February 7, 2024 — Landmarks Board Regular Meeting

Transcript

Captions from City of Boulder YouTube recording.

[0:04] good evening the February landmarks board meeting is called to order welcome to the February 7th 2024 landmarks board meeting it is 6:02 PM before we begin the meeting Marcy will review the virtual meeting decorum thank you Abby oh do we have our slides there we go okay welcome um so let's see the city has engaged with community members to co-create a vision for productive meaningful and inclusive 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 more about this vision and the project Community

[1:00] engagement process can be found online through the link posted on the slide the following are examples of rules of decorum found in the boulder Revised Code and other guidelines that support this Vision these will be upheld during this meeting all remarks and testimonies shall be limited to matters related to City business no participant shall make threats or use other forms of intimidation against any person obscenity racial epithets and other speech and behavior that disrupt or otherwise impedes the ability to conduct this meeting are prohibited and participants May virtual participants May raise their hand to speak during open comment and public comment periods during hearings individuals online must display their whole name before being allowed to speak online and currently only audio testimony is permitted online and for those of you joining us in person for the public uh hearings we'll hear from each of you first and then switch over to the virtual participants

[2:01] uh for public comment all right Abby I'll hand it back over to you thank you Marcy I want to acknowledge that we have a quorum tonight four board members are present and our fifth board member is joining us virtually a recording of this meeting will be available in the record archives and on YouTube within 28 days of this meeting we're going to do a quick roll call and introductions um Chelsea would you be kind enough to start sure hi everyone Chelsea castalano landmarks board member thank you Abby Daniels chair of the landmarks board John Decker member of the landmarks board Renee globic member of the landmarks board Mark landmarks board member thank you Ronnie Mark McIntyre planning board member ex officio member of landmarks and you were here last night in Chambers yes yeah okay thank you Mark and do want to make

[3:00] sure for people who don't know Chris Reynolds is the City attorney here this evening I'm Staffing this landmarks board meeting so welcome Chris to your second landmarks board meeting thank you we know that there are people here to participate who may have strong emotions about some of the hearings before us this evening we want to hear from you but we have found it as 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 hearings request to speak outside of those times will be denied we request that members of the public who wish to speak in person sign up using the sheet with Aubrey virtual participants will follow in-person speakers and we will ask you at that time to raise their virtual hand and Lauren will be fa facilitating that when we get to that as

[4:02] board chair I will call for a roll call vote on any motions made so our first agenda item tonight is the approval of the minutes for the January 10th 2024 meeting did anybody have any changes or alterations to those minutes no Ronnie none for me okay um and I know Chelsea you were were out of the country during that meeting then I move we approve the January 10th 2024 meeting minutes do I have a second I'll second thank you John on a roll call vote John I Renee hi Ronnie hi so the the minutes for the January meeting are approved thank you we will now move on to public participation for non-agenda into items so this would be for anything

[5:02] that's not going to be heard later this evening in the two public hearings before us Aubrey I don't know if anyone has had a chance to sign up with you for public participation we do have one in person for open comment maybe two our first is Aaron Cook hi good evening uh my name is Aaron Cook and I work for University have for the past 14 years roopa would just like to thank the Landmark Ford for coming out um on January 25th in reviewing the site of 201111 um it's really important to us that everybody understands that there's many things about this building that make it really impossible to save um we have life safety problems we have Ada Ada accommodation issues we we have needed

[6:01] building sustainability upgrades we have flood plane issues um we have first first floor ceiling height issue all of these things make this building extremely challenging um so anyways thanks for coming to visit we appreciate you taking the time and and that includes the staff for working on us with with this issue I think it's important to say neuropa and the city of Boulder have shared value and our shared values are inclusivity which would translate into Universal Design we want our buildings to be sustainable for the future and it's very important that our buildings are safe and as good stewards that we make sure we pass that on to our community um our ask naropa asks at the Landmark board remove the stay on the demo permit and issue said demo permit as soon as

[7:00] possible so we can move forward uh we this is beyond the board's purview but I'm going to State it anyways we we have a buyer of this property and they it's a great match for the community for neuropa um they're not going to put a bar there they're not gonna put a restaurant there they're not going to increase huge density it's one of those things we don't want to lose this buyer I don't think Boulder wants to lose this buyer so and I know that's has nothing to do with this committee but I'm just gonna put it out there that we don't want this person to get cold feet and we want to move on with this process as soon as possible so I appreciate your time and thanks again have a wonderful evening thank you and we appreciate your time Aubrey do you have another next we have Patrick

[8:01] oor hi Patrick just repeat city council not city council uh I specifically wanted to come and thank uh the Boulder City staff for attending the CPI conference this week uh it was it was a pleasure to see the commitment that the city gives to uh our community and uh I just wanted to say thank you uh it was nice to see you and it was really impressive to see Brad there too so I thought you know if the leadership shows up it means that there's commitment to our community that was about it thank you Patrick all right we have no one else in person for open comment now we can move to our virtual attendees Lauren Kennedy do you see anyone out there I do um so first excuse me first we have Lynn

[9:00] seagull all right Lyn you're unmuted it's so remarkably fortuitous that we have 105 and 211 on 111 on the same uh you're going to discuss tonight because these related flu uh flooding situations have connect um on 2111 um I'm saying you need to go for a further stay of demolition um this this place did not flood due to um Upstream um improvements to the the bridge at um between Canyon and arapo on Broadway um that caused this particular area not to be flooded in 2013 and I think this case needs to go before RAB I don't think landmarks board is capable of doing an analysis of flooding issues

[10:03] that would be appropriate for it it's it's got to be honest you know and the the honest part of it is it's a big deal if you're gonna lose your basement but if you're not going to lose your basement and it's you know and considering all of the factors then at least if you know that you're not going to lose the basement then would you still want to demo it um because I think there are some options in there about the basement and the ironic thing 15 you're going to f in that basement but I haven't even seen the downstairs and there's a lot of um I don't know what the proportional Square footages down there but that's a beautiful place that Bungalow it's the only historic home in the neighborhood you don't want to move it somewhere to do tourism of of PL of you know hisor places and um the options there these

[11:03] these are not we're not here you know ironically the person that bought that house had considered Mapleton but they didn't want to because there's too many restrictions there instead they go and get a place that's a historic place but not in Mapleton and thinking they're going to get some handouts and they shouldn't be um and the public and the landmarks board should be able to see the inside to understand that basement if you leave that house alone the basement could stay there you might have to demo those out buildings Al although I think they should be able to stay too but that's a lot of valuable space so it's kind of interesting how there's this basement with 2111 and there's this basement with 1015 and um with 1015 it's it's you know potentially a good usable space but I want to see it or understand it better

[12:00] myself this is not my specialty you know I'm an ultrasound technologist but I'm concerned about my community and historic preservation thank you thank you Lyn all right and then um next we have Nicole deles and you're unmuted Nicole um but you might need to do it on your own too thank you my name is Nicole delmage and I am with shelter belt design our firm prepared the demo application for 201111 arapo Avenue on behalf of the owner neuropa and their potential buyer um I'd like to Echo many of the points that Aon cook made about the challenges facing this particular building and I don't have a perfect understanding of the stay of demolition process but I did want to let the board know that I'm in attendance today just in case there are any clarifications needed during the discussion thank you very much

[13:00] thank you Nicole all right we have no more um virtual participants for this part and AUB you've received no additional ones so we will go ahead and close public participations for items not on the agenda this evening and now I will turn it back to Marcy for discussion of landmark alteration and demolition applications issued and pending thank you Abby uh we currently have three stays of demolition uh pending um with various timelines and so the uh two of the speakers um were representing the applicants for 2111 Arapaho this is the building owned by neuropa um and uh we had a site visit on January 25th and uh Renee Ronnie and Abby were able

[14:02] to make it the three nope not Abby John sorry about that um the three landmarks board representatives for this case and um I personally found it very helpful to walk through the building and um understand its challenges uh both in the flood plane and other kind of development constraints but also in the way that it was constructed with no internal connection between the first floor and the second second floor um and to see a little bit more of the condition up close as well so um I found it very informative want to extend my um thank you to Aon Nicole and the rest of the team uh for bringing folks together relatively quickly um to discuss alternatives to demolition um so this one uh as well as the next one 1015 Juniper uh you all have a scheduling decision in front of you tonight about uh whether you'd like to hold a hearing to either initiate the landmark

[15:02] designation process or uh issue the demolition um uh permit uh before this day of of demolition expires and so the next regularly scheduled landmarks board meeting is on March 6 sorry on March um yes it's on March 6th and for 2111 arapo this day of demolition expires the following day on March 7th so the two options in front of you tonight because you all chose to put a shorter stay to kind of expedite the process um is to either schedule a hearing for March 6th and U make a formal vote one way or the other or to not schedule a hearing allow this day of demolition to expire um if no action is taken before that it would just be approved on March 7th um so Abby I don't know if you'd like to go one by one through each of these um or talk about the scheduling decisions at the

[16:01] end but I would also like to open it up to Ronnie Renee and John uh to share their kind of observations from that state of demolition meeting well I don't know if my colleagues have a preference I think we could do them one by one because you've already put the two that would need a scheduling decision made together and I look forward to hearing from Ronnie Renee and John about the property on arapo Abby I can jump in if you'd like awesome yeah I agree with Marcy I thought that the site visit was really valuable um and Aaron and Nicole thank you again for co-hosting that with others and then for coming tonight to um help us kind of further the conversation um I think that the applicant accurately descri described the challenges and the projected um costs

[17:03] associated with a potential uh the potential of keeping the building versus um pursuing their demolition request and so you know that was really evident in being able to review the condition and location of utilities the egress and accessibility challenges that are obvious on site um further understanding kind of the development agreement um controls that were in place and then you know getting Visual Evidence of the flood plane challenges so I think that we did the right thing by placing a stay on this property um but I think um that the unfortunately that this property is um a good candidate for demolition for all the reasons the applicant described and i would support an expeditious version of um getting them a demolition permit issued thank you Ronnie Renee or

[18:01] John um okay um I think I'm I'm inclined to agree with what Ronnie just said on a couple of levels um one of the things about this building that makes it so problematic is that a lot of a lot of architecture at that particular period in history was designed um under I would say experimental assumptions and so things were done for various reasons to try them out and sometimes the assumptions didn't hold true through history and one of the things I observed in this building is that it had had one type of heating in its first first period this is this is a conclusion based on observation and may not be correct but it's what it looked

[19:00] like happened the building had a type of heat such as hot water heat that was radiators took very little floor t- floor space to execute and was converted to forced air the forest air caused them to have to put duct work under floors um and lower ceilings so they have six and a half foot ceilings in a number of areas which is not a workable condition at least as it's built now and then there was also the issue of the flood plane that would require raising the floors um I don't remember the exact reason but the roof structure was such that it was not going to well it wasn't going to be easy to lift it because it would have consisted of rebuilding the roof higher with an increased parit size um this is after you've moved all the floors up to accommodate the flood plane

[20:03] and so it just seems to have a lot of workability issues I do think that the building needs to be thoroughly documented it's an e it's an interesting form um the experiment was an interesting experiment in how to put a building together and I think all of that needs to be carefully documented um but I do think it's probably a candidate for demolition um I you know I agree with my colleagues after you know walking through the site which was super helpful um I um I think that you know this is a great candidate for demolition um because we have something that's coming up in its place and it fits and and hopeful that you know we can't really

[21:00] spread our wings and make sure that happens that's not part of our thing but the this change is inevitable in this um in this world that we live in and so I really think that I'm hopeful on the client neuropa and their you know the the person that is hopefully buying it and going to do what they said they're going to do and so um I I think that in itself is a really good piece of the puzzle and everything that we and Ronnie and you know John already talked about the problems with bringing it up to code and you know a lot of stuff and um I think it was really nice last time you know it was talked about that this architect he has better Works within the city that we can you know save and preserve and you know this doesn't really fit as well anymore so I would agree with um doing the demolition Chelsea I don't know if

[22:03] you I don't have anything to add I wasn't at the S visit but um based on what my colleagues are saying I would uh agree with their recommendation thank you and Mark I don't know if you so first of all I do want to thank Eric and Nicole because I think you help really expedite this I Ronnie you said something that really resonated with me I I am very pleased and um still happy with our vote to put a stay on this so we could explore all Alternatives and I appreciate how quickly a site visit was made I also appreciate the board taking kind of a new Step In My Time on the board where we did not let this day go 180 days but we intentionally voted that we would places day no later than March 7th 2024

[23:01] so I I think that was new to us but I applaud you guys and I also am grateful that the three Architects on our board immediately raised their hands and were willing to serve and go look on it John I heard your comment about the experimentation sometimes it doesn't work but I also know you know that some of the experimentation here in Boulder has led to some of our best buildings and our our greatest modern architecture and and so but I know what I I heard what you said and I knew what you meant about this building what I'm hearing from the three of you is that you don't see a path forward to designate this especially over the owner's objection and while I I find it a an interesting building I also have probably landed on the fact that this architect who when we first had this building before us the Carnegie Branch library for local history was closed due to the pandemic mic so more information was found since

[24:00] then so then we could we did have an architect when this was with before us most recently I also do agree though and Renee you just mentioned this um it's not the most the best example of this architect and there are other things still in Boulder that have it so I would not I personally will not be you know supporting scheduling an initiation hearing what I don't know Chris Marcy what our options are since this board very intentionally and I think very correctly placed a much shorter stay than we might have been allowed to I don't know um Renee I don't know if I was hearing from you like is there the potential to vote to lift the day or does that require another meeting to have that vote no um so you have two options one would be to schedule a hearing heing for the 6th to

[25:00] make a formal vote your other option would be to not schedule a hearing and then the stay would expire on the 7th and so the main difference is the preparation in the staff report holding a public hearing and having a formal vote versus a day later it would just expire and if we're not scheduling a vote you still want a motion made for that no you that we would not need to do that no you the board would just um take no uh action and not schedule anything and I see Ronnie's hand up on on the screen Ronnie go ahead um Marcy just a clarifying question because I think we're hearing from the board a direction of a demolition approval um and it sounds to me like the most expeditious process is to let it that requires the least amount of work is to for it to expire on March 7th um

[26:00] just a clarifying question here um by not voting tonight to um to have a a designation hearing is there any chance that between now and the 7th that the landmarks board could do something to um prevent the demolition from occurring and the reason I ask that is because the applicant is interested in a sales process not that I have an intention of us stepping in and um making such a decision I just want to for clarity sake if we don't move forward with the hearing we know that that is leading towards the stay expiring and then allowing for the demolition is there any other alternative that might happen um that might be of interest concern to the seller and potential buyer sure um so

[27:01] that would look like the landmarks Bo board holding a special meeting between now and March 6th and that would need to be publicly noticed at least 10 days in advance so someone else can do the math on that so it's um it's possible and that would look like holding a special meeting before the sixth and Chelsea has her hand up is it are we allowed to make a motion tonight to approve the demolition no no because tonight's not a public hearing it's just a scheduling decision okay um I I think that the best route for us and our energy would be to not move forward with a landmark hearing and to let the stay expire and for the applicant to understand what those terms mean as Marc described which I think means around February 26 6 would be the last day in which there could be like

[28:01] some alternative path which I don't think is going to happen um but just for legal reasons I feel like I should you know just clarify that that's the possibility do your dog second did that um and Marcy and Chris so to take no action do we even need we don't take yeah we don't take a vote even right okay yeah I guess just I want to conclude with another thank you to Aaron and their team um again I feel like your research and presentation was very robust and I know that it can be challenging to have a building um that is an old building that comes in front of us and you know I hope that kind of our Collective Cooperative efforts have put put everybody in a good position to understand the Merit of this building um

[29:02] and then also for you to move forward um with your demolition with kind of an expedited timeline so um thanks again Erin and Nicole all right okay well then I'll move on to the second of the three stays of Demolition and that will be the um house at 1015 Juniper uh the landmarks board you all put a place placed a stay of demolition on this application at your November meeting and um we met with the applicants on November 28th uh which was here in the city offices uh to explore alternatives to Demolition and really think creatively about um how this building could be preserved and then we followed up with a site visit um on January uary 8th and um that always helps being able to see the building in

[30:01] its context and understand kind of the scale of the surrounding neighborhood also see the building a little bit more up close um and so uh I suppose we did report back oh no we haven't had a meeting since January 8th so um let's see my uh observations from that meeting I think that um there are no easy properties to redevelop in Boulder and the on that we see come in for full demolition that applicants have often exhausted all easier options which can include uh keeping a building and adding on to it so I think between the two stays of demolition um similar to the last when I've I've kind of understood the constraints a bit more in terms of the um flood plane that flows through the property both the conveyance Zone and I believe the 100-year flood plane um as well as the existing buildings sitting just seven inches below the base

[31:00] flood elevation which creates some um issues with both the basement square footage and then also the the space above um I think there maybe had been hoped that this building could have um could be moved either on site and used as an Adu and repurposed I think because of the setbacks and the flood constraints um there's there's less room to do that on this property than than perhaps others um so uh I know that Zachary is here um from the applicant team and want to thank you for your time and um effort in putting together the materials and and coming to the table um I think with an open um conversation to talk about different alternatives to this one um so similarly this one uh is a scheduling decision in front of you tonight and I should have um framed that a little a little bit more clearly before the last one uh try not to State

[32:01] a position tonight it's more about just do you want to schedule a hearing to State your position and make a motion or do you not um it and it's okay it's very they're they're intertwined so it's easy to do so um the discussion in front of you tonight is do want hold a hearing and talk about this one in a month before the stay expires or do you want to take no action in allow this day to continue in this case this day of demolition would expire March 25th um unless the board uh took action before that date and Abby you were at the um site visit John I know you went by uh later um free feel free to add your comments um and Impressions from that meeting well and again I want to thank Zachary for everything he did to um and the real cand conversations we're able to have I mean this this is a

[33:01] wonderful intact home it adds a real Grace note to this street and to this neighborhood and um it's definitely a house that is eligible for individual Landmark Destin uh designation the thing that you also did well Zachary was this lot does have a lot of constraints and restrictions and and I know that I would support having an initiation hearing next month um I don't know if I would be a lone voice in that but um I do appreciate all the information we haveed all the efforts made to explore creative alternatives to demolition but I know it's it's a difficult site based on my I

[34:00] guess more cursory observations since I showed up late and walked around without being able to I guess ask questions directly the the concerns that I'll Express is that like what Abby just said I do believe that the house itself is very intact and in a condition that makes it eligible to be a landmark um and that is somewhat Amplified by the fact that it's one of the few remaining examples on that piece of Juniper Street of what was there 15 20 years ago or more and um it's it's kind of an indicator of the change of scale that has occurred um for that reason and also I don't understand all

[35:03] the constraints on the property because the the kind of observation I had was there's a great deal of depth to the lot that allows opportunity to I guess exploit the property in ways that wouldn't necessarily demolish the whole of that house but um those are things that lead me to think maybe we should consider voting for The initiation which is a scheduling issue not a decision so I just have some questions for Marcy I guess is so um it's either uh we we keep I get the whole scheduling thing and what we're voting on tonight what I want to know is when if we have staff bring something in March you're we landmarking the building

[36:02] no you're holding a hearing to uh review the building and consider initiation of landmark designation or depending how you frame the motion tonight to schedule that you can have options to either initiate the landmark designation process which is a whole different process into it of itself um or uh issue the demolition approval so you're scheduling a meeting to give yourselves the opportunity to take action on the application okay and then when in March it would be take it would be that we would it would be required that we Landmark it without the homeowners not on March but the we would push it forward to go through that process without the owners so the um the demolition to design destion process can sometimes feel like an accordion where

[37:00] it goes from the the house is proposed for demolition it's now landmarked over the owner's objection and we're pulling it apart and looking at each step of the process so tonight is a scheduling decision do you want to hold a hearing before the stay expires do you want to give yourself the opportunity to take action on the application before the demolition is approved at the March meeting you would then have an option to either start the designation process which then includes another public hearing at this landmarks board level and then it would go to city council after that city council makes the ultimate decision about designations both voluntary and over the owner's objection so it's um do you want to take the next step in considering the outcome for this building but there are at least four or five steps uh between tonight in February and a potential outcome uh which would be decided by city council and then just to muddy more

[38:02] of the water um is if it was um if it was moved to Landmark are they able to pick it up and move it the building uh let's see if if it were landmarked um then that would be reviewed through a landmark alteration certificate application we have had buildings that are landmarked move uh both onsite and offsite um so the answer is uh yes it would be reviewed through an Lac okay okay and Marcy Chelsea I know you may have something to say on Ronnie oh Ronnie's hand is up please Ronnie oh Chelsea maybe if you want to go first did you go to the site no go for it Sor um so I know that there's been a lot of work um that that's been researched

