September 6, 2023 — Landmarks Board Regular Meeting

Transcript

Captions from City of Boulder YouTube recording.

[0:02] Thank you. The July Landmarks Board meeting is called to order. Welcome to the July. Excuse me, the Aug. Oh, my God! She died the September. September sixth. Landmarks board meeting. It is 601 pm. I'm kind of behind. Our usual moderator, Brenda Rittenauer will be stepping back from this role. So Marcy will review the virtual meeting decorum. Thank you, Robbie, and thank you, Claire. Alright. So the city has engaged with community members to co-create a vision for productive, meaningful, and inclusive civic conversations. 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. In the project community engagement process can be found through the link online.

[1:05] Next slide. Let's see, there we go. The following are examples of rules of decorum found in the Boulder revised code and other guidelines that support this vision these will be upheld. During this meeting all remarks and testimony shall be limited to matters related to city business. No participant shall make threats or use other forms of intimidation against any person. Obscenity, racial epithets, and other speech and behaviour that disrupts or otherwise impedes the ability to conduct the meeting are prohibited participants may raise their hand to speak during open comment and public comment periods. During hearings. individuals must display their whole name before being allowed to speak online. Currently, only audio testimony is permitted online. So as you're preparing to speak for the public comment. And if your full name isn't showing, we may ask you to change it, using the rename function, or you can send a chat to us, and and with your name, and we can change it for you.

[2:13] And then the final slide. Claire shows how to access the raise hand function. It's under the reactions, menu. And then under raise hand, you can use alt y for PC, option y for Mac and Star 9. If you're calling in on the phone. With that I'll hand it back to you, Abby. Thank you so much. Marcy. One of our board members is not here to night Chelsea Castellano, but we still have a quorum for to night's meeting. and as within person landmarks, board meetings, the recording of this meeting will be available in the Records Archive and on Youtube within 28 days of this meeting, and we're going to do a really quick roll call and introductions, including our newest landmarks board member who will be sworn in in just a few moments. I'm Abby Daniels, chair of the Landmarks board.

[3:12] John. I'm John Decker. One of the architects, one of the 3 architects now. and landmarks board members. Ronnie. I'm Ronnie Pelusio, also a Landmark board member. and Renee. I'm Renee Globec, and I'm the newest member of the landlord's board member and and we're we're very pleased to have a former landmarks board returning tonight serving as a liaison from the planning board. So, Kurt, if you will just say Hi! And introduce yourself. That would be awesome. Thanks, yeah. Great to see you, Abby. I'm as I said, I'm liaison, although temporary liaison from planning board. Ordinarily, Mark Mcintyre, is has this role. But I'm trying to fill his very large shoes for tonight.

[4:09] Well, it's it's great to see you. Thank you so much for filling in. For, Mark. we know that there will be people here to participate to night that may have strong feelings or emotions about certain projects. We do want to hear from you, and but we have found it more productive. If you are speaking to persuade us, rather than berating us, staff, or any applicants. as with regular landmarks, board meetings, you may only speak at the appropriate time during the one of the 2 public hearings, request to speak outside of that. Those times are denied as board chairs. I will call for motions. I will do a roll call, vote on any motions made, and, Renee, what we've been doing in this virtual format is kind of alphabetical order by by first name. So now it's my pleasure. Speaking of you, Renee, to have you officially. Take the oath of office from our staff attorney Lucas Markley.

[5:11] All right, thank you, Abby. Let me just pull up that over here. and then I will try to read this nice and slow, and and break it up to make it easy for you. Okay, Renee. are you ready? We should unmute, too. all right. and repeat after me, raise your right hand and repeat after me. Hi, Renee Galovich, do solemnly swear. Oh, sorry I cut you off. It's so hard on these video conferences. I'll try that again. I or an Acholic do solemnly swear or affirm. Ivan Igolovic, do solemnly swear and affirm that I shall support the Constitution of United States. Well, II shall support the Constitution of the United States.

[6:00] the Constitution of the State of Colorado. the Constitution of the State of Colorado. and the charter and ordinances of the City of Boulder. the charter and ordinance of the city of Boulder. and shall faithfully perform the duties, and shall faithfully perform the duties of a member of the Landmarks Board as a member of the landmarks board. All right, thank you, then, with that you are sworn in. You're officially a member, and, Renee, we're delighted to have you on the board. I know my colleagues join me in welcoming you as our fifth landmarks board member. And you know it's interesting for you, because you have participated in board meetings and Ldrc. As an applicant. And now you're on the other side, II will refrain from saying you've come over to the dark side because I I don't think that's true at all, and if you would just take a moment or 2 just to say a few words about yourself. That would be wonderful.

[7:01] Hmm about myself. I'm an architect in Boulder. I've lived in Boulder since 98. I have a beautiful 12 year old and I'm a Colorado native, and I love to mountain bike. run, swim, and basic outdoors fishing. So everything outdoors is what we like to do in the family. Well, thank you for doing that. And you know, marcy may have shared with you at some point. Probably this fall. We'll have a board retreat, and we'll let you know a little bit more about each of us when when we hold that retreat. But I'm glad to hear how active it you are, because you may need this stamina occasionally for this board. So again, a very warm welcome to you, Renee. do I? Did I say my bedtime was 8. Yeah. Yeah. Well, we'll do our best. We'll hey? What time zone? So no, but a very warm welcome. We're delighted to have you join us. The next agenda item is the approval of the July twelfth

[8:13] meeting minutes. Do, Ronnie, do you or John have any changes or amendments to the minutes? None. Okay, none for me. thank you, Ronnie, so I will make a motion to approve. The July twelfth, 2023 meeting minutes. Do I have a second I'll second. Thank you, John, so we'll take the roll call vote of the 3 of us who are present tonight. Who attended that meeting? John? yes, yay, Ronnie. I and I vote I. So the the minute meetings are approved.

[9:02] So now it is time for public participation, for items not on our agenda tonight. So this would be any citizens who want to speak this evening. But not to to either of the 2 hearings that are on our agenda. And, Marcy, I don't know if you're gonna give it a few moments to see if you see any raised hands. You may be unmuted, Marcy. Sorry. There we go. I see one raised hand. So far. Reminder for anyone who would like to speak. You could push Star 9 if you're calling in or use the raised hand function under the reactions menu and Patrick Oberbrook is currently the only one that has his hand up. Thank you, Marcy. So, Patrick. Oh. you will have 3 min to speak. and if you'll state your full name as you begin your remarks.

[10:04] Hi! My name is Patrick O'rourke. I'm the preservation chair for historic holder. Welcome, Renee! It was pleasure meeting you the other day, and I wanted to thank Marcy and Claire for our Tuesday meetings. so I don't know if we had one today. I spoke yet Boulder downtown business district meeting to make them aware of the historic district applications, and they had a lot of questions. Parts and recreation also had an opportunity to speak to that that group. They chose not to. The comment from Ali's group was that there? Not objecting to the historic district? But they're not making any comment on it. So Renee, welcome. And I'm gonna give you just one or 2 recommendations. So back. On June fourteenth, 2022, historic Boulder

[11:01] went before the City council, and James Hewett gave a pretty good presentation. But, more importantly, he spent 2 2 times during that meeting. He spoke to the potential of the historic district. and one of them I recorded it. This afternoon he spent 2 min talking about how the civic historic district is comprehensive. It's inclusive. and quite honestly, it's intact. And it came from the city staff at that time, so I'm gonna go ahead and re-record it. I don't wanna take up your time to have you listen to it. But his points were his points were well taken, and that that's when they were talking about the Banchel expansion is the Cla. I'm hoping tonight. Marci or Claire, you'll have an opportunity to bring us up to speed on the status of the Cla. It's due in the month of September. and I'm hoping that it's complete.

[12:01] So and then the last request was that when the when the landmarks board is meeting with the parts from Recreation board for their joint meeting, and I believe it might be in October. I'm hoping that it would be appropriate to have Leonard Siegel, our executive director. because we're the applicant. Be at that table, not just to speak. At the, you know, during the open comment, if he's not permitted that, I would request that we have a full 10 min opportunity to do a full presentation like we did before and on that note. Thank you very much. Thank you, Patrick. and I'm not seeing anyone else with their raised hand at this time, so I'll give it a couple more minutes. If anyone would like to speak to anything that's not a public hearing tonight. Now is your opportunity to do so.

[13:11] And I'm not seeing another hand, Abby. So I think, it's okay to move on to the to the next item. Th, thank you, Marcy, and stay close by, because I think you will be leading the discussion of landmark, alteration and demolition applications issued or pending. Yes, I will. Let's see. And Claire, am I bringing the slide up there we go. Thank you so much. Okay? So we just have one current stay of demolition. Right now, it's one that has been in the hopper for a while. It's one that the landmarks board placed a stay of demolition on back, I believe, in in March.

[14:04] and then there were a few meetings during the stay of demolition. We are working towards a a partial demolition as kind of a a preservation outcome of this and a building which was originally proposed for full demolition. The Landmarks board voted to hold a hearing prior to the stay of the demolition expiration back in May, and then we signed a tolling agreement with the applicants. To extend that time period as they work to gather the drawings. And it's A large ownership group. So is taking some time to coordinate that. So in July they requested that we extend the tolling agreement, and so the current tolling agreement expires in November. So we anticipate a public hearing for this one in November.

[15:00] and still hopeful for a positive outcome with the preservation of the alley side of this pretty interesting building at 1741 walnut. Any questions on this stay of demolition. seeing none. That's the end of the update about pending applications. Okay, thank you so much, Marcy. We will move on to our first public hearing this evening. Item 6. A is a public hearing and consideration of an application to designate the building and property at 6 0 4, Mapleton Avenue as a local historic landmark pursuant to section 9, 11, 5 of the Boulder Revise Code, 1981, and under the procedures prescribed by Chapter 1, 3, quasi judicial Hearings, boulder Revised Code.

[16:03] The owner and applicants are Judith Reed and Richard Collins and I want to thank the owners who have agreed to this virtual quasi judicial hearing. Thank you, Abby. Can you hear me? Okay, because I was having issues with my headset. we can hear you. Excellent. Okay, so this is a quasi-judicial hearing. So all speaking to the item will be sworn in, and board members will note any ex parte contacts. I'll give the staff presentation today. After that the Board may ask questions. The applicants will have an opportunity to speak, and the Board may ask questions to them. We'll then open the public hearing after everyone has had an opportunity to speak, the applicant may have additional time to respond. We'll then ask everyone to mute their computers, and the Board will deliberate.

[17:01] A motion to day requires an affirmative vote of at least 3 members to pass motions must state findings, conclusions, and a recommendation. And a record of this hearing is available in a couple of days as a video recording and the official record will be added to the records archive within 28 days, usually much sooner than that. Abby, back to you for ex parte. I nearly forgot. Thank you. So I have no ex parte, although I am familiar with this wonderful house, and have strolled by it, driven by it many times. John. I have no ex parte on this. I also am familiar with the sight. Renee. No ex parte. thank you. And Ronnie.

[18:01] I have no expert day. And, Abby, if I have one thing to add, that's a little off topic when there's a good moment. Okay. maybe. Now. okay, go ahead, go for it. This is just in response to a public comment. And that is Patrick's question about you know the state of the civic area update and other aspects of that which I just wanted to let er Patrick and others know that I believe that will be addressed under matters at the end of the meeting, and Marcy plans to give a civic update. And I think that there's information on that. In fact. In the staff report material. That talks a little bit about timing, and I'm sure Marsha will go into greater detail. But for those of you that are interested in that, and contemplating whether or not to stick around. I do know that that is scheduled to happen later on. Just thought that I'd let you know cause I've been in your shoes before, it's thinking should I hang on and if you are interested, hang on, we're gonna get to it.

[19:07] Thank you so much, Ronnie, for interjecting. That that's, I think, very helpful to people on this call. Thank you, Ronnie. Let me find the Powerpoint again, here we go. Yeah. okay. So the criteria for the hearing to day is outlined in the boulder Revised Code under 9, 11, 5 c. The options to day are for the Landmarks Board to approve the application and recommend designation to city council. The Council hearing would be held within a hundred days, or the board may disapprove the request, and this is subject to a 45 day call up period, and owners would need to file a notice of appeal within 21 days of to day.

[20:03] So the the house at 6 0 4 Mapleton Avenue is already within the Mapleton Hill Historic district, which was designated in 1 82, and is considered to contribute to the district. As the house is already designated. The owners decided to pursue individual landmark status as they felt the house was worthy of this honor, as you know, it also gives us an opportunity to delve deeply into the history of the house, and if approved, the house will, or the owners will, receive a plaque identifying the house and its importance. Sorry. Okay. The the house is located in the middle of the Mapleton Hill historic district, which is indicated a as purple on this map. It's at the corner of Mapleton and Sixth Avenue

[21:01] right here. The house faces north on to Mapleton Avenue and Mapleton Alley, a orders the the property on the south side. There are no separate accessory buildings on the property disc. just the house in the middle. Here the house was built in 1913, in the Tudor revival style. It is a 2 and half story, predominantly brick with sandstone, trim and half timbered. and stucco upper levels. There's asymmetrical gables that flank an arched entry with a crenelated porch above the west side facing Sixth Street. has a narrow brick portashier which you can see here. This is the Sixth Street side.

