June 4, 2025 — Landmarks Board Regular Meeting

Transcript

Captions from City of Boulder YouTube recording.

[0:00] Order! Oh! Renee, will you say that again. The June landmarks board meeting is called to order. Let's see, that's gonna open. Sorry technical difficulties. Okay, welcome to the June 4, th 2025 landmarks board meeting. It's 6 0. 3 Pm. Marcy will review the virtual meeting decorum. 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 at bouldercolorado.gov slash services, slash productive atmospheres.

[1:08] The following are examples of rules of decorum found in the Boulder revised Code, and other guidelines that support this vision. These will be upheld during this meeting all remarks and 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 behaviors that disrupt or otherwise impedes the ability to conduct the meeting are prohibited. 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. Currently, only audio testimony is permitted online. In the next slide we'll go through. If you're joining on a PC. In the zoom app, it's alt y to raise your hand, or if you're on a mac option y. And if you're calling in Star 9 will raise your hand, you can also find it under the reactions bar to raise your hand

[2:12] back to you, Renee. Acknowledging that we have a quorum tonight. The recording of this meeting will be available in the Records Archive on the Youtube within 28 days of this meeting. roll, call, and introductions, John. I'm John Decker. I'm a member of the Landmarks Board. Abby. Hi! I'm Abby Daniels, member of the Landmark sport. Chelsea. Hi Chelsea Castellano, member of the Landmarks Board. Michael. Michael Ray, member of the Landmarks, board and vice chair of the Landmarks Board. And I am Renee Globek, member of the Landmarks, board and chair of the Landmarks Board.

[3:03] We know that people who are here to participate may have some strong emotions about this project. We want to hear you, and have found it more productive. If you are speaking, to persuade us, rather than to break us staff or the applicant. As with the regular landmarks, board meetings, you may only speak at the appropriate time during the public hearing requests to speak outside of these times are denied. We request the members of the public who wish to speak. Let us know, by raising their virtual hand as board chair. I will call for a roll call, vote on any motions made approval of the minutes. Does anyone have any changes or alterations to the may 7 min. I don't hear any, so I move that we approve these minutes. Do I have a second. Second.

[4:00] Thank you, Michael. We'll do a roll call. Vote, John. I. Michael. Bye. Chelsea. Hi. Abby. Hi. And I vote aye. so public participation for non agenda items, potential virtual participants, do we have any open comments at Aubrey. All right, let's give it a second. If you would like to speak during open comment, please raise your virtual hand now. Looks like we have one. Okay, we no longer swearing people in for the open comment. So no need for that. But I will ask you to state your full name, and you will have 3 min.

[5:02] All right. I'm unsure of your name, so just be sure to state your name, as Rene said, and I will start the timer. All right. Hello, everybody. This is Leonard Siegel with historic boulder. Thank you for the opportunity to have a little time with you all tonight. I just wanted to take this opportunity to remind you, if you're not aware that historic boulder is working with 2 other historic organizations to have a film festival featuring historic preservation films this Sunday. And if I missed an announcement about that at the beginning, it's because I just logged on right now. So if it was already mentioned. I apologize, and if it hasn't been. I want to say it's a really important step for historic preservation to get a different Avenue and vehicle for conversations about the values and importance of historic preservation in the Boulder community. We're going to have people like

[6:06] Ashley Stoltzman, a county commissioner, be on a panel, and I believe Marcy will be participating on a panel, and and Ruth Mckaiser, who formerly worked with the city of Boulder as well, so I hope you could attend. It is starts. It starts at 4 o'clock this Sunday at Chautauqua, and tickets are available on the Chautauqua website, or you can go to historic boulder as well. and that's all I want to commend you for championing historic preservation as you do, and helping the conversation continue at the front lines, where you're all positioned tonight, and as you always are, that's all I have to say. Thank you very much, and be well. Thank you, Leonard.

[7:01] I will give a few minutes for others to raise their hand. We have one more so far, Margo Josephs, I will give you permission to speak and start the timer. Hi, everyone! My name is Margaret Josephs. My address is 3,896, Wonderland Hill, Ave. Boulder, Colorado, and I live in the city of Boulder. I am on today to speak on behalf and in support of the Boulder Valley Health Clinic in favor of the oh, is that not yet? Marcy, do we talk about what the agenda items are? Can she. Hi, Margo, you're a little bit early, will. Okay. Public comment under 5. A for you to speak. Oh, okay. Sorry. Thought it was under open comment. If you want to speak to anything not related to the one public hearing tonight, you're welcome to do so. Okay, I'll wait. Thank you. We're getting there. Margo.

[8:01] Okay, any others that want to speak about open comment and not about the public hearings tonight. I'm not seeing anyone else, so I think it's safe to move on. Okay, so we will move on to our 1st public hearing, that is. public hearing, in consideration of an application to demolish a building constructed 9 in 19 0. 5, at 2, 8, 8, 9, Belmont road. historic number 2 0 2 5, 0 0 7 8. A non-landmark property older than 50 years old. Pursuit to section 9, 1123 of the Boulder Revised Code 1981, and under the Presidents of prescription by chapter 1, 3, quasi judicial hearings. Brc. 1981. The owner is the Boulder Valley Health Center, represented by Christy Burkhart.

[9:05] and the applicant is Rosie Denton. From Front Range land solutions. I will hand it over to Claire for the staff presentation. Thank you, Renee. So this is a quasi judicial hearing. So I'm going to swear in. I am Claire Brandt. Historic preservation planner, and I affirm that I will tell the truth. I'm going to pause now to allow board members to note any ex-parte contacts. All right, hearing none. Let's move on. This is an overview of the process we'll go through today. I'm going to give the staff presentation, and after that the Board may ask me questions. The applicant will then have 10 min to present to the board, and the Board may ask them questions. We'll then open the public hearing, and, after all members of the public have made comments, the applicant may respond to anything that was said.