[39:02] that's been collaborative on this property to dat um do we have a Graphic that is the site plan um that demonstrates the buildable area on the lot the setback um encroachment issue and you know obviously the buildable area would also reflect the flood plane is there a drawing that demonstrates that I know that in the update there is site plan it's kind of hard to see online um we have that in the record um but I don't have it uh ready here the um applicant emailed it to the landmarks board earlier today um uh and then I would ask is that Central to your decision of whether or not to schedule a hearing I it it it it is just in the sense of better understanding the development scenarios that have been

[40:00] explored um and not having been out there I guess it's it seems to me that based on the report that staff has looked at each of these aspects that are the constraints on the site and and perhaps John you went to the site and Abby you were there did I understand correct I went to the site R and you know was there deeper conversation John about types of Redevelopment that include could include preservation of the house well unfortunately by the time I went there everybody had left it was a very cold day I got there late and Ronnie Claire's able to add the site plan to the slide really quick because she's quick like that um but in the meantime I can um kind of go over what the uh applicant had put together about the meetings that we have had to

[41:02] date and so um let's see so uh we met twice to discuss alternatives for Demolition and discuss the difficulties of this particular location in terms of preservation there's a on-site meeting to observe the the home as well as the neighborhood context of juniper and uh we discussed the financial hardship in renovating the existing structure and some preservation Alternatives and then um kind of go through some of the questions that were discussed during the this day about uh taking advantage of the exemption from the flood plane regulations raising the building to meet the um basee flood elevation exploring uh explored the building envelope and buildable space on the lot and um given the floodway to the rear of the lot there's limited room to relocate the home to the North and then looking at off-site relocation the biggest

[42:01] constraint is often where do you find an empty lot or a lot that could take this building um in Boulder or the surrounding communities so the site analysis for relocation the home cannot be located within the rear 60 feet of the lot because of the um flood plane and the current home uh doesn't comply with the 25 foot front yard setb and there's a 25 foot total side yard setback um so the applicant States achieving any type of reasonable addition would be difficult given the lot constraints and the requirement to lift and move the home um and then additionally speaking to the financial uh hardship would be any repair of the building over about $105,000 uh would require the building be brought up to meet current flood regulations and uh that would uh be a significant financial hardship for the owner okay and I don't think we're going

[43:01] to be able to get that up um but I do want to remind everyone this is a scheduling decision tonight not a decision on the outcome of this building Marcy thank you for doing that but just by responding to Ronnie's questions and the fact he had those questions kind of leads me to believe maybe that one hearing is important on March 6th to really have a little more fome conver ation about this but Marcy you said something that I think is very important for the board to remember that there can be two options that evening not just that it gets initiated and goes through the designation process the next step but also that the board can decide to issue the demolition permit on March 6 correct correct

[44:00] so Ronnie I don't know if you had anything else you wanted to add at this time no I just the the major takeaway for me there is that the roughly $100,000 worth of improvements requires the building to be lifted seven inches or something like that um and then the costs associated with that are pretty pretty high as I know um you know I think that a graphic that could also show the developable area on the lot would be helpful for me to just understand general terms of other scenarios um but I don't have any other questions at this point Abby thank you Ronnie Chelsey I mean I remember this application when we reviewed it the first time around and I believe I

[45:01] mean I don't think there's any additional information that I would need um to decide whether to approve the demolition request so um I'll just put that out there I I don't need another hearing thank thank you so I'm looking at John and Renee about your thoughts since this really is a scheduling question I mean my only talk is if you know we're we're already getting into the weeds right here then I think that it just needs another uh I think it needs another meeting and John are you still I think it needs another meeting and I I already stated that I would prefer that and you know Ronnie I don't know if you want to add anything but perhaps Marcy you could bring up that suggested motion

[46:01] language yes and I yes okay this is the correct motion language thank you Claire so the way that this is drafted on the screen gives the board two options um at that hearing you can either uh vote to initiate the landmark designation process or alternatively vote to issue the demolition permit in this case if you uh chose to issue the permit um on March 6 that would be uh about three weeks earlier than the stay would expire um you could also take no action that night and the stay would would continue so um if that's what the board uh would like in terms of the motion language it's ready for you on the screen thank you for pulling that up but also if we take no action tonight the permit doesn't issue any sooner it wouldn't issue until March 25th exactly and it could in fact be issued a little earlier if the hearing is held on March

[47:03] 6 Ronnie I don't know if you have anything you'd like to say or if someone would like to make a motion I'll make the motion and see if that goes I move that the landmarks board schedule a hearing to consider adopting a resolution to initiate the process for landmark designation pursuant to section 9-1-3 of the boulder Revised Code 1981 or alternatively issue a demolition permit persuant to section 9-1-2 3 BRC 1981 for 1015 Juniper Avenue is there a second to the motion I'll second it thank you Renee on a motion by John seced by Renee we'll do a roll call vote Chelsea

[48:00] I yes either's fine John hi Renee yes Ronnie I and I vote I so the M motion passes unanimously great okay all right moving on to the third and final stay of demolition for update for you all tonight and the um scheduling for this one is a a bit farther out where this stay of demolition expires at the very beginning of June so um we have a uh meeting with the applicants think tentatively scheduled are we maybe it's going to be next Thursday um at 1 15 pm 3:15 p.m. next Thursday on site uh to discuss alternative to Demolition and um could you remind me who the landmarks board representatives

[49:01] are John and Abby um so then looking ahead uh it's now February April 3 will be the meeting where you'll have a scheduling decision because May 1 is the last regularly scheduled meeting before this day of demolition expires so um no further updates on 2260 Baseline this evening but we'll look forward to um talking with the applicants next Thursday thank you and of course all board members are welcome to attend that but John and I raised our hands the last time so I believe now it's time to move on to our first public hearing this evening this is a public hearing and consideration of an application to designate the building and property at 2120 blue Bill Avenue as a local Historic Landmark pursuant to section 9 9115 of the boulder Revis code

[50:00] 1981 and um we will be swearing in anyone speaking to this both the the applicants and any members of the public speaking to this because it is quasi judicial and Claire you're presenting this hearing am thank you Abby um so as Abby said this is a quas Judicial hearing so all speaking will be sworn in um board members will note any expart contact no we don't need to do that sorry um do we yeah we do we do yes we do okay um I'll give the staff presentation hopefully getting it right after that the board may ask questions um the applicants who are here tonight may have will have an opportunity to speak and the board may ask questions of them um we'll then open the public hearing um if anybody wants to add anything um the board will then deliberate and a motion will require an affirmative vote of at least three

[51:00] members to pass um and a recording of this hearing will be available in a couple of days as a video recording and um the official record will be added to the archive within 28 days although usually sooner so the criteria today is outlined in the boulder Revised Code under 9115 C sorry 9111 and 9112 this is giving me a look um the options today are for the landmarks board to approve the application and recommend designation to city council um and the council hearing would be held within a 100 days um or the board May disapprove the request and this is subject to a 45-day call up period and the owners would need to file a notice of appeal so the owners uh Jim hutman and Susan elely submitted a designation application on November 16th and I just

[52:00] realized that I didn't do xart oh back to you I have none Chelsea none John I have none I have none Ronnie none thank you okay doing great tonight um so the uh the owner submitted a designation application on November 16th and we have a requirement in the code um for a a time period and that is why we're scheduled for today so this is the building it's 2120 Bluebell it's located between uh 21st and 22nd Street alley on Bluebell Avenue um and the front of the house faces North onto Bluebell the house was built in 1956 in a modernist style and it was designed by Hobie Wagner um has a low pitched roof with uh wide Rafters and uh trapezoid CL

[53:01] story Windows um and this wonderful continuation of the sopit under the Eaves from the outside through to the inside um the front facade as you can see is asymmetrical um with two low pitched front-facing Gables um and that uh the original asymmetrical Gable form um was actually different to this which we'll look at in a second but it's been emphasized by some stucko auditions um in front of and and behind um the existing building uh the house was built for Wilson and Virginia thank boner and their children um Wilson enlisted in the Army in 1941 and served until 1947 he received a Purple Heart uh which is given to members of the Armed Forces who are wounded or killed by enemy action obviously he wasn't killed um but he was wounded and even though we haven't been able to confirm it we

[54:02] suspect that uh Wilson or another of the family members was disabled and this led him and Virginia to um engage with Hobie Wagner to design a fully accessible house um it originally had ramps wide doorways and and a couple of other accessible modifications um that were very unusual in the 1950s um and then current owners Jim and Susan have owned the house since 1997 okay um architecturally um Jim and Susan have made some changes to the original design uh which have been recognized in an award from historic Boulder for the appropriate renovation and sympathetic additions um Hobie Wagner was born in sou Falls South Dakota in 1921 he graduated from the University of Michigan School of Architecture um and

[55:00] when he married Violet Whipple they moved to Boulder um around 1950 um Hobie worked for James Hunter who's another um prominent Boulder architect and he designed more than 200 buildings in Boulder um before he retired um his designs often Incorporated uh unique roof lines um that you probably would recognize as soon as we point them out the community Plaza shopping center at Alpine and Broadway the green shield life insurance building of the Lo Lotus apartments at 928th Street and the uh First Methodist uh Episcopal Church Sanctuary at 1401 Spruce um he also had a great neck for bringing the outside into a building um and um as he did at 2120 Bluebell uh where the wood ceiling continues through to the to the sopit this is is the inside of the building you can see the the wood goes straight through to the to the outside um and you can actually see

[56:01] this also at the atrium building which is a 1300 Canyon um which Hobie also designed so we are very lucky to have uh Hobie Wagner's original architectural plans in the Carnegie Library this is the at the top the front elevation uh with the clear story Windows um the exposed wood and brick detailing called out on the plans there and and then below us below that is a um section um of the same elevation with Jim and Susan's addition so you can see the the asymmetrical um gable roof form has been continued even with that modification all right then in environmental significance um this area developed due to an influx of employees who um moved to Boulder to work at uh nist the National Institute of standards in technology which was built in 1954 um and some features of the 1950s

[57:01] development remain including this somewhat Hidden Gem so staff's recommendation is that the landmarks board recommends to city council that it designate the property at 2120 blue belt Avenue as a local Historic Landmark to be known as the fankboner harman elely house finding that it meets the standards for individual Landmark designation in sections 9111 and 9112 of the boulder Revised Code um the proposed fla language details that Wilson and Virginia fank boner worked with architect Hobie Wagner to design their house to include natural light and a ceiling that continues from the outside to the inside subsequent owners Susan elely and James Hartman designed sensitive additions to complement the original house and the proposed boundary would follow the property line so our proposed findings are that the building is architecturally significant

[58:00] and ex as an Exemplar example of modernist mid-century design an important example of Boulder's historic architecture associated with architect um hober DW Wagner and constructed with skilled craftsmanship and of such the uh proposed designation will maintain an appropriate setting and environment for the building enhance property values stabilize the neighborhood promote tourist trade an interest and Foster knowledge of the city's living Heritage so that's the end of my presentation um the next steps in the process is we'll ask uh Jim and Susan if they have anything to add and then we'll move into public participation and then uh board deliberation thank you so much Claire um before we invite the applicants up do any board members have any questions questions of CLA after that presentation I don't see any so now we'd like to invite Susan and James

[59:06] up or James and I will ask you to raise your hand and swear you'll tell the board the full truth and state your full name and then you may proceed I swear to tell the truth I'm Jim Hortman 2120 Bluebell Avenue thank you so I just want to thank a few folks here um Susan and our family for supporting this because we've been thinking about this ever since Dan Corson asked us to be on a house tour in 2010 so thank you Dan for getting us thinking about this and then um the month of modern tour that we just had in September was a great opportunity to have folks see the home and we had a lot of real positive reaction and then historic Baler was kind enough Lenny and his group to give us that award so we

[60:01] thought shoot we might as well try it um we've really enjoyed living in the house for 25 years plus um we've raised our kids there and uh Hobie Wagner is just buried about half mile away in the Green Mountain cemetery and I walk the dog up there every day and say thanks Hobie for nice house um we love the ceiling detail in fact on the month of modern tour we noticed a lot of the other houses had um we think not quite as nice as if a ceiling detail with the batens that cover the joints and the structural wood that actually is the roof deck so um we just feel really honored to live in a Hobe Wagner house and and we're happy to bring the nomination to all of you thanks thank you so much and thank you for your stewardship and for sharing it with the community during the house tour thank you so now we'll move on to public

[61:00] participation I don't know if anyone has signed up with Aubrey to speak to this designation hearing we do have one inperson sign up for this one and that is Leonard seagull welcome Leonard and I am going to ask you to swear to tell us the whole truth I do swear thank uh Leonard seagull um and I just want to give a little bit of background uh about 20 years ago I worked on the uh writing the history of modernism in Boulder and I had an opportunity to meet with Hobie Wagner uh it was a big day in my life to meet this person and he was the nicest uh gentlest friendliest unassuming person that you could ever imagine considering what he had done for Boulder all over all those years and he made me feel really great because he said Gee you went to Michigan too and so he was just trying to find things in common he's just a great guy and he shared with me his record of all of his

[62:02] houses and buildings and this was it was an opportunity then for me to go around and look at all these buildings and I noticed this building uh back then and then Flash Forward 20 years uh in the present um historic Boulder got involved and is involved with the month of modern to help um stage the landmarks of the future tours and so it was wonderful to see this house in the tour it was great to meet Jim and Susan and the feedback they got and our support uh lofted them to bring this forward as a uh a landmark and they're the kind of people who are do they've already done really sensitive uh uh work uh to the original design and um I think it's a great example for the landmarks board to uh make this a land landmark and show how buildings can grow and age over time in done in a sensitive manner so I encourage you to support

[63:01] this and I thank the you for bringing the building forward for landmarking thank you thank you Leonard all right that is it for current signups if anyone would like to speak just raise your hand um we do have ly seagull uh virtual great all right Lyn you're unmuted and and Lynn before your three minutes begin since this is quasa judicial you'll need to swear to tell the swear to tell the truth the best as I know it is that okay yes thank you okay thanks um yeah that was a really cool presentation and it's it's a neat house I like that interior um the ceiling um and the the um the

[64:00] fact that it was designed for um Ada for someone from the war is really nice too and and deserve that alone probably deserves landmarking but just another really nice Obi Wagner and I wish I could take two minutes from this for 10:15 Juniper to preserve it but I can't so this is just a no-brainer yeah go for it good Landmark thanks done thank you Lynn Lauren do we have anyone else online online no we uh we do not all righty Abby take it away thank

[65:01] you so we will go ahead and close public participation for this hearing now Susan and Jim you do have an additional three minutes if you'd like to come up and add anything or reut anything that that was said but I I don't know that there's anything you need to reut but okay and thank you again for your outstanding stewardship of this so we'll bring this moot we'll bring this back to the board for deliberations I don't know if there's anyone who would like to start this off um I would okay John please the first thing is is that I want to thank the owners for their stewardship of this property um this is one of those properties where it's just kind of delightful to sit here and review view it um it's a beautiful example of the type of modernism um I found it interesting that

[66:04] ly Lynn's comments that were just made address the issue of accessibility in the building um is it's an interesting factor that kind of enhances the overall qualities of the property it's it's a beautiful community that it sits in it um relates to the people who built it and the purpose they built it for it was a kind of a modernist postor War II event that the the Commerce labs and the national standards Labs were built there and people were moving here to work in those facilities um so it's a kind of a seminal piece of Boulder's history um so yeah it's a no-brainer we want to recommend this one for designation thank you John I don't know

[67:00] who'd like to go next I know Ronnie you're you're with us virtually sure I can jump in I'm not sure if you guys are looking at me we are looking at you okay I had no idea it's freaking me out um yeah um I agree with John I mean what a wonderful candidate to become a landmark building um I think it clearly checks all the points um I think one thing that makes it unique um that that's a little different than our typical landmark building is that there has been a modern addition to it that um you know allows this building to continue to comply with the standards of preservation and still honor the historic structure and so I compliment everybody involved um the current homeowner um excellent job being the steward um you know Leonard um for

[68:02] speaking up on the cause of modernist buildings and then Dan corson's Legacy continuing to push these types of things forward and get candidates like this um to come forward um to L to designate these wonderful buildings so I think this particular house is exceptional I think it checks all the boxes um and would support uh moving for forward with the designation thank you Ronnie do we need to belabor it anymore no I think I'm definitely in support of this but yeah and and I you're right I I will Echo what my colleagues have already said and and their hard acts to follow many times but you know this is is the joyous part of serving on this board is to see buildings like yours come forward and to be able to say um you know wholeheartedly and without any

[69:01] hesitation we are delighted to recommend this to city council to designate so we can't thank you enough I think it's individual landmarking like this is a gift to the community and um reflects back on you I also really appreciate staff when you uh gave us the proposed language for the plaque I'm glad you're honoring both Susan and Jim and that so thank you for that so you know we could go on about this because it's exciting um but I want to see if anyone would like to make a motion I'll motion do that if you'd like Ronnie go ahead since you're willing to do this remotely please sure I moved at the Landmark landmarks board recommend to the city council that it designate the property at 2120 blue Bill a as a local Historic Landmark to be known as the fank boner Hartman Ellie house finding that it meets the

[70:00] standards for individual Landmark designation in section 9111 and 9112 BRC 1981 and adopt the staff memorandum dated February 7th 2024 as the findings of the board thank you Ronnie do we have a second I second and before we vote Mark I don't know if you wanted to make any comments on this one no this is one it's easy just to say I support it yeah yeah thank you Mark so we'll do a roll call vote Chelsea yes John I Renee I Ronnie I and I vote I so the motion passes unanimously to recommend this to city council thank you again I know I at sometime I feel after one of these we're going to hold hands it's in CA yeah but I can't see so um Claire I know you will follow up with next steps for the the owners yes as

[71:02] we've mentioned the uh final decision is city council so we'll be in touch to uh schedule two hearings uh before May 17th which is our 100 day deadline um and then uh once we have the um the ordinance we'll create a bronze plaque to add to the to the building and then we'll also invite the the OWN to the square nails ceremony in May so thank you thank you again and now we'll move on to the second and last public hearing this evening item 5B is a public hearing and consideration of an application to designate a portion of the area from 1777 Broadway to 14th Street and between Canyon Boulevard and Arapaho Avenue as a historic district pursuant to section 9115 of the boulder Revis code 1981 and I know Marcy will be doing this

[72:03] presentation yes here I am um I would like to start by thanking our um staff team you know Claire brand Olivia Aubrey um Brad and KJ as well as Vivian and and Kate in the communications and engagement uh group this has been a a tremendous effort and I think as you all saw the memo was clocked in at 52 Pages plus attachments and so my presentation this evening is going to be longer than uh normal but it's also uh important to be thorough so um with that I will get started so this is a quasi judicial hearing um and the process is the same as the prior uh item all speaking to the item are sworn in and board members will note any exp parte contacts uh I will then present followed by board questions

[73:00] and then the applicant will have 10 minutes to present followed by uh questions from the board the public hearing is then open for anyone who would like to speak for three minutes each and then after the last person has uh spoken the applicant will have a chance to respond to anything that was said the public hearing is then closed and the board will discuss a motion requires an affirmative vote of at least members to pass motions must State findings conclusions and a recommendation and finally a record of the hearing is available uh both video recording and audio recording uh usually posted within 28 days but uh often sooner so I would turn it back over to the board for any ex parte contacts uh you may have had related to the proposed Civic area historic district Chelsea none I've had a few very brief conversations with members of the public that were more about process but nothing

[74:01] to do with the merits or you know nothing that would affect how I will vote I have none I have none Ronnie for me none for me thank you all right great thank you all right so the criteria for your review this evening is found in section 9111 and 9112 of the boulder Revis code and that's whether this designation will preserve protect and enhance historically significant buildings and sites or architectural styles of the past and that this designation will develop and maintain appropriate settings to enhance property values stabilize neighborhoods promote tourists trade and interest and Foster knowledge of the city's living history further um the designation ordinance which is decided by city council uh will include a description of the characteristics of the district

[75:00] justifying its designation a description of the particular features that should be preserved the location and boundaries of the landmark site or district and then it can also include alterations that would have a significant impact or be potentially detrimental to the landmarked uh site or District so your decision tonight is based on that criteria of whether it it's eligible in that in section 9111 or 9112 but we're also asking for your um feedback if you have any about the um components that will go into the ordinance as well as the uh draft design guideline framework which would be the foundation for design guidelines if the district is designated so you have um two options in front of you tonight you can either recommend designation to city council and that would mean we go then to planning board uh followed by uh city council review which would be before May 17th or you can uh recommend uh

[76:01] disapproval of the designation that decision is subject to a 45-day callup period and then the owners which in this case is the city of Boulder um May file a notice of appeal within 21 days of your decision uh if you vote to uh disapprove it so kind of zooming out uh looking at the big picture of the effective local designation it recognizes and protects areas significant to Boulder's history and there are currently 10 historic districts in Boulder the first was Floral Park in 1977 and others are maybe the most well-known or iconic uh areas of town including chiaka Park Mapleton Hill and uh the downtown uh Pearl Street and in addition um there are also 214 individual landmarks and total that represents less than uh 3% of properties in

