October 9, 2024 — Landmarks Board Regular Meeting

Transcript

Captions from City of Boulder YouTube recording.

[0:00] I'm oops sorry, Aubrey, do I need to repeat that. It's all good. Yeah, let's just do it. Okay. So now that the meeting's been called to order at 6 0. 1 Pm. A few moments ago, Marcy will review the virtual meeting decorum. Great and perfect. The city has engaged with community members to co-create a vision for productive, meaningful. and inclusive civic conversations. This vision supports physical and emotional safety for community members, staff 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 online through this link. The following are examples of rules of decorum found in the boulder of ice code and other guidelines that support this vision.

[1:00] These will be upheld. During this meeting all remarks and testimony shall be limited to matters related to city business. No participant shall make threats or use other forms of intimidation against any person. obscenities, racial epithets, and other speech and behavior that disrupts or otherwise impedes the ability to conduct the meeting are prohibited. and participants may raise their hand to speak during open comment and public comment. Periods. During hearings individuals must display their whole name before being allowed to speak online. Please use the chat function if you're having trouble changing your name. And Aubrey can help you. And currently only audio testimony is permitted for public comment and open comment. Speakers back to you, Abby. Thank you, Marcy. I want to acknowledge that we have a full quorum tonight with all 5 board members attending. A recording of this meeting will be available in the record archives and on Youtube within 28

[2:02] days of tonight's meeting we're going to do a very brief roll call and introductions. I'm Abby Daniels, the current chair of the Landmarks Board, Chelsea. Hi. Chelsea Castellano Landmarks Board, member. John. I'm John Decker, Landmarks board member. Ronnie. Ronnie Pelucio landmarks Board, member. And Kurt. Hi Kurt Nord back liaison from planning board to landmarks, board. Thank you, and we know. Oh! Pardon. Renee. Oh, my gosh, Renee! The black and white threw me off. I'm a ghost. Oh! Rene Galobek, landmarks, board, member. Renee, I so apologize. No, don't worry about it. We know that some people who are here this evening to participate may have strong emotions about a particular project. We do want to hear from you, but we have found it is more productive if you're speaking to persuade us, rather than berating us, staff or the applicant.

[3:12] as with regular Landmark Board meetings. You may only speak at the appropriate time during the public hearings. Requests to speak outside of those times will be denied. We request that members of the public who wish to speak will let us know by raising your virtual hand. When we get to that portion of the agenda as board chair. I will do a roll call vote on any motions made this evening. The 1st item tonight on the agenda is approval of the September 4th landmarks board meeting. I move that we approve these minutes. Do I have a second. I'll second it. Thank you, John. On a motion by myself, seconded by John. We will do the roll call vote

[4:04] Chelsea. Hi. Job. I. Renee. Hi. Robbie. Hi. And I vote aye. So the board meetings from last month's meeting pass unanimously. Thank you. Now we will do public participation for any items on that are not a public hearing this evening. I believe that Staff is aware of some speakers this evening. I don't know if the applicants from 7 7 7 Broadway are going to speak to us now. And, Aubrey, I don't know if you can see if anyone has raised their hand to participate virtually at this point.

[5:07] Yeah, and just a reminder. If you would like to speak during public comment, please raise your hand, and we will, calling you in order. So 1st we have Lynn Siegel Lynn. I'll allow you to talk, and just give me a moment to get the timer set up all right. Great should be good to go. You know. What goes on here with these demolitions is that there are predatory folks all over town. They're in hedge funds. This is like the mortgage, the mortgage lending crisis of 2,008. It's like real time things that are happening now to bring people out of their houses in into eviction so that they can raise the rent, their rental, backed securities. They buy up whole apartment buildings, many apartment buildings all over boulder. They're private equity investors.

[6:14] There's all these methods and and ways that they can use to game the system to raise the cost of living, to raise the cost of. You know, the the housing crisis and the landmarks board is buying into this like, what happens is when you do a demolition. You're concerned that it isn't cost prohibitive for the developer. You know you have to consider that right. But why do you have to consider that? I mean. Well, I can't talk about 7, 7, 7, but you know 4, 25. That tree went down. I mean, does everyone know this? I called Marcy the other day, and I said, at 4, 25. This is aside from 4, 25, I'll speak later. But the Chloe.

[7:05] the assistant for Carrie Whitman. assured all of us publicly that this tree would be preserved. I was remarking on it, others were, it's a beautiful evergreen. and you know I wasn't saying anything about the house, but it was almost like she was implying the tree would be saved. The house, you know. If you let the house go down we'll save the tree. I went back there on this was on Thursday, at 4 o'clock. I went back there on Sunday on my bike, and that tree was down, and so were 2 others, the one on the west side and 2 others on the east side gone completely gone. That means they had to have taken that tree out on Friday, because they probably don't have tree people working on Saturdays and Sundays. The very day before Steven Tebow's employee has the audacity to tell the landmarks board publicly that that tree is going to be saved.

[8:06] They are. Excuse me flipping you off. This is just unconscionable. This kind of thing is happening. And you know 302 is going to be built into these sky rising condos. And I mean, maybe 302 was ready to go down anyway, 302 Arapahoe. but others are really needed to be preserved. I apologize, Lynn. Your time has expired. Thank you for speaking. Aubrey. Are there other members of the public who indicated they'd like to speak at this point. We do have another hand raised. That is Patrick O'rourke. Patrick. I'll give you permission to talk and then start the timer. Hi, thank you, Aubrey. Patrick O'rourke. I guess I don't have to swear to tell the truth, but I will. A couple of things. Number one is. I sent everybody on the board this afternoon a letter I received, and I'm hoping you'll look at it and and take action on it. It's regarding the National Park Service Advisory Board.

[9:17] and the Boulder County Courthouse. It goes before the National Park Service in December, and it it's dealing with What happened in the 19 seventies, and and the integrity is still in place, and everything about that make a long story short. I noticed that the Governor signed on to it. The county commissioner signed on it to it. the county landmarks staff signed on to it, and I'm hoping the landmarks board for the city of Boulder will go with it, run with it, and then, if you need to deal with it on matters, I would hope you could do it today. I don't know if you'll need to vote on it, and

[10:00] as important is to forward this on to city council, and I'll plan to speak on an open comment. If if the opportunity presents itself to have them deal with it and and sign on to it, it's your opportunity and our opportunity to make a statement that really puts us on the map and keeps us on the map the other one was the other notice was. I just wanted to. thank everybody. I think one or 2 of you showed up for meet the spirits. Historic boulder did our along with the city of Boulder Parks and Recreation Department. We had a joint venture at meet the spirits. We had 950 people join us, so I think that's the most that's ever been there. And we we got really lucky with a with a nice day, and finally and I'll just make my comments because it's not from historic boulder is. Last month you discussed

[11:01] the Chautauqua, and I know historic boulder commented on that. But the city attorney made a a note that in the context, if I remember right, it was in the context that this Board was not to take into consideration other factors, and quite honestly, I disagree, and I'm sure our board our board would disagree with that observation, because it's a national site, and so anything to do with anything outside the perimeter of of the recommendation should be included, and those comments should be taken seriously. Thank you very much, and have a great night. Thank you, Patrick, and congratulations to historic Boulder on such a successful meet. The spirits! I feel like Renee sort of channeling that for us this evening with her black and white screen. But thank you for that, and thank you for forwarding that letter. And, Marcy, I don't know if it would be more appropriate to wait till under matters to discuss if if the landmarks board can send a letter of support. So but I'm thrilled to see that

[12:13] national historic designation move forward on on the Boulder County Courthouse. Okay, Aubrey, I'm going to turn it back to you to see if any additional members of the public would like to speak during public participation for items not on tonight's agenda. Alright if anyone else would like to speak. Please raise your hand now, and if you called in you can Dial Star 9, and it'll show up as your raised hand. so I'll just give it a minute. All right. We do have one. and this person called in. I'm not sure who this is, but I am going to give you permission to talk, and you can let us know.

[13:00] He'll have 3 min. 15154029480: Alright. Hello! This is Seth. 15154029480: You guys hear me. Yes, you sound great. I don't know if you can see the timer. 15154029480: I can't, but I'll just speak here a little bit. Yeah. My name is Seth Seiko, and I'm here with the 7 7 7 Broadway 15154029480: item. I know, Claire. We had coordinated a little bit before the call. 15154029480: and you said that we could share a few items at least points 15154029480: at this point in the meeting. So just just a couple of things. I wanted to highlight here. 15154029480: First.st I wanted to thank the Board's time for touring the property. Last week a couple members from our team was able to spend some time with them. 15154029480: I think I had an enjoyable time just walking through the building. 15154029480: There are a few items raised on that visit, as well as the discussion 15154029480: at the last board meeting 15154029480: we submitted basically a response to a number of those things. I just want to touch on maybe a couple of them here.

[14:06] 15154029480: the memo that we prepared, and I believe Claire had folded on to most of the board. 15154029480: Really kind of try to touch on 5 things here. 15154029480: One was the the deteriorating conditions of the property, which is a criterion. 3. That we did not have any information for the original staff. Memo. 15154029480: There was an item that was highlighted on site that included a sanitary sewer line that ran under the existing 15154029480: Hobart Wagner part of the building. 15154029480: It connects 15154029480: so 2 of the properties adjacent, and I do think it is a substantial concern for us. 15154029480: So in the memo we just provided some more detail on that item. 15154029480: The second was a substantial cost to restore the buildings. 15154029480: There is. 15154029480: roughly, 5 million of costs that would 15154029480: be needed to bring the building up to compliance with accessibility standards.

[15:05] 15154029480: current energy efficiency items, some structural components that would need to be addressed and just overall building systems. 15154029480: So that's detailed in the report 15154029480: items 3 and 4 talk really more about meeting the goals and policies of City Council. 15154029480: As well as the Boulder Valley comprehensive plan. 15154029480: We believe this property is really well positioned in Rh. 5, zoning 15154029480: to really bring more student housing directly to this area, and as the university grows, and as the city grows. 15154029480: we believe this property. Is really well positioned 15154029480: to meet those needs. Additionally, we talked a little bit about some of the example pyramidal roofs that are quintessential to Hobart. I believe we've identified maybe 7 different examples across the city. Most of them are 15154029480: very well preserved or landmarked. 15154029480: And while this building does represent that. We. We don't believe it's

[16:03] 15154029480: a premier example of that. 15154029480: And then, finally, you know, just balancing the associations of some of the persons of interest and the events historically. 15154029480: You know the current property owner. This is a a major asset of theirs, and I think we just have some general concerns about if the landmarking process was to move forward 15154029480: what that may do to the valuation of the property 15154029480: for their sake. 15154029480: So all that is covered in the memo, and we do look forward to meeting with the Board in November. If this is 15154029480: prepared and ready for discussion. So thank you for your time tonight. Thank you, and I think you lost a few seconds at the start. So I let you go a little over, and we did want to have you conclude your thoughts. So thank you so much for joining us tonight. And, Aubrey, I want to give you another opportunity to see if anyone else has joined us that would like to speak.

[17:06] All right, everyone. Last Chance. If you'd like to speak. Just raise your hand. Now. Alright, I think we're okay to move on, Abby. Okay? So we will officially close public participation for non agenda items this evening. and then we will move on to discussion of landmark, alteration and demolition applications issued, and pending. Alright. Thank you, Abby. We have one stay of demolition currently, and that is at 7 7 7 Broadway. Which is a quick reminder, is at the corner of Broadway and 20th Street, and is an application for a full demolition of the building that was constructed as an apartment building in 1957, and then extended by A. Hobart Wagner edition in 1964.

[18:05] The Board's discussion today should not include any conclusions, but should be limited to whether the Board has enough information to schedule a public hearing to take action alternatively, they could continue the stay to explore alternatives to demolition. So a reminder that the Landmarks board held a hearing on September 4th to review the application, and voted to place the stay of demolition. We had a site visit with the applicants last Wednesday on October second, to discuss alternatives. and that included a tour of the property as well as the interior of the building, and Ronnie, Renee and John were able to attend that We also received follow-up information which I forwarded to the board from the applicants that, as Seth said, summarized the site visit and restated their position.

[19:03] It included some written information regarding the location of the city sewer and the cost of restoration. At the site visit we discussed the unique constraints of the building and some options to possibly preserve character defining features. If the entire building couldn't be preserved, and also the odd shape of the site and the setback. This image here is the location of the sanitary sewer which needs to be rerouted. We also discussed the construction of the building and the possible cost of rehabilitation. and the constraints like accessibility. and I, for one, appreciated the willingness of the applicants to to listen to the conversation and consider alternatives and it's pretty clear that they appreciate the significance of the building. But Ronnie, John or Renee. Would you like to add anything.

[20:13] I think it's interesting to note that it was the addition that created the problem over the sewer. The original building was clear of it as probably already existing. it's just an interesting note to what I already knew about the building. other than that. I think we have enough it per per my sense of things. I think we probably have enough information at this point to go ahead with the public hearing. Well and and as you, said, Claire, tonight's a scheduling thing, because we can't take any action tonight other than to hold a hearing in November. Correct, correct.

