feel the same way as when that the the the people next door to you, like you, still want that privacy in the front, and that's why you created the fence in 1,900 eighty's right. Was that? Well, it's all our fence that that has been remodeled 5 times since we've lived there. I've participated in 3 of those. It was just recently remodeled for probably 2 years with traffic. We've we've submitted photos of that to trucks going up and down the alley, and and

[46:07] construction materials and staging in front of our house for that So with regard to that house, it's it's been finished. They're they're new occupants, and they have rebuked, begun their remodel of it. which now has lasted several months, you know, so we anticipate in this neighborhood where we live. Constant remodeling projects, and and all around our house seems to be a logical staging place for materials. equipment and so forth. Yeah, so the privacy on Fourth Street, the alleyway, the Fourth street. Yeah. The privacy on the alleyway has to do with that house? The privacy on Fourth Street has more to do with

[47:02] staging of things that happen there, and the Sanita's traffic the traffic that occurs now with the construction of the new Ableton. yep. was called the Academy Project. So so the need for privacy is still big. Yeah, more than ever. Really. thank you, and you will have an opportunity if you want to come back up for 3 min after any public comment. Thank you so much, and and thank you for sharing that letter cause you illuminated some things for me personally. So thank you. So we will move on to public comment. And, Aubrey, I don't know if you've received any sign ups. Sorry, unmuting. My mic is so clunky. I have not received any in person. Sign ups. Is anyone interested in speaking great? Come on up.

[48:14] Sign in no, it's okay. and I will need to swear you in. Since this is a quasi judicial hearing. If you please, raise your hand and swear to the tell the board the whole truth, and then state your full name. Your 3 min will begin tonight. And is that what you need? Yep. okay. Great. Yeah. Sorry. Didn't want to act like I was on trial or something. But yeah. My name is David Kirk. I live at the 420 Highland Street, which is just kind of down the corner from from the Lambs. That's nice to see you here tonight. we've lived there for over 30 years, and we've been front of this board before for our house. We have a craftsman bungalow and had approval for addition that we did as well

[49:07] a number of years ago, and and I just appreciate the time and expertise that the staff and the board bring to this. I know th. These guidelines are not easy to apply, so I appreciate your trying to find a nice e compromise in between. Let me get to my conclusion first, and then I'll and then I'll kind of tell you how I got there. I support approving approving the Lambs proposal tonight. but I think the Board should be very careful to avoid setting a precedent whereby more properties on Fourth street asked to build front yard privacy fences that are higher than the recommended 3 foot guideline for front yard fences. I think this fence presents a very difficult Balancing act for you to decide upon. If this fence was coming to you as a new project. I think when you look at the guidelines. It's pretty hard to imagine that it would pass.

[50:05] It's much higher than the the 3 feet. It blocks the view from the street. The materials are not spaced adequately based on what I've seen, other fences and guidelines recommended, as. on the other hand. the lands have lived in the neighborhood for almost 50 years. The fence was built before the historic district came into being, and it really almost matches the other one in size and scope and scale. So when I look at it, I think that's kind of the controlling factor. What they're really doing is replacing a nonconforming use that hasn't matched the historical guidelines with one that is improved and nicer looking than the older fence. And they're not impacting the historic district with this new fence. But what I'm concerned about is the reports view that the Fourth Street

[51:01] Streetscape has been compromised by what's happening on the east side of the street, because those are side yard fences. What we're talking about is the west side of Fourth Street. which are front yard fences, and, in fact. this fence is the only fence on the west side that is higher than 3 flea. It's the only fence that doesn't have the appropriate spacing. It's the only fence that's not out of wrought iron or picket. And so I think the 4 streets streetscape needs to be protected still on the west side of the street. and I don't want. I would like to ask that anything in the report that references that this fence is not in violation of that Fourth Street streetscape be taken out of the report, because it sets a precedent for other people to come in and say they would like to have higher fences on Fourth Street to protect their privacy on the West Side. which is right now an uninterrupted open street in in accordance with the guidelines. So, anyway, please approve the fences they've asked, but please do it in a way that does not set a precedent for further, I fences on the west side of Fourth Street. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you for taking the time and effort to be here this evening.

[52:18] Alright. Would anyone else in person like to speak? All right, and I'm going to switch it off to Amanda, who is handling the virtual participants. So thanks, Aubrey. It looks like we have one hand raised at the moment. Lynn Siegel. The truth. The best as I know it. I'm not big on fortress fences, you know. I saw this image at the beginning 1929,

[53:06] and like it's a house I don't like walking in the neighborhood and looking at a big fence. That's why we don't have fences in Mapleton. And you know, if if you're building something, I really feel bad for them, because they spend a lot of money on this fence. But there isn't the spacing and the height is way over. And just because it was built originally since the landmark district happened. I don't think that's an excuse. They have a new fence now, and that fence should meet regulations. And I don't buy that, that they're having impacts from from the Academy at Mapleton and and the neighbors. There's no Buddhist partying down the alley anymore. And you know, when you have, when you live in this area, you know that everyone you know th like the dairy right next to me at 6 than Maxwell. Now, they're totally getting it. They every 5 years they got these places and redo them.

[54:23] it's like putting on a new dress. These huge, expensive carbon footprint type projects. And that's the way it goes. And the problem here is that you're not meeting really the guidelines for this neighborhood, and I don't think that it should be violated. You know they can go to the right hat they can. I don't know how they're gonna get the spacing fixed with this fence, aside from installing an entirely new fence, but the height is obstructive. It's a fortress. It's ruined my community benefit of looking at the house.

[55:05] and that was the purpose of the guidelines to start with. so I don't think you need to, you know. set up a thing with a precedent like the person before, said the precedent is established itself. You've got a big fortress there on this. on this property and front yard fences and facing forth is just not okay with me. I wanna see what the houses, if I wanna live in, you know, in an apartment building somewhere. Then that's one thing. But this is a historic neighborhood where homes are seen and and the other thing about fences is that they entrap beeps. So it's not a security issue, and you can get window treatments to get your privacy done. Thank you, Lynn

[56:02] and Amanda. You'll let us know if there's anyone else who wishes to speak to this. I don't. I'm not seeing any more hands raised at this time. Okay, we'll wait just a few seconds and then close. We'll go ahead and close public participation for this hearing, and you are welcome to come up for an additional 3 min. If there's anything you'd like to add or rebut. That was just said. Thank you. Okay, thank you. So with that being said. We'll move to board discussion, and we'll make sure, Kurt, if you have anything you want to add that you'll have a chance. I don't know if any of my colleagues would like to kick it off since I tried once before. I this this one is a little thorny in the sense that it. It is a replacement of something that was grandfathered. However.

[57:05] I think that it's arguable that there was a reason for the original fence. And it did occur before. The district included this property. and the subsequent fence is an improvement at least to the view of the neighborhood. A a percentage of the neighborhood a high percentage of the neighborhood. I don't think that it's necessarily a violation. I do think that some noting of the fact that it differs from the guidelines, needs to be made in the in the motion. and because I think that you do otherwise create a precedent by the existence of the fence.

[58:04] and I think that it's approvable as as Staff found it. But I think that that is something that we should consider is language that would do that. Thank you, John. Or can we ask that more questions? Yes, okay, so I just have a question. The thing that they're talking about spacing, does it not meet the one inch spacing requirement? Is it one inch? What's the requirement? First of all, yeah, it so. The guidelines are not a checklist. Their guidelines and the guidelines recommend one inch spacing between the pickets rather than a stockade fence with no spacing, and so in the past. The Drc. And the Board have review, or have approved fences with half inch spacing before one inch spacing is more common, because that

[59:04] can be reviewed at the administrative level versus at Ldrc level. So what is this? One half inch, half inch. Okay? And then regarding the height of the fence. So why was, why is Staff inclined to approve it, when usually the height of the fences are at 3 feet on that end, like, I think we kind of went into it. But what was the what like? Those are the 2 things I think, that are more pressing for us like you can't. I mean, we can see it on the the south side, but on the it's I mean, it's in the front. So it's like, I know it's replacing the fence, but if the fence blew down and they came to the landmark board again, we would. I feel like we would require it to be a lower grade. and and that's the decision in front of you tonight. So the height of the fence is the the

[60:04] biggest piece that conflicts with the design guidelines both for the district and for the general design guidelines where Staff has come to, is saying it does conflict with that guideline about height, where the guidelines otherwise say generally there weren't front fences in Mapleton Hill. but if you are going to introduce them they should be 3 feet or less. So we we acknowledge that this fence isn't in compliance with that design. Guideline. However, there's many factors, and it's not just one of these and so the precedent concern which does come a lot up in these applications. the landmark alteration certificate review. And in this quasi-judicial setting your charge is to review review it, case by case, and to consider the very unique factors of this one. So if approved tonight, it doesn't mean that every fence proposal for a 6 foot front yard fence would automatically be approved.

[61:08] of course there are applications that point to other things that have been approved in the district, and that that could be compelling. But tonight you're making your decision based on the factors in front of you. So to answer your question. These are the main factors that Staff found in our recommendation for approval. So the fence matches the location and the height of the fence constructed in the 80 s. Before the designation of the district. And that's not saying that just because something was nonconforming them guarantees it in the future. It's more that when the district was designated, the house was already obscured by 2 views, you could still see it from the south, which you can today. So the change in the character of the overall historic district hasn't changed because that condition already existed since the creation of the district.

[62:01] The second piece is that the construction of the fence does not result in the loss of the historic fabric because it doesn't touch the fence. It is reversible without damaging the the physical features of the house. The wall along the South property line is retained, and if that fence, if that stone wall weren't there, the fence would likely go around and and create a visual barrier around the entire property, but because that historic stone wall is there and preserved, it preserves a view of the house from the public right-of-way. The front yard fence does not interrupt the pattern divide defined by the open front yards along Fourth Street. That's where I talked about along Spruce or Mapleton. You have this pattern of generally open wide lawns, with the houses, with a general generally the same setback that a fence like this would really interrupt that pattern, whereas on Fourth Street

[63:02] there's one character on the West side, another character on the East Side, and so interrupting that with with a fence in this location doesn't have the same impact as it would on on a different property. That particular bullet isn't in the findings that we've proposed for the landmarks board to the to the earlier comment. And then finally, the fence does use traditional materials. If it were a Vinyl fence, this would be a different conversation. What is a traditional material found for fences in Mapleton Hill, and the finish with an opaque stain also meets the guidelines as well as the finish side of the fence faces the street in the alley, and there is some spacing between the pickets. You had said that the height doesn't meet the guidelines. Is that a violation? Well, so the guidelines are not a checklist, and rarely is a a project going to meet every single one, and that's not how they should be used. It's the standards that are key, and if the board finds that the fence doesn't meet the standards. Then you should deny the application.

[64:15] However, staff does both. We say it doesn't meet all of the design guidelines, but it still meets the standards which talk more broadly about an adverse impact to the overall historic character, damaging historic material, etc. So I think in this case, and as John John's word, it's a thorny one. But in this case Staff's recommendation is that it does meet the standards for issuance of an Elec, even though it doesn't conform to all of the guidelines about fences it. It is essentially an in-kind replacement, and if you had, like a catastrophic destruction of something that was nonconforming. Normally, you would be allowed to replace that in kind.

[65:08] not necessarily, but normally kind of leave. This is a difficult one. and I understand both sides of what's presented here in terms of why this might be approvable, and why it might not be approvable. I agree with the conversations that are being had about the precedent and the impact of multiple homes on the west side of Fourth Street, allowing to be head fences and do believe that those front yards are important and contribute to the character of the community kind of, as explained by one of our community members.

[66:00] I am a little torn on this. I don't know whether or not this is actually an improvement to, or offense that is in greater compliance than the previous one. I think that maybe that statement was made by someone at some point. And for a handful of reasons, it seems like. maybe it's not the sat. This. I know it, says opaque staying on the staff analysis, but II think it's a semi transparent and I think that the semi. The transparency is beautiful, right? But it's also not typically what's found in terms of the finishes on fences. In our historic district. So in some ways that specific characteristic. It's a step that is even further away from having a fence that is compliant. I'd like to hear what my fellow board members think I could see an approvable approach to this. But I think it would be just because it's a unique case. And while I haven't been on the board for many years, while I haven't personally seen us make decisions based on

[67:13] homes that have features that are not compliant, that are reconstructed, but the homes that have those features had them before a district was established, and that being a piece of the a puzzle. I can see that playing heavily in this particular case. That would be the one thing that sways me to lean towards approving this. I do also believe that 6 community members that are meeting perhaps 7 that are in the immediate area have come out to show support. And again, I think if I were to vote to approve this, it's just the specifics of this particular home, and I'm in agreement that we should be sensitive how a precedent might.

