February 5, 2025 — Landmarks Board Regular Meeting

Transcript

Captions from City of Boulder YouTube recording.

[0:02] Alright. The February Landmarks Board meeting is called to order. Welcome to the February 5, th 2025 Landmarks board meeting. It is 6 0. 2 Pm. The 1st item tonight is, Marcy will review the virtual meeting decorum. All right, thank you. And good evening. The city has engaged with community members to co-create a vision for productive, meaningful, and inclusive civic conversations. This vision supports physical and emotional safety for community members, staff and board and commission members as well as democracy. For people of all ages, identities, lived experiences and political perspectives. More about this vision and the project's community engagement process can be found online. The following are examples of rules of decorum found in the Boulder revise code and other guidelines that support this vision. They will be upheld at this meeting.

[1:03] all remarks and testimony shall be limited to matters related to city business. No participant shall make threats or use other forms of intimidation against any person. obscenity, racial epithets, or other speech and behavior that disrupts or otherwise impedes the ability to conduct the meeting are prohibited. and participants may raise their hand to speak during open comment and public comment periods. During hearings, individuals must display their whole name before being allowed to speak online. And currently only audio testimony is permitted online back to you, Abby. Thank you, Marcy. I do want to acknowledge that we have a quorum this evening, and we have one more board member who's just a moment or 2 away from joining us up here. A recording of this meeting will be available in the archives and on Youtube. Within 28 days of this meeting we'll do a real quick roll call and introductions of the 3 of us already here.

[2:02] Ronnie Pelucio, Landmarks Board, Member John Decker, landmarks board member, and I'm Abby Daniels, the current chair of the board. We know that there may be people here tonight who are participating either in person or virtually that may have strong emotions about a particular topic. We want to hear from you, but we have found it more productive. If you're speaking to persuade us, rather than berating us, staff or the applicant. As with regular landmark board meetings, you may only speak at the appropriate time during the public hearing requests to do so outside of those times will be denied. We request that members of the public who are here, who wish to speak in person, sign up using the sheet that Aubrey has over here, and virtual participants will follow any people in person speaking, and will indicate their interest in addressing us tonight by raising their virtual hand

[3:00] as board chair. I will call for a roll call vote for any motions made this evening. Our 1st agenda item is the approval of the January 2025 board minute meet minutes. Do we have any changes or alterations to them? Seeing or hearing none. I move that we approve those minutes, do we have a second? I'll second. So on a motion by myself, seconded by John, we'll take a roll call. Vote, John. Aye, Ronnie, aye, and I vote aye. So the minute meetings are passed, and Chelsea, who will be joining us soon, did not attend that meeting. so she wouldn't have voted anyway. So next we'll move on to public participation for non agenda items. We do have one public hearing tonight, and you'll have an opportunity to have public comments during that public hearing. So I'll look to Aubrey to see if any members have said that they are interested

[4:14] in speaking to us. All right. We do have some hand raised virtual, some raised hands virtually, but we do have 2 in-person speakers, so we will start with our in-person commenters and then move to virtual. So, starting with Leonard Siegel, followed by Catherine Barth. Okay. And and now we do have our board member, I told you, was just seconds away. Chelsea. Would you be kind enough? I'll turn it off. Hi Chelsea Castellano Board member. But I'm glad you're here before any public comment is made, and this is also the time for those of you who joined us last month. Virtually this is also a time where you can praise Ronnie at his penultimate meeting here on the board, as we will lose him at the end of March, on the landmarks board. So, Leonard, please go ahead. State your full name for the record, and your 3 min will begin.

[5:13] Let me steal. I'm speaking on behalf of Missouri holder today. Sure, right. I want to speak on a few subjects. Sorry. Okay. Now you can hear me. And so historic Boulder just is very sympathetic to the historic district, and would urge that you all try to press upon the city

[6:13] manager and planning director to enforce the penalties to their fullest extent. To try to get some action on that project in particular. Concern is when the work was stopped. There are gaps around the windows and at the roof line, and so the house is open to the weather, and the owner doesn't seem to be very sympathetic about sealing it up. So whatever you can do that would be great. And also, as you're moving into updating the preservation plan this year. Please consider increasing the penalties for breaking the preservation laws, and I think you may be seeing more of that coming along with a family friendly upzoning, and I spoke to City Council. On that. I think there are certainly going to be more demolition permits requested as a result of that upzoning because the target, intended or unintended, is small houses, oftentimes historic, small, older properties on large lots, and I would urge the planning director to hire more preservation staff as we anticipate more an increase in the demands on the staff for demolitions.

[7:28] Just 2 last things I wanted to congratulate the preservation planners. Marcy and Claire, who spoke wonderfully at an Education session at the Cpi Conference on Intangible heritage, and we hope that the historic legacy of the Civic center is included even more so in the designs for that area. I think we could have a greater appreciation of the intangible heritage in that site. Now, more than ever in the designs. And then the last thing is just a little commercial for historic boulder. We are well underway for the save the face of the preservation of the

[8:14] historic Boulder Theater, and we just wanted to thank you for your expressive support and spreading the word to the community to continue to help historic boulder and the Boulder Theater restore the facade of that art deco palace. Thank you. Thank you. Leonard and Aubrey. Did you say Catherine Barth was next. That is correct. Good evening, everybody. I'm Catherine Vareth 2940 20th Street. I just wasn't actually planning on coming tonight. And then I called Abby, and I, said, Abby, is the meeting in person, and are you back in town? That was my little message. Yes, I'm back in town. Yes, the meeting's in person, and I thought, by goodness, if the staff and the board can get themselves here on a cold, and it's not so. It's not so cold, but it's it's a dark night.

[9:19] and it's a little unpleasant to come out. I thought, darn it, I'm going to come, too, so I appreciate all of your really hard work that you all do. And it's important. I mean, this is democracy. And if we don't, if people don't show up. if people can hide behind their phones and their screens. I think the future is is not so good. So I think we have got to. I'm going to start. Maybe I have to take people out for a cup of coffee before the meeting or something, but I think we've got to try and get more people to these landmark board meetings because they are very important.

[10:01] So I thank you all for what you're doing. And oh, and I also went by. This is interesting. Do I have a little time? Yes, the house on 12 on 14th Street I went to the library on the weekend to review photos and things about that building, and I realized that it was I and Laura Ramsey who did the resurvey of that building, and I thought. that's why it seems so familiar. But anyway, I'm so glad that attention is being paid, and I know I know that enforcement has always been a problem for landmarks projects, but I can tell you that if you make a mistake with your electricity, or you know some of these, those kind of things that have to be inspected. The inspectors are right out there, so I think we should just try and elevate landmarks projects to the level of regular construction projects.

[11:05] Thank you. Thank you, Catherine. and now we'll turn to Aubrey to see if anyone's indicated. They'd like to speak to us virtually. All right. We have 3 hands raised virtually. We'll start with Ball Patterson, followed by Patrick O'rourke and Fran Mandel sheets. So, Ball, you should be able to speak now. Great. My name is Val Patterson. Oh, sorry! That's fine happens every day. I am here representing Saint Aidan's Episcopal Church at 2425 Colorado don't have a presentation to make. We've done that quite a few times for your folks. I am simply here

[12:01] to express our admiration for your process and hard work and answer questions. If you have any. Thank you. All right, thank you. And moving on to Patrick O'rourke, let me just get this timer to reset. There's a bit of a delay in chambers all right, should be good to go. Can you hear us, Patrick? Thank you. thank you, everybody. I wish I could be there. But I'm actually at medical training tonight. 3 things. Number one is with the new zoning that they're passing. I reached out to the building department and requested that they put together a matrix so that it won't be so convoluted and worded, so that when we review properties that are in specifically in a historic district, we can take a piece of paper and lay it out and look at it, because the way it's written right now it's confusing. You know, I grew up in this world, and the more confusing the more difficult it is to get these projects done. I'm hoping to have it

[13:21] available to you and hopefully meet with Marcy and Claire, and maybe one or 2 of the architects on the landmarks board to go over the ramifications of what is going on, specifically dealing with duplexes and triplexes, and the legal terms of whether those are now condominium products and how they could subdivide them. Number 2 is, I want to take this opportunity to thank the people because I have to jump into a meeting for designating their their house this evening. It's important that we keep designating these properties, and the historic boulder greatly appreciates their willingness to do it, and their legacy will remain forever. Number 3

[14:03] is both the new planning, the new questionnaire that just came out in the last couple of days. I think it was the one that's available to everybody. Preservation wasn't even noted in the in the questionnaire. I sent it out to my board last night, and I'll send it out to the landmarks board. But I'm kind of curious, you know. They they go down and they open up like the second or 3rd question has about 15 or 20 priorities, and then it goes. Other other, and not one of those priorities even mentions the historic significance of the landmark. I'm in the wind here. So my papers just got blown away, the landmarking and the historic districts, and what it means to be part of the city of Boulder. And then, finally, when you look at the priorities, the 2024, and 2025 priorities once again, preservation isn't even noted.

