July 2, 2025 — Landmarks Board Regular Meeting

Transcript

Captions from City of Boulder YouTube recording.

[0:06] Looks like Audrey Heppart. Yeah. Okay. Call to order the July landmarks meeting is called to order the welcome to the July second, 2025 Landmarks board meeting. It is 6 0. 2 PM. I'd like to acknowledge that. Item 5 B. The demolition review of Fire Station 3, at 1585 30th Street has been withdrawn, so we will only have one public hearing this evening. Marcy will review the virtual meeting decorum. Thank you. And good evening. I'm Marcy Gerwing, principal planner with planning and development services. 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. In the project's community engagement process can be found online.

[1:19] 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, and other speech and behavior that disrupts 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. And currently, only audio testimony is permitted online

[2:00] in this slide. If you're joining us on, zoom shows where you can find the raise hand function under the reactions menu, or a shortcut alt y for PC, option y. For Mac or Star 9. If you're calling by phone back to you, Renee acknowledging that we have a quorum this evening, the recording of this meeting will be available in the Records archive and on Youtube, within 28 days of this meeting. roll call and introductions. John. Here. I'm John. Yeah, I'm John Decker, member of the Landmarks board. Abby. I'm Abby Daniels, and I am here, and a member of the Landmarks Board. Michael Ray, vice chair of the Board and present, and is Chelsea online.

[3:04] Yes. Hi, everyone. Chelsea Castellano landmarks board member here. And I am Renee Galobik, chair of the Landmarks Board, and I am present. We know that people who are here to participate may have some strong emotions about these projects. We want to hear from you, and have found it more productive. If you speak to persuade us, rather than to berate us the staff and or the applicants. as with regular board meetings, you landmark 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 that the members of the public who wish to speak, let us know, by raising their virtual hand, and, or, I believe, talk to Abby. and be on the list. If you are present in person as the board chair, I will call for a roll call vote of any motions that are made

[4:01] we now, does anyone have any changes or alterations to the June 4th minutes? As I see, we have none. I will move to approve these maintenance. I second them. Thank you, Abby. Seconds the motion. We'll do a roll call, John. Aye, Michael. Aye, Abby, aye, Chelsea. Hi. And and I, Rene, So those minutes are approved. Now that's public participation potential in-person participation. Do we have any public? Or we have one person signed up to speak in person, and that is Leonard Siegel.

[5:04] And do I need to swear anything you do not need to swear, but just state your full name, and you can proceed with 3 min. All right. Hello, Leonard Siegel here, speaking on behalf of historic boulder. Hello to everybody. Happy July. I just wanted to give you kind of an update on what historic boulder is up to these days and present some thoughts on a few projects. So we had a presentation by the architects for the Naropa Development Project, including what they have in mind for keeping some historic sites, properties and demolishing some others. So we are in conversation with them about that, and we would advocate to preserve the 2 main houses that face Arapahoe. But if one needs to be moved, or other properties need to be moved or could be moved instead of demolished. Historic boulder would be interested to work with you, to try to find sites, for that

[6:03] second thing is the Boulder County Iris offices. I know that's Boulder County, and you focus on the city, but it'll be turned back into a city site when that property is sold, and we would advocate to try to landmark at least the poor farm property before it's put on the open market where you never know what might happen with that property. So we'd like to have your thoughts on that sometime civic center is continuing to be redesigned, and and we are part of the stakeholder groups that get to an opportunity to meet with the Parks and Recreation Department. Marcy's been in attendance at all the meetings that I've had a chance to attend. And in particular, we're focused on Central Park, because that's the area where there's the most change. And so we're trying to have a balance between what the Olmstead design would have wanted and what the city's needs are. And there are some changes that are coming up for potentially for the seats of the bandshell that we are very focused on right now

[7:09] and then, just out there, something that you might be interested in the Homeowners Association of Eldora has reached out to historic boulder to ask us to talk to them about historic preservation, and they are kind of loosey goosey about wanting to have any kind of guidelines or restrictions, but they like the idea of hearing what guidelines could be. So it's just interesting that townships or little areas like that, particularly as historic as that is, are interested in getting feedback. So if you have any thoughts on advising us before we show up there and go through a buzzsaw of opposition, or or you know, whatever. Please let us know as well. So that's just kind of a you know what we're working on these days, and

[8:00] that's all I had to say. Thank you. Thanks, Leonard Aubrey. Do we have anybody virtual this evening? If anyone would like to speak virtually. Will you raise your hand now, please? All right. It looks like we have one so far we have Lynn Siegel. So, Lynn, I'll give you permission to speak. and I will start the timer. Could you remove agenda from the screen so I can see you better. Thank you. Thanks. 1st of all, the best thing that I can say for the landmarks board is to free Palestine. and I don't say that with reservations, because that it it's

[9:02] Palestine, has everything to do with local economies all over in the United States, and with the landmarks board and the elevation of housing costs here. It's all connected to Apac and everything else. Second of all. I want to commemorate Karen Diamond. who died on Wednesday last week from a fire attack on June 1st I was 15 feet from that. I follow them with my Palestinian t-shirt and cafe and flag, and just as a presence on the walk. I support the hostages, too, and I've done that for a year. and I was surprised to see Karen and Louis Diamond showing up there for the 1st time on June first.st I also hear that was her birthday.

[10:00] So it's just unbelievably horrific that this could happen to her, and that this happened at all. And I could very well have been dead, too, because if the fire hadn't blow back on him, and I think he got shocked into reality when that happened, and took off his shirt, which was on fire, and then failed to deploy the other 14 or 16 Molotov cocktails that would have been a big firestorm, much bigger firestorm, and it would have affected me 15 feet away, too. So I personally feel how close that was, and I also personally feel how how close Gaza is to us every day. and the and and that's a concern for the landmarks board, particularly for the landmarks board.

[11:00] Now, as far as specific things, I wanted to bring up again 1015 juniper, which long ago was approved for demolition, and and should not have been absolutely should not have been a beautiful little bungalow that that is now being filled up almost entirely, filling in the footprint of that property on juniper with a huge house, and this elevates the cost of everything. The interesting thing is that the landmarks board is then in charge of determining, like what's reasonable for the applicant for them to have to pay for what they have to do, to get what they want. Thank Lynn. Your 3 min is up. so thank you for your input. Yeah. Thanks.