[68:02] You know we might be clear on how precedent might not be set by this. Thank you, Ronnie, and I have to admit I struggled with this, too. You know there's the part of me that wants to be accommodating, and I know the easy thing would be sure. Yes, and you know II could tell your great stewards of this property. I was found it very compelling about the reasons why the first one was built, and that some of those issues, even if they're different now. Still, you want to be afforded that privacy. I feel like the other thing I wanna say is, you know I it would be easy to say yes, but I also did not apply for the landmarks board for everything to be easy and neat and tidy. However, one of the things that I don't think it meets the guidelines, and because we do strive to be consistent and predictable. I do know of other projects that have been turned down for sub

[69:01] like this, but they didn't have an offense there originally. Before the district was formed. However, one of the things I do have to share that's making me kind of lean away that initially, I did not think I'd leave when I first moved to Boulder I lived at Fourth and Pearl, so I could not tell you how many times I walked up and down 4 Street a lot easier coming back down home. But I think that one of the things I do want us to think about is that west side of Forest Street is so different than what's on the East Side. I can think of a fabulous gale. Abel's house that I loved, that that was demolished on that street, and even the woman who lived in it for years and had commissioned it, spoke at this landmark for it, and said she was okay with that to let the new owners do that so that side of the street. I'm very mindful it's a little eclectic. So if I had to for myself, say I could justify it, because that is such a unique

[70:01] stretch up from spruce to, you know, even past Mapleton Avenue. II think that that has me thinking differently than if that street was was all homes of a certain era. I mean there. There are like homes from the eighties built there, and this and that, not to mention some very recent homes that that are actually little works of art. So II it, you know, because I know that times when I make of it, I wanna be able to justify it to other people who may not get something similar done in that same historic district. That west side of Forest Street is something I think we would would be wise to consider as we continue this conversation, and I think that one thing that I neglected to say that I intended to say. and this came up kind of somewhat in one of the Ldrcs that I attended.

[71:03] it's it's a component of the neighborhood. It. It's a visual component of that side of the street that's been there since the eighties in the sense that it's something you. So it's it's part of the visual history of that area. As recently as the 80 s. Or or as long ago as the eighties, almost hitting the 50 year limit. time being what it is, and so replacing it somewhat in kind, is preserving that visual presence. It's not a new introduction. It's not something abrupt that has happened in that. It's something that if you've lived around here you're used to seeing. and you never thought about it one way or the other until now. So that's that's another argument. I guess that's kind of the basis of my existing condition. Kind of an argument. Well, my only argument to that is that like

[72:05] it's kind of like. If I'm walking up and down that street. it looks like a a fence that's in just an everyday fence over in a non historical area. So I don't know. Most suburban, very, very suburban fence that, like. you know. Now, this isn't a cute fence that had those little you know, those that little scalloped edging, too right? That would have been something like in kind would have been an easier thing to say like, Oh, hey! Didn't meet the height requirement, but at some point it was 5 feet. Then it was lower to 4 feet, maybe, and it wasn't 5 feet. I mean. there's a little bit to say to the fact that when I see the fence I just feel like it's like suburban instead of cute Fourth Street

[73:01] thing, and that's probably my. That's the one part that I'm somewhat fighting with, because that Kurt, I want to give you a chance if you'd like to. Sure. Thanks. Those were all. I felt very insightful comments, and I agree that this is sort of a challenging thing just a couple of thoughts. One is that if the applicant had not built a new house, but a new house, a new fence, but had been replacing the post and the stringers and the pickets one by one as they failed. You know that that fence would still be there, and it wouldn't even have to get an LAC. Right, and so that in to some degree argues for approving what was built. I have sort of a only a vague recollection of what the previous fence felt like. But my! That vague recollection is that it was more permeable. It felt more open

[74:04] because of the low spots. And so one thing that could be considered. And maybe this is kind of a splitting. The baby kind of a solution is that potentially the fence could be changed into that sort of scalped form, retaining most of the existing material hopefully if the structure allows for that, but allowing creating that greater permeability and and something more similar to the fence that was there before. I think there one comment about making the fence all one height is for ease of maintenance, because when you have the scalloped edges, the water goes into those things. So when it's one, they're not gonna have to replace it as many times, you know, which is an ease of of use, and we don't want to put so that is, makes it more sustainable to have that little piece on top, because now it is going to be there for a longer time, which also means we should be very

[75:05] thoughtful on our approval, cause it will be there for quite some time. and you know that that was the way, you know, when we build something we want it to be sustainable, but when they do the scallops. That's what's causing it to deteriorate. The other thing I also thought about throughout reading the memorandum. And then here tonight is, you know we do have guidelines. but we have the luxury of looking at this property within those guidelines versus another property in the historic district. So I wanna be careful that I apply it to this situation, not think about other cases where something might or might not have been proposed, or whatever

[76:03] anyone I mean Ronnie and John. Do you have more to share? I don't. I hear some concerns? I don't hear a consensus yet of how to move forward. And you know personally, the fence on the alley isn't a concern for me. even maybe at that height it's more sort of the loss from the streetscape. That that! But I don't know how that can be addressed after the fact as easily and gracefully and and smartly. What is what is our options like, do we? Do we say it's approvable with these conditions? Or we say it's approvable and walk away? Is it a like? We can make conditions, can't we, Marcy? Yeah. And I see Chris Reynolds from the city attorney's office. He's virtual this evening. So Chris, please chime in if I get this wrong. But I believe that the board can either approve it or approve it with conditions. But the board is not in the position about taking action on the enforcement piece, so that's handled administratively. Staff would

[77:23] separately decide what the enforcement piece would be. Your purview is. Does this fence meet the standards for issuance of an lac, or does it not? And Chris, if you wouldn't mind confirming the Board's options in terms of approving versus approving with conditions. Yeah, thank you for so much. I would hesitate to do a approval with conditions. I think the more the cleaner way to do that would be for the applicant to resubmit with new design and so that would mean that it's either approve or deny, and so I do not believe that the Board has the authority to approve with conditions

[78:14] like one clarification, though in this case, because the the fence exists, it would be approve with proposed modifications or suggested modifications that would not necessarily be conditions mean for what it's worth. I'm I see it as approvable with the language that would clarify the fact that it's a unique situation and was judged as such and does not. And I and I think that would be within the criteria and and for review to taking it it as a unique property, and that would be

[79:04] acceptable. I mean the one thing that were like looking at all the stuff is that when you look at this part of the house you don't realize it's the front. It almost feels like the front is on the other. unless you see it from the south coming up the hill right. hey? It looks like a backyard. No. cause. It's like across the street. It's almost like, oh, across the street there's a long, there's a long fence, but it's not the front of the house. It's the backup room. It's a side yard or a backyard. Yeah. So, John, did I hear you are leaning, or will be supporting staff. Yeah, I'm inclined to support Staff's recommendation.

[80:00] I'm looking at you. There is an enforcement component which isn't our part of our purview, but it makes it even more challenging, just as a person that understands what it means to put time and money into something, and then, you know, know that you're exposed to the possibility of being requested to change it. And so, you know, there's a human side to being in this chair here and knowing that there's a decision that is on the table that could affect somebody beyond the consequence of, you know, their exposure to their neighbors, or traffic, or plenty of good reason, but, like the financial ramification. So I am being particularly quiet about this. I think this property is unique and not the unique pieces that we've already talked about, but because it does a button Alley. And so, you know, I can see it being much, much more justifiable to have a taller fence along the alley side of this house if I were to dissect the parts that are, you know how? What are the most palatable? Deviant deviants?

[81:09] That's what I'm looking for deviances, deviations from the guidelines say somebody's being deemed but and that would be. you know, the typical application of the code would say, The taller fence can only occur from behind the primary elevation of the building. Which would also be behind the front porch. And so clearly this is not following those typical standards. Because it's on a corner that abuts an alley. I could see greater leniency in the interpretation that might allow for taller fence to extend further forward on the property on the side that is the alley, and under normal circumstances, regardless of the presence of this fence before 1980. S. I could see us contemplating that, and that being provable without

[82:09] that, the particularity of the the timing of this I am still very torn. I think there's versions of compromise here that could deal with the applicant's needs, and that might also be able to deal with design solutions about what's already been created. and those might be to allow for variations in heights or versions of transparency. and the picket fence as it moves around the property, and, you know, exceeds the 36 inch height. and again, under normal circumstances, I would be talking about that in much greater detail and trying to enforce that. I feel like what we're hearing from the attorney is we have, like an on or off option here. And I am honestly torn. I would love to work with the applicant to make this in greater compliance, and I think that there are options for it.

[83:19] and I'm not saying that this is the absolute way, or that I've made a decision and going this out, what does a denial mean? I don't think I know what the ramifications of that are come back for like year. So II did wanna amend something I previously said, which is something attorneys have to do from time to time, so you can approve an this application in part or deny it in part. And so I got wrapped around the idea of a condition. But you can do a partial approval or which would be a partial denial of kind of the same thing. It would just require very clear and concise

[84:07] mo whatever motion is adopted, it would be need to be very clear in terms of what what is being approved and what is not been approved. Thank you. I think that's helpful. And because I'm surrounded by 3 esteemed architects here in Boulder, and I'm not one. I don't even know. Structurally, if something is built like that, what can be altered without being an enormous expense, or it's it's built. It's built in linear units, so you could conceivably shorten the fence unit by unit. You could modify it to the degree where you shorten sections of it. You would have to reconstruct the structure in a way that would allow you to do that on that unit. because it's the units are post. There's post to post and then spans between it. so you could modify each of those in some way.

[85:04] I based on what I just heard. You could conceivably approve one side of it. and not approve the other side of it. But I may ask another clarifying question. I mean, this is kind of in the lead here. But if we're looking to move forward? This is a dimension question. Do we know how high the stone existing stone wall is about 3 feet. II do not know, but the owners may be able to answer that if you wanted to ask them. does the owner know 3 and a half days. So, yeah, it looks about 3 feet. So one thing about the fence which I'm going to take the other side that I just did is the fact that it is a fence.

[86:00] It is replacing something that was there. It is also their neighborhood right? And we had 6 to 7 people that approved it, and it's their neighborhood. Let me go back to the beginning. It is a fence like we're not, you know, like, Look, it's it's removable. It's not permanent, and I think Staff did a really good job of pointing that out. You know Marcy's always taught me the mantra do no harm, and I think that's one thing. I'm kind of thinking of the other thing, cause this is challenging, and we want to give give you an answer and work through this. I also wanna know that we thought this might take about 30 min for deliberations. I think we've or just approaching that, or maybe a little over, but II think for me. if it were any other block blocks or stretch of blocks, that west side of Fourth Street is so unique and so eclectic. You know that that is one way that I could justify a vote for it. Well, I think the justification would be that the neighbors

[87:10] are in support of it, and it, you know, like I want to say, the neighborhood. II know we're have to live up to the guidelines, but the staff did a good job in telling us this is how they meet the guidelines. and so so it's just kind of plain opposite coin. Well, and II would think that this staff did not arrive at this lightly, that they went through a lot of the same thought, process, and conversation that you all get to hear in public right now. So I know they don't. I know that they really weighed a lot of different factors and so forth. Yeah, I don't think we need to construct a justification. I think we can. We can say that our rationale for taking a vote

[88:02] in. In my case, it starts with the fact that it's been there for a significant amount of time. It's a replacement of something somewhat in kind that's been there for a significant amount of time. That it was constructed. I based on the photographs. I'd be willing to say that it was constructed in a proper and elegant way, and treated in a way that is not just offense thrown into the space it was considered, and it is sustainable. And it's properly treated. It's arguable that it's I mean. opaque stain, transparent stain. It's stronger colored than a transparent stain, which is the thing that's out and out prohibited in the guideline so I think it. I still am

[89:02] inclined to say this is approvable with the condition of language that limits it to this location and this set of conditions. So I'm gonna say that I agree. So we gonna come up with a motion. Well, I'm gonna hear from Ronnie. Maybe maybe I don't like. I said II can see a version of an approval here, because this is a unique case. and I think that Staff has outlined it. I think we've circled around it. I asked about the height of the stone wall, thinking that maybe there's discussion to be had but about a potential alternative to the height of the fence at the the front defense at the front, which might be exceed 36 inches. But

[90:02] be referential to something that's an existing condition. But I think that I would agree to approve this because of the uniqueness of this case. But only because of the uniqueness of this case. I don't see another circumstance where something like this would come forward. Because of how much it's deviated, but primarily because of the height. But I think in this case Staff has put together a good staff report and I think that this would qualify for approval. and I agree with you. And again, this is because we're just looking at this property with this fence and all the nuances of it. And again, you guys, it's such a wonderful neighborhood. But it's like the. It's just such a unique neighborhood that I think it's okay here, where, as in another block or another part of a different historic district. Even it still might not be appropriate. But I think

[91:25] a front and side fence. At 2321 Fourth Street, a contributing property in the Mapleton Hill historic district. Thank you, Ronnie. Do we have a second? Okay on any additional discussion or amendments to Ronnie's motion? I think we still have to put that language in there as an amendment. I believe, Staff said that. The characterization of the west side of okay. Fourth Street is not included in the the findings.

