November 1, 2023 — Landmarks Board Regular Meeting

Transcript

Captions from City of Boulder YouTube recording.

[20:44] Oh, just more examples. This is going west of Juniper. Next slide. Again, newer forms, kinda in that farmhouse or. Transitional styling. Next slide.

[21:04] The existing structure, does have the gable. Oh, you go to the next slide. You know, it's a basic construction double gable home. It is consistent of that time period. But it is in our opinion that it doesn't possess specifically architecturally significant elements that meet the criteria of a historic landmark. It's not consistent with architectural interests or the quality of other craftsman style landmarks that have. Been previously designated through the city. It is built by an unknown architect or designed by an unknown architect and the builders also unknown, that don't carry any. Substantial. Historical, you know. Notoriety. And then finally, the basis of our presentation is really on this engineering report that we had prepared on the property. Next slide.

[22:03] Next slide. So, The Boulder revise code obviously asks you to consider cost condition relationship to the surrounding area. The biggest thing is the flood considerations that this property is located. In 2 flood planes, the one being the 100 year flood plane that encompasses just about all the property. And the second is the northern half sits in the high hazard risk conveyance area. It has also been noted that the foundation is in poor condition. And would most likely need to be replaced. And next slide. The current physical condition. Via home inspection shows that there's substantial horizontal and vertical cracking, vertical cracking is most notably associated with shifting and poor soil conditions. The horizontal cracking is most notably done through hydrostatic pressure, which makes sense being at this home is sitting within.

[23:02] The flood plain and the floodway. Next slide. Again, just pictures of current conditions. The chimneys are deteriorating most likely need to be rebuilt The sighting is in fairly poor condition. It's been repainted over a few times, but there's some central chipping. And again, just overall deterioration and decay in the wood siding product. Next slide. The flood considerations is again the entire site sits within the zone AZ. Which is inundated by the 100 year flood plane. And the high hazard conveyance area. Next slide. Again, you can see the flood map. We saw before. The whole lot sits within the hundred-year flood plane and then that green ribbon is the high risk flood way. Next slide. So. The engineering report confirms that the home currently does not comply with the City of Boulder floodplain.

[24:06] The main level finish floor sits below the flood base. And would essentially need to be altered to meet current flood plain regulations per the city of Boulder and FEMA. Next slide. All those elevations can really be summarized with this little graphic. The existing basement. Is that 54 65? The first floor is at 54 73 The flood plain protection, protection elevations at 54. 74, which means the first floor would have to be raised. A total of point 6 feet and the basement would have to be raised a total of 8.6 feet to meet current regulation. These regulations kick in when 50. When the substantial improvement trigger is met. Next slide, please.

[25:03] And basically the city of Boulder defines substantial improvement. As any repair reconstruction rehabilitation or alteration or improvement of a structure, which is equal to or to exceed 50% of the market value of the structure. Per the current assessment of the building. It's assessed at 209,000. Meaning that an improvement of only 104,000 would require complete compliance with the City of Boulder and FEMA codes. Next slide. To meet those requirements. Next slide, please. To meet those requirements are civil and structural engineers have recommended that the existing Foundation is in poor condition and would have to be completely replaced not only by its structural integrity but its relation to the flood plain.

[26:00] The house would need to be lifted, gutted, and moved to a different portion of the lot. While the old foundation would be excavated, removed, and repaired. The house would then need to be relocated on the new foundation at the correct elevation. And be basically completely restored next next slide please This is a picture of the non-conforming basement. So this shows the kind of the extent of the foundation that would have to be ripped out to meet floodplain regulations. Next slide. Our engineer, Donald Ash, who's worked extensively in the city of Boulder, wrote in his opinion that we feel like the condition of the building project project cost of restoration or repair would be unreasonable given the flood plain development considerations on the site. This project is highly unlikely to be completed as a reasonable cost. Next slide. Us as the builder, we have 25 years of experience building in Boulder County.

[27:04] The $104,000 threshold to basically jump up to the new regulations would be almost immediately met just by some structural. Shoring that would have to be done. So meaning once we spend that money, the whole house is going to be raised. We estimate that doing that work is going to be in far excess of a million dollars to move this house, rebuild the foundation, move it back, all the shoring. And home moving. There's only a few contractors in this county that do that type of work. We also believe there's a very real probability that the house doesn't even survive the move given its current condition. The key takeaway is even a minor renovation will trigger compliance with older county flood plan regulation, civil instruction engineer believe it's unreasonable, impractical, and economically infeasible. Next slide. We've done quite a bit of historic work in the county between the Johnson corner gas station, which was also a move.

[28:06] We do. Well, the 10 min has elapsed, but if you can wrap up in a sentence or 2. Yeah. The next slide was just showing we do have experience moving buildings. It is incredibly difficult. We are, you know, very much in line with saving historic structures throughout the county. There's just a few of the ones we've worked on. It's just we feel like this particular project. Given the floodplain considerations and giving the overall character of the building doesn't merit a landmark designation. Thank you. And will you please take the one moment in case any board members have questions at this point for you? Yes. Ronnie, Renee? I do. Cause you're gonna be super knowledgeable. When you showed me the fug plane, the green and the blue, what was there in the green?

[29:01] What was the blue? The green and the blue? What was there in the green? What was the blue? Yeah, so the blue, yeah, the blue, no, the 500 year flood plane extends way far they're kind of blown up the blue no the 500 year flood plane extends way farther kind of blown up even past that graphic the blue is the 500 year flood plane extends way farther kind of blown up even past that graphic the blue is the 100 year flood plane which the city boulder does not allow basements in the 100 year flood plane obviously this home has one The green is the conveyance zone more commonly known as the floodway. There are structures in that flood way, that I don't believe were permitted by the prior owner. So it's even a more high hazard zone than the 100 year flood plane. So then my question is is the entire site. In some portion of the flood floodway. The entire site is located within the 500 year flood plane and the hundred-year flood plain about 50% of the slate is located in high risk conveyance. Sorry. What happened during the flood That is a good question. I am not sure what happened to this particular property. All the information we have is that the foundations show signs of hydrostatic pressure building up on the outside of it.

[30:09] I mean, it's a, it, if you, guys remember, Okay. That's true. Okay. Any other questions? And we will give you another opportunity to come back up for 3 min. Thank you so much for your, comprehensive presentation. Thank you. Thank you. That was really informative. And Claire, great job on forwarding the slides there. So we will move on to public comment. If you do, if you are here in person tonight, please see Aubrey to sign up. It also gives her a record of who is speaking. And she will also check online, you will raise your hand. Online if you wish to speak.

[31:07] And as the first speaker is signing up to speak, just for those of you joining virtually, go ahead and find the raised hand function if you are wishing to speak and a reminder that if you do plan to speak, you need to display your full name. And if you're having trouble doing that, then, you can. Message the administrator they can they can help with that so so far I see one person online who will speak following any one here in Chambers who wishes to speak and you'll go up and sign up with. Yeah, and you can do that now. Oh, great. Okay. So there's at least 2. In person and one. Thank you, Marci and all speakers, whether you're with us tonight in person. Thank you Marcy and all speakers whether you're with us tonight in person or doing this virtually, we will need to swear you in. Alright, so we do have 2 people signed up to speak in person. The first one will be Landing Shiller.

[32:12] Yeah, I do want you to raise your right hand and swear to tell the board the truth. My name is Lanning Schiller and I do want to tell the board the truth. Thank you. You may proceed. So I live at 1025, so I'm both the east neighbor and the north neighbor. And to answer your question, the fence on the west side of the property is to the ground which is not the way the city wants them built but that fence protected the property during the flood. But I did lose my home during the flood. So I'm in the conveyance zone. You know, it's been empty for several years now. It's kind of an eyesore that people loaned it previously tried to rent it to families is too small and it had mold in the basement. It's been a real challenge. Being empty. I look down at those 5 outbuildings and it's chaos back there.

[33:01] And a couple of them were built I think without being permitted. And in large without permits. The flood plane issue certainly is of great concern. But that property right now is just very chaotic. You know, the police responded to a noise complaint a couple of years ago and I had to escort them to all the outbuildings because they couldn't figure out which end was up. So, I'm very much in favor of what the Lily family wants to do. They would be my neighbor in 2 different directions and, I would look forward to sharing the property with them. Any questions from the board? I don't think so, but thank you. Thank you. Have a question. What, how long have you lived there? I've been there 20 years. 20 years. 20 years. Yeah. And did you know anyone that like Claire the people that she mentioned? But part of my house is the old chicken coop.

