Speaker 0: 11 ICE counts. About 907 has passed. Congratulations to the Arizona. All right. So now we are starting comfortable 1021 and I want to before we start this, I just want to make a couple comments. I apologize because at the last minute we had to switch and put the general improvement districts first. As you saw, they went very quickly and we tried to do that ahead of time. There was a miscommunication. I apologize to Councilman Espinosa, but just wanted to let folks know. That's why we switched it. And I hope you understand. Okay. Councilwoman Gilmore, will you please put Councilor Bell 1021 on the floor?
Speaker 7: Yes, Mr. President. I move that council bill 1021 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 0: All right. It has been moved. And second, it was the public hearing for council bill 1021 is open may we have the staff report card on.
Speaker 4: Good evening president Brooks Kansas City Council members this is a landmark designation application for 2849 West 23rd Avenue. My name is Kara Hahn. I am a senior city planner with Landmark Preservation at Community Planning and Development. As you can see on slide to this is in Council District one and slide three shows that the Landmark Preservation Ordinance was established in 1967 and established preservation within the city and county of Denver to designate, preserve and protect. The ordinance was updated in 2006 and it was amended to include a demolition and a certificate of non historic status review. This is a community initiated application process, basically saying that all of us have a stake in preserving the city's history and architectural legacy. Demolition review of some sort is a fairly common practice in larger cities for preservation. In 2012, there was also an ordinance update. It was amended to allow for applications to be submitted by both the managers. The manager of Community Planning and Development as well as adding city council members as applicants. Slide number four goes in shows that a design review and demolition for designated properties properties are designated as is. There are no requirements for improvements. There are no requirements to renovate or rehab or restore a particular property. Design review is for exterior changes only and those are tied to permits. There is no reviewer review work on interior, on paint colors or anything like that, and on general maintenance. However, demolitions are highly discouraged. Slide five The applications are submitted proactively through surveys or grassroots efforts, or they can also come through the demolition review or the certificate of non historic status process. The swing came through through that process and for anyone who can to apply for a landmark designation, it can come from the owner of a property, from the manager of CPD, from a member of City Council as this particular one, or through three people who are residents, property owners, or have a place of business in Denver. The next couple of slides show sort of the history of the certificate in demolition applications as reviewed by community planning and development. It was started in 2006, and so Slide eight shows 2007 through 2015. The number of demolitions reviewed, the numbers of certificates of non historic status reviewed and then the properties posted for public notice. I wanted to note that 2013 and 2014 we don't have the numbers for the properties that were posted during those two years. The following slide on seven shows, all of the sort of percentages of properties that were posted either for or that were reviewed for demolition certificates of non historic status or properties posted in percentages of the numbers that we have reviewed of those in the last two years, we have only had a couple of those that actually came through as landmark designation applications and that eventually made it to City Council. On Slide eight, it shows the 2016 numbers for certificates of non historic status and demolition applications that have been reviewed this year. This is these are the numbers as of November 16 of this year. So last Wednesday or Thursday, we have reviewed about 580 and we did not post any of those. We reviewed and posted 33 properties. And just wanted to note that since Thursday, when I put those numbers together, we have another 20 that staff is currently reviewing. For this particular property. A certificate of non historic status application was received on August 1st of 2016. Landmarks staff reviewed the application and per the ordinance if we found it had the potential for designation. We posted the structure for public notice. A landmark designation application was received on September 13th when we received the landmark designation application lane marks after a couple of checks of it. First, we make sure it's just simply complete. In second, we go through and do a thorough evaluation to determine that it meets the criteria as well as that the information in it is accurate . So we if there are any citations in it, I go through and I make sure that those information is correct, that the census records are correct, that the city directories are correct. I go and look at the Sanborn fire insurance maps that the applicant has put together to make sure that the information with the lane marked within the landmark designation application is accurate. We found that it was. And so we set a public hearing for the Landmark Preservation Commission on October 18th. At that meeting, the Landmark Preservation Commission determined that the designation should be forwarded to City Council for your review. Prior to the Lpsc public hearing, we posted signage on the property. We notified the owner and the applicant through certified letters to the owner, as well as emails to both the owner and the applicant. We also notified the registered neighborhood organizations as well as interested stakeholders like Colorado Preservation Inc, the National Trust for Historic Preservation and Historic Denver. At that time, we also notified City Council Planning Board and the building inspectors and then posted it into the Daily Journal in October 6th. Throughout this process, when our staff has spoken with the owner, the applicant, and then historic Denver, as they have been trying to find a preservation minded buyer for this particular property. So on slide 11, it shows that the property is at 2849 West 23rd Avenue. The map shows that it is near the corner of Eliot and 23rd Avenue. The applicant was Councilmember Espinosa. It is in Council District one and it is, according to Blueprint Denver, an area of change. On the next slide, it shows the Chapter three requirements for a landmark designation. A property must one maintain its physical and historic integrity and then meet one designation criteria in two or more of the following categories history, architecture and geography. And finally, third, it needs to relate to a historic context or theme within Denver history. Slide 13 shows that the has a photo of the building and it shows that the property maintains its physical and historic integrity. The ordinance describes integrity as the ability of a structure to convey its historic and architectural significance and is being recognized as belonging to its particular time and place in Denver's history. Overall, this property has had minimal changes with the possible alteration of some of the windows. However, the fenestration pattern remains intact. The Preservation Commission had a discussion about the integrity and found that it had excellent integrity. Although there have been some minor changes to the rear of the building. The Sanborn Maps also show many of those changes occurred within the period of certain significance or the time period when the building was determined with historic. Slide 14 shows our goes through the three different criteria of history, architecture and geography. Landmark Preservation Commission found that it met it under history for C architecture A in geography A and I'll go through all three of those. So for history, it must have a direct and substantial association with a person or a group of persons who had influence on society. Burnham and Merrill Hoyt were prolific and noted Colorado architects. These are some of Colorado's homegrown architects. For the most part, most of our early architects were from out of state or came from somewhere else. These were architects who grew up here. They went to North High School. So these are people who resided in the neighborhood of Denver or who resided in Denver and grew up with Denver architecture. When they went on to design so many magnificent buildings. Burnham and Merrill Hoyt created a firm. Hoyt and Hoyt architecture. Slide 16 is an example of some of the properties that these two gentlemen designed. They both resided in the building and worked as draftsman early in their career. Merrill Hoyt then moved, moved out and stayed in Denver. BURNHAM Hoyt continued on his architectural training in New York and then came back in about 1919. And the two architect brothers designed almost all of these properties that you're going to see between 1919 and about 1926 or 1927, at which time Burnham Hoyt was residing in the house . So we have the Park Library, the Fourth Church of Christ Science and the Cherokee Castle. On the next slide, slide 17 we have examples of the Lake Junior High School, Saint Martins Chapel, the Denver Press Club, the Denver. Those were all designed by both brothers together collaboratively. The Denver Public Library was the last building that Burnham Hoyt designed. And then Burnham Hoyt is perhaps most well-known for designing Red Rocks. This is the sort of what made him internationally famous is his work on Red Rocks. So the Landmark Preservation Commission found that the both do that due to the association with both of the brothers having living and resided and working within the house, that the house had substantial influence and that they had substantial influence on society. On Slide 19, the Landmark Preservation Commission found that the building met the criteria under architecture, which is to embody distinguishing characteristics of an architectural style or type. In this instance, the Queen in style, oftentimes Queen Anne have steeply pitched roofs or complained complex roof plans, irregular plans, asymmetrical facades, projecting bays or windows. And the Queen Anne style is also known for having varying wall textures, as can be seen here in the gable and shingles. In the barge board. In the brackets. In the belt courses, the belt courses are the purple lines that you can see going horizontally across the building in the window surrounds and the variety of ways that the window is treated throughout the building and then finally in the turned porch on the front. And these are all characteristics of queen in styles. And in Denver, Queen Anne's are very typically brick buildings. And so this is an excellent, excellent example of the queen in style architecture. And finally, on July 20, the Landmark Preservation Commission found that the the property is significant under geography. This was noted in both the landmark designation application and then the Landmark Commission also recommended it forward forwarded because of its location as it overlooks Jefferson Park. It's on a steeply raised position and it provides views of both the park and of Denver. And this high, high location highlights the structure. It is also located along West 23rd Avenue, which is a thoroughfare. And so they found that it meets the criteria under geography as having a prominent location. Finally, a property also has to relate to historic contexts or themes in this property relates to 19th century high style Queen Anne style residence, and it reflects the development in the early growth of Denver and its early boom years, particularly in that area of the Highlands. Slide 22. It shows the comments in the petitions that we have received, that we have received eight letters in support or eight letters and or emails. We have received one letter in opposition. We have comments from the owners representatives. There's also been an online petition in support of the application. And then we. In your packets you also received the owner's presentation to LPC as well as the letter from the applicant. On Slide 23 is a summary that the property maintains its historic and physical integrity. That it meets one criteria in two or more of the following categories. It meets in three in history because it is associated with persons who had influence on society. With Burnham and Merrill Hoyt and their substantial architectural designs in architecture as it embodies distinguishing characteristics of an architectural style or type and under geography as having a prominent location. It also relates to the context and theme. The LPC unanimously recommended approval and forwarding it on to City Council. And finally, on Slide 24, I just wanted to make a brief note. I know that there have been a few letters that have gone out about Discover Denver, which is an unrelated program to either the landmark designation or the certificate of non historic status process. Discover Denver is a building survey that's meant to identify historic and architecturally significant features and to identify places that matter in Denver history. It is a citywide survey program. The city of Denver has had other surveys done throughout its history, but we are working to do a larger citywide program . The Discover Denver program works hard to be very proactive to work with the Arnaud's and to talk to all of every city council member when we are in that particular district. We discovered Denver has been covered on night news as well as the Denver Post and various other organizations, and we just wanted to note that it is entirely separate from sort of this landmark designation process.
Speaker 0: Thank you care. All right. We have 38 speakers. And so how we're going to do this is we're going to leave this first bench open and I'm going to call the first five speakers. And if you could come and quickly and we can get through all of the speakers on time and have enough time for questions and discussion, some call the first five. Judith Battista. Beth greeted Larry Tanenbaum. Sorry, some of these we didn't get the spelling correct. Matthew Rourke and Joe Judd. And Judith Battista, you're up first with 6 minutes. Go ahead. You can.
Speaker 2: Say.
Speaker 5: Hello. My name is Judith Battista, the property owner at 2849 West 23rd Avenue. I humbly come before you to defend my house, my rights and my financial future regarding the hostile designation of my property. You know that saying you never know what someone is going through. So always be kind. Well, I come before you when I would rather be with my best friend fighting for her life with cancer. But instead I'm here fighting for my life, my rights, my house, and my financial future. Next page, please. I started with the quote because this hostile designation has been anything but kind to me. I am a single woman working two jobs that bought my property ten years ago. I knew there was some flaws, but I chose to paint over them instead. Over the years, the flaws came out even more and repair costs have soared for almost everything. I cannot afford the repairs or the upkeep. My house is my nest egg and my only retirement. I come from a family of civil servants, military police and fire. We are simple people with simple means. After my application submission people wanted to talk about my historic house. I was also contacted by Councilman Rafael Espinosa during business hours, which I informed him I could lose my job taking personal calls at work. It seemed to me that Councilman Espinosa had control over the certificate of non historic status, so I better speak to him and do what he says. I felt intimidated, scared and confused all at the same time. When we did speak after work, he became very pushy and would not allow me to speak or ask questions. This is the same behavior that he and his staff showed at a recent Japan meeting when they tried to bully me and shout me out. Shout me down. Sorry. There are witnesses in the room who can attest to that. In fact, Japan members finally had to tell them to stop. At the end of our conversation, the phone conversation, Councilman Espinosa threw out a figure not once, but twice. He asked if I would give him ten days to find a buyer at that amount, or he would oppose my application for non historic status and I have it designated against my will. I am a single woman who worked very hard to buy this house. It's all I have and feeling completely intimidated. I agreed to his terms. I honored my word and gave Councilman Espinosa ten days. He was unable to find a buyer. I kept my word. But yet Councilman Espinosa did not keep his. He filed is the only person on the application to have my house designated historic. The following day. Next page, please. I guess this is where I need to still follow protocol. And the reason I am here? Yes. Burnham and Merl Hoyt did live at my property. They were not born there. They did not design it. They did not die there. They never even owned the property. Burnham Hoyt is just getting out of high school when Red Rocks became an Ampitheater in 1906. BURNHAM Hoyt did not get his Colorado architectural license until 1925. Next page. Many of the original structures from Sanborn surveys of the property are not currently on site. Two wooden structures have been removed and the garage has been added. The next page, please. The front porch is not original either. The original design has a wrap around wooden front porch. Next page, please. My house needs a completely new sewer line. This is an issue due to a huge pine tree and a rich retaining wall. I don't even want to discuss the terrible sewer smell throughout my house. The water line needs to be replaced. My water supply is delivered in galvanized pipes, which makes my water brown. Next page. The 20 plus years old rope needs to be replaced. The roof replacement, quote, received is over $15,000. The contractor could not even tell me what historic roofs would cost. Next page. There are numerous foundational cracks that penetrate the entire foundation. I have had every single window sill pop and the company that put them in has gone out of business. Next page, please. All the wood on the exterior is rotted. The fascia, the soffit, the scaling and other details are mostly held up with paint. The. Paint job from ten years ago no longer hides all of these repairs. Next page. The cost associated with fixing up my property is very close to $100,000. But when historic status is mandated to my property, the cost would certainly double. We have provided a few quotes as examples. The next page, please. Before this happened to me, I would never have believed that this could happen to an American. The three people with $875 can file to have your property designated historic against your will. They don't even have to live in Denver. Or worse, one councilman with $0 can do the same thing and now can sit up there and vote against me. This hostile designation process is stacked against the homeowner. I cannot afford these attorneys and I certainly cannot afford experts. Meanwhile, Councilman Espinosa has unlimited resources. The LPC, who suspects that.
Speaker 0: Your time is up.
Speaker 5: Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Yup. Best critic.
Speaker 7: Hello. My name is Beth Goodrich. Thank you for hearing this. I'm a native of Colorado, and I've chosen to live in Denver since 1998. Attracted me to Denver was the diversity in neighborhoods and everything that goes along with it. I love the city for everything that it has to offer. I have my businesses downtown, which is in District nine on Larimer Street, and I feel there is a certainly there is a place for the historic thing to go on, by all means, and we abide by that. But you may wonder why I'm here. Since my businesses are there, I strongly believe that there is a time and a place to protect the older buildings. I happen to own my home in Sunnyside, where the neighborhood is seeing a lot of diversity and change. Some of it is more esthetically pleasing than others, but I'm a believer that we should be able to sell our homes to whomever and whenever we want it. When we own our homes. This restriction is excuse me, this restriction that they're trying to place on this particular home is not justified. I understand that there are areas of town that have been voted to keep old homes old, and this is a full disclosure during the sale of the property. This is not the case. There seems to be a discrimination in regard to this particular home and situation. Again, my stance is I believe there is a time and a place for this historic society to protect. But this is just not the case.
Speaker 0: Thank you.
Speaker 4: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Larry Tanenbaum. You have six, 6 minutes.
Speaker 3: Council members. My name is Larry Tanenbaum. I appear on behalf of and by the way, I live two, three, three, one South Fig Street, Lakewood, Colorado. But I've lived most of my life in Denver and work almost all my working life in Denver. I also went to Denver Public Schools. I appear on behalf of the Northside High School Alumni Association, 1500 members, and we're speaking and I will speak in support of the ordinance proposed. My position with the association, it's a voluntary position is as an archivist and a historian, we keep records, files, memorabilia. Of our alumni, staff, faculty, important figures in Denver history. We become involved in issues relating to North Denver, for example, the preservation of the Golden Warehouse. We were actively involved in that. You have two prior letters. I sent one to the Landmark Commission. I also sent a letter to counsel. I'm going to try not to repeat what I said in those letters. I assume you all have them and have had a chance to read it. Meryl Hoyt was born in 1881. BURNHAM Hoyt was born in 1887, so Merrill was eight when he moved into the house his parents purchased, and it was built in 1889. Burnham was two. They spent their entire childhoods in those houses, in that house. Burnham for my estimation, looking through records, probably spent about 40 years of his life living in this house. That's at issue here. It appears to me without question that this house and its location and the neighborhood it had an influence on on these gentleman's later careers as architects. They designed many significant buildings in Denver. Red Rocks, the ampitheater that we know today was designed by Burnham Hoyt, and it was built by the WPA in the thirties. It was just a hillside with these great rock formations prior to that. You saw just some of the buildings that the Burnham and Merrill designed. Unquestionably. These are two major figures in Denver history. I was here earlier when you were discussing an ordinance honoring a historic Denver figure. BURNHAM Hoyt is also a giant figure in Denver history. His presence is everywhere you see it. Merrill was a principal in the firm that designed this building we're sitting in and unquestionably had some impact and influence in the designs of the city and county building. Thomas Noel, a well-known historian of Denver, and its history spans several pages discussing the heights and says the Burnham stands out for his from his peers as the foremost mid-twentieth century architect. One thing is certain if this designation is not granted. This house will be demolished in an area where many houses have been demolished. It will be replaced by a multifamily. Insignificant, architecturally insignificant structure that quite frankly, will be downright ugly, the areas filled with them already. That's a certainty. If if this house isn't protected, we don't know who the who is going to develop this property because the owner has steadfastly refused to disclose the developer. Very likely. And we don't know. But I'm going to speculate that it is an out-of-state developer with lots of money who could care less about Denver and could care less about Denver's history. And that's who's going to profit here. That's who's going to make money. We know none of the details of what's been offered to the landowner by the developer. Landowners use of his or her property is not absolute. A landowner cannot absolutely do whatever they want with the property. There's a reason why there are zoning. There is historical overlays, there's conservation overlays and easements. If we're going to have an ordered society, there has to be some sort of control for the benefit of all citizens. There cannot be unrestricted use of property. Denver is at a crossroads right now, particularly in northwest Denver. If this house and you've seen the significance of this house, if this house is not entitled to a historic designation, then what is this house is entitled? It meets all the criteria. Many, many buildings have been torn down in Denver, particularly in northwest Denver. If the landmark ordinance is to have any meaning at all, this landmark designation should be granted for the Hoyt residents. I'm urging you to take the right path, the correct path for the citizens of Denver, past and present, and designate this House as a landmark. Thank you for your attention.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Tenenbaum. Matthew Rourke.
