Speaker 1: All right. Hi everybody. Council is reconvene. We have one public hearing this evening. Speakers should begin the remarks by telling council their names and cities of residents and if they feel comfortable doing so. Their home address. If you're here to answer questions only to state your name when you come to the podium and let members of council know that you're available for questions, speakers will have 3 minutes unless the Speaker has yielded his or her time, which will result in a total of 6 minutes. And let me stop right here. We have 80 people signed up to speak tonight, times 3 minutes. Some of you have 6 minutes. That is a four hour public hearing. Listening to you are we have a rule that will allow us to shorten the time, but we're not going to do that. What we're going to do is ask you as citizens, if there are several people who are going to say the same thing as you. So to be mindful of the time for all of us. Otherwise we will all be here till 2 a.m.. And we want to respect your time and we think that's important. So please, please, please be mindful of your time and be mindful of repeating things that your supporters or those in opposition are saying. On the presentation monitor. On the wall you will see the time counting down both your right and left. Speakers may stay on the topic of the hearing and may direct their comments to council members. Please refrain from profane or obscene speech in your comments address council as a whole and refrain from individual attacks. Councilwoman, can each. Flynn, will you please put Councilor Bell 903 on the floor?
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. President. I move that Councilor Bill.
Speaker 3: 903.
Speaker 2: Be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 1: All right. The public hearing for 903 is now open. Can we have the staff report, Karen?
Speaker 14: Good evening. Council Brooks Council members. My name is Karen. I'm a principal planner with Landmark Preservation at Community Planning and Development. And this is the Packard Hill Historic District application. In 1967, I Landmark Preservation was established within the city and county of Denver. Since that time, 336 individual landmarks have been designated and 52 historic districts, which represents about 4% of the city and county of Denver. For the process of designating applications or submitting designation applications. They can come from owners of properties. From the manager of Community Planning and development. Members of City Council. Or in this particular case, from residents within the historic district. This district application was submitted by 17 applicants within the proposed Packard's Hill Historic District boundary. For properties that are designated, they are designated as is. There are no requirements to improve a property or to restore it to particular time. The intent is to preserve the historic character of the neighborhood. The design review is required only for exterior changes to the building that requires building or zoning permits. It is not for general maintenance. We don't review paint colors. The building is not frozen in time, and so the design guidelines are intended to allow changes for properties within a historic district. Properties that are considered, considered contributing. It's highly discouraged for demolitions of those particular properties. Here's an example of some of the design guidelines pages that are within the adopted design guidelines. They address a wide range of topics, but deal with the preservation of the historic character. There are small things like fences and retaining walls, solar panels and sustainability. We do a large number of roofing reviews. We also do additions to buildings, new infill construction and secondary structures. Those are all addressed within the design guidelines. About 70% of the reviews that we do within Landmark Preservation are reviewed by landmark staff. Those particular design review applications are smaller in size and must meet the design guidelines per ordinance. Landmark staff reviewed about 1200 applications in 2016. Those are sort of divided into what we call quick reviews, which are typically one day reviews for replacement of roofing, a replacement of existing fences, replacing of AC units. The smaller projects that are administratively reviewed by landmark staff, typically within a 10 to 15 business day period are fences, garages, solar panels and smaller rear additions that meet the design guidelines. The other 30% of the projects that we review go before the Landmark Preservation Commission. They're larger additions in fills pop tops. The commission is made up of nine commissioners. Two are recommended by the American Institute of Architects. Two are recommended or one is recommended by the Landscape Architects. Two Recommended by Denver Planning Board. Two by History, Colorado. And two are at large. And these are just some recent design review items that have come before the Landmark Preservation Commission of Infill Construction. And they show a range of whether people tend to do something that is more historic in nature and more traditional, or if they do something more modern. And this the design guidelines really talk about infill construction or pop tops or additions to be compatible with the character of the neighborhood in sort of the massing, size and scale . So these are two recent projects that are in the most historic district that were recently approved. Here are two modern takes on an Italianate in the Curtis Park neighborhood. The one on the right is actually done all of shingles and the one on the left is all in brick. So they're very obviously new construction, but kind of feel feel like they fit fitting within the neighborhood. And so there's been just a lot of questions about what does compatibility look like. So I wanted to give you guys some examples of that. And then finally, here's one that's very modern. This is within the Wyman Historic District. And you can see what it looks like from the front. But this is a rear addition with the glass cube at the back. So changes can be made in a variety of different ways. And I know people have been talking a lot about design review, so I just wanted to give some sort of brief examples of things that have been recently approved. For this particular application. It was submitted by 17 community members who live or reside within the boundary of the proposed Packard Hill historic district. It is in Council District one and it is roughly bounded by Lowell Boulevard and the alley between Osceola and Perry Street and 32nd to 35th. It's a primarily residential neighborhood. The boundary is established by the applicants when they submit the designation application. It is within a area of stability within Blueprint Denver and it is mainly a single unit and two unit zoning. There's a little bit of you next to kind of down at the very bottom. So as this process has proceeded. Landmark Preservation Staff attended two public meetings that were held in January and February and March of this year. The application was then submitted a leader in the spring, early summer, we sent honor notification letters to all of the property owners as listed by the Assessor's record to everyone within the proposed boundary. We notified the registered neighborhood organizations as well as courtesy notifications, notified City Council Planning by planning, board and building inspections, posted signage prior to the Lpsc public hearing. After I had gone through both LPC and the Denver Planning Board, we sent out of another owner notification letter to everyone who was on the assessor records to notify all property owners within the boundary. So when we review a landmark designation application, whether in a district or an individual, it is looked at as the criteria established by the landmark ordinance, which is to main maintain the historic and physical integrity to meet one designation criteria and two or more of the following categories history, architecture and geography and relate to a historic context and theme. This is what is analyzed by landmark staff as well as by the Landmark Preservation Commission. For this particular desert district, there were 82% of the buildings were considered contributing. And so when I had mentioned earlier that contributing buildings, it was highly discouraged for those to be demolished. 82% of those are were determined to maintain the character of the historic neighborhood. So 82 were considered contributing within the historic district, which helps maintain its strong, historic and physical and integrity. Both landmark staff and the Landmark Preservation Commission found that the property or the district met the criteria for historic and physical integrity. I also found that it was a stat that it had met under history, under I'm sorry, history and architecture under two categories. So this is the how it meets it under history is having a direct association with the historical development of the city, state or nation. This shows two maps one a 1905 based map, which shows in pink the buildings that were built out at that time. And then a 2016 overview map. The blue line on the map shows where the historic trolley line was established at this neighborhood, was established initially as or hoped by the developers to be established as. A very high style for the wealthy for wealthy individuals. And there are a few homes that look like that. But in the end, it really ended up being a middle class neighborhood that was able to commute within to the city and county of Denver due to the trolley line. And so the establishment of the trolley line is really intricately linked with the development of this particular neighborhood. And this reflects nationwide trends of people sort of escaping the vice in the industry of of an urban core and moving out and in its place, actually literally moving up and away from the the pollution of Denver at that time. The area is also having direct association with Denver's women's history. The authors, as they researched this application, found that a high percentage of the women were active in the women's rights movements, in suffrage, in women's organizations and in temperance, which ties strongly to the development of this particular area. This was an area that had basically a prohibition against alcohol. And when the community was looking to be annexed into Denver, it was actually voted down by the women because they didn't want there to be drinking in the area. And in order for it to be annexed into Denver, it had to be allowed that there would be no alcohol served at in that area. There was also women who were highly developed in the real estate area and they were actively employed with buying and selling within the Packard Hill historic district as well as outside throughout Denver . So this has strong links to Denver's women's history. It also meets it under history criteria C for having direct and substantial association with a person or groups of persons who have influence on society. This is a short list of some of the people who are included in there. We have an early livestock raiser and mining investor, an artist who helped establish Denver's first art museum. I'm an acclaimed actress of the stage and screen in Spring Byington. Dr. Mary Ford was an early and long time female doctor in the area. We also have an early writer and reporter and temperance activist Bert Bosworth. And then there are two mayors, William Fitz, Randall Mills and Benjamin Stapleton. Stapleton is included because of his role in the development of Denver and his terms as mayor. And so his influence is noted within the application. But it also must be done while recognizing and documenting and examining his active role in the KKK as well. Architecture. It is also significant under architecture by embodying distinguishing characteristics of an architectural style or type. It is significant for its queen in an Edwardian architecture. And as you can see at the bottom, there's sort of the high style. And then at the top, you see some ones that are. A little less decorative. It is also known for its classic Cottages and Denver Squares, which were which developed as a way of a reaction against the high style of the Queen in architecture. There are bungalows as well. They turn out a little bit after the turn of the century. And then English and Norman Cottages and then terraced type buildings that are a significant as a way to bring you know, oftentimes one person would live in one side and they would have a A on the other side. And so the development and the architecture of this particular district is for shows sort of how Denver styles are applied, but really done in brick because Denver is so heavily is so often built out of brick. And so it shows the application of nationwide styles as applied to Denver and Denver's working class. And finally, it is significant for the work of a recognized architect and master builders. So the first is a noted Denver architect, William Quail Quilt. Most of Quill's work has been demolished, and so this is one of the few buildings that is left of his. It is also the residence of some of the important individuals within Denver or with within the Packard still historic district. And then on the right are David and Tilden. Cox they are a master stonemasons, a father and son. And so they ended up building two particular buildings. And this shows their workmanship, workmanship and craftsmanship. And they also lived within these. So it was basically an advertisement for their work. And so they are very noted stonemasons. So the landmark designation criteria ordinance requires that it also meets a historic context or theme. So it meets the context of late 19th century growth of the Highlands, the expansion of the tramway system that helped further development annexation into Denver, and then the continued growth of the area up through but tapering off at World War Two. The period of significance are the time period for when something is determined to be significant, reflects that that historic context and growth. And it was established as 1886 to 1940, which reflects the early development, the continued expansion in this slowdown due to World War Two. The Landmark Preservation Commission found that it met it under historic and physical integrity, that it made it under history, under criteria A and C, under architecture to A, its distinguishing characteristics of styles and types and significant examples of the work of recognized architect. The Landmark Preservation Unanimously decree recommended that be sent to City Council for your approval. It also went to planning board only districts. Go to the planning board for their review, and planning board has a very narrow scope. They consider a proposed designation with respect to its relationship to the comprehensive plan and the effect of the designation upon the surrounding neighborhood. Such other planning considerations as may be relevant if they if they feel there's something else that needs to be discussed. So this meets the comprehensive plan. The designation application is consistent with the plan recommendations. It reinforces the city and neighborhood character and respects and enhances the interest intrinsic, historic and cultural character. And they found that it met the comprehensive plan. This is a blueprint to Denver. It shows that this is primarily a single family residential area and it's concept plan use. The proposed district would help preserve the single family residential character. And historically, as the trolley line ran along 30 seconds and established a mixed use character. It's part of the neighborhood center, and so that would be helped retained by the historic designation. For Blueprint Denver. It is located within an area of stability. The guiding areas of stability are keeping valued community characteristics in older and stable neighborhoods and identifying and maintaining the character of an area while accommodating some new development and redo and new redevelopment. Historic designations in general help identify and help retain the character defining features of a district and provide stability. The Planning Board also looks at the effect on the surrounding neighborhoods. The purpose of this particular designation is to preserve the character defining features of this neighborhood. There would be little impact on the area around as landmark purview is only within the boundary of that particular historic designation on here. Anything in Brown is an established historic district, and in red are the individual Denver landmarks. The intent of this designation is to recognize the unique district and the buildings that define it. Planning Board recommended that this met the both the comprehensive plan and blueprint Denver and that it would have little effect on the surrounding neighborhood. They voted nine one to recommend approval of the proposed district. We received numerous public comments on this particular designation because so many of the public public comments that we were received came from the same individuals. CPD counted it as individuals who commented to us. So we received by the deadline that we submitted to Denver City Council on last Thursday, we had received letters or comments and or signature cards or petitions from 222 individuals. Of those, 187 were in support and 35 were in opposition at the Landmark Preservation Commission. There were 24 members of the public who spoke at that 14 were in support and ten in opposition and at planning board. Nine were in support of the designation application. So in summary, the Landmark Preservation Commission found that it met it under its required ordinances for historic and physical integrity. It met it under the designation criteria under history and architecture and under the theme and context.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you. Kara, we are, um. Okay, we're. We're up to 90 speakers now after we've gone through the. Getting everybody loaded in. We just loaded up and said we have 90 speakers. And so everything I said before with the exclamation point. Okay, I'm going to call the first five speakers. You're going to come up to the front here and go right ahead and we're going to try to move expeditiously. The other thing that I'll tell you is please make sure you are letting us know your address. And it will be especially helpful if you let us know if you're in the in the zone which the the area in question, if you will. Okay. Marie Benedek, Dehaze chairman. Say COO Michelle Bauer. And Ira. So, so quiet. I'm sorry if I mispronounce your name. Why don't you guys all come to the front row here? If you heard your name called and Marie Benedict, you are first. You have 6 minutes.
Speaker 6: Thank you. Thank you. Council members, my name is Marie Benedict. I am a property owner in the proposed historic district and I live on Osceola Street. I'm very much in support of this historic designation. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. A large team of volunteers from Parker's Hill has worked tirelessly for over 20 months, reaching out to neighbors, first fostering conversation and answering questions. The high level of support from over 77% of the properties who took a position is the result of that extensive outreach. I would like to ask everyone who's here in support today to stand up briefly to be recognized. Thank you very much. We are proud to be in front of you today with a proposed district that meets or exceeds all necessary requirements for passage. We appreciate the opportunity to bring this forward in a Democratic effort with strong support among property owners. And we appreciate the opportunity to have a say in our future for our neighborhood. Our extensive outreach campaign is one of the aspects of our nomination that has received recognition. Also, volunteers have raised over $7,000 to support the historic research and the multiple, multiple rounds of outreach in all different forms, including door knocking, block coffees, producing several informational fliers that were shared with all property owners, creating a Web site, sending out 24 emails, I think, and mailers by mail as well by U.S. Postal Service. Five of those. Since December of 2016, we have urged homeowners to provide their response to the proposal numerous times, including several times via regular mail. They could respond via phone, email or a two question Internet survey. You have the result of those responses, with 75 owners in support and 21 in opposition. For anyone who told us that they were in support, we held them to a very, very high standard. We checked that they were the property owners of that particular property against the DeMars assessor's database. We also made sure that all owners of a particular property sign and support a form for that property, and we submitted 75 of those forms. And you should have something that looks like this. Many of them with two signatures or I don't think we have more, so many of them with two signatures in your materials during the 20 plus months of outreach. We checked several times against the assessor's list to identify properties that had sold, and we removed those signature forms of properties that had sold. The last such check we did around August nine, as we were preparing to go to Ludy to bring this to city council. We believe that our neighborhood is worthy of protection and that a historic district is the best tool for preserving the 150 plus historic buildings in it. And we believe it's good for all property owners in the district. The stability and balance that a historic district brings will be good for all property owners, and it's also the only protection that is on offer for you to decide on tonight. We know from experience that any other tool would take 5 to 10 years to work out if it had support, and that at that point, it may well be too late to protect this historic place. We're proud to present you with with our application for inclusion as a Denver landmark district. And we hope that our efforts will be rewarded with passage of this bill. Thank you for your consideration.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Ms.. Benedict Dehaze, you have 3 minutes.
Speaker 6: Hi. My name is Dehaze. I own my home at 3218 Newton Street and I'm strongly opposed to the historic district. And I'm unhappy with a few neighbors.
Speaker 13: Who want to change my property.
Speaker 6: Rights after I've lived there 33 years. I'm 82 years old and I.
Speaker 13: Believe the tax credit.
Speaker 6: Scheme is unfair to me and my elderly homeowner neighbors. The increasing costs and. And. It, and additional regulations are often also discriminatory to us. I'm a retired R.N. and my beneficiary is a501c3 National Nursing Organization that supports registered nurses who are in severe, dire circumstances, illness, injury and so forth. And. I want when my time comes. I want my personal representatives to be able to sell my house. To anyone who wants to pay the most money. And I don't want it to have a whole lot of onerous design restrictions and regulations. Please vote no. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mrs. Chairman. Seiko.
Speaker 15: Good evening. My name is.
Speaker 1: I'm sorry, Chairman Sekou. He's right behind you. Come on. Come on, Sicko.
Speaker 12: Oh, I thought it was charming, Slater.
Speaker 15: Sorry.
Speaker 1: I got to tell you, that's probably the funniest public hearing in town. Yeah.
Speaker 16: Let's give it a round of applause. That's a lot of courage to represent me.
Speaker 1: Okay. Yeah, go ahead, Judge. Yeah. All right.
Speaker 16: Sure. My name is Chairman Sekou. I'm the. Founder and organizer of the Black Star Action Movement for Self-defense. Who represents poor working, poor, homeless and senior citizens throughout the city and county of Denver. I stand before you? Neither for or opposed to this thing. But to appeal to the conscience of folks as we go through this democratic process to see if we can figure this thing out. Because after it's all said and done, everybody got to go back and be neighbors. Is that right? Yeah. And it's okay to disagree without being disagreeable. Right. Because we're civilized. All right. And part of the political process is not to do the pro versus con, but to blend the two together. So it's a win win thing. If the if the yes is when all the time or the no wins all the time. Bad trade deal. Bad trade deal. Because what you create is disharmony within the city that requires unity. In order for us to build a place where we can be free and live in harmony with one another and feel good about being in the city of Denver. And so it's not just about proclaiming propaganda wise that we are a family. Oh, this is a great city or what? How do you live like that? How do you live like that? You've got to tell the truth how you feel. And folks got to respect that. So part of the process of learning how to blend and harmonize is that the know got to put themselves in the shoes of the yes's and the yes has got to put their self in the shoes of the nose. And now we're talking about a very basic principle call. We go work and play well with each other. That was the criteria in kindergarten for the kids before you got a, B, C, D, you flunked. So we can't block on that. And we got to grow up. From our. Places of self interest. And talk about. Hey. We can do this. We can do this. Are we talking about is regulations? And we're talking about policy. And all of that can change. See what we do a blending. We do a blending. And we've got to blend, amend this so that we don't end up mixed up in the mess. And so the name of this game today is called Challenges, Choices and Solutions. CC Yes, if it ain't about the challenge. Not the problem. Because we can solve it causes us. We can do this. And it's about the choices that we make. Consider all the folks feelings, interests. And then do it in a way that makes common sense. That it will work. You're filming your film. Come on, now. So part of our responsibility is leadership. Is to make sure that all the voices are heard. Before we make the decision. And then consider how this thing can go. Where we can have unity and peace in the city so that we can grow up and be a place of attraction for other folks and a role model for how you can do this. And we can blend this and be an example of how we can make this nation great. So great the way we used to be neighbors. And we're going to stay neighbors. And we're going to stop all of this acrimony, frame this in a way like the president was saying, you know, and, hey, calm down, you know. You know, it must be exciting. Boy, I look serious and that.
Speaker 1: This.
Speaker 16: Sacred, you know, I got one more minute and 34 seconds, so I'm going to do what you suggested. Okay. Because other people need to talk. I pretty much said what I wanted to say, and I thank you very much for entertaining the possibility. And hey, give peace a chance. You'll feel me there making sense. Oh.
Speaker 1: That must say. Cool. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Michelle Bauer.
Speaker 6: Good evening. My name is Michelle Bower. I live at 3344 Mead Street in Denver. I have lived there about 18 years and my husband has owned the home for about 22. I'm here today to say that I'm in opposition of this bill. I can completely empathize with my neighbors, who I see in this room who have struggled with the evolution of just a little three storey high rise and now a five storey high rise and and some kind of funky construction that's gone in the neighborhood. But I don't think the landmark district designation is the solution to protecting our rights in the city. I do believe that we have a city and county government that regulates building and construction, and I would encourage our community to step back and take a look at that regulations being enforced. One of the things that drew us to this community to live. My husband first and myself after we married, we didn't choose to live someplace else was the inclusiveness of the community. And I feel like a landmark designation. Was it exclusive? I think it makes us a different community and I think it creates barriers. So I would really encourage this committee and this group to reconsider the landmark designation and look at other options. Thank you for your time.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Ms.. Bauer. IRA. So. I'm sorry if.
Speaker 15: Thank you. It's Ira Kelkoo.
Speaker 1: It's your account. Okay. I was close. Okay. Sorry, sir. You have 6 minutes.
Speaker 15: Thank you. My wife and I own and live at 3343 Osceola Street in the proposed district. And we are strongly in favor of the application for historic district designation. Historic designation is not about saving pretty houses. It's about creating community and a sense of place. And in our e-mails in favor of the district, we emphasized our desire to maintain our community's character while allowing for complimentary new construction. We're not anti-development. We're pro sensible development that provides a sense of place. And in my comments today, I would like to focus on the arguments raised by the opponents to the designation. They would have you believe that design review associated with historic designation is an overly bureaucratic process that unnecessarily delays renovation projects or demolition of properties. They would further have you believe that design review makes a property less marketable and violates property rights. These alternative facts, however, are in reality a false narrative, and they should not be the basis of your decision today. These are the actual facts. Studies consistently show that properties in a historic district appreciate more quickly and in a greater amount than in similar non-designated areas. And why is that? That's because people today, homeowners today are seeking out unique areas with character, not just an area that would be similar to many other areas. They want a specific, unique area. Also, another very important fact is that according to the most recent statistics available, the landmark Commission's approval rate for design review requests was 99% of these approvals. Over 81% were administratively approved in an expedited fashion by the Landmark Preservation Staff without ever having a need for a formal landmark commission review. That directly relates to the argument that you'll hear that there is great delay associated with the process of design review. 81% of requests are handled quickly.
Speaker 1: By the staff.
Speaker 15: And then even with the entire amount of requests, 99% get approved. Design review can preserve property values if viewed in the spirit of a partnership between the Landmark Preservation Commission and the property owner to maintain an area's integrity and rather than as an adversarial process. Also only exterior changes that require a building permit require design review. For instance, interior changes and landscaping do not require any design review. As far as the role of government goes, a basic and accepted role of government is to maintain orderly community development, especially in areas of stability, which blueprint Denver has denoted the Packard Hill area. Local historic preservation ordinances such as the one in Denver, were upheld by the United States Supreme Court as a proper role of government and not in violation of property rights. This decision from the U.S. Supreme Court was decided in 1978. It was the Penn Central case, and it was decided, therefore, almost 40 years ago. It's a settled issue that this is not a violation of property rights. A local historic designation ordinance. The vast majority of property owners in the proposed Packard Hill historic district do not object to historic designation. Those that do object are relying on scare tactics without a basis. In fact, and my wife and I urge you to vote yes in favor of the application to designate the Packard SEAL historic district. Thank you very much for your consideration.
Speaker 1: And thank you. I just want to say the first five did really well in coming in their time. And thank you for setting the tone. All right. Next five, come up quickly. Paul Hudgens, Chris Myles, Ricardo Gonzalez, Yvette Harrell and Bradley Brubaker. Paul HODGINS You have three months. HEDGES So sorry. You have 3 minutes.
Speaker 3: Thanks. Good evening. My name is Paula Jones. I'm the owner of 3344 Newton Street in the proposed district. I would like to start, first of all, by pointing out that this. Is the design guidelines for Denver landmark structures and districts. This is a double sided. This is what all of us become subject to. If this bill passes tonight. I see this as nothing less than a wholesale taking of my property rights. I bought this house in May of 2001, and since that time, I have mentally constructed the house that I want to build on my lot. And then which my wife and I want to retire. Please don't do this to me. To us. Or to Denver. It is profoundly unfair.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mrs. Hudgens. Chris Miles.
Speaker 4: Hi. Thank you for letting me speak. My name is Chris Mars. I live on 3286 Mead Street. I'm in the zone. I'm a fourth generation North Denver native. And I'm going to tell you a story of how my family got to this neighborhood. In the early 1900s, my great grandfather as a young teenager was traveling the country working for Buffalo Bill's Wild West Show. He was a ranch hand simple cowboy, and one of his jobs was to take care of Buffalo Bill's personal horses. According to what has been passed down to me, Buffalo Bill was not an easy person to work for. And in the words of my great grandfather, he was a mean, old drunk. The show had come into Denver and one night Buffalo Bill came into the tent where the horses and livestock were held. He was a mean drunk and ready for a fight. An argument broke out and Buffalo Bill fired my great grandfather. He was out on the street with no way to get back to where he had come from. A couple of years later, he got back on his feet and by the end of the 19 oh, by the early 19 tens, he had bought a house on the block of 33rd and Quitman, right on the edge of Packard Hill's historic district and three blocks from where I live now. He married one of these bold temperance ladies that you've heard about in the presentation earlier. That's a whole nother story. And raised his family in this house on Quitman. This house is where my grandfather grew up in the twenties and thirties. 82% of this neighborhood that my great grandfather came to over a hundred years ago is still there. 82% of the neighborhood my grandfather and mother roamed as kids are still there. The architecture, the history and the front porch culture that started with my great grandfather is still there. We have a unique opportunity here to help preserve this historic neighborhood for generations to come. Throughout the neighborhood. I've noticed throughout my neighbors, there's a pretty strong support for this historic district. But a few of my neighbors still feel this is the wrong direction. But I still love them. Unfortunately, a lot of this has been fostered by misinformation and exaggeration. This has not been helpful in this process. But I have found many people, once they take the time to get the facts straight, they see benefits and they see and their support. They see the benefits and they are supportive of the historic designation. On my street, Meade Street. We are very a very close group of neighbors. Every Friday and Saturday, around 5:00, we are out on the porches, enjoying life in our awesome neighborhood. This will continue. And I look forward to all of us coming together after this decision is made and celebrating this neighborhood that we love. Both sides. Tonight, I ask you, members of city council to side with the homeowners and residents in helping to preserve this beautiful neighborhood that my great grandfather came to so long ago.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Miles. Ricardo Gonzalez, please hold. Please hold your applause. I know there's going to be a lot of great speeches, but just give us a little time. Ricardo Gonzalez, thank you.
Speaker 3: Hello. My name is Ricardo Gonzalez. I grew up at 3271 Mead Street. I've seen a lot of changes over the years as I was growing up there going to North High. And one of the things that always impressed me is how the neighborhood has changed. I like the changes. There's a few changes.
Speaker 4: That happened that I disagree with.
Speaker 3: But they're pretty cool. If you get take a look and see what's happened into the neighborhood and left. I'll say 40 plus years. One of the things that I'm always hearing, the historic designation will make it a stable neighborhood. It is a stable neighborhood already. Why do we need to have the historic designation to make it stable? It's already there. Just take a look through the neighborhood. Look what some of our neighbors have done. They've taken some of their old bungalows.
Speaker 4: Made beautiful pop tops out of them.
Speaker 3: Phenomenal. I love it. And I keep seeing more. And I'm like, okay, this is a changing neighborhood.
Speaker 4: Still got some old character. Got some history there. Why not change it? One of the things that drove me nuts is when I took the gentleman showed.
Speaker 3: How thick that guideline is. I'm an engineer. I enforce codes quite frequently. I have to read them. I have to understand them. The common person is not going to understand that. It's going to cost them a lot of money.
Speaker 4: To hire an architect, hire an engineer to get that information pass through. It's going to cost a.
Speaker 1: Lot of money. We don't need the historic district for it.
Speaker 3: If they really want to maintain their house and I'm said this is for the ones who want the designation. If they want to maintain their house as a historic district, do like they did y'all showed of that stone house. It's beautiful. The sun Lowell.
Speaker 4: Drive by it frequently. Get have them get their houses, go ahead and put an historic register their house, not everybody's house.
Speaker 3: Don't force us all to have to go to another book to have to read, to understand it, and then find out that some parts of it do conflict with the building code. Do conflict with electrical code.
Speaker 4: They say it's all external, but that's.
Speaker 3: A lot of work. The outside is what makes a house a home, but it's what's inside as well. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. Gonzales. Yvette Herrell.
Speaker 6: Good evening, our city council. I think probably a lot of what I would say has already been said, and I know we're limited for time, so I'll try to make it short. Oh.
Speaker 13: I live at.
Speaker 6: 3425 Lowe Boulevard. And I very much support this historic district. 3425 Laurel Boulevard. As most of you may already know, it's the stone house. That's the cook's house. When John and I looked.
Speaker 13: For a place to live.
Speaker 6: We looked around Denver, lots of different.
Speaker 13: Neighborhoods, and we chose this one. We chose the neighborhood first.
Speaker 6: Before we chose our house. And then we looked around the neighborhood for a while and this house came for sale and we were fortunate enough to buy it.
Speaker 13: There have been changes in our neighborhood, but not I wouldn't.
Speaker 6: Say substantial changes. The neighborhood seems to be very stable now, but our concern is that what would happen in the future?
Speaker 13: We would like to keep it.
Speaker 6: Where, you know, the architecture is.
Speaker 13: Complementary. We're not opposed.
Speaker 6: At all to new development or, you know, people redoing their homes. We just would like to keep it so that it stays.
Speaker 13: With the character that we have.
Speaker 6: Now. It's historic, in fact. Denis Gallagher used to do a lot of his tours through our neighborhood. In fact, I heard him out on our porch with a whole lot of people one time looking at the house and our house next to that house, next door to us was built by David Cox, the same stonemason who was , you know, early he was an early.
Speaker 7: Denver stonemason.
Speaker 6: Did a lot of work around Denver. A lot of his work is.
Speaker 13: On a lot of the historic buildings that we have.
Speaker 6: And by the way, our house is a his it's on the historic registry. And I'm very glad that it is because it preserves it'll.
Speaker 13: Preserve it for our future. And I think that there are a lot of people in the future who will, you know, who will want these kind of places. And once they're gone, you can't ever give them back. We'll never get it back. It's gone. And I think it would be nice to just save it for our city and for future generations to come and like to.
Speaker 6: Look through like they do today. Because we have.
Speaker 13: People who.
Speaker 6: Come in and walk through the.
Speaker 13: Neighborhood and take pictures.
Speaker 7: And enjoy just being there because it's such a nice place.
Speaker 13: I have a big, long speech here, but I'm not.
Speaker 6: Going to do it because I'm sure it'll get covered. And I know you're all one to go to, so. But I do want to express that I would really love to see our neighborhood saved and and really the folks that are opposed.
Speaker 13: We would never hold that against them. This I know this.
Speaker 6: Is our democratic.
Speaker 13: Process.
Speaker 7: And we're going to all be neighbors and.
Speaker 6: Try to stay friends.
Speaker 1: Thank you, miss. Thank you. Yeah, thank you. Bradley Brubaker.
Speaker 4: Thank you. I'm Brad Brubaker. My wife and I bought our home at 3253 mead seven years ago. So we are also in the zone. We chose West Highland for a lot of reasons, but mainly because there were so many good things going on in the neighborhood. And I'd like for those good things to continue. And I'll say that my wife and myself and my four year old and my two year old strongly oppose. The historic designation. Thank you.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you, Mr. Brew Maker. All right, we have five more. Please come to the front when you hear your name. Court. Linda Paulson. Madeline O'Connell. Annie Levinsky. Kevin O'Connell. Patricia Kunkel. Yup. That's five. Linda Paulson, you were first.
