April 12, 2023 — Landmarks Board Regular Meeting

Transcript

Captions from City of Boulder YouTube recording.

[0:00] So we have it. We have just 3 members tonight. Yes. okay. The Landmarks Board meeting is called to order. Order. Welcome to the April twelfth, 2023 board meeting. It is 601 Pm. Before we begin the full agenda. I want to introduce our moderator this evening. Brenda written our Brenda, will you the virtual meeting decorum? Go ahead, Brenda. Thank you. Thank you. Good evening, everyone. I am as Abby, said Brenda Ritnower from our communication and Engagement Department. happy to support this meeting by sharing our meeting guidelines, and they are coming up now. Thanks so much, Claire. So here's our agenda for this evening. We do like to start our meetings with just sharing this information for everyone who's participating in tonight's meeting.

[1:02] We know some of you are certainly here every month like our board members. Some of you attend frequently, some of you, maybe not so much so. We appreciate the patience of those who've seen these slides a number of times as we share them with folks who might not be as familiar. We want to know that the city has engaged with community members to co-create a vision for productive, meaningful, and inclusive civic conversations. This vision was really designed to support physical and emotional safety for community members, for staff for board members and supporting democracy. For people of all ages, identities lived experiences and political perspectives. You can learn more about this vision and the community engagement process that we went through to reach it. If you go on the city's website, Multi Colorado Gov: the easiest thing to do is to in that search bar that you'll see at the top, put in productive atmospheres next slide, please.

[2:02] So the following are examples of rules of decorum that are found in the boulder of that revised code and other guidelines that we use at the city to support this vision, and these will be upheld during tonight's meeting. All remarks and testimony shall be limited to matters related to city business. No participant shall make threats, or use other forms of intimidation against any person. Obscenity, Racial epithets and other speech and behavior that disrupts or otherwise impedes the ability to conduct the meeting are prohibited. and participants may raise their hand to speak during open comment and public comment periods. During hearings individuals are required to display their whole name, whatever name they they're commonly known by before being allowed to speak online. If I don't see your whole name, I may reach out to you and ask you to put that in the Q. A. So I can change it for you. Currently, only audio testimony is permitted online. We just want to let you know that that raise hand button can be found at the bottom of your screen when that time comes, and we encourage you to use it, because we would love to hear from you.

[3:11] All right. Thank you. I think we're ready to move forward. Thank you as always, Brenda, for going over the decorum. So we do. I do would acknowledge that we do not have a quorum this evening. One of our board members is not here, so. Any action taken by the board tonight will require unanimous vote of all 3 of us. as with in-person Landmark board meetings. The recording of this meeting will be available in the record archives and on Youtube within 28 days of tonight's meetings. We're going to do a very quick roll call and introduction of the Board members who are here in our Planning Board liaison, because, as Brenda said. we have some people joining us tonight who are not here monthly. So i'm Abby Daniels Chair of the Landmarks Board, John

[4:04] I'm. John Decker, Member of the Landmark's board Ronnie and I'm Ronnie Pelosi, the third member tonight on the landmark board. and i'm Laura Kaplan. I am the liaison from planning board to the landmarks board. I do not vote on on landmarks board matters. Thank you, Lauren. I understand this might be your last meeting this evening, so we do so much appreciate your your involvement with us and your participation throughout your time as the liaison. We know that the we know that there are people who are here to participate who may have strong feelings about some of the projects tonight. We do want to hear from you, and we have found it more productive. If you work to persuade us, rather than berating us staff or the applicant. As with regular landmarks, board meetings, you may only speak at the appropriate time, either during public participation or during the public hearing on that specific matter. Request to speak outside of this time will be denied.

[5:16] There are cause, I judicial hearings this evening, so any person testifying, including the applicant, will be sworn in individually as board chair. I will take a roll call, vote on any motions made. and I believe the next slide is the group agreement that came out of our July landmark's. Board Retreat. Thank you. Thank you, ladies. This is a living document changes are always welcome. It continue. We continue to welcome and encourage open dialogue and board members are welcome to introduce a new topic tonight, using the race hand function.

[6:05] Okay. So if we move to the agenda, the first agenda item is the approval of the March meeting minutes. Ronnie or John, do you have any changes or alterations to the meeting. Minutes I have none. I have none. I move that we approve these me minutes. Do we have a second? I'll second. Thank you, Ronnie. So on a roll call. Vote to approve the March meeting minutes. John Ronnie and I vote I, so that the meeting minutes are approved. We're now ready to move on to public participation for anything that is not on the agenda, including our 2 public hearings. So, Brenda, I know you can take a moment and to see if anyone has raised their hand.

[7:05] or if they're calling it on the phone. Have you that function? Yes, thank you. I don't see anyone calling in on the phone, so I will keep my eye on that, and I will give that instruction. If we do see someone again. Your raise hand button should be right at the bottom of your screen. Should you like to participate at this time? And I I I do want to jump in and say, this is an opportunity. There will be an opportunity to speak on the 2 public hearing items before us tonight. So these are just for items, not on our agenda. I do have one hand up so we can definitely start there, and then others can find that button as they need to. So we'll start with Patrick O'rourke, and then Aubrey, will you be doing the timer tonight? Yes. and it's a different timer from last time we're going back to the old one.

[8:06] and as we're getting that ready, I just wanna correct that the board does have a quorum tonight, but because there are just 3 members. The votes do need to be unanimous to make to take action on any item. And then there's public hearing public comment under the 2 cases. But if you're here to speak about the any of these 3 stays of demolition now would be the chance to do that. Thank you, Marcy, and i'm sorry we don't have a full quorum, but we do have a quorum since we have 3 board members here. Thank you for clarifying that so, Patrick a work, if you would please swear to tell the Board the full truth, and then your 3 min will begin. I swear to tell the whole truth. and my 3 min should start now. So good evening. I have 3 things to touch base with. and I believe all 3 of them are significant.

[9:04] The first one is the hip, and I I wanted to personally thank Marcy for taking the time to meet with Lena and myself last Friday, to to review the hip and discuss the potential of what I considered an important meeting that should be done as a joint meeting between the Parks and Recreation Board and the Landmark board, you know. Last June fourteenth the Banshell expansion was submitted for the city council, and I reviewed the tapes on it, and I listen to the debate that the the City Council had 8 out of 9 of the members specifically stated that they were looking forward to a civic historic district, and so I understand that there's an application in with friends of the band. Shell as well as friends of the Tea House. I have a couple of questions for you. Number One is obviously I'm from historic boulder, and i'm questioning whether it's permitted to have a second application submitted simultaneously or at a later date.

[10:13] and that's a process claim a process question I have for you. The reason it's important is the the phase 2 historic, this the phase 2 civic plan is, they're in the pre planning process. and that means that now it's the time that there should be a dialogue between the 2 groups. This, specifically, as it deals with the civic district. Number 2 is if I looked at the other, and I mentioned this to Marcy, and I believe it was Chris the other day if I looked at what phase one was done, and if they thought that just carrying what they did on phase one over to phase 2 was appropriate. I think it would be. I would question that, and I. I encourage this group to go look at that particular program. Specifically, I counted 200 posts.

[11:08] And what me 200 post means is that there's 1,600 linear feed of chain. which to me is a barrier to keep people off the certain garden areas, and if depending on who you ask. including the artist, to put those 3 pieces in where the chains and post appropriate, I don't know, but it would have been a nice time to have that that conversation. So we're encouraging, moving forward, and I want to thank you for your time. Oh, and also, Maricopa. I think that's the address. I consider that a significant house and it should be saved. Thank you. Thank you, Patrick Brenda any additional raised hands. I am not seeing any additional raised hands at this time. so oh, we have one other raised hand. and that is Katherine Bart.

[12:07] so we will, and a a few others are joining the line now, so we'll have Katherine Bart, followed by. and I will let Abbey go ahead and swear Catherine in. Hi, Katherine! Welcome If you would swear to tell the Board the full truth. State your full name, and then your 3 min will commence. Yes, I tell the I will tell the truth. Huh? Thank you. Well, I I guess we're talking about the Banshaw and the whole area, and you know. I remember on June fourteenth I wasn't super sad. I was a little perplexed. but I thought, you know you never know what's gonna happen, and it may turn out to be something actually better.

[13:01] And so i'm Still, in that frame of mind. And what was very interesting to me was. we met a man who's just retired, who is calls himself a a tree hugger, you know an extreme street hugger. and he is an expert on trees. and I've I I don't think his job had to do with trees. but he loves championship trees. and so he has volunteered to help, because I I had tried to look at the information that the C. Has on their tree website with all the numbers, and you have to click on, and I wasn't too successful with my dexterity on that. But he has done a remarkable job. and he has. He has the skills. He took the original

[14:05] client from for to call Homestead. and he combined that with the plan that the city has of trees and where they are. and it is remarkable that many of them line up exactly. and I said, how did you do that? He said. Well, it took a while. But what is so interesting is that we have been looking. He's looked at the trees, and he has tan trees that absolutely match, and he believes these trees were listed on the Frederick Law Homestead. 1,924 landscape. What design plan? And they are huge I mean. Some of them are really huge, but we went out there and we went met, and we measured them.

[15:08] and most of the trees are about. Oh, into the 2 inches bigger than what's on the city's information site. But the thing that is so exciting is that there are 2 championship trees that Boulder has got the biggest and the best of these 2 trees in the State. and so i'm very proud about all that. and i'm learning a lot about trees from him. So thank you very much. Yes, Kathryn, i'm so sorry. But your time did expire. Okay, thank you. Bye. We also have Vanessa next. I'm not sure if Vanessa commonly uses our last name, but maybe so we'll share when when they're unmuted. So I will unmute their microphone, and that you can swear to me.

[16:04] Hi, Vanessa! And if you would be kind enough to share your full name after you promise to tell the Board the full truth? Thank you. Hi. I promise to tell the truth. This is Vanessa Miles. are you? I am the owner of, and I just wanted to tell you again. Thank you for all the work you all have done, trying to get estimates for me, and trying to find out about the structure of the house. I know that we don't have a final report from the engineer. but we did get an initial report, and this is just my understanding from Marcy that he said the house was not originally stone it was. Would they put the stones on their where the structure is not strong enough to hold the stones

[17:00] along with meeting a foundation, and I just wanted to express sort of my panic feeling of How do I? How do I make this house stand without costing way? Too much money? Because I've already put like close to 100,000 in it? Because I thought it would be a easy repair. My whole purpose was to save it. and that's just kind of where I stand now. My, I guess my concerns are. If we decide to save it how to like. I don't think I can afford to do all of that work. And is there support for me, or how does that work? Just my thoughts on it? I think that's all I have. Thank you, Vanessa. and I am not yet seeing any other hands at this time. Well just give it a good long pause.

[18:06] See if any others choose to join us. At this moment. alright. I think we are free to close the public the open comment. Thank you, Brenda. So we will officially close open comment, and we will move on to the discussion of landmark alteration, demolition applications issued in pending. So, Marcy, I believe you are going to update us. Okay. yes, and thank you. So there are currently 3 stays of demolition that are pending. and they expire at different times. So I'm going to talk about 2119 Mariposa, which Vanessa just spoke to this one in at the end of May May 20, ninth, and so

[19:02] the tonight is the Board's opportunity to decide whether or not you all want to schedule a hearing to consider initiation of the landmark designation process at the next regular meeting. Otherwise we would need to hold a special meeting before May. 29. So since the last time we spoke. In last month I had talked to David Woodham at Atkinson, Nolan, who is an internationally known structural engineering firm that specializes in historic masonry, and he went out to the site, and Co. Had some preliminary observations, which is what Vanessa relayed, that the stone was added to a frame building after the fact which poses some structural issues because it adds quite a bit of weight and mass to to the frame structure. And so.

[20:04] unfortunately, we don't have the structural report for you all tonight to consider. I am hoping to have that by the beginning of May, and so and for I wish that I had it to have a more definitive one. But I think all structural engineers are are fairly busy right now. so I believe that is. that's the update in terms of the day of demolition. I did put the slides in here. If any Board members would like a refresher on the history of this property. i'm happy to go over. Got it well, and I know John and I both did a site visit. so I don't know if Ronnie has any questions about it. Yeah, I I would appreciate if you flip through the slides, and maybe. if do we have any information as to when the stone was

[21:11] added to the structure. So I think that the answer is very fairly early, probably around the 1940 s or so which would make sense with. Yeah, the earlier phones would be exposed after tails, and the kind of general form kind of dates more to a 19 twenties, 1930 s building. And then. in the research. It appears that a couple of when found, the stone and kind of did it as a a remodel early on, by just adding, adding the stone to the exterior. Can Can you flip through any slides that you have available, and maybe on that? No. Describe

[22:01] what the staff's perspective is on the historic nature of the stone. like I understand the timing piece here. But W. It feels to me I mean, I have questions, maybe maybe flip through these, and And if you have anything to add about what I was just commenting on. Yeah. So okay. the data construction is estimated to be around 1,947, though we weren't able to PIN down the exact date of construction. But it's one of the earlier buildings in this neighborhood. it's associated with Cecil C. Cox and Donald Mccormick. This, so Cox lightly likely constructed the house. He and his wife are associated with different businesses in Boulder, and the Mccormick Mccormick family was connected to the house for more than 60 years. and he worked as a former and gardener at NIST,

[23:02] and then, in terms of the distinction of the development of the community. It's a part of the inner urban part which was applied in 1,908; but despite it being planning pretty early. It took many decades to fill in, and was pretty rural until the 19 fifties, and then it was developed along with the area south as the highway, 36 opened. and so it is related to that larger kind of post, war, history, and growth in in Boulder. And then it was surveyed in 1,992, and at that time they considered the property significant the example of vernacular architecture, and notable for its stone construction. Next we go to the architectural significance. We don't know if an architecture or builder prominence was involved. It's a vernacular house with a bungalow elements, including the moderately pitched cable roof overhanging eaves. Originally those had exposure after tails.

[24:05] some full for the actual lines and crossing elements like the single table end. And then artistic merit is the polygonal stone, facing which was a popular addition to smaller houses. though I I think that the history of this construction, the method of it being originally a frame, and then having a stone cloud. That's not something that I've seen before, and I don't think it was very common, and I think that that sequence of construction is what kind of this underlying? It's structural challenges. And then it's an example of the uncommon as a stone faced vernacular bungalow, and also one of the earlier houses in this neighborhood, and then the stone is most likely locally

[25:02] source. and then we go to the environmental significance. It's a generally flat lot with mature vegetation. The house that's back from the front of the lot, creating a front garden with 2 very large mature trees along Mariposa. Let's see geographic importance. It's not a visual landmark there, but it is, as I mentioned, one of the earlier ones in this or inter urban Park addition to the city. and then the building is not located in an in a identified potential historic district. and there's quite an eclectic mix of houses and housing dates of construction in the surrounding area. Then the other criteria that is included in this review is the relationship to the character which I've just touched on, and then the cost of restoration and the condition of the building. And I think that's kind of what it crux. What's it? The crux for this one, because in general

[26:11] I would say that this is a unique building, and one that has some historic merit, and I think it's a prime example of then having the balance of considering the structural challenges that this one has, not because of neglect, but because of the method that it was constructed. How does the board, you know, find the balance between it's our. It's historic significance in the the cost and condition. What are the earliest photos we have. Well, Ronnie. That's a great question, and I think the only photo that we have is the tax assessment card which I don't have at my fingertips. But but I can. I can pull it up if you give me

[27:00] just a minute here. Okay? And did you like my question because it was on your mind or no, because you always. You always keep us on our toes, Ronnie. in a good way. But I can. I didn't take that question. Sorry, but it's okay, I think this cases at a very important junction, which is the Board's decision of whether to let the State continue and take no action, or to decide whether to schedule a hearing to start the landmark designation process. So I appreciate the care that you have in making this decision. and maybe while you're pulling that up. I can just share some of my thoughts. please. Excellent! I mean. You guys went to the site so you'll be able to give some more insights, but

[28:03] from what i'm hearing. it sounds to me like there's structural issues associated with in particular. the application of the stone on a building that didn't have stone when it was initially constructed. All of the aspects that were described in the criteria for it to be potentially landmarkable are still applicable, regardless of the presence of stone. I hear Staff saying Stone was there very early during the period of you know, the original period of the construction of this house, and I would say. during the period in which this is significant. the thing I am a little confused about is

[29:04] a little bit of the app. The applicant's objective. And I think you know, Vanessa. I think this requires a little bit of a dialogue which I don't think we can get to at this moment. But there's a cost and feasibility question that you have. Which is it sounds like you might keep this house if you could find a way to that's financially feasible to make sure it's structurally sound. And so one you're asking are there financial resources available? And I think that if that conversation hasn't been head yet with staff that we need to do that. I also hear that the issues, the stone. and I question whether or not the house would still meet the criteria if the stone was removed.