[22:01] and also stone. and brick carriage step here. And in addition, this this this side also includes an original attached one storey hip roof garage, which is which is right here the roof has wide overhanging eaves and exposed raft details. The windows are predominantly, or or wood, mainly double, hung and multilite. but the basement features, some glass block windows. and there are also some decorative leaded glass windows in multiple locations right here. So, as I said, the house was constructed in 1 13 for Frank and Asneth Eastman and their 2 children. Frank Eastman was a wealthy professional. He was treasurer of the Western States Cutlery Company in 1 10 and a stock broker. In 1 30

[23:06] he was the co-founder and president of the Lashley Persons Investment Company by 1, 33, and his obituary calls him one of the most popular and highly respected citizens of Boulder and fun fact. This is actually him in Asnith's passport photograph, different time. The Eastman sold the House in 1,935, and it subsequently had a number of prominent owners, including Andrew Zengara, who was president of the St. Joe Mining and Milling Company, which was Boulder County's largest gold mining operation. Ross and Elsie Benson and their children. The Benson's owned Benson Lumber Company, on Pearl Street. and Ross Benson was the contractor for many Post World War Ii homes. Apparently the the Bensons enjoyed hunting so much that they converted part of the basement into a large refrigerator, and 2 of these people are members of the Benson's family.

[24:12] Rene and Dr. Charlotte Wolfe. This is Dr. Wolfe purchased the house next, Charlotte Wolff was a sociologist and leader in the feminist movement. and then current residents, Richard Collins and Judith Reed, who have owned the house since 1 75. They moved to Boulder so Richard could work as a staff lawyer for the Native American Rights Fund, and he was also a law professor at CU. Judith was involved in feminist issues and works on equality and equity issues in the city and state wide. So for architectural significance, the house was designed by Arthur E. Saunders, who also designed the Hal mortuary at 1045 Spruce Street, and the Mercantile Bank at 1201 Pearl Street,

[25:08] He used the half timbering and stucco up upper story, which is iconic of the Tudor revival style. we didn't confirm the the builder, but the masonry, detailing, such as the brick. brick, lintels and stone detailing at the corners show exceptional skill. I don't know if you can make that out here. It's it's worth going to to look at the house to see these awesome little corner details. Here also the the narrow brick poker share the the carriage porch, the carriage steps along with the attached one story hipped roof garage are an unusual grouping. Cars arrived in boulder around 1904. When this house was built in 1913.

[26:00] The automobile was still gaining popularity. There's no carriage house on the property, just the attached garage for the car, so the Eastmans must have been confident that the car was the transportation method at the time and the future. So the architecture of the house spans the eras of the carriage and the automobile for environmental significance. The orientation of the house on the corner lot allows for either cars or carriage to enter from either Mapleton Avenue or Sixth Street, and drop the side of the house and access the attached garage. So Staff's recommendation is that the Landmarks Board recommend to the City Council that it designate the property at 6 0 4 Mapleton Avenue as a local historic landmark to be known as the Eastman Reed Collins House. Finding that it meets the standards for individual landmark designation in Sections 9, 11, one and 9, 11, 2 of the boulder revised Code 1981.

[27:07] If the landmark sport recommend the designation Staff's recommendation is that the property be known as the Eastman Reed, Collins House. to recognize the original owners, Frank and S. Nith. Eastman, and also the longest owners, current residents and owners, Richard Collins and Judith Reed. and the proposed boundary would follow the property line, which is shown here as the dotted yellow line. So here are the proposed findings that the proposed designation is consistent with the purposes and standards of the historic preservation ordinance. So that's the end of the staff presentation. This is a reminder of the next steps in the process. I believe that Judy and Richard are here.

[28:03] and we'll ask if they have anything to add, then we'll move into public participation and then board deliberation. Yeah, we have. I'm here. Great, thank you. First of all, I want to say thank you so much to the staff. Claire, for the excellent research that you did. We've we learned so many things about the house that we didn't know. It was not only E edifying but amusing. Number 2. One thing that that the staff missed because it's it's buried. You can't see it. What's next to the garage where now the garbage cans are underneath? That is a gas tank. The Bensons may have decided that cars were for sure, but they weren't sure that they would be able to get gasoline everywhere. So underneath the the garbage cans to day is buried a large gas tank gasoline repository.

[29:05] and it. As as for the previous owners of the house, there are several music stories, but one that I heard from from neighbors, which may or may not be true is about Zangara's ye in the listing. It mentions that the that they have some debts. Well, the story is that they fled their creditors in the middle of the night. and and then the brain took over the house. And I think that's it, for my additions to the excellent work that you did. Thank you, Judy. Abby, I'd like to open it up to the board. If you have any questions for either me or Judy. Do any board members have any questions. I don't see me raised hands at the moment.

[30:06] Ronnie. II didn't have a question, but I also just wanted to echo the compliment. II really felt like the staff report was well written, thorough, interesting, entertaining. And you know which is well put together. So you know, I'm grateful for that. And applaud you guess for having put that together in such a meaningful way. we picture. okay, seeing no other questions at this point from board members we will commence with the public hearing for this. Please raise your hand or press Star 9. If you would like to speak to this item. Junk. No, you see health. but you can.

[31:03] And Marcia Aubrey, I don't know if you're looking for anyone who wants to speak to this. Yeah, thank you. So if anyone would like to speak to this item, under the public comment, now is your opportunity to go ahead and use that raise hand function, and we'll give it a couple more minutes or moments. And right now I'm I'm seeing no one else who would like to speak under public comment. So, Marcy, should we just go ahead and close it? I don't you? I know you always like to give it a few moments, a few more moments. I think. We'll give you maybe a couple more more moments, and and I would say, I think it's safe to move on.

[32:04] Alright, I think we're ready. Okay, we'll go ahead and close public comment. And typically to the applicants. We we give you another opportunity of 3 min. If there's anything you'd like to say following public comment, but because there was none. you know, I don't know if you'd like to add anything. But but I do agree with with Ms. Reid's comments that stop presentation memorandum. And and, Ronnie, you've already called this out. We're excellent. And and you know, II just think it's a joy to have this before us tonight. Now is the time that we will take this back to the board for board discussion. We ask that everyone else mute your computer or phone for the duration of this discussion. We've allowed approximately 20 min for our deliberation, but we will take the time needed

[33:01] to to discuss this. and I don't know if there's anyone who would like to kick this off, John, or Ronnie or Renee. I'll kick, I'll kick it off. I got unmuted first. So th this is a remarkably beautiful house, and it seems to be in almost pristine historic condition. Very. I guess the the stewardship of all the owners. It had a lot of owners, of course, it spanned a lot of time. and the stewardship was was top notch, apparently. it. It's just. It's a. It's exactly what needs to be added to the historic role is properties like this that speak to a time very clearly, and and in fact, show

[34:01] a certain level of, I guess, uniqueness in in the expressive craft that went into him. It's one where I wish we had a little more purview into the interior, because I'm sure it it may have pristine period interiors in it still. but it's it's just. It's a grand piece of architecture. So I'm very pleased to support bringing this in as a designated property. Thank you, John Ronnie or Renee. though I see Ronnie's unmuted. Please, Ronnie. Yeah, again, I just agree and want to echo what John is saying, I think that this property is exemplary. I think that is

[35:02] you know, indicative not only of the aspects that are presented in the you know, staff presentation, but also the love for this house that is demonstrated through its care. I believe, has been one of the things that the property exudes. It's so well maintained. And I believe that it is, in fact, the ownership and maintenance of this that really makes it just you know, resounding in terms of its you know, demonstration of, you know, true preservation. And so I just wanna compliment the owners for that and wholeheartedly will approve and follow Staff's recommendation. And and grateful that the that the owners, you know, brought this to the board and brought this to our community. To participate in the preservation program.

[36:07] Thank you, Ronnie Renee. Well, I can't say anything more than they've already said, and this is pretty easy on my first board. So II just wanna thank the owners that, like, you know, when I'm on the other side of it. And I talked to clients, and they're like, why would you ever do this? And so I just wanna commend Judith and Richard for bringing this forth and wanting to do this because it really is. It is in really excellent condition, and, you know, to keep the architectural significance of this building, and it. And, Claire, you and Marcy, you did such a good job of giving such history to this building that you know every owner and all that good stuff. So it's just really interesting to see all these different houses on Mapleton Hill. But I just wanna tell the owners that thanks for wanting to make it a landmark structure. So it stays and gets preserved this way.

[37:07] Thank you, Renee. And I, too, wanna applaud the owners for bringing this this forward while it does enjoy protection as being, you know, such a stately house on such a prominent corner, and one of our most cherished historic districts in boulder. The Mapleton Hill historic district, I think, by bringing it forward as an individual landmark. Only just sort of gives it more honor. It it it signifies, I think not only the current owners and very long time owners of it, how they feel about it, but I do think that it's a gift not only to this neighborhood, but to the whole community. And II can't think of another house off the top of my head in this neighborhood that is more worthy or more deserving. And and even though we heard some more information about it after Claire's presentation, I just think that to have that even captured, and have this. This as an individual landmark, added to to the growing list of landmarks in Boulder is just a delight tonight. And and, Renee, I'm so pleased that your very first vote tonight will be on, you know, an individual to recommend to city council to

[38:24] designate this in individual landmarks. So although it would be easy to go on. I think I know where we're all headed. I do want to give Kurt a moment if he wants to say anything. Oh, thanks, Eddie. I think that the Board members summed it up really well. It does have a remarkable level of historic integrity, which is not something we always see. So that's maybe partly luck in partly some some skillful ownership. By a number of different owners. I think it clearly meets the standards for historic significance and architectural significance. The, I think the argument for environmental significance might be a little bit of a stretch

[39:08] but the other 2 certainly I think it meets the standards. So thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Kurt. And I do also wanna give a shout out to staff with the suggested language for a plaque. As this process moves forward, and I'm really glad that you're including the current owners for their stewardship and everything they've done to keep this house as as pristine and tremendous as it is. So with that. Would someone like to make a motion. Abby, before we do that, just reminding you that we did not swear in Ms. Read so we could do that really quick better late than never. I think so. Just do that real briefly. So sorry. So, Judith, if you will raise your hand and swear that you told the Board the whole truth.

[40:05] I told the Board the whole truth. Thank you so much. That was an oversight on my part. But thank you for doing that. Thank you, Lucas, for catching that what I'll call I'd like to make to John. If you or any other landmarks board members would like to come see the interior which we have tried to at least keep or restore. You are welcome. You just give me a call. I would love to what a generous offer. So thank you. Yeah. So now would a board member like to make a motion? I will move the Landmarks Board recommends to the city Council that it designate the property at 604 Mapleton Avenue as a local historic landmark to be known as the Eastman Reed Collins House. Finding that it meets the standards for individual landmark designation in Sections 9, 11, dash one and 9, 11, 2

[41:13] BRC. 1981, and adopt the staff memorandum, dated September sixth, 2023 as the findings of the board. Thank you, John, do we have a second for the motion? II second the motion. Do I have to say something else. Sorry? No, that's that's great. Thank you, Renee. So, on a motion by John, seconded by Renee, will do the roll call vote John alright, Renee! Hi, Ronnie! Aye, and I vote aye, so the motion passes unanimously to recommend individual historic designation of this House to city council, and with that, Claire, will you please explain next steps for this?

[42:08] Certainly. So I will work with the onus to schedule a city council hearing within 100 days which will be before December fifteenth. and if City Council agrees that the building should be designated as an individual landmark, they will create an ordinance with the designation, and then we will provide a bronze plaque to add to the building and invite the owners to next year's square nails. Award ceremony to celebrate wonderful thank you. And again thank you on behalf of the Board for bringing this forward to us. So we'll proceed to agenda. Item 6 B. Which is a public hearing and consideration of the landmark. Alteration, certificate, application to replace metal roof with asphalt shingle. At 9 10 Spruce Street, in the Mapleton Hill Historic District pursuant to section 9, 1118 of the Boulder Revised Code 1981, and under the procedures prescribed by Chapter one, Dash.

[43:21] 3. Quasi judicial hearings. The owner is Mark Shull, and the applicant is Guy Stevenson. Thank you, Abby. I'll just go through the quasi judicial hearing procedures again. All speaking to the item will be sworn in, and board members will note any ex parte contacts. I'll give the 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 of them, will then open the public hearing. After all, members of the public have made comments. The applicant may respond to anything that was said. Will 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, and motions will state findings, conclusions, and a recommendation. A record of this hearing will be available in a couple of days as a video recording, and the official record will be added to the records archive within

[44:23] 28 days, usually sooner. So I will pass this back to Abby for ex parte contacts. But the the board has requested that we note who reviewed this at the Ldosi, and that was Abby Ronnie and Mossy. So back to you, Abby. Thank you, Claire, I have no ex parte context, John. I have no ex parte contacts, although, did we not see this in Ldrc. it got moved up to board. Yeah, I have. Abi and Ronnie reviewing it. But maybe I'm wrong.