Speaker 6: My name is Linda Paulson. I own my home at three, four.
Speaker 13: Two, one.
Speaker 6: Newton Street in the proposed district. You know, there's something remarkable about an old neighborhood, a sense of history and familiar landmarks are powerful elements which.
Speaker 13: Foster a connectedness between neighbors. That's why I'm 100% in favor of.
Speaker 6: Designating my neighborhood Packard's Hill, the newest historic district in Denver.
Speaker 13: I feel very lucky to have purchased one of.
Speaker 6: The more unique homes in this district 27 years ago.
Speaker 13: 14 years ago, I thought it would be necessary for me to move in order to accommodate.
Speaker 6: The need for more studio space.
Speaker 13: The thought of leaving my cherished neighborhood was quite unbearable. Instead, I worked with an architect to design an addition that would compliment the house while respecting the.
Speaker 6: Existing streetscape and, more importantly, respecting my neighbors. I would say the result is a success. Learning more about the.
Speaker 13: Origins of this district and its.
Speaker 6: Notable women has been a joy to this history buff. In fact.
Speaker 13: The person who pulled the.
Speaker 6: Permit in 1911.
Speaker 13: To build my house was named Minnie McGrew. As compelling as the history of this district is.
Speaker 6: An unexpected side benefit for me of this movement towards historic designation has been the joy of meeting neighbors who love this area.
Speaker 13: As much as I do. I urge you to help us in preserving this unique neighborhood and not just our little piece of turf.
Speaker 6: But for the long term benefit of the city of Denver.
Speaker 13: As I have personally met a few of you.
Speaker 6: I have been consistently.
Speaker 13: Impressed by your interest and.
Speaker 6: Dedication to our city, and I thank you for that.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Miss Balsam. All right. Madeline O'Connell.
Speaker 6: My name is Madeline O'Connell. I live in Denver at 32, 75 and 3273. Osceola in the district. And I have lived there for over 22 years, and I'm an artist in the neighborhood. I'm against the proposed district because I feel it is an overreaching attempt at stopping change in our neighborhood. I believe there are other ways to address the growing pains without such excessive impact on homeowners. The process is also flawed and undemocratic. We have been up against significant resources of the city and historic district. I have met with the proponents of the district several times over the last year, have asked questions and voiced many concerns. What I got in return was a lot of that's a good question and I'll get back to you on that. It never got inadequate response. I went to community meetings and endured long presentations from the career historically and was offered, was offended that our time for questions was shortened by their overruns as well as out of district pro historic shills asking questions. As an example of the overreach, I showed a photo of our 2004 contemporary home to John Olsen. I was told that the design does not conform to the historic guidelines, and if destroyed in a catastrophic event such as a fire, we would not be able to rebuild our home the way it was and be made whole. How is it possible that our security in our home, we designed and built can be threatened in the name of history? Basically. That is unknown artist who lived there a century ago is so important that I need to conform to her style of home. Living in a historic district would increase our insurance premium, according to our agent. The imposition of the 226 pages of rules will cost property owners time and money, hurting the elderly and the lower income residents the most, who also won't benefit benefit from the state tax rebate, which I was told was better than nothing wrong. It's discrimination and elitist. This process is told a great personal expense of hundreds of hours and thousands of dollars, not to mention emotional angst. There's a palpable resentment in our neighborhood. Becoming a historic district will cause more problems than it solves. Personally, I feel beat up by the process and I'm left with this. Final plea to my city council to hear me and vote no on Packer Till.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. McConnell. Any Levinsky.
Speaker 12: Hi. I'm Annie Levinsky.
Speaker 6: I'm the executive director of Historic Denver, where a.
Speaker 12: Nonprofit organization.
Speaker 6: With 750 members from around the city. And we've been advocates for historic places for 47 years.
Speaker 12: I'm here just to provide a little.
Speaker 6: Bit of perspective about historic districts, how.
Speaker 12: They come to be and why they matter to our city. Denver's preservation ordinance was created 51 years ago. Larimer Square became the city's.
Speaker 6: First historic district, followed by Humboldt Island historic district near Cheesman. Park was the first residential district. That decision and as was Larimer Square.
Speaker 12: We're not without conflict, but they are now deeply.
Speaker 6: Appreciated by us to enjoy. Over the last 50 years, City Council has seen fit to create 52 historic districts. Those 52 districts include a range in size from 1 to 1000. These districts contain less than 5% of Denver's buildings and an even smaller percentage of the city's land area. The average historic district in Denver includes 140 structures, making Packard's hill a very typical size. So why districts? Why designate a group of properties rather than only individual property is because it's the ensemble that gives identity, quality and character to a district. Can you imagine LoDo if we only had one warehouse on Wynkoop? It is also the ensemble that offers benefits to those inside, including the residential tax credit program.
Speaker 12: Other also we have created.
Speaker 6: 52 districts in 51 years.
Speaker 12: We have not created a district every year.
Speaker 6: The last two districts are.
Speaker 12: Spaced apart by nearly six years, with the creation of the final.
Speaker 6: Curtis Park District in 2011 and the South Lincoln Historic District in 2016. As you know, South Lincoln was an unusually small district. So as a city as a whole, we have not created an average sized historic district for over six years.
Speaker 12: I highlight this to demonstrate that historic district proposals are not undertaken lightly or frivolously.
Speaker 6: Furthermore, in those years, we have also witnessed high.
Speaker 12: Levels of demolition in our older neighborhoods. There have been over 3000.
Speaker 6: Demolitions of primary structures since that last average size historic district. The majority of these were single family structures in single family zoned districts, and that might defy perception. But it's important to understand because it shows that in large part the loss of our historic fabric is not being done to increase the number of housing units, but simply the size of the preservation ordinance.
Speaker 12: In its first declaration states that the protection enhancement, perpetuation.
Speaker 6: And use of structures of and districts of historic architectural and geographic significance is a public necessity. And it is required in the interest of the prosperity, civic pride and general welfare.
Speaker 12: Of the people. That's no less true today than it was 50 years ago, and the applicant neighborhoods of Patrick of Packard's Hill have done all.
Speaker 6: That has been asked of them to meet a high standard of significance.
Speaker 12: And documentation and a high standard of public outreach.
Speaker 6: This is an appropriate and reasonable use of the historic district tool, and we urge your support.
Speaker 12: Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Ms.. Levinsky. Kevin O'Connell.
Speaker 4: Thank you. I'm Kevin O'Connell. I'm going to slow it down a little bit. I live at 32, 73, 37, 75, and I've been there 22 years. Here's what we know today. Today, we know everyone here in this room cares about our neighborhood. We know no one in this room wants to see it destroyed. And we all have concerns about unbridled and unrelenting growth. But we also know the preservation ordinance is broken. It gives there's no distinction between a house or a group of houses. If this district passes, it will in fact cause harm to some of my neighbors. We know that within the boundaries more people are against the district than are for it. And if you are for the district, please raise your hand. Anyone. If you don't live in the district, put your hand down. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. Hey.
Speaker 1: Mr. O'Connor. Home and the community.
Speaker 4: The neighborhood.
Speaker 1: Address. Address us, please.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Essentially, we're dealing with David versus Goliath. We're the David to the preservation Goliath. I'm asking three things tonight. Of the district vote against the formation of the council, rather. Vote against the formation of the district. Modify the preservation ordinance so we can have a consensus based approach to. Preservation. And develop metrics so that everyone knows what a standard is to make a place historic. Now it's just the support. And as you can see, we have very widely differing ideas of which support is the path forward is going to take time and effort. I know we can do it. And reaching out to Councilman Espinosa, my neighbors, to develop a set of criteria we can all agree on, let's find a consensus to move forward and save our neighborhood. But we have other options instead of jamming it on people. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Ms.. O'Connell. All right, Patricia Kunkel.
Speaker 13: My name is Patricia Kunkel, and I'm a property owner in the proposed district at 3417 Mead Street, and I absolutely support the designation. I live in a 1908 classic cottage and truly believe the proposed district is a win win for all property owners here. A historic district would mean we can welcome infill development because it would seek to complement and enhance the distinctive character that drew us here and which we all cherish. And it would ensure that we wouldn't lose over 150 properties that are historic and that contribute to the feel and enjoyment of our neighborhood. No other tool would do that. And that is why I think it is the right thing to do to protect the character and history of our neighborhood. Also, Denver guidelines, which apply in all historic districts.
Speaker 14: Would help guide.
Speaker 13: New construction additions, extensions and pop ups. They would ensure the changes to the homes in our neighborhood are compatible with the home being modified as well as the neighborhood as a whole. In my opinion, that is very reasonable and I hear from many sources that Denver guidelines are very reasonable. They are designed to encourage. Adaptive reuse, reuse of solid existing homes while allowing for modernization and extensions to fit today's lifestyles and needs. And these guidelines are just that guidelines. They are not written in stone. They are do allow for flexibility in how the cause of compatibility has reached. I urge you to help us preserve this very special place in Denver. Thank you for your consideration.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Miss Kunkle. All right. We have the next five. When you hear your name called, come up to the front. Matthew Brown, Trevor Greco, Christina Holderness, Marilyn Quinn and Alex Holderness. Matthew Brown, you are first.
Speaker 4: Thank you. I live at 3341 Newton Street, right in the heart of the proposed district, and I strongly oppose it. My house kind of looks like the house. And up right now I've got. A couple of duplexes, a couple of houses down that are already built. Couple of pop tops around me. I'm fine with all of it. It's development. It's the way it goes. But, you know, the horse has kind of been let out of the barn in the neighborhood. The developments already been happening. I don't think it's fair for the council to impose something that's going to make it very difficult for me to do what I want to do to my house, which is pop the top in character with the neighborhood. It would be financially irresponsible for me to do it if this bill passes. If that happens, I will be moving out of my house, moving somewhere else and turning my house into a rental property at some point. I've got two young kids and my house will not be big enough. So. At this point, I just urge you to vote no on this proposal. I don't like the development that's going on necessarily, but I don't think that you can legislate taste. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Can you say your name just for the record? I don't know if Nancy Brown. Okay, great. Thank you. All right. Trevor Greco.
Speaker 4: Thank you. My name is Trevor Greco, and I live at 32. 84 was Yola. I'm in the zone. I wanted to cover one topic that I haven't heard yet tonight. And I really appreciate the neighbors telling their stories, and I really do appreciate that. But there's also one one other aspect is that historic districts help preserve, and that's about sustainability. So I live in a 1908 cottage, simple cottage. And, you know, the by definition, living and preserving that building is green and good for the environment because of the embodied energy that's already been used. All the all the resources back 100 years ago, it's 108 years old, was was sourced locally. Most of our homes in our district are brick. They've lasted for 100 years. They're going to last for another hundred years. And according to the EPA's 2014, which is their last report on waste, construction and demolition waste as was 200 are sorry, four 534 million tons and half of that or sorry twice. Let me clarify this. So twice the amount of of waste that we put into the dump every year is from construction and demolition. So think about it this way, is that our waste management goes around the city and collects garbage from city, from residential and commercial businesses. Twice that amount of garbage every week is put into our dump. And we think, well, how much of it of that is demolition versus construction? 90% of that is demolition. Demolition is the major contributor to our waste issues here, helping preserve encouraging people to reuse the adaptive reuse that you've already heard tonight encourages that reuse of the facilities that we already have. We can still build our homes bigger, pop the tarps, build the basements, the extensions, basically. It's just this is so unnecessary, especially in an area of ours where all the homes are brick or most of them are, as I said, they've stood for a hundred years there, stand for several hundreds more . So with that, I urge you to please preserve this very special place in Denver. Thank you for your consideration.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. Greco. Christina Holderness.
Speaker 6: Hello. My name is Christina Holderness. I own the property at 3221 Osceola in the proposed district. I am adamantly opposed to creating this district. Thank you so much for letting me speak tonight. I want to tell you that the landmark committee and the pro historic petitioners claim that there has not been has not been any significant objection . To this proposed district, and this is untrue. There is significant opposition to the district. To illustrate this fact, I made a poster to show you how many residents are opposed, which represents about half of the 175 residences in the designated area. I realize all of you have a lot of paperwork and perhaps the thousands of documents you receive all the time. You may not be able to review, but I would just like a moment to show you. Everything in red is a house that has said.
Speaker 1: Can you can you get a little closer? Can you get in front of that mike there? That's a great.
Speaker 6: So when I printed the poster, that's when I printed this poster. We had 72 residents opposed. Now we have 75, according to the petition. With that many residents opposed, we honestly we don't have consensus on this. We don't have a meaningful majority in our neighborhoods. Supporting the district to approve the district is really to disregard the concerns and rights of almost half of the constituents impacted by the decision. I ask you all. Even if my posters showed half red x's so instead of 72, there were 35. Do you feel does it seem ethical and fair to impose this designation on our neighborhood? If I were sitting in your chairs, I would think we would need 80 or 90% consensus. We don't have that. I am not against preserving historical buildings and monuments. I appreciate the value of history. I appreciate all the work everyone has done. But there must be a less contentious way to accomplish that goal. Perhaps an overlay. We have approached our council member as well as the pro historic group to ask for an overlay and it has been met with a resounding no. It won't work. It seems actually so fair. Allowing neighbors the freedom of design's householders.
Speaker 1: Yes. Your time is up. Okay. I'm sorry. Thank you. All right. Marilyn Quinn.
Speaker 6: Okay. I am Marilyn Quinn. I live at 3249 West Fairview Place, two blocks outside the proposed historic district in a property with historic designation. I'm also co-chair of the West Highland Design and Preservation Committee. In 2015, our committee first identified the Packard's.
Speaker 7: Hill area as having potential to be a historic.
Speaker 6: District. And we applied for a state historic fund grant that helped to pay much of the cost of research.
Speaker 7: To prepare the nomination.
Speaker 6: Change is inevitable, but the old and new can co-exist. Denver's design guidelines helped guide growth and change in a way that respects our history and protects property values without unduly burdening homeowners. Northwest Denver is seeing a lot of change, according to.
Speaker 7: CPD records.
Speaker 6: During the past six years. About one third of the permits issued in the city for residential demolition, residential construction and permission to demolish historic buildings were issued in just one of Denver's 11 Districts Council District one. Where Packard Hill is located. It can be disturbing to return from a short trip and find familiar landmarks gone. I'd like to echo Mayor Hancock's words from June 25th Denver Post. When you lose the houses, restaurants and places where roots were grown, you lose those stories and that history. You lose the soul of a neighborhood. And our city loses a piece of itself that it won't ever get back again. We don't want to lose Packard Hill, as you've been told. 52 Denver neighborhoods are designated as historic districts, but only four of those are in northwest Denver, where development pressure is dramatically and irreversibly altering our built environment. As you can see in the nomination, this area's rich history has value to its residents, to residents of West Highland, and to the city of Denver. Some Packard Hill neighbors oppose creation of the district, as did some when we created the Ghost Historic District. Most of those who were opposed in Ghost now support the historic district completely. Their concerns about burdensome regulations did not turn out to be a problem, and they have seen the benefits of added stability and certainty in the neighborhood. I'm sure you know about LoDo or Larimer District. When it was created it was over objections of 80 to 90% of the property owners there. But now it's one of the highest valued areas in Colorado. I hope and trust this will be the case in Packard Hill when it is the historic district. I respectfully request that you act tonight to help us preserve this very special place in Denver. Thank you for your consideration.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. Quinn. All right, Alex Holderness, you have 6 minutes.
Speaker 0: My name is Alex Holderness. I own the home at 3221, Osceola, the non contributing structure, one of the 18% in the minority. In this particular situation. Dear Council members, thank you for your time tonight and for allowing us to participate in the governance process. Please bear with me. I'm going to read my comments because I want to make sure that the fear and anxiety, both regarding this process and in standing in front of you, do not get the better of me. I sent a letter to all of you and to the Landmark Committee on August 31st, 2017, expressly expressing my personal concerns and asking for your vote no tonight. Apparently, we are subject to alternative facts and scare tactics. Let me tell you my facts and let you be scared by what I heard from the people that I spoke with. In that letter if you didn't read it it for the benefit of the people here. There are two distinct reasons that I oppose this district. Number one, I am not a longtime Denver resident. I moved from San Francisco seven years ago. I've lived in mostly major U.S. cities. I am exactly the person who is moving to Denver. I moved here and bought a house in that area because it is interesting and because I intended to scrap it and build a modern home on it. If you pass this that intention, the entire reason that I moved into that home will be scrapped because my esthetic does not align with the guidelines I've been given. They are contemporary and there are options, but they are not modern. Make no mistake, that is a fact. The second fact is that I spoke to a developer who calls me regularly about another property I own in District one in the West Colfax District and tries to buy it from me. And I asked him specifically, what would you pay me for? 3221 Osceola knowing that it's in the historic district. The short answer was about $100,000 less than it's worth today. That is a fact. It is a conversation I had. If you choose to disagree with that fact and call it alternative, I can't stop you. If you choose to be scared by that, you stand in my shoes. I understand the reason for history and I appreciate and support many, many of the things being said here. But this is not truthfully what's about what's best for me. Driving through Denver today, I realized that this issue reflects on a small and local scale the problems and challenges that we are currently driving a wedge through this nation. This should be about preserving history in a way that allows people, both current and future, to benefit and learn from the past. It should be a proud moment for neighbors to gather together as a community. It should be a time of celebrating the preservation of beautiful things. But instead, like so many topics across our nation, it has become divisive, hostile and contentious. It has pitted neighbor against neighbor in an escalating battle to show who is more powerful, who has the pull, and who can get their agenda to emerge victorious. It is not about homes or history. Not anymore. If it were, we would have sat down with our councilperson and worked out a marriage arrangement that's best for all community members. We didn't do that. We didn't come together as neighbors to create something that's good for all of us. We did not sit down with unbiased leadership of our councilperson to work through this as an opportunity to become stronger, more cohesive and engaged in this community. Instead, we chose to pursue our own self-interest, whether our personal financial interest, like my own in my letter, our personal political ambitions and loyalties, or increasingly our personal grievances and anger over feeling marginalized and unimportant in the eyes of our neighbors and elected leaders. This is the exact dynamic that is tearing apart this nation. Our self-righteous self-interest and the anger that being selfish creates towards those who threaten to expose it. Tonight, Denver has a chance to show the country that we are stronger together than we are divided, and that in order to remain together, we must work at it. It's hard finding common ground. It's hard to include others. It's hard to think you're going to lose. But then when we fight, we all lose anyway. Approving the issue before. You will not accomplish something great, but rather will drive a permanent and lasting wedge of anger and resentment between the neighbors who stand on opposite sides. So please, Denver City Council. Use this moment not to pass the bill as it stands, but to encourage us as neighbors to unite together as a community, to work together, to reach compromise and to acknowledge that we are different people with differing opinions and that it is this difference that makes us great together. Please vote no.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. Holderness. And now we have the next five. Folks, please come up here. Renee ou, Kelly Geller, Nilo. Sorry. I may have a misspelling there. Rene Gee, if you'd come up to the front. Mark Brandis. Nancy Chase. Mary Lemieux and Jody Robbins. Great. Renee, you are up first.
Speaker 3: My name is Renee Kalinga, and I'm a property owner in Osceola, and I very much support the historic designation. I've lived in North Denver for 27 years and I've seen a lot of changes. And I've seen changes impacting senior citizens who live in my neighborhood. Families with children of different ages. And some families that have been second or more generations in the same household. Our neighborhood has a very high degree of historic integrity. 82%. In the variety of home sizes and styles in our neighborhood reflect both the building styles that were available to builders at that time and also the economic up and downs during that time. The different sizes of buildings from modest to elaborate provided a welcome diversity of home sizes, which help provide some variety of price points at which people could come into the neighborhood. As a result, we have some people at all stages of life different family sizes and somewhat different incomes. We really appreciate the diversity of home sizes and we would like to keep that. Unfortunately, whenever a historic home is lost in our area and replaced with something new, the new building is always priced somewhere in or thousand to a million. That only hurts the ability of many people to be able to afford living in our neighborhood and contributes to unaffordability. We really appreciate the diversity of housing stock that we have and believe a store district will contribute to keeping some of that diversity in the future. After 27 years of living there, I've had many opportunities to leave the neighborhood to sell our home. But I and my family know we we stay there because of the neighborhood feel. And we believe that historic designation would help protect the neighborhood feel that has been there for 20 or 27 years. We've been there. Thank you. Knows your vote and support historic district.
Speaker 1: Thank you, sir. All right, mark. Brenda's.
Speaker 4: Good evening. My name is Mark Brandis. I live in the district 30 to 49 Osceola Street. My late wife and I bought this property about 26 years ago. It is a Victorian that was built in 1891. It was a four unit apartment building when we bought it, and prior to that it had been converted to a boarding house from a single family and my wife and I converted it back into a single family residence. We have put a lot of time, money, sweat equity into this particular property. My goal in working on this property was to preserve it as a old Victorian. And when I work on the property I keep that in mind and the work that I do tries to bring it back to what it was originally. I feel that a historic designation is inappropriate for this particular area. Unfortunately, I have seen this area go from being very ethnically diverse to very gentrified. My concern is that historic designation will increase that gentrification. It definitely creates more hurdles that individuals have to jump through in order to work on this particular piece of property. With all due respect to my neighbor, as far as landscaping goes, you have to get permission in order to landscape and make changes to your landscape. And that's under the guidelines for preservation of historic structures. 5.1. It is not an easy process. If you want to do anything major, you have to go to your neighborhood association first, then you have to go to Landmark Preservation Committee and then you have to deal with zoning and then you have to hear building and zoning and that increases the time and expense. I do a lot of work on my property, on my own. I work a full time job. I'm an attorney, but I work on my own property. I spent 8 hours this weekend working on my property. I don't need the extra hassle and the extra expense. And quite frankly, I think that a proposed historic designation on this property is really a slap in the face to people like myself who bought into a very, very sketchy neighborhood and have contributed towards the great turnaround that we have in this neighborhood. It's a great place to live. I like my neighbors. Pro and con, either side. And we're still going to be friends no matter how you all vote on this tonight. But I don't believe that it's in our neighborhoods interest to limit what property owners can do with their property. I understand technically it is not a quote unquote taking under the First Amendment pursuant to the Penn Central Station case. But realistically, it's a taking when you're limiting what I can do with my property, when you're telling me what I can do with my landscaping, that I have to maintain a Denver slope instead of putting in a retaining wall when I have to comply with certain rules and regulations for what type of doors and windows I want to put into my structure and where I want to put it into my structure. I think that really invades on my rights as a property owner, and it really just it doesn't give me credit for all of the work that I have put into this particular property.
Speaker 1: After Brandis, the time is up.
Speaker 4: Vote no, please.
Speaker 1: Thank you. All right, Nancy Chase. Nancy Chase.
Speaker 6: My name is Nancy Chase.
Speaker 15: And I'm a property owner near the proposed historic district. I live at 4130 Lowe Boulevard for over 35 years. I very much support the Packard Hill historic district.
Speaker 6: And I thank you for the opportunity to speak.
Speaker 15: I agree with many of my neighbors. I would like to see this historic area preserved and its history and remembered. Have it remembered and celebrated? It's amazing that we have such a high degree of historic homes and buildings in the North Denver area, and I hope you find this area worthy of protecting. Thank you for your consideration.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Miss Chase. All right, Mary Lemieux.
Speaker 12: Hi. Thank you for letting me speak. I'm Mario Lemieux and I live at 3257.
Speaker 6: UCLA in the District.
Speaker 12: I haven't written anything eloquent. I just would like to say that I feel like it's infringing on my rights as a property owner. I've been in the home for 19 years. I bought in a non historic district.
Speaker 6: We all did.
Speaker 12: And now it feels like you guys are winning. Or there's people in our neighborhood that are wanting to change the rules on us. I urge you to vote. No, thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. Lemieux. Jody Robbins.
Speaker 4: Hello. My name is Jody Robbins. I'm a property owner in the district. I live on 3415 Newton Street. I very much support this historic district. Thank you for the opportunity for letting me speak. It is it is highly unusual, especially in northwest Denver, to find a neighborhood like Packard's hill that has entire blocks that are intact or nearly intact. Made up of century old homes maintained in such good condition, as you've heard tonight, are historic. Integrity is 82%. We have two historic districts just to the south of us, south of 32nd between Perry and Irving and reaching south the 29th or 30th and historic district. Just to the south of us, Wolf Place was designated. Its degree of integrity was only 61%. So what we have in Packard Cell is truly amazing. We've lost a few historic homes in the last couple of years, and one or two more may be lost in the near future if our area is not designated. Today, we have a unique opportunity to protect a place that is incredibly special and is in history, architecture, integrity, and with fabulous stories of women pushing the boundaries of their roles in society. Please help us preserve this very special place for all of Denver to enjoy today and in the future. Thank you for your consideration.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Mr. ROBINSON. All right. Here we go. Next five, Steve Milk, Betty Luce. Heidi Van Sickle. Elizabeth Clayton. Carol Purdy. Steve Melich, you are up first.
Speaker 2: Thank you. My name is Steve Milik live at 3257 Oshawa in the proposed district. I've lived at my house for about 20 years. I just learned tonight that it was called Packard Hill. I hadn't heard that before. I am among an abundance of people who take pride in our neighborhood and are good stewards without force. I also learned tonight that we have an 82% integrity without force at all. At the same time, I see disposable highrises going up in this neighborhood that are not historic but always seem to get approval. And if I want to do, say, construct a new garage.
Speaker 3: I'd have to move mountains.
Speaker 2: Under the, you know, already more than adequate regulations that exist. I see this is largely pitting neighbors who already have their homes as they want against those that do not or those that simply are against such an overreach on principle. I think this changes the property arrangement that I have with the city against my will, somehow allowing others to infringe on my rights, imposing their preferences and the added costs associated on me and all the others against this overreach. Please vote no on this proposal. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Betty Lewis. Lucy.
Speaker 6: Good evening.
Speaker 13: My name is very loose. I live at 2660 mead in Denver, which is my house is about to announce blocks from the district. And I'm a real estate broker with nostalgic homes in our offices in the district right in the corner of 32nd and Newton. The people that founded our company, Tom and Caroline Sinclair, came to the neighborhood in 1985. There was a recession going on in those years.
Speaker 6: And I'm sure some of you here tonight were. Remember that time?
Speaker 13: You could have shot a cannon off up 32nd Avenue and you wouldn't have hit anyone. Most of the storefronts.
Speaker 6: Were not occupied, so there's been great change. They committed themselves to promoting this lovely old neighborhood. There's a.
Speaker 13: Great love there for his historic.
Speaker 6: Homes.
Speaker 13: They are our company over the years.
Speaker 6: Has helped many, many people move into this neighborhood. And we know why they moved there. They moved there for the ambiance, for the neighborhood.
Speaker 13: Feeling of the closeness of.
Speaker 6: Sort of a like a small town where, as people have commented here previously.
Speaker 13: Many different kinds of people could live.
Speaker 6: There. Big houses. Small houses. Family houses. Houses for single people. And and be happy there. So I.
Speaker 13: Speak in favor of approval of this historic district because I think Packard Selah has, as others have mentioned.
Speaker 6: Great integrity. I think it's important that we save certain parts of our city that remind us of the past and where.
Speaker 13: People have loved their homes for many, many years. So I would urge you.
Speaker 6: All to vote. Yes. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. Lewis. Heidi Van Sickle.
Speaker 6: Hi. My name is Heidi Van Sickle and I do not live in the district. I am the first speaker for this group where they've had seven out of district people already. I'm in Councilman Herndon's district and happy happy to be there. But I'm very sorry. I'm very sorry. Sorry for this neighborhood. This pits neighbor against neighbor like you wouldn't believe. We've seen this in Park Hill where this did not go through, thank God. But we had neighbors who were walking dogs. We had neighbors who were hiking and they no longer speak to each other. All right. The point that was for me important was the solar panels. Now I have mine, which saved me about 1500 dollars a year. That's pretty significant amount of cash, especially for the low income neighbors. But the pro historic people would not allow that kind of savings to their neighbors or savings to the community or to the atmosphere itself. The historic Denver allowed review of solar panels in 2013. They allowed that into that big, thick manual of theirs. But you call them and you ask them how many of these solar panels have gone through since 2011, in the last seven years, and they say zero, none of the solar panels have been allowed to go through. I don't believe that historic Denver is an honest broker in these dealings. The cost is more. The windows that you want to replace will be three times the cost than if you wanted to replace them. Without a historic designation. The time is more, but there is a better way. Councilman Herndon had the foresight to see how devastating this is. And now we are talking about a conservation overlay. There's three of us, three of the stop historic, three of the pro historic. And we are meeting consistently with a council designated moderator through Council for Conservation Overlays. It is a better way. I strongly suggest that the Council vote no so that these neighbors can find another way, a better way. They can remove this hostile wedge and they can begin to be the neighbors together again. Thank you for your time.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Miss Francisco. Elizabeth Clayton.
Speaker 6: I'm Elizabeth Clayton and I work at Nostalgic Homes at 32nd. And Newton. We are in the district in the proposed district. I've been a real estate agent there for 23 years. We help people buy and sell homes in Denver County. I would say 90% of our business is in this very neighborhood. I can't tell you how fortunate we are in Denver to have the intact.
Speaker 15: Inner city.
Speaker 6: Neighborhoods that are so close to downtown that doesn't.
Speaker 15: Exist in every city.
Speaker 6: And. Being in a historic district actually adds quite a bit of value to your home, even though people don't even know it's a historic district when they're looking. They're looking for the consistency and the character and the architecture. That's what they're looking for. And it really does add value. So as a real estate agent working in that neighborhood, I would like to encourage you to approve this historic district.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Ms.. Clayton. Carol Purdy.
Speaker 6: Hello. My name is Carol Purdy. I live at 3715 West 32nd Avenue. Within the district. Thank you for this opportunity to tell you about my opposition to designating my neighborhood as a historic district. I bought my property because it was dual zoned, both commercial and residential. I would like to start a small business on my property right on West 32nd Avenue in the heart of the Highlands. Unfortunately, the historic designation is arbitrary and unfair. My commercial neighbors down the street, down the block have been exempted from the district while my property has not. If the ordinance is passed for me to undertake a renovation to convert my property to a commercial business would be prohibitively expensive. I strongly urge you to vote no on this ordinance. Thank you.
Speaker 1: All right. Next five are up, Shaman. Sather. Melissa Ortega. Linda Hilton. Ileana Kreisky. And Julianne Moore. After. Julianne Moore. Sherman Sather. Okay.
Speaker 6: I'll check the monitor.
Speaker 15: First to make sure that I'm the right person. Right?
Speaker 8: Yes.
Speaker 1: Oh, yeah.
Speaker 15: Thank you. Okay.
Speaker 1: Chairman Sekou. I mean, Sherman Sather. Okay.
Speaker 15: You're up.
Speaker 6: The reason I'm here.
