August 6, 2025 — Landmarks Board Regular Meeting

Transcript

Captions from City of Boulder YouTube recording.

[0:08] The August landmarks board meeting is called to order. Welcome to August 6, 2025 landmarks board meeting. The time is 6 0, 2. Thank you. Marcy will review the virtual meeting decorum. Oh, that will be Claire. It will be me today. 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 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 at the link on the screen.

[1:04] The following are 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. Currently, only audio testimony is permitted online. These are some examples of how to raise your hand in zoom. There is a reactions button. You can also use the

[2:02] Alt Y for a PC, option Y for Mac and Star 9. For on the phone. Okay, back to you, Renee. Thanks, Claire. I'm going to acknowledge that we have a quorum tonight. The recording of this meeting will be available in the records archived on Youtube within 28 days of the meeting roll call and introductions. John, okay, I'm John Decker, and I'm a member of the Board. I'm Abby Daniels, another member of the Landmarks Board, Michael Ray, member of the Board and Vice Chair of the Board. Chelsea. Hi Chelsea Castellano, a member of the landmarks board. And I am Renee Galovik, member of the Landmarks Board. We we know that people who are here to participate may have some strong emotions about this project. We want to hear from you, and have found that it more productive. If you are speaking to persuade us, rather than to berate us staff or the applicant.

[3:07] as with the regular Landmark Board meetings, you may speak at the appropriate time. 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, or speaking to Aubrey in person as the board chair, I will call for a roll call. Vote on any motions made. We are here to approve the minutes of July 4.th Does anyone have any changes or alterations to the June 4th minutes? As I don't see any alterations, I move that we approve these minutes. I have a quick question. The June minutes or the July minutes. Oh, they say, June, you're right. July, and it would be July 3.rd

[4:01] Yes, so does anyone have any changes or alterations to the July 3rd minutes since June 4th was already approved. So I'm going to move that we approve the July 3rd minutes. I second, that. Thank you, Abby, for seconding. We will do a roll call, John. Aye, Abby. Aye, Michael, aye, Chelsea. Hi. And I, Renee. Aye, that's weird. Oh, public participation for non agenda items. Do we have any in-person participation? We do not have anyone in person. So if anyone would like to speak virtually during this time, please raise your hand.

[5:07] and it looks like we have 2 hands raised. We'll start with Catherine Barth. Okay. we are no longer swearing you in swearing people for open comment. Just please state your full name to proceed, and you'll have 3 min. and, Catherine, it looks like you may need to unmute. You. Do have permission to do so. Okay, that. Better. Perfect. Thank you. Okay. Well. I'm so happy to see all of you. You can't see me, but I'm sorry I'm not there in person tonight my main reason for wanting to speak right now was to thank Abby for her work as chair, for I don't know last year or so, and to really welcome, Renee, and just wish you the best best of I won't say best of luck, but having a really good experience, being the chair of the landmarks board. You guys do

[6:11] such important work, and I know sometimes you must feel that people are criticizing you or whatever, and there are always things to think about and discuss. But the work you do is very, very important to the city, and I just hope we can continue to have landmarks, boards, and ordinances and a good preservation program. So thank you all very much. Thank you. Aubrey, alright. And we do have one more. Let me just get onto the right screen.

[7:02] Okay, this one is calling in. So please state your name, and you'll have to unmute. Hi, this is Patrick O'rourke. I agree with Catherine. So good luck today I wanted to make you aware of a situation that, in my opinion, is quite disturbing. It's nothing to do with this board, but it has to do with the silver saddle designation. So I spoke at the planning commission last night, because 2 weeks ago the planning commission. and if you're not familiar with it, the silver saddle was as a motel at 90 and 96 Arapahoe. of which a developer but I forget the name of him. He came, and he purchased a silver saddle hotel, purchased some rights behind the

[8:01] September school, and several acres next to it, with an attempt to put in 45 townhouses. of which, at the time they had annexed into the city of Boulder. Well, they went ahead and annexed it. 45% of the housing stock in that development would be affordable housing. 2 weeks ago they reversed everything, and they even went beyond where they to define. And it wasn't necessarily Planning's fault. So it's definitely staff planning staff, and I'll tell you why. Number one. That was an annexation agreement from 7 years ago. The developer is in the process of asking 1,400 $1,800 a square foot, and yet he's he's declared he's declared bankruptcy, but he's claiming poverty, and if you know anything about development, which is what I live in that world, his cost according to his own records, last week, was up to $600 a square foot, and he blamed.

[9:03] Historic preservation is a problem that it was $32 a square foot for his permit, which I find that hard to believe. But that being said, city staff recommended that they go from 45 to 24% on affordable housing. It doesn't affect you there where it does affect you. Is this planning board on its own. on part of the recommendation that voted 6 to nothing to decertify the landmark, the Silver Saddle Hotel, and this is after the owner neglected the building and tore off the facade, tore off more than 51%. And I don't think. And I've been watching landmarks, board meetings now for 4 years. I don't ever remember them coming back before the landmarks board and asking for recommendations, or even going before the Ldrc. So in 2 weeks they're going to go before city council with that recommendation, I would strongly suggest you. Add it to your agenda and discuss it and see what you know. This guy should restore the building, and I think he's prepared to do it. It's Laura Kaplan

[10:08] thought that it wasn't necessary. Unnecessary. Thank you. Thank you, Lynn. I'm John. I guess my question is Marcy. is there any staff comment on this? Can we discuss it at the end, or do we wait to discuss this at the end? I believe we can discuss it now. So I'm planning, and other staff are planning to attend the city council meeting that has the call up for that property. I think it's on August 21, st and I know that Kj. Is here if if you want to come, speak to it.

[11:04] But I'm happy to fill in as well, I know. Let's see. Good evening. Landmarks. Board Christopher Johnson, comprehensive planning manager. I will not pretend to know all the details on on the case, but what I do know, and I am aware of Planning Board makes a recommendation to council on the essentially is an amendment to the Annexation Agreement Council does not have to follow that recommendation. Of course they make their own decisions as to what amendments would be necessary. We, as Marci mentioned, Staff, will be coordinating with our Development Review Staff to provide any additional comments to the to the staff memo that will go to council related to any historic preservation elements. We will also be attending that meeting right now. I believe the annexation agreement amendments are just on consent. So it's not even a call up item, it essentially is just on the consent agenda for council to review and approve.

[12:09] The other thing I will, I will mention is that the the landmarks, or the recommendations from, you know, from planning board. If if Council was interested in pursuing a revision to the Landmark Designation City Council at that moment does not have the authority to do that, it would have to come back to the Landmarks board for discussion, and ultimately a recommendation from you to de landmark that, or to remove that designation before it would then go back to council for any final decisions on that matter. Thank you. Kj, and and the only thing I would add is that the buildings did go through landmark designation around 2019, and around that time there was also a Landmarks Board review for a landmark alteration certificate for additions to those buildings. I know some of you remember that. But in terms of the past process I wanted to clarify that.

[13:14] Just a question. You know. There came up the sign, the sign has been removed, and is it no longer there? Was it required for them to keep the sign. And what is the repercussions that we have as the Board to say or do anything if they don't follow through with what was required of them. To begin with. Yeah, I'm not prepared to answer that right now. But in general, like, I'll go back to the landmark designation ordinance. And then the approved landmark alteration, certificate plans, and then code enforcement, if needed, is kind of a separate process. It's still in chapter 9. But it's not something the board is typically involved in. But

[14:00] that's what we use the ordinance and the Lac plans. I don't have anything else. Okay, thank you. So now we move on to the do. We want to. There are no landmark alterations or demo applications issues that are pending. So we're going to move on to the public hearing. We move on to the 1st public hearing. This is public hearing, in consideration of an application to demolish a house constructed circa 1920, at 2747 4th Street, a non landmark, property older than 50 years old. Pursuant to section 9, 1123 of the Boulder Revised Code 1981, and under the the procedures prescribed by chapter one. Through 3 quasi judicial hearings. Boulder Revised Code 1981.

[15:03] The owner is Jacqueline Wade, and I will hand it over to Marcy for staff presentation. All right, thank you. And good evening. Let's see, this is a quasi judicial hearing, so I will 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 any board members to know any ex parte contacts that's any conversations you've had about this property. Outside of this meeting any site, visits, or other information other than the memo. See none. Next we'll begin with my staff presentation, followed by board questions. The applicant, then, has an opportunity to present, followed by any questions from board members. The public hearing is then opened for public comment, followed by board questions, and then, after the last person has spoke, the applicant has a chance to respond to anything that was said.