[92:01] So is that correct? That's correct. The findings proposed are up on the screen now, which speak directly to the standards for issuance of an lic. I think number one satisfies me. Ronnie, are you okay with including that? Yep, I think that that all is correct. Okay. so we'll do, we'll do a vote. John Ronnie. Aye, Renee, aye, and I vote aye, so the motion passes unanimously. and the next steps Marcy will outline what the next steps are.

[93:07] Alright. Okay. So with an approval, the decision is still subject to call up by the city council. They typically have a 2 week period. But in this case they'll have until February first, because of the scheduling of their meetings. If they choose not to call it up. Then the lic is issued, and there's no further action from the historic preservation program. If the City Council chooses to call up the landmarks Board's decision. Then a public hearing would be scheduled within 45 days. So we'll follow up with the owners. About any city council action. Thank you. thank you, Marcy. And now I think we'll be turning it over to Claire for item 5 d. Which is a public hearing and consideration of a demolition application for the building located at 2 2, 6, 0 Baseline Road, a non landmarked building over 50 years old, pursuant to section 9, 1123, of the Boulder Revised Code, 1981, and under the procedures prescribed by Chapter 1, 3 of the quasi judicial hearings

[94:22] of the Boulder Revise code. All right, thank you, Abby. I'll go through the quasi judicial hearing procedures again. All speaking to the item will be sworn in, and board members will note any ex parte contacts. I'll give the staff presentation. After that the Board may ask questions. The applicant will have 10 min to present to the board, and the Board may ask questions, will then open the public hearing. After all, members of the public have made comments. The applicant may respond to anything that was said. Will then allow the Board some time to deliberate. A motion requires an affirmative vote of at least 3 members to pass, and motions will State findings, conclusions, and recommendation.

[95:09] The criteria for review to day is outlined in the Boulder Revised Code under 9, 1123, and the purpose of this is reviewing demolition applications to prevent the loss of buildings that may have historic or architectural significance, and that includes loss of architectural integrity. and to provide the time necessary to initiate designation as an individual landmark, or to consider alternatives for the building. Claire, I'm sorry. Should we do ex parte now? Yes, you should I forgot about that? Please do, John? None, I have none. None. Thank you. Thank you, Abby. Ok? So the criteria that can be considered are the eligibility of the building for a designation as an individual landmark.

[96:00] The relationship of the building to the character of the neighborhood. the reasonable condition of the building, and the projective cost of restoration or repair, although not deterioration caused by unreasonable neglect. and the options for the board to night are to approve the full demolition. or place a 180 day stay of demolition to find alternatives to demolition. So this is the the application process. We have a little bit of a complicated one. Tonight, back in February 2023 the we received a a demolition application which was forwarded to the landmarks board. Finding that the building is potentially eligible for designation, a public hearing was scheduled for May third, but the application was withdrawn prior to the meeting, and staff subsequently approved an application to remove just a portion of the street facing Wall

[97:07] as the scope of work would not be detrimental to the potential historic character of the building. This partial demolition approval expired on January eighth. a couple of days ago. And then on December fourth last year the Landmarks Board hearing fee, was paid for a new full Demo demolition application for the building. and staff found that the property meets the significance criteria for individual landmark designation, and and again forwarded the application to the board. And that's where we are today. This property is located on the southwest corner of Baseline Road and Broadway. Sunnyside Lane runs to the south of the property, and Sunnyside Alley to the west. The building faces north and west towards the baseline road and the building's parking lot.

[98:08] The building includes many characteristics of Eussonian design, including a focus on human scale design. The integration of the landscape to bring the outdoors into the building and the use of natural materials and textures. The architect was influenced by Asian design, which you can see here in the low edge of the roof, and the dominant, wide, overhanging eaves and the strong horizontal forms accentuated by those battered columns and the midband balcony. So I think I mentioned already, but the criteria for review to day are outlined in 9, 1123 f. Of the Boulder Revised Code, which are the eligibility of the building for designation as an individual landmark as outlined in 9, 11, one, and 9, 11, 2.

[99:00] The relationship of the building to the character of the neighborhood and the reasonable condition of the building and projected cost of restoration or repair. We used the significance criteria adopted in 1975 to evaluate demolition applications in a consistent manner, and to be eligible, the property only needs to meet one of these criteria. So this is Staff's findings. We found that the building was designed for Developer Don Walker, who's who's there? On the left? He graduated from the University of Colorado in 1959, and was a realtor of the year in 1969. He also served on the Board of the Y.M.C.A. Ben Boulder, Mental Health Committee and the Buff Club, and the Ceu Alumni Alumni Club. and was selected as one of the outstanding young men of America for 1969

[100:03] he went on to serve as a city director of real estate services from 1974 until 1978, and was responsible for the acquisition of more than 9,000 acres of open space for the city of Boulder In 1980 he co-founded the State's first Land Trust, the Colorado open lands. In 1992, the building was purchased by the Land and Water Fund of the Rockies, an environmental law and advocacy organization which was started by boulder attorney, Francis Kelly Green. and the intent there was that the building would be a model for green architecture. In the 19 nineties the property was used as an urban stormwater runoff demonstration project with the University of Colorado. the architectural significance. for this building. The building was designed by architect Kyle Lorensen in the Usonian style, with Asian influences which you see in the pagoda roof forms

[101:08] it has, the building has strong connection between the interior and the exterior spaces and integrates the building and the landscape. We think that Lauren may have drawn inspiration from the Green Shield Building, which is a 920 Eighth Street, which was designed by Hobart Wagner in 1959 and is also an excellent example of the Sonian style and coincidentally, Don Walker, or maybe not. Don Walker was a tenant in the Greenshield building, with Wagner from 1966 until the completion of this newer building in 1968 and the environmental significance. The building is situated prominently on a corner lot. It provides an established and familiar feature on that corner.

[102:00] And the mature landscaping provides a buffer from the street. The urban stormwater, runoff demonstration project from the nineties incorporated some concrete ponds within the original landscaped garden courts. This property is not located in an identified potential historic district. Broadway is the dividing line for between the the commercial areas to the east and the residential area to the west. There was some rapid urban development in this area from the 19 fifties when the when Highway 36 was completed and Broadway was paved. The Commercial building here, though, still fits into the character of the of the neighborhood, with its human scale, low mass and heavily vegetated lot that really kind of respects the residential areas to the west. the applicants to talk more about this, but the property is in a residential high density. 5 zone.

[103:06] And also we have received additional information from the applicant, which, on the condition of the building and the projected cost of repair which I will let them talk to you about. So those are Staff's findings that a stay of demolition is appropriate, based on the criteria set forth in section 9, 1123 f. In that the property may be eligible for individual landmark designation, based upon its historic associations with Dom Walker and Kelly Green and the environmental movement in Colorado. And for its architectural significance as an exemplary Usonian style building with Asian influences and for its prominent location that the property contributes to the character of the neighbourhood as an intact representative of the area's past. and has not been demonstrated to be impractical or economically unfeasible to rehabilitate the building.

[104:04] Staff's recommendation is that the Landmarks Board issue a stay of demolition for the building located at 2260 Baseline road, and the the period would not exceed 180 days, and it would be to explore alternatives to demolishing the building. So that's the end of Staff's presentation. This are the next steps in the process. The applicant will have up to 10 min to present to the board. followed by public participation and and then the opportunity for the applicant to respond to anything that said. And then the Board will deliberate. And the question today for the board is, if the building has historic significance. If, yes, the Board will place a stay of demolition on the application to provide time to consider alternatives, and if no, the board will approve the demolition request. So any questions from the board, John, I see your hand is raised. Has the zoning recently changed on this site, or was it always zone identity

[105:09] that I couldn't tell you? Can? Can you tell me how big the building is and how big the site is that it's on kind of places. Sorry a minute these my computer died. That'd be easy to just. There's the answers. no, Pj, has it, too. Oh, you're so fast. Okay? K. J's answer is that the site is a little more than half an acre.

[106:03] So 25,000. And and the what? What's the cover area of the building. Hello. okay. okay, yeah. So it's always been zone high density. No, it's not cheek. you know. Those might be good questions for the applicant. To my knowledge it hasn't been rezoned in the recent past that it hasn't. It hasn't. But I would ask the applicants. Okay.

[107:02] and that's all I've got for staff. Any harder questions. yes, but caused the self-aware no questions, for so we'll go ahead and invite the applicants up. and I will need to swear you, and since it's quasi judicial, so if you'll raise your hand and tell the board, you'll speak the whole truth, and then state your full name, and your 10 min will then begin. and along with my partners, Britti, Burke and Bo Burris. we own the building a 2260, Baseline road. The project architect Brian Hanneman, who may have some answers. Precise answers to your questions, is also available via zoom. But I just want to check. Where is he

[108:02] showing up there and able to chime in? Yes, Ryan is there. So just one moment while we promote him. Hi, Ryan. Great! Right just a little bit of background we. We purchase this building December of 2022, with plans to build housing on the site. And we have proposed, as clear noted, to demolish the existing building, to clear the site for a new residential building. And Marcy and Claire had at that time encouraged us to consider options that would preserve the existing building. and so, with their guidance, we began designing a concept that partially demolished the existing building, and used the surface parking lot and the remainder of the site which was undeveloped to build additional housing and parking. We were issued a partial demolition approval for the existing building in July of 2,023, and our design team didn't cut loose and

[109:05] began a really detailed design process to figure out how we were going to pull this off. Since receiving that partial demolition approval. We've had various iterations of site layouts and designs that attempted to preserve the building and on also enable us to build the housing envision by the high density zoning on the site. So for reference, this is residential high density. 5 RH. 5 is the highest density residential zoning in the city and our knowledge it's been that way since we've had zoning that part I'm not entirely certain about. I put my hand up, I know, but it's why, as long as we've been paying attention it's been rhyh 5 So after months of design and consideration of various site plan iterations. And looking this really a number of different ways. we have come to the conclusion that it's just not economically feasible

[110:02] to keep the existing building and also develop the housing, the underlying zoning calls for. And frankly, you know the housing that our community really needs and is calling for at the moment we encountered a number of constraints and additional costs that led us to that conclusion, and I won't walk you through the past year of design. But I'll just highlight a few that are really challenging with this site and keeping the building in particular first is parking. keep the existing building in the site where it is now. It's not possible to put structured parking under the building. which is really how you can get more density on a site. It severely limits the amount of space available to meet the parking requirements. and in turn prevents us from building more housing on the site. the building height. This is this is a really big one. We're unable to expand the existing building to the West so initially. I think we thought. we'll do partial demolition, and we'll extend the building. But

[111:02] a height restriction on the way it measured just makes that not possible, because heights measured the lowest point within 25 feet of the building. So when we extend the building, we run into height restrictions that we're up against. So since expanding, the existing building wasn't an option, we're unable to efficiently retrofit the building with a significant amount of housing. And in fact, we're forced to build 2 separate buildings on the site that are separated. And because we can't put parking underneath the existing structure, we have different parking structures. It creates a lot of challenges for the site. A couple more. I'll highlight accessibility and energy efficiency. Without again getting too much into the details. Here there's accessibility and energy efficiency issues associated with keeping the existing buildings that at significant cost to the project. And Ryan, who's on board can expand on that a little bit if if you'd like to.

