October 12, 2022 — Landmarks Board Regular Meeting

Transcript

Captions from City of Boulder YouTube recording.

[0:05] Good evening. The Landmark's Board meeting is called to order at six o three Pm. Welcome to the October twelfth two thousand and twenty-two Landmarks Board meeting, and i'd like to introduce our moderator, Brenda Ritt our before we begin the meeting. Brenda will review the virtual meeting decorum. Good evening, everyone. Thank you again for joining us. I am with our communication and engagement team at the city. Um. I recognize many of your names, so I know many of you have. See these slides before, and ask your patients while we go through them again, in case we're joined by some folks who have not um who are not as familiar with them. Um. The city has engaged with community members to co-create a vision for productive meaningful and inclusive civic conversations, and this vision is designed to support the physical and emotional safety for community members, Staff board, and commission members,

[1:04] and as well as supporting democracy. For people of all ages all identities lived experiences and political perspectives. Um, you can read much more about this vision and the process process. We went through to get to it. Um by going to Boulder, Colorado, Gov. And in the search bar, searching the words Productive atmospheres next slide, please, Claire, for Aubrey, Whoever sharing slides thank you um. The following are examples of rules of decorum found in the Boulder Revised Code, and in other guidelines that will support this vision, and they will be upheld during tonight's meeting, all remarks and testimony shall be limited to matters related to city business. No participant shall make threats or use other forms of intimidation against any person. Obscenity, racial epithets, and other speech and behavior that disrupts or otherwise. The ability to contact the meeting are prohibited, and participants are required to display their full name, not to sign up to speak at this particular meeting, but to display their whole name. Um, the name they're commonly known by

[2:12] before being allowed to speak, only audio testimony is permitted. Um! If we don't see your name, then your full name I will reach out to you in the chat or by phone um to help you get that name displayed. Thank you. Ah, thank you for joining us once again, Brenda, I do want to acknowledge that we have a full quorum tonight, although one of our board members is currently may have his camera turned off, and as well, I want to welcome our liaison from the planning board um, as with in person landmarks, board meetings. The recording of this meeting will be available in the record archives no later than twenty-eight days from this meeting and new tonight, our meetings will be um appearing on the Youtube Channel three days after the meeting.

[3:05] So before we begin in earnest. I'd like to do a roll call and introductions. I'll begin myself. I'm Abby Daniel's chair of the Landmarks Board uh Bill I'm Bill Gelick Um Landmarks Board Member Chelsea. Hi, Chelsea, Castellano, Landmarks Board Member John John Decker Landmarks Board. Member Ronnie Ronnie Lucio landmarks board member and I may have my video off for a period of this. Um. I shared this when before the meeting kicked off. But I am not feeling great today. Um, don't have Covid, but i'm not sure how long I can hang out for the meeting, so i'm gonna bear through as much as I can um, and i'll let you guys know if I have to bail um. And then for those of you that are seeing. I'm going to shut my video off for the duration. But I will be in in the background here. Um participating.

[4:05] Thank you, Ronnie, and we do appreciate as much time as you're um able to give us tonight. And last, but certainly not least, Laura Laura Kaplan. I'm the liaison from the planning board. I do not vote on Landmarks board. Thank you, Laura. We know that people who are here to participate tonight may have strong emotions about certain projects. We want to hear from you, and we found it more productive. If you are speaking to persuade us, rather than either berating us staff or any applicants present. Tonight we will be following the usual format as best we can. Owners and applicants have agreed to use this format beforehand; and as with regular landmarks, board meetings, you may only speak at the appropriate time during public participation, or at the appropriate time during the public hearings request to speak outside of these times will be denied.

[5:02] There are some quasi, judicial and legislative hearing, so we'll go through that process with each of the three hearings tonight, and um! Everybody speaking tonight will need to be sworn in. As for chair, I will do a roll call, vote for any motions that are made throughout the evening. Now I believe we're ready to once again share the group of agreements that we came up with our at our board retreat on July twenty, fifth, and this is just a reminder to be um cognizant of throughout this meeting and future meetings. It um is always a living document and subject to change, and we'll continue to welcome open dialogue and board members. Are you welcome to use the race hand feature to introduce a new topic. But we'll also be calling on board members by name.

[6:04] So the first agenda item tonight is the approval of the September minutes. Does anyone have any changes or alterations to the September meeting minutes? Seeing that I move that we approve these minutes. Do we have a second I second Thank you. Thank you, Bill. Um, Like seconds. The motion will do a roll Call vote, Bill Chelsea. I and I vote I. So the minutes are approved unanimously for the September meeting. Now it's time to move on for public participation, for items, not on the agenda um, and you'll see I I also want to give a shout out to clear and Aubrey for once again adding to our Powerpoint presentation tonight as well as the one email this afternoon that you've given us the timeframes that we're hoping to accomplish the different agenda items with. So I do appreciate that for public participation you will be sworn in, and you will be asked to state your

[7:23] This is the time for anybody who has any comments they'd like to make regarding eighteen or four Mapleton Avenue, because, even though it's an update on our agenda this evening, it's not a public hearing tonight. So with that, said Brenda, are you seeing any members of the public who would like to speak at this time. I am. We do have three, four members of the public at the moment, and I invite others who are interested in speaking to raise your hand at this time. Um. So if we're ready to begin, Abby, then we can start with Catherine Barth, followed by Lynn Siegel.

[8:02] All right, and, as you all know, Kathryn and Lynn, you'll have three minutes to speak when it's your turn, and I will swear you in, Katherine, if you will raise your right hand and sort of tell the full truth to the board, you may begin, and if we can have the timer operate. That would be great. Um, Okay, I guess you're hearing me. Good evening Board and um, i'm very happy to be speaking to you tonight. Um! I am want to address one thousand eight hundred and four Mapleton Avenue. Uh. It's a little um vernacular house, and I was in um the library. I was in Carnegie Library last week, and I happened to look at the um Sandborn maps and the sandborn maps do not cover this part of boulder until nineteen o six

[9:09] and um in one thousand nine hundred and six, and I I took a photo of the map for one thousand nine hundred and six in one thousand nine hundred and ten, and I could send them separately if that would give interest to the board. But in nineteen o six this little house appears along with some other bill. You know the other buildings in the immediate neighborhood, and at that time it's front porch is uh, is there. Uh about the it's the same, and the size of the building looks the same, and at that time in one thousand nine hundred and six. There's a little back porch at the back of the building, which is similar to the front porch to little indented porch. And then what is very interesting is that by nineteen, ten, four years later somebody has changed the location of the back porch, and I just found that kind of a kind of endearing that I don't know if they put it to the side, so that porch by nineteen ten is where the little side porches

[10:13] now, and I was just wondering if maybe that's the point that it became a two unit house um, a little duplex, or I I don't know, but it was. I found that just very charming, and of course the house has a very prominent position on the corner there, and um! It's got in a lot of original features. It's what if it were in a district, or if we were really analyzing it, we might call contributing restorable. But it is a very fine little building, and it's been there, adding characters to that corner and to the park for a very long time uh to the neighborhood before there was a park. Um! So I would um

[11:02] encourage the the landmarks board to. Uh continue with your process of landmarking and um I would, you know, if I could speak to the owners, i'd say, look! Why, don't you just landmark this little building? Uh bring it forward yourself. So, anyway, that's my comment on eighteen o four and whoops I'm running out of time. Thank you. You are. But thank you, Kathryn. We appreciate it. Okay. Next Lynn Siegel, if you will. Yeah, please have a video window uh with the timer in it, not the whole time, or in the filling the whole window sure, and also uh lame, will be followed by Patrick O'rourke, and then by crystal Great, just want to make sure they had a heads up. Okay, Lynn. Um, You'll have your three minutes, and if you would uh raise your hand and swear to tell the board the full I needed to know. Could I have a video window with my timer in it, please? I need to see your faces when i'm speaking to you.

[12:13] Yes, when the timer starts immediately when we turn it on, so we like to wait until people start to turn on the timer. Um, yeah, I swear to whatever you want to swear me to. Um. Yeah, my concern, as you all know, if you've read any of my letters which you probably Haven't is seven seventy circle, and I feel this was there. I I feel it's like obscene, and I don't use that word lightly that this was passed through at Ldrc as a demolition. Um. I looked at the historic images close up, much better than what I saw during the Ldrc, and that it that's the only house in the whole front range. It looked like

[13:01] in one thousand nine hundred and forty-one when it was built, and it's basically the same footprint of the house, and it's a Huntington Jones and Hunter um architects building, and it had those rounded things in the back. I mean you should go up there. It's obscene that anyone with landmarks, even if it went to Landmarks board, would would allow this thing to be demolished. It's eight thousand square feet, six point, one million dollars, one point, two nine acres, and it has a huge tree house in the back uh an atrium. What do you call it? A the atrium thing? Um, it's actually got a right of way for neighbors to go right through the front of the house along outside of the house. Um! And that's going to be problematic if it's Jeff Bezos has bought the place that's demoing it, and I heard from someone putting up a four million dollar house, although I find that

[14:00] to be low cost. But the issue here is that these kind of structures can't be threatened like this. I mean, this is like Sam Weaver, approving three eleven Mapleton and he's a firefighter, and that development for senior housing is a is fuel for burning down this historic neighborhood of Mapleton that should never have been allowed either. Um! And then he betrayed us on the municipalization. And of course The worst betrayal is to you South, which you should do something about, because that also affects you, and landmarking, and the pressure of growth on boulder against these older homes being preserved. Um, I just can't believe that Floral Park, where some woman wanted some windows that she was willing to pay thirty thousand dollars for that same day was passed through to Landmarks board like that's questionable. She was trying to improve her place, and now she's going to be cold till December, when it goes to Landmarks board, and this eight thousand square foot,

[15:10] a state built of rock built up flagstone and steco, and no wood. Almost it's fireproof on the open space basically very close to it, was just passed for demolition. I'm outraged. I'm stunned that this could happen with in Boulder. You know. That's what you do. That's what you do so next I believe it's Patrick O'rourke. It is Patrick O' work, followed by Crystal Gray, and then it will be Leonard Siegel. Sorry. Just push the wrong button there, Patrick, you should be able to unmute Now

[16:11] we we failed at that property that Lynn just talked about, and I addressed seven. Seventy circle might have been one of those properties that should have been reviewed by the whole board. Um! Put that behind us. That's why not the calling? But I do know that I've heard from several people that how to could this happen under our watch and meaning historic boulders watch, and it's. The answer is, we didn't know about it. Um, i'm down in Santa Fe, New Mexico, and I actually had the opportunity to meet with the Santa Fe historic foundation, and to me it becomes even more critical that um Santa Fe exist, in my opinion, on art and historic preservation, or what I would probably start tourism, and so everything that ever comes up. If anything, we need to be advocates on a on a regular basis, to always be putting forward historic preservation. The reason I bring that forward is um.

[17:09] Last week or two weeks ago Kathryn Barton and I spoke most spoke at the parks and record, and we requested that Ally and Marcy and put together a schedule, so that we don't get caught off guard like we did last year with the the Banshell expansion with the parks and Recreation Board one hundred and fifty, stating that Oh, we didn't know about it, or we didn't get enough notice for James, he would but honestly dropped the ball, and he took ownership of that mistake. Those mistakes in the world I came from gets you fired so What I would like to do is have a calendar, and I talked with Marcy about this a few months ago. Have a calendar that starts in January one that finishes by the third quarter of two thousand and twenty-three, so we can bring it forward to the city council that voted on the Banshill expansion, and that promoted the idea that we should be able to

[18:06] put together a civic um historic district. I think this is our opportunity. They all you said at one of the meetings historic folder. Step up to the plate. I'm doing that today, and I would hope that one of you would raise your hand and say, i'll take ownership from the Landmark board and and move forward. Um, because that's number one on our agenda. Uh, I also, and Katherine also spoke. Uh, I last week at the Boulder County, Ha, H. Pab, or whatever about the projects we have going, and currently we have about nine or ten projects going on throughout Boulder, Colorado, and i'll just highlight them for you, which is um we're working with them on the nine mile markers. It's the long-term project be done in two or three years. I'm in the process of um getting some. What was it? Um! And i'm running out of time, so I shouldn't do it. The Billings Rants we just got approved

[19:05] nine mile markers. Oh, and uh and i'll just extend it through, and then i'll continue on later. Uh, i'm working on the Belmont School over on Sixty-threerd and Dal mine, and I appreciate just a couple of extra seconds, and that building is looking good, and i'm hoping to get that I started this year, and the last one this um the Tommy Jones stagecoach. And if you're not familiar with it, it's the oldest building in Boulder County, and it is in the process of falling down. And so I talked with this Boulder County last week about demolition by neglect, and they've agreed to work with me. Um, thank you, guys, and i'm looking forward to working with you and Crystal Gray. Hi, there! Can you hear me?

[20:09] I reside in one thousand seven hundred and nine, through some of Whittier resident, and I wanted to speak to you about eighteen o four, Mapleton. It's a small house, as Katherine said, that has a big kind of horrendous addition on the back, but it's on a prominent corner of eighteen of Mapleton and Eighteenth Street, and on the Eighteenth Street side there is a little Mini park that was actually developed as part of a transportation project which I think is really um something landmark should think about the settings and transportation. But anyway, i'd like to encourage you to schedule a hearing on whether to have a demolition Hearing on this and not just decide tonight, but take input

[21:00] and um. I was on council for eight years, and then I was on planning board, and was the last one to landmarks, and so I appreciate the the details that um and the code that landmarks followed. Um, what do you have? A pattern of small houses in the neighborhood that have a historic character, but of then added on to on the back, it's really common pattern. In fact, it may excuse me. Oh, in fact, it maple ten and twentieth on the southwest corner, and we'll send you some pictures on this um. A house was landmarked over the objection of the owners, and it what it is now beautiful, nicely restored, I mean. This happened a number of years ago, and it's also got an ad. You on the alley, which is really great. So it's got essentially two units um, although this isn't part of your discussion um tonight, or would be about this house, but i'd like to see, and i'd like to help to work on this more flexibility for landmarks to be able to offer subdivisions of properties for

[22:17] houses that have historic significance. So yeah, i'd like to have you scheduled a hearing on this, where we can talk about the um, the the um assets and the significance of these of this house in eighteen o four. Thank you. Uh, thank you, Crystal, and thank you for reminding me personally about the John Freak's house at Twentieth and Mapleton that I know um not only became a very successful safe, but he opened it up to a store folder one year for a holiday house tour. Um, Wendy, Anyone else from the public who would like to speak. We have two more. We have Leonard Siegel, followed by Oh, Georgia! Chamberlain's hand was up for a moment, but now it's down. So Georgia let us know if you would like to speak. There we go back up. So we have Leonard, followed by Georgia.