[12:01] Abby, is there anyone else? Let's give it one second. It's okay. I'll go by Abby, too, if anyone would like to speak. Will you raise your hand now? Okay, I think we're good to move on, Renee. Thank you. Okay, so now we are, for we're here for our 1st public hearing. This is item 5. A. This is a public hearing and consideration of an application to demolish a building constructed around 1958, at 2, 2, 5, baseline Road, a non landmark, property older than 50 years old. Pursuit to section 9, 1123 of the Boulder revised Code of 1981, and under the the proceedings prescribed by Chapter one.

[13:00] one, and through 3 quasi judicial hearings, Brc. 1981. The owner is the city of boulder represented by Adam Goldstone. I'll hand it over to Marcy for the staff presentations. Thank you. This is a quasi-judicial hearing, so I'll swear in I'm Marcie Gerwing, principal historic preservation planner, and I affirm that I will tell the truth. I will pause here to allow the Board members to note any ex parte contacts that you may have for this case any conversations or site visits that you had prior to this evening's hearing. Thank you. So here's an overview of the process we'll go through. I'll start with a staff presentation, followed by the applicant's presentation, and then the public hearing is open for public comment. After each one of those steps the Board may ask questions of Staff, the applicant, or the public.

[14:04] After the last person has spoken under public comment, the applicant has a chance to respond to anything that was said, and then the public hearing is closed, and the Board discusses. A motion requires an affirmative vote of at least 3 members to pass, and motions must state findings, conclusions, and a recommendation. And finally, a record of the hearing is available. The purpose for your review this evening. This non designated Demolition Review is to prevent the loss of buildings that may have historic or architectural significance, and to provide the time necessary to initiate landmark designation or consider alternatives for the building. The criteria for your review is found in 9, 1123 of the Boulder Revised Code, and that is that you'll base your decision upon any of the following criteria, the eligibility of the building for designation as an individual landmark, the relationship of the building to the character of the neighborhood as an established, indefinable area.

[15:04] The reasonable condition of the building, and the reasonable projected cost of restoration or repair. In considering the condition and the projected cost, the board may not consider deterioration caused by unreasonable neglect. The options in front of you this evening are to either approve the demolition, request, or place the stay of demolition on the application. If the board approves the application, it is good for one year. So July second, of 2026, and if you all choose to place a stay of demolition to provide time to consider alternatives, the stay would expire on November 18th of 2025. So this application came to us in May, when the application to demolish the building was received, and Staff referred. The application to the full board. On May 20 second. The applicant paid the fee the same day, and that brings us to today's public hearing. On July second

[16:05] the property is located at the northwest corner of Broadway and Baseline. The University of Colorado campus is located across Broadway to the east. The basemar shopping center is located to the southeast and New Vista High School campus is to the west of the property. The property is not within the boundaries of an identified potential historic district. This building was designed by Hobart Wagner as Fire Station Number 2, and was completed in 1958. The building was surveyed as part of the 2,000 boulder modern architecture survey, which at the time determined eligibility for the National and State Register of historic places based on its architectural significance. The one-story Masonry building has an inset central front gable with deep, overhanging eaves over the central double height door. The flanking wings are symmetrical, and from ground level appear to be shallowly sloped shed roofs.

[17:00] The red brick at the facade is laid in interlocking patterns that are seen as horizontal stripes. The lot contains mature vegetation at the southeast corner, facing the corner of Broadway and Baseline, but has generally been paved for parking at the rear. The facade includes a window in person door within the inset central gable, and the original clear story, glazing at the facade, has been replaced with painted board and batten siding. the painted board and batten siding and brick knee wall has been used to infill the area originally filled by the bay doors, which were wider originally, which you can see where those were filled in. Vinyl has been installed to the underside of the deep overhanging eaves concealing the original exposed wood which extended from the interior to the exterior. These photos show the east elevation. Facing Broadway. There are 3 low gable roofs that span a modified gable roof line with projecting rafters. rafter tails, and deep overhanging eaves. The gable ends are painted board and batten siding, and the brick of the walls at the sides are capped with rowlock, detailing to indicate the material change to the board and batten.

[18:11] The gable. At the southern end includes a group of 4 large picture windows, with an awning window off-center above the central gable includes sliding glass doors with awning windows above, and there's a single picture window at the north northernmost gable, with an awning window at the side of the gable. This is the rear of the building facing north, which includes a central front gable reflective of the front elevation, with deep overhanging eaves, a central brick support post, and a single bay door on the east side. on the east side of the support post. The gable end is painted, board and batten above the bay door. and the west side of the support post includes a person door. The flanking wing on the east side shows the original horizontal brick patterning, and no window or door openings, and the flanking wing on the west side has been covered with a projecting shed roof addition constructed of similar red brick.

[19:06] The west elevation includes a similar modified gable roof line to the east side projection. These 3 low roofs, with wide overhanging eaves, cover a small awning windows in the gable end, and those gable ends are clad in board and batten, which has been painted. The brick wall at this elevation is capped with a rowlock detail dividing the brick from the board and batten siding, and this elevation also includes a shed roof addition at the rear, also constructed of red brick and the eaves overhang, so there are no openings in many of those. so historic integrity is the ability of a property to convey its historic associations or attributes, and we look at how a building has changed over time. In our analysis. According to county records, the fire station was constructed in 1980, however, the building permit was issued in 1958, and the date of construction was confirmed by the architect and the daily camera articles.

[20:08] This image, which was taken around 1958 shows the original south elevation of the fire station, which faces baseline. The building had a central brick support post, with bay doors on either side, and the doors in this image are open, but clearly fill the width of that gable by 2,000. When the building was surveyed, the central support post had been removed and a single bay door installed, and the bay door is slightly narrower, and the remaining space has been infilled with board and batten, and a brick knee wall. The building is in its original location, and retains some of its original design, including the horizontal orientation and multi-gable roof with overhanging cantilevered eaves. However, key features of the original design have been modified. The window pattern at the facade and the east elevation were modified in 1985 to infill some areas and enlarge or add other window openings.

