June 7, 2023 — Landmarks Board Regular Meeting

Transcript

Captions from City of Boulder YouTube recording.

[0:00] I have. thank you, Aubrey. I forgot about that. Before we begin the meeting, Marcy Guru will be going over. The virtual meeting decorum. All right, thank you, Abby. All right. The city has engaged with community members to co-create a vision for productive, meaningful, and inclusive civic conversations. Okay, let me go. Here we go. all. Let's see there this vision supports physical and emotional safety for community members, staff and board and commission members as well as democracy. For people of all ages, identities lived experiences and political perspectives. More about this vision and the project community engagement process can be found online in the link shown on the screen. The following are examples of rules of decorum found in the Boulder revised Code, and other design and other guidelines that support this mission. These will be upheld. During this meeting all remarks and testimony shall be limited to matters related to city business. No participants shall make threats, or use other forms of intimidation against any person.

[1:19] Obscenity, racial epithets, and other speech and behavior that disrupts or otherwise impedes the ability to conduct the meeting are prohibited. the participants may raise their hand to speak during open comment and public comment periods. During the hearings individuals must display their whole name before being allowed to speak online. Currently, only audio testimony is permitted online. And then, 2 familiarize everyone with the Zoom Platform. Their race hand function is found under the reactions. Menu, typically at the bottom of the screen to raise hand. you can choose all y for a PC or option Y for a Mac. And if you're calling in by phone, you can press Star 9

[2:07] back to you, Abi. Thank you, Marcy. for doing that. Marcy was stepping in for our usual moderator, Brenda Rit, now, who probably needs no introduction to most of the people on this call, as she is stepping back from this role. I do want to acknowledge that tonight we have a quorum for the Landmarks board as with in person landmarks, board meetings. The recording of this meeting will be available in the record archives and on Youtube within 28 days of the meeting we'll do a very quick roll call and introduction. I'm Abby Daniels, chair of the Landmarks Board Chelsea. If you go next. Hi! I'm Chelsea Castle on a member of the I'm John Decker, and I'm a member of the Landmarks Board. and I'm Ronnie Lucio, also a member of Landmarks board. And last, but certainly not least, Mark.

[3:03] I I'm Mark Mcintyre. I am the non voting liaison from planning board to the landmarks board. And I want to take this second. I I had no idea that Brenda was stepping back from this role, and I just want to say that Brenda and I have attended many, many meetings together. whether it was the Transportation Advisory board or planning border landmarks, board or other working groups. And so I really appreciate Brenda's work. through the years for the city. She's been an excellent communications representative for the city, and has made a lot of people feel better and more welcome in their public participation. So, Brenda, whatever you're doing. I wish you the best. And thank you for working for the City of Boulder. Thanks so much, Mark. I'll clarify. I'm not leaving the city or leaving my role in the engagement department of the city. I am just leaving this duty of that role.

[4:06] as I have worked behind the scenes with Marcy and Abbey, and Aubrey and Claire and Christopher through the year, to to make sure that they are ready to sort of lead this zoom space on their own. but I'm still with the city, and and thank you so much, Mark, for your appreciation. I I really appreciate it well, and I want to echo Mark's comments because, Brenda, your demeanor has always been so welcoming and professional it is. You guys can see she still just sort of a a click away from helping us out as we do this this transition. We know that there are people here tonight to participate who may have strong emotions about the project. We want to hear from you, but we do find it more productive if you are speaking 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 during the public hearing

[5:07] reason, request to speak outside of that time will be denied, and there will be the opportunity for public comment on anything not on the agenda this evening as board chair. I will do a roll call vote for any motions made. Now we have 2 sets of minutes to approve from May. Does anybody have any changes or alterations to the May third or May 20, fifth meeting. seeing or hearing no changes, I approved that we I I that we approved the minutes of the May third meeting, and all of us attended that meeting. So We'll vote on that. Do we have a second? I'll second. Thank you. Chelsea.

[6:02] Hi. John Ronnie, and I vote I. So the May. Third minutes are approved. Now for the May 20, fifth special meeting. Do we have a second to approve those sure second. Thank you. Chelsea. Chelsea! Hi, John! Hi! And I vote I so Ronnie was not able to join us at that meeting. So those minute meetings are approved. Thank you. So now we will open up public comment for anything. Not on the agenda tonight. Again we have one public hearing scheduled for tonight. So, Audrey Aubrey, I don't know if you see anyone who has had a chance to raise their hand yet or indicate on their phone that they'd like to speak.

[7:01] Yes. Oh, yeah, go ahead. Oh, good Now. It'd be the time if you would like to speak. Go ahead and find the raise hand function in zoom under the reactions button. Or if you're calling in, it's a star. 9 I see 2 people with their hands raised. Patrick over, followed by franchise. Thank you. So, Patrick, you may begin when you're unmuted, and you will have 3 min. and, Patrick, you may be muted. I don't know if you've started speaking. Oh, no, I got you. Okay. Thank you. The screen changed when she did that. So the the unmute button moved from the side of the screen to the right. good evening. You know, as you know, historic folders, a county wide organization. And so recently, we've been very active outside Boulder.

[8:11] Something came to our attention in the last week, and I'm not sure if Carol athlete will be on the call tonight. But Carol's a resource for us. Carol's the head of the rural historic Belmont area. And the reason I'm bringing this up tonight, is, she called to let us know that there's a a challenge going on with the Belmont markers, the 4 Chambers markers. 3 things happened. Number one is, I think you're aware that the city had that marker removed in the last couple of weeks. it turns out according to Carol, and I'm hoping she'll get on. She's met with the Assessor's office. It's not within the city boundary. So the city had no authority to remove that boundary. Number one number 2 if it was within the boundary.

[9:03] I still don't understand why it wasn't bought before this landmarks board. It's a historic structure. It's whether you think it's a a controversial one. It should be heard and it should be addressed. And finally, what's really disturbing is, when they removed it, they broke it. They snapped it off about the line which you know. That's just just not. Okay. If you're going to do something like that, it just has to be done appropriately, and it's being stored someplace. But this is somebody needs to follow up with City Council, who, I believe, voted to have it removed, and their February hearing The reason I was going to get on tonight was, as you know, on May the thirtieth we put it in an application for a civic historic district. And, we're looking forward to it. We started it over a year ago at the direction of the city staff, which James, who had said, go for it it the this area should the the Banshell expansion should be part of a future historic district.

[10:05] The question I have is, we received a a timeline from Marcy. and the timeline is the outside edge. The question I have for this board is there a attract, a timetable that would move forward. That would be possible for the city, the current sitting city council to hear it, and so the ones that directed Staff to move forward with working together, and then finally, we're looking to see some sort of coordination between the landmarks board and the parks board. I know Staff is talked amongst each other. I don't know that the the 2 boards have talked, and, to be honest with you, I've monitored the last 3 or 4 parks and rec boards, and their level of interest. in my opinion, is not that substantial? And so And they're not going to vote on it, so they'll the only thing that could do is is question

[11:02] the desire to move forward? Thank you. Thank you, Patrick. Marthy, I believe you said franchise was next yes, followed by Carol Affleck, and then, Lynn Siegel. Thank you. So, Fran, when you're unmuted, as you will know, you'll have 3 min to speak. Can you hear me now, Abby, we can hear you, and please state your full name again for the record. Thank you. My name is Fran Mandel sheets, and I live in Boulder, and I'm a former board member. and I'm just here to echo what Patrick was saying, because I'm part of the group of of the large group of people who are working on the historic district in the downtown and this board has been so important in the past. In landmarking so many of the buildings that are included in the district, the atrium, the tea house inside. Now the ban shell, Bimoka.

[12:03] So I'm hoping to keep bugging, you guys and keep keeping you up to date on what we, as a group as a citizen group are doing to See this come to light? the. As you know, it's almost a year to the day that the Landmarks Board proposal to extend the Banshell property was rejected by council, and we were promised that might, that we would be collaborative work towards the district, and as far as we can tell us, citizens, anyhow, it hasn't really happened. And for this reason the historic boulder, the friends of the band Shell and the friends of the atrium worked hard to in a group. I mean the friends of the tea house. worked hard to bring this group together to produce the application for the historic district. The application is as of last week. has been accepted, as you know, and the clock is ticking, and you should hear the initiation

[13:10] in your next meeting on the twelfth of July, and hopefully you'll designate the District and Council will follow with your recommendation. And don't forget that this process until you initiate is a legislative process. So you can talk and you can ask, and you can hear from us regularly. So if you have any questions, you're welcome to call anybody who's in the preservation community you can call me. You can call Captain Barth. You can call Carl Anuda. There's so many, and Patrick Patrick is right up there, too, and so is Len Siegel. So there's just a ton of information in history about this area. It really is the heart of Boulder. Most people living here haven't been here really long enough or enough time to really know or understand the significance of this area. So

[14:02] the park has a lot of correspondence. I'm amazed at the at the literature and the the letters from Olmsted and Sacco-dobor to the specific plantings, the trees that are still there from their from their letters and from their planting. And so the civic area we're just going to keep at you. So I hope that you enjoy it because it should be a really fun process. and thanks a lot. Guys see you soon. They thank you, Fran. And now, Carol, athlete and Carol, I don't know if your appear to still be muted.

[15:08] Carol, you should be able you should see a microphone icon on your screen. Now that you can press looks like you may still be muted. Let's see, I'll I'll chat to Carol, and see if we can't figure out what my, what the issue might be. maybe, Marcy, ask if others are interested in sharing while I try and work this out with Carol.

[16:03] So we did 20, Carol. okay, we can hear you and just state your full name for the record, and your 3 min will commence. Thank you. Good evening. Landmarks, board members. My name is Carol athlete. I want to speak you with you for just a minute about the For Chambers marker. Those of us from Belmont are very concerned that the marker was removed on May eleventh without public input, I did send an email to Katie Map on May third, asking to be a stakeholder. I did not receive an email back right away, although I have met with her since. The marker appears to be on property that is not included in the new fence the city has put up about around the Chambers property. That's a concern. If the marker was on private property, I was the city able to remove it. I was told the marker was removed with a back hole.

[17:11] I don't think that's a proper preservation method of removing a historic marker. and certainly without the stakeholders involved. One of the stakeholders is Shirley Sheller, whose family are the Chambers. The Chambers family paid for the marker. and they were not notified that it was being removed. and I would like to request a cultural resource management plan in place before any historic marker of that nature is removed, and as well that we convene a seat cup process which I was a part of with the city and the tribes on Belmont Bute.

[18:00] It worked very well. We all had input, and I would like to see the city convene that process as soon as possible. I also would like to see a process where we can talk about the marker and putting it back where it was and where we go from here. Thank you. Thank you, Carol. And then I believe Lynn Siegel is next sorry. I'll be just a moment I'm coming. Thank you, Albert. I'd like to talk about the future of demolitions. for the future of landmarking stuff in boulder, for example, my house, the siding is melting away. The the gutter just fell off. It was aimed towards the house, so it was just bleeding all this rain tonight, slamming it into my siding, which is The the addition part of the house. The first part of the house is 1,949, the editions 93. And it's just

[19:27] pouring on onto the Masonite siding on the 1993 addition. there's you know, cracks in foundation, lots of things. But there, there need to be some kind of encouragements for people like me. The public, when I've got my own son, who's an architect saying, Mom is, you should just scrape it, you know, and my brother and I are you, over which house is more of a scrape. His in South Boulder, which I think is much more of a scrape than line. Mine's made of frame, you know, like wood siding, etc. so

[20:10] I don't know how how. you know. I know that if I landmarked it I could get some benefits. But I want to know just practically to get these demolitions from stopping and boulder from places that you have no jurisdiction over, because these are demolitions of the future. You're never going to see him because they were demolished first. I also wanted to put up my support for the downtown Civic Area Center district to go, although all the way up to even Fine Park, and and the value of that whole area to be not delayed, not conjoined with parks and ref recreation to be really preserved and set in stone, so that we have our our central part of boulder. That's so essential

[21:07] to to our benefit. we want to keep what we've got here, and as it's going, we're losing so much. you know. there's I mean, I'm always supporting having a hardware store locally in the, you know, like walkable spaces, you know, and and we lost our drug storage at ideal market. So all of this development is causing less and less funds to go towards historic endeavors and So it is your business, even though you're not in the planning department, so I don't know just some thoughts. Thanks, bye. thank you, Lynn and Marcy. I don't know if you see anyone else who has raised a hand, or

[22:02] I don't see anyone else who has raised their hand to speak under public comments. So if anyone We have last call for anyone who wants to speak to something that is not a public hearing. Later on the agenda now would be the time to raise your hand. and I would say, Abby. I don't see anyone else, but I do see Chelsea. I do see Chelsea's hand up as well, so we'll close public comment. But, Chelsea, would you like to go ahead and unmute. Yes, thank you. I just. I wanted to respond to the request related to the the the sorry, the the 4 Chambers stone marker

[23:03] and I just wanted to reiterate that or or share. Sorry I'm having trouble starting talking tonight. but I just wanted to share that I would not be supportive in any way of putting this marker back. It was removed with the support of the Arapaho and Cheyenne national tribal representatives, because it inaccurately stated that for Chambers was used in a Indian uprising quote unquote in 1,864, when we know that that was false, and that the repo and try and leaders at peace, and it was used as a oh, as a a to

[24:01] to kill people and incite violence. And so I think that, regardless of our process for lim marking, and whatever that is like, I I just. I don't think that as a body we should be advocating in any way for the replacement of this truly racist marker that probably that should never have been there. In the first place. Thank you, Chelsea, and you obviously know more about this than I do, because I think my first questions about this was more the process. And you know, whose property does it really? land on, and and, Marcy, I don't know if you know anything about this, and I know I don't know if we can take just a few minutes to respond to both Patrick and Carol's remarks about that. But for me, my concern may have been more a process issue, but I I don't know much about it.

[25:06] Sorry I'll I'll share what I know. But I would. I would say that this issue would be best raised with the open space and mountain parks department. because it is city owned land in the county, and so and managed by the open space and mountain parks, department. And so because it's in the county, even though it's owned by the city. The city of Boulder landmarks board doesn't have jurisdiction And then also, it's not a landmarked site. And so it's yeah that this board in this program does not have a review over changes to that property. and the removal of the monument was led by open space and mountain parks and with, along with the tribal consultation. So I would encourage anyone who's interested to reach out to that department. because the city of LAN, the city of Bowler landmarks board doesn't have a a role in this.

[26:15] Okay, thank you for claring for clarifying that. And as far as Fran and and Patrick's comments on the Civic Center historic district application. I always want to say it's a nomination, but I know it's an application. At this point. we look forward to hearing that at our July twelfth meeting the initiation of that. So thank you. To the citizens who worked on that. And with that we've closed pop public participation. So we're ready to move on to a discussion of landmark pending demolition stays. Yes. and I will lead that and share my screen again. So here we go. there we go, all right.