[23:13] So, Leonard, you should be able to unmute Now, thank you. Can you hear me tonight as a private citizen, a a preservation as an as an as an architect, because my comments have not been reviewed by the board, so it really doesn't uh. It's not really kosher for me to represent this being commentary from the Board. But it comes from me and comes from my heart. Um, we're trying to figure out a really good way for preservation is to work with the landmarks board and the landmarks. Planners in the past uh people like Marcy growing have reached out to people like me to ask for feedback on

[24:06] projects that are coming before the board and before the planners uh a case in point was the Um Harvest House Hotel. And then in August I called Marcy, and spoke with her to about a variety of different projects that are coming up in two thousand and twenty-three um for landmarks and um! And she, in passing, said, Oh, by the way, it looks like seven seventy circle drive. Do you know that project? That property is going to be it. It could be coming up for a demolition request. And so we took a look at that project together, that building together, and I thought we were in an understanding that while the building had been modified over the years, the bones of it were still still very intact. So, from an architectural point of view, there was a way to restore it back to the original if you wanted to.

[25:00] Also, historically, it was important because it represented the work of the pioneers of modernism in Boulder Um, Glen Huntington and and James Hunter. But it also had some really interesting history to it, because this backman's were um an interesting family. Mr. Spackman was a Ceo professor and an author of half a dozen books, and the second owners. Mr. Krucini was an esteemed physicist at the National Bureau of Standards, and he worked on the Saturn five Mission to the Moon. So um it was a I pretty much was gobsmacked that this building at Ldrc was that the demolition was approved. After giving what I thought was a good conversation with the landmarks planner, and feeling like I was in agreement. Uh, and she was in agreement that the building had some strong qualities that were worth taking forward. So

[26:02] it's water under the bridge because the deed is done, but it should never have been done, and and I hate to be in a situation where I feel like the conversation and the working relationship between preservationists and the Landmark Board and the landmark planners are in jeopardy, but it does feel that way, And I just wanted to say that, and i'm sorry to leave it on that tone, but that's That's how preservations are feeling right now. Thank you. The Thank you, Leonard, and we have no other hands up at this time. Okay. So now, thank you, everybody. I'm sorry. As soon as I say that George's hand goes up and down. So, Georgia, i'm gonna go ahead and and open your microphone. If you would like to participate at this time. If not, please just come on and let us know that that you're good. Okay, I'm. Georgia Chamberlain. The person that is technologically challenged, as you can always go up and down.

[27:07] But I would like to speak about uh nine hundred baseline, the trash structure at, or is this not the time to do? Well? So, Georgia, if if you're available a little later. Normally, public comments for a public hearing Would it occur after the staff presentation and the applicant's presentation, so I don't know if you're able to join us a little later in the meeting when that occurs. That's fine. I'm just confused a little bit about the process. Here it it is confusing. We try to keep this portion to things not on the agenda, and that is one of our public hearings a little later this evening. Okay, thank you. And with that I think we are safe to close open comment for tonight. So um! We will close the public hearing. Thank you to everyone who took the time and effort to join us tonight and speak, you know normally, we would move right on to the discussion of landmark alteration and the statistical report, and so forth. But I think because of some of the comments tonight, even though we can um

[28:19] table them until under matters I I feel if it's okay with Staff and Lucas and Kj. I just wanted to see if any of our Board members had really brief, quick um responses they wanted to share with what the public has. Um commented on tonight, John. I don't know if you have anything or bill. I have one quick thing. Um! I would just like to um come back to Patrick's comments, and I would be very interested to work more with historic boulder, particularly on the specific project of the band shell district

[29:10] and um. So let's get in touch at some point. Thank you, John. Um. Any other Board members have something they want to share. Briefly, at this point I have my hand up. You're going to recognize it. Sometimes things don't show up on on this format in my screen. But to a bill please go ahead. Yeah, no, I have nothing to no comments to add, although I will say I was one of the Board members that sat on the review of that circle drive property, and I have no problem with my decision. Thank you. Bill. Um, Ronnie or Chelsea anything at this point.

[30:01] Yeah, I just wanted to say um that I know that um the band shell conversation has been been a sensitive topic, and the potential district around that has come up several times, and it would be great, I think, to hear from staff at some point about. You know the work plan for next year or this year. Well, next year, and how it relates to that. But obviously we've collectively expressed that it's an area of focus. We're hearing that from some of our colleagues. Um. So I I just wanted to point that out. Um, we hear you, Patrick. Thank you for stepping up and being as vocal as you have been in tonight's meeting. Um! I do think that kind of um advocacy and um approach is healthy for us. I'm i'm not sure if that's exactly what Bill was asking for, but it is really great, So please continue to do that, and

[31:05] I hear you um. I also just wanted to kind of echo something that Crystal grave brought up that Um, personally, I think, is something worth exploring that we've talked about in the past. Um! That is a version of um incentive to another version of an incentivization tool for um preservation That, she was saying might have to do with um subdivision. Um! Whether or not it is applicable for the Mapleton project. Um! That is something that I have seen used in the past um used in neighboring communities. Um, and I think it as you've heard me say hits many of um the points that we're collectively interested in. Um not only about preservation, the preservation of the small um, and then, you know, in tandem other city-wide objectives that may have to do with affordable affordability. Um. And I think the carrot version of that which is a subdivision approach um

[32:04] should be explored at some point. I know we've got a lot to do next year, But, Crystal, I appreciate you speaking to that topic um, and also think that is a tool worthy of uh continuing to look at it. Thank you, Ronnie and I don't know Chelsea. If you have anything Um, we do have an ambitious agenda tonight. Um, i'm good, thank you. But I and I and to the staff Thank you for taking, letting me take kind of this liberty this point of privilege, because I think all of the speakers of public participation raised important points, and I know sometimes we discuss them later in matters, or you know, after this meeting, and I wanted to do that courtesy to let them know. I think rather you said it best. We heard all of you. We appreciate what you said, and bringing these things to our attention. So thank you. Uh. With that being said, I think we're um ready to move on to the statistical report for September and Flair, I believe i'm handing it all over to you right now.

[33:08] Yeah, I just want to check in with Bill, really quickly. You still have your hand raised, but I don't know whether um I just wanted to respond to Ronnie Ronnie. I honestly don't remember what I said, regarding asking for um historic boulder to step up. But anytime they can step up and help with the Uh. Our gang showing problems that this city is facing regardless. It's historic preservation program. I'm. Certainly in favor of it. So keep coming, Patrick. We appreciate it. Thanks, too. Alright, So speaking of Gargantuan problems. Here's our statistical report for September. Um. Blue, as usual in our L. I. C's and the Pink and purple are the demo reviews. Um, This Doc purple. Uh

[34:09] right here, um is a pre one thousand nine hundred and forty demo that was reviewed and approved at the Uh. We reviewed and approved eleven L. A. Cs. In September Uh. Four were approved by staff, which were, you know, roofing and ac units the usual stuff. Um. One was actually a fire Restoration project in the Chamberlain Historic District Um seven total were reviewed and approved at Ldrc and Um. Five were approved without additional review, which is a positive improvement. Um! Only one needed additional Ldrc review, and one needed additional details which came to stuff. Uh, we approved thirteen demo requests, two of them uh the dark purple

[35:01] were reviewed by the Ldrc. Um and uh, I brought some of the staff reviews to Ldrc last month for a second set of eyes which was um very helpful with Marcy out. Um. So Faith and I are doing what we can to research and approve administrative post. One thousand nine hundred and forty demo requests. Um, But sometimes your experience is really valuable. Um! And we don't always have a lot of written documentation for post nineteen forty s buildings, so I appreciate your patience when we do that. Um! So this is the year. So far we have, uh, as you can see, a lot of a lot of demos still. Um! We had a two hundred and eighty eight reviews up to this point in um in two thousand and twenty uh two hundred and ninety up to this point, in two thousand and twenty, one and two hundred and forty nine reviews so far

[36:03] this year. So we are. We are close, and her record here understandably. So this is our taught for new applications compared with the last two years we've reviewed and processed thirty, one new applications um this month, and um i'm struggling to see any trends this year other than uh doesn't other than we have a lot of new applications to get through, and that that line just keeps going up and down. And again, this is the uh, uh, I guess the six year average for new applications. Um! We're actually above average this month for new applications. Here Our average is usually twenty-seven, and we were at um thirty One new applications. And I think that October is actually going to be busy. Because um, I I've seen a lot come in, and just in the last week. So

[37:00] any questions on this statistical report. Okay? Well, then, I will move on. Um. We have a a public hearing schedule tonight for a five, Sixty eight, Fourteenth Street, which was our other day of demolition that we were. Um that we have we had on the books, so I will postpone that one, and my update is just for one thousand eight hundred and four Mapleton um. So the applicant for one thousand eight hundred and four Mapleton Avenue. Uh withdrew the demolition application, which means there's no longer a stay of demolition on this house. Um! We did manage to confirm that the house was on this lot before one thousand eight hundred and eighty-nine, so it's at least ten years older than we previously thought. Um, we have a

[38:02] uh a hearing. An initiation hearing was scheduled for November second at the last Landmark Board meeting um, and that hearing did include um an alternative to issue the demo permit um. But now this would not be considered as there's no demolition request, so the Landmarks Board can still hold the initiation hearing as scheduled. Um, you can cancel it, or you can postpone it to a later date, since there's no deadline now imposed by this day. Um! So did anyone have any questions for me before you got into a scheduling discussion. I don't have any. So So Claire, just to reiterate before us tonight is the decision. Um, we're no longer having to make a decision by December fifth. So if um. The Board did want to have an initiation hearing. It could be held at the December meeting, or even later than that. Correct?

[39:16] That is correct. Yeah. And the reason I asked that I could see depending on how the board is leaning is Um! There could be an an advantage to waiting till maybe a later meeting, because Marcy would be back, and we'd have a full complement of preservation staff on board. Um! So I think we should have a discussion about this and primarily focused on the scheduling and not the merits uh Bill, Would you like to start off um? I'd like to actually see? Did we schedule A um nine, eleven, three discussion for tonight. Or is that what we were setting up now?

[40:04] I think we scheduled that for November second, and we scheduled it for November second, because the meeting had to be held by December fifth, and I believe our December Board meeting is on the sixth. What might inform us, for our November second meeting might be the decision we made on just a recent demolition withdrawal. Um where we all decided that because the house wasn't threatened property wasn't threatened we should not go forward with a initiation or um attempt to landmark uh John. I'm in agreement with Bill. I think I I think that it is. At least I personally think it's somewhat outside of the boards per view to be the

[41:03] a person or the the into the bringing and an initiation in the absence of an outside one, either the owner or another group. Um! So I I don't believe we will need to. Just. We can discuss the need to initiate, maybe. But I I don't believe that we need to hold an initiation hearing with the withdrawn um application, Ronnie: Yeah, I think I agree with my colleagues, but I have to say that this building in particular really seems like if it were to proceed, a very strong candidate for landmarking, so i'm a little torn about that. Um, because my concern is, if we don't proceed with the landmark

[42:02] process associated with this, we won't fully bet the merits of the building um, and it could go through another process that uh avoids. You know the demo review because of um, it falling underneath the criteria of uh, the the percentage or distance of a building that is not demolished. So i'm a little torn about this when I have to say um. If they didn't pull the demo application, I would be strongly positioned to move forward. I guess I would like to hear my other colleagues before kind of finalizing my thought process on this. Um, and I I do recognize what Bill is saying does apply to this. But this seems much clearer of the case to me. Um and um, so I I uh, i'm a little torn about what the next step is. If there is one, I definitely have thoughts. I'll share after. And, Bill, I see your hand race. But do you mind if I go ahead and call on Chelsea first? No, please go through everybody. I just wanted to respond to something. Ronnie said, Thank you, Chelsea.

[43:13] Thanks. Um. So if I understand this correctly, we are deciding on whether to set a date for an initiation, hearing or or not. Is that? Oh, we do have the date we voted you name in September to have this date, but the date is um. We were holding that meeting. We were holding it November second, because it had to be held before um our December sixth meeting, and we didn't want to arrange a a special meeting. But go ahead. Yeah, I mean, I guess if I yeah, we I mean in the last meeting we decided that because a demo application was withdrawn, that it wasn't necessary to move forward with a hearing, because there was no threat to

[44:13] the building, and I I would be inclined to use that same logic. You know we often talk about in our meetings that you know we have a lot to do as a board, and I think, having an additional hearing and creating the additional workload and time spent on uh a building where there's no threat of it being demoed to me just doesn't seem like a good use of time. Um, But you know I understand this situation that we don't. We don't want damage done to this house in in the meantime, but I guess I I don't really see that being an issue, I don't know what could possibly be done to this property. It's it's this piece seems relatively small. So

[45:02] is it possible to hear from the applicant or the applicants here on? If they have any plans to do any work on the building. I don't believe they're here tonight and there. I don't know if you can answer that they were not able to make it tonight. Okay? Well, my yeah, my inclination is to not move forward with the hearing, since the demo application is been pulled. Thank you. Chelsea and Bill and John. Now I see your hand raised as well. Do you want me to come in, or would you two like to? So I I hear what all of you have said, and I value all of it. I like Ronnie and torn. I think this is different than the one that was. Um! We just

[46:08] did not we? We cancelled having the initiation hearing, and for several reasons. This is not an owner occupied building. I think this really rises to the it meets all the criteria, and I think the other ones did, too. But I think this one is a really special rare example, because it's not owner occupied, and because, even though the demo application application has been withdrawn, I think there's a possibility that some windows could be changed, or some alterations could be made to this house which would render it on landmarkable. We've heard from two members of the public tonight, Kathryn Bark and Crystal Gray, who are encouraging us to go ahead and hold an initiation hearing. And um, I think the I don't know um. I believe Staff had perhaps prepared a memo for November second. I know that with the one on Eighth Street that was withdrawn, and we decided not to hold a hearing that Staff was not for initiating that I don't think we know what Staff is going to recommend on this one. But I do.

[47:18] You know, Chelsea, I appreciate your comment about consistency and predictability, and and and using the same logic. I do think there are some different factors involved in this house that would lead me personally to um Want to hold an initiation hearing, and I would think, because we're not bound by a December fifth date of um, The demo permit expiring my preference would be to hold it at the January fourth meeting, when we we have our full complement of preservation planners back on board. Uh Bill. Um, thanks. I um.

[48:01] Do think that we should still get staff's input on this property. I'd like to know more about it. It's clearly a very old property. Um! And whenever we have to do a good in-depth deep dive review on these properties. I know as a board member that really means a lot to me if if I can't find a whole lot back there. Um, that means something. And, on the other hand, if if a lot of information is brought forward that I didn't realize that also has a bearing on it. I also want to make clear that I voted in that last meeting regarding the the Um Um. Eighth Street property to go along with everyone else, but I did not vote to agree to the reasoning behind it. I don't think just because of properties, demolition, um application has been removed that that removes it from its potential to be landmarked.

