Approves the designation of 2329 Eliot Street (a.k.a. 2323 W. 23rd Avenue) as an individual structure for preservation in Council District 1. (NEIGHBORHOODS AND PLANNING) Approves the designation of 2329 Eliot Street (a.k.a. 2323 W. 23rd Avenue) as an individual structure for preservation in Council District 1. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 10-28-15.
First thing we have up is Council Bill 768 as amended. Councilman Flynn, will you please put seven 8768 as amended on the floor? Yes. Thank you, Mr. President. I move that council bill 768, as amended, be placed upon final consideration and do pass. And wait for technology to catch up. And we are still inputting the names in the system. So we will keep that going so that we can just keep the process moving. Council Bill 768, as amended, approves a zoning map amendment. The Council is required by law to conduct public hearings on zoning map amendments, and Council's actions are subject to a court review in order to provide a record for court review. Testimony is recorded and any items placed to the council are marked as exhibits and become part of the record. The public hearing for accountability. 768, as amended, is open. May we have the staff report? Good evening, President Herndon, members of the City Council, and Barbara Stockman, steely principal planner for Landmark Preservation. I will be presenting this case for the staff. So this is a landmark designation that is not owner initiated. Ideally, owners are the ones who are applying for landmark designation, and that's been the case for most designations in Denver. But also in Denver, you can have three persons who are residences, residence and or property owners or have a place of business in Denver. And that is the case here. This case was initiated from a certificate of not historic status. A certificate of non historic status is application by the owner or their designee for certification that a property is not historic which allows it to be demolished for up to a period of up to five years. In this case, here we are at the Green Box, which is the city council, a public hearing decision because it is a designation case that came out of a certificate of non historic status. The City Council decision and the action must be completed within 120 days, which in this case is Thanksgiving Day. As indicated, this case came out of a certificate of non historic status. It's one of two designation applications that are being processed out of 592, that of certificates and demolitions that we've reviewed this year. So it's actually a pretty small number. This case is it 23, 29, Elliott or 23, 23 West 23rd Avenue. It's in Council District one in the Jefferson Park neighborhood. The property as initially submitted by the applicants, it was included. BLOCK 34 lost 24 and 25 in the South, ten feet of Lot 26, which was 8400 square feet. The applicant was four property owners and the property owner is James son Lightner, who is opposed. At first reading, the boundary of the designation was modified to B block 30 for the easterly 80 feet of lots 24 and 25 and the easterly 80 feet of south ten feet of construction, which would be a 4480 square foot parcel , are 53% of the original designation boundary as shown on this map. The reduced designation boundary is part of a almost 20,000 square foot assemblage by the property owner and the proposed designation area is 23% of the land area in this assemblage. As shown on the attached map. These are photographs of the house here. The one on the left is a street view of the house from Elliott Street going north, and the other is a front view of the house. These are additional photos of the house. The one on the left side shows the some of the south side of the house. These photos here. The photo on the left is from the south alley, showing the south side of the house and part of the rear of the house. The upper photo on the right is taken from the carriage lot showing the back of the house and the non historic garage. That's not included in the reduced designation boundary. Again, we are at the second reading and the designation deadline is November 26. The Landmark Preservation Commission held a public hearing. There was posting signage for the hearing. There were owner notifications and letters. Registered neighborhood organizations were notified as well as city council members. Staff has met with the owners representatives and has also met with the designation applicants and have communicated regularly with parties from both sides. The application gave the name to the House as the William W Anderson House. The House is a circa 1888 to 1890 House. The proposal is to designate as a landmark structure as recommended by the Landmark Commission. It would be based on history, designation criteria and history c. An architecture a. Under Chapter 30 of the Denver Revised Municipal Code, a property to be designated as a structure for designation is required to maintain its historic and physical integrity to to meet one designation criteria and two or more of the following categories history, architecture and geography. And three relate to a historic context or theme. So number one is the ordinance says a property must maintain its historic and physical integrity. And then it goes into more detail and it says what that means. It's not really the physical condition of the house per se, but it's the ability of the structure to convey its historic and architectural significance in being recognized as belonging to a particular time and place. And Denver's history and the seven qualities that define integrity per the ordinance are location, setting, design, materials, workmanship, feeling and association. The landmark staff in the Landmark Commission both found that the House maintains its historic and physical integrity. It's largely intact. It has minor alterations and has integrity. The second criteria is that the property must meet one designation criteria in two or more of the following categories. Category one Its history property has to be 30 years old and shall c have direct and substantial association with a person or group of persons who had influence on society. This was the criteria that the Landmark Commission felt was met under history, that the House was the home of William W Anderson. Anderson associate is associated with Alfred Packer. Packer was infamous for his sentence of manslaughter, for killing and allegedly eating other members of an expedition party traveling between Provo and Breckenridge in early 1874. He was very, very well known. Various accounts there are various accounts regarding Anderson's exact association or relationship with Packer. Some of the stories have indicated that Anderson actually did represent Packer. Others say that he was hired by Bonfils and Taman from the Denver Post to free Packer, but then he misrepresented himself to Packer, and there's various other renditions of that story. But clearly he did visit Packer. Clearly there was some relationship with him and Packer and Bonfils and Hammett, as reported by many histories and accounts throughout the years. What we do know is that on January 13th, 1900, Anderson shot Henry Chapman and Frederick Bonfils, owners of the Denver Post, during an altercation at the post office over Anderson's representation of Alfred Packer. And The Denver Post attempts to free Packer and obtain exclusive rights to story. Local Stories Report. Anderson Living at 2329. ELLIOTT The day after the shooting, which is confirmed by city directories and U.S. Census data at the time of the shooting. And many of the pictures that are in the PowerPoint are from the newspaper stories of the day. The shooting made headlines around the United States, including The New York Times and San Francisco, and was a major a major saga, continuing saga. And Denver, Anderson, was tried in 1900 and twice in 1901. He was eventually acquitted of charter charges. He insisted that it was self-defense. Ten men and boxes were eventually indicted and convicted of bribery due to jury tampering on the trial. One of the trials, Packer, kind of on a separate track, was paroled in 1991. This is just some examples of the newspaper coverage of the day. This actually relates to the bribery charges of Born Free in Timmins. But there was I counted over 20 times that this story was in the the in various newspapers. And it was probably more. More stories about the acquittal of Andersen. The in terms of having a direct and substantial association with a person or group of persons who had influence on society. Andersen is associated with Alfred Packer one way or the other, and Alfred Packer's pictures on the PowerPoint. He's associated with Bonfils and Taman, eds and owners, the Denver Post and the events and the persons, including the related newspaper coverage. Trials, acquittals and convictions were high profile and influential events, including coverage of Andersen and his trial. The second designation criteria that the landmark commission thought was met are determined was met with architecture to a embodies the distinguishing characteristics of an architectural style or type. The house is queen and style architecture. It's a substantial example, particularly for Jefferson Park is a 2243 square foot house. There's only one designated structure in Jefferson Park. It's a dramatic hilltop. Location, which sets it apart from other Queen Anne homes in the neighborhood. It has its asymmetrical, has it has multiple materials, decorative brick coursing, original wood windows and porches, wooden brackets, trim details, half timbered porch. And the decoration is pretty much original, with a few minor exceptions. The third criteria is to relate to a historic context or theme. The story of Anderson in the House relate to late 19th century Victorian architecture in northwest Denver and Jefferson Park. Denver journalism hidden history, including the Denver Post involvement with Packer Anderson, the notorious shootings, trials, acquittal and convictions and Alfred Packer. The letters and petitions received have been honestly a little hard to keep track of. I have some notes here, so hold on. Actually, I think I'm missing that part of my presentation. But so we up to the Lpsc public hearing. We had 12 letters of support and two letters of opposition. We have additional information from the owner, which is 89 additional letters of opposition. We have additional information from the applicant received on November 16th, which is 53 additional letters of support. There are petitions of support provided by the applicants and the petition of opposition provided by the owners. They both have over 500 names on them. We don't have standards in Landmark for a petition, so we have some concerns just about the overall validity and consistency between the petitions. The applicant's petition has about 90% of the petitioners are Denver residents, and it was 53% for the for the owners. And many of the applicants also kept track of how many were within a mile. And there was a pretty high percentage that were immediately adjacent to the within a mile of the property. The Landmark Preservation Commission, there's been some questions about the Landmark Commission. They're appointed by the mayor and they have nine members. They include professional historians and architectural historians. They're professionally trained. They are volunteers. The landmark Commission on Public Hearing allowed 10 minutes for the applicant and 10 minutes for the owner, which he delegated to his agent. There were 35 spirit speakers and there was a three and a half hour plus public hearing, including deliberation. The LPC, the main discussion points is they felt the story of Anderson was part of the history and mythology of the West and it was an important story. The nation was captivated by the altercation, which they thought was significant. They thought that Anderson's association with Bond Fee and Tasman's editors of the Denver Post and events relating to the shooting and trials is an important story. Anderson's association with Packer is significant. There are few examples of historic Queen Anne Homes surviving in Jefferson Park, and this example is intact, has a high degree of integrity, is substantial with a spectacular setting. They talked a lot about it wasn't as ornate as high style Queen Anne Homes in Denver and US featured in coffee table books. But it's a very representative and prominent example of a middle class home from the late 19th century in Denver. And they thought it was an increasingly rare example in this part of the city. So the landmark commission recommendation was that it met the Denver landmark designation and criteria and chapter 30. It maintains its historical physical integrity meets designation criteria and history wants and architecture to see and relates to a historic context or theme. Thank you. I apologize for that delays, Kenneth. Okay. So for this first public hearing, we have 40 speakers. And the way for those of you not familiar with the process, we tend to go for and against. So thank you for noting that and we apologize if we might have gone multiples, but if one tends to be more for or against and those speakers tend to go at the end. So I'm a call up the first 5 a.m. ask that you make your way to the front pew so that we can try to have the process go through quickly. So the first one is M Quinn. We could not read the first name, so we apologize for that. M Quinn, Jessica, our Alice Zita, Paul Lloyd, Scott Moore and Carrie Mock. So if you five could make your way to the front pew, that would be great. And then, Quinn, I apologize for not knowing who exactly that was. You can begin your remarks as soon as you make your way to the podium. I'm Marilyn Quinn. Sorry about that. I live at 3249 West Fairview Place, about a mile from 2329 Eliot Street. I'm asking for your vote to designate the Anderson House a Denver landmark. My interest in preserving this House is not financial gain and it's not to prevent development. You've received letters and email messages and petitions from hundreds of Denver residents in support of landmark designation. Over 400 supporters signed online and paper petitions. More than 100 of whom live within a half mile of the Anderson House. A few of these supporters are here tonight, but not all will speak. I'd like to ask all those here who support landmark designation of the Anderson House to stand and then sit down. Thank you. Thank you. Denver has some of the strictest landmark designation guidelines in the country. So far this year, 592 applications for demolition of potentially historic buildings have been reviewed, putting us on track for a 20% increase over last year. Most of these applications are approved this year. 34 properties. About 6% of those reviewed were determined to have potential historic significance and were posted for public comment. Of those, only two nominations were submitted and found worthy of landmark designation. That's about one half, one half of 1%. The Anderson House has met these strict Denver requirements. This House is our last link to a powerful story of justice triumphing over evil in early Denver. Mr. Anderson was a reputable lawyer who ran afoul of the yellow journalism of the Denver Post publishers. A jury ruled he acted in self-defense, but of greater importance today are the guilty pleas by Denver Post publisher Tillman, a court bailiff and a police magistrate for bribing the court against Anderson. Denver cheered the purge of corruption from its courts. Mr. Anderson's story is important to me and to my community and should be preserved along with the House through landmark designation. For tonight, I hope you will consider as your constituents the over 400 people who have spoken so emphatically in support of landmark designation and that you will vote to keep this landmark that has stood in Jefferson Park for over 130 years. Thank you for your attention. Thank you, Ms.. Quinn. Jessica Lazaro. And you have 6 minutes of deferred. 3 minutes for an additional 3 minutes for you. Thank you. Good evening. Members of council. My name is Jessica Serafino. Liz Day 1800 California Street, Suite 2600 Denver 202 and I represent Mr. Sun liner. Jim's here and he'll be speaking to you in a little bit. He's right there and he's at the center of this case this evening, but he'd like to wait until he hears from some other speakers. So we would like to pass out to you just some talking points. Clearly, if you'll indulgence, those are from the sites who are supporting Jim and who are against designation. So in the course of this dialog, the applicant have made this evening about everything but Jim's rights, about price. And now there's a so-called better offer that's alleged to be good enough to take Jim's rights away. But the question is good enough for you. And with all due respect, Jim is well equipped to make those decisions for himself, as any of you would be on a contract for the purchase of your home. We ask you, in your wisdom this evening, to not be distracted from the purpose that we're here. The purpose of the hearing this evening, which is to answer one question Does the community's interest in Jim's house outweigh Jim's property rights? The code says that hostile designation should be limited to extraordinary circumstances, extraordinary architecture, an extraordinary history. And after reviewing this application, the LPC ultimately voted to refer to you this evening. They were conflicted about whether or not Jim's house met the basic threshold requirements for referral. As you'll hear, they found that the architecture of Jim's house to be an example of vernacular. I had to look that up. Queen Anne style. And what that means is ordinary. And I'm no architect. But certainly Jim's house is not. The best example of ordinary queen in architecture in the city. Nevertheless, I'd also like to point out that there are many great examples in the packets that are in front of you, right in Jefferson Park that are along a river drive. So I ask you to take a look at those photos. But nevertheless, we recommend that most of the members of the LPC are architectural experts. So we won't argue with that determination, but we would ask you to take a look in that packet at their determination. And while they were making that and the comments, those are direct quotes that they clearly had the difficult difficulty with this questionable case. So we'd simply ask you to consider does even the best example of ordinary architecture meet the extraordinary threshold set out in your code? Next, even if ordinary is somehow extraordinary, you are well equipped to determine whether a some loose association, to quote Ms.. Stockton's dealing with a swindler and an attempted murder is somehow extraordinary. In the press release from designation proponents, they say that the House highlights Denver's past in the age of yellow journalism. But nothing happened in this House. Even The Denver Post, a central figure in the story that proponents are trying to tie to Jim's home, urged against designation of Jim's house. Lastly, in addition to considering the architecture and history, unlike the LPC, counsel considers much broader issues and implications in designating Jim's home. So for example, if you find that Jim's house is the new benchmark for extraordinary history and extraordinary architecture, then you're likely to see an endless line of individuals concerned with growth in our city, and rightfully so, attempting to designate any building built before 1985 as a way to stop development. And that's already happening there. Applications coming in for that very purpose. So there's obvious pressure building in Jefferson Park, and we acknowledge that in other neighborhoods. Jim's seen that pressure firsthand. Jim's lived there for 40 years. He's not immune to the changes that you're hearing about from other neighbors. And perhaps it's time for the planning department to address that growth through their very collaborative process that exists to do that. Planning and zoning is the proper venue to have these discussions, but historic preservation that take away Jim's property rights is not the right tool. There are many demolition permits issued for older homes prior to this case, and there are likely to be many issued after. But Jim's home isn't a tipping point. We would respectfully implore that it does not meet the threshold to take Jim's property against his will. So thank you very much for your time. We would very respectfully ask you to consider the real issue at hand, which is not the quality or even the existence of a so called offer for Jim that he has determined is not a good deal for him. We believe you will do the right thing, because this case, the in this case, the community's interest in Jim's house does not outweigh his property rights. It is not extraordinary. And we would ask you to consider that it sets dangerous policy. So respectfully, please vote no. Against this designation. Thank you. Thank you. As I mentioned before, the public hearing started that we are required by law to conduct these and all actions are recorded as part of a public review and testimony. It was just brought to my attention that even though the green light is on, generally it is not recording this. So we are going to have to take a recess. Counsel My apologies until we can figure out Channel eight gets back up so that this testimony can be recorded. So I ask for your patience. We're going to have to do it. Are we good now? Well, yes. Let's proceed with the recess. We're trying to confirm whether it's being recorded at this point. That's that's the point that we're at. But, Don, we're not sure how long this may take, but we want to get it absolutely squared away before we resume with the testimony. So with your indulgence, if you take a recess for us to get this figured out. Thank you. We'll take it. We'll take a short recess and try to reconvene a moment soon. And. But you just heard. The audience in the chambers. The Channel eight feed is down, however, Channel eight, so you won't be able to watch it on TV. We are streaming online and it is still recording. So that was the most important thing to know that we are still recording. So there is a testimony so we do not need to bring up the previous speakers as well. So our next speaker should be Paul Lloyd. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you. Members of Council. My name is Paul Cloyd. I live at 3033 Yates Street and have done so since 1984. I am a Colorado registered architect and professional engineer. I support this landmark designation of this Denver cultural asset. While I have no financial stake in the result of your decision, I do have a stake, I believe, as you do as well, and the quality of life, the sense of place and the sense of history for our city, my city. Denver, Colorado. On January day 1900, William Anderson walked down the steps, those red sandstone steps that you saw in the images. And he entered a historic maelstrom. William Anderson rented the house in the town of Highland as his family residence from 1897 to about 1904. Mr. Anderson subsequently purchased the home in 1915 and lived there until his death in 1930. A well-respected lawyer known for his hat plug hat Anderson practices profession in Denver, the Denver Times newspaper reported. Mr. Anderson found himself granted the power of attorney by Alfred Packer, believing he could appeal his case on a technicality. If you don't know the Packers story, you could get information at a restaurant and grill on the CU Boulder campus. On that day, January day, Mr. Anderson would walk down those steps, bought the number 34 tram and traveled to downtown Denver. He would go to discuss the Packer issue with the reviled Denver Post publishers Harry Taman and Frederick Bonfils. These publishers were known for defaming their enemies at business rivals in their paper. Upon Mr. Anderson's arrival, an altercation arose. Reportedly, Mr. Bonfils struck Mr. Anderson across the face. As you've heard, Mr. Anderson shot. Both men enact that a Denver jury ultimately after three trials determined was an act of self-defense. Headline News raced across the country for the ensuing three years. Mr. Anderson, in the story, remained in the national news. A yellow journalistic campaign by the Denver Post attacked Mr. Anderson in its pages. Competitors to the Denver Post also provided significant coverage. This competing coverage would report complaints from the jurors of the first Anderson trial that the Post publishers working with court officials had attempted jury bribery. In November 1901, a Denver jury acquitted Mr. Anderson of all charges. A grand jury completed their investigation into the jury bribery in April 1903. Two weeks later, April 25th, 1903, just before the start of their criminal trials, Mr. Tillman, the court officials pleaded guilty to the jury bribery charges reportedly to protect unnamed others who had. Mr. Lloyd. Mrs.. Mr. Lloyd, I apologize your 3 minutes ago. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Next, scott. Morning. Thank you. My name is Scott More. I reside at 4175 South Acoma Street in Inglewood, Colorado. I'm an architect. And a general contractor. I have no connection with any of the parties involved here. The reason I'm here is because my blood boils when I read about these historic designations in the newspaper. A colleague brought this one to my attention. I took the opportunity to do something about it. I'm the kind of person that will call the police if I see a mugging. Taking place, and that is my motivation for being here. I've had the pleasure of sitting on a building department board of Appeals as a historic preservationist. And I'm here to tell you that although this house is nice. It is not nice enough to merit the taking of someone's pension, which is essentially what's happening here. Vernacular is, by. Definition, ordinary. This house was ordinary. It is ordinary. It is not in the best interest of historic preservation to have. The important work of historic Denver co-opted and used. To circumvent the city's master planning process to. Block development. I am speaking against designation of this property. Thank you, Mr. Moore. Kerry Mock. Ms.. MOCK And you have 6 minutes. And while she's come to speak, we're going to call the next five names. You can make your way up to the front pew. Gerard Seidenberg. Marie Benedict. Elizabeth Rogers. Marie Edgar. And Andre Kilian. So you five can make your way up this month. You may begin. Thank you. Members of council. I'm glad to be here. My name is Corey Ellen Mock. I live at 2101 Clay Street and I am an architect. That's three for. Three. So we're on a roll. Here, I guess. I support this. I support this landmark designation, and I have no financial interest in the outcome of this hearing. I believe the architecture of the Andersen House is significant, as you've already heard from the Landmark Preservation Commission. This building is structurally sound and is an excellent example of middle class, dare I say, vernacular or usual. Queen Anne style home popular in Denver between the 1870s and 1890s. There's a lot of history that's happened in ordinary buildings, and so I'd caution us from using that as a reason not to think of this as a special place. Originally prominent in the early town of Highland. This building remains a unique landmark in the Jefferson Park neighborhood, built in 1888, the home rises from a Rusticated Stone Foundation and includes a well-executed masonry detailing that goes all the way around the front. Gabled roof accentuates the asymmetrical facade with a prominent front porch and decorative trim highlighted with contrasting colors. Brick detailing emphasizes the arched front window that you saw in the photographs earlier and extends around the South Side, which also features decorative elements on the dormer bay, window, side, entrance and chimneys. I only wish so much of our architecture today. Even buildings I work on could afford that kind of detail. When I compare the House of today with the 40 year old photograph I see and Ruth Weinberg's book, Rediscovering Northwest Denver. The level of architectural integrity that remains is truly remarkable. Beyond simply exhibiting the characteristic queen in form and fenestration, this house has retained character defining features that are usually lost by now. Well, you can find more elaborate homes of this style elsewhere in Denver, there are precious few remaining in this neighborhood and none with this colorful history is this one. I learned that a couple of years ago when I was researching the history of my neighborhood for a better block event. I offered to do walking tours, and so I was looking through history books and I found one house in the middle of Jefferson Park, just one house with any sort of historical story written about it. And it was this one house. So we can talk about photographs of other houses in the neighborhood. That may also be pretty, but it doesn't have the historical significance that this one house does. So the existence of other structures in the city do not diminish this home's clear architectural significance, nor would they necessarily be eligible for designation under Denver's strict landmark preservation guidelines. This home, once considered the tall house on a tall hill, has the architecture, the history, and even the geographic location to earn it a historic designation. Members of City Council don't be bullied by by T-shirts or by slogans or by issues that aren't central to what this is this and don't be bully bullied into a false choice. You can create a win win here for our community and for the homeowner. I asked you to take the long view for the community and grant designation tonight. Thank you for your consideration and for your service. Thank you, Miss Bond. Next, we have Jared Seidenberg. Members of council. Thank you. I appreciate the opportunity. My name is Gerard Seidenberg. My address is 6825 East Tennessee Avenue, Suite 5525. I'm a business owner within the city and I'm a property owner, Branson's Lake. I'm here tonight to speak in opposition of this historic designation in a hostile manner, as was noted by the LPC. This is an interesting story and I've been following along as a lawyer who does not represent any parties here and has no other interest in this matter. I'm deeply concerned with the ramifications of approving this hostile designation and the direct effect on our property rights. However, I'm not here tonight to talk about this topic tonight. I'm here to address something that's near and dear to my heart. You see, my family has lived in and around Denver for six generations, beginning when we settled around Sloan's Lake in the 1800s. In many ways, my history is inextricably intertwined. Excuse me with that of the Queen City. Whether I walk the streets of downtown around the highlands, where my wife and I buy our first home, our collective history is everywhere, and every house has a story to tell. In that way, our history is alive as it is now. I'm often supportive of historic designations and usually in favor of protecting our valuable history. But in this case, I just cannot. The history reported here is weakly tied to events that impacted society in the homes place, and that history is bootstrapped by time and space in a way that cannot qualify it for historic preservation, especially in a hostile manner such as this. We're not talking about Molly Brown or McNichols or Speer. We're not talking about a house where historical events took place. As the LPC chair suggested, this is a stretch and he was right. This property has no direct or substantial influence on society. And while the story of Mr. Anderson is admittedly interesting, he himself failed to have a direct or substantial influence on society in any positive way. So what do we have here? All we have is the Denver Post puts it is some mighty thin gruel. It is clear that Mr. Anderson lived in Denver at one point, renting 23, 29 Eliot, and then later purchasing the property. He was not the original owner and he was not the builder of the structure. It's clear that he was an attorney. It is purported, but unsupported, that Mr. Anderson sought to undertake the representation of Alfred Parker. But his legal career is otherwise unremarkable and his relationship with Packers tenuous at best. Contrary to the narrative of the Hustle application, Mr. Anderson didn't take any remarkable cases, championed any contemporary causes or influence society in which he engaged. He didn't seem to even move the needle as a lawyer, and I found no one in the community that knows of his story. For Mr. Anderson's most notable moment. It is suggested that a disagreement over his suggested appeal strategy for the defense of Parker between himself and the publishers Denver Post, Bonfils and TEMIN led to a disagreement so fierce that he brandished his concealed weapon and shot both men in their office and Denver Post. Let me repeat that. His most notable moment is that he shot but failed to kill. Publishers of the Denver Post in their office over a disagreement. For this act, Mr. Anderson was tried three times for his alleged crime, but never convicted. Now I find these actions and I find nothing in these actions at a substantial or direct effect on society at all. Fact is that even if one was to concede that Mr. Anderson tried to represent Alfred Parker, and even if you can see that the subsequent trial was garnered by national headlines and sensationalist, there's nothing historical about 2329, Eliot, in a way that's contemplated by the hostile assault designation. No actual history of significance occurred within its walls. It merely serves as a thin, tangential tie to a nefarious history of a man who lived in Denver and acted as a loose cannon, who took a pistol to an argument, lost control of his emotions, and turned to violent violence to solve these problems. Approving the designation does not, which does not have any merit to the premises, and requiring the visitation of the preservation of the structure does nothing to preserve Denver history and does nothing to promote the sense of community. Because, as I remind you, nothing of historical significance happened at 2329, Eliot. History is important. It tells us who we were and it sets the bar for who we want to be. So I ask you, is this the history that we wish to protect? That of a violent shooter, a marginal lawyer? What is the measure of a human being that requires us to forcibly protect the place where he, he or she slept? How low is the bar? To become so notorious that merely living in a structure makes it a part of history. These are the questions that we must ask ourselves, because that is exactly what you're being asked to do. Protect the place that a man slept because he was involved in a sensational shooting, notorious in its time and nothing more. We are a community. That knows too well what affect gun violence has. We're all too familiar with the ramifications of lone wolf gunman. So I suggest to you to review these events surrounding Mr. Anderson through a modern lens. Think about how his story sounds in the context of the events that have unfolded in our own communities. And think about the message we would be sending to our children. Fame and notoriety. The kind of which that leads to the preservation of your home long after your death, should not come from a violent act, but from positive , direct and substantial effects on our community. The type that our community leaders often have landmark designation, hostile or otherwise, should serve to protect iconic structures and people. Hostile designation should be used only in the most extreme cases where failing to do so would deprive us all of a historical roadmap. Should send the right message about who we are, and it should be a proud example of who we want our children to be. Not to perpetuate a myth of gun violence in the West. Unfortunately, here we do not have such an event or structure. And for these reasons I ask that you do not approve the hostile landmark designation before you tonight. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Mr. Steinberg and I failed to mention you did have 6 minutes. Thank you. Next, Marie Benedict. Thank you. My name is Marie Benedict and I live at 3284 Osceola Street. I have no financial connection to this house. If this were a normal landmark hearing, we would simply stop with the history and petition signatures. However, the issue of property rights has been raised and as has the specter of anti-development and loss of financial well-being . To try to characterize our effort to preserve the House, the applicants and those who have supported this designation are like most Coloradans and Westerners in our deep rooted belief in property rights. However, we are aware that we live in a city where. Our property rights are tied to laws and ordinances designed by. Its residents to benefit the community as a whole. The landmark provision excuse me? Yeah, the landmark provision is no different than any other zoning mechanism that is used by the city to shape the character of our town. If designated the owner of 23 323 West 23rd Avenue will receive more than the reported current offer for his property . While a community of residents who feel passionately about the preservation of this building will see it remain. We'll see it remain. To tell the story of their neighborhood, and a Denver developer who will provide characteristic developments will have the opportunity to see a significant profit by restoring and building multiple new units hand in hand with residents. Ultimately, if we do not. Preserve the few buildings that meet Denver strict code, we will have nothing left. When anybody still be talking about Molly Brown if we didn't have the house. This building teaches us important lessons about an. Everyday man who stood up to moneyed. Interests and abuses of power, and one that is a story that would be a shame to forget. As you know, Councilman Rafael Espinoza has recused himself here tonight. And you heard earlier of the 392 Denver residents who have signed the petition to preserve the Anderson House. The vast majority of them live in District one and as such tonight, have no representation. I ask you tonight to please treat all those constituents as you would your own constituents and represent us. Thank you very much for your time. Thank you. Next, Elizabeth Rogers. Hello. City Council. My name is Elizabeth Rogers. I live at 2801 South Sherman Street in Inglewood. I am here to express my concern, and I'm asking city council. To please vote down 0768. And not support this historic designation. I'd like to speak for just a minute to Jim, the person I've known Jim for 23 years. I consider him a close personal friend of mine. Jim is cut from a different cloth. He is one of the hardest working. Ethical people that I know. He very often works seven days a. Week. And. Doesn't complain. He's just a very, very positive, very down to earth person. Jim is old school. The level of ethics that he conducts himself are not very common anymore. And I have a lot of respect for Jim. Jim has done a tremendous amount of work in the community. He has supported people that. Others would not. Homeless people, people that are in dire need that need a. Hand up, not a handout. And Jim has tirelessly helped people in the community for many, many years. And I think it's important for you to hear that. Jim never says no, and I'll speak again on a personal basis for my husband and I. I consider Jim a mentor. He has supported us, like I said, for 23 years in in in our efforts and has been there at critical times when no one. Else could help us. I'd like to speak a little bit about Jefferson Park. My husband and I, we bought our first home at 2732 Clay Street. This is in the early nineties. A very rough neighborhood. I can assure you that this. Was not a desirable place for people to live. It was a risk. To buy in that area. It was a risk that we took on. And. Several years before us, it was a risk that Jim took on. We invested ourselves personally and financially in that area. Our house was one of the ugliest houses on the block. We took our very, very limited money that we had in our early twenties to improve our personal property. And the amazing thing is, as we did that, we looked around on our block and the other owners started to take notice of the condition of their properties. And it continued and it continued and homes were improved. We were the ones that went in to make that initial improvement and commitment and the domino effect went on from there. So I think it's really important that Jim be recognized for being one of those anchor people in the. Area who has invested himself. Personally and financially. Again, as I mentioned, Jim is an extremely hard worker. He's a roofer, very often working seven days. A week and very, very committed. I personally understand the need to designate appropriate historic properties, but I think it's. Rogers. Apologize. Guthrie. Okay. Thank you so much. Thank you. Next, we have Marie Eggert. Thank you, Mr. President. My name is Marie. Edgar and I have lived at 35, 32 West 39th Avenue since 1986. Like the owner of this property, I want my standing as a Northwest Denver property owner to be respected. I have no financial connection to the property owners house. I am commenting on the news, the recent news that the property owner has been offered more than $1 million for his property. A story was created in the press that with designation of Mr. Sun like News House, he would see the value of his property reduced to 600 or $700,000. The applicants for designation have argued that this story is a fiction. Yet it has still captured the attention of many. I now understand the reality to be that the applicants have heard from interested developers who would be willing to purchase the property for the same or above the stated offer of $1 million. A developer on Friday offered the owner $100,000 above the million dollar offer. This was a real offer. He would develop the property around this house and he would restore the historic Anderson house. The owner did not sign the agreement, preferring to wait until after this hearing to discuss offers. He and his broker have seen the offer and have even made modifications amenable to Mr. Sun Leitner. These recent events make it clear to me that the owner of this property will not be harmed by this designation. His retirement does not hang in the balance at this hearing. This excellent opportunity, along with historic designation of the Andersen House, creates a win for the owner. A win for a developer and a win for Jefferson Park and the city of Denver. I respectfully ask that you honor the public's interest in designating this House as an historic landmark, allowing many differences and hostilities to be resolved. Your decision to landmark would be in line with the city of Denver's goal of preserving the valued identities and characters of our neighborhoods. Thank you. Thank you. Next, we have Andre Cooling and I'll call up the next five speakers if you can make your way up. Jerry Olson, Jim Potter, Betty Lou, say who has 6 minutes? Matthew Rock and then Nick Garcia. So you five can make your way up and so you can go ahead. Begin. Thank you, counsel. My name is Andre Kirby on 2202 Iris Street, Lakewood, Colorado. I have successfully taken five different projects through the Landmark Preservation Commission process, and I definitely have a respect and understanding for what the LPC aims to do. As you heard earlier, the meeting, the Landmark Preservation Commission hearing on this was three and a half hours. And on the one hand, I was really very proud to see two pretty heated sides discussing in a civil discourse. It was it was I was very proud to see. But on the other hand, that three and a half hours pushed other projects and other deserving landmark preservation cases further down and eventually off of the agenda. There are three things that I want to share with you today, largely procedural, that I wanted you to know as you consider this case. The first one is that this this