February 1, 2023 — Landmarks Board Regular Meeting

Transcript

Captions from City of Boulder YouTube recording.

[6:24] Of Aubrey nobles screen. So we'll make sure that you see that as you speak, our first speaker is Patrick Aurora. Patrick, we're going to give you your mute button, and then Abby will swear you in before you begin. Welcome, Patrick, and if you will be kind enough to raise your hand at, swear to till the board the whole truth Thank you. I swear to tell the whole truth. Okay, good evening, everybody. I just wanted to touch, based on about 3 or 4 items. Number one is, I listen to the Parks and Recreation Board meeting on January 20, third, and it came up with their meeting on a conversation about having in person meetings that the position of the City Council is that unless there's health issues in person meetings are really being recommended and so

[7:23] I just wanted to know. Cause I looked at your agendas and all your meetings tonight, and in the future all virtual. And I'm just concerned that, you know. Maybe this would be time to to flip that switch and get to these mixed meetings that are both virtual and in person. That being said, the Cpi conferences this week, and I wanna thank Claire. Claire and I are gonna be the delegates for the Pearl Street Mall. Portion of it. On Friday afternoon, and one to 3, and this this year the meeting is Wednesday. Through Friday, so I'm hoping to see you there on Friday night is our historic folder scale up, and that's our 50 year anniversary.

[8:07] So I really appreciate all the support we've gotten from the landmarks board, and we're looking forward to along and fruitful future together. That being said, I'm concerned about the future of the possibility of a historic district, because I did listen to the parks and Rex meeting last week, and it really didn't sound like they were gonna go in any direction. And so I think now would be the time that not tonight, but in the near future and and it was recommended that that meeting that there'd be a joint meeting with the landmarks board and the parks, and record to see if this is a viable option so I might think that that would Be a a meeting that they do in person, now that the hip is completed. That was one of the the reasons why it wasn't the ban.

[9:04] Shell expansion was not approved last year, and then there's I have the documents and I'll bring it to any meeting that there's a commitment from the city Council to have this reviewed and voted on hopefully by the end of this year that being said I think I might be out Of town, if not, I just want to let you know that historic boulders currently involved in about 5 or 6 other projects in Boulder County. Starting with the 9 Mile Marker Project. We're a stakeholder in that, and we're gonna make recommendations. Help fill in at another time, along with the Valmont school, and then I've just made contact with the Tommy Jones stage coach owner. If you're not familiar with the Tommy John Stagecoach is over on Belmont, and the owner's name is Don Rogers. He's ill but he's agreed to let us get in there. Patrick, your time is up, so maybe just the sentence. Please Okay. I I'll finish it. And that's how I had. And I'm looking forward to reviewing the hip at some future date with both the Parks board and the yeah Marx Board.

[10:07] Thank you, Patrick. Thank you. Brendan, did you see anyone else who has raised their hand I don't see any other hands at the moment. There's one more hand, so we will turn to Lynn Siegel, and I will enable your microphone, and then Abby will swear you in Hi! Aubrey! That was James Hunter. That I was trying to remember lesson. How could I forget James Sanders? Name. Geez! He's done everything in building. I just wanted to bring up something today from the Ldrc. For one I really implore you to please record. Ldrc, this is a where the meat of everything comes together and it I can't go in and sit in staff. So, and see what they're actually doing, you know. But I can at the Ldrc.

[11:04] And God forbid I dozed off for the last 30 s of the meeting today. God help me! It was a 4 and a half hour meeting, and that was important. Very important, because that sign in Wells Fargo was approved, and I would like to not have to call John Decker and talk to him about it, although we did speak about other things, among them Duke Zombie T House. But I'd like to just pull up the thing. Not bother you, and just be able to review certain things I've seen, and maybe freeze frame on things that I want to read, and that be that it's hard like John was mentioning today. I wanted to know where the 5 guidelines were that were for the illuminated signs on buildings, and because this one was in the building and that's out of the jurisdiction of the landmarks.

[12:00] So? Why, what? Why did it even come? It has a permit. It can go through Design Advisory Board, I guess. Pushed it ahead. John, and correct me if you disagree. It seemed like it was kind of bleeding between the inside and the outside, because it was so well visualized from the app outside to have this illuminated sign. I was just surprised that it was approved not as bad as 7, seven-seven circle. God forbid! But and I thought, Where's Lucas? Because this is a legal issue, it should be clear if it's in doors, it's not applicable to landmarks board, or the Ldrc. It should just be that it's indoors, and it's not legislated on, even if you can see it from the outside. And that should have been clarified legally, I thought.

[13:00] Anyway. So I was just surprised it got it approved. I found out today. It's interesting because I met someone that's very involved with the Duchambe Tea house and was interested in it. And we spoke briefly about the fact that that the inside and the outside distinction came up at Duchamp Bay because Duchamp Bay he House, was not, and this woman who's from Tishikisan told me it's not a Provable for them. You know, to have a tas like that that's walled in, and it's also not approvable to have a fountain. And there's a founding inside the T house that was L. Lynn, I apologize, but your time is up Yeah. Anyway, her name is Set Wanda Moistur Bay. And it's interesting. Talking with her, and she was concerned that maybe the Duchamp Bay relationship has broken down because of the situation in Russia.

[14:04] Okay, thank you. Thank you. Lynn Ukraine, anyway. Thanks. And I do not see any other hands at this time. So last call on open comment tonight. And I think we are clear to close Abby So we will close public participation for this meeting, and we'll move on to the next agenda item, which is a discussion of landmark alteration, demolition, demolition, applications issued impending Sure, and we are no longer doing a monthly statistical report at the Board meeting. But this is time for questions about any pending or closed applications, and I also wanted to remind you all about the active stay of demolition.