[30:03] and if it was, i'm just gonna say restored back to a pre-stone state. and I don't have answers to all of that. But you know it seems like a tidy description of 2 solutions that might reach common objectives, which is preservation objectives. one of which maintains and potentially offers funding, and the other one that helps to undo some of the components that are the most burdensome and potentially still meet the criteria and Ronnie. If it's appropriate to to respond to that, I will just say that unfortunately, the city doesn't have a fund to help offset the cost of restoration or repair. I wish we did other. So there are some other communities that do. But our incentives are often through

[31:06] variances or modifications of the building or energy code. We don't have a lot of money. There are state tax credits that can help offset the cost with which business and I have talked about before those are capped at a project. Maximum project cost for qualifying cost is 250,000, which would provide a $50,000 tax credit. which is very helpful. But unfortunately we don't have a lot of money to to provide. and then I think your your second point is an interesting one of saying, If the stone adds this structural complication or or issue, could you just remove it? And I think my hunch. because the house is gutted so you can see quite a bit of it. I don't think the original shaving is underneath there, and we don't have a historic photo to restore it back to.

[32:02] and I don't think there would be much if any integrity left if the stone were removed. The concrete cells were put in at the same time. and we just don't have the documentation to restore it back to that. I don't want to take that completely off the table. I think it's a creative alternative. But I do want to highlight some challenges with that. And when you. when you use the word integrity. were you referencing the correct, the criteria based integrity components that are the architectural merit aspects. Or are you referencing structural integrity? Hmm. I was talking about architectural character and the loss of material. Gotcha. Okay, I'm: curious what John and Abby might have to report based on the site visit.

[33:07] I okay love to tell you so. I was Abby and I visited the site. spent pretty good amount of time internally, as well as externally kind of assessing the condition of the of the ongoing renovations and the character of the house and the property. I agree with Patrick that it is a property of note. particularly in this neighborhood. and that making some efforts to preserve it are are required, I think the issue of the stone interestingly might might take on it at the time it wasn't clear

[34:03] when, or if the stone was added or not initially intended. and I think that at least personally. my my understanding of the of the projects significance is partly the stone. The fact that it was added so close to the the original inception of a house, or that it may have been part of the an initial in in intention, and was not added until means were available to do it. I also one of the things that was discussed when we were there was the issue of the the flood that happened in 2,013, and damage that it had done. I I got the sense that in in that respect the building was its structure, the stone, the walls, as they were, and the foundation, were in a kind of equitable repose. Up until the time of that flood and the flood

[35:16] created various destabilizing forces, one of which was separate, you know, saturating soil thoroughly in and around and under things. and a lot of buildings lost stability, and several in that neighborhood, by the way, that we witness to the house that the flood had actually undercut the brick walls, and they were caving in which was a property of note. the one that was on kings. or or may have been the top of Mariposa that we went and visited a couple of years ago. and the brick the brick was falling in because the foundation had been completely undercut by the action of the flood.

[36:06] And I wonder I mean this. This makes me curious. I know it's late. and those books are closed. If there is any possibility that if that is the significant destabilizing factor if there would be some money available, not from city sources, but other sources associated with flood. That's just. i'm throwing that out there. I I definitely here. The owners feeling she has gotten into this with the intention of preserving the property clearly stated. was on that path. We saw the evidence of it. She had it torn apart, had saved some of the laugh Plaster in one section of it was talking about also the issue of energy upgrading the fact that they the walls, even with the stone on the outside, which gives it a certain amount of thermal mass.

[37:06] The walls are very thin. There's not a lot of options with insulation that Don't involve thickening the walls and deepening the carrying structure you could see up into the addict structure, and it was kind of, I would call it a kind of a colloquial field framing of. of framing the slow proof with collar ties and kind of a field, made trusting. and it seemed somewhat undersized. However, it had survived till this point. It's it's a very it's. It's a very what do you call it? It's a difficult call to make one way or the other on this one. because the the absence of any kind of resources makes it seem

[38:08] unfair or or incorrect to to saddle this owner with additional cost associated with. you know, further restoration, however. she's she's also into it to a degree that it would be nice to be able to achieve something out of. So i'm i'm kind of in a quandary on this one and and John I I agree with you as well. I. So I first want to go back to Rona. Your great comments about this stone, and if that was removed, I mean definitely. The stone is now a character defining feature of this house. and I think for our challenges tonight is that we're running up against a stay that expires the end of May, which we could just continue, but for me to make an informed decision would be that engineer's report, and and I agree with Marcy that David Williams, one of the best people

[39:15] who could have been assigned to look at this. So I feel like I I I guess I personally can't quite let it go, because I think that engineering report will give us so much valuable information, and because this day doesn't it expire till the end of next month, I don't know if how Ronnie and John you feel about at least scheduling an initiation hearing. Now what I don't know, Marcy is, if you're anticipating that engineering report, the first of May, and our meeting is on May. Third, how quickly Staff can turn around that memorandum, whether you know to support the initiation or whatever you know, because I think this is more a timing element than anything else at this point.

[40:06] Yes, I think that we can be as prepared as we can be. And then. if the report comes, you know a day or 2 before the meeting will include it and do our best to respond to it. But but we would be able to prepare a memo and provide the the analysis based on them, for we have now and then add the engineering report as soon as we receive it. because I just personally am not ready to let this go, and I I so appreciated Vanessa's interest in desire to really to preserve it, and then it she got into it, found, you know, more and more issue. So you know, I think I think if if we wanted, If there was a possibility of initiating, then I think we would need to vote tonight to have that on the May third agenda

[41:05] And, Abby. Can you just explain what might come with the engineering report. Well for me it might give me. I would really understand what the costs were involved to preserve it. and if it was just, it would go for to me, to that balancing. And so the applicant's description of it being cost prohibitive. are based on the just the verbal conversations that have been had with the engineer, or well, in that I didn't know the answer to well she has it, she she stated a number when she spoke just before. That is the amount that she's already into the process. So

[42:02] she maybe getting close to the top of what she had thought she was gonna have to put into it. which would make it Cro cost prohibitive in that sense. John, can I ask you, do you agree with Abby that we should pursue a path that offers the flexibility to move forward with designation. Knowing that it is contingent on the the engineers report. I I do. I? I do agree with that. Okay, If that is the case, and the 2 of you, I think, have a better understanding of both the applicants desires and the building. Then I would support that we, in the spirit of good will, of being able to have that information and conversation available to the applicant, and understand with them kind of the

[43:07] avenues that can they can proceed with, and how the you know, dollars and sense actually might pencil out. So I would support that. And so, Abby, if you think something needs to happen to move forward, I feel like is now now, my good time. I Well, I think it would take a motion, and then a second motion and a roll call vote to hold it. Initiation hearing for this property at our May Third Board meeting. Okay. And I just to clarify that Abby for observers and others. An initiation hearing is just that it's an hearing to explore initiation of a designation process, and it may be the point when we decided that maybe it wasn't where we should go.

[44:01] So exactly. It's kind of the last opportunity based on any additional information we get. But you're right. Yeah, yeah. Okay, I support this as well. Okay, that is just one step. Obviously, if there was a vote to initiate that night. Then there's a designation hearing, and so forth. But we're not there yet. This is just not to maybe make a decision tonight, and wait for that report, which I I think was great, was requested. Would anyone like to make a motion? I can make a motion. I I. I move that we set our May third meeting for an initiation, hearing for this property. and explore further information at that point.

[45:04] and I second, that so we'll do a roll call. Vote John. bye. Ronnie. Hi. and I vote I. So we will ask Staff to prepare an initiation hearing at May Third for 2119. Mariposa Avenue. All right. thank you, and we'll get that scheduled, and Vanessa will follow up with you tomorrow to talk through the next steps. and in the meantime we'll move to the next day of demolition. and I am sharing my screen. Okay. So the other 2 that we have were reviewed at your last meeting in March. and this first one is the 1922 Annex building to the old Bowler Prep School, which has since been demolished. This is the alley view of the building. The stay of demolition expires June fourteenth, and so

[46:07] John and I met with the applicant team to note last week to talk about alternatives to demolition. How could the building potentially be incorporated into redevelopment? Could it be moved? Could the materials be salvaged? And I'm excited to hear what John's summary of that meeting is, I will share that. I thought it was very productive in terms of talking about potential ways to save it. I I think this building is unique in a lot of ways in terms of that. It's architectural articulation faces the alleyways. Then the front of the building that faces walnut is very utilitarian. So the conversation, both at the board hearing in March, but also our stay of demolition. Conversation was kind of open to preserving just the facade or the facade, in some return which for most historic buildings, would not be an appropriate

[47:12] approach, a preservation approach, however, because of the way that the building sits in the way that it's designed. We kind of went down that path of exploration, and we have another meeting set up for next week, Onsite and the applicants going to prepare some kind of rough massing about what it might look like if it were incorporated into the redevelopment. John, what was your take away from the meeting? What else would you add? I don't know that I could add anything. You pretty much summed it up. I I think that the uniqueness of this building is that it's it's most signature element is oriented to the alley, because that was

[48:01] it's set up for utility. It was connected with a project that was on the opposite side of the alley. and because of that they wanted to signify it to the people moving from the one building to the other building during its the way it was used originally. and it was kind of in the meeting. I think we all kind of agreed. or or a little hard pressed to find much more of the building than this facade. It was historically significant, or even visually significant, and enough to talk about preserving, or at least preserving the whole of the building. And so that's pretty much what was discussed, and that's what they are planning on presenting to us as some ideas directed towards that.

[49:02] Hmm. And it was a great meeting. Otherwise it sounds very productive, and i'm looking forward to attending on Tuesday since I had an emergency when you first were scheduled. Thank you guys. Yeah, I think this one is. It's a really great potential candidate for adaptive for you as kind of a masonry shell. And yeah, I appreciate the applicants willingness to consider that. And then putting together some schematic designs. So yeah, we'll continue this next week, and then I will also say, I put together some slides of examples of past site review projects of where historic buildings were incorporated into the redevelopment, and I think that was really helpful in

[50:00] teen up the conversation of there are a lot of really pretty cool examples of adaptive reuse that have gone through the site review process and have been. I've had a landmark as part of them. and that's not to say that's the outcome for this one, but I think it was helpful, knowing that the applicants are planning to submit for site review of this one to really brainstorm creative ideas of how it might be incorporated. That sounds great. I'm happy to hear that, and it sounds like it's on a good path. Wonderful! And then it look ahead. We'll give an update at the May meeting, and then at that meeting the Board will then decide. If you all want to hold a hearing in June or not so stay tuned. And then the last day of demolition that we will give an update about tonight is 1444 fulsome.

[51:03] and it is the 1958 mid-century modern apartment building right at Folsom, and the Boulder Creek path and that day of demolition expires at the end of June, June 20 ninth. So it's kind of on the same schedule as the 1,741 walnut and we met with the applicant team just yesterday, which I really appreciated being able to walk around the building, kind of see the the structural condition that it was in, and then talk a bit about some of the flood constraints Number one, probably some of the constraints, number one being the flood and the flood plane and kind of talking more in depth about how difficult it would be to bring this into compliance and still have a residential use. So I

[52:01] We'll turn it over. John and Ronnie. We're both there and looking forward to hear your thoughts about the meeting as well. If he doesn't want to. Yeah, go ahead, John. This was an interesting one. It's an interesting building. because it is a type of of modern construction that was somewhat common. It kind of was the type of modern construction that was oriented towards quick utility. which started occurring after work to and in the fifties and sixties incorporated inexpensive materials and very quick ways of erecting, and

[53:02] it's constructed of of unit masonry walls, block walls that were not properly reinforced and parched. Maybe it was proper at the time the building was thrown up. There were industrial systems like Sherwall system that was essentially throw up concrete block and stucco the outside of it. And you got a wall. and it has a lot of environmental situations, and of course, the first one which is a common one in this portion of boulder is a flood plain presence. The fact that the site was always flood-prone, but modifications to the infrastructure around it have significantly worse in that condition. It's adjacent to

[54:00] a bridge that is a under I guess under size bridge for 100 year capacity, and would cause a a flood back up that could be devastating, not just uphill of it. but to it, when it flows across Folsom when it reaches that elevation and which it would in 100 year flood There's that issue. There's the lack of lateral load resistance which the form of construction created because of the lack of cross bracing and the lack of reinforcement. And it was interestingly to me other than those kinds of problems with it. It actually looked to be in pretty good shape it was. It was interestingly, and I believe it was because they had been maintaining it fairly well.

[55:06] It probably radically underperforms in its energy performance, because it's under insulated it's. It's essentially masonry walls, with no insulation inside or out. and so it had some interesting details and interesting character giving elements. Again. I'm. Hard pressed to see how you could afford to this particular building because of the flood plane and the potential for a 7 foot high inundation, and everything associated with that. It would have to have it's. It's first floor elevation raised significantly to be able to legally have it be an occupied structure in boulder, so that alone is prohibitive

[56:08] because of the way the building was built, if nothing else That was kind of my impression that I came away with. As I said, it looked actually very interesting. It also had some pretty significant mechanical issues. both associated with the flood and with the age of the systems. Yeah, John, I think that is such a good summary. I think you hit on all the points, and i'm in agreement. You know. Sometimes there are design solutions for buildings that come through our review that allow us to come up with a creative way to really preserve the entirety of the structure.

[57:00] I don't think that this is a design solution problem. That is an architectural design issue. It's actually it is what John said. It's a structural issue, and that's compounded by the flood plain and the flooding of the site, and how it behaves as it crosses fulsome. And then, further, more existing conditions related to base flood elevation and non-compliant You know you son it within the flood plane, which is essentially having residential within the flood plane and not lifted above the base flood elevation. You know it's prohibited. so i'm interviewing with John I. This is a lovable building like I have driven by this many times in my life. and Haven't thought much of it. I really appreciated the opportunity to walk around. I think the applicant demonstrated their knowledge of the building and thorough investigation of its parts, and reasoning for why they see it being challenged.

[58:03] It was very evident, being there that everything that they reported at our last meeting, you know, was accurate. I agree with John. I think I am also hard pressed to see a path forward where the improvements are the structural improvements that need to be made, and the compliance the issues associated with the flooding that would also need to be made if this building were brought up to current standards, you know. could happen in a reasonable and cost-effective manner. So thank you both for that and Marcy for for your portion of this update. and i'm very mindful. We have 2 public hearings to get to, but i'm glad we're taking the time to have this conversation, because these stays are very important, and work should be done during them, and I feel like the ones we've commented on tonight. You know, progress definitely has been made in the discussions

[59:09] for this one. Marcy. There it it my senses, or it's not another meeting that is going to be scheduled necessarily, or any next steps. I mean it. Just hearing what you, John and Ronnie, have shared. and I would look for direction from you all since we just met yesterday I hadn't followed up with with that question of If we wanted to meet again or or not. So you let me know that applicants have offered. If there's any additional info or meeting, they're they're open to it. If I could just offer one more thing here. I think there was a conversation at the site. That was kind of an if and if and if the building was demolished. what

[60:04] could happen that might pay homage to the building that might be a salvage piece of materials and re-use, which I think to the different form of preservation. But I think they sounded open to it. I am not sure if it's necessary. But if there was something that was. if we headed down that path, and there was something very creative that we thought was valuable. I believe that, you know it sounds like they would be agreeable to try to make something like that happen. They were. They seemed very interested in anything we had to say which thought was fun to talk about. And another thing is is that we didn't really talk about it. But the site and the surroundings.

[61:02] particularly yesterday, because it was like this beautiful spring day, as it it hasn't almost park like quality. It's adjacent to the creek. and if if some effort in the landscape. Planning of whatever gets proposed here is made to preserve some of that quality that would be great, and we can say that whether they do it or not, I don't know, but I think it needs to be said that there's there's a quality there that is set up by the original design and placement of this building that I think should be considered in whatever happens next. Yeah, I guess I would just offer that. I would conclude with. If the applicant thinks that there is a reuse piece of aspects of the building, and that.

[62:04] having a conversation with Staff about what Staff might think is, and potentially the landmark board at our next meeting. Our aspects of this that are worth incorporating. that that would be productive, a productive use of everyone's time between now and the next meeting. and again I don't see that as being absolutely necessary. But if it is like a common goal, and we all agree on that, and they think that there's something to do there. Then, I think you know, using staff as a resource for that, and the intermediate in in in time would be useful. That sounds like maybe one more conversation would definitely be valuable. And as and Marcy, as you just stated, this meeting was just yesterday, and it does take a little while to absorb and digest, and this and that. So

[63:05] it it sounds like, maybe the At this point the stage just continues, and perhaps another conversation. Alright. Well, thank you. That brings us to the end of the discussion of pending or issued applications, unless there are other discussion items from the Board members about anything that's in the statistical report. Since we no longer have a dedicated presentation. However, looking at the time, I may move us along the civic area. Update is something that we were thinking might take 15 or 20 min with a kind of short little presentation by me, and then some discussion or questions from the the board. But it's really just the beginning of a process. And so we were thinking it would be about 1520 min before we get to that. Then get to the public hearing items for this evening.

[64:10] So this is our first official update of the exploration of a civic area historic district since the city Council's meeting last June. and we heard the City Council not a 5, to explore the creation of the historic district in the civic area. In 2,023. We have been working with parks since january almost on a weekly basis, weekly or bi-weekly basis to help coordinate this historic district exploration with the phase 2 Parks planning effort, but then also plugging into the downtown coordination. There are a number of projects going on in this geographic area.