[10:00] The Board will then deliberate. A motion today requires an affirmative vote of at least 3 members to pass, and the motion will state findings, conclusions and a recommendation. As Rene mentioned, a record of this hearing will be available in a couple of days on Youtube as a video recording, and the official record will be added to the archive within 28 days, although usually much sooner than that today the criteria for review is outlined in the Boulder Revised Code under 9, 1123. It's a demolition application and the purpose of reviewing demolition applications is to prevent the loss of buildings that may have historic or architectural significance by providing time to consider alternatives to demolition. The criteria that can be considered are the eligibility of the building for designation as an individual landmark. That's if it has historical architectural significance.

[11:00] The relationship of the building to the character of the neighborhood as an established and definable area. The reasonable condition of the building, and the projected cost of restoration or repair, although not deterioration caused by unreasonable neglect. and the options for the board tonight are to approve the demolition, request or place a stay of demol hang on a second would. Everybody mind muting their computers. I'm getting some background chatter. Thank you. Okay, so let's carry on. The options for the board tonight are to approve the demolition, request, or place the stay of demolition, to allow time to consider alternatives, and a stay would not exceed 180 days from the day the review fee was paid so that would expire on October 29th of this year. The application process so far has has been

[12:02] pretty straightforward planning and development services, accepted the application to demolish the building. On April 14, th due to the age of the building. The initial review was held by the landmarks design Review Committee, and they referred the application to the Landmarks board in a public hearing which is today finding that there was probable cause to believe that the building may be eligible for designation as an individual landmark. The applicant paid the review fee on May second, and a hearing needs to be held within 75 days. All right. The property itself is located near the corner of 29th Street. Just actually this one here. This is 28.th So 29, th you might miss it. And Belmont Road, which is here. It's not within the boundaries of an identified potential historic district.

[13:03] The building itself faces south onto Belmont right here. It's accessed via a bridge over the farmer. Stitch. Farmer Stitch is is here. You can see the the bridge. Here And the public sidewalk crosses through the property just to the north of the ditch. The house itself is set back about 80 feet onto the lot, and the lot contains vegetation surrounding the building, but it's generally been paved for parking at the front and the rear. This is a 1 and a half story frame vernacular building, with a double front gable on a hipped roof form with wide overhanging eaves, and a pair of gable dormers cross at the ridgeline just behind the second front, facing gable. See those right here.

[14:00] The front gable includes varied shingles and a Palladium style window. The front porch is inset at the southeast corner, and includes slender column supports atop some stone piers the lower porch and stair walls are stone with a framed and sided porch wall on the east side. You can see that here there's a sash and transom parlor window, with architrave lintel and decorative sill at the facade. The walls of this building throughout are clad with horizontal lap, siding corner boards, and a wood cornice and a water table going around the building. Right here the foundation is pieces of stone. This is the east elevation, showing that that stone foundation, the horizontal lap siding. some of the corner boards and the the wood, cornice and water table, and and the really wide overhanging eaves. There's a bay window behind the inset porch at this elevation that includes a sash and transom parlor window.

[15:15] The west elevation shows shows part of the nested gable roof on the hip roof, with the gable dormer behind it. This dormer includes a pair of geometric fixed pane windows, separated by a narrow, fixed, narrow divider with horizontal siding, and there's a large addition at the rear that includes gable dormers and additional geometric windows. The the the rear elevation includes an inset entry porch, which you can just about see here with substantial supports and a concrete pad. The rear has a large addition.

[16:02] on top of the original hipped roof with a 1-story gable wall, dormer and the dormer includes geometric fixed pane windows separated by that single divider. Okay, so integrity. The building is in its original location. However, the the paving of Belmont Road appears to have changed the level of the street in relation to the building. and then the farmer's ditch between the road and the property has been bermed and rerouted. So it kind of blocks the view of the house from the street. The original design of the building was modified pretty heavily. After 1975. There was a. The secondary gable was added at this point, and it kind of gives the impression that the roof is gabled rather than than hipped, because it covers most of the building, and then there was a large addition added to the rear. You can see this is the the original form of the building is clearly a hipped roof.

[17:08] and and now it's very difficult to see that hipped roof, unless you have this to refer to. The building does retain some of its historic materials, notably the varied shingles in the gable, the Palladian style window, the sash and transom parlor windows with the architrave, lintel and decorative trim, and the bay windows. The facade demonstrates vernacular workmanship. In the fine execution of these of these items. however, the building's ability to convey a feeling of its time has been diminished by the changing context and the setting of the house on the property. and you can really see that here the surroundings have been modified with the introduction of of parking around the building rather than the residential lawn and plantings, and in general the building has not retained its ability to convey its association with its early residence and architecture.

[18:13] Staff analysis of the criteria looks at the eligibility of the building for designation as an individual landmark, its historic, architectural, and environmental significance. The Landmarks board adopted the significance criteria in 1975 to help evaluate buildings in a consistent and equitable manner. and we consider these criteria, and also the relationship of the building to the character of the neighborhood. and the reasonable cost of of the condition of the building. Sorry the reasonable condition of the building, and the projected cost of restoration or repair. So the historic significance criteria considers the development, heritage, and cultural characteristics and the within. The what we found for this building

[19:08] was that the Olmec family constructed the house in 19 0. 5, along with 2 others on adjacent lots. This one was the central building. Louisa Ormick purchased a 5 area 5 acre area north of the fairgrounds in 19 0 3, and the Olmec family included 5 children, and together they built these 3 houses on the south side of the 5 acres facing Belmont Road. Rose Ormick and her 1st husband, Jl. Maxwell, moved into the house at 2889, Belmont, as soon as construction was complete. Around 19 0 5, Jl. Died on June 7, th 19 0 9, and Rose, who was a corseteer, continued to live at the house. She married Eb. Sutton on December 24, th 1921.