[16:05] The public hearing is then closed, and the board discusses, and a motion requires an affirmative vote of at least 3 members to pass motions must state findings, conclusions, and recommendation, and finally, a record of the hearing is available. The criteria for your review is outlined in the Boulder Revised Code in section 9, 1123. This is a demolition, application, and the purpose of reviewing these 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 this evening are the eligibility of the building for designation as an individual landmark, that is, if it has historic, architectural, or environmental significance. The relationship of the building to the character of the neighborhood, and as an established and definable area, the reasonable condition of the building, and the projected cost of restoration or repair, though not deterioration, caused by unreasonable neglect.

[17:09] The options for you all tonight are to approve the demolition, request, or place a stay of demolition. To allow time to consider alternatives. A stay would not exceed 180 days from the day the review fee was paid, so it would expire on or before. January 10, th 2026. Looking at the past reviews for this property, the Landmarks board reviewed a previous demolition request in 2,003, and found the building may be eligible for individual landmark designation. The Board placed a stay of demolition on the application, and the application was later withdrawn. The current owner purchased the property in 2,011, and nominated the property as an individual landmark. In 20 16. The owner later withdrew the application before a public hearing was held.

[18:03] The current application to demolish the house was received in December of 2024, and on December 18th the Landmarks Design Review Committee referred the application to the Full Landmarks Board finding probable cause to believe the building may be potentially eligible for landmark designation. In July I made a site visit to the property with chief Building official Rob Andreas, the chief building official, observed that the building is in poor condition, but determined. It is not an immediate threat or danger to public safety. Looking at Section 9, 1119, unsafe or dangerous conditions exempt from review. On July 14th the applicant paid the landmarks board hearing fee, and that brings us to today. August 6.th This property is located on the west side of 4th Street, between Alpine and Balsam avenues in the Newlands neighborhood. The lot slopes down from the west, and the house is located on the middle of the lot, with an addition. Originally a detached garage extending to the south.

[19:03] The lot contains a number of mature trees and vegetation, and is bordered on the west by an alley. There's a small storage shed at the rear of the property that was constructed around 2,004. The property is within the boundaries of 2 identified potential historic districts. The potential 4th Street district, identified through a survey done in 1992 and the 2,000 update to the comprehensive plan, and proposed by residents in 2,003, and an expansion of the Mapleton Hill historic district. At that time the house was considered a contributing feature of that proposed district. The house was originally constructed in 1920, with additions completed in 1937 and 1939. It is a 1 and a half story painted brick house with a central front gable. This is a photograph of the facade from 4th Street, and it includes a full length shed roof porch supported by 4 square columns. the door and original windows, feature, shallow arched heads.

[20:03] and the gable end is clad in alternating rows of 3 fish scale shingles and irregularly sized shingles. an addition constructed in 1939 as a detached garage is visible on on that south elevation, and set back from the front of the house. It features a front gable with overhanging eaves and exposed rafter tails, and the garage door has been replaced by a window, and there's an additional shed roof structure that connects the garage to the house. This portion originally came, contained a door and window, which was replaced with a window opening. The north elevation has 2 window openings, with arched brick lintels, with original wood, double hung windows. The 1937 edition is visible on this elevation, at the rear of the original structure. It is clad in horizontal wood lap siding. It has no openings. On this elevation there are 2 additions visible on the west or rear elevation of the house. The original gable and chimney are visible above the shed roof of the 1937 edition, and centered within the gable is a single double hung window, and the gable itself is clad in horizontal woodlap siding.

[21:14] The 1937 edition is wood framed with an overhanging shed roof. and there's also visible the West, the west elevation of the front gable, single car garage constructed in 1939 and connected to the house. the garage and connection feature, a combination of lap siding, and rectangular shingle style siding similar to that on the front gable moving around to the south elevation. The house has the house has 2 openings, a door next to the connection to the garage, which is behind a tree. In this image, and a large window opening to the east, filled by a large fixed pane over 2 casement windows. These windows appear to be replacements. The south wall of the garage addition extends outward towards the rear end of the original house, and has 2 window openings. The exposed rafter tails of the overhung gabled roof are visible here.

[22:11] According to county records, the house was constructed in 1920 and a 10 foot by 16 foot rear edition was constructed in 1937. The one car garage was constructed in 1939, and connected to the House before 1949 the garage was converted to living space. Sometime before 2,000 2,007, and the porch floor, including the framing, was rebuilt in 1992. Next, we look at the integrity of the building which is the building's ability to convey its feeling and historic character. There are 7 aspects of integrity, and we begin with location. The building is in its original location, and the original design of the building was modified between 1937 and 1949, when the garage was connected to the House. Subsequently both the garage door and entry were replaced by windows.

[23:02] The building retains much of its historic materials, notably its brick construction and arch lintels, and while the shingle remains in the front gable. The siding at the rear gable has been replaced with horizontal lap siding, and the railing on the front porch has been added, likely in 1992, when the board the porch was rebuilt. Some, but not all, of the windows are original. The wood shingle roof has been replaced 1st with 1st with asbestos shingle. Excuse me, asbestos shingle in 1949, and currently with asphalt shingle. The building demonstrates vernacular workmanship the building's ability to convey a feeling of the of its time has not been diminished by the change in context. and the setting of the house is on its property with mature trees and plants has not changed. In general, the building retains its ability to convey its association with early residents and its design. So now we'll move to the staff analysis of the criteria for your review. Starting with the eligibility of the building as an individual landmark.

[24:10] Let's see the starting with the historic significance which considers the development, heritage, and cultural characteristics of the community. The house was likely built for Catherine Jameson and her daughter Catherine or Kitty Parker in 1920. Both Catherine and Kitty were widows. They owned the House from 1920 until 1963, Kitty worked at the Mountain State's Telephone company for more than 3 decades decades as a Hello, girl as one of 34 operators in Boulder in 1927 Kitty would have handled emergency calls as well as regular business and personal calls. This was one of few professional careers available to women at the time, and a highly sought after position. Kitty also had a car and made her house unusual by building an early prototype prototype of the attached garage made popular in the 19 fifties

[25:00] from 1966 to 1969. This was the residence of Ron and Sharon. Whitney. Ron was an accomplished track athlete who set a world record in the 400 meter hurdles at the 1968 Olympics in Mexico City. The house is representative of the type of working class development that was happening in the Newland neighborhood at the time, and this was recognized in the 1992 survey the architectural significance criteria. Consider the distinguishing features of the architecture and the architect and builder. the house's vernacular masonry, with decorative arched brick window and door headers. It. It originally included decorative shingles, and some remain in the gable, and the fish scale shingles. The original architect and builder are not known. Moving 3rd to the environmental significance, it considers the sense of identity created by the unique, natural, or man-made environment. The house is set back from the street, and this massing and placement allow it to blend in with the neighborhood.

[26:04] The property retains its historic character and fits into the urban edge of the historic urban edge. Character of this area of boulder. and, as mentioned, the house was considered a contributing feature of a proposed potential historic district moving to the relationship of the neighborhood. The house contributes to the character of the neighborhood. The west side of 4th Street, between Alpine and Balsam was developed as a residential area, beginning in 1,900, while the east side of the block of 4th Street remain orchard until the building boom after the Second World War. Aspects of the area's historic character have been retained on the West Side with several early 20th century houses, uniform setbacks, and a moderately steep east-west grade and coverage of street trees. The landmarks board is asked not only to consider the eligibility of buildings, but also the condition as well as the cost of restoration or repair.

[27:02] The applicant has provided information about the condition of the building which is in the memo and attachments, but which I will summarize here. That includes an incident following a burst pipe that caused damage to the foundation with a significant amount of water flooding the house earlier this year. structural issues due to not only the shallow rubble foundation shifting, causing the brick to fail. Visible cracks in the masonry damage to the wood floor and sticking doors and windows due to a lack of adequate foundation. Poor accessibility to the site and the house. single pane, windows and a need to upgrade the plumbing and electrical systems. There's also due to the method of construction of the house, upgrading the plumbing and electrical would be a more significant undertaking because of the way the house is constructed on a shallow crawl space, the floor would need to be removed and torn up in order to upgrade those utilities.