[45:04] Renee. I have no ex parte contact. Thank you. And Ronnie. I have none. Thank you. Back to you, Claire. Thank you, Abby. So the Criteria for review 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. The architecture, arrangement, texture, color, arrangement of color and materials are compatible with the character of the property, and that the landmarks, landmarks, board has considered the economic feasibility of alternatives, incorporation of energy, efficient design, and enhanced access for the disabled

[46:01] today's options are for the Landmarks board to approve the application. This is subject to a 16 day city council call up period where city council can choose to review the application. The landmarks board may also deny the application which would be subject to a 30 day period in which city council could review the decision. And this is the applicant's appeals process. however, a denial that was upheld by a city council would mean that the applicant could not submit a substantially similar application within 12 months. So if the board is headed in that direction, they will give the applicant an opportunity to withdraw the application process so far has been that on June 20 eighth the LDRC. Reviewed an application to remove the existing standing seam metal roof and replace the roof material with asphalt shingle. The application was referred to the Full Landmarks board for a review in a public hearing, and we're here today.

[47:08] This house is on the corner of Ninth Street and spruce this is spruce. This is ninth in the Mapleton Hill historic district. It faces north onto spruce the west property line is actually right against the the right of way, as the house is actually older than Ninth Street. The house was constructed around 1870 the earliest known photograph of the house was made before 1891, and shows a frame. One story house with a quite low pitched, hipped shingle roof at the Sanborn Fire Insurance maps from 1890 and 1895 confirmed that the house had the shingle roof before 1,900. It's the the X right there that you see on the sample maps indicates a shingle roof

[48:05] sometime between 1895 and 1,900 a new front porch was was added. You see that right here. and the roof was replaced with a roof that was clad in slate or tin that's indicated with the the circle right there rather than the X. Unfortunately, we don't have a photograph of this, this very early time period. We do have a picture in 1929. And this is the 1929. Real estate appraisal photograph confirms the the roof form. It's a a high steeper pitch by then, and you can see the the standing seam metal roof. The record, the written record also confirms that the roof was pressed iron by 1, 29, and remained so in 49, 49 is the

[49:01] red markings that you see on the card, the the original in 1929 is the blue. So there are a few changes, few changes seen to the roof between 1, 29, and now permit records indicate that the flat roof portion portion of the metal roof was repaired in 1 81 with a paintable waterproof membrane. It's unclear from the permit. If the entire roof was treated at this time and resulted in the color change that we can see in image for images from 1994. So you can see it's very bright white here. The earlier pictures it shows that the roof was darker. I don't know if that's a natural process for this roof, or whether there was that waterproof membrane applied across the whole roof. There are some examples of contemporary buildings in

[50:04] The Mapleton historic district with standing seam metal roofs. Obviously, those have been constructed outside the period of significance which is 1,865 to 1,946 however, we found only 3 primary buildings, including 9, 10 Spruce Street, that is still clad in metal roofs that were added within the period of significance. 2029, Fifth Street was constructed in 1916, and the metal roof was added some time between March, 1918, and February, 1922. We believe that this is original to the period 1002. Spruce Street was constructed in the 1870 Si saw an older house. The front gabled, steeply pitched, standing seam metal roof was originally added sometime between 1922 and 1931,

[51:02] but this metal roof was replaced with a new standing seam metal roof in 2,004. The scope of work requested is to replace the the the existing metal roof. the sorry, the the with a sorry. An asphalt shingle roof. So to remove this standing seam metal roof that is existing here, and replace it with an asphalt shingle. So for staff analysis both the Mapleton Hill historic district guidelines and the general design. Guidelines say that although historical accuracy in roofing material is not required, it will generally be more appropriate to reserve.

[52:02] to preserve the type and unit scale of the original roofing. In some circumstances the roofing material is an important car. Architectural feature, which should be preserved. For example, shingle roofs should remain shingled, tile roofs should remain tiled, etc. The general design guidelines additionally say that the roof is one of the primary character defining features of a historic building and the repetition of similar roof types creates part of the visual consistency that defines a historic area. In addition, we looked at the Secretary of of the interiors, standards for the treatment of historic properties which reiterate that repair is the preferred treatment, and if repair is not feasible replace in kind. So for our analysis, we found that the change in material from a metal roof to asphalt shingle roof will destroy the exterior architectural features of the contributing building.

[53:05] As the metal roof has been a character defining feature of the house for more than a hundred 23 years. we found that the proposed replacement of the metal roof with an asphalt shingle roof would be detrimental to the character of the historic district. As the metal roof is one of only 3 remaining metal roofs installed during the period of significance for the district. and we found that the architectural style, texture, color, and materials of an asphalt roof is not compatible with the character of the property. Although the Pre. 1980, 1895 roof was would shingle the roof pitch was modified when the roofer was replaced with metal sometime between 1895 and 1,900, changing the architectural character of the house, which is now defined by the architectural style, texture, color, and materials of the metal roof.

[54:06] Roofing costs provided by the applicant indicated that a replacement metal roof would cost more than twice that of a replacement. S fort shingle roof. It came in about $39,700 versus $16,400. However, metal roofs are typically more economical over time, due to their expected longevity, which can exceed twice that of an asshole shingle roof. a repair of the metal roof or replacement, if the existing was not repairable. would actually be eligible for State historic preservation tax credits and the replacement of the replacement with an asphalt shingle would not be this would somewhat offset the initial cost of the repair or replacement the State historic preservation tax credit is currently 25% of qualifying costs, which includes a 5% disaster rate. So the credit, the total credit, would be around $9,925, and the re roofing cost would be approximately

[55:15] 29,775 for a standing seam metal roof versus 16,400 for an asphalt shingle roof in summary staff, determined that, as the metal roofing material is an important architectural feature, it should be rehabilitated, if possible, and replaced in kind. If repair proves infeasible that the metal roof is the primary character defining feature of the building as the metal roof was installed before 1,900 within the period of significance for the district when the roof form was modified. and that the prominent visual impact created by this unusual roof type, defines the property, and has shown to be a rare feature within the historic district.

[56:06] So because of that stuff's recommendation is to deny the application, as we found it generally inconsistent with the guidelines. and to summarize the findings, Staff concluded that at the time the applicant had not demonstrated that the roof was damaged beyond repair, that the replacement of the metal roof with an asphalt shingle roof would damage the historic character and the exterior architectural features of Blairmark property. That the metal roof was installed before 1,900 within the period of significance for the district when the metal roof form was modified and is a character defining feature of the building, and as such it's an important architectural feature which should be preserved and therefore replacement with different roofing material is inappropriate. and that the proposed work would adversely affect the special character or special historic architectural and value of the landmark property, as it is generally inconsistent with the Mapleton Hill design guidelines, and will not comply with sections 2.6 of the general design. Guidelines. In section 9, 1118 b. 3 of the boulder Revised Code 1981.

[57:23] So that's the end of the staff presentation. This is a reminder of the next steps in the process the applicant will have up to 10 min to present to the board. The Board may ask questions, will then hear comments from any member of the public who wishes to speak. and the applicant may have additional time to address anything said during public comment. The Board will then ask everyone to mute their computers and will deliberate. And the questions in front of the board today are whether both the replacement of the standing seam metal roof and changing the roofing material to asphalt shingle, meet the standards for issuance of a landmark alteration certificate.

[58:04] If the board finds that the roof can be replaced with sf. Shingle, approve the application? If not, then deny the application. So are there any questions for staff before I pass this back to Abby I have a question. And this is the time to ask right? Just so, I'm sure. Okay, and let me know if my question should be held off. But the the back part of the roof, like in your Sandbourne maps. It has a circle. Does that mean that back part was always metal? You have a good eye. Yes, let's see. So this one look like it may be changed in size, or it was just not drawn correctly, but so that was always metal in the back part. Right?

[59:01] This. Yes, this is a sleeping porch, which is why it's identified as Sp, and the the circle there indicates that it had a metal roof at the time, and the the people who drew the sample maps were usually quite accurate. So it's possible that between 1895 and 1,900. The porch was was removed and rebuilt, or they just drew it in a different place. I guess we'll never know. But yes, it it had a metal roof, and then the slope of the back side of the roof like, do we know? And this could be a question for the applicant later. That sleeping porch is that slope above a 3 12 pitch, or is it, you know, only because depending on what kind of material you could use on some metal roofs can't go super low, and it looks like from your pictures that that's a low roof back there. So

[60:01] that's just something to consider as we discuss. And then if you, if you are we to discuss the type of metal roof, or is it that will come back later. Right now. The question in front of the board is whether the roof can be removed and replaced with asphalt shingle. We might discuss this a bit later, but in the past we've been careful. The landmarks board has been advised to be careful and to not a deny. The applicant the appeals process which would be to say No to an asphalt roof, or yes to an asphalt roof. If they, if you said no to replacing the roof with asphalt shingle. Then it gives the applicant an opportunity to for an appeals process an appeals process through city council. If the so the question is not whether they can replace it with a metal roof, because that's not what they've asked for.

[61:07] Okay, it didn't explain that. Well, so if you still have questions ask, and I'll have. No, I think I think I was just concerned that we say, Oh, you can replace it with the metal roof, and then it's you know, I don't want them to replace it with corrugated metal per se. So that's why that was my question. So we're just saying, yeah, a no, or yes. So to an asshole shingle roof. Okay, makes sense. And to answer your question about the the pitch. That is a great question for the applicant. I'm done. Thanks. Yeah. Renee does have a really good eye. Any other questions. Before we move to the applicant presentation.

[62:00] we'll go ahead and move to the applicant presentation, and I will swear in the speaker or speakers this evening, since there is 10 min allowed for the presentation. and I'm not sure. Claire, if you know who will be making the presentation, if it will be Mark or Guy, or they'll both be speaking. Oh, great, wonderful! So I do need you both to raise your right hand and swear you'll tell the board the full full truth verbally, and then we'll let your 10 min begin, and you can split your time. However you choose. Yep, I swear so. I swear to tell the truth and the whole truth. Thank you. Okay, both of you gentlemen did. Okay? So you may, you may proceed. Thank you. And thank you for agreeing to this virtual format.

[63:02] Yeah, I'm just gonna present about the condition of the existing metal roof existing metal roof is a hundred 23 years old. It's leaking quite a bit. It's hail damaged. It's rusted out in a number of places, as you can see from this photo. Parts of the roof are actually just missing. Polls are large enough that there's animals living in the attic. I think there's squirrels in there. We've had several roofing contractors come out and take a look at the roof. They've determined that in no way is the roof repairable. It's hail damage just rusted out. It's weakened considerably. what else we've submitted a number of photos to show the horizontal seams that have opened up. You can also see the vertical seams that are incredibly rusted and also

[64:03] opened up and leaking. You can also see at the bottom and top edges. a number of the sections of roof are just rusted out and just entirely missing. We've really determined that roof cannot be repaired. It needs to be replaced. The house is getting some significant water damage, and it needs to be replaced sooner than later. Any questions from the Board. Oh, and to address the question about the pitch of the roof in the back. I do not. It's a it's a very low pitch. It's maybe a one and 12, and I don't. I don't believe that's a metal roof. It's rolled asphalt. Yep, and we're not proposing that the addition that was put on in the back of the house be done in either asphalt or metal that needs to be an Epdm roof, and that's not the request that we're making here. And that's not the original part

[65:02] of the house, either. We, Claire, there's a number of photos taken from the West that show the that pitch of that roof. I'm not sure you could bring those up or not. But. bye. I do see that Ronnie has a question. Go ahead. Yeah, and the the additional photos are very helpful. II don't know how many you provided. But if I would love to flip through those, if we can just kind of click through them, if there are more, and we think there's value and you're feel free to do that while I ask my question. So, Guy, I was wondering if you could. you know, share any information you have about the color change on that roof. We're not proposing a change in the color. The kind of purple and white roof is kind of iconic. Everybody knows that we'd like to. We would like to maintain that.

[66:02] But in terms of the change in the pictures about, you know, earlier, darker metal roof to the current metal roof. I was just wondering if you knew anything about what's happening. What happened there that I have no idea. So is it? Is it painted? I believe it's painted. And I honestly, until tonight didn't notice that there have been a change in the color, because the photos are black and white are kind of blurry, so what color the roof was. Originally I have absolutely no idea. Ron Ronnie. There's probably multiple coats of paint on that roof just based on the way that it's peeling. That's probably not the best example of it. Some of the side shots, although that does show the asphalt roof for the back portion of the house. It's very flat. Some of the other shots, though it's really thick white paint. Whether that's the only color II can't tell. Yeah.

[67:11] Funny enough. I don't see I have not seen any evidence of another color under the white. I've not either. It. The rust may be giving it the appearance of 2 different colors, but that's the only thing I've noticed personally. Alright, thank you. Any other questions for the applicants at this point, John, and where is my raise hand function? I can't find it. It's disappeared in this current upgrade for me, it's at the bottom of the screen under reactions. Okay? Well, anyway, I have a question. so you you mentioned hail damage? This does. Some of this does look like hail damage from various time periods. There were 2 significant hail storms this summer.