Speaker 15: Is because I live in the Ghost Historic District at 3317 West 30th Avenue. And when we went up for historic designation about I guess it's been three or four years ago, I was the naysayer. I was against it. We weren't going to have an I did not want an HRA in this neighborhood that I had lived in for 30 some years. And so I made it known to everybody, of course, that I was against it. Well, it passed, and I'm no longer against it. It was a good thing that happened. And I don't know what happened, but I still have friends there. I don't know where the contentiousness was. Nobody seems to be that mad at me because of that at least. Could be other things. But. I think that those there will be a lot of people if this passes, which I hope it does, I think there will be a lot of people in hindsight that will say, you know what? It's not as bad as we thought it was going to be. And it hasn't been that bad. Thank you. Please vote for the historic district.
Speaker 1: Thank you, I think. Thank you, Ms.. You're welcome. Melissa Ortega.
Speaker 6: Hello. I'm Melissa Ortega, and I live at 3295 Mead Street. I am against this historic district. I am a Colorado native. I have grown up in North Denver and my entire.
Speaker 12: Life I have recently.
Speaker 6: Decided to move back and have purchased this home. Now you guys are trying to tell me that there is a possibility that I am going to have to keep my 100 square foot house that fits no family in today's standards. And I'm not going to be my type. I'm not going to be able to scrape. I have no options. And you guys are going to dictate that this historic district what if I wanted somebody to tell me what I could or couldn't do with my house? I will live in the suburbs. I moved to Highlands Ranch. I'd have in a way I don't want that. I want to do what I want with my house. I want to enjoy this neighborhood that I have seen grow tremendously over.
Speaker 12: The years.
Speaker 6: When it was low income to up and rising again. We have apartment buildings popping up off of 32nd. But you're telling me I can't put a simple pop top on my house to make my 800 square foot home built in 1926?
Speaker 12: Meet Today's Standards in my family.
Speaker 6: We're also talking I've heard several things tonight. It's like how many of you actually live in our district? How many of you have.
Speaker 12: Tried to repair.
Speaker 6: Your home recently? Have you seen the costs go up, the new construction? Everything that's plugging into our city is taking effect. And if we make this historic because nobody is going to be able to pay for it, I don't care what anybody has said tonight, it's like, show me the last time you have spent money and have tried to do this. I am in real estate. I have again grown up Denver my whole life like. Changes are happening. Denver re zoned for changes to happen and now rezoning has happened. Things are popping up. Things are being scraped and people want to stop that. You're trying to make me live in a house full of a specialist led.
Speaker 12: Based paint who knows other toxics.
Speaker 6: Because it was historic 100 years ago.
Speaker 12: It got built. Standards aren't the.
Speaker 6: Same. I just really wish that you guys would take into consideration the growing families that are trying to move into this neighborhood. If I can't do what I'm going want to do to my house, it will become a rental. And then nobody will be contributing to that neighborhood. And that's something you guys will force to happen. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Ms.. Ortega. Linda Hilton.
Speaker 6: Hello, I'm Linda Hilton, and I'm a property owner within the proposed district. I live at 3440 Osceola Street, and I'm the proud owner of a 1910 classic cottage, the one that has all the flowers.
Speaker 7: Around it for any of.
Speaker 6: You who went on our tour. I moved. I bought that house 23 years ago. But even back then, I felt that I was just and still.
Speaker 7: Feel that I'm the temporary caretaker of this.
Speaker 6: Historic home. My mom was really worried that I was buying an older home and it really has was still withstood the test of time. I agree with that.
Speaker 12: We really should.
Speaker 6: Spend our money not putting everything into the landfill and restoring these homes. I love the historic homes in my neighborhood. I mean, I'll be perfectly honest. I mean, I'm stand before you because I love these old homes and I want to keep them. I don't mind them being the tops being popped. And I've seen some really nice ones for those people who say, you can't be done, we can be. But I was going to speak on the historic women in our neighborhood that contributed so much to to Colorado and in Denver, but that was highlighted with.
Speaker 15: The staff presentation. So I won't go into that. I feel proud to live in a city that that will even let us have hearings like this that.
Speaker 6: Has a preservation group on the staff that that that allows.
Speaker 15: Us the time.
Speaker 6: And you to consider having these historic districts in in our city. I think that's what makes Denver great. And I would like to see our.
Speaker 15: Just little two.
Speaker 6: By four block neighborhood, you know, added to the to the wonderful historic preservation efforts that the city.
Speaker 15: Has so wonderfully spent their time.
Speaker 6: Making sure happen.
Speaker 15: So please, please vote for this. I want to also preserve my wonderful neighborhood.
Speaker 12: Thank you for listening to me.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Ms.. Hilton. Ileana Kreisky.
Speaker 4: Excuse keys. My wife. Oh, but she had to go.
Speaker 1: Oh. Are you signed up to speak? Are you signed up to speak? Okay. We're going to have to wait till I call on you, if that's okay. Thank you, sir. All right. Julianne Moore. She left. Okay. I'm going to call the next five mark. Matt Macaluso. Macaluso Sorry. Macaluso. Mark Macaluso. Jacquie Youngblood. Jeff Snell. Kick, Mason. Zoe. Zo'or. All right, Mark. You're up first 3 minutes.
Speaker 3: Hey. My name's Mark Macaluso. I live my property at 3400 Newton Street. I am opposed to the district. I. I purchased my property two years ago and I moved to the neighborhood based on the friendly, peaceful atmosphere and and the friendly people. The house was an old and dilapidated boardinghouse rundown. I proceeded to scrape the property and build a duplex on the property. I did. Throughout the process, I received a lot of positive feedback, tremendous support. Everybody was very, very nice. I feel like the end product was a very esthetically pleasing. It's modern. It's new. I, I sold half of the duplex to a couple who again are very keen. Speaking of contributing properties are very, very much a contributing member of members of our society. They pay taxes. They do very well. I think over the last you know, as you guys know in Denver, we've seen tremendous growth. We want good quality people coming to our place of neighborhood. I think what makes our our city great and our neighborhood great is the diversity among the people. I've met some of the pro historic people, and they're very nice people as well as are the people that are against it. I think what has been happening throughout this whole process is tremendous discord, discord and and contention. And it's sad to see that because our neighborhood is divided now. And that's not why I moved to the neighborhood. And it's it's sad that we've that we've let it come to this point. I feel like we can create a solution that satisfies everybody. We don't have to have that pendulum swing all the way from one side to the other. We can find a solution somewhere that makes everybody happy with design, guidelines, overlay, whatever it is. We just need to have that opportunity. I don't think we've had that opportunity through this process. It's been sort of shoved down us and now we've now you see the result. I think if you see all the people, again, it's it's it's almost it's almost the same right down the middle. So I think the proof is in that. So I don't think you can rubber stamp anything at this point because the people have spoken, the people have showed you that, you know, we were willing to work with it. There are good people on both sides of the aisle here. We just need to let that process play out. We don't need to rush this in. I can tell you that from my standpoint, it's not a quick process to develop and scrape a house. It's taken two years to do that so people aren't going to be rushing to the neighborhood as soon as this meeting is over to be developing. If you guys vote no, that's not going to happen. The House is here with don't warrant that. I can tell you from a development perspective, to buy one of these style houses is not prohibitive. Description.
Speaker 1: You're right. You're out of time. Thank you. Thank you. Jackie Youngblood.
Speaker 6: Thank you. My name is Jackie. I'm what? I live at 2975 Irving Street. I'm very much in support of this historic district. And thank you for the opportunity this week. I live in the nearby Ghost Historic District and I wanted to share some of my and my neighbors observations and experiences living in a historic district. I have lived there since 2000. And we became a historic district in August 2010. It has been a very positive experience. I would not want to live in any other area in Denver that is not designated a historic district. Historic districts are a win win for property owners. They allow us to welcome new development that complements and enhances the existing character. They are the best means available to ensure the old and new can co-exist harmoniously. Also, I found during our designation that even those neighbors who were concerned or even opposed when our district was created are now solidly in favor because they have seen the benefits of development that fits in and are able to expand, adapt and modernize their homes. As you know, state tax credits, credits of up to $50,000 are also available. For some projects. I also want to share what of what the Johnson family said that live in the wolf historic district. We feel that the benefits of living with the historic, historic district outweigh the drawbacks, in particular due to our own experience and working with the West Highlands Neighborhood Association Wina. We have recently gone through the design review process and we are pleased with the outcome in support of the Design and Preservation Committee. I particular project was met with some unique obstacles, but thanks to the witness support and guidance, we feel the project will create a home that will accommodate the needs of our growing family without diminishing the area's historic charm or adversely impacted our neighbors. Thank you very much. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Thank you. Michelle Black, Jeff Snell.
Speaker 9: Good evening. My name is Jeff Snell, and my wife and I live at 3339 Loeb Boulevard for 20 years and of August. I don't want to repeat myself either. We're all here to wait. I do want to bring up that one size doesn't fit all. We have one of the few triple lots in the neighborhood, and the house is roughly 1880. It's wood, one of the few. And still standing is kind of a miracle. But the foundation is brick. I can tell you that brick does not last forever. My brick is 130 years old, and I could crush it in my hand. It's. It's a problem that I realize in probably 15 years the House will have to go because the center of the house where the basement is, I couldn't really economically replace that brick. So I painstakingly replace the whole foundation around the stem walls of concrete. But it's it's a Band-Aid. Okay, so our house sits catty rumpus in the back of the lot. I think when we got done remodeling it six years worth of work, it turned out pretty good. But when the time comes, it's going to fall down. So when I bought it, it was our too. I could put a nice good sized duplex on it. It's probably going to be my retirement or my wife's. So with the restrictions that I'm hearing about that are coming my way. I tell you, I don't know how anyone can say I'm not going to lose money on this. My options are a lot more limited than they were before this. So I just ask you to vote no. There's got to be a better way. I'd love to get out of this. And there's some other folks that agree. So thanks.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Thank you, Miss Snell, Casey Mason.
Speaker 6: Good evening. Thank you for this opportunity to.
Speaker 13: Speak on behalf of historic designation for what I.
Speaker 12: Hope will become the Packard's Hill neighborhood.
Speaker 13: As a career journalist, I will.
Speaker 6: Follow the who, what.
Speaker 12: Why, how and when formula in my remarks. Who my name is Catherine, also known as Casey Mason and I have.
Speaker 13: Owned and lived in the duplex at 3300 Dash 3308.
Speaker 12: Newton, which is in the District since 1977, I believe I am one of the longest non.
Speaker 13: Absentee owners and the two block.
Speaker 12: Stretch of Newton between 33rd and 35th. What? I am here to encourage your vote for historic designation. I've been an active volunteer attending meetings, knocking on doors, emailing and visiting with people as they walk their children and or their dogs past my corner lot. And I would like to add that I have never experienced any of the hostility from anyone in all of this time.
Speaker 13: Why I was.
Speaker 12: Attracted to the neighborhood 40 years ago by its tree lined streets and the middle class mixture of brick bungalows, Tudors, Queen Anne Mansions and Denver squares. It reminded me of.
Speaker 6: Where I grew up in historic.
Speaker 12: Las Vegas, New Mexico. After spending seven years in the apartment complexes of.
Speaker 15: Glendale.
Speaker 6: Capitol.
Speaker 12: Hill and East Monaco, I found my sense of place in North Denver. It became home and remains so to this day. One of the first books I bought was Rediscovering Northwest Denver by Ruth Weisberg. Visitors frequently have to endure a presentation of my hood's early Denver history. The dot com boom of the 1990s brought in new owners who restored many homes that had.
Speaker 13: Been allowed to deteriorate.
Speaker 12: By absentee landlords. The 32nd straight commercial area morphed into several blocks of coffeehouses, trendy restaurants, boutiques and specialty shops.
Speaker 13: The old buildings were not destroyed.
Speaker 12: They were renovated to fit in with the character of the existing neighborhood. How I believe historic designation is the.
Speaker 13: Best way to bring stability to the place I call.
Speaker 12: Home. I do not believe it will prevent further improvements or development. In fact, statistics indicate property.
Speaker 13: Values go up because people are attracted to historic.
Speaker 12: Districts and are willing to invest in them.
Speaker 13: Several years ago, I sold a vacant.
Speaker 12: Lot at the north end of my property at lower than market price.
Speaker 6: Because the buyer.
Speaker 12: Slash contractor.
Speaker 13: Was willing to.
Speaker 12: Work with me on what got built.
Speaker 13: The result was a beautiful new.
Speaker 12: Craftsman bungalow that I'm told already meets the requirements of historic designation. When now is the time to act?
Speaker 6: I would like to close by.
Speaker 12: Relating a recent conversation I had with two girls, probably 10 to 12 years old, who saw a television news crew and asked me what was going on. I explained historic preservation to them and asked what they thought of their effort.
Speaker 6: Of our effort while they both live.
Speaker 12: Outside, just outside.
Speaker 15: The district.
Speaker 12: They each said they were glad they lived in homes. One with a big new addition set the space for them with the rest of the neighborhood. I wish I could have brought them to this meeting. Thank you for your time.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Thank you for your time. Zoe Zuber. Zucca are we miss the K there?
Speaker 6: Sorry, but that's okay. I blame my horrific handwriting. Okay, go ahead. Hi, I'm Zoe Zucker, live at 3278 Newton Street, which is in the proposed historic district. And Jean and I have been owners of that property for almost five months. We are some of the newest owners in the area, I think and I'm sorry, I don't have a speech prepared tonight. I hope you don't find that to be disrespectful at all. I certainly didn't mean it that way. I just wanted to be able to hear what my neighbors had to say, because a lot of what I've been hearing is actually a lot of talk about community. My mother wrote actually her dissertation on community. And I have to say, I'm a little bit disappointed in mine. My new community anyway. Nine. That's the total number of neighbors that I can recall in the past five months that have actually knocked on our door, introduced themselves. Tell us a little bit about the neighborhood. I had no idea that the neighborhood was going to start going, excuse me, historic until neighbor number seven knocked on my door and asked me to vote pro. I had no idea what that meant and I just went, Cool, thanks. Let me read the paperwork as I do with most things, so I never sign on the dotted line until I read everything through. Thanks, Dad. And then I started doing my homework. And what I found out was other friends of mine who actually do own properties in different historic districts around Denver have nothing but complaints, unfortunately, and many of them have vacated those properties and turn them into rentals. So not only are is the idea of community disintegrating before their eyes, they don't even want to live there anymore. Some of them have sold because they couldn't do anything to their house and the amount of effort and cost that went into just getting their proposal to a point where the architect or excuse me, the contractor could submit to get a permit, it was so overwhelming. And then to be turned down, the next thing you did was put the house on the market and they ended up losing money on the sale. If somebody had come to my door within the first five months of us living there and told me a bit more about the actual historic.
Speaker 10: Amazing, wonderful things that have.
Speaker 6: Happened within our neighborhood that may have changed my mind. If more than know, six neighbors have knocked on my door and wanted to introduce themselves. Me bring over a pie invited to a barbecue, something along those lines. I might believe that this has something to do with community, but unfortunately I don't. So yeah, my neighbors, if you have something you want me to change on my house or something you disagree with me doing. My door's open. Three, two, seven, eight. Newton Thanks.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Ms.. Zucker. Okay, I'm going to call the next five folks up there. We are at the halfway point. And so I think I think we've we've done pretty well. I just want to remind folks that now we've really heard from half of you. And so if there's some new information, please share. If not, you know, be considerate of your time. Laurie Simmons upfront. Jean all day. Michelle Meyer. Megan. Winger. And okay. Jarrett O'Hare. One, two, three. Or and let's do one more. Do we do winter? Yeah, we did winter. Sheila.
Speaker 6: Oh, Ranger, this is. But you didn't.
Speaker 1: Oh. Oh, yeah. Is Bo Ninja here? Okay. Hey, there we go. Okay. There we go. We are ready to go. Laurie Simmons.
Speaker 6: Hello. I'm Laurie Simmons. I'm a 30 year resident of Denver's Berkeley neighborhood. I'm also a historian and the coauthor of this landmark application. Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you tonight in support of this historic district. As Denver historian Marsha Goldstein wrote 15 years ago, our city's historical record has often neglected women. Early histories recorded the story of men that overlooked early female, Denver writes. I would like to ask you one question. How many 19th century Denver women doctors can you name? Two lived in Packard Hill, Dr. Mary Ford and Dr. Helene Byington. Their house stands at 32. 25. Sorry, 38. 25. West 32nd Avenue. When I asked that question of you, maybe some of you thought of dirt doctor just, you know, Ford. She received her Colorado medical license in 1902. Well, Dr. Mary Ford moved to Denver and began began her practice in 1880.
Speaker 1: Ms.. Simmons put that mike down just a little bit. Some folks can't hear you.
Speaker 6: Okay? There's no better. Perfect. Okay. An African-American doctor just in his Ford's remarkable career was some in some ways similar to Dr. Mary Ford, who lived in Packard Hill. Both were known in their neighborhoods for treating thousands of patients during their time when there were few women doctors to be had in Denver. Dr. Mary Ford also operated a small sanatorium in her home and was quite active in activities to expand opportunities and rights for women. Dr. Mary Ford died in 1951 and Dr. Justino Ford in 1952. So why do we remember Dr. Justin Ford's name more than Dr. Mary Ford's name in 1982, when faced with redevelopment of the block where Dr. Justino Ford's house stood, local residents with the assistance of the developer and historic Denver were able to save the building, which is now part of the Curtis Park Historic District. It is known as the Black American West Museum today and is an important reminder of the life of Dr. Justinian Ford. I'm sure we've all had the experience of having a familiar landmark in our life, and then it goes away and we can't remember what was there. A few years ago, Dr. Mary Ford's house was threatened with demolition, which was avoided with the help of historic Denver. The current owner of the house is extremely supportive of this historic district application.
Speaker 1: Simmons I'm sorry. Your time is up.
Speaker 6: Oh. That was quick.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it goes it goes fast. Thank you. Thank you, Jean. All day. Jean all day. All right. Michelle Meyer.
Speaker 6: Good evening. Can you hear me okay? Yeah. Okay. Thank you guys so much for being here. I know it's a really long night and there's a lot of voices to be heard, but I just want to start off.
Speaker 12: By thanking you guys. My name is Michelle Meyer. I live at 3280 Osceola.
Speaker 6: And I am in support of this historic district. I can't tell you the number of times that my friends and family and I'm sure all of you, each of you has has visited our cute neighborhood and seen the charm that we all share and feel about it. So I live in a cute 1908 Craftsman style home, and in our neighborhood you can also find the Queen Anne Homes, which you just aren't seeing.
Speaker 14: Being.
Speaker 12: Built today.
Speaker 6: Anymore. And it's unfortunate and it's just such a special place. It's so fun to meet my neighbors and walk the dog and see the beautiful homes that we appreciate from that were built so long ago. And all my friends are visiting and they can just they come and they eat dinner.
Speaker 12: With me and they go out with me in the neighborhood.
Speaker 6: And it supports our economy. And also, it's been a very fun process, just learning about the history that Lawry's just shared with.
Speaker 12: Us and even my coworkers.
Speaker 6: She always talks about how her dad was part of the Italian mafia, which is interesting, but it's just fun to hear about that stuff. And I feel like the buildings and the residents that we all share.
Speaker 14: They're what grounds our.
Speaker 12: History and what.
Speaker 6: Keeps it alive today. And it's very special. And I urge you all to please keep that in mind and vote for the historic district. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Miss Meyer. Megan Winger's not here. Right. Okay, great. Um, you're at O'Hare. Our.
Speaker 3: Hi. Good evening. Like a lot of folks in the room, I'm an import. I moved here.
Speaker 1: To say your name for.
Speaker 3: The record. Gerard O'Hare, 3416 Meat in the District. I also own the house next door, which is 3400 MEADE Both in the district. Like a lot of folks in the room, I moved here. My wife grew up in North Denver, went to North High School. So I'm well aware of the fact that there are more than just architectural changes going on on the north side. I suspect most people don't even call it the north side anymore, but I've been there since the early nineties. Bought a house in 91 on Main Street and. When I needed more room, I built a small extension on the back. When I needed even more room, I dug down. So there are six houses on my block. Five are small, pretty attractive brick Victorians. The sixth house which I bought. For my own preservation and my own protection is a relatively ugly 1960s yellow brick, one storey bungalow right next door. It breaks up the whole flow of the block. I bought that for obvious reasons. I bought that because I don't want another monster home beside me. And I know we don't want to talk about this stuff, but I don't. And I took steps to preserve my investment by building down and building back. My house looks the same now as it did the day it was built in 1910. And I won't sell that rental next door for a profit or. A loss until I know that it won't screw up my whole block. It won't block my neighbor's sunlight. Hi, Michelle. We're still neighbors, you know, so I've taken steps to preserve the neighborhood because it's not my job to change the neighborhood. I moved to the neighborhood, and I'm trying to fit in with what was there. Thanks.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you, Mr. O'Hare. Bo, when you. My name is.
Speaker 4: Bonita. I live at 3300 an hour. About that. Oh, no problem. I live at 3300 Osceola Street. We bought the house 15 years ago. I'd like to just tell our story because this process has already had a direct effect on us before this has occurred. My my wife and I have been planning and designing our home the entire time we've lived in our property for the past two years. We've worked with architecture firms and engineers to put those plans in motion. So we've already spent a great deal of money. So our current plans of our our home would be disallowed by the landmark the landmark designation specifically because of the step backs the 15 foot step back. We plan to add a story to our home. Our home is a 1938 Tudor, has a small footprint which effectively reduces the square footage that we need for our family. So this whole process, since we are well long on the way with our design plans, we've had to fast track this thing to be on a timeline imposed upon us versus our own timelines of saving money for literally 15 years. So we did get the permit into the permit desk. So regardless of the outcome of this vote, we're building our house that we've dreamed upon. But I'm sharing my story because there's other families just like me that are not here to build monstrosities. They're simply trying to modify their home to best suit their needs and their design tastes. So I ask you to vote no on the Packard Hill. And lastly, I don't think this is should be a yes no decision. This is putting us all in an awkward position. There's got to be a better way to come together and make a compromise. So vote no. Thank you very much.
Speaker 1: Thank you. All right. Sheila Bee.
Speaker 6: Czapski.
Speaker 1: Czapski. Nice.
Speaker 6: Good evening. I'm going to read my own statement and then follow up with the statement of a neighbor who couldn't be here tonight. Hello. My name is Sheila Pilarski. I live at 3350 West 36th Avenue near the intersection of 36th and Julian, just two and a half blocks from the district. As a resident of Denver for 23 years and a homeowner in West Highland for the past 20 years, I support designation of Packard Hill as a historic district. If my home was within the proposed district, I would be just as enthusiastic about this effort. The charming, historic homes in the area were what compelled me to buy my home 20 years ago in West Highland. Over the years, I have seen too many charming old homes, classic bungalows, Denver squares, Tudors and Victorians, among them scraped and replaced by multifamily multi-story structures. Our city is growing rapidly, and I agree that densification needs to happen where appropriate, especially within the inner city core. But let's preserve the unique character of our outlying neighborhoods while we still can for future generations to enjoy. Please vote yes to establish the historic district for Packard Hill. A supporter of Packard Hill is teaching a class tonight and could not be here but asked that I read his comments. Dear Council members, my name is Phillip Joseph. I have lived at 33, 95, West 31st Avenue with my wife and three children for 14 years. As a resident of West Highland and the Ghost Historic District, I support designation of Packard Hill as a as an historic district. Originally, my wife and I opposed creation of the Ghost District because we felt it would stifle change in the neighborhood that we'd be living in a museum. That fear turned out to be unfounded. Shortly after the district was created, we did a major addition to our home to accommodate our growing family. We had no problem with the design review process, and being in the historic district did not add to the cost of the addition. In fact, we were able to find an architect and local contractor who because they were both sympathetic with our goals and familiar with building in a historic neighborhood like ours, they were able and willing to work with us in keeping costs down. In this way, designation of historic preservation status helped foster the growth of very local businesses. I'd like to reassure opponents of the Packers Hill area and members of the council that the Denver Landmark Preservation Commission seems prepared to balance change with preservation of Denver's special historic areas. Thank you for your consideration of this request and for your vote to establish the historic district.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mrs. BoSox. Ski. All right, Tony. I'm going to call the next five up. Tony, Julian, Nellie, Phil Alonzo, Matt McLain, Joan Bolduc and Caroline Snell. Tony, you are up first. You have 6 minutes.
Speaker 0: Fantastic. President Brooks and council members, thank you for the opportunity to speak. My name is Tony Giuliano. I live at 3310 Newton Street in the proposed district. Friends, I'm here to speak in opposition to the Packard Hill historic district. First, I'd like to acknowledge there are fantastic people on both sides of this issue. Neighbors and friends, there is a danger that this will be divisive in our neighborhood. And I'd like to admonish each of us who have an opinion, either for or against, to remain committed to hospitality and to neighborly affection for one another. I'm opposed to the historic district for the following reasons. First, there's clearly not consensus. An agreement in our neighborhood. As you can see here tonight, there are many for and many against. Changing the status quo of our neighborhood should be done in cooperation with all sides of this discussion. At the last hearing I attended the Landmark Preservation Committee. It was surprising to me to hear that more than a few of the people who spoke in support of the district do not actually live within its boundaries. I don't know if I'm counting accurately, but it's at least 13 tonight. Second, there is evidence that historic districts can have an adverse impact on minority homeowners. My family is multiethnic and we moved to the neighborhood because of its rich ethnic history. As a sidebar here, it should not go unaddressed that during the rationale presented for this historic district, it was necessary for the presenter to mention a previous mayor's active engagement with the Ku Klux Klan. This is disturbing. Progressive cities like Minneapolis are renaming landmarks like Lake Calhoun based on the connection to systemic racism and white supremacy. Why would we allow our rationale for this district to include this clan member? One of the selling points from proponents is that this will increase property values. We've heard that multiple times. This has been shown over and over again to make it more difficult for lower and middle income families to stay in their homes. It will not. I will not make any assumptions about the intentions of anyone in favor of this, but will conclude that there is insufficient understanding of the impact on families and homeowners who those with more resources should be working to protect. If there is a possibility that this will accelerate the gentrification of the neighborhood, that should be thoroughly researched and thoroughly understood by this Council before taking any action. Our neighborhood needs more young families. If you read more, or if you remove or make more onerous the opportunity for a growing family to add space to their home. These families will be less likely to live here, as you've heard several say tonight. Fourth, I love the historic architecture neighborhood in my home while built in 27 is a classic looking home. So thank you to Casey Mason, who made sure that was the case. I also appreciate progress and the diversity of taste and opinion about what makes a home beautiful. This historic district may may well impede progress and diversity. Those in favor of said that infill construction will still happen. But at public hearing, I asked specifically if a contributing home could be demolished, if it was in extreme disrepair and was told no. If 82% of the neighborhood is contributing, this will essentially end infill development in our neighborhood. Finally, the historic district will create financial harm for some and cause highest and best use to be ignored. For example, I purchased a home in the neighborhood that would be considered contributing. It has substantial issues that would make it a much better candidate for a scrape where a high quality home could be built that was suitable for a family. If this passes tonight. They will remove the option for me and require me to either sell the home now likely at a discount based on this, or to invest substantial personal resources to renovate a home that should not be renovated. It has no actual historical value other than the fact that it is old. I would ask this Council to, in light of the strong opposition and lack of neighborhood consensus, to reject this proposal. It's unsettling that there are so many here speaking for this that aren't impacted by it. I would also ask the Council to provide meaningful leadership and bring organizers on both sides of this issue together to work toward another resolution that takes into account the needs and desires of all in our neighborhood. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. Giuliani. All right, feel Alonzo. All right. Matt Mulally. Molly. Yes. There you go. Sorry about that.
Speaker 3: Hi. My name is Matt McClain. I live at.
Speaker 4: 3270 Mead Street in the proposed historic.
Speaker 3: District. And may I ask that of all who were here that oppose the Packard Hill historic district to stand up so they may see the numbers in opposition. Thank you. My wife and I oppose the proposed historic district. The historic landmark guidelines create another layer of bureaucracy, creates more hurdles and adds time and money to exterior modification projects. These guidelines severely limit what single story homeowners can do to modify their homes by requiring homes to maintain the front 15 feet. The streetscape is maintained only if the onlooker cannot see beyond that front 15 feet. The guidelines create bad architecture for those who want to pop the top of a single storey structure. They also force single storey structures to use more of their already small yards to get the same square foot footage as if they were allowed to use the front 15 feet of their house in that pop up. Unfortunately, the historic application process has created division in our neighborhood that wasn't there before. My wife and I just want to live in an area that homeowners homeowners can do what they want with their property architecturally and within current city zoning guidelines without someone else telling them what it should look like. Thank you for your time and consideration.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. McLain. John Bolduc.
Speaker 6: Hello. My name is Joan Bolder. And once you prove it in West Highlands District one and I've lived at 3033 Yates for 32 years. I very much support this historic district, and thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak. I was going to talk about the women involved in this period of significance, but Laura or Lori already talked a little bit about it, and Kara talked about it, too. There are artists. There are writers. There's actors, actresses. Community involvement people. Some pretty gutsy women. And I just would like to make the point that Packard Hill still has gutsy women on both sides, and you guys are witnessing that. But one of the things I really wanted to make is everybody seems to think that, you know, a historic district, you know, if it's a mansion of a lumber baron or, you know, a mining tycoon, that that's worthy of saving. But that only tells part of the city's story. Packard Hills talks about the working class and the middle class of a trolley neighborhood. And that's a part of the story that our historic districts kind of sometimes don't really look at. So I want to make that important point, and I urge you to vote yes for the historic district.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. Product. Caroline Snowe.
Speaker 6: My name is Carolyn Snell, and I live at 3339 Lowell Boulevard with my husband Jeff. And we happen to live in a home that is considered non contributing even though it was circa 1880. And so we would not have the benefit of the tax credits if we wanted to make improvements to our home. So that is totally unfair and. I've been very engaged in this process since I learned about it in May of 2015 when I was reading the West Highland Neighborhood Association minutes of the Design and Preservation Committee, and learned at that point that they had already been discussing this and working on this for 18 months, but never had the courtesy to leave us a note to try to reach us by phone or email, anything to ask anyone that I know our opinion or for our input, including the name of the district which I intensely dislike. So you would think they would at least have the courtesy to let us choose our own name if they're going to force this on us. So I have that has been bothering me since 2015, and I tried to stay open minded about it, even though I was upset from the very beginning that nobody had the courtesy to discuss this with us. So I went to all of the meetings which were not meetings. They were presentations that were where questions and answers were very managed. We had to write our questions on index cards and someone would rifle through them and choose which questions would be asked and answered. It was not a forum. It was not a meeting. It was a presentation. So I even decided to go on one of their walking tours and at that point was so engaged that and trying to keep an open mind that one of the co-chairs of the Design and Preservation Committee even asked if my husband and I would host the reception following the walking tour. So I really did try to keep an open mind about this the whole time. But where they last me on this walking tour. What's when we walk by to old. Basically brick square little boxes that would be like living in a pizza oven in the summertime. Their only historical significance was that they were built by World War Two veterans returning after the war. And I just feel like this is a farce that they're picking and choosing these obscure historical details. And I.