[34:09] And the sheriff used to play poker and drink whiskey, audition in that part of my building. The sheriff? Okay. I learned because your presentation is jeopardy sheriff lived on the property and he had his buddies come over and they would play cards and drink whiskey. We always learn something every board meeting. Thank you so much. And Aubrey, the next speaker. Great. Our next speaker is Anie Meyer. I hope I pronounced that right. Hello, welcome and I am going to ask you to raise your right hand and swear to Oh, hi, my name is Anne Meyer. Good evening. I'm a resident of Junet or I've more much more recently just since this April.

[35:00] I'm a local artist and contract practitioner here in Boulder. I just wanted to share my thoughts and feelings on behalf of what I think. The house represents for me. So I just want to say this house and what it is has been a source of inspiration to me since I've moved to this neighborhood as short a time it has it's been I go through many walks many different days past it and I still really love and admire the craftsman architecture. I do believe it is irreplaceable and really unique. The structures and the additional buildings make it very unique. I've photographed it. I've drawn it. It's again as an artist. It's very inspiring to me. And it's been one of the things that just pushed me to begin teaching and also hosting women's groups at my own home just down the street. And there's something about the spirit of the house, how. We're Frieda Macintosh had been where she had became a county treasurer, something that represents the power of women. I feel from this house. And they will always say the structural conditions in all of those aspects don't surprise me, given its age and being in the flood plane of course, I wasn't aware of those before, but I would just say based on my own perspective, which is more aesthetic and intuitive and spiritual, I would think it would be a great loss to the neighborhood to see this house demolished. I would think it'd be a great loss to the neighborhood to see this house demolished.

[36:23] I am aware it can cost 30 to $40,000 at least to replace a whole foundation like this one probably needs but I don't know, I'm in my opinion it would be worth it. I just I just have this vision of women really enjoying being as a space like this and having the spirit and the character of the home to support the neighborhood. Again, after a lot a lot of the houses as new as they are in 2 story. A lot of them do mimic those gables and columns that are in front of it and kind of in style and following the lead of this house in a way. And I think if we lost this house, it would be the last house, the last house on our street that actually has that age and character still to it. Most again, most of the houses are new. And I just don't think Boulder needs another house that looks like a hotel.

[37:09] On on its property. And yeah, I would just, I just wanted to leave. The board and I guess the public in general with the question about what would be the best way to honor the legacy and the spirit of. The the exceptional people who have lived in this house and the house itself. And I appreciate your time and effort this evening for going through everything such their ownness. Thank you. And we appreciate your time and effort to come down here tonight and speak in person. It means a lot to all of us, all speakers. So thank you. Yes, much appreciate your careful consideration. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks for being brave. That's really cool. All right, we did have a hand raised from a virtual attendee, so I'm just going to wait a couple seconds to see if anyone else wants to raise their hand.

[38:04] On Zoom. It was not. Okay. Do you wanna speak in person? Yes. Lynn, do you mind going and signing a form there? Cause it helps with the record keeping. Thank you. And then I'll have you write down your name and then just talk to. Thank you. Ready now? And Lynn? Oh, right. I swear to tell the truth the best as I know it. For sake me God, but I'm atheist. So, thanks. I have my brother on the line here, Paul. Do you happen to know Daria? Did Daria live at 1015 juniper? Cause I remember from 35 32 years ago or something.

[39:05] Going to that house, someone from Naropa. This house has so much character. Memorable to me. My kids were little kids then. They are now almost 39 and 40. Do you remember, Paul? Darya? He doesn't remember. Daria was your name. I don't know why my ganglians worked that well. Darry, she was Naropa or something? She lived at Martha for a while. Maybe it was a different. It was a female, definitely. Anyway. Okay, thanks, Paul. Thanks. Anyway. I think this is the house. My brother probably doesn't remember, but I can remember later that a friend of his that I knew through him maybe is through wind horse he did caring for elders in the community and it could have been through that. But I remember this house. And anyway, I like this house. And anyway, I also want more affordable housing in Boulder.

[40:14] Not another 2 or 3 million dollars house rebuild. That then people can't afford to live in here. And I just like the fact that it's the only one in that neighborhood. That has some character to it. That could be preserved. And I would hope that no one does this with my house. My son would gladly do that. He's an architect. Says, Mom, it's just as great. 49 built in 49. Marcy you'll see me someday maybe if they want to scrape it. But it had an addition in it's cumulatively, 85. But. I like the house. I think.

[41:02] The fact this other woman that lives there, she made an outstanding. Description of the real feel of the place and within the neighborhood. And we would have a huge floss if we demoed this place. It's, it's definitely not a demo. And if people really want the house that badly to keep it the way it is in the foundation becomes an issue, then lift it, you know, that's what they did with Martha House where my brother lived for many years. And he lived there affordably at $900. A month including food. And I think this place is much more affordable. Considering this. And I wanted to say one more thing. My dad was born in 22. The same year as the one before. I forgot to say this. Thank you, Lynn. He loved utilitarianism.

[42:02] And that's what that helps. That's what that face. Was about. Thank you, Lynn. Thanks. All right, and next we have John Walton on Zoom. Hi John, and before you, begin your 3 min, will you please swear to tell the board the whole truth and then restate your full name for the record. I swear to tell the board the whole truth on this matter. And for the record, my name is John Walton. Thank you. You may purchase. So, perfect. Look, this is a beautiful, beautiful home and there's a lot of talk about how it does not have historic value. I would disagree with that. I thought it was very interesting that in the slide presentation. No interior pictures were shown. Because the inside touches with the molding. Some of the older appliances. The tile work, that's not replaceable.

[43:08] Look, Boulder has changed so much over the years. My aunt lived here in the seventys and when I moved here 10 years ago. And explain this how the city was she. She done recognize it and quite frankly I'm having trouble recognizing Boulder today. From Boulder 10 years ago. With the McMansions everywhere. The hotels that are being built blocking the view of the front range and I just think it would be a sin to continue on this path. Couple of points some of the other speakers have brought up. Affordable housing. I don't see how building a very large home like that is going to help with the affordable housing stock, especially for young families that are just getting started. It's very difficult for them to. It's a purchase their first home and there is there's quite a many lots in Boulder or in Boulder County maybe not so much the city but there's plenty of places you can build big homes like this and they fit in.

[44:10] I really, you know, we looked at some of the slides of the other homes on Juniper. In my humble opinion. You know. I'm not gonna paint a broad stroke, but most of those homes are not. Attractive. They're ugly. I'll just go out and say it. They're montosities and they're too much. They're not normal homes. So I really take issue with that. And one thing. I wanna bring up 2. The gentleman for the architecture firm had mentioned that the Lily family bought this property. With the, pardon me, he said they bought this with the intention of making it their forever home. Somebody mentioned in the comments. Why, how would they purchase this property with the intent for it to be their forever home? Having done the due diligence with the inspections, that was never their intention. Their intention was to tear this down and to build another house.

[45:03] Okay. So I take offense to that. Look, I know I'm running out of time here. But I really do think it's a shame. I've learned quite a bit about the building tonight with the different people that have lived there. And it's only interested me even more. And I've driven by this building for years. On my way home and it's an absolutely gorgeous home that I don't believe is irreplaceable. And in my opinion, I believe that whatever costs it needs to be to renovate is well worth it. Look, we can put all those windows and doors and they reuse it. The net loss for the environment is going to be tremendous. And I'm tired of people moving to Boulder claiming they care about the environment and tearing down these houses causing all this waste. To build newer constructions that have, look, the construction practices today are not like they were 100 years ago, which in my opinion is why this house is still standing. I understand that pressed on time. Thank you for your consideration. Yeah, Joel and your time is but. Thank you so much for joining us tonight. Thank you.

[46:02] Thank you. And Aubrey, is this the last opportunity for someone to raise their hand or press star 9 on a phone? Do you see any additional? Members of the public. Your last opportunity to raise your hand if you're interested in speaking. On this case. And I'm not seeing anyone else. Thank you, Aubrey. We will close public comment for this hearing. And I'd like to invite you back up if you'd like an additional 3 min. Yes, I'll be brief. I'm not sure if it's, possible to go back to those slides, but I was gonna just address maybe a few concerns of the public. . Yes I guess I'd point out that most of the support that we've heard tonight are from the immediate neighbors of this property, both.

