December 7, 2022 — Landmarks Board Regular Meeting

Transcript

Captions from City of Boulder YouTube recording.

[3:38] They'll See Thank you. this is just a this is start up a small note. But I believe the packet that early the packet that I downloaded did not have the information that you just showed Around, how this Proposal met or did not meet the University place Historic District everything was Blank and there was no information on how it it did conform or not conform to so you

[4:19] Know The the University, Place Historic District, like the Guidelines. General. Yeah. Say that to refer to the general design guidelines. If those didn't appear in the packet, I would be very concerned Well, or maybe I miss Well, I saw that you said that they generally did not. But then I thought you were just looking at The district Specific design, Guidelines, and they. There was a bunch of information in there, or was is that I guess The we usually we usually refer to the district specific guidelines, because they are the ones that we are guided by if the if there's a conflict between those in the general guidelines, so we go to the district, specific ones first in this case the specific district, guidelines, said refer to

[5:14] the general design guidelines. So there's the ones that we used Okay. So it should have. Yeah. Okay, I, just. Sorry Chelsea I also see where you're looking in the Attachment. Yeah Where there's the District Specific Guidelines, but some of the Analysis boxes are blank, Yup and I think those are the ones that don't apply directly to this proposal and we we could have just left those out. Okay. But yeah, I think Claire's Presentation was complete. In terms of what we're looking at in terms of the district to specific Guidelines. And then how it reallyers us to the general guidelines. Okay, yeah, I was, okay, unclear, because I the memo stated, that they were largely inconsistent with the district Guidelines.

[6:11] But then, there wasn't any information about how that was the case, so I guess if it's if it are only inconsistent because of the general Guidelines, then I feel like that should just be said straight for you know in a straightforward, way, as opposed to saying that they don't comply with these district Design guidelines, because it doesn't sound like most of those were applicable. But maybe maybe I'm wrong. I don't know Yeah, i apologize. For the confusion. I I think that we kept those in there. Just so you could read what it said, and we probably should have taken those out, the ones that it does say not applicable on the the right hand side, throughout the district, specific Guidelines

[7:03] Okay. so the memo so it you and your presentation in the memo describe the mass, Scale and Hype being over Sized in Comparison to the Existing Structure, but I was you know reading the letter from the Developer Applicant and in the Memo if I understand Correctly the current Proposal Is actually smaller than the Proposal that was Approved in June of 2,020. So I'm just trying to make sense of of that cause you had just said in your Presentation that the the Scale and this size was one of the Main Reasons why it Wasn't Approvable so Yeah Yeah it's, It's. It's interesting, the the Previous Approval was it was recommended that the Garage be smaller than 770 Square, feet.

[8:07] Hmm. Which actually resulted in a two-story garage that had a this footprint, that is about 480 square feet. So this is the the Blue Dotted Line. It was the footprint from the previous Approval. in this Gray Box is the currently proposal. But then it was it was too soon before. And now it's one story right Okay, and So then, okay, and then one other, just kind of just question. I have. It's more of an overall question or high level question is, how would any new accessory dwelling unit meet the Criteria of Preserving Enhancing for Restoring the exterior architectural Features of a Landmark like is it Possible for an Access rate well a new Accessory Dwelling

[9:06] Unit to achieve that, criteria. And if so, how would it do that I believe so Mossy, do you want to take this one, and maybe have some some example Sure and I was gonna pull up that code language that says it, because I believe it's a 2 part thing that it presents. It's asking, does this change improve or enhance the district? And not detract. And so I think sometimes there's things like restoration that are clearly enhancing, and then there are things that it's not detracting from and and an example of that meeting, would be a remodel of a non contributing building, that that It's Not detracting from the Overall historic character, and so I would say new construction probably fall somewhere in the middle of that, where that the goal, is that it doesn't detract from the District.

[10:13] I would say, there are probably examples. Maybe a reconstruction of something that was there that could enhance the district but it's. A 2 part piece of the code. Where the code is saying, does it enhance it? Or does it not detract from it Yeah, well, well, that's kind of why have the question because in this for this project, it says, that it will not damage. The features of the architectural, Of the Contributing House, the foot, that it does not preserve Enhance or restore, so it kind of felt, like it was being used like though the fact that it did not Preserve Enhance or restore was being used as and justification or Part of you know it it was a

[11:09] it's a reason to not meet this criteria, and so the question I still don't quite understand how a new it says free dwelling in it would do the second part of this statement which is to preserve any answer Restore. I'm just trying to figure out how to judge this fairly cause I don't know how any new Accessory dwelling unit would do. What would preserve in hand or restore a. The main contributing house? Is that makes Hmm, I see. Yeah, I see what you're saying, and I I appreciate your attention to detail. I I would say that the br the recommendation is accumulation of all of the analysis, and I would. I would ask you not to get too hung up on that one piece. Because I could come up with with different examples of how an addition might do that or or might not.

[12:05] But I think it in our viewpoint, the Garage of the accessory building that was approved before in terms of its Mass Scale, Location. Didn't detract from the from the district and and enhance it because it had a sympathetic scale, and Mass but then also as you're going along the Alley There's A Break in the Buildings, and it maintains the Kind of the built Mass to open space, on the Lot, and so, where is this? One in in terms of its size and matine? Does not do that. So I would ask. Don't get too hung up on on that. One. But I do appreciate you Well, yeah, and okay, I won't get to hung up with. I I'll try, but every little great you know it all adds up, and when we say oh, it doesn't meet this this and this like, well, then that's a very strong case.

[13:01] To do one thing or another. So I feel like it is important to be very clear about what did it you know this is someone's how that we're talking about. So I feel like it is important to understand how something does or does not meet these, like very, you know, there's only a few criteria here. So but this one says that it would not detract from the main house. So I guess I just want like that's So, even though the previous proposal I guess to tracked less. Okay, so I think, those are my questions. For now, thank you. Right, if Yes, I I have one quick question, 1, one, request for clarification.

[14:00] This is labeled garage in office. This is not in fact, an accessory dwelling in it. Correct Correct Okay, that's my clarification. Thank you. John, I see. Alright, If nobody else had any questions I believe back to you, Abby Thank you, Claren, thank you for your presentation. Chelsea, thanks for that that that question, because I think you brought up some good points, and I like Marcy appropriate your attention to detail on that So I think it's, time to move to the apprentice presentation, brenda or clear I don't know if you're gonna help facilitate Making them available to speak

[15:01] Yeah Aubrey and and Brenda Jolmox is here Did you want me to Alright see that made one more time Joel. Yes, I have Joel will promote you to panelist, Joel My my name, is Joel Marx and I swear to tell the whole truth. And welcome Joel you will have up to 10 min, for your presentation, but we do need to swear you in at the very beginning, letting the Board know you'll tell the whole truth and then please state, your full name Maybe begin Okay, I'm Joel Marx, my wife, vicki and I are the homeowners. Kyle Callahan, the applicant is is our architect,

[16:07] Thank you for that presentation, claire, and thank you for giving us the opportunity to present to the Board. Okay, Some some of you may remember us from a similar project. We had a proved, I believe, was actually in 2021, and of course we we recognize some of you from that process as was discussed. It was for a garage office. Adu, we had originally proposed a building that I think the square footage was around 1,400 square, feet during the Approval process and that and that included the Office the Adu, and the Garage itself, during the Approval Process, we were asked to make several Design Changes, including to reduce the Floor space of the Adu and the Overall Building itself. We rest, alter, many of the design elements, such as the roof, lines, and to use specific types of materials and constructing the building, the result once it got approved however, was that the structure in the Edu, itself, had been Whittled down to about half the size, and because of some of the

[17:17] Design Changes, and the materials we were stipulated to use when we presented it to potential contractors, for estimates, It's Gonna Cost, about 2 times as much, or more to actually build in the original Structure we believe would cost so at half the half the Building, for Twice the cost we Decide to Abandon that project and try again, for a smaller Simpler building that we thought would be easier to approve the archive that design our original building had retired, and so we engaged Calendar, was the Applicant, on this He's a Boulder Architect with Decades

[18:00] Of Experience, Designing Buildings in Boulder, for both Historic and Non Historic Districts, our goal was to sign a smaller building, as I said, that would be easier to approve and easier to Construct the New Building, Does Eliminate the Adu and We've Reduced, the Overall, floor, space and turned it from a 2 story building into a single story. Building that includes just the garage and office, but not the edu if I could like to speak for just a moment about why the building is important to us, and and in fact, should be important to boulder you know we all know about the uptick and Chrome in our city much of it Is crime, of opportunity We have seen in our own neighborhood, you know car damage and and theft, our neighbor, across the street, who does not have a garage. At her Car Stolen this summer, another neighbor, also without a garage, who parks on the street, had their car broken into and ransacked and our own son had his Electric Bike which was a gift, from his grandmother, just 5 Days before Stolen, and Broad Daylight from under

[19:10] Our car port during the summer, so we'd like to have a garage to keep our possession stored away safely and to create just a bit more friction for criminals thinking our neighborhood is an easy target the office, we'd like to use for vicki psychology, practice she currently Sees, clients virtually, and does not have an office. She has started working with a number of Cu students and many of her patients. In this underserved population have asked to be seen in person, an an office on site in our location on the hill would make it easy for these patients to reach us without a car and it would eliminate the need for her to run space elsewhere in Boulder which of course puts additional pressure on A tight real estate market. We as we heard we understand the staff recommendation is to deny our application for clarification, we would not be removing any mature, trees so that that that is not happening.

[20:07] Well, we understand that the primary reason, at least our understanding is that for the recommendation of the Choices and materials, for the building, we're asking to be approved to use Non Wood Materials for several reasons first as you all know We're less than one year Out from Marshall fire that evening we could see the orange glow from our upstairs windows as we waited to hear of an evacuation order was going to be issued for our block and We've had Evacuation Alerts We've been on evacuation, Alerts couple of Times Okay. Since, the fire. So we think with the ever increasing risk of fire we'd like to avoid wood where possible. Is cost. Now we know that strictly speaking that's not a factor. The Board is meant to consider, but as an example. The wood garage door that was stipulated in our first Building Costs about 5 to 10 times as much, as the non what alternative we were initially proposing that increased cost is repeated for Windows exterior doors siding and

[21:15] More, we fully appreciate the Goals of Preserving An Authentic Look, for buildings in the district, we and our architect is kept that objective front and center when does designing our proposed building and and we think we've been pretty true to our Home as Well as We've undergone Renovations on the Interior, but certainly the Folly of requiring would such as cedar that is then gonna be that's used for signing only to have the wood, Painted over We're Requiring a 5 Times the Expense of the Garage Door that Faces Into the Alley would be apparent the Appearance of Nonwood Materials has improved greatly in recent years, and because they require less maintenance they're likely to look better for longer than what it.

[22:01] Sells. We believe the advantages of the non would materials far outweigh the rigid adherence to a guideline that doesn't account for the changes in our world and the alternative materials available in it especially for a building that is only visible from the Alley the Board itself actually agreed with this argument earlier, this year, when you approved the use of Composite Decking Materials for the Construction of our Backyard I have to say that Deck looks Fantastic by the way and It's Universally Admired by our Neighbors, especially those to Please. Whom it is visible. So we're requesting approval for our Project as presented and we're happy to answer questions about the Project, to the best of our ability thank you Thank you for that thorough presentation. Do any board members. Have any questions for Joel, let's moment I'm not seeing any so now we will proceed to public participation for this particular agenda item, if There's, anyone from the public interested in speaking, to this and Joel, just so you know if members of the public do speak you will have 3 min Afterwards if There's anything You'd like to add There, we go. Here's Joel. You should have control over both your camera and your microphone at this point or rebutt brenda. Do you see anyone who would like to address, this I do not see any hands up currently just as a reminder, you should see, a raise hand, button, at the point of your screen. I do not believe in Webinar, our attendees have our reactions, Button. But if you can't find your race, hand, Button. That's where you would find it if you do have a reactions, button, or you can press option, y. Or alt wide. Depending on what kind of computer you have So I'm giving a good 7. Second pause to see if any hands come up I do not send any hands at this time.

[24:14] Thank you, Brenda, so public participation. Has been closed for this public hearing fivea and Joel I'm Assuming Since There's nothing to report we will move on, to Board Deliberation and I know typically during this Virtual, for our Virtual, Meetings, We've started Alphabetically, by First name of Board Members and Billy, you're welcome to go first, but I know, sometimes for a Project like this At's helpful to hear from one of our Architects, First No, absolutely let that Ronnie or John go Okay, so Ronnie or John would either one of you like to kick this off this evening. Hmm, okay. Well, neither of them would want to kick it off

[25:05] I appoint John to start Okay, I I Oh, I'll jump in there Thank you, thank you, John, you you've been nominated I've been nominated Hi. I understand the Goals of the project, and I also understand the outcome of the review in terms of the I guess I guess, Marcie, just just to clarify me a little little better. It's the open. Space issue is the fact that because the two-story, building has become a one-story building the coverage, the area covering, the Site has increased enough to I guess eat more open space, then it would have as a 2 story building and Stack for that

[26:04] That's correct in the general Design guidelines when it talks about site. Design it it asks to look at the amount of built space to open area on the on the property, and so While, the previous approval was about the same size in terms of square, Footage the Footprint has now Expanded since it's. A one story, building. We need to I in my case, I think, on new construction, especially on the Tertiary side of the Primary Structure.

[27:09] It may be appropriate I express a little concern about the use of stucco at least the way it's being used as appropriate in this I guess, on ensemble of materials So I'm not as troubled by that relative to the guidelines, I think some review of that has needs to it. However, the the issue of the of the Coverage of of the Site and the Occupancy of the of the or the Creation of a of I guess almost continuous Alley Wall on that one Boundary Is an Issue and I'm Wondering if there is a Configuration Variation of this that Could Accomplish.

[28:04] Is desired here it also seems that the the mass of the of the Garage. Is. I guess exaggerated by the height of the Gable, because it it almost looks like it's it's a one, and a half, story building and that's something else that some modification could probably bring down, it is Appropriate, to put a Garage on that side of the Property, and dressing, the alley, so I have a very mixed kind of feeling, about this, that it's it's it's not white, as in the Wouldn't Say Indefensible, it's not it's not quite as as true troublesome as is being Indicated here, a One story building. If if properly treated, is going to be actually less or or more subordinate to the Primary Structure than the Two-story buildings, so that is probably the Correct response Ronnie, what do you think

[29:18] Claire is there any way? Can you bring up the presentation again? Yeah Maybe let's start with the site, plan, which is pretty pretty pretty easy. Kind of checkbox stuff here, 1, s, I've got a like get my screen. Looking correct. Here, okay, Joel. Excellent presentation, I mean, I really, appreciate you kind of outlining what you're desire is. And how you got from point A to point. B. So thank you for doing. That that's very helpful to hear, and also, I do think that Staff's Memo you know, was well, written on this and that they pointed out a handful of Aspects that they've Identified as kind of not complying in in just as a at a High Level you

[30:13] Know my takeaway from Staff's Memo wasn't about the materials being kind of the primary piece. And I know that you pointed to that I thought that there were other adds to it. Which I believe, John just started, you know, to point to. But you know some obvious stuff here, is like is it in the right spot. Yeah, that's great. I I think that Yeah I kind of have a question for staff. But I feel like to start I think that even in your proposal, you describe the architectural character of this structure as you know, deliberately attempting to not be kind of the baby bear version of the Primary, Residents and you know if you were To take a step back and look at what the press it in is on site.

[31:04] It is the existing Residence and the existing Car port and you, know, I have read and kind of found, the one compelling Aspect of Staff's report to point out that the press precedent is there on Site. To draw from, and the forms that are being proposed. You know our kind of like a third version of something, and so that relational piece, I think, you know is one aspect outside of the building, footprint part that you know I think John and both Jeff Chelsea, and John were talking about but It's, it's the form and mass piece that I think, could be strengthened that being said, let me just ask a quick question. Here, claire, or marcy, could you flip to the existing residence image

[32:05] Yeah, and and I mean, actually, go back when I kind of preferred, the historical one. Yeah, that's great. Okay, so, and then I'm sorry to put Jennifer in the Spot. I know you've mentioned this earlier. It's in the report, and I have my phone here. I always had the report kind of pulled up. It's so hard to see on the phone what is the pitch that we've determined. is the pitch of this primary residence The roof, pitch, sorry It is. Yes, let me Cause I feel like he reported it as 6, 12, somewhere. But maybe I'm misunderstanding that Oh, no, almost looks 1212 in that image. It was written in the previous approval. So I do not have the expertise to to check that Yeah, it's okay. It's okay, I mean, maybe you take a whatever. Time. I take yeah, give me a minute

[33:00] You might need to to look at it, you know, but I think that there's a handful of things you're Joel, that you and your your team you know probably understand in in in the past. Have understood, it's like what is this thing, and what are the things to reference. Well, it has a one, and a half story building in which the second story that has habitable spaces allowed to have additional head heights, through a dormer, and that dormer, is a shed dormer along kind of the broad length of this building Windows, are vertically Oriented and you know they have some definition to them. there's a strong base. To this building, in which you know in this image, you can see the brick? It hasn't been painted over in fact, you can stuck it over. I can't tell what's happening currently and then what happens above that is essentially the second floor, the one and a half above it. No, that is, I imagine to be like a trust system in which you can inhabit. And this. Is all pretty typical stuff, right? Like the base of the the lowest port of part of the building. Is the foundation has made stone so there's kind of in like a nobility and strength of materials that you can track as you go from base to top.

[34:05] And if you just click forward one image to like the current, oh, by the way, also just point out not that you need to do this stuff I just want to point out what do you see when you see this you know, there's, some other aspects here, there's there's Brackets there's There's rafter tails, and then there's other types of Appendages on the building, and if you go to the next Image, and I Think Claire said the Roof Pitches, 6 12 It's So Deceiving to Me but anyway, So this Guy. Here you know the thing. That's the outrigger here on the left, which is the addition which you know is debatably like. I can't tell you when that thing was put on but you know That's a Horizontal, Lapsiding the subordinate structure, at the rear

[35:10] It is brick. That's existing similarly has Exposed Reactor Tails and I can't tell is is that also was that also brick I can only see Marc I can't see Claire Rc yeah, And can you flip forward just through more of and I guess just like a little bit of window trim and again. Vertical nature and windows and everything go to the next. One, if there, is another one of the existing. I know that there were some invisible Maybe there aren't. Yeah, okay, so you know kind of more, of the same of those things, And and so you know, I point this out, because if we go to the proposal, Some of the aspects of the Proposal that I think, could be strengthened. If you go to the elevation I I kind of think You know, are about the ways in which the building forms come together, and I think staff pointed to the Window Geometry, and in this case, a window location which is up in what is kind of you know just the gable, end it's I don't think that's usable space.

[36:14] Up there, the transition between materials actually occurs. And I know that this was intentional. Just you know, I think that the architecture team, you know, purposefully attempted to meet this building. Look like that it was constructed. You know, an aggregate process over time, you know. But the addition that looks like the aggregate edition is the thing that stuck out in the storage structure is deciding there's in some smaller details which is like what are the trim past the trim related you've got certain Trim That's. Over the Primary door. That's the garage door and the door is a window above, and then the Accessory Drawing Doran Stucco, the Faces are different Dimensions, but if you continue to move on around the Sides of this Thing, oh, the the the Mandor looks Exceptionally Tall in there There's, a

[37:10] Little bit of an illusion about how big this building is. Because I think that Mandor is drawn. You know, taller than 6 foot 8, which is a traditional mandor. It looks like it might be an 8 foot door. You know. Fiberglass, Insulated painted door. So there's a little bit of scale thing going on just in the representation which I think is just a little bit of a distortion of Scale, but if you keep going and you know you can Kind of go around to the Back, of this you know the Ways in which these forms come together, although this is the part that you don't really see in the public realm, so debatably, it's kinda like you can do what you want the faces here, are the same dimension I might point out but there is a compositional thing, here that's occurring that it just in in my opinion, translates to the way in which the Overall this position of this building is working beyond material that makes it feel a little

[38:09] These again you know I know we've used this word earlier in this conversation, but there's a cumulative effect about how these pieces come together. That I think you know all ultimately result in a building that I know functions very well, for you in terms of Florida plan and a building that I would say in many other contexts is a great building. Like you know, I think that there's energy spent on this. I think there's some real thoughtfulness here in terms of how this is working, and how the apex of the like lower portion of this building, kind, of tie, into the primary like there's some really there's some Stuff here, somebody really Spends, some time but I like Staff Similarly, believe that there are some formal moves associated with the building that could be improved to pop and they do have to they do relate to some of the Mess and Scale Roof Pitch, and then just overall like what is the thing that We're referencing you

[39:19] Know components of this I believe staff suggested one alternate would be to maybe, potentially reference, the the car port I Personally don't think that you that I don't think either is necessary if I understood that correctly, I I feel like those are both options, but as I see it right now this is neither option, and so I you know want to I want you and your family to have a path forward. Let me just say that like I want you to PET forward. I want you to walk out of this with something that's like. What are we gonna do? How are we gonna get? You know this, this, this small building in a property that's going to be very helpful, for our family, I don't have an answer.

[40:08] About the building, Footprint and that's. Why I saved this to last is because that's a tough one. I I would like to have a more robust conversation with the entire group about that so that there is an outcome to this that allows you to have you know, forward progress in whatever fashion, if they may be whether it's an approval with conditions, or you know you withdraw I would really like for us to make sure You have some direction, but but I I I think that that's a hard one for me to land on and to really give good feedback on because I think you have a very diminutive livable space that's attached to a 2 car garage, you know it's It's not, it's not some glamorous Amount of or excessive, amount of just, pure square footage That's conditioned space, in there so I respect, what you've done.

[41:05] There, but I do think that their analysis is consistent with previous approvals and this is something that I think we should discuss if you could go to the side elevation for a quick second any any side elevation, maybe the next one since We Haven't seen it you know I just wanna point out, again. Yeah You know, there are many things in here that are horizontal in nature and you know those those small things that we talked about that have to do with you know, exposed reactor tales if you do or do not want to do the ways, in which the trimmer working on the building the banding that's found On the true the Historic Structure, or Whatever aspects you would like to draw just say, like those are available to you, and I think some cases simple ways And I do think that if there was another Round, of something, however, it you know, is is processed with us that I'm confident that you and your team could you know propose something that in my opinion is more, closely aligned with those historic structures so i'll kind of

[42:12] Leave it at that I have a little bit of other, a couple of other things on my mind. But I'll leave it at that, and maybe Abby, if you are up for passing it on. Yeah, I, This this is just Yeah, it is timely at this point, looking at the primary structure is that stucco on the Primary Structure I see John has his hand up there. Maybe somebody else has The second floor in particular It is. Okay. I'm gonna withdraw, my stucco comment. I think that you directly driving materials off of the primary Structure, is appropriate, only so.