Speaker 14: Think there would be a lot better.
Speaker 6: Ways to honor our veterans than these. Two little houses, that it would be an improvement to replace them with something bigger and more energy efficient that families could grow up in. Thank you so much for your time.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Ms.. Snell. Okay, Stephanie. Okay, well, we got a whole new group. That's right. Here we go. You all can be seated. Stephanie Burke. Awesome. Your first step. Jessica Alasdair is next. Stephanie Gold Hammer. Nick Bertrand and Fran Trujillo. Stephanie. 3 minutes.
Speaker 6: We'll see if this works. Hi. My name is Stephanie Bourg Oram. I am a resident and property owner at 3230 Newton Street in the proposed district. And I support designating Packard's Hill a historic district. I've lived here for over 27 years now. I actually married into the neighborhood, and I have to admit that his Queen and Painted Lady was a positive attribute in in my now husband. Historically, Packard Hill is a working and middle class neighborhood with a high number of.
Speaker 15: Houses that have been owned by women.
Speaker 6: People move here because they like the character of the place.
Speaker 15: The pleasing appearance, as well as the nice neighbors.
Speaker 6: There's a very high historic integrity, which is what really appeals to me. 82% are contributing structures.
Speaker 15: That display Denver's.
Speaker 6: Architectural evolution from 1890 to 1940. It's quite a variety of styles. Queen Anne's Classic.
Speaker 15: Cottages, Bungalows, Denver Squares, terraces.
Speaker 6: A few others. Some are. A few are fairly ornate.
Speaker 15: Especially those built before the Silver Panic of.
Speaker 6: 1893. Later ones are rather more modest. There is a variety of sizes one story all the way up to substantial to two and a half stories. There are narrow lots or extended lots or even doubles. 16 are.
Speaker 15: Duplexes. One's a triplex. Most are single family. Most of them are brick.
Speaker 6: And the high quality of workmanship really.
Speaker 15: Promises them to endure as well. There are exceptions, but mostly they endure.
Speaker 6: Yes, they are middle class and worth preserving for that very reason. The high degree.
Speaker 15: Of integrity is a special and almost unique aspect of the neighborhood.
Speaker 6: That's hard to find today.
Speaker 12: In Denver.
Speaker 6: And very easy to lose in the growth that we are currently seeing. Our intact 100 year old neighborhood and its history deserve keeping the middle class. People who built Denver are worth honoring.
Speaker 15: As are the women who found.
Speaker 6: Their opportunity here. I hope you find.
Speaker 15: Our area worthy of designation under.
Speaker 6: The Denver landmark criteria. I urge you.
Speaker 15: To help us preserve this special part of Denver.
Speaker 6: Please vote yes to make.
Speaker 15: Packard's Hill a historic district.
Speaker 6: Thank you for your consideration.
Speaker 1: Thank you. All right, Jessica, let's.
Speaker 12: Good evening. Members of Council Jessica.
Speaker 6: Leads at a Fairfield in Woods.
Speaker 12: 1801 California, Suite 2600 on behalf of Keep West Highlands Free.
Speaker 6: I'd like to begin just by committing to the record the.
Speaker 12: Biased nature of the the landmark process. Your staff.
Speaker 6: Works very hard to.
Speaker 12: Review applications against the the criteria as it sits within your.
Speaker 6: Code, but your.
Speaker 12: Code is broken.
Speaker 14: And it.
Speaker 12: Consistently and this is not my first time for you results.
Speaker 6: In the city.
Speaker 13: Advocating.
Speaker 12: For one neighbor against another, and it's never been clearer than it is.
Speaker 6: Here this evening. It overlooks also the powerful.
Speaker 13: Filter.
Speaker 12: That landmark plays in the information that you.
Speaker 6: Receive. So there are a number of letters that, for.
Speaker 12: Whatever reason, have been emitted consistently through the record. I believe along the process, many of you have received them. They have not made their way into the record.
Speaker 6: And this is significant.
Speaker 13: Because Section.
Speaker 15: 30 Dash four of your code requires that due consideration.
Speaker 6: Shall be given to the written views.
Speaker 13: Of affected properties.
Speaker 6: So in designating. An entire swath of.
Speaker 12: Homes against the will of over 75 homeowners. Think about that.
Speaker 6: That is 75 gyms.
Speaker 12: Those are 75. Judith Batiste's 75. If you were.
Speaker 6: To solely apply the criteria this we'd.
Speaker 12: Be over.
Speaker 6: At Landmark. We'd be done. But you are called on.
Speaker 12: To consider the totality of the public.
Speaker 6: Impacts and what this.
Speaker 12: Policy means for our city when we pit neighbor against neighbor. You all work very hard with your constituents to navigate very contentious issues on a daily basis. I know that historic districts should not be one of them and not at this point in the process. I sat here the night that your Virginia village, 95% of the homeowners in Virginia Village supported that historic designation by the district. By the time it got to you, there was a lot of work that was done first.
Speaker 6: So there are many options and those options.
Speaker 12: Maintain the character of the neighborhood. But they've been dismissed very early on in this process, and we would urge you to let the neighbors go back and work through those options.
Speaker 13: Lastly, there have been mentions about Supreme Court cases.
Speaker 12: And the Supreme Court also found in Keeler.
Speaker 6: Versus the city of New London that eminent domain of 14 homes.
Speaker 13: And giving that property.
Speaker 12: To the municipality was also legal. But that doesn't mean that's the right policy for Denver. So I urge you to vote no. Thank you very.
Speaker 1: Much. Thank you. All right. Stephanie Goldhammer.
Speaker 6: Hello. My name is Stephanie Goldhammer and I live at West Highlands Neighborhood at 3027 Gage Street. I'm a real estate broker with Remax Alliance, and I had been in the real estate industry since 2001. I am here to support the Packers Hill Historic District. I would like to clarify one misperception that you have already heard and we'll probably hear again tonight, and that is the claim, the false claim that property values will decrease if the historic district is approved. Statistically, if you look at the data for the sold properties in the two historic districts already in existence in the West Highlands neighborhood, the Allen and Ghost and the Wolf Place historic districts, the numbers show that the average sale price per square foot for properties within the historic districts are higher than those homes adjacent to these districts. Homes in the ghost districts sold an average of 409 per square foot, compared with homes outside the district that sold at four four per square foot homes in the Wolf Place, sold at 405 per square foot with the surrounding homes outside that district sold for 398 per square foot. Numbers don't lie. Prices within historic districts tend to be.
Speaker 12: Slightly higher than in adjacent areas.
Speaker 6: These findings are consistent with previous local comparisons, as well as local and national research. This suggests that while property values won't dramatically increase, creating the historic district will at least stabilize property values and certainly will not.
Speaker 12: Decrease.
Speaker 6: Values. Thank you for your time and your support.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Goldhammer. Nick Bertrand.
Speaker 4: I am Nick Bertrand, and I'm in the zone at 3290 Mead Street. I originally signed the proposal to make the neighborhood historic. However, I have changed my mind for many reasons described today. Once this is approved, there's no going back. We're stuck with what's here. I'm also shocked that there's 14 people that are for.
Speaker 3: A.
Speaker 4: Peruvian historic district that have spoke today that don't even live in the district. Several years ago. Seven years ago. Exact, I guess we purchased our home and I'm sorry, I'm going to try to be quick and I'd rather just talk instead of reading this. You know, we purchased our home seven years ago. We had no children. Home was awesome. Looking back at some photos, it was awesome. There's no clutter, there's no toys. There's so much room. And like many people on this side of the room that I swear are not Chiefs fans, are really Broncos fans. Honestly, it's one of those things where the neighborhood just drove us to the neighborhood. We looked at 32nd Street. I don't think the neighborhood of the actual homes is quite what did it. It was the actual people. It was the stores. It was the atmosphere. You know, it's something over the last couple of years after having a child, you realize that there is so much stuff. And unfortunately, a lot of these homes that we're talking about today don't have the amenities that we need today. Over the last couple of years, we've looked at possibly moving out of the city. And honestly, we don't want to. We love our neighbors. Chris, who likes to have the 5:00 drink on Friday and Saturday, who is for it? It's something where we want to stay neighbors with Chris. But the way our lot is designed, we can't go straight back. Denver has unique property lines that really do get impacted by this, and it's not just clear cut thinking that you can just do an easy remodel and it'll be good to go. I just there's so much that just goes through my mind on this. And honestly, I just. We own the home. It's it's. I feel like someone's taken away something that we've worked hard for. So I urge you to vote no.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. Bertrand. All right, friend. Friend Thornhill?
Speaker 12: Yes. My name is Fran Trujillo.
Speaker 6: I live at 3249 West Fairview Place.
Speaker 12: I'm about two blocks from the district.
Speaker 6: I'd like to encourage your positive vote for the Packard's Hill Historic District. I'm not only a resident of the West Highlands.
Speaker 13: I also live in a has a property with historic designation.
Speaker 6: I'm here because.
Speaker 13: Being connected to Denver's rich history.
Speaker 6: Mattered to me as.
Speaker 13: A homeowner. I've had some experience with historic designation, and I absolutely know that it does not.
Speaker 6: Present difficult hurdles for homeowners, but generous and appropriate supports.
Speaker 13: Owning a property in a district like this is a privilege.
Speaker 6: It also does not encumber homeowners with difficult red tape or rules which.
Speaker 13: In any way deny.
Speaker 6: A property owner their rights. Yes, it will help to preserve the culture and esthetic.
Speaker 13: Of the neighborhood.
Speaker 6: But it doesn't keep anyone from appropriately updating and remodeling home. Really good architects and builders are generally well informed.
Speaker 13: And open to using creativity and skill to.
Speaker 6: Honor a historic district's needs.
Speaker 13: This is an important district for many reasons, and it should be protected as a part of Denver's amazing history. Thank you.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you, Mr. Hill. All right, next five. Alex La Flor, Mary. Margaret Johnson. Thomas. Fletch. Uh. PLO gigolo. Paolo. Alex. Oleg. Boy. One, two, three, four. All right, Alex, you're up first. The floor. Alex La Flor. Okay. Uh, Mary Margaret Johnson.
Speaker 6: Good evening. My name is Mary Margaret Johnson. I own my home in the proposed district at 3278 Mead Street over there for 27 years now. I thought I'd share with you a little bit about what I learned when I did the history of my house. Like the neighbor who spoke quite a bit earlier when I pulled that building permit, there was a woman's name on it. Her name is Mrs. Stevens, and she lived across the street. She built not only my house, her house, but several houses in the area. In fact, by 1907, she had hung out her shingle as a contractor in the. City directory of Denver. As I researched the historic archives in the newspaper databases I saw as she bought homes. Built homes, sold properties in Packard's hill and the wider Highlands area, and eventually down here in the capital area. So women were building homes, different women were building all kinds of homes in the area. It's an interesting thing. And as the Rocky Mountain News reported, they were a large proportion of homeowners in the whole highlands area and a force to contend with, as many have mentioned earlier. But really in their architectural choices, the women of Packard's hill, if you think about it, they were literally shaping the visual character of this new subdivision, the same character that has attracted so many buyers over the decades. You know, I won't say a whole lot more because you've heard so many great stories about the folks in this area. But I will say that I was talking with my daughter this afternoon. And she said to me about this whole thing. So, yeah, what these women were doing was reflecting what was going on historically in this city at the time. In this state at this time. But more importantly, what it was doing was showing that the experiment was working. I thank you for your consideration this evening and urge you to vote in support of the historic district. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Ms.. Johnson. Uh. Okay. Thomas felt.
Speaker 4: Hello. I'm Thomas Felch. I live in the District 3359 Osceola Street at a tall greenhouse about halfway down in this area between 32nd or third and 35th. I see a bunch of people over here that I hope I'm still invited to the October Fast Party next weekend. I, I love this neighborhood. My wife and I moved here into the Highlands in the Ghost District about seven years ago and quickly outgrew when our first child came in, our second one was on the way. So we decided to look in the neighborhood for a property who and a real estate agent here also sold us that property. And, you know, we we love it. We bought it because we felt like we could expand again based on the way that our house is. And I think somebody tonight said earlier, maybe, Nick, we can't go straight back, we can't fit into the guidelines in order to actually have a house that we want to grow our family and and live here for the next 50 years, like many people have done. And that bothers us is it's restrictive. We feel it's restrictive on our rights. And I'm all for honoring doctors and women who build this neighborhood. That's incredible. But let's put up a statue for them. Let's let's do something that doesn't feel like we're taking away half of this room's rights to do what they want with their property. You know. We were pretty fortunate to find the property that we did. We have incredible neighbors and we get a great opportunity to sit out on the front porch or on the back porch in the backyard and have cocktails and talk about this stuff. And I think it's great. I mean, some of my neighbors from the Ghost District are here to speak in our position because of what they went through. And that's real to us. It's money. It's 2 to 3 times as expensive for us to do what we want to do with our house. Then what we want to do with our house. And our house is a prime example of one that was re completely redone about three or four years ago. On the inside and on the outside. It's great, but it's tiny. By today's standards, it's 1800 square feet. And when you have all those toys and you're slipping on them, you're falling down the stairs because there's no place to put your kids. There's no place for guests to come visit. There's no place to have a bathroom that has a shower. So your mom or your dad who are in a wheelchair coming to visit, they can't stay with you. It's it's hurtful. It really kind of it hits us pretty hard and it makes us have to consider. Moving out of the city. And we don't want to do that because we love the neighborhood. We love the people that we like cornhole with and and be every now and then and and have cocktails on the porch with and talk about everything we want to talk about. So thank you. We'd like to on behalf of my wife and my son, my daughter, my dog, Sam, and many of you in this neighborhood know pretty well. We'd like to strongly urge the council to vote no and come to a conclusion and a compromise about something that works for everybody in the room. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. Felch. Paula. Paula, I think about.
Speaker 6: That. I'll say my.
Speaker 1: Name. Yeah. Yeah, once you do that.
Speaker 6: Good evening. My name is Paola Jolo and I live in the district with my husband Chris, the Buffalo Bill guy. We live at 30 to 86 Main Street and we were in our house for 17 years. I am strongly in support of the Story District and I agree with everything that everybody of my neighbors have said in favor for it. I'd like to actually use my time to read.
Speaker 13: A statement for somebody who cannot.
Speaker 6: Be here tonight. So, dear council members, my name is Jennifer Abel. I'm the owner of Nostalgic Homes Highland's original real estate firm, proudly located in the proposed Packard Hill Historic District at 32nd and Newton Street for more than 30 years. I'm pleased to write in support of the proposed Packer Hill Historic District when only very few people appreciated the true value of the fine historic home in this area nostalgic homestead. Through the years, we were able to introduce new homeowners to this vintage neighborhood and be part of the flourishing, thriving neighborhood. Families choose to stay in the city. Businesses have prospered, and I'm proud that our efforts helped to stabilize and transform a part of the city that desperately needed attention to homes and businesses. Today, it is highly sought after in my 22 years of experience and as a realtor, I know buyers want stability in their neighborhood historic designation support stable, attractive neighborhoods, and some buyers seek out a storied history for their reason. They do not compromise ownership and abilities. In fact, by comparison, housing prices and historic districts in adjacent areas show only slightly higher prices in historic districts. Slightly higher prices in these historic districts often goes hand-in-hand with the fact that historic district often house neighborhood jewels. In reading the Packers SEAL nomination, it was interesting to see the role women professionals and civic activists have had in West Highland and in the city of Denver. Unusual for that period in history. In Denver, many women in Packer held own their own homes, and many women were involved in serving their communities in important roles such as doctors, business owners, teachers and the like. True contributors to the neighborhood. My own grandparents were part of this contribution. Beckett Hill as made a significant contribution to Denver's history. Even as we enjoy a development surge, we all need to do all that we can to preserve our irreplaceable, historic homes and neighborhoods. I encourage you and respectfully put a plea before you to act on September 25th to designate packed or Denver's newest historic district in Denver's popular West Highlands neighborhood, respectively, submitted. Jennifer Able, broker, owner, realtor, nostalgic homes. Thank you so much for your consideration. Please vote yes.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. YOLO. Alex Olick.
Speaker 3: Good evening. My name is Alex Olic and together with my wife, we live at 3625 West 30th Avenue since 1994. In the interest of time, I'd like to echo what most people on the opposition have said. I know that we are friends of both sides and I hope to be friends with everybody still after this. But we live in a historic district, and I know that some of my neighbors in the district have had a lot of issues with the district when they were doing work on their homes. So I urge you to vote no.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Thank you, Ms.. Mr. Olek. Okay. We have the next five Mary scones. Pam Pollan. Sherrie Moore. Violet Baker. Jerry Mullen. Violet Baker is not here, I hear. William Baker. Okay, Hubby. I hope you stay up late. Okay. Mary Stone zero four SCHOEN.
Speaker 6: Yes, yes. Good evening. My name is Mary Jones and I live at 3326 Mead Street, which is in the district. While searching for a home to purchase in 2003. I looked at many different Denver areas, but I was repeatedly drawn back to the Highlands neighborhood where I eventually found my dream home. Prior to the recent formal study of the Packard Hill area, I had done my own research to look into my home in the area and learned of the homes that were owned, built and occupied by a variety of women, including women of his historic significance. Now, I'm not claiming that I am a woman of historic significance, but I am happy to carry on this tradition of ownership as an independent, professional woman who has worked in public schools for almost 30 years now in the Denver area. My Queen Anne Cottage was built in 1890, and although it has gone through many transformations over the years, each transformation by each owner preserved the historic Victorian features of the home. I also purchased my home with the intention of nurturing the historic character of both the structure itself and the surrounding gardens, which at this point contains a small pond. When I when the historic district was first proposed, I initially had many questions and concerns, including questions about my home, which is built of sand brick and has a dirt foundation. I think there's a few of those. I also have a crumbling sand brick garage that was probably originally built for a horse or a carriage. So my questions were very important to me. But as I went through the process and went to the meetings and had my questions answered, I was convinced that this was the right move for our neighborhood to preserve not only the history, but the significance of our neighborhood. I'm here tonight to share with you my love of our special neighborhood and to express my support of the establishment of the Packard Hill Historic District. I ask for your support as well by your vote to approve our application. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Ms.. Jones. Pam Pullen.
Speaker 0: It's actually Matt and Pam Bullard should be Matt and they're.
Speaker 1: Oh, okay. We'll let it go. Go ahead.
Speaker 3: From the police, we know Law Boulevard.
Speaker 0: Okay, so it's right across the street from the ghost and across.
Speaker 3: The street from this proposal for the Packard.
Speaker 0: Basically, I've lost some friends, some families that were in the ghost place area due to their growing family size and inability to do remodels that are less than. High price. I think I'm the only one here in this building right now that has gone through historic district actual proposals. I presented to the board to get my proposal finished, to get my designs put through. I don't think anybody else is here that is proposed to the council. Anyone? So the only one here that's actually gone through that actual districting and that.
Speaker 3: Actual proposal process.
Speaker 0: I've spent an extra $26,000 in architect fees alone. From my first proposal to the board of.
Speaker 3: Nine.
Speaker 0: To the actual historic district to the final approval of my plans was one year and one week. Think about that. One year and one week mid construction. For my process to get finished. For approval to finalize my actual permits. The second home I had rent to live in that time. The actual additional cost to construction is exponentially more than that. 26,000. Based on my construction, I was doing interior remodel only the interior. I didn't need historic approval. Unfortunately, during that process, it exposed major structural issues that had to be resolved according to code enforcement. Changed the roofline in the front portion of that building had to be changed. Whether that's supporting the roof structure, which would then reduce the ceiling height, which by code is also not allowed.
Speaker 3: Caused me to have to change the front. 15 foot of my of my whole. During this process.
Speaker 0: Staff at Historic suggested I return my two story home back in a one story home. A lot of these things are kind of unacceptable for, I think, most people going through a construction process, planning on living in their home as they do a small remodel. Unfortunately, the actual implications of this district impacts greatly to the people that are living in this district and do want to.
Speaker 3: Grow their home with their growing family.
Speaker 0: Please vote no. For my friends sakes, that now live in this proposed district across the street from me, that I've moved from Ghost Place into Packard Hill to allow this kind of construction in their homes to continue. They want to stay in this district. They want to stay in the Highlands, just like I do. And putting this proposal forward will probably push those young families out of these neighborhoods.
Speaker 3: Thanks.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. Potter. All right, Sherry. Thank you. Sherry Moore.
Speaker 6: Hi. My name is Sherry More. I live at 3319 mead and I'm in the district and I just would encourage you to vote for Packard Hill. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mrs. Moore. Violet Baker. Oh, well, if you're William Baker.
Speaker 3: I'm William Baker.
Speaker 1: Can you. I'm sorry. I'm going to get to you a year or two away. I'm sorry. I'm going to get to you in just a second there. This is your your wife.
Speaker 3: So no. Ileana Fresca is my wife. Violet Baker is my daughter. Okay. But your thought you called me up to take her place.
Speaker 1: No, no, no. I'm going to give. If Violet Baker's not here, you're into people. I'm going to get to you. Sorry about that. Got a whole family out here testifying. Okay, Violet Baker's not here. You can take her off. Jerry. Marlene. Great. And then, William, you're up next.
Speaker 2: My name is Jerry Marlene. I'm a property owner in the Ghost Historic District. We were 30th and Irving Street. I very much support this historic district. I love our history. I'd like to talk about the Denver mares that are associated with Packers Hill. Well, no. Mayor actually lived in Packard Hill while they served as mayor. There were three who either lived in the district before they served as mayor or own property in the area in addition to the three mayor mayors. There's also Alderman John Ah Thurston of the Town of Highlands, who lived in the district not only while he served, but also during his mayoral campaign. The fact. In fact, his opponent in that race lived right next door. I'm sure that was interesting. Robert Mayor Robert Speer owned property in the Packard Hill, but he never lived there. There was Mayor William Mills, who took over from Mayor Speer when he died, had lived next door to the alderman of the town of Highlands and was in fact his opponent in that race. Mayor Mills, who lived at 3825 West 32nd Avenue, went on to become manager of improvements and perks in Denver. Mayor Mills is credited with civic improvements in Denver, including the completion of the Civic Center. Benjamin Stapleton. Lived in several homes in Packard's Packard Hill between 1911 and 1920 before he became mayor. He held the office of Denver Police Magistrate from 1904 to 1915. He was then appointed by Woodrow Wilson. Two Denver postmaster in 1915, at the same time that Wilson appointed several other KKK members to other federal government positions in his move to segregate the federal government. We do not celebrate Stapleton's appalling connection to the KKK. But we must take note of this part of our history, or we may be doomed to repeat it. We instead celebrate the many other people, notable men and women who lived in Packard's hill and contributed so greatly to the development of Denver. I urge you to please help us preserve this very special place in Denver. Thank you for your consideration.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. Miller. All right, Jim Baker.
Speaker 3: Good evening, 22 figured out. I'm William Baker. I'm from Park Hill and I'm speaking in opposition to the historic designation. I think I bring three things here I am three things that other people in this audience are not. So I can bring some different perspectives. First off, I'm a builder. I've spent my entire career of over 35 years restoring, repairing and improving and in character, old homes, exclusively old homes. I don't do anything new in the 1930. I started in the East Coast doing houses that were a pretty American revolution. And now I'm here. I do this because I love old homes. And yet I speak against this designation. I will come back to this. I'm also the owner of a 1908 house in Park Hill. I popped the top. We had a historic designation brouhaha there, and all the people who were in favor of the designation agreed that this was a truly excellent project and they thought it very attractive and they all agreed that under a historic designation it would not have been allowed. So I'm very grateful that I was able to do it before the designation was considered. As a resident of Park Hill, we went through the same process recently. It's actually still ongoing in a certain way. I heard I had the benefit of a year's time to study all about historic designation and read statistics from around the country and various articles that added to my knowledge as a builder. I heard the same misinformation that we have heard tonight. Both sides provide a certain amount of misinformation, but. I heard about the minimum cost of this of doing this project, the ease of the process, the improved property values. And I'm afraid numbers do lie. I can tell you later if I have the time. The truth of the matter is, it's very hit and miss. It depends on what neighborhood you live in, what the demographics are, what the socioeconomic levels are, how impoverished the neighborhood is, what state you're in. Many, many things. Historic designation does help certain neighborhoods, typically ones that are decrepit and impoverished and low value, which Packard Hill is not. That is why Historic Designation was originally set up. Whether your house is specific, how impacted it is by this designation depends on so many factors, what style it is, whether your roof line is perpendicular or parallel to the street, how big your lot is. Do you have the possibility of an addition? How high is your ridge line? Are you on a corner lot, etc.? So some people will have a fairly easy time and some people will be turned down outright for the project they want to do. When this problem.
Speaker 1: Comes to Mr. Baker. Your time is up. Yeah.
Speaker 3: I was halfway through it. Yeah.
Speaker 8: Yeah. Okay.
Speaker 1: Okay. Um, next five. Bob McCormick. Ron Johnson. Pat Devore, the FE. Uh, Chris.
Speaker 8: Uh.
Speaker 1: The. And Roger Oram. You can help me out, Chris, when you get up here. Bob McCormack, you are first.
Speaker 2: Thank you. My name's.
Speaker 3: Bob McCormick and.
Speaker 2: Other 3319 Meade Street, which is in the proposed zone. Just a couple of things. Most people have mentioned everything that I probably would have to say. Let's go back to that comment about looking into the future that and I have a quick story on that. When I, too, was an elected official at one point and said on that side of this and participated in a in a very controversial, historic district, and I was sort of opposed to it. I wasn't actually living in it. I was one block away. And I can just tell you that 40 years later, I went back into my old neighborhood and we were one block off of the historic district. My lack of support was a mistake. The street that I grew up, my children on, it's a. Architecturally disagreeable, I would say. And I know that personal experience is a little limited to go by, but that's my personal experience. Regarding the divisiveness somebody talked about, we were caretakers for our homes that she feels privileged to be a caretaker for. Whereas I like to say that we're you know, even though we're coming at this from different angles, collectively, we're caretakers of the community. We those of us who are in favor of the Packard Hill designation, are doing what we think is proper for being a caretaker for a community.
Speaker 3: And I'm sure this side does, too.
Speaker 2: And I'm here, I support it. And I and I also support, you know, my neighbors. We have a wonderful community in regarding the divisiveness. And many of, you know, me and I spend an awful lot of time sitting in a front porch. Next Sunday. We're having an Octoberfest in whatever side of this.
Speaker 3: Issue you sit on. You're more than.
Speaker 2: Welcome to join us. You know, I think the divisiveness is we do have different approaches, but I think.
Speaker 3: Our hearts are in the same place. We care about our community.
Speaker 2: And however you turn this out this evening, I think the community will pull back together again. I don't think it's a terminal illness that we suffer for going through this process. But I appreciate your time. I know it's late.
Speaker 3: I'm done.
Speaker 8: Thank you. Next up, Ron Johnson.
Speaker 9: My name is Ron Johnson. I've lived in the neighborhood for 30 years. Uh, I think this poor neighborhood is being loved to death by both sides. It appealed to me when I first came in the neighborhood because of its diversity in architecture and the background of the people that live there. It offered people that moved into the neighborhood a chance to improve their lives. It was a neighborhood in transition from older people to younger people with beginning their families. And because of that, people could move in there with their dreams to build a house that they wanted to raise their family. And if it involved adding a room, popping the top or keeping it as it was, it gave them a chance to live their dream. This proposition takes that dream out of their hands. And I don't want to see that happen. I think we're here tonight to persuade you, not persuade each other, that whatever you vote is going to have an effect on one side or the other. If you vote for the historic designation, it's going to hurt some people that came in here with some dreams. It's going to hurt your opportunities to turn those properties over when they get ready to retire or move or whatever is done. If you vote to oppose it, these people that are supporting it will be disappointed. But I don't think they'll be hurt as far as property values. In 30 years, I've seen property values in this area just skyrocket. I think many of us here probably could not afford to buy our own homes right now. So I don't think adding property value as an issue for historic designation is a good incentive. I think the thing to do is to keep the neighborhood vibrant, diverse, alive. It's not stagnant, it's not dead. It doesn't need to be hung on a wall and preserved. So please vote no on this.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Johnson. Pat Duffy.
Speaker 8: Very good.
Speaker 6: My name is Pat Duffy and good evening, council members. I reside at 2979 Raleigh Street, about five blocks away from the proposed Packard Hill historic district. I've lived in this home in West Highlands for nearly 30 years, and before that, seven years north of the old Ilitch Gardens. It used to be in our neighborhood, in the Berkeley neighborhood. My husband and I have been very active members of the West Highland Neighborhood Association for over 27 years, and we've also been active in surveying four just discovered Denver for the last couple of years. I hope you remember in my brown book, Rediscovering Northwest Denver by Ruth Weaver. That I've used in testimony several times before. I want to share an excerpt from this book about why we love our northwest Denver neighborhood in Highlands. Homebuilding have been spotty, with some estates occupying a whole block, other blocks fully built up and nearby ones vacant as they filled this section of town, became a good example of the types of middle class architecture in Denver during the 1880s and nineties. Some developers had built rows of five or six Victorian one story or sometimes two story homes. Houses in a block and left the rest vacant. Those these first were built on the narrow 25 foot lots allotted at that time. Later, there were rows of Denver squares of one story neo classic of the so-called Anglo Bengal bungalows with wide front porches which were built in the 1920s. Just before World War Two. The preferred style was English, Tudor, large or small. After the war, building was rapid and city lot size ranch houses were built. I haven't seen many of those, but then suddenly there were very few lots left on which to build in this part of northwest Denver became static in just the last few years. So this would have been. She wrote this book in the seventies, mid seventies. In just the last few years, Highlands has been rediscovered as the last bit of early Denver, with a great many and deteriorated homes. Young couples are buying houses to restore them to their Victorian glory, to go along with those that have been kept in good condition by loving families. That early pride of Highlanders has never died. The people are still proud of their homes, their gardens, their trees, their churches, their schools. They are proud of their pure cold water, which they swear is colder than that in any other part of Denver. They are proud of their pure air. Perhaps not so unsullied as as at one time, but above most of the city's smog, so that they still have their treasured view of the towering blue and white sentinels of the Rockies and with a man in the of the 1890s. They can look down from their happy homes on the Eminence, where Highlands proudly sits upon the smoky city below. Once again, these yellowed tabs in this book are historic homes that were written up in this book that we have lost. And so we're hoping that Packard Hill is approved and that we don't have more yellow tabs that I have to mark in my book. Please approve this historic district. Thank you very much.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. Fame. Chris. The.