[65:01] But we have landed on an approach that is collaborative and unified with Parks and our department and planning and development services. and that is to hire a consultant to complete a cultural landscape assessment. And what that would provide is one a third party expert to prepare that report, but by using the cultural landscape assessment it looks at things like view sheds and circulation and things that go a little bit deeper and more broadly than our historic district criteria, which we can use for parks and areas that Aren't. residential or commercial. But that's they were written with kind of a traditional neighborhood in mind. And so by looking at this more broadly as a cultural landscape. it's similar in in terms of looking at the history, the significance, and the integrity, but it looks at it as a landscape rather than rather than just a historic district.

[66:09] And so the exploration will be integrated into the reimagining civic area east Phase 2, which is starting this year, and we'll continue next year as well. I should have started out by saying, Welcome to Mark Davison, the planning Parks manager, who is kind enough to join us in the meeting tonight, and we'll be here to add anything or clarify anything, or answer questions from you all. But the point being is that the start, significance, documentation, and analysis will lead and inform the next phase of the Park design, and as such there is an urgency to move forward. I recognize that it's not as fast as some members of the community would like, but I think the important lessons, both from the expansion of the mantel and the civic area phase. One is that

[67:06] having a collaborative, intentional approach where the history and the parks planning or integrated, is really important. really important in terms of this project. And And so here i'm going to provide a very broad overview of the approach for a cultural landscape assessment. It would start with the project management identifying the scope of work kind of the project management pieces. We've been defined the study area and then document the site, history, and historic periods followed by mapping existing conditions, and in the at that point we would have a decision point of whether to continue or not. If there is significance in the area that's defined, we would continue into a landscape, features, inventory, and then analysis and evaluation of what's significant. What has integrity? What

[68:13] in terms of what's on the ground today? And then there would be another decision point. Looking at what's the best approach to managing the historic features which could be a historic district. It could be it could be. It could be a number of things I don't want to jump ahead in terms of solutions. But if at that point. then, if it's a historic district, we would then look at the treatment and management recommendations which are a Kent to design guidelines, and then, finally, that report and communication would be tied up into a a final report. And so what we're looking at in terms of project management. Everything up until

[69:01] through the analysis and evaluation, is probably going to take about 9 months to do it and do it well, and Parks has the resources and staffing to lead the consultant piece on that which is wonderful, and they have money as well to to hire a consultant. And so. I think with that I would say. I think there's a lot of benefit to this approach in terms of it, being collaborative and looking at it as a park landscape rather than moving forward with a historic district application of which we have received a historic district application as of this week, and we have not had the chance to go through it. But I do want to highlight that. That is something that i'd anticipate the board scene in the next month or 2.

[70:00] So with that I we'll turn it over to Christopher or Mark. Is there anything that you'd like to add at this point. Mark, I'll defer to you first. I would just thank you. Chris kind of Kj: I would just add frankly what you said, Marcy, that we've worked very closely since January, the 2 departments and parks, and recreation is leading phase to the civic area to design, and Kj's got a schedule for that. We we've had a discussion between not just these 2 departments, but facilities, transport utilities. And as we move ahead to that second phase of the design, one of the things we were very clear on is to do really full another. This this from all aspects, Flip plan, analysis, economic research, analysis of this important area and part of that came up with the cultural landscape assessment.

[71:05] And what we have made clear is until all these assessments completed, we will not move forward with a schematic design or any design proposals. So that's I want it just to be super clear on that to reinforce what he said. And we do think this cultural landscape assessment is the best way we can access frankly the park areas for both historic significance and integrity, and get a really professional report that will understand everything we need to know about the area, and from that we'll be able to have a good discussion on it, and then make a decision to move forward. and I just appreciate the collaboration with and Mossy and Kj. On this I see John has his hand up. Marcy. Is this a time 10 or 10 questions from board members. Yes, and I would just say to that point. I said that Parks would be leading it in terms of the consultant management, but we, of course, would be very

[72:03] closely tied in in terms of the project. John. so just, very quickly. I was previously before this board some time ago on the Arts Commission. and we had at that time that was early. 2 thousands at been involved in a kind of a cultural evaluation of the of the civic area and talked about making at least canyon that section of canyon, a cultural corridor. And it might be an interesting thing to involve some members of the Arts Commission or other members of the Arts community. Into this this process, particularly, the I guess cultural evaluation. cultural landscape, as it were.

[73:01] just to throw that out there. Nice to meet you, Mark. Yeah. hello! You're muted, Mark. Your microphone is needed. Oh, man, I just came out of the beautiful statement. I love to train. Well appreciate it, John. I I just want to be super clear because it can be confusing. Sometimes it the cultural landscape assessment. I used to work for the National Park Service. It was like the standard way to assess historic landscapes, and it does purely focus on the historic landscape. It. It isn't. you know the culture, but I I totally appreciate it. We are working with downtown boulder partners, and obviously we've just about to rehire a new person for the odds for the city. So we will be collaborating with them for sure. Okay. interesting. I'm raising my hand the old fashioned way. and I do want to welcome you. Mark, it's great to have you involved with this. So because I knew we were getting an update tonight, I wanted to refresh my memory about how we got there. And, mark, I don't know if you're aware of this. But

[74:08] in august of 2021 friends of the band shell gave landmarks for a proposal. They sent us a letter. We actually didn't get it till September 20, seventh, but it was about expanding the Banshill boundary designation to include all of Block 13 and the landmarks board wanted to move forward with that, and somewhere along the line, and i'm still not clear on the origins of this or the genesis of this was this proposed historic district. Whether that came from planning, staff or parks and wreck, I'm. Not sure. But then we got to this June fourteenth meeting last year that I know Mark Marcy reference, and I wanted to look up what the meeting notes did, and Marcy had it on her slide about counsel giving an out of 5. But what the meeting notes said that I read Council gave a notified providing direction that upon formation of a historic district, this parcel could be brought for landmarking consideration, meaning that that request to expand

[75:11] all of block 13 in the designation. The meeting notes from June fourteenth, 2,022 also sent. Furthermore, Council direct staff to ensure that the landmarks, board, and parts, and Wreck advisory board are both appropriately engaged in the Park design process, and that the Banshill is included in the design, and continues to be a centerpiece in Central Park. So what I hear. I think it's great that parks and record planning department are working together. I'm unsure of what the landmarks board is, unless it's something brought to us at the very end, and at that council meeting what staffs recommended motion. it was not to approve the ordinance. 8 5 2, one amending the designated boundary to include all of block 13 for the property at 1,236 canyon boulevard city of Boulder, Colorado landmark, under chapter 9 11 historic preservation, Boulderary, Vice Co. 1,981. But to direct planning and development services to prioritize preparation of an application to designate a larger civic area, historic district in 2,023, to include all of block 13, but I just want to clarify right now that

[76:27] that's not that's not on the table that might come once that cultural landscape assessment is completed, or the fact that something was submitted earlier this week. Right? Yeah, right? So that is correct that our approach is to do this cultural landscape assessment and integrated into the parks planning piece. And as you can imagine, we've also gone back and listen to that meeting. I know a lot of folks were there, but the meeting notes are incorrect.

[77:03] and the not of 5 actually reads that council directs staff. It says Landmark Staff. to explore the creation of a historic district in this area, and involve landmarks in proud. And so that is the direction that we're taking, which is to explore it by doing this report and integrating it into into the phase 2. I know that there is different understandings about Councils direction that night, and I think that it varies from well, a whole range, one being that a district must be created by the election in November, which is not not the direction that that Council gave. And so there is a discrepancy between the the minutes of that meeting and what the actual, not of 5 that Council voted on.

[78:00] Well, as I saw there were 2 separate paragraphs in the meeting notes. Then one more question, Marcy, I mean, this goes to Patrick or Rort, speaking during public participation where he mentioned about a potential second nomination coming forward? Or has another organization ever joined a pending application for a historic district. Well, that would certainly be a preference in terms of having community members who have common goals to collaborate and put forward a single nomination. Competing nominations is is going to be a challenge, both from a resourcing perspective, but also from a process perspective. And so I have not had a chance to run that by our city attorneys folks, and so I think we would need to huddle and determine that, and it probably depends on what the proposals Are Are they exactly the same, or is one

[79:06] more expansive than the other? But I would encourage the the 2 to 3 community groups who have a common interest to work together and and put something unified forward. And, Marcy, that's exactly what I was thinking, which is so thank you for saying that that would possibly be an option, because that would make the most sense to me if they would partner if they so choose. Let's see. Are there any other questions at this point. Otherwise I would plan on giving the board regular updates at our meetings, and and we'll continue to kind of develop the the project plan and and keep you all informed.

[80:04] Thank you, Marcy. Thank you, and thank you, Mark, for coming and and welcome. Once again, Mark, we we look forward to working with you and seeing you at upcoming in future meetings. Yeah, be happy to do that. And any time i'll come back with mostly in Kj. To support whatever we need to have a discussion on It's nice to meet you. Thank you guys. Thank you. We will move on to our first public hearing. We're a little bit behind, but I do so appreciate that the time that was spent and the discussion on the pending stays of demolition. So the first public hearing is a public hearing and consideration of an application to demolish a house constructed circuit, 1887, an accessory building located at 1918 Pine Street, non landmarked buildings over 50 years old, pursuant to Section 9, 1123 of the boulder revised code, 1,981, and under the procedures prescribed by chapter one through 3 quasi judicial hearings, boulder vice code, 1,981, and the owner applicant is been Oliver and Clear. I believe you are leading this presentation.

[81:19] I am. We're giving Mossy a bit of a break. all right, so I will quickly go through the quasi judicial hearing procedures. All speaking to the item will be sworn in and board. Members will note any ex parte contacts. I'll get the staff presentation, and after that the Board may ask questions. The applicant will have up to 10 min to present to the board. and the Board may ask questions of them will then open the public hearing. After all, members of the public have made comments. The applicant may respond to anything that was said. We'll then ask everyone to mute their computers, and the Board will deliberate motion. Today requires

[82:00] an affirmative vote of at least 3 members to pass, so that means that the vote will need to be unanimous. The motion will state findings, conclusions and recommendation. and a record of this hearing is available in a couple of days as a video recording, and the official record will be added to the Archive within 28 days, although usually sooner than that before I pass it back to Abbey for ex parte contacts. The Board requested that we note who has reviewed this previously, and it was reviewed at the Ldsc. By Bill and Abbey on January eleventh. So back to you, Abby. Thank you for X. Partake contacts, John. Yeah. Ronnie. none and I have none. Thank you, Claire. All right. I seem to have lost you. Well, now, I really messed everything up. Then, mind, can you see my Powerpoint?

[83:05] We can, Claire. Okay, Great Abby and John and Ronnie, I cannot see you, so interrupt me if you need me to stop. Okay. So 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 the loss of architectural integrity. and also to provide the time necessary to initiate designation as an individual landmark, or to consider alternatives for the building. The criteria that can be considered, are the eligibility of the building for designation as an individual landmark. The relationship of the building to the character of the neighbourhood. and the reasonable condition of the building, and the projected cost of restoration or repair, although not deterioration caused by unreasonable neglect.

[84:05] The options for the Board today are to approve the demolition. If the Board finds the building does not have historic significance. or to place a stay of demolition for 180 days to consider alternatives to demolition. The stay would expire on July 30 first, which is a 180 days from the date. The Landmark's board hearing fee was paid. The third option is to initiate landmark designation. The applicant submitted the demolition application. On January fourth, it was referred to the landmarks board by the Ldlc on January eleventh. All right. So let me find my pointer. Okay. 1918 Pine Street is located mid block between nineteenth and

[85:00] twentieth. This is pine here. The building faces north on to Pine Street. It is within the identified potential Whittier historic district which is shown here in green it's, a one-story masonry house that was constructed around 1,887. It has a front gable with the the cable ends are actually constructed of brick with, and it has these wide wooden barge boards has a full width front porch supported by wooden posts. The original decorative porch brackets at the front porch have been removed. and a central door that's flanked by double hung windows. This is the the rear elevation, the south elevation. It has a smaller in set gable roof. You can just about. See the the this is the larger gable here, with the smaller gable, and set there also with brick cable ends.

[86:07] There was a central brick chimney, which you can just see that that the the chimney exhaust is still there, but the brick chimney has been replaced. and there's also a full width. shed roof frame, addition, which is this part here that was added before 1,929. This is the west elevation from the rear. You can see the shed shed roof addition here. The east elevation, which is this side, includes a a masonry projection with a shed proof that was added sometime between 1,000. 901,906 There is also as part of that, a a a small frame addition added at the same time. That originally was a second front page facing Porch, but it has been enclosed.

[87:14] so there are 2 accessory buildings on site. The older one is a one-story frame garage with a gable roof. The it also has some frame shed roof additions on the west and north. Sides. The building has vertical with siding with a sheet metal covering the east gable end. Let's see that right here. and the shed roof addition has exposed rough details here, and a cool mural right now. This is the other accessory building. It's a one story frame shed with a shed roof. There is a single door on the east elevation right here, and no windows

[88:07] at all around the building. The south elevation includes horizontal with sighting, while the other elevations are vertical siding all right. So the building history. According to the Boulder Ta county tax records, Amos Widner owned the land very early on in 1,874. It's as far back. As we went. Widner, together with Granville, Berkeley proposed extending the official city limits eastward from Seventeenth Street. and this was one of many properties that he bought in that area. He sold the land in 1,877, and we don't know if the house was constructed on the land at that time. but it does appear eventually on the Willett's map in 1,887. So 10 years later

[89:05] William and Harriet Rowan. And there's some Fremont with the first residents, and are listed on the 1,892 city directory. and on the 1,900 Federal census. At this address William was a minor. The family actually moved to the adjacent property at in about 1911, and rented out 1,900 and 18 Pine Street. and then Fremont Rowan, the son, eventually sold the house in 1,927, it was then owned by a variety of of owners, who rented it out. A woman named Mary and Hogan Klinky purchased the house in 1,953, and lived there until 1985 there, and a State sold the house in 1,985 to John Amrick, who sold the house to the current owner.

[90:03] So the criteria for review are outlined in 9, 1123 F. Of the Boulder Revised code, which are the eligibility of the building for designation as an individual landmark outlined in 9, 11, one and 9 11 2. The relationship of the building to the historic character of the neighborhood, and the reasonable condition of the building and the projected cost of restoration or repair. So Staff found the building to have historic significance, for it's very early date of construction. We couldn't pinpoint an exact date, but the house appears on the 1887. Will it's map? The property is also associated with Amos Widner, who is credited with providing kind of a framework for the development pattern that established central anise boulder. The house itself has had a number of owners, including George Hansborough, who was noted in an 1,880 written history, as one of the substantial miners and business businessmen of Boulder, Colorado.

[91:09] and also the Rowan and the Klinky families, both of which were working class families. Marianne, Hogan Klinky was the longest residence resident, owning and living at the house for 32 years the Rowans and clinkies do not meet the the criteria for individual contributions to the development of the community, but do represent boulders, working class families. So for architectural significance. Staff found the building significant for its architecture. As a late nineteenth century vernacular Masonry building it's located in the Whittier neighborhood, and was surveyed as part of the proposed Whittier historic district, and was considered at the time significant as a vernacular style, typical of modest brick houses in the 1890 S.

[92:06] Stuff. thought, the house the property met environmental significance as part of that potential Whittier historic district. The building is representative of the typical building patterns in Whittier, and contributes to the residential character of the neighborhood. So within this area and east of Eighteenth Street there are 7 designated individual landmarks, all representative of the city expansion. Granville, Berkeley, and Amos Widner proposed in 1872, and including both masonry and frame houses ranging in construction from 1872 until 1924 and the area is, is pretty representative of the diversity of architecture found in the area at the time

[93:08] for criteria. 3 and 4 information about the condition of the building and projected cost of repair was not submitted as part of the application. So without us, the staff recommendation is that the landmarks board placed a day of demolition on the property to consider alternatives to demolition. and 180 day stay period would expire on July 30. First and Staff considers this day appropriate, based on the criteria set forth in Section 9, 1123, F. We are see specifically that the property may be eligible. Her individual landmark design designation based on its historic significance as early working class housing. and is representation of the eastward City expansion. Granville, Berkeley, and Amos Whitney proposed in 1,872.

[94:06] The property contributes to the character of the neighborhood as an intact representation of the area's past. and it has not been demonstrated to be impractical or economically unfeasible to rehabilitate the building. So that's the end of the staff presentation. This is a reminder of the next steps in the process. The applicant has up to 10 min to present to the Board. followed by public participation an opportunity for the applicant to respond to anything anything that said, and then for deliberation. The question today for the Board is, if the building has historic significance. If yes, the Board will place a stay of demolition on the application to provide time to consider alternatives, and if no, the Board will but will approve the demolition request. So any questions from the board before we continue with the applicant's presentation.

[95:08] not seeing any. I think we can invite the applicant for his 10 min presentation. and then I will need to swear you in when you begin speaking. Opio Brenda, are you able to promote so you can. I am just sent Ben I panel. She should be coming over. Sorry about that. Thank you. And, Claire. Thank you for your excellent presentation. That was great. No, I I accidentally send you an invite just this regard.

[96:04] So, Ben, when you're ready you can unmute yourself. I will need you to swear that you will tell the board the full truth. You'll have 10 min, and then, as Claire pointed out an additional 3 min, if you'd like after the public comment. so welcome. Yeah, hi, there, I I swear i'll tell the truth. Thanks for having me love the presentation. There it's love. Seeing my house. I I moved to Boulder 30 plus years ago I bought that house. and it moved in, and I've lived in Whittier for the last 30 plus years. I I got married in the backyard at that house. I had. My child was born. When I was living at that house she went to to your elementary Casey and Boulder High. She's graduated, now gone to college. I I really appreciate the history involved of the area I love living in way to your, you know, living in Boulder.