[28:04] The house does not have current, does not currently have water and has dangerous levels of mold, dangerous indoor air quality, and is uninhabitable and unsafe. The full details are included in the packet, and the owner, Miss Jacqueline, is here to answer questions if you may have them. Additionally, chief building official. Rob Andreas and I made a site visit to the property, and he observed that the house is in very poor condition, due to a failing foundation and extensive settling that has been exasperated by a recent water leak. The later excavation of a crawl space under a portion of the house has partially undermined the shallow rubble stone foundation, and the house may be contaminated with mold due to the January or February 2025 water leak. He stated that the house is not currently fit to occupy, and must remain vacant until repairs can be completed or a decision is made to demolish the structure

[29:02] at the site, visit staff observed significant structural cracks in the masonry. A wooden sill plate at the base of the foundation of the south elevation, and a shallow Rubble Foundation staff considers that these issues are not a result of neglect, but rather due to the age of the building. Expansive soils that we know are in the area, and a shallow foundation that has been compromised by excavation of a crawlspace. as the applicant States water damage caused by the 2013 flood and the 2025 pipe burst caused further damage to the building. These are more photographs that were included in the packet, showing the cracks in the masonry, and the applicant provided a written narrative. Regarding the projected cost of restoration or repair. We recognize that, providing a structural report and cost estimate for staff and landmarks. Board consideration costs an applicant thousands of dollars. So we researched recent cost and condition information provided by demolition review applications in the last 7 years.

[30:02] As we all know, there's no true apples to apples building, but this is, I think, a relevant piece of information to look at the range of costs and conditions that the landmarks board has seen, where we tend to see the oldest and poorest condition buildings in in boulder, since often a reason to demolish these buildings is their condition. So while each building is unique in terms of its site, method of construction and condition, the information provides a range of rehabilitation costs from 200,000 to 700,000, or approximately $108 per square foot to over a thousand dollars a square foot, and we'd like to note there have also been recent significant inflationary costs to construction materials based on our experience. It would likely cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to address the structural issues of the shell of the building, and hundreds of thousands more to fully rehabilitate the building.

[31:05] And it's Staff's determination that this does meet a unreasonable cost of restoration or repair, and that the house is indeed in poor condition. So Staff's findings are that while the building is eligible for designation as an individual landmark. The building is in poor condition, and the cost of restoration is likely prohibitive. The condition of the building is not due to unreasonable neglect, but rather due to the age of the building. Expansive soils and a shallow foundation that has been compromised by excavation of a crawl. Space staff considers the approval of the demolition of the building at 2747 4th Street is appropriate, based on the criteria. In section 9, 1123 F. Of the Boulder Revised Code. So with that staff recommends that the Landmarks Board approve the demolition application, and that concludes our staff presentation, and I am happy to answer any questions the Board may have.

[32:13] I have. Is the. It's the owners that made the 2016 application for designation. The same owners that are currently seeking to demolish. So it was. Yes, and Jacqueline can speak best to that. But from my conversations with her she really appreciated the history of the house and the character, and and bought it to live in it long term. But once she realized the extent of the condition and the cost and the accessibility of the house, while it is unusual to go from a designation application later to a demolition one. I think it's a logical kind of sequence in this case. Okay, what? The 80,000 unit flood the the pipe burst. When did that happen? It was either in late January or early February. That was this year. Yeah, so it was after the landmarks design Review committee did the initial review of the application in late December. It was between that initial review. And today.

[33:21] okay, thank you. And if there are no further questions, I would just pull up this slide as a look at the reminder of the process that concludes my staff presentation. So now we welcome Miss Wade up for the applicant presentation. After that the public participation will be open for 3 min each. After the last person speaks the applicant will have a chance to respond to anything that was said, and then the board will deliberate

[34:02] welcome. And can you turn on the microphone with this button below here when it's red? It means it's live. Thank you. Thank you. Good evening. Chair and members of the Landmark Present Preservation Board. Thank you for the opportunity to be here and speak tonight. I'd also like to express my appreciation to Marcy and Brad for their professionalism and support throughout this process. My name is Jacqueline Wade, and I'm here with my son Gary. and I'm here to respectfully request approval for the demolition of our home at 2747 4th Street. I want to begin by acknowledging the importance of preserving Boulder's historic character. However, as stated in 9 11 dash one of the Boulder Revised Code.

[35:03] The goal of historic preservation is to strike a balance. a balance between the public's interest in heritage and the private rights and needs of property owners. That balance is at the heart of my request. Request. This evening. when I purchased our home in 2,011. It was marketed as a teardown and sold as a teardown. But despite investing in significant repairs over the years. this structure still suffers from serious issues, including, as Marcy, you know, talked about collapsed rubble stone foundation. a complete lack of running water from recent, a busted water pipe. And I think we have submitted, or you received the hazardous mold testing, among other outdated systems that render it uninhabitable.

[36:03] These conditions have also been confirmed by the city's building official attempting to rehabilitate the home would result in overwhelming economic hardship. and even then it will remain unsafe and unsuitable for modern living. I'm proposing to build a new modern, multi-generational home, designed care for my medically fragile son, and allow us to remain in boulder together as a family preservation must weigh both public value and private realities. Our family, while disenfranchised, disenfranchised, marginalized, and vulnerable. we deserve dignity, safety, and housing, stability. historic preservation should not come at the cost of those human needs.

[37:03] I would like to add that fewer than 1% of boulder residents look like me when I say Boulder, the city of Boulder residents look like me and my son. While we may not appear in the local paper, like some of our neighbors. we bring value to this community throughout our diverse perspectives, our presence, and our contributions. I'm proud that my son he works at. He works locally at Count Bow Wow, where he has been named employee of the month twice in the 1st year. There is much talk in Boulder about creating a beloved community that welcomed everyone. Tonight you have the power to help make make that vision real by removing obstacles rather than creating new ones. We respectfully request and ask that you allow us to move forward with our plan.

[38:02] Thank you for your time and thoughtful consideration, and it I guess I'll open it up for questions. I'm welcome to answer any questions that you may have. Great thanks, Jacqueline, for your presentation? We asked. We can ask her questions now. Oh, and I also left time, too, in case if Tyrone Mcknight he's a contractor. And he's been helping out with the water issue and the bursted pipe. And I didn't know if Gary had anything to say. Houses terrible. Okay, okay, so that's it. Okay, thank you. Okay, you can come up. Come up. you can come up. He he might. This is my son Garrett. Wait to who you are Gary Wade, Jr. I'm Gary way. Jr.

[39:00] The the house is terrible. If you have one. Too many things on the electricity goes out. then you then you gotta go outside, turn it back on. And then 1, 2 main things on again. They're like the same thing. The electricity goes out. It's terrible. Okay, thank you. I think she covered him when she she covered it. Very well. So no further questions, no further questions or responses. Okay, thank you. Thank you? So does anyone have any questions? No, but you do say that you have plans. to. Are we allowed to ask that? She did mention that. Yes, so I know it's tempting to think about what might happen after a house is demolished. But it's important that the criteria stay focused on the house as it stands today rather than what could replace it. Okay, and I'm filling in. I know Chris is also on the call

[40:13] to keep you in line to keep us in line. Okay? Marcy is a hundred percent correct. Chelsea. Do you have any questions. I don't. Okay. So thank you, Jacqueline. We'll go with a public participation, and then you'll have some time to talk against the public participation. Okay, thank you. All right. Now, let's move to public comment. Perfect. Sorry for getting ahead of you, Miss Chair. So 1st we have Fran sheets in person, and then we'll move to virtual participants.

[41:05] Hi! My name is Fran Sheets, as you know, and I live in Boulder. I'm here. I just want to remind you of the. I'm not trying to make a comment about what was just said. I'm talking purely in a preservation forum and based on the code, and I would like you to remember that when this house was purchased it was nominated for the possible designation, and today, in that period of time that they owned it. It's up for demolition. So that's important to me, and for time's sake I'm going to read this to say this property that has required structural repairs for years endured flooding in 2013 as well as this year. To say, this house has not been neglected is to undermine the very concept of preservation and stewardship.