[21:06] Correct. No, no matter what. And and Renee or Ronnie, I think it's awesome that 3 of you could attend, and our 3 design professionals. Do you have anything you'd like to add about the site, visit. Sure I I can jump in I thought the site visit was very productive, and I think that the applicant team was very gracious in showing us around the building and sharing in very transparent ways what they know about the building and what they admire about it, and then what challenges. It presents as kind of described here, and I think that if the individual's name was Seth that spoke, I'm not sure if that was Seth or somebody else. Yeah, I thought, Seth, what he described was just very accurate. I like John. Feel like I have enough information to move forward and be up for scheduling the

[22:03] hearing in October. If I understand no, in November, I understand that correctly. And I would say that there are some very interesting aspects to this building. Which you really need to see in person in order to understand. A lot of them, are a lot of these qualities and characteristics are interior to the building. In the 1957 component that I thought at a you know, cursory glance looked like the addition was glommed onto, I think, was very sensitively addressed. But I also think that these discussion items that are listed here are very worthy of. you know, future discussion. And I think the African team has really demonstrated knowledge of the building. And you know, efforts to explore ways to incorporate new design and look forward to that meeting. I I feel prepared as well, John. I think we could schedule it.

[23:08] Thank you and, Renee. I don't know if you have anything you would like to share. I really enjoyed the walkthrough. We got to see the inside and the outside, and we got to see a little bit of the gems about the building. So if nothing else, it was quite. And also, you know, the problems with a little bit of the building. But I think, along with John and Ronnie, that it we can do the scheduling meeting, but that's that's the discussion from here, right. Exactly. I think the only thing we, our option tonight is to schedule, and it would be the November 6th meeting. And I understand. There's still room on that agenda. If we we decide to schedule that this evening which it sounds like the 3 of you who had the luxury of of making that site visit are all in agreement. We should do this and and move this this along.

[24:09] I don't know if there's any more comments or anything, or if someone would like to make a motion. And just a note before someone makes a motion. This is just the standard language. If the board wants both options of taking action on the application. Sometimes the board has the motion language a little more narrow, but the standard language is to keep your options open, hold a public hearing, to consider initiation of landmark designation. or alternatively issue the demolition application at the landmarks. Board's November 6th meeting just read it before making a motion. Thank you for that, Marcy, because I think that it's been more in recent years that we've been given that option to have the meeting and the motion read either way. So we really have, you know, 2 decisions that could be made sometimes it's just been to, you know. Consider our designation and so forth. So I really appreciate it. Being written this way personally.

[25:17] I agree. And that being said, if if my colleagues on the board have had a chance to read it, if there is someone who would like to make a motion go for it. I'll make a motion. I move that we hold a public hearing to consider the initiation of landmark designation, or alternatively issue the demolition permit at the landmarks. Board's November 6, th meeting for the building at 777, Broadway. Do we have a second. I second that. Any other discussion or comments before we do a roll call vote. I don't see any raised hands or hear anything. So Chelsea.

[26:04] I. John. I. Renee. Hi. Ronnie. Bye. I vote. Aye, and I apologize, Kurt. I don't know if you had anything you wanted to say at this, but I didn't give you a chance. Oh, no knowing. But I'm sorry that I missed the tour. I would like to see it, but I was away. So yeah, thanks to those who showed up. Thank you, Kurt. So the motion passes unanimously to hold in a hearing on November 6.th That will consider either initiation or issuing the demolition permit. and, Claire, you'll follow up with Seth and and The other applicants. Yeah, I will.

[27:02] Thank you. So now we'll move on to our 1st public hearing for this evening. It's item 5 a. And it's a public hearing. In consideration of an application to demolish an accessory building constructed circa 1940. At 2119, Mariposa Avenue, a non landmarked property older than 50 years old pursuant to section 9, 1123 of the Boulder Revised Code 1981, and under the procedures prescribed by Chapter 1, 3, of quasi judicial hearings of the Boulder Revised Code, and as a reminder, any, the applicants and any members of the public speaking to this tonight will need to be sworn in. And, Marcy, I believe you're doing your staff presentation. I am. Thank you. Let me just pull up my slides. Here.

[28:02] here we go. and to rearrange all my windows. Okay, we got it. Good evening. One change that you'll notice at this meeting is that Staff will also swear or affirm. To tell the truth, I think that was implied before. But we're kind of making it standard across all boards. So I'm Marcie Gerwing, principal planner in planning and development services. and I affirm, to tell the truth in this staff presentation. this quasi-judicial hearing will begin with all speaking to the item we'll swear, swear in in a virtual hearing. We actually do that at the time of each Speaker board members will know any ex parte contacts, so I will pause here, and for any landmarks, board members to know ex parte contacts, and

[29:00] note that this property has been in front of the landmarks board in the recent past. The Board previously reviewed a demo application for the house and garage in January and May of 2023. So, Abby, John, Ronnie, and Chelsea, you all saw this in a different application. and so I will pause in in case there are any ex parte contacts, any site, visits, or conversations any of the Board members have had about this application. The only thing that I had was a site visit that was arranged at the property. And hearing no other ex parte contacts from the other board members, I'll continue the ex parte con process will then go to a staff presentation, followed by board questions.

[30:02] The applicant will then have a chance to present, followed by questions from the board. and then the public hearing is open for comment, followed by board questions. After the last public comment, Speaker is finished the applicant will have a chance to respond to anything that was said. and then the public hearing is closed, and the Board discusses. A motion requires an affirmative vote of at least 3 members to pass motions must state findings, conclusions and a recommendation. And finally, a record of the hearing is available in central records. I will also note that my Internet seems to be a little bit slower tonight. So if my video pauses, or if you have trouble hearing me, please interrupt me so that I don't go on for minutes and minutes into the void. Thank you. Okay. So the purpose for tonight's reviewed is found in 9 1123 of the Boulder Revised Code. and that is to prevent the loss of buildings that may have historic or architectural significance.

[31:04] and it also provides the time necessary to initiate landmark designation or to consider alternatives to the building. The criteria in 9, 1123 is that the Board shall consider and base its decision upon the following criteria, the eligibility of the building for designation as an individual landmark, 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 reasonable projected cost of restoration or repair. In considering the condition of the building and the projected cost as set forth in the in the section. The Board may not consider deterioration caused by unreasonable neglect. The landmarks board has 2 options in front of you this evening. You can either approve the demolition request, and that approval is valid for 180 days, and would expire April 7, th 2025, unless the deconstruction permit was finalized. By then

[32:09] your other option is to place the stay of demolition on the application, in order to provide time to consider alternatives, and that stay would expire February 10th of 2025. As I mentioned, this application was previously reviewed by the Landmarks board in 2023. On January 4, th the landmarks board voted to place a stay of demolition on the application. Finding that the house and garage were potentially eligible for landmark designation, and that it hadn't been demonstrated with the condition or the cost that it would be unfeasible to preserve the buildings. The board made site visits, and in what was a bit of an unusual case the city paid for a structural engineer who

[33:00] who specializes in historic masonry to complete a structural report for the House, and the report was finished in May of 2023. The landmarks board provided additional time, because that report was pending, and what it determined was that the House had a unique method of construction where the house was built as a frame house, and then stone was applied on the outside, and that resulted in structural issues 50 60 years later, and so that was one of the main factors in the landmarks. Board's decision to not take action and not initiate landmark designation, and the deconstruction permit was issued in August of 2023, and the house has since been demolished and the site cleared prior to that initiation. Hearing the owner revised the application to preserve the stone garage. The stone garage doesn't have the same method of construction. It was constructed earlier, and so a few years later, about a year later the owner has returned with a new application for the stone garage.

[34:17] So for this current application the process started in August, when we received a demolition application for the accessory building staff referred the application to the landmarks board. Finding that there was probable cause to believe the building may be eligible for landmark designation. and the fee was paid August 14, th and that brings us to October 9, th for the public hearing. This property is located between 21st and 20 Second Street on Mariposa Avenue, in the inner Urban Park neighborhood. The front of the accessory building faces south onto Mariposa Avenue, and the rear is accessed by Columbine Alley. On the north

[35:03] the property is located mid block between 21st and 20 second, and on the north side the building is a 1 and a half story garage with a square footprint and a gable roof, and the masonry building is faced with local sandstone in an uncoarsed random rubble pattern. The gable roof is wood frame, with shingles on the gable end. and a partially enclosed Carport was constructed sometime between 1955, and 1964 of wood and Cmu block, and is attached to the west side of the garage divided light wood, casement, and horizontal slider windows are located on the east, west and north elevations, and a fixed pane, 2 over 2 window is located in the north gable and double hayloft door is located on the gable on the alley side. According to the records, the house which has since been demolished was constructed between 1936 and 1940,

[36:04] however, the 1949 tax assessor photograph indicates that the building was likely much older than the house, because it appears that it was in a state of disrepair at that time. There are also permits that confirm that repairs were completed around 1949, and those included possibly replacing the doors and the windows on the facade and repairing the mortar between the stone. Moving now to the staff analysis of the criteria, we look again at the eligibility of the building, the relationship of the building to the character of the neighborhood. the reasonable condition of the building, and the reasonable projected cost of restoration or repair. The accessory building is thought to be constructed Pre. 1940, and is associated with Cecil Cox, who likely rehabilitated the accessory building in 1949.

[37:02] He and his wife Mary are associated with multiple working class businesses in Boulder. and in addition, the later family. The Mccormicks were connected to the house for more than 60 years, and likely constructed the addition to the west side of the garage in the late fifties and early sixties. Donald Mccormick was a farmer and gardener at the National Bureau of standards now known as NIST. In 1992, the Boulder survey of historic places surveyed the property and considered the property significant as an example of vernacular, architectural architecture, and notable for its stone construction. Architectural details of the house, moving on to its architectural significance, include its stone construction, moderately pitched front, gable roof, overhanging eaves, shingle, gable end, and divided light windows. The sandstone was likely locally sourced, and the application demonstrates the builder's artistic abilities.

[38:10] Moving on to environmental significance. The property is not located in an identified potential historic district. The accessory building is located at the rear of the lot, which is a typical pattern of development along the alley, and consistent with other residential lots. Although the area has not retained the rural feel of the 19 forties, it does remain residential in character and some features of the 19 fifties development remain in the surrounding area. The surrounding area is eclectic in character, with a wide range of building ages, mostly Post World War, 2 buildings, many of which have been heavily modified. The vernacular construction and use of stone facing identifies this accessory building as one of the older properties in the area, and adds to the character of this block and portion of town.

[39:04] and we didn't receive materials in the application that spoke to the condition of the building, though the owner is here, and will speak to that in her presentation. and we didn't receive information on the projected cost of repair. So with that, Staff's proposed findings are that a stay of demolition for the property is appropriate, based on the criteria. Finding that the accessory building is potentially eligible for individual landmark designation based on its association with Cecil Cox and Cox and Donald Mccormick, and for its architectural significance as a vernacular Masonry accessory building. The property contributes to the character of the neighborhood as an intact representative of the area's past, and that it has not been demonstrated to be impractical or economically unfeasible to rehabilitate the building.

[40:04] So with that staff recommends that the Board adopt the findings in the memorandum and issue a stay of demolition in order to provide time to explore alternatives to demolishing the building. And with that that concludes the staff presentation, and I'm happy to answer any questions the board may have hearing no questions. Hi would ask Aubrey. Oh, go ahead, Chelsea. I have a question. What? Based on the previous application that came through?

[41:01] what is there an assumption that the accessory building has similar issues as the other building. The assumption is no, it does not have the same structural issues that the house does because they were built at different times, and the challenge that the house had was that it was built as a frame house, and then heavy stone was applied to the structure which caused issues over time. And and that's what the Atkinson Nolan structural report concluded. But at the time when we were getting the structural report, they had confirmed, that the garage doesn't have that same method of construction. Okay. Thank you. So, Marcy, I don't see anyone else raising their hands or speaking up so we can invite the applicant. Now I will need to swear you in, and you will have 10 min, as well as an additional opportunity to come back and speak for 3 min after public participation. So is Vanessa with us.

[42:24] She is, and I think Aubrey is. Facilitating that. Okay. Facilitating that. Yes, welcome, Vanessa. And Vanessa. When you start, when your mic is available, to turn off or to unmute. Please do raise your hand and swear to tell the Board the full truth, and state your full name. And, Aubrey, would you mind? Since we can't see you, would you? Just confirm that?

[43:05] You're working on that. and I don't have permission to promote. So, Aubrey, could you just confirm that you are here and working on that?

[44:06] Okay. Got it. Sorry. Okay, Vanessa. I see your name on our screen. Oh, and I see you welcome. Thank you for joining us. And if you will, your 10 min will commence. But will you raise your hand and swear to tell the board the full truth? I swear to tell the Board the full truth. And you may proceed. Hi. thank you for talking to me again. and I'm sorry that I'm having to come back. I am trying to. I have met with several people about fixing up the garage. And my problem, I have a couple of issues. One is that to bring it up to the standards at boulder. The energy efficient standards at boulder wool requires

[45:03] is really really expensive. I mean, the estimates I've gotten are like 200,000. The other issue is that the garage door faces the street. so that would mean the only way to access the garage as a garage is to come through that the whole lot. or to put a garage door in the back of the the alley on the alley side to access. But I haven't met with an engineer, and I don't know how the structure is, but they have told me that when you try to cut into the stone you're sort of. That's a hazard, because I did also talk about putting like French doors out of the side under the carport. And you're sort of taking a risk cutting through. So I think putting a garage door in the back is not an option in the alley side. I don't know how stable it is in the inside. I did send some pictures, and I don't know if y'all have them.