[97:07] I also want to move into this house in 1,990. I I kind of converted the shed in the backyard to my wood shop. I do furniture, making and woodworking, and remodels that bill houses in my past I've done extensive. We models on the old houses, new houses design stuff. I've also been a realtor in Boulder for the last 15 years since retired. I have pretty good understanding of the housing world, and what's going on in Boulder, and I understand what you all are doing, and I really appreciate the historic nature of this house, and of what we're talking about here tonight. With that in in mind it's it's come time to. you know. Do something with this place. It's it's old. I've lived there, you know. It's been rental for the last 15 years.

[98:10] It barely past smart rags it. It's 12 inch thick, brick walls, with no insulation. The roof structure and the main part of the house was made with 2 true 2 by 4 S. From the period that are too long for their span, and they sagged over time. I had a roo, for in to do a new roof, and he said he wouldn't roof it because he could guarantee the work, because there wasn't a structural integrity underneath the work he was going to do. So we couldn't. you know we couldn't couldn't. You know what the what's the word perform it. He couldn't. you know we couldn't couldn't stand by us work because there wasn't

[99:00] integrity underneath. I'm. I'm just looking at what to do with this place. You know I love the house, love history. The the front porch has been. You know it's cute, and they took off all the pretty parts before I moved. There. You can see from the old photos. It looked great back in the day at the moment. What's under there is pretty much rotted and deteriorated from a flat roof that was improperly built at the time, and it's been leaking. and so that needs to rebuild. And that's you know that's all. Hell stuff that's okay. When you go inside the main part of the house the floor is wavery at best, and unstable it worse. The the what supporting it under there are 4 by 4 that go directly down into the third to just keep the the main floor from creaking and sagging over time. And so they they put those in there when they built, because the span was too long.

[100:09] and that's you know. That's fine. It's just that. If you're trying to go and sell a house these days, and you have an inspector come through. I don't want to see, you know wood touching direct contact with dirt, and that's what's that's what's all up the house? That's what's holding up the middle of the house. The window issue. I'm sure you're familiar with single, you know same pain. Windows, double hung windows all the way through. Long gone, and they don't meet the any energy efficiency standards of today's building, and I know there are ways to get around that. I know you can route out the windows put in double place Windows make it. you know you can. You can work with old buildings. I'm familiar with with that. I guess what i'm looking at is the This house is

[101:08] old. and I I love the history of it. I'm. Just looking at moving forward. It needs to be. It is, it is exceeded its expectancy. Materials have exceeded their life expectancy. The roof is made up of 2 by fours doesn't have enough insulation, and it saves the floor doesn't support. What's there? I I love them. love the look from the outside. I love the old pictures. I love history. I'm just wondering, moving forward. I want to do something with this house. It's time for me to move on. I want to do a project. If I don't do it, somebody else will. Somebody else will be in front of you. you know, after I sell it. asking to do something with it. What do we do here? And i'm just trying to figure out what the best move is moving forward. I know there's ways to work with an old house. I've seen a lot of examples in Whittier's bold to bold houses that

[102:11] have successfully, you know, maintained or transformed. I'm just looking at it as a as as a project moving forward Practically. there's really not much material wise to to save. I mean the walls, Aren't insulated, the roots sagging the floors sagging. you know we can. There there are fixes for all of this. But to what end? And you know that that's why we're we're Talking is is what's the historical value versus you know. Is it? It's better to tear it down and build it in the same shape, the same form. So it looks like it's historical and march, he was saying.

[103:02] We had a great mar. She's been super helpful in this process, she said. That's not what historic is about. We're not trying to create Disneyland here. We're not trying to make it look like you know it used to. We're trying to preserve the historic integrity of of the house and the of the materials, and I get that. But the fact is that the materials are beyond their life expectancy, and they're still standing. But you know. what do we do with them? So. So I guess that's my You know that that's kind of my my take on it, I mean i'm i'm curious what your take is. I I don't know what. Oh, 1 one piece was in your analysis earlier I I I think the whole front of the house is built. I mean. You think it's a lot earlier than I had come across. That's kind of cool, but

[104:00] i'm pretty sure the kitchen and back bedroom and back porch on the side of the brick. It's etched in 1,910, and I think that's when the second part of like that lower peak. And when you're looking at the West elevation. I'm pretty sure that's when the whole back half of the house was constructed. and i'm not sure about the front house. I hadn't heard 1,880 something. But so you know. But that's pretty old, too. But granted it's it's also funky. so I I think that's all I got, you know. I I i'm curious what you have to say. Thank you, Ben, and we will come back. You'll have another opportunity if you'd like after members of the public speak before we move to public comment. John or Ronnie, do you have any questions for been at this point?

[105:04] I don't have any things. And, John no, I I don't have anything. thank you. Then let's move on to public comment and Brenda. I don't know if you see any raised hands for this public hearing. I do not yet. So now is the time. If you would like to speak on this particular topic. to use that. Raise him, but not the bottom of your screen. Okay. I do have one hand up so we can start with Katherine Bars. So, Catherine, I think I I don't know that Abby needs to swear you in again, since she's where you when earlier today I I will go ahead just to be safe. I'm going to swear you in again, Katherine. Excellent! You should be able to unmute.

[106:01] Okay, I am telling the truth. Goodness, this will be sort of hmm from the heart statement. and that is that this neighborhood is and always was, for working class people and the people who did the hard work of boulder in the very early days. I think it would be just a shame to have it disappear from the face of the earth. I live in a house from 1,874, and I I can agree that the windows are pretty drafty. and we you know we look at that. And when I've met people from England who live in really old houses that make these kind of seem new. Their solution is to add another sweater.

[107:03] So I I don't know, but I just emotionally, I would hate to see this little house parish from the Us. So if that's all I have to say. Thank you, Katherine and Brenda, will give you a moment to see if any additional members of the public right. I'll make this our last call for public comments on this particular hearing. if you would like to speak now is your moment to raise your hand. Seeing no other hands going up, I think we are free to move forward. Thank you, Brenda. We'll close public comment for this public hearing, and then I do want to give you an opportunity. You would have up to an additional 3 min. If you want to respond to to

[108:00] Catherine's comments, or anything else, before we go to board deliberation. and then you may be muted if you're trying to say anything. Yeah, there you go. Sorry about that. I I said. I I appreciate her comments. I I was working class most of the time. I was living in that house, too. and I I moved to Boulder because it was cheap in 1,990, you know that was big. That was the appeal of Folder back. Then I think I bought that house for $92,000 in 1990. I guess I I I I guess the only other part I want to say is just from a a life expectancy position. What do you want to save?

[109:09] What do you? What are we here for, like? What do we? What are we trying to preserve? Is it the look? Is it the integrity of the material? Is it the Is it nostalgia? It just I i'm not sure. Here I I I you know I agree with with with her that it would be a shame that a nice old house goes away. Hello, bold houses! I love history, too. I just know that somebody is moving. I I want. I need to do something with this house. It's not really functional as it is it it barely passes. You know the regulations that the the cities put up of smarter eggs of insulation, features of

[110:00] you know, of of sort of the the that we're trying to provide here for, either for renters to live in the house, or for people that want to come and and move into it. This house doesn't do it anymore. And so something's need. Some is going to happen. and I just want to do a project here that's gonna be like compatible with with your. you know, in in sync with what's in the neighborhood. I mean? What's funny is I I move next door in 2,000. I bought the house next door in 2,000. That's a historic house. It's a Denver square. It's awesome. Check it out on Google Maps. I mean, it's like that's worth preserving. That's got something of integrity that you can work with this one. I just don't know what's worth saving all that can be done, I mean. I have no doubts that we can rebuild the flooring that we can rebuild the roofing. You can keep a bunch of the manky brick and rework the crappy windows

[111:06] like I. Nothing to do with that. It's all doable. But to what end? You know who's What's the what's the purpose here? That's what i'm asking of of you all. and i'm you know obviously part of community. And I respect what you do. and I really appreciate your meeting. and you know, and we'll just figure this out. I I just don't know what the answer is as to what's the best, highest and best use of this property moving forward it. and then I hate to interrupt you. But the additional 3 min have expired. So thank you for that. And now we will move on to board deliberation. I know that that we are hoping to have about 30 min of discussion for this. I don't know John or Ronnie either, if you would like to kick it off.

[112:04] What do you think, John? I can do it. please. I i'm gonna jump in because I I hear I hear what the owner is saying. and I understand his quandary. I think that i'm going to start with the issue of demolition. which is my PET issue these days has been for a while. Demolition is a process. but removes not just the materials of a building, but it removes or it it, I guess. tasks to waste all of the embodied energy and workmanship and life of the building. and consequently is a very wasteful process. It's it's a environmentally deleterious process.

[113:09] and this is outside of the issue of landmarks. And i'm going to get to that. But Yeah. it is an environmentally deleterious process, because it accounts for unless the bill, unless the demolition occurs in a in a way that allows for a little more systematic reuse of those materials, and and a diminishment of the loss of their embodied energy. It tends to be a very large part of what we do to the environment that's now working against us. So that being said that out of the way. it's something that we try to avoid.

[114:00] However, preservation is trying to avoid another type of loss. And that's what Katherine Barth was alluding to the goal of preservation, particularly in an area of the city that is potentially designated as a district. The goal of preservation is to preserve some some portion of the quality and historic character of that portion of the city. In the case of a district. It also is required that the the building stock be preserved as close to the period of significance of the designated district as is possible. and it does not freeze the district, and it doesn't freeze the buildings from alteration and modification to increase their utility.

[115:05] But it does preserve what are considered the most character giving elements of the building. Part of what I was hearing. the owners say is asking us well what is to happen to these kinds of houses, and what? Where, Where is the value of saving or attempting to bring? I guess, up to speed this this house. This is this is the type of thing that we can get an opportunity to talk about. If we were to put a stay on this.

[116:00] to explore the options alternative to demolition of the building. and to talk about ways that the the house could be not just preserved, but upgraded and brought into a higher utility. If the concern is selling the house and and gaining. you know, maximum value and potential out of it. Those issues can be discussed too demolishing. The House is not necessarily the best way, or at least a complete demolition of the House. I'll say it that way. There's a lot of alternatives to a complete demolition. They could be addressed. That may or may not achieve the aims of preservation. So that's kind of where i'm. I'm. Standing on this, I almost here

[117:02] a request for some extended dialogue about this property, and and would like to help. Thank you, John Riley. Yeah, i'm in agreement with John. I think we've heard a couple of things from Ben. which I can address, but I'm in agreement with Staff's analysis of the property and evaluation of it's merit, and how it meets the criteria. So I think I plan on moving in the direction of Staff's recommendation. That being said, I think Ben is asking some interesting questions about what the purposes of preserving homes like this. which I feel like could probably be handled outside of this meeting, and are better handled with a direct conversation with the planning staff member. And then, I think, John, you know, Ben was also asking about highest and best use, and I think you know there's different ways of interpreting what that means, one of which might have to do with highest value of a property in terms of an assessment. Or

[118:14] just, let's say, profit margins associated with operating a rental property, which, you know, is a different interpretation of other versions. Of what highest and best use might be that have to do with aspects of you know preservation and history, and in fact, other versions of it that are other. You know points of interest for what land is, and what qualities should be the highest and best. I also think, then, probably you would benefit by working with some professionals that are capable of advising you on what development opportunities might exist on the site, and how to either add or change property. which I know you probably have experienced as a realtor, but it seems to me like there are avenues of exploration that are still available to you. John is saying that those are available through our organization.

[119:18] If a stay was placed on it as individuals from this group would be able to have, you know, conversations with you about. You know options that are available, and how it meets the preservation goals. So I am an agreement with Staff's recommendation. Thank you, Ronnie, and now i'll chime in. And first and foremost been I want to thank you for your stewards should up stewardship of this house, and I also want to thank you for your kind of thought, provoking questions, and some of the things you were asking us this evening, and it's precisely because of those questions that I also will be supporting Staff's recommendation of a stay of demolition, because that's how we can more adequately and in a fulsome way give you answers to some of your really good penetrating questions.

[120:10] and I do appreciate those it it it made me stop and think, and I think that because it would also give us an opportunity to do a site visit, and you you show us. you know things you you pointed out verbally, but tonight, so I will be supporting Staff's recommendation to place a stay, so we can explore any creative alternatives. I don't know if there, if one of you gentlemen would like to make a motion. I can make a motion. I moved that the landmarks board adopt the findings of the staff memorandum day to April, 1220 23, and issue a day of demolition for the buildings located at 1918 Pine Street for a period not to exceed 180 days from the day the permit application

[121:05] was accepted by the city manager in order to explore alternatives demolishing the building. Thank you, Ronnie. And I said, oh, okay, John, go ahead. Why, I was gonna second it second. so i'll second it. So on a motion by Ronnie, seconded by me, we will take a roll call. Vote for this motion, John. Hi and I vote I. So the the motion to place this day of demolition passes unanimously, and then I know Claire Will has a slide prepared to show us what the next steps are. We do. Yes, thank you. The of demolition is to allow the Board time to discuss preservation options with the applicant. and we'll be in touch soon to schedule a meeting, and Abby, would the Board please volunteer to members

[122:09] to be representatives during the stay? I would be happy to be one of those members. Thank you. I would. Also. We have the E one. Thank you, guys. So so then we will. We will be in touch. Thank you very much. Thank you. and now it's time to move on to our second public hearing this evening that I know Marcy will be leading the presentation. Yes, just a moment. Here. there we go. Thank you. So, agenda. Item 6. P. Is a public hearing and consideration of a landmark alteration, certificate Application to rehabilitate building L. The former Nurses dormitory at the Academy of Mapleton Hill. At 2543 forestry the previously addressed

[123:14] 31 or 3 11 Mapleton Avenue, a pending individual landmark pursuit to Section 9, 1118 of the boulder Revised code, 1,981, and under the procedures prescribed by chapter, one dash, 3 quasi judicial hearings. Boulder device, code, 1,981. The owner is Mapleton Hill Investments, Llc. Represented by Michael Bosma, and the applicant is Nori, winter, of Winter and Company. I was speaking all right. Thank you, Abby. I'll go through the quasi-judicial procedures. So first all speaking to the item, are sworn in and then board members know any expertise contacts. I'll then give a staff presentation, after which the Board may ask questions, followed by 10 min, for the applicant presentation, followed by board questions.

[124:08] The hearing is then opened for public comment at 3 min, each, followed by any board questions, and then, after the last person speaks. The applicant has 3 min to respond to anything that was said. The public hearing is then closed, and the Board discusses. A motion requires an affirmative vote of all 3 members to pass motions must state findings, conclusions, and a recommendation; and finally, a record of the hearing is kept by staff. so i'll turn it back over to you for exparting contacts. Thank you, Marcy John. I have none. Ronnie. I am, and have collaborated with winter and associates on projects in the past. To be honest, I wasn't aware that they were

[125:00] representing the applicant tonight. I do feel capable of reviewing this case. but I have collaborated with them, you know, as a professional on other types of projects. Thank you, Ronnie and I. Only years ago I had the the the joy being able to go tour some of the historic buildings on this side, and went in this wonderful building. So I just feel fortunate I've been in it in the past great, and I failed to mention who had reviewed this at the Landmark's Design Review Committee, and that was John and Chelsea and I all right. So the criteria for the review tonight is found in 9, 1118 of the Boulder Vice code, in that the proposed work preserves, enhances or restores, and does not damage the exterior architectural features.

[126:03] It doesn't adversely affect the historic architectural value of the property. that the architecture and it's detailing or compatible with the character of the property. and that the Board considers the economic feasibility of alternatives, including incorporation of energy, efficient design, and enhanced access to the disabled. Well, it Works Board. You all have a couple of options in front of you this evening. You can approve the application, and that decision is subject to a 16 day call up period by city council. you could vote to deny the application which is subject to a 30 day. call up by city council, and that would not allow the applicant to submit a substantially similar application for a year. And so the boards practice typically, if it's heading in that direction, is to provide the applicant and opportunity to withdraw the application.

[127:00] This application started well. One of the applications started way back in June of 2,019, when the property owners submitted a landmark designation application as a condition of the Site review approval. We are planning to bring those hearings forward. I need to coordinate with the owner about the timing of those hearings. But that is something the board will see. I'm hoping in the next year. So this La C application started back in February, and on February fifteenth the Landmarks Design Review. The committee referred the La C application to the Board in part, just because there are so many different components to this highly prominent building. and so that brings us to today. And tonight's landmark for hearing. I'm sure you're all familiar with the properties formerly addressed as 3 11 maple, 10 currently address on Fourth Street. It is west of Fourth Street and north of Mapleton. It backs up to city open space on the west, and it's part of a larger redevelopment which is currently

[128:11] under way. I think we included in a blue dotted line the proposed landmark boundary. It includes not only this nurses dormitory, but also a frame duplex, a 1940 stone building, and then the smokestack, and then farther along Mapleton is a remnant of the original stone wall from the sanitarium, so which brings me to the history of the property, and we look forward to going more in depth to the history when the landmark designation applications come in. So for today I will just say on the building in your review tonight is was built in 1,931. It has classical revival elements, this 3 story masonry.