[43:02] I just one quick, echo to what Ronnie said. No, I do. I do. See, John as his hands up and we still need to hear from Bill and Chelsea and John is yours is this a good I mean at my your comment is timely, at this Point. Okay. I think there is a path forward here, I'm not. Sure how we address that tonight. Yet so we gotta listen. Or we gotta hear what everyone else thinks about this. I think that the 2 biggest I guess kind of problems with this, our I, think how far the mass, or how far in in the site, plan how far location of the building, Intrudes, into the space between the House and the new Building, and it does seem like it could be Pushed Back a little further towards the Alley, and that would accomplish some portion of it, and then I think the issue of the 2 different slopes on the Roof is causing some of the Problem with exaggeration of the of the height and the a from this side it looks like a Shed, Addition but on the

[44:06] Front it's it's a kind of 2 complete different Buildings in Coalition. And I think that that's an issue could be resolved or could be resolving But I'm gonna leave it at that cause Right. And and I do want to hear from Bill and Chelsea, but I I want to say that what I hear, from you and Ronnie right now, and and you're going down Traveling a Similar Path. With what you're saying, but I mean my takeaway From Staff's memorandum, and presentation. Is There's Definitely a path, forward upstairs like this would be definitely possible on this property. But are there too many conditions that make it impossible tonight to approve this as well, as you know, I don't really think we can redesign this in a zoom call. But Bill, would you like to go next

[45:06] Yeah, I will sorry it's just picking up on a couple of things. I I would like to see Staffs recommendations, that I and I have the same problem, Ronnie. Has I'm trying to look at this thing on my phone I'm doing the Zoom call and I'm, it it's. It's really hard. I can't look at what the packet had versus what we have on our screen. But there was a whole section on what staff. Was recommending that be done to this property in order to make it appropriable, and or make it something that we could move we can at least give to the applicant tonight that they could go back to and and and work on and i'd like for this for our group to look at those those points, and kick them off one by one, and see if we agree with them. So I I don't wanna go through the whole thing myself, but there were a couple that I do wanna point out that I have a bit of an issue with

[46:07] I asked earlier, about the size of that lot, I wanted to know if that South lot was actually part of the Overall Property, and it is so There was a point somewhere in this presentation where staff was saying that the overall Size or I should say footprint of this new addition, as as opposed to what we approved before which was a smaller, footprint but Equal Square Footage, if that overall Size, is something that really should be considered not so much In the distance, from the house to the to the new structure, but in relationship to the overall lot itself and if I look at the overall, lot, this this proposal that they're presenting to us, does not seem to be quote crowding what's, already built in addition I think staff made a

[47:06] Comment somewhere in their, in their packet. At least that There was a possibility that maybe that new structure could move from where they're asking, to put it to to slide it over to that other line, and make it less encroaching upon the Primary structure, and I'm Asking that same Question, now Raising that up as a discussion point, and the reason. I'm using both of these things up is because I I don't feel that the Overall Mass and Scale of this is prohibitive. I. I I find that some of the other points that staff is raising here, Do need to be addressed you know, the conflicting roof forms, etc. should be addressed. We should look into that. But I think at the very least, the applicant needs to understand.

[48:02] If they can go away and come back with a similar proposal for a similar sized structure, but if it were moved to another part of a lot, and making it less encroaching upon the primary, structure, would that be acceptable To them so that's the 1 Point, I want to Work on the other point was I Thought that staff, said that staff was okay in the use of cementitious or synthetic exciting they just had an issue with the with the Stuck up part of it all and Joel was was making a large Point about staff Requiring everything, they would and I thought we were okay. With some into society, on New Structures, on new Appropriate structures. Like we're looking at here, not okay, on primary, existing historic structures. But okay, with something new as being proposed here,

[49:03] So I'd like to actually look at that as well, and the the topic of whether or not the garage door should be a wood as probably something we should address and let them know yay or nay, if That's a good idea that we'll agree to something other than would and I think the window points that Joe brought up. I think those need to be nailed down as well. Just so Joel, knows you know wood windows and doors are always something that we place a high premium on for any new construction, whether it be on an existing historic structure, on or on a new one, such as this it sits on a historic, lot, pertinent, to us, or Structure, so, I guess to sum all that up. I'd like us to make it very clear. To the applicant. What actually would be a acceptable mass and scale? Would we actually go along with what I proposed earlier in that if we consider the entire lot, the mass and Scale of the new building, would not tune to my eyes anyway, to my untrained eyes not seem to be imposing or dominant to the primary Structure, or to the lot itself that's it

[50:22] Thank you, Bill Chelsea Thanks. Yeah, that's super. Helpful to hear everyone. That's spoken before me. Yeah, I I also, don't know a problem with the size of the Footprint. You know it is yeah, it it is taking up more space. From you know, on the property but the mass. If I understand math and scale correctly, the Mass, and scale, are smaller than what was proposed before, which was approved, so I guess I just Don't I'm trying to Square those Facts if if it.

[51:12] Was okay, to approve before then the mass and scale should not be an issue with this proposal But I understand that in terms of reducing the overall open space, like that that's the one piece that makes sense to me, But I just wonder, and when I go through these comments, it always just makes me want to ask more questions. But in terms of the open. Space, you know is, I'm trying to find in our criteria. If there is an amount of open space that is appropriate and how we determine what is an amount that is appropriate? And what is it is it is there ratio that we use, or I don't. I don't know is the question. I have of how we determine whether or not.

[52:06] There's enough opens based, I mean when I looked at the Property. There's basically the green space. That would still be the yard in front of the paddle, and then on the left side, or I don't know where which direction has but on the other, side of the yeah, of the Historic Garage, There's, also, quite, a bit of open space, so it seems to me. That there's quite a bit of open space on this property. Way, more than I have. So congratulations. But yeah, so I I don't have any problem with that. And in terms of the looking at the Listed Staff proposed the Roof Ridge height, I mean that seems to be a relatively easy thing to fix and I did have a question about the the issue of the wood cause on recommendation I it says, that the Garage doors should be

[53:09] Wood and again, I have a question of where you know if that is something that we that we require, or if this is just a recommendation, because based I mean, it's a new garage I don't see why that would have to be wood okay, and propose so there's. The Recommendation to propose Driveway, Apron appears to be concrete revised or Grab. I. Mean some of these, some of these recommendations, like are pretty easy to resolve, and I guess I've seen us appropriate. I've seen this approved projects with just as complicated, if not more complex. Criteria for you know Conditions of Approval. So I understand. There's like a bit of Will nuance with this, and we can discuss where we are as a group in terms of how close we are on some of these issues that when you take each of these individually I just feel like we're not that far off from approval and also I just I have

[54:16] Some questions about, whether or not these are requirements, or they are just Recommendations, like what is our required to meet the criteria and what isn't is sort of where I feel like this is closer than approval, then not approval. So I'll just I'll let others speak to where they are. Thanks. Thank you, chelsea Quick stuff to respond to your questions, or wait Sure! Alright, so the guidelines are guidelines, not hard and fast Requirements and so when it comes to the Guideline, about the built mass to open space it's generally found in the Area, is what it says and so there's, no specific percentage and so it makes

[55:18] Sense to me that you and Bill could look at the same thing and come to a different conclusion. I think that's completely fair because there's not a not a hard percentage. I would love. I would love to hear an answer. If if those You had another question, you're another guideline question. About the Wood, the Wood, Garage Door And then, oh, yeah. I I believe that Materiality guidelines speak to the kind of Pedestrian Scale and traditional materials of the District like when You're Walking down and Ally with Old Historic Buildings, you Don't See One Continuous, Metal Wall It's a Door but

[56:04] It's an expanse, right there's some kind of Finer, Detail when It's a wood, door or wood windows, so I think that's what it's relating to is is the Texture and Material oh, that's, Traditionally, found Buildings, and then another Question. That I heard was about in the past. We've brought forward a recommendation to approve with a dozen conditions, and We're trying to be very intentional about at some point. It's Cleaner, and Clear, to recommend denial rather than changing the Project. So much through our recommendations, that the Owners end up with a project they don't want or that it's a yeah, so we want to respond to what's been proposed and then at some point in our opinions it was too many conditions, to store it out and put it denial would be clear

[57:02] But but I think the board yes, you're heading towards consensus that the Mass scale and location are appropriate I think that those are the biggest things that then the rest. Hi, yeah, Marcy, I would go ahead. If you were Are are details that could be sort Bill, I see your hand up Yeah, thanks mercy I I want to be clear as well, that I'd like to see this Applicant leave here, tonight. Not have to come back to this meeting, but go to a Drc and H. Earn out the details, so Marcy, your comment was right on the money. That's what I was looking for in terms of hammering out the supposed Mass and Scale, and the location isn't that something we can do here as a board with staff and come to some conclusion, and then go back to the Applicant and say okay, this is what we've got you have An opportunity to Withdraw, and come back with something else. Or you can take what we've what we've kind of concluded or the Direction, We're concluding accept it and go back to our design, review Committee, to work, out the the actual details did I get that right

[58:18] Posing that art to Marcy. Yeah, no, I I think that's that's correct. Bye Okay. Yeah, that that's it. Yeah. Yeah I think that's the right. I I agree with that. Okay, yes, sir. So way to proceed okay, Abby, are you ready to talk. Yeah, it's your turn to talk at me. Yes, well, and I, so take from so first of all, we were really wrong at the Agenda meeting when we thought that this hearing might take an hour concluding around 745, and I'm very cognizant of time, and 2 more Public Hearings ahead of Us, but I Appreciate this

[59:13] Robust Conversation, and the good, thoughts I have to tell you, an even more. So, after hearing this conversation, I do support I don't necessarily. I'm Not Saying, I, support Staff's recommendation for a denial. I think there are too many conditions. I count 9. Of them that we can resolve. Tonight, I think this applicant can definitely have a accessory building built. Here, I. I. Personally, you know, I mean, I I would lean towards wanting to to withdraw, or you know we could spend several hours hammering this out here today here's I am concerned about the footprint and partially because it's adjacent to an already existing Historic accessory building. So it's almost going to feel like a bit of a wall going down that alley from past this property, I think that you know John, you brought up a great point about material in its new construction, but we haven't really addressed that well, enough in our guidelines that I feel like I

[60:23] Can hang a vote on that bill you brought up that there is one case in a case by case basis. As I interpret it, that symmetitious siding with allowed on new construction. I don't know that that We're there. Now, to just sort of let that go. Good, good. This is a historic disorder, and I think what my you know, this is close, but maybe not close enough in my mind to approve tonight and I think part of its Mass and skill, and I think part of it is is being more compatible and sensitive to not only the the historic House at the front of the property.

[61:05] But also this whole historic, district, and and the larger district as a whole. I spent 9 h in a 1,925. Bungalow, on Saturday that had such a seamless, sensitive, compatible addition that walking by you'd never know it was now a fourth 1,000 square foot house, and so I think this in my oh, and no pun attended all this kind of Misses the Mark at this point and I think part of the special Question, is the Footprint, and and Bill maybe what you are kind to get to is does it? Miss? The mark, by enough, that that there's too many conditions to resolve tonight. You know, or do. We need some to see Okay. No, I wasn't suggesting that I was going along Marcy's Reasoning, which was let's look at the Mass and Scale and Location and get that knocked out if we Can Knock, that out many of these Other things, we could easily you know address Quickly to the Applicant and the applicant will

[62:07] then know more clearly where we stand no, we won't have a final product, we're not trying to get to that. Okay, cause But how we have we struck a compromise that you know between Staff's recommendations and what the applicant wants that the applicant feels they can live with it that's where I'd like for us to Right, okay, thank you, Bill, because I don't think we're there tonight. You know, there's definitely, Conditions both that Staff have proposed in that I hear Landmarks, Board Members also want to do so shall we just do a quick stroll, Pull about the Mass and Scaling Location, bill Yeah, just yes or no. When you say a straw, poll is it like an eye, or that one no, I I'm in agreement. I'm sorry I have to speak to this, because I like for us as a group to discuss this before, we do this poll. Okay. Okay. I think, the I'm leaning where Chelsea is going. I'm okay with this overall size of this thing you know, it's just it's not 2. Story. It's spread out.

[63:02] More, you know as a footprint, rather than a vertical thing. Okay. So I'm okay, with the size of it. And I see the size of a lot. And it's a big lot combining these 2 lots together. So I don't see this encroachment problem. Yeah However, I do think it is possible, if if possible, could it move to the South side, as Staff was recommending that would make it feel less encroaching upon where the Structures, the Primary Structure is located on the lot, so that That's, what I'd like for Us to Resolve Okay, I think that I think that the issues following bills thread. I think position is the first issue that I I don't. I don't clearly see that there is a like, an far issue. Yeah Here I see a lot of potential open space on that lock that would be liberated by repositioning the building a little bit to the South and closer, to the alley that I think would accomplish that comfortable in in other words give a little more of an ease East space between the

[64:17] Historic Shed and the new structure, and get it out of the I guess, absolute line of development on on the middle of the 3, Lots, I think that the issue of the Scale the Apparent Vertical Scale of it. Could be resolved by resolving roof, slope, issue and I I think that even though the even though the principal structures Roof is a fairly steep Pitch, I think, that I think that it should be more in line, with the Adjacent Shed and that would Kind of

[65:03] Solve the issue of or it would resolve the issue between the 2 different slopes on the 2 masses of the building. Is to bring those more into conformity with each other. In other words, just make them the same I think that that would that would accomplish a great deal with this issue of Mass Scale, and open space, encroachment, and then the Material issue as I said I'm on new Construction I'm not I I personally, am not that Troubled with the issue of cementitious Materials. They, our they have improved significantly and are becoming more and more frequently, used for a whole Load of Reasons, least of all Fire Protection.

[66:04] That's actually not the best argument at Point. I haven't seen completely convincing data there. However, they do resist fire better than would, and they require a great deal less. They require a great deal, less maintenance, and so they maintain their appearance and quality for a longer period of time, the issue of the Garage Door, I Don't know if we can necessarily resolve that one tonight, and so I'm Gonna I'm gonna leave it at that however, if Okay, John. We could, if we could come up with an appropriate can condition statement for the things I just described, which are position and scale relative to the Gable height of the Main portion of bringing those those those roof lines into more conformity with each other or more harmony with each other then I

[67:09] Think that would be something that we could move through tonight Thank you, Ronnie. Well, I had a couple of things, clip. And so this is the Stropol version. I apologize, but Claire, can you bring up the presentation just quick, one, more time, and can you recap the square footages for us, and and by the way, I don't remember seeing that image that was Flashed up for a second, there, in the present in the memo that was like the the history and Then the 3 you know versions of building elevations. And I was actually fearful to ask for this thing, that there was because that's not really what we're reviewing.

[68:04] Yeah But hey, look, there's this so this this is cool. And this up. This is such a great summary, I I I'm not sure, like I know why, one wouldn't be this in the Packet. I'm I'm pretty confident, wasn't in the pack, but at the same time this is exactly what I wanted to see all the along so I just want to understand. There was 1,100 square feet. This is such a good summary I'm 2020, Ldrc approved 760 square, 770 square, feet, the 400, and 80 Square Footprint and then the Current, Proposal is, for a Similar, Amount of Square Footage but It's. All, single floor, and then I was having a hard time, understanding what the actual, width of the garage faces is that something that somebody has just offhand. I just couldn't find a dimension. For this is it. I'm assuming it's like 20 feet, or 22 feet.

[69:05] It's just kind of for me to kinda understand what's happening there and plan It must be about 22 feet. Ronnie, I mean. It's a double garage door. Yeah yeah And my Guidance, would be that the Board come to some strawful consensus about the the Scale, and the mass, like the Footprint of the Building and then check with the owner, at that point rather than continuing on and perhaps a Lengthy Discussion when really I think that's, a Threshold question I it applicant, if you could nod your head, I can't see you? But now, Nope, your Cameras off is it if it's 22 feet, can you not or if it's 20, can you can That's out to out It's it's 26 feet 4 inches on the back, so that's both of that's on that. Yeah, so confined the other one. Okay. Okay. It's between 20 and 22. Yeah, and then the I I don't have the one right here, about the garage facing stuff. I guess. So that's like kind of a normative to get a full garage door and get 2 cars in there. Okay, I mean, man, I, just first of all, highest level.

[70:01] I want this process to be the easiest for everybody and in particular I don't want it to be like Burdensome on the Applicant but kind of thing the least Burden some process, on the Applicants is not going to Drc with a 1 million conditions because my opinion, on this is we are not in A position to design this building by Committee. Right now as a board I think you know the Guidelines and rails to design within and our feedback on Options, cause, there isn't one, Design solution there's, multiple Options, including Placement, of the Garage, is a better Route. to hand, back to the applicant, because, in fact, I think it'll be less frustrating for all parties, including the Applicant and Quickly and no it might seem like it would be quicker, if we just brought this to Drc but I don't think that would be the case, I think you'd just iterate it

[71:03] to Drc. And you might find that it's just this frustration, because to clarify the conditions in which one might approve. This application, and then for you to try to comply, you know e there's just not enough. There's not enough for us to do that in my opinion, and I'm one for making conditions. Joel, so you know I just don't think that it's it's something that I feel confident that we can do and I I know that we all want to make this simple but I think it's more birthdensome to try to approve this tonight. Okay. So I will say that I think that Staff's report was a good one. I I think it wasn't you know it it it did exactly what I think we need to do for the applicant right now which is like talk about you know what Types of Options there are and I believe that I talked a little, bit about that Joel, hopefully, you heard that from me.

[72:00] Already so I won't repeat at all. I do agree with Bill in that. You know, what are we gonna do about the footprint size is this footprint size, something that is approvable? That's very hard for me. I mean, Chelsea's making such a great point that's like. What do we have in our code, that talks about this, and you know there are ways in which it's described. But it's not like a number, but there has Well, there's that far limits on sites, but Not that's not a Landmark Board thing, and Right. Exactly. That's a zoning And and so you know, there has been you know the cultural thing that happens here which is like how are we consistent with previous approvals? And how have we treated this types of applications like this in the past? That's hard for me to you know, remember at all I think 770 square feet is larger than what I remember them being and like maybe around 600, square, feet.

[73:11] Or maybe they pressed up the 6, 50. I don't know. This is just memory bank stuff, maybe staff can talk a little bit about. I think that on this property there might be some flexibility that might allow for a building footprint, perhaps larger than 650. I do think that that would be the key takeaway, in my opinion, to send, if if we were to move to a denial, which is in fact, I think the best thing if we did that direction would be to give as staff said the applicant, the opportunity to withdraw the key thing, Outside of the stuff We've already talked about really is whether or not the footprint square footage is acceptable. So I before we pass this back on everybody in Chelsea.

[74:01] You got a sec. You got your opportunity. Here. I wonder if maybe Claire or marcy? Sorry again. is there a way that you could just give us a little bit of like what have we approved in the past for these types of square footages? If you, if you anecdotally, no. I I'm going to struggle to name a specific square Footage. Because we most often see new garage applications in Mapleton, Bill where the Design Guidelines say to car garages, are rarely appropriate. And so that tends to result in smaller. Usually, one, or one and a half card garages. Hey! So just in my experience. I do think that a 700 square foot footprint is on the larger side of Accessory Buildings that have been approved by our program. But but there's probably but I think well, just stop there

[75:00] And and may I just follow up question here, you know first of all, let me say you know the lot numbers that we're seeing here is the Traditional historic cladding of 25 Foot wide lots, okay, this is one property. And so, what you see, there are 3, 2575. Foot, wide Frontage I was wondering if Staff could comment on that Dimension and am I corrected, thinking that 50 Foot wide Parcel is more Traditional like ownership structure with a Single Family House and perhaps Back Buildings. Yeah, that is correct, typical. Lots historically and boulder more about 50 feet wide. So by having the alright third lock here of 25 feet. It is a wider lot than And and so you know that's super helpful and just to kind of point out the obvious year. If there was ever a condition or a a site condition in which you know perhaps there's an opportunity for a larger building that is a outbuilding.

[76:10] It's on a larger lot, in which you could have greater opportunity to still find the balance, between the transparency and the Openness Along an Alley face as well, as the Open Space piece that you know was traditionally, found Neighborhoods so I'll just say like I could see A version, where we could find a larger outbuilding footprint. Being Provable as well as Consistent with Previous Approvals on this Property And so I'm just gonna go out on the limb. Okay. And say, I think we could. What was the proposed square footage I don't know if anybody knows it was 750 square. Feet 7 70,

[77:02] 74, 7 70, I mean, you know, like by no means do. I want this to be a 25 foot contingency, because it's about to say 750. But I, think that we I personally, could see myself supporting and and again, like this might be swayed by other people's feedback. Here, momentarily, but currently I could see myself supporting a future approval of a building on this lot, that is about 700 and I'm gonna say, 70 square, feet for the Sake of Joel's Current Proposal Don't Make it bigger like Don't go Away and Make this Bigger. That'd be bad, but like I could see us contemplating and Approving of that on this lot. And if it met other aspects of the things that you're hearing from everybody tonight, about ways in which it might be in better alignment with you know the guidelines I could see it being approvable whether or not it's moved I Don't know I'm

[78:01] just gonna say like, I could see it being where it is, and it just I think that the design might need to change a little bit, in order for it to be but be more compatible I wouldn't place that as like a directive that's like if it's not doing that then I don't see it being approved, but I do think the other things that are talked about here. You know, should be strongly considered. So that's my my position right now, just to Recap. I could see us. I could see myself approving queue, future at 7, 70, or less, I don't think that this should go to Drc. I think it's better and healthier for everybody. If the Applicant were allowed to withdraw, and I would recommend that you withdraw it goes That Route and then I would also say, you know that gives you an Opportunity to do the creative process that's, like a better process and Healthier process for you, and your your architecture team rather than what could happen right now.

[79:01] And bill, I see your hand raised but Ronnie, Thank you for articulating all of that, because I think I am where you are that that I don't see a path forward to approve it tonight. I think sheerly, because it's going to be new construction, larger than 300, and 40 square feet. It has to come back to the Landmarks Board Bill Claire, and can you tell us if the first time that this original proposal was brought to this to our board, at our regular meeting, was it approved with Conditions and is that second, item, that we saw on that historical slide as Ronnie called it is that what the Applicant came Back with at Drc in the final proposal that was was made. Because if that's true, then I got to take issue with Ronnie's assessment. Here

[80:00] We we clearly were able to deal with a much more complicated in dish set of conditions the first time we saw this proposal, and we we were apparently able to send off the applicant to go to a Drc and come up with a final so we were able to articulate what we wanted the applicants Seem to accept it, and they took it and went to the Drc. Yeah And did, it Brian? Could you mute yourself, or something? There, so if you're still going to straw, poll, I'm of the straw, poll, that we by by addressing the issue of the so called mass and Scale, in the placement which I would agree Replace, it towards the Southern end of the Property Leave the Mass and still as it Is but put all except mostly all the other changes. Recommendations. That staff. Had I'd be inclined to approve this with those conditions tonight

[81:05] Okay. Yeah yeah Would you like me to address the question Yes, this was approved with conditions. This was the proposal that came to the full board it I think went through 2 rounds at Ldc, to to receive the final approval, the conversations with with Joel and he can confirm this is led to an end the Architect led to the decision to recommend denial, which was that they ended up with a building, that they they didn't want so

[82:08] But but I read the entire packet, and in there, I thought that that there were other reasons. Why that annual approval was not acceptable, not that they didn't want to. Go. They didn't like it in the end. They weren't happy with it. But if that's the case, if if you're if if I read you, correct Claire, if you're suggesting that the process we went through put them. You know into a position where they ended up with something. They they did not like and did not. Want, then, yeah, I can understand. Why we would have to deny this tonight. Yeah So they could take it. Back. Yeah, if that's the case. But that's not how I read that packet. I read that there was, you know, issues with cost and the Builder and various other reasons that caused them to to not want to go forward with this with this accepted design in June 2020 Well, that that would be something to confirm with Joel. But with this one, that the similar thing is that they they you know, said they were happy with this design and didn't want to to modify it and this is what they wanted.