[49:00] Just because we perceive that the imminent danger is past. We've done a lot of work and examining these properties, and I think we should probably try to pay a little more attention to them, because if they were up once, for demolition is a good process possibility. They'll be up uh multiple times after that. So i'm definitely in favor of pushing. I initiation hearing out so that we can get Staff to do a little deep dive. And I'm: okay with what you um mentioned as well. Um, Abby, that we get uh this done. Maybe you know early next year. Um, when when we have marcy back, and uh not so much uh on staff. Thank you, Bill John. So um! Just to clarify and or expand my previous, not completely lucid comments, I I said, I said, I guess my quandary is based on the fact that we have established

[50:03] the precedent of not going forward with these things, at least in the in the tight schedule. Um, we've we've set that precedent, however, want to acknowledge that I think that the historic significance is there in this property that it needs to be examined further. Um and kind of leave it at that. Um, thank you, John, and we do have the luxury, and we should be looking at each property independently of other decisions. Uh, Ronnie, would you like to? Uh speak again? Well, I guess um, Abby, i'm not sure. I'd like to hear your statement again. Are you suggesting that we revisit this in future months?

[51:04] I suggest that we postponed the initiation, hearing We had already voted on it to have it in November. But I think, given that we're no longer bound by this day expiry, making, taking action by December fifth. Then I think we can extend it, and I I appreciate um. Chelsea's comment about this top, but I think Staff has already even done a memo, and has something ready to go, so I don't fair. I don't feel like it's an undue burden off staff, but I think we could also have a valuable voice back in this discussion. If we wait, I believe Marcy will be attending our December um sixth meeting. But I think, to give her plenty of time to really get her arms around this. And whatever Staff's recommendation is, I would like to see a postpon until January Fourth. Okay, Um, I uh will support that same decision, Abby. I would hate to see this thing just go away. I think one thing that makes it unique outside of its age. Um is a, and the the fact that the building is relatively intact

[52:14] is the exposure of the side elevation. And you know, knowing the ways in which our demolition criteria um allow for the modifications to these buildings, and how it might, in a circumstance, a potential scenario affect the side elevation that is highly visible. Um, I believe that it makes this particularly and potentially sensitive for a version of demolition that doesn't um, you know. Uh meet what I think that the standards of this building require, and that's because of the park, and I recognize that the park used to be right away, and it's no longer a right of way. Um. But truly this building meets the criteria on multiple um standards. Um! But I also know that it is a highly visible side elevation. Um! And think that this building is worthy of regrouping on. So, Abby, I support what you just said. I'm not sure how to

[53:18] um move forward with that, if we're all kind of have a common voice on that. But I would agree with your proposed path forward. Thank you, Abby. Does this mean, then, that we should revisit that um decision, and put a motion out there to um strike down that uh that proposed meeting or reset that meeting for a a different date. Well, Claire Lucas, is it as simple as making an emotion to postpone the initiation Hearing for one thousand eight hundred and four Mapleton Avenue until the January fourth meeting,

[54:07] and I I don't want to stifle or cut off conversation, but if somebody is ready to make a motion, we can. I move that the Landmarks Board postpone the hearing to consider. Adopting a resolution to initiate the process for landmark designation pursuant to Section nine, eleven, three of the bold revised code, one thousand nine hundred and eighty-one pursuant to Section nine, eleven, twenty three I guess that's double. It's, I guess we wanted to be sure we got that particular section nailed down. I think we did um for one thousand eight hundred and four Mapleton have it. A avenue two be moved from November third, two. What was the date? You proposed? Abbey?

[55:08] Okay, to January four two thousand and twenty-three. Okay, uh Bobby seconded bills. Motion. So it Is there any discussion before we take a roll call vote? Okay, Not seeing any. Uh, let me be sure. I see no hands right, Thank you, which is, is the whole purpose of the appreciation. Okay? So uh, I also I know that uh Chelsea Didn't raise her hand. But, Chelsea, I am interested in hearing your thoughts on this, if you're willing to share them. Sorry to put you on the spot. If not, you can pass It's fine.

[56:11] Yeah, thanks, Ronnie. No, I I hear what everyone's saying. And um, I think, postponing the the hearing, and you know, understanding the significance of this property and the concern that you know adjustments can be made. Um! That would prevent it from being landmarked in the future. I understand all that. So I I um. You know we'll support the resolution as it stands, and you know, to initiate the process and see where we are. Um! Once we get to the at hearing it. Thank you. Chelsea. Um for roll call Vote Bill. Aye, Chelsea! Hi, John,

[57:01] and I vote I. So the motion passes unanimously. Thank you. Everybody Um! And now I believe it's time to move to our first public hearing. Um Item five A is a public hearing and consideration of a motion to adopt a resolution to initiate the process for landmark designation pursuant to Section nine, eleven, three of the boulder revised code, one thousand nine hundred and eighty-one or alternatively to issue a demolition um approval, pursuant to Section nine, eleven, twenty-three, Br. C. Nineteen eighty-one for five Sixty Eight Fourteenth Street, and uh the applicants are the landmarks board, so we will move on to the first public hearing. I know the owners have agreed to this virtual hearing, but my understanding is they are actually in travel, and will not be present tonight. Is that correct? Clear?

[58:07] That is um. And I also would like to point out that. Um, that uh, the the reason that the this portion of the agenda item the alternatively issue a Demolition approval pursuit to nine eleven twenty-three brc is crossed out, is that they also have withdrawn their um demolition um application. So that is not part of the um of the discussion tonight, but we'll get there. I just wanted to point that out while we're still on the agenda. I didn't. I apologize for reading it? Didn't quite have it crossed out yet, so my mistake. But, Claire, would you like to proceed with the update about this? Yes, all right. So this initiation hearing is legislative in nature. So the um procedure is slightly different than a quasi-judicial hearing. The Board does not need to reveal any ex parte contacts, but the rest of the hearing is similar. I will give a presentation, and you may ask questions of me.

[59:14] Owner typically would give a presentation. And um, I believe they were going to try and send a representative. Um, and I don't know if he is here, but we'll address that when we get there. Um! The public hearing will be open for public comment, and the Board may ask questions of the public. Um. The public hearing is then closed, and the Board will um deliberate, and um, if appropriate, adopt a resolution to accept the landmark application. So this has been the process so far. Uh The proposal for full demolition of the house was referred to the landmarks board on January the twelfth. The Board placed a day of demolition at the hearing on June first, and on September seventh the landmark's Board voted to schedule a hearing to initiate landmark designation, or issue the demolition permit.

[60:09] Um. On October third the owners withdrew the application for full demolition. So um as the landmark Board is the applicant for the initiation. Even though the demolition application was withdrawn, we still needed to hold the initiation. Hearing um. This does, however, change the Board's options slightly. Um. You only have two options tonight, because the demolition application is withdrawn. To stay does not continue. Um, So if you do not initiate landmark designation, the case will be closed. Um. A decision today to not initiate doesn't affect a future decision, so designation may be initiated at a future date. If the application comes up again.

[61:03] Um. So if full demolition was proposed in the future, the process would follow the same demolition review process, and could end up exactly in this spot in at a future time. Option number two is: the Board may vote to initiate designation, and a future hearing would be held. Um between sixty and one hundred and eighty days from today. Um! The Board cannot approve the demo application because there is none. Anybody have any questions about the options or the process. Chelsea: Yeah. In previous um them, or when previous people have pulled or withdrawn their demolition application, we've gotten some reasoning why. So I'm: just curious if there is any level of context that you can provide.

[62:04] Um, They felt like they needed some additional time. I um, I thought I sent the the email, but maybe I didn't forward that. Um, I apologize for that. But it was basically a a request for additional time to consider their options. Um. And the Board very likely will see a partial demolition request in the future or not. If they can figure out a way to modify the House that doesn't, trigger, demolition, historic preservation, Demolition Review. So So if we would be initiating a landmark designation against the property owners desires, I guess if it's just to be clear they that wasn't clear it wasn't clear in the memo, or anywhere else. That that was

[63:02] the case, but that's good to know. Thank you Well, That's because, Claire, They, the our property owner, Hasn't, joined with us in wanting to get this place. Landmarked right. That's why we have to assume that it is against their uh entry or their desire Cool? Well, it sounded like they send an email to Claire, expressing that they spoke at the last hearing also. Um, yeah, I remember that they still Yeah, See? I remember David saying they were not interested at this point in landmarking it. Mhm, Okay, any other questions, Claire, Do you see Ronnie's hand up?

[64:05] Can you share the demolition? Um, Actually, it's yeah, the trigger point for the Demolition Review associated with um, You know, structure like this. I I can't remember if it was just a percentage of the building footprint, or if it also had a relationship with the street facing um elevation. This was a an application for full demolition. Um! But if they um the house came back for a partial demolition, what triggered? That would be removal of more than fifty percent of the roof or removal of more than fifty percent of the exterior walls or um removal of any portion of a street facing wall. And this this house actually has two street facing walls because it's on a corner.

[65:05] Um! So those those items would trigger a partial demolition review. Less than fifty percent of the roof. Less than fifty percent of the exterior walls and not touching the street facing facades, would not require historic preservation. Review the roof. Criteria um! Does it apply at all to the street facing elevation piece? Did you remove fifty of a roof if it's the fifty That's the street facing piece, or is that considered part of the elevation in some way? I think it's considered a part of the elevation up to the ridge line visible from the public realm. Right the street facing wall would be the wall from foundation to rafters.

[66:00] Um of the wall. So the fifty percent of the roof would be entirely by area. In Plan view. This is such a weird thing, and I sorry to put you on the spot like I don't know the answer to this. I've been on the board a long time. I don't know the answer to this thing here, which is like, Is there a version where one could remove the street facing roof, or modify an aspect of the I'm. Calling it three-facing but the roof that's that is associated with the the street um, and still not modify fifty of the roof um, and do that without it coming under the review of the board. Yes, um, and the the example, there would not apply to this house, but that would be a a porch roof that was a shed roof or a um, or a hipped roof that um wouldn't have any wall associated with it. A gable roof often has the wall inside the gable. You know the triangle

[67:07] part of the cable. Um. We consider a wall. But uh the if there was a, for example, a hipped roof over a porch or a shed roof over a report, you could remove that. You can actually remove the entire porch Doesn't apply to this house because this House doesn't have a porch. Okay? Well, I know we're going to read this if this um demolition criteria Um, so. And you know we can get into those details. The reason i'm asking is because there's a preservation piece associated with this that I think is maybe more robust, because it has two street facing elevations. Um. And so any modification to those building faces would, you know, bring it back to the board, I mean. I am not going to assume that I know what type of modification might be made, but my understanding was, they were interested in modifying the non street facing side elevation and possibly back of the building.

[68:08] Um, you can do anything they want right. But um! If they were to pursue that the building would be in less jeopardy of Uh, you know. Um, it no longer being a building that could be designated, but still kind of following the criteria, that it would allow them to make modifications. So why am I saying all of this? Um. I'm saying it? Because I think we definitely need to dig into those aspects of the demolition criteria. Um. I am interested in hearing what my followed Board members have to say about whether or not this building is in jeopardy of um, you know it being potentially, you know, modified in ways that could no longer be landmarked, but still meet a criteria today. Um! And so i'm curious to hear what my colleagues have to say,

[69:10] and and I think the bulk of our discussion will be after Claire's presentation and public participation. And, Claire, I don't know if you have more about this now, or if we're ready to see if there is someone representing the applicants. I have a a presentation. Still. I can. When don't we have a long initial questions. Alright, Well, i'm glad that Ronnie brought it up. Um. The criteria for review is um, for initiation is in nine, eleven, three d, and the first items in nine, eleven, three, d. Refer back to nine, eleven, one and nine eleven to to outline the purposes and standards used to determine

[70:00] if the Board has probable cause to believe that the building may be eligible for designation as an individual landmark. Um. In addition, nine over eleven, three D. Directs the board to review the application based on the whether there are currently resources available to complete outreach and analysis, and if there is community in neighborhood support, and if the building needs protections provided through the designation um, and also, if the proposed designation is consistent with the goals and policies of the Boulder Valley comprehensive plan Um, or if the proposed designation would generally be in the public interest. Um. And as the hearing is legislative, the Board can consider any of the information heard so far, um or anything that they here tonight. So uh five, sixty, eight, Fourteenth Street is to um jog. Your memory is located on the corner of Columbine and Fourteenth Street in the Wellington Heights neighborhood, which is sandwiched between Um, the Chautauqua Park to the west

[71:14] and Floral Park to the east. Um. There are Um, four designated historic districts nearby including Chicago Park, Floral Park. There's also Sixteenth Street and Um. University Place, historic districts. Um. The neighborhood was included in the two thousand and one two thousand and two University Hill resurvey and um that identified a potential expanded University Hill historic district. And here's the map from that survey. At the time five, Sixty Eight Fourteenth Street was considered contributing restorable. Um. This house to the north is six, Sixteen, Fourteenth Street. This is an individual landmark. Um! It's the dyed Rosal house. Um! There's also

[72:06] two houses across the street uh five, thirty, five, Fourteenth Street and five, fifteen, Fourteenth Street. Um. They were identified at the time as being potentially contributing to the potential district. Um. Both were designed by Glen Huntington, and built in one thousand nine hundred and forty one uh so back to five Hundred and Sixty-eight Fourteenth Street. It's a um modest, one-story concrete block and stacco, building with a cross-cable roof. Um! It was built in one thousand nine hundred and forty. There are two street facing walls. Um! This is the front elevation facing on to Fourteenth Street, and this is the the north elevation facing onto Columbine. Um

[73:00] the uh! You can't see It's behind the tree. There's an original stucco chimney. Um! The double hung windows are um wood. This is the the back of the house. Um, which is accessed from Fifteenth Street Alley. Um, there's a one car basement garage you can see right here. Um! This. The shade structure was added sometime after one thousand nine hundred and fifty. Um! The The south elevation is also um has an addition from the from one thousand nine hundred and fifty. Um! It. It may have replaced an open porch, but we haven't found any photographic evidence of that or plans. Um! We just know that there is a visible connection. Um! Where it was added. Here you can see the line and the you can't see it on this picture. But if you're there in person. You can see the line in the in the building where that was connected. Um! And at that time they um added these large picture windows.

[74:14] So the history of the building Ah, Ray and Lorraine Light bought the house in one thousand nine hundred and forty, and lived there for three years um the curries purchased it from them, and in one thousand nine hundred and forty three lived there until one thousand nine hundred and forty-eight, both Roy, light and vint and curry were employed by the University of Colorado, Um, in one thousand nine hundred and forty-eight marcia carpenter, and her daughter Helen Carpenter, purchased the house. Helen was um born in one thousand nine hundred and eighteen, to attend the university. She graduated in one thousand nine hundred and twenty two, and got a job in the College of Education Teachers Appointment Office. Um During the the Second World War she um She grew the placement services program to connect University graduates with companies like Ibm and Beach aircraft. Um. She was made associate director of the program, in one thousand nine hundred and fifty-two and director in one thousand nine hundred and fifty-seven.