[68:09] And do you have any insurance coverages? Or have you investigated what you might get? I'm getting a new roof because of those 2 storms. No. And honestly, I had difficulties getting home covers because most of the major carriers will not cover a house this old so, to be honest, I've not shopped it around because it it's limited off with a limited set of potential insures with a replacement of the roof. That very well, may be a good idea, but up till now given the age of the roof. I not sure I want to open that can of worms. But it's something to think about. Thank you, John. Okay, just curious. Thank you. And Renee, I, Ronnie, I see your hand up again. But, Renee, it looks like you also have a question or 2.

[69:02] Yeah. My question. Mark is. Is there a reason that you requested that it'd be an asphalt shingle rows? Financial reasons, additionally. And and as it's called up by Claire. This is at least the third roof. So it's not the original, it's not the second, and I don't even know if it's the fourth or fifth, because we just don't have pictures for a certain time. Period. Given the character of the neighborhood being almost exclusively shingle therefore, not really separating itself from the character of the neighborhood and the call out that it. You know, it's it doesn't necessarily need to be maintained. Historical materials. I felt that. you know, I'd rather save the money for on other repairs to the home than replace the roof with a material that quite frankly have had several contractors come out and look at it, and say that they no longer do this, or they had to call retired employees to figure out how to do certain things. So just the feasibility of getting it replaced with metal is been challenging and given the

[70:10] quite frankly the this questionable sturdiness and leakiness of it. I want to get it replaced sooner rather than later. So it doesn't cause additional damage to the historical building. Okay, thanks. Yup, no problem. And, Ronnie, did you have another question, or was that your previously raised hand? That was my question. Okay. thank you. So, not seeing any more questions at this point. We'll go ahead and move on to public comment for this public hearing. And Mark and Guy, you will have an opportunity to respond to anything. If any of the members of the public do speak great. So there are. 2 members of the public who are not the applicants. Now is your opportunity. If you would like to speak to this application, to go ahead and use that, raise hand function at the bottom of the screen there.

[71:12] and we'll give it a moment or so. And, Abi, I'm seeing no raised hands for this public comment. So we'll go ahead and close that, and I know sometimes when we have a meeting right after 3 day weekend and holidays, sometimes. we we don't have as many members of the public attending. So having no public comment, unless you gentlemen have anything to add, I don't really think you need the additional 3 min to comment on anything that no one said. So that being said, I think we can move on to board discussion. We asked that everyone mute your computer or phone for the duration of this discussion. We've allotted about 30 min for the Board's deliberation of this.

[72:10] and we will see if anyone wants to kick it off. I I just have. I want a question for Claire or Marcy. when discussing like hardships in and asking for something is financial a hardship, or, you know, for us to consider? Or how does do you get my question? And how is that considered in the guidelines? Yes, and if you'll give me a minute, Lucas, you might also chime in on this one. I need to check whether the consideration of the economic feasibility and things like energy efficiency are in the landmark, alteration certificate standards. Or if that's specific to demolition review, because there is a section in the in the code that talks about

[73:05] economic feasibility. I think that was mentioned earlier in one of the slides. Marcy so, but it would be worth double checking as well, if that's what you're doing. But yeah, economic feasibility was one of the items to be considered. Yeah, thank you. It. It is one of the criteria in the standards for an Elec. It reads in determining whether to approve the Lec. The Board shall consider that economic feasibility of alternatives, incorporation of energy, efficient design and enhanced access for the disabled. So it doesn't use the word hardship, and it doesn't tell you how much is too much. So that's more of the process of the board to examine the cost amongst all the other factors that you're you know, hearing and seeing.

[74:00] Yeah. And then he mentioned that, you know. Guys said that it was 123 years old. But, Claire, did you find that was there able to see that if they replaced the roof like it was. or has it always been metal, or. you know, like it seems like it's pretty old. I would imagine that it doesn't look like it was replaced in the last 30 or 50 years from 1,900. Until now we didn't find any roofing permits that had been pulled. We only know from from the photographic evidence that originally it was it was a wood shingle roof. And then that was that was replaced. Actually, that's the map evidence that was replaced between 1895 and 1,900. But after 1,900 we have no record of the roof being replaced with a permit. Okay.

[75:04] those are all. Thank you so much. And, Renee, excellent questions, you know. And, Marcy, you, you really reminded me that usually when we discuss the financial viability of projects. It's usually when it's a demo review or request for a demolition permit. So thank you. Cause I need to remember that. I don't know if any of my colleagues would like to kick off these deliberations for this item. I'd be willing to, unless somebody else is passionate about being the first person you know. What? Go for it, Ronnie. Okay, Claire, I'm wondering if you could pull up the presentation. I think you're showing that, or if not, whoever is sharing the screen, and if we could roll to slide 38, I think it was slide 38. If not, I'll find it.

[76:00] So a. okay, go forward. One slide 39 and I'm looking for the his, the slide that shows the original wood shingle roof in comparison. Maybe they weren't side by side. So I thought there was one. So 37, maybe 38 was right in between. Okay, so this is a little tricky, I have to say. and with the exclusion of the financial hardship piece, I just was hoping to talk for a second about some of the thoughts that have arise for me as I reviewed staff report and consider this home. and I know that I haven't heard anybody talk about what originality means or what original means. But I do feel like it's a point worth highlighting. and that is.

[77:04] this image is an image of the original house. and originally it had this roof material. and you know, I think, that while the applicant's proposal is not incompatible with the building or the district. That the moment in time in which originality or the originalness of this home is captured is actually the time in which they changed the form. And today we have a late 18 hundreds. But I'm just gonna point this, the center slide, 1929 building form that came with a metal roof.

[78:02] And because of that. I believe that the original aspect of this house is the roof and form that is demonstrated in that picture. And I say that because if there's any question about you know whether or not you know W. The what is original, and should there be some other type of roof form a or roof material. I think it is, in fact, the concurrent change of form and material that, you know, is the most compelling piece for me that makes me say original. Now is the snapshot, and time and again, just to recap. I do not think that a the roof material that's being proposed is not compatible with this roof form. but because of its originality and

[79:01] because of its uniqueness. I agree with staffs. presentation and Staff's recommendation. and that that is that the metal roof is the roof. That is such a character defining feature of this home. That that change would degrade its historic character. I don't think it would destroy it. but I think it would degrade it enough to remove this very critical character. Defining feature. I am more than enough for talking about the financial hardship piece, and how that might weigh into an ultimate determination from the board. But I did think that maybe starting with my brief description there, would just let the fellow Board members know where my mind is at in terms of

[80:01] You know Staff's presentation. And you know what this material means in terms of its historic significance. And the originality of it. Are we allowed to just openly talk you are. This is the time. So, Ronnie, II agree with you. And when I looked at the Staff presentation yesterday, when I was going through everything I originally was like. Oh, it was shingle roof. So I was like, Oh, we'll bring it back to its original state. But bringing it back into it. First. The material of it being a wooden shake roof is not feasible anymore. So and then, having such a historical significance with the change from 80, you know, 1891 to 1929 is when we consider it to be historic. So I would have thought originally, oh, yeah, we bring it back to its original state, but

[81:04] even we can't bring it back to its original state. So it's I think it's best that it stays within the you know, the consistency of what it has been more, and not to its original state. So III agree with you. And at the same time I was thinking that it could have been back to the shakes. But we're not gonna use that material ever again. Yeah, yeah, I'd I'd love to respond to that just for a second in particular, because this is Renee's first meeting as a board member. Yeah, I had the same thoughts. That you just described about, you know, the shake. And what have you and I could see? An alternative that's like, you know. Let's just pretend the metal wasn't there? But they can't do the shake. That's the wood shake somebody proposing a replacement that is a material that is closer to the character of the wood shake, and that being approvable.

[82:03] And I'm just gonna point out a couple of things that are crazy. I am grateful that we're not confronted with an applicant, although this is nuts that would be saying, Hey, I wanna restore the building back to the 1882 version, change the pitch, pull the porch off and put a shake style material back on the roof. Because then we would be confronted with another set of questions. But I did feel like present saying that to everybody here just further highlights the point of origin in which I think we're evaluating this house, and that is the time in which it was the roof was modified both in pitch and materiality. Second, I am grateful that those 2 things happen concurrent. because that brings even greater clarity for me to take the position that I've described so far.

[83:06] you know, because an an alternative would have been you know what the roof pitch never changed, but they changed to the material, and that material still fell within the period of significance. And then we'd be confronted with another route of analysis which I don't even wanna think about. Staff would share their determination on that, and it would be even more nuanced. But I will say that we have something in front of us that I feel is clearer. Because of the roof form change, and the materiality change happening at the same time. and the uniqueness of that roof material in our community. And so yeah, just to tie that bow on it. III think that that is that brings me clarity in my thought process. Thank you. Renee, do you have anything to add? It won't be your last opportunity to speak before I ask for John's thoughts. No, no, at the moment. Okay, John.

[84:14] okay. Mostly concur, mostly concurring with my colleagues here. My inclination is to support Staff's recommendation on this one based on my understanding of the guidelines and and on my, I guess. perceptual response to this particular appearance for this house. I've seen this house a long time a lot of times, and so it's kind of burned in as kind of a something that I pass frequently, or have in the past. III come to a couple of questions, though.

[85:03] that I think, should be out there for discussion. I think that the first question is. has have the clients explored there? There's a whole new generation of applied polymeric products for roofs that do kind of amazing things. They they polymerize into essentially membranes, and you can put them onto complex geometries and get a pond like seal and they're some of em are paintable. Some em are otherwise, you know, you stand with the color that it creates. One of them is a Tpo like product that I've actually seen used to replace or to repair damaged membrane. That's one thing that might

[86:01] be worth exploring. The other thing is that if and and this is a devil's advocate discussion that I think, needs to be made because it's a basis. It's a basis we've used previously. If the metal roof was removed as non destructively as possible. and was replaced with some other type of roofing like shingles that is easily removed and replaced with metal, or even have metal put directly over it. If some one wanted to restore this correctly, it could be termed a reversible change. And I'm just throwing that out there cause, as I said, that has been a matter of discussion. Those things being said, I'm inclined to support Staff and the guidelines in this instance, but those are just I think we need to discuss that.

[87:04] Oh. thank you, John Renee. So, John, with the Tpo roof membrane, wouldn't that change like how the scene of the roof like it would look more like a plastic look on top of it. Well, it's just I've I've II just recently did my continuing education to to renew my license, and one of them I did was on roofing products that allowed repairing materials like standing seam metal in place. I can't remember the name of the manufacturer. and I've actually, in some of the craft work I've used done. I've used the TPO. Product. It it is a dull white. It's not glossy, like original TPO. Membrane. and it's a. It's not a real pleasant material to use, cause it outgasses severely while it's polymerizing, but once it's stable, it's as stable as any other polymer based roof.

[88:12] I I'm just thinking of ways because the roof the roof geometrically looks fairly intact other than the severe rust, and it's probably failing at the seams and waters in there. and the other concern that brings up is trying to repair the roof in place. like if a convention like a traditional roof roofing company came in, who could re solder standing seam and replace sections of it cut and replaced sections, they might find out that there's like the sheathing is severely decomposed underneath, and then you would have to take whole sections off to fix it so

[89:00] probably removal is the best approach in terms of on the stewardship of the house. Long term longevity. I don't know. I'm I'm I'm rambling about the issue now. It's it's I think it's a pretty straight ahead issue. But there needs to be somethin offered to help explore this. Yeah, I mean, I don't think repair dumping money into the repair, would, you know, not actually be financially good, either, because, you know, if you replace it. You're gonna have a longevity of a metal roof that makes more sense. But 1 one question when you were talking, John, is to talk about like other options. What if there? What if the applicant wanted to add an addition to the top? And we were talking? How significant this roof is! And we're putting a lot of effort into it. But what if cause? It's not a landmarked building, right? Claire and Marcy.

[90:07] but it is in historic district. Yeah. So I mean, they would have to do all their due diligence to you know, work with something that made an addition, you know, on a public side. I know it's on the corner, and things like that. But I also want to give the client ability like if he, if they wanted to, you know, make their house bigger and do something with this. And how would we? You know, I just feel like we're putting a lot of effort into this metal roof, when maybe, if they had another idea of, you know doing an addition on it. what that would look like? And did the metal roof kind of go by the wayside. So II was just thinking of that when John was talking. So it is a it's a contributing building, correct. So it it in essence, is designate, it's designated with the district. And and so an addition.

[91:08] An addition would have to be reviewed under the same guidelines as if it were designated. You wouldn't easily be allowed to take the roof off and build up. you know, like we couldn't remove the roof within addition like this is a prominent feature, and II agree with Staff that we need to keep it as a metal roof. Ronnie, did you have another comment? I know you haven't had a chance to speak if you would like to, and then I can share a quick thing. Okay, so thank you guys already for this robust conversation. I will be supporting Staff's recommendation, because the guidelines, you know, just to adhere to the guidelines. And you know, we also, over the years. You know, our quest has always been to be predictable and consistent, and I think our decision to

[92:13] have it replaced with a metal roof is consistent with past decisions we've made on other property, not only in the Mapleton Hill historic district, but throughout the town, and I also think that you know, II appreciate the financial considerations. I'm really struck. How long we think this metal roof, even in its disrepair now, may have been on this building. I think Claire made a persuasive point that yes, right now it would cost more to replace it, but its longevity is far greater than replacing it with with asphalt shingles. So, Ronnie, you're good to go.