[83:07] So to to impose so many conditions that we're actually changing the design of the building. It doesn't really respect our process. And it also eliminates their ability to appeal, the Landmarks, Boards, decision, because peeling and approval doesn't really make any sense so that's, Sorry so, but if I just I heard Bill ask something, different than what you answered. Bill, I did you ask if this proposal is what they wanted. But the the the application in front of us. No I originally asked if we approved the the proposal that came to us to the full board on the far left side of our Screen. Right. Yeah, yeah, yeah, I heard, yeah.

[84:00] Here did we approve that, and and and and we didn't deny it. They didn't go back. We, you know we they didn't follow that path they went ahead and took our suggestions. And came forward with what's showed up in the middle of the Screen. Here and now Claire saying, Well, yeah, they came up with that but they in the end. They didn't like it didn't want it, so that's the case. Then I can understand. Why staff is saying, okay, look at all these conditions. And now that they've heard a lot of what we've talked about. Maybe they'll understand. Where this Board is leaning and come back with something else. Yeah Hmm. That's more in line with those recommendations rather than go through our process, which is understand the drift of what We're, asking them to do we approve it with conditions then they go to the Drc and you know hash out all the details I can now understand staff recordings, to to to have This approved with conditions. I get it. That's not how I, read the packet, though that maybe Joel can. Yeah At some point we can have him speak to that

[85:02] Yeah i'm sorry. Yeah, will it be so, yeah, I was gonna ask if it was can we have Joe speak. Joel speak to it. Okay. Yeah, I can, so and it's kind of the Frog in the pot of hot water. Deal, so we originally brought the proposal on the Left, to the Committee, or to the Board, I I can't speak to you know the exact you know terms that were used but I know we did meet with with this team several Times and over the course of those meetings as I Said before there were several Changes requested most significant to us really was the reduction of the size the Adu. We we had originally proposed, I think it was around 700 square, feet. For the adu itself, and I think we were at around 3, 25, and we were done, we convinced ourselves. That was okay. Something we could live with. But when we went to builders to get nest estimate to build it.

[86:06] They were articulating for some number of the elements of the Approved. Building. That just added cost to constructing it, and so at that point. When we realize what the cost would be to build something that we knew we had already made fair number of compromises on that's the point where we decided we didn't want to do it. Hmm. So is it that we didn't get a building that we wanted. Yeah, yeah, okay We would have been a okay with the building, but the cost for the building that that's what drove, and so if I could speak to this one, you know, we've we've put a lot of time and money in this already, you know different architects lots of rooms, you know very Respectful of the Committee and the Recommendations being made here but you, know I don't. I don't want to get into that cycle again, where I'm going back to my architect, asking for you know, certain changes recommended coming back to the Drc and the Board and having people.

[87:09] Say well, okay, that's that's fine. But now let's tweak this window. A little bit we're spending the money with the architect, and then we don't know what the impact on construction is and so it just puts us in a difficult position. That's Clarified a lot of things. Thank you, Joel May ask a question. So yes, please. Joel having heard everybody on the board speak, do you feel like you have clarity. On what your next step might be. If, and I don't know if this will happen, but again I still am hold to my position.

[88:10] So I'm curious, whether or not this is something that works for you, if we were to Talk a little bit about the Square footage one more time, and then allow for you to withdraw Because we've got a lot invested in this already. Time and money. And it's not clear. What the finish line looks like I think that's probably the best course you know it's hard for me to safely. Sure, because you know, you guys are a little over my head and some of the Discussions on design Elements I'm I'm not an architect. So I would have to bring this back to our architect, if we decide, move forward, and you probably have to listen to our watch the recording of the meeting, to to pick up everything because I certainly wouldn't be able to convey that accurately, I I do it does sound like withdrawing is going to be our our Best option, because that does a allow. Us, if we decide to continue to move forward to do that with a minimum amount of encumberment if I'm understanding, what what Clara is telling us, so if we could get kind of an idea, that we're on the Right track with the size and mass which I hear people talking about is acceptable. If I understand correctly, it's sounds like there's a suggestion to move it. To the South but I don't know that it would. Fit it's a 25 foot wide, space to the South of the Driveway where that, and to the south of that Existing Shed I Just Don't know if That's Practical, I Just Don't know That it, Fits, but That's, the Kind that we Would Consider if somehow, I'm I'm wrong, and it would fit But yeah.

[89:53] If it was, if it would fit you would have no objection to that, though I don't I don't think so. I mean my wife is in here. And she has to make decisions, too, but You know, conceptually, I can't see why that would be an issue if it said I'm just not confident.

[90:10] Yeah. Got it That would fit and you know as far as the you know the existing shed you know I'm gonna put my distort preservation on my Understanding is that that was built as part of the House That's where they Stored the Carriage initially when they you know how's the the horses down the block. So We we just feel that's kind of a cool building with its history, and and we just wouldn't wanna mess with that if that's the something that's being talked about that just seems like kind of a cool thing, we'd want to leave as it is That's super helpful. I I I feel like We've allowed. We look, yeah, we have a lot of relocation, just as still. Right. Just hold on. We have allowed for relocation of buildings like that and the past just so you know not not demolition. But we, you know, moving it just some other. Hmm! Oh, Fine Ronnie

[91:02] Which will be super cost prohibitive is okay. And already Hearing. Yeah, it might be. It's not like they're building their primary, but Okay, I think we've heard from the Applicant as well which was really great You hear my position here, I think that a 770 square foot preferably less square footage building, might be approvable if design to meet all of the other Aspects, that We've talked about in whatever form that might take you know could be approvable, I recommend that we talk about That number. And then I, think we well, I I think you hear my position. I think we should move forward and offer the Applicant opportunity to withdraw, Abby.

[92:00] Do you think that's a good process. I. I. Do agree with that, and and joel, we do appreciate. You know everything you've done, and answering our questions, and whatever I think we may need to do, that I I'm just going to throw out. I I would be more comfortable if the square Footage is closer to 700, square feet and you know, Chelsea, you brought up some good points earlier about square feet, but part of it, is to Design and Mass at Scale because 2 Different, Structures, could be the Exact Square, Footage but the way, they Read the way they feel on the property can be differently, so I do. Think there are some design elements that that could make that appear less. John. Yeah, I, I agree, I think that I think that we should definitely I agree, first of all with Ronnie and I. Believe we should offer the opportunity to withdraw and not suffer the consequence of of a

[93:08] Refusal and not being able to re-enter. I think that for Abby's comment, I think that there are there are a number of ways to make this building. I guess less apparently scaled and Hmm. I think that I think that there's I I still think there's a path for to get this building that you want on this property, so but I think that I think that at this point we can't resolve that tonight, Because there's too many conditions. And that just opens a whole.

[94:02] You know, cumbersome process, for you that could be a little more easily resolved John, I think you know Abby's saying a square footage limitation should be closer to 700. What's your thought on that Okay. I think 7, 70 should be allowable, and and and the reason I say, I I say, that partly for consistency with Regardless of the outcome we approved a 770 Building, on that Site. Right. And so I think we should we should stay consistent with our own actions. Well, there's a thought No Well, I mean just for clarification, we I mean. I don't want to open this whole thing up. Was different. But we approved 770 square, feet, not 770 square, feet of footprint, and so I don't. Correct

[95:02] I don't think that this is a consistency thing there, like I just that's not why I'm saying that we would contemplate in a a potential future approval of 770 square feet I just that's not the re my reasoning but i'm curious if we just kind of push off on the 700 Numbers, or whatever we're at. If we could keep going through that cause it's 8, 40, and I think we're getting close I think, John Yeah. Shawn, I mean, Bill. No Bill. Sorry we both have had some Yeah, I'm not gonna be labor. 7 70 is fine. I'm I'm cool with it, because it's a large lot to double lot. Size. Right. Okay, okay, it's triple. Yeah, yeah, right. So I I think they have triple. So I I don't know why we're we're. You know, bringing our hands over the size of this over a couple square, feet right? Now he's got something he that that can work for him and regardless of what we approved in the past. Okay.

[96:02] Thank you. That's great I'm okay, with, 770, I'm, also, okay, I'm, also, okay, with them, moving to the south and I'm okay, with us, offering a withdrawal, but he needs to know when he goes Away what He's gonna come back. With next time. So he has a a prayer of of getting it through Thank you, chelsea Anything you want to add at this point especially about square footage. No, I I feel comfortable with the way it is now, and I feel comfortable with it, was moved to the South. Side if that is what the majority of Us are more comfortable with if if that's possible, if not I'm also fine with it, the way it is I. I have to qualify. Thank you chance. See. If it's possible. I gotta do a little do over here. If it's possible, but it's not yeah, right. It's not possible, and forget it. Is Yeah, Suits. So let's see, it seems like at least 4 of us at Chelsea. I don't know if you said this specifically, but but would recommend a withdrawal at this point to or to give the Owner an option to do that so I think that's our next step if joel is interested in speaking to that briefly.

[97:19] Well, Lucas, do we need to how do we get to that do we need to make a motion to do something like perhaps the motion of the denial? Or is there just at this moment joel can Joe, can make a decision? Right, now Yeah, he would. Wanna if he wants to withdraw, he would do it before the vote for the denial, because once you do the vote for denial. Right. Okay. If that is, you know, if you do deny, then the year long you know, provision comes into place, so you can just give them the Option. Yeah right. No gotcha, great Yeah, yeah, so I can think the ball is in Jules Court, correct Lucas. You can take that in withdrawal or not Oh, I think we're all in agreement. That we're okay, with the withdrawal at this point And that would be his call. Right. Now, if he wants to do that Right, so Joel, do you have your microphone on Yeah, I, I do, is that something I would need to decide. Now or is that something you know and and and to forego the the vote, at the moment, or

[98:09] Okay. Well. Yeah, decide it. Now say it. Say it, to us Bye, Bye. Yeah, I mean, it. Sounds like, it's a pretty sounds like it's pretty clear recommendation. So I what is the process, should we Withdraw It would be a brand new application. Then Claire would be working to to file a brand new application Okay. That's correct so, but and just to clarify what's in front of you, right? Now in your decision, point is one is it sounds like it's heading towards a denial in which case you couldn't submit a substantially similar application for one year or withdraw, the application take the feedback which is what I hear for the same size building but Addressing those Other condition in a new application that would come back to the board

[99:04] Okay, We will go ahead and look for them. I think we'll someone at the last minute. Comment. I'll let you do that before we decide Yeah Well, I just wanna so in the In the like. I guess I I wasn't totally clear that we had consensus on this list of requirements, because we weren't. We didn't go through it and say what we agree to. So I guess I don't not saying that we should do that because we shouldn't. But or maybe we should. But I guess I don't know. If I fully agree with every like I don't know.

[100:07] Yeah I I personally, don't agree with everything on this list of Criteria of things that staff has proposed that needs to happen and so like for example, the Wood Garage Doors or so I guess I Don't if we send Joel away from this meeting and He's, We're basically saying You have to comply with this whole list. But that's not necessarily true for him to meet good for him, to get a project approved. I just don't want him to think that right Yeah, well, I was gonna ask that, you know, if we do withdrawn it sounds like, we're obviously something we're obviously moving in that direction. How how do we know what we need to come back with right you know you're, you reference the list you know, do we need to meet all those stipulations, do we roll the dice again. How do we know what really is going to fly I think, yeah, I was, gonna say, marcy or Claire. Clara Marcy, maybe maybe one. Of you guys could jump in and answer that

[101:03] I think you're good to yeah. Yeah, Marcia Claire, one of you, 2, address him please. Yeah, and so I've been taking notes as the board spending, but I don't have a clear direction in terms. I think we have. I hear a clear direction on what an appropriate size would be which is its current, size 774 Feet or Less, And then board different board members have referenced the conditions that Staff put together in the Memo. But I didn't hear Clear Direction or cons. I don't think there is consensus, so I think at this point my guidance would be if the Board could offer some clear guidance of how the Project might be revised so that it could be approved by the Landmark Board without Designing from the Dyes, which challenging

[102:02] I'm Sorry mostly designing from the If virtual diets. Through Zoom. Designing from the Diets, which only makes sense, if We're in person, so designing from designing, from Zoom. Oh, okay, right, right, this is designing by committee, through this crazy system, we're working to right. Now got it. Okay. So perhaps I would offer something, and what I heard is is modifying the roof pitch to be it. Yes. Maybe somebody can Restate what that piece was. And then I've heard different opinions on the Materiality, as proposed. So That's what I that's what I have. So if the Board could clarify. Oh, but that's at least the roof pitch was a start And before I ask other Board members about that Laura, did you have something to offer

[103:04] Just, a process suggestion, as a facilitator, that's what I do, for a living, maybe the Board members could go take a look at the Staff's List of Conditions, and say which of these are a deal Breaker, for you, which of these if the Applicant, does Not Meet, them, would cause, you Thank you clear is it possible to put that list back up on our screen While you do that I just it a little bit feels like we're back at the place where We're approving with conditions. So I don't you know the Well, I mean, that's what you asked for, and I mean Yeah I know, no. I, I what I'm saying is is if we actually get to a place where we have agreement of what the conditions are potentially it's possible that we could get to an approval with conditions, if we have yeah.

[104:09] Yeah I I I just gotta jump in guys, I think the applicant doesn't want that I don't think that's a healthy process I don't think staff thinks that's a good process. They've already been down that road once they talked about why that didn't work? I really don't think we should open that up Yeah, I think I agree with that the same time, we would like, some guidance on what it? Yes, yep, yep. What it would take, because, as some of you who have been in the meeting with Us. Multiple times, you know. We've been in the meetings, multiple times, and so just wanna feel like you know, there's an end to the process. If I I understand we don't want to say approval with conditions, but some strong signals on what would satisfy the Board to get the approved Yeah But

[105:00] Well, that's satisfying 5 individuals, I mean the Dlc is a better, is a better, gamble. You only have 3. You have to go through there, but The only way to do that is for each one of us to go through this list, and Ronnie saying, that's not a good idea to do That's that's not what I'm saying. I don't. Oh! Think we should open the conversation up about whether or not. Approving it with conditions. Yeah. We're gonna prove this with conditions I think that Marcy was saying. Oh, oh, oh, that one, okay. You know what are the high points on here and there's been other ways of addressing this, and what are the things that are tolerable, and what are not I mean, I think this thing's pretty clear. I feel a little differently. I feel like we're ready to go on this I know that it sounds confusing, but there's room for interpretation. That's part of the Design process. I think that the way in which the Memo is written here, Okay. You know. These are all suggestive. But if you start with the largest and move your way down that's the way in which I think you know, I would recommend that you and your design team, kind of deal with what you read here you know you kind of already have the temperature on square footage, which is I

[106:03] Think, a major piece. Here. So that goal, I think, was achieved. I think that the roof shape, as staff is talking about and as if you've heard from people here would be best if it was more referential to Existing structures, on the Site and if there, was an aspect of that that also was more clearly, Indicative of the ways in which the details Are interpretive, but not reproduct reproduction, and then all that stuff you can go find in the code, you know with the way that you actually accomplish that I feel like is best left to you and your design team rather than us like describing exactly what the circumstances you've heard from us about whether or not The gradage can move to a different location on the Site, and what the advantages of that might be in terms of keeping distance from the historic structure, and it might not be possible to move it, to the South, side I think if you were to prove that and come back and say this is why it doesn't Work, that would probably check a box, and at least show that you've tried to explore that and the other aspects that I think are here are again, all standard guideline, items which is about the proportion Shapes, of Windows.

[107:12] So and you I think you heard me talk a little bit about that. As well. I think John and I both talked about the ways in which the forms come together, and the ways in which the materials on those forms relate to ways in which materials and forms are already applied to the historic structures on site and so I Feel like You've heard that I Don't think It's a condition that you can't use something, like stucco. But I think, the way that it's being applied right now, is a little alien to the site, and I think that it creates a little bit of a bit of confusion because it's just hard to tell what the primary thing of the structure is it looks like one thing from what I Would say is the alley and a different thing from the backyard, and because the material change occurs the way that it does I think it's just a little bit in conflict that's, my personal opinion there.

[108:02] But I do think that the idea that is how forms relate and how forms might receive texture? Is a piece to look at. If you came back and it was a conversation, just about materiality that's the type of thing. I think could be approved with conditions, so I wouldn't worry too much about whether or not the door is a wood door or not a wood door. Because that's a change right, that's like we're gonna say the door needs to be wood, the big things here I think, are the things to focus on and that's the way you could get to a point. Where you, can have conditional approval. I agree with that wrong Okay, but go ahead. Thank you, Ronnie. I just wanted to add to Joel that that stuff is definitely a resource for things that have to go directly to the Landmarks. Board, when we when we do an Ldrc meeting stuff is a decision maker, so we can't really give feedback. But for something. Yeah, I think Claire has your hand.

[109:15] Okay, thank you for that Can I can just through a straw poll here, without you know unless people really feel compelled to speak just a raise of hands or people in agreement with my summary of what advice would be to move forward, if you're in agreement raise your hand just so we can see Okay. It looks like there's 3. I see. 3 bills not in an agreement is there anything that bill Well well Well wanted to don't want to ask a question. Yeah I had my hand up before you decided to use the hands for different reason. Here, yeah, the question I have is I kind of building off a Chelsea's question. Which ones here or whoever said it what's what's? The deal breaker here, I mean, are we all in agreement that reducing the Roof Ridge, Height Matching Roof Pitch to the Historic Garage, and Replacing Double Garage Door with 2.

[110:10] Single doors, to reduce scale? Are we on agreement? That's a good thing, that's a pretty major point. I personally agree with all of that So you know, if somebody is like gagging on that then no but but to Ronnie's point, everything else after that much of it is you know typical go to your book stuff, or things. That can be ironed out in our Drc, I mean things like you know no f proposed driveway, apron appears to be concrete revised to Gravel I mean, well, yeah. Gravel? Is there a problem with I mean, I'm good, with with all of these things, because none of them seem seem to be You know over overbearing. So I just want to make that point

[111:05] So do I. Build Yeah No, I agree with that, too, Bill I think, though I think those are Ronnie's Ronnie's strategy of solve the big things, and and then the rest is a little more easy. To make. Follow, and I think those are pretty much the big things position on the on the site. I think is something needs to be explored a little bit. Yeah Maybe it's drifted to the north rather than pushing it to the south, but but I think that though that's the right strategy, and I think the Roof Is the biggest one, and the the face of the Garage, on the Alley, Breaking, the Garage Door into 2, Doors. Is one way to help resolve that. So yeah, I'm I'm in agreement. Is, the is is the board is it non-negotiable in the use of say, wood, garage, doors, and wood windows.

[112:05] That was one thing that was driving up the cost of construction considerably, and could be a factor in our deciding whether to continue with project or not. Is that non-negotiable or is that something that could be considered to use on wood, materials. Joel. This is Bill Jellic, a board member. I would like to ask Marcie to address that question Yeah, it before I do that I would. I would just say, I'm Echoing Chelsea's concern, that it feels like the Board is building Consensus around conditions that must be met versus what I've heard Ronnie's proposal, to Move forward, which is, take these as suggestions and guidance and go back to your design, team and come together, come back with something that works for for the marks, and Meets, the Guidelines which I think is a much clearer way, to to move this forward, and and I think

[113:10] That seems to be where the board is going. I think being Yeah, answering on the spot, about a wood door versus a metal door is missing the Forest part sort of thing where where you're asking me would we Approve a metal, Door where we Don't have a Building That's approved right now. So I think it it. Kind of depends on the scale of that of the materiality, is is part of a whole rather than can we approve. It piece by piece, and eventually end up with a building Okay. Okay. Marcia wasn't putting you on the spot. Don't get me. Wrong. I wasn't asking you to approve something what I was hoping you would speak to is the materiality that we Normally always speak, to which is why the Jr, which is why I'm, it's it's.

[114:01] There I I guess what we talk about you know wood doors, wood, windows, or something, I've been on this board for 6 years. It's something that we always make a big point over. Sure. Yes, everything's everything's negotiable, Joel. But I just look to let you know that historically, the way We've Gone is we've been very tight on sticking to you know original material when it comes to wood to doors and windows Okay. That's helpful Yeah Yeah, sort of there's no way to prove anything. That's not before us. But I think Bill's point is it is definitely preferable use. What Yeah, and and only, I'm only saying that because cause Joel's making a point, that that was something that was driving up costs. It could be a deal breaker for him to adhere to it. Hey! Well that's right, and if we if we think it's gonna be a deal breaker, then, you know, maybe we don't invest more money with the architect to change the Roof line, if doing that by itself isn't going to be enough so we just want to know you know have

[115:16] okay, information on how we wanna move forward Yeah, you're you're we're I think we're without rendering an actual. You know firm decision. Right now, I think that's the best we can do Marcy's point, what should be take well taken by you and that there have always been exceptions. These rules, these guidelines are bendable to a certain point, so that's why we're not saying, you know, absolutely hard and fast Yes, or no, but we are telling you that in the past you know we've. Been very very tight on adhering to wood, material for doors and windows. Thank you. That's helpful. I appreciate that. Thank you Does it So is there anything else on this public hearing? Or are you all comfortable, bringing this to a close

[116:04] Well, it's up to Joel Okay. Joel and I do. The staff will be a great resource for some of the notes. They take, into the night, and some questions you may have No, I appreciate that, and I I think we will proceed with the with with the withdrawal of the Application. I think That's the recommendation We're Hearing Strongly and my sense says that's the best. Course, what time, as well. Well, we're not recommending it, but we're. It's an offer that Case, a scron, I'm dating the way the winds are blowing so Yeah There, you go! That's what it was you were reading the wind, the wind. Yes. Meeting, the Room, Re Reading, the Zoom. Reading. Tea Leaves. Thank you so much. Oh, right alright well, I appreciate thank you so much for your time and guidance. I really appreciate you're giving us an opportunity to to speak and and to hear the the Debate, and and to come away with something.