[21:03] The original facade included a central brick supporting post and a pair of bay windows or sorry bay doors that were mostly glazed. and on the east elevation the gable ends included clear story windows and glazing and paneling. A shed roof addition has been added to the northwest corner of the building. Although minimally changes the original roof line overall, the changes have diminished the architectural integrity of the building. The building retains most of its original materials, notably the orange, red brick laid in geometric patterns that contrast with painted board and batten siding. The building demonstrates workmanship in the execution of the masonry with overlapping brick detailing, and the building's ability to convey a feeling of its time has been somewhat diminished, and the setting of the building on a prominent quarter has not changed, although those streets have gotten much wider and the plantings have matured, and the lawn area to the east has been removed.

[22:03] In general, the building has retained its ability to convey its association with its earlier use in architecture, though the alterations have diminished its ability somewhat. So the staff analysis of the criteria looks at the eligibility of the building for designation as an individual landmark, namely, its historic architectural and environmental significance. The Landmarks board adopted this significance. Criteria in 1975 to help evaluate buildings in a consistent manner. Staff analysis considers these criteria as well as the relationship of the building to the character of the neighborhood as an established and definable area, and the reasonable condition of the building and projected cost of restoration or repair. Starting with the historic significance, it considers the development, heritage, and cultural characteristics of the community. While the building has been associated with the city of Boulder Fire Department since 1958, and exemplifies the history for the growth of the Fire department staff considers the building does not have the integrity needed to convey that significance.

[23:10] The changes to the building and the site diminish that connection between the property and the development of the fire department. This was the second station, built during a period when the local modernist architectural movement flourished in Boulder Boulder, experienced a period of huge population growth after the Second World War. As returning service members moved to areas with employment and living opportunities. The increase in demand led to new housing developments in South Boulder, including Highland Park and Martin Acres, constructed, beginning in 1955 majestic heart Heights which started in 1960 and Table Mesa, which started in 1963. The increased size of the city necessitated increased fire protection. and the scientific industry locating in Boulder led to Boulder's desire to be seen as a modern city. The design of the fire station in the modernist style helped portray Boulder as progressive, forward thinking, and futuristic

[24:08] moving to the architectural significance. Criteria which considers the distinguishing features of the architecture and the and whether the architect or builder are known and notable. The building is a rare example of the Usonian style. Commercial buildings in boulder typical of Usonian architecture. The building is innovative in the use of traditional structural forms, with a shallow roof enclosing a central pavilion and a pair of flanking wings that are noticeably lower. The horizontally oriented structure is emphasized by the modified gable roof with overhanging eaves, also characteristic of that style. however, changes to the glazing pattern, diminish its architectural and aesthetic interest or value, and staff considers that it is a significant example of an architectural style of the past, but does not have the integrity needed to be considered an exceptional example.

[25:01] The building was designed by Hobart Wagner, who has designed many buildings in boulder, and he also has had a number of his designs landmarked here in Boulder. He was named the Architect of the year in 1995, by the American Institute of Architects in Colorado, and the construction team included Ray Harper, a notable area brick mason, and he's responsible for the interlocking brick pattern. The environmental significance. Criteria considered, the sense of identity created by the unique, natural or man-made environment staff found that the building does not meet the environmental significance and that it does not represent a unique, natural, or man-made environment. The building is prominently located on the intersection of baseline and Broadway, and includes mature trees and shrubs planted in 1961, however, the widening of Broadway and construction of the multi-use path resulted in the elimination of the planted lawn area to the east of the building, and required the construction of fencing around the site.

[26:10] Looking at the relationship of the building to the neighborhood, the building is located on the corner of Baseline and Broadway, and since the construction of the Denver boulder, turnpike or Highway 36, and the paving of Broadway in the early 19 fifties. There has been rapid urban development in this area. Broadway is the dividing line for baseline road between the commercial areas to the east and the residential areas to the west. This building is of a smaller scale than the surrounding multifamily commercial and institutional buildings. and, as we mentioned, the building is not located in a potential or designated historic district. Moving next to the condition of the building, the applicant provided information about the condition of the building which was included in the packet. I'll go through kind of high level points, but we'll also we'll hear from the applicant during their presentation.

[27:06] So as the materials in the the memo describes. The current building does not meet the needs of the fire department because of the changes to the size of the apparatus as well as where the building is located on the site. And so, while adaptive reuse is often a viable preservation solution in this case that is not feasible. So the brick is in decent condition, but the roof structure is in poor condition and needs replacement. The building envelope lacks sufficient thermal insulation, and the window design limits natural light and ventilation. As a result, the building has high energy use, especially given its smaller size, and as it is currently configured, the building does not have Ada compliant restrooms and no automated fire sprinkler system

[28:05] moving to the projected cost of restoration or repair. I'll go through again at a high level about those different factors. So the size of the apparatus bay cannot house a fire engine, a current modern fire engine, as well as the Wildland response truck. The sleeping and restroom quarters do not adequately allow for female firefighters, and the location does not provide a separation from hazardous vehicle emissions and other chemicals. The living, and workspaces are not large enough to accommodate the additional personnel that need to be assigned to this station, and the storage and workshop does not provide enough space for breathing air, canisters, exercise, equipment, medical supplies, and workshop space to perform equipment and tool repairs. and the site circulation and parking requires that the apparatus, returning to the site block traffic traffic on Baseline to to back into the Apparatus bay.