Speaker 3: Good evening, counsel. Thank you for your time. Matthew Rourke, the work at 1801, California attorney and I represent Judith Battista. You've probably seen some of my letters, been involved in an earlier process. We've come to know a hostile designation. And surely Denver's landmark preservation ordinance is broken. And as we've seen recently, ripe for abuse over the past several years, those that are very opposed to development in the city have realized that they can interfere with the property owners legitimate rights to sell or develop his or her property by filing a historic designation application with the City Land City's Landmark Preservation Office against the property owners wishes. Notably, it does not take an application for a certificate of non historic status or a demolition permit to trigger the historic designation process. Rather, at any time three residents or business owners located anywhere in the city. Whereas we have seen this case, a single city council member can apply to start the process against the structure. What then follows is an extremely one sided, unfair and costly process that gives little, if any, consideration to the wishes of the opposing property owner. The property owner is given a total of 10 minutes of the LPC commission hearing, another 3 to 6 minutes here to oppose and protect, try and protect their property rights. Moreover, once the Commission recommends the property be designated as historic, which it always does, the owner is then afforded another 3 to 6 months here at the council . Most of the time the residents don't realize that when they purchase an older home in the city, it's not located in the horse historic district that they're subjected. They could be subjected to this process. The ordinance was meant to preserve structures that truly merit historic designation. What I've seen over the past several years, that has become something entirely different. In the case of Judith Battista, we have an application from a single council member who has shown through his recent interactions with her and the neighborhood organization that he is not capable of being impartial in this matter. We've submitted some written objections for the record, incorporating those by reference. We do not believe it is appropriate for Councilman Espinosa to submit his own application again to hastily designate a property and then sit on the dais and vote in favor of that application. With respect to the Landmark Preservation Commission, we object to the extent that they've added a criteria that was not in the application and was beyond the recommendation of the staff. Geography was never part of the equation. They added that at the last minute to try and bootstrap their recommendation. The ordinance process itself must be changed to prevent further abuses of this kind and to ensure that the property owners rights are adequately protected going forward. We intend on working proactively with the Council as part of a mass swallowing of an organization that's now being developed to try and make some changes to this ordinance so that it's not abused any further. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Burke. Let's go with this bunch. Joel Judd.
Speaker 6: Mr. President and members of the council.
Speaker 3: First off, I want to thank you for your stamina.
Speaker 6: Some of you know me as Representative Judd. I had the honor.
Speaker 3: Of representing House District five in the Legislature for eight years.
Speaker 6: I live at the corner of 24th.
Speaker 3: And Eliot.
Speaker 6: As you heard earlier, the house you're considering.
Speaker 3: Is just off of the corner of 23rd. And Eliot, so I'm a block away. I bought my house in 1979. So I've been there a little while. The reason I'm here is actually has more to do with not where I live now, but but where I grew up. I grew up in the Park Hill neighborhood. When I was five years old. My folks walked me up to kindergarten at Park Hill Elementary and the Path a Longmont view went past a couple of very substantial buildings.
Speaker 6: There's a masonic temple, and there was another building.
Speaker 3: Which I didn't have much reason to think about in kindergarten.
Speaker 6: But as years went by, I did learn to read and that building became very important to me.
Speaker 3: It was the Park Hill Public Library.
Speaker 6: A stucco building with.
Speaker 3: Half curved shingles on the top. Well, I spent a good bit of my life there in the Park Elementary Hyde Park Hill Library. And I have to tell you, I won't credit Bertram Hoyt with having taught me how to read. He doesn't do that.
Speaker 9: But he did create a building that.
Speaker 3: Gave me an awful lot of interest.
Speaker 6: In going in there.
Speaker 3: And I.
Speaker 6: Did end up becoming quite a bit of a reader.
Speaker 9: And I can't say that what he did had had no.
Speaker 3: Contribution to that. So I'm here today. Yeah, I know. A late, middle aged, balding man.
Speaker 6: But the impetus for coming here.
Speaker 3: Is.
Speaker 9: Really something that happened to me when I was seven, eight, nine years old. So my request to you.
Speaker 6: Is to.
Speaker 3: Honor.
Speaker 6: Say to the seven, eight, nine year old Burnham White and his brother, who grew up in that house down the block for me and did quite a bit to enrich my life.
Speaker 3: And so.
Speaker 9: You know, if you can preserve his house.
Speaker 3: I think you'll have done a good thing and both for their memory and also I think there'll be a value to Denver. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Judd. I'm going to call the next five folks. Louis Bussey, Joe DeRose, Sheila Peoples, Brad Evans, and then Ft. Lewis, you are first.
Speaker 6: Good evening. Members of council. I'm Louis Bussey. I currently live in West Highlands. Although for most of the 1970s, I lived in a house that I still own on River Drive. Which is a quaint little street. I've always been concerned about historic preservation. I am a retired Colorado architect. Formerly specializing in residential, light, commercial and land planning. I'm neither an advocate nor an opponent of this bill, but I offer what I believe could be a viable option to both parties. The option is the relocation of the Hoyt House. To a news site. Preserving the structure and history while allowing the current owner to move forward with plans for the current House site. Two blocks east on 23rd Avenue from the White House is a vacant lot that I own. And have for some time. While smaller the lot. Meets the required zoning size and setbacks for the house, along with space for a new two car garage. The light the lot itself may require some zoning adjustments as far as lot coverage and minor bolt play. In order for this to work for me, I would require the transfer of the House title free of charge. Unknown to me at this time is the actual condition of the house. Which would need to be determined. I would plan to provide a probably an estimated $200,000 of work for new foundation side work, interior renovation, new garage furnace, utility upgrades, etc.. Such a move. However, even only two blocks away would not be cheap and its cost is likely well outside my funding capabilities. Perhaps a creative compromise could be worked out in that regard. The result, however, would be a renovated, high single family home that should be looked at favorably by historic Denver. For inclusion as a contributing structure not only to the Jefferson Park neighborhood, but also for the River Drive. Itself, which is inhabited by a number of. Interesting. Interesting. Victorian and Queensland cottage structures. So I'm again, I apologize for coming to you late. I recently returned from overseas and just heard about this just within the last week, and that's my option. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Bassey. Something. Something tells me that someone's going to call on you later, so I hope you can stay to the end. Joe DeRose.
Speaker 3: Mr. President. Council, thank you for this time. There is something positive in all of this. My name is Joe DeRose. I'm a retired Denver public school teacher, lifelong resident of Northwest Denver, a graduate of North High School and a teacher at North High School. And having this property come to the fore as a hearing about the historical significance of people who went north before me, it really what brought me here tonight, this building and I don't know about its architectural significance. It's a beautiful painted lady. It really is a neat property. I've seen it. I walk by it, and it's a wonderful place. But I want to speak to a very specific historical connotation or context in which this building exists. Burnham and Merrill Hoyt went to North High, and many students had they had Lake then built. At the time they were growing up, they would have gone to lake. However, they built lake and North has always been somewhat of an immigrant school. And having this property at least come to the fore here in this hearing, and maybe the property could be preserved or in some manner always remembered because kids that go to lake aren't kids go to north here and see always. Their culture is imported. It's imported is it's imported from the east, from someplace else. And yet here is a building that many of them will have attended by the time they come to North. And they will get to know that the architects actually went to the school that they went to. This is a grounding that is beyond just dollars and cents. I appreciate that there is property rights, and the only thing I would say about that is the passing of this historical designation would not all ultimately stop these property rights from being exercised, but it would delay them. It would allow more conversation and more education.
Speaker 0: And with that, I want to thank you. Thank you, Sir Sheila Peoples.
Speaker 2: Good evening, counsel. Mine is very simple and sweet. My name is Sheila K Peebles. I reside at 2939 South Boulevard, District two, Harvey Park. I'm a very proud Harvey Park resident. I've been raised in our family home for 51 years. I have a daughter now.
Speaker 3: And I am also a.
Speaker 2: Proud owner of a multitude of couple homes in the Harvey Park area. So being a single mother, looking at investment and what I'm going to retire with, my biggest fear is, is this going to happen to me?
Speaker 0: How am I.
Speaker 2: Assured that this is not going to happen to me? I can't afford what Ms.. Batista's going through. I couldn't afford all the time and the money. So in my thought, thinking, I, I love the idea of saving Denver and the historical process, but my property rights, I can understand that I need to take care of me. Historical committee. Are they going to control that? I understand churches, schools, parks, libraries to be saved.
Speaker 10: What about my home?
Speaker 2: What about my family? We all live within the Harvey Park area. Thank you so.
Speaker 0: Much. Thank you, Miss Peoples. Brad Evans.
Speaker 10: Thank you. My name is Brad Evans. Thank you for having me here. I appreciate the time. I've been a Jefferson Park resident since 2004. Bought my first house at 28th and Elliot. So this is my neighborhood has been my neighborhood since that time. I wanted to talk about some of the myths that have been spoken in this whole process, that that property rights are un-American, that preservation is un-American. I think also importantly, that historic designation will reduce my property values that.
Speaker 3: Has been proven over and over.
Speaker 10: False. I work in the real estate business and since 2006, Jefferson Park has changed. The values of the houses have changed there. I did some look look up some of the MLS since on the 10th of November, a house on 28th sold for 600,000, actually 591,000 River Road, which is kind of the highest, maybe the most historic part of Jefferson Park, a house there sold for 653,000. So those are houses that are being preserved, but just by by the transfer of ownership, not necessarily with this process, some things are worth saving. I think this House, there's not much left in Jefferson Park that's worth saving. But this house kind of shows historic people, historic place. I ask you to consider it in saving. What? What's worth saving? Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Evans. Dan Feed. Thank you, Mr. President. And the.
Speaker 3: Council. My name is Dan Feed. I am a resident of Belle.
Speaker 0: Carroll Park in south east Denver. I'm currently serving.
Speaker 3: On the board of directors there. This is my second go around.
Speaker 0: I just wanted to briefly mention a story we had.
Speaker 10: Six years ago.
Speaker 0: We had a similar situation.
Speaker 8: A homeowner.
Speaker 10: Bought a 19,000.
Speaker 0: Square foot piece of dirt at 825 South Adams, and he was going to build his retirement.
Speaker 3: Home.
Speaker 0: There.
Speaker 3: And within our own neighborhood, there were a couple people that put a hostile designation on his house.
Speaker 0: His house was a beautiful, beautiful mid-century ranch home.
Speaker 3: One of my favorite architectural styles.
Speaker 8: That's why I could.
Speaker 3: Really appreciate Christina earlier tonight. I love old homes. I love old cars. I restore old cars. And. I love this house. When I think about the story we had in Belle Carroll, Parkville, the home there was severely.
Speaker 0: It had deferred maintenance. It would have taken more money to bring that home up to speed, to make it a pristine.
Speaker 3: Restored residence than it would have.
Speaker 0: Been worth. And when I look at Judy's home here.
Speaker 3: I can completely.
Speaker 0: Appreciate.
Speaker 3: The historical nature of it. But knowing what restorations cost, I think it's it's really not a feasible, viable project. The only way it could be viable is if it were relocated to another site or if historic Denver would purchase the home themselves and restore it and make something similar to the Molly the Molly Brown house.
Speaker 0: If they were to purchase it.
Speaker 10: I would suggest.
Speaker 0: A fair market value.
Speaker 3: So that's that's a I just wanted to share that I am about private property rights. I'm about saving Denver when we can and when it's feasible. I just wanted to share that tonight.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Ft. All right. We have the next five speakers if the folks out front would return to the seats and be helpful. Joan Bolduc sorry if we pronounced that wrong. Nathan Adams. Marilyn Quinn. Ken below and Paul. Cloyd. Joan. You will be first.
Speaker 2: Hello. My name is Joan Bolduc. I live in the West Highlands neighborhood. 303330338 Thanksgiving. With the rapid pace of growth in Denver, we are losing the historic buildings that connect us to our past. The 100 plus year old former residence of renowned architect Merrill Merrill and Burnt Burnham Hoyt is now in danger. This great city has values, some of which the city council celebrated and proclaimed tonight. I believe that preservation of our shared history and heritage is one. Such common value is what nourishes our communities and neighborhoods and holds together our social fabric. Denver has a landmark preservation ordinance to protect these buildings and our shared heritage. Please join the Denver's own Landmark Commission recommendation to grant protection from demolition to this house. The owner still can sell it. She can still remodel it. She just won't be able to demolish it. Merrill and Burnham Hoyt not only influence Denver in their lifetime, but their work influences.
Speaker 7: The look and feel.
Speaker 2: Of Denver, the city beautiful, and the house they grew up in. And the later Burnham return to has a part of how that happened. Please protect the structure. And I would just like to say that I'm sorry that this process has been so difficult for the owner. Nobody means this personally or whatever. We just really care about our heritage and we support our councilman, Rafael Espinosa, in this endeavor. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Miss Body. Nathan Adams. Good evening, council members. My name is Nathan Adams at.
Speaker 3: 2899 North Sphere Boulevard. I'm the owner of three businesses headquartered in Jefferson Park. I'm also a survivor of hostile historic designation council elect Espinosa. At the time, I filed a hostile application on a property that my company was involved with. I know firsthand what Judith is going through sleepless nights, anxiety over what could be forced upon her, and anger that she's been thrust into the spotlight against her will. It sucks. It's unfair. And beyond voting this down tonight, we need to look to change the law so that one signature on an application and application completed by historic Denver and not the applicant can have such a profound impact on someone's life and financial livelihood. The businesses I own are all real estate related. I'm a licensed broker, a developer, and I own a construction company. I can testify that you this property is worth more for its land value than it is encumbered by a hostile, historic , encumbered by a historic designation that ensures the House remains standing regardless of its condition. The land value is between 300 and $400,000 year. Additionally, if designated, Judith will be saddled with repairs and maintenance she cannot afford and will be held to a standard that will make her comply with stringent historic standards. Mere window replacement alone could cost triple what it otherwise would. You may hear proponents of the designation complain that Judith is not entertaining.
Speaker 0: Offers and not.
Speaker 3: Opening her home to other prospective buyers. This argument is nonsense. If Judith has hired a competent broker that understands, as I do, the value of what she owns is in the land and she can sell the property and as is condition. Why should Judith cave to the demands of a few people that have caused her undue grief and anxiety over a future sale of her property? I encourage you to vote against designation and vote in Judith's favor. Please send a clear message to Councilman Espinosa that these hostile designations are not something we as a city want to spend our tax dollars on. City council has more important things to do for the people of Denver. Thank you for your time.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Adams. Marilyn Quinn.
Speaker 2: I'm pleased to speak in support of designation of this home as a Denver landmark because world class city heritage.
Speaker 0: Can you introduce yourself just for the record, I.
Speaker 2: Thought you had Marilyn Quinn.
Speaker 0: Just great. Thank you. Sorry to interrupt.
Speaker 2: But to start over. Yeah.
Speaker 0: You can start over.
Speaker 2: I'm pleased to speak in support of designation of this home as the Denver landmark because a world class city values its heritage. The stately home has met all three criteria required for designation as a Denver landmark. It has an architectural, historic and geographic significance to the city of Denver. It has maintained its historic integrity and appears to be in good structure, good enough structural condition that is apparently rented out at this time. According to the Denver Post yesterday, although the owner tonight sounds like she's living with water that isn't drinkable. So I'm not sure which to believe. But I would just like to say that when the unsustainable practice of scraping older homes started to become common in Denver, we were told that the only homes being destroyed were derelict and of poor quality. If that were ever true, it is certainly not the case now. Properly maintained, this home could last another century, but instead it faces demolition and adding to the waste in our landfill. Too often, buildings of this quality are being replaced with ones built to last 30 or 40 years. Some in my neighborhood have begun to show exterior, structural, exterior and structural deterioration after as little as six years. There is a market for homes like this one. Several near me have sold in the last few years for prices at the very top of the market. Until last spring, the landmarked home next to me was regarded by many as too far gone to save. But it found new owners who transformed the exterior to its original beauty. And last month, in just six months, it was on a home tour. Property owners who are not interested in maintaining an older home can sell it at a substantial profit without leaving their neighbors in a vastly diminished space. Please remember that a city is more than just a cluster of properties. I strongly encourage you to follow the unanimous recommendation of the Denver Landmark Commission and designate this historic residence a Denver landmark.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Quinn. Quinn below. Can below.
Speaker 6: My name is Ken below. Thanks for letting me speak. I reside in the.
Speaker 3: Hari Park neighborhood and I have recently found out that my neighborhood is also on the historic Denver hit list. So I'm just here to speak on behalf of Judith that I feel it's it's not.
Speaker 6: Right that.
Speaker 3: She's being forced to restore.
Speaker 6: And I worked in construction.
Speaker 3: For 15 years. And I know the cost of restoration.
Speaker 6: I when I bought my home, I did a lot of work. And and to find out that, you know, historic Denver might designate my my neighborhood.
Speaker 3: As a hostile takeover is something I don't feel is right. And to have a council councilman.
Speaker 6: Head, it is not right also. So thank.
Speaker 3: You.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Mr. below. Paul Cloyd.
Speaker 11: Thank you, Mr. President. My name is Paul Cloyd. I'm an architect and an engineer. I resided on my own home in Denver in the District one, and have done so since 1984. I speak today at an opposition of the hostile certification of historic set status, and I'm in support of the landmark designation. The Hoyt residence tells an important part of our city's story. The Hoyt resident should be preserved and not too polished. The Hoyt residence unequivocally meets all three landmark criteria, as evidenced by the unanimous recommendation from the commission. You should be aware that this house is the oldest remaining structure facing Jefferson Park. It's the last queen. And so if you don't approve this, I guess I can promise you they'll never be another queen. And destroyed facing Jefferson Park. The few remaining older homes that are along the park date from the early part of the 20th century. As has been said by many others, this House is of particular historic significance because of its association with Beryl Burnham. Hoyt The criteria, it talks about influence on the development of the city. And as has been pointed out, you don't have to look far. Just look to the east here and you can see the Denver Public Library. Burnham's 1955 international style design. But you don't even have to look that far. It's also been mentioned this building. This room was influenced by Merrill Hoyt as a member of the Allied Architects Association of Denver, which was responsible for the design of this building . Now, here's a fun fact. While I was researching Meryl's involvement with the design of this building, I learned that the fourth floor, this room included, was originally planned as the city jail. Nothing applied there. But I'll just conclude by saying that if we do lose the residents to demolition, I think it would be a crime. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Cloyd. All right, now we have the next five speakers. If you'd come to the front here. Moses Salgado. Jerry Olsen. Scott Richmond. H. Scott Richmond. Bryan Spindle. And Diana Rodriguez. Moses Salgado. You will be first.