[75:12] She is one of the first female leaders within the university, and um, someone who made business connections to expand opportunities for women graduates, she retired in one thousand nine hundred and sixty eight Um! She actually served on the board of the Boulder Historical Society for almost a decade in her retirement, and she passed away on April fifth, one thousand nine hundred and ninety five. She actually willed the house to the university, and they sold it to the parents of the current current owners. So the House has historic integrity. Um. It has strong association with a historically significant person, and the area has historic integrity. Um. So my interpretation is that um! This house would be eligible for individual landmark designation based on the criteria in nine, eleven, one, and nine, eleven, two

[76:10] um, However probable cause uh which addresses whether the building could be designated is only one of the items the Board should consider to identify. If the building should be designated. Other items in nine over eleven, three are whether there are staff resources for outreach and analysis, and, as you know, staff resources are currently limited. Um. Also, if there is community support which has also been um limited, although um initiation is supported by historic boulder, we've received a few letters of support, one and important to today's hearing whether the building needs the protections provided through designation. Um. As there is no current demolition application, the demolition approval would not be issued if the Board takes no action to initiate designation today.

[77:10] The Board is also asked to consider if initiation over the owner's objection represents a reasonable balance between private property rights and the public's interest, and is consistent with the Boulder Valley. Comprehensive plan. Um. The ability to designate over the owners objection is um an extraordinary power given to the landmark's board. And um, we always say that this should be used sparingly and with a lot of consideration. Uh, because there is no current demolition. Threat to the property Staff Doesn't recommend does not recommend initiation over the owners objection. Um. This is uh based on the current demolition code which Ronnie touched on um. The The owners can't remove more than fifty percent of the roof, or more than fifty of the walls, or remove any portion of either of the street facing walls without historic preservation. Demolition review

[78:11] um modifications that can occur without historic preservation. Approval. Um we Staff Doesn't consider, would impact the historic integrity of the house. So this summarizes the reasons for stuff recommending the initiation outlined in the memo. Um. The house has architectural significance for its form and materiality. It was constructed more than eighty years ago, and represents a pre war post depression, development of the Wellington Heights area. Um. It has a strong association with a historically significant person, and is located in an area with historic integrity.

[79:00] However, as the application to demolish the house was withdrawn by the applicant. We don't believe that the initiation would represent a reasonable balance between private property rights and the public interest, and um, and because of that we change our recommendation to not initiate at this time any questions. John, I have a question. Did Staff consider? I guess, the environmental criteria on this particular house. By that I mean the context environment, the fact that it sits in the neighbor, the Wellington neighborhood. It's kind of got an exemplary mature landscape around it. Um! Which one sees in that neighborhood quite a bit. And um! So it is. I guess

[80:00] the entire site on the public round side of the property, the two sides of the corner benefit from this house. Um, Even in the State it is in in terms of kind of its aesthetic presence. Yes, absolutely. Yes. The context of this house within that um intact area. That's a potential historic district was definitely considered. Okay, Any other questions, all right. Happy. I think we're um ready to move on to public comment. There's anyone here representing the applicants.

[81:02] I do not see anybody um his name I recognize. But if uh, if you're here, maybe you could raise your hand if if it's somebody whose name I don't recognize, not seeing anybody, I do see one hand, and I encourage um those of you in attendance from the community who would like to speak to this item to please use your raise hand button. Now. In the meantime we will begin with Katherine Barth. If Bobbury is ready with the timer. Okay, thank you, Catherine. And you know I'm going to ask you to to swear to tell the whole truth again, and state your full name, and then you may proceed.

[82:06] And, Catherine, you should be able to make sure we have the timer ready for you. Okay, I I would like, I I agree to tell the truth, and nothing but the truth and the whole truth. So please go ahead. Um I This was one of the properties. Um! It was on one day I forget which day uh for the site visit, and I came out to the site, visit and um! The The young family was there with their toddler child. Their parents were there, and the young mom was very pregnant, and I think she's had a new baby since the site. Visit um from what I got from listening, because I wasn't able to really say too much was that they were. They. They appreciate this house uh they like this house. The parents owned the house, and the kids bought it from them.

[83:12] Um! And the parents uh back at the alley were holding the hands of the little toddler, and they they did talk to me a little bit, and they were saying that they they were looking forward to their this daughter and family living in this house, and their son will be living around the corner, and so it seemed to me that they, everybody there was very positive that they were to me. What I observed is, they were trying to get an idea of the parameters of what they would be able to do, and I heard them talk about putting an addition on the back, and of course, the lot slopes down toward the east, and so putting in a dish in addition in the back. Um!

[84:01] It's really pretty easy. I I wish Bonnie had been at that at that site visit, because I think in about two minutes he could have talked to them about design opportunities because he was part of the land export. So what I um would like to see is that this family finds a wonderful way to make this into a family home, and that the building is landmarked; and I think that if somebody that I would think the logical thing is for the family to come and support the support the landmarks board in the landmarking because they talked um, and they understood, I think, that there that there would be the opportunity to have an ad. You. They mentioned that um. They talked about the big trees, and maybe we're a playground, you know, place for kids with. So I think that you know My! If I could talk to the family, i'd say,

[85:04] just go ahead and land market yourself. Um, I've lived in a landmarked house. For years I've been through the design Review, both as an architect and part of the landmarks board, and as uh the Landmarks house, and I don't know why people think it's so scary because it isn't. And I don't think I've ever seen a project that doesn't come out better after the process of going through the Drc. So That's what I have to say. Thank you. Thank you, Katherine, for getting to at all in your time Allotted um, Brenda, Do you see any other raised hands. I do not see any other raised hands. Oh, we do have one other raised hand that just came up. Uh for Lynn Siegel. So, Lynn, you should be able to unmute now, and Aubrey will give you the time.

[86:02] I basically agree with Katherine. Um. But you know i'm not. I'm not opposed to Demos um. In fact, I think, after careful thoughtfulness, about thirty, one, twenty, two, eight, that should probably be demoed. But this house at seven hundred and seventy circle. Something happened, because, in all you know, i'm no expert. I'm an ultrasound technologist, i'm good at imaging. But but as far as architecture, But I have followed the landmarks board and the Ldrc for years now, and my impression in watching over and over, and seeing what guidelines there are. Um! Is that something drastic fell through with regards to seven hundred and seventy circle I mean the Huntington Jones and Hunter um, and the image that was put up um on that I saw on the um. Carnegie site was stunning. You could really zoom in on it. And um,

[87:18] And it was basically the same house. I mean, they put a front um entry way onto it and some other things. But it was basically the same flagstone house, and it is in a state when I first saw the image that was produced at Ldrc. I thought that it was, you know it was like a realtor imagery. It was um. I thought that it was concept designs for what the architect plan to do once they demolished it. But the image that I saw of the historic structure was very unimpressive, but it was poor imagery. It was just the wrong photos that got up there. Um! And when I went and I googled it I saw seven images, and I sent those to you all anti-historic Boulder included them. I hope that Lynn Siegel and Patrick are worked out it too. But in those images you can really blow it up and see what it was before.

[88:15] Um. Now on this site of this house that you're deliberating on. Now. Um, I I agree with Katherine. I think that it could be made better. I think a lot of times people in this town Don't, really know what benefit they can get from landmarking, but with, you know, funds from the State, and stuff, too, and that could be more publicized, maybe. Um. But I do sincerely think something drastic happened with seven hundred and seventy circle, and I just think that would be um egregious to let it continue the way it has with um. With this premature demolition, or what I think is premature. I'd like to at least see people really be able to see the real thing.

[89:12] And Brenda once again, has anyone else raised their hand? I am not seeing any hands raised, and just want to take this opportunity to remind the community that public hearing comments are to be about the subject of the hearing. Um, not about other topics. So as the next one comes around, thank you for sticking to the subject of the hearing the Thank you, Brenda, for that important reminder. So at this point we'll um close the public hearing. Um, there's no applicant to respond to anything that was said, and so I think we'll now turn it over to ourselves to deliberate Um, Bill. I don't know if you would like to kick it off the uh, sure, since you called on me. Um,

[90:03] I agree with Katherine that i'd be nice to landmark this property, and allow this family to build on to it to make it the kind of home that they feel they can live in. Uh, particularly because it's been in their family for so long um, and of course we're right back to where we were talking about earlier on this property. Um, where we talked about, should we continue forward with the uh next step in the process of landmark designation. If the applicant has withdrawn their demolition request, this applicant actually made it very clear in the very beginning that they were not really um interested in demolishing the property. Um! They were interested in determining or or feeling out, I think, what's the word? They might have used the phrasing might have used as a just how far they could go with being able to modify it. So um! This one has got me a little um

[91:00] um kind of perplexed a bit. Um, I don't feel there is a threat um to this particular property, even though they have withdrawn their application for demolition. Sometimes people do that, and I still think there's a threat, because I think those people will come back. I don't believe that's the case with this particular applicant. Um, whether or not we want to continue forward with, you know, to the next step. Nine, eleven, five, and toss this up in front of, and then vote on it, and potentially toss it up to council. To let them take a look at it is a is a different um a different situation. That's why I'm a little bit perplexed to me. This just landmarking this property would would seem like it would be a a sort of a nice um. I know a gesture to the history of the people that lived here to the family themselves would kind of elevate the property a little bit kind of raise it up and make it

[92:03] sort of a highlight, maybe for the family, but they themselves are not asking to to have it, you know. Landmark. So. Um, that's kind of not really on the agenda for me, anyway, in terms of a a reason why I would go forward with this. Um. But anyway, if if we were to agree to just totally uh, uh, you know, let this stop at this point. Um! And allow the uh situation that just kind of move along without a threat of demolition. I'd be inclined to go that direction. Okay, thank you, Bill and Chelsea. Would you like to go next, or wait till we hear from our two architects on the board. I'm ready to go perfect. Go for him. Thank you. I appreciate it. Um, yeah, I I agree with Bill. I'm not interested in moving forward. Um with landmarking this property at this time. Um, due to the fact that the applicants have

[93:08] um withdrawn there, their um permits to demolish, and and the fact that we did hear from them that they just weren't able to get the structural um engineer in time, and you know, do all of the due diligence that is necessary to figure out what exactly even could be done in order to fix some of the structural issues, and what the cost of that would be. And so, um you know it it just it wouldn't be fair to to the applicants to move forward in this process. Um! Without their support and without the information that you know they need. And we need to truly understand what the implications of landmarking are. And um.

[94:03] So yeah, So I I support um, just letting the the or I guess I so I don't know what exactly, but I support whatever the motion was, I support the motion um by staff to to not move forward with initiation, knowing that that there is no threat. Um, at this time, and for the other reasons that I thanks. So I I believe that's taking no action. But I had to like that up Chelsea. Okay, um, all right. I uh attended the site visit of this property and and met the people and um left, feeling like they truly understood the value of this property, and um pretty much understood its value

[95:02] as a as a presence in the public realm on the Columbine and fourteenth side of the property. Um! We discussed some of the issues um and some of the some of the I guess aspects of the fifty percent rule. Um, And I guess the The thing that I think I want to leave with again on this one is, I think, we want to acknowledge the historic value of this house, and the fact that it could benefit from being designated. The community could business benefit from having this house designated um, and I think we need to have a little more conversation with the owners about what the incentives to

[96:01] that process were, because it would be totally my preference to go forward with this with them completely on board, or even um initiated by them. And so I think we're kind of left in the position of the right move at this point is to take no action. Uh, thank you, John Ronnie. Um, I uh in an agreement with my colleagues. Um, I appreciate Katherine Um. The comments that you made, and I also think that you're right, that there is a solution. There's a design solution to this property that could probably get them the things that they need, without, you know, detracting from the historic merit of this home

[97:01] One version of that could even include landmarking it, you know, which I think we all understand what benefits might come from that. Um, but i'm an agreement with Staff's assessment on this, which is, you know, um to take no action. Um, if there's something that we can do to help clarify what the benefits are associated with landmark designation. Uh further explore a design solution. Um, that might be informative. Um, you know, I think, while we're a little, if we move forward with Staff's recommendation, there won't be like a codified process for that. But I think we could make room to have that talk somehow. And um, you know, hopefully come to some sort of conclusion that I think meets everybody's needs. Um. I was really poking at the beginning about um

[98:01] the demolition criteria. Because um! And I think that Claire's answer was really great. Um! Because I do think that in this case Um, this building is not under threat of des of of demolition. Um in the ways that would significantly and detrimentally impact its landmark eligibility. Uh, thank you, Ronnie and I'm: so glad you're still with us in this meeting, because your input is always so valuable. So my first comments about this um having attended, participated, observed whatever, for since two thousand and six and landmark board meetings, this is the first time i'm ever aware of three sort of k tech um consecutive stays of demolition that have been placed by the landmarks board, as well as discussions about initiating or not initiating, and so forth, where all three applicants at some point have um withdrawn their demo permit, and i'm not really sure what that says. But that is what appears to be happening, and it's

[99:09] interesting to me, because I know we felt strongly as a board on the Eighth Street property, and uh, maybe a couple of others, to move as quickly as we could to try to get a resolutions, so that owners could move ahead with their planning or whatever they wanted to do with with their homes or the properties they owned, and for some reason for a couple of these um specifically uh, the applicants who withdrew on Fourteenth Street and um, and on Eighth Street it seemed like um. We didn't have enough time to really continue exploring this, and again, this day is triggered um to expire at a certain time, and or not last more than one hundred and fifty days from when they pay the application fee and it I just want to share very quickly that I know that Wellesley, Massachusetts, Um.

[100:03] Has a year for their stay of demolitions or for the demolition process, and I feel like especially these owners on Fourteenth Street, and Catherine touched upon everything. They were juggling at the time We had the that site visit, I believe that was in June or July and Um came up to these dates, where we had to make a decision, or the stay was going to expire, and so forth. And you know, having the luxury of getting an engineer out there, and to get for us to have really thorough, comprehensive, accurate numbers to look on. It almost seemed in in a couple of these cases that there was any enough time for everybody to do what they wanted to do to make a fully informed decision. And um. The John captured a lot of what I heard from the owners at the site visit that you know they weren't. Initially. I don't think they were so opposed to landmarking, but it was just something thrown at them that they really didn't have the time to contemplate. And then the arrival of a new baby, and so forth. And um

[101:09] I I did note that Staff supported the initiation until the application was withdrawn, and I I respect and understand why they changed. Um made a different decision once that was pulled, and I also feel like It's funny, because we always talk about preservation being reactive and well, there's no threat, and and the one way to be proactive is to sometimes look at an individual property and say, This meets the guidelines. This meets the criteria. Um! This one is on a very prominent corner, and I know we heard from historic boulder, as well as a gentleman that lives in Floral Park, and so forth, and then Catherine's verbal support tonight. But this is a little bit of a hard one, because I don't think anyone ever takes liam marking over the owners objection lightly, and I don't think we should, although I could cite numerous examples by starting that process many, many times before it got to even city council,

[102:12] an applicant or owner, you know, kind of came to understand the value and the um the you know, wanted to move forward and supported landmarking, even though it started out sounding like it was totally over their objection. And you know, Claire, thank you for these two motions tonight, and I think What I would have loved is sort of a middle ground where we had the ability to kind of table this, and have another discussion with the owners. Um. I think there's a sense that that you know they may not have um. They might still come to the same conclusion, but I think that they had to factor in a lot in a very short period of time with stuff going on. So this one is a hard one for me, because it definitely meets the criteria. I think it was worth initiating and and moving on to designation hearing. Um.