[46:02] But in the inside you can just see one kind of post as your structure holding up the structure in the middle. And and then, if you look at the carport area and she showed some pictures earlier about the carport is it's also, it's sort of being held on a couple of pieces of cinder block and a couple of just unstable over there. There's also where the roof, the metal roof attaches to the old roof is old wood, the roof used to be wood shingles, and so all of the old wood shingles are still there. And so it's It's a awkward transition that you'd have to deal with. So for the most part, my problem is, it's just for a a little

[47:00] tiny structure. just kind of an outrageous amount of money to make it usable. And I guess I if I needed to, I would talk to an engineer or someone. Whether or not I don't know what kind of foundation it's on, and I don't know how stable those rocks are from that picture of the rocks flying down. which I guess I've seen before, but hadn't really thought about, makes me uncomfortable with just the the rocks on the inside and outside. It's just rocks you can see there's like a a thin layer of cement covering them. But it's just the the stones. So that's my my concerns are just and creating an energy, efficient structure that's usable. It's too expensive or too expensive for me, I should say.

[48:00] And do you have? Do you have any more comments at this point? That's all. Okay, before we move to public participation. I want to see if any of the board members have any questions for the applicant at this point. I do? So Vanessa, you talk about like bringing it up to energy code. Were you trying to make it and then you also talk about it being like a garage so like the cost of. Are you wanting it to be more than just the garage? Or are you like? You know what I mean? Are you wanting it more just to ha! To have an auto auto in there like to have it as a garage like an unconditioned space. Are you trying to condition it? I guess that's my question. I don't really believe it's going to be able to be used as a garage

[49:00] because of the fact that well, with a pretty little door. but it's also coming from the from Mariposa. So in order to use as a garage, you're building a full driveway down the side of the lot which is possible. But it's not really. I wouldn't feel like anything somebody wants. I, personally, would rather have like a porch than a driveway the other. So yes, I'd like it to be a space where you could, I mean, I guess if you wanted to hang out, you could hang out, or if you wanted to store stuff. but I would like it to be conditioned, I guess. Is it seems otherwise it's just a a shed. I guess if if it's not gonna be a condition space. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions before we move on to public participation. Okay, not hearing anything or seeing raise hands, we will move on to public comment for this particular agenda. Item, virtual attendees. Please raise your hand or press star 9. If you would like to speak to this item.

[50:14] and then Aubrey will help facilitate anyone who'd like to speak to this. Alright, and if anyone would like to speak, please raise your hand now, and I will promote you. And a reminder to all public speakers, because this is a quasi judicial hearing. I will have to ask you to swear to tell the board the full truth. All right. We have Lynn Siegel 1st with the timer for you. Yeah, I tell the truth, the best as I know it. Yeah, this this one's kind of tricky. I don't feel like I really know enough, or have been able to think enough about this outbuilding. I remember the main house, and I was really divided on it.

[51:03] and and the fact that that stone fireplace and that kind of made it more justifiable. But I kind of intending to want to preserve this this back building and like, couldn't you make the the make it into a nice porch area, and make the door in. Revise the door into something that could be an entrance, and like, have an adu in there. It's just since the main house got taken out. I feel like this little baby needs to be kept. I'm just kind of divided on it. Especially without without having like a technical report. This. And I remember Vanessa, when you went in and showed us the floorboards underneath that were ripped up and like how very difficult it was under there. It looked pretty exposed and clear. But there hasn't been, you know.

[52:07] A structural does, you know, and I know those are expensive. I have the same thing in my house structural thing that could go through my house and tear out walls in my living room, you know, to put the structure for the attic better because it there was an addition. But, I don't know that there's impediments like that here. or specifically, certainly, I'm an ultrasound tech. I'm not, you know, a structural engineer. And I appreciate also the issue of how much money you have to put into something, and I mean I don't envy your positions on the board. Sometimes I feel like, Boy, I'm glad I'm not having to make these decisions. because it's it's hard to determine, like.

[53:01] how much money should something be worth, and is the person that owns it. You know. Justifiable, you know. I really like Vanessa, and I hate to, you know. Say, yeah, your things should be demolished. But this is the little house in the back, and I kind of feel like it should stay there, and it could be something that could work for her with a different door, or or something that makes makes it into a nice living space for someone. because I wouldn't really just want it for storage But I feel like I'd want to think about it some more. I don't know. Banks. Thank you, Lynn. Aubrey, do you see any other additional raised hands. Alright. Let's just give it a couple of seconds. If you would like to speak, you can raise your hand

[54:03] using the raise hand function, and if you called in just Dial Star 9, and it'll show up as a raised hand. And, Lynn, I'm just going to lower your hand for this time being. Alright. I don't think anyone else needs to speak right now, so we can move on. Thank you, Abby. Yeah, thank you, Aubrey and Vanessa. If you would like, you do have an additional 3 min. If there's anything you'd like to add to your previous comments. I don't really have anything to add, I mean, I guess if my questions would come later, if I needed to keep this structure. does the car carport have to stay because it's really really ugly and kind of falling apart. And

[55:00] would the city like give some leeway on making it less energy efficient? I mean. wait standards. Would I have to to work up to? I guess those would be those would be the questions. Okay, thank you for that. and those are some. Those are some very valid questions. I don't know if there's anyone on the board who would like to kick this off. and I can't remember if John, you were at the site visit. I just don't remember. I was at the site, visit. You were. Yeah. And I actually spent a period of time after the visit, speaking with the neighbor who knew a mutual friend, as it were.

[56:00] and it was very interesting. It was a it was kind of a almost gut, wrenching decision on that one. I know what Vanessa has gone through with this at at the time when we visited and Lynn's recollection was correct. The the floor was partly open. Vanessa had in in her good faith, for towards preservation had begun the process and was was some distance into the process. And and it was just. It was costing an extraordinary amount of money, and the engineering evidence that was revealed when she got into it was was beyond daunting. It was. It was a sad situation, because because geometrically and materially, at least, from the exterior. It was a very

[57:07] attractive house that could have been a nice kind of addition to the historic palette or the historic portfolio of the city. But there are just no resources available for situations like this. We've we've encountered this more than once with these buildings from this time period where they were built colloquially. They had marginal foundations which were appropriate at the time they were built. That climate and other changes weren't kind to. And they were built with people thinking, Okay, well, we did it this way last time. We'll try it this way this time. And

[58:00] so things worked sometimes, and they didn't work, and the the frame was stone on. It was not an adequate structural approach. so that being said it was a difficult situation. We ended up letting it go, because there was nothing to be gained by voting designation on a building that nobody had the money to properly put into restored state the the building behind. We looked at that a little bit it but it's an interesting. This is an interesting challenge, because it was made as an accessory structure. It was never really intended to be a conditioned space. It's solid masonry. It's probably a complete energy hog. If you try to heat it as it is. Consequently it's going to have to be

[59:00] completely framed out on the interior and insulated. and and with the current energy code that needs to be a completely closed envelope. top, bottom sides. And so that is going to be an expensive process. I would think. depending on what the what the use with the rest of the site is going to be. It could be treated. maybe, as a shed garage that would be unconditioned. but that's I don't think that's our place to mandate preservation of a structure that doesn't have any real utility. So this is as difficult as the front house. which wasn't necessarily a helpful statement. But that's kind of where we are with this one.

[60:02] Well, John, thank you. Oh, Chris. Thank you and apologies for interrupting. But I just want to protect the record, John. You mentioned that you did you? You did a site visit, and you had a conversation with the neighbor there. Unrelated to the site visit actually. Unrelated to the subject of the hearing that we're in right now. Yeah. Okay. So none of that. It doesn't actually set well, site visits our expert contacts. But it doesn't sound like that. Conversation was. So I just wanted to check on that. Right? Right? No, I I'm yeah. I didn't say that clearly enough. He was. He was. He was Vanessa's neighbor, but he was also there was another person on the other side who had lived in Boulder, another architect that I worked with. He was a friend of. and we talked about that person who's no longer in Boulder. So.

[61:01] Okay. Yep. It was, it was non ex parte to clarify. Thank you. Okay, thanks for clarifying that. And Chris for jumping in on that. If my fellow board members don't mind, I'd like to maybe speak next, because I was on that site visit, and 1st and foremost, Vanessa, I think, went above and beyond to welcome us. Arrange the site. Visit. I think you had to fly back into Boulder to meet with all of us, and and I know that your 1st goal was really to try to preserve it, and I think you you know you went above and beyond as an owner. to really try to save the house and hiring your own structural engineer. And then I know the city hired someone else who has had a lot of experience in historic structures. and and I agree with Lynn Siegel. This one I'm torn on, because I think that one of the reasons based on the information we had when we were just focused on the primary structure because of the withdrawal of the demolition of the accessory structure. One of the reasons that that I think I was persuaded to

[62:18] let the 1st structure go was because we were still going to have this this gem, this little piece of history back there, and I know not looking at what cost would be involved. I knew that there were very creative innovative things that could have been done with the primary structure. I'm sorry with accessory structure. So because of that, and because I'm torn. It tells me that I think a stay of demolition would be appropriate just to take that extra bit of time to explore this before it's it's lost forever. So I, personally will be supporting Staff's recommendation tonight. And that being said, I don't know who on the board would like to speak next.

[63:06] Okay, not everybody at once, Ronnie. Go ahead. I was actually gonna ask Rene if she was up for going next day. Don't know if you're. Please. Great, sure. I mean I have. I wasn't all privy to the beginning conversations about it. I do think it is a little bit of a gem, so I would support the recommendations for the stay. I just feel like, in any case of this building. There could be a way of allowing the building to maybe somewhat stay, or parts of it to stay. That would allow for you know, for us to keep a little part of the history. You know she if you know, I think there's I think there's a little bit of maybe workability to consider what she would like to do with it, and then how to proceed. So sadly, I wasn't on the the 1st half of this project, but I do think that it's a nice little gem, and you know I'm going to follow in line with the other Board members and support staff recommendation.

[64:22] Thank you. So Chelsea or Ronnie. Yeah, I agree with my colleagues. I think that I agree with Staff's report. I think this building is different than the primary structure and its construction type. And I know that some of the challenges of primary structure were directly related to you know the framing and wall assemblies, and that this is more true to a stone constructed building. And it seems that Staff's report, you know. clearly indicates that further review is merited in this case

[65:03] through the form of a stay, and I will vote in agreement with Staff's recommendation. Thank you. Chelsea. Yeah, I think, based on the fact that we don't have any. The applicant didn't provide any supporting materials about the what it would take to bring the building up to a place where it could be used. and that the building is differently constructed from the building that was reviewed. Sounds like several years ago, I think putting a stay makes sense and based on the information in the staff packet. Thank you. And before we would get to, perhaps entertaining a motion. I want to give Kurt an opportunity. If he has anything he'd like to share.

[66:08] Hi, thanks. Yeah. I think that the the Board member comments were quite insightful. I feel that it does have potential eligibility, landmark eligibility under criterion one so if I were voting which I am not, I would vote to the for the stay, just in order to get more information about the possible uses and possible and potential costs of those uses. It. Thank you, Kurt. And I know, Vanessa. You asked some really good questions, and some of those could be addressed during a stay. because I I don't want to get ahead of myself or the board at all. But, for example, you know. we would explore with the Carport need to stay. So I mean the the conversation. During a stay can be very fulsome, and with a lot of creative alternatives explored and solutions.

[67:08] I don't know if the Board has any further comments or discussion, or if there's a board member who would like to make a motion. Make the motion both. I I move that the landmarks board adopt the findings of the staff memorandum, dated October 9, th 2024 and issue a stay of demolition for the accessory building, located at 21 1 9, Mariposa Avenue for a period not to extend 180 days from the day the application was accepted by the city manager in order to explore alternatives to demolishing the building buildings. Renee? Do I have a second. I'll second.

[68:00] Thank you, Ronnie. On a motion by Renee, seconded by Ronnie. We'll do the roll call. Vote Chelsea. Hi. John. I. Renee. Hi. Renee. Did I hear your vote? Aye. Oh, sorry I I apologize if you did say it, and I vote aye. So the motion passes unanimously to place a stay. And, Marcy. I know you will explain the next steps to Vanessa at this point. Yes, thank you, Abby. So the stay of demolition is up to 180 days, so unless the board takes action before then it would expire on February 10, th and what we do next is is schedule a follow up meeting and a site visit, if if possible. We could also hold these meetings over Zoom, though it's always useful to see

[69:04] the building in in person. And so what I would ask the Board to do now is to identify 2 volunteers to represent the board. I see Abby's hand, and considering some of the owners, questions, and architect would be, I think, helpful in understanding potential and creative options for adaptive reuse. And I see John as the second hand, the other Board members are welcome to attend. Those meetings will be publicly noticed, so don't feel like you're missing out Renee, or Ronnie or Chelsea, if you'd like to attend those. But thank you, John and Abby, for volunteering, and Vanessa. Why don't we have a phone call tomorrow, and that we can talk about any other pieces that you might have questions about, and then we will work on scheduling that meeting. So thank you.