Speaker 4: Hello. My name is Chris Vassiliadis. My wife and I live at 3439 Isola in the proposed district and we are here. I am here in favor. She can't be with our seven month old, but in favor of the proposed district. Two things. Maybe add a little bit of color of things that haven't been said. I think of historic, historic designation as being something bigger than us and outside of our own self-interests. And that's why I support this area. I can talk about all the reasons why I love living here, but I don't trust that if a property we see properties turn over in our neighborhood pretty frequently. And I don't trust that with 1 to 3 turnovers of a property that 100 years of history can't be wiped out by one decision. So I think everybody here loves our neighborhood and wants to see it remain somewhat the same, the things that we love about it, I think some of us just want to ensure that. And then secondly, the thing I love, one of the things I love about the neighborhood is riding my bike into downtown, to my job, and I get to ride through some beautiful neighborhoods and architecture. Potter Highlands is a historic district that I ride through every day, and in the last two years that I've lived here, I've seen a number of a number of approved modifications to the architecture that give me a sense of freedom that if we do want to modify our home, that that it is reasonable process to go through, but maintaining the character of the neighborhood that we love. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. All right, Roger. Are. Q Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you all. I am Roger or I'm a native North Denver, eight and nearly 39. Your property owner and resident at 3230 Newton Street in the proposed district where my wife Stephanie also lives, we could have moved elsewhere, but chose to remain in this historic and beautiful neighborhood. I very much support the proposed Packard's Hill historic district. I had other remarks that aren't of much consequence at this moment because they've already been mentioned several times. But there's a couple of things I guess I would like to say. Is that our area is on the front line of development. And there is no doubt about that. And things aren't going to change unless we get this historic designation. And I can tell you. And the difference is going to be very evident as time goes.
Speaker 4: By between.
Speaker 2: Our neighborhood and the neighborhood south of us on 32nd.
Speaker 3: Avenue. And I would just also like to mention that many of the housing that's coming up in our. Neighborhood is very similar to the type that was has been.
Speaker 2: Constructed or in.
Speaker 3: Cherry Creek. Where, you know, the houses in that neighborhood used to be of 1950s and 1960s vintage, but are now pretty much all gone. But that could very well can happen in our neighborhood as well. So I strongly. Ask that you vote. Yes. And I thank you very much.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you, Mr. Arm. All right, next five. Rosemary Stovall. Camille. Paul. Mary Joseph Halpern. Thomas Simmons and Lisa Leslie Fogel. We're on the homestretch, everyone. Just a check in under 20, under 20. All right, Rosemary Stovall. All right. Under 18. Cook. Camille. Paul. Mary.
Speaker 6: Hello. Members of council. My name is Camille Palmieri. My husband, John, and I live at 36 Osceola Street in the Wolfe Place Historic District and in the landmarked, Herman Hugo Heizer House, the Wolfe Place Historic District was approved almost 11 years ago. This hasn't stopped people from renovating their houses. Three houses on our block have been renovated and sold in the last two years. We are currently renovating our house and we have been approved for tax credits. We have a new roof. We tore off it back edition. We replaced it with a new addition, a new porch. We're doing a lot of interior things that that, of course, don't need approval. Historic districts help maintain the balance among residential, commercial and multifamily buildings. The West Highlands has a number of commercial areas, including great restaurants and other amenities. The neighborhood also has a number of large apartment buildings and duplexes. The Packard Hill Historic District District will help protect the residential aspect of the neighborhood. The proposed Packard Hill District has some beautiful historic houses with turrets, decorative trim bay windows, stained glass, Denver, red brick and other Victorian details. These buildings house several significant figures. We have lived in Denver for over 35 years. The economic boom we are experiencing will not last forever. But if we don't protect this city's history, it will be lost forever. And yeah, I'm speaking and I don't live in the district, but why I'm here is just to say that. We we applied for, but we.
Speaker 12: Are.
Speaker 6: Sorry the guidelines that we had were approved and it wasn't a big burden and everything seemed pretty seamless.
Speaker 1: So thank you. Thank you. Paul Mary Joseph helping.
Speaker 3: Good evening. My name is Joseph Halpern. I live at 519 Ogden Street in the Alamo Placidia historic district. I'm here even though I live outside the district because we have 17 years of experience with a middle class, historic district. We were the first middle class historic district ever created by the Denver City Council because like Packard Hill, we had a few grand Victorians built before the silver crash of 1893.
Speaker 4: And after that, it became a working class and middle class neighborhood of bungalows and a lot of even one story duplexes.
Speaker 3: When we came before you on June 12th, 2000, or before your.
Speaker 4: Predecessors, other than Councilman Ortega, who was actually here at the time.
Speaker 3: We had it's very deja vu because we had a very similar situation. We had a deeply divided neighborhood. There were lots of.
Speaker 1: People who.
Speaker 4: Were opposed to it. There were lots in favor. There were lots of passions on both sides. And at the end of a.
Speaker 3: Very long hearing that went past midnight.
Speaker 1: The council unanimously.
Speaker 3: Approved it, but not without some misgivings. And I'll never forget what Councilwoman Ramona martinez said.
Speaker 4: She looked directly at the landmark commission staff members who were there and said, Take back to your commission the following.
Speaker 1: You cannot.
Speaker 3: Treat a.
Speaker 1: District like this the same way you treat.
Speaker 3: Denver Country Club and Humboldt Island Historic.
Speaker 4: District with their big fancy mansions. You've got to recognize different contexts.
Speaker 3: And the Landmark Commission took that to heart. And the reason that that document that one gentleman showed you is so thick is because it covers the gamut and it covers.
Speaker 4: Big, fancy mansions. It covers modest.
Speaker 3: Houses. And it does it in a way that only a small.
Speaker 4: Portion of those guidelines are going to apply to any particular project in a given neighborhood.
Speaker 3: And it is a manageable process. I have seen an Alamo.
Speaker 1: Policy to, over.
Speaker 3: The last 17 years, numerous second story additions. The term pop top is disfavored.
Speaker 1: But that's what they are.
Speaker 3: I've seen numerous site additions, huge rear additions that have virtually doubled the size of houses and in in even on on.
Speaker 4: Infill lots and where there were scrapes of non historic houses, we've gotten some very modern architecture.
Speaker 1: Not my thing, but the landmark commission will approve.
Speaker 4: What looks to be like a malibu.
Speaker 3: Beach house in Alamo placebo. And that's fine because we need some.
Speaker 1: Professionals like we have on the Landmark Commission to make those decisions.
Speaker 0: And and so I just I'm here.
Speaker 3: To say to everyone.
Speaker 4: Including those who believe this can't work, it really can work. And it's worked in Alamo.
Speaker 1: Policy, too. And however this comes out, I hope that.
Speaker 3: Everyone will repair relations as we did in our.
Speaker 1: Procedure.
Speaker 3: We get along great and have block parties.
Speaker 4: And a lot of us were there 17 years ago.
Speaker 1: Thank you all. Thank you, Mr. Halper. Thomas Simmons.
Speaker 3: Council members. My name is Tom Simmons. I've lived in Berkeley neighborhood for 30 years and I'm a coauthor of this application. Since the early 1990, our firm has studied many of Denver's older neighborhoods for community planning and development. Historic Denver and neighborhood groups. These projects prepared neighborhood histories and identified historically scenic significant areas and individual properties if present. Our firm also prepared Denver Landmark District applications for downtown Denver, Pennsylvania Street Wolf Place in the early Lanham Ghost District. In studying the Packard Hill area, we employed the same techniques for researching and analyzing its eligibility as potential Denver Landmark District as we did for all these earlier local landmark districts, including identifying its historical significance, describing the nature of its architecture, evaluating the contributing known contributing status of the properties, and determining the appropriate boundary of the potential district. The historical significance, I think, was addressed rather well by Karen of CPD. The story of the expansion of the street street railways and the surge in subdivision planning and residential development is a very important one in Highlands and Denver's history. It emerged as a very significant middle class residential area from the late 1890 to the early 20th century. And it continues to be treasured by its residents. Today, as Laurie Simmons started to address and several older people have alluded to, the district is notable for its the activity of its women. By approving this historic district and recognizing its strong association with women's history will demonstrate your belief in the importance of women in Denver's history. The story of this often neglected and ensure young girls of future generations that there is a tangible link to those earlier women such as Dr. Mary Ford who paved the way. A number of people have mentioned that the district has about 82% contributing. And the way we assess that is we look to see if properties were built within the period of significance between 1886 and 1940, and about nearly 90% of the buildings were built within that period. We also look to see how altered the buildings are, and essentially a contributing percentage like that indicates that there's relatively few alterations and they maintain their character. I would also an earlier opponent produced a map. I would suggest that you look in your package at the map produced by CPD staff that shows favorable people in green, unfavorable in red, and that map is a sea of green for this district. I urge you to support the designation of the district, and I'm available for any questions, if you have any. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Miss Simmons. Leslie Fogel.
Speaker 12: My name is Leslie Fogle.
Speaker 13: I live on Perry Street outside the district, but I do.
Speaker 6: Work on 30 West Street within the district. So I'm familiar with the area and I'm here just in support of the Packard Hills District designation of the Package Hills District.
Speaker 12: Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. All right. Next five. John Olsen. John Harrell. Ginny Parrott. William Chesser. Jamie Chesser. And that's five. They're the chasers. Okay. Go ahead, journalist.
Speaker 4: Well, hello, my name is John Olsen. I am the director of preservation programs for Historic Denver in my office at 1420 Ogden Street in Denver. I want to thank the City Council for hearing the neighbors tonight and for this opportunity for them to use the tools given by the city to proactively improve our neighborhoods. But those tools, without action, do nothing to implement what those tools are intended for the neighbors before you tonight who have applied for this proposed historic district, have trusted that by using the tools of the historic ordinance, by methodically communicating their wants and needs with their neighborhood, that you will reward them by doing what they ask, by taking action to protect their homes and their neighborhood. Before you as the most thorough, historic district nomination in the history of the city. Packard Hill is right in the middle of an area under rapid change and pressure. The neighbors who have applied wanted to be proactive and manage that change rather than come before council. Every moment that change went awry. It was mentioned right here at council. That for them to be proactive and to band together to plan for the future. These neighbors have done just that. I urge you to vote for this application and make Packard's Hill a historic district. Don't deter a neighborhood's voice. A voice which did everything right to get here and which deserves your vote. Thank you for your consideration.
Speaker 1: Oh, right. Thank you. Mr. Olsen, you had 6 minutes and, uh, right on point. John Harrell. Mr. Harrell.
Speaker 3: Good evening, honorable members of the Denver Chamber of Commerce. My name is John Prescott. Call me. The last name is Harrell. My beautiful wife and I reside in the Cox Gargoyle house on Lowell Boulevard. That's the one that has a dragon out in front. Who are the years? I've lived in a number of places around the world. I was a military person for a long time and I've seen how some communities rise to the top. Others don't rise to the top. However, one of the most important things I've learned is continuity. Continuity and a community continuity and plans continuity and the way things are done. I believe in continuity and I believe in wonderful, good construction. Grandfather Harrell was a guy who did that fancy work like this stuff here. He carved it by hand and he taught me that if you ever do anything, stand behind what you do and make sure that you give it the very best of your talent and your physical skills. Because tomorrow all that will be left of you is nothing but what you have done will last for the lifetime of people. So therefore, when my beautiful wife and I moved to. Denver area. We met. And then we decided we wanted something that matched what my grandparents on both sides taught me. And her parents did the same thing. That's how we wound up in the area we live and the Cox car. All girl horse mix maximizes my belief that things should be strong if made out of stone. I was told to build on a hill so that people could see it. That's why we're there and our community. Just ooze with those qualities. I'd like to see it continue. I'd like to see it being voted upon as yes, because it's a good place for children to grow up and us old people can live the rest of our days. Please say yes to our area. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Good night.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. Harrow. Okay. Come on. Come on, come on. Try not to clap. Okay. Ginny? Ginny, is that her? Ginny p.
Speaker 6: My sister. And she did have to go home.
Speaker 1: She had to go. Okay. Down one. All right, we have the Chester's. What? William Chester.
Speaker 4: I'm wheelchair, sir. My wife Jamie and I live in a non contributing home at 32 Tennessee Street with our two children and we've lived there for the last 11 years. A mere 20 years ago, the family before us bought the home for themselves. And despite the hipsters in the carriage house and a lack of glass on the windows open to the elements, but for shutters, they chose not to tear down, but to make it a home for their own family. And we're so glad that they did. I had a lot of things to say and topics to touch on. Everybody's covered that well. You guys have heard a lot of.
Speaker 2: Information back and.
Speaker 4: Forth. Property prices are going to go up. Property prices are going to go down. You guys know the exacting standards that our application process has gone through. All of the people here that are supporting it. Speak to the importance of this district and its meaningfulness to our city, and I urge you to support the district. Thank you for your time.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. Chesser. Jamie Chesser.
Speaker 12: Good evening, everyone, and thank you.
Speaker 6: City.
Speaker 12: Council members. My family appreciates.
Speaker 6: Your service to this great city. And I'm here tonight to share my.
Speaker 12: Emphatic support for.
Speaker 6: The Packard's Hill Historic District in northwest Denver.
Speaker 12: I am Jamie Chesser as my husband. Well, our son, Hank, five and a.
Speaker 6: Half, is at home with the sitter, as is Vera, who's three and.
Speaker 7: A half.
Speaker 12: And as well said, we live at 3210 Osceola Street. We have a big peace sign.
Speaker 6: On our house. That's how I tell people where we live. And we've lived in the home since of.
Speaker 12: All days, Halloween 2006. And we love this community and we're so happy to call Denver home. We feel we have an extremely unique and special neighborhood in West Highlands. Our little piece of the pie in Denver. And I really appreciate and I've seen this over the last several years more, more so that Denver really recognizes the value in protecting these special places. And the fact that we have a landmark ordinance for over 50 years tells me that the city of Denver and the people of Denver see value in protecting our common history. Earlier, you heard Marilyn Quinn say the quote from Michael Hancock about when we lose homes and houses and restaurants, we lose our soul. I totally agree with that quote. I thought it.
Speaker 6: Was pretty powerful.
Speaker 12: I also sat in these very chambers a couple of.
Speaker 6: Years ago and heard Council President Brooks.
Speaker 12: Asking.
Speaker 6: Us to bring council historic districts rather than trying to preserve homes piecemeal. And we took that to heart, and that's why we're here. So thankfully, the.
Speaker 12: Vast majority of property owners in this area recognize.
Speaker 7: The history of the area and the historic character, the architectural.
Speaker 6: Integrity of the neighborhood.
Speaker 12: And would like to see it preserved for all of Denver and generations to come. I would urge you to please side with the vast majority of the neighbors who value the character that brought so many of us to make our homes here in this place. Please help us make sure that some places in Denver that are truly unique are preserved for all the people of Denver to enjoy.
Speaker 6: And I just urge you again.
Speaker 12: To please help us preserve this very special place in Denver. Thank you for your consideration of our application. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Ms.. Chesser. All right, let's. Five Allison Williams Helm. Poor C cloud. John Paul. Mary, this is graduation. Terry Gulliver. Anita Lynch. Allison Williams how your first.
Speaker 6: Hi there. My name is Alison Williams home. I live at 3244 Main Street in the district that's being proposed here. I am in support of that district. My house is a queen, an 1893. So it's actually older than this period of significance. It's an obnoxious greenhouse, and a lot of people know it just because of that. I'm a fourth generation native of Colorado. I've only lived in Highland for two years. But I want to tell you a quick story about our house. When me and my husband were in the process of buying the house, the family who was selling it to us had lived there, different iterations of the family for 60 years. And they called our realtor no more than three times to ask, Are they serious? Are they going to leave the house standing? Are they going to tear this house down? Are they a family? Do they have kids? And so I would just like to say that to my neighbors. I think that we can get beyond this. And we are very close and we are divided. But I think Don would have been in support of this effort. So thank you.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you, Michelle. Paul C clout.
Speaker 3: My name is Paul Cloyd. My wife and I have lived in our classic cottage at 30, 33 Yates and West Highlands for more than 30 years. I am a registered architect and a licensed professional engineer. I believe the application clearly shows that the Packard Hill District exhibits.
Speaker 4: Significant integrity to warrant designation as a Denver landmark.
Speaker 3: Parkhill is part of the heart of Denver. The district is bookended by exceptionally significant architectural designs. We've already heard of the 1886 Wilbur Bill's Ford house, the Dr. Mary Ford House by the distinguished architect William Quail. This sits at the southwestern corner of the district. And then at the northeastern district, we have the Cox Gargoyle house that you've heard about. In between these bookends, Park Hill is a, as you've heard, a mix of styles over the decades. These styles have.
Speaker 0: Ranged from Queen Anne up to the English Norman Cottages.
Speaker 3: This mix of styles is essential to the the magnetism and the attraction and the importance of this neighborhood. While the homes are of several different styles, there is an undeniable harmony in this multitude of historic homes. The district presents a continuity through its setbacks, the forms, proportions and exterior building materials. The historic district designation and the city's design guidelines are the very best tools for ensuring that these historic homes.
Speaker 0: Are not.
Speaker 3: Lost. The West Highlands Neighborhood Association Design and Preservation Committee, which I serve on, feels that the design guidelines can be of help to all owners in West Highlands of Historic Homes. While the committee often assists owners within the existing districts of Wolf and Coast, we are now offering that assistance to any owner of a historic house in West Highlands at their discretion. I can assure you that we see a number of projects coming through in Wolf and Ghost into pop tops, etc. These are not static districts, but we are getting some good projects coming through and in fact we have a popped up bungalow that we felt so good about. We forward it to the Mayor's Design Award Committee. It didn't succeed, but it was a really nice job. I'm grateful to have had a small part in uncovering a part of the story of Packard's Hill and sharing that story with the people of Denver. Please protect this part of the heart of Denver. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, sir. John Paul Murray.
Speaker 4: Good evening. My name is John Palmieri. I live on Osceola between 30th and 32nd in the Wolfe Place Historic District. I'm here today to share our experience that with all due respect, it is an added burden, and I understand that. But the burdens that have been in place have not been unreasonable or undue. We've been through the process. It's worked for us. It's worked for a number of houses on our block. There have been three that have been renovated, and I respect the concerns that are expressed. But it has to be a balance and that there are added burdens, but there are existing burdens, and that this isn't a situation where you have unlimited access or unlimited ability to do whatever you want with your house, their existing provisions in place, they have to be addressed.
Speaker 3: The added burdens have not been reasonable.
Speaker 4: Versus that the economic boom we're in now.
Speaker 3: Will not last forever if we don't protect the history of our city. It will be lost forever. Ask that you support the district.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Thank you, sir. Terry Gulliver.
Speaker 2: Thank you. I just checked my clock to see if I should say good.
Speaker 3: Morning.
Speaker 2: And thank you. My name is Terry Gulliver. I live at 227 South Lincoln, which is in the middle of the relatively new Lincoln historic district. Congress Councilman Clark's district, where Quinn and district are small one. I'd like to just speak briefly to some of the concerns that have been raised. From my experience with that. When our application was being processed, we became aware that one of the houses in the middle of the block, in fact the oldest one of William Lang's early and perhaps slightly klutzy experiments, was going to come on the marketplace, and we knew it would be scraped, and then that would be the end of our district because we would lose our critical mass. So a bunch of neighbors got together and formed an LLC to restore this place. And when they got our application approved, living just two doors down the street. I've been supervising a lot of the early construction phase of that house, and since it got complicated, we've had general contractor run it. But I supervise a lot of the early stuff personally and got to see just what the prices were. And I can say that it really did not add a lot of incremental burden to go through the permitting. And when we had questions, the historical stuff was very helpful on the phone and sometimes we went in with drawings and things to talk through them and they were much more help than hindrance. And somebody talked about the old red brick houses being crumbly and deserving to be bulldozed. And at one stage I thought that about this place as well. We I think we can now have a buffalo tango inside that house. It wasn't really that onerous, a matter of cementing the two layers of brick and the foundations. One of the concern that I heard somebody voiced, and I'm surprised that I only heard it once, was insurance rates going up. That was brought up on our application as well. And that's, shall I say, bogus. It just doesn't happen. If it does, your insurance company needs to be changed. So I would definitely second the sentiments of the gentleman who spoke before me and I'll get out of your way. Thank you.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you, Miss Gulliver. Anita Lynch.
Speaker 6: Good evening and thank you all for letting us speak and for staying awake. I live with this guy at 227 South Lincoln Street. We are in that home. Our home was historically designated and unanimously approved by the city council. So thank you. We did our home first and then our block of 200 South Lincoln. And it it has been a wonderful experience. We know that it does increase the value we've already seen as we've had three or two people since it was approved that relocated to different cities. Their homes went under contract immediately. I talked to one of the people who was buying one of the homes and I said they moved here from California. And I said, What made you pick this home? Why did you want this house? And they said, We lived in a historic district in California. And when we came here, we told our realtor, we only want to see homes in a historic district. So it is not onerous in that manner. I think a lot of times we operate from fear and I think fear can override sometimes. I've seen this for myself, my own good judgment. I understand the fear of people here that you're not going to be able to do what you want to do to your home. We have standards anyhow within our city. We you know, if you want to be able to do whatever you want to do to a home, I guess you go live in the boonies somewhere. I don't know. But it is not it is not onerous. We've seen this. And I want to read just quickly from one of our neighbors who could not be here tonight. They live at 2 to 4 South Lincoln Street. There in our district is Carolyn Alden and Eric Bennett. And this is what they said. As owners in this historic block, we take great solace in the fact that none of the neighboring homes will be allowed to be torn down by a developer, by developers to construct what appears to be temporary solutions to the growing population, many being eyesores on the landscape. Historic designation is a must to maintain the integrity and value of these neighborhoods, no matter when they were built. We have gone through landmark preservation approval for modification to the exterior, and by providing a complete accurate submission, we received landmark approval very quickly. We believe when buying a historic home, you have a responsibility that comes with it to maintain that authenticity for future generations. We offer support to Packard Hill's neighborhood, and I also offers strong support and I hope council will vote in favor of this and preserve this neighborhood. Thank you all.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Ms.. Lynch. All right. The last two. Gertrude Grant, Stockton Baker. Bring us home. Well, Mr. Grant, you're up first.
Speaker 15: And I'm still standing. I can't believe it. My name is Gertrude O'Grady Grant. I live at 242 South Lincoln Street, Denver. And no, I do not live in the Packard Hill historic district. But I urge you to support this district. As Nita and Terri have just testified, a couple of us got together and bought a house in the historic district in which my house is located. And also this house that we bought across the street that we were afraid was going to be torn down and threaten the integrity of the row of houses that would soon be included in our historic district. We're making new numerous improvements, several of which required approval by the Landmark Commission. And if you get a decent.
Speaker 6: Architect who knows the.
Speaker 1: Price, it's grim. This grant was great. Mr.. Ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho! Just if you wait. Whoa, whoa, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. Know, just. Just just talk to us.
Speaker 15: We thank you, architect. Who knows the system, knows the rules. Things go through landmark like that. It does not take a long time. Any delays that we have were not caused by the landmark designation was caused by the scarcity of construction workers in Denver's boom time. In any decision like this, it's impossible to find 100% support. And it's true there are going to be people who, for whatever reason. I think most of it is fed by fear and false information, are not going to support historic designation. Some claim that creating the historic district is the taking of property rights. I disagree. Yes, it impacts what you can do with your property, but it gives you guidelines that you can follow in order to preserve the character and integrity of your neighborhood. In fact, even though the statistics show that property values have increased ie in historic districts, that to me is not the most important thing. The most important thing is that it gives a security that is gained by knowing that the houses on your block can't be changed in ways that destroy the character of the neighborhood and make it totally incongruous. Denver strives to be sustainable, yet construction debris is approximately a quarter of the landfill waste. Old growth, oak and brick from demolished houses go to the landfill. Our old brick houses can be renovated and and remodeled for larger families. We cannot replace the craftmanship not only inside, but the brick detail outside, over the doors and windows, on the chimneys and along the facades and sides of these older houses. What will we show the next generation as great grandchildren that we value? Ms.. Grant.
Speaker 1: Your time is up.
Speaker 15: Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Okay. Wow. Stockton Baker. Number nine. Number nine. Bring us.
Speaker 3: Home.
Speaker 6: My name is Stockton Baker. I live at 435 Humboldt Street. My wife and I live in the Valley Park Place Circle District. Bottom line is the best decision ever made.
Speaker 15: If you want to preserve the character of your neighborhood, you vote for this. If you don't care about the character neighborhood, you can't control your neighborhood. You vote against it. I urge your support to vote.
Speaker 6: Yes.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Baker. And with that, ladies and gentlemen, the comment portion of this public hearing is now complete. Thank you all for being here. Thank you for being very patient. We will now go into questions by members of council. Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. President. I know a lot of folks have left and I hope some of them are still here. I had some questions for Christina and Alex Holderness. Are they still here? Hi.
Speaker 3: Hi.
Speaker 2: 3221. Osceola, do you live there?
Speaker 0: We do not. Not currently.
Speaker 2: You're on Marion Street? Yes. Eighth, eighth and Marion basically.
Speaker 0: Between eighth and ninth. Yes, sir.
Speaker 2: Okay. And you bought this house in 2009 for about $255,000.
Speaker 0: You're looking at public record, obviously.
Speaker 2: Yes. Okay. What's your intention to.
Speaker 0: As I stated in my comments, the intention was to knock that house down and build a house for ourselves that we could make our own home and grow old.
Speaker 2: And so then you would move from Marion to Marion Street?
Speaker 0: Absolutely. Our intention to move from Marion when we had the funds to knock that house down and build a modern house.
Speaker 2: Okay. All right. Thank you. Is Mark Macaluso here? Hi. You build a duplex and while you're walking up to the microphone and I took a look at that online and it completely out of character with the neighborhood. What why did you decide on that particular? It looks kind of like a cube sitting in the middle of these bungalows. Why did you decide to build a house of that style in this particular neighborhood?
Speaker 3: Well, as I said earlier, or life in general, what makes our country great is diversity. And, you know, I wanted a house to appeal to more than just one set of people. And the people that I have in the other side of the house are very fine, upstanding people. So. I mean, I just I like diversity. I moved into the neighborhood not because of.
Speaker 2: The houses, but because of where.
Speaker 3: That's where the proximity it's located. And and quite frankly, I think you can ask most people here, and they're going to say that the charm of the Packard Hill district is the feel, the quiet, the peacefulness, the neighborhood, the it's it's quaint. It's not necessarily the houses. I mean, it's located right next to Denver. So you have urban living. And that's that's an appeal to most people. I wanted to live in the city and I didn't want to live downtown. Right. You know, in the heart of the city. So you get the urban feel, plus the neighborhood feel at the same time. So I wanted to maximize the square footage of the house because I wanted families to be able to move in their multi. You know, I wanted people more than just a husband and wife. I wanted family, kids. I mean, that's why this neighborhood is is appealing. And you ask and you look at the just look at the demographics on both sides. You see young and you see old. Right. So if you if you want a home. Okay. Sorry, I just I back you younger, more experienced. Yes.
Speaker 2: As someone who just signed up for Social Security, I resemble that remark. Thank you. Either way. Either way. I'm glad you let me ask.
Speaker 3: One of the ability for for families to grow. Thank you. And that's the vibrant appeal in the neighborhood.
Speaker 2: All right. Thank you. Kara, can I ask you a couple of questions? And based on some of these in the presentation I saw there was a house as actually somebody testified here. And you mentioned there's a house in the Wyman District that has a glass cube in the rear.
Speaker 6: Yes.
Speaker 2: And how was that allowed? That's an exterior modification. Is it just because you couldn't see it from the street?
Speaker 14: Yes. So it wasn't highly visible from the street. And so you can use modern you can use modern.
Speaker 6: Materials or.
Speaker 14: Other materials. But yet and.
Speaker 2: That's an historic district in the Wyman District. And and I looked at it while you were testifying, and it looks kind of bizarre. Can you put solar panels on a house that's in a historic district?
Speaker 14: Yes, there are design guidelines for it, but yes, they can be put in a historic district.
Speaker 2: Okay. And there was one individual, Matthew Brown, who said he would not be able to pop his top. Okay. That would be financially irresponsible. What are what are the guidelines for expanding and popping a top on a on a historic house in a historic district? That's a craftsman one story. What what obstacles are in the way of that that are not present in a non historic district.
Speaker 14: So the design guidelines call for tafsir and you know sort of additions to be set 15 back from 15 feet back from the front facade, which would probably be what they're talking about is probably the largest. Difference between that and not in the historic district.
Speaker 2: Okay. Thank you. That's all, Mr. President, for now.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you, Councilman Flynn. Good questions, Councilman Castro.
Speaker 3: Don't. Don't sit down. It was so close.
Speaker 1: Yeah. You might as well just sit up there.
Speaker 3: Just some basic numbers. How many units, how many residences are in the proposed district?
Speaker 14: So there are 173 properties. When we send out our letters for the assessors, we sent out two one in June and one in August, and we pulled the current assessor records for each of those, and we sent out 185 letters one time and a 184. So that's how many letters we sent out to property owners. That could be two people on a particular who owned one building, but we sent out 100 and about 185 letters.
Speaker 3: We don't have a precise number as to the. Number of homes in the district.
Speaker 14: So there's 173 buildings there. You know, we don't have the precise number of addresses.
Speaker 3: Okay. 173 buildings. And how many are non-conforming?
Speaker 14: I want to say like 41, but I'd have to double check the numbers. It's 82% are contributing and 18% are not.
Speaker 3: Okay. And I assume you don't have detailed numbers like how many bungalow, how many queen in classic cottages, etc..
Speaker 14: Those that those are within the it is within the application. I would have to pull it up, but they are in the application.
Speaker 3: Bless you. Thank you very much. And then one other thing to follow up on what Councilman Flynn had to say. The solar panel thing, you said there are some design guidelines.
Speaker 14: So, yes, the guidelines address solar panels and they call for the solar panels to be on the rear two thirds of the building or anywhere on an accessory structure.
Speaker 3: Okay. That's all I have for right now. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilman Castro and Councilwoman Black.
Speaker 10: Thank you. I'm not sure who I'm asking this question of, but maybe we'll start with you, Kara. So I'm still not clear on who is in favor of it and who is opposed. I was the person who requested the green and red map, but I know that it's not entirely complete. And this group provided a map that and they said they have 75 that are opposed, which this map has something like 21 opposed. So that that is a vast difference. And personally, I can't make a decision with that big of a discrepancy.
Speaker 6: So. So so the.
Speaker 14: Map that we. Yeah, yeah. Sorry. The map that we created incorporated all of the comments that CPD had received. And it came from a variety of sources. It came from public comments, both in support and opposition, a petitions that the applicant submitted. It came from letters that had been forwarded from City Councilmember Sussman. Councilwoman Sussman said forwarded a lot to us. And so it was an aggregate of all of the the public comments that CPD had received prior to submitting our staff report for our deadline. And so what is on that map reflects what we had received at that point. There was a petition that we received after, you know, on Friday that was not incorporated into our staff.
Speaker 6: Report.
Speaker 14: From the people in opposition.
Speaker 10: And did you evaluate that or it was just too late?