[15:01] And so now I know that the update for the You know, the comprehensive plan update is coming forward this year. I just want to make sure that the landmarks board. I know Marcy and Claire are committed to it, but the landmarks board becomes an advocate more than just receiving information, but they go out there, like historic boulder does, and advocate for the preservation of these properties. I want to thank you. Have a good night. All right. Thank you, Patrick. Up next we have Fran Fran. You should be able to unmute now. Can you hear me now? Sounds great. Thank you. Okay, I am in Hawaii. Believe it or not, and my connection is tenuous at best. Here I wrote you guys a letter. I'm really concerned about the ongoing destruction. At 8 1214th Street. I think it's a really really big deal, not only for this house, but for the current and future of historic preservation in Boulder. This

[16:20] board and staff needs to step up to support the neighborhood in this enforcement process. I know everyone says that we're not in charge of enforcement, but we need to make sure the process is followed, and that there's a good outcome. It's my fear that the entire program will suffer far into the future if we don't. The University Place historic district was created on the heels of the Highland lawn district, and as one of the principal neighbors who worked to designate the Highland lawn district. It took us 2 attempts and a decade in order to be to gain a designation, and because we didn't have the support, or know-how, or

[17:03] educate, to educate our neighbors, and to really, truly discuss the the the issues that some of the opponing neighbors were bringing up. Most of my neighbors, realized the beauty of our homes and neighborhood, and wanted to preserve not only the historic value of the houses, but the neighborhood and the environment, the livability and the spirit of what our neighborhood represented, what finally mobilized a few people who were withholding their support. They thought that designation would impinge on their personal rights, and they thought that it would lower their property values and what finally kicked in our process. The success of our process, I think, was the demolition application of one of the houses on the block. No one wanted that to happen, and we thought that our neighborhood was architecturally intact.

[18:01] and therefore unique and worth saving. And we and we, as did the University Place historic district, came to believe in this, and we thought it was worth saving. The neighbors who created the University place. Historic district or 812 is came on the on the heels of our designation, and they came to our meetings, and they listened carefully to our process and our deliberations. I remember them there the night that we actually had the the vote of the landmarks board the 14th Street neighborhood understood the beauty and the history of their homes, and they were determined to save it from exactly what is happening today, and what took Highland lawn years to process the University neighbor? Sorry, took one year to accomplish. They deserve our support, and they deserve full support for enforcement of the code by the boulders, legal department and and for board members who truly stand for historic preservation core values.

[19:17] and who and who understand the environmental sustainability and integrity in this process. So thank you very much, and good luck to all of us. Thank you. Thank you. Fran and Aubrey. Have any more individuals indicated? They'd like to address this this evening. Not yet. But let's give it a couple seconds, Abby, if anyone else would like to speak, just raise your hand and we'll unmute you. and I think we're good to move on. Thank you, Aubrey, we will close public participation for items not on the agenda. And Marcy. I don't know if you want to do this now, under matters. Is there an update about the code violation at 8 1214th Street. Sure, I can give a an update. It's a open

[20:21] code enforcement case code compliance case. And the owner's representative came into the landmarks design Review Committee. I think John and Ronnie, or John and Rene might have been on the on that review in October, and they then, in order to resolve the violation they need to revise the plans and undo the work that they have, have, they that they have done. We are in contact with the owner's representative, and they have. They are indicating that they are working towards that resolution. But, believe me, I share the concern for that historic building. It's on my radar, and I'm working with the folks in the city attorney's office code compliance and the planning director to get that towards a resolution.

[21:22] Thank you for that. Update and thank you to the people who spoke about that. I've not had the opportunity to drive by, and I am kind of curious about its current state, especially being potentially exposed to the elements at this time of year, and with climate change and the weather, we have going on. So thank you for that. I mean. if there's anything, I think you know that the Board strongly will stand behind Staff in the city appropriate staff and other departments. To make sure this gets resolved quickly, and whatever and I, you know, I think it is a good opportunity with the update to the preservation plan, you know, to have a

[22:05] fulsome conversation about code enforcement and so forth. or any other tools or any other way. We can try to mitigate that or get ahead of it. I don't know if anyone has any questions before we move on to discussion of landmark, alteration and demolition applications on that. Okay, so, Marcy, back to you.

[23:05] So sorry. Thank you. We have 2 pending stays of demolition right now, the 1st one at 2119, Mariposa. That stay of demolition expires 5 days from now. So there's not much conversation here tonight, because we we can't hold a hearing in 5 days. Nor did the board indicate they wanted to at your last meeting. So I won't belabor this one, but just note that it is still pending, and that it will expire on February 10, th and then that approval will be issued, and that approval will be valid for 6 months. Any new Demos coming in in 2025, and beyond those approvals are valid for one year. But anything from last year is still good for 6 months.

[24:09] Is there any other conversation on this one. I think we've covered it last month. Okay? And I do. I do believe the owner is listening. And so I just want to say thank you to Vanessa for your patience. And going through this process we didn't find a alternative to demolition. There could still be somebody that buys this property and chooses to invest in this little building. But I do want to say thank you for kind of your approach to the process, and allowing us to come on site and talk about alternatives. And so, thank you. The next one is 2425 Colorado State Aidan's Church, and this was one that the landmarks board placed a stay of demolition on at your November 20th meeting, and then on December 13, th we had a a site visit with the applicant group. They put a

[25:16] pretty thorough presentation together about kind of their approach to the considering the redevelopment. They're on a longer timeline than some residential applicants that we typically see, but really in a visioning process. For what is the next chapter of this site and of the congregation here, at this property last meeting, we let's see, in January. We did a short update for this day, but the main thing was that we had a meeting set up with the planning director and the Development Review manager to go kind of over the bigger policy questions that had come up from the applicants, and at that December 13th meeting. And so I think

[26:12] you know, it's things talking about rezoning where it's currently rl, one, the vision is to do something that serves more than you know, 5 to 8 single family homes. And so the path there is to kind of be involved in the Boulder Valley comprehensive plan update. And there's a rezoning land use component to that process that's outside of our preservation process, but would help answer, kind of those larger land use questions there. So to I think the the landmarks board members last time voiced kind of agreement to having another meeting with the applicants. If the applicants are willing. I know the applicants are working with a lot of people and being conscious of their budget, and I share the value of not meeting unless it's going to be productive and a good, a good use of time. So

[27:18] I haven't had a chance to reach out to the applicants since the development Review meeting at that point. It sounded like they were still going to go back, talk and then decide whether another meeting with the landmarks board would be helpful, so that will be on my to do list following this meeting is to reach back out and just confirm that the landmarks board is still available and willing, and then, if if needed, we'll put together. Another site visit tonight is a scheduling decision, because the stay of demolition expires march 19.th So there's just one regularly scheduled meeting between tonight and the end of the stay, which would be the March 5th meeting. And so there is time within that to schedule a special hearing, but, as you all know, those.

[28:18] if we can fit it on a regular agenda, it it's much preferred from a logistics standpoint, and also just volunteer time standpoint. So the question in front of you tonight is, would you all like to schedule a hearing on March 5, th which would give you the ability to take action on this application, either by proactively lifting the stay of demolition and approving the demolition, or holding a hearing to consider initiation of landmark designation which then begins the designation process if passed.

[29:01] So the question in front of you tonight is a scheduling one. Whether or not you'd like to add something to your March 5th agenda. and you're thinking and hoping that if we schedule something for the March 5th regular meeting we can have a meeting with the applicants in the next month before that, if they're interested in and would find that productive, we would put that together before the March 5th meeting. Can I ask what remaining questions we feel like we need to have answered in another meeting. I feel like that. Was. It was very comprehensive. The meeting that we had. But I'm just maybe for my fellow board members. Yeah, I think that'd be helpful to have. Now, before you go ahead and try to schedule something like if we feel like we need another meeting. I don't personally feel like I need another meeting. The the way it was left was they

[30:01] we're very interested in. In an extension meeting. In other words, another meeting to talk about, I guess, visioning the future of the site as much as anything which is outside of our direct purview. But I just. I felt like we left that door open when we when we were there December 13, th and that it could be useful to talk further about possible ways. The the resource of this church could be saved or partially preserved, or other other approaches. So I think it. I think personally, I think it would be useful to have another meeting.

[31:04] Yeah, I think in terms of having another meeting. I agree with what John is saying about what the content of that meeting might be. But I do feel as though that would be the applicants decision to ask of us to come and help brainstorm at this point. Yeah. Outside of that, I think other questions that we might have have actually already been answered. So if there's some service that is an exploration of like a feasibility of how to save aspects of this building or the entirety of the building and accomplish other goals they have. I could see that being meaningful. But, like I said, I think it would be up to them. I agree. And what are your thoughts of scheduling something for a regularly scheduled meeting to discuss this, and I know in the past, Marcy, you've had the 2 motions where it could be an initiation hearing to decide to initiate

[32:07] or lift the stay. At that time I feel a little bit of loss because I wasn't at the December 13th meeting or site visit. oh, I, mean, I guess what what would we we wouldn't know anything then that we don't know. Now, right, I mean, or it would just be more of a bigger. We would just get another full presentation, or it would be the opportunity to take action. So you could. If if it's a demolition approval, then it is expediting that decision because the stay. If the Board doesn't take action, the stay expires. March 19.th It is your last opportunity to take the alternate action which is to initiate landmark designation and explore designation of the property. So it's a pretty critical.