[77:00] Boulder the benefits of designation include tax credits grant funding possible code variances and staff assistance um as well as a bronze plaque or in the case of the district uh signage and the responsibilities are that physical change is reviewed by the historic preservation program to ensure that it's compatible with the site's historic character and the designation in 2023 uh we took a look back at the statistics and found that 88% of landmark alteration certificates uh were approved 11% are still in review and only 1% were denied of the approved Lac applications 90% were approved within two weeks and um note that very few Lac applications are denied um we're often able to come to a consensus and in the rare case that the landmarks board denies an application that decision is subject to call up by the city council so turning to the application in front of you tonight the boundary

[78:02] proposed by the applicants includes Central Park the 13th Street and sister city plazas five individually designated landmarks and portions of Broadway 13th two ditches and Boulder Creek the proposed District includes an area with a history that precedes the 1871 founding of Boulder it has documented residential and Commercial uses from the 1870s until the 1920s it includes Central Park an Urban Park forly established in 1924 as well as five surrounding municipal buildings constructed between 1906 and 1998 that represent a progression of architectural Styles as a whole this area represents an Eclectic uh character that is unique to Boulder's history location and climate this application started back in 2021 when the city received a request to expand the landmark boundary for the Glenn Huntington Bandshell to include

[79:00] the area between the seating and the ditch uh the landmarks board voted to initiate that designation process and in 2022 voted to recommend expansion of the boundary city council chose not to expand the boundary but instead gave a knot of five for parks in planning and development staff to explore the creation of a historic district in this area in 2023 three uh that led to a initiative uh last January in meeting with the Parks and Recreation staff on a bi-weekly um schedule to explore uh a historic district and then at the end of May uh three historic preservation advocacy groups submitted the historic district application and in July the landmarks board voted to initiate the designation process uh we signed a tolling agreement to provide additional time um which we greatly appreciated uh which then set

[80:01] tonight February 7th as the uh landmarks board designation hearing so uh kind of a brief overview of this uh process it started with the uh research and Department coordination this uh process provided an opportunity to tell a a more complete history of the area both looking at it through a racial Equity lens and its social and cultural significance there was new information that had been digitized this area has been written about many many times but often the same narrative is repeated and we have the opportunity and the responsibility to ask new questions and try and tell a history that that hasn't been documented before this area is also very complex uh it is all city-owned property property but there are nine different departments that manage the land and so um in August we had a touch point with each of those nine City

[81:01] departments as well as a coordination with the three ditch companies and SE do we then move to the community engagement phase which went until let's see about September through November um and I'll go into more detail um in a couple of slides about the community engagement efforts in December we formed technical Advisory Group uh with different City Department representatives and representatives from the three applicant groups in order to create a draft design guideline framework and we made the decision to scale it back to be focused on the intent the scope of the design guidelines and guiding principles rather than trying to fit a full uh design guideline document into this a very fast process you all reviewed that along with the Parks and Recreation Advisory board at a joint study session on December 18th and then we had another uh touch point with each of the nine departments

[82:01] um in December on January 22nd the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board provided uh feedback on the proposed designation and that brings us to um this evening uh the landmarks board designation hearing the memo goes into greater detail about the engagement uh Communications and engagement summary um but it included uh department and agency coordination consultation with the community connectors and residents uh providing three walking tours in October in a partnership with the applicant groups the web page the story map um and an online questionnaire as well as uh media coverage including a channel 8 interview and information in the newsletters we are also at the whats up Boulder event and the Carnegie Library uh anniversary event Boulder rewind where um Claire presented some of the uh new research that had been completed as

[83:01] as part of this and then um as of uh earlier today we've received um 14 letters uh all of those have been in support the online form which is the chart on the right hand side show the um the split of those who have submitted comments on online form and so um the numbers are way too small for me to read but uh slightly more uh are voiced a opposition to the district um than and some in support and then uh the red portion is uh those that were unsure and so those uh who voiced support for the designation these are themes that are summarized in the memo so I won't go and read every single one um but in support uh themes about it would be good for tourism and business preservation is generally a valuable

[84:00] goal and um that uh this area represents the best of Boulder and could improve Public Safety in this area and the history being told acknowledges impacts of uh historically excluded communities and supports the city's Equity aspirations those opposed um the themes included that the district is not aligned with the city's equity and climate goals that there's a preference to focus on Redevelopment and programming rather than further restrictions and the parking lots are not historic uh and shouldn't be included and that they should be used for a community benefit such as affordable housing and then um the need to ensure that our Civic spaces meet the needs of our community today and then those that were unsure of the designation um voice things like needing more information to understand the impacts of designation concerns that public resources would be spent with little return and skeptical that the collection of disjointed buildings

[85:00] warrant a a historic district designation um and likely to be more supportive of the if the use of the current buildings can be reimagined there we go and then um just to recap the letters of support uh the all the letters that were received um since July have been uh voicing in support of the uh proposed designation and then the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board had an opportunity to provide comments at their meeting um that should be January 22nd uh just a few weeks ago the for members present agreed that they do not support the designation of this area uh summarized as a lack of understanding of the unifying element or overarching theme that would explain creating a district lack of support for additional protection and outsized input by one City Board given that the buildings Bandshell and some areas of the park are

[86:00] already protected by designation in disagreement that the potential benefits of designation outweigh the added process time and thus expense of a district and I will note that uh this is one step in the process that public um feedback form on the website will be open all the way through the city council review in uh mid April and at each step in the process we will continue to gather that input and then um build it uh towards council's decision okay so moving to uh the criteria for review there's a lot of different um rules regulations guidance Etc so uh starting with the boulder Revis code that was the section 9111 and 9112 that I that I read at the beginning um city council will also be asked to uh weigh in on whether it meets that same criteria that you'll be looking at tonight in balance with the goals and

[87:01] policies of the Boulder Valley comprehensive plan the landmarks board additionally adopted the local significance for district landmarks in 1975 to help provide consistency in the designations and then because we don't have specific regulations uh in our code or administrative rules uh that speak to integrity and Boundary justifications as a certified local government we look to the National Park Service for guidance and they have two bulletins uh relating to those things which we also utilized so starting with the significance of the area uh here I'll remind us of the designation criteria so 9111 is that the proposed designation will preserve protect and enhance historically significant buildings and sites or ar architectural styles of the past and that the designation will develop and maintain appropriate settings to enhance property values stabilize neighborhoods

[88:00] promote tourists trade and interest and Foster knowledge of the city's living history uh the comprehensive plan as I mentioned is something that Council will weigh in on but I did include this in the memo um kind of for awareness there are um quite a few goals and policies that relate to Historic preservation and into uh this uh designation in particular um a few to um call out would be uh leadership and preservation which talks about the city and county leading by examples and and designating their own eligible resources as well as um the one about preservation of cultural oh and it got cut off there um it talks about cultural uh landscapes in in this case uh this proposed District in includes an urban park and then um there are also ones that talk about the role of the Central Area sensitive infill and

[89:00] Redevelopment and the role of tourism in the economy so this isn't the focus of your discussion tonight um and we'll do additional analysis before the council review but uh wanted to include this for context so going to the designation criteria this is the significance criteria that the landmarks board adopted um in 197 5 staff finds that the area meets the criteria for historic significance for the public function of the area as the symbolic political and municipal center of Boulder's local government and is the site of numerous social cultural and political events for its significant in the history of Boulder's Park system development and its contribution to the Social and cultural life of the city for over a century the use of the park reflects the community over time following the construction of the band sh in 1938 Central Park became a focal point for social activities typically based around musical educational or religious events

[90:02] oops let me go okay um in the 1960s the event became more nostalgic with memorials to Pioneers Huck fin day and singalongs and in the 1960s and 70s the area was the site of rallies protests and experimental Theater Under recogn by authorities the district includes five local landmarks the van shell and Tea House are potentially eligible for listing on the national register and the atrium and municipal buildings are potentially eligible for listing on the state Register Central Park was identified in the Greenways plan in 2011 as potentially eligible for listing on the state and National registers as part of part of a historic district and I glossed over a little bit but when we're talking about the social and cultural significance the um protest rallies and demonstrations of the 60s and 70s that tie into um uh both the

[91:03] civil rights movement and the counterculture movement in Boulder are really important in and those took place here within the proposed District the area meets the criteria for architectural significance as it includes multiple significant works by notable Architects landscape designers build and urban planners including James Hunter Glenn Huntington and Hobart Wagner Frederick Law Olstead Jr and Sako dor it has a unique architectural identity representing a progression of styles that provides an Eclectic Municipal character unique to Boulder's history location and climate and the area meets the criteria for environmental significance for its planned and natural site characteristics including but not limited to this uh relationship of the buildings in Central Park Boulder Creek and the Boulder slooh which is the ditch circulation paths with the park creating a relatively flat Central green mature trees planted in groves in lining the perimeter of the

[92:01] park and the views towards the flat irons the area is an established visual uh familiar and prominent visual feature of the community due it due to its location near major thorough fars that covers the are's uh eligibility under significance and now we move to Integrity which is the ability to convey that historic significance and we look to the National register bulletin 15 of how to apply the criteria and there are seven aspects of Integrity location design setting materials workmanship feeling and Association uh our approach to the Integrity analysis um included many factors that would um including researching the history of the area and assessing its uh historic architectural and environmental significance review of the findings of the cultural landscape assessment prepared by the uh Parks and

[93:01] Recreation Department and certified by national experts multiple site visits comparison of historic and and current Aerials plans and photographs use of the National Park Service guidance to assess the area's Integrity uh based on its local significance in consultation with the state and National register historians at history Colorado to uh review the application of the guidance for a determining Integrity in the boundary so looking at the um earlier period not the earliest period but the earlier period um 1923 to 1937 P&S staff agree with the CLA findings that this period does not retain its historic physical Integrity the design of the park was substantially Changed by the introduction of the Art Deco Bandshell in 1938 and its seating in 1950 which interrupted the distinctive circulation pattern of diagonal walks that form the

[94:00] central green little remains in terms of the material and workmanship from this period the art deco Bandell has significantly altered the feeling of Central Park as it is a prominent visual uh feature visible both within the park and from the surrounding area overall the park today does not retain the physical features to convey the Integrity of association with the Olstead Brothers firm however moving to the next period of 1938 to 1974 uh we consider the area does retain its Integrity to this period the location of Central Park and the five landmark structures have not moved since their establishment its setting of an urban park surrounded by unique U municipal buildings retains its historic character located at The prominent intersections of Broadway Canyon 13th and arapa ho the area is centrally located and a familiar visual feature of the community the spatial relationship between the park and surrounding buildings retain a high degree of

[95:01] Integrity of design defining Chara uh defining design characteristics include but aren't limited to the Urban Street grid the park with its Central green and trees planted in groves and along the perimeter of the Park Boulder Creek in the boulder slooh five architecturally distinct structures in and adjacent to the park many of which were designed and cited in relation to their park setting the historic workmanship is evident in the integration of art and architecture of the dambe Tea House the high quality of masonry in the construction of the atrium building and the Penfield Tate the second municipal building and the construction of the band shell and its seating the district retains its Integrity of materials with the five designated structures the bansaw was reclad in 1995 using the same materials however the alteration doesn't diminish uh the structure's historic Integrity the district retains sufficient Integrity to convey its feeling of a historic Urban Park surrounded by unique structures

[96:01] representing very distinct architectural Styles in time periods and overall the district retains its Integrity to uh convey its association with the design of the park in this area from the 19 37 1938 to 1974 period and the numerous social cultural and political activities that incurred within the proposed District uh we consider the changes to the park in public spaces including the introduction uh of the Boulder Creek path and realignment of paths within Central Park do not detract from the overall setting and feeling associated with the district's historic significance moving next to the boundary we look to the National register bulletin um about boundaries that talk about um well I will just go to the conclusion of this one um staff recommends the boundary that is shown on the screen

[97:00] which would uh extend west of the municipal building to the back of the existing Landmark uh properties on the East and then from Canyon down to arapo uh we consider this as an appropriate boundary because it contains the significant concentration of the contributing buildings and sites including the five Des ated landmarks in Central Park uh Central Park retains its original boundary from its establishment in 1924 and the full extent of the park is historically significant for its social cultural and political use within that 1938 to 74 period of significance it utilizes Canyon and arapo as visual barriers that break the continuity of the district um Broadway has always historically bisected Boulder Civic Center um and so uh we chose not to include that that stretch of uh Broadway it includes a portion of 13th Street that wasn't included in the original application um proposed by uh

[98:02] the three Community groups and it does not include um the parking lots along 14th Street and um let's see uh it doesn't include the parking lots because no buildings or features within the period of significant still exist today in that area and the parking lot itself is not historic uh inclusion of the parking lot as a buffer is is discouraged by National Park Service guidance and then the southern boundary follows the midline of Boulder Creek which is a contributing feature and a visual barrier so while this boundary includes areas such as uh parts of Central Park Broadway and 13th that are non-contributing the grouping as a whole achieves significance within the its historic context and the majority of the components that add to the district's historic character uh possess possess Integrity okay moving on to the name um the landmarks board adopted guidance uh

[99:01] to decide names which are very important um this uh talks about uh names of the site or structure should be based on one or more of the following criteria original owners architect or Builder historically significant persons or prominent long-term residents a commonly accepted name original or later event or use unusual or architectural characteristic which clearly identifies the landmark and uh the contribution of both men and women those were adopted in 1989 uh I will say that we kind of went around and around in terms of a recommended name uh we landed on uh Civic area historic district um because it encompasses a a commonly known name of the area and a broad history in significance there were other names like the um park at Boulder Creek or the

[100:00] Central Area uh Civic Center um but none of those seemed like more obvious candidates than what's known today um but we were quite puzzled I think in in terms of coming up with with a name and if you look at the list of the other historic districts it's the like the 16th Street historic district and the University Place historic district they're often based on just the street names um uh so that is that is that okay moving on to the preliminary period of significance in character defining features um so we're recommending a period of significance and Claire and I were talking at the preservation conference last week that it shouldn't be called a period of significance it should should be called period of Integrity what's there today and and that's how it's defined because the significance of this area extends

[101:00] much much before 1938 but what's left there on the site today the character was established in 1938 the reason that a period of significance would um matter is that we look at changes uh being historic of if they occurred between 193 in 1974 uh there are a few individually significant um features that still exist today that's out outside of that uh period of significance and we could include more in the designation memo um the storage and transfer building in 1906 being one and the dambe Tea House in 1998 being the other so um let's see yeah while the period prior to 1938 are historically significant including the early Park planning and design 1903 to 1923 and 1924 to 1937 and the residential commercial and Industrial period 1880 to 1903 in the

[102:03] Indigenous history since time and Memorial the area no longer retains its historic Integrity physical features to convey that time to justify earlier period of significance however opportunities to represent that earlier history is encouraged in the draft uh guiding principles to tell that and represent that more complete story I will come back to this slide if the landmarks board um wishes during your discussion it's a preliminary list of contributing and non-contributing features um the contributing features are things like the open and natural character of Boulder Creek the boulder slope SLO even though changes uh within the easement don't require review the Urban Street grid each of the five individually landmark structures and Central Park open green with trees planted in groves and along the perimeter of the park including two state champion trees and then um I

[103:02] mentioned those individually significant features outside of the period of significance uh preliminary non-contributing features would include things like the sister City's Plaza and the 13th Street Plaza including the paving artwork in stone walls there'd be more flexibility to change those elements um as they were constructed uh 1974 the Boulder Creek path and the associated bridge and railings the Broadway Bridge which was reconstructed in about 2003 the light fixtures engraved Boulders the um flood Memorial and the bcycle stations would all be non-contributing okay moving on to the design guideline framework you all saw this in December so I'll just highlight the main change um as I mentioned the scope of the framework is the intent of the guidelines the the table of contents and The Guiding principles if the council votes to designate the district then a second project would begin to develop uh District specific design

[104:02] guidelines um so uh you've seen the scope of the design guidelines and what the what they would uh address and so I'm just going to highlight um the fourth uh guiding principle which I mentioned earlier um the area is significant for its association with Boulder's Municipal social and political history as part of Boulder's Civic area this District continues to have a symbolic Geographic and functional importance and therefore should serve as an inclusive place where all feel welcome celebrate the diversity of our community and enrich our Collective understanding a different periods of Boulder's history by acknowledging stories of historically excluded populations so this guiding principle is meant to to acknowledge the much broader history than what's left there today what's left there today is still eligible as a historic district but it's not the complete story um I

[105:01] think we struggled to kind of fit some of the designation into the boxes of preservation at the local level things like period of significance and contributing and non-contributing features this is our hope that preservation can be more inclusive and celebrate and invite those addition that help tell a more complete history and do that in a way that um retains the area's historic character but also you know completes it the only new guiding principle since you saw this last is number five which speaks to uh Redevelopment in the East bookend so encourage a vibrant mix of uses in the East bookend through adaptive reuse and creative infill new building design May reflect the character of its own time and have meaningful jux to position positions while in respecting the Integrity scale and massing of the surrounding historic buildings um and that is pulled uh from

[106:01] the existing um Park plan and the downtown Urban Design guidelines so an attempt to really um complement what's already on the books rather than adding um a lot of extra to it in summary the proposed area meets the local criteria for designation based on its architectural historic and environmental significance the area retains its historic Integrity to the 1938 to 1974 period of development and the recommended boundary encompasses the significant concentration of contributing features and uses the street grid of the B and Boulder Creek as Visual and physical barriers we recommend the name Civic area historic district and the period of significance is 1938 to 1974 for the designation ordinance and design guidelines will address contributing and non-contributing features and the design guideline framework includes the intent scope and guidelines of the guiding

[107:03] principles so with that staff recommends that the landmarks board recommend to city council that it designate the area encompassing a portion uh between this building 1777 Broadway to 14th Street in between Canyon and arapa Avenue as shown in figure 7 to be known as the Civic area historic district finding that it meets the standards for historic district designation in section 9111 and 9112 and recommend adopting the staff memorandum as findings of the board with that I'm happy to answer any questions you may have do any board members at this point have any questions for staff I may have some when we get to our deliberations Chelsea go ahead yeah I think if it's okay I'd prefer to delay my questions till after the public

[108:01] hearing is that okay um I think in terms of the meeting procedure um now would be the time for questions for me and then the public comment feel free to ask questions of the applicant or members of the public um it gets a little more convoluted when there's more back and forth uh that's not just the board members but Chris feel free to weigh in I I would agree with Marcy that if um the board had questions for staff that should probably be asked now to avoid that convoluted uh back and forth during the deliberations okay well then I have a list of questions go ahead the floor is yours okay um can you there was a mention in the packet about the racial Equity instrument can you describe in Greater detail because it was uh somewhat vague um how the racial instrument was racial

[109:03] Equity instrument was used and the inputs that were put in um through the instrument and the outputs that resulted from that yeah so this was the first historic preservation project that used the racial Equity instrument and uh we partnered with um Vivio Vivian Castro walridge and Kate stanic in the communications and engagement to help us um with the communication uh strategy in general so the racial Equity instrument goes through and and asks you to think critically of you know who does this project help who does it leave out um who will be involved how will you get feedback Etc and so um we chose to go to the um Community connectors in Residence which is a group with the city uh with representatives from um many different communities and ask for their feedback

[110:02] on the racial Equity instrument and our um Communications kind of approach Community engagement approach and um those conversations there were two one was online and the second one was um on site in talking with the uh group about the walking tour script um it became clear that the the most impact that we could have in a positive way is how we tell the story and to tell a more complete story and I think what was also um really impactful is how a reminder of how powerful history is and how important language is and how important it is to get it right and so um we got it uh we we I will say I learned a lot through this process I had some missteps i' I am learning um and I'm also open to that so

[111:00] we um asked the community connectors to meet and review the script to make sure that any white bias that we were bringing was identified and and how we're talking about the history of this area and so that script um in working with the applicant group too um took about six to eight weeks to uh to develop and and to get it right and so I think that um I didn't dive in I think a lot in this presentation about the history of the site I think that work is best represented through the interactive story map and and what's in the memo um but that was I think the most direct impact of the racial Equity instrument and and how it um kind of shaped our approach to this historic district designation thank you yeah I'm really glad that you were able to meet with the community connectors and integrate their feedback I I do have a question if if I you know

[112:00] it sounds like they were asked to incorporate feedback on the historic districting process but I was wondering if they were asked if they supported the designation um you know I think it was not a direct ask and at the time we have a lot of information to say you know here here is all the the history you there were diverse opinions some people supported it at that time um others you know called for well there are additional histories missing like the nepes community is is very large here where is that history represented here so we didn't do like a straw a straw pole or a vote um with the community connectors um it was more uh asking for their help in hearing the walking uh tour script and and providing feedback

[113:02] okay um okay I have some questions on the cultural landscape assessment um I was wondering if the Consultants who completed the CLA had access to the same information that was provided by staff um as justification for including both portions of the park in the historic district that the CLA did not recommend including I guess I'm just trying to understand the discrepancy between the consultant reports and staff yeah yes and um I think the prab meeting on January 22nd goes into to Greater detail Mark did a great presentation on that methodology but the long and short of it is that the cultural landscape assessment looks at it as a design landscape using National register criteria they found that it had criteria for social history and then uh under C which is design associated with the