[117:01] I think we can use to go forward. So thank you all for that You're welcome to all. Good luck to you Yeah. Thank you for your presentation. Thank you, hi So 2 more hereings to go. But should we take a 5 min break Yes, we should. And it's 8, 59, so, maybe 9, O. No. 9, o. 5, 4 8 59, goodness. Okay, 9. O, 4, thank you, guys, okay, 9, O, 5, 6. Minute price. Thank you Well, my clock turned to 9 9 o'clock right now so

[123:44] So I think we're almost ready to begin. I I'm not certain if Ronnie is back

[124:18] I'm just waiting for Ronnie, unless someone else. There. Hi, okay. So so welcome back, item fiveb, is a public hearing and consistent of a lambda alteration, certificate application. And Add New Store, Front Window Openings and Exterior Patios, Awnings and Paint at 1,346, Pearl, Street, a Non Contributing Property, and then Down Town Historic District Pursuit To Section 9 1118 at the Boulder Revised Code. Thank you to the applicants who have agreed to this virtual format clarity.

[125:06] I am I am. Thank you, Abby, so I'll go through the quasi judicial hearing procedures. Again, all speaking, to the item will be sworn in and board members will note any ex parte contacts I'll give the Stuff presentation after that the Board may ask questions the Applicant will have 10 min to present to the Board the Board may ask questions will then open the public hearing after all Members of The Public have made comments, the applicant may respond to to anything that was said. We'll then ask everyone to meet their computers and the Board Will Deliberate Motion requires, an affirmative Vote of at least 3 Members motions. Are you leading this presentation as well. Must state findings, conclusions, and recommendation, our record of this hearing is available on Youtube in a couple of days, and the official recording will be added to the records Like Archive within 28 days.

[126:00] So I'll pause it back to You Abby for Exporte Contacts. But I wanted to note that. previous version of this proposal was reviewed by Ronnie and Chelsea on September the 20 Eighth at Ldrc and then a Redesign which is much like the Proposal in Front of you today was reviewed By bill and John on October 20 sixth This also may look familiar to everyone, except Chelsea, a 2,020 proposal was Reviewed By the Phone, Board in September 20. 20, so back to you, Abby Thank you claire. So I'll ask for any ex parte Contacts, bill No Chelsea Done. John Roddy None.

[127:03] Great, so the Criteria for review, are outlined in a Boulder revised code under 9, 1118 B. And C, and the Criteria for Review are to ensure the proposed work, Preserves Enhances, Or Restores, and does not Damage or adversely, affect Exterior Architectural Features are the Historic Value of the Property that the Work proposed is Architecturally Compatible, with the Character of the property, and that the Landmarks, Board considers the economic feasibility of Alternatives. The options today are for the Landmark Board to approve the application this is subject to a sixteen-day city call-up period, deny the application which would be subject to a 30 Day period in which city. Council, could request to review the decision, and a denial would mean. The Applicant could not submit the same, substantially, the same Application within 12 months, and the Board may also allow the Applicant to withdraw

[128:05] So the Landmarks Board reviewed a previous design, and subsequently issued an Lac for a large addition, and remodel to this building in 2,020 the proposed work was not undertaken at that time, so then in September of this year the Applicant Proposed a scaled back version that does not include the large edition, and that was referred to the full Board they subsequently returned to the Ldc, with A redesign that was again, referred to the full Board so here we are today So 1346 Pulse Street is located on a prominent corner. Where Fourteenth Street, which is here crosses the PAL Street, Mall, which is here

[129:03] This is, the the court, house, county Court house, and Here's, our Google, Earth, Image, which even though it's it's facing Southwest, I I find it a little bit more helpful, to Orient, this is the mole, here and then this is the the county, court, house, the building. in question, is this one, right here, So court House. This is the Colorado building. this is avanti, This is a Grilled Cheese shop right here, hopefully, you are familiar with them all, and are now Oriented. Unfortunately, this is not the building, this is the masonic temple that was on this corner in 1945, before then a fire in April, the Nineteenth, 45 rendered the Stone building unstable you Can, see though that wool green, drugs, was a tenant in the

[130:06] Building at that time you can see the sign on the corner So after the Building was destroyed, a permit for a new building in September the nineteenth, 48 issued, and the building was completed in 1,949, for a new Walgreens the building was Constructed outside of the period of Significance for the more Witches 1,858 to 1,946. So this was completed in 1,949, so 3 years outside the period of significance, and the rear of the Building is here, And then this also part of the building. Here so Walgreens was the corner tenant So the building actually didn't change much, between 1,949 and 2,004 here it is in 1,900, and 64.

[131:03] As the Woolgreen, still Walgreens moved out in about 1966, yep. 1,966. And the building became a record store. here it is in 19, 77, after the construction of the Mall, in 2,000, and 4, the Stuckode Parapet and Broken Pediment at the top here was Added the Walgreens Storefront was Modified I Call it The Walgreens Storefront but it actually persisted as the Record store as well, without the the Walgreens, Awning and Signage, obviously the the Storefront, Windows, at this, time were in Filled with a Stucco Material and the Original Tile, for the Woolgreens, which is a band across here was painted to Match the Stucko Color and you can't actually see it on this, picture because it's behind a tree.

[132:05] But a second Floor addition was added to the the west end of the building, which is this pot here and a thin brick applied to that building Or that part of the building, I should say so. This is the building today. You can see the the Parapet that was added in 2,000, and 4, with the the Broken Pediment the Screens are Rift deck, which was added in 2,009 The area below is the original Woolgreens Tile. Here that has been painted and the 2,004 Storefront windows, that modified the original Storefront, include a a foe, wood trim That's the Green Part at the bottom

[133:03] So this this here is the west end of the building. This second story here was added in 2,004, and the Thin Brick applied the Divided Light Windows and Awning were also added in 2,004, This is the Fourteenth Street elevation. It's difficult to tell from this photograph, but the Brick has been stained, this this Deep red color. It's actually a very kind of yellow why upbrush brick underneath And this is the rear of the building. This is the edge of the the stain, or painted Wire, Brush, Brick. Here, and then we have different kind of brick. Here and I wasn't able to confirm because we don't have pictures of the Rear of the Building.

[134:03] Whether this was whether this is the original mason, right Alright, any questions about the building before I move on to the Proposal Okay. So There are no changes to the building footprint however, the proposal includes the addition of an 856 square, foot patio, open patio area at the south corner of the of the building, the Spaces Delineated Using Railings, within the Existing Surface Parking lot So no additional actual building does this railing around a patio area This is the existing and proposed for the North elevation.

[135:00] This is facing Pearl Street, Mall, the proposal is to remove the circuit 2,004 windows at this part of the building and Replace with a retractable window with a bar at the cell, replace this existing Patio railing the Engineered Wood Trim product, at the lower edges, proposed to be removed. White thin, brick, with gray, mortar, applied slush with the existing finish, these are the Existing windows, that will be retained, the Proposal Includes applying a Skim Coat Stucco over the Existing Tile which is Kind of this Band here and Repainting, this portion of the building so not the not, including the the thin brick, which is already there, repainting this a color that's called Elder, White just, Kind, of a a cream, color, with the Parapet Trim Painted Iron, Ore.

[136:12] That's around here And there are new canvas earnings proposed and a new Canvas shade at the Existing roof deck in this kind of but a yellow color So this is the northeast elevation, this is the corner, so we have some detail. Here the Proposal Includes removing the Existing Wood Windows and Door installed in 2,004, and replacing it with a new Black, Anodized Aluminium Storefront, There's a a Kind of a a Bump here in the Stock of

[137:00] Finnish and the applicant would like to remove that so it's just a more smooth finish This is the rendering of the proposed from fourteenth and pearl, the Primary corner Moving around this, is the East elevation, facing Fourteenth Street, new paint. Would differentiate the 3 3 distinct bays. This is this is Elder white like that kind of Cream color. Display is 23 and a half inches in this direction, the Existing mural that's here would be repainted in this, section, the middle section here is called mindful Gray it's more of a Grey Color and is about 25 feet wide, and This re, section is about 30 feet, and is proposed to be Van Dyke Brown, which is see this brown color.

[138:05] There are some modifications to the parapet at this elevation. This middle section is a metal panel, painted iron. Ore which Matches, the the Parapet Trim. Here, part of the Existing 2,004 Stucco parapet. This little piece here would be reduced in height to create a new height on the Parapet bowl in this in this Section there's also Infill of Brick and installation of the steel Cornice at Top the top of the Parapet Wall Proposed here, and that would increase the parapet height, about 12 inches higher than it exists. Currently just at the Southernmost section, there are new Black andodized aluminum, Storefront, widows, and doors in new openings, centered within the the painted Bays, these new 2 New bays, here, so these are a new openings.

[139:18] New new Lighting is proposed nucleus like Light fixtures, oh, and there's a steel Pergola Warning at the Southernmost Bay which you can actually see Project Projects just here so this is the South Elevation, this is the Rear that Faces the Existing Parking lot the Proposal for this elevation includes a garage Doorstyle window in a new opening that includes a bar, so I don't know what you call that other than a barcel, any new a new Door opening right here, the the Rear Brick would be

[140:13] Painted the Van Dyke Brown to Match so it's Consistent with around the Corner, and then there's a an existing metal Cornice which would be Repainted in the Iron Ore that the Dark the Dark Trim Color There's a New Patio Railing which you can see down here. that would define the patio within the Existing surface parking, lot, and Festoon, Lighting is also proposed and Here's the Rendering of that proposed Southeast, Corner in the Fourteenth Street, Facade you Can See, the Get, a better view of the proposed exterior patio, but you know, you can also see the the proposed new windows, and doors, and the paint to create these 3 differentiated phase

[141:09] Here are some of the details. This, is the the foe wood trim that was installed in 2,004 is proposed to be removed and replaced with the thin Brick white Thin, Brick with Green water this is the proposed Color Palette and Detail of the existing tile in that band. That is proposed to be stuck it And this is the existing brick at the South, elevation. This is the the one at the at the South, lavation the rear, and this, is the the color you can actually see from this, how it's been. How it's been stained actually it possibly is a painting And this is the the color, that's underneath, that that stain or paint, and you can see that it's that wirebrush texture, brick

[142:12] And these are some examples, The applicant has provided of the proposed folding window for the North Elevation Facing Pearl Street. These ones, where you can See, it closed and then open. And this is an example of the garage doorstyle, bar window proposed for the south elevation facing the proposed Patio Hey? Any questions on the proposal before we walk through the design. Guideline, Analysis. Alright, in general, the proposals seem to be consistent with the Design Guidelines, in that it would not damage or adversely, affect the Character.

[143:10] Architecture, and Value of the Historic District, the Architectural Style, Arrangement, Texture, Color, and Arrangement of Color and Materials, proposed seem to Be Compatible with the Character, of the Historic District in Reaching this Conclusion, We mainly referred to the Downtown Urban Design Guidelines. Mainly, because they are very specific to the downtown. Historic district and the the General. Design Guidelines, Mainly Relate to Residential so the Downtown Urban Design Guidelines, include a very specific Guidelines, on Items to Consider when Remodeling Non Contributing Buildings, and in General These Guidelines.

[144:02] Help, retain the historic character of the Overall District by respecting traditional qualities, such as Massing, Scale, Storefront, Details, and Choice of Materials, they the Guidelines, also Note, however, that the Building is Expected, to Reflect the Character of its own Time, so those are 1.3 Guidelines for New Construction, and remodeling, Non Contributing Buildings, Staff found the Proposal is is generally consistent with the Guidelines. 1.3, specifically 1.3 a with the integration of Traditional Storefront, patterns, into the Fourteenth Street, Elevation. We considered the Addition of contemporary parapet material would give a subtle unappropriate emphasis. We thought it was consistent with guidelines, C. And D in that the proposed changes reinforce a human scale with the traditionally scaled Storefronts and building Components and with Guideline E with the Addition of Contemporary Cornice, Material to Vary the Parapet, Height, and Guideline, F

[145:14] With the addition of storefronts on the Fourteenth Street Elevation to create Interest and Activate, the Fourteenth Street, A Guideline, H by Dividing the East Elevation, into 3 generally, Traditional Storefront Widths, Using paint to Differentiate, the Different Units And a subtle height difference at the Parapet The Downtown Open Design, Guidelines, also Include general Guidelines, that apply to all buildings in the district, these are Guideline, 1 Point, 4 we found Guideline, 1.4 Point a Potentially Problematic maybe because of the original Construction, of the building and subsequent modifications to the building that occurred in in 2,004

[146:05] And that there are materials that have been used on the facade that already are in consistent. With this guyline, including the folder, trim, the Phoenix, and the Infill of Stucco, the Stucco Broom Pediment. I could also argue with an inappropriate foe edition, the proposal is to remove the fo wood and replace it with thin brick, and complete the stuccoing of the Facade, there's more flexibility with a Non Contributing building within these Guidelines and Stucko, I would say, is not a material that's alien to the district. So we considered this to be probably consistent with the Guidelines. And we did think that the Use of a more Appropriate Scaled, window, and Door Trim would be consistent with guideline, a 1.4 point a

[147:01] We also consider that the pros. Proposal was consistent with Guideline 1.4 point B. And that it activates Fourteenth Street with the Traditional Width Storefronts and C that Suggests the Warnings, Create a Traditional Feel and Do not Obscure, Architectural Features we considered the Metal Canopy, on the East Elevation. Appropriate, as it is at the edge of the historic district, away from Palestine and Complementary to the South. Elevations, more Contemporary Style, additionally, the the building did have a metal canopy above the Corner Entrance and This could be considered a nod to the to the Walgreens entrance Guideline d talks about paint, and we considered the Proposal probably Consistent, although paint Removal is Preferred the Applicant has Stated that removing paint from the Existing Brick and Tile

[148:04] Is cost prohibitive and on completing additional research, we confirmed that the corner of this Building never included a brick facade. It it was tiled and the stucco was used as infill in 2,004, so complete removal of of that stuck of finish, and and the remaining original Tile from the Facade which was proposed in 2020 seems to be Economically Unfeasible, and in Staff's Opinion would inappropriate convey a false sense of history. As this finish never existed on the building, and it would result in just adding more thin brick. On Guideline, f and H. We considered the proposed South elevation Patio would Provide interest and activate this side of the building Provide overall Improvement to the Streetscape and Pedestrian Experience We Thought that the Applicant Could Consider Providing Screening to Further Enliven

[149:09] the patio and differentiate this area from the Parking surface So the General Guidelines Don't conflict with the Downtown Historic District Guidelines on any of the proposed so Staff Found, the Proposal Appropriate as the Building, is Non Contributing and the Proposal, Will Create Relief to the Horizontal Form and Reinforce, A Human Scale Appropriate to the Historic District there is an Appropriate Balance between Traditional and Contemporary with the most Contemporary Modifications at the Edge of the District Further Away, from the Paul Street Mall While, the More Facade Remains, somewhat Traditional And here is the the recommended motion to approve the Lac Applications.

[150:00] I didn't include conditions, but I know you're not shy about adding those. And I exc excuse me I have none If you believe they're needed so any questions. Nope. Nope. Awesome. Alright well, I will actually I believe Michael is, here, I believe, is going to give the applicant presentation Aubrey or Brenda. If you wouldn't mind I have promoted Michael who has rejoined us as a panelist.

[151:02] Okay. And Michael let us know, if the anybody else, that we should include as a panelist, that you would like to be included in the ability to Present I think Jeffrey wanted to say a few words. If you could add him Michael, you, should have control over your microphone, and your video. Now. Great I have promoted Jeff free. Jeffrey, you'll want to accept your invitation to become a panelist. Up there we go should be on his way Okay. And then Michael I can I can I believe you can take control of their presentation. Is that right Brenda or I can, or I can drive either way Okay. I am not sure how to do that one you might want Easiest for clear to drive for you, if you don't mind

[152:00] Okay, yeah, we'll give you those verbal directions. As we go Jeff was gonna start, do you wanna say a few words Yeah, and chef welcome to both you and Michael and if both of you would raise your hand before you speak sort of till the Board. The whole truth, and then proceed with your names your full names and you'll have 10 min total thank you. I agree, Jeff wingered. I'm with the W. W Reynolds companies thank you. For the presentation, Claire, and thanks to Aubrey and the Rest of the Staff for all the Great Work You've, Done on this and helping us Get through our our the the last few weeks, or Review on this and I'm I'm Really glad we get to give the board a softball on this one, and it's gonna be really super easy to approve so we'll just get through this one really quick for you make it easy on you for the rest of the night if we can so Joking aside, of course I I want to thank

[153:03] You, many times we've been in front of this board. I really do appreciate the thoughtful deliberation that you give to these, and maybe more importantly, the thoughtful approach, you give to what the the applicants needs are and and how to provide them with the information we need to move forward with the project so excuse me i've got a bit of a cold Myself, we I actually also wanted to tell marcy great to see you back. It's awesome to have you back. And congratulations on the new baby that's absolutely terrific. I'm Excited for him, glad all everyone's healthy and Well and Laura good to see you again, too long, and I sat on the He's Boulder, Sub Community Planning Working Group for the last Few years, so he Gets to know each other pretty well, over those years, but we Acquired this property in in late 2,019 from the Lazy Dog. They were owners, and surely thereafter. They they did vacate the building, we knew that was gonna happen, but since then we really struggled to find a user to go into the building felt was the appropriate, type user for this building.

[154:10] Given its location. maybe it was the pandemic, maybe it's just a soft market that we've been in since then, but we just not been able to find that while user Until, now, so as opposed to what we had put in front of the Board and what the Board approved back in 2,000, and 20, this time around We're not asking for any new building We're only Making Improvements to an Existing Non Contributing Building, in This District no New Construction There's no demolition, no structural change, So it's it's pretty straightforward what we're trying to do is just make some changes so that this time around when we have this great user feel we'll be able to breathe some life into this Building into this corner. Much needed you know energy into this part of Pearl Street.

[155:00] We are excited to get this thing moving forward, so appreciate your deliberation. Tonight. I'm available for any Questions. You might have I'm gonna turn it over to Michael to walk through some of the Architectural Side of Things. And again, any questions thank you Thank you. clear if you could go to the next slide So we're really excited today to present our proposal for 1346 Bill Street this Project. Is an adaptive reuse of the existing property, with some key features which we hope that you will support. The first is that we're dividing the building into 3 tenant spaces, 2 of which will be restaurants and these are going to be exciting restaurants that are Bringing activity, and new uses to the Home we are going, to be changing the orientation, of the Prime Tenant to the Pearl Street side. So can you go to the plan view that shows the the restaurant

[156:06] So what we what we're doing, which is pretty innovative is we're taking what what was a North South orientation, or turning it to an east-west orientation so you can see the prime tenant, will be in this light blue and they are Gonna be Addressing. The Prill Street, side along with the roof deck above, we're gonna be adding 2 new storefronts on the the Fourteenth Street Side, and as Claire, Mentioned this is going to Activate, and Create much more Interest in what is now Just a Brick Painted Wall This alley activation as well in the rear, where the orange patio is is cutting. You know, adding, a homeless like, another, 26 feet of activation, Log fourteenth, and creating interest in what is basically just a parking lot, right now, so we found 2 things about this building, this Blank Wall in the Parking lot, and We're turning him, into assets, and it's, really exciting for

[157:12] Us, because it's like a it's a totally different way of looking at the building, We're excited, that's very little limited demolition, and little waste to the Landfill so just underlying a Few of the Key points from the Staff Report this is a new Proposal, and we appreciate your ability to look at this as a new idea that hasn't been presented before built in 1946. This billing is very important, as discussed and there's a non contributing building the building never had a breakfast on. And we wanted to be clear that it's always had some kind of stucko, or tile, or veneer, type, product, the masonry that may be existing in that front facade, is concrete, and not a finished Material so It's probably not worth Exposing we

[158:10] Appreciated, the comment that the removing of the Stacco or exposing, the Masonry, or the use of Thin brick, could convey Us. All sense of history. This is actually something. That's really important in our practice. Is that we believe that the building should be of its time, and when we you know these thin brick kind of applications tend to be you know it's like we're trying to avoid the disneyland. Effect so that we have that complexity, and we're we're not making that any worse than it is. Now and we decided not to continue with that that approach on the rest of the building, and then finally, the most important thing from the staff report is that the Project appears to meet some design guidelines, which we agree with and that it is Compatible, with the as as you know it was great

[159:11] To Hear Claire go through all of the with different ways that this seems like a compatible project so adaptive reuse. I know it gets. It's sort of like this is like one. O. One. Preservation, but adaptive use. Is probably the most important tool that we have as as preservation is in our in our community, because if you can't preserve. If you can adapt a building to the changing world around it. It's not gonna survive. And there's a great long history of this building over time. You know from the Walgreens to the music, City to the Rocky Mountain Records and Tapes. I remember growing up in Boulder and spending a lot of Hours going through final records in the Rocky Mountain Records in Tape, Store, the Prosory Mall was Pedestrianized around this Building, which is A Fascinating Piece of History and of Course the Lazy Dog and the Roof Deck

[160:05] Edition, and the broken pediment. So each one of these users are bringing a new layer of history, and meaning in memory to the building an adapter of use is the preservation, tool Toolkit that we can use to to Make this an interesting building the proposal is a Reuse of the Building, and it adapts to the new realities of the restaurant industry in these post pandemic years, you know the idea of having like a 10,000 square, foot huge Restaurant is just not where it's at and and if you look, at a Body what They've, done as Well is break it Down into smaller concepts. We hope that our development we'll take this building 10, to 20 years, into the future with the right size spaces so if you could go back. I just wanted to hit one more time on those elevations I'm looking for the Pro Street Elevation, First 30 did a great job going through you can see how little is changing basic we're keeping the Thin Brick it was It's there, it's part, of the adaptive

[161:16] Use, is we're you know, we may not have made that choice, but it's there and it's it's not hurting anyone. We are adding, or immediately adding, the the Light Colored, Brick, Thin, Brick, or tile, down at the Base, because the the Green Would yes, thank you, the Green Wood that's there now is actually Degrading, It's, like a MDF type product, the Water, gets in there it Expands, and it's it's really not an exterior material we don't know why it was put there so it needs to be a durable material. It's a stud, wall, right now, so it it's gonna have to be an application of some type. And so we think the best. Get there is a a light colored complementary, thin, brick, the next slide.

[162:11] On, the of course the biggest move is really on fourteenth. And you can see the big difference. Here we go from a blank wall with one, door, to 3 whole new tenets that didn't exist before. It's a little bit like Harry Potter We're creating new spaces that where there was nothing before and so we're working our magic looks like, and we we see I I you know we're taking what we're given in terms. Of paint, and material, and just subtle differences in the height on the parapet to create this these 3 distinct spaces that's important because the the prime Tenant, is on the right and then the Secondary, 10 is going to be on the Left the third, Tenant, which is Not Yet been determined. is the light gray one in the middle, next slide is, I think, just the corner.