[15:15] At 2119, Mariposa, the stamped demolition expires at the end of May, and we have a site visit confirmed with the owner on Friday, February third. So this Friday, at 2 Pm. And Abby and John are the designated landmarks, board representatives Are there any questions about this case, or any others that have been reviewed or approved in the last month? Okay. Back to you, Abby Thank thank you. Marcy, so we will move on to our public hearing. This evening. I item 5 a it's a public hearing and consideration of an application to demolish a building constructed in 1,965 at 1 0 5 bell view drive a non landmarked building over 50 years old, pursuant to section 9 1123 of the boulder

[16:22] Revised Code, and because there are 3 landmarks bored members this evening Staff did give the other 2 applicants the opportunity to postponed their public hearings till we have a full board again on March first. So this is the only hearing tonight, and I know Marcy will address this as well in her presentation. But it will take a unanimous vote on any proposed motions to take action this evening. Alright! I'll get started. So the quasi-judicial process begins with all speaking today, item or sworn in, and then board members will know any ex parte contacts I'll then give a staff presentation followed by questions from the board the application has 10 min to

[17:17] present, and the Board may ask questions of the applicant. The public hearing is then open for comment. At 3 min each, and the board may ask questions of anyone, but speaks, and then the applicant has a chance to respond to anything that was said. After that the public hearing is closed, and the board discusses and emotion requires an affirmative, though if at least 3 members to pass so, as as Abby said, that means a unanimous decision, because there's 3 board members here tonight, you're more motion, must state findings Conclusions in a recommendation, and finally, a record of the hearing is available. So with that, and turn it back over to Abby for X parte contacts Okay, thank you. Marcy. Bill.

[18:05] John. I have none. I don't have any And I have none. Great Alright. So, as Abby mentioned, this is a review for a demolition of a building over 50 years old. The purpose of the historic preservation. Demolition Review is to prevent the loss of buildings that may have historic or arbitrary significance, and to provide the time necessary to initiate designation as an individual landmark or to consider alternatives to the building the criteria for your Review tonight is found in 9, 1123, of the Boulder Revised Code, which includes the elegability of the building for designation, is a landmark. The relationship of the building to the character of the neighborhood, the reasonable condition of the building, and their reasonable projected cost of restoration or repair, and then, considering the condition and the cost, the Board may not consider justeration caused by unreasonable neglect

[19:11] You have 3 options in front of you tonight, you can approve the demolition request, and that approval is valid for 180 days. You could place a stay of demolition on the application in order to provide time to consider alternatives to demolition. That would expire on June the twelfth, or you could initiate the process for landmarks designation, and that would mean scheduling an initiation caring with 3 Board members votes must be unanimous tonight. To take action, and the Code says that failure to take action on a demolition permit is considered an approval, and so, if you're heading towards a split vote, one option that you have would be to can make a motion to teach the hearing that hearing would still need to be held

[20:00] within 75 days of a complete application. And so that would be a special meeting held before February 27. This application came into our department at the end of November, and I admit to mid December staff referred the application to the landmarks board. Finding there is probable cause to believe the building may be eligible. So typically applications that come to the board first go to the landmarks. Design review committee. The code makes a distinction that initial review or post 1,940 buildings is an administrative review, so none of the Board members have seen this application before, and that brings us tonight. February first for the Landmarks Board. Demolition, hearing. This property is located in the lower Chatauqua neighborhood. Just before the switch back of Bellevue Drive and the driveway for the property is accessed through a private drive from Mesa Canyon Drive, and then it it backs up to the boulder. Open space

[21:15] The building was constructed in 1,965. It's a one and 2 story frame house with a low-pitched roof overhanging eaves and exposed purlins. This is the South elevation and the full wall of windows, including the trapezoid windows. At the top. Our typical of custom, contemporary ranch houses from this period Moving around to the east elevation, you can see the extended perlins at the front, and a wide, low stone chimney, also typical of this rustic style, and then the covered deck, which is a prominent feature on this elevation, was extended in 19 9

[22:01] This is the rear of the building, the north elevation, and it has little ornamentation with vertical board and signing with signing And then the West elevation. How the garage built into the grade with the retaining wall that extends along the west side, and then the main entrance to the building is, I think, well, I won't use my pointer. Is are the peach colored doors in the lower right here in photo, right of the garage The house is built by George and Betty Sheriff, who have been this property sole owners, and, a, according to Mrs. Sharks obituary. She designed and built the her own house, and had the plans drafted by an architectural student at Cu. And the owners provided these drawings, which they found in the house

[23:04] So the criteria, as I mentioned, are found in 9, 1123, of the Boulder Revised Code, and we will start with the eligibility for landmark designation. So staff is found, or considers that the House does not have historic significance. It was designed by Buddy, share it for her family, and constructed in 1965, and this was the only house that Misses share it designed shouldn't go on to design other houses or have an architectural career. The steep grade and non-standard lot in this area resulted in the number of innovative custom buildings in this neighborhood. However, we don't consider that this building exemplifies that trend, and it has not been identified as significant by any outside of authorities.

[24:02] In terms of architectural significance, staff considers this to be a rustic, modern, or contemporary custom. Branches in a mountain style. The low pitch roof with hover hanging eves, vertical, sighting, and the built-in garage and the wide chimney are typical of mid-century custom. Ranches, and then the addition of the trapzoidal windows. Take advantage of the southern exposure. However, we found that this isn't an excellent example of that style, but it it is relatively intact to its original construction. As I mentioned. It's an interesting history of the original owner designing the house, but she was not considered a an architect, nor did she have a career beyond designing this house, and then we did not find that it had artistic merit and the stone may be local though we weren't

[25:00] Able to verify that and then in terms of example of the uncommon, it is notable that a woman designed a house during this period, though it's not a completely unique. We didn't want to note it. And then in terms of its environmental significance. We did not consider that it has. It met the environmental significance, criteria or geographic importance. It's not located in an identifier potential historic, though, as I'll go into, there are many notable mid-century buildings in the surrounding area, and then it does not have geographic importance because it was designed to be hidden in the hillside rather than a prominent feature. So it's actually pretty difficult to see from the public right away. So in terms of the relationship to the neighborhood, we go into a bit more detail in the Staff Memo, but it is notable that in the area of lowers to talk like this neighborhood, developed over a pretty long period of time with the earliest houses, being close to the turn of the

[26:18] Twentieth century, but really picking up into mid-century, and the kind of dramatic grade resulted in some of Boulder's most innovative mid-century designs and designs that really responded to to the grade. And so within a quarter mile radius of this property is the proper house. At the 2 30 bell view, which is designed by Jerry Van Sickle from 1,965. The iconic Willard House, designed by Charles Hartling, and built in, is just a Json to this property to the north. His Davis house is just below the the hillside.