[42:04] It's contradictory to say that, due to structural damage, this house is beyond repair. It undermines preservation program values and hits at the heart of sustainability and the core reason for the program and for the concept of stewardship of historic properties. To vote. To demolish this House puts the purpose of this entire program in jeopardy. Anyone can claim poverty, be relieved of neglect. sell the property, move on, but the loss is to the house, the community, and our history. This nullifies the whole reason for our preservation program. Voting to demolish this House will be redefining core definition of our code. The once understood guidelines we've stood for for designation, demolition, and neglect. Many old historic homes in boulder have required new foundations, mold remediation, or major updates, as many homeowners have been and will be pressed to provide them. But this is an issue that could be discussed and solved, not incrementally, or here tonight by demolishing this particular home. Don't forget. The house is structurally not a danger to people, but cannot be occupied due to the damage, the water damage at a minimum. To demolish this house without an effort to restore it will be throwing the baby out with the Bath water as well as the program.

[43:21] This House should not be demolished. Please vote to stay the execution or demolition and work hard to save the structure for designation it deserves. That's your job, and the community deserves your very best effort and protection. Thanks, thank you. Aubrey. Do you have any on virtual? We do. We have one virtual hand, and it belongs to Catherine Barth. So, Catherine, you should be good to unmute. Wait! I was supposed to swear.

[44:02] Fran in. Oh, I swear to tell the truth. Okay, great will that work, lawyers? That's okay. Yes, that's fine. Okay, and Catherine, will you swear to tell the truth. I do? And state your full name. Catherine Boris Boulder, Colorado, While I appreciate the owners. Dilemma of needing to to fix the house, and having had a flood looking at this house, and the way it sits on 4th Street to me is so very, very important to not only its own lot, but to both sides of the street, and a good share of 4th Street. I think it. I think it's very important that this 19 twenties house is at least given

[45:10] the stay of demolition, and the 180 days in which solutions might be found, or another or someone might come forward who would purchase the house. So I really think it's you really should give it the the stay of demolition. and I hope that within that 180 days that a permanent solution will be found for. So thank you very much, and good luck with your deliberations. Thank you, Aubrey. Anyone else available. all right, if anyone else would like to speak virtually, please raise your hand now.

[46:13] so I think you can now speak as the applicant do it. Okay. okay, he's going to do public comment. Okay, so I need you to raise your hand and swear to tell the truth and state your full name. My name is Tyrone Mcknight, the owner of on-site restoration and contracting services. and I was called out to the house to look at some structural issues with the house and some water restoration problems with the house. When I looked at the house there's 3. There was 3 additions on on the house. 1st was the original structure that they built on the house, and then there's another addition.

[47:00] The second edition that's attached to the garage. The joists are pretty much the foundation is sitting sitting on the ground. and that was water was running. for I don't know how long and all the the structure underneath is completely rotted out. and we did a mold test on it. The mold came out positive on it all. The electrical in the house is not up the code. The garage is an addition that was added onto the house. Nothing in the house is up to code, and it will cost to bring the house up to code. It would cost thousands of of dollars. And I just want to. And with my experience, I've been in business since 1992 doing restoration work and new constructions. In my experience of looking at the House, I would recommend

[48:04] Demo in the house based on the structure of the house and the amount of work that needs to be done to. As to trying to go in and repair everything from the ground up. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Thank you. So if there's no one else who would like to participate in public comment. I'd like to move forward to the applicant. You may now have an additional 3 min. if there would be, would like to comment on anything that was brought up during the process. Would you like to add anything? Thank you. I just wanted to acknowledge the comment made that, you know, suggested that there be a stay of 180 days.

[49:06] As I mentioned in my original presentation, we're looking at human beings. We are looking at the fact that with the condition of the home that it is. Now that I am paying a mortgage for a home. I think it is outrageous to suggest that I put it up for sale. I'm not the type of person that when I bought it in 2011 that I entered with this, you know, with the intention, or anything to, you know, to demolish it. You know I've made good faith effort in in trying to restore, make it comfortable, make it livable, and we live in boulder, and we belong in Boulder. and I don't think anyone should say that we need to sell it just because is hundreds and thousands of dollars to preserve it.

[50:01] and I think, from a public policy perspective as much as I respect. You know the preservation codes and the history of of my home life should always prevail over, you know, and human beings should prevail over buildings. and we belong in the community. And we love the community. And we're not going anywhere. Thank you. Thank you. So we are now going to move on to the board discussions. I ask that everyone else mute your computer or phone for the duration of the discussion. We'll allot approximately 45 min for this discussion. Does any board member want to start it off? Everybody's looking at me. I'll look at someone else, I'll I'll start it off. This is not unusually a very difficult issue, and it is

[51:08] an issue of balance. I think, that we're discussing here. There's no question looking at it from the standpoint of its history and form and apparent condition earlier in time, that it was eligible as a designatable house, and it had meaning in that location. We do have to consider all of the aspects of bringing a project like this back up to some kind of inhabitable status, and I think that the issue here is one of extreme, I guess, lack of economic viability for this project.

[52:02] It originally had acknowledged structural issues. Rubble foundations are a problem. Especially given enough time. And I believe that a compound set of of environmental circumstances, a a 2,013 flood. That was an unprecedented event in certain parts of the city, and I think in that 4th Street area things were hit a lot harder than was ever imagined. combined with the situation of the water pipe burst, and Some of the other, I guess, issues associated with the with the the water or the inundation, that the structure is now

[53:02] marginal at best in terms of habitability without extensive remediation. And unfortunately, we're in a current environment of. I guess, rapidly increasing service and construction costs and all types of remedial work. So I I have a hard time. from the standpoint of private property and private property rights, burdening a property owner with those kinds of costs, if we could not find some other way of offsetting them, and so far nothing like that has presented itself. So I'm in favor of Staff's recommendation because of all those factors.

[54:02] Thank you, John. 1st of all to the applicant. I want to tell you that I appreciate your poise and your eloquence. This evening. I think, on top of Staff's outstanding memorandum and presentation, that your words really resonated with me. I think you are and it takes a little bit of courage, and like standing up and really staking what's at the heart of this matter. and from our vantage point, what's unique is I don't know how my colleagues would feel this way, but even Staff has acknowledged this, that the house itself does meet the criteria as a as a designated landmark in Boulder, and would be a wonderful addition to our already hundreds of landmarks. I think this house still stands today, despite its structural issues, and has a really grace note, and adds something to that neighborhood. But I think you communicated very well and very compellingly.

[55:03] your plight. You know your issues, and it's so hard to balance these things. I I What's interesting to me is my 1st landmarks board member I attended as a member of the audience was 19 years ago this month, and I have seen a shift, and this isn't particularly about your house. But I just would be remiss if I didn't make this comment, that when we get to this, and because a stay of demolition is something that is, in our toolboxes, in our ordinance, to allow that time to explore creative alternatives to demolition, especially of a house that clearly meets the criteria. What's unique about that. And Rene alluded earlier. We had no pending stays of demolition, and I'm beginning to see a pattern develop a trend, and it's not good or bad, or right or wrong, where what's happening is when it gets to us at this level, although rightfully called up, or I understand why it was called up by a design review committee is that

[56:04] the staff and the applicant are coming forward with more information about the true cost and things like that. And for me, that's a fairly new thing. I've seen that in more recent hearings. and I think that, too, there might have been times without knowing that staff might have said, Let's do places. Stay, let's do really explore this. Let's give this just a few more months while it's still standing there gracefully, and I think what is helpful, but also heartbreaking, is to hear those numbers, and I know I know Staff doesn't come to it easily when they recommend. You know at this level tonight, you know, without seeing what else might be out there to save this place. I see that difference, and you know it's still throws me for a loop and kind of I'm I'm I get really torn in that environment. But it actual. It actually is a good thing if we do travel that path because we need to make informed decisions, you know. And

[57:10] I so so many things you said really spoke to me. I also know that just sort of. I can't put your property and your house and your plans, you know. up to this standard. But the thing is, you know, sometimes we have to look beyond one owner, or you know, I think when the Iroquois tribe tries to make decisions 7 generations down the road, there is the big philosophical preservation issue we have as a board to wrestle with, and maybe even as staff and as a city, because we are losing so much more than we're saving. But I think tonight at this point, and you know, I I heard Staff's words and whatever. But also it was really what you spoke tonight that that I am leaning towards supporting Staff's recommendation.