[70:00] Okay. Thank you. Thank you, everyone. We'll now move on to the second public hearing this evening. Item, agenda. Item 5 B. This is a public hearing in consideration of an application to demolish a house constructed at night that was built circuit 19 oh 8, at 4, 25, Arapahoe Avenue, a non landmarked property older than 50 years. Pursuant to section 90, 1123 of the Boulder Revised Code, and under the procedures prescribed by Chapter one dash, 3. Quasi judicial hearings of the bold Revised Code, 1981. And, Claire, I believe you're doing this staff presentation. I am. Thank you, Abby. So I'll just quickly go over the quasi judicial hearing procedures again. All speaking to the item will be sworn in which actually includes me. I am Claire Brandt, historic preservation planner, and I affirm that I will tell the truth.

[71:06] After that board members will note any ex parte contacts. I'll give the staff presentation. and the Board may ask questions. The applicant will have 10 min to present to the board, and the Board may ask questions of 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. The Board will then deliberate, and motions will state findings, conclusions, and recommendation. and a record of the hearing is available in a couple of days as a video recording, and as always, the official record will be added to the archive within 28 days, usually much sooner. So the Board has requested that we know who reviewed this previously at Ldrc. And it was reviewed on August 21st by Abby Ronnie and Marcy as the staff member.

[72:02] In addition, Abby and John attended a site visit that was hosted by the applicant. and I will pause for a minute to allow any to allow the Board members to disclose any additional ex party contacts. Okay, I am hearing none. So we're good to move on. So the criteria for Review is outlined in the Boulder Revised Code under 9, 1123. This is a demolition, application, and 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 demolition. The criteria that can be considered are the eligibility of the building for designation as an individual landmark. That's if it has historic or architectural significance.

[73:03] Also the relationship of the building to the character of the neighborhood as an established and definable area. and the reasonable condition of the building and projected cost of restoration or repair. although not deterioration caused by unreasonable and neglect. The options for the Board tonight are to approve the full demolition, or place a stay of demolition. To find alternatives. A stay would not exceed 180 days from the day the review feed was fee was paid so that would expire on February 17, th 2025. So the application process, so far we received the application on August 8, th and due to the age of the building, it was reviewed by the Landmarks Design Review Committee. which referred it to the Landmarks Board for review in a public hearing. Finding that there was probable cause to believe that the building may be eligible for designation as an individual landmark.

[74:06] This is the property. It's located on the north side of Arapahoe Avenue, between 4th and 5th Street. Here's 4.th Here's 5.th This is the property right here. Boulder Creek is at the North property line. and the front of the house faces south on to Arapahoe Avenue. and it's not within the boundaries of an identified potential historic district. The house is a 1 and a half story frame vernacular building, with a hipped roof and overhanging eaves. The facade includes a gable dormer with 2 vertically proportioned double hung windows. and below there is a hipped roof porch with simple square post supports. The dormer and porch are centered within the original part of the building which you can see here.

[75:03] This is the west side. There's a shed roof. with decorative brackets over a side entry door. and a small dormer in the hipped roof above and the southeast corner and east elevation is here. This is a a side gabled roof addition that was constructed around 1981, and this is the rear of the house, which includes part of the hip, the original hip roof here. With that has been modified with a large wall domer in the center and the 1981 edition is behind the tree here to the East. So the oldest records we have of the house are from 1929. Since then the side porch, which is right here, has been removed.

[76:04] as has the brick chimney and the decorative turned porch posts. The. There's an addition added on this side, and it modified the this part of the hipped roof slightly, and the dormer on the east side. Here the building retains very few of its historic materials. The narrow lap siding has been replaced with rough cedar siding, and most of the windows have been replaced. This shows the extent of the addition. The solid blue line indicates the approximate footprint of the original house which we we use this. This is the Site plan from the tax assessor card in approximately 1962. This was drawn and then added the the yellow dotted line, which is the extent of the 1981 modifications.

[77:06] 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. which is outlined in 9, 11, one and 9, 11, 2, and the relationship of the building to the character of the neighborhood, and we use some significance. Criteria that were adopted in 1975 to evaluate buildings in a consistent manner to be eligible. The property only needs to meet one of these significance criteria, but commonly accepted practice is that a building should retain the physical features that allow it to convey that significance. The historic significance is whether the building shows character as part of the characteristics of the community be the site of an event that had an effect upon society, or exemplify the cultural, political, economic, or social heritage of the community

[78:08] and Staff found that the property has an interesting history and is associated with a number of boulders residents. However, we didn't think that it has the integrity needed to convey that significance. The changes to the building diminish the connection between the property and the community's cultural, political, economic, or social heritage. or the general development of the community. Hannah Barker, who, you hopefully have all heard of, 1st platted the area and she's here. Annabella. Annabella Carpenter purchased the lots from her. The land stayed in the the Carpenter family until 19 0. 3, but we could not confirm whether the carpenters built this particular house. The Swan family, who we don't have an image of, lived here from 19 0. 3 until 1919

[79:02] Nettie Swan was disabled and and had her sister live with her to help her out. Her husband, Squire, worked as a miner, and was absent most of the time. So we don't believe that that that the Swan sisters constructed the house, so we believed that they, when they lived there from 19 0, 3 till 1919 they lived in a house that was already there. So there is some confusion about when the house was actually constructed. The tea gardens who are pictured here are probably the the best known boulderites after Hannah Barker. To live here. But they stayed just a couple of years. Myron was police chief and an avid photographer. We have many of his photographs in the Carnegie Library.

[80:03] The house is representative of vernacular residential construction of the general period of time, however, the changes to the building diminish the architectural and aesthetic interest or value. It's not a significant example of architectural styles of the past, and doesn't include any innovative use of material or exemplary craftsmanship to be considered significant. And the house, we found doesn't represent a unique, natural, or man-made environment, and is not located within the boundaries of a potential historic district. Within the context of Hannah Barker's original, 1894 plat, which is here. This area has remained residential with mature trees lining the street and within the properties the area was identified as a potential historic district in 1989, and part of the original plat was is a historic district, but not this particular area, and this house was not identified in that survey.

[81:14] This is an image from 19 0 1. We unfortunately couldn't spot the house on this picture, but the flag is the general area. The surrounding area retains the rural and residential feel of some of the historic character of the Highland lawn neighborhood. plaited by Hannah Buildings in the area reflect the prevailing architectural tastes of turn of the century kind of the 20th century styles, including Queen Anne classic cottage, Edwardian vernacular and hip roof, brick buildings, and while this vernacular hipped roof building adds to the character of the area.

[82:00] it doesn't retain its architectural integrity. The owner, actually, the applicant, submitted some information related to the condition of the building in in a letter from a structural engineer, and the conclusion of this included some details, recommendations for reframing a significant portion of the existing roof, framing for size appropriate roof members, and required insulation recommendations to strengthen the existing upper floor structure for compliance with the current adopted Irc code recommendations for additional beams, posts, and foundation support to properly support the floor and structure above on the 1st floor, and recommendations that a new foundation and retaining walls is recommended for the proper support of the soil in the crawl space. and to prevent further settlement and movement and general foundation repair.

[83:04] The applicant also submitted a geotechnical subsurface exploration report. regarding the construction of a new building. and then the the applicant has not submitted information related to the projected cost of restoration or repair of the building. They did include a statement in the structural report that says, it is our overall conclusion that the building is in poor to satisfactory condition. If any remodeling is to occur. Significant structural revisions will be likely at all levels of the building. Structural repairs and revisions of this type are expensive and often more expensive than demolishing and replacing the structure with a new building built to code with modern building materials. In addition, repair of homes of this type of construction are time consuming, and requires a skilled contractor.

[84:05] staff found that a state of demolition for the property is not appropriate, based on the criteria set forth in section 9, 1123 F. Of the Boulder Revised Code. We found that while the building dates from before 19 0. 8, and is associated with the carpenter, swan, tea, Garden, Clark, Taylor, and Lewis kind of families. The house does not have the integrity needed to convey that significance. The additions to the building diminish the architectural interest or value, and it is not a significant example of architectural styles of the past, and does not include innovative use of material or exemplary craftsmanship to be considered significant. and the house does not represent a unique, natural, or man-made environment, and the loss of the building would not constitute a significant impact on Boulder's historic resources

[85:02] with that staff's recommendation is that the Landmarks board approved demolition application. Finding that the building does not have significance under the criteria set forth in section 9, 1123 F. Of the Boulder Advice Code. So that's the end of the staff presentation. A reminder of the next steps the applicant will have up to 10 min to present to the board, followed by public participation and an opportunity for the applicant to respond to anything that's said. and then board deliberation and a reminder that the board deliberation, the board has the options of considering. If the building has historic significance, and if yes, the Board will place a stay of demolition on the application to provide time to consider alternatives, and if no. the Board will approve the demolition request. So are there any questions for staff before we move on to the applicants. Presentation.

[86:06] I do have a quick question, and I know John and I were both there when you arranged this site. Visit. it does look like that big, beautiful, gorgeous tree has gone from the front. So this is a photo you've taken after you learned of that tree being. Correct. Yeah, and I mean. I know that's not under our purview, but I just wanted to make sure this was a more recent photo. This is a photograph from yesterday. Yeah, thank, you. And Abby, if it's all right just to clarify in case board members have questions, the non-designated demolition section of the code requires review for the removal of buildings, but it doesn't extend to trees on private property. So so

[87:00] yeah, it's it isn't a violation, or it's not in our purview that a tree was taken down. While this demo application has been active. Right. I'm just more commenting on it, and and for my colleagues on the board who didn't attend that. There are wonderful trees in the back, too, again, not under our purview. But it's basically like an an orchard back there that goes all the way back down to Boulder Creek. But I'm more just commenting because I I wanted to verify. This was a brand new photo, and I think yesterday's about us new as we could have. I don't see any other questions. And, Claire, I don't think you see any other questions from board members, so we'll invite the applicant to make a presentation for 10 min. We will need to swear in anyone speaking to this on the applicant team.

[88:14] And Claire. I don't know if you know who from the team might be speaking. If Carrie is here, or. We do have Carrie in the attendees. I think I'll give. We have 2, Carrie Whitman's. I'll give both permission to talk. I'm here. Great. And it can. 3. You just promise, before your 10 min begin to tell the board that swear to tell the Board the full truth, and if anyone else is speaking from your team. You have a combined total of 10 min. Okay? No problem. I didn't give you permission to turn on your video. Would you prefer that. Yeah, I want my video on alright. One moment.

[89:05] Okay. should be good. Where did she go? Interesting? All right. Did that work? Can you guys see me. We can see you and. Oh, we're good! Just a general reminder to to raise your hand and swear to tell us the full truth. Swear to tell you the full truth. Nothing but the truth. There you got it.

[90:04] and I'll just be pretty much presenting. I do have one of my designers on on as well in case there's some questions that maybe I couldn't answer. But do you want to swear her into. I'm here. Okay, go ahead, Chloe. Swear to tell the whole truth. This is Chloe Wang. I swear to tell the whole truth. Thank you. Chloy. Okay, you guys ready? We're ready. Okay. So this house at 4, 25, Arapahoe. My wonderful client lives next door at 4 31 Arapahoe. So this piece of property is to me one of the most amazing pieces of property in Boulder The reason that my client bought it was really to save the greenery and the trees. It is a double lot. And the couple that lived there before

[91:07] we're basically arborists. They they built that whole backyard with it was unbelievable. I showed you guys, some of you on the walkthrough. They had the trees numbered and labeled, and my client was so passionate about it that she was very worried that somebody was going to come in there as a double lot, a builder, and destroy everything that was in that backyard. And so she jumped in and decided to purchase it. She lives at 4, 31 Arapahoe to try to rehab it and use it as part of her property. We didn't know that it was going to be in such bad shape so obviously before we before she purchased it, we went in and did the structural and the plumbing lines. I mean, it's it's it's in in very bad condition. The whole objective was to try to keep it

[92:08] and that was the plan. But it was. I mean it is in very, very bad shape, from no installation to obviously as you. But you've heard from Claire. All of the structural. The plumbing lines to the main line are partially clay, partially metal, and as you go back a little PVC, so the entire main plumbing lines out to the main line. All have to be redone. So we were trying to figure out, what can we do to try to make this work because half of those run under the house, and they all have to be replaced. And again, the reason that she bought this property was for the trees, the greenery. I just want to address the tree in the front yard as well. The tree in the the front yard. The old spruce which we all loved had horrible beetles. We had 2 horticulturists come and look at it.

[93:07] It was having to be cut on the side by the house because it was basically leaning into the house. So the prior owners had cut it all back as far as they could. It had some significant problems with the tree, and and the arborist had like one opening. He came and looked at it in order to take it down. We all did not want to take this tree down. But it it was. There was really no other choice. It was also leaning over the top of the house. and so the plan was, my client wants to obviously replant some trees. So the reason this property was bought was for the trees to save the trees, because any other builder that would have gone in there would have taken out that entire backyard, and all of those trees are being saved. But it had so many beetles that the horticulturist said it was already spreading to the neighbors.