[93:00] Okay, let me just make sure my hand is down. There's down. Ii did see Mark have his hand raised. and I know that we often don't open this back up But I would be willing to give Mark a minute if he had a thing that he would like to add to this, and I still would like to make my comments. But I wonder how if mark still has something, and how the Board feels. Why apologize for not seeing that raised hand, mark, I'm okay for a moment or 2 for Mark to speak if everyone else agrees with that. Please, Mark, thank you very much it. It sounds like it's not going the way the shingle. So I don't know if we need to, beligger the point. However, I do, as I express earlier, have concerns about the leaking, and so I would appreciate some direction as to whether or not you would approve metal roof replacement? I know that was not the the point of the call, but II don't wanna go through winter with the roof leaking, if if at all possible. So

[94:09] if you would be open to providing feedback on that, I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you. If, yeah, if it was essentially in kind, or a modern metal roofing system that that sufficiently resembled the original one, I mean standing seam roof can be done conventionally nowadays. There's systems that make it a little simpler. because the sections of the roof that are severely rusted, and as it looked like to me, failing in various places, I mean rust makes metal brittle. And so it actually cracks when it gets hit by a hailstone.

[95:00] And so it's probably leaking across seams and various places. Yeah, a metal roof would be agreeable to me within my understanding of the guidelines, since it is a metal roof to be clear. I'm talking about a standing see? Metal roof, not something that looks fundamentally different. Yeah, exactly. If if as long as it's geometrically consistent with what's there? we would definitely allow that. And I do wanna make sure, Kurt, if you do want to comment on this, you're welcome to. But, Marcy, if because that's not what's in front of us tonight, II need your capable leadership and guidance on this. My understanding would be, they would have an opportunity to withdraw, and could submit that request to an LDRC. Meeting correct, and it might be able to be resolved, there, is that correct? Yes, that's correct. So the board has 2 options. Or with this application, which is for the replacement of metal with asphalt. The Board can offer the

[96:12] applicant the chance to withdraw the application, or go ahead and proceed with a vote which sounds like it heading towards a denial that would provide city council with a chance an opportunity to call up that decision. Within 30 days. the a separate application and lac to replace the roof in kind can actually be reviewed at the staff level. Because that is consistent with the the design guidelines. So whether the outcome of this hearing is that the application is withdrawn, or that there's a vote to deny it. The owner would still have an opportunity to submit a second application for in kind replacement. Because that's a that's a different proposal. Because, say, we would take, make a motion and vote, and there is a denial hit. That request is a different.

[97:09] And, Lucas, if you don't mind double checking me on that, because if if the app, if the landmarks board denies an application, an owner isn't permitted to apply for a substantially similar application within 12 months. My understanding is that the change in material would make it substantially different. But would look to your cancel your counsel. I would agree with that, Marcy. That it would be substantially different, especially because that's a factor that we're looking at to determine whether or not it is appropriate or not. So the different kind of roof, I think, would be considered substantially different enough to not trigger that waiting period. And Marcy, thanks for clarifying that could be done at the Staff Review and Kurt, I'll turn it over to you. Oh, thank you. I just wanted to thank the Board for their I think, very perceptive analysis of this. I think, as Ronnie pointed out, it really does come down to a question of originality, and I thought your your thoughts on that. We're we're very insightful, and and Renee is also

[98:18] the the maybe until historic district guidelines do say historical accuracy in roofing materials is not required, and as John pointed out. Roofing materials are are sort of thought of as something that is replaced from time to time, I mean, certainly, and a composition shingle is replaced it has a predefined lifetime, and even a middle roof, as we've seen here have has a certain lifetime. And so I think it is. If if I were voting it would not. It would not be as obvious, I think, to me, maybe, as it is, some of the other Board members. But if the outcome were in kind replacement of the metal roof. I think that's an an easy decision. So thank you.

[99:10] Thank you so much, Kurt. Ronnie. Oh, Robbie, did you have an additional comment after II can't remember. Yeah, no, I was just talking to myself. There, I have muted you know. I'm not sure what the preferred path is for the applicant or what the consequence actually is. If this is a denial, it's still it sounds to me like We are offering a option to withdraw. and it's likely that if it isn't the withdraw that we will deny. I don't know if there's anything that's a downside for this applicant. If we were to

[100:02] deny so it's unclear to me whether or not we should discuss that a little bit more. And then I actually, I do have a couple of other things say, but before that Lucas. can you do a little? Explaining for us here? Why, if we were to turn this over to the applicant, say, hey! What are you looking for? Why would one go one way or another? Or is there a difference outside of opportunity for this to go in front of city council for it to be reviewed for them to potentially you know, decline what we have. proposed. Yeah, if if the this board denies the Lac there is an opportunity for the city council to call it up and sort of revisit the decision, and then they would make their decision on it.

[101:03] So yeah, that that's an opportunity, if it is denied, and that's at the City Council's discretion. So Marcy, you might know better than me how often they actually do call call these up. It's very rare but it is the full kind of due process of the Lec application process. Right? So if the owner replicant wanted to kind of see through the entire process and take it as far as they could. They would go that route and not withdraw. And but, on the other hand, if they feel that they see, you know, sufficient amount of information that they think that it's better to withdraw. They could do that. But it, you know, it's really up to them. So you know, if I were the applicant, I would be wondering and made. They're gonna have an answer here in a second. But how long is the process. The call up process and you know, maybe they're looking to, and it sounds like expedition, at least expeditiously replace the roof.

[102:03] I think they're indicated. It was 16 days for the call up Clara Marcy, is it 16 days? It's 16 days for the approval of an Lec? It's up to 30 days for a denial. And I think we're working on the date we can. We can get that. And just to highlight the owner has his hand up when you're ready. Hey? Okay, Mark, go ahead, please. I'd love to save you all a bunch of time, and just do the withdraw and go through the lic process. II wanted to cut in earlier, but it sound like it might have been an informative conversation for your team to have that being said, I know somebody mentioned a 9 Pm. Bedtime, and what have you so I would love to save you all, and quite frankly, myself the hassle of going through city council. So Marcy unless there's some unusual process with the withdrawal, and then submission for the Lac through the process you mentioned earlier. Let let me know. Otherwise I'll just Guy and I will go through that process.

[103:10] Thank you, and and it'll be straightforward. Your comments on the record are enough to withdraw the application, and then, you'll submit a new lac application with details about this new standing. See metal roof. For staff review. By email. And we can send the instructions of how to do that. It's the same process as before. Wonderful. Thank you. Thank you. And Marcy, just a clarifying question. Originally in the memo staff, talked about one aspect being the need to replace the roof. Is that still an issue for consideration for the Staff Level Review? Or is that? Do you consider that now established? II that has been established? By the photos that were submitted after we had finished our memo. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Ronnie. Do you have another comment.

[104:01] Yeah, this is what I've been thinking all along. That I have been waiting to say. Mark and Guy. thank you for this very reasonable request. It made, and makes so much sense. It's logical. And I would. I completely understand why you would want to do this. And I'm also grateful of your approach to making this modification in the name of preservation. You know you. Your intention, as you've described it, is to make sure that there isn't continued damage to the home. And so, thanks for hearing this all out tonight. And you know, II appreciate you guys bringing this to us. I think it illuminated some things for us as well. Lastly, I imagine that you're gonna have potentially an application come through to staff about another roof. And you know, I think that Staff is. You know, you're gonna find that you know this guy, but the the great to work with, and I think they will give you some clarifying guidance about the qualities of the roof that would make it alike for life. That isn't just about metal

[105:14] and so I think, being prepared for that, and maybe through a conversation with them, will be helpful for you. And just them sharing that with you, because you're gonna find, as you know that there's a next thing that needs to happen here, which is like, Okay, materiality is one thing. But what about? As John was saying, some of the dimensional aspects that are present today and available in current. You know, types of standing team groups. And so just throwing that out there, there's one more little thing for you to do, I imagine, in the process, and thought I'd unpack that for a second, so that you no. hey, Ronnie? Thank you, as always, for being so eloquent and articulate, and kind of summarizing this to bring this hearing to a close, and, as you said earlier, to put a bow on it. So thank you, everybody, and Mark or Guy, unless you have any other comments.

[106:15] I know Staff will be happy to work with you on next steps. No comments. Thank you very much. Thank you, gentlemen. thank you. Everybody appreciate your time. Thank you. And now I believe we're ready to move on to matters. So right? And I will go ahead and share my screen. Okay. alrighty.

[107:01] Alright. Quarter till 8 and heading over to matters and okay. So the first thing is that the city is looking kind of across all the 22 boards and commissions and have hired a consultant to to come in and and take a look. And so you should have all received an email with a request to fill out a survey. That is specific to boarding commission members. I don't remember when the reminder is or when the deadline is, but I think it's soon. So if you haven't already. Please take time to fill that out. There's also a staff workshop and a survey for us to provide our feedback. But but I think. It's worthwhile, and related to a topic later on our matters. Agenda about the commitment, the volunteer commitment that you all make to the city

[108:01] any questions on the Hrq. Survey? No, I just have a quick comment. They are. Reached out to me and I did an interview with them, and I was real impressed with their questions and how they're approaching it all. And it, you know, if you haven't done this survey, II think it's very valuable to do, cause I think the more information they have, the more they can share back with the city. And I would say each board is probably unique, but the landmarks board is one of the older boards, and maybe one of the more time intensive boards. I think you all would have very good feedback to provide. Alrighty the next thing is we've thrown around the idea of a retreat, and so we all know that. Oh, sorry, Renee. Go ahead. I just wanted to say obviously, I don't have a survey, and there's really nothing for me to survey on, because I haven't been on the board very long. Is that safe to say?

[109:08] I think so. I think they looking for your experience. To date. And so that might just be a day. I mean, I could give a survey more about the applicant side, and that might be helpful. But yeah, why don't we follow up? We'll forward it to you. And the deadline may have been today. I I'm a little fuzzy on the dates, but we'll follow up. So you have an opportunity. Okay? Well, no need if no need is required. Thanks. Thanks. Yeah. I also did a video interview with him of some kind. I did the survey, and then was asked to do that. So that was interesting and fun. Yeah, yeah, it was a really interesting thought, provoking process.

[110:00] Anything that stood out in the questions or conversation. One of the things that came to me is in talking to them, and they had great questions, and then they would also ask questions based on my responses. Was this one thing where the thought, with through my head for the first time ever our boards more work for staff than what we contribute back to it. But then I realized, you guys, a lot of boards surface on boards is sometimes it's a launching board for people who might then end up running for city council, or you know, their own personal growth and personal development. And II still think that for for what all staff has to deal with with all of us, and and, you know, changes with board members and everything. I still think it probably is valuable to have boards serve in the capacities. They do an advise the city because you sort of get a brain trust over time to do that. The other thing would that was fascinating, and I can't remember what the question was or my responses. They had spoken to some Board members that had actually said they were

[111:14] felt. They had this imposter syndrome, you know, and it was interesting to consider that because I said, You know, I've attended landmarks, board members since 2,006, and I'm still learning things all the time. So I mean, I don't think there's ever an expectation. You walk in knowing everything, and and it takes time to get up to speed. Although Renee. as a new board member, I am just so impressed and so thrilled with your contributions tonight, and how beautifully you have already just sort of jumped in and become, you know, great question things that I wouldn't have thought of. And and you know. So it's interesting because I don't think it happens overnight, you know. I think it's during the the, you know. tenure of that. But but that was just sort of my reaction is that, could port be more work for city staff? Then they contribute back, and I still think the answer is not no

[112:13] rubbery. Well, that's that's wonderful. I'm glad to hear it was a good experience. And yeah, I'll look forward to. I think my session is on Monday. wonderful. Okay. So the idea of a retreat. Usually we do an annual retreat. It's a chance to kind of step back. Talk about bigger picture policy. Issues a little bit of getting to know each other a good refresher for the legal parts of this role. And so we are starting to look out at dates, and wanted to ask you all if you'd be interested in a retreat if something over lunch where we provide food might work. And then thinking about mid October, so kind of testing the waters for interest and availability. And we were also, thinking that we could host it in the Municipal building in one of the conference rooms, and then use that as an opportunity to go back into council chambers. Because we are working towards going back in person.

[113:25] Or for hybrid landmarks board meetings. So adding on, you know, maybe 30 min to go kind of get familiar with that space. Some again, some for the very first time. So if I were to distill this down into a couple of questions, I would say, is there interest in a retreat and Would you be interested in a mid October? Maybe a 2 h, 2 and a half hour commitment. over lunch.

