November 2, 2022 — Landmarks Board Regular Meeting

Transcript

Captions from City of Boulder YouTube recording.

[0:00] Voice. So the Landmarks Board meeting is called to order. Welcome to the November second two thousand and Twenty-two Landmarks board, meeting it's six O one Pm. Um. I would like to introduce our moderator this evening. Brenda, written our before we begin with Brenda, will review the virtual meeting to Cor up first slide, please. Good evening, Everyone and um welcome. I'm Brenda Rit. Now i'm with our community engagement team. Um, which is what brings me to my role in this meeting this evening. Um. We have worked with the community to develop a vision for productive, meaningful, and inclusive civic conversation. The vision supports physical and emotional safety for community members, for staff and for boarding commission member. It also. It's democracy for people of all ages, identities, lived experience and political perspectives. Um. You can learn more about it by going to the website and in the search bar, putting in um productive atmosphere that's at Boulder Colorado. Dot Go

[1:16] next slide, please. The following are some examples of our rules of decorum that are found in the Boulder Res Revised code and other guidelines that support this vision, and these will be upheld tonight. During this meeting all remarks and testimony shall be limited to matters related to city business. No participants shall make threats or use other forms of intimidation against any person. Obscenity, racial epithets, and other speech and behavior that disrupts or otherwise impedes the ability to conduct this meeting are prohibited, and participants may raise their hand to speak during open comment and public comment periods. During hearings individuals must display their whole name before being allowed to speak online. I am seeing some folks who are in the meeting now under their organization, names or not necessarily their whole um the name they're commonly known. As

[2:10] so. If that if you think that's you, please reach out to me. If you plan to speak in the Q A. Box, and I can change your name for you currently. Only audio testimony is permitted in virtual meetings. Thanks, Abby. Thank you so much. So I want to acknowledge that we have full quorum tonight, including our ex officio member from the planning board as within person landmark board meetings. The recording of this meeting will be available in the Records archive. And on Youtube within twenty-eight days of this meeting we'll do a quick roll call and introductions of the board members and Um, our ex officio member of the Planning Board, I'm. Abby Daniel's Chair of the Um. Landmarks Board Bill

[3:00] I'm Bill Gelick Chelsea. Hi I'm. John Decker, Okay, Ronnie Lucio also a Landmark Board member, and last, but not least, Laura, Hi, Laura Kaplan. I'm the liaison to the planning board. Okay, thank you, Laura. We know that people are here to participate may have strong emotions about a particular project. We want to hear you, and we have found it to be more productive. If you are speaking, to persuade us, rather than berating us staff or the applicant, we will be following the usual format the best we can. The owners and applicants have agreed to use this format 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 hearing request to speak outside of those times will be denied. The one hearing we have tonight is quasi judicial. So any person testifying, including the applicant will be sworn in individual

[4:13] as board chair. I will call for a role vote on any motions made, and then, if you guys would be kind enough to share the group agreements that we came up with on our um retreat in July. And just as a reminder, this is a living document, Changes are always welcome, and we continue to welcome open dialogue. Board Members are welcome to use the raised hand feature to introduce a new topic. When we get into deliberations. We'll now move on to approval of the October twelfth Meeting meeting minutes. Does anybody have any changes? Alterations to the minutes,

[5:02] seeing none? I move that we approve these minutes to. We have a second I'll second. Okay, Thank you, John Jefferson, for seconding the motion. We will do a roll call vote, Bill I, Chelsea! Hi, John, I would I. So the October twelfth minute meetings passes. Now we will go to public participation for non-agenda items, Brenda, are you seeing anyone yet raising their hand or indicating they would like to speak during public participation. Um, if you don't see that, raise hand button, you may have a reactions button and find it there.

[6:02] Um! So I do have one hand up and operate. If you are ready with the timer, then we can go ahead and enable Patrick your microphone. It's it. Well, let me do that. Hmm. I am just about already with the timer, and I am having trouble. Okay, uh enabling talking for Patrick or work. You may need to do that. Operate. Um! I will promote Patrick to the panelist. Thank you and Patrick. We do request that you keep your camera off um inconsistency with our current policies. Hi, Everybody uh It's okay for me to start. Well, Patrick, will you be kind enough to raise your hand. It's for to tell the board. I should know this by now. I, Patrick O'rourke. Uh, I swear to tell the truth, thank you, and you'll have three minutes. Thank you. Uh three things. Number one on historic Boulder. I thought it would be a good idea just to bring you guys up to speed on what we're up to, because we work together

[7:16] uh closely. And so in the last couple of months uh we did that meet the spirits over at Columbia, Um Cemetery, and we had four hundred and seventy five people join us that day. So it was a really fabulous turnout. The weather was great, the spirits were great, and uh, the support that we got from the city was well received, and uh, they were very helpful throughout the whole process. Um! We are doing our home for the holidays on Saturday, December third uh it's going to be up on the University Hill area, and the featured house will be Scott Carpenter's home. So i'm hoping you guys have an opportunity to join us. We have, I think, at this point five houses, and we're hoping to get the sixth House. It's only gonna be a one day event from ten in the morning till six o'clock at night,

[8:03] and then the final one is, we um pushed our fifty year gala up until February of next year, and we're just going to do it at the annual meeting. Uh we didn't have the type of participation we were hoping to. And then the our sponsor um was ill. So that's the gentleman that owns the Bulgarado Hotel. He's our benefactor on that one. So looking forward to that regarding historic folder. Um. First of all, I want to thank John Decker personally. I you reached out to the of the day uh to work on the historic district. We're looking forward to it. I'm traveling for the next month i'll be out of the country. So i'm hoping to get together um the first or second week in December. Our goal is to get this launched in January and before the City Council before the third quarter next year. Uh that being, said, the other item that came up at the historic Board meeting was Um Bill Gelix um color palettes. Uh, we. We discussed it at the board, and we believe that it's a very important program to keep moving forward, so don't lose don't lose the energy that uh, it needs to happen, because, uh, what we're seeing our our

[9:13] houses that are being painted, that just don't fit in with the with the the neighborhood where they are, and it's not necessarily the owners fault if there's no standards that have to be. Not that uh that being said, then uh I'm, i'm gonna take this uh my speaking as a non historic boulder member. But uh, in twenty twenty-one there was a Ldr C meeting for the garbage reception area garbage containers over at to Takwa. Um! There's going to be challenges moving forward. I don't want to go into too much detail, but uh, because it was approved at the Ldrc. And uh, it's going before the City Council tomorrow night. There's going to be a lot of people there objecting to it for two reasons. The number one, for a lot of reasons for Number One is to put a garbage collection center for a hundred homes within a hundred feet of a neighbor

[10:06] is a challenge, and then I just saw that I play pickle all over there, and so I just saw yesterday, and this should be a concern to this board is that somebody put up at the city level six foot? I know it's all finishing the six foot wall. The solid wall between the the the the playground, and the tennis courts black in that area. So I don't know if that went before the Ldrc. But it's a wall, and it's the first wall I've seen that to talk about. Hey, Patrick, This is Bill Gelix. Since you mentioned me. I should uh make it clear that this color uh project that we got started was not done by me. Oh, okay, this was I was the person that had most of the work because i'm required, and I have bandwidth. But this was a a board initiated project which will likely just

[11:04] sit on the shelf somewhere for a while. Unfortunately. Thank you for the Clarification Bill. We do have one. Sorry I thank you for the clarification. Um, we do have one more public participant. Did we want to take other responses first. Abby. A couple of hands from board members. Okay, we do have one more um member of the public waiting. Yeah, I guess maybe somebody saw my hand. Um! So this is Ronnie speaking for those of you that can't see me. But, Patrick again Thank you so much for attending, and for um all of your comments and the information as well. I really appreciate it. I'm sorry that your time is kind of cut short. Um, if there's additional information that you feel that you would like to share with us. Um, please do. You can do that via email. Um. But again, i'm very grateful to um know that you're here, and you know, speaking up, it's It's very helpful. So thank you

[12:07] to Chelsea to You have your hand up. Yes, yeah, yeah, thanks. Yeah. I just wanted to. Um respond to one thing that Patrick said. Thanks for being here. Um, but um. One thing he mentioned was that the Ldrc. Approved that garbage corral and um! It was at the last landmarks Board meeting where the Board actually approved it. So I just wanted to um clarify that. And Bill uh yeah. Um, thanks, Ronnie, for driving me a little bit. I I to also want to uh along with Chelsea. Thank uh Patrick for weighing in with um information uh from historic boulder. Very important. Um! You are the uh leading edge of uh

[13:01] preservation in this in this community, and it's it's critical that you get your words out there. And this is a perfect form um to uh to um express what is happening with with your group and um, I Thanks. I think you'll offer doing it. Ronnie. Yeah, Sorry. Sorry. Just one last thing point of clarification. Um, I think that the Dumpster slash, trash, and closure was, in fact, approved at the Drc. And that at the last board meeting what we were evaluating was the request for the change in the material. Um, and that's my memory of it. Um! I just wanted to say that, Chelsea, I think that's how that played out um, and for anybody listening. Um, i'm pretty confident that that's what happened there. Um, if not, maybe Claire can jump in and um share any clarifications on that, as I know

[14:04] um. People attending this may, in fact, be planning on going to the City Council meeting, and I would hate for us to maybe have misinformation out there. But I think that's the process that it went through. I think you're right ronnie that in two thousand and twenty-one. It was approved by a different Ldrc. That than the one that recently saw, with the request for change in materials. John, I see your hand up. Well, I I was just gonna confirm that I was at the Ldrc meeting, and I believe it was with Bill, and we called it up to the board because of the change of material, and Chelsea was correct to remind us it was last month that we approved the material. Um, no! Well, what we're not to get all wrapped around the axle with minutia here, but I think um, and it's something for Claire or somebody at staff to validate. But I think the original request John was potentially a Drc. Uh

[15:07] administrative action, and it wasn't something that came to the full board to look at. I think I would like Claire to validate that for us. She might have access to that material because it looks like this is building into something important enough that we get the facts straight on it. Yep. I can confirm that the um, the the location of the trash enclosure, and the trash enclosure itself, was approved in October, two thousand and twenty-one by the landmark Design Review Committee, and the change in material was approved by the Landmark Board last month. October two thousand and twenty-two. Does that make sense? To everybody. Okay, thank you, Claire. Um. If there's no more comments from the Board right now, I believe we have several additional members of the public who would like to speak.

[16:01] We do um. There's one hand up now. There was another hand up earlier. We are still in open comment at the beginning of the meeting. So if you would like to participate in open comments, please use your raise hand button um. At this moment we have Kathryn Bart with her hand up so, Catherine, I will enable your microphone, and we'll ask you to swear in, and then um Aubrey will start the timer uh I square. To tell the truth. Uh, and i'm very happy to be here, and I thank you, Bill, for guiding me through the labyrinth of getting into this meeting. But Thank you so much. I'm just really happy. You have my text address, Catherine. Well, no, you're probably I don't know if you're happy or not. But I Haven't and i'm really kind of desperate, so I know the feeling. But anyway, um I did. I did want to add a little bit to um.

