May 2, 2024 — Landmarks Board Regular Meeting

Transcript

Captions from City of Boulder YouTube recording.

[0:05] It's 601 Pm. Before we get started. Marcy will review the virtual meeting decorum. All right. and thank you, Abby. The city is engage with community members to co-create a vision for productive, meaningful, and inclusive civic conversations. This vision supports physical and emotional safety for community members, staff and board and commission members as well as democracy. For people of all ages, identities lived experiences and political perspectives. More about this vision and the project's community engagement process can be found on the link in the slides. 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

[1:02] all remarks and testimonies shall be limited to matters related to the city business. No participants shall make threats, or use other forms of intimidation against any person. Obscenity, racial epithets, or other speech, and behaviors that disrupt or otherwise impede the ability to conduct the meeting are prohibited. and participants may raise their hand to speak during open comment and the public comment periods. Individuals must display their whole name if you're joining online before being allowed to speak. Currently, only audio testimony is being permitted online. And here's a reminder. If you're on Zoom, you can find the raise hand function under the reactions menu. And then there are a couple of shortcuts alt Y on a PC option y for Mac or Star 9. If you're joining by phone. Yes, Ronnie, who's so sorry? What it's like for audience members or

[2:00] people on Zoom. But it's you're almost like you're not coming through the mic. Thank you. I will say, this is the first night with this new technology. So I appreciate the feedback. And so it might have also been because I was looking that way. Can you hear better now? Just moderately, a little bit. Okay. Kj, says, yes. Okay. But you can't. Oh, Ronnie's I didn't have my mic on. but I can hear myself. I can also hear myself a little echoey, but I'll be sure to speak up as well. But if you all can hear in the back, and you all can hear online. Then I think we're okay. But thank you. And please continue to let us know if if you can't hear. Thank you, Marcy. I wanna acknowledge that we have a quorum this evening, including one of our board members joining us. Virtually a recording of this meeting will be available in the Records Archive and on Youtube. Within 28 days of this meeting we'll do a very quick roll call and introduction with John

[3:12] John Decker, member of the Board. Renee Globic, member of the Board. I'm Abby Daniels, the current chair of the Board. Ronnie Peluccio Board, member. Mark Mcintyre, planning board, nonvoting, planning board, representative. and last, but certainly not least, Chelsea. Hi! Everybody. Chelsea Castellano landmarks board member. Thank you. Everyone. We know that there might be people here tonight to participate who may have strong emotions about a particular project. We want to hear from you, and we have found it has been more productive. If you are speaking to persuade us, rather than berating us, staff or the applicant. as with regular landmarks, board meetings, you may only speak at the appropriate time during the public hearing requests to speak outside of those times will be denied. We request members of the public who are here in person to please sign up using a sheet where Amanda is sitting over there, and virtual participants will then follow as normal by raising their virtual hand, and Amanda will facilitate that as well

[4:23] as board chair. I will have a roll call vote on any motions made this evening. So the first order of business is approval of the April board meeting minutes, the April third, 2024 min. Do any board members have any changes or alterations to the minutes. seeing or hearing none. I move that we approve these minutes. Do we have a second? I'll second. Thank you, John, on a we'll do a roll call. Vote Chelsea. Hi. John, Hi, Renee!

[5:02] Aye, Ronnie, aye, and I vote I so the April third board minute meetings are passed. Now we've come to the part of the agenda which is for public participation, for any items not on the agenda, anything. That's not one of the 2 public hearings we have this evening, and I'll ask first, Amanda, if anyone here has signed up. Thank you. So our first speaker is Peter Weber and Peter, as you well know, you'll have 3 min and do state your full name for the record. and then your 3 min will commence. Gonna have to get used to that. Gonna have to get used to this, and I'm here to talk about 6, 13 walnut. So thank all of you, except for Mark. Just a couple of days ago. Thanks very much for meeting us out there and and walking around the site, and I just wanted to touch base on a couple of things to follow up on that discussion. Along with a letter that I think you received today that I received today. The letter had to do with referencing Gilbert Wright, who was responsible for some of the flood work that was done around the property and it seemed to indicate that he was responsible for the placement of the house

[6:26] where it is. The house was built in the 18 nineties. Giller was born, I believe, in 1894 in Nebraska. I don't think he had anything to do with where that house sits today. I just wanted to make sure that that was clear. And also to reiterate that the house is not. Then the entire property is outside of the hundred-year flood plain. Make sure that's clear. We did take a little bit closer. Look at the idea of potentially moving the house and what that could look like. I sent an email around that you may have looked at. There's my construction partners say it's construction. Almost anything is possible. The question is, at what cost and the 2 possibilities for moving the house would be to take it out to Canyon or to take it out the alley in some fashion. Taking it out to Canyon is extremely difficult, due to the flood work that was done. Actually, that berm that is in front of the property makes it

[7:22] extremely difficult. I can't even quite figure out how you would do that to get it up and over that burn back down to Canyon. Additionally, there's a bit of quite nice. I believe it's a silver maple that sits right in the middle of a lot that would have to go in order to accommodate that coming out the back if we were to go east along the alley there are 2 buildings that are too close together can't pinch between them. And then I think I pointed on that email. It may be possible, with a good jar of acolin, to squeeze the house between 2 other buildings that are in the alley. It's it appears, to be very close, and I suspect that with the eaves in play it probably doesn't quite fit through there. That also would require power lines coming down, and a whole bunch of other

[8:01] difficulties. So all those options, we believe, are just. The cost is just so high that is unreasonable. To try to move the house. The second thing I had in that email was a cost estimate to rehabilitate the property. I sat down with our construction manager and went through how we might tackle that many houses like this in historic neighborhoods. We're used to dealing with rubble foundations and old framing and all that. So we have a fair amount of experience, but I spent a lot of time putting that that together. There's a lot of assumptions in there. If you looked at it, the total came that it's 770, some $1,000. It's very expensive to rehabilitate what's there today. And then, lastly, I just want to touch base on the the easement. That's been a topic of conversation. I did go back and reread that easement, and just to reiterate that it is a private easement. It is not public thanks

[9:01] at. Thank you, Peter. Any questions. If anyone has any questions, perhaps. Ronnie. Yeah, sure. Peter, thank you for coming to speak on this tonight and for helping host the other day. I just wanna make sure, because you've come tonight that you've been able to share everything that you wanted to. I know you're kind of cut off at the end, but that was it. Just wanted to make sure I got that easement piece in there. Got it? Thank you. Yeah. Thank you. Again. Amanda. Any other members of the public who are in person this evening? No one else in person, so we can move to virtual if anyone's on zoom. Now is your time to raise, use the raise hand function for your 3 min. and we have a couple so far. First up is Kathryn Barth.

[10:03] Katherine. You should have 3 min. Hello! I was very. I noticed with interest that the building at 3201 Eighth Street had been withdrawn. That application patient. And as I remember reading that application was for a building that was going to have more than 50% changed or demolished. And so that's why it came before you. So the application may have been withdrawn, but I remember a few years ago, when that same building came before the landmark export for a demolition ordinance, I mean for a demolition. Permit. I would like to remind the Board that this house, in my opinion, and in many opinion is a very precious and and unique example

[11:06] of I don't know if I would call. It's not an architect, because the 2 Goldsworthy brothers who built it for their widowed mother were not architects, but they were part of the army Corps of Engineers of World War one. and they, along with other Boulder boys went to World War one. The reason they were able to go together and be in the same grouping was that they had the same skills. They were masons and bricklayers, and they worked with stone. And so their job during World War one was to repair blown up bridges. And they traveled. And I have actually seen it in Carnegie some of the records of their travels, and where they went. I I can't

[12:01] tell tell them to right now, but they went in France. and I believe it was in France and in Normandy. where they observe buildings with this kind of tile work which we call creasing. So I think this build is extremely valuable from an artistic and construction viewpoint. and every effort should be made to have this building be an individual landmark and the city of Boulder, I might even call it. You know. It's I thought of it as the sample house that these 2 brothers were showing what they could do, the different types of creasing tiles and the different patterns. And so maybe this was like their calling card their mother's house. But, anyway, please be watchful for this building. It's a very, very valuable building. Thank you very much.

[13:05] Thank you, Catherine. Great next up is Lenn Siegel Lynn. You should be able to unmute and speak. That's it. Huh, boy, I can't believe the participation level in boulder on demolitions. 6, 13 walnut. Now, Weber Gilbert might not have lived in there. Gilbert walked his talk. Gilbert lived in the building. just the multi-level building just to the east of 6 13 Walnut. He arranged for the flood medication there and part of flood mitigation. And this is what he always told me, he said. You don't die of grounding in a flood. You die because you get hit by debris.

[14:01] and that debris is the built environment falling apart and crashing and banging you in the head. So he wanted to not have the built environment. Now I know Chelsea Castellano, and half of Boulder and the State and Jared Polis want to build on every square micro inch of boulder, but he put that easement there for a reason. The reason is he wanted that space clear so that floods could be mitigated better in that area, and so that there wouldn't be harm to humans downstream. Gilbert was dedicated to have someone come up before the port the landmarks board and say, Oh, he didn't live there. He was born in another place in 1895. This is just outrageous. Gilbert. Natural hospitals expert at CU. The father of Flood issues.

[15:00] And this space, that easement is rigid, that easement was there for a reason. Do you know of any house in Boulder that has an easement? You can't build on the property line within the property line. You can only build on the footprint. How much have you seen that before? I've never heard of such a thing. and you know what the value of a property is. All in the square footage of the property. because most of these houses, even the brand new ones with the granite countertops are going to get thrown out when someone doesn't like that color of granite. That's how it is in Boulder. I know, because my place is basically a scrape. and it's still worth a whole hell of a lot. Well, 6 13 is asking too much money for a land with an easement on the property. They should not be asking 9, 25, as the real estate person said, or, as in Zillow, 1.2 or 3, which is the same as my property, but I can build on my property.

[16:10] I have the right that has an easement on it that has deflated the value, and people are trying to inflate this value illicitly and take down a beautiful little house. Meantime. Lynn. Thank you. Your time has expired. and, Amanda, I'll give you another moment to see if there are any other members of the public who wish to speak. I don't see anyone else on zoom right now. Thank you. We'll officially close public participation for items not on the agenda this evening, and we'll move on to staff for discussion of landmark, alteration and demolition applications issued and pending. All right. Thank you. We have 2 stays of demolition currently pending the first one is at 2, 2, 6, 0 baseline. So that's the southwest corner of Baseline and Broadway. This is an application for full demolition of this mid century Commercial Building and the Landmarks board held a hearing on January tenth, to review the demolition.

[17:21] and voted to put a stay of demolition. On the application we had a site visit with the applicants on February fifteenth to discuss alternatives and that included a tour of the property and going through the interior of the building. And last month was April third. At that meeting it was a scheduling decision of whether the Board wanted to hold a hearing before the stay expired at a regular meeting on June first, and the Board chose not to schedule a meeting which means the stay has continued and so it will continue to be in place until it expires on June first, and so there's not another regular meeting between. Now and then the board could hold a special meeting. If something changed and you wanted to we would need at least 10 days we would need more than 10 days to meet the public

[18:20] notice requirements. But there haven't been additional conversations or information about this one, but happy to discuss it more if the Board has questions, or would like to talk about it. I mean, I don't have any questions. I don't know if any of my colleagues do, or Chelsea who went to the site? John and I, yeah, went there. Yeah, we went there. and I'm assuming in the You.