[129:00] The building was built as a nurses dormitory. There was a Nurses school that started at the sanitarium in 1,898, and ran until 1,945; and there are some oral histories who tell the story that before this dormitory was constructed the nurses would stay in so in people's houses around Mapleton Hill and in town and cartner stuff up in a wheelbarrow up to to and from the the sanitarium. So i'm sure this facility was a welcome addition. In the 1930 S. Here are just some photos early photos of the building shortly after it's construction. and then one of the classes of nursing students. and then the building, as it appears today, and I do acknowledge that the building is in a state of disrepair, which is why I am heartened to see this landmark alteration certificate application in front of us, and I just know that, once restored, this will be such an incredible

[130:09] building, and restored, maybe even beyond its former glory. So let's see. I will return to these images, if it's helpful for these current views, but a general orientation, this large facade at the top is the east side it's generally intact. It has a central tower that marks the entrance, and then. just to the right of the tower. Is this non-historic elevator tower, which I think was. and I don't have the date of about 1,956, and then the elevator exterior stares on either ends or modified around 1,966, both of those being non-historic alterations to the building and part of that is, to remove

[131:05] the elevator tower. The other notable feature is, there's a 2 story portion that was original to the building that's on the south elevation over here, and then you can see there's pieces of the decorative cornice left with the dental work there. But that's also so. This is a pretty large scale of changes or large la C application in terms of things that we typically see. And so we've broken it down into 4 components to help explain the project and then frame the landmark for discussion. So first is the restoration of the building, including its historic windows, cornice, and masonry. Removal of the elevator tower, the east facade and the exterior of stare. Exit stairs. exit stairs on the north and south elevations. The second piece is modification of window and door openings.

[132:08] including new openings, and dropping the sole level of windows on the east and north facades and replacement of all exterior doors. Third is the construction of additions. including an elevator and stair tower in closed walkway on the west celebration and balconies and decks on the south and north elevation, and then, in addition, it's like a sun room addition on that 2 story portion on the south. and then finally landscaping, including the construction of a retaining wall along the west, behind the west elevation and patios enclosed by glass and metal. I don't know if walls is quite the right term for that. They're in close with glass and steel so to Orient from the site plan. You can see the main changes are to remove the elevator tower.

[133:08] I'm going to show my pointer, but please interrupt me. I've heard in the past that it will. It could impact my Internet. Connection. So if my connection is breaking up, let me know, and i'll not use the pointer. So this elevator tower. Here, on the east, elevation is proposed to be removed, and the stair towers on the south and north elevations proposed. Elevator and search tower would be located on the west elevation. These are the retaining walls going south, and then there is a covered walkway that goes to the north. and there are. I also wanted to mention that there are changes outside of the proposed landmark boundary that are not within our purview. But I do want to acknowledge that

[134:09] those which is a tuck under garage right outside the landmark boundary. That and the changes in front of you all tonight. The ultimate feasibility of this project will need to be determined through Development review. So the Landmark Board is seen at first. But then there's the second step of a Site Review amendment to determine whether that changes can be made So. starting with the proposed work on the east elevation, it includes the restoration of the parapet cornice, masonry windows indoors removal of the non-historic elevator shop to me grass Stairs Construction of the the I can use and this addition on the 2 story portion on the south there are 4 window openings

[135:01] proposed on the east elevation, and one new door opening, which is here. and then modifying the cell heights to drop them 6 inches along this portion of the building moving around to the south elevation. It includes the removal of the Egress Stairs construction of the balconies. which are more on the west elevation that they wrap the southeast southwest corner of the building construction of the balconies, and then the Sun Room Addition, which would result in this portion of the south elevation. including 2 windows in a door becoming an interior wall, which means that it could be removed in the future. or modified, and then landmark alteration, certificate Isn't needed because it would be interior. and then modifying the still heights for windows. I think that's a typo from

[136:02] the other elevation moving around to the back of the building. It includes the elevator addition and the covered walkway concrete retaining wall. None of those items are shown in this in this section that I've included but modifying 4 window openings to door openings on the rear here to provide access to the balconies. and then adding 2 window openings, linking this door and then adding a door here that's on the back of the building. and then finally moving around to the north elevation. It includes the removal of the egress, Sears construction of the balconies addition of the and then 3 new window open means here, here in here, and then one new door opening here. and so that's going around each elevation. I'm happy to return to any of these

[137:05] for your discussion. You can also see the rear stair and elevator addition in this view. and we can reference these as needed. So, going to the staff analysis and starting with the general design guidelines. This may be a bit tedious, but please stay with me in terms of going through them, because it is important to reference them. So I wanted to start with the definitions of primary, secondary, and tertiary elevation, because the guidelines put an emphasis on that. The front of the building is often the most important and most articulated. and changes are most appropriate at the back. And so the primary elevation is the front or principal elevations of the buildings that face the public right of way

[138:02] or other important public space, such as the Park. Typically, the facade of a building, is the most prominent elevation, and will contain character defining doors and or windows. The secondary elevation is typically a side of a building that has less public visibility, and may have fewer significant character defining features than on a facade and an elevation that has visibility from an alley may be considered a secondary elevation. and then a tertiary elevation is the side of a building that typically has little or no visibility from the public right of way, and is usually located at the rear of the building. And so in our staff analysis. We determined that, and maybe all scroll all the way back to these photos we consider the front and the north side to the primary elevations, the South to be a secondary elevation, though I think there was a mistake in the middle of the call that a tertiary one.

[139:03] but based on its visibility it would be secondary. and then the back of the building being the tertiary one. So that's up for board discussion. But I wanted to kind of orient us in in terms of that's what we considered based on the approach of the building and the visibility. So continuing on i'm. Breaking this out into the 4 components of the project. The first is Restoration. So the National Park Service standards, they deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced. and where the severity of deterioration requires replacement. Then the new shell match, the old and design, color, etc. Our local design guidelines say, retain and repair a roof detailing, such as brackets, coronances, parapets, etcetera.

[140:01] Original historic, finished material should be preserved and repaired. and retain and preserve existing historic windows. The replacement of historic windows should only be considered as a last resort if the fabric of the window is deteriorated beyond repair. Diving a little farther into or sorry, the second component is windows indoors. and the way that the guidelines are written is is focused on the window itself. But a lot of this also applies to the window opening, and that's how the guidelines have been applied in the past. So windows the the elements that surround them in their relationship to one another are one of the most important character defining elements of a historic building, and should be preserved. So it starts by saying, retain and preserve existing historic windows, including their functional and decorative features, etc., etc., because windows near the facade are particularly critical. Their protection may superceive the protection of windows. Elsewhere

[141:06] preserve original window locations do not move windows from their historic placement. and then window location, replacement of intact historic windows on a primary elevation is rarely appropriate. Replacement of historic windows on secondary elevations is generally inappropriate. and then replacement of intact, stark windows on a tertiary elevation can occur, provided, does not compromise the historic integrity of the building, and so that's generally what we took as our approach of leave, the windows in their window openings intact on the east facade and the north facade. and then provide that flexibility on the west Elevation moving on to editions of historic structures. The guidelines state new additions within the historic districts or individual landmarks

[142:02] are appropriate as long as they do not destroy historic features, materials, and spatial relationships that are significant to the original building and site. They also must be distinguished. distinguishable from the historic architecture. So new. Addition should not compromise the integrity of the original structure or site. either through just direct destruction of it, start features. or indirectly through their location. Size, higher scale addition should be comp compatible with, but discernible from historic architecture. Well, every site is meek. Generally additions are most appropriate at the rear of the structure. in addition to not overpower the site, or dramatically alter its historic character. and should be subordinate to the existing structure. and finally, more flexibility will be allowed for rear elevations and other areas largely screen from public view. And then, finally, the site design guidelines

[143:01] talk about avoid landscaping. That is potential for damaging a historic structure, such as trees planted too close to a building where existing retaining walls are important to the character of the site, they should be preserved that doesn't apply to this case. But the next piece is to clean concrete. Retaining walls are inappropriate, regrading in the introduction of new retaining walls is inappropriate. and then new walkways should be designed to be compatible in location patterns facing materials, colors to existing walkways that contribute to the overall historic character. And so what does that mean? Here's the staff analysis piece in terms of restoration. We are very excited to see a Restoration plan for this building, and it's generally aligned with and encouraged by, the design guidelines. it restores the building to its original appearance as documented by historic photographs in the original plans and additional details are needed for final review and approval.

[144:08] and that is one of our proposed conditions of approval which is to catalog the condition of the cornice, masonry, and other character defining features. and propose a treatment for each focusing on repair rather than replace and following recognize preservation methods for the proposed window and door openings. We found the addition of the new door and window openings on the west, which is the rear and tertiary elevation are appropriate new window openings and modifications of existing ones on the east and north. So that's the front inside, which we consider primary elevations are not appropriate. and the application indicated that lowering the sales were to me egress. But I would encourage that the minimum number of bills be

[145:03] lowered in order to meet that, and it appears that you can meet egress through the door that's in that room. And so. if egress can be met through existing doors, but still height of the window should be maintained. and the replacement of all exterior doors is appropriate. If it's documented that they're non-historic, and that the replacement doors are compatible with the historic character of the building. Hmm. In terms of the additions to the West and the north elevations. The proposed placement at the rear of the building is appropriate. and they do not directly obscure the character defining features of the building, and they are discernible from the historic structure. That's the in this addition, and they're clearly recognizable as new construction. And however, the mass and scale of the structure of the balcony, this detracts from the historic building and the character of the site

[146:04] and the proposed edition should be redesigned to be lighter, and interpret the historic elements in simpler ways that are compatible with the historic building. We weren't too prescriptive on this other than to say, reduce the the visual mass of these. and then, in terms of the addition, adding to. On top of the second story we found that didn't meet the guidelines in terms of it. It impacts the overall form and character of the building, and it's prominently, prominently located right on that primary elevation in very visual, and then we are also concerned about it's reversibility in that it couldn't be removed in the future and restored if this brick wall were

[147:02] removed in the meantime, after it becomes an interior. so our condition of approval is to remove and revise the designs to remove that. and then finally. Oh, sorry I jumped ahead. But I believe I've covered this that the addition of the third story, both in steel edition is not appropriate because of its prominent visibility. It's impact to the overall historic form of the building, and then it's construction would result in that. and then finally, the retaining walls and patios. The rear and west addition requires a significant alteration to the great and historic site features. And so. looking at looking at that retaining while we did. We didn't say that it needed to be revised to get rid of the retaining walls. We believe that those are needed, and we'll protect the building, and because it's on the west elevation, it's not going to detract from the overall character of the building.

[148:12] However, we do want to make sure that the tree planting shown on the plans Don't negatively impact the the building in terms of its roots or water drainage. And so this is one where we believe the details could be worked out at staff. and then the style of the audio enclosure should relate to the revised design of the balconies. i'm. Almost there. So with that staff recommends approval for this landmark alteration certificate for the rehabilitation. In addition to the building. I do want to go through the proposed conditions of approval, and there are quite a few of them. But my thought is by going through them now. It will help to you up the Board's conversation, so

[149:04] hang in there just a little longer as I go through these. The first 2 are just boilerplate in terms of completing the work as shown on the plans, and then that before something for builder per building permit and finalizing the lac. the following will come back to the Landmark's Design Review Committee. First, it's submitting the details on the restoration of the building that goes into details about what that would look like both for the parapet, and then cornice, etc. In the windows. Next would be revised the proposed new and modified door and window openings to include eliminating the new window openings on the east and south elevations. and revise the design to maintain the historic window openings on the north and east. Elevations

[150:01] drop the cell on the minimum number of windows needed to meet yougress requirements revising addition to show, eliminating the proposed rooftop addition on the south elevation and revising the design to minimize their visual impact. include the analysis of visibility from public right away right subway, including public channels. and then provide details of proposed landscaping, including retaining walls and non retained walls, patios, parking areas, paths, etc., to revise the location of the retaining wall to be outside of the conservation area shown in the recorded development agreement. and I do have that for reference. If the Board's interested in seeing that it's a small portion of the cell. the end of the retaining wall. including details about the permeability, height, and location of the to ensure adequate drainage. Noting mature trees, proposed to be removed, and then confirming that the footpath remains it in its historic location.

[151:05] and then other items just to ensure it's a complete application. including access for the disabled in note. There's a brick STEM walls that the applicant can speak to. If the board's interested details of building and site drainage, the chemical equipment, and then any building or site link so with that very thorough But i'm very happy to answer questions that you, that you may have Marcy, Thank you for that incredibly thoroughly comprehensive. I I don't know if you feel like you just ran a Marathon or something, but I don't know if John and Ronnie have any questions. I don't at this point. I also wanted to give a shout out for the renderings that you were provided to include, because to me those are invaluable. Yeah, I would echo that the quality of materials in the middle is just top notch, and and made our job easier by really illustrating what the changes are in would look like

[152:11] John or Ronnie. Do you have questions? I have not okay. and I don't see Ronnie on the call. Am I missing in the same? I don't see him on the attendee list. I'm sorry Ronnie is an attendee with his. Raise his hand raise so I hope that he's at the top of the list. Yes. I I now see his right, Not him. Okay, hopefully. Sorry, Ronnie. That's okay. I was stuck in the bizarre world for 99% of that. But I was here. Okay, and I

[153:00] This was a great presentation, and I think it was Slide 6, 79 if you could go back to that yes, perfect. Could you just recap this piece one more time in particular? Well, actually, if you just recap this piece here, I I recognize the scale component and concrete component. But the the glass aspect of this and its relationship. The glass used elsewhere on the balcony, if you could just clarify this component of glass is just about the retaining wall portion. Yeah, and I may let me answer, and then you clarify if i'm not if I didn't answer it. But the glass portion in this this section of the staff. Analysis is that the use of glass to enclose the patios may be inappropriate. The design guidelines talk about the use of traditional materials, which is typically wood or wrought iron. However.

[154:09] like the historic depot, it has these glass enclosures that got an Lc. That I think are pretty successful, and are clearly of its time. So where we landed was that whatever the language of the balcony ends up being, it should relate to the patios that those should be kind of a cohesive addition of its own time to the building. And can you just show the image of the proposed glass of the patios. Yeah. So this is maybe the best view here. Yeah, it's kind of a low railing. Looks between 3 3 and a half feet with kind of thin steel members. And is there any reference in your evaluation of to to the glass used on the balconies?

[155:06] Do we address here? We did not. I think our analysis focused mostly on the the visual way of the structure. and so. I think, where we landed in, the condition was more about lightning them up. But we're not opposed to the glass. It is less traditional, but, on the other hand, it is of its own time. and these are, you know. Yeah. Good. Yeah, that's great. Just what I needed. And and then lastly, and I don't know if you have this or the applicant might. What is the current still height of the windows that are that have proposed modifications? Okay. Yeah, thanks, Marcy.

[156:01] Any other questions before we go to the applicant presentation. It doesn't appear there. Don't appear to be any more questions at this point. Okay, great. And then here's where I recap that we just finished the staff presentation. Well, then, go to the applicant presentation. Then we'll open up for public participation. After that the applicant has a chance to respond, and then the board has their deliberation. and I think Aubrey is working on promoting the applicant team, which is Nori Winter, Gary Berg and Michael Bosma. and then they can you all can let us know Marc and Michael Bolton here. Who did you say we were promoting? Sorry Winter, you and Gary burned.

[157:01] and and we will need to ask all of you to swear yourselves. Swear to tell the Board the full truth When you do speak. I don't know who's going first. I think I am Jerry Bird. Thank you, Gary. So and total. You have the total of 10 min, and then you'll have another opportunity for additional 3 min, so Gary will let you start, and just promise to tell the Board the whole truth. I will. I do. My segment here is very brief, just to mostly introduce Nori winter if we could flip to the next slide. This is the Academy on University Hill, which I, at the privilege of being involved in as well, and to the left, or the for names associated with our group. Michael Bosma, one of my partners, myself.

[158:00] Mike Mohearn, is lead architect at the Mohamed group who is overseeing the overall architecture. And then Norway Nori Winter is our historic preservationist consultant. and had the privilege of working with Noray on the Academy up by Chatauqua, if we can flip to the next slide. It was mentioned that this building is not in great shape, but I recall, you know. 27 years ago we took over Academy University Hill, and the photo on the left tells us what kind of condition that was in after sitting empty for 17 years, and on the lower right is something resembling of what it looks like today. And so i'm very optimistic and hopeful that we can take this nurses dormitory building, and i'll make it something that we all can be proud of. and had the privilege of working with Noori 30 years ago, and glad to be reunited, and so i'll let Norrie take it from here.

[159:00] Alright. Thanks, Gary. If you could go next slide, please. I have several sides. I will try to move quickly through it. But we are asking for approval of the project has submitted with the conditions that many of the design details will be worked out with the Ldrc. Next slide, please. The This project is is fun. It's difficult. It's complex. It's adaptive reuse of a building. That was when i'm calling function folks focused. It was designed economically to meet a very specific function, and as a result, the exterior has some interesting aspects that I think you need to take into consideration Next slide, please. First, I think, is to point out that this building is resilient. It's a. It's a very durable structure. It has a very simple organizing concept to it.