[29:08] So with that staff recommends that the landmarks board approve the demolition and adopt the following findings that the demolition is appropriate, based on the criteria set forth in 9, 1123 f. Of the boulder revised code in that, while the building at 2 2, 5 baseline is historically significant as a mid-century building designed by Boulder architect, Hobart Wagner, and used for 70 years as a fire station. Alterations have diminished its architectural integrity, and the building is not eligible for landmark designation. 2. The property does not contribute to the character of the neighborhood as an intact representative of the areas past and 3, rd due to program programmatic requirements, it has been demonstrated to be impractical and economically unfeasible to rehabilitate the building and incorporate it into the redevelopment of the property. With that, as I mentioned, our recommendation is to approve the building at 2, 2, 5, Baseline road, and with that

[30:09] that concludes my staff presentation, and I am happy to answer any questions the Board may have. I have a quick question. Would you thank you for that thorough and very excellent analysis. But the thought that went through my head does staff ever? And I don't know. Not necessarily just with this building, but other buildings that come before us. Do they ever look at one of the secretaries? Interior standards? Is that a building can be non-contributing, restorable, and I don't know if a building's ever looked at with the idea that yes, some integrity has been lost, and and I totally understand. Its current

[31:00] condition doesn't offer all the things that are the needs. But the thought I just have to say on the record. You know. It's interesting to think about when there might be a time when a building may not quite meet the criteria, but could, if there was the will and the funds and the the purposes of the building which really isn't under our purview were met. Yeah, I appreciate that question. And I also see potential in many buildings that come through of. Oh, if you just did, you know. And then the list gets longer. Our role in your role as decision makers is to look at the building as it stands today. The board cannot compel an owner to restore a property, and so we really have to look at it as it stands today. Is this building eligible for landmark designation or not? And for Staff's review I look at the building with the photo on the left, and I think what a cool, mid-century building. And I look at the building, the photo on the right. And I say.

[32:06] was it built in the eighties. Was it built in the seventies? It really, to me, reads more like a like a ranch house ranch building through, I would say, a moderate level of alterations. But it really, in our opinion, loses that kind of dynamic, mid-century style where you have the materials coming from inside and out, that really light roof plane that that is very iconic. And then these bays that are so transparent, and by changing the door and window openings and kind of losing the key characteristics. The building to staff that's shown on the right is not eligible for landmark designation. and that's really helpful, because there are times, I think that, and, you know, don't bring it up. Or maybe the staff recommendation for a building is to have a stay where that could be explored. But that was really illuminating to me, because when I look at the original building, it's absolutely stunning, and I think the word you use that really resonated with me is that loss of transparency? I mean, I think, to me that is what so stunning about this. But that answers my question.

[33:26] Even for the future, Marcy, that's helpful. Have a question you mentioned that. and I'm going to have to paraphrase, because I don't remember exactly how you put it. But that this was Fire station number 2, and that fire station number one was of the same era. Is that kind of what you said? I did say that this was the second station built in that mid-century period, and this is where Claire's gonna save me by telling me which station that is

[34:02] Fire station number 2 replaced Fire Station number 2, which is actually still there. It's on Aurora and is now the Studio Arts Pottery Lab. At the same time this station was built. Central Fire station was built and became Fire station number one, and that one was also is also a mid-century building. and that's over on 13, th near Casey Middle School. Is that the one? Yes, sorry. It's a when when was that built? I believe, the year before this one? I think they opened the same year approximately. and then the 3rd one, which had on the agenda, but has been withdrawn. There was a 3rd mid-century fire station on Arapahoe, and 30, th that was built a couple years after this one. So there was a real push in the mid century, or in the post-war era, as Boulder expanded to the South and then to the east to provide the the fire rescue services.

[35:27] Sorry. That's probably me. so anyone have any questions we have. Abby and Michael had some questions, and now we're going to go to applicant presentation. The owner applicant, Adam Goldstone, would you please? You need to swear to tell the truth and state your name. 1st name and last name. Sure, Adam Goldstone worked for the city of Boulder. Senior Facilities project manager. I do swear to to tell the truth to on everything here today.

[36:05] Thank you for having us today. This is my 1st time at landmarks board. I've been with the city about 6 years haven't needed to have any demolition work done until now just recently completed. The new fire Station 3 you may have seen on on 30th Street. and there's 2 more stations, new stations that are coming. this one to replace Fire Station 2. And then we just acquired property to do Fire Station 4, so similar to the research that Marcy did, which was a great presentation. Thank you. We stand to have 3 new. We feel iconic fire stations coming online here this decade. So kind of harkening back to the history there. I think those those old pictures are great. I hadn't seen those before, but you can see a lot of the changes, I believe, were done as the streets kind of encroached on the building. The greater need for security and privacy for the firefighters

[37:05] ultimately, I guess, contributed to a lot of those changes. I'm going to just touch on a few of the points that Marcy already brought up. If you need any more detail, I'm happy to do so. I just want to talk a little bit about how we got here. Basically, as Marcy alluded to 3 main factors. That kind of brought us to where we are today. The 1st was the need for a larger station, right? A more modern station. As the fire service has changed. equipment's gotten bigger, more specialized, they need more of it. They need more firefighters. And now we're also going to be adding ambulance crews. So all of those things contribute to need for greater apparatus space. Additionally, more bedrooms and more other work areas to go along with the extra personnel that's there. The way the building's designed with the bays in the middle

[38:01] can't really move. Make that any larger. And then the proximity of the bedrooms and other spaces to those bays a lot of contamination issues which is a prevalent problem in the fire service these days. One of the fundamental changes in modern fire station design is separating out all of those areas, clean areas, medium areas. And then the hazardous areas very difficult to do with this layout. So when it was funded as a cip project a few years ago. we began studying all of the call volume and response time data. They had new Gis software to analyze everything. And what they found was that this location is actually the perfect location for fire station. 2 other stations the needs have shifted as you've seen. Fire station 3 moved more north because the call volume and response times due to traffic and the nature of

[39:01] what they were responding to shifted fire Station 2. That site was the best site we still spent a year looking for other properties. None of them met the size requirements or their response time requirements. So, as luck would have it, the apartment building right next door became available, and we ended up purchasing that last year so that we could use both sites to create fire station big enough to house everything they needed. So then, 3, rd as you see, the size and shape of the lot being triangular, and where the building is on it. we can't expand it. And we need that space to have more circulation and parking and other code requirements that we need for the new station. One of their primary goals is to not have back-end apparatus anymore, not just for traffic impacts, but for safety and everything else. So the new design will have the engines pulling through the rear and responding out the front

[40:03] so that location tucked in there, and all the landscaping and water retention and everything else we need to do really left us no choice. So where we are right now in the process, we've completed schematic design to confirm that we have a workable design and plan and site plan. We are planning to go to Site review submittal later this month we hope to start construction in about a year. Once the new station is built, where the apartment building is, the firefighters would move over, and then we would tear it down. So we understand that we only have a year. We probably won't demo for 2, 2 and a half years, but we wanted to get some clarity and assurance on the process and our plan before we got too far to make sure that this was something that was feasible.