[47:03] You know, in person here and then, the letters that are written in. So I think from a very localized standpoint, the support. To, rehab this property is quite high. To ease I know it's not maybe so much of the boards criteria, but maybe to ease some concerns of the general public in that what will take its place. Unfortunately the the topic of affordable housing was brought up several times. This part of the city, I think. The aspect of affordability for starter homes isn't necessarily up. These homes are on juniper given their lot size and their context in the neighborhood are quite higher. And that's just evident by the other homes surrounding them. In terms of the structure that we were proposing, if you go to our last slide. We're not in the business of building McMansions. We had proposed a very modest home that kept in theme with the traditional architecture and craftsmen styling of the existing home.

[48:14] This home would just be brought up to current standards, you know, greet building codes and certainly in compliance of the floodway. We're not interested in building hotels or, you know, mega structures. This is a modestly sized home. So hopefully that brings some comfort to the members of the public who voicemail. Thank you. So now we will move on to board discussion. We have allotted approximately 30 min for our deliberations, but we'll take the time that's needed. And Aubrey is going to help us keep a time check on this. Deliberation. I don't know if anyone if you want to kick off this discussion.

[49:02] I would rather just what is let's go back to what we're what are options. Outcome first before we there was that wonderful slide clear you had Let's bring that back. Yeah. That's a great way to kick off the discussion. Because again, the first page of the. Okay. But especially the slide that's what before, what is before us tonight? Hmm. Is that one the one you're looking for, Abi? Well, that's one, I don't know if Fernay was thinking of another one. I do think this one is a key one. To. Frame our discussion. And just to add a little bit, the criteria in front of you tonight is Is the building eligible for designation?

[50:09] Is the cost reasonable and is the condition considering the condition of the building as well? And then what's the relationship of the building to the character of the neighborhood? And your 2 options are to either approve the demolition. Full demolition for the building. Or place a stay of demolition on the application in order to provide times to explore alternatives to demolition. And just so like we kind of had foreshadowing the first. Thing that was brought in. That, was brought to the landmarks board and they said, let's place this stay and that's then okay so they found out they found that alternative. Okay. That's what I. Is that helpful? Yeah.

[51:00] Got it. And I guess I just had a couple of clarifying questions. I think the staff report was very well written. So first of all, I just want to compliment staff for putting that together. In this maybe documented in there but have the accessory buildings been requested to be demolished. I didn't see evidence of that as part of the application. And have they been approved for demo outside of landmarks board? That the LDRC reviewed was for the house and the accessory structures. That the LDRC reviewed was for, the house and the accessory structures.

[52:04] As the applicant mentioned, it's submitted for those accessory buildings but they have historic preservation approval if needed. It's just the house that we found to be potentially eligible for designation. Thanks for the reminder now that you say that I do recall reading that the other week. Anyone want to start off? I run by this house every day. And I love Juniper. It does have If you want to call it newer buildings on the site, there's a couple smaller buildings on like more buildings on the site. There's a couple smaller buildings on like more west that are a little bit older. There has been a lot of demo and total demolition and total demolition and total demolition and rebuilt on the street.

[53:02] I don't know if that's what I was during the flood. There was like that street was horrendous. It was a river. So I'm surprised to hear that there wasn't more damage to this house considering it is. Designated in the flood way. But the, I'm the neighbor, in taking in consideration the neighbor, you know, finds it. You know, no one's been living there as a neighbor that would, you know, a little bit bother me, you know, that but that this building is so sweet on this little street. So I don't know, like it's a little context and. What the neighborhood is like. So I'm kind of conflicted. Yeah, I do. I agree. I think this is a very sweet building. And I also just wanna complement Zachary and his team for their presentation. I thought that was very thorough.

[54:02] I appreciate and applaud the work that you've done outside of this project. In the name of preservation I see that you have gone to great lengths to work on excellent projects and to make sure you're honoring these buildings properly. Someone from the public asked about how to honor the legacy of buildings. And I just wanna say. One way through preservation. Another way is this unknown potential path, which I believe is the right path for us tonight and I agree with Sta's recommendation. Which is to place a stay on the home to explore alternatives to demolition. That's not to say that we know what the outcome is going to be. But. I think there could be unknown outcomes that. Include greater research on this building, that is a form of documentation.

[55:07] And also a proper process. To discuss with the applicant. Other aspects of potential preservation that aren't immediately apparent to us right now. That doesn't mean that I think the house automatically rises to, you know, a conclusion of it being allowed to be demolished. I don't know. I do think. The financial information that the applicant presented helps us advance a potential review in us stay. So I'm grateful that's there. There might be additional information that would be needed during Stair could help us. But I think that as staff has outlined, this particular building, does deserve. A stay and additional review and hopefully collaboration with the applicant to see if there are alternatives or unknown options.

[56:10] Okay. I agree. With staff and my other 2 colleagues so far. I think that this isn't this is a very interesting case. I live somewhat near Juniper, so I have certain familiarity. With the street and with the process of change that's happened there since. 2,000 or so. And Hey, Karen, the character of that street has. I wouldn't say it's changed because it's interesting how the character has remained intact despite the fact that the buildings have changed. That's kind of an interesting process that I've observed in that one. Because I think a great deal of the character that it's, it's a unique little piece of environment.

[57:10] One of the aspects of that unique environment is the active flood way through the zone and That is a issue that I think we. On this board need to look at more. And it's implication for. Historic resources since so many of them this is a constant kind of battle that we have or battle it's a constant situation that we're confronted with. Is a building that has. Some value or some. Potential as a historic resource. That is virtually unsavable because of location and elevation. And It's just this is an additional opportunity for more discussion of that, especially. In light of all the other processes working there.

[58:05] So I favored the stay. But I agree with Ronnie's statement. To the NASA group that they've done a very good job putting their case together and presenting it to us and it's laudable work that you guys come from a background also. Cool. So, I also want to echo your, comments for the excellent presentation and I saw that picture of Johnson's corner if I memory serves me Eugene Grove that was built out of concrete so I can't imagine relocating that but it happened and it's you know got a new home in prospect but again kudos for your presentation and what you brought to us tonight and all the time and effort already. I will be supporting staff state for several reasons. Even though this is not how it came before us if it came forward as a request from an owner to initiate we obviously or I would obviously feel like it meets the criteria for individual landmark designation.

[59:18] But I think that it is a kind of a wonderful eclectic neighborhood of new construction, whatever, and I loved how you pointed out that some of the styles of some of the larger homes of new construction, whatever, and I loved how you pointed out that some of the styles of some of the larger homes in that neighborhood now have taken cues and architectural motifs from that and incorporated it. But this house standing today, the reason I'd like to see a stay is to give us just a little more time because If it's demolished, it's gone forever. But I think this house adds a grace note to that street, to the larger area, as well as the whole community. So the stay is really to explore creative alternatives. I also know that a home, whether it is, I have no idea if this would ever be designated or what, but though as it moves through the preservation program, it does not preclude pretty significant redevelopment on that property.

[60:14] So that's why I'd like to have a state just to see what might be possible and I would volunteer as a landmark board member if a stay would be placed on it. Oh. Okay. So. Like Renee, I am too conflicted. When I look at this house, I see sort of a a perfect example of like a charming mediocre home that was built in the time like it's just perfectly Not special, but there's something charming about that. To me. But At the end of the day, this project like in order for this home to be livable, it's going to have to be.

[61:08] Moved out of the flood plane and nothing no a hundred 80 days won't change that. And so, you know, thinking about. What the ultimate outcome will likely be based on the cost of having to lift the home into into a foundation where it's safe enough to exist out of the food plane. I believe that the ultimate outcome will be that. It's not saveable. And so I don't wanna delay a project and with increased inflation and construction costs, I feel like we're sort of just delaying the inevitable and making it more difficult. For these. For the property owners to live in. A home that is safe. So I support approving the request.