Speaker 14: I mean, I didn't do as thorough evaluation as I had with the petition from the supporters because it had come with enough time. So I had gone through looked at all of those and about for about 75% of those petitions, I had pulled up the assessor records to make sure we were matching on those. I didn't do that for the petition in opposition because I just simply didn't have the time to go through and do the assessor today.
Speaker 3: What they.
Speaker 10: And. Okay, thank you. And so whoever put this together, can you come? Okay.
Speaker 0: Notification. If you'd like it, we can provide you with the petition, with all the signatures and the addresses. My wife who submitted that map, if you'd like to see it again, I'm happy to show it to you. I spent three weekends walking the entire district, knocking house by house and delivering fliers and asking people if they were in support, if they were willing to, or if they were willing to support the Keep West Highlands Free Petition. We met myself. I walked at least 60% of the district and gathered most of those signatures on Oakland.
Speaker 6: Is that what this is?
Speaker 0: That's what this is. That would be the signatures distilled into an Excel. Yes, that's what this represents. So I actually know by knocking on the door and getting those signatures because she did it and I did it, that there's 75 people who signed it. At least. Does that answer your question?
Speaker 10: It does, but I it leaves me in an uncomfortable position because I don't have.
Speaker 8: May I may I.
Speaker 10: Come in confidence in either one of these?
Speaker 0: May I comment while I completely respect and understand the process that Landmark uses? The Landmark Commission had ample opportunity and was addressed numerous times regarding the potential opposition. As a matter of fact, when Landmark presented in this building about a month ago, the opposition was prohibited from making any statement to try and clarify numbers which we believe were misrepresented at that time. I personally spoke to the representative from Landmark and told her that she was vastly underestimating and underrepresented in the opposition. So it is my opinion that Landmark had either no intention or just no time, as Carol said, to run down the fact that there were continuously opposition people in these meetings when we were allowed to be there and when it was beneficial to us.
Speaker 10: Thank you. I was at the looting meeting and.
Speaker 0: Yes. And it's not our place to speak at that meeting. We understand that.
Speaker 10: I do. I did sort of keep track of people speaking tonight. And by my accounts, more than half of the proponents who spoke don't actually live in the district, which I find troubling. I did count, I think, five opponents who don't live in the district. But that's all I have for now.
Speaker 1: Councilman Clark.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. President. A couple of themes are emerging. I want to go back for a second to the solar panels.
Speaker 8: So maybe this is an area that we need to.
Speaker 2: Do some work on with our code. It was presented earlier by someone that.
Speaker 8: Well, yes, they are allowed.
Speaker 2: The restrictions are so restrictive that of everyone who's ever applied to put solar panels in a historic district, every single one of them has been told no. Is that a true fact?
Speaker 14: Not that I would be aware of. We I'd say we get 3 to 5 applications a month that we review and approve of solar panels. The majority of those are approved administratively. There are occasionally ones that go before the Landmark Preservation Commission. But we it's not the thing that we see the most often, but we see on a fairly regular basis.
Speaker 2: Is there any way you could just follow up with that data on how many have been applied, how many have been approved, how many have been denied? Is that data available somewhere.
Speaker 14: And not readily available? We could do some work and start pulling back.
Speaker 4: And talk about that of mind. Now to the maps. I find the maps also highly.
Speaker 2: Confusing and contradictory. In fact, as I'm looking at the two of them, I have them both pulled up here.
Speaker 4: There are places.
Speaker 2: Where the opposition map is red X is.
Speaker 4: Not. I can't tell what house they're on top of.
Speaker 8: The the.
Speaker 4: The map you've provided has addresses. So the only.
Speaker 2: Place I can really tell is a glaring.
Speaker 4: Disparity is on.
Speaker 3: Osceola, it looks like.
Speaker 8: You know, on the top left.
Speaker 2: Part of the map, if you're looking at it, it's all green from the corner in four. One, two, three, four, five, six houses on your map. And there are four.
Speaker 4: No dots.
Speaker 2: That looks to be those same exact houses on your map. So, one, can you speak to what might be going on there? And then if you guys can come back up, you did that and you knocked on doors and you knock on doors. You often run into people who don't own the house, rent the house. What kind of verification did you guys do? But how what what what do you think is going on there?
Speaker 14: So part of it is there are people who signed the petition both for and against or signed one or the other petitions and sent a letter either for and against. So there was one letter that I received prior to submitting a staff report that said I had initially signed the petition, but I'm actually in opposition, so we took them off of the support to the opposed. But I know that there is some level of conflict in that, given that people have voiced to opinions on the same topic.
Speaker 2: And would you would you guys mind coming up and talking to how did you confirm that it was a property owner and not a renter? When you're going door to door, you're most likely to run into whoever lives there.
Speaker 4: I can speak to that. I'm Kevin O'Connell, and I was also involved with the data collection and the petition. As you see, I was the holder of the petition and I personally checked all on the assessor's records of the signatures we had. I was aware of one disparity out of the 75 that we have down. I can tell you that I'm aware of three people that were on the proponents or three signatures or addresses on the proponents petition to no longer living in the neighborhood and one that changed their mind. So I'm pretty confident. I think when I ran the last numbers today, I think we were if there were also three who signed both. So if I took those people off like the police, whoever is at their door, yeah, they nullified each other or something. And then, um, the. I don't, I couldn't tell you, but you're pretty confident if.
Speaker 2: I were to go here through what you guys have provided in terms of petition, name and address, you have verified through the assessor's office that the signatures you had are, in fact the property owners, not the property residents.
Speaker 4: Correct. I would sign an affidavit to that effect. Like I said, I know of one personally that there was disparity in the records.
Speaker 2: Versus the signature. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President. Sure.
Speaker 1: All right, Councilman Clark. Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 4: Mr. O'Connell.
Speaker 1: Sorry. Both you and Kara should stick around here on this front. So is it. And maybe actually, since you didn't do the poster. But is it your understanding that everybody who signed the petition is now showing up? Showing up as a red X?
Speaker 4: That's correct, I believe. There are 75 red X's on the map.
Speaker 1: Okay, Kara, when you do the map that you prepared for us, do you treat that the same way you sort of do with it? I mean, you actually do with a protest petition in that it has to be in order for for it to count as a full building, it has to have the title holders. So if it's only if there are two named parties on the title, it has to be both or anybody who lives at that house.
Speaker 14: So the petition, the signature petition that was put together by the applicants. That's the manner that they went forward, that you had to have everyone on the assessor record before they provided it to us, says comment that they were in support. And then, like I said, I went through and checked about 75% of those. Just to make sure that they were accurate. So from that sense that what was submitted. To us in what I could check. Those were the property owners.
Speaker 1: Okay. This is a question for the city attorney. Do you how can you make sure that the exhibit, the petition exhibit is is in your hands over there?
Speaker 13: Which.
Speaker 1: The one submitted today by the opposition.
Speaker 8: Adam Hernandez, Assistant.
Speaker 4: City Attorney I do not have that exhibit with me like the.
Speaker 1: One that they just handed to Councilman Black. But the wording here strikes me as is very, very odd. The statement at the top says, Our goal is to get the. No, no one has that yet. Hold on here. Well, everyone should have it on their email, but. Yeah, but we're having people catch up. All right. So it says our goal is to give a voice to residents who are opposed or ambivalent to the formation of the Packard Hill historic district. Adam, do you see that? Yes. Those are two very, very different conditions. Opposition or ambivalence? The code is I mean, are our processes very much treat. Ambivalence is sort of a is a benign position, neither for nor against. So would it be appropriate in a petition like this to indicate a signature and signature as being opposed? Is this really an acceptable petition?
Speaker 4: I really have no comment on that. This is something that's outside of the designation process. That would be a question more.
Speaker 2: Appropriate for the people who went through.
Speaker 1: This. Know, I ask because it sounds like council is giving this some credence, but yet it has the language, both opposition and ambivalence in the statement, the petition statement.
Speaker 4: So could I ask Council to read the line below that statement, please? We, the undersigned, are concerned citizens who urge our city council.
Speaker 3: To vote against the.
Speaker 4: Formation of the district. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Um, Councilman, do you have another question? So, I mean.
Speaker 4: It looks like the.
Speaker 1: Classic fine print. One of these is clearly much bolder than the other and no indication on how this was portrayed. I strongly suggest I mean, I spoke with you at length on how to, how to make this case, um, in, in consistent with the criteria and to put language like that is very concerning. Um, so I did have other questions for Kara. First, I wanted to thank her for the examples that were provided that Councilman Flynn had talked about. Because the there's a. It demonstrated a great deal of creativity that can be explored in landmarks. How can you confirm the 99% approval rate that was mentioned on landmark reviews?
Speaker 14: What goes before the Landmark Preservation Commission? I couldn't confirm that based on those numbers. It's about I would estimate it's about a 90 to 95%. But I have not run the numbers recently to be able to give a firm confirmation of what's come before the commission and been approved in the last year.
Speaker 6: Okay.
Speaker 1: Would there be landscape restrictions and does the approval rate of 90 to 95% also include those reviews as well?
Speaker 14: So so there is a section in the design guidelines that do address landscape. It's. Basically hardscape mean anything that requires a permit. So if you're looking to put in a fence or retaining wall, so far it requires a permit. So it's basically it's basically hardscape. Yes.
Speaker 1: It doesn't usually have the same approval rate. Or is it lumped into that now?
Speaker 14: Yes. So. So that approval rating is what goes before the Landmark Preservation Commission, as I believe what he was speaking to. And so what goes before the commission is about a 90 to 95% approval would be my estimation.
Speaker 1: And do you know what percent of Denver's city land area is designated or not designated?
Speaker 14: Our guys person at CPD estimates it at about 4% of the properties within Denver are historic districts or individual landmarks.
Speaker 1: Okay. Um. That was it. No further questions. Thank you.
Speaker 4: Councilman Hernan Henderson President, I have a general question. I wonder if anyone else is colder than me and I hope everyone else is cold and I'm not getting sick.
Speaker 1: Kara, I have a question for you.
Speaker 4: Since you were there, we have had people come up and talk about the length of time it takes going through Landmark. And I know you can't speak to individual cases, but can you give me some sort of just general? And if you don't know, I think that's perfectly acceptable. Well, as well how long it extends the process, because if you add in third party, it does extend the process to say that it doesn't is not being honest. So could you try to give us an understanding of how long that takes?
Speaker 14: I can't. And if it's okay, I'll kind of break it down sort of into the three categories I spoke about earlier. So a vast majority of what we do are what we call quick reviews, which is like a replacement. So like when when the hailstorm comes, we'll do a whole bunch of those. That's typically a one day review for us. The smaller projects are typically 10 to 15 business days, just depending on sort of our workflow. We're at sort of peak times summer, so it's probably closer to the 15 day review and those are.
Speaker 6: For.
Speaker 14: It can be for like solar panels, smaller rear additions, things that we can approve administratively. And that's about 75 or 70% of what we do. About 30%, give or take goes to the Landmark Preservation Commission. And those typically are a little longer review. There's a four week filing deadline prior to a commission meeting, and during that four weeks, the idea is that staff can work with the applicant to refine the project so that it is something that can be approved before when it goes before the commission, which is why we want to work with the applicant. But that is about a 4 to 6 week time period. If you're doing some larger infill, that is the longest time period as that is a two part review process.
Speaker 4: So the part, the top example that was given that would be the four week review, I would assume.
Speaker 14: Typically, yes, there is also for rooftop additions, 80 use which are not allowed by zoning in in this particular district right now. And. In full. I go to the Arnaud's for comment and that is a three week time period.
Speaker 4: Okay. So it's it's reasonable to say that there are examples where I could go an extended beyond just a 1 to 10 or 15 days.
Speaker 6: Yeah. Yes.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Kevin O'Connell, I wanted to ask you a question, and I'm staring at your partition, so I don't I don't believe there is any ill intent of trying to deceive people and everyone and grown adults. You should read what you're saying. But your your first point, I just want to ask quickly, and you could just give me a couple of examples. You say you want to add a voice to people that are opposed as if you were implying that you did not have a voice. And if you could just briefly give a couple examples for why you feel that if you're in opposition, that you did not have a voice? Of course, that I think that speaks to one of the problems with the the ordinance that it's designed to make historic districts. It's not designed to give people a voice who are opposed to having their properties incorporated into a historic district. You know, we we did try to foster conversations with our neighbors. It was very difficult. It almost seemed as though we were being told it's our way or the highway, we're going to do this. So there came a point after a couple of years of this that I decided, well, people, we need to know who's actually not for this. It's easier to say nothing than to stand up against something.
Speaker 2: Great. Thank you. Sure.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you. Councilman Herndon, I guess. Councilwoman Gilmore.
Speaker 12: Thank you.
Speaker 6: President Brooks. Kara, I have a couple questions for you. Um.
Speaker 12: Back to the landmark designation criteria on the history piece. I know that we have in your report that there's a direct association with historical.
Speaker 6: Development.
Speaker 12: And that it's women's history. But we're basically talking about seven individuals, four women and three men. And I'm unclear as to did they reside in. I got a little insight from Mr. Moline when he came up and shared that some of these individuals.
Speaker 6: Did not live in the district.
Speaker 12: But I wanted to get more information from you as to the four women and three men. Did they reside in the district? Did they have homes? How long was the duration or did they just have some sort of.
Speaker 4: Association with.
Speaker 6: The area? So those were the.
Speaker 14: People that we highlighted who were or the authors highlighted and then I highlighted in my staff report that resided in the district. So so all the people who were influential in the district, those were people who owned property and or lived in the district, primarily those who lived within the district. And I would also like to if Tom and Lori Simmons are still here, as the authors who did the research, they may have also like more insight than I do as someone who just reviewed the designation.
Speaker 6: So r r.
Speaker 12: So when you say reside or owned property, are we clear that all seven of these individuals resided in the district?
Speaker 14: It's my understanding, yes.
Speaker 6: Okay.
Speaker 12: Do we have their addresses?
Speaker 14: Yes, they are in the designation. I can go and pull those up if you would like.
Speaker 12: Okay. That would be helpful because I have been looking through all the staff reports and all of the information and I don't find it clearly that they actually resided in what their addresses was so that that would be really helpful. And then to the architecture piece. The second criteria.
Speaker 6: That it's significant work of a recognized architect or.
Speaker 12: Master builder. Do you have the number of homes.
Speaker 1: That.
Speaker 6: William Quayle built? In the proposed historic district.
Speaker 14: There's one within the proposed historic district. A number of his. He didn't do a ton of residential. He did a lot of churches, schools, organizational buildings. A number of those have been demolished. So his work is fairly rare now at this point, that is still standing. And so it's an because it's one of the few pieces that are left of his. But it is one property.
Speaker 12: So there's one property for him. And then how many? By David and Tilden.
Speaker 6: Cox family, too. Okay. So there's.
Speaker 12: Three total structures.
Speaker 1: That.
Speaker 12: These architects.
Speaker 6: Yes. In the district.
Speaker 12: Okay. And then back to the the map. So. I share the concerns of my colleagues because going through on the first map that you had sent us, you know, immediately we started counting up the number of addresses that were on the map, and we came up with 180 addresses. 70 addresses were in support. That comes up to 39%. 22 were opposed for 12%. But was what was most troubling to me was that 88% were non-responsive, and that's 49%. That's the highest percentage. Could you talk a little bit I know that you sent letters out. It sounds like there were some community meetings, but. But what is the process to hopefully get that? What is clearly a majority of at least those addresses that we were able to count up to, to speak with those folks and have a conversation with them.
Speaker 14: So so I participated in two public meetings that were held in January and February of this year. There were 35 to 40, maybe 45 people at each meeting. So we we spoke with, you know, answered any questions. And then I stayed. And if anyone had any questions afterwards that I was happy to answer with those. We sent out a CPD to notification letters that were to all property owners based on assessor records, so that we were making sure to hit all the property owners and notify them first of the Preservation Commission upcoming meeting. And then as well as letting them know that if it went through that it would go to the planning board. And then providing my contact information, as well as the landmark general landmark in box, if they had questions to send it that way and then sent a second letter in August, pulled the assessor records again and sent another notification letter, making sure that everyone knew that it had gone through and Preservation Commission in the Planning Board and was now starting through the city council process.
Speaker 12: Okay. All right. I think that's all my questions for right now. All right. Thank you. Thank you. President Brooks.
Speaker 1: Yep. Thank you, Councilwoman Gilmore. Councilwoman Black backup. Actually, Councilwoman Black. We have Councilwoman Kenny and Lopez and accused that. Okay, they have an ask a question you can each.
Speaker 12: Thank you, Mr. President. Couple questions, I think, for Kara. Can you just clarify for me very quickly the difference in terms of process for contributing versus non contributing? Building someone who is a non contributing building mentioned to me that they would go through the same process but without the tax credits. And I wanted to clarify that.
Speaker 14: So, yes, so when you're within the historic district, it goes through the design review process, whether it's contributing or non contributing, the changes that could be allowed to a non contributing are obviously different because that property could be demolished, whereas it's highly unusual for the Landmark Preservation Commission to approve the demolition of a contributing building. So the. They still go through the design review process, but it's slightly more I don't know if lenient is the correct word, but there are probably more exceptions that are approved by the commission or by staff.
Speaker 12: Okay. Thank you. And you actually touched on my next question, which is about the question of demolition. So there is eventually a lifecycle to a property, whether it be structural or materials breaking down. And so again, we had a speaker who said that you cannot demolish even if you have a structural or, you know, the materials are no longer sound. Is that accurate, that there's there's no end to the lifetime here?
Speaker 14: They typically it goes to the Landmark Preservation Commission, if it's a contributing structure. And they do not frequently approve demolitions. But if it if there's life safety, if there's something like that that is demonstrated, it could be demolished. It's just not simply that there's something that typically occurs. We. Yeah. And you can't go through an economic hardship process, but that is also fairly rare.
Speaker 12: Can you just clarify for me? I'm sorry, Mr. President. I'm just. If you let me know if I go too long. But is there a standard that says, like, if you have, you know, if your foundation is shot, you don't have to spend $1,000,000 to redo a foundation just to say, you know what I mean? Like, is there a written standard in the guidelines that have been talked about?
Speaker 14: There's a written policy that we have that that is available and that they would need to then demonstrate from, you know, from a structural engineer or someone who can say that this is structurally unsound. And you can say that it proved that it can't be salvaged or something like that, then it would go for the then they would review it that way. But yes, they can go and provide that information, but they do have to provide details that it can't be repaired or rehabilitated.
Speaker 12: Great. Thank you. I have a question for one of the folks who was involved in the protest petition, and I hesitate to wade back into that, but I keep hearing 75 signatures, which is people. And I just want to clarify if every red X is a person or if every red x is a property because those are very different.
Speaker 4: Happy to clarify that we have over 100 signatures that represents 75 properties, addresses, residents.
Speaker 12: Yeah. Thank you for clarifying that. And then I don't know if Marie or one of the applicants wants to answer, but did you all have a conversation about a conservation overlay? And if so, what was your reasoning in not pursuing that option or what was what was considered at any point? It might have been early before your application, or it might have been after. But did you have a serious conversation with the conservation?
Speaker 6: Yeah. Well, let me start by saying that some of us actually have experience trying to create overlays, and that includes pretty much me in the room. I don't know if there are other people and Trevor So we know some of the pitfalls and some of the difficulties with that. We also know that for this particular intent, it being that we want to keep the historic homes in this neighborhood, an overlay doesn't do that and overlay an overlay would probably be more suitable if you had a district which is identical buildings where they all have the same form and the same roof pitch, etc., etc. because then you could take one of them and say, This is our model. If we want to encourage commerce, excuse me, if we want to encourage construction that similar to this, here is the blueprint for what that needs to look like. As we've heard, we have Queen Anne's that are very different from Denver Squares, that are very different from terraces or duplexes as we think of them sometimes. And there just simply isn't an easy way to create an overlay that would mandate one kind of form when we have a mixture, an almost even mixture of four or five different forms. But most of all, we also know from experience, and I'm going to cite the Highlands, not West Highland, but the Highlands which are east of us, where the three overlays that went through recently I think took about ten years. So a, an overlay doesn't stop the loss of historic homes. And also if they take 5 to 10 years to create, we will have lost the neighborhood already, which is why I said in my intro that this is the tool we have available now. Also, I have not heard any kind of serious attempt at defining what an overlay might be. So I don't I don't think that there was a serious attempt at that from the other side now and then.
Speaker 12: This is my last question, Mr. President. So I wanted to go back to the criteria, and I think I'm clarifying a question that Councilman Gilmore was asking of the staff, but. Correct. Can you clarify for me in some and I read a lot of stuff, so I can't promise to point to whether this was in the application or supporting material and where it might be in the record. But is is the historic contribution of women just based on the named women or it's based also on a higher percentage of ownership of properties by women? So I just wanted to clarify, if we're hanging our hat just on the names of individuals or whether it's other historical facts about the district, because I read somewhere or heard somewhere in the process about this this larger percentage of ownership by women. And I just want to clarify when I'm evaluating the criteria, if that is if I can consider that or if I cannot.
Speaker 14: So there were there was higher ownership of women in this particular area. There was higher owner. More women who are involved in sort of the development of it in the the selling and buying of the property or in the construction, as well as the women who were named. And then there were the women who, just as a whole that were residing there that were heavily influential in the temperance movement. So it was the the women that were highlighted specifically, as well as those who owned or and or worked and then were involved in social movements, specifically the temperance movement.
Speaker 12: So and I just want to be really lawyerly here. Sorry. So and those are not just facts that you all have researched about the district, but they are facts that are tied up together in the criteria of the historic meeting, the statutory criteria. So so the other things that you just confirmed are actually relevant to your analysis of the criteria. They're not just side facts.
Speaker 14: No, no. We feel like this is a good, really good representation of Denver's women's history. And it wasn't something that I think the applicants expected to find in that. And so in finding that they were able to find that these buildings represent a portion of women who lived there and their achievements, and therefore is part of the criteria, because the buildings reflect the history of that time and of that era. And so it reflects the women who lived there, who were involved in the temperance movement that changed the way the area was annexed. And so that is part of our criteria as to why it's there, part of the history. Did that.
Speaker 12: Clarify? Yes. Thank you for clarifying. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you, Councilwoman Canete. We're going to pop down to Councilman Lopez.
Speaker 8: Yeah. Thank you, Mr. President. One of my questions was addressed, but I just wanted to in hearing the deliberations, I just wanted to ask, I think is it the applicant? Um. For the district. One. I mean, there was a lot of talk about what you can and cannot build in the back as opposed to the front. And it's a little different from. It's a little different from from a overlays on district mean the last overlay zone district that I was able to be a part of was in your district councilman was San Rafael with the O D9 overlay. And I just wanted to ask somebody.
Speaker 1: On the you might want to ask you want to ask Kara. Yeah. Yeah.
Speaker 8: So I heard testimony tonight about inability to add rooms, to add space. These are kind of small homes. And if they didn't have a if they wouldn't able to do it with the, you know, expecting kids and the growth of a family, they did have to move. What are some of the things that can be done in a district like this with the typical home that's in this and this area? So in terms of expansion.
Speaker 14: Rates, so something that would be. Yes. So as I was saying, there are like administrative reviews, which is about 75, 70% of what staff does are 70% of the work that we do. So you can do like rear additions if they're, you know, subordinate to the structure, which just basically means they're inset about four inches on the side and they're not readily visible. So rear additions are something that we review on a daily basis, review and approve on a daily basis. People, if they didn't want to do a full pop up, we often recommend with these types of houses to add dormers and then create space and be able to get a second floor through Dormers either on the side or the rear. You can do a side addition. A side edition would go before the Landmark Preservation Commission, typically because that's more readily visible and depending on how far setback it is. So there are a variety of ways to meet the design guidelines and expand a property, but they do have to meet the design guidelines.
Speaker 8: And each of that a little each one of those is different, depending on the home. Mm hmm. I mean, I've been on the structure, and it goes in front of the board.
Speaker 14: Just depending on. So our ordinance says that if it clearly meets the design guidelines and is not readily visible landmarks, staff can approve that the application. If it is readily visible, it's on the front facade or it doesn't very clearly meet the design guidelines. It can go before the Commission and the Commission can approve something, even if it doesn't meet the design guidelines, whereas staff cannot. And so it just depends on the size and the visibility as to whether or not it's something staff can approve or it goes to the commission.
Speaker 8: Error or how frequent are those kind of applications or no application for those kind of requests in front of the commission? And do you see any from some of the surrounding areas in this historic district? I know we have a bunch of them throughout Denver. So I just you know, I want to see if there's anything around.
Speaker 14: Yes. I would say Potter Highlands is one of our busiest historic districts. They also can do 80 use as allowed by zoning. So we see a lot of use coming in from there. But we see projects in Wolf and Ghost as well. And I've seen a rare edition, a side edition, seeing dormer scene pop tops. That is not unusual. We see those on a regular basis and get those on an almost daily basis.
Speaker 8: Okay. I just I want to I wanted to get a sense of how frequent this can happen. And it just may appear like it was almost impossible with some of the testimony. So I'm just trying to get that that sense of of just that that sense from you as somebody who sees it on a daily basis.
Speaker 14: Yeah. And I would say that it also depends on in, you know. How clearly the application, you know, like our timeframe depends on how clearly the application is in either the materials, is there a site plan, do the plans have dimensions? You know, so, so just getting a complete application sometimes can take a little bit longer, but with a complete application, we also highly encourage people to do come in for a pre application. Meeting with us allows us to give the opportunity to provide comment without a large expense in to architects to say we think that this would be something that would be, you know, administratively approvable or something that would go to the commission. But we like to provide that opportunity before people spend a lot of time, money or effort on a design that would not clearly meet the design guidelines. And it makes for a smoother process.
Speaker 8: What are some of the restrictions? And my last question, Mr. President, if I am able to proceed, is on landscaping and some of the some of the details on the landscaping.
Speaker 4: What well.
Speaker 8: What do you regulate and what's not allowed? I mean, I trying to get a grasp on that as well, too.
Speaker 14: Right. So so we don't regulate vegetation. We don't regulate your trees and we don't regulate what you plant. It's basically in general can be boiled down to hardscape. Does it require a permit? Are you trying to pave something? Are you trying to put in a fence in you know, in this particular district, the Denver Hill, which is sort of that role, is not a character defining feature of this particular district. So there would be higher retaining walls and that kind of thing, that or fencing in the front that would be approvable and would meet the design guidelines for this district because the Denver Hall is not part of the character defining feature of that district.
Speaker 4: Okay.
Speaker 8: That that that does clarify a lot for me because I think I mean, like I mentioned before, I mean, we've seen a few of these go by and sometimes it's easy to confuse these with overlay district uses and and the intricacies based on what wherever but whatever part of the city that you're on. I just want to try to get familiarized with what is a use by right in in in a universe like this in a situation like this. So so what you're saying is through the process, it's not uncommon to do additions that are not readily visible from the front pop tops, things like that. The other thing that you clarified was landscaping. It's not uncommon to be able to put a retaining wall if you can, if need be. And I think a lot of these things require permits anyway. I mean, I know I know anything, any time. I mean, I'm guilty of this. Put a six foot fence up because I thought, hey, I could put up a six foot fence. Look at me. I could build a six foot fence, I. I had to go get a permit after the fact. And it's happened a long, long time ago, but I didn't realize it. How did you realize that you needed a permit for a measly six foot fence?
Speaker 1: Okay. Thank you. Councilman Lopez.
Speaker 8: Well, I like to turn myself in for this.
Speaker 1: We'll have the inspectors out there tomorrow. Let's see. You know, I'm going to. I know everybody's getting back in the queue, but I'm a skip. Skip down to New and Ortega. You haven't gone yet. Go ahead.
Speaker 9: Okay. Oh, Marie, can I ask you a question? Help us with the last mapping or survey question. But did you did you survey residents in the neighborhood, in the district?
Speaker 6: Yes. Do you mean in terms of did we ask for a response?
Speaker 1: Yes. Yes.
Speaker 9: Can you describe the process?
Speaker 6: Yes, absolutely. So we started knocking on doors about 20 months ago, January, February of 2016, and we invited people for neighborhood coffee. Some people showed up. Some people did not. We continued door knocking. If anyone said that they were in support, we asked them to sign a form, like I mentioned. Later on we started pressing a little bit harder. So we were asking people for a response whether yay or nay. And we started doing that in December of 2016. And we had a super simple two question survey on the Internet to for people to respond and only. 17 people who are opposed took that survey to say they were opposed. So there was definitely opportunities along the way to engage and be part of the neighborhood conversation and to even just say, I am not supportive of this. Without having to face anyone personally, if that's a concern. But only 17 people took that opportunity.
Speaker 9: How many participated in the survey?
Speaker 6: Well, a lot of people, I think, at that point who were in support had already signed signature sheets. So they may have not taken that survey, but we did put it on, I think three or four printed fliers, at least three of which went out by U.S. mail to all registered owners, the property records. And we also put it on numerous emails, although we could, of course, only email people who had given us an email address and not everyone chose to do that. But we had 165 emails, I think, for our email list by the end of the effort.
Speaker 9: And you're surveying how many were in support.
Speaker 6: How many were in support in the survey that we submitted, including all the forms, 76 people.
Speaker 9: 26 and 17 against.
Speaker 6: 17 against that, let us know that way. In addition, four people emailed us, so we reported 21 against and 7 to 6 for when we submitted both to LUDI and to you.
Speaker 9: Thank you. Thank you very much.
Speaker 6: Thank you.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you, Councilman. No pop down to Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 13: Thank you, Mr. President. Councilwoman Kinney. Yes. My question about the guidelines for the non contributing properties. I want to ask how the procedures are different and I'm going to direct this to you, how the procedures are different today for someone who wants to just do a renovation on their home versus having this designation in place. Is the timing any faster? You know, we have dedicated staff to work on landmark applications, whereas sometimes it feels like your your application for your permit gets in and it sort of disappears into this deep, dark hole and you're not sure when you're going to get it back. So can you just sort of define the difference between the two?
Speaker 14: So we're basically the four properties that are either an individual landmark or within a historic district.
Speaker 6: We're the first.
Speaker 14: Stop in the permitting process. So it comes to us first and it goes through our review, whether it's a quick review, a staff review, or a review that goes before the Landmark Preservation Commission, we issue a certificate of appropriateness that we email to the applicant and then say, okay, this is your first step in the permitting process . Please attach this as well as the plans that they have submitted to us. We stamp in sign and date, and so we tell them to submit those stamped plans and the certificate of appropriateness to their next step in the permitting process, whether it's residential or.
Speaker 13: So typically, how long does that first process take?
Speaker 14: So like I said, it just it depends on the scope of the project. So if it's.
Speaker 13: A complete application.
Speaker 14: If it's a complete application that landmark staff can administratively review, it's a 10 to 15 business day. Right now, we're kind of at like peak season in sort of our business. And then if it's a quick reroof, it's a day. If it's a longer process, then it goes before the Landmark Preservation Commission. And that's typically, I would say, 4 to 6 weeks, just depending on the timing of when.
Speaker 13: It gets, you know, on the other side, if someone's coming in just to do a riff and they're not in a historic district, how long it takes to get that turnaround, I.