[27:00] That one was completed in 1971140. 5 bell view, which has been recently renovated. That was still in 1968 by Bruce Downing and Associates. The Creek House, by Johnny Backer, is over on Sierra Drive, and then the house. Another Heartline design, completed in 1965, is located on Bellevue, and so many of these were included in the 2,000 modern survey, and found to be potentially eligible for the National Register of historic places. So in terms of the relationship to the neighborhood. This mid-century building is in close proximity to these, I would say significant mid-century designs. But it's staffed opinion that it, you know, doesn't quite rise to the same level I will defer to the applicant to discuss the condition of the building and the projected cost of restoration or repair.

[28:05] They submitted thorough information about the water issues and the construction issues that are currently at the house. And so I would end by saying, our recommendation is to approve the demolition permit. Finding that the building is not potentially eligible for designation, I also would like to say that this was an application that we staff referred to the Board for finding it was potentially eligible, and I do feel that it was worthwhile in terms of doing the additional research and learning more about this property to then bring it to the full board, and I would personally like to thank Mr. Sheriff for providing firsthand account of the history of the house, as well as the original drawings, so I feel that this process has resulted in the documentation of this kind of key period of boulders.

[29:11] History, but at the end of the jay staff finds that this buildings, not potentially eligible and would recommend approval of the demolition room. And so with that, I would just like to check back in on the process, so I've completed my staff presentation. We now turn to the applicant presentation, followed by public comment. The appleant, then, has a chance to respond, and then it goes to the board for deliberation and a vote, and I will check back in after words to do a quick time checker. Perhaps, Abby, you could do that once. The applicant has a chance to respond to anything that was said, do a quick time check of what? Generally 30 min would be the key question in front of you all tonight is, does this building have historic significance?

[30:11] Yes, yes, place is stay of demolition on the application to provide time to consider alternatives to demolition. If no, then approve the demolition request, and I'm happy to answer any questions about the this property and case, or about the process Jon or Bill. Do you have any questions for Marcy? Alright! Have a question, Marcy, in in your process. You you refer to the surrounding grades in this neighborhood. Would you have viewed this particular house any differently if it was standing in a neighborhood of otherwise pretty unexceptional houses from the same time period?

[31:04] Like if it was in Martin Acres, or Hmm, yeah, I think we probably would have looked at it differently, because I think that there very specifically, there actually are, there's a model in Table mesa that looks similar. But I would say a bit different, and the context of of this house on a flat lot or a slight grade, is very different from kind of this. More I would say, rustic setting for a rustic modern house. And so I think the setting was part of the reason we wanted to look a little more closely, and then also understand, how does this relate to the other mid-century buildings that developed I think what's also different about this one is that well, Martin? Acres and table mesa were designed and built by a single construction company or a large larger developer.

[32:08] This area. It was individual designs and custom homes that I think, give it a bit of a different context than the kind of post more suburbs Okay, that answers that you didn't have to find out who the student was that drew up Okay. I wish, and I don't think they sign their drawings. I mean there, but that would be nice That's all I have. Thanks No, I don't. Bill, do you have any questions? Thank you. So we'll move on to the applicants. Presentation, and thank you to the applicants who have agreed to this virtual quasi-judicial hearing. You. You will have 10 min, and we will need to swear in anyone speaking during this presentation

[33:09] Jenny and Stephen, you will need to accept that pop-up invitation that comes up to make you panelists at the meeting Let's see, we got Steven, but I still have Jay on the attendee list. Good morning, folks actually. Good evening, folks does everybody hear me We can hear you Okay. He could, he could raise his hand if he wants to. Oh, okay. Great. He is here. I believe, is here, though but we'll we'll let him decide if he would like to or not, though. But I I swear to tell the truth, nothing but the truth. Thank you. Thank you. And I have a short presentation tonight as usual.

[34:00] Marcie and her team put together, very articulate. Understanding of this building. I think the, as she mentioned the the good part of this process was that it was able to really document the uniqueness of Mrs. Sherid, actually designing this I did in my conversations with Jay, learn, learned a lot about the process. And it it was. It was interesting, and I think, in spite of my strong recommendation, that this House should be allowed to be demolished I think it's good to record it for history's sake, but I'm gonna focus my discussion this evening really on 2 general topics. Structural deficiencies. And importantly designed efficiencies and I'll get into those a little bit later here.

[35:01] But I'm gonna go through these. I've got 25 photos. Some of these were in the packet. But I I will just elaborate a little bit more here. But the the the house was, as we know, it was built, 65, and it's 58 years old now, and in talking with the applicant they shared a lot of continuing problems throughout the time that they lived there it evidently just was not built Constructed, or design in an efficient manner. So let's we'll go through these slides that I'll just say next, yeah, that's a that's a good one. So one of the biggest problems in this whole house, and from a design standpoint, was this retaining wall that we see on the right side, which is the left side of the graduate when you're driving in, was not sufficiently designed to withstand the lateral pressures of the Earth and but that said the entire house was

[36:09] Engineered to that, and as a result of this lateral loading, it tipped over and and it was putting continual pressure. What's really interesting is the garage door is a vertical garage door. Well, you can see the tapered wood piece right there by the door that over time this hillside has caused the top portion of it to tilt, probably 6 to 8 inches next slide in addition to that, the whole hillside is pushing in there and again cracking the wall And again, these are putting forces on the roof, and which is precipitating into a lot of structural issues on the inside of house.