[19:01] You know you weren't at the I shouldn't have let you vote on last month's minutes. You weren't at the meeting. We discussed this. Sorry, Renee, so that's a fair question because you're you weren't at that meeting when we had the discussion as an opportunity I read through. But I just want to hear what you. if you if it, if it stays as what you're still thinking, then Then we can move forward sadly. For me. It is, I mean, I'd love to see this saved. I think these applicants, when we met with them on site, had already explored things I wouldn't have even dreamt of beforehand. So I think what they did before we even got on site was very informative, and they did everything they could. In fact, what they wanted to do. The city wouldn't have allowed them the things I most would have wanted them to consider they were already considering. But it just couldn't be done on this side. It is interesting because it has a sister building

[20:06] designed by Hobart Wagner, although this one is not designed by him. The Green Shield Building, a few blocks away, and I mean I'd I'd love to see this saved. I loved how the applicants I felt really gave an earnest try to save a lot of this is the corner, and John spoke eloquently about that. Just the sight it occupies and the built in landscaping and everything that was. I mean. It's a real real jewel. But I, personally did not see a path forward, and certainly not a path forward landmarking over the owner's objection. Thanks. I don't know if John, if John has anything to add, yeah, it's I. I don't know if it's worth going into the full discussion again. No, I mean. I read the notes

[21:01] one more piece. It's it's, I think, that if the owner had come to us and said, We really want to landmark this. we have these difficulties. And I would have had a different opinion. I think the fact that the the owner was in the position of they had actually explored landmarking it. The situation changed in the meantime, in that the yield of the land was raised by raising the density. and it was not from the standpoint that they're in business developing property. It it was just not viable to save this building and give up the gain that was handed to them. And so it's that simple we we chose last month to just not take action.

[22:05] which I think is appropriate tonight. Thanks. Mark. I did not attend this meeting I did read the correspondence from I believe it was from Lynn. that characterized this as the applicant needing this square footage of land to accommodate parking. Is that a fair characterization? That that's partly true. One of the things that we had at 1 point asked them to explore was to save the front corner of the building. the front face, the the part of the building that was the most, I guess, urbanistically monumental.

[23:07] the piece that is the most significant to your experience, your urban design experience of the city which is changing and is going to continue to change. that piece would be to do some design intervention that integrated that front corner of the building, the full front face that faces the baseline intersection and the side that faces us approximately northwest. and they explained that the way the building was constructed, with a whole series of piers that are aligned with kind of every increment of the rhythm of the elevation. Those peers went into the ground in a place where it would have impeded their full utilization of the site for parking.

[24:03] because they would have to go essentially to the property line underground, and the building on those sites that I said they should consider saving was set back from that. Enough that they would have lost. I guess. A fatal queue of parking for their pro forma. So so I have this keen interest in in parking. and my question is, is. if the is it the minimum number of parking spaces as required by the city? Currently that is driving their perception or their requirement for this space for parking. What I'm getting to is, if the city had a different parking minimum or no parking minimum at all.

[25:00] would would we? Would they still want to develop? There are some. There are some demand for parking which is different. Demand for parking is different than requirement for parking right? And if we we had several perfect world discussions, and one of them was, if the city were willing to say, relax the height limit on the back part of the site to the point where they could build enough height to offset the saving of the building. But then the parking would become killing anyway. and the second thing is that even though there is discussion of relaxing the parking requirement to encourage certain types of development such as one I read about today. It's not implicit that that'll happen. It would be a challenge that would have to go forward and be heard. probably by council, and there's a good possibility that

[26:02] going through that they would not get granted that relaxed parking. So the perfect world isn't going to solve this. We're here, and we have to make a decision tonight. Kate. Thank you. Ok. And I was just going to share my understanding was that it wasn't just one thing like the parking requirement that didn't work in terms of their development of the property, but that it was multiple factors, including like elevator access from the parking to connecting the building and many other things. But I would also point out the applicant is here if they wanna speak to it. But I also feel like the kind of through this stay we've had discussions on the different constraints. If it's helpful for the Board to get a summary of the constraints. I would defer to the applicant rather than a member of the public, or even staff, or a board member. But, on the other hand, I think this one has maybe been decided.

[27:08] Yeah. okay, we have another stay of demolition. Pending, which is at 6 13 Walnut Street. And this one was reviewed at the Board's April third meeting, so just last month. and the Board voted to put a stay of demolition on the application, but shorten it from up to 180 days to, I think, just over 60 days, and so the stay of demolition will expire on June sixth. And that means that tonight is a scheduling decision for the Board to decide whether or not you want to schedule a hearing at the June third meeting, which is the last regular meeting before the stay expires. We had a site visit with the applicants on Monday, and Ronnie, Abby, Renee and John were all present.

[28:07] and I have a slide here. And so the site visit was like I mentioned on Monday, and as I mentioned, 4 board members were there, as well as the applicants, and approximately 8 members of the public attended. and we discussed alternatives to demolition kind of throwing out some creative ideas. There are some pretty unique constraints to this property. But talking about, you know, building within the existing footprint, could you add a second story? Could you elevate the building and add a first story. Could you replace the rear edition and build behind it? Could an addition be located at the front of the building? Because we talked about. This building has a unique kind of orientation to the back. even though it it faces it faces south. Could the building be moved on site. Could it be moved off site? And if there were no other alternatives, could some of the materials be salvaged? And so I'd welcome the Board members kind of reflections or thoughts about the site. Visit? I'll tell you. My takeaway is that I really

[29:22] very much appreciate the level and the detail of information that the applicants had provided, including the cost estimate which sometimes we get cost estimates that are just so wildly higher than the average cost of construction that it's hard to square it with what would be accurate, whereas I think I think it's about $760 a square foot is higher than cost of construction, but not significantly higher. I think it'd be a hundred dollars more a square foot or so. which is still significant, but I think, as Peter said, it's possible to preserve this building, but at what cost? And and there are some unique constraints to this

[30:12] site. And so the other discussion was about the easement that the neighboring property holds on the on this property, and and so talking about how that impacts it, but also getting the clarification that it is a an easement for the private use of the property, not a public easement that would impact the public visibility or or use of this building. So with that, I'd open it up to the board members to share any thoughts or comments. And then I have actually let me just keep going for this, and then we'll come back to the slide piece just to tee up. This is a timeline showing the typical process of a demolition application it's new. So I look forward to your feedback on it. But the demolition hearing was last month. That's not gonna show up, and the vote was for a stay of demolition. The yellow circle is where we are now. It's a scheduling decision, and you have 2 options either vote to schedule a hearing, to consider initiation of designation

[31:21] or issuance of the demolition permit or take no action, the stay will continue, and the demolition would be approved if the board takes no action before the stay expires. If the board does schedule, that hearing the next blue box to the right would be your hearing to make a decision on whether to approve it or initiate the discussion. So in these scheduling decisions, it can be really challenging to limit the conversation to do. We wanna hold a hearing to talk about this, or do we not? But this graphic is to say, don't express your opinion of how you might vote at that hearing. Don't don't you know, make a a decision. You can't take action outside of a public hearing tonight is solely a scheduling decision. Do you wanna schedule a hearing from June third or not? And let this stay continue?

[32:16] so I'll open it up to reflections, thoughts, comments, conversations about the stay of demolition meeting that was held on Monday, and then turn it back over Abby to lead the conversation about the scheduling decision. Okay, thank you. Thank you for making it so clear, because, I know sometimes I am guilty of going off on starting to talk about merits as if we are ready at a next point in the process, so that slide really clarified it. I first wanna thank Peter for the information we got today. It was comprehensive, it was clear, as a non-architect on the board. I followed it and understood it also. Thank you for going to the the time and effort you did to share that.

[33:00] and arranging the meeting. The other thing I do want to say before I hear from my colleagues. I think it's cool that we've now had 2 stays of demolition that we have purposely tried to expedite, and I think that worked especially well with the Naropa owned building on Arapaho, and this one, however, I think that the people before us probably had a really good reason at some point to say it may take 180 days for some situations and some things. So I want to be mindful that you know we need to look at each property, each thing in front of us differently, and sometimes we need that longer stay. But I think for this one, I think it's it's I applaud the board for kind of doing that, and moving this along in a in a timely fashion. So I mean, I'm happy to start, but I don't know if anyone else would like to share their thoughts. Oh, okay, so this is this is. this is fascinating, and I think Marcy would agree. I don't think I've ever seen anything remotely close to this come through the preservation project, and we've heard from members of the public at our April meeting that Rene didn't get to hear where

[34:13] in this area there's all these wonderful jewels of Boulder's History and Boulder in many respects was sort of founded as a mining supply town with all the mining in the mountains west of us. And so there, there's things like just like I mean, you can stand on part of this property. See 3 or 4 already individually landmarked things. So I personally have a little trouble with the context being lost because it's still standing. It's still standing proud. It's not that far from the Arnett fallen house. It's not that far from the Chamberlain Mills work that we all know as the beloved Lolitas. I also, I thought Claire and her presentation a month ago made it really clear about the changes and so forth. But I think some of the changes on this property have become part of its story and its history. And so I don't really see the modifications or something that I would quickly dismiss, because it's part of the evolution of of many buildings.

[35:18] You could say it sort of lost its context, but also with the Condo building built to the East, and the way it's all designed. That was all designed in a way to kind of hug this building, to give it, you know, to give it something, and just that open space behind which is not the public facing space is really intriguing. I, personally, because we can't take any action tonight. Anyway, this is simply a scheduling thing. It's not going to make a difference when this day expires on the expedited schedule. It's already been given, and I, personally would lean to holding the very first step of a 3 step process

[36:04] the initiation, hearing where the staff would prepare 2 motions, as I recall Marcy, including meaning that on June fifth we could also approve it for demolition, even though it would expire the next day. Anyway, on this expedited timetable. The thing is. I guess what I'm saying is the the option to take no action. I'm not there. yeah, I agree, Abby, with your statements regarding the thoroughness and of the applicant, and and the preparation of material. I think that the I would support any of the alternatives to demolition. I think you know those, I think, are in the vein of preservation.

[37:01] Personally, I don't think that I feel we need to move forward with a scheduling. I think I have enough information. I think I've heard from the applicant their position. I believe I've understood the potential modifications that would allow for preservation and the cost consequences associated with those modifications. And so I think I have enough information at this point, and don't feel the need to move forward with the scheduling I'm going to throw one more thing into that, because I I share Ronnie's belief. I don't believe we need to go forward on this side of this one of the things that I heard Monday was that Part of the reason for seeking

[38:01] demolition. Permission was was the way I understood it. Is from from the owners. They're attempting to stimulate a sale of the property, and it's a totally new ballgame when that happens. The sense that somebody's going to come in and review what they could do with the property and maybe persuadable or otherwise, to take some of the steps towards some amount of preservation on this property, and one of the most persuasive things is the statement that was made by one of the public speakers. Well, it was Lynn. that the easement is a fact, and it's probably not going to be changeable with ease. It would be a significant legal matter to change that easement. So it's not going to be easy to build something new, even if you had a clean site.