[58:06] Thanks, Abby. Can I ask some questions? Is it? Is it too late? It's It's not too late. Can you go back to the slide? That shows that potential district boundary? It was. Yeah. Give me a minute to share it for the online participants. I'd be curious to know if and I forget the the exact wording for the criteria that talks about the is it the neighborhood or the context? The relationship to the character of the neighborhood. So and and it's always curious when I see map boundaries, district boundaries drawn right down the middle of a street, because we know that both sides of the street contribute to the

[59:02] to that. So it looks like this is down the middle of the street, which would make me wonder of those houses on the west side of 4, th between Alpine and balsam can contribute, would be contributing structures to this proposed expansion. District expansion or or potential district, right? So this potential historic district was identified in 2,003. So over 20 years ago. And I've made multiple site visits to the property. But I haven't done, you know, an updated reconnaissance survey to say, does this still qualify as a historic district or not? There have been a few houses that were contributing that have been demolished on this block. I know of one. So again, the potential districts were identified 2 decades ago, and we'd have to re-look at it today. But I would also

[60:11] echo your questioning of a historic district. That is a residential block that only has one side of the street that that was probably editorial comment. Well, I agree with that. But but the the real question is, and I think you just answered it by saying that in the last 20 years since this was identified as a potential historic district, at least one, if not more than one, of the houses on that side of the street have been demolished. Correct. So it's potentially you could say if you went back to reconsider this boundary, there's less, I mean. is that a fair conclusion? There's really less. Yes, you know, we're fortunate to have such thorough documentation of older properties in Boulder with survey records. And from those survey reports, potential historic districts, and that information is 30,

[61:13] 40, 45 years old. And so we take it as a as a baseline, to say, 20 years ago this was identified as something that could be eligible for a historic district, but it has changed quite a bit in the last 20 years, and so we'd have to do another look to see. Is it still eligible? I would say, just based on that discussion. It if it was at 1 point a potentially have potential eligibility for a district. It's even, it's less at this point, at least by one house.

[62:08] I think I'll stop there. I mean, I, I will reiterate the notion that the most sustainable path is to save buildings, not to tear them down, and when you lose them you never get them back. Yeah, Chelsea, would you like to speak. Sure. Yeah, I agree with the staff recommendation. I think that John spoke eloquently on his thinking, and I agreed with most of it. At the end of the day. I think that there's been a lot of work. You know, typically when we put a stay it had. It's when an applicant or owner has not done the level of work that this applicant has done to investigate what it could potentially look like to preserve the building. And so, because

[63:07] all of that work has been done, and we do know so much more than we typically do at this point in the decision making. I think we know enough to be able to make the decision now versus making the applicant wait an additional you know, 6 months, and and I believe that we owe we owe people fast or efficient decision making when that is possible. And I think that is possible tonight. So I'll be voting in agreement with the staff recommendation. Thanks, Chelsea, so I will speak. Thanks, Jacqueline, for putting on a wonderful presentation, and the fact that you know for me, I do take an account. The person who currently lives in the house.

[64:05] and you know you did speak to a couple things that you know that are heartfelt to me because Boulder needs to be needs you in this city and you are, you shouldn't be pushed out because of. And the people that we have here it does matter. So we are, in fact, though the landmarks board. So I in, I wanted to just speak to that, because it is a very, very important point. The landmark floor does look at the historic. the building in itself, and that's why Staff put together such a good presentation and goes a little bit deeper and gives us this presentation, and then gives them gives us the staff recommendation.

[65:03] I want to say a couple points is when we 1st talked, and you know there was. Oh, it could be a landmark, and we're going to come forth with a landmark designation. At 1st I was like, oh, and now we're doing a demo. So for me that was like, Oh, why are we changing it? But I also want to say that, like there has been significant change between when that happened and what the state of the building is now. So there wasn't a mold problem when you were asking for that to put that on there wasn't. And and I know from experience that that's not an easy thing to get rid of, even if money was not an object. So I do think that the mold, the structural issues on an old house are always rubble. Foundations are very hard to deal with. The fact that we had stated that there's a the main house, and there's additions put on, and how these additions go into the main house.

[66:10] Were they even considered at the time to be structurally sound, you know, when when you're attaching it back. Then it wasn't. They didn't have the same tools we have today to look at those type of things and to stabilize the current house. I do also. I do think that we need to take into account that you know that the building official did go out and take a look at it, and he looks at these things all the time, and the fact that it's not. You can't live in it like your own house is almost condemned. And for us to state that, you know, and it's not in a historic district. It's in a potential historic district, and putting that up on the board. having it be 20 years ago, I think, is hard for us to

[67:04] have that have any weight. So in saying the little my, I'm just giving credit trying to make my decision throughout this process so that I can. I am going to vote towards. I don't know if I want to say that, but I'm going to vote towards staff recommendation based on those criterias that I think that there is a difference. I do want to state, as my colleague has stated, that it's more sustainable. It is I think, economy of scale to keep the house and work within the means. But I do understand that the mold and the structural issues are a huge problem, and the fact that you can't live in your house is just. It's just it's not okay. So I would like to have a motion. Would any colleagues like to?

[68:05] Oh, I guess we have to put it up. Just some technical difficulties were coming. No? Well. other option is to take no action. Wait, we're discussing something. Well, we're we're discussing, I was saying. I would I would enter the motion. but the Board should discuss the option of taking no action which allows the demolition to go forward.

[69:06] Okay, so we have 3 up. No, no. Heads are being shaken. Sorry. And Chris again from above can correct us. But I think you're thinking about the initiation, hearing of taking no action, and then at that, that's after a stay that's after a stay and then default. So you do need to make take action tonight. Okay? Well, then. That's that's correct. I'll make the motion. I move the Landmarks Board approve the application to demolish the building at 2747 4th Street, and adopt the findings in the staff memorandum. Finding that the building does not meet the criteria, set forth in Section 9, 1123 F. Boulder revised Code 19 and 81,

[70:03] a little snake request a second. I second the motion. So I second the motion. Renee Globek seconds, the motion and additional discussion or amendments will take a roll call. Vote. John. All right, Abby, abstain Chelsea. I. Michael. Nay. I vote. Aye. The motion passes 3 to one free one. I asked Marcy to explain the next steps in the process great. So oops the application has been approved. The approval is valid for one year, so it's good until August 6th of 2026. That's the amount of time to finalize the deconstruction permit, and then, once you have the permit that is valid for either a year or 2 to actually take the building down.

[71:20] If the deconstruction permit is not obtained within one year you'll come back and resubmit a historic preservation application after next August. Thank you. Thank you all. Thank you. Can I clarify here? It looks like Michael, you voted nay, and and, Abby, you you abstained. Yes.

[72:01] Correct. I'm going to advise the Board that abstentions are going to be recorded as a as a as a yes vote. The only the code doesn't allow for council members or board members to abstain from voting unless there's a conflict of interest. I do not believe the code allows for abstentions absent, a conflict of interest. So. Oh, I mean, I know over the years I've seen but one or 2 abstentions. Can I change my vote? Or what's the best. and the applicants have left. Well, the I mean the motion carried, since it had a had a majority. But I I do believe that the record will reflect that It was a vote in the affirmative.

[73:03] so, because it had a majority of the Board voted to approve it. The result doesn't change, but I think your your vote will be recorded in the affirmative. You're saying her vote would be recorded as a nay, as a yes, oh, as a yes. As a as in affirmative, as a yes. Oh, okay. So if she she abstains, it's a yes. That is, that's my yes, that is my understanding. Okay. That's so. The the result doesn't change. Even if she had voted no, it would have been. The motion would have carried. Okay, I agree, we can move on. I do have a follow-up question. So you were just confirming what my vote was. Chris, you weren't. You don't have. Yeah, exactly. Yes, no. Yeah. You. That was clear. It was more about

[74:01] Okay, let's move on to matters. We're going to have some civic area research updates. But before that, oh, so we have 2 items under matters this evening. One is a Midyear statistical update which should take maybe 5 or 10 min depending on if there's board conversation about it. And then Claire is going to present a civic area history update. It's a 20 min presentation, and it picks up on everything we've learned that fits into 20 min everything that we've learned about the history of this municipal center since the end of the historic district application. So I won't say all that we've learned. It is a summary of some key points that are important to share that I'll say I have learned a lot about Boulder's history that I that I didn't know before

[75:04] but before that I wanted to take the opportunity to do a Midyear review. Looking at the 1st 6 months of the year from January to June of 2025. And part of this is because we're halfway through the year already, somehow a little more than half, and also making sure that we are tracking. And you know, as part of the implementation of these process improvements that really have transformed our program. Let's look at them and and see what the numbers tell us. So those process improvements shifted. The majority of lac reviews from the Ldrc. To the staff level. It extended the initial review time from 14 days to 21 days, because we we thought with that increased volume at the staff level, it might take things a little longer, wanted to give ourselves flexibility

[76:00] for that, and to schedule Ldrcs. If they're not happening every single week, and then it extends the expiration time for Demos from 6 months to one year to reduce the number of repeat recent repeat cases. So the goal of these changes was to streamline our process and reduce the volunteer time commitment for the board really be intentional about that committee meeting and that rather large volunteer time commitment that you all make. So let's look 1st at the case volume in the 1st half of 2025, we've received 106 landmark alteration certificate applications for changes to designated properties. That is, a 30% increase from the same time last year, and 23% above the 5 year average of 86 cases. y'all would have been busy at the Ldrc. Is one of the takeaways. In the same time period we reviewed 72 demolition applications for non-designated buildings over 50 years old. That is a 16% increase from the previous year. But right on track with our 5 year average of about 70 demo cases in the 1st 6 months of the year.