[112:04] But providing Ada accessibility between 2 different buildings. with different elevations and parking structure, is cost prohibitive, and might not even be possible. Additionally. providing efficient mechanical electrical plumbing systems in 2 separate buildings, again. is inefficient if we could park. Under both of them we could put systems in place that are modern and could eat and cool both buildings efficiently and with current energy codes. So cost is an overall overarching theme. For us. On this there are significant construction costs associated with retrofitting the existing building to meet modern energy codes and building codes. But really the the primary cost implication associated with keeping the building is the limits it places on the amount of housing that we can build on the site.

[113:04] We have determined the project is not financially feasible. As is, and as is, I mean by keeping the existing building. and we're not able to proceed with development of housing on the site unless we can remove the existing building and build one new structure that ties it all together. And in closing, I think it's just really important for for us that all of you understand that we've spent a lot of time and design effort and meetings with staff and frankly, money attempting to do this the right way. In a way that would preserve the building. And we're not here tonight just coming out and saying, Hey, the only ways we have to demolish it. We've been through a lot of design, and this is where we've ended up at at this time. We've determined that demolition of the billing is the only economically viable path to move forward and build housing on the site.

[114:05] and we're asking for approval to demolish the building this evening with that. We're here and available for questions, and we look forward to the discussion. Thank thank you. Thank you. Does anyone have any questions at this point for the applicant? I know you were. You somewhat answered my question. In that you've been down the road of exploring? I guess one question. I have the issue of of putting parking under the existing structure. What's the construction of the foundation that disallows that because it looks like a pretty light structure. It looks like it's peers going into the ground at corners. There are a few peers I may defer to my partner Brady, who is a like general contractor, and probably answer that, and

[115:00] more sufficient way than I can. But, we are underground, and there are. There are peers. Forget how many number of them going down for the record every 12 foot there, there are peers. Okay? This is kind of a combined question for you and Staff. Were there any conversations about leniencies regarding aspects, including building height? And I'm not sure exactly what the issue there is. But through preservation. and designation there often comes opportunity that may not be immediately available. Did you have discussions with Steph about that we? We've not had those discussions about variances. Height is one of the more sacred regulations here in Boulder, and there is one specific one related to historic buildings, but that allows the height to exceed. What's otherwise allow, if you're reconstructing a historic feature like a tower or something like that, but to my knowledge, under the current regulations.

[116:20] preservation couldn't provide a variance for how height is calculated or the allowed height on a property. Yeah, I mean, it's unusual cause. It sounds like a design solution might include building a second building on the site that's detached that could effectively be taller than the historic structure because it's measurement of its base point. It's low point would be taken from its foundation corner as opposed to the historic structure. And as soon as you connect those. then that low point elevation moves downstream to the lowest point of the existing structure. So while it sounds like they're might, it just feels like when you package that it might sound like there's being more leniency given than there actually is through a potential

[117:11] combination of tying the buildings together, landmarking historic structure and getting building height allowances. On the second struck the second structure. Should it be attached. I know that's kind of a circuit. But II believe the applicant understood that. Yeah, I do understand. And you've you've hit the the crux of the of the problem as soon as we connect the 2 buildings in the point of measurement, so the overall massing on the property would be the same. It just might allow for greater cost, saving measures, and the in the feasibility of preservation and being able to build something that allows you to accomplish the density end of the efficiencies you're looking for. It's just a thought. I recognize that.

[118:02] that's pretty detailed, but sounds like you haven't talked about it. We've talked about it as a design team. It's actually probably the key. There's one of the key design components. I don't think we've talked about it with. So out of curiosity. Did you come up with a design solution that would work if you were permitted that? No, I don't. Well, I don't fully understand what you're suggesting in terms of the solution. And I may ask Ryan to chime in here. We have come up with a design that separates the 2 buildings problem that we've run into is, it's not sufficient. The amount of housing that we can get on site gotcha and again, a lot of that's limited by the underground marketing that we're able to get. If if there were a way to solve that problem, would that be a viable enough solution? That

[119:00] I mean, this is. This is where I'm sitting. Looking at this, I'm seeing what what appears to be a fairly significant piece of architecture. Build on a site that if indeed, it's always been zone that way, was chronically under utilized from the day it was built. I'm not sure I understand why that happened other than there was plenty of land, and nobody was thinking in terms of the kind of things that we're thinking in nowadays. But if a path could be found preserving some significant portion or significant piece of that structure to the public realm. Portion, which is 2 sides of it. is the ideal that we would be looking for and and allowing the utility of the land where it belongs.

[120:03] that's just that's kind of what we're gonna be discussing tonight. And Ryan actually has his hand raised, he might have some insight. Can you hear me? Yes, okay. It's my understanding that from talking to city staff that we, you can only get an exception to the height regulations if you go through Site Review and the they rarely do that. That's that's my experience. And this site is not large enough to qualify to go to through Site Review. And that's the only way they can. Change that regulation. That's what I've been told. Okay. thank you. Oh, 1 one other thing.

[121:00] basically, you are right about the massing, how we can't connect the 2 together. the way the code is written is that you can only connect with something 12 feet wide and 15 feet tall. That's the only connection we can make between these 2 masses. and that would be the case. Whether or not we keep what's there, or build something in the future. We would still have to follow those regulations. and then a third thing to add one thing, it's always been. Rh. 5. But, Council, just change the regulations within Rh. 5, that permits much greater density within our hopefully, that helps. Yeah, that's so. The code, the the zoning by designation didn't change. But the allowable density did just recently. So that's I believe. January first.

[122:01] Ryan, did you find we're talking about hype? And so the 2 parts that he said. he's coming up against our parking and height. Did you find the same thing about the parking? What were your findings about getting the variance of parking? They will allow administrative now, as of January first, I believe up to 25% parking reduction. Okay? But retroactively, Ryan. No, I missed that completely. And and Ryan, just because this is being recorded your full name. Ryan Hannemann. Thank you. So sorry. What was the question about part? It was parking right? So the main we have multiple issues here

[123:08] one is, we went to the city. We had some part. If, when we tried to keep the existing building in order to get the density maximized on the site. We had a small parking structure underneath the new section of building. The city's response was, if you have any structured parking. you have to get accessibility from the structured parking to the existing building. which is down. I over a half story. and that was a very difficult thing to do. That's a different. That's a side note to all the the parking. Sorry the zoning changes, but that's an item that we're contending with in keeping the building as well.

[124:01] Kurt, did I see that you wanted to make a comment, please? Yeah, I was just looking well. I was thinking about the site. Review. Pathway. The in our H. 5. You can go through Site Review. If you're building 5 or more units, which presumably you would be the require. You're required to go through Site Review. If you have 2 acres or 20 dwelling units, so you wouldn't be required to, probably. But I think you're you would be eligible for site review with site review, you can the get any, basically any there. There's no limit on the amount of parking reduction that can be offered that can be provided, and I guarantee that the planning board at least would be open to a pretty significant parking reduction, especially being Kitty Corner to see you.

[125:01] So I don't know, you know, whether that would be helpful or not. I don't know how whether that actually works within your your plans. But I think you know, Site Review is a. It's time consuming. It's a costly and it's a risky process. But I think that that might be a pathway for you. Thank you. That's something we can think about when we come back to deliberation. If there's no more questions for you right now we'll go to see if anyone wants to speak on public comment, and we will invite you back if you'd like, for up to 3 min for anything during public participation. Thank you. And Aubrey, has anyone signed up? I do not have anyone signed up for in person public comment. Is anyone interested in speaking

[126:06] great? Oh, I'm sorry. Sorry, Amanda, passing it to you. Sorry about that. It looks like we have one with a hand raised right now for virtual participation. Lynn Siegel. thank you. And Lynne. You know that once again I need to swear you in before your 3 min begin, I swear and did the best of my knowledge. no. no, no. no. no landmark. This space. Don't even waste your time. I am so tired of seeing these developers crying for begging gratuitous venues. that's what I call it.

[127:01] We don't need more housing in boulder housing demand services and guess who pays for the services. The taxpayer. my property tax just went up 3,000 bucks, my homeowner's insurance just doubled from 1,500 to 3,600. Sorry my pockets are not going to be emptied for these developers. No. no. no! Just when you go to sleep at night. dream about saying no. and not wasting your breath and your ganglia contemplating these projects and solving their problems for them. This is a beautiful building

[128:01] rate for landmarking. It's in the prominent area, you know. I'm sorry, Gavin, you didn't make it out to weather vain in time Zochlo got that from. Yeah. Go find some other place. Go way east. This community can't take any more of this. This whole economy is gonna to wrap straight to China. You know, we've got national issues of Gaza that were just bending like crazy. Kill all these babies under the rubble. and you jest can't get enough. higher, bigger, more. more, more more

[129:03] weathervane is the perfect example of a disaster. A Jared Polis, libertarian disaster! Oh, more density! A whole little dense, dense city in the middle of nowhere. with nothing to anchor it but a brew pub. Think again. just. you know, get out of the business if you can't follow the rules. Don't beg. I'm so tired of hearing it. Lynn. Thank you. Your time has expired. And, Amanda, do you see any other members remotely who would like to speak to this? No, not at this time we don't have anyone else. so we will go ahead and close public the public participation for this hearing, and you're welcome. You cannot take an additional 3 min. If there's anything you would like to say respond to

[130:02] during this process. No? Sorry. There's this screen in the in the way. So I'm sorry. Okay, thank you. So we now will come back to deliberations with this board. I don't know if anyone would like to kick off the discussion. Oh, look at it, even I, when we were discussing previously. And we're thinking of solutions, which is what we like to do. I think the I wanna say that the staff did a good job, and our and I wanna make sure with staff that our job isn't here to our job at this point is to recognize that there is some historic certificates that we see, and putting the stay on it would just allow us to dig a little deeper into it and find solutions if it is required. It doesn't mean that in is it 9,020 days, 180 days, 180 days. We can then say

[131:06] you may demo the building. Is that correct? Yes. So the decision in front of you tonight is whether to approve the demolition, or place a stay of demolition in order to provide times to look for alternatives, and your findings are whether the building is potentially eligible for designation. Considering the cost, the condition of the building and the relationship to the neighborhood of the character. right? So like Kurt's comment about Exploring Site Review, would be something that would occur during the if a stay was placed, those conversations would continue. They're not here tonight in front of us. Right? Yeah. I think Seth put a great presentation together, and I also, you know, complement the development team and their architect. for what seems to be a pretty thorough body or research already.

[132:03] You know I don't like to create additional process, but I do think that this particular building rises to the merit of placing a stay, and for us collectively to explore alternative demolition. John. yeah, I agree with Staff. I agree with my colleagues. I think we need to put a stay on this. and I think that and and II also want to extend my comments to the thoroughness of the work that you guys have already done. And your architect this increase in density kind of changes things up very suddenly, and I think that that puts us in the position where we don't have any other choice but to look for options around a changing situation.

[133:00] just to kind of qualify that older does need housing. We need to figure out how to utilize land to the degree we can. At the same time, we need to maintain a good understanding of what our resources are historic and otherwise, and make sure that we're not dumping all the babies out with all the bath water. So yeah, I think that the the stay is the correct way to go tonight. and I really hope to have a chance to talk with you guys through some portion of that, to look for what alternatives there may be at the point. We exhaust them and we exhaust them. So thank you. And and John, I wanna agree with one comment you made. But I wanna add the word we need affordable or varied price housing desperately in this community. I will be supporting Staff's recommendation, despite your great presentation, I can tell you've already really been hard at work exploring a lot of options already, but if we could place this day it gives us just a chance before

[134:16] the possibility of losing this building forever exhausting all creative alternatives to demolition or partial demolition. So I will be supporting Staff's recommendation for a stay. and I don't know if I have any more comments. If someone would like to make a motion. sure. Ronnie, I move that the landmarks Board issue a state of demolition for the building located at 2260, Baseline road for a period not to exceed 180 days from the day the permit application was accepted by the city manager in order to explore alternatives to demolishing the building and adopt the findings of the staff memorandum, dated January tenth, 2024.

[135:06] Thank you, Ronnie. Do we have a second? I'll second it. Okay. On a motion by Ronnie, seconded by John. We'll take a a vote, John. Aye. hi. hi! And I vote I. So the motion passes unanimously, and Claire will briefly explain next steps. Based on this decision. Yes, would 2 members of the Landmark Board please? Oh, happy volunteering! But it would be great to have an architect. Yeah. okay, thank you. So John and Abby have volunteered to be the Board representatives, and we'll be in touch with you, and we'll set up some meetings with with them and stuff. So we can start conversations about alternatives to demolition and thank you for the your time today. Thank you.