[62:10] Thank you, Grenay. Do you like to add any more comments? So that's a good point. Like I just wanna say you bring up that's a good point. I do wanna say that this like North neighborhood, we got all these like really good historic developments in the heart of the city of Boulder, but back when there was the heart of the city of Boulder. The north neighborhoods were. Like one building and then like this big farmhouse type of feel, right? And one of. My electricians is actually his fifth generation built the, the flood way by hand that, between on Iris that he built that by hand his great grandfather built that by hand his great grandfather built that by hand so like there's something to be said about giving this building just a little bit more time to see what maybe it's uncovered because it doesn't have.

[63:03] That same feel like we do downtown Mapleton, you know? And so, but that also makes me want to. You know, be like, are we keeping it and is it? Is it time for it to go, but. Back then, they were just little tiny buildings and. You know, and we just found out by Claire's. Small digging. Like there was this great woman here that lived here and. If they wanted to be a historic landmark, we would have looked further into it and we might be proposing it to be a landmark building. So, well, and now we know about the sheriff and the whiskey. So there is that. So, and I don't know if Mark, you have anything you'd like to add this evening for this particular item. Ebbie Mark unfortunately had to leave early. Okay, thank you, Clear. So I don't know what other board. Members comments they wanna make.

[64:03] I don't know if there's anyone ready to make a motion, Ronnie? So. Yeah, I agree Chelsea about unnecessary process. I absolutely agree. And I also just wanna say, you know, we've heard some comments about affordable housing. And affordable housing and preservation for small buildings is often they're often in direct conflict. And you know, that's not necessarily a thing that we can solve here tonight. But there are ways, that those 2 things come together. And I will just say one little way that we do have in our city and that we have seen. Properties with small buildings that have similar qualities.

[65:02] Sorry, couldn't hear me. What I was saying is One mechanism that we have used. That's part of the preservation program and broader to our community is accessory dwelling units. And I'm not sure if your plan included one that's a proposed plan. But we have also approved what have been prior structures that are historic structures becoming the secondary dwelling unit. Redeveloped properties. Which without having put much thought into this could be. A type of unseen opportunity that might be discussed among others. Bye placing a stay on the property. I recognize that what I'm saying might not even be feasible or desirable. But I do know that you could probably preserve the house and put a larger primary structure behind it. If the owners were interested in that meat preservation goals, not do significant improvements to the small existing structure.

[66:10] That would be, let's just say, unwise, you know, for the budget, forget preservation and other things are just like financially. And check a bunch of boxes. I don't know if that is gonna even be a discussion in the future, but I would like to make a motion. Can I just ask a quick question about that? So if they, I'm not sure do the limits around if it needs to come into compliance with. The flood zone, does, is that for the property level or is that for the building. It's for the building. Okay. That was the next question. Any other questions? I think Ronnie may be ready to. I was gonna say move something but make a motion.

[67:04] Yeah, I'd be off for making a motion. I move that the landmark sport adopt the findings of the staff memorandum dated November first, 2,023 and issue a stay of demolition for the building located at 1015 juniper ev. The for a period not to exceed 180 days from the day the permit application was accepted by the city manager in order to explore alternatives to demolishing the building. Do we have a second? Second. Thank you, Renee, on a motion by Ronnie. Seconded by Renee. Any other discussion before we proceed to a vote? Not seeing any, Ronnie. I Chelsea. No. I. Hi. So the motion passes 4 to one. And then Claire, I think you'll be kind enough to explain next steps.

[68:02] To the applicant. I will. Since the board has placed a state of demolition on the property to allow us time to discuss preservation options. Will be in touch to schedule meetings and also Abby, would the board please volunteer. 2 members to be representatives during the stay for those. Okay, thank you, Abby and John. I will volunteer and I see John's hand up. Yeah, my hands up. Of course, every board member can come once those meetings are noticed. Thank you, Claire. So I believe it's time to move on to item 5 C. Yes, would you, please give me a second to get Right place. All right, Claire. Okay. And Okay, as Claire is getting to the next slide, I have this, mind the mic thing. Just know, there is getting to the next slide. I have this, mine, the mic thing.

[69:06] Just know, reminder to turn on the mic when you're speaking and turn it off when you're not because it picks up really like side conversations online pretty clearly. So that's why somebody laminated the sign. So that can mean either speak up or. Okay. So we are now ready for item 5 C. It's a public hearing and consideration of a landmark alteration certificate application to construct an 804 square foot accessory building and modify existing non-historic garage at 700, and 3 11 street an individual landmark pursuit to section 9 1118 of the Boulder revise code, 1,981 and before the presentation. B, we're going to do ex parte contacts by the board, Ronnie.

[70:04] None. Chelsea, no. I have none. I have none. I am the architect on the site, so I am. I am recusing myself. Thank you, Renee. We'll look forward to having you joining us remotely for matters. Good night. Don't look so excited. Thank you, Renee. Okay. Yeah. Oh, I'm working on it. Yeah, I just remember. I'm just stretching my legs out. So don't mind me. Before we begin with the staff presentation, do we need a 5 min break? Is everybody good? I could use a break. Yeah. Will return at 8 18 pm i'm not good at math thank you guys

[71:02] One Didn't know that. Oh, Oh, I actually use her. Oh, yes. Yeah. Outside. Office. We're going like So I just said, yeah, I guess I didn't make the connection.

[72:08] Okay. Yeah. Okay. Okay. It seems like. Yes. Yeah. So. One watch. Okay. Cool. So. That's good.

[73:09] Okay. See. Good. No, no, you're absolutely free to do that and I never I'm shy about saying I don't know. Okay. But it's it's It's good. Okay. No. Yes. Okay. And. Yeah. Okay.

[74:04] So I. Okay. No. Okay. Cool, that's, Okay. Yeah, I feel like, Okay. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Okay.

[75:13] Which Okay. Yes, Okay. Good. Yeah. Okay. Yeah, IS. Oh yeah. Yeah. Huh? Yeah. Keep a litter.

[76:18] Okay. I, No, I guess that's true. Okay. Okay. Because James. Yeah, welcome. Chelsea and Hello.

[77:06] Is that supposed to be like someone testing in the mic? That's not. You. Are they presenting eleventh stream? It does feel good to be back. I don't know. That different. It's just a couple of more little things you have to pay attention. It's just a couple of more little things you have to pay attention. It's just a couple of more little things you have to pay attention. It's definitely harder on my end of like presenting. Well, and you being Yeah, but for, other than my beagle is not looking like. Meeting you guys, I'm like, I'm just start laughing.

[78:00] It's all over. All right. And he was in the Kansas state legislator when our governor Allen hired Frank Lloyd Wright to build a 1917 home in Wichita. His name was Oliver Henry early. And he was in the Kansas state legislator when our governor, Allen hired Frank Kloyd Wright to build a nineteen-seventeen home in which to talk to Kansas. That's spectacular. It's, it has over 300 windows, very influenced by his Japan, travels. And it's one of the first where he built like a driveway and like a car port, you know, he really, Okay. Yeah, One. No, it's, it's, West Arizona and stopping. Yeah. There's more.

[79:18] Okay, we'll now resume the meeting. Don't make me use the girl. I will resume the meeting at 8 18 or excuse me 8 21 p. M. And Clear, I understand you'll be presenting. Yes, thank you, Abby. As you mentioned, this is public hearing and consideration of a landmark alteration certificate application. For the construction of a new accessory building and modifications to an existing. Garage. I'll go through the quasi judicial hearing procedures again. All speaking to the item will be sworn in. Board members have already noted their ex parte contacts. I will give the staff presentation next after that the board may ask questions. The applicant will have 10 min to present to the board and the board may ask questions.

[80:05] Jim, the applicant is here with us virtually. Hopefully still from Italy to make us all jealous. Will then open the public hearing after all members of the public have made comments. The applicant may respond to anything that was said. Well, then. Move on to board deliberation and a motion requires an affirmative vote of at least 3 members to pass. The motion will state findings conclusions and recommendation. And then a record of this hearing is available. As a video recording and in the records archive within 28 days usually sooner. So. The criteria for review today are outlined in the Boulder Revised code under 9, 1118 B and C.

[81:03] 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 board considers the economic feasibility of alternatives. Incorporation of energy efficient design and in the announced access for the disabled. The board's options for today. Are to approve the application. This is subject to a 16 day city council call-up period. West City Council can choose to review the application. The 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 would mean the applicant could not submit a substantially similar application within 12 months.