[103:05] But I also hear what my colleagues are saying. Uh, does anyone else have any additional comments? Is anyone um wanting to entertain a motion? And and that staff has provided us with two different motions? I would move. Do we have language, Claire, that you can display, or should I? Just okay, All right. I I move that the Landmarks Board not initiate the process for landmark designation. As the property is not

[104:00] currently under threat of demolition. Chelsea thank you for so on a motion by John Chelsea, seconded, so we will do a roll call vote um, Bill, I'm John and I vote No. So the motion passes four to one. Okay, So we're now moving on. And you guys I want to thank you all because uh Staff had kind of determined that we would be starting agenda. Item five b our next public hearing at seven, forty-five, and we're only a few minutes uh late on that. So thank you. Everyone for helping keeping this meeting online. So item five. B: is it? Public hearing and consideration of a landmark Alteration Certificate Application to install Semitic siding on the garage

[105:06] closure at night at a garbage enclosure. Excuse me at nine Hundred Baseline Avenue in the Chautauqua Park, historic district pursuant to Section nine eleven eighteen of the boulder revised code, one thousand nine hundred and eighty-one, The owner is the city of Boulder, and the applicant is the Colorado Chautauqua Association. So we will move on to the second public hearing this evening, and um thank you to Colorado, Chicago Association, who has agreed to this virtual meeting? Format. Alright, Thank you, Abby. Um, so I will go through the quasi-judicial hearing procedures um everyone speaking to the item will be sworn in and board members will note any ex parte contacts. I'll give the staff presentation, and after that the Board may ask questions.

[106:03] The applicant may have ten minutes to present to the board, and the Board may ask questions, will then open the public hearing. After all members of the public have made comments the application. Um, Sorry the applicant may respond to you anything that was said. We will then ask everyone to mute their computers, and the Board will deliberate. A motion requires an affirm. To vote of at least three members to pass motions, must state findings, conclusions, and recommendation, and a record of this hearing is kept by staff. So before I pass it back to Abbey for ex parte contacts, you all requested that we note who reviewed items previously at Ldrc, and that was John and Abbey on August the twenty fourth. Uh, thank you, Claire. Other than that meeting. I have no um exparte contacts, Bill Chelsea

[107:03] none John and Ronnie. Um. I had a meeting with Jeff Mednick and Shelly Benford, um, and which we discussed their overall um fire mitigation goals. Um, which I do think is a topic that we need to um about collectively. I'm sure some version of that will come up tonight. Um at a certain point we did touch on this very specific topic. Um, and how it overlaps with some of those objectives. Um, And you know, Of course I made sure that I kept our conversation within any of the aspects of our current code. That are, you know, demonstrated to the public. So there wasn't anything that was shared that had to do with the position or decision making. And I feel like I can participate in this conversation.

[108:09] Thank you. Alright, so um as noticed in the agenda, the criteria for review uh our I outlined in the Boulder Revised Code, under nine, eleven, eighteen, B. And nine, eleven, eighteen, c. Um. The criteria for review are to ensure the proposed work, preserves, enhances, or restores, and does not damage or adversely affect exterior architectural features of the historic value or the historic value of the property, that the work is compatible with the character of the property, and that the landmarks Board considers the economic feasibility of alternatives. The options today are for the Landmarks Board to approve the application. This is subject to a Fourteen Day City Council call-up period Um. The Board may also deny the application which would be subject to a forty-five day period, in which city council could review the decision

[109:13] and a denial would mean that the applicant could not submit the same application within twelve months. Um. The board may also allow the applicant to withdraw, so this application is related to an approved L. A. C. From October last year. Um, The Ldrc. Approved the construction of a trash enclosure. Um, which was to be clad in lap wood sighting Um, and in August of this year the applicant subsequently proposed the use of semantitious sighting rather than would the application was reviewed by the Ldrc. On October twenty, fourth, and referred to the Landmarks Board for Review in a public hearing.

[110:02] Um, which is why we are here today. So any questions from the board on process. Okay, let's carry on. So the trash enclosure was constructed at the um north end of the existing parking lot just east of the tennis court um off of Twelfth Street, in Chautauqua Park. Um to orient you. This here is Twelfth Street, which is shown on the aerial here. Um. The tennis court is is here, which is next to the enclosure. He also here. Um! This is the children's playground. Um right next to it, which is here. Um, and this portion here. This is sumac drive and the Chautauqua green. So the dining hole is here.

[111:00] Uh, this is the currently constructed frame of the garbage enclosure. Um! In the in this gravel parking lot it's a steel frame. Um, this is this is the tennis court. You can see right here. This is a closer image of the structure and the tops of the trees behind. So this is the structure that is proposed to be clad in a cementitious sighting um rather than lap wood citing, which was originally proposed. So um! The citing is proposed to be lapped with a five and a half inch reveal um, and then painted Tudor Brown, which is a probably very familiar Chatauqua brown color to you. Um. And yeah, that's that's kind of it for the proposal. But anybody have any questions about that?

[112:03] All right, it will move on to um the design guideline analysis. Um. So in the Chatauqua Park historic district design guidelines. We looked at the guideline for streetscapes which says, Um, where modern materials and technologies are used, start proportions and finishes should be matched or emulated. The applicant is proposing the reveal of the sighting to the would emulate existing historic sighting, which may be appropriate additional. Additionally, the um. The historic district guidelines include guidance that if matching materials is impossible, simplify, and since this is new construction, we considered it appropriate to take this simplified approach.

[113:04] The paint guidelines in the historic district request the use of paint color from the Chautauqua paint, palette, and this is proposed with the Tudor brown in the general guidelines. We looked at guideline, three point, six exterior materials for wallsiding and masonry, which says that new finished materials should be compatible with, but not seek to replicate original finished material. Um use materials that are similar in scale proportion, texture, and finish to those used historically use authentic materials, materials made to look like other materials such as concrete that is scored to look like brick and not appropriate. Um, This one we've interpreted in many different ways, but we considered that um the use of semantitious sighting would differentiate this new construction from historic buildings in the district.

[114:02] Um, and also that um the semantitious sighting is installed in a manner that is similar to would lap sighting in that it overlaps the piece below, and the reveal generally matches historic sighting um from a distance. This does attempt to replicate application of traditional lap. Sighting, however, um, as the garbage enclosure is not adjacent to any historic buildings for direct comparison, Um, and is in somewhat of a secluded location at the edge of the district. Um! This may be appropriate for this particular use. Um! We did consider the embossed sighting with a formed wood pattern is um not appropriate as a material made to look like other materials. So ah! Guidelines, six point four materials seems to support this. The guideline asks for materials similar in so and scale proportion, texture, finishing color to those found on nearby historic structures,

[115:08] and to maintain a human scale by avoiding large featureless surfaces, and by using traditionally sized building components and materials. The proposed sighting, uh using semantitious sighting may be appropriate um as the overall scale and the proportion of the citing and reveal Generally matches start exciting, and the proposed color is consistent. So the analysis led us to the recommendation that the proposal is generally consistent with the general design, guidelines and Section nine, eleven, eighteen B and three of the Boulder Revised Code Um. The proposed use of semantitious sighting on a garbage enclosure. That's new construction doesn't remove or damage existing historic materials. It will have minimal visibility as it's at the edge of the historic district. So it will not impact the character or historic value of the district,

[116:06] and the proposal to use smooth citing um with a similar reveal. Um painted Tutor Brown seems to be compatible with the character of the district, and will emulate historic sighting, but will not um replicate or attempt to create a false indication that the garbage closure is a historic building. Um. The proposed work will not adversely affect the historic character of the district, and with that um we recommend. But the Landmarks Board. Approve the lemark alteration, certificate, request to install semantitious siding. Anyone have any questions? All right,

[117:05] I believe, um for the applicant's presentation, and Jeff as you know you will have ten minutes. We will swear you in at the very beginning, and you can introduce yourself when you're ready. I just need to get Jeff promoted over to Panelist. He should be moving over right now. Thank you, Brenda. Yeah, Jeff. When you're ready I will need you to swear in. Give your full name, and then your ten minutes will begin. Can you hear me?

[118:24] We're continuing with, and the cement port siding came up, and I will um honestly say, as an afterthought, do we do? The much conversation related to it to alternative materials in Boulder City and and within the city and within the county. Um, so it's sort of a uh. Oh, I guess. Say, Devil's advocate to say you continuing the conversation. Um, that's that's basically. I think what we're here to discuss with the merits of the materials, not the enclosure itself, is that it, Jeff.

[119:04] This is been on site for fifteen years, and this is part of our overall um strategies for waste management. Uh, we've been um dealing with that, and I always have these goal a a goal to decrease our waste, and to better manage the waste. And this this has been something that's been thought about for quite a while. Um, uh, actually, for many years, as a way to consolidate that those efforts, and also to the um the the damage that's caused by the large trash trucks that come on site um very, very frequently they hit the buildings they hit, they damage the roads. If you've been up there, you'll see that the roads are in in terrible condition. Um the the the streets, and much of that damage is due to the heavy traffic that the those streets were never designed for. Um. So this is all been very, I believe, very well vetted in the thought process. And then again, we're here to discuss um the use of which material wood siding has been approved for the structure. Um, if that's

[120:04] if that's uh uh Well, I imagine we could move forward with that if we retract the application for the cement board depending on our conversation. But I really don't wanna um. You know we've We've discussed this several times. I don't want to bring it further than the task to as far as time spent. Uh, thank you, Jeff. And before I ask any Board members, if they have questions of you, will you swear retroactively that everything you just said was the full truth to the Board. I absolutely swear participation. I have one, Jeff. Could you just expand briefly on some of the reasons why you chose to switch from woodsiding to the heart the um cementitious material.

[121:02] Um, John, I think it again. It was uh uh, in somewhat a response of um of what we've seen uh recently uh related to the wildfires and zoom if you, as you may know or not, know, it's talk with right now. Isn't is very, very um actively pursuing wildfire mitigation, and we've got several grand State Brands National Park Service brand um to to continue that investigation. So we've always considered ourselves sort of a learning lab idea, this idea that let's Let's try something. Let's see if this I mean it's again. It's sort of being a devil's advocate, i'd say um in in continuing a conversation that I think we're all as preservation is going to be uh faced with, and there's there's no intention to use it further than on that one new structure. Um, but that is it's in sort of, I guess, in the uh in the cause of conversation. And if they, if that's if that's a a waste of our time when it piles

[122:00] No, thank you. That's I just wanted to hear some of that reasoning, any other question from board members for Jeff. Then we will proceed to public participation. And, Brenda, do you see any hands. Yet I do have one hand raised um, and that is Georgia Chamberlain. As we are moving Georgia into position to speak um, I encourage others to also raise their hands. Um, if they would like to be a part of this public hearing process. Um, I do have one person whose name is currently listed as Mp. And I will need the whole name that you're commonly known by before you speak um third on the list. So if you could put that in the Q. A. Box for me I would appreciate that. In the meantime we will start with Georgia Chamberlain.

[123:02] You should be able to unmute, and Aubrey will put up the timer for you once you are ready, and i'm sure Abby will need to swear you in. I I do need to swear you in Georgia, and thank you for hanging in here with us during this meeting. Um! To speak at this time to this issue. So if you will swear to tell the board the whole truth, and state your full name. Your three minutes will then begin. Um. I swear to tell the whole truth this evening to the board, and my name is Georgia Chamberlain, and I just wanted to say that i'm pleased that you're considering using this material. And hopefully, you will consider using uh fire fire retardant materials throughout the Chatauqua grounds, and it's all I i'm here in support, using the new material. Well, thank you so much for taking the time and effort to uh share that with us.

[124:03] We appreciate it. Um! And Brenda, who is next in the queue? Yes, we have Miles Posen, who has moved up from third to second. Um, Patrick. Also, I saw your hand pop up and down. Okay, So, Patrick. Now you will be third uh. So we will move forward with Miles posing. Okay, Thank you, Miles, for being here. And again, if you will swear to tell the Board the full truth and state your full name. Then your three minutes will begin. Can you hear me? We can. Yes, we can. Okay, great. My name is Susan shirk all I miles closest partner. He couldn't be here this evening because he had a continuing education class planned way before this, but I have a letter that he has written, and I was just wondering if I could read that on his behalf. Yes, you may. Okay, to the attention of the Landmark Board members. Thank you for taking the time to review my comments and concerns below regarding the impending barbage and closure being erected at Nine Hundred Baseline Road in the Chicago historic district. In this communication I will be referring to the aforementioned garbage enclosure as the centralized trust collection site

[125:16] for Chicago, going forward and it has been described to me in this way by various members of the Shit Top with Staff. I have been a friendly neighbor of Chicago for the past twenty-four years. My home is located approximately one hundred feet northeast of this new trash collection site, the structure sits on the north end of the east, parking lot which falls under the jurisdiction of Shit office lease with the city of Boulder. Other nearby neighbors are less than one hundred feet away from the trash collection site. I'm. Sending this letter in the hopes you hear my viewpoint as to why this is not an appropriate place to build a centralized fresh location site first. It is important to note that in the spring of one thousand nine hundred and eighty-five at the time plans for establishing the East parking lot, we're under consideration the parts and recreation advisory board convened and reviewed the proposal to establish such lot at Chicago minutes from the twenty May twentieth one thousand nine hundred and eighty-five parks and recreation Advisory Board meeting revealed a unanimous approval by the Board that the East Parking lot. This is a quote i'm sorry that the East parking lot to be strictly for overflow parking, and not to be developed or assaulted,

[126:21] and to be controlled and manage during appropriate functions with that intent and quote subsequently the August twenty-six, nineteen eighty-five meeting minutes from the Parks and recreation advisory Board meeting further reveal the landmark landmark board approval of such plan. Here we are decades later, and the East parking lot is, in fact, being developed and assaulted directly against the mandate approved um by the parks and Recreation Advisory Board and Landmark's Board. I am wondering, as a resident who stands to be dramatically affected by this new trash collection site. Just how to Taco was able to create a trash collection site for cement slab and build a metal framework on the East parking lot. Have there been any changes made to the mandate set forth by the parks and recreation advisory board to question. If not, then the newly constructed framework and some men slap should not be allowable in these parking lot. Secondly, before any further review and consideration of land off,