[136:02] And before we move on to the final agenda item, could we take a 5 min recess? I, we said, air conditioning might be on. And so we might just check and see if we can do anything about that. Okay, so we will take a break and resume at 8 20 pm. No, no, no, no, it's the kind of system this building has condition. You take condition there and then you heat it when you put it into the room, and the heat probably isn't. There's like heat coils on fan coils they're called not falling asleep. Fantastic.

[137:02] Sure. Okay. that else awesome. That was not a thermostat. Hello! Now.

[138:10] I don't have there. That's one. Yes. Slide, please. 6 fires. So how do you options? But it's abortion. That's

[139:04] excuse me to time. you know, conferencing. Yeah. gender diagram. Yeah. System structure on the corner audition. That's my cell phone. And that's game. Yeah.

[140:03] there you go. Thank you. Awesome. That's what. Yes. different size.

[141:03] Thank you. I don't know. Okay. wasn't even part of the historic district. What do you call the you're supposed to? Especially if you it's already it's completely different.

[142:02] Yeah, so please. sure. let me beautiful, such as so, what did you look at in this case? And then we're going to. I'm not sure. Coaches. Let's see. they keep.

[143:04] Yes. okay. it's not getting my vote or the account is recording still turns out my whole like it. First. okay, we ready.

[144:00] Perfect. Okay, thank you. We will now move on to the last public hearing of this evening. It's a public hearing and consideration of a demolition application for the building located at 2 1, one Arapaho Avenue, a non landmarked building over 50 years old, pursuant to section 9, 1123, of the Boulder Revised Code, 1981, and under the procedures prescribed by Chapter 1, 3 quasi-judicial hearings of the bold revised code. And, Claire, I'll let you take. Take it all over. Great. Thank you, Abby. I'll just quickly go through the hearing procedures again. All sworn in will be sorry. All speaking to the item will be sworn in board. Members will note any ex parte contacts. I'll remember to do it this time. I'll give the staff presentation. After that the Board may ask questions. The applicants will have 10 min to present to the board, and then we'll open the public hearing.

[145:07] We all then allow the applicant to respond to anything that was said. And the Board will deliberate and the motion will require an affirmative vote of at least 3 members to pass, and motions will state findings, conclusions, and a recommendation. I nearly forgot Abbey. Ex parte. I have none, John, I have none. I have none. and I saw this case when it came through years ago, and during that time, you know, we had extensive conversations and went on, site visits. Outside of that I have none. That's my next part day. Okay? So the the criteria for review is outlined in the boulder of vice code under 9, 1123, the purpose of reviewing demolition applications is to prevent the loss of buildings that may have historic or architectural significance.

[146:08] That includes loss of architectural integrity, and to provide time to to consider alternatives for the building. The criteria that can be considered are the eligibility of the building for designation as an individual landmark. The relationship of the building to the character of the neighborhood, the reasonable condition of the building, and the projected cost of restoration or repair, although not deterioration caused by unreasonable neglect. and the options for the board to night again, are to approve the full demolition, or place a 180 day stay of demolition to find alternatives. So, as Ronnie alluded to. This also has a bit of a a long history. The

[147:01] The board placed a stay of demolition on this property. At their October fourteenth, 2020, Landmark's Board meeting, and found it may be eligible for individual landmark designation. At that time the application was withdrawn during the stay on December fifth, 2,023, a new landmarks board, hearing fee, was paid for a new application for the building for full demolition. As Staff found that the property met the significance criteria for individual landmark designation. we referred the application to the full board. So this property is located on the north side of Arapo Avenue, between 20 First and 20 s Streets and across the street from Naropa University. It's within the identified potential Goss Grove historic district, which is identified here in green.

[148:00] The north property line is bordered by an alley and the building is located on the southern portion of the Lot with a parking area to the north. It's a 2 story commercial building, and which includes many characteristics of the modernistic style and influences from the twentieth century architect, Ludwin Mies Vanderaux. these influences include the rectangular, modular and symmetrical form, the cantilevered second floor floating with seemingly under sized supports. The frame emphasized, using the vertical projecting triangular fins in the upper storeys on south and north elevations and oversized windows on the west and east elevation that are divided with these exterior bands.

[149:01] So William G. Heinsman was the architect for the building. That's a piece of information that we didn't know when this was reviewed last time. We actually discovered it written on the back of the the image that was scanned. Now we have access to the Carnegie Library in person. So he was the architect for the building. It was constructed by A. And H. Buildings, Inc. Heinzmann was the chief designer for James Hunter and associates until he started his own firm, Heinzmann and Kinderg with Robert Kindig in 1961 and they built this building together. He's also credited with designing the Boulder Public Library and the Municipal Mall which is between the library and was between the library. And this building. and also many other buildings with James Hunter and associates. From 1955 until 1961 in the mid 19 sixties, Heinzmann separated from Kindig and partnered with Charles Ingalls to create the firm Heinzmann and Ingles which is credited for later modernistic buildings in Boulder

[150:11] Heinzmann also designed the George Reynolds Branch Library and the Dwayne Physics and Astrophysics, and Gamow Tower Building. As a solo architect. He died in 1988, at age 55. Also, we previously thought that the building had originally been sided with horizontal siding, because that's what it looks like in in one of these early images. But the 1963 certificate of occupancy lists, shingle siding as shown in the rendering. So we think that it might be a trick of the light, and this is actually shingle on the building, even though it looks like horizontal sighting in the picture. There are some minor modifications to the building, including the wood cornice, which was likely added in 1997, when the roof was replaced.

[151:06] All right. So our criteria for review are outlined in 9, 1123 F. Of the Boulder Revised Code, which, as I said before, are the eligibility of the building for designation as an individual landmark. Outlined in 9, 11, one, and 9, 11, 2. The relationship of the building to the character of the neighborhood, the reasonable condition of the building and the projected cost of restoration or repair. and we used the significance criteria that the Board adopted in 1975 to evaluate potential demolitions in a consistent manner. and to be eligible, the property only needs to meet one of these criteria and these criteria that we found are the actually, first of all, the date of construction. The Boulder County assessor records the date of construction is 1964 and minor detail that the certificate of occupancy that we found confirms the building was complete on May sixteenth, 1963. So

[152:06] just a correction there. The historic significance includes the fact that it was constructed for a local pediatrician, doctor Richard Ruse, dr. Ruse, completed his general medical training in 1951, and moved to denver in 1954, and then moved to Boulder to start the first private pediatric practice in Boulder in 1955. The the building includes many characteristics of the modernistic Mesian architectural design style, including the rectangular, modular, and symmetrical form. It was designed by William Heintzeman, who was chief designer for James Hunter and associates until he started his own firm. And the building is an example of modernist office of medical buildings constructed in the 19 sixties during a period of growth in boulder

[153:09] as far as environmental significance. The building is situated on a corner lot. It's deeply set back from Arapaho Avenue and 20 First Street, and is a familiar visual landmark along Arapahoe Avenue. There was significant redevelopment in this area after the building was constructed, and many of the small single family houses were replaced with large apartment buildings. However, this this building still fits into the transitional character of the neighbourhood as a smaller commercial building with a human scale. The applicants can talk more about the condition of the building. But the summary sent to Staff noted the presence, presence, presence, presence, presence of asbestos, the foundation requiring extensive alteration and external fraying, framing with existing siding, in desperate need of refurbishment.

[154:07] We have not received additional details or photographs of defects in the building's condition. Similarly, Staff confirmed that the building is in the a hundred year flood zone, and any new structure on the property would have to meet the flood protection elevation outlined in section 9 3, 3, a. 17 of the Boulder revised Code. So these are Staff's findings that a stay of demolition is appropriate, based on the criteria set forth in section 9, 1123 f. In that the property may be eligible for individual landmark designation based upon its significance as a relatively intact example of a modernist office building designed by known architect, William Heinzmann. And associated with a time which saw significant population growth and demographic transformation during the Post Post World War 2 Period

[155:08] For its association with Doctor Richard Ruse, who established the first paediatric practice in the in the city and had the building constructed to accommodate himself and other physician and dental practices. and its contribution contribution to the character of the neighbourhood as an intact representative of the area's past. and that it has not been demonstrated to be impractical or economically unfeasible. To rehabilitate the building and Staff's recommendation is that the Landmarks Board issue a stay of demolition for the building located at 2111 rapo for a period not to exceed a hundred 80 days in order to explore alternatives to demolishing the building. So that's the end of my presentation this is the the next steps in the process. The applicant will have up to 10 min to present to the board.

[156:08] followed by public participation and an opportunity for the applicant to respond to anything that said, and then board deliberation and a reminder that the decision for the Board today is to place a stay of demolition on the application to provide time to consider alternatives. If the Board decides, the building has historic significance, and if the Board decides that the building does not have historic significance. The Board will approve the demolition request. So any questions before we move on to the applicant's presentation. I don't see any from my colleagues, Claire, so we now invite the applicant to come up. and if there are several speakers you have a total of 10 min, and you you've probably figured out by now. I'm going to swear you both in before the 10 min commences, and if you just raise your right hand, swear to tell the board the truth, and then state your names when you your full names. When you speak.

[157:12] I swear to tell the truth, Nicole del Mar. Thank you. Thank you. Good evening. We would like to thank everyone for being here tonight. Given that the Board has had the opportunity to review our application materials, we will not go over those again tonight, but instead focus on providing additional response to the criteria outlined in the land use code for landmark eligibility. We'd like to point out that everyone listed on this slide contribute to to the feasibility study that we conducted into preserving the building, and that the majority of them are here tonight and able to respond to questions if needed.

[158:01] At this point I'll hand it off to Nicole to discuss criteria. So first off we're we're all really interested in connecting our past or connecting our present to our past. And it's it's a human impulse. And the rules that the city and the Landmark Board play help us make those meaningful connections is really important. We have may have different opinions about the importance of this specific building. but we want to acknowledge that this process is is important to us. and that we respect that the bar for Landmark Building is high. In this case we have 2 organizations who will be positively impacted if the application for a demolition permit is approved. Europa and Nalanda Bodie are not entities driven slo solely by self-interest. Rather they are motivated by a commitment to their community based services. This site has the potential to continue Naropa's significant legacy in Boulder, and it will be infused with new energy from Nalanda Boulder.

[159:07] Our goal tonight is to make some compelling, compelling points to support our case. And in that spirit we're gonna move quickly because our presentation is too long. First of all, my firm Shelterbot design does not specialize in historic preservation. We've worked on multiple projects located in historic districts. I own a home in a historic district, and my firm is currently leading a development that includes the historic landmarking of the Loveland house in Lakewood, Colorado. on Criterion one we just wanted to highlight the fact that there were some significant criteria where none observed was the observation by staff, and I also wanted to read a an excerpt from opinion and environmental we are relying on Opinion environmental's report that they prepared in 2020 for this same property at this same proceeding.

[160:02] It says, the building does not have a demonstratable association with historic persons or events did not fulfill distinctive role in the development of folder, and is not previously recognized by authorities of historic significance. That may be in contrast to what Claire Prep. Prepared for us. But I'm putting it out there. The next slide criterion, too. staff mammal states that rezoning allowed for higher density development in this area this statement seems to apply more directly to the area south of Arapaho Avenue. while the transitional scale does make sense, the character of the building doesn't match the more immediate residential nature of Goss Grove neighborhood. and again by pinion environmental. Although within the potential district boundaries of the Goss Grove subdivision, the 1964 building at 2111. Arapaho is not representative representative of the Gosg growth period of significance. Typical architecture styles nor typical area use. Those are just some observations on Criterion one and 2, and I'm gonna ask Nick to present.

[161:14] in response to criterion 3. The reasonable condition of the building. We'd like to highlight a few things. The first photo shows the condition of the exterior finishes and materials, highlighting the majority of the materials, and and that shows signs of significant weathering, and are in need of patching, refurbishment, or replacement. A landmark designation would require replacement of many exterior elements to restore the original architecture character of the building as outlined in the report from Pinion. Second photo is an example of the very low ceilings found throughout the building a 6 foot 10 in this example where and these and these these low ceiling heights occur on all floors of the building. The building code would require 7 foot 6 along egress paths inhabitable spaces, and 7 foot elsewhere.