[82:00] So if the board is heading in that direction, they usually give the applicant an opportunity to withdraw. So this is a proposed new building larger than 340 square feet. So the Boulder revise code requires the proposal to come directly to the full board for a quasi judicial public hearing. And that's where we are today. So this is the, this is the Eckley house. It's located on the corner of, Eleventh Street and baseline road at 703 eleventh street so this is baseline here this is eleventh the front of the house faces east onto on to eleventh year. There are 3 existing buildings on the lot. Including the main house, there's a pool equipment shed that's right here and that was constructed in 1999 and a one-story garage that was constructed in 1978 and heavily modified in 1,978 and heavily modified in 1999.

[83:09] And this is the rear of the property, abutting Eleventh Street alley right here. The house itself was constructed in 1919 and is considered one of the best examples in Boulder of the Tudor revival style. And half timbering in the gable ends. On the upper levels stucco in the mid level and stone on the lower levels the multi light windows are grouped and there is a small gable roof. Over the inset entrance. The Eckley House was designated an individual landmark in 1992. And is potentially eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places.

[84:02] This is the existing garage. It's a one-story gable building about 800 square foot in size. It has this similar stucco with simplified half timbering and windows in the gable ends. The south elevation, which is this one, faces the historic house on the interior of the lot, includes these, double overhead garage door and to person doors. The the east elevation which is facing eleventh street it's this elevation here has a person door and a grouping of multi light casement windows. The north elevation. Doesn't have any openings. The west elevation here which faces the alley there is a window right here in the gable end

[85:03] So this is the proposed work on. On the site plan and this is the footprint right here of the proposed new building. You can see the this is a, this is a pretty large lot, so I cut off, half of it to, to fit it onto the, onto the presentation so you could actually see what you're looking at. It's a 22,420 square foot lot. This is the historic house here, with the main entrance. Right here. The pool equipment. Shed is here and this is the existing. Garage. So this shows the the proposed 804 square foot detached accessory building. It's got an approximate 33 foot by 24 and a half foot footprint.

[86:02] The east elevation of the this proposed is visible from Eleventh Street, which is just here, but it's set about set back about 60 feet from the public right of way. This is the same plan, to show you the proposed patio and walkway to the east side of the accessory building. The, the land actually slopes pretty steeply to the northeast corner of the lot. Which is it has this existing retaining wall and and steps these steps go up. To this area. Which is lot 31, so it's a portion of a lot right here. The this retaining wall and steps are not proposed to change but the proposal includes a new retaining wall around this patio because of the steepness of the slope right here.

[87:07] The. And also a retaining wool. On the west side right here which we'll look at in elevation. The proposal also includes modifications to the existing garage, which we'll also see in and the elevations. Oh, and I should mention that there are no proposed changes to the existing brick driveway, but a new walkway right here. So this is the. Excuse me, I am going off. Okay. This is the, existing site. There are no proposed changes to, the brick driveway as I mentioned. Or the mature trees on the site, the landscaping that's east of the existing garage is proposed to be removed.

[88:05] And the 2 trees that are shown on the site plan that would be removed are these. Little guys is one here and there's another one, next to it here. So not these. Large mature trees. It's just they're kind of shrubs. So the proposed new building is 804 square feet. It's a one-story frame accessory building with a side gable roof that's clipped on the north. The building, includes a pair of gable. Old Armors? With Windows in the Gable ends and some simplified half timbering. The entire building is proposed to be stucco the windows are proposed to be wood with the smaller upper windows in the Gable ands.

[89:00] They're horizontally oriented and and fixed. There's no, there's no floor up there that's just for light. There, the lower level windows are divided light and casement. So this is the east elevation facing eleventh street. You can see that this is the main house and the front entrance right here. This elevation would include this trio of French doors with divided lights, which open up onto that patio. Surrounded by the that wall there. The doors are minimally visible from eleventh street. Due to the grade. The proposed wall will be, similar in materials and construction to the existing perimeter wall which was added in 1,999. The building overall proposed to include architectural details that are reflective of the primary structure including the 12 9 pitch of the, of the cable roofs.

[90:07] They're half timbering the stucco, the tall and narrow divided light windows with horizontal fixed windows in the Gable ends. And the wool and roof colour are proposed to match the historic house. So moving around the the new building which we'll focus on and we'll get to the existing garage in the SAC. But the, the proposed new building shows the the main gable roof. Here because of the the elevation. Is. Quite low down. This is the so this is the main gable. We don't have the retaining wall drawn on this elevation and we'll get to that in a second. So this shows the, the main gable roof with the half timbering detail. The window centered in that Gable end, and the There's a lower level window that's also centered and is a trio of casement windows.

[91:11] You can see that the, the dorm is on the east and west elevation, lower than the, the main rich line. And so this one, this is the retaining wall in detail. It's proposed to extend about 6 inches above the ground. With an additional you can see it here Safety Rail on top. So this is Where the grade is dug in and the retaining wall. Added. So you can see that you can actually walk underneath the eve of the, of the roof right here. Right, this is the, this is the West elevation, and this side is minimally visible from the alley.

[92:03] You can see the existing garage in the front of the building as the as the dotted line kind of in silhouette there. The west elevation mirrors the east with the side gable roof clipped on the on the north end there's a pair of gable wall dormers with the fixed windows in the Gable ends and that half timbering. And then on this elevation, they're the lower level windows. Are the same, trio of divided like casement. And. And this is the retaining wall. You can see the steps going down with the entry door. Down here. And we do have a, retaining wall detail, that shows that, that handrail. On the top. And the steps going down.

[93:01] Alright, and then this is the this is the north elevation. This is the view from the adjacent lot. So, no public visibility. This shows the clipped. which is is kind of difficult to understand in the elevation so I have some threed models to show you too on this elevation there are proposed 2 groups of those trios. Of casement windows. So this is the the clip gable. The This is that. Same elevation that we're just looking at that north side. You can see the the peak of the main gate, the ridge of the main gable is right here. So the, these are the gable dormers. And they are. Clipping the the the main ridge right there. And again, if you. Look on.

[94:03] Which side? The side here, you can just see the rich right here. This again is that north. Side. And you can kind of see it here. This is the ridge of the main gable with the 2. Gable dormas. Right here and you can just see that the clipping right down here. All right, so moving on to the existing garage. This is the West elevation which is visible from the alley. The proposal is for a new dormer. Which increases the pitch of the roof from 12 9 to 12 6 and a half. There are no proposed changes to the existing stone wall or a gate which as I mentioned was constructed in 1999 at the alley.

[95:06] Right here. This is the the extent of the changes is this. Increased pitch of the the dormer which if we move around to the south elevation you get a better idea it's a full width. Slightly below the main bridge with underneath it too new, 16 foot by 9 foot overhead garage doors. So the the 2 person doors that are originally here. Which be replaced by those double garage doors. And moving around, this is the, the east elevation. And again, This is this is the change on this side where you can see that slight increased pitch of the of the dormer roof and that may be minimally visible from Eleventh Street.

[96:05] And this is the North Elevation and there are no proposed changes. Alright, so for the stuff analysis. We considered that the proposed new building would not damage the historic character of the property, although it is large for an accessory building, it is still subordinate to and set back from the existing house due to the large size of the of the lot. And as proposed it does not obscure the historic house from the public right of way. And the mature spruce tree, that's along Eleventh Street is proposed to be. Retained. We also consider the the the building would not adversely affect the special character or special historic architectural and value of the property.

[97:02] As the changes are generally consistent with the general design guidelines, if the conditions are met. And we thought that the the proposed new structure is subordinate. To the designated property and compatible with it, the architectural style. Of the the new building is generally simpler in design. Information specific to economic feasibility of alternatives and incorporation of energy efficiency. Design and enhanced access for the disabled was not submitted with the application. So the, summary of the design guideline analysis which was included in the packet. Is that the new detached accessory structure and modifications to the existing garage are appropriate.

[98:06] As the proposed new building is set back from Eleventh Street and will not obscure views of the house from the public right of way. The design of the new accessory building is generally subordinate in massing to the primary structure. And the detailing is generally simpler than the main house and reflective but not replicative. Due to the large size of the lot, the backyard space is retained. And as the existing garage was constructed in 1978 and heavily modified in 1999, it is therefore non-historic. So the addition of that low-pitch dormer on the south elevation would not detract from the overall historic character of the property. Some areas that we thought, warranted additional discussion by the board were the retaining walls, the guidelines state that recreating and the introduction of new retaining walls is inappropriate.