[17:03] Oh, why Patrick talked to you about about the traction closure and and um, you know the actual, the issue of what happened and what it was not really. I mean i'm i'm concerned about that. But what I am more concerned about is what I see is a lack of of uh to talk for reaching out to its neighbors and the community. And um I mean I we have not had it, you know. There was another little meeting, another Come, little group called friends of Chatauqua, and this is not a meeting of them. This is just my observation. But for quite a few years there was a lot of public input and and I tar. And I relate this to building the bathrooms by the um concert hall, and that had a lot of public, input, And I remember being there at least two tours where we walked around and looked at different sites, and then the issue of the lighting, changing the lighting to be um

[18:14] dark skies proper lighting. And I have to say that Marcy did a wonderful job, and there was much input from the community and the neighbors, and from historic boulder, and there were people from the landmark sport, and and we spent, I don't know. Marcy spent a lot of time facilitating this, and um at the end. I think everybody was happy, and people were really pretty satisfied with where that bathroom was going, so I just would like to Chautauqua, or to get back to the point of including other people before they make a pathway that ends in a decision that is upsetting the residents and the neighbors of Chautauqua. So I thank you very much, and uh,

[19:06] let's try and be a a friendlier to talk more somehow. Get them talking to people again, because they were doing that some years ago. Thank you so much. And um, I guess that's it. Bye, Thank you. Katherine. Um Brenda, Any other members of the public. Yes, we have one more person when Siegel would like to participate. Um! So, Lynn, I will enable your microphone, and uh, I swear the best I know the truth, and that is up to perception. So you know your truth or my truth. I swear to the truth the best I know it. Um, and going on Catherine's Segue to Chautauqua. I really feel that Stephanie Truce, who was at one thousand five hundred? Mariposa should have had her windows. I just can't see why it was kicked up to Landmarks Board like It's so simple.

[20:06] The windows. They she's a historic preservation, and she's done nineteen historic preservations, and she got kicked up to historic to to the landmarks. Board doesn't make sense from the perception of a stupid. You know an intelligent person from the public. That's just looking at the situation. Um, It seems like an easy deal. Those the windows in Chautauqua like really thin, really need, you know, like what are they gonna do? I don't know. But you know, if there's something like this that comes up, maybe you ought to include the public a little bit closer to how your whole system operates, because from my perception it doesn't seem right. It doesn't seem fair, and I don't want to just be. You know, opposing things. I want to understand them,

[21:03] and I don't see that there's very much understanding to the public from this landmarks board. Maybe you need to have some open workshops or something. Maybe you need to have a different engagement process, but I don't feel welcomed into figuring out how these decisions are being made, and when I look at Se. For example, seven hundred and Twenty-one Spruce Street, I think that's the address. The big place where there is A. It's an old Rock House. There was a forest there in the driveway. You'll remember the driveway was last time they agreed to dump the driveway. Um, you know I've gone every year for the last twenty years up that driveway for um their garage sale every year, you know. Now I probably would have voted to dump the driveway because I don't like cars, and I only drive like every six months. But maybe there are other reasons that driveway should have stayed there for other people that enjoyed that garage sale, and felt that it had a historic presence there,

[22:10] and that whole lot on the um West Side had trees all over. They're all just gone. How can we just let our trees go like this that, you know I don't know. Maybe you've got some guidelines that make you get rid of trees like that. But maybe you need to change your guidelines. I don't know it. Just doesn't look that good to me from the public, and I ride my bike constantly all around Mapleton Hill, and I see these historic places all the time, so I would like to see them. I'm glad about the color palettes, because I don't like to be assaulted by bad color. Lynn lynn. I'm sorry, but your time just expired. I saw that it was zero. I was going right to there. Thank you. I did not get interrupted. Thanks,

[23:01] thank you. And I don't see any other hands up at this time we'll give a pause for last call, and I think we are safe to close. Okay, so we will officially close public participation for items, not on the agenda, and then I will turn it over to Claire for the statistical report for October. Thank you, Abby. We sound as bad as one another. Okay, so uh October Statistics, blue as usual, are the um la C's and pink and purple are demolition reviews. Um, as you can tell from the pie. Um. We approved more L. A. Cs this month than um demolitions.

[24:01] Ah! We reviewed and approved sixteen lacs in October in total ten were approved by staff. That's these ones. They're mainly roofing ac units, painting that kind of thing. Six were reviewed by the Ldrc. And approved um. Three were approved without any additional review, and three came back to staff for some additional review before they were approved, and then um! Two were reviewed by the full board, and are not issued quite yet, as the call up period ends tomorrow. Uh, we approved twelve demolition requests, three applications. The The dark purple ones were reviewed by the at. These three were reviewed by the Um, the Ldrc. And two were referred to the Uh to the Landmark Board for Review in a public hearing, and one This This kind of mid couple here was approved by the Ldrc. Um. Staff, called up

[25:07] this pre one thousand nine hundred and fortys Demo to the full board, and it was subsequently withdrawn. But it does show up here as one that was Dot approved and referred to the full landmarks board. So this is the year. So far we are typically around uh three hundred and fourteen closed reviews. Um By the end of October. So we're lagging slightly this year with two hundred and eighty-four um, and i'd like to point out again what a busy year has been for Demolition Review. You can see the the big uh piece of purple. Here. Um! We've completed one hundred and forty-one demo reviews so far this year. One hundred and twenty-six of Those have been reviewed by staff so um, most all of them uh post. One thousand nine hundred and forty buildings,

[26:01] fifteen have been reviewed by the Ldrc or the Landmarks Board Um, including six of those that were um escalated by staff for additional review, so those would have been also post one thousand nine hundred and forty buildings. And this is our graph of new applications compared with the last two years Uh we've received and processed thirty-three new applications this month which is um at this year October than we've had for uh the last couple of years. Yay, um, but uh, I guess the six year average for new applications. It was pretty typical. So any questions on the statistical report. All right uh back to you, Happy.

[27:01] Thank you so much, Claire. Now we will move forward to our one public hearing this evening it's a public hearing and consideration of the landmark alteration, certificate application to restore front porch and replace rare addition with new re addition at four hundred and Twenty-nine Highland Avenue, a contributing property in the maple, ten o historic district pursue, it to section nine, eleven, eighteen of the boulder revised Co- code, and the applicant is Tim Sullivan, and the owners are Andy and Emily Strong. We'll move on to this hearing and thank you to the owners who have agreed to this virtual quasi-judicial hearing. So, Claire, I don't know if you thank you claire perfect great um, so I will go through the quasi judicial hearing procedures. Um, All speaking to the item will be sworn in today, and board members will note any ex parte contacts.

[28:11] Um. I'll give the staff presentation. After that the Board may ask questions. Um. The applicant will have up to ten minutes to present to the board, and the Board may ask questions of them, will then open the public hearing. Um. After all, members of the public have, and made comments, the applicant may respond to anything that was said. We'll then ask anyone um everyone to mute their computers, and the Board will deliberate. Um. A motion requires an affirmative vote of at least three members to pass, and motions will state findings, conclusions, and recommendation. One hundred um and uh, I wanted to remind you that the conditions uh should be right into the motion. So it's on the audio as well as in the written minutes, and a record of the hearing is kept by staff. Um.

[29:01] I realized that I didn't note down uh who previously reviewed this at Ldrc. Um, and I apologize for that. But I will pass it back to Abbey for exporte contacts as to any ex parte contacts, Bill. None, none, John. It's fine. None, and I have none. Okay? Well, the criteria for review again. Um are outlined in the boulder Revised code under nine, eleven, eighteen, B and C Uh. The criteria for a review are to ensure the proposed work, preserves, enhances, or restores, and do not, does not damage, or adversely affect exterior architectural features, or the historic value of the property. That the work is. The work proposed is compatible with the character of the property, and that the landmarks Board considers the economic feasibility of alterations.

[30:09] Options today, for the Landmarks Board are to approve the application. Uh, This is typically subject to a sixteen Day City Council call up period, but it will need to be extended, since that hits Thanksgiving holiday. Um! It will just be extended for a week uh deny the application which would be subject to a forty-five day period, in which city council can review the decision and a denial would mean, the applicant could not submit the same application within twelve months. The Board may also allow the applicant to withdraw. So this is where I wrote down the who reviewed it at Ldrc's. The application was reviewed back in January, January twenty, six by the Ldsc. And was cooled up at that time Um by John Fran and James,

[31:05] the applicant revised the design, and returned to the Lds on June twenty ninth, and John and Chelsea and I reviewed the design, and again referred the application to Landmark's Board for a review in a public hearing. We received a new design on September sixth, which is where we are today. So before we carry on any questions from the board on process. Okay, cool. So four twenty-nine Highland is located here Mid Block between Fourth and Fifth streets uh the house faces south onto Highland, and the rear of the house backs on to Maple, to the hill alley, which is here. The one and a half story house was built sometime around one thousand eight hundred and ninety-nine, and the architecture reflects um that more sort of subdued Edwardian period. Um, we have overlapping front gables.

[32:13] Um with You can probably just about see it a shingle pattern. There are double hung one over one windows throughout. Um, but also some of these um horizontal windows, which are original to the period, and i'll point them out as we go around um you can see um. There's also a little bit of flair in these uh decorative new braces. Um! The wrapped front porch has these paired columns? Um it! The porch has been modified to close it in all the way along. Um and the pediment also, you can see on the historic picture. There was a pediment between the first and second columns kind of up here, um, and that has been removed at a certain at at some point in the past.

[33:08] Um, and also the front entry. Um has been relocated that this is uh an addition here, and that's where the front entry currently is, because you can't access the front porch um from outside of the the house. Um! So the this is. This is a one thousand nine hundred and thirty, nine to one thousand nine hundred and forty-nine photograph. We think That's how it's labeled on the Tax Assessor card. It actually has some writing down on the negative down here. So we we think that it actually might be earlier than that, and might be nineteen, twenty-nine um. But since it was um marked as a one thousand nine hundred and thirty-nine, to one thousand nine hundred and forty-four forty-nine photograph on the card We're we're going with that with this one um but you can see um. The The front entry was right here underneath the pediment, and we believe that there was a fourth set of columns. Um at this end here that's hiding behind a tree. Um! You can also see. Uh, there's a central chimney here.

[34:18] Um, which unfortunately, is also behind this tree on the historic image, but the that central chimney is a a um an original feature. It's a good indication of the age of the house. Uh, let's see. Go around to the west side of the house. This is the west elevation. Uh, there's a little bit of glare, but you can just about see that central chimney back here. There's also a a second chimney on the west elevation. Um! There is a modest dorm behind this tree, and um an additional one of those horizontal windows which is

[35:02] uh original to the house. You can see it on the this. This is a nine. This is a one thousand nine hundred and twenty-nine photograph. This is from the tax assessor card for the for the neighbor to the west. So this is just the edge of the the building that we can see on that tax assessor card. So you can see that the horizontal window was original. It was probably um an interior staircase, and that's why it was added, So it looks a bit odd, but it is original. You can see on this image, too, that there is a second small dorm here, and that is still on the house all the way behind the tree. Uh, and there's also Um! This is the bow window that you can see. Well, maybe you can't see it, but it is here behind the tree. You can see it on the on the site plan. That's right here.

[36:01] So continuing around this is the re elevation Um, this this corner of the house. Here is this corner, the arrows pointing to it. This was actually sketched on to the taxi as the excess of tax Assessor Card Um, back in one thousand nine hundred and thirty-nine. Um. But we also have a permit on file for the remodel of the interior of this portion of the house in one thousand nine hundred and seventy. So it's really unclear as to whether this was modified um at that time, and if that upper level here was added um in the nineteen seventies, or whether that was um a later edition, because we're pretty sure that this uh this portion of the house here would have been a single story. Um!