[39:07] and it's going to have to fit in that footprint, and you might as well, leave that house in that footprint as long as you can until you figure something out there. So I don't feel that total urgency to set a review at this point. Yeah, I I guess just to point out that there is a demolition permit that has been submitted and would likely be approved if we pursued this direction that you're describing John and Staff, maybe you could tell us how long is a demo permit viable or available for it expires after 6 months, so it's only good for 180 days, and if the demo permit.

[40:01] full demo permit wasn't finalized within that time, then a new application would be required in 6 months. It's a bet remove. I mean, if you choose. I'm a little torn because I think that it is, it is hard to say, because the applicant is doing this as a boosting to sell the property, and which I appreciate because we've gotten into the other situations where they have said it was going to be demo available to be demoed, and then they sell it. And you know then they have to go through all this again. So I do appreciate this little step they're taking, but it's hard to speak to the demolition or restoring it, because I think that we did have some viable ideas on the site of what to do to maybe keep it and John's point

[41:05] it also the easement, but also the fact that it's on the set back line like it's on the property line. So it's over the amount of square footage or fa, all those things is even smaller if you knock the building down right? So there is some idea of what to keep it but and being new on the board and understanding what the next steps are, and I'm torn because I feel like we go through a scheduling hearing and it, and I guess the only way. Our only option is like people come to us with having to do a renovation and a design, and we can talk about that. But on this property. We're only talking about demoing or not demoing. So I'm kind of torn with.

[42:00] like, I I yeah, it's binary choice where there's a much grayer kind of discussion it to take this to take it further. if we were to schedule. and if a number of options were put forward and so on. probably nothing would happen until the property sold. That's and and so I don't know that we would gain from that process. Yeah, but I am kind of in that place with some of these processes. I also don't feel like we should take a back seat if we think that there should be a scheduling, because okay, that gives well, that just gives no. Know that the public the wrong perception of what we would allow. Right? Because then you're selling it to say that it has a demo permit, and then it could expire, and we're hoping that expires, and then we're able to do something else like that seems unfair and kind of

[43:07] not very nice. but also want to give Chelsea a chance to speak. And then maybe, Mark, if you have any thoughts. So did I hear, for I mean I wasn't at the site visit. Did I hear from Ronnie and John that they or I? I think I heard from Ronnie that you felt like there were a lot of challenges with the property. And yeah, what can you repeat of the site? Visit. Yeah, sure. Chelsea. So the list of alternatives that was up on the screen. I see. Were in general some of the alternatives that we talked about when we were there, and I will also say

[44:02] it was very valuable to be there like. I do not think I would have understood this property just from the first presentation of this material. So, being on the site, I thought was really valuable, valuable, and not that it makes it easier to come to the conclusion that I'm proposing, which is, I don't think we need to move forward with the scheduling but I do think it illuminated quite a bit. And so what I was saying Chelsea, is, I think I would support any of these alternatives. I think an alternative that is consistent with preservation would be to lift the building and to put first story. Yeah, a story beneath it. Another alternative might be to put an addition at the back of the building, which is the courtyard side of the building, and I think that we could find ways in which those are compliant with

[45:04] in general, the principles of preservation and the methods of doing it. But when looking at the site in its totality and hearing from the applicant about their desire and the cost implications which are pretty obvious. Picking up a building and putting a story underneath it. It's a pretty obvious challenge. My conclusion is that I have enough information, to feel confident in saying that I don't think I feel that we don't need to move forward. I feel that we don't need to move forward with a scheduling, hearing. thank you. That that's, oh, go ahead. Just to clarify what I was saying. or say it a little more elegant, eloquently

[46:02] agree with Ronnie, and, in fact, I do think that would be a very interesting solution to the problem we would need to have. I would think, for us to be in a good position to act. We cannot. We cannot mandate and or even strongly suggest these things unless we get well short of a mandate. If we got owner, buy in on any of these ideas, or the owner was pushing to explore these things that would give us, I guess, a more solid position on this one. Okay, yeah, okay, I think I understand. So I, I think while there's always great alternatives to demolition. it's a combination of factors having to do with the state of the building? What's possible the cost of those

[47:07] potential alternatives. And, like John was saying, the desire of the owners of the building to want to do those things, and I think unless we're I feel, I guess I'll just say I feel confident, hearing the 2 of you that that just not scheduling is the best way to go. Because the alternative is we schedule and we have go through a whole nother process in which we potentially like landmark over the owner's objection, and that, you know, doesn't seem like that would be the outcome. So I prefer to just make the decision now, and not schedule. Thank you, that's helpful, Mark. I don't know if you wanted to add anything to the conversation.

[48:05] Having not been there for the site visit, but I did tour it myself. I mean briefly tonight, on the way here, as I got interested in this, and having not been there for the site visit and had the benefit of the applicants in person. Info! I'm I'm gonna just not have much to say. Thank you for not saying Thank you for saying that you're not gonna say anything. No. And and you know, Peter, we this is, I think, a point Renee was getting at so often. People come to us after a house has been sold or proposed for demolition, or even marketed as a scrape off. So you really have done the first step first. You've done your homework. You've come forward and did that because. you know, listening to Ronnie and John. You know who, and and Chelsea. Your, you know, compelling arguments. We have no idea there could be a buyer who steps forward who absolutely loves this as it is and embraces it, and you know, does what it can't wants to make it their own, you know, within that. So we don't really know what the future

[49:16] owner looks like, but I think it gives you more of an option, or the owners as they proceed to put it on the market. I think the reason I was for me the threshold question, did I think there was probable cause that this could be an individual landmark, so would I entertain having an initiation hearing, I would I would have said yes. So that's where I was coming from versus the actual scheduling, scheduling, and. you know, dragging things out, Renee. I don't know if you have anything else you'd like to say. I have a question for marcy. How many members does it take to have a schedule? It needs to be the majority. So you need at least 3 votes. Okay? Okay, yeah.

[50:00] I mean, I agree. I agree with. I'm just torn because I do like this little, this little pocket. I think that the designs on both sides have created. You know, hugging it a little bit. I love that so you know my heart wants to say, Hey, let's go forward with the scheduling. But and but again, what? Chelsea was reiterating, landmarking a site against the and the initial. The very initial stages of looking at this building. From staff indicates what they recommended. So I am going to move, not to schedule. Okay? So I think, Marcy, we're done with that conversation. And thank you. Oh, Ronnie, I just had one more thing to add, cause, I think you hear that we're moving forward, not scheduling. But I just want to point out to the owner and sales team and applicant that there are alternatives

[51:08] that may still be explored. That might be valuable to the future building owner that I understand. There's some bulk plane issues, and I know I'm like, Hey, slip a story underneath this, what happens at the side yard? And there's complexity and the whole thing. So I've like. you know, saying, Yeah, I support putting a story under this, and I understand there's complexity. But I just want to make a point. I do think you're hearing from the landmarks board that we would support preservation of this building that might allow for some nuances to a future design for a future owner. That could allow for some of the existing deviations that have to do with bulk, plane requirements and setbacks to stay in place while adding, in addition, while adding square footage. And so I just wanna be clear. I support all of that stuff on the screen.

[52:08] and if in the sales process, or the current owner makes a decision in which the preservation of the building also is adding value to the property because of the easement issues and the sighting of the building, that if they came back in front of me, I would say I would support those. and I don't know about my fellow board members, but if it were to move in that direction would write a letter of support as it went to planning commission and forward if there were alterations that preserved the building and benefited the owner in some way. I I totally concur with that. And I think that I hope, Peter, that you just even with the suggestions. And again, how valuable that site visit was. I think maybe there's some really good food for thought. Whoever ends up developing this, whoever the owner is. So I think this day led to some valuable conversations that would not have happened otherwise. So thank you, for you know, making this happen and meeting with us and sending that very comprehensive letter today.

[53:19] Yes. and then, before we move on from the stays of demolition, I wanted to bring up 1 point, and then would welcome discussion about it if the board would like at the end of the meeting. But, the Board chose to place a shortened stay of demolition on this application, and the one on Naropa and Abby, you already kind of alluded to this earlier in the meeting, where each case should be looked at in each time. But I just wanted to share a little bit from a staff perspective about how challenging a shortened stay is because in in understanding, wanting to expedite the process for the applicant, and really like kind of force us to act more quickly than than this full stay allows. We were able to schedule one meeting 2 days before this meeting because we're juggling

[54:16] 8 different 8 different schedules. And so where it did, I think, kind of move the process along more quickly because we may have scheduled a meeting, you know, next week instead and not have this update tonight. It didn't. Having a longer state doesn't limit your options. You could have still voted to hold a hearing. hold the hearing in June, and they could have had their demo permit on the same timeline but it takes away the flexibility for the things that kind of organically come up during a stay. So I would say, I agree with and appreciate the intent to expedite the process, and really make the most of it, because nothing's worse than just sitting and waiting out the clock. And, on the other hand, in the course of this building that's a hundred and

[55:10] 40 years old. One meeting being able to schedule one meeting in the whole process feels a little bit like, Oh, is that really was that really enough? So I just want to put that out there as food for thought, where we will do everything we can to make the most of the stays of demolition and act quickly on them, but it does bind us a little bit, and and takes away the board's flexibility by shortening the stays. I hear you and I totally agree with that, because I do think there was some sound reasoning when they thought not to exceed 180 days, and I think, as I recall, it was the Board who asked, that we had this meeting tonight versus the June fifth meeting. So you know, that does put pressure on. And the other thing that's important to me for not shortening every stay is, you know.

[56:00] a lot of time. These days are public hearings or discussions, even if it's not an agenda of public hearing. People can still speak to a matter at a board meeting. So you know I never want to eliminate the public from speaking, because we're racing through something, even though you notice it and everything. So thank you, Marcy. Yes, and just to say, I think this stay was very a good use of time, and that's due in large part to having a very sophisticated applicant who was able to produce very like thorough material on a very shortened timeline, whereas a lot of times we have applicants with different experiences coming in who aren't able to move quite as quickly. and I can think of one time, and I'm not going to remember the address, or even the property, where, during the stay process something that was going to be a real historic loss proposed for demolition. In that stay a new buyer came along, and it ended up being a win-win just because a stay was placed and that conversation could be had.

[57:02] Is that it, marcy for that? Ok? So now we'll move on to our first public hearing this evening. And this is going to be a real delight, because today kicks off national Historic Preservation Month and in Colorado it's historic preservation and archaeology month, and I can't think of a better way to start preservation month in this next public hearing, in consideration of an application to designate the building at 904. Mapleton Avenue as a local historic landmark pursuant to section 9, 11 of the bold 5. Excuse me. 9, 11, 5 of the boulder Revised Code 1,981, and under the procedures prescribed by Chapter 1, 3. Quasi judicial hearings. All right, thank you, Abby. So this is a quasi judicial hearing, so I'll go over that process. All speaking to the item will be sworn in.