[99:05] However the new retaining wall would not damage the historic structure or obscure views of the historic house. So it may be appropriate in this location. The simplified half timbering. Maybe distinct enough from historic half timbering to not mimic and create a false historical appearance. The existing non-historic garage includes the same simplified half timbering because of the grade the placement of the windows on the south elevation appear lower than traditionally found mainly because the house is partially underground at this at this elevation. Let's this one here. However, this elevation is interior to the lot and has minimal visibility. From the public right of way, so the proposal. May be appropriate in this case.

[100:06] So staff's recommended motion is to approve the application with conditions that can be reviewed at the LDRC as we found it generally consistent with the guidelines. The conditions of approval would include a grading plan and details of the retaining walls as well as materiality of the walkway and patio to review. Windows and door details and details of stucco and other finishes. And to summarize stuff's findings, if the state is conditions are met, the proposal is generally consistent with the general design guidelines and will generally comply with sections 2. Point 0 and 3.3 of the general design guidelines. And section 9, 1118, B 3 of the Boulder revise code. In that the proposed work will not damage the historic character of the landmark property. Will preserve and will not damage or destroy.

[101:04] The exterior architectural features of the property. The architectural style arrangement texture color and arrangement of colour and materials used will be compatible with the character of the existing building and its site. And the proposed work will not adversely affect the special character or special historic. Architectural and value of landmark property. So that's the end of stuff's presentation. This is a reminder of the next step in the process. The applicant has up to 10 min to present to the board. The board may ask questions and then we'll hear comments from any member of the public who wishes to speak. The applicant may have, additional time to address anything said during public comment. And then the board will deliberate. The, I wanted to remind you all that the, the LAC review is limited to design review of the building.

[102:06] And permitting the use of the building as an ADU is a separate process with it's own requirements. So the questions today for the board is whether the request to demolish. Nope, not demolished. It rest to construct a new accessory building meets the standards for a landmark alteration certificate. Mainly is the mass scale and location of the proposed accessory building appropriate. Do the dormouse windows and door openings meet the design guidelines, other proposed materials appropriate? And the changes to the non-contributing garage. Appropriate if yes staff will approve the application with or without conditions and if no the board will deny the request. So any questions from the board before we continue with the applicant's presentation? I'm not seeing any clear, but that was an excellent presentation. Thank you so much.

[103:06] Thank you, Abby. And Jim is, Jim is here joining us virtually. I see, Jim. Hello. And Jim, when you're ready to start your presentation, we will need to swear you in. You'll raise your right hand and Promise to tell the board the full truth and then your 10 min will begin. Bye, I promise to tell the truth. So I think that Damon Van Gellis, the owner of the property, would like to get up and say a word. Is that still going to be the case? Yes, it would be part of the total 10 min. Okay, so let's give Damon a chance to make his presentation if that's possible, please. Okay, thank you, Jim. And I'm going to ask you to raise your right hand. Thank you and state your full name and then the 10 min will begin.

[104:08] Appreciate the. This evening and just I think I wanna focus my comments on. Just sharing. This is our, well, we've owned the home for the main home for 12 years. And, We, you know, we bought the home to know you're buying a historic landmark home. We know that comes with certain responsibilities and we've taken those responsibilities very seriously. To preserve the property and going through this process with staff and with this board, I want to share just our sense of gratitude that it's been a very collaborative. Process and appreciate the work the staff has done and that the seriousness with which you're taking this. John Eckley who built the house. If you don't know, he was the chair of the chemistry department at CU. He was also the state chemist. He also, I guess a virtuoso, he was the architect of the house.

[105:06] You know, we've gotten to know Boulder history. We've been very careful with the idea behind this ADU to be consistent with it and appreciated the staff's collaboration so that we can execute in a way where it's. Something that meets the standards, the high standards we all hope it will, will, it will be. And there was a 79 page document that was created by staff. It included photos from the US Forest Service from 1938 that were almost like Google Earth from a hundred years ago. So just credit to all of you and, you know, appreciate that. I'll turn it over to you to you, Jim, to, get into the details, but just, they have for myself and my wife, Melissa, just thank you for the opportunity. Thank you so much. Thanks, Damon. And, Jim, did I can't remember, did you already swear? I mean, did you, did you already swear you went?

[106:00] I did. I could do it again. I'm Jim Kersley and I swear to tell the truth. Thank you. So thanks to Claire for that great presentation and essentially doing my work for me. I don't have a lot more to say because Clara said it all so well. Much better than I can. I think that for me when I've approached these types of projects in the past, I totally get the idea that this should not pretend to be a contributing structure. And I think that that Rene has done a really nice job at distinguishing the proposed ADU from the ADU from the original house at distinguishing the proposed ADU from the original house. I'd like to say that its location on the original house. I'd like to say that its location on the property is also makes a lot of sense to me because it is out of the way. I'd like to say that its location on the property is also makes a lot of sense to me because it is out of the property is also makes a lot of sense to me because it is out of the way and it's also makes a lot of sense to me because it is out of the way and it would be hard to see from the street because it is out of the way and it would be hard to see from the street, but it also preserves a lot of open

[107:00] space on the property, particularly to the south side of the Eckley House, which I think is, you know, gives the property a certain grandeur and one can view the house and the flat irons from the street and see the original intention of the of Eckley and the way he He put the house on the lot, made a lot of sense. Preserving that space between baseline and the house itself. And then also the location of the ADU. Grouping it with the garage kind of associates those 2 buildings. They're very I think would be complementary of each other and while also being complementary of the main house without mimicking it as has been stated. So, I don't really have a lot more to say. I would. Welcome any kind of questions from the board or any questions from the public. And, and that's it. Thank you so much. So we'll let the board ask questions and then, you know, we'll come back to either of you for the additional 3 min if, you would like.

[108:08] After public comment. Any of the board members have questions right now? No, the only question I have is that. I assume that the retaining walls were necessary because of the slope of the site. And Yes, they are. Hmm. So. Okay. So they actually are. Of I guess engineering necessity. On site. Yeah, they would be engineered retaining walls. Yeah. It's not really in the. Necessarily in the purview of how we're making decisions, but I am curious what the ADU is going to be used for.

[109:01] I don't know, we should answer that. Okay. Damon may be better at answering that question, but I do know that, Damon's, and Melissa's parents are. Or well, here comes Damon. Thanks. Yeah, the primary purpose would be for my parents from the East Coast when they come to visit. My mom is very soon in a wheelchair and the house itself. Is the main house is stairs and so the front of the 8 proposed ADU, would be able to come in there without going up any stairs. So that's the primary motivation. Oh, thank you for the question, Chelsea, and thank you for sharing that. And thank you for your stewardship of such a remarkable, remarkable house. Any other questions and if not, we'll move on to a public participation. This is a reminder of anyone here in person would like to speak to please see Aubrey and fill out a form before you do so. And if you're joining us remotely, you can raise your hand or press star 9 on a cell phone.

[110:07] And we'll give people here the opportunity first to speak. Alright, so we will have Lynn Siegel speak first in person. And we do have another speaker here present, but they have requested to go after a virtual public comment. Attendee. So we will do it that way. Thank you, Aubrey. So, when you're ready. And Lynn, guess what I'm gonna ask you to do first? I swear to tell the truth to the best of my knowledge. It's your whole name and then you may begin. Yeah. I guess I'm missing this house up with another one because I remember there was one that's very similar that was.

[111:04] To be, it was student housing. Maybe. You probably remember it. Same kind of design and stuff, but the main house is for you, you guys, right? Okay. Hmm, I'll have to go ride my bike around there like I'm gonna have a lot of writing to do tomorrow to go on Juniper too. Anyway, so yeah, I think this is perfectly fine addition. It's a very commendable reason for your mother to get there. I hope that and you can accommodate like Airbnb or something on the times that they aren't there so that the place can be. Used to the max since Probably coming up, we're gonna have absentee. Taxes or something. I'm just so you know. But yeah.