[41:00] Think those were all the points I had. If there's any of those issues, I can certainly elaborate on it. But that was all I wanted to point out. Okay, thanks. It does. We have. We're us. We can ask you questions. I have a question for you just about the roof. And this might be back to Marcy depending on it. So the the roof, which is what is super iconic in the old picture, and which to me it's a real distinction between what is there now? And what was there did just to know a little bit more about that roof, did it? Did you guys put extra in? Someone put extra insulation, and that's why it became a big fascia on the front side, or we wrapped it. You said you wrapped it with vinyl underneath. But there's definitely like a big red outline red that in the other picture. It's a very fine line. And now it's so. Was there. Insulation added to the rooftop, did it? There may have been I'm not particularly aware of that. There may have been something added. You can see the original was very thin, so there may have been an attempt in the past to thicken that up. I think it was more a result, probably, of just re-roofing, and somebody adding an element there. It needed some extra.

[42:22] you know, maybe some reinforcement or somebody's aesthetic idea. Yeah. And those beams underneath. They look to be painted the same color as Whatever the underside is of the soffit. Those beams are those in the other picture. They're obviously a wood detail that's different. That was there. You know they're perpendicular to one another. Are they also wrapped with Vinyl? Or are they just painted? I don't recall. I would imagine they're just painted, but I'm not sure. You know we stared at that the eve of, and I cannot recall.

[43:00] I cannot recall. We can see they're still there. But yes, they're either wrapped or painted. Yeah, yeah, I mean that to me the roof is kind of so iconic in the picture on the left, and. like Marcy had explained. So I appreciate Marcy's. So other staff have questions. Yeah, I well, I have a question. You. You explained the process through through the 2 year period of of building the new station on the apartment site. What then, have you? I guess the question is, have you considered repurposing this corner of the site completely or spinning it off even as a I'm sorry. Well, I guess the broader question is combining the sites. Which is the intention. What what's the

[44:00] ultimate intended use of this portion of the site that that this building's sitting on. Yeah. So this will be the parking and site circulation landscaping public art. You know. crash! Ancillary things, because the station itself is going to take up so much of the other site. Everything else is going to be here and screened, and. you know, treated. The the grades between the 2 sites are pretty severe, so this will be built up a bit. We'll have a nice wall and some landscaping along the sidewalk there. So okay. thank you. One of the needs that Staff expressed was the functionality to accommodate something called the wildland response truck. which I'm really curious about, but but so, maybe a little bit on that not too deep. But what other firehouses have that

[45:00] capacity? And why would this particular site require that? Yeah. So the the fire department has determined that, based on the the risk scenarios. different parts of the city. this location being near the hills in Chautauqua has the greatest potential for quick response to something that may get started out in that area. so you can see it there, and so, while they do fit, you can see they both can't come out at the same different times, right? So the the regular engine has to move out of the way for the wildland, so that delays, response, time and everything like that. So and there'll be an additional engine and ambulance planned in the new station right? Because they just have so many calls. This is the highest call Volume station in town, so they need multiple companies as well as the Wildland rig, and they do have a solely wild land station out by the fire training center. But that's a little bit of a distance away. So they wanted something a little closer to deploy.

[46:04] And you're you're saying that's the only other location for that for that vehicle. Yes, thank you. Okay, so now let's move to public comment. virtual attendees. Please rise, raise your hand or press 9 star 9. If you'd like to speak to the item. and if you are in person. Then we need a list to Aubrey. Aubrey. Do we have anybody who would like to speak? We do. We have one in person, and then I'll wait for the virtual participants to raise their hands. Let's start with Leonard Siegel. So, Leonard, at this stage you will have to swear in and state your full name. It's oh, yeah, all right. I swear that what I'm about to say is the truth as much as I understand it.

[47:00] Thank you thank you for this opportunity to speak on behalf of historic boulder. And this really crucial important service, amenity for boulder and historic preservation and historic boulder is not here to challenge the needs for safety, welfare, and health. We believe that the best interest would be to build a new building here. What we do question is the process, and that is, we believe that the demolition permit shouldn't come until after site review. That's what historically, has happened. I believe in the Past and Site Review is, there's a lot of information that comes forward with that from the planning department that could actually impact a decision about whether how this project would move forward, and whether demolition is the right purpose, the right thing to do so we would say that while we would believe that a demolition based on what we're hearing tonight might make sense. It might not make sense

[48:04] if the process opens up other possibilities during site review. So that's that's and that's this is something we've been seeing regularly with applications for demolition. We think it's happening out of sequence. So that's that's 1 thing. What we would say is that the and I was involved with the history of this writing, the history of this site, with the other analysis of modernist buildings in town, and while the architecture is diminished the integrity is diminished. It's all reversible. If the project could be repurposed, then it could be reversed back to its original beauty that we all seem to to recognize. That's been diminished. I do want to point out that fire station number One was remodeled in such a way. This is the one on 13th Street that it completely destroyed the integrity of that beautiful

[49:09] butterfly roof, textile brick building that Hobart Wagner designed. And and I also want to point out that this building was really about innovation. The side gables are hyperbolic paraboloid roofs, and that is the roof type that Hobart Wagner also used on the Methodist church on Walnut Street and some other roofs on other buildings. So there's at least I believe that is the approach that they took on that. So I would encourage that if the project moves forward for a new building, that they take some cues from not only the spirit of innovation, but actually look back at this old building and try to distill some things that maybe they could bring back the textile brick, the hyperbolic paraboloid roofs, the big, broad overhangs, and

[50:02] give some credit to the original design. That's all. Thanks. I think I'm out of time. Thank you very much. Thank you, Leonard, do we have additional people? Virtual looks like we have one raised hand, and it belongs to Lynn Siegel Lynn Siegel. You will need to state your full name, and swear to tell the truth. And Seagull. I swore to tell the truth best. I know it. I agree completely with Lynn as to the Site review part of it, and also with the hyperbolic hyper, parabolic, hyperbolic parabola roof construction. The Usonian design really should be preserved. There's an additional site on that. They bought. Why can't they 1st do the station on that and do this building a renovation of this building? You know my family bought a house here in 1958 the same year as this building was built in Martin Acres on Hamilton Court.