[27:02] So the first one in our stays of demolition. is the property at 1,741 walnut It was in March earlier this year that the Landmarks Board had, hearing for the review of the full demolition, and chose to place a day of demolition on the application, in order to provide time to look at alternatives John and Abby were the Board representatives, and we met virtually in April fourth, and then an onsite meeting, April eighteenth. and then at your last regular meeting on May third, you all voted to schedule a meeting prior to the stays, exploration, and the main conversation, or what came out of the conversations during this day, is an openness on behalf of the applicant to preserve a portion of the building and incorporate the alley side facade into the redevelopment. however, the day of demolition was coming to a quick close, and so they requested. that it be extended. We've done that through a tolling agreement, and so that will provide them time to continue considering, altering all

[28:16] alternatives to demolition, and then including preparing those partial demolition plans. And so we have scheduled it for the July twelfth. Landmarks board, hearing this day of demolition, now expires. July nineteenth neck. Oh, go ahead, Mark. just really quick. What is a tolling agreement in this context. Yes, so it's a an agreement between the owner and the city to pause the requirements in the code. And so because it's mutually agreed upon. into a date certain. We're able to provide more time than then would be allowed by the regular code process.

[29:11] All right. moving on to 1,444 fulsome The landmarks board also placed this day of demolition on this building. at the March first hearing, and we had an onsite meeting, April eleventh, and then a virtual meeting on May third. and talked about or kind of better understood the structural issues and constraints of this property doing part to its method of construction. And also it's location within the flood plane. the what came out of those conversations was it's kind of a general direction that it's important to document this building. Incorporate the materials or some of the materials on site if possible. And so that was What we talked about on May third, and then earlier today. So if you didn't have a chance to look at it. understandable. But now it would be the time to talk through it.

[30:13] The applicant sent a letter kind of outlining those steps that they are offering to take in terms of documenting the building and potentially incorporating materials into the site. and I just want to be very clear that the only thing we can require by code is the archival documentation. everything else is is kind of a handshake agreement. But I do really appreciate the applicants. A collaborative approach to this, and and willingness to to take those steps. and also want to let the board know that. The applicant is attending this evening, and is here and available for questions, or to to address the letter that was sent earlier today.

[31:06] so that would be a question, would you? Oh, go ahead, John. Yeah, I just want to briefly address this. This was an extremely good faith process. I felt like going through it with this this group? we toured the property. We looked at the kind of offerings of the property, the things that that were interesting and worthy of being saved versus the significant kind of negative factors that we're going to make alternatives to demolishing it pretty much unavailable. When I read the letter today I was very happy at what was stated and how detailed. They responded in good faith to the things that were discussed

[32:05] in our onsite and virtual processes. And so I wish them the best on this. and actually to go a step further with this would, would we. Is it ever done, or would it be possible to entertain lifting the state at this point, since this is our last meeting before it expires? Hmm, so the Board can't take action on the application unless it's publicly noticed that you'll in. So so it will just expire. and that's that's where I work then, and just this side note, because this does come up. it's not always a favor to the applicant to lift it early, because the approval is so far at 180 days that Not all applicants are ready to move on it quickly. So

[33:11] I appreciate that the thought. I I was impressed with the letter. Okay. I yeah. all right. I need to promise you that. Oh, sorry I didn't. I was raising my real hand. anyway. yeah, I just want to echo my colleagues points and thank the applicant for being collaborative the whole time for being transparent about your intentions, and I would say, now I think you're going above and beyond with your continued thoroughness, and describing what your intentions are, and I just really appreciate it. I think that what was described in the letter will be a wonderful way of documenting and honoring the project. And I wish you guys the best of luck.

[34:09] Yeah, it extends the usefulness of the resource that the building may have offered. So yes. wonderful. Okay, moving on to the third and final active day of demolition. it's the small house at 1,918 Pine Street and This stay of demolition has moved very fast, and That's in part because the clock starts taking the day the fee is paid, but the application isn't always able to be scheduled for the first landmarks board hearing. So while the fee was paid earlier this spring, the landmarks for hearing wasn't until April twelfth the landmarks board representatives for this one, again, are John and Abby and We have. We have not been successful in finding a time that works for the owner, Staff

[35:09] Abby and and John to discuss alternatives to demolition. so we do have a site visit scheduled tomorrow. June eighth However, tonight is the Board's last opportunity to schedule a meeting for July the July twelfth meeting. which is the last regular meeting before the stay expires. and so Otherwise, if the board doesn't take action tonight, we would either need to hold a special meeting. before July 30 first, or this day would expire, and the demolition would be approved. So I do have some. I have the motion language drafted, and I can show that on the board. If the Board chooses to schedule a hearing for July, I'm also happy to answer questions you might have.

[36:12] So this one is interesting, because I think by tomorrow afternoon some of us would know a lot more about whether to schedule it or not. and I I know, Marcy, there's a possibility of on July 12, based on tomorrow's site visit scheduling a special meeting. I I still think if there's interest in having an initiation hearing it would probably be preferable to do it at our regularly scheduled July twelfth meeting. even though we haven't had the conversation with the owners yet. I don't know what my colleagues on the board think. I still believe it. I think it's the reason this day was placed on this property is that there's probable cause to believe this is eligible for landmark designation, and I I would lean towards going ahead and scheduling it, even if

[37:15] through the process and through the meeting tomorrow, maybe any follow up virtual meetings or so forth with the owner, even if I know we've had an application where we've scheduled the initiation. And a different decision is made that evening of that hearing based on more information. Yeah, I think what you're saying makes sense, Abby, but I'd be curious to hear what Marcy's thoughts are on that. you know. Are we by doing that? Creating immediately, creating work for staff that may not be used. Or what is your thought, Marcy?

[38:01] Okay, I appreciate that. And I will say that We've had so many days of demolition this year, and I think that The other 3 are models of how the process is supposed to work. And with this, when it's just been fortunate that we have not been able to utilize that time like we have with the other ones. I think that it My recommendation would be that the Board do schedule a hearing for July twelfth, because then you have options. The options at that hearing could be landmark initiation of the landmark designation process. You could craft the motion so that you could also approve the demolition. If if that's the way the board wants to go, or you could take no action. if you don't schedule a hearing tonight, then effectively, you're approving this demolition. unless there's unless there's a special meeting held and so I would err on the side of scheduling the hearing in order to provide options. for you all. It does add work, but it also.

[39:11] that is my recommendation. I I think that's smart, and I'd like to make that motion if we have language. I moved to schedule, a hearing to consider initiation of landmark designation or approval of a demolition request prior to the expiration of this day of demolition for the buildings at. if you could click back to the previous screen, 1918, Pine Street. I second that motion. Is there any discussion before we do a roll call? Vote. not not seeing or hearing anything. Let's go ahead and vote on the motion. Chelsea.

[40:03] Hi. John Ronnie! And I vote I. So the motion passes unanimously to schedule an initiation hearing for 1,918 Pine Street at our July Twelfth Board meeting. and for anyone that's interested in the site, is it? Tomorrow will be it at 10'clock. it's open to the public for observation. and then yes, it's at 10'clock tomorrow. and that was the end of the stays of demolition. So now we're ready to move on to our one public hearing this evening. This is a public hearing, in consideration of a landmark, alteration, certificate, application to demolish an existing garage, to replace with a 986 square foot detached accessory structure at 661 Maxwell Avenue.

[41:09] a contributing property in the Mapleton Hill Historic District. Pursue it to Section 918 of the Boulder revised Code 1,981, and under the procedures prescribed by Chapter one, through 3 pause, a judicial hearings boulder, a vice code, 1,981, and Claire will be making the staff presentation this evening. Thank you, Abby. so I will go through the quasi-judicial hearing procedures all speaking to the item will be sworn in, and board members will note any exparte contacts. I'll then give the staff presentation. After that the Board may ask questions. The applicant will have 10 min to present to the board, and the Board may ask questions, will then open the public hearing. After all, members of the public have made comments, the applicant may respond to anything that was said.

[42:06] We'll then ask everyone to mute their computers, and the Board will deliberate. A motion requires an affirmative vote of at least 3 members to pass motions must 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 would be added to the records archive within 28 days, usually sooner. before I pass it back to Abbey for exparte contacts. The Board has requested that we note who has reviewed this previously, and this has not been previously reviewed, as the Ldrc. Does not review demolition of buildings in historic district or new construction. So back to you, Abby. thank you, Clare, and I also want to thank the owners who have agreed to this virtual clause, I judicial hearing. I have no ex parte contacts, but I did drive by the property, so I could could see it.

[43:04] Chelsea. Thanks. John. I have none. Ronnie. I have none. And, Mark, I see your hand up. Is that from a previous you you have a question, please. No consulted with the Hello Panelwig, the planning boards staff attorney in regard to X-ray communications, and how they might pertain to a non-voting member. And my To a little bit of surprise. for well, no hell is always very conservative and very thorough. So she advised me to divulge anything that might be considered an exparte communication, even though I am a non voting member. So actually, I have a little list of things that I am going to divulge and

[44:12] Anyway, I'm so I'm going to do that. A couple of days ago I contacted Laura cap on the prior planning board liaison to just make her aware of this application, because this application is a particular interest in terms of the intersection of the city's housing goals and new au regulations, and and how those might relate to a historic district. So I discussed that with Laura a couple of days ago. today. I we we all received the brief email from Tim class is an acquaintance of my former city council member, etc. And I reply to Tim.

[45:06] thanking him for the email and thanking him for focusing his comments on the on the code and the application of the code. And so that was another possible exparte communication. And finally, this afternoon I talked to Lisa. How from the city's planning department, who let the modifications to our adu regulations, which were recently passed by Council, and I asked for a couple of questions, clarifying questions about the new ad regulations when they would go into effect. And and how, as an example, this application in the historic in historic district might be affected by, or changed by the new regulations versus the regulations that are current as of today. So those are my those are my X part day communications in regard to this matter.

[46:12] Thank you, Mark. And as in just another bit of information, Tim Plus also served on this board for years, and was chair of the landmarks board 1015 years ago. So thank you for exparte contacts, Claire. I'll turn it back over to you. Great. Thank you, Abby. so the criteria for review today are outlined in the Boulder Revised Code under 9, 1118 B. And C. The review is to ensure that the proposed work preserves, enhances or restores and does not damage exterior architectural features of the property does not adversely affect the historic architectural value of the property. architecture, arrangement, texture, color, arrangement of color and materials are compatible with the character of the property. and that the Lamarks board considers the economic feasibility of alternatives, incorporation of energy efficient sign and the enhanced access for the disabled.

[47:12] The options today are for the landmark spoil to approve the application. This is subject to a 16 day city Council call up period. If the City Council would like to review the application, they will inform us. at the June fifteenth meeting the Board may also deny the application which would be subject to a 30 day period in which city council could request to review the decision. A denial would mean the applicant could not submit the same application within 12 months. But the board may also allow the applicant to withdraw if it's heading in that direction. So this application was received on April fifth, a requests to demolish an existing structure in a historic district, and construct a new building larger than 340 square feet are automatically referred to the Full Board for review

[48:01] rather than going to the Ldrc. First. This sorry pointer. this property is located at near the corner of Seventh and Maxwell. The front of the house faces south onto Maxwell Avenue. The accessory building is at the rear, facing conquered Alley, which is right here. The House at 6 6, one Maxwell Avenue was constructed in 1,910, within the identified 1865 to 1946 period of significance for the Mapleton Hill historic district. Although it's been modified, the house retains architectural integrity. and we consider it to be contributing to the historic character of the district. The garage at the rear was originally one and a half story. This building, you see in the image here was constructed by 1,910 the same year as the House.

[49:04] and it appears on Sambourne Fire Insurance maps in 1,91019, 22 and 1,931 It was partially photographed in 1,929. That's this image here. you can see a sliver of it at the edge of the photograph. and sometime between 1939 and 1,949, which is this image? We believe this is 1,939 as the you seem to. Oh, it's right here. The The address is written on the, on the negative of the image which usually indicates it's the earlier image. But we are not entirely sure. So we're calling it 1,939 to 1,949. So acknowledging that perspective in photographs is sometimes skewed, we compared

[50:00] the images, using the gable end of the house at 6 52 concrete avenue, which is right across the alley, and you can see that in yellow right here, and the original rear of the of the house, which is this orange line here? with the the peak of the accessory gable. So we've got the the rear of the of the house behind in the alley, showing up on both images the original rear of the house in in Orange, and the gable of the garage in green. and you can see that It was up here in 1,949, and is currently I don't know if you can see that all the way down here. Currently and although this is not hugely scientific, this did show us that the height of the current accessory building is much lower than than the original building.

[51:09] in addition, a permit was created in 1,978 for the construction of a new garage on the same foundation as the as this original building. so we suspect that the building was actually reconstructed, using the same footprint possibly the same foundation. however, the the building today retains no historic integrity compared to the historic photographs, the height, the sighting windows and door configurations, roof pitch, and is depth have all been modified. so that the proposal is for the demolition of this 1,978 garage which has a 330 square foot footprint that is shown in yellow the yellow outline here. and the the construction of a new 986 square foot detached accessory building, with a 555 square foot footprint which is shown in gray.

[52:12] the proposed building would be set back about 3 feet from the alley. This is the alley right here. which is about 18 inches further back than the Then the existing garage. the parking area to the east. currently is this whole area and will be re retained, but smaller. it will be this area here. The proposed fence line on the east is about 4 feet further back onto the property from the alley, then the existing fence making the parking area actually deeper. Right here. In addition, there is a patio proposed.

[53:03] on the interior of the lot. The distance from the house to the proposed new building is about 29 feet. which is a loss of about 12 feet. This was about 12 feet here. There is also a ground level exterior Stella into the basement. and a proposed fence, which is kind of hard to see at the northwest corner of the the proposed building. Right here the design of the proposed new building in including its general form. Ruth, pitch and height is reflective of the historic building shown in the the historic photographs. It would have a steeply pitched gable roof, with the addition of some shed dormers.

[54:03] This is the alley facade. There are 2 vertically proportioned double-hung. 2 over 2 divided light windows facing the alley. Right here. the Dolma windows are smaller double hong divided light windows. The proposed building would be clad in painted 4 inch reveal lap sighting. and it would have a metal roof. The The proposed dormers also include a shingle detail. This is the east elevation The lower level includes a trio of those windows. same style. Window. This elevation includes a a 2 foot toll projection with a single full light entry door and and a roof tag. So this is the south elevation that faces the house and is the interior of the lot with minimal visibility.

[55:03] this includes 2 double sliding doors. A single 2 of a 2 divided light double hung window at the lower level. That's right here. The upper level includes 2 dormers. one with a pair of windows, the other with 2 windows flanking a single light door. And the door opens onto the proposed roof deck just right here. So moving around the proposed west elevation is similar to the east elevation, with a single window in the gable and you can see. The exterior stare to the basement includes a railing proposed to match the railing at the main house. stuff based our analysis on 9 1118 B. And C. Of the Boulder revised Code The general design guidelines for historic districts and individual landmarks.

[56:01] and the Mapleton Hill Historic District guidelines. The proposed demolition is for a building that we find was either constructed or heavily modified after 1,978 outside the period of significance. Staff considers that the removal of this existing 1,978 garage, and replacing this building with the proposed new accessory building would not be detrimental to the overall historic character of the historic district. As the changes are generally consistent with the general design, guidelines and the Mapleton Hill historic district design guidelines. We also considered that the proposed new building will not adversely affect the special character or special historic architectural and value of the property, provided the stated conditions are met. and we also considered that the architectural style of the proposed new building reflects the general form, roof, pitch, and height of the historic building located on the site and photographed second, 1,929 to 1,949

[57:10] the proposed structure is subordinate to and compatible with, the designated property and the adjacent properties. The location, mass, scale, and materiality of the proposed new accessory building will not track from the overall historic character of the site or the principal building So we went through the entire design guidelines in the packet. So I'm just going to summarize here. and will be available for questions afterwards, if you have any. So in general, the design guidelines call for new buildings to be subordinate, lesser in mass and scale. to respect neighboring buildings and the streetscape, and simpler than the historic building. new construction should incorporate elements of the character of the district, but should not

[58:04] imitate or give a full sense of history. The new accessory buildings new accessory building should be consistent with the existing pattern of small structures that are simple and utilitarian in design. Following the character and pattern of historic accessory structures, alley buildings should maintain a scale that is pleasant to walk along and comfortable for pedestrians. So Staff found that the proposed accessory building generally matches the location and orientation of the historic building shown on historic images. It's smaller in mass and scale than the primary house. Detailing is generally simpler than the main house. The design of the accessory building does not reference the primary structure or existing non-historic garage. But does reference similar structures found in the historic district and the proposed building maintains a human scale on the alley facade.