[163:05] So again. sorry about these formatting problems. But we really feel like the all the bumps and the Articulation and the painted Tile, and it's just confusing and Distracting and so our proposal, is to Skim Code, over the the it's still There if Someone wants to Go Back and Retrieve it in the future. It's still there but we're gonna try to make a very clean Backdrop. We will have of course, signage on that which would be a different a different permanent application. And then on that Ali side, it's the last slide. You can see the the door, and the Activation of Adding this transparency. It's it's gray here, but you'll be able to see into the restaurant. You see the Server making drinks, and you'll see the people, the people, the patrons coming in and going and so you're going from like a really just a a plane facade with a cast meter, on it, see something, that's really going to be interesting, so really really Excited about all

[164:10] Those opportunities that we've created and we really appreciate the Board's time I'm Assuming. I'm I'm running out of time You. You went to just a little bit over, but Then's fine, thank you so much for your great presentation, and you're both of you, You're Enthusiasm for this Project, do any Board, members have any Questions, for The applicant. For either, okay, please. I, I guess I had a question. yeah, quick question, on the East, Elevation, The 3 different Storefronts. I'll just call it that for a moment. It looks to me like there is paint change. That occurs along what is currently like?

[165:02] Brick face in which there's no additional relief on that face. Is that just a paint change that happens, or kind of a staggered brick, joint, or is there something else happening there Well, and unfortunately, we're on the property line. So our ability to add relief or 3 dimensionality. There is going to be limited by you know the Legalities moving like I would love to put bumps coming out or Pillars, or something else. But the Existing, Billing is sitting right on the property line. And yes, those pages can happen at a score. We can score the brick at that point but there is no change in surface Any other questions of Michael or Jeffrey. At this point

[166:08] Seeing no raised hands and hearing nothing. We'll move on to see if There's Any members of the Public Who'd Like to Comment in Public Participation And just a reminder that you should see your raised hand button at the bottom of your screen. Should you wish to participate at this time If all else fails, and you can't find your raise hand button, you can reach out to me in the Q. A. Box We have one member of the public who would like to speak. So I will. Go ahead and unmute Lensico Lynn Abby will need to swear you in, and then we'll start your Timer Hi, Len yes if you would sort of Tell the whole truth, and then once again, with your phone mate Hey? Green. Yes, yeah, please let's move on.

[167:03] Yeah, so I'm the only one why is that I'm I'm just real curious why, I'm the only one here that cares about this prominent feature in Boulder, right across from the courthouse, just wondering I think, Engagement has a little work. To do. Now, I think everybody knows my happy place is kind of cheesy. You know, is that the name of that building there in that corner like I don't think so. I think it's like what's that about? I mean is boulder. Is that what boulder's been reduced to my happy place? I don't think so. I like the fact. The parking place is taken up with some real potential income, and the other buildings on the East, Side and

[168:08] The aria on the top. But the friend of the Building and the Facade on the side. Is degraded to the level of Sterility. If I want to go to a hospital, I can get sterile it looks Sterile I mean I'm sorry if this offends the folks that have you know Carefully created it, but it is not what i personally and I who am I. I'm one person. Nobody else is here. To me. It looks sterile and I can see sterility all over boulder, because there's no Stopping Another Sterile house being put up but something that I have to look at every day in front of the courthouse leave it alone, as far as the

[169:08] Building next to that just to the west, that's great, I Personally, don't like Blonde, brick, Trim, Ben Tramp, but that's just my personal opinion, maybe everybody Else, Loves it but I think this place looks wonderful as the Lazy dog, and it was done in 2,000 I Thought, 8 but I guess it's 2,004, and I think you can do cementatious green wood and that won't be grade, Michael, you know just beautiful, with red and Green complementary colors, really nice leave it alone. I don't need more sterile like I said, I don't enjoy trips to the hospital. When I'm going to the Courthouse and as Part of the Pearl Street, Mall and I know you want to breathe life into it, but you know what you're doing for me, you're Second the Life Out of it.

[170:18] You want to get appropriate users? No, what was wrong with the Lazy Dagger. I'm sure the Rent went up way, too, much like Ww was working on liquor Mart. He was working on Google, out there, you know, he's got his hands in every pocket in town. Done. Thank you, Lynn Brenda do you see anyone else who has indicated they'd like to speak Yes, we do have one more hand up at this time, Tom. Hi, welcome, Tom, if you would just raise your hand, and say you'll tell the board the full truth, and then once again, state your full name. When you're 3 min as your 3 min begins

[171:11] Okay, I swear to tell the whole truth. So I I'm actually here to comment on the next Agenda. Item. But I've just been I have a going to start school to get my architectural degree, in January at the Ripe, old age of 57 and it's I've just been kind of listening in watching the whole Proceedings here and I was born and boulder and I grew up There and I do remember shopping at that record store as a young child, I think this is an awesome project. I think the architects are doing a great job to divide the space for 3 tenants. I think it'll activate Fourteenth Street in a very positive way, I don't see the sterile.

[172:05] Facade. I think there's a lot for much poor examples of commercial development, both in Boulder and Denver, in the front range. Thank you very much for taking my comments. Winter. so Tom, I will unmute you, and then Abby will ask you to swear in please Thank you, Tom and Brenda any other raised hands. I do not see any other raised hands at this time, so we'll do a last call Thank you Brenda, so the public hearing for this agenda item is now closed, and Jeffrey and Michael, you would have 3 min to respond to anything said during public. Comment, if you would like I would, claire, are you able to pull up the proposal and go, the pack end and go to page 4 of the back end

[173:09] So we we were concerned as well, and we did a quick survey of the Variation, that there it is some of the variations that we see on Prol Street you know we in our mind like i've been there 100 times, and I think of the red brick but when you actually go and you look with Your open eyes, and you can see the diversity of color. There's, the Pepper corn, which is quite a light color. It's actually lighter than it's almost a true white, and then the tea house, again it's a painted masonry, product, black, and white, similar kind of Aesthetic and then the Wonder, down on the other end of the Mall, I Assume, That's still in the Area Of significance. So I guess we we wanted to point out that there are light and there are darker color buildings.

[174:05] And so part of that is just the changing of time and and taste, and all those things. But we do appreciate the Comments from Lynn and Tom and look forward, to to hear from the Board as well. Okay, thank you. Michael. We are now going to move on to board deliberations. I ask that Everyone else mute, your computer, phone for the duration of the discussion and bill. I don't know if you would like to kick us off Okay. No! I would not. I would like he said politely. I would like Ronnie and or John to step into the 4. On this, one because they'll they're the ones that would have the most to say about these these proposals, I I use plural, because there's multiple things going on with this with this building at this point

[175:06] So body, take it, away Okay, if that's what if you guys would like me to Abby, should I take it away Please go ahead, go for it Okay, It's super helpful for me to look at the drawings, and talk about them. I don't know. Clara, if you could bring them up again, and maybe we'd just start with a plan and then I'll talk about some of the things that are happening here and then we can go back to. Page, that page 4 for a second, is kind of my thought, So, Okay, first, of all I think you know what a great great idea. Great mission here, to divide the space into smaller, usable spaces for your tenants, and then to do it in a way, that is relatively proportionate to the dimensions of typical developable building faces downtown which is like 2533 50 foot

[176:08] Building links, and I recognize these don't just nail it Spot on. But those traditional dimensions are called out in the design Guidelines and that's like the planted properties of our Historic downtown, and those across the Nation so you know that happening on Predominantly the Fourteenth Street, Side of the Property, and then I will also say The use of exterior space. That may have traditionally been used for service activities, including parking for Outdoor Seating is wonderful. It's just so consistent with what our just community vision is. I think in making downtown, an Active space, and so I think that all of those Moves helped to improve the Overall Character as well as activate outdoor, Space Downtown, and and on Fourteenth Street, which I think you know as as the Applicant Noted Wasn't you know a primary face of this building at least, is not as prime, as the Pro street phase, so I think that those are all wonderful.

[177:01] Things. If we could look to the Fourteenth Street Elevation for a second, and the way that that's being accomplished on Fourteenth Street, in terms of the Creation of Additional Openings, as well as the Articulation at the Cornice Through the Addition of Brick Material And the Jogging, or removal of brick material in order to get those dimensions, to work, I think are all great moves. Okay. So you know, I think that those are the primary things of this proposal, and I think that those are all very consistent and approvable aspects of what is in front of us, I know that this is a new proposal, but I, have to say I have said the same thing, about this building so Many times because it has come in front of us. So I'm gonna say him again and you're gonna have to forgive me I think that predominantly the corner of this. Building is the thing that I would like to kind of focus my attention on it is the stuffo corner.

[178:04] And I think the moves that are made. There to remove some of the Existing Mitya, which I guess, is just covering or moving and covering, the the Tile you know is makes a lot of Sense but I Think, in the Process We're Creating a somewhat Monolithic, Surface, At this Corner which I believe is the thing that you're hearing some reaction to at least from one of our community members that relates to the Sterility, I you know, in reading the Design the guidelines, which I know staff put together, really good analysis of but I went back and looked at it Again, I know that there is language in there about monolithic surfaces, in fact, images, in their point to facades that are long and unarticulated. I recognize that there is articulation on this and that we have windows. But I think the Monolithic Surface and the Lack of Detail is the thing that's my greatest contention with this proposal. And it has been consistently every time. I've seen what is effectively a very similar proposal coming in front of Us.

[179:06] For this corner, element, the broadest strokes of this application are very strong, and I applaud them for all the reasons I said but I do think that there is a Missed opportunity here and it's at the Corner predominantly and I can share a little bit more about that and I think maybe I just run into this right. Now, so you know, I recognize the value and having a kick plate and the Guidelines, talk about kick, plates and we understand? Why, kick plates are there, and how they behave and why they behave but the proposal for this kick plate is a long horizontal kick plate that is not how they traditionally worked? They said underneath windows, and we saw how the structure of the building let itself sit and anchor itself to the ground, at the Points, that Aren't Windows. It may not always find itself following that pattern of some of the examples were shown but that is the traditional pattern that is the one that's highlighted in the design guidelines and in my opinion having this long Horizontal Kick Plate, that is made of Material

[180:07] That's proposed is a little questionable. It doesn't recognize the structure. Doesn't Pursue, the Standard Pattern of it, being an Infill between openings, and then that would be one thing that I would recommend that we have a Conversation about other Things and I wrote down, a couple of Pieces here but if we go to the other Side Elevation for a Minute. I think that it would be worth us having a conversation with the applicant about where the signed, the the sign band is on this window, which also assigns something that is pointed out in the design guidelines, and I recognize that they're planning on putting signage in perhaps some of it is on the onings, and perhaps some of it's just beneath the light that is shown on the Chamber facade.

[181:00] But I think that the sign band is a piece of traditional architecture, that we find in our downtown and Understanding how that might be executed on a building like this is important because that's actually an Aspect, of the detail, that is the overall character of the building that gives it Interest and that is also Recognized in the design Guidelines, another element, that I really think is kind of a a missing piece in this design, and again, I'm focusing on the corner, because I think it's the most prominent piece is the cornice I do know that this is I I believe, this Is the existing cornice, that's just being painted. A dark color, I think, was iron or and so you know it's just as a one to one analysis is there anything that's happening here that might be detracting from the downtown district or this existing building no it's not a detraction but I definitely think that it is a missed opportunity it is a piece of the overall. Our architecture, this building, and having a parapet, cap associated with the cornice is integral to Making a building.

[182:09] Look, like it has top middle and bottom, and because there's almost two-story building in particular the dimension of that unarticulated Forehead and the fact, that it has a very Minimal cap I, think is Inconsistent with the Guidelines, I think that these Qualities, unfortunately and I'm going to use this harsh word, because I've used it before with this application for this corner makes this building Look, this corner of the building. Look more like a strip Mall and I personally think that's inconsistent with the Down Town Guidelines, and I think that this is a prominent quarter, in which a Corner in which we want to make sure where Opportunities Arise, that we Elevate this to the standards that we hold buildings of our downtown, and I think, that while I said the broadest troops are here, I think there are some missed opportunities in the Details it's it's unclear to me what the height of some of these architectural elements

[183:04] Are like? How tall are the doors at the Chamford corner? And that would be a point of interest, I think. and how those dimensions relate to the context of downtown, the Guidelines also talk about general Contacts not Just the Context, of the building that is this building but how it relates to Adjacencies and one thing that I would wonder about is how this awning Hype relates to adjacent on it. And I see how it does follow some traditional pan patterns or the onings are lower, but I think that the awning raised above the Primary entrance, is something that I don't think it's a Pattern that we often See and I think that There's actually Guidelines that talk specifically about awning location and relationship to opening. So I would recommend that we also look at that and determine whether or not that is something that you know, is working correctly, currently and so all of those things again, do relate to pedestrian Scale there.

[184:02] Is an enhancement here with the Introduction of Awnings. My question, the length of the Largest of the Awnings. Again, because I think it help I think it makes this look more monolithic than it needs to be. So I think that many of the elements are in place to make this. Wonderful. But I would recommend that we consider talking in greater detail about these topics and seeing whether or not we think they're actually complying if there's an opportunity Thank you, Ronnie, John Little bit of a hard act to follow we've had a lot of discussion, about this building, and it's in it's pretty generations, a lot of it Ronnie and I about we both talked about the possible opportunities Associated with that corner

[185:03] In this particular instance, I'm pulling back from that a little bit. And the reason is because what I see happening here is a project proposal. That satisfies a great deal of what we do want to accomplish in this building with a with a minute of modification, it's essentially being reused as it's stands now and of course it's been standing Vacant for some time and i'm not as troubled by the kind Of Starkness, of this Corner, because that's always been the character of this non-contributing building. When it was a Walgreens. It was essentially a strip mall form. It had a little more verb, and in the entry that was consistent with that time period we're kind of in a phase of this being what what is happening in the architecture in this town there's a lot, of black and white buildings in boulder and it was never a particularly

[186:12] Strong character, kind of a building. Even when it was the record store, in fact, it looked a lot like that when it was the record story, except for Heroic art on the Fourteenth Street side what I really like about this I'm I'm gonna Function or focus on that I really like the activation of the Wall, along Fourteenth, I also really like the Activation of the Alley, Side and these are ideas that came out of the original Program, Proposal, that We Reviewed and Use of Color in the absence of physical articulation. I think is appropriate in this case, because it's A.

[187:00] It's a kind of a a and I'm I'm thinking more commercially than preservation. It's a quick reuse of this building. Good is otherwise. Gonna face demolition, eventually, if it doesn't get reused, I liked Michael's comment about the fact that buildings do have to be adaptable and changeable with the time or they cease to be used at all and we've been experiencing a lot of that i'm much more troubled by that the missed opportunities on these I think Could be realized in a subsequent generation of reuse, of this But I think at this point, I think that this is an approvable proposal, and again, because it was a non, contributing building it's not part of the historic Fabric and it never really fit into the historic, fact it's, also adjacent, to one of the most misfit

[188:14] Buildings on the Mall, or Adjacent, Dy diagonally adjacent, that has a very strange geometry relative to the Mall. I've grown to like it. But Palmer building and and I kinda think that this is an appropriate response at this Point in time and find it approvable Thank you, John Bill You, Bill, you may be muted Sorry for zoom and nobody wanted to hear my Hacking and coughing.

[189:00] I'm intending to agree again, having seen this multiple Times before and in Drc as well, it always strikes me as I don't know awkward to see this massive as Ronnie turned it Monolithic Chamford Corner, here, Regardless of whether you know It was historically, like that when the original Walgreens was there, there of course, was a building that predated that the Claire showed us that look nothing like this it. It always just seems out of place to see such a massive, bright thing right on that corner in these drawings of course it's not that way to today, but I can't imagine yeah, go wrong go back. Yeah, there you go, there's your original just because that's the way it was back in the day it doesn't mean, that it's you know, tasteful to to me you know, that's just a not a very you know, pleasant looking experience.

[190:13] To look at that. Considering what the Pearl stream Mall has become over time. But with all that said, I'm not an architect, and I I wouldn't know what to suggest to the appetite to do with that corner other than what he's already going to do with it, the comments, regarding the paint color I I also agree that are too, bright particularly on the chamford Section, Regardless of what the Applicant has seen up and down the Mall. These are not things. We necessarily agree with they have just happened John alluded to the you know current trend to paint everything, you know, start black and stark, white and you know, I don't think that's the tone in tenor, of the Pearl Street Mall honestly I think he's more of a

[191:04] Brick Earthy, kind of thing like it was probably when it got started. It's just morphed over time into this multicolored Scandinavian Village Kind of Look which like it, or Lump, it that's what we have, but Regardless the Building, as I See it Today, proposed by the Applicant, I Do agree with the way the Fourteenth Street, section is being treated I can't talk. I can't speak to the parapet, or you know the various other topics in terms of Ronnie. And John have mentioned, but I would like to see that port, the Chamford section of this building Toned down in terms of paint, maybe going another Shade more towards towards a Tan or brownish just to kind of kind of re give Us, some Relief from the Brightness, that that is already or we will

[192:00] Be there. If in fact, you go with the current color the rest of the color scheme looks fine to me. So it's my opinion, I don't know it made any sense but Yeah, even, at this, Well to prove that this is all subjective. I'll disagree. Because I really like the the white, I was just thinking about you know, one of my favorite, I mean, I think it's been recently, updated is the wonder building down on West Pearl which is a very bright white and I think it adds, a sense of you know difference. There's different buildings with different character. And I think more than you know what creates for me. Do it did even at this hour. Thank you, no ch chelsea A monolith is like the if you just look down one street, and it's all Muted brick like to me, that looks more monolithic as a whole, than one surface being bright, white, so I think it's more about how this building fits into the context of the buildings, around it than

[193:16] It does that one surface cause. I I tend to think that it will look better when the different buildings are different. And I like the bright white, I think it's it's more modern, and it speaks to where we are in today's world and this is not Yeah, this isn't the historic building, but but yeah, so I I I like, the way that it was done. I think that it meets the criteria, and I think that sometimes you know we have to come to a point where we stop making people change. Everything they propose and I think that they've done a really good job on this particular project, so that's that's you know my main my main input I really I I like that you're keeping them my happy place on there I every time. I walk.

[194:22] By I see people, taking pictures in front of it. You know, I can't explain human behavior. But there's something about it that makes people happy. And I think it's great that you want to carry that forward, and it kind of it creates, a landmark in a way people want to go to that space and take a picture and I think it's a nice draw to the corner so It's certainly an improvement from my days of drinking beer at the lazy dog in college. Hey, thank you, Chelsea and now I'd like to share a few thoughts. You know, all buildings, Evolve and change, and I you know once the Masonic Temple, or lodge, was lost to fire.

[195:14] I think, this current proposal is probably the best iteration of this building, and I. Know it's not contributing, but it's still you know, it's nice when it's Compatible or Sensitive to the story buildings that are narrated as well, as some. Of the Newer construction. I think that what you have done on the Fourteenth Street Side, the East Elevation is is wonderful as well, as the South to really Alive in it I know we've all been using the Word Activate but I think that That's, a a great solution I will say That I do agree with Ronnie about the chamfer corner. In the sense that I feel there's more that could be celebrated there, and I know, with some nuclear construction at the other end of Pearl Street, Mall, where Edit you know where there they've been champered Corners either in a building that's no longer there, or historically, as well.

[196:12] As in the new construction. We have had discussions about just celebrating that a bit more, and making that more of a Just elevate it, so to speak, and so I think there could, and again I have nothing to offer, as far as how to achieve that I think that the vast majority of this is great in ready. Ready. To go, but I do. I do. See where that could be more celebrated Abby, can. I say just a couple more things Please, please. Okay, a couple of other of the details that I just am opposed to

[197:03] Are. I believe that this kick plate, which again, just to point out the horizontality of that kick, plate, and it not terminating a traditional Locations is something that's a Sticking point is one of a handful of them that I would recommend be modified I believe that you know The Proposal calls for a dark Grout set up against later. Masonry, and I don't know how to get confirmation of that other than to look and see. If Michael. Is that correct? I can see. If you nod, yeah, and so I think that's also inappropriate, I just don't see how that's a traditional use of grout and material and either masonry, or what have you I think it looked I think it's going to look like a Version of how my backslash looks like And so this looks like it's a little bit of an inside out, another thing that I think is worthy of Noting is if we go.

[198:03] To those Comp. Well, let me just point to this, there's no trend that's currently expressing around the doors or the windows. So it's kind of like a stucco return at every intersection. If you go to the images, that the Applicant provided that are the examples, you know these are buildings that I all could tell you that they're not the best buildings for us, to emulate you know they're not the ones, that were like hey go look at the guidelines, this is what Yeah We redrew, we didn't redraw these, okay, so you know, i'm gonna have a hard time doing it on this. But like, the cause. These aren't great but the proportions of the dimensions between Window and transom. And how a window gets trimmed in relationship to its adjacent is important. And maybe it's just not demonstrated as accurate. As I think, the drawing is meant to, but it could be that it is all like a single dimension.

[199:01] That is a very narrow dimension, which again, I think, is just so. Atypical, of Downtown, And one thing that is evident in these images. How is how the cornice piece that I was describing earlier actually is employed. You know all these buildings have a top. That's how they work, or the building, that we're looking at has a minimal top. And again, this isn't the like they're not removing a top. But you know, this is these are things that are patterns that are exhibited. I feel like we are missing something here as a board, and that is actually the images that are in the design, Guidelines that are really good images that, like we shouldn't be spending time talking about like some of the things that coming go it is actually about the mass and Scale and proportion of all of these Things right and and I feel less compelled. sorry Can some actually? Bill? Can you say something

[200:02] Yeah Okay, sorry, my my year bugs just died. I mean, I feel less compelled about like the public art piece. But really, it's these broad strokes that are missing in in our guidelines. We have drawings for like how these buildings should be put together and like we all should be familiar with that. And look at those, and see what those elements are. And when I say monolithic surface like there's, a drawing. This shows like this, and it's not a wonderful one, but like when I'm saying it. I'm, referring to that kick plate is shown. The Sign Band is shown the character cap and cornice is shown. So I will just say, personally I think that this building is missing a lot of those things. Obviously there's no modification to the corners, but there is kick, plate, and I agree with some of the direction from Board members, about the Color, scheme that's suggested at the corner in Particular because the last lack of Articulation on this Building so That's my position I'm

[201:02] not gonna vote in the affirmative for this, if it stays the way, it is But I just felt like I should share that with you Now, I just want to ask Ronnie, what would it take for you to vote to make the changes that you just start articulated, to put those Design elements in as we've listed inside of our design guidelines and that you've highlighted in your comments Yep. Okay, then you're the one needs to make the motion Well, I mean, I don't know if others are an agreement, I feel like I'm a loan voice here and in fact, there are aspects. You know, like the the high of the awning and things like that, like you know, I feel like I I I don't know what the answer to that is but I do know that it looks foreign to me you know like I I I guess I'm just sharing.