[37:00] You also see a lot of efforts effervescence, which is the white sediment on the walls which is indicative of water problems. Next slide. Here's looking at the east wall, and again those cracks continue through throughout the wall. Next slide. These are some of the water problems. So as the roof is pushed over, it tends to break apart the waterproof membranes, and in talking with Jay, Sheriff's, they would fix the roof and but in a few years later after another in or so of movement They would have to fix it again they were continually having to fix this house next slide. This is looking, then, on the I think we're still in the garage. Looking back to the east here and again, more water problems next slide, and a nice shot of a the pan there the dust pan we can see here the roof is separating from the wall, going behind water going behind the wallpaper next slide.

[38:15] This is a very interesting slide. This is at the front entrance, and what this is showing is differential settlement, not to get too technical. Steel, beam right underneath this, and evidently the steel beam was adequately supported, but the surrounding foundation was not supported. And so what we're seeing here is differential settlement, where the edges sync, while the the structural line created by the steel bean did not. And as a result, it's it's folding in the middle and cracking next slide. Just more cracks. This is a ceiling in one of the bedrooms.

[39:03] They're just cracks throughout next slide. Here's again the wall separating from the ceiling. Interesting Florida lee wallpaper. Very. There's a lot of wallpaper and it was kind of fun. Watching all the looking at all the different kinds of wallpaper next slide then we're starting to look at the exterior of the house. While it it was of a chalet design, which was, and she called it, a chalet design, I think Marcy called at a contemporary mountain, but Mrs. Sheriff always said she wanted a shall, a design, and this was this is her interpretation of a chalet design. But anyway, as we can see, very maintenance occurred in the latter part of its life, and, as you can see, a lot of the wood is starting to rot virtually almost all the wood will would have to be removed it's even challenging to be recycled because a lot

[40:07] Of it is cupped next slide. Typical corner board, where you see the facia and the flashing over the top, but nevertheless, water is getting in under behind the face. Shot again, rotting it next slide. A lot of the beams were rotted as well. This is a side view of a beam holding up the roof next slide. This one really has seen better days, and this one obviously is almost dangerous. Next slide. Sorry about the gray hair guy. I don't know who that guy is, but this is we're moving into what I'm calling the design deficiencies. And the first thing that struck me when I looked at this house was, I hit my head?

[41:03] I'm I'm 6 foot 2, and I'm walking in there, and well, the design did exhibit characteristics of this chalet design. Whoever really did the design, and did the sections, and they they were not mindful of really how they roof. Eves related to the walking passageways, and you can see carpet on the corner next slide. This is a carpet, and the reason the carpet's not there for waterproofing the carpet is there to protect people from bumping their heads. Classic rubber on the corner of your range hood in my house, that I always hit my head on next slide and had this. Kinda interesting circular stare. The interesting story about the stair was evidently when it was originally filed for building permit.

[42:06] The building department kicked it out because this is not illegal. It's not a legal stare today. Nor was it a legal stairway back in 1,965. But ultimately they allowed it to go through, because they ultimately argued that the upstairs and the downstairs were essentially 2 areas, and they technically, by code, did not need to communicate with the stairway. Both both the upper and the outer, but upper and the lower floors were accessible by code. Egress. So this stairway really was not very functional at all. The other anecdote story was after they built it. Well, they realize they couldn't get any furniture downstairs through this stairway as well. So they had to create a special pathway. So these are just examples of what I'm calling design deficiencies.

[43:05] And you know these things happen. And but that said just, I think, tends to diminish the historic value of this house. Next slide, another stairway next slide. Here's the bottom of it, you know the the stair wiggles when you go down the structure on it is not very strong at all, it's kind of a little scary going down there. Next slide, and then this was a interesting design feature that Misses Sheriff's thought would work that failed. Miserably, both functionally, and waterproofing wise. It was a self contained. We do some of these today, in some of the homes that we design, where you you design the bathtub in the shower all together. Here, well, this is a 1,965 version of it, which was kind of interesting. It was a shower, but also was designed to be a bathtub, but it never, ever really worked.

[44:03] Evidently the size wasn't correct to be very comfortable, and it leaked continually, and so it was a long term. Maintenance problem. They were always fixing it. But nevertheless, it's kind of a a, a unique design that a a true 1,965 modernistic design next slide just more wall separating next slide this interesting. You can see the window well syncing on the left and high on the right again, and you can see the walls cracking next slide It, Steven. I'm so sorry, but your 10 min has already elapsed, but if you can wrap up really quickly, that would be great Okay, 3. Slides. Left more water damage. Next slide. The code, violation, the furnace draws air from the garage, which is not legal.

[45:03] Next slide. This is it so guess it only have 24 slides. So anyway, I I think basically the whole it hinges on structural deficiencies and design deficiencies. And particularly, I, I like the way Marshall stated that it's it's in this neighborhood with some of my favorite buildings. The 2 adjoining, Charles Hartling Buildings. I are just amazing buildings, and those are the types of buildings that really need to preserve this one. Well, interesting. Just has way. Too many deficiencies. So I respectfully request that the landmarks board please approve this demolition permit, and I'm available for any questions Thank you, Bill or John. Do you have any questions for Steven? I have none.