designation was originally filed specifically to stop development by Nick Garcia. He'll hear from later. It was filed to stop development. The second thing that I want you to know is that the city of Denver already has two directives related to development. The first one is the 2000 blueprint, Denver, which and this is a direct quote, the planning process for Blueprint Denver resulted in a new vision for Denver in 2020, organized organized around the plan's central premise that growth should be directed to areas of change. And in Blueprint, Denver Jefferson Park is specifically designated as an area of change. The second is the Denver zoning code from 2010. This is a direct quote from the intent section of the code. This code is designed to provide standards for compatible transitions of use density, building scale and height between existing and new development. The Denver Zoning Code states that this property is zoned as Jim three, which allows for a very specific amount of density and height. The code also says this The code is designed to provide clear and consistent procedures for appropriate and effective public involvement in land use and development decisions. Section 12 .3.4 of the Denver Zoning Code clearly directs this public involvement to the planning board, not to the Landmark Preservation Commission. And that leads me to the final thing that I want you that I want to present to you. If you allow historic circumstantial designation to be used as a weapon to fight development, you will see more and more of these cases in front of you every Monday night. And they will continue to clog up the agendas of the Landmark Preservation Commission, preventing them from ruling on things that I feel are far more important than this . And you'll be ruling what I feel like is in direct conflict with two of the developers, two of the directives that the city has already put in place to govern development. Thank you. Thank you. Jerry Olson. Yes. Good evening. My name is Jerry Olson and I live at 2195 Decatur Street, one block away from 2329 Elliott Street, the Anderson House. I'm an applicant for the landmark designation. For the past eight years, I've been active in the Jefferson Park United Neighbors Organization, Japon, and I am a board member. First, I would like to say that we in Jefferson Park embrace sound development. And because of our proximity to downtown, we know development is coming. Many homes have been scraped to make way for multi-unit housing, but very few homes are like the Anderson House, which merits landmark designation in the redevelopment. Of Jefferson Park. We have worked very successfully with developers like Silk Law Development and Allied Realty. They communicate very well and they work with us, not against us. And while we have remained. Positive in our in our endeavor, unfortunately, the developer in this case has not done so. Instead, he has blocked community voice. He has. Done. He has colluded. To pull the original application for landmark designation. At the 11th. Hour, he has sued the city and lost, I might say. And he has been pushing the owner into the media, his poor gym. By attempting to intimidate an applicant, also by attempting to intimidate an. Applicant. For the. Designation through their employer. Employer. By forcing a j pun vote. In a manner that has forced the R.A. Board to change its bylaws by shutting also by shutting down all. Attempts by applicants to even sit down with the owner and discuss the issue. While we respect the owners decision to sell to whomever he wishes time and time again, we have not heard from the owner. But instead the. Buyer, his PR firm, his lawyers and other developers connected with the project. While we expect to hear from him today, please know that the community, which is looking to preserve this home, has always been committed to ensuring that the owner will not be harmed financially. In closing, I would like to say that we in District one have been disenfranchized. Mr. Olson, I apologize. You 3 minutes is up. Too bad. Thank you. Thank you, Jim Potter. Jim Palmer. Jim Palmer. That's okay, Betty. Lou saying and you have 6 minutes. Good evening. My name is Betty Luce. I live at 2660 mead in Denver, which is about a mile from the Andersen house. I've lived in the neighborhood since 1990. I'm a senior broker associate with nostalgic homes, and I've been employed there since 2000. I am speaking in favor of landmark status for the property at 2329 Elliot Street. Last week I presented a backup offer to purchase the property on behalf of one of my longtime clients. This offer was was presented to Michael Ayre, who told me that he has a listing agreement with Jim to sell his property. So I've communicated with him several times and the offer was in fact emailed to him. My client has offered $1,100,000 for the property with no contingency related to historic designation of the House. It is his intention to restore the Anderson House and to develop the property. He has investigated the zoning and the building code for the site quite thoroughly and is satisfied that he could build an adequate number of attached dwelling units on the property to justify the purchase price of 1,100,000. In other words, if the landmark status is awarded to the Anderson House and if the owner would eventually accept my client's offer, his proceeds from the sale would be greater than he would net under his current contract. And as we say in real estate, there is nothing better than a back up offer. My client's career in Denver dates back to the seventies when he developed large commercial projects. Later, he created many for sale townhome developments in the metro area. The most recent being Lowell Rowe at 73rd and Lowell near the new light rail station that is going on up there. He has made a name for himself in the North Denver neighborhood in these past few years by renovating and expanding vintage homes. He hires the best architects. His houses are beautiful. They complement the context of the neighborhood. In fact, he and his wife moved into one of their own renovations in North Denver several years ago. And speaking as his realtor, I can tell you that his projects are in very high demand. They sell immediately, some of them even before they're finished. In my years as a realtor in that neighborhood, I have listed and sold many vintage homes and including two of the three houses in the neighborhood that I refer to as our signature houses. These imposing Victorians are part of our neighborhood identity. All have gone through periods of serious decrepitude. They've been faced with demolition, with people who wanted to scrape them. And but fortunately, now through all three are beautifully restored and they're occupied by young families. I would tell you that the house at 32nd and Osceola, for those of you who know the neighborhood, was nearly scraped about eight years ago to make way for ten townhomes. It's hard to imagine our neighborhood without these houses, multiple townhomes standing on these corners instead of glorious houses. It's not a pretty picture. The Anderson House is Jefferson Park's signature house. This is a more humble neighborhood and it's a more humble house. The house is high on the hill because the house looks pretty tired and rundown right now. Many think it would be just okay to scrape it and make way for something new. But a superficial evaluation does not reveal the truth of this house. There are many recent photos, the recent photos of the exterior. It is built on a three foot deep stone foundation. There is a bit of minor cracking near a window on the south wall, but for the most part, the house stands tall and drew. The 22 Redstone steps leading to the entrance are perfectly straight. The idea that this house is a wreck is ridiculous to me, to be quite honest. I can assure you that it would be a very expensive proposition to demolish this house. And I can also assure you that the neighbors would be devastated to have to watch it happen. Now I'm a senior citizen, as well as Mr. Sonn Lightner and I also live in an old house. I'm well aware of the daunting challenges of maintenance, particularly deferred maintenance. It faces us after we've lived in our houses for a long time. And the idea that he would lose 400,000 from the purchase price offered by the buyer if his house is designated? Well, that is a frightening thought to any retiree. There is no doubt that Mr. Snyder is ready to be gone from his house, but his house does not need to be gone from the neighborhood. We have a qualified buyer who has made a higher offer and a better proposition. I can assure you that when my client is finished with the property, it will shine with distinction, will be a source of pride and part of the charm of the neighborhood for many years to come. If we let go of our historic houses without a protest, the coming generations will have no idea of the proud history of Denver. This is a western city and a relatively young city. We have precious few of these great old houses and we need to try a little harder to preserve them. I'm asking you as council members to take a vote to preserve our heritage and to grant landmark status to the Andreassen House at 2329. Elliott. Thank you. Thank you. Matthew Rock. Do not have a matthew Rock. Okay. Nick Garcia. And as Mr. Garcia comes up, I'll call the next five. Mike Ayer, John Olsen, David Bertran, Andy Levinsky, and Dan Rogers. So you five can make your way up. And Mr. Garcia, you may begin. Good evening, everyone. My name is Nick Garcia. I'm here to say that I opposed the historic designation of this property. I owned the property at 2324 Federal Boulevard, and I provide affordable housing for the neighborhood, which is very hard to find right now and very hard to maintain. This historical designation will not only make things very rough for Jim in his future, it's also going to really affect my business and the families that live at my units. I have a four unit building, all three units. There's family that families that lived there several years ago when they widened federal, they took out all my parking on the street. I only have four spaces private, one for each unit, three bedroom units. So if the husband has a car and the wife needs a car to have a kids, she's out of luck. If if I go and I have to meet with my tenants for something, I'm out of luck. If the handyman has to go fix something, he's out of luck. Well, Jim was nice enough during this time to let me park in his in his yard and in his back lot. And also, we began to park in what was then the alley, but now belongs to Jim. So that that really saved my business. I originally did oppose this, this, this whole situation, and I was for the designation to stop parking, just as the gentleman before me said. So I was I was originally for this designation. Thankfully, that really thankfully Nathan Adams reached out to me and he says, Nick, listen, you need parking. I think I can help you. That was a blessing for me to hear that. That was a blessing for my tenants to hear that, you know, which people seem to care very little about. Anyway, Nathan and I did make a deal and he did agree to. He changed his whole plans. I was floored me to help me with my parking, to accommodate me. It was it was really impressive. He did do that and I'm very grateful to him. So bottom line is, if this goes through, it's certainly going to it's really going to hurt my business. It's going to hurt Jim. It's going to make it difficult for me to to to operate. And I am against this project. Thank you. Thank you, Mike Ire. My name is Mike Air, and I'm opposing this designation. I'm Jim, Jim's listing agent, and I've been with Jim since the beginning of the sales transaction. I've been selling and developing real estate for more than ten years in the Denver area, as well as into the mountains. Currently, I'm working on another project in the Sloan's Lake area with 24 units, so I'm very familiar with the property values in the area. I evaluate, evaluate each of Jim's properties and looked at the development potential when deciding to proceed. We felt there was probably a little more value in the land at the time of the contract. More than 15 months ago, when looking at the comparables but felt there was a lot of hurdles to go to get over to get the deal done, we felt that Adams development had the neighborhood experience to get the job done . We felt very good about them having the capital, the layout, to get to the finish line and get Jim paid so he could retire. I want to clear up a couple items as far as a back up offer. We did receive a backup offer. The offer had a number of contingencies, not one regarding the historic designation, but a number of other contingent contingencies. The proposed buyer is interested in doing 10 to 12 units is, which is what he told me on the phone when we discussed it. My understanding with the current zoning code for GMU three is that you require 50 feet of frontage to develop more than a duplex on the property. So by making the property historic, it would take it from being anywhere from 12 to 18 units on a property down to a duplex with possibly a carriage house. And then for this prospective buyer to come in and restore the Victorian home. So I'm not sure where everyone's going with as far as they have, this bona fide $1.1 million offer. Because I heard the guy loud and clear and he said, You want to do 10 to 12 units? And I said, Are you willing to proceed and move forward with the contract based on a duplex and restoring a Victorian home? Then he said it didn't make sense. Then I suggested that he contact the zoning department to reaffirm that. I have as well spoke with Doug Jones of the development services at the City of Denver and confirmed this requirement. Now, I just want to make sure when you guys come to your decision that you don't let this backup offer muddy the water. Tim has lived in the neighborhood for more than 40 years between the north home and his current home. This home has always been Jim's home. He bought these homes with the hope that he would be a good investment. When he when it came time to retire, Jim has been roofing for 40 years, which is very physically demanding. He's ready to retire now and downsize into a more manageable Mr.. Mr.. Air. The idea is you get 3 minutes is up. Thank you. Next we have john olsen. Thank you very much, counsel. My name is John Olsen. I'm the director of preservation. Programs at Historic Denver and a resident of Northwest Denver. Historic Denver is a 45 year old nonprofit organization dedicated to enhancing our city's unique identity through education, advocacy and stewardship of local heritage and historic places. While historic Denver is not an applicant for designation of this property, we have been involved with the house since last spring when a neighbor called us and asked for help researching the home's history in response to the Certificate of Non Historic Application. As a nonprofit advocacy organization, we strive to be a resource and because we felt that this home deserved further conversation, we provided that assistance. When that original neighbor withdrew their application for designation, we shared the content we developed with us, with the applicants here today, and they have since expanded on that content. Again, we did this because we think our historic resources add important value to our neighborhoods and our city and deserve thoughtful conversation and full consideration. Because once they're lost, they are truly lost forever. Historic Denver often supports projects that involve both the preservation of historic resources and the creation of new development. And we believe strongly that the dynamic between old and new is a critical part of what is needed for a vibrant city consequent. Consequently, we do not believe the question. We do not believe the question for this property is preservation or development. We think it can and should be preservation and development combined with the carriage lock to the rear. The recently vacated alley, which represents 300 square feet, transferred from the city to the current owner this past July and the adjacent assembled property to the north, there's ample room to build while maintaining the old. We conducted our own analysis of decided zoning and discovered as as has been Eric has been was the backup. When this offer for the property was recently published in the press that the property retains significant development potential and comparable, if not better value offer for the designation was indeed foreseeable. I like to further note that when Dr. Tom Noel wrote in the Denver Post this last week that the United States Supreme Court in the 1978 penned central case has confirmed and reaffirmed in many, many cases since then that local governments have the full authority to regulate private property through historic preservation policy, as they do under current zoning laws. One of City Council's most important responsibilities is a regulation of land use, and at no time is that responsibility more important than during periods of great change. Council already exercises land use authority related to this property assemblage in July and when the when the alley vacation was granted making the site the development opportunity it has become designated 2329 Eliot as an individual landmark as a reasonable tradeoff after receiving such a gift from the city and its taxpayers, one that preserves the properties values. Of the current owner. Preserves significant development opportunity, paves the way for a project that incorporates the old and new adds density, recognizes a unique and influential story in our history, and enhances the. Character character all year. Three Man says, Thank you so much. Thank you. David Burden. I actually have something to hand to counsel. My name is David Burton. I am the architect on the proposed project that's going to be located at 2329 Eliot Street. I am a property owner in the neighborhood, a business owner in a neighborhood. I've been a volunteer in the community for almost 20 years. I coauthored the neighborhood plan for Jefferson Park about ten years ago. This is a usual ordinary home. It's an interesting story, but it's no more than that. I'm generally an advocate for historic preservation. I've brought cases to Landmark Preservation Commission multiple times. But this particular house is not remarkable. I really want to talk specifically about the Jim three zoning. If this if this application gets approved and it gets designated historic, the property will only be able to utilize the urban house and the duplex dwelling form based on the reduced frontage that would be approved with this designation. If this designation is approved, the frontage of this large parcel would be 36 feet, and you would need to have at least 50 feet to do anything more than a duplex where a single family zoned zoning form on this particular lot. I gave you basically the give you three requirements for all the different zoning forms right now. The plan was to use the apartment zoning form. But as you can see, if you look at this detailed information, truly the urban house, detached accessory dwelling unit and duplex dwelling forms would be the only one that would be allowed with a frontage of 25 to less than 50 feet. So again, based on this reduced frontage, the development rights are are greatly reduced. And I believe this would reduce the property value. I implore you not to support this historic designation and don't promulgate the acknowledgment of an alleged shooter in it as a historic location. I respectfully request that you deny this council Bill. Thank you. Thank you. Annie Levinsky. Thank you. I'm Annie Levinsky, executive director of historic Denver, Inc. John Olsen already described our organization, and I want to thank you for taking the time tonight to discuss a piece of Denver's past and a piece of its future. I wanted to speak separately from John so that I could take a few minutes to put tonight's discussion into a bit of context. The demolition review component of our historic preservation ordinance was created by the unanimous vote of Denver City Council in 2006. Council took this step to prevent surprise demolitions during our last boom cycle. It is not dissimilar to some two. It is not dissimilar to ordinances in other cities of our size, although our designation criteria actually set a higher bar than many of our peer cities. The ordinance is intended to give the community time to react to potential demolitions and to seek solutions that are in the best interests of owners, neighbors and the city at large. The ordinance has worked well in this way in several instances, with conversations leading not to this room, but to positive outcomes. It is historic Denver's policy to pursue creative solutions. And I believe because of that, council has been in your shoes only a few times in nearly ten years. So while we are here tonight talking about one specific property, I thought you should know about dozens of other properties and historic resources already lost this year. As one of the first speakers noted, there have been nearly 600 demolitions reviewed this year and only 34 properties were posted as potentially eligible for historic designation of all of those properties. There's only one this designation this evening and one other anticipated by the end of the year. This means you are being asked to consider saving only point 3% of all the buildings we are losing this year, a record year. Some of those other losses that did not come in front of you include commercial properties designed by architects, historic cottages and five points in the Five Points neighborhood. The entire historic hardware block in River North and several fine had homes in hilltop. I bring this to your attention to demonstrate that this property clearly carries significant value, historical importance and community support to have reached this step in a process that requires a great deal of energy from the community. If there had been an opportunity to have a meaningful dialog with the current