[59:01] the design guidelines to find the alignment, orientation, and spacing of buildings that create the context of the neighborhood. The new building is proposed to be set back further from the alley than the existing building by about 18 inches. while the footprint of the proposed accessory building is larger than the existing garage. The proposed accessory building is generally in the same location and orientation as the historic accessory building. backyard space is reduced from 41 feet to 29 feet. However. the built area to open space seems consistent with adjacent properties and spacing between buildings at the alley is reduced. but not eliminated. There's at least 15 feet space between the proposed accessory building and the existing accessory buildings to the west and the east

[60:00] alleys are considered a very important element of the district. The guidelines ask for a consideration to the variety of shape, size, and alignment. and the human scale. The general mass and scale of the proposed building is not out of character with the alley on this block, which includes a variety of one and one and a half story buildings with varied setbacks. The proposed windows facing the alley also add to the human scale. The variety of reforms in the district are an important visual element. Dormers are intended to be elements of secondary importance to the main roof form and should be lower than the main roof ridge compatible with the size and scale of the existing building, and include windows that are similar in proportion to first floor windows, but smaller. and the guidelines state that often 2 small daughters are more appropriate than one large dormer.

[61:01] The dome is on the proposed building. our Modern interpretation that was not found on the historic building, but they are traditionally scaled and pitched, and all lower than the main refridge decks are also a modern expression. and they do not have a visual counterpart in historic buildings. The Riff deck proposed is contained within the roof mass of the south projection. The guidelines say that the the second story roof decks or balconies are not appropriate for freestanding accessory buildings and garages. However, Staff considered that this may be appropriate because it has minimal visibility, being on the interior of the lot. however, the proposed location flesh with the western wall of the cable here western wall of the cable end. which is right. Here

[62:01] increases the visual mass and and kind of disrupts the traditional proportion of the building. and we suggested that the roof deck would be appropriate if the projection was in set from the southwest corner of the building to to break up the mess and retain the the proportion of the one and a half story building on the gable ends. Her door and window sizes and patterns should harmonize with the historic context rather than compete or copy it. the guidelines note that windows and new structures should reflect the window patterns and proportions of the district, and utilize similar materials for elevations visible from public streets. The relationship of solid to voids should also be compatible. Windows should be trimmed with material similar in scale. Proportion, finish, and character to those used traditionally opening should indicate floor levels, and generally should not occur between floors and dormer windows should be similar in proportion to first and second floor windows, but smaller.

[63:10] The Alli facade, which is this one here includes 2 vertically proportion double hung windows at the lower level. The dormer windows above are smaller and also double hung. The windows are traditionally proportioned, and add to the human scale. at the south elevation, which is this one which is not visible from the public rights of way. The windows and doors vary in size and proportion. although this non symmetry is not inconsistent with the guidelines, staff suggests maintaining consistency of the vertical proportions and using smaller vertical windows at the upper level. and we also suggested eliminating the divided lights and simplifying the trim.

[64:02] To distinguish this as a simple accessory structure. so to summarize, we considered the proposed demolition of the 1978. Building and construction of a new accessory building, generally consistent with the general design guidelines and the Mapleton Hill historic district guidelines. The existing garage was either constructed or heavily modified. After 1,978. Outside the period of significance, the general form, roof, pitch, and height of the proposed accessory building is reflective of the historic building shown in the 1,929 to 1,949 images. The design of the accessory building references, similar structures found in the historic district. The proposed new accessory building is generally subordinate in massing to the primary structure, the detailing it is generally simpler than the main house and while the footprint of the proposed accessory building is larger than the existing garage they the proposed is generally in the same location and orientation

[65:07] as the historic accessory building. The backyard space is retained and built. Area to open space seems consistent with adjacent properties. We did consider that the following changes are needed to ensure it is consistent with the guidelines. simplify the building to differentiate it as an accessory building. This would include eliminating the divided lights in the windows and traditionally scaling the size of the windows, using smaller windows at upper levels. and in. Set the south projection from the southwest corner of the building to break up the massing and retain the proportion of the one and a half story building on the gable ends. so the recommended motion is for the Landmarks board to conditionally approve the application.

[66:00] The conditions proposed by staff are for the applicant to make revisions for review by the Landmark's Design Review Committee. including modifying the flat roof entry portion of the building to make it insert eliminating the divided lights vertically orienting the windows that are smaller in size on the Second level to follow traditional patterns, and then providing details such as the fence elevations. the materiality and permeability of the patio on parking area, and all exterior materials, including all wood doors and windows, lighting, sighting. shingle type, gutters, etc. The exterior stair railing, the final paint colors. and location of trash service area, mechanical devices on the exterior. This! To summarize our findings, the proposal will be generally consistent with the purposes of this chapter will not damage the historic character of the landmark property, or the exterior architectural features of the property. The architectural style, arrangement, texture, color, and arrangement of color, and materials used on the addition will be compatible with the character of the existing building and its site, and the historic district.

[67:23] and the proposed work will not adversely affect the special character or special historic, architectural and value of the landmark property, as it is generally consistent with the general design guidelines, and will generally comply with sections 2.0 and 3.3 of the general design guidelines, and section 9, 1118 B. 3 of the Boulder Revised Code. So that's the end of the staff presentation. This is a reminder of the next steps in the process. The applicant and owner have up to 10 min to present to the board. and the Board may ask questions, will then hear comments from any member of the public who wishes to speak The applicant may have an additional have additional time to address anything set during public comment, and then board will ask everyone to mute their computers, and will deliberate

[68:15] the You'd like to remind the the board that the the Landmark Altration Certificate Review is limited to design review of the building and the permitting and use of the building as an Edu is a separate process with its own requirements. So the question today for the board is whether the request to demolish an accessory building and construct a new accessory building, meets the standards for a landmark. Ortration certificate, specifically is the demolition of the existing garage. Appropriate is the mass scale and location of the proposed accessory building. Appropriate do the dormous roof, decks, window and door openings meet the design guidelines, and are the proposed material materials appropriate?

[69:03] If if yes, staff will approve the application with or without conditions, and if no, the Board will deny the request. So any questions from the Board, before we continue with the applicant's presentation. Well, I want to jump in quickly and say, Claire, excellent presentation! You really brought this staff memorandum to life. I have one really quick question, and I apologize. If you covered this. Does the proposed 986 square feet include the lower level or the basement? Mossy, would you please answer that question. Happy to you know it does not. Okay. I didn't think so. Usually, that's not counted correct. Correct. Thank you. I I had a follow up question that I'm glad you asked that Abbey. how, and I know we could do the math if I did look at the plans, but how many square feet are on the second or upper floor

[70:06] I may defer to the applicant. it's your question for that again after that presentation. Thank you. We'll do. I have one question. Is, the basement? Is any portion of the basement occupied? again? Probably the a question best answered by the applicant, my understanding that it's intended for use storage. But I would defer to the applicant. Okay. it. And again, the landmarks board purview is over. What is the exterior impact of having a basement which is limited to the stairs and any egress windows. And it is not the the purview of this program to speak to the use of a building alright. But I was just seeing the windows, and

[71:01] if it is occupied, the area should be included in the total, or at least considered in the total. Okay, if nobody has any additional questions, I, will ask Opri if she would be so kind as to promote Renee, I see, as an attendee, and we will, Rene. You should have received a pop up to be promoted. I'll send it again. And, Renee, would you like me to share this image? Hi! Can you guys see me and hear me. Hi! But I first want to say, you know. Thank you to Claire for an awesome presentation as well. She does a really good job of bringing forth a lot of critical details for the Landmarks board for this and presenting it, and thanks for the landmark for for being here to listen to the presentation. So I am going to. I guess I'll address

[72:17] the 2 questions real quick. If that's okay. and then I'll address. We did get some emails that were sent around. It's why I want to address some of the concerns of the neighbor property. if I could interject one moment. My name is Lucas, sparkling with the city attorney's office. I just want to make sure Abby has a chance to. Yeah, Lucas, you beat me to that. So since this is the quad quasi judicial hearing, Rene, if you will raise your hand and swear to tell the board the phone. Thank you very, Amy. No, no, you you you were on a roll. So so I raised my hand, and I'm renegalobic, and I am a resident of Boulder, Colorado. and you sort of tell us the whole whole truth. Thank you. You may now proceed.

[73:07] Okay, sorry. So so you are correct about. I'll I'll talk about the size first of the building. So the footprint of the building will be 500 554 square feet. the existing area of the current building. The current structure is 331 square feet. that 987 square feet. The total area of the unit does include some parts of that lower level only because, according to the as they are employed area ratio, you have to include anything that's more than 3 feet below great. So some of the window and the door is included. There's a calculation that is called for in the floor area to allow that 900 and I have 987 square feet for the post 80. So some of that square feet does include the basement, which

[74:06] I will. Now talk to about the intended use of the storage in the basement. We all know these older homes do not have a lot of storage and the my client and the owner of the house. Oh, owner of Maxwell, he runs a a camp for kids, and learn teaches kids how to bike. And so a lot of that has to do with bikes and bringing in the bike. So the storage unit is basically to accommodate the extra for his camps and learning how to teach the kids how to bike. So a lot of that storage is going to be. So it's not considered part of the avo. It will not be the Abu. It will be only used for the main house. So Hopefully those 2 questions are answered again, you can ask additional questions. I want to talk about the use of the House in those emails. It was brought to the attention that this the homeowner, will not.

[75:04] We'll fix and flip, or we'll get a lot of money. And You know this. They renovated the house. This is their dream home, and they renovated the house. During Covid and the his grain, and Sarah lived in the house, and when she moved in, and less than a year of moving in, she was diagnosed with terminal brain cancer. And so within the year she passed away in the house. So there's a lot of good memories and a lot of bad memories. But it was their dream home. and they love living in the neighborhood. Their child was had their wedding in the backyard. And so there are a lot of good memories. And so the idea of this 80 is actually to for extra family members to live there that he has to. He has 3 children. And so it's just to create and allow actually for him to make some good memories in the well. The older children, in their twenties, who have, you know,

[76:07] careers within boulder, will be living in the main house, so it is not a rental property. Now it is owner occupied. It will continue to be odor occupied and moving forward, and we don't need to talk about use. But I just want to address some of concerns. some other concerns. was the tunnel effect on the alleyway. And I, wanna you know, speak to. There's some pictures in the packet that talk about and I don't know if Claire has can pull that up. But it's the Site plan, with all the different garages and a lot of the garages have overhead doors, and you know our unit. And they have the gable and facing the facing the alleyway. This is designed to have the soft and face the alleyway to create a one and a half story effect, so it does not contain, you know, does not create that tunnel effect. And then there's some windows that allow for, you know, different materiality. And you know, articulation down the alleyway, it again will be set back further than what the existing building is. The existing building is one and a half feet. This building will be set back according to the setback, which is 3 8.

[77:21] Now there was a lot of talk about the privacy. There's a deck. The deck is as you can see from the main house. The deck is at 17 feet 10 and a half inches, so the deck on the main house has, you know. the neighbors, you know. They get to see the rooftop deck. This will actually create a lot of privacy for the neighbors, and you know, and a lot of privacy for my client on their roof deck. So I just want to address that And the parking was an issue currently, the parking right now is actually a parallel parking space, because the way you enter the garage is from the East, and so

[78:07] But this will actually be a perpendicular parking space, so there'll be a lot more room to, you know. Accommodate a larger size car than what currently is there? so, and also addressing some privacy concerns about looking on top of. you know these windows and stuff looking on the neighbors. The windows are, you know, for the stairwell and bathroom, so they're not going to be living spaces. And so somebody's not going to be sitting there staring out the window at the neighbors. So I think that was all. This section was just to show the deck railing and where it comes into the house, and then also the height of the alleyway. There's a alley. There's a house that's to the north and to the east of this just one one block over, and that's it. 2535 Seventh Street, and that is 18 feet 8 inches high. So you know, we would be

[79:07] higher than that. But we're not. It's not, you know, a whole story higher than the garages in the area. So And you know Claire brought up really good points about, you know the modifications, and we're totally I I like all the things she was saying, and we're gonna we can modify them as needed. And we'll take those recommendations into consideration. And hopefully. We can meet with the Ldrc. On Wednesdays time. That's it. No questions. hey? Thank you, Renee Ronnie, you have a question. Yup. I just have some questions for Renee, some clarifying questions. there's a handful of detail questions that I want to ask. I feel like probably some bigger picture things to talk about, but the overall massing of the building is one of the first things that I'm hoping that you could shed some light on.

[80:08] I think there might be different information or conflicting information in your set. And I wish I had the drawing tool. I'm looking for it, but I think I don't have access to it, so I can't do it. It's gonna to draw here for us. But this section demonstrates that the stairs are up against the exterior wall. The floor plans demonstrate that the stairs are up against the exterior wall. The dormer that is drawn is aligned with that exterior wall which works in section. It's like all of this stuff is working so you can climb up a set of stairs and get to the top. When you look at the building elevation. If we look at the side elevation and I don't know who's in control of this now. But I appreciate you flipping around.

[81:05] There we go. Nope side elevation. There we go. Let's look at the one on the right. Okay? So the alley side shows that the dormer is stepped back. In fact, it's step back on both sides. so I am. I just. I'm looking for clarification because I think that those are not telling the same story. and I I think you're right in developing this. what I think would solve the problem is, if we could go. If we could line up the wall where the stairs are, and then maybe step back where the bathroom is in plan. I don't. We don't have a plan but And then, if the so it could come out farther. It would actually be a bigger roof on that on that side, so it would still look the same from the alleyway

[82:01] because we would have a a so that's not, you know, 6 inches. It would be a a and half. And so we could create that look. I mean, certainly we can change it. So it does step back in the massing and and so I I think just so. I I I think I understand. But I just want to say, are you suggesting that you're going to move the stairs in board of the plan on the lower level in order to get the stairs to align with an inset dormer. Okay, so it'll look like this. It won't look like the plan. The section sorry, or the plan, actually. But okay. And then, if you go back to that section. I'm sorry I'm really digging into this. But that's so important. Right? It's like, how is the overall massing of this building? How is it? Truly it looks to me like the roof form. the primary root form. and the dorm or roof forms are asymmetrical.