[20:03] The house was sold as part of Eb's estate in 1945. So while members of the Olmec family lived at the property for more than 4 decades. Staff considers the property does not have the integrity needed to convey that significance. After 1945 the property passed between a number of owners, and from 1978 until 2023, it was used as offices for a real estate company. The building is representative of vernacular residential construction of the period. It's a vernacular frame building, with classical detailing, including the decorative shingle and palladium window. However, the additions to the building have diminished the architectural and aesthetic interest or value, the execution of the buried shingles in the gable. the palladium window, and the sash and transom parlor windows.

[21:05] all demonstrate artistic merit and craftsmanship. But overall the house is not a significant example of architectural styles of the past, since it's been substantially modified through later editions, including the addition of the secondary gable and the dormers across the original hipped roof. We also found that the property does not have architectural significance. It doesn't represent a unique natural or man-made environment, and the property is not located within the boundaries of a potential historic district. and the changes to the property have diminished the connection to the site. The flanking buildings constructed by the Ormick family were demolished after 1960, and the lawn and gardens were paved and converted to parking. After 1978, the farmers ditch on the south side of the property between Belmont Road and the building were burned, rerouted, and mature trees were removed from the front of the property in 2017

[22:11] due to the location of the the the farmers ditch and the and the paving of Belmont Road. The building is somewhat hidden on the site which is now lower than the street, and the building is not prominently visible. It is a remnant of Northeast boulder's rural past. In the early 20th century oil was discovered in this area. So while other edges of boulder were speculatively platted for residential use, this area to the north and east of Boulder, retained large lots that were leased or sold to oil and gas companies. and oil was never found on this block. Don't get excited. The land was retained as a large portion, and was divided very slowly, 1st as 5 and 10 acre lots, and later as large tracts as it was subdivided

[23:15] with these relatively large tracks, the outskirts of Boulder to the northeast has developed a mix of commercial light, industrial and high occupancy, residential buildings, beginning in the 19 seventies and the property at 2889. Belmont does not retain the original relationship with the neighborhood, as the house is somewhat hidden from public view. And then all the development around the property, too. So the applicant has also submitted information on the condition of the building materials received were in your packet and also are summarized here. The building has significant structural issues, including the lack of a structural foundation.

[24:06] The mortar and cobblestone assembly supporting the original part of the structure, has been repaired over the years with pieces of flagstone that cannot effectively handle settlement issues visible cracks inside and outside. The original parts of the building, near windows and doorways indicate settlement issues caused from the lack of proper foundation. Current. Siding and trim are in poor condition, and most of the original siding has been replaced. All of the windows are single pane, and do not comply with current code requirements for energy efficiency. The front porch has substantial settlement damage and needs to be restored or rebuilt. and only one of the columns supporting the front porch roof is the original wood column. The others are still columns that were likely added in the 19 seventies. The applicant also provided information about the projected cost of repair, which was also included in the packet, and the applicant, I believe, is here to answer questions on that.

[25:10] So Staff's recommendation today is that the landmarks board approve the demolition of the building. At 2889, Belmont Road. based on the criteria set forth in Section 9, 1123 f. In that while the building dates from 19 0. 5, and is associated with the extended Ormick family. The building does not have the integrity needed to convey that significance. The additions to the building diminish the architectural interest or value, and is not a significant example of architectural styles of the past. and the house does not represent a unique, natural, or man-made environment, and the loss of the building would not constitute a significant impact on Boulder's historic resources. and our recommended motion is that the landmarks board approve the application to demolish the building.

[26:05] So that's the end of the staff presentation. This is a reminder of the next steps in the process. The applicant has, up to 10 min to present to the board, followed by public participation an opportunity for the applicant to respond to anything that's said, and then board deliberation. And the question for the board today is, that is, if the building has historic significance. If yes, the Board will place a stay of demolition on the application to provide time to consider alternatives. If no, the Board will approve the demolition request. and a reminder of the criteria to be considered is the eligibility of the building for designation as an individual landmark consistent with 9, 11, one, and 9, 11, 2 of the Boulder Revised Code. The relationship of the building to the character of the neighborhood as an established and definable area. The reasonable condition of the building, and the reasonable projected cost of restoration or repair.

[27:09] So does anyone have any questions for me before we turn it over to the applicant. I have. I have one question, Claire. Yeah. Can you go back to the roof? The pictures of the old roof versus like the new roof. Way back. It's all the way back. Okay, there we go. This one. Yeah, that one it's hard to see, because they put those dormers on the sides in the front. But the front looks like it's. And and the picture of your front seems like the front elevation is pretty much intact. Do you agree with that, or disagree? Because I I it was going back and forth. But what what you were saying with like the hip and the gable end on that

[28:01] that would be the south side. I believe they added an additional gable behind. so I believe that this was the original. Like hipped roof. You can see it kinda here, and then they added another gable behind it. But it's it's hard to tell. Okay? Okay, yeah. Cause in that, the the Google images just the way the light kind of shows on the older one. It looks like there's a gable. Yeah, see? It looks like there's it's a it's a hip roof. But with a gable on the front. I would be hard pressed to say that any part of that roof is as it was when built. I mean the rest of it. I mean, they have dormers everywhere, you know. So it has been, you know, changed a lot. So I was just clarifying that. Yeah.

[29:03] And does anyone else have any more any questions for Claire? Nope, okay, so we'll move into the applicant presentation. The owner. I believe that the Boulder Valley Health Center Representative is Christy Burkhart, and the applicant is Rosie Denton. From Front range land solutions. Hopefully, I pronounce both of your names correctly. Okay. So this is Rosie Dennett. It's it's Dennett, like Bennett, Renee. Okay. So anyway. Okay, I assume you can hear me. Okay. Yes. I apologize for the camera not working.