[37:00] So uh this, however, is definitely a one thousand nine hundred and ninety-three addition um, And if this wasn't added in the nineteen seventies. It has been modified since in one thousand nine hundred and ninety-three. So that is this portion here so continuing around to the east elevation. Um. You can see that it's kind of staggered roof line here. This middle gable um is the gable that includes the dormer that you can see on the west side that west elevation Dormer. Um. So it was present before one thousand nine hundred and twenty-nine uh this more re a gable is the one that we don't know if it was added in one thousand nine hundred and seventy or after

[38:00] um, as is this portion of the building? Um in plan view it is. Uh, that's this right here. Um! This area here in the middle was added in one thousand nine hundred and thirty-two You can see the stone foundation, and we have a permit uh record of of that addition. Um! That is here on the plan. We think that the windows were replaced in the one thousand nine hundred and Ninetys. These two windows here, this all the way at the front, the that front door addition that we saw on the front elevation. So that was a lot. Hopefully. I haven't confused you thoroughly. Um! Does anyone have any questions before we move on to the proposal, Ronnie? Um, the orange line at the back. Um: Yeah, that's internal to the plan. Yeah, right there. That corner interior corner right there. Not that one, but go down a little bit. This one that right there? Um! Is that line

[39:10] Where? Where? Where's the information? Where did we get the information that told us? That's where that wall was. It's an estimation from the tax assessor card. So the tax assessor footprint. They they draw um and annotate um measurements, and um! That was one thousand nine hundred and thirty-nine to one thousand nine hundred and forty-nine showed this outline jogging in here, um coming out again and going around the red. The red line is what we believe to be existing still, and the orange is stuff that has been lost due to future. You know. You know subsequent um additions. Thank you. Yeah. Any other questions,

[40:03] All right, allowing ahead. Um. So we just went over the outlines. Um, the uh. As I said, the red lines are the original to the house. So we've got the front porch the uh that bow window. Um This re area that might have been uh modified in the seventies. Um. This dotted line is the one thousand nine hundred and ninety-three addition um, which comes around to here. And then there's a the front door addition, I I dropped in there. It's kind of an estimation. Um, this is the this is that stone edition um that's the one thousand nine hundred and thirty-two addition, with the stone foundation. Um, So the proposal is to uh restore the front porch to one thousand nine hundred and thirty-nine photograph that's that's here. Um,

[41:03] remove this front entry addition, and move this entire. Remove this entire rear portion that was added in one thousand nine hundred and ninety-three, and construct a a new addition, and you can see that solid line. So this this rear part of the of the wall that's proposed for demolition here. Um, with the new construction kind of following this a similar footprint to the nineteen ninety-three addition. But being, you know, coming out slightly differently, and then meeting up with that one thousand nine hundred and thirty-two addition right here. Um and also um along along this wall here. Um a continuation of this from port will um with the um ninety-three addition for the front door being removed.

[42:05] This is the facade. This is the south elevation facing highland. And again, the proposal is to remove uh the front port roof and reconstruct it and restore the um. The entry steps to the front port to the front porch, based on the one thousand nine hundred and thirty-nine, one thousand nine hundred and forty-nine tax assessment. Yeah. Tax assessor photograph um and where we assume the front door would have been um based on where the the front entry stairs are. Um! Let's see what else? Oh, and then uh in Phil, there's an existing French door here on the porch, and the proposal is to infill that to um to just fill it out with sighting here and and make the front door moved to this location.

[43:04] Um! Remove the historic non-historic skylight. Sorry that's in the front gable that you get a better view of when we look at the East elevation, but That's right here on this front gable and reconstruct. There is a There is a skylight on the east elevation on the east side of that front gable, So the proposal is to remove. Yeah, and i'll show you that again when we get round to the east side. I make it that far. Sorry. Okay, um also the central chimney. Here the proposal is to to reconstruct that um that chimney to match the existing, and the applicant has provided this great rendering of the proposal, showing the the front porch.

[44:07] Um. This will actually include restoring the rectilinear walkway from the sidewalk to the front door. Um, and uh, the proposed colors are Buxton, blue and white Dove, trim with black window sash all right, moving around to the west elevation. Again, the proposal is to demolish the existing addition, which we know is one thousand nine hundred and ninety, three or one thousand nine hundred and seventy onwards, and also ah! Portions of the historic house at the rear, including, uh, this portion, which may have been modified in the nineteen seventies, and this upper portion here, which included that small dormer

[45:00] um. The proposal is to construct a uh shared roof transition that is nearly four feet lower than the historic uh roof. This is the the ridge of the historic roof, and this is the transition roof. Um! The uh, the shed roof of this connector actually cuts into the historic roof line right here. Um! The proposal is to uh construct a rear cross gable, two-story edition, and um we can see that better from from the rear elevation. But that's mainly this this whole portion here. Um! There's also a plan to replace the historic window at this existing front dormer here, um, and that is for e grass,

[46:01] and to remove and reconstruct the bow window roof, which is right here. Um! It's actually drawn here as a as a bay, and I I miss that at some point. Um it. It must have changed from a from a bow to a bay. I don't think we need to split hair on that. Um! But if you had questions on that feel free to ask. Um. The new windows proposed in the addition, are all double hung on this elevation. With the exception of these new windows, these new French casement windows. Um, at this dorma. So here's again a rendering of this uh this elevation from the corner. Um the uh the existing southwest corner of the house will remain generally unchanged all the way back. Um to the to the bay window. Here, Um, with the exception of this this portion of the house? Um here,

[47:13] and the addition of the rear. Obviously so. This is the north elevation. This is the rear of the house, and the proposal is to remove this entire rear addition and replace it with the rear costs Cross gable two-story edition um the dominant gable The north facing gable. Here is Um, about two feet below the historic rich height, and the cross cables are um two foot two and a half feet below the historic rich height, and the pitch of the of this gable. It generally matches the historic gable at the front of the house. Um! There's a new shed roof

[48:02] here across the uh, the lower level, and three pairs of uh double sliding patio doors proposed at that level uh there's a balcony on the second level above that shed roof, but it's actually insight into that shed roof and a not cantilevered um, and there's a a group of three sliding doors at that balcony level. Um! They wanted to point out this shed. Dormer here. Um, This is part of the connector between the heart historic and new parts of the house. Um, and I wanted to point that out because it does actually introduce a a different pitch. Um! And the other roof slopes mirror the historic um portions of the house. This is the uh rendering of that north elevation,

[49:02] and you can see the three pairs of citing doors at the lower level and the the triplet up here at the balcony level. This is the east elevation. The proposal is to remove this entry addition and that gable roof and replace it with a a new addition, which is in the same plane as the east portion of the this East. Um! Sorry that's not the East, but the the porch will here. Um! It's in set from the uh one thousand nine hundred and thirty-two addition, which is this pot um There's a new horizontal window here and and here Um, and those proportions uh those historically, those horizontal windows kind of match the proportion of the

[50:02] historic horizontal windows at the west elevation, and they the front. Um! The uh! This window here is um proposed to be replaced again. This is the uh historic window opening in the Dolma Um, and uh that's proposed for a uh French casement window. The um proposal is to remove the this addition that was constructed in uh one thousand nine hundred and ninety-three here, and and that's um where the cross cable edition will set um again. There's a there's this shed roof Transition. That's uh three feet nearly four feet lower than the historic refridge, and um, as with the west elevation the um

[51:01] The transition cuts into the historic roof line a little bit right here. Um, let's see what else uh. So there. Um! There are skylights proposed at the the new rear addition all the way at the back here. Um! You can. You can see the chimney. This is the central chimney that I pointed out from there from the front elevation, and the plan is to demolish and reconstruct that chimney. Um again. All the windows proposed in the rear addition. The new part of the house are um double hung um, and I forgot to mention these two. These are uh the windows in the one thousand nine hundred and thirty-two addition that we believe were replaced in the nineties. Um, and they are proposed to be replaced again. Um to

[52:01] kind of uh fit better with the um proportions of the windows and the addition, but also to um to to be functioning windows right now they are Um! They are fixed fixed windows, and here is a rendering of that east elevation. Um! You can see the uh, this, this the historic front dormer um, and the this wall that I was trying to explain this currently sticks out with that uh the front Dormer, that you can sorry not front dorm with that front addition with the um, the gable roof that you can see in the in the image one that's proposed for demolition, and this this wool replaces that. Um! This is the uh one thousand nine hundred and thirty-two addition

[53:01] um! And here the the new roof forms above that. And here's the skylight. Um! Is the placement off the skylight, which is um going to be removed? So uh going through, or did anyone have any questions about all of that before? I move on to the analysis on that that entry on the side of the house that is proposed to be removed. When was that added? You said that was added, It is part of an addition. Was that the thirties addition, or more recently, we think that was the one thousand nine hundred and ninety-three addition. It's not really clear on the permit, but that's it seems like it's that's the

[54:00] And that was serving as the principal entry into the house. Historic entry line that the the the walkway is down the side of the house, and then this is the entry kind of going in here. Yeah, Okay. I understand that. Thanks. Any other questions. All right. You scoop back on to It's a sign analysis. Um. So the Mapleton Hill Historic District um design guidelines. We referred to uh include the building alignment um, which says that the general pattern of alignment should be preserved decks, solid fences, or other additions should be located where they will not intrude into the space. Open front porches are elements which are encouraged, if appropriate, to the style of the house, even if they encroach

[55:15] into the existing alignment. We considered that the um, the restoration of the historic location of the front door and the historic layout of the front porch would help reinstate that historic pattern and alignment of the front of the house to the sidewalk. I could have just gone ahead. One slide, John, to answer your question. So I believe this is the first in between the first and second uh column. It's kind of hard to tell with that tree in the way, so maybe the um. The applicant can confirm that. And this is where the the original pediment was. But The plan is to restore that as the um entry onto the porch and then have the front entry Be um directly in front of the porch steps, and to remove this this um uh French door. That's right here. Currently, I see. Yeah,

[56:14] and also a a rectilinear path. Um, directly from the sidewalk to to the steps, which is very traditional. Uh. We also looked at the massing, and the house is asymmetrical historically, with very vertical proportions. A one and a half story addition proposed at the rear, maintains this asymmetry and proportion. The guidelines for the roofs say any alterations should be sensitive to form pitch and symmetry of the existing roof and the existing reform picture material should be used for any additions.

[57:00] Roof Lines on addition should generally be lower than and secondary to the roofline of the original house. Roof lines interrupted by solar pedal skylights and roof de decks demand sensitivity, and designed to be appropriate dom is are intended to be elements of secondary importance to the main reform. Any expression of existing dormers or additions of new dormers should preserve this relationship, So we consider that the roof, form and pitch of the historic portions of the house is generally replicated in the proposed gables. Throughout the addition, and the material is matched. The low pitched at the East-west Elevation um changes the reform to a more horizontal element. Uh But we didn't consider this to be problematic, as the visibility is minimal. You can see my my arrows pointing out that um that connect to part um. In addition, the the roof line of this connector is

[58:09] um, and and the whole. Actually the whole of the rear is at least twelve foot at twelve inches lower than the historic roof line. Um, and that connectors, and is um almost four feet lower. Um. Skylights are proposed only on the new addition, and all the way at the rear. Um! It would be back here. One element that we did flag as being potentially inconsistent with the guidelines was the proposed um removal of that small dormer on the on the west elevation which the arrow is pointing to this little tiny guy right here, so moving on to um windows uh window openings themselves should be carefully preserved. Um should not be made larger or smaller to accommodate a different size window. Every effort should be made to preserve existing windows by repair opening should be vertical in proportion. Horizontal sliding windows are generally inappropriate.

[59:15] Windows and new construction should reflect the window. Patterns of the district, and casement windows are generally inappropriate, but when used, should be of similar proportions to historic windows. Um! The There are some new windows proposed to replace existing historic windows on both the east and west elevation. At this forward dormer here. Um! So this is the the east elevation uh! This is the uh location of that proposed French casement window. They offer for for Ecrest. Um. The window opening size will remain the same.