[160:02] and the alterations that we're proposing will help to demonstrate the health of the building, that this is one that is alive and still a part of the service of the historic resources of our community. Next slide, please. Marcy's highlighted the Restoration efforts, and I'm not going to speak very much about those, but to say that they are extensive, and we have prepared a very detailed form that analyzes each component, each individual window, etc., and we are working. We we'll be working with a windows specialists to analyze each of those and determine the best treatment, but certainly preservation and restoration of the top priority for all of those features. Next slide, please several of those that she mentioned. Of course the restoration of the windows and repair of the brick, etc., and I just wanted to give you a couple of other close up here to give you a sense of the the kind of repair work that

[161:08] that will be involved. I'm moving on to the next slide. I want to you to understand a little bit about how the building was designed, because I think it affects the way we consider the exterior. This is the ground floor plan, the original drawings, and I wanted to really draw attention to what is the north end? The right side here that's outlined in red that was essentially back of house, and while intuitively we are considering the west side, the backside of the building in many respects so was the north side. This had a kitchen kitchenette, a laundry, a call room, and a trunk room and a service entrance. and therefore I don't see it as a primary elevation in any means. This also affects the character of the windows there. That's why some of them were higher, because there were sinks below them.

[162:06] and they were utilitarian in nature. Those are now, of course, issues that the team wants to address and improve. If you go to the next slide you will see a a close up of that area, so you can better get a sense of what we're talking about. You can see the the sinks under the windows and the the utilitarian exit door, and also the call room. I want to point out, because it had a service store on in that wall. and the architects are proposing a similar service store now for the sprinkler room that would be located in that northwest corner. So there is a precedent for that kind of an opening on that wall, and particularly if we are to reconsider what is primary in terms of a definition of a wall

[163:03] elevation. I think that would be an important consideration. You'll notice that in the next slide. and this is the an image from staff, where you can see that the building historically was internal to the campus in terms of the consideration of view from a public way. This was really internal to the site, and particularly the north elevation. The right hand side there really looked out on to primarily undeveloped open space. There were some service buildings, some garages back on that side, but it was by no means a major public viewpoint. and it also is reflected in the the simplicity of that elevation, the lack of any detailed or architectural features that might have a signal that it was a had a higher priority in terms of in terms of design. In the next slide you see. relatively speaking. what we're talking about in terms of those

[164:11] windows on the lower right hand side. All of the other windows on this elevation sit on a ledger. and it would be quite in keeping to have these modified to fit that character. Now I understand the guidelines say don't alter primary elevations Well, to some extent the right hand portion of this east elevation really was more of a secondary or even tertiary wall. The there was. It was not a symmetrical design. The level of detail and finish that you see on the left-hand side did not occur there, and that's because of its unique location on the site.

[165:01] and I think that needs to be taken into consideration when you evaluate the appropriateness of of altering those windows, and how altered windows would still be in keeping with the overall character of a building that is very resilient in terms of its durability related to that, and the next slide is the question of adding new windows, and the proposal is to add those above a set that already exists on the second floor. So again, the idea is that these windows are in keeping, and generally in character are they an alteration? Yes, they are. but they are ones that, relatively speaking, are a low percentage of the facade. and are not detracting from the historically significant features. I know this is a question that is not one that you typically evaluate. But I think in the case of this building it's really worth the discussion

[166:06] moving on to the next image. I wanted to talk briefly about the balconies and staff of raise those questions and the the images, as shown in the proposal packet, are reflected in the one on the right hand side, and the the the framing there is rather beefy. In the left hand side is an interim study already underway by the architects to lighten that visibility. and we will continue to work with the Ldrc to refine those even more. But we do believe that the glass enclosures provide some better wind protection in this location and that actually, that will help to differentiate all from do in a better way, and particularly when we get down to the ground level of, if we were to be adding raw iron kinds of railings that really would be misconveying the nature and the character of this building.

[167:02] So the team will be working to refine the railing concepts, both for the ground ground level terraces and also the balconies. Some examples are in the next slide. These are the kinds of of precedents that we want to look at. Here's an example of a of a glass railing added to the top of a decorative torch. and the intent here is to be able to see the character, the original porch. and to see through to the wall behind. And, in fact, if this had been done as a wood railing, or one that was detailed so much of the historic features while it would fit. it would be misconveying the history. And that's that's the approach that the team has been taking. That said. It is possible to think about some of the industrial precedents, but in contemporary ways, and the next slide shows some examples of the host

[168:01] and Nori. I I want you to finish your thought, but the 10 min hasn't lapsed. But can you sure on this I don't know if there were additional slides? May I jump in quickly? I'm not sure if Abby or the Board is willing to consider letting Noori continue kind of at his current clip. I feel as though this content is full and very deliberative, and thought out, and I feel like we'd be missing out if we asked him to shorten his presentation. I agree with that. I I agree. Thank you. I'm sorry. Sorry. I mean one more thing. Let's make sure to swear in Mr. Winter. Oh. yes, I do. I do swear I will tell the truth.

[169:00] Thank you. And and so historically. The roof of that two-story addition to the South was designed to be a deck. It has been used as a Dick. and we'll continue to be used as a deck if it's not glass and closed. We're concerned about elderly residents Shoveling snow wind impacts on outdoor furniture. A variety of safety issues the next slide does repeat the image that that staff have shown earlier. Now we'd understood. This was a tertiary elevation. Now I understand it is perhaps a secondary elevation. But nonetheless, I think there are ways to design this to be highly transparent and distinguishable as new. Is it a little heavy at the moment? Yes, it is. And so again, If you look at the next slide. you will see some precedence that we want to consider the degree of transparency, the ability to see to the wall behind, the detailing of the framing, and how that can be lightened.

[170:07] and even the visibility at night time are all factors to be taken into consideration now. Oh, Sam, have raised the concern that if this effectively we're then to create an internal wall for the current self facade. that alterations could occur. Well, there's an easy answer to that. and that is at the time of landmarking which will be coming forward. All you have to do is designate that wall as an interior featured. That's a similar to the precedent for the Tea House. and the ability to do that would take care of any concern, that there would be an alteration to that the side. So I really ask that you approve in principle the greenhouse, and allow us to work with the Al Drc to refine it in a way that would be compatible. Now that also then relates to the railings, and that last slide is is showing us a site plan of a portion of that.

[171:11] but particularly just to clarify a note about an entry door that was noted. It's in the staff report on the south elevation, and there isn't one. It is on the west elevation, I believe the one they're referring to, and I just wanted to make that clear but 250. The idea is that that same degree of transparency of glass railings would then be carried forward in a consistent manner, and certainly Staff is right. We want to be consistent in that in that character that that design. So the final slide just summarizes Again, what we're asking is that you allow the team to move forward with direction to the Ldrc. On all of these details that do need to be worked out, but that in principle all of these alterations, as well as the Restoration work, are are ones that are consistent with the overall preservation and retaining of the historic significance of this property.

[172:04] Thanks for letting me have the additional time. Thank you. And Ronnie. Thank you for that thoughtful suggestion to do this because it actually will make our job a lot easier when we get to board deliberations. John or Ronnie, do you have questions of the design team before we move to public participation. I I don't have any. My only question was about the sale height that's existing on the most level windows. I I think i'll let Mike Mohar and answer that it's Mike on Mike is on Abbey. Do you want me to just give him a mute button, or would you like him promoted to a panelist. Go ahead and promote him to a panelist.

[173:02] and I will ask him to swear to tell us the truth and answer Ronnie's question. Thank you he should be here. Mike, you may need to unmute. I do. I adjust it. I'm the president of the modern group. The the height is at 50 inches on the north end of the building. This was the first floor sales, Mike. first floor at the north end of the building, where the and Mike I No. That Staff was suggesting that egress requirements could be satisfied. internal or through other locations, if you looked at that. And

[174:06] is that true? I would agree with Marcy that the the one door does provide the Us. Requirements. There's a master bedroom right there on the what would be the west side of the building there would be some bedrooms over there. That lowering the cell heights would be appropriate But you know generally what we're trying to do is we've got a 92 year old building that really only function for about 20 years, as the nurses quarters and we're trying to te it up for the next 92 years. and create residences here that are going to be loved and cherished and as you know, 50 and so I

[175:02] isn't very becoming of a residence. Yeah. it looks like a kitchen. Yeah, or even higher than that. It just. you know, I think, actually in the the guidelines from the State for assisted living. It limits the height of a cell. I believe, to about 30 inches. and ultimately it's our intent to license a facility for assistant, living. Certainly at the first 2 floors. Just just a quick, interesting note that in review of the reading and reading documents which we were fortunate to have. that in the sections there were 2 sections shown. One was with a full wood structure. The second one was with Steel Joyce, supported by steel beams. and we were pleasantly surprised when Demo was done.

[176:10] that the entirety of the interior structure is port and place concrete. supported by port in place, concrete columns. So making this all the more adorable structure going into the future. Okay. Ronnie, did you have any additional questions? I don't. Thank you. Okay, and and thank you for that, Mike, and and retroactively, I'm going to ask you just to raise your hand and said that you told the Board the truth. Thank you. My apologies for interrupting. If it's okay, I do want to clarify what's proposed, Mikey said. In order to meet the accessibility requirements. The sales are currently at 50 inches, and you need to drop them to 30 inches, which is a 20 inch drop. But what's the host? Is 6 inches correct

[177:09] in the state process, and given the historic nature of this building. that in our buildings that are under construction right now that we've been able to submit for waivers. and had those waivers approved. So again I think that I, taking a look at where that brick band is right now, and having consistency with the windows on the south side. I would think that we would get support from the State for a waiver for such a proposal. Okay, thanks for the clarification. And then, Abby, I'll just take the opportunity to clarify. I do think that we made a mistake of saying the door opening proposed on the south

[178:01] Elevation wouldn't be appropriate. I think we met the new door opening on the north side, and they just want to relate something said to me as I was as we were going through this before, and the reason that 2 doors are proposed on this first level is that this second one is like utilitarian, and it it's not dual access to the same unit. It's that this is like a a maintenance kind of one, and then this is the entrance one. And so I just wanted to clarify that error in the No. thank you, Marcy. That's that's helpful. Anything else before we move on to public comment. Okay, Not seeing anything at this moment or hearing anything. The 2543. Fourth Street project is large of, is part of a much larger project, but tonight's hearing is related to the nurses dorm. So we want to invite you to whoever speaks to please. Keep your comments

[179:07] to this this in front of us tonight. The proposed changes to the nurses dorm. Now, Brenda, do you see any raised hands. And I know we might have some folks on the phone. We don't have folks on the phone, so everyone should have a raise hand button at the bottom of your screen. I know you've all heard me say it many times, because you've all been here all night. So now is your moment to press that raise him. But if you would like to speak to this item. I am not seeing hands go up, Abby, so maybe we'll just give it a few more seconds. We have one hand that has gone up. so we will get started with Mark Hashimoto. We will give you your mute button, mark, and then Abby will ask you to swear in.

[180:03] I welcome Mark, and if you'll please swear to tell the board the full truth. You will then have 3 min. I'm actually an employee at the the Mohan group that's working on this project. I just want to add that there is an 88 requirement for operable windows. The reach range has to be 15 to 48 inches above the floor. Also there's a the closet on the north side. That's a fire sprinkler room. So the door is to access that room from the outside. I just had those 2 clarifications. Thank you for sharing that. And, Brenda, I don't know in the interim, if any more hands have been raised.

[181:04] I have not seen any additional hands yet. so we'll give a good pause to make sure we don't have anyone else who would like to speak to this item tonight. All right, and it looks like we are clear to close the public hearing. Abby. Oh, no, that's Mark Sand again. Thank you, Brendan. So so public participation for this agenda item is closed. The applicant. You do have an additional 3 min, and normally, sometimes that's used to re. But you do have an additional 3 min. If there's anything you'd like to add before we move to board. Deliberation. I I do not. I don't know

[182:00] my for Gary, do I like Michael. and you know it was very well covered. Thanks. I just quickly, I think. Norrie gave a great presentation. The greenhouse just quickly that sits on the east elevation as in the new site plan. Actually, the road, coming into the project kicks around and heads west for a little bit, and focuses on the main central elevation of building, out. but generally the two-story projection is hidden by a 3 story building that is presently under construction. So my point on this is that believe the greenhouse elevation is not really a part of any major view plane that certainly the trails to the north.

[183:05] as one is north of the site. the building itself would would would not allow view to that greenhouse. So. And and then you know the greenhouse that the addition is less than 200 square feet. We're holding the structure back from the brick wall in that it would bear just on the concrete structure below. I would agree with the staff that it may feel a little heavy right now we were holding down the the roof such that the brick corn is wrapped around the top of it per staff's comments, and the review of that we would certainly work with them to look at, potentially lowering the roof a little bit more, to make it feel a little bit lighter and less massive.

[184:06] We think it would be a wonderful addition, and that it is somewhat of a tertiary facade. The other thing, I think that is the addition of the windows on the East Side. We're doing it in keeping with the rhythm that was created created by reading and reading, and that isn't near as evident in this building as you see at the Hotel Bulorado. where they they did an incredible job, and really created a wonderful rhythm there. And I believe in this case, As Nori said, this building was more, a little bit form follows function, and that the repetition and the rhythm on that east facade

[185:06] wasn't there to the extent that they might do in a more substantial building. So we really feel that the addition of the 4 windows that we're talking about is in keeping with what they might have done if they had the opportunity, and that the elimination of the elevator is that a substantial cost to the owner. but enhances those 3 central bays of the building dramatically. And you know we're probably paying a 1 million dollars to add. I hope the client didn't hear that. But to add the elevator and stare edition on the west side of the building. and demolish this, and bring back to life

[186:00] that northern portion of the existing facade. and add the 6 windows in that location. So with that i'll i'll wrap my presentation. Thank you. I also think it. Nori winter would certainly know this is, or the same market text of University Hill School. But I I could be miss speaking so now. We will bring it to board deliberation. We We are a little bit behind scheduled tonight, but we want to give this a fulsome conversation we've allotted 45 min for board to deliberation, and Marcy will kind of interject to give us a heads up if we, as we approach that time, if we need that long. I don't know if John or Ronnie wants to kick this off. and Abby sorry right before you get started. We like to frame up the board's discussion, so the main question in front of you tonight is. does the project meet the standards for issuance of an

[187:03] landmark? Alteration certificate is, if yes, approve. The application. Conditions can be discussed and added to the approval if needed on that note. If the board has changes to the conditions, I may go off camera and work with Lucas, and come back rather than trying to do those on the fly. If it doesn't meet the standards, then deny the application. I'm happy to leave this slide up or toggle to the images if it's helpful. But it breaks down the kind of 4 different components of the project, and I agree with you. Thank you, Marcy, for illuminating that with the threshold question, and then to try to discuss this in 4 different components. and then I will just pop in in 45 min, which is about 9 50. If if you're still on a role just to do it, you never know and I don't know if if if John or Ronnie would like to kick this off.

[188:03] I can. I can do it, since it's after the seventh, and I've got a shut out going. Okay, starting starting out. This is a very thoughtful and well presented project. I am very impressed with the computer simulations and the level of presentation detail and the level of descriptive detail that went along with it. It's very easy to understand this project and make some initial decisions. I agree generally with Staff's recommendation that this should be approved, that this lac should be moved forward. I have some differences

[189:01] with Staff. I'll start with the things that I agree with. I agree with the heaviness of the structures. The steel structures, as they were initially presented the clarifications to that that were given by Nori and Mike Mohearn. I find more convincing. I think the lighter they could be made, the better. I think that the black color, at least the way they were presented kind of exaggerates their heaviness. particularly against the softness of the the colors of the building and the landscape surrounds, as it was presented. So I think. some lightning of that, and some reconsideration of the color is the issue that could be a little problematic with those.

[190:00] I find that the modifications to the windows and the editions of windows that are being done to increase. I guess the internal quality and livability of this building. which was a very utilitarian structure in its original history. and is now being repurposed in a way that will extend its life significantly. I think that some consideration has to be given to the issues of repurposing, and the modifications that you do have to make to a building to bring it into a newer or higher purpose. And so I agree with most of the things in principle that are being proposed with windows and doors. I also

[191:02] take a little issue with the with the primary secondary tertiary on this building because of its location on the site, and because of the kind of distance from the 2 public realm views that you get into this site. particularly the lower north side of the building is not going to be particularly visible from what I would term public realm, except for the new internal public public realm in this project. and surrounded by completely new buildings, you're not going to be that aware the modifications to the historic building, you will be aware that it is historic now, especially with the smoke stack in front of it. I also am not completely opposed to the greenhouse

[192:00] sun room. because I feel like that could be a very nice feature and understanding that the guidelines towards I mean, of historic restoration and preservation, is, when you do add things to a historic building. One of the things you want to do is you want to break with the history by not trying to simulate it as being part of that time, but rather make it part of the time it was added in. But you also want to make it as an unobtrusive and as transparent as possible on a greenhouse is a very transparent structure. I think that again in spirit the things that are being done holding it back from the significant edge. Architectural elements are setting it in from those

[193:01] helps kind of amplify it. Separation and and kind of almost removable quality. I think that the roof portion of it is overtly heavy, and could be lightened up significantly and still provide appropriate shade. It is a south Side greenhouse. and at the same time break from the roof line in a way that it could be worked out. So i'm not necessarily convinced that that shouldn't happen, or that it's completely unappropriate. I think the landscaping approach seems reasonably correct. It's a challenging site in terms of the cross-grade or the cross slope I think there are some issues, possibly with non permeable pavements and retaining walls. The more permeability, particularly on a place where she drainage is gonna occur

[194:07] across the site is desirable, and so that may need some additional thinking. But overall I'm. I think this is something that we want to approve. and maybe discuss the conditions a little further the conditions of approval. Thank you, John and Ronnie. Before I let you speak, I am going to personally answer the threshold question that Yes, I think that an lac can be approved for this with conditions when we get to that part of the discussion. So with that, Ronnie. Yeah, I agree, I think, and L, I see, can be issued. Marcy, I don't know if you can answer this on the spot question here, but you know, I think one of the things we're hearing from the applicant is their position on

[195:07] the designation of primary, secondary, and tertiary elevations. That is different than steps report. and I just have to tell you, Marcy, I respect your evaluation, and I've always respected your ability in meetings like this to hear an applicant in a forum like this, and to present new information to us should it be needed, and I'm not suggesting that it is needed. But I would just ask you. having heard their evaluation. has it impacted your evaluation in any way. and prime and and about the the primary secondary tertiary piece. Right? No, I I appreciate that, because I do think it's our thinking evolves with more information and more discussion.