[114:00] Yes, I am definitely II would. Oh, go ahead. No, it's fine. I was just gonna say, of course I am, cause II know nothing about going into the main office. Oh, yeah. it's it's a bulletproof wall in front of you, Fyi, but literally. But yeah, I would love to do that. And so one thing is, mid October might be a little challenging for me. Beginning of October is good. End of October is good, but I know we're gonna send a poll out. I am up for doing the lunch thing, taking the 2 h, and I like the proposal. I would also do any other version of that if it ends up being an end of day thing. And then, you know, if there's a food piece, we do it after that. But I am up for any of this

[115:00] wonderful. So it sounds like beginning of October or end of October, would work for you, Ronnie, and is there a day of the week that is better for people or worse for people, and we will send out a doodle. We don't have to do this all into zoom. But general parameters, if you have. Yeah, Fridays, are the best for me as well. II think I agree with that, because, you know, Wednesdays are hard in case someone's on Ldr. See? And I also think Mondays are harder for people with work commitments sometimes. But I think, as you get later in the week. Thursday or Friday gets easier for some people that sounds great. Okay? So we will take that feedback and put a poll together and and get something on everyone's calendar for October. And then a heads up that we will also be sending out a poll for a joint study session with the Parks and Rec Advisory board for the civic area, and that's likely going to be at the very end of October or the

[116:13] beginning to middle of December, and I know that one's going to be a real challenge to schedule. But we'll kind of do the best we can, and include as many people as we can in that Marcy question. You may get to this an update that will be a a public meeting. Correct? Yes. let's see. And then we always have an abundance of ideas, of retreat topics, and so we can take notes and listen to like a popcorn of ideas now, or we'd invite you to send ideas to us over email. And then we're going to have to be pretty strategic about narrowing it down so that we can have a good conversation and hit the most

[117:04] kind of time timely topics. At this retreat. But if there's anything that you're just, you know, biting at the bit to talk about. I'd love to hear them now. And if you don't know, then send those in an email and we'll we'll put it something together. Ii just wanted. II think maybe we do this some of this over email. But I was just gonna also propose if possible. We have thrown out ideas before, and I know that we had a list of topics that are projects that we anticipated working on this year, and some that we thought about working in future, and I wonder if Staff could circulate that to us, and then we could respond to it, and add.

[118:01] You know not that not that those are the items to talk about, but then we could maybe have some inspired ideas about what we could address at at a retreat and add some new ideas to it if needed. That's a great idea. Yeah. I think that's a great idea, too, because I know that I had things that I threw out at 1 point. None of em are in my head right now. and I need to be reminded of what it was I really wanted to talk about fabulous. Well, we will send out a poll and circulate the kind of brainstorming ideas for retreat topics for you all to respond to. So look for that in the next couple of days. And with that. and I also should have said that we've

[119:00] We've generally estimated about an hour for matters depending on. You know how much discussion there is, but the 2 kind of main topics to talk about is, I'd like to provide you all with an update on the civic area historic district. And then the proposed Ldrc adjustments. Acknowledging that Chelsea was the board member that brought that forward, and she's not attending tonight. So this is really an opportunity or a a question for the board if we want to start that discussion just with the understanding that it would only be the beginning, and that it would continue once Chelsea could could participate. Yes, Ronnie. I know this isn't your question. But how much time if we were to take on both of these topics? Would we expect? Is, is there actually an hour left? That you anticipate? There's an hour left, and matters if we did both topics? I don't think so. I it kind of depends on how

[120:06] how much you all want to talk about it. But I think the civic area update could be more like 15 min, and then Ldrc's, that is kind of depending on how much you'd like to get into the conversation. Personally, I would love obviously to hear the civic conversations. So we should do that. I know everybody's interested in this, and people are waiting, and then I also feel like it would be good just to get the highlights of what the Ldrc structurally, structural topic is again. And I know that Chelsea brought that up. But I would just love to hear the the broadest of strokes of that. Just get my head around what it is that we're potentially talking about there, and maybe reserve the details for a time in which Chelsea is present, and perhaps that is one of the things that will

[121:04] want to talk about in a retreat. I don't know. II think that's a really great suggestion, and and Chelsea had told me that she would be absent, but I had forgotten until last week, and we wanted to be responsive. Because she did bring it up in July. And so that's why we added it to matters. But I think what you've proposed makes a lot of sense where we can kind of revisit the problem statement and then save the the discussion for the Retreat, or another meeting where Chelsea is present. So with that, I'm going to do something I don't usually do which is present the memo for the civic area historic district. Usually I put together nice slides and it's conversational. I didn't have time to do that, and I also don't want to miss anything, and so I know that you all are very capable of reading a 3 page memo but I do feel like there is value in giving you a verbal update that

[122:10] That will be the memo that I sent to you. So Let's see, I will pull it up in case you prefer to read along. but I will preface this all by saying that there has been a tremendous amount of work since the July twelfth landmarks board motion to initiate the landmark designation process and it. I think. This is the first formal update that the board has gotten, and the you know picture in my head is is of a duck who's frantically swimming underwater, but on the surface looks pretty pretty calm. Just know that there has been a lot, a lot of work happening. And and I apologize that you all haven't gotten more frequent updates as we've as we've gone along. So with that, as you all know, that on July twelfth, you all voted to initiate the landmark designation process

[123:08] to for a proposed civic area historic district and out. An outcome of that meeting was to provide additional time to do the community engagement complete the Cla and do the cross departmental coordination necessary for a city owned historic district and so that is through the instrument of a tolling agreement which is held in agreement between the 3 community groups and the city. And so we met with the applicant group not long after the July twelfth meeting, and we have come to an agreement that provides a 90 day extension. So whereas without it we would have needed to complete this work. I think by

[124:02] November or December. It now gives us a bit more time to extend it so that the city Council vote will be in March of next year. So the schedule is broken down into a couple phases. The first one in August was focused on the research and department coordination and that has been focused. Claire has really taken the lead on researching. Kind of these gaps that we have identified. One is. there's been this kind of dominant narrative perpetuated that prior to the park there was a shanty town. It was called the Jungle, and what and that's a pretty harmful and derogatory term, and what we are discovering is that those residences were there for 40 years, and so, understanding who lived there, what did they do? What sort of biographical information. Can we learn to help broaden our understanding of

[125:12] of this place and and of our community? A second research research gap is acknowledging the indigenous history of this site and and then also understanding more of the cultural and social significance of the public spaces. And so we know there were concerts and Christmas programs. What other sanctioned and unsanctioned activities happened in in these spaces? We've been meeting weekly on Tuesdays with the applicant group to help collaborate on that research and we are actively working on the walking tours that we are planning for September. Realizing that is now September, we are still finalizing the dates, so it may kind of go into October.

[126:04] go ahead, Ron. Simple question, who are the 3 community groups? Yes, they are the friends of the Bandshall friends of the tea house and the historic boulder. Oh, okay, great. Thanks. Okay. In addition to that research. We've also coordinated with the 9 city departments, 3 ditch companies C dot and the applicants, which are 3 community groups. There's actually 10 city departments and Cu also has an interest in one of the ditches. So in case you thought it was not complex enough, I think this it's it's almost as complex as I can imagine a historic district with all the different entities. So we have met with each of those departments. We've reached out to the ditch company in Cdoc, and, as I mentioned, that are meeting weekly with the applicant groups

[127:08] next up is community engagement, and so we will have a walking tours and city staff will lead. Some of those historic holder and applicant groups will lead some of those. We will send those out to you and invite you to attend once those are solidified. There is a community engagement event this Sunday at Foothills Community Park, and I'll have to get the time for you. It's called Whatsapp Boulder, and there will be many booths with many different city programs and projects, and the historic district will be one of those at the planning table. We are still working on getting a farmer's market booth. I don't know for sure if that will happen, but the idea is to kind of reach more people and raise awareness of the the process through the farmers market.

[128:05] We'll have newsletter updates and online engagement kicking off here in the month of September. We have support from the community engagement staff as part of the project team, which is wonderful, and that's to help reach a broad audience and meet the city's engagement goals. And then on Friday, we're meeting with the community connectors in residence to get feedback on the racial equity instrument. And this is the first historic preservation project that we've used, the racial equity instrument on which is a really useful and interesting and something that we look to continue doing, you know, in future designations we'll have a project website, which I believe is live. But we'll circulate the link for that. And then for the cultural landscape assessment that Parks and Rec is leading, they are planning to share the draft. Cla findings and that is focused solely on Central Park.

[129:06] I'll pause there for questions before I go to the next phase. Kinda got one here. and I'm not sure how this ties into it. But you know. Patrick asked a couple of questions. The one that I think pertains to what we've talked about so far is he was asking what the state of the Cla is. and you know, I this is great. First of all, great presentation. So far, you guys are kicking butt and so I wonder. you know, if if if Patrick is involved in the one of the community groups? Why does he have that question about the state of the Cla. And are we missing an opportunity to inform them without them having to come to the meeting? And I think they all bailed. You know. I looked at the the attendance right now, and I don't see them here, so I'm just curious. Is there a missed opportunity about communicating them. Why are they asking us that question? And should we do something to get ahead of it? Because I think.

[130:12] Perception of the communication and the communication issues that II think, may have happened much, much, much earlier. As you know, I think we're all like, let's avoid that in the future. So here's one of those moments just curious. Yes, there were a lot of good questions in there. I think that there is an opportunity for us to provide those updates more frequently in those weekly coordination meetings. it so. Yes, we that and I think we all look forward to kind of seeing the the findings of the Cla and as far as I, my understanding is that that is still on track for September to share those

[131:04] okay? And and just to confirm it sounds like you're we. You meet with them weekly. the applicant groups, yes, and then planning and development services. We meet every other week to touch base. Okay, yeah, that's pretty frequent. Cool. Thanks. Yeah. And Abby, did. I see you maybe had a question as well. No other than I feel tired after hearing all you guys are doing no no great job. thank you. Thank you. Oh, go ahead, Ronnie. No, no, you should absorb that great job comment before I go interrupt with more questions. Okay, then I'll say Thank you. And I think, one. I appreciate the acknowledgement of the amount of work that's gone into this in the last 5 weeks. 6 weeks or so. And I also will. Just recognize that this historic district process has a lot of kind of

[132:10] benefits. Maybe that I didn't recognize that it would have. And one is that I've had the opportunity to meet with 9 department heads, and that is going to increase kind of collaboration across the city in terms of historic preservation what designation is, and isn't and then also just expanding the narrative of the understanding of the community history, regardless of the outcome, I think that there's a lot of benefit to this designation process and and what it provides to the community and to us as staff in in the understanding of our history that makes me so happy to hear that is so great. Okay, my other Patrick question, which I was gonna hold on to it. But forget that. And and I know we've got 3 pages. It looks like we're on Page one. So maybe it's coming, Patrick, said

[133:06] Leonard Siegel should be at the table. I wrote it down because I don't know what it means. or at least give a 10 min presentation. What is that request? What forum is he describing that they would like to be at? What does he mean? Yeah, I think I will get to that. I think. He was referring to the joint study session, and we haven't scoped we haven't scoped that far yet and figured out kind of the details, so II think the request was that the applicants have the opportunity to present or participate in that joint study session. So let me continue on with the the process. And okay. okay. So community engagement that'll go. That'll fly by. But I'm I'm really looking forward to the walking tours and and all the rest of this. There's also a storing map that Claire and Kate are working on, which is an interactive map based. History of the area. So that'll be fun.

[134:17] to be able to explore that, and that'll live on beyond the process. So the draft design guidelines. This is a clarification that I need to make up front. I originally thought that the Landmarks board and the Parks and Rec Advisory Board could serve both on this technical advisory group and review the draft design guidelines and you cannot. And so your role will be to review the draft design guidelines in a joint study session. But those draft design guidelines will be developed by a technical advisory group that will be comprised of a city staff department, representatives.

[135:01] representatives from the applicant groups and then community members with design experience and historic preservation experience. So you all have final say, council reviews them, but they're adopted through an administrative rule by the landmarks board, so your touch points will be in a joint study session with the Parks and Direct Advisory Board, where they are providing comments for consideration. But the landmarks board will be reviewing the guidelines and adopting those as the the formal. we play oversight role, then we can. We can manipulate, not manipulate, but review language, look for omissions and and craft

[136:07] plugs for omissions, etc. Yes, yeah. And it's been a while a long time since we developed design guidelines. I guess they should talk with lighting design guidelines and 2018 were the last ones. But it it's a very technical document. Okay. go ahead, Ronnie. Thanks. This is just continues to get better and better. So the advise you regroup. Do. How how much bandwidth does our department have? And do we have cause? I imagine we have the greatest technical expertise when it comes to this type of design guideline. Not that other departments may not have other types of expertise that plan. And I know that we have community members that are professionals in this field.

[137:09] But how do we know or evaluate whether or not we need an outside group to help with the drafting of the design guidelines by outside. Do you mean a technical advisory group, or like a consultant. Yes, I think we we considered that idea, and then landed on doing it in house. and I think this is one of the phases that I'm most excited for, because I think preservation one of the biggest misconceptions is that nothing can change. Once a building's designated, or properties designated. But really it's how does a property change over time? And through the conversations with the 9 departments? I think there are a lot of ideas already bubbling up to the future or up to the surface about. For

[138:07] example, like the Boulder Creek, is this living entity that goes through the the boundary public Works approaches that it should be open and natural. Well, that could be a design guideline of when when there are improvements, it should remain open and natural sort of things like that. So while outside consultant might have been helpful. I think it also might have been hard to fit them into this rocket ship of a timeline that we're working on. Marcy? Do we have a point person that is leading the drafting of the design guidelines. I mean, it's our department, is it? That it'll be me? Okay, great that's really great. I am pumped that we're taking this on, and I'm glad that you're in that role. This is super exciting.