[162:06] Naropa also pointed out that living with this building for the last 20 years. The low ceilings were one of the the many design limitations that they found hindering in the functionality of the building. The third photo shows a non code code compliant 34 inch wide stare. This represents the best case. Interior stare condition that we found code would require 36 to 44 inches depending on occupant load the stairs and building structure. To be compliant we need to be replaced to be compliant and represent and significant costs an expense that may not even be possible. Given the space constraints and structural constraints of the building. the last photo highlights, a typical non-ada compliant restroom found in the building, and also a very limiting narrow door condition. These again occur throughout the building.

[163:02] Many accessibility upgrades would be needed as supported by the investigation conducted by local contractor, Harrington Stanko as part of our feasibility study. and further supported by the accessibility audit that Naropa had performed several years back to outline. Various accessibility needs with the structure. I'll hand it back to Nicole. Now to discuss criteria 4. The next slide is I'm gonna review this one in a little more detail because it speaks to staff findings number 3 stating, and it's not been demonstrated to be impractical or economically unfeasible to rehabilitate the building in accordance with the 1999 Development Agreement. The specified use as adult education with associated offices remains fixed, however, under the current zoning code. This constitutes a nonconforming use lacking an equivalent definition.

[164:02] Any subsequent purchasers are bound by this agreement, and it must adhere to the use or seek approval for a change of use. It's logical to assume that a new buyer won't align with the adult education, with associated offices, designation thus triggering a change of use such. Such a shift would necessitate, necessitate flood, resistant construction upgrades. This effort would be focused on foundation reinforcement, waterproofing, and relocation of utilities from the basement to the first floor at a minimum, and the possibility of raising the building such that the first floor assembly assembly is above Fema's base flood elevation. And I just want to point out that this does not apply only to new structures. A change of use would chart trigger this requirement. Ada and other safety upgrades would be required, due to numerous noncompliant elements. As Nick Shared with you in the previous slide and in our conversations with the contractor. It's it's no exaggeration to say that this scope would represents a complete gut and remodel

[165:05] of the interior of the building with major structural reconfiguration of stairways meeting, the flood requirements would result in a decommissioning of the basement area. thus reducing the original square footage from 5,736 square feet to approximately 4,600 square feet. estimated costs for mandated state and local self safety upgrades result in a per square foot cost of approximately $552. Following the mandated flood and safety enhancements, the building remains unmodified for potentially new occupants and lacks necessary refurbishments to revitalize its exterior appeal to render the building usable for a new user anticipated costs for these improvements amount to approximately 1.6 5 million. surpassing 50% of the market value which would constitute substantial improvements.

[166:00] These substantial improvements would lead to a gross cost per square foot of conservatively $910, and irrespective of the expenses involved. Certain fundamental elements of the building structure render it unsuitable for reuse most pointedly the low ceilings. But other items as well. this slide basically gives you the background between for our numbers. It defines the substantial improvement criteria. And I don't really want to gloss over the details here, but the $910 a square foot as compared to other commercial buildings in central Boulder, and in this specific area, provided kindly by Julie Gillette. It doesn't align with the market in a way that makes this project make economic sense. so I would love to

[167:00] Charles Lee from the president of Nuropa University. I've never done anything in 20 s, so I may come back for the 3 min response. I will just say that as an economic matter, losing more than 50% of the value in this building, instead of having the capital to invest in students and our faculty and our programs is a significant detriment to Naropa, especially now in our fiftieth year. Thank you. Do any of you have questions at this point for the applicants. I don't see any clear. I did have a question. Thank you so much for such a thorough, comprehensive presentation. When there was a little discrepancy between the first time this was before the board, and a stay was placed is in some of the things you've identified. Now is that because during the pandemic you didn't have access to Carnegie Branch Library, did you learn more there, preparing this staff? Memo.

[168:03] that's correct. Yeah. We we relied on scans, and they don't typically scan the back of things. So that was a that was a a discovery that we made when we were able to go and look at the materials in person. Okay, thank you. did you? What? What is the intended? I guess. Reuse of the site? If it's okay. I'll refer to this slide. The buyers. Vision is for a new meditation center on this property. their intent is to build no more area than what is allowed in the land use code. The uses are going to be by right. It will include meditation, space, education, space, a reading room or a library 2 living units for visiting educators or a maintenance

[169:01] type person. And they're really committed to providing an on-site Pre. A presence street presence that is iconic and exciting, for the okay is, I mean the square footage of that. Would it be less than the existing building greater than the existing building would be equal to the existing building. It would be equal right now is that you can build up to what the existing building is, and including the basement, including that. So that total square footage. Alright interesting. Thank you. Any other. Go ahead, Ronnie. Well, I'm not sure if Charles actually got to finish what he needed to say. But I do find it probably valuable to here, and I know you were. Gonna wait for the 3 min, but I propose that we let him have another moment to speak. If there was something he wanted to share and potentially conclude with

[170:01] thanks. I appreciate it. I'll I'll keep it quick in any case. so I've been President of Europa for the last 12 years for 25 years was a real estate developer. I've done a dozen historic restorations, including the Temple Bobbin House in Boulder fifteenth, and Pine. So that was my first in 1,977 when I graduated from law school. So I'm very sensitive and aware of historic issues. I clearly don't quite agree with the staff recommendation about the nature of this space, but more to the point. Naropa. We bought the building 2 decades ago. Because we needed some auxiliary space for faculty and staff. We were outgrowing the campus downtown. Subsequent to that we purchased the land at Sixty-third and Arapaho, which is our Eastern campus. And so we've been able to actually accommodate what we need more. So we're in a place now where 40% of our undergraduate school is online which is unplanned covid result, but has turned out to be an incredibly important growth opportunity for us. So we didn't need the space.

[171:10] We always had struggles with that building because of the fact that first 1 s floor don't connect internally. There is no elevator. The 6 foot 10 ceiling is quite difficult to work with short faculty work on the second floor. and it's a space that is is really dysfunctional. We have tried to sell it a few different times most recently, in 2,020, when the buyer then just wasn't willing to wait for the stay the big issue for us was, I wasn't prepared to decide that we would demolish the building, so we let we were through the application in order to see if we could find buyers willing and interested in looking at it as as is that is proven in 3 years not to be feasible. We found nobody that's been able to step up and look at the building as it is. So at this point, with the demolition permit during the 180 day period, and

[172:07] perhaps there's a miracle that I can be figure out, but at 1,000 a foot in renovation. I think it's impossible. By the end of that 180 days we'll demolish the building, because I think it's the only way that we can market it. We're not going to find buyers going forward that are going to have the patience to continue. To go down this road for a building that just simply has. I mean, I have to say the one thing I disagree the notion that there's no demonstrated economic detriment just completely disagree with. I feel like more than half of the value of this building. Is gone if we need to renovate it, which is something that for a small, I mean small liberal arts. College and boulder is not something that we can afford. I'm happy to answer any more specific questions. Thank you. And Ronnie, thank you for suggesting that. so just to be clear. The you hadn't said that in 180 days that you would demo the building and sell it. What was but you wanna you guys want to make it into part of the Nope, we're in university. You just know I'm sorry. Go ahead. So I'm just confused on what you

[173:17] we asked what you wanted to put there instead. So there's a lot of Buddhist talk tonight starting. I didn't expect it in the first hearing. Nolanda Bodhi, the purchaser, is a friend, but completely separate nonprofit organization. So it's a very compatible use for us. because we actually share spiritual values, and and so on and so forth. But it will be a completely separate owner and operated by another nonprofit that is international in scope. So it's not an Europa. Naropa will sell it. Okay, so, Naropa, you're because you're the owner. You're gonna go through the process of getting the demolition. And then another person is planning on buying it. So another, we have the application in our name, because we're the owners. We have a buyer. We have a contract.

[174:02] if depending on where we go tonight. If we can move forward with this buyer, we will, if we can't. It's crystal clear to me at this point that we will not find another buyer that's going to buy anything other than the lot. And so, rather than wait and start this process again with the same outcome for the third time. We'll demolish it and then sell it as a piece of land. Interesting? Okay? Anything else before we move to public comment. And I'm looking at you, Aubrey. No one in this Chamber would like to speak to this. I don't have any in person sign ups, but let's check out the virtual audience. Yes, it looks like we have. One member, Lynn Siegel.

[175:03] Okay, Lynn. Once again, you'll need to swear to tell the Board the full truth in your 3 min will begin. Best of my knowledge. I I think this, I think, try harder. Try harder eventually. You know, there's so much demand in this community for space. I'm sure there's somebody out there that will use the space the way it is. 6 foot 10. That's okay. The width of the stairs. Just use it the way it is. The best thing is the thing that you know. Not that you re, you know. Reuse, re whatever reuse is the important thing renovating or dip. you know. The expense, I understand, is too much. but leave it alone and use it the way it is and there is some value. First pediatrician

[176:01] in Boulder was at this site. and I don't know why shelter vice, or whatever the name of it is, didn't bring that up, but that's kind of significant. And with all the folks comin from all over the country here, with all the demand for space here. There's got to be somebody out there that wants a building like this. and we'll just patch it up and make it work and save it from the landfill. and that's big savings. It's a savings of carbon footprint. and it looks like a pretty good building to me other than you know narrow doors and relatively low ceilings. I think there's plenty of people that can use that space. They use that space for decades. Just fine.

[177:10] Keep using it keep trying. There's lots of folks from all over the country coming out here to to this community for that massive amount of speculation and and inflationary effects going out with every that happens more and more with every subsidy to every developer that wants to come in here. So keep something that's decent that has some good history, and has some interesting architecture. and just use it the way it is, and enjoy it that way. and the community will benefit from that as well. since otherwise it just drives up homelessness. Each one of these projects drives up the cost of land, increases homelessness, and, believe me, the 3 h. That city council is dedicated to that at the next meeting is not enough. It's never enough, asked Michael Johnson in Denver. By.

[178:14] Thank you, Lynn and Amanda. I don't know if you see any other members of the public who have raised their hand or press 9, if they're joining us by phone, and then we'll come back, cause I believe someone in Chambers would like to speak. But I'm gonna let Amanda close the virtual participation. Yes, thank you. I don't see any other hands at this time. Okay, then I'm gonna turn it back to Aubrey. Great and sorry for that weird transition. Earlier, we have one speaker in person, and it is Danny Lindel. and would you be kind of keep your hand up and say you swear to tell us the full truth, and then state your name again for the record. In your 3 min we'll begin.

[179:02] Thank you. My name is Danny Lindow. I work for the Colorado group. We're a commercial real estate company. I've been the real estate broker agent for Naropa University many, many years. and have been tasked with trying to sell this asset for them. I put it. Help put it under contract back in 2020. When that group had explored what they could do with the building. They wanted to do housing. and they at the application they were planning on doing. Attending unit by use by right, is 5. So they were trying to expand. And and they actually left the process because they found that they were, didn't. We're probably gonna be able to build 10 units. So that was kind of one of the reasons they left the process. That was right in the middle of Covid, and lots of things changed.

[180:02] I have shown that billing many, many, many, many times. and the people who have visited it and looked at it. And this is users other schools other developers of all sorts trying to. What can we do with this building? And most of the time they just said, Thank you, Danny. But we can't do anything with the building. It is a really dysfunctional building. I don't know if it was explained thoroughly, but the 2 floors, first floor, and the second floor are not connected. You have to go outside the building to go to the other floor. You Their stairwells are really small. There's no Ada, it. There's so many problems with it that And when this group did their research on, what could we

[181:04] use it? And they were very serious, and they had their contractors and people in, and done extensive studies to see if they could save it. They found out. No, it's just too expensive, and they demonstrated that in their report about the market. the market. the cost of trying to bring it up to speed doesn't compare with what you could sell it for would use it for so it's and for Europa. They've done a remarkable job using it for these 20 years. but it just lost its usable value. Many things have a useful life. This building is over 50 years, and it's useful. Life is over. So I would like you to really strongly consider allowing demolition. Now.

[182:02] I don't think we need any further time to study. Thank you. Thank you. And I think this is the last chance for anybody here in chambers to sign up. and not seeing anyone, we will close public participation for this hearing. You do have an additional 3 min as the applicants. To speak to anything you heard during this process. If any one of you would like to. So yeah, just in response to leaving the building as is, and and just using it again, we want to reiterate that the existing, the zoning has changed since the Land use agreement originally took place, and the the currently approved use doesn't even exist in the current land use code. So there would be a change of use which would trigger the flood improvement requirements. And so, in addition to those costs associated. we just don't find that there's.