[30:00] Okay. So I am the planning consultant for the property owner, the Boulder Valley Health Center and Christy Burkhart is the facilities director. Dr. Savita Ginday is also here tonight. She's the executive director. and Tj. Gilpatrick is our contractor rep from Symmetry builders, which wrote the report that you have in your packets. He's also here to answer questions, and then we also have our architect, Eric Eskembrenner, from the Smith group. So we've got a full team available to answer questions. I just have a few comments to make, and then Christy has a few comments, and then we're all available to answer any questions you may have. So obviously, we agree with your staff's assessment that this structure does not meet your criteria for landmarking. First, st as you saw in the photos that Staff presented. The structure is surrounded by a mixture of commercial and multifamily units, and is, in fact, dwarfed by the building to the east.

[31:00] Clearly the agricultural context no longer exists in this part of boulder. Secondly, the CEO for symmetry builders completed that assessment that you have, and shows how the building was significantly has significant structural issues and has very few historical elements left to preserve the lack of a structural foundation has caused visible cracking inside and out, as Staff described, and the foundation clearly would need to be replaced the previous modifications primarily after the 1975, yeah, in the 19 seventies into the 19 eighties to the structure and the needed repairs today leave the only historical items that could potentially be salvaged to include the original window design on the south, facing gable, and the one wood column 3, rd the high cost to repair the structure and replace the foundation. As stated in the report demonstrates how it's not cost effective to restore the building. And again, if you have any questions about that, you know we do have our representative from that company that can answer those for you.

[32:19] In addition, one of your board members did mention in the Landmarks committee meeting, that relocation of the building might be a consideration of this board, so that assessment was included in our report, even though it's not one of your criteria. We just thought we'd go ahead and address it now for you, in case you wondered, and our contractor identified many cost prohibitive issues and physical challenges surrounding that, including the need to separate the original structure from the two-story addition and back. and you know all the dormers and all of that. But and traversing that steep, narrow access up toward Belmont Road, but over the ditch there was a concern that it would actually even break in half if they tried to do that. So in summary. We believe the building does not meet the criteria for landmarking, and respectfully request that you approve our application for demolition of this structure, and I'm going to turn it over to Christy. Now.

[33:17] Good evening, members of the Review Board. Thank you so much for the opportunity to speak with you this evening. My name is Christy Burkhardt and I serve as the director of facilities at Boulder Valley Health Center. I'm here to really share about the operational reasons behind organizations need to consolidate our building into one. In 2024, our executive leadership team, and along with our board of directors, spent about 8 months researching and planning for the next chapter for our facility. We evaluated properties throughout the city of Boulder and throughout Boulder County, during numerous medical buildings, working closely with our realtor and weighing all of our options for our long term needs. Then 2, 8, 8, 9 came up for sale, and for us. That was a sign we've been operating out of our current building at 2, 8, 5, 5 since the late 19 eighties. It's a place that our patients in our community know, and they trust

[34:11] they rely on us, not just for our care, but to be safe, consistent, a presence in a complicated healthcare landscape. So when the property came up for sale next door, just a decent to our current building. The choice was clear for us. Let's purchase that building, demolish that building, and renovate 2855 for the resiliency, and to be able to be the healthcare center that we need to be for our patients to be able to extend the care needed for our community. Our current building is we're bursting at the seams team. We've added Saturday clinic hours to meet the demand, and we're at that point. We're still at capacity, and beyond our staff is working in every available nook and cranny. And, believe me, we have found all of those nooks and crannies. It's just not sustainable. We need space that matches our mission and supports the full scope of services that we provide.

[35:05] We provide full, comprehensive, comprehensive, reproductive health care, including sexual health care, reproductive health care and abortion services providing this type of care comes with a unique set of challenges, logistical, financial, and unfortunately, security related. When our services are divided between the 2 separate buildings. our challenges aren't just doubled. They're actually magnified in ways that deeply affect our operations and our staff and our patients. At 1st it might be, seem really logical. Let's fit. administrative and clinical, that makes a lot of sense. But actually, the duplicate the duplication of the services is really at a great cost within, and also an increased risk at our team. Abortion providers are actually frequent targets of protest, harassment, and even violence. And because of that we must maintain around the clock security protocols.

[36:00] surveillance systems, alarm access controls and emergency response plans. When we have to maintain those systems across 2 buildings. The cost just multiplies, and worse. it introduces more points of potential failure. consolidating into one building significantly reduces that risk. It allows us to strengthen and streamline our security, not just for us as staff, but for every patient that walks through our doors. Then there's the staffing, the utilities. When departments are are spread across 2 different locations, we lose efficiency staff must physically move between the 2 locations to attend meetings, to coordinate care across our shared in it, and also to access shared resources. This leads to workflow disruptions, communication, delays, and greater risk of error, especially when dealing with time, sensitive communication and emotionally sensitive care that we provide. We also face duplicate operational expenses, maintaining separate utilities in both buildings, redundant medical equipment, office supplies, staff kitchen facilities, emergency kits, and other regulated materials.

[37:13] Those costs quickly add up and actually divert precious resources from where they're most needed, which is our patient care. Finally, visibility. Matters operating across 2 building increases our footprint, which in our case unfortunately can increase protest, activity and heightened safety concerns. It adds complexity to our relationships with local law enforcement and emergency responders who have to also navigate and coordinate security measures across those multiple locations. In conclusion, every duplicated system, whether it's security staffing utilities or infrastructure represents a strain on our nonprofit resources. For an organization like ours working under high operational, operational, emotional, and financial pressure consolidating into one building is not just a preference. It's really essential.

[38:04] They'll allow us to operate more efficiently with a greater focus on what matters most, which is our community and the patients that walk in and out of our door. Thank you so much for your time and your thoughtful consideration. I'm happy to answer any questions that you might have for us. and I believe that would conclude our part of our presentation. So I will kick that back over to the board for the next step. Thank you. So does anyone have any? We're allowed to ask the applicant questions at this point. Right? Does any one of the staff have any questions.