[77:11] We're also seeing, I would say, a notable increase in State historic preservation tax credits. Last year I think we recorded one for the year. We're already up to 4. So it it is probably going to be a record year for the State tax credits. We're also on track for landmark designations with 2 landmarks board public hearings. So far. Usually we see 4 to 5 landmark designations per year. So, looking at the level of review, as I mentioned, we reviewed 72 demolition applications, which is a 16% increase from last year. The recent process improvements didn't impact demolitions as much as lacs other than decreasing the number of those repeat applications. What we see here is that we have a notable increase in the number of pre. 1940 buildings proposed for demolition. There have been 16 this year compared to 6 last year. In the 1st half.

[78:08] Staff level reviews remain steady, as you all reviewed, reviewed a lot of Demos in the 1st half of the year, twice as many as you have this year. Oh, that's at the landmarks board last year you you had removed. You had reviewed 7 demolition applications to date, you know, in the 1st 6 months this year you've only reviewed 3 in that same time. where we really see a change is in the level of review for landmark alteration certificates. Last year the Ldrc reviewed the majority. Oh, I don't have a pointer, the yellow. Last year the Ldrc reviewed the majority. 61% of Lac applications and staff reviewed 33%. This year staff has reviewed 79% of applications. And the Ldrc has reviewed 20%. So even more than flipping that

[79:02] the landmarks board reviews have also decreased. This time last year you all had 5 reviews where to date, you've only reviewed one Lac at the board level. So the process improvements have had a major impact on the Ldrc. Case, volume and volunteer time commitment. The number of Ldrc. Meetings decreased from 24 to 18 in the 1st half of the year. That's a 25% decrease. The number of Ldrc cases has decreased from 69 to 40 cases. That's a 42% drop, and the number of cases resolved in a single meeting increased from 65% to 80%. I don't think that's due to any of the process improvements. It's just notable that things are moving through our process very efficiently. Here we go. This time. Reduction for volunteer has translated to the landmarks board as well. There's not a clear kind of connection that I see between the process improvements

[80:08] and efficiency. And then how that's translated to the landmarks board. I sense that we had a lot more larger scale projects, additions, or ones that had gotten called up to the board, especially lacs. But then you also saw how many more demo applications we had at this level last year compared to this level. So while I don't have like a clear why this has happened, it is interesting where, at this point. Last year you had held 15 public hearings that has been cut in half down to 7 hearings. In the 1st half of the year we've met for 11.2 5 fewer hours than last year. That's 11 h less in this room than last year, and the average meeting time is half of what it was last year, and I would say that last year the Board was also running very efficient meetings, and so I would attribute that more to the Caseload rather than to the Board's efficiency in terms of deliberation, or or how you all conduct yourselves.

[81:17] So let's see the last slide here, key takeaways. So we can look at the volume. We can look at the levels of review. But does that tell us that our program is doing well? A few metrics to tell us, that is, are we having efficient and criteria-based decisions? And it's efficient. The average review time for lacs and demos is 8 days from the time somebody submits an application to that's the initial review. That's either an Ldrc meeting or the initial staff review cases are up 20% from last year. And yet we're still able to move through these cases very efficiently. And 84% of cases were approved within that average 8 days

[82:07] that there we go! That's I didn't actually have like a a finale here. So what I would say is that these numbers tell us, tell us that this is a very efficient process. I think the process improvements that you all adopted had have transformed the program. It's made your volunteer time commitment really an intentional use of your time and expertise rather than having you review the majority of these applications that were approved anyways, but shifting those over, and I would say, from a staff side. It's been a transition to take the volume from the Ldrc. But we now have a Tuesday Design Review team where we bring these cases and we talk through them. And we have kind of a light structure of the Ldrc. Where we can still put our heads together and talk through the ones that might be a little trickier. But the vast majority of them are pretty, you know, simple. They meet the guidelines as proposed, and then we have a structure of when they don't meet the guidelines. How do we have that conversation with the owners outside of you know the structure of the Ldrc. So

[83:27] that's a recap of the 1st 6 months of the year. We will do another one of these at the end of the year. But welcome any thoughts or observations, or other stats. You might be curious of knowing next time we do this. Well, great job on the stats. You could just do our nation's monthly job numbers for us. That would be awesome. So, Marcy, so you explain. I'm so sorry you explained that really? Well, and I appreciate that, and I can feel the difference as a as a board member, and I I thank you for explaining sort of what you do with that kind of Tuesday design team.

[84:10] Do you feel like you've had an increased workload, or I know you also had to spend a lot of time preparing for Ldrc. And so I'm just kind of curious. No, that's a great point. And Claire feel free to to chime in because she handles the majority of the staff level reviews, though Mariah is also helping out. And then Aubrey touches every case that comes in through the completeness check. I would say. We're feeling the volume. You know it's it's there's rarely a slow week as they come in. I do think that there are less complex cases coming through where they are not over the counter, but like pretty streamlined reviews, and then it is shifting that work of preparing slides for storm windows or slides for for

[85:02] you know, a front yard fence or something, and now we're repurposing that time. So we're feeling it. But it also it kind of took us a little bit of time to figure out, what structure do we need to stay on top of these so that they don't kind of build up and and get overwhelming. One of the things that I repeat a lot is that we? We need to make sure our process doesn't have a bias towards approving something. So we want. We want the process to be criteria based, and for us to have equally easy ways to either ask for revisions or refer something to the full board as it is to approve it, so that we don't just say, Oh, just approve this one. Just approve this one, because it's then off our desk, so that criteria based and efficient, are kind of our 2 anchor points. Well, thank you for taking on that extra workload, but I think what you should be feel proud about and pleased about is

[86:07] how the applicants in Boulder are getting such great response. And you know, service. I think that turnaround of the average of 8 days is pretty darn amazing and impressive. So thank you for what you added to your workload on our behalf. Great, I think this is a a great improvement to the landmarks board. thanks for acknowledging. You know that we're moving forward and using our time wisely. The I do feel like the cases are different than they were a year ago. So significantly, I think there's something in the water, in the environment, you know, in the economy. So but I think people are maybe minimizing what they're doing. So

[87:07] maybe that's the situation more or less. But it looks great. So thank you. I am now going to. I'm now going to turn it over to Claire for this next portion. and idle to observe oops. I need a bigger desk. All right. So, as you, as you all know, in 2023, the Landmarks board held a public hearing to potentially create a historic district in the civic area, and while the City Council ultimately denied the application. the research that we undertook to understand the area, particularly the area here marked as Block 11

[88:06] has really changed our understanding of Boulder's history, and it continues to influence the historic preservation program. So today I wanted to catch you up to speed on on what we discovered. So the proposed historic district was the area you see here. It's between Canyon Boulevard and Arapahoe Avenue and between 11th and 13th Streets, and the Boulder Creek and the creek paths and creekside parks made up the majority of the space. and the intent was that the historic district would provide additional context for 5 city-owned buildings within the proposed boundary and recognize the importance of the park space in between. The far West End. That Block 11 was proposed by the Landmarks board at the time as an extension of the boundary. As a result of the research that I want to talk about today.