owner or the owners representative, we would have happily facilitated those conversations as we have in the past because we do believe this property represents a very real opportunity for a win win outcome due to its size, common ownership with neighboring properties and the alley vacated by council earlier this year. Unfortunately, our invitations to meet with the owner and the developer to discuss creative ways to develop the site while retaining the house even without historic designation, were not accepted. The sheer volume of demolition taking place in our city this year means that we have to have hard conversations. Are all those places worth saving? None of them. Or some of them, as you're being asked to do tonight at historic Denver, it is our job to take the long view. What will our city look like, feel like and live like? Not just next year, but ten years from now, 20 years from now or 50 years from now? What will we still have? A unique identity. We hope so. But we need to consider our historic places. And I thank you for your consideration. Thank you, Miss Lipinski. Next, we have Dan Rodgers. And as Mr. Rodgers comes up, I'm going to call up the next five names who all have 6 minutes Diane Irvin, Justin Archuleta, Brad Evans, Nathan Adams and Jude Aiello. So you five can make your way up to Rodgers. You may begin. My name's Dan Rodgers. I'd like to also speak to the contract that's proposed on the table. I'm from the commercial job site. Superintendent is my background and I've done some historic renovation stuff to look at of Heights Catholic Girls School that the Salvation Army currently owns. I've been hands on on a lot of these jobs and have the experience and care very deeply about the work. The whole that the the contract that's on the table has a lot of holes that could get poked in it. Jim shook Nathan's hand. I met Nathan for the first time tonight over 13, 14 months ago. Jim's been wanting to retire since that day. He was looking at nine months ago that he could retire. He was on the roof today, finishing up a roof hump and bundles on a steep pitch. He's 63, almost 64 years old. He needs to get off that roof. No more messing around. He's got he shook Nathan's hand. That's the deal. That's the kind of of of person that Jim's son Leitner is. There's contracts and paperwork. But he told Nathan he was going to sell them that house. Nathan's worked very, very, very hard to get that $1,100,000 offer. Without the work that Nathan has done. That number would never be achieved. Ever. So I've got to tell you, this kind of odd story here you guys are. Call it the Anderson House, the name on the shirts and. Correct. Jim's an old renowned motorcycle road racer. Got my wife and I into it. Him getting us into that sport actually got my wife a college scholarship for road racing motorcycles and helped us with our education. There's a lot of not world renowned but widely known racetrack here in Colorado called Second Creek Raceway. And there's a pretty difficult corner in that particular racetrack that Jim had the opportunity to crash not only his primary race bike, but his back up race bike in the same day and was complaining to the track. Guys, how about what a rat's nest this thing was, right? So from that day forward, Jim became rat and that became the rat's nest across the country that when he'd have the Christmas party for the Motorcycle Road Racing Association and all of our families would come up. It was that rat mansion. That's the name of the house. That's what thousands of people in Denver know it as his rat mansion. We need to get this deal, move forward. He needs to retire. That's it. No more messing around that for that million. One has tons of holes in it. All it's going to do is keep him from retiring. So that's it. Thanks. Thank you, Mr. Rogers. Diane Irvin. And you have 6 minutes. Okay. Thank you. I'm Diane Irvin. I live at 4047. Wyandotte and I have since 1989. I'm a founding member of Sunnyside United Neighbors. I my office, my business that I co-founded in 1989 offers an historic wheeler block building for 18 years in the Highlands. I support the designation and I have no financial interest in this hearing. My focus is our shared interest in economic development in this city and how historic preservation supports it. Businesses in Jefferson Park Town Square support this designation. Owners of both the Jefferson Park Pub and 2914 Coffee have signed to support it out of a commitment to the community, but also because they understand that historic preservation and compatible new development attract paying customers. Give the story of hot tempers and the three year national scandal around the likes of William Anderson and the Denver Post owners and editors and the Adams Mystery Playhouse at 25th and federal will turn it into revenue. Tell the story enough. And entrepreneurs from Union Station to coffee shops around the city will sell t shirts and yellow Denver Times newspaper headlines about the shooting to tourists from California to New York, the Andersen House. History is the entrepreneur's opportunity to generate revenue for their family businesses and for the city. The National Trust for Historic Preservation and United States Department of Housing and Urban Development at the national, state and local levels see historic preservation as vital to urban revitalization. Judith Kremen, executive director of the Baltimore County Historical Trust, lauds the benefits of preservation to local economies. Historic preservation creates jobs, which increase revenue for suppliers and service providers alike. It is an ideal economic development strategy for attracting entrepreneurs and retaining taxpaying, job producing small businesses. It targets blight and neglected properties for improvement. It encourages private investment by visually demonstrating public investment in an area. Denver's Landmark Preservation Commission adds to the list of economic benefits of reserve preservation. It enriches residents and business owners alike by visually representing that we value continuity and connection to places. Historic districts support neighborhood stability, which contribute to long term neighborhood viability. Historic preservation stimulates government revenue. Building permits from. 2010 to 2012 show that construction investment is 3 to 10 times greater in historic districts than in other areas. A 2011 study by Clarion Associates reports that for every $1 million spent on historic preservation, 32 jobs are generated. Those 32 jobs have paychecks. They pay taxes and they support even more jobs in the community. Garrison Keillor on NPR just this past week broadcast from Cleveland. He was extolling the exciting, historic preservation of Cleveland that had to be worth millions to Cleveland. Historic preservation is synonymous with economic development. We learned that with Larimer Square is the redevelopment. Let us build on that wise decision and do more of what we have already proven we can do so well. My company brings money into Denver from across the nation and 30 countries like you. I'm committed to economic development of the city. Let us build on what we have done well and bring more money to Denver from across the nation in good conscience. I ask, how could you not vote to designate the Andersen House as a historic landmark? Thank you. Thank you. Next, Justin Archuleta. And you have 6 minutes as well. Good evening. My name is Justin on your letter. I am a homeowner in District one. Address 1599 West Berkeley Place and I am currently under contract to purchase my own home in Jefferson Park, though I'm not a resident quite yet. I consider myself a part of the neighborhood community. I've worked with local organizations and a volunteer capacity. I've studied the neighborhood plan in great detail. I've attended numerous neighborhood organization meetings, and unfortunately, I likely buy much more coffee and food from local area businesses than many residents. I also work for Adams Development, the small Jefferson Park based business involved in this transaction. My role with Adams is primarily that of development project management. I'm here today to speak about an issue that has come up in conversations regarding Jim's house that of Right of way vacations, commonly known as alley vacations. We've heard about it tonight and we heard it about it also at the Landmark Preservation Commission. To be clear, the issue of right of way vacations has no place in the debate regarding the merits of whether Jim's home is historic or not. It simply is unconnected, and there's no relationship between the two. There is a place for discussion of right of way vacations in a larger context about development. And I believe it's become quite clear that the debate about 23, 29 Eliot Street has transcended historic designation at this point. This property and the debate surrounding it has become an outlet for a portion of the community to voice concerns about development in general. It is to those concerns that I would like to speak. Comments were made by Dennis Gallagher at the Landmark Preservation Commission hearing that the city is choosing to give land away to profit driven developers and receiving absolutely nothing in return. That is simply not true. The city actually maintains a policy statement on street and alley vacations that I think many, including Mr. Gallagher, may be unaware of. I'd like to go over some of the information contained in that policy statement with you now. First to address comments that the city should have sold the land to gym and gotten financial compensation. Those pushing for this are likely unaware that there is actually a state law prohibiting the city from selling dedicated right of way upon vacation. That's outlined in the city's policy statement. Now, that doesn't mean that the city is simply giving land away without thought or without a policy for protecting the public's interest. Vacations go through a lengthy process of review at the Department of Public Works. Alli vacations are only approved if the applicant accommodates the needs of transportation, storm, sanitary utility and other needs. To quote from the city's policy statement, the applicant must understand that the service level of the remaining right of way must be maintained or improve the existing condition. On page 11, in the packet that was distributed to you. Is a photo taken of the land that was vacated? That land was not serving any public interest and has been a dumping ground that attracts waste that Jim has become responsible for. Because for the city, the city has not been maintaining that right of way. That right of way was a pretty small portion of land that divided the property that Jim owned in the front of the lot from the carriage lot that he owned in the rear. There's no other party that could have benefited from that land. It was unpaved and a redundant alley within the block. On page 12, you can see a diagram of the extremely valuable benefits intended as a result of that Ali vacation. The city balances the vacation of land with the requirements of developers that developers actually dedicate or give back land to the city. Though I'm unaware of any state statute prohibiting the city from paying for that land, the reality is that developers are required to dedicate that land back to the city for nothing. Now, not just for nothing. Because developers are also required to spend considerable amounts of money to improve the land that city owns tied to receiving construction permit approval. In the case of 2329 Elliott Street, after considerable time effort of working with the city and the city's requirements for development of that property, we have received what the requirements for development will be from the Department of Public Works. Those requirements are that any development on the property would require that 900 square feet be granted back to the city and no cost. In addition, and the reason for that would be to widen those alleys. Those alleys are all at ten feet. They're recognized by the neighborhood as kind of being dangerous because there's steep slopes. So there's people that won't even use the alleys in the winter for fear of sliding down into pedestrians. So those alleys would be required to be widened. That land given back, as well as all of the alleys surrounding the entire property, would have to be repaved. The cost of that paving is going to be over $100,000. That work. The right of way permits, as well as just the concrete work involved, is not cheap. Now what that will do is benefit all the neighbors of the block, the community in general. I've heard from a member of the Parks Board of Denver that has recognized that the back of that alley as being a place that crime happens, people dump, trash, etc.. So the Department of Public Works is not giving in to greedy developers when it recommends that city council vacate land. The policies of the department actually result in huge benefit to the committee, the community, the city and neighbors. Bringing the issue of alley vacation into any conversation about whether or not to designate gems. Property is inappropriate and only meant to be a distraction to cloud this issue further. Thank you. Thank you. Next to Brad Evans. Evans, you have 6 minutes. Thank you. Council members, thank you for allowing me to speak here today. My name is Brad Evans and I reside at 2835 West 24th Avenue, a stone's throw from this home that is up for a public hearing to council build. 1507 16. The historic designation that has been sought for this property is not being done by a rogue group of neighbors seeking to stop development. It's nor is it a band of outsiders trying to trample on an individual's property rights. It has instead become a narrative about what Denver will become and what it was. Ultimately, the decision you are faced with today is whether or not we as a community have access to and can use already established sets of tools to retain a collective, collective connection to the past. I've been part of the Jefferson Park United Neighbors since 2004, and Japan has been vigilant in its efforts to create a harmonious connection with the past and with its close proximity to downtown. It's also work to find win win solutions for the new development that's coming to the neighborhood. Over the past 12 months, numerous 1900 area homes have been raised on nearly every block of northwest Denver, and more are being slated to be demolished in the coming days. Japan has long supported development, and this house on Elliott is not just another poorly maintained property, long in need of tender loving care. It's also in the middle of what is considered the core residential of Jefferson Park. This is noted in the Jefferson Park plan, which was adopted by City Council in 2005. Blueprint Denver considers this to be an area of stability, and there are few. There are also those that believe that this is one of the few homes left in Jefferson Park that should be preserved. And even Article one of the Denver zoning code allows for a single zone lot to be part of a zone, a part of an assemblage. So the argument that the 92 feet requirement can be is moot because it's the zoning code allows it. Yes, this home has a storied past, but is not the only reason to vote for its preservation. With a yes vote for this historic designation, this House will serve as a beacon to future generations about the Wild West characteristic of Denver and those that resided here at the turn of the century. While I have no financial interest in this property, I do have a long held interest in Jefferson Park and the community that it serves. Having served on the board of Jay Pond and chaired the Land Use Committee in the past, I'm also an active participant in today's development community. I am also familiar with the issues. That we are faced with the exploding. Growth of our city. Please allow me to share a few salient points about the evolution of where Jefferson Park has been and where it's going. Since the sixties, there is a well-known lack of investment in Jefferson Park, and up until the early 2000s, it was a haven for drug dealers and gangs. Jefferson Park has long been populated by cherished groups that include urban pioneers, pawn indigent Latino families, as well as historic residents that were born in the homes they will see that they still inhabit. And haven't the Javon Board has acted as a champion for development and reinvestment as a means to place more eyes on the street and in an effort to combat the criminal activity that had become part of the day to day goings on of this urban core neighborhood. John was approached by the city of Denver in around 23 to participate in the redevelopment of the former district. One police department located at 22nd, Decatur and city leaders thought Jay Pons input on the RFP and so valued input from the community that they gave J.P. and one of the three votes on that RFP. The winner of that RFP was David Zucker. And this is what spurred the development. Jefferson Park. This is the project. It was 42 condos. A lot of them affordable in it. And this company is also still and. Developer, still a participant in the neighborhood. Their next project, which was on Clay Street, was. Literally designed on the neighborhood board's kitchen table. They brought their people in and we put pieces of paper over here and did vignettes and really worked on what that development would look like. That's the kind of participation Japan in this neighborhood has done in development. I'm here to lend my voice in support of this historic designation, not to stop development, but to ask you to allow the neighborhood the ability of self-determination, which in part gave birth to the current development free for all that's happening in my neighborhood. Should you vote against this bill and allow this home to be torn down, not only will we be losing a link to our past, but we will be tearing down a part of our future. I appreciate your time and thank you. Thank you. Next, we have Nathan Adams. So you have 6 minutes as well. Thank you. Good evening, council members. Thank you for your time and for your public service. My name is Nathan Adams. My company, Adams Development, has been working with Jim for 14 months now to purchase the properties of 23, 29 and 23, 21, 23, 31 Eliot Street. You decide very important matters. And tonight you are tasked with the decision as to whether or not to give 2329 Eliot Street landmark status against Jim's wishes. This case is not a theoretical rule change that will apply equally to all constituents. The decision made tonight will have a direct impact on a 40 year resident. 27 of those years living in the home we are discussing. In addition to the impact to Jim, there are ramifications for a small business, a business that I own. I employ 14 people and indirectly employ another 30 to 50 people at any given time. Decisions of this magnitude should be absolutely certain. Designating a home against the owner's wishes should be an extraordinary circumstance. With this in mind, serious questions have been raised tonight about the merits for landmark status. The architecture has been deemed the Denver vernacular of a Queen Inn. Simply put, the home is not monumental. It is rare to find a home that is not a vernacular of some style as to history. There is no direct way to tie the house to history without relying on second degree and tangential connections. Additionally, the attempts to connect the House to Anderson's shooting the Post editors is a glorification of gun violence, violence that did not happen at the house. The criteria for designation is anything but definitive criteria. Cited for designation is a stretch and is in no way, shape or form an extraordinary circumstance worthy of landmark designation. The bar should be raised or at the very least, strictly enforced. Either way, we should not leave here tonight with 2329 Eliot Street being designated a landmark building. The issue being brought by applicants is a small part of a larger discussion around Denver's growth and change spot zoning via hostile designation is not the right approach. Significant time, taxpayer money, financial burden on small business and economic harm to a homeowner have resulted for making the single property the focus of what should be a larger conversation. Resources utilized could have been spent supporting voluntary designation or voluntary historic districts. River Drive in Jefferson Park, pictured on page 14 of the book that you have there. River Drive is an example of a place we should be looking at for voluntary designation. There are eight two storey Queen Anne's on one block alone, many of which are a better representation of a Queen Anne than 2329 Eliot Street. This issue is not simply a developer against the neighborhood or a homeowner against a neighborhood. The neighborhood and city are divided on hostile designation. I personally support preservation when appropriate. I have restored a landmark building. I've renovated over 200 homes. I've lived in the historic district of Potter Highlands. I've owned in the historic district of Potter Highlands and lived. I understand clearly that preservation is a worthy cause. However, I firmly believe that zoning this property with hostile designation against a homeowner's wishes is extreme. Such extreme measures should only be used in the most extraordinary of circumstances. John Olson of Historic Denver told me that hostile designation serves a purpose. He cited Mt. Vernon. Mt. Vernon was saved by hostile designation. John and I can agree that on that end, extreme circumstances like saving Mt. Vernon hostile historic designation serves a purpose. Ladies and gentlemen, 2329. Eliot Street is no Mt. Vernon. Is a house that did not have a known story until a story was needed as a means to preserve, to stop or to alter development. Hostile designation sends a message to anti-development groups that utilizing the landmark ordinance as a tool to fight development is okay. This is becoming all too common. Trammell Crow recently experienced a threat on their 30th