Speaker 10: Okay. Hello. My name is Moises. I live with my family at 23/30 Street and Jefferson Park. This whole process had me thinking about the future, and I'm wondering if this will happen to my family as well. I don't think it's fair that other people have the ability to decide what happens to our properties like everyone else. Our family bought our house as an investment for the future. I'm truly worried about the situation because our family has been working very hard all her life and this is my father telling me he deserves every cent. And if something like this was to happen to our house, the value would drop. Councilman Espinoza recently compared our rights to the prison, to our personal homes, to activists taking over land in Oregon. That is ridiculous. I'm all about conservation in situations where it's a church or a school or even a restaurant. Not this, though. This is someone's home and only they should be allowed to choose what happens to it. In conclusion, I would like to say that this is not fair, and I encourage you to vote against this landmark designation.
Speaker 0: Moses. Can you say your name for the record? Cecil. Thank you. Jerry Olson.
Speaker 6: Yes. Thank you. I have prepared statement.
Speaker 3: My name is Gerry Olsen.
Speaker 6: Reside at 2195 Decatur Street Unit 312. I've been there ten years.
Speaker 3: Graduated from North High School in 1959. Long before you were. Some of your even born. But I want to go on and say I'm in favor of the preservation of the Hoyt house. Last night I posted a statement on Denver Fugly Facebook page about lessons learned from the acquisition and demolition of the Anderson House at 2329 Elliott Street just around the corner. Now.
Speaker 6: I would commend you to read that to get some more detail in regard to this.
Speaker 3: Acquisition that had has some lessons for the Hoyt House and the property owner. In brief, following your decision to deny the request for the historic preservation of the Anderson House, Old Jim was paid $1,010,000 in January 2016, and 43 days later, the developer who's here tonight sold the same property for a cool two point. To. $2,261,000. At that meeting, you were informed that we had a cash offer, a $1,100,000, which included preservation of the Anderson House and development of 14 townhomes on the balance of the land. When we lost your vote, when we lost your vote, the developer went on North on Federal Boulevard and he happened to our developer.
Speaker 6: Is currently preserving and.
Speaker 3: Redeveloping the Basler house of which you're well aware but anyway so out of out of the Fugly there are a couple of things that came upon came about. First, the house should be prepared. Should be preserved with encouraging redevelopment and. Allowing the preservation of the White House. You can have both. You could have had both on the Anderson property. The second recommendation that was voiced in Fugly is in fact to establish a fund to assist owners of historic homes in the cost of maintenance. And I would suggest that you be ask the city to conduct a feasibility study.
Speaker 0: Mr. Wilson.
Speaker 3: Regard.
Speaker 0: Your time is up. Thank you.
Speaker 3: I support the Hoyte house and I appreciate your vote in favor and preservation. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Scott Richmond. H. Scott Richmond.
Speaker 3: Good evening. I thank you, councilman. President.
Speaker 9: My name is Howard Scott Richmond and I.
Speaker 3: Am with Cherry Creek.
Speaker 9: Properties and I represent Judith Battista. I'm here to set the record straight.
Speaker 3: Regarding untruthful.
Speaker 8: Statements that have been made.
Speaker 3: About my client and myself. First, I want to go on record that I have not received any offer on my client's property that has been originated by historic Denver LPC or Councilman Espinosa. Again, there are zero offers, despite what you may hear. We have always been very, very clear. She has an offer for the property as is. Any offers would have to meet the same criteria established well before the events of this proceedings. As an as is offer, it doesn't require an inspection or showing.
Speaker 9: If a buyer were truly interested in saving this property for the same price. They do not need to come snoop around inside the Ms. of the contentious process.
Speaker 3: The promise and non-delivery on offer is often referred to in the real estate world as buyers are liars. I've had a few phone calls and emails regarding the property and I inform all parties of this process at every occasion. Second, at the JPM meeting in the councilman in the public minutes.
Speaker 9: Councilman Espinosa attacked my credibility. I have been a licensed since 2006. I take my real estate license incredibly serious, and my reputation is everything to me. I use it as a pay it forward part of my life. I try to help people out who.
Speaker 3: Are upside down on.
Speaker 9: Their mortgage. Need to move quickly or in some type of financial bind. In fact, I take a loss on my taxes.
Speaker 3: Many years on my real estate business to give back to the community. Typically, a person's.
Speaker 9: Primary residence is by far their largest overall personal investment. When my client purchase her home many years ago, she took a huge risk in the neighborhood that had many safety issues. She watched and waited patiently to see the community grow up and become a mature neighborhood. She also watched as her house deteriorated.
Speaker 3: To a level that repair and upkeep were at were beyond her financial means. My client is not against.
Speaker 9: Historic.
Speaker 3: Designations, but when it's appropriate, in my opinion, there's.
Speaker 9: Nothing appropriate about hostile designation process. Is it appropriate to take away the rights of a.
Speaker 3: Homeowner and to sell their primary residence away? Is it appropriate to use the entire resources of the LPC.
Speaker 9: Historic society and the office in the city councilman against the citizen? Is it appropriate to be able to submit an application and.
Speaker 3: Then sit down and.
Speaker 9: Judge for that same application as agents in real estate? We must obtain consent.
Speaker 3: To sit on both sides of the transaction. In my opinion, none of this is appropriate. This hearing is considered an official proceeding, and my client understands that her limited.
Speaker 9: Time frame to attest and defend her home, she must present all the facts against all my professional real estate advice. My client has publicly expressed all the faults.
Speaker 3: Of her property.
Speaker 9: In the real estate world.
Speaker 3: This is aligned with stories.
Speaker 0: Your time is up.
Speaker 3: Okay.
Speaker 0: Thank you.
Speaker 3: I'd like you to vote against the House designation.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you. Brian Spindle.
Speaker 3: Good evening. I'm Brian Spindle. I've been a lifelong Denver resident. I've been a resident of that neighborhood for 32 years. And I would just like to. Express my. Heartfelt support of this designation and of Councilman Espinosa's efforts in this regard. Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Friend. Dana Rodriguez. We get.
Speaker 4: All right. Good evening. My name is Dana Rodrigues. I'm a restaurant owner. I have two. One in Reno, one in Larimer Square. Also a homeowner. When I was reading this article on the Denver Post, it really hits me about my home and my businesses. That is my future for my kids. I'm a single mom with three kids. I want them to finish college. I want them to be successful. I wanted to provide everything for them and give something to their future. And my retirement, too. For some of us, it's at least to me, like 18 years to buy my houses, to buy my businesses. And I don't want to be where it is right now. I feel that we should have the right to decide what we do with our investments. We were really hard to get it, and I understand that there are some neighborhoods that, yeah, we wanted to keep it together. I'm not sure if this one is the right one. There is a lot of new places going around that house, new buildings. I don't know how the little house is going to look around all those new buildings. I don't know if you guys all have the power to do something for assets and owners and also for historical homes. Try to figure it out so you don't hurt families. You don't hurt businesses. And also you preserve what it has value for our cities. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Miss Rodriguez. Okay. We're going to bring up the next five speakers, Beth GLINTON and Annie Levinsky. Rodolfo Cannon. Brant Weekley. And Maribel Salgado. Okay. Beth, you have 3 minutes. Your first.
Speaker 2: Great. Thank you. My name is Beth Glanton and I serve as the director of the Discover Denver Citywide Building.
Speaker 5: Survey.
Speaker 2: Project. And my office is located at 1420 Ogden Street. Discover Denver is a historic resource survey.
Speaker 5: Project that's led by historic Denver and.
Speaker 2: The city and county of.
Speaker 5: Denver, with funding by the Colorado State Historical Fund. Discover Denver is a building and.
Speaker 2: Neighborhood survey that's meant to identify historic and architecturally significant buildings citywide. Survey is conducted.
Speaker 5: By professionals and trained by volunteers and involves collecting public record data about Denver's.
Speaker 2: Buildings. And that data that we collect is.
Speaker 5: Made available to the public. This kind of survey work is common in American.
Speaker 2: Cities and has been done in Denver since the late 1960s. Discover Denver does extensive outreach in each survey neighborhood, and we welcome the input of neighborhood residents. Bless you. You are outreach includes press releases, community meetings.
Speaker 5: And information gathering events that we call.
Speaker 2: Discovery days in each neighborhood.
Speaker 5: Discover Denver is an information gathering project, so we do not grant historic designations.
Speaker 2: We do not initiate design, review or impose any requirements on any of the areas that we survey. I was made.
Speaker 5: Made aware that there were.
Speaker 2: Some questions about our project, and since we did some work in Jefferson Park in 2015, I just wanted to be available for any questions that anyone might have. Thank you.
Speaker 6: Thank you. Next up, any levinsky and you have 6 minutes.
Speaker 12: Thank you. I'm Annie Levinsky. I'm the executive director of Historic Denver. And Historic Denver is a nonprofit, membership based advocacy organization founded in 1970. We are not the entity that makes historic designation decisions. So I think there's been a little confusion this evening, and I wanted to clarify that we do often work with groups like Cross on a Park who you saw earlier and other communities that are interested in pursuing historic preservation solutions. Tonight, you've already heard a lot about the significance of the home at 2849 West 23rd. You've heard about the criteria historic, architectural and geographic. Historic. Denver's board of trustees weighed this very same information. And the and they weighed the challenges of situations like this, because we recognize the seriousness of this process and the decision that you as counsel will face. We concur that this home clearly and strongly meets the landmark designation criteria, which includes its long and strong association with Architect Brothers Burnham and Merrill Hoyt. The Hoyt parents were the first owners of the home, and by the time their widowed mother died and the home sold more than 40 years later, Merrill had unexpectedly died, but Burnham was on his way to becoming Denver's foremost homegrown architect. It was from this home that both Marilyn Burnham walked to the local schools, first the Boulevard School and later North High School. It was to this home that Burnham returned after attending the local table art in Paris, and in this home that he pondered over the early designs for places like Lake Middle School and Park Hill Library . As our city debates issues of affordable housing, design, quality and character, and we embark on long term plans like the update to blueprint Denver, the legacy of Burnham and Merrill Hoyt becomes even more profound. It's hard not to wonder how this house, this neighborhood and the neighborhood schools of their youth influenced both Burnham and Merrill's prolific careers , including Merrill's commitment to designing beautiful and affordable homes for the masses through the architect's Small House Service Bureau, which he led, and Burnham Shining Glory. The design for Red Rocks Amphitheater designated a national historic landmark last year. The home strong connection to people who fundamentally shaped the city that we know and love makes this potential loss that much more meaningful. Demolition is nothing new in Jefferson Park. Over the last several years, dozens of 19th century homes and duplexes have been demolished to make way for larger development. The White House is not the first historically or architecturally significant home lost in the compact neighborhood. However, it is likely the most significant and it is nearly the last two facing Jefferson Park. Yes, portions of Jefferson Park are in an area of change in the Blueprint Denver plan, but we have to ask whether change means nothing of significance is to remain to tell the rich and diverse story of one of our oldest neighborhoods at historic Denver, we elected to focus our energy on seeking a buyer based solution for this property and, if possible, a win win outcome to correct a previous misstatement. Historic. Denver was not the author of this designation application, but we believe that there was a real chance that we could find a buyer who could give Ms.. Battista a competitive market rate offer. Since October, when we first and finally received some correspondence from the property owner, we have been actively seeking a preservation minded buyer under the constraints presented to us by the owner and Mr. Richmond, those included, that the offer needed to be for both 28, 49 and 2839 West 23rd that it have no contingencies. And that had come in prior to tonight's hearing offers also had to be made without a visit to the sites or a visit to the inside of the homes to fully evaluate the redevelopment opportunities as showings were not granted, we were also provided with no framework for what the owner might consider a reasonable offer. But we tried to persevere anyway. Using the information that is available. We believe that given the zoning a development that includes both preservation and new construction with the addition of more housing units on both parcels is possible. Given this, we were able to identify three potential buyers, including two developers, with the legitimate capacity and will to make this happen. All three did contact Mr. Richmond directly, but all were discouraged by the lack of information or basic cooperation that would have been necessary to achieve a firm offer by today's deadline. We have made no statements that we had an offer, but we did make statements that we had interested parties and local developer Charlie Woolley gave me permission to share that he was one of the interested parties. Charlie has completed a number of complex adaptive reuse, preservation and affordable housing projects. He was ready, able and willing to pursue this win win solution, but felt that his interest was quickly rebuffed. As is our practice. Our intention was to be collaborative and to work in good faith with the owner. We had hoped for the same from her and her agent. This strikes at the heart of the issue with the demolition review process. The demolition review portion of Chapter 30 was adopted unanimously in 2006 to prevent the surprise demolition of buildings that are important in our community. And we understood and the community understood at the time that this would not result in designation for every eligible property. And that has been the case with only one property designated as a result of this process since 2006, despite the hundreds of demolition permits that we saw on the graph earlier. And only six bodies have ever reached this, but only six. Properties have reached this body for consideration in that ten year period. However, the ordinance was intended to provide a window of time for the property owner and the community to come together to find common ground. We have examples of success stories, but in order for this to work and to avoid contentious council hearings, both parties must be willing to come to the table. And there must be a reasonable amount of time for all parties to vet fair alternatives and to agree on a course of action. The choice does not have to be demolition or designation. There is a lot of room to find fair solutions in between. The demolition review ordinance was also intended to ensure that we know what we're losing before it is lost. And over the last decade, there is no place where the impact of our lost heritage, both physical and intangible, is more visceral than Council District one. The tool that is being employed this evening may not be your preferred tool for historic preservation, but I'm here to ask you to recognize that we are losing places in Denver that we cannot replace or regain. On behalf of historic Denver, I want to ask you for your help to sustain and develop policies and programs that ensure that as our city grows and changes, it retains its culture, its identity and its soul.
Speaker 0: Thank you.
Speaker 6: Thank you. Next up, Rudolfo Cannon. And you have 6 minutes.
Speaker 3: Good evening. My name is Rodolfo Cannon. I live in District ten and 981 South High Street, and I operate my real estate business from my office located in District one. I'm speaking tonight because I have experience with the law in question and in dealing with Landmark on multiple occasions. I have been in real estate for over ten years, relatively early in my career. I was a very close spectator in a hostile, historic designation to gentlemen who were custom home builders and partners in their business. Bought a property on East Exposition Avenue. I think this would be District ten is my guess. On the north border of the Bonnie Brae neighborhood, directly next door to that little school. We're still street meets exposition. This was roughly a two acre property with a really big old house on it. These two gentlemen had been my clients, though I did not represent them on this purchase. At the time of the purchase, the property was not designated as historic. After they bought it, the property. After they bought the property, a lady from a nearby neighborhood found out that they had applied for a permit to demolish the building. Their intent was to subdivide the site into four parcels and build four multi-million dollar custom homes. They were taking a chance trying to create a better life for their families. Their construction business was small, and this was the biggest project either of them had attempted. The lady filed an application to make the home historic. She just felt like it. She didn't put up the $1.5 million to purchase the land. She didn't risk everything. She just moved in on them and started the process of imposing a historic designation. She won and the home was designated historic. Her argument was that she felt like there were buyers out there who would purchase the home if it were remodeled. No data to back that up. No real information to go on. Just a feeling. My clients lost everything. Everything. They went into foreclosure on their personal homes. They had to sell their possessions to make ends meet. They lost their business. One of the gentlemen had adopted a daughter from China. He and his wife were planning on adopting a second child from China, but they had to put that off indefinitely. I keep in touch with them. They still haven't been able to adopt again. The fact of the matter is that using a hostile, historic designation to limit development is absolutely crushing to the unsuspecting homeowners who are most deeply affected by it. This is criminal and seems more like theft. If I could offer an alternate solution, it would be to establish a fund and pay fair market value for these homes. Nobody here is anti history. Everybody loves these old historic homes. Everybody wants to see them stay. But not at the expense of somebody whose entire future. I think there is a time and place for historic designations, and it is my personal opinion that the basis for the organization, for the landmark organization is a really good one. But using it as a mechanism to curb development shows how fundamentally flawed the law is. I am for preserving Denver's historic homes, but not at the expense of unsuccessful unsuspecting homeowners. Key word, unsuspecting. For example, the country club and driving park neighborhoods are both historic districts. They are neighborhoods that have been historic districts for years. Any buyer who purchases a home in those areas knows what they are getting into from the beginning. Further part of their decision to buy one of those areas, buy in one of those areas, apart from location and prominence, is probably the historic nature of the area. But what happens when an individual home is singled out to be designated historic without the prior consent of the homeowner? What happens when that homeowner wants to remodel their home? If they bought the house under the 100% correct assumption that the property was used by right then they could be planning an extensive remodel, an addition, a pop top, an expansion, or even a tear down for new construction. The remodel cost 2 to 3 times as much as they have to conform to landmark guidelines, and the project becomes all but impossible if they want to do a pop up or new construction. Then this unsuspecting homeowner can no longer afford to build value in their home, so they try to sell it. But now the property is stigmatized because no one else wants to take on a historic project, at least not at full market value. Plenty of people would do it at a discount. The result is that the market value of the home drops until the cost of the remodel doesn't price you out of the neighborhood. Thus causing financial ruin for the unsuspecting homeowner who was saddled with this burden against his or her will. More often than not, a home is the single biggest investment in a person's lifetime. Something they work incredibly hard to attain, something they sacrifice for in order to build equity and create a life. Imagine having all that taken away from you against your will and by your own government. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Mr. Cannon. Brant Wheatley.
Speaker 3: Good evening. My name is Bernice Weekley. I'm the owner of the home. Three doors to the east of 28, 49 West 23rd Avenue. I'm speaking in favor of landmark landmark designation of the property in addition to the.
Speaker 6: Property, meaning all three criteria for designation, including history, architecture and geography. I'd like to offer my reasons for supporting the designation. The home at 2827 West 23rd Avenue has been in my family for more than 65 years. It was built in 1906, 51 years ago. My parents announced their engagement in that home and they're still married today. I'm proud to say of the home's history is important.
Speaker 3: Who lived in it is important.
Speaker 6: My family has seen Jefferson Park evolve over the years drastically. Some positive, some negative. But one constant has been the presence of a handful of well preserved homes.
Speaker 3: Surrounding Jefferson Park.
Speaker 6: The home at 2849 West 23rd Avenue is one of those.
Speaker 3: Crown jewels of the neighborhood. There are.
Speaker 6: Only 7 to 7 or eight old.
Speaker 3: Homes around the park that remain, and only a few of them are well preserved. And this is one of them. I'm in the process.
Speaker 6: Of exploring the option of applying for landmark designation of my home and give my word that I will do so if this home is also preserved. As a homeowner, I recognize the difficulty of balancing property owners rights while.
Speaker 3: Still preserving our history.
Speaker 6: In this case, I urge you to vote for the historic preservation of the neighborhood treasure. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Weekly. All right.
Speaker 2: Joshua Duran should be Maribel.
Speaker 0: Okay, Maribel. Where's the. Oh, there it is. Yeah. I got. Thank you.