Speaker 14: Believe that they have just implemented. And so this is beyond me. So I will just give you this is what I believe. They have implemented a quick review that is an online and really within the day getting the permit for that is my understanding too.
Speaker 13: We think that that. Application process that's expediting them for the non historic areas will eventually fold over to the historic areas.
Speaker 14: We typically will probably review it because we review are just our design guidelines are different than the zoning code or the building code. So that's probably still going to be reviewed by us. We do try it like we still we try to keep the the quick permits to a really like a 24 hour review period. So but I don't foresee that that that would likely go away in the near future.
Speaker 13: And if someone wants the pre application afforded to them so that they are making sure before they actually submit for their permit that they've got to complete application. How long does it take to get into to do that?
Speaker 14: So there's a pre application, it's a it's a form on our website. It's a really simple form that just basically provide some contact information. Here's what we're looking to do and then they'll provide us some literally like back of the napkin sketch kind of stuff that we get. We will then contact them. It'll be assigned to a staff member and we have staff meetings twice a week and it's normally handed out at that point and then that staff member will contact them and we typically try to do it within about a week of receiving it to set up an appointment that works both for us and for the applicant to meet and and discuss it.
Speaker 13: And typically that process is just to help them make sure they've got a complete application so that when they submit, it's not something that gets sent back for more information.
Speaker 14: Yeah. It's to help them that and it's also to provide them with some guidance as to what we feel like would meet the design guidelines and kind of ask them, you know, ask them what they're looking to do and then provide them with some guidance of what they can expect. If you are doing an infill, it's something that they would need to do and then we want to provide them with the step so that they have a thorough understanding of what it really is going to look like. We want them to know what that process will be.
Speaker 13: And my last question, how how often is it that you actually see an applicant having to hire an architect to assist them in doing some of the improvements that they want done?
Speaker 14: We get, um, we get some architects depending on the scale of the project. So if it's a, if it's a project that would require an architect anyway anyway, then we're typically going to see that. Or we would recommend that we also get things a lot from general contractors or.
Speaker 6: The garage.
Speaker 14: Contractors or the guy who puts up the fence.
Speaker 13: So, yes, I do have one last question.
Speaker 6: If if.
Speaker 13: A homeowner is looking for someone that has had contracting experience with older homes in historic districts. Do you all provide recommendations?
Speaker 14: We do not provide recommendations. However, we recommend they contact historic Denver, who may be able to provide them with recommendations.
Speaker 13: Great. Thank you so much.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Ortega. All right. We're back at the top. Councilwoman Black.
Speaker 10: Thank you, Mr. President. I'm not sure who can answer that, but I believe when you started, Kara, you said there were 17 applicants and that they all lived in the district. But of people who came and spoke, I thought I heard three people say they were applicants but did not live in the district. Can you clarify that?
Speaker 14: I can't clear, but I know that there are some who own property, but are. I don't live in the city and county of Denver, but they own a property within the historic district, so it's like a rental property. So there are a combination of that. And I would let Marie perhaps speak more specifically to that. The number I believe there were only a couple of people who did not actually reside in the district. But I would actually like to give you a read the specifics.
Speaker 6: I think it might be an easier answer than that. So I'm just going to scroll. Applicants Jamie Chester will Chester live in the district are here. Carmen Trio is or was here. Is here. Thank you. Iris Elkabetz is here. Who lives in the district. Matthew Gibbler is not here but lives in the district.
Speaker 10: You don't have to read them all.
Speaker 6: Oh, sorry.
Speaker 10: They all live in the district.
Speaker 6: I'm sorry. I was trying to confirm that. Well. So let me just scroll without talking then. Yes. Yes. I think they all live in the district, from what I can tell, and with very few exceptions, also own property in the district. Of course, the exception would be if somebody lives with somebody who owns property in the district. Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 10: And then. Kara, I guess this is for you against a lot of the opponents have expressed a willingness to. To look at other opportunities or a less contentious way or consensus or a compromise. I typed all those words up, but what are the other options? Maree addressed the issues with the conservation overlay. What are the other options that are available that would preserve the character of the neighborhood? That might not be as extreme that maybe the two groups could agree upon?
Speaker 14: I mean, conservation overlay is generally the other tool that community planning in development offers to people if they're having questions about what their options are. You know, it's a different process than design review. There isn't the design guidelines that go along with it. It doesn't prohibit demolition. So so it's a different process and different, you know, it goes more through the zoning code than through the design guidelines. But a conservation overlay would probably be the other option that we would recommend if someone was going to look to do that. They. Don't mean exactly the same. Goals. But you know that other neighborhoods have considered that as an alternative to landmark designation.
Speaker 6: Yes.
Speaker 1: So you're going to you have to come to the mike and speak.
Speaker 3: So another tool to preserve single family or single storey structures would be a rezoning so that the Packard Hill historic or the area for the proposed Packard Hill historic district would allow for it to use accessory dwelling units, which you could add that square footage in a secondary structure, then you wouldn't need a larger home office, a guest quarters. So that structure could could accommodate the square footage for a single storey dwelling.
Speaker 6: Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. All right, Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. President. Let's see. On if a modern house, a non contributing structure. Modern House. Cube house. Burns down.
Speaker 2: Can they build a clubhouse.
Speaker 3: In a historic district?
Speaker 14: It would need to go through the design guidelines. So probably if it met with combat, you know, is it compatible? And we're looking at like sort of mass scale height, some of the examples that we provided to to to see does it meet the design guidelines. So if that property met the design guidelines, yes. But it would probably my guess would be is that there would need to be changes to it for it to meet the design guidelines.
Speaker 3: Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 1: All right, uh, Councilman Espinosa, back up again. What date was the application filed?
Speaker 14: I'm sorry. I have to look at my staff report. I want to save the beginning of June or the end of May. I would. I'd have to actually check my staff report to give you the precise date.
Speaker 1: Okay.
Speaker 14: So I can do that if you'd like. Really quick.
Speaker 3: No, I saw the the notification.
Speaker 1: Was on June 15th. Was that is that immediate or is that a week later or so?
Speaker 14: We so the notification date for the for our letters is required to be no less than 25 days, but no more than 40 days prior before the Landmark Preservation Commission. It typically ends up going out about a month before the commission meeting. So so that notification letter is to notify of the Landmark Preservation Commission public hearing.
Speaker 1: So that would mean then it came in in May.
Speaker 14: It could have been. Yeah. I'm sorry. I would have to double check my staff report. I can grab that if you'd like.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I just I'm trying to track it down because several of these I mean, all these signatures, not all, but four of the signatures on here predate the that June 15th day. So trying to.
Speaker 14: Hold on one moment.
Speaker 1: Okay. If it's in the fall right at Stanford Port, I'll go ahead and look it up. Yeah, I look at the stuff, but. Any other questions? No, thank you. Okay, great. Uh, Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. President. Kara. Hello. I want to thank Councilwoman Gilmore for helping us focus back on the actual criteria in the code that we're supposed to base this on. And so I want to ask my remaining questions about that. I think there's no question that the first overriding requirement that it maintains historic and physical integrity is is certainly well met. And I don't have an issue with that. And the last one relate to a historic context or a theme. I think a case has been made for that, although in my judgment, in previous cases, I think I could manage to fit probably my 35 year old Melody Holmes house into that as well. So I don't know that that's really helpful. But so let me go to the specific history, architecture and geography. And you have there is no geographical criteria that was even considered here or was it and rejected?
Speaker 14: That was not a part of the designation application that we received.
Speaker 2: Okay. So the applicants never asked for, although the commission and the staff have actually added things that were not requested by the applicant. Did you consider the geography make a special contribution to Denver's distinctive character or anything like that?
Speaker 14: We reviewed the landmark staff, reviewed the application as it was submitted to us. Land Preservation Commission has in the past recommended have.
Speaker 2: What is the difference in staff's mind if not the commission? You can't speak for the commission, but the historical criteria A is have direct association with historical development of city, state or nation. What's the difference between having an association which would try to build a case that almost I could associate almost anything with the historical development of the city? And so what distinguishes that from a direct association, and why does this meet that criteria?
Speaker 14: So this is you know, it initially started out as a community outside of Denver and then it was annexed into Denver. It was so it's directly associated with the development and growth of the community of Denver, the trolley line that was established further, the growth of Denver. And so this is a directly related to people who had been within the sort of urban core of Denver and had moved outside there than outside the city and county of Denver. And then they were annexed back into Denver. That directly ties to the growth and development of Denver.
Speaker 2: Okay. Couldn't I say that about almost anything? It was annexed into Denver.
Speaker 14: It would.
Speaker 2: You know, what would what would they what would not fit that criteria?
Speaker 14: There. There would be like there's a lot of properties that we get that someone asks the question about and we're like, that doesn't meet the design guys. I mean, say that doesn't meet our criteria as something that, you know, that the direct rent, the direct tie with the trolley development and how those came up at a fairly simultaneous time in our intricately linked to each other. It ties it closely to the development.
Speaker 2: And the direct. And now the next one is see history, see, have direct and substantial association with a person or group of persons. And so what is the difference in staff's mind between something that has an association with a person or group of persons versus having a direct and a substantial association? There has to be some kind of a difference.
Speaker 14: Yes. So, um, so I pulled up the staff report that talks about and these are just some of the people that were highlighted and that the fact that they did, they did live in the you know, live in the community. They were there for an extended period of time. They had influence on the development of the city and county of Denver. They were residents in that. And so there was a there was a strong tie between the people who lived there and what they did to influence the city and county of Denver. Okay.
Speaker 2: Did did Ben Stapleton actually live there or did he own property? Do we know? I had no idea that he lived there.
Speaker 14: He lived there. I believe he lived there and moved to a couple of different properties.
Speaker 2: Okay. It sounds like somebody out there is saying that he did or didn't. I don't know. I don't know. Okay. That's probably not a good thing. And let me go to architecture, Mr. President, and there's two other criteria in there. It must embody distinguishing characteristics of an architectural style or type. And I've had problems with this one before. And I think, Councilwoman Sussman, her committee was going to look at revising this. I think that's something that needs revising. That's a comment. But again, my melody home down in southwest Denver has a distinguishing characteristics of a suburban tract house. What would not what would I mean? Every building, every physical structure embodies its characteristics, doesn't it? I mean, how what would not meet this criterion?
Speaker 14: Well, so part of it is, does it have the integrity to convey that significance? So does it actually look like what it used to look like? How many changes have been made to it? So the physical integrity and the architecture are really strongly tied on this criteria.
Speaker 2: And then finally, Mr. President, there must it must be the significant work, not just the work, but a significant work of a recognized architect or master builder, which buildings in this proposed district fit that to be, to be.
Speaker 14: So there are three properties. There's the the two properties. There's two stone properties on Lower Boulevard.
Speaker 2: The gargoyle and the yeah, yeah.
Speaker 14: Yeah. The Coxes are recognized master stonemasons and Master Stone Builders and these were two properties that they both resided in, but use different techniques in order to display their abilities. Right. And then for the William Quail House.
Speaker 2: And where's that at?
Speaker 6: Um, I'll have to double check off the top of my head.
Speaker 14: So on the corner of 32nd Avenue in Osceola.
Speaker 2: Oh, okay. The one where the Marilyn Mills lived. So.
Speaker 14: Yeah. And that that's one of its because there's not many works of his remaining left that's why is this a significant example.
Speaker 2: Are there any other houses of the 173. Other than these three.
Speaker 14: No. These are the three that represent the works of a master architect or builder.
Speaker 2: Okay. Two of those already are landmarks. They already are. Yes, they are. We're using them again.
Speaker 14: Yet because they're with it now.
Speaker 2: Toward the district.
Speaker 14: Because if they're strong enough to rise to an individual, you know, a property to be an individual landmark has to be a really strong case on its own. So if they're strong enough on their own to be okay, they would also be strong enough within it.
Speaker 2: What was the staff's consideration in saying that those two buildings, the Cox buildings on Lowell that are already landmarked, that their significance, their architectural, their master builder significance is strong enough that we should landmark a district. Three and a half blocks beyond it.
Speaker 14: It was part of the district. If that was the only if that was the only reason why the district was being landmarked was for those three properties, then no, it would not meet the criteria as an aggregate of the whole. It contributes to the significance of the district.
Speaker 2: All right. Thank you, Mr. President. That's it.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you, Councilman Flynn. Councilman Herndon.
Speaker 4: Name is President Carter. Just the last one for you. I want to make sure I keep this in questions, not comments. You. We spent a lot of time a couple of years ago dealing with this in Park Hill. And so I want to make sure. The Park Hill District. I might call L.A. with historic Denver just in case. I want to get the numbers right. There is a consideration of a historic district in Park Hill. How many homes were a part of that.
Speaker 14: I want to say? 745. 7700. Sorry.
Speaker 4: Okay. And so and I am sitting with questions, Mr. President. And do you and I'm good. And I want to make sure I got the number correct. 700. 700, correct.
Speaker 6: Yeah. The proposal.
Speaker 12: Would never became a full application, so it's not quite the.
Speaker 6: Same. Apples to apples. But there is a national existing national register historic district there that has just shy of 700 properties in it already.
Speaker 4: Perfect. Thank you so much. And if. They're no longer moving forward with it because they're now doing the conservation overlay. And I don't think that was a comment. I'll speak more that during the comments. Mr. President, I am going to thank you.
Speaker 1: Heard it. And you know, Councilman, I really admire your discipline right there. Okay. First. Good morning to everyone. Good morning, Adam. I have a question for you on just distinguishing between landmarks criteria. Just for the record, landmarks criteria and what are criteria is a city council.
Speaker 4: So when Landmark looks at the criteria in Unicode 33.
Speaker 2: The criteria.
Speaker 4: That Kara has laid out in her staff report. If the. Application meets those criteria, the LPC will recommend approval to City Council. City Council's review criteria is rather broad.
Speaker 3: You have. You can consider a wide variety of issues, including the written views.
Speaker 2: Of property.
Speaker 4: Owners. But you're not.
Speaker 2: Restricted to those views. Either you have wide latitude to.
Speaker 4: Make your decision or.
Speaker 1: Just just wanted to. Wanted you to clarify that for the record in case we drifted astray here. I got the last couple questions here, Kara, real quick. No one's talked about design review. Should this, uh, pass or fail pass? Um, there will be a specific design review for this context. Is that correct?
Speaker 14: Yes. Well, the design guidelines are citywide. But we will look at like, what is the character defining? What are the character defining features of this particular district? Like I said, like.
Speaker 1: Who will who will do that? Will that be the staff or will that be a community, you know, representative stakeholders in the in the district.
Speaker 14: So there will be the development of what we call character defining features, which are at the back of the design guidelines. I'd say like probably the last half or so of the design guidelines or character defining features that have been written for a portion of the historic districts, the ones that we see the most activity in. And that is a process that goes through both staff as well as the community. So we will contact the community, will ask what they feel is important. Staff will draft the character defining features, submit them to the community, to the Arnaud's. It's a very collaborative process that is eventually been approved by the Landmark Preservation Commission.
Speaker 1: Okay. Now, should this get approved, that will be that will start right away.
Speaker 14: Yeah. It would be something that would start, you know, at some point this year we would start the process of going through that. We have a lot of districts that don't have character defining features as well, and we rely partially on what is in the application and what just are the what is the character of that particular neighborhood. And look at those features.
Speaker 1: Okay. I was harkening back to to Whelton when we did design that.
Speaker 14: We got its own design guidelines.
Speaker 1: Had its own deal. Will this not have its own design guidelines?
Speaker 14: No. We don't want to create historic districts that, you know, each historic district has its own design guidelines. We want basically.
Speaker 1: Why not?
Speaker 14: Because then we'd have 52 different design guidelines. And that becomes more confusing both for staff, the commission and applicants. And so having one set of design guidelines that that fits everything other than the lower downtown design guide, they have their own design guidelines and five points have their own design guidelines because they are very unique into themselves
Speaker 1: . Yeah. That kind of to me would say that you should keep doing it, but that's a whole nother conversation for another day. Let me let me jump in to Mary. Um. I just want to say this is I have a bunch of questions, but seeing as it's the next day, let's just get into this real quick. So you met with me? Yes. In five points. Yes. And you gave me the number?
Speaker 6: Yes.
Speaker 1: 70 something. Before supporting, I forget the number who were against maybe 1015 and then some who had not been contacted. Um, you know, and I continue to ask you, you know, stay on this. Keep me abreast of this situation. And it seemed like as the process move down the road, here we have this. And so help me make sense of what happened from. You know, you've been you've been involved with it from the beginning. What happened to we have a larger contingent here.
Speaker 6: I pulled I was a little surprised, too, given that we had we had done a ton of outreach and we had really asked people for feedback. Like I said so many times in emails and so many times in letters, etc., etc.. And even though there was a very easy way to provide feedback, but there was also you could call or you could email. It was surprising to me that only 17 people chose to respond to say that they were in opposition and another four, like you mentioned, via email. And then as of Thursday noon, that number still stood. The Internet survey is still alive. And I think it also corresponds with the number of people who wrote into the city to say that they were opposed. Very close.
Speaker 1: So let me let me get to that, because that's really important. So 17 people as of last week.
Speaker 6: 17 for this from the survey and four via email. So 21. Okay.
Speaker 1: And hold it right there. Kamal, call you up real quick. When did you. I don't mean to interrupt you. I just want to make sure that I'm on the same. And when did you hear about the the number of folks that we have here?
Speaker 14: So I didn't receive the petition until Friday morning on.
Speaker 1: Friday morning, last week.
Speaker 14: Last week. So I had spoken with them and told them. They said, you know, we have a petition and like, you know, go ahead and submit that to us. So we haven't we can put it on the on the record in that we can see that. But we we did not get to see that much public comment in opposition. Like the staff report said, I think 85 187 individuals commented in support and 35 to 37 in opposition committed directly to CPD.
Speaker 1: Okay. Real quick, what was the timeframe between Landmark Commission and Ludie and Planning Board?
Speaker 14: So the Preservation Commission was June 18. Planning Board, I believe, was August 2nd and Ludie was August 22nd.
Speaker 1: And at that time you still held at 70?
Speaker 14: I mean, actually, I hadn't received until after Rudy. I hadn't received any formal public comment in opposition in sort of in writing. They they come to the Preservation Commission. Okay. They hadn't.
Speaker 1: They helped me. Excuse me. I'm sorry, sir. I forgot your name. Kevin. Kenny. You're going to represent the those in opposition because you knocked on doors and you're pretty organized around that. So, I mean, that's 60 days.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I do believe it went past that. So we had the public meetings back in January and February and there was a substantial, I'd say, resistance to this. However, this goes along with the problem of the process. So we're having community meetings, but we weren't being heard. We had a very short time to answer, ask questions. And there were a lot of people who didn't live in the district at these meetings and making comments. So we had a quick frustration and.
Speaker 1: I understand all of it. But what I don't understand is these are very public meetings. Sure. And so when I say Public Landmark Commission Ludy, I've had very controversial things. People don't have any problem telling me that they don't like something. So that's what I'm trying to understand as 17 to 70.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I just 60 days. We did have a substantial showing at the Landmark and you can see that in the record. I think we had more speakers than they did from the district. Okay. So this this shouldn't be a surprise. I have been in the media. You have been on record saying it's split.
Speaker 1: Nobody wanted to hear it. Okay. Thank you. I have a question for Councilman Espinosa. Councilman, did you get a chance? Excuse me, Councilman Clark, your head's right there. Did you get a chance to meet with the opponents? And did you did you solicit their input? Did you meet with them and talk about ways that there is an opportunity for a compromise? Actually, five of them attended one of my community coffees on April 23rd of this year. And at that point in time, the arguments were hyperbolic. One of the gentlemen who spoke tonight, one of the gentlemen, has a very legitimate concern because he he has mentioned here that he's in a two year long process of designing the house and well to get to the point. One of my concerns is, is a bulk of these signatures are on February 12th. And several of them. Pages of these signatures predate that meeting. And to be honest, this is the first today at 937 was the first I had seen it. Okay. And let me just so that I think that's the point that I didn't know which is important. But let me just ask this very critical. Did you specifically reach out to the opposition? The sit down with them? No, because aside from Mr. O'Connell and the four members, I only have 11 emails in this entire time from Jane from from from the inception until this last question and then we're gonna go to comments. Sir, can you come back up? I just want to ask you one quick question. Did you or anyone who is in opposition specifically reach out to your council person and say, we are in opposition towards this, we don't want this to happen? Absolutely. Through email.
Speaker 4: Yes. And in person. I was one in attendance at the meeting.
Speaker 1: In the meeting. Okay. All right. Thank you. All right. This concludes the the hearing of counsel Bill 903. It is now closed. Comments by members of Council Counsel Min Espinosa. Well, I'm glad that you had that last line of question, because that's really, really concerning to me. Just see the sort of how early I mean, the first public meeting was discussed in February, and immediately there was this reaction and I'm not privy to it aside from the occasional emails, mostly from Mr. O'Connell, you know, to give really the whole reason I put myself and offered myself up in this position was to give community a voice. And so I worked with other members of the community to make sure that their notifications went out and said, Look, this is absolutely important, that there's outreach and you're communicating with everybody. And so I know that at least two full mailers went out independently of the city. And so it's very, very difficult for me to sort of hear that, you know, why wasn't there a petition saying, Councilman Espinosa, we would like you to consider a conservation overlay and get me overwhelming signatures with that, because I can't direct I can't direct our CPD staff to do these things. But when I have the weight and gravitas of a aam a plethora of signatures that helps move the needle. I mean you know because we've done it time and again. So it's it's it's disheartening. I didn't want to speak I mean say that but you know it's you know I look at this and then I'll be honest to my colleagues here. One of the things that really concerns me and this is somewhat cynical to state, but there were, in fact, more more homeowners in the district that spoke here tonight. Not many more, but then of the 2020 plus. Speakers that spoke in opposition. Ten of them are owners of non contributing properties. And so well one of the speakers spoke about how it's just 18% of non contributing. A third of those non contributing properties are here, really opposing design review. And it's not lost on me that that is a vital.
Speaker 4: Part.
Speaker 1: To this preservation effort is to shape and to, you know, to to sort of recognize the eclectic nature, the time, the progression that has occurred here and how all those different eras and epics have resulted in this heterogeneous community that that can actually be captured and codified and generated significant figures and generated monumental works of architecture next to more vernacular, and that they sort of all spoke to their era. And then, you know, the whole process of this is a simple design review. It doesn't preclude non contribution structures from being torn down and replaced. One of the requirements is that they be of their era and so mass and scale are not the end of the world as an architect. Those are our tools. That's what people were working with for decades, up until now. And that's what architects can work with going forward. And you can do modern in a whole bunch of different shapes. You know, if you looked at my own house, you would not recognize that, you know, you could not define it from the outside versus the inside, because there are two different things. And that's one of the things the attitudes that you have with landmark designation is, you know, what goes on inside your house is up to you , what goes on, how your your property addresses the public realm. It has to speak to the criteria that is shaped that designation. And for 52 times in this city, it has been acceptable or I think that's what it was mentioned. And so, you know, I have a I have a a nice letter here from and I've wrote a bunch of notes on it from as Gallagher who just. You know, I left this today encouraging myself and my colleagues to to. To support this, recalling the effort that he had in LoDo and there was massive opposition to that designation and we can all acknowledge that what we have there today is significant. And I think you all pretty much did acknowledge today that what you have today is significant with or without any additional restrictions. So. I went off script, but as one of the other speakers spoke, you know, probably better off that way. The. And it wasn't scripted. This was these are notes that I was writing through throughout this this evening, because I'll be honest. You know. Michelle, are you still here? Yeah. Yeah. You know, I put up flashing on her rooftop dormers in her non contributing house and. And. And so I have people that I have known for a long time on both sides of this debate, not just new people. You know, I don't separate you all like that and. And, you know, I was torn. So that's why I was paying attention. I really don't I don't like being surprised like this because that is exactly what I don't want to. I would like us to come together. I mean, you guys were together before this division. Unless we just took we dug in our heels in February and said, oh, hell no, we're not going to agree to anything. You know, but I don't know. We had one conversation. No. No, no, no, no. So, so. So. Here's the deal. Here's the deal. Here's the deal. We're just making comments. Councilman, don't engage the folks who are in the public right now. We're just making comments there. They've had their chance at it. This is your chance. Let's just try not to engage. Thank you. Sorry about. And I didn't want to engage because it's your. What you're hearing is my own sense of of of disappointment in myself. You know, it's just sort of not. I feel like I have a good pulse on my community and and would like to have known is if there was an opportunity but. Anyway, back to this. You know, back in March of 2016, following, you know, we had three individual homes and properties come before this council. All three were denied. In each and every case, members of this council said to bring in a historic district, not just one offs and individual landmarks, but that get the people together, define that area and make, in effect, change that way. So to help educate my constituents, we hosted a historic preservation forum at Edison Elementary. It had 100 different hundred people there in attendance, over 100 people in attendance from all parts of the district, including a significant portion.
Speaker 3: Of West Highland.
Speaker 1: And we addressed giving them the tools what what the advantages disadvantages were historic districts were discussed, conservation overlays were discussed. And it was a very educational process, a community initiated. Initiatives are an important tool. There are zoning code. I mean, R or ordinance. I mean our municipal code. Has created. And so these do these affect every single city, county resident of the city and county of Denver? And they're there to to to address matters of important concern for all communities in Denver. Not everybody is well equipped to take advantage of them. And it's not an easy process. And that what you see here was not an easy feat. The fact that there were 17 applicants, you know, like you said, that is. That is, there's more applicants that are affected, you know, than the number of contributing structures that were represented today by opposition. And after after months or years, seemingly two years, what was mentioned of dealing with this? So. With a split constituency. I have to ask myself, what are the consequences of this vote? Either way, is the character history architecture that merits protection? Yes, no doubt. And the research offered the existing built environment that you can go see and an experience today. And the capable individuals on the Landmark Preservation Commission all agree. That the qualities are there, the history is there, the narrative is there, the substance, the things that matter to this sort of designation are there. And the people believe that that is worth preserving and honoring going forward. There are there are a pair of additional I mean. Sorry. Are there a pair of additional required reviews to do certain work. Permitted work. Yes. Ten week process that that preliminary thing. And then your actual review. Are they as onerous as being described? No, not by definition. I can tell you there are good architects and there are bad architects and some that know what they're doing and some that don't. And it's hard to know as a layperson, who that person is. But there's you know, you can find them that they can help actually expedite not expedite but but really understand the what they're dealing with and to help you address your, you know, capture your needs and make it work within this criteria. The zoning code. The zoning code and the building code dwarf.
Speaker 3: These design guidelines dwarf them.
Speaker 1: And there are no pictures or diagrams in the building code. That entire book is solid text. And more of that applies to any individual project than this, you know? So can you still build, expand and grow? With designation? Yes. There is a clear desire within the community to preserve the character. And many, many people on both sides acknowledged the important qualities of the place that this is and the allure of this community. Only one finding tonight acknowledges the value and integrity of this history in the place and takes measures to inform the future while acknowledging the significance of this place and still accommodating growth and change. David Broadwell, our long standing city attorney, talked about it. You mentioned guts. I think that's what Dennis Gallagher's letter here sort of implies, too, about the tough decisions. And he even acknowledged that tonight we were going to have a tough decision. That's where this is for me. Would I like do I think that we could actually hammer out a way forward? I have no idea because we have not had that conversation. Do I know that that takes resources and technical ability that are at our disposal but are here? Yes, but I don't think, you know, that is a that is a heavy lift. It took Hyland five years to do that. And the rate of change, then that predated the the mean post that followed immediately with the recession. In these in this condition. We're losing history at an alarming clip. And if you'd been here over the two years and all the other. Conversations we had about where all the demolitions in Denver are occurring, 80 over 80% of them are in District one for an entire city. 80% of the demolitions are here. So. Many here speaking for this than are many here speaking for. Are impacted by this either in the proposed district, I mean, are impacted by historic districts, either in the proposed historic district or from adjacent, adjacent, landmark districts, or even heard from others not fearful of this process. If this goes through and I believe, as the LPC did, that it should, I suggest you this was me being tongue in cheek earlier. I suggest you need to change the name to gutsy woman women. Historic District. Sorry, guys. There's a lot of you. You know, I apologize for for for being thrown off by this, because what I was trying to to do in my own personal narrative on this was to recognize. That our streets right now in this part of town, you have things that other parts of District one wish they had. You have some great porches and people hanging out. Dog owners, no dog owners. People meet. You know, there's just so many strong connections among you all. How do we you know, I did not want to be the lightning rod. I actually wanted to say, look. And I don't know how my colleagues can vote, but if they vote, we're where I think, which is that this would be the right thing long term. I think in years time. I mean, I think tomorrow you'll recognize that, hey, this place is still as awesome as the day I moved here. And it will be awesome years to come and it is the right place to raise my family. It is the right place to fight for my dog park. It's the right place to fight for bike lanes is the right place to slow down traffic. It's the right place to encourage local business. It is. Quality throughout. And that you guys made it that way. And you guys will continue to make it that way and that this community is stronger because there's debate, but it's stronger because you will continue to clink glasses on porches and hang out and acknowledge and won't hold that grudge. You will continue to move on and say, look, let's work on these damn sidewalks. You know, let's support Cashman to get that money over to District One, level these things out and improve this neighborhood in the ways we can't. So I, I mean, I've rambled way, way too long, but I just, you know, I, I think I mean, I don't think I know. That it is a gutsy vote to say with this sort of the mix that we seem seemingly have in this room. But there are 83% of these properties that aren't even here. And that should also speak.
Speaker 3: Volumes that.
Speaker 4: Homeowners.
Speaker 1: In this area impacted by this area, I hope notified by this process. Are are also essentially looking to you all to and to us to just follow through with this decision. So with that, I've rambled way too long. I encourage my colleagues to vote in support of this landmark designation. Thank you. Councilman Espinosa. Councilman, her.
Speaker 4: Name is president and thank you all for being here. And hopefully I said that all my other colleagues don't have to. So we can be brief and get you all home before one. People say this all the time and you get so offended when they say, I feel your pain because I typically don't. But I actually do because a year and a half ago, this was going right in Park Hill. And I remember hosting that community meeting at McAuliffe where Carol was there. God bless her. She did a really good job. And I watched neighbors go at each other in a way that I hadn't seen Park Hill do before. And I had multiple meetings with the proponents. I had emails and conversations with the opposition. You would drive through Park Hill and you would see the red signs stop historic districts. You would see the yellow signs and support. And I sat down, I said, Well, you all go to mediation to see if there's something you can agree on this. And people looked at me and they didn't think it was possible. And they went to mediation and they found common ground. 700 homes on common ground. I met with them a couple of months ago and they're moving forward with an overlay. It's possible. And it's not going to take 5 to 10 years. I was I was respect, Maria. She said it takes that long as we're moving forward with Park Hill, it's not taking that long. So if there is a way community members can come together and find a solution so council doesn't have to make a vote that will just make one side angry or the other. That's what I want to strive for. And there has been so much developmental pressure on Northwest Denver, so I get it. I absolutely get it and understand. But I can tell you, representing Northeast Denver, for a community that feels the exact same way, there is an ability to do that. And I wish that that was just a conversation that happened because one of the opposition members spoke today and said, I would have considered an overlay. And then Marissa, well, we didn't hear you say anything about it. And so I sit there and say, well, why didn't that happen?