[51:16] My dad got a job in aerospace and in after he'd been at Cu, and I really respect Hobie Wagner, and especially at this corner. There's already something being taken down. Western resource advocates, and horrifically the former site of 777, Broadway, the homeless shelter that this horizons international, that's being taken down, that really I disagreed with that being taken down also. And this is. you know, this is just wiping out these Hobie wagoners and the The value of using this property to

[52:01] accommodate the female firefighters and the housing needs. And what have you could be accommodated? Well, to refurbishing the building back to what it was which was really a lot more beautiful than what what it was. You know what it was accommodated to later. And I'd like to see that restoration done. And really also, why not site review first, st and why isn't there some kind of a change in the way the process operates from the start. That site review is done, and then historic considerations are made. Oh, also I forgot to mention something. Karen Diamond was involved with historic boulder. and through the thick and thin as it described in the paper, and I didn't realize that

[53:00] the woman that was attacked in the the fire attack but keeping some of what made this space what it is? Instead of tearing down. Everything is really important. And you know we lost the millennium. There's too many losses in Boulder, and I don't recognize it anymore. And I lived here from 58 to 62. So let's really do a deeper consideration of this property before just demoing it. I think that could be done. Thanks. Thanks, Lynn, Aubrey, anymore. Public comment. We are good to move on. Okay, Renee.

[54:00] I don't know if I'm out of place. I have a question for staff about process, since since it's been brought up. could could you? Or maybe Chris, elaborate on the process? The demolition process in in this notion that it is out of place of the Site Plan Review Process. Because I I've also noticed that we seem to get a lot of demolition requests before or at least they come into Ldrc before even people have entered an application for site, review or otherwise. And and I just want clarification on that how we should be responding. So your intuition is right. The process has changed. The code hasn't changed, and the criteria hasn't changed. There's nothing in the code that requires a demolition application be submitted

[55:01] before or after site review. So our practice in the past and what you might be familiar with is that the Board didn't see Site review landmarks until the landmark designation came forward as part of the redevelopment, and the landmarks board was really at the end to say, to confirm, yes, this building is eligible, and and we recommend designation. That is because at the very beginning of the process it was a staff recommendation to the applicant that this building appears to be eligible as a condition of site review. We're going to recommend that it be preserved and landmarked as a condition of site. Review. What has changed is that we now ask the Landmarks board to determine eligibility of a building, and the best way to do that with the current process that we have is through the demolition review process, which is what has been decided on

[56:06] with a, you know, group of leadership policymakers from the city attorney's office directors, etc. To say that this is the venue for the Landmarks board as an appointed body to make a decision. Is this building eligible, or is it not? And that gives the applicant the information they need to say. This is something that we need to incorporate into the redevelopment, or this is something that doesn't need to be preserved. And we will then proceed with site Review. There's a practical component to that, too, which is that it costs tens of thousands of thousands of dollars to prepare a site, review application, and often and in this case as well. Whether this building stays or goes is a huge factor in the rest of the project. And so for that decision to be up in the air while the rest of the project is hypothetical with structural engineers and traffic reports and architectural design, and all of that it is more practical to answer the question on the front end. Is this a building that needs to be preserved or not?

[57:16] Hopefully, that answers your question without opening up into into too broad but happy to answer any follow-up questions. Yeah. I was just gonna ask what? What maybe was found out in Site Review. That was different, like, what would be the information that we would get in landmarks from Site Review. Yeah, I was gonna get to that. So great could you restate your question? Well, what I heard from the public comment was that Site Review comes should have come prior, because things happen in site review that then could change the decision of the Landmarks board, which, and

[58:02] I'm kind of hearing the contrary like. because we should, we should go off of what the present date of the building. It shouldn't be what we discover in Site Review that would change our decision. So I'm wondering what we would change in Site Review would change our decision today. Or are you agreeing that I don't. Yeah, no, I think that your purview and your criteria is, is this building eligible for designation or not? And then because it's in the demo process. You can consider the cost, condition, and relationship to the character of the neighborhood, and that's it. Planning board has a much broader set of criteria about their site, review things that that they can consider, that that we can't. And I would just add that you might learn things from Site Review, but it wouldn't be things that you could apply in a criteria-based decision. Site Review is like, what's the most appropriate use of the land, and that is not a

[59:02] not a criteria for a demo application. So, and I really appreciate Leonard's remarks, because I do think most recently the example comes to my mind, is is a church that came before us before Site Review, before even knowing what they really wanted to do. And I appreciate that. But here's and I'm not even saying it's a concern. I think this is a reality. What I feel with that church, and possibly with this, is because a demolition permit is valid for a year. This could come back to a landmarks board, and it could be you. You look at it as a brand new application. Correct, Marcy. You've always been very good about, you know, ingraining that in me. And if there's different landmarks, board members, you know. I just have to throw it out there that could be a different outcome.

[60:00] Correct? Yes, it could. I would say. There's plenty of room for improvement in our process. But this is the process that I guided this applicant and the church applicant as well towards in considering what the process was. And again, there's not a code requirement that the sequence be what it used to be. This is the the process, for the reasons, I explained, that we that we do now. so there could be some potential landmarks down the road that happen after site review. It could be on either before or after. Yes. Could I just elaborate just on the schedule of things we. We had originally intended to go to Site review earlier. Some cost impacts and some other things caused a delay for us to evaluate some costs. So in the meantime this came before that. Also, in my experience with Site Review.