[58:02] and board members will note any exparte contacts I'm going to give the staff presentation, and after that the Board may ask questions. The applicants will have an opportunity to speak, and the Board may ask questions. We'll then open the public hearing after everyone has had an opportunity to speak, the applicant may have additional time to respond. and then the board will deliberate. A motion requires an affirmative vote of at least 3 members to pass, and a record of this hearing is available in a couple of days as a video recording, and the official record will be added to the archive in in 28 days, usually much sooner. So back to you, Abby, for exotic. Oh, Mark. Amanda, is there any way to just generally bring the volume up a little bit in the room? Their mics to me are quiet, and I'm like. Sorry I was notified that I can't do any adjustments to the volume, so just mind the mic.

[59:05] Sorry, Claire, I will yell. Okay, and I'm sorry to. I don't mean to make you yell. It's a little quiet, but thank you, Mark. I thought it was me so. So thank you. So we're to expart Tate. I heard that part I have none, John, none. Renee. none, Ronnie none, and Chelsea. None. Thank you. Oh, oh, we hear you great, good job. Maybe I should be virtual. You all sound, perfect. Yeah. Okay, so the criteria for review is outlined in the bolder revised code under 9, 11, 5 c. The options today are for the Landmarks Board to approve the application and recommend designation to City council. The council hearing would be held within a hundred days, or the board may disprove the request. This is subject to a 45 day call up period, and the owners would need to file a notice of appeal within 21 days of today.

[60:16] So the owners, Ann and Samuel Sando, submitted a designation application on December fourteenth. There's actually a requirement for timing in the code, but due to scheduling conflicts. We agreed to schedule the hearing for today. If you're really good at math that's outside of our usual timeframe. This is 9. 4 Mapleton Avenue. It's on the southeast corner of Ninth Street and Mapleton Avenue. It's within the boundaries of the Mapleton Hill historic district. The house spaces North onto Mapleton Avenue, and the farmer's ditch follows the Southern property line, and an alley is located on the south side of that ditch.

[61:00] There are no accessory buildings on the property. The house was built between 1895 and 1897 for Frank Gardner. It was built by Stow Masons, Andrew Fraser and Donald Grant, with carpenters. Grover and Kelliger out of locally quarried sandstone that we'll talk about a bit later. It's a one and a half story front gable house with a semicircular porch and a wide freezeboard with decorative dentals and columns that sit on the curved stone wall beneath. typical of the late Victorian period. There's a very classical addition of a Palladian style, wood, arch, and decorative trim above a door and 2 windows which you can see above the porch. The windows are all original to the house, and include a diamond pattern with divided lights even on the upper windows, which is a little bit unusual

[62:02] and also unusual, is that the the house was actually constructed with the doors leading out to the roof decks. Frequently for houses of this era you have to climb out of a window, as you do on the west elevation, which you can see here. There's actually just a very large window there onto the roof deck. But the the door leading onto the roof deck at the facade is part of the original construction, which we'll also see a little bit later on. So this is the the west elevation image. On the right there is a single central dormer above the bay window beneath. so, moving around to the rear. Once again, we have a roof deck above a bay window, with an original door that makes up part of the Palladian trio, which is less ornamented on this side, because it is the back of the house

[63:02] on the lower level of the of this rear addition you can see that there was a an addition added that was originally a garage that was added sometime after 1929. It was modified in the 19 seventies to create some additional living space, and the garage door was removed. It was on the on the west side, and the windows you see here were added. and then on the right side you can see the east elevation with a pair of gable dormers on this side the front one is larger than the one towards the rear and underneath that there is a small shed roof edition that was added by Julia Sando. That's Ann and Sam's mother in the 1960. S. Okay, so for historic significance. The the house was constructed for Frank and Isabelle Gardner, Isabelle's brother, lived next door, and was really excited about photography when it was a new thing. So we have some wonderfully fun pictures of the exterior and the interior from between. About sorry 1895 and 1,900.

[64:20] Frank Gardner was a retailer in Boulder, who operated a grocery, a bakery, and later a secondhand furniture store. The the Sander family has lived in the house since summer of 1943, and the Sando family in particular, Julia Sando, and in Sam's mother. have been wonderful stewards of this of this property continued with Anne and Sam, who lived here now. James Sandow and and Sam's father might be a familiar name, as he directed the first Shakespearean performance at the University of Colorado's Mary Ripon Theatre.

[65:06] and, as I mentioned, the house is a contributing property in the Mapleton Hill historic district. so moving on to architectural significance. The house was constructed by Stonemasons, Donald Grant and Andrew Fraser. They are credited with constructing many prominent stone buildings in Boulder, including the Armory Hall at the University and the First Congregational Church at 1128 pine. Both Grant and Fraser were born in Scotland in the 1850 S. And apparently fun fact, Fraser was a Scot and could swear like a Scot, and apparently he swore a lot about this building because they used some local stone that was extremely hard, and had to be cut with a saw rather than split, which is how they usually how they usually worked with stone

[66:01] back. Then they also used. They used Grover and Kiliga to complete the carpentry work, and we we don't actually know much about about these 2. But we think that they probably would have been worth waiting for, as we have photographs of the house without the curved front porch, as you can see at the bottom image there, and and my hypothesis is that it took them quite a while to curve that massive piece of wood for the front porch and add it to the house all right. So environmental significance. The house is right. At the top of Ninth Street, the top of the hill there very prominent. It contributes to the architectural variety in character of the Mapleton Hill Historic District as I mentioned, the Farmer's Ditch is at the Southern property line, just below the red fence in this. In this picture. Here a portion of the farmer's ditch easement crosses the southern end of the property, and maintenance work within the easement is exempt from Lac Review, and if the designation is recommended by the Board for approval, we'll include this language in the designation ordinance to clarify this.

[67:22] So Staff's recommendation tonight is the the Landmarks Board recommend to the City Council that it designate the property at 9 4 Mapleton Avenue as a local historic landmark to be known as the gardener. Sando House. Finding that it meets the standards for individual landmark designation in Sections 9, 11, one, and 9, 11, 2 of the Boulder revised Code. The Sando family and I are still working on finalizing the plaque language. The current proposal. is something along the lines of the that. The house was constructed by Stow Mason's, Donald Grant, and Andrew Fraser, out of local Dakota sandstone, for Frank Gardner, a local retailer. Members of the Sando family have lived in the house since 1943.

[68:15] This is the proposed boundary. It would follow the property line and staff findings are that the building is significant as an Edwardian vernacular house, constructed out of local Dakota sandstone by stonemasons. Andrew Fraser and Donald Grant. that it has historic significance for its association with the house's original owner, Frank Gardner, James Sando, who was instrumental in establishing the annual Colorado Shakespeare festival in Boulder, and for the Sandow family, who have been careful stewards of the property for more than 80 years, and it has environmental significance as a contributing property in the Mapleton Hill historic district. and as such the proposed designation will maintain an appropriate setting and environment for the building. Enhance property values, stabilize the neighborhood, promote tourist trade and interest and foster knowledge of the city's living heritage.

[69:14] Okay, that's the end of staff presentation. This is a reminder of the next steps in the process. We'll ask Anne and Sam if they have anything to add, and then we'll move on to public participation and then board deliberation and a reminder that the options for today are for the Landmarks board to approve the application and recommend designation to city council or recommend denial. So any questions for me before we move on to the applicant's presentation. I don't see or hear any questions for you, Claire. Okay. so now we'd like to invite the applicant up.

[70:08] and you will have a total of 10 min, because this is quasi-judicial. I will ask you to raise your hand and state your full full name, and then the time will begin. My name is Ann Leah Sando. Thank you, Claire, for your very thorough presentation. I appreciate, and I appreciate the photos that you found that we didn't already have. We have a whole set from the Carnegie Library of indoor shots from the Era, which are lovely to see, because the house really has not changed a lot inside, either. It's all still original woodwork and flooring, and as with all old houses, there are always things that need to be done to maintain it. But, as Claire noted, we've lived there a very long time and planned to live there a good many years more. I'm I'm sorry for interrupting. Would you mind just swearing that you're gonna tell the truth? And oh, I'm going to tell. I didn't realize that was part of it. I'm going to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

[71:16] Thank you. Didn't realize. the house currently is slated to pass to my daughter. If and when we are no longer around. But we're planning on being here for quite a while still. I have nothing more to say. Really clear covered at all. I think one of my favorite pictures is this one that's up on the screen now, which shows the door upstairs, but no porch yet. because the porch had not yet been built out. And and so that's a a and there's the same thing in the back where you can see there was a porch before there, I mean there was a door before there was a porch which I love about it.

[72:13] I have nothing more to say. Do you have any questions. Well, well, first of all, and foremost, thank you for your stewardship of this property and your family's, you know, long tenure with it. It's it's rare we get to see that. So thank you so much. I'm gonna see if any of my board members have any questions. But again, with Claire's, you know, wonderful presentation and comprehensive memorandum. We may not have many questions this evening. I just have a question just from like reading it, and I might have missed Claire's little point on the thing. But when I go through all the the pictures you're actually like, Sand is your last name, Sanda? Yes, so you're actually these, the little. these little those little children! Yes, I was born in 1947, and we moved in in 1943. So the. I don't know all the pictures that are in there, but there's one picture of my older brother and sister that was 1943,

[73:14] so like the it says in this in this, that Truman Truman that was my grandfather, that was my mother's father. He bought the house. Well, the interesting thing we just found out. We thought that he purchased the house in 1,943 turns out he didn't purchase it till 1,944. So they rented for a year, and that is so like my grandfather, who was a Scotsman. and would have wanted to rent it before the purchase, and he rented it specifically to rent to my parents. He and my grandmother lived in Denver. He rented. He bought it specifically to rent to my parents, because he was sure my father. who was a lowly faculty person at Cu, would never be able to afford the kind of house that his growing family needed, so he rented it to them until his death, and then, upon his death, it passed to my mother, and then, upon her death.

[74:16] To us, and so but that is so like him to have rented it for a year to make sure it was one, because my grandmother was the one who said, This is the house, Truman. This is the house, and he was not sure, so was your grandfather, the second owner, the third, the gardeners sold the house in what was the year, Claire? I don't remember to a pair of doctors from Texas, but they apparently never lived there, so they must have just rented it and used it as a rental property or a summer property, because the Texans used to come up here where it was cooler in the summer, and then they sold it to my grandfather in 1944. So we're our family is only the third

[75:12] owners of the house. Yeah, that's really neat. So I just want I was like. Hmm, I'm very interested. Yes, that one in the middle up there, that's me. And that's my grandfather, my Scottish grandfather, wanted to make sure it was the right place. And what did what did your grandfather do in Denver? He was an engineer at Gates Rubber Company. So this is is the only house you've ever lived in. Well, not quite. Because after I graduated from college I was gone for 30 years. Okay, so off east, coast, west, coast, north, south. Following my career, although Sam. my baby brother, has lived there his entire life, except when he went to graduate school.