[83:02] So if you were to align up the faces, or if you were to line up the spring points for either the dormers or the primary roof. They don't spring from the same points, and it implies that the gable is not in the center of the building, or that there are multiple knee wall heights, slash plate heights. so, Claire, do you have the section that was given in the document? Not not this new one. Tell me what page it would have been on in the yeah, I think that will in the applicant. Yeah. And your materials. Was it in there? Yeah. so on my pages like page 13 of the application. I,

[84:00] Ronnie. I think it's a I think it's a phenomena of the offset of the dormer walls to one side of the center line of the house. Yeah, it's unclear to me, you know. I just I guess it sounds like it's not. It's not symmetrical right now, but I think Rene has something else that she's gonna it's not asymmetrical. Today. When I was talking to people's concerns. I was messing around with this, and I wanted to show the rally in the deck. and when I was I was playing with some other forms, so when I printed it printed with the different forms. If you go to the the section on the page 28 of our our handbook and it would be mine. It's item 5. A. Claire.

[85:01] I think I have it. Hang on. Go with me. A sec. Oops that this one. Yeah. there you go, honey. Okay, that still happens. But it is symmetric. It's a yeah symmetric. So the one I see. So this one's symmetrical. Okay? Good. And I had another question. And it was about this one that wasn't shown in. The last one is that the tail I'm not primary. On the left is nubby in the tail, on the primary roof on the raised long. Are there different tail links? No. okay. So there's one in the 3D model. Do you think the massing is the thing that is accurate to the overall like volume the the Mac. I think the masking on the 3 model makes sense. Yes, and I think. yeah.

[86:03] okay, good. And I I I have one more thing. just so it'll really help me all these things. So the if you could go to a elevation. Claire. yeah, these elevations, the elevation drawings. And I recognize there's an abstraction when you ever drawing 3D model and stuff. It's really just a clarification question. show trim work. that is. you know, it's got a more historic trim work around all of the windows where there's a cap, and then there's a horizontal piece, and in some cases there's actually a little piece of trim. And so in in the 3D model image. If you go to the 3D model image? it looks to me like the 3D. On model image. Doesn't show any of that. is what what's what's your plan? Is it?

[87:05] Okay? I I kind of thought that was the case, that I understand why that might not be shown in the 3D model. But with all of those other things I thought I might ask. So I thank you, Renee. I think I understand, and no more questions. Yeah, I think it's just the limit of the 3D. you know, like, in the fact that it's white and the trim would be white, and it's hard to see, but it's yes. We want to do it just like the like. The drawing shows to keep the historic trim work around the windows. Jon or Chelsea. Do you have any questions for Renee? I don't. I don't. My only question was going to be around. If the conditions recommended by Staff were

[88:00] if there were any issues with that from the applicant. But it sounds like there aren't. So no, I'll just okay. Good. Yeah. So no questions for me. Thank you, Chelsea, so we will move on to public comment. Since this is quasi judicial, we will swear in every speaker. And, Rene, I think you're familiar that you'll be given an additional 3 min after public participation to address anything that was raised during public comment. So so, If you haven't already. Please raise your hand or press Star 9 on your phone. If you would like to speak to this item. it looks like we have a few people with their hands raised. Starting with Jason. Hugh, followed by Laura Harvey.

[89:03] Thank you, Marcy, so we'll go ahead and and we'll swear in Jason, Jason, you'll have 3 min to speak, and when you start. Just Swear to tell the Board the full truth, and then state your name for the record, and you'll have your 3 min. sure. No bomb. Can you guys hear me? My name is my name is Jason Shu. I'm an attorney with our own porter. I sort of tell the truth. Did I get everything? Thanks very much. Thanks. Good evening, everybody. Thanks for everyone's time tonight. appreciate the staff presentation that was super informative. I represent a property owner adjacent to the 6 6 on Maxwell property who's objecting to the construction of the Edu in this historic district. we're just respectfully requesting an adjournment on the matter until the next board meeting, so that the neighbors of the property can properly review and address the proposal. My client didn't receive any notification about this proposal. My understanding is that notice was mailed out, but my client didn't receive it.

[90:10] I don't want to get into process, and all that. My, we're just asking for. My my client only heard about the proposal and the meeting from a neighbors about 2 days ago, while he was on an international business trip, we're just asking for some more time to look through all the materials, the excellent presentation, and properly submit a public comment. that's all we're asking for right now. The thank you, Jason. And next I see Allen and Allen, if you as well will swear to tell the Board the full truth, now that it looks like you're unmuted, and then your 3 min will begin.

[91:13] So you may be muted. Now. how about now? Am I unmuted? You are definitely unmuted. So please proceed. After you swear to tell us the full truth. Okay, Hi. My name is Alan Long, and I live across the alley from the proposed project. Thanks, Claire and Renee. Those are helpful. presentations. I do understand homeowners right, since desire to develop their property, and I'm not against an A to you in general, but I am opposed to this particular project. I can appreciate the architecture, the Pro Post House in another context and location like to find the application to be carefully stretched. Interpretation of the start guidelines and the renderings. I know the renderings, but they do appear to be some idealistic place, maybe more appropriate for a new development out East somewhere, not Mapleton Hill

[92:08] to be clear, this roughly 1,000 square foot house with a basement? It doesn't appear again. The renderings, I know that doesn't appear vernacular Victorian, and design. especially with an elevated deck. and it does, in my opinion, create unreasonable mass and density in the alley. This two-story house, I think, will make Concord Alley into a tunnel. I know that was addressed. but I also think it creates a book ending effect on the alley, because this house on the East End, and there's another really my opinion, too large, of a house at the best end of the alley, as you're having your attachment a figure one. please take a look at that When you drive in from the West Side that house looms over you. And now there's going to be another house that rooms over you as you drive in from the East Side.

[93:02] This part of the alley already has, at least to near a lot with garages at 6, 51 and 6, 55, Maxwell as long with fencing that continues that tunnel effect. There's also 2 large garages, my own at 6 42 Concord, which is admittedly a big garage as well as to 2530, five-seven street, which is actually the Concord. All that's the 18 and a half foot one and a smaller graduate, 6 52 Concorde A lot of this is predicated on this to start photo that was found in 1,930 showing. Some are like structure at 6 61. But the current setting in contact is context is now inappropriate for something similar, larger than that because of other structures that now that space. So it should also be noted that the proposal is not to put back what was there. But it's just use the space to build another house.

[94:02] If you've seen the movie up. I think that cute little house at 2,557 is going to feel quite like that, and I'd like to point out that the owner requested to modify that house several times, and it was appropriately denied by landmarks that homeowner had rights also regarding the implementation. there's really no way to build this and take a basement and new foundation obstructing the alley for significant durations and diverting cars onto the private properties of 652 Concorde and 25 thirty-five-seven going in for Maxwell's dangerous because there's 2 offset intersections in front of that house. Alan. Unfortunately, your time is expired. If you can wrap up in just a couple of words. you're right. I I request the Board to deny this, or guide it to be a more appropriate single story, and also request review by city council. Thanks for your

[95:03] time and thanks for considering public input. Thank you. And I see next, Lynn Siegel. It doesn't look like it's very Lynn, I apologize. Will you please swear to tell the board the truth, and then your 3 min the best. I know it, Lynn Siegel. I I don't think this. The space is actually subordinate to the main, else, according to your guidelines, I was mixing this up a bit with that house with the antlers on it on the corner, because there, that had just been reviewed. But I see that it's in the middle of the street. I know the situation there. And I also wanted to say that I think that it's really inappropriate to Demo. A perfectly good 1,978 building. I have.

[96:00] you know, 1,949, 1,993, and 1,997 on my property. an addition, and then an outbuilding And I say there needs to be a better coordination between environmental advisory board or be I I just don't think there should really be demolition of structures without a without really good reason. I'd want to know the reasons in detail. that this same structure couldn't be built on to. I mean, it's pretty much of a score box the original thing. And why couldn't that be popped up appropriately and expanded from what it already is? So that was my other thought But the the subordination issue to the main house is really consideration also.

[97:03] the level of density and intensity in the neighborhood. In this historic neighborhood. It has to be carefully considered. I mean, I like the design of the thing, and I like the you know, the the structure itself. But in the context of word is. it seems like there might be a bit of both to it that is inappropriate. But then, with our ad you changes in the guidelines. Maybe it effectively is allowed. considering the land use changes coming out lately. I like to see that there's actually living space for people in it rather than

[98:06] just a garage. his living space is more important than covering cars, although does mean that your catalytic converter can get stolen, which is not good. $3,700. Once again all these expenses cause an issue with historic preservation for people. Lynn. Thank you, but your time has expired. Thank you. And next I see Laura Harbin and Laura just like the previous speakers. We will ask you to state your full name, and swear to tell the board the whole truth. Hello! My name is Laura Harvey, and I swear to tell the whole truth. As I said, my name is Laura Harv, and I am representing 6, 52. Concorde. speaking on this matter today is not something that I take lightly, and it is not a comfortable situation.

[99:09] because I realized that no one wants to hear opposition for a project that they have set their minds on doing. It was not until I saw a photo of what this adu would look like in the alley and from my property. that I quickly realized how detrimental it will be to my property and the privacy of surrounding properties, while also creating a tunnel like effect in our shared alley. I was truly shocked when I saw the size and height of this proposed a to you, because I never dreamed anything like this would ever be proposed in Mapleton Hill. Mapleton Hill. Homeowners are aware that they will be bound by the design guidelines and the Landmarks committee is expected to uphold these guidelines and make sure they are followed with the intent of assuring that the district is preserved for future generations. It is stated in the introduction of the design guidelines. The guidelines are intended to be used as an aid to appropriate design, and not as a checklist of items for compliance.

[100:08] Pages 40 to 62 of this proposal are just that a checklist with cherry-picked points that cunningly meander between discussing a traditionally used garage, a historic stable, and an Edu. The reality is this application is for new construction of a speck house that is larger than 7 homes within a block that are on their own lots, not behind a larger primary home. The standards are necessarily broad in scope, because they apply to all landmark sites and districts throughout the city, and that is why it is the Board's duty to determine what is appropriate within this historic district. and not to each individual homeowner's right to do whatever they choose. I am begging the Board members to keep in mind that, comparing this structure to surrounding structures that are used as garages is not comparing apples to apples, because none of those are currently being used as a to use the surrounding garages that are already existing do not violate the privacy of neighboring homes. They do not pose any sort of noise

[101:19] problems for the neighboring homes, and I am begging the Board to protect this historic district by voting against this proposal. Thank you for your time. Thank you, Laura, for your time. Marcy, I don't see any other raised hands, or if anyone has tried to call in on the phone to speak to this, but, as Marcy would say, this is sort of last call for public comment for this proposal. And again, if you're a coin on the phone, it's Star 9, and if you are in zoom, the reactions function. You then choose the raise hand function there. As Brenda would say, give it a nice 7 s or so, and then If there are no additional hands, I think it's safe to move back to the applicant's response.

[102:22] I still don't see any new raised hands. So I think that we will go ahead and close public comment for this hearing. And now, Rene, you do have 3 min to speak to anything. that you've heard from the public, or anything you would like to add. Yeah, So I just want to add a few things, and I don't know if Claire could bring up page la C. O. 7, or the map of the alley, which gives a really good and you guys all received this previously. So But they're all pictures of all the garages in the neighborhood. And none of them are actually an ad. You like. None of them have a

[103:09] an actual edu license to be that. But one of them is actually a house on the alley, and that 6, 11, Maxwell, and the other one the alley that he mentioned on Seventh, and is actually a house on the alleyway again on 2528. The accessory structure does look like it's not a garage, and there's windows, so there's not an overhead door, so not that it would be used as an ad, but it could be an office space or other things in there. So I was just trying to state that you know not all of them are garages, and some of them are living space. so to say, instead of just garages. So but I think and then, you know, the the main house is. We are lower than the main house, and it is subordinate to the main house by 3 a little bit more than 3 feet, and it is set back

[104:05] other from the other structures. So, oh, yeah. So this one, the next slide that picture. It just kind of shows you the the vernacular in that alley way. So everything else. So I think, Claire, Claire, can you make that full screen just as Renee finishes up? Yeah, so so there's I was gonna point out that the ones that are the actual homes on the alleyway. and then the ones that what that are not have garages that are actual, like living space. But is that full screen? Yes, okay. So that off to the left hand side, Ronnie, there's the green garage right there. It's a green garage, and it has the, and then there's a steps up to the main house, so that is a house

[105:02] on the alley. It's his own residence. again, across the street from that is the one right above the picture above. which does not have a go, a garage per se, a garage door to be used as a garage. So it is some sort of living space inside. I'm not saying it's an edu. I'm not saying that it has those things. What I'm saying is, it's uses living space. So I think hopefully, I address the comments, and if the staff has any additional or the Board has any other questions for me? I can answer them. Okay, thank you so much, Renee. We will now move on to board discussion. I ask that everyone mute your computer phone for the duration of this discussion. We've allotted approximately 60 min for this discussion, and I know Aubrey will keep be watchful of a timer, and

[106:00] she'll be our time checker this evening. I don't know if anyone wants to kick off this discussion. I, for those of you who may have never attended a landmarks board meeting. the ordinance provides for 5 landmarks, board members, but intentionally 2 of them are design professionals. So sometimes with this. It's very helpful with one of our architects, k kicked it off. As I am one of the members of the community on the board, so I don't know John or Ronnie, if you're willing to start the conversation. John, if you'd like to, you can. But I am more than willing. I I think you can go ahead. I have some questions after that. And Ronnie, actually, this is Lucas. just real. Briefly, I think we should address Mr. Shoe's request. Thank you, Lucas. and if I could just ask Clara, can you explain any notice notices that

[107:02] went out in this case, or any other city staff who was familiar, I would include publication or posting and mailings that went out. Can you just explain how that works in this? In this On May the fifth we mailed out sorry. May May the fifteenth. We mailed out letters to property owners within 300 feet of this property. they There's a sign that went up on the property 10 days before the meeting. And also this was noticed on the website 10 days before the meeting. or am I missing anything? Oh, it was also in the in the daily camera legal section, and also in the news from City whole section in the camera. All right, thank you. Clar and Claire, I think the males the letters were mailed on May twelfth. do you have me? 15? I when we complex it? It was on May 12,

[108:05] sorry. Yes, May twelfth. The Mister Sue, or shoes client, did not receive a letter. Is that the case? Or that's our understanding? Yeah. okay. he's actually on the we checked. And he confirmed that he is actually on the list. So it was mailed. it's possible that it will arrive in in a while. Okay? And, Claire, I think you mentioned that the 3 forms of notice that are required for these hearings. One is the publication. When is the posting on the property, and one is the mailing to? butting property owners. so I think the purpose there is to put out reasonable notice to to the, you know, adjacent surrounding properties. not necessarily always going to be perfect in terms of what reaches people. But the point is to get people a reasonable opportunity to participate.

[109:04] So with the city, complying with those 3 forms of notice and with the Mr. Shu didn't say who his client was, but I think it's clear, just from the communications that have occurred that he did have actual notice of the hearing at least a few days ago. and it's unclear. Why he or if or whether he wasn't unable to be here tonight. I think it would be reasonable for the Board to move forward tonight. It does not appear that Mr. For the the property owners. Ability to participate has been impaired, but rather there has been a reasonable opportunity to participate. So thank you. Thank you, Lucas, for clarifying that before we go any further I have a code question occurs to me. When we were looking at the alley, saturation diagram was was there or was there not in the ad you ordinance

[110:03] that was passed some time ago by council. A, a method where a proposed a to you had to the or that site had to be eligible, based on a a circle of what 200 foot radius and the number of ads that were allowed in that district that were inside that circle. And was that exercise completed? On this? I I can speak to that. So there is a saturation limit under the current accessory dwelling unit regulations for historic properties, it actually increases from 20 to 30. But my understanding is that with the new Au regulations that go into effect. September first, that saturation limit is eliminated. and so

[111:02] again appreciate the discussion about a to use again, that's not within the purview of of this review, because that's the use. And that is permitted with its own requirements. if it's approved. If the building is approved this evening. Okay, thanks, Marcy. and then to t up the Board's discussion. we do have those questions to help frame the discussion that goes first with is the demolition of the building appropriate, and then go from the mass scaling location down to the next level of details of Dormer's roof, deck windows indoors, and then finishing with the materials. We're happy to share those in the screen. If it's helpful for the Board's deliberation. Marcy, I would like that. I was, gonna structure it similarly and wing it. But if you've got a if you've got this written down at all. be so much easier.