[46:01] And why did I don't have any either. Pretty straight. Yeah. I don't either. Thank you for sharing all of those images, Stephen. We will now move on to public comment for this hearing. I don't know, Brenda, if you see any raised hands yet, or if people, if you're on your phone press star 9 We do have one raised hand at the moment, and so I'll just remind everyone you'll find that raised hand button at the bottom of your screen. So we will see with Patrick O'rourke again, Patrick, I will enable your microphone, and Abby will swear you in I'll swear you in Patrick, and you will have 3 min. So what you swear to tell us the whole truth I swear to tell the whole truth. Thank you. We spent an almost an hour discussing this one property last night, because it was a dilemma for the historic Boulder Preservation Commission Committee, and it it didn't necessarily have to do with the House as it does with the setting and

[47:16] what we considered. And it's not a historic district, but they have 6 significant homes within a quarter of a mile makes it an important area, and we haven't had the chance to look at the other 12 houses that might finish that puzzle. Therefore we're concerned that what will go up there, and you know we have 3 architects on our board. To which we're on the landmarks port at one time, or I actually take back. All 3 of them were, but Katherine wasn't there last night. We we agree with Marcy's description. This is definitely a contributing house. It is not a significant home, and for that reason the dilemma we had is said, these houses have a 180 day delay, and this came up with Chelsea.

[48:04] Some time ago, because we would not necessarily recommend designating this House over the objections of the owner, but I reverse that question to this board is, what if this owner bought this building before this landmark Board and asked for you to designate would you and quite honestly, I think the answer to that would be yes, and so that's the dilemma that Chelsea bought it up a few months ago, and and I think that's the position we would take to take a number. Number 2, which is, it's a 180 day delay, because it is contributing. Thank you. Thank you, Patrick. Is there anyone else wishing to comment I have one other hand up at this time. So, Lynn Siegel, I will enable your microphone, and Abby will swear you in

[49:01] Yeah, thanks, Lynn. If you would swear once again There's a lot of good solo. Oh, I swear to tell my perception of the truth, I do not own the truth. Thank you. Thank you. Sorry folks, you know. I like the solar aspects of this design. I like the Shallway. I like the fact that she designed it herself, and just because she does isn't an architect. As a result, you know, she functionally designed her own house. I wish I had the initiative to do that with my place to change it. You know in in, you know, because I didn't design it originally. Myself, but I think that's valuable. I don't go get into gender stuff, whether she's a woman or not. She was a person that designed her own house, that brought in a student, you know, from Cu. That's significant. I think that's very cool, that she was used It's an expense to develop these places in the foothills right here.

[50:04] It's like with 7, 7, 7, that's that's a frigging disaster to tear that down and bring that out. And especially when that place was in perfect shape. It it's just stunning to me that you ever agreed to Demo 777. I'm sorry I just I I can't stand. I'm so upset about that. But aside from that, with this house, I think architects in Boulder could be a lot more creative about, and I love Stevens. Barn is works great and actually he did the house that's backler or the guy that built 7, 7, 7 and and Cord Sheini, the the guy working on the Saturn 5 sparne did that other house on flagstaff, and he incorporated the certain elements of that Youthsonian design, and he actually interestingly saved the retaining wall which in this case, in this house, the retaining wall is kind of put to blame for its problems.

[51:11] But there are ways to shore up. Thanks, you know, instead of just tearing down and bringing new in, there are ways I don't think Stephen extrapolated about that, and I think that the 180 day stay would be appropriate as a result the best thing they always say and this should be going before Environmental Advisory Board before landmark board or with landmarks board. There's not even a liaison of the Eab with landmarks like what gives here. Let's see. You, for example, got a problem with a cheap stairway rip it out, put in a regular stairway. You know you got a big beam, hey? You're save what you can of the roof, put in another beam, you know.

[52:03] Tear it apart. Get a crane in there, do some things, maybe it'll be, you know, expensive. Maybe it'll be hard to do, but maybe it's almost equivalent to what putting in a new place in there would do Lynn, thank you so much, but your time has expired Oh! In the furnace and the air. That's a simple problem. You divert the error Thank you, Lynn and Brenda, before we close public comment for this hearing. Do you see any other raised hands. I do not see any other raised hands at this time. We'll just wait a few seconds to let people find that button if they need it. And I think we are clear to close So we'll close public comment for this hearing. And, Steven, you would have 3 min to rebutter.

[53:05] Speak to anything, either. Member, the public shared Okay, I always forget I'm automatically muted. Yes, I would like to speak to a couple of things. I did talk. I didn't quite have enough time to talk about costs, but really, truly is cost prohibitive to. If if you, if you removed all of the surfaces and fixed everything, you still end up with a deficient design, that is my premise here that it really isn't that well of a design building, it does have some character. It does have some a little bit of unique history, but at at the end of the day it's bad design. It's just. It's not good. And you'd be throwing good money at bad to put money into this. I also wanted to address Patrick O'rourke I agree with Patrick's statement, but typically you do not landmark over the owners wishes.

[54:13] I think that is very clear that these owners are not interested in saving this. If it was reversed, if they would requested that the landmarks board, land, market well, they're not doing that, so that that is a completely hypothetical question is not relevant to this hearing. So, but I do agree that the owners do not want to landmark this building. They would like to get a demolition permit, and they have been very forthright and sharing the history of this house. But at the end of the day is structurally deficient, and quite frankly, it is just not very superior, designed particularly in the context of all these other wonderful buildings.

[55:04] I think that's it. Thank you. Good. Thank you, Steven So now we're going to move on to board discussion. I ask that everyone else mute your compute computer phone for the duration of this discussion. We. We've allotted or estimated about 30 min for this deliberation, but we'll take as long as we need, and and Laura, I'll be sure to ask you if you have anything you want to add, to add, John, I didn't know if as a the design professional architect on the board tonight, if you would be willing to kick off the deliberations I could do that Where to start. I think the things that I find interesting about the house just going through the slides.