[202:01] That like I could. I I would like to hear my fellow Board members. I don't think this is contingent on my interpretation of guidelines. I'd Love to hear Staff's Feedback about some of the things that I'm Describing and maybe there's they could Weigh in on this but you know this is everybody and I am Not Hearing from Others, the same, Kind of position that I have so you know I I guess I see Yeah, I think everything you've pointed out Ronnie would make this a better building on the Downtown Mall and Picking out those Traditional Elements, like the Kick Plate and the sign band and Placement of the Audio, I think are on their own subtle Changes, but we'll overall make them more cohesive, Building and when the so that's my reaction, to What's been talked about and if and when Appropriate I have Conditions Based on the Boards, Discussion

[203:15] Oh, you mean conditions, the conditions that Ronnie are articulated Really the each board member. If if I heard a potential condition, I wrote it down Thank you, Ronnie, are there any other board members who would like a second go at any comments at this point Oh, okay, great, great, so Marcy, so we're back in a spot where we were with the first. Case we saw tonight which is you know, we need to articulate what it is that we prefer to to see this Application, look like with Conditions and then offer the applicant and opportunity to either agree or withdraw Yes, though I see these, it's very different Internal of the Scale of Potential Conditions,

[204:05] Right. And Marcia, I agree with that that that this could be conditionally approved this evening Oh! With Yeah, I I I would hope that we can conditionally approve this this evening. Well, but wouldn't that to a certain extent depend upon the applicant and what the applicant would be willing to accept Well, that's I guess that expands the discussion. Yeah. Marcy took yourself off. I'd love to hear what she has to say Yeah, yeah that's what I was headed for I mean, just sort of like in the first the first case. I think if Marcy did generate a list of things that we have recorded in this case, maybe we look at that. There, we go. And then we walk through those to see whether or not. These are things that there is consensus around and so So these are placeholders, so Ronnie and others help make them make sense,

[205:04] The first one is just about being in compliance with the Approved Man's other than the Conditions of Approval, and then that the Project would return to the Ldrc for Final Review, and Approval with Consistency, with the General Guidelines in the Downtown. The Final architectural plans that include, I have a placeholder for the champion corner. Because I I'm not sure how to articulate that one I heard Celebration We'll go through the ones that you have and and let's go down through the list, and then you know Ronnie, or John can come back to the Chamford corner piece Sure, the second one is to modify the kick plate on the East, Elevation, add a sign ban on the north, Elevation placeholder for Parapet, App or Coolness, Provides, Location and Length of Awning Revised Wait White Pink Color on Corner Who Buys Dark

[206:04] Route to Revised Window and Door Opening Trim and then This last one is about Details for Exterior Material Bye, I think. Oh, looks good to me Yeah, Marc, you really captured what I heard. I don't know what's missing, and I don't know how to elaborate on that Chamford corner, even though I know. I I'm gonna throw something out the because I have thought about this corner. While we've been discussing this in the original discussion, that we had back

[207:00] With the first presentation there was modification, so look for the side that was being done, that that allowed for I guess more more detailed discussion about what forms those modifications should take I think, the thing. That because the corner, because the corner is raised with that kind of Cap. Detail the kind of gabled cap detail at the top of it, it creates a big space above, the Awning, and some kind of thing could happen in that space and I'm almost thinking of building as Art, Gallery, Wall if something happened, in there I mean, in a in a Traditional Architectural Thing, Something that happened in a previous century. There'd be a tablo, or something detail, put into there.

[208:06] That was a an interesting thing. If there was some something that was consistent with our time, that could happen. There, I think that would be a celebration of that corner. We've had those discussions in years past, about other buildings. So I think that the entry does what it is supposed to do in that corner, and if it were, if it were a Chamford Corner Commercial building, like say a Walgreens, it would have a kind of a Blown out Header or over the Door or Assigned course, that that Floated out over The door, and maybe some some kind of I guess a little more Edified Or, permanent device, other than just the awning over the Store on the Chamford. Side.

[209:06] Would be interesting. But again, this this starts to get into, you know, significant kinds of intervention. Into this design, and I, I'm I'm gonna I my my opinion, is kind of being modified by I think we really need to get life, back into this place into this corner. And it's there's there's a dearth of this life in this town, right now there's a lot of sterility in what is being offered. Not so much the architecture, and I think that I think that if something lively was happening behind that front door you're gonna accomplish, a lot of what you want to accomplish especially after Daylight when lights are coming from the inside and Alright so That's That's Kind of my attitude I

[210:06] Think that I think that we could but second the Second condition, or the Subset second condition there the First Condition was add interest to the Chamford Corner. I think a. Lot could be accomplished right up in that space over the door I don't see what Ronnie thinks Yup, Yup, I think we shouldn't be overly inventive. I think what we should do is take queues from design, guidelines. And look to the historic nature of what happens in these large foreheads, and so, yeah, I think wherever, there's a monolithic surface, we should look at the design Guidelines of ways in which to break up. Large Surfaces. And so if you wanted to add that at Interest Chamber Corner, you know and and break up Monolithic Surfaces, and it's an all in one and I'll Just Add a Couple more to this which Isn't a Surprise It's, Stuff, that We've said

[211:06] but just to say it I John, I'm glad that you brought up the headers. I think this is a consideration, I would say, consider, exposing an articulating headers, which doesn't have to happen. But it's everywhere, I mean, and and so you know let's look at that. I would say that there is A. If there is a Drc review, and this goes that route. That would be you know, so fundamentally helpful. If there that was that could be one type of articulation. I think that and I you know we talked about this before James Hugh it really nailed down on this which is you know how does this building relate to the greater context and I in fact think that there were images that showed this building in relation to Jason buildings at 1 point and if not I do Believe that some of the Pedestrian Scale and Awning Height, pieces that I'm bringing up would be great if there was demonstration of how it actually Behaved in Relationship to a Person during Person Scale as well as the Jason, Buildings in my Memory and Bill and think you

[212:10] were there. You know, I think we saw some stuff about that. And that was really pressed at 1 point, I could be mis remembering, this, but I still regardless believe that that is the intentive, You know what that conversation should be around and I know I'm confident that that's exactly how it's reporting the guidelines, I Do Appreciate, the Applicants you know Suggestion, about the paint break you know it's, a very creative idea, which would be to ought to create a Score in the brick face with the Paint changes, But I do think that a simple paint change isn't as successful, as adding something like a score line. If that's score line, you know, is the way to do it. Because of the Building Setback. You know that's a really great inventive way. I think to accomplish that, because I think just paint break is less strong.

[213:03] So if there's anything to do to add to that articulation at that location I think they'll just reinforce what you're trying to do with that dimension again, which I plot because i think that that's a really creative thing to do and it helps give identity, to each of those spaces, so So yeah, I don't know. If is there anything on here that people don't think should be part of the conditions, or who is there anything that you should. Add, if not. Then I will make a motion Well, yeah, Marci is highlighting that? What do we wanna say about the parapet, cap or cornice? I mean, this is a hard one, you know, I mean, I I think that this isn't a like I said this is a little different than things. Like the modifications that are proposed. Right. This isn't a maification. They just want to paint it, and so it's hard to you know. Yeah

[214:00] I guess. Say that it's a requirement, but I think it's so fundamentally important to make this building look good, because there are no windows on what looks like. A second floor, because of the Mentions of this Building. Right. It's almost like a one, and a half and so all. That forehead stuff in there with a minimal top is part of the reason. Why, you know it looks on articulate so you know whether or not it's a requirement I don't know but I I believe that it would significantly improve this building Well, I I think to add, yeah, there it is martyr he's right in my brain. Yeah, or articulate corners. Yes, th th the what you're trying to say, there Ronnie to me anyway, is adding these elements, and hiding them in some way. So they're articulated and they they stand, out Yeah, and if I can. Well, there is that there is a parapet cap. Now Right. While there's something has to be done to it, right to to Right and and

[215:07] Hey! The Corn is detail. But you know, if I could point one other thing out if we if we just I'm mean marcy so I don't want to totally steer us off and this is a positive thing that is happening in the proposal so maybe i'll just report it, because you guys are familiar with this at this point the Pearl Street and Fourteenth Street corner to me is the location on this building. That requires the most attention, and the deviations, from the standards in which they can be most interpreted, and start to flex actually in my opinion, can occur on the Fourteenth Street side, and so the ways in which the applicant is doing that on the fourteenth Street side which I Don't think Is as strict, as a following of what the imagery and the guidelines. You know call out that that's currently proposed on the side is more acceptable. There, and so while I think it's pretty foreign to have cap and foreness, that is a steel. I dream c, beam, or whatever is happening up there?

[216:02] Those are the times in which I think you know, you could be more what we could be more flexible in the guidelines, offer for that like interpretive piece there and this this building just so happens to you know have those types of opportunities at those locations, because that is where the Applicant is modifying the forness in terms of its height. So I'm just saying like, there's something that's happening concurrent there, that happens to match up with what I think are the priority points on this Building, and so I think that well, not all of this is being followed is stringent as maybe this outline of Conditions is Reporting, for The area that's currently considered to be white, the areas that are not white, are the places in fact, where it can become a little bit more abstract in my and so I guess I just I'm saying that to the applicant that you know I think that those types of interpretive things there are in fact

[217:02] appropriate, so I would be willing to make a motion to move forward with this, I think Bill may have suggested that we take the temperature of the Applicant to give them an opportunity to give us a thumbs up. Or if they're interested in. If you know, if they're interested in withdrawing, if it were to move forward like this, you know I think that's respectful of their time and energy, and I know That's putting the Applicants, on the Spot but I Do think That this would be the Moment, Michael and Jeff, if you're willing to Pursue this version, you know, I would make the motion we could see where it goes but if you're, not. You know it might benefit you to share that now because you would have the opportunity to withdraw. If you were severely opposed

[218:00] So I mean all that Jeff go last. I had a question about Being asked to work on portions of the building that are not in our current scope of the proposal, so In in particular, is that the coroner's Right cornice is there. It's Existing, we're painting. It, so I'm gonna ask it at this question from a different direction? Would it be allowed for us to just repaint the building and occupy it Yeah, that was that was actually discussed in an earlier version of our review, was there were there were more actual in and out type of modifications proposed to the facade at that time which opened a lot of this, discussion and it was discussed well, if you were just using, the Building as is and painting.

[219:08] Maybe Let's, Maybe Let's, Let's Marcy It you probably wouldn't have to do anything, because it'd be a by right reuse of the Building and We're kind of at that place, and you're using I I mean, I mean let's let's let's go a little further with the paint paint if it's used Properly, and with some subtle kind of Articulation, like Ronnie was just talking about is a very effective design material maybe you could use pay to differentiate, or articulate a little more in a graphical way, without getting into you know, more constructive modification to the to the building thanks that Require a lot, more construction. So where I was going with that is I think I can we can accept. If we're doing a kick plate that we do the kick plate in the way that you want it done, and we can make those Revisions.

[220:01] As a condition, so that makes sense to me like, if we're putting in a window, let's get to the right size, and the Right proportion. But I think the owner also has a right to not have to do areas of the building Okay. That are not part of the project. So if we we are you are encoding the tile, which raises the question. I think that Ronnie has raised is Skin coding the Tile reduce removing articulation, and it sounds like you would rather have that tile. As it is there now so we'd be fine to just paint it, and that's encoded. If that is the approach, but all overall, I think we're okay with an approval with conditions. I, just wanna temper, the expectations, because I'm not sure what the authority of the Board is to force us to do modifications.

[221:05] That aren't necessarily envisioned by the Scope of the Work, and That might be a legal question for the planning for Marcy. Yeah, I would offer that the Board might add the word consider if it's a scope of work that's beyond what's been proposed, which would then Allow further discussion at the Drc Versus Hard and Fast List of Conditions that if they're not met, it comes Back, to the Landmark board, so that could be a pass forward And I will just jump in Michael, I totally respect what you're saying there, which is why this articulate, this articulate, the Pair of bit and the cornice piece was the thing that I was wondering if the word consider should be in there and to me outside of the exposing of the Header Suggestion. That's the only other one, that is

[222:02] You know a question, about the you know scope that you currently have in front of us. So, but I What about? What about adding the sign ban Ronnie? What about that one Yeah, I mean, I I think that the signage should be shown where the signage is going to occur. I recognize the is like going to be a different review. Oh, well! But it is important to the disposition of building use blank surfaces that were criticizing there might be something that is proposed to go in there, which I think would actually improve the building Right like this Blank surface so you know, I think what we want to say, here. Is demonstrating where the signage is going to go. And consider. Adding sign band on the North elevation. Actually I think we should say, consider adding sign Bands period because wever. Yeah

[223:00] They happen it would be an added feature that I think could benefit the building. It does in this case, it could happen on all well on both sides of the building, or in fact, on 3 sites. If you want it, and I think it would be beneficial and probably a low cost thing, because you're any point to sign up Okay. Maybe they're not going everywhere. But I think the intention of this is meant to say, is pretty cooked right there So in light of what Michael has just said, okay, You know, point is taken that you? Know we can put in words. Like consider, just to kind of suggest, that we would like him to go in a certain direction, but for some of the most you know, demonstrated concern about about this application was all about that chamber section of the building and about this the concept of quote Monolithic a sense Of a Monolithic wall or Walls, and trying to find a way to you know, regulate that somehow, or to you, know, make it less monolithic when he's not Suggesting he's, going to do anything to that wall, is he other than pain it he's gonna scrape whatever was on

[224:09] There, and then you know paying it he's not suggesting that they're through their application, that they're planning on on on adding anything else. Well, that that's my case. To it. So are we sort of stepping out of line on that one as well, I mean he's just he's just saying I'm gonna yeah, I'm gonna just take what's there I'm gonna paint it and and We're like Adding layering on all these things, We'd like to See on that when in fact, he's not going to be doing anything to that wall just painting Cool, well, if if that's the case here's what I propose I think I would like to make this motion, and let's let the applicant move to Ldrc with the Aspects of this, that are the qualities, that you know we just talked about and those that you know might be different like if

[225:00] They're gonna leave the tile, or whatever, they're gonna do something creative let's let that come back and have a collaborative conversation with them to see how it's meeting, our bulk, of our goals, I mean, some of which are common, objectives, and others are like Coming, from different Yeah, right. Ends of the spectrum, so I would say, we don't have to know right now, but I would So at the word considered to add the word considered to I consider adding interest to Chamford Corner. That would that would satisfy that Okay. Yeah, I I think, we have to be careful about that bill big I I mean, I think consider, is is the way we're, careful about that. Because the issue of Scope with with a commercial building Yeah

[226:00] You can modify a storefront in a commercial building, a traditional commercial building, and not have any effect on the rest of the building, except maybe repainted, and and that would be outside of review the Review, would be focused on the Modifications actually being taken which would be limited to the Yeah Storefronts. So I I and I think that this building is a non traditional commercial building in the context of the Mall. But it's being treated in a similar way, the Store Fronts are the things that are happening up to the heads of the Window are up to the Awning, Height, the rest of the building, is just. Being reused as a standing, commercial stress Right, right, except except where We're punching in new windows and door openings like under Right? But that's it. Street. I'm I'm talking about just here's, this building shell. Yeah It is being tenant occupied. And I just I think that we don't wanna get Too far out on this. There's opportunities here. But they're gonna require a lot more than then just just to kind of paint Remake, of the building. And I don't know that we can realistically apply them at this point So thank you. I look forward to frequenting the new, the new restaurants

[227:24] Right? Right? Yeah Okay, and, can I help And okay. Well, we have to build this list of conditions, so we should at least get that done to that point to that point on 8 window, and door Openings, Trim let's put a Verb in there, consider you know whatever or or you know whatever the phrase that ronnie has defined that to mean, whatever That was supposed to actually be implicating here add window and door openings, trim or Consider. Can I do? Can I ask a question? Because Chelsea has her hand raised Go ahead. Sorry, But E, okay, so just this process of conditionally approving something on the condition that they consider making these changes like, I don't understand how it's enforceable I don't. Yeah, like if they come back and say, okay, we considered it I mean in theory, they met the condition so is that true.

[228:29] Yes, and it's intentional that way. So that it doesn't tie the hands of the Applicant, or the Ldrc that's reviewing it so and then the ones, that don't have consider it must be met but the other ones with consider are explore this continue to Explore it, and then that condition is Matt Okay, can. I don't know what a score line is. Can someone explain It's like a reveal cut into the wall, treated one way or the other. So so we're asking them to cut into the wall

[229:06] Yeah, it would. It because you have brick. You have brick lines that are overlapping each other. You can't do a clean paint line. You're painting, half a brick. Every other, brick, vertically. And so you you create a physical score in the world by some method you put a channel in there, or create some way of making, a physical Appearance of H. Break in that wall. It's not a hard thing to do Okay, What about the the height and length of the awnings. I guess I we just wanted to ask. I I don't remember who brought that up. I think maybe Ronnie did. But I it wasn't clear what the Current Height, and

[230:00] Yeah No, it's the onings over the windows. Oh, wait that's for the the the is that for at the roof of the building, or that's just on the sides of the okay. Okay. That's fine then I mean, personally, And and I. Well, no. I think on the North Elevation, They're Adhering, to the Height that was previously there in the Lazy dog Phase. Okay, yeah, I just wanted to make sure that that was allowed. And then, I, personally, yeah, I like, the white paint color. So I I don't support that as a requirement to revise it, but everything else is fine Does anybody else have anything before I think Ronnie, you were getting close to making emotion Yeah, I I I just want to be sure that we have tightened up. As best we can all of these individual items, so that you know there's nothing that's just kind of dangling out there with no real intent

[231:11] So how about under number 11 provide details? I put a verb in there, provide details for homes. That's good That's good Yeah yeah Stuff like that that's all I'm trying to do is get it tightened. Yeah Yeah, so I'm, I'm okay, now, that I look at all, these things, they all make sense to me. I'm I'm I'm ready to It's just very quickly. But Roddy's motion, and before it becomes Thursday, sooner than we. Think I do wanna say to Jeffrey and Michael the broad strokes are so there, and I know these are details, but there are details that will let me to vote for this Project to go forward. And may actually what what does? Maybe come back to us and get approved. May even enhance the proposal some so Ronnie go for it

[232:02] Okay, I wonder if we can pull up the motion. I moved to the Landmark Board Adopt that memorandum Day to December Seventh, 2,022 is the findings of the Board and Approved Landmark Alteration, Certificate, to Add New Storefront Window Openings, Exterior Peta Patios, Awnings and Paint. At 1346, Pearl, street, a non contributing property in the Downtown Historic District is shown on plans, dated November, second, 2,022, finding that the Proposal Meets the Standards, for Issuance of the Landmark Alteration Certificate in Chapter 9, 1118 Brc, 1981, and it's Generally Consistent with the Downtown Urban Design Guidelines, and the General Guidelines, and that it must meet the Conditions of Approval as outlined in the Summary Reported in this meeting and Lucas, I know you have an opinion on this. Do I need to read this

[233:00] Yes, please read it. The conditions Approval include one App and She'll be responsible, completing the work in compliance with the Approved Plans except this modified with these conditions of Approval to prior to Submitting a Building Permit Application final Issuance of the Landmark Alteration Certificate the Applicant, she'll Submit, the Following which Shell be subject to find a review and approval by Landmarks, Design Review Committee, Ldrc. To ensure that the final design is consistent with the general design guidelines, and the Downtown Urban sign guidelines, in the intent of this Approval, a final architectural Plans, that include one Consider Editing Interest, to Champer Corner, and Break up Monolithic Surfaces to Modify Kick, Plate on East, and North Elevations 3, demonstrate location, signage, and Consider, Adding Sign Bands for Consider Articulating Parapet, Cat or Cornice, 5. Revised height and length of onnings to Better Relate to Pedestrian Scale and Adjacent building 6 Revised White Paint Color on Corner to be more Subdued 7 Revised Dark Crowd 8 Add Window, and Door Opening Trim 9.

[234:12] Add Score, line to break Up, Facades, 10, Consider, Exposing, Articulating Headers, and then 11, provide Details for all Extterior Materials, including Doors, and Windows, and Lighting. Thank you. Ronnie is there a second Awesome. I'll second it Okay, thank you Bill for seconding it any additional discussion or amendments to the motion. Alright. I. Alright. Okay, hearing none. We'll do a roll, call, vote Bill, Chelsea, John Ronnie, and I, vote I. So the Mash at the Motion passes unanimously. So thank you

[235:00] And thank you for your presentation. Yes. Yeah, thank you. Thank you so much. Good night. Yeah, looking, looking forward, to seeing this come to, fruition. Go online It's gonna really be an improvement on that corner Yeah. Alright. Thanks for your, input and we look forward to getting back in front of the the Review. Hi! Board here soon I'm sure you are. Not not our review, board. I thought I told you I thought we'd love you a softball Thank you. Close I do appreciate the input though thank you Thank you so much. Hey, guys. Thank you. So we're ready to move on to agenda. Item 5, C Public Hearing, and Consideration of an application to Demolish a Portion of the Street Facing All at 5, 50 Thirteenth Street, a Non, Landmarked Building over 50 Years, Old Pursuant to section 9 1123, of the Boulder Revised Code

[236:08] Thank you, Abby, I will go through the quasi-judicial hearing for procedures. Again. All speaking to the item will be so sworn in, and Board members will note any ex party contacts I'll give the staff presentation after that the Board May ask Questions, the Applicant will have 10 min to present to the Board and the Board may ask Questions and We'll open the Public hearing after all Members of the public have made comments. The applicant may respond to anything that was said. Well, then ask everyone to mute their computers, and the Board will Deliberate. The motion requires an affirmative vote of at least 3 Members to pass motions must State findings, conclusions, and recommendation, record of this Hearing will be available in a couple of days and within 28 days We'll have the official record Updated so previously reviewed at

[237:03] Ldlc, by Ronnie and Bill on October Nineteenth, so back to you, Abby for Exporte Contacts Thank you. Bill in the X Parte Contacts Are you Sorry. Yeah, I was muted. No. Chelsea No no So. Thank you, Abby, so as noted in the agenda, the Criteria for review, is outlined in the boulder revised code under 9, 1123, the purpose of reviewing demolition applications is to prevent the loss of buildings, that may have Historic or Architectural Significance, that Includes Loss of Architectural Integrity, to provide the time necessary to initiate Designation as an Individual Landmark or to Consider Alternatives

[238:09] The criteria that can be considered are the eligibility of the building for a designation, as an individual landmark, their relationship of the building, to the character of the neighborhood, the reasonable condition of the building, and the protected, Costs, restoration, or Repair alone, not Deterioration caused by Unreasonable, unreasonable, Neglect The options for the board today are to approve the demolition. If the Board Finds, the building does not have historic significance, or if the Board Considers, the changes, and not Detrimental or to Place the Stay of Demolition, for 100, and 80 Days, to consider Alternatives, to Demolition the Stay Would Expire on May Eighth, 23 which is 100, And 80 days from the date the Landmarks Board Hearing Fee was paid the third option is to Initiate Landmark Designation.