[60:01] The lower level uh the windows right here are not believed to be historic. On our proposed for replacement. Uh, there are new horizontal windows on this east elevation. Um! They generally reflect the proportion of the um historic horizontal windows. Um! The um They are awnings. Awning windows proposed for those horizontal windows. Um! The other windows proposed are double hung, and um the proposed windows on the on the rear addition the new construction, do they? They don't exactly match the proportion of the historic windows? Um, but are generally in the same proportion, Are our um

[61:01] vertical and smaller on the upper level again. This is the west elevation. These are the This is the location for those French casement windows. Um to replace historic windows in that forward dormer um the windows at the front of the house. These historic windows are not proposed to be replaced. Um, including the the ones in the the the bay window um, but the um, once in the new addition are, and the the double hung at the rear addition do generally reflect the the same proportions as the historic windows and the ones in the upper levels are smaller for exterior materials. We could see specific details of citing at Ldrc for review. Um, but generally the citing is proposed to match the existing widths hiding on the um

[62:08] that's on the historic portion of the house. The proposed addition at the rear is, that's that's this. This is the rendering of the rear is simplified, and doesn't replicate that doesn't attempt to replicate that shingle um siding in the in the in the gable end uh moving on to porches and railings. Um! So the historic porch is uh. The proposal is to restore it based on the one thousand nine hundred and thirty-nine tax assess the photograph Um, the A replication of this pediment hasn't been proposed uh, but other porch elements. But a scene on this this fussy photograph are proposed to be restored as as best as possible.

[63:02] Um, including what we assume, are four pairs of columns. This is the first and second pair, then the third pair here, and we think that there is a fourth pair here, because this is the roof line. Um, but it's kind of hiding uh behind a tree. Um! The stairs are here. Uh, with an opening to access what is assumed to be at the front door. Right here there is an existing ah deck at the rear that is here that's proposed to be demolished. Um! And there's a a new deck that's proposed to here, where the new the new patio doors are, and details of that proposed new deck could be reviewed by the Ldsc. Or um alternatively excluded from this lic and in a new application provided for the for Rio Deck and and landscaping um. There is a second story balcony

[64:08] right here, um, but Staff considered it to be appropriately incorporated into that shed roof and not can to lead cantilever um. The details of the um. The railing could also be provided to the Ldrc. So in paint and uh colors the applicants consulted with an architectural historian on appropriate colors. Um. The body color that they um proposed was a a light blue, which is not typical for a nineteenth century home. But um! They found photographs uh where the house is painted. This similar color. Um! And the house was blue as recently as uh two thousand and seven, according to Google Maps

[65:00] um trim color proposed is uh this white dove and window sash is proposed as black Um and uh stuff considered that using black for windows, sash is appropriate and typical of a traditional Um Edwardian Queen and age, House and Style House. The guidelines on a major addition says, say that in addition to the rear, or in some cases to the side of a historic structure is generally more appropriate than raising the height of a building. Um. Although oversized doors may make the best use of interior space, they are usually not appropriate, and more than one smaller dormer is usually more appropriate. New editions should be designed and constructed, so that the character defining features of the historic building are not radically changed, obscured, damaged, or destroyed in the process of rehabilitation

[66:03] and new design and construction should always be differentiated from older portions of the building. However, the addition should respect the existing reforms and building scale and messing um. We considered that they proposed one and a half story addition is um! It is set at the rear and lower than the main roof line, and set back um from the front part of the house, so we considered it to be appropriate. Um. The visibility of the addition would be pretty low, due to how far it's set back um, and due to the existing historic dormers. Um! That block view from the public right of way. Um! Talking about these these ones here, I can see them here. Um. The proposed addition is generally in the same location as the one thousand nine hundred and Ninetys edition.

[67:03] However, um historic portions of the House are proposed to be removed to construct the new edition. Um not to believe that the um little tiny trauma that's that's hiding here. Um! And we thought that since the those features are not visible from the street may not be considered character defining the general guidelines. Um don't Conflict with the Mapleton Hill guidelines on any of the proposed um So Staff found the proposal appropriate for the following reasons: Restoration of the historic location of the front door and the historic layout of the front porch will help reinstate the historic pattern and alignment of the front of the house to the sidewalk. There is photographic evidence to refer to when restoring the front porch. Ah! The rear north elevation is the most appropriate location to build an addition, and it replaces the proposal, replaces an existing addition that might not be appropriate based on current interpretation of the guidelines mainly the window shapes.

[68:14] Um. The proposed new addition is subordinate to the historic house, and generally preserves this asymmetry vertical proportion and general massing of the house through the uh, the addition of similarly proportioned cables, and is not visible from the street Um. And although it may be minimally visible from the alley. Adjacent properties include rear editions that that have large cross gables, so it will not appear out of context. Uh, there are a couple of items that we wanted to flag for our board discussion and consideration. Um Exploration of modifying the proposal to retain the historic fabric on the west elevation, notably that small dormer, and to potentially avoid cutting into the historic roof for the new shed Dormer

[69:09] on the east and west elevations. Um, an exploration of restoring the port pediment based on the one thousand nine hundred and thirty-nine tax assess the photograph um and We also noted uh the details. Um, that we are proposing, we see at a future Ldrc meeting. Um. In general the proposal seems consistent with the design guidelines, and here's the recommended motion, and i'm going to stop now, because i'm just about to lose my voice. Any questions. No questions for Claire at this point. See, Clara, you I i'm, i'm it's fired by your voice. No, um. If if we don't have any questions for staff at this point, we will move on to the applicant presentation, and i'm not um sure who will be speaking tonight

[70:11] for the applicant, I see. Uh, I see Alyssa and Auntie and Emily and Tim so um, and of course, applicants have ten minutes, so you can share it, and applicants. You may be seeing an invitation pop up on your screen to become a panelist. We ask that you do so so that you will have control over your microphones and cameras if you wish. And, Emily and Andy, let me bring you over as well if you would like to be part of the presentation. Hello! Here we go.

[71:02] Sorry just getting everybody over this side of the meeting, Emily. You may be seeing an invitation. I'll send it one more time, and then we'll guess that you are either sitting with the Andy or not part of the presentation team. She's going to stay muted because she's uh with the kids at the moment. I think we have them clear. Thank you. I'm not sure who would like to start off, but each person that speaks will need to swear to all the board the full truth. So I don't know Tim or Andy, if you're going to kick things off i'll, I'll start. This is Andy Stroma. I swear to tell the truth, and I just like to thank you all for letting us be here. Uh we're a small family. Been in Boulder for ten years. We used to live up the canyon and always love Coming down to Mapleton Hill is really our welcoming to Boulder, and we're just excited to live in the neighborhood. Um, we live on that front porch and in the front yard. If you walk around the neighborhood you probably

[72:12] see us sitting there all the time, and our two girls running up and down the street. Um, But thanks for having us. I'm gonna let Tim do the do the talking. Um, I appreciate it. Thank you. Hi, i'm Melissa. This is Tim Sullivan. Um, I swear to tell the whole truth. Um, we. We've already introduced ourselves, but we'll reintroduce um let's Rafano and Tim Sullivan. We're the architects for Emily and Andy strong um for this project, located at four, two, nine Highland Avenue. Um, I want to thank Claire for an amazing presentation. Um! We had a ten page presentation all set, and she covered almost everything, and Andy covered that. He and Emily used to live up in Sunshine Canyon, and I hope you wag your house and

[73:08] uh and chose to move down to Mapleton Hill to live in that community. And um they're committed to the neighborhood, and also committed to um being good stewards for this historic property. Um, So I think you know. Um. Claire is pretty much covered everything, so I just uh I guess both of us just wanna state if you have any questions or comments we're here to answer and thank you for giving us the opportunity to present. Thank you. Do any Board members have any questions? I i'm not seeing any raised hands. So if you were are done, we will um see if there's anyone from the public who would like to speak to this. Thank you.

[74:02] So, Brenda, Do we have any members of this public raising their hands at this point? Right? Do not see anyone yet. If you would like to speak for this public hearing, please raise hand button at the bottom of your screen. We do have one member of the public who has raised a hand at this point. Um! So hopefully, i'll break in. Deploy the Primer and Kathryn bars. I will enable your microphone and does. I will save Abby's voice and ask you to my zoom hand, and where, to tell the truth, I I will tell you the truth, I swear. Can you hear me? We can and go ahead, please. Um!

[75:00] It's a It's a project that has obviously had a lot of care. And and uh thought in it, and I have a couple of very um pretty minor uh, comments. One is uh about the permanent, and I I do think If there's any possible way to restore that pediment, you have excellent photographic um evidence of it, and I think it would be a very nice thing for the building to have this pediment back. Um. The other thing that I noticed was the windows, and some of the windows on the second Level are in it's pretty noticeable, so I don't know if that was um, I would think that it would be better to to use the

[76:02] portions of this sort of windows, even if they are new windows, and and that by itself would differentiate between the windows. Um and I wanted to comment the way those are being paired for egress seem to have, uh, have appropriate proportion separately, and together they are paid. Set of window will be appropriate uh things to do so. I guess that's it. And i'd like to just kind of um, acknowledged the owners and the architects, because obviously a lot of thought is going into that. You will. Ah! Through this process come to end, you'll end up with a very nice addition to your house, and be very happy to go forward with that. So thank you very much,

[77:04] hey? Thank you, Katherine. Um, Brenda, Do you see anyone else like to speak to this this point? I don't see any other hands. I am just pausing to make sure that we get everyone who would like to speak. And I think we are safe to Close Abbey. Okay, so we'll close public park. Um public comment for four twenty-nine Highland Avenue. We do always offer the applicant and design team an additional three minutes. If there's anything you wanted to rebut that was said Um, but I don't know if you have anything additional to say after um. Kathryn Bars's remarks. I think we do. I would just like to say thank you again to Claire, and thank you to the Board for for having us and letting us. Um, uh, come, come and present our project. And uh, those are great comments from her, and but we um, I think we'll take those into consideration. Thank you.

[78:11] Okay, thank you. And now we will move on to for deliberation. Um! Before we get started. I want to thank you guys, for the great renderings, because they were very helpful for me to see the house as clear moved around it. So thank you for that. And you know, during this virtual format we've been going alphabetical by first name to get input from boards. But any Board members happy to um defer to to someone or come. But we can come back to you. So, Bill, I don't know if you're ready to kick it off. I'm going to defer to Ronnie. Thank you, Bill. Um Chelsea, I don't. I don't particularly have any comes. I feel like this was a very thorough process. They went to Ldr. See twice, and it seems like this

[79:05] proposal with the conditions that have been put on. Um accepting this proposal, I think. Meet the requirements. Um! And I feel like I Well, you know it's been ten months, nine, ten months of them going back and forth trying to meet all of the ideas that have been put forward. So um! I'd like to hear what others have to say, but I also I feel I feel good about where it is at this point. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Chelsea. Um, John. Um. Well, I could just defer to Ronnie, and not have to do anything tonight but um! I I think that, my general, my general feeling about this as presented, is, it's It's extremely well thought out there with, and it's reflective of a very good process between

[80:01] staff and the applicants, and working with the guidelines. Um, the one. I guess, the one area I I appreciate the restoration of the original line of entry into the house. I think that's it. I think that's a strong move. Um, which does restore the front of the house. It might be interesting or nice to have that pediment in the roof restored, although looking at the photographs, and I probably have to see more of them. It seemed like there was some awkwardness in that placement of the pediment relative to what the columns want to do, and what the door behind it was doing, and and that could just have been perspective in the photograph. So um! That would be Something that could be, I guess, resolved with a little more study if if they choose to go ahead with that,

[81:00] I think just restoring the line of entry is probably sufficient to at least garner general approval. At this point, I think, removing the um side entry into the house. Certainly doesn't lose anything from the historic character in my mind, and cleans up kind of the massing and appearance of the house from that side or on that elevation. The one thing I I think, is a little bit troublesome, is the cross intrusion of the proposal wall and the historic roof line. Um on the um, I guess. West elevation and the loss of that little dormer um, and I don't think that's necessarily a fatal condition to approval. But I do think it's something that needs to be discussed.