[56:05] Our kind of the the front side, or at least the the chalet side view of the house, which is a fairly strong kind of reflection of what it was supposed to be. The image. What was presented here. So I'm gonna have to take Stephen's word for the quality or lack of quality, in the in the kind of functional designing of the house. That's I believe, what what's being referred to. Having tried, having been involved with houses, in fact, lately that have spiral staircases in them. It's a very problematic feature in a house. It may be dramatic in certain instances, but in mountain houses that are more than 2 stories that have only one way of accessing the top and the bottom being a spiral staircase, it's a very unworkable situation, with things like you end up wasting pieces of furniture

[57:25] Up the aft side of the building, and similar things like that to be able to just properly populate the house. So that's kind of into indicative, I guess, of some of the other problems with the spaces and and flow in the house. The fact that the the retaining will was essentially kind of the lateral foundation element of the whole house. The failure of that wall is probably pretty close to fatal to everything. It's pushing the house down the hill. I live in an unstable, hilly town in my early life since an Addie, and once things start moving, they're very difficult to stabilize.

[58:17] They they can be, I guess, heroically anchored into the land. You can count or excavate and refill engineered materials, and try to stabilize the wall that way. You can do secondary expansion of walls. These are all extremely expensive ways of saving something, and I'm not so sure that this is necessarily worth it. I. That's why I asked the question about context. And if it were, if this were, say on a slightly different site or even on a mountain site, had similar problems, I would still not be real sure it was gonna be worthy of being saved to to answer, the question, about the 180 day stay

[59:18] I'm not sure what that would accomplish if if we were not going to undertake. Well landmarking of it, or at least, if if the intention was not to do it against the wishes of the owners, if it's very clear that they're their wish is to demolish it I think I have to throw the discussion open at this point. Okay. Thank you. John. Bill. I agree with Staff's recommendations to allow this building to be demolished

[60:00] Okay. Thank you. Well, as I know, we're in a unique position as far as meeting a unanimous vote for certain motions with the, I guess the fails. Safe options is, if we would continue this. So I guess, since John opened it up. And, Bill, thank you for your comment. I I feel like I kind of can see where the historic, Boulder Preservation Committee was torn. First and foremost, because of the age, or basically the youth of this building. You know. The staff brought it to the full board, even though they could have made a decision on their own. It sounds like through that research and through really analyting it, they, although they thought there was probable, causing their analysis, came to different conclusions, and I am torn on this one.

[61:00] You know I I I can always see the value of a state to discuss it. I do think I I think Stephen did an excellent job explaining the deficiencies, and I don't know how much of that or design flaws or deferred maintenance, or whatever it's hard because I find it very captivating building and the story behind it and I think one of the Reasons. I think it it's so cool as this particular image we're looking at now is the way it sits on the site, too. I think there's a nice way that this has been built on the particular site, but It is, a hard one. It's always hard to see something let go to, to to wonder like what if you know, would a State yield anything? Would there be anything fruitful that would come out of it?

[62:00] And discussions that would come to different resolutions. So, John, I would like to hear a little bit more from you. But right now I'm leaning towards bills and agreeing with Bill at this point about supporting Staff's recommendation. Well, to expand and to take off from where you were going. Abby, I think that Looking at it, looking at it as an architect, especially looking at. Say, the condition of of the wood members of the structure, the kinds of damage and decomposition that's visible in the wood. I agree with. Again Stephen's statement that everything would pretty much have to be removed, and reconditioned to restore this.

[63:07] You're gonna significantly remove and replace sections of the building. And I think that, as I said, I think that since there is an ongoing lateral load through the whole structure, that's doing damage to the structure that may not be immediately apparent. He, you know the explanation with the garage was, it was, if it's moving laterally, it's gonna compress sections of the structure and expand certain others. The roof on the garage was probably buckling and crackling, cracking upwards. The differential settlement that's happening, that causing, causing that piece of steel to punch through the the floor plate those types of things you pretty much have to go all the way to the structure and rebuild after after stabilizing the condition that was causing it and

[64:08] It's it is. Hand them out to Demolishing and replacing the building. I do think that it needs to be said. The things that Abby was talking about, the way the building was designed into the site and the way it was intended to make a very under stated presence in the landscape. I think that's a consideration that has to be brought forward as a as a reference in whatever subsequent designing happens here, and I think that that's probably the thing that I was trying to say in the beginning this first in of it, kind of expresses all those intentions and I and I think

[65:02] It does it very well. It's it's what's behind. It is being pushed sideways and falling apart It could be, it could be restored and saved. As I said it is, it is probably almost equivalent to completely taking the thing apart and reassemble. So it's not much different from demolishing it and replacing it, depending on what it gets replaced with. So I'm leaning towards Staff's recommendation One thing I want to address, since Patrick brought it up, and I was sitting here thinking it when Marcy was presenting man. Is this area ripe to be considered as a district of some type? And I think that that's a discussion that needs to be had completely outside of this proceeding.

[66:09] And Laura, I want to give you the opportunity. You may not have anything you wish to share, but just to give. Oh, your hand is up! Hi I I know how rare I I I actually have a question. I just wanna make sure I'm understanding the process correctly. I think it. I understood in some past discussions that the significant elevations that you would want to protect or landmark are the ones that are visible from a public right of way, like a street or an alley, and and it wasn't clear to me if this South elevation is visible from a street or an alley? Or was this photograph taken from, you know, private property somewhere That is an excellent question which I'm going to let Marcy answer. Answer That's a very good question, Laura, and something that's unique about this property. So this is taken from the private access drive and the house.

[67:07] You can see it from below, and can see it from the trails above. Chautauqua, which is public but intern terms of how it sits on the lot. The view is more hmm! I don't think we have like a street facing view. It's not visually prominent because of the way that it's perched on this in this location and accessed by a private drive. So where, and then I don't want to keep comparing to the houses around it. But the Willard House, just to the north, is also accessed by a private drive, but it's very visually prominent from below because of the way that it sits on the hillside and the trees. So it's this house. It's a combination of the private drive, and how it's hidden in the vegetation that makes it minimally visible from a public right away.