[76:05] So yes, it's the only house we've ever lived in there. There's a book called the Politics of Preservation, and I think this has been skewed since economic downturns and and the Covid pandemic. But it said the average that anyone in our country ever owned a home was 7 years, and I think you've shot well past that. Well, and that's already one of the reasons we would really like to have a designation is because it's rare. Now to find a place that people have had for 80 years. And this is this is 80 years. Yeah. And and at 1 point that statistic in Boulder was 4 years. So you really like, if there's a Guinness record for doesn't surprise me very well. Any other questions for the applicant. Or Mark, please excuse me. you know this. This concept of

[77:00] people staying in a house for a very long time has really been as housing values have increased, and it it becomes more difficult with siblings. So I'm not trying to pry. But I I just do. You have a secret for how you manage to keep this in the family with siblings and people coming and going, and and different. well, motivations, you know, when my mother died and left the house basically to all of us. My other 3 siblings and I were all married and had children of our own, living in disparate parts of the country, and we said, Well, actually, the truth is, mother left it to Sam because Sam had been the one taking care of her for the last 10 years of her life, and we all said, Great! You deserve it.

[78:00] Go for it. And Sam has been the major steward because it was in pretty bad repair, and he managed to take care of all that, and no took really good care of it. I didn't move back here until 2,002, and at that point. Sam and his wife were living there. She has since passed, but they said, You know, boulder taxes are really high. And this is a big house. What would you think about moving in? And I did. And now Sam and I live there quite happily. I I like to tell people that of my other siblings. Sam's the only one I could live with, as much as I loved my older brother and sister. I couldn't live with either of them. But we share so many common interests, and we have easy personalities with each other. So it's been very easy.

[79:01] Well, that's it is not a you. It is It's a pretty unique story. So so congratulations. Thank you. Yeah, thank you, Sam, for everything you've done. I hope my brother doesn't hear this, but I can actually kind of live with him at time. So thank you so much. If there's no more questions from the board, we'll bring it to see if anyone would like to speak to this during public comment. And then, Ann, we'll invite you back up now that you're officially sworn in if you have anything else to add for 3 min. Thank you. So, Amanda. I'll turn to you. Great. Thank you. Yes, we have One virtual participant with their hand raised. Lynn, Siegel and Lynn, you should be able to speak. Just me. And and Lynn, because this is quasi judicial. You'll need to swear to tell. Share the truth as best, ma. I know it

[80:02] not. The truth. my truth that I know so so I'm the only one seriously. At the moment. Yes. Wow! First of all. I don't understand why this is even coming before the board other than because I thought, this is the histor. You know, I'm just an ultrasound technologist. I'm sorry I'm just a community member. I don't know anything about architecture or historic preservation, but I thought Maple tends to historic district. You're automatically landmark when you're in it. I guess I'm wrong. But there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of openness and community outreach about learning and getting people interested in historical stuff in Boulder. And so I just kinda say it at these meetings and say, jeez, I don't know what's going on

[81:02] to me. It seems like from off the board. This house should have just gone through Ldrc. Or even gone through as a staff routine staff Review. Of course it's going to be preserved. Of course it's a landmark. I mean, and I love hearing all about it and the San Sandos and everything. But what really needs to come before landmarks is 7, 70 circle, which was a crime, a war crime to take down that house and add 6, 13. Lynn. I'm sorry I have to interrupt. If you could keep your comments specific to this particular house, and I just want to point out. You'd have gone through. Ldrc. Yeah. And and, Lynn, I just wanna point out that this is a very joyful moment. It's a very joyful moment for this applicant. I know you are a strong believer in preservation. I just want to point that out to you as you finish your remarks. Moment. So what? Yeah, of course, it's a joyful moment. The question is, why is it coming through landmarks board? Why doesn't it just go as a staff routine landmarking. It's like clearly going to be landmark. There's no question about it.

[82:12] The things that are debatable need to be discussed. It is a crime for you to take down 2,260 baseline. That is a crime that is unbelievable. So, Linda, follow up on Ronnie's comments. We have chosen to mute the rest of your 30 s or so, because we really do need to stick to the topic at hand, and even though the house is protected by virtue of being an historic district. many houses in various historic districts throughout Boulder are also individual landmarks and recognized individually as well. Some even are on the National Register, and that has to come to the full board to make a recommendation to city council. So it is the process, and it's always a joy when a house already in historic district is individually acknowledged

[83:08] for what it contributes. Amanda. I'm going to ask if you see any other raised hands or anyone calling in on. The phone? No, there are no other raised hands. Thank you. So we'll go ahead and close public participation for agenda. Item 5 a now, and you're welcome to come back up. You. We do give owners the opa opportunity, especially if there's something they wanna shed more light on or rebut during public participation. But but again, thank you. And this is where it the joy and the fun really begins for us as board members. We'll bring it back to the board for deliberation. I don't think we're gonna be spending an enormous amount of time on this. But if anyone would like to kick it off, please feel free to.

[84:05] Yeah. I just thank you so much for you and your family stewardship of this property. It is absolutely beautiful. It is clear that it is, holds a special place in your family. It doesn't our community as well. Thank you for bringing it forward to us tonight. And I it's obvious the direction that we're gonna vote but I just applaud you, for you know that you're you're taking care of this home and your roots in boulder and your strong family ties, and it's been wonderful hearing more about your personal history as well. So thank you. John. Yeah, I want to echo the same sentiments. I really appreciate your stewardship of this property. I think that it's it's a worthy piece to add to the fabric.

[85:03] As a designated building. even though it is in a district designating it also gives it the additional recognition that it deserves. I had the opportunity to work next door to that house briefly a couple of weeks ago, and got to admire it just by walking by it, and really looking at what it was, and and the kind of place it holds on that corner. So it's just this is a wonderful thing to be part of tonight. And thank you very much. I also wanna applaud you for taking care of this building and and you probably already know that your mother would be so just so proud. But also the fact that you know

[86:03] this is, maybe Mark had kind of touched on this. But the fact that you guys didn't sell and walk away with that, that it meant more to be there and to take care of this house and to you know, really develop this for your family. And I just wanna say that. you know, I don't think that most people would do that. So I just appreciate you staying there and not walking away from such a beautiful place. Thank you, Renee. Chelsea. Yeah, I just yeah. Adding on to my colleagues comments, I think you know, our favorite type of application is one where it's the owner who comes forward and wants to celebrate and cherish the home that they live in, and by by making it a historic or a landmark. And this one is certainly worthy of that designation. So I think we're all really excited to support you, your family and what this adds to the community.

[87:16] So thank you. And mark anything you'd like to say. I'll only say that you know, as as a board member of several different boards over the years. It's opportunities like this is like, Oh, this is this is the fun part. You know, we have so many applications, whether it's planning board or landmarks, board, or whatever it might be, that are that are difficult and tough. And then a few once in a while, you really just get to celebrate. So this is one of those we had one the other night where a preschool that it closed down got bought, and it's gonna be reopened as a preschool is like yay. So this is one of these moments of celebration, and it makes a lot of the work we do feel worth it so.

[88:04] Gap I I couldn't agree more, and you know, as I said at the beginning, what a great way for us to kick off. You know the whole month of May, all 31 days with with recommending this to city Council to landmark. And again, just thank you from the bottom of the heart. What I think does make this unique is is the family's long tie with it, and the the stories you shared that are outside of the architectural style, or the you know the sky, and I'm the great granddaughter of a Scottish man, who, I think, was probably buried with his very first pound sterling, you know that he ever made, most likely. So so I got that. But I mean, you know these there. There are several houses by Stow, a Scottish stonemasons and in Mapleton Hill, and it's just a growing collection of wonderful individual landmarks as well. I would like to see if any of my colleagues would like to make a motion.

[89:03] My motion. Okay, go for it. Oh, I have to say all of it. There's good news and bad. See, we're excited. I recommend a motion. Okay. I move the Landmarks Board recommend to the City Council that that it designates a property at 904 Mapleton Avenue as a local historic landmark to be known as the Gardner and Santo House. Finding that it meets the standards for individual landmark designation in section 9, 11, one and 9, 11, 2 brc. 1981, and adopt the staff memorandum, dated May first, 2024. As the findings of the board.

[90:00] Is there a second? I'll second. Thank you, John. On a motion by Rene, seconded by John. We'll take a roll call. Vote Chelsea. Hi, John! Hi. Renee, I, Ronnie I, and I vote let's see I so the the motion passes unanimously again. Thank you so much for bringing this forward to us, and I know Claire will take a quick moment to explain next steps. Yes, I'll be in contact with you to Schedule City Council, hearing which will be within a hundred days. Which is before August ninth. We there's actually 2 hearings a consent hearing, and then a public hearing. And then City Council will vote if they agree that the the House should be designated as as a landmark. They'll create an ordinance with the designation, and we'll get working on the bronze bronze plaque.

[91:02] and then you'll be invited next year to our square nails. Award ceremony. which happens so usually the first or second second week of May around the second Monday. and you're welcome to come next week, too. I'll give you the information. So thank you. Okay, thank you. So now we'll move on to agenda. Item 5 B. It's a public hearing, in consideration of an application to demolish a house and accessory building constructed circa 1938 at 31 39, Seventh Street, a non landmarked building over 50 years old, pursuant to Section 9, 1123 of the boulder revised code 1981. And the owner is the 31, 39, 7 Street, Llc.

[92:03] And Fulton Hill properties. Okay? I'll quickly go over the quasi judicial hearing process again, the procedures are as follows, everyone speaking to the item will be sworn in and board members will note any exparte contacts. I'm going to give the staff presentation. After that the Board may ask questions. The applicant will have 10 min to present to the board, and then the Board may have questions for them. We'll then open the public hearing. After all, members of the public have made comments. The applicant may respond to anything that was said, and then we'll ask and then the Board will deliberate, and the motion requires an affirmative vote of at least 3 members to pass, as always motions will state findings, conclusions, and a recommendation. and a record of this hearing is will be in the archive within 28 days, usually sooner.

[93:06] So the Board has requested that if we reviewed items previously at Ldrc. We will note who was on the committee that time, and it was reviewed on March twentieth by John Abby and Masi as the staff member. So back to Abby for export. A okay, I have no expertise, John. none, Renee, none. Ronnie none, and Chelsea. None. Thank you. Okay. So the criteria for review is outlined in the bolder revised code under 9, 1123. This is a demolition, application. So the purpose of reviewing demolition applications is to prevent the loss of buildings that may have historic or architectural significance by providing time to consider alternatives to the demolition.

[94:03] the criteria that can be considered are the eligibility of the building for designation as an individual landmark. If it has historic, architectural, or environmental significance, the relationship of the building to the character of the neighborhood as an established and definable area the reasonable condition of the building and the projected cost of restoration or repair, although not deterioration caused by unreasonable neglect. The options for the board tonight are to approve the full demolition, application, or place a stay of demolition to find alternatives to demolition. A stay would not exceed a hundred 80 days, and would expire on September thirtieth. So the process, so far is that we received the application in March due to the age of the building. It was reviewed by the Landmarks Design Review Committee.

[95:01] which referred the application to the Landmarks board for review in this public hearing, finding there was probable cause to believe the building may be eligible for designation as an individual landmark. The property is located mid-block between Evergreen Avenue and Forest Avenue in the Newlands neighborhood. In North Boulder. the housepaces east onto Seventh Street. There's an alley behind the property runs north, south. At the rear, however, the garage is accessed via Seventh Street rather than the the Allie. and the property is not within the boundaries of an identified historic district which we can see here. This map shows the the larger area with the orange squares. There are individual landmarks. If it was a historic district or proposed historic district in the area, it would show up on this map.