[112:03] and I think Claire has it. There we go. Thank you. Great. great! And, Claire, your screen share is similar. It it doesn't have full screen. I don't know if that's intentionally. Not. But it's not intentional. Let me try again. How about now? Yes, excellent. all right. Well. I first of all thank the applicant for the body of information that was presented. I know. I started by asking clarifying questions which you know were about potential issues, mismatching and drawings. but I do think that the totality of the content which is planned sections, elevations, 3 dimensional images. as well as the context map. is very helpful, and you know that those are the things that allow me to, and the rest of the board member to better engage about. You know the topics that I brought up, which I will have some comments on them. but I'm just gonna run through this. I I think Staff has adequately provided. Then the applicant has as well. that the demolition of the existing garage is inappropriate, due to its age of construction.

[113:24] the mass and scale and location of the proposed accessory building obviously, is a point of contention. I believe. And I think Staff has noted that the location of the accessory building is appropriate. and it's relationship to the alley. The mass and scale, I think, are things that I'd like to talk in greater detail about as we look at the actual architectural drawings, because it'll help me point to specific aspects of the building. that, I think, are those defining characteristics. and the dormers, the roof that the window and door openings. I think those smaller items are important to talk about, and I will have some comments about the dormer, and how it relates to the mass and the scale. So those 2 things will be tied together. And not being able to talk specifically about materials yet. Let's look at the architectural drawings. And I will go through this a little more systematically with some images.

[114:20] Yeah. okay. And and I, it's it's I will just offer this up. It's it's Sometimes it's easier for me to talk about the building by looking at the applicants architectural drawings that they've submitted because the organization of those you know it's just commonplace in terms of The architectural world that you get to see all the elevation. You see all plans, and you can talk about these things more easily than this. is going to be a little hard because it's fragmented for me but I'm gonna try.

[115:01] So the overall mass of this building, you know, I think that the applicant and the staff have recognized is based off of a historic precedent of a one and a half story structure that was on the site. I think that one and a half story structures also are adequately described in our guidelines, the couple of different guidelines, bodies, guidelines that are related to this property. and I think that if that is the precedent. that the overall major roof form of this building is in compliance. I will say that I think the guidelines also suggest an alternate route which is to reference the historic structure on site, which has a very different roof form. And I'm going to park that. But let I guess everyone know that there are other ways to kind of skin the cat.

[116:02] But if the route for this project is to use the historic building form then my comments are gonna also kind of match that because I think that is the premise here. So the first thing that I want to point out is the size and scale of this dormer. because, in fact, I think that the buildings overall proportions are in easy compliance with the design guidelines. I believe that both the height of the plate and the width of this dormer, which are which is on the public realm, are larger than both typical dormers. Well, I'll say larger than typical dormers on buildings larger than typical dormers on buildings of this scale. And

[117:07] in this case, taller than typical dormers that yeah, are on buildings that you know. I have a one and a half story volume. And because of that, I think that this building is more wall like. Then another design of the dormer might allow it to be so. In short, I think that there are modifications to this Dormer that could improve the disposition of the building and reduce the overall volume of it on the alley, which is the primary thing here, in my opinion, that is not documented in the conditions by staff, but it will be something that I recommend. We talk about and include, if we are to pursue any type of approval for this

[118:01] and so if if if if people are up for it, I'd like to talk about it a little more, and and or I can pause that and talk about other things. I just kind of looking for a general nod from my board members. Would you want me to talk about this just a little bit more and explain. Okay, I got a thumbs up from. Okay, let's look at the other side of the building. Let's look at the interior side of the building. It's facing the okay. So on this side, there are 2 dormers, and obviously they are smaller. And I think because of that. They are in greater compliance with the guidelines that talk about the relationship between dorm and overall scale. and I think they are more recognizably traditional because of that And I looked through all of the guideline. the guidelines that are pertinent to this, and there's a little bit of like a cyclical, referencing. and I think there is more explicit detail that does reference this. So if there's any question about it at some point that's like.

[119:08] is Ronnie making this up. I don't think that is the case, and I think the guidelines do talk about The fact that well, and I know that this was including staff reports, but the fact that while in some cases you know, a large dorm or a a a larger dorm, or may provide better interior space. that smaller dormers, or a series of smaller dormers, are more appropriate. And so, you know, I present this side to say, smaller dormers, I think, are more tolerant than one large dormer. if you go back to the other side of the building. consequently I think that the windows in the dorm are also look a little unusual. because I think the he and and I think Staff's response was, you know you need vertically oriented windows. I think that is not always the case. I think you can have square windows and dormers. You can go look around and there there

[120:07] and they generally relate to the compactness of that space in the dormer. if we look at the section of this building, if you could pull that up. my recommendation is going to be that if the applicant. if we move in the direction of a type of approval. and the applicant chooses to keep this building form based on the precedent. that an exploration in the reduction of the wall height at the dormer will improve the overall mass of this building. That means lower the lower end of the dormer. as much as you can, and still get the types of clearances that will allow for the usability of interior space.

[121:10] That's the big one. I have another thing. and the other things are a little smaller. But you know I spoke about the windows. I think that if the applicant is interested in the traditional trim that that is an approvable route. I think that there should be a conversation about the windows and where they are, and I think there's an if if the Dormers are reduced, I think that there's a different window pattern that doesn't necessarily require a strict vertical window that could be approvable. One other thing that's about like the messaging of the building. if you show the an elevation of the building any elevation?

[122:01] I think the historic building was. And actually, let's look at the back elevation, I said, any but this one, the materiality is less explicit. just because it's there's other line work. So if you show the alley side. I I think if the precedent for this building is not the existing historic structure of the house. and that it is the barn. that the language of materials. trim and trim would be better suited to follow the vernacular of a bar. That's my that's my opinion on this and in primarily, I believe, and I'd be interested in Staff and my colleague's response, as well as you know the applicant. I think that the use of

[123:01] shingles or shake shingles in the dormers, while it's a traditional application of material in other types of architectural language. Historic language. that it's less likely to be found in a simple building like a bar and that the proposal might be stronger if it was simplified. and not detailed with like a higher. you know, architectural style material that might show up in dormers. Similarly, I think we might look at the detail of the windows and have a conversation about that as well, although I think that the window detail is more approvable than the material change in the gable app. you know those are my primary comments, and maybe I'll pass it on to somebody else.

[124:00] Okay, you can pass it to me unless somebody else wants to jump in. Go for it. John. Okay, I I just have a couple of simple comments on things that Ronnie just said there. I think that I think that our normal rule in considering things appropriate or inappropriate has to do with the kind of exposure rule that we use on the main house. If one was to do some modification to the house or extension of the house. the tendency would be to do it internal to the more private space. the property, and away from the public views. in this case, because it is on the alley side. I think that the alley exposure is where the intervention needs to be as understated. I like Ronnie's approach of saying, Well, if the aesthetic

[125:08] is derived from the original structure that was on that site, the historic structure, which was more of a barn. Then the barn Aesthetic is appropriate, and appropriately you would direct the blow out figures on the roof towards the interior side of the project. The the large dormer. Whatever the larger wall. away from the public view and on the public view, bring the roof line as complete as possible down to the one story break line which would be more consistent with the historic building. If I go through the list of questions.

[126:00] I think that the demolition of the of the little building that's there now. because of the age of the building and its condition. It's appropriate if it's properly deconstructed. That's kind of outside of our call, one way or the other, but it's to be able to say it's appropriate. It's appropriate to remove the building. Take it down, or whatever to enable the sites reuse in in this level of of intervention. But I think that a a blanket demolition at this point in our history is never appropriate without some attempt to reuse and salvage materials. So that would be what would make it fully appropriate. I think that it's appropriate to allow this

[127:03] project. with all the conditions that we've already discussed. but I do think the issue of massing, and particularly on the alley side, does need to be addressed. Thank you, John. Is that it for the moment? Thank you. Chelsea. Yeah. So trying to go through the question. So since the building that is going to be removed was either constructed or modified after 1,978 I agree that replacing the current building with the Edu will not damage the historic character of the house for the historic district. and the changes are generally consistent with the guidelines and the historic district in Mapleton Hill.

[128:02] because the 80 you proposed is similar in size and car to the surrounding buildings and garages seen from the alleyway. I I don't have an issue with the mass and scale with the proposed 80. You. They're still within the allowed floor area. and I think that the proposed recommendations and considerations offered by Staff on the dormer's rooftack window and door openings meet the design guidelines. I was. I'm interested in hearing from the applicant on what they think about breaking up the dormer. I guess I'm just. I'm sensitive to the fact that this is not, you know, a museum artifact. Someone's gonna be living here, who loves this property. And so I I want to ensure that whatever suggestions we

[129:04] put forward will work for somebody to be able to live in this space in a way that is functional. So I have a question about that for the applicant when that time is appropriate to ask that. because I I guess I don't feel comfortable speaking on that until I hear from them that that could work. And so can I ask that question now? Or yeah, I mean, I don't know if we were to wait till we What do you guys think? Because we may have one or 2 more questions for them as we go through this. because I think we're all going to have to do at least one more round with our comments. Chelsea, is that okay?

[130:04] Yeah, that's fine. I just want to before we get into discussion for the second time, or whatever, just to get some of these get some answer. So we have an a sense of what's reasonable. Thank you. so I Do you think that? It is appropriate to remove the existing garage. I do think that I I'm thrilled that Ronnie started this off because he was able to articulate. Maybe some of my questions or concerns about mass and scale, and I know sometimes I don't personally have a problem with the square footage proposed. It's more how it reads, and especially on this alley. I think both Ronnie and John had some good questions about maybe some tweaks or some conditions that would

[131:05] would make it more palatable. and more appropriate in this very cherished historic district. And. Claire, if you'd be kind enough, I think it was on Slide 31, you know, and I know that oftentimes, and not being one of the design, professionals things to me, it could be an optical illusion. But when I look at the slide on the left. You know what what's proposed? Does it look subordinate to the primary structure? But again, we're not seeing the entirety of the the primary structure. So I don't know if anybody else right now is questions for Renee. But maybe you could address, I think, what Chelsea are you trying to figure out if if if some of the functional space, and whatever with some of the changes, would still be workable for for the owner, and I think my question still goes, and I know some of the mass and scale appearance can be dealt with in in refining design elements. So I don't know unless and Ronnie or John. If you have anything for Renee right now, those would be kind of the 2 questions I have for her at the moment.

[132:22] Abby. Just you know. If if if the design team and applicant have any thoughts on just my general comments, that's about ways to make modifications to the Dormer. I think Chelsea is also interested in the that topic. and then the materiality piece and then just the idea of what the concept is and how it might relate to the style. Yeah? And specifically, my question is how it breaking up the dormer impact the living space and how it making the dormer smaller impact living space.

[133:00] Thank you. So, Renee, are you willing to take those on now? Of course I am. So the let's let's address your view of this alleyway in you know, when we do computer renderings, it's so hard to to actually get the actual view. I think the better way to look at it is, if Claire could give us like there's I, submitted the east elevation with the existing house, and so you can see that even on the north elevation, if she could pull up the north elevation, you can see how that the the the main house is quite a lot larger than the then they exist in the proposed structure. Sorry, everybody. Give me a minute. I'll find it. so like the north elevation shows that. And then the long. I have an East elevation picture where I have the east side of the existing house, and they and the proposed structure. That kind of show how it's actually

[134:11] The main house is actually a lot higher grade and on Maxwell than the alleyway. So the Maxwell main residence is a lot. The the ground is a lot higher. Actually. So this this house, actually, the proposed structure, is like sunken from the main house. So I feel like in those in that retrospect it is supporting it, but in that. in per se, that view of the 3D. Is. it's hard to do the perspective. So so hopefully, those elevations will clear up your question for that. well, Clara's finding it. Can I address the other part? That's okay. Okay. So the the I do appreciate Ronnie's you know, discussion about making that dormer a little bit smaller, I would like to know? Like like, right now. It's about 2 thirds to, you know.

[135:06] the you know the length of that side of the house, and the reason why it is so long is for the head height of the stairs, because that's the way you walk up the stairs now. Certainly we could change, you know. Chelsea said, you know, how does this change? If we break up the dorm, or how does it change for the the the footprint of the usable space? And yeah, I would have to, you know. Do a little bit of reworking of how the stairs and the head height for code. Allow me to walk up the stairs. But certainly I'm not opposed to to, you know, exploring that with the Wednesday meetings and making that Dormer a little bit smaller, squaring up the windows on the south side, the private side, you know we do put those square windows in there so, and if we could make those a little bit. you know those each dormers a little bit

[136:03] smaller. I think it would be appropriate, and I'm willing to explore that. It's just a matter of it is a small footprint, and you know we we have. The roof structure is a nice angle pitch to match the barn. and so that push gives me a small top plate on either side. So that's why the dormers are we, you know, required for the living space. so that I can get stairs in there, and I can get a bathroom on that side. But I'm not opposed to, you know, having that discussion, and in a and and talking more in the details about it on in a when Ldrc. Meeting. So I guess hearing that I if we are, if the Board is interested. and having that conversation, I I would prefer that we include that as a

[137:07] in the conditions for it to be considered not to be required, because we don't know what is exactly workable, and I trust whoever is on Ldrc. To work with the applicant to make something that works but not require it at this time, since we don't know what will work. And and I think, Rene, you're well aware of how collaborative the Ldrc meetings are, and how it really fosters an opportunity for much more of a dialogue which, you know I I don't think it's fair, during a virtual board meeting to redesign something, either. So I think that it sounds like you're willing to do that, John and Ronnie. I don't know what your thoughts are now, or anything you might like to address with with Rene or

[138:08] address to move this forward. maybe I can go. Well, let me just also just take a big step back, you know. I think Staff appropriately put us on the rails of the topics to be discussed. and I want us to stay on that, and I want us to go forward. I also have to say that we've looked at many accessory structures that have second stories. Whether or not there's habitable space below. Whether or not the habitable space is the main level, as opposed to a garage

[139:00] or the habitable spaces just on the uppermost floor. In my time on the board. I have seen many of these accessory structures with similar and sometimes greater upper floor, square footage. which is the thing that I think, outside of the building footprint, which I think is in compliance with typical accessory garages, and then exposure of it on the alley which I think, is in it. It is consistent with both the guidelines and with the landmarks for the landmarks, boards, historic interpretation and administration of it. So I I did feel compelled to note that to just recognize that I am, and I know my colleagues are also hearing the comments that have come up.