and little site and 5115 West 29th Avenue. They will be heard in council in two weeks. Hostel designation is not the correct forum for the conversation that needs to be had. Preservationists should be. Preservation should be a civil discussion on a large neighborhood or landmark district scale for structures that don't stand on their own merits. Like the Molly Brown House does tonight, please say no to spot zoning. Protect Jim's property rights, defend small business, and preserve due process for our constituents. As a show of support. We've submitted 98 letters and have collected over 500 signatures opposed to this designation. Thank you. Thank you. Next, we have Julie Aiello. And as she would come forward, I'm going to call the next five names to speak, Jim songwriter Dennis Gallagher, Mr. Saca, Sophie, Billy, Zeke and Mary Hendrick. So you five can make your way up beside you may begin and you have 6 minutes to talk. Thank you. My name is Judy along. I live at 909. Lafayette Street in Denver. Although I was a 33 year resident of Northwest Denver, I'm a member of Denver Neighborhood Advocates, which supports preservation of neighborhood character. Please support designation of the Anderson House. As you well know, as council members, your job is almost always about deciding limits. Just like when council re zoned the entire city. Limiting, but not. Taking away what property owners could do. In this case, you. Are to limit what is to be considered and voted on to the preservation. Rules. Does this meet. Two of the three criteria? If you personally think preservation isn't ever needed, or that by limiting what the owner can do to his property that you have somehow. Taken away his rights. This should have. No place in the decision making process. Another Denver commitment. The 2020 sustainability goals also should be considered. It supports keeping buildings and reducing construction waste into city landfills. You've already heard the statistics of the number. Of demolitions this year, a 20% increase over last year. Thousands of demolitions have been approved in the last few years. These applications and decisions required no public notice, meetings or votes. Interestingly, council seemed to have no problem with press, with trusting the City Preservation Department to decide if these. Hostile demolitions from the viewpoint. Of many neighbors who have to put up with them, meet the guidelines and can move forward. Yet when the Preservation. Department. Determines a property does meet historic designation guidelines, a number of hearings and votes are mandatory, and the expert judgment of the Preservation Department is questioned. This four one half of 1% of the demolition applications. The preservation preservation. Guidelines, support designation of structures which meet the strict Denver criteria. Even if the owner is not the applicant. It is not hostile. As a former councilman named them a term which is not used, thankfully, by the Preservation Department. The historical value of some buildings outweigh. The wish of the temporary owner to maximize his financial gain. Ultimately, owners often find historic designation raises the value of the property, even though national and state historic designations in most states and cities require only one criteria out of three. Denver requires at least two and often seems to expect three. I personally think this meets all three, and despite this high. Bar, the Preservation Department confirms the out Anderson House meets Denver's strict criteria. Council recently approved an ally vacation, without which the owner wouldn't have been able to access additional land and access for development. City Council's already given the. Owner this free gift. I'd like to. Talk about what I call the Wal-Mart defense, which is my term, which describes owners claims that only. One type of development is possibly possible or financially viable. This is a. False and unsuccessful tactic that was used in the Highlands and a ninth and Colorado Boulevard. Cases. It's on display by. This owner and possible future developer in this case, as history and the non owners of these properties showed, there is more than one choice for a financially successful development in both the Highlands and ninth in Colorado Boulevard. Examples. The business is chosen. In place of the Wal-Marts. When. Not only much better fit. For the neighborhoods. But wildly financially successful. I think it can be the same way with this property. We need to preserve history and places where. Even tragic. And embarrassing events happened. Future generations shouldn't be shielded from the truth, even if that truth doesn't represent Denver Heights in the best light. I trust that when you vote. Your decision is based on the city's criteria for. Approving the historic designation of this building criteria, which it clearly. Meets. If you find your personal objections. Or feelings prevent you from supporting this. Designation. I request you do the honorable thing and refrain from voting. Thank you. Thank you, Miss Iowa. Next, Jim, sunlight through. And you have 6 minutes. Hello. I'm Jim Sun Lightner. I suppose I'm the whole reason for this. Whole. Ordeal. But basically, I've worked hard my whole life. My plan was the only thing I own out of it is my houses. My plan was to take my houses and use them as a retirement fund. Once I got to all the pound nails anymore and I've never been married, don't have a wife and kids. The historic designation, I feel, is trampling my property rights. I feel I should be able to sell my house without having to go through a rigmarole. But I don't know that, you know, that is the way the system works is is not my problem. But I would I would urge the council to respectfully give me a no vote on this designation. Allow me to retire in peace and possibly build a little house with no stairs. Thanks. Thank you. Next, we had Dennis Gallagher. Who this is who I think it is. I don't see in the chambers. All right. Next, Mr. Sekou. Yes. My name is Chairman Sekou. Black Star Action Movement for Self-defense. Advocating for poor, working, poor homeless people. You know. But what we're faced with this evening is a conversation where we must put principle before personality. And I don't see any bad people in this. I just see people doing what they feel they need to do with rationalization, justification. And on and on and on. We put the principle at the forefront. What we're really talking about is, are we going to be a city of me or are we going to be a city we see? Because in the we is our culture and our tradition that's bigger and greater than any individual in this room. Now, the spirit of Mr. Anderson is in this room. That's how significant this is, because he put principle before personality, because he had to go up against the power structure that was defaming and slander in his name. And he's decided to take the personal responsibility to fix that, to defend his life, being attacked by people who were considered more powerful. Now, in this room, we have people who have come together as a community to say our culture, who we are, means more than the money. I'm proud to be raised and born in Colorado. I love the wild, wild west. I've been to the East Coast, I've been to the West Coast. And the quality of the people are greater than all of that in this country because we believe in a fair fight and we believe in honesty, man. And I've heard a lot of stories up in there and there's a bunch of lies going on up in here. We're talking about a real estate deal that you got another deal on the table just in case this don't work. That would get you more money and still give the people what they need in terms of their history and their culture. Now, come on, y'all. We got to sort through this thing and look at this rationally with who and what is being told is the truth. And the kids need this history. I wish there was some more Andersons around today that would stand up against those that are powerful and take the personal responsibility to take care of that and then weather the storm and take it to Judge Judy and take it to the people to see if I can if I'm right or wrong, because that's the way our country works. And what we have in this room is an outstanding, outstanding example of why this country is so great. Mr. Speaker. This is year in effect. This is. Kind of every year, 3. Minutes. Is that so? And, Mr. Speaker. You're going to give a 13. Mr. Speaker. Thank you. Sophie and I apologize, Bill. Thank you, Europe. Hello. My name is Sophie Blue and I live at 2822 Race Street in Denver. I'm a lifelong lover of history and I was intrigued when I read about the life of William W Anderson. The act for which Anderson is best known for his shooting about peace and famine is not a laudable act, and none of the applicants are arguing that. However, the story exemplifies many themes present throughout Carlyle's history and ties into an overarching, overarching mythos of the American West. At the turn of the 20th century, Denver in 1900 was a small town, small town stories. These stories tell us something about ourselves and where we came from. They should also give us pause and make us think critically about where we are going as a community at its heart, Denver started as a town run by vigilante Justice Tillman. Bonfils often stoked this fire screaming headlines that got them to trouble more than once. The incident with William Anderson is a glimpse into the past, exemplifying many common themes from Colorado history that students learn about today in class, the role of vigilante justice in the early years of Denver, the rise of yellow journalism and widespread spread corruption in Gilded Age politics. William Anderson's Gilded Age sense of honor led him to confront Tammany Bonfils directly. Denver's history of Western style justice helps explain why he would have chosen this course of action. The rise of yellow journalism helps us to understand why Tillman and Bonfils were so caustic and bombastic in their careers. Thankfully, we as a society have moved from these tactics, but just because we find them unsavory today doesn't mean that they didn't happen. Well, we should edit our history to center out the bad moments. We should ignore parts of our history that make us uncomfortable or which are inconvenient. Another Denver landmark. That's an excellent example of how we as a community can talk about historical events without. Glamorizing them as the House of Mirrors at 1946 Market Street. It's a contributing building in the lower downtown historic district. It also happens to be one of Denver's most infamous landmarks, which was home to not one but two of Denver's most successful madams. The brothel status as the landmark does not mean that we as a community condone prostitution. Instead, we are acknowledging the social history of Denver and the reality many women in the West faced as they worked to create a new life. There's a world of difference between acknowledging and glamorizing the darker parts of history as an important. It is important that we recognize the difference. Not only am I a lover of history and great stories like this, but I'm also a lover of education. I'm I work at Girls Inc of Metro Denver, which is about a mile and a half from the Anderson House. I often drive around the neighborhood and it seems like there's a new development every month. I'm certainly not against development, but I think it's important for today's youth, like the girls that come to girls think especially neighborhood girls, to be able to see history around them and not just read about it in books. I urge you to vote in favor of creating a local historic landmark Anderson House for future generations to appreciate. Thank you. Thank you. Next, we have Mary Hendrick. And as Mary comes up, I'm going to call the next five, David Zucker, Janice Stice, Trevor Greco, Rebecca Hunt and Amy Zimmer. Good evening. I'm here to ask you to support historic landmark designation for the Anderson House. You've heard the back story. I'm not going to reiterate that. But to save time, I just wanted to share that. I've lived here 43 years, raised a family, and I've lived in all parts of Denver, and I've made Highlands my home for the last 20 years. We've basically seen many changes throughout the Denver metro area over the past 43 years, much of it welcomed and embraced. However, we are witnessing a level of development within our neighborhood that is unprecedented and the result of outside developers who see our neighborhoods as ripe for the picking. With Jim Sant Lightner, the owner of this victory and made it known. And again it's I'm reiterating what everybody knows here that he wants to retire and live out the proceeds of the sale of his home. I understand the first offer entertained by Jim was out of Adams development, who is hoping to be the only offer on the table with what quote unquote appeared to be a generous offer of $1 million. However, Mr. Adams, owner of Adams development, recently purchased a much smaller home south of Jim's home for 1.6 million, which makes Jim's offer pale in comparison. Now, Mr. Adams has said that Jim's home would only be worth 600,000 with a historical designation. What a bit of backpedaling going on here. Nothing could be further from the truth. And those who are familiar with historically designated homes know that such a designation garners far more money than not. As a result, I am asking you to consider. Well, let me finish here. I'm sorry. I jumped ahead here and offered to top Mr. Adams bid by another developer was just presented, as we all heard, for 1.1 million. And as this story gains traction, it may be that other offers will be presented and considered by Jim, which would benefit him and in the process, preserve a gem of historical significance that has a place in Denver's history. As a result, I am asking you to consider granting this historical designation. Other districts in Denver are could conceivably be presented with a loss of historical status if such homes in those areas are considered commodities. For those developers who only whose only concern is to make as big of a profit margin as possible without regard for the home that is being scraped. Just to give some perspective, I had heard recently that approximately 4000 applications for scrapes were presented this past year throughout the whole of metro Denver, with only 41 applications for historical designations. And I just want to finish saying that the current owner will not be harmed, but on the contrary, will be in a much better position to negotiate a higher price for his home if it is given this historical designation it's deserving of. Thank you for listening. Marin, could you say your name for the record? Yeah. Mary Hendrick. Thank you. Thank you. Next, we have David Zucker. Thank you. Councilmembers. My name is David Zucker. The developer has chosen to work closely with Jefferson Park neighbors. My office is two blocks away from this property on Decatur Street. I have no financial interest in the outcome of today's hearing, nor am I typically a fan of adverse historic designation. I've always called Jefferson Park the non NIMBY neighborhood. My experience is that residents have been accepting of it, in fact anxious to see change and have always pushed to ensure that this change positively affects the community. When our first condo project got underway as a result of an RFP for the vacant district, one police station, gang activity and gunshots were rampant. Working closely with the Jefferson Park neighbors to put eyes on the park and our subsequent River Clay project designed in concept on a sound on a Saturday morning around the dining room table of the neighborhood president's home. These are still among my most gratifying, professional experiences. Increasingly, and with sadness, I sense that the care and forethought that this neighborhood brought to each proposed project through the neighborhood's Land Use Committee is being lost to a developer land grab. The public, the great public realm, the historic homes, the modest, the walkability of Jefferson Park are at risk. But moreover, the community's cultural and economic diversity is being lost as this once affordable, historic single family homes are lost to redevelopment. Diversity has always been a hallmark of the neighborhood and a goal of the R.A., which formally published a dual language newsletter. Like other great historic urban neighborhoods like Highlands and Lower Downtown, the ability of the neighborhood to steward growth helps past current and future development. From my perspective and having spoken with neighbors and. Are no board members. There's a sense the neighborhood is under siege, that the stewardship of development, the Land Use Committee and the Arnaud itself are being overrun. As I understand it, the Arnaud board is currently working through bylaw changes to be protective of the residents voice. If the Anderson home is designated historic, allowing the Arnaud to effect amendments to this would be protective. But losing the diversity of an architectural, significant mixed income community hangs in the balance. As a supporter and denizen of the neighborhood, I hope to see it thrive, ensuring that this neighborhood retains diversity in architectural history. I'll end with the President. Words of the 25 neighborhood plan. On the first page, it states. Although the neighborhood generally welcomes new residents and businesses, it desires to protect and enhance the historic character of the diversity of its residents. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Zucker. Janice Stice. Good evening. My name is Janice Stice. I have lived in northwest Denver most of my life, currently at 3843 Vallejo Street. I am a founding board member of Sunnyside. United Neighbors. Inc and have been active in the neighborhood in neighborhood. Improvement for 25 years. I know the Jefferson Park neighborhood. Very well. And I support the designation of the Anderson House as a historic landmark. And I have no financial. Interest in this property or designation. I don't believe every structure built in the past 150 years should be. Saved simply because. It is old. But neither do we have to lose all of our history and leave us with block after block of characterless cubes. It's very easy. To simply scrape. Everything and use. Stock building plants to quickly throw up the kind of development we are see all over northwest. Denver. The Anderson House occupies only the southeast quadrant of the total developable site. This is an opportunity for a classy and interesting development. Restore the exterior and remodel. The. Interior. It could house two very nice living units or possibly offices, exercise facilities or party rooms. A more creative, farsighted. Developer could still build up to 15 townhomes on the. Balance of the site with the Anderson House as the centerpiece. This could be a win win for both the community and the property owner. This house is not a grand mansion. It is a fine example of local middle class Queensland architecture. It was the home of William Anderson. His somewhat transitory relationship to Alfred. Packer is not. What makes him important to history. What is important is that William Anderson, acting in self-defense and ultimately acquitted, found himself at the center of a story that led to purging. Corruption in the Denver courts and exposing the. Owners of the Denver Post for. Their yellow journalism, bribery and an unlawful. Partnership with city officials, something the current owners of the Denver Post are loath to acknowledge. Developers come and go, Oh, they'll make their big. Profits and most will move on. The people who have lived here for. Generations. And love our city and its vibrant history will still be here. Please don't make. Us regret what Denver may. Become a place full of nondescript boxes. A boring place with no texture, no memory. Days. You're 3 minutes ago. Thank you. Trevor Greco. Good evening. My name is Trevor Grech. I reside at 3284 Osceola in Denver. I'm also the vice president of West Highland Neighborhood Association. You should have in your packets a letter of support that came from a unanimous vote from our general membership. I also to personally support this designation. Tonight, I'd like to read to you a letter from Joel Judd, the former state representative from the fifth District. And he starts off in 1979 by in his 1893 home. And I'm going to fast forward a little bit in the interest of time. And he talks about his neighborhood getting rough and getting worse and worse. But I'll pick up from there as my corner lot backs onto a steep pitched, narrow alley, two houses sit on the far side of the alley, both owned by my neighbor Jim. Over the years, Jim's told me stories about the bigger house in which he lives. In 1900, a lawyer named Anderson lived there while representing Colorado's most famous cannibal, Alfred Packard. Anderson shot two of its best known newspaper magnates, Harriet Harman and Frederick Bonfils. Their newspaper, The Denver Post, survives as Denver's only Colorado leading newspaper. Well, I suspected Jim was pulling my leg. The story turns out to be true. Bonfils and TODMAN were renowned as extortionate scalawags and ink barrel blackmailers while they turned their attention to Anderson. He fought back. Ultimately, the jury acquitted Anderson. Jurors may have been enchanted by Anderson's repeated excuse me, rapid police statement. And immediately after the shooting, boys arrest me. I just shot a couple of skunks. Today, a developer, Nathan Adams, has a property under contract with plans to build 18 townhomes. While I look forward to meeting some new neighbors. I'm not keen on losing a historical touch stone with such a fine story to it. Fortunately, Jim says, some of other developers have figured out how to pay him just as much while retaining the Anderson House. Adams has put in a lot of time and money in planning this development. I'd hate to see him lose his investment, but not as much as I'd hate to lose the Anderson House. I'm hoping the council votes yes. Thank you for your service. Thank you. Have Rebecca Hunt. Good evening, President Herndon and ladies and gentlemen of the City Council. I'm Professor Rebecca Hunt, a historian of Northwest Denver, just completing a book on the ethnic communities in this neighborhood. And I have lived at 2502 West 32nd Avenue for 22 years. Just finished four years as president of Highland United Neighbors. My only interest in this property is historical. I'm here to support saving the sterling example of our north side and of Denver's architecture. I'm also here because I know firsthand that preservation can pay. In 2014, I spearheaded a hostile designation of the Daniel Lucy House at the corner of 35th and Navajo Street. Daniel Lucy, by the way, was a ten year member of this esteemed body from 1990 to 1929. That designation never made it to this chamber because an enlightened developer, knowing what it meant to the neighborhood, chose to renovate the house and now has it on the market for $1.2 million. That is independent of the money she's going to get for a malibu Modern and an 82 that are also on that property. She'll do okay. She was enlightened. It would have been so simple here if the developer had been as enlightened as the woman I dealt with. We know that there is another developer, at least one out there who's interested in this property. We know that Jim Sun Lightner will not lose. He will still get his retirement nest egg. Preserving significant old houses is right for keeping Denver original and special. Preserving significant old houses is good business. I therefore ask you to approve the historic designation of 2329 Eliot Street. This is right for Northwest Denver. It's right for Jefferson Park. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen of the Denver City Council. Thank you, Miss Hunt. All right. Our last five speakers, Amy Zimmer and Leo Darnell. Charlene Tebow. Tebow, Joe Bowman and Pat Devore. And Amy Zimmer. You can begin your remarks. Thank you. Good evening, council members. My name is Amy Zimmer. I am a member of the Denver Landmark Preservation Commission. The commission is made up of historians and architects who are qualified to determine the historic and architectural significance of potential landmark structures. The Commission held a public hearing on October 6th, 2015. Hearing lasted nearly 4 hours and included testimony from approximately 35 individuals. The majority of those testifying in favor of designation were nearby neighbors whose own property would be directly impacted by this development. While those most of those testifying against the designation were more developers and business persons, many of whom who supplied addresses outside of the city and county of Denver. Further, the Landmark Preservation Commission questioned a petition submitted by the developer, Mr. Adams, which include mostly names from outside of Denver or even Colorado. While the applicant submitted a petition with over 200 names of signatures from people who lived in Jefferson Park and the Highlands area, the Denver Landmark Preservation Commission is tasked with to turn, determining whether the property under review meets at least two of several criteria outlined under the categories of history, architecture and geography. The Commission found that the Anderson House did indeed meet two such criteria, including history Part C direct association with a person or persons who has had influence on society. This is clearly met by William Anderson's association with Bonfils and Tillman, owners of the Denver Post. While Anderson's association with Alfred Packer may be negligible, his association with Bonfils and Hammon is indisputable. And those men, as owners of the newspaper, clearly had a direct influence on society. Landmark Commission also agreed that the Anderson House meets criterion under architectural significance, which is that it embodies distinguishing characteristics of an architectural style or type. This home is an excellent example of the Queen Anne style, especially as it was adapted to Denver. The home also retains its historic integrity with numerous original architectural details. And I also want to point out that the packet that was passed out to you earlier this evening was also passed out to the Landmark Commission. And the examples cited by the developer of Queen Anne's in the neighborhood were actually determined by the commission not to in many cases, not to actually be quite Nance. Finally, although it was not specified in the application during deliberations, several commission members also noted that the House would have qualified for geographic. Significance for being prominently sited in a well-known structure in the neighborhood. We have heard a lot of prop about property rights this evening. So I ask you to please keep in mind the property rights of neighbors whose property will be directly affected by the act, by the development of the site. And more importantly, I ask you to please vote in keeping with the recommendations of the historians and architects who make up the Denver Landmark Preservation Commission and designate the Anderson House as a landmark to preserve this link with Denver's colorful past in a neighborhood that is quickly losing all traces of its history. Thank you. Thank you, Lee O'Donnell. Good evening. My name is Leo Darnell. I live at. 3536 Stewart Street in northwest Denver. I'm in Council District one. I'm the assistant dean of. The College of Architecture and Planning at the University of Colorado, Denver. I'm a member of the American Institute of Architecture. I'm also a trainer. I also am trained in study urban design. I would like to encourage. The council to designate the Anderson home. As a structure for landmark. Status. I'm here to speak to you. About why it is important to save historic and specifically this historically significant home. In part delivers a remarkable city because of its collection of unique city neighborhoods. And I've had the fortune to live in several neighborhoods, including. Congress, Park, Ballpark, Rhino and now Highlands. Each neighborhood has a unique vibe and a distinct sense of place. Think how different. Capitol Hill is from LoDo. Both are exceptional places. However, when you're in Capitol Hill, you know you're not in LoDo or Walsh Park. The buildings are different. The streets and the people are different. These neighborhoods were built at different times and often for different purposes. Denver is currently. Experiencing a boom in development. This is a great thing for our region for many reasons. For example, more people have jobs. The real estate market is thriving and architects are working again. That being said, it appears that our haste to build more housing we are jeopardizing one thing that makes Denver a great city to live and work in. We are losing the once. Distinct, unique qualities of. Our neighborhood. Much of the multifamily housing being built or. Recently built. Has no contextual relationship to the neighborhoods they are being built in. The same buildings that are going up in Jefferson Park are going up and low. High. And the Golden Triangle. Are also going up in Dallas, Phenix, Houston and Tampa. I believe this is destroying the sense of place as a distinct neighbor, as distinct neighborhoods that have long been inherent to Denver. I'm not anti-development or growth. I want to see neighborhoods embracing smart growth mixed with buildings that speak. To our history. I understand the city's. Neighborhood plan for Jefferson Park and the other area of change called out around the park for new development. However, I have heard many times Jefferson Park wants to save some of its historical structures. The Anderson. House is one of. The extraordinary well preserved homes or could be. That gives Jefferson Park a sense of. Place and needs to be preserved. I live in a similar house. That is one of the original structures in my neighborhood. I bought it because it contributes to the sense of place that is a collection of buildings that represent my neighborhood. In following this preservation story. I understand the homeowner of Jefferson Park wants to sell to a developer who would move, remove that the historic home and build multifamily family housing. I think this would be a huge loss for the park, the neighborhood and for Denver. I believe there's there there is another option that would allow. Him to make similar money on the Anderson House without destroying it. Mr. Darnell, you're here. 3 minutes is up. Thank you. Thank you. Charlene. Thibault. And you have 6 minutes. Good evening, members of council. I'm Charlene Tebo. I reside at 1475 Monaco Parkway. And I am here this evening to ask you to please support the designation of 2329 Elliot, known to all of you as the Anderson House, Mr. Sunlight and his house. But to me it is known as Barbara and Fred's house. My sister and her husband purchased the home in 1974 when Jefferson Park was an extremely blighted area. The home was a boarding home, and we all we were just pretty dumbfounded that Barbara and Fred purchased this home. But when you got into the home, which I do have pictures of, that they restored, you could see the beautiful architecture behind these boarded up walls, the impeccable foundation of the home. It is it far surpasses anything that you will see in modern structures. The retaining wall that most of you have seen in some of the pictures, my sister and her husband never had to alter or repair that retaining wall. That in itself speaks to the foundation of the home. But more than anything, from 1974 until my sister's death in 1987, she lovingly, along with her husband, restored this home to its natural beauty. They did so without contractors. They did this of their own volition, not to ensure that the integrity was kept and which they did do. Barbara wanted to do. She wanted to have the home. She actually had applied for a historic designation, but because of her diagnosis of cancer, was not able to follow through. My former brother in law is the one that sold to Mr. John Lightner in 1989 when he remarried. If my sister was alive today, she would still be in the home. It would have its historic designation and we would not be in this lengthy proceeding this evening. I ask you with all urgency, please, not in the memory of my sister, but what is right for our history to preserve this home. When Barbara was going to get the historic designation. I remember her telling me, she goes, Sure. Do you know that the the attorney for Alfred Packer owned this home? And I said, Wow, Barbara. I said, That's amazing. I said, Well, you know, C.U. has named their cafeteria after Alfred Packer. And she goes, Yeah, she said, So I'm going to seek historic designation for it. And to this is not this is nothing gruesome in our history. It's just history. Would we would we tear down the Ford Theater because Abraham Lincoln was shot there? No. And right down to in Philadelphia, there is an annual festival there. And they have a tent. And this tent is entitled the Alfred Parker Memorial Dining Hall Serving Humanity since 1874. So this is far reaching, not in just the city of Denver or even the state of Colorado, but this is known nationwide. And it's also it has also I'm sorry, it gets a little motivational, but this has created the dialog citywide as well. I have a resident from Windsor Gardens, Linda Hargrave, who wrote a letter to council saying last summer I volunteered. This is in part last summer. I volunteer that this historic Denver slash discover Denver booth at a community fair in Jefferson Park, an area of the city that I was not familiar with. I was very impressed with the number of Jefferson Park residents who stopped by our booth to share information about their historic Jefferson Park properties and to express their enthusiasm and support for historic preservation in their neighborhood. Many of them also expressed their deep concern about massive redevelopment projects currently underway in Jefferson. Some park that have already resulted in the demolition of numerous historic properties and is changing the character of entire neighborhood blocks. Again, I go back to 1974 and this was not the popular thing to do, but my sister saw what history meant and what it means to this city, and this is why we need to preserve this home. And in the testimony that I have heard, it sounds like there are many alternatives to preserving the home plus moving forward with development. I ask you, city council, please do designate not the Anderson house, but Barbara Fred's house as historic designation. Thank you. Thank you. Joe Bowman. Hello. My name is Joe. My name is Joseph. By then I have lived at 2643 West 23rd Avenue in Jefferson Park since 27. Longtime listener, first time caller. I'm a former vice president of Jefferson Park, and other neighbors work closely with developers as a member of the Land Use Committee around the newsletter for a number of years . I also recently worked to enhance property rights through legislation in Colorado. I have no direct financial stake in the outcome of this hearing today. However, I live in and have a stake in the future of the community. I'm asking you to preserve this home not just for myself, but to maintain an important landmark in history for the future of my neighborhood and city. And I'm going to go ahead and I'm going to take a quick step and repeat a little bit of what people said. But I want to say this. There are many landmark properties in Colorado that remind remind us the story is important or that our story is important to remember but not flattering of our past. Ludlow's Stone Creek Camp, M.A. Even the opium riots where numerous Asian Americans died in Denver, or all stories we must keep so that we do not repeat our past mistakes. However, the Andersen house is not one of those stories. It is the story of a man who caught who was caught in a small stream of events, was targeted by the social elite, and saw his life transformed into a hammer used to purge corruption from Denver courts. I also want to just note that the developer who has already brought forward this alternative option has talked with Ken Brewer at CPD and they verified that 15 units are possible in the property as area after area of Denver is renamed and their story is retold. We are quickly losing the story as a tie as to the character that many have come here seeking. Celebra, rhino, LoDo, Lodi, Uptown, Midtown, Ballpark. All of these names have been coined to reshape the past of neighbor of a neighborhood and the zoning crafted to prime it for change. But even in these places, landmarking has been a tool to connect a new generation of Denver sites to the good, the bad, the ugly inspiring of Denver's rich cultural heritage. Whether it's Matty Silk's brothel, the Molly Brown house, the Quail Chase House, and Thomas Hornsby Feral House, both similar in stature to what we ask, what we are asking today, or the William W Anderson House. These homes preserve the stories of our neighborhoods and our culture so that they are not only not forgotten, but can serve as lessons for the future. The Anderson House represents a true story, not of a tycoon we glorify for achievements while whitewashing their business practices, but of a well-known lawyer who found himself influencing the upper echelon of society after a dispute with the Denver Post owners that led to his becoming a symbol of a middle class disgruntled by corruption in the court systems. Jefferson Park residents have likely had more development going on in their backyard than most Denver sites have experienced. They have worked closely with developers to try and make it a welcome addition to our community. Unfortunately, as we have heard, the development company in this instance has shut down lines of communication instead of committing to them. It is equally unfortunate that its actions to force and Stack of Japan has compel the board to rewrite its bylaws , designed in part by myself believing in the magnanimity of people. Luckily, the applicants have worked to find a solution that is a win win win for the community owner and potential developer for this home. Much as we have done in the past. The deal creates a sizable payment to the owner, allows for increased density for the city, revenue potential for a developer, and preserves the community's past and character. How this company chose to communicate it could have been part of the solution. Was Anderson perfect? No. Did he take the law into his own hands? One columnist said. So is his story and his influence on individuals a power important to Denver? Yes. William W Anderson was well known in Denver before his run in with the publisher The Denver Post. But story became legend, the target of yellow journalism after its argument with the Denver Post owners over his brief power of attorney with Alfred Packard led to a shooting of them in what a jury called self-defense. In a subsequent trial that led to a Supreme Court case, a grand jury hearing and the eventual conviction of one post owner. A magistrate and the court bailiff for bribing the jury against him. As you have heard. This story was covered in the local national papers over three years and helped purge corruption from the West Denver courts and reframe the perception of the city as one of law and order. That is a story verifiable through any impartial historian you might put on the task. The Landmark Commission, a panel of real historians and architects, have approved this designation and been adamant that the architect architecture fits undeniably the criteria. Members of the Commission have commented the story is as good as any in Denver, and they even opined on whether to take time to also use geography to designate it. John Olson. Tom Noel. Thomas Carr, who is the senior staff archeologist at History, Colorado. Mark Barn. Joel Judge Dennis Gallagher, Brad Evans, Michael Kiley, David Zucker. And over 400 Denver residents have asked have asked for this designation and believe that it has. Value in the home and its history to the community, the economy and the people of Denver. Today, there are two options on the table for city council to vote on. One is created by a company that invested in a zero sum game to maximize its profits at the expense of all parties involved. The other is a Nash equilibrium, a deal brokered with the Jefferson Park residents, current owner, potential developer and all residents in mind that maximizes the benefits to the location's future homeowners and all members of Denver community. We, the residents of Jefferson Park of District One and the Denver metro area supporting this landmark would ask you to choose a second option. By doing so, you will preserve an important landmark only the second in the works town of Highland. You will ensure our story, a story that recalls a city of near lawlessness in battle with yellow journalism and corruption that, through a series of nationally publicized events, changed the city and the perception of it is not forgotten. While Los Alamos Development LLC will likely mean a tax write off with a loss to our community if this property is not designated will be irreparable. Please choose to preserve 2329 Elliott the William Anderson house as the landmark of. Denver's past approving your 6 minutes. Thank you. Very much. Thank you. Last speaker, Pat Gaither. I apologize for the fact and you have said you have 6 minutes as well. Well, I won't need 6 minutes because a lot of everything that's been said is in what I was going to say. I Pat Duffy, 29th and Raleigh Street. I'm a 38 year resident of Northwest Denver, and we're in our second home. We have chosen to live in northwest Denver. A lot of it is because of the history and the character that our neighborhood has. I have with me a book that a lot of people in our neighborhood own. It's Rediscovering Northwest Denver, Its History, Its People, Its Landmarks. By Ruth Louise Lieber. Lieber. She has passed away, but she grew up in this community and wrote about many of the of the spectacular homes and and spectacular places in our community. She has a whole three pages about the story that you've already heard. But one of the last paragraph, the grand jury did not find them guilty of bribery. And a third trial was ordered for Anderson at that one. The jury, obviously influenced by the publicity, as well as the deviousness of in the previous two cases, acquitted him. And Anderson continued to live his respectable life in his tall house, on the tall hill until his death. This this book isn't a marked today. Houses that have disappeared from northwest Denver. All of these marks. So we hope that that this is not a house that we're going to lose. The history and the story. Rediscovering Northwest Denver. Ruth Ruth Weaver says, I have long been interested in the history of the northwest sector of the city where I have lived since I was about ten years old, when I would fantasize about the intriguing houses I passed on my way to Edison's school. I have come to some conclusions on the completion of this book, which was written in the mid-seventies. The first is obvious that Northwest Denver is a rare treasury of Victorian and turn of the century houses still well-loved and well-kept. The only problem I have tried to present is the one a preservation of the traditions, the homes, the trees, gardens, views, beauty and pride that make up northwest Denver. Much of this history and the older homes is why my husband and I chose Northwest. Denver's our home. Please learn the Anderson House to be landmarks so that your grandkids can see what made this area so special. Once torn down, it is gone forever. Like the yellow markers in this book. Thank you for your time. Thank you. That concludes our speakers. Now time for questions and members of council and colleagues. I would just ask that we focus on the questions and not bleed over to comments. There will be an opportunity for comments later on. Councilwoman can eat you up. Thank you, Mr. President. I have two questions. I'm guessing the first many of my colleagues are wondering about. We've heard several opinions about what's possible in this site. Did by any chance CPD themselves weigh in on that question? I. Barbara Stockman, Steely. This is kind of zoning on the fly. So I did go over during the speakers and talk to one of the zoning planners who's working late tonight. And it's hard to speculate on a prospective project that's not in front of you. But this site has GMU three you oh three zoning. There is a requirement in that zoning for a 50 foot wide zone lot at the street and a build to requirement for 60% of the front of the of the building to be within 10 to 20 feet. So. So if the property the property is currently proposed to be developed as one zone lot. So if it continued to be developed as one zoned lot, there would not be an issue with the 50 foot minimum with the build to perhaps would be an issue. There is some compensation in the zoning for a block sensitive setback. There's also some provisions for bill to through the administrative adjustment which may or may not apply here depending on the requirements. There's also a historic preservation hardship in the zoning. And then, of course, there would be variances. And a historic preservation designation is a very typical hardship case. At the Board of Adjustment, we often go to the Board of Adjustment, write letters to the Board of Adjustment, supporting those cases. That's probably the best information that I could provide. But we often see cases where there are variances for historic properties to accommodate development, and this could be a case that would meet that. That is very helpful. Thank you. My second question is for legal. One of the speakers mentioned that there was a higher standard of extraordinary importance for non owner applications. I've been combing the ordinance. I find one reference to extraordinary and it's an in or statement just in the criteria. I don't find the reference mentioned by one of speakers. So I want to ask our attorneys, is there indeed a higher standard for non owner designated in the statute or in may be in case law that I can't see in front of me that would would comport with the statement that was made. Adam Hernandez Assistant City Attorney Councilwoman You're correct. The only reference to extraordinary, I believe, is in the history criteria where it states to have historical civic significance. The structure or district shall be 30 years, 30 or more years old, or have extraordinary importance to the historical development of Denver and Shell. And then it lists three criteria underneath there. And no, there is not a higher threshold for non owner. Initiated designations. And that extraordinary. I just want to clarify, I heard you correctly that it's in or it's not in and criteria has to be one of those or the other. Not both necessarily. Correct. Okay. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you. Councilman Kenny G. Councilman Cashman. Thank you, Mr. President. Nathan Adams. If I can ask you a couple of questions, please. So just to be clear, if we were to choose to designate this property, would you develop? Would I develop around the existing home. With it and around it? I would not. I've vetted the zoning. And contrary to what Barbara has stated, the property would be designated historic with its own zoned lot. The remainder of frontage would be 36 feet. You need a minimum of 50 feet of width to do any semblance of build form outside of an urban house or a duplex or an accessory dwelling unit. We show that really clearly on page ten of the book that was handed out. And the other question is, and this Levinsky from Historic Denver mentioned that you are unwilling to meet with them. What is that correct? We had a conversation via phone. She had talked about potential compromises. I even went so far as to offer her that if they would like the house after I purchased it, they'd be welcomed to the home. It wasn't designated or proposed to be designated on its geographical significance. She told me really clearly that would be of no interest and I opted not to have a meeting. Okay. Is there anyone here from the CPD that can, given which version of the zoning might be correct? Right. Hi. I'm Barbara Stockman Seeley, principal planner and CPT for Landmark Preservation. There's no requirement that a historic property be a separate zone lot. And we've we review projects all the time that have historic buildings with larger construction on the back. So I'm not really clear on what the. That there wouldn't be a zoning requirement for it to be a separate zone. So I'm confused by that. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Cashman. Councilman Ortega. Barbara, if you could just come back. So that was my question about whether the historic designation would in any way, shape or form hinder the development site from being one's own lot. I mean, if you wanted to separate it out and sell it separately, then it would need to be a separate lot. But if you were going to incorporate it into the development into one project, it would be one sunlight. So as if it was only be closed with the two properties adjacent to one another. And the notwithstanding the amendment that we did last week, this would still. Allow it to be one. Zone. Correct. That's my understanding, yes. Any clarification on that from the city attorney? So I'm unclear right now if this property is currently one zone lot four 2329 Eliot, and then the adjacent property is another zone lot. My understanding that a. Parcel or. An owner can always come in for a zone lot amendment. Granted, it would have to meet the requirements of the zoning code in order to to have a valid zone lot of amendment there are. You could go through a variance process if it did not meet certain criteria. But as Barbara stated. I don't believe just because a. Structure is designated that would. Preclude any sort of. Zone lot of amendment on. The property. So Adam, in your experience with the Board of Adjustment Process, is there typically greater, I don't know, leniency, I guess, for lack of a better word, for historic properties? I would say there's there's not one way or the other. I would just say that there is an actual specific criteria for a variance dealing with historic properties. And I think by analogy, it's kind of easier to explain if if a house was in a historic district and. The zoning limited the height to, you know, theoretically 25 feet. But the context of the district had houses at like 50 feet. That could be a criteria for a variance in addition to all the rest of the criteria that variance needs to satisfy. And I just have one last question for you, Barbara. What is the height limitation under the current zoning for this these two properties or this particular property? 40 feet. Okay. Thank you. I have no further questions. Thank you. Councilwoman Ortega. Councilwoman Sussman. Thank you, Mr. President. Is. Is Mr. Garcia still here? He's not. Oh. Well, my question would be only able to be answered by him, so I guess I don't have a question. Thank you, Councilman Sussman and Councilman Black. So I have a question for our city attorney. I believe in the ordinance. The city council is charged with an additional criteria, which is to look at the owner's wishes. Is that correct? That is correct. It might be helpful just if. I was to read a city council's criteria. Right now it's in. Section 30, Dash 510 action by City Council upon receipt of the recommendations transmitted by the Preservation Commission. The City Council may, by ordinance, designate property as a structure for preservation or a district for preservation. Due consideration shall be given to the written views of owners of affected property, and the City Council shall hold public hearings on any proposed structure for preservation or district for preservation designation. Thank you. Can I ask two more questions? I'm wondering in the Jefferson Park neighborhood how I think I've heard it reference that there's only one house in the neighborhood that is designated right now. And I'm just wondering, with all the interest in this house, are other people applying for designation in the neighborhood, Barbara? Have you had applications from other homeowners in Jefferson Park? We have not had other applications. And is it true there's just one at the moment in Jefferson Park that has been designated? That's correct. Thank you. And I have one final question. Is someone here from the Jefferson Park Neighborhood Association? Yes. Oh, and we didn't hear about the the vote of the neighborhood association. And I know that in the report that Barbara did, it mentioned reaching out to a number of neighborhood organizations. Right. I'd be glad to explain that. Oh. Let's see. It was September. What was it, Nathan? What was the date? September. You know the date. September 8th, I believe. Tuesday night we had a a normal board meeting and, uh, Mr. Adams had, has brought his cohorts from his business office to attend all of that. See, there were nine votes. There are seven votes that are opposed. And those seven votes all had addresses of 28, 99, I guess it's 29th Avenue. Uh, that's a rather small office. And from our perspective, well, these people were also l l and the truth be known is that they didn't represent the neighborhood. And so Mr. Adams here at the very last minute called for a vote. In fact, he forced a vote in which nine people voted in opposition. Seven people voted to abstain. And I'm one of those I'm a board member and we are all board members. The reason that we abstained is because the board had made a decision that we did not want to have this conflict coming into business. So we all abstained. And so the fact is that there were a total of nine votes who voted in opposition to historic preservation. Now, what has transpired since then is that the Jefferson Park Board has signed it necessary to consult with the city attorney to tighten up our regulations. And on the front page of the Jefferson Park News, the last one for November. It states specifically that we're going to go to a vote for the specific purpose of avoiding a developer, stacking a deck with his employees and voting in opposition to what the interest is of the general neighborhood. Now, the people who are really considered to be voting members are residents, businesses. This did not represent a clean vote. This represented and then they paid lation of a vote. Anything else? And Mr. Booth is Mr. else. And could you say your name for the record? Yes. Sorry. Did you say your name for the record? Did you say your name for the record, sir? Just as you answer the question, we just needed you to state your name again for the record. Oh. Yeah. Sorry. Yeah. Jerry Olson. Yep. That's me. Okay. I'm not sure if it's relevant, but why didn't you go revisit the vote if you felt like it wasn't fair? Oh, yes. As a matter of fact, there was a very large meeting that the board called for our last general membership meeting, and we must have had 50 to 75 people present. Now, all the voting members voted to continue the vote until December, but we were thrilled, actually, that we got 50 to 75 people present at the station, and now we can begin a good dialog with people in the neighborhood, and then we'll go ahead and finalize revisions to the voting rules in Jefferson Park. Yeah. Jason. Okay, thank you. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Thank you. Councilwoman Black. Councilman Flynn. Thank you, Mr. President. Had a one question for maybe zoning or for legal. I'm not sure who can answer it, but the bill that we're voting on says that this is a bill for an ordinance designating 2323 West 23rd Avenue, formally addressed as 2329 Elliot Street. When did the address change? And when I was doing my round of. You can answer this or Adam. When I was researching this, I discovered that no longer in the assessor's record is there a 2329 Elliott Street? It doesn't appear any more, although I can click on it and pull it up. And there is no 23, 23 West 23rd Avenue address in the city. That's over when 23rd becomes Water Street. How? Why does it have this address? It's nowhere near the house. I can't really answer why it has that address. I just know that partway through this process, and I believe it was after the city council approved the alley abandonment that the assessor records showed all of the parcels combined with a new address. Okay, Adam, what is the impact of us saying if we were to approve this designating 23, 23, West 23rd Avenue, which is nowhere near this building, if you look in the bill. It actually gives a legal description, which would be the actual designation. And as Barbara said, I think it's just that the addresses have not been updated as a result of, you know, elimination processes. Under our street, numbering our address, numbering convention. This could not be 2323 Mar 23rd. So that's my goofy question of the night and I'm a little uncomfortable going forward with with uncertainty on that. Mr. President. But my second question, I think is for the woman from the Lamar Commission, was it Amy Zimmer? I know you had represented that you did not believe it was. I don't know if this is your opinion or the landmark commission, but that the houses on River Drive actually typified Queen Anne. And I'm looking at all the pictures. And just as during the testimony, I called up your website, the commission website, and I discovered that the Queen Anne Bed and breakfast on Tremont Street, which is in the Clement's historic district, which is a dominant queen and Italianate style district, that those houses and the Queen Anne bed and breakfast itself do look like all these houses on River Drive. So I'm wondering why you would tell us that, that you didn't believe that the river drive homes look like Queen Anne's? Sure. It's possible that the packet you have has been updated since the one that we were presented at our landmark hearing. But the one that we were presented with had a number of houses not only on River Drive, which, yes, is many Queen Anne's, but also just around the neighborhood in various parts of Jefferson Park. And they included everything from Denver squares to classic cottages, neither of which are Queen Anne's. And the developer was representing those as examples of Queen Anne's around Jefferson Park, not necessarily River Drive, but around the neighborhood. That's fair. Thank you. Because I did drive River Drive during my research into this. And I did know that there are a lot of different styles on that street, but there are certainly a number of Queen Anne's. Yes, there are. Queen Anne's on River Drive. River Drive is not designated historic right now. Okay. Thank you. And what impressed me about that was that these all look more like Queen Anne's than the William Anderson House. The the commission did determine, including the expert advice or opinions of the architects and the historians on the commission, that the Anderson House is indeed a Queen Anne style. Okay. And do you know who Queen Anne was? We've been talking about it all night. I just thought maybe. Yes. A somebody who has absolutely nothing to do with Denver. Okay. I just another name on the stuff. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman. Thank. Councilman Flynn. Councilman New. Amy, could you let me ask you one question, please? A reverend I represent over. Here you. I. Represent Denver District ten, and we have just the largest percentage of historic homes and districts in all of Denver. And I all during my campaign. And I just had the wonderful opportunity to travel and walk through all these neighborhoods and talk to a lot of the property owners. And they convince me that their property values were significantly enhanced by historic preservation designation and it did not decrease. And I just wondered if that's the experience that the Landmark Commission has. That historic designation does increase property value and does not decline in property value. Yes, that is correct. We have found numerous examples where the historic designation does indeed increase the property value. This covers for several reasons, including the cachet of having a landmarked structure, and also because the error also occurs because designated structures or structures that are contributing to historic districts are required to go undergo design review under the Denver Landmark Commission. And this often results in them having better design and design that that is often more better thought out than properties that do not undergo that design review, which can add to the property value. All right. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. Councilman. Any other questions from the council? Seen none. That concludes the public hearing. Now, moving on to comments and I will just say, colleagues, recognizing that we have another public hearing and a impending blizzard coming. If we could just take the opportunity, if you could be succinct, that would be great. If not, feel free. It's your privilege. I just want to put that out there. Councilman Flynn, you're up. Thank you. We could filibuster and wait out the blizzard if you know, that could be another choice. Thank you. I think by far the most interesting thing that I learned through all this and is that no one ever told me in my 35 years as a newspaper journalist that I could shoot an editor and be acquitted. So I see John Murray furiously taking notes on that. But other than that, I have to say that I am I am completely unimpressed with the case for designating this property. I believe that it fails on both criteria that the Commission recommended. The facts are that this House, not Mr. Anderson, but this House and Mr. Anderson, in fact, has they have no direct or substantial association with any person who had any influence on society at all. Mr. Anderson was not Alfred Packer's lawyer. He was a 48 hour fraud down in Canyon City. He never filed a document. He never represented Mr. Packer. None of the events in the story. Very interesting story. None of the events took place on his property. It's interesting to me that if that if Mr. Anderson's house is worthy of landmarking because of this episode, this brief episode, Endeavor's history, the home of the key figure whose being shot gave rise to this. His house still stands and his house is not a Denver landmark. Harry Tavern's house still sits on Humboldt Street. It's in the Humboldt Island historic district. But it itself is not a a landmark. The house next door is but not Harry Truman's house. Why are we designating the house of the man who shot him when his house and he's a much more important figure in Denver isn't designated the support for this. I just think it's exceedingly thin. It doesn't make it on architecture either. It is not even a remarkable example of Queen Anne's style. I struggled over this because it was it might be well known that during the campaign I had taken a position that I would be very reluctant to do to approve a designation of a landmark property without the owner's consent. And even though the ordinance doesn't require it, I personally would have a higher bar. I'm very relieved, learning that the ordinance doesn't establish that as a basis that I don't have to rely on a higher bar at all. If this were an application filed by Mr. Sun Lightner to designate his own House, I would be voting no on this. I just don't find that it that it meets any of those criteria. If we relied on the stories we heard tonight, there's probably no 30 year old structure in this city that we couldn't find some connection to somebody who lived there once who did something remarkable. Maybe even my own house, which is over 30 years old. So I think the best reason of all that the council has to back away from this dispute in North Denver, which I think goes beyond historic structures. And those issues has been given to us by the broker who found another potential buyer. Because there is. Allegedly another offer on the table and that there is no condition on this. It is not contingent on achieving landmark status. I think the best course of action for the Council is to turn this down and let the market decide, let the owner decide between these two between these two offers. I think the second offer definitely shows that Mr. Swan Leitner has choices and it's not dependent on landmark designation. On the other hand, if we approve the landmark designation, we are making that choice for the owner. We are telling him he cannot accept the first offer and he has to go with the second offer or look for others. And I don't think the strong arm of government should be used in this case. And with that, Mr. President, I think that's the summation of my remarks. Thank you, Councilman Flynn. Councilwoman Sussman. Thank you, Mr. President. And thank you. Councilman Flynn. That's an interesting take on on the second offer. I, too, am not particularly impressed with the idea of this hostile designation, as I had mentioned in committee. It's interesting that we want to designate the home of somebody who I now learned wasn't associated with a cannibal. Probably, but certainly that was associated with an attempted murder and. I think it was Mr. Soderbergh who mentioned very discreetly that we've had a lot of interest. We've had a lot of issues with shooters that are really very tragic. And the idea that we would historically designate the home of a shooter doesn't doesn't feel right in that any sense to me. We do designate the places where people were shot. I mean, we have the San Creek massacre. We don't honor the home of the people who shot them. We honor the place where they died. The Ludlow Massacre. I think Mrs. Thibeault mentioned the Ford Theater, the places where people might have died. When I mention this question committee, the city person said, Well, he wasn't successful. And I thought, Well, is that the new criteria? We can designate the place of a person who tried to shoot somebody but wasn't successful. It just didn't seem right to me. And what else does it seem right to me? As I have great respect for the Landmark Preservation Society in the historic Denver Historic Society, but