Speaker 4: My name is Maribel Salgado. I'm the owner on the 28th, and I was 22 when you were my neighbor. My neighbors situations made me very sad. I don't think this is fair. The shoes. We're not able to sell their house. To think that I could be in the same situation, it made me really feel scared. If someone could oppose to let me sell my house, I. No be able to make my dreams come out. Come true. Makes me feel sad. I want to help our timing. My husband and I deserve our retirement. I think everyone has their eyes. And their eyes should be respect. It is.
Speaker 2: No rice.
Speaker 4: Like one council man can take our rights away. Please. But not please, Judy.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Governor. All right, everyone, call up the next five speakers. Joshua Duran. Theresa Barnes. Ryan DeFranco. Kathleen Rowland. And Jessica Alice Alizadeh. Joshua Duran. Joshua Duran, your first.
Speaker 3: Thank you for your time. My name is Joshua Duran. I'm a sixth generation native of Colorado. We've lived in Denver my whole life. And I want to make the point that Rafael Espinoza did bring this up as a single councilman, but he brought this issue to the table on behalf of the people he represents, which is northwest Denver. I take offense to the comment that was said earlier that was said she took a chance on an unsafe neighborhood and waited for the neighborhood to mature. As someone who grew up in the north side of northwest Denver and still lives and works in the northwest Denver community, it is my community changes and it changes inevitable . And I personally welcome change, but not at the wholesale destruction of a community, culture and history. I'm concerned because many of these changes have come at the expense of the very people who have made this community and city so great by people who are not native to Colorado or to the city. I am concerned that our history is being scraped by people who have no investment or interest in this community beyond monetary gain. I support preserving the Voice House because we have already lost too much of our history to this new development. A quick little side note. I've been witness to families who have been pushed out of their communities, businesses forced to relocate or close, historical landmarks scraped and gone forever. My best friend's grandmother has owned the house on 44th and Tennyson for almost 70 years. Her son recently purchased it for her from her. She can no longer maintain it. The whole back yard has been a garden every summer for decades. Last year, to the north and to the south of their house, two three story seven unit block buildings were built there now. These buildings now block the sun in probably a garden will not grow this summer. But whose concern is certainly not the developers or the people who have moved in or anyone who has gained monetarily. Again, I reiterate I am concerned because I feel this is being done with no concern for the community.
Speaker 8: The people they have displaced.
Speaker 3: And especially without concern for the history and its historical value. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Durham. Theresa Barnes.
Speaker 2: My name is Traci Barnes. I'm a fourth generation Denver ite. I own an interior design firm in Denver, Colorado. And I'm I'm here to speak tonight because of an unfortunate situation I've recently had with a client that was remodeling in the Denver Country Club neighborhood. I felt very fortunate to be on a project like that with a very respected design build group. The project became so financially out of control by the designated restrictions that they had and guidelines we had to follow. We felt like we designed the best house we could for these clients, and everyone has spoken to the money side that it doesn't matter. Well, it does. To people who invested and this was a young woman at one time that invested and now that was her nest egg. The numbers don't work on the home. She was told then she could sell the home. Someone would buy the house. The house is out on the market. It has not sold now. She couldn't afford the remodel. I feel so bad for this family there. They took the house off the market because it wasn't selling. They're now renting another property so that they thought they were going to be able to follow through. The banks couldn't loan the funds needed. And there's so many unknowns on a property when you're remodeling them and no one seems to understand that those those are unknown. So she didn't even know what the remaining of her property was going to cost. And being a Denver, I do care about historic preservation. I care about how our city looks. But how do we feel about having one home that everyone is saying is going to look really fabulous and somebody is going to buy it from this woman and that they're going to do a great job? Well, if you look at the front of some of these homes and this is what I care about is a dump, right? That if you look at the back rear ends of these homes, they're eyesores. And do we really want a house sitting in Denver that everyone said they could repair when they really can't? And then we it becomes a creepy old house that has not been maintained. And we're a vibrant city. And that's why people are moving here and all the developers are doing a great job. There's enough restrictions on them and we should allow Denver to grow in the right places and preserve where it's needed. But financially it doesn't work for everyone. So I feel really bad for the families that I've worked for. I feel fortunate to have the opportunity. But please consider too that these houses could become become eyesores.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you, Ms.. Barnes. Ryan DeFranco. Good evening.
Speaker 8: Counsel. My name is Ryan DeFranco. I've been a resident city of Denver for the past eight years and by no means a native, but by those that have been here for two years. Absolutely a native. I currently reside in Jefferson Park in District one and I own two businesses in District nine. I most recently have come across this article in the Denver Post regarding the regarding the hostile designation of the House at 2849 West 23rd Avenue. I stand here expressing great concern for the process at hand for two reasons. One, as a future homeowner, as I am currently in the process of looking to buy my first home, it concerns me deeply that this could happen to me. I do not see my first house would be my dream house as I am. A lot of us probably don't see that as well, but I definitely wouldn't purchase a house that it would not be a financial investment.
Speaker 0: That's a scary thought moving forward, especially.
Speaker 8: As I look at neighborhoods.
Speaker 3: Like Jefferson Park, which are not.
Speaker 8: Designated historical neighborhoods for a future resident. And number two, as a business owner of two restaurants, we are definitely looking to expand because as you already know, with expansion, I hope to better my financial future. I'm not just working 16 hour days for fun. Currently, we're looking in rhino and highlands neighborhoods for a new space. But what scares me is if I find a space and we we continue to be successful, I will. The same thing happen to me if I want to expand my business in the future, one of these neighborhoods that does have quite a bit of historical significance . So overall, as a business owner and a future homeowner, is it really okay for someone to determine my livelihood and my financial well-being as well as the same as Judith Battista? So in regards to the hostile designation, I ask you to reject it of this property. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. DeFranco. Kathleen Roemer.
Speaker 2: Hello, council members. I'm Kathleen. Roland and I live in District four 3695, East Dartmouth Avenue in Ms.. Parks District. I am reading on behalf of Matt Ruland. Matt Ruland lives in District one at 2129 Clay Street, Denver 80202. He also owns property in District nine at 3100 here on Street, Denver. He sent this message tonight because he's concerned with the use of historic designation within his neighborhood and citywide. Speaking for him in quotation, I do not wish wish to question the motives behind this specific application for historic designation, but I am concerned that it has been and will continue to be used as a tool to obstruct development that some believe is unwanted. The use of historic designation has an important role in our city and should only be used to protect those structures that are truly historic. A higher threshold should be obtained when dealing with a hostile, historic designation. We should not allow its use to be watered down for the sake of altering development that some do not like through. The development is not only legal, but desired by so many others in our city. Legal or legal or not, a holistic, historic designation and a form of regulatory condemnation and should be used with caution. If approved, tonight's historic designation would impose restrictions on the property rights of a Denver taxpayer against her wishes and likely diminish diminishing the property value. At the same time, let's be clear what the ultimate result will likely be for historic designation of a property that is not truly historic. The cost of reservation or renovation for this current property and many other homes that may be deemed to be historic will make it so that the property is not renovated any time soon and will instead continue to deteriorate and become an eyesore in the Jefferson Park neighborhood. As well-intentioned as this application may be. This is not the proper way to address the underlying concerns that I believe are trying to be addressed. There can be legitimate discussions to be had around the density and form of and form of much of the new development that is occurring in many neighborhoods throughout Denver, including Jefferson Park. However, forcing a historic designation on a property against the property owners wishes is something that should only be reserved for the most significant of historic properties . And I believe this property falls well short of that threshold. Thank you on behalf of Matt ruined.
Speaker 0: Thank you. That's really Jessica Alexander.
Speaker 4: Good evening and thank you. Members of Council Jessica, Liza, Ray. I'm here on behalf of Judith Battista. I would echo.
Speaker 2: The sentiments that were offered to you.
Speaker 4: By my colleague Matthew Rourke in a.
Speaker 2: Letter that was committed to the.
Speaker 7: Record. That's before you. I believe.
Speaker 4: You've had ample time to review that, and I won't take council's time with anything in regards to that.
Speaker 2: Letter. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Ms.. Solicitor. All right. We have five more speakers live. Olivia Salgado. Some of these names we weren't able to get. And so we'll give you your the address. Is that correct? Madam Secretary.
Speaker 2: You've got two locked in. There's two locked and.
Speaker 0: Oh, okay. I see there's two Steve locked. And once you both just come up. Let's see. And then we got to Matt Richland on Clay Street and Joe Barrett as well. Come on up. All right. First is Elvia Salgado.
Speaker 4: Hello. My name is Elias Salgado. I have been living in Jefferson Park area since I was born. That's almost 27 years, or at least 27 years. I have seen the neighborhood the neighborhood go through a lot of changes, some good, some bad. My father is the owner of the house of a house right in front of Jefferson Park at 2839, West 23rd Avenue. I have seen my dad work long days and nights to pay off that house. There were even times I didn't get to see my dad until the weekend because he would leave off to work before I would wake up and come home after I was already in bed. All this to have his small piece of the American dream. When I heard about our neighbor situation, I thought to myself, What if this happened to my father? What if he was trying to sell his home to get a bigger house or to cash in his retirement and finally be able to relax? And what if he was limited to whom to sell the house because he was doing what? The historic status that he did not request. This would mean that all his sweat and tears, all the sacrifices he had to make and that we had to make to own a house would be for nothing. With the historic status, the owner would be limited on what to do with their own home, and anything they would want to do to their own home would cost a lot of money. You would have a sort of rule book on what to do with something you own. I don't think this is fair. If it is your property, you should be able to do whatever you pleased with it. If our house was a public building, I could understand this because saving history is important. But the rules should be different for private houses. I was confused when the real estate agent, Lisa Reyes, showed up at our house November 15 and started asking questions about my dad's house. The agent told me that Councilman Espinoza sent her to my dad's house because he thought that our real real estate agent was going to screw us over. And he wanted to make sure that my family could speak to to an agent that spoke Spanish. We are very private people, and talking to a stranger about my family scares me. This kind of harassment and abuse should not be allowed. How can this even happen? So I ask on behalf of me and my family to try and make this right and vote no against the historic designation of our private houses.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Gallo. The first Steve locked in their lives on union.
Speaker 4: Steve's my husband. He had to go be with our family. I'm Samantha.
Speaker 0: Okay. Madam Secretary.
Speaker 2: That's it.
Speaker 0: That's all right.
Speaker 4: Good. Thank you. My husband and I own a business at 1600 East 17th and. We're afraid by the scared of this arbitrary process that can randomly take someone's net.
Speaker 5: Worth and.
Speaker 4: Nest egg for no legitimate reason. What prevents the same thing from happening to us and our family? This is a dangerous precedent of governmental abuse and overreach. This process needs to be amended, and it did not meet the three criteria adding one at the last minute. How does that even work? Councilman Espinosa should be ashamed of his harassing behavior. If Councilman Espinosa values this home so much, he could.
Speaker 5: Pay for the.
Speaker 4: Reservation renovations and maintenance out of his own pocket. Because a single woman working two jobs can't afford it. I don't know how he is even allowed to put this whole thing in motion and then sit up here with all of his fellow councilmen and vote no. I'm sorry. And vote for it. It doesn't even make sense. And I'm shocked that it's allowed. I think everyone in this room should be shocked that that's allowed as well. Please vote no against this. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Ms.. Lockton. So Steve will not be. Okay. Steve had to go. Just making sure. Okay. Matt Rich. Matt Richland on K Street. Play Street. Okay. Uh, Joe, bury it. Oh, that's you. Okay. To get back.
Speaker 2: To our studies.
Speaker 0: Go ahead. Why don't you introduce yourself again?
Speaker 4: My name is Joe Barrett. I live in District ten in the very charming old Congress Park neighborhood. I come before you to express my concern about what a slippery slope this can be.
Speaker 2: If a hostile designation can be made.
Speaker 4: On a historic house. My house is very old. And when we bought it, very charming.
Speaker 2: But is now getting quite expensive to maintain repairs. And I can only imagine how much more expensive those would be with this type of designation. So please vote no on this. And thank you for having me.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Miss Bear. Sorry for messing up your name. The last three can come to the front bench and you all can have a seat. Dale Chandler, Amy Zimmer and Matt Burke. You each have 3 minutes and Dale Chandler, you will be first. Thank you.
Speaker 3: I'm not a public speaker, so I hope I don't stumble over myself here. But my name is Dale Chandler. I live in South Denver. I own some property on River Drive, so it's within this district. I was I was raised in North Denver, an alumni of North High School guys. So. I don't know how much I can really add to this whole conversation. It seems like it's been pretty well covered and I'm given the alternatives presented by Bussey and I think his story. Denver I don't see how this thing can possibly pass this evening, but I want to firmly come down on the side of Judith. Against hostile landmark preservation designations seems to be of everybody in this whole room that has any skin in the game. She's the only one that has any skin in the game. And if this is such a big deal to the city or to the historic Denver, to whoever else, Rafael, they got to get skin in the game . They can buy it themselves. Or there is such a thing as eminent domain. You know, if it's really that important to the city of Denver, they can go through the process of eminent domain and take the property on themselves. So thank you. Appreciate it.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Chandler. Amy Zimmer.
Speaker 5: Good evening, council members. I am here as a member of the Denver Landmark Preservation Commission. As you heard, we voted unanimously in our hearing to designate or to forward this possible designation to you. We are a commission that is made up of professionals. We include four professional architects, a landscape architect, general contractor, two professional historians. So we are people that we know, the buildings in Denver, we know our architecture and history. And we, as I said, unanimously, we ask you to vote for this property. A couple of the things that were brought up were the geography criteria that was added on in the last minute, that was actually brought by myself and our landscape architect on the board. The two of us felt that we the best this being at and the prominent hill above Jefferson Park and a very recognizable structure made it fit in the criteria for geography and we are as landmark commission members were well within our legal purview to do that. As a city attorney can speak to you. Furthermore, I just some of the other things that have been addressed regarding there was some information about the homeowner asserting that if her home was designated historic, it would cost more to renovate. And that is absolutely not true. In fact, one thing that has not been brought up but is absolutely true is that we're here. Her home designated as historic. She would be eligible for historic state tax credits on the renovations done to her property. So she would actually be getting money back rather than spending more money. So it actually would be in her benefit to have this home is historically designated. And like Ms.. Batiste, I am also a single woman homeowner. I own a century old house in Park Hill. And, you know, the thing is, when you buy a historic home, you know that it's going to have thousands of dollars that are going to have to be put into it. And so, you know, here we are all sitting here because a homebuyer did really did not do her homework and did not think about what it was going to cost to own one of these houses. And now our community is suffering the loss of a very historic property that having its association with Birnam Hoyt, you know, breadbox, everybody knows Red Rocks and how, you know, for an employee growing up in this house, how do we know that the sort of amphitheater type design of Jefferson Park didn't influence his ideas for Red Rocks? You know, I think just because he wasn't born here, it's absolutely significant in the history of the white brothers. So based on all these criteria, I ask you to please consider the well-thought opinions of professional architects and historians, and please designate this home as historic. It would be very tragic to lose this. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mrs. Zimmer. Met my client.
Speaker 3: Jack. Okay.
Speaker 0: So. So. So you can have. You can have a seat. And now we're going to call up Matt Burke. We're in a formal public hearing. You can't just this map are you remember? No. Is Matt Burke here? Okay. Now, this. This concludes all of our public speakers. Thank you all for being patient and sitting through this. We now have questions by members of council. Okay. Councilman Espinosa is. Shooting Adam Hernandez or David, who's handling the questions from the city attorney's office.
Speaker 3: David Broadwell, Assistant City Attorney. It depends on the question. And so Adam is here tonight as our expert on the LPC ordnance, but there may be some questions appropriate for me. So we will determine based upon the questions we might get asked.
Speaker 0: So I have you know, I want to I want to address some of the claims that Mr. Roarke had stated. He stated that designation prevents an owner a right to sell or develop, or is an owner allowed to sell their property with the designation?
Speaker 8: Adam Hernandez, assistant city attorney. There's no prohibition on the sale of property once it's designated.
Speaker 0: If a structure on a parcel is is designated, is the balance of that property or even the house itself, you know, can it be developed?
Speaker 9: Can you repeat that question for them?
Speaker 0: It says the designation prevents the right to develop, he stated. Can the parcel with the designated part, with a designated structure be developed.
Speaker 8: When a property is designated? Any time it comes in for basically a zoning or building permit, it would go through a design review process.
Speaker 0: So provided that there isn't any zoning prohibition and it's actually developable, the property is developable per the zoning in areas that aren't occupied by a structure, that portion would then be developable. Is that correct? Depends on the property.
Speaker 8: It depends on the property. It depends on what's designated. I believe in this case the parcel is designated. So that would be the.
Speaker 3: The.
Speaker 6: Area.
Speaker 8: That would be subject to design review should.
Speaker 3: A building permit or a zoning permit be required for anything proposed. So it could be developed.
Speaker 0: But the development has to go through design review. Correct. Okay. There was another two. There was somebody else that testified that you couldn't remodel. I believe it was. Mr. Cannon, can a historic designated structure be remodeled?
Speaker 8: Again. Any zoning for any. Any construction or development that would require a zoning or building permit for the.
Speaker 3: Exterior work of the structure would have.
Speaker 8: To go through design review. So if you're talking about work that would be done inside the structure, that would not be subject to LPC design review.
Speaker 0: Okay. And then the last thing is, is there was a lot of things just comments about how an owner with designation is somehow compelled to upgrade the structure. Is the designation does the designation require upgrading or is it designated as is?
Speaker 8: It's designated as is. But there is a requirement in Chapter 30 that you do maintain the structure. You can't let the structure deteriorate.
Speaker 0: So the windows that are currently on the structure, as long as they are prohibiting the entry of the elements, do they have to be replaced?
Speaker 8: I'm sorry. Can you repeat that question?
Speaker 0: The windows that are currently on the structure. As long as they maintain the, you know, keep the elements outside of the building and keep them from deteriorating in the structure. Do they have to be replaced in any way, shape or form?
Speaker 8: No, they're not required to be replaced. If the structure was designated and new windows were proposed, that would have to go through the design review process review.
Speaker 0: But there is no neces there's not that does not necessarily predicate any level of of. You know, that doesn't presume what style of window or what would be allowed. It has to go through that design review process. Correct.
Speaker 8: Any window replacement would have to go through a design review process. I don't know exactly what the design review guidelines would say, but I would have to go through the process.
Speaker 0: So just to clarify. Any window replacement in the city or county of Denver also has to get a permit.
Speaker 3: Correct?
Speaker 8: That I'm not sure. I think it's only four designated.
Speaker 3: Structures or structures that are in districts for preservation.
Speaker 8: I think it's an exception in the building code.