[112:00] So it, I would suggest that those small trees get re planted if possible if they're small trees or if they're you know restoreable landscaping shrubs or whatever that would be nice. Maybe you could reuse them on the property. And. Yeah, it looks great. And I'm so impressed because my brother graduated in chemistry. You get it bachelor arts in chemistry. It's a you. I never could understand that. But he was a water chemist for the city of Boulder for years and years. Up at the water treatment plant. Brad Siegel. And so I appreciate chemistry. My dad was. Mechanical engineering. In 48 to 52. And then I was born in 53 in California. So. I appreciate that. The considerations you did of.

[113:02] That you know that I don't care about the window being lower. Actually, I'm really glad about that because it's using more geothermal geothermal energy of the house being depressed. And that's great. I just can't afford geothermal for my place yet. I'm wishing the city of Boulder will give me subsidies for that because it's like 80,000 bucks. And they're gonna give me some Excel heat pumps, but then I'm gonna be supplying Excel, so probably won't turn him on very much. But I'm called in the winter, but I somehow got down here anyway because when you're at 45 degrees in the part of the house where I'm at, you don't want to go out and be colder. But doing the best I can. Had Vietnam thing tonight, so I appreciate your accommodation. Since I can only go so fast. On my non-electric bike. And at least I get some exercise. So my healthcare won't be a disaster for. Thank you. Thank you.

[114:14] Alright, and we're just going to move on to our virtual attendees. If anyone virtual would like to speak, will you please raise your hand? I think that's it for public comment. I'm not seeing any raised hands. Okay, thank you. And did I'm sorry, did you say you had someone who wanted to speak after? I did. And sorry, let me clarify. She, would like to not speak. Okay, thank you. I just wanted to be sure we gave everyone an opportunity if they wish to speak. So thank you. So we will close public comment for this hearing.

[115:01] So Jim or Mr. Van Delas, if you have anything else you'd like to add, you would have an additional 3 min. Damon, I don't know if you do. No, no, Jim. I think if you have anything to add. Okay. No, I, I liked Lyn's comments there, initially, you know, being supportive of the project, I think what she was saying was. Was very complimentary. And if you want to see what it looks like to be staying in a cave in Italy, literally. They've turned all these old caves into B+B's and whatnot. It's pretty fabulous. Well. So now you can really be jealous. That was not probably showing you much, but. I'm very jealous. What time is it there? Oh, it's just 4 in the morning. Nobody else. Yeah.

[116:00] Well, I'm very impressed with your dedication to join this, whether you're going to better getting up right now. Thank you. No. Okay, go back to bed for a little while. Live in a cave in Italy. So, we will now close the applicants response and move this back to the board for deliberations. And I know, Aubrey, you're gonna help us keep a time check on this. A John, if you have a comment, would you like to kick this off? I couldn't kick this off. But being tagged. I believe that. Okay, first of all, I agree with staff's recommendation. On this and I believe that this meets all the criteria.

[117:02] That we've been using to judge these types of alterations. The So proposed building is situated on the site. And is handled sensitively to the whole. Quality and kind of space of the site. In such a way that I can't think of a reason. To not approve it. Under those as I said the stated criteria or the criteria that we tend to use. It has no negative impact on the historic resource and is in terms of utility, it's an enhancement overall, which is another thing that at least I look at. So, I'm in favor of approving this. Pretty much as presented and also the presentation was beautifully well done and presented.

[118:02] So. That makes it a lot easier. Thank you. John. Well,y or Chelsea? Hmm. Yeah, I'm really glad to support. This project One because it's very successful in meeting the criteria and 2 because it's a perfect example of why 80 users such an important option. For everybody to have access to. So since 9 o'clock, I'll leave it at that. I support it. Yeah, I also agree wholeheartedly with Sta's recommendation. You know, it's a little unusual because one of our board members is involved in the project to say this. But I genuinely believe that this is an outstanding application. I think that the proposal the design of the building.

[119:06] In addition to the quality of what's been proposed to your graphically, but I think that design of the building, is excellent. I think it, as John described, checks all the boxes of what a building should do to meet the guidelines and criteria and mass proportion, detailing, location, etc. I think that the building looks short and I recognize that's because of topography on the site and the maximum height. Allowance for this building. That's more of a criticism of our bulk regulations. This is a big lot. And in some ways this second structure, which is more like a third structure, sits in a location on the lot that's almost a hybrid of being an accessory building and also being like another principal building that's kind of near the street.

[120:04] I'm only saying that because that was the one thing when I looked at this that I said you know, it looks like it deserves to be a little taller, but it can't be. Anyway, I think that this is an excellent proposal and I also am great for your preservation efforts on the landmark structure on the property so I will, agree with staff and I vote in that direction. So I would never wanna say that in a particular meeting, we're saving the best for the last, but this really is a special project and I, again, I just want to echo your stewardship of this and your understanding that you bought an individual landmark in a fabulous home and the way you honor that and have been willing to work with the staff. And then now with us on the board and I feel like what I always look forward something like this is the subordination and that just was you know beautifully achieved in this and the size of the lot really does help with that.

[121:12] I do think that, you know, like Chelsea, AD used just being the world to me and I think it's important and bolder that we embrace them and support them and you know whenever we've had something come before us maybe another treasured historic home like yours where someone would to age in place. I'm glad that your ADA is going to allow people to visit with ease. And I think that's very important. And I think we need to to to champion that every chance we get and this is a wonderful thing and I just I applaud you. Your words, Claire's excellent presentation, the staff memorandum. This has just been one of those things where it reminds me why I want to serve on this board. So thank you. I don't know if there's any other comments. I don't know if we want to see Claire's list of kind of the motion with conditions.

[122:06] Sure, that'd be great to see. The other 2 comments that I have are kind of about some particulars. I think that the modifications to the existing second building, are also approvable. And I think that they're well designed. And I think that, the proposed additional retaining walls and the purpose of them in the discrete locations of them are also approvable. I'd be more than willing to, make a motion. Okay. Chelsea, please. I moved as a Lambrex board adopt the staff memorandum dated November first, adopt the staff memorandum dated November first 23 as the findings of the board adopt the staff memorandum dated November first 23 as the findings of the board adopt the staff memorandum dated November first, adopt the staff memorandum dated November first, 2023 as the findings of the board and conditionally approve a landmark

[123:08] alteration, to adopt the staff memorandum dated November first, adopt the staff memorandum dated November first, 2023 as the findings of the board and conditionally approve a landmark alteration certificate to construct a new accessory building at 7 0 3 11 street in individual landmark as shown on plans stated October fourth, 2023 finding that the proposal meets the standards for issuance of a landmark alteration certificate in Chapter 9, Dash 11, Dash 18, BRC, 1981, and is generally consistent with the I second that. So on the motion by Chelsea, unless there's any other discussion, any other changes to that motion? Motion by Chelsea seconded by me. Will take a roll call vote Chelsea aye John. Hi. Ronnie. And I vote I showed the motion passes unanimously. And I think, Claire, will you, go over the very next steps? Yes, I would love to. So the deadline for city council to Review the decision is, is November seventeenth.

[124:10] And that's a decision would be made at that time if the council wanted to call up the decision and review it. If it is cold up, then a hearing would be scheduled within 45 days and we'd obviously be in touch about that but if it's not called up by city council the conditions would be reviewed by the the LDRC. So after the call up period has passed. We can just get those details in and we'll schedule the an LDRC. Nimark's Design Review Committee meeting as soon as we get those additional items. So and then once the conditions had been satisfied with the committee, the LAC will be issued and you'll be on your merry way.

[125:02] So that is it. Thank you. All so much. And I wonder how Renee would have voted. But thank you. Yeah. I think Renee heard you say that. She's back. Hi Rudy! Thank you. Good night. Thank you so much. Oh, Oh yeah. Let's check. After that. Oh, there's Renee. She looks like a preview. Thank you. Well, the staff really rocked it. And thank you to Aubrey for the great dinner. Yeah, thank you.

[126:13] Do we? Oh. You wish you were to cave in Italy? I wish I were. Do we have, sorry, Abby, do we have anything under matters before we wrap up? It says let's move on to matters and that debrief of the first hybrid meeting. And that's what's it. The only thing I would add is that. This Friday I'm going to Washington DC and thanks to working with staff especially a shout out to Aubrey. I will be attending the National Trust for Strike Preservation Conference in DC next week. And I've lived there 10 years, I still have family there, so I'm really excited. I'm excited about that conference. And I'm trying to attend. A study session all day Friday the tenth that is an on a field site on the National Mall to learn how to do cultural landscape assessments.