[68:03] And I just wanted to follow up on that. Thank you, Marcy. That was very helpful. You mentioned it's visible from the trails at Chautauqua, and I do remember in that previous example. I think it's decided that visibility from the public park was was not a concern, but it was from a street or an alley. That's a public right of way with visibility from the trails at Chautauqua. Be a consideration in terms of which are the significant elevations Great question. Those are similar, but just, distinct, different distinctions, with the park at each know 4 Mapleton. The park didn't count as a public straight, so changes to that. While we're not considered removal of a street facing wall, which is a technical piece of what would require review and what wouldn't. When we are talking about the environmental significance and the relationship to the neighborhood, I would say that it would matter if you, if the trails are public and you can see it from the public right of way that kind of goes to is it visually, probably permanent or not but in either case.

[69:11] I would say, this building's not visually prominent Okay, thank you. That was the question that was percolating for me. I'm really appreciating this discussion, and I'll bow out now Thank you, Laura, that that those are excellent questions So it does seem like all 3 of us who are voting on any action tonight or any motion. Right now seem to be heading the same direction that I would encourage any other thoughts, any other discussion about this? I also I wanna see that Patrick O'rourke and historic folders Preservation Committee I appreciate the time and energy you took to discuss this because, you know, this is one that that that there's something special about this place.

[70:02] I'm notwithstanding the current conditions, and and I know Staff must have had that instinct to want to call it up to the full board. So John or Bill anything else you want to say or add, I don't know. If there's anyone who's ready to make a motion Oh, I had one more thing. I think, that the history of this house does need to be captured in some form. I think that documentation of the House needs to be. Take it undertaken, which is a kind of a standard request at the point of demolition, and be part of the record of the House Some some I I wouldn't say monumentation, some some capture of this history, which is a very interesting history, needs to be captured and related, relatable, and I'm not sure how I think that if not nothing else just the the kind of document of the House, and and it's

[71:26] Permanent residence in one of our historic 3 repositories Marcy, do you have anything to add to that, or how that process would go for I thank you for asking me, because it is something that we, as staff, discussed in terms of what documentation would we require? And so I would actually like the board to 2 way in on that, because it is unique in that we have the first hand narrative from the family about the history of the house, which we are usually not fortunate enough to have.

[72:11] And then we also have the original drawings with the narrative, telling us what was added or modified later. And so we typically ask for either the historic narrative which I feel we have between the applicants, materials and the staff memo. And then halves level as built drawings to document the building as it is today, and at the staff level we were a bit torn, because I think you can make a case that we have documented this building thoroughly through this landmark scored review, because we have the original Plans and photographs and narratives, but those plans are what it was supposed to be. It's not how it actually is built. So if the Board was interested in having as built drawings as part of the record, once the building is demolished, then that's something that that we would take your direction and requires part of the approval.

[73:20] Okay, I thought, as built drawings, or some some formal documentation of a building that gets torn down was required in all cases Okay. It's up to, and the code says it's up to the city administrator to decide in which case, so we have a bit So we would include that request in the motion Yes, that code actually says that that the Board can request that staff require it. But you don't. You don't have to include it in the motion, but I can prepare that language if you would like to Okay. Well, I'm just. I'm asking the question because we want to proceed to that. Good.

[74:04] With the other thing is you mentioned. The narrative is, is that the oral history of the of the house as described, and what form is that in is that a written narrative There! The packet includes the attachment with a rich narrative from the owner about the history of the house Let's see. And I'm just pulling up the motion language. But I think lost the section about requiring documents. Okay. Let me just prepare this Are you ready for a motion I I'd be prepared to make a motion if nobody else wants Okay. John, go ahead.

[75:00] Okay, well, I'm waiting to see it. Oh! And then, John, I would say, it's up to you to include the the language below about the archival documentation Okay, yeah, I think I think I'm going to. So I move the Landmarks board adopt the findings of the staff. Memorandum, dated February the first 2,023, and approved the demolition application for the building. I can't read the address. It's under my I muted you instead of a meeting me. It's Okay, no. I had to get things out of the way. I'm sorry. I'll start over. I move the landmarks board, adopt the findings of the staff memorandum dated February the first 2,023, and approved the demolition application for the building at 105 bell view drive finding that the building to be demolished does not have

[76:06] Significant under the criteria set forth in section 9 F. Older Revised Code, 1981. With these following conditional statements, should the Board choose to issue the demolition approval staff will require that prior to any demolition, the following be submitted to staff for review approval and recording with Carnegie library measured drawings of all exterior elevations of the building, a site plan showing the location of all existing improvements on the property color, medium format, archival quality photographs of the interior and exterior. Okay. Thank you, John Bill, we need a second on this, or would you

[77:06] You can second it, Abby. Okay, I will. I will second it. Now, is there any discussion or any changes to the motion before we do a roll call? Vote Hi I, Hearing none and seeing no raised hands on emotion by John, that I seconded Bill John, and I vote I And then, Marcy, if you will kindly take a few minutes to explore the next steps. I know that Stephen has been in front of the landmarks board for various things over the years, but if you could just do that for the record that would be great Happy to so the Landmarks board has just approved the demolition of the building, and so that approval is valid for 180 days, so that would expire July thirty-first of this year, and so as a condition of approval the documentation as

[78:19] was included in the memo is required, so Steven, you and I can follow up and talk in specifics. If you have any question about that, but we would need to receive that before we issue the final demolition, approval. And regardless of when you submitted the approval still does expire. 100 days from this evening Understood. Thank you, Marcy. Okay. That's it. So Marcy, as we move on to matters.