[39:00] Okay? It looks like there are no questions for you. Thanks for the thoughtful presentation. So let's move to public comment. Virtual attendees. Please raise your hand or press Star 9. If you would like to speak to this item. we will need to swear you in at this part. All right. Oh, sorry, Renee. Oh, I was just gonna say, I don't know if I swore in the applicants 1st time 1st time. That's okay. So. Chris, do you want? Good evening. You just ask them if they swear that everything they said was true. Everybody who did. Okay. So Rosie, will you swear that what you said was true, state your full name and state that.

[40:02] Yes, Rosie did it. Scouts on her. Everything I said was truthful. Okay, thank you. And Christy. Christy Burkhard. I swear that all of the talking points that I spoke to this evening were truthful. Alright! Thank you. Sorry for that little mishap. All right, let's move to public comment. Alrighty. So we do have 4 hands raised or raised hands either way. Oh, and a couple more, so we will start with Carol Byerly, followed by Deborah Holby and Margo Josephs. So, Carol, you should be able to speak, and I'll start your. I'm okay. So, Claire, yeah, Carol, go ahead and state your full name and swear to tell the board the whole truth, and you will have 3 min.

[41:01] My name is Carol Byerly. I live at 1811, Columbine Avenue, and everything I say will be what I believe and true. So I'm happy to have the opportunity to speak and support the applicants. Request for the demolition of this property. I'm a historian, and I've taught at Cu, and I've lived in Boulder over 35 years. and over that time I've seen a lot of development, not of not all of which is good or beautiful or beneficial to our community. So I love historic preservation. And I also really appreciate the policy of reviewing the demolition of buildings more than 50 years old. That is good public policy. But I also believe that the staff recommendation that this is not a case of historic landmark designation at 2080 89. Belmont is also very good public policy.

[42:14] As was stated, the building has lost a lot of its historic significance. Previous renovation to the structure and the changing character of the property in the neighborhood have really changed the meaning, so I don't know what preserving this house would signify. or how it would benefit our city. But I actually think that this project is can preserve history in 3 ways. The 1st way was, I loved the city's memorandum to the Landmarks board. I thought it produced a wonderful history of the Olmec family and subsequent owners of this property. And

[43:02] I even learned a new term, the vernacular residential construction very cool, so I hope that the center will save this report, and maybe a photograph of the building to as a reminder of who occupied this property in the past to commemorate previous residents. Some of the historic features of the houses can be retained like the windows, can be repurposed and enjoyed elsewhere. and finally, Boulder Valley is more than 50 years old itself now. and so, allowing demolition and construction of an additional project, will help it to preserve its long history and mission of protecting the health and welfare of women in our community and beyond. So I'm happy to recommend to the Landmarks board to approve the Boulder Valley Health Center's application to demolish this structure.

[44:02] So thank you very much. Thank you. If if I could just hop, hop in here. I'm Chris Reynolds, city attorney for the Board. Anybody speaking tonight? You don't need to say your address. You can just say your name, you know you're not required to say your address. You can, if you'd like to, but you don't have to. So just putting that out there for folks. Thank you, Chris. All right, and next we have Deborah Holby. So. Deborah, will you? Raise your hand? Oh, I guess you just have to swear to tell the truth, raise your hand and swear to tell the truth to the board the whole truth. State your full name to proceed, and you have 3 min. Alright. I'm Deborah Halvey. I swear to tell the truth, and I appreciate being able to speak.

[45:00] And about this issue. What it I would like to say my address because I'm a neighbor. I live less than a block from the clinic, and I have lived here over 30 years. I live at 2, 9, 5, 4, Glenwood Drive. I walk around the block often, and I literally walk by where this property, at 2, 8, 8, 9, Belmont Road exists. and you can't really see it from the street any longer, because of the way things have been Redone over the years. But what I'd like to speak to is that the building really doesn't. It doesn't give everyone access. Everyone deserves access, and the the clinic really tries to reach out to the community. Everyone deserves access to the spaces in their community. But this 2889 Belmont Road has no Ada access, no compliant restrooms, no elevator, it excludes people with disabilities by design

[46:14] and renovating it. To meet accessibility standards would be prohibitively expensive, demolishing. It allows us to create an inclusive place that welcomes everybody. I've been a neighbor in the neighborhood. I've referred people to the clinic over the decades with very good results for young women that I befriended and relatives, and they've experienced wonderful care from the clinic, and I'm a volunteer at the clinic also. So I really appreciate the board. So consideration and the report from the city.

[47:01] Because I think the building unfortunately and sadly, no longer retains anything of historic significance. So I hope you have an easy decision. Thank you. I'm done. Thank you. And moving right along. We have Margo Josephs. Hi, everyone! This is Margaret Josephs. I affirm that I will state the whole truth. For everything I'm about to say. now that it is actually my turn to speak. Thank you. So thanks for the review and the thorough background. It was interesting to listen to all of that. And the piece that I want to really hit home right now is really about the the economic position that the ability to get rid of this building does what? What that does for the organization, as you all heard restoring this property would cost over a million dollars. And that's just to meet the minimum minimum code, and that likely would be much more than that cost that we even know that. And so you know, all of those hidden costs and the risk of renovating the building, especially considering there's no foundation, as you heard.