[33:16] it's your only opportunity to take action on that. And again tonight shouldn't be about the merits or what you would or wouldn't vote. But more, do you want the opportunity to vote again on this before this day expires? March 19th and and Staff would also provide a report and a position about the appropriateness of potential decisions, right? Because for the demolition, because Abby's right, we usually frame that in 2 ways. So you have options. The demolition is the criteria that we've already covered in terms of the landmarks board member in November. The initiation criteria is 9 things that we've not analyzed, that you all haven't discussed. Yeah, I mean Chelsea. I feel like that would be the

[34:08] thing that I think would be most valuable for me if we were to move forward is to hear staffs kind of position on this, and then a recap of previous analysis and stuff that we really haven't heard them in a reporting fashion to date. So I could see it valuable for us to hold the meeting. and it lets us take action. It also gives an opportunity as a public hearing for the public to weigh in when we placed the stay on it. I suppose members of the public were welcome to support that during public comment. But it does give a more thorough discussion to make a vote either way. Yeah. so I would support that. And you know, on that note, just to recap. I'm not sure if there's any additional information that I see is necessary from the applicant at this point. If they're contemplating what to do

[35:07] unless somebody else thinks differently, or staff has some direction of a missing body of information. But I don't think that's necessary for me. Yeah, I agree. We're also very. I mean, there's a lot of processes that have to happen. If this site were to be redeveloped where the imagining of what it could be would have to take place. And even if we were to approve a demolition, it sounds like the the process and journey that they are going on is not. They're going to exceed the time limit. Where that is. They're gonna have to come back anyway. So there's going to be a lot of time to discuss this property. Yeah, if that's if that's the decision that's made. And I would also just add that while it may not be typically part of our

[36:01] discussion. I think it would be helpful for us to come prepared to that meeting to talk about which aspects of this building are the most valuable portions of this building, knowing that there might be different processes that take place over a long period of time. Not knowing the outcome of the meeting, I think. coming with frame of mind of prioritizing the components that exist for us would be very helpful, and I'm sure Staff will do that in the report. and if Staff reaches out to the applicants they might want to meet with us again, and I also respect their decision. If if they don't have the time between now and then. I would support that. But I'm not going to be at the March 5th meeting, unfortunately gonna be flying. Oh, I knew that. Yeah, I had already could get delayed. No,

[37:00] So does someone want to make a motion sure? Do we have motion language or let me phone a friend. Okay? Oh. okay. Oh, look, here's Chris. Thanks, friend. So I just want to clarify and good evening, board members. Is the are you trying? Are you wanting to do an initiation for designation of the of this property. Is that what you you're wanting to do here? I believe it's that or a demolition. Yeah, it's the motion language that gives them the options to say, hold a hearing to either initiate or issue the demolition permit at the next regular board meeting.

[38:03] Okay. I'm gonna type it in. And then maybe Marcy can put it up on the Powerpoint. Great. Give me a moment. You should go, get some.

[39:01] Alright, Marcy, it should be in there now. Thank you. Okay. okay. Okay. I move that the landmarks board schedule, an initiation hearing for 2425 Colorado, to consider whether to initiate designation or issue a demolition permit. I second that. So we'll take a roll call. Vote Chelsea. Aye, John, aye, Ronnie, aye, and I vote aye, so the motion passes unanimously.

[40:06] So thank you, everybody, and thank you to the people here while we worked through that. But I do. I I personally am pleased with that outcome. It's another opportunity to engage the public. Sometimes the public isn't aware that a building in their neighborhood, whether it's a residence or a public building might be up for demolition. Until this is this meeting is scheduled and signs are posted and notices are placed accordingly to our ordinance. So I'm pleased. This is going to happen in March, so we will move on to agenda. Item 5, a. Which is a public hearing and consideration of an application to designate the property at 6 58, Pleasant Street as an individual landmark pursuant to Section 911, 5 of the Boulder revised Code 1981, and under the procedures prescribed by Chapter 1, 3, of the quasi judicial hearings

[41:02] also the Boulder Revised Code 1981, and Marcy will be doing this presentation? Thank you. And before I begin. Aubrey, is it? Do you have a way to project the slides from your computer? The answer may be no yes, you'll just have to say next slide to me. Great, and I need to pull up the Powerpoint. It'll just take a moment. Thank you. Otherwise I don't have my notes, and you all will enjoy this more if I have my notes. Oh, I have the Powerpoint pulled up fantastic. Okay. that doesn't mean it's fast, though.

[42:30] All right. Thank you for bearing bearing with us. Marcy, you're good to go all right. Great next slide, please. Alright. So I'll start by going through the quasi-judicial process. All speaking to the item will be sworn in. That includes me, Marcy gerwing, historic preservation, planner, and I affirm, to tell the truth. I'll pause here to allow any landmarks, board members to know ex parte contacts for 6, 58, pleasant any site visits conversation with neighbors or strangers about this property.

[43:06] Hearing none, we'll move on to the staff presentation that will follow with any questions from the board. The applicant will then have 10 min to present to the board, and the Board may ask questions. I'll note that the owner, Laura Rose, is not here this evening, but Joel Smiley and Laura Schaefer are here as her representatives. After the applicants presentation will open the public hearing, and each person will have 3 min to speak after the last person has spoken, the applicant will have a chance to respond to anything that was said. The Board will then deliberate, and 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

[44:01] the criteria for oh, next slide, the criteria for your review is found in 9 11, 5 of the Boulder Revised Code, and that's that the landmarks board shall determine whether the designation conforms with the purposes and standards in section 9, 11, one, and 9, 11, 2. Next slide. and your options this evening are to either recommend landmark designation to city council, in which case we'll schedule a hearing within 100 days, or you could recommend denial of the designation, and that decision is subject to a 45 day call up period, and the owners may file notice of an appeal within 21 days of the landmarks board decision next slide. This application came in curiously, 1st as a non designated demolition review for a partial demolition, and back in August the Ldrc. Approved a partial demolition of the House to replace shingles in the gambril ends, remove a non-historic addition and reconstruct the porch, and then

[45:09] Concurrent like after that the the owner was interested in landmark designation, and particularly the modifications that landmark designation provides to parts of the boulder revised code, but also for recognition of what a special property this is, and the historic significance that it has so prior to submitting the landmark designation application staff reviewed and approved the demolition of a nonhistoric accessory building, and then the land. The program accepted the application to designate the property as an individual landmark in December. Since then we've reviewed an Lac application to remove that non-historic addition and construct a new rear edition, as well as rehabilitate the house, and that was approved on December 18.th

[46:05] And that brings us to today. February 5.th For this landmarks board designation hearing next slide. So the property at 6 58 Pleasant Street is located on the southwest corner of Pleasant and 7, th and a portion of the Anderson Ditch runs across the northeast corner of the property, and consistent with other designations where ditches run across the property we'll include in language, in the ordinance that clarifies that any work to the ditch to improve or maintain it will not require a landmark, alteration certificate and recognize that that a portion of the ditch does run across the property. The house is faces, faces north onto Pleasant Street, but due to the location of the Anderson Ditch. The main entrance to the front porch is from 7th Street, over a bridge, and the property is not located within a potential historic district

[47:02] next slide. This Dutch colonial revival house has an iconic gambrel roof. The building is a modified L shape, with gambrel ends at the east, north and west elevations, and a hipped roof porch sits at the elbow of the L, and is proposed to be removed and replaced with a replica of the original tiara porch. The gambril ends are clad in vertical board and batten siding, which are proposed to be replaced and restored with narrow horizontal wood siding next slide. The house has a painted brick lower level on top of a cut stone foundation. The lower level is defined by a shallow shed roof that spans across the gambril ends. and the windows include a stone sill that has decorative archstone lintels, a stone brick belly band at the height of the lowest sills and a deep set entry door that also includes a decorative arched lintel.

[48:01] The east elevation has square windows that include a decorative leaded glass in a diamond pattern, and also with a stone sill and arched lintel. Next slide. This front porch was modified around 1922 to add a hipped roof, porch walls and craftsman supports. The proposal that the Ldrc. Has approved is to reconstruct the original front porch with the upper deck, restore a window on the 7th street facade and restore the gambril roof form at the west elevation that will return the house to its original 19 0 5. Design. The existing character. Defining features include the steep stepped gambril roof form, the flared shed roof overhang between the 1st floor and the roof story. typical of the Dutch colonial revival style. The skilled stone and brickwork, including the arch lintels and belly band, and the leaded glass window next slide. Considering the integrity of the building and the property, the house is in its original location, which, with much of its setting, remains with mature landscaping in the Anderson ditch. Crossing the front of the property.

[49:10] the design, including its form, plan, space, structure, and style of the original structure, is generally the same. and many of the original materials remain, including the brick and stone foundation. The original workmanship of the building is apparent through the fine stonework at the foundation, and the brick detailing, including the curved lintels. The historic character of the building conveys the feeling and association with the building's history. Next slide we'll move to the staff analysis, and on the next slide we'll start with the historic significance this house meets the historic significance. Criteria. This property has had a number of owners over the last 1 15 years. It is likely that the house was constructed by Stoneman Lyman Leland. Between 19 0, 6 and 19 0 9. The Townsend family purchased the property in 1910, and lived here for 50 years

[50:06] Ea Townsend ran a barber and beauty shop in Boulder, with his son and daughter-in-law, and other notable owners, include art and Babe Daldos, who lived here for 13 years, and Elaine and George Van Bouven, a county Commissioner from 1975 to 1970 to 1975. This property was recognized in the 1994 survey, considering the House to be significant as representative of the Dutch colonial revival style popular in the United States during the early 20th century reflected in the gambril roof. and it the house meets the architectural significance. Criteria, the Dutch colonial revival style, was popular in the early 20th century. It's a primarily residential style that's identified in part by the Gambril roof form, and, as I mentioned, it's likely that Lyland W. Leland constructed the house. He was a stonemason, and worked as a contractor in Boulder and the surrounding area.