[114:01] Olstead brothers and later Sako dor in Huntington and so that's uh one way to look at this area uh the local historic district designation uses the local criteria architectural historic and uh environmental and then assesses the Integrity for there so in looking at the uh design you know the architecture the social and cultural and then the environmental we're looking at it through two different lenses for significance and then the next question feeds from that which is what is able to convey that history so it's reasonable that the these two reports could have come to different conclusions so I'm curious what the point of getting the assessment was if we had our own criteria for what to do well the Parks and Recreation Department manages um I think 55 Parks um and uh wants to establish a process

[115:03] or precedent for how to evaluate these as a cultural landscape when designation is proposed and so while the cultural landscape assessment had been used previously in the historic places plan this was the first time it was used kind of in a parallel effort with the historic district designation um and we didn't have the results of the CLA um until until uh January 22nd when that packet went out okay um for the you mentioned in the presentation and in the memo that uh that the principal for um that draft guiding principal for uh that there opportunities to represent the area's earlier history through that uh draft principle can you elaborate on what it looks like to have

[116:01] the park represent in areas's earlier history yeah um there are many ideas and I don't want to jump to one solution so I'm gonna offer some examples but also want to give full creativity to how this could you know be realized in the future um what I didn't go into uh great detail in or at all in this presentation but what's in the story map is how the uh residential area 1870 to 1920 was right here on the place of the municipal building and while that area had been um discussed in the past and dismissed in the past we were able to um elev at some of those stories learn some of those names it wasn't just our work many other others have contributed to that um but how can

[117:00] that history that's been erased be present here again and I think there are some creative ways you could have outlines of the buildings in some sort of um sculpture like the Ben Franklin House in Philadelphia where his house isn't there anymore but there's this kind of postmodern representation of a house um you could have sculpture or artwork uh representing indigenous history um black history Latino history you could have photos or um murals of the protests and rallies um on the sides of the buildings or through artwork and so I don't want to jump to One Design solution but I think that there's a lot of possibility for um creative and innovative ways to represent present the the very layered history in this area I just have a few more but okay that's okay thank you that's

[118:00] helpful because I in my mind I was like the idea or what was in the memo made me think that there was an attempt to put the park back as it was in previous to 1938 um so I wasn't sure if that was the intent um so I guess yeah so I'm just I'm trying to wrap my head around the national register and I get like should we consider the national register criteria as the criteria that we're deciding right now because it sounded like like you the STA you all as staff didn't necessarily you decided to go a different direction on some pieces so I'm just trying to understand as a board member like how much weight do we put onto that criteria yeah um so your decision should be based on the criteria in the code uh which is that 9111 and 9112 does it uh preserve protect enhance

[119:02] an area of Boulders history or architectural styles of the past does it uh preserve an area blah blah blah blah blah the local I'll bring it up again if needed and then the um we have local criteria that's adopted for local designation and that's what you should base your s your decision on that's historic architectural and environmental significance at the local level whether it's eligible for the state Register of historic places or national register of historic places it could be and the the CLA finds that it is um potentially eligible for uh the national register where it diverts is with the um assessment of integrity based on that but tonight you're deciding on does this meet the local significance criteria as a local historic district okay did am I wrong I thought I

[120:04] saw in one in our criteria that it included the historic in some of our criteria did it not include the national register criteria as part of our decision making or am I didn't I misread that yeah they're intersected in in the um recognition by authorities we included here are some previous studies that identified uh sites or buildings within the proposed boundaries as potentially eligible for state or national uh register and then the National Park service bulletins is the guidance we used for determining a recommended boundary and the Integrity so we looked to the National Park Service for guidance on those two items but the local significance criteria is architectural historic and environmental in that criteria adopted by the board in

[121:03] 1975 and and I do just want to recognize Ronnie has his hand up but that might be just a waiting in line hand and you're muted sorry to interrupt I was just wondering if you could move the slide back to the guiding principles while we have this discussion um and if you could go to the first one for a a couple minutes and keep going Chelsea I just thought this would be valuable as well um for me to continue to digest because this one we skipped over a little quickly thank you okay all right [Music] um so ju on The Guiding principles in trying to read through them and decide how to provide feedback on them I I did get a sense that or I

[122:02] guess they didn't give me a sense of the types of changes that would be allowable if we were to approve the historic district so like for example would building a restroom in the middle of a park be allowed based on the criteria that's there now or I guess I just I don't know how to translate the drafting principles to what will actually occur or what's what would be allowed to occur that's fair and The Guiding principles are are meant to be more broad like Compass points rather than um more specific and then we don't want guidelines to be prescriptive like the bathroom has to be green you know or made out of Stucco um but it would um Envision change let's use the bathroom as an example um in looking at the guiding principle that talks about the unique and distinctive architectural Styles it would be inappropriate to do a Revival style for a bathroom or a new building

[123:01] make it look like it was built 30 years or 100 years ago or in the 1930s and so um carrying on the spirit of each of these buildings was very much of its own time and whether you could carry that to something as utilitarian as a bathroom maybe maybe not um but that it would be more that it should be of its own time rather than reflective of a previous architectural style in terms of its location you could look at the guiding principles that talk about the character defining features of the um of the open lawn of the park with the perimeter trees around it it would probably be inappropriate to plop it right down in the middle of the green or if the view to the flat irons are character defining or an important piece of the character of the park placing it so that it doesn't block that view would be another um kind of guidance from these

[124:02] principles okay that's helpful thank you I think I'll yield my time to others it doesn't mean you won't get to ask another one or two questions um I know I have some questions but I don't know if any of my colleagues would like to go before I do so and one of the reasons I'd like to jump in is thank you for bringing up the CLA because um I've had to struggle with that personally I know you as staff and hey you guys I mean we should all applaud all the hard work and time and effort the staff has done it has been amazing I mean it's it's that memo you know not that I'll ever have insomnia but you know I mean it's there it's great your presentation has been very helpful and I also know that as City staff and I believe you mentioned nine different departments you work with you sometimes have to work with competing interest I don't feel like I have to do

[125:00] that I feel like I'm bringing seven years of of preservation experience from San Francisco and now 18 here in Boulder to anything that I say or will later say in deliberations so I'm coming from that point I don't have to look through a prism you might have had to look through so for me the CLA that is not something required by our ordinance at this point that doesn't mean the ordinance could be couldn't be amended and it get added especially if any park-like area is included in a future historic district um I I I am not personally you know really heavily persuaded by the CLA I I I just don't think it applies to our current guidelines and our current ordinance and the boulder rice code as it exists today I'll I'll be very very honest is that I read both this summary and then when I finally was able so the CLA kind of appeared on PR's website for like 24 hours I saw it and then I went back and tried to get it and I couldn't

[126:00] get it and I thought maybe it was just a mirage and I was I was out of town with very limited connectivity but but I will say for me for the CLA since it's not something required my reading of it was a little bit like it was written to get to conclusion that was decided before the CLA was done so that's all I'm personally going to say about that I know you mentioned you looked at that for the Integrity piece and I was pleased to see in your presentation you reached out to shipo or national register historians and I don't know if that was specifically about eligibility issues with it um I will say that uh you know but I was glad to hear that because we have these excellent resources you you know you know at history Colorado not to mention you know nationally that we can reach out to um one of the questions I have I don't know how difficult this is with what staff is

[127:00] recommending is the current boundary I'm trying to get a clear um get my arms around what's different than what the applicants originally presented do you know what I mean I I want to kind of in my mind have that side by side yeah and um I could have made a nice graphic but I didn't but it's I I think I can explain it um especially if I had a pointer oh oh I got it here we go okay so the boundary on the west side and the South Side are the same um the proposed boundary um jogged across 13th Street which I think from a um kind of administration standpoint is awkward where uh changes on the north side of this pointer would require review but changes on the south side of the street wouldn't so we propos the boundary coming down to arapo and encompassing um

[128:01] that full portion of 13th Street and then um the proposed boundary by the applicants jogged uh just south of the boka building but then included these parking lots along 14th Street and that's the biggest change between what was proposed in what we feel uh is an appropriate boundary and then we also included um this parking area between the atrium and um Canyon which isn't currently in the atrium uh designation boundary but then that creates a logical uh boundary along Canyon here so the main changes being um the exclusion of the 14th Street parking lots and then the inclusion of all of 13th Street and so when you go to the east side of Broadway and north of Arapaho that little carved out area that was never part of the applicants east side of Broadway um East Side ohop sorry east north of arapo

[129:04] north of rppo correct that wasn't part okay right that was the I couldn't remember I and I do remember city council discussing during the designation of the atrium building and there were some concerns by a couple of council members that the parking lot's not historic but perhaps there should be a little bit of um the boundary that would give perview to the landmarks board so anything built there would be compatible with that historic resource there there is this smallest um amount of space from the edge of the building to the landmark boundary that would uh mean that any link to a new building if there were one would go through design review okay thank you and then um that may be the only questions I have at this

[130:00] point brief I have a call on yours with the for the East bookend is that what do you qualify as the East bookend I believe the East bookend is a rectangle um that includes there's some charades from the audience that includes the The Atrium the 13th Street Plaza the tea house and B Moka as well as the parking lot to the East and I'm getting an affirmative nod from the audience okay so yeah the East bookend is is this piece east of 14th or east of 13th excuse me how come the triangle like that little triangle go to the West right there there yeah that's what's happening like what's the purpose of cutting that lot in right down the middle yes so um and it actually uh I believe does follow a property line it

[131:00] appears to be a park because it's shaded green but it's actually a patio for the Riverside building that's under a long-term lease um and it's on the the west side of the creek so it's really just connected from the rest of the park so that's why it wasn't included looks disproportionately large on that map it does I know it's mostly retaining walls on one side but here I have it yeah it's just this little yeah it's that thing and Ronnie I see your hand is raised yeah thank you Abby yeah my questions are similar they're mostly about the boundaries um One technical question is um I am used to seeing the graphics of these Landmark boundaries kind of presented like this is there ultimately like a meets and Bounds description that really you know formalizes the locations

[132:01] of these this line work yes it is um more technical than our line drawing um for this and and we will work with the city attorney's office to make sure that the legal description which is going to be quite long for this one um is accurate and then that the map also um represents that and I know that you said we follow the National Park Service um for you know Direction on how to create the boundary um but the Boulder Creek boundary has always seemed a little unusual to me to choose a center line of something that's kind of a character defining feature I'm hearing you say now that it's not crossable or you know it's it's it's not something that stuff on the other side is not connected um but the feature itself um picking the center line of it seems counterintuitive to me how is that described in the Park

[133:01] Service methodology you know that's fair and that was one of my questions for the state and National register historians was um we're picking a feature that we know is going to move in the future is that is that going to be a problem from a you know from a Administration standpoint and they said they weren't concerned about picking a natural feature like a creek or a river because our mapping today is so accurate um and I hear your point about why divide this uh pretty character defining feature in half um and I think if the board uh felt it was appropriate you could draw that line from the um Southern Bank of the uh Boulder Creek knowing that that bank is most likely going to change and I don't know if you've thought about what types of Regulation might apply to you know Creek related features um

[134:01] that's like you know what is the preservation piece there that we might be involved in that I think would help give me some clarification on how a boundary should be defined up against it well I think number one is that uh that second guiding principle which talks about preserving maintenance accident maintenance access and also aligning the management practices with the um life safety and so the Boulder Creek serves many critical uh functions in Boulder and Beyond and so making sure that it um meets our flood mitigation meets our life safety thing is going to be the most important thing so what we call called out was um the open and natural character of Boulder Creek is what's important and what would surprise I think a lot of people is that that this section of Boulder Creek that goes

[135:00] uh next to Central Park is completely engineered um however it looks natural and so we wouldn't be calling out oh this specific Boulder or this specific feature it's more um guidance or encouragement to uh continue to serve the life safety flood mitigation but in a way that's natural and open rather than you know culting the whole thing which I I don't think the utilities department would ever um propose and I remember on in historic historic drawing that right around your cursor is or maybe just north of it I think that there is or was a historic retaining wall and is that still there there is a yeah like a a stone retaining wall uh along the bank of that Creek we weren't able to definitively um date it and so that

[136:01] could be something that we could look farther into between now in the city council hearing of of determining was that built um since 1974 or prior to um and include that if if the board recommends that yeah sorry I was just looking at an old one of the older images here um and then you know I guess I guess I also just wonder H how far south just in general how far um to the west and south of the creek the line should move and so my I I don't know how to move forward without really knowing um or hearing from you you if there are historic features that should be included in that it makes sense to me that it would follow property lines where property lines might exist um that don't interfere with other

[137:03] you know like you're saying maybe this patio although the patio itself would just be you know a non-contributing feature in the district if it were to be included um but intuitively it seems like the creek and both Banks should be part of the district um and then picking how far behind that you might put the line is confusing to me again it feels like there's probably some other feature there um or a property line or or maybe an offset that's just a practical offset that's about an ecosystem um that occurs in relationship to Creek yeah I do think that Boulder Creek provides this physical and visual barrier that would make a logical southern boundary to the um historic district because um although the patio

[138:03] when you're looking at it in a map view looks like oh it would be you know logical to include it it really is a separate character separate location it's not um physically or visually connected I think to the rest of the park and uh and the historic District's uh overall significance and um similar to the area south of the creek north of the Park Central and New Britain buildings um while that is existing Parkland um I think the existing designation boundary around the municipal building provides its setting uh that and then the creek being a natural kind of barrier or natural um boundary for the district would would make sense um and just um on that note like there have been major improvements of

[139:00] Canyon since we had the flood and those flood mitigation tools have effectively changed the entire character of the street Edge where there is a concrete retaining wall there used to be embankment and I know that serving you know flood mitigation techniques or flood mitigation desires but I I guess I just coming back to it I I feel that we should if we think that the character of The Creeks Edge is important include both edges um and then I just another question for you Marcy um the planning that is shown in the park here still shows that there it looks to be like right of way um is that the case I believe it is because we ran into that with the

[140:01] designation of the due tea house I think it just hasn't been vacated you can't vacate or writing right away if it's even if it's a paper right away oh is my understanding normally when a city's platted it's platted including all those your is your microphone on yeah okay they're having a little trouble hearing you in the back oh oh okay I'll speak more loudly it in in in my experience in in urban planning those kinds of things are artifacts that are sometimes termed like paper streets and paper rways because they remain in the official maps that divided the parcels and they can't really be vacated from the map they have to be held as

[141:01] a permanent artifact for some reason it's particularly true in cities like Cincinnati and Pittsburgh where there are a whole bunch of streets that never got built but they're all on the maps I I had one last question in the 1938 photo that's the aerial photo it looks like there is a structure where the Band Shell is today um and maybe that was reported on at some point we know what that was and when that was built yeah that is the Bandshell um so yeah yep um the yeah the pathways were there until 1950 when the seats were added it took a couple decades of fundraising before the seats were put

[142:01] in are there any other questions because I I know we all look forward to hearing from the applicant okay I don't see any other questions from my colleagues so we'd like to welcome Leonard seagull executive director of historic Boulder Leonard we will need to swear you in again and then your 10 minutes will begin I do swear that I'll be telling the truth you want to try it thank you uh time are going uh thank you hello landmarks board members uh thanks for the opportunity to speak to you on behalf of the applicants for the proposed Civic sener historic district we appreciate your commitment to representing the interests of History within the city government it's an important responsibility that benefits all citizens of Boulder we also want to thank the preservation planners for a

[143:02] very thorough process and a great spirit of cooperation over the past seven months um in many ways this area is the historic heart of Boulder it's centrally located and civically the center many people recognize that this Civic area neighborhood has historic architectural and environmental significance the report by the preservation planners is a treasure chest of stories and information about the evolution I apologize can you just say your name for the record please oh sorry yes my name is Leonard seagull thank you okay thank you um all right so I was saying that um the report is a treasure chest of stories of Boulder um designating this important historic district now is very timely especially given the ongoing City plans to redevelop the area designation would

[144:02] provide the opportunity for the preservation planners and Advocates to offer helpful historic insights for the Redevelopment plans being proposed in the area with preservationists influencing the designs the developments are more likely to relate to the historic Spirit of Boulder since the preservation report was so thorough I want to spend my time focusing on topics where there is disagreement about some of the details and dispel some of the fears about the impacts of creating this District as Marcy noted there are several government policies that describe the importance of valuing city-owned historic properties including this one designating this district will demonstrate the City's commitment to honor its own significant historic places the parks and wreck department has self-authored the cultural landscape assessment of Central Park the CLA claims that the southern two-thirds of

[145:01] Central Park designed by Frederick Olstead Jr no longer has Integrity with regard to topography vegetation views and spatial organization the applicant team is not alone in disagreeing with the conclusions of the CLA it's a very important point of discussion for the future of this property our team is composed of experienced Architects planners attorneys and professional historians we assert that the Integrity of the design of the Olstead plan is intact especially in the southern two-thirds of the park the north third of Central Park of course was redesigned by Sako deor and it has already been landmarked the primary change in the south portion of the park was the construction of the pedest pedestrian underpath at arapo which happens to be in much the same location as the Olstead design Creek path now I'm going to show you some diagrams comparing the park in 1938 with the park today to demonstrate that olmstead's design still has

[146:06] Integrity what do I point it to next slide please sorry it's not coming up there it is uh Skip One let me come back okay here we go nope try it one more time sorry sorry folks oh no all right okay sorry all right um so with regard to topography you can see the image on the left is 1938 the image on the right is 2024 uh there is sloping embankment that provides easy pedestrian access to the creek we've just been talking about the creek um both time periods there are Level lawn areas which provide the most flexibility for public activities including large events again a part of

[147:00] the original Olstead design finally there's a small slope down from the open Lawns to the sidewalk along 13th Street to slightly separate the Park area from Street activity the Integrity of the vegetation design is intact in concept and in details the primary change is that the trees have grown they've gotten bigger there are as you can see there are groups of trees that reinforce the perimeters of the park along 13th Street they form a shaded walkway almost to colonade Homestead treated uh located trees strategically to provide Shady places in the lawn areas with regard to views after 100 years the Landscaping is still thinner along the west west side of the park to frame views to the flat irons just as designed with regard to spatial organization the layout of the Southern 2third of Central Park has been re has had relatively small changes over 100

[148:01] years as you can see in this comparison that highlights The Pedestrian paths that shape different activity zones another point is how important olmstead's master plan has been to the overall character of Boulder including his recommendations for six parts it's amazing that in 1908 the Boulder City Improvement Association was able to bring the leading planning company in the United States to town of only 9,000 people elet's master plan was a part of the city beautiful movement his report also laid the groundwork for the first zoning ordinance later developed by dor most Park departments would celebrate the work of the homesteads instead the Integrity of the homestead design of Central Park has been disparaged recently the parks board members said that they don't want to be limited in their authority to redesign Central Park they said the historic district would create new bureaucratic hurdles history proves them wrong your

[149:02] landmarks board members you know that the 46-year record of historic districts in Boulder the designation of these districts has supported the evolution of the neighborhoods not hindered it these areas Thrive not in spite of the designation but because of it the design guidelines help Property Owners understand and appreciate the historic qualities of their buildings and Landscapes the system of collaboration between the preservation planners and other Departments of government has also been very successful it's been proven to not be a bureaucratic hurdle in addition to its beautiful and functional landscape architecture Central Park has tremendous historic and environmental significance that you've heard of but Boulder was was fundamentally improved by the creation of Central Park it influenced the town to have a greater appreciation of the environment and be a more civic-minded Community another issue that has come up is the accusation that the creation of

[150:00] Central Park was discriminatory the park and wreck the parks and wreck board called Olstead Jr a problematic figure hinting at racism and Boulder that could not be farther from the truth in 1900 this neighborhood was the front door to Boulder and to the University in this slide there's a quote from a Daily Camera article from 1928 that calls the area a disgrace to the community as you can see it was very dilapidated there were illegal activities here including prostitution and bootlegging the Boulder City Improvement Association wanted to enhance the quality of life for all citizens by transforming the area from 19th to 13th streets for Community uses a few residents were displaced but there was justification to do that this is a part of the the city building process that has benefited hundreds of thousands of people over the hundred-year life of the area and I think I'm running out of time I can't tell my time so two minutes okay so

[151:00] um let's see um the creation of the Civic Center of Boulder was morally and ethically Justified to call it discriminatory or racist is to project our present day values onto past historic events this revision is think should not be used to attack the citizen Le Boulder Improvement Association to denigrate their design of Frederick Law Olstead Jr or to disparage the creation of Central Park or oppose the proposal of this historic district uh we're going to cover the boundary in our uh comments later on but in conclusion I want to say that um some people are asking why create a historic district when most of the properties are already landmarked Aristotle gave the answer 2400 years ago he said the whole is more than the sum of the parts joining the historic properties in a single district is an opportunity to tell the diverse histories of the evolution of Boulder and Rebrand this area from one that is shunned to one