[94:10] And so she made the decision to cut the tree in the front yard. So going back to the structure because of the soils, report the plumbing report. Obviously, no, there's no insulation in the entire house as you saw on the walkthrough the upstairs. The the ceiling is extremely low. My client is tall. and so is her husband. And so it's I just don't know how financially to save this house. it would literally probably be double than building a new house. I've had everybody out there. And so

[95:03] we want to rebuild something that is quaint and cute, close to the same size. There's no modern crazy monstrosity going on there. Sorry, but there's it's it would be a quaint cute as the neighborhood type of help type of home. It will be more of a cottage that contributes to the neighborhood as the house is across the street. I mean a matter of fact, she even looked across the street and said, I want that, you know. Another 19 0, 1 house. So we want to do what we can to keep the little dormers. If there's a way we could save those and take those off and put those back on, because there's so many wonderful things about this house. But I just don't know. I I don't know how to do it. I've had multiple contractors out there. So the goal would be at this point to try to have

[96:02] it demoed. And thank God, she bought the property, so somebody didn't come in and demo every tree out of the backyard, which I believe there's about 60 apples plums. She's got a grapevine. I mean to the point that the new home will be built around a grapevine because she doesn't want to hurt the grapevine so ideally, I'm asking that we get a demo permit, because I don't know another way to go where this isn't going to be extremely expensive. The good news is, we want it to be very quaint and cottage like and small. and because the whole focus on this property is the outdoors so we do want to ideally have a little bit further setback keep the historical character of the neighborhood, keep the integrity of the houses of the neighborhood. The older houses in the neighborhood obviously landmarked or type 50 year old or more houses.

[97:07] So we want to match the historic aesthetics and maintain the architectural characteristics and charisma of charisma of the neighborhood. So we are hoping and praying that we can get this through, because I I honestly don't know what else to do. I mean to the point that the bathrooms aren't really working right now. And we have to start doing the plumbing line and the plumbing line runs underneath the house. So then we would have to actually go into the structure even more, which is extremely unstable, which I did show most of you guys. So. That's it. Sorry? Yeah. I'm not the one who's sharing the screen. I think Claire is sharing our presentation. If you would mind to go down the slides. we're carrying 2 present. Yeah.

[98:01] Oh, yeah. So here, sorry guys, yeah, you're right, Chloe. So this just talks about concerns regarding the foundation on the main floor concerns about the roof structure, and this all came from professionals, and we did submit all of that concerns of the floor structure which, as you know, is about 6 to 10 inches lower in the southwest corner. Keep going, Claire. The soils again. Soils is also a problem. Because like, I said ideally, we wanted to try to keep this house, but then, when we had the soils company come in, and even having to try to structure this foundation in a stronger way. The soil is going to have to be somehow reinvented on the especially the West Side

[99:02] and we're gonna have to add a bunch more soil. The foundation is going to have to be thicker. So at this point I went to my client, who actually did not want to tear this house down and said, I, I can't do this for the budget that we have, because it's I. I don't even know at at some point, even how to structure especially the west side, which is all rock. foundation, that is basically falling down. Can we go to the next one? Sewer. I just spoke to you guys about that about it being clay and steel partially steel, and it's filled with roots. I don't think that sewer has honestly ever been looked at, and we kind of noticed it during the inspection. You know they were like, don't flush the upstairs toilet and the downstairs toilet. So yeah. So there's that. Go ahead, Claire.

[100:02] So overall concerns is that it would be about $800,000 more to keep it and try to make it safe per code per energy standards. So like, I said. Our plan is to align the building setbacks more closely to those of the properties in the neighborhood. While still adhering to the required building codes. This approach will help integrate the new structure harmoniously with its surroundings, Kwi will endeavor and preserve the historic character and proper of the property, to ensure that the new design reflects the original look and integrity of the house and the neighborhood. Time! It's go ahead. Gary, I'm sorry to interrupt, but, according to my timer, the 10 min flew by, but. Oh, sorry! No, go ahead and complete any of your thoughts. I don't know if this was the last slide you had. Yeah, there's that's all that I mean, that's all. I guess I just want to say that the whole, you know, I know people have commented about the tree and the trees. But the whole reason that my client bought this was for the trees.

[101:09] So yeah, we're big environmentalists over here, and also I know, somebody commented. I do not work for Steven Tebow. He is my client, anyway. Go ahead. So, and as you and Chloe probably both know, we will invite you back if for an additional 3 min. If there's anything you'd like to add after public participation. before we do ask for the public to speak. I don't know if any of our board members have any questions for you at this point I'm not seeing, or any raised hands or hearing from anyone. I don't really have a question, but I do want to say that what was great to me about this particular project after Ldrc. It's the 1st time, to my knowledge or my experience

[102:04] with the landmarks board that we actually were able to do a site visit for whoever was able to attend prior to the 1st hearing of this in front of the full board. So I think for me that was invaluable. I think it's great that you arranged that so quickly, and that Staff made it happen. So. Thank you for doing that. And again, one last call before we go to public participation. If anyone on the board has any questions. Okay, I don't see or hear anyone, so we will move on to public comment for this agenda item, and we'll turn to Aubrey to help with this. Virtual attendees may raise your hands. and if you're phoning. If you're joining us by phone, you will press Star 9. Anyone wishing to speak. We will need to swear you at the beginning of your 3 min since. This is quasi judicial.

[103:08] Alright, and I don't have anyone with their hand up quite yet. Let's give it a few seconds. All right. We do have one, Lynn Siegel will be our 1st speaker. and, Lynn. I will start the timer for you. And, Lynn, you know what I'm gonna ask you to do. I swear to tell my truth, and I have a problem with Carrie Whitman telling Chloe to tell us that that tree was going to be saved. I'm sorry I don't believe anything, she said. Today I went through that house. I looked. It looks great to me. So you have to do the new sewer $800,000! That's nothing. My God! Is there nothing new people won't do to wreck Boulder.

[104:00] Hey! Hey! Lynn, Running. I hate to interrupt you. I appreciate your passion, but it the way it's coming over to me on my computer. I feel like you're kind of yelling at us. If you would just tone it down a little bit and continue with your remarks, I'll be sure you don't lose any time. And I will just have to start over the timer. It's called. And. Bye. you don't say that you're going to save a tree. Chloe and other landmarks board members that were there heard the same thing. It wasn't my imagination you said that tree was going to be saved as if well, we're going to save the tree, so let us demolish the house. My God! I can't believe it! I cannot believe the audacity. This is what you said, Chloe.

[105:00] We're going to save that tree. That means that tree was taken down the next day, because this was 4 o'clock on Thursday afternoon. Friday is the only time that tree people are going to tear down something on Sunday I went by in my bike, and that tree was gone. I was stunned when I called Marcy. She was stunned. What do you think you can do. Just say whatever you want. You have to swear. To tell the truth in this landmarks board. That's the truth. I know I heard you say that tree is being saved. that tree is being saved. What don't you get about that? My God! Have you any morals at all? Lynn. I gotta jump in this definitely. A personal attack, you know. We understand and hear what you're saying. and perhaps the applicant. Not an attack. said it. She said it. You're questioning morals and targeting of an individual. And you know.

[106:02] Not targeting anyone. She said that tree would be saved. Split Lynn, if you don't mind. And I think that now, because we added back time Tiers. You can put. Your time is up. You can put new sewer lines in there. You know. What if you came to mind. So. Am I allowed to respond to that or no? Can I. I'll say, Yeah. Yeah, you will, after public comment. Okay, I and and Lynn, you know I do appreciate all you do to follow all the boards throughout Boulder. However, my sense of this is that they got new information after our site visit, and they acted on that. And again, it's not in the landmarks, board purview. Anyway, I was just more curious about it because we we don't have a say say about that, and I think that Carrie shared the information about the Beatles and the fact they were going into neighboring property. I think I now clearly understand again, even when it's a question that really wasn't even fair of me to ask why it was gone. So my guess is this all happened after our site? Visit?

[107:13] Marcy, I don't know if you want to add anything at this point. But let's continue on with public participation for this agenda. Item, Aubrey, I don't know if you see anyone else who would like to speak to this. I'm not seeing anyone else right now. Okay. We'll give it a few moments. All right. I think we are good to move on. We will close public comment for agenda. Item 5 B. And Carrie. This is the moment when you will have 3 min to share anything new, or rebut anything you heard.

[108:02] Yeah. So I don't remember saying that we were saving that tree. I remember saying we were going to try to save the tree, because we knew that the tree had beetles, and Chloe knew. The same thing is we did as I did so we called multiple horticulturists again, this is not my property. This is my client's property we called multiple horticulturists. They came in. We got, I think. I think she got 2 people to try to save the tree. But anyway, that was the decision from the professional, and the neighbor had asked it, too, because the beetles had spread into their yard. Just remember, I put my I tied myself to a train to A, with a chain to a tree on the corner of 7th and Pearl to get them not to cut it down, and it is still standing today because me and 2 other people did it. But anyway so no, yes, I'm sorry if I misled anybody, or we misled anybody. But we were trying the operative word there to save this tree.

[109:08] Because but, thank God, my client bought this property, because now all of the trees in the backyard will be saved, because if a builder would have got this they would not be there. But anyway. And I and one thing I wanted to say, I appreciate you guys so much for coming out and and looking at this property and taking the time and walking through it. It meant a lot to me, and I wanted to thank all of you guys that came and did that from, you know, staff and board. That's really all I have to say. Yeah, go ahead. Can I just say something? I want to apologize if I ever said anything saying Carrie told me to tell everybody we are trying to save that tree. I remember, as I commented, I said, Carrie loves the tree as the client loved the tree. We will try our best to save the greenery. That was the comment I had, and I feel sorry Carrie got attacked and

[110:03] because if I ever mess let anybody for what I said, but that's not we. What we meant. What I meant at least sorry about that. Thanks, Chloe. No, thank you, Chloe, and and I'm sorry that that you both were subjected to that. I you know my sense. When I walked again and again. The trees aren't even under our purview. They were just such an astounding part of that property, and I just knew you guys were going to do your best to save as many of the trees as practical. So that's what I walked away with. But for me it was more an issue of a photo, because you know that that property was so pleasantly obscured by vegetation and things until recent days. So I apologize. That happened. Okay. And, Abby, if if it's okay, I would just like to also step in and and just say it's so important that we uphold the rules during the meeting, and thank you, Abby and Ronnie, for

[111:04] for stepping in. It's not okay to personally attack the applicants or anybody who's speaking. And so Chloe and Carrie, thank you so much for and to the owners for allowing us to make the site visit before the public hearing, and just to reiterate one more time, even though I think everybody is pretty clear that that tree is not protected through this historic preservation program. So I understand that it was the intention of wanting to keep that tree, but once more information was found. It was taken out, and that is not within our purview, and so appreciate Carrie and Chloe. You kind of explaining that, and just wanted to say it is really important that these meetings are respectful and collaborative. So yes. Thanks Marcy.

[112:00] Thank you, Marcy, and I think that what I'll try to take away through what you 2 just had to endure is we'll endeavor to not make this happen again to other applicants to the best of our ability, even if it does require muting a mic during a meeting. So we are bringing this back to the full board. I don't know if there's a board member who would like to kick it off. I know John and I were the only 2 available to attend the site visit on that date and time. But whoever would like to kick this off, please go ahead. I guess I could do it. Having visited it was. It was a very interesting visit. and I think that I was more intrigued by the site than the building. The building is. it's it's kind of a quaint looking presence and

[113:05] the mass and scale of the building fit nicely onto that side of Arapahoe. but I don't think that the character of the building rises to the level that we would want to see to undertake real preservation of this or designation. It doesn't meet the criteria. And so I don't think that this particular project, and in accord with what Staff has already said. I I don't think it's recommended to place a stay at this point, especially since we did get to see it. I've got to make a comment about the tree. Trees are not in our purview. but having a horticultural background. I know that a professional arborist is going to look at a tree.

[114:06] and it's going to make a determination. a professional determination based on the condition of the tree and any infestation, whether it's fungus or some other disease or insect disease that could be spread to the rest of the community because they're acting, not just in the interest of a single tree. but in the interests of the tree stock around there, and if you have certain situations with certain species of trees, conifers get beetles and budworms and other deciduous trees get new newly invasive beetles. If you allow these things to spread, you lose a lot more trees.

[115:01] so I would trust that a professional arborist made the correct decision and acted correctly, and removed the infected wood. and so I do not believe there was any ill intent here. I believe that things were handled correctly and professionally. But, as I said, this project, I don't think, is any further served by a stay. and so I support Staff's recommendation. Thank you, John, who would like to follow. Yeah, I think I can keep my comments pretty short. I also agree with Staff's recommendation. I think that because of the modifications to the House in particular that this building doesn't rise to the merit. I think it has lost a significant amount of its historic integrity.

[116:03] And we'll be voting in concurrent with Staff's recommendation. Thank you, Ronnie Chelsea or Renee Renee. I see you're pointing. Pointing up to the ghost. I want to say that I'll be recommending to be in line with Staff's recommendation. I do want to say that. I am sad that I wasn't able to meet. Get out there to look at the house. I love to see the houses even before, even if it was something that Staff has recommended. And I do want to give, you know, Staff and the board a little bit of props, just, for, you know, putting this all ahead of this, and able to go through such a detailed demolition application so that we could, you know, push it. Not push it through, but allow for a really good

[117:08] allow us to make a good judgment on this property, and and I also want to say for Staff that you know good work in the last. And you know, when people get really heated about these conversations, you know, it's it's it's hard. And you know, Abby and everybody did a really good job. So I just wanna say good work. Thanks. Chelsea. Yeah, I agree with my colleagues and with the staff recommendation. Thank you. And so I have been growing concerned, as the months and years go on at, you know, at some point I'm a little afraid that our preservation program may reach a tipping point where we're losing more than we're saving.