[51:09] He also contributed to the construction of the Citizen State State Bank, located in Edmond, Oklahoma. If you Google, it, it's still standing. It has very similar, very beautiful stonework on it. He used the same skill in the stone and brickwork at the house, including the arch lintels and belly band. The character defining features of the house include that steep gambril roof form, the flared shed roof overhang and the leaded glass window. Additionally, the original circular porch with the roof deck, stick-like porch supports, and wedding cake or tiara detailing is very unusual. We hypothesized that this oh, it was only used, and it was only popular for a very short period of time, and many examples were removed shortly after construction. This is likely, because with the technology at the time, at the turn of the century, it was likely difficult to engineer and not end up with leaks.

[52:10] One porch that has survived at the gardener Sander House at 19 0 4. Mapleton still exists today, and originally took 3 to 5 years to bend the wood sufficiently into the semicircular shape. They for that project used boat building methods, and the porch had been restored, based on historic images because of difficulties of maintenance of the original porch. The next slide goes into the environmental significance. As I mentioned, the Anderson ditch crosses the front of the property, creating a unique and unusual site, with a bridge to access the main entrance, and the ditch was constructed in the early 1860 S. And continues to be privately owned. even though the lot is heavily vegetated. The building is a familiar visual landmark within the neighborhood. As it sits on the corner.

[53:02] the restoration of the striking front Tiara porch will make it even more prominent. So with that staff recommends on the next slide that the Landmarks Board recommend to City council that it designate the property at 6 58 Pleasant Street as a local historic landmark to be known as the Tiara House, and adopt the staff memorandum as findings of the board. On the next slide we have the proposed name of the house is the Tiara House. The criteria for naming landmarks gives the board a couple different options. Traditionally, it's. you know, a 1st owner or a long term owner, but it also provides the opportunity to recognize these unique architectural characteristics that really make a house stand out kind of like the Castle House. There's 1 called the Craftsman House, which might be a little too generic. But you do have the ability to name it, you know, for something. A feature of the house

[54:02] and the plaque would read. The house was designed in the Dutch colonial revival style popular in the early 20th century, and includes the iconic gambril roof. It is named the Tiara House for the unique porch and roof deck that was original to the building removed in the 1920 s. And reconstructed a century later. and the next slide shows the proposed landmark boundary which would encompass the property following the property lines and the rear accessory building shown on this map is proposed for removal, so that that would not be part of the designation. With that I am happy to answer any questions that the Board may have. I had a question. Could you just recap how the designation and the improvement to the tiara relate.

[55:00] Yes. So the Ldrc. Approved the reconstruction of that tiara porch in December. It is not yet built, but there are plans to reconstruct it. It is a little bit of a risk to name it after something that doesn't exist at the moment of designation. However, I think it's a low risk. And it is something that was there historically. So that does that answer your question? Yeah, that answers it. It was exactly that kind of procedural answer I was looking for. Yeah, yes, and I think if if and I think this is a low chance. But if the reconstruction of that front tiara porch. didn't happen or was delayed. We could get creative and put a historic photo next to the plaque so and maybe not cast it in bronze to say that it was reconstructed and tell it it is. But we could get creative with that. But I it wouldn't change our recommendation about the name of the house.

[56:12] See no other questions. Do you mind taking the slides down there, Aubrey? I'm sorry to have you do triple duty tonight. so I know the owner is not here this evening, and Joel and Laura, I don't know if you were going to make a presentation we'd love to hear from both of you, or either of you, or if you're here to answer questions, if the board has any. Oh, come on. okay, and Joel, come on up, and I will have to swear you in, because this is a quasi-judicial hearing. But we'd love to hear from you. So if you will raise your right hand, and swear to tell the Board the full truth.

[57:03] Joel, Smiley and I will tell the truth. Thank you. And you actually have 10 min if you would like. I'm not going to use 10 min. I'd like to thank Marcy and Staff for you know the incredible job of researching the property. I know it's not probably not easy to dig it all out. But the this, this is one of those houses that I think we probably all know a little bit, because it's on a corner. It has a really compelling little Zen view as you walk up. you know, when you look under the the bridge that spans the ditch, but there is something a little weird about it with the you know this later reinterpretation of the front porch, the the hip form, and you know, a truly craftsman element kind of tacked on to

[58:05] this Dutch Colonial, and I think we're, you know we're excited about the project generally on behalf of our client, and in particular, the reintroduction of you know this really kind of rare, delicate roof form that is supported by these amazingly skinny columns. You know that they they used when they when they 1st built it. So we we're really grateful for your consideration. And we, you know, we hope that you you approve the designation. So yeah, thank you. Thank you. And, Laura, I don't know if you have anything to add. And you know in this process that we do come back to you and give you additional minutes. If there's anything you'd like to add after public comment. So thank you, Joel, does anyone have questions of Joel before we turn to the public?

[59:04] Actually, I do. I'm I'm curious, just as a as a builder, how you will accomplish the the curved. the the curved element in the porch and and the columns. So you know, I think we'll probably use, I presume the original ones were steel of some sort probably cast, so those will likely be a steel column, and then it it'll will be bend in Plywood, so you know. Probably quarter inch plywood. you know, in our shop we'll scribe the radius and set up a jig and just start layering it up like a boat. Yeah, cool. Thank you. We'll roll it into town. Yeah, any other questions.

[60:03] Okay, I don't see any at this point. So we will turn to public comment. Aubrey, have people here in person indicated. They'd like to speak to this. We do have 2 in-person signups. We'll start with Catherine Barth, and then Leonard Siegel and Catherine. You know I'm going to ask you to swear. To tell us the truth. for this year. I will tell you the truth. I know you will. You probably surveyed this house. But okay. I guess I just. I'm really happy, Joel, that you're Catherine. Oh, I did. I swear to tell the truth, I'm happy, Joel, that you're involved with this project. because I think it's it's a little complicated. And and how much fun and

[61:00] I think it's wonderful that the owners have that the owners are going back and and restoring it to its original forms. I also noticed the skinny columns, and wondered about those and wondered if perhaps the skinny columns failed. And that's why the porch got changed. Because, I mean, do we have any indication that those columns were anything but wood originally. I mean, Joel said, these will probably be not wood, but I just think it's very interesting, and and the sorts of things that that we get to think about when we're living in historic environments and for example, my house, I live in a individual landmark. My house lost all of its gingerbread.

[62:01] and my thought has always been, oh, if I hit the lottery I'd want to put that gingerbread back. But then my thought was, Why did it lose the gingerbread? Is it just a very impractical thing to have a house have on a house? My house was like on a farm with those western winds hitting it. So much of, you know. Was it just not a practical thing to have? And is that why that it got lost? But I do have photos and I once saw an ad in some preservation magazine about how you could send in your photos of your gingerbread, and they would make like. I don't know composite gingerbread for your house or something, and of course I didn't pursue it. But it's always things that you're thinking about. You know you're thinking about what was there, and is it practicable? And why did it fail? And anyway? But I think it's

[63:06] remarkable and wonderful that this house is being brought up to be an individual landmark, and the owners are sure will enjoy their environment as much as I enjoy mine. So thank you, and I hope you declared a landmark deserves it. Thank you, Catherine and Leonard. You know the drill. Yeah, Leonard Siegel, I swear to speak the truth tonight. I'm speaking in favor of this designation, and I have some thoughts about the name. I actually think it'd be more appropriate to call it by a person's name or somebody in history than to call the Tiara House, because the tiara's not original. So you're going to be calling it as something that's a recreation. But it'll never look exactly like it originally did.

[64:04] So that would just be a suggestion that. And maybe Mr. Leland gets credit for it. Having built the house in the 1st place, or maybe he gets blamed for having built the tiara in the 1st place, because as an architect, when you see those 2 gambrels coming together in the valley of the water that's sheeting off them on the north side of the house. You know why that porch failed because it was an ice dam situation or an ice flow. So it's going to be equally a challenge for you to solve that one. And Joel and Laura and I know that if anybody can do it, the 2 of you can. But I just wanted to say that I support this, and in part also, because doesn't seem to have a super distinguished history of people who lived there. But there's something really just touching and sweet about this house, and the way the owner kind of backed into wanting to designate this House. After asking for

[65:08] demolition, changes, and other changes and renovations, it says a lot about the process of working with the preservation planners and the landmarks. Design review committee that you developed a rapport with this person, and they got excited about, I imagine, got more excited about their property than they did originally, and thought, gosh! There's some historic value here, thanks for showing it to them, and the result is something that you should take a lot of credit for. So thank you very much for that. Thank you, Leonard. and now is the time from anyone who's joining us virtually to raise your hand or indicate you'd like to speak to this hearing. All right, we don't have any hands raised yet, but let's give it a couple seconds. We have a couple audience members out there.