[139:05] Wonderful. Yeah. And and also I believe that between planning and parks and Rec or parks landscape architecture, division. There's quite a bit of horse power as far as production capabilities. and and I can't think of a better person or consultant than Marcy. So I think this is the best possible scenario that we have our principal planner leading this very significant project, and I know that you've got other things to say. But I just have to tell you, Marcy. I think that the other things that you described there about the interdepartmental aspects that are arising from this strengthens our program. And it also, you know,

[140:00] I think, is precisely the type of collaborative approach that you know. I'm gonna stumble over all of this. So I'm not even, gonna I'm just gonna say it's very meaningful for us all. And I'm glad that it's happening now, and I'm glad that it's happening under your purview. And and I'm gonna jump in, even though I know we're trying to get through this memo, Marcy. But I think that part of the things when I was supporting this, you are shedding light on things that I didn't even think about might come to fruition. And I think, Ronnie, just the chance for other departments and the collaboration to become part of like, understand what the preservation program is trying to do. The programs almost 50 years old. This may be the first time some city staff understand? Like, Oh, Hey, that's cool, and hey, that's cool. We can keep the ditch or creek natural, and I just think that that you know we talk about win-win situations. This could become something that really benefits and crosses over so many thresholds that I never even contemplated. I know that that

[141:10] that Clara has done her heroic research on. You know the area and what's been there, and you know the former residents and everything. And and you know it's it's like a historic district, a historic building, a historic place like Central Park tells stories, but we have to have the people pull those stories out of all that stuff. And again, hey, we've got a wonderful treasure trove at Carnegie Branch Library for local history. But I just think I do think, Ronnie, this isn't most excited. I've been about something understanding that it's putting a lot of work and time on Staff's shoulders. And remember when we thought this might be done this calendar year. And and Renee, what you need to understand is, Ronnie did a masterful job at our July twelfth meeting, saying, Okay, I think this this initiations inevitable for the historic district, because of the grounds full of support for the community.

[142:10] But what he did in the meeting that I couldn't fab them. How to get my arms around is, is Let this conversation about how did build in more time for it to happen, because Staff was saying, You know, this is a lot to complete in this, in, in in the normal, in the normal threshold. But by coming up with the tolling agreement, and I've got to be honest, I think I'm the last person who would ever throw this out. I'm starting to think, you know. is the additional 3 months enough time. But I don't think we need to discuss that now. But you know, Staff and other departments. II think this is something that could be a real legacy for the the whole city down the road as as this transpires, and I know it's got a ways to travel. But yeah, I'm kind of blown away like Ronnie with what Steph has already done. But, Marcy, I also hear the enthusiasm in your voice for what's going on.

[143:09] Wonderful. Well, it means so much to hear this positive feedback and kind of acknowledgement of the the work we've been doing cause it is. It's a very ambitious timeline, but I feel like it's right on the edge of realistic and and right on the edge. We're only in October on this timeline. So let me keep going. So we'll, we'll bring this technical advisory group together to draft the design guidelines, and then the landmarks board and the Parks and Rec Advisory Board will have a joint study session. To review the the proposed the proposal, including the boundary and the draft design guidelines and then from there there will be another point for the Landmarks board to review and formally adopt those. So this is just a review of the draft anticipated to be in probably late November mid December, which I will say is probably the hardest time to get

[144:11] 20 people's calendars to align. So look for a pull here in the next couple. Hopefully, in the next week to get something on the on the calendars. And then that'll be another department coordination. Touch point. We asked each of the departments. How would you like to be involved? Some would like to be kind of in in the technical realm of drafting the design guidelines. Other ones just want, you know, continual updates. So then we'll take a a breath for the holidays, and then we'll come back in January. Prepare the memo and the ordinance in January. Have another check in with prab for review and comment. The February seventh 2024 landmarks board

[145:04] designation hearing is the date that's in the tolling agreement. So don't go on vacation. February seventh. That date will not change unless there. There's an agreement between the city and the applicant group. Yup, and then it'll then go to planning board. If the Landmarks board recommends to recommends approval, then historic district designations then go to planning board, and the code is specific of commenting on any land use implications for the historic district designation. And then that leads to city council in March and designations go twice, typically first on the consent agenda, and then second, is the public hearing. so that wraps up the process. I'll pause there and then the remainder part just clarifies the role of prab the landmarks board and playing board. So I'll continue. But pause there, Kurt, you have your hand up.

[146:10] Yeah. In terms of the land use. There are no land use changes proposed. Right? So it it would be. I mean, obviously it will come to the board, but it's going to be about consistency between the the design guidelines and the current land use. You're very sharp because I learned in the creation of this memo that the last time there was a historic district which was University Place, there was talk about doing a code amendment to eliminate Planning Board review from historic district designations because there isn't a land use implication for designations. So we're going to need to dig into that a little bit more probably look back at what the last historic district designation planning board Memo was and bring specific questions to you all. So that's a so that it's a good use of

[147:12] of your time on that. Yeah. okay, thank you. Yeah. Marcy, before. Oh, I see Ronnie's hand up, too. But before you move on when you talked about the community engagement and outreach, and I understand where now that this is quasi judicial, once the Board voted to initiate. Can landmarks board, participate, and help in any of that? I understand that some things will be sitting and rendering a decision on so we can't participate. Yes, thank you for that question, and I have a have a sentence in here for you. As the designation process is quasi judicial board members should be cautious of any expert contacts. However, you're welcome to attend the community engagement events.

[148:03] Oh, and then I should have sorry deleted this sentence about the technical advisory group. So you're welcome to attend like the walking tours. Look at the story map. You know that those sort of things. But it wouldn't be appropriate for you to say like lead the walking tours. So I know you all would be capable. This, you know, you're welcome to attend. But just be cautious that you shouldn't be having any conversations with community members about your position or the merits of the application. You're welcome to listen, but then direct them towards the february seventh designation, hearing as the avenue for them to kind of provide their comments. Wonderful. Okay, I'll finish this out with the roles. So the Parks and Rec Advisory Board does not have a formal role in the designation of the historic district, but because the district includes land managed by parks and recreation. Perhaps invited to participate in the following ways.

[149:12] intend to the community events in September review the draft design guidelines in a joint study session, and then they will also have a touch point. In July. In January of next year the Landmarks board will make a recommendation to the city council at the designation, hearing February seventh as to whether the area should be designated, and then you'll also make a recommendation about its name and boundary. and then the criteria for the review is linked in this memo. You're welcome to attend the community engagement events. But just be cautious like, I said, of those expertise conversations or contacts. and then planning board has a formal role. If the Board, if the landmarks board votes to recommend approval, it goes to planning board within 45 days, and the Planning board will report to council on land, use implications. So we do need to dig a bit more into what that might look like.

[150:14] That. Hearings, not quasi judicial and planning board members are invited as well to attend the community engagement events. That. We have planned. Okay? Well, I feel like we've got great feedback. But other questions go ahead, Rami. II have a couple of things. I think it would be wonderful to add to this calendar a celebration at the band shell that's almost like a ribbon, Sarah ribbon cutting ceremony. and that we do something special about this and second thought, I might charge the

[151:04] applicants, the community applicant groups to be the ones to organize, facilitate that. Maybe they fund it. Maybe we help. I don't know. but I like the thought of us getting together on site. using the ban shell as a way to recognize the place and celebrate what I think is going to be a pretty darn big accomplishment. I like the idea of allowing the applicant group to has some responsibility in that and that I know that they're passionate about it, and I think it would be meaningful. And I think it's also a version of public outreach that would honor everyone's involvement. And, you know, be something that's a Ver a way for us to publicly recognize what's happened.

[152:01] There's probably a million ways to do it. I just skinned it that way. Wonderful! I think that's that's wonderful! And I saw Lucas pop up Lucas. Did you want to guide anything about? Well, you know, I was just gonna say we do still have a quasi judicial process to get through this board has to decide whether or not this landmark, you know, this historic district is going to proceed or not, so we have to be careful about, you know, not putting the cart before the Horace to some extent, and assuming an outcome that is yet to be determined. So that's that's the only caveat and caution I would put on that idea. It is a good idea. I'm so glad that I don't have your job. I got to be the guy that's like, Hey, let's celebrate thanks for reminding us that. But I still think we should do it. I'm a volunteer here. I think we should do it. So, however, we got a whatever process we need, and however we may get to a conclusion of what a community outreach piece might be. That is a celebratory, I think that's a worthwhile investment, for all of the reasons that I mentioned.

[153:14] and I agree with Rottie. I know there's a few more steps to go through. But I do agree that that potentially, you know, if this is designated, we oughta really embrace and celebrate it. Yeah, let's rent the band show. Get a band. An old time event we've got. We've got the Who are they? Do they do something across the street at the Park here. Very patriotic porn. anyway. The brass band. I think that would be really great. I have one more thing. which has been on my mind a little bit.

[154:02] this. This is like tagging some of this with the the retreat. Okay. First of all, as you know, II believe we are in really great hands with Marcy. and I continue to be grateful that she came back to our community and has taken on this position, even though we're circuitous. I think we are extremely fortunate. I also know that she went through a process to be selected to get the job. and, like, we know all of the credentials based on our experience with her. But I think that there is a difference between Marcy and previous

[155:04] principal planners. and not that one is better or one is worse. But what happens, I believe, is that there is a transition that has to do with the beliefs. the academics, the experience. etc., etc., etc., of the people that are our staff that lead our community. That also is a bit of a cultural change and or change of our policy. Well, it's not like this. It's not written. you know. There's a cultural thing that happens. Okay. so forgive me for all of this. I would love if Marcy's up for this. and the team, or the board, or whatever like to hear from Marcy. Not today. But maybe if the retreat

[156:01] about her application to get this job. which it may not be the application, Marcy. But really, what I'm looking for is the vision piece of you. and I know you don't just show up and say, here are my credentials, but I know that there's other stuff about you in this time in this place. and the reason I would love to hear that is because I know that there are little changes that occur. And I've actually talked to you a little bit about this, and we've experienced it, and I feel like verbalizing those things in a meeting would help us and get some clarity and also get behind like an understanding of who we are today. Okay on that note, like, I'm really glad that this district designation is happening under your purview, because I am hopeful that there is an even longer legacy of your participation in our community

[157:09] and being the person that helps craft. This type of thing in such an influential way, lets it have even more roots and more understanding and more ability for it to reflect what we are today and be administered in the future when the intent questions come up that weren't fully cooked out. Because you never get it completely worked out right when you create guidelines. And so that's that's again. I don't know how many bows. II think you put as many bows on things as you want like. I don't think this is a one bow kind of package here. So there's a bunch of more bows on this, and I just want to say. Thank you, Marcy, for your leadership in this. Thank you for aggressively a tackling this with the rest of our staff.

[158:00] I am confident that we're in great hands on it. And again, I'm really happy that it's happening right now. And if you're up for it, I would really look forward to you, sharing a little more about yourself. And your visions. At a retreat. And I think that that would really be impactful for me. II totally agree, John, I see your hand up. But I just John, speak when I add one thing. Yeah, I just wanted. I just want to ask one question. The is the library included in the boundary? It is not no, the the boundary goes from the west side of the Muni building to Fourteenth and then Canyon down to Arapaho. Okay? Well, then, I won't get into my discussion. It has to do with the new district and giving them the buildings.

[159:01] Should we give them buildings that are protected? That is a bigger conversation. Yeah, it's unrelated to this. So if we give them buildings and they knock them down. I don't think we've gained anything, and they haven't either. So so that is a bigger conversation. And and, Marcy, I know you're trying to get through this, and we got it. Get Renee to bet. No, I'm kidding. But you know, Ronnie, I appreciate everything you just said, because you know, Marcy follows in the footsteps of someone to work closely with, and also in the footsteps of someone who worked for the city. What 2 decades, or maybe more, but a long time. So there is a cultural shift, and we need to. You know, the the program is in such great hands. But we need to know that, you know, like, like, there is a difference. And you know we need to let let you know Marcy and I. You already have that so completely inhabit this role with who she is and what her experiences is, and her thought processes. And it's sort of like starting a new but not really. Do you know what I mean? And that's why it's been to me a seamless

[160:20] transition. And I just think that maybe your way of Marcy kind of just saying, you know this is where I'm coming from. This is what is important to me. This is, you know, the things at a retreat would be awesome. Yeah, I have some really. good, exciting ideas bubbling up with this thing, because I do think that marking the transition is really important, because it is different, even though you know, I was here for almost a decade, which is very stable. But it's different being in the the principal planner role. And it is a shift in terms of a vision. And and what does preservation in boulder mean and need in in 2023, and I just wanna say you also acknowledge that. But our team is just phenomenal, you know, Claire and Aubrey and Kj. And Olivia, that, like everyone, is just so wonderful. And and I might be the face. But ton of the credit goes to them as well.