[127:13] I believe there should be an intermediate review of Chicago's plan for centralizing the trash collection for some i'm sorry for centralizing their trash through this new collection site. Further, more as affected residents, we would appreciate the opportunity to immediately receive a comment on any context, plans and details going forward which actually should have been done before any construction of the trash collection site commenced. If changes were made to the mandate. Then I would encourage these to be shared with all affected residents and stakeholders for review. In recent years two significant projects were completed, resulting in major improvements to the playground tennis court and lighting both in and adjacent to the East parking lot. The planning of these projects involved all stakeholders, including Chicago Association Parks and Recreation Advisory Board, Landmark Board, City Council, Chicago, residential taco neighbors in the general public There were several review meetings held with all the stakeholders where they were afforded the platform to provide feedback,

[128:08] and input during both the concept and planning stages a significant amount of time, money, and attention was dedicated to ensuring these projects were successful. I apologize. I don't know how much longer the letter is, but your time has expired. Is there? Are you just like a few words away from completing it. Sorry I hit the mute button there, Abby. Um, Susan, if you want to unmute and answer Abby's question. Okay, I'm sorry. There was just a little bit more. Just some bullets about. Why, um! The trash! The The considerations of of why Miles is strongly opposed to establishing the trash collection site one hundred feet from the home. Okay, thank you. And I believe we also received um an email from him as well which you did, but I I am, since I'm standing in for him, and I have another commitment myself, and i'm a little late, and I apologize. I wanted to make sure that I at least present to this um communication. No, we really appreciate your time and joining us tonight to do that. Thank you

[129:16] so I believe Patrick, or work is next. Yes, we have Patrick, go work, and if others would like to speak now would be the time to um! Raise your hand and let us know. Go ahead, Patrick, and please swear to tell us the whole truth, Patrick. Thank you, Patrick. I see you're unmuted, but we can't hear you. Hmm. Maybe your microphone settings. Yeah, I still don't here upon zoom. There's a little um drop up in room next to your mute button,

[130:03] and perhaps you need to um select a different microphone option there, although we heard you well earlier tonight. Oh, I see you frantically pushing your button, Patrick. Thank you for your efforts. Hmm. Let me um disable your mute button and then try giving it to you again and see if that helps any uh. But yeah, I think we got it. Yeah, Um, I should call in it's Patrick, or I swear to tell the joke. Thank you. So I I had the opportunity to talk to Miles. I've I've no miles pretty much all my life, and he's a very um

[131:00] easy going person in a reasonable person. So I just thought i'd reach out to you and and and give you a couple of comments Um, i'm there every Sunday morning at seven o'clock, So i'm familiar with this site. I was there actually last week, kind of various, with that metal structure was doing in the middle of this parking lot, not knowing that it was going to be a coverage collection site. Truth be known, the earlier Ldrc Review probably should have bought this forward. I'm not going to put Moroni or anybody else who reviewed it at that time. However, being in such a significant location adjacent to open land. That's the challenge I have with this, and having a garbage enclosure between the tennis courts and the open land and the view of downtown all there is just the wrong site. Literally speaking, i'm on Google Earth right now. It's one hundred one hundred feet away, thirty yards away from miles property. However, take it to the other side of the same parking lot. You're two hundred and ten feet away. You resolve a lot of issues i'm familiar with garbage sites. I've done enough developments to know what they need, our garbage trucks, and I would recommend that the

[132:08] the to Tacoa Association, and there's a perfect location where I parked my car every Sunday morning to put this facility, and it's in the same location. So um as being a good neighbor. I would hope that chickpac would would do that. I also looked at the proposal, and the proposal that was submitted takes into consideration to chocolate it doesn't. Take into consideration the distance between this facility and the neighbors. In other words, if I was to ask you how far away there was from the auditorium, chances are it would be easily answered, but it wasn't, and I don't know if it was the answer that it was only a hundred feet away from the neighbors, and knowing that there's going to be a hundred houses worth of garbage put into my backyard. If I was miles, I think I would be um Not encouraged, and quite honestly would um review the the documents that might exist at an earlier time in order to make sure that to tackle works with them. And on that note Um, i'm hoping that you talk what might consider

[133:08] holding back on building at that location, because it's not an expensive facility, and just push it to someplace, else that makes more sense, and that's it. Thank you. Thank you, Patrick. Uh Brenda. Has anyone else raised their hand? Catherine Barth raised her hand briefly, and then it looked like she got um zoom kicked her out of the meeting. So I just want to check in Catherine if you would like. Yep, Katherine's and came back up. So I am going to give Katherine here a mute button, and Abby will swear you in. Yes, Catherine, once again, if you'd be kind enough to swear to tell the board the full truth. Okay, Um, Can you hear me? Yes, we can hear you. Thank you.

[134:00] I hope. I hope my swearing still holds that I will tell you before a Hello. Um, Hello! Yeah, We can hear you. And now that at the beginning But I think we got you now. Yeah, you sound clearer now. Okay, I have a couple of as site is a National. He um advice and consent has been sought from the National Park Service, or from the representatives in Denver, uh the National Park Service, and I think it should be, I think, their their opinion on this design should this thought, and I also having been up there a lot this summer and talking to the staff.

[135:03] They talk about all of the bears that are everywhere, and at It's something i'm wondering if trash should ever be kept like. Maybe trash has to be moved out every night to and so overnight there, because there's when we were law engagement with the community with the neighbors, and that was an an issue for the playground and for that parking lot that there were so many bears that the weight staff was afraid and in danger, walking down to their park cars. So it doesn't seem like a good idea to be bringing more trash and bringing more attraction to bears when they are threatening the employees of the Chatauqua. So um, I think it's a bad place, I think, and and the materials. This type of enclosure, I think, should have sought some review from the National Park Service. Considering this is a national to store landmark, This is an important site

[136:17] and a very important commute, and I don't know what has been done. I know, during the lighting study that the name we're in the the we've started to lose you, Kathryn. Um, You're a little bit in an end throughout, but we were able to through that. Your sentences. And now we're using you any. The and I don't know if they were invited to be part of this. You should have um

[137:02] if you didn't, and you, Catherine. So we're. We're just getting about every other word from you, and I imagine you're on a delay with us, and maybe can't hear me. But oh, we're not able to hear. But I think we've We've understood where you were. We've understood your comments tonight. Do you agree, Abby? I agree. I think we got the just of it. Okay, great. Thank you, Katherine. I don't even see Kathryn's name in the meeting anymore. So I think she's not her friend right now, but but I I think we did here that she wondered what other entities were reached out to like the National Park Service and so forth. So, um, Brenda, do you see? Any other members of the public would like to speak to this agenda item?

[138:03] I do not see any. Oh, I see one more hand up. Um, Lynn Siegel would like to speak, Lynn. I will enable your mute button, and then Abby will swear you in before your timer comes up, I swear the truth. Yeah, um. These subjects cannot be distinguished from each other because it's a matter of trust. Um! And after seven hundred and seventy circle. I have lost a lot of trust of the Landmarks Board and the Ldrc. And it seems evident in this situation with the commentary that's come up that um! There's another issue here, and if I wanted to be strictly like Brenda says on the subject, I should say hey? It's a no-brainer. Simultaneous um sighting. Of course you know it's fireproof, and, like the house at seven hundred and seventy circle is fireproof, naturally itself already. Um! And that historic structures

[139:18] need to be, you know, preserved in the sense that three hundred and eleven Mapleton is a fire hazard there isn't any really other than city of boulder fire restrictions there isn't any requirement of such things. And yet that development is in direct proximity to where the big fire will come in and destroy the historic homes in Mapleton. So simultaneous sighting would be great for that. But as far as the trust of the situation and the democracy going on here, I think it's very much failed in that the neighbors weren't um consulted, and that there was a deeper dive given to the um the issue of wildlife and attraction, and that the national part should have been consulted, and the other various boards should have been consulted to um,

[140:17] and that's where you know you can't stick on just one subject, because they're all interconnected. There's, you know, interdependencies of all these things. And um, so i'd say that this should really come back for a full review with all those other entities. Although I support Jeff, I love what Jeff's doing up at Chautauqua, and I support the simultaneous sighting, of course, um, and for the reasons I described. But there's other elements going on here that are just distracting from the fact that it's maybe not supposed to be in that particular site adjacent to the tennis courts. So yeah, there's problems here and there's problems deep problems after this. Um. Huntington Hunter House

[141:08] is just demoed. So so, Lynn, if you would be kind enough to can just speak about nine hundred baseline road and the trash in closure. Yeah. And nine hundred baseline road, and the trashing closure has has a problem with me for the trust of the whole system here. That's what i'm talking about, and if that's not the subject. Then mute me, you know. But that's the issue here. The process, the democratic process that has failed again on this subject, at least in my view, and maybe someone could convince me otherwise. But it's not just a matter of simultaneous sighting or not. Okay, and Lynn um. Unfortunately, your time has expired on this subject

[142:00] and Brenda any additional members of the public who wish to speak to this. I do not see any additional hands up at this time, Abby, so I think we may be safe to close the public hearing. Okay, we will officially close the public hearing for this agenda item, And, Jeff, you are welcome to three minutes to respond to anything. Um, the public said. Okay, Thank you very much, Abby, and you may turn on your camera if you like, I know, we said only audio testimony that does not apply to applicants uh that. That's okay. I'm: I'm: fine. Um: Yeah. Again. Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak again, and so many of the things that were mentioned, believe me, and nothing, as as you know, all know as well as I do. Nothing happens quickly at Chatauqua, I mean. We had the approval to build this almost a year ago, and so by the time we, you know. But we do. We have a port of slab. We have built a structure based on the approval that we did go with um as far as the you know, uh trash and bears.

[143:03] So right now there are half a dozen enclosures that are so sort of sporadic around the campus, so it doesn't it doesn't um it. It's not like the problem doesn't already exist. Um! They're already what they who was exposed to problems or issues. I'm actually meeting with Osmp on Friday to discuss the bears and the couple of them. There's a mother in a couple of cubs that are in trouble up there because they're just getting, you know. I mean, there's there's just so much that goes on. So we thought that if we could control that to one area that we had more control over. We can make sure things are locked at night. I mean It's just people don't necessarily participate in that. I mean, this is just one part of what we're talking about. It's the is the trash and and the bears, you know we don't want to see bears get in trouble by any means um the large gates that you might see on that structure. Um, What was never discussed is There's actually what I pull a mand or walked, or something like a garage, you know a a a three foot wide door. So people don't have to open the large gates as frequently as the trash trucks will when they come up to to empty the trash. So um conversations to date as really I've really been with the State Historic Fund. We we have worked very,

[144:14] very, very closely with the State. There's been a lot of changes, as as we all know, and um! We had a large grant from the auditorium. The The State has a sort of covenant on certain areas of Chicago, not that particular area, but we happen to have a lot of conversations with those folks. They came up to see the new cafe and um. We discussed the our efforts where this is. Really, this is an effort towards sustainability, you know is how this really sort of started as far as waste management. Um, So you know, I I appreciate uh everything that was said, and I appreciate the the folks that are in support of it. Um! But I also, I I understand, concerns, and I think that Chataka tries to do as good a job as we can. Um addressing as many the participants has their are at the top of There's a lot of players There's a lot of stakeholders, and it's It's just important to keep them involved with um and it. But it's hard to to make sure everybody is on board, So thank you very much for the opportunity.

[145:14] Okay, Jeff, Thank you for these comments. And now we are going to uh return it. This issue to the Board for um, for deliberations. And um, you know, Bill, we've been uh kicking it off alphabetically in this virtual format. Um! When we were meeting in person we could kind of uh raise a hand easier. Kind of uh use body language to say we'd like to go first, but if you'd be willing to kick off this discussion, that would be great. Uh: yeah, I'm. I'm sorry that um the applicant. I'm sorry the um. The neighbor who is voicing his concerns about the location of this this structure um can't be given a fair hearing tonight, because we're not here to discuss that. We're here to discuss the use of a non-natural material Um, on a structure that is within a national historic landmark,

[146:15] and which was previously approved to have natural material applied to it. Personally, Don't have a problem with that kind of sighting on a new structure like this. Um, even if it is, you know, in a national historic landmark. Um! I live in a historic district, and my garage does not have original cedar sighting on it, as it was a new structure built in the one thousand nine hundred and ninetys, or maybe early two thousands before I bought the property. Um, so it doesn't have natural siding on it. I I understand. When we put new structures in that there is, there's a um a different standard, at least, apparently. Um, judging from the way my my home was built uh, or my garage was built.

[147:08] But Anyway, I don't have a problem with this particular uh application. Um, I do want to point out, though, that um there was a letter that came in that I read uh, maybe from maybe possibly one of the people that spoke uh on this topic. Uh wishing to expand this discussion, to allow all structures up and to talk with, to have um fire retardant citing applied to them. And I want to point out again. This is yet another reason why we have to address this topic now, because once we approve something like this, we will continue to get more requests and more requests. And right now, by allowing this to happen? Um. We are, as staff so clearly pointed out, per section three point six

[148:00] um. The use of authentic materials is encouraged, and use of non authentic materials discouraged. We are making an exception to that guideline I've I've laid out my reasons why I agree with that exception. But I but i'm worried concerned that this continues to be it a topic that is not being addressed by either the historic Preservation Staff or by this board we will get more and more of these things coming up, and it will continue to um put the landmarks board in a in a, I think, difficult position. But i'm in favor of of applying this particular uh type of citing to this particular structure. Okay, thank you, Bill, and thank you for also Um, bringing up the the letter from the neighbor, and so forth. And I hope every landmarks Board member got to have a chance to read the email from Kj. That he sent this afternoon before the meeting. Sort of addressing those issues that go back to um nineteen eighty-five, but that's not what's before us tonight. It is this this lac for this trash enclosure with the Semitic siding.

[149:10] Um! So I just wanted to to call that out. Um actually it wasn't, although I read his, it was not his. It was a a a, a, a, a, a a woman. Oh, well, no, I I know. Yes, and I think she did speak this evening I think we got. We got Kj's clarification for Miles letter, and then I think there was um an interest, or you know, a request to this be considered throughout the um entire historic district. But right now we're just looking at this one item uh Chelsea: Yeah, I am in favor of allowing um this request, and for the reasons that staff lead out. Um, and for you know just the logical reasons of it's new construction. It's better to have

[150:04] materials that are more resistant to fire, and I think for the longevity of the enclosure. Um, it makes sense. I also I just. I do want to point out for the neighbor, who um who spoke out with his concerns and for the person who spoke um for him. I I do want to share that you know I live in um an area where we have a shared, a shared garbage facility that is about the same size as this, and our you know our house is only, you know, sixty feet away from it, and it causes no problems. There's no smells there's no noise. It's not an issue. So. Um, while I appreciate the concern um as somebody who lives in a situation where we have this type of enclosure, it, it truly is not a problem. Um! So hopefully that provides some comfort.