[48:22] for that price, the organization could build something new, safer, much more energy efficient. And that meets today's standards and demands. And so something like this, and having the ability to build something new and to do something new on the space would contribute to the local economy and meet today's needs as opposed to trying to hang on to something that that doesn't have significant historical significance as as you've heard from the staff, and so I wouldn't see this. I would recommend that we look at this demolition as not a loss. But it's actually an investment in the future. And when considering the organization and the need for it to, you know, prioritize

[49:05] the critical quality care, the organization needs to be really smart and mindful about the financial implications of this investment in this project, and it would make better sense, not only for the organization, but also all of the clients and communities that they serve to invest that funding wisely, and instead of investing in renovating this building to look into demolitioning it so that they can look to the future. Thank you. Thank you. Margo. Thank you, Margo, and we do have 5. 0, 4 more speakers. We will have Paula Stone Williams, followed by Jess Peak. Low. Sorry, I think I said that wrong. followed by Jessica Newman and Molly Daniels. So we will start with Paula.

[50:12] My name is Paula Stone Williams, and I promise that I will tell the whole truth, as I understand it to be. I am a supporter of Boulder Valley Health Center. I also happen to be the Mayor pro tem. Of Lions, Colorado, and I am the Lions Town Board, representative for the Lions Historic Commission. I am the Town Board representative for the Lions Historic Commission, because I care a lot about historic preservation in lions, as I'm sure is the case in Boulder. We tend to follow our staff's suggestions unless there is a compelling reason not to do so. and I am in a full agreement with your staff decision that this property, in fact, should be, and can be, repurposed to serve the purposes of 2855, Belmont. And that is, in fact, what should take place at 2, 8, 8, 9, Belmont.

[51:03] Thank you. Thank you, Paula. Then we have Jess. I think. You do. And Hi! This is Jessica Piclo, I swear and promise to tell the truth in my testimony, and you got my name correct. So any concerns that anybody had about mispronunciations. All good. I live in Boulder County, and I am in support of demolition, and want to talk briefly about some of the safety needs. I work in reproductive rights and justice journalism as my day job. I understand the work that Boulder Valley does for the community and for the country, and the safety risks that Christy outlined in her presentation are absolutely on point. And I just want to. Yes, and those, because imagine walking into a building, for example, with no foundation like you've heard, visible cracks, outdated wiring, and no fire suppression system. Those are the realities. At 2889 Belmont

[52:06] Road. As you've heard, the structure is not just outdated. It's unsafe and unaccessible. It lacks basic Ada access, energy, efficient windows and simple safety features like smoke detectors. You've heard about the cost to bring it up to code, which would be astronomical, and in a time when Boulder Valley needs to be putting all of its resources to providing care for members of the community, and beyond demolition isn't just practical. It's responsible. And I urge the committee to take the recommendation and vote for demolition. So we can prioritize safety and build something that serves the community here. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Jess. Now we have Jessica. Hi! Good evening, everyone. My name is Jessica. I am a resident of Boulder County. I'm gonna go out on a limb and be a little vulnerable here, and admit that I was a patient of the Boulder Valley Health Clinic many years ago.

[53:13] I love that you're being vulnerable, but we have to swear. To tell the truth. I swear. To tell the truth, I thank you. I I promise to swear. To tell the truth. Yeah. I was a patient of the clinic many years ago, and believe very strongly in the work that the clinic does as a mom of 2 young boys raising boys in Boulder County, and just want to reiterate some things that have been said about just generally letting go of the past and moving towards progress. Sometimes, you know, holding on to the past can hold us back. But it's clear that the building at 2889 Belmont Road has been altered so much. Its history is is just barely recognizable.

[54:00] It's not really a landmark anymore. It's more of a liability. And if we can let go of what doesn't serve us anymore. Then we can make room for progress and move forward together as a community that reflects the values that I think we all share here, which are safety and sustainability and and community and so I would urge us to vote for for demolition, and I very much appreciate your time. Thank you, Jessica. Now we have Molly. On, mute. Hello! Can you hear me? Yes. Hi, everyone! My name is Molly Daniels. I swear that the testimony I'm about to share is true. I'm here in support of the applicant's request and the staff's recommendation to demolish the current building. I want to focus a bit on the responsible environmental focus here. So preserving a building with no environmental significance. There's no energy efficiency, no sustainability features is not the right decision for this community. As we've talked about. There are a few core

[55:13] principles here, and certainly sustainability is one of them. 2889. Belmont Road only has single pane windows which you've already heard tonight are not up to code. There's no insulation in the building. There are no modern systems to help with resource management, electricity, water heating. A new structure could be designed with sustainability principles in mind and built to a high environmental standard that reduces both the energy use and the carbon emissions. There are new and efficient green technologies available for building today and retrofitting the building would certainly limit how environmentally conscious Bdhc can be. So again, I think we've already hit another principle here which is safety. But having a dear loved one. Work at this clinic makes that a high priority for me as well, and and certainly that's the

[56:02] another principle in mind here that I think we've hit very well this evening, so thank you all for your time and your consideration. I really appreciate it. Thank you, Molly. It seems. Aubrey, do we have any more participants. I'm not seeing anyone else. I think we're okay to move on. So the applicant may now have an additional 3 min if they would like to comment on anything that's been said during the process. Would you like to add anything. I don't think so. I think we'll just all be available to answer any questions, if you have any for us. Perfect. Okay. so we're now going to move forward into the board discussions. I ask that everyone else mute your computer or phones for the duration of the discussion. We have allotted 45 min

[57:00] and all 7 o'clock. Now, obviously, that's pretty easy for us to talk to about it. Is there anyone that would like to kick it off. John has unmuted. It looks like before the board deliberates. Can I just make a point here? so there's lots of testimony about a potential, you know, proposed use for the property if a demolition is approved, and I just want to remind the Board that you know what the property might get used, for if a demolition is approved is not criteria, and if a board member or enough board members talk about that during deliberations, and that could inject enough legal error to overturn the Board's decision, so I would just caution the Board in really any discussion of any proposed use. If a demolition is approved. And just try to really focus on the criteria that's in the code which does not include the proposed use of a property. If a demolition is approved. So just wanted to say those things.