[152:01] that is celebrated the applicants urg the landmarks board to unanimously recommend this dist District to the city council we also ask you to include the Alstead design of Central Park as an integral aspect of the District if you go along with the park Department's cultural landscape assessment you can be almost certain that the southern 2third of the park will be completely changed and the essential historic Legacy of Olstead will be erased so let's celebrate the unique and important neighborhood by designating it as an historic district thank you very much thank you Leonard um before he leaves the podium do any board members have questions of the applicant ahead go ahead Chelsea oh that's my time

[153:00] yeah um thank you for your presentation um during the you might have been referring to me I'm not sure about the um in the last meeting that we had discussing the topic I brought up some of the historical information around Olstead and um some of the racist um policies that he promoted during the time when he was prominent and I guess I just heard you say that displacing people of color in some way was justified and I just want to maybe give you an opportunity to explain that that' be great thank you so um Frederick Olstead Jr has been studyed quite a lot lately and there's there are accusations that the developments that

[154:01] he worked on were exclusionary this is outside of Boulder Colorado and um having been an architect for 40 years I know that when you work for clients sometimes they surprise you and say hey by the way I want to tear down this historic building um and you are kind of powerless to do that so I'm not sure how much of what Olstead did was part of what his clients wanted to do and part of what he wanted to do but what we know in Boulder is that he Not only was trying to create a People's Park and six parks for people but for instance the park where Emma Martin Emma Martinez Park is right now that was specifically specifically located by Olstead adjacent to the predominantly black and Latino neighborhood and workingclass neighborhood so it was giving a park to that those people the people who were displaced here were not predominantly black people they were people of all

[155:00] color or mostly white actually there were black people here and the park the district itself that we're talking about in terms of displacing is most of the displacement happened west of this building between here and 9th Street and a lot of that was due to the train tracks that were built to reach to the university to serve uh the campus so they torn down a number of buildings the turn of the century um and then the remaining buildings were torn down later as a part of park I think there were maybe 15 buildings alog together in what was and I'm looking to Claire but roughly 15 buildings roughly between Broadway and 9th Street but over time they were torn down for different reasons it was the predominant black neighborhood was the little rectangle

[156:01] and that was further east uh along Water Street which is now Canyon so I don't believe that what this park and this Civic Center did was Target any particular minority group or any particular uh economic strata it was trying to create a park where none existed to clean up the pollution in Central Park in in the creek um before Central Park and uh to tear down the um remnants of the bordellos and The Bootlegger saloons so that's my read of the history that we've been sharing with um and learning from the reservation planners does that answer your question is that new information that you weren't not aware

[157:00] of it's an answer to the question okay thank you and um Abby if you wouldn't mind allowing me just a response not at all um I think one of the most important pieces of the this process is helping to tell a more accurate and complete history and help correct the narrative that the de this displacement was justified and so I just want to make a clarification that in our research and how we're telling it is very different from from what Lynn has just represented where while there was a you know six residences there from 1870 to 192 that was 40 Years of residences where black and white people both lived and I think it's our it's a mistake to also dismiss businesses Like Houses of prostitution

[158:00] or bootlegging those were still business owners and those were still businesses and so um dismissing it through morality or um because the that area flooded and therefore it was a less expensive of land is important to acknowledge but it's the people that lived there for those 40 years are important to Boulder's history and the displacement of those people that was very intentional is part of the history of this area and of our community could I respond though perhaps the displacement was not intentionally targeting a racial group or an economic group The the displacement was is to provide a community amenity that has since served hundreds of thousands of people so if and in city building across the United States if we were to look at the lens of our current thought versus

[159:02] what was going on at the time we wouldn't have any parks in our country because there were buildings in the location of most Parks so the idea that it is important to tell the story of what occurred before here in terms of indigenous peoples and the the transition of this neighborhood from a working-class neighborhood to a transient neighborhood it's important to tell that but it I think it's a disservice to suggest that it was a racially motivated discriminatory action and and we'll we'll disagree we'll disagree to disagree on that and Mark I know you want to say something but I think the important thing is this is kind of the beginning of the process of telling that story fully and completely so this isn't the stopping point or you know and even I know Marcia said how much she's learned through this but I mean as this moves forward assuming it does you know we'll have

[160:01] that chance to really get that story out there the true accurate good Bad and the Ugly you know because it's all part of our you know history in this area thank you Len Mark I I I would just um I would encourage the applicant to um in the create your desire to create a historic district is something that um can be enhanced by and the probabilities Greater by honoring an accurate and complete history and um including our Collective failures and injustices and and by acknowledging those both the likelihood of creation of a historic district and the value to the

[161:02] community both will be increased and rather than trying to sell or whitewash a um a story I think the uh and no historian but I I know enough that um we will all be better served by uh not being afraid of the historical truth of the history that this area represents so um that I I'll end there could I respond to that talk to the chair job oh well I I wanted to expand on what what Mark was saying and then I believe you should respond I I oh sorry i b might um just very quickly what what we're what we're doing here is not

[162:02] freezing this area proposed to be a district in time it's not putting it into some kind of historic gel what we're trying to do is to establish celebrate and create a cultural historic Center to the town that has in addition to the park it's wrapped with other facilities that is a big opportunity to encounter and to fully tell the difficult parts of the history and to create a place for all the citizens of B older to experience what made this town where it came from and where it's going and so I think that's another way to look at that we're creating a historic district it's going to be a vibrant place it's going to be a place where

[163:02] some change may happen where facilities will be formed well where storytelling devices will be included and it it it'll be a place that encounters things and honestly tells them yeah thank you um I think what I I couldn't agree more about how historic preservation should and is inclusive of all the stories of the history and in fact it was quite frustrating when we were working on the the nomination of the atrium building to be a landmark that the full name the Midland Savings history was shunted aside because certain people on the council felt that that story was distasteful but in fact that's an important story to tell and that building should actually still be called the Midland Savings Atrium

[164:00] building so that people understand that there was another use before it was a government use and that use was associated with that company with redlining yeah and that's a bitter pill but an important story to tell and in no way is this applicant group wanting to whitewash anything about this this neighborhood in fact all the best thing that could happen is more people over time come up with more stories I've logged into a Facebook group called I was in Boulder in the 70s and I mentioned something about the Bandshell and people are posting amazing amount of stories about Central Park in the Bandshell so there's really more stories that could be added to this um as well but I just wanted to make sure that we don't we don't lose sight of the importance of this historic district by something that Frederick La Olstead did somewhere else thank you and Leonard we will

[165:00] invite you back up after public participation if you want it three additional three for three additional minutes and you know although staff has done tremendous research on the stories as well as the applicants and the applicant groups we're still at the beginning of this process about telling it you know accurately and clearly and we're very lucky with as this as this progresses um that there is a historian here with us tonight on African-American families here in Boulder who I think could be called upon when that time comes for Dan Corson to help weave those stories into the The Narrative the you know and the difficult the more difficult stories to share so thank you will invite you back up I think we are ready to begin public comments on this District Aubrey I assume you have a few signups just a few I also know that um

[166:02] there were several applicant groups involved with this nomination in fact it started out with friends of the tea house and Friends of the Bandshell and I don't know if we can allow but it might make sense for any of those participants to speak next because I know historic Boulder joined them to move this nomination to the landmarks board or is that too difficult Marcy um I think we have um slides uh from Fran Sheets if you're ready okay that represents the friends of the thank you perfect uhuh go take a break and Fran I will need to swear you in and do state your full name as part of that before your three minutes begins thank you Mandel sheets as a former board member I'm my

[167:02] goal tonight was to um it's kind of changed from that and the reason why that is up there is to show that the creek is open still it was accused of being overgrown but that is I mean the ditch not the creek and it it has been cleaned and cleared and I just want you to see that it was like that when um Olstead originally did his drawing um and I'm aware that your decisions are made or should be made based on the um preservation plan with or the code in Boulders so I'm going to talk about that and talk about how um it how it applies because I think that there is significant um criteria for creating historic districts in Boulder and the code says and I'm going to quote you um the district as an entity should show

[168:00] character interest or value as part of the development Heritage or cultural characteristics of the Community State or nation and be the site of historic or prehistoric events that had an effect upon the society or exemp lfy the cultural political economic or social Heritage of the community What area in Boulder fits this definition better than the heart of Boulder and this a and the park the criter the criteria requires and I quote association with historic historical persons or events nationally state or locally the district must have distinction I'm quoting from the code now um the district must have distinction in the development of the community of Boulder it must have recognition by the authorities meaning the boulder Historical Society or local historians and it names in the code federick La Olstead is an example of among other um professionals the area

[169:00] has architectural significance and is I think intact to 1924 when he did his original drawings a district must have artistic Merit and examples of The Uncommon and it must be have indigenous qualities we have all these qualities in this area in town the Civic Park District has it all environmentally I quote the district should enhance the variety interest and sense of identity of the community by protection of the unique natural and man-made environments the the site must have compatibility consideration to scale massing placement and other qualities it must have Geographic importance the 20 2006 preservation plan added the designation features in term it to include um Landscaping features um and so even back then they were talking about how we could um design and and in

[170:01] Landmark this Park thank you thank you Fran all right because we received the PowerPoint slides in advance we have Katherine and then Pac in sheets and Katherine you know I will ask to swear you in and state your full name for the record Katherine bar for the record and I will tell you the truth okay is that it okay can you speak a little louder okay there good um I've been thinking and the more I think about the flood of 1894 994 I think that was a real turning point in Boulder up until that

[171:00] point Boulder was a real Rough and Ready mountain town and the flood came through and it just changed everything uh the sources for my comments tonight are the schooland book from the discovery of gold to the gold of research and schooland says on um 30 in the evening it started to rain and by nine o'clock more almost five inches of rain had fallen and water was tearing into Boulder down what we now call Canyon Boulevard it came from four different Canyons be Canyon Boulder Canyon Sunshine Canyon and Four Mile Canyon and torrents were coming through the city that changed everything and the fact that the year before women had gotten vote in Colorado

[172:03] I think had another big effect because women started thinking about how to repair this town how to make it better and the older the older City Improvement Association was formed um mostly that organization had men in it but there was one woman who was um she was I guess you call her now a social worker and she had been married and widowed and then she was engaged and she somehow got to know with her fiance got to know Frederick Olstead and they hiked all over Boulder with him and with eban fine and they looked at things and they looked at Landscapes and trees and I think she had a big effect

[173:03] and I think the fact that women had gotten the vote the year before that flood meant that our city recovered and our city rebuilt much more quickly than I think it would have otherwise so I I just think that people love Boulder and they love Boulder because there is a there here like a there there people come here and they love Pearl Street and they they love the tea house and it's it's a I guess I've heard that of the top 10 places in Boulder seven hour histor and with that comes tourism um investment uh whoops and I think I have anyway please please vote to to initi to designate this District thank you thank

[174:00] you Cather carried away I guess thank you and past past and sheets and I'll swear you in and then State your full name on the record of the microphone and your three minutes will begin okay H in sheets and I swear thank you okay I have two things for you um first my grandparents moved our family from Durango to Boulder in 1920 well before the park existed for five generations to today we have always lived in walking distance to old stads Park and have enjoyed picnics concerts and many other activities my elders frequently mentioned Olstead in appreciation because of my family's sustained use of the park for decades I assure you that had a significant

[175:01] landform alteration occurred by bulldozzer or whatever else we would have known about it and made one hell of a fuss about it I con include that our direct experience with the park indicates Integrity uh from its beginning to today this is bolstered by my eight Decades of direct experience in the park as I've in I'm in the middle of those five generations I deeply hope bites can continue to enjoy this Jewel of a park in the very heart of our community second I professionally document and interpret land forms in three different countries the US El Salvador and Costa Rica I distinguish human caused alterations from inadvertent ones from acts of Nature and study the interactions among them I was

[176:00] surprised to I was surprised to learn that some people are doubting the Integrity of current land forms in the park this is easy to test fortunately olmstead's 1924 map combines actual conditions then with plans for modifications I took his map to Central Park last week and compared his map to landforms today in these two large areas um that we've seen in various uh illustrations tonight um two big triangles of flat areas um these large areas Comm that comprise the majority of area in the park the present integrity is striking it's really good I was I was in reassured by that if anyone doubts my statements my conclusions please call me I asked my phone yep there's my phone number please call me and let's walk the

[177:01] park and do some detailed comparisons I would like to do that I see an excellent opportunity um for the board for parts and wreck to act as public stewards and protect park for generations of bites that have not been born yet I thank you thank you and excuse me Abby just to um clarify franet and Katherine bar are representative from the other two applicant groups and now the speakers are ordered in the order of the signup sheet perfect thank you and Aubrey who's next all right next we have Joe stanic followed by Patrick oor and Dan Corson thank you and Joe you know what I'm gonna ask you to do I do would you swear to tell the board the whole truth yes ma'am thank

[178:01] you very much thank you for the chance to speak I'm joose stanic my wife Carolyn Holmes and I live in a historic home twice landmarked at 72011 Street and we're very pleased to strongly support this historic proposal uh I'm grateful to Marcy to introduce the Band Shell my colleagues had asked me to talk about two structures the band shell and the tea house I'm currently still on the sister City's board as a past chairman of the board and I'm pleased to defer to Marcy's comment thank her for her comments and I'll focus on the Tea House on which I I still have personal involvement uh one of the newest buildings facing Central Park is in its own special way represented of concerns for World Peace President Eisenhower was told by a friend that diplomacy was much too important to be handled only by

[179:01] American diplomats having been one myself the world's citizens needed to be involved to get to know each other to Foster peace and with his proclamation in 1956 sister cities were were born as for the tea house as early as the 1970s a few Boulder citizens 3D lady activists organized themselves to search for a Soviet sister city to form this partnership but the Soviet Embassy in Washington proved to be suspicious of our motives despite visits by the boulder ladies when one of them mentioned in passing that Boulder actually had a Russian B like a band the deal was done music cinched the deal as my wife Carolyn has emphasized I salute Carolyn for the comment she's absolutely right so in August of 1990 200 crates

[180:00] arrived packed with handcarved and hand painted portions of a large structure because of the uncertainty surrounding this gift the 200 crates were stored unopened nearly seven years in fact a few boxes were actually moved and opened in an empty hanger at Boulder airport just to be sure that this gift was in fact a tea house finally leadership and Council settled the matters of location and financing and we thank city council for that by May of 1998 the tea house doors opened surprise no one in the early years could have guessed that a Soviet era gift from then Soviet Republic of Tajikistan would become Boulder's most visited busiest Gathering Place bringing tourist dollars from all over Boulder is very fortunate to have two remarkable structures SE

[181:02] house and the Bandshell representing its history its commitment to the Arts to peace to business and to preservation Colonel and I are delighted to support this historic district actually we don't have a lot of choice my own father-in-law judge Holmes founded Mapleton Hill historic district my mother-in-law Jun Holmes was instrumental and seen to it as the Bandshell was uh landmarked thank you Mar thank you Joe thank you for taking the time thank you very much Patrick um Patrick orar I swear to tell the truth start the clock you'll put that up there I thought I'd start by just responding to a couple um observations from surveys that were sent out um and the question that Chelsea had before which was regarding the guiding um uh

[182:02] guiding principles of what's going on I'll start with that uh two examples of what we're thinking uh with the guiding principles is the ability to adapt use adaptive reuse on some of these buildings for example uh when we did the atrium building at that time we made a proposal and it was submitted by the the city to turn it into some sort of gathering Center maybe an Open Marketplace which we think within the historic district uh the other adaptive reuse we think is important is the boka building which is on the Block it's going to be decommissioned as a art center and what a great opportunity it would be to have the city of Boulder have its first Children's Museum and it would work very well with that um couple issues with the the surveys that were submitted uh the survey uh a lot of the negative comments on the surveys had to do with um issues

[183:01] of crime in that area and that's something that's going to be continuing on going forward so uh we think that uh the historic district would actually help in focusing some attention on that area but that's something outside this realm um I think it's important as you said to tell the complete history and I think I think our intention from historic Boulder's point of view is what happened throughout the last 14,000 years is critical we're missing the indigenous people that were displaced in that market area too and uh and what happened in the 1850s the last thing I'm going to do is let you listen to something that was at the city council most of the city council members because we sent out a historic uh um survey they're in support of this but this is one person that wasn't so I thought I'd let you listen to it hopefully oops would be patient with

[184:00] me hopefully Oh wrong one oh please not a historic district versus a landmark are two separate things and it is unquestionably true in my mind that this qualifi that this would be qualified to be part of a historic district and through the historic district process we would discuss what elements of the area really need prot protection what's truly important um and special about this region and I would fully support us going through that process I think that we should look at not only this block but the block south of it as well um because in my mind this not only is this part of a bigger park space in how I experience the heart of Boulder but this was part of a bigger Vision um by Olstead you

[185:01] know he did not design that you know this was not intended to be a piece alone it was intended to be part of a larger design element that wraps through our city thank you for your letting me go over but that's that was Lauren faler at the 2022 hearing um he've been working on this three years so you know we thought about it thank you thank you Patrick Dan Corson okay I'm Dan Corson I'll tell the truth rudos the staff I'm going to speak to Central Park as a site without regard to to any of the Consultants of any era Central Park as a site would be eligible for both the local and National registers based upon its remarkable social history alone a social history that continues with many festivals annual commemoration of homeless deaths and anti Trump protests those are the

[186:01] ones in which I participated among others um I worked at the office of archaeology and historic preservation for 17 years I supervise a staff that daily evaluated National register eligibility of proper properties as part of the consultation process required for federal agencies on their various projects we received over 3,000 submissions annually many of the submissions included multiple properties to be evaluated for example the I25 reconfiguration of weow included hundreds of properties and that was one submission I tell you this to give you an idea that I have dealt with tens of thousands at least of national register eligibility determinations uh an interest interesting one perhaps a little closer to home is the little preor War II gas station at 63rd arapo was saved by this process determined to be National register eligible I can safely state that the entirety of Central Park is a lay down National register eligible site and our staff

[187:00] discussion after reviewing the materials presented wouldn't have lasted very long I also want to talk about the re real heroes in this effort they are the citizens of Boulder who furthered the effort for a central park with their own funds it was private citizens who paid the Consultants engaged with the city government and actually planted the first trees in the park similar to what they had previously done on the shiaka green these citizens are the parents of Central Park who saw it through over many years starting in the 19s perhaps it should be called The People's Park and who they also helped create the first parks boort in the state here in Boulder in 197 to ensure that all Boulder citizens had easy access to a park this designation will honor them thank you very much thank you Dan oh Bob mckel are there additional people after Bob I might ask the two

[188:01] people after Bob to go ahead and move up to maybe one of the front two rows so that we can hear from everybody all right our next three are Bob Muckle Kristen Lewis and Deborah Yin thank you I swear to tell the truth my name is Bob Muckle I'm the president of the board of historic Boulder um so I have a few just a few things to say thank you very much for hearing our application again um I cannot uh commend you all enough for insisting that we take a longer time to do this process because the work that the staff has done as a result of that additional time has been really stupendous thank you um we hope you'll support uh passing

[189:00] the staff recommended uh motion uh this evening if we've convinced you about the Olstead end of the park then we'd like you in some way to EXP that you think that part of the Park's history has Integrity we'd encourage you not to adop adopt the CLA as part of your uh record um and um we'd encourage you to emphasize how good the um contributing features are the preliminary um contributing features so so those those are kind of our I'd say for at least for me I think I speak for a lot of the board members those will be our ask I want to say something I didn't expect this to come up but I I am frustrated with the way the part of the evening has turned because I want to say State on behalf of historic Boulder and it's bored unequivocally that we support

[190:03] the all the stories of this part being told uh and in fact one of the things we're working on the hardest in our organization is to is to represent is is to a ask more people to join us so we can represent more people's stories in our work of the story of preserving the built environment in Boulder and Boulder County please join us honestly please join us historic boulder. org we're very easy to find um so um so I just want to be very clear about and for me personally I don't know if I can can speak for all of the board one of the things I'm most excited about about this designation is the ability to tell these stories because the city will do that we will do that but what we'd really like to do is to invite other people some these are not our stories to

[191:00] tell and so we would like to uh engage with people whose whose stories should be told and we would like to help that happen so so I don't think I can I don't need to be clearer than that on my view on that topic uh so again thanks very much to all of you and all the time you uh you uh spend on doing good work for the city um I thank you thank you Bob Kristen Lewis and okay and I will ask you to swear to tell the whole trees I my name's Kristen Lewis will tell the truth I swear anyway um uh I'm here well first of all I apologize for reading but I'll squander my three minutes if I don't um I I want to talk about the benefits of having the park designated and uh