[151:05] But that's it. Thank you so much. Uh John. So um in the case of this particular review. Um, i'm. In favor of the material being used here, because it's new construction and um because it's being used in a way that is at least sensitive to the district and colored in a way that fits into the district. In fact, it's a selection from the palette in the district. Um, I think that I agree with Bill, but I think that we have to have particularly about this material. I think we have to have a much more robust discussion about it, especially when used on structures other than new construction. It's it's an arguably

[152:04] resilient material. Um. So that is somewhat more sustainable in some respects and other materials. It's also arguable that it offers a certain amount of fire resistance. Um! In the case of this structure, since it's the principal material, it actually would offer a certain amount of fire protection, although it's just resistant to fire, It's not going to necessarily completely negate the damage that fire would do, particularly if it's a particularly hot fire. It's not asbestos, and it doesn't have the same resistive qualities as asbestos on other structures, or when added to other structures. Um, it is not going to be a magic solution to the issue of wildfire. There's so many factors that make a structure subject to fire damage, and that make it subject to being

[153:07] engulfed by fire. That just adding one material to one portion of the building is not gonna do that trick. So I think it's a It's a discussion that we have to have for a lot of reasons we do need to be making choices of materials that offer more more resilience, and that are more sustainable materials. What is truly appropriate in a historic district, and what isn't is something that we need to explore a little more deeply with this new class of of materials. But I support this particular application. Thank you, John Ronnie: Yeah, um. I don't have much to add. I agree with my colleagues here and Staff's report. You know. I do think that for the time being our

[154:01] kind of policy around the um, you know, material is kind of a case by case decision, and I think the way that Staff wrote this up um presented that very well. Um, and you know I don't feel like I have to recap them all. Um. But perimeter condition. New construction are two that I think, resonate the most, all of the other aspects of the design that are the qualitative pieces that make it compatible. I think we're also described loan staff's report. So you know I applaud um the association for exploring this. No, I think Jeff was saying. Um, that they're a laboratory of sorts, and you know these are easy decisions. I think there will be versions of this that might be harder for us collectively to come to consensus on um. But I do think that this particular one um, you know, pilots a pretty good question and a place that's sensitive. Um. Lastly, I believe that um if we go forward with an approval like this, it does not diminish um either the character or the status um of this landmark area.

[155:15] Um, and it doesn't put in jeopardy the current, the the landmark status of the campus. So you know, if those flags started to be raised. Um, I think we might have a more challenging conversation on our hands. But don't think that's the case for this um, and I plan to support the request. So so thank you, Ronnie. And um, you know this is a is a difficult one, because I think it's it. I just feel like the the card is going before the horse, and it just really points out how desperately I need education about this material as well as updates to not only guidelines that we all um refer to, but what um

[156:00] The Secretary of Interior guidelines um from the National Park Service, because you know where i'm really struggling. This is a a national historic landmark. And um! This is with the the Secretary of State of Standard. Still not having this um something that they they support at this time, and I think one of the biggest four priorities when we talk about board initiatives a little later, under matters is that I would I would. I crave a training an expert thirty, forty-five minutes of someone really explaining to me about this material. I've also heard that it's not the most recyclable material when it's used on a house. I understand that it doesn't provide. You need to provide more insulation in that house, because this, and then itself doesn't provide the same um insulation that other other sightings do. And I think that I applaud all the efforts of Jeff the Cca. And you know it is a learning lab. It is a a real life. Um opportunity to explore this. But you know where i'm struggling is. I don't have a guideline, or I have staff expertise. I have what the Board is bringing to this decision, but I don't have something like the

[157:24] the National Park Service. Our Secretary of State Interior Standards are our guidelines. Haven't been updated to um. I don't have that hook to hang my vote on, so I won't be supporting it, even though I think this will be if If this, if this proceeds as it sounds like it's going to it, it will be a real learning thing to me, but what i'd love to see, and i'm hoping either an upcoming session at either the Cpi Conference in Boulder in February or the National Trust for Historic Preservation Conference in in November. I realize how inadequately I have been trained, or have the knowledge, or can find the information to make a well informed decision for for

[158:08] the appropriateness and the use of this in in our resources, I I think it comes to I'm. Totally open to exploring the validity of technology. And it's just, you know, making leaps and bounds in in progress. But but I don't have that look to hang my vote on other than a a leap of faith, and so I won't be supporting it. But I I think you'll be very curious to see if if this does go through, you know what what we learn from that? Um! Is there any other discussion? Or would someone like to make a motion? I can make a motion on clear if you can pull up the recommended motion.

[159:03] I moved that the landmarks board adopt the staff memorandum date in October twelfth two thousand, and twenty-two is the findings of the board, and approved a landmark alteration certificate to install Semitic siding on a garbage enclosure at nine hundred baseline F. In the Chatauqua Park. Historic district, as shown on application, receives August sixteenth two thousand and twenty-two. Finding that the proposal meets the standards of issuance of the landmark alteration certificate in Chapter nine hundred and eighteen Brc. One thousand nine hundred and eighty. One is generally consistent with the general design guidelines. Is there a second. Okay, uh, on a motion by Ronnie, seconded by John. We'll take a roll call. Vote, Bill I Bill, are you on mute? Yes, I am. And I was suggesting that we asked for one last uh period of discussion to discuss the motion. If anybody has any. Okay, does anyone have anything they'd like to comment on now that a motion is on the table.

[160:12] Yeah, okay, i'll vote Yay Chelsea. Yes, John Ronnie and and I vote No. So the motion passes four to one. Um. Thank you, Jeff, and thank you to everyone um from the public who spoke to this. I'm i'm sorry I I would just like to thank you folks for the consideration, and I think in that respect that so Taco is with some sex somewhat successful. And uh, in making us talk about, you know again. I know we have plenty to talk about, so I I I appreciate your time. I I appreciate the issue being kind of forced on that. I just wish we could have had a you know. I would have like some training or or thorough information from from someone prior to having to vote on this. But thank you, Jeff, for everything you do.

[161:10] Um. I was going to propose that we take a five minute break. Is everyone okay with O Roni. Um, I support the break. But um, I think it's my I think it's my turn to sign off and recover. Um, I apologize, but I think i'm gonna split. I may have heard this. I'm feeling under the weather, and I think it's my time to Roddy. We so appreciate you being with us this long you've been. It's been very valuable to have your participation, and we still have a quorum to proceed. So i'm going to suggest that we reconvene at at eight fifty. I almost said nine fifty. Oh, my God! At eight, fifty. Pm: Okay, everyone. Okay, Thank you.

[167:11] So Um. I believe everybody's back. I see John and Chelsea and Bill. Okay, I'm just gonna wait to make sure. John is back. Thank you. Everyone Okay, John has returned. So. Um! We will get started with our last public hearing of the evening. This is a public hearing and consideration of a landmark alteration, certificate application for a uh

[168:01] a ray mounted on the street facing roof at eight, seventy, five, Fourteenth Street, a non contributing building in the University place. Historic district. Um pursue it to Section nine, eleven, eighteen of the boulder revised code, one thousand nine hundred and eighty one, and the owner is Kevin Baum, and the applicant is Namaste solar, and thank you in advance to the owners and the applicant who have agreed to this um virtual format prior to the meeting. So, Claire, I believe you're going to kick us off, but we should probably um impart any ex parte contacts, and I I think you have listed who has seen this already at Ldrc. Correct? Yes. Um! Well, for the benefit of the applicant and the owner Um, i'll just quickly go through what's involved in the quasi-judicial hearing process. Um.

[169:03] Everybody speaking today will be sworn in and board members will note any exparte contacts as Abbey mentioned. Um, i'll give the staff presentation. After that the Board may ask questions. Um. The applicant will have ten minutes to present to the board, and the Board may ask questions of the applicant will then open the public hearing. After all, members of the public have made comments. The applicant may respond to anything that was said. Will then ask everyone to mute their computers, and the Board will deliberate Um. A motion requires an affirmative vote of at least three members to pass motions must state findings, conclusions, and recommendation, and uh, a record of this hearing is kept by staff. So um previously reviewed at the Ldrc. That was Ronnie and Abby on August tenth.

[170:01] Right back to you, Abbey. Thank you. So I have no ex parte contacts other than that meeting. Uh, Bill, I have none, Chelsea. None. And, John, Okay, thank you. All right. So um the criteria for review are outlined in the boulder Revised code on the nine eleven, eighteen, and the criteria are to ensure the proposed work preserves, enhance, or restores, and does not damage, or adversely affect exterior architectural features of the historic value of the property or the historic value of the property. Um that the work is compatible with the character of the property, and that the Landmarks Board considers the economic feasibility of alternatives. The options today offer the Landmarks board to approve the application. This is subject to Fourteen Day City Council call up period um. They may also deny the application, which would be subject to a forty-five day period in which city council could review the decision. Um! A denial would mean the applicant could not submit

[171:14] the same application within twelve months, but the board may also allow the applicant to withdraw. So this application was received on July twenty ninth, and um like I said, reviewed by the Ldrc. On August tenth. Um. The Ldlc. Refer to the application to the Landmark Board for a review in a public hearing, which is why we're here today. So any questions from the board on process we well practiced now because we just did this. Okay, So um, eight, Seventy five, Fourteenth Street is located on the west side of Fourteenth Street. This is Fourteenth Ah, between Cascade and Aurora Um. The black outline on this map is the University place, historic district,

[172:09] and Eight Hundred and Seventy five. Fourteenth Street is a Non- contributing property within the district that lined in yellow right Here Um. The house was constructed in one thousand nine hundred and fifty-seven, which is outside of the eighteen, ninety, to one thousand nine hundred and forty-one period of significance. For the district. Um. This is the photograph from the one thousand nine hundred and fifty-eight tax assessor card um, and on the on the right here is a nineteen forty-eight photograph of a lovely car that's been in an unfortunate accident, but fortunately for us, in the background we can see um uh eight, seventy, five, Fourteenth Street is not there. Um, it would be right here. It will be built right here a few years later, actually a decade later.

[173:04] So this is a very minimal traditional house with a simple gable roof um windows placed tightly under the eaves. It was heavily modified in two thousand and eleven. The The under the house garage was incorporated into the living space, and two dormers were added uh to the front of the house. Um, you can see on the site plan from from back. Then um in two thousand and eleven. There's a large dorm added here, and a small here um and a new front porch was added. That's what you can see here, Um! And that would be over this entire front portion of the house. So these are current photographs of the house. You can see the uh, the front porch added a little shed roof here, with a porch columns underneath. And um! This is the large dormer um, and you can see the the smaller one just to hiding out right here. Um!

[174:15] The trees kind of got in the way of these pictures. But again this is the porch roof with the large dorm on top. And if you can imagine the the original roof line is this kind of hiding behind the tree here? So the proposed scope is to install fifteen black on black solar panels on the surface of the large dormer facing Fourteenth Street. This is Fourteenth Street. Right here. Actually, this is the sidewalk. Fourteenth Street is here. Um! The uh! This is the the porch shed roof here, and the small on the roof here, and this entire area is the lodge front facing.

[175:05] You can't see my pointer. Yes, okay, good. Um. So the uh, According to the applicant, this array would produce a Po. Approximately seven thousand three hundred and sixteen kilowatt hours per year, which is ninety, two percent offset of the energy needs of the homeowner. Here's a photo simulation from a a both eye. Perspective. Um again. This is the port roof down here, um! And the dormer roof with the the panels on top. So on the left. Here, um! The applicant provided an illustration indicating the location of the panels up on the dormer roof. Here, um on the right. This is a a photograph um that I took standing on the top step of the church opposite the house. Um,

[176:07] and you get a better more of a clear view of the uh, the front facade. Um, and this is the roof here proposed for the the panels on top. So the applicant also provided a a lidar model, showing the proposed location of the panels. Um, The brighter yellow on the model is the more sunlight. Um. So the brighter the yellow, the more the sunlight. Um. The applicant probably can explain this better than me, but the darker the colors the worst. It is for solar panels. Um. Their analysis is included in the memo. They did provide an analysis of adding panels to the rear um of the roof, which is the West elevation um, and they the analysis that they provided Ah said that they could install sixteen panels in total on the rear roof, but that would produce um only five thousand six hundred and fifty-two kilowatt hours per year, which is a seventy. One percent offset of the energy needs of the homeowner.

[177:16] So that's a a of one thousand six hundred and sixty four kilowatt hours per year. So um, actually, before I move on, did anyone have any questions? Preferably non-technical ones about solar panels? I'm sorry I didn't get my hand up. But do you have any other photographs of this property from the street other than the one you showed us? Uh, there's this one and um. These are from the sidewalk. Okay, Yeah, Okay, Thanks. Okay. Did anybody else have a question?

[178:04] All right. We'll move on. So um. The University place. Guidelines refer to the general design Guidelines for non-historic stretches, which this is so in the general guidelines. We looked at Guidelines three point one roof skylights and solar panels, which generally says, to preserve the roof, form slope, and height. Um. The solar panels should not compromise the historic integrity of the building, and they should not be highly visible, particularly from the front of the house. The guidance is to place them on rear, facing roofs on the ground. We considered that flush mount panels wouldn't significantly affect the slope, height, or the form of the roof, and um.

[179:00] We also expected that pedestrians um wouldn't be able to see them. They wouldn't be highly visible. Um, someone very tall, or in a toll veil uh to to to vehicle may be able to see them. Um, but we didn't think that this would compromise the historic integrity of the district. We also looked at guideline uh four point one protection of historic buildings um and um not so much for the protection of the non-contributing building, but for the district overall and The guideline says that character defining features should not be destroyed, damaged, or obscured, and new additions should be constructed, so that they may be removed in the future without damaging the historic structure, and that the proposal should not detract from the overall historic character of the district. Um, and we considered that no historic features would be damaged or obscured by the panels that the panels could be removed in the future without impairment to the essential form and integrity of the property.

[180:15] We also looked at Guideline Four point four compatibility with historic site and setting. It also seemed important, as this is a historic district. Um! It says that ah! To design new editions, so that the overall character of the site. Site. Topography, character defining site, Features and trees are retained. Um locate new additions on an inconspicuous elevation of a historic building generally the real one, and locating, in addition to the front of the structure, is ah inappropriate, because it obscures the historic facade of a building, and we considered that the panels would be in an inconspicuous location, and wouldn't obscure any historic features. So the analysis led us to the recommendation that the proposal is generally consistent with the general design, guidelines and Section nine, eleven, eighteen of the boulder revised Code,

[181:11] and that the installation of sixty Ah, sorry six kilowatt photovoltaic system on the street-facing roof of a non-contributing building will have zero to minimal visibility. And will not damage. The character of the immediate streetscape and or adversely affect the special historic character of the University place. Historic District Um. The house is considered non-contributing to the district being constructed outside of the period of significance. Addition an alternative location has been studied and proven non-viable, and the array can be removed in the future without impairment to the essential form and integrity of the historic property, and the proposed work will not adversely affect the historic character of the district.

