Thread by @shayshinecastle

OK, *now* a new thread. On the landmarking of 940 North Street. Check out the staff presentation so you can see the building they're talking about. www-static.bouldercolorado.gov/docs/5A_940_No…

Council will vote on “designation of the 1899-1907 portion” of the building “and the property beneath it (“Hagerman House”) ... “over the owner’s objection”
Owner wanted to demolish; submitted application in August or October 2018 (packet says both in two separate places)

Stay of demolition placed on application in December 2018, via 5-1 Landmarks Board vote

Landmarks Board voted 4-1 to landmark it on April 3

Cited the date of construction (1899-1907), associated with “Garret and Etta Hagerman, whose family resided here between 1918 and 1972.” Garret was a miner and Etta “was part of the Walker family, early pioneers of Jamestown”

The house “represents the area's earliest period of growth and development.” Is an example of “Vernacular Cottage construction with simple classically inspired design, including its pyramidal hipped roof with projecting gable, pediment and dentil detailing, and double-hung window

It was surveyed in 1955 and “found (to) not have architectural or historic significance” because “Alterations to this house have diminished its historic integrity.” The 1973 addition blocks the historic house from the view of the public right-of-way.

“While the Landmarks Board acknowledges the negative visual impact of the 1970s addition, it considers the construction may be easily removed to reveal intact historic façade of the house.”

Council now disclosing any interactions they've had around this with involved parties. Morzel and Carlisle have "walked around" the property but no one else has.

The Landmarks Board voted 3-1 to recommend this landmark to city council.

Ronnie Pelusio was opposed. bc of “the non-historic (1970s) addition on the front of the house obstructs the view and historic character of the building, that it is not in or near a potential historic district, ....

...and that in this case landmarking the property is not a reasonable balance of private property rights and the public good.”

Staff is also recommending against designation for similar reasons.

There have been 195 individual historic landmark designations in Boulder since 1980
184 were initiated by the property owner.
4 were initiated by Historic Boulder, 1 by the Modern Architecture Preservation League (Bandshell), and 6 by the Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board.

5 are known to have been initially over the owner’s objection:
1980: 2032 14th Street – Boulder Theater
1990: 646 Pearl St – Arnett-Fullen House
1998: 1949 Pearl Street – Campbell Grocery
2007: 1936 Mapleton Avenue – Frakes House
2007: 3231 11th Street – Chambers Cottage ...

... and 2014: 747 12th St. – Cowgill Residence

This property, Marion Rayback purchased the property from the Hagermans in 1972 and built a four-unit apt building. They are still rentals today. Daryl Carpenter, current owner, bought it in 1979.

He wrote in a letter to council: “To designate a property against the owner’s will would simply be egregious … Designating a small rundown house in the middle of the block on North Street a historic property would be a mistake.”

They're showing the house on TV now. Just so you see what kind of building we're talking about.

"It just doesn't bear any resemblance to what it did historically," James Hewat, senior historic preservation planner.

This addition was added before Boulder had regulations for historic preservation, Hewat says.

The boundary, if landmarked, would only go around the original 1899 part of the building, not the 1973 addition.

Council asking qs now.

Jones: So there's an application for demolition; what can be built there?

"It's fairly high-density, so up to 6 units," Hewat says. "There are 5 there now."

Someone in the audience said "Ah!" after Hewat said "it's fairly high-density."

Jones: So a larger footprint? Or the same?
Hewat: It's best to ask the property owner. I'm not quite sure.

Morzel: I was going to ask the same question about how many units. What other structures from this period have been landmarked, and where are they in the city?

Hewat: There are quite a few that are landmarked from this period. First one that comes to mind is on 11th St.

A "number" on Mapleton Hill, Hewat says.

Morzel: This looks to be only a block or so from the Mapleton Historic District.
Hewat; Yeah.

Some history from the packet: "By 1900, Boulder’s population was 6,150, with twenty-eight subdivisions added to the original townsite between 1890 and 1895. Mapleton Hill built 1865-1946." Newlands was agricultural until 1950s.