[192:02] individual landmarks around the park and included in the the in the proposed dist represent a distinct timeline uh designation of Central Park historic district will provide a greater opportunity to tell the story of Boulder's development it is a unique and significant site that includes lessons about how past Generations dealt with issues of homelessness poverty and the creation of public amenities like Parks I oh sorry oh is that better okay I'm sorry okay okay um and people have mentioned historic tourism is a big thing I I'm going to talk less about about that but anyway uh the Central Park historic district will create the opportunity for preservation planners to be at the table during discussions of Redevelopment plans of the East End and the Civic area the preservation planners can influence and inform the designers uh about the proposed uh designs for the

[193:02] Civic area helping the developments to be more likely to have the appearance and composition of uses that relate to Boulder thereby enhancing the sense of place that keeps Boulder unique Boulder will be recognized as a leader in valuing historic government-owned properties and preserving them it will be a it'll be a Trailblazer in recognizing that not only historic buildings but historic Parks have qualities worth preserving the Civic Center District would be recognized Statewide and nationally which which as you know could bring access to Grants and funds and um and provide media coverage it could also potentially become a National Historic District this District would tell inclusive stories which people have been talking about tonight about under repesentative minority groups such as the indigenous peoples and black Americans the official recognition of

[194:00] important historic contributions of this neighborhood will give it a fresh appeal and will create demand for more celebrations and cultural events one that is in early planning is the commemoration of the 100th anniversary of part so designation would really tie in nicely with that in conclusion I ask the landmark board to strongly support the Civic Park historic designation per the city staff recommendations um although I would like to see it sort of noted that it extends before 1934 whatever that number was um it will be a solid step towards nurturing and maintaining the qualities that make our city unique they are all here because of a shared concern and passion for Boulder our home and that's it thanks thanks thank you Chris yeah Deborah

[195:11] Yin I'm Deborah yin and I swear to tell the truth hey raise the mic up a little okay I'm gonna highlight just one argument to support this historic district economics preservation of Boulders history contributes vitally to Boulder's economy generating tax revenue to fund programs from open space to support of the unhoused please look at the handout this uh next paragraph is about that um the latest Colorado preservation Inc report funded by the state on the status of historic preservation tells us in 2015 21% of tourists visited historic sites Heritage tourism increased by a

[196:01] third from 2014 just one year before the next report is not due for a couple years but one could reasonably speculate the positive trend likely continued however to be conservative let's assume it held steady at 21% that means 29 million of the 131 or $137 million of Boulders retail sales tax revenue for 2022 likely resulted from Heritage tourism $29 million the figure that is compelling argument to prioritize and grow the PowerHouse for Revenue generation that is Boulders presid conservation program Boulders tourist sites most often searched for on Internet on the internet and visited include shiaka Pearl Street Mall Duan Bay House the farmers market boka and the creek path many of these intersect pafic

[197:00] area this new historic district will bring more visitors to Boulder yielding greater sales for hotels restaurants and shops create jobs and increase sales tax revenues additionally I'd like to briefly address an argument used against designation because of the complicated history in the area the journal for her uh Heritage tourism writing about Colorado Museum States the spatial jposition of narratives and counternarratives in these museums offers insight into how critical and dissonant history is beginning to be incorporated into Heritage tourism in the American West substitute environment for Museum and we have direction for the preservation and the parks and wreck programs to work together to exhibit Boulder's own complicated history to a larger audience who would seek out the Civic area because of its historic designation um voting against the

[198:00] district does not write wrongs voting for The District does not dismiss inequities the first step to prevent repeat of injustices is to educate designation enhances the opport opportunity for education I urge you to vote for the historic district thank you thank you [Music] Deborah sorry about the beeping all right we have three more in-person speakers they will be Andrew Brandt followed by Stuart C Lord and Glenda s Robinson thank you I'm Andrew brand and I swear I'm going to drop a truth bomb on this Council thank you um so um good evening Lamar's board members I'm Andrew brand and I'm here to speak in support of the designation of this portion of downtown Boulder as a historic district um I do believe that this designation should happen for the

[199:00] reasons that the other people here have been saying but also for this reason the area was the site of Boulder's first black neighborhood the memory of which has been systematically erased from Boulder's history bould itself recognizes that the town has a fraught racial history the very same time period in which the black residents of the Water Street neighborhood were forced to move coincides with the rise of the Klux clan in Boulder but the landmarks board has an Irreplaceable opportunity tonight with the stroke of a pen to begin to repair the injustices done to Boulder's earliest black residents the dominant Narrative of this area has been that it was a rundown Shanty Town populated by transients these are not my words but the words words of Boulders local citizens and government officials from the late 19th and early 20th century and their narrative is replicated in the time frame that this board is focusing on which begins only after the residents who lived here were forced to leave in the mid 1920s from the city's earliest days

[200:00] black women and families lived in the area designated blocks 11 12 and 13 on the sandborn maps where the red arrows pointing the current designation does not include block 11 but the board could expand the bound of this District to include this area in which many black families lived some of Boulder's first black women entrepreneurs Jenny Johnson and Molly Gordon lived here so did the families of Charles and agie Beasley Harry and Susie Hall and John and Nora Thomas and all of their children by 1910 Census records show that black families lived in nearly every home on blocks 11 and 12 as racial animist grew in society the neighborhood was given the singularly offensive nickname of The Jungle by by The Daily Camera and this deeply hurtful slur has been repeated uncritically and unchallenged by historians for decades there is no record that Water Street residents ever use this name but there are many records of the injustices that were done to them photos from the Carnegie Library

[201:00] also revealed that these were not ramshackle Cottages but sturdy woodf framed and masonry homes as the white residents of Boulder work to build support for a Central Park they deliberately photographed the rear of these properties claiming that the work sheds and out buildings were where people lived I implore this board to consider this history and the city's commitment to racial Equity laid out in its 2021 plan and I urge you to expand the boundary of this proposed historic district to include block 11 I would also strongly encourage the board to consider a name other than Civic area for this District as that name continues the Eraser of the black community that existed before the neighborhood was raised a fitting tribute might also include the naming of the pedestrian bridge over the creek after one of these black residents the Jenny Johnson Freedom Bridge has a nice ring to it thank you thank you so much steuart Lord I swear to tell the

[202:00] truth thank you ladies and gentlemen I stand before you today on behalf of the executive committee of the nacp of Boulder County to express our unwavering support of this designation of Central Park this designation includes the expansion of block 11 which represents significant step toward acknowledging the history of Boulder County Central Park holds a profound historical significance a site for the first black community dating back to the 1800s it was a vibrant neighborhood of business people entrepreneurs who Thrive and contribute to our city despite the attempts to erase history documented this record this neighborhood represents historical significance of black community we urge The Landmark board to consider the appropriate naming of this

[203:01] Center Central Park does not do it justice name it Water Street Park the first neighborhood with black people lived in this community I was surprised to hear a presentation earlier that didn't mention the black community which this park is intrical a part of however I am glad that the record now clearly states that this was part of the black community we need to honor the history of this city the history of the vibrancy of our community and recognize we should embrace our history because we don't embrace our history and don't learn from it we can make mistakes so I am excited that you're doing this but we want you to dig deeper maybe back of your neck has to itch a little bit you to make a difficult decision to name it based on

[204:00] the history of the sisters and brothers who are white and black who live in this community that no child should grow up in this community without knowing the history of the black Community as it relates to this Central Park thank you for this opportunity thank you this will be interesting I'm a preacher so three minutes okay yeah good luck good luck with that but I I will need to swear you yeah blenda strong Minister Glenda strong Robinson and you will tell the board the I will tell the truth I I swear to God a 43-year member of Second Baptist

[205:00] Church Boulder Colorado associate Minister and historian executive committee and member and historian of NAACP Boulder County Branch an oral historian for the now Museum of Boulders current exhibit entitled proclaiming Colorado's black history having lived here for the many years that I have I've met lots of people and have been privy to stories including generations of SBC family members Boulders had a rich and illustrious black history right here in downtown Boulder and the gos Grove neighborhood where historic SBC church was for 40 plus years SBC was founded on January 7th 1908 we just celebrated our 116th anniversary it's the only black church between Denver Colorado and Cheyenne Wyoming they met in various

[206:02] places like Carpenter shops and other places of business in 1945 they built their own location at 19th and Ken one thing I enjoy as a historian is presenting living history I like to say that I bring history to life like to know somebody tell somebody let them tell me their story black people I know have been here since the 1890s and have descendants who are still alive and tell me stories that means that they lived here they raised their families here they worked here and in many instan has even died here contributing much to this thriving bustling economy we may be few in numbers but we've certainly made a difference right here in this Boulder area and we want that acknowledged because they were unable to find work that would sustain uh their families

[207:01] they created their own financial means by starting their own businesses we have people who have learned to make something out of nothing I heard that extensive research had been done and uh were these live subjects is what I want to know were you able to connect to the people or their descendants and get the real story we want our history proclaimed acknowledged recognized accepted for all these years that we've worked toward a sense of belonging I can put my fingers on at least uh 134 years of History right here in Boulder they are there are black people who have had lived experiences for the past 134 years our story isn't Against All Odds but by the grace of God story We're Not Invisible we represent Humanity with

[208:01] lived experiences that are second to none and we want our history acknowledged thank you very much thank you I'm not normally speechless um but thank you very much Aubrey do you have any other members of the public in person would anyone else like to speak in person on this item all right I think we're good to move on to Virtual public comment Lauren Kennedy do you see anyone um I I'll unmute her I Lynn I saw your hand up earlier and then it looks like it went down did you want to take your time you're unmuted yeah okay goad yay the timer thank you so

[209:00] much anden once again uh State your full name and S to tell us the truth um Lyn seagull and I swear to to tell you the truth as I know it and not as anyone else knows it so yeah um it's it's interesting because you know we're we're making future history now and Boulder and all the homeless and it's interesting seeing that photo of the barracks that that the folks down in the quote unquote jungle area were located and that now we don't have any structures for the homeless and this has been brought up as as an issue what's going to happen to the the

[210:01] unhoused folks that are populating this area um and it's my hope that well not my hope it's my actions that um that go to the federal realm to not support low-income housing tax credits and federal governmental benefits that only increase population and make the problem worse but with historic preservation it's entirely the opposite the the creation of this historic district provides opportunity from State and maybe federal funds that are the kind of funds I'd like to see for for Boulder and to

[211:01] decrease the wealth disparity instead of increasing it which is what the general federal funds do so I totally support this of course and um I only think that it should have gone down to even F Park and through as much area as possible I suppose that um the New Britain building and the um Park Central were not included because they're going to be demoed that would be tough if if it was landmarked first um because of flood um implications but things change over time even flood waters change someone brought up flood and

[212:00] um so you don't know what's going to happen but I'm not from this area actually I'm from Seattle mostly but I appreciate history wherever I am and supporting it and a historic district does that and leverages us to acquire more funds thanks thank you Lynn um there is no one else in um the virtual comments we will go ahead and close public comment for this we'll invite the app applicant whoever wants to speak back up for three minutes and then I'll query the board about a quick break thank you thank you for all the uh public comments um it just shows the richness of of our community and uh the applicants are uh really excited at the

[213:02] discovery that uh could continue especially once a historic district uh is designated I think it would spur people to bring on more oral histories and to actually have events that celebrate that we uh have already been talking with the Comm Community connectors about celebrating events in the park for the community groups um I want to talk briefly about the boundary because we really didn't cover it um the intention of our original boundary to include the park the parking lots was so that when the the um the development happened in the East booken which we are very supportive of uh affordable housing and any other use that the city deems important here that there's a lens of history that the the development looks at the neighborhood next to them so we are fine with um backing off the parking

[214:00] lots but we would really appreciate it if uh preservationists and preservation planners could be at the table to talk to the developers during their proc process um I just I also want to mention um that historic Boulder is involved with um cooperating with the um Musea Boulder and proc proclaiming black um history in Colorado we've been talking with Adrien Miller and we're going to have a tour of the little rectangle on May 11th you're all welcome to come to that it'll be free and open it'll be probably early afternoon that day and um it's part of our uh building a bigger tent for president reservation having more voices be represented so um that's really all I wanted to say in uh followup thank you very much thank you Lynn and before we bring it back to board deliberation would you like to take a five minute

[215:02] break a three minute break um yeah we'll resume at 9 42 well that's what I was like I have to Water's like coming but no you should I forgot [Music] that Claire what does he work for a tech company question I love it well he was the first

[216:01] person who really addressed it so I was like cute and I was like this really I mean I mean I just I'm not gonna say anything profound in the conversation [Music]

[217:08] you really aware this good to see you [Music] um you just have to send them directly to me I'm I'm not sure why there's been some weird because I don't have it

[218:05] blocked I have a and and my email is right there yeah because they used to come to me and then all of a sudden something weird started happening with Claire so that's what Catherine was Claire oh that's CU it's

[219:09] I well that's what I'm [Music] say well you have cake yet everyone's already

[220:03] eating I'm G take home we

[221:09] no [Music] we not

[222:08] much okay I know we need to get back

[223:01] I've got well [Music] [Music] [Music] feel

[224:08] because oh least

[225:08] yeah [Music] know know I like that too what the brid renaming the bridge why not you just come over for

[226:08] CFE 48 p.m. am I now am I am muted thank you and thanks Ronnie um for hanging in there with us I know you're under the weather so we're ready to begin our deliberations thank you thank you again to everyone who spoke and even though staff and the applicants have done tremendous research we just witnessed that there's still a lot more layers of information to peel off and and learn and and and bring into this story um staff has done a tremendous amount of work but I also have to thank the

[227:00] citizens who are here tonight and who have been working on this throughout for for nearly a year now so I think you guys your time your energy giving up a Wednesday evening to spend with us thank you very much um John is willing to kick off the deliberation so I'm going to turn it over to him okay um as was just said I want to thank everyone that has worked as hard as they have on this since since it started with the extension of the Band Shell boundary and probably before that St sted a remarkable amount of work a remarkable amount of learning was had by me in this whole process and just to start I think this is designating this part of the city designating this area as defined and as

[228:03] discussed is an essential thing I think that it forms first of of all it forms kind of a script for the next phase a physical script a spatial script for the history to happen in which is the next phase of Boulder's history but it becomes kind of the the I guess not artifact but the the edifice of the history that's already passed and with that comes what we heard tonight which is a kind of a big opportunity to grab on to another piece of Boulders history um when this whole thing started my thinking was that the boundary should extend probably from

[229:00] about 14th Street to 9th Street and the current boundary as defined is Maybe working instrument that gets us to this point but with the the new information about the the original history um of the first residence of Boulder um the inclusion of the the block 11 or whatever it is is an opportunity that I think we kind of have to consider and seize and I'm not sure how we do that but um when we vote this tonight if we could come up with or craft a motion that brings that into it as I said I think that it should have extended to include the library building I think I understand why it's not being included but [Music] um this is this is just something we

[230:02] have to do and so I'm obviously supporting it and that's my comments thank you John and before anyone else speaks Marcy or staff has put on um the screen kind of the three threshold questions we have tonight and of course the first one is does does the board recommend designation of the historic district to city council Marcy I can't remember if you had a recommendation if we do these three separately which might move us along rather than have each board memb speak to each of the three questions I think it's totally up to you and to make a um distinction the first one is really where you're heading to tonight which is what is your recommendation to city council and the um criteria for that uh decision is on this slide here in

[231:00] addition to that we're looking for feedback if you have it on the draft design guidelines and uh the components of the ordinance including uh recommended boundary name and character defining features are alterations so I think it would make sense if the board went through the first question first which is your business tonight which is making a recommendation and then if there is support for the district going into feedback on the framework and the ordinance components thank you um Ronnie I don't know if you'd like to go next or have or Chelsea if you're ready just to the first bullet point are we just doing a yes no or sure or a little you can elaborate and and definitely looking to the criteria would be yeah also helpful in your answer of whether or not this

[232:01] designation meets the criteria or not I'll let someone else go first Renee um Marcy can you put up that last slide so we can speak to it so um you know I'm first of all gonna say that um because of everything that has come up tonight and because that we have we have dove into this as not just the Bandshell but the area next to it and the fact that the historic designation brought up all this rich history good bad ugly or whatever we're talking about and um and and it preserves and protects the historic significance of this area and of our history and Boulder and so I feel like that in itself the fact that staff found this risk history and our citizens

[233:00] came to talk to us today to tell us about this history just gives me so much pride I guess to sit here and and want to move this designation forward so that I can I can learn and I can then bring my family and share something that I had no idea about and I think that's so important for us as Citizens and as and I just want to say that it's just really amazing and I think it does I think the designation does preserve and protect and enhance the historic significance of the area and um so number that's the number one that we're trying to answer at this point and I think there's I think we can talk to two and three here in a minute but I mean just because everyone had so much fuel for the fire it just means that we need to tell the story so well I'll also be um wholeheartedly

[234:00] supporting the designation of this historic district because even though five of the buildings here are already treasured landmarks were already learning that by forming a district and giving it a name and a place and um calling that out the other history will come to life and will be presented and you know Chelsea has some great questions earlier about how do you present that there's a multitude of ways to do that and I think if we don't form a district those stories will get further and [Music] further buried and I think think this is what we're here to do it's been 18 years since we formed a historic district and I think this is um I think this is just one of those nights where I agree Renee I feel pride and I think a Civic heart of a city that's what you should engender is pride in that neighborhood as well as in the

[235:01] community as a whole um Ronnie thanks Abby um yeah I am in agreement I plan to support the recommendation of designation and um like you guys I've learned a lot tonight I think having these conversations is helpful and um you know I think there are other pieces that we need to talk about tonight in the next two bullet items but I do plan to support um designation thank you Ronnie now looking at you okay um so in reviewing everything that's in the memo and that's in the criteria and in doing my own research to help me understand better the history of the place and the people who were

[236:02] involved um with developing this park and and kind of how it has become the way that it is today for me I am not in favor of creating a historic district and I'm happy to go through reasons one by one um but in understanding the history well first of all I just want to say that uh we do not need to Landmark anything in order to share the the history of that place um and this idea that if only we have a historic district we can begin to do that is I think sort of a self-limiting philosophy that I don't think we need to subscribe to there's a lot of history across Boulder that should be shared and honored um and we don't need to Landmark

[237:01] all of those places in order to um commit to educating the community about those areas um for me one of the things that I am one of the reasons why I'm really hesitant to Landmark this area um is because of the public process and I just believe that because this is the heart of our community I don't think that we've met the criteria that or the threshold that should have been met met to understand what like the full community wants with this area and I think the last time that we've gotten any real indication of that was in 2021 when the cultural um tax was passed and that was on

[238:02] um I'm trying to find the information about that but um oh yeah the community uh safety and cultural tax was passed in 2021 [Music] um and that was passed with 86% support for the vote um and so overwhelmingly approved by Boulder citizens and so when the city was communicating the details of that initiative um they said that uh about $8 million would be appropriated to redevelop the Civic area um and at the time they said that the Redevelopment was to quote modify Andor enhance the park areas and hardscapes to create a large Gathering space with important connections to the adjacent Transit

[239:00] options Creek path restaurants and businesses and better connections to and through the site to link various key uh destinations through connectivity and visibility public plaas for events and better circulation throughout the site um this translates into enhan park amenities Pathways open promenades along 13th Street and Canyon Boulevard increase visibility and safety of the area and functional space layout and so that was what was sold to the community as that initiative and it was overwhelmingly supported by you know tens of thousands of Boulder residents and I just feel like this process sort of usurps that decision um so that's one of the reasons why I don't I'm not I don't feel like I can support this is I don't feel like the community I feel like the community has asked for sort of the opposite of preserving it the way it is today

[240:01] um so that doesn't mean that I don't have ideas for how I like I have ideas for how I would like to um assuming that I'm not in the majority um I do have ideas for how to contribute to try to make it as good of a project as possible um I also wanted to share a little bit about uh some of the individuals who are named as the you know people who make this space the way it is for example uh Sako Deo am I pronouncing that correctly um I did some research on him it didn't take long to discover but um he was responsible for planning many developments in Parks across Colorado that prohibited the sale or rent of homes to anyone but white people on one of the plans he developed in Denver in 1931 he wrote that quote the white only

[241:01] restrictions would enhance the value of this property for many years to come he was also responsible for many cities across Colorado um only allowing single family housing to be built in those cities which we now know today to be an exclusionary policy that has led to um a lot of housing affordability issues and as I've already stated um some of the issues that with uh hestad junior so I don't I to me I feel like lifting up these individuals is not the way that I um would like to remember this park or to um commemorate this park like I I think preserving this park as it is today should be treated with the same level of care and concern as if the proposed recommended like if

[242:00] the proposal recommended radical change to the park um as both decisions have significant long-term Ram ramifications that will forever impact the fabric of our city So based on this I don't like from the public participation standpoint I just I don't think it was sufficient to justify such a major decision um and I I really I wholeheartedly support the naacp's rec request to recognize the historical black neighborhoods within the park um um and as we asked I asked in the last meeting at the parks director if it if we needed to Landmark the park in order to properly educate the community on the historic context of the park and um and specifically educate Boulder residents and visitors about the historical Injustice and economic disparities faced