[96:01] So it's a one-story house. It was constructed in 1 38. It is a vernacular, eligible form, with horizontal siding and minimal ornamentation that's typical of houses built during the years of the Great Depression. The house has a moderately, steeply pitched roof, with no overhanging eaves. At the facade. The front porch has some stucco detailing the windows appear to be original, and are vertically oriented double, hung with 6 over 6 divided lights. You can see the side here, that the side. Sorry. Gable ends are also stucco, and this is the north elevation, which has a horizontal sliding window, which is a new addition to that gable end.

[97:03] Go. It went too far. There we go. The rear of the house, which is on the left. Here includes an addition that was constructed around 1956. That has that large shed roof dormer it also has a a window in the in the gable end, and French doors below. There's a a shed roof on the on the the corner of the L. There that was added at the rear. Probably around the same time. And then the south elevation here, which is the part of the original house, and you can see the the stucco gable end that mirrors the the north elevation and the sliding horizontal window in that gable end. and the pair of double hung 6 over 6 windows below. This is the garage. It's a simple one story frame building with a metal roof and horizontal drop lapse siding.

[98:06] It includes some outswing double garage doors on the elevation facing Seventh Street. and a single fixed pane divided light window on the north elevation. The building also has a corrugated metal and frame shed roof edition on the south side that includes doors facing both Seventh street and the alley, and some transcendents on the south elevation. So this is one of the historic images that we have at the top there, with the same elevation current day underneath, and the Sanborn Map and Site plan shown there. The house retains pretty high degree of architectural integrity since its construction. 86 years ago. The alterations include the construction of the rear addition in 1956, and the shed roof, rear porch addition of the railings at the at the front porch and the addition of the windows in the gable ends and the replacement of

[99:18] The original wood roof shakes with asphalt shingle. So, as I mentioned the criteria for review are outlined in 9, 1123 F. Of the Boulder Revised Code, which includes the eligibility of the building for designation as an individual landmark outlined in 9, 11, one, and 9, 11, 2, and the relationship of the building to the character of the neighborhood, we use significance. Criteria adopted in 1,975 to evaluate buildings in a consistent manner to be eligible. The property only needs to meet one of these adopted criteria and commonly accepted practice is that a building should retain the physical features that allow it to convey that significance.

[100:05] So Staff found that while the buildings at 31 30. The buildings date from 1,938, and were surveyed in 1,995. We didn't think that they possess a high degree of historic significance. The the property was not a site of a historic event that had an effect upon society. Nor do the buildings show character, interest, or value as part of the development of the community, nor do they exemplify the cultural, political, economic, or social heritage of the community. The Survey notes that it is representative of the vernacular frame dwelling erected in Boulder during the period before World War 2, as reflected in the minimal exterior ornament, the gabled roof, the drop-sided siding, and the gabled porch with square column supports.

[101:08] Our analysis showed that the the house was constructed in 1938. Toward the end of the Great Depression, Faye and Clarence Heim borrowed $1,200 from the Boulder Building and Loan Association Association to build the house. Clarence was a house painter and a wallpaper hanger. Faye worked part time as a laundress while caring for their child. Merlin. They lived in the house until 1942, when they sold the property and moved to Eugene Oregon. It was one of the earliest houses constructed in the area specifically as a residence and didn't include any agricultural land. The area became primarily residential during the building boom after the Second World war, and that's when Floyd and Doreen Deisha lived in the house with their children.

[102:03] Caroline, Mary, Michael, and Timothy Floyd was a machinist in an electric plant, and he died in 1 76, and Doreen continued to own the house until her death in 90 97. For architectural significance. The house and garage are representative of vernacular residential construction during the Great Depression. which was a period of severe economic hardship, while the construction of any building during this time is interesting. The buildings do not have architectural or aesthetic interest or value, or provide significant examples of architectural styles of the past. This building, in particular, does not include any innovative use of material or exemplary craftsmanship

[103:00] to be considered significant. And we didn't find the property to have environmental significance. The buildings don't represent a unique, natural, or man-made environment, and the property is not located within the boundaries of a potential historic district. This property is an example of the gradual development of the Newlands residential neighborhood that took place during the first half of the twentieth century earlier. The area consisted primarily of farms, orchards, and ranches, and after World War Ii. The area changed dramatically as returning service members and their families needed housing. This area of Seventh Street retains a few houses from the first half of the twentieth century. Interspersed among larger, more modern houses. the applicant submitted information on the condition of the building, which was included in the memo, and included the projected cost of restoration, or a pair of 608, $608 per square foot, and I believe the applicant is here virtually to answer any questions.

[104:20] So Staff's findings are that a stay of demolition for the property at 31 39 Seventh Street is not appropriate. based on the criteria set forth in section 9, 1123 F. Of the Boulder Revised Code. while the house and garage are examples of residential buildings constructed during the Great Depression. The property's architectural significance is minimal. It does not meet the significance, criteria for individual landmark designation as is not associated with persons or events significant to local, state or national history. Nor does it have environmental significance. The character of the neighbourhood has been diminished over time.

[105:01] and the loss of its buildings would not constitute a significant impact on Boulder's historic resources. and it has been demonstrated to be economically challenging to rehabilitate the building. Staff's recommendation is that the landmarks board approve the demolition application for the buildings, finding that they do not have significance under the criteria, set forth in 9, 1123 F of the Boulder Revised Code. So that's the end of staff presentation. This is a reminder. In the next steps of the process. The applicant will have up to 10 min to present to the board, followed by public participation an opportunity for the applicant to respond to anything that said and then board deliberation. So the question for the board is, if the building has historic significance, if yes, the Board will place a stay of demolition on the application to provide time to consider alternatives. If no, the Board will approve the demolition request.

[106:03] So any questions for staff before we continue with the applicant's presentation. I have a question, Claire. You offer the 2 options? If the Board were to take no action by saying they were taking no action. Would that implicitly approve the demolition without actually approving a demolition. So I don't think that's an OP. That that's really an option. That's why it wasn't offered as an option. Right? Yeah. And there's yeah, it's just because you have, you have to basically find whether or not it has historical significance or or not. And so if if you find that it does, then you know the stay with issue. If you find that it does not, then the demo permit would issue. Okay. that's my answer. Thank you.

[107:09] Any other questions I don't see or hear any. So I think we are ready for the applicants presentation and welcome. Kyle. I don't know if you're the only applicant joining us this evening. We do. Hi, Margaret. Rick! Ok, so, and guys, please raise your hands right now and swear that you will tell the board the full truth. I swear to tell the whole truth. Oh, you're on mute, Margaret. Thanks. #Margaret Freund: I swear to tell the whole truth. Thank you, so your 10 min will commence. However, you want to split it up, and, as you know, we'll come back. If you'd like an additional 3 min after public comment. So go ahead and proceed.

[108:01] #Margaret Freund: Kyle's gonna do all the talking. And it'll be brief. You know, first off I'd just like to thank you, Claire, for the thorough and wonderful presentation as always. Well, researched, we are amazed. What you can dig up in terms of the history. So again, just kudos. Thank you. Planning board for your time as well. And the attention to this project. Since we agree with Staff Staff's recommendation to approve the demolition we would just like to be available for any questions you may have. Thank you. Do any of my colleagues on the board have any questions for Kyle or Margaret for the applicants as a whole? Right now we don't have any, so thank you. So now we will move on to public participation.

[109:00] And, Amanda, I don't know if you see any raised hands, or if anyone has used the star function to call in to speak to this? I don't see any raised hands at the moment if oh. yes, we have just one. Lynn Siegel. Okay, Lynn, we'll go ahead, Lynn. You will need to sort of tell the whole truth, as this is a quasi judicial hearing. There is no such thing as the whole truth. There's my truth or your truth. I'm sorry. you know it's not the truth. so I can't give you the truth I can give you. My truth. Is that okay with you, Abby? That's okay. Great. I guess everybody else has monopoly on the truth. I don't know what that's about. I have no idea now. This house I lived right down the street at 31 82 7. So I know that Eighth Street Corner house, too, and I agree with Katherine Bart on the on that that's a great place. But this house here

[110:09] ironically, there's an electrician that was in this house. The electrician next door to me drove me out of my house. which was a good thing, because I got closer to Central Boulder at Dewey and 6. But this this house. In my truth, this has cultural and political and economic integrity. It has the development that I forget the the way it was described on your screen. But it has those things that that Staff says it does not have. I'm sorry it does. It has that nice arch in the front, I mean the gable in the front, in the door. It's like my house across the street that was demoed. And now there's kind of a semi Victorian or bungalow, or I don't know what you call it that's very nice there. But

[111:05] this that house needed to go really, I mean. I put in a whole basement, spent plenty of money. What needs to happen here is that these houses have to go through Eab environmental. just like the Rocky Mountain environmental center that's getting demoed on the first of June that is horrific. and it's horrific that this hasn't gone through planning board and hasn't gone through different places to determine the community benefit of preserving the the materials. and you know there's plenty they can do. It's just it's a lot in a half size. I don't think that was really brought up. It's an extra large lot. You can do a lot of things to this place by leaving it just the way it is, I mean, and adding onto it within whatever you can do on RL. One

[112:04] so I, of course. don't approve the demolition. Why do we need this stuff in our landfill? Whatever happened to reuse instead of recycle. You know, it's a big deal. you know. I don't spend a cup of coffee in 30 years. because I'm saving for my kids for climate change. And this demo is an example of unnecessary climate change. It just is no need to put this in the landfill just. I'm sorry, Lynn. Your time is expired. Sorry. Sorry. That's Ok. New technology, Amanda. Do you see any additional members of the public that might like to address this.

[113:00] No, there are no other members at this time. so we will go ahead and close public participation for hearing. Item 5 B. And Kyle and Margaret, you know, just because you are allowed to 3 additional minutes. I do. Wanna give you that opportunity. Otherwise we'll move on to board. Deliberation. #Margaret Freund: I think we're good. It's #Margaret Freund: staff did a really amazing job. So #Margaret Freund: we we we couldn't do any better than that. #Margaret Freund: Okay, thank you. So now we will bring it back to the board to discuss. I don't know if there's anyone who would like to kick it off. I'll kick it off. Thank you, John. In in listening to the presentation, listening to all parties. I have to agree. I don't see the house has historic significance

[114:07] that is sufficient for us to undertake action. In the sense that if somebody came to us with this house an owner and said, I'd like to designate this house. It would be something that could be considered from that standpoint. it's not. to my mind, worthy of taking through the preservation process over the objection of the owner. Although I do have to say that demolition. apart from that demolition, is a. I guess, significantly, environmentally effective action. and but that's not our purview here. We're not here to review demolitions. There are other agencies and components of the city who should be doing that.