Morzel: This house is really pretty small. Could you move that 1899 structure up a few feet and then in the back add an additional 5 units to bring the density up?

Hewat: We did meet a few times with the potential buyer to discuss that.

But "there isn't that much room to move it forward." It's a "challenging site" bc the grade of the property goes uphill a bit.

Morzel: But you could build into the hill. "It seems to me you could accommodate additional structures ... while keeping this historic structure."

Hewat: We often find alternatives through this process, but in this case, we couldn't.

"There is room" to build in the back, Hewat says.

Fran Sheets, chair of the Landmarks Board, is speaking now to their vote to designate this property.

"We felt it met the code. This house is well-preserved in its state and it can be repaired adequately to be a beautiful living unit."

"The building that was added in the 1970s ... could easily be removed. The history on this particular building is significant. It's not just a house ppl happened to live in."

Landmarks Board "investigated" moving the historic house forward and building in the back. It can be done, Sheets says, "for a reasonable sum."

It provides affordable housing. It's an "example" of what Boulder should be doing.

"We're going a bit beyond what the code says" by considering "embodied energy" and smaller living units.

"If we demolish that house, there is right next to it a very nice, beautiful Victorian. We haven't done research on it. We'd be signing the death certificate for that house as well."

Sheets says staff initially recommended beginning the landmarking process.

"Staff simply does not like to landmark anything against the owner's wishes," Sheets says. "That was the main reason given to us."

It's not unusual for the board to go against staff, she says.

She references 3 examples, including the 16th Street Historic District on the Hill.

"This is a good compromise" Sheets says.

Now we're going to hear from the property owners and potential buyers.

Carpenter, the owner, is up first.

"I am almost 80 years old and I made the trip from (Iowa) to be here tonight."

"We've bought and sold several properties in Boulder over the past 48 years trying to build up the equivalent of a 401k retirement."

"I applied for a demo permit one year ago. We've been stuck in the city process ever since." We tried to find a compromise but we couldn't. "I'm not interested in landmarking the property."

"I understand landmarking truly historic buildings" but this isn't it. It's old and surrounded by "ugly 1970s buildings."

Now his architect is up. Ryan (something) from Louisville.

"This has been a very long, drawn-out process. We have continually argued the structure does not meet the criteria required." City staff, Historic Boulder and adjacent landowners agreed, he says.

"We do not understand why this designation is now in front of city council."

References the 5 designations over owner's objections. Only 1 known example over staff recommendation AND owner objections, he says. But never one over staff, owner and Historic Boulder.

"This is unwarranted."

"Those who lived in the house were not significant in Boulder's history; they just happened to live there."

Says the 1955 analysis notes that they were not significant ppl.

"Age of the original structure alone does not create distinction ... in the city's history."

All homes in that period were built in this style, Ryan says. The original home's front porch was removed; maybe the side porch. Windows and doors were removed and replaced; entry roof and porch are an addition. The foundation conflicts with the grading; it's sitting on rubble.

Just the rehab of the original house would cost $150,000, he says.

There are more additions than just the 1973 one.

So he says.

Someone in the audience just took our lord's name in vain.

Proposal for redevelopment there: three duplexes and detached garages. 8,000 sq ft total.

Proposal fits the by-right zoning requirements, Ryan says.

There's 2,000 sq ft of area in the 1973 addition. It won't be torn down if the house is landmarked. There's not enough room on the site to justify tearing it down, he says.

"Designation of this structure would greatly affect private property rights. This would be a new precedent set in the city."

Q from Weaver: Wouldn't it be complicated to move the old building bc of the mechanical system being in an addition?

Ryan: You'd have to do a whole new system.

Clarification via Weaver's q: Most of the surrounding buildings in the area are post-WWII.

Young: I live in a similar house, old but with a 1960s addition. My husband and I applied for landmark status but were told we couldn't bc it was altered. How is this different?

Hewat: I think it's a q of historic integrity, going back to that notion of understanding .... and being able to interpret the past.