[239:07] If that were to happen with schedule and initiation, hearing within 45 days of that decision So the process. So far for this property, staff referred the application to the Landmarks design review, Committee, which reviewed the Application and We're referred it to the Lammarks Board on October Nineteenth finding Probable Cause to Believe the Building, Might be Eligible for Landmark Designation, the hearing Fee was paid on November the Ninth. So any questions about the Process, or Options, and I want to point out that this is a partial demolition. Which we don't do very often at the at this level, So if you had any questions please ask cause. I keep asking them.

[240:00] So you won't be alone Good. Okay. So 5 50 Thirteenth Street is at Columbine and Thirteenth in the Lowest Chatauqua Neighborhood it's right. Here, the front of the House Faces onto Thirteenth Street, which is and hidden behind the lines, here There's an alley access from the fourteenth street, Allie to the Rear of the Property, and That's this is the Alley back here. The house is located just outside of the University Hillary Survey Area, which is shown in green on the map. Here it was constructed outside of the proposed period of Significance, identified for the Survey which was 1,800, and 92 through 1,952, and the Nearby, Historic Districts, Include, Chautauqua, Park Floral, Park Sixteenth, Street, and

[241:18] University place, all surrounding that area. The Single-story, modernist, Branch House was constructed in 1,960. 4. It has an l gable gables at the Site and rare. The House was designed by Mary Soon Mullins, walking with the original Owners, John and Peggy, Archibald the Front of the House includes a Semisircular Driveway, you can just about see it in the Snow here that Passes, a Brick Screen That's topped by the Raf Details of the Building, The front door is behind this brick screen, which is a somewhat typical design style.

[242:03] For a 1,964 modernist Ranch, Other typical elements of the style include linear asymmetrical, one story facade, an emphasis, on the Horizontal Form Borden, Baton, Siding, which you can See on this Image this is the the Front Door behind the Screen, which is here these are the Rafter. Tails, a low-pitched roof, with wide overhanging eaves. Which you can also see on this Image Emphasis on the Rear of the Building, as the Place, the residents of the House were Active rather than at the Front, and built in Garage So moving around the building, we can see some of those elements. This is the South elevation, this this image here is from the rear of the House, so this, this is the front, right here, this side, you can see the the side, cable with a very low pitched, roof the lower windows, appear to be original Sliding Windows, and

[243:14] You can see the original Trapezoid, clear story windows under the eaves, as you can see the better. In this image, right here, and here, there's also a wide, low chimney at this elevation, again, pretty typical of a mid 1960. Design. This is the rear, the the East, elevation that faces the Alley, there are 2 single car garages built into the house with the clear starry Windows, and Exposed purlins which you can't really see behind the tree but you Can see in this Image, here the Upper, Story, is frame, with

[244:00] The Borden Batten, Sighting and Lower Level is concrete, and there is a full width, duck at the rear here Continuing around. This is the the north, elevation, Again, this this picture is from the rear of the house. So this is the front, over here again. You can see the the side gable with the the low pitch. So we've not been able to obtain any additional historic images of this house, this is from the Tax Assessica that taken in about right after the House was completed the the Increased height on the on the screen Wall which you can See the the Wall has was increased by Height by about 5 courses. Is the only significant modification that we identified.

[245:01] So there is a high level of historic integrity. To this house And again, this is shows how intact the house is. This is the tax assessment Sketch from 1,964. And the current survey. You can see the the footprint is identical. There's been no additions to the House, since it was constructed in this, is the screen wall here, This is the chimney, the re, deck here, and in the garage back here. The house was a design designed by Mary Sue Mullins, or to quote a daily camera article from 1,965. They described it as a Mullins planned residence, zoom. Mullins was not a formal architect, but designed, more than 300 buildings, as a sideline to raise her family, she moved to boulder in 1,960 from Texas, where she had designed a approximately 100.

[246:06] Buildings, when I spoke to Peggy Archibald who was the previous and original Owner of the House she told me that when she and John purchased her Husband John Purchased the lot, to opposite the Mullins House on Thirteenth Street, they were Already Friends and Sue asked if she Could sketch out some ideas for their new house, which which she did, and apparently the Designs were a little wild for for John, but he was impressed with her work and asked sue, to design a more conservative House with with their collaboration the Archibald's lived in the House from 1,964, until Peggy sold it this year Sue went on to design other houses in Boulder and including eightes in the gum, Barrel country, Club Area, which is not within the City Limits, currently in addition, she designed Buildings, in Texas

[247:07] Arizona, California and Internationally So the proposed. For this building is not a full demolition. The the definition of a demolition that requires historic preservation, demolition review includes Removal of a portion of a Street, Facing Wall the Proposal Includes Removal of 2 Base of the of the Screen, Wall I. Don't know how these pictures kind of got smashed together this is at the top here the existing and you can see that there are 6 phase here and the procedure is to remove the the 2 southernmost ones and the adjoining material here to Expose the Front Door.

[248:01] And then Remove courses of the brick to reduce the height of the remaining wall In addition, the Overhanging roof at the south end of the West Elevation Wall is proposed to be removed and replaced with a Flat Roof. As you can see, this is the existing, and this is the propos but the flat roof. Here, this is the rendering of the proposed we considered that the proposed modification of the Roof line would be PE potentially detrimental to the historic character of the building, as the reform Slope and overhang at the eaves are a Character defining Feature of The house, the the Code Boulder revised code says that if the if a Modification Doesn't retain fully Framed and Sheathed Roof above that Portion of the Remaining Building, to which Such Wool is Attached, it is considered Demolition and the

[249:09] Intent of that part of the code is that significant changes to the roof would damage the integrity of the building, to the point where it would become ineligible for future designation the modification of the street facing Screen wall, could Be considered appropriate the original Plans for the House Demonstrate that the change is consistent with the original design intent of the architect. So to summarize staff Beliefs that the House may be elevated for designation, based on its significant it only needs to meet one of these criteria. So all oops ref with you some key points. It may be significant for the association with Mary Soon Mullins.

[250:06] Soe pictured here and 2 daily camera articles from 1,965, and 1,971. During this timeframe Architecture was still very much a Male dominated profession, and Zoom Moans work, as a female, architectural Designer added that Female perspective to the development, of the community In addition, the the House is a Recognizable Style and Typical of Contemporary Ranch, Architectural Design, it is Architectural, Architect Designed and Arguably was constructed by a Notable Builder from Longmont To a lesser Degree. The location has environmental significance due to the mature vegetation on the site

[251:03] The Wellington Heights Low Chautauqua Area, it includes. Diverse architectural styles, that reflect changes in Tastes and Lifestyles, during a wide spanning period from about 1,900. And 7, when it was first platted through the I will Let the Applicant Talk About the Condition of the Building and their Projected Cost, but the this was the information, We'll receive from them, when the Memo was written So we have a recommended motion that would assume that the the Board Finds, the Building Potentially Eligible the the Changes, would be detrimental, and this is where this becomes somewhat more complicated than a full Demo in that the board can review the the Eligibility of the building and if

[252:08] they decide that the building is eligible, whether the Proposed changes would be detrimental to a future Hypothetical Designation, And then we also have an alternative. Motion, should the the Board, find that the building may be eligible for designation, but the changes are not significant, which is that the second option for the Board. Good anyone have any questions. Yes, is this quite. I'm sorry. Who's speaking. Chelsea, go ahead. No don't. We have an option. Sorry yes, okay. Well, don't we have a third option, which is to allow the allow the application to move forward

[253:10] This one, this one would allow the application to move forward. You could also find that the building is not eligible. Yeah That is another option. Yeah. Okay, So there's 3 options. Okay, so I have a question based on the very thorough and direct letter that we receive from Peggy Archibald who was the original owner and builder, with her husband, John and she was extremely Clear, and direct about the fact that Sue Mullins. Who was not an architect. At the time did not design this house. Her husband, John did, and Sue just help drop the plans according to John's Initial Sketches, Designs, and vision for the Home. So like I how so much of the memo and the the reasonings for why this building met criteria for historical significance, are based on Zoom mollins, being the architect and so I.

[254:18] Just can we just have a discussion about like this new information that came to bear. And how that impacts the information that we've received, and how to handle that Yeah, I have to. I have to. Second, Chelsea's question. I found that memo very compelling an interesting in that. It wasn't clear. I I think I think that the way to proceed is a discussion about the form of the House itself, the design of its of it rather than getting into the issue of the personalities, involved in its creation

[255:03] Well, Shawn, if you would I would like to address that and I think this is unique as the Building is Bill rely and not that we still are able to get firsthand Accounts about the the construction, of the building and they're still Conflicting our research was based on a conversation with Miss Archbald, her daughter and contemporary newspaper accounts from the time and the letter that we received in the last couple of days, Contradict some of what We Understood on the Telephone, Call and So I Don't think it, Detracts from the research, and analysis. It's one component of what makes the building potentially significant and I would say it is remarkable that that zoom Mollins was a designer, and I think that we need to be careful about gatekeeping.

[256:03] About who is an architect. What school they went to what accreditation they had when in reality it was very very unique, that a female was in the architecture, Profession, and design different Houses and so I hope that clears it up I think that Agreement is that Zoomolens had a hand in designing the Building and also Design numerous, other buildings, both in Texas, and Colorado. Yeah, and I, I, wanna, say, I completely agree that her designs should be credited. But it sounds very clear that she did not design this particular property. So I guess I wanna kinda like tease out the fact that I want to celebrate her in her designs, but also acknowledge based on like she wrote it very clearly and I understand maybe there, was a conversation.

[257:10] But like this was unequivocal, the way that Peggy sent that email and so well, I completely respect and want to celebrate the Female architects of course but like it just this she Didn't she wasn't the Architect, of this. Particular building, right or I think what we know. We have these conflicting accounts of the design process from over 50 years ago. And I think I would describe it as a it's certainly a collaboration between a designer, and a homeowner, and so whether one was an architect, one had a stronger, hand, or not I would say zoomolens, was certainly involved in the design and that's, docked up from

[258:04] The newspaper articles. Yeah and I mean, Peggy acknowledged that she was a part of helping to basically, bring John's design to life with the drawing. So I think, like, yeah, but she wasn't the architect, or the designer of this building. And I just want to like I just want to be moving on like a foundation of facts, as we talk about this And Yeah, I mean, i'm gonna pile on here with you Chelsea, because and John as well, I mean, that letter was very compelling and this woman, and I and I agree, with what you're saying Marcy, that it's, not just the fact, that this Person was Affiliated With this home, or not affiliated, is one. Thing the house does actually have to stand on its own regardless of who designed it, and architected it or built it, and we should at least look at it as you know, we would any other quote forvernacular, type of construction that might have happened you know at

[259:07] The turn of the century, by some, you know noteeworthy builder, who also had kind of a flare for you know, incorporating certain types of you, know, architectural styles, and now we venerate, some of that stuff, because It's so old so I agree with you on on That part for sure that the building should stand on its own. We should examine it regardless of who claims ownership of its design. However, this letter from Peggy, Archibald, the person, who was there during the process of how it was built, needs to be Consumed digested and and thoughtfully, you know, understood because she is as a prior owner.

[260:02] Hmm. Yeah And I would give her more I don't know respect isn't the word, but more pre creating it's because she was there at the time. The place was conceived and designed, so so I'm gonna take her word. She seems like a cogent you know, thoughtful. You know, together, person, and from the way she wrote this this message, she wants it to be understood that in no way shape or form like she said no way shape or form was was this building actually zoom owns design zoomones, was a transcriber according to a person who was right there at the time that this Was happening I don't know what other facts staff has to contradict that. But, according to the co-owner and person who was married to the guy that came up with the ideas. Sue was merely an interpreter of John's idea. The one thing I do agree with in all the things that Sue said here I'm sorry that Peggy said is where she she she kind of downplays herself.

[261:08] Her Family, and the house itself, and I I don't think you know that that's that's okay for her to have that opinion, but you know we have to stand on our own ideas, and our own Judgment, and yeah, it's nice. To know that she didn't, think that the building was any great shake, to to listen to her describe it it's just a box. John Ronnie and I have not Oh, hi! You know whatever. Whatever. but looking at the building it's a beautiful box it's something that some really put some interesting thought into and came up with a gore, I think a gorgeous structure, Regardless, of how much she wants to you know talk, it down What I think we may be starting to get more into contact. For our deliberation. So I would love to move to the applicants presentation.

[262:02] Yeah I know you guys started with this question, I think, marcy answered, it there's conflicting information, one of our options tonight, is this state that maybe could parse out some of that conflicting information, but anyway, i would love to proceed with the Applicant presentation if none of you have questions of Claire about her Presentation right now and then Hear from the public who's been waiting all evening. So with that said, is it aaron, Kennedy and I'm not sure Who's going to be doing the presentation, this evening for the Applicant. Yeah, I see. Erin here the And I think we are safe to close the public hearing. I have promoted Erin Okay. And then let us know who else my And Jennifer is here also And just excellent. Thank you.

[263:05] And Tom has his hand raised, so I think, Tom will also like to speak, so They'll also be public, is that for public comment, or during this minute? Thomas, the applicant. Oh, okay, thank you, thank you, Claire. And Erin Jennifer and Tom if you all speak when you do speak, just please, say you promised to tell the board the whole truth, and state your full name and I will you'll have 10 min. Total, however, you want to share that time, so the first speaker please go ahead, swear that you'll tell us that truth, and State your full name. Thank you And you, should each be able to control your microphones and your camera. We are not able to hear you. aaron, Tom or Jennifer. If you are speaking. We got you

[264:14] Yes. Hello, are we? Good, now, okay. Sorry. I'm aaron, Kennedy. And I swear to tell the truth tonight. Thank you, for your perseverance, and your endurance. Here, this evening, we really appreciate you. Know you've seen your way through this and and why don't I take you through this the new information that came to light this week. For all of us, you know, was a quite a revelation. So I have incorporated that in this presentation, but seems like you've all read that letter. And so we'll skip over those slides. But why don't we go ahead and take a look at the I think. I don't think I have control of this presentation. Or do. I, oh, yeah, maybe I do, so quick a background and Jennifer and I so just Jennifer grew up in Boulder went to Boulder High and Holds Engineering Degrees from Cu and from Northwestern she and I are raised, 2 children one of which is in

[265:05] the foreground, on the right Year, or Daughter Tests and New Information. For you, all is that actually Jennifer Graham in the home that Sue Mullins was sitting in and that black and white photograph in the in the Boulder Camera so she knows that House, and we we know her Architecture, perhaps better than than most of the people on this. On this board and it's all of the buildings. We know of her and Gun Barrel are much different than this. One which does reinforce the fact that this was probably not her design, so we'll show you a picture of one of the other ones along the way here as well, so anyway, my Background is Steeped in preservation as well, my Great-grandparents, moved to Boulder my Grandfather was a Doctor, in the Twentys Thirties, and fortys in boulder. My parents, founded the first school in the nation. Probably they believe for historic preservation, the conservation called Campbell Center for Historic Preservation, so I grew up with this my parents were Conservators, of Antique Furniture, and Wooden Objects worked for Museums

[266:14] and clients around the Midwest. So I know a lot about preservation, conservation. I appreciate it, and I've lived my whole life with it. Why don't we try and move into the next slide here There we go, so 5, 50 thirteenth Street, you're very best view of it. Is this time of year, when there are no leaves on the trees, otherwise it's pretty much invisible at the End of a Dead end. Street. So it's not a prominent building by any Stretch of the Imagination. It's quite quite a hidden building, but it's surrounded now I I shouldn't say surrounded on the north Side is a much newer building that sort of dominates over the top of it. Unlike when the black and white picture was taken. Why don't we go to the next slide, please

[267:09] So the area, by the way, we're not going to be removing 50% of the front of the building, nor 50% of the Roof, we kind of fall into this little Glitch in the code, I believe we're actually keeping the Front Facade, of the of the Home, itself, exactly the way, it is right Now it's we're not moving it. We're not changing the Board and Baton, We're, not you know trying to expand it or anything we're going to we'd like to elevate, this far Side, of the Building to Let more Light in the Original Owners, of the Building, which I'll explain to you in a second had extensive art collection in there the Archibalds did, and they did everything they could to reduce the light that came into the building presumably to protect their artwork, so we'd like to open it, up and bring a little more light

[268:00] And air, into the I was trying to click it forward. There, but I don't know who has control. Claire has Control But do. I have control. No oh, Claire, could you move it forward? Thanks. So i'm gonna skip the letter. I'd highlighted some things. But let's skip that. I think you've all read that okay. So why don't we talk about our intentions? For the building. Our intentions are to maintain the general design integrity of the home, we'd like to preserve the existing construction materials, and not move them all into a landfill that is an alternative for us, I suppose to pursue. The complete demolition of the building. But we're trying to do the opposite of that I hope you can respect and appreciate that we'd like to Do a gentle Exterior Update and again, as I said earlier to bring a little more light a little more Solar, Gain into the Home a lot of views to the outside, and we'd like to maintain the original brick, and the Board and Baton Exterior.

[269:03] When not intending to to change that we'd like to expose that front door to improve visibility and safety. Maybe if if you can still picture that. Imagine your five-year-old child going around the back side of that wall on Halloween to Trick, or treat or can you imagine being inside that home, when somebody comes and Knocks on the Door in the Dark and No one from the Street can See you that Wall We believe is a safety problem. So we think it's appropriate to shorten by those 2 sections that the Claire described, and we are prepared to invest at least a 1 million dollars to help you know bring this home up to code some of the things you talked about in the very beginning of this meeting 5 5, plus Hours Ago, which would include the insulation and you know the improve the window Rating, and the Applyances, everything, all, the appliances, and everything are you know well passed they're useful Lives, and the Electrical Wiring, and the in the H Back and everything Needs to be Upgraded It's, all basically Original as Far as We

[270:10] Can tell. Okay, let's move to the next slide. If we could clear So our assessment is that this idea of landmarking. The building is fairly weak, and we've talked about a little bit of the reason for that the Peggy, archer, ball piece. You know, I think what she just said, is that this home was not built nor designed by high Profile Noteworthy people in the trades, and that the Archibalds really developed a Conceptual Design, for this Home, so I did want to Point out that the other 2 Elements, so the Street facing view. We believe is not the most compelling example of a contemporary ranch. Architecture, in boulder, certainly not one of the most it's and we'll look at some pictures, later.

[271:00] Why we think that and we think that the Modest changes we're proposed into the building will certainly not make it out of character with our neighborhood. That should talk with a Lower Chatauqua neighborhood, and they'll certainly be consistent with the design theme of that period. And so let's Let's perceive for the next slide, please So the staff's finding was that the building. You know the property isn't an important example of contemporary ranch style. When we go to the next slide. You've heard that And we. Believe it's not a contemporary does have some of the design elements that we're commonly used during this period. Absolutely I. Totally agree with that, but the Owners commissioned the Home did not want to have this natural light Hitting their art collection as I mentioned before. So they built walls, and then they even extended that front wall higher, so less light could come in and less visibility into the Dining.

[272:01] What is a dining room today, windows and the House also doesn't bring the indoors the outdoors inside which was again very typical of that sort of Mid-century Style in the Era the Modest Adjustments were Proposing including a Portion of Flat Roof And a couple of additional windows are consistent with the Contemporary Ranch Architecture and probably make it a little bit better example of that style in that period. We believe elevating that right facade and adding some flat roof will create that aid symmetry. It was very typical of the mid-century period The house doesn't have an open floor plan, with combined living spaces, which again was part of the innovation that was happening, and that mid-century, it doesn't have that today but the changes that we will make will will do that we'll create a more open for plan, not that you're caring about the Floor plan, what do? We go to the next, slide. The second point was about. You know the property significant for its association with the Arctic Zoom, Allans, let's go to the next Point I'm Gonna Kind of Move through these Slides, a little quicker because You guys already have talked About this that it really wasn't Assume.

[273:13] Mullen's design, and the but you didn't really talk about the contractor. Some note was made about maybe this was some noteworthy architect from Longmont. It really wasn't he, he actually died either the next year, or the year after that when he was building a home in Longmont he hadn't really built that many homes, he was readily available and built this home in 3 months, time which I think says something about the Simplicity, of the Home which I'm fine with the simplicity of the home, but again, it's not like this, was some contractor that we need to be honoring and has has been honored. In the in the Bulgar County Area, let's go to the next slide. If we could clear So again, these are points, you guys have already talked about for the most part, except for a couple of other things.

[274:02] Point Number 2. Here, there's really No record of any Us Municipality holding either Mr. Or Mrs. Mullins, Mr. Mullins, and Mrs. Mullins, Sort of Owned, a Concern Firm together. They would, design, build, and live in their homes, which included the one home in Boulder, that they designed built and lived in and several a handful of Mountain gun barrel that was their Mode they didn't do that at street they only she participated, in the Draftsmanship, but they Did not build it, and they did not live in it, but that was what they did with most of their homes They I called down to Midland, Texas, where the Bulk of their homes, as Claire mentioned and spoke to the City Planner, and Who Manages, Historic Review, and that sort of Thing, Landmarking and she had Never heard of Zoom, Allans, Nor the Mullen's Family. So I thought that was kind of interesting in our hometown anyway.

[275:00] The city of Boulder had stated in their document. Claire Didn't mention it tonight that maybe the moments have developed the Island Green Neighborhood of Gun Barrel. They absolutely did not those who have been around for a long time, know that the Williams brothers did that and Tom Stewart was really the Primary Developer out there, built a 150 homes in the Island Greeting Area in the in the Mallans, did up to 8 of them So anyway We're Guarding, Female architects, our architect, which is mentioned here in the last part of this, that's at Tom works for Sarah, simple Brown, it's been in colorado, many of you may have heard of them for 40 years it's a female own firm more than 50% of the employees are females. And there were 33 licensed female houses in Colorado. At the time when Sue Mullins was in town, I was in Boulder, including Chris Lewis and Margaret Hannah, right there in the Boulder Good. So if you'd be kind enough to wrap up. The 10 min has expired

[276:00] Oh, has it? Okay. Let's flip through here, then really, quickly, yeah, so this is what's most of Zoom Mullen's designs looked like, they were more of this sort of what she called the Texas. Ranch. By the way. So this is one on the left is being remodeled in gun barrel right now the Owner, have never heard of Zoom. Months, let's go to the next one. If you could potentially detrimental, the horse. So we're gonna have to skip this piece right, I just wanna show you a couple of pictures here at the end. We don't think that the the changes are going to negatively affect the historic character. The building which I mentioned, and we're not trying to tear that home. Down. We can go to the next one, please. So this is again, drawings you've seen the the we believe are in keeping with the style of the Era. Let's go ahead next one And we kind of see that the existing character of the building. When you actually really get up to it is kind of like, prison, ranch or hidden ranch, because they're virtually, no Windows present, except for these too thin clear store windows, on each side of that wall so we think we can enhance and make it a a Bit more healing of a

[277:11] place to live. Let's go to the next one And again, We're not removing 50% of the roof or the the Front Wall, which is typically, what would trigger, this kind of a review, let's go to the next one So again, our theme is sort of preserve and evolve the building, and I think as Bill said earlier, just because that's the way it was back in the day, referring to the building Downtown Doesn't mean it was Tastefully, done or Appropriate for the Future and things do need to evolve a little bit. Let's see these last couple of pictures, and then we'll be done Yeah, we yes, thank you. We need to move on Yup, let's go to the next Y Just share these pictures, we're requesting your approval. Go ahead. So again, that's the view from the street. When the trees are have leaves on them, and the next one shows you know, that's the view, and again, you can't even really see any windows.