[115:09] There is a program of redirection which I hope gets undertaken because this is a wood house, and probably has a great deal of reusable material in it. So that being said, I think that I believe Staff made the right call and and support that decision. Thank you, John. Yeah, John. Thanks for kicking that off, and I'm an agreement as well with Staff's recommendation. and also your assessment of demolition and share your value system on it, and I'm glad that you bring it up, and also, point out the places in which we might be able to, you know, address those and also I would just wanna

[116:09] you know. Say that we hear you, Lynn, as well when you bring that up. And that's why we're commenting on it. And so, yeah, I think we're all in agreement that demolition is a last resort, not only for preservation, but also for the conservation of goods and materials. So yeah, I'm I'm in agreement with Staff's recommendation. Chelsea or Renee. I'm in agreement with staff recommendation. I don't inherently want to demo a building ever. But I think that there's so many other things to consider in this situation. And so I appreciate Staff's

[117:06] due diligence and looking at it, and a good presentation. So thank you, Renee. Chelsea. Yes, I'll just keep it short and sweet. I agree with Staff's recommendation. Thank you, Chelsea, and so and thank you, Colin Margaret, and you know I was one of the landmarks board members who saw this at Ldrc. And the benefit of calling it up to the full board is, we did get more information, and as Claire really kind of knocked it out, the ballpark, pulling all the information she could. It was more than worth it to me to have it come before us. and to have this conversation, and to let all board members weigh in on it. I I do agree with John. If an owner, potential owner, came along and said, We we love this little jewel. We it's it strikes me as incredibly intact. You know. It's had a place there for for many decades, you know, it would have been definitely something. It's not only the grand, stately places we should be preserving, but these.

[118:17] these working class homes that tell a very important part of boulder story. And so, you know, I don't think my colleagues will be shocked. I always try to consider and see any way humanly possible, to try not to ever support the demolition of a building. It is a large lot, and I so heard Lynn's comments about, you know, we right now in our preservation program, don't have a mechanism to run this through another department, or really evaluate or consider. Consider the environmental impact of hauling this off to the the landfill. You know the majority of our landfills are buildings, you know, that are demolished. I also personally love buildings of this size, because Boulder needs a variety of building stock to have families ever, you know, have the potential to afford to live here. All of that being said.

[119:12] I will be supporting Staff's recommendation this evening. and I tried. Trust me. I tried to find the ways. You know that that I thought this could be, you know, but but I don't see that avenue this evening, Mark. I also want to give you a chance. If you have any comments. I just have one, and that is, and and it may be for staff at the podium or KJ. Over there in the audience. But the city of Boulder. when we issue a demolition per minute. regardless of whether or not, it's gone through landmarks, board or not. We have serious regulations regarding the disposal of materials, recycling and materials, separation of materials, etc. So the and some contractors choose to exceed those, and and some don't, but some do. And so I think the kind of characterization or thought that

[120:12] this thing will just be bulldozed and put into a dumpster is, in fact, factually incorrect in the sense that there are minimum requirements for for this that that need to be followed for. And I I assume our building inspection and planning and development services. People adhere adhere to those and and follow along with those. you know. Oh, okay, you're great. You're Kg. Knows. Thank you. Mark Christopher Johnson. Comprehensive planning manager. You're correct. There is a deconstruction ordinance that is in place. So as you just as you described. You know, building materials are required to be broken down, taken to recycling centers and other. You know other opportunities for those materials either to be reused or they are disposed of in a in an appropriate manner.

[121:13] One of the things, and I know it's a very subtle change. But one of the things that actually we've been having conversations around in terms of our demolition ordinance, as it relates to historic preservation is actually just renaming that to be the deconstruction ordinance, because the term demolition sort of implies that wastefulness, that that really is is not the case. Great, thank you. Thank you. No, thank you, Mark. Are there any other comments? I don't know if there's a board member who's ready to entertain moving a motion, putting forth a motion. This evening. Hi, ken! I move the landmarks board adopt the findings of the staff memorandum, dated May first, 2024, and approve the demolition application for the building

[122:09] at 31 39 Seventh Street, finding that the buildings to be demolished does not have significance under the criteria set forth in section 9, 1123 F. Brc. 1981. Is there a second? I second, thank you, Renee, on a motion by Ronnie, seconded by Renee, will do a roll call, vote alphabetically. Chelsea. Bye. John Renee. Hi, Ronnie! Hi! And I vote I so the motion passes unanimously, and, Claire, I know you will explain briefly the next steps. Yes. The the Board has approved the historic preservation demolition request. So we'll approve. We'll issue an approval letter that does expire in a hundred 80 days. The deconstruction or building permit must be obtained within a hundred 80 days, or the applicant will need to resubmit the historic preservation

[123:18] application again. Oh, that's it. Thank you. and thank you. Kyle and Margaret. #Margaret Freund: Thank you. Thank you as well. So now we're on to matters. Here we are. Alright. Yes. So as Abby started, the meeting with May is historic preservation month it. Snuck up on me this year. But here we are. A couple of things that I'd like to highlight is that on

[124:00] tomorrow Thursday City Council will read the Archaeology and Historic Preservation Month Declaration, which I just really appreciate. They have a a policy of just reading 2 every every meeting, but they made room for the historic preservation one. Because we are celebrating the fiftieth anniversary of the program. and having that milestone so extend my gratitude to Abby for attending the meeting to receive that declaration tomorrow. And then we just so happen to have the 2120 Blue Bell designation front of council tomorrow night, too. So those are nice things to kick off the month with. Everyone's welcome to attend virtually or in person, if you'd like And then for historic preservation month, the square nail awards. Ceremony is next Wednesday at the Chautauqua Community House. The reception starts at 6. The program usually runs from 6 30 to 7, 30. And it's a nice kind of feel, good preservation community event, where we recognize the owners of recently designated landmarks. So we have 2 from 2023. The county will recognize their landmarks. There's recognition of

[125:20] authors of books recently published on local history. There's some interesting ones this year, and then there's the square nail awards which is kind of a lifetime achievement award. And 3 folks are being recognize this year. There's also a tour of Chautauqua starting at 4 30 before the ceremony, which is always a treat. So I think we circulated a an appointment on that. But it's next Wednesday at the Chautauqua Community house at 6 pm. And then, while I'm on that topic, I'm gonna go to the next slide and give a shout out to our wonderful intern. Marin, who put together the historic Preservation Month brochure for this year we've featured the superior Historical Museum on the cover. It was lost in the Marshall fire, and they are rebuilding it. And it's wonderful to see it back back in place. So

[126:21] there are events that nobody's gonna be able to read. But there are a handful of events happening across Boulder County during May. So I believe I emailed it to the board last week. Go ahead and check out some of the events this year. They're always a good time. The relevancy guidebook that we've been talking about since February. Is just, you know, getting traction across the country. The American Planning Association is having a free webinar on it on Friday, this Friday, May third, from 11 to 1230 pm. And it's free to register and

[127:06] I can send the link out if I haven't already, but wanted to offer and chuck with the board. Is anyone interested in coming down and meeting in person kind of brown bag lunch, bring your own lunch and watch it together at a city office. If so, we're happy to reserve a room and set that up and publicly notice it. Otherwise we'll just watch it individually, I think. But I did wanna do a quick poll recognizing it's last minute. It's an hour and a half. It's like it's I just wanna gauge your interest, but no obligation if you're not able to make it. and 11 11 to 1230 on Friday. We can watch it from yeah, we can watch it from a web Yup from from wherever

[128:01] yeah. from a beach. No problem. I I would probably be available. But I don't think it's worth staff reserving a room if I'm the only one who can come in person because of other people's commitments. Yeah, I mean, this topic is of interest to me. And then the concept of us getting together and having meetings together in which we could. you know, learn in the same room, and maybe even debrief is really appealing to me. This Friday. I have obligations at 11 o'clock, so I can't make this one, but I'm glad that we're working on stuff like this. So Mercy! Will you send out a link to all of us? Yes, I'll send that out, and maybe what I'm hearing is interest in scheduling something a bit farther out. There's a bunch of recordings of the woman from

[129:02] Preservation, Illinois, Minnesota, somewhere, I think. I think. Illinois. The at the Statewide Advocacy Group. There's a lot of different recordings that we could all watch together, and the idea, too, is like anytime. I have a lunchtime webinar and I'm on my own. I like watch the first 5 min, and then I do something else. So it's an accountability measure for myself to watch it as a group. So why don't we? Why don't we put out some dates a little bit farther in advance, but have kind of this lunch and learn. Have kind of all. Watch the hour and hour and a half long keynote, and then have a conversation maybe afterwards. Sounds like a nice nice use of that. so it will be available to view after you know I I am assuming that it will be. But if this one's not I know that there's at least 2 others yeah, of kind of the same thing.

[130:00] So it might be nice to do what you just kind of said. But maybe it's monthly. So like, not starting 2 days before, but like, okay, June. Yeah, you know something and see if we're available cause. That sounds like. you know, if we could plan this. and then maybe it's just 2 or 3 people want to come and talk about things. But I mean, that sounds the the idea sounds really good. It's just 2 days in advance. fully aware of that. Yes, I hear you and I like that. We'll work on putting something together with more notice. Da's National Conference is that I'm just curious. Katie's shaking his head. No, no. Well, no, I'm just up to the microphone. the no. The session that is on Friday is not part of the National Conference. I think it's a Colorado Apa presentation.

[131:01] The National Conference was the In Person Conference was last week, and there's an online version, which is May eighth through the tenth. Thanks, Pat. wonderful! Well that that leads into the next thing which was kind of blending these ideas, which is to put the idea of out there about a summer retreat centered around the relevancy guidebook and leading into the historic preservation plan update. So that seems like we'll dovetail with that, and kind of think about the best structure of how to do that and work with everybody's schedule. And then, similarly looking to gauge interest about a debrief of the historic district. Kind of process. And all of that, it's the largest, maybe most complex project that we, as a program, have managed in in many years. And while it's still technically still

[132:01] in process, because the findings will go to City Council on May sixteenth for the final kind of end of the formal end of the process. You know we had an internal debrief. I do think it's wise to have like an intentional kind of closing of a chapter, and and was curious if the board was also wanting that, or if or if it's not needed. I'm open to hearing your thoughts. I would definitely like to see a debrief happen after the May Sixteenth Council meeting. and I mean it not immediately after, but after it that pieces closed. I'd like that, too. I would, too. And a question about that meeting. On May sixteenth. What are they? Yes, so the findings

[133:00] the findings are what goes into the record of this is what Council based their decision on. And typically like, we have them on the slide for your decisions to say the findings are that it meets this criteria A, B and C, something like that. Because the council denied the designation application the code provides 45 days to then write the findings and then adopt them. And so we're coming back to council with the final record that then they say, Yes, that's what we based our decision on or no. This was an important point, and Chris feel free to jump in. So it's because Council went against what staff and waymarks board recommendation was, and so they could not just adopt like a Staff memo as their findings and conclusions, because the memo was the opposite of the result that occurred, and so we had to draft a separate

[134:00] memo for them to adopt. To follow up with that question when you go to staff this time. I mean Staff City Council. Is there any? Well could can they overturn their vote? No, they're just looking to adopt the findings, and so it'll be on the consent agenda. There might not be any conversation about it, or they can pull it and and modify them. To say. we want this as part of the record, or clarify this. But the vote is the vote which happened on April eleventh right. The casket has been lowered, and the dirt is now being thrown on it. I just was wondering if there was any sort of if we needed to participate in anything. So appreciate that you you don't need to. It might. I think it's worth mentioning. That Council requested this whole action in the first place. and at different counts, and a different lead staff member and preservation was involved with that. I mean, it's yeah, but no, they that it went across a line, I guess, or over a

[135:15] change, whatever you'd call it. Yeah. Well, and I said this yesterday at the agenda meeting. Whether this is appropriate during a staff retreat or when we do a debrief of this Council member, it'd be very valuable for me to have Chris do kind of the legal thing again, the legal training for us, because, you know, for example, during quasi judicial. even though we were kind of done with our part on February seventh, when it was a 4. One vote to recommend, you know, I'd always sort of thought. Well, I can't talk to council member about. I shouldn't reach out. I shouldn't do A, B or C, so I think, if I could get retrained and have that reiterate what we can or can't do, or what, and I know there's a difference between what we maybe should do. But what are kind of standard best practices?