[182:02] So with that here is the recommended motion um, which we recommend to adopt the staff memo and issue uh, an I am acc ortration certificate. Any questions all right, So, Claire, it appears it's time for the applicant's presentation. It is, and I believe they are uh here. Yup, Ben is um representing the um so um over your uh Brenda, if you would. Oh, you did it already, you know. Step ahead of me, and Ben probably knows he has ten minutes for a presentation. Um! And then, when you are ready to speak, we do need you to swear to tell the Board the full truth, and state your full name.

[183:03] Oh, good evening, everyone. My name's Ben long. I Sw. To tell the truth, the whole truth, and all that good stuff. Um, I don't think i'll need the full ten minutes. I think we did sort of go through the the highlights clear, Did a great job of summarizing that for us. Um, yeah, of just sort of to to touch on the high level things we did do like to do, the black on black panels to be, as you know, less visible as possible. Um, We did also explore, putting it on the right on that back roof. Um! There, for for a few reasons. Um! We uh, we decided to go with the front. Not only is there more sun out there, less shade. There is also a fewer skylight back there which can be a uh hazard when installing, and also just for some other technical reasons. The uh, it's just more efficient, due to the light that we get in the morning on that East side, and as opposed to what we get in the West just to the heat and a few other things. Um,

[184:09] my colleague, Noah, project manager for this uh installation, has also joined us on the meeting. Um! And he'd be able to speak to some of the more technical aspects if you have questions to that. Um. And yeah, he actually would like to speak uh as well, so feel free to mute me, and if you can let me know, i'm sure he he has planned to contribute uh welcome. Now. We will need to swear you in as well, and he should have control over his camera and mute button. Now, Hi, there, sorry and rejoined me. Um. My name is Noah Harriet. I'm a project manager with with nomin say, still solar as Ben mentioned um

[185:01] the the homeowner uh Kevin Baum um wanted to join us tonight, but unfortunately he is out of the country uh for business. Um! And it's about two in the morning where he is uh right now, so he he opted not to attend. Um wanted to to thank the staff for, uh presenting the the information that we provided. Um, We did do uh extensive studies, looking at at at the viability of of adding the array on uh the west facing slope of of the house, as uh been mentioned. Um, we when there. Yup, there's that other uh that other model. We could see what what we could fit up there uh and do to the additional trees. Um! And the uh the afternoon sunlight um cuts off more with the effect of the horizon as we get closer to the mountains. Uh, in addition to the added temperature late in the day, are all factors that contribute to the lower production. Um,

[186:03] and it's, you know, not not a viable option for for uh, Mr. Baum and his family um do the added cost of of the solar um, and uh, in in doing a review uh, we also wanted to point out. There was a another country non contributing structure uh in this district within the past year. That was a granted uh certificate by this um committee at thirteen thirty-three cascade um, and we we did go by and and submit some photos as well. Um so uh, there is some some precedent and uh, happy to to answer questions for folks about the impact of of the array on this part of the roof. And uh, thanks again for showing showing the the data that we we gave to you and Noah belatedly. Will you just raise your hand and say everything you just spoke to was the full truth to the board.

[187:05] Oh, yes, I It was all the truth. Okay, thank you. I'm sorry, but it's It's a formality. I want to make sure to to take care of um. So do any Board members have any questions for Noah or Ben. I i'm not seeing any um. Bill has his hand up, Bill. I'm so sorry I see it. Go ahead, Bill, please. I think i'll just set my video off from now on. I don't think it's doing anybody any good. Um, Noah! You mentioned a precedent on cascade Streak. Uh two things is this precedent you're referring to in a in another historic district, and second thing is is it on a street facing um uh

[188:02] uh, the The home I'm referring to is one thousand three hundred and thirty-three cascade. Uh it is on the same block in the same district. Uh, and there are panels facing the street side, a A at a higher angle uh than the current property, thirteen, thirty cascade, that's all I have. Um, just no, I can. You clarify uh the meaning of higher angle? Do you mean that it's more visible? Is it? Is it steeper to the street view, or flatter? That's correct. Higher by higher angle, I mean, uh a steeper pitch? Um! So yes, it is more visible than uh the current proposal. Okay, Thank you.

[189:02] Any other questions from board members before we move on to public participation. So so, Brenda, do you see any hands raised at this point to speak to this issue. I do have two hands up at this point. We have Kathryn, Barth and Lynn Siegel, so we'll start with Katherine. Catherine. I'll unmute you so Abby can swear you in, and then your timer will start hopefully. We will be able to hear you better this time. Yeah, Um. As I remember in the historic district there is always a concern. Um, and this is a non contributing building, but that and that work that's done on a non contributing building does not negatively affect

[190:13] the historic district, and this particular uh situation with that large dorm or roof um, and the photographs that were taken from the sidewalk and from across the street. Convince me that, putting skylight on the front of this house, which normally is, is you don't put them on. The front of the house is acceptable in this case, and I do not think that there is a a very negative effect on the district from this, and it seems i'm convinced from the maps of the amount of solar that hits this roof as opposed to the roof in the back,

[191:00] that this is a better location from the the way the solar panels will work and the technology. So, even though it's solar panels on the front of the house. I would, I think I would cautiously advise the board to go ahead and approve it. Thank you, Katherine and Lynn. I will go ahead and unmute you, so you can also be sworn in for the last time this evening, and then I will start. I thought the skylight was sworn in sworn the truth. Um, I thought the skylights were on the back part of the house. Um, maybe I misunderstood, and that's why they didn't one of the reasons that the owner said he didn't, or someone said they didn't want a place that have to juggle around skylights just on the side. But um yeah, I support this Um, it's It's pretty much of a no brainer. But then I met Jeff Madanich at Boulder being Builder Guild thirty years ago, so I've been interested mostly in, you know, sustainability for a long time.

[192:18] Um and um, I don't think it significantly. Uh I mean, theoretically listening to all the guidelines. It does not meet um everything that it should. You know that it does affect visual field, but I think that that that it's worth the benefit and the energy savings and the benefit, the long term benefit to the whole historic community, financially, of having solar implemented into the whole

[193:00] system of how we live culturally. I think it provides more economic benefit to the historic community through the savings it that that are exhibited from using solar. So no, Brendan. Yes, done. Thank you. Thank you. Lynn and Brenda. Do you see anyone else who would like to address this agenda item? I do not see any other hands up at this time. I think we are able to close public comment. Okay, So public participation is officially closed for this item. And Noah and ben you you are entitled to three minutes um to rebatter to add any additional comments after public participation. Uh, I think i'd just like to to thank members of the public for, uh sharing their views on this and um, you know we we agree. We think more solar is better for our community. Um, as we

[194:11] try and meet some some lofty climate goals. And uh, we, we appreciate the time that the board and the staff has taken in reviewing this um, and and working with us to help provide all the information that that was needed to to make a uh informed decision. So thank you all uh for letting us make our case. Thank you, gentlemen, so much so I believe this is time to move it back to board discussion. Um, Bill, Are you willing to kick it off. Yeah, I have nothing to discuss. I'm: ready to vote. I, too, am ready to vote. Okay, John

[195:07] and Clara, if you could pull that up on the screen. Thank you, Bill. Uh move. The landmarks board adopted staff memorandum dated october twelve, two thousand and twenty-two is the findings of the board and approve a landmark alteration certificate for a six kilowatt Photovoltaic Array, mounted on the street facing roof at Eight Hundred and seventy-five Fourteenth Street, is shown on plans stated August the tenth, two thousand and twenty-two. Finding the proposal meets the standards for issuance of an landmark allation, certificate in chapter nine eleven eighteen brc, one thousand nine hundred and eighty. One is generally consistent with the general design guidelines and the University place district design guidelines. Thank you, Bill. Is there a second.

[196:01] Thank you, John. So on a motion by Bill seconded by John, we'll take a roll call. Vote is not consistent with the design guidelines. However, it is consistent with what with what we understand to be the the sort of intent of the guidelines as they interact with boulders uh larger um initiatives. Um! And this is one of those situations where it's good to have a human being. Um! Look at the guideline. Look at the actual condition that we're faced with, and then make a judgment call and say, Well, we really can't see these panels from the street. We can barely see them from across the street. Why would we have these guidelines in place? Well, because most most rooms facing the street, Don't have such a uh gentle, or a lack of uh the degree angular degree facing the street.

[197:10] So it's kind of good to have a guy around it kind of sets it. But we're here in a at a situation where we can make exception to it. I think this is a great example of why we would make an exception. Um, I agree, Bill, it after having been one of the members of the Ldrc on August tenth. Um, I know we kind of put Namaste through the hoops and ask them to really explore the West Side, and then coming back with um, you know. Thank you for doing that, and showing kind of what the loss would be by placing them on the rear of the house, and I think Bill hit the nail on the head with the pitch of the roof, and um, you know it's. It's always curious to me when people think they have to choose either historic preservation or um energy efficiency, when they both can go beautifully hand in hand, and I think this is one of the projects that demonstrates that.

[198:04] Uh, John and Chelsea any comments. Um, I just have one brief comment that we have since since at least I've been on the board because the the guidelines don't fully discuss the issue of of photo our solar voltakes on roofs. We did at one point in our Ldrc reviews, and and subsequently come up with criteria criteria, that we apply to these reviews, and the criteria um have been fairly well met in this case, the criteria being we first look at position on the roof or location on the roof. The ideal is to keep them off of the front of the roof,

[199:00] that, failing that which we did by analysis, um locating them on a part of the roof with the least um visibility. We also the second criteria is orientation on the our position relative to the roof slope; in other words, that they be mounted flat to the roof is preferable, and then the third criteria was color, that they either match the roof material directly, or that they be as dark as possible to be as un apparent as possible. So this meets all of them, and so it's allowable. Thank you, John, Anything to add anybody. Then we'll go ahead and do a roll call. Vote on the motion Bill. Uh, yes, Chelsea. Yes, John, and I vote I. So the the motion passes for the zero.

[200:13] Did you want it. So uh, Bill, did you have a comment or a question? He dropped off. Yeah, I did, but not to, not to this board, and some of the walked into my room.

[201:01] A few things to um do, but I don't know if Staff has anything first, but otherwise i'll jump in. I don't believe we have any updates from stuff, Christopher, you can correct me if i'm forgetting something um in, as any members of the board has questions for us. I Don't have any questions for you. But, Aubrey, thank you for registering me for the National Trust, for historic Preservation saving places Conference. Um, I appreciate that you're welcome, and you and you know a shout out to Staff, You're doing a great job in in You've almost made it halfway through, or you have reached the halfway point of Marcy's leave so great job for keeping everything moving along. So I have been working on the Board initiative. Update just sort of these little spreadsheets to see, and it's been fascinating because it's some of It's simple, and some of it. I realize all the issues with

[202:06] really does bring up, and one of the ones is is, and I think some of our hearings tonight point out the need for um design guideline updates, and especially as it relates to technology uh photovoltaic or raise. And all of that, you realize that all these things and technology has moved along, and we have a ways to catch up with them and and and learn what's best practices and historic preservation, and update our um guidelines accordingly, and I don't have anything to show you tonight, and I almost sent them to Claire this morning, but I didn't think that was fair. I know her work ethic. I didn't want to burden her before this meeting tonight. But, um! There! There are a lot of things that can kind of be be grouped together, but there are really a lot of things that need some fulsome discussions and and some things like that. And i'm also, as i'm

[203:06] working on this, trying to figure out what kind of staff time it would take. And who out there in the community can help us with these things. I was so pleased to hear. Um, you know, Patrick, a work um once again reiterate that they're willing to support us, and they'd like support from us, as well as as Lynn Siegel as executive director of historic folder about how best to partner, and how we can move the ball forward. So stay tuned um it. I got excited about it, and then I also realized how many pieces there were To some of these. The other thing I wanted to share is, I attended the Boards and Commission training on October first a virtual meeting along with Brenda and and other staff members and board members, and the two key things I walked away with from it is. There was discussion about the annual letter to Council. And um,

[204:02] I think it was now i'm trying to remember which staff member, I think it was John Morris who led this discussion that sometimes it will take a for two or three letters or two or three years to counsel asking for the same priority, or to get it into council or city staff's work plan before a particular subject really does get on the radar and start um moving along through through um their policies and procedures, and I thought that was interesting, and one of the things that um they also said, and I don't know if they were referring to landmarks for two years ago or another board, and they said, and some one board sent in a video um instead of a letter, and that was really great. So I wanted to throw that out there as we get ever closer to um a deadline for a letter or video or something to city council. Um. The other thing I had mentioned declare, and she was kind enough to add this to matters is um. Since nineteen eighty-four

[205:08] historic boulder has been doing these holiday House Tours and um this year it's on the Saturday, December, third, and fourth, and in previous years both staff members in the preservation and planning department as well as landmarks. Board Members, if they're interested, have signed up to volunteer for a shift, and i'm actually going to be a House captain this year on both days and um. So if anyone is interested I can get more details to you about what the shifts are. Um Previously, if you volunteered, you also got a ticket to go see the other houses. I can very quickly tell you that one of the house is featured on this year's tour is that seventh and Aurora. It's the Scott Carpenter house where his maternal grandmother lived, and where he grew up and went to boulder high, and everything um before he uh flew into space. Um! And another house that might be on the tour is a house that the landmarks board. Well, I believe historic boulder.

[206:10] Uh submitted the landmark application, and then that landmark support supported it. It started out over the owners objection, but was fully supported by the owner. By the time the designation got to city council, and it's the Liberal House, that is, at eight, Nineteen Sixth Street, That was designed in one thousand nine hundred and fifty-four hoby. Wagner has a wonderful butterfly roof, and um it got saved had a wonderful addition put onto it as fabulous view from the backyard of the flat ours. So it's going to kind of be in that neighborhood west of Ninth Street, and more like between Aurora and that area to Baseline. So that gives you just a little bit of an idea of where the neighborhood is. But um, you know it's it's focus is educating people on um architecture and different things. Um!

[207:03] About preservation. That that um is something I think you know, is great for us if we have the time to volunteer for, and you can reach out to me directly if you have any questions, or to a historic folder, if you're interested, And, Claire, I think that's all I have, and I don't know if other members of the Board have anything. I don't see any raised hands. If no one wants to bring anything up, I think, uh we can adjourn the meeting at nine thirty. One Pm: Thank you, Abby.

[208:05] Good night.