[243:01] by black community members in Boulder and the answer was no so um as the cific area is slated to be improved as part of the Civic Area Redevelopment I believe those educational elements are a requirement um of that work but it's not required that we Landmark the park in order to achieve that goal um and in some cases I believe that landmarking the park could create additional constraints on what educational elements could be included in the park um I have more but I'll just stop it at that and say like I have thought very deeply about this and um it's I just I don't believe that um it's what should happen to the heart of our community thank

[244:06] you Mark anything you want to I'll just speak super briefly I I came here tonight without um uh a predisposition one way or the other and um I I found the uh the combination of staff's presentation and public comment to be wildly educational and um uh just just great and I I'm going to say even though I don't have a vote um that I support the uh formation of the district and while acknowledging uh your point that we don't uh we don't have to create this to honor the past to create um uh Educational Tools about our history many times we don't if we don't

[245:02] if we don't create this framework and kind of make something um more of a place than it not than it is but we don't if we don't raise it up as a with with a framework then then it it it it's lost so anyway yes I support uh the district if I had a vote I would vote for it tonight uh thank you Mark I know you're gonna see this in a different capacity most likely um and Chelsea thank you for your comments um I think we can move on to the framework that staff has set out for our discussion I would like to after this meeting there's one thing Marcy I'd like to clarify not here in this meeting but afterwards is I so appreciate you know your comments everything you say is so valid or whatever but what I want to know I had a memory when I was trained

[246:02] and come into the landmarks board I thought I was told I couldn't do my own research on subjects in the in the sense that we all had to hear everything at once so we don't need to discuss that now but I wanted to say that publicly so we could follow up if I misunderstood sort of about a great deal of research coming into a topic so you can um obviously bring your experiences um you know as you sit as board members but um you you're not supposed to do like a great amount of research and bring evidence that isn't presented during the quas judicial hearing um and so uh you know you're supposed to make your decisions based on the evidence that is presented at the hearing and applying the the criteria and so you know it's it's okay to be a person and to have you know experiences but as long as those experiences don't Prejudice you one way or the other into what sort of decision you're going to make uh then it should be

[247:02] okay hopefully that makes sense can you point to the where it says that in the code or wherever well it's it's it's the quas judicial uh process in brc1 one chapter 13 uh that that you're supposed to make your decisions based off the evidence that's presented during the Quasi judicial proceedings and not really anything outside of that but obviously you can still bring your life experiences here and apply and apply those things I know it's a bit of a a bit of a gray area um so it kind of goes back to about like having expart a contacts and so if you are um and we've disclosed those whether or not they you had them or not um so as long as there aren't any expart contacts uh then you should be good but you also should not be conducting like research projects that aren't disclosed outside of this uh

[248:06] proceeding and I know we need to move on yeah let's just go back to the framework yeah so it sounds like the majority of the board is leading towards recommending designation to city council so the next item is the board comments on the draft decide guideline framework and I know we've seen this a couple of times I still um think that it's definitely going in the right direction you've got some great a-listers on that I don't know if as if depending on how this goes I know you know we still have to take a vote tonight depending on that there's still a couple more steps even before city council would it be appropriate at some time if a landmarks board member served on the design guideline team or would that be

[249:00] inappropriate we've not scoped that project yet yeah okay H you know I just want to throw that out there if anyone was even interested yeah I think to your point these AR there are some people interested yeah the these aren't fully cooked design guidelines in other District designations it is adopting the formal you know thing this is um guidance for future design guidelines if the district is designated so if you like the direction it's going I would keep it at that and not Wordsmith it and I just point out the the one that you haven't reviewed or talked about is number five that talks about a vibrant mix of uses and adaptive reuse in the east book end and and you've seen the other six in the study session with prab in um December yeah I personally love the direction it's going and I I like the the inclusion of number five so uh Marcy once it goes to uh city council

[250:00] and it's designated do you and someone else make the guidelines up and we don't ever look at them again or yeah you are you are the official adopting body so you will see draft after draft make sure no it's good yeah that's a great question because there's a lot of people that end up okay so we make small comments on these ones now to produce bigger and better guidelines more detailed and yes you would those have um public hearings and then you'd um you'd have them in advance and then uh you'd be the the body that adopts them as design guidelines so there's a a full process uh for the guidelines I have one comment to make on this because I think the framework is is good except on number six the issue with the works of art I think should somehow involve the Arts commission um and that is because that

[251:02] Echoes back to the issue of it being a culture Al District which was discussed in the early part early 2000s when I was on the Arts commission um in 2007 there was an attempt to designate what is now being designated as what we're doing as a cultural arts district and I don't know whatever happened to it because my term ended John does that give us does that put another layer into an already complicated it just means that I think someone from the Arts commission or um gets the review get gets brought into the process so it it is another layer it is it's it's part of the process that's going to happen anyway 100 days process or whatever it's G to be um and I think the the intent

[252:01] here is to align it with the other processes and um policies and adopted documents which is the number six is straight out of the um uh acquisition guidelines that the city has and then also the um Civic area Park plan and so the landmarks board can't assign work or review to other um commissions but um but it's already in here of align this the selection of works of art with the adopted City plans and policies that would also be how art is require Acquired and who reviews that right um but maybe there's a encouragement in the guidelines to also involve the Arts commission I mean yeah there's a mechanism for that because when I was on the Arts commission I served on one task force that I was asked to serve on because of

[253:00] my Arts commission membership so it's like there's ways that that can be done Ronnie any comments on the deside guideline framework and guiding principles if you could flip back to the first three I just wanted to quickly um yeah I mean I think that this looks good I I think that the order of them may not be that important but it does feel like there might be a hierarchy of order that feels a little little out of order to me um that's I mean I that's just my read of it that maybe yeah the Secretary of interior standards Rehabilitation might be the first um but the maintenance component feels like while it's important is kind of a tertiary piece

[254:01] that might be more execution based I don't know um I think that number three three and if you go to the next page um four and six seem like a logical sequence followed by five and then number two it's just a sequencing I think they go well together um so I don't know if this is just topics or if this is meant to also somehow be the framework of how it's documented um and I know that this is kind of overlapping the next topic but um you know there it seems to me like we've teased apart period of significance and um period that is still intact and the point at which the period of significance might might expand and be greater than

[255:02] um what is still intact today um I think relates to some of the things that are identified here in number four which is celebrating the diversity of our community and enrich our Collective understanding of different periods of Boulders history by acknowledging stories of histor exclud historically excluded populations and I just offer that up because it feels like that along with aligning the selection of works of art in the Civics Civic area which is one Tool uh of you know how to celebrate University um could we could maybe expound upon this a little bit [Music] um I think we're capturing it to some degree by saying historically excluded populations um but based on our conversations tonight it might be wise of us to identify them

[256:02] somewhere um I don't know Marcy if that needs to happen in the framework yet but I think it would begin to recognize some of the direct feedback we're hearing and then while this goes into the next topic I think the boundary um is also important not just in the defining of the area which we will do um but what is the boundary of the period of significance or the you know that that includes these these populations in land areas because block 11 clearly isn't in our um current District boundary um which we can talk about in a minute um but if there is an idea to expand the the discussion to a larger area it does feel like you know

[257:00] recognizing that um here would be would be good so I don't have a specific thing yet Marcy but I just feel like that could be teased a little bit apart and maybe we can talk more about that as we talk about topic three and maybe revisit this if you think that's helpful and is that enough feedback I mean for tonight this wasn't all going to get resolved and tied up neatly with a bow tonight on the design guideline framework is it that's um that's very helpful um I think I would like um clarification some of the edits uh P Pros edits that I heard were um reference the art commission and potentially you know include them in review uh reorder the um principles though I I do I'm see your point Ronnie that that second one sounds like it's about maintenance um but it's about life

[258:02] safety and it's about the complexity of this area and the management of it by nine different departments and how um if this is designated as a historic district it can still serve the critical life safety and accessibility in transportation functions that it does so I would uh Advocate that it stay at number two but maybe reword it so that it doesn't yeah sound like it's about maintenance when it's about when it's the lead is a little buried on that one um and then the third one is is specifically naming the um the groups that have been historically excluded maybe say including but not limited to or something like that um to really represent the conversations that have happened in this room tonight about how important it is and what that guiding principle really is is is saying that there is history in this area that's been erased and let's make space for it so my um sorry my clarifying question

[259:01] was I hear that uh feedback I can document it and um say save it for the design guideline uh development later on or I could make specific changes to the the framework before it goes to city council and I'd like your direction on what changes to make at this point and what changes to kind of save for later can I add one more thing um I think in I'd like to um potentially add a little bit of more teeth to the I think it's the third no the fourth um design guidelines so right now it says to celebrate the diversity of our community and Rich our Collective understanding of different periods of Boulders history by acknowledging stories of historically excluded populations and I think that that that starts to get at it but I

[260:00] would like something more concrete around the um development and installation of educational elements that focus on sharing the stories uh and history of Boulders historically excluded communities because right now I just it doesn't necessarily translate to that to that or even facilities uhuh well there's yeah I think it's a great idea no yeah I agree yeah so I had I think you could do it by I don't want to Wordsmith it right here but you could do do it by um instead of saying by acknowledging stories of historically excluded communities you could say by developing and installing educational elements that focus on sharing the stories and history of Boulders historically excluded communities and I'm happy to just email that to you real thank you good Chelsea I think that's a great idea it seems to me and this is part of the reordering

[261:00] suggestion that number four and six if you were to read those back to back um one talks about an idea and the other talks about a mechanism and some of the mechanism pieces that are like I think you literally said um some of the language that's in here is written under the works of art um I think the works of art piece is important um and you know it says tell our shared stories and capture a moment in time um anyway I I I see that four and six should be backto back and um with some of what Chelsea has already said I think we could point to some of the intent more on the nose and then um use the works of art as one tool to help um recognize

[262:00] this he agre is that tiger it's sounds like um some uh immediate changes are adding the language that um Chelsea offered to number four and then reordering so that four and six are back to back um as well as rewarding the second principle to um make it clear that it's about life safety um uh Etc um so we'll make those changes the Arts commission one can we um dive into that one a little bit more is that a change to add to the principle about art is that something to dig into and understand more in the development of the design guidelines which is what my recommendation would be just I think it's yeah I don't know how they all fit together these different boards and commissions and I I think it's something that we want to explore in the development of the guidelines you may want to note it this should in some form

[263:01] include um interface with with Boulder Arts with older Arts commission arts groups yeah oh arts groups yeah because there's many old that's also how you get more diverse exactly um fabulous okay any other comments on the guideline the design guideline framework wonderful thank you okay so that would move us to the comments on the different ordinance components uh which include a recommended boundary name and then list of character defining features or alterations that could have a significant impact on the character of The District um and typically uh your recommendation would include um the boundary and the name because if it's

[264:00] because it's a historic district your feedback is welcome on the character defining features the last one about alterations is optional um but if there are alterations that you'd like to recommend be included in the ordinance alterations that could have a significant impact on the character of The District um feel free to add those as well and we don't see this before your memo goes to council again correct um that is correct um but I it goes to Council in um mid-march and it's due three weeks before that so that's basically before our meeting in before March 6 yeah it's gonna go fast yeah so um so tonight is a great opportunity though it is getting late um well I think addressing boundary first I think we kind of have to seize the

[265:01] opportunity we were presented and include what is west of the boundary is shown at least to the library area if not all the way to 9th Street and and it's it's southern boundary could follow the the creek Edge the same way the the piece that hits the creek Edge does now before I respond to that do we know where blocky lies it was shown to us in a map it's rough remember where it lies yeah I think it's roughly between 10th Street and and uh and we won't we won't be map making on the flag I know so if you tell us if you're in agreement about expanding the boundary to include block 11 we can take that okay okay yeah then we should

[266:00] expand the boundary West to include block 11 can you give a general when you when you say that does it mean um that set in remember it means that we amend the boundary is it in our in our motion language okay okay Claire can pull it up because she's fast because one thing I don't want to do here is that we have to follow the back to those guidelines which was protect preserve history and Foster the history right so and so block 11 right is the library and then it's the open space right right but historically the way I heard it tonight it was called water park water Street well Water Street yeah is now Canyon but that it wasn't it called water park well it was Water Street I don't he he was suggesting that we call Street he was

[267:01] yeah saying because it was on Water Street right yeah so I mean what I don't want to do is like I I agree with the like us discussing the boundary of block 11 I just don't know like we have done so much due diligence on the other part of it that are we including it to you know I don't want to um uh protect and preserve the history of something that you know I understand what it was and I think the story should be told but if if what there is now is that what we're trying to protect does that make sense right ask not what's built there now also within the period of significance right because it happened that existed before 1938 right so how would that how does that work yeah they're related and and um if you wouldn't mind me sharing my um

[268:04] opinion though uh we haven't we haven't prepared we prepared the analysis um and I think hearing what was said um tonight I think it's a really compelling idea to expand it to include block 11 and looking at The NPS guidance there's um boundaries at a specific time in history such as the original city limits or legally recorded boundaries and so block 11 is the legally recorded boundary there I think that something that really resonated with me at the um savings places conference last week was this idea of how do we make the preservation field more inclusive and expand what it can do and what it can be so well you know that I'm Integrity is always number one for me are we meeting the criteria are we making sound decisions I also really have been thinking about one of the speakers saying um this culture

[269:00] of preciousness and in a way not including block 11 is further dismissing or not recognizing that because it was erased and how evocative would it be if you're walking down the Boulder Creek path and you see a sign and you said well why is it here and not back by the library and then you learn because of that sign there was a neighborhood here and this is where the houses were so it's a parkks you know it's a I think that you can get there with the criteria in terms of boundaries of a specific time in history it might also mean that the period of significance changes and I really wish it were called period of what's there today ra rather than significance we know significance goes back even beyond the 1870s yeah because it's because it is signicant 14,000 years it's significant that there was this neighborhood there that was essentially

[270:01] dispersed not just by the by the actions that occurred to assemble the park property but it was dispersed by the 1894 flood so we capture that history too there was a town yes that was that was pretty thoroughly disrupted by the 1894 flood and then what we're now calling the period of six significance started it was because there was something before was first and Indigenous people before that and before that we were indigenous people and there was a social structure there that is not there can I ask a because it seemed to me like in the memo we were picking 1938 because that's the period in which there's Integrity for starting but if we don't if we're not um obligated to

[271:03] subscribe to that philosophy of Integrity because it's not necessarily part of our uh City criteria then couldn't we expand the significance to the period of time that we're interested in I and just to be clear Integrity is very important I I agree but it I'm not throwing that out I'm not throwing that out but I think that considering the boundary where slide 93 I don't even know where I to the morning oh yeah so what I'm saying is like thinking of this as a historic district as a whole we know that the area shaded in oh now oh this area has

[272:03] Integrity it has significance it meets the local criteria what we're talking about now is adding you know an area to the west to recognize that earlier history that was erased so I think overall the district still has Integrity I think that if if it were only a Water Street historic district and it was only block 11 as like a landmark site I think it might be harder because of that Integrity pie but I think if the whole significance of this area is the layered history there is a way to include and recognize that peace but it it it's true like we're working with the preservation structure that was set up in the 1950s and 1975 and right now we're at a point in the preservation field where we're

[273:00] looking to expand and recognize and preserve and tell his hist in a way that doesn't isn't just in the buildings that are still here today right it's not maybe we don't have to be as rigid perhaps the other thing Marcy what I heard tonight from some of the speakers and some of the illustrations is there might be you know very bright very dedicated people don't always disagree on what that Integrity is and like with the topography and I know Leonard seagull showed something and P and um sheet showed something that made me think that you know maybe there's more Integrity there and of course I look at it like oh if uh Frederick lad Jr came back would he recognize his planned and he would I also understand that his full plan was never fully implemented anyway but I'm I'm going off topic but but Marcy I I mean it's just like kind of an

[274:01] opportunity was brought to us tonight and we were asked to consider that addition of block 11 on the heels of the saving places conference it sounds like you think that's a very intriguing and important thing to explore okay and Ronnie has his hand up guys I want to give him a chance if if you could roll back to the slide that shows the buildings the historic here it is yeah I think this is interesting so I'm not sure exactly what I'm looking at there to be honest um so block 11 can you just put the curse over block 11 okay um could you could you kind of do not the library 11 it's off the

[275:00] map yes so this block 11 wouldn't include um yes so I'm confused so block 11's over there gotcha okay um okay this again just to go back to period of significance versus Integrity I'm in support of expanding the period of significance to include greater duration of time time period unknown okay I don't know when that starts I'm in favor of changing the landmark boundary to include block 11 and to include you know the other side of the creek I do want to talk about Homestead and Ronnie can I interrupt you one moment after you said that because I see the applicants here in the room Marcy if we if the landmarks board would like to expand the historic district to

[276:01] include that do we need to ask the applic or bring them in at some point with their thoughts on that or is it now in our hands yeah so um the applicant proposes a boundary and then the landmarks board recommends a boundary staff recommends a boundary to the landmarks board and city council the landmarks board recommends a boundary okay but city council can change the boundary right right right I just didn't know okay this whole thing started with a boundary expansion expansion and then it became a district yeah I will also I will also say you know this is new information it's new like I cannot under estimate I cannot uh whatever the word is tell you how much time we have spent um in terms of coordinating with the different departments doing the analysis and all of that so Chelsea I hear your questions and I I I agree with them of

[277:01] like we've spent hours and hours and hours on our recommendations So speaking individually I'm saying it's an interesting idea and I think hearing the speakers here tonight there's an opportunity however expanding the boundary without the coordination with the other departments is also something that I can't do on the fly right you know from the Das as an individual so um you all the board can make uh your recommendation but we will save our staff recommendation until we have opportunity to make it as a department can I is there a potential to add an area to a historic district after a historic district is formed because maybe that's the appropriate yeah thing to do at this point yes Council can amend designations and it would come to the landmarks board first so you kind of establish why is this area important and

[278:02] then you can expand or add to it later either continuous contiguous or discontiguous because I know Mapleton Hill got an addition like 20 years later so it can happen so that's a good thought we could recommend it yeah so that it gets a talking point it tonight I see R it be considered as an addition later time or we it be but then it could also be done later perhaps yeah well I think it's if we all survive this no um if we recommend it then it just gets it it it moves it it just States it right that we think that this could be a possibility I see Ronnie's hand up and I think Mark also wanted to make a comment go ahead Ronnie thanks yeah I just wanted to kind of unpack a picture so I know that there's like a bunch of stuff but unpack a picture for a second here so I'm in

[279:01] support of expanding the boundary I I do think that it can give easier and greater recognition to a greater period of significance does a better job at doing that I also think we should expand it to the southern side of the creek the the next thing that I think ties into this I think it directly relates is Olstead I thought from the beginning and I'm glad that people have made images that show the overlay of you know how things have changed over time or the characteristics of olmstead's original plan and what we see there today I still see it oh yeah and so you know the CLA didn't identify that as still being intact so I'm just going to say one I

[280:02] still see it and I could see that as being a piece of the recognizable landscape that is intact now the criticism about the person is the criticism about the site selection which I think was one of the things that Len seagull was trying to bring up is that like you know site selection isn't just necessarily Olstead coming in and saying like it's going to be here we're going to just was these people or is the question the criticism not about site selection but his per personal beliefs and conduct as a designer and is that why it's like how do we recognize this person and I also think that the comments about the bank and the naming Convention of the bank and how we can avoid the topic by not bringing up the

[281:03] name might be doing a solid disservice like this isn't my line of work necessarily to understand it to the degree that I imagine other people in the room do um but I could see there being benefit to recognizing Olstead who has National significance helping use olmstead's original plan as one of the mechanisms of lead leing like future decisions about changes to the park based on his drawings and original intent because I do think they're still there and then also them being like a clear Counterpoint of against you know what was there before as as a tool for us to talk about what happened in that period of time um and what populations were

[282:02] displaced um so personally I think olmstead's plan still intact and I don't know why we wouldn't include it and personally I think if there is a displacement of people that was based out of decision making that included his plan um that it might not be bad to know that that was part of and we speak to it and I know that there can be tools that will allow us to do that properly I'm just I don't know exactly what they are um but having part of this and recognizing that he contributed seems pretty obvious to me and if others agreed and I definitely want to hear Marcy's opinion on this um I um would support recognizing him and incorporating his drawing set into our

[283:00] you know future design documents that are regulatory documents for the guidelines I I don't see how we can erase him from this designation or this story exactly and proposal kind of does and and I can't I'm not I can't see how to do that um would there be a park here if it weren't for Olstead was he the Genesis was he the Catalyst when the the citizens came together Dan Corson mentioned they were Heroes because they pulled money and came together and raised funds to bring someone in to help give this city a direction and um so I don't know how we Overlook that right and just to point out they were Heroes to some and they were okay that I mean the citiz the