Speaker 0: Okay. Um. Councilman? Yes. You have more questions. There's several folks in the queue. Sure. I just wanted to clarify the sort of the statement so that people understood. Thank you. Okay. Thank you, Councilman Clark.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. Is Brant Weekley still here? Could you come up to the microphone? And correct me if I wrote down the wrong name. There were a lot of people speaking tonight, but I think it was you who said that you were considering you have a property, a couple of houses down and you're considering applying for landmark preservation of your properties. Correct? Yes. At the end, I thought you said you would. You're only considering that if this one does not get preserved. No. If this is preserved, I would do it. Yeah. Why would you not preserve it if it's not? Because I don't plan on selling it. I don't plan on tearing it down. So I'm just trying to do anything I can to help preserve the neighborhood and what's left. So I guess my question is, why wouldn't you preserve it either way? Why the distinction of you would or wouldn't based on the outcome of this? I was confused about that. Well, because I'm going to keep the home regardless, you know, for the foreseeable future. So like I said, it's been in my family for 65 years. So, you know, I don't know that it needs to, but I'm definitely willing to do that if it would help this cause. I'm not sure that completely answers my question, but I've asked it a couple of different ways and we're not getting traction. Yeah, I mean, I just yeah. I'm not sure what you're feeling. You know, if if it should be preserved, it should be preserved. But you're saying you you might not because you don't intend to leave for a long time. So you wouldn't need to. Is that right? Okay. All right. Thank you very much. I mean.
Speaker 3: It wouldn't be it wouldn't be in danger of being torn down.
Speaker 6: Okay. Got it. All right. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Clarke. Councilman Neal?
Speaker 13: Yes? This petition I can ask you questions was. How long have you own the property?
Speaker 5: Since 2007.
Speaker 13: And when you bought the property, did you understand the historic nature of the house when you bought it?
Speaker 5: Absolutely not.
Speaker 13: I mean, just from the look of it, it didn't look historic to you or.
Speaker 5: You know, it never crossed my mind.
Speaker 13: Okay. Never at all. Okay. Did you have a question, too, about the offers made on your home? You know, and I know that Mr. Charlie Willie is a very prominent developer and citizen. And. And were you made aware of offers? And he was making an offer on your home?
Speaker 5: No. His name ever came up.
Speaker 13: Okay. Well, thank you very much. Rick, may I speak to the real estate broker, please? Can you can you answer the question about Mr. Willey? Did you contact you and.
Speaker 9: Can you.
Speaker 13: Describe what happened on that conversation?
Speaker 3: There were numerous people that contacted me regarding the offers. The precedents were set by my client regarding to collecting all offers together so she could evaluate all offers in a non-biased situation. There was no time set for the stamp in terms of the overall date when that stopped. I have received no offers regarding any of that from anyone.
Speaker 13: So the conversations they saw you, Mr. Willey's conversation with you about that, you didn't have to you had to have a formal offer before you presented something to the owner. Absolutely. Because there's nothing about a conversation.
Speaker 3: There was no verbal offer. There was no any no written offer at all.
Speaker 13: So you didn't tell her about any of the phone calls that you had about offers that you had about people who were interested? No.
Speaker 3: In terms of the precedents were set, I can only give my offer that my client what I have in my hand if I don't have an offer. Okay. So you just.
Speaker 13: Said you didn't have a written offer. You just didn't tell the client about any conversations about that.
Speaker 3: I've told her about conversations, but I don't have a written offer.
Speaker 13: Okay, great. Thank you very much. Sure. Let me ask the question of the designer for coach. Yes, please. Think I'm sorry. I forgot your name. I'm sorry.
Speaker 2: My name is Teresa.
Speaker 13: Thank you. I'm just concerned about your situation as well. Says coach clubs in my district. I know the area very, very well and I know they have a very strong zoning committee that does a lot of historic preservation work and making sure that owners are very aware of what has to be done. Did your owner not know about the historic criteria and and did she work with.
Speaker 2: Yes, they did know. And I was, like I said, very fortunate to work with a very prominent, well-respected design build group and architecture they have in house architecture. But the house these homes need so much work. And she designed it the best she could and was putting a lot of money into it. And from January, until we rebuild the house for building, she had already leased a house thinking it was going to be at the same price. It it increased 400,000 in remodel costs and that was with going through. I had to go through all the finishes, take them down many levels. And then it became, what do we knock off the house? And we kept on knocking it down, not taking off, you know, remodeling the garage. And we were going to end up with a property that was not going to be economically feasible to sell to. She looked at spending the money and then flipping the house, and that wasn't feasible. I even brought in three investors that could afford to remodel the house and they walked away from it. They said the numbers just didn't make sense.
Speaker 13: And so it was really more about the cost of remodeling the home rather than affecting the extra structure that would.
Speaker 2: And it was following the guidelines, we had to follow the guidelines and she ended up with a house in addition that she said, even if I had the money, this house doesn't work it it doesn't work for a modern family right now.
Speaker 13: Right. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman, new councilman Flynn.
Speaker 3: You're up. Thank you, Mr. President. Kara.
Speaker 9: Can I ask you a couple of questions?
Speaker 3: And while you're on your way up, I'm looking at the presentation and it looks like over 610, 615 this year. Applications for demolition that were reviewed and 580 said were reviewed without posting. What I have not been able to find in the staff report or in the presentation is when you review those 600 demolition applications, what criteria do you use? You don't use the same ones for land market, do you?
Speaker 4: We do so. So when we get a demolition or certificate of non historic status, we do a the same review for every property. And so we look at it against the history criteria, the architecture criteria and the geography criteria. And we have a checklist that we go through that we look at each one kind of basically exactly the same, same process.
Speaker 3: Okay. So it's sort of a preliminary high level cut at the very same criteria you presented us with tonight. Okay. And then on on Slide ten, not the you have to go there. The R.A., those that were notified, maybe this is just a mistake on the slide, but they're all in the Capitol Hill and City Park. Cheesman Park, Colfax, Bida was J. Jefferson Park. United neighbors notified of this?
Speaker 4: They were. I apologize. That must be a typo on my pardon. But yes, they're all the registered neighborhood organizations within 200 feet of the property. I apologize. That must be an error on my part when I put it in the park.
Speaker 3: Okay, so this is probably from another president.
Speaker 5: Sorry.
Speaker 3: Okay. I was wondering why they were all notified about that. Do do you know or does maybe Annie Levinsky if she's still here? How many structures designed by Burnham Hoyt exist in Denver? And how many are landmarked versus not landmarked? Do we have an inventory of that?
Speaker 4: I have a I have a preliminary list of the properties that he has designed. And. It's 30 ish at least.
Speaker 3: So I noticed that one. One that surprised me in your presentation. It's not landmarked was the fourth Church of Christ scientist up there on Speer. Yeah, it is wonderful geographic. It's, you know, iconic building. And it's not landmarked.
Speaker 4: No, no, it is not landmarked.
Speaker 3: Okay. Is that probably because the owner didn't bring it forward or it's not in danger of demolition or anything like.
Speaker 0: I believe we have an answer. Ms.. Levinsky, you to come on. Okay.
Speaker 3: Thanks.
Speaker 12: I believe that building is on the National Register of Historic Places and it's protected by a covenant with history. Colorado.
Speaker 3: Excellent. Do we know who the architect is caring for this house that we're talking about tonight?
Speaker 4: No, we do not. I could not find it. And I don't believe that the applicant could find it within the building records because it was built so early that Denver permits aren't always easy something.
Speaker 3: Yeah. Okay. Do we did we know that that Birnam Hoyt grew up in this house before this? Because I can't find it. I did some Wayback Machine Internet sleuthing and I didn't see any reference prior to this application that this was ever known as his house.
Speaker 4: It wasn't information that I knew prior to when the certificate of non historic status came in and then doing the research found that he had resided there.
Speaker 3: I'm sorry, it was not. Or it was.
Speaker 4: I was not aware of it prior to the certificate coming in and me doing the research for it.
Speaker 3: Okay. And then just one more. The staff report said that Birnam Hoyt is known to have designed properties while living in a house, and then he moved out to New York in 1907 or 1908. He would have been 19 years old. Were you talking about that? He designed houses after he returned in 1919, or are you saying he designed he buildings while he was there? Before he left for New York?
Speaker 4: He was a draftsman while he was an apprentice. Yeah, right. And then he went to New York and he continued his architectural study and he came back and lived in the house and designed most of these that were shown here.
Speaker 3: Do you know if it was ever his office?
Speaker 4: No, I do not believe that it was.
Speaker 3: Thank you. And one last question for Judith Battista. In your presentation, you said that you disagreed with the staff report, that there was evidence that that he had lived there for as many years as the applicant had claimed. Do you have what's your basis for that?
Speaker 5: There was actually an article that stated that he he traveled between New York and Europe right after World War or whatever. I'm trying to think World War One, the first one. So, yeah.
Speaker 3: So for the war to end all wars.
Speaker 5: Exactly. But as far as that was concerned, you know, we didn't have planes back then. So if he was traveling between those other places, I would think it would take him a little longer to be there.
Speaker 3: Okay. Thank you. That's all, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Flynn. Councilman Lopez, you're up.
Speaker 8: Thank you. You can come back up, sir. I think you Mr. President, I just wanted to ask you just a few questions on some of the numbers with the historical repair costs. I'm just wondering, the sewer line replacement, $45,000.
Speaker 5: Can I get my sheet? Do you mind?
Speaker 8: Yeah. Yeah, please. I just. I'm just wondering about these figures.
Speaker 0: They have some extra ones up here. A few.
Speaker 8: My my my question is, is three things. I mean, with the sewer line replacement, the historic windows. And then the removal of tree for the sewer and water line. So for the first time I just on the repair costs. $25,000 seems pretty steep for a sewer line repair. Now, is this only because I'm used to hearing about this in my area, my neck of the woods just south and in west Denver? Typically, they run, you know, 11 to 15, sometimes 16,000. But I've never heard I mean, that's on the high. That's not very high. And we have that old clay pipe that's breaking and people sewers are back and usually sets people back. So I totally get that. Where does $45,000 come from?
Speaker 5: Okay. So for the first one, they quoted me if I just went into the street and because 23rd Avenue, West 23rd Avenue. Correct. We would have to actually close that street. And because it's two double yellow lines, we would actually have to have flagged people to be there to actually direct traffic. And that's just for the repair in front of my property. And yes, it is the original clay pipe as well. And because of the distance and because it's up on a hill, they would actually try to save the tree because they're worried that they would have to go and get another permit from city. So they would be digging it out underneath the tree and also underneath the retaining wall to hopefully save that. But there was no guarantees as far as the tree. So they were talking about because the sewer line was so long and then they also were not sure because they could not get past an area in the sewer to actually go all the way to the city line.
Speaker 8: Is a broken now is it collapsed now?
Speaker 5: There we are. There is a area that is in question. Yes. That they could not get past.
Speaker 8: Okay. And then the the historic windows. How many windows is that? How many windows do you have in your home?
Speaker 5: I believe that 6000. I think there's 16.
Speaker 8: Okay.
Speaker 5: And unfortunately, when I bought the house, I had accurate our access windows. Was the person or the company that put them in before I moved into the house. So the previous owner put them in and unfortunately there was no warranty to them because it was one of those things that they did it in a barter. But every single one of my windows have popped and actually shattered on the inside of the house throughout the years. Okay. And so I had an expert, Paula, windows come out and they're the ones that gave me the bid for both historic and non historic. To find out what I was getting myself into.
Speaker 8: Just. If you can stay right there. I just wanted to ask a question on on historic designation. If if if somebody replaced the windows before the current property owner. And let's say it was the property owner before, does that have to be restored after the fact by the current property owner? Does that. I mean I mean, anybody from historic Denver or whoever knows the rules. I mean, let's let's in her case, does she have to restore it to the original status? No, those those were replaced prior to the designation. If she if if the structure were to be designated and Mrs. Batiste at that point wanted to replace the windows, then they would have to go through the design review process. But she does not is not required to replace them after the fact. Okay. All right. On back to the sewer. I'm just trying to figure out. I mean, I definitely get the. We're at the cost issue right now and an older home. Go back to the sewer line. They also recommend, because I know this happened in my district, there's not very many 100 year old buildings. And if there are, they're kind of you know, they're shoeboxes, they're like double wides that somebody put a couple of a couple of you know, I don't even think they're 100 years old yet. But with wood, there was one case where there was an older building in our on our neck of the woods where they actually didn't recommend digging it up, where they actually put a sleeve. It's an epoxy sleeve that goes in. It's a resin sleeve. They recommend that on older homes without having to destroy that. Were you able to look at getting that done instead?
Speaker 5: I actually I asked the gentleman that I had come out and he did not recommend it because he felt that that process is somewhat of a Band-Aid. And it is actually quite expensive to do as well.
Speaker 8: Okay. It's usually cheaper. Thank you, miss. Thank you, Mr.. I appreciate you giving me the insight.
Speaker 5: I. Can I just say one thing? I didn't say that it was more expensive. I just said that it was still costly.
Speaker 8: No, I'm not insinuating that. I'm just. I was just asking questions only because he's seen these. The numbers seem really high.
Speaker 5: Okay. I mean, you can call Applegate. I'm not a professional. I'm not here by any means. Sorry.
Speaker 0: Okay. I think. Thank you. Guzman-Lopez We're going to go to Councilwoman Black.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. I have a question for Nathan Adams. So earlier, Jerry Olson mentioned the Andersen house and how you resold the property. For much more money than you purchased for. Can you explain why it became more valuable?
Speaker 3: Sure. Jerry likes to leave off many of the facts. We contracted the property from Jim almost a year prior, actually 14 months prior to us closing. We did substantial work. We spent almost $500,000 on entitlements. A good bit of that was attorneys defending Jerry's property rights architects, structural engineer, civil engineers. We did a phenomenal amount of work and time and effort. My staff probably spent close to $1,000. We did profit off the sale we were forced to sell. We no longer had a bank loan. When we finally got through the process of coming here and having to defend Jim's property rights. Jim's aware of what we sold the property for. He's completely okay with it. Jerry's making an attempt at stating that my company made substantially more than we really did. But we did make a profit, and we did. We did close on the property. We did sell it a short time later to a longtime client of ours.
Speaker 4: Now. Do you think the property would have sold for that same amount had it been landmarked?
Speaker 3: No chance it would have sold for that and no chance I would have sold for that without the entitlement.
Speaker 0: Work that we did.
Speaker 4: Okay. Thanks.
Speaker 3: You're welcome.
Speaker 4: I have a question for Karen. On page eight, there is a pie chart that says 580 reviewed demolition applications without posting. Can you give us some examples of what those 580. Permits were for. Yes. So those were all of the demo applications that are demo or certificates of non historic status applications that we received. They vary from, you know, small bungalows or classic cottages to properties that are, you know, not historic at all and are not too particularly old. We do a lot of work in Wash Park. We end up with a lot of bungalows there. We have them in bulk, Kyra. We have them in Park Hill. We have probably a disproportionate number within District one. Are they only houses or are they there's there's some there's there's commercial buildings as well. It's primarily residential, but there are commercial buildings as well. So on Colorado Boulevard, there's a gas station that was built in 1975 and they're going to tear it down. It has to have a demolition permit. Yes, it would go through the demolition process. And landmark is just basically the first step through the city process for demolition review. So for 2016 out of those five. Well, actually, it was more than 580, so it was 613 33. You guys that were worthy of posting. Yes. Only to. Those two went through design review, which is a kind of a different process. So it just kind of throws the proportion off. That's like someone demolishing 40% of their roof into it goes through the entire design review process. So it's a little separate from this, but they were part of our official numbers. Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Is that Councilwoman Black? Okay, Councilwoman Gilmore, you're up.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. President. Kara, if you could. I didn't catch you before you went and sat down. Could you talk a little bit about how big your staff is and the resources that you utilize through the city to work on a project such as this?
Speaker 4: So there is. There's myself. And four other staff members. So there are three of us, primarily, maybe four of us who do demolition and certificate of non historic status review. It takes anywhere from, you know, on a property that does not have integrity. That's basically the first step we look at. Does it have integrity? It'll take, you know, an hour or so to process that on something like this. This entire process has been hundreds of hours.
Speaker 7: And then do you also engage folks from the city attorney's office, or is that part of the five folks that you reference?
Speaker 4: No, that would be outside of our landmark group. And occasionally occasionally we'll we'll we'll bring them in if we have a question. Typically not if we're doing a demolition certificate of non historic status review if it goes further than that. So something like this, Adam and I are in fairly constant communication.
Speaker 7: Okay. All right. So it would be fair to assume that there's five folks within your immediate office and then at least one city attorney. Yes. Okay. All right. Great. Thank you. Annie Levinsky. Same question. How big is your staff and the amount of resources that that go into a project such as this?
Speaker 12: So we have I believe we have six staff members at Historic Denver. And then, as you know, we own and operate the Molly Brown House Museum. So they have five staff members who do that work exclusively. We don't formally conduct demolition review. We respond to the postings. We evaluate them with our volunteer board. So it's primarily myself and one other staff member who work just reviewing these answering questions from the public, you know, preparing comments if we're going to come to a meeting like this.
Speaker 7: Sure. And then you had referenced in your earlier testimony that you were trying to work on getting some buyers for the property. So is that outside of your six staff members that engage folks who might want to purchase a property such as this?
Speaker 12: Yeah. So in that case, I made phone calls to people that I know who are, you know, developers who do projects like this. And mentioned to them that we were hoping to find someone who might be willing to do this and and encouraged them to look at the property and to get in touch with with this Batiste's broker.
Speaker 7: Okay. All right. Great. Thank you. Ms.. Amy Zimmer. Same question. The amount of resources that from your organization that go towards working on a project such as this.
Speaker 5: Sure. So we have there are nine members on the Limerick mission. We do work with Kira's staff, those five people and city attorney. Their staff will prepare the they they they're the one that said, do the initial research and then they prepare a recommendation for us based on what they interpret it to, whether it fits the criteria or not. And then that the professionals on the commission are tasked with determining the final decision on that. A lot of times we agree with them. We don't always it's not always a given. But in this case, we did agree with staff that this property had historic significance.
Speaker 7: Okay. You had made an earlier comment that so, Miss Battista, and not to dispute numbers back and forth, but Ms.. Battista had an estimate that it would be approximately 100,000 for historic repairs. That might be high. That might be low. But let's just work with 100,000. You made the comment that she would actually get money back if she designated her home through tax credits. Could you explain that a little bit more? And approximately, if we're working with around number of 100,000, what would you estimate that she would receive back in tax credits?