[61:00] we show something an existing building coming out and site Review. They just tell us to go through this process, so they usually don't weigh in on any of the merits or criteria of the demo, just to ensure that we go through all that process. And then, lastly, being a taxpayer funded project, we want, as Marcy, you know, said Site Review represents an extreme time and financial commitment. We wanted to have a little bit more assurance going into that that we were on the right track with our plan. After spending 9 months in design. We've done 9 months of design to get to this point to ensure that this is what is needed. So just pointing out that those are all the kind of things that went into how the timing worked out on this one. Okay, thank you. That, was our applicant's response, which was kept at 3 min. Are, are we allowed to ask questions about what we just heard?

[62:03] Yes. So after 9 months of design. how much does the concept look like what Leonard is asking you to do in terms of incorporating a some of the features of this architecture into your proposed schemes. So that's a good question, and I meant to touch on that I will point out the most obvious feature that that was commented on the roof very difficult to do today with height, requirements, mechanical equipment. Pv. Panels that we need to put on the roof. All of those things make this kind of, at least for our our buildings difficult to achieve as well as cost and other things. I think you will be happy to see a lot of other elements make their way into the building. The wood overhangs the underside. We have deep overhangs with wood that goes through there. It's all going to be brick with some detailing. I think the biggest change you would see is just. It's going to be more of a flat roof than that type of roof.

[63:11] But a lot of the other features, I think, will be reminiscent of fire stations of old. and I just want to jump in just to remind the Board that, you know if hypothetically, the board approves the demo demolition. You know what whatever structure comes after should not be part of the kind of like deliberative process. It's just not part of the criteria, and I will just recognize that this is a difficult demo application to discuss, because it was originally designed as a fire station, and they want to be a fire station afterwards. So just recognizing that difficulty, you know, really focusing in on the criteria outlined in the memo. And that's in the code. will help us make the most legal decision possible.

[64:02] Thank you. Okay. So now we have, we're going to have a move to board discussions. And I ask that everyone else mute your computer or phone for the duration of the discussions. And we'll allot approximately 45 min for discussion. So I will quickly start off. I guess that's okay. So I just look at the I mean for me, it really is the roof and not. And putting aside what the intentions are who the applicant is, and you know what moving forward, and by any means, you know, a building should be saved as much as we can save it. And then this criteria. The 1st criteria is eligibility, and and you know the relationship, what it was the intention and how it got changed throughout time to what it is now, and you know, I think Staff laid it out really clear in their in their memo that this the it, and we can see it here, I mean, if they would have kept the 2 doors as they were, you would have been able to move out the Wildfire

[65:17] and the the other fire station if it was kept that way. Right so. And you know, for reasons we don't know, I mean to me it doesn't even look like that roof is the same. But we're all looking at different things quite a bit differently. So like if we were just looking at what this building was, and the integrity, the architectural integrity of it, and how we could get it to be landmark, which is one of the Criterias, and then look at it on what it is today. I think it loses. In my opinion it loses a lot of the integrity of what was intended by the architect. and Marcy brings up. Sorry Abby brings out a good point of like if we could restore it into this

[66:03] and that again is not purview, so we can't even go down that road because demoing a building in general is a not green, and it's much better to keep things as is so. I we won't go into what needs to be in the future, and what maybe the applicant could do. But I think if we're just looking at what the criteria has to be. I think that our staff did a really good job of getting us to that point without muddying it up. I have a few things, I guess that I'd like to unpack on this. Hey? The 1st thing is that we have to consider this as it is now in time.

[67:00] And. like Rene, just said Staff did a very good job getting us to that place. I think it. It needs to be said first, st that this is it. It's the the constraints on this particular site in this particular use are chiefly functional. The, in fact, probably the original alterations that happened to the building that made it deviate so completely from the original design. Intents were functionally mandated types of changes. They weren't done for form. They weren't done for aesthetics. They were done because it made it a better fire station in 1980, or whatever. And and they're no longer workable, because in a sense, this is kind of an almost industrial type of a site. It's it's used for a

[68:00] functionally constrained and functional need. That that requires very specific spaces, heights, and internal arrangement, and so on, so that all those issues not necessarily historic preservation issues have have worked to alter this building from its original and preservable, I guess, form. It's also the issue that if this building was a different use or a different owner from the public entity, and was a different funding arrangement from taxpayer funded. It might be reasonable to at least explore the issue of restoring the building to a more historic character.

[69:02] But that doesn't serve anybody in in this framework or in this context. So that being said, I support the staff recommendation to issue or to approve the demolition. Now, to allow the process to go forward. With the understanding that Site Review may take you through some exploration of what could happen there after the satisfaction of the new fire station and then that would be great. I do think it does need to be said that at this particular location on Baseline and Broadway. We've lost a lot of Hobie Wagner's presence. There's a lot of reasons for that. There's the reason of a changing use and a change of the value of the land

[70:08] because of that change of use and the change of the underlying regulation. or the fact that the building was built for a very specific purpose in another location that it can't reasonably serve any longer. And so it's it's just. It's an unfortunate thing that this particular architect's legacy is is being eroded because the buildings were very specific in character and target when they were built, and they just are not viable at this point in time. That's been said. It's a realization at this place. Thanks Job John Abby. So, John, you made an interesting comment. That kind of of this particular intersection that we almost could have had a Hobie Wagner historic district that was contiguous in this area. And so this is an interesting one for me to contemplate, and

[71:17] what I value and appreciate for Staff's presentation is, if I had not read the staff memorandum staff also highlighted some of the incredible value and beauty and importance of this building, because I think I could have sat here and thought, oh, they're going to want to. You know what I mean. I felt like they really they really did due diligence to say, Oh, this would be so cool! And this was so amazing, especially at that time. But, you know, looking through the criterion, you know we we all have the things we value in our kind of our the prism through which we look through historic preservation. This is about criteria, you know, and that's what we have to come back to. And I just feel like Staff did a really good job where they really really embraced and and applauded what was fabulous about the original building. And

[72:19] you know it's not our place to say we'd love for you to incorporate this or consider this or do that. But you've heard that just from our comments tonight, and I am grateful with the loss of some recent Wagner buildings. We do still have some fabulous Hobart, Wagner buildings that are landmarked, and others that are standing, that may one day find themselves before this board. But I where I am, Renee is, Madam Chair, is that with a little bit of reluctance. for you know just sort of the lament of loss, even if I understand rationally why the loss