[161:24] So with that, I think. I think that wraps up the civic area historic district update. We will send the link to the website and the walking tours and the events. Once those are solidified, and and then look for the doodle. Pull for the joint study session with prab in the next week. So thank you. Thank you all for that feedback, too. It's been a tremendous lift these last these last month or so, but it re is really exciting. And and I do feel really, honored to be

[162:04] part of this project. Great? Yeah. Okay. So time, chuck. We have 15 min estimated of how much time matters would take, and I think that's probably just the right amount of time to revisit the the request from Chelsea. But then kind of not dig into the details or ideas, but save that for a later conversation. And Kurt go ahead. Oh, I was just gonna say, I think this is kind of an internal. What landmarks board matters so I may drop out for this part. Well, thank you so much for attending you have plenty of experience on the Ldrc. So if you're curious, please stay tuned. But if you'd rather heat some dinner and go to bed. Thank you so much for attending.

[163:00] Thank you. So much. Wonderful. Okay. II do, Marcy. I think that we kind of owe Chelsea doing at least the biggest part of this with her present. Chris, she II supported the idea, or I support the idea when she wrote the initial letter. It does seem to be an issue that we need to talk about or resolve. It hadn't been as big an issue for me. I have a certain amount of flexibility in my schedule, and have managed to work around various things. I also miss things and blow em off occasionally, which doesn't help matters. But my memory. My memory is junk like you're talking about something that's like 3 steps ahead of me. I don't know what we're talking about. The fact that Ldrc in particular, is scheduled during essentially work days.

[164:06] And it's a problem for a lot of people to participate in planning or in in are bored because because it it inhibits them, even applying, because they see the time commitment is colliding with their work commitment. And what was the what was the word that Marcy used earlier, which was some kind of statement like the the I think we should visit the it was so wonderful. What was it like? The I don't know what kind of thesis or the oh. the the something statement was just like man. I don't know where that language came from, but it's good. II feel like Kate, John. I think statement the problem statement. And I think John is doing that. But I know Marcy and Renee wasn't around. I just I still have. I just recovered from Covid. I got Covid Brain. I put my social security number in when I was trying to pay for something another machine the other day. I don't know what's going on. Can Marcy?

[165:13] I restate the problem statement. Yes, yes. And then I also hear and and agree with this kind of statement that out of respect for Chelsea and her bringing this up, let's just visit the her kind of request, and then and then we'll end for matters tonight. And I thought that I had a nice slide that summarized it. But I don't. So I am going to for the second time. Pull up a a Pdf. As a Powerpoint but that will take just a minute. because

[166:00] It'll take me 2 min. Oh. oh. and I will also. I can recirculate this. II thought Chelsea did a incredible job articulating. Her position here so. Oh, it was in June. So Some of the problem statements. The scheduling of the landmarks, board meetings during the workday was kind of the main point that she saw. That limits the participation of a broader reach of our community and that it really is a barrier for people with jobs without flexibility to serve on on the community board. So she talks about during the recruitment process. She tried to recruit candidates to the landmarks board, but everyone had the same reason of not applying which was the requirement to participate during the work day.

[167:15] And so that means that a lot of enthusiastic and qualified community members find it difficult, if not impossible, to serve on the board. And so we did only have one applicant apply when we had 2 spots open earlier this year. And so she talks about kind of the specific impact in terms of the number of hours that she's been scheduled from the end of May to the end of June 21 h in landmarks, board meetings alone. Not including the prep. For the board meetings, and then 15 of those have been scheduled during the typical 9 to 5 work day finding that unsustainable for a working person, and concerned that the structure of the board only supports those who are retired or can set their own schedule.

[168:09] and so the current structure ex excludes people who aren't able to fit into that. And it's important to have diverse representation by shifting the meeting schedule to more inclusive timeframe and assessing the Ldrc process. We can create a more accessible and welcoming environment for a broader range of community members to engage in this work and going through. See throughout some potential ideas. That the Board could consider like it like rather than holding the Drc. Meetings weekly, change it to every other week. schedule them on Fridays, when work schedules are more flexible. modify the Drc. Rotation to reflect availability rather than trying to spread it pretty evenly empower staff to take full advantage of what's allowed to be reviewed at the staff level. And we'll say right now it's very limited. But there are things that we can can review at the staff level.

[169:13] Adopt an administrative role to expand what can be reviewed at the staff level skip the Drc. If staff is already planning to call something up to the board and save the time of the landmarks. Design review committee meeting follow the Development Review and Planning Board model, where, the majority of applications are reviewed administratively, some with the potential for call up by the board and hire more staff to reduce the reliance on volunteer Board members for core program operations and so she brought this to the board at the July meeting, and the board was generally very supportive of exploring these. These ideas. And so this is kind of was that a good summary of the problem statement of

[170:05] the Ldrc fabulous and rendez, I see you came off mute. Do you have a question or comment? Oh, I was just gonna bill in while you were looking for your for the paper. But I mean, I agree with Chelsea statement to make it. you know better for the landmarks board, you know, because if you would have asked me before I had done Maxwell to be on the landmarks board, I wouldn't, because it is so much time. I know how much time it takes. May. I don't even wanna be an applicant because it takes so much time to be. You know the meeting could be 30 min, or it could be 3 h, you know. so I agree with some of the things she's saying. I also think that, like the the If you turned all the Ldrc. Meetings to evening, then that also excludes, you know, family time, which you know Marcy and Claire and the rest of the you know city of Boulder people that are, they are, you know. That's their time working time. So if you switched it to off hours. Now

[171:19] they're contributing your volunteer time. So I think that there has to be a balance with that and There was talk of like Friday being more. it being, you know, better to to be more flexible. But I see Friday is a day to like. I extend your weekend, or, you know, get out of town on Thursday night. So like when winter comes for me Fridays. We we go because the kid has ski team on Friday, so I'm the one cause I'm the one flexible schedule cause. My husband works for the city of Boulder, so I have to take him skiing. So I'm in the mountains on Friday. So like there's just, you know, it's almost like, you know, the flexibility, but also the fact that you?

[172:05] And again, what she's also saying is something that's so ingrained and threaded into the city of Boulder like. who has the flexibility? People with money who lives in boulder people with money like it's just like this thread of. you know. So if you want diversity and things like that, I mean, I think that she's onto something and creating you know other people's, because we don't all want to think the same cause. If we all thought the same. Then one of us isn't needed. So even if the question might sound silly in our heads, I think that we should all say it because it brings up other topics, and it starts to give us all something to really think about. So I like the idea of creating diversity in the board. I as myself. I don't want to be on Fridays or on the evenings when I miss time with the kid. So yeah, but I think this is all should be talked about at our little

[173:05] meetup in October. Yeah, there were some some great suggestions, and I totally hear where she comes from, because it totally depends on the flexibility of a working job. And you know, like, I'm thinking, if it if it went to every other Wednesday, it's probably still the same number of hours ultimately, for whoever's on or whatever. I personally, and I agree with Renee Friday, maybe one of the more harder days, consistently, although great for certain. Certain. You know meetings that are regularly scheduled. And you know, Marcy, I think we're also in this situation where a lot of programs and a lot of things after being in the non profit world so long, we perpetuated so many things, cause that was always the way they were done, and you know I don't know and I think this was said more verbally and not in her her email to the Board. But, like, you know. Has it ever been

[174:07] 2 board or one staff and one landmarks board member? And you know, do you need the 3? And you know, when when you know, it's some things you want an odd number for the vote, but also Ldrc, one person can call it up. But I think what's fascinating to me to Ldr. See is I learned so much at Ldrc. You know, that it makes it much easier at a board member meeting, because some of it's just the terms and things, and I always learn from the architect sitting in an Ldr, and so, you know, I find it that I if if it were just certain landmarks, board members who had that time available to do it. Whenever it happens. I know I would miss a lot by not being on LD. Rc. Somewhat regularly.

[175:01] Well, II think there is a theme here about transition, because I think that Chelsea's email raised and a lot of questions of like, why do we do things the way we do things like? It's possible that it's held on Wednesday, because that's when the conference room was available 22 years ago. Like we don't, we don't know for sure. So like turning it over and questioning like, why do we do it this way. I think, is is really valuable. yeah. And and knowing that the availability of or capability capacity, I guess, is the word I'm looking for capacity to actually make any of these changes while the historic district process is going on just isn't possible. So I think that the idea of having kind of a theme of maybe transition at the Retreat. Both. Where's the program vision? Now, what are some of the changes that that we are making? And then also the opportunity to just put everything on the table and ask questions like questions. The thing question the things that

[176:06] previously you would never question, I think is is a really good would be a really good retreat topic. And Marcy, why can't the staff vote on the Ldr. Sees? Oh, we can vote we have a vote on the Ldrc. but is a question, why can't we review stuff more administratively? Oh, I would thought it was both. I didn't know that. Like. like, you guys got to actually vote at that. The weekly meetings? Yeah, we can call things up to the board or you know, we we have to agree to approve something, so we're equal members of the Ldrc. But then, if it goes to the full board, then our roles change, and it may be the age of a building where the ordinance requires right now that it goes to Ldrc. And then for the lac. I mean. It's so limited. It is

[177:06] rear fences. It's pink colors. It's restoration of existing features. I mean, it really is it's limited to the most kind of over the counter almost reviews everything else. Everything else goes to the Design Review Committee by code. but approvals at the Ldrc. Wednesday mornings must be unanimous. Yeah, it's consistent. It's not a 2 to one. It's a unanimous approval denial or the singularity pieces. One or more call it up to the board denial. There's no denial at the Drc. It's either approval revisions or refer it to the full board.

[178:07] Right? Yeah. And then, maybe, is there a section where it's like. you know, like you have staff review. And then maybe you have, like a landmark board outside of, like a public Wednesday meeting where it's like. okay, you do paint colors and staying at staff, and then at the next level, you do like a window or something with a board member, right? Or 2 or 3 board members that are just like reading the documents and looking at it, because sometimes when I think of what we have to Staff Review, or what we have to review in the Wednesday means like, Well, how come staff and just review this? But if it could be like at a staff level. But with some landmarks board people, input. So it doesn't have to be a Wednesday meeting. It can be, you know, that we're putting our input in outside. And and then if somebody wants to call it up to a Wednesday meeting, you can call it up. But maybe there's another layer to not just staff, but maybe there's another section that also weed it out. So you don't have to have so many Wednesday meetings. But I think that if you do the Bi weekly, you know, or the every other week

[179:20] it ruins the applicant. Now the applicant has to wait another week, and then another week, and the staff is gonna have way. More stuff to put in that one. It's gonna be a whole day on Wednesday. Those meetings would go longer, you know. And Renee, what's Marcy? I think I mentioned to this to her recently when I was on Ldr. See is we used to meet downtown in a conference room at 8 30 that it's been a real luxury to be doing it virtually. I mean, I would love the landmarks, board meetings to be a person. But, you guys, there are Ldrc's where I've thrown a load of laundry in the washer, you know, by doing it. Virtually it has saved us time and energy, and I used to be up in that conference room trying to add money to my parking on the app, and I couldn't get service with my provider. So II do have to say, having them virtually for me selfishly, has been a godsend.

[180:19] Well, II have no doubt that we're gonna have many good ideas in a really fruitful conversation. I'm I'm so excited that it will be with with this board, and we'll work to make sure that the retreat is a time that Chelsea can attend and and I think, yeah. okay, final thoughts keep going on it. Yeah. it'll give us more time to let ideas percolate. Yeah, and we'll share something. If I I've jumped to establishing the retreat agenda. I didn't mean to do that. If this is the retreat agenda topic, then then we'll send something out beforehand for you all to think about, and then and then come to the meeting.

[181:10] and and one thing I just wanna say, I know this could be held, but I know we have one public members still hanging on here? so can you guys still hear me? My, your book just did some weird, okay, so I'm we're so grateful that we do get public or public members attending these meetings, as we all are. But I do think that we should weigh in their ability to attend and participate, and what those impacts are when we modify times and or move back and forth between virtual and and person meetings. And you know there's a lot of hybrids. Now, are you gonna do both and so I just wanted to point that out, because I know somebody is listening on the other end there, but I imagine, has opinions about this as well, and we will make sure that we do discuss those. I mean, I don't think we can represent everybody in the meetings cause it's impossible to

[182:11] speak unknown voices, but I know that that is the thing that I've heard from other public members, and when this comes up. Hopefully, we can talk about that as well. That's a really good point, because, even though at Ldrc members of the public don't speak, you know it's I know many people love having the ability to participate. To observe wonderful. wonderful! Well, thank you. Thank you all for that. And that was the end of matters as long. Let me just double check. that there was anything else, there was nothing else. So you should. You should conclude that with nothing else matters. That's how we should finish matters.

[183:02] No more minutes. and Renee again welcome. But I've just been so impressed how you've just so seamlessly already, like, you know, just just made a significant impact already. So thank you. Well, I have an opinion. Maybe that's the problem. That's why you're here. So hearing nothing else from anybody or signal, raised hands, the meeting is adjourned at 904 Pm. Yay, yay.