[278:00] Right, so and the next 2 pictures are very quick. This is a home up on Third Street. Very similar period. Nice piece of architecture. And here's what it looks like. Today go to the next picture and we're done, and that's not what we're asking you to approve right. We could be, but we're not. We want to do the opposite of that. Okay. So thank you for hearing me out appreciate the extra couple of minutes Yes, thank you so much any questions for Erin from the Board members before we move to public comment. No, but thank you for being here so late Yeah You, too! Okay, seeing and not hearing from any of my colleagues on the Board Will Move to public participation, Brenda, do you have any raised hands or We do have 2. Hands that have 3 hands that have been raised at this point, and some others who have hung with us all evening so I anticipate, we might have some more, hands. Pop.

[279:09] Up solve director again to the bottom of your screen. Where you'll find your raise hand, button in the meantime we will start with Tom winter followed by Shelly Weiner, sorry if I'm not pronouncing that Correctly followed by eileen winter so I will Unmute, you Tom and then Abby will swear you in before your Timer. Starts. We can still hear you. Yes. Oh, Tom disappeared. Oh, there's Tom! Okay, alright, and go ahead, Tom. I'm, you should see your mute button, and you'll want to push that Here, I'll give you a has to unmute

[280:01] Thank you, apologies. So wow! I well, I introduced myself earlier. It was very interesting to look at that per, own Fourteenth Street Project And and here, you guys discuss it, it's. Been quite a educational process for me, a bit of my background. I'm from Boulder Originally I never. Thought I'd end up back here, but here I am pushing midnight on a Wednesday my I have a background, as a research historian at the Smithsonian I'm also a Journalist to cover real Estate and Architecture and Design for a Couple of Decades, for a Variety Of Consumer, Magazines. I've also been happily involved in renovating my own projects, including one of the original Ski Cabins in Vale and most recently a 500 plus year Old Stone Tower in Italy in the Italian Alps so I've got my hands, Dirty that

[281:00] Way I'm planning as I mentioned earlier to begin an architectural degree. This January and I, just wanna make a couple general points. I do know both Peggy Archbald fairly well and I did have the pleasure of knowing Zoom, Mullins, personal so I do know that kind of the players in this Game I want to see that the story that's produced by the the Staffers is compelling you know Claire and Marcy obviously are are emotionally attached to the idea of a unknown newly discovered female architect in Boulder, who did works but I do want to point out in generally as a research. Historian, and a journalist, that we have to be, Careful of letting our Biases, Shape, our interpretation of the Facts, and and it for us to avoid facing facts, that might not be Fit with the Narrative I think Peggy's, been pretty Clear About what what happened with this with the

[282:12] Property in question, and I I want to talk a little bit about Sue's Designing Sue, Love, natural Light, she Love, big Windows Lots of Sun Open Floor Plans I know this from from being quite Familiar with with stuff that you did for herself, the Archibald House, is very dark and Very close. It's really not like anything else. You did. Yes, and what's against where, to tell the board the whole truth, Tom, thank you And I think that kind of points to the fact that the provenance is slightly different it doesn't really fit the narrative that we've heard from the staff or And I I also would like to say that the proposed rent of the Property add a lot of the elements That Sue probably would have put in if she was going to Live there herself. But

[283:02] Oh, knowing her and being quite familiar with the design, she did love natural, light she loves sl Story Windows, she loved bringing the Outdoors, into Properties, and I speak for personal experience so that's kind. Of my comments to this. So thank you very much for listening to me. Thank you for your time tonight Thank you, Tom for speaking and your time has expired. Great. So thank you, and I'm sorry, Brenda. The next person to speak is Charlie Weiner, which I'm sure I'm not pronouncing correctly. So when Abby swears even you'll have a chance. To say, so you should be able to unmute now I swear to tell the whole truth. My name is Chally weiner, you are very close in the Pronunciation.

[284:01] So anyways, I will be brief due to the time and how late it is, I support what Tom says I wanted to follow up regarding our support for my husband and myself on the remodel of 5 50 Thirteenth Street we look directly next door to the North and So we're neighbors. We have lived in our home, for about 22 years, and did extensive remodel, we had the so we were the first home to do remodel in the Neighborhood over 20 years, ago, had Support of the neighborhood and it's a very unique Neighborhood, because People, by homes, and they stay typically for a long time. And I think that's what makes our commit our neighborhood, and community very unique.

[285:05] Peggy and John Archibald designed their home, and they were the sole owners, until they sold it this last year. I'm also in residential real estate, I co-listed it with Eileen, so I know the home very well from a business standpoint, and also as a neighbor, and friend of the Archibalds, and so I can see how what the Kennedys want to Do is I think Erin said it. Perfectly is Preserve and Evolve, the home and bring it into the 20 first century. It really needs to be done there's no natural light in the name, in the home, and from what we can tell from their remodel plans.

[286:01] It's very thoughtful, and keeps with the architectural, integrity of the Home and We'll add value not only to the home, but to the neighborhood, as well, and so you know we really hope they get swift Approval, to move Forward with their plans, so that They're very Efficient, and Time And before we start the 3 min Time, or just please where, to tell us the full truth, and state your full name Isn't Wasted and financial resources. As well, so we're really we're thrilled about their proposal. And I just wanted to be here and show her support so that's it Thank thank you so much for joining us tonight and staying up late with us, Brenda Who's next Next, we have Eileen winter, and she is the last hand that I see up now, so I will invite anyone else who's interested in speaking during public comment for this item, to please raise your hand.

[287:01] Now in the meantime, we will turn to eileen winter, and Abby will swear you in Yes, if you'd be kind enough to swear to tell the board. I swear to tell the whole truth, and my name is Eileen Winter. I'm also a long time Thirteenth Street Resident and a real estate agent, who co-hosted this with chally I also live in a house that's Su molens, built I have a lot of light and not a lot, of darkness and I'm Very familiar with 550 Thirteenth Street, I'm also I also know new zoom, mullins. she was a lovely charismatic woman. I also know her daughter Roselle, who I spoke with that length after Claire Contact or Contractor multiple times to try to you know just you know, talk to Roselle and I talked to Peggy it, was Roselle that Approximately 3 weeks ago, inform me that Claire had contacted her

[288:13] About her late mother in this conversation, roselle told me that her mother was actually not an architect, which I believed until 3 weeks ago. I think this narrative might have started with my description of the property. So I think at this point, I did try to contact Claire, but I never received a call back. I left to messages. I can talk to Marcy about that at a later date. But what I'm working to address is boulder code 9, 11, one a which is the purpose in legislative intent, which states that one of the City's Goals is to stabilize. Enable neighborhoods. Are you guys familiar with that Anyhow. That is one of the boulder codes, 9, 11, one a and one of its Goals, is stabilizing neighborhoods if the Landmark, Commission Chooses to Delay, their decisions, on Five-five- Thirteenth, Street, for another 6, Months, the Kennedys, Will.

[289:16] Be forced to rent their property my property at 5, O. The full truth and state your name. You will have 3 min One Thirteenth Street at the end of the call to sack is already surrounded by 4 rental properties, 5 25 Thirteenth Street, 513 Street, 1235 Mariposa, 1225 Mariposa, Additionally 1,300, and 80 or 1,300, and 80, Fourteenth, Street. across the Alley, from the Kennedys is also a rental. Problem. If the Kennedys are forced to rent their property. This will be 6 rental houses in our neighborhood of 9 houses, which used to be occupied by full-time year-round residents, who were once committed to the immediate neighborhood and larger Community of Boulder our Media environment has now become transient, with little of the neighborhood, community we used to

[290:02] know, and cherish. It's very concerning to the homeowners and myself that due to the difficulties in renovating properties, such as this, is creating a situation where it's easier to wrap Properties, than go through the Expense and headache at Room Improving them as a result, our neighborhood, has been hollowed out by Reynolds, contrary to Code 9, 11, one. A rental Homes, destabilized neighborhoods which is completely counteractive to this code. I've spoken with many homeowners, on Thirteenth Street, Columbine and Mariposa, about the Kennedy's Plans to add more light to 5 50 Thirteenth, Street, so Far No Neighbor has had Issues, with the new Plans which were actually designed by a Talented License Architect, the proposed pants, Plants, are symbiotic, but. Yeah, I leave. We do need to ask you to to end your comments. Now, thank you Hi, Ellen we have to have you, my apologies.

[291:03] I don't like muting people, but we do have to be fair, and giving each person who speaks just their 3 min to speak Our next speaker, is Lynn, Siegel, and she is the last one that I have on the list tonight. So, Lynn, I am unmuting you now, and Abby will ask you to swear in I agree. Then Kennedy. Do you know, do you know, Kennedy, that an 8,000 square foot estate at the basis, at the at the Convection of Flagstep and and Baseline is being Demolished through Ldrc this your case Share been Ldrc no one Should have spent 5 min on this house. Clearly it should go through yes partial. This demo, list. Good, I'm gonna ask you to not yell at a community member. Hear me. I'm not yelling at him. I am telling him.

[292:00] Who isn't tonight. We want Yeah, yeah, mute, you briefly, I'm gonna ask you to stick to this agenda. Item, which is not what you're commenting on at this moment so I'm gonna ask aubrey to start the timer again, we're gonna start your 3 min again, and we ask you to stick to this Agenda, topic, which is not what you are just Addressing, and if We Can't. Do that. Then I'm gonna have to remove your permission to talk for the rest of the Evening Thanks. Lynn let's try again. Do. Does he know, do you know, Kennedy about this 8,000 square foot estate built a flagstone fireplace is being demolished through ldrc the landmarks, design Review Committee, this is unacceptable completely unbelievable almost 10 it's almost unchanged what brenda is You are not putting duct tape on me Brenda, this is my lousy. 3 min. Now this house should have gone through Ldrc, not through Landmarks. Board. It should have taken all of 5 min to take down these 2 panels, and all the all 6 events should go down in my opinion. Clearly this is a benefit to this house, to have this right-sided Usonian, you know solar, basically it's you, Sonian, It's beautiful.

[293:00] It adds to the place, and it will never be to need to be demolished. Why did you spend an hour on this? Why why circle drive got nothing at Ldrc, you know 1,500. Mariposa got 10 min before the woman was cut off With a $400 utility bill. This is about environmental stuff, that's what you were talking about. Earlier tonight Just isn't done. Jonathan Cohen hasn't seen it carbon footprint. No one's thinking of that There's, an a an elegant beauty between environmental concerns, and historic preservation. A Rock Counts completely demolished at the top of the hill.

[294:04] And this. Yeah, Brenda, right and this is a simple Addition, it's not, and if it makes it unmal landmarkable, so what the people care enough to keep it to preserve it to add it gracefully on that right side How can you spend an hour on this? Can you sleep at night This was a no brainer. Minutes. Bang done go on to the next What kind of a landmark board is this You know, a sterile application of a building it in the center of Pearl Street, Mall.

[295:05] That was a no brainer, too. No. So simple, 6 h 6 h of nothing, except the East Side of fourteenth, and pro, that was it. The last 6 h, that's how you spend your time.

[296:01] Lid, near time is 5 Go ahead. Thank you, Brenda and Erin. You would you have 3 min to respond to anything you heard in public comments. Thank you, Abby you know honestly, I I think it's it's all been said. And it's it's late, so I think I'm just gonna turn it back to you Okay. Thank you So now, we will be moving on to board discussion. I ask that everyone, mute, your computer, phone, for the duration, of this discussion. I don't know who'd like to go first. You know, Bill typically we'd start with you and I. Don't know. If you'd like to go first

[297:03] Okay, I I pushed it off the Ronnie and John, too. Many times, tonight, This I think I said something earlier, when we were kind of kinda talking Out of Turn. It seemed about the unusual situation, we're kind of confronted with here Landmarking potential landmarking, I mean, we're not talking about necessarily landmarking, this place. But we have to understand that if we go to a stay, we might have to say that there's a reason we're going to that day, because there's potential the thing could be landmarked, so I guess we're gonna need to kind of hash that out here. Decide. If the Structure is Potentially Landmarkable, in order to either move to the Stay, or or forego this Day, I've Kind of Come to the Conclusion, from Everything That I've, Read not necessarily from anything Anybody, has said, Publicly Tonight, but from what I've

[298:22] Read, from the from the Commentary coming through email, that we're looking at a property, that could stand on its own regardless of who the Architect was so I Don't see the Architect or the Designer who whatever you want to Call, that person, that came up with these Ideas as being no. See this, the deciding factor, whether or Not Zoom ons was the person that put pen to paper and had the ideas. I'm already I've already decided that she was that she was merely a transcriber, just judging from a an eyewitness, that was there at the inception of the of the drawing of this property so for me it's come down to does this property as it stands

[299:14] Hold a type of integrity. like we've looked at for anvernacular builders have done the turn of the century. Is there something about this house, regardless of who constructed it, or who thought of it, that merits? Special consideration is potentially landmarkable. So that's where I think we have to Frame, the the Discussion for Me anyway. Thank you, Bill Chelsea, would you like to weigh in next Yeah, i'm ready. I I've been ready all night. It's now the morning. Okay. It serves happy Thursday. Now, be be careful. Chelsea is the work that's weird. You know I'm a night owl, so I'm just waking up. When it gets this late cause, he's But this point, no. Okay, so I agree with people that we should look at how the what you know, what makes this property, potentially, historically significant.

[300:04] And have, you know, be eligible for an individual landmark, and the only way that I can do. That is to just look at what we've been given. So For example, so under criterion, one individual, landmark, eligibility, So under historical significance. It says that it meets the significance under criteria, 2, and 3. So criteria 2, is association with persons or events with is Mary soon Millins, and then 3. Is distinction in the development of the community, which was the female architect, and I think our best account. You know, we have secondhand information from other people, and we have a first hand account from the person who owned it, and built it. So I think we have to take give precedent to that person, and according to her

[301:07] This the the descriptions that articulate how this property meets criteria, 2 and 3 are no longer relevant route based on that new information. So then moving on to architectural Significance it says, that it meets the significance under criteria, 1, 2, 3, and 4. So we have one is the contemporary custom ranch. I don't think anyone can disagree with that. And then we have 2, which is the architect or Builder of prominence, which again, is Mary Sue, millin, so I don't think that that's relevant anymore, 3. Is our Testic, artistic merit which I have a question about because it says, custom, build so it says that

[302:03] That the addition of trapzoid I don't even I don't want to try to pronounce these words, but I guess my question is so it says. You know describes it, and then says our feature of our a feature, our typical of contemporary ranch houses, but signify, a custom build so I guess i'm, wondering does the fact that a home is a clust build. Automatically, give a home artistic merit, and that's a question for Marcy or Claire. I just I don't personally know. So I it's a question Yeah, I think the intent there is that there was a design intent. Using these characteristics that were popular in the age. So I would say in general when there is a designer involved, or when it's a custom, home it does have artistic merit, so that's not the only definition of it

[303:07] Okay. Cause. Artistic merit could also be like the combination of the say on a different building, stone, Right it's in Glass, wind, like that it's the Accumulation of of those Elements, that result in Artistic, Merit. Okay, so It Seems like a low bar. But okay, I mean, it's basically the features of the Home were typical of the time, and therefore it has artistic merit. I guess it what would like what building built in this time? Well. Wouldn't have artistic merit I is a question. I don't Yeah, let me let me state that again, it's not that it has elements. Popular of of its Time. That good gives it artistic merit. It's, that it was designed in that way, with those elements.

[304:03] But there was a design intent behind it I I think, Marcy the the way I would put. Oh, I want to jump in on this is that artistic merit is obtained. By how combination of materials and forms is expressed. It's the experience part of it, in other words, there are there are certain materials that are characteristically and routinely used. In construction, like brick. If you do something unique with how the brick is stacked, or you do something interesting about how the color is mixed or those are the kinds of things that I would think would be I. Guess the basis of saying something has artistic merit. Well.

[305:00] If if it's done, if it's uses, ordinary materials in an ordinary way, it's it's that that would not be expressive in a way that you would say, as any particular merit Well, I guess that's why have the question, because it describes it and then says, these are features are typical of a house for this time. So I guess it's just. I'm trying to understand what what makes something artistically Meredith. That that's worked. But anyway, okay, so that's crazy, or 3. And then I have a question of so number 4, example of the Uncommon, where it says so the screen wall, I think that's the Exterior screen, wall, and I just I'm trying to Make sense of this because this, is what We're using to Base these Decisions Off of but it, says.

[306:00] Although somewhat typical of the House of this time, period, the salvage brick screen wall. Is somewhat unusual, so is it somewhat typical or somewhat unusual, like I am trying. I don't know how to interpret this Good! Well, I I can express my opinion on that I I think that in in looking at the Images of going around the House, Provided tonight, and and I'm not Personally familiar with this house I think that it had it had carried Characteristics Common in houses of that time, were built that were not particularly custom. They were, they were pretty much standard, I mean ways to do. These types of things, in houses and and that at that time period the screen wall that's on the front of the House Is Kind of a superficial element, that's Kind of Additive, to what is otherwise not particularly Exceptional, Modernist Facade, it it it one of the Things, That's Compelling About

[307:25] The house is the degree to which it's completely intact with its original form. But that alone is not a basis to say that it has sufficient merit to be considered a historic property, and and I have to say at this point is is, that I know Sarah simple, because I worked for Sarah simple very early in my career. And she's one of the finest, architects in Colorado. So a and you know it's outside of what we're discussing at this time, but

[308:05] As usual and in Hand, on whatever project that it's involved with. So. Can can I jump in, I I think Chelsea was kind of on a role with the like diagnostic. Yeah, well, I'm okay, with that all back off. I I feel like I. I totally agree with what John is saying. But maybe the author of the What? What you just reported, should respond to your question quickly and then Chelsea. I really appreciate the way in which You're Kind of Systematically going through this. It's very helpful, I think, for all of us. I'm Compelled to you, know, I'm thinking, like John right now. Second. Thank you appreciate it. Yeah, so If the person who wrote that in the Memo can explain how although somewhat typical. It's also somewhat unusual like, I just how do I interpret that

[309:09] It, yeah, and I and I think we could have been more clear in that piece, the screen walls. You find those in mid-century buildings. I think going over there entrance, creating this, public private, sort of relationship with the door is unusual. So I think we could have said that more clearly. But that's what Okay, yeah, thank you and then, okay, so then for environmental significance, we it says, it meets under criteria, 3, and 5. But under Geographic importance, it says, none observed. I'm assuming it just meant one, and 5. Okay, So it has mature, vegetation and the area integrity Wellington Heights, but then it's not surveyed.

[310:06] So I just Is that typical. Like it's just. It's in an area. I guess I don't know is that is that what makes sense fall like meet. A certain criteria. I I'm No I mean not every, not everywhere in boulder is surveyed, and our surveys are now getting to be 40 years old, or so so that is a a staff kind of analysis looking at the Surrounding area, which is what it. Asks us to do in terms of the area integrity. Does it still have, a character that that's intact or whatnot. So I think that one is is less clear, I mean, it doesn't have to be in a potential historic district, to meet the area integrity, and as we state.

[311:06] It includes diverse architectural styles. That represent quite a range of of houses. And still So it meets the Significance under Create Criteria 5 because it's in that Willington, Wellington Heights, even though it's not a Surveyed Area. Okay. Yeah, an area doesn't have to be surveyed to be, yeah, to be there Okay, so I think, that goes through the majority of the pieces. I guess when I look at this, and if you you know take out the Criteria, how it meets! Certain criteria.

[312:02] If you take out the pieces, around Mary Sue Mullins being the architects, I just I don't see that there's much and I understand we have to look at it from a architectural significance, and there is you know there is that but it's there's. Oh! Just. There's not a lot there. And I think that the proposal that's been brought forward by the applicant is a proposal that to me, at least like really celebrates the era in a way that makes this House more livable and you know to me historic buildings are only as important As the happiness of the people who live in them, and if if they are living in a dark den they're not celebrating this building every day, and neither is anybody else, because no one can see it. But I just I feel like the I don't mean to go on, but I the integrity of the landmarks program.

[313:08] To me rests on the factual basis, by which we consider something historically significant and I just it's I don't think that this based on the facts that we have that this does that and I I would just to let everyone know where I am because it's late, and probably one to get to a Conclusion fast is that I would like to move forward with approving the stay because I I don't think there's any new information that we're gonna get between now and 6 months from now and Construction Costs, are just going up and I think we have an obligation and a Duty, to act Swiftly when we have the information in front of Us. So that is my But I thought I'd jump in and say that cause I I know keeping on track for you will keep us on track with this thought That's my case. Chel Chelsea, did you mean that you would like to move forward with approving the demolition? Because you said you wanted to move forward with approving the stay.

[314:03] Yeah It's late Good, but Yes. Oh, yeah. Sorry. Approving the listen, approving the devin? Listen. Not not moving forward with this day Okay, thank you, Laura, because I heard, too, that approving it, placing his stay Sorry it's late I know it is or early John did you have anything to add? Well, I was, I yeah, I was. I was just getting to I I don't. Think I don't feel like this has any kind of modernist significance. That is worthy of holding the up frankly, I I feel like the proposal, is an enhancement to the design and to what design in 10 there is. There that was not fully realized at the time the house was built because of other Funal considerations.

[315:06] Namely, the art Collection and and other things. And I I just feel like this is one we should probably allowed to move forward I know you were starting to Ronnie I'd really love to hear Bill's position again. And I have some thoughts that I'd like to share. But Bill, could you just restate your summary? There. Yeah, And I want to add, because I have my hand up Many of the Usual points that we use to judge historical significance to the properties are missing from this particular property as far as I can see but not all of them, and the one big one that I'm kind of hanging on here is I have not physically seen, this House I haven't

[316:18] Gone out to it. I haven't looked at it. I can't I'm not an architect like you were John. I can't look at this thing from a distance, and say, Oh, that does or doesn't qualify. I would have to see it. as I normally do I mean cause all I've been looking at here just been you know even when I drove by and I couldn't really see it so I would like to be able to see it for that reason I'd like to support a stay at least as long As it takes to get Landmark Board members out there to look at the property. Now, why would