[79:02] Is it possible if I believe Pat, if Patrick or work is still with us, I'd like to take a few minutes just about his suggestion of seeing, maybe at the landmarks board and the parts of record could meet to discuss the historic district, or if you have any Update on the proposed To story district that was directed by council in June of last year, in the Civic Center area. That would be great. Yes, happy to, and I will also take the opportunity to address the other piece that he raised, because the board might be curious. We anticipate going back to a hybrid setting. Sometime this year, but my understanding is that the hybrid technology is still not ready for us. But as soon as it is we will. We will go back into a hybrid environment

[80:05] And then specific to the civic area distort district. That is where my focus has been over the last few weeks in terms of going back and listening to the June fourteenth City Council meeting and starting to scope that project. It is a work plan item for our program for this year and starting to reach out to our colleagues in parks and recreation since collaboration with that department is going to be key. So our directors in both departments are going to meet. I think it's either next week or the week after, 2 kind of talks that the course for the systemic area historic district process and I would anticipate thorough involvement from both the landmarks board and the parks and rec Advisory Board I

[81:04] Think a joint meeting likely makes sense, but we haven't quite got gotten down to the details of the process. But know that we have started working on it. And Christopher. I don't know if there's anything else that you'd like to add about it. From your perspective. No, you, you covered it very well, so, as as Marcy mentioned, Brad Muller, who's our director, and Allie Rhodes from Hudson wreck they'll be getting together with myself here in the next couple of weeks, having a conversation about the you know about the plan and The timing strategy for that for that district, and really how it, how it dovetails into the larger phase. 2 design and planning work that Parks is anticipating for that area of civic area now starting this year as well. So that's that's what I know right now.

[82:02] It. The other pieces that I'm attending weekly coordination meetings with the other projects, the planning projects for downtown to make sure that the historic district process is considered an integrated in all of the planning efforts that are are kicking off or are anticipated Great, that that's helpful. I I appreciate just knowing sort of what's happening with the historic district. So that's great. Wonderful, well, there were only a few other things under matters tonight, and the first one is just to follow up with the diversity equity. Yeah. Inclusion training for board members. Brenda, I will attempt to capture what you what you told me. But maybe if you're prepared I'll just hand it over to you.

[83:05] Sure, yeah, we I'm working closely with on a Sylvia Evan Daniel Curiel, who is our equity policy advisor in the City managers office. She really is the engine behind these trainings, and she and I met and found from from what all the boards gave us, that it looks like May and June are the best months to lean into offering these trainings that allows the new board members to be solidly in their chairs on each board after the Recruitment and appointment process before we move forward. So we're aiming for those 2 months we have looked at your request to be either paired with another board at one of your regular board times, and appreciate you offering both the Lrdc. Time and the I probably did that acknowledgement wrong. Ldrc.

[84:02] Time, and this time and so we're still working on that part. We are also creating some trainings that you could sign up for, so so that is a question we could circle back in on. But I do think we probably will be able to find a board to pair you with, so that you and another board will take this training together. During one of your regular board times So stay tuned for that. I will get back to you when we land on what that looks like. We also heard back Lucas from Sandra that these will not need to be private or public meetings, because they are education focused and not visited Sounds, good thanks. Alright! Thank you, Brenda. The next item is a reminder that the 2023 s Places Conference is here in Boulder next week. Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday, and if you haven't already signed up for sessions, I would recommend doing so.

[85:08] I still need to figure out which ones I'm attending. And so it'll be really nice to see so many people there, and it's very convenient to be here in Boulder for the first time. I think ever And then, if there's not anything on that, we were looking ahead, and the April meetings call on Passover, and so we'll follow up with a an email to reschedule the April meeting likely to Wednesday April Twelfth so that it doesn't Conflict with that holiday And then hot off the presses. Wait for found out that we've only had one landmark board apple applicant. There are 2 positions that are open, and so if anyone on this call or any board members, wanna continue to get the word out.

[86:06] I don't know if the city court's office is going to reopen recruitment, or what the next plan is, but that's what we found out just before this meeting That's all I have for matters Cause any John or Bill. Do you have anything I have nothing to add to that I have nothing to add And I don't. I don't either. Can I ask a question about the Saving Places Conference? Sure. Thank you. Abby. I am planning to go on all the field trips of the civic center the little rectangle and the Pearl Street molecules.

[87:01] They all sound really exciting. Is there something else that folks would recommend that I I attend like the opening session, or or one of the sessions during the conference Yeah. I, I would say the keynote speaker is always really great. So if you can make it to that, I actually off the top of my head. Don't remember who it is, and then not to, and most of them are wonderful. Abby and I will be speaking on a panel called Preservation, in Boulder. The first 50 years. And so if you want kind of good overview of the last 5 or the first 5 decades of this program, I actually also don't remember what day or time it is, but I'll know by next week I I think it's Wednesday at either 2, 15, or 2 45. I'll put that one in my calendar for sure. Yeah. But and Laura for that session, Dan, Carson, who's a for our landmarks for chaired council member, will be joining us as well as Susan Osborne, who's a former planning director for the City of boulder former mayor and

[88:12] So forth. So it should be, it's gonna be great, is it? Yeah. At Marcy. It's gonna be a great session Yeah, it sounds like a great session. It does overlap with the civic center tour. Do you know if either the session is recorded or if the tour will be offered again, I'd like to do both. Is there a way I can do both Yeah, I think the panel discussion is supposed to be recorded. The tours won't be Okay, okay. I didn't know if that was a tour that gets given on some kind of schedule, or if it's special for this conference And special for this conference Okay. Alright! That that will also be a great tour, as will the little rectangle they'll they'll all be great field trips, I think. It all sounds so wonderful, and I'm very excited that I know about it, and have an opportunity to do these things because of being your liaison so so many benefits.

[89:04] Thanks for answering my question. Anything else, from anyone Oh, just a clarification on the conference this morning we were mentioning this because we're signed up through Aubrey. We have to tell you what we want to sign up for. It has an additional fee. Aubrey. Okay, I'll be in touch Okay, cool. Sorry about that. No, I just yeah. I just wanted to be sure. I know how this is gonna work. Anything else. Does it? The meeting is adjourned at 7 30 Pm.

[90:00] Hi Kate. Alright! Good night. Thank you. Have a good day.