[118:04] And so I really looked at this hard and close. But here's the deal, you guys, because you were willing to arrange a site visit before we even came to the full board. That made a difference in my decision tonight, because otherwise I might have supported a stay of demolition because I was looking at slides or whatever, and I was one of the ones. At that Ldrc. That felt there was probable causes could be eligible for designation. For example, there still is a category the Secretary of Interior standards of non-contributing restorable. But the very fact that Staff and you employ arranged a site visit so quickly before we even had this deliberation begin, made a difference, and I will be supporting Staff's recommendation this evening, and I think kudos to staff for this

[119:05] presentation memorandum and everything. So it sounds like we have a consensus. But I do want to give our planning board liaison a moment if he would like to add anything. Sure, thanks. I don't have much to add. I would agree that this doesn't meet the criteria in the code. I think that probably the strongest argument for it could be made under criteria 2. Which I think is not really used, very much relationship to the character of the neighborhood. since it was a neighborhood that was sort of started, and well, I guess, plotted by Hannah Barker, and and she set the tone for it. But considering all the criteria. I don't think that it needs criteria, so I would agree with your reasoning. Thank you, Kurt. And now, I want to be sure I'm not stifling any more conversation or comments from the board. and if not. I don't know if there's a board member who would like to make a motion.

[120:13] Sure I'll make a motion. Thank you. Chelsea. Okay, I move the Landmarks board adopt the findings of the staff memorandum, dated October 9, th 2024, and approve the application to demolish the building at 4, 25 Arapo Avenue, finding that the building does not have significance under the criteria, set forth in Section 9, 1123 Fbrc. 1981. Do we have a second? I'll second. Thank you. I think I heard Johnny and Ronnie at once. But Johnny, I may have I mean, John, I may have heard you first.st So, on a motion by Chelsea. He's got a second in there somewhere. Yeah. Seconded by John. We'll take the roll call. Vote Chelsea. Hi. Well, John.

[121:00] I. Renee. Bye. Ronnie, Hi! And I vote I. So the motion passes unanimously, and and Claire, I know you'll take a moment to explain what the next steps are for Carrie, although I know she's pretty familiar with our process now. Great. Thank you, Abby. Yep. The the Board has approved the historic preservation demolition request, and we will issue an approval letter. It does expire in a hundred 80 days. And a deconstruction permit must be obtained within those 180 days, or you will need to resubmit the historic preservation demolition request. However, unless there is a dramatic change, our policy is to be consistent with recent decisions. So, and Carrie and Chloe thank you for for your time this evening, and and you have my contact information. If you have any questions.

[122:04] Great thanks, Claire, thanks, everybody. You guys really appreciate your support. And again my personal, sincere apologies to you and Chloe for not stepping in even a few seconds sooner than I did, and and Ronnie for joining me, and and what was going on. So thank you, ladies. No problem. I just had one thing to say on that topic, Chloe, you know I don't know what was said on Site I but I do want to compliment you on your integrity to recognize that there may have been some confusion. and I applaud you, for you know, stating you know what you remember happening in a very clear way and apologizing, although it may not have been necessary. And I respect you, for you know, doing that and just want you to know that sometimes these things happen. I would hate for you to sleep over this. No, thank you for this, that I really appreciate that, and cause I was the one who was representing Carrie women and Carrie women interiors on site that day. So I just want to make clear what I said. So none of the innocent gets attacked like that, even like it's okay. If I said something. But Carrie wasn't there. So that was kind of unfair to me. Yeah. But thank you.

[123:23] Yeah, well, yeah, thank you. Thank you. Thanks, Ronnie. Thank you. Ladies. Appreciate you guys. I'll be seeing you soon, I'm sure. We're sure I'm sure we will. so we're ready to move on to our last hearing of the evening. I want to be sure I'm ready to move forward. I don't know if any board members need a brief break. I don't see any raised hands or hear anyone, so let's let's go ahead and plow forward with public hearing. 5 c.

[124:02] This is a public hearing. Pro. This is a public hearing regarding process improvements for the landmarks, Board and Historic Preservation staff consideration of an administrative rule to expand the types of projects that can be reviewed by staff and consideration of a code amendment to extend the time for initial review and project approval, and Marcy will be doing the staff presentation. All right. Great. Good evening. So this is our final public hearing for the evening. And as Abby mentioned the, it's related to the process improvement that the board and staff has been working on. and the purpose for this item is for the Board to review the community feedback received, related to the administrative rule to expand the types of lac projects that can be reviewed by staff.

[125:00] You have 2 options in front of you tonight, and they have very different outcomes. The 1st one is to make no further changes to the administrative rule and the rule. The rule would go into effect once it's signed by the chair. the city attorney's office and filed with the city clerk, so it would go into effect relatively soon as soon as we could get those signatures. Your second option is to consider it further, and add or remove any of the items that you all decided on last month. and the revised rule would then be reviewed by the city attorney's office again, followed by another newspaper publication and another 15 day public comment period, and then a public hearing to review the comments again. We didn't go too far back in the timeline, but we started working on this, bringing it forward to the board at the August 7th meeting, under matters to confirm the direction you all held a public hearing on September 4, th and then we published the public comment period in September. The code requires 15 days. We did 30, just to give a little bit extra time.

[126:20] and then that brings us to this evening, which is the opportunity to review that feedback just to put it in context. The last time you saw this, it was paired with 2 other items extending the initial review period from 14 days to 21 days, and extending the expiration for Lecs and Demo applications from 180 days to one year. There's no further action for the Board to take on those those are off onto the city council. So just to focus the conversation today, though, we will talk about what we heard if the public feedback for those other 2.

[127:03] So here's the list, the administrative rule that would allow these 20 items to be reviewed at the staff level, and for this sake of a full public record I'm going to read them. It would include projects like structural repairs, sidewalks or driveways, regrading, hardscaping and or retaining walls, fences, patios, decks and or railings, trim and or siding, painting and or paint colors, storm windows and or doors. window rehabilitation skylights, roofing solar panels and or solar battery storage, mechanical units, commercial awnings, signs, lighting gutters, bike racks or e-bike stations, ev chargers and historic preservation residential state tax credits.

[128:00] So your options tonight are to make no further changes or to continue to refine this list. Moving now to what we heard during the community engagement period. So the public hearing was held on September 4, th and then the public notice was published in the Daily camera on September 11.th We included a project or notice about the project in the Pnds Newsletter, which goes out to about 5,000 recipients. And then we sent an email to the last 6 months of Ldrc. Applicants. letting them know that that this change was being considered and that went to about 80 recipients. and then the questionnaire was available. The whole month of September on the Pnds code changes web page. and we formed it in 4 questions. Each question was in the form of a statement, and then we asked, please select the answer that most closely aligns with your opinion. And then the final question was an open field for additional comments.

[129:10] We received 38 responses and breaking those responses down. This is the one that you all are focusing on tonight about the administrative rule. The 1st question was a statement I support expanding the following types of historic preservation projects that may be reviewed by staff. And then we had the full list of project types Of the 36 responses, 61% agreed with the change. 25% strongly agreed, 36% agreed. And then 11% disagreed and 28% strongly disagreed with the change. So the majority agreed with the change. and looking at the comments for those that

[130:03] agreed with the changes, said something like, I'm fine with letting staff review more things, provided a. They are required by ordinance to do so in a timely manner. Ideally, one week definitely no more than 2 weeks, and B. The owner can appeal denials to the Ldrc. And or the Landmarks board. and then, looking at the sample comments from those who disagreed with the change included, I would highly suggest enabling more decision making to happen at the Ldrc level. The Lac process can be prohibitively costly in time and monetary costs, dissuading homeowners from making improvements that would extend the lives of their historic homes or new motivated buyers to move into historic areas and invigorate the neighborhood, I think opening up the projects outlined above. To be handled by city staff is a great 1st step. and then another person, who said they, strongly disagreed with the changes, wrote an open comment. There should be fewer restrictions and more streamlined process, not more restrictions, and a slower process. So I do think there was a bit of confusion, perhaps, in the way that we framed the questionnaire, because it seems like some of the people who disagreed with the changes agreed with the intent or the changes themselves.

[131:26] Going to question. Number 2 is about extending the initial review period from 14 to 21 days this one was more evenly split with 53% agreeing with the change, 47% disagreeing with the change. This extra amount of time is what allows us to take more of these cases at the staff level rather than the Ldrc. And also provides flexibility so that we can schedule the Ldrc. Meetings in the way that's that's most efficient.

[132:00] And then the 3rd question is about extending the approval period from 180 days to one year and an overwhelming 86% of respondents agreed with the change, with only 14% disagreeing with the change. And there weren't any specific comments to these last 2 questions, so I didn't include those in. and the full list of responses is included in the memo. If you, if you'd like to read read those. So here it's a reminder of the process and timeline. If the board makes no further changes, it will go into effect, and we will start scheduling the Ldrcs differently. As soon as we have those last 3 signatures, the code amendments will continue forward on the path. They are with the City Council, 1st reading in November, and the second reading, which will be a public hearing in December. There is a another change that the Board will have the opportunity to discuss, under matters about the Planning Board liaison to the Landmarks board. But that is not this public hearing, but under matters

[133:16] so with that staff recommends that the Board make no further changes and adopt the administrative rule. As written. However, we do have recommended motion language in case there are any last edits that you all would like to make before it goes into effect. With that I'm happy to answer any questions you may have, and then there's not an applicant. So after board questions we'll go to public comment.

[134:01] Hearing no questions. I see Kurt has a question. Thank you. Sure. So 2 questions actually, 1st of all, just to verify these are types of applications that can be reviewed by staff. But staff always has the prerogative to kick them up to a different level right. Yes, yes, and we can. We can either schedule it for an Ldrc meeting to say, you know, we'd like more eyes on this or to, you know, bring it to that format. We still have to do that within the initial review period, which would be 3 weeks or, like the 1st case this evening we we can refer things directly from staff to the landmarks board. Great. Thank you. And second question is, so we have this list of 20 types of applications. Do you have a comprehensive list of

[135:02] all types of applications. In other words. if the Board is trying to think about well, what are there other things that should be in this list? Is there. Is there such a. Is there a list of the things that are go beyond this? 20, I guess, is another way of thinking about. Yeah, it's almost like looking at the flip side like what will stay at the Ldrc. And the Ldrc. Will still be the default for anything, not on this list. And versus we. We did toy with the idea to make staff the default and then define what goes to the Ldrc. But instead, we we stuck with this list, and we did have a more expansive list that was incredibly tedious and would be really hard every time you get a new application to be like, what box does this fit into? But generally the types of projects that I see?

[136:01] being most frequently at the Ldrc, now are additions, window replacement, swimming pools. and front porches. I know that those 4 are are changes that I think really benefit from the collaborative conversation of of multiple viewpoints. But I guarantee you, as soon as this is finalized, we're going to get some application that we didn't think of. And then we're going to have to fit it in. But we did quite a bit of discussion in our staff team, and with the Board in August really trying to brainstorm as many projects as possible. Any other questions from the board.

[137:01] Hearing none. I think we can hand it over to Aubrey for the public comment period. Thank you, Marcy. All right. If you wish to speak on this item, please raise your hand now. and it looks like we have one hand raised. That is Lynn Siegel Lynn you'll have. Oh. Lynn, it looks like your hand went down. Okay and oops, Lynn, I will promote you, and then you'll have 3 min. And I apologize before Lynn starts speaking. Marcy, this is not quasi-judicial, correct.

[138:01] Where is it? Chris, if you. if you wouldn't mind, do we? It is not, it is not not. That's what I thought. But then I didn't want to trust my memory. Okay. This is a it's a public hearing that is not quasijudicial, so people do not need to be sworn. Thank you. No. Sorry. Just one moment. I clicked the wrong button, and I just need to change something. Okay, Lynn, you should be good now. and I'll start the timer for you. Didn't want me as panelist right. Right. I'm sorry about that. Okay, I've started your timer. Yeah. these are all great things to have staff viewing.

[139:03] the Ldrc should not be allowed to put through any kind of demolition just at Ldrc. Without it going to land, to landmarks, board to the full board. and there needs to be a site visit for every demolition the developers own boulder. This cannot continue. because they and and you know, like Kurt sitting here as a ad hoc with the planning board. the planning board and the Landmarks board are very intimately related. because some of these places that are being demoed are being built into multi condo places and being bought up by hedge funders. And

[140:00] you know the people that are doing tax evasions and and evictions. and so that they can raise the rent and private equity investors and rental backed security investors. and it's creating a poor future for boulder. And if you're talking about landmarks in a hundred years, you're going to look back at boulder. And you're going to say this is not a place worth saving, because guess what? You're tearing down the soul of this place with so many demolitions that are unjustified. This last 4, $25800,000. So what for people that wanted to preserve the trees? It wasn't about the trees. It was about a demolition of a house, and they just wanted to include it with their house. So what do they care that the upstairs bedrooms have short ceilings.

[141:13] and what do they care? They? They can leave it the way it is, and rent it out the way it is, and not spend $800,000 to fix it up. I I think that they probably had an interest in renting it out or making you know, using it as an investment. And that's what so many of these cases are about. How much money does it take to fix this to do that, whatever. And unless it's specified, you know, and unless you know how much ability the developer, the person that owns it has to be able to do the stuff, then how can you be in a position to make a judgment on that. Lynn. Thank you. Unfortunately, your time has expired. But thank you.