[82:04] Um! There may be a little more elegant solution there. I understand why it was done, by the way. Um, probably just to simplify drainage on the roof, and to intersect the roofs in a way that seemed logical. But um! It's just that is slightly visible from the public realm. That side of the house, and I think some, some hey? A little bit of massage could probably occur in that area design. Otherwise I I also, I think that the the kind of more coordinated approach to the to the windows. Um, the fenestration is is more even though it's replacing some non-historic windows. It's a little more consistent overall with what would have been there historically had this house been done to this scale in its original

[83:08] era. So um, I guess with that um move to Ronnie. Yeah, I am in general agreement with my colleagues here. I mean, starting with the front. I think everything that's being proposed at the front of building is an improvement, and you know I've cloud the applicant designers, for you know those steps forward to the Restoration Piece associated with that and everything i'm, seeing, you know, advances it, and it's it's really great, you know the pediment for me. It would be great if it was there, but if not. It's not a demerit in the sense that you haven't, and it's our process of subtraction that you're going through here. You're actually incrementally restoring it

[84:00] um similar to John. You know I've got a couple of comments about the roof forms, and you, you know the the design team and the owners understand this building the best, you know, so i'm sure there are a ton of ideas that we could all share, and you know, maybe none of them are feasible. Um. But you know this is a one and a half story building the buildings second story plate um. The exterior wall comes down pretty close to floor. I don't know. Is it like within two feet, maybe under thirty inches? And you know that really is. The bigger picture of this building is that it's a one and a half story, and where it's not, there are dormers that are stuck into the side of it to get the clearance in order to get the head height to get the windows built into that

[85:01] um, and i'm bringing that up because I feel like, if that is the old, the like, the bigger picture diagram of the building. If if you go to the west side of uh this um, you know there are a handful of proposed deviations from that idea, and I know why, like I know you're trying to like, connect these things and get usable space and what it's challenging the usable space. And there's um I I I do need to ask the applicant a quick question. This drawing that's the proposed west elevation is slightly different. Then the proposed west elevation that is also included in That's just strictly your drawing. Set um, and in particular um the joint that's shown at the top of this, and let me just see if I can draw unless I used to be able to

[86:03] um. Can I do that anymore? Or did you guys disable that for me. So basically i'm going to draw a red line here at the top of the page. This zone in in the applicant's drawings shows the roof form kind of extending back. Where's this drawing doesn't? So just to confirm for again all the comments is the red stuff part of your proposal or not? Uh, No, it's not where the line is drawn as existing and new. That's where the original gable um extended to, and that's where we're proposing to keep it that way. Great? Yeah, that makes a ton of sense. I mean, you know, as you know. And this is the the the design guidelines. Um call out. We try to pick your pencil here?

[87:03] Um, Maybe that i'll. Do you know, retaining something in here that talks about and and maintains the um original from anything that's proposed is important. And so keeping that roof corner as you're doing it at the very top, you know. I do believe um is consistent with that. But that being said, you know similar to what John is saying, I think we heard some of this in the staff report. You know that type of intrusion of roof on to the historic piece of the building. You know. I do believe this inconsistent, and by I i'm hoping that there's a little bit of the dialogue here, like I don't just want to be the talking head, so i'll share my thoughts, and i'm hoping that we can talk about it as a board and um, because the applicant didn't really have a presentation. I do, and they've gone through such a process. I would love for them to be able to respond to some of this, so we can kind of understand what the path forward might be. Um! So that being said like that area that I've highlighted in red

[88:06] um seems to be problematic in my mind. I'm just gonna point out a couple of other things, and maybe we could talk about all of these together. Um, you know the pitch of this roof um is, I think, four into the building, and it looks a little more suburban to me. Um, because all of the other root forms. You know that our pitches are, you know, twelve twelve, so I think. And um, that's not to say that you can't introduce a different root form. Um! But I do think that this cross gabled form and the the cross cable for us for it, and the pitch of the roof is foreign. Um! And so I think that's something we're talking about. Um as we kind of move forward, and and another part of this. Not that I have a solution for any of this is, you know

[89:01] it's it doesn't seem typical, for in this building the windows that are underneath a gable and to be separated. You know they're always groups together except for the front, where there's a single um. So there's a little bit of unusual stuff happening there, and then I would also say, I know why all this stuff is happening. But there's some real things happening with the roof there that I think are just unusual. And again, I recognize that we're trying to do is connect all of these forms that are that are challenging um so um similar to staff. I I think that there is an opportunity to introduce different root forms, and so the shed roof form, if it is a meaningful way to make what I think in this case is like a connector, and you know the guidelines talk quite a bit about this. It's like. How do you connect from all the new?

[90:04] If there's an introduction, a new reform that allows us to do that? That seems like an appropriate place to do it. Um second, you know, if you needed to use that form again as a dorm, or form on an addition to help differentiate you from old, you know that is something that I think we have approved and seen in the past, and there's certain ways of doing that. Um, if you just go to the rear elevation. I want to talk about that for a quick second, and then here from everybody, and maybe see if we can get to some voting, and and all again in the and I'm. I'm looking to hear from the applicants. Um, So you know, this is another discussion piece. But um so, if if if the Major Gable is the gable that we're looking at on the back of house, you know, I guess one question I have it. It doesn't have to be, by the way, because I know in plan like this stuff here is just,

[91:03] you know, unused space. I think you built it in there to kind of drop the plate. I think I saw that. Um, but that being said like i'm curious. If this is the Major Gable, is there a way to make this plate height, reference the other plate, like plate heights in the building. Um, And not that I know this would actually work and and make it better. But it seems to me like at the front of the house. You know the Forum really brings us down lower to help differentiate the primary gable from things that are subordinate. Um that behave more like um dormers built into it just all food for thought like, you know. Again, i'm curious to hear what the applicant has to say, and and then, lastly, on this rear elevation, Um, you know, on the front of this building the major thing, and I know this is a design thing, but the major thing is like, you know, Mama Bear, baby bear. Not that it's working as I just drew it. But that's how that works right. There's a telescope

[92:06] Um! And and again, not that you have to do it, but I see that those are the form patterns that we see at the front that maybe in principle might apply if they're um. I I agree that you can put a second floor um uh outdoor space as you did it. It's nestled in the form it's like all of those things I think, are, you know, working well, and then Oftentimes this conversation comes up, which is like, Why is there so much glazing? And i'm all on my P in on, that is? And then this is an opinion thing right like there's room in the guidelines for us to um, you know. Service, the traffic to the site for it, and not just do a red light in the green light version, and I believe that the guidelines allow for this opportunity for greater blazing exactly at a location like this. At the rear of the building.

[93:02] Um! And I think that what's being suggested here, in my opinion, in terms of quantity of glazing, its location is approvable. It is this new area on the building. And then, lastly, if you just go to the other side of the building that we haven't talked about yet, um, you know. Similarly, again, I I don't really have solutions to these things. I'm bringing up. But similarly, you know, there's there. There's this somewhat foreign shape um which in the past they manage the windows, and major Root forms with um dormers and um, you know there's quite a bit of, you know. Plan articulation, um not to say that it can't happen. Um, but you know that's that's having an unusual root form that's connecting it all, and then similar to the other side. We've got this overlap, and I know you got program, and those things which are like bathrooms and mechanical lumps and stuff that shift back and forth.

[94:04] Um! But I believe that the most significant of all of the things that I've talked about that might really, you know, be more. The most consistent with the guidelines is like how to help differentiate all from you. Better at this location. Um! And then, you know, I guess the challenge that I would propose for us to have a conversation about is you know how the back of house um might be, maybe more consistent with the language of forms elsewhere. Um so, and maybe the applicant has some things to say about that i'd like to hear. But how about our board? Talk A little bit more, and then we get them room to chat with us. If that makes sense to you, Abby, and fellow board members. Yeah, thank you, Ronnie John. I see your hand up at the moment. Yeah, I I just wanted to get a clarification on the opposite elevation.

[95:04] Um. The position of the original roof line which which Ronnie just spoke about, so that that little Dormer and and the roof that it's attached to was added to the length of the roof. Was it part of earlier renovation or change to the house. Tim, I think, could address that. Um th that little dormer. It it. It's hard to tell from the photograph um where the original yeah, where the original ridge line that the the line above the Dormer Um Ridge ended. There's in the photograph. You see the tree and you catch the ridge through the tree.

[96:04] It it doesn't. It seems like that was an addition uh at some point. That's kind of what we assumed. Uh: yeah, So that makes it a little less. Yeah, Okay, it's kind of the Mamma P: the mama bear pop up there. You know that being like a mama bear that was extended below it. It extends a plane of that that roof plane, but drops the ridge to recent that volume. Mhm It seems like that was in addition to us, to confirm it Currently, these two groups are on the same plane. They're so. This vertical line here is just like a demo line. Right,

[97:01] John, Did you have anything else at the moment? I see bills and is also raised at Bill? Yeah, Claire, can you tell me what the uh increase in square footage is for uh, this new addition to the existing home. I think that would be a better question for Tim. Okay, Tim, can you tell me what the increased square footage? Is you sure that so? Maybe, Claire? Maybe there was something in the packet that I didn't see that I was looking for. Usually, you know there's a a um chart that shows existing square footage uh new square footage, et cetera, et cetera. And the reason i'm

[98:02] going down this particular line, is It's looking to me like the original home with this proposed addition, is now starting to become somewhat incidental to the final structure. Um, I mean it looks that way from the art, from what i'm seeing right here. But i'd like to see whatever square footage is that we have, and if you can find that, interrupt me as I continue to talk, because I have a couple of other points, and i'm glad I let Ronnie and John go first, because they got me to thinking. Um! That intrusion of the new roof into the existing historic roof does give me some concern. Um, We have the numbers if you want to be interrupted. Oh, yeah, please go ahead. Um! The existing is three, one one two and we're, adding three hundred and ninety-two for a total of three thousand five hundred and four.

[99:06] Okay, thank you. Uh. So back to the intrusion of the new roof into the existing historic roof. This is again going down the same theme that i'm kind of building in my mind here that the original property is being somewhat overshadowed by all the new additions being added to it. And um! I would agree with Ronnie that that's something that we need to explore, to see if there's a way that we can um minimize that or eliminate it entirely. Um, I also agree with Ronnie about the the windows. I know you know we're building something new uh to something old, and and the guidelines to try to steer us in a direction where we should not conform or confuse the um.

[100:02] The new with the old, but I do think in terms of the window massing. I think that is something that we should encourage. Um. I I think the space between the existing windows as drawn here is is inappropriate. I would much rather see like on the original dormer uh to the right, on the original home here, looking at the proposed West elevation amassing more like that. Um, i'm um, you know i'm i'm interested in that. Your choice of paint colors. I don't. Uh I I see if that if we approve this, as we as we see it here today, I know there are other homes across. Thank you, Claire. I know there are other homes around you that have a similar scheme, although not not a black trim. Um!

[101:01] We one of the directions we were going with our our paint guidelines was to avoid sharp contrasts like this. Uh, where sharp black goes up against the light body. Um! And from my perspective, this sort of violates that direction. We're trying to to go in um. But but I do see that there are other homes around, and i'm concerned that once this property gets completed, as it's projected to be here, that this house um is going to lose some of its charm. Now, if somebody can show me that this is how it was originally constructed to look, that there was a historic precedent to put this particular scheme in place when the house was first built. Then i'll i'll concede to that, but left to go to my own opinion and my own taste and my own understanding of where we're trying to take the district paint guidelines. This paint configuration to me does not seem appropriate.