[58:07] Thank you, Chris. Okay, I'll jump in because I unmuted. I guess that means something. just looking at this in the terms of the criteria. The building is, is standing altered significantly from what it was the it is interesting that the front elevation of the building is reasonably intact to the historic view. But the rest of the building is, is, as staff stated, altered significantly to the point where the alterations essentially negate. Whatever architectural interest there may have been there. I mean, I could argue that it's interesting

[59:01] to consider a building all the way through its recent history and all the changes part of its life that have happened to it. But they aren't always the most positive alterations to a building, anyway. So I'm going to agree with Staff on the finding that the architectural character has been lost through the recent history of this building. The environmental and contextual issues are such that the building has virtually none of its original site left. and is no longer in the type of context that it was originally built into and existed at least the early part of its life in. It's a completely different kind of urban situation that it finds itself in now, and it no longer has much of a place in that.

[60:00] So I'm inclined to agree with Staff's recommendation that red purely from the standpoint of criteria and ignoring all the cross-sectional issues. It really does not rise to the level where we can hold to preserve it. Oh, and there is the condition of the building and the fact that it would be prohibitively expensive, at least at this point, to bring it back into any kind of occupancy. So, standing with Staff's decision on this or recommendation. Great thanks, John. Other staff members for comment. Renee. I'm happy to speak next. Great

[61:02] so, and to all of those of you attending tonight. Virtually I apologize for not turning on my camera. But I am in transit and didn't want to get anyone motion, sickness, or anything. So thank you for that. And I just have to get a shout out, as my name is Abby Daniels. When the landmarks board members and I have a sister named Molly Daniels. I had to do a little bit of a double take there, but I really want to thank everybody who took the time to speak tonight and join join us this evening. I I was one of the ones at the Ldrc. Where this building came forward, and while it added time and effort to the Boulder Valley clinic, I still appreciate this process, because once we lose a building we lose it forever, and I am one of those people who tend to lament and am cognizant of what we've been losing over the years here in Boulder, and really try to look for a way, or to say, you know, should there be a a stay placed on this.

[62:09] and so forth. But here's the deal with this and one of the reasons. My decision is easier. This evening is with the excellent staff presentation. But more than that, the applicants information that they shared with us. It's very helpful for us to know as much information as we can to make a really informed decision. And there are times when I, even if Staff has not advocated for a stay, or recommended that I would lean that way, because I just feel like I may not know enough, but I just think the quality of the materials, the quality of the comments for all of you, and and I know that the use of it's not under our purview. But I do appreciate everybody who took the time and effort to speak to us tonight. I will be supporting Staff's recommendation, and

[63:07] just because of circumstances, I have rarely supported a demolition permitted this this review, but it's just because I feel we have all the information we need, and I think that I see some wonderful ornamental detail on this building and things that that you know still retain some of its original charm. But I do think that a very compelling argument has been made this evening, so I will be supporting Staff's recommendation. Great thanks, Abby. Michael, or Chelsea, or I can go next. I'm happy to jump in. I also support Staff's recommendation and agree with the comments made by my colleagues who have just spoken, and while we can't speak

[64:09] on the services or the use of the property in the future, we can speak to the community support for a project. And so I just want to acknowledge that there were a lot of people from across the community a diverse set of perspectives that came forward tonight more than we usually hear from and in support of in support of Staff's recommendation. And so for me, that's that you know. That is, I put a huge weight on that. And so the fact that we have so much community support, and the fact that Staff has laid out how this doesn't meet the criteria for landmarking, as well as how the applicant was so thorough in providing information on how it would not be financially feasible to keep the building as is, I will be supporting the recommendation.

[65:13] Great thanks. Chelsea. so well, I'll jump in, and then Michael, you can have the floor. So I as much as I think most of my colleagues did say that. You know we don't really. you know, I think we really think long and hard about approving a a demolition. But I staff really has done a really good job of doing this, and I I I think that the applicants are would be willing to, you know, have a photo of the building, and you know, maybe we can encourage the history of the building to bring new life to what they will be doing to this building. So let's remember where we came from and move forward. I will. I like the way that staff has put together the application, and has indicated along that I was surprised to see the location of this demolition, because I live relatively close to that place and

[66:23] as much as I drive past it. I did have to stop and pause and think where it was, because it is so much lower. So the landscape to the building really has changed a lot. And just by my questions to staff about the roof I think it's hard pressed for us to landmark this site per the criterias. So I will be supporting staffs recommendation. Michael. My my turn. so you guys know I'm a columns. Guy. I love columns. And, Claire, I want to give you a lot of credit for doing the due diligence

[67:08] to look at the fact that there's only one potentially of the original columns left on that handsome porch composition on the front facade. I did zoom into every single photograph that I could, and I think you're absolutely right, based on my expertise of column moldings and capitals and components. And I I would agree with my colleagues. On the board. And with staff recommendation. I really appreciate, as Abby said. I appreciate all the investigation and the backup to lead us to A more informed decision about the the character, the the the criteria that are applicable. I I do have a word of caution, though based on some of the

[68:03] the testimony. And and it is this that the the data shows that embodied carbon in existing buildings, can can take forever decades to be replaced regardless of the newest energy, efficient construction and design. And I think that again, while it's not part of this, the criteria that we're we're looking at, I do think that when we are subject to That sort of wordsmithing about sustainability. We have to be really, really careful because embodied carbon and existing buildings is is you know, as Abby said once we lose it, it's gone, and and there's no getting that back. Regardless of the contemporary energy efficient designs. I just wanted to put that out there, as we consider demolition in the future.

[69:08] and I'll leave it at that. I'm happy to sort of talk more about that if that's necessary, but I don't. I don't think it's part of the criteria. I just wanted to say that for future reference. Yeah, I think, Michael. I think it's well to say that some of the when we talk about green and most efficient things to do sometimes when we bring them all together. Sometimes the most efficient thing, and the best thing for the environment is to reuse what is existing. So I won't say in all cases, and cause we never can say that but I do think that we we're throw away too much. So I think we can move to make a motion.