[196:06] I think that the east Facade is undoubtedly a primary elevation, and adding on to that portion. I think it's difficult to justify in the with the design guidelines, even though it's of its own time. It really does change the character of the building, and it is on its primary facade. I also don't find the the reason of shoveling snow too compelling because they're adding balconies that would also need to be shoveled, and so I think that I agree with John that it would be a very nice amenity, but in terms of it, meeting the design guidelines, I think the guidelines specifically say that it's not appropriate to add another story on to on to like

[197:00] onto the Forum, because it it takes this 3 story horizontal form, and it loses that that step down. I think the other piece of Nori's presentation about thinking about the same elevation, but having a primary and tertiary portion of it is an interesting thought. This building, in its conception, is a very symmetrical building, right? And so you think about that central stair tower, and then the wings coming off of it. It has that character of being symmetrical. But then, once it goes from building plans into its utilitarian function, the imperfection, the the lack of perfect, and that symmetry, I think, is what it gives a character. It tells that story that one half was more utilitarian than the other, and so I think the designations of primary, secondary, tertiary, or guidelines. They're not set designations that if I say it, then no changes can happen except on the tertiary elevation. It's something to help guide the discussion of what's appropriate and what's not.

[198:16] And so I do think that the visibility with the new buildings is something to consider. I would say that perhaps perhaps i'd be open to considering The East is primary, the ends are secondary, and the back is tertiary, but I would have a difficult time believing that the sides are church area, just because the way that it sits up on the hill, the way that the building is is accessed the way that it will be accessed within the site with the path that comes up past the other historic buildings. So those are my thoughts. Thanks for that opportunity.

[199:04] What you've just described. you know. Can you speak to that? Could you be more specific? It having, you know, I guess, the the proposal currently shows balconies on the north side. Are you saying? Balconies are inappropriate on the north side the design of them, the the style of them be refined a bit more. Okay. Thank you, Marcy. which I agree with to refine that, I think is gonna go a long way. And can we go to the east elevation. And then, Marcy, I had one more question for you.

[200:05] you know a modification to the lowest level windows that have the so height issue. I understand the applicants approach, which is. we're gonna make a modification. We'll make a modification that's consistent with the ways in which the other still heights has been addressed. which is a very designerly approach. and I think what you are saying is. yes, but that is deviating further from the truth of what the historic nature of those spaces are. and that it had this irregularity, then Ricky. lowering the still height to whatever is required by code if needed. and showing these windows is distinct from the other windows on the building, because it still tells some version of the story of its history. I mean, I don't know if I've captured that correctly. But do you think maybe in spirit I have.

[201:12] I I would agree with that. I think that there's a tendency to want to perfect on a historic building to say Well, the intent was to have it all the same. But I think that what what makes preservation interesting is that the building response to the utilitarian needs? And so, looking at that for you really can start to imagine how this building was used of entering through. you know, to the cloakroom, going through the kitchen, eating at this dining hall and progressing to the classroom, and then the the laboratory, which is this fun filled room. And so I think, by erasing that piece of history that's told on the exterior to say that there is a hierarchy even in this facade that appears to be very rigidly symmetrical, I think, would be a loss in terms of creating a false history, of

[202:11] perfecting on something that that has been like this for 90 some years, and so I am sensitive to the accessibility piece, and and I think i'd like to dig into that a bit more later, maybe because at first it was about egress. But then that could be addressed through a a door, and then perhaps it's about window operability. But I would also just encourage. How do you work with that? Can you put the kitchen cabinets along that side or other cabinetry to work within that rather than starting with changing and modifying all of those window openings along this front of the building. Thank you. Can you go back to the summary slide that talks about the 4 different pieces.

[203:02] Okay, I think that this is wonderful presentation and very thoughtful design and suggestions made for, you know, making modifications. This historic building. and I like to some degree the order that these are put in in the sense that, like the biggest move here, is restoration of the building. You know it's like 90% of the lift here. So just like complement the applicant for the the Restoration aspects. and I think that they are all wonderful and tasteful, and the removal of the elevator tower being the most powerful, just in terms of the formal moves. So wonderful. Job. like I don't know how to just demonstrate the priority of that other than saying.

[204:00] You know that is the hugeest lift. And then also putting the good use this building and making sure that it is well maintained, I think, as the applicant was saying, another like. close to 100 years worth of of with these modifications. So thank you for that. Now for all of the details. modifications of the window and door openings. I am an agreement with Staff's interpretation of the modifications on the east side of the building. I don't think I really have much to add, because I think that the way that Marcy has described it is, you know, consistent with everything that is outlined in our guidelines and the ways in which we've applied them in the past. I think if there is an opportunity to maintain the existing still heights. That would be wonderful. If not, then those modifications, I think, would be best if made in the

[205:08] which staff reports them to be on the east elevation. I think that the comments about the existing doors is identical in terms of let me skip the landscaping. That's an easy one to pick off. I agree with Staff's recommendations about the landscaping. with the nuance of the glass and metal component which I think requires talking about the construction of additions in order to really hit on it. So construction of additions. the locations in which the dominant additions are being suggested, which some the West. Elevation is the right place to put them. and I don't think anybody is really debating that. But just to again say like that again, is 75 of the application. And so those locations for the new elevator. And what have you being on the West Side? All provable.

[206:10] I think that the characterization through the materiality and the detailing that has been proposed for additions which is basically metal in glass, is an appropriate can method of construction that modernizes and differentiates the errors of construction. and in general I think that is a positive direction. I'm sure there's many directions. But I just want to say, you know those are the tools that are being employed, or being requested to be employed, and using them consistently as the new tool across the building is the right approach. And so I believe that as if we do move towards an approval with you know. Ldrc Review, that the conditions, you know would be to maintain that consistency, and it doesn't even need to be in there, but that that would be

[207:10] the the the right way for us to evaluate. With these I agree, and can already see that a lighter touch with detailing will significantly improve them. And I think the applicant also sees that at this point, so I think the major thing here is. whether or not you can have additions to the north and south side of the building. and I think that staff. and from what i'm hearing from John is that you can on the north side. and i'm in agreement, because I think that the way that that is handled again through its proportions of it being inet. The material difference, you know. Allow it to stand alone and be of its time.

[208:05] I am torn about whether or not the third story balcony on the south side is approvable. but I mean in the direction of it being improved approvable, because my sense is that through lighter, detailing that it can be something that is less visible. and through similar justification approvable on this similar elevation in terms of like it's hierarchy and priority. And I do agree with Marcy that changing it to making it to overwhelming, so that we lose the form of the 2 story aspect down that side is not approvable. but I think, because of the materiality and through the direction that this is headed with what I think Staff was saying is simplicity, and making it more lightweight that I think

[209:08] we could maintain the 2 story form and still have a third floor enclosed glass there on that note. going to the glass on the at the landscaping level. I could also see a version of glass being used on the lowest level, and it maintaining similar types of detailing, and that being approvable. Okay, Abby. Thank you, Ronnie. And first of all, I was a teeny bit remiss in my ex parte context, not saying I once enjoyed some pizza many years ago, when you first started on this journey, and you had a community meeting at Rembrandt Yard, and and I was thrilled to see that

[210:00] that some of the people involved with the with this project were the stellar stewards of the Academy, which I think is one of boulder shining examples of historic preservation and creative adaptive reuse. The second thing I really want to say very quickly, is it just warms my heart personally that a building that that nurtured nurses who are providing care to people who came to the sanitarium will now be a nurturing place for others at at points in their life when they they need not only to have support, but can have it in such a fabulous, lovely location and in such a lovely place. I think that I do agree with Staff and and Marcy. Thank you for again just reiterating your points on what you thought were the tertiary, primary, and secondary facade. I I do agree with that. I I am

[211:03] very much in alignment with Ronnie's comments he just made. Job can make a compelling argument about the north side. I'm still not quite there personally. So so instead of reiterating, and and there's no way I could be as articulate or as eloquent as John and Ronnie I am. I am where Ronnie is with the proposal now, and you know we can see how we can work through this to give conditions to move this forward and and send it back to Ldrc and let me know what's hopeful. I can pull up the condition that we can see to me. I don't know John and Ronnie, how you feel. But for me to see the conditions for me would be the next step. I think you're worried. I I feel I feel like actually, before the conditions. If we could just look at the North Side again, and I want to understand what Abby was just saying

[212:09] in relation to what Staff was recommended. So that side. Yeah. So my comment, Ronnie and I, I I may not have said it very artfully, is that I still think the north facade is at a minimum, a secondary facade, but leaned towards a primary and the complexity here for me is there are window. Okay. So there's proposal to add this balcony. which I think that the same it's approvable. and I think you hear, John and I are saying it's approvable. There's also the windows and doors behind it. Yeah. which are the things that make it usable.

[213:01] And I just want to confirm those modifications. Am I correct in hearing that Staff is saying that those are approvable? Or is the area circled in yellow something we're talking about? Yeah. So So what we determined is adding the new window openings here. Isn't appropriate because we were calling this primary elevation even as a secondary. I think it. I think it's hard to add window openings and not confuse the history of the building, because window windows are such character defining features, and so adding These 2, I don't think, meets the guidelines. I will say, after understanding from the applicant that this serve this second door serves utilitarian function to access. The sprinkler room

[214:00] makes me think that this door opening is appropriate, but to recap the balcony would be an appropriate change. The door opening is an appropriate change, but not adding the new window openings on this side. And how about the window opening next to the door that's circled on the lowest level? Oh, yes, also not appropriate. So the 3 new window openings there. Gotcha. Yeah, I feel like this is a complicated one for me, because I feel like what you heard me say about the East elevation. and I feel confident about this elevation, I think, has room for more modifications, and I agree a 100% with what Marcy is saying about the creation of new openings. So that's in conflict. I guess i'd be curious to hear what John and I have. You have to say about the creation of new openings on this elevation.

[215:11] Well, I mean, I do agree with Staff that that it is not consistent with the guidelines. So at this point I would have to say, i'm leaning against them. I think, in a strict reading of the guidelines. It's inconsistent with them. If it were different building type. I think it's arguable in the case of this building that you're you, You're raising the use of this portion of the building that was otherwise. Probably the most utilitarian wall in the original

[216:10] use of it. And you're changing it from essentially a dormitory to an apartment block. and it's it's a it's a complex issue which we've encountered before. Can I see the South elevation, John? Sorry you keep talking to this, so i'm i'm kind of talking around the issue. I'm still inclined, i'm still inclined to allow them. and and I'm, admitting that it's a it's a it's not completely consistent with a strict reading of the guidelines.

[217:00] and my argument is, I I guess my argument is based more on gaining what it is we want, which is preservation of the overall structure at the at the level that it deserves. and extending the life of the structure by increasing its usability in. I guess, a current notion of what it should be able to do, and what it is. is it? Can we see the north elevation again? And is there a 3D image? That's that? There it is. Again the image. What's what's behind that wall in your proposal? I guess that's the best way to put it. Nori and Mike.

[218:00] Well like the program behind it. I feel like, yeah, i'm not saying what's happening inside, even though we don't normally consider that I mean, I I don't know if we should. Yeah, I don't think we If we get into that, then we go down a path to another version of design. So you know, can I see the the other? Ella: yeah, this one. This is so top guys because it's like as the building works its way. Even on this corner, back towards the hillside. You know, I think debatably, there's greater opportunity to make modifications to it, and even this lightweight structure is blocking some aspects of the building to some degree. So i'm really torn about my position on modifications to windows on the north side of the building. I am to Ronnie, and one thing as as you 2 have been discussing. This is, I want to be sure I have this totally understand this. Those 2 per to propose. Windows are on the west side of the north elevation.

[219:08] That's right. So they're a little bit more tech, or I mean, we're moving more towards the facade that we've already said. That is where the majority of changes can occur. Correct? Yes. I I'm really really torn on this. But I think i'm just gonna say. and it doesn't feel great, because I know that there are multiple interpretations, but I think that it could be approvable to make the types of modifications that are being suggested. And if we could see the bat this elevation. I'll just talk about them. and I I I really have no mission in this direction yet. But let me just say that window. Number 16, which is an existing window. Looks like it's actually getting taller. So I don't know if that's approvable that's in the lower left. It's not that one. If you go, there's 2 window 16, that one. And so that's a little confusing to me. Can a modification be made to that? It doesn't seem like

[220:12] it should. if, unless it meets this other set of criteria about egress on the inside, so that one's a little odd to me. But I will say, the major changes that are being proposed to Kur, as I is saying, closer to the west side, which you know debatably, are there, there's more opportunity. I would also say the lower window or doors are also less visible; and so those, I think, have a more opportunity for change. In fact. that door is actually underneath a walkway. If you look at this drawing on the this image on the right. And so you know, I could see that, as as mars you, saying, that door seems more approvable than any of the other proposed new openings, so I could

[221:02] agree with Staff on that. I know that i'm not coming to conclusion on this, but I am torn about what to do. and I don't know what I don't. I really don't know what the answer is. I can see a version of this being approvable for sure, the door at the lowest level. maintaining the lower level window, Number 16 at its existing height, if possible, seems appropriate. You know. Perhaps the window that's also circled in yellow. I don't know. I mean I don't know how you pick them apart. you know. Is it an up and down, or is it east and west? Or is it a combination of both? Or is it, I think, what Marcy's position is is that like you, shouldn't make modifications to it, and I think that to more strict interpretation of the

[222:00] the guidelines happy, what are your thoughts on it. The so here's what i'm struggling with, and you know i'm also mindful looking at at the time this evening and the clock. I think we. You know how we're already like 34 min into this deliberation, and have more to go. What! What i'm trying to see if we can navigate tonight is is an approval, knowing some things are already gonna have to come back to Ldrc, and if there's a condition. we we can offer about a re-exploration of those windows, or whatever, and then have it come back to Ldrc? Or if we have to make that decision tonight. can I just see the north elevation one more time. Okay, If there is a window, that is the least appropriate. In my opinion, it's the one in the upper right hand corner.

[223:02] because I think it changes the symmetry that it currently exists in the most visible area of the building. the one below that is an existing window which happens to be in this weird location. So it's so it demonstrates the irregularity of windows. The window to the left of that is. you know, debatable. I mean it's thoughtfully put in. It's composed in place where other ones existed, or another one above it exists. and I think it's consequently less visible. It's less visible because it's underneath the deck surface. So I would say, if I were to say which one can't you do the upper right hand, one, if there is an opportunity to definitely do something. It's the door on the lowest level. If there is an intermediate, it set of requests, I think it's the stacked windows that occur underneath the balconies. and I sit in the middle on that. But I can see them being approvable. And so, in short, I think that's where I land just to progress. This is that the uppermost window, I don't think, is approvable, but I think the other windows are, and that they should demonstrate or try to maintain existing still heights if they are replacement window.

[224:19] such as Window Number 16, Roddy, Thank you for synthesizing that into that, because I agree with the way you just said it. The one I'm struggling most with is that upper one on the west side. If if we're all in the agreement, I can hopefully Staff documented some of that, and i'm willing to be the person that reads that and makes this motion. I think we're all reasonably in agreement. Okay, and, Marcy, you feel like you captured the conditions. I feel like I would like just a minute to

[225:05] polish them, and then for you to go through because there are a lot of conditions, and you've talked about the window one. But just maybe give me 2 min. Okay. Should we take Marcy with a 5 min break help you? Yeah, I think it would. And the question would be, Are there other? Are there other parts of the condition? Maybe? Let me just go through them real quick. So submit details on the restoration of the building, including I didn't see I didn't hear any changes to that condition. Second revised, proposed new and modified door and window openings. So I will go and revise this one to clarify that which windows on the elevation should remain in which would be appropriate to

[226:00] to be new. And then, where did the Board land? On modifying the still heights on the east elevation? I was saying basically what? What was described in staff before on the east elevation. Okay. the same historic window openings on the north and east elevation addresses that window 16. Maybe we're talking about Ronnie. and then revive additions to so it sounds like the Board would revise this condition about eliminating the proposed rooftop addition to the south elevation to something like refining the design of the rooftop addition to minimize its visual. Oh. him back. That yeah. that sounds good. Okay. And then Finally, it would be the details of the landscaping, retaining walls.