[102:06] Um! And then, lastly, um! I know that we're going to be having these cross gables off the back of the property are kind of sort of off the back. Um, but it doesn't seem appropriate. I know Staff says it is, and maybe everybody else thinks they are. But you know I look at the rest of this property, and I see little bay windows. You know little codes um small little dormers uh. And now, suddenly, this house is going to have a whole. The chunk added to it. That's going to be kind of going across the grain to that. And now we're going to have much larger, cross-gable forms that the original house never had and even apparently the prior editions did not have. So those cross gables give me a little bit of concern as well.

[103:00] So those are my comments. Thanks, Claire. Uh, thank you, Bill, and I'm going to weigh in before we start kind of the next part of this discussion, and there is a luxury going last, because I think my colleagues have already brought up some things that that um will guide the the next portion of this discussion. What I heard from my colleagues is Rawl agreement that um bringing the front porch back to um. What was shown in that one thousand nine hundred and thirty-nine photo and moving the front door the main entrance back there. We're all in a green um. With that I personally would love a little more um exploration of having the pediment back, although that being said, in your rendering there's a wonderful simple elegance to it, as it's currently proposed. But I I do see that that photo does um have that pediment, and I think that Ronnie and John articulated at best. Um my concerns. My hesitations were with the um intrusion into this strike Ruth form, as Ronnie so accurately pointed out where you're putting this addition, you're actually demolishing a nineteen ninety-three addition and building I think a much better addition in its place. You know you are putting that

[104:25] at the only place, I think it can really go on this house, even to the point of of Ronnie, your point where, if you're gonna have that mounted glazing at the rear. This is, or on the house that is really the only place it could go. So I think, first and foremost. The conversation is more about the Reform I, Bill. I do kind of see where you might have thought it was sort of starting to lean to not be a subordinate to the historic portion of the house. Um, I do think it's well designed. My biggest concern personally is the intrusion into the historic growth.

[105:04] Yeah. And since you reference me, I'm going to just jump in there and say, looking at this particular um uh perspective with the proposed South and the existing south. Um, You see a lot more mass being added from the street view to this property than was here previously, and that is um always something that we are concerned with. We're always concerned with what you know can be visible. And seeing from the street. So that was partly why I said what I said wasn't just the fact that we have these cross gables, but we have a bunch of different forms now coming into play. Um, just looking at that proposed South front elevation, you can see uh It's a lot of busyness going on behind this house property which you know protrudes into the street face.

[106:00] Ronnie, I don't know if you would like to pick up the next. And yeah, no, i'll take the baton um. Can we go to the West elevation, and Abby and fellow members, is it? Do you feel as though this is uh appropriate? And is this an available opportunity to ask some questions to the applicant kind of have a dialogue, I mean, I do, because of of you know all the nuances within this proposal, and I would rely on Lucas to um interrupt us if we can't continue to ask the applicant specific questions as our deliberations Progress. Yeah, I I agree with you, Abby. I think that I think that this is the only chance we get to have this kind of, I guess, more deliberative. Um discussion. This is a very complex proposal,

[107:00] and, as I was saying, my inclination is to approve this in general, but there are unresolved issues or issues that I think need some additional um kind of, I guess analysis and response that we're just not going to get in an opportunity to do it beyond this process tonight. And I agree. The one thing I did not see is I'm. Generally, you know, in a um, generally in favor of everything. But but there are some details that need to be discussed and feedback, provided I mean, is this something we should be able to clear out right here about whether or not we find the proposal generally acceptable in terms of mass and scale, and then we can talk about details to get ironed out back at another. Drc. Review.

[108:07] I'm sorry that I freeze. I would like that I would like to give. I would like to have some consensus among board members about what it might look like if there were conditions associated with an approval, and I believe, in order to get there. I would also personally like to hear some feedback from the applicant to hear whether or not. They think it's workable, because the worst thing would be for us to approve something with conditions that make it just impossible for them to deal with, and then we put them in an unusual circumstance in which we've created a very burdensome condition. Um, that they didn't have opportunity to air here. Um, but It's codified in the condition that goes to the Crc. Which they need to.

[109:04] Okay, that's it. Not saying we need to be in agreement with the applicant. There might be a conclusion in which there's a denial. But I would like to explore all of that, because I know what it's like to be in those shoes, and you know you want to be able to have the talk, and we have an opportunity to do it. Now I feel like it's respectful. If Lucas thinks it's um possible, I would think uh, generally speaking, best to do the Q A. Uh with the applicant after their presentation. But given the trajectory here and the complexity. I think we can give that a try and see how it goes. Okay, Yeah. I think it would have been impossible to do the Q. A. Because I would have had to do a narration thing. He wants to do that at that point. So i'm just gonna jump in and ask some questions. Um, I mean I feel that you're hearing kind of the common voice from the board

[110:03] about this aspect of the proposal, and we We also heard that from staff. Um, I think there's multiple pieces associated with that. But the first part is about its relationship to overlapping the historic roof, and I will just throw in one more piece here, so that Tim and Alyssa can speak to it. You know this roof form that steps down, and it becomes smaller, is more common for a connector type. Proposal that, you know, is very explicitly outlined in the guidelines. It's not the only way to do it. But the two challenges, with what I think is being demonstrated to it can act over. Here is one that it overlaps the historic building in a way that I think is more or less non-compliant, and then to um it kind of would if there was just a simple severing of it um creative. I would also say a little bit of an unusual situation on the side of the building where um it's. Butting up roof forms in a way that I think, is less sympathetic in nature. And so typically what we like to see is a subordinate form in between uh potential, new proposed form and historic form that really looks like a link,

[111:24] and what we see here I think isn't so much a link for the two reasons that I described. So i'm wondering if the applicant or applicant representatives could talk a little bit about that, and if they see any solution um that we might be able to iron out, at least at that at the Drc level. If this were to move forward with that condition, sure. Uh let me try to take a stab. Um! What's the reason for the overlap? Is Is it's really plan driven on the second floor?

[112:02] Um! So that that section that's overlapped is a part of a bathroom. That is the sink in the toilet there. Frankly. Um! So we could. You know we can probably do something because we This is a very tight plan uh, in the hallway is driven by the location of the front. The front original structure uh, has two bedrooms out of either side of a hallway, so that hallway in the staircase sort of it sort of sets us up for the axis of the plan. Um, and as you can see that dormer that is original. Um makes that portion of the It's really sort of an attic uh somewhat habitable in in there. Um! So

[113:01] that's the reason that we tried to get a usable. We try to put program there That didn't require a lot of head height, but that could be usable. Um, and but I think we might be able to it. Might it might. It might be a little bit of a plan rework, but that's frankly Why, that is like that. Just to get um. It's like It's just under eight feet at that. At that point i'll just the the question about the massing from the street. That was um also. If you look at the rendering which clear, flip back to, and you look at this elevation, The distance and the lowering of rear gable from the front gable. If you're standing at the street level

[114:01] you'll never see the rear gable and the rear addition. It just is in terms of perspective. It. It doesn't. You won't see it at the other elevation from the front. Yeah, the South Elevation. This we need the south elevation So because it's it's actually that that ridge is lower, and it's It's so much further back you'll never see it. So hold on, Claire. There's another one. There's another one showing the proposed Yeah, that that's a twod elevation in which everything is sort of brought to the same point uh which is the surface of the drawing. And So that drawing is that that drawing? That's an elevation drawing in which everything is given. There's no perspective to this drawing. So um, you know, you see everything uh in the same plane. Um. So in reality the distance is not taken into consideration in these in these drawings. So um! That's why it was important to do the rendering. But um! I just just to put that out there that you really won't see

[115:13] the mass of this proposed um rear addition from the street. I'm sorry, but I have a hard time believing that I mean if you were standing across the street and looking at this property you're telling me you would not see any of those those new structures that you would be supposed to add. I mean you'd see you'd see a bit of it, but you wouldn't see it from that few. There's also deep grade as the street goes across the street. I wouldn't see it from across the street quite honestly. Yeah, i'm sorry. There's what there's a great There's a There's you know our our home is higher on the hill than the across the street significantly, because our home sits up on a hill. So when you look from across the street, I really do not believe you will see any of it.

[116:10] She'll be looking up at it if this perspective um were that we're looking at right here, Tim. Um, If we had changed this to move it maybe twenty feet to the right. Yeah, you you will see a piece of it. But the adjacent house is actually very close to this house. So there isn't much visible, pretty impossible to build anything at the back of this house without being somewhat visible from some location from the front,

[117:03] and I but I do think, and and whether it's a lot or a little like depending on where you're standing, or in proximity of things or the hill, what I do think really with the guidelines call out, is the separation between the old and the new, the connector, and the aspects of the proposed addition that are sympathetic in nature without being um, or without replicating and confusing the his, the message of what the history is, and the balance of those things. How those things come together, you know, allow for an addition at the back to maybe poke out a little bit. Um. I I really believe that the first piece that is the part for us to kind of grapple with is the connector, and if we go to the other elevation, you know, I think the true challenge here is, this is perfectly fine automation. Um,

[118:01] you know it's i'm just gonna draw the whole thing. It doesn't have to be the whole thing. But how much of that can be maintained in some way. That's like a smaller step down version of building it doesn't even have to be there. It's just, you know, uh something in this zone that is smaller, that then allows for, and let me drop smaller. That, then allows for something in this zone that's bigger, and I shouldn't have drawn it as high as the primary root, you know, because you clearly know those um is really, I think, the dominant concept that you know we tend to in the guidelines call for on a call, for you know I've more or less drawn. The The typical roof form That, you know, is the pure extrusion of this, and it's the dumbbell version. You know you guys are probably seeing this before another.

[119:01] Yeah, I mean the dumbbell version of This is a little more obvious to me where you know, and I'm not suggesting that you go into total rework here like that would drive me not if I were you. But like, if you find you know where you put dormers in the roof forms um, and those are just squares, but dormers and root forms in the major roof form that emulates the existing root form, but it's different in its details, but similar, and it's massing. It's kind of the the rule, you know. Um, so not that you should do that. But I think a version of that, could, you know, help clean up some of these things. And again I really apologize because I know that you've got head height issues in there, and you're trying to get program over there in the bathroom in the laundry room. I can't remember because I looked at it the other day. Um, I get it like It's tough, but that is the concept in principle, and I think the part that would make it approvable in my mind today with conditions of exploration, would be to really pursue a connector piece. Um that follows the guidelines that's diminutive in nature, giving you greater opportunity to explore other types of roof forms.

[120:13] Whether or not it's across gable back. I don't know, like I think you could debate it, you know. Um, but I feel like that part would be the piece that I would say would be a condition of approval, and maybe we could talk about the other ones, and other pieces that I've described is things worth exploring. But I I think if you, if you got this part right um right in the sense of it, being like more aligned with what the regulation calls for um, and you know what preservationists on a whole are aiming to do. Yeah, yeah, yeah, trying to make sure, I cover the basis. Um, I believe that that piece of it could be approvable, and if we could go to the back for a quick second, this is a question, and it's not a

[121:07] like, you know this isn't a condition, in my opinion. But um! You know the one and a half story thing that I brought up earlier, and the way that might apply. Um, let me see if I can make a straight line here. Yeah, in the way that that might apply at the back with um if you were to maintain, Let's just say the table is but extend it so it looks more like a one and a half instead of I don't know a one in three quarters. Um, I would think would help the case. Um just saying like. In In fact, I think it might actually hide the whatever it is the end of doing with dorm or a little bit better, so they're not as they just don't look like they're, you know, sticking out like they do right there right, because it'd be more like nestled in the roof like a true dormer does of this era.