Speaker 5: So the the program I was referring to is it's a state program done through the State Department of Revenue, and it is a historic tax credit, which is for specifically for historically designated buildings. So just any building that happens to be old is not qualify for historic tax credits. It has to be designated historic in order to get those. And then so that's what I was referring to, why it would be a benefit to her as far as the is the exact numbers. I don't actually know those. Somebody from the city staff would be better to to give you the exact numbers and percentages.
Speaker 7: Okay. Thank you. So thank you for for that information. So, Cara, could we go ahead and have you. Come back up and again working on a round number of 100,000. What would be the estimate with your experience that Ms.. Battista would receive back?
Speaker 4: It's a 20% tax credit for allowable expenses, which are basically expenses that work on the historic fabric of the building, which also includes sewer work within the footprint of the building, HVAC work, repair, rehab of windows, mortar work, anything that's on the historic fabric. It's a 20% tax credit from the state tax, from any taxes you owe to the state.
Speaker 7: Okay. So is that 20% credit? Is that after. Is that a reimbursable. So the property owner would be responsible for putting the money outright to get the repairs done and then it would be a tax credit credit that would be reimbursable. So the property owner would still have to come forward with the money upfront.
Speaker 4: The money would be upfront. And so if you couldn't take those state tax credits in one year, it's extended over a ten year period. But you would pay for the month, you would pay for it upfront and then take it on your taxes.
Speaker 7: Okay. All right. Great. Thank you. Care, President Brooks. I would like Ms.. Battista to come up, and it's one question. Oh, yeah. Okay. Thank you, Ms.. Battista.
Speaker 0: Please.
Speaker 7: So, Miss Battista, could you talk a little bit about the folks that you have working with you and you know, that are helping you defend this? How many people have you had to engage through this process?
Speaker 5: Well, I actually I have one attorney firm as far as. So there's two people that are both working on it. And I guess my really I don't know if you're considering him part of the process, but it would be just those three.
Speaker 7: Okay. And you're responsible for taking care of their costs and everything out of your own pocket?
Speaker 5: Yeah, unfortunately.
Speaker 7: Okay. All right. Great. All right. Thank you. I appreciate it. Thank you, President Brooks.
Speaker 0: And thank you, Councilwoman Gilmore. We have Councilman Espinosa and NU and you guys have talked. I want to get the other folks in the queue, if that's okay. Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 9: Thank you, Mr. President. Annie Levinsky, please. Hi there, Annie. I heard a couple of people tonight talk about the fact that they thought the city should have some sort of a fund. To help make deals offset situations like this. Can you talk about that? Are you aware is that done in other cities that that that you're.
Speaker 12: You know, I don't I haven't heard of a as a really common tool. I do I've heard of a couple of times. I believe Phenix has a historic preservation fund. I forget what the source of the funds come from, but they do have a fund that they can use for a variety of discretionary purposes, and I know that they at least once have used it to purchase a property. That's the main example I can think of. I haven't done analysis on. I was just at the National Preservation Conference last week and it wasn't something that that came up with great frequency, but.
Speaker 9: Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Yeah, thank you. Councilman Cashman. Councilman Ortega.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. President. I do have a couple of questions. Is Marilyn Quinn still here?
Speaker 0: She left, I believe.
Speaker 7: Okay. Mr. Olsen, will you come back up? I saw you jump up when questioned. Pardon me.
Speaker 0: You have to.
Speaker 7: Since this.
Speaker 2: Gentleman right here.
Speaker 10: From.
Speaker 7: China may have questions.
Speaker 2: For you.
Speaker 0: Later. Yes. You the younger one? Yes.
Speaker 7: So I wanted to ask you a question about the Anderson. Has it sort of in follow up to the question that was being asked by Councilwoman Black earlier? Yes, it's it's my recollection during that process or shortly thereafter that there actually had been some identified developers that had indicated a willingness to develop that property. If it had been designated and and maintained the structure. Do you do you have any. Knowledge of that. And so will you please share that? And I'll ask the other gentleman in a few minutes.
Speaker 3: The name of the developer who made the proposal was Steve Davis. And he made a proposal. It was a cash offer. Which included preservation of the Anderson House. And then there would have been development on the remaining land. 14 townhomes. He made an offer. Cash. $1,100,000.
Speaker 7: Okay.
Speaker 6: And then he.
Speaker 3: Went on down since we lost our vote. He went on down. And, you know, fortunately. He has a good reputation. And he's in the current stage of remodeling the Bosley House on Federal Boulevard just to the north.
Speaker 7: So the developer that is doing the property on what used to be the Anderson House. Yes. So the property was demolished, correct? Oh, yes. And how many units were put on that site, do you remember?
Speaker 3: Well, they're currently under construction. There are 18 units under construction. The distance between there are. Let me see. I think there's a total of six buildings. And the distance between each of the buildings is about eight feet. And then. You have nice concrete walkways.
Speaker 7: In between the buildings. Okay. All right. I have no further questions for you I want to ask. Thank you, Miss Hun. If you wouldn't mind coming back to the microphone. So getting back to the number of. Demolition request. So of the 613, do you know how many of those were actually torn down?
Speaker 4: I am believing probably most of them. If it's a demolition request, it's typically they're going to follow right through and get the permit after they've got landmark approval. For the most part, a lot oftentimes I'll I'll see that property are like on Google Earth and it'll be gone.
Speaker 7: So. And just to be clear about those that come before your office, it's not just any request for a demolition. It's those that happen to have some what people believe to be significant. Or is it. Every single.
Speaker 4: It's pretty much a coalition request. So basically anything that's demoed in the city, I see it. Okay. I end up doing I end up doing this.
Speaker 7: I'll look at it for any of the criteria that someone might believe to be able to meet sort of the the thrust behind the ordinance and whether or not. You know, the owner might be interested or that that's what triggers the process that led us to why we're here tonight.
Speaker 4: Right. So if we get a demolition or a certificate of non historic status, that's what triggers the triggers, that process.
Speaker 7: Great. Is Joel Judd still here? Did he leave? Okay. Let me see if I have some other questions. That is it for right now, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thanks. Councilman Ortega. Councilman Espinosa. Yeah. Mr. Adams. And then I'll follow that up with Maribel if she's still here. This Maribel's still here. Your mom's still here. No. She's not here. She's coming. So. How much value did your entitlement work add to Jim's property?
Speaker 3: Well, it's pretty clear we added a substantial amount of value. We were able to sell the property for a little over $2.2 million. So the entitlements added $1,000,000 in value. Okay. Now you have to subtract off the entitlements to actually get to the true profit of the deal. Okay. So over $500,000 for anybody that would like to know.
Speaker 0: So it was Jim's property assemblage. It was Jim's Ali vacation that came before council and it was Jim's certificate of non historic status. But you profited from that.
Speaker 3: My company played a role in all parts of that. The Ali vacation, the Certificate of Narnia star status. We were there every step of the way. We spent the dollars to make things happen. We hired attorneys. We did what we needed to do. Jim was well aware of that, and Jim could not have done what we did on his own. It would have been impossible for him.
Speaker 0: But once the vacation was done, it did have extreme value as as dirt, because the assemblage was then made complete that hit Jim's three parcels and then the vacated parcel that separated his parcels. Correct.
Speaker 3: Our contract was contingent on our successful vacation of the.
Speaker 0: Valley and we get those all the time. That's a $600 fee that anybody can do. All they have to do is go and ask.
Speaker 3: It was quite a cumbersome process, given the fact that we had opposition from yourself and a few other folks.
Speaker 0: So the. But Jim would not have had that opposition. You got that opposition because you claimed you told Jim that $1,000,000 was all his land was worth, when in fact it had always as an assemblage, it was worth quite more.
Speaker 3: Jim actually hired a real estate broker by the name of Michael Air. Jim and Mike set the price of the property and came to us. We merely agreed to pay Jim's asking price.
Speaker 0: So.
Speaker 3: So I think that's pretty fair. Yeah.
Speaker 0: Let's let's get off the exchange and try to. Well, you did not talk to the mayors. Ortega's comments and questions to this does talk to the merits of the deal here. Okay. But, I mean, there's always been a concern about whether the property owners are actually being taken advantage of by developers when they don't actually know the true value of what's going out, what their what they're subjecting themselves to. And that was sort of I mean, Mr. Adams spoke clearly to it, that there was a big, huge delta between the actions that council took and and and what the ramifications were to the future development of that property. Antalya, that property.
Speaker 3: Are you unwilling to acknowledge the fact that Jim hired a broker, a professional.
Speaker 0: And received representation? So so, Mr.. Let's just let's just do a question and answer. So what's the question? So you're you're a managing broker of a real estate firm, are you not? That's correct. Okay. So as when you have a listing contract and an offer is presented to you on behalf of the owner, should you respond or counter or just ignore.
Speaker 3: It's the owner's choice as to what to do.
Speaker 0: So you don't happen to know. Jim, I know that you stated that it was you did not believe that the $1.1 million offer was was valid or reasonable. I mean, real. Do you know if the his rep, his listing agent actually followed through with the counter?
Speaker 3: I did have a chance to review that offer. I happen to see it. I'm kind of shocked that I'm on trial here tonight. But. So, so.
Speaker 0: So also we need to we need to actions. I was not able to sit on this dais hearing that. Otherwise you would have. Councilman. Councilman Espinosa. Do you have a question? Okay. Yes. So I'm just. What was that question about? Yeah, it's just unfortunate because. Well, let's go back to Maribel. Yeah, I would like to speak to Maribel. Thank you, Mr. Adams. Miss Maribel. Did your property was your property property subject to a certificate of non historic status application.
Speaker 4: I know one answer. Any other question.
Speaker 0: Would your daughter like to speak? I think she understands the question.
Speaker 4: Yes. You call her.
Speaker 2: She's.
Speaker 4: Able to answer the question.
Speaker 0: Was your mother or your parents property subject to a certificate of non historic status.
Speaker 4: I think I don't have the answer for that. I'm sorry.
Speaker 0: Okay. But you owned the parcel adjacent. Your mother, your parent, your family owns the parcel adjacent to Judah's property. Correct.
Speaker 4: What was.
Speaker 0: That? Your parents owned the property adjacent to Judith's property?
Speaker 4: Yes, they do.
Speaker 0: Okay. And Judith filed an application for a certificate and on a story accessed in July of this year on that parcel. Is that correct?
Speaker 2: I'm not sure. I don't know that.
Speaker 0: Judith Carol. Let's let's have somebody. Sorry, what is the Judith file? An application for a certificate. Non historic status on her neighbors property.
Speaker 4: That yes there was a certificate of non historic status on that property. I was the one who actually did the review of that and issued the certificate. I believe that it was Judith who filed that, but I can't be 100% sure on that.
Speaker 0: Okay. The. Was was there an application for designation filed on that property?
Speaker 4: No, that property was not posted. We felt that it lacked the integrity. So it was not posted. So there was no designation application.
Speaker 0: Just I just want it clear that that the property adjacent to Judith is not encumbered by any certificate, mean any any designation, landmark designation and could be sold and the house could be demoed. Right away.
Speaker 7: Correct?
Speaker 0: Yes. Thank you. No further questions. Councilman, new quick question.
Speaker 13: If Levinsky looks. It was an intriguing idea about relocating historic houses brought up earlier tonight, or have the historic homes been relocated? Is that an issue that's that happens.
Speaker 12: It has happened from time to time. You know, notably happened for the Kirkuk Museum a few weeks ago. That was the first time in a really long time. But the Jestina Ford House, that is the black American West Museum was moved by historic Denver in 1980. And there are a number of other examples in Denver. So it can be done. And while it's generally not the number one preferred choice, it it can be an option and perhaps is here.
Speaker 13: Great. Thank you, Mr. Batiste. One last question I forgot to ask you before I'm sorry is about the relocation. Is this something that you have considered or have you discussed, or is this something that you would consider?
Speaker 5: This is the first it's ever been brought up to me, and I cannot answer that truthfully because I don't know pricing I don't know anything about. The process that you go through to do that.
Speaker 13: Okay. So it's just the first time you've heard about it tonight. But if it was financially feasible in some way to do that, then you wouldn't would you disagree with doing something like that with the House if it didn't affect you?
Speaker 5: Yeah. I mean, if it doesn't affect me financially. Sure. But I looking back, I. Yeah, I mean, I can't answer that.
Speaker 13: Okay. Thank you very much.
Speaker 5: Sorry.
Speaker 13: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman. No, and thank you for asking the question, because it was a I'm just going to invite Louis Bass if you come to the lectern. I was. Oftentimes in these situations where we have community issues, you know, there's folks on one side or the other. But you actually came up with the solution. And I really appreciate that because I probably can count on my hand so many times that's happened in one of these conversations. Do you know what the cost would be?
Speaker 6: Honestly, I do not. You know, I may be naive. I don't consider myself an angel in this project.
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 6: And this possibility, it. It was something that could be considered to solve both parties sufficiently. Do I get something out of it? Yeah, I get I would get a house, you know, and I've got the land and. Okay, house land. What are the costs? Okay. I've been out of architecture for three or four years. Maybe the number I threw out was naively low, but it's not out of the realm of consideration.
Speaker 0: How much would you be willing to put in on the deal?
Speaker 6: Well, I think I threw out the number of $200,000 now. What? That what does that cover? Well, I thought it would have to cover a new foundation. A new foundation? Citing the House. You'd have to upgrade, probably. And I don't know what the condition structurally is of the House. That would have to be determined, but you would probably have to upgrade the windows. You'd have to do electrical plumbing, sewer, tap, you know, but these things, these things I've seen in projects, I was in business for 30 years.
Speaker 0: Well, I don't know if anyone's going to take you up on the offer, but I sincerely thank you for offering up your land and trying to get a deal done. Well, not just for the community, but for the city.
Speaker 6: Well, the interesting thing is that I bought the house that I still owned on River Drive in the early eighties. It's an 1888 Queen Anne Cottage. And prior to anybody else living there, the master brewer for Zang Brewery, who came over from Germany, lived in that house for two weeks until his bigger house got built across the highway. It was a blue collar neighborhood. It was developed all by a girl investment company. And they would walk down to the river to go to work. And I've got a connection with River Drive for years. Decades, really? And would hate to see. Yeah. Housing stock disappear. Yeah. And this was a way of seeking to preserve something.
Speaker 0: Well, thank you. I appreciate it. Car, can you come up to the front? Thanks again, Mr. Bussey. I just I just had a quick question on the the geography. I know we we added the geography in the landmark commissioners.
Speaker 4: It was actually in the landmark designation application. So so it was in the initial designation application.
Speaker 0: I thought we just had a commissioner say that it was.
Speaker 4: It was it was in the application. It was, it was very short in the application. And so staff recommended that the designation as written was not sufficient. So my staff report initially said that it was significant under history in architecture, that we felt it had potential for geography, but the application itself was not sufficient. The Landmark Preservation Commission felt through public comments as well as what was in the landmark designation application, that it was significant under history, architecture and geography.
Speaker 0: So they added to it. They added the significance of the geography piece.
Speaker 4: Well, it was in the designation application. They felt it was significant. They felt it was significant.
Speaker 10: Okay.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. And we have let me see, Councilwoman, take I saw you in there in the Q.
Speaker 2: I withdrew my name. Okay. Okay.
Speaker 0: Great. Looks like we have no other questions. The hearing for council bill 1021 is now closed. Comments from members of Council. Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 10: And.