[89:06] The development of this area into Central Park and Boulder's Municipal Center was guided by Boulder Civic Improvement Association. These these folks were also known as the improvers, and their stated purpose was the improvements of Boulder. In health, growth, cleanliness, prosperity, and attractiveness. Many of the improvers became the inaugural members of the Park Commission in 1918, and they received advice from Frederick Law Olmsted, Junior. and this also set the stage for a second phase of municipal park planning which began in 1938 and was influenced by Sacco de Boer. So they had a long range plan. Prior to our research. This picture was the most frequently used image when talking about the area and the residents displaced to create Central Park.

[90:09] It has been the basis of the prevailing narrative for the last 100 years, and it was the narrative that we understood to be true. We had no reason to believe it wasn't true. but one day I took out a magnifying glass and took a really hard look at this. and it started to make us rethink everything, because, as it turns out. this image was strategically angled from the rear of the property. The roof of the large brick building at the front of the lot is in the background at the center, and the other buildings shown are outhouses and sheds that we actually can see on Sanborn and topographical maps. Today, you can actually see the same view, more or less by standing on the pedestrian bridge looking north towards Canyon Boulevard. And if you can imagine a row of houses faces facing Canyon Boulevard, and you know this location. It's not hard to realize that the picture

[91:11] was of the backyards and the utility spaces that are not usually meant to be seen. But this and other images of the outhouses have run alongside articles for the last 100 years, and the narrative from these images might also seem true. This Boulder. Daily Camera article from 1998 reads until the mid 19 twenties. The area was a rambling mass of shanties crowded amongst cottonwoods. It was the home of hobos, paupers, and whores. Late in the 18 hundreds the banks of Boulder Creek had not been built, and water often flooded the land, creating a foundation of sloppy mud

[92:00] mosquitoes picked at the skin of residents, and the area stank of sulphur, emitted from trains that rattled past. The article continues by about 1926, mining the city's mainstay as a supply town. Before World War one had ended and the city economy depended on tourism, which meant the city needed to be more presentable. An ashamed Boulder City Council methodically took steps to buy the jungle property and evict the residents. Again we understood this to be true. except that some of the words that kept coming up seemed a little judgmental. Our goal for research into the civic area was to ensure that we followed the process in the Boulder Revised Code to provide you and City Council with the material they needed to make an informed decision. But we also wanted to tell a more complete community history. and we couldn't do that if some of the community had already been deemed not important.

[93:06] we approach this work, understanding that the addition of more perspectives enhances our understanding both of this place and the city. As a whole. We knew that folks wanted to improve. that wanted to improve. Boulder invited Frederick Law Olmsted, Jr. To help create the park here. but as we researched we learned that rather than a collection of temporary shacks, this area was an established neighborhood for more than 40 years home to both black and white residents. We started to seeing a pattern of systemic erasure, and found evidence that harmful narratives were used to justify the replacement displacement of residents. These are some of the stories that we have uncovered that have been erased. This photograph is Boulder's civic area in 19 0 1. You can see the creek near the bottom of the image

[94:04] and the cluster of houses and outbuildings in the middle. The road that goes from the lower left side to the top right corner we now call Canyon Boulevard, but back then they called it Water Street. and 6 separate lines followed Water Street for about a decade between about 1894 and 19 0 4. The area was Boulder's Red Light district. So about 5 of the 6 distinct houses you can see in this image were owned and run by one woman, Marietta Kingsley. She is single-handedly responsible for creating and managing the Red Light district as we began our research prostitution was a common theme. This is an image taken from the train tracks on Water Street, looking west towards the flatirons. It was taken around 1889, maybe a little before the bridge at the center of the image is where boulder's Public library is today, and the space between the creek on the left and the railroad tracks on the right is today the parking lot for the library.

[95:09] Molly Gordon owned this land, and this may be her standing in the corner of her fenced lot. Research into Molly uncovered some facts about her life, but these snapshots made us start to understand that the stories we had heard in the past and believed to be true might not be the full story. In 1879 Molly Gordon lived in Denver, and she appeared before Justice Whitemore, accusing a white man of assaulting her. Whitemore dismissed the case for lack of evidence, but more likely because Molly Gordon was black, and he would not have been willing to take the word of a black woman's over the word of a white man. By 1881 Molly was a porter and also a consensual sex worker in Denver. In September, 1881, Justice Whitemore again fined Molly Gordon $25 for keeping a bag, Neo, which was a euphemism for a house of prostitution.

[96:05] After that, at some point before 1884. Molly moved to Boulder, and tracing the story of Molly's life was not straightforward. Much of it simply was not recorded, so I was really excited to find that Molly obtained a legal deed to the city lot in 1890, making her the 1st independent black woman to officially own land in Boulder. but as I researched her, I noticed that the contemporary stories and articles about her missed all but one aspect of her life. As I tell her story, I'm going to add some words to the screen that have been the focus of her story for the last 50 years. In 1973, a daily camera article about prostitution determined that Molly was a madam based on an 1886 newspaper article. The article noted that Molly was fined $25, while others who were caught at her house were fined just 12.

[97:03] I have not yet been able to confirm that Molly was arrested for prostitution in Boulder. More than this one time some of the reports cited can be traced back to a typo printed in the same 1973 article that incorrectly associated Mali with the arrests of other women. 3 years later another daily camera article noted that the 19th Century journalist had written that the raid had been on Molly's hellhole. This is not the earliest newspaper article that used a slur to describe this area, but it's the only one I will repeat. In 1979, Sanford Gladden published a book that asserted Molly was a prostitute because she was arrested for fornication with a white man. The man Paul Cahoe lived in Molly's house for at least 16 months, and there's no evidence that the couple was anything but a couple. Colorado's miscegenation law, the law that made it illegal for them to live together was not repealed until 1957,

[98:05] a 2,004 book claims Molly was simply a black prostitute. but by 2,015. Marley's legend erroneously extends to her employing an armless woman with one leg, a piece of information from an adjacent story in the primary source that gives Molly employer status and leads to the 2023 assertion that Molly Gordon was a notorious black. Madam. do you see a balance of the story I just told you. It's not that I chose today which words to add to the screen, but the writers over the last 50 years have chosen these particular words today. This is the site of Marley Gordon's house. You may have parked here tonight. This is the parking lot between the library and the municipal building. Molly had lived on this lot since before 1884

[99:02] took out a homestead pattern on the parcel and was finally deeded it officially. In 1890. She lived here for at least 2 decades until her death on June 9, th 19 0. 4. She was the 1st black woman to independently own woman. Sorry own property in the city of Boulder. Molly Gordon was an enslaved child in Missouri, and fought as a teenager during the Civil War. As a black child in Missouri. It was not legal for Molly to learn to read or write, although she learned to play the violin. We don't know what happened between the end of the Civil War and 1879, when she moved to Denver. We do know that her house filled about 5 parking spots, and her property ran from the creek all the way to the road, 50 feet wide and 150 feet deep. and we know this because the Sanborn Fire Insurance Company mapped the buildings in the area. Starting in 1890.

[100:05] The Sambourne Maps are a relatively unbiased primary source of information, so we can see the development of the neighborhood by mapping the number of buildings that appear over time starting in 1890. That's Molly's house into 1,900. And then in 19 0. 6. We can see that development in this area really took off. and this was the year that Olmsted was invited to come and beautify Boulder. The following year the residents of Boulder elected an overwhelming number of reformers to city council. The reformers were the extreme improvers. They were in favor of prohibition, a curfew, and they worked to get rid of Boulder's prostitutes and shut down this red light district. But we now know that the buildings weren't shanties or shacks. The owners of this house, William and Lizzie Tipton ran a brothel.

[101:05] Williams sued the railroad company in 1910 because the rail lines blocked easy access to the business. He won the case, and the railroad paid to move his house. and this image is of the house. In its moved location. The railroad company displaced other residents. On the block, too. Jenny Johnson was one of the displaced owners. The railroad company moved her house one block west. This part of the neighborhood remained densely populated because of all the small houses. and as the prostitution business moved away from public view, this area became popular for large extended families. Jenny was one of 17 black residents documented in the 1910 Federal census. and in the 1910 census. with the exception of one white man, everyone who lived in this area was black.

[102:02] This was a notable community, and we're still making connections to this area and the wider African American community in Boulder, because it wasn't an isolated area. The residents here are connected with the Allen Chapel of the African Methodist Episcopal Church and the Second Baptist Church, and often had relatives and friends in other areas of boulder. The work of the city work the city was doing with Olmsted was gaining traction at this point, and between 1918 and 1922, 10 out of 12 lots in the area were bought by the city for the future park. In 1919 the city created the Park Commission to guide the work, and one of the 1st things the Park Commission resolved to do was to make something better of the dump and trash heap known as Railroad Park. which fits the narratives of the Improvers.