[127:12] Well, I mean, I won't really walk away learning how to do one, but I'll learn much more about it to understand as, you know, we have one that will be seeing at some point down the road. So thank you. And the only thing I had under matters was just a thank you to the board for having a retreat 2 weeks ago thought that was a really wonderful conversation and we have a retreat summary drafted that will include in the December packet. Oh, would that include a follow up? I know we, talked about the need for more discussion. I know we talked about the need for more discussion, since we didn't really land on.

[128:02] We talked about the need for more discussion, since we didn't really land on, Yeah, so yeah, the direction that we landed on was those ones that we agreed to explore further. So December will just be the summary of the meeting. So December will just be the summary of the meeting. And then we'll do the additional work later. So December will just be the summary of the meeting. And then we'll do the additional work later. Not to foreshadow the next meeting too much, but we have the meeting. Okay. And then we'll do the additional work later. Not to foreshadow the next meeting too much, but we have Oh, but don't worry, I've been thinking about themselves. In your sleep for putting something on paper does need to happen relatively quickly. Gotcha. Okay. It also sounds to me like a couple of people on that group have been involved in writing. Guidelines for other historic districts. So you have a great group. I'm a very big proponent of not reinventing the wheel and I think because of all the great research that we've done.

[129:01] To better understand the history of the area, the guidelines actually, I think they've come a bit organically, plus in so many conversations I've had over the last. 9 10 months with different department reps. I feel like they are I'm I'm not as worried as it might seem. They're coming together pretty organically. So are those guidelines ones that we would review at any point? Okay. You the landmark sport is actually the ultimate decision maker for Design guidelines, not counsel. So you'll review a draft as part of the designation and council will review a draft, but then it'll come back to you all for actual adoption after the designation is decided. Yeah, but council can override our option. No, so design guidelines are an administrative rule to help interpret 9 1118 and so it's unique but it's the landmark board that adopts.

[130:02] That rule in regulation. There might be another hypothetical scenario out here where council can also adopt regulations, but the normal process is that the landmark sport is the decision maker. Yeah, so lots of good conversations ahead. Okay. Can I ask another process question? But unless you guys want to talk more civic. The preservation of the front facade case that we reviewed tonight. Went through a process in which the applicant revised their request. Hmm. During this day. I mean, the outcome of that's wonderful. But. And so the clarifying thing that I was wondering about is It seems just to confirm like that is possible for an applicant to just have a revision to an application.

[131:00] Which then would adjust our previous decision Hold a meeting to decide whether or not to hold a hearing. Rather than say yes or no to the previous one. And then, or no, it's no longer on threat. Close that and then new case, which is this is a partial demo and yes, it's like a 2 case kind of process. So I know that's a little weird, but just, That is something that we do apparently. We can allow for it to be revised under a stay. And then Do what we did. Does that make sense? And the answer is yes, I'm assuming because we did it. I don't wanna bring it up to create more confusion because I think the outcome was going to be the outcome. I guess I don't want to bring it up to create more confusion because I think the outcome was going to be the outcome. Like, I guess as we continue to put stays on buildings. My this clarity, although this one was a little easier because it was just like, oh, we're reducing this request.

[132:03] Will help me understand. Just future process and things that might come up during stays that we propose Well, I don't know. I think, people are, allowed to, When are they allowed to modify their application? Their demo, they're pending demo application. I guess is maybe one way to look at it. Right. The way I saw it is that they submitted a non-designated demolition application. For a pre, 1,925 building. And that request covers everything from. Of 51% demo to a hundred percent demo. I'm in my view. We could have done it either way, have them submit. Just close out that request, submit another request that would have had to go to the LDRC. And go forward and I think the Reason that I advise them to just revise it was based on the landmark sports discussion and that there was a bit of momentum through those conversations that they kind of wanted the the closure of that process.

[133:15] Yeah, I'm grateful that I did that because had a gone to DRC back to DRC and then been reviewed by 2 of us on board. That wouldn't have felt like the appropriate conclusion. Right. So, yeah, I'm not, I don't know of any reason we can't do that. Have we done any of those? Like that recently or in the past few years? If it's more of a processing administrative thing, the case type in our file system doesn't differentiate between partial or full and so there wouldn't be a reason. Structurally for us to not be able to change it. I will say this stay of demolition I think was exactly what a stay is supposed to be which is creative and nimble and all of that and maybe I translated that to the application management as well.

[134:03] But we're on board. Yeah. And. One, I just have one question about that. Is it required that they change their, like their, full demo idea or is it just a matter of is it just a matter of us digging a little deeper to see what the history of that building is and then Maybe there and then it coming back to the board saying, well, they still want to fully demo it. Well, the board honor that. Is that something that can happen or no? I just wanna know the procedure. No, yeah, this one is closed. This case is closed now where through the process the board. Determined that the building was eligible for designation. The applicants. Found a compromise that worked for them and worked for the board to preserve part of the building and so that's what was approved.

[135:05] But we wouldn't do additional research if this you know, application expired and a new application was submitted and they decided they wanted. Full demo at that point then that we'd review that. The future. Well, what about the next one? The B, the one on Juniper. Oh, the one on June, a part. Can you restate your question? So we asked the stay right for the 120 days. So now it kind of goes back to staff to do more, I mean, Claire already did a fabulous job of finding out what was there. Do we does Does the applicant have to submit something that's? That do they have to change their application or does Claire just dig and see if it's something that the board would want to designate. Yeah, so. There's often people will kind of accord in the process when a demolition application is submitted and go from this is proposed for demolition application is submitted and, a demolition application is submitted and go from this is proposed for demolition to it's designated over the owners of objection.

[136:18] And the between those 2 points and designation isn't isn't the only possible outcome. So right now it's a pause on the application. Providing time to look at it, not to do more research and analysis about the significance. We've already established in the the board has already found that the building is potentially eligible for designation. The conversations will be more about how do you address the floodplain issues? Could it be added on to? Could it be moved on site or off-site? Could it be used as an accessory dwelling unit? And so hopefully we'll have collaborative and fruitful conversations and then the outcome can either be, you know, approval of the demolition or starting the landmark designation process.

[137:03] So. So we're at the very beginning. Of the process where the earlier 1, 1741 was last February. It's also an opportunity for the applicant to do more research on, the cost of remodel or any repairs that would need to be made in order to. Preserve it so we can use that. As part of the decision making process in terms of, is the cost too much. Or is it? . A fair Does it come, does it come back to the board? Full board. Okay. There's a whole process of sites which could be some of the more, I guess, creative and fruitful parts of this.

[138:04] Okay. Members of the board engage. With the owners directly. On site and That's a big part of it in my mind. Okay. I'll learn. Part of the research. So Renee, will give an update. Yeah, yeah, well, that was good question. We'll schedule these meetings with Abby, John, and the applicants and staff and then at each meeting between now and the end of the day, which is in March, will give an update on here's what we met and here's what we talked about or we didn't meet. And then the board technically has to vote for it to come back in front of you because one option is just to let the stay expire. The board has to make a vote to. Either initiate landmark designation or to directly approve the demolition. So you'll get updates on that one over the next couple of months and then you'll have a decision in front of you of whether or not to hold another hearing. Okay, great.

[139:02] So Marcy, because on the agenda it said quick debrief about this hybrid meeting, I'm thrilled to be back in chambers and I just think that I think what really meant a lot to me are the people who were here tonight and participated and spoke but still had an option remotely and there's such a difference when you have the applicant face to face. You know, it just for me, I'm glad we're back. I know it's more work for staff right now and I know there's a couple of things to iron out but I was so impressed with how well Aubrey you handled all of this and juggled it and how well. Marcy, Claire, and you really made this run smoothly. Wonderful. And again, thank you for the dinner. Course. And I will just jump in now and more formally say thank you all. I mistakenly say thank you all. I mistakenly thought the meeting was over earlier. So thank you all. I mistakenly thought the meeting was over earlier. So sorry for that. But thank you everybody for wonderful job this evening.

[140:02] Is there anything else? Do I get to like hit this? Really like very formal. If I see nothing else from any or anyone so. In November