[284:00] citizens who were concerned about building a better Boulder is I Dan was yeah for me just to go to the whether or not the evidence still is there of the early design decisions and plans I see them and that is why I say okay yes they are there they could help us regulate our design decisions and be a part of the design guideline content and then the criticism piece of him as an individual or the decision making of the site selection I don't know how to tease that out of it Abby but I feel like that is part of the tool to talk about our history um and expanding the period of significance that includes him and includes the people that were displaced and who knows how much earlier um is valuable because once you open the period of significance up then the storytelling piece that related to you know bullet points four

[285:01] and six can be spoken about clearly the regulatory piece is about design decisions that might be larger than you know the types of artwork or signage or installations um can they can be regulated more clearly by the aspects that are intact um that relate to the planning drawings that were part of you know the planning professionals legacies does that make sense I totally agree with that but you've been able to articulate what with sort of my reaction to the one thing in the staff memo that I couldn't quite reconcile or didn't personally agree with um I as far as as what is it period of significance I also wonder about having it go to 1978 for

[286:02] The Tea House the tea house was 1998 oh shoot I I got it off 20 I'm 20 years behind so I think many respects it's appropriate to have the tea house as a individually that's what it is outside the period because there was a lot of stuff in that period that thank you yeah because you guys wouldn't Overlook four years I know you wouldn't Marcy can you maybe speak to what I was talking about and you know does it make sense yeah and I I think that I'm hearing some disagreement with the um some board members with the staff um analysis of the Integrity of the Olstead uh period the 1923 to 1937 piece and and I stand by that we stand by that um analysis to say that uh the Olstead design was um added on to by

[287:03] the uh later Park planning effort that dbor and Huntington were were part of and and that the character of um the park in our view was really established in 1938 where the art deco Bandshell is this structure in the park that pulls you in it's a icon both in the park and from the outside and that some of the circulation in the trees and the water features were part of uh olmstead's earlier design but that um that the current historic character was established in 1938 it and again you all make a recommendation to city council you know and you can include you can include all the the components that we've outlined there but um uh but that's that what that's where our analysis

[288:03] was can go ahead I'm just gonna inter I'm going to interject for just a second um at planning board last night we had an applicant with a project and we had to render a decision and there was a lot of discussion about uh what what we were able to do based upon the applicant's application and um it got complex but you guys are a long way off from having aemotion to uh to decide on your and it's 11 and um so uh so I I would just I would just recommend that if there's a consensus that and and I want to First also say

[289:00] that the amount of work and research and information provided about the applicant's uh request of a boundary and a period of significance and and honoring what staff has done to date that you word a motion that uses words like consider we strongly we we urge we want Council to consider um expanding the boundary we want uh to include you know to consider including block 11 the other thing is ground it back into the code a little bit and and uh because that's things carry more weight when you're able to site chapter and verse so anyway you guys are a long way off I'm going to leave um but I would I would urge you to to start crafting um a motion that uses words like consider and allow staff to

[290:01] um do some due diligence about the things that you would like staff and counsel to consider so that's that's my little bit of advice where I was in my thinking I Marcy did you have a motion drafted yes um so I have a motion for the recommendation right and here it is um what I don't have is a motion for the other thing we asked for feedback on and you don't need to make a motion for the changes to the guiding um principles that we talked about um but I would suggest and look to Chris for this of this would be the motion for your recommendation about designation and then you could craft some language to like Mark offered um consider this about the boundary consider this about the period of significance um the other

[291:01] components are character defining features alterations if you want to yeah I think I think that we want we I feel like I agree with Mark I think what we should do is this motion language we add to it the cons to that we want to consider the boundary being expanded to capture section 11 BL block 11 I should know that block 11 and consider some alteration to the name maybe of that section of the district or the whole thing that captures the Fuller history without changing because because as Mark said as we all

[292:02] acknowledge there was a tremendous amount of work that got us to the point of that motion and there is a period of of significance established that relates to the principal part of the territory that we're dealing with here and we do need to vote to designate so we need language I for can we just discuss the name of the park yes um so so I I think we should consider I know you guys have thought a lot about this but I think we should consider not calling it the Civic area Park um for one reason that's very practical is that the Civic nature of the uses of those buildings and these buildings is going to change um as these functions are likely all moving to Alpine balam so I also feel like it would be a little misleading to current and future

[293:02] residents of if this was the Civic Park but really all the Civic area activities were not here um so as um also recommended by the community connectors and by several of the speakers here tonight um I think one of the ways that we can really help tell the story of the park and also invite curiosity um from community members and visitors um is to amplify the voices of those who were harmed by the displacement caused through the parks development and other exclusionary policies and actions by the city and I believe that um yeah one of the ways that we can do that is through the naming of the park so I you know I don't whether it's Water Street park or a person that we want to um lift up as a symbol for uh the the um the community

[294:05] that existed there I don't have a specific idea that I feel like I I don't think we should be the ones necessarily to do it but could we just simply call it um as the Central Area historic district well we had speakers here tonight that did say specifically that that was dismissing the history of the park like I don't it doesn't speak to the I mean the that Park exists at the expense of the displacement of marginalized groups and so I think it's important that we acknowledge that through the naming of the park and I don't know what that name is but Water Street I mean I liked the Water Street Park I'm I mean there is a creek right there um I don't I don't know if that's

[295:02] I mean that was what was suggested I think someone tonight said People's Park well it's not the aren't we talking about the district so it would be called water district yeah so no Park involved it would be Water Street District historic district or it would be people's yeah wouldn't change the name of the Park yeah yeah I mean I I think whatever it is it should be specific to the people who were displaced in the creation of the park and the one thing that I want to say to the Water Street is like was and I'm just unclear right because there's a lot that we've come in um tonight um so if we add in Block 11 and I think with the addition of block 11 I feel that Water Street historic district makes sense right but without don't add then that's block 11 then it's really like the Water Street

[296:02] was block 11 is my understanding is yeah yeah that's why there might be another name that I think it's our recommendation again like uh so it's it's it's going back to we're going to recommend this motion and our recommendation to staff and council is we want to consider adding um block 11 and consider renaming the district Water Street historic district I think that that's fine but I do if they don't agree with adding that additional District then I still think there should be a different name that speaks to because that it wasn't NE like the displacement still occurred at that Park which is somewhat separate from the street so um I don't I don't have any exact answers well I mean I think

[297:01] that and I'm kind of going with what Mark is saying is like staff has put a lot into this so I think we can consider things to move forward and and recommend something there but I mean can we say can we say to be known as can we just say do we have to say the name you you you don't have to make a recommendation on the name and um you can can see how we also went around and put like a word cloud of stuff and uh it's hard so um you don't have to make a recommendation about the name the one thing we need to walk away with is a recommendation whether Council should designate or not designate and then I'd suggest separate motions to to these other consider this about the boundary this about the can we so can we say that

[298:00] the um that the district should be named uh the district should be named to um commemorate those who were displaced in the creation of the park something like that so Marcy are you saying we should we should go with this motion now and pass no because if we go with this motion then that's the motion that's recommended no because I think I think we're doing the motion and then we do the considerations no yeah make multiple motions is what our recommendation is of still so if we can do this motion which is what we kind of uh you're back agree on um majority and then we get to go to the next one which will be the the adding block 11 and then the next one will be

[299:00] the next motion will be the name and then the next motion will be the period of significance right so we can tackle one at a time yeah that's what I'm trying to move do we have a a motion on the district let's do a motion motion motion on the district so um I recommend a motion the landmarks board recommends to city council that it designates the area encompassing a portion of the area between 177 Broadway to 14th Street and between Canyon Boulevard and arapo Avenue as shown in figure 7 to be known as Civic area historic district finding that it meets the standards for historic district designation in sections 911-1 and 9-1-2 BRC uh 1981 and adopt the staff memorandum dated February 7th

[300:00] 2024 as the findings of the board I'll second is there any discussion on this Ronnie do you have a hand up well I I mean I guess um are we making amendments to this now Marcy before we vote on it no you're going to vote on this one and then make separate motions about each of the other components okay okay on a motion by Renee seconded by John we'll do a roll call vote vote Chelsea no John I Renee I Ronnie I and I vote I so the motion passes 4 to one oh this is good you guys are good okay so so can I make a motion on the

[301:02] name okay so I'd like to um make a motion that um what am I making okay so I'd like to make a motion that we name the the historic district in a way that commemorates um those who were displaced during the parks development or as a result of the parks development and other exclusionary policy and actions by the city that makes sense well the language up there oh yes you could just use it in that language it's there it's it's live I'll second that does that do we want to do all three at once or you we're doing one at

[302:01] a time can we do it as a single motion Marcy I think she made that motion and I seconded it should we just vote on this one yeah let's just do one at a time let's keep it simple okay it's definitely easier to do it one at a time okay okay we got a second by Ronnie okay I just want to see the language just for chelsey's motion number one right Marcy okay thank you on a motion by Chelsea seconded by Ronnie we'll do a roll call vote Chelsea hi John hi Renee hi Ronnie I and I vote I so the motion passes unanimously okay I'll do the next motion we all get to do one I move that the landmarks board recommends city council consider expanding the boundary to adding block 11 to recognize

[303:00] residential area that was low located there historically feel free to add or edit just a starting point okay you had it I'll second that and I'd love to make a friendly amendment to include the other side of the creek okay let's let's do that then let's let's work that into I mean the other side of the bank like the bank of the creek the south side of the creek Bank oh yeah the other side of the creek the maybe the Boulder Creek West Bank of Boulder Creek do we want to expand on why block 11 is important I mean I feel like I feel like we need to name it that more historically then it stops yeah yeah it the language changed while I was reading it let's let's work the language back a question back to Marcy we're doing these

[304:00] cons these motions um um do they take all motions or do they take one motion or they're going to dissect it we will forward all the Motions that you make they'll get all of them I just don't want to add in um the West Bank of the the West the other side of the creek if they would uh want just block 11 do you know what I mean these are recommendations for Council to consider right okay that's the most important decision that you're making SM is whether or not to designate a historic district and these motions are for city council to consider in the ordinance that they may or may not pass that actually creates the district and so you're providing them some guidance to what should be included what shouldn't be included what it should be called yeah but but primarily you know you've done the the lon share of the work but but this will be advisory to city council when they may or may not pass the ordinance to create the district

[305:01] okay okay chelse I think I'm gonna use the NAACP Lang I'm gonna try to pull from this for the um number two um uh to recognize the uh residential area and um its importance in Boulder's earliest black history that historical black black community in Boulder well it was it was the the first black neighborhood in Boulder correct so recognizing the historical significance bould of this neighborhood yeah first yeah is that okay I say oh you did it that's right yeah Chelsea did the other sorry okay

[306:00] anyway are we ready is bould earliest black history is this the one R wanted to add the thing about the creek yeah is that a separate motion or is that included well I think that doesn't include that it was umer first black neighborhood I think that should be sep will you read will you read it someone I'll read it yeah I he wants you to read this because she wants to write this right you want to write I heard two different ones that nebor saying the same thing so which one would the historic significance as the site of Boulder's first black community right isn't that what you neighborhood earliest black neighborhood or black community pick pick up from recogniz well I don't think it was the it wasn't the first black community it was just the neighborhood he States it right here at the Central Park the second paragraph yeah it says the site of Boulder's first black commun oh then there you go okay dating back to the oh

[307:02] yeah okay I thought we were talking about to recognize the historic significance of the residential area and its importance to the site of Boulder's first black community so take out Boulder's earliest black history and write importance to the site of Boulder's first black community okay that makes sense right or not yeah yeah that's okay is that can you read it for the record that is that how you feel does that work for you I mean okay ready I move that the landmarks board recommends city council consider expanding the boundary to include block 11 to recognize the historical significance of the residential area and its importance to the site of Boulder's first black community this is what I'm hearing is

[308:00] not right is to recognize the historical significance of the displaced residential area and its importance to the site of Boulder's first black community okay I'll second that and I'd like to amend it while it's less socially important to include um consider expanding it to also include the sou Southern and west W Bank of Boulder Creek yeah Mar is just gonna make do you accept that am I think he's GNA make it a second I think she's making a whole another amendment no um give me just a minute I think it's a friendly amendment to his yeah I think that should be a separate Amendment just because I feel

[309:00] like they're different enough and have different reasonings behind them that they should just be two separate amendments yeah because I don't want them to you wouldn't want to I one yeah I I think they should be two separate things yeah I retract my friendly Amendment do you still second John's motion yes I did second it okay on a motion by John seconded by Ronnie Chelsea yes John I Renee I Ronnie I and I vote I so that motion passes unanimously okay now Ronnie you're up Ronnie okay Ronnie I mov at the Larch board recommend to city council considering expanding the boundary to include the southern and western Banks of Boulder Creek and I second the motion any friendly amendments anything

[310:00] okay on a motion by Ronnie second by Renee Chelsea I I just why why sorry why are we doing this I believe that the formal structure of the creek and the way in which it is shaped through either natural features or in some cases you know historic retaining wall um is important and so you know I think those are things that will be able to regulate the ways in which we try to channelize Boulder Creek um and any of the waterways and having the boundary just be on one edge of the creek really doesn't allow us to do that Marcy can you just speak to why it that wasn't

[311:00] included uh you um I agree with Ronnie's points about um in our assessment we say Boulder Creek is an important feature we drew the line down the middle um it would be consistent with our analysis to include the full Creek and go to the bank okay great thank you just wanted to understand what I was voting on it's a more it's a more accurate environmental yeah okay yes thank you John I Renee I Ronnie I and I vote I so the motion passes unanimously now period of of significance I I would and Ronnie I I would love your assistance with this I would like to con to to recommend consider expanding the period of significant to a date that would include Frederick La Olstead Jr's role yeah I I

[312:00] think that there's two things one is the period of significance and then one is recognizing what period is still intact and that Frank law olmstead's if we're in agreement here um original plan is still evident today and so that is the it's both significant and intact and that lets us write guidelines about the physical characteristics right also yeah sorry go ahead Chelsea if we're including if the um block 11 is included then that would also go back to the 1800 1880s um so these could be two different topics again so I think one we should expand the period of significance to include the dates that capture the residential period that exactly she's putting here the second one should be recognition of

[313:02] homestead's plan as being intact and recognizable um and you know significant to the site I heard 188 like 1884 do we need to put an exact date in I feel like what we need to do is just capture the um population right yes that's okay I think you could do either but yeah do we have a motion do we uh I guess I um do we as we've done in every other one we've been very deliberate on what we're stating so in this one do we need to State a date that includes um the first black residential period and again put displaced in there you know I just want to be super intentional in why we're stating that

[314:01] and with that it will continue to Ri so is that the date that includes the this is 1880s yeah could I offer something here I get your point about really driving it home and the residential period was 40 Years of an established neighborhood there and the displacement was the last 10 years of that so I think keeping it uh as written that includes the residential per period is um recognizes that Community not just in the last 10 years but the full the whole time okay it not that that doesn't belong in other pieces but um but to recognize that that's not the only thing that happened in that residential community in of that 40 years um I like it I agree so I the only thing is when I see significance to a date that includes the residential period like I don't that

[315:00] doesn't translate to me I don't know what that means um so if it yeah if we could just be a little How about if it says the 40 Years of that feel well she just said that the residential period was actually 40 years okay which 40 years I just don't know well it was before the park was established so but but but what date are we saying the park was established 1937 1920 so I just think if we could be a little just just give some Clarity of what we're talking about I'm fine with it yeah I can't P Theo so when were they kicked out when the bark was created what what date was that was between the 20s yeah includes the year residential period that predes the creation of the park that's it 4 years toed

[316:02] preds precedes oh what's the date of the creation of the park that's still not clear wasn't it 1924 sorry in our research we have a specific period and I'm just having trouble pulling it up in the full memo so um I I think that um as written it's uh it captures the intent of the residential period the residential period is is talked about through the memo with specific dates and so um we can either take a minute and find you know does it start in 1871 or 1880 um or we could leave it as is in and will you use that language or add dates into it for city council well we'll have to use the language in your okay right I think we should just do it right and find the dates okay sorry I

[317:00] don't I know that's well no to Rene's I think it's important that we specific yeah and it's just not opening for me so just give me a minute is it in the memo I could look for [Music] it give me a key word I'll search it's right here in the this is kind of the whole thing yeah no I know I mean um we call the residential commercial and Industrial period 1880 to 1903 and that's based on a lot of research so I perfect 1880 let's go with that um okay but the park wasn't formed until the

[318:00] 1920 why don't since it's consider expanding the period of significance to a date that includes the residential area we put just 1880 great okay um and then it seems like the second part of this is a is a separate thought but uh to pair both the period of significance and then the second one is about the significance and integrity of the M stud plan um seems like two different motions to me but you can pair them together if you want to do you guys see that as two separate or I see it as I I see it as setting the date at 1880 captures the period when omstead yeah it's sort of redundant feel like the key thing about hestad is not that he was part of the period but that his plan is recognized as being intact

[319:01] significant I think it's two I think it's two yeah all right I'll make a motion to uh consider expanding the period of significance to a date that includes the residential period of 1880 do we have a second I second roll call vote on a motion by Chelsea seconded by Renee Chelsea yes John hi Renee i h Ronnie I and I vote I so that motion passes unanimous late would anyone like to make a motion uh on number five Ronnie sure I move that the landmarks board recommend city council recognize mad's plan as being intact recognizable and significant to the historic district and I second that so on a motion by Ronnie seconded by me roll call vote Chelsea hi Ed John hi Renee hi Ronnie hi I vote I so that motion passes

[320:06] unanimously there you have it can [Laughter] we okay so we're almost there I don't want to rush this because it is it's like a once in a 18 year kind of thing um you have the option to to um weigh in on the character defining features or alterations that could have a significant impact on the character of The District those are completely optional things for you to weigh in on if it's designated you'll have involvement in the creation of design guidelines um uh which would use the uh character defining features um however uh I didn't hear a lot of comments in the discussion uh building on what we

[321:02] had recommended in our memo Ronnie do you have any thoughts about the character defining features oh man um you know it's it's I think that there's a whole Landscaping component to it that is going to be detailed to some degree right like the nuances of the things that were described about slope and flat areas um Tree locations in general um Etc like I believe that that was captured but I do think that those are characteristics of the site that are part of all of the land plans that we've seen and you know those types of modifications I think would be significant to the Park area itself and we as staff will be developing the ordinance language um and we're hearing the conversation that's here tonight so I am sensing that you

[322:02] might not need a specific motion about the character defining features unless there's something really glaring uh which I think Ronnie identified in uh encompassing the other half of the creek so um you know one thing Marcy is that like I feel like 13th Street I'm grateful that the boundary includes the southern end of 13th Street like that came up really early for us all and um I don't know if there's any characterization of the street itself that needs to be unpacked at some point that is about its you know overall quality um the street section and material use um it does seem like it's such an important piece to that area and we should sort out what we think those characteristics are uh yes because I um

[323:03] just a minute kind to think this yeah we yeah that might be more detailed for the guidelines we have the um Urban Street grid as on the preliminary list of contributing features um but typically like the streets themselves in a historic district aren't uh like the material isn't historic um like in Highland lawn or Mapleton Hill unless we're talking about sidewalks right are the curbs concrete there they are yeah 13th Street got remade not too

[324:00] long ago when the bike path was at right that was a whole yeah that was a whole that was a whole thing that happened in starting in 84 because I participated in does the east book end include the street I would have to look at a map I think we're good let's go yeah everything else seems more detailed that we can discuss as we move through this project was that it Marcy character defining features yes and any um yes you've you've reached the end we have reached the okay there's no final celebratory motion like good job guys can we thank everybody who's endured this with us thank you also much thank you

[325:06] everyone we'll see you in 18 more years no thank you all very much for your steadfast hard work I know Marcy May went a few minutes for matters and then and you know Ronnie I have to get a shout out to you I know you're not feeling well but this was such an important um public hearing and you were with us all evening I really really appreciate appreciate you sacrificing that thanks Abby I have a lot of caffeine and food which is you feed a cold and you also caffeinate it's it's and and I'm just disappointed for you that you couldn't feel some of this um the wonderful speakers and the emotion and just sort of how powerful it was in here tonight but you know what that's like you you've been to enough of the the imperson meeting but thank you Ronnie you've gone

[326:00] above and Beyond Abby can I just condense matters into like a one minute yeah um I would love to have some time at the next meeting to do a recap of the 2024 saving places conference it was phenomenal inspiring um really changed a lot of my uh it's a very exciting time to be part of the preservation field and I have uh enjoyed the conferences in the past but this one was really inspiring um the landmarks board scheduling for 2024 send Aubrey your vacations and um time out and just looking ahead uh we might cancel the July and November meetings because of the holiday and the election just a heads up and then board and commission appointments are tentatively scheduled for March 21st Renee did apply to her position um looking ahead uh Ronnie is the next one

[327:01] next board member whose term ends next year aby's the following year then Chelsea then John so just so I'm not surprised I just looked it up thank you and I know how late we've kept staff here but this was probably one of the most important things we ever had to discuss so thank you all very much and the meeting is adjourned at 11:29 we ended on Wednesday later great