[66:05] See if they're interested. And it looks like we have 0 Byte. So we're good to move on, Abby. Okay, thank you for that, Aubrey. We will close public comment for agenda. Item 5, a. And again, just as part of our process, Joel or Laura. There is an additional 3 min. If there's anything you'd like to add at this time, otherwise I think we'd all be delighted to jump into the deliberations. But it if you have nothing to add. I don't know if one of my colleagues would like to kick this conversation off. Sure. Yeah, I mean, I think that this is a wonderful, wonderful house, and definitely rises to the merit of designation. And I just wanted to also point out that I imagine that the

[67:02] contractor and the architect probably played a pretty good role in the moving forward with landmarking and suggesting of landmarking to the owner, and I would compliment them on their advocacy for preservation in the community as well. Because I recognize that that's happening as decisions are being made in preliminary stages about design on old homes. I think that this is a wonderful old building, and it has a really interesting character, not only the restoration or recreation of the the tierra component. But the cross gable of a gambril roof is something that I don't think I've seen too much of. I don't know if I've ever seen a version of it like that before. You know, porch aside, I think that that's a pretty unique feature. I do think that this is a very recognizable house. I think it's sited on the lot, and it has an approach to the home that makes it something that is very visible from the public realm while it's hidden behind trees. I think it really

[68:11] you know, captures people's attention as they, you know, are on that street corner. I compliment staff on the memo that they've written in the report, and I will support designation for this. Who'd like to go next? All right. This is the kind of project that I find very interesting which Ronnie just alluded to the issue of the owner. Coming into the process ultimately, willingly, or or

[69:00] having the desire to have the project designated. That's where we want to be. That's what our our process is directed towards is is bringing the community into the program and getting individual and groups of individual property owners to understand the value of of presentation or preservation and the value of preserving the history itself in terms of what it says about the community. what? Where? It's been, the image that it gives all of those factors, that kind of shape. your your sense of a community when you live in it. And this house is a piece of that now, and I'm very pleased that this is happening. Thank you, John. Sure.

[70:03] Yeah. Well. I lived on 7th and marine in college. So I passed by this house all the time walking to campus, and I think the work that you all are planning to do to restore it to its former glory is really admirable, and I think is going to add a lot to the public sphere of people. There's there's a lot of people walking in this neighborhood in particular, and I think it just adds a lot of charm and character and although these are sort of separate things, I think, to be able to celebrate this home as a landmark and to bring it back to its original form is something that we are going to celebrate here. So thank you. So I guess I could echo all of my colleagues comments. I think this is just such a delightful, wonderful house, because it is so unique. I think it's uniqueness is what really makes it such a fun thing to support recommending to city council that they designate it. And I just think that, Joel, you said something that really solved a puzzle for me

[71:19] because I couldn't quite figure out the current porch with the Dutch Gabriel Ins. And you you hit the nail on the head by saying it's craftsman like elements on a house that that was built prior to that. And so that's what I could see kind of baffled me. But I I think this is charming. I think it already is such an iconic house as Chelsea said, that people walk by or bike by, and so I think it's a great way it did come into the program. I think we're very fortunate that it's in your hands for both of you to be taking on this work, and I also think I kind of like the name Tr. House I can't remember for the life of me, if the Octagon House is also landmarked as the Octagon House here in Boulder. And so I think sometimes that's fun. You know. I think that because there wasn't 1 necessarily

[72:12] owner that stood out as someone who, you know, maybe had been a mayor or done something like that. I kind of like the name of it, and I think that I don't know that just by naming it that it would give any sort of false sense of history since it. I know it's going to be a reconstruction. But I think that's okay. I think it adds a little bit of fun and element, and I think it. It just will make people more curious to learn about the history. And well, why is it called that so? I have no issue at all, and, in fact, adore the the name staff is proposing. But I just think this. This is one of those hearings, and one of those nights where it's just a joy to serve on the landmarks board, and a lot of that is because of you 2 and the work you do throughout the community, and I know how excited you get when you come across a project or ask to do a project and find these jewels, and I know you feel like you're always

[73:10] pulling off layers of an onion and uncovering more and more. And along with people like Catherine and people at historic boulder, you guys have done a tremendous amount to help preserve our architectural legacy. So thank you. So, hey, anyone want to make a motion? I'd like to. But I have another question. About the name. because I thought that was a interesting point that Leonard brought up, and I'm sure it was on most of our minds. And so it's kind of a question for staff just about the process of naming and the role that the applicant takes in, maybe agreeing to what that name might be. Yeah, thank you for the the question, because I think we, while the naming criteria gives the board 5 or 6 ideas of what to name the standard, is to name it after the property owner, and that, I think, works in a lot of ways. But

[74:11] but I think there's also, when there's an opportunity to recognize something else, we should take that opportunity. And and so it is something the tiara name actually came from one of the Drc. Meetings with Joel, and that's how he described this porch and it. And it's an architectural term, but I think that also set the course of the theme of this house as we've researched it, and gotten to know the the building a little bit better and talking with the the owner. It's a poetic house. There's something really delicate and beautiful, and the details are there, and it's just going to be this

[75:00] gem that shines, and there's not a porch exactly like this in the city. In the memo. What was great is Claire found all the other round porches that had ever been in Boulder. Probably not an exhaustive list. There are like 5 now there's maybe 2, and now there will be a 3rd one. And so I do think that in this instance, in this opportunity, and it is a name that the owner really resonated with her and and supported. It's the one we would strongly recommend. I would also approve the name as proposed, but I had a question. Do we ever bring both the person's name and kind of an architectural feature together, which could be for this house the designer and Tierra, the Leyland Tierra house, are those things ever are those naming conventions?

[76:08] available? And were they considered you could, because it's like combining 2 criteria, I think it's a little less poetic and gives. You know, I think in the plaque we could recognize the stonemason, which I think is also something we've like fully endorses. Recognizing the craftsmen who built these amazing houses and buildings rather than you know the the people who who funded them, or lived there a long time or a short time, so you could do it, but I think there's another way, and maybe in the plaque, including his name but leaving it as the Tr. House, I think, is, if I were reading through a list of 222 landmarks, I would want to go see that house. Yeah, I really like the idea of having the mason's name was that his only role?

[77:03] He owned the property for those while it was being built over those 3 or 4 years, so we think he may have lived there, but pretty soon sold it afterwards. So you said the bridge across the ditch was done in 1860. Something. Oh, the ditch was dug in 1860. 0, the ditch itself. Yeah, okay, yeah. I was gonna say, yeah, I think he should be recognized because he's already been recognized elsewhere. The the the building in Edmund, Oklahoma. Right? But are you saying in the name or on the plaque on the plaque? I like the poetry of Tierra House. I think it would be confusing to put a name and then a feature together if you couldn't come up with a more like Hollywood way to do it. Yeah. And, Marcy, you use the perfect word poetic, and that's the best way I can describe this house, and just sort of how it makes me feel, you know, just sort of

[78:06] there's a poetry to it that is unmistakable. I'm up for making a motion that the Landmarks Board recommend to City Council that it designate the property at 6 5 8, Pleasant Street as a local historic landmark to be known as the Tierra house, finding that it meets the the standards for individual landmark designation in Sections 9, 11, one and 9, 11, 2 Brc. 1981, and adopt the staff memorandum, dated February 5, th 2025, as the findings of the board do. We have a second sure second. Okay, on a motion by Ronnie, seconded by Chelsea, we'll do a roll call. Vote Chelsea. Aye. John. Aye, Ronnie, aye, and I vote aye, so the motion passes unanimously to recommend landmark designation to city council.

[79:04] This was so hard it was it still took a long time ago. It too wonderful. So I think Marcy will go over the next steps, but I think you 2 are both well aware of what the next steps are. Yes, so, with a unanimous vote to recommend designation, we will schedule it for City Council Review, because it's an ordinance that will go twice the 1st time for 1st reading on consent agenda, and then the second hearing, which is a public hearing needs to happen within a hundred days. That's before May 16, th but we usually do it much quicker than that, and we'll reach out and make sure those dates work for you and for the owner. and then, if Council designates it, we will work with you to finalize the plaque language and then recognize new landmarks at the annual historic preservation awards ceremony in May of next year.

[80:03] So thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you, guys. And now we'll move on to matters. Marcy. I know we're a tiny bit behind on where we projected, but I do appreciate all the public participation tonight, both in person, and virtually wonderful. Well, we have a a couple of things under matters some quick, some a little bit longer, but we'll start with the update on the Landmarks board recruitment. As we all know, Ronnie's last meeting is in March, and so the the deadline for landmarks board applications was last Friday. and I can share that. We received 4 applications, and we're in the process of vetting those, because the the spot that Ronnie is vacating is a design professional spot. And so we have to make sure that those that applied

[81:01] qualify for that. And we've asked whether Renee can fill that second design professional spot. And the answer was not an immediate yes. So the direction we got is that she would need to resign and apply again. So we're working through this. We are going to have a new board member. We might just have to be proactive in in getting there. So go ahead. We can. Sorry. Can you explain why she'd have to resign and then apply again. I learned through this process that each of you were appointed to a specific seat on the landmarks board. 2 of those are design professional. 3 are at large, and so those seats are dedicated, I guess, and so you can have more than 3 design professionals if one is in the open position.