[70:00] So do I have someone that would like to make a motion. I'll I'll make a motion. Great. Before we pull up the motion link. We're doing some last minute, tweaking. Okay. Okay, and and since we're waiting for the tweaking can we? you've got photos now, and sometimes what I like about the stays of demolition, even though sometimes we maybe think that we're heading to approving. I do like the fact that when you do the stays you're able to photo document the site or have a site visit. Is there a way of like Asking them to make sure there's decent photos, to move forward with. Hi, Rene, Marcie Gerwing here. So the code does allow the city manager so by extension staff to require archival documentation for buildings that come through the demolition process. It doesn't need to have a stay. We've even required it for approvals at the staff level if there's something worth documenting there, but still approving the demolition. And so what that has looked like in the past is, if it's architecturally significant or notable.

[71:22] or something worth preserving for its aesthetics is to either require measured drawings of the building and or color photographs of each side, which we do have as part of the application, though you could always take more photos. The second type of archival documentation we can require is about the history of the site which in this case I feel like we've thoroughly documented it, so I don't know if there's much left there, but you know I would recommend probably photos to then be

[72:00] archived at the Carnegie library higher quality than the Jpegs that we have in this application, but not to the extent of requiring measured drawings, because of the extent of the changes to the building. Great. Do we need to put that just requesting photos and put that within the motion. It doesn't need to be within the motion. You can tell Staff, and then it's something that Staff determines at the application. But if you could be specific in the request of what kind of documentation that would be helpful. So what I hear is that I would like to request that we get photo documentation and archive to Carnegie about this building. Does that sound good? Marcy. Okay.

[73:00] Good I'm about to make. You're on. Okay, I move that landmarks would approve the application to demolish the building at 2 8, 8, 9 Belmont Road and adopt as findings the staff memorandum findings. Finding that the building does not meet, the criteria set forth in Section 9, 1123 F. Brc. 1981. Do. I have a second. I second, and I think I can second that and and we'll do a roll call book. So John. I. Chelsea. Hi. Abby. I. Michael. 5. The motion passes unanimously. So our next steps we will ask Claire to provide the next steps for our applicant.

[74:04] Alright. Thank you, Renee. So The Board has approved the request to demolish the building. The approval expires one year from today. And we will require archival photographs as the board just described. Which I will be in touch with you to make sure that you have the the details of how to get that to us, and we'll archive them into the Carnegie Library for local history. And so the the approval will be conditional until we receive those. so it still will expire one year from today. So if if you don't obtain a deconstruction permit within that year, then you, you would need to reapply. But unless there is a dramatic change in the building.

[75:00] our policy is to be consistent with with recent decisions. So if that does happen, then we can. We can talk about process from there. And I would also like to say, Thank you for your time, and thank you for everybody who spoke tonight, and also thank you to Rene for doing such a great job. This was her 1st public hearing, chairing the meeting. So I think everybody did very well tonight. So thank you. Okay. Good behind the veil of the Zoom Meetings. So. Thank you for that, Claire. And yeah, again. Thanks for everyone that spoke. I know that we are not allowed to speak on what will happen to the building, but I do appreciate all the community coming together. So we have matters next.

[76:00] All right. So we just have 2 items under matters. This evening we are in the final steps of hiring a historic preservation trainee, which is an evolution from our internship program which started in the mid nineties. But this training trainee position gives us a little bit more ability of how we use that position, so I can share that. We got over 200 applicants for the position, which was not what we expected. It was a very competitive applicant pool, and I will wait to introduce the trainee until the next meeting, because the hiring process isn't finalized. But I'm very excited to do that and look forward to introducing you all. And then the final thing is what one of the public comment speakers said under open comment. Leonard Siegel, with historic boulder. Put a plug in for the film festival, which is this Sunday at 4 o'clock. Doors open at 3 30. I think it goes until 8 30,

[77:09] and it is a historic preservation, related film festival, short films with panel talkbacks between after the second film and after the last one. So myself, Joel Smiley and former landmarks board member Ronnie Peluzio will be on the panel for the second, or the 1st talk back, which will cover things like the importance of authenticity in historic preservation, the idea of relocating historic buildings, and then the cost of like, the loss of the materials, these historic materials that aren't available widely anymore. So I hope you all can join if you're available and interested. That's on Sunday, up at Chautauqua at 4 o'clock.

[78:01] That's all I have. Marcy, how long does it go. Until 8 30. So you know, either pack a snack or you don't have to come for the whole thing. But it's yeah. It's from 4 to 8, 30. And it's it'll it's a couple of movies, and then the talk, or I'll guess I'll look up, and I'll have like a itinerary. Yeah, yes. And the link that's on the screen right now gives the overview. So the 1st film is about the boulder theater and the current efforts to restore the facade. And then the second one is about not only the significance of preserving homes, but the stories that they hold it's called life Rings. And then there's another one called One Big Home, which I think takes place in Martha's Vineyard, and then, if our walls could talk is about homes and preservation in Cape Cod, and so it'll go to about 2030 min films, and then the talkback and intermission, and then 2 more films and a talk back. So it should be a great program.

[79:12] And really I don't think there's been anything like it in Boulder in the recent past, and I don't know when the next one might be, so I would put a double, you know, if you can make it. It would be great. Thanks. So let's the That was matters. And do we just adjourn the meeting. A quick calendar check would confirm that our next meeting is on July second, and we are having a meeting and we have 2 cases so far for that one. So that's that is where you can end the meeting, Rene, and thank you. And great job.

[80:00] Is so sorry. Is that July second is in person. We're counting on a in-person hybrid meeting for that, for that one. Great meeting is adjourned at 7 23 Pm. Great have a gavel, which is what.