It's a little different bc the addition on this house is more separate, Hewat says. "The property does have architectural and historical significance." But it's got new construction that "mars" that significance.

Morze (in a long-winded way) asks why staff changed their recommendation?
Hewat: We felt there was some reason to look at this property and potential. It didn't work out...
Morzel: For the developer it didn't work out.
Hewat: There wasn't a solution that could be reached.

"Sometimes there is and sometimes there isn't. This time there wasn't." (Hewat)

Morzel: What's the Dif between this building and the one on 19th and Pearl where the new construction was added onto the back of the historic structure?
Hewat: That wasn't a demolition permit.

We've got two speakers for the public hearing: Kathryn Barth and Cheri Belz

Barth: "This is a complicated (one) here. I just think this building, this site could be wonderful and inspiring development. ... You could remove those 1970s buildings. I just look at this as a real opportunity."

"The current desire for larger buildings makes smaller buildings more vulnerable" to demolitions. "In Boulder, many buildings are going down. These buildings are small and they're useful."

The dude who told Sam his typing was annoying is whispering with his neighbor.

Hey, could you take that outside? Ppl are trying to work here. Your whispering is annoying.

Yates: Have you looked into the cost of moving this building and what that would cost?
Barth: There was a mover who came out and he said it would not be hard to move.

$24,000 is what she cites.
Much whispering from the audience.

"The city would be richer if this little building was there. We have to remember that ppl on Mapleton Hill got their money from the miners. The working class made Boulder what it was; they made those mansions."

Belz, president of Historic Boulder, saying the board is against the designation. "We looked at the house as it exists now." The owner will not remove the 1970s addition. "Given that, it totally takes away from historic character."

That was a unanimous vote against the landmark designation on the preservation committee of Historic Boulder, and the board itself voted 8-1 against.

Architect Ryan gets a chance to rebut. This lot is 50 ft wide and 200ft deep, with 25 ft setbacks for residential uses. "There simply isn't enough area" to do anything with this property.

The property owner's lawyer objects to the landmarks board process.

Carr advises that Sheets' talking points of embodied energy and climate change can't be used in council's decision, bc it's outside the criteria.

Young: Could we redefine the landmark boundary so the structure can be moved?
Hewat: I've never actually seen that before. The boundary has moved with the building in the past, if the building moved, and then the ordinance is redone.

Young: I guess I'll ask (Carr).
Carr: To an area where the house doesn't exist now?
Young: Right
Carr: But where you hope it would exist in the future? "I would find that problematic."

Young: My q is can we "somehow compel the movement of the house."
Carr: I don't think so.

Sheets is back up; Carr saying he thinks it's improper for the Landmarks Board to get a rebuttal; they're the applicant and the property owner has due process rights.
Landmarks Board "they're not going to sue us." The property owner can.

Weaver says we should "defer" to Carr, Carlisle pushing back.
Carr: As long as you're giving the property owner the right to rebut, you should be fine. "You're taking some level of risk."
Carlisle: "Life's about it"

Jones: I would say to council, only do this if it's going to affect your voting.
Morzel: I feel like we're muting her (Sheets).

Young to Hewat: You said solutions are often found during this process that weren't thought of previously. How often does this happen?

Hewat: We did go through that conversation.
Young: How often does that happen post-designation?
Hewat: It has resulted in a good number of consensual demolitions (he meant designations).

Consensual designations is my new fave Boulder phrase.

Morzel hearkening back to her "early days on council" and the train depot that moved, and its historic designation boundaries that moved with it.
Hewat: Actually the building was lifted up and the boundary was readjusted. That was by special ordinance.

Also happened with the granary building on north Broadway.

Morzel moves to landmark the property.

Carlisle seconds.

Morzel says the date of construction is enough to justify the historic nature of the house (1899-1907) and that the Hagerman family "was quite a significant community member family" and represents Boulder's mining history.

We've been talking for 20 years about saving these smaller buildings relevant to workers that the wealthy ppl were dependent on, Morzel says.

"You could achieve that historic facade by removing the buildings built in 1973."