[82:03] I think the original intent was something about. You know the terms, and when they overlap and when they don't overlap. But I think that has probably been lost a while ago. And Rene did replace someone who resigned who was an at large member, right? Which is why, even though she's an architect, she wasn't a design professional seat. We will let you know how that progresses, because the the code requires 2, you know, design professionals and 3 members at large, and we have that now. So, but one of the members at large can be a design. Yes, you can have more than that. But you have to have a minimum. Oh, architects are any of the current applicants design professionals? We're still vetting it, you know. So yeah, stay tuned because the the landmark, the sorry the landmarks board interviews are

[83:08] in mid February. So that's something we got the applications yesterday. So the update is how many we have, and that we have some like adjusting to do. And do you know when you'll know if we can figure it not have to have someone resign and reapply, if that probably in the next 2 weeks. So by the next Board meeting we'll have had interviews for those but know that we I am working hard, I think, for applicants to the landmarks. Board is great that's higher turnout than normal. I would love for city council to be able to appoint somebody from the largest pool possible and and bring different points of view and different people who are interested in serving on the board. And so we're working internally to

[84:10] make sure we understand what the guardrails are, because if Renee did resign and reapply, she would have applied and interviewed 3 times in the 12 months she's been on the board, and I think that is just a absurd thing to ask of her. So there's no way tell that Senator Warnock, who had to run 5 times. I'm going to ask all the questions. Yeah. yes, okay. So we'll go through some saving places conference reflections. We'll keep those kind of brief. But since it's fresh, I thought that would be a good thing to do. Program metrics. We're just tracking the first, st especially the 1st quarter. 1st 4 months of changes, what we're seeing with the trends now that we have the process improvements in place and then

[85:09] landmarks board award ideas for the May ceremony just starting to brainstorm some ideas there and then. I saw a request from Chelsea for another matter that would you like to speak to that now or somewhere sprinkled in here. You let me know. Okay, okay, all right. So the Saving Places Conference was last week. For the 1st time since I've started attending these a long time ago. It was not in the Denver area the last 2 years. It was in boulder, which was very convenient for us, and nice to kind of showcase boulder this year. It was down in Colorado Springs, and I really appreciated just going and being there 100% rather than going to some sessions and then working some and then going home. And you know, the last 2 years have been really spread pretty thin. So

[86:12] it was really nice just to go and be there and reconnect with some friends across the State and meet some new people, and the theme this year was rooted in community culture in place, celebrating intangible heritage, and I think the the unofficial theme that others noticed, too, was telling a more complete history of an area. And so some of the sessions that I attended was about the Japanese American history in Otero County, which was separate and different from the Amache relocation camp in Granada, 90 miles away. But this was about the Japanese American community that was there before World War 2 and after, and their research, and, you know, kind of rooted around the cemetery that was fascinating. Learning about the Denver

[87:18] planners and the work that they're doing is like parallel to ours in that around the same time we were doing the civic area historic district. They were working on Community Park designation of La Raza Park, and and so I went to a presentation with their Parks and Recreation Department and their historic preservation planners, talking about about where that designation kind of came from, and and how it was approved. And then Let's see. Oh! And then Claire and I presented on some of the research from

[88:01] the civic area, and it was It was a more challenging session proposal to put together because it was a bit vulnerable. It wasn't like. Here's the scope, schedule, and budget of this project. It was, here are the lessons we learned in researching this erased history, and here's the kind of the resistance that we faced along the way, or how we were challenged, and how our beliefs changed through that. And so. playing out the worst case scenario, I thought we would end, and there'd be crickets, and everybody would leave and be like, What what are you doing? But there were so many questions. It was clear that it made an impact on a lot of the people there, and the questions were really interesting, and people followed up through the rest of the conference, wanting to know more about it, and that was my takeaway. It was a lot it was.

[89:01] Might there be a venue or an opportunity to do that presentation again locally, you know, I mean, like, you know. So, for example, historic Boulder used to do a Free Salon series and have talks and things, and the Landmarks board used to do like a film and lecture series, or something like that. Or perhaps, if if the Boulder heritage roundtable does have a national preservation month in May celebration, maybe an evening. You know the Museum of Boulder, or something. I'd love to hear it in person, but I think people here who live in this community, you know, would be would love it as well could. Also. I don't know if it's the right venue, but when you have the Awards ceremony where that's already a planned event. Yeah, something to oh, maybe it's not the form to like, have people ask questions. But right? Or but it could be something earlier afterwards. You know what I mean. It could be attached to it somehow.

[90:09] No pressure. Yeah, no, thank you. Yeah, I will certainly think about that, and I don't know if you all, if we all updated you, maybe I included it in the year in review. But Claire took the research that that really she had done and partnered with the Museum of Boulder last summer, and then put together a proposal for the call it a Women's symposium, which is a different kind of audience, and presented it there and then. She was really the driver to do this session, and I know that her work is not done. So while I'm I'm not jumping at the at the chance. I know that this work will continue, and that the message is really important. and especially we have a racial equity training for the landmarks board. It's for required across all the boards. But I wonder if there's an opportunity there to maybe shorten it and have those conversations, because it really is like where the racial equity work that the

[91:15] city is doing, and historic preservation crossed in the most meaning, one of the most meaningful ways for me, and a lot of that was maybe not visible through the public hearings, and some of it was very visible. So yeah. I'm sure it won't be the last 2 other things I just wanted to highlight, because these are available outside of the conference, but highlighted by by those that attended, is that there is a documentary called Amache Rose and Gosh! It sure is moving, and it was. It's a documentary. It's 30 min funded by the Denver Botanical Garden, and

[92:07] it's it was on Pbs, and then it should be on Pbs again. But if you go to this link. It's not available right now, but keep checking, but it talks about the Japanese internment camp and the archaeology and the survivors and the descendants of of the internees who have kind of returned to the site every single year, and that they discovered these rose bushes that had been planted in a very intentional location that had survived for 70 years, and if I keep talking I will start weeping. So the I'm not. I'm going to let you watch it. It's a beautiful story. It's incredible. And it felt very, very timely. The other one is this wonderful artist named Chip Thomas, who does these incredible wheat paste installations. This is his work down in the San Luis Valley, where he's taking these family photos and blowing them up on these buildings, and one of his

[93:17] projects that he highlighted, talked about the slavery in the San Luis Valley during the Civil War, and there was a like a census of slaves that was taken, and he took that document and talked about the persons who who wrote it, their handwriting, and why their handwriting looked the way they did, and then he blew it up on the building where they think the enslaved people lived with their names on it. And if you don't, if you catch! I cried. A lot at this conference. There's so much like moving work that's happening across the State, and it's really powerful to have something

[94:00] intangible that has been lost. Those stories have been replaced, and then a way to through art to bring that back. And really. really, gosh! Be such a in the moment sort of thing. So so if you go on a road trip down to Fort Garland, they're doing some incredible innovative work, and there's an exhibit up there about the buffalo soldiers, so I could go on. But I'm not going to, John. I think you attended, and Aubrey attended as well. If there's anything that stood out to you, or that you learned, or that you'd like to share. Please do you seem ready? Well, I just. I just want to say that Marcy's presentation was phenomenal and Claire's.

[95:02] and there was another one that I did that day. That was on funding historic preservation, and it was it was addressing funding issues around a specific project. I can't remember where it was. but it was talking about the dearth of funding and the fact that so many other that I came away with this thought. That historic preservation is kind of something that needs to be treated. You know, you know, community more like the arts. more like the the dependent arts, as it were, the things that, like, like, you know, classical symphony, classical dance, those types of things, those are funding dependent

[96:02] propositions. They simply wouldn't exist in our time if it wasn't for a community willing to fund them. And this was this was my own kind of conclusion that I drew from listening to this is strategically that maybe the strategy of of preservation in in the face of everything that's happening right now in in the world needs to be changed to something more like that, that it's something a community undertakes. The same way a community undertakes to have a performing arts center or similar. And of course, some communities have approached it that way. Charleston comes to mind and other southern areas, and in others it's, you know, it's it's supported by a whole nother level of of government, like St. Augustine, Florida, because of its significance

[97:08] to the whole original settlement, and so on. Nobody questions that money needs to go into preservation of those. Some of those things it's just. It's something that I think we need to discuss, especially going forward with this plan, that that our strategy towards making this happen, and our ability to convince people that it has value somehow needs to be, I guess, enhanced, optimize something. So I got that from that other presentation. I feel like you both covered so much.

[98:04] What I have to say about the conference is, I love going to the conference every year because it's like we all get to be philosophers for a couple days instead of like cogs in the machine, and we get brought back to like the theory in the heart behind preservation, instead of like the business processes that dominate mine and Marcy's lives. But with that being said, the thing that stuck with me was based more on like the business processes this year, because there was a session about what is called withintrification, and it's gentrification, but with a focus on economic development, without displacing people. And the speaker was looking at different preservation tools to

[99:01] help with that, and some of those tools were I listed them here, they have there. So this was set in Jacksonville, Florida, by the way, they are prioritizing national register designation over local designations which I found interesting. And that's to like, get property owners on the side of preservation, so that they are less restricted with what they can do to the property that scares people, especially when they have limited financial resources. They still want to be able to change the windows if they need to. You know that I hate bringing windows into the conversation, but you know it's always part of it. They also offered a pro bono pro bono home ownership program and I don't remember who offered that. I think there was like a nonprofit involved. So they're helping people buy houses in the historic

[100:06] overlay zone, and that's another tool they're using overlay instead of a district that's pretty popular. And then the other one was a community benefits agreement between the city and the Jacksonville jaguars. I want to look into that more because they invested a lot of money in the area surrounding the new stadium. I guess they built a new stadium down there, and it supports preservation projects. So that was really cool. To see that keeping people in place is really important. Preservation is about people 2 more so than buildings. I think we're seeing that shift the the one other one that I went to. That was more. The cog part was the presentation of the new State Tax Credit program, and so the Cap and Boulder reviews. At one time. It was the second most number of the State tax credit applications after Denver, and the maximum credit