[103:04] However, we discovered that the family that lived in the house at Railroad Park were Jewish married couple. Max and Dora Solomon moved into the big brick house after the 1910 census. They lived here with their younger children, Fanny, Jacob, Minnie, and Ava. Max ran his junk dealing business from here. There's an ad on the screen from his business that was in the paper on October 11, th 1918, their son, 19 year old, Jacob Solomon, died of the flu. He was the 1st person in Boulder to die of the disease. The Solomon's older child, Anna died less than a month later. They buried their children in Denver because Boulder did not have a Jewish cemetery. Shortly after the 1919 Park Commission resolved to make something better of the dump and trash heap. They chose words that perpetuated stereotypes, dehumanized this family, and justified forcing them out of their home and business, and out of boulder.

[104:11] From 1919 the purchase of land for the park was strategic and driven by the Olmsted plan. A 100 years later we can see a pattern of systemic erasure and have evidence that harmful narratives were used to justify the displacement of these residents. narratives that included racist epithets like calling the area the jungle, and using words that disparaged the residents like Squatter and whore. These residents included Max and Dora, Fanny, Minnie and Eve Solomon, who left Boulder by 1923 there were only 3 properties that were occupied. Jenny Johnson, who had been evicted just 13 years before from her house on railroad company land had purchased Molly Gordon's land and house after Molly's death, and was by 1923, the only remaining black, resident

[105:09] Ruby and Peter Schaff had inherited this house from Ruby's mother. and this group of buildings, which had been the most successful brothel 2 decades before, was now rented to 3 families. George Hough married couple John and Emma Bay and their 4 children, and Emma Birch. If you look closely at this map, you can see dollar amounts for the lot and improvements written in by Olmsted's team. Ruby and Peter Schaff, who were white, accepted a thousand dollars for their property. It's valued on the map. At 200 they were able to purchase a house in Boulder. In 1921 Jenny Johnson requested the city pay her $10,000 for her house, and she refused to leave. 7 years later the city paid her 750.

[106:00] She didn't buy another property in Boulder, and we don't know where she went. The newspaper article describes exactly what happened next to a neighborhood that had been considered an eyesore by the improvers and reformers of boulder. It says. the land purchased provides an excellent dumping place for dirt from the paving district. No better opportunity than this will probably ever be presented to the city of having this section of town levelled up with good dirt. Photographs of George Huff, John and Emma Bay and Emma Burge were printed in the newspaper. The images were propaganda made under instruction of the city manager around 1920 to show the clearing of the area they were used in a 1928, front page, headline, front page, news story that reads jungle section of the City of Boulder to disappear at the time this article was printed the photographs were 9 years old, and the families that posed for them were long gone.

[107:01] Presumably Jenny Johnson, who was at the time concluding her fight with the city did not allow her property to be photographed. or it did not convey the right message for the article. We now know more of the background of the area. That was a couple of homesteads by the creek in 1887, when Molly Gordon 1st homesteaded here. We know some of the racist and harmful narrative that was used to justify the displacement of the residents that moved to the area between 1890 and 1910, and we have some idea of how the city ultimately dismissed the existence of past residents as the park area was cleared. But also now we have a greater understanding of how the stories we've heard in the past and believe to be true might not be the full story, and we'll continue to look at Boulder's history through a different lens and with a different perspective, because there's always another side to the story. and we'll strive to tell a more complete history of our city, where everyone has a role.

[108:08] By 1937 the civic area looked just as promised. An underused area cleared and made into a park for the benefit of the community. We now have evidence that the city misused power and used propaganda to remove residents. that at the time was seen as undesirable. and we know more about the people who were displaced to establish the municipal center. and that there was more than one predominantly African American neighborhood in the early 20th century. And we're making sure we look at other areas with the same skepticism and get the magnifying glass out more often. And I look forward to telling you about other new discoveries over the coming months. Any questions on Fort?

[109:03] It's it's just great. Yeah. Thank you so much for that. Yeah, that's a lot of time and effort in your soul in that piece. So thank you for that. And that is where that is where I parked. I mean, there's just history under our feet, all everywhere, you know there is, and sometimes we just don't know it. Yeah, that was in tonight's brief, the violation of the treaty. I've rendered them speechless. Well, I was going to say, it is a lot of information to absorb, and we're not. We're not expecting you to formulate articulate thoughts on the spot, but, as Claire mentioned, we would like to continue to bring these kind of

[110:15] facets of boulders, history, or these presentations under matters, as the agenda allows over the next couple months, with the intent of telling a more inclusive history of our community and raising the awareness of of boulders history, and I would just extend my gratitude to Claire, because I've reread the same history snippets for a decade. And it wasn't until Claire started this work and started really looking at the primary sources and questioning. questioning the the written narratives that that exist today. So where I copy and pasted and and just kind of took it at face value. A lot of credit goes to Claire to really ask new questions, dig in and find the other side of the of the story.

[111:09] I do have a question. and you said the date, but it didn't register when it when the street changed from Water Street to Canyon Boulevard is that is that right? That canyon was originally Water Street. Yeah. Didn't you say that the I don't know that I said the date? I think it was in the fifties when they removed the train tracks. But but wasn't it? There was a flood in the thirties, and they renamed it. After that I thought we could research this because there was a significant flood in the I believe in the thirties that that itself removed a lot of the railroad. You know the depot was there until the seventies or late sixties. But the so a couple of things contributed to the

[112:01] changing of that where the primary way to get into the canyon was up Arapahoe, and then eventually, once the and then the primary way for the trains to get up was up Canyon. And so that's why Eb and G. Fine park with the automobile campground is on West Arapahoe, and then you kind of connect into the canyon and cross Boulder Creek. farther up the canyon there, but once the railroad tracks came out and it became a road, and then later a highway. That's around the time we understand the name changing from Water Street for the creek to Canyon for Boulder Canyon. That's that's actually I was looking for that like connection to it. And Arapahoe used to be called Valley View Road, and was the main connection all the way East, and then to Denver as well. And there's a whole history about the Lincoln Highway, and all of that. But we'll save that for another another night.

[113:07] I have one cheeky comment, if I may. When when will the boundary. The proposed boundary include Mustard's last stand, I mean, that's 1 of the most significant sorry. That was an attempted humor. Sorry it is historic. It is. I mean, the weave of our history is just amazing to what is it is today and how where it began. And I mean, no, what's there now, right. how are we trying to clean up? What is there now? So you know, maybe history is bound to repeat itself, and we need to start looking at a solution. Yeah, I do think there's a a relevancy to looking at the past and at stories like these. And I think there's also another shift like our program. Your

[114:09] existence as the landmarks board is so tied to physical space and physical space only tells part of the story. It's what happens to still exist in 2025. And what stories do those places tell? And there's not maybe space in our code or in our reviews to tell the history when something's been erased or lost or demolished. And so I think through Claire's work and through this program, we're finding ways to tell those stories and really see value in that, so that you, when you walk by those 5 parking spaces, you know that is the footprint of the home of the 1st black woman to own property here in Boulder, and that's pretty remarkable. And I mean the fact that

[115:02] the energy of those words that were used, I mean and just shifted the area so much. And just the the notion of how words have that much power in what changed. So that's remarkable as well. At 1 point when you were speaking, Claire, it reminded me of the, and I may have the phrase wrong, but that the victors get to write the history, and what you're trying to do is uncover. You know. the everyday people. and the story's not told, and not, I mean, I think some stories are perpetuated, because there are, you know. generations of that family that keep that story alive. But what you're doing is telling the stories that are lost or could be lost forever. Thank you. Yeah.

[116:03] The only thing that was it for our matters things. And then, under the calendar check, I just wanted to remember to talk about the October meeting date. So the September one is the regular day and time, and it's here in Council chambers hybrid meeting, and then the October meeting. We're looking to shift that a week in observance of the Jewish holiday, and that would be a virtual meeting on Wednesday, October 8.th Correct me if I said the wrong date. So you all can open up your calendars now, or just when you get home, Aubrey, if you could send an email out to to do a quorum check and make sure we've got a quorum, because I'm sure we'll have cases. Thanks wonderful.

[117:02] So adjournment. The meeting is adjourned at. My watch is dead. 7, 59. Thank you. Everyone. Thank you.