[136:03] at that time that would help me immensely. and I'm happy to do kind of a legal refresher training at the Retreat. parson hearing oh, go ahead, Chelsea. Oh. I was just gonna I just wanted to ask about the Ldrc issues cause I realize that we're now talking about another summer retreat with different topics, and I feel like we haven't resolved the issue that we said we were gonna resolve with the last retreat. And so I just I wanna bring that back up and talk about a potential like schedule of when we're going to work on that.

[137:01] You're right, thank you and at the last retreat, when we were in in the midst of the historic district, the takeaway items was that Staff was going to explore or continue to explore the 5 or 6 initiatives that the Board felt we should. So you're right. We shouldn't lose sight of that. so yes, we will keep that on our radar and adjust the retreats you know, as necessary, and that was like a fall retreat. and that was the fall retreat. Yes, you know. I yeah. Yup, yes, yeah. It was during the fall. Yeah. So I just think that we couldn't. That, and not a lot of time has gone past for us to address those comments. So I think if we talk about a summer retreat, we can include those comments. Yeah. And I will say that the historic district has been all consuming since January of 2023 and and so this is really our opportunity as staff to kind of resenter. Reset that baseline, and then look ahead to our next big project. And so.

[138:13] you know, I've been looking ahead to the preservation plan update which we postponed because of the historic district process. So I don't wanna lose these other important board priorities. And you know, we're always thinking about streamlining, standardizing, making our program more efficient. And so yes, I need to be thinking long term in terms of you know, the historic preservation plan update, but also seeing where these incremental changes fit in as well. So can I. Is there like an estimated timeframe on the Ldrc project. or like when we'll be able to start making progress on that. Yes, so I don't have that at this time for you.

[139:09] and I hear your frustration, Chelsea, and I will also say that the historic district decision from Council was, let's see, 3 weeks ago or so. So we're still pivoting that we're not quite ready to jump right into to the next thing. Yeah, I understand. I just. I remember when we had those conversations, we said, March, we'll be able to do it. And I actually just started a new job. And like, I just don't know how I'm gonna make these Ldrcs work. And so I it's just I guess it's a little disappointing to not have any. not have any progress on that, or even just like. And I understand the historic district created a lot of work for everybody but

[140:00] I as a board member, those Wednesday morning to afternoon. Ldrcs are like really dehabilitating. So it's sort of it's like a point of like, do I need need to resign from the board or for me? That's kind of the decisions that I have to make. If if there's really not going to be any like focus momentum on making these changes that make it really difficult to be on this board and work so. And I wonder, too, because I really do get and and hear the difficulty of of having a full time job. And this large during the work hours volunteer commitment. And I wonder if there's a short term, you know, understanding that. you've changed jobs recently, if there might be like a short term solution. Looking to your other board members of, can we switch the Drc rotation to lighten it like question. The assumption of the 3 month rotation equally across all 5 board members in the short term, understanding that the goal is really these structural long term things to open the door for people that come.

[141:25] you know, beyond you. But if you're at the point of this is no longer a a possible thing versus not. Maybe there's a short term thing, looking at the other board members, that we might be able to S to help one question. Well, congratulations, Chelsea, on your new job. Do you know when you go back on Ldrc. I know we got a great list of all the dates. Actually, I don't know some. I probably sometime soon, because I haven't been on in a while. I think it might be next week next Wednesday. So that. Very short term off. So I ever since I've been on the board I try not to schedule anything on on Wednesdays, Wednesday mornings, just because I can't ever remember when I'm on and by the Monday before, I know. But it's like I would be happy in the next few weeks. I'm not back on till June. I could do Wednesdays

[142:18] when you go back on, while you, you know, especially the beginning of a new job. I know that takes I just have so much more flexibility with my job on Wednesday mornings. So that's sort of a short term immediate thing. For the month of May. I? I have no reason I could not sign in on a Wednesday morning. but that's like a band aid. Yeah. And I, I really appreciate that, Abby. And I don't like I don't wanna put other people in a position where they have to take on more work. So I I appreciate that. I'll look at my calendar and

[143:01] try to block things out. But I know that there are elements of like when we talked about, what can Ldr, what can we do as a historic preservation program and landmarks board that reduces the requirements of Ldrc, or like maybe short. You know even things that we could do without council approval that just shortens the amount of, or like minimizes the amount of projects that go through. Ldrc, so like, if there's some things like just like a short term win that we could have to minimize the requirements like, like. I think you know, we can segment this project out and and have some short-term progress unless I'm mistaken on how complicated that is. But I wanna say also that, like maybe maybe another band aid to it is

[144:03] that Chelsea, if you you know, you can do Wednesday morning, but you can do for the first agenda or the first 2 agendas then like then then, you know, one of the other members could jump on cause, I know for me the Wednesday mornings, you know you block it out, and if you go from 9 to noon it's heavy, but if I go from 9 to 10, you know, or 9 to 1010, 30, so maybe you could commit to your 9. You could commit to the one of like one of the agenda items, and then someone else can come in. So it's not that you're just handing your load to someone else, but that so I think that it's another band aid. Because I think that you're asking us to make a huge shift to the Ldrc. And that something's been in place a long time, and I don't want to say that it's so concrete that we can't. We can't move it, because that seems unrealistic, but at the same time. I just I don't know if it's going to happen within.

[145:09] You know the month of May when you need it. So maybe if there's something we can work out, or even in 2 months, you know, I don't wanna give staff, hey? We gotta figure this out by next Wednesday. So I think those 2 Band-aids of Abby filling in, and or 2 people right? Or maybe what it is. What I think Marcy was starting to suggest is, maybe. whatever Chelsea, your next timeframe is just moving that back in the year to give us time to. Really, you know, cause I I agree, change is always possible. Change can be good, and we perpetuate some things just because they've always been done that way. But I also want to be careful. I know it takes a little more time than us just saying, Hey, yeah, let's do this, you know, starting next week like staff approving more things. So I realize it's gonna take time. So maybe just sort of re

[146:03] looking at the schedule, seeing who can be moved around to later, taking it off immediately, while the the discussion continues, well, I'll I'll say for what it's worth. I'm fairly flexible. and so I can fill more slots if necessary. And one of the things I wanna say to Staff that I really appreciate Chelsea. When I first started they started at 8 30 in the conference room down here, and it was like just this luxury of doing it remotely has taken off some of the burden every once in a while I throw in laundry between cases whatever. So I mean, that is one gift that we've already, I think, has made the process easier. It's already to. and I could never get the parking time right? And then I couldn't add to it because my phone, the app wouldn't work in the Olpstead room. It has gotten, believe it or not. Easier, you know. Just not that transportation down here and back so.

[147:05] So okay, so it could be worse. Got it? The one I really I really, really. And I think that's a great idea to cause. I don't want to delegate all my responsibilities for this board onto others. That's like absolutely the last thing I really wanna do, which is why I want to, just at least like move forward with some of the ideas that we all thought were good in terms of things that Staff can review or you know, I know we had some ideas that seemed like they were minor changes that didn't have really big implications that would actually make a pretty big difference in terms of the hours required of Ldrc, so I really appreciate everyone's willingness to help but I also like would love to try to get some

[148:00] like concrete commitments on when we're gonna at least address the thing like the lowest hanging fruit for how to make this better for everybody. I had one idea, you know, one of those middle of the night ideas, and unless Staff already has this information, one idea I had that I would be personally willing to do between now and the next board meeting is contact, like like the other preservation commissions in the area like in Denver and this and that, and just see and I'll do a spreadsheet of when other historic preservation commissions or landmarks board whatever they're named when they meet. you know, just to get a sense of that, because for me, that would be interesting to know. And I'd be willing to do that. I'm more just curious how other communities handle it. And when those meetings occur. I, Abby, if you're I like that idea, and I'd also be curious to know what they review and versus staff reviews. And how many members. And yeah, kind. So kind of like, what? What

[149:09] what staff can review and what board members need to review. So really is kind of looking at their their ordination, their ordinance and code, and everything sorry. So I would commit to that. And you know if it provides fruitful information. Kind of then keep adding more to it after the next month. Because I'm curious. I have no idea, you know. Well, we will talk this through as our team, you know I I am hearing the conversation, hearing you know. What's the low hanging fruit? What adjustments can we make in the short term? So let me talk with the rest of the team and follow up, probably in an email to you all.

[150:02] Thank you. I really appreciate that. So Marcy was that it from staff? It was that, was it. So really. okay. do I get to? So I want to? Oh, Mark! Oh, Mark Board, I just wanna say I'm I'm anticipating. This is my last landmarks meeting. And because at our next planning board meeting on the seventh we will rotate our different assignments to different committees. So, but we have. We have a really great board right now. The planning Board. I'm very excited about our new members. I don't know who will be on, but I really want to commend this board. I have learned just a tremendous amount from all of you. I commend your professionalism and the the work you do and staff have been. It's been really great, and and to be part of the whole

[151:07] Civic area landmarks process that didn't pass. But anyway, I just found the whole thing fascinating. And anyway, I really appreciate all the work from staff and the board. And it's been. It's been great. And I catch myself reading stuff about historic designations and stuff that I I did not. I didn't in the past. So I'm I'm keyed into a different set of things. Be careful. But, Mark, you've always been so candid, so articulate, and you've really brought some things to the table that you know I've never thought about, or that even previously planning board liaisons haven't brought to us. So you've really brought some fresh air, some new thoughts, and you know just your commitment to the city overall is kind of staggering and very appreciated.

[152:01] Thank you. I'd like to echo that, mark. I feel like your level of engagement with our board has been unique. I think it's as Abby has said, it's it's refreshing to hear a voice from. you know, our non voting, planning member. And so, you know, I compliment you on that I'd encourage the next person to you should pass that on to them. And it's been very helpful. So thanks for for participating. Well, I do plan on, on, you know, at at when we have this committee assignment meeting. I'm going to pitch landmarks board as the. As as. As a pretty exciting thing. I think it's it's a valuable and and interesting so, and I hope I hope that next next person provides the same fulfillment for you. Thanks. You should make sure they're a night owl.

[153:04] see? But yeah, I'm like. See what their availability is. Winston Martin. No, I'm kidding no. But I I just wanted to thank Mark so much for his all of his contributions. And he clearly has put a lot of effort and taken his role as an ex officio on this on our board very seriously, and I have really appreciated his partnership over the past year. I guess it's been a year. I don't. It seems seems like not that much time, but appreciate it. Mark. Yeah. Thank you all, and I know you do a lot for boulder overall. So thank you. Anything else. Nope. The meetings adjourned at 8 35 PM. Did I get to hit it? Yeah, yeah.

[154:00] Make.