[122:06] Um, I don't know I don't know uh Alyssa. What do you think about that? You know we We agree that that you know that's an opportunity to have like two windows next to each other or four windows, so it reads more as a as a band punched opening. That's the primary bedroom, so we can definitely do it on the one side and the other side, where the bed is. Maybe it's higher, because above the bed. I think that's really easy. Um, the extending the ridge down we did do that. Yeah, we did it in an earlier one, and I I think if we keep this cross cable, we did have the cross cable, the height of

[123:04] the secondary gable, and then I think we had a comment that we should lower them some where, maybe eight months ago, nine months ago, and I think if we keep the cross cable, and it's more steep pitch similar to the front. It It makes more sense. Yeah, we. You just match the that's fine. We'll just if we can push it up. You know It's all about where it ends on the exterior wall, and the color thing I was gonna mention one. It's gonna be for me to talk about the form thing all at once. Um! But I I also have similar. They I want to talk about the caller to say some clarifying questions for Bill. But can you go to the East elevation quick? Um! I just want one more question here for the applicant. Um,

[124:01] you know the same types of things apply um. And so, you know, obviously, you got this big roof. And, by the way, like I recognize that this root pitch is different than the other ones is at least as drawn, which is a little unusual. It makes me question whether or not it was original, um, you guys know. But is it really that pitch? I think it is? But you do, too? Uh well, it's not a it's not. It's one thousand two hundred and twelve, which is a little weird. But anyway, it was probably part of the ninety-three addition. It looks like it was in addition. Um, and and again i'm like, you know I wasn't there the nineteen hundreds, but um, you know. But I think the connector conversation applies if you can make it connector, and I would just like if you make it same thing crops that'd be an easy form,

[125:03] and I don't know how you do it. You know it might be something weird, but it is the diminutive, and it looks like roof and stuff. I think that that would be the way. And then again. I I think that I think that this conversation is the same that we had on the other side, and I don't have a solution, you know. But i'm just. You know the those types of things like, what are the scale of Dormers, and whatever I think you can get away with, deviating from from being as like specific as I'm talking about that, like Dormers are exactly the size, and I think that there's room to make deviations once you get past this, and if you kind of commit to a dominant root form um, then maybe you can make those changes more easily, and you can introduce something that's a little foreign, because that's the chance where you're like that. You know It's not going to be one to one. Um. I don't have a solution for you. But I just in my personal experience that's something that we approve, and I I know that it's often successful,

[126:11] so I I wonder if I can turn this back to my colleagues for a second, because I think I have like two parts. One is, you know, you can hear what i'm saying about this piece of the building, maintaining its integrity about whatever happens in here being something that you know follows the more prescriptive rules of a connector um. And then, there being room for exploration, a Drc. Um back of building to explore the concepts that we described, and in my opinion, you know, we could formulate a maybe additional piece to the um conditions that talk about it in that way. That's like the middle piece that's the connector is more prescriptive, and then the back of the building should follow the some concept, and we can explore that through Erc. If that's the case that I would

[127:06] be willing to like help make the motion, and I would support that. Now, Ronnie, were you uh going to speak to the window? Massing as well. Yeah, I think they'll um, I I think you Yes, you know I think that there's a vertical proportion to windows actually. Can you go to the front of this for a second, and my wife's gonna rich in tinfoil can get super loud. There it is, so we can do it in front of this for a second. Um. You know the the proportion of windows. There's a couple of different things happening there. You know the language of window that one's unusually big, but there's there's A, and let's go to the other side elevation for a minute. Um, Any of the sides that show historic? Yeah, I mean, you know, we got the skinny windows Getting windows are proposed, I think, mostly, Bill. The thing that I see is the windows that are occurring in the upper portion of the proposal on the sides could be re-evaluated, and whether or not they, the gables end up being exactly as they are or are not, um. It seems to me like

[128:20] um. They might be a little more vertical in nature, or paired in order to talk the same language as the rest of the building. Section four hundred and five of our general design guidelines maintain the proportion, general style and symmetry, or asymmetry of the existing window patterns. So that's exactly what you're speaking to there. Yeah, yeah, I think that that would be a part of you know. I mean, I know. I know that these guys can figure something out about that. Um, you know window change isn't as hard as the plan. Change Um

[129:05] so. Yes, I think that that would be important. And and just for conversation. Say, I think, having all of the same windows in the forms. Here is also, maybe a route that I would recommend changing, and and I would say like when it's the dominant form. It does the dominant window thing when it's a support in a form. It does a subordinate window thing, and at I couldn't tell you what's going to happen, because I think that once you put a connector in there's going to be some other things that come to light. But and the reason, yeah, the reason you're saying that is, you want the window patterning to be uh connected to the actual form rather than your Yeah, it set this up the sub-form you want the sub-form to be. You want the proportion to be matching the sub form that it that it existing exactly it. There's a hierarchy of window that also relates to um.

[130:01] You know what it is the tapping of the matching, and this isn't bad. I mean It's just that. It would be something that I would say like could be looked at at the Drc. It's really not a big deal. It's about it. And again to offer the um. The architects um an opportunity to um respond to that piece. Yeah, that's fine. Yeah, we we agree. Yeah, and we're kind of picking on you a little bit there, I mean, I know, like if that was the only comment. We had to be like easy greasy. So but I do. I'm glad that Bill brought it up, because that would be something that clearly would come up with Drc. And it's good to daylight it right now. Um, I think you'd end up hearing that from any of us. And so my hope is that we can maybe move forward with the condition uh that the one piece was more. You know it's prescriptive, and then the other is um, you know, explorative and suggestive.

[131:05] Yeah, I can make it up. I can. And Ronnie I agree with um the direction you've led this conversation, and I appreciate um. The architect's willingness to explore this. I don't know what John and Chelsea may want to add to this portion. Well, I'm I I've been um totally I I totally agree with everything discussed. It was the issue that I was, I guess, originally bringing up about the the problem of the cross intrusion and the loss of the historic line. Um, i'm not sure that the strictest notion of a connector is the way to resolve this. Um! But again, that's something. It can be worked out in erc

[132:13] uh a connector style. You you, Don't, you're not going to put a whole lot of weight into that necessarily completed line of the historic roof and and leave it. Leave it open. As to how that's resolved, Because I understand the plan difficulties that this is creating, at least as the plan exists, and to really I mean it, the the notion of a connector is, for in my mind is frequently for something kind of different happening behind the line that is connected

[133:03] to where you almost even like when you add something to a building that is an area that changes the use somewhat, or changes some other condition about how the building has been up till that point. Um, I think that I I guess what I'm saying is there's a lot of ways this could be solved, and as I the most important thing, at least for our for our guidelines, is the preservation of the historic roof, and as much of the of the front side Historic character of the house being preserved as possible. Um! And the rest of this can be, as I I use the expression, massaged. Um. This is this is stuff that we can work out in

[134:03] a forum like Drc. And so our our conditional language has to direct it towards that without getting to specific other than the specific comment that we feel like the roof line needs to be preserved. And there are issues with we. We feel proportioning system of the windows and roof slopes, and so on, and the issue of color. Um. But I think that I think that we can. We can move towards general approval of this. Yeah, I'm raising my hand because i'm gonna um introduce a a slightly different vector here into the discussion. And and John jog my my brain about this. Um W. This thing has already been to the Doc a number of times, right

[135:09] twice, at least hired us and bought the house that had a much higher second story addition in the back. It was approved it so well. So it's been back and forth a lot, and um That's why i'm kind of wondering. I mean, if the applicant uh and the architects are okay with the recommendations, we're going to embed in our approval. Then I guess it's okay. You know. I guess they're they're agreeing that we could go back to that design Review committee and hammer out the smaller details where here we're kind of gonna give a general approval or disapproval of the overall mass scale and idea of what's being proposed. Um with conditions.

[136:03] So just so, you kind of understand where where we think this might be headed. Okay, you're shaking your heads. Okay, Good. Yeah, this might not be the end of the line. It's the point. But that if we could do it at the Drc level. Okay, Okay, anybody else. At this point I I would love to hear from Chelsea. I can't see everybody. But you know, Chelsea A. You like you voiced your opinion. If anything, I guess you know I I defer to the architects when it comes to the technicalities of what looks best. I in hearing this conversation, and I'm. Newer to being on the landmarks board. But it it does feel that we get very

[137:07] deep into the minutia of making something perfect. Um! When you know this is somebody's home. They've been trying to. They've been trying to fix this and make it the way they wanted it for almost a year. And so, at a certain point, I feel like we have to achieve what we need to achieve, to meet the recommendations or the requirements. And you know Yes, could it always be more to one of our likings? I'm sure it could. But I guess I just. I don't feel compelled to add additional time or to this project. Thank you, Chelsea Abby. Can I suggest one more thing here? I feel like we need to wrap up the color conversation, and so I would ask if Claire could bring up the color Yup, and then I was just hoping to get some clarification from Bill about some of his comments.

[138:18] Um, because I was tracking with them. But I was wondering if we could talk specifically about which aspects of this you think are the challenging parts, and I kind of think I was hearing you. It was the black sash. Um! Where is the I'm just gonna call it blue. But Buxton Blue versus the white trim and body color applications were consistent with the guidelines. My understanding that correctly, I'm going to actually defer to John. But I I want to make a and I will comment after John um lays in, because he's much more of the color expert than I am, but I would um really like to see, you know, a couple of options presented to us by the applicants, not just this particular option.

[139:03] So we don't, you know, so we can give them some, you know, guidance on which direction we we're kind of thinking they should maybe go into um, and also how, whatever um choices come out, we should get um, not a rendering like this, because, as you know, this is coming through digitization, and what we need is like an actual application of the paint on on some samples of wood that we can actually look at to see how this this will actually look. For instance, this says Buxton Blue, but through my computer it looks just like Gray to me, but no a a medium gray um. However, if it goes up, you know, on a full building, it might look like baby blue eggshell blue, which is something we we generally aren't going along with. So, anyway, that's what I wanted to say. So, John, if you would like to weigh in, i'd appreciate it. Yeah, I I think that the thing that that we're based on, based on the the color studies

[140:07] that we did for Mapleton Hill district and what we observed, and and so on. The thing we're finding problematic is the I guess, the high contrast impact of the black sash color. Um, If that could be if that could be brought into the grays, or something that would still maintain the kind of drama that you want to achieve. With that without the extreme contact or the extreme contrast that would be more consistent with the way color in Mapleton Hill tended to be applied historically. Um understandably, I mean, we're we're in a period of time where high contrast between detail and field color is desirable and is being done quite a bit.

[141:11] But it's not in a historic district, or on a on a contributing property. So that's that's why we're saying something about it. Yes, Alyssa. So I just wanted to state some research that we did about color. Because Um, this is an Edwardian home. I think that's how it's classified. It does the double colonnade in the front and wrap around porch, and that the era that these houses were done which is turn of the century. So from what research that we did, Victorian colors tended to be much darker, like super dark reds and greens, and because at that time there were, the lights were gas lights, so they admitted, sort of like a black smoke and a sit on the houses. So they were typically darker

[142:11] during that era. And then Edwardian was the introduction of electricity which then gave a different light on a house, and also didn't have that off gassing, you know darker smoke. So those houses tended to be lighter and brighter, and a little bit more, and this palette, so that's also kind of a a little bit of historical research that we did for the Edwardian period, and that's kind of like the introduction of light blues and yellow sort of softer talent as opposed to the Victorian heavier, darker, dull colors. Yeah, we actually we actually consulted a Robert Schweitzer. I don't know if you've ever heard of him. He's he's, he's he's he's a well known I I've heard his name. Yeah, Yeah. But yeah, he's not preservation, and he gave us a a few palettes. We'll share those with you.