[101:18] was capped at $50,000, and starting this year. It now goes to a hundred 1,000, which is great, and there is also a completely separate dedicated pool of money for commercial projects that adaptively reuse buildings into housing, and that is huge, and those that project Cap is 1 million dollars. So these are multi-million dollar projects, and that pool is competitive where people are, you know, setting the alarm for 12 0, 1 on January first, st but but because of that, and because I think just of the time there was a whole session on historic preservation and housing, and that was one that conflicted with one of the other sessions, but that I would like to that I would like to go back and watch. So

[102:20] I think if anybody is interested in like going back and watching any of these, we can probably figure out a way, even if we didn't register you directly and keep that off the record. But certainly. anyway, it was a great conference. I really enjoyed meeting new people and reconnecting with people I've known for a while, and next year did they say where the conference was next year? Is it back in Denver. They mentioned Denver. Yes. So I think so. Okay. And then there's like an on the road in the fall. If you want to make a road trip out of it. And

[103:05] is that in Pueblo this year? Yes, okay. There were a lot of announcements at the end of that luncheon that I was like I should pay attention. Okay, so with with that, let's move on to a quick overview. So we're going to do this snapshot. We'll probably adjust it over the next couple meetings. But the goal here is to track the impact of those process improvements. We only have 31 days to look at so far. But let's look at those 31 days. So as a reminder, the changes that initial review period increased from 14 to 21 days. Our goal is to still review things within 14 days, but this gives us a bit more flexibility. The expiration extends from 180 days to a year for lacs and demos, so we will see a decrease of repeat applications. The biggest change is the majority of lacs can be reviewed by staff.

[104:07] and then we removed the the Planning Board liaison from the Landmarks board which won't impact our program operations, but wanted to capture the changes. Here's a graphic of what can be reviewed at staff, which is the majority of projects Ldrc. Still sees. These we kind of trickier or more complex applications, but that could still be reviewed and approved at a committee level. And then the Board reviews things referred from those other levels and new freestanding construction over 340 square feet or demolition within a district. So let's take a look. This shows us that last year, just in January, there was about a 75, 25, roughly split with the majority of lacs and Demos, but that this year we have a lot fewer Demos coming in, and I'm not going to pretend to say. Why, that is, I'm just telling you. We only had 3 demo applications come in in January, where last year we had 9

[105:17] for lacs. We had about the same number 12 this year, 14 last year. So let's take a look at the level of review. So in January, both months this year, and last year had 5 Wednesdays, and we canceled 2 meetings. In January last year we had 8 cases at the Ldrc. 6 of those were lacs, and 2 of those had previously been reviewed. So those were shorter reviews. We had 2 tax credits and 0 demolition in that January. The outcome was that 7 were approved and one had revisions requested, and then was approved. The average meeting time was an hour and a half, and at the same time Staff reviewed 6 lacs.

[106:08] Looking at this year we had 4 cases. So half of the number of cases going to the Ldrc. 3 of those were Lac's 0 tax credits because those moved to staff, and then one demolition. So one of those 4 cases was approved. 3 were referred to the landmarks board. It's likely one of those will revise and come back to the Ldrc. So it's not guaranteed to come to the board. and the average meeting time was an hour, and at that same period of time we reviewed 8 lacs at the staff level and the 3 tax credits. So we're only a month into this, I think my main observations is that the Drc cases this month were trickier. You don't get the fluff in there of storm windows, and

[107:03] you know things that had already been approved. So they are, I think, trickier conversations. But I the meetings are shorter, and the biggest impact that we're still adjusting with is the tax credit applications take more time outside of the Ldrc. Than they did in the Ldrc. And we need to. We need to figure out why. That is because there's something where the prep. Time for the Ldrc we're still needing to do that amount of work, and then we don't have the 30 min like compressed timeline to review it. And so we, you know, just sharing candidly, are our 1st month. We identified a gap that we need to tighten up our tax credit review time, because those can just like suck up like 4 h at a time. And they're 0% fun. So they're important. And I'm so glad we do them. But we might copy the Ldrc format at the staff level and keep those in a more structured way, because otherwise

[108:21] it's like they're there's so much paperwork. I would love to hear your observations in month one of 2025, I think it's awesome, and Staff reviewed, staff reviewed twice as many cases as Ldrc. I mean staff was involved in Ldrc. But I mean, that's the 1st thing I see for this month. It would have it could have been 12 potentially over 3 weeks. But I'm horrible at math. Yeah, it looks like it's working. And so you know, I think you're we're one month in. And it seems like it's a success. And

[109:07] yeah, I'm sure that the statistics will continue to give us more data that gives us evidence to this. And then, like you're saying, there are other tunings that will be happening that are unexpected. So yeah, no, I think this is something to be proud of. Yeah, out of curiosity. Who on and staff is doing reviews, is it just? I mean, there are many types of reviews. But is it you and Claire only, or is Aubrey involved? Yes, yeah, no, it's it's Claire and I. And right now Claire, does the majority of staff reviews. And I'm doing majority of Ldrc reviews, and we we might flip that or adjust it, or or something, but she is so fast, and she's like I used to be the fast one. And now I'm like the.

[110:03] So anyway, we it is just the the 2 of us doing those staff reviews. And then Aubrey does a huge role in the intake to make sure we have the materials that we need, schedule it for the Ldrc. Or route it to the right person for staff. But there's time savings by not having for the staff reviews Claire's doing, not having to prep something or do a Powerpoint. Oh, absolutely for an Ldrc, yeah. And I will say that. That estimate that we've determined last year, where the same case at the staff level takes 30 min. That same case takes 4 h at the landmarks. Board has proven to be true. Crazy? Yeah, except for tax credit. Thank you. Thank you. Yeah, incredible. So yeah. I think that. Yep, that was that was it for that. So we'll update this every month. We'll probably make it prettier

[111:04] next time. But but to track it over 4 months, you know, it's really nice to have quieter start to the year, because the end of last year really slammed into the holidays. Okay? The last second to last thing is an idea from Abby to think about these landmarks board awards early. It's always something that we're like. We see so many projects. But what really stands out so what I was surprised to see when I pulled this together is that in the last 5 years. We didn't give out awards except 2023, when we gave out all the awards. So last year we were, we chose not to do awards. I would like to do awards this year.

[112:01] In the past. Like 2019 we were. The theme seemed to be window rehabilitation and kind of the unsung heroes of of that work. Usually it had been much bigger projects, like the Whittier School or the Stevens granary the year before. So it was smaller that year, and then 2017, you know, the Hannah Barker House had been saved from the brink of destruction. There was a very kind of classic rehabilitation of a house in Mapleton Hill, and then one of a commercial building downtown, so so that this is not meant to say, you know on the spot. What awards do you want to give out? But I did put together some ideas, and a lot of them are actually the tax credit projects, because those are done. They're usually exemplary. And the owners just we get to see that story of like, how much they care and and have invested. And so there's 1 in Floral Park that

[113:10] We made a note from the Drc. Of like this is a potential award winner because it was about salvage salvage and energy efficiency and kind of innovation, and how they were updating that one. I think John, is that Chris Barge's house? Yes. Oh, yeah, cool. Well, and that's the oldest historic district. It's cool. Yeah. Who knows that it could have some of the newest there is a little pair of houses in Mapleton Hill on 6th Street, where these pair of young sisters bought these 2 houses, and I don't think that work is done yet, but it is just the sweetest little rehabilitation of these 2 houses on on a lot. The nurse's dormitory is also not done, but when it is, we're gonna that I would nominate that one. I put 6 6 1 Maxwell on here, which is a great example of infill construction for an adu in a historic district, but it was designed by Rene right before she was on the board, so it might be awkward to give

[114:15] yourself an award she didn't have. She doesn't. Yeah, the rest of the board can nominate it. But it's nice. I mean, it's such an elegant infill and provides housing. And adu, it was just a really great project. 9, 10 spruce was the landmarks board hearing you had about the historic metal roof. and he'd wanted to replace it, but then didn't. And and it was historic. And so that roof is on. He's really taking care of that house in a phenomenal way. And then the 2 other ones I have on. Here is 8 14 Pine Street, which is Jim Lindbergh's house, and that is just

[115:00] this beautiful, seamless integration of energy efficiency, and a completely electrified house that is, Eb. And G. Finds historic house, and then the Arnett Fullen House at 6 46 Pearl Street is Kate Rimley and Dylan Williams house, and they have owned that house for 30 plus years, and just continue to take the most painstaking care of restoring every nook and cranny of that, and I don't know if we've given them an award before. But, man, they really blood, sweat, and tears into that one so might have been when he redid the roof himself, and had to fashion a mountain climbing harness to get up on the tower right, and he found the slate. There's 1 little area between the Vermont and New York border, where you can one place you can find the slate that color. And he found it.

[116:00] There's great. They have great stories. Yeah, yeah. cool. That's a lot that's probably. And I also would add 1836, Pearl Street. Oh, yeah. that one little one. The little house that got moved. But then, really nice condos built around it, and they did a really nice job with the house, and I think they ended up being excited, they saved the Mayhew. Maybe it was the Mayhew. Mayhew. Yeah. Yeah. So why don't I send this list around to get ideas going? And then by next month, maybe we narrow it down awesome. Is there a reason to narrow it down, or is the more the merrier I would say, the more is not the merrier, and we will make the other people grouchy at the Awards ceremony if we do, I think 5 was too many, was the feedback after, or can we just make each one a little shorter? Got like 3 of them? Yes, that's true, that's true. I would aim for like 3, maybe 4 be nice. Okay?