She's going through the criteria one by one to justify her vote. Quite a bit louder and more passionate than she usually is. (Though she's been known to get like this on other issues.)

"In the time I've been on city council, there have been 4 very significant buildings that have been landmarked over the owner's objections."

She's listing them.

"In all of these examples, we were able to find some accommodation ... for additional development while preserving the building."

Also listing other significant landmarks, including Boulder Theatre and 646 Pearl Street, the house of Historic Boulder for many years. "How many ppl have been in that? It's a jewel; it represents Boulder."

"I think there can be some" solution here to allow development and satisfy historic preservation, she says. "I would implore you, the property owners and the landmark staff and board to work with each other to come up with a resolution."

"It's a very small house. It's not asking very much."

Carlisle says she can't put it better than that.
Weaver also agrees with Morzel about the "character of the house," but "there are other criteria we're supposed to consider."

"All the ideas we discussed about could we move it, should we move it, those put burdens on the property owner." Either they have to find funding or the house will be "locked in" to what it is now, which is a house with a 1970s addition on it.

"It's very hard for me to support (designation) over the objection of the owner" and it requires "a lot of road" for the property owner to travel to "make the property into what it could be."

Still Weaver, btw. "Historic Boulder is an outfit I have a lot of respect for. They do their homework."

Does not support landmarking.

Jones agrees with Weaver. "I appreciate the enthusiasm for what this could be. I don't think we're going to get there. As it is, it isn't contributing much to the neighborhood. I don't want to lock in that 70s piece."

Young asks Jones and Weaver: Why would the architecture lock in?
Weaver: I'm not sure any development could happen on the property with it in place now. Unless you tear that stuff out, "you don't have a contributing building."

Jones: They could, "but they don't have to" tear that out.

Carlisle: There is opportunity if the property owner "wants to take advantage of it." The cost is "not that significant."

"It's not necessary to leave it as-is."

Weaver: My q is, who pays? There's more cost than $20K to have someone lift a building off its foundation and move it 20 ft. You're going to have to tear down housing units and rebuild it. "It's easy to sit here and say" we want this, "but somebody's got to pay for it."

Morzel: The developer already has in his sights 6 new units. I'm sure there's enough profit in there to cover these costs.

Weaver: I suspect this deal with the developer could be conditioned on what happens here.

If that isn't met, the property stays with the owner and stays the same (locking in the 1970s piece.) "We're putting the onus on somebody we don't know has the ability to do what we want."

Weaver: I don't want to go against Historic Boulder. "We do this so rarely. Once a decade."
Morzel: More than that. It's been four times and I've only been here two decades.

Morzel: This was a developer knocking on their door speculating they want to do a redevelopment. "We either retain some of the history we have in Boulder based on the criteria, or we say no."

Yates asks if Historic Boulder has ever objected to a designation.
No, Hewat says, not that he can recall.

Historic Boulder is a community board, Morzel says: We appoint Landmarks. We usually accept majority votes of our volunteer board.

Jones to Morzel: I appreciate you sharing the history with us. We cannot compel them (the property owner) to change it. They don't have to and right now, it's an ugly building that's not contributing to the neighborhood.

Jones: "We have a whole room of ppl waiting to talk to us on an important issue."
Morzel: This is an important issue.

We're voting.
Young taking a long time to decide. "I honestly haven't made up my mind. I really have no clue where I'm going to go."
Carlisle: Yes for designation
Jones: No
Morzel: Yes
Nagle: Yes
Weaver: No
Yates: No

So now it's up to Young. Since Brockett is absent.

Young: "I'm torn... being that I had a similar situation with my house. And they told me no. And I wanted to."

"On the one hand I think it should happen. On the other hand, they told me no. To say yes would be inconsistent with that."

Brockett would have voted no, Jones says. But he's not here so he can't.

"We can't be applying the same rules differently in different situations," Young says. "In this case, we'd make somebody do it who doesn't want to."

She says no. No landmarking.

That's it for this one. @threadreaderapp please unroll. Thanks!