[143:16] Okay. I think that the thing that at least that that we were responding to is just the ensemble of colors and the issue of I have extreme contrast to the detail. Color um, the sash, color, and and the guidelines, the guidelines for color the way they're they're currently written. Don't really get as specific to talk in terms of of um contrast and um shade of call, or I mean a contrast and value of color,

[144:03] and I think it's the it's the as I said it's It's the fact that the Buxton Blue and the White Dove kind of create a a um, almost. It's a very pale field, and then you you have an almost aggressive black introduced in that Again, I understand what you're trying to achieve in terms of the the drama of making those details distinct. I I think it could be softened. That's all. I think that's what we're looking for. That's it well, and I want to say my reaction to the proposed for the windows sash was more reaction that I was trying to think of Holmes in Mapleton Hill that currently had that against a softer palette. Um, But i'd like to see, you guys, how we could kind of bring this to closure for this evening. Um, Ronnie, Was there something else you wanted to speak to

[145:08] or try to get to emotion? I mean, I think maybe we move toward a motion. I think I can do that. Um, I want to make some stuff off. But maybe before I do that I don't know if Laura you've been listening so patiently. Have some insights. Uh, thank you, Ronnie. I don't think I have any insight. You know. Historical preservation is not my area of expertise. I don't see anything here that would particularly um trigger something that is planning boards per view. So um. But thank you for asking. I'm gonna quietly read these.

[146:00] Take your time. I can talk more if you want Ronnie. He's gonna that's gonna confuse him. Um, no, I think i'm. Okay. Um, You know I I know i'll notify the written approval, so it's easier for us to track. So i'm just not saying stuff, and then, like we have to catch up and list of the recording. Is that possible, Claire? Like if you wanted to add um, for example, subsection, you know six, c, two, c. Six, something about um, providing additional detail on the color, and then I will add another line in is, Can you do a live update on this? What I would like to add for that, for that, Claire, is your typing. Just provide uh alternative color combinations, or color ensembles for review, and and before I make any motion I I would. I know what i'd like my motion to be, and that would be to make the connector piece prescriptive.

[147:10] Um! But I feel like John was saying something that may be different than that. And um, you know exactly what What I need prescribing is that follows the um, you know, with the design guidelines say is that there's something that's diminished in Nature clearly separates itself from what is the historic to new? It creates a clear delineation at the right location, like all of the stuff that is, is like literally written in the guidelines to me that feels like it should be prescriptive. But I guess i'll i'm kind of taking some version of the straw poll here to to clarify that Ronnie just I. I was just saying that it it could be as simple as just a break in the plane of the walls,

[148:02] even though the proposed wall is actually out in front of the historic plane, which is slope. I I think that's the challenge. I think that's it is. In In other words, that's that. Yeah, with the design solution to that very issue is But you know, like okay, we can't. We can. And guidelines talk about how that might behave. So you know, I think, like slapping the piece of bread up against the back of the triangular shape of the roof is not what the guidelines say. Not that the applicant did that because they tried to incorporate it through the extension of the roof form. But if we were to say, Hey, you just cut it off. There it's fine. Um, I don't think that complies. So what I would. What I would like to say um is something like I would like to add a condition to this clear. Um, yeah, that is um,

[149:10] and I apologize if you have a better word for this. Um, I but I would say, include a a connection to the historic roof, form and rear building Face um that more closely complies with the guidelines, and I know that still ambiguous. But, like you know, i'm not gonna recite all the guidelines there there, so we can go. Look at that, and maybe that gives us the opportunity for it to be a little more expansive. Um for the design team um to figure out exactly what that looks like, and I think they've heard enough of me talking about this, and probably everybody. All eighteen people on this call to like, understand and spirit what I'm describing. And if there's questions you can refer to those

[150:08] I think that's great language, Ronnie Cool. I'm like on all day on zoom meetings every day all day. I'll just give you a link. So if Claire, if you're willing to, I i'm going to refer to these as the conditions of approval. Um and clear. If you're willing to go, I I don't I, Lucas, I hope not to have to read all of those um but I move that the landmarks board adopt staff memorandum dated november second two thousand and twenty-two to find it to the board and conditionally approve the landmark alteration certificate to restore the front porch and the place of rear addition, with new rear addition at four to nine Highland Avenue, a contributing property in the Middleton Hill historic district, as shown on plans dated September sixth, two thousand and twenty-two. Finding that the proposal meets the standards for issuance of the landmark alteration certificate in Chapter nine, eleven, eighteen brc. One, and it's generally consistent with the general design. Guidelines, provided that the stated conditions are met

[151:10] taken conditions are reported as updated in um this uh staff conditions of the tool that listed here i'll second that well. Can we be clear about what we changed from the original that was in the memo. There's a new to be correct. Um the addition of condition or approval to be, and to d um sub six. And can you read those? Yes, um to modification. To be is to include a connection to the historic group form that we are building face that more closely complies with the guidelines, and two d sub six is to provide alternative color ensembles for review

[152:02] at Drc. Alright, Thanks, Ronnie. So, Ronnie, thank you for the motion. And Bill you seconded. Are there? Is there any discussion or amendments to this motion? Hearing none, and not seeing any raised hands, I will do a roll call. Vote, Bill. All right, Chelsea. I'm John, honey, and I vote I So the motion passes unanimously. I do want to thank andy you your wonderful steward of this house, and I want to thank the architects to you. Guys have been great to um. Have this dialogue with us this evening. Can I ask you a quick question? Sorry. Um! It's. It looked like there's a lot of um items on the list to be reviewed in Ldrc. And I was just wondering if it would be possible. I just. I've seen, you know. The thirty minutes goes by pretty fast. I think that's what they have in the,

[153:16] and I was just wondering for this particular project if the applicants could receive more time, so that they don't have to go to a fourth Ldrc meeting, just so that they have enough time in that meeting to address all the issues and not extend it further well, and I know some times at Ldrc and agenda items forty-five minutes. But I think it's a good point to see about making sure it couldn't potentially get resolved in just one meeting

[154:06] right. We have spent that time in Ldrc before getting things through the need to get through. Yeah. And also also to be sure, also, to be sure um Claire, that you know one of the arc. Two architects are involved in that review at least one, if not both of them. It's going to take more time if i'm in i'm in i'm in i'm in i'm in i'm in the i'm at the I'm. At the I'm at the i'm at the Landmark Board representatives, one of those two at least. If you put me in Chelsea on this, or you know the full proper uh, you know sets of eyes you want on this thing to help guide Staff through it.

[155:07] Yeah, Yeah. Sorry. I just I made the request because I have seen Ldrc's where there wasn't enough time to complete, and I would just hate for someone who's coming back for the the third time, plus the landmarks board meeting to not get it done in one, so it's just a request to give this project more time A. Ld. Orc. Meeting. Thank you. That's a great situation so clear, I think, ready to go to matters, and and I guess the applicant follows up with staff. Um, you know, If we completed that case they follow up with you clear, and we set another meeting for Drc. And we'll go at it too. Good luck, guys, and and thanks for being patient. Thank you. Bye.

[156:06] Leave to the right, Abby, are you going to need a backup to uh to wrap this up? How's your voice? Your voice seems like it's barely there better than on Sunday. Claire's voice is not much better. Hmm. Maybe John, can I? I'm, I am the vice chair. I could jump in here and talk about this. Um, I don't have the cheat sheet in front of me, but I can see this panel. So these are the matters that we have for discussion. Um, we have. The first matter is the historic Boulder Holiday House tour, which is Saturday, December the third. The information for historic b boulder is provided there.

[157:04] And uh, this is a great thing I haven't even attended yet. Well, since I've been on the board I attended it once previously, so it's worth doing, and I may do it myself this year. Um, also. And this has been in everybody's email. Um The twenty twenty-three saving places um Colorado preservation in Conference is February eighth to tenth, two thousand and twenty-three. Um, I assume this is an actual in-person conference this next year I haven't read the email that closely, yet if it's remote, it's uh it's both in person and for a tool.

[158:13] But there should be no reason not to go to this. If it's in boulder, then. Well, there could be excuses. But but there's no there's no reason. Well, there could be extenuating circumstances, you know there there is that. That's true, and then we have an update on In-person board meetings. And is that coming from Claire? My update is pretty brief. Uh We are still waiting for um the technology to be ready and chambers before we can give you a real update and start thinking about going back. Okay.

[159:01] And since this is come around to me to do this. I'm going to throw a fourth item into there that I just think we should all start thinking about Now is our annual letter to Council, which is going to happen in December. And um, I just think that's something that should be in our minds collectively, so that we can come up with an effective and clear communication this year. Um! That will elicit council action if that's what we desire. So there's that Um. Does anybody else have anything. Yeah, I was just wondering. I know I should know this what Ronnie Somebody had their hand up.

[160:09] I I do have a I do have something to share with the board, but I would defer to board members if you wanna to finish your conversation, and I can go last, since it's uh something new. Um, um, you know. I was just wondering what the as a reminder update about um Marcy's return the timing for that. Sorry I feel like I should know that I just don't. Yeah, sure. She will be back on December first. Um, and uh kind of on a on a part time schedule through the month of December. But then back um uh in full time in January. Okay, cool. Alright, I think we can move to your comment, Laura. Sure. So So i'm your liaison to planning board, and at last night's planning board meeting

[161:03] the name of the Landlord Marks board came up quite a bit uh for a project that we were reviewing, and I'm sure Staff will bring this to your attention. But I just felt that as your liaison, I should let you know that happened. Um! And it came up in conjunction with the project that we were doing a concept review for our concept Plan Review. And Uh, this is a project that has come up for concept Plan Review. Previously it was a second concept plan review. The project is two thousand five hundred and four spruce streets. So it's a it's a plan for a quite um uh Well, a hundred and one units are proposed of new housing, and it's for a block that runs from um spruce to pearl and from Folsom to twenty-six. So if you can imagine that area of town like where Hoshi motors used to be. Um where the old Ares thrift Shop used to be, and there's a little parcel on Pearl, and the reason why it's connected to landmarks board is because one of the buildings that is proposed for demolition is an old gas station.

[162:05] It's now it's called the Mecca Building. Now it has, like a Pilates studio in there. It looks like you're all familiar with that. So that project came up before planning board again for a concept review, and one of the questions was whether Planning Board had strong feelings about the preservation of that building. And um, I think the gist of the conversation was that's not our purview. That's Landmarks board, so I I think you can expect that they, the applicant uh indicated that they will be applying for a demolition permit at some point. Um! They they might change that, but that's currently. Their intention is full demolition, and then reuse of some of the materials they want to reuse those glue log beams that are in that gas station and kind of reference, the architecture. But they would be applying for a demolition permit, and that building is over fifty years old, and I think Marcy has commented on that previously from a staff perspective. Um! And for for what it's worth. City council

[163:01] discussed the historical aspects of it. I did not watch that city council meeting, but my understanding of the gist of their conversation was that they did not; that they viewed the need for more affordable housing as overriding to the need to preserve that building, and you may be familiar with that. But anyway, since that came up yesterday. I just wanted you to know, and again I'm sure that staff will bring that to your your attention at the appropriate time. But since i'm your liaison. I I didn't think that I could let that pass without informing you. Thank you so much, and um Christopher was there as well, so I don't know, Christopher, if you want to add anything to that summary. No, you captured it. Well, Um, yeah, it's a um. The concept at least as proposed. Would um, you know, would demolish the building? Um! There were some architectural references to um, you know. Sort of indicate that uh that structure and the reuse of the glue and beams that are part of that building.

[164:09] It's great. Thank you. Glue lam, you can tell. I'm not an architect. Sorry that I Miss pronounced. Thank you. All right. Anyone else. Well, Abby, do you want to adjourn or you want me to do it? You go for it. Okay, The November Landmarks Board Meeting is hereby adjourned. Thank you, everybody. Bye, bye,