[183:03] you know, this mythical fire out there that could just move in and use it as is functionally and part of those upgrades, you know, include decommissioning the basement. And we just wanna reiterate the non viability of using it as is existing. Basement is 8 feet below the flood elevation. Even the first floor top of the first floor is only 4 and a half inches above that flood elevation which is a little too close for comfort. If I were the owner of this building. and I happen to be here 11 years ago, just in time for the floods in 2,013, and I think we all know that we're not not susceptible to another one. And leaving this building intact, is doing nothing to preserve it, because it, you know, could well get washed away.

[184:00] Thank you. I think it's in a very similar thing that I was going to say. But I'm also just going to make sure that the that it's really clear that a change of use is 99% sure, sure thing for this project, and that the requirements add on to each other pretty quickly. And that's where we get to our numbers, that's really all. So thank you. Okay, thank you very much. We'll bring back deliberation to the board. and I don't know if anyone would like to kick it off. Ron Eastern. Oh, it's Ron Eastern. Well, I only I only like to hear cause it was already reported a stay. so it sounds like there was already people here that were we? Yeah, I was here. I'd like to hear some of the thought losses then. And well, that was a long time ago.

[185:05] Probably it was at the time. It's interesting, because I knew one of the architects. Robert Kendeg. He taught me in graduate school in one class. and it's an interesting building. It's an interesting form. and it's another one of these unfortunate situations, with with a great deal of mid-century modernism where one of the driving things in a lot of mid century modernism was that it was very much at the bare bones utility level of thinking in terms of buildings that could serve masks. mass interests, or mass needs. And the consequence of that is is that a lot of the

[186:04] less expensive materials or more experimental ways of putting things together or so on did not hold up through regulatory time. The fact that you have a situation now where code requires exiting widths or total interconnectivity in a building. That's a very strange thing that you have to go outside to get to the second floor. but those kind of things happened routinely in residential and other types of structures. In the 60 s. the flood plain is a killer in this town. There's a high percentage of buildings in bolder that are going to have to, if they want any kind of change to occur, are going to have to deal with the fact that they're

[187:00] 4 inches or a foot or whatever into the regulation flood level. And that's one that we keep hitting it. It's it's an interesting building as a form. I'm not sure where to go beyond that, because I'm not sure I could say, well, there's a handy answer in this one, the asbestos you're gonna have to remove. You're gonna have to remove that if you demolish it, and it's gonna cost the same amount of money. You are. Have you done? Analysis of what deconstruction of this building would cost in terms of a appropriate kind of environmental, taking it apart, the building deconstruction and analysis. But it's not real. Yeah, okay.

[188:03] this one is the thorniest one yet. Tonight is the best I can say. because I'm I'm very torn. because I'm I'm very familiar with the building in terms of driving by it, seeing it. Knowing people, though, have lived in that neighborhood and around there. It's just kind of a presence in my mental space. As I said. I knew one of the architects. It's rare that I actually knew a person associated with some of these buildings. and it is a type of building that I've seen elsewhere. That was a characteristic kind of exploration in boulder other dental office, and doctors offices, most of which are gone now or threatened.

[189:01] had similar characteristics. so I'm I'm kind of in a quandary on this one. I'm gonna throw it to my colleague. Well, I just wanna respond to your question. When a stay was placed. When this was before this board a few years ago, and at that time I supported it. Only be Ca, well, primarily, because I believe there was probable cause. It was eligible for individual designation. And what I take away from the staff memorandum of the preservation of that presentation tonight is that now, with the reopening of Carnegie Branch library for local history. Some additional information was found because it said, Architect, unknown. When we first did this, and II supported the state there. I know it extends the timeframe, but it was just like to explore every single possibility before it might be lost.

[190:02] Yeah, I compliment the applicant for their thorough due diligence on the property. I agree with Staff's recommendation in this case. It's unclear what that outcome may be. But I think that the amount of material that has already been provided will advance us during that time. If we do move towards the State to get clarity on the building, and understand whether or not there's opportunity for preservation that hasn't been uncovered yet. Was there a I again just trying to cause you say it's the thorniest one, but I also think, like reading the staff memorandum. I felt pretty confident. Hearing your guys proposal and your economic feasibility. I'm again. I become a little a little torn, because it is the cost of doing, and I don't want to put

[191:04] you know something back that you know. Like III like the way you guys are intending to. You found somebody that wants to do a meditation area that's in line with Niropa. It's next to you. It seems like a really good fit and I appreciate the due diligence in that. So I'm a little torn, because it seems like like it's a good fit. And so I want this fit to continue. My one question to you guys is only because I'm that might not be what I'm up here for but if the stay is placed. does this kill the deal? It's clearly a negotiation we'll have to have with with the purchasers, so I can't answer that. I'm not gonna make. Make it up. I think it will make it very difficult

[192:06] opportunities. Yes, so what it will do is make it extremely difficult for Neuropa, because we have need for investment capital in some other things and tying that up for another 6 months. I mean. we like most schools. This is not of too much of the hearse rings. We barely survive Covid without laying off a single person without losing students, and we stayed open we did that for a whole, in a whole lot of ways to be able to restore our investment capital. The money that we lost over the Covid period is really critical part of work that I'm doing as a President. So it. From my point of view, whether we lose this buyer, I hope we don't. Whether we find another buyer. I hope we do. But but 6 months is a long time at this point. In this mark I wanted to make sure. Oh, could I expand that while you're standing there? Could I expand the question slightly? Would there be any possibility that the prospective buyer participated in the process that we would want to have during a stay.

[193:17] These folks are being paid by that prospective buyers. So I don't know the answer, yeah. Well, either, we're starting again. Well, what I mean is is that we we hope to have meetings and explore alternatives to demolition. if we were. If if we do places stay, I think there's just I this, this stay thing only been on the board for a few months, but it keeps coming up. and it's it's almost like the stay is a place for us to collect everything before it's lost forever. And I think you know, if I'm on the development side which I've developed. I've been

[194:03] a developer. And so that part of me is, you know, this is a good, really good fit, and I really enjoy that. But at the same time it's like this. This job right here in the landmarks board is to make sure that we. you know, preserve everything that we're intended to do. I like the fit. I like what you guys are doing. I'm excited about it. And I want the landmarks board to be able to record every little piece of information about the building, so that when it does get demoed. you know, or it doesn't get demoed that we have that in the books. you know. There's there you've brought such good additional feedback on, like the the cost of what this will take. I mean the fact that it has 6, 8 ceilings, and the fact that you have to go outside, and you know, like, you know, the fact that it has to have the egress. I don't understand where the stairs, but they must go to the basement, because they obviously don't go to the upstairs. But you know, like things like that. There's a

[195:06] which kind of trumps. It's hard to say that the accessory, the the life use code, the life safety trumps are like the landmark side of it, or historic preservation. We certainly don't want anyone to be in the building and and can't get out. So life safety is more important. And my, II feel like, but so I just, I just want like, there's such good knowledge that you guys brought to us. And I almost feel like, Wow. there was in the time that the 180 days this additional information is so valid, but so I'm a little bit torn. I thought it was going to be an easy one, but that's why I was asking. Well, 1 one clarification there, Renee, is that when when approval to demolish is given. Part of the condition of that approval is that a complete documentation of the building at that point occurs which is a a record documentation. So

[196:14] so that kind of thing will not be lost. And you don't need the 180 day-state to get that. I mean, this is this is one of the challenges of sitting on this board, especially those of us that are architects, is is that you're presented with one of these cases. 2 or 3 times a month, and the architectural mind immediately engages. Oh, well, you could do this. You could do this you could do. That's not our charge, you know. I mean, like. like, okay, low ceilings got the entire building and just leave the walls standing and figure out a new way to put floor plates in it. That's it. But

[197:02] our charge is to say, Okay, is there sufficient merit in this building that it could qualify for landmarking? And does it serve sufficient community benefit to do so? Is it a significant enough historic resource that it's worth investing that capital, as it were. I'm not so sure this one rises to that this time, but that is what I think, Marcy, do you mind jumping in and maybe clarifying the purpose of the stay. And what happens? Just so. We all hear it from you, of course. So the purpose of this day is to provide time to explore alternatives to demolition. So that is a period to exhaust options in the best way that that works. It's a collaborative conversation to come together and talk about different

[198:00] alternatives to demolition. In this case a lot of that work has been done on the front end and over the last 3 years, but the purpose of the stay. The stated pers purpose is to to give that time to to a building in order to look at alternatives for demolition. The period of the stay is up to 180 days, so the Board could place a stay less than that the Board could expedite it the most by scheduling a hearing at a future landmarks board meeting, which then expedite, expedites it even more so that a decision would be made sooner than than I think it's June. Have I left anything out that that is the perfect, so that might mean we could schedule something for March or April. You? Yes. II know February is a pretty full meeting already, but March or April may be. I mean, that might be a thing. And I do want to be sure, Kurt, if you have anything you want to add, feel free. You're shaking your head. Go ahead.

[199:10] I don't want to interrupt if you want to. II think the only thing I just really wanna clarify that the criteria for the Board's review tonight is 4 part. So it's the eligibility of the building for landmark designation, and that's usually the one that we spend the most time on. Debating the significance. But it it's only one. The other one is the estimated cost of restoration, the condition of the building and the relationship to the character of the neighborhood. So even if you find the building is significant, you're also weighing the cost, condition, and relationship factor in your decision of whether to place a stay or approve the demolition? Well, and sometimes, when a stay has been placed, and we have, even if 2 board members are identified to be with this this particular property, any board member is welcome, and I think sometimes that extra benefit of being on site, seeing the property where the applicants can point out deficiencies or things that that are po problemmatic for them. Sometimes that is very illuminating during a stay rather than making a decision.

[200:21] Well, it with Powerpoint to things. You know that that actually being on site and having things pointed out, and it can also work to see how fabulous the building is. Marcy, were you dead, and we could go to Kurt for well, that was convenient, having Mercy say those things, cause I was just going to go through those criteria. So I'm not voting. If I were voting I would vote to issue a demolition permit for this building, because, based on those criteria, II think that that is is the appropriate course of action. I felt like the of the the 3 se qualifications for for designation, that it doesn't meet historic significance. In my view, I think that the connection with Dr. Roos, or whatever is

[201:17] that, that seems pretty tenuous. I definitely don't think that it has environmental significance. The architectural significance, maybe, is. Certainly there's a better case for that. I feel like it's been modified in minor but important ways, including the addition of the cornice, which I think pretty significantly changes the appearance of the building and also the change to the ribbon the windows at the at the first floor. So I think that those modifications are important in terms of considering the architectural significance. And Heinzmann was a, you know, a moderately prominent or prominent, I guess, architect in this city, but I think that there are much better examples and more, far more prominent examples like Dwayne Physics, and George Reynolds library of his work.

[202:12] And so I think that to the the this is, it's far from the most prominent, and it's really not the best of his work. And I think that the flood considerations are super important right? That that is a real killer to in terms of usability and the safety and the economic viability of this also. Just looking at it. You know, I went by that we we heard all kinds of stories about the interior condition, but on the exterior it just it looks. It's a tired building. To me it it appears it's the kind of thing that if you really wanted to get, bring it up to to good condition.

[203:03] So. based on my experience of owning buildings, it would take a lot of work so based on all of that and those criteria. If I were voting, I would vote for demolition. Can I ask a question of Marcy Marcy? Can you refresh my memory? What happened the first time through the process? Yeah, the application was withdrawn during the stay of time. Okay, so that was cause it's cause. It does feel a little like double jeopardy to have put the building into a stay. But but it was withdrawn. So that terminated it. Yeah, it's a new application here. In 2024 I would be in favor of understanding how to place a short and stay on the property. Can we talk a little bit about what options are available there, and how that might play out. I know in the past we've done that. I hear you saying.

[204:01] that one option is to have a hearing in in you. But no, the stay expires in June. Stay expires in June, so it's unusual for the board to put us a stay that's shorter. But I believe how we've done it in the past. And can you pull up the recommended motion language right now. The Standard Motion language says, I move that the Board issue a stay of demolition for the building for a period not to exceed 180 days, you would modify that to be whatever shortened period. I think you could continue to say and schedule a hearing for the you. We always appreciate flexibility and scheduling, but you could pick a date certain we could look up what the say. The march meeting date is which would be the next available, because the February agenda is very full already, and is very compressed in terms of meeting and and making good use of that expedited stay.