[227:03] etc., Anything on the I think that this is all accurate. Yeah, this is all good. Okay. So i'm going to stop sharing this screen. I'm going to take 2 min, and then why don't. We extend it 5 min, but i'll come back on screen. When I say, hey, I I could use 5 min for a different reason. So thank you all for your patience. So that would be 9, 55 right.

[232:53] All right. We're a minute.

[233:01] I'll go ahead. Share my screen. and just to go through I But my device it's not super contrasting. But so for revise, proposed new and modified door and window openings to read, eliminate, proposed new window openings on the east elevation. and the uppermost opening on the north elevation, which references this one. which means that this opening sorry, this opening would remain. and then these to this one and this one, and the door opening would be allowed. Is that the intent of the boards condition? Yes. okay, wonderful. And then I scratch the drop of the still on the minimum number of windows needed to meet egress requirements, since that can be met through the door.

[234:01] Would the board like to keep that in there for flexibility or scratch it since it's been addressed. I think you can scratch it. Okay. And then on next page. So we don't need to do that and then revise the additions to so revised design. A rooftop addition on the south elevation to lighten the structure and reduced visual impact. Is that right. John? You mentioned pink color? Is that a suggestion as a way to lighten the structure? Or would you like to make that a condition of approval? I'm not going to make that a condition, but I said it. They heard it. I think it may be explored great if I can. Can I say one thing so that it's also heard, I think, that Mike was very thoughtfully saying that the footprint of the up the glass enclosure is actually in board of the exterior walls.

[235:11] and I think similar to what's happening on the north elevation, where the balcony system and elevation is set in. From the field of building. That that plan move is. I move that they should stick with. and in short, keeping that as a it's, I think it's captured in this language. But just the the nuance of that, I think, is one of the factors that make it more of a diminished characteristic. So I applaud them for doing that. And the more tricks you can do like that the better in that. Oh, I am going to propose it as a condition of approval, because nobody wants to come back and watch this recording if we can just have a list of conditions. So if it that's what i'll propose, and then the board can either accept it or say. No.

[236:11] that sounds great. I accept that. Okay. So keep rooftop addition and balcony's inet from the masonry walls. Is that the it's captured? Okay, that's right. Wonderful. I think we are close to a motion. Unless there are other changes the board would like to make. No. I have none. I haven't done so, Lucas. This is where the Ford usually ask. Do they need to read each condition now? That and he says, Yes, it's frustrating. He's smiling, you know, if if they're too long to read. That's just. We have too many conditions. But, Marcy, these are now recorded. Video: wise, right they are. So if you can just scroll through these slowly one more time, so we can. So it's just on the record.

[237:02] Okay, Why, Don't, we do that after the motion is made, and then we'll go through. Is that okay? Sure or okay? I move that the landmarks board adopt the staff memorandum dated April 1220, 23, as the findings of the board and conditionally approved a landmark alteration certificate to Rehabilitate building L the former Nurses dormitory at the Academy of Mapleton Hill at 2543 Fourth street previously addressed 3, 1, one, Mapleton, have a pending individual landmark. Finding that the proposal meets the standards for issuance of landmark alteration, certificate, and Chapter 9 1118 brc 1,981, and it is generally consistent with the general design. Guidelines, provided that the stated conditions are met. Stated conditions are found on the recording and documented as conditions of approval.

[238:05] Do we have a second? I second thank you, John. And now that Marcy has scrolled through the conditions. We'll take a roll call. Vote, John. All right. Ronnie. bye. and I vote I so the motion with conditions passes unanimously. and then, Marcy, I know you're going to share with us next steps. Yes. this is not the next step. Let me see if I created this slide for them tight. Oh, I did so. What What is now in front of us is that this approval is subject to a 16 day call up period by city council if they choose not to call it up, then the decision is final, and then the applicants would return to the Landmarks Design Review Committee

[239:08] to work through these conditions before a final approval. And then, as I said before, the ultimate feasibility of this project will be determined through the Site Review Amendment with Development Review. But it's one step closer in terms of the Hey, Mar Marcy, real quick! This is Michael. Can you restate that last piece that you just said. Yes, so this is subject because it's part of the your project was approved through Site Review. These changes will require either a minor or a Site review amendment. And so my message here is the Lac is just one step, but the ultimate feasibility of of the project will be determined through that development review process.

[240:04] Okay. So this will require a minor modification or some sort of administrative process. But it yeah, it's either it's either a minor MoD, which is administrative or a site review amendment. and that would be a good thing to reach out to Charles Sparrow about so hopefully. This is, in your opinion, sticking to the original intent of the approval which would would be, but i'll I'll reach out to Chandler and and Charles on that great Thank you. Thank you. Thank you all right.

[241:06] and thank you again to to the applicant for for your stewardship and the wonderful presentation and renderings. So, Marci, are we on to matters? Yeah. So let me just catch up on the chat to make sure we're above board in terms of the video recording. And so I just want to say the slides are part of the record. It sounds like, maybe our video. Is it part of the record? I thought it was? Oh, I feel like we should. It's a it's available on the on the website, the city website. But it doesn't go into central records. So in 1015, 20 years time somebody might not be able to do the video.

[242:00] Lucas, does that change our need to read it out loud? I don't think so. I mean the main point is that so? We can go back and make sure. The minutes accurate, accurate really reflects the conditions. What it yeah, when it was audio sometimes that was hard to do if we just sail what's on the screen? We won't know what that is in the future. But now we do because of this recording. So I think. Okay, great. Oh. okay matters. We have some fun things under matters. So i'm going to talk about them. Does anyone want 2 min break before we go into these are so we march on. I i'm ready to march out. I know this. Here are some fun things. Well, the landmark scored. Recruitment. We have an open position and councils looking to fill it in the mid-year recruitment, which means the applications

[243:02] probably going to be available in May or June with appointments in July. And what's unique about this position? It's finishing out Bill's term, and so this person would be appointed in July, probably start in August, and then they would only have 8 months on the board. And so it's a great opportunity for somebody who wants to dip their toe into a volunteer board position. and then they'd have a chance to apply for a 5 year term next March. So we've put together some info on our website, so get the word out. You can direct people to call me if they have questions. But this website should give a general overview of what it entails the time, commitment, etcetera. So share the word and then historic preservation. Month is in May, which, with this weather, finally feels like it's around the corner.

[244:03] save the date for the square nails award. It's a really wonderful event every year up at Chautauqua this year it's on May fifteenth, from 6 to 7, 30 Pm. And typically the Board attends, gives out the Landmarks Board Awards project awards, which we will. we will talk about next, and then also some special news that James Hewitt and John Mendick will be receiving square nail awards this year. and other people will, too. But I don't know them personally, and so I forget who they are right now. But we know James, and you know just so. Oh, okay. Awards award nomination is the only other thing under members. And so

[245:00] each year the landmarks board chooses projects, and to recognize owners and applicants at this nice award ceremony of exemplary projects. Typically, they have been projects that have gone through our renewed process. but it doesn't have to be that way. but we usually award 2 to 4 each year. There were no new landmarks designated in 2,022. So there's a little more room on the agenda, but I wouldn't go beyond maybe 4, because that might just be agree to this. so there were no award ceremony held in 2020 or 2021, and then no awards were given last year because we were catching up on all of the landmarks. And so there's a lot of great projects to choose from this year, and

[246:02] this is the most convenient venue to vote and decide on projects. But we could do this like in a Zoom Meeting, or like it would be easy if you all don't want to decide or want. It brings from other ideas. But I put together some projects, and there's for suggestions. But I hope you all have ideas too. Here are some past recipients in 2,019, 9, 11 pine, Joel Smiley, and Laura Shafer. for in addition and and restoration there are 2 so small scale projects that we have windows, and then we recognize the couple that relocated that little house out to Lafayette in 2,018. It was the rehabilitation of Whittier School and the granary up on North Broadway in the year before, that it was the rehabilitation of 1,537 pearl, which is the commercial building and 603 Highland, which was that

[247:06] Christopher Melton project, and the house used to be like bright blue, and now it's it's it's stunning. And then, Of course they had a Barker house. and then 2,016 was 1029 Broadway; that even Scholar house, and then 1,815 maple, 10 and 6 15, which were nice rehabilitations. Oh. yeah. And Brenda: yeah, go ahead. Thank you for your time and your free to final Hi, Brenda. Okay. So there's here are some suggestions for the 2,023 awards, and then there are some last minute editions here that are on this slide. So one that has come up in many conversations I've been part of is the wonderful Chatauqua Pavilion reconstruction that Ronnie Polyzio is involved in.

[248:03] You could probably vote for yourself. But I think that one is just such a community focused project. That is really wonderful. 35 calamia is one that this young owner bought this property that was annexed into the city and landmarks to as part of that process, and she has just undertaken this little project that has gone on, for it's not a small project. It was actually quite a big project, and she did a lot of the work herself. She got some tax credits. It's finally done this year, and it it. It's a great project that's going to be the theme this evening. 1102 Pearl is a recently constructed new construction. they might get an award for the number of times they came in front of the board, which is a different award.

[249:04] But I think the result is very nice. And then this was one. and that Leonard Siegel suggested. That is the restoration of what used to be the Art Hardware building. And see you did this building, so they didn't come through the lac process. But they did a pretty lovely job on it, and it's nice to celebrate your preserving buildings. and then for 10 Pine Street is actually I have slides for these. Sorry they should have gone through them. We can reference them if needed. some nice before and after photos. 4, 10 pine. I don't remember who was on the Drc. I think it was Avian Bill. and there are storm windows and window restoration and porch restoration. But I think the theme was how sensitive they were in terms of keeping the historic materials and and working within that. But it's not as

[250:07] right or shiny as some of these other projects. There's the before after art hardware. Rosetta Paul is a really like Cinderella story in terms of it was the absent far before. And now it's this really tasteful masonry building. and then Joel and Joel Smiley and Laura Shaper are often some of the most frequent applicants who do really sensitive designs here. So these are 2 that have been finished in the last couple of years at 5, 21 Maxwell so rear addition, and 453 Highland also over your addition, that one's right on the corner. So there's so many to choose from, and there's probably lots of others. So i'll stop talking. You guys open it up.

[251:04] So, Marcy, do you think this year, maybe look to maybe as many as 4. Total, yeah, I think 4 would be you perfectly appropriate. It's such a great story on so many levels. I would love to see that get an award. Personally, I kind of i'm intrigued by the Cu building, because again they did. you know, it might have been something they would have wanted to demolish and the landfill. The interesting thing about it is that they renovated it to look much more like it looked originally in the eighties. And and so it's. Yeah. I think that's definitely one.

[252:00] The pavilion is definitely one. I think I think I love the count. Me a project while the the the Pearl Street project. Is that the one that's old Chicago? Yeah. that was was an in. That's an interesting one. I was very pleased with the result when I went and looked at it the other day for the first time, and really looked at it. And you kind of leap through them again. Yeah. yeah, look at Joel Smiley's those 3 that you showed. I'm just gonna copy. I'm just gonna put them all on one slide. If that's that.

[253:01] Yeah, it is what sounds like that's an individual who really did a lot of the it, and I think it a much different budget than we're used to seeing in you know in terms of her doing a lot of work herself. And yeah, I mean the scale of the 4 projects that are at the bottom and kind of what they represent, I think. are pretty good cross section. I do think that the 2 that you have up in the upper right hand corner are kind of like that intermediate size. This is hard. These are all good candidates. They are. They are all good. you know. I feel like the upper 2 right are similar. And so if there were you, you know, I think you pick one of the 2. Yeah, it's tough.

[254:00] Yeah, it's a good problem. It is a good problem. Yes. this is the landmarks board awards. So take my as a recommendation, and not as a vote. But I think if I were to rank them, I would do the Chautauqua pavilion 35 kilometers rosetta fall, because I really think that I don't think many people saw the potential in that building of what it used to look like, and how they really brought it back to. and then the Cu one. because we know you often choosing the path of least resistance, and will demolish the building. But they did a really phenomenal job on this one. and you know, Joel and Laura will have eligible projects every single year, and so, I think.

[255:04] recognizing these other ones are a bit more unique in terms of the projects. Well, the Joel did build the pavilion. By the way. the thing real quickly about Rosetta Hall is, it is in a historic district, even though it was a non contributing building, and what I noticed during Covid that that fabulous rooftop is one place where my family went comfortable going one December, because we could go to the rooftop in nice weather and eat outside. So it became sort of this, this sanctuary during the global pandemic where they, you know, they were not. Every table could be used. They they had even these wonderful little separate igloo conservatory things. So I mean, there's something about that. That is just the creativity.

[256:03] Yeah. Can you just flip through the individual. Once again I just i'm just recognizing something that you have written here. That's just so helpful which is like, this is a. This is a reconstruction. This is a rehabilitation. In addition, I think the size of it and the individualism piece of it is pretty important. And so you know personal effort. Part there, I think, is valuable in itself. Window restoration. I think this is great, but I don't think it rises kind of to the merit of the others new construction that meets downtown design, guideline, criteria. This is wonderful. Let's go to the next one. This is an complicated one for me, because I think it's touching on a couple of points. See you? Yeah, like we have reason to include them. And then the the era of this building is unlike any other era. So there's a preservation piece that I think speaks to the modernism.

[257:07] and then let's go. Let's keep going for a sec. This one, as you said Restoration. That was kind of a hidden gem. and then I feel like if you were ever to say, how do you do additions? We should get a bunch of these buildings and put them in an example catalog somewhere for future reference for our. So what did I just do? I just read everything that Marcy wrote, and I think it's super thoughtful, Marcy. So it's like, Should we have categories for each of these and give out awards every year? Yeah, that's a great idea. You know there are no rules, but there is tradition at the a warrant ceremony. So the one thing i'm mindful is that

[258:02] the awards ceremony is county wide. but Boulder County and the city are the only ones who present recognize their newest landmarks and give awards. And so the only thing i'm mindful of is not taking up too much time and the awards ceremony, knowing that there's so many other things to recognize. So I was going to say, Well, let's just give 5 awards and say, this is because we haven't given awards in 3 years. and then we could just shorten what we say about each one. if it's too hard to narrow it down to 4, I wouldn't mind that. and and marcy like you said we're not keeping any landmark good. So it sounds like these 5, and not the addition which I think I

[259:01] agree with for what it's, but we also don't want to lose, like Ronnie set side of the success of those editions. Yes. and I feel like every year Joel and Laura would come up with him with an award winning addition. Or we could go back, you know, next year and choose one of these 2 projects. Yeah, I mean, interesting. You know that those 2 buildings we actually impacted through our design process as well. I mean, I feel personal investment in those 2 buildings that Joel and Laura worked on because we reviewed that, and my our role in that is much greater than our role in Cu. Building it. You know that's a good point that I think you should talk about, which is that to traditionally, we have recognized

[260:00] ones that gone through our process, that the Board has influenced the design outcome. This see you building to me feels more like a structure of merit. You know that it's like it's like nice job. But there's not as much investment. Those of us who went to see you a lot of time in that building when it was our hard work, my period of I, and a lot of money I I help fund Tony's Christmas. Yeah. But I think you also mentioned that Leonard Siegel suggested that that seems like something historic. Boulder. Would you know, at their next preservation awards, maybe on or as well, they haven't already. Yeah. I do think what you have. The stars on are still like the top 5, because the Count Mia project, which I feel like.

[261:00] No. I don't know I mean, we know, but I know. but I know it's the least intimate of all of these, except for the Cu building is not just a rehabilitation. There's also an addition right. and so the addition piece of that isn't the part that we're focused on in this image where it's the other images we are. It is we we are capturing the addition or recognizing the addition through selecting that. Yeah. So maybe it's these 5. This is new construction. That's a pretty good. And then this is restoration. This is like, yeah. yeah. And then this is also restoration.

[262:01] Great Yay! Awesome. Well, we'll reach out to the owners. And could I ask for volunteers to present these awards. And we could do this over email unless you guys know which one you'd like to that, I think in the past, when several different Board members have handed them out that works well. So they're hearing different voices and seeing that you know we're real people. So i'd be happy to do one. So you know. Yeah, I can do one, too. I think we should do this over email. Let's let's take this out right offline. Let's get Chelsea involved in the whole thing. Yeah, definitely. Great. Okay, wonderful. Yeah, I think that's all we had for matters so. And I know, Marcy, that this meeting went longer than the

[263:00] what we thought it might go at the agenda meeting. But I just gotta say that I feel so encouraged by what's been happening during the stays of demolition on some of these properties, and I think that's where we took a little more time to get an update and have a conversation, and I think I just feel again encouraged that the process can work during a stay of demolition, and come to some good conversations, Even if the building ends up not being saved, we at least know why it's not being preserved. I I appreciate that, and I I agree, and I also think that lac conversation and the demo conversation, where, exactly as long as they needed to be without me any longer. So over time I think I didn't see a whole lot of it any waste of time. No, I feel. Yeah, I I feel there are some very valuable conversations. So thank you guys. So with that the meeting is adjourned at 1025. Pm.

[264:04] Wonderful! Thank you. Everybody bye.