[73:02] needs to happen. I will be supporting Staff's recommendation. Thanks, Abby. You wanna Chelsea or Michael. I'm happy to go and I'll keep it short. I support sas recommendation. I think that the for all the reasons that staff laid out. It's appropriate for us to approve the request, and for the reasons that the applicant described of you know the reasons why the current building doesn't meet their needs, and why a retrofit wouldn't meet their needs as well. And it sounds like they did a lot of due diligence to determine that as the outcome, and knowing that city staff, I'm sure

[74:02] are, you know, value preservation as a whole, and I'm sure that that was looked at very thoroughly and I think, speaking to the the what was it? The site plan coming before after? I think it makes perfect sense, the way that is currently being recommended. It doesn't make sense to spend thousands and thousands of dollars to go through a process only to learn that you can't achieve the goals of the design you made. So I think that the current order of operations it makes the most sense. And I well, it'll be sad to see this one go. I'm excited to see what the future of this fire station will look like.

[75:02] Thanks, Chelsea Michael. Is it possible to flip to page 4, figure 4, just so that everybody can see what I'm looking at and let me share my screen so that folks online can see it as well. And while you're doing that, can you tell me which 1 4 is? Is it slide 4. It has 4 of 31. So I guess it would be this slide. Yeah. Oh, you tell me when it's with the fires next one fire trucks. So actually, if you don't mind going back one the and the I apologize for this. But the interlocking brick, as is stated here is achieving horizontal stripes. Do you mean vertical in? Sorry? Yes, I do. Sorry. So then the next slide. I think that's an important I mean for the record. It's an incredibly handsome detail.

[76:13] So this is kind of a funny image, right? Because if the center post was there and the 2 doors were there. Those trucks would totally be able to work. wouldn't they? Looks looks like it would work. If you expand it to the original masonry opening. I I'm sorry I can't support this demolition application. I I disagree with Staff in terms of the integrity of the architecture. I see it. I see it all there. It's it's absolutely reversible. I know that's not part of the criteria, but it's all there, and my suspicion is with the new firehouse number 3

[77:01] that we will shortly be losing the original number 3, which is of the same vintage. So 2 down and this one is, is worth saving, is where? Where I land relative to the criteria. I also think that the criteria about the environmental significance, while roads widen all the time is still a presence on that corner, as it always was, not maybe as deep as of a lawn or an edge condition a landscape condition. But and while I'm not, I'm not accommodating the the proposal, the proposed use a parking lot would be a pretty sad answer to that environment of the corner at Broadway and Baseline. I would also advocate, as I have in the past, that any any

[78:00] sustainable or environmental, environmentally friendly, new construction will take our lifetimes to recapture the embodied carbon that's in this building if we lose it. And I I just don't think that that's acceptable to me. I know it's not part of the criteria, but based on the criteria, the significance of the architecture, the the intactness of the brick of the it's not just the roof for me, either. It's it's the whole form is there? I think that's really important for future generations. As an editorial comment, God! Wouldn't this be a great boulder fire department museum? Right? I mean. It's probably not fair for me to say that, but it would be stunning. so that sorry. But that's this will not receive my support.

[79:04] I think I may have misspoken. I am leaning towards supporting Staff's recommendation. Okay, so do we have a motion. Thank you, Michael. I'll make a motion. Where's the is that the motion. Yes. Okay. But that doesn't. Yeah, it sorry. It should say. I move that the landmarks board approve. Okay, sorry. It's like this is not right here. I recommend that the landmarks board approve the application to demolish the building at 2, 2, sorry, 22, 5. Baseline road. Finding that the building does not meet the criteria, set forth in Section 9, 1123 fbrc. 1981.

[80:16] Thank you. Chelsea, do we have a second? I second the motion. Renee seconds the motion and additional would take a roll call vote John. Aye, Chelsea. Hi. Abby. Nay, Michael, nay, and I vote aye. Motion passes 3, 2, 2, 2 next steps to end. Claire, will you explain the next steps in the process. It's me. Oh.

[81:00] it! Says Claire. Oh, I didn't unhide the slide. I will tell you that the approval, the application has been approved. That approval is good until July second of next year, and you will submit it with your deconstruction. Permit application, and we can follow up afterwards as well. Thank you. Thank you. So let's move to matters. Thanks, Claire, for doing this. Great okay, so we only have one. So we'll transition a little a little slower. Here we go. Okay, under matters we only have one thing to talk about, and that is to welcome Mariah Trujillo as our historic preservation trainee, and we are very, very excited to have her. We feel very lucky to have her considering the current budget constraints and hiring freeze, but we have her for a year, and so Mariah comes to us with a lot of education and background that will

[82:14] help us quite a bit. She has her undergraduate degrees from Drury University, and a Master's degree in sustainable and historic architecture from Nyu, where she studied in London. and she also spent a stint of time at the Cripple Creek City of Cripple Creek for their historic preservation program. So Mariah has been with us since the beginning of June, and has been already so helpful in jumping, in helping us behind the scenes, but also you'll see her, I think, a bit more than than past internships, and just to make the distinction. This is a trainee position that builds on that 30 plus year internship

[83:02] program, but it allows us to have someone with a bit more responsibility who can really jump into the day-to-day operations rather than like a learning, just a learning experience. So, Mariah, is there anything that you would like to say this evening at the board meeting, and just a big welcome. I don't think so. Just that I'm super excited to be here, and the welcome has been really amazing. So I'm excited to learn, and obviously to help as much as possible. So thank you. That is the only thing I have under matters this evening. Our next meeting is at the beginning of August, and I know we have at least one public hearing potentially 2. But the deadline isn't until next week. So okay, Abby would like to say something.

[84:00] What a shock! I just want to say, welcome so much, Mariah. And I understand that there was a enormous amount of applicants. So congratulations for getting the job, and we look forward to working with you. Welcome. Looks like the meeting is adjourned at 7, 26.