[140:02] and I think that those mess and scale things you know, are in our lane, and you know that there, there, we've been consistent with that. So I think it should be a condition, though, to reduce the overall scale, and with of the dormer like, I don't think that is a if, and maybe I think that should be a requirement. I think the applicant already has an issue with their stare, which I brought up at the beginning. I know that there are many solutions to designing these little buildings. and believe that we wouldn't be tying hands too much with the request to make the Dormers smaller, both in height and to break up the width by either creating 2 or one smaller dorm or at the back.

[141:03] and I personally am confident that by doing that it will diminish the overall scale or perceive scale of this building. and it will consequently reduce the wall like effect, because it'll appear to be more roof like So I would request, or when I if I'm the one that makes a motion that that is a requirement in the conditions. can you? Oh, oh, sorry. can you? Oh. okay, I'm gonna go, Ronnie. Can you point to the criteria or in the guidelines that you're using to request that requirement.

[142:02] Yeah, it's gonna take me a second. But I can do that. Give me 1 s. Sorry, John. Maybe if you want to go, it's actually it. Let me let me just go here. Mapleton. Historic design guidelines. I'm gonna jump around a little bit because there it's everywhere. The sprinkled around in his Mapleton guidelines in the general guidelines, and while not directly like. And I'm not going to read anything from a different guideline. It's in all of our guidelines. and some of them are way clearer. you know. But here it goes. Although this is the Mapleton Hill historic design guidelines, guidelines number 2. Although oversized dormers may make the best use of interior spaces, they are usually not appropriate. More than one smaller dormer is usually more appropriate. There's a couple of other things. Here, give me a second

[143:03] Mapleton Hill historic guidelines subset for let me think about the issue of G. 4 says Dormers are intended to be elements of secondary importance to the main roof, form an expansion of existing dormers or additions of new Dormer should preserve this relationship generally, and I know that talks about new dormers. But there's another section that references back to the new dormer's language when it talks about the creation. I'm sorry. I'm impression a new structure. And that, says Dormer Ridge line should be lower. That's correct. The size and scale of the dormer should be compatible with the size and scale of the existing building, and I don't think it is because the 2 thirds of the building, which is not a norm, or it makes it much more pronounced. You know it. It needs to be diminutive, notwithstanding the fact that one large dormer may give the greatest usable space within the roof form smaller dormers may be the most appropriate. The roof

[144:02] form of dorm, or should be compatible with the main roof form. Okay. give me a second. There's some language about full stories. Give me one more second. Okay, this is the general guidelines, and I don't know what I got. Page 39. Subset for the size, scale, and style of new dormer should be compatible with the existing dormers. The structure, the form of the dormer, should be compatible with the main route. Warmer windows should be similar in proportion to the first and second floor windows, but smaller new dormers must be subordinate to the main roof in terms of mass scale and height, and again. I don't think that's the case. Often 2 small dormers are more appropriate than one large dormer dormer ridge lines must be lower than the main roof, so it's all over the place.

[145:04] I'm going to read another one here. Dormer should be secondary to the main roof, and should be lower in the roof line. Oversized dormers are inappropriate. And so, my K. What I would say is, this is an oversized tool. It's two-thirds of the building. So that is where I think the code agrees. By the way, let me just also through this out there. I look at a ton of buildings, and I look at a ton of design guidelines, and I've looked at so many dormers in my life. and many codes have criteria associated with the width of a dormer. Ours do not ours do not. But there are reasons that that's in there, and I recognize that while ours doesn't have an explicit with. and that I'm not saying it needs to be a a specific with that I know that those are the types of elements that make buildings have the scale. Our guidelines talk about them with the language that I've just read to you, and I know that the staff has quoted a couple of those.

[146:13] and I. We'll just share with my colleagues here like, I think, that the dormer doesn't comply with the guidelines. I I agree with that, Ronnie Mark. I see your hand, but you mind if I go back to John first, and then we'll come back to you, John. Well, I I was going to concur with what Ronnie's saying. and particularly on the alley side. I do think that there should be more freedom on how to treat the dormers that face into the private zone. based on our treatment of other sides of a historic property in a district but on the on the public round side, the alley being a secondary part of the public realm.

[147:06] I think that we need to as closely as possible reduce reduce the mass of things on that face. Yeah, John, I'm Gr, so I'm just gonna jump in and mark, I apologize. But on that note, like, John, I agree with you, I think that my well, obviously the large dormers on the alley side. But I will. But I will also say like that, I think, is the primary elevation that needs to more stringently follow what it is that I'm describing I and I think that there is greater flexibility interior to the property. So I'm an agreement with you. If both of these stormers were on both sides of the building, I think you know, if it was symmetrical, and we were like the back in the the front. Whatever the interior looks like the back. it would be.

[148:00] you know, any easier thing for us to highlight and say, Oh, well, you know that's why the flexibility. but I am an agreement with you, and if we were to move to the Drc. I think that acknowledging that greater flexibility is allowed, and the backyard facing side would be smart of us. as Drc. Is like a little bit of a design exploration. Right? Okay, gentlemen, I'm going to turn it over to Mark. Thanks. I'm not a design professional. But there are there times where In this case specifically. could the applicant simply flip the that upper floor, the the floor plan of the upper floor, and that might involve within this there, etc., so that the you maintain the same amount of living space. I that big Dormer is on the yard side

[149:02] of the building rather than the 2 smaller dormers and the 2 smaller doors move to the other side, and you you maintain the same amount of interior space. But you achieve Ronnie's suggested modification to the alley. I guess that's a question for the applicant or the design professionals. But Would would you guys accept that as a possibility to have the the dorm, the large stormer, or a large dormer be on the interior side, the yard side. the north side, south side of the property. Yeah. I think that there's a lot of ways to do it. Let me just say you know the guts. I I looked at the guts like the the the plans were in the submittal, and that's why I was saying like, it's nice to have the applicants drawings, because then you could look at all of them, and we could talk about that. You know our job isn't so much about the insides, but I took a look to see. That's why I brought this whole stair thing up at the beginning is like, you know, there's a minute alignment, but there's a handful of stair things that need to be sorted out, Mark.

[150:19] Yes, I think one option would be forget what's happening on the inside to like reverse the idea of the upper floor dormers, and I think that would be in greater compliance. and I would also say, you know, in in every one of those cases, that, dropping the plate height of that Dormer, and I think it's pretty close to a minimum. But I think, dropping the play height of that dormer we'll also have a positive impact on the overall scale of perceived scale of the building. but yeah, I like your suggestion is that like, could they contemplate something that looks like the other side, and could they have more flexibility in the inside and the floor plan? Flip could be it, although my senses there's probably some other stuff that if they move forward rename the applicant, and if we move forward with this running the applicant will do a little. Janga.

[151:12] Okay, my second comment and is I? I spent some time in the hour. Yeah. And I want to say it's an alley. it is not the street, it is not public facing. It's a it's a dirt alley. It's still with various garages. The the garage that you're considering allowing to be demolished is one of the ugly the structures in the alley. But there's there's there's plenty of There's plenty of ally sensation how we feel, and especially power lines. Yeah, it's an alley, and I think that as some, and and the alley is narrow, as always should be and so

[152:01] your view of 2 smaller dormers, one larger Dormer is really kind of It's you know you you you would be looking up at it, and as you pass by it it goes out of view, and and there's not a lot of not a lot of visual range to it as you enter the alley. anyway, I I think I understand the concerns are just simply pointing out that it is an ally, and it is not the primary view for much of much of anyone other than the homeowner driving their car in department. So and Mark, I appreciate that. But I know at some point, and Marcy may know this more historically when it happened, but at some point after the Mapleton Hill historic district was designated, that there was a survey and quite extensive research done to kind of identify the importance of valleys, you know, understanding their allies and their function as well as as that experience going down the the alleys, whether in a vehicle or pedestrian.

[153:19] and so I do know. The guidelines, you know, have address that that it has been historically something. We've looked at part of Ronnie's comments to me. and I. I'm in agreement with him. It's because it it also goes to our consistency in in projects over the years that have been approved or not approved because of that. And I know Renee knows this very well. First of all, I know this projects in very capable hands with Rene, and I really appreciate what you've designed and brought to us for an A even though you know the as this move forward, I I think it's safe to say there's definitely going to be conditions on it. But I I

[154:01] I know Renee knows as well as that. If we're looking at a primary house like John. You are saying we do a a, you know, primary elevation, a secondary and a tertiary, and in this case, because it is new construction, and it's it's a good sized new construction, hence is why it's at the the full landmarks board, is it? I would treat personally that alley side as more of a primary elevation like we would on, on, on the streetscape understanding it is an alley so for, hey? I don't know I don't want to put you on the spot, Aubrey. I do want to do a time check. I think this discussion. You know. We've been having it for a while, and then I want to see thoughts about how to proceed with this and move this project forward. Okay, I. I have one more comment just to to Mark's comment about the alley.

[155:00] It is an alley. and it behaves like an alley in terms of function. The interesting thing is this particular area of alleys before Mapleton Hill was fully designated as a district in the eighties there was an explosion of Alley House development in that neighborhood, and so it's a front door for a number of people that are living along these alleys. And so there's just a little more public realm quality to it because they walk down the alley to go in their front door in, in multiple cases in that block and and the adjacent block. So it's we? We kind of have to consider that now it's it's a done deal. These things exist, and people are living in them just a considering. And I I I appreciate that. And I also think it'll be great that someone will be living in this Edu And hopefully we'll do so comfortably. So I think you know, that's another piece. I was just looking at Google Maps, of the street and looking at the alley. There are some really big structures in the alley, and I guess I just wanna bring up that people are concerned about a tunnel effect. But

[156:28] one 80. You does not create a tunnel effect. It is all of the other units within the alleyway that together do that. So I I don't feel I don't feel it's fair to assign the cause of an of a tunnel effect on one unit. When a lot of the properties on the street have been afforded the ability to put larger structures than what is being proposed here in the alley, and I I appreciate Ronnie, like I wasn't questioning that you that you were

[157:10] had the evidence to back up what you're saying. I I just. It's helpful for me to actually look at the exact language that we're using to to make decisions. And I I do think it's important to know that in nearly you know, most of those criteria statements like it does say generally, and I do feel that this application meets more guideline criteria than most of the projects that we approve, or at least that I've been a part of, and so I would say across the board, like like even as is this, this project had more. Does this meet the criteria? Yes, like there were more yeses in the that

[158:01] that column in the packet than there usually are. And so I I do feel that on balance this project does need it, and it's like we have said many times, the criteria is not a checklist. and the and the only reason why I'm advocating to be a little bit more flexible is because this is a very small unit that somebody is planning to live in and we don't know what is going to work yet, and so to mandate something that we don't have exact recommendations for, or that we don't know is going to work yet, I think, is inappropriate. But I do. I'm okay with requiring that. It is investigated with the Ldrc I know Marcy is gonna about to put us like close to conclusion.

[159:01] But I wanted to tell Chelsea. thank you. and I like I'm always open to hearing like a or or anybody that wants me to explain myself in greater detail. I hope that my reading of the code, while I don't think it was just on the point. was helpful, just demonstrating that there is a lot of reference, and I agree with you that there's loose language. We might at some point talk about the looseness of that language, and whether or not we need to fix it. But yeah, thanks. I. And and I, you know, got all of those those citations from the code because I wanted to, in fact, be able to share that. And so I'm glad that you asked. So I do hear consensus that we feel like this project can move forward, but with some conditions, and, in fact, Staff's recommendation that I have some conditions. So I don't know if my colleagues feel like we're ready to kind of

[160:08] look at that, or a potential motion. Or Ronnie, did you have other things you wanted to address? I feel I I feel like maybe we look at. If if the if staff has created something that to look at, that, we look at that, and then I can comment on it, and I could add some suggestions and maybe try to make a motion. Okay? And and I know that, Marcy, if we ha! Marcy has some suggested language for motion, but we might take a 5 to 10 min pause if we start adding things to that motion, so she has the luxury of kind of going offline to do it for a few minutes. Yes, so, thank you, Abi. What I would suggest is that I share my screen. I have the conditions that staff is recommended. And then I've started suggesting some based on this conversation. But know that it's just a a starting point, and I'd like the board to discuss it, and then, as Abbey said to, then take 5 min to polish them. Once the board kind of clarifies what those conditions would be.

[161:16] That's a great idea that it. Let's see. I I did cut off so the full the first 2 applications. The first 2 conditions are just kind of standard language about where it goes specific to this project, it is What I heard is, reduce the scale and width of the dormer on the north elevation, and then either consider or just reduce the scale of the dormer on the south elevation. Want to make sure I have that? correct. There are 2 dormers on the self elevation. modify the window size and the dormers

[162:01] 2, and then to clarify that one the ones that Staff recommended that I didn't hear board discussion on is in setting the flat roof entry portion of the building from the corner eliminating the divided lights in the window. I struck the condition of vertically oriented windows that are smaller in size on the second level to follow traditional pattern of smaller windows in the half story. I think there was other discussion about the size and shape of those that I've not yet captured. And then the fence and details about the building. So hopefully, this is an okay starting point. But my, well, my only comment is that I don't think B is necessary. based on our discussion. the South south face being the interior facing them.

[163:01] Okay. Anyway, that's just on the alley side is sufficient. So for letter A, I think what I would suggest is reduce the scale by reducing the width, the height and width of the dormer on the north elevation. and then we could also rate you know. Consider adding, consider creating 2 dormer. if if needed. what will it be satisfactory reduction? that's a great question. And I mean, we could make something up right now. And I I don't know we should.

[164:01] Yeah, I guess you don't want to. I'm just like I don't want to set anyone up for failure that we someone comes. They come back and they reduce it slightly, and then we say, No, yeah, I mean, I'm curious what Staff thinks about that, do we? You? I mean, I know that the Brc is super flexible. We have plenty of them to talk in size of this building. you know. Modifications to it are a little simpler than a very complicated structure. So I don't want to like downplay them effort that goes into creating these buildings. But it's pretty simple. But so I'm curious, Marcy, you think we need to put some numbers in here. I I would advise against it. I think that the design review process iterative and it's the intent for the Board to review the proposed designs, modify it, to ensure it meets the guidelines, and then work with the architect in the committee meeting to to ensure that the provides. Design me the conditions. when I've seen

[165:07] the issues come up, the most is when the conditions are either overly prescriptive to say, reduced by 2 foot 6, and then they look at the floor plan and find 2.7 is actually the best. So being too prescriptive, or having a listed conditions that say, consider this, consider this because you could literally just say we considered that but it doesn't effectively change. So I think that. as written, reduce the scale by reducing the height and width of the dormer on the north elevation. provides enough flexibility for the design professional, and enough guidance for the committee to to review this. And and I think the guidelines, as Ronnie Red, are are pretty helpful and clear in terms of talking about proportions of Dormer.

[166:01] The windows thing here, you know. modify. Oh, sorry, Chelsea. Where did you have something for that? Well, just in that spirit of not exactly knowing, you know, acknowledging that we don't exactly know what will work in reality, and because this is a small space, and the living, like, you know, with Yeah, I I would I would feel more comfortable if if the A was consider, and I feel that there's a certain amount of trust with the designer here that there will be a a genuine effort. But I don't feel comfortable. requiring that, not knowing what is possible within the small space that is, that is being worked within and everything else is not considered. This will be the one. Consider.

[167:03] that I I think that there's an interest to try to meet the needs of the board. So I would like to put our trust in the process. I was just gonna say, what if you change the wording to work with the Lrdc. To reduce scale of the heightened width of the door on the nor cell of elevation. You know, just saying that this is not something that they can consider and process side. Not that they would. but that the condition is to work with the Lrdc to you know, to achieve the desired results.