[142:03] Aubrey. I don't know if you see any additional raised hands, or if anyone has hit Star 9 to call in to speak to us on this. I don't see any hands right now, but let's wait a couple seconds to give people the chance. If you'd like to speak, just raise your hand. All right, Abby. It looks like we're good to go. Thank you, Aubrey, so we will close public comment for agenda. Item 5 c. And bring it back to the board for deliberations. I don't know again. I'm gonna ask if any of my fellow board members if anyone would like to kick this off. Sure I mean I can jump in. You've heard me say this before, but I think this is a great step forward for the program.

[143:03] And I think it's been a really good process to get to this point. I applaud staff for working on this, and I think it aligns with multiple objectives, objectives. And so I plan to vote to move forward with this. Thank you. Chelsea. John. Oh, John, looks like he's ready to speak. Go ahead, John. Sure. I support. I support the recommendation. On this I agree with what Ronnie said. This has been a very positive process, and I think that it is yielding a positive outcome. So I support this, and am going to vote for it without any changes. Thank you.

[144:00] Renee or Chelsea, Chelsea. I see you're unmuted. Go ahead, please. Thanks. Yeah, I am very, very excited to be voting on this tonight. I really appreciate everyone's willingness to hear the concerns that I had a year ago, and work towards finding a solution that I think will really benefit everybody involved, including staff, the board, future board members, applicants. And so I really just think that this is this is going to make the landmarks process better for everyone who who is involved with it. And I you know it's great to see that in the public discourse the the survey that was done, that the majority support this. And then I was reading those comments as well that even the ones who strongly disagreed with having staff review more different types of projects instead of going to Ldrc. Those comments were often about how the process is very difficult as it is so I think there was some confusion about

[145:12] is about this change, making it easier, as opposed to just adding more things that that would be a part of the process. And it is. It's really hard to read a lot of the comments that were submitted. You know, I think there's a lot of room for growth to make historic preservation even more efficient in the future. It's hard to hear folks, really, you know, feeling the pain of this process. So so I think that this is, you know, a simple step that we can do to improve the experience for all of us, and and I would just like to keep us open to continuing to look at the program through that lens of how can we make this the most efficient and effective program

[146:03] while still achieving our ultimate goals. So I'm really excited about it. And I will say the only the only thing that I'm thinking about as we're, you know. It seems like going to vote in favor of this of how do we track success and benchmark success over the next, you know, year or so to see how these changes have improved the process, and just to just to keep note of that, so that if there's more that we can do to reduce the burden of the review process for everybody, that we continue to know what those elements are that we can incorporate into into, you know. Add on to this what we're doing now. And hopefully, we can just continue building from here. Thank you. Thank you. Renee.

[147:03] Okay. Oh, I was trying to find the mute, unmute button. I am thrilled that a lot of these things are gonna be just for staff level. I think that hopefully it will alleviate some of the things for the board. And also, I think that you know that Chelsea's idea of getting people to be on the board. and allowing that to be a broader group of people that want to be on the landmarks board. And so with some of this stuff being to staff level, I think that that will help in making it better. So. I am totally 100% for this, and I think that Staff has done a really good job of putting this together and going through with a fine tooth comb. even though it's like not the most exciting thing that you guys had to do. That I just want to say, thank you, because it really helps us.

[148:02] But the volunteers on the board member, and I know it puts a little bit more on you guys. But I just want to say. thanks for doing that. Thanks, Renee and I will be supporting Staff's recommendation to not make any changes to what was decided in September, and I think there's 2 threads I want to pull on that, Chelsea commented on, is Chelsea. I do think that this is more the beginning and not the end of this. this path to improving things, making it more efficient. And I think the thing I'm kind of bearing in mind the most is that for me it's it's most how it can be better and more efficient for the applicants and members of our community and and staff as well. And I do think that as soon as this is voted on, signatures are done that I think we, as board members, will start seeing a difference very, very quickly at the Ldrc. Agendas. So I just applaud everybody for embracing this and and Chelsea, you know you for just kicking off this conversation, but I I don't think we're necessarily done. I think this is the beginning

[149:18] of that path to making everything more efficient, more friendly, you know, easier, more less cumbersome from everybody who's involved. And who cares about, you know preserving boulder. So I think this is great. I think this is a a i think. Ronnie touched on this at our last meeting. I think this is is a a banner accomplishment, even though there's always ways to continue to improve and make things even better. So with that. If there's no more discussion about the threshold, question is whether we want to make any changes to the recommendations. Do we have a board member who'd like to make a motion.

[150:02] Oh, wait! I'm sorry, guys, Kurt. I want to give you an opportunity. If you have anything to add before we vote. Oh, thanks, I don't have much to add. I agree with all the statements by the Board members. I will just commend the city, or at least planning and development services more broadly. which I think has been making a really concerted effort to improve efficiency of a number of processes that will improve things for both, for for the applicants, for staff, and also for for board members on various boards and planning board. We've recently reviewed and approved a number of changes to ordinances, to again, to simplify, to streamline processes without, I think, losing any quality. just just making things happen faster, which is always, I think, a good goal. So I just appreciate that Pnds has been doing this more broadly and and particularly in the landmarks. So thank you.

[151:10] Thank you so much. So would someone like to make a motion phone. I will! Oh. well, actually Chelsea. Yeah, I was. Go for it, Joe. I should make it. I'm gonna okay? I moved the landmarks board. I almost read the wrong 1. 0, yeah, wait. Okay, I move the Landmarks Board not make further revisions to the administrative role rule included as Attachment B. And adopted by the Landmarks board on September 4th 2024 to expand the types of projects that may be reviewed by staff. And, you guys, I'm going to jump in and second it. So on a motion by Chelsea, seconded by me. we'll do our roll call. Vote Chelsea.

[152:00] Hi. John. Hi. Renee. Hi. Ronnie. Hi. And I vote I so the motion carries unanimously. So well done, everybody. This is very, very exciting, and just just to clear up any misconception staff is fully supportive of this. This is the biggest change to the Ldrc. In 50 years. and I think it will have a positive impact on not just the board and owners and applicants and staff. But I think the program, you know, in the department as a whole and really appreciate Kurt, you recognizing the process improvements across the department? We've been going through quite a bit of a cultural change over the last 5 years, and there's been a ton of work on the kind of behind the scenes you get to see some of it through code amendments. But this this goal to streamline, standardize, and simplify where we can, without losing the quality, so

[153:12] appreciate, appreciate that comment and and an appreciation for Chelsea for being the the gasoline in this one. And really, you know, getting it started. And I think sometimes that is what it takes to make structural, meaningful changes. So kudos to all of you. And I'm very excited about this next chapter in the program. Yeah. okay. So on to matters Marcy. Onto matters. Okay? So we are going a little bit out of order on this. So I'll give you a preview of what's under matters. There's a training coming up for chairs and vice chairs. We're going to ask you about rescheduling the January meeting because it falls on the 1st of the year.

[154:04] We'd also like to talk about what one of the public comment speakers said at the beginning of the meeting about a letter of support for the Boulder County Courthouse, and then but what I'm going to start with right now is a proposed code amendment to amend the code, to remove the planning board ex officio position from the landmarks board. and this proposed change came about as part of this conversation to say, You know what is the volunteer board time that we're asking for the landmarks board. There's a larger boards and commissions study that was done that I think we'll see changes over the years that led us to say, Well, is now the time to look at. Why was the planning board ex officio position added in the 1st place? And is it still serving, serving that that purpose. So

[155:04] I went back into the minutes from the City Council meeting in 1975, and there was a desire from council at that time for the planning board and the newly formed landmarks Preservation Advisory Board to be integrated, and it was added, as part of the original makeup of the board. There are actually 2 ex officio members in the very beginning. and the intention was to help the landmarks Board navigate the quasi-judicial process as a new board, but also have this integration. Between the related efforts there was even an idea floated that the planning board would just assume all the roles all the new responsibilities in the historic preservation code, but very quickly said, they already have enough on their plate. Another interesting tidbit is that one of the Council members said we should let the new landmarks Preservation Advisory Board members know that when they're appointed we might disband the Board after their work is done, and it kind of sounded like they implied that the whole preservation work in Boulder would be finished in 5 years, so that would have been 1980.

[156:19] So 50 years later, here we are. The Landmarks board is fully established. For the last 50 years the Planning Board has appointed an ex officio member to serve on the board and over the last 5 decades the the Board has developed significant expertise and institutional support from dedicated staff, making the ex officio role less necessary. So the proposed change that we'll be taking forward to City Council is to amend the Boulder Revised Code to remove the ex officio position. From the Landmarks board composition

[157:01] we looked back at a rough calculation, and in 2024 it's estimated that the Planning Board Liaison volunteers an additional 58 HA year to prepare for about 12 h, and attend the landmarks. Board meetings about 36 h, attend site visits about 2 h, and the Landmarks Board retreats 8 h. and so removing the ex officio position from the board, would represent a significant reduction in the volunteer time commitment for that planning board member. And then considerations is that integration will continue to occur through the site review process that's baked into the process for the larger scale projects that have historic resources on them, and additional collaboration could occur through other venues, including joint meetings or tours as planned in the future. So that's what I have to tee up the conversation. We're not asking for a formal vote or recommendation from the Board, but because it impacts you

[158:06] as a board, and it impacts Kurt as an individual. We wanted to bring it to you all under matters and hear your thoughts, and then we'll include those in the city council. Memos. Going forward. I'll just say that we almost always end our landmarks, board meetings after like after 9. So I think that 36 h is even and underestimate. So oh, yeah. Curious what Kurt has to say. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. 1st of all, I will start by saying that I always enjoy being in meetings with you guys. I have

[159:03] learned a tremendous tremendous amount from participating in these in these board meetings. It's always a delight to be able to hear your discussions and and be involved a little bit. It's better when it's in person than on the screen, but even on the screen it's informative and and beneficial to me. However, I strongly support this. It's a recommendation that I made, although I think it was already in process when I made the recommendation. It just feels like. I mean, you guys are way ahead of any of us in terms of of actual historic preservation consideration. And I was surprised to learn that actually, the the initial justification was to it was less about planning and more about informing the Board about quasi-judicial procedure, and I will be honest. The landmarks board does a much better job with quasi-judicial procedure than the planning board ever does.

[160:12] So definitely don't need any training from any of us on that. I think that, you know. Occasionally there may be planning related issues that come up. but it is so rare that that anything really relates directly to planning on on landmarks board that it just doesn't. To me it doesn't make sense to have this be a standard position, an ex officio position, as was mentioned. I think that there can be special arrangements made at various times for representation either way, either from planning board to landmarks board, or I would actually like to see more representation when possible, from landmarks board to planning board. In recent weeks we considered

[161:02] the project that involves the Mecca building, which I know you guys looked at. And then, just last night, we looked at the project that 14th and spruce the what is that southeast corner of 14th and spruce that landmarks board considered in a meeting that I was at a few months ago. The Rooftop addition to that project, and those are the in both of those there have been questions raised about historic preservation, about the landmarks, board decision, and so on. And so I hope that some sort of mechanism is provided for allowing that kind of representation. When when those kinds of issues are coming before planning board, they're involved historic preservation issues. But in some I think that this is again, it's a sensible simplification basically. And and efficiency improvement in the process for everyone.

[162:02] And so I am strongly supportive. Kurt, can I ask you a question? What was, or is planning Board's expectation of you at planning board meetings? Sharing content of of what's happening at your role here at the landmarks board. Honestly, there is 0 expectation. I guess I would. I I would say. In the discussion last night about the 14th and spruce project. There was a question about materiality of the addition, and I was able to just relate that materiality was a sizable topic of the discussion by the landmarks board. But there was, I would say, there's really no expectation. It's not like I'm giving any kind of regular report on what

[163:01] land export is doing, or the processes, or anything like that. Does that answer your question? It does. Yep. Cool. So I'd like to jump in if if my fellow Board members don't mind. And you know Marcy had had shared this proposed code amendment, and over the years, whether attending landmarks, board meetings, or now serving on the board, I do feel a sense of loss for all I have learned, and all these thought provoking comments that the liaisons over the years have shared with us. So I've always felt that you have you as a liaison, Kurt, and people prior to you have brought so much to us, and has been beneficial to look through a different prism or get a different vantage point. So I've always appreciated that. But then, looking at what we just voted on it for our last public hearing in the spirit of efficiency, and you know the most precious commodity we have left, I think, is time and free time. And so I do think, in the spirit of that, that this makes perfect sense, and and I would. You know I support it moving forward because I know how.