Speaker 1: Because if you vote in support of this.
Speaker 4: Then that's it.
Speaker 0: The district is there. But if you say I'm supporting opposition. That still gives you all the opportunity to come together and say, how do we preserve this community? Because from what I hear, you both want to do that. And so. I'm if there was.
Speaker 4: If there was not the ability for an overlay, I would vote in support. I would because I do believe in and the preservation of our homes. But I believe there's another option that can be accomplished, that the communities should come together and do so because we're doing it right now in Park Hill. And it's the same thing when it comes to the numbers. The numbers were different.
Speaker 0: Who's in support? Who's opposition? Depending on who I spoke to and Park Hill would tell me which way that was tilting.
Speaker 4: And so I just see so many similarities and I'm excited that they they came together and I hope you all will as to I hope you all will as well. And so I'm voting no, not because I'm against the historic but believe another avenue to move forward because we're doing it. And I hope you all will, too, because seeing neighbors seeing neighbors get torn apart for that was just it's painful. It really is. And I hope you all can heal no matter which way this vote goes. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Herndon and Councilwoman Black.
Speaker 10: Thank you, Mr. President. And thank you all for being here so late. I really appreciate your passion, Ron Johnson said. We all love our neighborhood to death on both sides or something like that. And it's apparent you all love your neighborhood, which is really, really great, Mary. And I can't remember your name, but you took me on a really nice tour in the summer. Thank you very, very much. I agree that your neighborhood is worthy of protection. When I said goodbye, I said good luck getting people to support it. And I referenced the Christina Park vote that we had last year. 92% of the people were in favor and zero people showed up at the hearing in opposition to it. Zero. And there were 176 homes in that. And that is a conservation overlay. I've been pretty consistent in these votes and I feel like when you are taking away someone else's property rights, you have to have a pretty strong case. I am troubled by the number of people who are opposed to this. I think it's about half and half. As I said earlier, about half of the speakers in favor of it tonight don't even live in the district. But I, I agree that 70 about 75 of them are in support of it. John Olson, I quote, you don't deter neighborhoods voice but half the neighborhood is opposed to it. And I just I feel like I have to honor your wishes. But you have all said you love your neighborhood, you want a compromise, you want to come up with collaborative solutions. And I believe you when you say that. And I agree with what Councilman Herndon just said. So I hope that you all can do that. I also agree, as many people said, that as a city, we need to fix this process. I believe that it is deeply flawed, and I don't think that private property owners should be put in the position of having to fend to defend themselves. They are on trial, so hopefully on our end we can get to work on that. Thank you.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you, Councilwoman Black. Dr. Sussman.
Speaker 6: Oh, thank you, Mr. President. And at the risk of repeating what my first two colleagues have said, what I was so impressed about was the graciousness with which you all treated each other tonight. We don't usually hear that in when there's a when there are differences of opinion. But it was wonderful to hear the that how much you respect each other and how and how and how respectful your conversation was. But I, too, am just sort of confused about the numbers and feel like there's more opposition than the proponents realize. And if that happens, I mean, we're all as council people, we always think we've told everybody, but maybe we haven't told everybody and we always think or maybe we've heard from everybody, but we haven't heard from everybody. And and sometimes these things take a little bit more time. I couldn't agree more that we do need to open up the preservation ordinance. And of course, I did speak with planning last year to ask, you know, let's open this up and take a look, because I do think both sides should have access to the same city resources. The one side shouldn't have more access to city resources about their petition than they than the other one does. So I've tried to put a line of fire under CPD that we get busy on looking at this ordinance and see how we can equalize at least access to resources when these kinds of things happen. But I feel very strongly that a compromise can be worked out too. I feel that way. And if. We go ahead and vote for this historic designation, then there's no there's no ability for compromising. It's a done deal. I think Councilman Herndon might have said that. So I will be opposing this evening as well.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Dr. Sussman. Councilman Lopez.
Speaker 8: Thank you. Council President Brooks. First of all, on August one, I've been listening and listening to everybody speaking, and it's hard to tell sometimes. I saw how you've divided yourselves up. Before, I couldn't really tell who which was which. But I do appreciate everybody coming tonight and everybody coming from the north side. This is not the first time that the North Side fills those rooms with. I think the first introduction I had to Late Night Rezonings was a completely different council. As a matter of fact, it was the council that first started on when they were looking at creating my moratorium because the demo permits and the development that was happening right before the the 2010 rezoning. And it was so serious that we stayed here until almost four in the morning. I mean, the 90 speakers that we had tonight was amazing, but it was nothing in comparison to what happened that night. And that was just a few years ago. And it was right before the recession. Then it went right into the recession. And, you know, if you think that we had a problem now, we truly had a problem then. And the decision was to hold off until we had the right district. All the one thing, that's for sure. I mean, maybe I've lived just south of you all my whole life. I know these areas like the back of my hand, and I know that they've. What's that? No, I'm just kidding. I know that they've. They've been faced with a lot of pressure over development. And it's no and I think everybody in this room we could all not our heads and know that this is a huge concern in the north side. It's no surprise. I would wonder where the heck you've been if you didn't agree with that. Everybody knows about it. Therefore, I think it's important that we recognize that there's a lot of different views on just what degree are we comfortable with. So I just want to say that I respect all you all for showing up tonight truly. And I respect the folks that have been organizing for this district as well to. I think it's I think part of the testimony I heard tonight was about gentrification. And, folks, if you look in the eye, I think that that's pretty much a done deal. In the north side, gentrification has already taken place to the point where a lot of the folks that were living in the north side aren't there. And let me just say, as as just a matter of fact, I cannot say that half of the neighborhood opposes the other half is supportive because the neighborhood's not here. There are still a lot of other people that are not here. And for whatever reason, they can't be here until the wee hours. Right. So to be able to be here in the chambers is, is, is. It takes a lot of dedication time. But I know that I know there's a lot of people I know a lot of people that live in this area. And I know they're not here. I don't see them in the pews. So I don't want to count them as a yes or no. I cannot say for certain that half of the neighborhood is opposed or in favor. Values. Somebody talked about neighborhood values. I'm looking at values right here. You're looking at in the high one hundreds and in the millions. And your neighborhood is very popular. As a matter of fact, this whole side of town is popular. It's so popular. I can't even afford to even make a dent on a beard out there. It is. It is so valuable. You have such a precious neighborhood. And it's precious because of that history. It's precious. And it's hard, you know. You. You all are sitting on something that. A lot of folks. Would do anything to live in. Right. And in a lot of ways, that's something that that does have value. And I really doubt and I whoever the realtor is that told somebody this advice that, oh, you know, you're going to have to sell cheap. There is no way in heck anybody selling cheap. And in this part of town, you live next to one of the most beautiful lakes. You live north in the north side. It is beautiful. You have mature trees, you got sidewalks, you got great setbacks. You got brick houses. You're talking to somebody that's in a frame house of cheap stucco. Right. You're talking to somebody who's almost lived their whole lives in a double wide and a crappy duplex. In the West Side. I'd love to have a brick house. And the charm that the north side has. So but what I'm trying to say is that's worth keeping. And however you all continue forward, it's worth keeping. And there are some nice new builds out there. There are. I'm not all opposed to some of the new builds. I think some of it's real classy, doesn't necessarily blend in, but that's just the name. I mean, not every houses is going to look the same or else we'd have Legoland. I really I want to address this now because I want to make this just out right in the future, and it's not the sign of the times . I think it's utterly disgusting when we use Benjamin Stapleton as a historic reference. That's not the kind of history that I want to remember. That's not the kind of history that. Yeah, he may have been mayor. But I cannot tell you. I can't even imagine the kind of people the kind of suffering people had under the KKK in Colorado. I don't want to ever hear folks say, oh, this is we've got to do this because we've got to commemorate is bad enough. We have a neighborhood named after the guy. It's a very dark history and a sad history in Denver, and I hope we don't commemorate it any longer. However, I do think there's value in the history in the history of the neighborhood. Right. And although, yes, we may have to discipline this room and David Broadwell is absolutely right. It is it's it's disappointing people, one side or the other at a rate that they can handle. And I hope folks understand the value that they have in their community that they can handle whatever disappointment that they're going to feel. Right. The other thing I wanted to say is that historic districts should not only be. East of the river. There's so many historic districts throughout Denver. I can't tell you one in my neighborhood. Because it's too late. I can't tell you. About which homes existed in Garden Place and which were original and which weren't because too late. I regard the home as the original Westwood. I can tell you the first few blocks of Barnum because it's too late. Somebody built the duplex on it and crappy at best. That history is important to us as a city. That history has value and it shouldn't just be reserved for neighborhoods east. It should also be. I mean, West Denver and North Denver have a history and a rich history in Denver as well. I think it's important to recognize that. The other thing is that I know my colleague has applied and done different things to try to preserve characters on his own and our characters in our sites full of characters. We'll find that out. No character period on its own. And I've heard folks in the chambers and the diocese and in the community say, well, let them do it. You need to step out in front and try to do this on your own. You all are doing it. He is your city councilman. He is who you elected to represent the district. I don't know. The District like you all do. I don't know the neighborhoods like you all do or the constituents like we all do. And so, you know, I think, you know, I hearing. His testimony also tonight. And when it's this so-called 5050, which I don't really think it's 5050. I think there's a difference that has to be had for that for that leadership in that representation. Also because hearing the testimony that you really don't. I mean. This doesn't prevent you from changing your home. It doesn't prevent you from adding in addition. She just told me the testimony that she doesn't. But you don't. You just have to go through the permitting process like everybody else. There are certain guidelines that you've got to go through. You can put retaining walls up. The Denver Hill is not a historic it's not a means for that and that makes. That makes sense to me. You can still do it. Use. If you had the designation, that can be done. But at the end of the day, the sky is not falling. Your home is a valued home. You live in a valued neighborhood. Excuse me. Excuse me. The other thing I don't like is rudeness. When we're trying to express. Yeah, let's.
Speaker 1: Let's not engage each other.
Speaker 8: Let's do it. That's going to lead me to believe. And I'm going to finally cast that. I was so on the fence. I'm going to support this. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Okay. Councilman Clark.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 2: I want to quickly say thank you for sticking out. It's almost 1:00 in the morning. Thank you for being here, taking time to add your voice to this conversation, be.
Speaker 8: A part of this process. I'm going to say again, because I think it's worth saying in today's day and age.
Speaker 2: Thank you for the civility that you have shown for each other. And I hope that October 1st over.
Speaker 8: In your neighborhood is awesome despite all of this. And we need more of that in the world right now.
Speaker 4: These are these are really hard the growth that Denver.
Speaker 8: Is facing right now.
Speaker 2: 40 new people a day.
Speaker 8: It's really hard. And the issues that come up in this, they're not as.
Speaker 4: Easy as landmark or not landmark.
Speaker 2: You know, we just start digging into sustainability. And as a city, when we really get what we're throwing in the landfill, you know, those.
Speaker 4: It gets into, it gets really complex really quickly. And I won't.
Speaker 2: Dove off any more than that just to say, you know, what we're all facing as a city across the board are really complex issues and they need productive dialog. And and that doesn't mean that everybody gets to be happy at the end of the day. Right. But that we will be better for the dialog. I really wish that there was a better.
Speaker 8: Process for us to know who is for and against. I think this has brought into sharp clarity and I know that's not.
Speaker 2: One of the criteria.
Speaker 8: But it is something that we consider.
Speaker 2: And so I'm just throwing out there to my colleagues that I think we need to maybe look at a process on our website for future of these.
Speaker 8: So that we can have some standardized.
Speaker 2: Form for people to make their opinions heard.
Speaker 4: You know, at the end of the day.
Speaker 2: It's late. All you really care about is, is what?
Speaker 8: Where am I on this? I'm satisfied that.
Speaker 2: This district meets the criteria. I have been one of the people pushing against individual.
Speaker 8: Hostile designation.
Speaker 2: Of of individual properties and towards.
Speaker 4: Looking at communities.
Speaker 2: And neighborhoods. And I think that this does exactly that. And so I appreciate the dialog. I appreciate everyone participating. I will be supporting this tonight. Thank you for coming out and being here. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: Thank you, president pro tem councilman who?
Speaker 9: Thank you, Mr. President. I represent District ten, and I have the highest percentage of historic districts in the entire city. I probably got the whole 4%, but, you know, I got such incredible neighborhoods from Cheesman Park, Capitol Hill, Congress for Country Club alum, obviously, and is such a variety. I mean, I got the high end country club that loves their historic district as much as the moderate priced Alamo pursuit of the Mr. Halperin mentioned. You know and I have they all I get is overwhelming support for us and for their district because it protects their character. Their district has a unique, established character and it does deter development that changes character. There's no question in my mind about that. So I really feel also that that it this this application does meet the criteria. And just from my experience with historic districts in my district, I know it'll be successful and I'll be supporting that tonight
Speaker 1: . Thank you. Thank you. Councilman new Councilwoman Gilmore.
Speaker 13: And thank you, President Brooks.
Speaker 6: You know, I have to appreciate all.
Speaker 12: Of you being here and that really this is a tale of two Danvers sitting here and listening to your testimony and for 5 hours and really hearing the hurt feelings and the pain that was expressed. And at certain points, though, there was laughter and it was light hearted. And so I hope whatever the outcome is by the vote tonight, you hold on to that, because without that, you don't want to live where you don't want to talk to your neighbor next door and you immediately shut your door and you go inside because of something that has happened.
Speaker 6: And and so.
Speaker 12: You know, it was painful for me, honestly, sitting here and watching kind of the back and forth. Yeah, I didn't get too bad. But I'm sure the looks and the back and forth, there's some healing that needs to go on.
Speaker 6: And so I do I hope that October.
Speaker 12: 1st event is the beginning of a first step for it. But, you know, you shared with us how drastically your neighborhood is changing. And we know that your neighborhood is changing drastically. And I understand your desire to protect your neighborhood. I hope that through a different mechanism, a conservation overlay or some other mechanism, you can protect your neighborhood. Because I also hear the residents who want to have the opportunity to stay in your neighborhood and raise their families, just like I'm sure many of you have already done. And then looking as well at the staff report, you know, really there were five addresses for five individuals. The other two I didn't have an address associated with.
Speaker 6: So at the end of the day.
Speaker 12: We're trying to base an entire historic district upon.
Speaker 6: Five individuals who lived in the District two that may have and then an and.
Speaker 12: Substantiated number of women who were fabulous, amazing leaders. That's a really hard. I would have loved to had.
Speaker 4: More.
Speaker 12: Statistics more data to back up. A yes vote on this designation. The other piece that troubles me is either from CPD's report where 88 residents were non-responsive or from Mr. O'Connell's data that 47 residents were undecided. That's a huge number.
Speaker 6: That's significant. And Ms.. Let me get her name.
Speaker 12: Ms.. De Hanes. She was one of the first speakers, and I really thought that we were going to hear a lot from young.
Speaker 13: Families.
Speaker 12: Who really wanted to invest in the neighborhood. And I am so grateful that the first person who brought up affordable housing and maintaining a neighborhood that could be inclusive was one of our elders and a senior who has lived in her home for 33 years, and she's 82 years old. I have to think about what's going to happen to the folks who, for whatever reason. Do not have the bandwidth or the time to be here at City Council at 12:51 a.m. to be part of this process. I feel like there's a huge voice that we haven't heard. And I need to honor that voice as well. And so I, based on that, will be voting against it with the sincere hope that you can regroup and come back together and figure out a way forward. Because your community, just all of you being here together, you've got so much to work for. And so I hope that that will be the next steps. Thank you, President Brooks.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilwoman Gilmore. Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. President. I think it's absolutely embarrassing that we don't have an accurate number to the exact address of how many pro's, how many cards and how many didn't respond. For the past few days I've been saying it's a toss up and that's what I believe it is. I think your neighborhood is divided and it's a toss up, but as a city. I'm mortified that that. I just need to challenge the administration to join with council in correcting this. We we passed TIFF after TIFF to a tax increment financing to stimulate a new development. But we don't have a fund of any sort to assist in historic preservation. I mean, we're talking a good game, but I'm not seeing it in ordinance to support the talk. When I walked through this neighborhood and I see some of my tour givers in the audience. Thank you for that. I walked away thinking this is absolutely a neighborhood that deserves to be preserved. It absolutely does. As far as. You know, I see articles getting passed around that historic preservation leads to gentrification. I'm with Brother Lopez. If that's the argument, you want to hang your hat on, Denver's gentrifying. I'm not seeing any evidence that anything that we are doing or can do is going to stop that. Okay. And I'm torn. And for those who have brought up crash on a park, it was 89.4% above 90, what, 95 or what 92? And it was it was a comparatively way more simple situation. There is one form of architecture. With probably 90 some percent undisturbed the current day. So. You know, I'll decide my vote in the next minute and a half. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: You're going to have a little bit more time with that, Councilman Catherine. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 13: Thank you, Mr. President. So I live in North and I experience exactly what you all are going through. Every day I get notices on my door and in my mail offering to just take my home as is. Because if they can assemble just a couple of properties, then, you know, it's the next big box coming into my neighborhood, which has changed very, very drastically. I mean, drive through Jefferson Park, there's very little semblance of what used to exist in Jefferson Park. People who come to Denver that haven't been here in a while drive through and say, what happened to the neighborhood? You know, some people think it's good. Others think we need to protect what we have here today. Denver has always been known for our great neighborhoods. But you know what? Today, every neighborhood feels like they're on the chopping block. Right. I mean, across the city as I am around the entire city, this is the one complaint that people are concerned about. When we did Blueprint Denver, it was to look at the edges of neighborhoods. But when we start, you know, getting rezoning applications that come in, that are looking at how how can we, you know, justify a project coming into the fabric of the single family neighborhood? The fact that the edges started to develop are used as justifying circumstances for the next rezone that starts, you know, that domino effect. Now, you know, in your neighborhood where you have our two zoning, that's where you've seen single family homes scrape. It's part of why we don't have affordable housing in this city anymore. And we need to really step up our efforts. You know, $15 million is is a significant contribution. And I want to thank my colleagues, Councilwoman Kenney and Councilman Brooks, for bringing that forward. But it's a drop in the bucket compared to what it cost to build, you know, units and affordability and maintain the diversity that this city has enjoyed for so long. I mean, it's it's disappearing. The entire socioeconomic diversity of this city is is drastically changing. I was involved in the Baker historic district. Directly involved in the lower downtown historic district and the Potter Highlands historic districts. Those neighborhoods all saw significant increases in their property values once those historic districts were in place way before the city started changing and gentrifying many of our our neighborhoods. I think the property value impact is the least of the worries that any of you will have to be concerned about. If this district passes tonight. I think our neighborhoods are worth preserving the beauty of our neighborhoods, the quaint character of them. And it takes a lot of work to bring these applications forward. And, you know, I appreciate all of the communications that I received both for and against. I did take the time to go out and walk and tour the neighborhood. My sister grew up just a couple of blocks south of this area. She was on the south side of 32nd Avenue. So, you know, my adult life, I've been in this part of town and, you know, we're we're seeing it change pretty drastically. And I think if you all really love your neighborhood, this is this is the tool that will make a difference. You know, you can you can wait for a conservation overlay that's going to, you know, put things back, maybe another, you know, eight months or so. You heard Councilwoman Sussman talk about the fact that she's asked CPD to help look at this issue. Well, we still don't have that right. Not just for this neighborhood, but for any of our neighborhoods. And so the reality is. This tool can make a difference today for those of you who are interested in preserving your neighborhood. Does that mean it's going to be a little more challenging to do some things? Yeah, but you know what? If you need to get a permit to do your roof or to add an addition, you still have to go through a city process. It's not like you get to go out and just build whatever you want to build. You have to go through a process. The landmark preservation process is just an additional step that makes sure you're in conformity with what the rest of your neighborhood looks like. You have a quaint and beautiful neighborhood, and I think it's worth preserving. The only last thing I want to say is Councilman Lopez's example of his fence. You know, is is is an example of the steps that we all have to go through when we want to do improvements to our homes. And like I said, this just adds a different a different step to go through. Kara outlined what that entails. And I would just say that for those of you who are. Really in opposition to this. When we had the lower downtown historic district brought forward, we had a two year review every two years for six years. And at the end of six years, it was going to sunset. At the end of the second. Two year review, the entire community came forward unified, saying, please remove the sunset. This is working. We had you know, we had reservations about it, but they were grateful to have that historic district in place. And you see what it is today. Yes. It's one of the most unaffordable neighborhoods in our city. Right. But it it created stability in the downtown area. And it it attracted the investment of so much of what exists there today, including everything else that has happened on the back side, where the train station and all all the rest of that development is. So I will be supporting this tonight. And again, I appreciate the input from everybody. I respect the opinions on all sides. But I think your neighborhoods are worth preserving and I'm going to support it tonight. Thank you.
Speaker 1: All right. Thanks, Councilwoman Ortega. Councilwoman Kennish.
Speaker 12: Thank you to everyone for a really thoughtful conversation tonight. And as usual, we've tripped beyond the immediate question before as to the bigger issues. And I think my colleagues have identified a number of ways and reasons why we have tradeoffs. When we live in communities. We don't just have private property with pure, unadulterated decision making by the owner, but we have all kinds of tradeoffs that we make. And those tradeoffs aren't just about the person who lives in that particular property. So, for example, no one probably wants to live on a busy street, but if we didn't have some busy streets in Denver and someone didn't live on them, then no one would be able to get to and from work or to and from school or to and from the store. And so there are all kinds of ways where as decision makers in government, we're in the position of thinking about, you know, the the greater good and the entire community. That doesn't mean that it's not really important what the tradeoffs are for the people who are impacted most. However, and so tonight we heard a lot, and I think a lot of my colleagues are giving a lot of weight to these numbers about, you know, how many are in favor and how many are opposed. And I think that I think one of the speakers was correct when they identified that the ordinance isn't neutral in the ordinance, isn't about counting. You know, we often I often get emails from constituents who don't like the idea of government that governs by Paul. Right. And so the question becomes, what's this ordinance about? And this ordinance isn't neutral. It's about what will future generations judge about what we have conserved in the city. And that's a higher accountability. So I have to weigh the impact to folks today with this broader. Mandate, if you will, this broader question. And so when I have residents across the city stopping me in grocery stores and parks and on the street saying, what can we do because we're afraid we're losing something special, this is one of the things we can do. And I have so much respect for my colleagues and their optimism about the fact that there's going to be an easy way. But, you know, I don't know what the outcome the final, final outcome of Park Hill will be, but I will know this, that an overlay district does not prevent demolition. And so I don't know and what will be agreed to. And two, I don't know what will or won't be demolished after that agreement is made. But I think that it may not be that there's an easy way to do this. It may not be that there's an easy way that you can say we're going to preserve important pieces of this city's history and that that's always going to be consensus and that there's always a path for that. I think sometimes there's a hard decision at the end of the roads that we govern on, and I think we're at the end of one of those roads where there is a really hard decision. And so I think many of the things that were said tonight by both sides could be true. At the same time, I think it's true that there's many approvals that folks go through for landmarks that are simple and that are quick. And I think it's also true that there may be some things that aren't going to be possible on people's parcels. Both those things can be true. So if we're not counting votes in terms of saying, you know, that's not what my mandate is, my mandate is to say, does something meet the criteria and does it meet the test of history to say that we've done our best to balance these things? Then the question goes to the criteria, and I do share some of the frustration my colleague, Councilwoman Gilmore, had. The testimony didn't focus quite as much on the criteria as I would have liked it to, but the record is actually much fuller than the testimony we had tonight. And I think it's really important just to identify that there are more criteria than we've talked about from this dais. Right. So retirement properties more than 30 years old, we're talking about an entire historic context. Right. And so that has been really well established. We're talking about the integrity. Right, that has been established. So each of these criteria was touched on, but we kind of got hung up, I think, on the name list. But the historical significance, right, in terms of, you know, not every neighborhood has this history of, you know, the the prominence of the temperance movement and the highlands as the place to escape the sin of the city and then the annexation and the back and forth. A lot of that is covered in the written record that wasn't discussed here as as in as much detail as might have been helpful for some of us architectural significance. Right. I mean, sometimes these things, we can overthink them, right? But it's like if you walk this and you see you can see the Queen Anne's have significance, right? There is something about them that you wouldn't see in any neighborhood across any state, right at any time in history. There was a period whereas I can see a house with siding and, you know, things that may be an architectural style, but it's not going to be. I can't point specifically to one place that it is or one time. And so I think that all of those criteria have been met. And I think that when residents say to me, what is it that we can do to preserve the feel and the nature of this community? This is one of those things, and I think there is adequate community support here for this decision. I have the utmost respect and I don't take I think this is the toughest balance, right, compared to traffic and compared to height and compared to all the other tough tradeoffs. And I voted against the proponents of this application many times and density because I think they were wrong about their ability to stop change, because I think there is a need for density and growth in the city, but not always and not where we have all of these historic criteria that have been met. And so so I think that so with the greatest respect for the gravity of the decision, because that's what it is. And I don't go home sleeping great and easily after these decisions, but I got it. I got to meet the test of the ordinance and I wouldn't be supportive of changing this ordinance to make it neutral because in my view it is about protecting the history that is its goal and that's what it's got to be aimed at. Otherwise it's got no purpose. If it's just to mediate between two parties, we can send you all to mediation. We don't need an ordinance for that. The ordinance is about the history. And so with the criteria being met and weighing all of that, I do need to support this application tonight regardless of how the vote turns out, and I hope the dialog continues about other methods where that's possible. But the protection from demolition is unique here. And I got to weigh that. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Councilwoman. Thank you, Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. President. Emblematic, I think of the deep division. In the community. I kept a spreadsheet up here of everybody who spoke. And I just the accident of who left and who didn't get to speak. We ended up with 23 parcels in testifying in favor and two owners of 23 parcels testifying against it. I just want to point that out. So it's evenly split 5050 just because of who stayed and who left, I suppose. I don't share the the level of confidence that Councilwoman each expresses in the in the criteria being met because of some of the things I brought up in questioning about direct association and distinguishing characteristics and significant work of recognized architects and builders, especially when two of the three structures of 173 already are landmarked. And so that does give me pause. I want to recognize the hard work that went into it on on the advocates side. I, too, took the tour that was offered. And it struck me that this is this is a sort of a different kind of district. The last one that we did, in fact, the only one that I was able to vote on in my time here was last year with the South. South Lincoln Street. It's there was a district that was sort of this was uniform characteristic here in in Packard's hill. We have many, many different types. It sort of defies classifying it as queen and or or or any other type of, you know, craftsman or terrorists. And it seems to me very, very different from some of the other districts that I have seen, and especially the last one that we voted on. And so I'm sitting here going back and forth like my friend Councilman Cashman, all through the evening, back and forth, not knowing where where to land on this. But I do have to say, at the end of the day, because of the deep division in the community, I really believe that this needs more consensus. And so I believe I have to oppose this. Thank you.
Speaker 1: All right. I'm the last speaker. Thank you, guys, for for coming through security, parking your car, refill in your parking meters. If you didn't do it, you've got to take it. We can't take care of it. Sorry. Thank you all for being here. You guys have actually been great. And I will say this is one of the probably one of the most contentious votes that but at the same time, the the the spirit has been jovial. And I think that's going to be important for your neighborhood in the future. I am you know, I don't want to repeat anything. I think the council members in here really embody a lot of what I've been thinking. I'm really frustrated at the. At the number of individuals who are in opposition, not for at you, but, you know, I'd love to see some something much more supportive as as I was talking to, you know, some of the proposers early on, I thought there would be a lot more support. And I don't know what happened. It's not clear to me, you know. QUESTION The council councilperson, who is is the leader in this district, questioned some of the proposers. QUESTION Some of you are it's still not clear to me what would happen. I know that Councilwoman Kenney, which, you know, kind of is saying that, you know, this isn't kind of the most important thing, but it's critical for me. It is critical for me because, you know, one of the reasons I'm such a strong proponent for districts is the evolution of the process that happens in the community process. That's the transformative piece. And I see it happening in my district all the time. And so that's why I'm quite frustrated. I will say this. In 2011. We really wanted to get revitalization going on five points in Walton and in five points in Wellington as a five block area. That is Landmark District. And there was one individual. Me. Who said let's? Let's let's do away with it. Let's deal with the district because no one is going to come and redevelop in five points on Walton. We hadn't had development since the light rail line. It would have been one of the biggest mistakes of. I think my time on city council today, we have over $400 million of redevelopment and it's all in that area of the Landmark District, and it's probably one of the most condensed redevelopment areas except for Brighton Boulevard right now. And when we begin to look at the long term future of historic districts and landmark districts. These are the districts that can protect these incredible economic times when not everybody should be developing. Let's just be honest. And calls that preservation in the community. I see it. I see it every day. I represent the economic engine of the city. And now these districts have not deterred any development at all. Curtis Park. Whelton. All of this is what I represent and I walk in on a daily basis now. Wilson is more commercial, but Curtis Park is mostly residential and really encourage a lot of folks to take a walk through their pop tops. People going in the back, people don't. You guys can't do ads. People don't have to use all of that. With design review. Yes, it is more complex. Yes, it is. Let's not. Talk like it's not, however, at the end of the day. All the residents in my constituency say. Our neighborhood is better for it. And I couldn't get around it. That's what I'm looking at in my support of this. I am struggling big time because of the number of people I see, the number of folks who spoke and articulate it. But at the end of the day, when we look in the future of what we want our city to be, this is the thing that that begins to protect it. So I'll be supporting this. Madam Secretary, Rocco Espinosa.
Speaker 8: I.
Speaker 2: FLYNN No.
Speaker 7: Gilmore No. Herndon? No. Cashman. Can each. Lopez. I knew. Ortega Sussman.
Speaker 6: Oh. Black?
Speaker 10: No.
Speaker 7: Clark.
Speaker 4: I.
Speaker 7: Mr. President.
Speaker 1: I. Police Close voting announce results.
Speaker 7: Eight days, five days.
Speaker 1: Eight days, five days nine. All three has passed. On Monday, October 2nd, 2017, Council will hold a required public hearing on Council Bill 100 for approving a 25 Rahway Urban Redevelopment Plan and authorized and creative creation of the Urban Redevelopment Plan and support the Broadway stations. So you no other business for this body, Senator?
A bill for an ordinance designating the Packard’s Hill Historic District, located generally between Lowell Boulevard on the east, 35th Avenue on the north, the alley between Osceola Street and Perry Street on the west, and 32nd Avenue on the south, as a district for preservation.
Approves the designation of Packard’s Hill as a Landmark Historic District for preservation, bounded approximately by Lowell Boulevard & Osceola Street and 32nd Avenue & 35th Avenue in Council District 1. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 8-22-17.