[168:01] And Chelsea, I hear you and I value that opinion, and it's funny because I wouldn't be comfortable just saying, consider this as I I would like a little bit more direction. with that. And you know my experiences is, especially with someone like Renee. She'll she probably already has ideas about that, and I don't know what. What if we did explore options at Ldrc to reduce the scale. By. So it's something that Will has has to be brought forward as options. If I mean, the Drc process is an explorative iterative process, I feel like we're just stating what the Drc. Is. but I personally feel like I I I mean, we could add it here if you'd like

[169:02] Marcia, you you have something. but I'm offering an alternative, which is that the Board could craft the conditions that it wants in order, for you know the the to meet the design guidelines, and then offer the applicant the chance to respond, to say, yes, we're in support of these, and and feel we can work with these or no. I I see that this could be an issue because I don't expect anyone to be able to calculate all of the things that go into a floor plan on the spot. But a design professional will know. Yes, we can work with that. For example, the dormer on the north side is to meet the head height for the stair. This dormer is much wider than what you would need to meet the head height and have a livable code compliant building. So my proposal would be that you craft the condition to give clear direction to the Ldrc. And then offer the applicant a chance to respond to say whether or not she feels she can meet those

[170:13] I I like that Chelsea. Does that work for you sure it does, I? But I did ask the question earlier. If reducing the Dormer would impact like, how? That would impact the space? And her answer was, we would need to look at how that is. So that that was. That's why I have this concern so. But it's fine. Let's keep going, and we'll circle back with Rene at the end. Okay, well, the window size and the dormers is tricky. I don't know what to say about this. but this is what I jotted down, and it's total nonsense jargon, but it's the true windows, and you don't have to write this, Marcy. The windows need to be appropriately sized and located in the dormers, using traditional precedent because depending on the type of dorm or in the size of dormer. you know, there are different sides. There are different ways to put windows in them in different geometries.

[171:19] the thing that is unusual is when you have a dormer, and you don't have windows. or if you have a dormer and you have googly-eyed windows. But that's not to say that there aren't precedents for square windows, for a band of square windows or for a vertical window, I think, as staff it suggested, so I don't know how to say this with and make it meaningful? but what I jotted if if this is meaningful and you know I'm wondering if Staff could weigh in appropriately size and locate windows and dormers using traditional precedence. What is that? I that's as good as you can do with that without getting

[172:02] extremely prescriptive. And I think it's about the location as well. So it's the size and in location of windows and other proportions you're using in the building. Yeah. And then you know, the last thing that I wanted to just say is. I talked a little bit about the materials and the tr. and I think there are many options as to what to do but my suggestion is to simplify them if the building is meant to take the historic nature of the bar and form. and I think that the bigger piece there is the, you know. I mean, obviously the the I really like tricky, trim details.

[173:02] But I think that this this building, this alley building. If it's meant to follow the character of a historic part. that is simplified. Trim package, a simple, trim package in coordination with you know, considering removing the shake in the dormers is is more consistent with the building form and historic building that there, there's, you know, they're trying to reference. Does that make sense to everybody? It it does to me. you guys. yeah, I mean, the thing is issues of materiality and color. If if we're putting this into an Ldr C process with our approval.

[174:02] those those will be reviewed in detail in an Ldrc setting. So personally, I think this captures everything. and I would be willing to make this motion. And I'd also say, if you guys are, we could present this to the applicant and let them share their feedback before doing it. But I like what is crafted. I I could see what's crafted. I could, too. I would like to ask the applicant still here in my life. Okay. so I. You know the owner and I are willing to reduce. Look at the reducing the scale and the height of the dormer on the north elevation and then the. I am a little concerned about modifying, modifying the window sizes only because it's just not.

[175:11] But you know, the one thing about what we've presented today is we weren't allowed to go to the Wednesday meetings and get a lot of feedback, which is a really great tool for us as an applicant to get feedback from you guys. So I am willing to consider all these a through h minus the F, and then go to the Drc. The Ldrc. Meetings on Wednesday and have a good conversation so well, a lot of that happens I want to be clear, because what you're saying is you would be willing to consider it, but if this motion is approved, then it would be required. So I think the question is. which of. or my concern, or my question is, which of these do you feel like?

[176:01] It is something that you would be able to consider. And which of these do you think you could agree to right now? Because that's what I can agree to all of them. Chelsea. I appreciate the way I think it's a design hurdle to look at, you know, reducing the height of the width of the dormer on that north elevation for the stairs. But you know we're sitting here, and I know Ronnie is an eyes. Mine works similar. I already have an idea. So I'm not surprised to hear that. And and I know that this seems like a lot, and I know we're getting probably close to making emotion. But this is also brand new construction in Mapleton Hill historic district. And you know, so I mean, I think it's taken. I think we've needed this time and kind of this this discussion to really get to this point. So, Renee, I I so appreciate you and and the owners willingness to consider all of this and

[177:09] more. Yeah, Abby, I really appreciate that. I mean the this is true. This is, I mean. A through G for new construction and maple and district. I would call that a win. So, thanks E. E. E. Exactly. I mean, you know there are I I mean, I'm thrilled to see it along this part. I I'm thrilled to see this this far along, to be honest, and and with some you've heard all our feedback, and I I just know you're capable of of addressing it. Yeah, I think this has to be, said Rene. The quality of your work gave us a basis for all of this deliberation. So this is a compliment.

[178:00] Yeah, well, thank you. Yeah, you've done an amazing job. I I feel pretty prepared to make a motion. But I had a question. And this is another staff question. Is there any value in clarifying intent at the head of this recommended condition to talk about our attempt to reduce the potential wall like nature, and perceived mass of the building. because I think that the neighbors have very justified claims. and I think that their interest in their community and in the context of the alley is up like something that I have plot. I want neighbors to come out and like in my neighborhood and say, Hey, this is what we really want.

[179:02] And again, I personally believe that the scale issues, not not the use issues and stuff that's outside of our per, but the scale issues will be addressed through some of the applications. So, Marcy, do you think that there's value in including something that, like intent language. I I do. I think that provides clear direction to the Ldrc. In. Then, looking at these details. okay, so I would say that in an attempt, and we can recract this, but I would say, in an attempt to reduce the potential wall like nature. and perceived scale of the proposal. and then the list of everything below in predominant, you know, family is not letter B is the thing. So I mean, you can actually, however, you guys want it. But it could be the lead into Letter B, or it could just be the all of these things, because they do.

[180:09] I think that. some of the other articulation components like that one. Okay. I mean, I I feel like this is something I can make a motion. I feel comfortable with that. Ronnie, could I? It seems like the Board's interest in reducing the potential wall like nature and perceived scale. The proposal is from the alley. And so that's a great addition. Marcy. Okay. yeah. I mean, there is another consideration, Marcy. that I think is operating here in terms of people that either oppose or or or bothered by this. And that's the fact that a lot of the properties

[181:01] on the Concord and Maxwell's side. our two-story properties and the views across the alley see the the formation that's happening there. And so there's concern about that whole of the alley. not that we can do anything about that. But it's going to be an increasing kind of impact throughout the city as density goes up, which seems to be the direction. It wants to go. for all the reasons stated. And and so it is. Something that we kind of have to consider is the urban figure that's forming here. but we can't do it in this particular thing. We're doing what we are enabled to do right here. I'm I'm throwing out a discussion that needs to happen in some other place at some point.

[182:01] Well, I am ready to make a motion if you guys are cool with it, and I will just say like, I think, you know, I don't think we should get into too much more on John's topic, although I think it's very important, and it is also on my mind, and I imagine all of our minds, and believe that the size of this building and the width of this building is consistent with the width of buildings. that have been traditionally found on alleys. And so, you know, I think we're contemplating the vertical shape of this, which. So I think the Dormers are so important. and I think the wall, like nature that's written in the code, is really meant to address that. So I move that the Landmark Board adopt the staff member at Memorandum, dated June seventh, 2,023, is the findings of the Board, and conditionally improve a landmark, alteration certificate, demolish an existing garage to replace with new a new detached accessory structure. At 6 6 one Maxwell, at the contributing property in the Mainland Hill historic district, as shown on Plans Day to April second, 2,023. Finding the proposal meets the standards for issuance of a landmark alteration certificate after 9 1118 Prc. 1,981. And it's generally consistent with the general design guidelines, provided the stated conditions are met.

[183:23] One. Oh. shall I read all of these Lucas Ronnie? I know I've escalated on this, but I think, given the strong interest in this one tonight, you should go ahead and read all the conditions, the recommendations of approval. One, the applicant. She'll be responsible for taking the work in compliance with the approved plans, accept this, modified by these conditions of approval to prior to submitting a building, permit application and final issue into the landmark alteration certificate, the applicant shall submit the following, which will be subject to final reviews and approval by the landmark for landmarks. Design Review Committee, Ldrc. To ensure

[184:01] the final design of the graph is consistent with the general design guidelines, the Mapleton Hill historic District Design guidelines, and the intense of this approval revised Architectural Plan, showing a in an attempt to reduce the potential wall, like nature, and perceive scale for the proposal. From the alley alley revised, designed to show A. So they reduce the scale of the north dormer by reducing it height, and with, consider creating 2 dormers. If you need to be, modify the window size and location of the dormers to be traditional precedent. See, simplify the trim detail, and consider eliminating the use of shaking dormer as D. It's a flat, refentory portion of the building in set from the southwest corner of the building by at least one foot. The elimination of the divided lights in the windows see fence elevation showing a minimum of one inch space in between pickets. Pickets, finish toward alley paint, same color d details of the following subset, I materiality

[185:08] of and permeability of patio at parking areas. I'm gonna change this to all exterior materials, including all wood doors and windows, lighting, sighting, shingle type, gutters, etc. 3 exterior stale stair railing, including materials in color. 4. Final paint and roof callers, 5. Location of trash service area and mechanical devices on exterior, including screening, ventilation and A/C units. Is there a second? I'll second any more discussion before we take a roll call. Vote on a motion by Ronnie, seconded by John Chelsea. Hi. John Romney

[186:01] bye. and I vote I so the motion carries unanimously. And, Rene, I I hope I see this one day suited at Ldrc. in the future I look forward to that. So thank you, everybody. and then Marcy will walk through the next steps with this lac. All right. So As the conditionally approved. then, City Council has the opportunity to call it up within 16 days it has been tentatively scheduled. Sorry it will be on the June fifteenth. City council call up agenda and at that point. If it's not called up by city council, then the conditions are reviewed by the Ldrc. If it is called up by city council, then a public hearing will be scheduled within 45 days. and then, if it goes to the Drc. And the conditions are satisfied. The Lac is issued, and that is submitted with the building permit application.

[187:09] It's one question, Marcy. What was the call up tonight. Was that mate by the descending neighbor, or has it previously already been called up? Could you restate your question? No, no, The city count. So the decision from the Landmarks Board is then sent to the city council. They have an opportunity to call it up within 16 days, and so That date is June fifteenth, that the City Council will have the opportunity to decide whether they want to call it up or not. Sorry I missed book. It's not for the public hearing. It's on their call up agenda on June fifteenth.

[188:06] Yeah. Sorry for the confusion. Okay? So that wraps the the item up and I will move to matters, but I'll share my screen differently. And, Renee, thank you again. Hmm! Can I have 1 min before matters? Can we take a break. Sure. I mean, I'm yes, yes, oh, yes, sorry. I had to. Okay.

[190:58] My as neglected of attention this whole time.

[191:10] I have one that looks a lot like. Here is Chelsea. Lucas has a cat or 2 that sometimes the tail makes an appearance, hiding it. Now, I think. See if I can get a good well.

[192:03] all right. Are we ready to go to matters? Sure. Okay. all right. So we have a handful of things under matters. The first is just a Another plug that there is an open spot on the landmarks board. The application is currently open. it closes July second. Appointments will be made in early August, and there's more information through these 2 links or QR codes on the screen. So get the word out as best we can. I'm hoping there will be good applicants, and that we'll have a full board starting in August. Okay. The next piece. At the beginning of the year we decided to streamline that in an attempt to streamline the landmarks, board meetings we would no longer do a monthly statistical report. And John requested that we still do a mid year check in which I really appreciate because it's always interesting to look at the numbers. So Olivia, our wonderful intern helped pull some

[193:21] numbers together. I'm hoping this will be a 5 to 10 min discussion or so. I mean we can go much deeper into the stats, but kind of it's meant as a snapshot of where we are this year. so far this year. And then, following that, we have, on the matters of request from board Member Chelsea to about the discussion of changes to the landmarks. Design review committee process and scheduling. So here's our mid year historic preservation case for view trends.

[194:02] So far, or to date, we have received 128 cases. This is down 7 from 2,022. We've had 18 landmarks, design review committee meetings, and 6 landmarks for meetings. one regular, you know, one per month, and then a special meeting last month of the cases received so or reviewed. So far this year, 64 of the 64 of those have been at the staff level. 28 of those have been at the Ldr. C. Level, and 8 of those have been at the landmarks board level. which means that you all see. you know about 40 of the cases, and we review about 64% administratively looking kind of bigger picture at these 5 year trends. or I guess 6 year trends The average is here in green, which you can see. We are below. We were below last year, which is the blue, and then we're even farther below, generally in February, March and April. from those averages before

[195:20] we're starting to surpass the numbers from last May. but it'll be interesting to see kind of how the year shakes out. We first started talking these to see if there was like a Evan flow through the year. And I think what we found is that it's unpredictable. It it There's never really a quiet time. There's peaks and valleys looking a little closer at the staff level reviews. we've reviewed 50 staff level demolitions. Those are the post, 1940, buildings, and then it accessory buildings over 50 years old. 4 of those had been previously approved, reviewed, and approved. we estimate those. Take about 30 min of review time. from intake research and and determination.

[196:16] as you know. it doesn't have to be a full demolition in order for it to require historic preservation Review. So it's about a 50 50 split of projects that are full demolition, and then projects that are partial, which includes things like replacing, citing on a street facing wall. so the scale really varies quite a bit. And then there's the occasional accessory building like the one shown on the screen for the staff level reviews, we reviewed 25 staff level L. A. C. So far this year. We also estimate those take about half an hour per case and per the administrative rule G, which was adopted in 1,999. The

[197:02] it kind of identifies the 6 things that staff are allowed to review. It's re roofing, paint colors, restoration of the existing historic features, landscaping very specific details about rear inside your expenses and then downtown, we review railings, audience, and signs. And so the most common L. A. C. Is at the staff level this year are signs downtown repainting and re-roofing. So looking at the Ldr C. Level, but more than 75% of cases are approved at the Ldr C level, and about 15% of cases are have been reviewed up to the full board for review and The discrepancy between those are the ones that are still pending at the applicant of the ones that are referred to the board. About half of the applicants choose to go forward to a public hearing, and the other half either revise their design.

