Thread by @shayshinecastle

There's a hearing now about landmarking 236 Goss Street. Not sure how much I'll tweet but here's a pic and some info.

Background:
Demo permit applied for in December
Landmarks board voted 5-0 Feb. 4 to stay that
Voted 4-0 on June 5 to initiate landmark designation
Oct. 2, staff recommended landmarking house but not garage/shed
Oct 2, Landmarks Board voted 3-2 to recommend landmark designation

Landowner is OK with it as long as he has development and redevelopment potential

Constructed in 1983-ish

That's literally all I'm going to say about it. Pretty sure council is going to vote for it but I'll be back with the vote in a bit. Ya'll go back to your knitting.

OK, I'm sharing this bc I've never heard it before. An (unofficial) criteria for landmarking is: Would the original owner recognize it today? says James Hewat, Senior Planner.

It's possible it's been said before but GD if I don't find these landmark things so freaking boring. It's quite feasible I missed it.

Actually a bit of discussion around this tonight. Brockett asking about the distinction of landmarking the house and not garage/shed. Friend asking about the dissenting votes on Landmarks Board.

One of which was over concerns about how landmarking it could limit how many people could be housed there.

Wallach: How many styles of vernacular are there in Boulder? How unique is it?
Hewat: I wouldn't say it's unique. But it's a good example of it.

Wallach: How many are there in the neighborhood?
Hewat: In Goss Grove, a handful. It's a vanishing style. Not a style, per se.

Wallach: It has vinyl siding. Is the current or future owner going to have to remove that?
Hewat: No. It doesn't impact architecture, in my mind. And the original wooden siding is underneath, so it would be easy to restore that.
Wallach: But no one would be required to?
Hewat: No

Weaver asking about the historical significance. I wasn't impressed with the history of that, per se: Early settlers lived there. Owned a motel/liquor store and then their kid owned a blacksmith shop in town.

Oh wait, it was his brother who ran the blacksmithing shop.

"They were local merchants and well known in the community," Hewat says.

Next owners: Husband was a bomber pilot in WW2.

Owner Rodrigo Garcia owns (or owned) the whole block, which was important to African American history of Boulder. He was happy to landmark those, but this one he just didn't see the value.

Landmark designation will not stop the development he wants to do, he says, bc he can add 1,000-2,000 sq ft addition. "If this pass or not pass, next day I will apply for demolition of garage and shed."

Friend: There are other landmarked homes on that block that you own?
Garcia: No. I will drop the demolition plans for those homes bc of the significance; I will remodel them on the inside. But in this case I wanted to go through the process bc I didn't see the value.

Also clarification on what he can build: 1,200 sq ft addition, but he'll also have to raise the home out of the flood plain first if it is landmarked, bc he won't be able to demo it.

Wallach: So you're consenting to this?
Garcia: Yes, we've worked it out. But it's been a year process.

Brockett: Would it make your life easier if we don't designate the back half of the lot?
Garcia: That is the only way you can make my life easier.

Much laughter from council and staff.

If you want to designate the whole thing, garage and shed, then we'll be here another year, Garcia says.

Weaver: Why do you want to designate the whole lot?
Hewat: Typically we do that rather than a building (I'm sorry, I missed why!)

BUT they can designate the lot up to the house and not include it.

Weaver: If we decide to do that, do we have to go back to Landmarks Board?
Hewat: I don't think so.
Carr going over what council needs to do.

Garcia: Another hearing? I thought this was the last one.
Carr: If they amend it, there will be another reading.

Garcia: The shed in the back, and the garage, they encroach on the easements of the property. Garage will have to be lifted bc also it's in the floodplain. It's not structurally sound to be lifted; it's not liftable. That's the reality.

Brockett moves that the landmark go forward, but only apply to the part of the lot that doesn't include the garage and shed.

Correction to earlier tweet, when I said it wouldn't include the house. I meant garage/shed.

Brockett: It seems to balance private property rights and public good. We'll get another housing unit, which the city needs. A smaller one which presumably won't be as expensive to live in.

Young: The idea of landmarking a home that belonged to the working class is significant.

Would be interesting to see what the working class could afford then vs. now.

Council unanimously OKs that landmark.

@threadreaderapp please unroll. Thank you.