Speaker 0: So I apologize for some of my questioning, but and I apologize in advance for the length of my comments. But it's part because I've been I've been really quiet in order to respect the process this entire time and to not bias my colleagues. I am in a precarious position as the counsel person, and I honored and respected that throughout. That said, I want to thank members, I mean, people on both sides of the issue for coming out and staying with us well past what will be well past 11:00 to express your views. And I really want to thank those members of my community that supported me, which I'm happy to report. Could tally that the overwhelming number of people that were supporting this come from northwest Denver in my district. But I also want to acknowledge that there are individuals in this in this in this audience that spoke tonight that have done yeoman's work without direction from me and I purely on behalf of this House. And I really appreciate those efforts. So with that said. I just want to say that no one wants to be here in this situation, especially me, and hopefully you guys can get that. But our community deserves better than to have the destruction of a truly significant historic structure, be simply a checkbox on the path to create evermore overpriced townhomes that erode the character of the neighborhood and disregard the community's history. From the time this property was platted in the town of Highland and the home built by the Hoyt Hoyt family through the 12 decades of the Hoyt House's existence. This proud structure has prominently overlooked what is now known as Jefferson Park. Barring an act of God and with the protection provided by the Act of Council on behalf of this city and its future inhabitants, this one structure could remain to tell the story of this place, and the important individuals who lived here were raised here and educated in the same public schools where our children go and who went on to create great works of architecture that can still be found throughout the city because they too had been protected from the wrecking ball. Despite all the mediocre and disposable buildings that are the norm today in Jefferson Park, significant works of architecture that today have no equal originated here in Jefferson Park, in a household that fed the spark of creativity in the Hoyt children and provided an environment to dream, to draw, and to critically think in ways that were superior to their contemporaries. Given the alarmist statements that have been made, I would like to get on record a few facts. This application is, in fact, exceptional and rare. It does not represent some rash reaction that will result in some new norm. Since I have been in office, there have been 187 of these requests to the mall for the right to demolish a landmark structure of potentially landmark structure of the 180 786. Nearly half have been in my northwest Denver district, which means my district sees a lot more historic demolition than most, if not all, of my colleagues in the other ten districts. Of the 80 of the 86 that have come through my office, seven structures that had the potential to be significant points of contention among my constituents. Only one resulted in the landmarking application that only one resulted in a landmarking application that resulted in this sort of public hearing tonight. And that structure is now demolished. The other six potentially historic structures that generated community concern were avoided voluntarily. Three were withdrawn voluntarily, and the structures remain as is. Two were protected from demolition and destructive alteration via a covenant agreement with historic Denver. Who spoke really, really well? I forgot to mention that. And that was right on point. One was voluntarily withdrawn and a full restoration is almost complete. It's on the 3700 block of Navajo and it will be resold along with new developments on both sides of that of that new that existing home. It is safe to say there are a multitude of ways to meet the owners needs. And we heard another one. Thank you, Louis, for making that suggestion to address the community concerns. But in all cases, it requires an open, honest and sincere dialog. I am grateful to the owners that were and remain open to looking for Win-Win Solutions rather than shutting the door to the possibility of achieving an outcome that serves both them and the common good of the community. While difficult in every situation, achieving win win results have been one of the most rewarding aspects of my role in representing the community. However, there is no obligation that any owner engages in such dialog and they can choose to treat efforts and engage in dialog with hostility or be led to create barriers towards solutions that ultimately may even be in their own interests. The moment I saw this application, I was troubled. A concern rooted in my knowledge of the structure, the recognition of its potential for designation, and and the likely players and antics that would play out from development interests for the community if the community sought to protect this structure from demolition. Having experienced firsthand the distortions of truth and justice as an applicant of a community led landmark application. The personal toll and the personal toll that it had taken on my CO applicants. When I was contacted by the community about a desire to preserve the Hoyt House, I made a decision to act in my capacity on behalf of the community and put forth the application, thus allowing the structure to be considered on its merits with regard to the criteria and avoiding hostility being leveled on community members. As you are well aware, I have not lobbied you, my colleagues, on the merits of this home and hope that you have had the opportunity to review the wisdom of the city's architectural and historic experts, including general contractor, as I felt it inappropriate to ask for your support prior to this evening. Early on I reached out to the owner and while I was met with immediate hostility, she did eventually provide her terms that needed to be met to spare. That is what historic Denver and the Landmark Commission recognize as an important piece of Denver's history. The owner eventually made some unrealistic demands to spare the structure and publicly claim that she would consider offers from preservationist development developers, yet refused to allow potential bidders to enter the home they were. They would be preserving efforts to find a viable alternative, reliable time and access, bailing access in in light of the application deadline, there was simply not enough time to find a buyer that would purchase the home without having the opportunity to inspect it, which I think is understandable and the norm. I'm glad the owners supporters used the media to bring up my end tonight and spoke to bring up my aides needed corrections to the statement the owner was making at a neighborhood meeting last week. I say this because if the community fully understood the specifics of our ordinances, the laws that govern persons and property in Denver, and the multiple self-serve serving distortions of the law that made by the owner, they too would have spoken out. The application is for the applicant. The owner, sorry, has a full page letter in our neighborhood newsletter that has ten similar inaccuracies, which I have noted here in red. I don't expect you to be able to see it, but I'm happy to share. To use a volunteer newsletter that is delivered monthly by volunteer carriers to make dishonest claims to support destructive negative PR in the name of destroying a local landmark for personal gain is difficult for me to understand. My own household voluntarily delivered this newsletter. Not this one particularly, but the Japan newsletter. Four to the steps of the Hoyt House for eight of the last nine years. Doing so because community communication is a saint, was essential to creating the physical conditions that have resulted in the desirability of the Jefferson Park neighborhood that we experienced today . Which developers are understandably capitalizing on. Our route was 150 newsletters. After delivering nearly 15,000 newsletters, you learn a thing or two about Jefferson Park, the people new and old, and the physical environment, including the role of certain structures in the placemaking and history of Northwest Denver. I represent the constituents in Northwest Denver lawfully and to the best of my abilities on their matters, of their concern, of which this is one. I understand that the owner has left this home and it has become a rental property for her. It is my hope that the owner will understand that it is not my intent to steal the profits that she feels she deserves away from her, from away from her, because alternatives could very likely provide a similar monetary outcome while maintaining an important asset for the community in our city. Despite living in the neighborhood for almost nine years, the owner owner only attended two Jefferson Park United neighbor meetings this month and last month. Not everyone needs to be part of the R.A.. Still, I want those in the room to understand that I was there over 15 years ago when Jason held his very first public meeting. That day, we decided to work to improve the lives of those in our community, to take our neighborhood back from drug dealers, pimps, murderers, thieves and yes, poor development schemes that were designated that were designed to remove our history and make a developer quick buck schemes that left home homeowners with little and the community disrupted, stagnated and stripped of its character and its past. That community created the conditions that you will profit from, regardless of the outcome tonight. Like I said, no one wants to be here in this situation. Least of all me. Nonetheless, I am positive that if my colleagues agree with me that this home is in fact an important part of our Denver history that another developer with significant, significantly more foresight will make you whole. And we'll include the home in a development plan to create additional housing. Our city needs. I understand the owners desire to take the wealth she earned from her investment. They will help you in every way I can. But I cannot stand by idly and watch as those who have worked to better this neighborhood and keep its character lose one of the last significant connections to our past as it succumbs to a bulldozers bucket needlessly. The flip in attitude that some have about preservation is precisely why, as a society, we created tools to address these matters. When certain situations arise, meaningful parts of our past should remain to teach us, strengthen our communities, and inspire us and our children as we move forward. If the owner brought bought the home to demolish it, the owner should have researched the plausibility of that goal when it was purchased. Just as the developers in this instance have done, the owner could have made her purchase conditional on the seller providing a certificate of non historic status. While I believe that demolition requirements should be the responsibility of the party whose intention it is to demolish and stand to profit from it the most, the owner, if initially concerned about the potential for redevelopment, should have and could have taken this step at the time she acquired it. I, for one, believe it would be more fair to the owner, Judith, the community and council whom are tasked with these decisions. If the party desiring to tear this structure down took the risk, purchased it outright, and sought the demo permit themselves. It is cynical of the person who contracted the home for demo not bear this risk. And it is also absurd that council should be asked to support an individual who themselves has no intent of demolishing the home. The buyers, not the sellers, are expected to take the risk as they stand to earn the most profit. But since the narrative of deep pocket of a deep pocketed developer is less compelling than that of a single woman with one asset, we find ourselves here. Due diligence reveals that the structure has merit on all three criteria of our preservation ordinance, which can hinder legal demolition of the structure. Of the structure. Its location at the time it was built was significant to both the town of Highlands and Denver history. The architecture was undeniably of the period in which it was built, and it has maintained those details through time. Admittedly, the association to significant figures in Denver history would be less overt to the lay investigator. But simple investigation makes an instantly compelling case that famed Denver architects Burnham and Merrill Hoyt resided at the home through their formative years, and Burnham resided in the home at the time that he and his brother started their practice in Denver and while producing lasting works to our city's legacy. The Hoyt House has value as an important historic landmark and reference point to our city's formation and designation allows it to be a physical reminder that North Denver youth have and will continue to go on to achieve great things in our city and around the world. Significant works by the Hoyt. By the Hoyt are the fourth Church of Christ Scientists, which is in District one. The Denver Public Library, Park Hill Branch and Central Branch. Surry Hills Country Club. The Denver Press Club. Lake Junior High School, which also in District one might be Boulevard Presbyterian Church Education, Main St Martin's Chapel, Steele Elementary School Addition and most notably, the Red Rocks Ampitheater. I read the owner's statement of Desire, and I want my colleagues to know that the home is serviceable despite deferred maintenance and both the home and land as is, have appreciated considerably. Designation only affects the portion of land or assemblage that occupies the home's footprint, meaning the develop ability of the remainder of the parcel with new construction remains, which adds additional value beyond that of the home alone. Regarding the impact of landmark designation, it should be noted that these designations apply to hundreds of structures in the city. And you saw us do it to a whole bunch more tonight. Overwhelmingly, they're sought voluntarily. In other words, the sky doesn't fall with designation of the structure and even non owner designation in even when this the designation is non owner. You need look no further than the success of the Beth Eden Church, a non owner designation approved in 2014. Successful component of redevelopment in District one. Buyers do exist for this home. However, it has been the decision of the applicant not to allow those buyers to enter the home. That has likely brought us to this point where we are today. I urge my colleagues to honor the fact that the criteria of the governing ordinance are met and consideration of the owners desires has been given and approved the structure for designation. I recognize to a person, including me, this is not the most desirable way to achieve protection of a historic structure. However, the laws in place to protect structures and even less than and even in less than amicable circumstances, we cannot assume to know that there is any potential loss in value because the owner denied any attempt by preservationists to assess the property to develop an offer. Unlike the Anderson House, we do not know what the value of the current offer. The value of the current offer. Sorry. So no one can declaratively state that the offer is or is not fair market value regardless. None of that is for our consideration, except as far as it was mentioned in the owner's statement. What we do know is that architecturally significant and an architecturally significant home, historic home across the street from a beautifully maintained, activated city park near great local retailers. And with quick access to downtown and transit options, historically designated or not, is a very desirable property both before and after this hearing. As stated tonight, there is a market for this home. The last Queen Inn along adjacent to the park. With Designation Council will provide a unique opportunity to bring the new bringing together the new with the old in a highly visible setting that tells our story, the story of the past, but also the story of what is achievable. Growing up in northwest Denver, I urge my colleagues to support the residents throughout northwest Denver that I am representing by approving this application. Thank you. All right, Councilman Sussman.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. President. Well, there's such a contrast between the difference between our first hearing tonight for Kassala Park and the one afterwards, and shows the difference when you have owners who do want to who are who are engaged and who do want to have some historical designation versus requiring a homeowner to make their home a landmark . I do believe the designation process that we're working with tonight, with that without the willingness of the owner. Needs some further scrutiny. It does need a higher bar. I appreciate the questions my colleague, Councilwoman Gilmore mentioned, and I hope I'm not stealing your thunder. But the resources that the city has compared to what the resources of the homeowner has are perhaps insurmountable for most homeowners, single homeowners. These have come before us before, and I always kind of think of it in a personal way. What if it were my home? I have a 1938 home, and I don't know whether it has historical significance or not, but of three different, if three strangers could come and say to me, You must designate your home and I'm going to use the resources of the city to make you designate your home. I think I would I would be. I don't know. I don't know how I could react. I mean, it also is my life savings as well. When you're told that it requires to to maintain the house or to make it historic, would require more repairs than it's worth. In car language that's called totaled. But it made me very uncomfortable that we were asking the owner, Well, why didn't you take this offer? Why didn't you take this offer? And I got it offer for you. It seems like an invasion of privacy. I well, the other thought I thought I had is. If preservation always increased a home's value, wouldn't we have many more people applying for historic preservation? If it really was so valuable? And I, I didn't know there was only one gentleman that said that he was considering getting his home designated. I don't know how many others from Northwest Denver have designated their own home. And I would imagine from the discussions that I've heard and knowing Northwest ever as I do, there would be many of them that would be perhaps eligible for designation. I also got was distressed sometimes to hear this is what people will say, that people will seek designation of somebody else's home to stop development. And I certainly heard that tonight, too. And that's not the purpose of historic designation. Not at all. So. I'm the chair of the Land Use Committee that we have, and I'm going to maybe take a look at this particular ordinance to see if it still works today from when it was I know it was worked on very, very assiduously by the previous councilman, J.D. Robb, and by historic Denver and by landmark preservation. And I, I think I'd like to work on that again and and see if it does it needs some tweaking and maybe a higher bar for hostile designation. And by this little speech, you probably realize that I won't be voting for the historic designation tonight.
Speaker 0: Thank you, gentlemen. Sussman. Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. President. Last week, I guess about ten days ago, I went up and met with one of our arts and venues, folks up at Red Rocks, to review the some of the changes that are being planned for the planter boxes there because of some issues that have come up with the vegetation. And so that's such a magnificent place that the architect Hoyt gave to us. And then on Tuesday last week, I had a reception for a woman who sang soprano in my church choir for many years, who's moving to California. And she held it at the Cherokee Castle down in Sedalia because she and her family knew Tweed Kimball. And I frequently use the central library down here in Denver. Another one of Burnham Hoyt's creations. And also, God forbid, I was president of the Denver Press Club and a member for many, many years, another one of his more pedestrian products for the Fourth Estate. And all that is to say that it is through his works that we remember Burnham, Hoyt and what he means to this community. Up until this application, the Landmark Commission staff wasn't even aware that he had lived in this house. We remember Burnham when we value him because of the things that he left us. And. I think that's the most appropriate way to to honor him. I don't believe that the fact that he grew up in that house, he and his brother is enough to say that the house itself is a Denver landmark. And so for that reason, I won't support that criteria. And I also don't support the the geography finding that it's a beautiful queen. And it really is. It's right up the street from a st river drive, which has a number of beautiful queen hands on it, that maybe that hope, that river drive ought to be a landmark district in order to preserve the Queen Anne's. But because I don't believe that it meets those two criteria, I won't support it tonight. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Flynn, Councilwoman Black.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. In listening to everyone's comments tonight, I've narrowed it down to sort of four issues that we're talking about. And the first one is about a community that's very frustrated about new development and ugly development and high density. And I totally get it. I. Councilman Espinosa took us on a great tour of his district this summer. And it's sad. A lot of beautiful homes have been lost and there are a lot of ugly new buildings. There's got to be a better way to preserve neighborhoods and ensure better developments. A lot of the problems are because of our zoning code and blueprint. Denver, which happened before most of us were on this council. But taking away her property rights is not the right way to fix that problem. But I get I get the frustration. And I think it's I think it's a tragedy. The second issue is it's about historic preservation. Does this House have historical value? Yes, it does have historical value. I think if we're doing a hostile landmarking, it has to have a much higher bar. This is definitely a higher bar than the Anderson house. But, you know, is it up there with the Molly Brown house? You know, I agree with Councilman Flynn on that. And I thought that was very well said. Councilman Flynn, I would love to see it preserved. Mr. Bucy, if you're still here, you're the hero of the evening. Let's make that work. That would be really.
Speaker 5: A great.
Speaker 4: Compromise. So I would love to see it preserved. I don't think it means that high.
Speaker 5: Bar that.
Speaker 4: I think needs to happen for this hostel. Landmarking. The other issue I think, is about private property rights. And as as council people, we have to find the balance. And to designate a structure without the owner's permission, as I've already said three times, requires a very high hurdle. And I think the historic significance needs to be extraordinary. And as I've said before, if someone wanted to tear down the Brown Palace, I would be first in line to stop them. But doing this does take away her rights as a property owner, and it does negatively impact the value of the property. And I, I love the the tax credits offered at the state, but that's you're not making money off of those. It helps offset some of your costs. And. The Fifth Amendment requires the government to provide just compensation when taking property. Now, this isn't exactly taking someone's property, but it is taking someone's property rights. And if we're going to do that. We need to give them fair market value for their property. And the last point I have is that our our process is broken. And thank you, Councilwoman Sussman, for saying we are going to talk about it at the Land Use Committee. Last year after we had two of these. Councilman Cashman and Councilwoman Sussman, I had a conversation with Brad. If you can grab, you can. And our director of community planning and development about this, telling him that we thought this was broken and he said, oh, we've never had these before and we're not going to have anymore.
Speaker 5: So it is broken.
Speaker 4: It's it pits neighbors against neighbors. It's being used to solve a problem that it wasn't meant to solve. And it actually doesn't solve it, which is overdevelopment and ugly architecture. I also feel like poor Ms.. Batiste has been on trial tonight, and I think that's a horrible thing that we did to her. She owns that house and she should not be put on trial. It's completely unfair and it's biased against the property owner. And there's also no way to pause the process. So the hero, Mr. Beauty, has a great idea, but we can't pause the process. And so there's. Those are the things I've identified that I think that we as a council need to look at and fix. Obviously, I will not be supporting this tonight. I am a historian and I support historic preservation, but this is not the way to do it.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman Black. And I think what Councilwoman Black meant to say is you are all heroes for staying this late.
Speaker 2: Okay. That's true.
Speaker 4: Yes. Thank you all for being here.
Speaker 0: Councilman?
Speaker 13: Yes? I have some of the same concerns that Councilwoman Sussman and everyone else has said, but also definitely respect the professionalism and and the criteria that we use for historic preservation. I'm just not sure that we can just say, well, this does. This is a property that didn't meet all the work that was done by historic Denver and and and the landmark preservation. So I can't believe that we wouldn't just we'll just ignore all the criteria for historic designation. I have my district has the largest number of historic district and historic homes. And they recognize and appreciate historic designation. And they're all of those values. And those homes have increased over the years dramatically so. So I'm not sure that's an economic issue. But but there's no question, Roma, the process is broken. There's what everyone has said is true. There's something wrong with this this kind of way we manage this hostile designation process that troubles me a great deal about what has happened. And what I've heard tonight. But I also think that I have to respect the criteria that we go by and the work that our staff does. So I will be supporting this designation tonight and, you know, definitely support. Councilwoman Sussman has worked to relook at this entire process. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman. New Councilwoman Gilmore.