[198:09] or just stop the project, I suppose. and we estimate about 4 h of staff and board time. Go into each Ldrc case between intake prepping the slide show. facilitating the meeting and then following up with the notes, and in case close out and that also includes the time for the you all Board members to attend as well. So, looking at the Ldr C level, 70% of the cases reviewed at that level or L a, C's 22% are demos, and then 7% or tax credit applications. and then finally, looking at the landmarks board. you all have reviewed 12 cases so far at the landmarks board. I think it's unusual or remarkable that the vast majority of those have been demolitions. We've really seen. quite a few demolitions and days of demolition to date

[199:10] this year. 3 have been L. A. C's one designation that's 8 30, Fourteenth Street here, and then 2 initiation hearings. And we've estimated that it is approximately 25 to 30 h of staff and landmarks born time to bring a case to the landmarks board. So Looking ahead. we are looking forward to a new member appointed in August, hoping we have applicants. we will have tentatively planned for a Landmarks board retreat in the fall once, the new on once the new board members on on board. We're also going to be working very diligently on the civic area. in 3 different ways. One is with the historic district application that you all will see in July. we're also continuing to partner with parks with the civic area, cultural landscape assessment. And then we'll also be involved in the reimagining civic area. East phase, 2 projects that parks is meeting

[200:24] and then looking a little farther ahead. Next year, 2024 is the fiftieth anniversary of the historic preservation program in Boulder. And so the Cpi Saving Places Conference will be in boulder again, and we are hoping to have a a good prominent presence at that, and really showcase to all that Boulder has to offer, and so maybe that's a a future discussion topic of if there's interest on the board for walking tours or conference proposals, etc.

[201:02] And then it also tease up for the 10 year. Update to the historic preservation plan somehow. Already. So this is a big year. But next year is going to be even bigger. So That's a snapshot halfway through 2,023. Happy to answer any questions. Or hear the Board's discussion. Reflection what stands out in terms of preservation by the numbers. Well, I think Staff deserves a big round of applause for everything you've already accomplished this year. I I don't know why I feel tired all of this so, but great, I know it's a it's it's amazing. but great job. Yeah, I would also like to complement staff. I mean, this is less about the statistics. but this is very valuable. I really appreciate how it is presented. so a lot of gratitude there and then, also just a moment of reflection here. There's been a lot of change over the last year and a half 2 years.

[202:15] and I really feel like we are in stride you know. And so I'm grateful that we have the team that we do in our department, and I think, that things are going well. I just feel like reporting that to you, because, Marcy, you have taken on and done such a great job of the role that you are in now. and you know I was very happy to hear that you were seeking this role, and it became available, and, conversely, was very disappointed when you were moving on. But but here we are, and I'm glad that you're doing it. And, I think that you continue to demonstrate great leadership. and just feel like saying, you know, we firmly have our feet under ourselves again because of your appointment to that position. So thank you.

[203:08] Gosh, well, thank you, Ronnie, and I'll never be as articulate as you on, especially on the spot, but I just want it just want to be a mirror and reflect that back to all of you, because, as you can see in this elderly slide, it really is. the effort of the volunteer landmarks board members. That is the the core of this program. And you all review the vast majority of cases, the way that the code is currently set up. And so we have a wonderful team. I agree, we've got our our feet under us. And I also just want to extend that gratitude to to you all as board members, because, you all have done a tremendous amount of work. between the Ldrc and Landmarks board meetings. so far.

[204:12] Well, thanks. I'm interested in hearing what Chelsea might have to say about the Drcs. And I'm only bringing that up because I found a moment of silence there. And I'm also feeling sleepy but hungry. Primarily. I think that's a good yeah. It's the perfect segue to to Chelsea's beautifully written letter and Chelsea. I copied the parts of it that are kind of action items, but whatever is most helpful for you to share, and t it up. take it away. Alright. Thank you. I cannot promise to be as articulate as the letter. As

[205:02] no, for a long day. but I really appreciate everyone's time and consideration. Reading the email that I sent out. I have been thinking about this for a while, and especially with the recruitment of a new board member. actually, I I wanted to ask Marcy, do you know if anyone has applied at this point. I know it was only in a few days. Yeah, I haven't checked but I I will follow up with I don't know so far. Well. it seemed to me like well, one for myself personally, the commitment of being on the board and having a demanding job just creates a lot of conflict, and unfortunately. when it comes, when I have to decide between my job that provides me income and the. And for commence I always have to choose the commitments for my job. And I I just feel as a board. We have a responsibility to try to shape the structure in a way that allows anybody who

[206:20] is passionate about this work, and as a part of our community to participate. And I think that we have some serious barriers with the way the Ldrc is structured right now that prevents anyone who wants to be a part of this great work from being a part of it. And so and so I think that there are a lot of different ways that we could address. that some are easier than others, some we could start right away, some will take more thought. but I obviously want to get some, you know. Make sure that their support for looking at some of these and potentially thinking about. Are there any that we could

[207:08] implement right away while we consider more longer term solutions. One that I will throw out there is to shift Ldrc meetings to Fridays. It's just a lot easier in terms of work schedules. there's just less. There's there are less demands on Fridays for work than there are in the middle of the week. so that's 1 one thing I'll put on the table. yeah, I just wanted to start this conversation. because I I am very interested in and trying to find solutions that will work for us and for the long term and for The potential candidates who may be able to apply if we

[208:01] start implementing some of these changes. So, Chelsea, I want to thank you again for doing this. I I personally don't know how you do it with a full time demanding job. You know, while I still work approximately 40 h a week, I can choose most days when I do that work, and you don't have that luxury. And and I, you know, I think this is definitely a valuable discussion. I don't think we're going to be able to solve or do a lot this evening, but we have to start somewhere, and I think, you know, I think what you did that I really valued is you addressed a problem that you immediately have some solutions or things to think about and contemplate, and I know there are some things that, like Marcy would say, you know, are in the code, and maybe would have to be the rule making changes and all of that. So you know some things we can't do as easily as others. But I just want to applaud you for for saying, Hey, this is an issue. And you know, actually giving some concrete solutions that we could. it's like having a plan or a design in front of us to respond to from an architect, you know you. I thought it was, was very well done in very little hands.

[209:22] and so thank you for doing this. and I will give credit. Your credit is due that Mars. I did talk to Marcy about this, and she had some great ideas that are included in this list. So it's one of the give her the credit for coming up some ways that we can make this better. I, this is wonderful chelsea, and everybody that's worked on it. you know, some of those are about timing right? The first 3 of these are about timing, which is interesting. I don't. We could talk about what it means to do it every other week. If that's manageable amount of time that would take.

[210:11] we could talk about the problems that a Friday might create for vacationers and stuff. We could have modified versions, which is like one Wednesday, then one Friday, or something. but I think the timing thing as topic is great for us to explore. this piece here about empowering staff, I agree. I I mean, I agree with the timing thing, too, but like the this empowering staff thing, there are some things that come to the Brc that I think Staff could manage, and it's not their fault that it's coming into the Drc. I think it's just currently the administrative we know adopt an administrative rule to expand what they can review like. It makes a lot of sense. I think we should dissect that a little bit and find out what it what those are.

[211:08] I agree. and maybe someone on staff could at some point not right now, but just we could talk about that as a topic about what the easy pickings are. the piece here about whether or not the staff should, you know, could bring some to the full board if they're going to vote no, or whatever that it has to. I think there are certain types of cases that if the primary questions, the first couple of questions are an automatic, it needs to go to the landmarks board instead of trc. Those are the easy candidates. If it's a little more nuanced, and it's a down the stream kind of piece that perhaps steps knows Will. They're going to vote to bring to the board. I still think think some of those are valuable to come to Drc. To kind of air in a

[212:01] different contacts, some of the topics that bring up the nuances that might yield a valuable conversation with the applicants and some of the board members. where the conversation could be more transparent. so I think we'd have to dissect that, too. this is wonderful. You know one way that we could, we could spread out the demand on board members would be to consider an option of reducing the Ldrc. Presence to one board member as opposed to 2 which would, which would have have the individual responsibility in the course of the year. I I really I have to. I have to also applaud Chelsea for taking this on, because I really think she's on to something as far as

[213:02] getting people to apply to this board. It's been getting out there. This is a hard board. It takes a lot of work. It takes a lot of commitment. and there's a certain amount of crossfire that you get caught in, and people kind of are shying away from that. So it's a problem for us right now that we can't seem to find people to fill our slots, and so, if we could do things to to I guess, make it more palatable. to the public, then we would have more interest in this. I do think that part of the issue there is that we need more outreach to the public. I've been saying that for a long time. and maybe it's not so much us that do it as it is

[214:02] historic boulder and other groups associated with this, that they talk us up and talk up. That's being done. I I just, I think that it's a kind of a compound problem right now. that we're seeing we're we're seeing kind of a issue with civic engagement generally. but I just think these are a bunch of great ideas that I think we can. We can talk about. We can come up with some solutions if we can engineer enough flexibility into the solutions so that you can do what needs to be done in a given instance. and then redirect resources when we don't need to do it the same way every time. I think that would be great. So kudos Chelsea.

[215:01] Thank you. I I really appreciate that. And I really appreciate the support that you all have for this. And I I totally agree that we need more outreach. And also. if if people who are working can't can't join the Board because of having to attend during the work day, then, you know more outreach will get more people who are from, you know. Probably there are some no having meeting. Do you know, if any other board has mandatory meetings during work days. Who are you asking?

[216:02] I'm sorry you were on on my end. You were breaking up. I I couldn't quite know. Oh, sorry, I said I, said Marcy, but Mark works to whoever has the answer. I I don't know all the Board's schedules. I know that no other board has a process, you know, every single week, though you guys do route rotate through. I think I've heard that the landmarks for it is the most time intensive. After planning board, which is saying something bye. I see Mark's hand up. Yeah, I I just wanted to add on that I'm super appreciative of Chelsea to bring this up. And and it's and the comments rightly. So, I've been focused on the landmarks forward and the work that you do, and and of the Design Review Committee, and I and I'll I'll simply say that this

[217:06] I wouldn't want to be through via Marcy or to the Abbey or the chair. However, this might work to, to pass this along to the To Council, and I think it's completely appropriate that this we passed along in the context of This is an example of the struggle that the city has is experiencing with with de i diversity, equity inclusion in in our boards in our council. And it's it's it's just another. It's another data point that council, you know, the whole city is going to eventually struggle with this as we expand, or the number of ports, the role of boards, the hours required, and and our goal to engage a a broader range of of the community

[218:09] in, in, in our civic responsibilities and in our boards and conditions. And so you know, people talked about council pay. We've talked about boards and commission pay, and so forth, and I think that we over the last several cycles we've seen, not just a landmarks, but we've seen a decline in applications. for most boards. And you know, I think last time Osbt, as an example when I first I have. I've applied to Osbd 5 times, and I've never but some of those we had 17 or 18 applicants some of those years, and it's down to 4 something like that. So it there is. There is a there is a trend here, and I think Chelsea addresses that, but it's also

[219:04] bigger than this. But these are absolutely important points, and it should be brought up to the Council Boards and Commission Group, which is, I think, 2 council members. But anyway, I think it's important. The thank you, Mark. And you know, with, Oh, dear! Almost 4 decades working in the nonprofit world, you know so many of the nonprofits, from symphonies to hospitals, to art, museums, to, you know, in school programs, to meals on wheels, and all of that we're traditionally done by. They they used to be called the white women in 10 issues because they were the ones with the free time. They could do that. And that's also, I think, Mark, one of the things you said that resonated with me is that one of the ways to get volunteers is also offer those volunteer opportunities at times where volunteers are available. You know, we're working volunteers, and you know, I think, that that Chelsea just hit the nail on the head that that

[220:08] what I hadn't really thought through was, we're excluding some pot potentially wonderful fellow board members, you know, because of the timing or whatever. I I you know it breaks my heart. We're not going to be able to solve this tonight. But I think there's, you know. I talked briefly to Marcy about. I'd be interested to see how other landmarks board historic preservation commissions, whatever they are called in similar cities, address this especially, who have a process like this. And you know, Marcy, I think you may have mentioned. I know that our July twelfth meeting is very full, and we're waiting for a new board member to do a Mini retreat or a a full landmarks Board retreat, but that you said there might be the possibility to carve out time at the August Board meeting to discuss this and give all of us, I time to, you know. Talk to people do a little.

[221:04] So information gathering, and maybe bring additional ideas to do this. I do have a quick question for you, Chelsea. You know how we get these these 10 week breaks in between rotations. Do you have a break coming up soon for your landmarks? Board rotation? I think I do. Yes, and I just wanna thank Abby so much because she has stepped in anytime that I've been unable to join the Ldrc. She's been amazing at filling in. And I really appreciate it. And it's also really unfair that she has to do it. And one of us it's not all we all we all hit, but but Chelsea, you do. Oo me photos from Botswana. So so, yeah, so that that was you. Some day I need to see some of those photos. But I do think this is important, and I think that you know.

[222:03] I hope you have a break coming, and I have more flexibility than maybe anybody else currently on the board. So I'm happy to pinch it, you know. Yeah, I have the rest of June. so yeah, I, yeah. And obviously, it's been more difficult with less people. We have one. We're one person down. So we've all been taking more. But I think that the exaggerated, like the problem being exaggerated, just kind of made me realize it. Really, it is a problem, even when we have that additional person. And so it kind of made me feel the pain a little bit more enough to want to do something about it. so yeah, well, thank you. The proposal is, if you're ready.

[223:01] you're ready. Okay? And I just really appreciate. I appreciate some credit, Chelsea, but really I I just sent you a list of what you and I talked about all credit for this letter goes to you, and I just really appreciate the leadership that you've shown in in kind of outlining a very compelling case. and I have said many times before that. I really want this program to support people who have John's serving on this landmarks board, and we actually have the power to make some pretty meaningful changes because the landmarks board can adopt to administrative rules. Some of the constraints require code code changes, but those aren't insurmountable. So I think there are 2 options on the way. going forward, both with coming back to the landmarks board in August, because July is just not realistic.

[224:03] So either we could set that date out and come to like a workshop or some sort of, I guess, study session with the full landmarks board, and in the meantime Staff could be proposing and doing some analysis. Some prioritization of recommended changes. alternatively, the Board could create a subcommittee and work with staff to come up with ideas to then present to the full board in August and in either scenario. I was going to suggest what Abbey kind of already did is If there are board members who would volunteer to help cover your rotations if needed. In that. Meantime, before we're able to make changes, it sounds like there's support from your fellow board members. Yeah. So to put that in a question. Would the Board like to create a subcommittee to work on this between now and August, or Would you like Staff to go forward, and honestly, we already have a list of ideas. But to expand on that list

[225:17] well, I would in it board members doing less work. I would love to. I was. I think, that you probably all have a great idea of where to start, and if it would be helpful to do like a check in between now and August to just get a sense of where you're heading and maybe do a little bit of a brainstorm of ideas. Maybe that's one way, like an in between between the the board leading it and you leading it. I, that would be my proposal is just yeah.

[226:01] I I like that in that very aligned with kind of the intent behind this, I feel like you and I have spoken in, and you've presented. some some good ideas. Maybe I'll reach out to the other board members as we kind of go forward with this to brainstorm, get all the ideas on the table, and then, in August, start to prioritize or to come with a a recommended list and kind of analysis of the impacts of of those. So okay, we will do that. And thank you for bringing this forward. Thank you so much. I think this is going to be amazing for the future of the landmarks, board, and all of our lives. So is there anything else, Marcy you had under matters? I don't believe so. Anything else from any board members I know. We went a little longer than we thought we might, but I also am very impressed that, considering new construction of a building that

[227:08] you know, it's almost a thousand square feet in Mapleton Hill. I thought you guys navigated that very well to move that along, and if there's nothing else, the meeting is adjourned at 9 49 pm. Thank you. Bye.