[117:09] I mean, we're also working within like this heritage, roundtable awards ceremony. You guys can give awards to anybody you want, and we could print them out and mail them. And but we're thinking in the format of this award ceremony. We usually recognize the new landmarks, and then a couple project awards. But don't let that limit you. You could put gold stickers all over this. Well, and it is so everyone to feel good. Yeah, but it's also an honor just to be nominated. Yeah, no, I'm kidding. No, you could do honorable mention. Yes, yeah. Okay, that's all that I had on matters. So I'll turn over to you, Chelsea, for the for the last piece here. Thanks.

[118:01] Okay. So IA community member, reached out to me regarding an issue that they were experiencing and she is a former council member and real estate agent in town, very invested in the community, and was experiencing a lot of issues navigating this, and I think my point with to say all that is that if she is experiencing all these issues, I think that anyone else doesn't have a shot of of navigating this, and so I wanted to bring it to one. I think it's just an issue that needs to be brought up and just start the conversation and see where it goes. But okay, so I wrote this email earlier. And I'm just going to read from it because it's late. And I thought about this earlier, so I don't want to think about it again now. But so the property is a landmark property, located at 2130 20 Second Street, and it has a right of way lease, agreement with the city that includes language, stating that the city has the right to destroy the section of the landmark property in the right of way, without cause and with only 10 days notice. And so this clause.

[119:24] specifically for our work, seems to go against the spirit of the rules of the historic preservation program. Not only that, but the clause is also very problematic in that it's making the property uninsurable. And and so, therefore, the owner is currently trying to sell it. and they can't sell it. So it's uninsurable, because it's intruding into the it's uninsurable because the lease agreement says that the city can destroy the house at any time.

[120:06] and also okay, so and then there's other reasons that are. There's other issues with the lease agreement. But I think what's more per most pertinent to the landmarks board is that that exact terminology in the lease seems to go against, because it's a landmark property. It goes against the process of it being a landmark property, and the city actually can't destroy it at any time, as far as I understand it, based on our rules. But unless you want to find yourselves, I don't know how that works but so, because the lease one. So there's that issue with the lease that I think like we should figure out and because this lease agreement was put in place

[121:04] because it became a landmark. So they were originally going to tear it down. Yeah. Yeah. And and because and then they decided that, okay, we'll go with the landmarking route, and because they did that they had to create this lease agreement. And so, because it's landmarked, it has the lease agreement. And now they are having a lot of issues. so because of that, and because the clauses seem to be in contradiction with our policies, I thought it would be best to just bring it here and it. I see Christopher is ready jumping at the bit, jumping at the bit. So yeah. Yeah. So I'll just jump in here. So city staff is aware of this and is working with the property owner and their real estate agent to come to a resolution to, you know, reduce the burden on the property, and it's looking like we'll have a resolution.

[122:09] even if the city revoked a lease involving a landmark property in a right of way, they'd still have to go through the regular landmark alteration certificate process through this board to make any changes, so it's I wouldn't say it's entirely accurate that the city could destroy the house, or even a part of the house without any sort of process that that's just not not accurate. And the landmarks board doesn't really have any authority over. It doesn't have any authority over leases depending on the length of the lease. It's either the city manager or city council, and, as I stated at the beginning of my comments, city staff is working with the property owner and their real estate agent, and it and it looks like we're going to be able to address their concerns.

[123:00] Yeah. Well, both the lease. So thank you for that. I will just, I think, maybe disagree a little bit, that because the while the city might know that they would never do that. That's not what the lease says. The lease says that the lease at any time upon 10 days written notice to the lease. Pursuant to section 8, 6, 7. Revocation of revocable permit, in order to remove encroachment, and the provision and remedies of section whatever shall remove shall apply to the removal of the encroachment. So I think that it's important to acknowledge that maybe our yes, our internal policies might not let that happen. But then the lease should reflect that, because otherwise, why is it in the lease? And this is the legal document that is being brought to the insurers that they say this section is a particular problem. Because why would you insure something that could be

[124:08] destroyed at any time? And also that's landmark. So there should be an additional level of protection against this type of clause. I think. And I think we yeah, I think a an underwriter could craft around that in a way that wouldn't inhibit insurance. I don't understand. Well, so they've but they've sought many what all they know. They had a buyer and the buyer pulled out because of a lot of elements in the lease. But anyway, because they couldn't get it insured right. So I guess I don't know exactly what I'm asking for, but I feel like, because and I know we don't have jurisdiction over the lease agreements.

[125:06] but I do feel like. There's some like, we have some responsibility to ensure that when we are guiding people and our decisions are potentially requiring people to have a landmark home, that the lease agreements reflect the policies in place. And at least aren't damaging to the property owner that is falling within our purview when they're for us. Yeah, I think that makes a lot of sense. And, Chris, so just to follow up, it sounds like you are helping with this specific issue on this home, do you think.

[126:03] or have you determined whether or not there's a general issue with the way in which we're writing these leases that might need to be recrafted for these specific types of situations to avoid that conflict for future agreements. This is the 1st time that I've seen this come up, and I'm not the only city attorney who's involved in in this specific situation, and so it might be something that we look at in the future. But there are legal requirements the city has to include in any sort of right of way leases per our code. And so it's something to keep an eye on. And you know it's it's on. It's on Staff's radar. And, as I said, you know, we're working to get to some sort of you know. mutual resolution to this specific issue.

[127:03] But there isn't really anything for the landmarks board to do in terms of commenting on on how leases the city enters into or doesn't enter into. It's it's it's it is really outside the scope of the the Board's authority to really take any sort of action on this. And so yeah, we're kind of getting a little bit outside the scope of landmarks. Board authority. Sure. Here. One question I have is around like, how pervasive this type of situation is, where I guess I under our purview of like where a landmarked home has a has to have a right of way. Lease 8. It's it has come up more than once in the case of properties that were pre like 1880. Yeah. There was a significant amount of.

[128:06] I guess, survey and correction that happened in Colorado in the late 19th century. There's corrections actually to the grid in Boulder. There was a correction to the State plane coordinate system. At 1 point they realized that what they had thought was. the parallel was slightly deviating. And so it's come up. We've had. We've encountered it with properties where it was in several cases the fact that it was in encroaching either into the right of way or into an adjacent property and it was used as a basis to request demolition. or at least to support a supportive basis for demolition. There's so it's it. It's it occurs.

[129:06] The the legal boundaries and the and the property descriptions were developed initially in some cases without a correct base plane survey. And so and then that later happens. And you get these conditions. And it's even more prevalent in cities like Pittsburgh and Cincinnati, because so much more was built before the Civil War. They're older, they're older cities, and they. I would agree that it's prevalent that there are buildings that go across property lines, and we've seen that a number of times where either somebody has been required to pick up the building and put it on their property before improving it or demolishing, though those don't come up

[130:02] rise to the top as memorable as the barns moving, and such. I think there's another project that is looking to vacate the right of way, which is another process. So it comes up, especially with older buildings that were built before the sophisticated survey that we have now. But I don't. I can't recall, like a many right-of-way leases, that there's a legal agreement between the owner and the city for an encroachment. Usually the the solution is to get that building out of the right of way. But I wasn't involved in this particular case. I'm involved in the project right now. The the question that's come up with other city staff to help find a solution.

[131:04] So I can't speak to that process in a couple years ago. But Hopefully that answered some of your questions. and I totally hear what Chris says, and that we have no purview over the lease. But I really appreciate you bringing this to our attention, because I just think it's something I learned. And wasn't. I remember this property, and we were involved with it. I mean, I remember it happening, but I wasn't looking at the lease or anything. So I'm I appreciate knowing this, you know, I always feel, the more we know, or the more something's illuminated. But I do have faith that the city attorneys will. We'll figure this one out, but I think what I hear from you is also going forward, if that can be avoided in the future, and I think the thing that went through my head when I 1st read your email this afternoon, and then when you reiterated it is is something's protected. How can we then demolish it? And I do think there's a way not this has nothing to do with this case. I do know situations in communities across the country. I don't. I can only think in one building in boulder that was

[132:15] undesignated, de-designated, you know. I think that can happen. But right now, you know, I don't think that's that's what issue. I think it's just something legally that could get resolved. But I really appreciate knowing about it. Because I think it's yeah. And I think important. Yeah. And I think it's important to know that the options that are being presented are very expensive for the property owner. So like to buy the right of way. It's about $10,000. And so that's basically the main option. It seems. Because otherwise

[133:01] you just have issues with the lease. And I think there's also this is separate. But the insurance market is very different. Now, it's like getting very different. It's getting very, very different. And so what was okay, 1015 years ago is, or even 5 years ago, is not okay. Now. so yeah, just pointing that out. No, thank you. I think, for bringing it to our attention. Yeah, I think maybe it's something good to note, just like somewhere in the program where. if this comes up in the future that the there's like a a I don't know. A warning is given to the property owner, or some sort of trigger is set to make sure that the property owner understands that this can cause issues with insurance because it's we're yeah.

[134:04] But I think that's a good point. The whole insurance world's changing, especially with climate change and horrific fires in California and flooding. And yeah, no, thank you, Chelsea. Is there anything else that anyone wants to bring in front of the board. if not the meeting I really want to hit. This someday is adjourned at 8 16 pm. Excellent! Thank.