Speaker 7: Thank you, President Brooks. I appreciate, you know, Councilwoman Sussman and others bringing up that the the process needs to be relooked at and that it is broken and under historical significance. You know, the the Hoyt brothers lived in their mother's home and that the sheet that was left on my desk has 15 buildings that the Hoyts designed . When you break it down, 13 out of the 15 on this list are either under the Colorado State Register of Historic Places are designated a Denver landmark or are under the National Register of Historic Places. So the history of the Foyt brothers and their, you know, designing will not be lost. There are 13 projects that are already recognized. The home that their mother, the home that their mother owned and that they lived in. I don't see that as historical significance. And then the the third one under geographic significance, I it's next to a park. There are lots of structures next to a park. And so I don't think that it for for this application reaches a higher level, which I think should be the bar, especially when it's an owner opposed designation. And frankly, it's really troublesome that between the three entities that I asked to come up and thank you for your your honesty and your candor that there are at least 21 folks from nonprofit city entities that. Are professionals that are attorneys that have a high, I'm sure, beyond a bachelor's degree. And how with 21 folks, we were not able to open the doors of communication and not have. Miss Batiste feel like she was being attacked or that she didn't want to talk to anyone. We as the government cannot force a private citizen to work with us. That's not the sort of government we live in. And so it is totally her right to say, no, I don't want to. And then that means that those 21 folks, they need to reach a higher threshold. To come up with some sort of solution. I did not see that tonight. I didn't hear that tonight. And so based on me not feeling like it reached that it met. Historical significance or geographic significance? I will not be supporting this tonight. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman Gilmore. Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 9: Thank you, Mr. President. I hate this. And I will own. I was wondering if Councilwoman Black would remember when we went through the Anderson House and the other property known as The View House. We met and said this. This ordinance is a mess. And we we met and I would have told you we spoke, Mr. Broad. Well, maybe my memory slipped. But in any event, I didn't take action. On that. And I feel very sorry for Miss Battista, but I don't feel any more sorry for you than I do for the community, because that community has taken some big time hits, and I did not do my part to craft an ordinance that might have lent itself to to to helping in a situation like this. I have a hard time seeing how to do this on the back of an individual. I just do. We need to fix that. We set aside I don't know how much money. I think it's couple $3 million every year in a fund in case. City employees get themselves into legal troubles that we need to settle on. With the with the importance of historic preservation. I would think it would make at least as much sense to set a few bucks away, especially with the wonderful discovered Denver Project. That's coming up where we're going to come up with an inventory of what really matters, and we can begin addressing that in a coherent way. So I am not going to be able to. And I'm not going to be able to. My guess is. Support hostile designations until we correct this ordinance so that it's a more fair playing field. I'm also of the. Feeling that it does need to be a higher bar and a hostile situation. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Cashman. Councilman Lopez.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. President. I. I appreciate everybody's taking in and I appreciate a lot of the testimony. You know, I. I get that. It's a very difficult process. I absolutely do. However, there are criteria that need to be met. Does that. You know, I trust our staff and trust the professionals that are out there that if they see some designated historic, they'll take the appropriate action. I rarely see things that don't that the CPD or staff don't support come to us and say, Oh, well, staff doesn't support this, by the way. It's fully vetted by them when it comes to us. And it ultimately is our decision. You know, as Batiste, I totally get it. I absolutely get it. And I respect your I respect you and I respect your property rights. I absolutely understand the financial part. Right. And that's why I think, you know, it gets to be very uncomfortable. And, you know, you feel like you're being put on the stand. And and I apologize if that's the feeling you get, because that's not the intent of that podium. That's not the intent of the diocese. It's not a courtroom. We are not judges. There is nobody that that's supposed to you know, we ask questions, you know, should be just to answer information. And I know that it gets to a point where or, you know, a person needs to be gaveled down. I absolutely get that. I understand the economic impact. I didn't get to see this, but I was wondering if folks folks that live in the immediate neighborhood. Stand up, please. Just so I can see her. Put your hands up. The folks that live in the immediate neighborhood around this and Jefferson Park know in this area, district one is huge in this immediate neighborhood of Jefferson Park. Okay. That's. That's good. That's good. That's good. That's good. You can sit down. I'm sorry. I wanted to get that. Just that visual, just to understand, because up here, as we're telling. It's hard to tell. Here's where we have conflict. History does not just happen in historic designations aren't just okay when they're the east side of the river. For the most part, there's a lot of neighborhoods that have historic homes that have been designated already. This process has happened over and over in the decades without them being declared hostile, even though there's probably opposition to them. In this particular neighborhood, what concerns me is the level of overdevelopment and the the lack of respect for some of those structures. The applications that have came through and came past our days. I think, you know, some of them are right. Some of them had issues. However, you know, I absolutely think that there is a problem. With with our process. But also, there's a problem with the lack of respect for community rights as well to. There's a lack of respect for the community's integrity. It becomes high a high dollar business. It upsets me to see millionaires intermingling with everybody else pretending not to be. If you really want to fix this system, absolutely have at it. Let's do it. But I want to see us ban the corporate giving as well, too, in political contributions. I think that has an influence as well, too, and in a convoluted process. You know, I absolutely respect Councilman Espinosa's. Work. I think there is an issue that needs to be addressed. I think we need to keep a lot of those structures there, a lot of integrity there. I know this thing isn't going to pass. It's not going to pass muster. I can. I can count. However, I do think that we need to absolutely respect the integrity of a community. And I have to address something that the difference between. You know, when you look at a place like Christina Park and you look at Northwest Denver, there's no comparison in terms of it's the developers that are just scrambling over each other, trying to develop every piece of land, every parcel they got out there. It's a little different. I'm going to vote to support the application because in North Denver there is a big crisis. There's a lack of respect for the integrity of the structures in that neighborhood and the history of that neighborhood. Right. And so I'm and I'm going to I'm going to vote to support it. I think that's it's important enough to go on the record and say that, especially when I don't see a huge number of people from the neighborhood here tonight who can't be here tonight. When you see them on Facebook, when you see them and when they're contacting our offices, we all know that Northwest Denver is in trouble and we need to do something about that. And at the same time, to my colleagues who are calling for a reform of this process, I absolutely look forward to it. But we also need a tool to actually keep the neighborhoods integrity together. And that does include customized zoning. That does include areas where you need those overlays in northwest Denver. So thank you, everybody, for coming out tonight. I really appreciate it. And Mr. Batiste. I have a good number for that whole sewage pipe thing. I had the same problem.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Lopez. Councilman Clark.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. I want to say thank you to everybody for sticking it out, for coming here, for being passionate about our communities. And I don't want to write about it. A lot of stuff on saying I don't want to repeat. So the Cliff Notes version of what has already been said that really I was underlining and highlighting was Councilman Cashman saying that he hates this, I hate this neighbor turned against neighbor kind of process and we have to find a way to get better. Which leads me to Councilwoman Sussman talking about the system being broken and needing change. Councilwoman Black talking about the tour that we did of Council District one. And my heart also goes out to this community. And it's also a reminder that it's not just about what's going on in this community, but this kind of pressure is coming to a neighborhood near all of us with the kind of growth that Denver is experiencing and facing. And then it really struck me when Councilman Flynn talked about we don't remember architects necessarily by where they grew up, but by the buildings that they left behind that are protected. This is a really hard process. And I don't know that there is a there is an immediate answer. I'm glad that we're going to jump into it. But I struggle with this every time that we face it and we can see the struggle and the tension in this room. So, you know, I think that, you know, where this is headed and everything that's been said, we talked a little bit about the hero of the night in moving the house. And I think there's another potential hero in this room and a different way of us looking at protecting what we all love in our city. And that is Mr. Weekley over there, because I think that what gets overlooked in what's broken about our landmark ordinance, which is nights like tonight, is the fact that or the landmark designations that come through that are owner initiated are.
Speaker 3: Hugely successful.
Speaker 6: And the success rate of those is through the roof. And I think that we have a house on Jefferson Park in northwest Denver with an owner who's willing to consider designating it.
Speaker 3: That's a huge.
Speaker 6: Win, especially considering how divisive these things have been as we've looked at preserving homes in northwest Denver. I don't want that to get lost. I think that that that I was in a neighborhood meeting in my community where we were talking about landmark designation and about the pressure that is coming from development. And we were talking about one structure that is in imminent threat of being torn down like this one. And I looked at everybody, I said, there are 50 people in this room. If every single one of us looked at our structure that we're living in, that we own, and said, Hey, let's preserve as many of those as we had. We'd have one of the biggest historic districts in the city from that effort. And so I would say we need to take this look that we we deal with these as their threat. And we have to look and say, if these communities are worth preserving, if the character of these communities are worth preserving, then we need to start on our own doorstep, because I think we can set a lot of fear at ease to show that, hey, I have lived here and I've done this and I've gone through the window thing and I'm your neighbor and I can talk you through it and I can tell you what that's all about. And I can show you how my house is appreciating faster than the other ones and not some study that somebody put out who is pro or con, but somebody who is your neighbor saying, I did this and this is how it works. I think that that that everything that's broken up here we've seen and everyone that has come through so far on this council has failed. And, you know, again, I can count as well. And this one's going to fail. This isn't we're not going to get there this way. We're going to have a lot of nights like this that go deep into the night where everybody's upset. But there's another way. And I think that that starts with people like Mr. Weekley over here and saying, hey, how do we set an example? How do we lead by that example? How do we show what we value by the actions that we take with the property that we own? Because I think that that can change the paradigm, too. So I hope that will continue that conversation in northwest Denver, regardless of the outcome tonight. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Clark. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. President. I'm going to try to not be redundant in covering comments that have already been made. So I'm the only one on this case who was here when Blueprint Denver was adopted, and I represented Jefferson Park in Northwest Denver. And Mr. Bucy and Mr. Olson, I think you both remember lesson Lucille Bloom and how. If they were in trying to protect their neighborhood, just like neighborhoods all across this city work to protect their neighborhoods. We've seen drastic changes in Jefferson Park and some of those the neighborhood. Work towards bringing to the community. They wanted to see some change along Speer Boulevard. They wanted to see some change along the the I-25 edge of the community. And when Blueprint Denver was created. The look was to address the edges of our neighborhoods and to try to protect the core and the residential character of our neighborhoods. And we've seen some change, too. You know, it started in Cherry Creek where we started seeing scrape offs. And then we've seen that happen all across the city. You know, Northwest Denver is not isolated. I think you're seeing large numbers of of development activity that's happening. I live in one of those neighborhoods. I mean, in lower highlands, where we've seen pretty drastic change in in my area as well. And I think when you have people coming out wanting to protect part of the the history of their neighborhood, you know, if if we don't and if we didn't do that with lower downtown. What would we have in our city? I mean, we'd have a bunch of new buildings. There were concerted efforts made when Skyline Urban Renewal was happening and buildings downtown were being torn down left and right, beautiful historic buildings. And it took some concerted effort to ensure that we were working to protect some of that history of this city. I was very involved in the lower downtown historic district. And you think this was a fight? We had preservation community. On one end, we had property owners over here and and we were able to find some middle ground so that it wasn't just a big fight, but. We now have that part of our history that we can continue to enjoy and and that we've protected for not just people who grew up here, but for anybody who comes here to know that that's part of the history of our city. And, you know, I appreciate what you've been through, Mr. Batiste. Just knowing the the uncertainty of, you know, what's going to happen with your property, with your investment, I think, you know, this this whole conversation came up when we were doing lower downtown for people who wanted to do improvements to their property they didn't want. And I think this gets to the point that was being asked of of Mr. Weekley earlier. You want to have some some assurances that everything around you isn't just going to disappear. And that was what some of the property owners in lower downtown were very concerned about, knowing that there was going to be some predictability, some assurances that, you know, the investment they were making, that other property owners would be doing the same thing. I. I don't like it when neighborhoods are fighting against one another either. When we have people on opposing sides, but we have tools in our toolbox for a reason to try to look at how we as a city try to preserve some of these assets. I mean, Jefferson Park is is a whole different neighborhood now. And I think the ability to look at just saving one historic property, that that people can come to our neighborhood and say, wow, you know, that's part of the history of this neighborhood. I would love to see, you know, River River Drive protected, very similar to what was done with Stoneman Zero in the Highlands neighborhood. You know, those those historic homes are protected. I don't believe River River Drive is. I would love to see that done because there are some beautiful homes. You know, the blooms lived in in one of those houses. And I think it's the passion and the advocacy of of people wanting to just protect the the little bit of of of history and culture that we have in in our city and our neighborhoods that are that are changing. I mean, the demographics and the price of housing in the city has changed so drastically. We all know that, you know, unless you are a property owner, you can't even afford to live in this city because everything is so expensive. And, you know, I did want to speak to just the quality of some of the housing stock that we're seeing, not just in northwest Denver, but in some of our neighborhoods. Some of this stuff isn't being built to where it's going to last, the same way some of these older structures are. And when and where we can protect them, I think that it's it's important for us to look at doing that as much as possible. I am going to support this tonight. I know the votes are not here for protecting this property. You know, I'm doing a count, as we've heard people talk up and down the dais. But I think having these tools and looking at what kind of tweaks need to be make to be made to the ordinance, I want to be part of that conversation because I think without the historic designation tool, the city would be a drastically different city than what it is in terms of, you know, some of the neighborhoods that we have, like the Baker neighborhood, where we have the historic district that has enjoyed an increase in property values long before we saw the the incline in our economy and the investment in in properties. The Potter Highlands historic district has enjoyed some very. You know, high priced housing that was in place before we started seeing, you know, a change in the Highland neighborhood. So I'm going to support this tonight. I appreciate the communication that my office has received from everybody on all sides. I know this has not been an easy feat for Councilman Espinosa in in going through this. I know he's been under a lot of scrutiny by people who are on the opposing side of this issue. But this is part of our political process and part of the the, you know, just the the the the way of doing business here in terms of the tools that we do have to work with. And so, as I said earlier, I'll be supporting this tonight. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Ortega. Councilman Espinosa. I saw you, Pop. Yeah. I just want to dovetail on Councilman Ortega's comments because it spurred a couple of thoughts. The reality of the votes, and I shouldn't be able to count these votes before we have this hearing. But I did. I mean, people who were at the Jefferson Park, the last Jefferson Park meeting, you know, that I stood up there and I said, look, I fully expect this to not go through. I know where my colleagues sit on these sort of their statements about non owner designated. Designations. And so I'm not at all surprised and I don't think you guys are should be surprised that I'm not surprised because I stated it so clearly. But the notion that Jefferson Park. You know, should have just been one of those areas where, you know, it got designated with a district like Curtis Park and whatnot. You know, it it overlooks the history. And that's why I brought up the fact that I was there 15 years ago. Jefferson Park wasn't ever contiguous, even though the houses in the form and the character of those blocks looked like a neighborhood. It was never the right conditions to be a neighborhood. And what I mean by that is somewhere along the line in the 1950s, well, after all these houses were built, the city saw fit to reason that areas are three, which was unlimited height. And so there were people that went in there and purchased property and assembled property on this notion that they could build skyscrapers and jets and arrow towers. And even though in the in the 2000s after the Jefferson Park neighborhood had gotten together and cleaned that area up and worked hard to rid crime and laid down their vision that Councilwoman Ortega spoke to about this sort of core residential neighborhood, a single family and two unit, single unit and two unit homes ringed by incredible development. I mean, there's support, plan, support for 14 and 20 storey structures on the periphery of Jefferson Park, which I would love to encourage development and those densities in those areas. The city chose in 2010 to not zone not recognize that plan. And so codifying the gma3, which is a really, really nasty zone district, I mean, the six buildings that we're spoken to that have townhomes in our townhomes for all intents and purposes, in the GMU three zone district, which does not permit the townhome form. What those are six apartment forms. And and so the notion that Jefferson Park ever could have been spared through a landmark designation of a district was just never there because it was tried and attempted previously. And so that community always looked to this city to help it, to bolster it back when it was a primarily minority community with low, low incomes. Now it's now it's more affluent and the demographics have shifted. And I recognize that. So the reason why I'm saying that is that last week on a rezoning, I had mentioned to the village park community that the city had failed them. They failed them by not doing a station area plan and getting in front of the new development pressures into Jefferson Park. This this vote tonight and the actions that council made in 2010 have failed you. You had set down a vision for a walkable neighborhood with with tree lined streets and buildings that orient themselves to the to the streets. And you didn't get that. And there's nothing nothing that we can do at this point to change, to reverse that tide. I mean, we still we've recognize that that River Drive has intrinsic character, but one of the main property owners tonight spoke against this rezoning. I don't know how Mr. Chandler would feel about designation of his area. I hope that he would support it. But, you know, that is the last little vestige. River Drive in Clay Street, my half of the block that have sort of the historic integrity that Jefferson Park once flooded Jefferson Park. And so I just wanted to reiterate what Councilwoman Ortega was saying, that this was one little fragment that could have remained. And I'm sorry to have let my community down. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Espinosa, in other comments. I'll make a few comments and then I'm going to turn it over to David Braswell, who I neglected to mention during the question portion. But. Quickly because you guys have been gracious folks on all ends. Thank you for being here. Thank you for parking, going through security, sitting in these heart seats. And I just really appreciate you all showing up and community. This is how we build community. I know it doesn't feel like this now because everybody is on each other's, you know, on another team and another side. But let me just say, Rafael Espinosa and I took 2 hours together to. To go through Jefferson Park and and all of District one. And and I mostly listened and and listened to what had happened and what is happening in the neighborhood. And it is a definite transformation of the historical context of the neighborhood. And and it was it was unbelievable that we began to talk about what is the solution to this issue that's going on. And as I'm listening tonight, as I'm listening, as we had the conversation, I started thinking of people like Bill West, Dana Crawford, Justin Croft. That's in the midst of it right now, John Noble, individuals who in this city in my district, I've I've seen do and some I've heard about because I'm not that old. But take their context and look at any solution possible around preservation and the solution Dana Crawford had and LoDo was how do we how do we secure these building, not this building, these buildings. And Curtis Park. Devastation was happening all over Curtis Park. And Bill West led a charge of community members and said, how do we begin looking at overlay districts and landmark districts just right now and 30th and Blake in Reno which definitely is not contiguous and has a lot of different issues, property owners, folks came together on an eight month conversation on an overlay district. And so this is not a one size fits all, fits all. But if we want to get at preservation one structure at a time, I think we're in trouble. I think we need to start thinking on a larger scale and how to accomplish this. We just passed an overlay district, totally different context, but I believe there is a solution for Jefferson Park. I believe there is a solution for District one. I believe there is a solution for San Rafael who struggling with this question. I believe there's a solution for Park Hill who is struggling with this question of 300, 300 homes in a landmark district. And now 700 homes. But but but here's what's great about it. Here's what's great about it.
Speaker 2: There's not a shot clock.
Speaker 0: Right? It's not 90 days. They're having a conversation about it. And that is what's missing here is we are missing a conversation about it. And you've heard we don't know the answer. So I believe that landmark districts, overlay districts are more my preferred type of route one. And number two, we need a fund. We have funds all over the city to do special projects. But we don't have a fund for preservation. We need a fund and we need to talk about it. I will not. I cannot support this. And it it it you know, Councilwoman, I know you are the chair of Luti, and I am going to be working with you because we do need to do better as a community. As a community on both sides, we do need to do better. So, David. You have the floor.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. President. Given the lateness of the hour, I just recommend council proceed directly to a vote. We look forward to working with you on any conversations about future changes to the ordinance at a later date. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 2: Espinosa.
Speaker 0: No.
Speaker 2: Flynn.
Speaker 3: No.
Speaker 2: Gilmore. I. Cashman. Lopez. I always say we're not. No, we're not voting correctly. No. No.
Speaker 0: I got it backwards. Yeah, the council voted against. So, Madam Secretary.
Speaker 3: It's getting late. Yeah.
Speaker 0: Wait, wait, wait. All right, so we're going to start that over. It is midnight. Madam Secretary, please erase all of the voting.
Speaker 2: I can't. Okay, wait. Let me. I got to do it by voice. Vote. Wait a second.
Speaker 0: Yeah, and we can do it by voice as well.
Speaker 2: 1/2. They just have to look and see who.
Speaker 3: He had read the bill.
Speaker 2: Okay, what? 1/2. You call them warning in effect?
Speaker 0: Yes. It's been.
Speaker 2: Moved. No, wait.
Speaker 0: And second. There you go.
Speaker 2: Okay. 1/2. In. Okay.
Speaker 0: Madam Secretary, roll.
Speaker 2: Espinosa.
Speaker 0: Hi.
Speaker 2: Flynn.
Speaker 3: Now.
Speaker 2: Gilmore? No. Cashman. Lopez. I knew Ortega. Sussman No. Black no. Clark.
Speaker 6: No.
Speaker 2: Mr. President.
Speaker 0: No. Police closed voting and other results.
Speaker 2: Adjusting to count three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten. Well, there's one person missing. It hasn't gone.
Speaker 0: That was an I can't swim.
Speaker 3: And I tell you.
Speaker 0: Yeah. We just got.
Speaker 2: It. Is that okay? Yep. All righty. The boat is going to be four eyes on TV, seven knees and seven face. Okay.
Speaker 0: Four eyes, seven, eight counts. About 1021 has failed on Monday. Hold on. Hold on, hold on. On Monday, December 19, 2016, Council will hold a required public hearing at 16 103 for changes on reclassification of 12 zero nine North Parish Street.
A bill for an ordinance designating 2849 West 23rd Avenue as a structure for preservation.
Designates the property at 2849 West 23rd Avenue as an individual structure for preservation in Council District 1. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 11-1-16.