actually learning for the first time tonight that the connection with Alfred Parker is unknown and kind of loose and not too sure and maybe could make. And yet, in the document that the LPC recommends for historic status, it says, Let me just try to find this. Anderson's association with Alfred Packer is interesting and significant historically. It seems like if it can't even be discerned what his relationship was. That's perhaps. A little bit. Overstated that it was significant historically when we're not even sure what the what it was. I heard so many people tonight speaking very passionately about historic pieces of property, and I understand that. But I heard more often a fear of development. And it it also. It it resounded with me. That historic designation is important, but it shouldn't be done just to keep development out. That's why I was going to ask Mr. Garcia the question. I'm sorry. I just wanted to clear up. But he did say that he'd lose parking for his property if this project were to go through. And I wondered, is was that the reason why he became one of the people who filed? He even said at the end that he was against this project, which was a little unclear to me. But I assume that what he means that it was against he is against the development but did not speak at all about the his history. I heard people say often that they spoke against development or neighborhood is overrun with developers about how much money is happening. The neighborhood is under siege by developers there. It was a recurring theme that I hear and I can understand that you might want to unite, not want to lose something that you feel is historic . But I didn't hear that as often as I heard. We just didn't want this one this place developed so the are and they again though I think Councilman Flynn's idea that the offer is an interesting place that whether we designate it if we don't designate it, the owner can choose between the two. It was it was difficult for me to hear sort of real estate negotiations, which seemed to me to be such private matters, to be a matter of public discussion about what I will buy, what I won't buy, or whether I should take the offer. My neighbors think I should take this offer. My neighbors think I shouldn't take that offer. That just made me itch that my neighbors would discuss real estate negotiations that I was having at a club in a public forum. So I will be voting against historical designation. Thank you, Councilwoman Sussman. Councilwoman Canete. Thank you, Mr. President. I really appreciate it. Some of my colleagues comments. But I, I think I want to go to the statute. My my former colleague, Jenny Raab, taught me a lesson, which is to always go back to the statute. And so I want to be really clear about the criteria I think we're evaluating before I comment on them. Folks have raised this word significant, and I just want to be very clear. The ordinance does not require that the individual have a significant influence on society, only that there's a substantial association between the person and the property . Right. He lived in the house for many, many years. He owned the house for many, many years. So substantial association, I think is fairly established. The question then is with a person who had influence on society, that part of the ordinance does not state substantial, just says influence. So an influence doesn't even say positive, could be negative, could be questionable as we're experiencing tonight. So so I just want to be really clear that the ordinance doesn't require that there be a substantial influence. And I feel like many of the speakers tonight imply that that was a criteria. So that's why I went there. Secondly, distinguishing characteristic of an architectural style doesn't say extraordinary, doesn't say best in class. So so I think the ordinance sets a little bit lower bar than I heard, with all due respect. And I heard my colleague evaluating it and then I heard some of the speakers wanting us to evaluate it on. So then my question becomes, does it meet those criteria? And then there's the question of taking into account the owners views. So, so that's where I'm at in terms of the bar that I think is set. And in this regard to me, the case has been made that we really do have a case of an distinguishing characteristic. And one of the things that's interesting about anything historical is that the fewer there are of something, even if it was once ordinary, the more special it becomes, right? So there are many, many things at a certain point in time that are very typical. And then as they disappear, the few remaining specimens become more special to us in terms of their importance to reflecting a time. So for me, in fact, it's ordinariness or vernacular is is not at all a counterpoint to the potential that it is distinguishing characteristic style that we don't have everywhere all the time in Denver anymore because of change. I will say that although I did hear a little bit of anti-development sentiment tonight and I'm not one to I don't think anyone's really ever called me anti-development in my term here in the council, I tend to be pretty supportive of change. I tend to be pretty supportive of density. So but I the fact that I may have different views about development with some of the folks that are speaking or in the audience tonight doesn't mean that I change how I evaluate the criteria. So so for me, that's how I'm going through these standards. The last piece that I, you know, in terms of weighing this against the views of the of the owner, I do like Councilman Flynn mentioned, believe that there is a higher standard when you're dealing with someone's home. The last designation we had before us was a church, which I think is a different piece of civic, civic fabric. But when you're dealing with someone's home, I do think that it requires a higher standard. So, you know, looking through the materials and hearing the testimony, to me, what I did not hear is that this is an economically infeasible property to redevelop, and that is the language the ordinance use uses in other areas. It asks. In the review process. Is it economically infeasible to redevelop or reuse? And I did not hear either in the written testimony or in the spoken testimony tonight that it was infeasible. And so I regret the burden that that it's going to place. And I acknowledge the burden. But I also believe that there is this ordinance exists for the preservation of historic fabric in the city. So weighing those criteria, looking for, you know, a case to be made that it's not economically feasible, I did not find that. And so on that basis and and actually without considering the counteroffer, that's not in my opinion, that's not a piece of this right. Analysis. So that was not just for the record, not a part of my analysis. I will be voting to support designation tonight. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilwoman and Councilwoman Black. Thank you, Mr. President. I believe in historic preservation. Many of you may remember the magnificent Republic Building downtown. My grandfather was a dentist there for many decades, and that was a tragedy when that beautiful building was torn down. Thankfully, historic. Denver Dana Crawford. All the preservationists have worked hard to save some of our buildings, and I really appreciate the work they've done. But at the same time, I do believe in private property rights and to designate a structure without the owner's permission, I do believe a higher hurdle has to be cleared. The landmark preservation looked at the Andersen house and evaluated their criteria. We just learned that the ordinance charges City Council with the additional criteria of considering the owner's wishes. So in this case, the owner is opposed. And in reviewing the other criteria, I don't think that a strong case has been made. I, I agree with Councilman Flynn on that. The occupant did have some notoriety, but he didn't have an influence on society. And nothing significant happened in that house. I don't think it meets the higher hurdle that a hostile designation would require. I'm very sympathetic to the residents of Northwest Denver and their efforts to preserve this house. I think it would be great if the house was preserved. I understand their frustrations with the great changes in their neighborhoods. I've received dozens, I don't know, maybe hundreds of letters. And I've listened to the comments tonight. And as Councilwoman Sussman said, many of them have expressed their unhappiness with the development, but that is not a criteria for designation. Many of them have stated that the owner will not be harmed by the designation and that he will win no matter the outcome. I don't believe it's the community's role, nor the City Council's role to speak for the owner or to decide if he will be harmed or not, or to influence who he chooses to sell his property to. Many reference other successful landmark designations like Lower Downtown and the Molly Brown House. I just think the Anderson House dims in comparison and to curtail the owner's property rights. I think that the historical significance should be extraordinary, and in a close case, the owner's wishes should prevail. As council members, again, I think we need to be very careful about placing restrictions on private property. I am in favor of historic designation, just not the hostel's designation of this property. And no matter the income, the outcome tonight, I do hope that the House will be reconsidered and that the new owner will reach out to community members. Thank you. Thank you. Councilwoman Black. Councilman New? Yes. I'm neither a trained architect or a historian, and I really appreciate the professionalism and the talent on the landmark commission. And I really have to respect their work in upholding the ordinance on historic preservation. So I appreciate the three and a half hours that they do do due diligence for this application. I think that speaks highly of the professionalism and making sure that all sides are heard on on this important decision. I also have architect friends and a respected developer who I listen to as well, to have seen this house who understand the historic value of this house. So I do respect their professionalism and an opinion about this house. So to me, the historic story is interesting but is secondary to preserving the historic value of this home and a history of Denver. So I will support this designation. Tonight. And I think that there's what I've heard there can be a real win win situation with the homeowner and any new developer or this developer. I don't think the historic designation will erode the economic value of this home, and I think there will be both a win win situation. Thank you both. Thank you. Councilman there, Councilman Cashman. Thank you, Mr. President. I think I'll join in those that feel like the history of this particular designation is a tad thin. It's not the monumental story that would make this very simple. Let's see. I'll trust CPD's interpretation of the zoning. That this property can be adequately developed. While it may not be a spectacular queen and mansion of some sort. I don't think that we're here to worship extravagance or the wealthy. But to maintain a healthy connection to our past, I think is the purpose of this ordinance. I certainly expect that. What is there now at 2329, Elliott is probably a better representation of our past, far better than what will be developed without it. I'm not happy to hear, you know, with preservation of our past so important, such a critical element, no matter how you feel about this particular piece of property. I'm disappointed to hear that a developer was unwilling to sit down with historic Denver and fully discuss what options might be available. So I'm also comfortable while recognizing the importance of this property to the owner. I'm comfortable that there will be a positive outcome for the owner. So I'll be supporting designation as well. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Cashman. Councilwoman Ortega. Thank you, Mr. President. I also want to explain where I'm coming down on this. I've got 36 years of experience having dealt with the Jefferson Park neighborhood, having worked for Sal Carpio as the councilman, and then I represented that district and have continued to have interface and have seen significant change to not only Jefferson Park, but many of our Northwest neighborhoods, as we are seeing with many of our communities across the city. And I think when we have an opportunity like this where we can, in fact, preserve a structure that still provides the opportunity for the assemblage as one's own lot for development activity to occur, I see that as a win win for the neighborhood and a win win for the property owner. I think the. The fact that historic properties and I was involved with, you know, the the Baker historic designation, the Jefferson Park, I mean, Potter Highlands historic designation, the lower downtown historic designation. I, I know those are larger, you know, community wide designations, but all of those resulted in significant increases in property values to those communities. And we have seen that happen with other single homes that have been done in various communities across the city, including many of our school buildings that this body had been asked to to preserve and protect. And, you know, notwithstanding all of the testimony that we had tonight, I do want to thank everybody for coming and sharing their point of view on all sides. I think this designation is warranted. I will be supporting it tonight and appreciate the work that everybody has done on on both sides to share your thoughts and comments via email and just by being here tonight. But I think this is one where, as someone said, the neighborhood plan speaks to the internal fabric of the neighborhood trying to be preserved. You know, this neighborhood has seen significant density increases on the edges of the community. And I have seen the Jefferson Park community embrace that development that has come in. And it has created the opportunity for some additional amenities to be added to the neighborhood. So the fact that the opportunity still exists for development to occur, I think, again, this can be a win win for both sides. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Ortega. Councilman Lopez, I don't see your name up, but this point you want to weigh in? I think there's a conspiracy. I kept pushing. It doesn't show. Go ahead. I'm just kidding. I first of all, I wanted to thank folks for coming out tonight. You know, I think we've seen times where you've seen these chambers completely lopsided or absolutely empty. When you see something like this, I am going to also are in the side. I think this is this is kind of a stretch when we're looking at the historic designation. And in it it sucks because I'm very, very familiar with a lot of the challenges in Northwest Denver. Councilman Espinoza and I share a boundary on Colfax, and I travel up Irving and I see home after home after home for sale. And in their stead, I see shoeboxes, gray shoeboxes, with maybe a little splash of blue. And they are indeed very concerning and they are a threat to the neighborhood character. I do see a redlining of certain neighborhoods where people live. I see a red lining right where you look at demographics, where people of color live and where people of color don't care for folks living where they don't and their property values and how they access that. I think that there is a huge problem with an overdevelopment in northwest Denver. And but I don't think this is the tool in which we fight it. And let me tell you why, because regardless of what this house becomes, historic or not, there are still a whole bunch of families who do not live in historic houses that can't afford and won't be able to afford to stay in northwest Denver unless they're able to get some kind of loan to access that capital that they now have. Because if they don't, somebody walk in, knocking on the door, offering 200 grand, it's going to look awfully good to pay off all the all that debt. So if they did survive the recession and held on to their homes and have lasted as long as they have, they may not have a home that is eligible for historic designation. So what happens then? What happens to those folks? How we fight gentrification is not necessarily in a historic designation. And, you know, here's here's the issue for me that that that's a big one. And in that and it also doesn't sit right that our colleague who represents this district is an it can't be here and he can't be here for a reason of ethics. And he chose not to do that. And I honor that. I think there's there's a lot to be said there, however, that cause remains. And I think that we have to address it. This is not the way we address it. And it hurts to say that. It absolutely hurts to say that. But to call this house historic is a stretch for me. And also because we have to have a standard in terms of what we're deeming historic. I mean, go on by saying that. Do we remember Leonard? Do we remember Chapman? I remember John Lennon, right? I don't care where Chapman lived. I don't care where his house is in Fort Worth, Texas. But I do care about everything that John Lennon produced. Right now, I'm not comparing the two. But here's another problem in how we designate history in our city. We have a whole neighborhood named after a clans leader. That does not sit well with me. That doesn't sit well with a lot of people in this city. But guess what? It's historic. We have streets in this city, in this in this very city named after people who carried scalps of our ancestors down there. And as a matter of fact, the governor at the time that was cool was shaving ten. The largest mountain we see right here in the front range is named after him. So we have to be very careful in how we honor and who we honor. Now, I don't believe that this Anderson was a revolutionary, somebody that that was worthy of of historic designation, who had a great impact in this city. I don't. Now, do I agree with yellow journalism and maybe some of the shady things that those characters did at The Denver Post at the time? No. I would name after much after that either. But in order for us to create this this city and and these neighborhoods in something, we have to send a message of what we aspire to be, what we aspire to do, and how that history is remembered. I think it's a stretch. That doesn't mean that that the folks who came to the podium and they don't know their stuff or that that for them it's not worthy. It's just for me that that that sits really wrong in my stomach. And I think, you know, I think Councilman Espinoza understands the priorities as part of Denver. He is the elected official in this part of Denver. And I think this is a challenge that is beyond. Like I said, it goes beyond a historic designation on one home. There are thousands if not, I mean, hundreds, if not thousands of folks who are struggling to hang on. And they may not have a house that's historic. And I think last but not least, I think this. Jim, I your stand up guy is somebody who works so hard. And, you know, if there's anything I can relate to is everything I have, everything I worked for is in my home. You best believe it. Everything I've worked for is in my home. I would hate to not be able to to use that one day. Right. Especially if I didn't have a good retirement account here or there. I work with my hands all my life. I mean, that's that's I know that's my grandparents. Investment is their home. This does not nothing historic. It's historic to me, but not to the city. But I know that's everything and the only thing they got. And so having said that, you know, I although I do understand the struggle that we faced in the west and northwest Denver, this is not the answer or the time for it. So I will be voting no on this one. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman Lopez. Councilwoman, can you speak again? Thank you, Mr. President. I'll be very brief. Reasonable minds can really disagree on this, and I think that's apparent. Regardless of which side folks fell on, it's it's a pretty close call. And so because you don't have a district councilman here tonight, I just felt like it was important to end this by saying that although designation I'm doing the math, it's it's not going to happen tonight. There are choices and I'm disappointed the developer didn't want to hear the choices being presented by CPD. But there's at least two choices that could be pursued here in terms of, I should say to the owner, since you haven't closed yet, but you could combine this zone lot and do a number of units. You could also ask for a variance. So there are paths to still save this house even without designation, and I hope that you will pursue or consider those while maximizing your options. That is your choice when you walk away from this meeting. And I just want to appreciate the respectful dialog among my colleagues even as we disagreed tonight. Thank you. Thank you. Councilwoman, can h. Any other comments? 768 as amended before we vote, I just want to say so. We are going to move forward with our second public hearing on construction defects. I can't imagine most of you are going to stay. So I would just say when you could you please be quiet as you were exiting chamber so we can move forward with the presentation and for the individuals waiting to speak on the next one. So if you could just hold your conversations until you get outside of council chambers and please exit quietly. We would sincerely appreciate that. And safe driving. See no other comments. Madam Secretary, roll call 768 as amended. No, no. Sussman. No. Black. No. Clark. No. Sorry. Flynn. No. Gilmore. No. Cashman. I can. I. Lopez. No. New Ortega. I. Mr. President. No. Madam Secretary, please, first of all, announce the results. For ages 78487. 768, as amended, has failed. All right. Next, we are moving on to we are moving on to 811. Councilman Flynn, will you please put Bill 811 on the floor?