[205:08] it would be March sixth for the net, that meeting. Okay. And just so, I understand. What is the hearing? What is the title of hearing, and that would be it. It would be determined by the board, but in the past it would be scheduled hearing to either consider this is for other in other cases, so modify as you see fit, but it the most options, you would phrase it as schedule, a hearing to either initiate landmark designation or issue a demolition approval for the building located at at 2111. You could, if you wanted to just choose the demolition hearing, and then at that hearing, you could either take no action, and the stay would expire, or you could actively vote to approve the demolition at that time.

[206:03] But how you phrase what the purpose of that hearing is, determines what actions you can take at that hearing. and I'm not good at math, but that's less than 2 months from to night, right? So that would be pretty expeditious in my mind, I mean, because II hear my colleagues want to be respectful and help the rope, I mean, you know, even though you know I mean, are we not really here for that? I mean. It either meets the criteria or probable cause, which is basically the decision before us tonight. But I think it would be. I would be very intrigued by doing it sooner, so that Naropin would have a decision sooner than March. No, no sooner than the June. the 180 days. Sorry it makes us a little more responsive. Is that something that staff has resources to accomplish? Should it be

[207:07] either the designation or demolition? Yeah. So I would say, in looking at eyebrows from my colleagues. That the march one would be feasible. We may need to schedule other applications farther out, or maybe hold a special hearing. But the February meeting would be not possible to prepare the materials. Notice the meeting, and meet before then. March would be the soonest. That we could do that. Other comments. Is there someone, I guess, who would. You know? I just want to understand and talk to the Board about the difference between holding a hearing to either initiate designation or demolition.

[208:01] and you know we could just hold it for a demolition. and I feel a little confused about that, Marcy, because but that we could decide to night right? We could decide to issue a demolition permit tonight. The piece we don't have in tonight's purview is to initiate correct right? And I don't want to confuse things, because that's not where I've heard the board going. But in the past. What this proposed motion language does is combine both the length of the stay and what you're setting that on. And the scheduling decision which is typically done as a separate motion the month before. And so I'm providing you the broadest flexibility in terms of actions that you could take at that time, but based on the conversation I'm hearing tonight. It sounds like the most appropriate way, or what the board is leaning towards is just scheduling a hearing to consider issuance of a demolition application at that time.

[209:09] and that doesn't take the opportunity to consider a designation route in march. Should we. for some unusual reason, reason come to a point where you would want it. So my understanding and Chris feel free to to hop in is that the way you phrase the what the purpose of that hearing is determines what your potential motions are. So if you say it's a demolition, hearing, you can only vote on the demolition. You wouldn't have time to schedule an initiation hearing to take that alternative route. So if you are considering wanting the the most possibilities of a decision in that time, phrase it so that you have that flexibility right and not issuing a demolition permit, is a form of preservation that might.

[210:10] I mean. Obviously it eliminates the the deconstruction of the building. So not necessarily, because if the board doesn't take action before the stay expires, then the demolition automatically issues. So we could do us, we could change the period not to exceed right like, say, we like. if you're thinking like April. we could do 90 days. Yeah, like something. But we would Bo. During that period we would kind of do a little bit of due diligence. There would be 2 of us that would go out to the site, talk to the people right? And then we would then, at the February or the March hearing. have to bring up a notion to a give up the stay like we would have to do something. Yeah, so the path that you all are on tonight in January would be to make a motion to place a shorter stay on the application, and to schedule a hearing to take action on the application at the March meeting.

[211:20] so that would shorten the stay and give you the ability to take action shorter than the 180 days is there additional staff? Work that's put into the preparation of that meeting. To supply additional information about the designation route. Do you give us more? The memo is a little bit. It has more criteria in it. But it I wouldn't have that as a factor of your decision, and it's conceivable if a stay was placed tonight, regardless that there would be a meeting or 2 in the next 2 months as well. Correct. Possibly. Yeah. I mean, we would do. You would have to. You would probably be spending that time as staff, anyway.

[212:10] arranging a meeting or site visit. I want to be clear that it is additional work to do it in a compressed timeline. But I think in this case it's appropriate, based on everything we've heard tonight, and that I'm saying we can commit to that work for the march meeting. And I just would like to say, Charles, I think this is the most expeditious route that honors our role to consider the preservation component, knowing that your team has done a significant amount of work. I'm glad that you came up because I do think that this is a collaborative effort here, and I'd love to hear what your thoughts are. But this is a direction I think really of pursuing. Sure II mean I appreciate it. I know you've got a job that's different from mine, and I understand it. I chaired the Heritage Advisory Committee for the city, Halifax, Nova Scotia, for 5 years, so I've been on that side as well. It was hard for me not to be a developer. When I was sitting on that side of the table. So I get it. I think a short and stay is helpful. I

[213:19] I think we can work something out with the buyer to allow that if we're moving expeditiously I would hope that we actually would have a meeting or 2. And it's not just 60 days for the sake of 60 days. I don't expect magical solution. I mean, it's possible. But assuming that we're doing this in in good faith. And let's let's point to something that we tried to do rather than just let the clock go, because what we're getting at it that's great, and I think we can commit to that. I would like to make that motion, or maybe, Rene. I don't know what I have to change. If you could give us, just a couple of minutes. To craft a motion so that we're not doing it on the fly. Then we'll put it up on the screen for you. So just that.

[214:10] And so if you do told them I didn't second to the 5 motions in my time. Oops! I wasn't so grateful still. So what? So I just well for me. I'm really the only one that would have been for

[215:12] possible before the we can go to the outside. But it's so easy to see it's so easy to critique someone else's work. Is that certain? That's what I love like what they're doing. So like, I'm like.

[216:09] So the clock is already started. It doesn't start tonight. so they have to initiate them. And that's where that's what they can start. No, so it's not. It's not. It would be. That's why it's not July. you know. Get to play for them. Yes, yes. let me see. Yes, yes.

[217:07] yeah, I've got as long as it's in the middle of the week. Oh, yeah. I didn't notice when you guys went out juniper once. so that yeah, that was only. But I didn't get an email.

[218:10] Yeah. So that's what I I was. Yeah. cause I'd like to. I would have liked to see the juniper one. but we didn't do it. Okay, top denoting. I don't know, really. you can't really do anything on the inside, anyway. So

[219:05] I just thought I liked his point, cause there's 4 criteria, right? And one. I would say that it's significant. There's significance, it's significant, but it's it has 6 foot 8 ceiling. So this is my part. Okay, Mike's been on the whole time. Okay? So I say, my name, or just okay, I move the landmarks board issue a stay of demolition for the building located at 2 1, one Arapaho Avenue until March seventh. 2024, in order to explore alternatives to demol demolition the building and adopting the findings of the staff memorandum, dated January tenth, 2024. Additionally, I move the landmarks board schedule a hearing on March sixth to consider approval of the demolition application, or alternatively initiate of landmark designation.

[220:20] Thank you, Renee. Do we have a second? I'll second. Okay. On a motion by Rene, seconded by John, we'll do a vote, John Ronnie. Hi. Renee! And I vote aye, so the motion carries unanimously, and Claire will explain what the next steps are now that. this has been determined. Yeah, with the 2 members of the landmarks board. Like to volunteer meetings with those 3 members of the landmarks board and

[221:06] yeah. sort of did I miss anything? No, just considering the condensed time. Appreciate coordination and flexibility with schedules, so we'll reach out very soon to try and get us all together sooner rather than later on a warm day. No, no color vortex. Yeah. thank you. Guys so much. And for me this was a creative alternative that will help move this process further along. Appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you. Accident. All group know the people are here.

[222:03] I really do. Yeah, I should. Okay. yeah. I know we'll be moving on to matters. I know that in our agenda meeting we thought the meeting might end a little earlier, but these were really unique hearings, you guys. So thank you for to the stellar staff for staying later than they may have expected, because these weren't as easy and black and live as some cases can be. So thank you. Yes. thank you. Yes, those were all. You didn't get a single easy one this evening. Okay, I'm gonna start with something that is

[223:13] not on the agenda, which is a huge, thank you to our intern. Olivia Samar, who has been here for a year. She has accepted another internship. I didn't tell her I was gonna put her on the spot. It's okay. If you're not on camera. But she has just. I cannot stress how how critical she has been really part of the backbone of this program for the last last year. Those beautiful Ldrc Powerpoints that are just like perfection. Week after week after week she does her brain is. beautifully wired for storytelling through data. So she's really been able to help us track our statistics in a way for us to understand? Kind of our program. And just a hugely valuable asset to our team. I miss you so much already. But thank you, Olivia, for all of your work this last year you've been tremendous.

[224:12] and, Marcia, I totally agree. And, Olivia, you voice had the best zoom background of anybody with that wonderful place in Denver. I don't know, Olivia. If you want to say a couple of things if I can put you on the spot, you're welcome to pass if you want. Yes, no, I definitely will. Thank you, Marcy, for all those great words. And thank you to everyone. I'm I was very excited to work with you guys, and it was kind of more kind of behind the scenes. But I have really enjoyed sitting through all these meetings and really learning about this whole process. And I am gonna miss everyone. I'm already so scared about my next team because I don't think they're gonna be as great as this one. but yeah, I'm excited to move on to the next part of my career. But Boulder definitely still holds a place in my heart.

[225:03] Well, stay in touch, and don't be a stranger. Yeah. So I accepted an intern position with cdot. Oh, wow! Oh, wow, yeah, thank you. What's the division, Olivia? Is it inclusive mobility. the office of innovative mobility, innovative, innovative, mobile Colorado. Best of luck to Olivia? And thank you again, so much. Okay, so the council retreat this year is not held typically as it is in January. But it's going to be held in mid-march, and so the guidance about an annual letter is hold off on preparing one, and there will be guidance direction more of a request coming later. So you don't need to worry about that now.

[226:12] The Council Retreat Committee will meet in January to determine what roles, boarding boards and commissions might have related to the retreat. coming up is the civic area historic district process check in I know we started with that under some comments of for public comment. But just want to do a quick look ahead, cause we are on the circuit for all boards and commissions starting in January, so we'll be heading to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board for their recommendation on January twenty-twond, and then on February seventh that'll be the Landmarks board Designation. Hearing where you all will be asked to make a recommendation to the City council.

[227:02] Kirk Will Kurt will see it with the planning board on February twentieth, where the Planning board is asked to review the proposed designation and report on any land use implications. All of those board and commission feedbacks feed into the City Council Review because designations are through ordinance. It will go twice to city council first, reading is typically on the consent. Agenda that's scheduled for March 20 first, and then the public hearing. with the final decision of whether this will be designated as a historic district, is anticipated to occur on April fourth. These dates are all subject to council and board scheduling. There's code requirements that the Council, hearing has to be held by May but as of now, this is our schedule. It's a bit fast and furious, but it's one step at a time.

[228:01] and as we get closer to that. We must meet on April third. Then that month, as we get closer to that, you'll let us know if there's any role the landmarks board could play, even if just showing up in person on April fourth. Or for first reading prior to that, you'll let us know. Yes, yes, thank you? Yup. okay, so let's see, there is a landmarks board position open because Rene filled in Bill's term. And so these last 8 months have gone. Why way too fast? And so there is an open position. The application deadline is January twenty-ninth. Renee will have to reapply if you want to stay on the board which we hope you will. But it's active recruitment. I'll pay back out of those celebrities kids into school, and then the last. The last piece under matters tonight is that the saving places conferences coming up this is the second year. It will be held here in boulder and so, while we're not participating on any of the panels or

[229:22] walking tours this year, I know a lot of people are to to kind of highlight preservation in Boulder. So that takes place January 30, first to February second. And you should have gotten an email from Aubrey about registration. Thank you, Aubrey, yeah. And the city of Boulder will be a sponsor for the conference this year. So there's a small chance that you'll see me at a table in the lobby. But I no promises. any questions. Embassy or the Embassy suite

[230:03] 20. Yeah. Have they released a I think there's a preliminary schedule out. Yeah. it's actually the final schedule. If you go into your registration, you can actually pick sessions and you should do it early cause sometimes it's later this month. Oh, you're right. It's done sorry my kid is. Gonna be here from Mexico. So nice, huh? And that is all we have. Under matters anything else from anybody? And, Kurt, thank you, for you're welcome back anytime. Okay, so the meeting is official. I'm so excited to use this. The meeting is officially in adjourned at 9 50 pm. Thank you.