[164:20] how, how little time sometimes we really have for things like this. I do think it's important that I don't know that it needs to be formal. But if there could be a way where the planning board could reach out to staff, saying, Hey, it might be helpful if a landmarks board member, or whoever is the chair whatever could attend this upcoming meeting. Just if there's any question about this, because, you know, I would be happy to do that when and if I were able for a planning board it. It always struck me as interesting that we had a lead liaison to planning board, but we did not have a landmarks board liaison to planning board, so I think there are probably occasions when input from one of the planning board

[165:03] members might be helpful or valuable, and just give us a chance to see how the planning board comes to your own decision making. I do feel like there's going to be a little loss, but I think it's the right thing to do at this time, and I think what's most illuminating for me was Marcy you doing that history about? Why, after the preservation ordinance was passed in 19 in 1974, this fledgling board. Why, that was put in place. So for me, that's the most illuminating. It gives the context to wait. You know, why is this happening, and so I think now is the time. As we move forward to Streamline and make our process simpler. I fully support this even acknowledging a loss. Okay. I'm gonna jump in there. I think it's interesting that that Abby spoke and said

[166:05] a lot of the things that I was sitting here thinking I was wanting to say. I think it. It's an interesting. I guess it has always proved very interesting to me. as Abby said, the things that our ex officio members have brought into our meetings. and it has in me at least, it has always fueled a thought that I would like to see more interchange between some of the various boards at the city. I see a lot of their action related. Landmarks board, in particular, has a very sharply defined, limit to its action and purview. and we at the same time see things that cut through layers and layers of different issues.

[167:03] and we are only able to deal with or comment on this kind of singular thread that we're given. Planning board sits in a position where they have a much broader view. I believe, and have a much broader purview in that they see all of the layers, and get to comment as appropriate on all of them, and consider all the factors ideally in the decisions they make. So it's always been beneficial to me to get the benefit of that kind of level, of of action in our actions. At the same time, I support this because this is one of those examples of a law that was put on the books in this case 50 years ago. That was put on the books to deal with a particular situation

[168:05] that no longer really exists. We, I believe, do understand quasi-judicial and legislative action and the differences between them, and apply it correctly in our proceedings. And we don't need the the overview anymore. But, as I said, if there's some way that we could maintain the benefit. the baby was out the bath water that would be great. I don't know if any other board members have anything they want to react to with this proposed code amendment.

[169:05] I do agree with you, Chelsea. I'm horrible at math, but I think the 36 h of our meetings is a little low. So, Marcy, what are next steps? You just provide feedback. You've heard this evening. Yes, so thank you for your comments, and we'll summarize them in the council. Memos. It might just be as short as the landmarks board and planning board support the change, and so the Code Amendment would be folded in with the other 2 code amendments and go to City Council. I think it's November 21st and December 19, th somewhere around there, and if it's adopted, if the code is amended, then that change would probably go into effect for the January meeting, so don't go anywhere, Kurt. In the meantime

[170:12] this is just rolling down the tracks. But but it wouldn't go into effect until City Council votes on it. But you know I would just also echo. I've learned so much. I think, Kurt, you and Mark and Laura have been just exceptionally engaged and engaging on the board in your ex officio roles, and I think it's a it's a loss, and also move in the direction of streamlining, simplifying things as well, so we'll take it to council next. Thank you, and I'll pass that on to Mark and Laura. Yeah, thank you. Okay, so we have a couple other things under matters. And the 1st is something we learned about today. And it's coming up kind of quickly in a few weeks, or I guess, yeah, 3 weeks.

[171:12] There is a board chair and vice chair training, and but it's open to anyone who might consider being the chair in the future, or has an interest in learning more. And so you're invited. If you're interested in meeting facilitation, productive atmospheres and inclusive participation, handling disruptions, media relations, relationships with staff and council intergovernmental policy. And it sounds like a really wonderful training. So if you're interested reach out to Aubrey. It's on Tuesday. It's for board members. It's on Tuesday, October 29, th from 4 to 6 30 pm. And it's virtual only over zoom.

[172:04] So mark your calendars. If you're interested, and reach out to Aubrey. Moving on to the next calendar piece, we would like to reschedule the January 2025 meeting because it it lands on January first.st So we would like to propose January 8, th and everybody doesn't need to get out their calendars. It's a little bit away, but we are seeing quite a few projects coming in, and quite a few landmarks. Board projects. So the the next few agendas in November, December. We're already scheduling out to January, and there's a very slight chance that we may need to hold a special meeting in November. If we can't manage the agenda. We we really try and keep them to 3 cases an agenda. I think 4

[173:03] goes for a really long agenda, but we're doing our best. It's a bit reactive, based on the applications that are coming in. So we will ask you all through an email about your calendars, but I wanted to to float the idea of not having a landmarks board meeting on January first, st and then next. We'll move to the letter of support for the Boulder County Courthouse nomination, and very grateful for Patrick bringing that up, because it's something that we get notified on to say, here's your opportunity to comment. But then the there are so many other things, so very exciting news, that the Boulder County Courthouse is being nominated as a national historic landmark. That's the highest designation in the country. Chautauqua is is one of them. There's, I think, less than 30 sites still in Colorado.

[174:05] and it's being nominated for Clela Rorick's issuing the 1st same-sex marriage licenses, I think. In 1974, I had the opportunity to hear Clela speak at the State Review Board meeting a couple years ago, when the Boulder County Courthouse was nominated on the National Register for her role, and it was incredibly moving, you know, hearing a hearing it firsthand was was incredible, and something we can be incredibly proud about. So if you would like, then either staff can prepare a letter of support, or it could come from the landmarks board, and I can follow up with the timing on that. I think it will go to the National Park Service in December, and so. you know, we have some time, but but it goes fast. So the question to you all is, would you all like to write a letter of support

[175:07] for the Boulder County Courthouse nomination as a national historic landmark. And then the second part of that question is, if so, would you like to write it, or would you like Staff to write it? I would love to. See a letter of support. Go ahead, John. I was. This is Ronnie, I was saying. For Ronnie's fine. Ronnie. Do you have any thoughts? If it I mean I and I don't know what Staff thinks I mean my knee jerk reaction is, I would love for it to come from the landmarks board. And, Ronnie, I don't know if you have any thoughts about that. You know. That's I could see either us or staff writing it. I know that Staff is well versed on this topic, and I am confident that they would write an outstanding letter.

[176:05] But I think that if we have interest in writing it, I would also, you know, support that effort, as the Board. Yeah, I agree with that. What the timeline is. I was just looking that up, because I don't know off the top of my head. Yeah, it'd have to happen pretty quickly. I I just think that that we need to be very careful, like with the council letters that it be written with a singular voice, even though it's coming from a group. And one way that helps that happen is if input is given to a single writer. They! Undertake to do the the drafting

[177:01] and if that were staff it could work that way. But it it's just that. That's the only caution is that we we don't want to. Trying to make. Kind of a survey letter with everybody taking a pass at it. Necessarily it would be something that is best written from a single voice that has collected the whole of all of our thoughts. so. Marcy, are you concerned about staff having the the time and energy to do it? No, I think it's wonderful if it comes from the landmarks board in your own voice, and then the plan B. Would be to have staff write it. I think the most important thing is, if the Board wants to voice support for it that we make it happen. But I know that we could write a letter

[178:00] within a week or so. We could also draft a letter and then send it to the board. But there's a lot of institutional knowledge in this group about the challenge of writing letters together. So I would take those lessons and have one person be the point person. And you know, it's not as complex as a council letter where you're trying to convey where the board is and what your priorities is. It's really, you know, expressing support for recognition of this place, which I think is a bit more straightforward than an annual letter. Is it? Did you say that? The so what does Clara Rorix like is. how is she? Her history involved in the

[179:00] landmarking. Is it just basically part of the history of the site, or sorry? I don't know if I heard that correctly. Yeah, no, I I I don't know if I have all the history in a nutshell yet, but the Boulder County Courthouse was the site of either the 1st same-sex marriage license licenses issued in the United States, or one of the first.st I think it was the very first, st and it was a relatively young county clerk named Clela Rorex, who issued those those licenses, and then the courts challenged it and required them to stop, and those those 1st licenses were never revoked. But it's a pretty, you know. critical site in terms of Lgbtq. History in America happened here on Pearl Street. Yeah, no, I I know that. But is that the

[180:01] is that the main like component of the landmarking? Or is it the building itself, or just trying to understand. Yeah, it is, for it is, for as the site of. Oh, okay. Issuing those. So it's already. Whoa! Designated as a historic district and a landmark. But it's being nominated to the highest level because of the historic event that happened there. Okay, that makes so much sense. Thank you. Yeah, I I love Clela's story. It's such an amazing story. And she is honestly such a hero of mine, and I think it's so easy to look back in time and say, Oh, she had so much courage! But the people of Boulder County literally came after her so hard that she had to quit her job because she issued those licenses. And I think it's just such a reminder that oftentimes what is unpopular at the time we look back on as being the right thing to do. And I just I think she's yeah just such a hero in this world. So I guess she's no longer in this world, but such a hero in our community.

[181:12] And I'm excited that this is happening. And I I think it probably is easiest if Staff just do it unless somebody else wants to take the lead. If we have one person who wants to take the lead and write it for staff. I don't see any board members raising their hands to to do this. although, hey? And I want to give a shout out to Patrick O'rourke for always being on top of things, and bringing this to this, and suggesting that we we do this as part of the application. So it it may be, and again, we don't know the exact time frame, so it may be simplest.

[182:01] This is going to be our new mantra to see if Staff could do it? Or what would you guys think? Would Marcy would Staff be willing to draft a letter and send it to the board? Sure. Yeah. And then maybe ask for comments within a week or something. I I've just forwarded the the information that we have to you all, so you can read the nomination. I did have the chance to review the nomination when it was in draft form. It's very thorough. so you all have a chance to to read it, and then we'll draft a letter, send it out to the full board, and then ask for comments within. A, you know, kind of short period of time, and then send it on, and it sounds like the meeting is on December 10.th So I'll get clarity on when letters are due. but it sounds like we have almost 2 months.

[183:03] And and even if if stop takes the lead on this, I would think there was a way to say that you know, at the request of the landmarks board or along landmarks board. You know. Yeah, sorry I didn't make that clear. I would offer to write it on behalf of the Landmarks board come from the board. Maybe it would be useful if the Board voted a resolution of support for the process. and that would become kind of an okay. I think you're not allowed to take action on matters items not to be a stickler. But I'm here. No, no, I'm not. Of course. Yeah. Do it tonight. But. Okay. In in proper forum. We we were to do that. But and the next meeting is November 6, th so I don't know if that would allow enough time, Marcy, or.

[184:00] Honestly, the the easiest thing would be is if we did a letter of support, and I think that that would be meaningful. Scheduling another item for November to reinforce support, for it would be a lot of work for the same outcome. So if you're all okay with it, we'll get started on a letter and then circulate it to the board, and then welcome any comments, and then we'll make sure we get it to Washington by the deadline. Cool. Awesome. Thank you so much. Yeah. Let's see, I think I've covered everything on here. And the only thing I would add is just maybe a quick debrief, which is the thing on the next thing. But I really appreciate Abby and Ronnie. How you handled the public comment in the second item, and

[185:04] we like that is supposed to come from the chair and from the board and staff doesn't have the same ability to to do that in a way that doesn't impinge on on 1st amendment rights and free speech. So just to reinforce like you're empowered to do that, I thought you you all handled it really well, and just really appreciated the way that you took the you you stood up for what was right. So thank you. Well, I regret not interrupting immediately, and then and maybe Chris can remind me we can ask for a mic to be muted correct. You can depending on the circumstances. Okay. Something that you have to be very careful about.

[186:00] Right. Want to stifle free speech. But if someone is alright. essentially just disrupting to the the meeting, to the point that it can't occur or is using hate, speech or foul language, they can be muted if somebody's speaking during public comment about things that aren't related to the topic of the hearing, then they they could be muted. But yes, the the power of of muting someone exists. But we do have to exercise that very carefully. Okay? And and I think what was interesting to me is that I sometimes feel differently if something's directed towards me personally, or or kind of a general philosophical thing. But but I think what Ronnie hit the nail on the head is. It was a personal attack towards applicants, and I think that's what really really crossed over the line for me.

[187:01] You know. I'd be willing to take more. I would. What anyone would say to me. I would try to find a way to handle it, but it was the fact that we had applicants in front of us that I thought were being very unfairly treated. And it sounds oh, sorry! Go ahead. I was just gonna say, yeah, that's that's tough, like, I believe that Lynn, is well intentioned in her effort to you know the call out something that she saw that she thought was misrepresented, or someone lying and so. you know, it's a really. it's really hard needle to thread. I believe that bringing the applicants, and Chloe in particular in this case, is like morals into question. Is

[188:00] crossing that line, and particularly hurtful and targeted And so. you know, I don't want to discourage Lynn from helping us with our collective efforts in the city or with our this program. I also just, you know, I don't know if Lynn's still on, but I also just wanted to let her know that that to me is an aspect of what was being said, that. yeah, I think we would all prefer to to have not present at the meetings, because I don't think it follows like the the agreements that we have made. The culture that we, you know, hope to foster. I I think that it's isn't productive. And so, Lynn, if you're still there. That was my perspective on it.

[189:03] And and I do agree with you, Ronnie. I think the time and effort Lynn spends being so engaged with so many boards and so many things in the city, and and Lynn will sometimes say things that I just like a thousand percent, agree with, or is a point that is very valuable for me to hear, but I do think this one was was just one time it went over the line. So thank you, Ronnie, for helping navigate that. So, guys, is there anything else? from the board? I think Staff has concluded their matters. I don't know if there's anything else from the board. and if not, the meeting is adjourned at 9 11 PM. Hi! Everyone. Thank you. Bye. Bye. Good night. Feature.

[190:05] Hi! Everyone.